Resistivity in Simple Way PDF

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/324747695
HOW TO UNDERSTAND THEORETICAL BACKGROUND OF ELECTRICAL

RESISTIVITY METHOD IN A SIMPLE WAY
Presentation · April 2018
CITATIONS READS
0 401
1 author:
Firas Hamed AL-Menshed

GCGW
8 PUBLICATIONS 12 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Study of deep groundwater aquifers in middle and southern sectors of Iraq. View project
Detection of cavity in Al Anbar governorate View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Firas Hamed AL-Menshed on 25 April 2018.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

HOW TO UNDERSTAND THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
0T
OF ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY METHOD IN A SIMPLE

WAY
Dr. Firas Hamed AL-Menshed
Ph.D. in Geophysics
Electrical resistivity method
Resistivity Method/ Theoretical Background Firas Hamed AL-Menshed
1. Introduction
The DC resistivity method is one of the simplest geophysical techniques used
to measure earth conductivity, but it is still employed extensively because of its easy
using and relatively easy interpretation. The most common application is
groundwater exploration, but it is also used in geothermal, environmental, and
engineering studies. The measurement of the earth’s resistivity is very similar in
concept to the laboratory resistivity measurement of rock samples. A DC electric
current is passed through the ground via a pair of current electrodes and a resulting
potential difference is measured between a second pair of potential electrodes
2. Theory
It was Ohm who, through many experiments using wires of various
dimensions, voltaic cells and thermocouples came up with the relationship between
current and voltage. That is:
V
V  IR  R  ...... (1)
I
where (ΔV volts) is the potential difference between two points in a conductor, (I
amperes) is the current flow and (R ohms) is the constant of proportionality called
resistance.
For bulk materials the resistance of a conducting object is found to be directly
proportional to the length (L) of the object and inversely proportional to its cross-
sectional area (A).
The constant of proportionality in this case is called resistivity (ρ) of the
conductor, that is:
L
R …… (2)
A
Figure (1) Schematic defining variables in equation 2.
This relationship holds for earth materials as well as simple circuits.

Substituting the value of (R) in equation (1) we get:
V L
  IL  VA …… (3)
I A
The resistivity (ρ) depends on the property of the material and is a
geometrically- independent quantity that describes a material’s ability to transmit
electrical current. The value of (ρ) is measured in ohm-meter (Ωm).
For a half space solution we consider a single current electrode, a point source
of current, on the surface of a homogeneous-isotropic half space, injecting a current
(I) into the Earth. The flow of electric current will be radially symmetric in the half
space. We balance the current flowing into the earth at the electrode with the total
current flow out of a hemispherical surface as in figure (2).
A B
Current flow lines
Equipotential
hemispherical
surfaces
Figure (2) Point source of current at the surface of a homogeneous medium.
Because of the radial symmetry of current flow, the current will be constant at
a distance (r) from the current electrode, so the total current flow across the
hemispherical surface with cross sectional area of ( 2r 2 ), therefore the equation (3)
will be:
Ir  V 2r 2 …… (4)
where (r) is the outward normal to the hemisphere.
From equation (4) we obtain the potential ( V ) from point current source at
distance (r) as:
I
Vr  …… (5)
2r
Now for the general four electrodes array as in figure (3), the potential at
electrode (M) is simply the sum of the effects of the two current electrodes (A) and
(B):
Figure (3) General 4 electrode array. A and B are current electrodes, M and N are potential
electrodes.
I  1 1 
VMAB     …… (6)
2  AM BM 
and similarly the potential at N is:
I  1 1 
VNAB     …… (7)
2  AN BN 
so the potential difference measured across ( MN ) is:
I  1 1 1 1 
VMN  VMAB  VNAB       …… (8)
AB
2  AM BM AN BN 
equation (8) will yield the resistivity of anisotropic earth:
2 V
 …… (9)
 1 1 1 1  I
    
 AM BM AN BN 
where (K) the geometric factor :
1
K …… (10)
 1 1 1 1 
    
 AM BM AN BN 
V
  2K …… (11)
I
If the Earth is not a homogeneous-isotropic halfspace the above expression
would not yield the true resistivity of the Earth. The resistivity will change if we use
another electrode arrangement or changing the measurement positions, so the
V
quotient ( ) will not be directly proportional to (K) as in an isotropic earth, and the
I
V
value of (ρ) found by substituting the measured ( ) and the correct (K) into
I
equation (11), is called the apparent resistivity (ρa):
V
 a  2K …… (12)
I
The full theory of DC resistivity is set out in geophysical textbooks such as

(Keller and Frischknecht, 1966; Battacharya and Petra, 1968; Kunetz, 1966).
3. Earth resistance spacing

The resistance (RAM) between two electrodes (A and M) is specifically
dependent (for any ground surface) on the electrode location (x,y).
Alternatively, adopting the mean coordinate position x, y and letting the
bearing of A → M be θ and the separation of the electrode be AM as in figure (4)
then (Habberjam, 1979):
RAM  f xy AM …… (13)
Figure (4) Coordinates for the 2 electrodes A

configuration, A and M modified from
θ M
(Habberjam, 1979).
xy
In plane, a uniform semi infinite medium (homogeneous and isotropic) there

are many plane isoresistance surfaces parallel to the surface (r = 0), the apparent
depth of (RAM) (r) = 0, the earth resistance between the electrodes A and M will be:
V AM
R AM 
I
For a specified value of the orientation θ, values of RAM can be plotted in a
three dimensional space and series of such planes as in figure (5), another factor will
affect the value of (RAM) is the apparent depth of (RAM) (r).
y R1
R2
x
Figure (5) A 2-electrode resistance
R3
space for a uniform semi – infinite
subsurface modified from (Habberjam,
1979). r
Habberjam (1979) show that for 4 electrode collinear arrays, each set of 2
electrodes provides an operator which samples the 2 electrode resistances at the
locations equal to the distance between any two current and potential electrodes. The
sum of these resistances yields the 4 electrode resistance value as shown in figure (6).
R  RAM  RAN  RBM  RBN …… (14)
Wenner array Schlumberger array Dipole-dipole array

A M N B A M N B A B N M
+RAM +RBN +RBN

x +RAM x
+RBN
-RAN -RBM
-RAN -RBM
-RAN x -RBM
+RAM
Figure (6) Space operators for Wenner, Schlumberger and Dipole-dipole arrays (red
circles) modified from (Habberjam, 1979). The four electrode assignment locations as blue
squares (at the minimum operator spacing) and x (at the mean operator spacing).
In figure (6), red circles indicate the 2 electrode resistance locations and
spacing for each configuration. If the convention of assigning a spacing according to
the minimum spacing of the 2 electrode components adopted (minimum operator
spacing), the four electrode resistance can be plotted at the position shown by the
squares, and if the convention of assigning a spacing according to the mean spacing
of the 2 electrode components adopted (mean operator spacing), the four electrode
resistance can be plotted at the position shown by the x.
Reviewing the operators of figure (6), it can be seen that they all sample the 2
electrode space at widely separated points. In particular, on array involves six points
which embrace the three configurations and are responsible for the appropriate
additive rule. Where a configuration involves widely different 2 electrode spacings,
the smaller will normally contribute the major part of the four electrode
measurement.
In the illustrated arrays in figure (6), Wenner array has a particularly favorable
geometric factor (K) value so that signal amplitude decays at the same rate as for the
2 electrode system and further the signal can usefully be checked using the
tripotential rule. A drawback of this array is that the sample points are somewhat
widespread and this again may blur details which would be clearer on a 2 electrode
space.
In Schlumberger array the sampled resistances are still close together. The
sampled differences are added together so that the (K) value is much more favorable.
If higher ( AM ) ratios are used, however, signal magnitude is again reduced. The
MN
lateral separation of the two resistance differences implies that variations which
would be clear on the two electrode array are being averaged out. The potential base (
MN ) is also small compared with ( AB ) and this is advantageous when telluric noise
becomes serious.
Dipole-dipole array provides the closest sampling of 2 electrode space, this
closeness also implies that the sampled four electrode resistance value will be small
(the K factor is high). On the other hand, the current base ( AB ) is shorter so that it is
easier to pass larger signals.
Al-Ani (1998 in arabic) show that there is a relationship between the mean
AB
operator spacing and the depth function ( ) for Schlumberger array as:
2
AB
Mean operator spacing =
2
And there is relationship between minimum operator spacing and depth
function (a) for Wenner array as:
Minimum operator spacing = a = AM
MN
He also show (for Schlumberger array) that when the ratio ( ) increase the
AB
difference between the mean operator spacing and the minimum operator spacing
increases, so two components of the measured resistance on the surface (RAM and RBN)
will be closer to the surface, and because they have the same apparent depth of the
minimum operator spacing, the weight of these components in the measured
resistivity on the surface becomes higher than the weight of the other components
(RAN and RBM), the apparent depth of the measured resistivity value will decrease and
then the depth of investigation will decrease accordingly.
4. Electrical properties of rocks

For the resistivity method to be successful, a number of conditions must fall in
place. The fundamental condition that needs to be fulfilled for motivating the use of
the method is contrast in the physical property between the subsurface materials that
is to be delineated. Therefore it is important to know the basics behind the electrical
properties of the investigated materials.
The resistivity of natural soils and rocks varies within very wide ranges as in
table (1), and this difference in resistivity is the foundation of resistivity survey.
Table (1) Resistivity ranges of earth materials modified from (Telford, 1976; Palacky, 1987).
Earth Material Resistivity range (Ωm)

Sedimentary Rocks
Shale 10 - 103
Sandstone 1 - 108
Conglomerate 103 - 104
Limestone 50 - 107
Dolomite 102 - 104
Unconsolidated sediments
Gravel 102 - 104
Sand 102 - 104
Clay 1 - 102
Marl 1 - 102
Ground water
Fresh water 0.1 - 103
Brackish water 0.3 - 1
Sea water 0.2
Super saline brine 0.05 - 0.2
It is, however, essential to be aware v2e of the large overlaps in resistivity

between the different types of earth materials. As a result measured resistivities
should never be interpreted directly to a certain material category without additional
knowledge of the specific situation. Electrical conduction in geological materials is
mainly electrolytic. The most common soil and rock forming minerals are insulators
in the dry state, and thus the amount of wet and the properties of the water largely
determine the resistivity.
For a rock mass this means that fractures, faults and shear zones constitute the
dominating current paths, whereas the solid rock normally is considered as an electric
insulator. As an exception, rocks with metallic content may have significant
conduction through the crystalline structure.
Soils, on the other hand, are porous media consisting of a solid skeleton of
particles, or grains, and pores in between. The grains are considered electrical
insulators and the conduction is concentrated to the pore space that is typically filled
or partly filled with water. Therefore, resistivities of soils are strongly influenced by
the amount of water, which is determined by the porosity and the degree of
saturation. Also the resistivity of the water, to a great extent governed by the ion
content, and the connectivity of the pore spaces are important parameters. Another
important factor influencing soil resistivities is the presence of clay minerals, since
these minerals bind water molecules and ions and thereby facilitate electrical
conduction. Clay particles coating the surfaces of the larger mineral particles may
have a dominating effect on the bulk resistivity of a predominantly coarse grained
soil, creating so called surface conduction (Ward, 1990; Revil and Glover, 1997).
Therefore, in the different models that have been used for describing resistivity of
soils, there has been two categories depending on if the soil has clay content or not.
5. Survey Design
Survey design should be based on the problem definition (i.e., the aim of the
survey). In general, the four electrodes A, B, M and N can be placed at arbitrary
locations on the surface. However, a variety of specific electrode arrangements are
commonly employed. Each layout offers advantages in equipment handling or in
measurement instrumentation.
The survey design is based on two bases: Choosing the electrode configuration
and choosing the measuring technique.
5.1 Electrode Configurations

There are numerous configurations or arrangements for placing the current and
potential electrodes for surveying. The three most appropriate for geologic
investigations will be discussed as below.
5.1.1 Schlumberger array

It is the most commonly used arrangement, and was developed by Conrad
Schlumberger. Like most of the standard arrays it is collinear and symmetrical as in
figure (7). The particular feature of the Schlumberger array is that the potential
electrode spacing (MN) is very much smaller (about 1/5 to 1/6) than the current
electrode spacing (Roy, 1972).
Figure (7) The Schlumberger array. MN is small compared with AB and the array is
symmetrical and collinear.
To compute the expression for apparent resistivity for this array we firstly note
that for a symmetrical array AM  BN and AN  BM so that:
1  2 2 
   …… (15)
K  AM BM 
now for the Schlumberger array we write
AM  BN 
AB MN
 

AB  MN 
2 2 2
AN  BM 
AB MN
 

AB  MN 
2 2 2
so
1 4 4
 
K AB  MN AB  MN
K
AB  MN AB  MN  …… (16)
4MN
yielding an expression for apparent resistivity:
 a  2
 
V AB  MN AB  MN  …… (17)
I 4MN
V
Because MN  0 we may set AB  MN  AB and also write E  so
MN
2
E  AB 
a    …… (18)
I  2 
Where (E) the electrical field.
This equation is representing the theoretical case because it is based on MN  0
, but in the field the distance ( MN ) is more than zero, so the equation (13) must be
used to calculate (  a ) value because it represents the practical case.
5.1.2 Wenner array

This array was developed by Frank Wenner in the U.S. at about the same time
that Schlumberger developed his techniques in France. Wenner worked in the
national standards laboratory on material properties, and realized that he could apply
the same four point method used in the laboratory in the field to measure bulk Earth
resistivity. Consequently, the array that bears his name has equal spacing between all
electrodes as in figure (8).
Figure (8) The Wenner array. The array is symmetrical and collinear but now the
electrodes are equally spaced.
From our expression for a symmetric array we have very simply that:
1 2 2 1
  
K a 2a a
so that K  a and
V
 a  2a …… (19)
I
Advantages of the Schlumberger array over the Wenner array include the
following (Zohdy et al., 1974):
1. Sounding curves provide slightly greater probing depth and resolving power
than Wenner soundings for equal AB electrode spacing.
2. Less manpower and time is required for making soundings than for a Wenner
array.
3. When wide electrodes spacing are used, stray currents in industrial areas and
telluric currents are more likely to affect measurements with the Werner array.
4. The Schlumberger array is more sensitive in measuring lateral variations in
resistivity.
5. The Wenner array is more susceptible to drifting or unstable potential
differences created by driving electrodes into the ground.
6. Schlumberger sounding curves can be more readily smoothed.
Schlumberger arrays are generally considered the most suitable configuration

for vertical electrical sounding of a quasi-layered earth (Oldenburg, 1978), whereas
the Wenner and dipole-dipole configurations are commonly employed for mapping
lateral variations in electrical resistivity (Telford et al., 1990).
5.1.3 Dipole-dipole arrays:

These arrays are originally developed in the Soviet Union in the 1950s; they
have certain advantages over the Schlumberger array for deep soundings because
relatively short AB and MN lines reduce field measurement times. In addition, fewer
problems are associated with current leakage and inductive coupling than for
Schlumberger soundings. A detailed description of these configurations has been
given by Al'pin (1950).
We will explain the linear kind of dipole-dipole group which is the polar or
axial dipole-dipole array as illustrated in figure (9).
Figure (9) The polar dipole - dipole array. Both the current electrode pair and potential
electrode pair form dipoles which are separated by a distance which is large compared to
the dipole length.
For the polar dipole - dipole array we have:

r 3
V
a  …… (20)
AB.MN I
5.2 Measuring techniques

Three categories of field techniques exist for conventional resistivity analysis
of the subsurface. These techniques are: constant separation traversing (CST),
vertical electric sounding (VES), and Combined VES/CST surveys.
5.2.1 Constant Separation Traversing (CST)
5.2.1.1 Horizontal profiling

Electrical profiling uses collinear arrays to determine lateral resistivity
variations in the shallow subsurface at a more or less fixed depth of investigation.
The current and potential electrodes are moved along a profile with constant spacing
between electrodes. Maximum apparent resistivity anomalies are obtained by
orienting the profiles at right angles to the strike of the geologic structure. The
obtained values of apparent resistivity from horizontal profiling are interpreted
qualitatively by plotting apparent resistivity profiles, where the geometric center of
the electrode array at the abscissa and the apparent resistivity at the ordinate.
In certain survey, a method of horizontal profiling called Schlumberger AB
profiling or sometimes called Brant array. In this technique the two current electrodes
may be placed a large distance apart and the potential electrodes moved along the
middle third of the line AB (Kunetz, 1966) as in figure (10).
M N
A B
AB AB AB
3 3 3
Figure (10) Electrodes array for Schlumberger AB profile, also called Brant array.
5.2.1.2 Lateral resistivity mapping

Resistivity mapping (generally) depends on the horizontal profiling technique
because it is taken along a series of parallel traverses, when one traverse is finished,
the array is moved to the next parallel line and so forth until the area of investigation
is covered, the apparent resistivity of the center point of each spread can be plotted on
a map and equi-resistivity contours can be drawn. This equi-resistivity map has a
failing according to (Van Nostrand and Cook, 1966); although this map forms a very
effective picture of the progress of the survey if it is kept current.
A modification of the Schlumberger AB profile procedure where the potential
electrodes are moved not only along the middle third of the line AB but also along
lines laterally displaced from and parallel to AB (where the lateral displacement may
AB
be as much as ) is called the Rectangle of Resistivity method (Kunetz, 1966) as in
4
figure (11).
M N
AB
4
A B
AB AB
3 AB 3
4
M N
AB
3
Figure (11) Electrodes array for Rectangle of Resistivity Method.
Another mapping technique called Line-electrode survey as in figure (12)

(Parasnis, 1965). At this technique each electrode consists of a long bar copper wire
which is tightly looped every 5-10m around a long iron nail this being pegged into
the ground. The two electrodes are parallel to each other and a few hundred to several
hundred meters long. The current electrodes are laid parallel to the geological strike.
Each electrode is connected to one pole of a DC generator. The connection is
made at (at least) two points of the electrode on either side of its centre.
A measurement consists in reading the voltage difference between a pair of
potential probes placed on a line perpendicular to the current electrodes. The distance
between the probes is small compared with the distance between the current
electrodes and measurements are not made nearly to either current electrode.
Figure (12) Layout for line electrode surveys.
The interval between the observation points is usually 40m for reconnaissance
survey and 10-20m for detailed ones. Lines are spaced 40 or 20m apart and measure
in a zigzag manner until the area is covered.
This technique was used for: a) outcropping vertical contact between two
extensive rock formations, b) outcropping vertical vein with the rocks on either side
differing in resistivity from each other and from the vein, c) outcropping dipping
contact, d) semi-circular trough flush with the earth's surface and e) horizontally
stratified earth.
The measurement can be represented as maps show the two-dimensional
distribution apparent resistivity.
5.2.1.3 Azimuthal Resistivity Survey

The first aim of resistivity survey is a study of any inhomogeneities.
Frequently in practice, the effect of anisotropy is displayed together with that of
layering or inhomogeneities. It complicates data interpretation within the framework
of anisotropic models, and distorts results of interpretation in the framework of
layered or inhomogeneous media. At the same time anisotropy studying can give
valuable geological information. On definition, rock anisotropy is displayed in
apparent resistivity values as dependence on array orientation and as independence on
coordinates. Azimuthal (or circular) resistivity survey (ARS) is the best field
technology for anisotropy studying.
 Type of array rotation in azimuthal resistivity survey

In azimuthal resistivity survey, there are two types of array rotation:
1- Symmetrical azimuthal resistivity survey
This survey is conducted using the same array spacing and with the
center of the spread on the same position (figure (13)). Each successive
spread is oriented in a different direction or azimuth until 180 degrees are
covered in increments of 30 degrees. A full 360 degrees need not be
surveyed at the setup for 0 degrees gives the same result as for 180 degrees
and 30 degrees the same result as 210 degrees, etc.
0
330 30
300 60
A M N B
270 90
Figure (13) Layout of symmetrical
azimuthal resistivity survey. A
Wenner array is rotated 30 degrees 240 120
clockwise.
210 150
180
2- Non-symmetrical azimuthal resistivity survey

This survey is conducted using the same array spacing, but the centre of
array is changed with changing the all spread direction. This survey can be
done with two layouts: At the first layout, the position of all the four
electrodes changing as in figure (14a). At the second layout, one of the
current electrodes keeps fixed while the other electrodes move out to next
positions at a new direction as in figure (14b).
0
a 330 A 30
M
300 60
N
B
270 90
240 120
210 150
180
0
B 30
330
b
N
300 60
M
270 A 90
240 120
210 150
180
Figure (14) Layout of non-symmetrical azimuthal resistivity survey. a) The position of

all the four electrodes moved out. b) One of the current electrodes keeping fixed.
 Data visualization in azimuthal resistivity survey

There are several ways in which azimuthal resistivity data may be
displayed so that one or another aspect of the data may be emphasized.
Nunn et al. (1983) plotted resistivity data as a function of azimuth in
Cartesian coordinates as in figure (15).
Figure (15) Azimuthal resistivity diagram in Cartesian coordinate from (Nunn et

al., 1983).
The most common form of data presentation is through polar coordinates,

where apparent resistivity values are plotted along definite azimuth, where any
point plotted at a distance from the diagram's center along the same azimuth with
definite linear scale. All points are connected with a curve as in figure (16)
(Taylor and Fleming, 1988).
Figure (16) Azimuthal resistivity measurements in polar coordinates from (Taylor and
Fleming, 1988).
 Analyzing azimuthal resistivity data

Azimuthal resistivity surveys are performed to determine the direction of
anisotropy in soils or rock.
Steinich et al. (1997) calculated the anisotropy (λ) from the ratio between the
largest apparent resistivity (ρa max) and the smallest apparent resistivity (ρa min) in
the azimuthal resistivity curve as:
 a max
 ….. (21)
 a min
Thus the value of (1) for (λ) is an index characterizing the eccentricity of the
curve with respect to a circle, which would be expected for an isotropic medium and
for which the value of 1 would be unity.
Another measure determines if azimuthal variations indicate anisotropy, which
allows discrimination in the data between an elliptical azimuthal response model
indicative of anisotropy or a circular azimuthal model indicative of isotropy. R 2 is the
percentage of variance, σ2, from the circular curve, which has been removed by the
elliptical curve and is expressed with the equation (Busby, 2000):
R2 
 2
( circle)   2 ( ellipse)  …… (22)
 2
( ellipse)
A perfectly anisotropic model has an R2 value of 1, where low values around

0.2 indicate an isotropic model.
Also another measure of anisotropy is used to describe the orientation of the
ellipse by determining the strike azimuth of the major axis of the ellipse. Quantitative
measures of anisotropy include percentage variation about the average is:
    min 
 0.5 max 100% …… (23)
  average 
5.2.2 Vertical electrical sounding (VES)

Electrical resistivity sounding has been in use since 1913 and went through
major developments during the 1980s. VES is designed to provide vertical profiles of
resistivity versus depth. This technique is based on the general observation that
current penetrates deeper into the subsurface with increasing separation of electrodes.
In an electrical sounding the electrode array is systematically made larger
while the center of the array remains fixed over the area of interest. As the array gets
larger, the electric currents flowing deeper and deeper in the earth are sensed, and so
the resistivity of deeper and deeper structure is measured.
In a Schlumberger array the M and N electrode array is held fixed while the A
and B current electrodes are moved outward by constant lengths. This movement
signifies an increased depth of measurement as the current electrodes are moved
farther apart. When the current electrodes are moved apart, the potential recorded
from the M and N electrodes ΔV becomes smaller and ultimately becomes too small
to measure. At this point, the potential electrodes are moved out and measurements
continue change as the current passes through different rock. At a certain point,
depending on the sample area, the MN potential will fall below the accuracy of the
voltmeter in use.
Schlumberger array is the most favorable array for VES because:
1. The measured apparent resistivity is more representative to the center of array
(Al-Ani, 1998 in arabic).
2. For the theoretical case, the measured apparent resistivity is more
representative to the depth function because the four components of apparent
resistivity (ρAM, ρAN, ρBM and ρBN) are approached (Al-Ani, 1998 in arabic).
An individual data set contains data from one pair of potential electrodes in the
array, and apparent resistivity curve is made from each electrode pair. It is plotted as
(ρa) vs. (AB/2). So each time the distance AB increases, each electrode pair gives an
additional data point to graph on the resistivity curve. In the resistivity curve both the
resistivity and spacing scales being logarithmic. Logarithmic scales are used because:
a) the range in resistivity of earth materials is more than 5 orders of magnitude and b)
the resistivity method is only sensitive to structure which is of comparable size to its
depth of burial.
One of the most important steps in interpretation is curve smoothing process
because the interpretation is based on the final shape of the curve which is related to
smoothing procedure. Usually, the field curve suffered from distortion. There are
several kinds of distortion described by Zohdy et al. (1974). Here we will focus on
one type which is the most important and most common (in the field curves of this
study), which is the displacement in field curve segments.
Schlumberger field curve suffers from two kinds of displacement:
1- Vertical displacement:
This displacement occurs at the repeated measurements when we fixed
the distance ( AB ) and increase the distance ( MN ).
This displacement is caused by two reasons:
a) Theoretical errors:
Al-Ani (1998 in arabic) show that these displacements in the repeated
measurements occur because of getting two different values of (ρa), each value
comes from different apparent depth. This displacement differs according to
MN
the ratio ( ). By increasing the distance ( MN ), the displacement between
AB
MN
the field curve and the theoretical curve, which depends on the ratio ( ),
AB
increase.
The Schlumberger curve then can be rectified and smoothed according

to (Zohdy, 1974) as shown in figure (17).
Figure (17) Correct displacement on a Schlumberger sounding curve and method of

smoothing from (Zohdy et al., 1974).
Al-Ani (1998) pointed out that this displacement must occur because in
the field the distance ( MN ) is greater than zero, so decreasing this
displacement as possible is better than making correction to the field curve,
1 1
and that through keeping the ratio ( MN ) ranging between (  ), and
AB 5 12
furthering ( MN ) distance while fixing ( AB ) distance during measurements is
better to be more than (2.5 MN ).
b) Near surface inhomogeneities (NSI):

Difference between NSI and deep objects depends on our selection.
Some bodies in definite depth interval is considered as useful objects and
adjust field technology for their tracing, while some others on smaller depth we
consider as noise. Distortions of the electric field (or VES curves), caused by
such NSI objects may be divided into two principal types: caused by object
near dipole element of array and caused by object near single electrode. These
effects depend also on the fact: is this dipole group or single electrode
moveable or unmovable.
Bobachev et al. (1997) used more local terms to classify distortions
which are related to (NSI):
1. P-effect: was named from the word "potential". P-effect shows itself as a
vertical shift of VES curve along axis ρa without form changes. The main cause
of P-effect seems to consider ρa MN at the location of NSI. If VES curve is non-
segmented, that P-effect may be found in comparison of this curve with the
neighbors. For segmented curve P-effect gives the shift of segments for
different MN with the total form of curve being conserved as in figure (18).
Figure (18) P-effect on segmented VES curve. A) model and B) VES curves.
P-effect removing is called normalization. For segmented curve it may be done

firstly by partial normalization (all segments are moved up to coming into
contact with each other) and then by fuller normalization (all VES curves on
profile are moved to the same base level of apparent resistivity). This base
level may be selected on the most unchangeable part of all curves as in figure
(19).
Figure (19) P-effect on field VES data.
As a result of P-effect, apparent resistivity pseudo-section looks like

wavered structure [figure (19 c)]. Step between VES sites in figure (19) is
equal to 1 meter with maximal Ao distance being equal to 20 m. That means
that differences between VES curves resulted from distortions, and not from
real deep structure. After moving all VES curves to one ρa level [(figure (19
b)], apparent resistivity pseudo-section became horizontal [(figure (19 d)] and
interpretation gives horizontal boundaries.
2. C-effect: was found and described in 1991, firstly in modeling results and only
after that in field data. The main cause of that is in the difficulty of finding C-
effect on (ρa) pseudo-cross-section when all VES's were measured with
logarithmic distance step. On figure (20) is shown results of modeling VES
over two-layered structure with one NSI. [a) - the model, b) - NSI and c) -
different VES curves for several variants of meeting elements of array], (0 non-
distorted and 1-4 distorted by P or C-effect). Some distortions of sounding
curves are conformable [figure (20 c, 1-2)], whereas others are non
conformable [figure (20 c, 3-4)]. When moving current electrode hits the NSI,
VES curve noticeably changes on one or two distances due to abrupt change in
current density in the cross-section.
Figure (20) Shows results of modeling VES over two-layered structure with one NSI
2- Horizontal displacement:
The maximum change in apparent resistivity always occurs at an
electrode spacing that is larger than the depth at which the corresponding
change in true resistivity occurs. That is, a sounding curve is "out of phase"
with the resistivity-depth curve and is always shifted to the right of the
resistivity-depth curve (Zohdy, 1989).
That means, all the measured values at every part of the field curve parts
(including the repeated measurements) include horizontal displacement
because of the difference between the depth of investigation and the depth
AB
function ( ). This displacement is always to the right because the depth of
2
investigation is always less than the depth function.
So, for interpretation, Zohdy (1989) found that the sounding curve must
be shifted to the left in order to be in phase with resistivity-depth curve by
multiplying all the electrodes spacing by fixed depth shift factor, and he found
that each sounding curve has its unique depth shift factor. The value of this sift
factor depends on:
a) Curve type.
b) The completeness of the left and right branches of the field curve.
c) The amount of noise present.

He found that, a fixed shift factor may be selected from the range
between 0.3 and 0.6 (approximately) and used for almost all Schlumberger
curve types.
Using a fixed shift factor by Zohdy for depth correction for
Schlumberger array is incorrect because Al-Ani (1998) concluded that there
are many depth functions for this array which depend on the difference
between the apparent depth of minimum operating distance and the apparent
depth of mean operating distance, and this difference changes according to
change the ratio ( MN ). So according to the conclusion Al-Ani, there must be
AB
more than one depth shift factor, one for every investigated depth.
5.2.3 Combined VES/CST Surveys

Combined VES/CST surveys offer the most information. As with CST alone,
multiple VES/CST surveys can be planned in order to characterize (image) the
vertical as well as horizontal extent of subsurface variations. Images of the subsurface
are called pseudo-sections because data measurements with respect to depth are only
simply represented.
5.2.3.1 DC resistivity imaging techniques

In practice, the arrays that are most commonly used for 2-D imaging surveys
are the (a) Wenner, (b) dipole-dipole (c) Wenner- Schlumberger (d) pole-pole and (e)
pole-dipole. These arrays are commonly used in resistivity surveys. They have their
strengths and their weaknesses. They are typically described by their signal-to-noise
ratio, their depth of investigation, their ability for lateral location of the target and
their mapping abilities of horizontal layers or steeply dipping structures among other
factors (Ward 1990).
We shall concentrate on Wenner array because it will be used in this study. In
figure (21), the sensitivity plot for the Wenner array has almost horizontal contours
beneath the center of the array. Because of this property:
Figure (21) 2-D sensitivity sections for the Wenner array.
1. 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 (Dahlin and Zhou, 2004).
2. In general, the Wenner array is good in resolving vertical changes (i.e. horizontal
structures), but relatively poor in detecting horizontal changes (i.e. narrow vertical
structures).
3. The median depth of investigation for the Wenner array is approximately 0.5
times the “a” spacing used. Compared to other arrays, the Wenner array has a
moderate depth of investigation (Edwards, 1977).
4. The geometric factor for the Wenner array is (2πa). This is smaller than the
geometric factor for other arrays. Among the common arrays, the Wenner array
has the strongest signal strength because the signal strength is inversely
proportional to the geometric factor used to calculate the apparent resistivity value
for the array. This can be an important factor if the survey is carried in areas with
high background noise.
5. One disadvantage of this array for 2-D surveys is the relatively poor horizontal
coverage as the electrode spacing is increased. This could be a problem if you use
a system with a relatively small number of electrodes.
5.2.3.1.1 Data collection

Data acquisition was almost uniquely carried out manually till the 1980s. The
four electrodes were placed in the ground and moved manually, between each data
point measured, which is labor intensive and slow. Thus imaging was limited to
either mapping the variation of apparent resistivity over a surface using one or a few
different electrode separation(s), or compiling quasi - 2D sections from a rather

limited number of VES.
Use of multi – electrode systems for the data acquisition allows a dramatic
increase in field productivity so that one person rather than three can conveniently
carry out sounding with limited layout. At first, systems with manual switching
appeared (Barker, 1981), and eventually the computer – controlled system with
automatic measurement and data quality control (Dahlin, 1989) which demands the
use of automated multi-electrode data acquisition system to be practical.
1) 2D Imaging mode
To obtain a good 2-D image of the subsurface, the coverage of the
measurements must be 2-D as well. As an example, figure (22) shows a possible
sequence of measurements for the Wenner electrode array for a system with 20
electrodes.
A M N B
A M N B
A M N B
Figure (22) The arrangement of electrodes for a 2-D electrical survey and the sequence of
measurements used to build up a pseudosection modified from (Barker, 1992).
In this example, the spacing between adjacent electrodes is “a”. The first step is
to make all the possible measurements with the Wenner array with electrode spacing
of “1a”. For the first measurement, electrodes number 1, 2, 3 and 4 are used. Notice
that electrode 1 is used as the first current electrode (A), electrode 2 as the first
potential electrode (M), electrode 3 as the second potential electrode (N) and
electrode 4 as the second current electrode (B). For the second measurement,
electrodes number 2, 3, 4 and 5 are used for (A), (M), (N) and (B) respectively.
This is repeated down the line of electrodes until electrodes 17, 18, 19 and 20
are used for the last measurement with “1a” spacing. For a system with 20 electrodes,
note that there are 17 (20 - 3) possible measurements with “1a” spacing for the
Wenner array.
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, note that there are 14 (20 - 2x3) possible measurements with “2a” spacing.
The same process is repeated for measurements with “3a”, “4a”, “5a” and “6a”
spacings. To get the best results, the measurements in a field survey should be carried
out in a systematic manner so that, as far as possible, all the possible measurements
are made.
One technique used to extend horizontally the area covered by the survey,
particularly for a system with a limited number of electrodes, is the roll-along
method. After completing the sequence of measurements, the cable is moved past one
end of the line by several unit electrode spacings, after which the data acquisition
software automatically checks the electrode contact and scans through a pre-defined
measurement protocol and new measurements are added. Measurements that involve
the electrodes on part of the cable that do not overlap the original end of the survey
line are repeated as in figure (23).
Figure (23) The use of the roll-along method to extend the area covered by a 2-D survey.
2) 3D imaging mode
3D measuring mode which involves laying out a number of electrodes on a 3D
grid and measure a large number 4-electrode combinations in order to obtain
information about the 3D variation of the subsurface resistivity. Practical field
techniques were described by Loke and Barker (1996a). The initial suggestion
involved the deployment of one multicore cable in snake-lines across a regular grid of
electrodes as in figure (24). However, such a procedure is only viable for small grids
of the order of 10 × 10 electrodes. For larger (or more detailed) 3D surveys, data are
usually acquired along a sequence of parallel lines which involves the installation of
multiple cables or the use of roll-along techniques (Dahlin and Bernstone, 1997) in
order to increase efficiency.
Figure (24) 3D measuring mode.
3D measuring mode treats successfully 3D structures; however it is expensive

since it involves increased instrumentation (cable) and computational cost if data are
to be treated with 3D inversion programs. The later is not an important problem
considering the high increase in computer power but hardware logistics is most of the
times prohibitive in measuring with the 3D mode particularly with large electrode
spacing. So in practice instead of using the 3D measurement mode 3D resistivity
variations are recorded by recording a dense 2D measurement grid which is
considered to be a more practical and economical approach for field-data. Dense 2D
sets involve measuring parallel 2D lines with inter-line spacing equal to the inter-
electrode spacing. Measurements can take place along the X-axis (X-lines) [figure
(25 a)], or along the Y-axis (Y-lines) [(figure (25 b), or along both axes (XY-lines) as
depicted in figure (25 c) (Tsourlos, 2004).
These dense 2D measurements are routinely being interpreted with 2D

algorithms and the results are combined a-posteriori to generate pseudo-3D (x,y,z)
images.
Figure (25) Dense 2D measurements. a) parallel to the X-axis (X-lines), b) parallel to the
Y-axis (Y-lines) and c) combined XY-lines from (Tsourlos, 2004) .
This approach of combining dense 2-D measurement with 3D inversion is

considered practical for routine data treatment since the extra computational
time/power required by 3D inversion schemes is compensated by the reduced amount
(50% less) of field data required when compared with the 2D approach (Tsourlos,
2004).
5.2.3.1.1.1 Measurement errors

To apply the imaging technique successfully, great attention must be paid to
controlling the observed data quality in fieldwork and data processing, and any
possibilities of minimizing the effects from all kind of error sources must be taken.
For this reason it is important to investigate the properties of the data observation
errors and understand their effect on the imaging results.
The Measurement errors may be simply classified into two kinds (Zhou and
Dahlin, 2003):
1- Electrode spacing errors

The electrode spacing errors are caused by the measurement errors in electrode
positions or inadvertent electrode setting up. In most cases of 2D resistivity
imaging surveying multi-electrode cable with fixed spacing is employed along a
measurement line. However, it is not uncommon that some portion of the cable
cannot be straightened due to rough terrain or vegetation, or the positions are
shifted to improve electrode contact with the ground. Sometimes the electrode
positions are measured with a string or tape, with the associated risk of electrode
spacing error due to human factor. In a practical situation one specific electrode
array is normally chosen, such as the pole-pole, pole-dipole, Wenner or
Schlumberger array. The magnitude of the spacing errors are quite different with
these arrays, being largest for dipole-dipole, Wenner-β and γ, for which a 10% in-
line spacing error may cause twice as large an error (>20%) in the observed
apparent resistivity, which in turn will produce some artifact in the inverted
model.
Szalai et al. (2007) proved that the noises of positioning origin are relatively
low among even very inconvenient field conditions, and they have influenced only
the near-surface data, and in order to be able to eliminate the problem of spacing
errors they advised:
1) Avoid area where the surface rockiness is important (if it is possible at all).
2) Try to keep |xideal-xreal| on minimum.
3) If we have only a few electrodes with wrong position, it is possible to ignore
them and carry out the inversion without these data.
4) Taking into account the real position of the electrodes.
At the same time, as for the consequences on numerical modeling one should
know the following:
1) The consequences of the positioning error on the pseudosection of apparent
and inverted resistivities depend very much on the array geometry (the
increasing order of these effects is: pole-pole, Wenner-α, pole-dipole,
Wenner-β).
2) The error propagates systematically and not randomly.
Consequently in the inverted resistivity images the size of the false anomalies can
be large.
2- The potential error

This error arises from many sources, such as bad electrode contact, cable
insulation damage, site background noise (telluric current and power line noise),
instrumental problems (the wrong current injection and picking - up of noise

potentials) and improper instrument operation.
The data quality, or the observed potential error, may be estimated by normal
and reciprocal measurements. Such data can be acquired efficiently using an
automatic data acquisition system for all data points, although at the visualization
algorithmic plot and the error pseudosection of the absolute relative errors
calculated by the normal and reciprocal potential readings are very useful for
quantitative and spatial evaluation of the data quality, which may be characterized
by the mean value, standard deviation, regression function and the spatial
distribution of the possible observed outliers.
The potential error increases as a power with the decrease in the measured
potential, which reaffirms the fact that potential error depends on the strength of
the measured signal and varies with sites, times and electrode configurations.
Wenner, pole-pole and Schlumberger measurements have relative stronger
potential signal than dipole-dipole and pole-dipole arrays.
The robust inversion and smoothness constrained least squares inversion can
be applied to the assessment of real observed potential outliers and data quality of
the normal surveying data. The smoothness constrained least squares inversion is
sensitive to outliers in the data, which may produce artifacts or distorted in the
inverted model. The robust inversion is fairly in sensitive to the outliers of data,
and with high data quality the two inversion schemes produce very similar images
except that obtained with the robust inversion is more "blocky" and has a slightly
better data misfit.
5.2.3.1.2 Data processing

The measured apparent resistivities are then presented in a contoured
pseudosection, A pseudosection is a display technique devised by Hallof (1957)
which involves plotting resistivity traverse data as a depth section, with each apparent
resistivity being plotted as if it were the true resistivity of a point immediately below
the centre of the electrode array at a depth proportional to the electrode spacing. The
contoured data provide an approximate picture of the resistivity distribution in the
plane of the section.
The pseudosection is made to present raw data, and is also a tool for rapid
visual assessment of data quality. Large inconsistent changes between adjacent data
points in the pseudosection, is often a sign of bad data quality in the measurements.
Adjacent data point involves to a great extent the same subsurface volume for the
measurement and their respective potential readings should therefore vary in a
systematic way. Slight errors in data will not be identified by checking the
pseudosection, but obviously incorrect data points resulting from for instance
instrumentation errors, failure of the relays in the switching unit, shorting of the
cables in wet conditions, or mistakes during field surveying may be identified. It is
essential to remove such obviously incorrect data points before moving on to the next
step in achieving a final resistivity model, the inverse modeling.
Pseudosection reflects qualitatively the spatial variation in resistivity in the
vertical cross-section (Griffiths and Turnbull, 1985). The unit electrode spacing
determines the length of the profile, depth of investigation and resolution.
Because we intend to use RES2DINV program, we restricted to describe the
forward modeling algorithm and inversion subroutines which is used in this program.
5.2.3.1.2.1 Forward modeling

The contoured data can be modeled using a two-dimensional (2D) finite
element or finite difference algorithm (Dey and Morrison, 1979) to calculate the 2-D
forward response of the model.
In 2D forward modeling the subsurface resistivity distribution is described by a
2D model extended in infinity in the third direction. It is important to notice,
however, that the sources, the current electrodes, are modeled as 3D sources. If not,
they would obviously be mistakenly described as line electrodes.
The forward modeling finds a solution to the current flow equations in
inhomogeneous ground for a given resistivity distribution and current source
configuration. The solution includes the potential field in the investigated 2D section,
from which calculation of the apparent resistivities from the configuration of the
potential electrodes are straightforward.
The simplified equation for 2D is typically solved numerically by dividing the
subsurface in a number of finite elements and solves by matrix inversion techniques.
The most common numerical methods are the finite differences or the finite element
method. The method of finite differences has been used as default except for when
topography is included then the finite element method is preferred due to more
flexibility in arranging the cells.
5.2.3.1.2.2 Inversion Method

In the automatic inversion routine a homogeneous starting model of the
subsurface resistivity distribution is used with logarithmic averages of the measured
apparent resistivities (Loke and Barker, 1995). The subsurface is divided into a large
number of rectangular cells, and the optimization method attempts to determine the
resistivity distribution of the cells that minimizes the difference between the
calculated and measured apparent values subject to certain constraints (Loke et al.,
2003).
The regularized least-squares optimization method is a flexible technique that
can be modified by using constraints that agree more closely with the true geology.
By using the proper constraints, significant improvements in the resulting model can
be obtained. This method is widely used in 2D and 3D resistivity inversion as it
usually leads to a stable solution. It gives results that closely correspond to the true
geology in situations where the resistivity changes in a gradual and smooth manner.
However, in situations with sharp boundaries, the results are not optimal.
Loke and Barker (1995) described a fast technique based on the least-squares
optimization method that requires only a modest amount of computing time. It
produces a model that is free of distortions in the original apparent resistivity
pseudosection caused by the electrode array geometry. It is also relatively insensitive
to random noise in the data. They called this technique the “least-squares
deconvolution method” because it separates the effect of the electrode array geometry
on the apparent resistivity values from that which results from the subsurface
resistivity.
Loke and Barker (1996a) used an inversion model where the arrangement of
the model blocks directly follows the arrangement of the pseudosection plotting
points. This approach gives satisfactory results for the Wenner and Wenner-
Schlumberger arrays where the pseudosection point falls in an area with high
sensitivity values. However, it is not suitable for arrays such as the dipole-dipole and
pole-dipole where the pseudosection point falls in an area with very low sensitivity
values. The RES2DINV program uses a more sophisticated method to generate the
inversion model where the arrangement of the model blocks is not tightly bound to
the pseudosection.
Loke and Dahlin (1997) found a method which combines the accuracy of the
Gauss-Newton method (deGroot-Hedlin and Constable, 1990; Sasaki, 1994) with the
speed of the quasi-Newton method (Loke and Barker, 1996 a,b).
The least-squares formulation, which constrains the smoothness of the model
parameters to a constant value, is given by the following equation:
J iT J i  di C T C pi  J iT g i  i C T Cri1 …… (24)
where (Ji) is the Jacobian matrix of partial derivatives, (C) is the flatness filter matrix,
(gi ) is a vector which contains the differences between the logarithms of the
measured and calculated apparent resistivity values, (di) is the damping factor, (pi) is
the perturbation vector to the model parameters for the ith iteration, and (ri-1) is the
model parameters vector for the previous iteration.
This method recalculating the partial derivatives for the first 2 or 3 iterations
represents a good compromise between reducing the computing time and obtaining
sufficiently accurate results. The computer time is reduced by about half, which is
particularly important in 3D resistivity inversion which can involve more than 10000
datum and very large finite-difference grids.
For 3D resistivity imaging, the inversion program divides the subsurface into a
number of small rectangular prisms, and attempts to determine the resistivity values
of the prisms so as to minimize the difference between the calculated and observed
apparent resistivity values. One possible arrangement used by Loke and Barker
(1996b) is shown in figure (26).
Figure (26) The model blocks arrangement used by (Loke and Barker, 1996b).
The optimization method tries to reduce the difference between the calculated
and measured apparent resistivity values by adjusting the resistivity of the model
blocks
The inversion routine is based on the smoothness constrained least-squares
method (deGroot-Hedlin and Constable, 1990; Sasaki, 1992; Loke and Barker,
1996a).
The inversion procedure of measured data (for 2D and3D imaging) can be
summarized in a flow chart as in figure (27).
Apparent resistivity profile of data

collected at field site
"Measured Apparent Resistivity

Pseudosection of Field Data"
Comparison to determine model error

(4) (1)
Comparison to reduce model error
Inverse model of resistivity distribution

(6) (3)
"Inverted Resistivity model of Field Data"
(5) (
Calculated apparent resistivity profile

based on inverse model of field data
"Forward Apparent Resistivity

Pseudosection Calculated from Inverted
Model"
Figure (27) Overview of resistivity imaging inversion process (AL-Menshed, 2011).

Processing steps in figure (27) are as following:

1. Measured apparent resistivity data from field site are imported, and an
apparent resistivity profile for the measured data is generated.
2. A calculated apparent resistivity profile for the inverted model is generated.
3. The two apparent resistivity profiles are compared to determine the root
mean square (RMS) error between them.
Steps 1, 2 and 3 are representing the forward modeling.
4. Modifying the inverted resistivity model according to the measured field
data.
5. Generating a new calculated apparent resistivity for the inverted model.
6. Comparing the new calculated apparent resistivity profile with the measured
apparent resistivity profile to reduce the root mean square (RMS) error
between them.
Steps 4, 5 and 6 are representing the inversion process, and they all done in the
first iteration. The iteration is repeated, decreasing the RMS error until it meets a
user-defined value or the number of iterations reaches a user-defined maximum.
5.2.3.1.3 Data interpretation

For interpretation of a final 2D inverted resistivity model it is wise to always
keep in mind some typical phenomena associated with the theories behind resistivity
measurements that may affect the final model. A few such factors are listed below
(Sjodahl, 2006):
 Depth resolution: The resolving power of the resistivity method decreases
exponentially with depth.
 Resolution at the sides of the model: At the sides of the final model there are
less data points and the model may be strongly affected by boundary
conditions and the weight the side blocks are assigned in the inversion. In
many cases this problem can be overcome by increasing the length of the
survey line so that the area of interest surely becomes entirely covered.
 The concept of non-uniqueness: The principle of equivalence can be
exemplified for the case of a homogeneous earth with an embedded horizontal
high-resistive layer. In that situation the high-resistive layer with a certain
resistivity and a certain thickness may, within the measurement resolution,
produce the same result as a layer with twice the resistivity and half the
thickness (Telford, 1990).
 High-resistive or high-conductive top layer: If the top layer is very resistive it
might be difficult to get enough current into the ground. On the other hand, if
the top layer is very conductive the current will be channeled into this layer
and it might be difficult to reach the underlying structures with enough current.
In both cases, the potential readings may become very small resulting in very
low signal-to-noise ratios.
 3D effects: Inversion of 2D resistivity data assumes a 2D subsurface reality
and no significant variations in the direction perpendicular to the survey line.
This is rarely the case, but for many surveys it is a manageable problem. A
four-electrode measurement involves an earth volume with the shape of a half-
sphere for the case of a homogeneous subsurface. This means in principle that
structures on a certain distance to the side of the line has the same influence on
the measurements as structures on a similar depth.
6. References
1. Al-Ani, J. M., 1998: Theoretical and application considering the effect

of the geometry on Schlumberger and dipole configurations, PhD thesis
(in Arabic), University of Baghdad, College of Science, 144P.
2. Al-Menshed, F.H., 2011: Evaluation of resistivity method in
delineation ground water hydrocarbon contamination southwest of
Karbala city. PhD Thesis, Dept. of Geology, College of Science,
University of Baghdad, p 210.
3. Alpin, L.M., 1950: The Theory of Dipole
Soundings. Gostoptekhizdat, Moscow.
4. Barker, R., 1989: The offset system of electrical resistivity sounding
and its use with a multi-core cable. Geophysical Prospecting, Vol. 29,
p.p. 128-143.
5. Battacharya, P.K. and Petra, H.P., 1968: Direct current geoelectrical
sounding. Elsevier Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 131 p.
6. Bobachev, A.A.; Modin, I.N.; Pervago, E.V. and Shevnin, V.A., 1997:
TES technology for 2D resistivity sounding data processing,
visualization, and interpretation. Moscow State University, Geological
Faculty, Department of Geophysics.
7. Busby, J.P., 2000: The effectiveness of azimuthal apparent-resistivity

measurements as a method for determining fracture strike orientations,
Geophysical Prospecting, Vol. 48, p.p. 677-695.
8. Dahlin, T., 1989: The development of a cable system for vertical
electrical sounding and a comparison of the Schlumberger and offset
Wenner methods. Licentiate thesis. Lund University, 77 p.p.
9. Dahlin, T. and Bernstone, C., 1997: A roll-along technique for 3D
resistivity data acquisition with multi-electrode array. Proceedings of
the Symposium on the Application of geophysics to Engineering and
Environmental Problems, Reno, Nevada, Vol. 2, p.p. 927-935.
10. Dahlin, T. and Zhou, B., 2004: A numerical comparison of 2D
resistivity imaging with 10 electrode arrays. Geophysical Prospecting,
Vol.52, p.p. 379–398.
11. deGroot-Hedlin C, Constable S, 1990: Occam’s inversion to generate
smooth two-dimensional models from magnetotelluric data.
Geophysics 55:1613–1624
12. Dey, A. and Morrison, H. F., 1979: Resistivity modeling for arbitrary
shaped tow – dimensional structure. Geophysical Prospecting, Vol. 27,
p.p. 106 – 136.
13. Edwards, L.S., 1977: A modified pseudosection for resistivity and IP.
Geophysics, Vol. 42, No. 5, p.p. 1020-1036.
14. Griffiths D.H., Turnbull, J, 1985: A multi-electrode array for resistivity
surveying. First Break, 3, pp. 16-20.
15. Habbberjam, G.M., 1979: Apparent resistivity observations and the use
of square array techniques. Geoexploration Monographs, series 1, No.
9, 152 p.
16. Hallof, P. G., 1957: On the interpretation of resistivity and induced
polarization measurements. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts institute of
technology.
17. Keller, G.V. and Frischknecht, F.C., 1966: Electrical Methods in

Geophysical Prospecting. Pergamon Press, New York.
18. Kunetz, G., 1966: Principle of direct current resistivity prospecting.
Borntrager, Berlin, 106 p.
19. Loke, M.H. and Barker, R.D., 1995: Least-squares deconvolution of
apparent resistivity pseudosections. Geophysics, Vol. 60, No. 6, p.p.
1682-1690.
20. Loke, M.H. and Barker, R.D., 1996a: Rapid least-squares inversion of
apparent resistivity pseudosections using a quasi-Newton method.
Geophysical Prospecting, Vol. 44, p.p. 131-152.
21. Loke, M.H. and Barker, R.D., 1996b: Practical techniques for 3D
resistivity surveys and data inversion. Geophysical Prospecting, Vol.
44, p.p. 499-524.
22. Nunn, K. R., Barker, R. D., and Bamford, D., 1983: In-situ seismic and
electrical measurements of fracture anisotropy in the Lincolnshire
chalk. Quart. J. Eng. Geol., Vol. 16, p.p. 187-195.
23. Oldenburg, D.W., 1978: A quantitative technique for modeling
ionospheric and magnetospheric current distributions. V. 83, IssueA7,
P 3320-3326.
24. Palacky, G.J., 1987: Resistivity characteristics of geologic targets. In:
Electromagnetic methods in applied geophysics, Vol. 1, ed. Nabighian
MN, Society of Exploration Geophysics, Tulsa, p.p. 53-129.
25. Parasnis, D.S., 1965: Theory and practice of electric potential and
resistivity prospecting using linear current electrodes. Geoexploration,
Vol. 3, No. 1, p.p. 1- 69.
26. Revil, A. and Glover, P.W.J., 1997: Theory of ionic-surface electrical
conduction in porous media. Physical Review, B. 55: p.p. 1757-1773.
27. Roy, A., 1972: Depth of investigation in Wenner, three electrode and
dipole – dipole DC resistivity methods. Geophysical Prospecting, Vol.
20, p.p. 329-340.

28. Sasaki Y,1992: Resolution of resistivity tomography inferred from
numerical simulation. Geophys Prospect 40:453–464.
29. Sasaki, Y., 1994: 3-D resistivity inversion using the finite-element
method. Geophysics, Vol. 59, p.p. 1839-1848.
30. Sjodahl, P., 2006: Resistivity investigation and monitoring for
detection of internal erosion and anomalous seepage in embankment
dams. Doctoral Thesis, Lund University, 86 p.p.
31. Steinich, B.; Simon, I.; Chavarria, J.A. and Marin, L.E., 1997:
Geological investigations of the vadose zone in the valley of
Hermosillo aquifer, Sonora, Mexico. Geofisica Internacional, Vol. 36,
No. 3, p.p. 191-200.
32. Szalai, S.; Koppan, A. and Szarka, L., 2007: Effect of positional
inaccuracies on multi-electrode results. 13th European Meeting of
Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, Istanbul, turkey.
33. Taylor, R.W., and Fleming, A.H., 1988: Characterizing jointed systems
by azimuthal resistivity surveys. Ground Water, Vol. 26, p.p. 464–474.
34. Telford, W.M.; Geldart, L.P.; Sheriff, R.E., and Keys, D.A., 1979:
Applied Geophysics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
England, p.p. 451-455.
35. Telford, W.M.; Geldart, L.P. and Sheriff, R.E., 1990: Applied
geophysics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 770 p.p.
36. Tsourlos, P., 2004: Inversion of electrical resistivity tomography data
deriving from 3D structures. Proceedings of the 10th International
Congress, Thessaloniki, Greece, p.p. 1289-1297.
37. Van Nostrand, R.G. and Cook, K.L., 1966: Interpretation of resistivity
data; USGS Professional Paper; Series number 499; U. S. Govt.
38. Ward, S.H., 1990: Resistivity and induced polarization methods.
Geotechnical and environmental geophysics, Vol. 1, Society of
Exploration Geophysics, Tulsa, p.p. 147-189.

39. Zhou, B. and Dahlin, T., 2003: Properties and effects of measurement
errors on 2D resistivity imaging surveying. Near Surface Geophysics,
Vol. 1, p.p. 105-117.
40. Zohdy, A.A., 1989: A new method for the automatic interpretation of
Schlumberger and Wenner sounding curves. Geophysics, Vol. 54, No.
2, p.p. 245-253.
41. Zohdy, A.A.; Eaton, G.P., and Mabey, D.R., 1974: Application of
surface geophysics to ground-water investigations. U.S. Geological
Survey, Techniques of water-resource investigations, 116 p.p.
View publication stats

Resistivity in Simple Way PDF

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

Resistivity in Simple Way PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

HOW TO UNDERSTAND THEORETICAL BACKGROUND OF ELECTRICAL

Presentation · April 2018

Firas Hamed AL-Menshed

Detection of cavity in Al Anbar governorate View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

OF ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY METHOD IN A SIMPLE

Dr. Firas Hamed AL-Menshed

Figure (1) Schematic defining variables in equation 2.

This relationship holds for earth materials as well as simple circuits.

Current flow lines

Figure (2) Point source of current at the surface of a homogeneous medium.

The full theory of DC resistivity is set out in geophysical textbooks such as

3. Earth resistance spacing

Figure (4) Coordinates for the 2 electrodes A

In plane, a uniform semi infinite medium (homogeneous and isotropic) there

Wenner array Schlumberger array Dipole-dipole array

+RAM +RBN +RBN

4. Electrical properties of rocks

Earth Material Resistivity range (Ωm)

It is, however, essential to be aware v2e of the large overlaps in resistivity

5.1 Electrode Configurations

5.1.1 Schlumberger array

5.1.2 Wenner array

Schlumberger arrays are generally considered the most suitable configuration

5.1.3 Dipole-dipole arrays:

For the polar dipole - dipole array we have:

5.2 Measuring techniques

5.2.1 Constant Separation Traversing (CST)

5.2.1.1 Horizontal profiling

5.2.1.2 Lateral resistivity mapping

Figure (11) Electrodes array for Rectangle of Resistivity Method.

Another mapping technique called Line-electrode survey as in figure (12)

Figure (12) Layout for line electrode surveys.

5.2.1.3 Azimuthal Resistivity Survey

 Type of array rotation in azimuthal resistivity survey

2- Non-symmetrical azimuthal resistivity survey

Figure (14) Layout of non-symmetrical azimuthal resistivity survey. a) The position of

 Data visualization in azimuthal resistivity survey

Figure (15) Azimuthal resistivity diagram in Cartesian coordinate from (Nunn et

The most common form of data presentation is through polar coordinates,

 Analyzing azimuthal resistivity data

A perfectly anisotropic model has an R2 value of 1, where low values around

5.2.2 Vertical electrical sounding (VES)

The Schlumberger curve then can be rectified and smoothed according

Figure (17) Correct displacement on a Schlumberger sounding curve and method of

b) Near surface inhomogeneities (NSI):

P-effect removing is called normalization. For segmented curve it may be done

Figure (19) P-effect on field VES data.

As a result of P-effect, apparent resistivity pseudo-section looks like

c) The amount of noise present.

5.2.3 Combined VES/CST Surveys

5.2.3.1 DC resistivity imaging techniques

Figure (21) 2-D sensitivity sections for the Wenner array.

1. The Wenner array is relatively sensitive to vertical changes in the subsurface

5.2.3.1.1 Data collection

different electrode separation(s), or compiling quasi - 2D sections from a rather

Figure (24) 3D measuring mode.

3D measuring mode treats successfully 3D structures; however it is expensive

These dense 2D measurements are routinely being interpreted with 2D

This approach of combining dense 2-D measurement with 3D inversion is

5.2.3.1.1.1 Measurement errors