Electrical Resistivity Tomography Survey For Detecting A Possible Fault

Universidad de El Salvador Bachelor in Physics
Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Matematica Science of the Earth

Escuela de Fsica Year 2017
Electrical resistivity tomography

survey for detecting
a possible fault
Sergio Ernesto Aguilar Gutierrez

gaugeboson@hotmail.com
Universidad de El Salvador, Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Matematica, Escuela de Fsica
San Salvador, El Salvador
January 15, 2017
Abstract
In order to investigate a possible fault in Ecoparque el Espino, a region inside the San Salvador volcano complex, a
electrical resistivity tomography was performed using a single survey line of electrodes in a Wenner alpha array. A software
inversor was used to produce a two-dimensional cross sections of resistivity values across the survey line, via a least-squares
optimization method, with the respective topography corrections. The results show that it is improbable a fault is in the
location we selected.
Keywords: Fault detection, electrical resistivity tomography, Wenner array, inversion methods, San Salvador
volcano.
1. Introduction
This experiment consisted on performining an electrical tomography along a survey line to detect a possible fault
in a delimitated region in Cerro La Hoya, Ecoparque El Espino. The detection of the possible fault was proposed
with the aim of explaining anomalous concentrations of volcanic gases found by a vulcanologist from Universidad
de El Salvador, on the delimitated zone of Ecoparque El Espino, Cerro La Hoya, located in La Libertad, El
Salvador. Cerro La Hoya is a cinder cone with previous change of diffuse CO2 has been detected in the zone [1].
This may indicate that the region presents a geological feature that allows the leakage of underground compressed
gases, which might be the result of a fault. Detecting a fault in volcanic terrain can be used to know the regions
that are susceptible for the emanation of volcanic fluids (such as radon gases and lava), and for monitoring the
volcanic activity as well been a factor to consider when planing risks prevention on surrounding areas.
The San Salvador volcano presents mostly hardnerd basalt and andesite lava [2], and it should be found in
the region of exploration. Geo-electrical techniques, such as electrical resistivity tomography, are essentially
concerned with the measurement of electrical resistivities of subsurface materials, which preferentially provides
information on the different geological layers [3]. The resistivity method is one of the oldest geophysical survey
techniques [4]. The purpose of electrical surveys is to determine the subsurface resistivity distribution by making
measurements on the ground surface. Resistivity survey began by the Vertical Electrical Sounding (1D electrical
resistivity survey) method in 1920, with the work of the Schlumberger brothers [5]. The interpretation of these
methods were performed time-consuming Koefoed algorithms. Evolution to electrical resistivity tomography,
that is 2D and 3D surveys, emerged from faster and more available computers and the creation of more efficient
algorithms [6].
1
The methodology of the experiment revolves around performing a electrical resistivity tomography on the
terrain where larger concentration of gases have been found. This means that the data we are going to be
measuring is current and voltage drop across a survey line. The electrical resistivity tomography was performed
using a linear Wenner alpha array of electrodes to achieve a 2D resistivity profile, and from the contrast of
resistivities determine possibly anomalies. The experimental hypothesis I adopted was: The gas emission on the
delimited zone is caused by a fault that can be detected by electrical resistivity tomography taken across a survey
line.
The results show that in the outermost level there is a material of relatively high conductivity (volcanic soil),
and bellow there are rock blocks of high resistivity, which I interpret as deposits of andesitic hardened lava, and
the region between presents a more conductive region, which I interpret as a deposit of volcanic ash. There was
not a clear distortion of equipotential lines in the central region, which I interpret as absence of a fault, at least in
the part of the profile where we have more confidence of findings. In the lower part of the pseudoplot distortions
occur but is most likely by the change to a lower resistive material, which is in a zone were the inversion method
does not have enough data to give something concrete and I interpret it as the change from lava material to
volcanic ashes or a lower conductivity material.
A later survey in a nearby area was performed by the same team as in this survey, with positive results for
the existence of a geological fault, and possible indications of a zone where gases could be emitted, which might
explain the anomalous emission of gases for which this exploration was intended.
2. Objectives
2.1. General objective

Study the possibility of the existence of a volcanic fault by a resistivity survey of the steep hill terrain in Ecoparque
El Espino, Cerro La Hoya, Volcan de San Salvador.
2.2. Specific objectives

Perform a 2D electrical resistivity tomography across one survey line to create a resistivity profile.
Interpretate the geological features that appear in the profile.
In case of finding a fault, create a calculate the dip angle.
3. Theory of electrical resistivity tomography
3.1. Volcanic terrain

The region where the survey was performed, was a land property inside a volcanic complex, which is the San
Salvador volcano, so some characteristics of these places are going to be stated.
Volcanoes form when magma from within the Earths upper mantle works its way to the surface. This process
is shown in figure 1. When continental and oceanic tectonic plates collide the thinner and more dense oceanic
plate is overridden by the thicker and less dense continental plate. The oceanic plate is forced down into the
mantle in a process known as subduction. As the oceanic plate descends it is forced into higher temperature
environments. At a depth of about 100 miles (160 km) materials in the subducting plate begin to approach their
melting temperatures and a process of partial melting begins [7].
This partial melting produces magma chambers above the subducting oceanic plate. These magma chambers
are less dense than the surrounding mantle materials and are buoyant. The buoyant magma chambers begin a
slow ascent through the overlying materials, melting and fracturing their way upwards. The size and depth of
these magma chambers can be determined by mapping the earthquake activity around them. When magma from
within the upper mantle is at the surface volcanoes are formed. At the surface, it erupts to form lava flows and
ash deposits. Over time as the volcano continues to erupt, it will get bigger and bigger.
2
Figure 1: By subduction, magma pushes up through the middle of a lithosphere plate or around the boundaries of two plates, forming a
volcano.
The San Salvador Volcano is a strato volcano situated northwest to the city of San Salvador [8]. This type of
volcano (also known as composite volcano) is a conical volcano built up by many layers (strata) of hardened lava,
pyroclasts, pumice, and volcanic ash. Stratovolcanoes are characterized by a steep profile and periodic explosive
eruptions and effusive eruptions, although some have collapsed craters called calderas. The San Salvador volcano
is inactive, the last eruption it experienced was in 1917 [8].
3.1.1. Volcanic materials

Volcanic soil is the first earth layer that is found a geophysical exploration in a volcanic complex. It is fertile,
normally it contains abundant organic material, implying abundant content of water on it, lowering the resistivity
of the material. This organic stratum normally has a thickness from 1m-3m [7].
The stratum that is found bellow it is then volcanic ash. This occurs because after a volcanic eruption, the
thinnest materials (because of the flotation in air) fall last. Lower strata include depositions of heavier materials
(heavier pyroclasts, pumice, volcanic scoria and hardened lava) [8].
Pyroclasts are fragmental material produced by a volcanic eruption regardless of composition, fragment size
or emplacement mechanism. According to the size it is classified as [7]
Ash particles smaller than 2 mm (0.08 inches) in diameter.
Lapilli or volcanic cinders between 2 and 64 mm (0.08 and 2.5 inches) in diameter.
Volcanic bombs or volcanic blocks larger than 64 mm (2.5 inches) in diameter.
Figure 2: Different volcanic formations, from left to right Lapilli, volcanic bomb, scoria.
Pumice is a volcanic rock that consists of highly vesicular rough textured volcanic glass, which may or may not
contain crystals. It is typically light colored. Pumice is created when super-heated, highly pressurized rock is
violently ejected from a volcano. Scoria is another vesicular volcanic rock that differs from pumice in having
larger vesicles, thicker vesicle walls and being dark colored and denser.
Hardered lava refer simply to igneous rocks of extrusive nature (formed outside the volcano). The main
igneous rocks of this type are: basalt, rhyolite, andesite, and obsidian [7]. Geology of the zone suggest that only
basalt and andesite rocks can be found in that zone.
3
Basalts are common extrusive igneous rocks formed from the rapid cooling of basaltic lava exposed at or very
near the surface of the planet. Basalt are aphanitic (fine-grained) with generally 45-55% silica (SiO2 ) and less
than 10% feldspathoid (Al2 Si2 O8 group) by volume, and where at least 65% of the rock is feldspar in the form
of plagioclase (CaAl2 Si2 O8) [7]. It is the most common volcanic rock type on Earth, being a key component of
oceanic crust as well as the principal volcanic rock in many mid-oceanic islands. Relative to most common igneous
rocks, basalt compositions are low in SiO2 giving it a dark coloration.
Andesite are the dominant rock type in island arcs. In a general sense, it is the intermediate type between
basalt and dacite, having larger SiO2 content, ranging from 57 to 63% of SiO2 in composition and thus a gray
tonality [7]. The mineral assemblage is typically dominated by plagioclase plus pyroxene or hornblende. Magnetite,
zircon, apatite, ilmenite, biotite, and garnet are common accessory minerals.
Basalts and andesites lavas have a large resistivity, in the range of 1200-1800 m [4]. These are likely to
appear in the exploration of the first meters of exploration in the San Salvador Volcano.
Figure 3: Different volcanic rocks, from left to right; basalt, andesite, pumice.
3.1.2. Faults
A important geological feature in volcanic land is that of faults. A fault is a planar fracture or discontinuity
in a volume of rock, across which there has been significant displacement as a result of rock mass movement.
Large faults within the Earths crust result from the action of plate tectonic forces, with the largest forming the
boundaries between the plates, such as subduction zones (volcano emerge in these zones) or transform faults.
Energy release associated with rapid movement on active faults is the cause of most earthquakes. The types of
faults, depending on the direction of slip are classified as [7]
1. Where the crust is being pulled apart, normal faulting occurs, in which the overlying (hanging-wall) block
moves down with respect to the lower (foot wall) block.
2. Where the crust is being compressed, reverse faulting occurs, in which the hanging-wall block moves up and
over the footwall block reverse slip on a gently inclined plane is referred to as thrust faulting.
3. Crustal blocks may also move sideways past each other, usually along nearly-vertical faults. This strike-slip
movement is described as sinistral when the far side moves to the left, and dextral, when the far side moves
to the right.
4. An oblique slip involves various combinations of these basic movements.
The different first 3 types of faults are shown schematically in figure 4.
Figure 4: Types of movement of crustal blocks that can occur along faults.
Faults can be as short as a few metres and as long as 1000km [7]. The fault rupture from an earthquake is not
always a straight or continuous line. Sometimes there can be short offsets between parts of the fault, and even
major faults can have large bends in them.
4
3.1.3. Dip angle

To characterize the fault, the angle in which the faults plane is located respect with the surface can be obtain by
the concept of dip angle. Strike and dip refer to the orientation or attitude of a geologic feature. The strike line of
a bed, fault, or other planar feature, is a line representing the intersection of that feature with a horizontal plane.
The dip gives the steepest angle of descent of a tilted bed or feature relative to a horizontal plane, and is given by
the number (0 -90 ) as well as a letter (N,S,E,W) with rough direction in which the bed is dipping downwards.
An example of it is shown in figure 5
Figure 5: Strike line and dip of a plane describing attitude relative to a horizontal plane and a vertical plane perpendicular to the strike line.
In case the survey image is not made entirely perpendicular to the inferred strike line, the dip angle would not
be found from the inversion image. But there is a way of calculating it, or at least a reference value.
Let the strike have an x direction, the dip have a projection on the surface, in the y direction. The fault line can
be specified as in figure 6:
Figure 6: Dip and strike represented by coordinates, indicates the angle between the survey line and the strike, the angle between the
surface and the fault line seen in the tomography, and theta is the dip angle.
A unit vector on the fault line would be found by using spherical coordinates, as:
h i
r = sin + cos , sin + sin , cos +
2 2 2
= cos cos x + cos sin y sin z (1)
The angle between the two planes is simply the angle between the normal vectors to these planes. The dip angle;
the angle formed from the surface plane spanned by x , y and the fault plane spanned by r and x ; can be calculated
from as:
cos = n 1 n 2 (2)
5
Where n 1 is the unitary normal vector to the fault plane, and n 1 the unitary normal vector to the surface. In this
case n 1 = (x r )/|x r | and n 2 = x x = z . The result from evaluating (2) is:
cos sin
cos = q (3)
cos2 sin2 + sin2
3.2. Problems in geophysics

Geophysical problems are normally classified into one of two categories.
A direct problem is the type where one starts with a model of the Earth and does a prediction of the data that
would be measured if a geophysical study is performed. It is important to scheme a lifting and see the parameters
that should be found at certain deep. These type of problems are unique, they only have one solution.
A inverse problem, geophysical data is analyzed and a model of the properties of the Earth (seismic speed,
electrical resistivity and magnetic susceptibility) are calculated. Inverse problems are relevant in field studies,
however the solutions are not unique. This means that more than one model will procedure the same data fitting
with the same statistical precision. In the experiment, the inverse problem will be solved, using the resistivity
maps to extrapolate about the properties of the rocks of the direct problem.
3.3. Resistivity theory for geophysical survey

The resistivity method is one of the oldest geophysical survey techniques. The purpose of electrical surveys is to
determine the subsurface resistivity distribution by making measurements on the ground surface. From these
measurements, the true resistivity of the subsurface can be estimated. The ground resistivity is related to various
geological parameters such as the mineral and fluid content, porosity and degree of water saturation in the rock
[4]. Electrical resistivity surveys have been used for many decades in hydrogeological, mining, geotechnical,
environmental and even hydrocarbon exploration [5].
The fundamental physical law used in resistivity surveys is Ohms Law, which governs the flow of current in
the ground. The equation for Ohms Law in vector form for current flow in a continuous medium is given by
J = E (4)
In the above equation is the Ohms law, J is the current density, is the conductivity, E is the electric field generate
by the current in the medium. We note that in geophysical surveys the medium resistivity , which is equals to the
reciprocal of the conductivity ( = 1/), is more commonly used. The relationship between the electric potential
and the field intensity is given by:
E = (5)
The relation between the current density in potential term is:
1
J = = (6)

In almost all surveys, the current sources are in the form of point sources [4]. A current is produced by a point
source is shown in Figure 7.
Figure 7: The flow of current from a point current source and the resulting potential distribution.
6
The total current I flows away from or toward each electrode across the surface of a hemisphere with area
(4r2 )/2. Ohms law, expressing in spherical coordinates while assuming spherical symmetry on , (6)
becomes:
I 1 d
J= 2
= (7)
2r dr
Z
I I
(r ) = 0 2
dr 0 = (8)
r 2r 2r
for the potential a distance r from the electrode.
In practice, all resistivity surveys use at least two current electrodes, a positive current and a negative current
source. Figure 8 shows the potential distribution caused by a pair of electrodes. The potential values have a
symmetrical pattern about the vertical axis at the mid-point between the two electrodes.
Figure 8: The potential distribution caused by a pair of current electrodes. The electrodes are 1 m apart with a current of 1 ampere and a
homogeneous half-space with resistivity of 1 m.
The potential value in the medium from such a pair is given by:

I 1 1
= (9)
2 rc1 rc2
where rc1 and rC2 are distances of the point from the first and second current electrodes.
The four point method applied on earth, consists on placing four electrodes in a way that penetrate on the soil.
This array is shown in figure 9. It must be remembered that field surveys are conducted over an inhomogeneous
medium where the subsurface resistivity has a 3-D distribution.
Figure 9: A conventional array with four electrodes to measure the subsurface resistivity.
The resistivity measurements are still made by injecting current into the ground through the two current
electrodes (C1 and C2 in Figure 9), and measuring the resulting voltage difference at two potential electrodes (P1
and P2). From the current (I) and potential ( ) values, an apparent resistivity ( a ) value is calculated by:
2
a = k , where k = 1 1
(10)
I rc1p1 rc2p1 r1 +
c1p2
1
rc2p2
7
k is a geometric factor that depends on the arrangement of the four electrodes, and rcipi represents the distance
between electrode Ci and Pi .
Incidentally, one notices that the deductions that were performed here are valid only in the case where the
electrodes make a point-like contact with the ground, which is not the case in a real survey. In the Appendix the
deduction is performed for a linear, equally spaced array of electrodes with a given length penetration.
3.4. Resistivity of earth materials
Electric current flows in earth materials at shallow depths through two main methods. They are electronic
conduction and electrolytic conduction. In electronic conduction, the current flow is via free electrons, such as in
metals. In electrolytic conduction, the current flow is via the movement of ions in groundwater. In environmental
and engineering surveys, electrolytic conduction is probably the more common mechanism. Electronic conduction
is important when conductive minerals are present, such metal sulfides and graphite in mineral surveys [5].
The resistivity of common rocks, soil materials and chemicals is shown in Figure 10. Igneous and metamorphic
rocks typically have high resistivity values. The resistivity of these rocks is greatly dependent on the degree
of fracturing, and the percentage of the fractures filled with ground water. Thus a given rock type can have a
large range of resistivity, from about 1000 to 10 million m, depending on whether it is wet or dry [4]. This
characteristic is useful in the detection of fracture zones and other weathering features, such as in engineering
and groundwater surveys. Sedimentary rocks, which are usually more porous and have higher water content,
normally have lower resistivity values compared to igneous and metamorphic rocks. The resistivity values range
from 10 to about 10000 m, with most values below 1000 m [6]. The resistivity values are largely dependent on
the porosity of the rocks, and the salinity of the contained water.
The resistivity value is dependent on the porosity (assuming all the pores are saturated) as well as the clay
content [6]. Clayey soil normally has a lower resistivity value than sandy soil. Resistivity of common material in
geological surveys are shown in Figure 10. Note the overlap in the resistivity values of the different classes of
rocks and soils. This is because the resistivity of a particular rock or soil sample depends on a number of factors
such as the porosity, the degree of water saturation and the concentration of dissolved salts.
Figure 10: The resistivity of rocks, soils and minerals. Taken from [4].
8
3.5. Electrical tomography

3.5.1. Resistivity measurements
Electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) is a geophysical technique for imaging sub-surface structures from electrical
resistivity measurements made at the surface by electrodes in one or more boreholes, using direct current.
The technique consist on performing several vertical electrical soundings to measure apparent electrical
resistivity, but this is applied across a line or grid of electrodes to obtain 2D or 3D images respectively, of apparent
resistivity underneath the surface where the survey is performed [5].
A vertical electrical sounding is composed of data collected with an array of four electrodes (two for injecting
current, two to measure voltage). The spacing expand of the electrodes expands about the midpoint of the array
for successive measurements. As the separation between current electrodes increases, so does the depth of current
penetration. This is called a 1D resistivity method. This method works well for mapping horizontal structures like
sills or sedimentary layers; it has also been used to determine possible water table depth [6].
The calculated resistivity value is not the true of resistivity of the subsurface, but an apparent value that is the
resistivity of a homogeneous ground that will give the same resistance value for the same electrode arrangement.
The relationship between the apparent resistivity and the true resistivity is a complex relationship. To
determine the true subsurface resistivity from the apparent resistivity values is the inversion problem [9], for
which several algorithms exist.
In the experiment, survey lines for two-dimensional ERT images are going to be used. Usually these surveys
are carried out using a large number of electrodes, 25 or more, connected to a multicore cable. A resistivity meter
system with an internal microprocessor controlled circuitry together with an electronic switching unit is commonly
used to automatically select the relevant four electrodes for each measurement [9].
A possible assembly of electrodes is presented on figure 11, for a Wenner alpha array (commented in the next
subsection). This array consist on electrodes having the same spacing.
Figure 11: Wenner configuration, same spacing between all electrodes.
After completing the sequence of measurements with 1a spacing, the next sequence of measurements with
2a electrode spacing is made. First electrodes 1, 3, 5 and 7 are used for the first measurement. The electrodes
are chosen so that the spacing between adjacent electrodes is 2a. For the second measurement, electrodes 2, 4,
6 and 8 are used. This process is repeated down the line until electrodes 14, 16, 18 and 20 are used for the last
measurement with spacing 2a. For a system with 20 electrodes, there are 14 possible measurements with 2a
spacing.
9
For other linear arrays the spacing between electrodes or order may be different but the basic principle is the
same.
Some remarks about the operation of this system are stated as follows:
The apparatus measures the voltage signal response created by the transmitter at discrete time intervals
when the eddy currents, induced polarization and cable transients have decayed to low levels [9].
The device averages the voltage signal by repeating the measuring process in many cycles, with selectable
time scales of the operation. Under normal conditions the measuring technique is equivalent to pure DC
surveying, providing a current from 1 mA to 1 A [5].
Current leakage and creep can reduce the attainable accuracy and sensitivity and thus the depth penetration.
3.5.2. Comparison between common types of arrays

There are four main types of arrays used in two-dimensional resistivity surveying. They are the dipole-dipole,
pole-dipole, Wenner-Schlumberger, and Wenner arrays [5]. They differ in the relative positions and spacing of the
current and potential electrodes. Each array type has its own advantages and disadvantages. A Wenner alpha
array using 41 electrodes will be implemented for this investigation. They are illustrated in Figure 12.
Figure 12: Electrode arrays in common use. (a) Wenner alpha. (b) Wenner beta. (c) Wenner gamma. (d) Wenner-Schumberger. (e)
Pole-Dipole. (f) Dipole-Dipole. The geometric factors are taken from Telford, Applied Geophysics, 1990 [5]
In the Wenner array there are three variations for this array, called alpha, beta and gamma. It consist on having
a linear array of four electrodes, all at the same distance with their neighboring electrodes. The variations consist
on which electrode correspond to current injection or potential measure. This variations are presented in Figure
12 (a), (b), (c) respectively.
(a) In the alpha array the outermost electrodes correspond to current injection, and innermost for potential
measure. Setting rc1p1 = rc2p2 = a and rc1p2 = rc2p1 = 2a in equation (10), the apparent resistivity becomes:
a = 2a/I (11)
The sensitivity plot for the Wenner alpha array has almost horizontal contours beneath the center of the
array. Because of this property, the Wenner array is relatively sensitive to vertical changes in the subsurface
resistivity below the center of the array. However, it is less sensitive to horizontal changes in the subsurface
resistivity [10]. The Wenner array has been noted for its sharp vertical resolution and high signal-to-noise
ratio, making it appropriate for fault investigation [11].
(b) For the beta array the first and second electrodes correspond to current injection, and the other two for
potential measure.
(c) For the gamma array first and third for current injection, second and fourth for potential measure.
(d) Wenner-Schlumberger array. The current electrodes are spaced much further apart than the potential
electrodes. This array has a slightly better horizontal coverage compared with the Wenner array, but
narrower than that obtained with the dipole- dipole array [4].
10
(e) Pole-Dipole: This array is an asymmetrical array. One of the current (source) electrodes is placed very
far away, while the current sink is placed in the vicinity of the two potential electrodes. This geometry is
useful because it reduces the distortion of equipotential surfaces. It has been used to detect cavaties between
highways.
(f) Dipole-dipole system. The potential electrodes are closely spaced and remote from the current electrodes,
which are also close together. The dipole-dipole array is very sensitive to horizontal changes in resistivity,
but relatively insensitive to vertical changes in the resistivity. Thus it is good in mapping vertical structures,
such as dykes and cavities, but relatively poor in mapping horizontal structures such as sills or sedimentary
layers [4].
In all the above electrode layouts the potential and current electrodes may be interchanged. By the principle of
reciprocity, the apparent resistivity should be the same in either case.
3.5.3. Pseudo plots

To represent the calculation in the tomographic image, a contour is used. Here the horizontal location of a
measurement point placed in the region between the electrodes. The vertical location of a measuring point is a
distance that is proportional to the separation between the electrodes.
The determination for vertical spacing, depends on the array in question. For the dipole-dipole graphically, by the
intersection of two lines form the mid point between C1-C2 and P1-P2, coming down at 45 (which does not mean
that the current forms lines with a slope of 45 respect with the surface).
The pseudo plot gives a distorted form of the earth, because the form of the contour depends on the type of
array and the resistivity of the earth. An example is shown in Figure 13, where a comparison between the real
image and that produced by the different ERT arrays is presented.
Figure 13: A block submerged in an homogeneous medium, is imaged by (a) Wenner, (b) Wenner-Schlumberger, (c) pole-dipole, (d)
dipole-dipole arrays.
These graphs give an interpretation of the sensibility of the different arrays that were discussed in the previous
subsection. The distortions in the image are produced by the distribution of the equipotential lines when the
current is injected, depending on each array and this is the reason that some arrays are better for vertical structures
or for detecting changes that occur horizontally.
11
3.5.4. Sensitivity and effective depth

Sensitivity is a function that allow us to observe quantitatively how much the potential difference changes, as
resistivity changes. The higher the sensitivity, the greater the influence from the change of strata in the earth.
This function, represented by Fs , is defined as the derivative of the electric potential respect with the resistivity,
and the result [4] is that:
d 1
Z
Fs (r) = 2 (r0 ) (r0 )d 0 (12)
d all space
Making the integration in the whole space gives the sensitivity of the profile, while the effective depth is the depth
over which sensitivity function is integrated as a weigh function, to obtain an expectation value, which means:
Z
yeffective = hyi = yFs ( x, y)dy (13)
over the profile
Given the dependence on the Fs function, we have to expect that the effective deep for the sounding will depend
on the resistivity of the medium. This makes sense if the sounding was performed just above a metal deposit, all
current is leaked to this deposit, and thus the effective depth becomes highly decreased. In Figure 14 different
depths are shown for different arrays.
Figure 14: Averaged depth of exploration over an homogeneous medium. n represents how much the spacing between electrodes is increased.
The result of a laborious integration is performed in An introduction to electrical resistivity in geophysics, Herman
R. (2001) [10] in which it is shown that the 4 point Wenner array, is applied to an homogeneous medium, the
effective depth given by:
yWenner = 2a (14)
Half of the maximum separation between the electrodes. This result does not depend on the conductivity but it
assumes that the conductivity is the same everywhere, so conductivity cancels out in the final expression.
In actual surveys this is just an approximate result, to give an idea of the maximum profile that could be
achieved.
3.6. Inversion theory

In geophysical inversion, we seek to find a model that gives a response that is similar to the actual measured
values. The model is an idealized mathematical representation of a section of the earth. The model has a set of
model parameters that are the physical quantities we want to estimate from the observed data [4]. The model
response is the synthetic data that can be calculated from the mathematical relationships defining the model for a
given set of model parameters. All inversion methods essentially try to determine a model for the subsurface
whose response agrees with the measured data subject to certain restrictions and within acceptable limits. The
mathematical link between the model parameters and the model response for the 2-D and 3-D resistivity models
is provided by the finite-difference or finite-element methods.
12
In all optimization methods, an initial model is modified in an iterative manner so that the difference between
the model response and the observed data values is reduced [11]. The set of observed data can be written as a
column vector y given by
y = col(y1 , y2 , ..., ym ) (15)
Where m is the number of measurements. The model response f can be written in a similar form.
f = col( f 1 , f 2 , ..., f m ) (16)
For resistivity problems, it is a common practice to use the logarithm of the apparent resistivity values for the
observed data and model response, and the logarithm of the model values as the model parameters. The model
parameters can be represented by the following vector
q = col(q1 , q2 , ..., qn ) (17)
where n is the number of model parameters. The difference between the observed data and the model response is
given by the discrepancy vector g that is defined by
g = y f (18)
In the least-squares optimization method, the initial model is modified such that the sum of squares error E of the
difference between the model response and the observed data values is minimized [11].
n
E = gT g = gi2 (19)
i =1
To reduce the above error value, the following Gauss-Newton equation is used to determine the change in the
model parameters that should reduce the sum of squares error [4]
J T Jq J T g (20)
where q is the model parameter change vector, and J is the Jacobian matrix (of size m by n) of partial derivatives.
The elements of the Jacobian matrix are given by [4]
fi
Jij = (21)
qi
that is the change in the ith model response due to a change in the jth model parameter. After calculating the
parameter change vector, a new model is obtained by
qk+1 qk + qk (22)
In practice, the simple least-squares equation is rarely used by itself in geophysical inversion. In some situations
the matrix product J T J might be singular, and thus the least-squares equation does not have a solution for q.
Another common problem is that the matrix product J T J is nearly singular [4]. This can occur if a poor initial
model that is very different from the optimum model is used. The parameter change vector calculated can have
components that are too large such that the new model calculated might have values that are not realistic. One
common method to avoid this problem is the Marquardt-Levenberg modification to the Gauss-Newton equation
that is given by [11]
J T J + I q = J T g (23)
where I is the identity matrix. The factor is known as the Marquardt or damping factor, and this method is also
known as the ridge regression method or damped leastsquares method. The damping factor effectively constrains
the range of values that the components of parameter change vector can q take. The Marquardt-Levenberg
method minimizes a combination of the magnitude of the discrepancy vector and the parameter change vector [11].
This method has been successfully used in the inversion of resistivity sounding data where the model consists of a
small number of layers.
13
4. The study area
The study area was a steep hill terrain inside Ecoparque El Espino, located in Cerro la Hoya, Volcan de San Salvador,
El Salvador. The location of this complex is shown the figure 16.
Figure 15: The black border square is where the study region was located.
A closer image of the location of Ecoparque El Espino is shown in the figure 16:
Figure 16: Ecoparque El espino is located in the La libertad department.
The study area Cerro La Hoya, Ecoparque El espino with relieve is presented figure 17 and the coordinates
for points along the survey line, including the end points, are presented in table 1.
Table 1: UTM coordinates for the end points of the survey line, corresponding to UTM zone number 16P of EL Salvador.
X coordinate Y coordinate
0253773 1516223
0253769 1516208
0253766 1516196
0253757 1516168
0253757 1516159
0253754 1516134
14
Figure 17: The line (in red) to analyze and get the measurement, calculations of Resistivity with a Wenner array.
5. Methodology
5.1. Instruments
The experimental setup for resistivity survey consisted on two 100 m wires connected to electrodes in earth, which
are used to inject current or to measure voltage. The information is transferred to the main device for the survey,
which is a signal averaging system.
The materials are presented in figure 18.
Figure 18: Different materials.
15
1. Signal averaging system (Terrameter SAS 1000).

2. Switching unit (ES 10-64).
3. Cable joints.
4. Battery.
5. 2 cable rolls of 100 m wire each.
6. 41 electrodes.
7. 42 cable to electrode connectors.
The function of the signal averaging system (SAS) is that its discrimination circuity and programming separates
voltages, self potentials, and noise from the incoming signal. The ratio between voltage and current is calculated
by this program, and using the geometry data, apparent resistivity is then calculated.
The switching unit serves to select which electrodes are used to measure voltage or to inject current, and in the
experiment it consisted on a Wenner alpha array.
2 cable rolls of 100 m of length each were plugged to the switching unit. To the cable rolls, a system of 41
electrodes were connected so the system could make the measurements.
Additional to these basic equipment for resistivity, the geographical location for this project was specified via a
GPS for obtaining the UTM coordinates and elevation respect with sea level.
Also a compass was used to indicate the angle respect with north of where the geological fault is inferred to be.
However such fault was not indicated by our inversion as it will be explained in the section Discussion.
5.2. Procedure
The survey was performed in group, which consisted on
Bryan Alexis Andres Jorge
Carlos Josue Quintanilla Yanes
Diego Osvaldo Ramos Martnez
Kevin Giovanni Hernandez Beltran
Oscar Ismael Arce Moreno
and instructors. The region were the possible fault was thought because of its form and concentration of gases by
previous studies is displayed in Figure 19
Figure 19: Zone of the possible fault, taken as the center of the survey line.
Based on this geological feature the survey line was assembled in a way that would not be parallel to it, and
was accessible to us. The orientation of this feature was taken with a compass with a value of N80 W. The center
of the survey line was localized in front of this spot, for placing the SAS and switching unit. The localization was
specified using UTM coordinates given by a GPS device and on five other points along the survey line. The terrain
where the survey line was placed was a road, and it is presented in Figure 20.
16
Figure 20: Terrain of Cerro La Hoya, ecoparque El espino were the survey line was placed.
As for the tomography, we placed the electrodes with a separation of 5 meters between each other. We used
41 electrodes and used the 21-nth electrode as a connection between the wire lines. The source of the current (a
battery) and the rest of equipment directing the current to the different electrodes was placed near to the 21-nth
electrode.
Figure 21: Configuration of the SAS and its electrodes in a surface, the reel must to contain a cable with 21 electrodes, and we used just 2
reels with 21 electrodes each one instead of the 4 that appear in the figure.
The Wenner array is the most commonly used technique for soil resistivity measurements, and according to
Monahan, Sara (2013) [11] the Wenner array has been noted for its sharp vertical resolution and high signal-to-noise
ratio, making it appropriate for fault investigation.
In the SAS, shown in Figure 22, we employed the following procedure for it to start making the measurements.
Figure 22: From left to right, equipment placed in the center of the survey line, and screen of the SAS for selecting options.
17
In the first menu we selected to do resistivity measurements, other options included induced polarization
and spontaneous potential, but our survey was delimitated to resistivity measurements.
In the following menu we selected the minimum distance between the electrodes, which was 5m. Later
we selected the external frequencies to filter; although no powerlines were present in the survey area we
selected to filter frequencies of 60Hz which is used the one used in our country. We selected the midpoint of
the configuration, which is used by the SAS to export data labeling the position of the first electrode in an
array of 4 electrodes.
We selected a Wenner L and WennerS protocols for testing electric contact of the electrodes with the medium.
This is done by the SAS by injecting small and large current respectively and measuring the voltage. The
WennerS is designed only to supplement Wenner L for the shortest electrode spacings, while Wenner L gives a
spaser measurement pattern at long electrode spacings.
In case the test fails, electrical contact most be improved. This happened many times in our initial test we
had to elminate oxide on the wiring using a razor, and insert the electrodes more into the ground.
After this test, the the actual measurement of electrical resistivity was performed. The measures of current
and voltage for each series were used by the SAS to calculate the apparent resistivity [10] and the values
were saved for their latter inversion.
The data was exported to a laptop and exported as a .DAT file to be later inverted using the software res2dinv.
The data is presented in the Appendix.
As for the inversion, a least squares optimization inversion was selected for data fitting. This permitted a
smoothness constrain on the generating image [12]. The criterion to analyse if a fault is present in the tomography,
follows from the considerations given by Monahan, S. (2013) [11] considering the region with aligned peak-like
distortions of the resistivity isocurves, to trace a line representing the inferred fault. The reason for this is the lager
conductivity of that faults present, than the surrounding rock, caused by meteorization after the fracture in the
rock, and the larger conductivity in a line bends the equipotential lines away from it.
5.3. Sources of error
Now I summarize sources of error that were faced when performing the tomography and the solution that we
followed.
Cause: The contact test failed.
Reason: Poor electrode grounding, or no proper response of the SAS.
Remedy: Check all interface cables are in good condition (no rusty), connected. If the contact resistance is
too high for all electrodes improve grounding, hammering it down.
Cause: Unrealistic readings.
Reason: The electrodes might be badly installed, and oxide was attached to the connector. Eliminate the
oxide with a knife.
Remedy: Check cables are in good condition. Eliminate the oxide with a knife.
6. Experimental results
From those endpoints the direction of the survey line was calculated to be N12 E.
The survey line was not made entirely lineal because of the topography of the survey area, regardless the
tomography would still be able to detect anomalies on ground by the curvature of the equipotential lines. The
actual survey had a structure shown in Figure 23.
As the figure shows the deviation from a line was small compared to the extension of the survey and was
neglected, but projection corrections of the survey line could have been used for a more realistic result.
By using the inversion of the apparent resistivity with topography corrections, the 2D profile was generated, as
it is presented in figure 24.
18
Figure 23: Basic structure of the survey line, there was also relative elevation between each electrode, and some curvature of the survey
line, all by the topography of the place, but it was neglected in the inversion, because of the small change it produced.
Figure 24: Resistivity profile across the survey line after 4, 5 and 6 iterations in the inversion program, for a RMS error of 25.0, 24.6 and
24.4% respectively. The resistivity values are shown in a logarithmic scale.
This figure and other iterations do not present features that can be interpreted as a fault, therefore no dip angle
was calculated for it, and we interpret that the feature seen from surface was only a fracture.
7. Discussion and conclusions

The resistivity profile of Figure 24 shows some important geological features.
The upper stratum showed the lowest resistivity in the profile, this was expected because of the survey line
was placed in a road of soil and organic material nearby. This region is therefore interpreted simply as hydrated
volcanic soil.
Some limitations on the survey must be pointed out. Topography corrections in the survey were not performed
because the relative elevation between the electrodes was small, we decided to neglected for practical purposes
19
and the survey line was not perfectly aligned. The wiring system initially was oxidized, we worked on removing it
as much as possible but it parts that were left of it could affect the resistivity results, we expect it did not interfere
with the output appreciably.
The red and purple regions characterizes a much higher resistivity material, which we interpret as hardened
lava, with high presence of andesite and basalt. The existence of this type of lava was found in nearby locations to
the survey region, been in the surface by erosion. In the profile this lava practically superficial, some at 3 meters of
depth or less, which seems possible since other hardened lava was found exposed in surface in other close-by
region.
The green zone between the possible lavas represents a relatively low resistivity, which could be more volcanic
ashes forming the ground.
There was no indication of the a geological fault in the image, which as stated before would be indicated from
curvature of equipotential lines, representing that at the zone a more conducting line, the fault, would be present.
This happens except in the lower end of the image a blue fragment can be observed, showing more closely spaced
curved lines, and a lower resistivity. However this formation is not guaranteed because it is at the boundary of the
pseudoplot, it can be more volcanic ash deforming the equipotential lines because of its proximity with the lavas
and creating that curvature because of the lack of information during the inversion process. Nonetheless other
studies with larger survey lines can be performed to discover if it is actually a resistivity anomaly representing
some conductor.
A later survey in a nearby area was performed by the same team as in this survey, with positive results for
the existence of a geological fault, and possible indications of a zone where gases could be emitted, which might
explain the anomalous emission of gases for which this exploration was intended. This possibly indicates that the
lack of conclusive results on a fault for this exploration was because it was not the appropriate place.
As conclusions:
The study region most likely presents 4 blocks of hardened lava in a range of 1 to 6 meters, because of the
appearance of highly resistive materials in the tomography. The presence of andesite-basalt lavas on the
region supports this fact. In the region between possible lavas, a much smaller resistivity was found in the
tomography. This is inferred to be a material, such as volcanic ash which is abundant on the region.
The profile does not have enough information to confirm if a fault was located there, a larger survey line
profile could be done, at least in the first 20m it is seen that there is no evidence of a fault.
8. Recommendations
Topological corrections should be used in the inversion model, such as putting the relative height between the
electrodes and perform a correction for the curvature in the curvey line.
The zone did not allow more than a survey line, but for explorations with more space that is accessible to the
experimenters, 3D tomographies (using more than a survey line) should be performed, and whether possible
make them large enough for making profiles of enough depth for analyzing the phenomena.
Many measurements (around 5 or more) should be performed with the GPS to take mean values of a number of
representative points along which the survey line, to have a good estimate with the respective standard deviation
of the coordinates of those points.
The equipment (such as the wiring) should be tested before the survey to confirm that it does not have oxide
on it or to clean it up (with acid if necessary) in case it has.
The electrodes should be firmly inserted when performing the survey to confirm it has good grounding, and
the grounding can be also be improved by using water or other agents in case it requires it.
When doing the data inversion, the number of iterations should be performed around 5 times, so that the
model represents a good approximation to reality by not making too few iterations for the inversion to not make
adjustments in the data, but not too many to only represent data fitting to a model, not to reality.
9. Appendix
Data given by the SAS after performing the survey.
The first line indicates name of survey line.
20
Second line indicates the unit electrode spacing,

Third line is for the array type, 1 for Wenner.
Fourth is the number of data points.
Fifth is the flag for I.P. data, 0 for none (1 if present).
The others are the data points, listing first the position of the first electrode in the array, then the separation
between the array of the configuration (which is an integer number of the unit electrode spacing, for example
60m indicates 12 times the unit spacing of 5m for the first data point seen in the table), and at last the respective
resistivity.
data.DAT
La Hoya
5.0
1
137
0
0
-100.00 60.00 1488.262678
-90.00 60.00 1670.318843
-80.00 60.00 4229.513999
-50.00 50.00 982.513197
-100.00 50.00 4343.809949
-90.00 50.00 3770.401938
-80.00 50.00 2596.470110
-70.00 50.00 310.470465
-60.00 50.00 7551.933027
-80.00 40.00 5353.476463
-70.00 40.00 4515.201503
-60.00 40.00 3830.060968
-50.00 40.00 1585.531051
-40.00 40.00 1656.407195
-30.00 40.00 853.956079
-20.00 40.00 475.944893
-100.00 40.00 2328.796635
-90.00 40.00 2950.572258
-20.00 30.00 2248.851668
-100.00 30.00 3506.899392
-10.00 30.00 1714.482030
-90.00 30.00 2477.221979
0.00 30.00 3563.054235
-80.00 30.00 2850.577024
10.00 30.00 3789.494966
-70.00 30.00 2902.148080
-60.00 30.00 5293.038699
-50.00 30.00 5478.963642
-40.00 30.00 4533.640191
-30.00 30.00 2196.471497
-80.00 20.00 4853.862276
-20.00 20.00 2024.011430
40.00 20.00 4279.836119
-70.00 20.00 4126.413113
-10.00 20.00 1989.906723
-60.00 20.00 2383.847130
0.00 20.00 3784.881399
-50.00 20.00 2413.609234
10.00 20.00 4544.012538
-100.00 20.00 3830.061447
-40.00 20.00 6347.706457
20.00 20.00 4693.216138
-90.00 20.00 3894.825157
-30.00 20.00 5114.801037
30.00 20.00 3727.199886
-80.00 10.00 3164.617945
-50.00 10.00 3990.926417
21
-20.00 10.00 4333.330343

10.00 10.00 2270.458147
40.00 10.00 4157.175660
70.00 10.00 4317.457957
-100.00 10.00 3280.385318
-70.00 10.00 3384.120289
-40.00 10.00 2371.033597
-10.00 10.00 1177.036162
20.00 10.00 2647.330142
50.00 10.00 4010.459026
-90.00 10.00 3004.096203
-60.00 10.00 3646.263704
-30.00 10.00 2603.197035
0.00 10.00 2361.566299
30.00 10.00 3205.410089
60.00 10.00 4856.091342
-100.00 15.00 3665.979552
-55.00 15.00 3360.064714
-10.00 15.00 1777.583289
35.00 15.00 4325.577748
-95.00 15.00 3559.520087
-50.00 15.00 3204.201600
-5.00 15.00 1668.775035
-90.00 15.00 3652.112605
-45.00 15.00 2183.769417
0.00 15.00 2854.963430
45.00 15.00 3749.491863
-85.00 15.00 3877.219133
-40.00 15.00 2761.450343
5.00 15.00 3004.061689
50.00 15.00 4269.940625
-80.00 15.00 3984.234066
-35.00 15.00 2780.764839
-75.00 15.00 3985.326309
-30.00 15.00 5551.603864
15.00 15.00 3873.762642
-70.00 15.00 4379.355759
-25.00 15.00 4767.001453
20.00 15.00 4209.199659
-65.00 15.00 4524.260498
-20.00 15.00 4792.022357
-60.00 15.00 4161.007616
-15.00 15.00 1844.291859
30.00 15.00 4806.362082
-95.00 10.00 3067.274400
-65.00 10.00 3425.713699
-35.00 10.00 3214.306459
-5.00 10.00 1528.788862
-85.00 10.00 3024.074146
-55.00 10.00 3845.594680
-25.00 10.00 1475.122904
5.00 10.00 2096.940712
65.00 10.00 4991.442616
-75.00 10.00 3295.415453
-45.00 10.00 3021.780605
-15.00 10.00 4400.708053
15.00 10.00 2445.539523
-100.00 5.00 1892.230376
-85.00 5.00 2087.077934
-70.00 5.00 2099.028843
-55.00 5.00 2495.552810
-40.00 5.00 2646.387703
-25.00 5.00 2357.260127
-10.00 5.00 3739.512958
5.00 5.00 1678.388541
20.00 5.00 1348.098389
22
35.00 5.00 1684.208440

65.00 5.00 4135.300135
80.00 5.00 3196.146763
-95.00 5.00 2162.829501
-80.00 5.00 2102.837669
-65.00 5.00 2346.976704
-50.00 5.00 2770.956770
-35.00 5.00 1770.294843
-20.00 5.00 2317.415216
-5.00 5.00 650.598763
10.00 5.00 1121.157436
25.00 5.00 1200.553166
70.00 5.00 4621.610874
85.00 5.00 2209.858955
-90.00 5.00 2132.048498
-75.00 5.00 2112.958347
-60.00 5.00 2334.315370
-45.00 5.00 2301.099653
-30.00 5.00 2111.747461
-15.00 5.00 836.149319
0.00 5.00 1240.252709
15.00 5.00 1390.952779
30.00 5.00 1650.202722
75.00 5.00 4031.821147
0
0
0
0
0
10. References
[1] Perez, N., Salazar, J., Hernandez, P., Soriano, T., Barahona, F., Cartagena, R., ... & Lopez, D. (2002, December).
Anomalous Change of Diffuse CO2 Emission Rates at San Salvador volcano, El Salvador, Central America: a
premonitory geochemical signature of magmatic and/or tectonic reactivation?. In AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts
(Vol. 1, p. 1207).
[2] Ferres, D., Granados, H. D., Gutierrez, R. E., Farraz, I. A., Hernandez, E. W., Pullinger, C. R., & Escobar, C.
D. (2013). Explosive volcanic history and hazard zonation maps of Boqueron Volcano (San Salvador volcanic
complex, El Salvador). Geological Society of America Special Papers, 498, 201-230.
[3] Muchingami, I., Hlatywayo, D. J., Nel, J. M., & Chuma, C. (2012). Electrical resistivity survey for groundwater
investigations and shallow subsurface evaluation of the basaltic-greenstone formation of the urban Bulawayo
aquifer. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, 50, 44-51.
[4] Loke, M. H. (2004). Tutorial: 2-D and 3-D Electrical Imaging Surveys (pp. 1-27). 2004 Revised Edition.
[5] Telford, W. M., Geldart, L. P., & Sheriff, R. E. (1990). Applied geophysics (pp. 535-537). Vol. 1. Cambridge
university press.
[6] Lowrie, W. (2007). Fundamentals of geophysics (pp. 255-256, 261-262, 267). Cambridge university press.
[7] TARBUCK, E., & LUTGENS, F. (1998). Earth: An Introduction to Physical Geology (pp. 61). Upper Saddle River:
Prentice Hall. ISBN 0, 13(9741), 22.
[8] ESCOBAR, C. D. (2002). VOLCANES ACTIVOS DE EL SALVADOR. Retrieved November 28, 2016, from:
http://www.snet.gob.sv/Geologia/Vulcanologia/paginas/volcanesactivos.htm
[9] ABEM Instrument AB. (2010). Terrameter SAS 4000/ SAS 1000. S-172 66 Sunndbyberg, Sweden.
23
[10] Herman, R. (2001). An introduction to electrical resistivity in geophysics. American Journal of Physics, 69(9),
943-952.
[11] Monahan, S. M. (2013). Investigating Fault Structure Using Electrical Resistivity Tomography (Doctoral
dissertation, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo).
[12] Loke, M. H. (2003). Rapid 2D Resistivity & IP Inversion using the least-squares method. Geotomo Software,
Manual, 122.
24

Electrical Resistivity Tomography Survey For Detecting A Possible Fault

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Electrical Resistivity Tomography Survey For Detecting A Possible Fault

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Universidad de El Salvador Bachelor in Physics

Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Matematica Science of the Earth

Electrical resistivity tomography

Sergio Ernesto Aguilar Gutierrez

January 15, 2017

2.1. General objective

2.2. Specific objectives

3. Theory of electrical resistivity tomography

3.1. Volcanic terrain

3.1.1. Volcanic materials

3.1.3. Dip angle

3.2. Problems in geophysics

3.3. Resistivity theory for geophysical survey

3.4. Resistivity of earth materials

3.5. Electrical tomography

Figure 11: Wenner configuration, same spacing between all electrodes.

3.5.2. Comparison between common types of arrays

3.5.3. Pseudo plots

3.5.4. Sensitivity and effective depth

3.6. Inversion theory

f = col( f 1 , f 2 , ..., f m ) (16)

q = col(q1 , q2 , ..., qn ) (17)

4. The study area

Figure 16: Ecoparque El espino is located in the La libertad department.

Figure 18: Different materials.

1. Signal averaging system (Terrameter SAS 1000).

5.3. Sources of error

7. Discussion and conclusions

Second line indicates the unit electrode spacing,

-20.00 10.00 4333.330343

35.00 5.00 1684.208440

S-ar putea să vă placă și