Comment on 'Three-dimensional interpretation of multiple-source bipole-dipole resistivity data using the apparent resistivity tensor' by H.M. Bibby and G.W. Hohmann1

1994 ◽  
Vol 42 (5) ◽  
pp. 525-526 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaobo Li ◽  
Laust B. Pedersen
Geophysics ◽  
1986 ◽  
Vol 51 (4) ◽  
pp. 972-983 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. M. Bibby

Measurements of apparent resistivity made using the bipole‐dipole method depend upon the location and orientation of the current source relative to the body under study. Although it has been recognized that this dependence on orientation can be partially overcome by use of two current bipoles with different orientations, no agreement on the method of analysis of multiple source surveys has been reached. The most general form of presentation of such results is an apparent resistivity tensor. Various rotation invariants derived from the apparent resistivity tensor can be regarded as mean values of apparent resistivity, independent of the direction of the electric field, thus greatly reducing the “false anomalies” typical of single‐source bipole‐dipole survey results. Two of the tensor invariants obey the principle of reciprocity: if the roles of the current and potential electrodes are interchanged, the invariants are unchanged. The properties of the apparent resistivity tensor are demonstrated for selected simple models. For a horizontally layered medium, when the receiver array is far from the current source, the tensor is symmetric and has invariants which depend only on the distance from the current source. The extreme values of apparent resistivity occur when the electric field vector is tangential and radial relative to the current source. These extreme values correspond to the Schlumberger apparent resistivity and the “polar” dipole apparent resistivity, respectively. Lateral discontinuities in resistivity are modeled with both a single vertical discontinuity and a hemispherical model. The source‐dependent variations in the apparent resistivity derived from a single‐current bipole are greatly reduced in plots of the tensor invariants. For a vertical discontinuity, the tensor trace (the sum of the diagonal elements) is close to the resistivity underlying the receiver site, whereas for a hemisphere, the square root of the tensor determinant gives the best representation. Near lateral discontinuities in resistivity, the apparent resistivity tensor indicates strong dependence of apparent resistivity on the direction of the measured electric field. This apparent anisotropy can be used as an indicator of such discontinuities, yielding both position and orientation of the discontinuity.


2015 ◽  
Vol 115 ◽  
pp. 65-78 ◽  
Author(s):  
A.-S. Høyer ◽  
F. Jørgensen ◽  
N. Foged ◽  
X. He ◽  
A.V. Christiansen

Geophysics ◽  
1955 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 140-144 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert G. Van Nostrand ◽  
Kenneth L. Cook

Two groups of workers, here designated the “image school” and the “harmonic school” respectively, have attacked the problem of the interpretation of resistivity data over a dipping bed or dipping fault. The earlier attempts were made by the image school; but the more successful attempts have been made only recently by the harmonic school. The most successful work prior to that presented in the foregoing paper by Maeda has been done by the Russians, whose papers in their English translation are probably available to few American geophysicists. The purpose of this discussion is to appraise the relative merits of various prior solutions to the dipping bed problem in the light of the exact solution to the problem, which is given by Maeda. The terminology and symbols used herein are identical to those used by Maeda in his paper.


Geophysics ◽  
1977 ◽  
Vol 42 (5) ◽  
pp. 1006-1019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey J. Daniels

The three‐dimensional induced‐polarization and resistivity‐modeling problem for buried source and receiver electrodes is solved by using a modified form of Barnett’s surface‐integral technique originally developed for surface‐electrode configurations. Six different buried electrode configurations are considered in this study: three types of hole‐to‐hole configurations, hole‐to‐surface and surface‐to‐hole configurations, and the single hole (bipole‐bipole) configuration. Results show there is no “best” method for all situations encountered in the field. The choice of method depends upon depth of the body, spacing of drill holes, and electrical properties of the body. In hole‐to‐hole measurements, the geometric factor (necessary for the computation of the apparent resistivity) becomes infinitely large or infinitely small whenever the receiving bipole is placed at a depth so that it lies on a zero equipotential surface. This leads to the formation of apparent resistivity anomalies that are extremely sensitive to the presence of the body but that are also complicated and not easily correlated with the position of the body. It is shown that diagnostic and easily interpretable anomalies are obtained by selecting the proper source‐receiver configurations.


Geophysics ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 71 (6) ◽  
pp. G285-G290 ◽  
Author(s):  
Haoping Huang ◽  
Allen Cogbill

Helicopter-borne electromagnetic (EM) responses depend very much upon the altitude and plan-view flight path, especially when the resistivity of the terrain’s materials varies laterally and/or vertically. Spatially consistent flight paths are required for repeatability analysis of the EM data. Caution should be used in examining the repeatability of the EM data because poor repeatability could result from spatially inconsistent flight paths. However, the apparent resistivity converted from the EM responses is virtually independent of the sensor altitude and directly reflects variations in the resistivity. Therefore, more meaningful repeatability analyses are achieved if the apparent resistivity is used instead of the EM response itself. We have analyzed 32 flights over a control line by using the EM amplitude, the phase, and the apparent resistivity. Our results show that the crosscorrelation for all 496 paired combinations of flights is better for the apparent resistivity than for the EM amplitude or phase. The apparent-resistivity data have average correlation coefficients from 0.89 to 0.94 as the frequency increases, whereas the amplitude and the phase data have average correlation coefficients from 0.78 to 0.85 without obvious frequency dependency.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document