Advertisement

Assessing the effects of 1D assumption violation in vertical electrical sounding (VES) data processing and interpretation

  • Seyyed Reza MashhadiEmail author
  • Hamidreza Ramazi
  • Mohammad Asgarpour Shahreza
Research Article - Applied Geophysics
  • 26 Downloads

Abstract

This research aimed to discover the possible effects of 1D assumption violations on VES data interpretations. In order to do so, 1D inversion results of logarithmically spaced and linearly spaced VES measurements are compared with their relevant 2D inverted models. Some real case studies are also examined by 1D and 2D inversions to test the results. It is found that linearly spaced VES measurements are not really suitable for 1D inversion in the case of 1D assumption violations and logarithmically spaced VES can better handle these problematic features. In the case of semi-infinite horizontal layers and also small surface resistivity inhomogeneities, logarithmically spaced VES datasets mostly provide a reliable 1.5D model while linearly spaced VES datasets suffer from remarkable artifacts. In the case of vertical structures, both linearly spaced and logarithmically spaced VES techniques fail. In this case (i.e., a vertical dike), artifacts in the form of “extra layer” appear in those VES stations that are adjacent to the dike. However, for VES stations on the dike structure, no extra layer appears in the 1D inversion result. It must be emphasized that 1D violating features are not improbable in many geological situations so they must be considered in mind when processing and interpreting the geophysical VES data.

Keywords

Resistivity Vertical electrical sounding (VES) 1D assumption Inversion 2D/3D inhomogeneity 

References

  1. Asfahani J (2016) Hydraulic parameters estimation by using an approach based on vertical electrical soundings (VES) in the semi-arid Khanasser valley region, Syria. J Afr Earth Sci 117:196–206.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2016.01.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barker RD (1989) Depth of investigation of collinear symmetrical four-electrode arrays. Geophysics 54(8):1031–1037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Başokur AT (1999) Automated 1D interpretation of resistivity soundings by simultaneous use of the direct and iterative methods. Geophys Prospect 47:149–177.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2478.1999.00123.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beard LP, Morgan FD (1991) Assessment of 2-D resistivity structures using 1-D inversion. Geophysics 56(6):874–883.  https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1443106 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bentley LR, Gharibi M (2004) Two- and three-dimensional electrical resistivity imaging at a heterogeneous remediation site. Geophysics 69(3):674–680.  https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1759453 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chambers JE, Ogilvy RD, Kuras O, Cripps JC, Meldrum PI (2001) 3D electrical imaging of known targets at a controlled environmental test site. Environ Geol 41:690–704.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00254-001-0452-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dahlin T, Bernstone C, Loke MH (2002) A 3-D resistivity investigation of a contaminated site at Lernacken, Sweden. Geophysics 67(6):1692–1700.  https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1527070 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Danielsen BE, Dahlin T (2009) Comparison of geoelectrical imaging and tunnel documentation at the Hallandsås Tunnel, Sweden. Eng Geol 107:118–129.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2009.05.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Greenhalgh S, Wiese T, Marescot L (2010) Comparison of DC sensitivity patterns for anisotropic and isotropic media. J Appl Geophys 70:103–112.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2009.10.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gupta PK, Nirwas S, Gaur VK (1997) Straightforward inversion of vertical electrical sounding data. Geophysics 62(3):775–785.  https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1444187 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gyulai Á, Ormos T (1999) A new procedure for the interpretation of VES data: 1.5-D simultaneous inversion method. J Appl Geophys 41:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gyulai A, Ormos T, Dobroka M (2010) A quick 2-D geoelectric inversion method using series expansion. J Appl Geophys.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2010.09.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hauck C, Kneisel C (2008) Applied geophysics in periglacial environments. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hodlur GK, Dhakate R, Andrade R (2006) Correlation of vertical electrical sounding and borehole-log data for delineation of saltwater and freshwater aquifers. Geophysics 71(1):G11–G20.  https://doi.org/10.1190/1.2169847 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kumar D, Ahmed S, Krishnamurthy NS, Dewandel B (2007) Reducing ambiguities in vertical electrical sounding interpretations: a geostatistical application. J Appl Geophys 62:16–32.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2006.07.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Loke MH Rapid 2D resistivity forward modelling using the finite-difference and finite-element methods (RES2DMODE Manual). Geotomo Software, Malaysia (www.geoelectrical.com)
  17. Loke MH (2019) Tutorial: 2-D and 3-D Electrical Imaging Surveys. Geotomo Software, Malaysia (https://www.geotomosoft.com/coursenotes.zip)
  18. Loke MH, Chambers JE, Rucker DF, Kuras O, Wilkinson PB (2013) Recent developments in the direct-current geoelectrical imaging method. J Appl Geophys 95:135–156.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2013.02.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mashhadi SR, Ramazi H (2018) The application of resistivity and induced polarization methods in identification of skarn alteration haloes: a case study in Qale-alimoradkhan area. J Environ Eng Geophys 23(3):363–368.  https://doi.org/10.2113/jeeg23.3.363 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mashhadi SR, Mostafaei K, Ramazi H (2017) Improving bitumen detection in resistivity surveys by using induced polarization data. Explor Geophys.  https://doi.org/10.1071/EG17032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mota R, Santos FAM, Mateus A, Marques FO, Gonçalves MA, Figueiras J, Amaral H (2004) Granite fracturing and incipient pollution beneath a recent landfill facility as detected by geoelectrical surveys. J Appl Geophys 57:11–22.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2004.08.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pedromo S, Ainchil JE, Kruse E (2014) Hydraulic parameters estimation from well logging resistivity and geoelectrical measurements. J Appl Geophys 105:50–58.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2014.02.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Porsani JL, Filho WM, Elis VR, Shimeles F, Dourado JC, Moura HP (2004) The use of GPR and VES in delineating a contamination plume in a landfill site: a case study in SE Brazil. J Appl Geophys 55:199–209.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2003.11.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Reynolds JM (2011) An introduction to applied and environmental geophysics, 2nd edn. Wiley, LondonGoogle Scholar
  25. Rucker DF, Glaser DR (2015) Standard, random, and optimum array conversions from two-pole resistance data. J Environ Eng Geophys 20:207–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sajinkumar KS, Castedo R, Sundarajan P, Rani VR (2015) Study of a partially failed landslide and delineation of piping phenomena by vertical electrical sounding (VES) in the Wayanad Plateau, Kerala, India. Nat Hazards 75:755–778.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-014-1342-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sattar GS, Keramat M, Shahid S (2014) Deciphering transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer by vertical electrical sounding (VES) experiments in Northwest Bangladesh. Appl Water Sci.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-014-0203-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Singh UK, Tiwari RK, Singh SB (2005) One-dimensional inversion of geo-electrical resistivity sounding data using artificial neural networks—a case study. Comput Geosci 31:99–108.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2004.09.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Song SH, Lee JY, Park N (2007) Use of vertical electrical soundings to delineate seawater intrusion in a coastal area of Byunsan, Korea. Environ Geol 52:1207–1219.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00254-006-0559-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sundararajan N, Sankaran S, Al-Hosni TK (2012) Vertical electrical sounding (VES) and multi-electrode resistivity in environmental impact assessment studies over some selected lakes: a case study. Environ Earth Sci 65:881–895.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-011-1132-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tizro AT, Voudouris K, Basami Y (2012) Estimation of porosity and specific yield by application of geoelectrical method—a case study in western Iran. J Hydrol 454–455:160–172.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.06.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Topolewska S, Stêpieñ M, Kowalczyk S (2016) Mapping of the north-eastern part of Kozlowicka buried valley based on geoelectrical data. Stud Quat 33:91–101.  https://doi.org/10.1515/squa-2016-0009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Veeraiah B, Babu GA (2014) Deep resistivity sounding (DRS) technique for mapping of sub-trappean sediments—a case study from central India. J Appl Geophys 105:112–119.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2014.03.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Zohdy AAR (1989) A new method for the automatic interpretation of Schlumberger and Wenner sounding curves. Geophysics 54(2):245–253.  https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1442648 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Geophysics, Polish Academy of Sciences & Polish Academy of Sciences 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mining and Metallurgical EngineeringAmirkabir University of Technology (Tehran Polytechnic)TehranIslamic Republic of Iran

Personalised recommendations