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

net/publication/299452589

APPLICATION OF ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY IN SITE INVESTIGATION

Conference Paper · December 2015

CITATION READS

1 806

1 author:

Mona Badr El-Din Anwar

The German University in Cairo
15 PUBLICATIONS   5 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Replacement of roadways soil embankment using EPS Geofoam View project

JOINT INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF SMART CITY COMPONENTS View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mona Badr El-Din Anwar on 28 March 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Conference on Structural and Geotechnical Engineering, Ain Shams University ICSGE 14

APPLICATION OF ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY IN SITE INVESTIGATION

Marwa Mostafa1, Amr Radwan2 and Mona Badr3

1 Ph.D. graduate student, Civil Engineering Department, Helwan University, Cairo, Egypt
2 Professor, Civil Engineering Department, Helwan University, Cairo, Egypt
3 Associate Professor,Civil Engineering Department, The German University in Cairo -
Associate Professor (on leave) Helwan University, Cairo, Egypt.

ABSTRACT

Recently, there has been a great demand towards using special techniques in soil
exploration. Electrical geophysics is one of those techniques that allow subsurface
exploration through measuring the electrical resistivity. The traditional site investigation
through boreholes is the way to retrieve samples from subsurface soil for visual
inspection and laboratory tests. However, the borehole represents only its location while
soil formation in the space in between boreholes can be only assumed by implementing
the geological information of the site. Electrical resistivity can be used as a
complementary process in between the borehole locations to investigate the soil
formation and be able to draw a more reliable lithological section. In this research, a
resistivity field survey for a site in Ain Helwan area, inside Helwan University campus,
using an electrical resistivity assemblage was conducted along with seventeen borehole
logs being executed. Soil formation in Ain Helwan is different from the usual Nile
formation in Cairo or the desert formation near to Helwan area, as it has calcareous
nature. The electrical resistivity survey results were found to be in good agreement with
the soil formation and samples retrieved from the boreholes which indicates that using
this technique can contribute in developing a comprehensive soil lithology.

INTRODUCTION

Matters are electrical in nature and their ability to conduct electricity differs from one
matter to another. Charge is a fundamental and characteristic property of the elementary
particles that compose matter. The movement of electrical charges in a medium or a
conductor creates electrical current, Reitz and Milford, 1967.
Soil is a heterogeneous medium consisting of solid, liquid and gaseous phases. The
solid and liquid play an essential role in soil spontaneous electrical phenomena and in
behavior of electrical fields, artificially created in soil. Air in soil is considered as
dielectric. Different electrical geophysical methods have been used soil electrical
resistivity in exploration for oil, gas and coal. Furthermore, implementing electrical
International Conference on Structural and Geotechnical Engineering, Ain Shams University ICSGE 14

geophysics became popular in soil and environmental studies. Measurement of the

electrical resistivity or conductivity have been applied for soil salinity survey for many
years, Rhoades and Ingvalson 1971, Austin and Roades 1979 and Rhoades et al 1990.
Electrical geophysical methods can be broadly classified into (i) measuring the
natural electrical potential of the ground without introducing additional electrical fields
and (ii) utilizing artificial or electromagnetic field to measure the soil electric
parameters. Methods of Self-Potential (SP) measures the naturally existing stationary
electrical potential in soil. On the other hand, Vertical Electrical Sounding (VES) is one
of the methods to measure electrical resistivity or conductivity of soil to any depth when
a constant electrical field is artificially created on the surface. This method can be used
in both field and laboratory tests, Pozdnyakova et al 2001. Electrical resistivity data are
now used to get better understanding of the subsurface classification, measurement of
thickness of organic deposits, measurement of the depth of potential failure surface in
quick clay and location of cavities in limestone and many other applications, Hunt 2005.
Electrical resistivity data were also used to identify and quantify the extent of
contamination in site, Horsnell 1998, and Kalinski and Kelly 1994.
There is no general correlation between lithology and resistivity. Nevertheless,
different literature provided approximate range of values of electrical resistivity for
various soil types or manmade type. Based on that range, a broad classification is
possible according to which clays and shales, sand and gravel, compact sandstone and
limestone and unaltered crystalline rocks stand in order of increasing resistivity, Brink
et al 1982 and Hunt 2005, Table 1 and Table 2. For a typical electrical surveying low
resistivity will be for soil layers with underlying bedrock producing higher resistivity.
Yet, this might change as in the case of dry coarse sand or gravel which give resistivity
values close to those of igneous rock, whereas a layer of weathered rock may be more
conductive than the soil overlying it. Therefore, in any attempt to interpret resistivity in
terms of soil types or lithology, consideration should be given to various factos that
affect resistivity. Other limitations, for electrical resistivity methods, were also
encountered in literature. For example, thin layers or multiple layers with similar
resistivity may not be detected. The interpretation methods assume horizontal layered
conditions where each layer has uniform electrical resistivity; unless site conditions are
matching those assumptions, then error in interpretation will occur, ASTM D6431.
As presented in literature, electrical resistivity should be considered as a rapid and
preliminary exploration method, Hunt 2005. Yet, more research on different types and
formations is still needed to overcome the limitations and to give more reliable
correlations. The aim of this research is to present a case study carried out in Ain
Helwan area using simple assemblage for electrical resistivity measurements to compare
between the obtained soil formations from boreholes and soil type estimation
implementing the electrical resistivity results.
International Conference on Structural and Geotechnical Engineering, Ain Shams University ICSGE 14

Table 1 Typical ranges of electrical resistivity (Brink, et al, 1982)

Table 2 Resistivity ranges of materials (Hunt, 2005)

Resistivity
Materials
Ωm
Clay soils : wet to moist 1.5 - 3.0
Silty clay and silty soils : wet to moist 3 - 15
Silty and sandy soils : moist to dry 15 -150
Bedrock : well fractured to slightly fractured
150 - 300
with moist soil-filled cracks
Sand and gravel with silt About 300
Sand and gravel with silt layers 300 - 2400
Bedrock : slightly fractured with dry soil-
300 - 2400
filled cracks
Sand and gravel deposits : coarse and dry > 2400
Bedrock : massive and hard > 2400
Freshwater 20 - 60
Seawater 0.18-0.24

ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY SURVYING

When current (I) is applied to a block of material and potential drop of (V) volts is
measured between two ends of the block, the resistance (R) of the block is equal to
(V/I).
The resistance (R) of a conductor is directly proportional to length (L), and is inversely
proportional to cross section area (A).
International Conference on Structural and Geotechnical Engineering, Ain Shams University ICSGE 14

l
... R= ……………………………………(1)
A
Where () is the resistivity in ohm. The resistivity of a material is a fundamental
property of that material.
The bases of the procedure in resistivity surveying is to measure the potential drop
on the ground surface associated with a known current flow into the earth and then
calculate the apparent resistivity. There are many configuration for placing the current
and potential electrodes for surveying. The most widely used configuration is Wenner
Configuration, which was proposed by Wenner in 1916. This configuration uses four
electrodes equally spaced along a line, Figure 1. The outer electrodes serve as the
current electrodes and the inner ones as the potential electrodes. The apparent resistivity
() is computed by Equation 2, Henbest et al 1971.

Figure 1. Wenner Configuration Technique

ρ = 2 π a R
………………………………….(2)
The apparent resistivity is equal to the true resistivity in case of homogenous soil if
the spacing between the electrode is equal. The calculated resistivity applies to a volume
of material that depends on the electrode spacing. As the spacing increases, the current
penetrates deeper into the earth. The penetration is measured at the middle point of the
array and at depth equal to the spacing between electrodes (a). When the material is not
homogeneous the calculated resistivity is apparent resistivity which depends on the
resistivity of various materials through which the current passes. Wenner configuration
is remarked to provide higher signal to noise ratio than other configurations and it needs
less current for a given depth capability.
There are basically two types of field procedures for electrical resistivity surveying. The
first is horizontal profiling in which the electrode spacing remains constant and the
whole array is moved along a traverse. The second is vertical profiling in which the
center of the spread remains fixed and the electrode spacing is increased to determine
apparent resistivity with increasing depth and the second one is the one implemented in
this research. A third method is a combination of the first two in which two or three
different electrode spacing are used in the horizontal profiling technique, Henbest 1971.
However, the results in all cases are considerably influenced by surface irregularities,
thickness of strata, wetness of the strata and salt concentration in groundwater.

SITE CONDITION AND SOIL FORMATION

The area, which was chosen for this study, is located at Ain Helwan area inside the
Campus of Helwan University. 17 boreholes were carried out as part of the site
investigation program for campus construction works. The borehole depths were 30m
International Conference on Structural and Geotechnical Engineering, Ain Shams University ICSGE 14

from ground level; no groundwater was encountered during the drilling process.
Borehole locations are shown in Figure 2. Soil classifications and borehole logs were
retrieved from the geotechnical design report carried out by Dr. Amr Radwan. The 17
boreholes were distributed in mainly 4 zones as presented in Figure 2.

Zone 4

Zone 2
Zone 3

Zone 1

Figure 2. Layout of study area (Ain- Helwan University Campus)

ELECTRICAL SOUNDING FIELD TESTS

Seventeen field vertical electrical sounding tests were conducted at the boring locations
shown in Figure 2 using Wenner configuration technique as presented in Figure 1. The
field instruments and equipment were specially manufactured for this research and they
are shown in Figure 3. Four copper electrodes (70 cm long and 1 cm diameter each)
were inserted into the ground to a depth that ensured a true contact between the
electrode and the surface medium. The electrodes were used for transmitting current and
potential into the ground, the copper electrodes were sensitive enough for small
potential differences. Current source consists of battery 12 volt and transformer from 12
volt to 220 volt was used to generate the needed electric current. Current density
(Ampere) and potential difference (Volt) were measured using measuring devices as
shown in Figure . 3. Wires mounted on plastic reels were used to facilitate the
movement. The electrical resistance was calculated using the values of the measured
current density (I) and potential difference (V); where the resistance R equals to (I / V)
in ohm. The apparent resistivity (ρ) is then calculated following Equation (2),
International Conference on Structural and Geotechnical Engineering, Ain Shams University ICSGE 14

considering that (a) is the distance between electrode. The resistivity is measured at the
mid point of the array. The depth of penetration where this resistivity is calculated is
equal to (a).

Equipment
to measure Curren

Wires

Coppe

Figure 3. The Field Instruments and Equipment

ELECTRICAL SOUNDING FIELD RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Data from resistivity surveys are customarily presented and interpreted in the form
of values of apparent resistivity (ρ). They can be presented in two forms, profiles or
maps for the purpose of interpretation. In the case of electric sounding with an
expanding electrode configuration, it is usual to present the results as a series of graphs
(curves) expressing the variation of (ρ) with increasing electrode separation. These
curves represent, at least qualitatively, the variation of resistivity with depth. In
relatively simple cases comparing the field data with the theoretical apparent resistivity
curves can involve only two or three horizontal layers, estimating of the depths to the
interfaces. In light of the available geological information, a fairly satisfactory picture of
the stratification can often be deduced.
Figure 4 presents simple typical interpretation for two layers where the top layer has
higher resistivity (1) than the lower layer (2). The example is based on Wenner
configuration. Figure (4.a) shows the current flow lines essentially unaffected by the
underlying low resistivity layer at small electrode spacing. When the electrode spacing
is increased (Figure 4.b), the underlying layer affects the current flow lines. They are
closer together in the low resistivity layer and further apart in the high resistivity layer.
Therefore, the apparent resistivity is less. Figure (4.c) is a plot of apparent resistivity
versus electrode spacing where point A1 presents the apparent resistivity for the small
electrode spacing (layer 1) and point A2 represents the larger electrode spacing (layer
International Conference on Structural and Geotechnical Engineering, Ain Shams University ICSGE 14

2). As can be seen from the curve, sharp breaks in resistivity such as the boundary
between ρ1 and ρ2 show as a gradual change in apparent resistivity because the current
density is only changed gradually as the electrode spacing is increased, Henbest et al.,
1971.

Figure 4.a smaller Figure 4.b larger Figure 4.c Relation between
electrode intervals electrode intervals resistivity and electrode spacing

For this research only representative results are presented. As stated before
boreholes were carried out in 4 zones. The results of three boreholes of zone 1 and the
four boreholes of zone 3 are presented to demonstrate the electrical survey results.
Otherwise, only representative results from zones 2 and 4 reflecting the typical
formation for those zone are presented. Detailed results of the 17 field vertical electrical
sounding tests and borehole logs are presented by Mostafa et al 2010. Results are
presented in figures 5 to 8. The calculated apparent electrical resistivity at the midpoint
of the Wenner array and the electrodes spacing is presented on log curve in each figure.
Each figure contains the borehole log.
The sounding curves obtained from the 17 sounding stations can be divided into two
types. Type 1, where the resistivity relationship is ρ1 > ρ2 > ρ3 .This is represented by
sounding curves from zones 1,2 and 4. Type 2, where the resistivity relationship is ρ1 >
ρ2< ρ3 < ρ4 < ρ5 and this is represented by sounding curves for zone 3.
Figure 5 presents the resistivity curves for zone 1. The figure shows a consistent
variation of the electrical resistivity from values of 2000-3000 ohm.m decreasing to a
values of 30-40 ohm.m. This decrease in resistivity is in compliance with the change in
soil formation from the coarse particles formation of gravel and sand to the fine particle
formation of silty clay. Reference to Haunt 2005, Table 2, the sand and gravel formation
would reach resistivity higher than 2400 ohm.m while the clay and silt have very low
resistivity can be lower than 100 ohm.m. The sharp change in the soil formation is not
reflected in the figure; contrarily it is shown as gradual change; as it was stated by
Henbest et al., 1971.
International Conference on Structural and Geotechnical Engineering, Ain Shams University ICSGE 14

10000

B.H No.1
B.H No.1

Apparent Resisvity (ohm.m)

1000

100

10

1
1 10 100
Electrode Distance (a) (m)

B.H No.2

10000

B.H No.3
Apparrent Resistivity (ohm.m)

1000

100

10

1
1 10 100
Eletrode Distance (a) (m)

Figure 5. Electrical Resistivity result for zone (1)

B.H Nos.1, 2 and 3
International Conference on Structural and Geotechnical Engineering, Ain Shams University ICSGE 14

10000

Apparent Resistivity (ohm.m)

B.H No.10
1000

100

10

1
1 10 100
Electrode Distance (a) (m)

10000
B.H No.11
Apparent Resistivity (ohm.m)

1000

100

10

1
1 10 100
Electrode Distance (a) (m)

10000

B.H No.12
Apparent Resistivity (ohm.m)

1000

100

10

1
1 10 100
Electrode Distance (a) (m)

10000

B.H No.13
Apparent Resistivity (ohm.m)

1000

100

10

1
1 10 100
Electrode Distance (a) (m)
International Conference on Structural and Geotechnical Engineering, Ain Shams University ICSGE 14

10000
Figure 6. Electrical Resistivity results for zone (3)
B.H nos. 10, 11, 12 and 13

Apparent Resistivity (ohm.m)

1000

100

10

1
1 10 100
Electrode Distance (a) (m)

Figure 7. Typical Electrical Resistivity result for zone

(2) represented by B.H no.8

Figure 8. Typical Electrical Resistivity result for zone (4 )

represented by B.H no.16
Figure 6 presents the resistivity curves for zone 3. The figure shows another pattern
for the change in resistivity. The calculated resistivity started from depth of 1m with
values ranging from 1300 to 1500 ohm.m. The curve after this value is decreasing but in
a mild slope reflecting the continuity of the first layer to depths of 6 to 7m. The
measured resistivity is decreasing after that to the values of 20 to 30 ohm.m in the zone
of depth 10 to 15m reflecting the clayey layers in this depth. Finally, the measured
resistivity increased to a value of nearly 100 ohm.m in BHs 10, 12 and 13 reflecting the
change in the formation and the presence of silty sand layer. However, in BH 11 the
resistivity increased only to 50 ohm.m where the soil was mainly sandy silt. It is noted
that the calculated values of resistivity for the main layers (i.e. fractured limestone, clay
and silty sand) are matching the values stated in literature in Table 2. However, despite
that the general trend of the curve reflected the soil formation, the difference in thin
International Conference on Structural and Geotechnical Engineering, Ain Shams University ICSGE 14

layers of silty clay and clayey silt couldn`t be detected from the figure; which is a
limitation in the electrical survey.
Figures 7 and 8 present the boreholes and electrical resistivity results for zones 2 and 4.
Soil formation as shown in the boreholes consisted of top layer of fractured limestone
followed by a layer of sandy clay then a layer of silty clay to the end of boring. The
obtained resistivity for this formation is consistent and following type 1 curve. The
values of resistivity started with 1200 to 1300 ohm.m for the first layer and then
decreased to values of 20 to 30 ohm.m. This trend is similar to what was found in zone
1 with slightly different slope in the zone of sandy clay layer. Yet, the resistivity curves
couldn`t clearly reflect the change between sandy clay and silty clay layers.

CONCLUSIONS

This research presents a case study of carrying out electrical resistivity technique using
simple assemblage to complement the site investigation program carried out in Helwan
University campus. The results of the calculated electrical resistivity reflected the
change in soil layers and showed consistency in the calculated resistivity with the soil
type. Results were also in agreement with the results in other literature. This can
encourage the use of the electrical resistivity technique as cheap site investigation tool
to investigate the soil formation in between the borehole locations to decide the need to
additional boreholes in specific locations.

REFERENCES

[1] Austin, R. S. and Rhoades, J. D. (1979), “A Compact, low-cost circuit for reading
four-electrode salinity sensors”. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., Vol. 43, pp 808-809.
[2] Brink, T. C. Partridge and Williams, A. A. B. (1982), “Soil Survey for Eng.” pp
347.
[3] Henbest, O. J., Erinakes, D.C. and Hixson, D. H. (1971), “Seismic and resistivity
methods of geophysical exploration” Chapter 3, pp 2-43.
[4] Horsnell, M. R. and Fugro-McClelland Ltd. (1998), “The use of cone penetration
testing to obtain environmental data” Penetration Testing in the U.K., Thomas
Telford, London, pp 289-294.
[5] Hunt, R. E. (2005), “Geotechnical Engineering investigation” Hand book second
edition, pp 56-63.
[6] Kalinski, R. J. and Kelly, W. E. (1994), “Electrical resistivity measurements for
evaluating compacted soil lines” J. Geotech. Engng.Vol.120, No. 2, Feb., pp 451-
457.
[7] Mostafa, M. M.; Radwan, A. M. and Anwar, M. B. (2010) “Application of
Measurement of Electrical Resistivity of Soil in Ain Helwan Area”. M.Sc. thesis,
Helwan University.
 International Conference on Structural and Geotechnical Engineering, Ain Shams University ICSGE 14

[8] Pozdnyakova, L., Pozdnyakov, A. and Zhang R. (2001), “Application of

geophysical methods to evaluate hydrology and soil properties in urban areas”
London, U. K. Urban Water, pp 205-216.
[9] Reitz, J. R. and Milford, F. J. (1967), “Foundations of Electromagnetic Theory”
Addison-Wesley Publ. Co. Reading, Massachusetts.
[10] Rhoades, J. D. and Ingvalson, R. D. (1971), “Determining Salinity in field soils
with soil resistance measurements” Soil Sci., Soc. Amer. Proc., Vol. 35, pp 54-60.
[11] Rhoades, J. D., Shouse, P. J. Alves, W. J., Manteghi, N. A. and Lesch, S. M.
(1990), “Determining soil salinity from soil electrical conductivity using different
models and estimates” Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., Vol 54, pp 46-54.

View publication stats