Docu

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 12

Skip to main content

An official website of the United States government


Here’s how you know
Here’s how you know
Menu

Electrical Resistivity
Basic Concept

The basis for electrical resistivity methods is that an electrical potential difference
(i.e., voltage) forms around current-carrying electrodes that are implanted within a
conductive medium. The voltage distribution surrounding current electrodes that
are driven into the subsurface depends the electrical resistivities of the
subsurface materials and their spatial variations. Thus, electrical resistivity
methods can be used to detect lateral and/or vertical variations in certain
subsurface electrical properties (i.e., resistivity or its inverse, conductivity).

Electrical resistivity methods involve injecting electrical current into the subsurface
via two current electrodes and measuring the potential difference across two
potential electrodes. A single resistivity measurement requires four electrodes
coupled to the ground and yields the apparent resistivity of the materials located
between the potential electrodes. Resistivity surveys typically employ multiple
electrode pairs in various arrays (i.e., spatial geometries), which are selected
based on site parameters and/or survey applications (Binley, 2015).

Theory

Electrical resistivity methods measure the ability of electrical current to flow


through the subsurface. Thus, resistivity methods require electrical connection
(i.e., galvanic coupling) with the ground, and this is achieved with the use of metal
electrodes. Typically, a battery-run power supply is used to apply a direct current
(DC) between two designated current electrodes implanted in the ground. For
each resistivity measurement, the transmitted current and subsequent voltage
induced across the potential electrodes are recorded.

Typically, a resistivity meter (i.e., combination ammeter-voltmeter) collects the


data and has a calculated output displayed as the ratio of measured voltage to
induced current. Ohm’s Law, which is defined as V = IR, relates current (I) and
voltage (V) data to the resistance (R) of the material(s) being
measured. However, resistance is not a diagnostic material criterion, as it varies
with material type and shape. Thus, resistivity methods customarily present and
interpret data as apparent resistivity values.
Conceptual diagram of a 1D Schlumberger array consisting of current electrodes
(C+ and C-), potential electrodes (P1 and P2), a voltmeter, a battery, and a
current meter. Ohms law is observed as resistivity (R) equal to voltage (V) over
current (I). (USGS stock image)

Apparent resistivity (ρa) is the value of resistivity (in ohm-m) that an electrically
homogeneous and isotropic half-space would yield given the arrangement and
spacing of electrodes. Because resistivity surveys collect subsurface
measurements, resistivity data represent a half-space, which excludes any space
above the surface that, if added, would render a whole space. Apparent resistivity
calculations involve a geometric factor, which depends on the electrode array and
spacing, that corrects a measured resistance (in ohm) for a given electrode
configuration (Mussett, 2000).

Many different array geometries exist. The most commonly used arrays are the
Wenner, Schlumberger, reverse-Schlumberger, gradient, dipole-dipole, or
combinations of these. The array employed at a site is chosen based the survey
objectives, predicted resistivity structure (e.g., lateral vs vertical variation), and/or
target depth. The depth of investigation (DOI) of a resistivity measurement is the
depth below which data are insensitive to subsurface resistivity and generally
varies with electrode array geometry.
In a uniform medium, the Wenner, dipole-dipole, and Schlumberger arrays have
DOIs that are approximately 30%, 25%, and 20% of their current electrode
separation, respectively. Thus, electrode spacing can be manipulated to achieve
sufficient depth. However, such processes are rather general, and site-specific
DOI evaluation techniques can be employed during data inversion. In such
techniques, various input models are compared to output models to determine the
depth beyond which subsurface resistivity are no longer constrained by the data
(Oldenberg and Li, 1999).

Applications

Apparent resistivity data can be initially plotted in a pseudosection, which displays


data relative to traverse position and depth below land surface. Each apparent
resistivity value is plotted at the intersection point of 45° lines drawn from
midpoints of the corresponding current and potential electrode pairs. Though
useful, pseudosections have limited value. Thus, electrical resistivity data are
often analyzed further using numerical inversion algorithms (see inverse
modeling) to determine depth-dependent resistivity variations in two-dimensional
profiles (i.e., tomographs) and/or three-dimensional volumes.

Each resistivity measurement represents the weighted average of the resistivity


over a large volume of material whereby the material nearer to the electrodes
contribute more heavily. Thus, when dealing with large areas of investigation that
incorporate long electrode spacing, resistivity data typically do not produce high
resolution interpretations. Generally, the survey resolution is one half the
electrode spacing. But while electrode spacing can be reduced to improve
resolution, increasing resolution subsequently reduces the DOI.

Comparable to other potential-field geophysical methods, electrical resistivity


methods deal with issues of data equivalence, where a particular voltage
distribution at the ground surface may not have a unique interpretation (i.e.,
various subsurface resistivity structures can produce similar datasets). Therefore,
inverse modeling, advanced interpretation, and incorporating all known site
information is required for the most comprehensive survey results that lead to the
most geologically reasonable interpretations of the subsurface structure.

The mineral grains that comprise soil and rock are essentially nonconductive (i.e.,
highly resistive). Resistivity tends to decrease with the presence of certain ore
minerals, fine grain materials (e.g., clay minerals), and high temperatures.
However, subsurface resistivity prominently depends on the amount of fluid
present in pores and/or fractures and the dissolved solids within it the fluid. Thus,
resistivity surveys are typically used to map the variations of rocks and/or
sediments that occur concurrently with changes in porosity.

Additionally, electrical resistivity methods have been successfully applied to the


following:

 Groundwater prospecting/Aquifer characterization studies


 Salt-water/Contamination studies
 Saturation and salinity estimation
 Time-series/Infiltration/Remediation monitoring
 Mineral exploration
 Fault/fracture zone identification
 Archaeological surveys
 Karst investigations/Void detection
 Assessing anisotropy through azimuthal surveys
ERT survey conducted in June 2017 to assess the potential for unconventional oil
and gas (UOG) waste water retention along the North Dakotan Blacktail Creek
corridor as part of a larger evaluation of a post-spill period.
(https://doi.org/10.5066/P961J30G)
Examples/Case studies

Aylsworth Jr, R.L., Van Dam, R.L., Larson, G.J., and Jessee, M.A., 2016,
Characterizing large-scale glaciotectonic sediment deformation using electrical
resistivity methods: Journal of Geophysics and Engineering, v. 13:2, p. S39-S49,
doi:10.1088/1742-2132/13/2/S39.

Abstract: Large-scale sediment deformation structures formed by glaciotectonic


processes have been identified south of Ludington, USA. Here, several apparent
clay diapirs rise from below beach level to near the top of an approximately 60 m
high bluff along the eastern shore of Lake Michigan. Throughout the area, the
surface topography and locations of springs indicate a complicated subsurface
structure and a preferred pattern of groundwater drainage. Since public borehole
information is sparse, it is not known whether the structures exposed in the bluff
are true diapirs or ridges, and if the latter, what is their orientation. In this paper
we present the results of field, laboratory, and modeling studies to characterize
the inland extent and orientation of these deformation structures using galvanic-
source electrical geophysical methods. We exploit the large electrical contrast
between a sandy sedimentary layer and an underlying clayey silt sedimentary
layer in which the deformation occurred. Constant-spread traverses and multi-
electrode tomographic data demonstrate that at least one of the narrow structures
extends a significant distance inland.

Chambers, J.E., Kuras, O., Meldrum, P.I., Ogilvy, R.D., and Hollands, J., 2006,
Electrical resistivity tomography applied to geologic, hydrogeologic, and
engineering investigations at a former waste-disposal site: Geophysics, v. 71:6, p.
1ND-Z126, doi:10.1190/1.2360184.

Abstract: A former dolerite quarry and landfill site was investigated using 2D and
3D electrical resistivity tomography (ERT), with the aims of determining buried
quarry geometry, mapping bedrock contamination arising from the landfill, and
characterizing site geology. Resistivity data were collected from a network of
intersecting survey lines using a Wenner-based array configuration. Inversion of
the data was carried out using 2D and 3D regularized least-squares optimization
methods with robust (L1-norm) model constraints. For this site, where high
resistivity contrasts were present, robust model constraints produced a more
accurate recovery of subsurface structures when compared to the use of smooth
(L2-norm) constraints. Integrated 3D spatial analysis of the ERT and conventional
site investigation data proved in this case a highly effective means of
characterizing the landfill and its environs. The 3D resistivity model was
successfully used to confirm the position of the landfill boundaries, which
appeared as electrically well-defined features that corresponded extremely
closely to both historic maps and intrusive site investigation data. A potential zone
of leachate migration from the landfill was identified from the electrical models;
the location of this zone was consistent with the predicted direction of
groundwater flow across the site. Unquarried areas of a dolerite sill were imaged
as a resistive sheet-like feature, while the fault zone appeared in the 2D resistivity
model as a dipping structure defined by contrasting bedrock resistivities.
Fadillah, T., Gross, L., and Schaa, R., 2018, Estimation of Aquifer Properties
Using Surface Based Electrical Resistivity Tomography, doi:10.3997/2214-
4609.201800374.

Abstract: Aquifer characterization such as hydraulic conductivity (K) is necessary


due to groundwater sustainability for agriculture industry. The current method for
calculating K is to conduct a pumping test or a permeability test. This study is
trying to find an alternative method to obtain a K value by determining the
correlation between water and aquifer resistivity which is conducted in the
laboratory and field scale. The aquifer resistivity is gathered from Electrical
Resistivity Tomography (ERT) and the water resistivity from direct measurement.
The correlation can perform the Kozeny–Carman equation, which is modified from
Archie and Waxman–Smits formulas, to estimate the hydraulic conductivity. The
hydraulic conductivity estimation is compared with the hydraulic conductivity value
from the permeability and pumping test solutions. The measurement result
showed 12.63 m/day, which was similar to the permeability test with 10.3 m/day.
However, the field result revealed 14.07 m/day, while the pumping test indicated
24.5 m/day. An analysis has been conducted with the fact that geological
condition, grain size, and water resistivity have a significant contribution to the
result. Nevertheless, the outcome of the ERT profile can be an alternative method
to get an estimation of K that is more efficient, yet not offensive.

Lane Jr., J.W., Haeni, F.P., and Watson, W.M., 1995, Use of a Square‐Array
Direct‐Current Resistivity Method to Detect Fractures in Crystalline Bedrock in
New Hampshire: Groundwater, v. 33, no. 3, p. 476-485, doi:10.1111/j.1745-
6584.1995.tb00304.x.

Abstract: Azimuthal square‐array direct‐current (dc) resistivity soundings were


used to detect fractures in bedrock in the Mirror Lake watershed in Grafton
County, New Hampshire. Soundings were conducted at a site where crystalline
bedrock underlies approximately 7 m (meters) of glacial drift. Measured apparent
resistivities changed with the orientation of the array. Graphical interpretation of
the square‐array data indicates that a dominant fracture set and (or) foliation in
the bedrock is oriented at 030° (degrees). Interpretation of crossed square‐array
data indicates an orientation of 027° and an anisotropy factor of 1.31. Assuming
that anisotropy is due to fractures, the secondary porosity is estimated to range
from 0.01 to 0.10. Interpretations of azimuthal square‐array data are supported by
other geophysical data, including azimuthal seismic‐refraction surveys and
azimuthal Schlumberger dc‐resistivity soundings at the Camp Osceola well field.
Dominant fracture trends indicated by these geophysical methods are 022°
(seismic‐refraction) and 037° (dc‐resistivity). Fracture mapping of bedrock
outcrops at a site within 250 m indicates that the maximum fracture‐strike
frequency is oriented at 030°. The square‐array dc‐resistivity sounding method is
more sensitive to a given rock anisotropy than the more commonly used
Schlumberger and Wenner arrays. An additional advantage of the square‐array
method is that it requires about 65 percent less surface area than an equivalent
survey using a Schlumberger or Wenner array.
Maurya, P.K., Rønde, V.K., Fiandaca, G., Balbarini, N., Auken, E., Bjerg, P.L.,
and Christiansen, A.V., 2017, Detailed landfill leachate plume mapping using 2D
and 3D electrical resistivity tomography - with correlation to ionic strength
measured in screens: Journal of Applied Geophysics, v. 138, p. 1-8,
doi:10.1016/j.jappgeo.2017.01.019.

Abstract: Leaching of organic and inorganic contamination from landfills is a


serious environmental problem as surface water and aquifers are affected. In
order to assess these risks and investigate the migration of leachate from the
landfill, 2D and large scale 3D electrical resistivity tomography were used at a
heavily contaminated landfill in Grindsted, Denmark. The inverted 2D profiles
describe both the variations along the groundwater flow as well as the plume
extension across the flow directions. The 3D inversion model shows the variability
in the low resistivity anomaly pattern corresponding to differences in the ionic
strength of the landfill leachate. Chemical data from boreholes agree well with the
observations indicating a leachate plume which gradually sinks and increases in
size while migrating from the landfill in the groundwater flow direction. Overall
results show that the resistivity method has been very successful in delineating
the landfill leachate plume and that good correlation exists between the resistivity
model and leachate ionic strength.

Mosuro, G.O., Omosanya, K.O., Bayewy, O.O., Oloruntola, M.O., Laniyan, T.A.,
Atobi, O., Okubena, M., and Popoola, E., 2017, Assessment of groundwater
vulnerability to leachate infiltration using electrical resistivity method: Applied
Water Science, v. 7:5, p. 2195-2207, doi:10.1007/s13201-016-0393-4.

Abstract: This aim of this work is to assess the degree of leachate infiltration at a
dumpsite in Agbara industrial estate, Southwestern Nigeria using electrical
resistivity techniques. Around the dumpsite were 45 vertical electrical sounding
(VES) stations and 3 electrical resistivity tomography profiles. Current electrode
spread varied from 300 to 600 m for the electrical sounding. Electrode
configuration includes Schlumberger and Wenner array for sounding and profiling.
The state of leachate contamination was tested using parameters such as aquifer
vulnerability index, overburden protective capacity and longitudinal unit
conductance (Si) derived from the apparent resistivity values. Four principal
geoelectric layers inferred from the VES data include the topsoil, sand, clayey
sand, and clay/shale. Resistivity values for these layers vary from 3 to 1688, 203
to 3642 123 to 388, and 67 to 2201 Ω m with corresponding thickness of 0.8–2.4,
2.5–140, 3–26 m and infinity, respectively. The leachate plume occurs at a
maximum depth of 10 m on the 2-D inverse models of real electrical resistivity
with an average depth of infiltration being 6 m in the study area. The correlation
between longitudinal conductance and overburden protective capacity show that
aquifers around the dumpsite have poor protective capacity and are vulnerable to
leachate contamination. Leachate infiltration is favored by the absence of
lithological barriers such as clay which in the study area are either mixed with
sand or positioned away from the aquifer.
Nawikas, J.M., O’Leary, D.R., Izbicki, J.A., and Burgess, M.K., 2016, Selected
techniques for monitoring water movement through unsaturated alluvium during
managed aquifer recharge: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2016-1180,
8 p., doi:10.3133/ofr20161180.

Abstract: Managed aquifer recharge is used to augment natural recharge to


aquifers. It can be used to replenish aquifers depleted by pumping or to store
water during wetter years for withdrawal during drier years. Infiltration from ponds
is a commonly used, inexpensive approach for managed aquifer recharge. At
some managed aquifer-recharge sites, the time when infiltrated water arrives at
the water table is not always clearly shown by water-level data. As part of site
characterization and operation, it can be desirable to track downward movement
of infiltrated water through the unsaturated zone to identify when it arrives at the
water table.

Zhou, W., Beck, B.F., and Adams, A.L., 2002, Effective electrode array in
mapping karst hazards in electrical resistivity tomography: Environmental
Geology, v. 42:8, p. 922-928, doi:10.1007/s00254-002-0594-z.

Abstract: When conducting environmental and engineering investigations in karst


terranes, engineers and geologists often supplement exploratory borehole results
with data gathered from surface geophysics to reduce the site-characterization
cost and establish the most useful locations for borings or samples. When
conducting resistivity investigations, a frequently occurring problem is the need to
determine which of the many existing electrode configurations will respond best to
the material changes in karst features. Each array has its advantages and
disadvantages in terms of depth of investigation, sensitivity to horizontal or
vertical variations, and signal strength. In the application presented in this paper,
numerical forward modeling was conducted of dipole–dipole, Schlumberger, and
Wenner arrays, and they produced markedly different anomaly shapes for a
conceptual model of the development of a cover-collapse sinkhole. The resolution
of the three above-mentioned arrays was further evaluated along a section of I-70
near Frederick, Maryland, where a sinkhole had occurred in the median of the
highway. The image from the dipole–dipole array appeared to be better than
those from the Wenner and Schlumerger arrays in displaying the sinkhole
collapse area. However, they are all less effective than a mixed array, in which
apparent resistivities from all the three arrays are combined and processed
together in the model. Because the mixed array requires a significant increase in
data collection, the dipole–dipole array appears to be the most effective and less
costly configuration in mapping karst hazards areas. This conclusion was then
confirmed by two case studies.

References

Aylsworth Jr, R.L., Van Dam, R.L., Larson, G.J., and Jessee, M.A., 2016,
Characterizing large scale glaciotectonic sediment deformation using electrical
resistivity methods: Journal of Geophysics and Engineering, v. 13:2, p. S39-S49,
doi:10.1088/1742-2132/13/2/S39.
Binley, A., 2015, Tools and Techniques: Electrical Methods, in Schubert, G., ed.,
Treatise on Geophysics: Cambridge, MA, Elsevier Science, v. 11, p. 233–259,
doi:10.1016/B978-0-444-53802-4.00192-5.

Chambers, J.E., Kuras, O., Meldrum, P.I., Ogilvy, R.D., and Hollands, J., 2006,
Electrical resistivity tomography applied to geologic, hydrogeologic, and
engineering investigations at a former waste-disposal site: Geophysics, v. 71:6, p.
1ND-Z126, doi:10.1190/1.2360184.

Fadillah, T., Gross, L., and Schaa, R., 2018, Estimation of Aquifer Properties
Using Surface Based Electrical Resistivity Tomography, doi:10.3997/2214-
4609.201800374.

Lane Jr., J.W., Haeni, F.P., and Watson, W.M., 1995, Use of a Square‐Array
Direct‐Current Resistivity Method to Detect Fractures in Crystalline Bedrock in
New Hampshire: Groundwater, v. 33, no. 3, p. 476-485, doi:10.1111/j.1745-
6584.1995.tb00304.x.

Maurya, P.K., Rønde, V.K., Fiandaca, G., Balbarini, N., Auken, E., Bjerg, P.L.,
and Christiansen, A.V., 2017, Detailed landfill leachate plume mapping using 2D
and 3D electrical resistivity tomography - with correlation to ionic strength
measured in screens: Journal of Applied Geophysics, v. 138, p. 1-8,
doi:10.1016/j.jappgeo.2017.01.019.

Mosuro, G.O., Omosanya, K.O., Bayewy, O.O., Oloruntola, M.O., Laniyan, T.A.,
Atobi, O., Okubena, M., and Popoola, E., 2017, Assessment of groundwater
vulnerability to leachate infiltration using electrical resistivity method: Applied
Water Science, v. 7:5, p. 2195-2207, doi:10.1007/s13201-016-0393-4.

Mussett, A.E. and Khan, M.A., 2000, Looking Into The Earth: An Introduction to
Geological Geophysics: New York, Cambridge University Press, 470 p.

Nawikas, J.M., O’Leary, D.R., Izbicki, J.A., and Burgess, M.K., 2016, Selected
techniques for monitoring water movement through unsaturated alluvium during
managed aquifer recharge: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2016-1180,
8 p., doi:10.3133/ofr20161180.

Oldenburg, D.W., and Li, Y., 1999, Estimating depth of investigation in DC


resistivity and IP surveys: Geophysics, v. 64, no. 2, p. 403-416,
doi:10.1190/1.1444545.

Zhou, W., Beck, B.F., and Adams, A.L., 2002, Effective electrode array in
mapping karst hazards in electrical resistivity tomography: Environmental
Geology, v. 42:8, p. 922-928, doi:10.1007/s00254-002-0594-z.
Environmental Geophysics
Last updated on March 28, 2024

 Assistance
 Ayuda
 ‫مساعدة‬
 帮助 (简体版)
 幫助 (繁體版)
 Aide
 Asistans
 지원
 Assistência
 Помощь
 Tulong
 Trợ Giúp

Discover.

 Accessibility Statement
 Budget & Performance
 Contracting
 EPA www Web Snapshot
 Grants
 No FEAR Act Data
 Plain Writing
 Privacy
 Privacy and Security Notice

Connect.

 Data
 Inspector General
 Jobs
 Newsroom
 Regulations.gov
 Subscribe
 USA.gov
 White House
Ask.

 Contact EPA
 EPA Disclaimers
 Hotlines
 FOIA Requests
 Frequent Questions

Follow.





You might also like