doi:10.1111/j.1365-2478.2007.00673.

Geophysical Prospecting, 2008, 56, 159175

On the classification of surface geoelectric arrays

o Szarka1,2
Sandor
Szalai1 and Laszl
1 Geodetic
2 Institute

and Geophysical Research Institute, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Csatkai u. 6-8, P.O Box 5, Sopron H-9401, Hungary, and
of Geosciences, University of West-Hungary, Bajcsy-Zs. u. 4, Sopron H-9400, Hungary

Received August 2006, revision accepted October 2007

ABSTRACT
We collected approximately one hundred independent geoelectric arrays from published geophysical literature. We have presented them in a systematic way and with
a unified notation. The classification of arrays is based on three divalent parameters:
superposition of measurements, focusing of currents and colinearity of the
array, creating 8 classes of geoelectric arrays.
Among the 102 independent arrays we found in the geophysical literature, we
managed to classify 92 arrays in the aforementioned way. Ten further techniques fell
beyond the proposed classification.
The classification we propose may open the way to new geoelectric arrays, hopefully
providing improving responses to the infinite variety of field problems we may face.
It may bring to daylight, exclusively in a logical way, currently unused arrays. In
searching new geoelectric arrays this paper helps to avoid rediscovering the discovered.
Although it might be thought that the modern multielectrode systems will supersede
all former arrays, such systematization is not only for historical and tutorial interests:
some of the old arrays can be perhaps built into new multielectode systems, further
enhancing their effectivity in the future. Finally, this collection of arrays establishes the
possibility of systematic intercomparisons of arrays on the basis of various theoretical
or practical aspects.

INTRODUCTION
The rich variety of geoelectric resistivity measurements was
summarized by Van Nostrand and Cook (1966). The first
(and so far the only) summary of geoelectric electrode arrays was published by Whiteley (1973). Many arrays from
the former Soviet Union (Dachnov 1951, 1953; Tarkhov 1980;
Yakubovsky and Liahov 1982; Bogolyubov 1984; Hmelevsky
and Bondarenko 1989 etc.) are missing from Whiteleys work.
Unfortunately neither Whiteleys paper nor these Soviet publications are easily accessible. Moreover, since the work of
Whiteley (1973) the number of electrode arrays has increased
significantly. Therefore, it seems beneficial to provide a new
classification of geoelectric electrode arrays.

E-mail: szalai@ggki.hu, szarka@ggki.hu


C

2008 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers

With the advent of multielectrode arrays, the Wenner and

dipole-dipole arrays have become the most popular and all
others are less frequently used. While there are important practical advantages of the Wenner and dipole-dipole arrays (e.g.
multielectrode compatibility, well established theory, available
inversion softwares etc.), each specific array geometry may
possess advantages worth exploiting. The effectivity of modern multielectrode systems could be perhaps enhanced in the
future by building other arrays.
In this paper we propose a new systematic classification of
geoelectric arrays with a unified notation. This classification
shows the position of lesser known or not yet applied electrode
arrays in the system of arrays in a fashion similar to that of
the chemical elements shown in Mendeleyevs periodic table
of elements.
This classification may inspire the testing of not-yet-used
new arrays in order to find the optimal configuration for a

159

160 S. Szalai and L. Szarka

given problem. The classification certainly helps to avoid rediscovering already published arrays.
After presenting the principles of the proposed classification, we classify more than 90 arrays from the literature and
then we illustrate the geophysical relevance of the classification.
P R I N C I P L E O F T H E C L A S S I F I C AT I O N
In our classification both the current and potential electrodes
are point electrodes and all of them are supposed to be on
the surface. For these surface geoelectric arrays we apply a
uniform notation and in order to be able to compare their
geometrical characteristics (e.g., the penetration depths) we
define the characteristic length of each array.
The classification of arrays is based on three divalent parameters:
a. superposition: if the number of the potential difference
measurement is more than one, the array is said to be superposed otherwise the array is nonsuperposed.

b. focusing: if more than one current circuit is applied the

array is said to be focused otherwise the array is nonfocused.
c. colinearity: if the alignment of the electrodes is linear the
array is said to be colinear otherwise the array is noncolinear.
In this way there are altogether 23 = 8 classes, where the
simpler alternative is denoted with 1 and the more complex
is denoted with m. The eight classes, shown in Fig. 1, are
as follows:
I. Nonsuperposed, nonfocused, colinear arrays (1-1-1) arrays
(the simplest arrays)
II. Nonsuperposed, nonfocused, noncolinear (1-1-m) arrays
(the simple noncolinear arrays)
III. Nonsuperposed, focused, colinear (1-m-1) arrays (the
simple focused arrays)
IV. Superposed, nonfocused, colinear (m-1-1) arrays (the
simple superposed arrays)
V. Nonsuperposed, focused, noncolinear (1-m-m) arrays
VI. Superposed, nonfocused, noncolinear (m-1-m) arrays

Figure 1 Classification of surface electrode arrays. Divalent (1 or m) parameters as (a) superposition (nonsuperposed or superposed, that is 1 or
m), (b) focusing (nonfocused or focused, that is 1 or m), and (c) colinearity (colinear or noncolinear, that is 1 or m) define 23 = 8 array classes
as follows: 1-1-1 (class I), 1-1-m (class II), 1-m-1 (class III), 1-m-m (class IV), m-1-1 (class V), m-1-m (class VI), m-m-1 (class VII), m-m-m
(class VIII)


C

2008 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 56, 159175

On the classification of surface geoelectric arrays 161

Figure 2 The simplest (nonsuperposed, nonfocused, colinear) geoelectric arrays (class I: 1-1-1). The electrodes in general are denoted as E1 ,
E2 , E3 , E4 . C: current (source or sink electrode). Source/sink electrodes are full/empty stars. P: potential electrode (full circles). The lower-case
letters such as e, p, c indicate electrodes at infinity. The stars indicate alternative names (see them in Table 1); null arrays are typed in cursive.

VII. Superposed, focused, colinear (m-m-1) arrays

VIII. Superposed, focused, noncolinear (m-m-m) arrays
It is evident from the classification scheme that a geoelectric array is characterized by a specific geometry (e.g. in the
case of profiling the electrodes are moved from one site to the
next one with the same vector) and also by a specific instruction for the current injection and for the voltage measurement.
During our compilation we realized that several cases, characterized by variable geometry, could not be put into any of
the aforementioned array classes. Therefore, we created a separate class of so-called composite arrays. So far, we have
found 92 arrays falling into classes (I-VIII) and 10 composite
arrays.
In Fig. 1, class I is shown in the common part of the
three circles. Classes II, III and IV are shown in Fig. 1 as
common sections of any two circles of the three. Classes V,
VI and VII are shown as parts of only one of the circles.


C

Class VIII (the most complicated class of arrays) is outside the

circles.
In Figs 29, where classes I-VIII and the composite arrays
are presented, everywhere a unified notation is used. The full
circles are potential (P) electrodes, while the full/empty stars
indicate source/sink (+I/I) current (C) electrodes (the source
and sink electrodes are of course interchangeable within the
same circuit but they are not interchangeable in the case of
multiple current circuits). In any given array the size of the
stars refers to the current intensity. The current electrodes at
infinite distances carry unity current. The current intensity
is also unity in the case of all arrays where there is only one
(+I / I) current electrode pair. The characteristic array length
is defined as the longest finite distance between the electrodes.
In this way the geometric characteristics e.g., the penetration
depths of different arrays, become comparable. In the figures the characteristic array length is shown as a unit (01)

2008 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 56, 159175

162 S. Szalai and L. Szarka

Figure 3 Simple (nonsuperposed and nonfocused) noncolinear arrays (Class II: 1-1-m).


C

2008 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 56, 159175

On the classification of surface geoelectric arrays 163

Figure 4 Simple (nonsuperposed and colinear) focused arrays (Class III: 1-m-1). I and I have the same sign.

distance. In the figures only one name is indicated for each

of the arrays. All the other alternative names we found are
summarized (together with the corresponding references) in
Table 1. In Figs 28, if there are alternative names, the name


C

shown in the figures (selected and suggested by the authors

of this paper for general use) is denoted by an asterisk.
Eventual coincidences in names are due to the ignorance of
the authors about each others work. For example, the term

2008 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 56, 159175

164 S. Szalai and L. Szarka

Figure 5 Simple (nonfocused and colinear) superposed arrays (class IV: m-1-1). Subscripts denote the measuring order.

dipole-dipole has been used to describe the Wenner- and

the dipole-axial arrays as well as Alpins dipole array of
the new classification.
The names of null arrays (the so-called compensation
electrode arrays by Whiteley 1973) are written in italics. For
the null arrays the measured potential difference is zero over
a homogeneous half-space and this situation can be realized
either by a current control or by a suitable positioning of the
electrodes. Consequently, null arrays can be found in every
class of arrays.

T H E C L A S S I F I C AT I O N
The results of the classification are summarized in Table 1
where 92 arrays and 10 composite arrays are listed. The
array classes are shown in Figs 28 and the composite arrays
are shown in Fig. 9.


C

Class I (1-1-1, arrays 1-22 in Table 1, Fig. 2)

In Fig. 2 the general order of the electrodes is indicated by
E1 , E2 , E3 and E4 , where E can be either C (current) or P
(potential), while the small letters (e, c, p) refer to the electrodes
at infinite distance.
It is common to subdivide this array class according to
the number of electrodes and to the order of the current
and potential electrodes. Disregarding the electrodes at infinity, the terms four-electrode-, three-electrode- and twoelectrode- arrays are applied.
In terms of the sequential positioning of the electrodes the
geophysical literature distinguishes -, - and -type arrays,
where -type: CPPC, -type: CCPP, -type: CPCP (Carpenter
and Habberjam 1956). Considering the reciprocity theorem
(e.g. Van Nostrand and Cook 1966), PCCP is equivalent with
CPPC, PPCC with CCPP and PCPC with CPCP. -, - and type arrays exist also in the case of the three-electrode arrays
(-type: CPPc and PCCp; -type: CCPp and PPCc; -type:

2008 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 56, 159175

On the classification of surface geoelectric arrays 165

Figure 6 Nonsuperposed, focused, noncolinear arrays (class V: 1-m-m).

CPCp and PCPc). In the case of the two-electrode arrays there

is only one (CP) possibility.
In Fig. 2 only the arrays known from the geophysical literature are mentioned by their names. At the same time, the
dashed lines connecting various arrays in Fig. 2 refer to further
possible arrays. In this way, the list of arrays in this class is
theoretically complete.
For traditional and practical reasons the symmetric arrays
are the most prevalent. The symmetry point is the midpoint
of the line and by definition, in order to fulfil the symmetry,
the image point of a current electrode may be either another
current or potential electrode. In the case of symmetric arrays,
the remaining free parameter is the ratio of the distance between the two inner electrodes over the distance between the
two outer electrodes.
The -, - and -type nonsymmetrical arrays are denoted
as 12, 13 and 14 respectively. It should be remarked that
they have, in a strict sense, an infinite number of subvariants. We found only three of them (12a, 13a and 14a) in the
literature.


C

The three-electrode arrays, by definition, are all nonsymmetrical arrays. In the class of two-electrode arrays only the
pole-pole array exists.

Class II (1-1-m, arrays 23-34 in Table 1, Fig. 3)

The simple (nonsuperposed and nonfocused) noncolinear arrays have four electrodes (two current and two potential
electrodes). One current circuit is applied along a line and
one single potential difference is measured along a different
line.
The dipole arrays (Alpin 1950, 1966) are in general noncolinear arrays and they can be divided into smaller classes as
follows: parallel, perpendicular, radial and azimuthal (or tangential). These arrays are denoted as 27a, 27b, 27c and 27d in
Fig. 3. The dipole arrays involve numerous arrays and some
of them are worth mentioning as individual ones. For example, for  = /2 the parallel array becomes dipole equatorial
array a widely applied geoelectric array, introduced by Alpin
(1950) and denoted as 28 in Fig. 3.

2008 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 56, 159175

166 S. Szalai and L. Szarka

Figure 7 Superposed, nonfocused, noncolinear arrays (class VI: m-1-m, shown in Fig. 7a and 7b).

C

2008 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 56, 159175

On the classification of surface geoelectric arrays 167

Figure 8 Superposed, focused, colinear arrays (class VII: m-m-1).

Class III (1-m-1, arrays 35-44 in Table 1, Fig. 4)

The focusing (i.e. sending a larger part of currents down to
larger depths than it would be possible by using simple current electrodes) is carried out by means of a system of current
electrodes: more than one current electrode can have the same
polarity. Many focused arrays can also be considered as null
arrays. Due to their elaborate field procedures, they have not
become very popular in surface geophysics, in spite of some
successful test measurements.
Class IV (m-1-1, arrays 4563 in Table 1, Fig. 5)
For all superposed arrays instead of one single reading, consecutive potential difference measurements are made. These

consecutive measurements may be done by (a) varying the potential electrode positions and fixing the current electrodes; (b)
varying the current electrode positions and fixing the potential
electrodes; (c) varying both potential and current electrode positions. By using variable potential electrodes one obtains some
information regarding the lateral resistivity inhomogeneity or
the anisotropy of the site, while by using variable current electrodes one usually obtains some depth-varying information;
this latter procedure is known as minisounding.

Classes V (1-m-m, arrays 6469, Figure 6), VI (m-1-m,

arrays 7091 in Table 1, Fig. 7(a) and 7(b)), VII (m-m-1,
array 92, Fig. 8) and VIII (m-m-m)
In class V (nonsuperposed, focused, nonconlinear arrays)
there are only six arrays. In class VI (superposed, nonfocused,
noncolinear arrays) there are the same three variants in this
class as in class IV: (1) variable P- and constant C positions, (2)
variable C- and constant P positions, (3) variable both C- and
P positions. Variant (1) is shown in Fig. 7(a), while variants
(2) and (3) are shown in Fig. 7(b). Following the geoelectric

Figure 9 Ten so-called composite arrays.


C

2008 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 56, 159175

168 S. Szalai and L. Szarka

Table 1 Geoelectric array names, their references and the array numbers in the figures. The recommended array names are typed in bold; null
arrays are typed in italics
ARRAY NAME

SOURCE REFERENCE

ARRAY NUMBER

CLASS

Schlumberger
symmetric four electrode
Schlumberger full
gradient Schlumberger
2-pole Sclumberger
Wenner-
Wenner
Wenner-Gish-Rooney
Palmer
?
?
Wenner-
dipole-dipole
Eltran
-Wenner
dipole axial
dipole-dipole
double dipole
colinear dipole-dipole
Polar
modified Eltran
axial dipole
polar dipole
?
Wenner- null
Frolov
Wenner-
twin-like
-type nonsymmetrical
asymmetrical double probe
-type nonsymmetrical
asymmetrical polar dipole
polar dipole
-type nonsymmetrical
pole-dipole
half-Schlumberger
three-electrode

Logn
tripole AMN
tripole
Canadian
double probe with unequal probe spacing
one-electrode
three electrode Schlumberger
Schlumberger-half
1-pole Schlumberger

Van Nostrand and Cook (1966), Kunetz (1966)

Tarkhov (1980)
Schulz (1985)
Tsokas, Tsourlos and Szymanski (1997)
Winter (1994)
Habberjam (1979)
Van Nostrand and Cook (1966)
Heiland (1946)
Palmer (1960)
not yet applied
not yet applied
Habberjam (1979)
Clark (1990)
Alpin et al. (1966)
Apparao et al. (1992)
Alpin (1950)
Kunetz (1966)
Kunetz (1966), Telford, Geldart and Keys (1976)
Cantwell, Galbraith and Nelson (1964)
Zhdanov and Keller (1994)
Alpin et al. (1966)
Tarkhov (1980 )
Alpin et al. (1966), Meidav (1970)
not yet applied
Szalai et al. (2004)
Frolov (1989), Hmelevsky and Shevnin (1994)
Whiteley (1973)
this paper (not yet applied)
Jakosky (1950), Szalai and Szarka (2008)
Heiland (1946)
not yet applied, Szalai and Szarka (2008)
Meidav (1970)
Alfano (1974)
not yet applied, Szalai and Szarka (2008)
Seigel, Hill and Baird (1968)
Van Nostrand and Cook (1966)
Van Nostrand and Cook (1966)
Van Nostrand and Cook (1966)
Kunetz (1966)
Telford et al. (1976)
Zhdanov and Keller (1994)
Heiland (1946)
(1954)
Logn
Meidav (1970)
Schulz (1985)
Winter (1994)

I (1-1-1)


C

3
4
5
6

8
9
10
11
12
12a
13
13a
14
15

2008 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 56, 159175

On the classification of surface geoelectric arrays 169

Table 1 Continued
ARRAY NAME

SOURCE REFERENCE

ARRAY NUMBER

half-Wenner
three-point
asymmetrical Wenner
unsymmetrical
double equidistant probe
three electrode Wenner
pole-dipole
half-twin like
?
?
asymmetrical single probe
midpoint null
MAN
single pole
pole-pole
two-electrode
dipole AM
medium gradient
single probe
single-pole
Schlumberger null
AINS
three-electrode null
half-Schlumberger null
three-electrode vector
perpendicular bisector three-electrode
dipole
dipole-dipole
bipole-dipole
dipole equatorial
Eltran
asymmetrical equatorial dipole
dipole axial null
square-
square-
Baker
Baker offset

Van Nostrand and Cook (1966), Meidav (1970)

Van Nostrand and Cook (1966)
Van Nostrand and Cook (1966)
Jakosky (1950)
Heiland (1940)
Meidav (1970)
Tsokas et al. (1997)
this paper
(not yet applied)
(not yet applied)
Heiland (1946)
Szalai et al. (2004)
Tarkhov (1957)
Tarkhov (1957)
Keller and Frischknecht (1966)
Keller and Frischknecht (1966)
Kunetz (1966)
Tarkhov (1980)
Heiland (1946)
Brass, Flathe and Schulz (1981)
Szalai et al. (2002)
Tarkhov (1957)
Szalai et al. (2002)
Szalai and Szarka (2008)
Bogolyubov (1984)
Dachnov (1953), Szalai and Szarka (2008)
Alpin (1950)
Keller et al. (1975)
Keller et al. (1975)
Alpin (1950)
West (1940)
Meidav (1970)
Szalai et al. (2002)
Habberjam and Watkins (1967)
Habberjam and Watkins (1967)
Baker et al. (2001)
Baker and Djeddi (1999), Baker,
Boudjadja and Benhamam (2000)

Militzer Rosler
and Losch (1979), Szalai
and Szarka (2008)
Tarkhov (1957), Gupta and Battacharya (1963)
Bernabini Brizzolari E. and Piro (1988)
Gupta (1961), Gupta and Bhattacharya (1963)
Bernabini et al. (1988)
Whiteley (1972)
Bernabini et al. (1988)
Weyl (1967)
Militzer et al. (1979), Szalai and Szarka (2008)
Militzer et al. (1979), Szalai and Szarka (2008)
Roy and Apparao (1971)
Bernabini et al. (1988)
Brizzolari and Bernabini (1979)

16

unipole Wenner-
unipole
Wenner focused
unipole Schlumberger
Schlumberger focused
unipole variable current
Wenner focused
Weyl
unipole Wenner-
unipole Wenner-
modified unipole
tri-electrode
tri-electrode focused


C

2008 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 56, 159175

CLASS

17
18
19
20
21

22

23

II (1-1-m)

24
25
26
27

28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35

36
37
38
39
40
41

III (1-m-1)

170 S. Szalai and L. Szarka

Table 1 Continued
ARRAY NAME

SOURCE REFERENCE

ARRAY NUMBER

trielectrode B
tetraelectrode
surface laterolog
as
two-deflector
Csok
(surface) laterolog 7
single laterolog
Lee
Lee partitioning
asymmetrical Lee
potential-drop-ratio
Schlumberger Vxx
point source Vxx
dipole Vxx
Pakhomov
Schlumberger two-depth
Schlumberger three-depth
differential
two-field subtraction
Lee two-depth
three-electrode two-depth
Jakosky
resistilog
asymmetrical Lee two-depth
three-electrode difference field
AMN-NMA averaged
two-sided pole-dipole
two-sided three-electrode
Hummel
two-sided dipole axial
dipole axial difference field
offset Wenner
Wenner- and Wenner- averaged
four-deflector
Csok
as
CED

Grandinetti (1967)
Bernabini et al. (1988)
Apparao, Roy and Mallik (1969)
as
(1963)
Csok
Jackson (1981)
Jackson (1981)
Van Nostrand and Cook (1966)
Heiland (1946), Jakosky (1950)
Heiland (1946), Van Nostrand and Cook (1966)
Kunetz (1966)
Sapuzhak (1967)
Sapuzhak (1967)
Sapuzhak (1967)
Blokh (1971)
Dachnov (1953)
Dachnov (1953)
Zohdy (1969)
Rabinovich and Kegutin (1962)
Dachnov (1953)
Dachnov (1953)
Jakosky (1950)
West and Beacham (1944)
Dachnov (1953)
Militzer et al. (1979)
Peschel (1967)
Semenov and Shevnin (1994)
Candansayar and Basokur (2001)
Winter (1994)
Tarkhov (1980)
Tarkhov (1980)
Barker (1981)
Kampke (1999)
as
(1963)
Csok
Shabanov (1960), Mogilatov,
(2003)
and Balashkov (1996), Takacs
Yadav and Singh (1983)
Jackson (1981)
Jackson (1981)
Jackson (1981)
Jackson (1981)
Jackson (1981)
Jackson (1981)
Hmelevsky and Shevnin (1994)
Hmelevsky and Shevnin (1994)
this paper
Bogolyubov (1984)
this paper
Bogolyubov (1984)
this paper
Bogolyubov (1984)
Sapuzhak (1967)

42

linear quadripole- dipole

double laterolog
cross LL7
triple laterolog
triple LL7
quad laterolog
quad LL7
two-component vector
tripole
three-electrode superposed vector
three-electrode two-component
Schlumberger superposed null
symmetrical two-component
three-electrode superposed null
three-electrode two-component
dipole four electrode receiver


C

CLASS

43
44
45

IV (m-1-1)

46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

61
62
63
64
65

V(1-m-m)

66
67
68
69
70
71
72

VI (m-1-m)

73
74
75

2008 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 56, 159175

On the classification of surface geoelectric arrays 171

Table 1 Continued
ARRAY NAME

SOURCE REFERENCE

ARRAY NUMBER

dipole five electrode receiver

V FD
TEN FD
V SD
TEN SD
Y
T
arrow-type
orthogonal 1
Zirkelsonde
vol-de-canards
MUltiple Continuous Electrical Profiling, MUCEP
modified three-electrode two-depth
offset square
AIR
two-sided dipole axial superposed null
two-sided two-components axial dipole
orthogonal 2
quadripole-quadripole
rotating dipole
four-four superposed vector
Schlumberger tensorial
2-pole TDCR
Wenner tensorial
crossed Wenner
dipole tensorial
TEN ++
three-electrode tensorial
1-pole TDCR
trielectrode C
pentaelectrode
not known
trielectrode A
Ovchinnikov
Ryjov
midpoint-potential referred (MPR)
gradient
modified Schlumberger
potential gradient
rectangle
gradient two-component
twin
fixed Schlumberger Vxx
fixed dipole Vxx
fixed point source Vxx

Sapuzhak (1967)
this paper
Mousatov Pervago and Shevnin (2002)
this paper
Mousatov et al. (2002)
Bolshakov et al. (1998)
Bolshakov et al. (1998)
Bolshakov et al. (1998)
Matveev (1990)
Schwarz (1961)
Pannisod et al. (1998)
Pannisod et al. (1998)
Dachnov (1953)
Barker (1981)
Habberjam (1979)
this paper
Bogolyubov (1984)
Matveev (1990)
Doicin (1976)
Furgerson and Keller (1975)
Bogolyubov (1984)
this paper
Winter (1994)
this paper
Tsokas et al. (1997)
this paper
Mousatov et al. (2002)
this paper
Winter (1994)
Grandinetti (1967)
Brizzolari and Bernabini (1979)
not known
Grandinetti (1967)
Ovchinnikov (1956)
Ryjov and Karinskaya (1981)
Dahlin and Zhou (2004)
Schulz (1985), Furness (1993)
Furness (1993)
Furness (1993)
Kunetz (1966)
Varga et al. (2007)
Clark (1990)
Sapuzhak (1977)
Sapuzhak (1977)
Sapuzhak (1977)

76
77

tradition, the two-side and two-length variants are considered

as independent arrays. In class VII (superposed, focused, colinear arrays), there is one single array. Arrays from class VIII
(superposed, focused and noncolinear arrays) are not known
from the geophysical literature.


C

CLASS

78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90

90a
90b
90c
91
92

VII (m-m-1)

not known
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5

VIII (m-m-m)
composite arrays

C6
C7
C8
C9
C10

Composite arrays (arrays C1-C10 in Table 1, Fig. 9)

By using composite arrays, in the case of profiling, only a part
of the electrodes are moved from one site to the next. We found
ten such arrays.

2008 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 56, 159175

172 S. Szalai and L. Szarka

Table 2 Practical needs and recommended strategies for array selection

Aim

Strategy of array selection

Number of arrays

Array numbers

C approaches P

C and/or P at infinity

21

Fewer cables

Dipole

13

Mapping
without
moving all electrodes
Measurement in case
of limited field access
Simplicity
Obtaining the pure
anomaly

Not all the electrodes are

moving
Asymmetrical

10
8

Equidistant electrodes
Null

3
25

Offset

3, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, 12a,

14, 19
15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22,
25, 46, 56, 60, 70, 71,
72, 74, 79, 80, 81, 85,
91, C1, C10
7, 13a, 27, 28, 29, 30,
49, 61, 75, 76, 88, 90c,
C9
C1, C2, C3, C4, C5,
C6, C7, C8, C9, C10
12, 12a, 13, 13a, 14,
18, 20, 29
2, 6, 10
9, 21, 23, 24, 30, 32,
34, 35, 36, 38, 41, 42,
43, 53, 60, 64, 73, 74,
79, 80, 81, 82, 87, 88,
89
62, 86

Difference
Two-sided
Change the identity of the
electrodes
Lee type

2
5
2

53, 54
60, 61, 82, 88, 89
63, 87

45, 46, 55

Derivation

12

Vector

1, 7, 15, 24, 30, 47, 48,

49, 75, 76, 77, 78
25, 70, 71, 72, 83

Tensor
Further nonlinear arrays

5
16

Mini-sounding

11

Differential depth
Focusing

2
17

General

Specific

Simplification of the
measuring technique

Increase of the measuring signal

Moving fewer electrodes

Anomaly separation
by the measuring
method itself

Elimination of nearsurface
inhomogeneities

Information
about
local inhomogeneity
and/or anisotropy

Resistivity change in
measuring direction

Resistivity change in
transversal direction

Resistivity change in
vertical direction
Increase of the depth of
investigation

Sending the current

deeper

G E O P H Y S I C A L R E L E VA N C E O F
C L A S S I F I C AT I O N
Due to the collection and classification of geoelectric arrays,
a full intercomparison can be made among the arrays. Even


C

90, 90a, 90b, 90c, 91

23, 24, 25, 26, 31, 32,
33, 34, 75, 76, 79, 80,
81, 85, 86, 89
50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55,
56, 57, 58, 59, 84
53, 54
35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40,
41, 42, 43, 44, 64, 65,
66, 67, 68, 69, 92

the array classes have specific features. The very first traditional geoelectric arrays (class I) provide a simple resistivity
value about the subsurface. For vectorial and anisotropy information usually noncolinear arrays (class II) are applied.
The focused arrays (class III) are assumed to have a deeper

2008 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 56, 159175

On the classification of surface geoelectric arrays 173

penetration than the nonfocused ones, and the superposed arrays (class IV) allow the study of either lateral and/or vertical resistivity changes at a site. Classes V-VII combine two
features among vectorial/anisotropy: deeper investigation and
local resistivity change. Arrays in class VIII, at least in theory,
contain the potential for vectorial/anisotropy and local vertical/lateral resistivity change information and they also have a
deeper penetration.
Table 2 lists some of the needs of field geophysicists: a simple measuring technique, efforts to separate the anomaly by
the measuring method itself, information about local inhomogeneity and/or anisotropy and increase the depth of the investigation. These can be satisfied by a careful array selection.
The number of corresponding arrays and the array numbers
are also indicated for each task. It is especially effective to
compare arrays in the same class of Table 2. For example,
square arrays have been found to be superior to any other array in anisotropy studies (Tsokas et al. 1997) and fissure directions can be more precisely detected by means of the Schlumberger null array than by conventional arrays (Szalai et al.
2002).
A systematic comparison of arrays investigating their sensitivity to depth, dip, surface inhomogeneity, bedrock topography, lateral effects, shielding, etc. is known only for the most
popular arrays (Ward 1990). Due to the present paper approximately 100 arrays are open for such a comparison. We have
determined the depth of the investigation values (Szalai et al.
2007) and the parameter sensitivity maps (Szalai and Szarka
2007a) for all arrays, where such values exist. Numerous other
aspects may also emerge. Moreover, on the basis of existing
arrays, it is possible to derive new arrays (e.g. Barker 1981;
Szalai and Szarka 2007b).
Dahlin and Zhou (2004), on the basis of some simple geolectric arrays, even created a new multielectrode system: the socalled midpoint-potential referred one (composite array C4,
see Fig. 9). In a recent field experiment we found it very useful
to integrate the midpoint null array (array No. 21, see Fig. 2)
into multielectrode systems. We are sure that this and several
other arrays having some particular feature, would be worth
building into new multielectrode systems, which might further
enhance their effectiveness in the future.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The collection process has continued for several years and has
been supported by several sources, such as the postdoctoral
fellowship of S. Szalai at ULP Strasbourg (obtained from the
French Ministry of Education), Hungarian National Scientific


C

Research Fund (projects T049604, T037694, TS408048 and

NI61013ILO), Janos
Bolyai Research Scholarship of Hungarian Academy of Sciences. Several Russian-origin arrays were
provided by V. Shevnin (now at the Mexican Petroleum Institute, Mexico City). Rarely available Russian literatures were
obtained from J. Kiss (ELGI, Budapest) and from the libraries
of ELGI, Miskolc University and GGRI HAS. Discussions with
am,
J. Vero (GGRI, Sopron), E. Takacs
(Miskolc UniverA. Ad
sity). The comments of reviewers of various versions of this
manuscript are also acknowledged. The authors are grateful
in advance for any information regarding arrays outside of
this classification.
REFERENCES
Alfano L. 1974. A modified geoelectrical procedure using polar-dipole
arrays An example of application to deep exploration. Geophysical Prospecting 22, 510525.
Alpin L.M. 1950. The Theory of Dipole Sounding. Gostoptekhizdat.
Monograph (In Russian)
Alpin L.M. 1966. The theory of dipole sounding. In: Dipole Methods
for Measuring Earth Conductivity, pp. 160. Consult Bureau, New
York.
Alpin L.M., Berdichevsky M.N., Vedrintsev G.A. and Zagarmistr
A.M. 1966. Dipole Methods for Measuring Earth Conductivity, (Selected and translated from Russian byG.V. Keller). Colorado School
of Mines, Golden, CO.
Apparao A.T., Gangadhara Rao T., Sivarama Sastry and Subrahmanya
Sarma V. 1992. Depth of detection of buried conductive targets
with different electrode arrays in resistivity prospecting. Geophysical Prospecting 40, 749760.
Apparao A., Roy A. and Mallik K. 1969. Resistivity model experiments. Geoexploration 7, 4552.
Baker H.A., Boudjadja A.G. and Benhamam K. 2000. Le Dispositif Baker Application et comparaison Memoire. Department de
Geologie, FSTGAT-ISTHB, Algiers.
Baker H.A. and Djeddi M. 1999. Une nouvelle technique
dinterpretation des donnees e lectriques et e lectromagnetiques.
Project de Recherche 1602/09/98. Faculte des Sciences de la Terre,
USZHB, Algiers.
Baker H.A., Djeddi M., Boudjadha A.G. and Benhamam K. 2001.
A different approach in delineating near-surface buried structures.
63rd EAGE meeting, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, Expanded Abstracts, M-17.
Barker R.D. 1981. The offset system of electrical resistivity sounding
and its use with a multicore cable. Geophysical Prospecting 29,
128143.
Bernabini M., Brizzolari E. and Piro S. 1988. Improvement of signalto-noise ratio in resistivity profiles. Geophysical Prospecting 36,
559570.
Blokh I.M. 1971. Electrical Profiling of Resistivity Method. Nedra,
Moscow (In Russian)
Bogolyubov N.P. 1984. Guide to Interpreting Two-componentmodified VES. Stroyizdat, Moscow. (In Russian)

2008 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 56, 159175

174 S. Szalai and L. Szarka

Bolshakov D.K., Modin I.N., Pervago E.V. and Shevnin V.A. 1998.
New step in anisotropy studies: Arrow type arrays. Proceedings of the 4th EEGS-European Section Meeting, Barcelona,
Spain.
Brass G., Flathe H. and Schulz R. 1981. Resistivity profiling with
different electrode arrays over a graphite deposit. Geophysical
Prospecting 29, 589600.
Brizzolari E. and Bernabini M. 1979. Comparison between Schlumberger electrode arrangement and some focused electrode arrangements in resistivity profiles. Geophysical Prospecting 27,
233244.
Candansayar M.E. and Basokur A.T. 2001. Detecting small-scale targets by the 2D inversion of two-sided three-electrode data: Application to an archaeological survey. Geophysical Prospecting 49,
1325.
Cantwell T., Galbraith J.N. and Nelson P. 1964. Deep resistivity results
from New York and Virginia. Journal of Geophysical Research 69,
43674376.
Carpenter E.W. and Habberjam G.M. 1956. A tri-potential method
of resistivity prospecting. Geophysics 21, 455469.
Clark A.J. 1990. Seeing Beneath the Soil. B.T. Batshford Ltd, London.
as
J. 1963. A focused-field geoelectric method. Acta Technica
Csok
Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 43, 437451.
Dachnov V.N. 1951. Electrical Prospecting of Oil and Gas Deposits.
State Scientific-Technical Publishing of Oil and Gas Literature,
Moscow and Leningrad
Dachnov V.N. 1953. Electrical Prospecting of Oil and Gas deposits,
2nd edn State Scientific-Technical Publishing of Oil and Gas Literature, Moscow and Leningrad
Dahlin T. and Zhou B. 2004. A numerical comparison of 2D resistivity
imaging with 10 electrode arrays. Geophysical Prospecting 52, 379
398.
Doicin D. 1976. Quadripole-quadripole arrays for direct current resistivity measurements model studies. Geophysics 41,
7995.
Frolov V.X. 1989. The possibility to increase the geological efficiency
of electrical surveys. Izvestia VUZ-ov, series Geologia y Razvedka
1, 100108. (In Russian)
Furgerson R.B. and Keller G.V. 1975. Rotating dipole methods for
measuring earth resistivity. Geophysics 45, 129177.
Furness P. 1993. Gradient array profiles over thin sensitive veins. Geophysical Prospecting 41, 113130.
Grandinetti M. 1967. Una nuova dispozicione elettrodica per la ricercia di corpe di limitate dimensioni. Boll. Di Geof. Teor. Ed. Appl.
9, 219234.
Gupta R.N. 1961. Some studies on the unipole method (a new method
electrical prospecting). PhD thesis, Indian Institute of Technology,
Kharagpur.
Gupta R.N. and Bhattacharya P.K. 1963. Unipole method of electrical
profiling. Geophysics 28, 608616.
Habberjam G.M. 1979. Apparent Resistivity Observations and the
Use of Square Array Techniques. Geoexploration Monographs,

Geopublication Associates, Gebruder

Borntraeger.
Habberjam G.M. and Watkins G.E. 1967. The use of the square
configuration in resistivity prospecting. Geophysical Prospecting
5, 445467.


C

Heiland C.A. 1940. Geophysical Exploration. Prentice-Hall, New

York.
Heiland C.A. 1946. Geophysical Exploration. Prentice-Hall, New
York.
Hmelevsky V.K. and Bondarenko B.M. 1989. Electrical prospecting.
In: Geophysical Handbook, Vol. 1 (edsV.K. Hmelevsky and B.M.
Bondarenko), pp. 173177. Nyedra, Moscow.
Hmelevsky V.K. and Shevnin V.A. 1994. Electrical Prospecting Using
Resistivity Methods. Moscow State University. (In Russian)
Jackson P.D. 1981. Focused electrical resistivity arrays: Some theoretical and practical experiments. Geophysical Prospecting 29, 601
626.
Jakosky J.J. 1950. Exploration Geophysics, 2 edn. Trija Publishing
Co.
Kampke A. 1999. Focused imaging of electrical resistivity data in
archeological prospecting. Journal of Applied Geophysics 41, 215
227.
Keller G.V. and Frischknecht F.C. 1966. Electrical Methods in Geophysical Prospecting. Pergamon.
Keller G.V., Furgerson R., Lee C.Y.N. and Jacobson J.J. 1975. The
dipole mapping method. Geophysics 40, 451472.
Kunetz G. 1966. Principles of Direct Current Resistivity Prospecting.

Geoexploration monographs, No. 1, Gebruder

Borntraeger, BerlinNikolassee.
1954. Mapping nearly vertical discontinuities by earth resis O.
Logn
tivities. Geophysics 19, 739760.
Matveev B.K. 1990. Electrical Prospecting. Nedra, Moscow. (In Russian)
Meidav T.S.V.I. 1970. Arrays and nomograms for electrical resistivity
exploration. Geophysical Prospecting 18, 550563.

Militzer H., Rosler

R. and Losch W. 1979. Theoretical and experimental investigations for cavity research with geoelectrical resistivity
methods. Geophysical Prospecting 27, 640652.
Mogilatov V. and Balashkov D. 1996. A new method of geoelectrical prospecting by vertical electric soundings. Journal of Applied
Geophysics 36, 3144.
Mousatov A., Pervago E. and Shevnin V. 2002. Anisotropy determination in inhomogeneous media by tensor measurements of the
electric field. 72nd SEG meeting, Salt-Lake City, Nevada, USA
Ovchinnikov I.K. 1956. On the Theory of the Distribution of Current
from Point and Linear Earthings or on Inhomogeneous Halfspace.
Izv. Akad. Nauk. USSR. Ser. Geofiz. No. 4.
Palmer L.S. 1960. Geoelectrical surveying of archeological sites. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 26, 6475.
Panissod C., Dabas M., Hesse A., Jolivet A., Tabbagh J. and Tabbagh A. 1998. Recent developments in shallow-depth electrical and
electrostatic prospecting using mobile arrays. Geophysics 63, 1542
1550.
Peschel G. 1967. A new favourable combination of resistivity sounding and profiling in archeological surveying. Prospezione Acheologiche 2, 2328.
Rabinovich B.I. and Kegutin P.G. 1962. Electrical sounding by field
subtraction method. Geology and Geophysics 5, 107119. (In Russian)
Roy A. and Apparao A. 1971. Depth of investigation in direct current
methods. Geophysics 36, 943959.

2008 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 56, 159175

On the classification of surface geoelectric arrays 175

Ryjov A.A. and Karinskaya I.D. 1981. Programs for Forward and
Inverse Problem Solution for VES and IP-VES for Computers. ES
series. Moscow. (In Russian)
Sapuzhak J.S. 1967. Higher Derivatives of the Electrical Potential in Geophysical Prospecting. Naukova Dumka, Kiev. (In
Russian)
Sapuzhak J.S. 1977. Divergent Electrical Prospecting. Naukova
Dumka, Kiev. (In Russian)
Schulz R. 1985. Interpretation and depth of investigation of gradient
measurements in direct current geoelectrics. Geophysical Prospecting 33, 12401253.
Schwarz G.T. 1961. The Zirkelsonde, a new technique for resistivity
surveying. Archeometry 4, 6770.
Seigel H.O., Hill H.L. and Baird J.G. 1968. Discovery case history
of the pyramid ore bodies pine point northwest territories Canada.
Geophysics 33, 645656.
Semenov A.S. and Shevnin V. 1994. Electrical Prospecting by Resistivity Method. Moscow State University, Moscow. (In Russian)
Shabanov B.A. 1960. Circular array for direct current electrical sounding. Prikladnaya Geofizika 26, 7077. (In Russian)
A., Szarka L. 2007a. Depth of investigation of dipoleSzalai S., Novak
dipole, non-linear and focused geoelectric arrays. Near Surface
2007, Istanbul, Turkey, P26.
Szalai S., Szarka L. 2007b. Auxiliary results of collection and classification of surface geoelectric arrays. Near Surface 2007, Istanbul,
Turkey, A09

Szalai S., Szarka L., Pracser

E., Bosch F., Muller
I. and Turberg P. 2002.
Geoelectric mapping of near-surface karstic fractures by using null
arrays. Geophysics 67, 17691778
Szalai S., Szarka L., Marquis G., Sailhac P., Kaikkonen P. and Lahti I.
2004. Colinear null arrays in geoelectrics. Proceedings of the 17th
S.3-P.3 IAGA WG 1.2 on Electromagnetic Induction in the Earth
Workshop, Hyderabad, India.

Takacs
E. 2003. Possibilities of electric sounding by vertical electric dipole at the earths surface. Earth electromagnetism, Sopron, June 2021, http://www.ggki.hu/new/fo.htm (in
Hungarian)


C

Tarkhov A.G. 1957. On electric geophysical exploration methods of

the pure anomaly. Bull. Izv. Akad. Sc. USSR, 8, 11.
Tarkhov A.G. 1980. Electrical Prospecting. Nyedra, Moscow,
Telford W.M., Geldart L.P.R.E. and Keys D.A. 1976. Applied Geophysics. Cambridge University Press.
Tsokas G.N., Tsourlos P.I. and Szymanski J.E. 1997. Square array resistivity anomalies and inhomogeneity ratio calculated by the finite
element method. Geophysics 62, 426435.
Van Nostrand R.G. and Cook K.L. 1966. Interpretation of Resistivity
Data. Geological Survey professional paper 499. US Government
Printing Office, Washington DC
Ward S.H. 1990. Resistivity and induced polarization methods. In:
Geotechnical and Environmental Geophysics. Volume I: Review
and Tutorial, pp. 147190. SEG, Tulsa, OK.
West S.S. 1940. Three-layer resistivity curves for the Eltran electrode
configuration. Geophysics 5, 4346
West T.S. and Beacham C.C. 1944. Precise measurement of deep electrical anomalies. Geophysics 9, 494539.
Weyl F.G. 1967. Das tripol field: Eine neue geoelektrische Messtechnik. Geoexploration 5, 145155.
Whiteley R.J. 1972. The resistivity method of geophysical prospecting.
M.Sc. thesis, University of Sydney.
Whiteley R.J. 1973. Electrode arrays in resistivity and IP prospecting: A review. Bulletin of the Australian Society of Exploration.
Geophysicists. 4, 129.
Winter H. 1994. Tensor-Geoelektrik an der Kontinentalen Tief Frankfurt am Main, Fortschrittbohrung. Dissertation, Universitat
Berichte VDI, Reihe 8 Me-, Steuerungs- und Regeltechnik, Nr.

379, VDI-Verlag, Dusseldorf.

Yadav G.S. and Singh C.L. 1983. The linear quadripole-dipole array
in geoelectrical prospecting. Geophysics 48, 11351139.
Yakubovsky J.V. and Liahov L.L. 1982. Electrical Prospecting. Nyedra, Moscow.
Zhdanov M.S. and Keller G.V. 1994. The Geoelectrical Methods in
Geophysical Exploration. Elsevier.
Zohdy A. 1969. The use of Schlumberger and equatorial soundings in
groundwater investigations near El Paso. Geophysics 34, 713728.

2008 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 56, 159175