Comparison of Different Electrical Resistivity Measurement Methods of Soft Marine Clays

  • Wei Duan
  • Guojun CaiEmail author
  • Songyu Liu
  • Kuikui Li
  • Anand J. Puppala
Conference paper


The electrical resistivity of soil is one of the comprehensive indexes of the inherent property of soil, which has important theoretical signification and application value. The measured methods of soil electrical resistivity mainly can be divided into two groups: laboratory tests and in-situ tests. The in situ testing has been widely used in geotechnical site characterization due to its high accuracy and repeatability. Especially the emergence and development of resistivity piezocone penetration test (RCPTU), the RCPTU becomes the main tool of in situ measurement of the electrical resistivity of soil due to its not only include a conventional piezocone penetration test, but also provides a continuous profile of electrical resistivity. The objective of this paper was to compare the different methods for measuring the electrical resistivity of soil. First, the principle of the electrical resistivity of soil was briefly presented. Then, the comparison of different electrical resistivity measurement methods of soft marine clays was made based on the Ningbo marine clay and the advantages and disadvantages of various measured methods were also analyzed and summarized. The results of comparative analysis was verified the reliability of soil electrical resistivity measured by RCPTU.


Electrical resistivity Piezocone penetration test Site characterization Soft marine clay 


  1. 1.
    Kim, J.H., Yoon, H.K., Lee, J.S.: Void ratio estimation of soft soils using electrical resistivity cone probe. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 137(1), 86–93 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fukue, M., Minato, T., Horibe, H., Taya, N.: The micro-structures of clay given by resistivity measurements. Eng. Geol. 54(1), 43–53 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arulanandan, K.: Dielectric method for prediction of porosity of saturated soil. J. Geotech. Eng. Div. 117(2), 319–330 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Arulanandan, K., Muraleetharan, K.K.: Level ground soil-liquefaction analysis using in situ properties: I. J. Geotech. Eng. 114(7), 753–770 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Long, M., Donohue, S., L’Heureux, J.S., Solberg, I.L., Rønning, J.S., Limacher, R., Lecomte, I.: Relationship between electrical resistivity and basic geotechnical parameters for marine clays. Can. Geotech. J. 49(10), 1158–1168 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zhou, M., Wang, J., Huang, S., et al.: Experimental investigation on influencing factors in soil resistivity measurement. Rock Soil Mech. 11, 3269–3275 (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wisén, R., Christiansen, A.V., Dahlin, T., Auken, E.: Experience from two resistivity inversion techniques applied in three cases of geotechnical site investigation. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 134(12), 1730–1742 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Archie, G.E.: The electrical resistivity log as an aid in determining some reservoir characteristics. Trans. AIME 146(01), 54–62 (1942)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lunne, T., Robertson, P.K., Powell, J.J.M.: Cone Penetration Testing in Geotechnical Practice. Chapman & Hall, London (1997)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    ASTM D: Standard Test Method for Performing Electronic Friction Cone and Piezocone Penetration Testing of Soils. ASTM D-5778 (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wei Duan
    • 1
  • Guojun Cai
    • 1
    Email author
  • Songyu Liu
    • 1
  • Kuikui Li
    • 1
  • Anand J. Puppala
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Geotechnical EngineeringSoutheast UniversityNanjingChina
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringThe University of Texas at ArlingtonArlingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations