A Comparative Study of Linear Surface Geoelectrical Electrode Arrays for Enhanced Depth Sensitivity Analysis
Keywords:
Electrode arrays, Sensitivity, Electrical Resistivity, Depth, ResolutionAbstract
Geoelectrical surveys are essential for investigating subsurface electrical resistivity distributions, with electrode array configurations significantly influencing depth sensitivity and resolution. This study compares the performance of six electrode arrays—Wenner Alpha, Schlumberger, Dipole-Dipole, Wenner Beta, Pole-Dipole, and Pole-Pole—in resolving subsurface resistivity variations. Using numerical simulations with a synthetic subsurface model featuring a layered structure and a high-resistivity anomaly, the sensitivity patterns, apparent resistivity distributions, and inverted resistivity models of these arrays are analyzed. Results reveal distinct trade-offs in depth penetration, lateral resolution, and signal-to-noise ratio, with Wenner Alpha and Schlumberger providing robust depth sensitivity for shallow to intermediate depths, while Dipole-Dipole and Pole-Dipole excel in deeper investigations. Pole-Pole arrays offer broad sensitivity but lower resolution, suitable for large-scale surveys. These findings guide the selection of optimal electrode configurations for specific geoelectrical survey objectives.
Downloads
References
[1] R. J. Whiteley, “Electrode Arrays in Resistivity and I.P. Prospecting: A Review,”
Exploration Geophysics, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 1–29, Mar. 1973, doi:
10.1071/EG973101.
[2] H. E. Ohaegbuchu, F. C. Anyadiegwu, P. O. Odoh, and F. C. Orji, “Review of top
notch electrode arrays for geoelectrical resistivity surveys,” Journal of the Nigerian
Society of Physical Sciences, pp. 147–155, Jan. 2020, doi: 10.46481/jnsps.2019.34.
[3] S. Szalai, A. Novák, and L. Szarka, “Depth of Investigation and Vertical Resolution
of Surface Geoelectric Arrays,” J Environ Eng Geophys, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 15–23,
Mar. 2009, doi: 10.2113/JEEG14.1.15.
https://emg.bcnf.ir Page 10
[4] T. Dahlin and B. Zhou, “A numerical comparison of 2D resistivity imaging with 10
electrode arrays,” Geophys Prospect, vol. 52, no. 5, pp. 379–398, Sep. 2004, doi:
10.1111/j.1365-2478.2004.00423.x.
[5] S. Szalai and L. Szarka, “Parameter sensitivity maps of surface geoelectric arrays I.
Linear arrays,” Acta Geodaetica et Geophysica Hungarica, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 419–
437, Dec. 2008, doi: 10.1556/AGeod.43.2008.4.4.
[6] C. C. Okpoli, “Sensitivity and Resolution Capacity of Electrode Configurations,”
International Journal of Geophysics, vol. 2013, pp. 1–12, 2013, doi:
10.1155/2013/608037.
[7] D. J. White, “Two‐Dimensional Seismic Refraction Tomography,” Geophys J Int,
vol. 97, no. 2, pp. 223–245, 1989, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.1989.tb00498.x.
[8] R. M. S. White, S. Collins, and M. H. Loke, “Resistivity and IP arrays, optimised
for data collection and inversion,” ASEG Extended Abstracts, vol. 2003, no. 2, pp.
1–4, Aug. 2003, doi: 10.1071/ASEG2003ab182.
[9] C. Rücker, T. Günther, and F. M. Wagner, “pyGIMLi: An open-source library for
modelling and inversion in geophysics,” Comput Geosci, vol. 109, pp. 106–123,
Dec. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.cageo.2017.07.011.
[10] R. Supper et al., “Geoelectrical monitoring: An innovative method to supplement
landslide surveillance and early warning,” in Near Surface Geophysics, EAGE
Publishing BV, 2014, pp. 133–150. doi: 10.3997/1873-0604.2013060.
