Journal of Applied Geophysics 59 (2006) 152 – 161

www.elsevier.com/locate/jappgeo

Efficient spectral IP-modelling in the time domain

Andreas Hördt a,*, Tilman Hanstein b, Mark Hönig b,1, Fritz Manfred Neubauer b
a
University of Bonn, Geological Institute, Applied Geophysics, Nussallee 8, 53115 Bonn, Germany
b
University of Cologne, Institute for Geophysics and Meteorology, Albertus Magnus Platz, 50923 Köln, Germany
Received 15 April 2005; accepted 13 September 2005

Abstract

We show that the modelling of time-domain spectral induced polarization (SIP) data can be carried out using a DC resistivity
code. The intrinsic resistivity at each point in space is calculated by Fourier transforming the complex, frequency-dependent
resistivity, and a separate DC problem is solved for each time channel. This procedure constitutes an approximation, because the
exact formulation involves a convolution of the time-dependent conductivities with the electric field. The approximation
dramatically simplifies numerical modelling of time-domain SIP data. Implicitly, it is already in use in inversion routines where
data are inverted independently for separate time channels. However, the accuracy has not been investigated in detail.
We first formulate the underlying equations in terms of a maximum chargeability M. We expand the exact and the approximate
solutions with respect to the maximum chargeability and show that the differences are at least second order in M. Next, we
investigate the reflection factor for a simple two-layer model, where the second layer resistivity is assumed to exhibit Cole–Cole
behaviour. We calculate exact and approximate solutions analytically and show that the early- and late-time limits are identical. In
the intermediate time range the error of the approximation is limited to a few percent. Finally, we calculate approximate and exact
apparent resistivities for dipole–dipole configurations over a layered and a full 3-D model and show that the differences are far
below the typical measurement noise level. The conclusion is that the approximation is excellent and will work in all practical
situations.
D 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Induced polarisation; Modelling; Time domain; Spectral; SIP; Cole–Cole

1. Introduction mental problems, such as the detection of contaminants

The spectral induced polarisation (SIP) method has
been used for many years for ore exploration, the main
objectives being the search for disseminated ores and
mineral discrimination (e.g. Wait, 1959; Vanhala and
Peltoniemi, 1992; Seigel et al., 1997). More recently, the
method has been applied to engineering and environ-
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: hoerdt@geo.uni-bonn.de (A. Hördt).
1
Present address: Robert Bosch GmbH, Postfach 106050, 70049
Stuttgart, Germany.
0926-9851/$ - see front matter D 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jappgeo.2005.09.003
and the derivation of grain size distribution parameters
in unconsolidated sediments (e.g. Vanhala et al., 1992;
Kemna et al., 2004). SIP measurements can be carried
out either in the time domain or in the frequency do-
main, the term dspectralT referring to measurements at
multiple frequencies or at several time channels after a
transmitter current shutoff (e.g. Tombs, 1981). The idea
is to derive information beyond the DC resistivity values
and one chargeability parameter.
The interpretation of SIP data is often done in terms
of Cole–Cole parameters (Pelton et al., 1978). For time-
domain measurements, there are several ways to extract
 A. Hördt et al. / Journal of Applied Geophysics 59 (2006) 152–161 153

Cole–Cole parameters from the decay curves (Tombs, caused by the complex, frequency-dependent conduc-
1981; Johnson, 1984), and the interpretation of time- tivity r(x,r) (e.g. Weller et al., 1996)
domain SIP profiles was frequently based on pseudo-      
sections of apparent Cole–Cole parameters (Johnson, jd r x;rP P E x;rP ¼ Id3 P r P r V H ðxÞ ð1Þ
1984; Vanhala and Peltoniemi, 1992; Seigel et al., Here, I is the transmitter current amplitude, d is the
1997). More recently, a concept for a 2-D inversion Dirac delta function, E the electric field, and r denotes
of time-domain SIP data was presented by Yuval and the receiver location. The source term on the right hand
Oldenburg (1997). They first carry out a separate 2-D side describes a single current electrode at location r .V
inversion of voltages for each time channel to obtain The frequency dependence of the transmitter current is
intrinsic time-dependent chargeabilities at each point in denoted H(x), in analogy to the Heavyside function
space. In the next step, they calculate Cole–Cole para- normally used to describe the transmitter waveform in
meters from the time-dependent chargeability and ob- the time domain. Without loss of generality we will
tain a 2-D distribution of intrinsic Cole–Cole restrict ourselves to the case where we use Eq. (1) to
parameters. calculate the time-domainpstep
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi responses, in which case
However, treating the time channels as independent H(x) = 1/ix, where i ¼  1. For the following deri-
of each other involves an approximation which has not vations, it will be useful to express the equation in
been discussed in the literature. The calculation of the terms of the complex resistivity. With
IP decay curve due to an inhomogeneous distribution of
frequency-dependent conductivities may be done by   1
q x;rP ¼   ð2Þ
Fourier transforming the results from the frequency r x;rP
domain into the time domain. Alternatively, the under-
lying differential equation may be transformed into the Eq. (1) becomes:
time domain. The multiplication of the frequency-de-  
pendent conductivity with the electric field becomes a E x;r
P P
 
jd ¼ Id Pr Pr V H ðxÞ ð3Þ
convolution of a time-dependent conductivity with the q x;rP
electric field at each point in space. The resulting
voltage measured at any time will thus depend on all In the time domain, the induced polarisation re-
the previous time channels, and an independent inver- sponse can be calculated by solving Eq. (1) and trans-
sion of time channels is strictly not possible. Conse- forming the results via a Fourier transform. For a direct
quently, Soininen (1984a) suggested to transform the solution in the time domain, Eq. (1) needs to be Fourier
time domain data and to carry out the entire analysis in transformed as:
frequency domain.       
Here, we investigate the approximation in the time jd r t;rP 4E P t;r
P ¼ Id Pr Pr V H ðt Þ ð4Þ
domain, which consists of replacing the convolution
where r(t) is the Fourier transform of r(x). The
with conductivity by a multiplication with the recip-
multiplication of conductivity and electric field
rocal of the time-dependent resistivity. We discuss the
becomes a convolution, denoted by the * symbol.
approximation using theoretical considerations and
H(t) is the Heavyside function describing a current
forward modelling and show that it will be sufficiently
step-on at t = 0. Omitting the spatial dependence for
accurate in most practical situations. As a conse-
convenience, we now define a time-dependent resis-
quence, spectral IP-modelling and inversion in the
tivity by:
time domain can be carried out with a DC resistivity
code. Z l
1
qðt Þ ¼ qðxÞH ðxÞeixt dx: ð5Þ
2p l
2. Theoretical background
With this definition, the time-dependent resistivity
We start with the basic equation in the frequency and conductivity may be considered as inverse to each
domain to express the behaviour of electric fields. It can other, because it is easily shown that
be derived from Maxwell’s equations in the frequency
qðt Þ4rðt Þ ¼ H ðt Þ ð6Þ
domain, assuming that the frequencies are sufficiently
low so that displacement currents and induction effects i.e. the convolution of resistivity and conductivity
can be neglected. The physics is described as a DC equals the step-function. It also follows that q(t) must
problem, where the only frequency dependence is be causal, i.e. q(t) = 0;t b 0.
154 A. Hördt et al. / Journal of Applied Geophysics 59 (2006) 152–161

The approximation to the exact Eq. (4) is now least second order in M. Since it is known from
defined by: laboratory and field observations that the chargeabil-
  ity is usually a small number, and theoretically cannot
Ê t;r  
jd P P
¼ Id Pr P
r V H ðt Þ ð7Þ exceed 1, errors in the approximation are expected to
q t;rP be small.
First, we expand both the solution in time and
where the ^ denotes the approximate solution. The
frequency domain in a Taylor series with respect to M:
equation is only defined for t z 0. Here, the convolution
 
is ignored and all electric fields in time are considered    
 BE  
independent of each other. Yuval and Oldenburg (1997) E x;rP ;M ¼ P E x;rP  þ P
x;rP  dM
P
M ¼0 BM M ¼0
implicitly used this approximation by inverting data for 
each time channel separately to reconstruct a time- 1 B2PE  

 
þ x;r  d M2 þ O M3
dependent chargeability m(t). 2 BM 2 P
M ¼0
The approximate Eq. (7) gives the exact solution in     1  
¼ P0
E x; P r þE x;rP d M þ P2 E x;rP M 2
the case of a homogeneous fullspace or halfspace, P1 2
 
where conductivity gradients vanish (q(t,r ) = q(t)). þ O M3 ð11Þ
This can be shown by rewriting Eq. (7):
      E 0, E 1, and E 2 denote the zero, first and second order
jd PÊ t;rP ¼ Id P r V H ðt Þqðt Þ ¼ Id P
r P r V qðt Þ
r P terms of the expansion, respectively.
ð8Þ In the time domain, we obtain analogously for the
approximate electric fields:
where the causality of q(t) was used. By convolution of
Eq. (8) with r(t), making use of Eq. (6), we obtain the      
Ê t; P Ê t;rP þ P1
r ; M ¼ P0 Ê t; P
r M
exact Eq. (4). If there are nonzero conductivity gradi- P

ents, Eq. (7) is an approximation, and in the following 1   2  

we investigate its accuracy. þ P2 r M þ O M3
Ê t; P ð12Þ
2

3. Chargeability expansion The expansion of the exact solution is obtained

by Fourier transforming Eq. (11) to the time domain.
A model that is widely used for the behaviour of the Each term is compared with the approximate counter-
resistivity with frequency is the Cole–Cole model (Cole part from Eq. (12). The zero-order terms correspond to
and Cole, 1941; Pelton et al., 1978). the case where M = 0 and the solutions are obviously
  identical:
q x;rP
0 0 11 Z l
1      
    1 E x; Pr eixt dx ¼ P0 r ¼ P0
E t; P Ê t; P
r ð13Þ
r @1  m P r @1  AA 2p l P0
¼ q0 P   cð r Þ
1 þ ixs P r P

In order to compare the higher order terms, we have

ð9Þ
where q 0(r ) is the DC resistivity, m(r ) is the charge-
ability and s( r ) and c( r ) are time constant and fre-
quency exponent, respectively. We now assume that M
is an overall measure of the chargeability that does not
depend on r. The maximum value of all m(r ) could be
a suitable choice for M. We also adopt a more general
form of Eq. (9), such that we are no longer restricted to
the particular Cole–Cole model:
     
q x;rP ¼ q0 P r 1  M f x;rP ð10Þ
to calculate the derivative of the basic Eqs. (3) and (7).
The source term vanishes in both cases, and on the left
hand side the product rule gives us two additive terms,
which, after substituting M = 0, depend on E 0 and E 1.
We transform the resulting frequency-domain equation
to the time domain and subtract it from the
corresponding time-domain version to see that the E 0-
terms cancel out and the exact and approximate first-
order terms are identical:
E ðt Þ
P1 ¼ P1
Ê ðt Þ ð14Þ

where f(x, r ) is a function in space that expresses the The procedure is carried out in detail in Appendix
frequency dependence of q. In the following, we will A. The conclusion is that the differences between ap-
show that the error between the exact solution in proximate and exact solution are at least second order
the time domain and the approximate solution is at in M.
 A. Hördt et al. / Journal of Applied Geophysics 59 (2006) 152–161 155

4. Reflection factor for a two-halfspace model with expressions can be found for c = 0.5 and c = 1. Here,
Cole–Cole model behaviour we treat the case of c = 0.5. We re-write Eq. (9) as:

The considerations above were fully general, with- q2 ðxÞ ¼ q0 ð1  mf ðxÞÞ ð17Þ
out any restrictions to the complexity of the model or
where
the frequency dependence of the resistivity. We now
consider a simple model, a 2-layer fullspace, that can be 1 ðixsÞc
treated analytically (Fig. 1). The first layer is not f ðx Þ ¼ 1  c ¼ ð18Þ
1 þ ðixsÞ 1 þ ðixsÞc
polarisable (i.e. the resistivity q 1 is real and indepen-
dent of frequency), the second layer is polarisable (i.e. After some algebra we obtain from Eqs. (16)–(18):
q 2 = q 2(x)). Both the current electrode and the potential
electrode are in the first layer. b1 2bmf ðxÞ
k ðxÞ ¼ þ ð19Þ
From the theory of electrical image sources (e.g. b þ 1 ðb þ 1Þðb þ 1  mf ðxÞÞ
Telford et al., 1990), we find that the potential at
point P (Fig. 1) is given by: where

  IH ðxÞq1 q1
IH ðxÞq1 b¼ ð20Þ
/Pr ¼  k ðx Þ ; ð15Þ q2 ðx ¼ 0Þ
4pr 4pr V
where k is the reflection factor: is the DC resistivity contrast. In Appendix B, we re-
write Eq. (19) in terms of the Laplace variable s = ix
q1  q2 ðxÞ and consider s as a scaling factor. We then substitute
k ðxÞ ¼ ð16Þ c = 0.5 and bring Eq. (19) in a form that can be found in
q1 þ q 2 ð x Þ
a lookup table (Abramowitz and Stegun, 1964) to show
The frequency dependence is fully characterised by that the step response of the reflection factor is given
the reflection factor. Factor H(x) in Eq. (15) is required by:
to obtain the step response when transforming to the
rffiffiffi!
time domain, and thus it does not constitute a frequency b1 2mb a2 st t
dependence of the solution. Therefore, for a comparison k ðt Þ ¼ þ e erfc a
b þ 1 ðb þ 1Þðb þ 1  mÞ s
of the approximate and exact solutions, it is sufficient to
consider the reflection factor instead of the full potential ð21Þ
in the subsequent derivations. The reflection factor can
where
also be used to describe more complicated models, such
as a layered halfspace, a sphere, or a vertical dike bþ1
(Telford et al., 1990; Militzer and Weber, 1985), and a¼ ð22Þ
bþ1m
it thus represents a wide class of models.
We now assume Cole–Cole behaviour for the second and erfc is the complementary error function defined
layer resistivity q 2(x) (Eq. (2)). The aim is to bring Eq. by:
(16) in a form that can easily be transformed into the Z x
time domain via a Laplace transform. Analytical 2 2
erfcð xÞ ¼ 1  erf ð xÞ ¼ 1  pffiffiffi ey dy ð23Þ
p 0

Eq. (21) is the exact solution for the reflection factor

Fig. 1. The model used to calculate analytic expressions for the exact
and approximate reflection factor. The upper layer is not polarisable,
the resistivity of the lower layer is frequency-dependent. The source
electrode is in the upper layer, and an image source I’ is used to
calculate the potential at point P.
in the time domain. The approximation consists of
solving a separate DC problem for each time channel,
where the resistivity of a layer or homogeneous area at
any time is given by the transformation of the
corresponding frequency-dependent resistivity. There-
fore, the approximate reflection factor for our model is
given by:
q1  q2 ðt Þ
k̂k ðt Þ ¼ ð24Þ
q1 þ q2 ðt Þ
156 A. Hördt et al. / Journal of Applied Geophysics 59 (2006) 152–161

Here, q 2(t,) is the time-dependent resistivity

obtained from applying the definition in Eq. (5) to
Eq. (17). Some algebra yields:

b1 2mbf ðt Þ
k̂k ðt Þ ¼ þ ð25Þ
b þ 1 ðb þ 1Þðb þ 1  mf ðt ÞÞ

where f(t) is the Fourier transform of Eq. (18), which is

shown in Appendix B to be equal to
rffiffiffi!
t t
f ðt Þ ¼ e s erfc ð26Þ
s

The approximate and the exact solution (Eqs. (21)

and (25)) are not identical, but have some formal
similarities. Before discussing quantitative results, it is
useful to look at the early- and late-time limits.
First, since erfc(t = 0) = 1, it is obvious that the early-
time limits of Eqs. (21) and (25) are identical and equal
to:
b1 2mb
k ðt ¼ 0Þ ¼ k̂k ðt ¼ 0Þ ¼ þ
b þ 1 ðb þ 1Þðb þ 1  mÞ
b1þm
¼ ð27Þ
bþ1m
In Appendix C we use the Taylor series expansion of Fig. 2. Top panel (a): Step response of the reflection factor for the
the error function for large arguments to show that the model sketched in Fig. 1, for 3 different resistivity contrasts and
late-time limits are also identical and equal to: m = 0.5, frequency exponent c = 0.5, and s = 1 s. The lines are the
exact solutions, the symbols denote the approximate solution. Bottom
b1 panel (b): Relative differences ((exact  approximate) / exact solution)
lim k ðt Þ ¼ lim k̂k ðt Þ ¼ ð28Þ
t Yl t Yl bþ1 for three resistivity contrasts.

The late-time limit is equal to the DC reflection factor,
which, as expected, does not depend on chargeability.
The early-time limit (Eq. (27)) of the reflection factor
depends on the chargeability. An interesting feature is
that the reflection factor may change sign with time,
which is the case if q 1 N q 2 and m N 1  b. We also show
in Appendix C that even the late-time asymptotic be-
haviour is identical
pffi for approximate and exact solution,
namely a 1= t - convergence in both cases.
We have now shown that both the early- and late-
time limits of the approximate solution are exact, and
differences occur only in between. These, however, are
expected to be small, and, as was shown in the section
above, at least second order in chargeability. Fig. 2a
shows comparisons of the exact and approximate solu-
tion for a relatively high chargeability of m = 0.5. There
is no visible difference for any of the three selected
resistivity contrasts. The relative differences (Fig. 2b)
show that the error depends on the resistivity contrast
and that the maximum error for this case is below 3%.
Even for the extreme case of m = 0.9, the differences are
hardly visible (Fig. 3a). Differences are largest when
the lower layer is more resistive. For the parameters
chosen here, the reflection factor changes sign and the
calculation of a relative error is not meaningful. Fig. 3b
zooms into the critical range, showing that the maxi-
mum absolute error is about 0.03. However, the reflec-
tion factor is only a measure of the secondary response
caused by the resistivity contrast. In practice, this will
be added to a primary component as indicated in Eq.
(15), and the effect of the approximation errors will be
even smaller.
5. Numerical modelling
In this section we discuss some numerical modelling
results for dipole–dipole configurations for both 1-D
and 3-D models, in order to show that the approxima-
tion will be valid in real situations. First, we calculated
IP responses for the 3-layer model and the configura-
tion shown in Fig. 4. The calculation of the exact
response was done using a 1-D DC resistivity code,
 A. Hördt et al. / Journal of Applied Geophysics 59 (2006) 152–161 157

Fig. 5. Dipole–dipole response for the model shown in Fig. 4, with

a = 3 m, n = 8. Top panel (a): apparent resistivities for three different
Fig. 3. Top panel (a): Same as Fig. 2, with m = 0.9 instead of m = 0.5. chargeabilities. The symbols denote the approximate solution, the
Bottom panel (b): Reflection factor for resistivity contrast 1:2, solid lines are the exact solution. Bottom panel (b): Relative differ-
zoomed into the range where the maximum differences occur. ences ((exact  approximate) / exact solution) for three chargeabilities.

allowing for complex resistivities. A complex resis-

tivity was calculated for each layer for a set of frequen-
cies using the Cole–Cole model. The results were then
transformed to the time domain through a fast Hankel
transform (Christensen, 1990). Even though this proce-
dure will be due to slight numerical errors, we call this
solution dexactT in the following discussion to distin-
guish it from the results obtained using the approxima-

Fig. 4. Dipole–dipole configuration and layered model to test the Fig. 6. 3-D model used to calculate exact and approximate responses.
approximation. Time constant s and frequency exponent c are 1 s and A vertical dike is embedded in an otherwise homogeneous halfspace.
0.5 for the third and last layer. Fig. 5 shows results for a = 3 m and The dipole–dipole configuration is centered over the dike (after
n = 8. Soininen, 1984b).
158 A. Hördt et al. / Journal of Applied Geophysics 59 (2006) 152–161
Fig. 7. Dipole–dipole response for the model and configuration shown
in Fig. 6. Top panel (a): apparent resistivities. Bottom panel (b):
Relative difference between the approximate and exact responses.
tion The approximate responses were calculated by
transforming the Cole–Cole resistivities of each layer
to the time domain, and then using a 1-D DC resistivity
code for each time channel separately.
The chosen model (Fig. 4) has low resistivity con-
trasts, because Fig. 2b indicates that this is where the
largest errors might occur. The upper and bottom layers
are polarisable, and the smallest value m = 0.4 is meant
to represent a large, but still realistic chargeability.
The larger values of m = 0.9 and 0.999 are probably
unrealistic and are intended to present a real challenge
to the approximation. The largest errors occur for n = 8,
and the results are shown in Fig. 5.
Responses are presented as apparent resistivities
calculated using the DC equations. Increasing charge-
ability leads to a decreased apparent resistivity at early
times, which is the expected behaviour. Again, there are
no visible differences between the two solutions. The
maximum relative difference increases with chargeabil-
ity, but remains below 1.4% even for chargeabilities
close to one. For more realistic values of 0.4 the error is
far below 0.1%.
Finally, we investigate a 3-D model (Fig. 6). The
model was adopted from Soininen (1984b), who inves-
tigated the relationship between apparent and true para-
meters for a polarisable prism. In order to calculate the
exact responses, we modified the 3-D DC resistivity
code by Spitzer (1995) to include complex resistivities.
We then attributed a frequency-dependent Cole–Cole
resistivity to each model block and transformed the
results to the time domain through a fast Hankel trans-
form. The approximate response was calculated by
transforming the resistivities of each block to the time
domain and then using the real version of the DC code
by Spitzer (1995) to calculate the response at each time
channel separately. The result (Fig. 7) shows that the
approximation also works very well in this case. The
halfspace resistivity is 1250 Vm, which would be the
expected apparent resistivity if no dike was present.
This is reduced by the conductive dike, and the charge-
ability further reduces apparent resistivity at early
times. No difference is visible between approximate
and exact solution. Even though the highest chargeabil-
ity (m = 0.95) used by Soininen (1984b) was chosen, the
maximum relative error is about 0.05%,
These numerical studies are just examples and not a
formal proof for a maximum possible error. However,
the figures shown here and further modelling studies
clearly indicate that even for unrealistically high char-
geabilities it is difficult to find models that give ap-
proximation errors anywhere near the accuracy of
measurements.
6. Discussion and conclusions
We have shown using theoretical considerations and
computational examples that time-domain IP decay
curves can be calculated for each time channel sepa-
rately. A DC resistivity code can be used, and the
convolution of the time-dependent conductivity with
the electric fields can be ignored. This is an excellent
approximation that is likely to work well in any real
situation. The exact procedure requires the use of a
complex-frequency domain code and transformation
of the results into the time domain. This is significantly
more complicated and time consuming than the approx-
imation, because it involves complex calculus, and for
an accurate Fourier transformation more frequencies are
required than there are time channels in the desired
decay curve. Therefore, the approximation is useful
and dramatically simplifies time-domain SIP interpre-
tation procedures.
Concerning only the early and late-time limits, our
results are not new. Seigel (1959) shows that the effect
 A. Hördt et al. / Journal of Applied Geophysics 59 (2006) 152–161 159

of polarisability may be considered as a reduction of made significant contributions to the project that moti-
conductivity by an amount proportional to the charge- vated this work. Roland Blaschek carried out the 3-D
ability. He subsequently shows that apparent charge- simulations. The comments of Niels B. Christensen and
abilities may be calculated solely from the apparent an anonymous reviewer helped to improve the manu-
resistivity, and thus DC theory is sufficient. His deriva- script. The project was partly sponsored by the German
tions, which correspond to the early-time limit imme- Science foundation (DFG-SFB 419: Teilprojekt A1).
diately after the transmitter shut-off, were later
modified by Roy and Poddar (1981) who state in Appendix A. Derivation of the first order terms
their conclusions that da complete dynamic theory in-
cluding the time decay has not been worked outT. We Here, we calculate the derivatives of Eqs. (3) and (7)
believe that with our considerations of the reflection with respect to M in order to compare the terms of
factor we made a step towards a complete dynamic different order in M of the approximate and exact
theory, but at the same time we have shown that such solutions. The derivative of Eq. (3) with respect to M is:
a theory is not necessary for the practical application.  !
It may be surprising that such an apparently crude B E x;r B  
jd P P
¼ Id3 P r Pr V H ðx Þ
approximation, i.e. replacing a convolution by a multi- BM q x;rP BM
plication, works so well. To understand this, it may be ðA1:1Þ
useful to remember that we replace the convolution
with r(t) by multiplication with 1 / q(t). As shown in The right hand side vanishes, because it expresses
the theoretical background section, q(t) is defined such the current of a single point electrode at r̄ ,V which does
that it already contains the properties of the convolution not depend on M. The left hand side yields:
with r(t) if there are no conductivity gradients. The 0 BE   1
P
x;rP  
approximation only deals with the charge transfer E x;r Bq  C
jd @ BM
B   P P2
through layer boundaries in the mid-time or mid-fre- x;rP A ¼ 0
q x;rP q x;rP BM
quency range.
Obviously, our results have a direct impact on the ðA1:2Þ
inversion. When inverting time-domain SIP data, the Substituting M = 0 and using
time channels may be inverted separately, and the 
convolution can be ignored. This procedure, which Bq      
x;rP  ¼  q0 P
r f x;rP ðA1:3Þ
was already applied by Yuval and Oldenburg (1997) BM M ¼0
is now perfectly justified by our considerations. Hönig
we obtain:
(2002) and Hönig and Tezkan (submitted for publica- !
   
tion) present further examples of 2-D Cole–Cole inver- E x;r E x;rP  
P1  P  þ   f x;rP
sion both with synthetic and field data. More generally, jd P0
¼0 ðA1:4Þ
q0 P
r q0 Pr
any procedure that uses apparent parameters as the
basis for the interpretation implicitly makes use of the where E 0(x,r ) and E 1(x,r ) are the zero and first order
approximation. In particular, this applies to apparent terms of the Taylor series expansion of the solution, as
resistivity pseudosections of Cole–Cole parameters explained in the main section. We denote the DC
(e.g. Johnson, 1984; Vanhala and Peltoniemi, 1992; solution E 0(r ), such that the frequency dependence of
Seigel et al., 1997). The relationship between intrinsic E 0(x,r ) is given by E 0(x,r ) = E 0(r )H(x). With
and apparent time-dependent resistivities in the inter-      
mediate time range was not resolved until now, and the f t;rP ¼ FT f x;rP H ðxÞ ðA1:5Þ
meaning of apparent Cole–Cole parameters calculated
from transient decay curves was not clear. Our results the Fourier transform of Eq. (A1.4) becomes:
show that the relationship is essentially the same as that     !
E t;r E r  
for DC resistivities and depends only on geometry and jd P1  P
þ   f t;rP
P0 P
¼0 ðA1:6Þ
the spatial distribution of resistivities. q0 P
r q0 Pr

From the approximate Eq. (7) we obtain analogously:

Acknowledgements
    !
Ê t;r Ê r  
We thank Klaus Spitzer for permission to use his 3-D jd P1  P þ P0P f t;rP ¼0 ðA1:7Þ
q0 Pr q0 Pr
DC resistivity code. Bülent Tezkan and Stefan Recher
160 A. Hördt et al. / Journal of Applied Geophysics 59 (2006) 152–161

Subtraction of Eqs. (A1.6) and (A1.7) using Eq. (13) where

yields
bþ1
   ! a¼ ðA2:5Þ
Ê P t ;rP  P1 E P t ;rP bþ1m
jd P1
¼0 ðA1:8Þ
q0 ð P
rÞ With c = 0.5, the first term in brackets is transformed
through (Abramowitz and Stegun, 1964, 29.3.42):
and thus  
1 1
    sL pffiffiffiffi
Ê t ; r  P1
E P t ;P
r ðA1:9Þ ssða þ ssÞ
P1 P P
rffiffiffi!!
which means that differences between exact and ap- 1 a2 st t
¼ 1  e erfc a ðA2:6Þ
proximate solution are at least second order in M. a s

The second term yields:

Appendix B. Transformation of the reflection factor
  rffiffiffi!
1 1 a2 st t
We first show that the step-on response corres- sL pffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffi ¼ e erfc a ðA2:7Þ
ssða þ ssÞ s
ponding to the frequency-dependent function f(x),
(Eq. (18)) is given by Eq. (26). Combining the two terms, we obtain:
The step-on response of a function f(x) is given by rffiffiffi!!
the inverse Laplace-transform (denoted by L  1), using 1 b1 a2 st t
k ðt Þ ¼ 1  e erfc a
a factor 1 / ix to account for the step–response function: bþ1m a s
  rffiffiffi!!
1 1 2t t
f ðt Þ ¼ L f ðsÞ ðA2:1Þ þ ðb  1 þ mÞea s erfc a ðA2:8Þ
s s

where s = ix. We omit the algebra that is left to show that this is
In Eq. (18), the frequency is always multiplied with equivalent to Eq. (21).
decay time s, which may be considered as a frequency
scaling factor. Therefore, we note that: Appendix C. Late-time limit of the reflection factors
    t
1 1 1 1 Here, we derive the late-time limits of the reflection
L f ðssÞ ¼ sL f ðssÞ ¼f ðA2:2Þ factors for approximate and exact solution (Eqs. (21)
s ss s
and (25)). First, we use the Taylor series expansion of
With these considerations, and using c = 0.5, we now the error function for large arguments (Abramowitz and
can use a lookup table to show that the step response Stegun, 1964) and truncate the series after the first term
corresponding to Eq. (18) is (Abramowitz and Stegun, to show that
1964, 29.3.43): pffiffiffiffiffiffi 1 t
et=s erfc t=s c pffiffiffipffiffiffiffiffiffi ; NN1 ðA3:1Þ
 pffiffiffiffi    p t=s s
1 1 ss 1 1
f ðt Þ ¼ L pffiffiffiffi ¼ sL pffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffi
s 1 þ ss ssð1 þ ssÞ and
rffiffiffi !
t t rffiffiffi!
¼ e s erfc ðA2:3Þ a2 st t 1 t
s e erfc a c pffiffiffipffiffiffiffiffiffi ; NN1 ðA3:2Þ
s a p t=s s
which is equal to Eq. (26).
With Eq. (A3.2), we can describe the late-time be-
Next, we show that Eq. (21) is the result of inverse
haviour of the exact solution (Eq. (21)) as:
Laplace transforming Eq. (19). First, it can easily be
demonstrated that
b1 2mb 1
  k ðt Þc þ pffiffiffipffiffiffiffiffiffi
1 b1 ðb  1 þ mÞðixsÞc b þ 1 ðb þ 1Þðb þ 1  mÞ a p t=s
k ðxÞ ¼ þ
b þ 1  m a þ ðixsÞc a þ ðixsÞc b1 2mb 1
¼ þ 2 pffiffiffipffiffiffiffiffiffi ðA3:3Þ
ðA2:4Þ b þ 1 ð b þ 1Þ p t=s
 A. Hördt et al. / Journal of Applied Geophysics 59 (2006) 152–161 161

where the definition of a (Eq. (19)) was used for the Militzer, H., Weber, F., 1985. Angewandte Geophysik. Band, vol. 2.
second step. Springer.
Pelton, W.H., Ward, S.H., Hallof, P.G., Sill, W.R., Nelson, P.H., 1978.
For the approximate solution, we note that f(t) (Eq. Mineral discrimination and removal of inductive coupling with
(26)) is small for large t and thus: multi-frequency IP. Geophysics 43, 588 – 609.
Roy, A., Poddar, M., 1981. A simple derivation of Seigel’s time
b1 2mbf ðt Þ b1 domain induced polarization formula. Geophys. Prospect. 29,
k̂k ðt Þc þ c
b þ 1 ðb þ 1Þðb þ 1  mf ðt ÞÞ b þ 1 432 – 437.
2mbf ðt Þ b  1 2mb 1 t Seigel, H.O., 1959. A theory for induced polarization effects (for step-
þ c þ pffiffiffipffiffiffiffiffiffi ; NN1 function excitation). In: Wait, J.R. (Ed.), Overvoltage Research
ðb þ 1Þ2 b þ 1 ðb þ 1Þ2 p t=s s and Geophysical Applications. Pergamon Press, London.
Seigel, H.O., Vanhala, H., Sheard, S.N., 1997. Some case histories of
ðA3:4Þ
source discrimination using time-domain spectral IP. Geophysics
Comparison of Eqs. (A3.3) and (A3.4) shows that 62, 1394 – 1408.
Soininen, H., 1984a. Inapplicability of pulse train time-domain
approximate and exact solution not only converge to
measurements to spectral induced polarization. Geophysics 49,
the same constant at late times, but also have the same 826 – 827.
asymptotic behaviour with time. Soininen, H., 1984b. The behavior of the apparent resistivity phase
spectrum in the case of a polarizable prism in an unpolarizable
References half-space. Geophysics 49, 1534 – 1540.
Spitzer, K., 1995. A 3-D finite-difference algorithm for DC resistivity
modelling using conjugate gradient methods. Geophys. J. Int. 123,
Abramowitz, M., Stegun, I.A., 1964. Handbook of Mathematical
903 – 914.
Functions. Dover Publ., New York.
Telford, W.M., Geldart, L.P., Sherriff, R.E., 1990. Applied Geophys-
Christensen, N.B., 1990. Optimized fast Hankel transform filters.
ics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Geophys. Prospect. 38, 545 – 568.
Tombs, J.M.C., 1981. The feasibility of making spectral IP measure-
Cole, K.S., Cole, R.H., 1941. Dispersion and absorption in dielectrics:
ments in the time domain. Geoexploration 19, 91 – 102.
1. Alternating current fields. J. Chem. Phys. 9, 341.
Vanhala, H., Peltoniemi, M., 1992. Spectral IP studies of Finnish ore
Hönig, M., 2002. Entwicklung und Anwendung von Auswertealgor-
prospects. Geophysics 57, 1545 – 1555.
ithmen für die induzierte Polarisation im Zeitbereich in bis zu drei
Vanhala, H., Soininen, H., Kukkonen, I., 1992. Detecting organic
Dimensionen. Ph.D. Dissertation, Universität zu Köln.
chemical contaminants by spectral-induced polarization method
Hönig, M, Tezkan, B., submitted for publication. 1-D and 2-D Cole–
in glacial till environment. Geophysics 57, 1014 – 1017.
Cole inversion of time domain induced polarization data, Geo-
Wait, J., 1959. Overvoltage Research and Geophysical Applications.
phys. Prospect.
Pergamon Press, London.
Johnson, I.M., 1984. Spectral induced polarization parameters as
Weller, A., Seichter, M., Kampke, A., 1996. Induced-polarization
determined through time-domain measurements. Geophysics 49,
modelling using complex electrical conductivities. Geophys. J.
1993 – 2003.
Int. 127, 387 – 398.
Kemna, A., Binley, A., Slater, L., 2004. Crosshole IP imaging
Yuval, Oldenburg, D.W., 1997. Computation of Cole–Cole para-
for engineering and environmental applications. Geophysics 69,
meters from IP data. Geophysics 62, 436 – 448.
97 – 107.