Computers & Geosciences 42 (2012) 177–188

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Computers & Geosciences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cageo

VFSARES—a very fast simulated annealing FORTRAN program for

interpretation of 1-D DC resistivity sounding data from various
electrode arrays
Shashi Prakash Sharma n
Department of Geology and Geophysics, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, W.B. 721302, India

a r t i c l e i n f o abstract

Article history: Employing the very fast simulated annealing (VFSA) global optimization technique, a FORTRAN
Received 30 June 2010 program is developed for the interpretation of one-dimensional direct current resistivity sounding
Received in revised form data from various electrode arrays. The VFSA optimization depicts various good fitting solutions
28 June 2011
(models) after analyzing a large number of models within a predefined model space. Various models
Accepted 24 August 2011
Available online 16 September 2011
that yield reasonably well fitting responses with the observed response lie along a narrow elongated
region of the model space. Therefore, instead of selecting the global model on the basis of the lowest
Keywords: misfit error, it is better to analyze histograms and probability density functions (PDFs) of such models
Global optimization for depicting the global model. In a multidimensional model space, the most appropriate region to
VFSA
select suitable models to compute the mean model is the one in which the PDF is larger in comparison
Resistivity sounding
to the other regions of the model space. Initially, accepted models with misfit errors less than the
Various electrode arrays
predefined threshold value are selected and lognormal PDFs for each model parameter are computed.
Subsequently, mean model and uncertainties are computed using the models in which each model
parameter has a PDF more than the defined threshold value ( 468.2%). The mean model computed from
such models is very close to the actual subsurface structure (global model). It is observed that the mean
model computed using models with a PDF more than 95% for each model parameters yields the actual
model. Moreover uncertainty computed using models with such a high PDF and lying in a small model
space will be small and it will not be considered as the actual global uncertainty. Resistivity sounding
(synthetic and field) data over different subsurface structures are optimized using the VFSA program
developed in the present study. Optimization results reveal that the actual model always locates within
the estimated uncertainty in the mean model. Since the approach requires much less computing time (a
few minutes) using an ordinary PC, results with smaller uncertainty can be obtained using repeated
computations with a smaller search range in comparison to the results obtained in a large search range.
The efficacy of the program is demonstrated by interpreting data from various layered earth structures.
Field examples associated with groundwater and mineral exploration are also presented. Interpreted
model parameters show excellent correlation with drilling results. The optimization program can be
used for various case studies like those associated with groundwater, mineral exploration, subsurface
pollution studies, and saline water incursion in coastal areas.
& 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
One-dimensional (1-D) inversion of direct current (DC) resis-
tivity data sets is a simple and rapid tool for mapping vertical
variations in the electrical conductivity of the earth’s crust
(Inman, 1975). In addition, 1-D interpretation is very useful in
constructing initial models for multidimensional interpretations
(Loke and Barker, 1996). Layered earth interpretation in resistivity
n
Tel.: þ91 3222 283386; fax: þ 91 3222 282268.
E-mail address: spsharma@gg.iitkgp.ernet.in
sounding is still significant and widely used for different practical
applications such as groundwater, mineral exploration, and sub-
surface pollution studies (Van Overmeeren, 1989; Barker, 1990;
Benson et al., 1997; Ebraheem et al., 1997; Sharma and Baranwal,
2005; Baranwal and Sharma, 2006). Interpretation of geophysical
data is always a challenging task and is performed using auto-
matic inversion schemes. Various linearized and global inversion
approaches have been developed for the interpretation of resis-
tivity sounding data (Zohdy, 1989; Bas- okur, 1990; Sen et al.,
1993; Vedanti et al., 2005; Fernández Martı́nez et al., 2010).
Linearized inversion techniques yield a single solution and
have limitations such as selection of the proper initial guess

0098-3004/$ - see front matter & 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2011.08.029
178
model, unstable solutions, and non-uniqueness of the solution
(Inman, 1975). Global optimization using genetic algorithms and
artificial neural networks also yields a single solution and pre-
defined resolution (Singh et al., 2005). VFSA optimization, which
finds solutions in a predefined model space, does not require
partial derivative computation and yields a number of solutions
to overcome the limitation of linearized inversions (Sen and
Stoffa, 1995). Sharma and Kaikkonen (1999) have analyzed VFSA
studies for equivalence and suppression using joint inversion of
resistivity and electromagnetic data. Bhattacharya et al. (2003)
have used VFSA for analysis of resolution, sensitivity, and uncer-
tainty in resistivity and induced polarization data. It is essential to
study various solutions simultaneously in order to determine
geologically relevant models. In a set of solutions, the most
appropriate direction for computing the mean model is the one
where maximum numbers of solution converge. The mean model
computed from such models will be closest to the actual subsur-
face structure.
Although the Schlumberger electrode configuration is the most
commonly used array for resistivity sounding due to its simplicity
in field operations, there are various other electrode configura-
tions having different depths of penetration and resolutions.
Verma and Sharma (1993) have presented linearized inversion
studies associated with different electrode configurations and
shown that dipole array has better resolution. Therefore, in the
present study a common VFSA program is developed for the
interpretation of resistivity sounding data from two-electrode,
Wenner, Schlumberger, dipole perpendicular, and dipole radial
arrays. A number of good fitting models are optimized and a
statistical mean model is computed. Further, uncertainty in the
mean model is minimized and the best fitting model with the
least uncertainty is investigated through independent resistivity
observations.
2. Direct current resistivity sounding
Apparent resistivity expressions over multilayered earth for
different electrode configurations are described well by Koefoed
(1979) and Das and Verma (1981). A digital linear filtering
technique (Ghosh, 1971a, 1971b) is used for the computation of
forward responses for different arrays. For completeness, relevant
expressions for apparent resistivity for different arrays (two-
electrode, Wenner, Schlumberger, Dipole arrays, respectively)
are provided below:
Z 1
raT ðsÞ ¼ s TðlÞJ0 ðlsÞdl ð1Þ
0 the present study, very fast simulated annealing (VFSA) is used,
Z 1
raW ðsÞ ¼ 2s TðlÞ½J0 ðlsÞJ0 ð2lsÞdl
0
Z 1
raS ðsÞ ¼ s2 TðlÞlJ1 ðlsÞdl
0
 Z 1 Z
raD ðsÞ ¼ s2 ð1bÞ TðlÞlJ1 ðlsÞdlbs
0 0
Here s is the electrode separation and varies for different
arrays. s is the distance between two acting electrodes for two-
electrode array, one-third of current electrode separation for
Wenner array, half of the current electrode separation for
Schlumberger array, and distance between the centers of two
dipoles for dipole arrays. b is a constant and it is 1/2 for dipole
radial and 1/3 for dipole perpendicular array. J0 and J1 are the
Bessel functions of zero and first order, respectively. T(l) is the
S.P. Sharma / Computers & Geosciences 42 (2012) 177–188
resistivity transform given by the recurrence relation
Ti þ 1 þ ri tanhðlhi Þ
Ti ¼ ð5Þ
1 þ ðTi þ 1 tanhðlhi Þ=ri Þ
where i¼N 1,y,1, TN ¼ rN, ri and hi are the resistivity and
thickness of the ith layer, respectively. Using x ¼ln(s) and
y¼ln(1/l), Eqs. (1)–(4) become
Z 1
raT ðxÞ ¼ TðyÞ½eðxyÞ J0 ðexy Þdy ð6Þ
1
Z 1
raW ðxÞ ¼ TðyÞ½2eðxyÞ fJ0 ðexy ÞJ0 ð2exy Þgdy ð7Þ
1
Z 1
raS ðxÞ ¼ TðyÞ½e2ðxyÞ J1 ðexy Þdy ð8Þ
1
Z 1 Z 1 
1
raDr ðxÞ ¼ TðyÞfe2ðxyÞ J1 ðexy Þgdy TðyÞfe3ðxyÞ J0 ðexy Þgdy
2 1 1
ð9Þ
Note that raDr represents dipole radial array in Eq. (9). The
resistivity transform, T(y), is the input of the second term in Eqs.
(6)–(9), which is the filter function. Various researchers have
developed different sets of filter coefficient to compute apparent
resistivity for different electrode configurations (Ghosh, 1971b;
Das et al., 1974; Das and Ghosh, 1973; Johansen, 1977; Koefoed,
1979). The expression for dipole perpendicular can be obtained by
putting the value of b as 1/3 in Eq. (4) and will look similar to Eq.
(9). These convolution integrals, Eqs. (6)–(9), can be written in the
summation form and used for calculation of theoretical resistivity
sounding data for different electrode configurations.
3. VFSA optimization method
3.1. Basic concept
Global optimization methods such as simulated annealing
(SA), genetic algorithms (GAs), and artificial neural networks have
been applied to multiparametric optimization of various geophy-
sical data sets (Rothman, 1985, 1986; Sen et al., 1993; Sen and
Stoffa, 1995; Sharma and Kaikkonen, 1998, 1999; Vedanti et al.,
2005; Fernández Alvarez et al., 2008; Fernández Martı́nez et al.,
2010). Conventional global optimization techniques (simulated
annealing using a heat-bath algorithm or a genetic algorithm)
compute the misfit errors for a large number of models in the
model space. Subsequently they compute the probability of each
model and try to concentrate in the region of high probability. In
which does not compute misfit errors for a large number of
models at a time but it moves in the model space randomly. It
ð2Þ
selects a new model, computes misfit errors and probability for
this model, and then selects or rejects this model with respect to
the previous model. Movement in the model space follows
ð3Þ Cauchy probability distribution, which has a sharper peak than
Gaussian distribution. This allows the temperature to be lowered
1  at a faster rate in VFSA than conventional SA approaches. Hence
2
TðlÞl J0 ðlsÞdl ð4Þ VFSA reaches the final temperature rapidly. This makes it more
efficient and it takes a lesser amount of computing time in
comparison to other global algorithms (Sen and Stoffa, 1995,
pp. 267).
One of the salient features of VFSA is that it does not need to
store a vast number of models like other global converging
approaches. It selects better models while moving in the multi-
dimensional model space at different temperature levels and
finally yields a model with the lowest misfit error. However in a
complex situation of equivalence in DC resistivity, if the VFSA
 S.P. Sharma / Computers & Geosciences 42 (2012) 177–188
process is repeated several times then equivalent solutions are
obtained with similar misfit errors. Under such circumstances it is
better to perform statistical analysis of various models showing a
misfit error lower than a predefined threshold value. Therefore in
the present VFSA approach, all the accepted models are also
stored in the memory for the posterior analysis. A short descrip-
tion of the objective function and governing equations of the VFSA
process is given below.
Initially a model Pi (ri and hi, resistivity and thickness for
various layers, respectively) is selected randomly in the model
space Pmini rPi rPmax
i . It is important to note that each model
min max
space Pi to Pi is transformed into log domain and then a
sample Pi (which is actually log(Pi)) is drawn according to Cauchy
probability distribution. Subsequently, log(Pi) is transformed back
to the actual domain to compute the model response. Since log–
log scale is utilized for the presentation of apparent resistivity
data, discrepancy between the observed and the model data
(visualized on the log–log plot) can be mathematically repre-
sented by log transformed observed and computed apparent
resistivity. Therefore, the following objective function e is calcu-
lated:
1XN
e¼ ½lnðr0j Þlnfrcj ðPi Þg2 ð10Þ
Nj¼1
where r0j and rcj ðPi Þ are jth observed and model responses,
respectively, N is the number of observation points. Model
parameters and the objective function of the above model are
kept in memory and each parameter is updated according to the
Cauchy probability distribution. The updating factor yi for the ith
parameter is computed from the following equation:
" # temperatures, the algorithm accepts models in the vicinity of the

1 92ui 19
yi ¼ sgnðui 0:5ÞTi 1 þ 1 ð11Þ
Ti
such that it varies between 1 and þ1. In the above equation ui
is a random number varying between 0 and 1, and Ti is the
temperature, which may be the same or different for various
parameters depending on the nature of the problem. Each para-
meter Pi is updated to Pmi
þ1
from its previous value Pm
i by the
following equation:
Pim þ 1 ¼ Pim þ yi ðPi max Pi min Þ ð12Þ
and thus a new model is obtained. Subsequently, the objective
function for the new model is calculated and compared with the
previous model. If the misfit error of the new model is less than
the misfit error of the previous model, then the new model is
selected with the probability exp(  De/T), where De is the
difference in the objective functions of the two models. When
the misfit error of the new model is greater than that of the
previous model, then a random number between 0 and 1 is drawn
and compared with the probability. If the probability is greater
than the random number then also the new model is selected
with the same probability otherwise the new model is rejected
and an earlier model and its objective function are kept in the
memory. Next, specified numbers of moves are made at the same
temperature level by accepting and rejecting the model according
to the above-noted criterion and this makes one iteration.
Repeated movement in the model space at one temperature level
yields a better and better model. After completing the specified
number of moves at a particular temperature, the temperature is
lowered according to the following cooling schedule:
Ti ðkÞ ¼ T0i expðci k1=M Þ: ð13Þ
Here k is the number of iteration; ci is a constant, which may
vary for different model parameters; T0i is the initial temperature,
which may also be different for various parameters, its initial
179
value depends on the magnitude of the objective function
considered for the optimization; and M is the number of model
parameters. In the present study ci ¼1 is used and 1/M is replaced
by the parameter CS. After several test runs in this study, T0i is
found suitable at 0.01 and CS as 0.4 for resistivity data inter-
pretation. There is no need to change these parameters in the
program as they are tested and they work efficiently.
Once again the specified number of moves with the selection
criterion noted above is made at a lower temperature level.
Subsequently, the temperature is lowered gradually using Eq.
(13) to a sufficiently low value selecting a better and better model
at each temperature level. After completing the predefined itera-
tions (say 1000), one solution is obtained. The whole procedure is
repeated several times to obtain various solutions and each time
the process starts from a randomly selected model in the
predefined model space. The model parameters obtained in
different runs could be the same for a well posed simple problem.
However, they are different according to the physics of the
problem for complex problems. For example, in the DC resistivity
case, model parameters of intermediate layers follow the princi-
ple of equivalence.
It is observed that initially at higher temperature levels,
accepted model parameters vary over a large range. This is due
to the fact that in a highly complex multidimensional error
(misfit) surface, the PDF is also as complex as the misfit surface
at higher temperature levels. However, as the temperature is
lowered, the PDF becomes smoother and shows sharper peaks
(Sharma and Kaikkonen, 1998). Hence, the accepted model para-
meter is localized near the well-defined peak and shows a
tendency to cluster around the minimum. At sufficiently low
deep seated minimum where the PDF has a sharp peak and other
local minima are absolutely invisible. When the VFSA process is
repeated several times then it yields different good fitting models
(different deep-seated minimum in the objective function) that
are spread over the multidimensional model space according to
the physics of the problem.
3.2. Global model and uncertainty using all accepted models
A single run of global converging algorithms is not sufficient to
find the global solution (Sen and Stoffa, 1995). Therefore, a
number of good fitting models are optimized (10 in the present
study). Model parameters (ri and hi) of these good fitting models
may differ from each other and lie in a wide range in the
multidimensional model space. It is essential to sample the
models from the most appropriate region (where a large number
of models are located) of the model space. Different sampling
techniques have been used by different scientists (Mosegaard and
Tarantola, 1995; Sen and Stoffa, 1996) to obtain the global model
and minimize uncertainty in the solution. Sampling in the model
space is based on different statistical distributions and could
differ from one geophysical method to other. In DC resistivity,
individual models lie along the equivalent regions of the model
space and equivalent regions are different for resistive and
conducting layers. However, transformation of variables in loga-
rithmic domain yields equivalent regions in a common geome-
trical shape (a straight line) such that an individual model lies
along this line for resistive as well as conducting layers. Therefore,
in the present study, sampling in the model space is performed
using lognormal probability distributions.
To obtain a best fitting model, computations are performed at
1000 different temperature levels with 20 moves at one tem-
perature level. The VFSA procedure is repeated 10 times and the
10 best fitting solutions are obtained. Thus 200,000 models and
their misfit errors are stored in memory where misfit error varies
180 S.P. Sharma / Computers & Geosciences 42 (2012) 177–188
from a large value to a very small value. Out of these models,
repeated models as well as models whose misfit error is higher
than the defined threshold value are discarded. Therefore, models
that fit the observed response up to certain degree are selected for
further analysis.
First, the PDF for each model parameter for all selected models
is computed. The probability density function fx ðx, m, sÞ of a
lognormal distribution of a variable x (ri and hi ) is given by
1 2 2
fx ðx, m, sÞ ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffi eððln xmÞ =2s Þ ð14Þ
xs 2p
In a lognormal distribution, parameters denoted as m and s are
the mean and standard deviation, respectively, of the variable’s
natural logarithm.
Several approaches are analyzed to reach the global solution
using lognormal probability distributions. First, a model is tried to
be designed by picking up the model parameter on the basis of
the highest PDF for individual model parameters. It is observed
that such a model differs from the global model. Next, the global
model is also tried to be selected on the basis of sum of the
normalized PDF (sum of the probability of the individual model
parameters normalized by the respective highest probability) for
various models. The magnitude of the PDF for different variables
(ri and hi) is at different levels; therefore, to make them at the
same level they are normalized by the respective maximum value
such that the PDF varies between 0 and 1 for each variable. The
sums of normalized PDFs (all parameters) for all models are
computed and compared. Once again, it is emphasized that a
model having the highest sum of normalized probability is the
best model among all models with the lowest misfit error.
However, this is also not the global model. Such model can also
be picked up by simply looking for the lowest objective function
for all solutions. Further, a model can also be picked up by fitting
a smooth curve through the PDF for various model parameters (ri
and hi) using all selected models or a few selected variables
whose probability is larger than a given threshold value. Fitting
using lognormal distribution will produce a mean and standard
deviation for each model parameter (ri and hi) that can also be
defined as a global model and associated uncertainty. However,
this approach is also similar to an approach such as picking up
individual model parameters corresponding to the highest PDF.
In the present study, global model and associated uncertainty
are obtained using the following approach. After computing the PDF
for all selected models parameters using Eq. (14), the maximum
PDF for each parameter is determined. Subsequently, for selection
of new good models for the computation of the mean model a
68.2% limit for the PDF is set for each parameter. If any parameter
(ri and hi) of a model has a PDF lower than 68.2% then that model is
located in the undesired region of the model space and discarded.
This results in sampling of the most appropriate region of the model
space of the high probability region in multidimensional model
space. Finally, only those models in which all model parameters
have a PDF greater than 68.2% are selected for computation of the
mean model and uncertainty. It is observed that such a mean model
is very close to the global model and the global model is always
located within the uncertainty estimated in the mean model. The
program VFSARES.F is written in such a way that one can set any
desired cutoff limit for PDF in the input file.
It is emphasized that different limits in PDFs such as 60%, 75%,
90%, and 95% are used to demonstrate how the selected models
are closer to the actual model parameters. Obviously, higher
threshold values resulted in selection of lesser models and small
uncertainty. A lower threshold value of PDF allows more models
to be selected for the computation of the mean model and yields
larger uncertainty in the mean model.
The mean model Pi is computed from the new best models
where each model parameter has a PDF larger than the defined
threshold value (say 68.2%) using the expression
( )
1 XNM
Pi ¼ exp lnðPi,k Þ ð15Þ
NM k ¼ 1
In the above equation NM is the number of models satisfying
the above-noted criterion of a higher PDF. Subsequently, the
covariance and correlation matrices are computed using the
equations (Tarantola, 1987)
1 XNM
Cov Pði,jÞ ¼ ðP P ÞðP P Þ ð16Þ
NM k ¼ 1 i,k i j,k j
and
Cov Pði,jÞ
Cor Pði,jÞ ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð17Þ
Cov Pði,iÞ  Cov Pðj,jÞ
In Eqs. (16) and (17) i and j vary from 1 to M. The correlation
matrix formed with these solutions fitting well to the observed
response conveys the relationship of the parameters and asso-
ciated physics. The square roots of the diagonal elements of the
covariance matrix represent the uncertainties in the mean model
parameters and it is used to estimate the uncertainties in the
mean model.
3.3. Mean model and uncertainty using best fitted models
As discussed in the previous section that 10 best fitting
solutions (models) are derived after 20,000 forward computations
for each run. Mean model and associated uncertainty are also
computed using Eqs. (15) and (16) from these 10 best fitting
solutions that lie along the equivalent region of the model space.
These 10 best fitting models lie over a wider model space
compared to the models selected on the basis of PDFs ( 468.2%
for each parameter). Therefore, uncertainty computed using
selected models on the basis of PDFs will be smaller compared
to these 10 best fitting models derived from 10 runs of the VFSA
process.
It is emphasized that the mean models in both cases are
similar but uncertainties will be different. Since the actual model
is located within the estimated uncertainty, smaller uncertainty
will be better for accurate results, which will be obtained from
the posterior analysis of the history of all models during the VFSA
process.
3.4. Response correlation
To quantify the fitting between the mean model response and
the observed response, the response correlation a is computed
PN 0 cn
i ¼ 1 ri ri
a ¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
PN P ð18Þ
ð i ¼ 1 r0i r0i n Þð N c cn
i ¼ 1 ri ri Þ
In Eq. (18) * represents the complex conjugate of the quantity;
however, it is the same for a real quantity. The quantity a yields a
value near unity for a good matching of the responses and a lower
value for a poor matching.
4. Results
Initially, synthetic resistivity sounding data are generated for
various models that represent different types of geological struc-
tures. Actual model parameters for various synthetic data sets are
shown in respective tables. To demonstrate the efficacy of the
developed program for delineation of the actual subsurface
 S.P. Sharma / Computers & Geosciences 42 (2012) 177–188 181

structure, initially noise free synthetic data for Schlumberger arrays Table 1
over three-layer models (H- and K-type) are used in the optimiza- Optimization results for H-type model.
tion. Subsequently, random noise added synthetic data for different
Parameters Actual Search Mean model Mean model
electrode configurations over a four-layer model (HK-type) are value range (final 10 sol.) (PDF 468.2%)
optimized. It should be noted that noise added synthetic data may
correspond to a structure that could be different compared to the r1 (O m) 100 50–200 100.07 0.02 100.07 0.09
actual subsurface structure for which synthetic data were generated. r2 (O m) 20 10–80 22.70 7 9.90 18.71 7 3.74
r3 (O m) 500 100–2000 500.8 71.58 499.9 7 3.01
Finally, a number of field data sets are optimized to show the
h1 (m) 50 10–80 48.83 7 1.93 50.047 0.57
applicability of the program for the interpretation of data associated h2 (m) 20 5–50 23.02 7 10.79 18.70 73.85
with groundwater and mineral exploration. Misfit error – – 1.22  10  6 3.22  10  8
After looking at the observed responses (apparent resistivity Correlation 1.00 1.00
for synthetic or field data), the number of layers and suitable
search ranges (lower and upper bound) for various model para-
meters (resistivity and thickness) are determined to perform the
VFSA optimization. Initially, it is better to obtain a single solution.
If search ranges are not selected properly then some of the model
parameters may lie on the lower or upper bound of the search
range. This is erroneous; optimized model parameter should
never lie on the lower or higher bounds of the search range. If
that is the case with any of the model parameters then the lower/
higher bound should be modified accordingly. For example, if the
lower bound of a parameter is set at 30 and after executing the
program that parameter is also found to be 30, then this implies
that the actual value of the parameter is lower than 30. The lower
limit of that parameter must be set less than 30. Similarly, if a
parameter touches the higher limit of the search range after
optimization then the higher limit must be increased. This is a
very important step of VFSA global optimization. An experienced
person is able to set these limits in one step; however, one can
quickly learn to set the appropriate limits for each model para-
meter. When all the optimized parameters lie within the defined
search range after executing the program, then fitting between
the observed and the model data will be accurate. After testing
this, one can perform the desired number of runs (say 10) to have
a large number of samples to find the appropriate region of the
model space (high PDF region in the multidimensional model
space) to compute, (i) mean model which necessarily fits the
observed data, (ii) uncertainty in the mean model parameters
using the covariance matrix, (iii) correlation matrix depicting the
dependence of model parameters on each other, (iv) response
correlation between field and model responses, and (v) misfit
error between the observed and the mean model data.
It is essential to keep the search range narrow for precise results.
On some trial runs one should restrict the search range to obtain a
good result with smaller uncertainty in the mean model para-
meters. For the movement (sampling) in model space, a switch 1 or
0 can be set for logarithmic and linear domain sampling for each
model parameter. Generally, resistivity varies over a large range
and requires logarithmic variation and thicknesses vary over a
smaller range and need linear variation. However, the nature of the
DC resistivity problem is such that it is better to optimize both in
the logarithmic domain. In the present study, samples are drawn in
the logarithmic domain according to Cauchy probability distribu-
tions for both resistivity and thicknesses of various layers.
The convergence pattern of various model parameters (for Fig. 1. Convergence pattern for various model parameters and misfit errors for a
VFSA solution.
H-type model given in Table 1) after VFSA optimization for a
single solution is shown in Fig. 1. Since the number of moves at
one temperature level (one iteration) is 20 and 1000 iterations are value. Fig. 1 depicts the pattern of convergence for one best fitting
performed, 20,000 forward computations in total are performed solution. Performing several runs (say 10) will yield 10 similar
to obtain a solution. It is observed that various model parameters figures. Moreover, the final model in all 10 runs will be different
vary over a large range initially (at higher temperature levels) and (specially r2 and h2 or intermediate layer parameters). Further,
subsequently start stabilizing around a solution. During this these 10 runs yield enough models (200,000 in the present study)
process misfit error reduces gradually from 0.01 to a very low for statistical analysis. A histogram and lognormal probability
value of 10  8. It can be seen from Fig. 1 that all parameters are distribution will be analyzed for each model parameter. Finally,
stabilized after 5000 computations but misfit error systematically all accepted moves (models), accepted models with misfit errors
reduces by refining the model parameters to a very accurate below a defined threshold, selected models after applying 60%,
182 S.P. Sharma / Computers & Geosciences 42 (2012) 177–188

75%, 90%, and 95% PDF cutoff values for each parameter are
presented for two primary models (H- and K-type) to show the
efficacy of the procedure in depicting the appropriate sampling of
the model space for computation of the mean model.
4.1. Theoretical data
4.1.1. H-type model
Initially, a model with a conducting intermediate layer is
selected, which represents a groundwater-bearing zone, miner-
alized zone, subsurface pollution, and saline water incursion
zones. Actual model parameters and their search ranges are
shown in Table 1. As discussed above, 10 VFSA runs are
performed, and model parameters and misfit errors for 200,000
models are stored in the memory for statistical analysis. Next,
repeated models and the models with misfit errors higher than
10  4 are removed. Remaining models are used to prepare
histograms and to compute the PDF. The upper panel of Fig. 2
presents the histogram of the accepted model parameters whose
misfit error is less than the threshold misfit error (10  4 in this
example). The histogram reveals that r1, r3, and h1 show a
tendency to cluster around the actual value (100, 500, and 50,
respectively). However, r2 and h2 do not show such a tendency.
The number of accepted model parameters for intermediate layer
varies over a broad range. This is due to equivalence associated
with a conducting layer. The lower panel of Fig. 2 depicts the
lognormal probability distribution for each model parameter. A
peak in the PDF can be seen for each model parameter, which is
roughly centered close to the actual model parameters. As
expected, PDFs for r1, r3, and h1 are rather sharp while those
for r2 and h2 are broad. Therefore uncertainties in r2 and h2 will
be larger in comparison to other model parameters.
Fig. 3 depicts the cross-plots of h2 verses r2 after different
stages of the selection process. Fig. 3a and b depicts all accepted
models and accepted models whose misfit error is lower than
10  4, respectively. Fig. 3c–f depicts models in which all para-
meters have a PDF greater than 60%, 75%, 90%, and 95%, respec-
tively. Fig. 3f shows that h2 and r2 are centered on a point but
there are many models located in this small region. The global
uncertainty can be estimated from the covariance matrix of the
models in a larger model space. Since one standard deviation
corresponds to a 68.2% PDF level, a 68.2% limit is set for each
parameter for the selection of models for computation of the
mean model and uncertainty.
Table 1 depicts the optimized model parameters and uncer-
tainties in the mean models computed using two approaches. The
first mean model is computed on the basis of the 10 best models
obtained after each VFSA run. The second mean model is com-
puted using models from the high probability region ( 468.2% PDF
for each model parameter). Both mean models are centered close
to the actual model with different uncertainties. It is interesting to
note that computation of the mean model is also performed using
the models in the highest probability region (on the basis of 95%
limit for each model parameter) and resulting model parameters
are exactly the same as the actual model parameters with
negligible uncertainty. Since, negligible uncertainty is not proper,
mean models computed from the models with PDFs greater than
68.2% are presented in the various tables.

Fig. 2. Histogram (top panel) and probability density function (bottom panel) of selected models that have misfit errors below a defined threshold value for the
H-type model.

Fig. 3. Cross-plots of thickness and resistivity of the target layer for the H-type model showing (a) all accepted models, (b) selected models having misfit error below a
defined threshold value, (c) models in which all model parameters have a PDF greater than 60%, (d) models in which all model parameters have a PDF greater than 75%,
(e) models in which all model parameters have a PDF greater than 90%, and (f) models in which all model parameters have a PDF greater than 95%.
 S.P. Sharma / Computers & Geosciences 42 (2012) 177–188 183

Table 1 reveals that uncertainties in the resistivity and thick-

ness of the second layer are larger than other model parameters.
This is due to the fact that resistivity and thickness of the
intermediate layer in H-type case are positively correlated and
have a wide range. Fig. 4 shows a perfect fit between the synthetic
and the model data. The misfit errors shown in Table 1 are also
very small and response correlation is 1 showing the proper fit
between the observed and model responses. The correlation
matrix presented in Table 2 shows that the resistivity of the first
layer exhibits a weak correlation with all other model parameters.
The resistivity of the second layer shows strong positive correla-
tion with thickness of the second layer. Further, resistivity of the
second layer also shows a negative correlation with the thickness
of the first layer. This is also in accordance with the physics of the
problem. To keep the model data the same when the resistivity of
the intermediate layer increases then the thickness of the first
layer must reduce. Resistivity of the third layer is uncorrelated.
Fig. 4. Fitting between observed and model data for the H-type model.
The thickness of the first layer depicts a negative correlation with
resistivity and thickness of the second layer.

Table 2 4.1.2. K-type model

Correlation matrix for H-type model using 68.2% PDF limit. A model with resistive intermediate layer is selected. This
could also represent a groundwater-bearing zone, mineralized
r1 r2 r3 h1 h2
zone, subsurface pollution, and saline water incursion like the
r1 1.000  0.031 0.015  0.115  0.022 previous H-type model but now lies below a resistive layer. This
r2 1.000 0.098  0.790 0.999 type of subsurface structure is also quite common in the field.
r3 1.000 0.068 0.114 Table 3 presents the actual model parameters and search ranges.
h1 1.000  0.793
VFSA optimization is performed using noise free synthetic data
h2 1.000
like the H-type model and the 10 best fitting models are derived.
Once again repeated models and models with misfit errors greater
than 10  4 are removed. Subsequently, a histogram is prepared
and a lognormal PDF is computed (Fig. 5) using the remaining
Table 3
Optimization results for K-type model. models. Histograms and PDFs reveal that the parameters of
intermediate layers (r2 and h2) are spread over a larger model
Parameters Actual Search Mean model Mean model space compared to other model parameters.
value range (final 10 sol.) (PDF 468.2%) Fig. 6 depicts the cross-plots h2 verses r2 after different stages.
20 10–50 207 0.00 207 0.00
Fig. 6a and b reveals all accepted models and accepted models with
r1 (O m)
r2 (O m) 500 50–1000 5137 265 5167 24 misfit errors less than 10  4, respectively. Fig. 6c–f depict models in
r3 (O m) 50 10–100 49.98 70.08 49.97 70.27 which all parameters have a PDF greater than 60%, 75%, 90%, and
h1 (m) 50 10–80 49.82 70.49 50.027 0.16 95%, respectively. Again, Fig. 6f shows that h2 and r2 are centered
h2 (m) 20 5–50 19.58 712.88 19.37 70.94 on a point but many models are located in this small region.
Misfit error – – 6.73  10  7 1.76  10  9
Table 3 presents the mean models and uncertainties computed
Correlation 1.0000 1.0000
from 10 solutions as well as models accepted on the basis of

Fig. 5. Histogram (top panel) and probability density function (bottom panel) of selected models that have misfit errors below a defined threshold value for the
K-type model.
184 S.P. Sharma / Computers & Geosciences 42 (2012) 177–188

Fig. 6. Cross-plots of thickness and resistivity of the target layer for the K-type model showing (a) all accepted models, (b) selected models having misfit errors below a
defined threshold value, (c) models in which all model parameters have a PDF greater than 60%, (d) models in which all model parameters have a PDF greater than 75%,
(e) models in which all model parameters have a PDF greater than 90%, and (f) models in which all model parameters have a PDF greater than 95%.

Fig. 7. Fitting between observed and model data for the K-type model. Fig. 8. Fitting between noisy synthetic data and model data for various arrays
(model data for different arrays are shown by a common solid line which fits the
noisy synthetic data for respective arrays).

Table 4
Correlation matrix for K-type model using 68.2% PDF limit.
in the apparent resistivity. Since apparent resistivity data are
r1 r2 r3 h1 h2 affected by various kinds of noises, a 10% random noise is added
to the synthetic data to simulate the actual field data. Subse-
r1 1.000 0.013 0.080 0.170  0.051
r2 1.000  0.131 0.318  0.927
quently, VFSA optimization is performed using the noisy synthetic
r3 1.000  0.639  0.204 data from different arrays and optimization results are compared
h1 1.000  0.053 for the same search range. Noise in the data increases the
h2 1.000 magnitude of misfit error at a higher level; hence in this case a
misfit error of 0.01 and a PDF of 68.2% are set for the selection of
appropriate models for the computation of the mean model.
PDFs greater than 68.2% for each model parameter. Table 3 Table 5 presents the mean model computed from the models
reveals that once again uncertainties in the mean model para- with a PDF greater than 68.2% for individual model parameters.
meters of intermediate layers are large compared to other model The efficacy of VFSA optimization using the resistivity sounding
parameters. The mean model data fit accurately with the data from different arrays is presented in Table 5. Once again, it is
observed data (Fig. 7). necessary to note that when noise is added to the synthetic data,
The correlation matrix (Table 4) computed from the models the actual model changes in comparison to the true model for
with PDFs greater than 68.2% shows that resistivity of the first which the synthetic data were generated. Therefore, the quality of
layer exhibits a weak correlation with all other model parameters the inversion results will be determined by the estimated uncer-
similar to the H-type case. Resistivity of the second layer shows tainties in the mean model of the same search range. Table 5
negative correlation with the thickness of the second layer. This is indicates that the dipole perpendicular array yields the best
again in accordance with the principle of equivalence for a K-type results. Fittings between the noisy synthetic data from different
model. Resistivity of the third layer does not show strong arrays and the corresponding model data are shown in Fig. 8. In
correlation with other model parameters. Fig. 8, a common solid line depicts the model data for different
arrays that fit the respective noisy synthetic data shown by
4.2. Noisy data—HK type model different solid symbols.

Next, synthetic resistivity sounding data are generated over a
typical four-layer model (HK-type) for different electrode config-
urations. The presence of all the layers can hardly be detected
(Fig. 8) in the apparent resistivity data, specially for the two-
electrode array. Two-electrode array data show the least detect-
ability while dipole radial array data depict the largest variation
4.3. Field data
4.3.1. Groundwater investigation
Resistivity sounding data (VES-1) presented in Fig. 9 deal with
groundwater investigation. The data are measured in a lateritic
terrain of the Ganga basin, Eastern India. Despite a high amount of
 S.P. Sharma / Computers & Geosciences 42 (2012) 177–188 185

Table 5
Optimization results using HK-type noisy data from various electrode configurations using models with PDF greater than 68.2% for each model parameter.

Parameters Actual value Search ranges Two-electrode Wenner Schlumberger Dip. perpendicular Dip. radial

r1 (O m) 150 100–200 149.6 71.8 149.8 70.9 150.07 0.3 150.07 0.0 149.6 7 0.2
r2 (O m) 35 1–100 38.4 78.1 32.4 77.3 33.5 74.6 36.27 3.8 34.5 7 4.7
r3 (O m) 450 100–1000 518 7105 486 788 433 734 4617 29 479 7 43
r4 (O m) 50 20–100 50.0 70.5 50.0 70.4 50.0 70.1 50.07 0.0 50.07 0.1
h1 (m) 10 1–20 10.2 70.4 10.1 70.2 10.0 70.2 9.97 0.3 10.07 0.4
h2 (m) 15 5–30 16.9 73.2 14.2 71.6 14.7 71.2 14.97 1.3 16.3 7 1.9
h3 (m) 25 5–30 21.8 74.6 22.4 73.6 27.3 72.8 26.17 2.2 24.2 7 3.4
Misfit 8.42  10  4 1.35  10  4 4.73  10  4 5.48  10  4 7.43  10  4

Table 7
Correlation matrix for VES-1 using 68.2% PDF limit.

r1 r2 r3 r4 h1 h2 h3

r1 1.000 0.092 0.037  0.162 0.806  0.099 0.001

r2 1.000  0.035  0.020 0.270  0.911  0.018
r3 1.000 0.034 0.039 0.031 0.969
r4 1.000  0.152 0.013 0.082
h1 1.000  0.184 0.027
h2 1.000 0.056
h3 1.000

Fig. 9. Fitting between field and model data for VES-1.

Table 6
Optimization results for VES-1 depicting groundwater investigation.

Parameters Search range Inversion result

(PDF 468.2%)

r1 (O m) 30–60 36.28 7 0.34

r2 (O m) 100–500 401 715.2
r3 (O m) 5–50 11.1 7 0.49
r4 (O m) 1000–5000 4590 7 87
h1 (m) 1–10 5.34 7 0.10
h2 (m) 5–30 9.42 7 0.34 Fig. 10. Fitting between field and model data for VES-2.
h3 (m) 5–30 12.12 7 1.58
Misfit error – 3.50  10  4
Correlation 0.9990
results shown in Table 6. The laterite layer was encountered in
the borehole at 5.24 m depth and continued upto13.25 m depth. A
annual rainfall in the region there is a scarcity of groundwater. sandy clay layer followed after this and continued up to 26.75 m
Finding a suitable aquifer in the hard lateritic layer is challenging. depth. Massive laterite formation occurs again beyond 26.75 m. A
The measured resistivity sounding data show a four-layer KH- very good fitting between observed and model data is presented
type structure (Fig. 9). Thick dry clay, which forms the surface soil in Fig. 9. The correlation matrix for this field data is shown in
is followed by a hard laterite layer. Below the laterite layer there Table 7. It correlates well with the correlation matrix obtained for
is a water-saturated sandy clay layer. The final layer is again a dry theoretical H- and K-type data optimization.
laterite formation. The second layer does not allow percolation of
rainwater for recharge and rainwater simply runs off from this 4.3.2. Mineral exploration
region. An artificial recharge by perforating the lateritic layer Resistivity sounding data presented for mineral exploration
needs precise information about the thickness of the lateritic are taken from resistivity surveys carried out for the delineation
layer as well as the rechargeable layer for the success of the of chromite-bearing formation. An integrated geological and
scheme. Interpretation of data from this region is very crucial geophysical survey was performed to assess the suitability of
because there is always a large uncertainty associated with the area for chromite mineralization. Some parts of the area were
sandwiched resistive and conducting layers for a KH-type struc- found geologically suitable and therefore, detailed gravity, mag-
ture. The developed VFSA program serves the purpose effectively netic, VLF electromagnetic and electrical resistivity surveys were
under such conditions. Table 6 presents the interpreted model carried out (Mohanty et al., 2010) in this region. Two zones of
parameters and associated uncertainty. Exploratory drilling con- interest were chosen for resistivity survey to constrain the model
ducted at the survey location matched well with the interpreted obtained from gravity data interpretation. The first area depicted
186 S.P. Sharma / Computers & Geosciences 42 (2012) 177–188

a positive gravity anomaly of a high magnitude while the second

area revealed a positive gravity anomaly of a smaller magnitude.
A resistivity sounding (VES-2) was performed exactly at the
center of the high gravity anomaly zone in the first area. Fig. 10
depicts the measured apparent resistivity data. Interpreted results
shown in Table 8 reveal top layer resistivity 17.35 O m and
thickness 1.71 m. This layer is water-saturated sandy clay. The
second layer with resistivity 62.25 O m and thickness 33.42 m is
chromite-bearing mafic/ultramafic rock. The third layer is sheared
granite, which forms the basement. Exploratory drilling has been
carried out and basement rock encountered in the borehole as
interpretation given in the Table 8. The second layer is confirmed
as a chromite-bearing layer from the drilling.
Resistivity soundings were also performed in the second area
that depicted a relatively small but a regular positive gravity
anomaly zone. This means that a possible chromite body could be
located at a deeper depth or it may have smaller thickness
Fig. 12. Fitting between field and model data for VES-4.
compared to the main chromite body in the first area. First, a
resistivity sounding using Schlumberger arrays was performed
with the current electrode spread in N–S direction (VES-3). This Table 10
Optimization results for VES-4 depicting mineral exploration.
sounding showed only a two-layer structure (Fig. 11). Table 9
Parameters Search range Inversion result
(PDF 468.2%)

Table 8
r1 (O m) 20–100 34.82 7 1.56
Optimization results for VES-2 depicting mineral exploration.
r2 (O m) 100–5000 824 765
r3 (O m) 10–100 38.16 7 3.72
Parameters Search range Inversion result
r4 (O m) 1000–20000 8576 768
(PDF 468.2%)
h1 (m) 2–10 8.41 70.15
r1 (O m) 1–30 17.35 7 0.15 h2 (m) 5–30 22.85 7 2.14
20–200 65.25 7 4.62 h3 (m) 5–30 17.45 7 3.14
r2 (O m)
Misfit error – 5.68  10  3
r3 (O m) 50–1000 559 7 13.80
Correlation 0.9994
h1 (m) 1–10 1.71 7 0.04
h2 (m) 5–50 33.42 7 2.38
Misfit error – 4.28  10  4
Correlation 0.9995
depicts the interpreted model parameters. The top layer with
resistivity 33.54 O m and thickness 8.35 m is a thick dry surface
soil. This is followed by a resistive layer with resistivity 568 O m,
which could be massive laterite. The presence of a conducting
layer (possible chromite) cannot be seen in the sounding data.
Since positive gravity anomaly has been observed in this area, a
two-layer resistivity structure could not explain the reason for the
positive gravity anomaly. A Schlumberger sounding was per-
formed at the same location with spread in an E–W direction
(VES-4). Surprisingly, sounding in an E–W direction at the same
location depicted a four-layer structure (Fig. 12). Interpreted
results for VES-4 are shown in Table 10. The third layer in
Table 10 with thickness 17.45 m and resistivity 38.16 O m can
be considered as a conducting chromite body. Compared to the
chromite body at the first location which starts from very near the
surface and extends to 33 m depth, the conducting body at this
location has a smaller thickness of 17.45 m and it is located at a
larger depth (about 30 m depth); therefore, a weak positive
gravity anomaly can be explained by this model.

Fig. 11. Fitting between field and model data for VES-3.
5. Discussion

Table 9 To obtain the 10 best fitting models in a specified search range,

Optimization results for VES-3 depicting mineral exploration. a large number of models (200,000) are analyzed during 10 runs
of VFSA optimization. Subsequently, statistical analysis of models
Parameters Search range Inversion result
(PDF 468.2%)
that have misfit errors below a certain threshold is performed.
The most appropriate region for computing the mean model is the
r1 (O m) 1–50 33.54 7 1.57 one where models have high a PDF. The mean model computed
r2 (O m) 100–10,000 568.7 7 15.2 from such models will be closest to the actual subsurface
h1 (m) 1–10 8.35 7 0.78 structure. It is important to optimize models by searching in a
Misfit error – 4.79  10  3
Correlation 0.9985
large model space initially. Subsequently, the model space can be
reduced either according to the estimated uncertainly (which will
 S.P. Sharma / Computers & Geosciences 42 (2012) 177–188
also be large) or according to the known geological information,
and computations are performed again for a better mean model
and smaller uncertainty. However, uncertainly always exists in
the inverse solution. It can only be minimized to a certain extent
based on the noise present in the data.
The program VFSARES.F yields mean models on the basis of
two methods of computations. The first mean model is computed
from the 10 best fitting solutions obtained from various VFSA
runs. These models lie along the flat region of the equivalent
model space (specially for intermediate layer parameters) and
individual parameters of the layer may be located in a wider
range. Since these models are searched in a large model space, the
uncertainty estimated from the covariance matrix computed from
these best fitting models can be considered as global uncertainty.
It is interesting to derive results with smaller uncertainty by
restricting the search range to appropriate model space only.
Therefore, uncertainty computed from these 10 best fitting
models is a guide to restrict the search range for recomputation
and the global model is derived on the basis of analysis of the PDF.
The second mean model is computed from the models selected on
the basis of PDFs after analysis of the history of all the models and
their misfit errors. Even though a limit of 68.2% is used in the
selection of the most appropriate region of the model space but
one can set any desired limit. The result obtained by the statistical
analysis is more robust than the first method and the mean model
is reliable and close to the actual subsurface structure.
An important question may be asked: Why do we need
multiple VFSA runs? The answer lies in the fact that whatever
slow cooling schedule and number of iterations (temperature
level) are used in finding the best fitting model, this model will
simply lie at a point along the elongated zone of equivalence.
Histograms and PDFs depicted from the history of accepted
models obtained from one VFSA run will be biased toward this
particular best fitting model and simply exhibit the characteris-
tics of the linearized inversion. Therefore, multiple VFSA runs are
required. All accepted models whose computed response fits the
observed data reasonably well (magnitude of noise in the data)
from different VFSA runs lie along the region of equivalence. The
histograms and PDFs depicted from such models help in finding
the global model.
Another important question may be raised: Why is lognormal
distribution used for statistical computations? One can see from
the histogram in Figs. 2 and 5 that the target layer parameters (r2
and h2) do not exhibit the Gaussian distribution. It shows a
lognormal distribution. PDFs in Figs. 3 and 6 also show a similar
nature, exhibiting a lognormal distribution. Other model para-
meters exhibit a Gaussian distribution. In principle, a mixed
distribution will be more appropriate. However, it will be rather
tricky to handle such situations of mixed distribution and may be
model dependent. Since intermediate layers are tricky to resolve
and follow lognormal distributions, a single approach of lognor-
mal distribution is used for all model parameters.
6. Computation time
Generally, a large number of forward calculations are per-
formed in a predefined model space in global optimization.
Therefore, global optimization is considered as a computationally
inefficient process. However, much less computing time is
required for analytical forward computations (1-D DC resistivity
in the present study). A desktop PC with Intel Core2Duo processor
is used to execute the developed program with MS FORTRAN
Developer Studio. To obtain the best fitting model, computations
are performed at 1000 different temperature levels with 20
moves at one temperature level. Ten best fitting models are
187
obtained by repeating the process. Therefore, a total of 200,000
forward computations were performed to find the mean model
and the associated uncertainty. The required computation times
for three-layered and four-layered models having 20 data points
are about 36 and 48 s, respectively.
7. Conclusions
A FORTRAN program is developed to interpret one-dimen-
sional resistivity sounding data for various electrode configura-
tions using the VFSA approach. Initially, results are presented for
Schlumberger sounding data as it is the most commonly used
array and applicability of the developed program is demonstrated
using synthetic and field data representing different types of
subsurface structures. A large number of forward models
(200,000 from 10 runs in this study) are evaluated and models
are accepted or rejected according to the VFSA algorithm. Subse-
quently, models having misfit errors lower than a predefined
value are selected for statistical analysis. Statistical analysis of
selected models is performed without giving any importance to
their misfit error. Therefore, statistical analysis is performed in a
model domain. Lognormal probability distribution is used to
eliminate the models with lower PDFs. A 68.2% cutoff in PDF is
set for each model parameter to select models from the high PDF
region of the multidimensional model space to compute the mean
model and uncertainty. This yields a better mean model with a
smaller uncertainty in comparison to a mean model computed on
the basis of 10 best fitting models from 10 VFSA runs. It is
observed that uncertainty in the model parameters of the sand-
wiched layer is larger in comparison to other model parameters.
However, actual model parameters always lie within the uncer-
tainty estimated for the mean model parameters. Inversion
results for noisy synthetic data from different electrode config-
urations are also presented. In the case of noisy synthetic data,
the actual model is never known, and in such a situation only the
uncertainty in the mean model can suggest the quality of
the result. Study reveals that dipole perpendicular arrays yield
the best results in resolving various layers efficiently. Finally, the
efficacy of the program is demonstrated for field data dealing
with groundwater and mineral exploration. The interpreted
results matched very well with the drilling results. The program
is very easy to handle and it can be used to interpret resistivity
sounding data related to a number of geological problems.
Acknowledgments
I thank Dr. S.K. Verma and Prof. P. Kaikkonen for their valuable
support during the development of the approach. I thank the
Editor and anonymous reviewers for comments and suggestions
for improving the manuscript. Thanks are due to Prof. J. Chakra-
borty, Prof. D. Sengupta, and Johanna for editing and improving
the English language of the paper.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found
in the online version at doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2011.08.029.
References
Baranwal, V.C., Sharma, S.P., 2006. Integrated geophysical studies in the East-
Indian geothermal province. Pure and Applied Geophysics 163, 206–227.
188 S.P. Sharma / Computers & Geosciences 42 (2012) 177–188
Barker, R.D., 1990. Investigation of groundwater salinity by geophysical methods.
In: Ward, S.H. (Ed.), Geotechnical and Environmental Geophysics, vol. 2.
Society of Exploration Geophysicist, Tulsa, OK, pp. 201–211.
Bas-okur, A.T., 1990. Microcomputer program for the direct interpretation of
resistivity sounding data. Computers & Geosciences 16, 587–601.
Benson, A.K., Payne, K.L., Stubben, M.A., 1997. Mapping groundwater contamina-
tion using DC resistivity and VLF geophysical methods—a case study. Geo-
physics 62, 80–86.
Bhattacharya, B.B., Shalivahan, Sen, M.K., 2003. Use of VFSA for resolution,
sensitivity and uncertainty analysis in 1D-DC resistivity and IP inversion.
Geophysical Prospecting 51, 393–408.
Das, U.C., Ghosh, D.P., 1973. A study on the direct interpretation of dipole sounding
resistivity measurements over layered earth. Geophysical Prospecting 21,
379–400.
Das, U.C., Ghosh, D.P., Biewinga, D.T., 1974. Transformation of dipole resistivity
sounding measurements over layered earth by linear digital filtering. Geo-
physical Prospecting 22, 476–489.
Das, U.C., Verma, S.K., 1981. The versatility of digital linear filters used in
computing resistivity and EM sounding curves. Geoexploration 18, 297–310.
Ebraheem, A.M., Sensosy, M.M., Dahab, K.A., 1997. Geoelectrical and hydro-
geochemical studies for delineating ground-water contamination due to salt-
water intrusion in the northern part of the Nile delta, Egypt. Ground Water 35,
216–222.
Fernández Alvarez, J.P., Fernández Martı́nez, J.L., Menéndez Pérez, C.O., 2008.
Feasibility analysis of the use of binary genetic algorithms as importance
samplers—application to a 1-D DC resistivity inverse problem. Mathematical
Geosciences 40, 375–408.
Fernández Martı́nez, Juan L., Garcı́a Gonzalo, Esperanza, Fernández Álvarez, José P.,
Kuzma, Heidi A., Menéndez Pérez, César O., 2010. PSO: a powerful algorithm to
solve geophysical inverse problems: application to a 1D-DC resistivity case.
Journal of Applied Geophysics 71, 13–25.
Ghosh, D.P., 1971a. The application of linear filter theory to the direct interpreta-
tion of geoelectrical resistivity sounding measurements. Geophysical Pro-
specting 19, 176–180.
Ghosh, D.P., 1971b. Inverse filter coefficients for the computation of apparent
resistivity standard curves for a horizontally stratified earth. Geophysical
Prospecting 19, 769–775.
Inman, J.R., 1975. Resistivity inversion with ridge regression. Geophysics 40,
798–817.
Johansen, H.K., 1977. A man/computer interpretation system for resistivity
soundings over horizontally stratified earth. Geophysical Prospecting 25,
667–691.
Koefoed, O., 1979. Resistivity Sounding Measurements, Methods in Geochemistry
and Geophysics 14A, Geosounding Principles 1Elsevier, Amsterdam 276 pp.
Loke, M.H., Barker, R.D., 1996. Practical techniques for 3D resistivity surveys and
data inversion. Geophysical Prospecting 44, 499–523.
Mohanty, W.K., Sharma, S.P., Gupta, S., 2010. Integrated Geological and Geophy-
sical Study Around Tangarapada Area, Orissa. Final Technical Report IDCOL,
Government of Orissa, India, 123 pp.
Mosegaard, K., Tarantola, A., 1995. Monte Carlo sampling of solutions to inverse
problems. Journal of Geophysical Research 100 (B7), 12431–12447.
Rothman, D.H., 1985. Nonlinear inversion, statistical mechanics and residual
statics estimation. Geophysics 50, 2784–2796.
Rothman, D.H., 1986. Automatic estimation of large residual statics correction.
Geophysics 51, 337–346.
Sen, M.K., Bhattacharya, B.B., Stoffa, P.L., 1993. Nonlinear inversion of resistivity
sounding data. Geophysics 58, 496–507.
Sen, M.K., Stoffa, P.L., 1995. Global Optimization Methods in Geophysical Inver-
sion. Elsevier Publishing Company 281 pp.
Sen, M.K., Stoffa, P.L., 1996. Bayesian inference, Gibbs’ sampler and uncer-
tainty estimation in geophysical inversion. Geophysical Prospecting 44,
313–350.
Sharma, S.P., Baranwal, V.C., 2005. Delineation of groundwater bearing fracture
zones in hard rock areas using integrated study of very low frequency
electromagnetic and resistivity data. Journal of Applied Geophysics 57,
155–166.
Sharma, S.P., Kaikkonen, P., 1998. Two-dimensional nonlinear inversion of VLF-R
data using simulated annealing. Geophysical Journal International 133,
649–668.
Sharma, S.P., Kaikkonen, P., 1999. Appraisal of equivalence and suppression
problems in 1-D EM and DC measurements using global optimization and
joint inversion. Geophysical Prospecting 47, 219–249.
Singh, U.K., Tiwari, R.K., Singh, S.B., 2005. One-dimensional inversion of geo-
electrical resistivity sounding data using artificial neural networks-a case
study. Computers & Geosciences 31, 99–108.
Tarantola, A., 1987. Inverse Problem Theory, Methods of Data Fitting and Model
Parameter Estimation. Elsevier Publishing Company 630 pp.
Van Overmeeren, R.A., 1989. Aquifer boundaries explored by geoelectrical mea-
surements in the coastal plain of Yemen: a case of equivalence. Geophysics 54,
38–48.
Vedanti, N., Srivastava, R., Sagode, J., Dimri, V.P., 2005. An efficient 1D Occam’s
inversion algorithm using analytically computed first- and second-order
derivatives for DC resistivity soundings. Computers & Geosciences 31,
319–328.
Verma, S.K., Sharma, S.P., 1993. Resolution of thin layers using joint-inversion of
electromagnetic and direct current resistivity sounding data. Journal of
Electromagnetic Waves and Applications 7, 443–479.
Zohdy, A.A.R., 1989. A new method for the automatic interpretation of Schlum-
berger and Wenner sounding curves. Geophysics 54, 245–253.