1887
Volume 4 Number 2
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Two‐dimensional resistivity imaging using multiple gradient, Wenner and dipole‐dipole electrode arrays was carried out at two field sites in Sweden and one in Nicaragua, with the objective of confirming the practical applicability of results obtained with numerical modelling. The results support earlier numerical modelling studies that concluded that the gradient array, using multiple current electrode combinations, has resolution as good as or better than the commonly used Wenner array. The array behaved well in terms of sensitivity to noise at the test sites, and the results obtained generally agree with dipole‐dipole array results, although the latter at two of the sites gave resistivities that differed significantly from the other arrays in the deeper parts of the inverted models. A formula proposed for pseudosection plotting works well for data quality assessment, where it can be an advantage to make separate plots for each ‐factor (the distance between the midpoints of the current and potential electrode pairs) or for each ‐spacing. The gradient array is well suited for multichannel data acquisition, and can significantly increase the speed of data acquisition in the field and at the same time give higher data density, but it is also an attractive option for single‐channel data acquisition. The Wenner array, on the other hand, is not suitable for measuring in more than one channel. Compared to the dipole‐dipole array, it offers lower sensitivity to noise which may be a major advantage in real data acquisition, and the remote electrode needed for the pole‐dipole array is avoided, which is often a significant advantage for field logistics.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2005037
2005-09-01
2019-12-13
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. BernstoneC., DahlinT., OhlssonT. and HoglandW.2000. DC resistivity mapping of internal landfill structures: Two pre‐excavation surveys.Environmental Geology39, 360–371.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. DahlinT.1996. 2D resistivity surveying for environmental and engineering applications.First Break14, 275–283.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. DahlinT. and LokeM.H.1997. Quasi-3D resistivity imaging: mapping of 3D structures using two dimensional DC resistivity techniques. Proceedings of the 3rd Environmental and Engineering Geophysics Meeting, Århus, Denmark, pp. 143–146.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. DahlinT. and LokeM.H.1998. Resolution of 2D Wenner resistivity imaging as assessed by numerical modelling. Journal of Applied Geophysics38, 237–249.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. DahlinT. and ZhouB.2004. A numerical comparison of 2D resistivity imaging with ten electrode arrays.Geophysical Prospecting52, 379–398.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. EdwardsL.S.1977. A modified pseudosection for resistivity and induced-polarization.Geophysics42, 1020–1036.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. EkströmG. 1961. Beskrivning till kartbladet Revinge. Serie Ad, Nr 3, Sveriges Geologiska Undersökning (Swedish Geological Survey), Stockholm.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Hradeck_P., HavlicekP., Hradeck_P., NavarroM., Novak StanikZ.E. and SebestaJ.1997. Estudio Geológíco para reconocimiento de riesgo natural y vulnerabilidad geológia en el área de Managua. Report, _esk_ Geologick_ Ústav – INETER (Instituto Nicaragüense de Estudios Territoriales), Prague-Managua.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. LerouxV. and DahlinT.2002. Induced polarisation survey at a waste site in southern Sweden. Proceedings of the 8th Environmental and Engineering Geophysics Meeting, Aveiro, Portugal, pp. 207–210.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. LokeM.H., AcworthI. and DahlinT.2003. A comparison of smooth and blocky inversion methods in 2-D electrical imaging surveys.Exploration Geophysics34, 182–187.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. LokeM.H. and BarkerR.D.1995. Least-squares deconvolution of apparent resistivity pseudosections.Geophysics60, 1682–1690.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. McGillivrayP.R. and OldenburgD.W.1990. Methods for calculating Frechet derivatives and sensitivities for the non‐linear inverse problem: A comparative study. GeophysicalProspecting38, 499–524.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. ParralesR., DahlinT. and RubíC.2003. Site investigation with combined methods in a faulted area in Managua, Nicaragua - a pre-study. Proceedings of the 9th European Environmental and Engineering Geophysics Meeting, Prague, Czech Republic, pp.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. RingbergB.1980. Beskrivning till jordartskartan Malmö SO. Serie AE, Nr 38, Sveriges Geologiska Undersökning (Swedish Geological Survey), Uppsala.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. StummerP., MaurerH. and GreenA.2004. Experimental design: Electrical resistivity data sets that provide optimum subsurface information.Geophysics69, 120–139.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. ZhouB. and DahlinT.2003. Properties and effects of measurement errors on 2D resistivity imaging surveying.Near Surface Geophysics1, 105–117.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2005037
Loading
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2005037
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
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