1887
Volume 63, Issue 2
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

A new array type, i.e., the γ arrays, is introduced in this paper, in which the sequence of the current (C) and potential (P) electrodes is CPCP, and the distance between the last two electrodes is times the distance between the first two ones and that of the second one and the third one. These arrays are called quasinull arrays because they are—according to their array and behaviour—between the traditional and null arrays. It is shown by numerical modelling that, in detecting small‐effect inhomogeneity, these configurations may be more effective than the traditional ones, including the optimized Stummer configuration. Certain γ configurations—especially the γ, γ and γ—produced better results both in horizontal and vertical resolution investigations. Based on the numerical studies, the γ configurations seem to be very promising in problems where the anomalies are similar to the numerically investigated ones, i.e., they can detect and characterize, e.g., tunnels, caves, cables, tubes, abandoned riverbeds, or discontinuity, in a clay layer with greater efficacy than those of the traditional configurations. γ measurements need less data than traditional configurations; therefore, the time demand of electrical resistivity tomography measurements can be shortened by their use.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12215
2014-12-07
2024-03-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AlpinL.M., BerdichevskiiM.N., VedrintsevG.A. and ZagarmistrA.M.1966. Dipole Methods for Measuring Earth Conductivity, pp. 302. Consultants Bureau, New York.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. ButlerD.K.2005. Near‐Surface Geophysics, pp. 355. SEG, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. ClarkA.J.1990. Seeing Beneath the Soil, pp. 176. B.T. Batshford Ltd., London.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. EarthImager
    EarthImager2006. 2D Resistivity and IP Inversion Software Instruction Manual, pp. 137. Advanced Geosciences, Inc. Austin, Texas, USA.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. EdwardsL.S.1977. A modified pseudosection for resistivity and induced‐polarization. Geophysics42, 1020–1036.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. FalcoP., NegroF., SzalaiS. and MilnesE.2013. Fracture characterisation using geoelectric null‐configurations. Journal of Applied Geophysics93, 33–42.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. FurmanA., FerréT.P.A. and WarrickA.W.2003. A sensitivity analysis of electrical resistance‐ tomography array types using analytical element modeling. Vadose Zone Journal2, 416–423.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. FurmanA., FerréT.P.A. and WarrickA.W.2004. Optimization of ERT surveys for monitoring transient hydrological events using perturbation sensitivity and genetic algorithms. Vadose Zone Journal3, pp. 1230–1239.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. KirschR.2006. Groundwater Geophysics, pp. 493. Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. KnödelK., KrummelH. and LangeG.2005. Band 3. Handbuch zur Erkundung des Untergrundes von Deponien und Altlasten, 2nd edn, pp. 128. Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. LeontarakisK. and ApostolopoulosG.V.2012. Laboratory study of the cross‐hole resistivity tomography: the model stacking (MOST) technique. Journal of Applied Geophysics80, 67–82.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. LeontarakisK. and ApostolopoulosG.V.2013. Model stacking (MOST) technique applied in cross‐hole ERT field data for the detection of Thessaloniki ancient walls’ depth.Journal of Applied Geophysics93, 101–113.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. MetwalyM., El‐QadyG., MatsushimaJ., SzalaiS., Al‐ArifiN.S.N. and TahaA.2008. Contribution of 3‐D electrical resistivity tomography for landmines detection. Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics15, 977–986.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. OldenburgD.W. and LiY.1999. Estimating depth of investigation in dc resistivity and IP surveys. Geophysics64(2), 403–416.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. RoyA. and ApparaoA.1971. Depth of investigation in direct current methods. Geophysics36, 943–959.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. StummerP., MaurerH. and GreenA.G.2004. Experimental design: electrical resistivity data sets that provide optimum subsurface information. Geophysics69(1), 120–139.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. SzalaiS., KoppánA., SzokoliK. and SzarkaL.2013a. Geoelectric imaging properties of traditional arrays and of the optimized Stummer configuration. Near‐Surface Geophysics11, 51–62.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. SzalaiS., KósaI., NagyT. and SzarkaL.2009a. Effectivity enhancement of azimuthal geoelectric measurements in determination of multiple directions of subsurface fissures, on basis of analogue modelling experiments. 15th European Meeting of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, Proceedings & Exhibitors’ Catalogue Near Surface 2009, P25.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. SzalaiS., LempergerI., MetwalyM., KisÁ., WesztergomV., SzokoliK. and NovákA.2014. Multiplication of the depth of detectability using γ11n arrays. Journal of Applied Geophysics107, 195–206.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. SzalaiS., NovákA. and SzarkaL.2009b. Depth of investigation and vertical resolution of surface geoelectric arrays. Journal of Engineering and Environmental Geophysics14, 15–23.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. SzalaiS., NovákA. and SzarkaL.2011. Which geoelectric array sees the deepest in a noisy environment? Depth of detectability values of multielectrode systems for various two‐dimensional models. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth36, 1398–1404.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. SzalaiS., SzarkaL., MarquisG., SailhacP., KaikkonenP. and LahtiI.2004. Colinear null arrays in Geoelectrics. Proceedings of the 17th S.3‐P.3 IAGA WG 1.2 on Electromagnetic Induction in the Earth Workshop, Hyderabad, India.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. SzalaiS., SzarkaL., PrácserE., BoschF., MüllerI. and TurbergP.2002. Geoelectric mapping of near‐surface karstic fractures by using null‐arrays. Geophysics67, 1769–1778.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. SzalaiS. and SzarkaL.2008a. On the classification of surface geoelectric arrays. Geophysical Prospecting56, 159–175.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. SzalaiS. and SzarkaL.2008b. Parameter sensitivity maps of surface geoelectric arrays, I. linear arrays. Acta Geodaetica et Geophysica Hungarica43(4), 419–437.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. SzalaiS. and SzarkaL.2008c. Parameter sensitivity maps of surface geoelectric arrays, II. Nonlinear and focussed arrays. Acta Geodaetica et Geophysica Hungarica43(4), 439–447.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Van NostrandR.G. and CookK.L.1966. Interpretation of resistivity data. In: Geological Survey Professional Paper 499. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. WardS.H.1990. Geotechnical and Environmental Geophysics, Vol. I. Review and Tutorial. SEG, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. WilkinsonP.B., MeldrumP.I., ChambersJ.E., KurasO. and OgilvyR.D.2006. Improved strategies for the automatic selection of optimised sets of electrical resistivity tomography measurement configurations. International Journal of Geophysics, 1119–1126.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. ZhdanovM.S. and KellerG.V.1993. The Geoelectrical Methods in Geophysical Exploration, pp. 973. Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12215
Loading
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12215
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

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