# Development of Multi-Channel Seismic-Electrical Combined Rolling Coverage Measurement System
## 1 Introduction
Figure 1: Schematic illustration of the principle of electrical exploration. Due to the fundamental differences in physical sensitivity and spatial resolution, integrating seismic and resistivity data presents several inherent challenges. Seismic methods are primarily sensitive to mechanical properties such as velocity and density, while resistivity methods reflect conductivity, which is influenced by fluid content, porosity, and mineralogy. As a result, the parameters derived from these two methods cannot be directly compared. Furthermore, seismic imaging generally offers higher spatial resolution than resistivity tomography, which may lead to misalignments when performing joint interpretation or inversion. Therefore, their effective integration requires careful spatial registration and the development of inversion strategies that address the differences in sensitivity and scale. However, this integration holds significant potential. The complementary constraints between different geophysical methods can improve the ambiguity in inversion results and enhance model reliability. [PERSON] performed a joint inversion using seismic profile data, resistivity data, and underground coal seam resistivity data [15]. [PERSON] developed a robust two-dimensional joint inversion scheme that combines the cross-gradient of resistivity and seismic velocity as a constraint [16]. [PERSON] used a soft clustering method to integrate the independently derived electrical and seismic models [17]. [PERSON] proposed a new inversion strategy based on the alternating direction method of multipliers [18]. [PERSON] applied anisotropic marine controlled-source electromagnetic (CSEM) data and seismic refraction imaging data for a geological hazard assessment of the seabed cover layer [19]. [PERSON] introduced multi-channel seismoelectric spectral ratios by considering an active seismic source acting on the ground surface [20]. [PERSON] studied the seismic waves generated in fluid-saturated porous interlayers and the reflection/transmission characteristics at the interface of the interlayer structure [21]. [PERSON] regarded an oil-water mixture as an effective fluid and derived a seismic-electric coupling equation for porous media containing oil and water [22]. Therefore, there is a need for instruments capable of simultaneously collecting seismic and electrical data. The Italian company PASI launched the 16 SG24-N system, which is suitable for a variety of engineering geological surveys [23; 24]. The parameters of the 16 SG24-N system are shown in Table 1, with a maximum of 24 channels, supporting both seismic methods and high-density electrical methods. The KMS-820 system developed by the American company KMS supports microseismic and electromagnetic methods, with a maximum of six channels [25]. The KMS-820 includes an analog-to-digital converter with a maximum sampling rate of 80 ksps and a 32-bit fluxgate magnetometer digital interface with a maximum sampling rate of 4 ksps. In summary, traditional geophysical instruments have limitations such as low power, single functionality, few channels, fixed arrangement measurements, and slow measurement speed. To address the limitation of single functionality, [PERSON] et al. proposed a hybrid seismic-electrical acquisition station based on cloud technology and the green IoT [26], but this acquisition system still faces issues of low power and limited number of channels. Multi-method combined exploration has become a research highlights, but the development of related combined acquisition instruments has been slow. Therefore, developing a seismic-electrical combined acquisition system for geophysical exploration has significant scientific importance. With the increase in detection depth, improvement in observation accuracy, and diversification of observation methods, seismic and electrical combined acquisition technology has broad development prospects.