Recent Developments in The Direct-Current Geoelectrical

Journal of Applied Geophysics 95 (2013) 135156
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Journal of Applied Geophysics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jappgeo
Recent developments in the direct-current geoelectrical

imaging method
M.H. Loke a, J.E. Chambers b, D.F. Rucker c,, O. Kuras b, P.B. Wilkinson b
a
b
c
Geotomo Software, 115 Cangkat Minden Jalan 6, 11700 Gelugor, Penang, Malaysia
British Geological Survey, Natural Environment Research Council, Kingsley Dunham Centre, Keyworth, Nottingham NG12 5GG, UK
hydroGEOPHYSICS, Inc., 2302 N Forbes Blvd., Tucson AZ 85745, USA
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 21 September 2012
Accepted 19 February 2013
Available online 22 March 2013
Keywords:
Electrical resistivity
Review
Developments
Tomography
Applications
Limitations
a b s t r a c t
There have been major improvements in instrumentation, eld survey design and data inversion techniques
for the geoelectrical method over the past 25 years. Multi-electrode and multi-channel systems have made it
possible to conduct large 2-D, 3-D and even 4-D surveys efciently to resolve complex geological structures
that were not possible with traditional 1-D surveys. Continued developments in computer technology, as
well as fast data inversion techniques and software, have made it possible to carry out the interpretation
on commonly available microcomputers. Multi-dimensional geoelectrical surveys are now widely used in environmental, engineering, hydrological and mining applications. 3-D surveys play an increasingly important
role in very complex areas where 2-D models suffer from artifacts due to off-line structures. Large areas on
land and water can be surveyed rapidly with computerized dynamic towed resistivity acquisition systems.
The use of existing metallic wells as long electrodes has improved the detection of targets in areas where
they are masked by subsurface infrastructure. A number of PC controlled monitoring systems are also available to measure and detect temporal changes in the subsurface. There have been signicant advancements in
techniques to automatically generate optimized electrodes array congurations that have better resolution
and depth of investigation than traditional arrays. Other areas of active development include the translation
of electrical values into geological parameters such as clay and moisture content, new types of sensors, estimation of uid or ground movement from time-lapse images and joint inversion techniques. In this paper, we
investigate the recent developments in geoelectrical imaging and provide a brief look into the future of where
the science may be heading.
2013 Natural Environment Research Council and Elsevier BV. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The resistivity survey method is one of the oldest and most commonly used geophysical exploration methods (Reynolds, 2011). It is
widely used in environmental and engineering (Chambers et al.,
2006; Dahlin, 2001; Rucker et al., 2010), hydrological (Page, 1968;
Wilson et al., 2006), archeological (Grifths and Barker, 1994; Tsokas
et al., 2008) and mineral exploration (Bauman, 2005; Legault et al.,
2008; White et al., 2001) surveys. It has been used to image structures
from the millimeter scale to kilometers (Linderholm et al., 2008; Storz
et al., 2000). Besides surveys on the land surface, it has been used across
boreholes (Chambers et al., 2003; Daily and Owen, 1991) and in aquatic
areas (Loke and Lane, 2004; Rucker et al., 2011b).
Since the rst commercial use of the resistivity method in the early
1920's (Burger et al., 2006) and right up to the late 1980's, it has been
used essentially as a one-dimensional (1-D) mapping method. However,
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 520 343 5434.
E-mail addresses: drmhloke@yahoo.com (M.H. Loke), druck8240@gmail.com
(D.F. Rucker).
even in moderately complex areas, a 1-D approach is not sufciently accurate. Over the last 25 years, there have been revolutionary improvements to the resistivity method where two-dimensional (2-D) surveys
are now routinely conducted. Three-dimensional (3-D) surveys are
widely used in areas with complex geology, while there have been
signicant interest and developments in four-dimensional (4-D)
surveys. This has been made possible by recent developments in
eld instrumentation, automatic interpretation algorithms, and computer software. With the new tools, complex variations of the subsurface resistivity in both space and time can now be accurately mapped.
In this review, we summarize key developments in the eld of
geoelectrical characterization and monitoring from the past two decades. The review is focused more towards the commercial development of the method, and is complementary to the research oriented
reviews presented by Slater (2007) and Revil et al. (2012). It is largely
focused on the D.C. resistivity method due to space constraints, with
references to related methods such as induced polarization (I.P.) and
spectral I.P. methods where appropriate.
The following section gives a short description of basic principles
of the resistivity method and traditional 1-D resistivity mapping
0926-9851/$ see front matter 2013 Natural Environment Research Council and Elsevier BV. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2013.02.017
136
M.H. Loke et al. / Journal of Applied Geophysics 95 (2013) 135156
methods. This is followed by brief overviews of recent developments

in 2-D, 3-D and 4-D surveying methods, and practical applications in
various elds. Finally new developments in a few specic areas that
point to future trends are described.
resistivity survey are the positions of the current and potential

electrodes, the current (I) injected into the ground and the resulting
voltage difference (V) between the potential electrodes (Fig. 2).
The current and voltage measurements are then converted into an
apparent resistivity (a) value by using the following formula
2. Basic principles of the resistivity method

The relationship between the electrical resistivity, current and the
electrical potential is governed by Ohm's law. To calculate the potential in a continuous medium, the form of Ohm's Law, combined with
the conservation of current, as given by Poisson's equation is normally used. The potential due to a point current source located at xs is
given by

1
j
x; y; z c xs
x; y; z
t
where is the resistivity, is the potential and jc is the charge density.

The potential at any point on the surface or within the medium can be
calculated if the resistivity distribution is known. This is the forward
problem, and we specically separate it from the inverse problem
discussed below. For 1-D models (Fig. 1), the forward problem is commonly solved using the linear lter method (Ghosh, 1971). For 2-D
and 3-D models, analytical methods are used for simple structures
such as a cylinder or sphere in a homogeneous medium (Wait, 1982;
Ward and Hohmann, 1987). Boundary and analytical element methods
(Furman et al., 2002; Spiegel et al., 1980; Xu, 2001) can also be used for
more general structures but are usually limited to models where the
subsurface is divided into a relatively small number of regions. For
modeling of eld data, the nite-difference and associated nite volume
methods (Dey and Morrison, 1979a,b; Pidlisecky et al., 2007), and the
nite-element (Coggon, 1971; Holcombe and Jiracek, 1984) method
are more commonly used. These methods discretize the subsurface
into a large number of cells. By using a sufciently ne mesh and the
proper boundary conditions, an accurate solution for the potential
over complex distributions of resistivity can be obtained. In areas
where anisotropy is signicant (LaBrecque and Casale, 2002), Eq. (1)
is modied where the resistivity is a vector that includes directional
dependent values instead of a scalar function.
The purpose of the resistivity method is to calculate the electrical
resistivity of the subsurface, which is an unknown quantity. The
measurements for the resistivity survey are made by passing a current into the ground through two current electrodes (usually metal
stakes), and measuring the difference in the resulting voltage at two
potential electrodes. In its most basic form, the resistivity meter has
a current source and voltage measuring circuitry that are connected
by cables to a minimum of four electrodes. The basic data from a
a k
V
;
I
where k is the geometric factor that depends on the conguration of the

current and potential electrodes (Koefoed, 1979). Eq. (2) represents the
simplest form of the inverse problem and assumes that the earth is homogeneous for each combination of current and potential measurements. Different arrangements of the current and potential electrodes
(or arrays) have been devised over the years. The most commonly
used arrays are shown in Fig. 2, along with their associated geometric
factors. The advantages and disadvantages of the different arrays are
discussed in various papers; such as in Dahlin and Zhou (2004),
Saydam and Duckworth (1978), Szalai and Szarka (2008) and Zhou et
al. (2002). The suitability of an array depends on many factors; among
which are its sensitivity to the target of interest, signal-to-noise ratio,
depth of investigation, lateral data coverage and more recently the efciency of using it in a multichannel system. The multiple gradient array
(Fig. 2F) was designed for use in multi-channel systems (Dahlin and
Zhou, 2006).
3. Resistivity acquisition, processing and interpretation
3.1. Traditional 1-D resistivity surveys
From the 1920's to the late 1980's there were essentially two
surveying techniques used, the proling and sounding methods. In a
proling survey, the distances between the electrodes were kept xed
and the four electrodes were moved along the survey line. A related
technique is the mise-a-la-masse method where one electrode is
embedded into a conductive body (with the second current electrode
at a sufciently far distance) and the potential electrodes are moved
around it to produce an equipotentials map (Parasnis, 1967). The data
interpretation for proling and mise-a-la-masse surveys were mainly
qualitative. In the sounding method (Koefoed, 1979) the center point
of the electrodes array remained xed but the spacing between the
electrodes was increased to obtain information about the deeper sections of the subsurface. Usually the Wenner or Schlumberger arrangement was used.
The interpretation model consisted of a series of 1-D horizontal
layers (Fig. 1A), and the sounding method has been extensively
used to investigate the ground for resource management, such as
Fig. 1. Resistivity sounding (A) and best-t three-layer model interpretation (B) for a sand and gravel reconnaissance survey in the Thames Valley, UK. Note: upper layer, silt
(32 .m); middle layer, river terrace sand and gravel (205 .m); lower layer, Oxford Clay (11 .m).
137
Fig. 2. Some commonly used electrode arrays and their geometric factors. Note that for the multiple gradient array, the total array length is (s + 2)a and the distance between the
center of the potential dipole pair P1P2 and the center of the current pair C1C2 is given by ma.
British Geological Survey (c) NERC 2013
mineral, petroleum, and groundwater resources. Initially quantitative

interpretation of geoelectric sounding data was conducted by using
pre-computed or standard sounding curves. Sounding curves were
later superseded by computer inversion techniques with the advent
of the linear lter method (Ghosh, 1971; Koefoed, 1979).
The modern application of resistivity processing includes inverse
modeling. A commonly used method for sounding data inversion is
the damped least-squares method (Inman, 1975), based on the following equation:

T
T
J J I q J g;
where, the discrepancy vector g contains the difference between the

logarithms of the measured and the calculated apparent resistivity
values and q is a vector consisting of the deviation of the estimated
model parameters from the true model. Here, the model parameters
are the logarithms of the resistivity and thickness of the model layers.
J is the Jacobian matrix of partial derivatives of apparent resistivity
with respect to the model parameters. is a damping or regularization
factor that stabilizes the ill-condition Jacobian matrix usually encountered for geophysical problems. Starting from an initial model (such as
a homogeneous earth model), this method iteratively renes the
model so as to reduce the data mist to a desired level (usually less
than 5%). Other methods such as the conjugate gradient method, SVD
analysis and global optimization methods (including neural networks
and simulated annealing) have also been used for resistivity data inversion (Pellerin and Wannamaker, 2005). Fig. 1 shows an example of the
results from a resistivity sounding survey using the offset Wenner array
(Barker, 1981) that has a three-layer inversion model.
The main weakness of the sounding method is the assumption

that there are no lateral changes in the resistivity. It is useful in geological situations where this is approximately true, but
gives inaccurate results where there are signicant lateral changes.
The effect of lateral variations on the sounding data can be reduced by using the offset Wenner method (Barker, 1981) but for
more accurate results the lateral changes must be directly incorporated into the interpretation model. It should be noted that some
early combined sounding and proling surveys to produce 2-D
pseudosections were carried out for mineral exploration (Ward,
1990), usually together with I.P. measurements. Conducting the
surveys and quantitative modeling using manual adjustments of a
forward model (Hohmann, 1982) was laborious and thus such
surveys were comparatively rare.
3.2. Multi-electrode systems and 2-D imaging surveys
While the resistivity meter used in sounding and proling surveys
typically has four electrodes connected via four separate cables,
a multi-electrode system has 25 or more electrodes connected to
the resistivity meter via a multi-core cable (Fig. 3). Commercial
multi-electrode systems rst appeared in the late 1980's (Grifths
et al., 1990) and since then have become a standard tool in many geophysical organizations. An internal switching circuitry controlled by a
programmable microcomputer or microprocessor within the resistivity meter automatically selects the appropriate 4 electrodes for each
measurement. This enables almost any array conguration to be
used. By making measurements with different spacings at different
locations along the cable, a 2-D prole of the subsurface is obtained.
Together with the parallel development of fast and stable automatic
data inversion techniques (deGroot-Hedlin and Constable, 1990;
138
Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of a multi-electrode system, and a possible sequence of measurements to create a 2-D pseudosection.
British Geological Survey (c) NERC 2013
Li and Oldenburg, 1992; Loke and Barker, 1996a) that could be

implemented on commonly available microcomputers, 2-D electrical
imaging surveys became widely used in the early 1990's.
A 2-D model that consists of a large number of rectangular cells
is commonly used to interpret the data (Loke and Barker, 1996a).
The resistivity of the cells is allowed to vary in the vertical and one
horizontal direction, but the size and position of the cells are xed.
Again, different numerical methods can be used to calculate the
potential values for the 2-D forward model. Inverse methods are
then used to back calculate the resistivity that gave rise to the measured potential measurements. Starting from a simple initial model
(usually a homogeneous half-space), an optimization method is
used to iteratively change the resistivity of the model cells to minimize the difference between the measured and calculated apparent
resistivity values. The inversion problem is frequently ill-posed
and ill-constrained due to incomplete, inconsistent and noisy data.
Smoothness or other constraints are usually incorporated to stabilize
the inversion procedure to avoid numerical artifacts. As an example,
the following equation includes a model smoothness constraint to
the least-squares optimization method,

T
T
J J F qk J gk F qk1 ;
where
T
F x Cx Cx z Cz Cz :
Cx and Cz are the roughness lter matrices in the horizontal (x)

and vertical (z) directions and x and z are the respective relative
weights of the roughness lters. k represents the iteration number.
One common form of the roughness lter is the rst-order difference
matrix (deGroot-Hedlin and Constable, 1990), but the elements of
the matrices can be modied to introduce other desired characteristics into the inversion model (Farquharson, 2008; Pellerin and
Wannamaker, 2005). An L1-norm criterion can be used to produce
blocky models for regions that are piecewise constant and separated
by sharp boundaries (Farquharson and Oldenburg, 1998; Loke et al.,
2003). The laterally constrained inversion method (Auken and

Christiansen, 2004) that includes sharp boundaries has been successfully used in areas with a layered subsurface structure. Joint inversion
algorithms using other geophysical or geological data to constrain the
model have also been implemented to help produce models that are
consistent with known information (Bouchedda et al., 2012; Hinnell
et al., 2010; Linde et al., 2006a). A number of micro-computer based
software are now available that can automatically carry out the inversion of a 2-D survey data set in a very short period of time.
There are many commercial multi-electrode resistivity systems
capable of connecting up to several hundreds of electrodes at once,
with electrode spacings practically varying from 1 to 20 m. A recent
development over the past 10 years is multi-channeled systems
that can greatly reduce the survey time. Only two electrodes can be
used as the current electrodes at a single time, but the voltage
measurements can be made between many different pairs of potential electrodes. Commercial systems with 4 to 10 channels are widely
available, and some customized systems have more than 100
channels (Rucker et al., in press; Stummer et al., 2002). New data
acquisition techniques, such as using the multiple gradient array
(Dahlin and Zhou, 2006), have been designed for the multichanneled systems.
Fig. 4A shows an apparent resistivity pseudosection from a survey
using the dipoledipole array to map shallow Quaternary deposits at
the Eddleston experimental site, Scottish Borders, UK (Dochartaigh
et al., 2011). The dipoledipole array was used with the dipole length
a ranging from 3 to 18 m, and the dipole separation factor n ranging
from 1 to 8. The mid-point of the array was used to set the horizontal
location of the plotting point in the pseudosection, while the median
depth of investigation method was used to calculate the vertical
position (Edwards, 1977). The southern (left) half of the line lies in
a oodplain where it crosses a small stream, while the northern
(right) half crosses over into grasslands above the oodplain. The
relatively at southern section is characterized by a low resistivity
top layer consisting of present-day alluvial deposits, with a general
increase in the resistivity towards the northern end located on slightly
elevated grasslands (Fig. 4B). The higher resistivity layer at a depth of
5 to 15 m corresponds to a coarser alluvial layer with some gravels.
139
Fig. 4. Example of a 2-D resistivity survey with (A) apparent resistivity pseudosection and (B) inversion model.
Two-dimensional (and three-dimensional) electrical imaging surveys

are now widely used for mineral, engineering, environmental and
archeological surveys. The main limitation of the 2-D surveying method
is the assumption that the geological structures do not change in the
direction perpendicular to the survey line. This is a reasonable assumption when the survey line can be laid out perpendicular to the strike of
the structure. However, when there are signicant ofine variations, distortions in the model produced can lead to erroneous interpretation. Nevertheless, 2-D imaging surveys are still probably the most widely used
technique applied commercially. It can be rapidly carried out at a relatively low cost with lower equipment requirements compared to 3-D surveys (following section) that in many situations makes it the method of
choice due to economic (and in some cases physical) constraints. In
some situations, correction factors can be calculated for the 3-D effects
(Wiwattanachang and Giao, 2011) to greatly reduce the distortions in
the 2-D model.
3.3. 3-D imaging surveys
A 3-D resistivity survey and interpretation model should give the
most accurate results as all geological structures are 3-D in nature. Although at present it has not reached the same level of usage as 2-D surveys, it is increasingly more widely used in complex areas for many
environmental and engineering problems (Chambers et al., 2006;
Dahlin et al., 2002; Jones et al., 2012). It is probably more widely used
in mineral exploration surveys (Legault et al., 2008; White et al.,
2001) where the higher costs involved in securing equipment and
labor are less of a barrier. Many of the early 3-D surveys used the
polepole array over rather small grids (up to about 20 by 20 electrodes) with measurements in different directions (Li and Oldenburg,
1992; Park and Van, 1991). The use of other arrays, such as the
dipoledipole and WennerSchlumberger, is now becoming more
common in surveys that involve thousands of electrode positions
(Chambers et al., 2006; Johnson et al., 2010). A complete 3-D survey
requires placing of electrodes in the form of a 2-D grid with measurements in different directions. However, a more cost-effective strategy
is usually followed wherein 3-D data sets are collated from independent
parallel 2-D survey lines with possibly orthogonal cross-lines (Rucker
et al., 2009a). This strategy greatly reduces the cost of a 3-D survey
and also allows for 2-D inversions of each individual line for quality
control. Loke and Dahlin (2010) describe techniques to reduce artifacts
in the 3-D inversion model that could be caused in the use of parallel
2-D lines. A survey procedure using the offset poledipole array
(Fig. 2G) designed by White et al. (2001) to cover a large area efciently
is particularly popular in 3-D I.P. surveys for mineral exploration.
The data interpretation techniques used for 2-D surveys can be
extended to 3-D surveys with relatively few modications (Loke
and Barker, 1996b). Fast computer software that takes minutes to
hours to invert a 3-D data set (depending on the size of the data
set) on common multi-core PCs is now available (Loke, 2012;
Rucker et al., 2010).
Fig. 5 shows an example of the results from a 3-D survey. The
survey was carried out within the valley of the Great Ouse, near the
village of Willington to the east of Bedford, UK to map sand and gravel
deposits (Chambers et al., 2012). The survey covers an area of
93 93 m using 32 orthogonal survey lines with a spacing 6 m
between the lines (Fig. 5A). The dipoledipole array was used with an
inline unit electrode spacing of 3 m. The use of an inter-line spacing of
twice the inline spacing is common in 3-D surveys using orthogonal
2-D lines (Gharibi and Bentley, 2005). After ltering out data points
with high reciprocal errors, the nal data set used for the inversion
has 10,952 points. The inversion model (Fig. 5B) shows a thin near
surface layer of about 60 .m that corresponds to clay-rich alluvium
overlying sand and gravel deposits with higher resistivity values of
about 125 .m. The Oxford Clay bedrock has a distinctly lower resistivity of about 15 .m. The middle sand and gravel layer are incised at
places by silt and clay-rich alluvial river deposits. The distribution and
thickness of the sand and gravel deposits estimated from the resistivity
model were generally in good agreement with logs from a number of
boreholes.
3.4. 4-D imaging surveys
In 4-D surveys, the change of resistivity in both space and time is
measured. Measurements are repeated at different times using the
same 2-D survey line or 3-D survey grid. These surveys include the
monitoring of dams sites (Sjdahl et al., 2008), areas prone to landslides
(Supper et al., 2008), methane gas generation in landlls (Rosqvist et al.,
2011), movement of water in aquifers (Cassiani et al., 2006; Coscia et al.,
2012) and reagent solution ow in enhanced recovery of gold from ore
heaps (Rucker et al., in press). A number of techniques have been proposed for the inversion of time-lapse data (Mitchell et al., 2011), including independent inversions (Cassiani et al., 2006), using the ratio of the
data from the initial and later data sets (Daily et al., 1992), using the difference in the apparent resistivity values (LaBrecque and Yang, 2001),
simultaneous inversion (Hayley et al., 2011), and incorporating the
140
Fig. 5. (A) Map showing the layout of the survey lines. Three-dimensional ERT model displayed as (B) a solid volume, (C) a solid volume with opaque volume dening resistivities above
200 .m and (D) vertical sections. The boreholes locations are shown as gray cylinders. The southeastern edge of the incised channel structure is indicated as a dashed white line.
British Geological Survey (c) NERC 2013.
temporal data and model directly into the least-squares regularization

method (Kim et al., 2009; Loke and Dahlin, 2011). The inversion methodology by Loke and Dahlin (2011) uses the following equation:
h

i
T
T
T
Ji R d Ji i W R m W M Rt M ri

T
T
T
Ji R d gi i W Rm W i M R t M ri1
where M is the difference matrix applied across the time models with
only the diagonal and one sub diagonal elements having values of 1
and 1, respectively. is the temporal damping factor that gives the
weight for minimizing the temporal changes in the resistivity compared
to the model roughness and data mist. While time-lapse surveys can
be conducted using standard equipment used in 2-D and 3-D surveys,
a number of dedicated automatic monitoring systems with permanently installed cables and electrodes have been developed.
As an example of a large 4-D resistivity monitoring scenario,
consider the site presented in Fig. 6. Fig. 6A shows the location map
of a gold mine where a survey was conducted to map reagent ow
injected into low grade ore for enhanced recovery after conventional
surface leaching (Rucker et al., in press). The resistivity was to be used
to help optimize injection parameters, such as pressure, rate, and
duration of the injection. There is a total of 150 electrodes arranged
in a radial pattern on the surface around the injection well and
along six boreholes (Fig. 6B). Six nearby injection wells were also
used as long electrodes. A total of 780 sets of measurements, or snapshots, were made over an eight day period. Fig. 7 shows the results
from one set of measurements made on the last day after the injection
of the reagent into a well (marked in red on Fig. 7, adapted from
Rucker et al., in press). The movement of the reagent is illustrated
as 3-D rendered transparent volumes showing regions with 3, 6 and
12% decrease in the resistivity. The movement of the reagent was
also tracked in real-time by monitoring the current and voltage at

the subsurface electrodes.
This eld example also provides a glimpse of the tremendous
progress made by the geoelectrical method over the past 25 years,
from mainly simple 1-D models with at layers up to the late
1980's to present-day 4-D models in an area with signicant surface
topography with complex variations in both space and time.
4. Practical applications
This section gives a brief outline of the use the geoelectrical imaging method in various elds where it plays an important economic
role.
4.1. Mineral exploration
Multi-dimensional resistivity surveys, usually in conjunction with
I.P. measurements, are widely used in base and precious metals exploration due to the complex geological environments encountered.
The electrical surveys are frequently conducted after reconnaissance
aeromagnetic and airborne EM surveys have identied specic areas
of interest. The introduction of 2-D and 3-D data computer inversion
techniques has greatly improved data interpretation for both new
surveys and historical data (Collins, 2009; Mutton, 2000; Nabighian
and Asten, 2002). While massive sulde ore deposits show a distinct
resistivity and I.P. anomaly, the I.P. data are the more diagnostic tool
in the exploration for desseminated ore in a geochemically reduced
state. In precious metals exploration, where conductive minerals
occur as accessory minerals, the I.P. information gives useful information on the shape of the orebody while the resistivity gives more
information about the general geology of area (Guo et al., 1999;
Spitzer and Chouteau, 2003). Three-dimensional resistivity and I.P.
141
Fig. 6. (A) Location map of the Cripple Creek and Victor gold mine, Central Colorado, showing injection area within the mine's boundary. (B) Map showing injection wells (stars),
surface electrodes (dots), and borehole electrode arrays (diamonds).
surveys are now widely used for such surveys, where efcient eld
techniques have been developed to cover wide areas rapidly and to
reduce EM coupling effects (White et al., 2001). Resistivity surveys
have played an important role in the exploration of deeply buried
uranium deposits in Canada's Athabasca Basin (Legault et al., 2008).
The search for deeper metalliferous deposits has also led to developments in more powerful eld instruments (Eaton et al., 2010; Goldie,
2007) some of which includes signal processing functions to improve
the measurement of complex resistivity signals (Chen et al., 2009;
Matthews and Zonge, 2003).
Other mineral resources where electrical methods have been used
include graphite (Ramazi et al., 2009), bauxite (Bi, 2009), nickel
(Robineau et al., 2007), chromite (Frasheri, 2009; Mohanty et al.,
2011), manganese (Murthy et al., 2009), boron (Bayrak and Leyla,
2012), coal (Singh et al., 2004), and iron ore (Butt and Flis, 1997). Resistivity surveys are also widely used to map shallow oil sand deposits
(Bauman, 2005), while there is ongoing research in use of resistivity
and I.P. surveys for deeper conventional hydrocarbon resources
(Davydycheva et al., 2006; Veeken et al., 2009). Additionally, resistivity surveys have proved to be a useful tool in the mapping of
bulk construction materials (Beresnev et al., 2002; Chambers et al.,
2012; Magnusson et al., 2010).
The recent developments that have made signicant impact in
mineral exploration include more powerful eld equipment (with
stronger currents, better signal detection and more measurement
channels), innovative eld techniques for surveying large areas rapidly and practical 3-D inversion software for microcomputers. They
have enabled the search for deeper mineral deposits in more geologically complex areas.
4.2. Hydrological
Applying the electrical resistivity method to solve hydrological
problems has ranged from the regional scale of water resource exploration to the local scale for estimating hydraulic conductivity. Early
work for hydrologically-based electrical resistivity problems focused
on locating resources for exploitation with one-dimensional vertical
electrical soundings (Patra and Bhattacharya, 1966; Zohdy and
Jackson, 1969). Soon thereafter, several noticed that hydraulic parameter estimation was feasible by combining pump tests with resistivity information from the VES to formulate regression models at
co-located measurement locations (Sri Niwas and Singhal, 1985).
This methodology is still in use today for extremely deep aquifers
(e.g., Tizro et al., 2010) and in many rapidly developing parts of the
world (e.g., Asfahani, 2012; Chandra et al., 2011; Ekwe et al., 2010;
Khalil, 2010) where access to multi-channeled resistivity systems is
limited. The popularity and success of the joint physical characterization of aquifers can likely be attributed to similar support volumes
over which these measurements are conducted and the analogous
ow characteristics of water and electrons within the most transmissive portions of rocks and soils.
Site complexity can also be studied effectively with resistivity to
dene aquifer geometry, geological structure, and hydrostratigraphic
sequences. Depth to bedrock studies is a classical example of using
resistivity to help dene geometry. For example, Zhou et al. (2000)
examined the case of overlying soil thickness above a limestone
karst system. Grifths and Barker (1993), Beauvais et al. (2004),
and Hirsch et al. (2008) also examined the bedrock topography for
both resistive and conductive basements. Rayner et al. (2007), Glis
et al. (2010), and Schtze et al. (2012) explored aquifer architecture
through a detailed analysis of subsurface structural components.
Mapping the hydrostratigraphy, that is using resistivity to dene
units that are important to hydrogeological analyses, has been effectively conducted by Ismail et al. (2005), Clifford and Binley (2010)
and Mastrocicco et al. (2010). A nationwide mapping of the groundwater resources in Denmark has been carried out using EM and electrical methods (Auken et al., 2006) that is probably the rst of its
kind.
A growing body of research has emerged around investigations for
obtaining hydraulic parameters with resistivity, including saturated hydraulic conductivity for groundwater systems and parameters that describe soil moisture characteristic curves that t the van Genuchten,
Brooks Corey, or other well known functions. For this work, heretofore
referred to as hydrogeophysics, several strategies for integrating water
ow and geophysical modeling have been taken that includes sequential
assessments (e.g., Daily et al., 1992; French and Binley, 2004; Kemna
et al., 2002; Park, 1998; Sandberg et al., 2002), joint modeling (Chen
et al., 2006; Linde et al., 2006a,b), and fully coupled inverse modeling
(Hinnell et al., 2010; Lehikoinen et al., 2009; Rucker, 2009). Ferr
et al. (2009) provide coherent denitions for each type of these
hydrogeophysical analyses. The advantage of these approaches is
that hydrological inverse modeling on a limited number of point
measurements is ill-posed due to an inadequate spatial measurement resolution or low information content of the measured signal.
Electrical resistivity measurements, or any geophysical measurement sensitive to hydrogeological variables, have the ability to
142
Fig. 7. Inversion results from data extracted during the last day of injections at 34 and 27 m. The results are presented as percent change from background conductivity (positive
indicating an increase in conductivity). The three transparent bodies of the 3D rendered plots represent 3, 6, and 12% change from background. The injection zone is marked by a
gray cylinder. (For interpretation of the references to color in this gure, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
provide information with a spatial resolution that is much higher

than hydrological measurement methods alone (Huisman et al.,
2004). Secondarily, the tomographic model produced from resistivity may be constrained to produce features that are consistent with
hydrogeological analyses.
4.3. Environmental
Borrowing the description of environmental geophysics from
Reynolds (2011), environmental applications for resistivity include
those that aim to investigate near surface bio-physico-chemical
phenomena having signicant implications for environmental management. Regarding this denition, many resistivity projects have
examined the release of contaminated waters to both the soil and
groundwater, where high ionic strength solutions provide a sufcient
contrast with the host environment for mapping the extent of a subsurface plume. The focus on environmental applications has produced
a very large body of work from which to pull and covers a broad spectrum of test cases. Over the past decade, the newer directions of the
resistivity method for mapping the spatial aspects of contaminated
ground have been to detect even more subtle resistivity contrasts
in highly complex environments, increasing electrode coverage by
upscaling their numbers in hard to reach areas, accommodating as
much a priori information as possible into the inverse modeling algorithms, and developing petrophysical relationships that allow the
transformation of bulk resistivity to a variable of state (such as
contaminant concentration).
Classical applications of electrical resistivity to plume mapping can
be traced to solid or liquid waste repositories (e.g., landlls, reneries,
petrol stations, holding ponds, waste storage facilities), groundwater
contamination from salt-laden waters originating from industrial,

mining, and agricultural processes (e.g., brine pits, road salt or fertilizer
run off, tailing piles, animal feed lots), and coastal salt water intrusion
mapping. Examples for leachate emanating from a landll are plentiful
in the published literature, but a few recent studies include those by
Bernstone et al. (2000), Chambers et al. (2006), and Clment et al.
(2010). Agriculturally based contamination case studies have included
nitrate inltration from nonpoint source releases through the overuse
of fertilizers (Boadu et al., 2008) and animal waste at feedlots (Sainato
et al., 2012). Hydrocarbon-based spills have also been shown to be
interesting targets, as a resistive body may develop from free product
(Atekwana and Atekwana, 2010) or a conductive body from the degradation of chlorinated solvents (Sauck, 2000). Some of the more intense
targets have been discovered around nuclear waste disposal sites
(Rucker et al., 2009a) and mine tailings (Martn-Crespo et al., 2011;
Rucker et al., 2009b), where ratios of resistivity from background conditions to contaminated ground can easily reach 10,000:1. A similar application with large resistivity contrasts is saline water intrusion mapping
in coastal areas (de Franco et al., 2009; Wilson et al., 2006). Several
researchers have used the resistivity method to examine a reduction in
contaminant loading from cleanup activities and remediation (Bentley
and Gharibi, 2004; Chambers et al., 2010; Slater and Binley, 2003).
The examples above discuss environmental applications of resistivity from unplanned releases, whereby contaminants are accidentally
released or the consequences of release were not meant to be as severe.
An alternative realm of study is the planned release of an electrolytic
tracer to more fully understand physical and chemical processes within
porous media. Early work by Fried (1975), White (1988), and Lile et al.
(1997) used resistivity imaging during salt water injections to understand groundwater ow directions, velocities, and mechanical dispersion. Presently, the practice is quite common in open ground
(e.g., Cassiani et al., 2006; Monego et al., 2010; Robert et al., 2012;
Wilkinson et al., 2010b) and within small sand tanks and columns
(Lekmine et al., 2012; Slater et al., 2002).
The large number of test cases available in the literature is a testament to the versatility of resistivity to solve many different types of
environmental problems, from the large catchment scale (Robinson
et al., 2008) to characterization of pore-scale transport processes
(Singha et al., 2008). Complex industrial sites also have a particular
subset of novel solutions for acquiring data, including a high density
of borehole arrays (Johnson et al., 2010), push technology (Pidlisecky
et al., 2006), and the use of wells as long electrodes (Rucker et al.,
2010, 2011a, 2012). Finally, to accommodate all spatial and temporal
scales necessary to capture the relevant dynamics of these specialized
problems, both high capacity acquisition hardware (e.g., Kuras et al.,
2009; Rucker et al., in press) and software (Loke et al., in press) are
available to increase the resolution of the method and highlight even
more subtle features.
4.4. Engineering
Resistivity imaging is widely used across an enormous range of
engineering applications, including the investigation and monitoring
of made or articial ground, and structures such as foundations,
tunnels, earthworks and landlls, soil stability, as well as anthropogenic problems associated with mining related activities.
Spatial information provided by resistivity imaging has proved to be
effective in characterizing heterogeneous made ground, in terms of
thickness and internal and external geometry (Guerin et al., 2004). For
foundations, it has been applied to pre-installation ground assessment
(Soupios et al., 2007), investigation of existing foundations (Cardarelli
et al., 2007), and the monitoring of foundation stabilization procedures
(Santarato et al., 2011). It has been used to predict ground conditions
ahead of tunneling operations (Danielsen and Dahlin, 2009) to differentiate between poor (weathered) and good (unweathered) quality rock.
Earthwork investigations employing resistivity imaging have been
143
used to characterize (Bedrosian et al., 2012; Kim et al., 2007; Minsley

et al., 2011; Oh, 2012) and monitor (Sjdahl et al., 2008, 2009, 2010)
dams, and assess the condition of rail (Chambers et al., 2008; Donohue
et al., 2011) and road (Fortier et al., 2011; Jackson et al., 2002) embankments. Mine related engineering applications include in-mine imaging
during working (van Schoor, 2005; van Schoor and Binley, 2010), as
well as the detection and characterization of old abandoned mine
workings (Chambers et al., 2007; Kim et al., 2006; Maillol et al., 1999;
Wilkinson et al., 2005, 2006a).
Resistivity imaging is now a well-established technique for landslide studies (Jongmans and Garambois, 2007), as it provides rapid
and lightweight means of acquiring spatial information related to
ground structure, composition, and hydrogeology on unstable slopes.
Landslide investigations are dominated by 2-D resistivity imaging
with numerous recent examples of the use of the technique for
structural characterization in hard-rock settings (Bekler et al., 2011;
Jomard et al., 2010; Le Roux et al., 2011; Migon et al., 2010; Panek
et al., 2010; Socco et al., 2010; Tric et al., 2010; Zerathe and Lebourg,
2012) and soft rock settings (Bievre et al., 2012; Chang et al., 2012;
de Bari et al., 2011; Erginal et al., 2009; Grandjean et al., 2011;
Hibert et al., 2012; Jongmans et al., 2009; Lebourg et al., 2010;
Piegari et al., 2009), and hydrogeological investigations (Bievre et al.,
2012; Grandjean et al., 2009; Jomard et al., 2010; Lee et al., 2012;
Travelletti et al., 2012; Yamakawa et al., 2010). Three-dimensional
resistivity imaging, while less commonly applied, has also been used
to investigate the internal structure and hydrogeological regimes
associated with landslides (Chambers et al., 2011; Di Maio and
Piegari, 2011, 2012; Heincke et al., 2010; Lebourg et al., 2005;
Udphuay et al., 2011). A class of landslide hazard for which resistivity
imaging has proved to be particularly applicable is quick clay, which is
prevalent across parts of Scandinavia and North America. Resistivity
imaging has been used to locate and map quick clay formations due
to the higher resistivity exhibited by quick (leached) compared to
non-quick (unleached) formations (Donohue et al., 2012; Lundstrom
et al., 2009; Solberg et al., 2008, 2012).
A number of studies describe the use of resistivity imaging for
detecting open cavities (Deceuster et al., 2006; Nyquist et al., 2007;
Zhu et al., 2012), collapsed or suffused sinkholes (Ezersky, 2008;
Gutirrez et al., 2009; Valois et al., 2011), and caves (Schwartz et al.,
2008) that may affect the structural integrity of a building or may
pose a safety hazard. As a target, these features can be either conductive
for the water- and clay-lled cavities, or resistive for air-lled cavities
(Smith, 1986). Electrical resistivity lines placed either on the surface
or in boreholes have been used to help nd and map these features
quite successfully.
Others have used resistivity to specically understand geotechnical properties of engineering materials. Unfortunately, there is no
direct causative relationship between electrical resistivity and, say,
rock strength. Indirectly, however, the resistivity value can be dependent upon jointly inuencing parameters that comprise certain
hydrogeological (e.g., Boadu, 2011; Boadu and Owusu-Nimo, 2010)
or geomechanical attributes of rock, such as porosity, void ratio,
water content, cementation, or composition. The Archie equation
(Archie, 1942) shows that for fully saturated media, an increase in
porosity causes the resistivity to decrease exponentially. In cases of
sedimentary rock, the porosity exponent has been related to cementation or tortuosity through the pore networks (Schon, 1996). Based
on these inuencing parameters that link porosity to both elastic
modulus (e.g., Kahraman and Alber, 2006) and electrical resistivity,
some have constructed simple correlations between a mechanical
parameter and a resistivity for co-located measurements. This was
the method applied by Braga et al. (1999), Oh and Sun (2008), and
Sudha et al. (2009) when presenting blow count from standard
penetration tests to an inverted resistivity value, when acquired as
one-dimensional vertical electrical soundings or two-dimensional
transects. Cosenza et al. (2006) used resistivity to create a scatter
144
plot of co-located data with the cone resistance and found logical
groupings of data associated with the specic lithology from which
the data were collected.
4.5. Agriculture and soil science
Resistivity, and in particular its reciprocal, electrical conductivity
(EC), have played an important role in the elds of agriculture and
soil science for many years as they are among the most useful and
easily obtained spatial properties of soil that inuence crop productivity (Corwin and Lesch, 2003, 2005; Samouelian et al., 2005). The
sensitivity of both parameters to soil moisture content, salinity and
clay fraction makes them ideal candidates for mapping and evaluating the properties of agricultural land, for characterizing eld
variability in precision agriculture and for monitoring of hydrological
processes and soil performance in terms of nutrient cycling and
storage. Traditionally, high-resolution lateral mapping of resistivity
or soil EC at discrete depths of investigation (Dabas, 2009; Dabas
et al., 2012; Gebbers et al., 2009) has been favored over resistivity
imaging in the strict interpretation of the term, and a range of measurement techniques based on inductively, galvanically and capacitively coupled sensors is available (Allred et al., 2006; Dabas and
Tabbagh, 2003).
Direct-current resistivity imaging (2-D and 3-D) has been successfully applied to characterize the tillage layer (Basso et al., 2010;
Besson et al., 2004; Seger et al., 2009), to detect soil cracking at small
scales (Samouelian et al., 2004), to estimate and monitor soil moisture
in the root zone and monitor plant uptake (Celano et al., 2011;
Nijland et al., 2010; Schwartz et al., 2008), to assess soil water decit
(Brunet et al., 2010), to monitor water percolation and optimize irrigation patterns (Greve et al., 2011; Kelly et al., 2011), to map and quantify
root biomass (al Hagrey, 2007; Amato et al., 2009; Rossi et al., 2011),
to characterize soil contamination and monitor remedial treatment
(West et al., 1999), to dene management zones on farms, plantations
and vineyards (Morari et al., 2009), to investigate soil weathering
proles (Beauvais et al., 2004), and to establish integrated 3D soilgeology models (Tye et al., 2011). Resistivity imaging is also used extensively in the related eld of geoforensics (Pringle et al., 2008; Ruffell and
McKinley, 2005).
4.6. Archeology and cultural heritage
In terms of its historical development, the ERT method is arguably
very closely associated with archeological investigation (Noel and Xu,
1991). For archeological purposes however, the lateral mapping of
resistivity (or more typically earth resistance, i.e. the response of a
xed-geometry four-electrode array inserted into the soil) has long
been dominant amongst electrical methods for characterizing large
archeological sites and discriminating buried man-made structures
(Gaffney, 2008). More recently though, detailed 2-D and 3-D resistivity imaging have become increasingly popular amongst archeologists
as the method permits closer scrutiny of archeological targets prior to
excavation, for example by volumetric analysis and visualization.
Successful archeological applications of DC resistivity imaging include the non-destructive characterization of mounds and tumuli
(Grifths and Barker, 1994; Papadopoulos et al., 2010; Wake et al.,
2012), the investigation of multilayered human settlements (Berge
and Drahor, 2011a,b), the mapping of buried walls, voids and passageways (Leucci et al., 2007; Negri and Leucci, 2006; Orfanos and
Apostolopoulos, 2011), the imaging of ancient city walls and preeminent
monuments (Tsokas et al., 2011; Tsourlos and Tsokas, 2011), the detection of tombs and the denition of their geometry (Elwaseif and Slater,
2010; Matias et al., 2006), the detection of archeological structures
buried under exceptionally thick soil (Drahor, 2006), the investigation
of previously excavated and then backlled features (Sambuelli et al.,
1999), the improved understanding of geological constraints on
archeological sites (Ercoli et al., 2012; Similox-Tohon et al., 2006), and

the comprehension of historic workows and manufacturing processes
(Leopold et al., 2011). Seaoor archeological applications of marine
resistivity imaging have also been reported (Passaro, 2010).
A promising eld of application is rescue archeology, which
comprises archeological survey and excavation carried out in areas
threatened by, or revealed by, construction or other land development. This type of archeological investigation must be carried out at
speed; hence resistivity imaging proves to be a useful tool to support
these surveys (Batayneh, 2011; Loperte et al., 2011). Cultural heritage
preservation is another related eld where the benets of resistivity
imaging have been recognized (Mol and Preston, 2010). Its use has
been frequently reported for the structural assessment and restoration of historical buildings built over more ancient structures
(Capizzi et al., 2012; Dabas et al., 2000; Di Maio et al., 2012; Tsokas
et al., 2008).
4.7. Waterborne resistivity
Electrical resistivity investigations applied in marine environments can be traced back to at least the mid-1930s (Schlumberger
et al., 1934) where the method was used to map limestone outcrops
in the Caspian Sea and to determine the depth to bedrock in Algiers
harbor (Corwin et al., 1985). Since then, applications for waterborne
resistivity have spanned a wide array of problems that mostly
mimic terrestrial applications, but with a few that are unique to the
marine setting. For example, geological mapping, including bedrock
geometry, structure, lithology, and hydrostratigraphy is a rather
typical application of both land and waterborne resistivity methods
(e.g. Rinaldi et al., 2006; Rucker et al., 2011b). Submarine groundwater discharge (SGD), on the other hand, is a particular area of study for
off-shore resistivity characterization. SGD describes how freshwater
may move from aquifers to the sea and several large scale projects
have been conducted to observe these interactions (Day-Lewis
et al., 2006; Henderson et al., 2010; Swarzenski et al., 2006, 2007).
The acquisition of resistivity in aquatic environments can be
conducted at the water surface with oating electrodes (e.g. Hatch
et al., 2010; Kelly et al., 2009; Song and Cho, 2009) or submerged at
the oor (Toran et al., 2010), with both strategies typically used in
conjunction with continuous resistivity proling (CRP). CRP involves
towing a multi-cored cable behind a vessel and using one pair of current transmitting electrodes and multiple pairs of potential measurement electrodes. The rate at which data are acquired is usually slower
for the submerged array (Corwin et al., 1985), but typical acquisition
rates may be 35 km/h (see Snyder and Wightman, 2002). The choice
of oating or submerged electrodes depends on the depth of the
water column, with very thin or very thick water columns using submerged electrodes and the intermediate range opting for oating
electrodes. Loke and Lane (2004) recommend that oating electrodes
be used when the water column is no greater than 25% of the total
depth of investigation and Lagabrielle (1983) discusses the sensitivity
of both cases. In extremely shallow situations involving streams, it
may be more advantageous to use xed submerged arrays instead
of CRP to avoid damage to the cable.
Several commercial instruments are available for acquiring CRP
data for marine environments, which primarily need the ability to automatically log voltage data for a given electrode array. For freshwater environments, where the resistivity values of the water column
are relatively high, low powered systems (200400 W) can be used
quite effectively. In highly conductive seawater, higher powered systems (>1kW) are recommended to overcome the noise. Corwin et al.
(1985) state that 10 A of current was sufcient to overcome noise in
seawater for a submerged Schlumberger array with AB/2 = 316 m.
Rucker et al. (2011b) used a low powered system in the resistive waters of the Panama Canal with a oating dipole array and an electrode
spacing of 15 m., while Kelly et al. (2009) used non-uniform spacings
ranging 0.5 to 128 m. in a survey along the Namoi River in Australia.

Butler (2009) lists other examples of instrumentation power versus electrode geometry and environment. Most modern equipment also has the
ability to accept GPS data to help georeference each measurement.
Data processing of the resistivity proles typically involves
two-dimensional inversion and investigating conductive or resistive
bodies along the transect. Constraints, such as the bathymetry and
conductivity of the water, can be added to the inversion to help
resolve issues at the waterrock interface. Provided the data are
sufciently georeferenced, multiple individual proles can be interpolated at off-line locations to produce quasi 3-D volumes. Recently,
true 3-D inversion models of marine resistivity data collected over a
series of parallel proles have been generated and Mansoor and
Slater (2007) demonstrate how repeated measurements over the
same grid can produce high quality time-lapse information of a shallow wetland. Rucker and Noonan (in press) demonstrate for long
subparallel lines that 3-D resistivity modeling can still be conducted
efciently if the numerical grid generated for the forward model
is distinctly separate from the inverse model grid. A meandering
145
trajectory does not lend itself well to inverse models that strictly adhere to grids generated from each unique electrode position. Fig. 8
presents an example from the survey by Rucker and Noonan
(in press) in the Panama canal. Fig. 8A shows the location of the survey and Fig. 8B details the acquisition within the canal as well as the
grid used to conduct the 3D model. Cell sizes were a uniform
30 m 30 m with 2 m layering to a depth of 32 m. The water column ranged from 15 to 19 m with a resistivity of 67 .m. Fig. 8C
shows the results of the inverse 3-D modeling as horizontal slices.
The upper two subplots represent the water column and the lower
subplots show the distribution of rock properties associated with
hard (high resistivity) or soft (low resistivity) material.
5. Special topics
In this section, a brief overview of more recent developments is
given. All of the techniques have been tested in eld surveys, while
most are commercially available.
Fig. 8. A map showing the Panama Canal survey area (A), the model grid used for the Panama Canal oating electrodes survey with 20 20 m cells together with the survey lines
and general geology (B), and the inversion model (C). The rst two layers in the inversion model correspond to the water column. The lowest resistivity material generally corresponds to moderately soft tuff, intermediate resistivity to moderately hard agglomerate and high resistivity to hard andesite.
146
5.1. Cross-hole ERT

In order to improve the resolution of resistivity images at depth,
electrodes are often placed in boreholes (Perri et al., 2012). Measurements are then made with various quadripole combinations of
current and potential electrodes, either in the same hole (Slater et
al., 2000), between the hole and the surface (Tsourlos et al., 2011)
or between pairs of holes (Zhou and Greenhalgh, 2000). The design
of surveys for cross-hole imaging has traditionally not been as widely
researched as for surface investigations, although recent studies have
largely redressed this imbalance. To achieve acceptable image resolution between a pair of boreholes, the separation of the holes should
not be more than about 0.75 times the borehole array length
(LaBrecque et al., 1996b). The layout of the boreholes can be regular
(LaBrecque et al., 1996b; Wilkinson et al., 2006a) or irregular
(Chambers et al., 2007; Tsokas et al., 2011) depending on ground
conditions and the presence of buildings or infrastructure. Measurements are typically made between pairs of boreholes (panels) and
either inverted in 2-D for individual panels (Deceuster et al., 2006)
or in 3-D for combinations of panels (Nimmer et al., 2008;
Wilkinson et al., 2006a). The types and combinations of quadripoles
used to measure the data have been studied in terms of maximizing
signal-to-noise and image resolution (al Hagrey, 2011; Goes and
Meekes, 2004; Slater et al., 2000; Zhou and Greenhalgh, 2000).
Automated survey design algorithms have also been applied to the
borehole ERT problem (al Hagrey, 2012; Wilkinson et al., 2006a).
Since it is more difcult to determine accurate positions for borehole
electrodes than surface electrodes, consideration must also be given
to the effects of random and systematic offsets in electrode positions
and deviations of the boreholes from their assumed locations and
direction (Oldenborger et al., 2005; Wilkinson et al., 2008; Yi et al.,
2009).
Achieving and maintaining good galvanic contact with the ground
are also more challenging in boreholes than with surface arrays. In
the saturated zone, most forms of completion will permit contact
with the electrode, including native backll (Tsokas et al., 2011),
metal casing (Osiensky et al., 2004), and slotted plastic casing
(Wilkinson et al., 2006a). In the vadose zone, backll with bentonite
or similar conductive material is desirable to maintain electrical contact (Wilkinson et al., 2010b). However, most forms of completion
change the electrical properties of the ground in the near vicinity of
the electrodes, and can therefore have a pronounced effect on the
measurements. The effects of metal cased boreholes (Schenkel and
Morrison, 1994; Singer and Strack, 1998), grouted boreholes (Denis
et al., 2002), and uid-lled boreholes (Nimmer et al., 2008;
Osiensky et al., 2004) have all been analyzed in detail, allowing the
effects of boreholes on the resulting inverted images to be understood
quantitatively. It is further possible to incorporate a borehole model
directly in the inversion to remove these effects in 2.5-D (Sugimoto,
1999) and 3-D (Doetsch et al., 2010).
5.2. Mobile systems and capacitive resistivity imaging
Continuous data acquisition systems for waterborne surveys were
described in an earlier section of this paper. Similar systems for land
surveys have also been developed. Some systems use cylindrical
steel electrodes based on an in-line array geometry (Srensen,
1996), while others use spiked wheels to achieve continuous galvanic
contact with the soil (Dabas, 2009; Panissod et al., 1998). Capacitively
coupled systems are used in areas with very resistive surface
materials (e.g. dry or frozen ground) or paved surfaces. These instruments use an oscillating, non-grounded electric dipole to generate
current ow in the ground and a second similar dipole to measure
the resulting potential distribution at the ground surface (Kuras
et al., 2006). There are two major congurations for this type of instrument. The rst conguration (line antenna type) uses cylindrical
transmitters and receivers that are towed behind an operator

(Fig. 9A). It gives measurements with typical depths of investigation
of 1 to 20 m that are comparable to the galvanically coupled in-line
dipoledipole array (Mller, 2001). However, line antenna data do
not fulll the point source assumption of DC resistivity theory, and
particular care must therefore be taken when interpreting such
datasets (Neukirch and Klitzsch, 2010). The second type (electrostatic
quadripole) uses at metallic conductors in an equatorial dipoledipole
conguration (Panissod et al., 1998; Souffache et al., 2010) and has
maximum survey depths of up to a few meters (Fig. 9B). 2-D and 3-D
surveys with dense lateral coverage can be rapidly conducted with
these systems, and it has been shown that DC resistivity methodology
and inversion schemes can be usefully applied to such datasets (Kuras
et al., 2007). The term capacitive resistivity imaging (CRI) has become
synonymous with this approach. Mobile arrays have traditionally
employed a limited number of dipoles and associated 2-D and 3-D
models are therefore restricted in terms of their spatial resolution.
Moreover, these arrays operate primarily at the meter scale. In a more
recent development, Kuras et al. (2012) describe novel multi-sensor
CRI instrumentation, which is applied to the 4-D monitoring of
rock-freezing experiments in the laboratory. This methodology holds
promise for applications of ERT in cryospheric science, such as the monitoring of rocks and soils under permafrost conditions (De Pascale et al.,
2008; Hauck and Kneisel, 2006; Krautblatter et al., 2010).
5.3. Unconventional electrodes
Metal stakes are commonly used as the electrodes in resistivity
surveys. While steel electrodes are widely used, other types of metals
(and graphite) have also been used (LaBrecque and Daily, 2008; Lu
and Macnae, 1998). Aluminum foil covered with soil soaked with salt
water is used as current electrodes when a current (1 to 20 A) is needed
(Ward, 1990). In areas where it is difcult to insert a stake electrode
(such as paved ground), at-base (or plate) electrodes have been used
(Athanasiou et al., 2007; Tsokas et al., 2008). Galvanic contact with
the ground is achieved using an electrically conductive gel or mud at
the base of the electrode. Non-polarizable electrodes (Reynolds, 2011)
are widely used as the potential electrodes in I.P. surveys to reduce SP
noise, although there has been recent progress in using conventional
metal electrodes (Dahlin and Leroux, 2012) which are more convenient
to use with multi-electrode systems. In modeling the potentials, the
electrode is usually assumed to be an ideal point. The effect of the nite
size of the electrode is small if the ratio of the electrode length to the
electrode spacing is less than 0.2 (Rcker and Gnther, 2011).
In some areas, the existence of widespread subsurface infrastructure can make the detection of subsurface targets by normal surveys
with electrode on the ground surface difcult. The use of existing
metallic wells as long electrodes can signicantly improve the detection of targets in such areas (Rucker et al., 2010, 2011a, 2012). Long
electrodes are wells grounded to the earth, extend to the target of
interest, are already in existence, and can continue to operate in a
normal capacity during imaging. Logistically, the wells are connected
to the resistivity acquisition system through a dedicated wire, which
is connected to the inner most casing that extends the deepest into
the earth. Care must be taken to ensure (1) a secured contact between
the wire and well, which usually involves cleaning the steel casing
with a wire brush, and (2) the well is electrically isolated from
other metallic infrastructrure such as pipes that may be used to
carry uid. The numerical models accommodate the long electrode
by assigning those mesh cells representing the well with very low
values. Synthetic studies, pilot scale eld examples, and full scale
eld examples have demonstrated that long electrodes can reproduce
the lateral extents of conductive targets with reasonable delity, but
with signicant loss of vertical resolution. Vertical resolution can be
enhanced by combining long electrodes with a large number of
short electrodes on the surface (Zhu and Feng, 2011), combining
147
Fig. 9. Capacitively coupled systems using (A) cylindrical transmitter and receiver (line antenna type) and (B) at metallic plates.
vertical long electrodes with horizontal long electrodes, i.e., pipes

(Ramirez et al., 2003), by using inclined wells (Hatanaka et al.,
2005), or through optimized arrays (Rucker, 2012).
5.4. Automatic monitoring systems
Increased interest in monitoring instrumentation has accompanied
rapid developments in the application of geoelectrics to process related
problems in elds such as hydrogeophysics (e.g. Rubin and Hubburd,
2005) and landslide and slope stability studies (e.g. Jongmans and
Garambois, 2007). Automation of resistivity data acquisition, using PC
or microprocessor controlled monitoring systems for remote deployment with permanently installed electrode arrays, has facilitated
monitoring at the spatial and temporal resolution required to capture
small-scale transient events associated with these types of applications.

Specic applications include: landslides (Niesner, 2010; Supper et al.,
2008; Wilkinson et al., 2010a); dams (Sjodahl et al., 2009, 2010); landlls (Johansson et al., 2011); frozen ground (Hilbich et al., 2011); CO2
storage (Kiessling et al., 2010); tracer tests (Coscia et al., 2011;
Oldenborger et al., 2007a; Wilkinson et al., 2010b); and leak detection
(Calendine et al., 2011; Daily et al., 2004).
Approaches to system development have included both the adaption
of commercial resistivity survey instrumentation for monitoring purposes (Daily et al., 2004; Hilbich et al., 2011; Johansson et al., 2011;
Kiessling et al., 2010; Sjodahl et al., 2009, 2010), and the development
of purpose-built resistivity monitoring systems (Kuras et al., 2009;
LaBrecque et al., 2004; Ogilvy et al., 2009; Rucker et al., in press;
Supper et al., 2008; Wilkinson et al., 2010a,b). Monitoring installations
148
are becoming increasingly sophisticated, and now incorporate telemetric control and data transfer, and local power generation through wind,
solar, and fuel cell technology (Hilbich et al., 2011; Supper et al., 2008;
Wilkinson et al., 2010a). With the automation of data acquisition and
the generation of very large data volumes, systems are also being developed to manage the entire workow, including scheduling of data collection, retrieval and storage, quality assessment and inversion
(Chambers et al., in press; LaBrecque et al., 2004; Ogilvy et al., 2009).
5.5. Optimized survey design
Most surveys are carried out with conventional arrays such as
the dipoledipole, poledipole, Wenner, WennerSchlumberger and
multiple-gradient arrays (Dahlin and Zhou, 2004; see Fig. 3). In recent
years, there has been signicant development of algorithms to automatically determine non-conventional electrode congurations that
will produce better image resolution while using the same number
of data points (Stummer et al., 2004; Wilkinson et al., 2006b). A
eld example comparing the results of a dipoledipole and an
optimized array of the same size is shown in Fig. 10. The geological
interfaces are more clearly resolved in the optimized image.
Several different approaches have been proposed to design arrays
that maximize the image resolution including: reconstructing comprehensive data sets from a linearly independent complete subset (Blome
et al., 2011; Lehmann, 1995; Zhe et al., 2007); maximizing a sum of
Jacobian sensitivity matrix elements (Furman et al., 2004, 2007); maximizing cumulative sensitivity while minimizing mutual current distributions (Nenna et al., 2011); maximizing a sum of model resolution
matrix elements (al Hagrey, 2012; Loke et al., 2010a,b; Stummer et al.,
2004; Wilkinson et al., 2006b, 2012a); minimizing an average measure
of the point spread function (Loke et al., 2010b); and maximizing the
determinant of the normal matrix (Coles and Morgan, 2009). Most of
the optimization algorithms are based on sensitivity and current-ow
distributions for homogeneous resistivity models. Although this assumption might be thought to limit the applicability of the optimized
surveys, it has been demonstrated that incorporating prior estimates
of the resistivity model into the design algorithms (Nenna et al., 2011)
does not signicantly improve the image resolution (Stummer et al.,
2004; Wilkinson et al., 2012b).
For optimized arrays to be useful in practice, other design constraints

and goals must often be considered in addition to maximizing the image
resolution. These include incorporating error estimates in the resolution
calculation; minimizing electrode polarization errors; and making
efcient use of multiple measurement channels for both normal and
reciprocal data acquisition. Recent studies have addressed many of
these issues: Blome et al. (2011) for complete poledipole data sets,
and Nenna et al. (2011) and Wilkinson et al. (2012a) for optimized
four-pole data sets. Although the optimization algorithms developed
so far have focussed on the 2-D problem, in principle the extension to
3-D is straightforward and limited only by computational resources.
Preliminary investigations using general purpose GPUs to accelerate
the calculations (Loke et al., 2010b) have shown that 3-D optimization
is feasible for subsets of measurement types (Rucker and Loke, 2012).
6. Limitations of the resistivity method
6.1. Non-uniqueness and resolution
The inverse resistivity problem has a unique solution for 1-D, 2-D
and 3-D resistivity distributions within a boundary (Friedel, 2003),
but only under strict conditions where the voltage and current distributions are known continuously and precisely over the boundary for a
complete set of current injection patterns. In practice, resistivity inversion is ill-posed and non-unique due to only being able to use a nite
number of electrodes covering part of the surface. This implies that
more than one resistivity model will produce responses consistent
with the observed data to the limits of the data accuracy (Hoffmann
and Dietrich, 2004). Regularization is used, often in the form of a
smoothing matrix (Loke et al., 2003), to enforce uniqueness without
sacricing too much resolution. However regions of the inverted
image where the model resolution is lower (see Optimized survey
design section) will depend more strongly on the type of constraint
used (Oldenborger et al., 2007b; Oldenburg and Li, 1999). The inverse
images will therefore only accurately reect the true subsurface resistivity if the regularization constraints are realistic. Typically the
image resolution diminishes exponentially with the distance from
the electrodes. If the resolution needs to be maintained with depth
for surface surveys, the surface measurements can be supplemented
by surface-to-hole or cross-hole measurements (see Cross-hole ERT
section).
6.2. Data quality
Measured data, and the resulting resistivity images (LaBrecque
et al., 1996a), are subject to error from a variety of sources including
that introduced by the measurement device, poor electrode contact
(usually identied through high contact resistances) or electrode
polarization, and other indeterminate external effects (Dahlin, 2000;
Merriam, 2005; Wilkinson et al., 2012a). These issues are addressed
through the appropriate selection and conditioning of electrodes
to reduce contact resistance (also see Unconventional electrodes
section), by using appropriate lters (including reciprocal error analysis) prior to inversion (Ferahtia et al., 2009; Zhou and Dahlin, 2003),
and through employing measurement sequences that reduce the
inuence of electrode polarization. In practice, polarization can be
reduced by ensuring adequate time between using an electrode to
pass current and measure potential (Wilkinson et al., 2012a).
6.3. Electrode position
Fig. 10. Comparison of dipoledipole and optimized array images of a landslide. Both
images show the geological structure of the landslide, but in the optimized image
the lower sandstone/mudstone interface is better resolved.
Electrode position is usually assumed to be known and xed for the

purposes of geoelectrical survey and monitoring. However, for difcult
ground conditions such as steep or heavily vegetated areas, it can be
difcult to accurately position electrodes. Moreover monitoring unstable ground from landsliding, electrode positions can shift resulting in
systematic data error which cannot be reduced through reciprocal error

ltering (Oldenborger et al., 2005; Wilkinson et al., 2008, 2010a; Zhou
and Dahlin, 2003). Approaches to reduce the impact of these effects
include the selection of measurement array geometries that are less
sensitive to positional errors (Wilkinson et al., 2008), and in the case
of moving electrodes, to estimate electrode position using a position
inversion routine (Wilkinson et al., 2010a).
6.4. Survey design

For very long 2-D survey lines, and for 3-D imaging grids, it can be
impractical to undertake measurements in a single deployment due
to the long cable lengths required. Consequently, very long 2D lines
are often surveyed using overlapping sections (e.g. Donohue et al.,
2012), and 3-D surface surveys are often undertaken using a network
of lines, where a single line is incrementally migrated across the surface to build up a measurement set comprising data from multiple
lines (e.g. Bentley and Gharibi, 2004; Dahlin et al., 2002; Rucker
et al., 2009a). Where a single line orientation is used, linear features
parallel to the line direction can be poorly resolved (Chambers
et al., 2002), and banding or herring-bone effects can be present in
the model (Loke and Dahlin, 2010). Mitigation measures include:
roll-along (or multiple line) data acquisition methodologies (Dahlin
et al., 2002); orthogonal line directions (Chambers et al., 2002;
Gharibi and Bentley, 2005); line separations of no more than two electrode spacings (Chambers et al., 2002; Gharibi and Bentley, 2005); and
appropriate inversion settings (e.g. horizontal diagonal roughness
lters) (Farquharson, 2008; Loke and Dahlin, 2010).
6.5. Smoothing
Smoothness constrained inversion, which dominates the eld of
geoelectrical imaging, typically produces smoothly varying resistivity
distributions, and so the precise location of geological or engineering interfaces can sometimes be difcult to determine in the absence of a
priori subsurface information. In addition to robust (L1-norm) inversion
(Loke et al., 2003), a range of other interface detection approaches have
been applied. These include image analysis using gradient-based edge
detectors (Chambers et al., 2012; Elwaseif and Slater, 2010; Hsu et al.,
2010), and alternative inversion approaches, such as laterally
constrained inversion (Wisen et al., 2005), inclusion of sharp boundaries (Chen et al., 2012; Smith et al., 1999) or joint inversion
with other geophysical data (Bouchedda et al., 2012). In addition,
high-contrast heterogeneities in the subsurface that are small compared to the model cell-size cannot be accurately modeled, and so can
hinder convergence between measured data and the resistivity model
during the inversion process. However reducing the model cell size
increases the computer memory and time required for the data inversion, as well as possibly requiring a higher damping constraint to stabilize the inversion model (Loke and Dahlin, 2010; Loke and Lane, 2004).
From numerical tests with 2-D models, Sasaki (1992) and Loke (2012)
showed that using a model cell size of half the unit electrode spacing
seems to provide the optimum balance.
6.6. Three-dimensional structures

Off-line three-dimensional structures (including topography) cannot be accurately modeled by 2-D inversion, and so can distort
resistivity models (Bentley and Gharibi, 2004; Chambers et al.,
2002; Nimmer et al., 2008). These effects can be reduced by ensuring
lines are oriented perpendicular to the strike of elongated structures
and by using a 3-D survey approach in complex settings. Although it
should be noted that the edges of 3-D models will also be inuenced
by 3-D structures outside of the survey area.
149
6.7. Calibration and interpretation

ERT provides only indirect information of subsurface physical properties such as lithology, moisture content, or temperature, which are of
principal interest to geologists, engineers and hydrologists. Due to the
overlapping resistivity ranges of many common earth materials, and
the inuence of varying salinity, moisture and temperature, robust
interpretation of resistivity images requires other sources of ground
truth data. For ground investigation, resistivity imaging is routinely
used alongside intrusive methods such as drilling and cone penetration
testing (CPT) (Wisen et al., 2005). In-situ measurement of resistivity
(e.g. CPT resistivity proles) or laboratory testing of subsurface materials (e.g. Jackson et al., 2006; Russell and Barker, 2010) can be used to
directly constrain the inversion of resistivity data by xing the resistivities of known regions of the model (e.g. Gnther and Rcker, 2009;
Pidlisecky et al., 2006). For in-situ or laboratory measurements of resistivity to be suitable for constraining inversion, they must provide information at a scale appropriate to the resolution of the ERT model. This is
particularly crucial in highly heterogeneous subsurface conditions. In
the case of CPT derived resistivity measurements, along-prole variability can be used to determine spatial averaging requirements. Likewise,
for laboratory measurements of resistivity, sample volumes and distributions representative of the ERT survey resolution and material
heterogeneity are required. Investigation of the relationships between
resistivity and temperature (Hayley et al., 2007, 2010; Musgrave and
Binley, 2011), pore uid salinity (Hayley et al., 2009; Lekmine et al.,
2012; Monego et al., 2010), moisture content (Brunet et al., 2010;
Cassiani et al., 2006), and lithology (e.g. Russell and Barker, 2010;
Shevnin et al., 2007) are increasingly being undertaken to aid the interpretation of ERT sections and time-lapse resistivity monitoring data.
6.8. Anisotropy
The inuence of even moderately anisotropic media on the results of
resistivity inversion that assumes isotropic conditions can produce
signicant distortions in electrical tomograms (e.g. Greenhalgh et al.,
2010; Herwanger et al., 2004). Typical geological causes of anisotropy include fracturing, jointing, layering and rock fabric (e.g. strong alignment
of grains slates and shales). Detection of anisotropy has typically been
undertaken using azimuthal (Busby, 2000) and square array (Matias,
2008) techniques. However, the most effective approach is perhaps
surface to borehole imaging arrays, which unlike surface arrays,
are sensitive to anisotropy associated with vertical or sub-vertical axes
of symmetry, such as horizontal layering (Greenhalgh et al., 2010). To
address the problem of anisotropy, anisotropic resistivity inversion
schemes have been developed (Greenhalgh et al., 2009; Herwanger
et al., 2004; Kim et al., 2006; Pain et al., 2003); however, these are
limited by number of factors, including the requirement to solve for
additional parameters that exacerbates the problem of non-uniqueness,
and the need for subsurface electrodes to effectively detect anisotropy
associated with horizontal layering (Greenhalgh et al., 2010).
7. Conclusions and future trends
There has been tremendous progress in the geoelectrical method
over the last 25 years. The images of the subsurface the method
provides have become more geologically realistic, from simple 1-D
layered models to complex 3-D structures varying with time. There
have been parallel developments in eld instrumentation, data inversion techniques, and automatic interpretation software that have
made this possible. It is now an established technique widely used
in mineral exploration, environmental, engineering, and hydrological
surveys not only on land but also in aquatic regions as well. In the
near future, we foresee an increasingly wider use of 3-D surveys in
complex areas in place of 2-D surveys, particularly with the wider
availability of multi-channel instruments. New research in practical
150
implementation of I.P. measurements using conventional electrodes

and cables with the less powerful systems commonly used in engineering and environmental surveys (Dahlin and Leroux, 2012) will
provide useful additional information without increasing the survey
time and cost. Measurement of resistivity variations in both space
and time with automatic monitoring systems will become increasingly
important in detecting incipient problems such as seepage from dams,
landslides and gas accumulation in landlls; as well as in assisting
the optimal extraction of resources. To fully exploit the data from
multi-dimensional geoelectrical surveys, an understanding of the limitations of the technique and the proper use of regularization constraints
is important. The greatest limitation of the electrical method is the rapid
reduction of resolution with distance from the electrodes. This limitation can be partly reduced by the use of subsurface electrodes located
nearer to the region of interest, and the use of other geophysical and
geotechnical data (if available) to constrain the inversion model.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank two reviewers for their constructive comments that have helped to improve this paper. This paper is published
with permission of the Executive Director of the British Geological
Survey (NERC).
References
al Hagrey, S.A., 2007. Geophysical imaging of root-zone, trunk, and moisture heterogeneity.
Journal of Experimental Botany 58 (4), 839854.
al Hagrey, S.A., 2011. CO2 plume modelling in deep saline reservoirs by 2D ERT in
boreholes. The Leading Edge 30 (1), 2433.
al Hagrey, S.A., 2012. 2D optimized electrode arrays for borehole resistivity tomography
and CO2 sequestration modelling. Pure and Applied Geophysics 169 (7), 12831292.
Allred, B.J., Ehsani, M.R., Saraswat, D., 2006. Comparison of electromagnetic induction,
capacitively-coupled resistivity, and galvanic contact resistivity methods for soil
electrical conductivity measurement. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 22 (2),
215230.
Amato, M., Bitella, G., Rossi, R., Gomez, J.A., Lovelli, S., Ferreira Gomes, J.J., 2009. Multielectrode 3D resistivity imaging of alfalfa root zone. European Journal of Agronomy
31 (4), 213222.
Archie, G.E., 1942. The electrical resistivity log as an aid in determining some reservoir
characteristics. Transactions of the American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical and
Petroleum Engineers 146 (1), 5462.
Asfahani, J., 2012. Quaternary aquifer transmissivity derived from vertical electrical
sounding measurements in the semi-arid Khanasser valley region, Syria. Acta
Geophysica 60 (4), 11431158.
Atekwana, E.A., Atekwana, E.A., 2010. Geophysical signatures of microbial activity at
hydrocarbon contaminated sites: a review. Surveys in Geophysics 31, 247283.
Athanasiou, E.N., Tsourlos, P.I., Vargemezis, G.N., Papazachos, C.B., Tsokas, G.N., 2007.
Non-destructive DC resistivity surveying using at-base electrodes. Near Surface
Geophysics 5 (4), 263272.
Auken, E., Christiansen, A.V., 2004. Layered and laterally constrained 2D inversion of
resistivity data. Geophysics 69 (3), 752761.
Auken, E., Pellerin, L., Christensen, N.B., Srensen, K.I., 2006. A survey of current
trends in near-surface electrical and electromagnetic methods. Geophysics 71
(5), G249G260.
Barker, R.D., 1981. The offset system of electrical resistivity sounding and its use with a
multicore cable. Geophysical Prospecting 29 (1), 128143.
Basso, B., Amato, M., Bitella, G., Rossi, R., Kravchenko, A., Sartori, L., Carvahlo, L.M.,
Gomes, J., 2010. Two-dimensional spatial and temporal variation of soil physical
properties in tillage systems using electrical resistivity tomography. Agronomy
Journal 102 (2), 440449.
Batayneh, A.T., 2011. Archaeogeophysicsarchaeological prospectiona mini review.
Journal of King Saud University Science 23 (1), 8389.
Bauman, P., 2005. 2-D resistivity surveying for hydrocarbonsa primer. CSEG Recorder
April 2005, pp. 2533.
Bayrak, M., Leyla, S., 2012. Two-dimensional resistivity imaging in the Kestelek boron
area by VLF and DC resistivity methods. Journal of Applied Geophysics 82, 110.
Beauvais, A., Ritz, M., Parisot, J.C., Bantsimba, C., Dukhan, M., 2004. Combined ERT
and GPR methods for investigating two-stepped lateritic weathering systems.
Geoderma 119 (12), 121132.
Bedrosian, P.A., Burton, B.L., Powers, M.H., Minsley, B.J., Phillips, J.D., Hunter, L.E., 2012.
Geophysical investigations of geology and structure at the Martis Creek Dam,
Truckee, California. Journal of Applied Geophysics 77, 720.
Bekler, T., Ekinci, Y.L., Demirci, A., Erginal, A.E., Ertekin, C., 2011. Characterization of a
landslide using seismic refraction, electrical resistivity and hydrometer methods,
AdatepeCanakkale, NW Turkey. Journal of Environmental and Engineering
Geophysics 16 (3), 115126.
Bentley, L.R., Gharibi, M., 2004. Two- and three-dimensional electrical resistivity
imaging at a heterogeneous remediation site. Geophysics 69 (3), 674680.
Beresnev, I.A., Hruby, C.E., Davis, C.A., 2002. The use of multi-electrode resistivity
imaging in gravel prospecting. Journal of Applied Geophysics 49 (4), 245254.
Berge, M.A., Drahor, M.G., 2011a. Electrical resistivity tomography investigations of multilayered archaeological settlements: part Imodelling. Archaeological Prospection 18
(3), 159171.
Berge, M.A., Drahor, M.G., 2011b. Electrical resistivity tomography investigations of
multilayered archaeological settlements: part iia case from old Smyrna Hoyuk,
Turkey. Archaeological Prospection 18 (4), 291302.
Bernstone, C., Dahlin, T., Ohlsson, T., Hogland, W., 2000. DC-resistivity mapping of
internal landll structures: two pre-excavation surveys. Environmental Geology
39 (34), 360371.
Besson, A., Cousin, I., Samouelian, A., Boizard, H., Richard, G., 2004. Structural heterogeneity
of the soil tilled layer as characterized by 2D electrical resistivity surveying. Soil &
Tillage Research 79 (2), 239249.
Bi, B.K., 2009. The application of the electric method to bauxite exploration. Geophysical
and Geochemical Exploration 33 (4), 400402.
Bievre, G., Jongmans, D., Winiarski, T., Zumbo, V., 2012. Application of geophysical
measurements for assessing the role of ssures in water inltration within a clay
landslide (Trieves area, French Alps). Hydrological Processes 26 (14), 21282142.
Blome, M., Maurer, H., Greenhalgh, S., 2011. Geoelectric experimental designefcient
acquisition and exploitation of complete polebipole data sets. Geophysics 76 (1),
F15F26.
Boadu, F.K., 2011. Predicting the engineering and transport properties of soils
using fractal equivalent circuit model: laboratory experiments. Geophysics 76
(5), F329F338.
Boadu, F.K., Owusu-Nimo, F., 2010. Inuence of petrophysical and geotechnical
engineering properties on the electrical response of unconsolidated earth materials.
Geophysics 75 (3), G21G29.
Boadu, F.K., Owusu-Nimo, F., Menyeh, A., 2008. Nitrate contamination in groundwater
at farmlands in Nsawam, Ghana: the role of fractures from azimuthal resistivity
surveys. Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics 13 (1), 2737.
Bouchedda, A., Chouteau, M., Binley, A., Giroux, B., 2012. 2-D joint structural inversion
of cross-hole electrical resistance and ground penetrating radar data. Journal of
Applied Geophysics 78, 5267.
Braga, A.C.O., Malagutti, W., Dourado, J.C., Chang, H.K., 1999. Correlation of electrical
resistivity and induced polarization with geotechnical survey standard penetration
test measurements. Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics 4 (2),
123130.
Brunet, P., Clement, R., Bouvier, C., 2010. Monitoring soil water content and decit
using electrical resistivity tomography (ERT)a case study in the Cevennes area,
France. Journal of Hydrology 380 (12), 146153.
Burger, H.T., Sheehan, A.F., Jones, C.H., 2006. Introduction to Applied Geophysics:
Exploring the Shallow Subsurface. W.W. Norton & Company, London.
Busby, J.P., 2000. The effectiveness of azimuthal apparent-resistivity measurements as
a method for determining fracture strike orientations. Geophysical Prospecting 48
(4), 677695.
Butler, K., 2009. Trends in waterborne electrical and EM induction methods for high
resolution sub-bottom imaging. Near Surface Geophysics 9 (4), 241246.
Butt, A.L., Flis, M.F., 1997. The application of geophysics to iron ore mining in the
Hamersley Basin, Western Australia. Exploration Geophysics 28 (2), 195198.
Calendine, S., Rucker, D.F., Fink, J.B., Levitt, M.T., Schoeld, J., 2011. Automated Leak
detection of buried tanks using geophysical methods at the Hanford nuclear site.
SAGEEP 2011, Annual Meeting of the Environmental and Engineering Geophysical
Society, Charleston, SC. April 1014, 2011.
Capizzi, P., Martorana, R., Messina, P., Cosentino, P.L., 2012. Geophysical and geotechnical
investigations to support the restoration project of the Roman Villa del Casale, Piazza
Armerina, Sicily, Italy. Near Surface Geophysics 10 (2), 145160.
Cardarelli, E., Cercato, M., Di Filippo, G., 2007. Assessing foundation stability and soilstructure interaction through integrated geophysical techniques: a case history
in Rome (Italy). Near Surface Geophysics 5 (2), 141147.
Cassiani, G., Bruno, V., Villa, A., Fusi, N., Binley, A.M., 2006. A saline trace test monitored
via time-lapse surface electrical resistivity tomography. Journal of Applied Geophysics 59 (3), 244259.
Celano, G., Palese, A.M., Ciucci, A., Martorella, E., Vignozzi, N., Xiloyannis, C., 2011.
Evaluation of soil water content in tilled and cover-cropped olive orchards by the
geoelectrical technique. Geoderma 163 (34), 163170.
Chambers, J.E., Ogilvy, R.D., Kuras, O., Cripps, J.C., Meldrum, P.I., 2002. 3D electrical
imaging of known targets at a controlled environmental test site. Environmental
Geology 41 (6), 690704.
Chambers, J.E., Loke, M.H., Ogilvy, R.D., Meldrum, P.I., 2003. Non-invasive monitoring of
DNAPL migration through a saturated porous medium using electrical impedance
tomography. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology 68 (12), 122.
Chambers, J.C., Kuras, O., Meldrum, P.I., Ogilvy, R.D., Hollands, J., 2006. Electrical resistivity tomography applied to geologic, hydrogeologic, and engineering investigations at a former waste-disposal site. Geophysics 71 (6), B231B239.
Chambers, J.E., Wilkinson, P.B., Weller, A.L., Meldrum, P.I., Ogilvy, R.D., Caunt, S., 2007.
Mineshaft imaging using surface and crosshole 3D electrical resistivity tomography: a
case history from the East Pennine Coaleld, UK. Journal of Applied Geophysics 62 (4),
324337.
Chambers, J.E., Gunn, D.A., Wilkinson, P.B., Ogilvy, R.D., Ghataora, G.S., Burrow, M.P.N.,
Smith, R.T., 2008. Non-invasive time-lapse imaging of moisture content changes
in earth embankments using electrical resistivity tomography (ERT). In: Ellis, E., Yu,
H.S., McDowell, G., Dawson, A., Thom, N. (Eds.), Advances in Transportation Geotechnics.
Crc Press-Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, pp. 475480.

Chambers, J.E., Wilkinson, P.B., Wealthall, G.P., Loke, M.H., Dearden, R., Wilson, R., Allen, D.,
Ogilvy, R.D., 2010. Hydrogeophysical imaging of deposit heterogeneity and groundwater chemistry changes during DNAPL source zone bioremediation. Journal of
Contaminant Hydrology 118 (12), 4361.
Chambers, J.E., Wilkinson, P.B., Kuras, O., Ford, J.R., Gunn, D.A., Meldrum, P.I.,
Pennington, C.V.L., Weller, A.L., Hobbs, P.R.N., Ogilvy, R.D., 2011. Three-dimensional
geophysical anatomy of an active landslide in Lias Group mudrocks, Cleveland
Basin, UK. Geomorphology 125 (4), 472484.
Chambers, J.E., Gunn, D.A., Wilkinson, P.B., Meldrum, P.I., Haslam, E., Holyoake, S.,
Kirkham, M., Kuras, O., Merritt, A., Wragg, J., 2013. 4D electrical resistivity tomography monitoring of soil moisture dynamics in an operational railway embankment. Near Surface Geophysics (in press).
Chambers, J.E., Wilkinson, P.B., Wardrop, D., Hameed, A., Hill, I., Jeffrey, C., Loke, M.H.,
Meldrum, P.I., Kuras, O., Cave, M., Gunn, D.A., 2012. Bedrock detection beneath
river terrace deposits using three-dimensional electrical resistivity tomography.
Geomorphlogy 177178, 1725. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2012.03.034.
Chandra, S., Ahmed, S., Rangarjan, R., 2011. Lithologically constrained rainfall (LCR) for
estimating spatio-temporal recharge distribution in crystalline rocks. Journal of
Hydrology 402 (34), 250260.
Chang, P.Y., Chen, C.C., Chang, S.K., Wang, T.B., Wang, C.Y., Hsu, S.K., 2012. An investigation into the debris ow induced by Typhoon Morakot in the Siaolin Area,
Southern Taiwan, using the electrical resistivity imaging method. Geophysical
Journal International 188 (3), 10121024.
Chen, J., Hubbard, S., Peterson, J., Williams, K., Fienen, M., Jardine, P., Watson, D., 2006.
Development of a joint hydrogeophysical inversion approach and application to a
contaminated fractured aquifer. Water Resources Research 42, W06425.
Chen, R., He, Z., He, L., Liu, X., 2009. Principle of relative phase spectrum measurement
in SIP. SEG Expanded Abstracts 28 (1), 869873.
Chen, J., Hoversten, G.M., Key, K., Nordquist, G., Cumming, W., 2012. Stochastic inversion of magnetotelluric data using a sharp boundary parameterization and application to a geothermal site. Geophysics 77 (4), E265E279.
Clment, R., Descloitres, M., Gnther, T., Oxarango, L., Morra, C., Laurent, J.-P., Gourc, J.-P.,
2010. Improvement of electrical resistivity tomography for leachate injection monitoring. Waste Management 30 (3), 452464.
Clifford, J., Binley, A., 2010. Geophysical characterisation of riverbed hydrostratigraphy
using electrical resistance tomography. Near Surface Geophysics 8 (6), 493501.
Coggon, J.H., 1971. Electromagnetic and electrical modeling by the nite element
method. Geophysics 36 (1), 132155.
Coles, D.A., Morgan, F.D., 2009. A method of fast, sequential experimental design for
linearized geophysical inverse problems. Geophysical Journal International 178 (1),
145158.
Collins, S., 2009. Modern IP surveying. Recent Practical Advances in Mineral Exploration
Technologies: AIG Bulletin, 50, pp. 1725.
Corwin, D.L., Lesch, S.M., 2003. Application of soil electrical conductivity to precision
agriculture: theory, principles, and guidelines. Agronomy Journal 95 (3), 455471.
Corwin, D.L., Lesch, S.M., 2005. Characterizing soil spatial variability with apparent
soil electrical conductivity I. Survey protocols. Computers and Electronics in
Agriculture 46 (13), 103133.
Corwin, R.F., Turnross, J.L., Harding Jr., R.S., 1985. Offshore applications of the directcurrent resistivity method. SEG Expanded Abstracts 4 (1), 230231.
Coscia, I., Greenhalgh, S.A., Linde, N., Doetsch, J., Marescot, L., Gunther, T., Vogt, T.,
Green, A.G., 2011. 3D crosshole ERT for aquifer characterization and monitoring
of inltrating river water. Geophysics 76 (2), G49G59.
Coscia, I., Linde, N., Greenhalgh, S., Vogt, T., Green, A., 2012. Estimating traveltimes and
groundwater ow patterns using 3D time-lapse crosshole ERT imaging of electrical
resistivity uctuations induced by inltrating river water. Geophysics 77 (4),
E239E250.
Cosenza, P., Marmet, E., Rejiba, F., Cui, Y.J., Tabbagh, A., Charlery, Y., 2006. Correlations
between geotechnical and electrical data: a case study at Garchy in France. Journal
of Applied Geophysics 60 (34), 165178.
Dabas, M., 2009. Theory and practice of the new fast electrical imaging system ARP.
In: Campana, S., Piro, S. (Eds.), Seeing the Unseen. Geophysics and Landscape
Archaeology. CRC Press, London, pp. 105126.
Dabas, M., Tabbagh, A., 2003. A comparison of EMI and DC methods used in soil
mappingtheoretical considerations for precision agriculture. In: Stafford, J.,
Werner, A. (Eds.), Precision Agriculture. Wageningen Academic Publishers, The
Netherlands, pp. 121127.
Dabas, M., Camerlynck, C., Camps, P.F.I., 2000. Simultaneous use of electrostatic
quadrupole and GPR in urban context: investigation of the basement of the Cathedral
of Girona (Catalunya, Spain). Geophysics 65 (2), 526532.
Dabas, M., Jubeau, T., Rouiller, D., Larcher, J.-M., Charriere, S., Constant, T., 2012. Using
high-resolution electrical resistivity maps in a watershed vulnerability study. First
Break 30 (8), 5156.
Dahlin, T., 2000. Short note on electrode charge-up effects in DC resistivity data acquisition
using multi-electrode arrays. Geophysical Prospecting 48 (1), 181187.
Dahlin, T., 2001. The development of DC resistivity imaging techniques. Computers and
Geosciences 27 (9), 10191029.
Dahlin, T., Leroux, V., 2012. Improvement in time-domain induced polarization data
quality with multi-electrode systems by separating current and potential cables.
Near Surface Geophysics 10 (6), 545565.
Dahlin, T., Zhou, B., 2004. A numerical comparison of 2D resistivity imaging with ten
electrode arrays. Geophysical Prospecting 52 (5), 379398.
Dahlin, T., Zhou, B., 2006. Multiple gradient array measurements for multi-channel 2D
resistivity imaging. Near Surface Geophysics 4 (2), 113123.
Dahlin, T., Bernstone, C., Loke, M.H., 2002. A 3D resistivity investigation of a contaminated site at Lernacken in Sweden. Geophysics 60 (6), 16821690.
151
Daily, W., Owen, E., 1991. Cross-borehole resistivity tomography. Geophysics 56 (8),
12281235.
Daily, W., Ramirez, A., Labrecque, D., Nitao, J., 1992. Electrical-resistivity tomography of
vadose water-movement. Water Resources Research 28 (5), 14291442.
Daily, W., Ramirez, A., Binley, A., 2004. Remote monitoring of leaks in storage tanks
using electrical resistance tomography: application at the Hanford site. Journal of
Environmental and Engineering Geophysics 9 (1), 1124.
Danielsen, B.E., Dahlin, T., 2009. Comparison of geoelectrical imaging and tunnel documentation at the Hallandsas Tunnel, Sweden. Engineering Geology 107 (34), 118129.
Davydycheva, S., Rykhlinski, N., Legeido, P., 2006. Electrical-prospecting method
for hydrocarbon search using the induced-polarization effect. Geophysics 71 (4),
G179G189.
Day-Lewis, F.D., White, E.A., Johnson, C.D., Lane Jr., J.W., 2006. Continuous resistivity
proling to delineate submarine groundwater dischargeexamples and limitations. The Leading Edge 25 (6), 724728.
de Bari, C., Lapenna, V., Perrone, A., Puglisi, C., Sdao, F., 2011. Digital photogrammetric
analysis and electrical resistivity tomography for investigating the Picerno landslide (Basilicata region, southern Italy). Geomorphology 133 (12), 3446.
de Franco, R., Biella, G., Tosi, L., Teatini, P., Lozej, A., Chiozzotto, B., Giada, M., Rizzetto, F.,
Claude, C., Mayer, A., Bassan, V., Gasparetto-Stori, G., 2009. Monitoring the saltwater intrusion by time lapse electrical resistivity tomography: the Chioggia test site
(Venice Lagoon, Italy). Journal of Applied Geophysics 69 (34), 117130.
De Pascale, G.P., Pollard, W.H., Williams, K.K., 2008. Geophysical mapping of ground ice
using a combination of capacitive coupled resistivity and ground-penetrating
radar, Northwest Territories, Canada. Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth
Surface 113, F02S90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2006JF000585.
Deceuster, J., Delgranche, J., Kaufmann, O., 2006. 2D cross-borehole resistivity tomographies below foundations as a tool to design proper remedial actions in covered
karst. Journal of Applied Geophysics 60 (1), 6886.
deGroot-Hedlin, C., Constable, S., 1990. Occam's inversion to generate smooth, twodimensional models from magnetotelluric data. Geophysics 55 (12), 16131624.
Denis, A., Marache, A., Obellianne, T., Breysse, D., 2002. Electrical resistivity borehole
measurements: application to an urban tunnel site. Journal of Applied Geophysics
50 (3), 319331.
Dey, A., Morrison, H.F., 1979a. Resistivity modelling for arbitrary shaped twodimensional structures. Geophysical Prospecting 27 (1), 106136.
Dey, A., Morrison, H.F., 1979b. Resistivity modeling for arbitrarily shaped threedimensional shaped structures. Geophysics 44 (4), 753780.
Di Maio, R., Piegari, E., 2011. Water storage mapping of pyroclastic covers through
electrical resistivity measurements. Journal of Applied Geophysics 75 (2),
196202.
Di Maio, R., Piegari, E., 2012. A study of the stability analysis of pyroclastic covers based
on electrical resistivity measurements. Journal of Geophysics and Engineering 9
(2), 191200.
Di Maio, R., Meola, C., Grimaldi, M., Pappalardo, U., 2012. New insights for conservation of
Villa Imperiale (Pompeii, Italy) through nondestructive exploration. International
Journal of Architectural Heritage 6 (5), 562578.
Dochartaigh, B..., MacDonald, A.M., Merritt, J.E., Auton, C.A., Archer, N., Bonell, M.,
Kuras, O., Raines, M.G., Bonsor, H.C., Dobbs, M., 2011. Eddleston water oodplain
project: data report. British Geological Survey Open Report, OR/12/059. (84 pp.).
Doetsch, J.A., Coscia, I., Greenhalgh, S., Linde, N., Green, A., Gnther, T., 2010. The boreholeuid effect in electrical resistivity imaging. Geophysics 75 (4), F107F114.
Donohue, S., Gavin, K., Tolooiyan, A., 2011. Geophysical and geotechnical assessment of
a railway embankment failure. Near Surface Geophysics 9 (1), 3344.
Donohue, S., Long, M., O'Connor, P., Helle, T.E., Pfaffhuber, A.A., Romoen, M., 2012.
Multi-method geophysical mapping of quick clay. Near Surface Geophysics 10
(3), 207219.
Drahor, M.G., 2006. Integrated geophysical studies in the upper part of Sardis archaeological site, Turkey. Journal of Applied Geophysics 59 (3), 205223.
Eaton, P., Anderson, B., Queen, S., Mackenzie, I., Wynn, D., 2010. NEWDASthe
Newmont Distributed IP Data Acquisition System. SEG Expanded Abstracts 29
(1), 17681772.
Edwards, L.S., 1977. A modied pseudosection for resistivity and induced-polarization.
Geophysics 42 (5), 10201036.
Ekwe, A.C., Nnodu, I.N., Ugwumbah, K.I., Onwuka, O.S., 2010. Estimation of aquifer hydraulic characteristics of low permeability formation from geoounding data: a case
study of Oduma Town, Enugu State. Online Journal of Earth Sciences 4 (1), 1926.
Elwaseif, M., Slater, L., 2010. Quantifying tomb geometries in resistivity images using
watershed algorithms. Journal of Archaeological Science 37 (7), 14241436.
Ercoli, M., Pauselli, C., Forte, E., Di Matteo, L., Mazzocca, M., Frigeri, A., Federico, C., 2012.
A multidisciplinary geological and geophysical approach to dene structural and
hydrogeological implications of the Molinaccio spring (Spello, Italy). Journal of
Applied Geophysics 77, 7282.
Erginal, A.E., Ozturk, B., Ekinci, Y.L., Demirci, A., 2009. Investigation of the nature of slip
surface using geochemical analyses and 2-D electrical resistivity tomography: a case
study from Lapseki area, NW Turkey. Environmental Geology 58 (6), 11671175.
Ezersky, M., 2008. Geoelectric structure of the Ein Gedi sinkhole occurrence site at the
Dead Sea shore in Israel. Journal of Applied Geophysics 64 (34), 5669.
Farquharson, C.G., 2008. Constructing piecewise-constant models in multidimensional
minimum-structure inversions. Geophysics 73 (1), K1K9.
Farquharson, C.G., Oldenburg, D.W., 1998. Nonlinear inversion using general measures
of data mist and model structure. Geophysical Journal International 134 (1),
213227.
Ferahtia, J., Djarfour, N., Baddari, K., Guerin, R., 2009. Application of signal dependent
rank-order mean lter to the removal of noise spikes from 2D electrical resistivity
imaging data. Near Surface Geophysics 7 (3), 159169.
152
Ferr, T., Bentley, L., Binley, A., Linde, N., Kemna, A., Singha, K., Holliger, K., Huisman, J.A.,
Minsley, B., 2009. Critical steps for the continuing advancement of hydrogeophysics.
Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union 90 (23), 200.
Fortier, R., LeBlanc, A.M., Yu, W.B., 2011. Impacts of permafrost degradation on a road
embankment at Umiujaq in Nunavik (Quebec), Canada. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal 48 (5), 720740.
Frasheri, A.I., 2009. The peculiarities of geophysical methods in exploration for chrome
deposits. SEG Expanded Abstracts 28 (1), 13101314.
French, H., Binley, A., 2004. Snow melt inltration: Monitoring temporal and spatial
variability using time-lapse electrical resistivity. Journal of Hydrology 297, 174186.
Fried, J.J., 1975. Groundwater pollution. Developments in Water Science, 4. Elsevier,
Amsterdam.
Friedel, S., 2003. Resolution, stability and efciency of resistivity tomography estimated from
a generalized inverse approach. Geophysical Journal International 153 (2), 305316.
Furman, A., Warrick, A.W., Ferr, T.P.A., 2002. Electrical potential distributions in
response to applied current in a heterogeneous subsurface, solution for circular
inclusions. Vadose Zone Journal 1 (2), 273280.
Furman, A., Ferr, T.P.A., Warrick, A.W., 2004. Optimization of ERT surveys for monitoring
transient hydrological events using perturbation sensitivity and genetic algorithms.
Vadose Zone Journal 3 (4), 12301239.
Furman, A., Ferr, T.P.A., Heath, G.L., 2007. Spatial focusing of electrical resistivity
surveys considering geologic and hydrologic layering. Geophysics 72 (2), F65F73.
Gaffney, C., 2008. Detecting trends in the prediction of the buried past: a review of
geophysical techniques in archaeology. Archaeometry 50 (2), 313336.
Gebbers, R., Lueck, E., Dabas, M., Domsch, H., 2009. Comparison of instruments for
geoelectrical soil mapping at the eld scale. Near Surface Geophysics 7 (3), 179190.
Glis, C., Revil, A., Cushing, M.E., Jougnot, D., Lemeille, F., Cabrera, J., De Hoyos, A.,
Rocher, M., 2010. Potential of electrical resistivity tomography to detect fault
zones in limestone and argillaceous formations in the experimental platform of
Tournemire, France. Pure and Applied Geophysics 167 (11), 14051418.
Gharibi, M., Bentley, L.R., 2005. Resolution of 3-D electrical resistivity images from
inversions of 2-D orthogonal lines. Journal of Environmental and Engineering
Geophysics 10 (4), 339349.
Ghosh, D.P., 1971. The application of linear lter theory to the direct interpretation of
geoelectrical resistivity sounding measurements. Geophysical Prospecting 19 (2),
192217.
Goes, B.J.M., Meekes, J.A.C., 2004. An effective electrode conguration for the detection
of DNAPLs with electrical resistivity tomography. Journal of Environmental and
Engineering Geophysics 9 (3), 127141.
Goldie, M., 2007. A comparison between conventional and distributed acquisition
induced polarization surveys for gold exploration in Nevada. The Leading Edge
26 (2), 180183.
Grandjean, G., Hibert, C., Mathieu, F., Garel, E., Malet, J.P., 2009. Monitoring water
ow in a clayshale hillslope from geophysical data fusion based on a fuzzy logic
approach. Comptes Rendus Geosciences 341 (1011), 937948.
Grandjean, G., Gourry, J.C., Sanchez, O., Bitri, A., Garambois, S., 2011. Structural study
of the Ballandaz landslide (French Alps) using geophysical imagery. Journal of
Applied Geophysics 75 (3), 531542.
Greenhalgh, S.A., Zhou, B., Greenhalgh, M., Marescot, L., Wiese, T., 2009. Explicit
expressions for the Frechet derivatives in 3D anisotropic resistivity inversion.
Geophysics 70 (3), F31F43.
Greenhalgh, S., Wiese, T., Marescot, L., 2010. Comparison of DC sensitivity patterns for
anisotropic and isotropic media. Journal of Applied Geophysics 70 (2), 103112.
Greve, A.K., Acworth, R.I., Kelly, B.F.J., 2011. 3D Cross-hole resistivity tomography to
monitor water percolation during irrigation on cracking soil. Soil Research 49
(8), 661669.
Grifths, D.H., Barker, R.D., 1993. Two-dimensional resistivity imaging and modelling
in areas of complex geology. Journal of Applied Geophysics 29 (34), 211226.
Grifths, D.H., Barker, R.D., 1994. Electrical imaging in archaeology. Journal of Archaeological
Science 21 (2), 153158.
Grifths, D.H., Turnbull, J., Olayinka, A.I., 1990. Two dimensional resistivity mapping
with a computer-controlled array. First Break 8 (4), 121129.
Guerin, R., Begassat, P., Benderitter, Y., David, J., Tabbagh, A., Thiry, M., 2004. Geophysical
study of the industrial waste land in Mortagne-du-Nord (France) using electrical
resistivity. Near Surface Geophysics 2 (3), 137143.
Gnther, T., Rcker, C., 2009. Advanced inversion strategies using a new geophysical
inversion and modelling library. 15th European Meeting of Environmental and
Engineering Geophysics Dublin, Ireland, 79 September 2009, p. B14.
Guo, W., Dentith, M.C., Xu, J., Ren, F., 1999. Geophysical exploration for gold in Gansu
Province, China. Exploration Geophysics 30 (2), 7682.
Gutirrez, F., Galve, J.P., Lucha, P., Bonachea, J., Jord, L., Jord, R., 2009. Investigation of
a large collapse sinkhole affecting a multi-storey building by means of geophysics
and the trenching technique (Zaragoza City, NE Spain). Environmental Geology 58
(5), 11071122.
Hatanaka, H., Aono, T., Mizunaga, H., Ushijima, K., 2005. Three-dimensional modeling
and inversion of the mise-a-la-masse data using a steel-casing borehole. Proceedings
World Geothermal Congress 2005. Antalya, Turkey, 2429 April 2005.
Hatch, M., Munday, T., Heinson, G., 2010. A comparative study of in-river geophysical
techniques to dene variation of riverbed salt and aid managing river salinization.
Geophysics 75 (4), WA135WA147.
Hauck, C., Kneisel, C., 2006. Application of capacitively-coupled and DC electrical resistivity
imaging for mountain permafrost studies. Permafrost and Periglacial Processes 17 (2),
169177.
Hayley, K., Bentley, L.R., Gharibi, M., Nightingale, M., 2007. Low temperature dependence
of electrical resistivity: implications for near surface geophysical monitoring.
Geophysical Research Letters 34, L18402.
Hayley, K., Bentley, L.R., Gharibi, M., 2009. Time-lapse electrical resistivity monitoring
of salt-affected soil and groundwater. Water Resources Research 45, W07425.
Hayley, K., Bentley, L.R., Pidlisecky, A., 2010. Compensating for temperature variations in
time-lapse electrical resistivity difference imaging. Geophysics 75 (4), WA51WA59.
Hayley, K., Pidisecky, A., Bentley, L., 2011. Simultaneous time-lapse electrical resistivity
inversion. Journal of Applied Geophysics 75 (2), 401411.
Heincke, B., Gunther, T., Dalsegg, E., Ronning, J.S., Ganerod, G.V., Elvebakk, H., 2010.
Combined three-dimensional electric and seismic tomography study on the Aknes
rockslide in western Norway. Journal of Applied Geophysics 70 (4), 292306.
Henderson, R.D., Day-Lewis, F.D., Abarca, E., Harvey, C.F., Karam, H.N., Liu, L., Lane,
J.W.J., 2010. Marine electrical resistivity imaging of submarine groundwater
discharge: sensitivity analysis and application in Waquoit Bay, Massachusetts,
USA. Hydrogeology Journal 18 (1), 173185.
Herwanger, J.V., Pain, C.C., Binley, A., De Oliveira, C.R.E., Worthington, M.H., 2004. Anisotropic resistivity tomography. Geophysical Journal International 158 (2), 409425.
Hibert, C., Grandjean, G., Bitri, A., Travelletti, J., Malet, J.P., 2012. Characterizing
landslides through geophysical data fusion: example of the La Valette landslide
(France). Engineering Geology 128, 2329.
Hilbich, C., Fuss, C., Hauck, C., 2011. Automated time-lapse ERT for improved process
analysis and monitoring of frozen ground. Permafrost and Periglacial Processes
22 (4), 306319.
Hinnell, A.C., Ferr, T.P.A., Vrugt, J.A., Huisman, J.A., Moysey, S., Rings, J., Kowalsky, M.B.,
2010. Improved extraction of hydrologic information from geophysical data through
coupled hydrogeophysical inversion. Water Resources Research 46, W00D40.
Hirsch, M., Bentley, L.R., Dietrich, P., 2008. A comparison of electrical resistivity, ground
penetrating radar and seismic refraction results at a river terrace site. Journal of
Hoffmann, R., Dietrich, P., 2004. An approach to determine equivalent solutions to the
geoelectrical 2D inversion problem. Journal of Applied Geophysics 56 (2), 7991.
Hohmann, G.W., 1982. Numerical modeling for electrical geophysical methods. Proc.
Int. Symp. Appl. Geophys. Trop. Reg., Univ. do Para, Belem, Braz. , pp. 308384.
Holcombe, H.T., Jiracek, G.R., 1984. 3D terrain corrections in resistivity surveys.
Geophysics 49 (4), 439452.
Hsu, H.L., Yanites, B.J., Chen, C.C., Chen, Y.G., 2010. Bedrock detection using 2D electrical
resistivity imaging along the Peikang River, central Taiwan. Geomorphology 114
(3), 406414.
Huisman, J.A., Bouten, W., Ferre, T.P., 2004. Bridging the gap between geophysical measurements and hydrological modelling. American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting
2004, abstract #H14C-01.
Inman, J.R., 1975. Resistivity inversion with ridge regression. Geophysics 40 (5), 798817.
Ismail, A., Anderson, N.L., Rogers, J.D., 2005. Hydrogeophysical investigation at Luxor,
Southern Egypt. Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics 10 (1),
3550.
Jackson, P.D., Northmore, K.J., Meldrum, P.I., Gunn, D.A., Hallam, J.R., Wambura, J.,
Wangusi, B., Ogutu, G., 2002. Non-invasive moisture monitoring within an earth
embankmenta precursor to failure. NDT & E International 35 (2), 107115.
Jackson, P.D., Northmore, K.J., Entwisle, D.C., Gunn, D.A., Milodowski, A.E., Boardman,
D.I., Zourmpakis, A., Rogers, C.D.F., Jefferson, I., Dixon, N., 2006. Electrical resistivity
monitoring of a collapsing meta-stable soil. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology 39, 151172.
Johansson, S., Rosqvist, H., Svensson, M., Dahlin, T., Leroux, V., 2011. An alternative
methodology for the analysis of electrical resistivity data from a soil gas study.
Geophysical Journal International 186 (2), 632640.
Johnson, T.C., Versteeg, R.J., Ward, A., Day-Lewis, F.D., Revil, A., 2010. Improved
hydrogeophysical characterization and monitoring through parallel modeling
and inversion of time-domain resistivity and induced-polarization data. Geophysics
75 (4), WA27WA41.
Jomard, H., Lebourg, T., Guglielmi, Y., Tric, E., 2010. Electrical imaging of sliding
geometry and uids associated with a deep seated landslide (La Clapiere, France).
Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 35 (5), 588599.
Jones, G., Zielinski, M., Sentenac, P., 2012. Mapping desiccation ssures using 3-D
electrical resistivity tomography. Journal of Applied Geophysics 84, 3951.
Jongmans, D., Garambois, S., 2007. Geophysical investigation of landslides: a review.
Bulletin de la Socit Gologique de France 178 (2), 101112.
Jongmans, D., Bievre, G., Renalier, F., Schwartz, S., Beaurez, N., Orengo, Y., 2009.
Geophysical investigation of a large landslide in glaciolacustrine clays in the
Trieves area (French Alps). Engineering Geology 109 (12), 4556.
Kahraman, S., Alber, M., 2006. Predicting the physico-mechanical properties of rocks
from electrical impedance spectroscopy measurements. International Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 43 (4), 543553.
Kelly, B.F.J., Allen, D., Ye, K., Dahlin, T., 2009. Continuous electrical imaging for mapping
aquifer recharge along reaches of the Namoi River in Australia. Near Surface
Kelly, B.F.J., Acworth, R.I., Greve, A.K., 2011. Better placement of soil moisture point
measurements guided by 2D resistivity tomography for improved irrigation scheduling.
Soil Research 49 (6), 504512.
Kemna, A., Kulessa, B., Vereecken, H., 2002. Imaging and characterisation of subsurface
solute transport using electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) and equivalent
transport models. Journal of Hydrology 267 (34), 125146.
Khalil, M.H., 2010. Hydro-geophysical conguration for the quaternary aquifer of Nuweiba
Alluvial Fan. Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics 15 (2), 7790.
Kiessling, D., Schmidt-Hattenberger, C., Schuett, H., Schilling, F., Krueger, K., Schoebel,
B., Danckwardt, E., Kummerow, J., Grp, C.S., 2010. Geoelectrical methods for monitoring geological CO2 storage: rst results from cross-hole and surface-downhole
measurements from the CO2SINK test site at Ketzin (Germany). International
Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 4 (5), 816826.

Kim, J.H., Yi, M.J., Cho, S.J., Son, J.S., Song, W.K., 2006. Anisotropic crosshole resistivity
tomography for ground safety analysis of a high-storied building over an abandoned mine. Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics 11 (4),
225235.
Kim, J.H., Yi, M.J., Song, Y., Seol, S.J., Kim, K.S., 2007. Application of geophysical methods
to the safety analysis of an earth dam. Journal of Environmental and Engineering
Geophysics 12 (2), 221235.
Kim, J.H., Yi, M.J., Park, S.G., Kim, J.G., 2009. 4D inversion of DC resistivity monitoring
data acquired over a dynamically changing earth model. Journal of Applied Geophysics
68 (4), 522532.
Koefoed, O., 1979. Geosounding Principles 1: Resistivity Sounding Measurements.
Elsevier Science Publishing Company, Amsterdam.
Krautblatter, M., Verleysdonk, S., Flores-Orozco, A., Kemna, A., 2010. Temperaturecalibrated imaging of seasonal changes in permafrost rock walls by quantitative
electrical resistivity tomography (Zugspitze, German/Austrian Alps). Journal of
Geophysical Research: Earth Surface 115, F02003.
Kuras, O., Beamish, D., Meldrum, P.I., Ogilvy, R.D., 2006. Fundamentals of the capacitive
resistivity technique. Geophysics 71 (3), G135G152.
Kuras, O., Meldrum, P.I., Beamish, D., Ogilvy, R.D., Lala, D., 2007. Capacitive resistivity
imaging with towed arrays. Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics
12 (3), 267279.
Kuras, O., Pritchard, J.D., Meldrum, P.I., Chambers, J.E., Wilkinson, P.B., Ogilvy, R.D.,
Wealthall, G.P., 2009. Monitoring hydraulic processes with automated time-lapse
electrical resistivity tomography (ALERT). Comptes Rendus Geosciences 341 (1011),
868885.
Kuras, O., Krautblatter, M., Murton, J.B., Haslam, E., Meldrum, P.I., Wilkinson, P.B.,
Uhlemann, S., 2012. Monitoring rock-freezing experiments in the laboratory with
capacitive resistivity imaging. 18th European Meeting of Environmental and
Engineering GeophysicsNear Surface Geoscience. EAGE, Paris, p. A06.
LaBrecque, D.J., Casale, D., 2002. Experience with anisotropic inversion for electrical
resistivity tomography. Proceedings of the 2002 Symposium on the Application
of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems, p. 11ELE6 (9 pp.).
LaBrecque, D., Daily, W., 2008. Assessment of measurement errors for galvanicresistivity electrodes of different composition. Geophysics 73 (2), F55F64.
LaBrecque, D.J., Yang, X., 2001. Difference inversion of ERT data: a fast inversion
method for 3-D in situ monitoring. Journal of Environmental and Engineering
LaBrecque, D.J., Miletto, M., Daily, W., Ramirez, A., Owen, E., 1996a. The effects of
noise on Occam's inversion of resistivity tomography data. Geophysics 61 (2),
538548.
LaBrecque, D.J., Ramirez, A.L., Daily, W.D., Binley, A.M., Schima, S.A., 1996b. ERT monitoring
of environmental remediation processes. Measurement Science and Technology 7 (3),
375385.
LaBrecque, D.J., Heath, G., Sharpe, R., Versteeg, R., 2004. Autonomous monitoring of uid
movement using 3-D electrical resistivity tomography. Journal of Environmental
and Engineering Geophysics 9 (3), 167176.
Lagabrielle, R., 1983. The effect of water on direct current resistivity measurements
from the sea, river or lake oor. Geoexploration 21 (2), 165170.
Le Roux, O., Jongmans, D., Kasperski, J., Schwartz, S., Potherat, P., Lebrouc, V.,
Lagabrielle, R., Meric, O., 2011. Deep geophysical investigation of the large Sechilienne
landslide (Western Alps, France) and calibration with geological data. Engineering
Geology 120 (14), 1831.
Lebourg, T., Binet, S., Tric, E., Jomard, H., El Bedoui, S., 2005. Geophysical survey to
estimate the 3D sliding surface and the 4D evolution of the water pressure on
part of a deep seated landslide. Terra Nova 17 (5), 399406.
Lebourg, T., Hernandez, M., Zerathe, S., El Bedoui, S., Jomard, H., Fresia, B., 2010. Landslides
triggered factors analysed by time lapse electrical survey and multidimensional statistical approach. Engineering Geology 114 (34), 238250.
Lee, C.C., Zeng, L.S., Hsieh, C.H., Yu, C.Y., Hsieh, S.H., 2012. Determination of mechanisms and hydrogeological environments of Gangxianlane landslides using
geoelectrical and geological data in central Taiwan. Environmental Earth Sciences
66 (6), 16411651.
Legault, J.M., Carriere, D., Petrie, L., 2008. Synthetic model testing and distributed
acquisition dc resistivity results over an unconformity uranium target from the
Athabasca Basin, northern Saskatchewan. The Leading Edge 27 (1), 4651.
Lehikoinen, A., Finsterle, S., Voutilainen, A., Kowalsky, M.B., Kaipio, J.P., 2009. Dynamical
inversion of geophysical ERT data: state estimation in the vadose zone. Inverse
Problems in Science and Engineering 17 (6), 122.
Lehmann, H., 1995. Potential representation by independent congurations on a
multielectrode array. Geophysical Journal International 120 (2), 331338.
Lekmine, G., Pessel, M., Auradou, H., 2012. Experimental study of ERT monitoring
ability to measure solute dispersion. Ground Water 50 (2), 285295.
Leopold, M., Gannaway, E., Voelkel, J., Haas, F., Becht, M., Heckmann, T., Westphal, M.,
Zimmer, G., 2011. Geophysical prospection of a bronze foundry on the southern
slope of the Acropolis at Athens, Greece. Archaeological Prospection 18 (1),
2741.
Leucci, G., Greco, F., De Giorgi, L., Mauceri, R., 2007. Three-dimensional image of seismic
refraction tomography and electrical resistivity tomography survey in the castle of
Occhiola (Sicily, Italy). Journal of Archaeological Science 34 (2), 233242.
Li, Y., Oldenburg, D.W., 1992. Approximate inverse mappings in DC resistivity problems.
Geophysical Journal International 109 (2), 343362.
Lile, O.B., Morris, M., Rnning, J.S., 1997. Estimating groundwater ow velocity from
changes in contact resistance during a saltwater tracer experiment. Journal of
Linde, N., Binley, A., Tryggvason, A., Pedersen, L.B., Revil, A., 2006a. Improved
hydrogeophysical characterization using joint inversion of crosshole electrical
153
resistance and ground penetrating radar traveltime data. Water Resources Research
42, W12404.
Linde, N., Finsterle, S., Hubbard, S., 2006b. Inversion of tracer test data using tomographic constraints. Water Resources Research 42, W04410.
Linderholm, P., Marescot, L., Loke, M.H., Renaud, P., 2008. Cell culture imaging using
microimpedance tomography. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering 55 (1),
138146.
Loke, M.H., 2012. Tutorial: 2-D and 3-D Electrical Imaging Surveys. Geotomo Software,
Malaysia.
Loke, M.H., Barker, R.D., 1996a. Rapid least-squares inversion of apparent resistivity
pseudosections using a quasi-Newton method. Geophysical Prospecting 44 (1),
131152.
Loke, M.H., Barker, R.D., 1996b. Practical techniques for 3D resistivity surveys and data
inversion. Geophysical Prospecting 44 (3), 499523.
Loke, M.H., Dahlin, T., 2010. Methods to reduce banding effects in 3-D resistivity inversion.
Procs. 16th European Meeting of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, 68
September 2010, Zurich, Switzerland, p. A16.
Loke, M.H., Dahlin, T., 2011. Smoothness-constrained time-lapse inversion of data
from 3-D resistivity surveys. Procs. 17th European Meeting of Environmental and
Engineering Geophysics, 1214 September 2011, Leicester, U.K. , p. F06.
Loke, M.H., Lane Jr., J.W., 2004. Inversion of data from electrical resistivity imaging
surveys in water-covered areas. Exploration Geophysics 35 (4), 266271.
Loke, M.H., Acworth, I., Dahlin, T., 2003. A comparison of smooth and blocky
inversion methods in 2D electrical imaging surveys. Exploration Geophysics 34 (3),
182187.
Loke, M.H., Wilkinson, P.B., Chambers, J.E., 2010a. Fast computation of optimized electrode
arrays for 2D resistivity surveys. Computers and Geosciences 36 (11), 14141426.
Loke, M.H., Wilkinson, P.B., Chambers, J.E., 2010b. Parallel computation of optimized
arrays for 2-D electrical imaging surveys. Geophysical Journal International 183
(3), 13021315.
Loke, M.H., Dahlin, T., Rucker, D.F. 2013. Smoothness-constrained time-lapse inversion
of data from 3-D resistivity surveys. Near Surface Geophysics (in press).
Loperte, A., Satriani, A., Bavusi, M., Lapenna, V., Del Lungo, S., Sabelli, R., Gizzi, F.T., 2011.
Geophysical prospecting in archaeology: investigations in Santa Venera, south
suburb of Poseidonia-Paestum, Campania, southern Italy. Journal of Geophysics
and Engineering 8 (3), S23S32.
Lu, K., Macnae, J.C., 1998. The international campaign on intercomparison between
electrodes for geoelectrical measurements. Exploration Geophysics 29 (4), 484488.
Lundstrom, K., Larsson, R., Dahlin, T., 2009. Mapping of quick clay formations using
geotechnical and geophysical methods. Landslides 6 (1), 115.
Magnusson, M., Fernlund, J., Dahlin, T., 2010. Geoelectrical imaging for interpretation of
geological conditions affecting quarry operations. Bulletin of Engineering Geology
and the Environment 69 (3), 465486.
Maillol, J.M., Seguin, M.K., Gupta, O.P., Akhauri, H.M., Sen, N., 1999. Electrical resistivity
tomography survey for delineating uncharted mine galleries in West Bengal, India.
Geophysical Prospecting 47 (2), 103116.
Mansoor, N., Slater, L., 2007. Aquatic electrical resistivity imaging of shallow-water
wetlands. Geophysics 72 (5), F211F221.
Martn-Crespo, T., Martn-Velzquez, S., Gmez-Ortiz, D., De Ignacio-San Jos, C., LilloRamos, J., 2011. A geochemical and geophysical characterization of sulde mine
ponds at the Iberian Pyrite Belt (Spain). Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 217 (14),
387405.
Mastrocicco, M., Vignoli, G., Colombani, N., Zeid, N.A., 2010. Surface electrical resistivity
tomography and hydrogeological characterization to constrain groundwater
ow modeling in an agricultural eld site near Ferrara (Italy). Environmental
Earth Sciences 61 (2), 311322.
Matias, M.J.S., 2008. Electrical strike imaging and anisotropy diagnosis from surface
resistivity measurements. Near Surface Geophysics 6 (1), 4958.
Matias, H.C., Monteiro Santos, F.A., Rodrigues Ferreira, F.E., Machado, C., Luzio, R., 2006.
Detection of graves using the micro-resistivity method. Annals of Geophysics 49
(6), 12351244.
Matthews, P., Zonge, K.L., 2003. 50 yearsstate of the art in IP and complex resistivity.
KEGS 50th Anniversary Symposium, Mining and Environmental GeophysicsPast,
Present & Future, March 8, 2003, Toronto, Ontario.
Merriam, J.B., 2005. Injection electrode overprinting. Journal of Environmental and
Migon, P., Panek, T., Malik, I., Hradecky, J., Owczarek, P., Silhan, K., 2010. Complex
landslide terrain in the Kamienne Mountains, Middle Sudetes, SW Poland. Geomorphology 124 (34), 200214.
Minsley, B.J., Burton, B.L., Ikard, S., Powers, M.H., 2011. Hydrogeophysical Investigations
at Hidden Dam, Raymond, California. Journal of Environmental and Engineering
Geophysics 16 (4), 145164.
Mitchell, V., Knight, R., Pidlisecky, A., 2011. Inversion of time-lapse electrical resistivity
imaging data for monitoring inltration. The Leading Edge 30 (2), 140.
Mohanty, W.K., Mandal, A., Sharma, S.P., Gupta, S., Misra, S., 2011. Integrated geological
and geophysical studies for delineation of chromite deposits: a case study from
Tangarparha, Orissa, India. Geophysics 76 (5), B173B185.
Mol, L., Preston, P.R., 2010. The writing's in the wall: a review of new preliminary
applications of electrical resistivity tomography within archaeology. Archaeometry
52 (6), 10791095.
Mller, I., 2001. OhmMapper eld tests at sandy and clay till sites in Denmark. Proceedings
of the EEGS-ES 7th Annual Meeting: Environmental and Engineering Geophysical
SocietyEuropean Section, pp. 100101.
Monego, M., Cassiani, G., Deiana, R., Putti, M., Passadore, G., Altissimo, L., 2010. A tracer
test in a shallow heterogeneous aquifer monitored via time-lapse surface electrical
resistivity tomography. Geophysics 75 (4), WA61WA73.
154
Morari, F., Castrignano, A., Pagliarin, C., 2009. Application of multivariate geostatistics
in delineating management zones within a gravelly vineyard using geo-electrical
sensors. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 68 (1), 97107.
Murthy, B.V.S., Madhusudan Rao, B., Dubey, A.K., Srinivasulu, 2009. Geophysical exploration for manganese-some rsthand examples from Keonjhar district, Orissa. The
Journal of Indian Geophysical Union 13 (3), 149161.
Musgrave, H., Binley, A., 2011. Revealing the temporal dynamics of subsurface temperature in a wetland using time-lapse geophysics. Journal of Hydrology 396 (34),
258266.
Mutton, A.J., 2000. The application of geophysics during evaluation of the Century zinc
deposit. Geophysics 65 (6), 19461960.
Nabighian, M.N., Asten, M.W., 2002. Metalliferous mining geophysicsstate of the art
in the last decade of the 20th century and the beginning of the new millennium.
Geophysics 67 (3), 964978.
Negri, S., Leucci, G., 2006. Geophysical investigation of the Temple of Apollo
(Hierapolis, Turkey). Journal of Archaeological Science 33 (11), 15051513.
Nenna, V., Pidlisecky, A., Knight, R., 2011. Informed experimental design for electrical
resistivity imaging. Near Surface Geophysics 9 (5), 469482.
Neukirch, M., Klitzsch, N., 2010. Inverting capacitive resistivity (line electrode) measurements with direct current inversion programs. Vadose Zone Journal 9 (4), 882892.
Niesner, E., 2010. Subsurface resistivity changes and triggering inuences detected by
continuous geoelectrical monitoring. The Leading Edge 27 (8), 952955.
Nijland, W., van der Meijde, M., Addink, E.A., de Jong, S.M., 2010. Detection of soil
moisture and vegetation water abstraction in a Mediterranean natural area using
electrical resistivity tomography. Catena 81 (3), 209216.
Nimmer, R.E., Osiensky, J.L., Binley, A.M., Williams, B.C., 2008. Three-dimensional
effects causing artifacts in two-dimensional, cross-borehole, electrical imaging.
Journal of Hydrology 359 (12), 5970.
Noel, M., Xu, B.W., 1991. Archaeological investigation by electrical-resistivity tomography
a preliminary-study. Geophysical Journal International 107 (1), 95102.
Nyquist, J.E., Peake, J.S., Roth, M.J.S., 2007. Comparison of an optimized resistivity array
with dipoledipole soundings in karst terrain. Geophysics 72 (4), F139F144.
Ogilvy, R.D., Meldrum, P.I., Kuras, O., Wilkinson, P.B., Chambers, J.E., Sen, M., PulidoBosch, A., Gisbert, J., Jorreto, S., Frances, I., Tsourlos, P., 2009. Automated monitoring
of coastal aquifers with electrical resistivity tomography. Near Surface Geophysics 7
(56), 367375.
Oh, S., 2012. Safety assessment of dams by analysis of the electrical properties of the
embankment material. Engineering Geology 129, 7690.
Oh, S., Sun, C.-G., 2008. Combined analysis of electrical resistivity and geotechnical SPT
blow counts for the safety assessment of ll dam. Environmental Geology 54 (1),
3142.
Oldenborger, G.A., Routh, P.S., Knoll, M.D., 2005. Sensitivity of electrical resistivity
tomography data to electrode position errors. Geophysical Journal International
163 (1), 19.
Oldenborger, G.A., Knoll, M.D., Routh, P.S., LaBrecque, D.J., 2007a. Time-lapse ERT
monitoring of an injection/withdrawal experiment in a shallow unconned aquifer.
Geophysics 72 (4), F177F187.
Oldenborger, G.A., Routh, P.S., Knoll, M.D., 2007b. Model reliability for 3D electrical
resistivity tomography: application of the volume of investigation index to a
time-lapse monitoring experiment. Geophysics 72 (4), F167F175.
Oldenburg, D.W., Li, Y., 1999. Estimating depth of investigation in dc resistivity and IP
surveys. Geophysics 64 (2), 403416.
Orfanos, C., Apostolopoulos, G., 2011. 2D3D resistivity and microgravity measurements
for the detection of an ancient tunnel in the Lavrion area, Greece. Near Surface
Osiensky, J.L., Nimmer, R., Binley, A.M., 2004. Borehole cylindrical noise during holesurface and holehole resistivity measurements. Journal of Hydrology 289 (14),
7894.
Page, L.M., 1968. Use of the electrical resistivity method for investigating geologic and
hydrogeologic conditions in Santa Clara County, CA. Ground Water 6 (5), 3140.
Pain, C.C., Herwanger, J.V., Saunders, J.H., Worthington, M.H., de Oliveira, C.R.E., 2003.
Anisotropic resistivity inversion. Inverse Problems 19 (5), 10811111.
Panek, T., Margielewski, W., Taborik, P., Urban, J., Hradecky, J., Szura, C., 2010. Gravitationally induced caves and other discontinuities detected by 2D electrical resistivity
tomography: case studies from the Polish Flysch Carpathians. Geomorphology 123
(12), 165180.
Panissod, C., Michel, D., Hesse, A., Joivet, A., Tabbagh, J., Tabbagh, A., 1998. Recent
developments in shallow depth electrical and electrostatic prospecting using
mobile arrays. Geophysics 63 (5), 15421550.
Papadopoulos, N.G., Yi, M.-J., Kim, J.-H., Tsourlos, P., Tsokas, G.N., 2010. Geophysical
investigation of tumuli by means of surface 3D electrical resistivity tomography.
Journal of Applied Geophysics 70 (3), 192205.
Parasnis, D.S., 1967. Three-dimensional electric mise-a-la-masse survey of an irregular lead
zinccopper deposit in Central Sweden. Geophysical Prospecting 15 (3), 407437.
Park, S., 1998. Fluid migration in the vadose zone from 3-D inversion of resistivity
monitoring data. Geophysics 63 (1), 4151.
Park, S.K., Van, G.P., 1991. Inversion of polepole data for 3-D resistivity structures
beneath arrays of electrodes. Geophysics 56 (7), 951960.
Passaro, S., 2010. Marine electrical resistivity tomography for shipwreck detection
in very shallow water: a case study from Agropoli (Salerno, southern Italy). Journal
of Archaeological Science 37 (8), 19891998.
Patra, H.P., Bhattacharya, P.K., 1966. Geophysical exploration for ground water around
Digha in the coastal region of West Bengal, India. Geoexploration 4 (4), 209218.
Pellerin, L., Wannamaker, P.E., 2005. Multi-dimensional electromagnetic modeling and
inversion with application to near-surface earth investigations. Computers and
Electronics in Agriculture 46 (13), 71102.
Perri, M.T., Cassiani, G., Gervasio, I., Deiana, R., Binley, A., 2012. A saline tracer test
monitored via both surface and cross-borehole electrical resistivity tomography:
comparison of time-lapse results. Journal of Applied Geophysics 79, 616.
Pidlisecky, A., Knight, R., Haber, E., 2006. Cone-based electrical resistivity tomography.
Geophysics 71 (4), G157G167.
Pidlisecky, A., Haber, E., Knight, R., 2007. RESINVM3D: a 3D resistivity inversion package.
Geophysics 72 (2), H1H10.
Piegari, E., Cataudella, V., Di Maio, R., Milano, L., Nicodemi, M., Soldovieri, M.G., 2009.
Electrical resistivity tomography and statistical analysis in landslide modelling: a
conceptual approach. Journal of Applied Geophysics 68 (2), 151158.
Pringle, J.K., Jervis, J., Cassella, J.P., Cassidy, N.J., 2008. Time-lapse geophysical investigations over a simulated urban clandestine grave. Journal of Forensic Sciences 53 (6),
14051416.
Ramazi, H., Nejad, M.Z.H., Aenollah, A.F., 2009. Application of integrated geoelectrical
methods in Khenadarreh (Arak, Iran) graphite deposit exploration. Journal of the
Geological Society of India 74 (2), 260266.
Ramirez, A.L., Newmark, R.L., Daily, W.D., 2003. Monitoring carbon dioxide oods using
electrical resistance tomography (ert): sensitivity studies. Journal of Environmental
and Engineering Geophysics 8 (3), 187208.
Rayner, S.F., Bentley, L.R., Allen, D.M., 2007. Constraining aquifer architecture with
electrical resistivity imaging in a fractured hydrogeological setting. Journal of
Revil, A., Karaoulis, M., Johnson, T., Kemna, A., 2012. Review: some low-frequency electrical
methods for subsurface characterization and monitoring in hydrogeology.
Hydrogeology Journal 20 (4), 617658.
Reynolds, J.M., 2011. An Introduction to Applied and Environmental Geophysics, 2nd
edition. John Wiley & Sons, England.
Rinaldi, V., Guichon, M., Ferrero, V., Serrano, C., Ponti, N., 2006. Resistivity survey of the
subsurface conditions in the estuary of the Rio de la Plata. Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering 132 (1), 7279.
Robert, T., Caterina, D., Deceuster, J., Kaufmann, O., Nguyen, F., 2012. A salt tracer test
monitored with surface ERT to detect preferential ow and transport paths in
fractured/karstied limestones. Geophysics 77 (2), B55.
Robineau, B., Join, J.L., Beauvais, A., Parisot, J.-C., Savin, C., 2007. Geoelectrical imaging of
a thick regolith developed on ultramac rocks: groundwater inuence. Australian
Journal of Earth Sciences 54 (5), 773781.
Robinson, D.A., Binley, A., Crook, N., Day-Lewis, F.D., Ferr, T.P.A., Grauch, V.J.S., Knight,
R., Knoll, M., Lakshmi, V., Miller, R., Nyquist, J., Pellerin, L., Singha, K., Slater, L., 2008.
Advancing process-based watershed hydrological research using near-surface
geophysics: a vision for, and review of, electrical and magnetic geophysical methods.
Hydrological Processes 22 (18), 36043635.
Rosqvist, H., Leroux, V., Dahlin, T., Svensson, M., Lindsj, M., Mnsson, C.-H., Johansson,
S., 2011. Mapping landlls gas migration using resistivity monitoring. Waste and
Resource Management 164 (1), 315.
Rossi, R., Amato, M., Bitella, G., Bochicchio, R., Gomes, J.J.F., Lovelli, S., Martorella, E.,
Favale, P., 2011. Electrical resistivity tomography as a non-destructive method
for mapping root biomass in an orchard. European Journal of Soil Science 62 (2),
206215.
Rubin, Y., Hubburd, S.S. (Eds.), 2005. Hydrogeophysics. Springer.
Rucker, D.F., 2009. A coupled electrical resistivity-inltration model for wetting front
evaluation. Vadose Zone Journal 8 (2), 383388.
Rucker, D.F., 2012. Enhanced resolution for long electrode ERT. Geophysical Journal International 191 (1), 101111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2012.05643.x.
Rcker, C., Gnther, T., 2011. The simulation of nite ERT electrodes using the complete
electrode model. Geophysics 76 (4), F227F238.
Rucker, D.F., Loke, M.H., 2012. Optimized geoelectrical monitoring with threedimensional arrays. Proceedings SEG-AGU Hydrogeophysics Workshop, 811 July
2012, Boise, Idaho, USA.
Rucker, D.F., Noonan, G.E. 2013. Using marine resistivity to map geotechnical
properties: A case study in support of dredging the Panama Canal. Near Surface
Geophysics. http://dx.doi.org/10.3997/1873-0604.2012017 (in press).
Rucker, D.F., Levitt, M.T., Greenwood, W.J., 2009a. Three-dimensional electrical resistivity
model of a nuclear waste disposal site. Journal of Applied Geophysics 69 (34),
150164.
Rucker, D.F., Glaser, D.R., Osborne, T., Maehl, W.C., 2009b. Electrical resistivity characterization of a reclaimed gold mine to delineate acid rock drainage pathways.
Mine Water and Environment 28 (2), 146157.
Rucker, D., Loke, M.H., Levitt, M.T., Noonan, G.E., 2010. Electrical resistivity characterization of an industrial site using long electrodes. Geophysics 75 (4), WA95WA104.
Rucker, D., Fink, J.B., Loke, M.H., 2011a. Environmental monitoring of leaks using time
lapsed long electrode electrical resistivity. Journal of Applied Geophysics 74 (4),
242254.
Rucker, D.F., Noonan, G., Greenwood, W.J., 2011b. Electrical resistivity in support of
geological mapping along the Panama Canal. Engineering Geology 117 (12),
121133.
Rucker, D.F., Crook, N., Glaser, D.R., Loke, M.H., 2012. Pilot-scale eld validation of the
long electrode electrical resistivity tomography method. Geophysical Prospecting
60 (6), 11501166.
Rucker, D.F., Crook, N., Winterton, J., McNeill, M., Baldyga, C.A., Noonan, G., Fink, J.B.
2013. Real-Time Electrical Monitoring of Reagent Delivery during a Subsurface
Amendment Experiment. Near Surface Geophysics (in press).
Ruffell, A., McKinley, J., 2005. Forensic geoscience: applications of geology, geomorphology and geophysics to criminal investigations. Earth-Science Reviews 69
(34), 235247.
Russell, E.J.F., Barker, R.D., 2010. Electrical properties of clay in relation to moisture loss.
Near Surface Geophysics 8 (2), 173180.

Sainato, C.M., Losinno, B.N., Malleville, H.J., 2012. Assessment of contamination by
intensive cattle activity through electrical resistivity tomography. Journal of Applied
Geophysics 76, 8291.
Sambuelli, L., Socco, L.V., Brecciaroli, L., 1999. Acquisition and processing of electric,
magnetic and GPR data on a Roman site (Victimulae, Salussola, Biella). Journal of
Samouelian, A., Richard, G., Cousin, I., Guerin, R., Bruand, A., Tabbagh, A., 2004. Threedimensional crack monitoring by electrical resistivity measurement. European
Journal of Soil Science 55 (4), 751762.
Samouelian, A., Cousin, I., Tabbagh, A., Bruand, A., Richard, G., 2005. Electrical resistivity
survey in soil science: a review. Soil & Tillage Research 83 (2), 173193.
Sandberg, S.K., Slater, L.D., Versteeg, R., 2002. An integrated geophysical investigation
of the hydrogeology of an anisotropic unconned aquifer. Journal of Hydrology
267 (34), 227243.
Santarato, G., Ranieri, G., Occhi, M., Morelli, G., Fischanger, F., Gualerzi, D., 2011. Threedimensional electrical resistivity tomography to control the injection of expanding
resins for the treatment and stabilization of foundation soils. Engineering Geology
119 (12), 1830.
Sasaki, Y., 1992. Resolution of resistivity tomography inferred from numerical simulation. Geophysical Prospecting 40 (4), 453464.
Sauck, W.A., 2000. A model for the resistivity structure of LNAPL plumes and their
environs in sandy sediments. Journal of Applied Geophysics 44 (23), 151165.
Saydam, A.S., Duckworth, K., 1978. Comparison of some electrode arrays for their IP
and apparent resistivity responses over a sheet like target. Geoexploration 16
(4), 267289.
Schenkel, C.J., Morrison, H.F., 1994. Electrical resistivity measurement through metal
casing. Geophysics 59 (7), 10721082.
Schlumberger, C., Schlumberger, M., Leonardon, E.G., 1934. Electrical exploration
of water-covered areas. Transactions of the American Institute of Mining and
Metallurgical Engineers 110, 122134.
Schon, J.H., 1996. Physical properties of rocks, 1st edition. Fundamentals and Principles
of Petrophysics, vol. 18. Pergamon Press.
Schtze, C., Vienken, T., Werban, U., Dietrich, P., Finizola, A., Leven, C., 2012. Joint application of geophysical methods and direct push-soil gas surveys for the improved
delineation of buried fault zones. Journal of Applied Geophysics 82, 129136.
Schwartz, B.F., Schreiber, M.E., Yan, T., 2008. Quantifying eld-scale soil moisture using
electrical resistivity imaging. Journal of Hydrology 362 (34), 234246.
Seger, M., Cousin, I., Frison, A., Boizard, H., Richard, G., 2009. Characterisation of the
structural heterogeneity of the soil tilled layer by using in situ 2D and 3D electrical
resistivity measurements. Soil & Tillage Research 103 (2), 387398.
Shevnin, V., Mousatov, A., Ryjov, A., Delgado-Rodrguez, O., 2007. Estimation of clay
content in soil based on resistivity modeling and laboratory measurements.
Geophysical Prospecting 55 (2), 265275.
Similox-Tohon, D., Sintubin, M., Muchez, P., Verhaert, G., Vanneste, K., Fernandez, M.,
Vandycke, S., Vanhaverbeke, H., Waelkens, M., 2006. The identication of an active
fault by a multidisciplinary study at the archaeological site of Sagalassos
(SW Turkey). Tectonophysics 420 (34), 371387.
Singer, B.S., Strack, K.M., 1998. New aspects of through-casing resistivity theory.
Singh, K.K.K., Singh, K.B., Lokhande, R.D., Prakash, A., 2004. Multielectrode resistivity
imaging technique for the study of coal seam. Journal of Scientic and Industrial
Research 63 (11), 927930.
Singha, K., Pidlisecky, A., Day-Lewis, F.D., Gooseff, M.N., 2008. Electrical characterization
of non-Fickian transport in groundwater and hyporheic systems. Water Resources
Research 44, W00D07.
Sjdahl, P., Dahlin, T., Johansson, S., Loke, M.H., 2008. Resistivity monitoring for leakage
and internal erosion detection at Hllby embankment dam. Journal of Applied
Geophysics 65 (34), 155164.
Sjodahl, P., Dahlin, T., Johansson, S., 2009. Embankment dam seepage evaluation from
resistivity monitoring data. Near Surface Geophysics 7 (56), 463474.
Sjodahl, P., Dahlin, T., Johansson, S., 2010. Using the resistivity method for leakage detection in a blind test at the Rossvatn embankment dam test facility in Norway.
Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment 69 (4), 643658.
Slater, L., 2007. Near surface electrical characterization of hydraulic conductivity: from
petrophysical properties to aquifer geometriesa review. Surveys in Geophysics
28 (2), 169197.
Slater, L., Binley, A., 2003. Evaluation of permeable reactive barrier (PRB) integrity
using electrical imaging methods. Geophysics 68 (3), 911921.
Slater, L., Binley, A.M., Daily, W., Johnson, R., 2000. Cross-hole electrical imaging of a
controlled saline tracer injection. Journal of Applied Geophysics 44 (23), 85102.
Slater, L., Binley, A., Versteeg, R., Cassiani, G., Birken, R., Sandberg, S., 2002. A 3D ERT
study of solute transport in a large experimental tank. Journal of Applied Geophysics
49 (4), 211229.
Smith, D.L., 1986. Application of the poledipole resistivity technique to the detection
of solution cavities beneath highways. Geophysics 51 (3), 833837.
Smith, T., Morrison, E., Gasperikova, E., Hoversten, M., 1999. Sharp boundary inversion
of 2D magnetotelluric data. Geophysical Prospecting 47 (4), 469486.
Snyder, D.D., Wightman, E.W., 2002. Application of continuous resistivity proling to
aquifer characterization. Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on the Application
of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems. Environmental and
Engineering Geophysical Society, Las Vegas, Nevada, pp. 121.
Socco, L.V., Jongmans, D., Boiero, D., Stocco, S., Maraschini, M., Tokeshi, K., Hantz, D.,
2010. Geophysical investigation of the Sandalp rock avalanche deposits. Journal
of Applied Geophysics 70 (4), 277291.
Solberg, I.L., Ronning, J.S., Dalsegg, E., Hansen, L., Rokoengen, K., Sandven, R., 2008.
Resistivity measurements as a tool for outlining quick-clay extent and valley-ll
155
stratigraphy: a feasibility study from Buvika, central Norway. Canadian Geotechnical

Journal 45 (2), 210225.
Solberg, I.L., Hansen, L., Ronning, J.S., Haugen, E.D., Dalsegg, E., Tonnesen, J.F., 2012.
Combined geophysical and geotechnical approach to ground investigations and
hazard zonation of a quick clay area, mid Norway. Bulletin of Engineering Geology
and the Environment 71 (1), 119133.
Song, S.H., Cho, I.K., 2009. Application of a streamer resistivity survey in a shallow
brackish-water reservoir. Exploration Geophysics 40 (2), 206213.
Srensen, K., 1996. Pulled array continuous proling. First Break 14 (3), 8590.
Souffache, B., Cosenza, P., Flageul, S., Pencole, J.P., Seladji, S., Tabbagh, A., 2010. Electrostatic
multipole for electrical resistivity measurements at the decimetric scale. Journal of
Soupios, P., Papadopoulos, N., Papadopoulos, I., Kouli, M., Vallianatos, F., Sarris, A.,
Manios, T., 2007. Application of integrated methods in mapping waste disposal
areas. Environmental Geology 53 (3), 661675.
Spiegel, R.J., Sturdivant, V.R., Owen, T.E., 1980. Modeling resistivity anomalies from
localized voids under irregular terrain. Geophysics 45 (7), 11641183.
Spitzer, K., Chouteau, M., 2003. A DC resistivity and IP borehole survey at the Casa
Berardi gold mine in northwestern Quebec. Geophysics 68 (2), 453463.
Sri Niwas, S.M., Singhal, D.C., 1985. Aquifer transmissivity of porous media from resistivity
data. Journal of Hydrology 82 (12), 143153.
Storz, H., Storz, W., Jacobs, F., 2000. Electrical resistivity tomography to investigate geological
structures of the Earth's upper crust. Geophysical Prospecting 48 (3), 455471.
Stummer, P., Maurer, H.R., Horstmeyer, H., Green, A.G., 2002. Optimization of DC resistivity data acquisition: real-time experimental design and a new multi-electrode
system. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 40 (12), 27272736.
Stummer, P., Maurer, H., Green, A., 2004. Experimental design: electrical resistivity
data sets that provide optimum subsurface information. Geophysics 69, 120129.
Sudha, K., Israil, M., Mittal, S., Rai, J., 2009. Soil characterization using electrical resistivity
tomography and geotechnical investigations. Journal of Applied Geophysics 67 (1),
7479.
Sugimoto, Y., 1999. Shallow high-resolution 2-D and 3-D electrical crosshole imaging.
The Leading Edge 18 (12), 14251428.
Supper, R., Romer, A., Jochum, B., Bieber, G., Jaritz, W., 2008. A complex geo-scientic
strategy for landslide hazard mitigationfrom airborne mapping to ground
monitoring. Advances in Geosciences 14, 195200.
Swarzenski, P.W., Burnett, W.C., Greenwood, W.J., Herut, B., Peterson, R., Dimova, N.,
Shalem, Y., Yechieli, Y., Weinstein, Y., 2006. Combined time-series resistivity and
geochemical tracer techniques to examine submarine groundwater discharge at
Dor Beach, Israel. Geophysical Research Letters 33, L24405.
Swarzenski, P.W., Simonds, F.W., Paulson, A.J., Kruse, S., Reich, C., 2007. Geochemical
and geophysical examination of submarine groundwater discharge and associated
nutrient loading estimates into lynch cove, Hood Canal, WA. Environmental
Science & Technology 41 (20), 70227029.
Szalai, S., Szarka, L., 2008. On the classication of surface geoelectric arrays. Geophysical
Prospecting 56 (2), 159175.
Tizro, A.T., Voudouris, K.S., Salehzade, M., Mashayekhi, H., 2010. Hydrogeological
framework and estimation of aquifer hydraulic parameters using geoelectrical
data: a case study from West Iran. Hydrogeology Journal 18 (4), 917929.
Toran, L., Johnson, M., Nyquist, J., Rosenberry, D., 2010. Delineating a road-salt plume in
lakebed sediments using electrical resistivity, piezometers, and seepage meters at
Mirror Lake, New Hampshire, U.S.A. Geophysics 75 (4), WA75WA83.
Travelletti, J., Sailhac, P., Malet, J.P., Grandjean, G., Ponton, J., 2012. Hydrological response
of weathered clayshale slopes: water inltration monitoring with time-lapse electrical resistivity tomography. Hydrological Processes 26 (14), 21062119.
Tric, E., Lebourg, T., Jomard, H., Le Cossec, J., 2010. Study of large-scale deformation induced
by gravity on the La Clapiere landslide (Saint-Etienne de Tinee, France) using numerical
and geophysical approaches. Journal of Applied Geophysics 70 (3), 206215.
Tsokas, G.N., Tsourlos, P.I., Vargemezis, G., Novack, M., 2008. Non-destructive electrical
resistivity tomography for indoor investigation: the case of Kapnikarea church in
Athens. Archaeological Prospection 15 (1), 4761.
Tsokas, G.N., Tsourlos, P.I., Vargemezis, G.N., Pazaras, N.T., 2011. Using surface and
cross-hole resistivity tomography in an urban environment: an example of
imaging the foundations of the ancient wall in Thessaloniki, North Greece. Physics
and Chemistry of the Earth 36 (16), 13101317.
Tsourlos, P.I., Tsokas, G.N., 2011. Non-destructive electrical resistivity tomography
survey at the south walls of the Acropolis of Athens. Archaeological Prospection
18 (3), 173186.
Tsourlos, P.I., Ogilvy, R.D., Papazachos, C., Meldrum, P.I., 2011. Measurement and
inversion schemes for single borehole-to-surface electrical resistivity tomography
surveys. Journal of Geophysics and Engineering 8 (4), 487497.
Tye, A.M., Kessler, H., Ambrose, K., Williams, J.D.O., Tragheim, D., Scheib, A., Raines, M.,
Kuras, O., 2011. Using integrated near-surface geophysical surveys to aid mapping
and interpretation of geology in an alluvial landscape within a 3D soil-geology
framework. Near Surface Geophysics 9 (1), 1531.
Udphuay, S., Gunther, T., Everett, M.E., Warden, R.R., Briaud, J.L., 2011. Three-dimensional
resistivity tomography in extreme coastal terrain amidst dense cultural signals:
application to cliff stability assessment at the historic D-Day site. Geophysical Journal
International 185 (1), 201220.
Valois, R., Camerlynck, C., Dhemaied, A., Guerin, R., Hovhannissian, G., Plagnes, V.,
Rejiba, F., Robain, H., 2011. Assessment of doline geometry using geophysics on
the Quercy plateau karst (South France). Earth Surface Processes and Landforms
36 (9), 11831192.
van Schoor, M., 2005. The application of in-mine electrical resistance tomography
(ERT) for mapping potholes and other disruptive features ahead of mining. Journal
of the South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy 105 (6), 447451.
156
van Schoor, M., Binley, A., 2010. In-mine (tunnel-to-tunnel) electrical resistance tomography
in South African platinum mines. Near Surface Geophysics 8 (6), 563574.
Veeken, P.C.H., Legeydo, P.J., Davidenko, Y.A., Kudryavceva, E.O., Ivanov, S.A., Chuvaev, A.,
2009. Benets of the induced polarization geoelectric method to hydrocarbon exploration. Geophysics 74 (2), B47B59.
Wait, J.R., 1982. Geo-Electromagnetism. Academic Press, New York.
Wake, T.A., Mojica, A.O., Davis, M.H., Campbell, C.J., Mendizabal, T., 2012. Electrical
resistivity surveying and pseudo-three-dimensional tomographic imaging at Sitio
Drago, Bocas del Toro, Panama. Archaeological Prospection 19 (1), 4958.
Ward, S.H., 1990. Resistivity and induced polarization methods. In: Ward, S.H. (Ed.),
Geotechnical and Environmental Geophysics. Investigations in Geophysics No. 5.
SEG, USA, pp. 147190.
Ward, S.H., Hohmann, G.W., 1987. Electromagnetic theory for geophysical applications.
In: Nabighian, M.N. (Ed.), Electromagnetic Methods in Applied Geophysics,
Volume 1, Theory. Investigations in Geophysics No. 3. SEG.
West, L.J., Stewart, D.I., Binley, A.M., Shaw, B., 1999. Resistivity imaging of soil during
electrokinetic transport. Engineering Geology 53 (2), 205215.
White, P.A., 1988. Measurement of ground-water parameters using salt-water injection
and surface resistivity. Ground Water 26 (2), 179186.
White, R.M.S., Collins, S., Denne, R., Hee, R., Brown, P., 2001. A new survey design for 3D
IP modelling at Copper hill. Exploration Geophysics 32 (4), 152155.
Wilkinson, P.B., Chambers, J.E., Meldrum, P.I., Ogilvy, R.D., Mellor, C.J., Caunt, S., 2005.
A comparison of self-potential tomography with electrical resistivity tomography for the detection of abandoned mineshafts. Journal of Environmental and
Wilkinson, P.B., Chambers, J.E., Meldrum, P.I., Ogilvy, R.D., Caunt, S., 2006a. Optimization of array congurations and panel combinations for the detection and imaging
of abandoned mineshafts using 3D cross-hole electrical resistivity tomography.
Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics 11 (3), 213221.
Wilkinson, P.B., Meldrum, P.I., Chambers, J.E., Kuras, O., Ogilvy, R.D., 2006b. Improved
strategies for the automatic selection of optimized sets of electrical resistivity
tomography measurement congurations. Geophysical Journal International 167
(3), 11191126.
Wilkinson, P.B., Chambers, J.E., Lelliott, M., Wealthall, G.P., Ogilvy, R.D., 2008. Extreme
sensitivity of crosshole electrical resistivity tomography measurements to geometric
errors. Geophysical Journal International 173 (1), 4962.
Wilkinson, P.B., Chambers, J.E., Meldrum, P.I., Gunn, D.A., Ogilvy, R.D., Kuras, O., 2010a.
Predicting the movements of permanently installed electrodes on an active
landslide using time-lapse geoelectrical resistivity data only. Geophysical Journal
International 183 (2), 543556.
Wilkinson, P.B., Meldrum, P.I., Kuras, O., Cambers, J.E., Holyoake, S.J., Ogilvy, R.D.,
2010b. High-resolution electrical resistivity tomography monitoring of a tracer
test in a conned aquifer. Journal of Applied Geophysics 70 (4), 268276.
Wilkinson, P.B., Loke, M.H., Meldrum, P.I., Chambers, J.E., Kuras, O., Gunn, D.A., Ogilvy,
R.D., 2012a. Practical aspects of applied optimized survey design for electrical
resistivity tomography. Geophysical Journal International 189 (1), 428440.
Wilkinson, P.B., Chambers, J.E., Meldrum, P.I., Kuras, O., Munro, C.J., 2012b. The robustness
and general applicability of optimal resistivity surveys designed by maximising model
resolution. Proceedings 18th European Meeting of EAGE Near Surface Geoscience, 35
September 2012, Paris, France, p. B33.
Wilson, S.R., Ingham, M., McConchie, J.A., 2006. The applicability of earth resistivity
methods for saline interface denition. Journal of Hydrology 316 (14), 301312.
Wisen, R., Auken, E., Dahlin, T., 2005. Combination of ID laterally constrained inversion
and smooth inversion of resistivity data with a priori data from boreholes. Near
Surface Geophysics 3 (2), 7178.
Wiwattanachang, N., Giao, P.H., 2011. Monitoring crack development in ber concrete beam
by using electrical resistivity imaging. Journal of Applied Geophysics 75 (2), 294304.
Xu, S.Z., 2001. The boundary element method in geophysics. Geophysical Monograph
Series Number 9SEG, USA.
Yamakawa, Y., Kosugi, K., Masaoka, N., Tada, Y., Mizuyama, T., 2010. Use of a combined
penetrometer-moisture probe together with geophysical methods to survey
hydrological properties of a natural slope. Vadose Zone Journal 9 (3), 768779.
Yi, M.-Y., Kim, J.-H., Son, J.-S., 2009. Borehole deviation effect in electrical resistivity
tomography. Geosciences Journal 13 (1), 87102.
Zerathe, S., Lebourg, T., 2012. Evolution stages of large deep-seated landslides at the
front of a subalpine meridional chain (Maritime-Alps, France). Geomorphology
138 (1), 390403.
Zhe, J., Greenhalgh, S., Marescot, L., 2007. Multichannel, full waveform and exible
electrode combination resistivity-imaging system. Geophysics 72 (2), F57F64.
Zhou, B., Dahlin, T., 2003. Properties and effects of measurement errors on 2D resistivity
imaging surveying. Near Surface Geophysics 1 (3), 105117.
Zhou, B., Greenhalgh, S.A., 2000. Cross-hole resistivity tomography using different
electrode congurations. Geophysical Prospecting 48 (5), 887912.
Zhou, W., Beck, B.F., Stephenson, J.B., 2000. Reliability of dipoledipole electrical resistivity
tomography for dening depth to bedrock in covered karst terranes. Environmental
Geology 39 (3), 760766.
Zhou, W., Beck, B.F., Adams, A.L., 2002. Effective electrode array in mapping karst hazards
in electrical resistivity tomography. Environmental Geology 42 (8), 922928.
Zhu, T., Feng, R., 2011. Resistivity tomography with a vertical line source and its application to the evaluation of residual oil saturation. Journal of Applied Geophysics 73
(2), 155163.
Zhu, J., Currens, J.C., Dinger, J.S., 2012. Challenges of using electrical resistivity method
to locate karst conduitsa eld case in the Inner Bluegrass Region, Kentucky.
Journal of Applied Geophysics 75 (3), 523530.
Zohdy, A.A.R., Jackson, D.B., 1969. Application of deep electrical soundings for groundwater exploration in Hawaii. Geophysics 34 (4), 584600.

Recent Developments in The Direct-Current Geoelectrical

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Recent Developments in The Direct-Current Geoelectrical

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Journal of Applied Geophysics 95 (2013) 135156

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Applied Geophysics

Recent developments in the direct-current geoelectrical

M.H. Loke et al. / Journal of Applied Geophysics 95 (2013) 135156

methods. This is followed by brief overviews of recent developments

resistivity survey are the positions of the current and potential

2. Basic principles of the resistivity method

where is the resistivity, is the potential and jc is the charge density.

where k is the geometric factor that depends on the conguration of the

M.H. Loke et al. / Journal of Applied Geophysics 95 (2013) 135156

mineral, petroleum, and groundwater resources. Initially quantitative

where, the discrepancy vector g contains the difference between the

The main weakness of the sounding method is the assumption

M.H. Loke et al. / Journal of Applied Geophysics 95 (2013) 135156

Li and Oldenburg, 1992; Loke and Barker, 1996a) that could be

Cx and Cz are the roughness lter matrices in the horizontal (x)

2003). The laterally constrained inversion method (Auken and

M.H. Loke et al. / Journal of Applied Geophysics 95 (2013) 135156

Two-dimensional (and three-dimensional) electrical imaging surveys

M.H. Loke et al. / Journal of Applied Geophysics 95 (2013) 135156

temporal data and model directly into the least-squares regularization

also tracked in real-time by monitoring the current and voltage at

M.H. Loke et al. / Journal of Applied Geophysics 95 (2013) 135156

M.H. Loke et al. / Journal of Applied Geophysics 95 (2013) 135156

provide information with a spatial resolution that is much higher

M.H. Loke et al. / Journal of Applied Geophysics 95 (2013) 135156

contamination from salt-laden waters originating from industrial,

used to characterize (Bedrosian et al., 2012; Kim et al., 2007; Minsley

M.H. Loke et al. / Journal of Applied Geophysics 95 (2013) 135156

archeological sites (Ercoli et al., 2012; Similox-Tohon et al., 2006), and

M.H. Loke et al. / Journal of Applied Geophysics 95 (2013) 135156

ranging 0.5 to 128 m. in a survey along the Namoi River in Australia.

M.H. Loke et al. / Journal of Applied Geophysics 95 (2013) 135156

5.1. Cross-hole ERT

transmitters and receivers that are towed behind an operator

M.H. Loke et al. / Journal of Applied Geophysics 95 (2013) 135156

vertical long electrodes with horizontal long electrodes, i.e., pipes

small-scale transient events associated with these types of applications.

M.H. Loke et al. / Journal of Applied Geophysics 95 (2013) 135156

For optimized arrays to be useful in practice, other design constraints

Electrode position is usually assumed to be known and xed for the

M.H. Loke et al. / Journal of Applied Geophysics 95 (2013) 135156

systematic data error which cannot be reduced through reciprocal error

6.4. Survey design

6.6. Three-dimensional structures

6.7. Calibration and interpretation

M.H. Loke et al. / Journal of Applied Geophysics 95 (2013) 135156

implementation of I.P. measurements using conventional electrodes

M.H. Loke et al. / Journal of Applied Geophysics 95 (2013) 135156

M.H. Loke et al. / Journal of Applied Geophysics 95 (2013) 135156

M.H. Loke et al. / Journal of Applied Geophysics 95 (2013) 135156

M.H. Loke et al. / Journal of Applied Geophysics 95 (2013) 135156

M.H. Loke et al. / Journal of Applied Geophysics 95 (2013) 135156

stratigraphy: a feasibility study from Buvika, central Norway. Canadian Geotechnical

M.H. Loke et al. / Journal of Applied Geophysics 95 (2013) 135156

Вам также может понравиться