Archaeological Prospection

Archaeol. Prospect. 6, 179±186 (1999)

A Discussion on the Resolution of

Two-Dimensional Resistivity Modelling
N. COSKUN1* AND J. E. SZYMANSKI2
1
Geophysical Engineering Department, Karadeniz Technical University,
61080, Trabzon, Turkey
2Department of Electronics, University of York, Heslington, York YO1 5DD, UK

ABSTRACT Theoretical resistivity profiles corresponding to a subsurface resistivity structure probed via an
assortment of arrays have been calculated using the finite difference method. Some of the
assumptions implicit within the calculation are illustrated by examining the effects of the precise
relative positions of an electrode array and a buried feature. The responses for the Wenner,
pole–pole and dipole–dipole arrays were carried out by using the horizontal profiling technique.
Four different possible relative array–feature positions were modelled with the finite difference
method. Copyright * c 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Key words: geoelectric prospecting; two-dimensional modelling; numerical experiment.

Introduction purposes, corresponding to the transition in

Horizontal resistivity profiling is an important
technique for civil engineering and environ-
mental applications and mineral prospecting.
Investigated features have vertical or near-vertical
boundaries Ð faults, dykes, fissures, dipping
veins, or the sides of large three-dimensional
bodies. Hence, vertical models are well-
established as being important for the interpret-
ation of field resistivity data (Telford et al, 1990;
Chunduru et al, 1991). The resistivity method has
also been applied widely in non-invasive field
archaeology for the location, and potential ident-
ification, of buried remains and structures.
Although the scale of the structures involved on
archaeological sites is much smaller than those
being examined in large-scale geophysics, the
spacing of the electrodes is reduced correspond-
ingly and there are considerable similarities
between the approaches. In particular, vertical
boundaries are important for archaeological
*Correspondence to: N. Coskun, Geophysical Engineering
Department, Karadeniz Technical University, 61080, Trabzon,
Turkey.
materials at the boundary between human-made
foundations and the surrounding soil, or at the
sides of in-filled ditches or drainage systems
(Scollar et al, 1991). As with large-scale geo-
exploration, archaeological resistivity techniques
are rather sensitive to near-surface conductivity
variations (Telford et al, 1990), leading to con-
siderable data variations with changes in local
subsurface moisture content associated with
drainage, the water table and recent weather
conditions (Scollar et al, 1991).
There would be no prior knowledge of the
precise position of any feature relative to the
probe array on the ground. In the numerical
modelling the discretization of the target region
has to be determined; otherwise, the iterative
inversion algorithm shifts the place and changes
the size of feature.
Data interpretation and modelling
The quantitative interpretation of resistivity data
can be a difficult problem. A full mathematical

CCC 1075±2196/99/040179±08$17.50 Received 3 July 1998

Copyright # 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 17 June 1999
180
Figure 1. The finite difference mesh.
Figure 2. The enlargement of ABCD area shown in Figure 1.
inversion is computationally expensive, ill-
conditioned and noise-sensitive (Menke, 1984).
Basic interpretation is often carried out by com-
paring field results with anomalies calculated for
simple theoretical models Ð but most formal
theoretical approaches are applicable only to a
very limited range of structures and situations,
such as simple plane-layered models (Sharma,
1986; Telford et al, 1990), a perfect infinite dyke
(Chunduru et al, 1991; Telford et al, 1990; Van
Nostrand and Cook, 1966) or hemispherical sinks
and buried spheres (Van Nostrand and Cook,
1966). Analytical solutions have been given for
some vertical and inclined contacts for the
dipole±dipole array, in particular by Al'pin
Copyright # 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
N. Coskun and J. E. Szymanski
(1966). The effects of a range of structures are
shown in Kunetz (1966). More recently, a FOR-
TRAN program has been provided for computing
apparent resistivities over a perfect vertical dyke
of arbitrary thickness and with different media on
either side (Chunduru et al, 1991). Analogue tank
modelling studies have been carried out by
McPhar Geophysics Limited (1967 to 1970),
amongst others, and simple three-dimensional
bodies have been investigated using Wenner,
pole±pole and unipole arrays by Apparao and
Roy (1970). Most of these works have been
concerned with mineral exploration, but studies
more appropriate for archaeological situations
have been carried out by Bernabini et al (1987),
Archaeological Prospection, Vol. 6, 179±186 (1999)
Two-Dimensional Resistivity Modelling
Figure 3. Four different possible relative array–feature
positions (a–d), modelled with the FDM. In each case the
configuration unit is displaced by a further 1/4 of the dipole
length.
who calculated responses for resistive parallele-
piped bodies by using an integral approach for
the `classic' Wenner and Schlumberger arrays,
their focused versions, and the focused tri-
electrode, tetraelectrode, pentaelectrode arrays;
and by Spiegel et al, (1980), who have studied
resistivity anomalies corresponding to tunnels/
voids and have considered the effects of varia-
tions in surface terrain variations.
The limitations intrinsic to analytic models
include the facts that only simple, or highly
specific, structures can be considered, and that
resistivity values are assumed to be constant over
Copyright # 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
181
large regions. This lack of flexibility is deliberate,
and allows simple interpretations to be con-
structed from even highly noisy data, as the full
inverse problem is reduced to the estimation of a
small number of parameters (region resistivity
values and dimensions). In effect, the assumption
of a specific structural form is incorporating a
priori knowledge and hence applying consider-
able restrictions to the subspace of acceptable
inversions that are compatible with the experi-
mental data within the noise threshold. However,
even minor extensions can make a model result
invalid. For example, the recent treatment of
Chunduru et al, (1991) is inapplicable to any case
except an infinitely deep, outcropping, vertical
dyke. In that, the effect of an overburden layer is
not incorporated into the model.
A restricted modelling approach ensures that a
solution can be found, but it is far from
guaranteed that it is the `correct' interpretation:
the main problem is that expectations are being
encoded in a somewhat arbitrary fashion via the
original assumptions about the model structures.
Some assumptions are certainly necessary,
because the incorporation of prior knowledge is
the only consistent way to overcome the null-
subspace problem, as has already been recog-
nized in image reconstruction problems (Hanson,
1987), but the form of the assumptions can be far
less restrictive and the information can be
incorporated as prior local or global knowledge
within a regularised inversion algorithm. This
approach is used very commonly in image
restoration and tomographic applications, with
Bayesian methods simultaneously providing
both the least arbitrary and the most powerful
tools (Skilling and Gull, 1985, 1987; Aykroyd and
Green, 1991). A Bayesian approach using
covariance matrices to carry prior knowledge
about parameters and their constraints has been
applied to resistivity inversion by Pous et al,
(1987) and, although still not a general approach,
it clearly allows an increased flexibility in the
initial model.
Discrete numerical techniques, such as the
finite element method (FEM) and the finite
difference method (FDM), offer greater flexibility
for the study of the interaction between applied
currents at the boundary of a complex inhomo-
geneous medium. An adequately fine mesh can
Archaeological Prospection, Vol. 6, 179±186 (1999)
182 N. Coskun and J. E. Szymanski

Figure 4. Theoretical FDM Wenner anomalies over a resistive outcropping target. Illustrating the anomaly variations as the
relative array–feature positions are changed as indicated in Figure 3. x-axes are in arbitrary units.

overcome the model-dependent limitations
described above, at the cost of increased computa-
tional storage and time: the methods can cope
with mixed horizontal and vertical structures,
overburden effects, non-vertical structures and
isolated bodies, as well as gradual parameter
variations.
The finite difference method has been dis-
cussed in detail by Mufti (1976) and Dey and
Morrison (1979). For the purposes of this work
the algorithm of Dey and Morrison (1979) has
been used because of its flexibility and the sim-
plicity of its approximate formulation. A square
uniform mesh of 100 horizontal elements and 10
vertical elements was used and boundary con-
ditions were handled by the use of four further
non-uniform elements added at each side and
five elements to the bottom of the main area to
provide a termination strip. This sort of segmen-
tation copes very well with boundary conditions.
Detailed theoretical information is given in the
above works and is not repeated here.
In summary, the aims of the work reported
here are: to use the FDM to investigate the effect
on an anomaly of the precise relative array±target
crossing position; and to provide information
towards using the FDM within an iterative
inversion algorithm.

Copyright # 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Archaeological Prospection, Vol. 6, 179±186 (1999)
Two-Dimensional Resistivity Modelling 183

Figure 5. Theoretical FDM pole–pole anomalies over a resistive outcropping target. Illustrating the anomaly variations as
the relative array–feature positions are changed as indicated in Figure 3. x-axes are in arbitrary units.

Electrode arrays studied applied current, and G is the so-called geometric

An infinite number of four-probe (or more than
four probes) array configurations are possible for
the purpose of resistivity profiling: the most
commonly used arrays have been reviewed by
Ward (1990). Here, the dipole±dipole, pole±pole
and Wenner arrays have been studied over
various complex structures, but only an example
is given to show the effect of the precise relative
array±target crossing position on the calculated
apparent resistivity profiles.
For each set of probe positions, the resistivity
is usually calculated by r ˆ GDV/I, where DV
is the measured potential difference, I is the
constant of the electrode array (Sharma, 1986).
For a perfectly homogeneous conducting med-
ium the calculated value of the resistivity is
independent of the probe positions and spacing
but, in general, this is not the case and
measurements recorded will vary in a compli-
cated fashion with the relative positions of the
electrodes. Under these circumstances, the use of
the geometric constant becomes a position-
dependent approximation: the values of resistiv-
ities calculated under these circumstances
are referred to as apparent resistivities and
designated by ra : the SI unit of ra is the
ohm-metre.

Copyright # 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Archaeological Prospection, Vol. 6, 179±186 (1999)
184 N. Coskun and J. E. Szymanski

Figure 6. Theoretical FDM dipole–dipole anomalies over a resistive outcropping target. Illustrating the anomaly variations
as the relative array–feature positions are changed as indicated in Figure 3. x-axes are in arbitrary units.

Results and discussion
Theoretical apparent resistivity profile curves
resulting from a model have been computed for
three conventional collinear arrays with the FDM
approach. The FDM mesh used was of a
reasonably high resolution relative to the probe
spacing (108 divisions horizontally by 15 verti-
cally).
The grid intervals were at the following values
of z (z direction was vertical, increasing down-
wards): 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 8, 16, 64, 512.
The y direction was horizontal, and the grid
intervals were at the following values of y: 1000,
100, 20, 4, A . . . B, 4, 20, 100, 1000, where A . . . B
grid segment values are 1 for all 100 (Figures 1
and 2).
Two potential restrictions implicit in the FDM
arise from possible modelling inadequacies
associated either with the use of too coarse a
mesh or with the restrictions of only being able to
place the probes at boundary nodes of the FDM
mesh. The former problem has been addressed
above, and the importance of being able to
represent accurately the relative array±feature
positions are illustrated in Figure 3. Four different
relative probe-array±feature crossing positions
are possible with the resolution of the FDM
mesh used here (Figure 3): a rather coarser mesh
might force the assumption that all vertical

Copyright # 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Archaeological Prospection, Vol. 6, 179±186 (1999)
Two-Dimensional Resistivity Modelling
boundaries appear directly below a probe, for
example. Here, initially, anomaly responses were
calculated with the model placed in the middle of
the mesh, and then the probe array was moved
1/4, 1/2, 3/4 probe units to the right, allowing
four different array±feature crossing positions.
Figures 4±6 illustrate the responses of Wenner,
pole±pole, and dipole±dipole arrays, respect-
ively, to a single, near-surface, isolated resistive
outcropping feature (resistivity contrast 1:10) of
unit dimensions: the importance of the precise
relative positioning is immediately apparent. In
practice, there would be no prior knowledge of
the precise position of any feature relative to the
probe array. The variability of the calculated
anomalies shows that any modelling approach
will need to be fine and flexible if an accurate
iterative inversion of field data is desired.
The sensitivity of anomaly magnitude, shape
and breadth to the precise target depth and near-
surface/overburden resistivity characteristics, as
well as target size, shape and resistivity contrast,
will place a major restriction on iterative inver-
sion approaches, given the constraints imposed
by noise, measurement limitations and model-
dependent features introduced by the forward
modelling stage. The inherent ill-conditioning
will require the use of a priori information to
compensate for some of these difficulties and to
suppress the creation of large-scale artefacts by
the inversion process.
Conclusion
With a view towards the use of the FDM as a
forward model within an iterative inversion
algorithm, the sensitivity of the calculated
anomaly curves for a range of probe arrays has
been examined, with particular emphasis on the
model-dependent effects that could arise from
constraining either the horizontal or vertical
target boundaries to too coarse a mesh or to
specific positions. The results show that high
horizontal resolution is required because array
responses are highly dependent on the relative
array±target positions, and that a high vertical
resolution is also required (at least in the near-
surface region) because the anomaly magnitudes
and breadths are also highly dependent on the
Copyright # 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
185
target depth and the resistivity characteristics of
any overburden layer. In other words, the block
size of the finite difference mesh should be equal
to 1/4 (0.25 by 0.25 units) of the minimum
electrode spacing.
This information forms a sound basis for the
use of the approach within an iterative inversion
algorithm, although the application to field data
is likely to require, in addition, the use of a priori
information to assist in the regularisation of the
ill-conditioned iterative inverse problem.
References
Al'pin, L. M. (1966). The Theory of Dipole-dipole
Sounding. New York: Consultant Bureau Enterprises
Incorporated.
Apparao, A. and Roy, A. (1970). Resistivity model
experiments Ð 2. Geoexploration 9: 195±205.
Aykroyd, R. G. and Green, P. J. (1991). Global and local
priors, and the locations of lesions using gamma-ray
imagery. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society
of London, Series A 337: 323±342.
Bernabini, M., Brizzolari, E. and Mazzola, C. (1987).
Anomalies due to resistive parallelepiped .bodies in
resistivity profiles. Bolletino di Geofisica Teorica ed
Applicata XXIX 114: 133±146.
Chunduru, R. K., Nagendra, R. and Patangay, N. S.
(1991). RESDYK Ð a FORTRAN program for com-
puting apparent resistivity over an infinitely deep
outcropping vertical dike. Computers and Geosciences
17: 1395±1408.
Dey, A. and Morrison, H. F. (1979). Resistivity
modelling for arbitrarily shaped two-dimensional
structures. Geophysical Prospecting 27: 106±136.
Hanson, K. M. (1987). Bayesian and related methods in
image reconstruction from incomplete data. In Stark,
H. (editor), Image Recovery: Theory and Applications
(New York: Academic Press). 79±125.
Kunetz, G. (1966). Principles of Direct Current Resistivity
Prospecting. Berlin: Gebruder Borntraeger.
Menke, W. (1984). Geophysical Data Analysis: Discrete
Inverse Theory. London: Academic Press.
Mufti, I. R. (1976). Finite-difference resistivity model-
ling for arbitrarily shaped two-dimensional struc-
tures. Geophysics 41: 62±78.
Pous, J., Marcuello, A. and Queralt, P. (1987). Resis-
tivity inversion with a priori information. Geophysical
Prospecting 35: 590±603.
Scollar, I., Tabbagh, A., Hesse, A. and Herzog, I.
(1991). Archaeological Prospecting and Remote Sen-
sing Ð Topics in Remote Sensing, Vol. 2. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Sharma, P. V. (1986). Geophysical Methods in Geology,
2nd edn. New York: Elsevier.
Archaeological Prospection, Vol. 6, 179±186 (1999)
186
Skilling, J. and Gull, S. F. (1985). Algorithms and
applications: maximum entropy and Bayesian
methods in inverse problems. In Smith, C. R. and
Grandy, W. T. (editors), Proceedings of the First and
Second International Workshops on Maximum Entropy
and Bayesian Methods in Applied Statistics, University
of Wyoming, 8±10 June 1985 (Reidel). 83±132.
Skilling, J. and Gull, S. F. (1987). Prior knowledge must
be used: maximum entropy and Bayesian methods
in inverse problems. In Smith, C. R. and Grandy,
W. T. (editors), Proceedings of the Third International
Workshops on Maximum Entropy and Bayesian
Methods in Applied Statistics, University of Wyoming,
1±4 August 1987 (Reidel). 162±172.
Copyright # 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
N. Coskun and J. E. Szymanski
Spiegel, R. J., Sturdivant, V. R. and Owen, T. E. (1980).
Modelling resistivity anomalies from localized voids
under irregular terrain. Geophysics 45: 1164±1183.
Telford, W. M., Geldart, L. P. and Sheriff, R. E. (1990).
Applied Geophysics, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Van Nostrand, R. G. and Cook, K. L. (1966). Inter-
pretation of resistivity data. United States Geological
Survey Professional Paper 499, 310 p.
Ward, S. H. (1990). Resistivity and induced polaris-
ation methods. Geotechnical and environmental
geophysics. SEG (Society of Exploration Geophysics),
Investigations in Geophysics 5: 147±189.
Archaeological Prospection, Vol. 6, 179±186 (1999)