CHAPTER TWO

2.0

LITERATURE REVIEW

In previous studies, attempts have been made at comparing the ability of different electrode arrays to
resolve, map or identify subsurface targets (Seaton and Burbey 2002; Dahlin and Zhou 2004;
Candansayar 2008). Several researchers have compared different electrode arrays individually on the
basis of their sensitivity analysis, depth of investigations, and responses to resolving vertical or
horizontal structures (Sasaki 1992; Dahlin 2001; Bentley and Gharibi2004; Fiandaca et al. 2005;
Capizzi et al. 2007; Berge and Drahor 2009; Martorana et al. 2009; Neyamadpour et al. 2010; Rucker
2012). in related studies, the use of joint inversion techniques have been introduced and used for
combining two or more geophysical data into a single image for the cross gradients (Gallardo and
Meju 2003, 2004, 2007) and structural approach (Haber and Oldenburg 1997). The efficacy of the
joint inversion method hinges on the complementary nature of the geophysical data sets (Doetsch et
al., 2010). In addition, concerted efforts have been geared toward optimizing different electrode
arrays for electrical resistivity surveys in order to obtain as much information as necessary in the
detection and imaging of subsurface structures within a short period of time (Stummer et al., 2002,
2004; Wilkinson et al. 2006a, b; Coscia et al., 2008; Loke et al.2010; Hagrey and Petersen 2011;
Hagrey2012). In view of this, Coscia et al., (2008) proposed an experimental design method involving
an independent comparison between the information provided by one electrode array with others
using crosshole electrical resistivity imaging. In another work, Loke et al., (2010) adopted four
methods to automatically select an optimal set of array configurations that provided maximum
subsurface model resolution for an electrical imaging applied to both synthetic and field surveys.
Many studies have been carried out recently to compare the advantages and limits of the most
common arrays that give resistivity images. To gain knowledge of the relative potentials of these
electrode arrays, several researchers have worked in this direction. Park and Van (1991) and Van et
al., (1991) stressed the difficulty of acquiring noiseless data in the field using polepole arrays. Sasaki
(1992) compared the resolution of cross-hole resistivity tomography using polepole, poledipole and
dipoledipole arrays, and established that a dipoledipole array is more suitable for resolving complex

structures. By comparing the previous arrays, Oldenburg and Li (1999) stressed the differences in
depth of investigation of each array in terms of the inverted models. Studies on the imaging resolution
and on the reliability of the Wenner array (Dahlin and Loke 1998, Olayinka and Yaramanci 2000)
stressed the importance of the sampling density in determining the resolution of this configuration.
Recent studies (Daily and Owen 1991, Park and Van1991, Shima 1992, Li and Oldenburg 1992,
Sasaki 1994, Loke and Barker 1995, 1996, LaBrecque et al. 1996, Dahlin and Zhou 2004) have
shown that by using a large set of well-distributed and spaced measurements, it is generally possible
to obtain relatively accurate 2D or 3D resistivity images of the subsurface. Dahlin and Zhou (2004)
performed various numerical simulations to compare the resolution and efficiency of resistivity
imaging surveys for ten different electrode arrays: polepole, poledipole, half-Wenner, Wenner,
Schlumberger, dipoledipole, Wenner-, -array, moving gradient and midpoint-potential-referred
measurement arrays. They recommend the moving gradient, poledipole, dipoledipole and
Schlumberger arrays, rather than the others, for resistivity imaging, although the final choice should
be determined by the type of geology expected, the purpose of the survey and logistical
considerations.
Szalai and Szarka (2008) classified about 100 electrode arrays into eight classes based on three
parameters; they are superposition, focusing and collinearity. Stummer et al., (2004) reckoned that
electrical resistivity data acquired using a large number of four-point electrode arrays gave substantial
subsurface information compared to the data sets obtained from both individual arrays, such as the
Wenner, dipole-dipole or a combination of the Wenner and dipole-dipole arrays. Delavega et al.,
(2003) used a combined inversion algorithm for different electrode array data sets with the combined
inversion images outperforming the inversion results obtained from separate electrode arrays.
Athanasiou et al., (2007) introduced a weighting factor to the two-dimensional (2D) combined
inversion algorithm, which prevented the dominance of one array type over another as the applied
parameter allowed equal participation of the data from an individual array.