Traditional electrode arrays such Wenner-Schlumberger or dipole-dipole are still widely used thanks to their well-known properties but the array configurations are generally not optimized for multi-channel resistivity measures. Synthetic datasets relating to four different arrays, dipole-dipole (DD), pole-dipole (PD), Wenner-Schlumberger (WS) and a modified version of multiple gradient (MG), have been made for a systematic comparison between 2D resistivity models and their inverted images. Different sets of array configurations generated from simple combinations of geometric parameters (potential dipole lengths and dipole separation factors) were tested with synthetic and field data sets, even considering the influence of errors and the acquisition velocity. The purpose is to establish array configurations capable to provide reliable results but, at the same time, not involving excessive survey costs, even linked to the acquiring time and therefore to the number of current dipoles used. For DD, PD and WS arrays a progression of different datasets were considered increasing the number of current dipoles trying to get about the same amount of measures. A multi-coverage MG array configuration is proposed by increasing the lateral coverage and so the number of current dipoles. Noise simulating errors both on the electrode positions and on the electric potential was added. The array configurations have been tested on field data acquired in the landfill site of Bellolampo (Palermo, Italy), to detect and locate the leachate plumes and to identify the HDPE bottom of the landfill. The inversion results were compared using a quantitative analysis of data misfit, relative model resolution and model misfit. The results show that the trends of the first two parameters are linked on the array configuration and that a cumulative analysis of these parameters can help to choose the best array configuration in order to obtain a good resolution and reliability of a survey, according to generally short acquisition times.
|Numero di pagine||15|
|Rivista||Journal of Applied Geophysics|
|Stato di pubblicazione||Published - 2017|
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes