SpringerLink
Log in

Matching the experimental formula of laboratory modeling with field measurements on spherical anomalies using two-dimension electrical resistivity imaging technique

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

One of the most effective geophysical methods to describe subsurface conditions, including soil characteristics, detection of anomalies, and to study buried cavities is the DC electrical resistivity (DCR) method, which is applied as a non-destructive geophysical method in the laboratory and in field measurements. In this paper, the results of laboratory and field DCR measurements to detect spherical anomalies and cavities are presented. Laboratory modeling was performed in a laboratory tank using two-dimensional (2D) electrical resistivity on spherical anomalies that were selected from non-conductive materials. Several lab models in simulating different conditions of cavity occurrence were used to examine the responses of the Schlumberger and Wenner arrays. The results showed that the Schlumberger array can detect the desired objectives with a higher resolution and the Wenner array can show the shape of the anomaly better. The critical point of the lab modeling of this research is to find an experimental logarithmic formula for use in field studies with real data that makes a connection between the parameters of three-dimensional anomalies. The aim of the field measurements was to detect buried cavities in the Famenin–Hamadan plain based on four profiles with a total number of 49 electrical soundings by using the 2D electrical resistivity imaging technique. The results led to the detection of cavities in the Famenin field. By comparing the results of lab studies with real field data, the depth of four cavities was estimated in the study area.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adli Z, Musa MH, Arifin M (2010) Electrical resistivity of subsurface: field and laboratory assessment. World Acad Sci Eng Technol Int J Environ Chem Ecol Geol Geophys Eng 4:422–425

    Google Scholar 

  • Alsharari B, Olenko A, Abuel-Nagac H (2018) Modeling of electrical resistivity of soil based on geotechnical properties. Expert Syst Appl. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2019.112966

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alwan IAK (2013) Comparsion between conventional arrays in 2D electrical imaging technique for shallow subsurface structure detection of the University of Technology. Eng Tech J 31(10):254–259

    Google Scholar 

  • Amini A, Ramazi H (2017) CRSP, numerical results for an electrical resistivity array to detect underground cavities. Open Geosci. https://doi.org/10.1515/geo-2017-0002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amiri M, Nazari H, Mazaheri H (2004) Reasons and mechanism for occurrence of Sinkholes in Famenin–Kaboudrahang Plain. Geogr Res 19(2(73)):172–186 (In Farsi)

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakhshipour Z, Huat BBK, IbrahimS AA, Kura NU (2013) Application of geophysical techniques for 3D geohazard map** to delineate cavities and potential sinkholes in the Northern Part of Kuala Lumpur. The Scientific World Journal, Kuala Lumpur. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/629476

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Batayneh AT, Al-Zoubi AS (2000) Detection of a solution cavity adjacent to a highway in southwest jordan using electrical resistivity methods. Geophysics 5(4):1–56. https://doi.org/10.4133/JEEG5.4.25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bharti AK, Pal SK, Ranjan SK, Kumar R, Priyam P, Pathak VK (2016) Coal mine cavity detection using electrical resistivity tomography - a joint inversion of multi array data. In: 22nd European meeting of environmental and engineering geophysics. Barcelona, Spain. https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.201602084

  • Butler SL, Sinha G (2012) Forward modeling of applied geophysics methods using Comsol and comparison with analytical and laboratory analog models. Comput Geosci 42:168–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2011.08.022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cardarelli E, Cercato M, Cerreto A, Filippo GD (2010) Electrical resistivity and seismic refraction tomography to detect buried cavities. Geophys Prospect 58(4):685–695. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2009.00854.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caselle C, Bonetto S, Comina C (2019) Comparison of laboratory and field electrical resistivity measurements of a gypsum rock for mining prospection applications. Int J Min Sci Technol 29(2019):841–849

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clement R, Moreau S (2016) How should an electrical resistivity tomography laboratory test cell be designed? Numerical investigation of error on electrical resistivity measurement. J Appl Geophys.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2016.02.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahlin T, Zhou B (2004) A numerical comparison of 2D resistivity imaging with 10 electrode arrays. Geophys Prospect 52(5):379–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahlin T, Zhou B (2006) Multiple-gradient array measurements for multi-channel 2D resistivity imaging. Near Surf Geophys 4(2):113–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Das P, Mohanty PR (2016) Resistivity imaging technique to delineate shallow subsurface cavities associated with old coal working: a numerical study. Environ Earth Sci 75:661. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-016-5404-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delgado-Rodríguez O, Torres M, Shevnin V, Ryjov A (2012) Estimation of soil etrophysical parameters based on electrical resistivity values obtained from lab and in-field measurements. Geofís Int 51(1):5–15. https://doi.org/10.22201/igeof.00167169p.2012.51.1.142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dey A, Morrison HF (1979) Resistivity modeling for arbitrarily shaped three dimensional structure. Geophysics 4(3):753–780

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutta NP, Bose RN, Saikia BC (2006) detection of solution channels in limestone by electrical resistivity method. Geophys Prospect 18(3):405–414. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2478.1970.tb02121.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • El-Sadek MA, Ammar AA, Elkhateeb SA (2012) Analysis and interpretation of the field and laboratory geophysical measurements of black-sand beach deposits, East Rosetta, Egypt. Int J Geophys. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/435216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fajana AO, Ofobutu HO, Eluwole AB (2020) Laboratory modeling for contaminant migration monitoring using electrical resistivity method. Model Earth Syst Environ 6:1027–1043. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-020-00739-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hashemi SA (2002) The study of causes of land subsidence in the Famenin plain and their remedial works. Dissertation, Power and Water Industrial University, Tehran, Iran (In Farsi)

  • Hassan AA (2017) worked on numerical modelling of subsurface cavities using 2d electrical resistivity tomography technique. Diyala J Pure Sci 13(2):197–216. https://doi.org/10.24237/djps.1302.260A

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hassan AA, Nsaif MD (2016) Application of 2D electrical resistivity imaging technique for detecting soil cracks: laboratory study. Iraqi J Sci 57(2A):930–937

    Google Scholar 

  • Heidari M, Khanlari GR, Taleb Beydokhti AR, Momeni AA (2011) The formation of cover collapse sinkholes in North of Hamedan, Iran. Geomorphology 132(3–4):76–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2011.04.025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hojat A, Zanzi L, Nasab SK, Ranjbar H, Loke MH (2019) Laboratory and field GPR measurements to detect qanats. Near Surface Geoscience Conference & Exhibition 2019 At: Hague, Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.201902571

  • Hojat A, Ferrario M, Arosio D, Brunero M, Ivanov VI, Longoni L, Madaschi A, Papini M, Tresoldi G, Zanzi L (2021) Laboratory studies using electrical resistivity tomography and fiber optic techniques to detect seepage zones in river Embankments. Geosciences. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences11020069

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hong CH, Chong SH, Cho GC (2019) Theoretical study on geometries of electrodes in laboratory electrical resistivity measurement. Appl Sci. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9194167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hong CH, Chong SH, Cho GC (2020) Electrical resistivity measurement with spherical-tipped cylindrical electrode embedded on two layers. Materials 13:2144. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13092144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hung YC, Lin CP, Lee CT, Weng KW (2019) 3D and boundary effects on 2D electrical resistivity tomography. Appl Sci. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9152963

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irfan F, Azhar SB (2012) Comparing electrical resistivity values of sub-surface soil obtained from field and laboratory investigation. International conference on civil, offshore and environmental engineering (ICCOEE 2012) Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

  • Karimi H, Taheri K (2010) Hazards and mechanism of sinkholes on Kabudar Ahang and Famenin plains of Hamadan, Iran. Nat Hazards. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-010-9541-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khanlaria GR, Heidaria M, Momeni AA, Ahmadi M, Taleb Beydokhti AR (2012) The effect of groundwater overexploitation on land subsidence and sinkhole occurrences, West of Iran. Q J Eng Geol Hydrogeol 45(4):447–456. https://doi.org/10.1144/qjegh2010-069

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kidanu IS, Varnavina A, Anderson N, Torgashov E (2020) Pseudo-3D electrical resistivity tomography imaging of subsurface structure of a sinkhole—a case study in Greene County, Missouri. AIMS Geosci 6(1):54–70. https://doi.org/10.3934/geosci.2020005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kouchaki BM (2017) Laboratory Resistivity Measurements for Soil Characterization. Dissertations, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville

  • Loke MH (2001) Tutorial: 2D and 3D electrical imaging surveys. Geotomo Software, Kuala Lumpur

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahmood SM, Maerefat NL, Chang MM (2013) Laboratory measurements of electrical resistivity at reservoir conditions. SPE Form Eval 6(3):291–300. https://doi.org/10.2118/18179-PA

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martorana R, Capizzi P, Carollo A (2018) Misinterpretation caused by 3D effects on 2d electrical resistivity tomography - tests on simple models. In: 24th European Meeting of environmental and engineering geophysics 2018:1-5. Porto, Portugal. https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.201802560

  • McCann DM, Jackson PD, Culshaw MG (1987) The use of geophysical surveying methods in the detection of natural cavities and mineshafts. Q J Eng Geol Hydrogeol 20:59–73. https://doi.org/10.1144/GSL.QJEG.1987.020.01.06

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLachlana P, Chambers J, Uhlemann S, Binleya A (2020) Limitations and considerations for electrical resistivity and induced polarization imaging of riverbed sediments: observations from laboratory, field, and synthetic experiments. J Appl Geophys. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2020.104173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Militzer H, Rosler R, Losch W (1979) Theoretical experimental investigations for cavity research with geoelectrical resistivity methods. Geophys Prospect 27(3):640–652. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2478.1979.tb00991.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moldoveanu T, Georgescu P (1989) Aspects concerning the results of laboratory geoelectric measurements for the study of hydrogeological phenomena. In: Merkler GP, Militzer H, Hötzl H, Armbruster H, Brauns J (eds) Detection of Subsurface Flow Phenomena. Lecture Notes in Earth Sciences. Springer, Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0011642

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Moradipour M, Ranjbar H, Hojat A, Karimi Nasab S, Daneshpajouh S (2016) Laboratory and Field measurements of electrical resistivity to study heap leaching pad No. 3 at Sarcheshmeh copper mine. In: 22nd European meeting of environmental and engineering geophysics, 2016:1-5. Barcelona, Spain. https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.201602140

  • Nazari M, Najafi A (2016) Epidemiological study of endemic relapsing fever in Hamadan Province, West of Iran. J Arthropod Born Dis 10(4):586–594

    Google Scholar 

  • Nevedrova NN, Sanchaa AM, Surodina IV (2008) 3D modeling of complex geoelectrical structures. Conference Proceedings, 3rd EAGE St. Petersburg international conference and exhibition on geosciences - geosciences: from new ideas to new discoveries. https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.20146884

  • Neyamadpour A, Wan Abdullah WAT, Taib S (2010) Use of four-electrode arrays in three-dimensional electrical resistivity imaging survey. Stud Geophys Geod 54:299–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nyari Z, Kanli AI (2007) Imaging of buried 3D objects by using electrical profiling methods with GPR and 3D geoelectrical measurements. J Geophys Eng 4(2007):83–93. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-2132/4/1/010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park MK, Park S, Yi MJ, Kim C, Son JS, Kim JH, Abraham AA (2013) Application of electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) technique to detect underground cavities in a karst area of South Korea. Environ Earth Sci 71:2797–2806. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-013-2658-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park CS, Jeong JH, Park HW, Kim K (2017) Experimental study on electrode method for electrical resistivity survey to detect cavities under road pavements. Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9122320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putiska R, Nikolaj M, Dostal I, Kusnirak D (2012) Determination of cavities using electrical resistivity tomography. Contrib Geophys Geod 42(2):201–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radulescu V (2007) Geoelectrical study for delinating underground cavities in Karst Areas. GEO ECO Mar 13(1):89–95. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.57349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riddle GI, Riddle CJ, Schmitt DR (2010) ERT and seismic tomoghraphy in identifying subsurface cavities. Geo Can Work Earth 1:1–4

    Google Scholar 

  • Robain H, Camerlynck C, Bellier G, Tabbagh A (2003) Laboratory measurements of electrical resistivity versus water content on small soil cores. Geophys Res Abstr 5:03830

    Google Scholar 

  • Roudsari MS, Beitollahi A (2018) Laboratory modelling of self-potential anomalies due to spherical bodies. Explor Geophys. https://doi.org/10.1071/EG13100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roy A, Apparao A (1971) Depth of investigation in direct current methods. Geophysics 36:943–959

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rücker C (2011) Advanced electrical resistivity modelling and inversion using unstructured discretization. Dissertation, University of Leipzig

  • Saharudin MA, Nordiana MM, Azwin IN (2017) Application of 2-D resistivity imaging and ground penetrating radar (GPR) methods in detecting cavities regarding the geohazard assessment. AIP Conf Proc. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4990919

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Satarugsa P, Manjai D, Yangme W (2004) Evaluation of 2D resistivity imaging technique for map** and monitoring of subsurface cavity collapse into the sinkhole. In: ASEG geophysical conference and exhibition. Sydney, Australia. https://doi.org/10.1071/ASEG2004ab126

  • Slater L, Binley A, Versteeg R, Cassiani G, Birken R, Sandberg S (2002) A 3D ERT study of solute transport in a large experimental tank. J Appl Geophys 49(4):211–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-9851(02)00124-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swanson RD, Singha K, Day-Lewis FD, Binley A, Keating K, Haggerty R (2012) Direct geoelectrical evidence of mass transfer at the laboratory scale. Water Resour Res. https://doi.org/10.1029/2012WR012431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taiwo SM, Lee JS, Yoon HK (2016) Analytical and experimental studies to obtain electrical resistivity in a small-scaled laboratory test. Geophysics. https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2016-0491.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Telford WM, Geldart LP, Sheriff RE (2012) Applied geophysics, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 770

    Google Scholar 

  • Thabit JM, Abed AM (2013) Evaluation of different electrode arrays in delineation subsurface cavities by using 2D imaging technique. J Univ Anbar Pure Sci 7(3):166–175

    Google Scholar 

  • Vincent NA, Shivashankar R, Lokesh KN, Jacob JM (2017a) Laboratory electrical resistivity studies on cement stabilized soil. Int Sch Res Not. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/8970153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vincent NA, Shivashankar R, Lokesh KN (2017b) Laboratory and field electrical resistivity studies on laterites and lateritic soils. Electron J Geotech Eng 22(07):2637–2664

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Road, Housing & Urban Development Research Center (B.H.R.C) for their support to provide a geophysical laboratory for laboratory operations and geoelectric devices for field data collection during this study.

Funding

No funding was received for conducting this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Earth Sciences, Faculty of Basic Sciences, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

    Sanaz Zarif Mahdizadeh

  2. Department of Geophysics, Head of Seismology Engineering and Risk, Road, Housing and Urban Development Research Center, Tehran, Iran

    Ali Beitollahi

  3. Department of Earth Sciences, Faculty of Basic Sciences, North Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

    Ilnaz Zarif Mahdizadeh

Authors
  1. Sanaz Zarif Mahdizadeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ali Beitollahi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ilnaz Zarif Mahdizadeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, preparing charts by software and analysis were performed by SZM under the supervision of AB. The first draft of the manuscript was written by SZM and IZM. AB commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sanaz Zarif Mahdizadeh.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

See Figs. 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26.

Fig. 18
figure 18

Sections related to the measurement with Wenner array a Section with anomaly z = 1 cm, R = 2.5 cm, b section with anomaly z = 2 cm, R = 2.5 cm, c section with anomaly z = 3 cm, R = 2.5 cm, d section with anomaly z = 4 cm, R = 2.5 cm

Full size image
Fig. 19
figure 19figure 19

Sections related to the measurement with Wenner array a Section with anomaly z = 0.5 cm, R = 7.5 cm, b section with anomaly z = 1 cm, R = 7.5 cm, c section with anomaly z = 1.5 cm, R = 7.5 cm, d section with anomaly z = 2 cm, R = 7.5 cm, e section with anomaly z = 2.5 cm, R = 7.5 cm, f section with anomaly z = 3 cm, R = 7.5 cm, g section with anomaly z = 3.5 cm, R = 7.5 cm

Full size image
Fig. 20
figure 20

Comparison of diagrams resulted from the measurement with Schlumberger array in different points with the presence of anomaly, a anomaly with z = 1.5 cm, R = 2.5 cm, b anomaly with z = 5 cm, R = 2.5 cm, c anomaly with z = 1 cm, R = 7.5 cm, d Anomaly with z = 3 cm, R = 7.5 cm, e anomaly with z = 6 cm, R = 7.5 cm, f anomaly with z = 10 cm, R = 7.5 cm

Full size image
Fig. 21
figure 21

Comparison of the diagrams resulted from measuring Wenner array in different points with the presence of anomaly, a anomaly with z = 3 cm, R = 2.5 cm, b anomaly with z = 5 cm, R = 2.5 cm, c anomaly with z = 1 cm, R = 7.5 cm, d anomaly with z = 2.5 cm, R = 7.5 cm, e anomaly with z = 3.5 cm, R = 7.5 cm

Full size image
Fig. 22
figure 22

a r/z diagram for Schlumberger array with R = 7.5 cm anomaly, b r/z diagram for Wenner array with R = 7.5 cm anomaly

Full size image
Fig. 23
figure 23

a EPP profile pseudo-section, b EPP profile horizontal gradient, c EPP profile vertical gradient

Full size image
Fig. 24
figure 24

a SPP profile pseudo-section, b SPP profile horizontal gradient, c SPP profile vertical gradient

Full size image
Fig. 25
figure 25

Error section, a EPP profile from sounding 1–10, b EPP profile from sounding 11–20, c EPP profile from sounding 21–30

Full size image
Fig. 26
figure 26

a Error section for SPP profile, b curve of SPP profile sounding 2, c diagram showing electrode distance based on the electrical resistivity for sounding 2 of SPP profile

Full size image

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zarif Mahdizadeh, S., Beitollahi, A. & Zarif Mahdizadeh, I. Matching the experimental formula of laboratory modeling with field measurements on spherical anomalies using two-dimension electrical resistivity imaging technique. Model. Earth Syst. Environ. 8, 3523–3553 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-021-01290-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-021-01290-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation