See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281089583

Two-dimensional ERT Modeling to Detect

Buried Channels

Conference Paper · June 2015

DOI: 10.3997/2214-4609.201412678

CITATIONS READS

0 15

2 authors, including:

Mostafa Ebrahimi
University of Tehran
6 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, Available from: Mostafa Ebrahimi
letting you access and read them immediately. Retrieved on: 25 September 2016
 1-4 June 2015 | IFEMA Madrid

Tu N112 08
Two-dimensional ERT Modeling to Detect Buried
Channels
M. Ebrahimi* (University of Tehran) & M. Abbasinia (University of Tehran)

SUMMARY
Electrical resistivity tomography is a geophysical method that investigates 2D and 3D subsurface
distribution of resistivity, especially in environmental and engineering problems. Most common
geoelectrical arrays in 2D tomography are: Wenner Alpha, Wenner- Schlumberger and Dipole- Dipole.
Recording the response of a target and the resolution of geoelectrical section are function of array type and
survey parameters. This paper has analyzed the ability of these arrays to detect a buried channel. Forward
modeling and solving inversion problem have been done by RES2DMOD and RES2DINV programs,
respectively. Results show that Dipole-Dipole array is more capable to make a resolved image of the
channel. But, its data density, vertical and horizontal resolution and sensitivity are related to its survey
parameters such as: dipole length and electrode spacing. So that, to make a resolved image of channel, the
electrode spacing must be less and equals to half of channel width, and dipole length must be less and
equals to 1.78 times of channel depth.

77th EAGE Conference & Exhibition 2015

IFEMA Madrid, Spain, 1-4 June 2015
 1-4 June 2015 | IFEMA Madrid

Introduction

Electrical resistivity tomography is one of the most common geophysical methods that investigates
2D and/or 3D subsurface distribution of electrical resistivity and over the last few years has been used
significantly in environmental and engineering investigations (Al-Fares (2014); Dostal et al. (2014);
Qarqori et al. (2012)).

Tomography data acquisition is practical with any geoelectrical array, but each array has some merits
and demerits. Most common geoelectrical arrays in 2D tomography are: Wenner Alpha, Wenner-
Schlumberger and Dipole- Dipole. In the meantime, Dipole- Dipole and Wenner arrays have the most
penetrating depth and signal strength, respectively.

Wenner array is more sensitive to vertical resistivity variations, whereas the Dipole- Dipole array is
more sensitive to horizontal variations. Buried channels are considered as one of geoelectrical targets
that are detectable by an efficient data acquisition planning.

Maximum depths of penetration, vertical and horizontal resolution are properties of geoelectrical
sections that are related to survey parameters. Naturally, knowing geometrical properties of target can
help to record better geoelectrical response and making more resolved sections.

The first part of this paper is choosing best array to detect channel and the second part is making
relations between geometrical properties of channel and survey parameters

Method

The synthetic model is a channel, 4 m wide and 1.82 m deep, buried at a depth of 1 meter. Upper layer
has a resistivity 10 ohm-meters and the background resistivity is 300 ohm-meters (Fig1).

This model was made by RES2DMOD program and finite- difference method (Loke (2002)). So that,
the number of electrodes and electrode spacing was considered 36 and 1m, respectively. Apparent
resistivity values were calculated for three arrays Wenner alpha, Wenner- Schlumberger and Dipole-
Dipole, with 1% noise.

Also, RES2DINV program and robust inversion method (L1-norm) was used to invert apparent
resistivity data. Using of L1-norm method is because of sharp boundaries in model.

The purpose of this method is minimizing the absolute values of data misfit (Loke et al. (2003)).
Figure (1) indicates the synthetic model and inverted sections. Arrays have been planned so that the
maximum depth of all sections is 4 meters.

Here, this movement equals to electrode spacing. High data volume of apparent resistivity and their
significant density, make this array more sensitive than two others. Under model conditions and
survey parameters of arrays, horizontal and vertical spacing between subsurface measured points are
variable. Table (1) shows the relation between modeling depth and survey parameters for three arrays
(Hamidou- Tamssur (2013)).

Where, L, N and A are considered as array length, leap number and potential electrode spacing. This
table suggests that Dipole- Dipole array has a better vertical resolution than two others.

Besides, sensitivity sections and average sensitivity values imply higher ability of Dipole-Dipole array
than two others. Figure (2) shows sensitivity sections. Average sensitivity values of Dipole-Dipole,
Wenner-Schlumberger and Wenner alpha arrays are 6.47, 3.09 and 1.73, respectively. As can be seen,
the number of inversion blocks and data points in Dipole-Dipole section is more than others.

77th EAGE Conference & Exhibition 2015

IFEMA Madrid, Spain, 1-4 June 2015
 1-4 June 2015 | IFEMA Madrid

ARRAY ZE/A ZE/L VERTICAL RESOLUTION

WENNER ALPHA 0.52 0.17 0.52A
W-SCH N=1 0.52 0.17
N=2 0.93 0.19 0.39A
N=3 1.32 0.19
DIPOLE-DIPOLE N=1 0.42 0.14
N=2 0.7 0.17
0.26A
N=3 0.96 0.19
Table 1 relation between modeling depth, survey parameters and vertical resolution.

Figure 1 synthetic model and inverted sections.

Dipole-Dipole model has a better vertical and horizontal resolution and greatly correlates to synthetic
model, which is due to high data density and sensitivity of this array. The space between two adjacent
horizontal points is a function of array movement.

Therefore, the Dipole-Dipole array can be used to detect a channel similar to synthetic model. Data
densities, sensitivity, vertical and horizontal resolution of this array are related to its survey
parameters. According to the table (1) for Dipole-Dipole array, the vertical distance between
subsurface data points is a function of Dipole length.

However, the horizontal distance of points is a function of array midpoint movement. Meanwhile, n
leaps between dipoles can control the penetration depth. As a whole, the volume of data points can be
controlled by changing these three parameters that is directly related to section quality. For this
purpose, four types of Dipole-Dipole data were made with different dipole length and leaps, so that
maximum penetration depth was 4 meters.

Table (2) contains these sections information. Average sensitivity of model (1) is more than others
that is due to better subsurface coverage and high data volume. Figure (3) indicates inverted models of
table (2). As shown in this figure, section (1) is more similar to synthetic model than others.

77th EAGE Conference & Exhibition 2015

IFEMA Madrid, Spain, 1-4 June 2015
 1-4 June 2015 | IFEMA Madrid

Figure 2 sensitivity sections for Dipole-Dipole (UP), Wenner- Schlumberger (Middle) and Wenner
array (Down).

MODEL VERTICAL HORIZONTAL MAX. AVERAGE

A(M) N
NO. RESOLUTION(M) RESOLUTION(M) DEPTH(M) SENSITIVITY
1 1 16 0.26 1 4 6.47
2 2 7 0.52 1 4 2.31
3 3 4 0.78 1 4 1.19
4 4 3 1.04 1 4 0.78
Table 2 survey parameters and properties for Dipole-Dipole profiles.

Horizontal resolution is related to electrode spacing, not to array type. For buried channel model, we
need to at least two adjacent points for better imaging, so that these points are measured into channel
space. So, there is a relation between electrode spacing and channel width.

Accordingly, to make a resolved subsurface image, the electrode spacing must be less and equals to
half of channel width that, for our model, maximum electrode spacing is 2 meters. Similarly, for
recording at least two vertical samples of channel with Dipole-Dipole array, dipole length must be
less and equals to 1.78 times of channel depth, which is 3 meters for our model.

This is clearly seen in figure (3). The electrode spacing of all models is 1 meter but model (1) has
maximum resolution, while model (4) has minimum resolution.

77th EAGE Conference & Exhibition 2015

IFEMA Madrid, Spain, 1-4 June 2015
 1-4 June 2015 | IFEMA Madrid

Figure 3 inverted sections of table (2).

Conclusion

Recording the response of a target and the resolution of geoelectrical section are function of array
type and survey parameters. Dipole-Dipole array has better data coverage, sensitivity and resolution
than Wenner alpha and Wenner-Schlumberger. So, detecting a buried channel similar to model, with
Dipole-Dipole array will leads to better results. Horizontal and vertical resolution of this array is a
function of electrode spacing and dipole length, respectively. So that, to make a resolved image of
channel, the electrode spacing must be less and equals to half of channel width, and dipole length
must be less and equals to 1.78 times of channel depth. It is clear that smaller electrode spacing and
dipole length leads to increase data volume and more resolved image.

References

Al-Fares, W. [2014] Application of electrical resistivity tomography technique for characterizing

leakage problem in Abu Baara earth dam, Syria. International Journal of Geophysics, Volume 2014.

Dostal, I., Putiska, R., and Kusnirak, D. [2014] Determination of shear surface of landslides using
electrical resistivity tomography. Contributions to Geophysics and Geodesy, 44(2), 133-147.

Geotomo software Malayisia. [2004] Rapid 2D resistivity & IP inversion using the least-squares
methods. RES2DINV ver.3.54 tutorial, copyright 2000-2004.

Hamidou- Tamssur, A. [2013] An evaluation of the suitability of different electrode arrays for
geohydrological studies in Karoo rocks using electrical resistivity tomography. MSc thesis, faculty of
natural and agricultural sciences, university of Free State.

Loke, M.H. [2002] Rapid 2D resistivity forward modelling using the finite-difference and finite-
element methods. RES2DMOD ver.3.01 tutorial, copyright 1996-2002.

Loke, M.H. [2003] A comparison of smooth and blocky inversion methods in 2D electrical imaging
surveys. Exploration Geophysics, 34, 182-187.

Qarqori, K.H., Rouai, M., Moreau, F., Saracco, G., Dauteuil, O., Hermitte, D. [2012] Geoelectrical
tomography investigating and modeling of fractures network around Bittit Spring (Middle Atlas,
Morocco). International Journal of Geophysics, Volume 2012.

77th EAGE Conference & Exhibition 2015

IFEMA Madrid, Spain, 1-4 June 2015