1887
Volume 19, Issue 1-2
  • ISSN: 0812-3985
  • E-ISSN: 1834-7533

Abstract

Over the past several years little attention has been paid to the electrode arrays used in induced polarisation (IP) surveys. However, arrays are very important in relation to anomaly detection and interpretation and to survey cost.

Currently popular arrays are gradient and dipole-dipole. Other arrays are used for resistivity surveying, but generally suffer more inductive coupling. Some new arrays have been investigated in order to look at:

  1. the advantages of current or potential dipoles parallel to strike,
  2. the virtues of broadside arrays,
  3. minimisation of inductive coupling, and
  4. a possible reduction in survey costs.

A perpendicular dipole-dipole array can reduce inductive coupling with horizontal layers and give an IP anomaly similar to that from a collinear array, if run across strike with both dipoles oblique to strike. Rather different, crossover type, responses are obtained with an L-array, in which one dipole is parallel to the strike of a target zone. This arrangement may locate the target more clearly.

A broadside parallel dipole-dipole array can take advantage of the common strike elongation of a target deposit, and relative to a collinear array run across strike, can provide improved resolution, dip information, and efficiency in reconnaissance.

Some of the features and benefits of various arrays are demonstrated by modelling results. With further work, including development of interpretation methods, attempts can be made to optimise array geometry for a specific exploration scenario.

© 1988 ASEG
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1071/EG988254
1988-03-01
2026-01-23

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1071/EG988254
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bibby, H. M. and Risk, G. F. (1973)—‘Interpretation of dipole-dipole resistivity surveys using a hemispherical model’, Geophysics38, 719–736.
  2. Brass, M., Flathe, H. and Schulz, R. (1981)—‘Resistivity profiling with different electrode arrays over a graphite deposit’, Geophysical Prospecting29, 589–600.
  3. Broadbent, M. and Habberjam, G. M. (1971)—‘A solution of the dipping interface problem using the square array resistivity technique’, Geophysical Prospecting, 19 321–338.
  4. Coggon, J. H. (1973)—‘A comparison of IP electrode arrays’, Geophysics, 38, 737–761.
  5. Doicin, D. (1976)—‘Quadripole-quadripole arrays for direct current resistivity measurements — model studies’, Geophysics41, 79–95.
  6. Habberjam, G. M. (1972)—‘The effect of anisotropy on square array resistivity measurements’, Geophysical Prospecting20, 249–266.
  7. Habberjam, G. M. and Watkins, G. E. (1967)—‘The use of a square configuration in resistivity prospecting’, Geophysical Prospecting15, 445–467.
  8. Hohmann, G. W. (1975)—‘Three-dimensional Induced polarization and electromagnetic modelling’, Geophysics40, 309–324.
  9. Jain, S. C. (1974)—‘Theoretical broadside resistivity profiles over an outcropping dyke’, Geophysical Prospecting22, 445–457.
  10. Keller, G. V., Furgerson, R. B., Lee, C. Y., Harthill, N. and Jacobson, J. J. (1975)—‘The dipole mapping method’, Geophysics40, 451–472.
  11. Risk, G. F., Macdonald, W. J. P. and Dawson, G. B. (1970)—‘DC resistivity surveys of the Broadlands geothermal region, New Zealand’, Geothermics spec. iss2, 287–294.
/content/journals/10.1071/EG988254
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

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