A systematic comparison is presented between some 2D resistivity models and their images by the inversion of synthetic datasets relating to three different arrays, suitable for multichannel data acquisitions (dipole-dipole (DD), Wenner-Schlumberger (WS) and multiple gradient (MG)). The goal is to study how the measurement errors affects the resolution of the tomographic models and the ability to retrieve correct information on buried targets. We considered different data acquisition patterns, gradually increasing the complexity of the combinations of potential spacing and dipolar distance. To this end we increased the number of current dipoles to obtain approximately the same amount of measures, increasing the investigation time. Results from noise-free and noisy data are discussed and compared with those from field data. The results show that: the quality of the inversion models, for a fixed noise level, depends significantly on the data acquisition pattern; the information recovery and the resolution, being equal the number of measurements, is overall better for WS and worse for DD; the decrease of sensitivity with depth is lower for particular acquisition patterns that allow to better resolve deeper targets; the MG array can be preferred because it provides comparable results, using a smaller number of current electrodes.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Advanced Geosciences, Inc.
    Advanced Geosciences, Inc. [2009] Instruction manual for EarthImager 2D, Version 2.4.0, Resistivity and IP inversion software, 139 pp.
  2. Dahlin, T. and Zhou, B.
    [2004] A numerical comparison of 2D resistivity imaging with ten electrode arrays. Geophysical Prospecting, 52 (5), 379–398.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Dahlin, T. and ZhouB.
    [2006] Multiple-gradient array measurements for multichannel 2D resistivity imaging. Near Surface Geophysics, 4(2), 113–123.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. FiandacaG., MartoranaR., CosentinoP.L.
    2005. Use of the linear grid array in 2D resistivity tomography. Near Surface 2005, A023
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Loke, M.H.
    [2014] RES2DMOD ver. 3.01. Rapid 2D resistivity forward modelling using the finite-difference and finite-element methods, www.geotomosoft.com.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Martorana, R., Fiandaca, G., Casas Ponsati, A. and Cosentino, P.L.
    [2009] Comparative tests on different multi-electrode arrays using models in near-surface geophysics. Journal of Geophysics and Engineering, 6(1), 1–20.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Stummer, P., Maurer, H. and Green, A.G.
    [2004] Experimental design: Electrical resistivity data sets that provide optimum subsurface information. Geophysics, 69 (1), 120–139.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Szalai, S., Koppán, A., Szokoli, K., and Szarka, L.
    [2013] Geoelectric imaging properties of traditional arrays and of the optimized Stummer configuration. Near Surface Geophysics, 11 (1), 51–62.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Wilkinson, P.B., Chambers, J.E., Lelliott, M., Wealthall, G.P., and Ogilvy, R.D.
    [2008] Extreme sensitivity of crosshole electrical resistivity tomography measurements to geometric errors. Geophysical Journal International, 173 (1), 49–62.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Wilkinson, P.B., Loke, M.H., Meldrum, P.I., Chambers, J.E., Kuras, O., Gunn, D.A., and Ogilvy, RD.
    [2012] Practical aspects of applied optimized survey design for electrical resistivity tomography. Geophysical Journal International, 189 (1), 428–440.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. ZhouB., and DahlinT.
    [2003]. Properties and effects of measurement errors on 2D resistivity imaging. Near Surface Geophysics. 1 (3), 105–117.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

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