Investigating the performance of combined resistivity model using different electrode arrays configuration

  • Nuraddeen UsmanEmail author
  • Khiruddin Abdullah
  • Mohd Nawawi
Original Paper


The use of a single geophysical method is prone to more ambiguity and loss of vital geological information at geophysical interpretation stage. To circumvent this problem, a statistical approach and image processing technique were used to combine three electrode arrays (dipole-dipole, pole-dipole, and Werner-Schlumberger). The combined models were tested using both synthetic and field models. For synthetic models, the mean absolute error (MAE), mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) and mean resistivity values were used as criteria to assess the combined models. For field data, the three protocols were combined and the models were compared with borehole data. Considering the overall performance, maximum value model has a low error and correlated well with the borehole data than the other combined models analyzed although the performance of these models depends on resistivity in addition to the nature of geologic structure under investigation. The correlation between resistivity and lithological changes with depth (borehole data) used in this research provided a more quantitative comparison approach than the ones available in the literature. The image processing technique served as an aid to make post inversion analysis such as combining data sets and quantitative comparison among/between the models.


Resistivity model Electrode array configuration Combined resistivity model, assessment criteria and image processing technique 


  1. Abdulrahman A, Nawawi M, Saad R, Abu-Rizaiza AS, Yusoff MS, Khalil AE, Ishola KS (2016) Characterization of active and closed landfill sites using 2D resistivity/IP imaging: case studies in Penang, Malaysia. Environ Earth Sci 75(4):1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arisona A, Nawawi M, Nuraddeen U, Hamzah M (2016) A preliminary mineralogical evaluation study of natural asphalt rock characterization, Southeast Sulawesi, Indonesia. Arab J Geosci 9(4):272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bery AA, Saad R (2013) Merging data levels using two different arrays for high resolution resistivity tomography. Electron J Geotech Eng 18:5507–5514Google Scholar
  4. Candansayar ME, Başokur AT (2001) Detecting small-scale targets by the 2D inversion of two-sided three-electrode data: application to an archaeological survey. Geophys Prospect 49(1):13–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dahlin T (2001) The development of DC resistivity imaging techniques. Comput Geosci 27:1019–1029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Doetsch JA, Coscia I, Greenhalgh S, Linde N, Green A, Günther T (2010) The borehole-fluid effect in electrical resistivity imaging. Geophysics 75(4):F107–F114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Everett ME (2013) Near-surface applied geophysics. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  8. Gyulai Á, Baracza MK, Tolnai ÉE (2013) The application of joint inversion in geophysical exploration. Int J Geosci 4:283–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hamdan HA, Vafidis A (2013) Joint inversion of 2D resistivity and seismic travel time data to image saltwater intrusion over karstic areas. Environ Earth Sci 68(7):1877–1885CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ishola KS, Nawawi MN, Abdullah K, Sabri AIA, Adiat KA (2014) Assessment of the reliability of reproducing two-dimensional resistivity models using an image processing technique. SpringerPlus 3(1):214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ishola K, Nawawi M, Abdullah K (2015) Combining multiple electrode arrays for two-dimensional electrical resistivity imaging using the unsupervised classification technique. Pure Appl Geophys 172:1615–1642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kwarteng AY, Chavez PS (1990) Digital image processing of airborne geophysical data for uranium-mineralized braccia pipes exploration in North-Western Arizona. Geophysics 35(8):965–976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Legault JM, Carriere D, Petrie L (2008) Synthetic model testing and distributed acquisition dc resistivity results over an unconformity uranium target from the Athabasca Basin, northern Saskatchewan. Lead Edge 27:46–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Liu H, Li G, Du L (2011) Application of high density resistivity method in accuracy of goaf detection. Glob Geol 14:110–114Google Scholar
  15. Loke MH (1999) Electrical imaging surveys for environmental and engineering studies. A practical guide to, 2Google Scholar
  16. Loke MH (2002) RES2DINV ver. 3.50. Rapid 2-D resistivity and IP inversion using the least square methodGoogle Scholar
  17. Loke M (2014) Rapid 2D resistivity forward modeling using the finite difference and finite element methods. Geotomo Software, PenangGoogle Scholar
  18. Loke MH, Chambers JE, Rucker DF, Kuras O, Wilkinson PB (2013) Recent developments in the direct-current geoelectrical imaging method. J Appl Geophys 95:135–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Martorana R, Fiandaca G, Ponsati AC, Cosentino PL (2008) Comparative tests on different multi-electrode arrays using models in near-surface geophysics. J Geophys Eng 6(1):1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Radstake F, Geirnaert W, Kleindorsf TW, Terhell JC (1991) Applications of forward modeling resistivity profiles. Ground Water 29:5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Reynolds JM (2011) An introduction to applied and environmental geophysics. WileyGoogle Scholar
  22. Rucker DF, Loke MH, Levitt MT, Noonan GE (2010) Electrical-resistivity characterization of an industrial site using long electrodes. Geophysics 75:WA95–WA104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Telford WM, Geldart LP, Sheriff RE (1990). Applied geophysics (Vol. 1). Cambridge university pressGoogle Scholar
  24. Tso B, OLSEN RC (2005) Combining spectral and spatial information into hidden Markov models for unsupervised image classification. Int J Remote Sens 26(10):2113–2133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tsokas G, Tsourlos P, Vargemezis G, Novack M (2008) Non-destructive electrical resistivity tomography for indoor investigation: the case of Kapnikarea Church in Athens. Archaeol Prospect 15:47–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Usman N, Abdullah K, Nawawi M, Esmail AK (2017) Magnetic survey for the delineation of concrete pillars for site characterization. Electron J Geotech Eng 22(10):4011–4030Google Scholar
  27. Usman N, Abdullah K, Nawawi M, Esmail AK (2018) New approach of solving Euler deconvolution relation for the automatic interpretation of magnetic data. Terr Atmos Oceanogr Sci JGoogle Scholar
  28. Wilkinson PB, Meldrum PI, Chambers JE, Kuras O, Ogilvy RD (2006) Improved strategies for the automatic selection of optimized sets of electrical resistivity tomography measurement configurations. Geophys J Int 167:1119–1126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Willmott CJ, Matsuura K (2005) Advantages of the mean absolute error (MAE) over the root mean square error (RMSE) in assessing average model performance. Clim Res 30:79–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Yang J, Agterberg FP, Cheng Q (2015) A novel filtering technique for enhancing mineralization associated geochemical and geophysical anomalies. Comput Geosci 79:94–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Saudi Society for Geosciences 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nuraddeen Usman
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Khiruddin Abdullah
    • 1
  • Mohd Nawawi
    • 1
  1. 1.School of PhysicsUniversiti Sains MalaysiaPenangMalaysia
  2. 2.Umaru Musa Yar’adua UniversityKatsinaNigeria

Personalised recommendations