Abstract
The present study focused on the sensitivity and geometric factor of the subsurface employing Schlumberger array, Wenner array, and dipole–dipole array configurations. This allows to investigate the most and least sensitive subsurface depth of region and categorizes subsurface material. Sensitivity and geometric factor values are also compared, obtained by these array configurations at different depths. The geometric factor of an electrode array can be explained with reference to an ideal electrode array in which current intensity is constant throughout the subsurface strata. The constant amount of current was injected into the subsurface for all array configurations, and geometric factor is used to calculate apparent resistivity for homogeneous subsurface. Results indicate that the value of a geometric factor is smaller for the Wenner array configuration, and strong signal strength was observed. Sensitivity along the survey line in both Schlumberger and Wenner arrays is quite similar at different depths, but sensitivity in the dipole–dipole array showed differences along with the subsurface depth.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ahzegbobor PA (2010) Acquisition geometry and inversion of 3D geoelectrical resistivity imaging data for environmental and engineering investigations [Ph. D. thesis]. Physics Department, Covenant University, Ota, Nigeria. http://www.oalib.com/references/13610853
Barker RD (1979) Signal contribution sections and their use in resistivity studies. Geophys J Int 59(1):123–129. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.1979.tb02555.x
Bouma AH, Sweet WE Jr, Chmelik FB, Huebner GL Jr (1971) Shipboard and in-situ electrical resistivity logging of unconsolidated marine sediments. In Offshore Technology Conference. Offshore Technology Conference. https://doi.org/10.4043/1351-MS
Cambefort H (1957) La mesure in situ de la porosity des sables (Measurement in situ of the porosity of sand). In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundations Engineering, London (pp. 213–215).
Carpenter EW, Habberjam GM (1956) A tri-potential method of resistivity prospecting. Geophysics 21(2):455–469. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1438247
Ciani L, Catelani M, Guidi G, Patrizi G, Cappuccini L, Casagli N, Pazzi V (2020) Comparing the effects of GPS error on different electrical resistivity tomography arrays for archeological investigations. IEEE Trans Instrum Meas 70:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIM.2020.3021513
Denahan BJ, Smith DL (1984) Electrical resistivity investigation of potential cavities underlying a proposed ash disposal area. Environ Geol Water Sci 6(1):45–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02525569
Doll H (1951) The Laterolog: A new resistivity logging method with electrodes using an automatic focusing system. J Petrol Technol 3(11):305–316. https://doi.org/10.2118/951305-G
Erchul RA (1972) Electrical resistivity measuring system for porosity determination of marine sediments. Marine Techn Soc J 6(4): 47–53. http://pascalfrancis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=PASCALGEODEBRGM73223388
Ferré PA, Knight JH, Rudolph DL, Kachanoski RG (2000) A numerically based analysis of the sensitivity of conventional and alternative time domain reflectometry probes. Water Resour Res 36(9):2461–2468. https://doi.org/10.1029/2000WR900119
Furman A, Ferré TP, Warrick AW (2003) A sensitivity analysis of electrical resistivity tomography array types using analytical element modeling. Vadose Zone Journal 2(3):416–423. https://doi.org/10.2113/2.3.416
Garg PK, Krishan G, Kumar S (2015) Radon concentration in groundwater of Haridwar, Uttarakhand, India. Journal of Earth Science and Engineering 8(2): 1–4. http://cafetinnova.org/innova/journalView/IJEE.htm#aboutJournal
Herring T, Heagy LJ, Pidlisecky A, Cey E (2022) Hybrid parametric/smooth inversion of electrical resistivity tomography data. Comput Geosci 159:104986. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2021.104986
Loke MH (2004) Tutorial: 2-D and 3-D electrical imaging surveys. http://www.geotomosoft.com/.
Okpoli CC (2013) Sensitivity and resolution capacity of electrode configurations. International Journal of Geophysics 2013. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/608037
Olowofela JA, Jolaosho VO, Badmus BS (2005) Measuring the electrical resistivity of the earth using a fabricated resistivity meter. Eur J Phys 26(3):501. https://doi.org/10.1088/0143-0807/26/3/015/meta
Quinlan JF (1990) Special problems of ground-water monitoring in karst terranes. In Ground Water and Vadose Zone Monitoring. ASTM International. https://doi.org/10.1520/STP23420
Quinlan JF, Ewers RO (1985) Groundwater flow and limestone terrains, strategic rationale and procedure for reliable, efficient monitoring of groundwater quality in karst areas. Fifth national symposium and exposition on aquifer restoration, columbus, ohio, proceedings, pp: 197–234. https://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/10003768498/
Roy A (1975) New results in resistivity well-logging. Geophys Prospect 23:40–402. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2478.1975.tb01540.x
Schlumberger C, Schlumberger M, Leonardon EG (1934) Electrical coring: a method of determining bottom-hole data by electrical measurements. Transactions of the AIME 110(01):237–272. https://doi.org/10.2118/934237-G
Storz H, Storz W, Jacobs F (2000) Electrical resistivity tomography to investigate geological structures of the earth’s upper crust. Geophys Prospect 48(3):455–471. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2478.2000.00196.x
Stummer P, Maurer H, Green AG (2004) Experimental design: electrical resistivity data sets that provide optimum subsurface information. Geophysics 69(1):120–139. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1649381
Sunde ED (1949) Earth conduction effects in transmission systems. Dover Publications Inc. Mineola, NY, USA. https://openlibrary.org/books/OL6044230M/Earth_conduction_effects_in_transmission_systems.
Telford WM, Telford WM, Geldart LP, Sheriff RE, Sheriff RE (1990) Applied geophysics (Vol. 1). Cambridge university press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139167932
Tsourlos P, Ogilvy R, Papazachos C, Meldrum P (2011) Measurement and inversion schemes for single borehole-to-surface electrical resistivity tomography surveys. J Geophys Eng 8(4):487. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-2132/8/4/001
Udosen NI, George NJ (2018) Characterization of electrical anisotropy in North Yorkshire, England using square arrays and electrical resistivity tomography. Geomechanics and Geophysics for Geo-Energy and Geo-Resources 4(3):215–233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40948-018-0087-5
Wenner F (1916) A method of measuring Earth resistivity. Bulletin of the Bureau of Standards 12:469–478. https://doi.org/10.6028/bulletin.282
Wilkinson PB, Chambers JE, Lelliott M, Wealthall GP, Ogilvy RD (2008) Extreme sensitivity of crosshole electrical resistivity tomography measurements to geometric errors. Geophys J Int 173(1):49–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2008.03725.x
Zhou QY, Shimada J, Sato A (2001) Three-dimensional spatial and temporal monitoring of soil water content using electrical resistivity tomography. Water Resour Res 37(2):273–285. https://doi.org/10.1029/2000WR900284
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to The Editor, Arabian Journal of Geosciences, and the anonymous reviewers whose constructive reviews and suggestions have immensely enhanced the clarity of the manuscript. The authors also appreciate the support received from the Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee, India.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Responsible Editor: Narasimman Sundararajan
Highlights
• Sensitivity along the ERT survey line for both the Schlumberger array and Wenner array configuration is similar. However, the sensitivity of the Dipole–dipole array is different along with the subsurface depth.
• The values of geometric factor are smaller for the Wenner array in comparison with the Schlumberger and Dipole–dipole array.
• The average apparent resistivity value at 1.65-m depth is 460 Ohm-m. It means pebbles and sandy subsoil are available, which was also observed during augur sampling.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Singh, U., Sharma, P.K. Study on geometric factor and sensitivity of subsurface for different electrical resistivity Tomography Arrays. Arab J Geosci 15, 560 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-022-09844-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-022-09844-3