Geoderma 284 (2016) 22–33

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geoderma

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geoderma

High sampling rate measurement and data treatment for mobile

investigations: Kinematic Electrical Resistivity Tomography (KERT)
Olivier Guerrero a,⁎, Jean-François Lataste a, Antoine Marache a
a
Univ. Bordeaux, UMR 5295 I2M, GCE Department, 33405 Talence Cedex, France

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper presents an innovative system which adapts Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) for fast investi-
Received 23 December 2015 gation on long transects. The device consists in a set of on-the-go sensors allowing high sampling rate measure-
Received in revised form 4 August 2016 ment for mobile prospections. The weak contact between the mobile sensors and the soil, to allow fast
Accepted 7 August 2016
investigations, induces very noisy raw datasets. Kinematic Electrical Resistivity Tomography (named KERT) is
Available online xxxx
then associated with a data treatment process. A two-step process reveals the information contained in the
Keywords:
datasets.
Electrical resistivity tomography The first focuses on the procedure to remove noise through the use of a low-pass filter. The assessment of cutoff
High sampling rate measurement device frequency for smoothing is deduced from a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) analysis, thus the value is adapted to the
Device for mobile investigations site and the prospection. The second phase consists in calibration of the KERT on a conventional static ERT. At this
Data treatment point, a classical static ERT was used as a reference, and directed on a reduced part of the KERT transect. The es-
De-noising data timation of a factor of calibration (Xc) to correct bias revealed the resistivity variations along the entire transect
On-the-go sensors and in depth.
In the last part of the paper, the validation of the investigation method and data treatment methodology is per-
formed on a real case study: a 450 m transect is investigated in 5 min (mean speed: about 6 km/h), integrating 10
depths of investigation. The steps of data processing are detailed to show the final results, consisting in a zonation
along the transect.
© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In geophysical prospection, advances in technologies now allow
equipment to conduct extensive surveys in a relatively short time
(Lund et al., 1999; Blais, 2004; Christensen and Sorensen, 2001). They
include developments in high sampling rate measurement devices for
geophysical prospection in the fields of archaeological exploration
(Clomont, 2008; Tabbagh, 1992; Dabas et al., 2000), civil engineering
(Neiderleithinger et al., 2015), geological surveys (Peyraube et al.,
2012), and soil science (Coulouma et al., 2012). The idea is that these de-
vices should respond to different expectations in terms of utility, wheth-
er for the prospection of soils for urban development plans, for the
location of underground structures (Lew, 1997), or for geological sur-
veys on a large scale (Meric, 2006; Friedel et al., 2006), etc.
In this context, classical electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) can
be a very interesting tool. Its sensitivity to water and/or clay content
and lateral resistivity variability can bring a lot of advantages. This tech-
nique has many applications (Samouëlian et al., 2005). Numerous case
studies have proved its high level of performance in measuring surfaces
or boreholes provided by images in each considered zone (Taillet et al.,
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: olivier.guerrero@ac-bordeaux.fr (O. Guerrero).
2014). This zoning of surface soils makes it easier to define the variabil-
ity of physical properties of a certain material such as the variation in
clay content (De Benedetto et al., 2011; Tabbagh et al., 2000) or geomet-
rical structures (Buvat et al., 2014; Guerrero et al., 2013; Chaplot et al.,
2010; Besson et al., 2004). The major limitation of ERT prospection in
fieldwork conditions is the relatively poor horizontal resolution with in-
creased electrode spacing. Hence, applying this in a larger area can lead
to difficulties. Implanting each electrode is time consuming, another
source of difficulties encountered during ERT prospection. In addition,
the following concerns should be seriously considered during field-
work; sensitivities and abilities of several electrode configurations in re-
lation to their differences in spatial resolution; tendency for artefacts to
appear in images; deviation from the true model resistivity; and inter-
pretable maximum depth. Following these restrictions, ERT seems to
have limited potential in performing a high sampling rate measurement
prospection.
Over the last thirty years, advances in geophysical prospection have
been focused on the adaptation of electrical methods in order to con-
duct soil structure mapping and to discern its physical characteristics
(Samouëlian et al., 2005; Loke et al., 2013). Using the high sampling
rate measurement device in geophysical prospection, the time of explo-
ration can be directly correlated to the travel speed of the device. In this
case, a great majority of the measurements techniques are towed, or at

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2016.08.007
0016-7061/© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 O. Guerrero et al. / Geoderma 284 (2016) 22–33
least linked to movable devices. Pulling the device implies a develop-
ment of existing techniques to adapt to the new measurement process
(Jakosky, 1938; Hesse et al., 1986; Panissod et al., 1998). Most of the
methods and measuring devices developed have mainly aimed at map-
ping large surfaces or obtaining the transect of physical properties via
surveys like kinematics. The use of kinematics leads to the rapid
achievement of a large number of measurements. At present, a number
of resolutions exist in terms of equipment to generate continuous
geoelectrical surveys. ARP (Automatic Resistivity Prospection), operat-
ed by Geocarta, is used for the recognition of archaeological
zones (Panissod et al., 1997; Dabas, 2009). ARP is a motorized system
that allows 3 simultaneous measurements of apparent resistivity,
representing 3 volumes of investigation (Dabas, 2009). Materials with
the same technical basis of geoelectrical measurement also exist in Den-
mark, such as the PACES (Pulled Continuous Electrical Sounding Sys-
tem) developed by the University of Aarhus (Christensen and
Sorensen, 2001), or in the USA with the Veris 3100 Soil EC Mapping Sys-
tem developed by Veris Technology (Lund et al., 1999). Recently, there
has been the Geophilus Electricus (Lueck and Ruehlmann, 2013) for
mapping the top-soil in five depths of investigation (0–1 m).
All these approaches are focused on soil mapping, in terms of appar-
ent resistivity. The value of ERT is its ability to invert data in order to as-
sess a model for true resistivity distribution. In this study the classical
ERT was developed in order to reach high sampling rate measurement
approaches. This enhanced ERT device can allow easier actual installa-
tion on site. It can allocate investigations on transect along large spatial
scale in the field. The adaptation of the common geophysical methods in
a geophysical prospection with on-the-go sensors aims to exploit the
characteristics of several methods of electrical investigation to avoid
the obligation of a continuous contact between the ground and the elec-
trodes (Shima et al., 1996). Kinematics Electrical Resistivity Tomogra-
phy (KERT) allows the measurement of apparent resistivity transects
in ten depths of investigation, with a classical ERT format. The data are
then inverted to produce a true resistivity 2D tomography. In this, the
existing equipment allow to obtain an apparent resistivity transect
within several pseudo depth, while KERT prospection allow to obtain
an tomography with true inverted resistivity through the use of on-
the-go sensors and a high sampling rate measurement approaches.
Two dimensions are taken into account in the development of the
measuring device. In addition, interpretation of the data is provided.
Compared to common geophysical prospection, kinematic geophysical
prospection generates a higher noise level. This high proportion of
noise is mainly associated with the electrical coupling between mobile
sensor and topsoil. Prior to the interpretation of the data, there is a pre-
processing of measures phase, aimed at analyzing and correcting them.
To address the noise concern, several approaches are possible. The
first approach is to limit the bias. In the present case, use of classical stat-
ic probes would be the solution. However, this is not compatible with
high rate investigation. The second approach consists in data filtering
to remove noise. Various tools can be used, for instance statistics:
while the mean and the variance can serve to highlight the main trends
of the measures, a filtering of outliers can be put in place relative to the
thresholds (Macnae et al., 1984; Bellanger and Aigrain, 2006; Doucet
and Johansen, 2010; Ferahtia et al., 2012) above which (maximum
and minimum values) the measurements are filtered. Filtering can be
also performed by rejecting property variations due to too large gradi-
ents (Starck et al., 1989). Temporal or spatial approaches to datasets
are a second possibility. These highlight areas (space) or durations
(time) in which the studied variable presents variations qualified as reg-
ular. The data processing serves to smooth (Fullana, 2002) the series of
data showing unrealistic changes in the studied property, e.g. wet sand
(prospected by drilling) connected to a resistivity of 10,000 Ω. The first
studies on the treatment of smoothing geophysical data were carried
out on time data, such as time electromagnetic measurements
(Reninger, 2012). A classical treatment method for processing noise
data aims to make the data discrete in terms of frequencies (Köhler
23
and Lorenz, 2005). In these studies, Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) analy-
sis is used to determine the frequency spectrum of a series of measure-
ments. The use of a low pass filter on the frequency spectrum serves to
filter outliers (i.e. excessive gradients) and unrealistic data ranges with
regard to the scale of prospection. A third approach to dealing with
noise interpretation consists in the calibration of raw data on referenced
values. This limits the interpretation of relative variations, whatever the
absolute values. It is also possible only if the noise level is low relatively
to the information level in the records, in other words: the noise/signal
(N/S) ratio is sufficiently low.
This paper presents an innovative ERT approach via a new device
(KERT), accompanied by enhanced data treatment to smooth resistance
data obtained through KERT prospection, and to calibrate it on a classi-
cal electrical resistivity tomography (limited in space). This study
employed only the ERT device to develop a new geophysical method
of investigation. With this methodology, KERT will be a method for
large scale mapping, achieving accurate zoning of fields (adapted to
pedological, archaeological or civil engineering applications according
to measuring parameters, mainly probe spacing).
First the device is presented along with the tools used for data treat-
ment. Then, in the second part, the method is developed on a real site in
order to capture all the real constraints of on-site prospection. The data
processing is based on two main phases: (1) FFT analysis and (2) the de-
termination of a corrective factor (Xc) to calibrate measurements of re-
alistic ranges by a bias correction (on the basis of an ERT calibration
measurement). In the third part, the validation of the method is per-
formed on a second real site, independent from the first (used for devel-
opment). In the last part some methodology aspects are discussed,
before the concluding remarks.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Technical parameters of the device
KERT consists of a quad, referred to as traction vehicle in Fig. 1,
towing movable electrodes called on-the-go sensors. The quad also
carries the power and acquisition system (SyscalPro (Iris Instrument)
and a computer). An optimized mode is available on the acquisition sys-
tem allowing simultaneous measurement of 10 potential differences for
some electrode arrays (Dipole-Dipole (DD), Wenner, Schlumberger).
This makes it possible to adapt it to a device for mobile investigations.
The configuration of the KERT device is dipole-dipole. The dipole-dipole
array is composed of a couple of electrodes for current injection and ten
pairs of electrodes for measuring the potential difference. For practical
reasons and with regard to researches that are not developed in this
paper, this device is currently developed with 50 cm probe spacing
(a), limiting the depth of investigation to the first 2 m. This point
could be easily changed to increase the depth of investigation.
The KERT device is composed of 13 electrodes. The two first are cur-
rent electrodes used for the injection of electrical current into the soil
(labeled A and B). They are spaced by 1 interval labeled “a”, which
here is equal to 50 cm. The 11 other electrodes (labeled P1 to P11) are
potential electrodes, used to assess the potential drop along 10 intervals.
This allows the calculation of apparent resistivity for various depths of
investigation. As these depths are not real (not precisely known), we
refer to “level” (ranking from 1 for the smallest probe spacing to 10
when the measuring probes are spaced by the 10 intervals), or else
“pseudo depths” (linked to electrode spacing ranging here from 0.6a
to 3a). The depths of investigation, estimated for inversion (Barker,
1989) from pseudo depths, are between 0.3 and 1.5 m. Mobile sensors
are steel toothed wheels whose characteristics are studied in Guerrero
(2014). Preliminary tests showed the outlier values of the first level of
investigation (which corresponds to the smaller spacing between injec-
tion probes and potential probes). To improve the rough data in terms
of noise quantity, the spacing between injection probes and first poten-
tial probes was fixed at 2a (i.e. 1 m). The initiation of the measurements
24 O. Guerrero et al. / Geoderma 284 (2016) 22–33
a)
b)
Fig. 1. The KERT device diagram and illustration in-situ, a) device as a whole, b) on-the-go sensors in dipole-dipole configuration with 50 cm interelectrode spacing and 10 levels of
investigation.
was carried out by a wheel encoding the displacement of the whole de-
vice for positioning each measurement (i.e. odometer). This encoder
wheel responds to the GPS imposed limitations in shaded areas i.e.
under the trees which are present in the area. The accuracy of the en-
coder wheel reaches a centimeter, even at a speed of progression in
the order of 5 to 8 km/h. The remote triggering of the injection current
(AB) and the difference in potential measurement by all the pairs of
electrodes (P1-P11) is thus carried out with a constant measurement
step, despite the irregular speed of the device in the field. The constant
measurement step can be set at least at 20 cm, with a speed of progres-
sion reduced b 3 km/h, and up to several meters with a speed of progres-
sion of 5 to 8 km/h. As the exploration is performed, a software package
(Sysmar - Iris Instrument) creates the entire pseudo-section of apparent
resistivity in real time.
2.2. Data processing
Two steps are developed to successively smooth then calibrate data
from KERT, leading to final values that are similar to those obtained by a
static device, allowing interpretation with traditional tools. The two
steps (de-noising and calibration) use data from a reference static ERT
performed on a portion of the KERT transect, first to identify the “natu-
ral” variability of resistivities along the transect, and second to assess
the resistivity ranges on the area.
The first step of data processing is the smoothing of outlier values as-
sociated with random noise. In light of the studies already conducted in
this context (Angelini and De Canditiis, 2000; Amato and De Feis, 2000;
De Canditiis and De Feis, 2006), the geoelectric data smoothing analysis
by Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) proves to be a relevant approach for
highlighting the frequencies and, therefore, the dimensions of the
main geoelectrical structures measured. In this study, all the pseudo
depths of investigation of the KERT are named level. Each level of the
KERT is viewed as a set of data independent of other levels which is
treated individually. Thus, in each level component, a KERT gives a se-
ries of data that can be represented by a frequency spectrum. Applying
a treatment by FFT on a KERT transect yields the frequency spectrum in
distance in which the unit of frequency is m−1 (Fig. 2), since the mea-
surement points are sampled according to the distance travelled, with
a step of measure α in meter. Fig. 2 represents the common data of ap-
parent resistivity within the second level (same distance (x), same level
(y)), between a KERT transect (length : 70 m, α = 0.5 m) and an ERT
transect (length : 48 m, α = 1 m). The number of apparent resistivity
data in a level of KERT is in this case 141, and only 48 data are in com-
mon with the ERT transect.
The analysis of the frequency spectrum (Fig. 2) identifies the distri-
bution of resistivities according to their frequency ranges. This repre-
sentation corresponds to the resistivity variation linked to the
wavelength of the measured phenomenon. Noise is classically charac-
terized by very high frequency (short wavelength), particularly linked
to the quality of the contact between probes and top-soils. Low frequen-
cies, however, correspond to the different geoelectrical structures (larg-
er for lower frequency).
The use of an analysis by FFT consists in determining the low-pass
frequency filter to remove the frequencies associated with the noise
during the measurements. Then by performing an inverse Fourier
Transform, the denoised signal is rebuilt. The discretization of the fre-
quency spectrum depends on the step of measure (α) retained for the
KERT measures. The determination of the threshold frequency of the
 O. Guerrero et al. / Geoderma 284 (2016) 22–33 25

a)

b)
Fig. 2. a) noise signal for the second level of investigation using KERT, b) frequency spectrum of the apparent resistivity from the second level of investigation using KERT.

low-pass filter (fx) relies on the minimum size of heterogeneities to de-
tect (λ). The relationship is described below (see Eq. (1)):
1 the kinematic survey (KERT). The analysis consists in degrading the ref-
fx ¼
λ:
For instance, for fx = 0.25 m−1, the minimum size for soil structure
which can be characterized is 4 m in length.
Another approach is to determine fx relatively to the noise level. This
approach is used as an indicator of decision making for choice of fx. This
approach seems more relevant and better reflects the coherence of the
studied site, compared with a more objective approach. This approach
requires reasoning on a limited number of resistivity data (48 per
level), but the results lead to 5 m wavelengths, which is significantly
lower than the 48 m of the studied ERT transect. This approach is subject
to discussion, but allows to orient the choice of the fx. The frequency
that does not provide more information on the geoelectrical structures
can be considered as noise. The determination of this frequency thresh-
old can be achieved objectively: the work is done on static ERT data,
after which (according to similarity) we apply these observations to
ð1Þ
erence signal (from static ERT) by successively decreasing the threshold
frequency fx of the low-pass filter. Then an analysis of inverse Fourier
transform is performed for each case with the aim of deriving the “per-
centage of variation (Δ%) between reference ERT and filtered ERT” as a
function of fx, the percentage of variation being calculated on each
point according to Eq. (2).




ρarj −ρafij

Δ% j ¼ 100  ð2Þ
ρarj
With Δ%j, the percentage of variation on the point j, ρarj the apparent
resistivity on j on the reference static pseudo-section, and ρafij the
26 O. Guerrero et al. / Geoderma 284 (2016) 22–33
apparent resistivity on point j on the filtered (with value f for low-pass
filter frequency) pseudo-section. Δ% is the average value of Δ%j for each
fx.
In electrical prospection generally one can consider that 10% resistiv-
ity contrast corresponds to a significant contrast to detect a structure
from the surrounding soil (Tabbagh, 1985). Considering the Δ% function
of frequency, we can pick fx as the frequency value corresponding to
Δ% = 10%. A filtering with a frequency lower than fx leads to keeping
the measurement noise and intrinsic variability of soil, while a filtering
frequency higher than fx leads to the erosion of information. Thus, the
frequency higher than fx are removing because they are considered
like bias (no pertinent information). Thereby, only the frequency
lower than fx are keep to do an inverse Fourier transform.
Once KERT data are de-noised, the second step of the KERT data pro-
cessing is the calibration of resistivity values. Indeed, the average resis-
tivity value on KERT is very high, due to the effect of contact resistance
between moving probes and top-soils. As long as this resistance de-
pends on the electrodes' characteristics, its value could be comparable
for all the probes. Consequently, its contribution could be considered
as a close constant for a constant spacing. Next, the data treatment in
terms of calibration is defined level by level, with the determination of
the calibration factor for each level. The static ERT performed on a por-
tion of the KERT transect is the reference for completing this task. In
practical terms, the objective is to determine an average shift within
each level, between the apparent resistivity measured by KERT and
ERT. We defined the calibration factor Xc that quantifies the shift be-
tween the apparent resistivity measured by a KERT and an ERT. The cal-
ibration factor Xc is obtained for each level of investigation by Eq. (3).
n logðρ
1 aKERT Þ
Xc ¼ ∑ ð3Þ
n 1 logðρaERT Þ
Thus, for a level of investigation, to calibrate data we obtain Eq. (4):
ρaERT ¼ ðρaKERT Þ =Xc
1
ð4Þ
with:
n: number of comparable points within the level i.
ρaKERT: smooth apparent resistivity at the x position, within the level
i of a KERT.
ρaERT: apparent resistivity at the x position, within the level i of an
ERT.
2.3. Test sites
Two test sites are considered: the first one for the development of
the methodology, used for identification of the various measuring pa-
rameters influencing the prospection and the development of the data
processing methodology; and the second site for the validation of the
methodology developed in an independent context.
The first site is located in Pessac (44° 47 ′52.81″N, 0° 36′ 34.35 ″ W),
near Bordeaux in southwest France. The main geological surface of the
site corresponds to colluvium of mixed origin (fluvial and wind)
consisting of sand, gravel, and pebbles with a clay matrix. From the sur-
face, the study area is composed of a backfill layer with varying thick-
ness of about 0–1 m (Pratviel et al., 1978). This backfill layer is present
only in the northern part of the site. In this specific part, a layer of sed-
imentary materials consisting of a succession of layers of gravel and
sand to a depth of 5 to 10 m is present. All these Quaternary formations
are on the surface of the calcareous substratum of the upper Miocene.
The transect is 48 m in length, limited to the length of the static transect
used as reference. The top–soil is covered by gravel and sparse grass.
The second site is located in the south of Bordeaux (latitude longi-
tude 44.745239° N 0.693154° W). The geology of the soil corresponds
to the Dépée formation (Pratviel et al., 1978), consisting of sands and
more or less homogeneous clay. The site is relevant as it has
homogenous surface soil of several meters, with no multiple variations
in horizontal structures. The study area is a pathway in a forest of about
450 m in length with a slight slope from north to south. The topsoil is
mainly composed of sand.
3. Results
In this part, the development of the analysis of KERT data is pro-
posed. Results are integrally elaborated on the first test site.
3.1. Raw data
Fig. 3 shows the result after an inversion of the apparent resistivity
(ρapp) of the KERT prospection campaign with regard to the reference
ERT performed at the same coordinates, and under the same conditions
(same date, same array, same settings, etc.).
The ranges obtained varied strongly, showing 50 to 5000 Ohm.m
with the ERT, and higher values for KERT. At this step, the resistivities
on KERT are outside of plausible values.
Comparing these raw data obtained in terms of relative variation to
the ERT reference, it can be observed that KERT has lateral variations in
resistivity ranges, with strong values between 0 and 30 m and lower
values beyond. For depth as a factor, the ERT presents (in its first
24 m) a decrease in resistivity, however, for the KERT, this gradient is in-
creasing. The large variation in ρ for two neighboring measures in the
KERT case does not highlight the geometries of heterogeneities. From
a qualitative point of view, these measures are not relevant to the mate-
rials observed on site. This reflects the strong disturbance of the mea-
surements, indicates a strong bias in the measurements. These
disturbances can be interpreted as noise related to the measurements,
i.e. the intrinsic quality of the contacts of the on-the-go sensor
(Guerrero, 2014). The analysis of the data from a KERT prospection em-
phasizes that measured resistivity cannot be directly interpreted
through the traditional tools normally used for this type of measure-
ment (Loke and Barker, 1996). The purpose of this paper is not to iden-
tify the causes of this difference (bias) between the apparent resistivity
data of ERT and KERT, but to develop a method for treating apparent re-
sistivity data of KERT to make these as interpretable measures.
3.2. FFT filtering for smoothing data
An analysis is performed of the percentage of variation for the deter-
mination of the cutoff factor for the low pass. The graph in Fig. 4 pre-
sents a curve showing three domains: the first (fx b 0.2 m−1) where
the curve presents a high negative slope translating the extensive ero-
sion of data for a frequency filter that is too low; the second
(0.2 b fx b 0.4 m−1) where there is only a weak influence of fx on Δ%,
meaning a low influence of the exact fx value for filtering; and the
third (fx N 0.4 m− 1) curve shows a sharp negative slope translating
the decrease in measurement noise (generally associated with higher
frequency). This curve clearly shows low frequency limits before signif-
icant erosion of data (0.2 m−1) and the high frequency limits of mea-
surement noise (0.4 m− 1). Furthermore, relatively to the analysis of
Δ%, and the threshold of 10% (as the threshold for significant resistivity
change - Tabbagh, 1985), it is observed (Fig. 4) that if fx N 0.2 m−1, the
erosion of data from ERT is b10%. If fx b 0.2 m−1, there is a deviation be-
tween the reference and the filtered tomography N 10%. In this case,
with fx = 0.2 m−1 the inverse Fourier transform serves to smooth the
noise, keeping an accurate dataset. If fx is lower, the inverse Fourier
transform causes a loss of information.
To illustrate the influence of this method of smoothing geoelectrical
data, we can study the evolution of the correlation coefficient (Table 1)
between the apparent resistivity of an ERT and a smoothed KERT with
different filter frequencies (0.35 m−1; 0.2 m−1; 0.1 m−1; 0.05 m−1).
The calculation of the correlation coefficients between the apparent re-
sistivity of an ERT and a smoothed KERT shows the main variations in
 O. Guerrero et al. / Geoderma 284 (2016) 22–33
Fig. 3. Comparison of true resistivity, obtained after the inversion of ERT and raw KERT data.
the apparent resistivity related to the ERT observed within the KERT
transect once the geoelectrical data are smoothed.
In Fig. 5, it also follows that the smoothing of the KERT data makes
analysis possible as it presents same trend in terms of apparent resistiv-
ity, but not the same value ranges.
This data smoothing highlights geophysical structures larger than
5 m. Fig. 5 allows comparison of apparent resistivity transects, for the
same level (pseudo depth) for KERT and ERT. The data presented are ob-
tained after smoothing by FFT analysis with the application of a
0.2 m−1low-pass filter.
Within a level of exploration (level 2), the expected measurements
(ERT) and the effective measurements (KERT), expressed as a loga-
rithm, show a relatively constant offset. This smoothing of the measure-
ments by the FFT inverse analysis emphasizes that KERT data contain
information in terms of relative variations in resistivity, allowing con-
sideration of the zoning along the transect. This led to the proposal of
the calibration factor.
3.3. Calibration of smoothed KERT relatively to reference ERT
Fig. 6 is a representation of the relations between the apparent resis-
tivity of the KERT and the ERT. This illustrates the impact of the different
processing on the data. This figure shows the measurement values of
apparent resistivity smoothed by FFT grouped into 5 major classes,
each corresponding to a level of investigation. These apparent resistivi-
ties are described (average) for each level by Eq. (2), with the values of
Fig. 4. Loss of information due to smoothing by low-pass filter.
27
the calibration factor Xc increasing with depth. The factors Xc are calcu-
lated for each level of investigation of a KERT comparable to that of an
ERT, requiring that the KERT and ERT measurement values are carried
out at the same coordinates.
To determine the calibration factors Xc, we compare a KERT and en
ERT made at the same position. By the characteristics of the surveys,
we can compare 45 values of apparent resistivity per level of explora-
tion. The calibration factors Xc are quantified in Table 2. On this site,
we note that the coefficients evolve from 1.29 to 3.14 according to the
levels. In an ideal case, with no calibration needed, the Xc values
would be equal to 1. The coefficients of variation of calibration factors
Xc are constant according to the different levels of investigation. The in-
crease in the Xc values as a function of the level (i.e. depth of investiga-
tion) shows that biases increase with depth.
3.4. Study of improved resistivity data
With an analysis of the RMSE (Root Mean Square Error) factor we
assessed (Eq. (5)) the effects of various data treatments on the KERT ap-
parent resistivity prospection, in relation to the apparent resistivity of
the reference ERT. The relative comparison of RMSE allows quantifica-
tion of the evolution of apparent resistivity after each processing step
(Table 3). The choice of this indicator is based on the fact that the
RMSE highlights the large differences between the ERT and KERT resis-
tivities within the same level. The average noise level (variability) of an
ERT is evaluated by repetition of the measurement, and then by an anal-
ysis of the differences recorded. This gap between the same measure-
ment values of apparent resistivity is an indicator of a variability of the
measurements, giving a signification level of variation. Two sets of mea-
surements have been successively acquired by leaving the device in
place between the two sequences of measurement for determining
the noise inherent in ERT measures. Table 3 represents the RMSE
resulting from the comparison between the two sequences of ERT
Table 1
Correlation between the apparent resistivity of the reference ERT and the KERT, depending
on the different frequencies of smoothing.
Threshold frequency of the low-pass
filter (m−1)
Raw data 0.35 0.2 0.1 0.05
Correlation. Coefficient. 0.6558 0.84 0.92 0.91 0.88
28
Fig. 5. Result of a smoothing process with a low-pass filter frequency of 0.2 m−1 within the second level of investigation.
(Reference), the comparison between the ERT of reference and the raw
KERT, the smoothed KERT (FFT), and the smoothed calibrated KERT (C-
FFT).
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
i¼N
1
RMSE ¼ : ∑ ðρiaERT −ρiaKERT Þ2
N i¼1
with: N: number of apparent resistivity data.
ρiaERT: ERT apparent resistivity.
ρiaKERT: KERT apparent resistivity.
The analysis of the RMSE as well as of the average apparent resistiv-
ity and the coefficient of variation (CoV) can illustrate two influences of
different treatments performed when measuring the apparent resistiv-
ity. Firstly, the study of CoV illustrates that smoothing by low-pass filter
of the apparent resistivity reduces the measurement bias significantly.
Secondly, in terms of the RMSE, it emerges that the calibration of the
KERT apparent resistivity yields variations in resistivity comparable to
those measured by the reference ERT and also in the comparable ranges.
Fig. 6 illustrates the apparent resistivities according they are raw
data (from KERT) or processed data (FFT and calibration), in function
of reference data (from ERT). It is shown the improvement of measured
resistivity due to the data processing, the final coefficient of correlation
is 0.87. The treatments of the KERT data (FFT smoothing and calibration)
Fig. 6. Relations between the apparent resistivity of the KERT and the ERT, effects of the treatments (smoothing process and calibration) on the distribution of apparent resistivity.
O. Guerrero et al. / Geoderma 284 (2016) 22–33
help to make the KERT raw data useful for interpretation (Fig. 7). By
comparing the two sections, it appears that that the lateral zoning of
geo-electrical structures obtained with processed KERT is consistent
with ERT. One can note the two distinct zones along transect: before
25 m where the top-soil structures are highly resistive (N500 Ohm.m),
ð5Þ and after 25 m where the top-soil is more conductive (100 to
300 Ω.m). The deeper part of the transect presents very low resistivities
(b100 Ω.m) all along. These spatial distributions are qualitatively the
same with the two devices. Nevertheless there is a resistivity range's
shift between KERT and ERT results: ERT range appears less resistive
than KERT for instance on the first part of the tomography of reference
which present value lower than 500 Ω.m at 1 m in depth, or else on the
second transect part with some resistivities as lower as 70 Ω.m at the
surface.
Even though the KERT is compared here with the ERT used for its cal-
ibration, it shows that the FFT allows the data to be cleaned by conserv-
ing the relative variation which is of interest for interpretation. Then,
through a calibration phase done on a single average value by level,
the treatment gives a good range for the resistivity values, even if the
correspondence is not exact. This is a basis for a more advanced proce-
dure where the ERT for calibration is performed only on a part of the
prospected transect, and the Xc factors (assessed on this ERT) will be
generalized along the entire KERT transect. In terms of the analysis of
true resistivity (inverted with RES2DInv), we can observe in this case
 O. Guerrero et al. / Geoderma 284 (2016) 22–33
Table 2
Determination of factors Xc according to levels of investigation.
Calibration factors Xc
Levels Average C.V. (%)
Level 1 1.29 11
Level 2 1.63 11
Level 3 1.95 12
Level 4 2.65 11
Level 5 3.14 12
study that the low resistivities are undervalued by KERT. At this stage,
no explanation is given. Nevertheless it is clear that from a qualitative
point of view, the zonation of the transect could be performed sharply
along the transect as well as in depth, in a satisfactory manner.
Thus, at present stage of development of the measuring device, the
ERT data still need to be assessed in terms of performance to calibrate
a KERT. This calibration associates with each KERT level of investigation,
a unique factor Xc. For each level considered, the apparent resistivity
measured at each point (ρapp) obtained after smoothing of the data by
FFT, is treated according to Eq. (2) to obtain a calibrated apparent resis-
tivity (C-FFT) designated by ρ'app.
 1
ρ0app ¼ ρapp =Xc
3.5. Validation on test site number 2
Preliminary electric and electromagnetic geophysical surveys have
identified the existence of a zone with low resistivity (attached to an
area of rainwater retention). The location of this transition of the
geoelectrical structures is chosen to implement two neighboring ERT
of 72 electrodes (Dipole-Dipole device 1 m spacing between elec-
trodes). The combination of these two ERT can be used to form a contin-
uous ERT transect of 120 m in length and 3.5 m in depth.
As in the first case we note significant differences between the initial
KERT results and the reference static ERT on the same portion: large dif-
ference in terms of resistivity ranges, and abnormal resistivity ranges for
KERT (up to 650,000 Ohm.m in terms of apparent resistivity). The raw
KERT data look totally incoherent compared to static reference ERT
(Fig. 8a, b & d). All the analyses and treatments on measuring the appar-
ent resistivity previously presented are applied in this case (Fig. 8c). The
first step is the FFT filtering with the threshold low pass filters fixed to
0.2 m−1. Then the second step: the calculation for each level of the Xc
factor is performed. Table 4 represents the calibration factors Xc that
were obtained on this study site, varying between 1 for the top level
and 1.35 in depth. Note that as ERT is performed with 1 m spacing, for
0.5 m spacing with KERT, a compromise is achieved by considering
only even-numbered levels (2, 4, 6, etc.). As expected from the study
in the first part, the variations in factors Xc show that the KERT measur-
ing device is more sensitive to measurement bias in its deepest investi-
gation levels.
The Fig. 8d shows the result of the ERT survey which can be qualita-
tively compared to the KERT perform on the same location after numer-
ical treatment (C-FFT KERT, Fig. 8c). Both figures. Show globally the
same electrical structures useful to establish a zoning of the cross-
Table 3
Evolution of the noise of measurement based on the treatment provided to the KERT data.
Comparaisons Between two ERT Between ERT and raw KERT Between ERT and smoothed (0,2 m−1) KERT Between ERT and smoothed calibrated KERT (C-FFT)
RMSE (Ω.m) 0.02 10.7.105
Average 478 1.48.1012
Resistivity(Ω.m)
CoV(%) 1.59 5.8
29
section. We can firstly note on both figures a decrease in resistivity
values as a function of the depth, except for the sides of the low part
of the ERT figure which show high values of resistivity which are not vis-
Nb
ible on KERT. For others depths, the evolution of resistivity with depth is
very similar on both figures. Secondly, we can clearly observe on both
45
figures at about 170 m, a “column” of lower resistivity represented in
45
45 yellow-green. Such a structure is typically the kind of information that
45 we search in a zoning aim. Finally, at a middle depth, we can observe
45 on both figures an alternation of red/orange zones.
A quantifiable comparison is more difficult because the variability in
resistivity values is different between ERT and KERT. Nevertheless, for
the aim that has been announced (establishment of an electrical zoning
of a cross-section), this qualitative analysis shows that the same struc-
tures are well identified with both methods.
The KERT prospection, coupled with data treatment by an FFT anal-
ysis, reveals the main geoelectrical structures of the soil, and through an
appropriate choice of the low-pass frequency, it allows us to focus on
the analysis of the major true resistivity contrasts within the transect.
The comparison between the resistivity of ERT and treated resistivity
KERT can highlight the relative agreement between measurements.
This correspondence is marked even if some differences can be noted
at the limits of higher or lower resistivities, by comparison of reference
ERT and final KERT.
By studying the different geoelectrical structures, identified by this
ð4Þ
transect and the in-situ observations, we note different zones of low re-
sistivity (interpreted as preferential infiltration areas) on the KERT tran-
sect for x = 64 m; 160 m; 290 m and 350 m. This test on a real site,
based on the application of experimental site experimentation, proves
that on the one hand the device can perform a large-scale transect
(420 m), and on the other hand that the methodology based on the
FFT filtering with a low pass filters taken about 0.2 m−1 is well adapted
to our site. The comparison between the KERT and an ERT transect per-
formed on a limited part of this KERT transect allowed us to determine
each Xc factor of calibration for all the levels of investigation. This local
Xc factor can be generalized to the entire KERT transect to calibrate the
apparent resistivity. Furthermore, resistivity can be inverted, and a
420 m long transect with a sampling of 1 m and ten levels of investiga-
tion can be studied via its true resistivity with true depths. For an inves-
tigation aiming at the zoning of soil structures in depth along transect
this methodology is now possible.
4. Discussion
For both sites, located in the Bordeaux area, we note similar initial
results for the KERT with resistivity ranges which first look doubtful.
After data processing, for both sites the resistivity ranges appear to be
closer to what is expected in their respective areas: between 50 and
1500 Ω.m for the first and 50 to 10,000 for the second. Relatively to
other works in the same area, the ranges are in agreement with the
high level of heterogeneity of this part of the Bordeaux area (Chretien
et al., 2014; Marache et al., 2009) or in a larger region (André et al.,
2012). The methodology has been successfully tested on two signifi-
cantly different sites, proving its operability. Considering accuracy de-
fined by Adamchuck et al. (2004) as “how well the sensor
measurements correlate an actual soil property that is determined
using a conventional (reference) measurement technique”, one can
consider that these developments lead to an accurate method in terms
8.1.104 33
4.4.105 512
2.61 1.55
30 O. Guerrero et al. / Geoderma 284 (2016) 22–33

Fig. 7. Results, in true resistivity, of KERT treatment after smoothing, calibration and inversion of apparent resistivity.

of measurement. At all events, the question could be seen as being more temperature, etc. Some of these parameters are given for a soil, others
complex since the electrical properties of soils are linked to a number of could evolve over time. Generally, simplification of these parameters
physical characteristics: moisture, salinity, clay content, as well as is performed according to the hypothesis of achieving digital

Fig. 8. Results of a KERT prospection with true resistivity over a great length, a) raw KERT transect represented with a “free” scale of resistivity, b) raw KERT transect represented with the
reference ERT resistivity scale, c) C-FFT KERT transect represented with the reference ERT resistivity scale, d) reference ERT with its resistivity scale.
 O. Guerrero et al. / Geoderma 284 (2016) 22–33
Table 4
Variations of the calibration factors Xc, according to levels of investigation.
KERT levels of investigation
Lvl 2 Lvl 4 Lvl 6 Lvl 8
Xc average 1.00 0.98 1.06 1.34
Variation Coefficient (%) 5 9 12 9 10
representation of soils (Séger et al., 2014; Chaplot et al., 2010). So the
discussion in this chapter is limited to the question of the data treat-
ment, leaving considerations on methodology interpretation for further
developments. The question addressed is the ability to record data
which could be processed to propose a resistivity transect in depth
for inverse analysis with classical tools, leading to an inverted
resistivity tomography, which is not performed by the other
techniques mentioned in the introductory paragraph. The main
question is about data noise, and the dynamic range needed for
accurate soil characterization.
Compared to classical static devices, the main difference is the use of
on-the-go sensors. The high noise level observed is then logically attrib-
uted to them, according to two main effects: (1) the quality of electrical
coupling between sensor and top soil; (2) the velocity of device
influencing the electrical coupling. Primarily, the contact resistance of
the on-the-go sensors' electrode is less likely to be linked to top-soil
than classical electrodes for ERT. In this study, consideration of a dis-
tance lower than 500 m is used for convenience in terms of the speed
of the moving device. The latter also factors in to the quality of the elec-
trical contact between probes and soil. All these factors contribute large-
ly to the noise field data measured. According to Lueck and Ruehlmann
(2013), with good galvanic coupling between electrode and soil, the in-
fluence of driving velocity is negligible. Nevertheless they mention the
influence of coulter depth variations which could lead to noise if the ve-
locity is higher than 8 km/h. Indeed, the quality of contact between top-
soil and electrode-coulter is one of the main sources of noise. We ob-
served with a test on moistened grass (with morning dew for instance)
that electrical coupling is improved and leads to a significant decrease in
noise. On the contrary, in measurements on gravelly dry soil, bad elec-
trical coupling can limit the investigation. These results are in accor-
dance with those of Mueller et al. (2003) or Lück et al. (2009) on the
influence of measurement conditions in terms of moisture and type of
top soils.
The electrode's movement could also influence the characteristics of
output current, and hence the input voltage which could decrease to a
few millivolts (Lueck and Ruehlmann, 2013; Shima et al., 1996). This ef-
fect is notably important in the case of deeper investigation channels
(with measurement electrodes far from the injection electrodes),
where the measured voltages are already weak. In this case output volt-
ages could have a low signal-to-noise. The weaker voltage could even be
comparable to the natural spontaneous potential of the soil, thus en-
hancing noise. Various tests led us to prefer to put in the injection
probes first followed by the measurement potential sensors. In this con-
figuration, due to the effect of traction of the latter sensors on the for-
mer, we note that the electrical coupling is better for the first sensors.
This arrangement is to privilege for the injection probes.
Velocity mainly influences the resolution of the investigations. Lueck
and Ruehlmann (2013) suggest a velocity in the range of 5 to 15 km/h,
in order to get about one point per 5 m (with their device). According to
our device and after data treatment (considering 0.2 m−1 for low pass
frequency) we reach this resolution with de-noised data. This resolution
does not appear to be suitable for very fine detection of soil structures
shorter than 5 m, but this approach does allow a quick delineation of
the main soil units on a large area for accurate zoning. If this first inves-
tigation is not sufficient it could be completed by either another tech-
nique (classical ERT for instance) or a new transect, performed more
slowly and hence in shorter investigation steps. In this way, combining
31
fast and slower investigation of the zone under consideration, we can
speak about prospecting optimization.
The issue of the speed of investigation and the quality of contact
Lvl 10
must be addressed by its influence on measurement sensitivity. Indeed
the current injection during 0.25 s combine with the on the go process
1.35
at about 6 km/h (1.66 m/s) results to an injection on a 40 cm interval
in length. The quality of contact as well as the distribution of current
density is then continuously changing for each resistivity measure. As
current density is more influenced by lower resistivity than by higher,
it leads to overestimate the influence of conductive bodies. This effect
is more important when the resistivity is low. This can be seen on Figs.
7 and 8 when one compares the resistivity distribution resistivity
distribution.
Concerning the number of channels, we note the range for the vari-
ous Xc on the respective levels on the two sites. They are in the same
range, evolving between 1 and 3.14. This mainly traduces the diverse
conditions on the two sites. The increase with depth observed on the
two sites reflects the decrease in reliability with depth. For upper levels
the measurement looks more representative of soil resistivity variation,
and for the latter channel the link between measurement and soil prop-
erties looks thinner. Of course, the work with apparent resistivity which
includes all the depths from the surface partly explains this point; in-
deed, the depth of investigation corresponds to the thickness of the
soil taken into account by measurement from the surface to the nominal
depth of investigation. For greater depths of investigation, the contribu-
tion of deeper layers is then averaged with the upper layers. At all
events, for greater depths of investigation, the use of a more distant sen-
sor is also a cause of this. The further the sensor is from the injection di-
pole, the weaker the potential measured. This leads to an increase in the
noise part (as explained above). The array used for this application is the
dipole-dipole. This array presents the lesser quality of signal measured
due to its high sensitivity to measurement noises (Dahlin and Zhou,
2004). Nevertheless this solution presents several advantages, essen-
tially practical: it allows the use of the optimized mode for acquisition
on SyscalPro, leading to high rate sampling for on-the-go prospecting.
Additionally, this array avoids the need for any remote electrodes
(which would limit the interest of high sampling rate measurement
prospect). This array, imposed by technological constraints, presents a
good sensitivity to the variations in horizontal and vertical physical
properties (Dahlin and Zhou, 2004). Finally, the ability to consider the
limited entries for electrodes (11 channels of measurement), leading
to recording of the pseudo-section, is also a positive factor. Still today,
with this approach, after data processing, we can have a pseudo-section
of apparent resistivity which can be studied with classical tools for in-
version. Thanks to this point the KERT is the right approach for assessing
variations in true resistivity as performed with classical tomography,
combined with high rate investigation.
Even if this technique can operate for high rate sampling investiga-
tion on sub-soil along transect, two main questions can be addressed
for improvement. The first is that, the methodology need to perform
an ERT of reference on a limited part of transect. It is used for the assess-
ment of the fx low pass cutoff frequency for FFT processing, and for the
evaluation of the Xc factors for the calibration of data. This step limits
the speed of investigation, and it needs to be studied on the location
and the minimum length of ERT of reference for the better reliability
of results. The second is the question of the resistivity range's shift be-
tween processed KERT and reference ERT, partly explained to the injec-
tion length with KERT which promotes conductive body's influence. The
quality of accuracy for the higher and lower resistivity has shown some
weaknesses concerning the values, limiting the analysis of correlation
on resistivity values. However the qualitative variations are reliable.
5. Conclusions
We developed a new device and data treatment for qualifying the
spatial variability of resistivity in subsurface soil. Our device works
32 O. Guerrero et al. / Geoderma 284 (2016) 22–33
with on-the-go sensors. The phases of each study and the performance
of tests helped in developing a prototype consisting of 13 on-the-go
sensors with 0.5 m spacing (2 electrodes for the injection of current
and 10 couples of electrodes for measuring the potential difference).
This prototype performs measurements of apparent resistivity simulta-
neously on 10 levels of investigation during the movement of the de-
vice. With this configuration, the minimum step of measure can be of
0.1 m and the depth of investigation can be of 1.4 m. This depth of inves-
tigation can be increased in parallel to the interelectrode spacing. All the
elements developed in this paper are also applicable for a wider inter-
electrode spacing. The device not only yielded information about lateral
heterogeneity within a large-scale site, but also about the vertical vari-
ability of resistivity.
All the analyses carried out to study the potentials of this prototype
permitted us to identify the different biases in the KERT data, such as
random variations in the measurement of ρapp. To filter these sources
of bias, a method to treat the KERT data was developed. This process
consists of a phase of smoothing using Fourier Analysis (FFT). The deter-
mination of the inverse Fourier Transform low pass-filter frequency (fx)
is based on the minimum loss of information within the KERT data
prospection. Next comes a recalibration of the ρapp by a Xc factor to
ranges of comparable values to those measured by an ERT of reference
which remains necessary.
We notice that in some cases (when the contact between the ground
and the on-the-go sensors appears to be of good quality), the value of Xc
is close to the unit for the 10 levels of a KERT. If not, the assessment of Xc
appears to be a satisfactory approach, allowing us to translate the cor-
rect resistivity ranges. Calibrating the KERT data is intended to make
the data usable for performing measurement inversion. This gives a to-
mography with true resistivity and true depths, which makes for more
original results in terms of technical developments.
The device and the protocol of analysis developed offer less pains-
taking (reduced time) prospection as compared to a conventional ERT,
placing geoelectrical prospection among the high-yield prospections.
This type of electrical device opens up new possibilities for visualizing
soil heterogeneities within large-scale prospection.
Acknowledgments
This work was done within the framework of the program D2SOU
(Développement Durable et SOls Urbains). It is co-financed by the
French National Agency (ANR) (ANR-09-VILL-0005-02), and started in
2009 and finished in 2015, in collaboration with BRGM, GEOCARTA,
SEP Poitoux, REEDS and I2M. The authors would like to thank F.
Naessens for his hard work and his help in constructing and mounting
the on-the-go sensors and the device system. We would like to thank
the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments which
significantly improved the quality of the manuscript.
References
Adamchuck, V.I., Hummel, J.W., Morgan, M.T., Upadhyaya, S.K., 2004. On-the-go soil sen-
sors for precision agriculture. Comput. Electron. Agric. 44, 71–91.
Amato, U., De Feis, I., 2000. Smoothing data with correlated noise via Fourier transform.
Math. Comput. Simul. 52, 175–196.
André, F., Van Leeuwen, C., Saussez, S., Van Durmen, R., Bogaert, P., Moghadas, D., de
Rességuier, L., Delvaux, B., Vereecken, H., Lambot, S., 2012. High-resolution imaging
of a vineyard in south of France using ground-penetrating radar, electromagnetic in-
duction and electrical resistivity tomography. J. Appl. Geophys. 78, 113–122.
Angelini, C., De Canditiis, D., 2000. Fourier frequency adaptive regularization for smooth-
ing data. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 115, 35–50.
Barker, R.D., 1989. Depth of investigation of collinear symmetrical four-electrode arrays.
Geophysics 54, 1031–1037.
Bellanger, M., Aigrain, P., 2006. Traitement numérique du signal – Théorie et pratique.
8ème édition. Dunod éd 465 pp.
Besson, A., Cousin, I., Samouelian, A., Boizard, H., Richard, G., 2004. Structural heterogene-
ity of the soil tilled layer as characterized by 2D electrical resistivity surveying. Soil
Tillage Res. 79, 239–249.
Blais, J.P., 2004. Méthodologie mise en œuvre par EDF pour la détection de fuites dans les
ouvrages en remblais par méthodes non destructives, EDF-SGG. Symposcience com-
munication 18 pp.
Buvat, S., Thiesson, J., Michelin, J., Nicoullaud, B., Bourennane, H., Coquet, Y., Tabbagh, A.,
2014. Multi-depth electrical resistivity survey for mapping soil units within two
3 ha plots. Geoderma 232-234, 317–327.
Chaplot, V., Lorentz, S., Podwojewski, P., Jewitt, G., 2010. Digital mapping of A-horizon
thickness using the correlation between various soil properties and soil apparent
electrical resistivity. Geoderma 157, 154–164.
Chretien, M., Lataste, J.F., Fabre, R., Denis, A., 2014. Electrical resistivity tomography to un-
derstand clay behavior during seasonal water content variations. Eng. Geol. 169,
112–123.
Christensen, N.B., Sorensen, K., 2001. Pulled array continuous electrical sounding with an
additional inductive source: an experimental design stydy. Geophys. Prospect. 49,
241–254 in Besson, 2007.
Clomont, G., 2008. Michel Martinaud (1946-2008). ArchéoSciences 32.
Coulouma, G., Samyn, K., Gradnjean, G., Follain, S., Lagacherie, P., 2012. Combining seismic
and electric methods for predicting bedrock depth along a Mediterranean soil
toposequence. Geoderma 170, 39–47.
Dabas, M., 2009. Theory and practice of the new fast electrical imaging system ARP.
Geophys. Landsc. Archeol. 105–126.
Dabas, M., Hesse, A., Tabbagh, J., 2000. Experimental resistivity survey Wroxeter
archeological site with a fast and light recording device. Archeolog. Prospect. 7,
107–118.
Dahlin, T., Zhou, B., 2004. A numerical comparison of 2D resistivity imaging with 10 elec-
trode arrays. Geophys. Prospect. 52, 379–398.
De Benedetto, D., Castrignano, A., Sollitto, D., Modugno, F., Buttafuoco, G., Lo Papa, G.,
2011. Integrating geophysical and geostatistical techniques to map the spatial varia-
tion of clay. Geoderma 171-172, 53–63.
De Canditiis, D., De Feis, I., 2006. Pointwise convergence of Fourier regularisation for
smoothing data. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 196, 540–552.
Doucet, A., Johansen, A.M., 2010. A Tutorial on Particle Filtering and Smoothing: Fifteen
Years later. In: Crisan, D., Rozovsky, B. (Eds.), Handbook of Nonlinear Filtering. Cam-
bridge University Press 39 pp.
Ferahtia, J., Djarfour, N., Baddari, K., Kheldoun, A., 2012. A fuzzy logic-based filter for
the removal of spike noise from 2D electrical resistivity data. J. Appl. Geophys.
87, 19–27.
Friedel, S., Thielen, A., Springman, S.M., 2006. Investigation of a slope endangered by rain-
fall-induced landslides using 3D resistivity tomography and geotechnical testing.
J. Appl. Geophys. 60, 100–114.
Fullana, J.M., 2002. Une technique de lissage de données basée sur la théorie de la
régularisation. C. R. Mécanique 330, 647–652.
Guerrero, O., 2014. Comparaison et couplage de méthodes géophysiques pour une recon-
naissance optimisée des sols en milieu périurbain Mémoire de Thèse Université de
Bordeaux 274 pp.
Guerrero, O., Lataste, J.F., Marache, A., Breysse, D., 2013. High Yield Electrical Propsection
for Characterization of Soil. Fourth International Conference on Geotechnical and
Geophysical Site Characterization, Porto de Galinhas, Pernambuco, Brésil Vol. 1,
pp. 587–595 18–21 septembre 2012.
Hesse, A., Jolivet, A., Tabbagh, A., 1986. New prospects in shallow depth electrical survey-
ing for archeological and pedological applications. Geophysics 51, 585–594.
Jakosky, J.J., 1938. Method and apparatus for electrical exploration of the subsurface, Unit-
ed States Patent Office, 2.105.247
Köhler, T., Lorenz, D., 2005. A Comparison of Denoising Methods for one Directional Time
Series. Technical Report, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, DGF SSP Priority Pro-
gramme Vol. 1114 15 pp.
Lew, J.J., 1997. Subsurface utility engineering: an initial step in project Developpement.
J. Constr. Educ. 2, 109–118.
Loke, M.H., Barker, R.D., 1996. Rapid least-squares inversion of apparent resistivity
pseudosections by a quasi-Newton method. Geophys. Prospect. 44 (1), 131–152.
Loke, M.H., Chambers, J.E., Rucker, D.F., Kunas, O., Wilkinson, P.B., 2013. Recent develop-
ments in the direct-current geoelectrical imaging method. J. Appl. Geophys. 95,
135–156.
Lück, E., Gebbers, R., Ruehlmann, J., Spangenberg, U., 2009. Electrical conductivity map-
ping for precision farming. Near Surf. Geophys. 7, 15–25.
Lueck, E., Ruehlmann, J., 2013. Resistivity mapping with GEOPHILUS ELECTRICUS – infor-
mation about lateral and vertical soil heterogeneity. Geoderma 199, 2–11.
Lund, E.D., Christy, C.D., Drummond, P.E., 1999. Practical Applications of Soil Electrical
Conductivity Mapping, Veris Technologies. Proceeding of the 2nd European Confer-
ence on Precision Agriculture 9 pp.
Macnae, J.C., Lamontagne, Y., West, G.F., 1984. Noise processing techniques for time-do-
main EM systems. Geophysics 49, 934–948.
Marache, A., Breysse, D., Piette, C., Thierry, P., 2009. Geotechnical modeling at the city
scale using statistical and geostatistical tools: the Pessac case (France). Eng. Géol.
107, 67–76.
Meric, O., 2006. Etude de movement de terrain par méthodes géophysiques Mémoire de
thèse Université Joseph Fourier, Grenoble 252 pp.
Mueller, T.G., Hartsock, N.J., Stombaugh, T.S., Shearer, S.A., Cornelius, P.L., Barnhisel, R.I.,
2003. Soil electrical conductivuty map variability in limestone soils overlain by
loess. Agron. J. 95, 496–507.
Neiderleithinger, E., Abraham, O., Mooney, M., 2015. Geophysical Methods in Civil Engi-
neering: Overview and New Concepts. International Sympotium Non-Destructive
Testing in Civil Engineering (NDT-CE) September, 6 pp.
Panissod, C., Dabas, M., Jolivet, A., Tabbagh, A., 1997. A novel mobile multipole system
(MUCEP) for shallow (0-3 m) geoelectrical investigation: the “vol-de-canards”
array. Geophys. Prospect. 45, 983–1002.
 O. Guerrero et al. / Geoderma 284 (2016) 22–33
Panissod, C., Dabas, M., Hesse, A., Jolivet, A., Tabbagh, J., Tabbagh, A., 1998. Recent
developments in shallow-depth electrical and electrostatic prospecting using mobile
arrays. Geophysics 63, 1512–1550.
Peyraube, N., Lastenet, R., Lopez, B., Sirieix, C., Naudet, V., Denis, A., 2012. Epikarstic
Hydrogeological Reconnaissance Using Geophysical Methods. Case Study of the Las-
caux Cave (France), 39 IAH Congresse, Niagara Falls, Canada 16–21 september.
Pratviel, L., Duvergé, J., Dubreuilh, J., Wilbert, J., Alvinerie, J., Astié, H., Gayet, J., Duphil, J.,
1978. Carte géologique de la France à 1/50 000, Pessac (n°827), Notice d'explication,
Ministère de l'industrie du commerce et de l'artisanat. Bureau de Recherches
Géologiques et Minières. Service Géologique National, Orléans 37 pp.
Reninger, P.A., 2012. Méthodologie d'analyse de levés électromagnétiques aéroportés en
domaine temporel pour la caractérisation géologique et hydrologique Mémoire de
thèse Université d'Orléans 190 pp.
Samouëlian, A., Cousin, I., Tabbagh, A., Bruand, A., Richard, G., 2005. Electrical resistivity
survey in soil science: a review. Soil Tillage Res. 83, 173–193.
Séger, M., Guérin, R., Frison, A., Bourennane, H., Richard, G., Cousin, I., 2014. A 3D electrical
resistivity tomography survey to characterise the structure of a albeluvic tonguing
33
horizon composed of distinct elementary pedological volumes. Geoderma 219-220,
168–176.
Shima, H., Sakashita, S., Kobayashi, T., 1996. Developments of non-contact data acquisi-
tion techniques in electrical and electromagnetical exploration. J. Appl. Geophys.
35, 167–173.
Starck, K.M., Hanstein, T.H., Eilenz, H.N., 1989. LOTEM data processing for areas with high
cultural noise levels. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 53, 261–269.
Tabbagh, A., 1985. The response of a 3-dimensional magnetic and conductive body in
shallow depth electromagnetic prospecting. Geophys. J. R. Astron. Soc. 81, 215–230.
Tabbagh, A., 1992. Méthodes géophysiques appliqués à la prospection archéologique.
Mémoires de la Société Géologique de France, n°161, pp. 9–15.
Tabbagh, A., Dabas, M., Hesse, A., Panissod, C., 2000. Soil resistivity: a non-invasive tool to
map soil structure horizonation. Geoderma 97, 393–404.
Taillet, E., Lataste, J.-F., Rivard, P., Denis, A., 2014. Non-destructive evaluation of cracks in
massive concrete using ds resistivity logging. NDT & E Int. 63, 11–20.