1887
Volume 13 Number 4
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

ABSTRACT

In this work we examine the applicability of surface‐to‐tunnel electrical resistance tomography measurements for imaging subsurface targets. Various issues of this special arrangement are discussed and explored by means of numerical model simulations, experimental measurements in a tank, and a field application. The geometrical factor was considered as a filter during the generation of the protocols in order to reject electrode combinations and problematic measurements. Different electrode arrays are examined and compared for various targets, and we concluded that, for the tested cases, the pole–tripole electrode arrangement produced superior results. Additional tests showed that the maximum distance between the electrode lines is strongly related to the nature of the prospected target. Furthermore, the study showed that the tunnel size affects the measured data and needs to be taken into account when processing surface‐to‐tunnel data, and the full incorporation of the tunnel into a 3D model proved to be the optimum among the tested correction schemes. Finally, we present a real case study involving electrical resistance tomography surface‐to‐tunnel measurements, and results are in comparable agreement with the findings of the tests with numerical and experimental data.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2015019
2015-01-01
2024-04-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. BingZ. and GreenhalghS.A.2000. Cross‐hole resistivity tomography using different electrode configurations. Geophysical Prospecting48, 887–912.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. CosciaI., GreenhalghS.A., LindeN., DoetschJ., MarescotL., GüntherT. et al. 2011. 3D crosshole ERT for aquifer characterization and monitoring of infiltrating river water. Geophysics76, G49–G59.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. DailyW. and OwenE.1991. Cross‐borehole resistivity tomography. Geophysics56, 1228–1235.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. DanielsenB.E. and DahlinT.2010. Numerical modeling of resolution and sensitivity of ERT in horizontal boreholes. Journal of Applied Geophysics70, 245–254.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. GoesB.J.M. and MeekesJ.A.C.2004. An effective electrode configuration for the detection of DNAPLs with electrical resistivity tomography. Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics9, 127–141.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. KaraoulisM.2009. Inversion algorithm development for time lapse geoelectrical data. PhD thesis, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. KimJ.‐H. and YiM.‐J.2010. DC3DPro: 3D Inversion of ERT data. User’s Manual. Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources, Korea.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. LaBrecqueD. and WardS.1988. Two‐dimensional inversion of cross‐borehole resistivity data using multiple boundaries. 58th SEG annual international meeting, Expanded Abstracts, 194–197.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. LeontarakisK. and ApostolopoulosG.V.2012. Laboratory study of the cross‐hole resistivity tomography: the model stacking (MOST) technique. Journal of Applied Geophysics80, 67–82.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. LileO.B., BackeK.R., ElvebakkH. and BuanJ.E.1994. Resistivity measurements on the sea bottom to map fracture zones in the bedrock underneath sediments. Geophysical Prospecting42, 813–824.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. LokeM.H., ChambersJ.E., RuckerD.F., KurasO. and WilkinsonP.B.2013. Recent developments in the direct‐current geoelectrical imaging method. Journal of Applied Geophysics95, 135–156.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. MorelliG. and LaBrecqueD.1996. Advances in ERT inverse modeling. European Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics1, 171–186.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. SasakiY.1992. Resolution of resistivity tomography inferred from numerical simulation. Geophysical Prospecting40, 453–463.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. SasakiY. and MatsuoK.1993. Surface‐to‐Tunnel Resistivity Tomography at the Kamaishi Mine. Butsuri‐Tansa46, 128–133.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. SlaterL., BinleyA.M., DailyW. and JohnsonR.2000. Cross‐hole electrical imaging of a controlled saline tracer injection. Journal of Applied Geophysics44, 85–102.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. StummerP.B., MaurerH. and GreenA.2004. Experimental design: electrical resistivity data sets that provide optimum subsurface information. Geophysics69(1), 120–139.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. TsourlosP.I.1995. Modeling, interpretation and inversion of multielectrode resistivity survey data. PhD thesis, Department of Electronics, University of York, U.K.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. TsourlosP.I., SzymanskiJ.E. and TsokasG.N.1999. The effect of terrain topography on commonly used resistivity arrays. Geophysics64(5), 1357–1363.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. van SchoorM. and BinleyA.2010. In‐mine (tunnel‐to‐tunnel) electrical resistance tomography in South African platinum mines. Near Surface Geophysics8, 563–574.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. WaitJ.R.1982. Geo‐electromagnetism. Academic Press Inc.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. WilkinsonP.B., ChambersJ.E., MeldrumP.I., OglivyR.D. and CountS.2006. Optimization of array configuration and geometries for the detection of abandoned mineshafts by 3D cross‐hole electrical resistivity tomography. Geophysical Journal International167, 1119–1126.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. WilkinsonP.B., LokeM.H., MeldrumP.I., ChambersJ.E., KurasO., GunnD.A. et al. 2012. Practical aspects of applied optimized survey design for electrical resistivity tomography. Geophysical Journal International189, 428–440.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. YiM.‐J., KimJ.‐H., SongY., ChoS.‐J., ChungS.‐H. and SuhJ.‐H.2001. Three‐dimensional imaging of subsurface structures using resistivity data. Geophysical Prospecting49, 483–497.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2015019
Loading
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2015019
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