Pure and Applied Geophysics

, Volume 171, Issue 9, pp 2371–2389 | Cite as

1-D DC Resistivity Modeling and Interpretation in Anisotropic Media Using Particle Swarm Optimization

  • Ertan Pekşen
  • Türker Yas
  • Alper Kıyak


We examine the one-dimensional direct current method in anisotropic earth formation. We derive an analytic expression of a simple, two-layered anisotropic earth model. Further, we also consider a horizontally layered anisotropic earth response with respect to the digital filter method, which yields a quasi-analytic solution over anisotropic media. These analytic and quasi-analytic solutions are useful tests for numerical codes. A two-dimensional finite difference earth model in anisotropic media is presented in order to generate a synthetic data set for a simple one-dimensional earth. Further, we propose a particle swarm optimization method for estimating the model parameters of a layered anisotropic earth model such as horizontal and vertical resistivities, and thickness. The particle swarm optimization is a naturally inspired meta-heuristic algorithm. The proposed method finds model parameters quite successfully based on synthetic and field data. However, adding 5 % Gaussian noise to the synthetic data increases the ambiguity of the value of the model parameters. For this reason, the results should be controlled by a number of statistical tests. In this study, we use probability density function within 95 % confidence interval, parameter variation of each iteration and frequency distribution of the model parameters to reduce the ambiguity. The result is promising and the proposed method can be used for evaluating one-dimensional direct current data in anisotropic media.


Electrical anisotropy Particle swarm optimization 1-D DC interpretation 



This work was supported by the Scientific and Technical Research Council of Turkey (TÜBİTAK) under Grant 110Y354. We would like to thank the General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration (MTA) for providing us with the VES data and the well information. We would like to thank anonymous reviewers for constructive comments which helped improve the quality of the manuscript.


  1. Anderson W. L. (1979), Numerical integration of related Hankel transforms of orders 0 and 1 by adaptive digital filtering, Geophysics 44, 1287–1305.Google Scholar
  2. Bhattacharya P. K. and Patra H.P. (1968), Direct current geoelectric sounding: Principles and applications (Elsevier/Amsterdam).Google Scholar
  3. Bhattacharya B. B. and Sen B. K. (1981), Depth of investigation of collinear electrode arrays over homogeneous anisotropic half-space in direct current methods, Geophysics 46, 768–780.Google Scholar
  4. Christensen N. B. (1990), Optimized fast Hankel transform filters, Geophysical Prospecting 38, 545–558.Google Scholar
  5. Dey A. and Morrison H. F. (1979), Resistivity modeling for arbitrarily shaped two-dimensional structures, Geophysical Prospecting 27, 106–136.Google Scholar
  6. Fernandez–Martinez J. L. and Garcia–Gonzalo E. (2008), The generalized PSO: A new door to PSO, Journal of Artificial Evolution and Applications 2008, Article ID 861275.Google Scholar
  7. Fernandez-Martinez J. L. and Garcia-Gonzalo E. (2009), The PSO family: deduction, stochastic analysis and comparison, Swarm Intelligence 3, 245–273.Google Scholar
  8. Fernandez-Martinez J. L. and Garcia-Gonzalo E. (2011), Stochastic stability analysis of the linear continues and discrete PSO models, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computations 15, 405–423.Google Scholar
  9. Fernandez-Martinez J. L., Garcia-gonzalo E., Fernandez-alvarez J. P., Kuzma H. A., and Menendez-perez C. O. (2010a), PSO: A powerful algorithm to solve geophysical inverse problems application to a 1D-DC case, Journal of Applied Geophysics 71, 13–25.Google Scholar
  10. Fernandez-martinez J. L., Garcia-Gonzalo E., and Naudet V. (2010b), Particle swarm optimization applied to solving and appraising the streaming-potential inverse problem, Geophysics 75, WA3–WA15.Google Scholar
  11. Fernandez-Martinez J. L., Fernandez-Muniz M. Z., and Tompkins M. J. (2012), On the topography of the cost functional in linear and nonlinear inverse problems, Geophysics 77, W1–W15.Google Scholar
  12. Ghosh D. P. (1971a) The application of linear filter theory to the direct interpretation of geoelectrical resistivity measurements, Geophysical Prospecting 19, 192–217.Google Scholar
  13. Ghosh D. P. (1971b), Inverse filter coefficients for the computation of apparent resistivity standard curves for a horizontally stratified earth, Geophysical Prospecting 19, 769–775.Google Scholar
  14. Grant F. S. and West G. F. (1965) Interpretation theory in applied geophysics (New York:McGraw-Hill).Google Scholar
  15. Greenhalgh S. A., Marescot L., Zhou B., Greenhalgh, M., and Wiese T. (2009), Electric potential and Frechet derivatives for a uniform anisotropic medium with a tilted axis of symmetry, Pure and Applied Geophysics 166, 673–699.Google Scholar
  16. Guptasarma D. (1982), Optimization of short digital linear filters for increased accuracy, Geophysical Prospecting 30, 501–514.Google Scholar
  17. Herwanger J. V., Pain C. C., Binley A., De Olivereira, C. R. E., and Wortington M. H. (2004), Anisotropic resistivity tomography, Geophysical Journal International 158, 409–425.Google Scholar
  18. Johansen H. K. and Sorensen K. I. (1979), Fast Hankel transform, Geophysical Prospecting 27, 876–901.Google Scholar
  19. Jupp D. L. B. and Vozoff K. (1977), Resolving anisotropy in layered media by joint inversion, Geophysical Prospecting 25, 460–470.Google Scholar
  20. Kara I., Durdu M., and Arigün Z. (2009) Konya-Tuzlukçu (KT-1) Jeotermal Sondajı Kuyu Bitirme Raporu (MTA-Report [in Turkish]).Google Scholar
  21. Keller G. V. and Frischknecht F. C. (1966), Electrical methods in geophysical prospecting (NewYork: Permagon).Google Scholar
  22. Kennedy J. and Eberhart R. C. (1995), Particle swarm optimization, IEEE International Conference on Neural Networks 4, 1942–1948.Google Scholar
  23. Key K. (2012), Is the fast Hankel transform faster than quadrature? Geophysics 77, F21–F30.Google Scholar
  24. Kim J., Yi M., Cho S., Son J., and Song, W. (2006), Anisotropic cross hole resistivity tomography for ground safety analysis of a high-storied building over an abandoned mine, Journal of Environmental Engineering Geophysics 11, 225–235.Google Scholar
  25. Koefoed O. (1979), Geosounding principles resistivity sounding measurements Vol. 14A (Amsterdam: Elsevier).Google Scholar
  26. Kreyszig E. (1993), Advanced Engineering Mathematics (New York: Wiley).Google Scholar
  27. Li Y. and Spitzer K. (2005), Finite element resistivity modelling for three-dimensional structures with arbitrary anisotropy, Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors 150, 15–27.Google Scholar
  28. Maillet R. (1947), The fundamental equations of electrical prospecting, Geophysics 12, 529–556.Google Scholar
  29. Matias M. J. S. and Habberjam G. M. (1986), The effect of structure and anisotropy on resistivity measurements, Geophysics 51, 964–971.Google Scholar
  30. Pain C., Herwanger J., Saunders J., Wortington M., and Oliveira C. (2003), Anisotropic resistivity inversion, Inverse Problems 19, 1081–1111.Google Scholar
  31. Pekşen E., Yas T., Kayman A. Y., and Özkan C. (2011), Application of particle swarm optimization on self-potential data, Journal of Applied Geophysics 75, 305–318.Google Scholar
  32. Pervago E., Mousatov A., and Shevnin V. (2006), Analytical solution for the electric potential in arbitrary anisotropic layered media applying the set of Hankel transforms of integer order, Geophysical Prospecting 54, 651–661.Google Scholar
  33. Pidlisecky A. and Knight R. (2008), FW2_5D: A MATLAB 2.5-D electrical resistivity modeling Code, Computers & Geosciences 34, 1645–1654.Google Scholar
  34. Sen M. and Stoffa P. L. (1995), Global optimization methods in geophysical inversion, (Amsterdam: Elsevier).Google Scholar
  35. Shaw R. and Srivastava S. (2007), Particle swarm optimization: A new tool to invert geophysical data, Geophysics 72, F75–F83.Google Scholar
  36. Shi Y. and Eberhart R. C. (1998), A modified particle swarm optimizer, IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation (Anchorage, Alaska), 69–73.Google Scholar
  37. Tarantola A. (1997), Inverse problem theory of data fitting and model parameter estimation (Amsterdam: Elsevier).Google Scholar
  38. Telford W. M., Geldart L. P., and Sheriff R. E. (1990), Applied Geophysics (Cambridge: Cambridge).Google Scholar
  39. Watson K. A. and Barker R. D. (1999), Differentiating anisotropy and lateral effects using azimuthal resistivity offset Wenner soundings, Geophysics 64, 739–745.Google Scholar
  40. Watson K. A. and Barker R. D. (2010), Tank modeling of azimuthal resistivity surveys over anisotropic bedrock with dipping overburden, Near Surface Geophysics 8, 297–309.Google Scholar
  41. Wiese T., Greenhalgh S. A. and Marescot L. (2009), DC sensitivity for surface patterns for tilted transversely isotropic media, Near Surface Geophysics 7, 125–139.Google Scholar
  42. Xu S., Duan B., and Zhang D. (2000), Selection of the wavenumbers k using an optimization method for the inverse Fourier transform in 2.5D electrical modeling, Geophysical Prospecting 48, 789–796.Google Scholar
  43. Yang X. S. (2010), Engineering optimization: An introduction with metaheuristic applications (New Jersey: Wiley).Google Scholar
  44. Yin C. and Wiedelt P. (1999), Geoelectrical fields in layered earth with arbitrary anisotropy, Geophysics 64, 426–434.Google Scholar
  45. Zhou B., Greenhalgh M., and Greenhalgh S. A. (2009), 2.5/3-D resistivity modelling in anisotropic media using Gaussian quadrature grids, Geophysical Journal International 176, 63–80.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Basel 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geophysical Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringKocaeli UniversityKocaeliTurkey
  2. 2.Department of GeophysicsGeneral Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration (MTA)AnkaraTurkey
  3. 3.Institute of ScienceSakarya UniversityEsentepeTurkey

Personalised recommendations