Exploration Geophysics (2004) 35, 266–271

Inversion of data from Main

electrical resistivity imaging
surveys in water-covered
Heading areas
M.H.Loke1 Authors
John W. Lane, Jr2
Key Words: Resistivity, imaging,
Key Words:
inversion,
keywater-covered,
words underwater, surveys

ABSTRACT for most surveys, a 2D resistivity survey is probably the most

Electrical resistivity imaging surveys widely used in many
environmental and engineering studies have also been conducted
in water-covered areas. Surveys in water-covered areas include
conventional surveys using multi-electrode resistivity systems
where part of the survey line crosses a river or stream, and surveys
conducted entirely within a water-covered environment. Surveys
that are located entirely within a water-covered environment
utilise electrodes mounted on a streamer, towed behind a boat.
The streamer can be dragged along the water bottom, or float
on the water surface. In this paper, the smoothness-constrained
least-squares inversion method commonly used to interpret
electrical resistivity imaging data from land surveys is adapted
for underwater surveys. To accommodate the water bottom
topography, a distorted finite-element grid is used to calculate the
apparent resistivity values for the inversion model. The first few
rows of elements are used to model the water layer, while the lower
part of the grid is used for the sub-bottom resistivity distribution.
For robust inversion, the water column resistivity and geometry
must be known accurately as a large proportion of the current
flows through the water layer. The section of the Earth below the
bottom surface is subdivided into a large number of rectangular
cells. The water column resistivity and geometry in the earth
model is fixed, and the inversion program attempts to determine
the resistivity of the cells that would most accurately reproduce
the observed resistivity measurements. Implementation of water
column resistivity and geometric constraints is demonstrated
using numerical simulations and field data. Examples of electrical
resistivity imaging surveys conducted on and across water bodies
including rivers and near-shore marine environments are shown.
cost-effective method (Dahlin, 1996). Two-dimensional electrical
resistivity and induced polarization (I.P.) imaging surveys are
now widely used for many engineering and environmental studies
(Ritz et al., 1999; Seaton and Burbey, 2000; Acworth and Dasey,
2003).
An interesting application of the 2D electrical resistivity
imaging method is in water-covered areas (Wynn and Grosz, 2000;
Madsen et al., 2001; Manheim et al., 2001; Belaval et al., 2003)
where there are special requirements for both the data acquisition
and inversion. The focus of this paper is on inversion of electrical
resistivity data from surveys in water-covered areas. The following
section provides a description of a resistivity data modelling and
inversion method and briefly discusses field methods and other
practical aspects of electrical resistivity imaging surveys in water-
covered areas. This is followed by three examples of the inversion
of field survey data sets.
METHOD AND RESULTS
2D Electrical Imaging Surveys
Figure 1a shows a typical arrangement used for an on-land 2D
electrical resistivity imaging survey. Two-dimensional electrical
resistivity imaging surveys are usually carried out using a large
number of electrodes (25 or more), connected to a multi-core
cable (Griffiths and Barker, 1993). A laptop microcomputer (or
an internal micro-controller within the resistivity meter unit),

INTRODUCTION

The electrical resistivity surveying method has undergone

dramatic changes over the last decade. The resistivity sounding
method used since the 1930s provides a one-dimensional model
of the subsurface. A major improvement in the early 1990s was
the development of two-dimensional (2D) electrical resistivity
imaging methods (Griffiths and Barker, 1993) that provide a more
realistic model of the subsurface in geologically complex areas.
Three-dimensional (3D) surveys have also been used (Loke and
Barker, 1996b), particularly in mineral exploration surveys (White
et al., 2001) where the higher cost involved is justified. However,

1
School of Physics, Universiti Sains Malaysia,
11800 Penang, Malaysia
Tel: 60 4 6574525
Fax: 60 4 6579150
Email: mhloke@tm.net.my

2
U.S. Geological Survey, Office of Ground Water,
Branch of Geophysics, Conn., USA
Email: jwlane@usgs.gov
Fig. 1. (a) Schematic diagram of a typical field set-up for a 2D
1 electrical imaging survey. (b) The arrangement of the data points in
Presented at the 17th ASEG Geophysical Conference & Exhibition,
a pseudosection for a typical survey and the 2D model used for the
August 2004.
inversion model. Each data point is marked by “×”. The subsurface
Revised manuscript received: November 10, 2004
is subdivided into a number of layers, and each layer is further
subdivided into rectangular cells.

266 Exploration Geophysics (2004) Vol 35, No. 4

Left Running
Loke and Lane
Heading Inversion of electrical
Right Running
imaging Heading
surveys

together with an electronic switching unit, is used to automatically

select the relevant four electrodes for each measurement. To
interpret the data from such surveys, a cell-based model that
subdivides the subsurface into a large number of rectangular cells
(Figure 1b) is commonly used (Loke and Barker, 1996a). In some
situations, particularly where the subsurface consists of several
distinct layers, alternative methods to subdivide the subsurface and
perform the data inversion can be used (Smith et al., 1999; Auken
and Christiansen, 2004).

A static system with electrodes planted into the ground (Figure

1a) is typically used in shallow water environments as well as
for land surveys. Mobile systems, where the cable is towed
manually or by a small vehicle, have also been used (Sorenson,
1996; Panissod et al., 1998; Bernstone and Dahlin, 1999). One
disadvantage of a mobile system for land surveys is the limited
current that can be injected or induced into the ground. This limits
the depth of investigation of such systems. In contrast, water-
covered areas provide an almost ideal situation for a mobile system Fig. 2. (a) Schematic diagram of a possible mobile underwater survey
because there is no difficulty obtaining good electrode contact. system. The cable has two fixed current electrodes and a number of
Figure 2 shows a possible arrangement for an underwater mobile potential electrodes so that measurements can be made at different
surveying system, in which a cable with a number of electrodes is spacings. The above arrangement uses the Wenner-Schlumberger
type of configuration. Other configurations, such as the gradient and
pulled along the river, lake, or sea bottom by a boat. Two of the
dipole-dipole arrays, can also be used. (b) Seven possible Wenner-
electrodes are used as current electrodes, while the rest are used Schlumberger type of measurements with the cable system shown in
as potential electrodes. Such a system is usually coupled with a (a).
bathymetry profiler and a water conductivity meter.

Types of Resistivity Surveys in Water-Covered Areas

Figure 3 shows several possible scenarios that might be

encountered in surveys in water-covered areas. In the first case,
some of the electrodes are underwater while others are above
the water. The mixed-electrode case is encountered when a
land-surface survey line crosses a narrow river or stream. In the
second case, the entire survey line is underwater. The bottom-laid
electrode case is used in marine environments, lakes, and wide
rivers or streams. A third case is surveys using floating electrodes.
The floating electrode survey arrangement avoids underwater
obstacles, such as submerged vegetation that might entangle the
cable, but is probably most useful in relatively shallow areas.

Resistivity Modelling and Inversion Method

In order to model the response of the cases shown in Figure 3,

a distorted finite element grid is used (Silvester and Ferrari, 1990;
Loke, 2000). The top of the grid is horizontal, to match the water
surface. The top few rows of mesh are used to model the water Fig. 3. Several possible situations for surveys in water-covered areas.
layer (Figure 4). The number of rows of mesh used to model the
water layer depends on the ratio of the maximum water thickness
to the spacing between adjacent electrodes. The nodes along
the bottom row of the water mesh are adjusted so that the water-
layer geometry matches the water-bottom bathymetry data. It is
assumed that the water layer is electrically homogeneous and the
resistivity of the water and water-bottom bathymetry is known.

The inversion of resistivity data is inherently non-unique. To

obtain an earth model that is closest to the real geology, other
available information should be included in the inversion process
in the form of constraints (Ellis and Oldenburg, 1994; Loke et al.,
2003). In the case of resistivity surveys in water-covered areas,
the water layer resistivity and geometry can be easily measured
during the survey. Thus, both parameters are fixed during the
inversion process, and the inversion program is used to determine
the resistivity of the sub-bottom materials. By fixing the known
parameters, the effect of the water layer on the inversion result
is largely reduced, although the problem of non-uniqueness in Fig. 4. The finite element mesh used to calculate the apparent resistivity
values for an underwater survey. The electrodes are marked by small
inversion (as in standard land surveys) remains. If available, red ticks, while the mesh elements used to model the water layer are
other information about the subsurface should be used to reduce drawn in blue.

Exploration Geophysics (2004) Vol 35, No. 4 267

Loke and Lane
Left Running Heading
Fig. 5. The effect of a water layer on the apparent resistivity
pseudosection. The spacing between adjacent electrodes in this model
is 1 metre. The synthetic model with a 2-metre thick water layer is
shown in (a) as an example. The apparent resistivity pseudosection
for the Wenner-Schlumberger array with no water layer (i.e., a land
survey) is shown in (b). Similar pseudosections for a survey with
bottom electrodes with a water layer of thickness 1 metre, 2 metres
and 5 metres are shown in (c), (d), and (e). The pseudosections for a
survey with floating electrodes with a water layer of thickness 1 metre,
2 metres and 5 metres are shown in (f), (g) and (h).
268 Exploration Geophysics (2004) Vol 35, No. 4
Inversion of electrical
Right Running
imaging Heading
surveys
the range of plausible models. For example, one common
characteristic that is considered when inverting resistivity data is
the nature of subsurface resistivity variations, in particular whether
resistivity varies smoothly or abruptly (Loke et al., 2003).
The sub-bottom region is divided into a number of rectangular
cells as is done for land surface surveys (Figure 1b). The inversion
of the data is carried out to determine the resistivity of the model
cells so that the misfit between the calculated apparent resistivity
values and the measured field data is small. In this paper,
an iteratively re-weighted smoothness-constrained least-squares
optimisation method is used for the data inversion. The equation
used is
(1)
where gi is the data misfit vector containing the difference between
the logarithms of the measured and calculated apparent resistivity
values, ∆ri is the change in the model parameters for the ith
iteration and ri-1 is the model parameters (the logarithm of the
model resistivity values) vector for the previous iteration. J is
the Jacobian matrix of partial derivatives and W is the roughness
filter (deGroot-Hedlin and Constable, 1990). The damping factor,
λ, determines the relative importance given to minimising the
model roughness. Rd and Rm are weighting matrices introduced
to modify the weights given to the different elements of the data
misfit and model roughness vectors. If the subsurface resistivity
is expected to vary in a smooth manner, an l2-norm roughness
filter is used. In situations with sharp boundaries resulting in
abrupt resistivity variations, an l1-norm roughness filter is more
appropriate. A more detailed description of the inversion method
is given in Loke et al. (2003).
Mobile electrical resistivity imaging surveys can have thousands
of electrode positions, data points, and model cells. Because long
survey lines result in a finite-element grid where the number
of nodes in the horizontal direction is much greater than the
number of nodes in the vertical direction, the finite-element grid
is split up into a number of overlapping sub-grids similar to the
“sliding model window” method described by Christiansen and
Auken (2004). This reduces the computation time required by
the finite-element forward modelling subroutine to calculate the
model apparent resistivity and Jacobian matrix values. Additional
computational efficiency is achieved by solving the least-squares
equation (1) using an iterative conjugate-gradients method that has
the added benefit of reducing the computer memory required to
store the Jacobian matrix (Li and Oldenburg, 2000).
Water Layer Effect on Resistivity Data: Numerical
Simulation
Figure 5 shows the apparent resistivity pseudosection for a
synthetic model with two rectangular blocks, with resistivities of
1 and 100 Ω.m respectively, embedded in a medium of 10 Ω.m.
The tops of both blocks are 1 metre below the ground surface.
Both blocks have a thickness of about 2 metres and width of
4 metres. Figure 5b shows the apparent resistivity pseudosection
for the Wenner-Schlumberger array, for a land survey with a unit
electrode spacing of 1 metre. The apparent resistivity values
range from 2.8 to 15.7 Ω.m., which is much smaller than the 1 to
100 Ω.m range of the model resistivity values. When a 1-metre-
thick layer of water with a resistivity of 5 Ω.m is added to the
model, the magnitudes of the anomalies in the pseudosection
(Figure 5c) are reduced, and the apparent resistivity values range
from 5.3 to 12.8 Ω.m. Increasing the water thickness to 2 metres
(Figure 5d) and 5 metres (Figure 5e) results in a gradual reduction
in the magnitude of the anomalies in the pseudosection. Beyond
5 metres, the effect of increasing the water thickness results in
Left Running
Loke Heading
and Lane
Fig. 6. Tests of the inversion algorithm with synthetic data. The
apparent resistivity pseudosection from the model with a 2-metre
thick water layer with bottom electrodes is shown in (a). The resulting
inversion model is shown in (b). The apparent resistivity pseudosection
for the same model but with floating electrodes is shown in (c), while
(d) shows the inversion model for this data set. Gaussian random noise
with amplitude of 3% was added to both data sets.
a gradually smaller reduction in the amplitude of the anomalies.
When the thickness of the water layer is much greater than the unit
electrode spacing, the effect of the water layer approaches that of a
homogeneous half space.
Figures 5f, 5g, and 5h show the corresponding apparent
resistivity pseudosections for a survey carried out with electrodes
floating on the water surface. There is a more severe reduction in
the amplitudes of the anomalies, particularly with a 5-metre thick
water layer where the anomalies due to the two blocks are barely
visible.
Figure 6b shows the inversion of the apparent resistivity data
set (Figure 6a) for the model with a 2-metre-thick water layer with
submerged electrodes. Gaussian random noise (Press et al., 1992)
with amplitude of 3% was added to the data, and the resistivity
and thickness of the water layer was constrained in the inversion.
Since both rectangular blocks in the original model (Figure 5a)
have sharp boundaries with the surrounding medium, the l1-norm
based, smoothness-constrained least squares inversion method was
used (Ellis and Oldenburg, 1994). The shape, size, and depths of
both rectangular blocks are accurately reproduced in the inversion
model. The model resistivity value reaches a minimum of
1.1 Ω.m at the location of the low-resistivity block, close to the
true value of 1.0 Ω.m. At the location of the high-resistivity block,
the resistivity reaches a maximum of 46 Ω.m, which is lower
than the true value of 100 Ω.m. Figure 6d shows the constrained
inversion of the apparent resistivity data set (Figure 6c) from a
similar model with floating electrodes. Although the two blocks
are still clearly visible (Figure 6d), they are poorly resolved
compared to the model in Figure 6b. The model resistivity
Inversion of electrical
Right Running
imaging Heading
surveys
Fig. 7. (a) Apparent resistivity pseudosection (Wenner array) from the
Hat Head tidal creek survey and (b) the inversion model. Note the
creek between the 65 and 95 metres marks where the electrodes are
underwater. The saline water in the creek is mark by the blue zone
above the ground surface. The electrodes are marked by small ticks
on the ground surface.
reaches minimum and maximum values of 3.3 Ω.m and 18.9
Ω.m, respectively. The model resistivity range for the floating
electrode case is much smaller than that achieved by the survey
using bottom-laid electrodes. The simulations indicate that data
collected with a floating electrode arrangement is significantly
degraded compared to data collected with bottom-laid electrodes.
In the example, the thickness of the water (2 metres) is about 18%
of the maximum depth of investigation (Edwards, 1977) of the data
set (about 11 metres). Similar tests with other models suggest that
the water depth should not exceed 25% of the maximum depth
of investigation if subsurface structures are to be reasonably well
resolved in the inversion model.
FIELD STUDY EXAMPLES
Mixed-Electrode Survey
This study was carried out by the University of New South
Wales Groundwater Centre (Australia) to map saline intrusion into
a coastal sand-dune aquifer at Hat Head, in northern New South
Wales (Acworth and Dasey, 2003). Resistivity measurements
were made using electrodes installed on the ground surface, as
well as underwater on a creek bed. Figure 7a shows the apparent
resistivity pseudosection from one of the survey lines (using the
Wenner array) that cross Korogoro Creek at about 2.5 km from
the ocean shore. The unit electrode spacing in this survey line
is 2.5 metres. The tidal range at the site is approximately 1.5
metres. The creek is approximately 40 metres wide at this survey
line. The maximum depth of water in the creek during the survey
was 1.5 metres. At the points where the survey line crosses the
creek, electrodes were planted on the creek bed beneath the water
surface. The water in Korogoro Creek is saline with a resistivity
of 0.18 Ω.m, and thus has a very large effect on the measured
apparent resistivity values. The constrained inversion model
incorporating water resistivity and bathymetry data (Figure 7b)
indicates saline intrusion is largely limited to below the creek, with
a small lobe extending to the dune side of the creek (Acworth and
Dasey, 2003).
Underwater Electrode Survey
This survey was carried out to map the near-surface lithology
along a section of the Redas River in Belgium, where there were
plans to lay a cable. The depth to the riverbed ranges from 3 to 7
metres, with a water column resistivity of 29 Ω.m. This survey was
conducted by dragging a streamer along the river bottom behind
Exploration Geophysics (2004) Vol 35, No. 4 269
Left Running
Loke and Lane
Heading
Fig. 8. (a) The apparent resistivity pseudosection for the first two kilometres of an underwater survey along a riverbed by Sage Engineering, Belgium.
(b) The inversion model after three iterations. Note a vertical exaggeration factor of 15 is used in the display.
Fig. 9. Thames River (CT) survey with floating electrodes. (a) The measured apparent resistivity pseudosection. Inversion models obtained (b)
without constraints on the water layer, and (c) with a fixed water layer.
a boat, much like the arrangement shown in Figure 2, except that
a gradient array was used. This results in a highly asymmetrical
electrode arrangement for many of the measurements. The
minimum spacing between adjacent electrodes on the cable was
1 metre. Figure 8a shows the data from the first two kilometres
of an eight-kilometre survey line along the river. The data subset
in Figure 8a has a total of 1994 electrode positions and 1760 data
points, while the inversion model has 5312 model cells. Data
inversion on a 3.2-GHz Pentium 4 computer required about 20
minutes to complete. In the inversion model (Figure 8b), most of
the riverbed materials have a resistivity of less than 120 Ω.m. There
are several areas where the near-surface materials have resistivities
exceeding 150 Ω.m. Unfortunately, geological information in this
area is limited. In the high-resistivity areas, divers faced problems
in obtaining sediment samples. The lower-resistivity materials are
possibly more coherent sediments (possibly sand with silt/clay),
whereas the higher-resistivity areas might be coarser and less
coherent materials.
Electrical resistivity data obtained with mobile surveying
systems have several important differences from those measured
with a standard static resistivity meter system (as in the Korogoro
270 Exploration Geophysics (2004) Vol 35, No. 4
Inversion of electrical
Right Running
imaging Heading
surveys
Creek example) where the cable with the electrodes is fixed
during the survey. Mobile surveys usually produce long survey
lines where the length of the survey line is much greater than the
maximum depth of investigation of the selected electrode array
configurations. The model display usually has a large vertical
exaggeration (for example, the vertical exaggeration is 15 in Figure
8 compared to 1 in Figure 7). The large vertical exaggeration
tends to amplify ripples in both the apparent resistivity and model
resistivity sections. The Belgium survey was conducted with a
single-channel resistivity meter, resulting in a much lower data
density (1760 data points with 1994 electrode positions, i.e.
less than one data point per electrode position) compared with
the Korogoro Creek example (392 data points with 50 electrode
positions, i.e. about eight data points per electrode position). Low
data density tends to produce ripples in the inversion model, as
there are insufficient data to constrain the model parameters. In
this example, the rippling artefact induced by the low data density
was reduced by using wider model cells with widths equal to three
times the unit electrode spacing (compared with model cells with
widths of one unit electrode spacing shown in Figure 1). It is
possible to further reduce the ripples by using even wider model
cells but at a cost of reducing the model resolution.
Left Running
Loke and Lane
Heading
Floating Electrode Survey
This survey was carried out along the Thames River in
Connecticut, along the northeast seaboard of the United States. A
streamer with electrodes floating on the water surface, rather than
on the river bottom, was towed behind a boat. The streamer has
two fixed current electrodes and nine potential electrodes. The
spacing between the electrodes along the cable was 10 metres.
A dipole-dipole array configuration was used, but some of the
measurements used a non-symmetrical arrangement in which the
potential dipole length was different from the current dipole length.
The apparent resistivity pseudosection from a survey line is shown
in Figure 9a. The unconstrained inversion model (Figure 9b)
contains spurious high resistivity artefacts within the water column
resulting from noise in the data. This model is fairly accurate when
the material just below the river bottom has a high resistivity, but
poor in areas with low resistivities. Inclusion of water resistivity
and bathymetry constraints in the inversion process suppresses the
artefacts and permits a more robust delineation of the location and
geometry of high-and low-resistivity materials (Figure 9c).
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The examples show that the electrical resistivity imaging
method widely used for land surface surveys can be adapted
for water-covered environments. Similarly, the smoothness-
constrained least-squares inversion method can also be modified
for such a situation. Numerical simulations demonstrate that the
water layer has a large effect on the measured apparent resistivity
values as it usually has a much lower resistivity than the subsurface.
By measuring water column resistivity and bathymetry, the effect
of the water layer can be calculated using a distorted finite element
grid, where the upper part of the mesh is used to model the water
layer. The resistivity of the subsurface can then be accurately
recovered in the inversion process.
Although the focus of this paper is on the incorporation
of water column resistivity and geometric constraints into the
inversion algorithm, additional research is needed to establish
practical guidelines for conducting electrical resistivity surveys in
water-covered areas. Numerical simulations indicate that the use
of floating electrodes for electrical resistivity imaging surveys in
water-covered areas reduces the subsurface depth of investigation
by an amount at least equal to the water depth, and a greater
reduction in the depth of investigation is likely where the water
is significantly less resistive than the subsurface materials. More
extensive numerical modelling could provide additional insights
regarding the influence factors such as water resistivity, thickness,
and electrode array type have on data quality, and could aid the
development of practical guidelines relating to investigation depth
and resolution limitations useful for those engaged in electrical
resistivity surveys in water-covered areas.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The first author acknowledges the support given by the
School of Physics, Universiti Sains Malaysia. The second author
acknowledges the support of the USGS Office of Ground Water,
the Ground Water Resources Program, and the expert assistance of
Alison Waxman, Eric White, and Marcel Beleval. The Belgium
Redas River survey data set was kindly provided by Jef Bucknix
of Sage Engineering (now Thales Engineering), Belgium. Dr.
Ian Acworth and Greg Dasey of the Water Research Laboratory,
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of
New South Wales, Australia kindly provided the Korogoro Creek
survey data set.
Inversion of electrical
Right Running
imaging Heading
surveys
REFERENCES
Acworth, R.I., and Dasey, G.R., 2003, Mapping of the hyporheic zone around a tidal
creek using a combination of borehole logging, borehole electrical tomography
and cross-creek electrical imaging: Hydrogeology Journal, 11, 368–377.
Auken, E., and Christiansen, A.V., 2004, Layered and laterally constrained 2D
inversion of resistivity data: Geophysics, 69, 752–761.
Belaval, M., Lane, J.W., Jr., Lesmes, D,P., and Kineke, G.C., 2003, Continuous-
resistivity profiling for coastal groundwater investigations—three case studies:
Proceedings of the Symposium of the Application of Geophysics to Engineering
and Environmental Problems, April 6-10, 2003, San Antonio, Texas, 14 p.
Bernstone, C., and Dahlin, T., 1999, Assessment of two automated electrical resistivity
data acquisition systems for landfill location surveys: two case histories: Journal
of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, 4, 113–122.
Christiansen, A.V., and Auken, E., 2004, Optimizing a layered and laterally
constrained 2D inversion of resistivity data using Broyden’s update and 1D
derivatives: Journal of Applied Geophysics, 56, 247-262.
Dahlin, T., 1996, 2D resistivity surveying for environmental and engineering
applications: First Break, 14, 275–284.
deGroot-Hedlin, C., and Constable, S., 1990, Occam’s inversion to generate smooth,
two-dimensional models form magnetotelluric data: Geophysics, 55, 1613–1624.
Edwards L.S., 1977, A modified pseudosection for resistivity and induced-polarization:
Geophysics, 42, 1020–1036.
Ellis, R.G., and Oldenburg, D.W., 1994, Applied geophysical inversion: Geophysical
Journal International, 116, 5–11.
Griffiths, D.H., and Barker, R.D., 1993, Two-dimensional resistivity imaging and
modelling in areas of complex geology: Journal of Applied Geophysics, 29,
211–226.
Li, Y. and Oldenburg, D.W., 2000, 3-D inversion of induced polarization data:
Geophysics, 65, 1931–1945.
Loke, M.H., 2000, Topographic modelling in resistivity imaging inversion: 62nd
EAGE Conference & Technical Exhibition Extended Abstracts, D-2.
Loke, M.H., and Barker, R.D., 1996a, Rapid least-squares inversion of apparent
resistivity pseudosections using a quasi-Newton method: Geophysical
Prospecting, 44, 131–152.
Loke, M.H., and Barker, R.D, 1996b, Practical techniques for 3D resistivity surveys
and data inversion: Geophysical Prospecting, 44, 499–523.
Loke, M.H., Acworth, I., and Dahlin, T., 2003, A comparison of smooth and blocky
inversion methods in 2D electrical imaging surveys: Exploration Geophysics,
34, 182–187.
Madsen, J.A., Brown, L., McKenna, T., Snyder, S., Krantz, D., Manheim, F., Haeni,
F.-P., White, E., and Ullman, W., 2001, Geophysical characterization of fresh
and saline water distribution in a coastal estuarine setting: Proceedings of the
Symposium of the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental
Problems (SAGEEP), March 4–7, Denver Colorado.
Manheim, F.T., Krantz, D.E., Snyder, D.S., Bratton, J.F., White, E.A., and Madsen,
J.A., 2001, Streaming resistivity surveys and core drilling define groundwater
discharge into coastal bays of the Delmarva Peninsula: Geological Society of
America Annual Meeting, November 1-10, 2001, 33(6), A42.
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, 65, 1542–1550.
Press, W.H., Teukolsky, S.A., Vetterling, W.T., and Flannery, B.P., 1992, Numerical
recipes in C (2nd edition): Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Ritz, M., Parisot, J.-C., Diouf, S., Beauvais, A., and Dione, F., 1999, Electrical
imaging of lateritic weathering mantles over granitic and metamorphic basement
of eastern Senegal, West Africa: Journal of Applied Geophysics, 41, 335–344.
Seaton, W.J., and Burbey, T.J., 2000, Aquifer characterization in the Blue Ridge
Physiographic Province using resistivity profiling and borehole geophysics:
Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, 5(3), 45–58.
Silvester P.P., and Ferrari, R.L., 1990, Finite elements for electrical engineers (2nd
edition): Cambridge University Press.
Smith, T., Hoversten, M., Gasperikova, E., and Morrison, F., 1999, Sharp boundary
inversion of 2D magnetotelluric data: Geophysical Prospecting, 47, 469–486.
Sorenson, K., 1996, Pulled Array Continuous Profiling: First Break, 14, 85–90.
White, R.M.S., Collins, S., Denne, R., Hee, R., and Brown, P., 2001, A new survey
design for 3D IP modelling at Copper Hill: Exploration Geophysics, 32,
152–155.
Wynn, J.C., and Grosz, A.E., 2000, Induced-polarization – a tool for mapping
titanium-bearing placers, hidden metallic objects, urban waste on and beneath the
seafloor: Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, 5(3), 27–35.
Exploration Geophysics (2004) Vol 35, No. 4 271