1887
Volume 20, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

ABSTRACT

In this work, we study the performance of cross‐hole electrical resistivity tomography measurements by employing different electrode array configurations in plastic polyvinyl chloride (PVC) cased and horizontally slotted observation boreholes by inserting a multi‐electrode cable directly into the borehole. Preliminary cross‐hole electrical resistivity tomography measurements in PVC cased boreholes related to an underground tunnel construction showed poor data quality. This was attributed to the borehole‐fluid effect caused by the PVC casings. An experimental study was conducted to support this hypothesis by setting up various simulations in a water tank, using different PVC casings with various slot densities, and different electrode array configurations. We conclude that the applicability of various measurement setups depends mainly on the acquisition protocol and, to a lesser extent, on the slot density of the PVC casing. Among the different array configurations considered, the pole–dipole array with the potential measuring electrodes being placed in a separate borehole to the current electrodes provide the most robust and reliable results, even for low slot density PVC casings. Besides, denser borehole slot configurations result in better data quality, though to a different extent for the examined protocols. A minimum slot density criterion of at least six slots/electrode spacing is proposed, regardless of the electrode array. The experimental findings are finally evaluated against real field measurements associated with the construction of an underground tunnel of the new Thessaloniki Metro, verifying the pole–dipole array's superior behaviour for this type of measurement configuration. Finally, for those cases where the aspect ratio (hole depth/hole separation) is limited, we propose a modified borehole‐to‐surface configuration with the current electrodes placed outside the boreholes. The overall results indicate that slotted PVC cased observation boreholes (e.g., conventional piezometers), typically constructed as part of many infrastructure monitoring projects, can be efficiently employed for electrical resistivity tomography mapping, generating a new perspective for geoelectrical prospecting. This measuring approach exhibits a significant advantage. The use of pre‐existing boreholes reduces the overall survey costs, reliability, and effort, while also providing high‐resolution subsurface images, especially in urban environments.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12187
2022-01-14
2022-01-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bellmunt, F., Marcuello, A., Ledo, J., Queralt, P., Falgas, E., Benjumea, B. et al. (2012) Time‐lapse cross‐hole electrical resistivity tomography monitoring effects of an urban tunnel. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 87, 60–70.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. BinleyA., HubbardS. S., HuismanJ. A., RevilA., RobinsonD. A., SinghaK., SlaterL. D. (2015) The emergence of hydrogeophysics for improved understanding of subsurface processes over multiple scales. Water Resources Research, 51, (6), 3837. –3866. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015wr017016
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Binley, A., Keery, J., Slater, L., Barrash, W. and Cardiff, M. (2016) The hydrogeologic information in cross‐borehole complex conductivity data from an unconsolidated conglomeratic sedimentary aquifer. Geophysics, 81, E409–E421.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Binley, A. and Slater, L. (2020) Resistivity and induced polarization: theory and applications to the near‐surface earth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bloem, E., Forquet, N., Søiland, A., Binley, A. and French, H.K., (2020) Towards understanding time‐lapse electrical resistivity signals measured during contaminated snowmelt infiltration. Near Surface Geophysics, 18, 399–412.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Clément, R., Moreau, S., Henine, H., Guérin, A., Chaumont, C. and Tournebize, J., (2014) On the value of combining surface and cross‐borehole ERT measurements to study artificial tile drainage processes. Near Surface Geophysics, 12(6), 763–775.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Coscia, I., Greenhalgh, S.A., Linde, N., Doetsch, J., Marescot, L., Günther, T. et al. (2011) 3D crosshole ERT for aquifer characterization and monitoring of infiltrating river water. Geophysics, 76(2), G49–G59.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Dahlin, T. and Zhou, B. (2006) Multiple‐gradient array measurements for multi‐channel 2D resistivity imaging. Near Surface Geophysics, 4, 113–123.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Daily, W., Ramirez, A., Binley, A., LaBrecque, D. and Butler, D.K. (2005) Electrical resistance tomography—theory and practice. The Leading Edge, 13, 525–550.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Danielsen, B.E., Dahlin, T. and Danielsen, J.E. (2005) Model study of the resolution of resistivity tomography with different electrode arrays. 11th European Meeting of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics.
  11. Deiana, R., Cassiani, G., Kemna, A., Villa, A., Bruno, V. and Bagliani, A. (2007) An experiment of non‐invasive characterization of the vadose zone via water current and cross‐hole time‐lapse geophysical monitoring. Near Surface Geophysics, 5(3), 183–194.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Doetsch, J.A., Coscia, I., Greenhalgh, S., Linde, N., Green, A. and Günther, T. (2010) The borehole‐fluid effect in electrical resistivity imaging. Geophysics, 75, F107–F114.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Goes, B.J.M. and Meekes, J.A.C. (2004) An effective electrode configuration for the detection of DNAPLs with electrical resistivity tomography. Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, 9(3), 127–141.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Karaoulis, M.C., Kim, J.H. and Tsourlos, P.I. (2011) 4D active time constrained resistivity inversion. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 73(1), 25–34.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Kim, J.H. (2017) DC2DPro – User's Manual, KIGAM, KOREA.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Lee, K.S., Cho, I.K. and Kim, Y.J. (2016) Borehole effect in 2.5 D crosshole resistivity tomography. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 135, 212–222.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Leontarakis, K. and Apostolopoulos, G.V. (2012) Laboratory study of the cross‐hole resistivity tomography: the model stacking (MOST) technique. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 80, 67–82.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Leontarakis, K. and Apostolopoulos, G.V. (2013) Model Stacking (MOST) technique applied in cross‐hole ERT field data for the detection of Thessaloniki ancient walls' depth. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 93, 101–113.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Nimmer, R.E., Osiensky, J.L., Binley, A.M. and Williams, B.C. (2008) Three‐dimensional effects causing artifacts in two‐dimensional, cross‐borehole, electrical imaging. Journal of Hydrology, 359(1‐2), 59–70.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Ogilvy, R.D., Kuras, O., Palumbo‐Roe, B., Meldrum, P.I., Wilkinson, P.B., Chambers, J.E. et al. (2009) The detection and tracking of mine–water pollution from abandoned mines using electrical tomography. International Mine Water Conference, Pretoria, South Africa.
  21. Osiensky, J.L., Nimmer, R. and Binley, A.M. (2004) Borehole cylindrical noise during hole–surface and hole–hole resistivity measurements. Journal of Hydrology, 289(1–4), 78–94.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Perri, M.T., Barone, I., Cassiani, G., Deiana, R. and Binley, A. (2020) Borehole effect causing artefacts in cross‐borehole electrical resistivity tomography: a hydraulic fracturing case study. Near Surface Geophysics, 18, 445–462.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Power, C., Gerhard, J.I., Karaoulis, M., Tsourlos, P. and Giannopoulos, A. (2014) Evaluating four‐dimensional time‐lapse electrical resistivity tomography for monitoring DNAPL source zone remediation. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 162, 27–46.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Robinson, J., Buda, A., Collick, A., Shober, A., Ntarlagiannis, D., Bryant, R. et al. (2020) Electrical monitoring of saline tracers to reveal subsurface flow pathways in a flat ditch‐drained field. Journal of Hydrology, 586, 124862.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Ronczka, M., Günther, T., Grinat, M. and Wiederhold, H. (2020) Monitoring freshwater–saltwater interfaces with SAMOS – installation effects on data and inversion. Near Surface Geophysics, 18, 369–383.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Sasaki, Y. (1992) Resolution of resistivity tomography inferred from numerical simulation 1. Geophysical Prospecting, 40(4), 453–463.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Slater, L., Binley, A.M., Daily, W. and Johnson, R. (2000) Cross‐hole electrical imaging of a controlled saline tracer injection. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 44(2–3), 85–102.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Slater, L.D., Binley, A. and Brown, D. (1997) Electrical imaging of fractures using ground‐water salinity change. Groundwater, 35(3), 436–442.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Tso, C.‐H.M., Kuras, O., Wilkinson, P.B., Uhlemann, S., Chambers, J.E., Meldrum, P.I. et al. (2017) Improved characterisation and modelling of measurement errors in electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) surveys. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 146, 103–119.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Tsokas, G.N., Tsourlos, P., Vargemezis, G. and Pazaras, N. (2011) Using surface and cross‐hole resistivity tomography in an urban environment: an example of imaging the foundations of the ancient wall in Thessaloniki, North Greece. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 36(16), 1310–1317.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Tsourlos, P., Ogilvy, R., Papazachos, C. and Meldrum, P. (2011) Measurement and inversion schemes for single borehole‐to‐surface electrical resistivity tomography surveys. Journal of Geophysics and Engineering, 8(4), 487.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Wagner, F.M., Bergmann, P., Rücker, C., Wiese, B., Labitzke, T., Schmidt‐Hattenberger, C. and Maurer, H. (2015) Impact and mitigation of borehole related effects in permanent crosshole resistivity imaging: an example from the Ketzin CO2 storage site. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 123, 102–111.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Wilkinson, P.B., Chambers, J.E., Lelliott, M., Wealthall, G.P. and Ogilvy, R.D. (2008) Extreme sensitivity of crosshole electrical resistivity tomography measurements to geometric errors. Geophysical Journal International, 173, 49–62.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Wilkinson, P.B., Meldrum, P.I., Kuras, O., Chambers, J.E., Holyoake, S.J. and Ogilvy, R.D. (2010) High‐resolution electrical resistivity tomography monitoring of a tracer test in a confined aquifer. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 70(4), 268–276.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Wilkinson, P.B., Uhlemann, S., Meldrum, P.I., Chambers, J.E., Carrière, S., Oxby, L. et al. (2015) Adaptive time‐lapse optimized survey design for electrical resistivity tomography monitoring. Geophysical Journal International, 203, 755–766.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Zhou, B. and Greenhalgh, S.A. (1997) A synthetic study on crosshole resistivity imaging using different electrode arrays. Exploration Geophysics, 28(1/2), 1–5.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Zhou, B. and Greenhalgh, S.A. (2000) Cross‐hole resistivity tomography using different electrode configurations. Geophysical Prospecting, 48(5), 887–912.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Zhou, B., Bouzidi, Y., Ullah, S. and Asim, M. (2020) A full‐range gradient survey for 2D electrical resistivity tomography. Near Surface Geophysics, 18, 609–626.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12187
Loading
/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12187
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error