Proc.

of the IEEE International Conference on Smart Instrumentation, Measurement and Applications (ICSIMA)
25-27 November 2014, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

A Complete Quantitative Analysis of Self-Potential

Anomaly Using Singular Value Decomposition
Algorithm
Arya Dwi Candra #1, Wahyu Srigutomo*2, Sungkono#3, Bagus Jaya Santosa#4
#
Department of Physics, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember
Surabaya 60111, Indonesia
1arya13@mhs.physics.its.ac.id

*
Physics of Earth & Complex System Research Division, Institut Teknologi Bandung
Bandung 40116, Indonesia
2
wahyu@fi.itb.ac.id

AbstractA new quantitative interpretation method of self

potential anomaly related to geometric-shaped models such as
horizontal cylinder, vertical cylinder, and sphere object has been
proposed in this paper. This method is based on the concept of
solving least-squares algorithm with singular value
decomposition approach which is designed and implemented to
calculate the depth, the electric dipole moment, the polarization
angle, and the geometric shape factor of self potential anomaly.
This approach uses singular value decomposition algorithm to
solve non-linear inversion of self potential anomaly. The singular
value decomposition algorithm was randomly tested on
theoretical synthetic data which was generated by a chosen
statistical distribution from a known model with different
random noise level. The result shows there is a close agreement Fig. 1. Cross-sectional view of the vertical cylinder, the horizontal cylinder,
and the sphere models.
between the assumed and calculated parameters. Finally the
method validity is tested on the real self potential data anomaly decomposition (SVD) algorithm is proposed to overcome
which is obtained from a cylindrical object that was buried at almost all the drawbacks of all the above methods, particularly
certain depth. the disadvantage of handling random errors and noisy data.

KeywordsSelf-potential anomaly, non-linear inversion,
singular value decomposition algorithm, non-intrusive
measurement
I. INTRODUCTION
Self-potential (SP) method is one of the oldest geophysics
methods. This method is firstly used by Robert Fox in 1830 to
find sulphide deposit in Cornwall, USA. The principle of this
method is to measure the static natural voltage which is located
at specific points on the ground surface. SP method is one of
the simplest methods of geophysics that is inexpensive, non-
intrusive and fast deployment among other geophysical
methods. Further, the quantitative interpretation of SP
anomalies has been widely applied in field measurement such
as mining exploration [1], cave investigation [2], volcanic
activity and geothermal [3], archeological surveying [4], and
embankment seepage control [5].
Several methods have been developed to calculate the SP
parameters, such as curves matching [6], characteristic points
[7], least-squares [8], Levenberq-Marquardt [9], derivatives
and gradient analysis [10]. However, most of these methods are
strongly affected by the noise in the measured data. In this
paper, a new least-squares method using singular value
In the other hand, calculation problem sometimes find
during the inversion process when the matrix is singular. If the
matrix has a singular solution, then we will get a very small
eigenvalues which can lead to errors in the calculation. To
overcome these problems, then we have to develop a new non-
linear inversion technique using the SVD algorithm. This
algorithm is effective to calculate the depth (z), the electric
dipole moment (K), the polarization angle (), and the
geometric shape factor (q) of SP data. The fitting between
observed and calculated SP anomaly represent the accuracy of
the result.
II. THEORETICAL FORMULATION
A. Self Potential
The general SP anomaly mathematical expression triggered
by most polarized structures along a principal profile in a
Cartesian coordinate system is given by the following equation
(Fig. 1) [7]:
xi cos + z sin
V ( xi , z , , q ) = K
(x 2
i + z2 ) (1)
(i = N ,..., 1, 0,1,..., N )

978-1-4799-0841-3/14/$31.00 2014 IEEE

 Where K is the electric dipole moment, z is the depth, xi is a 1
J T J J T = V 1U T (10)
discrete point where there are anomalies, is the polarization
angle between the axis of polarization and the horizontal, and
q is a shape factor which are 0.5 for vertical cylinder object, 1.0 Where J is Jacobi matrix, U and V are eigenvector of the
for horizontal cylinder object and 1.5 for sphere objects. matrix, and is eigenvalue of the matrix. Finally, SVD
algorithm is expressed by the equation:
Standard error () is used as a statistical criterion and
applied on field examples to demonstrate the efficiency and mn +1 = mn + V 1U T ( dobs dcal ) (11)
accuracy of the proposed interpretation technique.
Calculation using non-linear inversion has a disadvantage,
(V ( obs ) V ( cal ) )
m 2

= i =1 i i
(2) when invers of Jacobi matrix has a singular solution or
mn approach to singular so the eigenvalues of the matrix become
very small then the solution has gone beyond the linear region
Where is the standart error, Vi(cal) is the calculated SP (overshoot). Although the Jacobi matrix inversion is not
anomaly, and Vi(obs) is the observed SP anomaly at discrete singular matrix, the iteration result is diverging or very slowly
point xi. converging. SVD method is proposed to overcome the
disadvantage of the inversion process, particularly to perform
B. Singular Value Decomposition Algorithm more stability on matrix inversion.
SVD algorithm is derived from least-squares method that To test the stability of our method in dealing with noise,
expressed by the equation: each SP anomaly is calculated by adding 5% and 10% noise
1
level using the following equation:
mn +1 = mn + J T J J T ( dobs dcal ) (3)
Vrand ( xi ) = V ( xi ) + k (randn(i ))V ( xi ) (12)

Where m is the calculated solution at nth iteration, dobs is Where Vrand(xi) is the contaminated anomaly value at xi, k
observed data, dcal is calculated data, and J is Jacobi matrix that is the noise level, and randn(i) is a random normal number
can be shown in the equation below: which range is (0,1). The random normal number interval does
not include the extremes value, 0 and 1.
Vi Vi Vi Vi
z K q
III. CASE STUDY
J = # # # # (4)
A. Theoretical Synthetic Example
VN VN VN VN
z Theoretical synthetic examples of SP anomaly has been
K q
used to study the SP anomalies across geometric models
shaped like a sphere, cylinder horizontal, and vertical cylinders
Where i is the number of iteration, V is the SP function and using following parameters assumptions: z= 5 m, = 10 , and
J is the Jacobi matrix. K= -600 mV. Parameter assumptions have been used in
The first derivative expression of eq. (1) is given by: equation (1) to produce the appropriate theoretical curves. A
new random data is produced by applying a continuous
V ( K sin( ) ) uniform distribution with maximum random error 5% and 10%
= (5)
z (2 zKq( z sin( ) + xi cos( ))) respectively, see Table 1. The real purpose of adding random
(z + x )
2 2 q
noise is to create data that is very close to the field
( z 2 + xi2 ) q +1
i
measurements. This allows the addition of random noise to
V ( z sin( ) + xi cos( )) validate the method that is developed according to the results
= (6)
K ( z 2 + xi2 ) q of synthetic data interpretation in Table 1. It shows that the
( K ( z cos( ) xi sin( ))) SVD method has the ability to solve non-linear equations very
V
= (7) well, which is characterized by the value of the inversion
( z 2 + xi2 ) q results in accordance with the assumed parameters.
V ( K log( z 2 + xi2 )( z sin( ) + xi cos( ))) In the 5% noise addition indicates that the data inversion
= (8)
q ( z 2 + xi2 ) q results still give a value corresponding to the model parameters
assumptions. The same inversion result of 10% noise addition
If the Jacobi matrix has a singular solution, so SVD still show a corresponding value to the parameter assumptions.
algorithm is expressed as follows: Based on Table 1, we can also see that the error percentage of
each parameter is less than random noise. Similarly, curve
J = U VT (9) fitting result of the synthetic data shows very good results for
each noise addition. Furthermore, the result of each subject
Therefore we obtain shape also shows very good result, which are shown in Fig. 2.
This is suggests that the SVD method is able to process
inversion data more accurately.
 TABLE I. THEORETICAL SYNTHETIC EXAMPLE OF SP ANOMALY WITH 5% AND 10% RANDOM NOISE
Synthetic data Calculated parameters
Geophysical Assumed No noise % of error 5% random % of error 10% random % of error
parameter parameter noise noise
Case 1
z 5.0000 5.0000 0.0000 4.9586 -0.8278 4.9896 -0.2075
k -600.0000 -599.9999 0.0000 -597.9330 -0.3445 -624.1518 4.0253
10.0000 9.9660 -0.3400 10.3626 3.6257 10.5793 5.7927
q 0.5000 0.5000 0.0000 0.5004 0.0891 0.5082 1.6335
Case 2
z 5.0000 5.0000 0.0000 4.9584 -0.8317 4.9027 -1.9456
k -600.0000 -599.9999 0.0000 -585.3769 -2.4372 -619.7067 3.2844
10.0000 9.9663 -0.3370 10.1900 1.9001 9.9300 -0.7004
q 1.0000 1.0000 0.0000 0.9934 -0.6597 1.0083 0.8272
Case 3
z 5.0000 5.0000 0.0000 5.0144 0.2886 4.9905 -0.1896
k -600.0000 -599.9999 0.0000 -615.0901 2.5150 -571.2692 -4.7885
10.0000 9.9655 -0.3450 9.9200 -0.7997 9.4804 -5.1958
q 1.5000 1.5000 0.0000 1.5050 0.3329 1.4944 -0.3762

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

(g) (h) (i)

r
Fig. 2. A SP anomaly curve fitting profile on synthetics data buried at depth z= 5 m with polarization angle = 40 and electric dipole moment K= -600 mV.
(a)(b)(c) shows SP anomaly profile at the surface over a vertical cylinder model (q= 0.5) with no noise, 5% and 10% respectively. (d)(e)(f) shows SP anomaly
profile at the surface over a horizontal cylinder model (q= 1) with no noise, 5% and 10% respectively. (g)(h)(i) shows SP anomaly profile at the surface over a
sphere model (q= 1.5) with no noise, 5% and 10% respectively.
 TABLE II. COMPARISON OF SELF-POTENTIAL ANOMALY CALCULATION RESULTS DERIVED BY DIFFERENT METHODS
Methods of Srigutomo et al
Parameter Derivative analysis Least-squares
method method
z 1.75 0.57
k -18.20 -6.15
38.34 67.91
q 1.05 0.56
% of error 1.115 0.748
Fig. 3. A curve fitting SP anomaly profile on field data.
B. Field data example
To validate the applicability, the proposed method was
applied in SP field data from Srigutomo et al [9]. This SP
anomaly obtained from a buried cylindrical conductive object
at certain depth. The observed and calculated parameters for
implementation of the SVD method in real SP field data are
shown in Fig. 3. From the Fig. 3, it can be seen that the curve
fitting results of SVD method is better than the method
developed by Srigutomo et al [9]. According to the result of
Table 2, SVD method is an efficient and accurate method to
analyze SP anomaly. Therefore, as long as we consider the
fitting between the observed parameters and the calculated
parameters, the SVD methods provides best overall accuracy in
the estimation of SP parameters.
IV. CONCLUSION
A new interpretation method, based on the concept of non-
linear optimization using the SVD algorithm has developed in
this study to determine the SP anomaly parameters. The
proposed method is very well validate using theoretical
synthetic data with various random noise, where the assumed
and calculated parameters is very close to an agreement. The
validity of this method is tested and proven in the SP anomalies
field obtained from cylindrical objects buried at a certain depth,
where good agreement is obtained between the observed and
calculated SP anomalies. The proposed method has a standard
error of 5% when applied on field example. This is indicates
Proposed method
Levenberg- Singular Value Decomposition
Marquardt method method
1.234 1.2325
-10.733 -10.7308
45.780 44.3241
0.916 0.9225
0.537 0.587
that the proposed method has high accuracy and efficiency. In
sum, the present algorithm works very well in both theoretical
synthetic and field example data. The advantage of this method
is efficient in computational, and rapidly convergence to the
optimal estimation of the SP parameters. Therefore, the
proposed method can be recommended for routine analysis of
SP field data to determine the geophysical parameters
associated with the studied structures. Furthermore, this
method can be used to obtain subsurface geological
information, as described by the examples of the SP field data.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We would like to thank reviewers and editors for improving
the quality of the article. The main author greatly
acknowledges the Directorate General of the Higher Education
of the Republic of Indonesia (DIKTI) for supporting him
through DIKTI Graduate Scholarship grant. We also thank
Alwi Husein and Yekti Widyaningrum for refining the English
used in this paper.
REFERENCES
[1] M. Sato and H. M. Mooney, The electrochemical mechanism of sulfide
self-potentials, Geophysics, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 226249, Feb. 1960.
[2] Y. Vichabian and F. Morgan, Self potentials in cave detection, Lead.
Edge, vol. 21, no. 9, pp. 866871, Sep. 2002.
[3] K. Yasukawa, T. Ishido, and I. Suzuki, Geothermal reservoir
monitoring by continuous self-potential measurements, Mori geothermal
field, Japan, Geothermics, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 551567, Oct. 2005.
[4] M. G. Drahor, Application of the self-potential method to
archaeological prospection: some case histories, Archaeol. Prospect.,
vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 77105, 2004.
[5] J. R. Moore, A. Boleve, J. W. Sanders, and S. D. Glaser, Self-potential
investigation of moraine dam seepage, J. Appl. Geophys., vol. 74, no.
4, pp. 277286, Aug. 2011.
[6] B. V. S. Murty and P. Haricharan, Nomogram for the complete
interpretation of spontaneous potential profiles over sheet-like and
cylindrical two-dimensional sources, Geophysics, vol. 50, no. 7, pp.
11271135, Jul. 1985.
[7] S. H. Yungul, Interpretation of spontaneous polarization anomalies
caused by spheroidal ore bodies, Geophysics, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 237
246, Apr. 1950.
[8] E. M. Abdelrahman, K. S. Essa, E. R. Abo-Ezz, M. Sultan, W. A.
Sauck, and A. G. Gharieb, New least-squares algorithm for model
parameters estimation using self-potential anomalies, Comput. Geosci.,
vol. 34, no. 11, pp. 15691576, Nov. 2008.
[9] W. Srigutomo, E. Agustine, and M. H. Zen, Quantitative Analysis of
Self-Potential Anomaly: Derivative Analysis, Indones. J. Phys., vol.
17, no. 2, pp. 4955, 2006.
[10] E. M. Abdelrahman, A. A. B. Ammar, H. I. Hassanein, and M. A.
Hafez, Derivative analysis of SP anomalies, Geophysics, vol. 63, no.
3, pp. 890897, Jun. 1998.