The face-current concept and its application to survey design in electrical exploration

Geophysics

Volumn 68, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 900-910

  Mendonça, Carlos A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SÃO PAULO   (Brazil)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ELECTRIC CURRENTS; ELECTRIC FIELD EFFECTS; ELECTRIC POTENTIAL; ELECTRODES; ELECTRIC FIELDS; GEOMETRY; GEOPHYSICAL PROSPECTING; GEOPHYSICS; IMAGING TECHNIQUES; POLARIZATION; STRUCTURAL GEOLOGY; SURVEYS;

DIPOLE SOURCES; GEOELECTRICAL STRUCTURES; BURIED-OBJECT DETECTION; ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY; GEOPHYSICAL TECHNIQUES; INHOMOGENEOUS MEDIA; TERRESTRIAL ELECTRICITY;

GEOPHYSICS; STRUCTURAL DESIGN;

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY; ELECTRODE; ELECTROMAGNETIC SURVEY; SURVEY DESIGN;

EID: 10844246198     PISSN: 00168033     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1190/1.1581042     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Barker, R. D., 1981, The offset system of electrical resistivity sounding and its use with a multicore cable: Geophys. Prosp., 29, 1280143.
2. Dey, A., Meyer, W. H., Morrison, H. F., and Dolan, W. M., 1975, Electric field response of two-dimensional inhomogeneities to unipolar and dipole electrode configurations: Geophysics, 40, 630-640.
3. Dey, A., and Morrison, H. F., 1979, Resistivity modeling for arbitrarily shaped three-dimensional structures: Geophysics, 44, 753-780.
4. Edwards, L. S., 1977, A modified pseudosection for resistivity and induced-polarization: Geophysics, 42, 1020-1036.
5. Evjen, H. M., 1938, Depth factor and resolving power of electrical measurements: Geophysics, 3, 78-95.
6. Glenn, W. E., and Ward, S H., 1976, Statistical evaluation of electrical sounding methods. Part I: Experimental design: Geophysics, 41, 1207-1221.
7. James, B. A., 1985, Efficient microcomputer-based finite difference resistivity modeling via Polozhii decomposition: Geophysics, 50, 443-465.
8. Kaufman, A. A., 1992, Geophysical field theory and method, Part A: Gravitational, electric and magnetic methods: Academic Press Inc.
9. Li, Y., and Oldenburg, D. W., 1991, Aspects of charge accumulation in dc resistivity experiments: Geophys. Pros., 39, 803-826.
10. Loke, M. H., and Barker, R. D., 1995, Least-squares deconvolution of apparent resistivity pseudosections: Geophysics, 60, 1682-1690.
11. Lowry, T., Allen, M. B., and Shive, P. N., 1989, Singularity removal: A refinement of resistivity modeling techniques: Geophysics, 54, 766-774.
12. Mufti, I. R., 1976, Finite-difference resistivity modeling for arbitrarily shaped two-dimensional structures: Geophysics, 41, 62-78.
13. Okabe, M., 1981, Boundary element method for the arbitrary inho-mogeneities problem in electrical prospecting: Geophys. Prosp., 29, 39-59.
14. Oldenburg, D. W., and Li, Y., 1999, Estimating depth of investigation in dc resistivity and IP surveys: Geophysics, 64, 403-436.
15. Roy, A., and Apparao, A., 1971, Depth of investigation in direct current methods: Geophysics, 36, 943-959.
16. Snyder, D. D., 1976, A method for modeling the resistivity and IP response of two-dimensional bodies: Geophysics, 41, 997-1015.
17. Van, G. P., Park, S. K., and Hamilton, P., 1991, Monitoring leaks from storage ponds using resistivity methods: Geophysics, 56, 1267-1270.
18. Zhao, S., and Yedlin, M. J, 1996, Some refinements on the finite-difference method for 3-D resistivity modeling: Geophysics, 61, 1301-1307.