1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Near Surface Geophysics
  4. Volume 13, Issue 4
  5. Article
Volume 13 Number 4
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604
PDF

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Three‐dimensional electric resistivity tomography surveys carried out on heavily urbanized areas represent a cumbersome task since buildings, houses, or other types of obstacles do not allow parallel electric resistivity tomography lines to be deployed. This paper proposes applying any four‐electrode configuration to provide subsurface information in complex urban areas. Such a procedure allows acquiring information beneath a construction by simply surrounding the structure of interest by a series of electric resistivity tomography profiles. Apparent resistivity is obtained from ‘’‐ and ‘’‐shaped profiles, where alternations between current and potential electrodes are carried out in an automatic way. Four ‘’‐arrays and four ‐arrays are employed in a square geometry that allows surrounding the studied target to cover the subsurface. The first mentioned array will provide deep information. The second array will cover more of the shallow subsurface information. For the ‘‐’ and ‘’‐arrays, a mixture of traditional arrays are employed, like the Wenner–Schlumberger, axial, equatorial, azimuthal, and perpendicular dipole arrays.

Two synthetic examples are presented to demonstrate the possibilities of the proposed electric arrays. A resistive cube set at the centre of a working cube is modelled. The ‘‐’ and ‘‐’ arrays are capable to detect such a model; however, dimensions are exaggerated. Later on, an extended wall model is dealt with. Similar results as in the first synthetic example are obtained in terms of geometry and resistivity. However, depth to the top of the wall model is not adequately recovered in comparison with the traditional methodology.

Finally, the ‘’‐ ’‐arrays are applied in an archaeological site named El Pahñu, located in Central Mexico. The new methodology described here is compared with the traditional 3D procedure employing a grid of electric resistivity tomography transects. As expected, the approach discussed in this investigation produced a reasonable solution towards the central portion of the working cube. However, shallow resistive anomalies (size about the electrode interval) were not fully detected, in comparison to a traditional 3D survey, where parallel lines forming a grid could be deployed. The reason is that no electrodes were set towards the central portions of the structure under study. However, the ‐ and ‐arrays are more sensitive to anomalies produced by deeper objects, which cannot be observed in the traditional method, especially when objects are located in between the electric resistivity tomography transects.

© European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers © 2015 European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2015015
2015-02-01
2024-04-20

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2015015
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/nsg/13/4/nsg2015015.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2015015&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. AGI
    AGI . 2010. EarthImager TM 2D and 3D, Resistivity and IP inversion software. Advanced Geosciences Incorporated, http://www.agiusa.com.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Al’ pinL.M., BerdichevskiiM.N., VedrintsevG.A. and ZagarmistrA.M.1966. Dipole Method for Measuring Earth Conductivity. Consultants Bureau, New York.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Argote‐EspinoD., Tejero‐AndradeA., Cifuentes‐NavaG., IriarteL., FaríasS., ChávezR.E. et al. 2013. 3D electrical prospection in the archaeological site El Pahñu, Hidalgo State, Central Mexico. Journal of Archaeological Science40, 1213–1223.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. BakerH.A., DjeddiM., BoudJadjaA.G. and BenhamamK.2001. A different approach in delineating near surface buried structures. EAGE 63rd Conference & Technical Exhibition.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. BarkerR.D.1989. Depth of investigation of collinear symmetrical four‐electrode arrays. Geophysics54, 1031–1037.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. BentleyL.R. and GharabiM.2004. Two‐ and three‐dimensional electrical resistivity imaging at a heterogeneous remediation site. Geophysics69(3), 674.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. ChambersJ.E., OgilvyR.D., KurasO., CrippsJ.C. and MeldrumP.I.2002. 3D electrical imaging of known targets at a controlled environmental test site. Environmental Geology41, 660–704.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. ChambersJ.E., WilkinsonP.B., PennS., MeldrumP.I., KurasO., LokeM.H. et al. 2013. River terrace sand and gravel deposit reserve estimation using three‐dimensional electrical resistivity tomography. Journal of Applied Geophysics93, 25–32.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. ChavezG., TejeroA., AlcantaraM.A. and ChavezR.E.2011. The ‘L‐Array’, a tool to characterize a fracture pattern in an urban zone. Near Surface 2011 Expanded Abstracts Book (in CD), Leicester, UK, P114.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. ChavezR.E., CamaraM.E., TejeroA., BarbaL. and ManzanillaL.2001. Site characterization by geophysical methods in the archaeological zone of Teotihuacan, Mexico. Geofisica Internacional28, 1265–1276.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. ConstableS.C., ParkerR.L. and ConstableC.G.1987. Occam’s inversion: a practical algorithm for generating smooth models from electromagnetic sounding data. Geophysics52, 289–300.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. DahlinT. and BernstoneC.1997. A roll‐along technique for 3D resistivity data acquisition with multi‐electrode arrays. Proceedings of the Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems, 927–935
     [Google Scholar]
  13. DahlinT. and ZhouB.2004. A numerical comparison of 2D resistivity imaging with 10 electrodes array. Geophysical Prospecting52, 379–398.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. DeceusterJ. and KaufmannO.2003. Applications des tomographies en résistivité électrique 3D á la reconnaissance d zones Karstifiées, Belgique. Actes du 4émeColloque Geophysique Canadien, 143–150.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. EdwardsL.S.1977. A modified pseudosection for resistivity and induced polarization. Geophysics42, 1020–1036.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. EvjenH.M.1938, Depth factor and resolving power of electrical measurements. Geophysics3, 78–85.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. FiandacaG., AukenE., Vest ChristiansenA. and GazotyA.2013. Time‐domain‐induced polarization: full‐decay forward modeling and 1D laterally constrained inversion of Cole‐Cole parameters. Geophysics77, E213–E225.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. FiandacaG., Martoran, R., MessinaP. and CosentinoP.L.2010. The MYG methodology to carry out 3D electrical resistivity tomography on media covered by vulnerable surfaces of artistic value. Nuovo Cimento della Societa Italiana di Fisica B125(5–6), 711–718.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Flores‐OrozcoA., KemmaA. and ZimmermannE.2012. Data error quantification in spectral induced polarization imaging. Geophysics77, E227–E237.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. GharabiM. and BentleyL.R.2005. Resolution of 3‐D electrical resistivity images from inversion of 2‐D orthogonal lines. Journal of Environmental ND Engineering Geophysics10(4), 339–349.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. GriffithsD.H. and TurnbullJ.1985. A multi‐electrode array for resistivity surveying. First Break3, 16–20.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. HabberjamG.M.1979. Apparent resistivity observation and the use of square array techniques. Geoexploration Monographs Series1, 9.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. HallofP.G.1957. On the interpretation of resistivity and induced polarization measurements. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. HeydenD.1975. An interpretation of a cave underneath the Pyramid of the Sun in Teotihuacan, Mexico. American Antiquity40, 131–147.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Hyoung‐SeokK., YoonhoS., Myeong‐JongY.Ho‐JoonC. and Ki‐SeogK.2006. Case histories of electrical resistivity and controlled‐source magnetotelluric surveys for the site investigation of tunnel construction. Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics11, 237–248.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. LaBrecqueD. and DailyW.2008. Assessment of measurement errors for galvanic‐resistivity electrodes of different composition. Geophysics73, F55–F64.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. LokeM.H.1994. The inversion of two‐dimensional resistivity data. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Birmingham, UK.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. LokeM.H.2010. 2‐D and 3‐D electrical imaging surveys. Tutorial, http://www.geotomosoft.com/.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. LokeM.H. and BarkerR.D.1996. Practical techniques for 3D resistivity survey and data inversion. Geophysical Prospecting44, 499–523.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. LokeM.H. and DahlinT.2010. Methods to reduce banding effects in 3‐D resistivity inversion. Near Surface Geophysics, 16th European Meeting of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. López AguilarA.F. and FournierP.2009. Espacio, Tiempo y Asentamientos en el Valle del Mezquital: un enfoque comparativo con los desarrollos de William T. Sanders. Cuicuilco47, 113–146.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. ManzanillaL., LopezC. and FreterA.1996. Dating results from excavations in quarry tunnels behind the Pyramid of the Sun at Teotihuacan. Ancient Mesoamerica7, 245–266.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Martínez‐PagánP., Faz‐CanoA., AracilE. and ArocenaJ.M.2009. Electrical resistivity imaging revealed the spatial properties of mine tailing ponds in the Sierra Minera of southeast Spain. Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics14, 63–76.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. NaudetV., GourryJ.C., MathieuF., GirardJ.F., BlondelA. and SaadA.2011. 3D electrical resistivity tomography to locate DNAPL contamination in an urban environment. Near Surface, 17th European Meeting of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. RoyA. and ApparaoA.1971. Depth of investigation in direct current methods. Geophysics36, 943–959.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. SantaratoG., RanieriG., OcchiM., MorelliG., FischangerF., and GualerziD.2011. Three‐dimensional electrical resistivity tomography to control the injection of expanding resins for the treatment and stabilization of foundation soils. Engineering Geology119, 18–30.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. StummerP., MaurerH. and GreenA.G.2004. Experimental design: electrical resistivity data sets that provide optimum subsurface information. Geophysics69, 120–139.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. TejeroA., ChávezR.E., UrbietaJ. and Flores‐MárquezE.L.2002. Cavity detection in the southwestern hilly portion of Mexico City by resistivity imaging. Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics7, 130–139.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. TelfordW.M., GeldartL.P. and SheriffR.E.1979. Applied Geophysics, 2 edn. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. TroguA., RanieriG. and FischangerF.2011. 3D electrical resistivity tomography to improve the knowledge of the subsoil below existing buildings. Environmental Semiotics4, 63–70.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. TsourlosD., YiM.J., KimJ.H. and PapadopoulosN.2012. Comparing ERT measuring schemes for 3D geolectrical investigations of Tumuli. Near Surface Geoscience, 18th European Meeting of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, Expanded Abstracts Book (in CD), Paris‐France.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. ZhouB. and DahlinT.2003. Properties and effect of measurements errors on 2D resistivity imaging surveying. Near Surface Geophysics1(3), 105–117.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2015015
Loading
L‐ and CORNER‐arrays for 3D electric resistivity tomography: an alternative for geophysical surveys in urban zones
Near Surface Geophysics 13, 355 (2015); https://doi.org/10.3997/1873-0604.2015015
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2015015
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2015015
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