Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering and Applied Sciences (JETEAS) 2 (4): 680-686 (ISSN: 2141-

7016)
680
3D Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) Survey of a Typical
Basement Complex Terrain
B.S. Badmus, O.D. Akinyemi, J.A. Olowofela and G.M. Folarin
Department of Physics, University of Agriculture, Abeokuta, Nigeria
Corresponding Author: B.S. Badmus
_____________________________________________________________________
______
Abstract
A 49-electrode system was used in the Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) survey in three locations
with each location marked into 7 by 7 square grids for the electrodes using 1.0m, 3.0m and 5.0m unit
electrode spacings in succession. The pole-pole electrode array was used with the two remote
electrodes placed at distances of 23m, 40m and 65m from the grids with 1.0m, 3.0m and 5.0m unit
electrode spacing respectively to reduce their telluric effects on the apparent resistivity values measured.
The data obtained were analysed and 3D models of the subsurface were generated using 3D inversion
software called RES3DI.V and the Slicer Dicer software. The result from this study was found to be
similar to those from the studies for which multichannel 3D equipment were used. The results of the
interpretation revealed the Lithology to compose lateritic soil, sand, sandstone, sandy clay and clay. The
results also showed that the three different unit electrode spacing displayed similar geo-electric models
and the electrode spacing determines the depths of investigation.
Geological structures are 3-Dimensional (3D) in nature, thus 1-Dimensional and 2-Dimensional surveys
cannot adequately model them. However, sophisticated 3D survey equipment is very expensive and not
readily available. This prompted the use of a single-channel SAS 300B Terrameter to obtain a 3D model
of the subsurface.
INTRODUCTION
Geological structures are three-dimensional (3D) in nature and so one-dimensional or twodimensional
survey cannot be adequately accurate in modeling them. However sophisticated 3D survey equipments
are very expensive. This study was carried out to show that a single-channel Terrameter can be used to
obtain a 3D model of the subsurface. There are numbers of mineral resources beneath the earth surface.
Detecting them and predicting their qualities and quantities is of importance to both government and
individuals, like exploration geophysicists, hydro-geophysicists and the like. A number of methods have
been used for this exploration purpose, such as magnetic method, gravity methods, seismic methods -
seismic reflection/refraction, electrical and electromagnetic methods, induced polarization, etc. These
methods can as well be used for environmental investigations, surveys and monitoring. Of interest in this
work is the electrical resistivity method which makes use of measurements on ground surface to reveal
subsurface resistivity distributions. This could be one-dimensional (1D), two-dimensional (2D) or three-
dimensional (3D).
Extensive work has been done using 1D resistivity surveying (Jones and Hockey 1964, Ajayi and
Adegoke 1988; Okwueze and Ezeanyim 1991; Ojelabi et al. 2002). 2D imaging surveys have been
carried out for purposes such as the detection of leakage of pollutants from landfill sites, areas with
undulating limestone bedrock, mapping of the overburden thickness over bedrock (Ritz et al. 1999),
leakage of water from dams, saline water intrusion in coastal aquifers, freshwater aquifers (Dahlin and
Owen 1998), monitoring of groundwater tracers (Nyquist et al.1999) and mapping of unconsolidated
sediments (Christensen and Sorensen 1994). The resistivity imaging method has also been used in
underwater surveys in lakes and dams. Even areas of moderately complex geology have been mapped
using the 2D surveying (Griffiths and Barker 1993). Since all geological structures are 3D in nature, 3D
resistivity survey using a 3D interpretation model would be most appropriate to get the most accurate
result (Loke 2004). 3D resistivity survey is expensive and takes time, especially when the area to be
surveyed is large. However, the development of multi-channel resistivity survey instruments, faster
microcomputers and inversion software now make it possible to take more than one reading at a time
thereby reducing survey time, and carry out inversin of very large data sets in reasonable time (Griffiths
et al.1990; Loke and Barker 1996b). Three array types are commonly used for 3D resistivity surveying;
the pole-pole, pole-dipole and dipole-dipole. The reason for this is that other arrays have poorer data
coverage near the edges of the survey grid (Loke 2000). Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering and
Applied Sciences (JETEAS) 2 (4): 680-686 Scholarlink Research Institute Journals, 2011 (ISSN: 2141-
7016) jeteas.scholarlinkresearch.org Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering and Applied Sciences
(JETEAS) 2 (4): 680-686 (ISSN: 2141-7016) 681
THE STUDY AREA
This survey was carried out at three different locations within the University of Agriculture, Abeokuta
(UNAAB), a basement complex terrain of southwestern Nigeria (figure 1.0). UNAAB is located within
longitudes 3.350 to 3.380 East and latitudes 7.350 to 7.460 North respectively. It has coordinates of
2549.993m North and 1724.197m East (Ibikunle 1998; Akinsola 2004). Each location formed a grid as
shown in figure 2.0, described by parameters like elevation above sea level, longitudes and latitudes as
follows:
Location 1 (Opposite Chief Olatunde Abudu Building): 152m, 7.23232N, 3.43952E; 153m,
7.23260N, 3.43958E; 153m, 7.23261N, 3.43935E; 152m, 7.23231N, 3.43922E.
Location 2 (Behind Extension and Research Building): 151m, 7.22976N, 3.43336E; 146m,
7.23005N, 3.43346E; 150m, 7.22996N, 3.43374E; 149m, 7.22967N, 3.43368E.
Location 3 (Behind College of 'atural Sciences): 145m, 7.22797N, 3.43693E; 147m, 7.22809N,
3.43666E; 145m, 7.22786N, 3.43656E; 144m, 7.22769N, 3.43682E.
METHOD Data acquisition
A 49-electrode system with 7 by 7 square grid arrangement of electrodes with 1m, 3m and 5m unit
electrode spacing were used in succession at each location (figure 2.0). The pole-pole electrode array
was used in this survey with the two remote electrodes placed at distances of 23m, 40m and 65m from
the grids of 1m, 3m and 5m unit electrode spacing respectively. The cross-diagonal survey method was
adopted for this research work (Loke and Barker, 1996b). To reduce survey time consumption, since a
single-channel resistivity meter was used, the crossdiagonal survey method was adopted. The ABEM
Terrameter SAS 300B was used for the Survey The data from the survey was inverted and interpreted
using the RES3DINV software. RES3DINV ver. 2.16; for Windows 2000/NT/XP/Vista and 3D images
were also generated using the Slicer Dicer software.

RESULTS A'D DISCUSSIONS
The study revealed seven geo-electric layers covering total depths of 7.75m, 23.2m and 38.7m for unit
electrode spacing of 1.0m, 3.0m and 5.0m respectively. It revealed resistivity ranges of about 7.3Fm to
224Fm, 13.8Fm to 163Fm and 3.9Fm to 154Fm for unit electrode spacings of 1.0m, 3.0m and 5.0m
respectively at location 1; showing geo-electric model layers composed of lateritic soil, sand, sandstone,
sandyclay and clay. It also revealed resistivity ranges of 0.53Fm to 81.8Fm and 0.30Fm to 68.9Fm for
unit electrode spacing of 3.0m and 5.0m respectively at location 2 with model layers composing of sand,
sandstone, sandy clay and clay. It revealed resistivity ranges of 6.1Fm to about 545Fm, 12.0Fm to
513Fm and 0.85Fm to 1603Fm for unit electrode spacings of 1.0m, 3.0m and 5.0m respectively at
location 3 with geo-electric model layers composing lateritic soil, sand, sandstone, sandyclay and clay.

For 1.0m Unit Electrode Spacing
Location 1: From the horizontal sections (figure 3a); the first geo-electric layer has a thickness of 0.7m
with resistivity value of 224Fm. The second layer is between depth 0.7m and 1.5m and has resistivity
value of 137Fm. These layers are suspected to be lateritic soil, sand, sandstone, sandyclay and clay.
The third layer has resistivity of 51.6-84.1Fm between depths 1.5m and 2.43m. The fourth layer is
between depths 2.43m and 3.5m, with resistivity of 19.4-51.6Fm. These two geo-electric layers consist of
sand, sandstone, sandyclay and clay. The resistivity of the fifth and sixth layers is between 7.3Fm and
19.4Fm between the depths of 3.5m and 4.72m and 4.72m and 6.13m. The seventh layer between the
depths of 6.13m and 7.75m has resistivity values ranging from 7.3Fm to 11.9Fm. The fifth to the seventh
go-electric layers revealed the layer to be clays. The vertical sections (figure 3b) show the vertical
extents of the layers to a depth of 6.94m.
Locations 2: From the horizontal sections (figure 4a); the first geo-electric layer has resistivity value of
545Fm. The second layer has resistivity of 151Fm. These layers are suspected to be lateritic soil, sand,
sandstone, sandy clay and clay with the third layer having resistivity range of 41.0-207Fm. The second
and third layers have inhomogeneous resistivity distributions as depicted by the resistivity variations. The
fourth to the seventh geo-electric layers have resistivity values of 6.1-79.5Fm. The geo-electric layers
appear to consist of lateritic soil, sand,sandstone, andy clayey and clay. The vertical sections (figure 4b)
show the vertical extents of the layers to a depth of 6.94m.
For 3.0m Unit Electrode Spacing
Location 1: From the horizontal sections (figure 5a); the first geo-electric layer has a thickness of 2.10m
has resistivity value of 114Fm. The second layer is between depth 2.10m and 4.51m and has resistivity
value of 163Fm. The third layer has resistivity of 39.7-163Fm between depth 4.51m and 7.29m. The
second and third layers have highly inhomogeneous resistivity distributions. The fourth layer is between
depth 7.29m and 10.5m, with resistivity values of 19.6-80.4Fm. The resistivity of the fifth layer is Journal
of Emerging Trends in Engineering and Applied Sciences (JETEAS) 2 (4): 680-686 (ISSN: 2141-7016)
682
between 13.8Fm and 56.5Fm and its depth is between 10.5m and 14.2m. These geo-electric layers
revealed the lithology to consist of sand, sandstone, sandyclay and clay. The sixth and seventh
geoelectric
layers revealed depths ranging from 14.2m to 18.4m and 18.4m to 23.2m with resistivity values ranging
from 13.8Fm to 39.7Fm. The sixth and sevenths geo-electric layers are suspected to be clays. The
vertical sections (figure 5b) show the vertical extents of the layers to a depth of 20.8m.
Location 2: From the horizontal sections (figure 6a); the first geo-electric layer has resistivity value of
81.8Fm. The second layer has resistivity values ranging from 19.4Fm to 81.8Fm. The third layer has
resistivity of 39.8Fm with the second and third layers having highly inhomogeneous resistivity
distributions. These layers revealed the Lithology to consist of sand, sandstone, sandyclay and clay. The
fourth geo-electric layer has resistivity value of 2.2-9.4Fm with the resistivity of the fifth layer between
1.1Fm and 4.6Fm. The sixth and seventh layers have resistivity values of 0.53-2.2Fm. This layer is
suspected to consist of clay. The vertical sections (figure 6b) show the vertical extents of the layers to a
depth of 20.8m.
Location 3: From the horizontal sections (figure 7a); the first and second geo-electric layers have
resistivity values ranging from 56.0Fm to 513Fm while the third layer has resistivity value of 6.1Fm. The
fourth and fifth geo-electric layers have resistivity values ranging from 2.9 to 513Fm. The sixth and
seventh layers have resistivity values ranging from 12.0Fm to 245Fm. These layers have
inhomogeneous resistivity distributions with lithology consisting of lateritic soil, sand, sandstone, sandy
clay and clay. The vertical sections (figure 7b) show the vertical extents of the layers to a depth of 20.8m.
For 5.0m Unit Electrode Spacing
Location 1: From the horizontal sections (figure 8a); the first geo-electric layer has thickness of 3.5m
with
resistivity value of 51.0Fm. The second layer is between depths 3.5m and 7.53m and also has resistivity
value of 154Fm. The third geo-electric layer has resistivity value of 18.9Fm between depths 7.53m and
12.2m. The first to third geo-electric layers have inhomogeneous resistivity distributions. The fourth layer
is between depths 12.2m and 17.5m, with resistivity value of 91.1Fm. These geo-electric layers revealed
a formation consisting of lateritic soil, sand, andstone, sandyclay and clay. The resistivity of the fifth layer
is 11.2Fm and its depth is between 7.5m and 23.6m. The sixth layer is between the depths of 23.6m and
30.6m and it has resistivity values of 6.7-51.0Fm. These two layers consist of sand, sandstone, sandy
clay and clay while the seventh layer is between the depths of 30.6m and 38.7m has resistivity ranging
from 3.9Fm to 32Fm. The vertical sections (figure 8b) show the vertical extents of the layers to a depth of
34.7m.
Location 2: From the horizontal sections (figure 9a); the first and second geo-electric layers have
resistivity values ranging from 14.6Fm to 68.9Fm. The third layer has resistivity value of 6.7Fm. The
fourth layer has resistivity values of 3.1-31.7Fm and these geo-electric layers revealed formations of
sand, sandstone and clay. The resistivity of the fifth layer ranges from 1.4Fm to 14.6Fm. The sixth layer
has resistivity values between 0.65Fm and 3.1Fm. These two layers consist of clay. The seventh layer
has resistivity value of 0.30Fm. The vertical sections (figure 9b) show the vertical extents of the layers to
a depth of 34.7m.
Location 3: From the horizontal sections (figure 10a); the first three geo-electric layers have resistivity
ranging from 7.3Fm to 1603Fm. These layers have highly inhomogeneous resistivity distributions and
revealed a formation consisting of laterite, sandstone, sand, sandyclay and clay. The fourth layer has
resistivity value of 63.2Fm; revealing a composition of sand, sandstone and clay. The resistivity value of
the fifth and sixth geoelectric layers are between 7.3Fm and 1.5Fm and these layers suspected to be
clay formations. The seventh layer has resistivity value of 0.85Fm indicating a clay formation. The
vertical sections (figure 10b) show the vertical extents of the layers to a depth of 34.7m. It is a general
observation that the three different unit lectrode spacings gave rise to similar geoelectric models and the
wider the spacing, the deeper the depths of investigation. However the RMS errors were smallest in the
inversion of the data from the 1.0m spacing and highest in the 5.0m spacing for each location. Figure
11.0 showed the
Slicer Dicer images for all the units spacing.
CONCLUSION
This study has shown that it is possible to carry out 3D ERT using a many-electrode system with
singlechannel 1D equipment, invert and interpret the data using the RES3DINV software and still get the
required result. The results obtained from this study showed reasonable similarity with the results from
studies for which multi-channel 3D equipments were used. It has also shown that the pole-pole array is
better used for small unit electrode spacing and the observed RMS errors in the inverted data increase
with increase in the unit electrode spacing. Using a unit electrode spacing of 0.5m and a system of many
electrodes will give a better result.