2D data modelling by electrical resistivity tomography for complex subsurface geology

Geophysical Prospecting

Volumn 54, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 121-133

  Cardarelli, Ettore ^a   Fischanger, F ^a  

^a SAPIENZA UNIVERSITY OF ROME   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHMS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; ELECTRIC CONDUCTIVITY; FINITE DIFFERENCE METHOD; FOURIER TRANSFORMS; INVERSE PROBLEMS; ITERATIVE METHODS; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; MATRIX ALGEBRA; TOMOGRAPHY;

FINITE-DIFFERENCE ALGORITHM; GEOELECTRICAL INVERSE PROBLEMS; JACOBIAN MATRIX; LEAS-SQUARES ALGORITHM; SUBSURFACE GEOLOGY;

GEOLOGY;

ELECTRICAL METHOD; ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY; FOURIER TRANSFORM; GEOELECTRIC FIELD; INVERSE PROBLEM; TOMOGRAPHY;

EID: 33645973558     PISSN: 00168025     EISSN: 13652478     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2478.2006.00522.x     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Cardarelli E. 2002. Geoelectric survey by ERT to investigate marble ruins at the Roman forum, Rome. Italy. European Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics 7, 219-228.
2. Dey A. and Morrison H.F. 1979. Resistivity modelling for arbitrarily shaped two-dimensional structures. Geophysical Prospecting 27, 106-136.
3. Griffiths D.H. and Barker R.D. 1993. Two-dimensional resistivity imaging and modelling in areas of complex geology. Journal of Applied Geophysics 29, 211-226.
4. deGroot-Hedlin C. and Constable S. 1990. Occam's inversion to generate smooth, two-dimensional models from magnetotelluric data. Geophysics 55, 1613-1624.
5. Kim H.J., Song Y. and Lee K.H. 1999. Inequality constraint in least-squares inversion of geophysical data. Earth Planets Space 51, 255-259.
6. Koefoed O. 1979. Geosounding Principles, 1. Elsevier. Science Publishing Co, pp. 166-174.
7. Loke M.H., Acworth I. and Dahlin T. 2003. A comparison of smooth and blocky inversion methods in 2D electrical imaging surveys. Exploration Geophysics 34, 182 -187.
8. Loke M.H. and Barker R.D. 1996. Rapid least-squares inversion of apparent resistivity pseudosections by a quasi-Newton method. Geophysical Prospecting 44, 131-152.
9. Loke M.H. and Dahlin T. 2002. A comparison of the Gauss-Newton and quasi-Newton methods in resistivity imaging inversion. Journal of Applied Geophysics 49, 149-162.
10. McGillivray P.R. and Oldenburg D.W. 1990. Methods for calculating Fréchet derivatives and sensitivities for the non-linear inverse problem: A comparative study. Geophysical Prospecting 38, 499-524.
11. Nowroozi A.A., Horrocks S.B. and Henderson P. 1999. Saltwater intrusion into the freshwater aquifer in the eastern shore of Virginia: A reconnaissance electrical resistivity survey Journal of Applied Geophysics 42, 1-22.
12. O'Neill D.J. 1975. Improved linear filter coefficients for application in apparent resistivity computations. Bulletin Australian Society Exploration Geophysicists 6, 104-109.
13. Olayinka A.I. and Yaramanci U. 2000. Use of block inversion in the 2-D interpretation of apparent resistivity data and its comparison with smooth inversion. Journal of Applied Geophysics 45, 63-81.
14. Oldenburg D.W. and Li Y. 1999. Estimating depth of investigation in dc resistivity and IP surveys. Geophysics 64,403-416.
15. Press W.H., Teukolsky S.A., Vetterling W.T. and Flannery B.P. 1992. Numerical Recipes in C, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press.
16. Sasaki Y. 1989. Two-dimensional joint inversion of magnetotelluric and dipole-dipole resistivity data. Geophysics 54, 254-262.
17. Sasaki Y. 1992. Resolution of resistivity tomography inferred from numerical simulation. Geophysical Prospecting 40, 453-463.
18. Tikhonov A.N., Goncharsky A.V., Stepanov V.V. and Yagola A.G. 1995. Numerical Methods for the Solution of Ill-posed Problems. Kluwer. Academic Publishers.
19. Tripp A.C., Hohmann G.W. and Swift C.M. 1984. Two-dimensional resistivity inversion. Geophysics 49, 1708-1717.