See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/250377643

Depth of Investigation and Vertical Resolution of Surface Geoelectric Arrays

Article in Journal of Environmental & Engineering Geophysics · March 2009

DOI: 10.2113/JEEG14.1.15

CITATIONS READS
85 11,668

3 authors:

S. Szalai Attila Novák

Hungarian Academy of Sciences Hungarian Academy of Sciences
100 PUBLICATIONS 711 CITATIONS 55 PUBLICATIONS 503 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Laszlo Szarka
CSFK Geodetic and Geophysical Institute
153 PUBLICATIONS 1,466 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Special Issue for Submission: Recent Developments in Geoelectrical Imaging Method View project

Quasi-null array View project

All content following this page was uploaded by S. Szalai on 19 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 15

Depth of Investigation and Vertical Resolution of Surface Geoelectric Arrays

Sándor Szalai, Attila Novák and László Szarka

Geodetic and Geophysical Research Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, H-9400 Sopron, Csatkai u. 6-8
Email: szalai@ggki.hu, novak@ggki.hu, szarka@ggki.hu

ABSTRACT

Depth of investigation and vertical resolution values are determined and tabulated for 30
surface geoelectric arrays that have non-zero response, i.e., a depth of investigation
characteristic (DIC) function due to a buried thin horizontal sheet.
In accord with experience, results show a general reciprocal relationship between depth of
investigation and vertical resolution. The most frequently used arrays in multi-electrode studies
(i.e., Wenner-a, Wenner-b, Schlumberger, dipole-axial arrays and the pole-dipole array) offer
reasonable compromises between depth of investigation and vertical resolution. Depth of
investigation can be increased by using the pole-pole array; vertical resolution can be improved
with, for example, the a10 or c10 arrays. Current focussing does not increase the depth of
investigation for the horizontal thin-sheet model.
The complete set of depth of investigation and vertical resolution values permits exact
physical comparison of various geoelectric arrays and provides simple but useful rules for
practical geoelectric applications, e.g., how to develop multi-electrode systems with higher
vertical resolution, or how to select arrays to satisfy special exploration requirements.

Introduction of investigation can be specified either from the

Multielectrode systems are composed of simple,
traditional (usually four-electrode and colinear) arrays. It
is therefore important to have a good understanding of
their behaviour. This may permit improvements to
routinely applied multi-electrode systems by incorporating
new elements that provide greater depth of investigation,
resolution or assure better signal-to-noise ratios. This study
compares the characteristics of a large set of electrode
arrays recently classified by Szalai and Szarka (2008).
Roy and Apparao (1971) examined the depth of
investigation and vertical resolution characteristics of
several dipole-dipole and non-dipole arrays, and investi-
gation depths of various arrays continue to be of interest
to geophysicists (e.g., Knödel et al., 1997; Merrick, 1997;
Zonge et al., 2005). As modern multielectrode systems are
composed of elementary arrays and Oldenburg and Li
(1999) demonstrated that the ranking of arrays using a
two-dimensional depth of investigation is not very
different from the ranking obtained using a one-
dimensional depth of investigation, a buried horizontal
thin sheet still represents a simple but useful model for
characterization of surface geoelectric arrays.
Depth of investigation can be computed from the
Depth of Investigation Characteristic (DIC) function
that is generally a single valued array response to a
homogeneous, isotropic horizontal thin sheet embedded
at various depths in a homogeneous half-space. Depth
maximum or median value of the DIC function.
Roy and Apparao (1971) used the extreme value
and computed depth of investigation values for several
linear arrays and for partial dipole-dipole array
geometries. Roy (1972) and Bhattacharya and Dutta
(1982) extended this approach to more arrays.
Edwards (1977) used the median of the DIC
function to study a number of arrays. In the previous
research, vertical resolution was defined as the inverse of
the width of the DIC curve at its half-maximum points.
Merrick (1997) introduced a new ‘‘resolution index’’ to
characterise the arrays. Ward (1990) completed a
systematic characterisation of five arrays using 15
different features, including depth of investigation and
vertical resolution. Similarly, Zonge et al. (2005) com-
pared eight surface electrode arrays using depth of
investigation and vertical resolution value characteristics.
In this study, depth of investigation and vertical
resolution values are examined for the larger set of
arrays recently classified by Szalai and Szarka (2008),
where it is possible to compute DIC functions. For
practical reasons, the dipole-dipole arrays and the non-
dipole arrays are discussed separately.
Electrode Arrays and the DIC Function
Szalai and Szarka (2008) classified 102 electrode
arrays. A total of 92 of these arrays were divided into

JEEG, March 2009, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp. 15–23

16
Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics
Figure 1. Principle of the depth of investigation
characteristic (DIC) function. R: array length; z: variable
depth of the thin sheet; z*: depth of the maximum response
(Roy and Apparao, 1971); and ze: median of the DIC
function (Edwards, 1977).
eight classes with a non-classifiable group of 10, so-
called composite arrays. Composite arrays and the so-
called superposed arrays, where more than one mea-
surement is made at the same electrode positions, do not
yield a single DIC function. Also, DIC functions cannot
be computed for most of the null-arrays, i.e., for those
null-arrays where the parameter sensitivity maps have
antisymmetry axes because the integrated effect of the
assumed horizontal thin sheet is zero (Szalai et al.,
2002). Excluding these arrays, DIC functions can be
computed for a total of 30 classified arrays.
The characteristic length of an array R is defined
as the distance between the two extreme active
electrodes, disregarding infinite electrodes. This defini-
tion (Roy and Apparao, 1971), which was the basis for
comparison of various geoelectric arrays as a function of
depth z, can be presented as a function of z/R.
There are several definitions that allow computa-
tion of the depth of investigation of geoelectric arrays
(Barker, 1989). Using results from Evjen (1938) and Roy
and Apparao (1971), defined depth of investigation is
that depth (z*) at which a thin sheet produces a
maximum response with a given array. Alternatively,
using the same DIC function, Edwards (1977) recom-
mended use of the median depth (ze), i.e., the depth at
which the integral of the DIC function from the surface
to the median depth is the same as from the median
depth to infinity. Edwards (1977) found this was in
better agreement with his field experience. Figure 1
illustrates both definitions (z*/R and ze/R), together with
vertical resolution (the inverse of Dz/R).
Roy and Apparao (1971) also introduced the
Normalized Depth of Investigation Characteristic
(NDIC) function, i.e., the DIC of an array is normalized
with the response of the homogeneous half-space. In
cases when the response over the homogeneous half-
space is zero, only the DIC functions can be shown. This
normalization does not influence either the obtained
depth of investigation or the vertical resolution value.
Figure 2. Notations to compute the effect of the cube for
an arbitrary four-electrode array.
Computation of DIC functions for dipole-dipole
arrays is described by Szalai (2000). A more general
algorithm, suitable also for non-dipole arrays, is
summarized below.
Roy and Apparao (1971) computed DIC functions
via an ‘‘electrostatic analogy’’ to direct current (DC)
methods. Charges appearing at resistivity inhomogene-
ities in the presence of current allow a direct computa-
tion of DC effects, and the response due to a horizontal
thin sheet at depth is equivalent with the integrated
effect of these charges on an elementary cube over its
horizontal plane. Both the host medium and the
anomalous body are assumed homogeneous and isotro-
pic.
Figure 2 shows a cube having dimension a and
resistivity r1 in a homogeneous and isotropic half-space,
resistivity r. A current (‘‘cur’’) I flows into/from the
earth through surface source electrodes, and the
potential difference is measured between surface elec-
trodes M and N.
The potential difference DU hom for such a system
measured over the homogeneous half-space is
rI hom
DU hom ~ G ,
2p
X n   ð1Þ
hom 1 1
where G ~ {
rcurM rcurN
cur ~ 1
and rcurM and rcurN (cur 5 1, …, n) are the distances of
the current electrodes from the M and N electrodes,
respectively; n is the number of current electrodes.
DUtotal is the total response in the presence of the cube.
DUtotal 5 DUhom + DUcube, where DUcube is the net effect
of the cube, which is equivalent, from geoelectric point
of view, to a dipole moment p. At the resistivity
interface, k ~ rr1 { r
. Since the surface charge density t
1 zr
on the interface is t 5 2e0kEb (where e0 is the dielectric
permittivity and Eb is the normal component of the
electric field in the absence of the interface (Li and
Oldenburg, 1991), the components i (i 5 x, y, z) of the
dipole moment p corresponding to the cube are
 17
Szalai et al.: Depth of Investigation and Vertical Resolution of Electric Arrays

Figure 3. The investigated dipole arrays: a) radial, b)

azimuthal, c) perpendicular, and d) parallel.

e0 rI 3 cur X n
icur { ic
pi ~ ka Gi , where Gicur ~ ð2Þ
p cur ~ 1
r3curC
Figure 4. DIC functions of dipole-dipole arrays. a)
and rcurC (cur 5 1,…,n) are the distances of the current
radial dipole, b) azimuthal dipole, c) perpendicular dipole,
electrodes from the center C of the cube.
and d) parallel dipole.
iC { iM iN { iC
If GiMN ~ 3
z ,
rCM r3CN of so-called parameter sensitivity maps. Although such
ð3Þ
pi rI an analysis is not carried out here, a useful recent field
cube MN 3 cur MN
DU ðpi Þ ~ G ~ 2 ka Gi Gi : study in this area was completed by Nyári and Kanli
2pe0 i 2p
(2007).
The potential difference is the sum of the potential
differences due to individual pi dipole components Investigation Depth of Dipole-Dipole Arrays
rI X 
DU cube ~ SU cube ðpi Þ ~ 2 ka3 Gicur GiMN Roy and Apparao (1971) calculated investigation
2p i
ð4Þ depths for axial and equatorial dipoles, and for radial,
rI 3 cube tangential, perpendicular and parallel dipole-dipole
~ 2 ka G :
2p arrays with q545u, where q is the characteristic angle
of the dipole-dipole array as shown in Fig. 3. As noted
The effect of the cube compared to the response due to by Fröhlich (1967), special attention should be paid to
the homogeneous half-space is the influence of the characteristic dipole angle q. We
DU cube ka3 Gcube computed the DIC functions of radial, azimuthal (or
~ ð5Þ ‘‘tangential’’), perpendicular and parallel dipole-dipole
DU hom p Ghom
Since the effect of the horizontal thin sheet is the arrays (Figs. 3(a)–(d)) in the interval 0u # q # 90u. The
integrated effect of the cube over the horizontal plane, results are shown in Figs. 4(a)–(d). Note that the dipole
the NDIC function is given as axial null-array (having a zero-valued DIC function)
appears as a special case in the first three array types at
ð ?
? ð
100 1 3
some specific q angles.
NDICðzC Þ ~ ka G cube dxc dyc : ð6Þ It is evident from Fig. 4 that all radial, azimuthal
p G hom
{? {? and perpendicular arrays (shown in Figs. 4(a), (b) and
Equations (1)–(6) are valid for any surface geo- (c)) have similar DIC functions, i.e., the depth of
electric arrays and are ideal for the non-dipole arrays. A investigation values are in effect independent of q. The
special dipolar version was published by Szalai and parallel array is an exception. The depth of investigation
Szarka (2000). of the perpendicular dipole-dipole arrays is approxi-
Although the DIC concept neglects the effect of mately z*/R50.20 (ze/R50.29). The depth of investiga-
multi-dimensional near-surface disturbing bodies, Eqs. tion of the radial dipole-dipole arrays is approximately
(1)–(5) can be used to characterize any array in the form z*/R50.19 (ze/R50.26), whereas that of the azimuthal
18
Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics

Table 1. Classification of radial, azimuthal, perpendicular and parallel dipole-dipole arrays as a function of the
characteristic dipole angle q. Roy and Apparao (z*/R) and Edwards (ze/R) depth of investigation values are also shown.

Arrays with characteristic DIC value Arrays with unstable Array without
Arrays Axial-type Equatorial-type DIC value DIC value
Array situation - Radial array (if q ? 90u) - Azimuthal array - Parallel array if Dipole axial null-array, that is:
(if q ? 0u) 40u , q , 80u
- Perpendicular array - Parallel array if - Radial array at q590u
(if q ? 0u and q ? 90u) q $ 80u)
- Parallel array if - Azimuthal array at q50u
( 0u # q # 40u)
- Perpendicular array at q50u
- Perpendicular array at q590u
z*/R 0.19–0.20 0.25–0.26 strongly varying —
ze/R 0.24–0.26 0.38–0.39 strongly varying —

(tangential) arrays is z*/R50.25 (ze/R50.39), as sum-
marized in Table 1.
Fröhlich (1967) had observed that, for the parallel
array, the depth of investigation varies with the angle q and
it can be greater or lesser than for any of the above arrays.
In the case of the parallel dipole-dipole arrays, the
depth of investigation is nearly constant if 0u # q # 40u.
It is again nearly constant (but different than before), if
80u # q # 90u. In the interval 40u , q , 80u, there is a
drastic, non-monotonous transition, as shown in Fig. 5
and in Table 1. Close to the critical angle, the depth of
investigation value may become very large. At q559u it
may reach z*/R50.54 (ze/R50.85).
The DIC function at its shallower part (where the
DIC function is positive) has a maximum, while at some
larger depths it has a minimum. As is shown in Fig. 4(d),
the positive part of the DIC function gradually diminishes
as it approaches the critical q value, while the negative part
gradually increases and extends to shallower and shallower
depths. Then, at the critical angle, both the extremum
(maximum of the magnitude) and the median of the DIC
function suddenly jumps to the negative part of the curve,
leading to the drastic transition shown in Fig. 5. The
apparently very large (theoretically infinite) depth of
investigation (thought to be realistic by Roy and Apparao,
1971) is unrealistic, as will be explained later (see Fig. 8).
Due to the null response of the dipole axial null-
array, only the DIC (and not NDIC) functions can be
presented. The null response occurs a total of four times at
certain characteristic dipole angles in the case of a radial,
azimuthal and perpendicular array (refer to Table 1).

Depth of Investigation for Non-Dipole Arrays

The geophysical literature distinguishes a-, b- and

Figure 5. ze and z* depth of investigation values of
parallel dipole arrays, as a function of q.
c-type arrays based on their sequential position of the
electrodes. In a four-electrode array, the a-type has two
outer current electrodes and two inner potential
electrodes (CPPC). The b-type array has two current
electrodes followed by two potential electrodes (CCPP),
whereas the c-type array has current and potential
electrodes in a relay order (CPCP).
Among the non-dipole arrays, Roy and Apparao
(1971) computed depth of investigation values for pole-
pole, Schlumberger, Wenner-a, modified unipole arrays
and for two surface laterolog arrays. Roy (1972) studied
a-, b-, and c-type arrays (including Wenner-b, Wenner-c
and half Wenner-a arrays), and special dipole arrays with

Szalai et al.: Depth of Investigation and Vertical Resolution of Electric Arrays
Figure 6. DIC functions of several non-dipole arrays. a)
linear arrays (number 2, 5, 11, 14, 15, 16 from Table 2), b)
non-linear arrays (number 24, 25, 26 from Table 2), and c)
focussed dipole arrays (number 27, 28, 29 from Table 2).
finite dipole lengths. Bhattacharya and Dutta (1982)
computed depth of investigation values of gradient
arrays. Median depth values were computed by Edwards
(1977) for several (linear and dipole equatorial) arrays.
Equation (6) was used to compute depth of
investigation values for the non-dipole geoelectric
arrays. Figure 6 shows NDIC functions for several
linear arrays (Fig. 6(a)), for non-colinear arrays, i.e., the
asymmetrical equatorial dipole array, square-a array
and Baker array (Fig. 6(b)), and for three focussed
arrays, i.e., the unipole Wenner-a, Wenner-b and
unipole Wenner-c arrays (Fig. 6(c)). The original
references of all arrays were summarized by Szalai and
Szarka (2008). For example, the unipole Wenner-a, -b
and -c arrays were published by Militzer et al. (1979).
Discussion
Table 2 presents a comprehensive list of depths of
investigation values for surface geoelectric arrays. This
demonstrates that Roy and Apparao’s (1971) conclu-
sion, i.e., ‘‘the depth of investigation increases from
Schlumberger to polar to equatorial dipole arrays’’ can
be extended to thirty arrays. For the lesser known
arrays, see Figure A-1 in the Appendix and the figures
in the paper by Szalai and Szarka (2008). In Table 2, the
letters a, b, and c refer to the type of the array and the
numbers refer to the electrode positions, i.e., the ratio
‘‘distance between the first and the second electrodes/
array length,’’ in percents. For example, a10 means an
AMNB array, where AM/AB50.1.
19
Table 2 shows that the non-dipole arrays, b45,
a10, c10 and half-twin like arrays, have the smallest
depth of investigation, and the pole-pole array has the
largest. The depths of investigation of the most
frequently used arrays (Wenner-a, Schlumberger, dipole
equatorial, pole-dipole) are intermediate and focussing
does not increase the depth of penetration.
The ze(z*) relationship in Fig. 7 shows a system-
atic deviation between the depth of investigation values
of Edwards (1977) and Roy and Apparao (1971) due to
the asymmetric feature of the DIC functions. Consid-
ering all arrays in Table 2, the mean value of the ze/z*
ratio is 1.6560.37. Neglecting the two obvious outliers
(the pole-pole and the modified unipole arrays, where
the DIC functions are more asymmetric than for the
other arrays), the characteristic ze/z* ratio is 1.5960.31.
Nevertheless, a nearly linear relationship exists between
the two estimates.
Table 3 shows the arrays ranked by depth of
investigation based on z*/R. There are only a few
exceptions where the order would be significantly
different using ze/R. Table 3 also confirms Roy and
Apparao’s (1971) observation of a reversed relationship
between investigation depth and resolution, and extends
this to the 30 arrays considered.
Also, the product of the depth of investigation (z*/
R) and the resolution is nearly constant (i.e.,
0.49660.052). The consistancy of the ratio z*/ze and
visual analysis of the DIC (NDIC) functions reveal a
common feature of most DIC functions. These functions
can be approximated as a(z/R)2exp[2b(z/R)2], and it
seems that the DIC functions of all arrays must be very
close to each other.
In Fig. 8, typical curves taken from the set of 30
arrays are shown together with an arbitrary assumed
noise level. (In reality, the noise level depends on many
things, including array geometry, field conditions, etc.).
For simplicity, only z*/R is considered. As shown in
Figs. 8(a)–(b), and (c), depth of investigation, vertical
resolution, and noise level are closely interrelated.
Figure 8(d) shows the z*/R R ‘ (ze/R R ‘ asymptotic
limit case; this is the case of the null arrays.
Figure 8 explains why the vertical resolution
decreases monotonically with depth. An increase in the
depth of investigation is a consequence of the flattening
of the DIC function. This means that the ‘‘source
region’’ of the response extends over increasing greater
intervals as depth increases. Figure 8 also shows that the
relationship between depth of investigation and vertical
resolution is constrained by the noise level. When the
DIC function approaches the noise level (Fig. 8(c)),
there is no benefit in increasing the depth of investiga-
tion. A very large depth of investigation is only useful if
the target still remains detectable.
20
Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics

Table 2. z*/R and ze/R depth of investigation values of surface geoelectric arrays, together with the (x,y) position of A,
B, M and N electrodes. a10, b45, c45, c40, c10 are preliminary names. Letters a, b, and c refer to the type of the array
and the numbers refer to the electrode positions (i.e., to the ratio ‘‘distance between the first and the second electrodes/
array length’’, in percent). The DIC values first published are in bold type. For focussed arrays, the character ¤ refers to
the same sign of the current in electrodes A and B.

No. Array name z*/R ze/R xA yA xB yB xM yM xN yN

Colinear nonfocused

Four-electrodes

a-type

1 Schlumberger (a45) 0.125 0.19 0 0 1 0 0.45 0 0.55 0

2 Wenner (a33) 0.105 0.175 0 0 1 0 0.333 0 0.666 0
3 a10 0.035 0.075 0 0 1 0 0.1 0 0.9 0
b-type

4 b45 0.035 0.06 0 0 0.45 0 0.55 0 1 0

5 Wenner-b (b33) 0.1 0.14 0 0 0.333 0 0.666 0 1 0
6 b10 0.175 0.225 0 0 0.1 0 0.9 0 1 0
7 dipole axial (b20) 0.19 0.245 0 0 0.02 0 0.98 0 1 0
8 asymmetrical dipole axial (b10) 0.145 0.19 0 0 0.1 0 0.7 0 1 0
c-type

9 c45 0.035 0.06 0 0 0.55 0 0.45 0 1 0

10 c40 0.057 0.06 0 0 0.6 0 0.4 0 1 0
11 Wenner-c (c33) 0.115 0.2 0 0 0.666 0 0.333 0 1 0
12 c10 0.035 0.075 0 0 0.9 0 0.1 0 1 0
electrodes

13 pole-dipole 0.235 0.365 0 0 100 0 0.9 0 1 0

14 half-Wenner 0 0 100 0 0.5 0 1 0
Three-

0.16 0.26
15 half-twin like 0.035 0.075 0 0 100 0 0.1 0 1 0
16 asymmetrical single probe 0.12 0.185 0 0 1 0 0.6 0 100 0
Dipole-dipole elect-

17 pole-pole 0.355 0.8 0 0 0 1 0 100 0

rodes

2100
Two-
Noncolinear non-focused

18 dipole azimuthal 0u , q # 90u 0.25 0.385

19 dipole perpendicular 0u , q , 90u 0.205 0.285
20 dipole radial 0u # q , 90u 0.195 0.255
21 dipole parallel 0u # q # 40u ,0.19 ,0.24
22 dipole parallel 40u , q , 80u unstable unstable
23 dipole parallel 80u # q # 90u ,0.255 ,0.395
dipole

24 asymmetrical equatorial bipole 0.26 0.4 0 0.1 0 20.1 1 0.3 1 20.3

Non-

25 square-a 0.29 0.45 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1

26 Baker 0.14 0.2 0 0 0.5 0 1 0 1 0.5
1¤
Focused

27 unipole Wenner-a 0.08 0.11 0 0 0 0.333 0 0.666 0

28 unipole Wenner-b 0.115 0.2 0 0 0.333 0 0.666 0 1¤ 0
29 unipole Wenner-c 0.115 0.2 0 0 0.666 0 0.333 0 1¤ 0
30 modified unipole 0.16 0.415 0 0 1¤ 0 0.5 0 100 0

Considering signal-to-noise ratio, Ward (1990) geoelectric arrays. It has been shown that vertical
ranked the following arrays from highest to lowest: resolution and depth of investigation are inversely related
Wenner, Schlumberger, dipole-dipole, pole-dipole. to each other, and it is possible to increase depth of
From Fig. 8 and Table 3 it now becomes evident, this investigation at the expense of decreasing vertical
order is nearly the inverse order of the depth of resolution until signal levels drop below the noise level.
investigation values. DIC functions of the most commonly used dipole-
dipole arrays have been presented as a function of the
Conclusions characteristic angle between the transmitter and the
receiver dipoles. For these arrays, other than the parallel
The DIC function has been used to systematically dipole-dipole array, the DIC function has a specific
examine the depth of investigation and vertical resolution value, independent of this angle. From the point of view
characteristics of 30 colinear, non-colinear and focussed of the depth of investigation obtained, the dipole-dipole
 21
Szalai et al.: Depth of Investigation and Vertical Resolution of Electric Arrays

Table 3. z*/R and vertical resolution values of geoelectric

arrays. Note that the two orders have an inverse
relationship.

Vertical
Array z*/R resolution
number Array name value (R/Dz)
3 a10 0.035 12.5
12 c10 0.035 12.5
4 b45 0.035 12.5
9 c45 0.035 12.5
15 half-twin like 0.035 12.5
10 c40 0.057 8.3
27 unipole Wenner-a 0.08 6.7
5 Wenner-b (b33) 0.1 5.0
2 Wenner (a33) 0.105 4.5
11 Wenner-c (c33) 0.115 4.2
28 unipole Wenner-b 0.115 4.3
29 unipole Wenner-c 0.115 4.3
Figure 7. ze/z* ratio for all arrays is nearly the same, 16 asymmetrical single probe 0.12 4.2
about 1.6760.37. The ratio is the largest for the pole-pole 1 Schlumberger (a45) 0.125 4.0
array. Neglecting the two outliers, it becomes 1.5960.31. 26 Baker 0.14 3.7
8 asymmetrical dipole axial (b10) 0.145 3.4
arrays form two groups, i.e., the axial-like and the 14 half-Wenner 0.16 3.0
equatorial-like arrays. 30 modified unipole 0.16 2.5
For the array studied, the depth of investigation 6 b10 0.175 2.9
value obtained using the median of the DIC function is 7 dipole axial (b20) 0.19 3.0
systematically higher than that from the maximum value 21 dipole parallel ,0.19 3.0
and, statistically, a ratio of 1.5960.31 is obtained 0u # q # 40u
disregarding the outliers (including the pole-pole arrays 20 dipole radial 0.195 3.0
where the ratio is highest). This is due to the general 0u # q , 90u
depth-asymmetry of all DIC functions. 19 dipole perpendicular 0.205 2.8
In accord with experience, the most frequently 0u , q , 90u
used arrays in multi-electrode studies (Wenner-a, 13 pole-dipole 0.235 2.2
Wenner-b, Schlumberger, dipole-axial arrays) offer 18 dipole azimuthal 0.25 2.0
reasonable compromises between depth of investigation 0u , q # 90u
and vertical resolution. The vertical resolution could be 23 dipole parallel ,0.255 2.0
improved by also involving a10 and c10 arrays in the 80u # q # 90u
multi-electrode systems, while the depth of investigation 24 asymmetrical equatorial bipole 0.26 1.9
could be increased by involving more pole-pole config- 25 square-a 0.29 1.7
urations. It was surprising that the depth of investiga- 17 pole-pole 0.355 1.2
tion of the pole-pole array is much greater than that of 22 dipole parallel 40u , q , 80u unstable unstable
the focussed arrays. However, the largest depths of
investigation values are obtained with parallel dipole- simple (non multi-electrode) arrays are at least equally
dipole arrays, at an orientation that is close to the effective, where the objective is to get a spatial rather
geometry of the null-array situation. than depth section image of the subsurface. Also, where
Results suggest that it would be worth combining measurements are needed to satisfy some non-routine
and jointly inverting data obtained with arrays differing requirements (e.g., circular profiles in areas of limited
in depth of investigation and vertical resolution charac- access, anisotropy studies etc.), non-linear arrays are
teristics. needed, which are not routinely applied in multi-
As a final comment, even with routine application electrode studies. It is hoped that our consideration of
of multi-electrode systems, there are a number of field a wider variety of electrode arrays will stimulate further
problems, such as archaeological surveys, where some developments in these areas.
22
Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics
Figure 8. Types of the DIC function shown on selected
arrays (from left to right: Wenner-c, asymmetrical dipole
equatorial, and pole-pole array), their z*/R and Dz/R
values, together with a hypothetical noise level. Horizontal
arrows point toward increasing values.
Acknowledgments
Hungarian National Scientific Research Fund
(projects K49604 and NI 61013), Bolyai János Research
Scholarship of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences
(Sándor Szalai). Recommendations by Les Beard (as
Associate Editor of JEEG), as well as the English
corrections by Bob Whiteley (Australia) are highly
acknowledged.
References
Barker, R.D., 1989, Signal contribution sections and their use
in resistivity studies: Geophys. J. R. Astr. Soc., 39,
123–129.
Bhattacharya, B.B., and Dutta, I., 1983, Depth of investiga-
tion studies for gradient arrays over homogeneous
isotropic half space: Geophysics, 48, 1248–1251.
Edwards, L.S., 1977, A modified pseudosection for resistivity
and IP: Geophysics, 42, 1020–1036.
Evjen, H.M., 1938, Depth factors and resolving power of
electrical measurements: Geophysics, 3, 78–95.
Fröchlich, R.K., 1967, The depth of investigation of dipole
arrays compared with Schlumberger arrangement:
Geoexploration, 5, 195–204.
Knödel, K., Krummel, H., and Lange, G., 1997. Geophysik.
(Handbuch zur Erkundung des Untergrundes von
Deponien und Altlasten): Band 3, Springer Verlag,
Berlin, Heidelberg, New York.
Li, Y., and Oldenburg, D.W., 1991, Aspects of charge
accumulation in DC resistivity. Experiments: Geophys-
ical Prospecting, 39, 803–826.
Merrick, N.P., 1997, A new resolution index for resistivity
electrode arrays: Exploration Geophysics, 28, 106–109.
Militzer, H., Rösler, R., and Losch, W., 1979, Theoretical and
experimental investigations for cavity research with
geoelectrical resistivity methods: Geophysical Prospect-
ing, 27, 640–652.
Nyári, Zs., and Kanli, A.I., 2007, Imaging of buried 3D objects
using electrical profiling methods with GPR and 3D
geoelectrical measurements: Journal of Geophysics and
Engineering, 4, 83–93.
Oldenburg, D.W., and Li, Y., 1999, Estimating depth of
investigation in DC resistivity and IP surveys: Geophys-
ics, 64, 403–416.
Roy, A., and Apparao, A., 1971, Depth of investigation in
direct current methods: Geophysics, 36, 943–959.
Roy, A., 1972, Depth of investigation in Wenner, three-
electrode and dipole-dipole dc resistivity methods:
Geophysical Prospecting, 20, 329–340.
Szalai, S., 2000, About the depth of investigation of different
D.C. dipole-dipole arrays: Acta Geodetica et Geophy-
sica Hungarica, 35, 63–73.
Szalai, S., and Szarka, L., 2000, An approximate analytical
approach for computing geoelectric response due to a
small buried cube: Geophysical Prospecting, 48, 871–885.
Szalai, S., Szarka, L., Prácser, E., Bosch, F., Müller, I., and
Turberg, P., 2002, Geoelectric mapping of near-surface
karstic fractures by using null-arrays: Geophysics, 67,
1769–1778.
Szalai, S., and Szarka, L., 2008, On the classification of surface
geoelectric arrays: Geophysical Prospecting, 56, 159–
175, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2478.2007.00673.x.
Ward, S.H., 1990, Geotechnical and environmental geophysics:
SEG, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA.
Zonge, K., Wynn, J., and Urquhart, S., 2005, Resistivity,
induced polarization, and complex resistivity: in Near
surface geophysics, Butler, D.K. (ed.), SEG, Tulsa,
Oklahoma, 265–300.
APPENDIX
FOUR- AND THREE-ELECTRODE LINEAR
ARRAYS
Figure A-1 is a shematic representation of the four-
and three-electrode linear arrays for which depth of
investigation and vertical resolution values are listed in
Table 2. The arrays shown are designated as a- (CPPC),
b- (CCPP) and c-type (CPCP), where C is the A or B
current electrode and P is the M or N potential electrode.
In two-electrode arrays there is only one possibility, i.e.,
the pole-pole array; this is not shown in Fig. A-1.
Among the four-electrode arrays, where the order
of electrodes is E1, E2, E3 and E4 and the array length is
E1E4, the symmetric arrays are much more popular than
the asymmetric ones for historical and practical reasons.
For the symmetric arrays, there is one remaining free
parameter represented as a ratio, i.e., E1E2/E1E4. In
Fig. A-1, the letters a, b, and c in the array name refers
to the type of array and the number refers to E1E2/E1E4
 23
Szalai et al.: Depth of Investigation and Vertical Resolution of Electric Arrays

Figure A-1. Geometry of four- and three-electrode linear electrode arrays listed in Table 2.

in percent. For example, a10 means a CPPC array, gives the value of E1E3/E1E4 in percent. For example,
where E1E2/E1E450.1. b10–70, where E1E3/E1E450.7, is shown in Fig. A-1.
Among the asymmetric four-electrode arrays, the For three-electrode arrays, Fig. A-1 shows the
number of possibilities is infinite and a second number E1E2/E1E3 value for each array.