We’re more than halfway through this eight-part series! Hopefully you’ve had a chance to pick up some of our recommendations so far (links below). If you’re just joining this series, we’ve been recommending some further reading for those of you who want to learn more about resistivity, induced polarization, and more. Again, this series isn’t comprehensive—but we think these publications will point you in the right direction.
In case you missed them, here are the previous suggestions in this series:
Alright, time for some new recommendations:
Menke, W., 1989, Geophysical data analysis: Discrete inverse theory, Academic Press.
This book contains material on geophysical & acoustic tomography. It also takes a detailed look at the application of inverse theory to tectonic, gravitational and geomagnetic studies.
P. H. Nelson and G. D. Van Voorhis (1973). Complex resistivity spectra of porphyry copper mineralization [letter]. Geophysics, 38(5), 984-984
Our equations (14), (15), and (16), for the time-domain voltage response of IP, have recently been found to be in error. Rather than giving corrections to the original equations, we offer the more compact versions
Sasaki, Y., 1992, Resolution of resistivity tomography inferred from numerical simulation, Geophysical Prospecting, 40, 453-464.
Some factors affecting the resolution and accuracy of resistivity tomography are examined using numerical simulation. The inversion method used is based on smoothness‐constrained least‐squares and finite‐element methods. An appropriate block discretization is obtained by dividing the target region into square blocks of size equal to half the minimum electrode spacing. While the effect of the damping factor on the resolution is significant, the resolution is not very sensitive to Gaussian noise as long as the damping factor is properly chosen, according to the noise level. The issue of choosing an optimum electrode array should be considered at the planning stage of a survey.
When the instrumental accuracy is high, the dipole‐dipole array is more suitable for resolving complex structures than the pole‐pole array. The pole‐dipole array gives somewhat less resolution than the dipole‐dipole array but yields greater signal strength; thus, the pole‐dipole array may be a good compromise between resolution and signal strength. The effect of an inhomogeneity located outside the target region may be very small if block discretization is done so as to represent the resistivity variations in both the target and outside regions.