See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/258492048

A methodology for converting traditional vertical electrical soundings into 2D

resistivity models: Application to the Saïss basin, Morocco

Article  in  Geophysics · November 2011

DOI: 10.1190/geo2010-0080.1

CITATIONS READS

17 835

6 authors, including:

Riss Joëlle Juan Luis Fernández-Martínez

University of Bordeaux University of Oviedo
112 PUBLICATIONS   750 CITATIONS    193 PUBLICATIONS   1,638 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Colette Sirieix Antoine Marache

University of Bordeaux University of Bordeaux
74 PUBLICATIONS   333 CITATIONS    50 PUBLICATIONS   313 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Fouilles préventives du Centre International d'Art Pariétal - Lascaux (Montignac, Dordogne, France) View project

contract with University of Bordo I, France View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Juan Luis Fernández-Martínez on 11 January 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

GEOPHYSICS. VOL. 76, NO. 6 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER 2011); P. B225–B236, 15 FIGS., 3 TABLES.
10.1190/GEO2010-0080.1

A methodology for converting traditional vertical electrical soundings into

2D resistivity models: Application to the Saïss basin, Morocco

Joëlle Riss1, Juan Luis Fernández-Martínez2, Colette Sirieix1, Ouassima Harmouzi3,

Antoine Marache1, and Ali Essahlaoui4,

ABSTRACT used in industry. Geostatistical tools are used to quantify the

We demonstrated a simple methodology for the reinterpreta-
tion of sets of electrical vertical soundings and the production of
2D resistivity models. The method is applied to the northern
central part of the subsiding Saïss basin (Morocco) where a ser-
ies of vertical electrical soundings (VES) were acquired in 1982
and 1984, using the Schlumberger array with current electrodes
semispacings between 3 and 3000 m. We describe a methodol-
ogy used to estimate and sample apparent resistivities collected
from traditional single soundings acquired by using a Schlum-
berger configuration. We then construct a resistivity pseudosec-
tion in a format compatible with a Wenner-Schlumberger array
to perform 2D electrical tomography. The methodology takes
into account the lateral and vertical spatial correlations shown
by the apparent resistivities. The tomographic inversions are
performed using a commercial inversion software commonly
spatial correlation between apparent resistivity data. The result
is a series of estimated pseudosections that are inverted to
produce 2D resistivity models of the basin along geophysical
profiles. We focus our attention on one of these profiles (i.e.,
one 2D resistivity model). The inverted geoelectrical model
allows us to propose a geologic model of the basin. Our meth-
odology allows historical and current data carried out using the
Schlumberger configuration, to be rapidly reinterpreted in coun-
tries where only low-cost methods, such as VES soundings, can
be used due to technology and economic constraints. It can also
be applied to cases where continuous or pulled-array continuous
vertical soundings method, where a tail of electrodes is towed
behind a small vehicle while continuously and simultaneously
measuring several electrode configurations, is inoperative due to
field conditions (survey length, deep layers, and local environ-
mental conditions).

INTRODUCTION conductive surface layer penetration, and excellent resolution of

Continuous 2D and 3D electrical surveys, providing a large num-
ber of measurements using automated acquisition systems, are very
popular among geophysicists because their interpretation can be
achieved very quickly. Nevertheless, the vertical electrical sounding
(VES) is still the most widely used technique in many countries
because it is inexpensive and very useful when a deep and/or a very
large area of coverage is required (e.g., Chieh-Hou and Wei-Feng,
2005; Hussein and Awad, 2006; Hamzah et al., 2007). The Schlum-
berger array offers good depth of penetration, as well as good
horizontal layers. It would be useful to develop a new method per-
mitting reliable interpretations of recent and/or historical data from
a series of single VES to make a link between single VES and
resistivity tomography. This would allow 2D/3D resistivity images
to be generated from a series of VES.
Geophysical literature provides various examples of the relation-
ship between VES and resistivity imaging. Apostolopoulos (2008)
combines Schlumberger and dipole-dipole soundings and develops a
specific gridding procedure to create a 2D apparent resistivity
section to resolve a layered-earth structure. Pham et al. (2002)

Manuscript received by the Editor 5 March 2010; revised manuscript received 20 May 2011; published online 21 December 2011; corrected version published
online 23 January 2012.
1
Université Bordeaux, Talence, France. E-mail: joelle.riss@u-bordeaux1.fr; collette.sirieix@u-bordeaux1.fr; antoine.marache@u-bordeaux1.fr.
2
University of Oviedo, Mathematics Department, Oviedo, Spain; formerly University of California Berkeley, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Berkeley, California, USA; and Stanford University, Energy Resources Department, California, USA. E-mail: jlfm@uniovi.es.
3
Université Bordeaux, Talence, France; My Ismaïl University, Morocco. E-mail: harmouzi_ouassima@yahoo.fr.
4
My Ismaïl University, Morocco. E-mail: geophymek@yahoo.fr.
© 2011 Society of Exploration Geophysicists. All rights reserved.

B225

Downloaded 25 Jan 2012 to 147.210.156.32. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://segdl.org/
BB226
combine two complementary geoelectrical methods, VES, and
magnetotelluric soundings to image the alluvial plain of the Mekong
delta by generating resistivity maps at different depths. These authors
emphasize that this methodology is very inexpensive for quality re-
source assessment. Several algorithms based on finite differences,
finite elements and integral methods have been developed to perform
2D or 3D forward modeling and inversion of VES carried out using a
Schlumberger configuration (Spitzer and Kümpel, 1997; Monteiro
Santos and Sultan, 2008). The use of geostatistical techniques for
the electrical imaging problem is not new. Although there is no need
for a regular spatial distribution of the VES, Ferreira et al. (2003)
interpolate VES curves onto a finite-differences grid to improve
the data coverage. Moreover, in many cases, it may not be possible
to arrange the electrodes in a 3D layout in the field such that an
irregularly spaced and sparse set of VES is produced. In these cases,
geostatistical techniques are used to interpolate apparent resistivities
to produce a denser set of data and/or to fill the gaps in certain direc-
tions that are not correctly sampled. Dewashish et al. (2007) use
Figure 1. Saïss basin (a) geographical setting, (b) detail of the stu-
died area (after Essahloui et al., 2001) with geographic coordinates
(km) from the 1∶50; 000 topographic map sheets Fès-Ouest NI-30-
XIII-2b and Fès-Est NI-30-1a (the frame indicates the area of the
VES survey, see Figure 3).
Downloaded 25 Jan 2012 to 147.210.156.32. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://segdl.org/
Riss et al.
geostatistical methods “to refine and improve the VES interpretation
with quantitative information on geology using borehole data.” This
procedure allowed them to reduce the ambiguities in electrical
sounding interpretations. Morari et al. (2009) develop factorial
kriging to improve the accuracy of the measured apparent conduc-
tivities, which were sparsely sampled in a 5 ha vineyard to analyze
the spatial dependence of electrical conductivity on physical soil
properties. Sainato and Losinno (2006) use VES to analyze the con-
tinuity of aquifers along four transects, integrating 35 VES. They
used geostatistical methods to obtain the spatial variability of the
aquifer’s electrical resistivity. Zanolin et al. (2007) demonstrate,
via geostatistical cosimulations using the mean of the first principal
component of the apparent resistivities ensemble, that the variability
of the apparent resistivities at three different depths of an irrigated
corn farm had a strong spatial structure. They described the variabil-
ity of a loamy clay layer.
The use of geostatistics in inverse problems is not new and has
been proposed for different purposes including geostatistical inver-
sion (e.g., Haas and Dubrule, 1994; Dubrule, 1998; Fernández-
Martínez et al., 2003). Geostatistics is sometimes used to produce
high-resolution images (Gambus et al., 2002) after inversion. Yeh
et al. (2002) develop a sequential, geostatistical inverse approach
for electrical resistivity tomography. The inverse approach mimics
the electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) data collection com-
monly employed in traditional field surveys. They explore the spatial
variability of the electrical resistivity moisture relationship making
use of an a priori covariance model of the subsurface resistivity.
In our case, geostatistics is used simply to adapt the apparent
resistivity sampling from a VES Schlumberger configuration to a
2D Wenner-Schlumberger configuration. Although the assumption
of the apparent resistivity as a regionalized variable can be an object
of debate, geostatistics has frequently been used for electrical resis-
tivity analysis. By considering the apparent resistivity as a regiona-
lized variable, it is possible to estimate data which was missing
before the inversion.
In this paper, we are interested in improving the geological inter-
pretation of sparse geophysical data (apparent resistivity) over a
large field area and in the deeper portions of a sedimentary basin
(the Saïss basin, Morocco) by taking lateral (horizontal) and vertical
variations of the geophysical data into account. We propose a spe-
cific methodology, which can be used to convert a series of 1D VES
into 2D resistivity models. We then perform a final 2D inversion.
This methodology is simple and scalable to 3D problems. It is com-
prised of three steps. The first step consists of using geostatistical
interpolation in the data space (apparent resistivities), according to
the data geostatistical structure (variogram/covariance model). For
this interpolation (kriging), the apparent resistivities are considered
to be described by a random function, which depends on the
distance along the profiles and on the spacing between current
electrodes. The use of this coordinate system allows the data to
be resampled. Other deterministic interpolators (nearest neighbor,
inverse distance to a power, multidimensional splines) could also
be used, provided they are exact, and the final result obtained is
consistent with what we know and expect in terms of the apparent
resistivity field. The most important feature of the interpolation is
that following resampling, no apparent artifacts should be intro-
duced by this procedure. One practical method for verifying that
no such artifacts have been introduced involves checking that
the overall geological features of the inverted resistivity field are
 Converting VES into 2D resistivity models
very well matched to the best previously known concepts of the
Saïss basin (Figures 1 and 2). Indeed, some important geological
features could be detected as a result of having applied this meth-
odology. This methodology can be used to enhance the VES density
before implementing the resistivity modeling (2D or 3D inversion).
The second step deals with resampling of the estimated apparent
resistivities and conversion to a Wenner-Schlumberger configura-
tion supported by the commercial software Res2DInv developed
by Loke (2004). The last step is devoted to the final 2D inversion
of the generated pseudosections and to the final geophysical and
geological interpretations.
In this paper, our approach was applied to field observations from
the Saïss basin where, for hydrogeological purposes, conventional
1D resistivity sounding surveys were conducted in 1984, resulting
in a series of vertical electric soundings (Figure 3) carried out using
the Schlumberger array, covering a surface approximately 240 km2
(Direction de la Recherche et de la Planification de l’Eau
[DRPE], 1988).
The application of our methodology to different parallel VES
profiles along the Saïss basin serves to generate a series of 2D par-
allel resistivity models, thus leading to a dramatic saving in terms of
time and effort, in comparison with the individual inversion and
interpretation of the VES sounding data. This approach also pro-
vides a spatial continuity to the resistivity models which, by defini-
tion, is not given by the VES profiles. This methodology allows the
Figure 2. Saïss basin, synthetic lithostratigraphic log (Essahlaoui,
2001 in Harmouzi, 2009).
Downloaded 25 Jan 2012 to 147.210.156.32. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://segdl.org/
B227
resistivity variations, measured along electrical resistivity surveys
with a high depth of investigation, to be imaged.
Finally, although our approach is based on the use of commercial
software, we emphasize that this methodology is not affected by
commercial issues since open-source programs for the computation
of 2D-3D tomographic inversions (Pidlisecky et al., 2007) as well as
high-performance geostatistical freeware packages (Remy et al.,
2009), are available.
THE SAÏSS BASIN VES DATA SET
The Saïss basin is located between the cities of Meknes and Fes
in Morocco, situated at 33°53 0 north, −5°30 0 west, and 34°04 0
north, −4°57 0 west, at an elevation of approximately 400 m, respec-
tively. Geologically, it constitutes a structural depression with a
northeast-southwest orientation, which is limited by the Middle
Atlas ranges to the south and the Rif ranges to the north (Figure 1a).
In the present study, we are concerned with the north-central portion
of this basin (Figure 1b). This subsiding basin is filled with sedi-
mentary units, deposited over a peneplained paleozoic fold belt with
sedimentary rock layers ranging from the Triassic to the Pliocene
and the Quaternary (Figure 2).
Resistivity measurements were made at the nodes of a nearly
square grid, with the size of the mesh being approximately
1 km. The data set was composed of 220 VES carried out in
Schlumberger array with systematically spaced semispacings
between current electrodes (C1 C2 ¼ L∕2) of 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10,
15, 30, 40, 50, 75, 100, 150, 200, 300, 400, 500, 750, 1000,
1500, 2000, and 3000 m. These soundings were deployed as a
set of 17 equidistant profiles labeled from A through R (Figure 3)
along straight lines in a southwest-northeast direction parallel to the
structural trend of the basin. Each profile comprised between two to
22 VES depending on the profile location, and consisted of a depth
profile of apparent resistivities along the survey lines. The current
electrodes were associated only with potential electrodes from the
same sounding and survey line. The data should thus be considered
a 2D rather than a 3D representation.
In this paper, we focus our attention on profile D starting at
x ¼ 515.16 km y ¼ 373.29 km, and ending at x ¼ 528.25 km
y ¼ 380.85 km (Figure 3); it is situated in the middle of the seven
longest profiles (A, B : : : G). Profile D is assumed to be represen-
tative of the main geological features of the basin. This profile is
Figure 3. Position of the 220 VES (detail of Figure 1b). Wells
2743∕15 and 2430∕15 used to evaluate VES modeling are indi-
cated. Letters on side are profile labels. The diagonal gray line
and the north gray line are national roads, respectively, the N6
(Fes Meknes) and the N4 (Fes Sidi Kacem) roads.
BB228
composed of 16 individual VES, which are plotted in Figure 4. Two
“pseudosoundings” are also shown. The pseudosoundings were
“computed” soundings using the mean and the median value of
the apparent resistivity from the original data set for each L∕2 spa-
cing. The median pseudosounding has lower resistivity values than
the mean pseudosounding, due to the influence of some outliers
with high resistivity values. Analysis of the set of individual
VES together with the pseudosoundings allows a multilayer model
to be developed, consisting of four layers. The first layer is char-
acterized by a set of high, dispersed values of apparent resistivity for
L∕2 ∈ ½3 10
m (section A, Figure 4); the second layer corre-
sponds to the set of comparatively lower, but nevertheless high ap-
parent resistivity for L∕2 ∈ ½10 70
m (section B), the third layer
should be related to a decreasing behavior in apparent resistivity
values, for L∕2 ∈ ½70 1000
m (section C); and, the last layer is
a bottom layer related to the set of increasing apparent resistivities
(section D). Moreover, in Figure 4, it can be seen that the variability
of the apparent resistivity decreases with increasing L∕2. This could
be due to the influence of the thick upper Miocene layer made of
marls with a low resistivity, estimated to have a value of approxi-
mately 7 ohm-m and sometimes less (Essahlaoui et al., 2001). An
alternative explanation could be found in the increasing degree of
spatial correlation of the apparent resistivities with increasing L∕2
since the investigated volume of nearby VES could overlap.
The resistivity plot in Figure 4 is mainly in good agreement with
the overall geological structure of the basin. It is well known that the
basin is composed of three main formations (Essahlaoui et al.,
2001). There is an upper-Quaternary and Pliocene layer made of
sands, pebbles, lacustrine limestones, and fluvial deposits account-
ing for the first and second resistivity layers. Below this, there is a
thick marly intermediate layer from the upper Miocene and a deep
lithographic limestone formation from the Liassic (Figure 2); these
correspond to the third and fourth resistivity layer, respectively.
To interpret data from single VES, the ground is normally as-
sumed to be composed of horizontal layers. As a consequence,
the resistivity sounding does not take lateral changes in the subsur-
face resistivity field into account. Such lateral changes lead to mod-
eling errors with respect to the resistivity and/or thickness of the
interpreted layer (Loke, 2004). The final aim of the present study
is to develop a fast and accurate methodology to generate consistent
2D resistivity models along profiles, taking into account the spatial
Figure 4. Apparent resistivity (ohm-m). Individual sounding curves
(ohm-m). Dotted lines for each of the 16 individual VES. Dashed
bold curve and continuous bold curve, respectively, for the mean
and the median apparent resistivity value versus the semi spacing
(see in the text for further explanations).
Downloaded 25 Jan 2012 to 147.210.156.32. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://segdl.org/
Riss et al.
continuity of the observed data (apparent resistivity values) and the
pseudodepth at which they were analyzed (Edwards, 1977). As a
consequence, rather than inverting the Schlumberger sounding
directly and then using kriging on the estimated resistivity data
to obtain 2D profiles, we propose to perform the interpolation of
apparent resistivities before the inversion. However, software sup-
porting 2D inversion of observed data carried out using VES
(Schlumberger arrays) are not widely available. To overcome this
difficulty and take advantage of this kind of data, we propose a
methodology to convert the Schlumberger apparent resistivity data
into a format compatible with a Wenner-Schlumberger array. The
next section provides a description of the algorithm we used.
FROM SCHLUMBERGER TO WENNER-
SCHLUMBERGER CONFIGURATION FOR
PSEUDOSECTION INVERSION
The Wenner-Schlumberger array is a combination of the Wenner
and Schlumberger arrays, adapted for use in an arrangement with a
line of electrodes with constant spacings which is normally the case
in 2D electrical imaging (Loke, 2004). With a Wenner configuration
(Figure 5a), the length (L) between current electrodes C1 C2 is three
times the potential dipole P1 P2 length (a): L ¼ 3a. The initial po-
tential electrode spacing is then increased by multiplying it by an
integer factor q ða; 2a; 3a : : : qaÞ to achieve deeper depths of inves-
tigation. The Schlumberger configuration allows the distance L to
be increased, while keeping the potential dipole length, P1 P2 , con-
stant. The Wenner-Schlumberger configuration is a hybrid of these
two configurations (Loke, 2004) in which the current electrode
Figure 5. Electrode configuration for Wenner and Wenner-
Schlumberger Arrays. C1 C2 , P1 P2 are, respectively, the current
and potential electrodes, a is the unit electrode spacing:
(a) Wenner array C1 C2 ¼ L ¼ 3qa and P1 P2 ¼ qa — examples
with q ∈ ½1; 2; 3
(b) Wenner-Schlumberger configurations C1 C2 ¼
L ¼ ð2k þ 1Þqa and P1 P2 ¼ qa—example with q ∈ ½1; 2; 3
and k ∈
½1; 2; 3
.
 Converting VES into 2D resistivity models
length is given by L ¼ ð2k þ 1Þqa (Figure 5b). Increasing the va-
lues of k and q while keeping a constant allows apparent resis-
tivities corresponding to increasingly deep layers to be determined.
By implementing an array with varying values for the set fk; q; ag,
apparent resistivities can be derived. Each value has to be assigned
to its correct depth of investigation before inversion. The usual
depth of investigation is the pseudodepth (i.e., median or effective
depth) of investigation ze as given by Edwards (1977). The relation-
ships between pseudodepths, distances between current electrodes,
and distances between potential electrodes are dependent on the
type of array. The relations for the Wenner-Schlumberger array
are given in Table 1. These relationships are used in the resampling
procedure.
Res2DInv (Loke, 2004) is used here for the inversion of 2D ap-
parent resistivity pseudosections in which data points are arranged
in a combination of Wenner and Schlumberger arrays. Thus, we
chose to transform the VES data to a format compatible with a
Wenner-Schlumberger configuration.
THE METHODOLOGY
This section is devoted to the estimation of apparent resistivity
values, with their correct pseudodepths, for compatibility with a
Wenner-Schlumberger configuration. The original data are derived
from the original VES apparent resistivities. Such specific set of
observed data results from the sampling of a full set of estimated
apparent resistivities, inferred using a geostatistical gridding tech-
nique: the kriging method (Journel, 1989; Armstrong, 1998; Chilès
and Delfiner, 1999).
The methodology consists in the following main stages: geosta-
tistical gridding, resampling of the estimated apparent resistivities,
and 2D tomography inversion along VES profiles for the purpose of
electrical imaging.
Estimating the apparent resistivities
Geostatistical methods allow data values to be estimated by tak-
ing their spatial correlation into account (Journel, 1989; Armstrong,
1998; Chilès and Delfiner, 1999). The basic tool for this process is
the variogram, which is a measure of how quickly the geological
features (apparent resistivity in this case) undergo spatial change.
Table 1. Ratios of the median depth of investigation ze to the
potential and current electrode spacing for various electrode
spacing factor k, for the Wenner-Schlumberger array, Loke
(2004). See in the text for the definition of k, q, a, and L.
k (level) (2k þ 1) ze ∕qa
1 3 0.519
2 5 0.925
3 7 1.318
4 9 1.706
5 11 2.093
6 13 2.478
7 15 2.863
8 17 3.247
Downloaded 25 Jan 2012 to 147.210.156.32. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://segdl.org/
B229
The underlying principle is that two observations made close to-
gether are more similar than two observations made farther apart.
In our methodology, apparent resistivities are considered to be a
regionalized 2D variable, ρa ¼ ρa ðx; LÞ where x stands for the dis-
tance along the geoelectrical profile with respect to the first VES
midpoint (VES origin), and L stands for the distance between
current electrodes. The apparent resistivities are logarithmically
transformed to simplify representation of the different orders of
magnitude of this variable, which then causes the kriging interpo-
lation to become more accurate.
The variance of the full set of logarithmic apparent resistivity
from profile D is dimensionless, and equal to 0.284 (Figure 6);
it is 0.316 from data of the whole basin. The variance from each
individual VES of the profile D ranges between 0.196 and
0.573. The variance decreases continuously from 0.06 (0.14 for
the whole basin) for small values of L∕2, to 0.02 for large L∕2 spa-
cings for both profile D and the whole basin The distance of spatial
correlation (the range) of the experimental variograms fluctuates
around 4,000 m when L∕2 is smaller than 1,000 m and becomes
larger (around 6,000 m) for the deepest parts of the basin. Depend-
ing on the homogeneity of both the variance and the range per L∕2
level, it would have been correct to estimate the logarithmic appar-
ent resistivity independently for different L∕2 levels. Nevertheless,
we chose to calculate the variograms using the full set of apparent
resistivities from profile D, and with the phenomenon being aniso-
tropic, we calculate the directional variograms. Thus, it is important
to be aware that the variability of the near-surface might be under-
estimated, and that, conversely, it is overestimated for the deeper
parts of the basin.
ze ∕L
0.173
0.186
0.189
0.190
0.190 Figure 6. Directional variograms of the logarithm of the apparent
0.191 resistivity (experimental-marker, model-continuous line ×) for the
D profile: (a) direction along the geoelectrical profile, the fitted and
0.191 experimental variograms are superimposed; (b) along the effective
0.191 depth of investigation. The dashed horizontal line shows the value
of the total experimental variance (0.284 ohm-m2 ).
BB230
Figure 6 shows the experimental variograms for profile D in two
directions and the corresponding theoretically fitted variogram
models. The first direction is parallel to the geoelectrical profile,
whereas the second one corresponds to the effective depth of
investigation. The variograms behave differently in these two direc-
tions and a geometric anisotropy as well as a zonal anisotropy can
be observed (Table 2). The experimental and fitted variograms are
calculated using a geostatistical commercial package (Bleinès
et al., 2011).
Fitting a variogram model to an experimental variogram requires
a type of model to be chosen from a list of allowed variograms
(Armstrong, 1998), which are those having the correct approximate
shape and thus, respectively, the main features of the estimated var-
iogram: range (i.e., the spatial distance of correlation), sill (i.e., the
variance of the phenomenon under study), origin behavior (i.e., the
shape of the variogram for small lags), and anisotropies. In the pre-
sent case, a model was fitted to the variogram of the logarithm of
apparent resistivity by adding two spherical models together with a
nugget effect. The spherical model allows the linear shape of the
experimental variogram to be respected for small lags and the nug-
get effect allows the discontinuity at the origin of the experimental
variogram to be taken into account. The final covariance (or vario-
gram) model corresponds to three nested structures (Table 2,
Figure 6). The first is spherical with a sill of 0.270, a maximum
range of 1; 000 × 103 m along the profile, and a minimum range
of 0.3 × 103 m following the stratification (i.e., the effective
depth of investigation). Similarly, the second structure is spherical
with a smaller sill (0.034), and maximum and minimum ranges of
100 × 103 and 3 × 102 m, respectively. The structure with a range
of 300 m marks the transition between the shallower part of the
basin (Quaternary and Pliocene filling) and the older sediments.
The third structure corresponds to a nugget effect (0.010) and ac-
counts for data errors and/or microvariabilities. These parameters
(range and sill) vary smoothly along parallel profiles located in
the central portion of the Saïss basin (Riss et al., 2008). Once
the variogram model has been fitted, it is used to estimate the loga-
rithmic apparent resistivity on a grid by means of the kriging
method (Chilès and Delfiner, 1999). We used an elliptical kriging
neighborhood with a major axis equal to 3 km and a minor axis
five times smaller.
Kriging generally provides good results when the grid size is not
smaller than the average spacing between data points and the var-
Table 2. Details of variogram model showing two nested structures and nugget effect. The equations for the fitted variograms
are given on the last row; indices j allows for the structures to be cumulated for the direction k.
Sill (i.e., variance)
Scale 1 (m): aj1 (k ¼ 1) along the effective depth
of investigation (Figure 6b)
Scale 2 (m): aj2 (k ¼ 2) along the geoelectrical
profile (Figure 6a)
γ k ðhÞ ¼ γ 1k ðhÞ þ γ 2k ðhÞ þ C3
γ 1k ðhÞ ¼ C1 ½1.5ðh∕a1k Þ − 0.5ðh∕a1k Þ3
when 0 < h < a1k and C1 when h ≥ a1k
γ 2k ðhÞ ¼ C2 ½1.5ðh∕a2k Þ − 0.5ðh∕a2k Þ3
when 0 < h < a2k and C2 when h ≥ a2k
Downloaded 25 Jan 2012 to 147.210.156.32. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://segdl.org/
Riss et al.
iogram model has been fitted correctly (Armstrong, 1998). To over-
come the moderately low number of data points available along the
profile, data sampled from a 2D set of kriged logarithmic apparent
resistivity values were added accordingly to each L∕2 level. These
values were estimated using the apparent resistivity data of the
whole basin for each level of (L∕2) semispacings (Harmouzi
et al., 2009). The result is a regularly spaced array of apparent
resistivities derived from the irregularly spaced initial data
(Figure 7). As describe above, one direction of the estimated grid
is aligned with the VES profile, whereas the other direction
corresponds to the L∕2 values. The maximum and minimum
sizes are, respectively, 22 km (depending of the profile, 15.1 km
for the D profile) and 3 km. We used for this purpose commercial
geostatistics-dedicated software (Bleinès et al., 2011).
Figure 8 shows the estimated apparent resistivity field over a
square grid of size a ¼ 50 m with a zero offset (Δa ¼ 0); the offset
allows the first set of estimated resistivity values (first row of the
grid) to be estimated at lower L∕2 values than the size of the mesh.
Obviously, when using such a grid (a ¼ 50 m, i.e., the smallest
potential electrode spacing is 50 m), the subsurface layers are
not correctly sampled due to the large value for the smallest poten-
tial electrode spacing. Nevertheless, the resulting image clearly
shows three areas with their respective transitional zones: low
L∕2 values corresponding to higher apparent resistivities (12–
120 ohm-m) (zone A, Figure 8); intermediate L∕2 values corre-
sponding to decreasing, down to very low, apparent resistivities
(<4 ohm-m) (zone B, Figure 8); and higher L∕2 values correspond-
ing to an increase in the apparent resistivity (zone C, Figure 8).
Moreover, the central part of the profile reveals a layer of low
apparent resistivities, which is thicker than on both sides of the
basin. This structural feature, a graben bounded by a normal fault
on both sides, is well known in the region (Sani et al., 2007;
Harmouzi et al., 2009).
Resampling of the apparent resistivities
The model for the 2D resistivity inversion program is composed
of rectangular pixels where the “rule of thumb” indicates that the
bottom of each pixel in the pseudosection refers to a data point
located at its effective depth (Loke, 2004). Thus, the smaller the
initial potential electrode distance qa (with q ¼ 1 and a being
the size of the mesh), the more accurate the superficial portion
of the inverted model. As a consequence, the approximate number
First structure Second structure Third structure
Spherical j ¼ 1 Spherical j ¼ 2 Nugget effect j ¼ 3
C1 ¼ 0.270 C2 ¼ 0.034 C3 ¼ 0.010
a11 ¼ 300 a21 ¼ 100; 000
a12 ¼ 1; 000; 000 a22 ¼ 4000
 Converting VES into 2D resistivity models
of virtual electrodes and nodes in the grid (e.g., number of apparent
resistivity values) should be, respectively, 152 (length of the profile
divided by a, plus one) and 4712 (result of the multiplication of 152
by the maximum L∕2 value divided by a, plus one) for a ¼ 100 m,
and 303 and 18,483 for a ¼ 50 m, since the length of profile D is
15.1 km and L∕2 ¼ 3000 m. In both cases, the first number ac-
counts for the horizontal direction (along the profile) and the second
number corresponds to the product of the first number with the
number of nodes in the vertical direction (perpendicular to the pro-
file). Clearly, the number of nodes increases when a is decreased for
a fixed value L∕2. To derive an inverse resistivity model of the sub-
surface of the basin, smaller values of the parameter a are needed.
Accordingly, the maximum L∕2 distance must be reduced. As an
example, with a ¼ 20 m and L∕2 ¼ 3000 m, the number of nodes
in the grid should be approximately 114,156. Nevertheless, this
number of pixels is too high, in view of the computing limitations
imposed by the 2D inversion software we used (this version sup-
ports up to 29,000 data points on a computer with 2048 megabytes
of RAM and Microsoft Window XP 5.1 OS), and, in particular, be-
cause the arrangement of apparent resistivities must correspond to
the Wenner-Schlumberger configuration. Thus, not all values of es-
timated apparent resistivity are used for the inversion because the
eccentricity of the array must be conserved when selecting apparent
resistivities from the kriging data file (Schlumberger array) to
Figure 7. Schematic design of a regular grid for estimating apparent
resistivity by kriging from measured apparent resistivity (positions
and distances along x-axis are only indicative).
Figure 8. Estimation by ordinary kriging of apparent resistivities,
every 50 m along profile D. Arrows show the location of the array
centre for each of the 16 VES.
Downloaded 25 Jan 2012 to 147.210.156.32. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://segdl.org/
B231
generate the apparent resistivity file ready for inversion (Wenner-
Schlumberger array).
The sampling design used to create a data file ready for inversion
is given below in algorithmic form:
• Select an x location in a profile.
• For each L∕2 value (initial L∕2 ¼ a − Δa) taken from the
apparent resistivity file, calculate the corresponding effective
depth ze ¼ 0.190L, assuming L to be greater than 10 times
the potential dipole distance.
• Determine the values of (2k þ 1) and q needed to determine
the equivalent effective depth ze in the Wenner-Schlumber-
ger configuration. Usually, in real field surveys, the maxi-
mum value of the electrode spacing factor k is about
eight. It was thus decided to limit the k values, thus
2k þ 1 ≤ 17. In addition to the requirement for the selected
values of q to produce the desired depths of investigation,
these values should also belong to the interval (1–6).
• Repeat the task for the next x location.
Example: Let us take L ¼ 500 m. The Schlumberger effective
depth is ze ¼ 0.19L ¼ 95 m (Figure 9, first column, fifth value).
Dividing this value by one of the available ratios (third column,
Table 1) for a Wenner-Schlumberger array leads to the qa values
183, 103, 72, and 56 m, respectively, for ð2k þ 1Þ ¼ 3, 5, 7, 9
(e.g., the electrode spacing factor or the level k ¼ 1, 2, 3, 4). Be-
cause the optimal distance between current electrodes should be an
integer multiple of a ¼ 50 m, as close as possible to one of the pre-
vious values, qa ¼ 100 m is the optimal distance, i.e., for q ¼ 2.
Thus, based on L ¼ ð2k þ 1Þqa, the resistivity estimated for L ¼
500 m will be assigned to the second level (k ¼ 2, ð2k þ 1Þ ¼
5) with a potential dipole distance MN ¼ qa ¼ 100 m. The pseu-
dodepth calculated for the Wenner-Schlumberger array is then
0.925 times qa, ze ¼ 92.5 m (Figure 9, second column), resulting
in a relative error of 2.6% (Figure 9, fourth column).
Figure 9. Example of calculation of the optimal distance between
current electrodes P1 P2 of a Wenner-Schlumberger array compati-
ble with effective depths ze of Schlumberger vertical soundings.
Relative error is used as a criterion to eliminate outlying values.
BB232
Results, electrical imaging: 2D resistivity models
The first step in producing an electrical image is the construction
of a pseudosection, as described above. The next step is to infer the
resistivity model by inversion. The data are then inverted with a
smoothness-constrained least-squares optimization method. The
subsurface is divided into a large number of rectangular cells,
and the optimization algorithm is designed to determine the resis-
tivity in each cell that minimizes the difference between the calcu-
lated and measured apparent values subject to certain regularity
constraints (Loke et al., 2003).
We studied three types of models. A model with a relatively low
resolution because the grid mesh for kriging (e.g., the minimum
distance between potential electrodes) is 100 m, which allows us
to analyze the global geoelectrical structure of the basin. A second
model, for comparison with the first with a grid distance a ¼ 50 m.
A third model, with a grid size of a ¼ 20 m and an offset of 5 m, is
designed to allow imaging of the shallowest parts of the basin.
With the length of profile D being 15.1 km, there are 152, 303, or
756 virtual electrodes in the “pseudosurvey”, respectively, for
a ¼ 100, 50, or 20 m. The two first cases (100 and 50 m) serve
to study the structure of the whole basin.
Next, we need to determine the number of levels to be used ac-
cording to the different scales. Only those levels with a relative error
of less than 3% are kept. This results in 16, 23, and seven levels,
respectively, for grid sizes of a ¼ 100, 50, and 20 m (Table 3).
Therefore, the minimum distance between potential electrodes is
equal to the grid size, with the exception of the subsurface case
(due to the offset). For this last case, the minimum distance is
10 m. These levels are distributed over the full range of available
effective depths. In such cases, there will be 2432, 6969, and 5292
apparent resistivities in the pseudosections for inversion. The inver-
sions are run with the smoothness-constrained incomplete Gauss-
Newton option (Loke and Barker, 1995, 1996). The final relative
mean square errors obtained were, respectively, 5.8%, 4.8%, and
3.2% after having completed five, two, and two iterations; there
are no enhancements of the resistivity models, whereas numerical
artifacts appear when the number of iterations is increased.
Figures 10 and 11 show, for profile D, the resistivity models we
have obtained. The first inverse model resistivity section allows us
to study the structure of the basin between depths of 12 and 1209 m,
whereas the second inverse model performs a similar task between 6
and 943 m.
The resistivity models are in good agreement with the overall
geological structure of the basin (see the Saïss basin data VES sec-
tion) with an upper layer comprised of sands, pebbles, lacustrine
deposits associated with the upper more resistive layers, a thick
Table 3. Characteristics of the square grid data set for inversion and the inverse model resistivity section.
Square grid
for kriging Set of data ready for inversion
# of Maximum Offset Number Number of data
Grid size (m) App. Res. L∕2 (m) (m) of levels points/level
100 4712 3000 0 16
50 18,483 2550 0 23
20 12,096 295 5 7
Downloaded 25 Jan 2012 to 147.210.156.32. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://segdl.org/
Riss et al.
marly intermediate layer, corresponding to highly conductive inter-
mediate layer, and a deep calcareous formation that should be as-
sociated with the deeper resistivity layer. Although these models fit
well with the three geologic structures identified by field work,
there are some differences between them. First, an increase from
500 to 900 m in thickness of the lower than 4 ohm-m resistivity
layer can be observed in the central part of the basin (Figure 10c),
that is, the thickness of the marly intermediate layer from the
Miocene is not constant, and the resistivity values are lower than
4 ohm-m. Lower resistivities result in shallower penetration areas,
in the southwest and northeast as could be expected, in accordance
with the late Triassic-Jurassic normal fault systems described by
Sani et al. (2007). These normal faults occur in a conjugate system
leading to the relative sinking of the central part of the basin
(Harmouzi et al., 2009). Apart from this feature, there are some
other differences between these two models in the central area in
particular, in which a region with slightly higher resistivity values
is not shown in the same manner. This is caused by the L∕2 level
distribution which were different in both cases, and also because the
second data set (when the size of the grid was 50 m) was restricted
to an effective depth of ze ¼ 974 m.
The lower layer is composed of rocks with true resistivity in the
range of 20–150 ohm-m corresponding to the lower part of the
Miocene (Burdigalian) made of calcareous sandstones with marls,
conglomerate, and molasses. The higher resistivity values
(>20 ohm-m) on each side of the electrical profile denote the
influence of the underlying Liassic formed by limestones and
dolomitic limestones.
The shallower layer (0–215 m) appears to be more heterogeneous
with resistivity layers with nonconstant thicknesses. However, cau-
tion is required when interpreting this layer because the size of the
grid used (minimum distance between potential electrodes) was 50
and 100 m and therefore the only data points selected for inversion
were those with an effective depth, respectively, greater than 92 and
185 m. Nevertheless, additional details for the shallower part of the
basin are provided. First, it can be observed in Figure 11c that the
subsurface layers are inhomogeneous, with resistivities increasing
up to 100 ohm-m, from depth ranging from 150 m up to the surface.
Next, the width of the subsurface layer is varying from west to east
with a deepening trend in its central part (6,000 m from the origin).
In addition to these models, Figure 12 shows a resistivity section
which is more accurate for the study of the Quaternary and Pliocene
geological formations. Geological features between zero and 100 m
can be observed in this resistivity section. The data points selected
for inversion are those with an effective depth greater than 13 m and
less than 97 m (e.g., L∕2 ∈ ½35 255
m). Thus, the modeling of the
Inverse model
Total
number Max. Min. ze Max. ze Number First layer
of data Error (WS) (WS) of layers thickness (m)
152 2432 2.60% 185 1145 19 12.50
303 6969 2.60% 93 974 23 6.25
756 5292 2.60% 13 97 12 5.00
 Converting VES into 2D resistivity models
very near subsurface is a direct consequence of the choice of the
thickness of the first layer (2.5 m). The central area goes deeper
than the lateral parts of the basin. It reveals two subareas, with
resistivity values in the range of 25–55 ohm-m and an underlying
layer having a higher resistivity (55–120 ohm-m). The resistivity
decreases with depth, starting at 40 ohm-m, and reaching lower
resistivity values, more or less rapidly depending on the position
along the profile. Moreover, the resistivity layers dip toward the
center of the profile, where the top of the lowest resistivity layer
rises slightly. The subsidence of the basin is once again outlined
by this last inversion.
DISCUSSION
Apparent resistivities are the expression of a complicated phe-
nomenon such that the most important feature in the interpolation
is that, after resampling, no artifacts should be introduced by this
process. For the purpose of validation we propose to compare ori-
ginal VES (measured apparent resistivity) to forward model resis-
tivity curves from the 2D inverted models. Figure 13a shows the
apparent resistivity sounding curve for one of the VES located at
x ¼ 5962 m from the southwest origin of profile D (i.e., the seventh
VES starting from the left, Figure 8); the estimated resistivity values
determined from kriging at x ¼ 6000 m (20 m ≤ L∕2 ≤ 3000 m)
Figure 10. (a) Measured apparent resistivity, (b) predicted apparent
resistivity, and (c) 2D inverted model for profile D, a ¼ 100 m.
Downloaded 25 Jan 2012 to 147.210.156.32. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://segdl.org/
B233
are plotted on the same chart for comparison. It is important to note
that due to the kriging design of the grid, the VES locations do not
exactly match the nodes of the grid. The two curves are well super-
imposed from 20 to 150 m, and from 500 to 1500 m; kriged values
are slightly smaller for intermediate and very large values of L∕2
with a relative error of less than 8%. Figure 13b shows the forward
resistivity curve and the estimated resistivity values at the same lo-
cation (x ¼ 6000 m). It can be observed that these two curves are
very well matched, except for the larger semispacings (last values of
the curves). Due to the equivalence principles, it is possible to de-
rive different geophysical models having the same apparent resis-
tivity sounding curve. The methodology used in this paper serves to
account for lateral and vertical variation in apparent resistivities be-
fore inversion. In addition, the set of apparent resistivities to be
sampled before being inverted is made up from data interpolated,
both from the set of VES along the D profile, but also from data that
are related to the 3D apparent resistivities of the whole basin (see the
previous section dealing with “Estimating the apparent resistiv-
ities”). In conclusion, there is a very good similarity between the
forward resistivity curve and the measured apparent resistivity
for this profile. This is also the case for the rest of the VES (15)
composing the survey. As a consequence, the structural analysis
of the apparent resistivities has been performed correctly in
this case.
Figure 11. (a) Measured apparent resistivity, (b) predicted apparent
resistivity, and (c) 2D inverted model for profile D, a ¼ 50 m.
BB234 Riss et al.

Finally, it would be interesting to compare the inverted resistivity values differ, as the distance between data points increases. Thus,
profiles with some geological well logs. Although there are no if there are correlation distances (ranges), operating at smaller scales
boreholes near to the D profile; well data location exists in the than the average distance between the VES, they are not detected by
neighborhood of profile D (Figure 3). The first of these is located the geostatistical analysis and contribute to an increase in the nugget
south of the origin of the D profile (well #2430/15, x ¼ 522.800 km
y ¼ 373.200 km, at 3689 m perpendicular to the D profile). Taking
into account the distance between the borehole and the D profile,
the rock types and thickness from the borehole are consistent with
the thickness and resistivity of the model layers: lacustrines
limestones, yellow clay and conglomerates from the Pliocene
and Quaternary, and plastic gray marls, sandy gray marls and blue
marls from the Miocene (Figure 14a). The second borehole
(2743∕15, x ¼ 514.744 km y ¼ 372.000 km) is located southwest-
ward at 1,355 m from the origin. In this case, the record of the rock
types allows a comparison to be made only over the first 100 m
below the surface: yellow siltstones, sandy marls from the Pliocene
and Quaternary, and plastic gray marls from the upper Miocene
(Figure 14b). In this case, the overall geological features are again
considered to be consistent.
Despite the previous validation, some limitations of the metho-
dology should be outlined. The first limitation is related to the VES
sampling rate. The variogram indicates the extent to which the

Figure 13. (a) Comparison of the measured apparent resistivity at

5962 m from the southwest origin of the D profile and at the same
locations kriged values at the node of the grid located at 6,000 m
from the origin (measured VES: continuous line; kriged values:
rhombus), (b) kriged apparent resistivity values and forward model
apparent resistivity values at the same location (kriged values:
rhombus; forward model values: continuous line).

Figure 14. Model resistivity at two x locations (0, 3350 m) along D

profile and rock types passed through by neighboring boreholes
Figure 12. (a) Measured apparent resistivity, (b) predicted apparent (marly layers are from the upper Miocene, yellow siltstones, yellow
resistivity, and (c) 2D inverted model for the shallower part of the clay, and lacustrine limestones are from the Pliocene and/or the
profile D, a ¼ 20 m. Quaternary layers, see Figure 2).

Downloaded 25 Jan 2012 to 147.210.156.32. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://segdl.org/
 Converting VES into 2D resistivity models
effect in the directional variograms. Moreover, when performing
kriging the practical rule is that the grid size should not be smaller
than the average distance between data points. Thus, depending on
the expected horizontal resolution, it would be necessary to incor-
porate additional data to obtain acceptable inversion results. This
could be done by performing sequential kriging with decreasing
grid sizes incorporating the estimated data (apparent resistivity)
of a previous step until the expected resolution is reached. Another
way to input additional data into the inversion process is the method
we have used; a method that is based on kriging for different current
electrode spacing. A perspective to solve this problem may also be
to try to combine the methodology presented here with the method
proposed by Torres-Verdin and Bostick (1992). These authors pro-
pose an adaptation of magnetotellurics methods to overcome the
spatial aliasing effects associated with the sampling of the surface
electric field.
Another limitation results from the increasing depth (volume) of
investigation, as the separation between the current electrodes C1 C2
is increased. The apparent resistivity values measured for large
current electrode spacings could thus be expected to have better
correlation than for smaller separations. In the real world, data
are never ideal, and a simple recommendation is to keep in mind
this limitation when interpreting the results.
We have described three different inverse resistivity sections: the
first one provides an overview of the whole basin; the second model
also achieves this, but with finer details; and finally, the third section
reveals a more detailed electrical imaging of the basin’s subsurface.
These results are in good agreement, and are reinforced by the avail-
able geologic knowledge of the Saïss basin. First, the vertical and
lateral heterogeneity of the lithofacies and thickness of the upper-
Quaternary and Pliocene layers are outlined. Next, the estimation of
the thickness of the intermediate layer from the Miocene (down to
900 m) is estimated, and electrical discontinuities perpendicular to
the structural trend of the basin are recognized. These are assumed
to be normal faults with central hanging walls and a continuous
stratigraphic separation from the upper-Quaternary and Pliocene
layers down to the deep calcareous formation from the Liassic.
This methodology allows us to propose a geologic model of the
basin (Figure 15) that is consistent with previous geologic knowl-
edge (DRPE, 1988). Moreover, such a geologic model can be used
to locate new boreholes and/or planning new geophysic surveys to
gather new geologic knowledge, for water prospecting, or civil
engineering purposes.
With this method it is also possible to derive a resistivity model,
even at lower depths over long profiles, by working with a set of
data having low L∕2 distances. This is an advantageous and prag-
matic choice with respect to the difficulty of managing very long
Figure 15. Schematic geologic model of the Saïss basin based on
electrical imaging (resistivities are in ohm-m).
Downloaded 25 Jan 2012 to 147.210.156.32. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://segdl.org/
B235
tomography electrical resistivity surveys without roll along. The
main objective to keep in mind is the need to simultaneously
provide information from the depths of the basin and to produce
accurate subsurface modeling (Nguyen et al., 2009).
CONCLUSIONS
We have presented a methodology based on the combined use of
geostatistical and 2D electrical tomography inversion methods,
allowing for a very fast reinterpretation of historical data and the
improvement in the analysis of recent VES in countries where only
low-cost methods, such as VES, can be used due to technological
and economic constraints. Furthermore, the methodology allows for
2D resistivity imaging of deep and/or extensive areas from a series
of VES that are well known to offer great sensitivity to depth, good
penetration through a conductive surface layer, and fine resolution
of the horizontal layer. This methodology has been used on the
subsiding Saïss basin (Morocco), and has produced geologically
reasonable resistivity models down to a depth of 1000 m, compa-
tible with the overall geologic structure known for this basin.
Furthermore, a geologic model of the basin consistent with previous
geologic knowledge is proposed. This model could help in the plan-
ning of future surveys for hydrogeological research in this area.
This methodology can be expanded by using other kinds of geos-
tatistical techniques, such as conditional simulation. It could also be
performed automatically if other kinds of interpolators were used,
or if the structural analysis were replaced by an automatic fitting of
the covariance model.
The methodology presented in this paper drastically lowers the
time and effort needed to generate a 2D-3D resistivity model for the
whole basin in comparison with the individual inversions and inter-
pretation of the original VES data. Also, the final results are char-
acterized by lateral continuity, which individual 1D inversions
could not show. This methodology permits fast reinterpretation
of historical data and the imaging of large scale surveys with con-
siderable penetration depth.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research work was accomplished with the help of a one-
month grant awarded to Professor J. L. Fernández-Martínez by
the University of Bordeaux in November 2007 and through the
collaboration between the Grupo de Modelización de Fenómenos
Naturales (Universidad de Oviedo) and I2M-GCE (Université
Bordeaux 1), financed by the PICASSO interchange program.
The interchange program VOLUBILIS enabled the collaboration
between Meknes University and Bordeaux University.
The authors wish to acknowledge the quality of the comments
and recommendations provided by the peer reviewers, which led
to considerable improvements in the quality of this paper.
REFERENCES
Apostolopoulos, G., 2008, Combined Schlumberger and dipole-dipole array
for hydrogeologic applications: Geophysics, 73, no. 5, F189–F195.
Armstrong, M., 1998, Basic linear geostatistics: Springer.
Bleinès, C., M. Bourges, J. Deraisme, F. Geffroy, N. Jeannée, O. Lemarc-
hand, S. Perseval, J. Poisson, F. Rambert, D. Renard, Y. Touffait, and
L. Wagner, 2011: Isatis 2011, Technical documentation, http://www
.geovariances.com, accessed 21 March 2011.
Chieh-Hou, Y., and L. Wei-Feng, 2005, Using direct current resistivity
sounding and geostatistics to aid in hydrogeological studies in the
Choshuichi Alluvial Fan, Taiwan: Ground Water, 40, 165–173.
Chilès, J. P., and P. Delfiner, 1999, Geostatistics: Modeling spatial uncer-
tainty: Wiley-Interscience.
BB236
Dewashish, K., A. Shakeel, N. S. Krishnamurthy, and B. Dewandel, 2007,
Reducing ambiguities in vertical electrical sounding interpretations: A
geostatistical application: Journal of Applied Geophysics, 62, 16–32.
DIRECTION DE LA RECHERCHE ET DE LA PLANIFICATION DE L’EAU (DRPE), 1988,
Synthèse géophysique des bassins de Fès-Meknès et Boudnib-Errachidia,
Project PNUD/DTCD, MOR 86/004.
Dubrule, O., 1998, Geostatistics in petroleum geology: American Associa-
tion of Petroleum Geologists, Education Course Note Series #38, 250.
Edwards, L. S., 1977, A modified pseudosection for resistivity and IP:
Geophysics, 42, 1020–1036.
Essahlaoui, A., A. Sahbi, L. Bahi, and N. El-Yamine, 2001, Preliminary
survey of the structure and hydrogeology of the western Saïss Basin,
Morocco, using electrical resistivity: Journal of African Earth Sciences,
32, no. 4, 777–789.
Fernández-Martínez, J. L., C. O. Menéndez-Pérez, L. M. Pedruelo-
González, J. P. Fernández-Alvarez, and P. Cienfuegos Suárez, 2003,
Geostatistical analysis of inverse problem variables. Application to seis-
mic tomography: Mathematical Geology, 35, no. 8, 953–969.
Ferreira, N. R., M. J. Porsani, and S. Pomponet De Oliveira, 2003,
A hybrid genetic-linear algorithm for 2D inversion of sets of
vertical electrical sounding, Revista Brasileira de Geofisica, 21, no. 3,
accessed 5 July 2011; http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0102-
261X2003000300003&script=sci_arttext, accessed 15 November 2011.
Gambus, M., C. Torres-Verdín, and C. A. Schile, 2002, High-resolution
geostatistical inversion of a seismic data set acquired in a Gulf of Mexico
gas reservoir: 72nd Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded
Abstracts, 1785–1788.
Haas, A., and O. Dubrule, 1994, Geostatistical inversion: A sequential meth-
od of stochastic reservoir modeling constrained by seismic data: First
Break, 12, 561–569.
Hamzah, U., E. P. Malin, and A. R. Samsudin, 2007, Groundwater inves-
tigation in Kuala Selangor using vertical electrical sounding (VES)
surveys: Environmental Geology, 51, no. 13, 1349–1359.
Harmouzi, O., J. Riss, A. Essahlaoui, A. Marache, and C. Sirieix, 2009,
Interprétation des sondages électriques verticaux par combinaison de
méthodes statistique, géostatistique et d’inversion: Application au bassin
de Saïss (Maroc): Africa Geoscience Review, 16, no. 2, 119–140.
Hussein, M. T., and H. S. Awad, 2006, Delineation of groundwater zones
using lithology and electric tomography in the Khartoum basin, central
Sudan: Computers & Geosciences, 338, 1213–1218.
Journel, A., 1989, Fundamentals of geostatistics in five lessons: American
Geophysical Union.
Loke, M. H., 2004, Electrical imaging surveys for environmental and engi-
neering studies. Tutorial: 2-D and 3-D electrical imaging surveys: www
.geoelectrical.com, accessed 11 June 2007.
Loke, M. H., I. Acworth, and T. Dahlin, 2003, A comparison of smooth and
blocky inversion methods in 2-D electrical imaging surveys: Exploration
Geophysics (Collingwood, Australia), 34, 182–187.
Loke, M. H., and R. D. Barker, 1995, Least-square deconvolution of appar-
ent resistivity pseudosection: Geophysics, 60, 1682–1689.
View publication stats Downloaded 25 Jan 2012 to 147.210.156.32. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://segdl.org/
Riss et al.
Loke, M. H., and R. D. Barker, 1996, Rapid least-square inversion of ap-
parent resistivity pseudosection by a quasi-Newton method: Geophysical
Prospecting, 44, 131–152.
Monteiro Santos, F. A., and S. A. Sultan, 2008, On the 3-D inversion of
vertical electrical soundings: Application to the south Ismailia
area-Cairo road, Cairo, Egypt: Journal of Applied Geophysics, 54,
97–110.
Morari, F., A. Castrignanò, and C. Pagliarin, 2009, Application of multivari-
ate geostatistics in delineating management zones within a gravelly
vineyard using geo-electrical sensors: Computers and Electronics in
Agriculture, 68, 97–1071.
Nguyen, F., A. Kemna, A. Antonsso, P. Engesgaard, O. Kuras, R. Ogilvy,
S. Gisbert, S. Jorreto, and A. Pulido-Bosch, 2009, Characterization of
seawater intrusion using 2D electrical imaging: Near Surface Geophysics,
7, 377–390.
Pham, V. N., D. Boyer, J. L. Mouël, and T. K. T. Nguyen, 2002, Hydrogeo-
logical investigation in the Mekong Delta around Ho-Chi-Minh City
(South Vietnam) by electrical tomography: Comptes Rendus Geoscience,
334, 733–740.
Pidlisecky, A., E. Haber, and R. Knight, 2007, RESINVM3D: A 3D resis-
tivity inversion package: Geophysics, 72, no. 2, H1–H10.
Remy, N., A. Boucher, and J. Wu, 2009, Applied geostatistics with SGeMS:
A user’s guide: Cambridge University Press.
Riss, J., J. L. Fernández-Martínez, C. Sirieix, O. Harmouzi, A. Marache, and
A. Essahlaoui, 2008, Reinterpretation of VES data (Saïss basin,
Morocco) using geostatistics and 2D electrical inversion methods:
78th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts,
819–823.
Sainato, C. M., and B. N. Losinno, 2006, Spatial distribution of groundwater
salinity at Pergamino — Arrecifes zone (Buenos Aires Province, Argen-
tina): Revista Brasileira de Geofísica, 24, no. 3, 307–318.
Sani, F., C. Del Ventisette, D. Montanari, A. Bendrik, and M. Chenakeb,
2007, Structural evolution of the Rides Prerifaines (Morocco): Structural
and seismic intepretation and analogue modelling experiments: Interna-
tional Journal of Earth Sciences, 96, 685–706, doi: 10.1007/s00531-006-
0118-2.
Spitzer, K., and H. J. Kümpel, 1997, 3D FD resistivity modeling and sen-
sitivity analyses applied to a highly resistive phonolitic body: Geophysical
Prospecting, 45, 963–982.
Torres-Verdin, C., and F. X. Bostick, 1992, Principles of spatial surface elec-
tric field filering in magnetotellurics: Electromagnetic array profiling
(EMAP): Geophysics, 57, 603–622.
Yeh, T. C. J., S. Liu, R. J. Glass, K. Bake, J. R. Braissard, D. Alumbaugh,
and D. Labrecque, 2002, A geostatistically based inverse model for elec-
trical resistivity surveys and its application to vadose zone hydrogeology:
Water Resources Research, 38, 1278–1291.
Zanolin, A., C. de Fouquet, J. Granier, P. Ruelle, and B. Nicoullaud, 2007,
Geostatistical simulation of the spatial variability of an irrigated maize
farm plot: Computers & Geosciences, 339, 430–440.