1887
Volume 65, Issue 5
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

In this paper, we discuss the effects of anomalous out‐of‐plane bodies in two‐dimensional (2D) borehole‐to‐surface electrical resistivity tomography with numerical resistivity modelling and synthetic inversion tests. The results of the two groups of synthetic resistivity model tests illustrate that anomalous bodies out of the plane of interest have an effect on two‐dimensional inversion and that the degree of influence of out‐of‐plane body on inverted images varies. The different influences are derived from two cases. One case is different resistivity models with the same electrode array, and the other case is the same resistivity model with different electrode arrays. Qualitative interpretation based on the inversion tests shows that we cannot find a reasonable electrode array to determine the best inverse solution and reveal the subsurface resistivity distribution for all types of geoelectrical models. Because of the three‐dimensional effect arising from neighbouring anomalous bodies, the qualitative interpretation of inverted images from the two‐dimensional inversion of electrical resistivity tomography data without prior information can be misleading. Two‐dimensional inversion with drilling data can decrease the three‐dimensional effect. We employed two‐ and three‐dimensional borehole‐to‐surface electrical resistivity tomography methods with a pole–pole array and a bipole–bipole array for mineral exploration at Abag Banner and Hexigten Banner in Inner Mongolia, China. Different inverse schemes were carried out for different cases. The subsurface resistivity distribution obtained from the two‐dimensional inversion of the field electrical resistivity tomography data with sufficient prior information, such as drilling data and other non‐electrical data, can better describe the actual geological situation. When there is not enough prior information to carry out constrained two‐dimensional inversion, the three‐dimensional electrical resistivity tomography survey is the better choice.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12476
2016-11-18
2020-08-04
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AizebeokhaiA., OlayinkaA., SinghV. and OyebanjoO.2013. Experimental evaluation of 3D geoelectrical resistivity imaging using orthogonal 2D profiles. 13th South African Geophysical Association Biennial Conference & Exhibition.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. AlumbaughD.L. and NewmanG.A.2000. Image appraisal for 2‐D and 3‐D electromagnetic inversion. Geophysics65, 1455–1467.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. BasokurA.T., RasmussenT.M., KayaC., AltunY. and AktasK.1997. Comparison of induced polarization and controlled‐source audio‐magnetotellurics methods for massive chalcopyrite exploration in a volcanic area. Geophysics62, 1087–1096.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. BentleyL.R. and GharibiM.2004. Two‐ and three‐dimensional electrical resistivity imaging at a heterogeneous remediation site. Geophysics69, 674–680.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. BingZ. and GreenhalghS.A.1999. Explicit expressions and numerical calculations for the Frechet and second derivatives in 2.5D Helmholtz equation inversion. Geophysical Prospecting47, 443–468.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. BingZ. and GreenhalghS.A.2000. Cross‐hole resistivity tomography using different electrode configurations. Geophysical Prospecting48, 887–912.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. BingZ. and GreenhalghS.A.2001. Finite element three‐dimensional direct current resistivity modelling: accuracy and efficiency considerations. Geophysical Journal International145, 679–688.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. CaterinaD., HermansT. and NguyenF.2014. Case studies of incorporation of prior information in electrical resistivity tomography: comparison of different approaches. Near Surface Geophysics12, 451–465.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. ChangP.Y., ChenC.C., ChangS.K., WangT.B., WangC.Y. and HsuS.K.2012. An investigation into the debris flow induced by Typhoon Morakot in the Siaolin Area, Southern Taiwan, using the electrical resistivity imaging method. Geophysical Journal International188, 1012–1024.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. CoggonJ.1971. Electromagnetic and electrical modeling by the finite element method. Geophysics36, 132–155.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. De Groot‐HedlinC. and ConstableS.1990. Occam's inversion to generate smooth, two‐dimensional models from magnetotelluric data. Geophysics55, 1613–1624.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. DemirciI., ErdoganE. and CandansayarM.E.2012. Two‐dimensional inversion of direct current resistivity data incorporating topography by using finite difference techniques with triangle cells: investigation of Kera fault zone in western Crete. Geophysics77, E67–E75.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. DeyA. and MorrisonH.1979a. Resistivity modelling for arbitrarily shaped two‐dimensional structures. Geophysical Prospecting27, 106–136.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. DeyA. and MorrisonH.F.1979b. Resistivity modeling for arbitrarily shaped three‐dimensional structures. Geophysics44, 753–780.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. EllisR.G. and OldenburgD.W.1994. Applied geophysical inversion. Geophysical Journal International116, 5–11.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. FikosI., VargemezisG., ZlotnickiJ., PuertollanoJ.R., AlanisP.B., PigtainR.C.et al. 2012. Electrical resistivity tomography study of Taal volcano hydrothermal system, Philippines. Bulletin of Volcanology74, 1821–1831.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. FriedelS.2003. Resolution, stability and efficiency of resistivity tomography estimated from a generalized inverse approach. Geophysical Journal International153, 305–316.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. HermansT.2010. The use of a priori information in electrical resistivity tomography for salt water intrusion studies at the Belgian coast. PhD dissertation, Université de Liège, Belgium.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. HermansT., VandenbohedeA., LebbeL., MartinR., KemnaA., BeaujeanJ.et al. 2012a. Imaging artificial salt water infiltration using electrical resistivity tomography constrained by geostatistical data. Journal of Hydrology438–439, 168–180.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. HermansT., VandenbohedeA., LebbeL. and NguyenF.2012b. A shallow geothermal experiment in a sandy aquifer monitored using electric resistivity tomography. Geophysics77, B11–B21.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. HvoždaraM.2012. The boundary integral method for the DC geoelectric problem in the 3‐layered earth with a prismoid inhomogeneity in the second layer. Contributions to Geophysics and Geodesy42, 313–343.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. LeeC.C., YangC.H., LiuH.C., WenK.L., WangZ.B. and ChenY.J.2008. A study of the hydrogeological environment of the lishan landslide area using resistivity image profiling and borehole data. Engineering Geology98, 115–125.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. LehmannP., GambazziF., SuskiB., BaronL., AskarinejadA., SpringmanS.M.et al. 2013. Evolution of soil wetting patterns preceding a hydrologically induced landslide inferred from electrical resistivity survey and point measurements of volumetric water content and pore water pressure. Water Resources Research49, 7992–8004.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. LokeM. and BarkerR.1995. Least‐squares deconvolution of apparent resistivity pseudosections. Geophysics60, 1682–1690.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. LokeM.H.2001. Tutorial: 2D and 3D electrical imaging surveys. Penang, Malaysia, Universiti Sains Malaysia. Unpublished course notes, http://www.geoelectric.com.
  26. LokeM.H. and BarkerR.D.1996a. Practical techniques for 3D resistivity surveys and data inversion. Geophysical Prospecting44, 499–523.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. LokeM.H. and BarkerR.D.1996b. Rapid least‐squares inversion of apparent resistivity pseudosections by a quasi‐Newton method. Geophysical Prospecting44, 131–152.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. LokeM.H. and DahlinT.2002. A comparison of the Gauss‐Newton and quasi‐Newton methods in resistivity imaging inversion. Journal of Applied Geophysics49, 149–162.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. LongH., MizunagaH. and UshijimaK.2006. Borehole‐to‐surface electrical data interpretation at Takigami geothermal field in Kyushu, Japan using neural network. In: SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2006, pp. 1318–1322. Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. MackieR.L. and MaddenT.R.1993. Three‐dimensional magnetotelluric inversion using conjugate gradients. Geophysical Journal International115, 215–229.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. MaitiS., ErramV.C., GuptaG. and TiwariR.K.2012. ANN based inversion of DC resistivity data for groundwater exploration in hard rock terrain of western Maharashtra (India). Journal of Hydrology464, 294–308.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. MarescotL. and LokeM.H.2003. Using the depth of investigation index method in 2D resistivity imaging for civil engineering surveys. In: Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems 2004, pp. 540–547.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Martinez‐PaganP., CanoA.F., da SilvaG.R.R. and OlivaresA.B.2010. 2‐D electrical resistivity imaging to assess slurry pond subsoil pollution in the Southeastern Region of Murcia, Spain. Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics15, 29–47.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. MeijerinkJ.A. and van der VorstH.A.1977. An iterative solution method for linear systems of which the coefficient matrix is a symmetric M‐matrix. Mathematics of Computation31, 148–162.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. MetwalyM., KhalilM.A., Al‐SayedE. and El‐KenawyA.2013. Tracing subsurface oil pollution leakage using 2D electrical resistivity tomography. Arabian Journal of Geosciences6, 3527–3533.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. MizunagaH. and UshijimaK.1991. Three‐dimensional numerical modeling for the mise‐à‐la‐masse method. Geophysical Exploration44, 215–226.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. MizunagaH., AonoT. and UshijimaK.2003. Three‐dimensional inversion of the mise‐à‐la‐masse data using a directional borehole. Geophysical Exploration56, 209–218.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. MizunagaH., TanakaT., UshijimaK. and IkedaN.2006. Fluid‐flow monitoring by a 4‐D geoelectrical techniques. In: Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems 2006. Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
  39. MorleyL.W.1975. Mining and Groundwater Geophysics.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. MuchingamiI., HlatywayoD.J., NelJ.M. and ChumaC.2012. Electrical resistivity survey for groundwater investigations and shallow subsurface evaluation of the basaltic‐greenstone formation of the urban Bulawayo aquifer. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth50–52, 44–51.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. MuftiI.R.1976. Finite‐difference resistivity modeling for arbitrarily shaped two‐dimensional structures. Geophysics41, 62–78.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. ÖzürlanG., CandansayarM.E. and ŞahinM.H.2006. Deep resistivity structure of the Dikili‐Bergama region, west Anatolia, revealed by two‐dimensional inversion of vertical electrical sounding data. Geophysical Prospecting54, 187–197.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. ParasnisD.S.2014. Mining Geophysics. Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. PerroneA., LapennaV. and PiscitelliS.2014. Electrical resistivity tomography technique for landslide investigation: a review. Earth‐Science Reviews135, 65–82.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. PooleE.L. and OrtegaJ.M.1987. Multicolor ICCG methods for vector computers. SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis24, 1394–1418.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. RodiW. and MackieR.L.2001. Nonlinear conjugate gradients algorithm for 2‐D magnetotelluric inversion. Geophysics66, 174–187.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. RodiW.L.1976. A technique for improving the accuracy of finite element solutions for magnetotelluric data. Geophysical Journal International44, 483–506.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. SasakiY.1989. Sensitivity analysis of magnetotelluric measurements in relation to static effects. Geophysical Prospecting37, 395–406.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. SchulzR.1983. Potentialberechnungen zur Interpretation von gleichstromgeoelektrischen Messungen über dreidimensionalen Stor‐körpern. PhD Dissertation, Technische Universität Clausthal, West Germany.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. SchulzR.1985. Method of integral equation in the direct current resistivity method. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts22(6), 194.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. SirhanA. and HamidiM.2013. Detection of soil and groundwater domestic pollution by the electrical resistivity method in the West Bank, Palestine. Near Surface Geophysics11, 371–380.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. SonkambleS.2014. Electrical resistivity and hydrochemical indicators distinguishing chemical characteristics of subsurface pollution at Cuddalore coast, Tamil Nadu. Journal of the Geological Society of India83, 535–548.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. SpitzerK.1995. A 3‐D finite‐difference algorithm for DC resistivity modeling using conjugate‐gradient methods. Geophysical Journal International123, 903–914.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. SpringmanS.M., ThielenA., KienzlerP. and FriedelS.2013. A long‐term field study for the investigation of rainfall‐induced landslides. Geotechnique63, 1177–1193.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. StummerP., MaurerH. and GreenA.G.2004. Experimental design: electrical resistivity data sets that provide optimum subsurface information. Geophysics69, 120–139.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. TangJ.T., ZhangJ.F., FengB., LinJ.Y. and LiuC.S.2007. Determination of borders for resistive oil and gas reservoirs by deviation rate using the hole‐to‐surface resistivity method. Chinese Journal of Geophysics‐Chinese Edition50, 926–931.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. TelfordW., GeldartL., SheriffR. and KeysD.1976. Applied Geophysics, Ch. 5. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. TelfordW.M. and SheriffR.E.1990. Applied Geophysics. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. UshijimaK., MizunagaH., KawasakiK. and KonnoM.1991. Vertical electric profiling exploration in the Hishikari gold mine. In: SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 1991. Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. VachiratienchaiC., BoonchaisukS. and SiripunvarapornW.2010. A hybrid finite difference‐finite element method to incorporate topography for 2D direct current (DC) resistivity modeling. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors183, 426–434.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. VachiratienchaiC. and SiripunvarapornW.2013. An efficient inversion for two‐dimensional direct current resistivity surveys based on the hybrid finite difference‐finite element method. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors215, 1–11.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. WilkinsonP.B., MeldrumP.I., ChambersJ.E., KurasO. and OgilvyR.D.2006. Improved strategies for the automatic selection of optimized sets of electrical resistivity tomography measurement configurations. Geophysical Journal International167, 1119–1126.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. WuX.P. and XuG.M.2000. Study on 3‐D resistivity inversion using conjugate gradient method. Chinese Journal of Geophysics43, 450–458.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. YiM.J., KimJ.H. and SonJ.S.2011. Three‐dimensional anisotropic inversion of resistivity tomography data in an abandoned mine area. Exploration Geophysics42, 7–17.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. YorkeyT.J., WebsterJ.G. and TompkinsW.J.1987. Comparing reconstruction algorithms for electrical impedance tomography. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering34, 843–852.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. ZhangD.L., SunJ.G. and SunZ.Q.2011. Finite‐difference DC electrical field modeling on 2D and 2.5D undulate topography. Chinese Journal of Geophysics‐Chinese Edition54, 234–244.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. ZhangJ., MackieR.L. and MaddenT.R.1995. 3‐D resistivity forward modeling and inversion using conjugate gradients. Geophysics60, 1313–1325.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. ZhouB. and GreenhalghS.A.2002. Rapid 2‐D/3‐D crosshole resistivity imaging using the analytic sensitivity function. Geophysics67, 755–765.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. ZhouB., GreenhalghM. and GreenhalghS.A.2009. 2.5‐D/3‐D resistivity modelling in anisotropic media using Gaussian quadrature grids. Geophysical Journal International176, 63–80.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12476
Loading
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12476
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Borehole‐to‐surface , Electrical resistivity tomography and Out‐of‐plane
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