IOP PUBLISHING JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICS AND ENGINEERING

J. Geophys. Eng. 7 (2010) 30–40 doi:10.1088/1742-2132/7/1/003

Comparison of Wenner and dipole–dipole

arrays in the study of an underground
three-dimensional cavity
Ahmad Neyamadpour1,2 , W A T Wan Abdullah1 , Samsudin Taib3 and
Behrang Neyamadpour4

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jge/article-abstract/7/1/30/5127684 by guest on 06 September 2019

1
Department of Physics, University of Malaya, 50603 WP Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
2
Department of Engineering, Islamic Azad University, Masjed-e solayman Branch, 6361713198, Iran
3
Department of Geology, University of Malaya, 50603 WP Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
4
Department of Geology, Islamic Azad University, Shahrood Branch, 36155/163, Iran
E-mail: anpour@gmail.com

Received 7 July 2009

Accepted for publication 10 December 2009
Published 5 January 2010
Online at stacks.iop.org/JGE/7/003

Abstract
The objective of this paper was to compare Wenner and dipole–dipole configurations in
delineating an underground cavity at a site near the University of Malaya, Malaysia. A
three-dimensional electrical resistivity imaging survey was carried out along seven parallel
lines using Wenner and dipole–dipole arrays. A three-dimensional least-squares algorithm,
based on the robust inversion method, was used in the inversion of the apparent resistivity data.
In the inverted model, both the horizontal and vertical extents of the anomalous zones were
displayed. Results indicate the superiority of the Wenner array over the dipole–dipole array for
determining the vertical distribution of the subsurface resistivity, although the dipole–dipole
array produced a better lateral extent of the subsurface features. The results show that the
three-dimensional electrical resistivity imaging survey using both the Wenner and
dipole–dipole arrays, in combination with an appropriate three-dimensional inversion method
and synthetic model analysis, can be highly useful for engineering and environmental
applications, especially for underground three-dimensional cavity detection.

Keywords: electrical resistivity imaging, environmental application, cavity, Wenner array,

dipole–dipole array
(Some figures in this article are in colour only in the electronic version)

1. Introduction (Annan et al 1991) and electrical resistivity tomography (Zhou

Geophysical methods can be used to recognize subsurface
structures by observing contrasts in their physical properties.
These properties (e.g. density and electrical resistivity) vary
between the media involved, and different materials (e.g. clay,
concrete, air and water) have different geophysical properties.
Geophysical surveys represent an efficient way to detect
subsurface heterogeneities including voids, refilled cavities
and the like (Mochales et al 2008). The range of techniques
used include seismic reflection and refraction (Cook 1974),
gravimetry (Rybakov et al 2001), ground-penetrating radar
et al 2002, Monteiro Santos et al 2007, Nyári and Kanli
2007, Monteiro Santos and Sultan 2008, Martorana et al
2009).
In recent years, electrical resistivity imaging (ERI) has
become one of the most significant geophysical techniques
for investigating underground near-surface structures. Since
many of the problems associated with geophysical exploration
involve three-dimensional (3D) structures, several algorithms
for treating the 3D ERI problem have been developed and
are based on finite element, finite difference and integral
methods (Loke and Barker 1996, Zhao and Yedlin 1996,

1742-2132/10/010030+11$30.00 © 2010 Nanjing Institute of Geophysical Prospecting Printed in the UK 30

 Comparison of Wenner and dipole–dipole arrays in the study of an underground three-dimensional cavity
Figure 1. Location map. Survey consists of seven north–south
lines. The Wenner and dipole–dipole arrays were used in the
x-direction. Letters A and B indicate the vertical manholes.
Dahlin and Loke 1997, Dahlin and Bernstone 1997, Spitzer
1998, Tsourlos and Ogilvy 1999). Several authors have
published examples of the application of 3D inversion of direct
current (dc) resistivity data. El-Quady et al (2005), Sultan
et al (2006) and Ekinic and Kaya (2007) applied 3D
inversion of resistivity data to archaeological investigations.
Soupios et al (2007) applied 2D and 3D inversions of
resistivity data to the investigation of a building foundation
site. Park et al (2009) have performed ERI surveys to
clarify the location of gold deposits in the Yongjang mine,
Korea.
In this study, we investigated the applicability of a 3D
ERI survey to the detection of an underground cavity at a
site near the University of Malaya, Malaysia. Wenner and
dipole–dipole arrays were used in a comparative study to
delineate both the horizontal and vertical changes in subsurface
Figure 2. Pseudo-section of the measured and calculated apparent resistivity data using a Wenner array along seven parallel lines.
resistivity. The survey was conducted along seven parallel
lines using a roll-along method, and the measured apparent
resistivities for each array were merged into a single data set.
The investigation site consists of discrete subsurface structures
with sharp boundaries between different bodies. Therefore,
the 3D least-squares algorithm based on the robust inversion
method (Claerbout and Muir 1973) was used in the inversion
of the apparent resistivity data.
2. Site description
The site is located near the University of Malaya. The survey
area stretches over a flat playground covered with grass. The
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jge/article-abstract/7/1/30/5127684 by guest on 06 September 2019
direct resistivity measurement of the soil at the surface gives
values ranging from 150 m to 600 m. The soil is relatively
porous, very sandy and probably originates from weathered
bedrock. There are, however, areas of more resistive materials
within the soil. The high resistivity values are caused by
construction materials left behind during the construction of
the wastewater system. The investigation site consists of a
large cavity and a vertical manhole column (A) on the north
side of the site (figure 1). In addition, there is a horizontal
concrete pipe and a corresponding vertical manhole column
(B) to the south. The pipe is almost horizontal and is buried
at a depth of about 5.5 m. Columns A and B are about
1 m2 (inner dimension) and set vertically from the surface
to the cavity and the pipe, respectively. The resistivity values
of the concrete, measured directly, range from 950 m to
1550 m.
This value was used to determine the boundaries of the
concrete structures in the inversion results. Values greater
than 1550 m were assumed to correspond to the empty space
within the concrete or the cavity.
31
A Neyamadpour et al

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jge/article-abstract/7/1/30/5127684 by guest on 06 September 2019

Figure 3. Pseudo-section of the measured and calculated apparent resistivity data using a dipole–dipole array along seven parallel lines.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

(g) (h)

Figure 4. The 3D resistivity model obtained by a Wenner array as horizontal depth slices. The depth (m) for layers a through h are as
follows: (a) 0–0.5, (b) 0.5–1.1, (c) 1.1–1.7, (d) 1.7–2.5, (e) 2.5–3.4, (f ) 3.4–4.4, (g) 4.4–5.5, (h) 5.5–6.9.

32
 Comparison of Wenner and dipole–dipole arrays in the study of an underground three-dimensional cavity

(a)

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jge/article-abstract/7/1/30/5127684 by guest on 06 September 2019

(b)

Figure 5. Iso-resistivity surface of the highest resistivity zones obtained by (a) Wenner array and (b) dipole–dipole array.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

(g) (h)

Figure 6. The 3D resistivity model obtained by a dipole–dipole array as horizontal depth slices. Two vertical columns are denoted by A and
B. The depth (m) for layers a through h are as follows: (a) 0–0.5, (b) 0.5–1.0, (c) 1.0–1.6, (d) 1.6–2.3, (e) 2.3–3.0, (f ) 3.0–3.9, (g) 3.9–5.0,
(h) 5.0–6.9.

3. Data acquisition
Pole–dipole and pole–pole arrays were not suitable because
the field conditions did not allow for the placement of remote
electrodes at a sufficient distance from the survey lines. The
Wenner array has better depth resolution, less susceptibility
to acquisition noise and higher signal strength, and it requires
fewer measurement points for the same line coverage than the
dipole–dipole array.
The dipole–dipole array has better horizontal resolution
and better depth coverage at the ends of the lines. On the
other hand, at the investigation site, both the horizontal and

33
A Neyamadpour et al

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jge/article-abstract/7/1/30/5127684 by guest on 06 September 2019

(g) (h)

Figure 7. The sensitivity values of the cells used in the inversion model for the Wenner array. The depth (m) for layers a through h are as
follows: (a) 0–0.5, (b) 0.5–1.1, (c) 1.1–1.7, (d) 1.7–2.5, (e) 2.5–3.4, (f ) 3.4–4.4, (g) 4.4–5.5, (h) 5.5–6.9.

(a) (b) (c)

(d)
(e) (f)

(g) (h)

Figure 8. The sensitivity values of the cells used in the inversion model for the dipole–dipole array. The depth (m) for layers a through h are
as follows: (a) 0–0.5, (b) 0.5–1.0, (c) 1.0–1.6, (d) 1.6–2.3, (e) 2.3–3.0, (f ) 3.0–3.9, (g) 3.9–5.0, (h) 5.0–6.9.

the vertical subsurface structures are expected. Therefore, the
Wenner and dipole–dipole arrays were both used for this case
study.
Measurements were collected along seven parallel lines,
and the electrode cables were oriented in the x-direction, which
is approximately north to south (figure 1). Each cable covers
38 m between the first and the last take-out, with a spacing of
2 m in the x-direction. Roll-along measurements using a y-
spacing of 2 m were carried out until a grid of 20 × 7 electrodes
was covered. Thus, the total investigation area was 38 × 12 m,
and 140 electrode positions were used. Measurements were
taken only in the x-direction in order to limit the time needed
for data acquisition. In the dipole–dipole array, three different
electrode spacings were measured (at 1, 2 and 3 times the
minimum spacing), which gave a data set of 134 data points for
each line (n = 1 to n = 6). In addition, in the Wenner array, five
different electrode spacings were measured in the x-direction
(at 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 times the minimum spacing), which gave
a data set of 52 data points for each line. The background
noise levels were checked before measurements began. The
vertical stack was set to four. The relative standard deviation
for each stack was checked during the measurements because
it is a valid indicator of the quality of the measurements (Tohon
et al 2004). The standard deviation of the measurements was
generally less than 2% and 4% for the Wenner and dipole–
dipole arrays, respectively. All measured data sets were

34
 Comparison of Wenner and dipole–dipole arrays in the study of an underground three-dimensional cavity
(A)
(B)
Figure 9. Two synthetic models used in this study. The vertical columns shown in figure 1 are denoted by A and B in these models.
merged in order to perform the 3D inversion using RES3Dinv
software (Loke 2007). Two separate final sets of 938 and
364 apparent resistivity measurements were collected using a
Terrameter SAS 4000 instrument (Dahlin 1996).
4. Inversion of the data set
The measured apparent resistivity data obtained by the Wenner
and dipole–dipole arrays are displayed as a pseudo-section in
figures 2 and 3, respectively. Although the pseudo-section
can give some information about the locations of the cavity
and the horizontal pipe, their size, depth and extent cannot be
correctly estimated. Furthermore, the pseudo-section can be
misleading if used as the basis for an interpretation of the true
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jge/article-abstract/7/1/30/5127684 by guest on 06 September 2019
subsurface structure (Dahlin et al 2002). Thus, we performed
a 3D inversion of the apparent resistivity data to obtain a more
reliable image of the cavity structure using the robust inversion
technique.
In order to determine the subsurface resistivity from the
measured apparent resistivity, the widths of the interior blocks
in the top two layers of the inversion model were set at half the
unit electrode spacing, while the widths of the blocks in the
deeper layers were kept equal to the electrode spacing (Dahlin
et al 2002). The thickness of the first layer and the factor
used to increase the layer thickness were set at 1.5 m and
1.15 m, respectively. We used 0.15 and 0.01 for the initial and
minimum damping factors, respectively, in the data inversion.
These factors determine the relative importance given to
35
A Neyamadpour et al
Figure 10. Inversion results of the Wenner data for model (1). The depth (m) for layers a through h are as follows: (a) 0–1.0, (b) 1.0–2.2, (c)
2.2–3.5, (d) 3.5–5.0, (e) 5.0–6.8.
reducing the data misfitting and the smoothness of the model
(Ellis and Oldenburg 1994). The finite difference method
(Dey and Morrison 1979) was used to calculate the apparent
resistivity values as well as the elements of the Jacobian
matrix (McGillivray and Oldenburg 1990) for the inversion
method. The number of iterations to recalculate the Jacobian
matrix was also set to three. The investigation site consists
of discrete subsurface structures with sharp boundaries
between different bodies. For such cases, a robust model
inversion is more suitable than the smoothness-constrained
method.
5. Results
5.1. Wenner array
The inversion process using the robust technique converged
after six iterations with a RMS misfit of 4.52% for the apparent
resistivity values. The 3D resistivity model is shown as
horizontal depth slices in figure 4. The presence of the vertical
column A, shown earlier in figure 1, is not clear in these slices,
although the cavity with a width of 11 m in its upper part
(layer a) and 5 m in its lower part (layer g) is observed.
According to this figure, the depth of the cavity is almost
36
(a)
(b)
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jge/article-abstract/7/1/30/5127684 by guest on 06 September 2019
(c)
(d)
(e)
5.5 m. The resistive zone, on the south side of the slices
(figure 4), is also about 4.4 m in depth. High resistivities are
not observed near the middle of the site.
In order to display the 3D extent of the cavity and
horizontal pipe, an iso-resistivity surface was also produced
corresponding to resistivities higher than 1550 m. The
isosurface connects data points of equal resistivity values
(figure 5(a)). As illustrated in the figure, the horizontal pipe
and cavity have been clearly detected.
5.2. The dipole–dipole array
As a comparative study, the 3D resistivity imaging data
obtained by the dipole–dipole array were also inverted using
the robust inversion method. After nine iterations, the
inversion process converged with a RMS misfit of 14.09%,
which is greater than the RMS misfit for the inversion obtained
by the Wenner array (4.52%). This difference can be explained
by the greater signal strength of the Wenner array than the
dipole–dipole array, especially when a high resistivity contrast
exists.
From the inverted data, we extracted horizontal depth
slices (figure 6) in order to display the lateral extent of the high
resistivity zones. However, while all features are almost well
 Comparison of Wenner and dipole–dipole arrays in the study of an underground three-dimensional cavity
Figure 11. Inversion results of the dipole–dipole data for model (1). Corresponding depth (m) for layers a to h are as follows: (a) 0–0.7, (b)
0.7–1.5, (c) 1.5–2.5, (d) 2.5–3.7, (e) 3.7–5.2, (f ) 5.2–7.0.
resolved in these depth slices, the inversion of the resistivity
data obtained by the dipole–dipole array produces a greater
depth for the resistive material surrounding the horizontal pipe
(>6.9 m) and a smaller depth for the cavity (3.9 m) compared
to the inversion result obtained by the Wenner array. It is
clear that the Wenner array has better depth resolution than the
dipole–dipole array. On the other hand, the vertical columns A
and B are observed in the first slice (layer a). These two
columns are not observed in the inversion obtained from the
Wenner array. This can be explained by the better horizontal
resolution of the dipole–dipole array compared to the Wenner
configuration. In these slices, the cavity with a width of 14 m
in its upper part (layer a) and about 5 m in its lower part
(layer f) is observed. Although the horizontal changes in
resistivity are in accordance with the findings obtained from
known information about the investigation area, insufficient
agreement in the vertical resistivity distribution was found,
especially on the south side of the site.
An iso-resistivity surface was also produced to display the
3D extent of the cavity and horizontal pipe, which corresponds
(a)
(b)
(c)
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jge/article-abstract/7/1/30/5127684 by guest on 06 September 2019
(d)
(e)
(f)
to resistivities higher than 1550 m (figure 5(b)). According to
the figure, the cavity has been clearly detected, but the vertical
dimension of the pipe was not reliable. Although the dipole–
dipole array produced a better lateral extent for the subsurface
features, the results illustrate the superiority of the Wenner
array over the dipole–dipole configuration for determination
of the vertical distribution of subsurface resistivity. The
inversion of the data set for each configuration was carried
out on a 1.73 GHz Dual Core PC, and the system required
approximately 6 min for the program to converge to a
satisfactory model.
6. Discussion
To study the suitability of different arrays in resistivity surveys,
several parameters must be evaluated including the vertical
and horizontal resolutions. A common way to study such
parameters is to calculate a sensitivity function. The sensitivity
function shows the degree to which a change in the resistivity
of the subsurface will influence the potential measured by
37
A Neyamadpour et al
Figure 12. Inversion results of the Wenner data for model (2). The depth (m) for layers a through h are as follows: (a) 0–1.0, (b) 1.0–2.2,
(c) 2.2–3.5, (d) 3.5–5.0, (e) 5.0–6.8.
the array (Edwards 1977, Loke 2009). The difference in the
contour pattern of the sensitivity function plot is studied in
order to explain the response of the different arrays to different
types of structures and compare the suitability of various arrays
for a particular survey. The sensitivity values of the cells used
in the inversion model for the Wenner and the dipole–dipole
arrays are shown in figures 7 and 8, respectively. In these
figures, the model cells in the areas of the high resistivity
zones located on both sides of the grid have sensitivity
values ranging from 0.4 to 1.3 for the dipole–dipole array
(figures 8(e)–(h)). These values are higher than the
sensitivity values, ranging from 0.04 to 0.5, for the Wenner
array (figures 7(e)–(h)). Thus, the results of the dipole–
dipole array for both sides of the grid might be more reliable
than the Wenner array. Since the sensitivity values of these
regions for both arrays are relatively small, we considered two
synthetic test models in order to attain a reliable interpreted
model.
The background resistivity of the synthetic models shown
in figure 9 is 400 m, and the horizontal resistivity zone
with width 6 m is located at a depth ranging from 5 m to
6 m. The high resistivity zone on the left side of both models
was considered in order to observe the effect of the cavity on
the inversion results. The main difference between synthetic
38
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jge/article-abstract/7/1/30/5127684 by guest on 06 September 2019
models (1) and (2) is the presence of high resistivity zones
with a resistivity of 1500 m in synthetic model (2). This
difference was incorporated in order to study the effect of
construction materials left after the construction of the pipe.
Figures 10 and 11 show the inversion results of the Wenner
data and the dipole–dipole data for model (1), respectively.
The results indicate that both arrays could not resolve the
horizontal resistivity on the right side of the grid (the pipe).
This can be explained by relatively poor data coverage of
the arrays on both sides of the grid, especially for deeper
slices. In contrast, the cavity is almost well observed by both
arrays along with the vertical columns A and B in two upper
slices.
The 3D resistivity models obtained by the inversion of the
Wenner and dipole–dipole data are shown as horizontal depth
slices in figures 12 and 13, respectively. Comparing these
pictures with figures 4 and 5, it is clear that the cavity is well
resolved as a high resistive zone on the left side of slices in
the model. The high resistivity zone on the right side of slices
(figures 12 and 13) is also obvious in these figures. Therefore,
we conclude that the high resistivity zones observed on the
right side of grid in inversion results of field data is probably
due to the construction material left after construction of the
pipe.
 Comparison of Wenner and dipole–dipole arrays in the study of an underground three-dimensional cavity
Figure 13. Inversion results of the dipole–dipole data for model (2). Inversion results of the dipole-dipole data for the model (1). The depth
(m) for layers a through h are as follows: (a) 0–0.7, (b) 0.7–1.5, (c) 1.5–2.5, (d) 2.5–3.7, (e) 3.7–5.2, (f ) 5.2–7.0.
7. Conclusions
The results of a 3D electrical resistivity imaging survey at a
site near the University of Malaya, Malaysia, were presented.
The survey was conducted using Wenner and dipole–dipole
arrays along seven parallel lines. The robust inversion method
was used to invert each 3D data set. The superiority of
the Wenner array over the dipole–dipole array to detect the
vertical distribution of subsurface resistivity was investigated.
However, the dipole–dipole array produced a better lateral
extent of the subsurface features. Depth slices and iso-
resistivity surfaces display both the horizontal and vertical
extent of the high resistivity zones. Since, at the beginning
and at the end of the profiles, the investigation depth is
substantially less than the middle of the profiles, sensitivity
tests and synthetic model analyses were used in order to
obtain realistic results in these regions. Analysis of the
synthetic model showed that both arrays used in this study
could not resolve the horizontal pipe accurately, but the high
resistivity zones that are due to construction material left after
construction of the horizontal pipe are well detected by both
arrays. The iso-surface indicated the most accurate location
for the cavity and the resistive material around the horizontal
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jge/article-abstract/7/1/30/5127684 by guest on 06 September 2019
pipe. The results were in accordance with findings obtained
from known information about the investigation site. This
example clearly demonstrates that the 3D ERI method was
successful in delineating underground cavities. Dense 2D
measurements obtained by both the Wenner and dipole–dipole
arrays, combined with the 3D robust inversion scheme and the
synthetic test models, are adequate for delineating complicated
3D structures, and the technique should prove highly useful for
engineering, archaeological and environmental investigations.
Acknowledgments
This work received financial support from the University of
Malaya (UM), Malaysia, through a fellowship (PS318/2009B)
which is gratefully acknowledged. The authors also thank
three anonymous reviewers for their constructive criticism.
References
Annan A P, Cosway S W and Redman J D 1991 Water table
detection with ground-penetrating radar Society of Exploration
Geophysics (Annual International Meeting Program with
Abstracts) pp 494–7
39
A Neyamadpour et al
Claerbout J F and Muir F 1973 Robust modeling with erratic data
Geophysics 38 826–44
Cook J C 1974 Yes, we can locate solution cavity boundaries Rock
Mechanics and Geophysics: 4th Symposium on Salt vol 2
ed A H Coogan (Cleveland, USA: Northern Ohio Geological
Society) pp 33–40
Dahlin T 1996 2D resistivity surveying for environmental and
engineering applications First Break 14 275–84
Dahlin T and Bernstone C 1997 A roll-along technique for 3D
resistivity data acquisition with multi-electrode arrays Proc.
SAGEEP’97 (Symp. on the Application of Geophysics to
Engineering and Environmental Problems) (Reno, NV)
pp 927–35
Dahlin T, Bernstone C and Loke M H 2002 A 3-D resistivity
investigation of a contaminated site at Lernacken, Sweden
Geophysics 67 1692–700
Dahlin T and Loke M H 1997 Quasi-3D resistivity
imaging-mapping of three dimensional structures using two
dimensional dc resistivity techniques Proc. of the 3rd Meeting
of the Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society
(Aarhus, Denmark) pp 143–6
Dey A and Morrison H F 1979 Resistivity modeling for arbitrarily
shaped three-dimensional shaped structures
Geophysics 44 753–80
Edwards L S 1977 A modified pseudosection for resistivity and
induced-polarization Geophysics 42 1020–36
Ekinic Y L and Kaya M A 2007 3-D resistivity imaging of buried
tombs at the Parion necropolis (NW Turkey) J. Balkan
Geophys. Soc. 2 30–45
El-Quady G, Monteiro Santos F A, Hassaneen A Gh and Trindade L
2005 3-D inversion of VES data from Saqqara archaeological
area Egypt Near Surf. Geophys. 227–33
Ellis R and Oldenburg D W 1994 Applied geophysical inversion
Geophys. J. Int. 116 5–11
Loke M H Res3Dinv software2007 Version 2.14, Geoelectrical
Imaging 2D&3D, Pinang, Malaysia
Loke M H 2009 Tutorial: 2-D and 3-D electrical imaging surveys
www.geoelectrical.com
Loke M H and Barker R D 1996 Practical techniques for 3D
resistivity surveys and data inversion Geophys.
Prospect. 44 499–523
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 J. Geophys. Eng.
6 1–20
McGillivray P R and Oldenburg D W 1990 Methods for
calculating Frechet derivatives and sensitivities for the
40
non-linear inverse problem: a comparative study Geophys.
Prospect. 38 499–524
Mochales T, Casas A M, Pueyo E L, Pueyo O, Roman M T, Pocovi
A, Soriano M A and Anson D 2008 Detection of underground
cavities by combining gravity, magnetic and ground
penetrating radar surveys: a case study from the Zaragoza area,
NE Spain Environ. Geol. 53 1067–77
Monteiro Santos F A, Andrade Afonso A R and Dupis A 2007 2D
joint inversion of dc and scalar audio-magnetotelluric data in
the evaluation of low enthalpy geothermal fields J. Geophys.
Eng. 4 53–62
Monteiro Santos F A and Sultan A S 2008 On the 3D inversion of
vertical electrical soundings: application to the south Ismailia
area—Cairo desert road, Cairo, Egypt J. Appl.
Geophys. 65 97–110
Nyári Z and Kanli A I 2007 Imaging of buried 3D objects by using
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jge/article-abstract/7/1/30/5127684 by guest on 06 September 2019
electrical profiling methods with GPR and 3D geoelectrical
measurements J. Geophys. Eng. 4 83–93
Park J, You Y J and Kim H J 2009 Electrical resistivity surveys for
gold-bearing veins in the Yongjang mine, Korea J. Geophys.
Eng. 6 73–81
Rybakov M, Goldshmidt V, Fleischer L and Rotstein Y 2001 Cave
detection and 4-D monitoring: a microgravity case history near
the Dead Sea The Leading Edge 20 896–900
Soupios P M, Georgakopoulos P, Papadopoulos N, Saltas V,
Andeadakis A, Vallianatos F, Sarris A and Makris J P 2007
Use of engineering geophysics to investigate a site for a
building foundation J. Geophys. Eng. 4 94–103
Spitzer K 1998 The three-dimensional dc sensitivity for surface and
subsurface sources Geophys. J. Int. 134 736–46
Sultan S A, Monteiro Santos F A and Helal A 2006 A study of the
groundwater seepage at Hibis Temple using geoelectrical data,
Kharga Oasis, Egypt Near Surf. Geophys. 347–54
Tohon D S, Vannesta K, Sintubin M, Muchez P and Waelkens M
2004 Two-dimensional resistivity imaging: a tool in
archaeoseismology: an example from Ancient
Sagalassos (Southwest Turkey) Archaeol. Prospect.
11 1–18
Tsourlos P and Ogilvy R 1999 An algorithm for the 3D inversion of
topographic resistivity and induced polarization data:
preliminary results J. Balkan Geophys. Soc. 2 30–45
Zhao S and Yedlin M J 1996 Some refinements on the
finite-difference method for 3-D dc resistivity modeling
Geophysics 61 1301–7
Zhou W, Beck B F and Adams A L 2002 Effective electrode array in
mapping karst hazards in electrical resistivity tomography
Environ. Geol. 42 922–8