1887

Abstract

Summary

Urbanisation poses challenges for traditional subsurface investigations, prompting the use of geophysical methods such as Electrical Resistivity Tomography. However, the deployment of conventional electrodes is often impractical in sensitive or restricted environments. This study systematically evaluates the performance of various non-invasive electrodes (e.g., NaCl and KCl gels, PVA sponges, bentonite, copper tape, and medical electrodes) on two urban surfaces under controlled laboratory conditions.

The investigated parameters included contact resistance, measurement errors (repetition and reciprocal), and signal quality over a 14 days monitoring period. Results indicate that while all electrodes eventually achieved acceptable contact resistance, the time to stabilisation and long-term reliability varied significantly. KCl electrodes demonstrated superior stability, low contact resistance, and minimal error levels, maintaining consistent performance for at least 14 days. PVA sponges, bentonite, and medical gels were almost immediately usable but degraded over time due to drying. Copper tape and medical electrodes, despite offering stable contact resistance, were unable to achieve the resistance necessary for high current injections. Reciprocal error analysis revealed greater variability compared to repetition error, highlighting the need for cautious interpretation, especially in high resistance conditions.

The study concludes that electrode selection should be adapted to both the surface type and the monitoring objective.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202520098
2025-09-07
2026-02-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Arato, A., Vagnon, F., and Comina, C. [2022]. First application of a new seismo-electric streamer for combined resistivity and seismic measurements along linearly extended earth structures. Near Surface Geophysics, 20(2), 117–134.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Athanasiou, E. N., Tsourlos, P. I., Vargemezis, G. N., Papazachos, C. B., and Tsokas, G. N. [2007]. Non-destructive DC resistivity surveying using flat-base electrodes. Near Surface Geophysics, 5(4), 263–272.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Casas, A., Cosentino, P. L., Fiandaca, G., Himi, M., Macias, J. M., Martorana, R., … Teixell, I. [2018]. Non-invasive Geophysical Surveys in Search of the Roman Temple of Augustus Under the Cathedral of Tarragona (Catalonia, Spain): A Case Study. Surveys in Geophysics, 39(6), 1107–1124.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Day-Lewis, F. D., Johnson, C. D., Singha, K., and Lane Jr., J. W. [2008].. Best practices in electrical resistivity imaging: Data collection and processing, and application to data from Corinna, Maine [An Administrative Report for EPA Region 1]. Boston.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Ingeman-Nielsen, T., Tomaškovičová, S., and Dahlin, T. [2016]. Effect of electrode shape on grounding resistances — Part 1: The focus-one protocol. Geophysics, 81(1), WA159–WA167.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. LaBrecque, D., and Daily, W. [2008]. Assessment of measurement errors for galvanic-resistivity electrodes of different composition. Geophysics, 73(2), F55–F64.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Pavoni, M., Carrera, A., and Boaga, J. [2022]. Improving the galvanic contact resistance for geoelectrical measurements in debris areas: A case study.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Umezawa, R., Jinguuji, M., and Yokota, T. [2022]. Characterization of a river embankment using a non-destructive direct current electrical survey. Near Surface Geophysics, 20(3), 238–252.
    [Google Scholar]
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202520098
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202520098
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