1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Geophysical Prospecting
  4. Volume 64, Issue 5
  5. Article
Volume 64, Issue 5
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Until now, a simple formula to estimate the depth of investigation of the electrical resistivity method that takes into account the positions of all of the electrodes for a general four‐electrode array has not been available. While the depth sensitivity function of the method for a homogeneous infinite half‐space is well known, previous attempts to use it to characterize the depth of investigation have involved calculating its peak and median, both of which must be determined numerically for a general four‐electrode array. I will show that the mean of the sensitivity function, which has not been considered previously, does admit a very simple mathematical formula. I compare the mean depth with the median and peak sensitivity depths for some common arrays. The mean is always greater than or equal to the median that is always greater than the peak. All three measures give reasonable estimates to the depths of actual structures for most circumstances. I will further show that, for 1D soundings, the use of the mean sensitivity depth as the pseudo‐depth assigns an apparent resistivity to a given pseudo‐depth that is consistent between different arrays. One consequence of this is that smoother depth soundings are obtained as “clutches,” caused by a change in the depth sensitivity due to moving the potential electrodes, are effectively removed. I expect that the mean depth formula will be a useful “rule of thumb” for estimating the depth of investigation before the resistivity structure of the ground is known.

© 2016 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers © 2016 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12354
2016-01-26
2024-04-16

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12354
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. ApparaoA., RaoT.G., SastryR.S. and SarmaV.S.1992. Depth of detection of buried conductive targest with different electrode arrays in resistivity prospecting. Geophysical Prospecting40, 749–760.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. BanerjeeB. and PalB.P.1986. A simple method for determination of depth of investigation characteristics in resistivity prospecting. Exploration Geophysics17, 93–95.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. BarkerR.D.1989. Signal contribution sections and their use in resistivity studies. Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society39, 123–129.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. BibbyH.M. and RiskG.F.1988. Correction for finite distance between potential electrodes in Schlumberger resistivity soundings. In: Proceedings of the 10th New Zealand Geothermal Workshop, pp. 133–138.
  5. BoernerD. and WestG.F.1989. Fréchet derivatives and single scattering theory. Geophysical Journal International98, 385–390.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. DahlinT.2001. The development of DC resistivity imaging techniques. Computers and Geosciences27, 1019–1029.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. DeppermanK.1954. Die Abhändgigkeit des scheinbaren Widerstandes vom Sondenabstrand bei der Vierpunkt‐Methode. Geophysical Prospecting2, 262–273.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. EdwardsL.S.1977. A modified pseudosection for resistivity and induced‐polarization. Geophysics42, 1020–1036.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. FurmanA., WarrickA.W. and FerréT.Y.2003. A sensitivity analysis of electrical resistivity tomography array types using analytical element modeling. Vadose Zone Journal2, 416–423.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. GuentherT., RueckerC. and SpitzerK.2006. Three‐dimensional modelling and inversion of dc resistivity data incorporating topography ‐ II. Inversion. Geophysical Journal International166, 506–517.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. HolmesH.1996. Resistivity sounding with the generalized 4‐electrode array. MSc thesis. University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada.
  12. KoefoedO.1979. Geosounding Principles, 1: Resistivity Sounding MeasurementsElsevier.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. LokeM.H., ChambersJ.E., RuckerD.F., KurasO. and WilkinsonP.B.2013. Recent developments in the direct‐current geoelectrical imaging method. Journal of Applied Geophysics95, 135–156.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. MundryW.1980. The effect of a finite distance between potential electrodes on Schlumberger resistivity measurements—A simple correction graph. Geophysics45, 1872–1875.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. OldenburgD.1978. The interpretation of direct current resistivity measurements. Geophysics43, 610–625.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. OldenburgD. and LiY.1999. Estimating depth of investigation in dc resistivity and IP surveys. Geophysics64, 403–416.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. O'NeillD.J. and MerrickN.P.1984. A digital linear filter for resistivity sounding with a generalized electrode array. Geophysical Prospecting32, 105–123.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. ParkS.K. and Van, G.P.1991. Inversion of pole‐pole data for 3‐D resistivity structure beneath arrays of electrodes. Geophysics56, 951–960.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. ParkerR.1984. The inverse problem of resistivity sounding. Geophysics49, 2143–2158.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. ReynoldsJ.2011. An Introduction to Applied and Environmental Geophysics. Wiley‐Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. RoyA. and ApparaoA.1971. Depth of investigation in direct current methods. Geophysics36, 943–959.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. SpitzerK.1998. The three‐dimensional DC sensitivity for surface and subsurface sources. Geophysical Journal International134, 736–746.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. SzalaiS., NovákA. and SzarkaL.2011. Which geoelectric array sees the deepest in a noisy environment? Depth of detectability values of multielectrode systems for various two‐dimensional models. Physics and Chemistry of Earth Parts A/B/C36, 1398–1404.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. TelfordW.M., GeldardtL.P. and SheriffR.E.1990. Applied Geophysics, 2nd Edn. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. WardS.H.1990. Resistivity and induced polarization methods. In: Geotechnical and Environmental Geophysics, Vol. 1, pp. 147–189.
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12354
Loading
Research Note: The mean sensitivity depth of the electrical resistivity method
Geophysical Prospecting 64, 1399 (2016); https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.12354
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12354
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12354
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Depth; Mean; Resistivity; Sensitivity

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error