Combination of 1D laterally constrained inversion and 2D smooth inversion of resistivity data with a priori data from boreholes

References

1. AukenE. and ChristiansenA.V.2004. Layered and laterally constrained 2D inversion of resistivity data. Geophysics69, 752–761.
   [Google Scholar]
2. BjelmL. and WisénR.2000. Part of site investigation at Lockarp (in Swedish). Internal report for the City Tunnel Project (CTP), Lund, Sweden.
   [Google Scholar]
3. ClaerboutJ.F. and MuirF.1973. Robust modelling with erratic data. Geophysics38, 826–844.
   [Google Scholar]
4. DahlinT.1996. 2D resistivity surveying for environmental and engineering applications. First Break14, 275–283.
   [Google Scholar]
5. DahlinT., BjelmL. and SvenssonC.1999. Use of electrical imaging in site investigations for a railway tunnel through the Hallandsås Horst, Sweden. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology32, 163–172.
   [Google Scholar]
6. DahlinT. and LokeM.H.1998. Resolution of 2D Wenner resistivity imaging as assessed by numerical modelling. Journal of Applied Geophysics38, 237–249.
   [Google Scholar]
7. FogedN.2001. Inversion of 2‐dimensional resistivity distributions using laterally constrained models (in Danish: Inversion med lateralt sammenbundne modeller af 2‐dimensionale stokastiske resistivitets‐fordelinger). Thesis, University of Aarhus, Denmark.
   [Google Scholar]
8. GriffithsD.H. and TurnbullJ.1985. A multi‐electrode array for resistivity surveying. First Break3(7), 16–20.
   [Google Scholar]
9. LokeM.H. and BarkerR.D.1996. Rapid least‐squares inversion of apparent resistivity pseudosections by quasi‐Newton method. Geophysical Prospecting44, 131–152.
   [Google Scholar]
10. LokeM.H. and DahlinT.2002. A comparison of the Gauss‐Newton and quasi‐Newton methods in resistivity imaging inversion. Journal of Applied Geophysics49, 149–162.
    [Google Scholar]
11. LokeM.H., DahlinT. and AcworthI.2003. A comparison of smooth and blocky inversion methods in 2‐D electrical imaging surveys. Exploration Geophysics34, 182–187.
    [Google Scholar]
12. OlayinkaA.I. and YaramanciU.2000. Use of block inversion in the 2‐D interpretation of apparent resistivity data and its comparison with smooth inversion. Journal of Applied Geophysics45, 63–81.
    [Google Scholar]
13. OldenburgD.W. and LiY.1994. Inversion of induced polarization data. Geophysics59, 1327–1341.
    [Google Scholar]
14. van OvermeerenR.A. and RitsemaI.L.1988. Continuous vertical electrical sounding. First Break6, 313–324.
    [Google Scholar]
15. PainC.C., HerwangerJ.V., WorthingtonM.H. and de OliveiraC.R.E.2002. Effective multidimensional resistivity inversion using finite‐element techniques. Geophysical Journal International151, 710–728.
    [Google Scholar]
16. PellerinL.2002. Applications of electrical and electromagnetic methods for environmental and geotechnical investigations. Surveys in Geophysics23, 101–132.
    [Google Scholar]
17. SørensenK.I.1996. Pulled Array Continuous Electrical Profiling. First Break14, 85–90.
    [Google Scholar]
18. TirénS.A., WänstedtT. and SträngT.2001. Moredalen ‐ a canyon in the Fennoscandian Shield and its implication on site selection for radioactive waste disposal in south‐eastern Sweden. Engineering Geology61, 9–118.
    [Google Scholar]
19. VickeryA. and HobbsB.A.2003. Resistivity imaging to determine clay cover and permeable units at an ex‐industrial site. Near Surface Geophysics1, 21–30.
    [Google Scholar]