GEOPHYSICS, VOL. 67, NO. 2 (MARCH-APRIL 2002); P. 610617, 8 FIGS.

10.1190/1.1468622
The boundary element method for 3-D dc resistivity
modeling in layered earth
Qinzhong Ma

ABSTRACT
The integral equation for dc resistivity modeling of
3-D inhomogeneous bodies buried in a layered earth is
derived by using Greens theorem. The main features of
this method are (1) the layers above and below the 3-D
object can be included, (2) multiple subsurface inhomo-
geneous bodies can be embedded in the different layers,
and (3) the boundary element method (BEM) is used to
solve the integral equation using triangular surface ele-
ments. Linear variation of the electrical properties is as-
sumed within each element. The potential on the ground
surface is obtained by solving the linear equation system
with Gaussian elimination.
Model calculations demonstrate that the results ob-
tained by this method compare well with the analyti-
cal solution of a sphere in a uniform half-space and the
asymptotic behavior for the solutionof a buriedbody be-
neath a surcial layer as the layer resistivity approaches
that of the half-space. A comparison of responses over
elongate 3-D bodies with responses over 2-D bod-
ies of identical cross-section also shows satisfactory
agreement.
INTRODUCTION
In the dc resistivity method, the development of numeri-
cal methods and computer techniques allowforward modeling
of subsurface 3-D resistivity structures. Usually the problems
rely only onnumerical methods, whichinclude nite-difference
methods (Dey and Morrison, 1979; Zhao and Yedlin, 1996);
nite-element methods (Coggon, 1971; Fox et al., 1980; Zhou
and Zhong, 1986); integral equation methods (Alfano, 1959;
Dieter et al., 1969); and boundary element methods (BEM)
(Okabe, 1981; Xu et al., 1984, 1988; Schulz, 1985; Xu and Zhao,
1985). Generally speaking, BEMis a special case of the integral
method, wherethenumber of unknowns intheset of simultane-
Manuscript received by the Editor August 10, 1998; revised manuscript received June 18, 2001.

Formerly Lanzhou University, Geography Department, Lanzhou 730000, China; presently Seismological Bureau of Shanghai, No. 87 Lanxi Road,
Putuo, Shanghai 200062, China. E-mail: mqz1234@sina.com.cn.
c 2002 Society of Exploration Geophysicists. All rights reserved.
ous equations is usually very large. In BEM, the solution can be
reduced to a 2-D problem, reducing the number of gridpoints
dramatically. Thus, BEMis simpler in element division and ini-
tial data preparation and requires less memoryparticularly
appropriate for domains extending to innity (Adey and Niku,
1985; Brebbia et al., 1985; Brebbia, 1988). BEM is especially
suitable in the case of 3-D problems.
Many distributions of 3-D anomalous bodies under a at
surface have been investigated with boundary integral tech-
niques. Lee (1975) presents a surface integral equation suited
for the model of a heterogeneity embedded in a two-layered
medium; the solutions were found using the Galerkin method.
Okabe (1981) gives the generalized integral equations describ-
ingthearbitraryinhomogeneities problemwithweightedresid-
ual scheme, which can be calculated by BEM. Schulz (1985) de-
rives the integral equations for a body buried in a horizontally
stratied half-space according to Okabes generalized formu-
las, where in the numerical treatment the unknown is assumed
to be constant on every boundary element.
This paper presents a derivation of the 3-D potential inte-
gral equations in which multiple 3-D bodies can be embedded
in arbitrary layers within a layered earth. The derivation is
straightforward and comprehensive, being based on Greens
theorem. BEM (Brebbia, 1978) is used to solve the integral
equation. The boundary of a 3-D body is divided into trian-
gular elements. Linear variation of the potential is assumed
within each element, and a Gaussian quadrature formula and
digital linear ltering techniques are used to calculate the in-
tegral. Thus, the integral equation is converted into a set of
linear algebraic equations that can be solved by Gaussian
elimination.
The apparent resistivity curves obtained by this method
agree with that obtained with approximate analytic solutions.
The agreement is quite good. I also examined the asymptotic
behavior of the apparent resistivity curves for a buried sphere
beneath a layer over a half-space; I nd good agreement. Fi-
nally, I compare the responses over elongate 3-D bodies with
those over 2-D bodies of identical cross-section.
610
BEM for 3-D dc Modeling in Layered Earth 611
BOUNDARY INTEGRAL EQUATION FORMULATION
Boundary value problem
Consider the conguration shown in Figure 1. The x- and
y-axes are horizontal, and the z-axis is downward with the ori-
gin on the ground surface. An I-A current source is impressed
at point A (the origin of the coordinate system). The earth is an
n-layeredhost inwhichthere is a 3-Dbody inthe mthlayer. The
values
1
,
2
, . . . ,
n
are the resistivities of the layers, and
b
is
the 3-D inhomogeneity. Let
1
,
2
, . . . ,
n
be the boundaries
of the layers and
b
be the boundary of the 3-Dbody. We draw
a hemisphere

with a very large radius r

= under the
ground surface
1
. In this way, the total volume consists of re-
gions
1
, . . . ,
m
, . . . ,
n
,
b
. Let H
1
, . . . , H
m1
, H
m
, . . . , H
n1
represent the depth corresponding to each boundary. Also let
U
1
, . . . , U
m
, . . . , U
n
, U
b
represent the electric potentials in re-
gions
1
, . . . ,
m
, . . . ,
n
,
b
, respectively. The normal vector
on each boundary is n.
The governing equations for U
j
can be written as

2
U
j
= 2
1
I
3
(A), j = 1, . . . , m, . . . , n, b, (1a)
where
2
is the 3-D Laplace operator and
3
(A) is a 3-D Dirac
delta function at point A on the ground surface. Because the
current does not cross the ground surface
1
, we have
U
1
n

1
= 0. (1b)
From the continuity of the electric potential, we have
U
j 1
|
j
=U
j
|
j
; U
m
|
b
=U
b
|
b
, j = 2, . . . , m, . . . , n.
(1c)
From the continuity of normal components of current density,
we have
FIG. 1. Principal view of a 3-D body in an arbitrarily lay-
ered earth. Dashes outline an innite boundary. The x- and
y-axes are horizontal, and the z-axis is downward with the
origin on the ground surface. A current source of I A is im-
pressedat point A onthe groundsurface:
1
,
2
, . . . ,
m
, . . . ,
n
,
and
b
are the resistivities of the layers and the 3-D inho-
mogeneity, respectively:
1
,
2
, . . . ,
m
,
m+1
, . . . ,
n
,
b
are
the boundaries of the layers and the 3-D body, respectively.
The subsurface consists of regions
1
, . . . ,
m
, . . . ,
n
,
b
. The
depths corresponding to each boundary are represented by
H
1
, . . . , H
m1
, H
m
, . . . , H
n1
, respectively: n is the normal vec-
tor on each boundary.
1

j 1
U
j 1
n

j
=
1

j
U
j
n

j
;
1

m
U
m
n

b
=
1

b
U
b
n

b
,
j = 2, . . . , m, . . . , n. (1d)
Since

is far fromthe anomalous body, the electric potential

on

is the same as that in a half-space excited by a point

source of current on
1
:
U
j
|

=
C
r

;
U
j
r

=
C
r
2
; j = 1, 2, . . . , n, (1e)
where C is a constant of proportionality.
Greens theorem and fundamental solution
The basic idea behind BEM is to transform the partial dif-
ferential equations in the space domain into integral equations
on the boundaries using Greens second identity:
_

(U
2

2
U) d =
_

_
U

n

U
n
_
d, (2)
where is the boundary of the domain , n is the outside
normal vector, U is a potential to be determined, and is the
fundamental solution of the differential equation (1a).
Suppose in a horizontally stratied medium that a point
source of unit current is located at point p in the mth layer.
Then the potential =
j
(p, q) at point q in the j th layer
satises

j
=
3
(p), (3a)

1
n

1
= 0,

j
|

=
C
r

;

j
r

=
C
r
2
,
j = 1, 2, . . . , m, . . . , n, (3b)

j
|

j +1
=
j +1
|

j +1
, (3c)
1

j
n

j +1
=
1

j +1

j +1
n

j +1
,
j = 1, 2, . . . , m, . . . , n 1. (3d)
Here, =2
1
when p
1
and =
j
when p /
1
. The value

3
(p) is the 3-D Dirac delta function centered at p. The dif-
ferential equation (3) is solved by separation into cylindrical
coordinates (e.g., Daniels, 1978). Thecompletesolutionis given
by

j
(p, q) = Q
_

0
G
j
(z, z
p
, )J
0
(r) d, (4a)
Q =
_

_
1
4
, z
p
> 0
1
2
, z
p
< 0
, (4b)
where r =
_
(x x
p
)
2
+(y y
p
)
2
; (x
p
, y
p
, z
p
) and (x, y, z) are
the coordinates of points p and q, respectively; and J
0
is
612 Ma
the Bessel function of order zero. Function G
j
can be simpli-
ed into the computational convenient forms shown in
Appendix A.
The normal derivatives (
m
/n) and therefore the par-
tial spatial derivatives of
m
are needed for the integral rep-
resentation of the potential of buried bodies. Considering
J

0
(r) =J
1
(r), we obtain

m
x
= Q
x x
p
r
_

0
G
m
(z, z
p
, )J
1
(r) d,

m
y
= Q
y y
p
r
_

0
G
m
(z, z
p
, )J
1
(r) d,

m
z
= Q
_

0

z
G
m
(z, z
p
, )J
0
(r) d.
All of the integrals above and the integral of equation (4) have
the form
H(r) =
_

0
f ()J

(r) d; = 0, 1,
the Hankel transform of order , and can be evaluated by
means of linear digital lters (Anderson, 1982, 1984).
Boundary integral equation
Using Greens theorem, we can nally obtain the boundary
integral equations as follows (see Appendix B):
U
1
(p
s
) = U
0s

_
b

mb
U
b

m
(p
s
, q)
n
d, (5)
C
p
U
b
(p
I
) = U
0I

_
b

mb
U
b

m
(p
I
, q)
n
d, (6)
where U
0s
= I
1
(p
s
, A); U
0I
= I
1
(p
I
, A); p
s

1
; p
I

b
;
q
b
; and C
p
is a coefcient.
Formulas (5) and (6) are the boundary integral equations
that U
1
andU
b
must satisfy. Equation (6) can be solved by BEM
to nd the potential U
b
on the boundary
b
of the body. Then,
substituting the result into integral equation (5), the potential
U
1
on the ground surface can be calculated.
If there exist d
1
anomalous bodies with the corresponding
resistivities
b
j
( j =1, 2, . . . , d
1
) in the m
1
th layer whose resis-
tivity is
m
1
and d
2
anomalous bodies with the corresponding
resistivities
b
j
( j =d
1
+1, d
1
+2, . . . , d
1
+d
2
) inthe m
2
thlayer
whose resistivity is
m
2
, the integral equations corresponding
to equations (5) and (6) are
U
1
(p
s
) = U
0s

d1+d2

j =1
_
bj

mbj
U
b

m
(p
s
, q)
n
d, (7)
_
1

m
4
d1+d2

j =1

bj p

mbj
_
U
b
(p
I
) = U
0I

d1+d2

j =1
_
bj

mbj
U
b

m
(p
I
, q)
n
d, (8)
where
mb
j
=(1/
m
) (1/
b
j
); m =m
1
when j d
1
and m =m
2
when j >d
1
;
b
j
p
is the solidangle of point p
I
against the region

b
j
; and
b
j
p
=0 if p
I
is outside of
b
j
whose boundary is
b
j
(Figure 2).
BOUNDARY ELEMENT METHOD
The following discussions are mainly for a single 3-D body,
and the index b at the lower right corner of U
b
is neglected. We
divide
b
into triangular elements and approximate each ele-
ment as a triangular plane. The vertices of the triangular plane
are nodes. There are N nodes on
b
. The boundary integral,
equation (6), is divided into a sumof integrals on each element

e
. For node i we have
C
i
U
i
= U
0i

b
_
e

mb
U

m
n
d, (9)
where C
i
=(4
bi

mb
)/(4) and U
0i
= I
1
(p
i
, A). The
node numbers of the three vertices of an element are taken
as j , k, and l with coordinates (x
j
, y
j
, z
j
), (x
k
, y
k
, z
k
), (x
l
, y
l
, z
l
)
(Figure 3). We assume that U is composed of linear functions
in each element. Using U
j
, U
k
, U
l
to represent U at j , k, and l,
Ucan be written as
FIG. 2. Principal view of multiple bodies in the different lay-
ers. The valued
1
, . . . ,
m
1
, . . . ,
m
2
, . . . ,
n
represent the resi-
stivities of the rst layer, . . . , the m
1
th layer, . . . , the m
2
nd
layer, . . . , the nth layer;
b
1
, . . . ,
b
d
1
,
b
d
1
+1
, . . . ,
b
d
1
+d
2
rep-
resent the resistivities of these inhomogeneous bodies,
respectively.
FIG. 3. Boundary of a 3-D body divided into triangular ele-
ments. Point i is the i th node on the boundary: n is the normal
vector on each triangular element: j , k, l represent the node
numbers of the three vectices of an element.
BEM for 3-D dc Modeling in Layered Earth 613
U =
j
U
j
+
k
U
k
+
l
U
l
= [
j
,
k
,
l
]{U
j
, U
k
, U
l
}
T
,
where
j
,
k
,
l
are linear interpolation functions dened as
x = x
j

j
+ x
k

k
+ x
l

l
,
y = y
j

j
+ y
k

k
+ y
l

l
,
z = z
j

j
+ z
k

k
+ z
l

l
.
It is obvious that at point j,
j
=1,
k
=
l
=0; at point
k,
j
=
l
=0,
k
=1; and at point l,
j
=
k
=0,
l
=1. The in-
tegral over an element can be derived as follows:
_
e

mb
U

m
n
d =
_
e
[
j
,
k
,
l
]
mb

m
n
d{U
j
, U
k
, U
l
}
T
= [ f
i j
, f
i k
, f
il
]{U
j
, U
k
, U
l
}
T
,
where
f
i j
=
mb
_
e

m
n
d; f
i k
=
mb
_
e

m
n
d;
f
il
=
mb
_
e

m
n
d. (10)
All these integrals are evaluated using a Gaussian formula
(Brebbia, 1978) and a linear digital lter technique (Anderson,
1984) for the Hankel transform. In this paper a four-point
Gaussian quadrature formula for the triangular elements is
used. For example, we can calculate f
i j
as follows:
f
i j
=
mb
_
e

m
n
d =
mb
4

t =1

(t )
j

m
(p
i
, q
t
)
n
W
t
,
where is the area of the triangular elements, W
t
is the weight,

(t )
j
is the value of
j
at point q
t
(Brebbia, 1978). The calculation
of f
i k
and f
il
is the same as that of f
i j
.
The sumof all integrals over each element on
b
is obtained
as

b
_
e

mb
U

m
n
d = [F
i 1
, . . . , F
i j
, . . . , F
i N
]
{U
1
, . . . , U
j
, . . . , U
N
}
T
= F
i
u,
(11)
where u ={U
1
, . . . , U
j
, . . . , U
N
}
T
is the column vector formed
by U at each node on
b
, F
i j
is the sum of f
i j
at the elements
around node j , and F
i
=[F
i 1
, . . . , F
i j
, . . . , F
i N
]. Substituting
equation (11) into equation (9), we obtain
C
i
U
i
= U
0i
F
i
u. (12)
For each node we can derive an equation as above. From all
the nodes i (1 i N) on
b
, we derive an equation system
Cu = u
0
Fu. (13)
where C = diag[C
1
, . . . , C
j
, . . . , C
N
], u
0
= [U
01
, . . . , U
0 j
, . . . ,
U
0N
]
T
, F=[F
1
, . . . , F
j
, . . . , F
N
]
T
.
We can obtain a linear equation system from equation (13)
as follows:
[C +F]u = u
0
. (14)
The system of linear equations (14) contains N equations with
N unknowns that can be solved to obtain the values of u at
nodes on
b
. Substituting these values into equation (5), we
obtain
U
1
(p
s
) = I
1
(p
s
, A) F

s
u. (15)
We can calculate U
1
at each point on the ground surface.
NUMERICAL EXAMPLES
To test the theory and program for the most general case,
we rst compare the results of a sphere under a at surface ob-
tained by this method with that of approximate analytic solu-
tion (solution of half-space as the double of the whole space
solution). Second, we compute the solution of a buried sphere
beneath an overburden and examine the asymptotic behavior
as the layer resistivity approaches that of the half-space. Then
we can compare computations for elongate 3-D bodies with
those for 2-D structures of identical cross-section. The pro-
gram described in this paper can accommodate an arbitrary
number of layers, but for simplicity we consider an inhomo-
geneity in the lower layer of a two-layer earth (Figures 5 and 6).
The four-electrode systemis arrangedsothe twopotential elec-
trodes move in the middle segment between the two xed
current electrodes. The current electrode spacing is 600 m
in Figures 4 and 5 and 1200 m in Figures 6 and 7, and the
FIG. 4. Model curves of apparent resistivity for a sphere buried
in a half-space earth. Solid curves and dotted curves are the re-
sults obtained by BEM and the approximate analytic solution,
respectively; x represents the midpoint of the two potential
electrodes. (a) When r/h
0
=1/2, the solid curve is compared
with the dotted curve. (b) When r/h
0
=5/7, the solid curve
is compared with the dotted curve. (c) The cross-section of
the model.
1
=1 ohm-m.
b
=0.05 ohm-m. The spheres radius
r =5 m; h
0
is the depth of a sphere center.
614 Ma
FIG. 5. Model curves of apparent resistivity for a sphere buried
in a two-layer earth. (a) The curves are plotted for differ-
ent overburden resistivities
1
(in ohm-m), while the substra-
tum and the sphere have the resistivities
2
=100 ohm-m and

b
=1 ohm-m, respectively. The dotted curve is obtained with
the approximate analytic solution of a sphere in a uniform
half-space (
1
=
2
=100 ohm-m). (b) The cross-section of the
model. The thickness of the overburdenis h =5 m. The spheres
radius and the depth of its center are 10 and 20 m, respectively.
A and B represent the two current electrodes, M and N repre-
sent the twopotential electrodes, and x represents themidpoint
of the two potential electrodes.
FIG. 6. Model used to compare the response of this elongate
3-Dbody to the results of a 2-Dbody of identical cross-section.
The L represents the strike length of the 3-D body, and h is
the depth of the 3-D body beneath the lower layer. The val-
ues
1
,
2
,
b
are the intrinsic resistivities of the upper layer,
lower layer, and 3-D body, respectively. A four-electrode sys-
tem is arranged along the x-axis. The two current electrodes
are located at A and B, and the two potential electrodes are at
M and N.
potential electrode spacing is 5 m in Figures 4 and 5 and 30 m
in Figures 6 and 7.
Figure 4 shows the apparent resistivity
a
curves of a
sphere buried in a half-space medium in which the results of
BEM (solid curves) are compared with that of an approxi-
mate analytic solution (dots). In Figure 4a, r/h
0
=1/2; the
results agree well. Here, r and h
0
represent the radius of a
sphere and the depth of the sphere center, respectively. In
Figure 4b, r/h
0
=5/7. The maximumerror appears at the point
over the sphere and can reach 10%. This error is mainly
in the approximate analytic solution. When r/h
0
1/2, the
approximate analytic solution is convincing.
Figure 5 shows the results of a sphere buried in a two-layer
medium. The spherical surface is divided into triangular ele-
ments with 29 nodes. The curve computed with this method
for
1
=
2
=100 ohm-m is compared with the dotted curve
obtained by approximate analytic solution of a half-space con-
taining a sphere . The results agree well. On the other hand, as
the overburden resistivity
1
approaches that of the substratum

2
=100 ohm-m, the asymptotic value of apparent resistivity is
close to that of the half-space containing the sphere. For the
calculations illustrated in Figure 5, the computer time is several
tens of seconds on a Pentium II microcomputer.
The apparent resistivity curves fromelongate 3-Dbodies are
compared with those from the corresponding 2-D structure
calculated using a boundary element routine (Qian and Ma,
1992) in Figures 7 and 8. The body is a tetragonal prism.
In Figure 6, the upper layer is 50 m thick, and the cross-
section of the 3-D body in the lower layer is 100 100 m. Its
strike length is L, and its depth beneath the lower layer is h.
The resistivity of the bottom layer is
2
=10 ohm-m.
In Figure 7, the shape of apparent resistivity curves for the
3-D body is similar to that of the 2-D body, although the 2-D
case shows a stronger inuence of the inhomogeneity. When
L =100 m, h =5 m, apparent resistivity curve 2 is similar to
that of a 2-D body. The cubic surface is divided into triangular
FIG. 7. Prole curves of apparent resistivity along the x-axis of
the 3-D body of Figure 6 and across a 2-D body of identical
cross-section for
1
=100 ohm-m,
2
=10 ohm-m,
b
=0.1
ohm-m, and h =5 m. Solid curves are the responses of the 3-D
body. The dashed curve is the response of the 2-D structure.
The L is the strike length of the 3-Dbody, and x represents the
midpoint of the two potential electrodes.
BEM for 3-D dc Modeling in Layered Earth 615
FIG. 8. Prole curves of apparent resistivity along the x-axis
of the 3-D body of Figure 6 and across a 2-D body
of identical cross-section for
1
=1.0 ohm-m,
2
=10 ohm-m,

b
=10 000 ohm-m, and h =10 m. The L is the strike length.
The results of the 3-Dbody are plotted using solid curves, while
that of the 2-D structure is shown as dashed curve. The x rep-
resents the midpoint of the two potential electrodes.
elements with 98 nodes. When L =480 m, h =5 m, apparent re-
sistivity curve 3 approaches that of the 2-Dbody, and the agree-
ment between themis satisfactory. The surface of the elongate
3-D body is divided into triangular elements with 260 nodes.
The results with the high-resistivity body (Figure 8) are also
qualitative agreement between the two models. On the other
hand, the extent of the agreement between the 2-D and 3-D
results may be inuenced by the nature of the layering (see
Figures 7 and 8). In Figures 7 and 8, L =0 represents the case
of no body in the layered earth.
CONCLUSIONS
The method used in this paper can be used to model the 3-D
bodies located in earths with layer interfaces both above and
belowthe body. Furthermore, it can be used to model multiple
bodies embedded within the different layers in a layered earth.
The approach outlined here is straightforward and easy to im-
plement. The numerical solution can be run on a microcom-
puter (Pentium II) in a matter of minutes. The formulations
presented in this paper can become an applicable technique
for simulating the dc resistivity responses of 3-D anomalous
bodies buried in a layered earth.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I express my sincere thanks to Colin Farquharson; David
Boerner, theassociateeditor of Geophysics; andananonymous
reviewer for their comments and suggestions. Thanks are also
extended to Larry Liner, the editor of Geophysics, for his en-
couragement. In addition, I thank Xu Shi-Zhi for his useful
advice at an early stage.
REFERENCES
Adey, R. A., and Niku, S. M., 1985, Comparison between boundary
elements method and nite elements for CAD of cathodic protec-
tion system, in Brebbia, C. A., and Noye, B. J., Eds., BETECH 85:
Computational Mechanics Publications, 269298.
Alfano, L., 1959, Introduction to the interpretation of resistivity mea-
surements for complicated structural conditions: Geophys. Prosp.,
7, 311366.
Anderson, W. L., 1982, Fast Hankel transforms using related and
logged convelutions: ACM Trans. on Math. Software, 8, 344
368.
1984, Computation of Greens tensor integrals for three-
dimensional electromagnetic problems using fast Hankel trans-
forms: Geophysics, 49, 17541759.
Brebbia, C. A., 1978, The boundary-element method for engineers:
Pentech Press.
Brebbia, C. A., Ed., 1988, Boundary elements X: Springer-Verlag
Berlin.
Brebbia, C. A., Umetani, S., and Trevelyan, J., 1985, Critical compari-
son of boundary element and nite element methods for stress anal-
ysis, in Brebbia, C. A., and Noye, B. J., Eds., BETECH 85: Compu-
tational Mechanics Publications, 225256.
Coggon, J. H., 1971, Electromagnetic andelectric modeling by the nite
element method: Geophysics, 36, 132155.
Daniels, J. J., 1978, Interpretation of buried electrode resistivity data
using a layered earth model: Geophysics, 43, 9881001.
Dey, A., and Morrison, H. F., 1979, Resistivity modeling for arbitrarily
shaped three-dimensional structure: Geophysics, 44, 753780.
Dieter, K., Paterson, N. R., and Grant, F. S., 1969, IP and resistivity
type curves for three-dimensional bodies: Geophysics, 34, 615632.
Fox, R. C., Hohmann, G. W., Killpack, T. J., and Rijo, L., 1980,
Topographic effect in resistivity and induced-polarization surveys:
Geophysics, 45, 7593.
Lee, T., 1975, An integral equation and its solution for some two and
three-dimensional problems in resistivity and induced polarization:
Geophys. J. Roy. Astr. Soc., 42, 8195.
Okabe, M., 1981, Boundary element method for the arbitrary inho-
mogeneities problem in electrical prospecting: Geophys. Prosp., 29,
3959.
Qian, J. D., and Ma, Q. Z., 1992, The boundary element method for
solving the 2-D geoelectric eld of a point source in three-layered
medium with uctuated interfaces: Northwestern Seismol. J., 14,
111121 (in Chinese).
Schulz, R., 1985, The method of integral equation in the direct current
resistivity method and its accuracy: J. Geophys., 56, 192200.
Xu, S. Z., Zhao, S. K., and Lou, Y. J., 1984, The boundary element
method for solving the three dimensional electric eld under the
conditions of horizontal ground: Comput. Tech. for Geophys. and
Geochem. Expl., 6, 5360 (in Chinese).
Xu, S. Z., and Zhao, S. K., 1985, The boundary element method calcu-
lating electric eld of a point source on three-dimensional topogra-
phy: J. Guilin College of Geol., 5, 163168 (in Chinese).
Xu, S. Z., Gao, Z. C., and Zhao, S. K., 1988, An integral formulation
for three-dimensional terrain modeling for resistivity surveys: Geo-
physics, 53, 546552.
Zhao, S. K., and Yedlin, M. J., 1996, Some renements on the nite-
difference method for 3-D dc resistivity modeling: Geophysics, 61,
13011307.
Zhou, X. X., and Zhong, B. S., 1986, The numerical modeling tech-
nique in electrical prospecting: Shichun Sci. and Tech. Publ. House
(in Chinese).
616 Ma
APPENDIX A
EXPLICIT EXPRESSION OF THE FUNDAMENTAL SOLUTIONS
Potentials about a point source of current in a layered earth
have been expressed by Daniels (1978). However, for the sake
of convenience to an applicable technique, the fundamental
solution in this paper is simplied in forms amenable to com-
putation. In equation (4a), the function G
j
can be expressed as
G
j
(z, z
p
, ) = D
j
e
|zzp|
+ A
j
()e
(zzp)
+B
j
()e
(zzp)
,
(A-1a)
D
j
=
_

m
, j = m
0, j = m
, (A-1b)
in which A
j
(), B
j
() can be calculated by
A
m
= T
d
T
u

m
T
u
+ T
d
, (A-2a)
B
m
= T
u
T
d

m
T
u
+ T
d
. (A-2b)
B
k
= (D
k+1
+B
k+1
)
T
k
+
k
T
k
+
k+1
, k =m1, m2, . . . , 1,
(A-2c)
A
j
= (D
j 1
+A
j 1
)
T
j
+
j
T
j
+
j 1
, j =m+1, m+2, . . . , n.
(A-2d)
The thickness of the j th layer is denoted by
h
j
= H
j
H
j 1
, j = 1, . . . , n.
Expressions T
j
, T
u
, and T
d
are calculated by the following
recursion formulas:
T
1
=

1
tan h(h
1
)
, (A-3a)
T
k
=
k
T
k1
+
k
tan h(h
k
)

k
+ T
k1
tan h(h
k
)
, k = 2, 3, . . . , m 1, m,
(A-3b)
T
u
= T
k
, h
k
= z
p
H
m1
, k = m, (A-3c)
T
n
=
n
, (A-4a)
T
j
=
j
T
j +1
+
j
tan h(h
j
)

j
+ T
j +1
tan h(h
j
)
,
j = n 1, n 2, . . . , m +1, m, (A-4b)
T
d
= T
j
; h
j
= H
m
z
p
, j = m. (A-4c)
When z <z
p
, G
1
, G
k
can be calculated as follows:
G
1
(z, z
p
, ) = (D
1
+ B
1
)
_
e
(zzp)
+e
(z+zp)
_
, (A-5a)
G
k
(z, z
p
, )
= (D
k
+ B
k
)
_
e
(zz p)
+
T
k1

k
T
k1
+
k
e
(z+zp2H
k1
)
_
,
k = 2, 3, . . . , m 1. (A-5b)
When z >z
p
, G
j
, G
n
are calculated by the following formulas:
G
j
(z, z
p,
)
= (D
j
+ A
j
)
_
e
(zzp)
+
T
j +1

j
T
j +1
+
j
e
(2Hj zzp)
_
,
j = n 1, n 2, . . . , m +1, (A-6a)
G
n
(z, z
p
, ) = (D
n
+ A
n
)e
(zzp)
. (A-6b)
When m =1, formulas (A-3) are invalid for calculating T
u
. Sup-
pose there is the image of the horizontally stratied medium
over the ground. Then T
u
can be replaced by T
d
. From equa-
tion (A-2), we can obtain
A
1
= B
1
=
(T
d

1
)
2
, (A-7)
were T
d
=T
1
according to the recursion formulas (A-4).
APPENDIX B
DERIVATION OF THE INTEGRAL EQUATIONS
Greens second identity is used in regions
1
,
2
, . . . ,

m
, . . . ,
n
,
b
, respectively:
_
j
_
U
j

j

j

2
U
j
_
d
=
_

j +1
+
j
_
U
j

j
n

j
U
j
n
_
d,
_
b
_
U
b

m

m

2
U
b
_
d
=
_
b
_
U
b

m
n

m
U
b
n
_
d,
j = 1, 2, . . . , n, (B-1)
where
j
represents two segments of

which belong to the

boundary of region
j
. When j =m, let
j +1
=
j +1

b
; when
j =n, let
j +1
=0.
In example 1, let p = p
s

1
, utilizing the relation of bound-
ary values, equations (1), and (3). Notice
_
1
U
1
[2
1

3
(p
s
)] d =
1
U
1
(p
s
),
_

j
_
U
j

j
n

j
U
j
n
_
d = 0,
_
1

1
[2
1
I
3
(A)] d =
1
I
1
(p
s
, A).
From equation (B-1), we can obtain
U
1
(p
s
) = I
1
(p
s
, A)
_
b

mb
U
b

m
(p
s
, q)
n
d, (B-2)
BEM for 3-D dc Modeling in Layered Earth 617
where q is an arbitrary point on boundary
b
and
mb
=
(1/
m
) (1/
b
). Hence, as
b

m
,
mb
0.
In example 2, let p = p
I

b
, utilizing the relation of boun-
dary values, equations (1) and (3). The boundary surface of

b
at each node is not smooth; therefore,
_
m
U
m
[
m

3
(p
I
)] d =

mp
4
U
m
(p
I
),
_
b
U
b
[
m

3
(p
I
)] d =

bp
4
U
b
(p
I
),
_
1

1
[2
1
I
3
(A)] d =
1
I
1
(p
I
, A).
From equation (B-1), we nally obtain
C
p
U
b
(p
I
) = I
1
(p
I
, A)
_
b

mb
U
b

m
(p
I
, q)
n
d,
(B-3)
where C
p
=(4
bp

mb
)/(4); q
b
;

mp
is the solid angle subtended by
m
at p
I
; and
bp
is the
solid angle subtended by
b
at p
I
.
If the boundary surface at each node is smooth, then

bp
=2. Let
n
=
n1
=, . . . , =
m
. The integral equa-
tions (B-2) and (B-3), turn out to be the integral equations
of surface potential in Schulz (1985).
In equation (B-3), the surface integral, however, is improper
since {[
m
(p
I
, q)]/n} produces a singularity at q = p
I
. To
avoid the singularity, noticing Okabes method of singular-
ity analysis (Okabe, 1981) and utilizing equation (3a), we can
change the surface integral in equation (B-3) into another
form:
_
b

mb
U
b
_

m
(p
I
, q)
n

m

3
(p
I
)
2
_

_
d, (B-4)
which is now proper everywhere on
b
. Once the singularity is
excluded theoretically in the integral equation formulation, it
is unnecessary to exclude numerically an innitesimal bound-
ary surface

around the singular point. Rather, the integra-

tion should be carried out as if no singularity in the integrand
existed.