Investigating the performance of combined resistivity model using different electrode arrays configuration

Abstract

The use of a single geophysical method is prone to more ambiguity and loss of vital geological information at geophysical interpretation stage. To circumvent this problem, a statistical approach and image processing technique were used to combine three electrode arrays (dipole-dipole, pole-dipole, and Werner-Schlumberger). The combined models were tested using both synthetic and field models. For synthetic models, the mean absolute error (MAE), mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) and mean resistivity values were used as criteria to assess the combined models. For field data, the three protocols were combined and the models were compared with borehole data. Considering the overall performance, maximum value model has a low error and correlated well with the borehole data than the other combined models analyzed although the performance of these models depends on resistivity in addition to the nature of geologic structure under investigation. The correlation between resistivity and lithological changes with depth (borehole data) used in this research provided a more quantitative comparison approach than the ones available in the literature. The image processing technique served as an aid to make post inversion analysis such as combining data sets and quantitative comparison among/between the models.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

References

  1. Abdulrahman A, Nawawi M, Saad R, Abu-Rizaiza AS, Yusoff MS, Khalil AE, Ishola KS (2016) Characterization of active and closed landfill sites using 2D resistivity/IP imaging: case studies in Penang, Malaysia. Environ Earth Sci 75(4):1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Arisona A, Nawawi M, Nuraddeen U, Hamzah M (2016) A preliminary mineralogical evaluation study of natural asphalt rock characterization, Southeast Sulawesi, Indonesia. Arab J Geosci 9(4):272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bery AA, Saad R (2013) Merging data levels using two different arrays for high resolution resistivity tomography. Electron J Geotech Eng 18:5507–5514

    Google Scholar 

  4. Candansayar ME, Başokur AT (2001) Detecting small-scale targets by the 2D inversion of two-sided three-electrode data: application to an archaeological survey. Geophys Prospect 49(1):13–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Dahlin T (2001) The development of DC resistivity imaging techniques. Comput Geosci 27:1019–1029

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Doetsch JA, Coscia I, Greenhalgh S, Linde N, Green A, Günther T (2010) The borehole-fluid effect in electrical resistivity imaging. Geophysics 75(4):F107–F114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Everett ME (2013) Near-surface applied geophysics. Cambridge University Press

  8. Gyulai Á, Baracza MK, Tolnai ÉE (2013) The application of joint inversion in geophysical exploration. Int J Geosci 4:283–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hamdan HA, Vafidis A (2013) Joint inversion of 2D resistivity and seismic travel time data to image saltwater intrusion over karstic areas. Environ Earth Sci 68(7):1877–1885

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ishola KS, Nawawi MN, Abdullah K, Sabri AIA, Adiat KA (2014) Assessment of the reliability of reproducing two-dimensional resistivity models using an image processing technique. SpringerPlus 3(1):214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ishola K, Nawawi M, Abdullah K (2015) Combining multiple electrode arrays for two-dimensional electrical resistivity imaging using the unsupervised classification technique. Pure Appl Geophys 172:1615–1642

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kwarteng AY, Chavez PS (1990) Digital image processing of airborne geophysical data for uranium-mineralized braccia pipes exploration in North-Western Arizona. Geophysics 35(8):965–976

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Legault JM, Carriere D, Petrie L (2008) Synthetic model testing and distributed acquisition dc resistivity results over an unconformity uranium target from the Athabasca Basin, northern Saskatchewan. Lead Edge 27:46–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Liu H, Li G, Du L (2011) Application of high density resistivity method in accuracy of goaf detection. Glob Geol 14:110–114

    Google Scholar 

  15. Loke MH (1999) Electrical imaging surveys for environmental and engineering studies. A practical guide to, 2

  16. Loke MH (2002) RES2DINV ver. 3.50. Rapid 2-D resistivity and IP inversion using the least square method

  17. Loke M (2014) Rapid 2D resistivity forward modeling using the finite difference and finite element methods. Geotomo Software, Penang

    Google Scholar 

  18. Loke MH, Chambers JE, Rucker DF, Kuras O, Wilkinson PB (2013) Recent developments in the direct-current geoelectrical imaging method. J Appl Geophys 95:135–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Martorana R, Fiandaca G, Ponsati AC, Cosentino PL (2008) Comparative tests on different multi-electrode arrays using models in near-surface geophysics. J Geophys Eng 6(1):1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Radstake F, Geirnaert W, Kleindorsf TW, Terhell JC (1991) Applications of forward modeling resistivity profiles. Ground Water 29:5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Reynolds JM (2011) An introduction to applied and environmental geophysics. Wiley

  22. Rucker DF, Loke MH, Levitt MT, Noonan GE (2010) Electrical-resistivity characterization of an industrial site using long electrodes. Geophysics 75:WA95–WA104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Telford WM, Geldart LP, Sheriff RE (1990). Applied geophysics (Vol. 1). Cambridge university press

  24. Tso B, OLSEN RC (2005) Combining spectral and spatial information into hidden Markov models for unsupervised image classification. Int J Remote Sens 26(10):2113–2133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Tsokas G, Tsourlos P, Vargemezis G, Novack M (2008) Non-destructive electrical resistivity tomography for indoor investigation: the case of Kapnikarea Church in Athens. Archaeol Prospect 15:47–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Usman N, Abdullah K, Nawawi M, Esmail AK (2017) Magnetic survey for the delineation of concrete pillars for site characterization. Electron J Geotech Eng 22(10):4011–4030

    Google Scholar 

  27. Usman N, Abdullah K, Nawawi M, Esmail AK (2018) New approach of solving Euler deconvolution relation for the automatic interpretation of magnetic data. Terr Atmos Oceanogr Sci J

  28. Wilkinson PB, Meldrum PI, Chambers JE, Kuras O, Ogilvy RD (2006) Improved strategies for the automatic selection of optimized sets of electrical resistivity tomography measurement configurations. Geophys J Int 167:1119–1126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Willmott CJ, Matsuura K (2005) Advantages of the mean absolute error (MAE) over the root mean square error (RMSE) in assessing average model performance. Clim Res 30:79–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Yang J, Agterberg FP, Cheng Q (2015) A novel filtering technique for enhancing mineralization associated geochemical and geophysical anomalies. Comput Geosci 79:94–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nuraddeen Usman.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Usman, N., Abdullah, K. & Nawawi, M. Investigating the performance of combined resistivity model using different electrode arrays configuration. Arab J Geosci 12, 125 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-018-4192-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • Resistivity model
  • Electrode array configuration
  • Combined resistivity model, assessment criteria and image processing technique