Electrical Resistivity of Soil-

Soil Resistivity Fundamentals

and the Soil Resistivity Meter

By Rex A. Crouch

Page 1 of 20
Copyrighted © by Rex A. Crouch, 2008

Page 2 of 20
 Electrical Resistivity of Soil
Soil Resistivity Fundamentals and the Soil Resistivity Meter
By Rex A. Crouch

Abstract
This paper is a learning tool addressing soil resistivity consisting of an introduction
to electrical resistivity, a brief history, the fundamentals of soil resistivity, data
graphing, interpretation, and results. The paper then addresses the basics, building
and operation of a soil resistivity meter, graphing and interpreting the data
collected.

Page 3 of 20
Introduction. Electrical resistivity of
soil may be made with low frequency
alternating current in which the
current is applied at two locations,
and the potential difference is
measured between two points where
the term potential difference, as used
in physics, means voltage difference.
Along this same method, a direct
current may be applied in lieu of an
alternating current thus causing an
induced polarization in subsurface
features wherein, the operator times
how long the potential difference lasts
after the current is removed for the
purpose of identifying large
subsurface conductors. These
aforementioned means are considered
active as the operator is inducing a
current into the ground for the
purpose of measuring a potential
difference. Passive means would be
the measurement of self-potential
which is sometimes called
spontaneous potential. This occurs as
a sulfide breaks down into a sulfate.
This is an indicator of an ore body that
may be residing in a moist
environment.
technique. While a multitude of other
approaches have been applied with
Rooney and Gish presenting strong
techniques, Hummel with impressive
theoretical techniques, the
Schlumberger and Wenner methods,
which will be addressed in detail,
prevailed as the most effective, and
accurate techniques in active electrical
resistivity measurement. All original
techniques assumed a single uniform
overburden with a second layer being
of indefinite thickness. One initial
shortfall was equipment. The
equipment shortfall did not entail
enough current for deep penetration
nor were the meters accurate enough
to distinguish between multiple
layers; with an increase in current and
accuracy, new formulas and methods
of calculation were developed which
created a more inclusive picture of the
subsurface features [1] and [4].
This paper will focus on the
Schlumberger and Wenner methods.

Brief History. Electrical resistivity

means of prospecting is documented
in the 1830s through experiments
conducted by Robert W. Fox, an
English geologist, and natural
philosopher. Fox concentrated his
experiments on sulfide ore deposits
near Cornwall, England. Fox’s
techniques were passive in approach.
Not until the 1920s did the approach
become active wherein Schlumberger,
located in France, and Wenner,
located in United States, began
applying current into the ground, and
measuring the potential difference.
Wenner was the forerunner in this

Page 4 of 20
Basic Formulas. There are four basic
formulas employed when discussing
electrical resistivity and these are
current, current density, Ohm’s law,
and resistivity [1].
Current is determined by charge in
columbs over a given period of time in
seconds where current is represented
as I, columbs in q, and time as t.
I
j
A
Ohms law is the relation of voltage,
resistance, and current. This was first
presented by the German physicist
Georg S. Ohm. In this formula the
term V represents voltage and R
represents resistance.

q V
I I
t R

Resistivity is the relation of resistance,

Current density is the amount of area, and current and is written as:
current flowing through a particular
area in which the current density is A
represented by a j, and the area is R
I
represented by an A.

Page 5 of 20
Generalizing the Concept.

Figure 1 represents a generalized configuration of a soil resistivity measurement

figure 1

In this configuration we see that the

current measurement is taken 2 V 1
through the voltage source where the I 1 1 1 1
positive end is considered the source,
r1 r2 r3 r4
and the negative end is considered the
sink. For convenience, we label these
This is also known as the apparent
C1 and C2. The voltage measurement
resistivity.
is represented by P1 and P2, and in
both cases it does not matter which is
labeled 1 or 2. The distances r1, r2, r3,
r4 represent the distances between 2 V 1
A
posts. The curved lines running I 1 1 1 1
through the ground from C1 to C2 r1 r2 r3 r4
represent how the current may flow
through a homogeneous soil. Using The apparent resistivity is a sampling
the below formula we can solve for of one location. Multiple samplings
the resistivity [1]. will help to discern variation in

Page 6 of 20
resistivity, and subsequently
variations in the subsurface features.
In terms of homogeneous space, the
electric current is applied to the
medium creating an electrical field.
Within this field there are various
potential differences between all of
the possible points that may be
chosen. The character of the electrical
field depends on the properties of the
space that the current is passing
through. A strong electrical field will
occur in moist silt whereas a weak
field will occur in dry gravel. In either
case, a homogeneous space is the
easiest to work with or model [4].

Page 7 of 20
Current in Multiple Layers.
As current is applied to the ground, it
will always attempt to follow the path
of least resistance or the path of lowest
resistivity
In figure 2 below, rho 1 has a lower
resistivity than rho 2, and the majority
of the current passes through the rho
1, 1 2.
figure 2
In figure 3 below, rho 1 has a higher
resistivity then rho 2 and the majority
of the current passes through the rho
2, 1 2.
figure 3
Page 8 of 20
You can easily imagine taking your
voltage probes as represented in figure
1, and placing them in figure 2, you
would have a high voltage
measurement as most of your current
is passing through the area you are
measuring. Conversely, if you were to
place your voltage probes as
represented in figure 1 into figure 3,
you would have a low voltage
measurement because the majority of
the current is passing through a lower
layer with lower resistivity.
This is the foundation for a horizontal
interface in electrical resistivity. The
next step is to apply this information to
the two most common approaches of
resistivity measurements
Basics of Conducting Soil Resistivity
Surveys.

As previously mentioned, the

Schlumberger and Wenner methods
are the two most commonly used, and
accepted methods of conducting soil
resistivity surveys. Both the
Schlumberger and Wenner use the
same configuration as seen in figure 1.
In this respect, each are similar yet use
figure 4
distinct approaches with their
individual pros and cons.
Schlumberger. The Schlumberger
method takes more thought upfront
Wenner. The Wenner method is the
because the spacing between the post
most simple to apply. The spacing of
must maintain the relationship of 2L >
the probes are maintained the same
5M. In this configuration the C1 and C2
throughout the survey. You may begin
posts remain stationary during the
with a separation of 1 meter between
survey and the P1 and P2 posts
each of the probes, then increase it to 5
traverse between C1 and C2 but
meters between each of the probes,
maintain the same separation from
then 10 meters. The distance is not so
each other. This is to say that during
much important, it is the fact that the
the first traverse P1 and P2 will remain
spacing between each of the probes is
1 meter apart. Then the distance
exactly the same. As resistivity
between C1 and C2 is increased and
graphing is done in a log log plot, it
then you may increase the distance
may be best to make the spacing 1.0,
between P1 and P2 to 1.47 meters, and
1.47, 2.15, 3.16. 4.64, 6.81, and 10.0
conduct the traverse again. The
meters and increase this distance in
Schlumberger method is faster in that
decades. The drawback to using the
you have to move all of the post fewer
Wenner method is that you must move
times.
P1, P2, and C2 after every
measurement and remember to turn
Figure 5 below depicts how the
the power off prior to moving the
Schlumberger configuration may
posts.
appear.
Figure 4 below depicts a standard
Wenner configuration maintaining the
same spacing between post.

Page 9 of 20
figure 5 figure 6

An additional consideration is that the Applying some entirely fictional data to

Schlumberger configuration does not log log graph for the purposes of
require that you remain on a straight understanding, we can develop
traverse line but have the freedom to something to interpret.
move your P1 and P2 to the left and
right of the traverse as demonstrated In the following table, 25
in the below map view as derived by measurements were taken:
Roman [4].
Measurement Ohms
1 4
2 3.8
3 3.6
4 3.4
5 3.2
6 3.2
7 3.2
8 3
9 3
10 2.8
11 5.8
12 6.4
13 6.6
14 6.6
15 6.6
map view 1. 16 5.8
17 4.2
18 3.8
Graphing and Interpreting. Graphing 19 3.2
the information is done on a log log 20 3.2
plot, and if done in the aforementioned 21 3.2
22 3.2
increments will be easy to plot on the 23 3.2
paper. Figure 6 below depicts such a 24 3.2
graph. 25 3.2
Table 1.

Applying this data to the same graph

we can develop this image:

Page 10 of 20
 Department of Transportation, [2] but
by no means is comprehensive as all
materials changes in Ohm meters
based on a variety of factors using silt,
Ohms meters as an example, it changes
based on water content as well as sand
percentage as well as other minerals
present, but the below mine water
mentioned will change based on the pH
level of the water.

figure 7
Material Ohm Meters

Without applying any formulas we can Clay and marl 1 to 100

conduct some simple deductions from Loam 5 to 50
this. The first part of the graph Top soil 50 to 100
decreases in resistivity over the first Clayey soils 100 to 500
ten measurements and then abruptly Sandy soils 500 to 5000
stops. The next data point jumped to Typical mine water 1 to 10
5.8 Ohms, and climbed slightly leveling Typical surface water 5 to 50
for a brief moment and then dropped Shale 10 to 80
dramatically to 3.2 Ohms where it Limestones 80 to 1000
levels out. We can easily envision a Sandstones 50 to 8000
gentle decline in resistivity layer and Coal 500 to 5000
then something of much higher Table 2.
resistivity intrudes and levels off for
several measurement locations before The below figure was developed on
dropping back, even more sharply back concepts presented in the
to resistance similar to left hand side of Interpretation of Resistivity Data [3].
the graph. We can guess that there In an apparent resistivity survey, the
was undoubtedly an intrusion of some image depicts a contrast between low
kind. While modern soil resistivity resistivity clay, and higher resistivity
meters will take the guess work out of limestone, as well as presenting the
this, this can also be interpreted as scenario of a cavern or cave in which
four contact layers which is not much resistance would approach infinity
different than what was described during measurements an as there is
above. nothing to conduct the current in an
apparent resistivity profile.
Of course this data is fictional but real
materials have real resistivity
measured in Ohms meters

There are multiple tables to assist you

in determining what material you may
be working with. The following
information was derived from the U.S.

Page 11 of 20

figure 8.
Summarizing the Theory. Thus far
this paper has examined the history
and concepts of soil resistivity,
detection of multiple layers, and
introduced the fundamental formulas
employed. The basic survey with the
Wenner and Schlumberger methods
were discussed, and graphing, and
interpretation were also presented.
The next step is to build and use a soil
resistivity meter to see all of the theory
come together.
Building a Soil Resistivity Meter.
Soil resistivity meters are actually very
simple to build. I designed my
resistivity meter for portability as well
as functionality. Most professional
systems only use AC. I wanted to have
the same performance as a commercial
unit which required the use of AC but I
also wanted to use straight DC for the
purpose of creating induced
polarization in conductive ore bodies.
My system uses a 12 volt deep cycle
marine battery which runs into a
DC/AC off-the-shelf inverter providing
a clean AC. Clean is meant to mean
that there is little to no noise on the 60
Hz waveform unlike the 60 Hz that
comes from a wall outlet in which
there are spikes, and even low points
(brown outs). Two highly sensitive
Page 12 of 20
multi-meters are employed to monitor
amperage, and voltage. For conducting
induced polarization the inverter is
removed from the system and the 12
volt source is use to apply the current.
Below is a block diagram of my system:
figure 9.
I mounted the entire system is an all-
terrain cart for easy movement. As
professional systems report findings in
Ohms meter, a homemade system
would report in Amperage and Voltage
with the distance between probes
being measured by myself, or the user.
To compensate for this break in
technology from the commercial to the
homemade system, I wrote a MATLAB
application for use specifically in the
Wenner configuration. The application
allowed me to handwrite the data, then
enter the data into an Excel
spreadsheet which I named resistivity,
and saved in my default MATLAB
folder. When the MATLAB application
is ran, regardless of how long or short
the data is or the spacing between the
posts, the application will import the
data set, and graph the data in a log log
plot.
Below is my MATLAB script:
% Written by Rex A. Crouch
% racrouch@mtu.edu
% For: Special Topics in Geophysics - GE 4933 - 01
% Soil Resistivity Graphing
% This script accompanies a soil resistivity meter I built

% For simple one layer models using AC equidistant probe spacing

% This script Does the following:

%* Opens an Excel file named "resistivity"
%* The scripts conducts a P calculation at each increment in the file
%* Saves the data to a blank array "B" which is the same size as the
data
%* Plots the data saved in "B" as a loglog plot
%* Produces an array named "B" that may be used to imagesc diagrams

%================================

clear % Clearing all variables

clf % Clearing any figure or graphs

A=xlsread('resistivity.xls'); % Load the Resisitivy Excel file

distance=(A(:,1)); % Establishing the distance variable
voltage=(A(:,2)); % Establishing the voltage variable
current=(A(:,3)); % Establishing the current variable
B=zeros(size(distance)); % Creating a column the same size as the imported vector

%'for loop' increments through the data index by index

for i=1:size(B);
p=2*3.14*distance.*(voltage./current);
B=p;
end

m=max(distance); % Finding the max distance in the array

z=max(p); % Finding the max resistance in the array

% Establishing Axis bounds on the graph to

% the max distance and resistivity + 10% overage
axis ([0 m 0 z+(z*.1)])

loglog(B) % plotting the data as loglog

% Graph Titles and Labels
title('Soil Resistivity Reading')
ylabel('Resistivity Scale (Ohm/Meters)')
xlabel('Electrode Separation (Meters)')
text(10^.2,10^2.3,'Area Name')
text(10^.2,10^2.14,'GPS DATA')
B % Display the array for saving
% End of script
Script 1

Page 13 of 20
My first test-run of the my soil image 1.
resistivity meter was conducted
adjacent to the road that parallels the
Quincy Mine, next to the Quincy fire The below graph is from my very first
station (above Hancock, MI along state test-run of the resistivity meter at the
road 41). I have previous inspected mentioned location.
this area from underground through
one of the civil war era drifts in the
Quincy Mine, and the area, although
copper rich, had not been fully stoped.
In conducting a passive survey from
the surface using the Geonics EM 16, I
also confirmed a very strong
conductive ore body. Subsequently, I
knew the dip angle of the stratigraphic
layers was about 45 degrees and that
there was in fact a significant
conductive ore body at my test-run
survey site.
graph 1.
Using the Wenner method, I began
with a 1.5 meter separation in the Graph 1 is produced by my MATLAB
posts and increased in increments of script, the blue line represents the raw
1.5 meters until I had reached 15 data where the resistivity continued to
meter, roughly 50 foot, separations in climb and then dropped sharply
each of the posts. At this point I knew I leveling out to a constant low and then
had passed the ore body in question begin to climb again. The green line
but the raw data on a piece of paper was a function I applied to data to
made little sense so returned to my show a curve while maintaining the
computer to enter the data, and form of the data. This is what I was
produced a log log graph. expecting to see. The graph indicated
that we went through several different
The below image is of me taking contact layers to include an area that
measurements at the first test-run site. could be considered highly conductive.
With data from the USGS, the known
layers are an overburden, footwall,
Pewabic lode, and a hanging wall [5]
were all well known here, thus my first
application was confirmed.

My next application of the soil

resistivity meter was along the Green
Stone ridge on Cliff Drive on the south
side of the North America Mine.
Because I was running near
perpendicular to the strike I was

Page 14 of 20
expecting to see dike like features.
Also, the terrain was very rugged. For
these two reasons I chose to use the
Schlumberger method. My traverse
line was N40W running 150 meters.
The first anomaly was the current
reading. The current rapidly
fluctuated between 1.1 mA to 2.3 mA.
I reviewed multiple articles on current
but found nothing that immediately
explained why it fluctuated. I also
contacted several leaders in -soil
resistivity meter- manufacturing and
asked how their professional systems
reconciled this problem. I received no
responses, and worked on my own
conclusions. Considering the terrain
and the fact that a stream was at the
top of the ridge but disappeared into a
hole—left me to believe that this
fluctuation may represent a pulsating
flow of an underground stream.
Considering that, I assumed a mean
current of 1.7 mA for all calculations.
The data depicted what I would
interpret as possibly six contacts with
strong variation in the conductivity of
the various layers.
graph 2
To confirm the data, I ran a second
traverse line still N40W, 18 meters
S50W away from the first traverse line
and found that the two major features
in the middle of the graph were still
Page 15 of 20
present and plunging in the direction
of the dipping stratigraphic layers.
My second test run was over a known
area of geologic stratigraphy, and the
results, other than the fluctuating
current, were somewhat as expected
when applying a best fit curve which
removed many jumps in data, but
without the best fit curve the data was
otherwise complicated as depicted
above. The running of a second
traverse to confirm data from the first
traverse has inspired the thought of
creating a contouring script for
visualizing an entire area.
Choosing the site was the first
consideration. I wanted a flat area to
work with this time; an area without
boulders, falling rocks, trees, bushes,
needles, and growling noises that came
from the cave like cavities in between
the rocks. I also wanted to develop
some knowledge about the area before
working on it. The MTU football field
is probably the largest and flattest area
around Houghton, Michigan. Going to
the Copper County Archives, I
researched mapping of the area and
found a bedrock mapping of the area as
well as a soil resistivity mapping of the
area in preparation for construction of
the Student Development Center
(SDC). The soil resistivity mapping
was based on various gray scale
shading, and had lost is shading, and
was of no use but the bedrock mapping
was still usable. As no development
was going to take place on the football
field, this area was not mapped but the
contour lines stopping at the edge of
the football field could be used to help
confirm my data. As many items in the
archives cannot be photographed or
photocopied I redrew the map by hand
retaining it to scale to the best of my Below is a picture which represents
ability. Below is my redrawing of the how my system was setup:
area in question.

Bedrock Survey compiled by

W. John and J Ringler
Date: unknown (assumed to be before construction of MTU SDC. On
file at the Copper Country Achieves, MTU, Drawer 48,c.
Redrawn by R.A. Crouch
25 May 2007

80 120

140
160

140
80
120
100

image 2.
80
MTU
FOOTBALL
FIELD
N My cart, behind me in the photo,
contained most of the equipment used
160 in the survey:
140

180
140

120

figure 10

I conducted the survey over the

football field behind the STC on 9 Jun
2007. The first observation that was
made was the topography. The
northeast side of the football field had image 3.
been built-up about 4 meters to make
the field level. There were probably The data was collected, and ran
some sections of fill-in as well. through the script I presented earlier.
Because of this, I do not expect the data This provided the log log plots for each
from the northeast side of the field to traverse, and Ohms per meter data for
be truly representative of nature. I ran each traverse line. I used this data to
six traverse lines 30 meters apart to create a matrix of resistivity data that
include the entire field. There were covers the entire field. This included
four measurements taken using the the area that had been built-up in the
Wenner method on each traverse line northeast side of the field. I then
beginning with a 10 meter separation wrote another short script to take the
and increasing in increments of 10 matrix, and create a contour map of
meters. resistivity measurements.

Page 16 of 20
Below is the script used for creating
my subsurface contour map:
% Written by Rex A. Crouch
% racrouch@mtu.edu
% For: Special Topics in Geophysics - GE 4933 - 01
% Soil Resistivity Graphing
% This script accompanies a soil resistivity meter I built

% For creating a contour of resistivity based on previous input

% This script Does the following saves the data from the resistivity matrix
% as "A" and then conducts a contour map of the resistivity

%================================

A=
[1.1053 0.2512 0.3391 0.0816 0.2449 0.0942
0.7285 2.1352 0.6908 1.884 0.9546 1.6077
1.9028 0.5652 0.2638 1.7898 3.8245 1.055
2.4366 0.1256 1.4821 0.1005 2.0598 1.1555]

%Ohms per meter 1X10^7

C=contourf(A,10);
colorbar
caxis([-20 20])

% Graph Titles and Labels

title('Soil Resistivity Reading')

% End of script
Script 2

Page 17 of 20
The contour plot was then taken and
placed over the football field. The
northeast section of the football field
that was built-up does not really
correlate to the bedrock diagram on
the northeast edge. Mindful that this
is two different types of data-the
bedrock data and the resistivity
data. Despite this difference in data
types, correlations can still be drawn.
figure 11
Looking further southwest we see
lower resistivity values approaching
yellow in color which more closely
correspond to the tight contour lines of
the bedrock topography. If you were
to remove this built-up overburden in
the northeast of the football field you
could envision the contour lines
finding a common ground. Also, in the
very south corner of the contour map
Page 18 of 20
we see the imaging going to yellow
again being the area of the field
adjacent to a stream. The fill areas of
the football field were probably the
darkest green.
Summary. I found that the Wenner
method was the easiest to employ with
a self built 4 lead system because it
gave the most control, and ease in
calculations, but I can see that the
Schlumberger method would be the
most effective with a multi-lead self
calculating system. I am still not
entirely sure how to treat/interpret an
area that may have rapidly flowing
underground water sources, and can
see this as being a study in of itself.
Setting this topic aside, and addressing
resistivity surveys in general, I have to
note that they are an effective way of
visualizing the subsurface, and
identifying various layers with minimal
cost associated with the equipment
however, the employment of the four
lead system, particularly while
working alone, is a time intensive task.
Despite this drawback I will continue
to use the system because it is
effective.
I highly recommend any student
interested in geophysics to build their
own equipment whenever possible as
it brings you closers to understanding
the system you are studying. The
theory of geophysics is fine, but the
actual applied geophysics is a hands-on
adventure.
Works Cited.

[1] Burger, Sheehan, and Jones, eds. 1992. Introduction to Applied Geophysics:
Exploring the Shallow Subsurface. New York: W.W. Norton & Company Inc

[2] Johnson and Monroeville, eds. 2005. Geophysical Technologies for Detecting
Underground Coal Mine Voids: Applications of the Electrical Resistivity Method for
Detection of Underground Mine Workings. U.S. Department of Transportation

[3] Nostrand and Cook, eds. 1966. Interpretation of Resistivity Data: Geological
Survey Professional Paper 499. U.S. Department of the Interior. 224.

[4] Roman, eds. 1960. Apparent Resistivity of a Single Uniform Overburden:

Geological Survey Professional Paper 365. U.S. Department of the Interior.

[5] Pewabic Amygdaloid Lodes, USGS Professional Paper 144 p 178-181

Figure 1. Basic configuration of soil resistivity system derived from [1], illustrated
by R.A. Crouch April 2007

Figure 2. Example of layering when layer 1 has lower resistivity then layer 2 [1],
illustrated by R.A. Crouch April 2007

Figure 3. Example of layering when layer 2 has lower resistivity then layer 1 [1],
illustrated by R.A. Crouch April 2007

Figure 4. Example of Wenner Configuration derived from [1], illustrated by R.A.

Crouch April 2007

Figure 5. Example of Schlumberger Configuration derived from [1]. illustrated by

R.A. Crouch April 2007

Figure 6. Example of loglog graphing, illustrated by R.A. Crouch May 2007

Figure 7. Example of loglog graphing as used with fictional data, illustrated by R.A.
Crouch May 2007

Figure 8. Example of resisitivty measurements over an area that includes high

conductive clays, low conductive limestones, infinite resistance caverns derived
from [3], illustrated by R.A. Crouch May 2007

Figure 9. Block diagram of a soil resistivity system, illustrated by R.A. Crouch May
2007

Page 19 of 20
Figure 10. Representation of the subsurface bedrock of the area adjacent to the
MTU football field derived from the Copper Country Archives, map drawer 48c,
compiled by W Johnson and J Ringler (undated), illustrated by R.A. Crouch May 2007

Figure 11. Representation of the subsurface bedrock of the area adjacent to the MTU
football field derived from the Copper Country Archives, map drawer 48c, compiled
by W Johnson and J Ringler (undated), illustrated by R.A. Crouch May 2007 with
overlay of resistivity contour map.

Table 1. Fictional data to develop a working example of plotting on log log graphs,
in support of Figure 7. R.A. Crouch May 2007.

Table 2. Table depicting resistance of some materials. Derived from [2].

Graph 1. Graph from data collected during initial test run of soil resistivity meter
orthogonal to the strike along the road adjacent to the fire station next to Quincy
Mine (Houghton Co, MI), R.A. Crouch May 2007.

Graph 2. Graph from data collected during second test run of soil resistivity meter
near base of Green Stone Ridge running parallel to the strike along Cliff Drive
(Keweenaw Co, MI), R.A. Crouch May 2007.

Image 1. R.A. Crouch collecting data during initial test run of system during the first
quarter of May 2007.

Image 2. R.A. Crouch collecting data during initial run on football field behind SDC
during the second quarter of June 2007

Image 3. Resistivity system as used on football field behind SDC during the second
quarter of June 2007

Script 1. R.A. Crouch, MATLAB script. Converting distance, amperage, and voltage
into a log log plot. May 2007.

Script 2. R.A. Crouch, MATLAB script. Matrix of resistivity into a contour plot. June
2007.

Page 20 of 20