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

, 2 TABLES

A MODIFIED PSEUDOSECTION FOR RESISTIVITY AND IP

L. S. EDWARDS*

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

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

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.

1020

Downloaded 25 Jul 2012 to 132.248.54.171. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://segdl.org/
 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 132.248.54.171. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://segdl.org/
1022
effective depth parameter is involved in the dipole-
dipole array.
Conversely, it will be shown that these special
properties of the dipole-dipole array afford an oppor-
tunity to test certain conceptsof the effective depth
of investigation.
Question (B), relating to absolute plotting depths,
can of course be asked about pseudosectionsfor any
resistivity array.
EMPIRICAL DETERMINATION OF RELATIVE
PLOTTING DEPTHS
Each vertical line of data in a pseudosectionrepre-
sents an expansion of the array about a fixed center,
and constitutes a vertical sounding curve of the
form p,, =f(z,), where zP is the effective depth at
which each data point is plotted. The objective is to
write
Zr = C,,a = Kc,,a,
where the coefficients c,, are the appropriate relative
plotting depths for n = 1, 2, 6, which provide
the answer to question (A); the constant K is the
approprtate absolute scale factor which answers
question (B).
The essentialcondition on the coefficients c,, is that
they place any specified P,, of the sounding curve at
a fixed depth zp, regardlessof the (n, a) combination
used. For a perfect solution, a single set of coefficients
c,, should apply to all earth models, to all soundingsin
the section, to all depths in each sounding, and to all
0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6
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 132.248.54.171. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://segdl.org/
Edwards
true resistivity contrasts. Obviously this is not pos-
sible; the question is whether it is possible within
limits which provide acceptable accuracy for the
pseudosectionpresentation.
For any given earth model, the soundingcurve can
be written,
Pn =f(p,, P2, ., x~,x~. ., n, a),
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
of the c,, of equation (I), for this model. (Selecting
pI, is equivalent to selecting a depth in the sounding.)
The various earth models can be considered as
perturbations from the case of a homogeneous earth
of uniform resistivity. It is not possible to solve
directly for the c,, for this case, since the sounding
curve is simply pn = p, , and the c,, are indeterminate.
(1)
However, any nonhomogeneousmodel can be made
to approach the homogeneous case through smaller
resistivity contrasts. If it can be shown that, for any
given model, the sets of c,~converge to a unique set
for a homogeneous earth, this set can be taken to
define the basic relative plotting depths for the
dipole-dipole array. For practical, nonhomogeneous
models, departuresfrom this basic set can be treated
as plotting errors.
Two simple earth models were selected as suitable
for an empirical determination of the c,,: a sounding
over a two-horizontal-layer earth, and a sounding
0.8 I Z./d+ 2 4 6 8 10
 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
not crossthe contact (see insets, Figures 3 and 4.) For
each model, p,, can be expressed as a function of
pt, n, d/a, and the resistivity contract k (Ludwig,
1967). If the single dimension d is regarded as a
scaling factor, we can write p,/pl =f(k, n, a),
A single determination of a coefficient set con-
sisted of assigning values to pa/p, and k, and solv-
ing for a, for n = 1 to 6. Since this procedure gives
no information on the absolute scale constant K of
(I), these sets were arbitrarily normalized to cs =
1.000 for comparison.
A large number of these determinationswere made
for the horizontal layer model. A small but systematic
variation was seen among the determinations, related
to the k-values and the depth in the sounding. For
cl, these variations reached a maximum of about
?4 percent for k = 2 1.0; for cg < 22 percent, and
for n 2 3 were negligible. To obtain a precise and
objective set of coefficients, the soundings were
matched at the depth where the maximum gradient
occurs, and converged to k = 0 through positive
and negative values of k. This basic coefficient set
is listed in column (l), Table 1.
Determinations based on the vertical boundary
model converged to the same basic coefficient set.
Column (2) in Table 1 lists these coefficients in
terms of L , the distance between dipole centers, and
shows the rapid approach to the ideal dipole-dipole
arrangement, with increasing n.
Rather than show the details of the empirical
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
0.240
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
0.246

*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 132.248.54.171. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://segdl.org/
1024

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 132.248.54.171. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://segdl.org/
 2 , / /lljll
0.04 0.06 0.1
FIG. 6. Theoretical dipole resistivity soundingsover an outcropping conductive dike, plotted as in Figure 3.
panded perpendicularly to the strike of the dike in
both cases.
The plotting procedure works well, except at the
discontinuities which occur when the probes cross a
contact. For the shallow and deep parts of the
soundings, the curiies for all n are identical, demon-
strating the applicability of the basic coefficients.
The n = 1 curve (dotted) departs considerably from
the ideal case at each discontinuity. If these sound-
ings were part of a pseudosection, it is evident that
sizable vertical misplacements could occur for n = 1
readings, in the neighborhood of the cusps on the
sounding curves. This difficulty is much exaggerated
in Figure 6, since the perfectly outcropping model
is not geologically realistic, and the sharp cusps of
these sounding curves are never met in the field. It
can be concluded that the plotting procedure should
produce a consistent pseudosection over a real
vertical dike
Percent frequency effects (PFE) are calculated as
Downloaded 25 Jul 2012 to 132.248.54.171. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://segdl.org/
I I Illll
02 0.4 06 08
the percentage change in a given sounding curve
when the resistivity contrast is changed. Metal factor
(MF) is merely the absolute change in apparent
conductivity for the same case. Since PFE and MF
are both controlled by the apparentresistivity curves,
the same depth coefficients are valid for PFE and MF
pseudosections.It can be shown that any vertical
misplacements in PFE and MF pseudosectionswill
be less than or equal to those in the resistivity
pseudosection.
Since t is the only scaling factor involved in Figure
6, the curves are independent of the relationship
between dike thickness and dipole length. A single
theoretical pseudosection, plotted by this scheme,
would be the master section for any dike with IO: 1
resistivity contrast. Figure 7 illustrates the MF pseu-
dosection for this case. Ludwig (1967) presents dike
pseudosectionsfor eight values of t/u; if the proposed
plot were used, the 321 cases of this catalog could
be reduced to about 40, showing only the effects of
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.
It will be seen that the familiar 45-degree lines
of the conventional pseudosection are flattened out
to about 30 degrees in Figure 7, due to the absolute
vertical scale used. On the other hand, these are true
straight lines, which converge precisely to the edges
of the dike, due to the correct relative plotting
depths. The vertical scale constant K could be in-
creasedso the plot looked more like the familiar dike
pseudosection; this has not been done, for reasons
discussedin the next section.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE EMPIRICALLY DERIVED
COEFFICIENTS
Roy and Apparao ( 1971) introduced the concept of
a depth of investigation characteristic (DIC) for
resistivity arrays over a homogeneous earth. Rather
than discussing subsurface distributions of current,
they examined the contribution of each elementary
volume of earth to the total signal (AV/Z) observed
at the surface. Integrating this contribution over a thin
horizontal layer, and normalizing so that the total
signal equals unity, they constructed normalized
depth of investigation characteristic (NDIC) curves
for various arrays. In each case, the maximum con-
tribution is shown to arise from a layer at a definite
depth, allowing a precise formulation of depth of
investigation. Roy and Apparao defined this depth
to be the depth of the maximum on the NDIC curve;
for a polar dipole array (n = 9), they give Cmax
- =
0.195 L = O.l95(n + 1)a.
Among field geophysicists, a common rule of
thumb for non-outcroppingbodies is: if the maximum
IP effects occur for n = 3 or 4, the depth to the
anomalous body is of the order of one dipole length
a;ifforn= Ior2,thedepthis<0,5a;ifforn=5
or 6, the depth is >n. This rule is not inconsistent
with Roy5 results, and this fact was the original
stimulus for the present investigation.
Following the procedure of Roy and Apparao, the
NDIC for the general dipole-dipole array can be
written
NDIC = n(n + l)(n + 2)(2z&/aZ)
{[n + 4(z/n)2]-32 -2[(n + 1)2 + 4(z/a)2]-3*
+ [(n + 2)2 + 4(:/a)2]-32). (2)
The maximum NDIC of equation (2) occurs at
depth zmaxrdefined by

Downloaded 25 Jul 2012 to 132.248.54.171. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://segdl.org/
 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
zmax/u yields the vjalues listed in column (3) of
Table I, When these are compared to column (4),
which is column (I) normalized to the same value
for n = 6, it is seen that there is still a systematic
discrepancy at the low-n values.
This zrnaais perhaps not the best choice for the
effective depth, The NDIC curves are not symmetrical
about the maximum, but are skewed toward greater
depths. Intuitively, the median depth would seem
preferable; that is, the effective depth could be defined
to be the depth at which exactly one-half the total
signal originatesfrom above and one-half from below.
Thus, defining zmcdas the solution of
ZmtrlNDIC = l/2,
I Z= 0
The empirical procedure described above is equiva-
lent to replacing d/u by ~~,/a, and solving for sets
of (a, ~,/a) which give the same (arbitrary) value of
p,/p,. Comparing with (5), wc see that for
ir = ;mrd = d, (6) reduces to p,,/p, = I + k/2,
independent of 12.Figure 4 confirms this; the curves
for all II pass through the same point at z,/d = 1.
For depths above or below this, the n = 1 curve
diverges slightly, with opposite signs, giving an
average difference near zero.
The equation for the two-layer case (Figure 3) can
be written
~urI~,=l+n(n+l)(n+2) ~F,,GL (7)
o,= 1
(4) where

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
use of this plot on field data is considered). It also
suggests that Zmed1 as delined in (4), is the proper
choice for the effective depth ir, thus defining the
constant K of (I) and the absolute vertical scale of
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
In this case, the various n-curves do not exactly
coincide at 2,/d = I, but are independent of n to a
first approximation. The differences due to the re-
mainder of the summation average out over the range
of k-values.
Relative plotting depths

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

Downloaded 25 Jul 2012 to 132.248.54.171. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://segdl.org/
 ZN IN _ 0 _ IS
0) , I I I I I Y I Y I

I 0
-t I Y METERS
n=I TO 6 ; a
FEET
0Ido 300
HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL SCALE !a) DIPOLE-DIPOLE MF
2N IN _ 0 _ IS
or , I I I 1
Y Y I Y r
-OVER

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 132.248.54.171. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://segdl.org/
 Pseudosection for Resistivity and IP 1029

.
P

Downloaded 25 Jul 2012 to 132.248.54.171. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://segdl.org/
1030
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
into one pseudosection without difficulty. The ef-
fective depths range from 8.3 m to 173 m. In this
case, the observations were not even made in the
same field season; the shallower data were taken a
year later than the 100-m data, over a resurveyedline.
Figure 9 showsapparentresistivity and MF pseudo-
sections over the Iso-Copperfields Magusi River ore
body, Quebec (Fountain, 1974). In the original re-
port, there are three pseudosectionsfor a = 300 ft,
a = 200 ft, and a = 100 ft, n = 1 to 4, separatelydis-
cussed and interpreted. Figure 9 demonstrates that
this is unnecessary, since they can be viewed in a
single pseudosection.
Figure 10 illustrates a case where remarkable
changes in apparent resistivity occur over short
distancesin the pseudosection.The PFE anomaly was
located with 50 m dipoles at the end of a reconnais-
sance line, and detailed with 40 m and 20 m dipoles
on a resurveyed line. The target is a galena prospect
in meta-sedimentsin the SouthernShan State, Burma.
The wide range of resistivities is presumably due to
the association of massive crystalline galena with
wide quartz veins, silicified marbles. and clay zones
typical of this area. It was pointed out, in connection
with Figures 6 and 7, that there might be some
difficulties with the n = 1 or n = 2 values in parts of
a pseudosection where large apparent resistivity
Downloaded 25 Jul 2012 to 132.248.54.171. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://segdl.org/
Edwards
gradients occur; nevertheless, there are no apparent
contradictions among the three data sets shown.
Figure 1I is compiled from data in Hallof (1967).
There is a bit of scatter in the data. compared to the
other examples. because these MFs are calculated
from very low PFEs (maximum PI+E = 3.5 percent),
with a large probable error. In the discussionof the
separatepscudosectionsin the original. the statement
is made concerning choice of dipole length and
separation:The problem is complex; it is not merely
a matter of the separationof the electrodes. Compare
for instance the n = 3 measurementsfor u = 100 ft
with the n = 1 measurementsfor tl = 300 ft. It is
clear from Figure I I that there i\ no reason why
these two lines of data should agree.
When this pseudosectionplot was being developed,
it was felt it would be mainly of acatlcmicinterest, and
that an exploration geophysicistfamiliar with the con-
ventional plots would not find it worthwhile to change
to a new plot. However. the author has a habit of
compiling all detail IP work into a single section,
because it provides an excellent check on the quality
of the data. To date, in the few cams where there has
been a seriousmismatch between nearby valueson the
plot, checking of the data has shown either an error in
field calculations or a bad orginal observation. In
one frequency-domain survey in Burma, noise prob-
lems were so extreme, due to pre-monsoon thunder-
 Pseudosection
FIG. II. Dipole-dipole MF combined pseudosection, Broken Hill Area, NSW, Australia. I)ata from Hallof
(1967).
storm activity, that the readings were considered
quite unreliable. However, a composite pseudo-
section of several data sets showed consistentvalues
and a weak but clear anomaly pattern.
Absolute depth scale
The final vertical scale of the modified pseudo-
section has been fixed by theoretical considerations.
According to Figure 3, a single horizontal boundary
would be located in the area of maximum vertical
gradient in a resistivity pseudosection (compare
Figure 5). To determine whether this is a consistent
feature for, other targets, IP results which included
some drillhole information were examined. Some
examples are shown in Figure 12, replotted from
various published cases.
The general conclusion is drawn that the top of a
buried anomalous body lies just above the maximum
IP anomaly, in the area of maximum vertical gradient
where the contour lines are crowded together. This
rule, of course, is neither precise nor infallible. The
depth to the top of mineralization is the only con-
sistent feature of the pseudosections:the anomalies
are relatively insensitive to the depth extent of the
body.
Application to other arrays
It is logical to extend the same concept of median
depth to other resistivity arrays, defining effective
depth of investigation by (4). Some results are listed
in Table 2.
Figure 13 illustrates application of the modified
pseudosectionto the pole-dipole array. Figures 13 a, b
aretheoretical MPpseudosections. Figure l3c and d
gives the only time-domain field data shown in this
paper; the data points are reconstructedfrom profiles
Downloaded 25 Jul 2012 to 132.248.54.171. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://segdl.org/
for Resistivity and IP 1031
of chargeability, and plotted as pzcudosectiona. It
should be noted that 13 a and b arc calculated for a
constant (I, variable n array. while 13 c and d were
obtained with the three-electrode array (n = 1).
with variable ~1. Using the appropriate effectiv*c
depths from Table 2 makes the pseudosections
directly comparable.
Figure Xb shows 2-pole results over the same
section as the dipole-dipole results of Figure Xa. The
effective depths are based on the actual positions ot
the infinity electrodes, not on an ideal ?-pole array.
It will be seen from Table 2 that the difference ix
significant for the deepest reading\. Comparing the
2-pole results with the dipole-dipole. there is some
loss of detail due to the weaker iresolutionof the
-pole array. but the main features of the anomaly
are remarkably similar and occur at 111e same effective
depths.
Figure l4a and b shows some xcalc model apparent
resistivity results for the square array, which gives
simple, straightfotward pseudosection patterns for
these models. Use of the Schlumberger and Wennet
arrays is usually restricted to vertical \oundings over
horizontal layers, but Figure llc and d shows pseu-
dosections over a sphere, as calculated by Scurtu
(1972). In all four cases, the same general rule for
the location of the upper boundary of the anomalous
body is applicable.
COMPARISON OF ARRAYS
A number of authors have discu\scd the relative
merits of various arrays in terms of depth penetra-
tion. Most of these discussions have been charac-
terized by a rather arbitrary+definition of array length,
Roy and Apparao (I 97 I) make a sttmngcase for the
2-pole array as much superior to all others, but they
1032 Edwards

2
(a) VERTICAL DYKE (CALCULATED I - I &GIN , 1973 ) (b) HoRlZONTAL SLA6 (MODELLED) c ALLOF. ,972)

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

rassriE&/xs . &OESITE
3::t a.200FT.n.I TOS
r.n.1 TO 4
V///l
(6) TIMMIN
9, ONTARIO ( HALLOF, 1970) ( t) LINDEN, WISCONSIN ( HALLOF, 1970 I

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

100

FT
200
1
L
(g ) NEWCASTLE, NEW SRUNSWICI? I HALLOF. 1970) (h 1 LINDEN. WISCONSIN ( HALLOF. 1967 I

( I) BACHELOR LIKE. GUEBEC~HENORlCK.FOUNTAIN, 1971) (j ) ARIZONA ( ROGERS. ,966)

- a 2OD FT. *I TO 3

( HALLOF. 19671 ( 1) YUTOORO, S. AUSTRALIA I HALLOF. 1970)

(m) BALLYVEROIN CU. IRELAND (HALLOF,SCHULTZ.BELL.1962) (n) MANITOBA NlCKiL BELT I ROTH. 1976 I

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 132.248.54.171. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://segdl.org/
 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
Dipole-dipole
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 -
2.478
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
0.384
value which gives sufficient signal. The 2-pole
$IdentiFalarrays array is expanded by increasing a.

Downloaded 25 Jul 2012 to 132.248.54.171. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://segdl.org/
 (a) CONDUCTIVE DYKE (CALC.) c COOOON. 1973, lb) CONDUCTIVE HORIZONTAL SLAB t COGGON , ,973 I

(cl ALWIN DEPOSIT, B.C. I SEIGEL.ISTI, (d) LORNEX PORPHYRY C0PPER.B.C. f SEIOEL, ,971,

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

(Cl CONDCTlE SPHERE. SCHWYBFWER , SCURT, 19721 Id, CONDCTlYE OPIIERE. WENNER i SCURT. lP72i

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 132.248.54.171. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://segdl.org/
 Pseudosection for Resistivity and IP 1035

A I , 1,
B 0
1
0 IM I I IN,
(01 DIPOLE-DIPOLE, n=I

0
, 4 f
I I I I I
A B M N

(b) DIPOLE- DIPOLE, n=6

I /
I
A
I ,
M
I
N
I 1
B
1

(d) SCHLUMBERGER l GRADIENT), L =20 D

+A----_----
TO 40.5
0 1,
I I I 1
I
B M N
(al POLE-DIPOLE.m=20, =I l3-ELECTRODE1

&_--__-__
TO 8.7
lI
I I 9 I I I I
B
I M N

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

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

I 0 1 ,
I I I I I I ,
I
B M

(91 Z-POLE, L=40 a

i -+ i
PI M

(h) EPUATORIAL DIPOLE, n=lO (PLAN1

x/z, -
3 * I 0 I 2 3 4
o.04 I I I I I I I
I
IO1 lb) (Cl (d.h) 10) (11 (0
7

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
resolution.

Downloaded 25 Jul 2012 to 132.248.54.171. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://segdl.org/
1036
approximate location for the top surface of the
anomalous body can be quickly identified, if the
data cover a sufficient range of depths;(c) this surface
is located at true depth on the section, facilitating
compilation of drillhole data, geologic inferences,
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.
The empirically derived depth relationships, within
the dipole-dipole geometry, support the depth of
investigation characteristic proposed by Roy, al-
though the median DIC appearsto be a more suitable
measure of effective depth than the maximum DIC
used by Roy. Although Roy extended his calculations
in later papers (Roy, 1974) to show exact DIC curves
for layered-earth models, it appearsthat the DIC for a
homogeneous earth can be usefully applied to all
practical cases.
Contrary to some statementsmade in the literature,
there seems to be no essential relation between the
dipole length, the size of the body to be detected, and
the observed results, which are basically determined
by the distanceL between dipole centers. The dipole
length can be selected by other considerations, such
as the level of signal required, avoidance of EM
coupling, reduction of noise levels, and convenience
of survey locations. For easy interpretation, it would
perhaps be best to use a single small dipole length,
and achieve greater depth with large n-values. It is
customary to restrict n to the range I to 4, or I to 6,
increasinga to get greater depths. This is not done to
match the dipole length to the dimensions of the
supposed target, but to provide a sufficiently large
signal at the receiver, and also to avoid an unnecessary
density of data with the usual field procedures.
Application of this definition of effective depth to
other arrays does not lead to startling conclusions,
but confirms that each array is suited to its traditional
use. The square and equatorial dipole arrays might
merit more considerationas a standardIP array. The
modified pseudosectionplot can also be applied to
the Wenner, Schlumberger, and 2-pole arrays, with
comparable results, but the dipole-dipole and pole-
dipole arrays allow simpler field procedures for 2-D
profiling. Gradient array pseudosections would be
pointless, since virtually no change in effective depth
occurs when the receiver electrode separation is
changed.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The field measurementsof Figures 8 and 10 were
Downloaded 25 Jul 2012 to 132.248.54.171. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://segdl.org/
Edwards
made by U Kyaw Shwe and U San Lwin, Department
of Geology, Rangoon University of Arts and Science.
I am indebted to Mr. F. A. Seward Jr., United
Nations technical advisor, for his cooperation and
encouragementof this work.
REFERENCES
Alpin, L. M., 1966, The theory of dipole soundings, in
Dipole methodsfor measuring earth conductivity: Transl.
by G. V. Keller, New York, Consultants Bureau,
p. l-60.
Carpenter, E. W., 1955. Some note\ concerning the
Wenner configuration: Geophys. Prosp., v. 3, p. 388-
402.
Coggon, .I. H., 1973, A comparison of IP electrode
arrays: Geophysics, v. 38, p. 737-76 I.
Dev. A.. Mever. W. H., Morrison, H. F., and Dolan,
W. M., 1975, Electric held responseof two-dimensional
inhomogeneitiesto unipolar and bipolar electrodeconfigu-
rations: Geophysics. v. 40, p. 630-640.
Fountain, D. K., 1974, Ground geophysical data over
massive sulphide deposit, Noranda area, Quebec,
Canada: Toronto, McPhar Geophysics Ltd.
Habberjam, G. M., and Jackson, A. A., 1974, Approximate
rules for the composition of apparent resistivity sections:
Geophys. Prosp., v. 22, p. 393-420.
Hallof, P. G., 1957, On the interpretation of resistivity
and induced polarization measurements: Cambridge,
MIT, Ph.D. thesis.
__ 1967, An appraisal of the variable frequency IP
method after twelve years of application: Toronto,
McPhar Geophysics Ltd.
~ 1970, The use of induced polarization measure-
ments to locate massive sulphide mineralization in
environments in which EM methods fail, in Mining and
groundwater geophysics/ 1967: Ottawa, Queens Printer,
p. 302-309.
__ 1972, The induced polarization method: Toronto,
McPhar Geophysics Ltd.
Hallof, P. G., Schultz, R., and Bell, R. A., 1962, Induced
polarization and geological investigation of the Bally-
vergin copper deposit: SME Trans., v. 223, p. 312-318.
Hendrick, D. M., and Fountain, D. K., 1971, Induced
polarization as an exploration tool, Nomnda area, Quebec:
CIM Bull. Februarv.
Ludwig, C. S., 1967:Theoretical induced polarization and
resistivity responsefor the dual frequency system collin-
ear dipole-dipole array: Tucson, Heinrichs Geoexplora-
tion Co. _
Roth, .I., 1975, Exploration of the southernextension of the
Manitoba nickel belt: CIM Bull. September, p. 73-80.
Roeers. G. R.. 1966. An evaluation of the induced-
Fol&ization method in the search for disseminated
sulphides, in Mining geophysics, Vol. I: Tulsa, SEG,
p. 350-356.
Roy, A., 1972, Depth of investigation in Wenner, three-
electrode and diuole-dioole resistivitv methods:geophys
. _
Frosp., v. 20, p. 329-340. .
~ 1974, Resistivity signal partition in layered media:
Geophysics, v. 39, p. 190-204.
Roy, A., and Apparao, A., 1971, Depth of investigation
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.
Seigel: H. O., 1971, Some comparative geophysical case
histories of base metal discoveries: Geoexplor., v. 9,
p. 81-97.