Downloaded 05/28/14 to [Link]. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at [Link]

org/

GEOPHYSICS, VOL. 47. NO. 7 (JULY 1982); P. 1100-1105, 9 FIGS., I TABLE.

Short Note

A simple method for calculating apparent resistivity from

electromagnetic sounding data

Michael Wilt* and Mitchel Starki

Frequency-domain electromagnetic (EM) sounding is becoming an increasingly useful deep-exploration tool with recent applications to crustal sounding and geothermal exploration (Tripp et
al, 1978; Stemberg, 1979; Duncan et al, 1980; Stark et al. 1980).
A major drawback of the method is that most held data are analyzed
by computer after the data are returned to the laboratory; no
intermediate parameters, such as apparent resistivity, are calculated to provide on-site information. The following example
illustratesthis problem.
Figure 1 shows EM sounding data taken with the EM-60
frequency-domain system in central Nevada (Morrison et al, 1978;
Stark et al, 1980). The spectral plots in this figure give normalized
vertical (H,) and radial (HR) magnetic field amplitudes and phases
at a distance of 720 m from the loop transmitter. Also shown are
spectral plots of the ellipse polarization parameters, ellipticity,
and tilt angle of the ellipse traced by the magnetic field vector.
We have fitted these combined spectra to a layered model at
least-squaresinversion; the calculated curves for the models are
also shown on the figure. Inspection of the spectral data alone
gives very little direct information on the earth resistivity structure. Meaningful estimates of layer resistivities and thicknesses
are usually impossible to make even for experienced interpreters.
This leads to several difficulties: (I) the quality of incoming field
data is often difficult to evaluate, which could lead to an attempt
to analyze smooth-looking noise; (2) a field supervisor cannot alter the survey on the basis of incoming results; (3) the
interpreter must initiate a model inversion program by trial and
error, a processwhich could give misleading results if a poor first
guesswere used; and (4) the spectra are virtually meaninglessto a
nonspecialist, thus providing no basis for a geologic understanding. These problems led us to seek an apparent resistivity
transformationfor EM data similar to those used with dc resistivity
and magnetotelluric (MT) data.
The concept of obtaining apparent resistivity from EM data
has been examined in the literature. Keller (1971) derived early
time and late time apparent resistivity from asymptotic behavior of time-domain data. These simple formulas proved effec-

tive on field data but are only valid for asymptotic portions of field
curves. Morrison et al (1969) computed apparent resistivity from

time-domain field curves by matching field data to a curve calculation for a homogeneoushalf-space and determining the apparent
resistivity from the normalized time axis of the half-space curve.
Kauahikaua (1981) expanded this to include calculations for apparent depth based on two-layer asympotic approximations.
Apparent resistivity was obtained from frequency-domain EM
data by Stemberg (1979) using an iterative approach. Stemberg
(1979) programmed the analytic solution for the magnetic field
over a homogeneous half-space into a hand-held calculator and
solved iteratively for the resistivity that matches the observed
field. This method produces a smooth apparent resistivity curve
and is suitable for in-field use. The method we introduce below
calculates apparent resistivity directly from EM field data; it is
sufficiently simple for in-field application and useful for partial
field curves.
DESCRIPTION OF THE METHOD
Compared to those used in magnetotellurics and dc resistivity.
equations describing the electric and magnetic fields caused by
an oscillating dipole sourceover a half-space are very complicated
(Ryu et al, 1970). Although these cannot be solved analytically,
we can use theoretical fields over a half-space to obtain apparent
resistivity for horizontal-loop induction sounding data.
Ryu et al (I 970) showed that field equations can be written as a
function of a dimensionless induction number
B=

(1)

where w is the angular frequency, p is the magnetic permeability, R is the transmitter-receiver separation, and p is the half-space
resistivity. A sample plot of radial magnetic field over a 10 n-m
half-space is given in Figure 2. If similar plots for all normally
measured field quantities are generated, then this set of generalized field curves can be used to estimate apparent resistivity
for each individually measured quantity.

Manuscriptreceived by the Editor March 13, 1981; revised manuscript received December 17, 1981.

*EarthSciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720.

$ Formerly Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. Berkeley; presently Department of Geological Sciences, Brown University, Box 1846, Lincoln Field Blvd.,
Providence, RI 02912.
0016-803318210701-1100.
This paper was prepared by an agency of the U.S. government.
1100

1101

Calculating Apparent Resistivity

O
(O

Loyer

300.0
Resistivity(ohmpm)

Thickness (ml

:L,iL?&

Downloaded 05/28/14 to [Link]. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at [Link]

200.0

1 \
\

100.0

I.00

100.0

80.0
0.50

P
..u

.-z
z

.z
I-

-0.50

20.0

-1.00

1.0

10.0

100.0

IC

Frequency (Hz)

Frequency (Hz)

FIG. 1. Amplitude, phase, ellipticity, and tilt angle spectra for central Nevada EM-60 electromagnetic sounding.

To obtain an apparent resistivity estimate from an observed

field value, first it is necessary to match the observed field value
to its corresponding point on the appropriate generalized field
curve. Then the corresponding induction number can be read
from the graph, and apparent resistivity can be obtained by solving equation (I) for p:
p =

pA

=-$R2.

Since R and w are known experimental parameters, p for most

field situations is the constant ~0 = 49~ X lo- mks, and B,
read from the generalized curve pA, can be readily calculated. For
example, suppose we wish to know the apparent resistivity at
10 Hz of the radial magnetic field component in Figure 1. The
field value (0.68) when mapped on Figure 2 corresponds to an
induction number of 1.6. The radius is 720 m, pg = 47~ X lo-,
and the apparent resistivity given by

PA =

t4?r x

10-)(2Tr)(lo)
2(l.6)2

(720)2 = 8 n-m

is a reasonable approximation to the top-layer resistivity found

by inversion (Figure 1). By applying this scheme to field measurements at a wide range of frequencies, apparent resistivity
spectra can readily be calculated from field data.

0.01

0.1

1.0

Induction number

10.0

100.0

B = _@ = R
J

2P

FIG. 2. Generalized curve for radial magnetic field amplitude for a

half-space of 10 R-m.

Downloaded 05/28/14 to [Link]. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at [Link]

1102

Wilt and Stark

Resistivity

Thickness

l0nm

1.0

10.0

I.0

10.0

Frequency (Hz)

Frequency (Hz)

two-layer model.

FIG. 4. Apparent resistivity spectra for six field componentsover

a two-layer model with spurious points deleted.

The process is easily adaptable to field situations. A set of

generalized field curves and a small programmable calculator are
all that one needs to calculate apparent resistivities quickly from
incoming field data. Generalized curves can also be digitized,
and linear or logarithmic interpolation can provide more precise
matching of field data. Table I displays digitized field curves for
six field quantities for this purpose.
An example of computed apparent resistivity spectra of some
theoretical layered-model data illustrates some of the advantages

and disadvantagesinherent in this scheme. Figure 3 is an apparent

resistivity spectral plot calculated from theoretical data corresponding to the two-layer model section shown in the figure. The
plots clearly reflect the general character of the two-layer model
where higher frequency segments show sensitivity to the upper
layer and lower frequency segments are more sensitive to the
bottom layer. However, there is some scatter and some of the calculated values give unreasonableestimatesfor apparentresistivity.
The unreasonableestimates normally come from flat portions of

FIG. 3. Apparent resistivity spectrafor six field componentsover a

Table 1. Theoreticalmagneticfield data over a uniform half-space.

PhaseH,

Tilt
(degrees)

HK

(degrees)

HZ

PhaseHz
(degrees)

I.1414
0.1732
0.2000
0.2449

0.0049
0.0098
0.0147
0.0195
0.0291

269. I9
268.64
268.08
267.54
266.54

I .0004
I.0013
I .0024
I .0036
I .0064

180.25
180.48
180.70
180.90
1X1.26

-0.00492
-0.00979
-0.015
-0.019
-0.029

90.00
89.98
X9.96
X9.94
89.86

0.3162
0.4472
0.6325
0.7746
I .oooo

0.0475
0.0927
0.1759
0.2516
0.3847

264.85
261.57
256.39
252.13
245.22

I.0128
I.0314
1.0718
I.1104
I.1761

181.x8
183.00
184.06
184.19
183.02

-0.047
-0.088
-0.156
-0.208
-0.282

X9.67
xx.97
87.08
84.91
so.57

1.4142
I .7321
2.0000
2.4495
3.1623

0.6420
0.8253
0.9585
I.1261
I .2421

232.35
222.62
214.62
201.X0
183.32

1.2768
1.3160
1.3192
1.2689
1.0886

177.12
170.38
163.84
152.01
132.87

-0.376
-0.418
-0.440
-0.459
-0.465

71.25
64.15
58.60
50.25
39.13

4.4722
5.4773
6.3246
7.7461
10.0002

1.1090
0.8927
0.7294
0.5546
0.4270

156.82
144.23
138.94
137.23
137.31

0.6628
0.4002
0.2559
0.1444
0.0914

102.07
X6.42
Xl.21
86.35
91.00

-0.424
-0.356
-0.286
-0.196

-0.151

23.51
15.43
II.57
9.71
X.61

14.1424
17.3208
20.0003
24.4953
3 I .6232

0.3024
0.2468
0.2138
0.1745
0.1352

136.09
135.73
135.55
135.37
135.22

0.0459
0.0306
0.0230
0.0153
0.0092

x9.97
90.02
90.02
90.02
90.03

-0.108
-0.08X
-0.076
-0.062
-0.048

6.07
4.99
4.33
3.54
2.75

0.1000

Ellipticity

1103

Downloaded 05/28/14 to [Link]. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at [Link]

Calculating Apparent Resistivity

i::j

,,,I

$E,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,
,

0.101
0.10
R=l km

1.0

Frequency

10.0

100.0

1000.0

(Hz)

OS01

0.10

R=2km

I.0

Frequency

10.0
(Hz

1000.0

100.0

O O.O m
I

I
Layer

I
2
3

OS01
R=lOkm

0.10

1.0
Frequency

Resistivity
l0fi.m
2fl.m
100&m

Thickness
200
500
-

m
m

10.0
(Hz)

FIG. 5. Apparent resistivity spectra for a three-layer model with transmitter-receiver separationsof I, 2. and IO km.

the field curves, since for these points a unique induction number cannot be found from the generalized curve. In Figure 1, for
example, vertical magnetic field amplitudes could not be used
for frequencies less than 0.5 Hz, and radial phase data are unusable below 1 Hz. If points from these portions of the curves are
rejected, a smoother, more reasonablespectrumresults (Figure 4).
Recording a complete spectrum of orthogonal field components
guaranteesthat no gaps will exist on apparent resistivity spectral
curves.
It is not unusual for field data to exceed the range of values on
the half-space curves. For example, ellipticities for some layeredmodel sections may exceed -0.50, which is outside the range of
half-space calculations (Table 1). When this occurs, the section
of the curve exceeding the half-space curve, as well as the data
adjacent to this section, should be deleted before apparent resistivity calculations are made. Normally, the affected region is
only a small portion of one of the field curves; apparent reresistivities
calculated from the remainder of the field curves seem
to be unaffected.

THEORETICAL EXAMPLES AND INTERPRETATION

Examples of apparent resistivity spectrafor a three-layer model
with a conductive middle layer are given in Figure 5. These spectra
are from the same model with transmitter-receiver separationsof
1, 2, and IO km. The predominant effect of increasing separation
is greater sensitivity to the bottom-layer resistivity and lesser
sensitivity to the top-layer resistivity: however, the three curves
show a remarkable degree of similarity, especially for the higher
frequency segments. A possible reason for the similarity is that
the observed fields for these separations and frequencies may
approximate a plane-wave field. Hoversten et al (1982) show that
two-dimensional (2-D) plots of observed magnetic fields from a
dipolar source appear to converge to plane-wave conditions as the
separation and/or source frequency is increased. Thus the EM
induction apparent-resistivity curve may be equivalent to the MT
apparent-resistivity curve under these conditions. In Figure 6 the
MT apparent-resistivity curve corresponding to the three-layer
model is plotted with the EM apparent-resistivity spectra at a

1104

Wilt and Stark

Downloaded 05/28/14 to [Link]. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at [Link]

O
O.O
m

1.0

Layer

HZ

--o--

PHZ
HR
PHR
blb&~unding

-f-cF
_+-

1.0

0.10

0.01

Resistivity Thickness
lonm 200 m
2fi.m
500 m
IO0R.m
-

10.0

100.0

1000.0

Frequency(Hz)
FIG. 6. Apparent resistivity spectra for a three-layer model with a
transmitter-receiver separation of 5 km; MT apparent resistivity
curve is also shown.

r
100

150

~-0~Bostick~~MT
wversio
--A- R= 2km

200
300
500
-z
AI
z 1,000
0
1,500

IQ000

,.k I.5 2.0

1

3.0

[Link] separation. The curves match fairly closely except at the

lower frequencies. suggesting that standard techniques for interpreting MT data may be successful in interpreting EM apparentresistivity spectra where the plane-wave approximation holds. A
useful rule of thumb is that the plane-wave approximation will
hold if the transmitter-receiver separation is greater than about
three skin depths. In Figure 6. for example, the approximation
is valid for frequencies above about0. I Hz. To test this assertion,
we have interpreted the apparent resistivity curves (Figure 5)
with the Bostick continuous inversion algorithm (Bostick, 1977).
This particular algorithm was selected becauseit ix amenable to a
small programmable calculator and useful on partial field curves;
it is therefore suitable for in-field application.
Figure 7 shows the results of the Bostick inversion of the two
EM apparent-resistivity curves. Agreement of the inverted data
with the three-layer model is good for both separations,although
the IO-km separationcurve provides a superior fit with the bottomlayer resistivity, and the 2-km separation curve tits the top-layer
parametersbetter.
To illustrate the application olthis scheme to field data. we calculated apparent resistivity spectra from field data shown in
Figure 1. In Figure 8 the calculated apparent resistivities from
theseEM data are shown. This plot is more typical of field apparentresistivity data because the spectrum is not complete, and there
is sufficient scatter to make quantitative interpretation somewhat
ambiguous. Nevertheless, a Bostick inversion was performed on
an average curve determined from the arithmetic meah of the
calculated points (Figure 8). The results of this inversion are
shown in Figure 9. along with the model obtained by direct leastsquares inversion. The Bostick interpretation of the apparentresistivity data shows good agreement with the layered-model
inversion, although there is some scatter to the fit.

5.0 8.0 IO.0

20.0
Resistivity (R.m)

50 0

100.0

FIG. 7. Bostick inversion interpretation of EM apparent resistivity

curves for transmitter-receiver separationsof 2 and IO km. Threelayer model section is also shown.

lO(IA

l5(I-

20( IA

loo.O
~

30( )-

*
A
A

50( t
7
r
z
:

)
I,OOC

l,5OC)t

A
- -

Averaae curve

&+k--,,I

Frequency(Hz)
FIG. 8. Apparent resistivity spectracalculatedfrom data in Figure 1,
Heavv broken line indicates average CWVP

_.

3.0

5.0

Apparent resistivityinversion
Dipole inversionmodel

[Link]
L

50.0

iGO.

Resisfivity (CL,rn)
FIG. 9. Bostick inversion interpretation of average apparent reslstlvlty
compared to [Link]-layer model ob,, curve
,. m Figure 8 as
^_..
tamea Oy direct Inversion or EM spectra m figure 1,

Calculating Apparent Resistivity

Downloaded 05/28/14 to [Link]. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at [Link]

CONCLUSIONS
In this note we have introduced a simple method for calculating
apparent resistivity from frequency-domain EM sounding data.
The method is sufficiently simple for in-field use, provides valuable feedback of data quality, and gives qualitative evaluation of
incoming results. The apparent resistivity spectra may be interpreted with existing MT software, but since curves do not closely
approximate plane-wave conditions for all frequencies, this procedure should be used with caution.
The scheme may be applied easily to frequency-domain configurations other than the loop-loop setup shown here. and the
application of the method to time-domain EM sounding should
simply require a Fourier transform of the appropriate generalized
curves.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was supported by the Assistant Secretary for Conservation and Renewable Energy, Office of Renewable Tcchnology, Div. of Geothermal and Hydropower Technologies of the
U. S. Dept. of Energy under contract no. W-7405-ENG-48.
REFERENCES
Bostick.F. X.. Jr., 1977, A simple almost exact method of magnetotelluric analysis: Proc. workshop on electrical methods in geothermal

1106

exploration, January, Salt Lake City. p. 1744183: U.S.G.S. contract

14-08-001-G-159.
Dun&. P. M., Hwang. A., Edwards, R. N., Bailey: R. C., and Garland.
G. D., 1980, The development and applications ot a wide band electromagnetic sounding [Link] a pseudo-noise source: Geophysics.
v. 45, p. 1276-1296.
Hoversten. G. M., Lee, K. H., and Morrison. H. F.. 1982, Electromagnetic profiling of conductive ovcrhurden: submitted to Geophysics.
Kauahikaua, J., 1981. Interpretation of time-domain electromagnetic
soundings in the Calico Hills area. Nevada test site, Nye County,
Nevada: U. S.G. S., open tile rep. X1-562.
Keller, G. N., 1971, Natural fields and continuous source methods in
electromagnetic exploration: Geoexploration, v. 9. p, 99.
Morrison, H. F.. Goldstein. N. E.. Hoversten, N., Oppligger. G., and
Riveros, C.. 1978, Description. held test and data analysis of controlled source EM system (EM-601: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory,
Berkelev, LBL-7088.
Morrison,.H. F., Phillips, K. J.. and OBrien. D. P., 1969, Quantitative
interpretation of transient electromagnetic fields over a layered halfspace: geophys Prosp.,v. 17. p. X7- 101.
Rvu. J.. Morrison. H., and Ward, S.. I Y70. Electromagnetic fields about
.a loop source of current: Geophysics, v. 35, p. X62-896.
Stark. M.. Wilt. M.. Haueht. J. R.. and Goldstein. N. E.. 19X0. Controlled source elcctroma&etic survey at Soda Lakes Geothermal Area.
Nevada: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, LBL- I 122 I.
Stemberg, B. K., 1979, Electrical rehi\tivity structure of the crust in the
southern extension of the Canadian shikld-layered earth models: J.
Geophys. Res.. v. X4. p. 212-227.
Trino. A. C.. Ward. S. H.. Sill. W. R.. Swift. C. M.. Jr.. and Petrick.
G. R.. lY78, Electromagnetic and Schlumhcrper resistivity sounding
in the Roosevelt Hot Springs KGRA: Geophysics, Y. 43. p. 1450-1469.