1887

Abstract

Summary

The aim of this work is to evaluate the effects of 2D inversion of electrical resistivity data when in presence on 3D structures by testing synthetic and experimental models. Several numerical simulations have been calculated for different resistivity models and 2D datasets were extracted to study and quantify the effects of 2D inversion on 3D structures. Results have been compared with field texts carried out in quarrying sites. The main tests here presented simulates prism-shaped cavities with a square vertical section of 1 × 1 size and a variable lateral extension d, from 1 to infinity (this latter being a 2D tunnel model). Inversion of predicted data show that 2D tomography does not always give satisfactory results on cavities that have a more or less limited extension perpendicular to the profile. In all cases the resistivity anomaly obtained by the 2D inversion of a 3D cavity underestimates the true value much more than the inversion of the corresponding 2D model and obviously underestimation increases with three-dimensional characteristics. The effects of three-dimensionality can lead to the identification of false cavities along the vertical or can lead to strong errors in the estimation of depth and size, thus causing misleading statements.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201802560
2018-09-09
2020-04-10
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aizebeokhai, A.P., and Olayinka, A. I.
    [2010] Anomaly effects of arrays for 3D geoelectrical resistivity imaging using orthogonal or parallel 2D profiles. African Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 4(7), 446–454, DOI: 10.5897/AJEST09.245.
    https://doi.org/10.5897/AJEST09.245 [Google Scholar]
  2. CapizziP., MartoranaR., CarolloA.
    [2017] Cluster analysis for cavity detection using seismic refraction and electrical resistivity tomography. Near Surface Geoscience 2017 - 23rd European Meeting of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, We 23P2 23, DOI: 10.3997/2214‑4609.201702123.
    https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.201702123 [Google Scholar]
  3. Cardarelli, E. and Fischanger, F.
    [2006] 2D data modelling by electrical resistivity tomography for complex subsurface geology. Geophysical Prospecting, 54, 2, 121–133.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Dahlin, T. and Loke, M.H.
    [1997] Quasi-3D resistivity imaging – mapping of three dimensional structures using two dimensional DC resistivity techniques, Procs. 3rd meeting of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics SocietyDenmark, 143–146.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. [1998] Resolution of 2D Wenner resistivity imaging as assessed by numerical modelling, Journal of Applied Geophysics, 38, 237–249.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Dahlin, T., Wisén, R. and Zhang, D.
    [2007] 3D Effects on 2D Resistivity imaging: Modelling and Field Surveying Results, Procs. 13th European Meeting of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, Istambul, 3–5 September 2007.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Loke, M.H.
    , 2013. Tutorial: 2-D and 3-D Electrical Imaging Surveys. www.geotomosoft.com.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. MartoranaR., CapizziP., D’AlessandroA., LuzioD.
    2017. Comparison of different sets of array configurations for multichannel 2D ERT acquisition. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 137, 34–48, doi: 10.1016/j.jappgeo.2016.12.012.
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2016.12.012 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201802560
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201802560
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