Sunteți pe pagina 1din 17

GEOPHYSICS. VOL. 42, NO. 5 (AUGUST 1977): P. 1020-1036. 15 FIGS.




Dipole-dipole induced-polarization measurcment5 support that theorq, if a modified definition of

are commonly presented as pseudosections. but re- effective depth is accepted. This lead5 to an abso-
sults using different dipole lenpths cannot be con- lute depth scale for the modified pseudosection.It is
bined into a single pseudosection.By considering the shown that rough estimate5 of the depth to the top
theoretical results for simple earth models, a unique of an anomalous body can be made directly on the
set of relative depth coefficients is empirically de- pseudosection, at true vertical scale.
rived, such that measurements with different array This definition of effective depth is applied to other
parameters will mesh smoothly into a combined electrode arrays. It is shown, b) examples, that the
pseudosection. Application of these coefficients to a resultins pseudosections give consistent estimates
number of theoretical and field casesshows that the) of depth to top. within the characteristic anomal)
give reasonable results when applied to more com- patterns of each array. The effective depths for
plicated models. various arrays are compared: the results agree with
The empirical coefficients are compared with Roys the traditional applications of each array.
theory of depth of investigation characteristic, and

INTRODUCTION qualitative picture of vertical changes in apparent

The polar dipole-dipole electrode configuration is resistivity
the most popular array for frequency-domain induced- For detail work, the measurementsmay be repeated
polarization (IP) measurements. The usual field using smaller or larger dipole lengths, yielding differ-
procedure is to make a series of measurementswith ent pseudosections.There is no accepted method for
a fixed dipole length n, the dipoles being separated combining measurements with different dipole
by a variable integral number of dipole lengths 110 lengths into a single pseudosection.
(Figure la). Since the larger n-values are associated The term pseudosection recognizes that the plot
with greater depths of investigation, the data can be is not to be viewed as assigning the data to these
arranged in a 2-D pseudosection plot which gives definite points in the vertical geologic section. The
a simultaneousdisplay of both horizontal and vertical pattern of apparent resistivities associated with a
variations in apparentresistivity (or percent frequency given subsurface structure is complex, and in most
effect, or metal factor). The conventional presen- cases does not correspond to the distribution of true
tation. introduced by Hallof (1957). places each resistivities. It is unlikely that any simple modifica-
measured value at the intersection of two 4%degree tion of the plotting procedure could produce a general
lines through the centers of the dipoles (Figure 2). improvement in this respect. for all
How- structures.
Each horizontal data line is then associated with a ever, the section is also pseudo that in the sense
specific value of 17and, by implication, with a given the plotting depths are not directly related to an)
effe,ctive depth of investigation. The result is a effective depth for the dipole-dipole array, and the

Manuscriptreceivedbqthe Editor Ma) 7. 1976:revisedmanuscriptreceivedOctoberI I, 1976

*U.N. DevelopmentProgram,Rangoon.Burma.
@ 1977Societyof ExplorationGeophysicists. All rightsreserved.


Downloaded 25 Jul 2012 to Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at
Pseudosection for Resistivity and IP 1021

the dipole-dipole array, as it is used in IP work. For

other arrays, such as the Wenner. the Schlumberger,
and the idcal polar dipole (II vcr) large). the in-
ternal geometry of the array is constant (or nearly so).
and the depth of penetration is varied by changing a
single parameter, which is esscntiall! the total length
L of the array. As the effective depth of investigation
is directly proportional to this parallicter, a vertical
scale in units of L (or of some spacing factor (1)
immediately produces a pseudoseciitrn with correct
relative depths. The apparent resi\livity space\ of
Habberjam and Jackson (1974) arc ,~n example fat
the square array.
For the dipole-dipole array, the internal geometry
is variable. For II = 1. it ii identical IO the Wenner-
P configuration (Carpenter. 1955). For large 12, it
approaches the true polar dipole gecltnctry. Although
fractional values of n < 1 are not noI nially used in IP
work, the geometry becomes identickll with the 2-pole
array as II approaches zero. Both parameters. (I and
n, are independently variable and must be involved
in determining the effective depth of investigation.
(The same considerations will apply IO the polc-dipole
array if II is varied. as is sometime\ done in timc-
* I. >
domain IP work.)
The IP exploration literature is rather vague regarcl-
ing the relative effects of changing II and a. It is USLI-
ally implied that there is no sinlple relationship
between the two parameters, and that quite different
apparent resistivities will be obxcrvcd if. say, a
large a, small II array is compared with a small (1.
large II array. A positive answer to qucztion (A) cannot
exist if this is the case. To have a sectional plot which
meshes overlapping results obtained with different
u-values, requires that a specific (dipole-dipole) re-
sult be associated with each definite point in the ap-
parent resistivity space, and that tbcre are different
equivalent combinations of n and t, which will give
(f) EOUATORIAL DIPOLE ( PLAN I that measured result. It is one object of this paper to
(n=l FOR SOUARE ARRAY 1 show that, within limits. this is true, and that only one

FIG. 1, Geometry of electrode arrays

vertical scale of the pseudosection therefore has no

precise meaning.
Two questions are considered here: (A) Is there a
set of relutive plotting depths, for various values of
n, which will aiiow &daczl
obtair=d -with different dipoles
lengths to mesh into a consistent sectional plot?
(B) If so, is there an absoluw vertical scale which
n=4 hd !d
will place anomalous features at approximately the
correct depth, in some recognizable way? FIG. 2. Conventional dipole-dipole pseudosection
It should be noted that question (A) is peculiar to plot.

Downloaded 25 Jul 2012 to Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at
1022 Edwards

effective depth parameter is involved in the dipole- true resistivity contrasts. Obviously this is not pos-
dipole array. sible; the question is whether it is possible within
Conversely, it will be shown that these special limits which provide acceptable accuracy for the
properties of the dipole-dipole array afford an oppor- pseudosectionpresentation.
tunity to test certain conceptsof the effective depth For any given earth model, the soundingcurve can
of investigation. be written,
Question (B), relating to absolute plotting depths,
can of course be asked about pseudosectionsfor any
Pn =f(p,, P2, ., x~,x~. ., n, a),
resistivity array. where the p, are the true resistivities, and the x,
define the model dimensions and the array location.
Assigning a value to p (,, setting n = 1, 2, 6,
and solving for u will yield the exact relative values
Each vertical line of data in a pseudosectionrepre- of the c,, of equation (I), for this model. (Selecting
sents an expansion of the array about a fixed center, pI, is equivalent to selecting a depth in the sounding.)
and constitutes a vertical sounding curve of the The various earth models can be considered as
form p,, =f(z,), where zP is the effective depth at perturbations from the case of a homogeneous earth
which each data point is plotted. The objective is to of uniform resistivity. It is not possible to solve
write directly for the c,, for this case, since the sounding
curve is simply pn = p, , and the c,, are indeterminate.
Zr = C,,a = Kc,,a, (1)
However, any nonhomogeneousmodel can be made
where the coefficients c,, are the appropriate relative to approach the homogeneous case through smaller
plotting depths for n = 1, 2, 6, which provide resistivity contrasts. If it can be shown that, for any
the answer to question (A); the constant K is the given model, the sets of c,~converge to a unique set
approprtate absolute scale factor which answers for a homogeneous earth, this set can be taken to
question (B). define the basic relative plotting depths for the
The essentialcondition on the coefficients c,, is that dipole-dipole array. For practical, nonhomogeneous
they place any specified P,, of the sounding curve at models, departuresfrom this basic set can be treated
a fixed depth zp, regardlessof the (n, a) combination as plotting errors.
used. For a perfect solution, a single set of coefficients Two simple earth models were selected as suitable
c,, should apply to all earth models, to all soundingsin for an empirical determination of the c,,: a sounding
the section, to all depths in each sounding, and to all over a two-horizontal-layer earth, and a sounding

0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 I Z./d+ 2 4 6 8 10

FIG. 3. Theoretical dipole-dipole two-layer resistivity soundings, plotted using the effective depths of column
(5), Table 1. Discrete data points show a typical set of overlapping expansions from n = 1 to 6, for each a.

Downloaded 25 Jul 2012 to Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at
Pseudossction for Resistivity and IP 1023

FIG. 4. Theoretical dipole soundingsexpanded parallel to an outcropping vertical resistivity boundary, plotted
as in Figure 3.

parallel to a vertical boundary, where the probes do cl, these variations reached a maximum of about
not crossthe contact (see insets, Figures 3 and 4.) For ?4 percent for k = 2 1.0; for cg < 22 percent, and
each model, p,, can be expressed as a function of for n 2 3 were negligible. To obtain a precise and
pt, n, d/a, and the resistivity contract k (Ludwig, objective set of coefficients, the soundings were
1967). If the single dimension d is regarded as a matched at the depth where the maximum gradient
scaling factor, we can write p,/pl =f(k, n, a), occurs, and converged to k = 0 through positive
A single determination of a coefficient set con- and negative values of k. This basic coefficient set
sisted of assigning values to pa/p, and k, and solv- is listed in column (l), Table 1.
ing for a, for n = 1 to 6. Since this procedure gives Determinations based on the vertical boundary
no information on the absolute scale constant K of model converged to the same basic coefficient set.
(I), these sets were arbitrarily normalized to cs = Column (2) in Table 1 lists these coefficients in
1.000 for comparison. terms of L , the distance between dipole centers, and
A large number of these determinationswere made shows the rapid approach to the ideal dipole-dipole
for the horizontal layer model. A small but systematic arrangement, with increasing n.
variation was seen among the determinations, related Rather than show the details of the empirical
to the k-values and the depth in the sounding. For derivation, it will be more useful to demonstrate the

Table 1. Empirically determined dipole-dipole depth coefficients, and comparison with two versiok of theoretical
effective depth. *

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

e, = r, /_ = 3 &x Cal. (1). +&d Cal. (I), Lmed

n normalized normalized
a L (I a L
to Cal. (3) to Cal. (5)

1 0.240 0.840 0.298 0.323 0.416 0.415 0.208

5 0.556
0.403 0.973
0.940 0.735
0.525 0.539
0.744 0.697
0.962 0.697
0.962 0.232
4 0.705 0.987 0.939 0.943 1.220 1.220 0.244

2 0.853
1.000 0.996
1.000 1.338
1.139 1.338
1.143 1.730
1.476 1.730
1.476 0.247

*Columns (1) and (2) are the empiricalvalues, with arbitrarynormalization.The valuesof Column(5) are accepted
for the absolutecoefficientsC, = z,/a and usedin the modifiedpseudosections.

Downloaded 25 Jul 2012 to Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at

FIG. 5. The data of Figure 3, plotted using the depth scale of the conventional pseudosection

maximum plotting errors which can be expected if Figure 4 shows similar sounding curves taken
dipole soundings, using different a-values, are com- parallel to an outcropping vertical contact. The re-
bined into a single sounding curve using the relative sults are even better for this case, with a maximum
effective depths defined by these coefficients. (Here possible vertical misplacement of <2 percent for
LP is taken = C,,a, using the coefficients of column certain n = 1 values.
(5), Table I; this is a different normalization, selected The improvement produced by these depth coeffi-
for reasons which will be discussedbelow.) cients is demonstratedby Figure 5, which shows the
Figure 3 shows vertical sounding curves over a data of Figure 3 plotted according to the depth scale
two-layer earth with a IO: I resistivity contrast. The of the conventional pseudosection. Vertical errors
data points represent six separate dipole expansions of up to 30 percent of d would be seen in a pseudo-
from n = I to n = 6, each using a different dipole section plot; alternatively, two data points plotted at
length a. The a are chosen to provide some overlap, the same depth could differ by 55 percent in p,,.
so that each n = 1 point falls between the n = 3 and Subsequent to the determination of these coeffi-
n = 4 points of the previous expansion. The solid cients, a rather similar set of coefficients appeared in
curves are for an ideal dipole array (n 2 20); the the literature. Coggon (1973) shows, in his Figure 17,
dotted curve is for an array with n = 1, and the dif- a set of two-layer dipole-dipole sounding curves,
ference between the two curves illustrates the max- plotted using an empirically derived effective
imum possible error for an n = 1 point in the plot. separation index S, where s = n + (n + 0.5/n +
The curve for n = 2 lies between these curves; for I .5). The values of s thus defined are in rough agree-
n r 3, the curves are indistinguishable from the ment with the c,, of column (I), Table I
ideal curve.
If these soundingswere presented in pseudosection
form, it would be possibleto have an apparentvertical TESTS USING OTHER EARTH MODELS
misplacement of up to 4 or 5 percent of the depth For practical application, it is necessary to deter-
to the boundary, for n = 1 readings at a couple of mine whether the basic coefficients can reasonably
points in the pseudosection. This would hardly be be used to plot theoretical pseudosectionsfor other
noticeable in a pseudosectionand would not cause models which depart considerably from a homogen-
any problems in contouring. For all other depths in eous earth.
the pseudosection,and all n 2 2, the errors would be Figure 6 shows two theoretical sounding curves
insignificant. These curves define the maximum on a traverse over an outcropping conductive dike
possible error; for larger values of k there is little with a IO: I resistivity contrast. Eight overlapping
change in the curves, and for smaller k the displace- expansionsare plotted, arrangedas in Figures 3 and 4,
ments for n = I would be much less. using the same effective depths. The arrays are ex-

Downloaded 25 Jul 2012 to Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at
2 , / /lljll I I Illll
0.04 0.06 0.1 02 0.4 06 08

FIG. 6. Theoretical dipole resistivity soundingsover an outcropping conductive dike, plotted as in Figure 3.

panded perpendicularly to the strike of the dike in the percentage change in a given sounding curve
both cases. when the resistivity contrast is changed. Metal factor
The plotting procedure works well, except at the (MF) is merely the absolute change in apparent
discontinuities which occur when the probes cross a conductivity for the same case. Since PFE and MF
contact. For the shallow and deep parts of the are both controlled by the apparentresistivity curves,
soundings, the curiies for all n are identical, demon- the same depth coefficients are valid for PFE and MF
strating the applicability of the basic coefficients. pseudosections.It can be shown that any vertical
The n = 1 curve (dotted) departs considerably from misplacements in PFE and MF pseudosectionswill
the ideal case at each discontinuity. If these sound- be less than or equal to those in the resistivity
ings were part of a pseudosection, it is evident that pseudosection.
sizable vertical misplacements could occur for n = 1 Since t is the only scaling factor involved in Figure
readings, in the neighborhood of the cusps on the 6, the curves are independent of the relationship
sounding curves. This difficulty is much exaggerated between dike thickness and dipole length. A single
in Figure 6, since the perfectly outcropping model theoretical pseudosection, plotted by this scheme,
is not geologically realistic, and the sharp cusps of would be the master section for any dike with IO: 1
these sounding curves are never met in the field. It resistivity contrast. Figure 7 illustrates the MF pseu-
can be concluded that the plotting procedure should dosection for this case. Ludwig (1967) presents dike
produce a consistent pseudosection over a real pseudosectionsfor eight values of t/u; if the proposed
vertical dike plot were used, the 321 cases of this catalog could
Percent frequency effects (PFE) are calculated as be reduced to about 40, showing only the effects of

Downloaded 25 Jul 2012 to Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at
1026 Edwards

FIG. 7. Theoretical dipole-dipole MF modified pseudosectionfor a conductive, polarizable outcropping dike.

Logarithmic contoursintervals. (a) and (b) are the same section to different scales;(a) is appropriateto thin
dikes, (b) to thick dikes. Data points with any (n, u) combination will match this section when plotted at
effective depths, except for some error for n = 1 values at high-gradient points.

various resistivity contrasts and PFE distributions. tribution is shown to arise from a layer at a definite
It will be seen that the familiar 45-degree lines depth, allowing a precise formulation of depth of
of the conventional pseudosection are flattened out investigation. Roy and Apparao defined this depth
to about 30 degrees in Figure 7, due to the absolute to be the depth of the maximum on the NDIC curve;
vertical scale used. On the other hand, these are true for a polar dipole array (n = 9), they give Cmax
- =
straight lines, which converge precisely to the edges 0.195 L = O.l95(n + 1)a.
of the dike, due to the correct relative plotting Among field geophysicists, a common rule of
depths. The vertical scale constant K could be in- thumb for non-outcroppingbodies is: if the maximum
creasedso the plot looked more like the familiar dike IP effects occur for n = 3 or 4, the depth to the
pseudosection; this has not been done, for reasons anomalous body is of the order of one dipole length
discussedin the next section. a;ifforn= Ior2,thedepthis<0,5a;ifforn=5
or 6, the depth is >n. This rule is not inconsistent
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE EMPIRICALLY DERIVED with Roy5 results, and this fact was the original
COEFFICIENTS stimulus for the present investigation.
Roy and Apparao ( 1971) introduced the concept of Following the procedure of Roy and Apparao, the
a depth of investigation characteristic (DIC) for NDIC for the general dipole-dipole array can be
resistivity arrays over a homogeneous earth. Rather written
than discussing subsurface distributions of current,
they examined the contribution of each elementary NDIC = n(n + l)(n + 2)(2z&/aZ)
volume of earth to the total signal (AV/Z) observed
{[n + 4(z/n)2]-32 -2[(n + 1)2 + 4(z/a)2]-3*
at the surface. Integrating this contribution over a thin
horizontal layer, and normalizing so that the total + [(n + 2)2 + 4(:/a)2]-32). (2)
signal equals unity, they constructed normalized
depth of investigation characteristic (NDIC) curves The maximum NDIC of equation (2) occurs at
for various arrays. In each case, the maximum con- depth zmaxrdefined by

Downloaded 25 Jul 2012 to Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at
Pseudosection for Resistivity and IP 1027

3u{2[(n + I) + u]-~ - [n + ~1~;~ P~/PI = 1 + ku [n(n + I)(n + 2)/21

- [(n + 2)2 + u]-} - {2[(n + I)2 + U]p* {[d + 4(ti/cr)]-2 -2 [(n + I)2 t 4@/a)2]-i

_ [n + U]-3/2 _ [(n + 2) + u]-2) = 0, (3) + [(n + 2)2 + 4(d/u)]~~}. (6)

where u = 4(~,,,/~)~. Solving numerically for The empirical procedure described above is equiva-
zmax/u yields the vjalues listed in column (3) of lent to replacing d/u by ~~,/a, and solving for sets
Table I, When these are compared to column (4), of (a, ~,/a) which give the same (arbitrary) value of
which is column (I) normalized to the same value p,/p,. Comparing with (5), wc see that for
for n = 6, it is seen that there is still a systematic ir = ;mrd = d, (6) reduces to p,,/p, = I + k/2,
discrepancy at the low-n values. independent of 12.Figure 4 confirms this; the curves
This zrnaais perhaps not the best choice for the for all II pass through the same point at z,/d = 1.
effective depth, The NDIC curves are not symmetrical For depths above or below this, the n = 1 curve
about the maximum, but are skewed toward greater diverges slightly, with opposite signs, giving an
depths. Intuitively, the median depth would seem average difference near zero.
preferable; that is, the effective depth could be defined The equation for the two-layer case (Figure 3) can
to be the depth at which exactly one-half the total be written
signal originatesfrom above and one-half from below.
Thus, defining zmcdas the solution of ~urI~,=l+n(n+l)(n+2) ~F,,GL (7)
o,= 1
ZmtrlNDIC = l/2, (4) where
I Z= 0

leads to the equation, F,, = [n + (2md/a)2]-:2

n(n + l)(n + 2) {[n + ,I-12 - 2[(n + I)2 + u]-li2 - 2[(n + I) + (2md/a)z]-2

+ [(n + 2)2 + u]-12) = I, (5) + [(n + 2) + (2md/u)]~.
where u = 4 (~,,~~/a)~. The numerical solutions of
(5) are listed in column (5), Table I. Column (6) Again, for ze = imed= d, (5) shows that the coefli-
shows the empirical coefficients normalized to cient of k is exactly unity. and (7) becomes
column (5); within the limits of accuracy of the
empirical determination, they are an exact match. p,/p,=l+k+n(n+l)(n+2) 2 F,,,k. (8)
This close agreement strongly suggests that the lli = 2

NDIC concept of Roy has physical validity and

practical application (particularly when the successful In this case, the various n-curves do not exactly
use of this plot on field data is considered). It also coincide at 2,/d = I, but are independent of n to a
suggests that Zmed1 as delined in (4), is the proper first approximation. The differences due to the re-
choice for the effective depth ir, thus defining the mainder of the summation average out over the range
constant K of (I) and the absolute vertical scale of of k-values.
the pseudosection. The coefficients of column (5),
therefore. have been chosenfor the Cl, of equation( i j
and used in plotting all figures in this paper.
Column (7), Table I, lists the coefficients CL in Relative plotting depths

terms of L instead of n. Calculation of zmrd for The modified plotting procedure has been applied
higher values of n shows that this coefficient ap- to some 50 case histories, both published and from
proaches z, = 0.250 L for the ideal dipole array, the authors files, where careful observations have
which is exactly one-half the plotting depth used in been made with two or more dipole lengths. In every
the conventional pseudosection. case examined, the data meshed smoothly into a
The median depth concept can be directly re- combined pseudosection.
lated to the equations of apparent resistivity for the Figure 8a shows metal factors measured over dis-
two models used in the empirical determination. The seminated sulfides in volcanics in Upper Burma.
vertical boundary equation (Figure 4) can be written The three sets of data for n = 1 to 6, using dipole

Downloaded 25 Jul 2012 to Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at
ZN IN _ 0 _ IS
0) , I I I I I Y I Y I

I 0
n=I TO 6 ; a
0Ido 300
2N IN _ 0 _ IS
or , I I I 1
Y Y I Y r

L = 1700 M ; 0 = 25,

FIG. 8. (a) Dipole-dipole MF pseudosectionfrom the Monywa porphyry copper area, Upper Burma. Data fro
depths ze (Table 2) and combined in a single section, with drill results to the same scale. (b) 2-pole array resu
depths from Table 2. Frequencies 0.3 I and 2.5 Hz in both figures. Logarithmic contours at 100, 140, 190, 250

Downloaded 25 Jul 2012 to Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at
Pseudosection for Resistivity and IP 1029


Downloaded 25 Jul 2012 to Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at
1030 Edwards

FIG. 10. Dipole-dipole modified pseudosectionsover a galena prospect in the Southern Shari State, Burma.
Frequencies 0.31 and 5.0 Hz.

lengths of 100 m, 50 m, and 25 m, are contoured gradients occur; nevertheless, there are no apparent
into one pseudosection without difficulty. The ef- contradictions among the three data sets shown.
fective depths range from 8.3 m to 173 m. In this Figure 1I is compiled from data in Hallof (1967).
case, the observations were not even made in the There is a bit of scatter in the data. compared to the
same field season; the shallower data were taken a other examples. because these MFs are calculated
year later than the 100-m data, over a resurveyedline. from very low PFEs (maximum PI+E = 3.5 percent),
Figure 9 showsapparentresistivity and MF pseudo- with a large probable error. In the discussionof the
sections over the Iso-Copperfields Magusi River ore separatepscudosectionsin the original. the statement
body, Quebec (Fountain, 1974). In the original re- is made concerning choice of dipole length and
port, there are three pseudosectionsfor a = 300 ft, separation:The problem is complex; it is not merely
a = 200 ft, and a = 100 ft, n = 1 to 4, separatelydis- a matter of the separationof the electrodes. Compare
cussed and interpreted. Figure 9 demonstrates that for instance the n = 3 measurementsfor u = 100 ft
this is unnecessary, since they can be viewed in a with the n = 1 measurementsfor tl = 300 ft. It is
single pseudosection. clear from Figure I I that there i\ no reason why
Figure 10 illustrates a case where remarkable these two lines of data should agree.
changes in apparent resistivity occur over short When this pseudosectionplot was being developed,
distancesin the pseudosection.The PFE anomaly was it was felt it would be mainly of acatlcmicinterest, and
located with 50 m dipoles at the end of a reconnais- that an exploration geophysicistfamiliar with the con-
sance line, and detailed with 40 m and 20 m dipoles ventional plots would not find it worthwhile to change
on a resurveyed line. The target is a galena prospect to a new plot. However. the author has a habit of
in meta-sedimentsin the SouthernShan State, Burma. compiling all detail IP work into a single section,
The wide range of resistivities is presumably due to because it provides an excellent check on the quality
the association of massive crystalline galena with of the data. To date, in the few cams where there has
wide quartz veins, silicified marbles. and clay zones been a seriousmismatch between nearby valueson the
typical of this area. It was pointed out, in connection plot, checking of the data has shown either an error in
with Figures 6 and 7, that there might be some field calculations or a bad orginal observation. In
difficulties with the n = 1 or n = 2 values in parts of one frequency-domain survey in Burma, noise prob-
a pseudosection where large apparent resistivity lems were so extreme, due to pre-monsoon thunder-

Downloaded 25 Jul 2012 to Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at
Pseudosection for Resistivity and IP 1031

FIG. II. Dipole-dipole MF combined pseudosection, Broken Hill Area, NSW, Australia. I)ata from Hallof

storm activity, that the readings were considered of chargeability, and plotted as pzcudosectiona. It
quite unreliable. However, a composite pseudo- should be noted that 13 a and b arc calculated for a
section of several data sets showed consistentvalues constant (I, variable n array. while 13 c and d were
and a weak but clear anomaly pattern. obtained with the three-electrode array (n = 1).
with variable ~1. Using the appropriate effectiv*c
Absolute depth scale depths from Table 2 makes the pseudosections
The final vertical scale of the modified pseudo- directly comparable.
section has been fixed by theoretical considerations. Figure Xb shows 2-pole results over the same
According to Figure 3, a single horizontal boundary section as the dipole-dipole results of Figure Xa. The
would be located in the area of maximum vertical effective depths are based on the actual positions ot
gradient in a resistivity pseudosection (compare the infinity electrodes, not on an ideal ?-pole array.
Figure 5). To determine whether this is a consistent It will be seen from Table 2 that the difference ix
feature for, other targets, IP results which included significant for the deepest reading\. Comparing the
some drillhole information were examined. Some 2-pole results with the dipole-dipole. there is some
examples are shown in Figure 12, replotted from loss of detail due to the weaker iresolutionof the
various published cases. -pole array. but the main features of the anomaly
The general conclusion is drawn that the top of a are remarkably similar and occur at 111e same effective
buried anomalous body lies just above the maximum depths.
IP anomaly, in the area of maximum vertical gradient Figure l4a and b shows some xcalc model apparent
where the contour lines are crowded together. This resistivity results for the square array, which gives
rule, of course, is neither precise nor infallible. The simple, straightfotward pseudosection patterns for
depth to the top of mineralization is the only con- these models. Use of the Schlumberger and Wennet
sistent feature of the pseudosections:the anomalies arrays is usually restricted to vertical \oundings over
are relatively insensitive to the depth extent of the horizontal layers, but Figure llc and d shows pseu-
body. dosections over a sphere, as calculated by Scurtu
(1972). In all four cases, the same general rule for
Application to other arrays
the location of the upper boundary of the anomalous
It is logical to extend the same concept of median body is applicable.
depth to other resistivity arrays, defining effective
depth of investigation by (4). Some results are listed COMPARISON OF ARRAYS
in Table 2. A number of authors have discu\scd the relative
Figure 13 illustrates application of the modified merits of various arrays in terms of depth penetra-
pseudosectionto the pole-dipole array. Figures 13 a, b tion. Most of these discussions have been charac-
aretheoretical MPpseudosections. Figure l3c and d terized by a rather arbitrary+definition of array length,
gives the only time-domain field data shown in this Roy and Apparao (I 97 I) make a sttmngcase for the
paper; the data points are reconstructedfrom profiles 2-pole array as much superior to all others, but they

Downloaded 25 Jul 2012 to Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at
1032 Edwards


( HALLOF, 1970) (d ) PINE POINT, CANADA c HALLOF, 1972)

rassriE&/xs . &OESITE
3::t a.200FT.n.I TOS
r.n.1 TO 4

69N 90 92 93 94 95N 10 s 6 2 4N
0 0 I




- a 2OD FT. *I TO 3



FIG. 12. Dipole-dipole metal factor pseudosectionsplotted by the modified method, with drill results to the
same scale D-ata from various pubiished~case hlstories.

Downloaded 25 Jul 2012 to Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at
Pseudosection for Resistivity and IP 1033

define the length of the 2-pole array to be the u- electrodes conveniently do not appear in array did-
parameter of Figure le. Both Roy ( 1972) and Dey et grams, these electrodes are as real, and as difficult to
all (I 975) define the length of the pole-dipole array lay in the field, as the other electrodes. Surely the
to be the distance BN = (n + 1)~ of Figure lb; and only logical basis for comparison is to take the array
the usual definition of length of a Schlumberger array length to be the total distance between the outer-
is the L/2 of Figure Id. Although the infinity most electrodes, that is, the L of Figure I.
Table 2 lists the effective depths for all these
Table 2. Effective depths for various arrays,
arrays, in terms of L, for realistic field arrays.
defining z p = z med[equation (4)].
Effective depths are of the same order of magnitude
Z,lU ZelL for the dipole-dipole, Schlumberger, and Wenner
arrays, ranging from about L/6 to L/4, with the
n = 0.222 0.139 0.063 higher-n dipole-dipole arrays at the deeper end of the
n = 0.5 0.253 0.101 range. The pole-dipole and 2-pole arrays have
ll= I 0.416 0.139
significantly less depth penetration, in terms of overall
0.697 0.174
3 0.962 0.192 array length. The 2-pole is, of course, simply a
4 1.220 0.203 dipole-dipole array with n << 1, and suffers from the
1.476 0.211
: 1.730 0.216 decreasing relative depths for the small-n dipole
7 i ,983 0.220 array.
R 2.236 0.224 The square array, being noncollinear, is perhaps
20 5.25 0.239
0~(ideal array) 0.250 not directly comparable, but has a greater effective
depth than any of the foregoing, if the same definition
0.519 0.173
of L is retained. This does have some useful mean-
Schlumberger ing; if the surface area available for array expansion
ideal, a + 0 0.192 is limited (topography, cultural obstructions), a
L=40a 7.66 0.192
L=20a 3.82 0.191 squareor equatorial dipole array will give the greatest
L= 10n 1.90 0.190 possible depths. Note that the effective depth for the
Gradient ideal equatorial dipole is exactly twice that for the
L=40a.x=20a 7.66 0.192 ideal Schlumberger, which agrees with the fact that
L = 40a; x = 15a 6.52 0.163 the two arrays give identical sounding curves over a
L=4ba,x= IOU 4.14 0.103
layered earth, when the respective parametersL and
Pole-dipole(ideal, A at ~0) L/2 are used (Alpin, 1966).
n = 1 (3-electrode) 0.519 -
These conclusions are illustrated in Figure 15
2 0.925 -
1.318 where a number of equivalent arrays with the same
1.706 effective depths are compared. An attempt has also
2.093 -
been made to compare the vertical resolution
capabilities, by showing the depth range from which
Pole-dipole(practical,m = 20) 50 percent of the total surface signal originates. The
n = 1 (3-electrode) 0.517 0.023
2 0.915 0.040 vertical resolution is of the same order of magnitude
3 1.293 0.054 for most of the arrays; the polar dipole-dipole array
4 1.658 0.066 has the best resolution, and the 2-pole array the worst.
2.013 0.077
2 2.359 0.087 Comparing the 2-pole and Schlumberger depths
(Table 2), the absolute effective depth of the 2-pole
2-pole ideal (A, N, at co) 0.867
L=40a,x=20a 0.777 0.019
array is nearly independentof L, that is, of the actual
L = 20a, x = 100 0.724 0.036 placement of the distant electrodes, but is almost
j: L= 10a,x=5a 0.627 0.063 directly proportional to a, the spacing between mea-
L=40a,x= IOU 0.758 0.019
surement electrodes; for the Schlumberger array, the
Equatorialdipole depth is directly proportional to 1,. and nearly in-
n = 1 (squarearray) 0.45 1 0.319 dependent of a. This accords with the normal field
0.809 0.362
z 1.180 0.373 practice of expanding the Schlumberger array by
4 1.556 0.377 increasing L, and choosing a to be any convenient
10 3.84 0.383
value which gives sufficient signal. The 2-pole
$IdentiFalarrays array is expanded by increasing a.

Downloaded 25 Jul 2012 to Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at


FIG. 13. Pole-dipole modified pseudosections,using effective depthsfrom Table 2. (c) and (cl) are time-domain
IP results. The metal factor of (c) is calculated as [chargeability (ms)/p, (ohm-m)] x 1000.

In fact, the results in Table 2 simply contirm that to compact shallow bodies, and almost complete lack
each array is well suited to its traditional applica- of vertical resolution.
tions. The dipole-dipole, Wenner, and Schlumberger
configurations are best for detailed prospecting and CONCLUDING REMARKS
horizontal-layer investigations, with large effective It is not claimed that this moditication leads to any
depths and good vertical resolution. For reconnais- substantial improvement in the accuracy of depth
sance prospecting of large areas, with minimum interpretations for IP anomalies. For a horizontally
electrode movement, the pole-dipole and 2-pole stratified earth, the interpretation of sounding curves
arrays are more suitable; when an extremely large L is more precise than any pseudosectionprocedure.
is used, a shallower (relative) effective depth is For other models, any pseudosectionplot will give
desirable, to achieve some response from the upper equally good results, if used with an extensive
earth. Naturally, the absolute vertical resolution is catalog of appropriate master sections. The modified
decreased when L is large. The gradient array has plot does have severalladvant~: (:t) it allows detail
an effective depth which is almost too large for this data, using different dipole lengths. to be assembled
purpose, resulting in the well-known small response into a combined section for interpretation; (b) an


FIG. 14. Apparent resistivity modifies pseudosectionsfor some other arrays. (a) and (b) are scale model results,
(c) and (d) are computer calculated.

Downloaded 25 Jul 2012 to Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at
Pseudosection for Resistivity and IP 1035

A I , 1,
B 0
0 IM I I IN,

, 4 f


I /
I ,
I 1


TO 40.5
0 1,
I I I 1

TO 8.7
I I 9 I I I I

(11 POLE-DIPOLE,m=X),n=6

&.---____ _--_-__&
TO 25.8 TO 25.8

I 0 1 ,
I I I I I I ,

(91 Z-POLE, L=40 a

i -+ i


x/z, -
3 * I 0 I 2 3 4
o.04 I I I I I I I
IO1 lb) (Cl (d.h) 10) (11 (0

FIG. 15. Electrode arrays which give the same (unit) effective depth for a homogeneousearth. The lower figure
shows the depth interval which contributes 50 percent of the total signal at surface, as a measure of vertical

Downloaded 25 Jul 2012 to Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at
1036 Edwards

approximate location for the top surface of the made by U Kyaw Shwe and U San Lwin, Department
anomalous body can be quickly identified, if the of Geology, Rangoon University of Arts and Science.
data cover a sufficient range of depths;(c) this surface I am indebted to Mr. F. A. Seward Jr., United
is located at true depth on the section, facilitating Nations technical advisor, for his cooperation and
compilation of drillhole data, geologic inferences, encouragementof this work.
and other geophysical data on the same section; and
(d) it provides a check on the accuracy of the obser-
vations, by way of consistency in the plot. REFERENCES
Alpin, L. M., 1966, The theory of dipole soundings, in
The empirically derived depth relationships, within Dipole methodsfor measuring earth conductivity: Transl.
the dipole-dipole geometry, support the depth of by G. V. Keller, New York, Consultants Bureau,
investigation characteristic proposed by Roy, al- p. l-60.
Carpenter, E. W., 1955. Some note\ concerning the
though the median DIC appearsto be a more suitable Wenner configuration: Geophys. Prosp., v. 3, p. 388-
measure of effective depth than the maximum DIC 402.
Coggon, .I. H., 1973, A comparison of IP electrode
used by Roy. Although Roy extended his calculations arrays: Geophysics, v. 38, p. 737-76 I.
in later papers (Roy, 1974) to show exact DIC curves Dev. A.. Mever. W. H., Morrison, H. F., and Dolan,
for layered-earth models, it appearsthat the DIC for a W. M., 1975, Electric held responseof two-dimensional
inhomogeneitiesto unipolar and bipolar electrodeconfigu-
homogeneous earth can be usefully applied to all rations: Geophysics. v. 40, p. 630-640.
practical cases. Fountain, D. K., 1974, Ground geophysical data over
massive sulphide deposit, Noranda area, Quebec,
Contrary to some statementsmade in the literature,
Canada: Toronto, McPhar Geophysics Ltd.
there seems to be no essential relation between the Habberjam, G. M., and Jackson, A. A., 1974, Approximate
dipole length, the size of the body to be detected, and rules for the composition of apparent resistivity sections:
Geophys. Prosp., v. 22, p. 393-420.
the observed results, which are basically determined Hallof, P. G., 1957, On the interpretation of resistivity
by the distanceL between dipole centers. The dipole and induced polarization measurements: Cambridge,
length can be selected by other considerations, such MIT, Ph.D. thesis.
__ 1967, An appraisal of the variable frequency IP
as the level of signal required, avoidance of EM method after twelve years of application: Toronto,
coupling, reduction of noise levels, and convenience McPhar Geophysics Ltd.
of survey locations. For easy interpretation, it would ~ 1970, The use of induced polarization measure-
ments to locate massive sulphide mineralization in
perhaps be best to use a single small dipole length, environments in which EM methods fail, in Mining and
and achieve greater depth with large n-values. It is groundwater geophysics/ 1967: Ottawa, Queens Printer,
customary to restrict n to the range I to 4, or I to 6, p. 302-309.
__ 1972, The induced polarization method: Toronto,
increasinga to get greater depths. This is not done to McPhar Geophysics Ltd.
match the dipole length to the dimensions of the Hallof, P. G., Schultz, R., and Bell, R. A., 1962, Induced
polarization and geological investigation of the Bally-
supposed target, but to provide a sufficiently large vergin copper deposit: SME Trans., v. 223, p. 312-318.
signal at the receiver, and also to avoid an unnecessary Hendrick, D. M., and Fountain, D. K., 1971, Induced
density of data with the usual field procedures. polarization as an exploration tool, Nomnda area, Quebec:
CIM Bull. Februarv.
Application of this definition of effective depth to Ludwig, C. S., 1967:Theoretical induced polarization and
other arrays does not lead to startling conclusions, resistivity responsefor the dual frequency system collin-
ear dipole-dipole array: Tucson, Heinrichs Geoexplora-
but confirms that each array is suited to its traditional tion Co. _
use. The square and equatorial dipole arrays might Roth, .I., 1975, Exploration of the southernextension of the
merit more considerationas a standardIP array. The Manitoba nickel belt: CIM Bull. September, p. 73-80.
Roeers. G. R.. 1966. An evaluation of the induced-
modified pseudosectionplot can also be applied to Fol&ization method in the search for disseminated
the Wenner, Schlumberger, and 2-pole arrays, with sulphides, in Mining geophysics, Vol. I: Tulsa, SEG,
comparable results, but the dipole-dipole and pole- p. 350-356.
Roy, A., 1972, Depth of investigation in Wenner, three-
dipole arrays allow simpler field procedures for 2-D electrode and diuole-dioole resistivitv methods:geophys
. _
profiling. Gradient array pseudosections would be Frosp., v. 20, p. 329-340. .
pointless, since virtually no change in effective depth
~ 1974, Resistivity signal partition in layered media:
Geophysics, v. 39, p. 190-204.
occurs when the receiver electrode separation is Roy, A., and Apparao, A., 1971, Depth of investigation
changed. in direct current methods:Geophysics, v. 36, p. 943-959.
Scurtu, E. F., 1972, Computer calculation of resistivity
pseudosections of a buried spherical conductor body:
geophys Proso.. v. 20. D. 605-625.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Seigel: H. O., 1971, Some comparative geophysical case
histories of base metal discoveries: Geoexplor., v. 9,
The field measurementsof Figures 8 and 10 were p. 81-97.

Downloaded 25 Jul 2012 to Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at