1887
Volume 8, Issue 4
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Rotational or azimuthal resistivity sounding is frequently employed for determining the electrical anisotropy of the subsurface, from which the orientation of fracturing, which might give rise to the anisotropy, is interpreted. However, symmetrical 4‐electrode arrays, such as the Wenner, Schlumberger and square, are ambiguous and will also produce an anisotropy‐style signature over dipping strata or a gradational lateral change in rock resistivity. This problem may be overcome by use of a 5‐electrode offset‐Wenner array. Simple tank modelling of an anisotropic bedrock overlain by an isotropic overburden demonstrates that rotational offset‐Wenner sounding will clearly indicate whether observed anisotropy is real or whether it is merely due to the similar and ambiguous effects of a varying overburden thickness.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2010019
2010-06-01
2024-04-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. BarkerR.D.1981. The offset system of electrical resistivity sounding and its use with a multicore cable. Geophysical Prospecting29, 128–143.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. BhattacharyaP.K. and PatraH.P.1968. Direct Current Methods of Geoelectric Sounding.Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. BolshakovD.K., ModinI.N., PervagoE.V. and ShevninV.A.1998a. Modelling and interpretation of azimuthal resistivity sounding over a two‐layered model of arbitrary‐oriented anisotropy in each layer. 60th EAGE meeting, Leipzig, Germany, Expanded Abstracts, 110.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. BolshakovD.K., ModinI.N., PervagoE.V. and ShevninV.A.1998b. New step in anisotropy studies: Arrow‐type array. 4th EEGS – European Section meeting, Barcelona, Spain, Expanded Abstracts, 857–860.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. BusbyJ.P.2000. The effectiveness of azimuthal apparent‐resistivity measurements as a method for determining fracture strike orientations. Geophysical Prospecting48, 677–695.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. CarlsonD.A., TaylorR.W. and CherkauerD.A.1996. Azimuthal electrical resistivity as a tool for determination of the orientation of preferred hydraulic transmissivity for a dolomite aquifer in southeastern Wisconsin. SAGEEP 1996 meeting, Keystone, Colorado, USDA, Expanded Abstracts.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. GoudswaardW.1957. On the effect of the tank wall material in geoelectrical model experiments. Geophysical Prospecting5, 272–281.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. HuntP., PowellN. and WatsonK.A.2001. Limiting apparent‐resistivity values for dipping‐bed earth models. Geophysical Prospecting49, 577–591.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. JansenJ. and TaylorR.1996. Determining fracture geometry from azimuthal resistivity data. SAGEEP 1996 meeting, Keystone, Colorado, USDA, Expanded Abstracts.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. KarwatowskiJ. and HabberjamG.M.1981. A tunnel resolution investigation using an automated resistivity tank analog. Geophysical Prospecting29, 891–905.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. KellerG.V. and FrischknechtF.C.1966. Electrical Methods in Geophysical Prospecting.Pergamon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. KunetzG.1966. Principles of Direct Current Resistivity Prospecting.Geopublication Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Leonard‐MayerP.J.1984. A surface resistivity method for measuring hydrologic characteristics of jointed formations. US Bureau of Mines Report of Investigations 8901.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. LokeM.H. and BarkerR.D.1996. 3D resistivity surveys and data inversion. Geophysical Prospecting44, 499–523.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. MatiasM.J.S. and HabberjamG.M.1984. A field example of the use of anisotropy parameters derived from resistivity soundings. Geophysical Prospecting32, 725–739.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. NunnK.R., BarkerR.D. and BamfordD.1983. In situ seismic and electrical measurements of fracture anisotropy in the Lincolnshire Chalk. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology16, 187–195.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. RitziR.W. and AndolsekR.H.1992. Relation between anisotropic transmissivity and azimuthal resistivity surveys in shallow, fractured, carbonate flow systems. Ground Water30, 774–780.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. SauckW.A. and ZabikS.M.1992. Azimuthal resistivity techniques and the directional variations of hydraulic conductivity in glacial sediments. In: Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems (ed. R.S.Bell ), pp. 197–222. Society of Engineering and Mineral Exploration Geophysicists.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. TaylorR.W. and FlemingA.H.1988. Characterising jointed systems by azimuthal resistivity surveys. Ground Water26, 464–474.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. WatsonK.A. and BarkerR.D.1999. Differentiating anisotropy and lateral effects using offset Wenner azimuthal resistivity soundings. Geophysics64, 739–745.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. WatsonK.A. and BarkerR.D.2002. Use of the offset Wenner technique to characterise a single dipping interface. European Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics7, 103–120.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. WatsonK.A. and BarkerR.D.2005Modelling azimuthal resistivity sounding over a laterally changing resistivity subsurface. Near Surface Geophysics3, 3–11.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2010019
Loading
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2010019
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article

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