GEOPHYSICS. VOL. 51, NO. 4 (APRIL 1986); P. 964-971, 10 FIGS.

, 2 TABLES

The effect of structure and anisotropy on resistivity measurements

M. J. S. Matias* and G. M. Habberjamz

Thus, to establish the form of the resistance variation it is

ABSTRACT necessary to sample the earth resistance in at least three differ-
ent azimuths to estimate values for p,, n and the strike I+J.
When conducting resistivity investigations over steep- [Figure 1 and Equation (l)]. It has been shown (Habberjam,
ly dipping geologic structures, large orientational vari- 1979; Matias and Habberjam, 1984) that the crossed-square
ations in resistivity response are commonly en- array of electrodes (Figure 2) provides a suitable+ compact
countered. These variations can arise from resistivity system for conducting such measurements. With this array, six
contrasts between constituent layers or from anisotropy earth resistance measurements are made for a specific location
within the beds. When such structures are concealed, a
(the center of the square) and spacing a (the square side) as
thorough sampling of these orientational variations
shown in Figure 2. The array orientation normally is taken as
must be conducted. Field experience and model studies
the direction of the 1 and 4 electrodes and is expressed here by
have shown that such sampling can be conveniently
the angle 0 to the strike (i.e., 0 = v for the 1 and 4 electrodes).
conducted using the crossed-square array and that the
Of these six resistances,two (the R, values in Figure 2) serve
orientational variations encountered can be adequately
to verify measurement accuracy. However, the R,, R,, Km,and
summarized by the anisotropically defined parameters
Rb (in Figure 2) resistance measurements contain useful infor-
of apparent resistivity, anisotropy, and strike derived
mation for anisotropic analysis which will provide estimates
from these array measurements.
for P,, n and 0. Because four orientations are sampled by
these configurations a fourth parameter, the anisotropic non-
compatibility ratio (ANCR) (Habberjam, 1975) can also be
INTRODUCTION obtained. This parameter provides a check for the adequacy of
the anisotropic parameters of p,, n and 0 for describing the
The varying orientation of surface resistivity measurements
orientational variation of the apparent resistivity.
is frequently ignored in field surveys. This may be reasonable
in flat sedimentary areas, but in more complex areas where
steep dips are encountered such variations should be con-
sidered. Field investigations in such steeply dipping areas
(Habberjam, 1979; Matias, 1983) have shown that the orienta-
tional variation observed conforms closely to that obtained
over a uniform anisotropic medium of the type shown in
Figure 1.
Over such a medium, and for a two-electrode array, the
orientational variation of the earth resistance measurements is
given by

R=z (1 + (n’ - I) sin’ w)-~‘~,

where pm(mean resistivity) is a, p, is the resistivity trans-

verse to the bedding planes, and pLis the longitudinal resistivi-
ty in all directions within the bedding planes. n is the effective
vertical anisotropy (Habberjam, 1975) given by
n = (1 + (h2 - 1) sin2 a)-‘12,
where h is the coefficient of anisotropy ,m.
FIG. 1. Electrode locations PC for a two-electrode array (of
spacing r) positioned at the surface of a homogeneous aniso-
(2) tropic medium. CI is the dip of the bedding planes and within
the latter it is assumed that the resistivity does not vary with
direction.

Manuscriptreceivedby the Editor November27, 1984;revisedmanuscriptreceivedSeptember26, 1985.

*Formerly Dept. of Earth Sciences,The University of Leeds, Leeds L52 9JT, England; presently Dept. of Mining Engineering, F.C.T.U.C., Largo
Marquez do Pombal, 3O!lOCoimbra, Portugal.
$Dept. of Earth Sciences,The University of Leeds, L52 9JT, England.
01986 Society of Exploration Geophysicists. All rights reserved.

964
 Resistivity Measurements 955

The anisotropic analysis is limtted~because it is assumed the

anisotropy is prolate in form; p, > pr (the longitudinal resis-
tivity in the bedding planes), and thus h > 1 (Figure 1). Most
rocks show this type of anisotropy because of their mode of
8
deposition. However, when anisotropic effects arise from
structural accidents, it is possible that pr > pt. In this case the
anisotropy will be oblate in form and h -=z1 (Habberjam,
1972). When the strike direction is unknown the distinction
between prolate and oblate anisotropy is difficult and with no
corroborative evidence prolate solutions might be used
throughout. However, if anisotropic analysis for any prolate
solution can establish strike with constancy over successive
spacings and adjacent soundings, then the oblate zones will
show strike values perpendicular to the estimated prolate
strike. In these circumstances it is possible to identify the Electrode positions ( 3bserved
oblate zones in which A values less than unity (the reciprocal
Zonfiguration 1 2345678F; lesistances
of the prolate n values) can be conveniently introduced (Hab-
a AMNB R,
berjam, 1972).
P ABNM
MODEL RESULTS V AMBN
cy’ AMNB
We review results from interpretation material for the
crossed-square array (Matias, 1983) from model experiments P ABNM
carried out in a brine tank using an automated data collection VI AMBN
system (Karwatowsky and Habberjam, 1981). The immersed
models used were constructed from PVC plate and consisted
of two types: (I) the concealed vertical “dike,” and (2) the FIG. 2. The crossed-square array of electrodes. The upper
concealed vertical anisotropic “dike” formed by introducing figure shows the position of electrodes 1 to 8, the array spac-
ing a, and the orientation 8. The lower table shows the elec-
vertical PVC laminas between dike walls. Highly resistive and trode connections for the constituent configurations of the
conducting versions of both dikes were considered and are array (A and Bmare the current e&t&es; M and N are the
shown in Figure 3. Thus model A, on the top left of Figure 3, potential electrodes).

traverse
I ine

traverse
line

FIG. 3. Two-dimensional concealed models used in the tank analog experiments.

966 Matias and Habberjam
is the so-called concealed vertical conducting dike or trough
where the top plane of this figure represents the brine surface.
At a depth d below this surface, the horizontal PVC plate was
interrupted to insert a trough of width ~1extending to a depth
of 8d. The concealed vertical anisotropic dike is shown as
model B on the top right in Figure 3. This model was formed
simply by introducing equally spaced vertical PVC laminas
between the walls of model A. The concealed vertical insulat-
ing dike or fault block, model C, is shown on the bottom left
in Figure 3. A vertical block with a uniform upper surface
depth d, was inserted on a horizontal PVC plate at depth Xd.
Finally, on the bottom right in Figure 3, the concealed vertical
anisotropic resistive dike model D, is displayed.
The width w of the anisotropic dikes, models B and D in
Figure 3, can be varied simply by changing the number of
PVC laminas between the dike walls.
The model results presented were classified according to the
ratio 4 = w/d where w is the dike width and d is the depth of
burial of the top of the dike (Figure 3). In all model experi-
ments discusxd, the depth of burlal d = 3 cm was kept con-
stant, and only the width of the dikes ~1was varied.
Traverses of crossed-squarearray soundings were conduct-
ed across these models on the traverse line shown in Figure 3
with an array orientation 0 = 0 degrees (Figure 2) to the
known model strike. On each sounding the spacings varied
from a = d/2 to a = 15 d (I.545 cm). In all cases,the traverse
line was confined to a region along the central axis of the tank
analog where the distance from the tank walls was greater
than the maximum spacing used. Repeat observations, in a
free tank, were used to correct the observations for any re-
sidual edge effects.
Apparent resistivities from anisotropic analysis (Habberjam,
1975) were plotted according to sounding location and spac-
ing used to prbvide the resisitivity sections on the left in Fig-
ures 4, 5, 6, and 7 with apparent resistivity contours labeled as
multiples of the background (brine) resistivity.
Effective vertical anisotropy values were plotted in a similar
manner to provide the anisotropy sections on the right-hand
side of the same figures. In these sections,spacing and location
scales are the same, and the centers of the concealed models
correspond to 0 on the location axis.
Unity on the scalescorresponds to targets having a depth of
burial d of 0.075 units and the positions of the vertical edges of
the block are indicated by the inserted arrows (the dimension-
less unit of scale is thus equivalent to 40 cm on the model
experiments). Strike determination zones are given by P and
0. P zones are areas where the calculated strike from the
anisotropic analysis confirms the direction of the true model
strike (prolate anisotropy). On the other hand, the zones la-
beled 0 carTespond to strike determinations at 90 degrees to
the true model strike (oblate anisotropy). Note that these
zones have effective vertical anisotropy valueslessthan unity.
(1) Model A, concealedvertical conductingdike or trough
Resistivity and anisotropy sections for model A are shown
in Figure 4 with values of 1.8, 5.4. and 15.8 for the ratio y.
Inspection of the resistivity sections, on the left in Figure 4,
shows that the concealed dike is revealed for 4 values of 5.4
and 15.8. However, for a y value of 1.8, a similar responsemay
be caused by a more gentle depression of a homogeneous
basement. On the other hand, the anisotropy sections on the
right in Figure 4 show evidence of the concealed dike for any
y value with a well-developed anomaly centered about the
target in each case. As 4 values increase, the central anisotropy
anomaly gives way to two peaks located close to the edges of
the dike that become two distinct anomalies whose maxima
correspond to the vertical edges of the trough at 4 = 15.8,
with each half of the section approximating an anomaly over a
single, concealed vertical interface.
True strike determinations were obtained over the central
regions of the concealed model for 4 values of 1.8 and 5.4 and
are shown as the central P zones under the corresponding
anisotropy sections (Figure 4). For a 4 value of 15.8, a central
zone of strike determinations at 90 degrees to the true model
strike developed (central zone 0), but over the edges of Ihe
model trough true strike determinations were obtained (P
zones). Such a central 0 zone arises from the structural effect
of the dike walls, and confirms the picture of the dike walls
behaving as two independent vertical interfaces.
For any q value the anisotropy falls off rapidly beyond the
edges of the dike. As. the distance from the edges increases,
more strike determinations at 90 degreesto the true strike are
obtained and more 0 zones are defined. Although these flank-
ing 0 zones have considerable lateral extent, the contours
should turn down beyond the limits of the revealed sections.
(2) Model B, concealedvertical anisotropicconductiondike
Resistivity and anisotropy sections for model B are shown
in Figure 5 with 4 values of 1.8, 5.4, and 15.8. The resistivity
section for a 4 value of I.8 does not show any convincing
evidence of a dike. On the other hand, resistivity sectionsfor q
values of 5.4 and 15.8 show some evidence of the concealed
dike. Thus, interpretation based solely in these resistivity sec-
tions could well lead to the acceptance of a basement with a
local synclinal depression. However, the anisotropy sections
show a clear peak centered about the target and, for a 4 value
of 15.8, a local anisotropic basement parallel to the surface
reveals the anisotropic nature of the concealed dike.
Strike determinations over the central anisotropy anomalies
for all y values confirm the direction of the true strike (P
zones). Over the edges of the dikes the anisotropy falls off
rapidly and no strike determinations are possible. However,
farther from the edges of the model, strike determinations at
90 degrees to the true model strike were obtained, and thus
ablate anisotropy (0 zones) is developed as a consequenceof
the structural character of the dike walls. Once again these
flanking 0 zones have some lateral extent and their contours
should turn down beyond the limits of the revealed sections.
While the overall response at high y values for the isotropic
trough of Figure 4 are clearly different from the anisotropic_
trough of Figure 5, at the q value of 1.8 the responses are
almost identical. Thus, for low 4 the structure can be resolved
but anisotropy cannot.
(3) Model C, concealedvertical insulating dike or fault block
Resistivity and anisotropy sections for this model were de-
termined for q values of 2.2, 5.8, and 16.2 (Figure 6). The
resistivity sections show a well-developed anomaly centered
over the concealed model for all q values. Anisotropy sections
again show an anomaly over the dike. However, as q values
increase the central anisotropy anomaly develops into two
peaks over the edges of the dike, similar to model A results
(Figure 4).
 Resistivity Measurements 967

RESISTIVITY SECTIONS ANISOTROPY SECTIONS

LOCATIOk

0 P 0
LOCATIOL L3CATION
1.5 n I 1.5 I.! 5 I.’ 5
0 i 1

J
5
1
q=‘5.82 r

1 1
0 P 0 P C

FIG. 4. Resistivity and anisotropy sections for model A, for a burial depth d of 0.075 units and array orientation 0
degrees. Arrows denote the vertical limits of the block.

RESISTIVITY SECTIONS ANISOTROPY SECTIONS

LOCA-,GN LOCAT ION

q-1.8

q=5.4

LOCAT ON

q=15.0

FIG. 5. Resistivity and anisotropy sections for model B, for a burial depth d of 0.075 units and array orientation 0
degrees.Arrows denote the vertical limits of the block.
966 Matias and Habberjam

RESISTIVITY SECTIONS ANISOTROPY SECTIONS

L3c4T’otd Lc)C~TIOW
1 0 1 1 0 1
I 0 1
0 / I

ar2.2

0 P 0

q-5.8

FIG. 6. Resistivity and anisotropy sections for model C, for a burial depth d of 0.075 units and array orientation 0
degrees. Arrows denote the vertical limits of the block.

RESISTIVITY SECTIONS ANISOTROPY SECTIONS

LOCATION LOCATIOh

qr2.2

LOCATION
1 I 0 I 1

q-16.2

FIG. 7. Resistivity and anisotropy sections for model D, for a burial depth d of 0.075 units and array orientation 0
degrees. Arrows denote the vertical limits of the block.
 Resistivity Measurements
Strike determinations in accordance with the true model
strike were obtained over the central regions of the model for
lower q values. For larger y values, the dike walls start behav-
ing like single vertical interfaces, and for a 4 value of 16.2
(double peaked anomaly), a central oblate zone 0 is obtained
again. Also as in the previous examples, the anisotropy falls
off rapidly away from the dike walls. Farther from the edges of
the model and for any 4 value, strike determinations at 90
degrees to the true model strike are obtained, thus producing
flanking oblate zones, 0. Although these latter 0 zones have
considerable lateral extent, their contours start to turn down
within the dimensions of the experimental setup.
(4) Model D, concealed vertical resistive anisotropic dike
Resistivity and anisotropic sections for model D (Figure 7)
are considered for 4 values of 2.2, 5.8, and 16.2. Resistivity and
anisotropy sections reveal the concealed model for all the q
values with high anisotropy values over the model.
Strike determinations in agreement with the true model
strike were obtained over the central regions of the model for
all the 4 values (central P zones). As in the other models,
anisotropy falls off rapidly with increasing distance from the
edges of the dike. At larger distances strike determinations at
90 degrees to the true model strike were obtained (0 zones).
These flanking zones have considerable lateral extent and
their contours turn downward within the limits of the revealed
sections.
As with the trough example, when 4 is small (2.2) the re-
sponse of the insulating isotropic dike is nearly identical to
that of the anisotropic dike, and anisotropy is only revealed
when greater dike widths are reached. Even then, the ani-
sotropy revealed may be true anisotropy or macroanisotropy
produced by alternations in the vertical beds (as was used in
the models).
Note also that in all the model results. the anomalies pro-
duced by the block edges are small at distances outside those
edges equal to I unit (40 cm). This is a result of the compact
array used and also indicates that edge effects are small at
distances from the tank walls greater than the maximum spac-
ing employed.
(5) Note on orientational stability
After having demonstrated some of the diagnostic advan-
tages of the use of crossed-square array techniques, we now
give attention to the stability of the derived anisotropic pa-
rameters. Owing to the essential geometry of the crossed-
square array, extremes of orientation response are developed
between orientations of 0 degrees and 22.5 degrees in relation
to the strike (Habberjam, 1979). The model results discussed
were obtained using an array orientation of 0 degrees to the
known model strike. However, these experiments were repeat-
cd at an array orientation of 22.5 degrees to investigate the
orientational stability of the anisotropic parameters.
In Figure 8 resistivity and anisotropy sections for model B,
using a q value of 15.8 and an array orientation of 22.5 de-
grees, are displayed. Inspection of the resistivity section for
this latter array orientation (top of Figure 8) and of the resis-
tivity section for the same model but using an array orienta-
tion of 0 degrees (left bottom of Figure 5) shows these two
sections are virtually indistinguishable as are the anisotropic
sections for an array orientation of 22.5 degrees (bottom of
969
Figure 8) and the anisotropy section for an array orientation
of 0 degrees (right bottom of Figure 5). Furthermore, for both
orientations, coherent strike measurements were obtain&
where sizeable orientational effects exist. Thus it is evident
that the anisotropic parameters are orientationally stable.
Similar tests with the parameters observed for all the other
models gave equally convincing results.
Further evidence of orientational stability is afforded by the
observed ANCR~ values At the model orientation 0 degrees,
ANCR values should display their maximum value and may
be regarded as a measure of orientational uncertainty (Hab-
berjam, 1975). For all the models the observed ANCR values
were low and a maximum recorded value was 2 percent.
A FIELD EXAMPLE
The relevance of the model results is illustrated by present-
ing results from a field traverse of crossed-square soundings
conducted at Ross Bay (54” 47’N, 4” 6’W) near Kirkcudbright
in southwest Scotland. The traverse of soundings was carried
out over the inferred site of a fault within the steeply dipping
Silurian greywakes which dominate the area around Ross Bay
(Clarkson et al. 1975). These greywakes dip to the southeast,
at angles varying from 60 degrees to 85 degrees, and the gen-
eral strike in the area is east-northeast/west-southwest. In the
immediate region of the traverse the whole structure is con-
cealed by drift. The traverse consisted of nine crossed-square
array soundings with maximum spacingsof 64 m and required
three man-days of field effort.
The observed values of the mean resistivity pm, and the
effective vertical anisotropy n are shown as sections in Figure
9. The resistivity section represents the type of information
which might be obtained from a traverse of conventional uni-
RESISTIVITY SECTION
LOCATION
0 1.5
0 1.5 1 I I
- 1.32
- 2.28-==z-- _/- 1.643.5;
- -
- 6.‘2w
- 1 I.24 ,124 -
1
ANISOTROPY SECTION
LOCATION
1.5 0 1.5
0 J I I
\
cl
s
P
qz15.8
FIG. 8. Resistivity and anisotropy sections for model B, for a
burial depth d of 0.075 units and array orientation 22.5 de-
grees. Arrows denote the vertical limits of the block.
970 Matias and Habberjam

Table 1. depth interpretation obtained from field data. directional resistivity soundings. Using conventional interpre-
tation material, in terms of isotropic layers, selected sounding
Resistivities (Q m) results (Table 1) show that the main resistivity results are
Sounding Thickness (m)
Location 1st Layer 1st Layer 2nd Layer consistent with a shallow top layer (drift?) of resistivity 1OG
200 0. m increasing in thickness from east to west over a
80 4 160 900 highly resistive basement of 900-l 000 R m resistivity.
60 3.5 85 910 With the moderately high resistivity contrast revealed by
-40 2.8 980
- 60 2.5 t: 980 these interpretations, the undulations of the resistivity field
-80 2 220 1 000 space contours may simply reflect resistivity and/or thickness
variations in the drift; ii~owever,*becausethe resistivity spaces
of Figures 4 and 5 relate to models with infinite resistivity
contrasts, it is apparent that the resistivity section of Figure 9
represents a steeply dipping basement structure. Also, the ani-
sotropy section is indicative of similar structure. For example,
Table 2. Strike determinations obtained from field data. n values are low at small spacings (possibly isotropic drift),
and higher values (> 1.16) are sustained over both ends of the
Anisotropy Classes
traverse. At the eastern end, values greater than 1.32 occur, in
Strike
Determinations n > 1.04 n > 1.08 n > 1.16 n > 1.32 agreement with model experiments. These effective vertical an-
-_________ isotropies represent the smallest value of the actual anisotropy
m N 65”E N 70”E N 74”E N 76”E developed (consistent with vertical dips) and if lower values of
s 23.2’ 11.6” 5.8” dips arc proposed, correspondingly higher values of h must be
u 97 Y 54 13 invoked [equation (2)].
n-anisotropy; m-mean; s-standard deviation; u-number of ob- Sandwiched between the steeply dipping regions of the field
servations section is a marked region of low anisotropy. This central field
region corresponds closely to the region between the vertical
interfaces, given by model A (Figure 4, y = 5.4 and 15.8). The
model sections,however, depart severely from the field section
outside the vertical interfaces because their anisotropy is
simply a response to the block walls and is not sustained in
the isotropic material beyond the walls. This would not be the
case if the outer material were anisotropic.
Although the limited range of models presented does not
include the case of a single vertical contact between isotropic
and anisotropic material, Figure 7 (q = 16.2) shows a similar
RESISTIVITY SECTION model where each half of the figure corresponds to such a
NW SE conccalcd juxtaposition. Based on the correspondence be-
LOCAT:ON !ml tween the right-hand side of Figure 7 and the western part of
Figure Y (anisotropy sections), the western interfze was lo-
cated at 20 m, and, based on the left-hand side of Figure 7 and
the eastern part of Figure 9. the eastern interface was set at
- 10 m.
A semiquantitative picture of the subsurface (Figure 10)
consis& of a thin isotropic layer covering a steeply dipping
basement. with the thin alternating layers of this basement
having the effect of high anisotropy. Sandwiched between
these layers is a thicker, low-rcsistivity, nearly isotropic layer.
The proposed drift depths and dike thickness imply a q value
of about 10, which is broadly in agreement with the model A
solutions initially invoked. This thick isotropic layer may be
ANISOTROPY SECTION simply an accident of the original pattern of deposition, or
SE possibly a zone of fault gouge associated with the suspected
LOCRTION (nrl
fault. It cannot be claimed that a fault has been located, be-
cause the geometry of such a feature would involve slippage
on a bedding plane: nevertheless,the existence of a wide, low-
resistivity bed would likely present a zone of low strength and
thus a likely Fdult position. Although no estimate of dip is
possible, and in the vicinity of a fault dips may indeed vary,
nevertheless, we propose that steep dips prevail, making an
estimate of the strike in the region of the traverse possible.
In Table 2. mean strike determinations m obtained from the
anisotropic analysis with their associated standard deviations
FIG. 9. Resistivity and anisotropy sections for the field s for all the observed strikes above n limits of 1.04, 1.08, 1.16,
traverse. and 1.32 are presented. The number of observations u in each
 Resistivity
class is also given. Clearly these strike determinations improve
in accuracy the higher the level of n considered. Of the 97
observations included in the n > 1.04 category, a substantial
number relate to small spacings were n values are diminished
by the isotropic character of the overburden. For this reason
the precision of the strike determinations is low. The observa-
tions above n = 1.16, on the other hand, include most of those
made at spacings above 20 m and the strike value of N 74”
E i I 1.6” is thus obtained. This average value of the local
strike of the bedrock is close to the general strike of the Sil-
urian formations (east-northeast).
All soundings in the field were conducted using a constant
array orientation and the rms of the ANCR, derived from the
anisotropic analysis, was 0.72 percent. However, the mag-
nitude of the ANCR depends upon the angle between the
array orientation and the strike, and may vary from zero to a
maximum as this angle changes through 22.5 degrees. The
determined strike at N 74” E lies midway between those ex-
tremes, and bearing in mind the variability of the detmmined
strike, it is most unlikely that, at the least favored orientation,
the rms value would exceed 1.5 percent. This finding agrees
with the levels observed in the model experiments and implies
that the results displayed in Figures 9 and 10 would not have
been demonstrably different had any other array orientation
been selected.
SUMMARY
We present a set of results obtained over some concealed
two-dimensional models using the crossed-square array of
electrodes. Because field anisotropy measurements vary gener-
ally from 1 to 2 (Kunetz, 1966), these model results show that
substantial anisotropic effects occur, even for simple dike
models, such as models A and C in Figure 3. In the presence
of strong anisotropic effects, the crossed-square array and as-
sociated anisotropic analysis were shown to provide impor-
tant information on the nature of concealed two-dimensional
structures. The anisotropy sections provide a powerful tool in
resistivity interpretation; and coherent strike determinations
were obtained where sizeable orientation effects occur.
These anisotropic effects are pronounced when steeply dip-
ping contrasts in resistivity are present in the subsurface. Steep
dips (vertical in the models) can present a multiplicity of con-
trasts, either from lithological variations or from the character
of the rocks and, where these are extensive, an anisotropic
basement can be detected and diagnosed. Where contrasts are
of more limited extent (as in the case of the thin dike) and
within detectable limits, diagnosis of the structure can be
made, although it will not be possible to distinguish ani-
sotropy within the feature.
Model experiments show that anisotropic parameters are
independent of array orientation. Therefore prior knowledge
of the concealed strike is not required for resistivity surveys
using crossed-square array.
Measurements
100 - 200 62-m
1
50 Cl-m (?)
n>1.16 n >1.32
Easement strike (for n>1.16) N 74EtlO.5’
FIG. IO. Semiquantitative interpretation of the field data.
The field traverse discussedhere confirms the findings of the
model experiments presented in that (1) assembled interpreta-
tion material is useful in the final interpretation of field results,
(2) the field anisotropy section provides useful additional in-
formation on the nature of the concealed geologic structures,
(3) the overall mean strike obtained from the anisotropic
analysis agrees with the general geologic strike of the area,
and (4) the rms of the ANCR shows that the anisotropic
analysis closely describes the observed orientational variation
of field resistivities.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation,
Lisbon, and the University of Leeds for the support of M. J. S.
Matias and also thank M. Alder, N. Xanthopoulos, and S.
Tsalas for valuable help in the field work.
REFERENCES
Clarkson, C. M:, Craig, G. Y., and Walton, E. K., 1975, The Silurian
rocks bordermg Kirkcudbright Bay, SW Scotland: Trans. Royal
Sot. of Edinburgh, 69, 313-325.
HabberJam, G. M., 1972, The effects of anisotropy on square array
resistivity measurements: Geophys. Prose., 20, 249-266.
~ 1975, Apparent resistivity, anisotropy and strike measure-
ments: Geophys. Prosp., 23, 21 l-247.
~ 1979 Apparent resisriviiy observations and ihe- ust- oFsquarc
array techniques, in Geoexploration Monographs no. 9: Geo-
publications Associates.
Karwatowsky, J.. and Habberjam, G. M., 1981, Tunnel resolution
investigations using an automated tank analogue: Geophys. Prosp.,
29. X9l-90.5.
Kunetr. G., 1966. Principles of direct current resistivity prospecting,
in Geoexploration Monographs no. 1: Geopublication Associates.
Matias, M. J. S., 1983, The use of field anisotropy measurements in
resistivity investigatmns: Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Leeds, England.
Matias, M. J. S., and Habberjam, G. M., 1984, A field example of the
USCof anisotropic parameters derived from resistivity soundings:
Geophys. Prosp., 32, 725-739.