Sensitivity of electrical resistivity tomography data to electrode position errors

Abstract

S U M M A R YLimitations of imaging using electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) arise because of the difficulty of quantifying the reliability of tomographic images. A major source of uncertainty in tomographic inversion is data error. Data error due to electrode mislocations is characterized by the sensitivity of electrical potential to both source and receiver positions. This sensitivity is described by a scattering-type equation and, therefore, depends not only on source-receiver separation, but also on the location and magnitude of contrasts in electrical conductivity. At the overlapping scales of near-surface environmental and engineering geophysical surveys, for which electrodes may be close to the target and experiment dimensions may be on the same order as those of the target, errors associated with electrode mislocations can significantly contaminate the ERT data and the reconstructed electrical conductivity. For synthetic experiments, variations in the data due to electrode mislocation are comparable in magnitude to typical experimental noise levels and, in some cases, may overwhelm variations in the data due to changes in material properties. Furthermore, the statistical distribution of electrode mislocation errors can be complicated and multimodal such that bias may be introduced into the ERT data. The resulting perturbations of the reconstructed electrical conductivity field due to electrode mislocations can be significant in magnitude with complex spatial distributions that are dependent both on the model and the experiment.

Numerical Simulation of Capacitively Coupled Resistivity Imaging Measurements on Rock Samples

“…The model error is orders of magnitude smaller than the measurement error (about 0.001 % and 5 %, respectively), although the measurement error is so far only based on a repetition of the experiment, not on reciprocal measurements. Nor has a misplacement error of the electrodes been considered, which can be of the order of the measurement error (Oldenborger et al 2005). Still, this comparison shows that the measured and modelled data follow the same trend, suggesting that numerical simulation is a viable tool for understanding the experimental data in greater detail.…”

A geophysical analysis of hydro-geomorphic controls within a headwater wetland in a granitic landscape, through ERI and IP

“…Given that there are a variety of sources of uncertainty in ERI such as the evenness of electrode spacing (e.g. Oldenborger et al, 2005), not accounting for variations in moisture of the substrate, or even the misappropriation of the correct resitivity range for the geological area in question, highlights the importance of ground truthing of ones geophysical data as far as is possible. Despite these sources of uncertainty Baines et al(2002) and Loke (1999) advocate the use of qualitative ground truthing to verify geophysical interpretations, and the verification approaches used in this study were highly valuable in this respect.…”

Issues During the Inversion of Crosshole Radar Data: Can We Have Confidence in the Outcome?

“…This Xpattern is common in straight ray inversions. The forward model, G, maps the errors in the model onto the data (Oldenborger et al, 2005). The straight ray forward model smears the errors along the diagonal straight-ray paths resulting in the X-pattern.…”