Arab J Geosci

DOI 10.1007/s12517-014-1381-3

ORIGINAL PAPER

Electrical resistivity variation in uniaxial rock compression

Qiang Sun & Shuyun Zhu & Lei Xue

Received: 22 November 2013 / Accepted: 17 March 2014

# Saudi Society for Geosciences 2014

Abstract This paper reports the relationship between electrical resistivity and rock failure during uniaxial compression.
Experiments of rock samples on an electro-hydraulic servocontrolled testing machine show that the variation of electrical
resistivity is closely related to rock deformation. Near to rock
fracture, microcracks appear and change the microstructure of
rock mass, causing the rupture of mineral crystal lattice, and
the electrical resistivity has a rapid variation with the growth
of cracks. The experimental result shows that rapid variation
of electrical resistivity occurs at the critical point with stress
level of approximately 7585 % relative to the peak strength
in uniaxial compression. This research may be useful to indirectly detecting the critical point of rock fracture.
Keywords Rock failure . Electrical resistivity . Critical
information . Identification

Introduction
The behavior of rock failure may be reflected in rock stressstrain curves and other physical parameters (Chen and Lin
2004). Under an external load, rock cracking or porosity
varies with the received pressure; consequently, the evolution
of stress-strain state and other physical parameters are
affected.
Q. Sun (*) : S. Zhu
School of Resources and Geosciences, China University of Mining
and Technology, Xuzhou, Jiangsu Province 221116,
Peoples Republic of China
e-mail: sunqiang04@126.com
Q. Sun : L. Xue
Key Laboratory of Engineering Geomechanics, Institute of Geology
and Geophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100029,
Peoples Republic of China

The variation of electrical resistivity with rock cracking has

been studied since the 1960s (Brace et al. 1965, Brace and
Orange 1968a, b; Brace 1975, 1981; Morrow and Brace 1981;
Xiu and Chen 1987; Chen et al. 1992; Lu et al. 1998; Zhang
et al. 2003; An et al. 2008). At low pressure, a partially
saturated rock becomes less resistive but saturated rock becomes more resistive as the pressure increases. For a rock
composed of conductive minerals, the electrical resistivity at
first decreases sharply with pressure, and then is influenced by
pressure. For rocks with pores collapsed under pressure, their
electrical resistivity may either increase or decrease with pressure, depending on the initial connectivity of the pores, and an
increase is more common (Brace and Orange 1968b). Changes in rock resistivity are almost solely due to dilatant volume
change (Brace 1975). For most rocks, their resistivity increases slightly with pressure up to about half of the fracture
stress, and drops when the pressure is greater than 80 % of the
fracture stress (Brace and Orange 1968a). Changes of electrical resistivity were observed in marble, quartz sandstone,
sandstone, mudstone and coal or rock under uniaxial compression. The resistivity generally varies in four modes:
decreasing-increasing, decreasing, stationary-increasing, and
increasing-decreasing just before failure (Li et al. 1999). The
change of polarized electrical signal induced by compressive
stress was also studied as an omen of rock failure
(Hadjicontism and Mavromatou 1994), and the effect of geologic structures and anisotropy on resistivity measurement
was preliminarily studied with an experimental model and a
cross-square array of electrodes (Matias and Habberjam
1986).
Variations in the resistivity have been considered as a possible precursory phenomenon which has been used to evaluate
the deformation and fracture feature of rocks (e.g., Busby and
Jackson 2006; Liu et al. 2009a, b; Zhang et al. 2009; Wang
et al. 2012; Seokhoon 2013; Brantut et al. 2013). In the past few
decades, considerable experimental effort has been taken to

Arab J Geosci

quantify the relation between resistivity and cracks (or stress) of

rock. Experiments on a variety of rock types have measured
typical resistivity close to rock dilatancy (e.g., Liu et al. 2009a,
b; Xue 2011; Wang 2012; Tu et al. 2013), and the effect of
volumetric dilatancy on resistivity is sufficiently understood.
However, owing to technical difficulty, the point corresponding
to volumetric dilatancy is still in debate. In this study, based on
fracture mechanics and statistical physics, we introduce a few
key concepts for understanding resistivity variation at the critical point on the stress-strain curve.
The mechanism of resistivity variation is not clear probably
because the physical process of rock failure is not precisely
known and the effect of moisture content is not well understood.
In this study, the variations of stress level, strain level, and
electrical resistance in uniaxial rock compression are studied
experimentally. Based on fracture mechanics and statistical
physics, we introduce a key concept for rocks in a uniaxial
compression process, which allow understanding resistivity
variation at the critical point on stress-strain curve. We define
c and f as the critical stress and peaking stress respectively,
and c as the stress level of c/f. The study results show the
c judgment on resistivity-stress level curve has a value range
of 7585 %, which can be used as an internal variable characterizing the information on porosity change and information
source to indentify the critical point of rock failure.

Experiment preparations and testing methods

Rock samples were collected in a coal mine in Jining, Shandong province(the rock type is shown in Table 1)and cut into
50100 mm cylinders. Two symmetrically located 958
1 mm strip shaped electrodes were made by putting gelatin
mixed with copper powder along the axial direction on the
surface of each sample.
Rock samples were uniaxially loaded at 0.06 kN/s on an
electro-hydraulic servo-controlled testing machine shown in
Fig. 1a. The load was measured by an oil pressure sensor
connected to the hydraulic pressure cylinder, and a cylindrical
capacitor displacement sensor fixed to the upper platen was
used to measure the displacement of rock samples in the test.
The electrical resistivity was measured with a digital electrical
instrument (SYSCAL-R2) shown in Fig. 1b. During the trial,
a series of uniaxial compression tests are conducted in rock
mechanics rigidity servo testing system.
The principle of resistivity measurement is shown in Fig. 2:
power both ends of the rock sample and the electrode is
measured at the upper and lower ends, observe the potential
difference between MN when the current passes through the
rock sample, so the resistivity can be calculated with Eq. (1).
As the rock resistivity is relatively large, the intensity of
current is too small to be measured directly. It is obtained
indirectly by measuring the voltages at both ends of a 1 k

standard resistor in the power supply circuit with the switch K

(Fig. 2).
K

U MN
I

K A=L

Where, is the rock resistivity; K is a coefficient determined by device; A is the cross-sectional area of rock sample;
L is the distance between MN; UMN is the potential difference between MN; and I is current.

Test results and discussions microfracturing, resistivity

variation, and failure
Twelve samples were tests under uniaxial compression loading until damage is occurred. The samples can be divided into
four types according to the mode of variation of electrical
resistivity with stress level: (1) decrease-increase, (2) continuous decline, (3) approximate stationarydecrease, and (4)
increase-decrease (as shown by Table 1), consistent with (Li
et al. 1999).
The decrease-increase type includes #1, #2, and #3 mudstone samples. Figure 3 shows their strain and stress levels
(normalized relative to their peak values respectively), and
also electrical resistivity levels (normalized with their initial
value, respectively). As the initial water content is small,
compaction, reduction of porosity, changes of rock conductivity and decline of electrical resistivity are found in the early
phase of loading; in later phases of loading, the electrical
resistivity increases quickly with the increase of fractures,
and a sharp increase is shown.
The continuous decline type includes #4 sandstone, and #6,
#8, and #10 limestone samples. Figure 4 shows that in the
early phase of loading, the electrical resistivity changes slightly for #4 and #10, and fluctuates within a narrow range for #6,
but steeply declines for #8. In the late phase loading, a jump
point appears for all four samples.
The approximate stationarydecrease type includes #5, #7,
#11, and #12. Figure 5 shows that in the early phase of
loading, the electrical resistivity of limestone changes slightly,
so fluctuation within a narrow range is found for #5, while it is
relatively stable for #7, #11, and #12. In the late phase of
loading, a jump point also appears for all four samples.
The increase-decrease type only includes #9 arenaceous
limestone sample. The electrical resistivity presents a rising
trend and then falls steeply. In the late phase of loading, the
electrical resistivity significantly declines (Fig. 6).
Three phases can be identified in the stress-strain curve
with different characteristics of electrical resistivity variation
during the compression process of rock specimens before the
peak strength is reached, as shown in Fig. 7:

Arab J Geosci

Table 1 Summary of crack initiation and crack damage stress

levels from laboratory test by
electrical resistivity

No of rock
samples

Rock type

Pinot D

Pinot C

Resistivity variation
characteristics

Stress/
MPa

Strain/
%

Stress level/%

Strain level/%

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Mudstone
Mudstone
Mudstone
Sandstone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone

13.0
11.4
13.2
35.2
67.5
79.2
25.2
62.9

4.82
2.13
2.25
4.12
1.23
1.31
0.63
0.92

81.3
84.6
80.2
85.4
84.5
86.5
85.7
78.7

73.6
65.6
90.3
73.2
91.7
88.2
77.2
76.8

Decrease-increase
Decrease-increase
Decrease-increase
Continuous decline
Stationarydecrease
Continuous decline
Stationarydecrease
Continuous decline

9
10
11
12

Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Average

60.8
54.4
87.3
60.7

1.32
1.42
1.55
1.27

84.6
87.0
82.3
81.3
83.5

71.1
94.2
84.6
78.2
80.4

Increase-decrease
Continuous decline
Stationarydecrease
Stationarydecrease

1. The compaction and elastic phase O-A (shown in Fig. 1).

Initially, rock deformation is mostly compaction, with
negligible level of acoustic emission. The original micro
fissures and pores are closed, as shown in Figs. 7 and 8a.
In general, the rock samples have small water content in
the compaction phase.
2. The elastic-stable cracking phase (AC), with continuous
compaction at the beginning, and microfractures developed later. In this phase, electrical resistivity is relatively
stable (Figs.7 and 8b). Crack starts at stress levels of
approximately 3050 % times the peak uniaxial load
(Brace et al. 1966; Bieniawski 1967). Volumetric strain
dilation (Martin and Chandler 1994) and direct microscopic observation of test samples (Wong 1982) also
found microcracks formed and propagating mainly in
the direction parallel to the maximum compressive stress.
3. The yielding phase CD. In this phase, the electrical resistivity signal, or the magnitude of the spectra of the electrical resistivity signal, changes abruptly with a jump in
the vicinity of the yield point. Micro cracks grow rapidly,
with micro breaking developed spatially in rows along the
potential breaking planes until the micro cracks eventually
become connected with each other (Fig. 7), as indicated
by the localization of strain, nonlinear axial deformation,
lateral strain, and accelerated increase of volumetric strain
at the cracks.

Fig. 1 The testing machine and resistivity detector. a Loading apparatus.

b Digital electrical instrument (SYSCAL-R2)

Further crack development leads to coalescence of the

micro fractures, which sharply accelerates the concentrated
deformation of rock sample in the narrow fracture zone shown
in Figs. 7 and 8c, d. The resistivity-stress curve shows that

Arab J Geosci
Fig. 2 Schematic diagram of the
experimental system for stress,
strain, and electrical resistance of
rock under uniaxial compression

Standard
resistance R

Pressure board
Insulation board
Electrode A of power supplying
Switch K

Potential electrode M
Potential electrode N
Insulation board
Electrode B of power supplying
Pressure board
Rock smaple

Digital electrical instrument

100

Fig. 3 Relationship between

strain, stress, and resistivity of
mudstone. a No. 1, b No. 2

130

Strain level

90

120

80

Axial strain /%

60

100

50
90

40
30

Resistivity /%

110

70

80

Resistivity

20

70

10
0

60

10

20

30

40
50
60
Stress level /%

70

80

90

100

(a)
100

350
325

90

Strain level
300

80

Axial strain /%

250

60
225

50

200

40

175

30

150

20

125

Resistivity

100

10

75

0
0

10

20

30

40
50
60
Stress level /%

(b)

70

80

90

100

Resistivity /%

275

70

Arab J Geosci
100

100

90

100

110

90

100

80

90

90

Resistivity

80

80

50

60

Strain level

40

50

30

Resistivity

60

70

50

60
50

40
Strain level

30

40

40

20
30

10
0
20

30

40

50
60
Stress level /%

70

80

90

20

30

10

20
10

20

10

100

10

20

30

(a) No.4
110

70

80

90

110

90

100

80

90

70

80

60

70

100

Strain level

60

80

50

70

40

60

Axial strain /%

70

Resistivity /%

90

60

Resistivity

50

50

40

40

30

30
50

Resistivity

20

0
10

20

30

40
50
60
Stress level /%

Strain level

20

10
0

100

100

90

Axial strain /%

40
50
60
Stress level /%

(b) No.6

100

80

Resistivity /%

60

Axial strain /%

70
70

Resistivity /%

Axial strain /%

70

70

80

90

40

10

30

100

Resistivity /%

80

30
20
10

10

(c) No.8

20

30

40
50
60
Stress level /%

70

80

90

100

(d) No.10

Fig. 4 Relationship between strain, stress, and resistivity of rock a No. 4 (sandstone), b No. 6 (limestone), c No. 8 (limestone), d No. 10 (limestone)

onset of fracture coalescence starts at stress levels of approximately 7585 % of the peak strength. For rock samples with
high moisture content near the narrow fracture zone and
conductivity of water within the fissures, the electrical resistivity sharply decrease; in the absence of water, the resistivity
sharply increases. Therefore, the steep change of resistivity at
the yield point in this phase is closely related to the development of fractures and volumetric dilatation.
The resistivity sharply changes near the yield point (steep
down or steep up), and the resistivity-stress curve falls into
four types before the failure. The stress and strain corresponding to the yield point C are represented as (c,c) respectively,
and the peak stress and strain at the point D are taken as
reference values, then we have
c

c
c
 100% ; c  100%

d
d

Table 1, Figs. 3, 4, 5, and 6 show that (1) the c of the 12

samples are between 75 and 85 %, with a mean of 83.5 % and

deviation within 5 %; (2) the distribution of c is more

scattered than c, and their means are 65 and 95 %, respectively, for the 12 samples; (3) at the yield point (threshold
point) C, the resistivity has a sharp variation.

Case studies
Case 1: uniaxial compression test of different samples
Rock samples (the rock type is shown in Table 2) were cut into
50100 mm cylinders. Two symmetrically located 958
1 mm strip-shaped electrodes were made by putting gelatin
mixed with copper powder along the axial direction on the
surface of each sample. Rock samples were uniaxially loaded
at rock samples that were uniaxially loaded at electrohydraulic servo-controlled testing machine (MTS815). The
electrical resistivity was measured with a digital electrical
instrument (SYSCAL-R2) (Liu et al. 2009a, b).

Arab J Geosci
100

150

90

145
140

80

135

70

120
115

40
Resistivity

30

110
105

20

100

10

95

0
0

10

20

30

40
50
60
Stress level /%

70

80

90

100

(a) No.5
100

440

90

400

80

360
320

60
Strain level

280

50
240

40

Resistivity /%

Axial strain /%

70

200

30

Resistivity

20

160

10

120

0
0

10

20

30

40
50
60
Stress level /%

70

80

90

100

(b) No.12

Case 2: uniaxial compression test of sandstone sample

Fig. 5 Relationship between strain, stress, and resistivity of limestone. a

No. 5, b No. 12

The test result is shown in Figs. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14.
Based on the level of resistivity change vs. stress level (the
100

112

90

110

80

108

70
Axial strain /%

Fig. 6 Relationship between

strain, stress, and resistivity of
limestone (No. 9)

Sample of sandstone is cut to hexahedron specimen with

dimensions of 707070 mm3 (Lu et al. 1992). The electrode
hole was prepared on one side without being confined. The
power supply wire was prepared by the quadrupole method.

106

60
Resistivity

104

50
40

102

30

100

Strain level

20

98

10
96

0
0

10

20

30

40
50
60
Stress level /%

70

80

90

100

Resistivity /%

Axial strain /%

125

50

Resistivity /%

130

Strain level
60

stress level is normalized relative to their peak value respectively, and the resistivity changing level refers to the value of
resistivity normalized by the initial resistivity) obtained from
experiments on rock samples, the variation of resistivity with
stress level can be divided into four types according to the
mode of variation of electrical resistivity with stress level: (1)
decrease-increase, (2) continuous decline, (3) approximate
stationarydecrease, and (4) increase-decrease (as shown by
Table 2), consistent with (Li et al. 1999).
Three phases can be identified in the stress-strain curve
with different characteristics of electrical resistivity variation
during the compression process of rock specimens before the
peak strength is reached, as shown in Fig. 7. (1) The compaction and elastic phase O-A (shown in Fig. 7). (2) The elasticstable cracking phase (AC). (3) The yielding phase CD. Near
Point C, plenty of micro cracks initiate and grow rapidly, and
micro breaking is developed spatially in rows along the potential breaking planes until the micro cracks eventually become connected with each other, as indicated by the localization of strain, and accelerated increase of volumetric strain at
the cracks. In this phase, the resistivity sharply changes near
the yield point (steep down or steep up).
From Table 2, we can get the average value of stress level
for point C of 75.1 %. It also suggests that the variation of rock
resistivity can reflect the changes of stress state, which may
provide very useful information on rock stability.

Axial stress

Fig. 7 Stress-strain-resistivity
diagram showing the stages of
crack development
Peak

Resistivity

Arab J Geosci

Resistivity
(wet)

yield point

C
Stress

Crack closure

Resistivity
(dry)

Lateral strain %
Dilation Volumetric Contraction
strain

Axial strain %

Before pressuring, the nonpolarized electrode was inserted to

the measuring hole, and bound on the stand. The samples were
naturally immersed for 10 h. Before testing, the surface of
samples was dried. The load was measured by an oil pressure
sensor connected to the hydraulic pressure cylinder, and a

Crack
closure

Elastic
region

Yield
region

Total measured
volumetric strain
Calculated crack
volumetric strain
Crack
closure

Crack
growth

cylindrical capacitor displacement sensor fixed to the upper

platen was used to measure the displacement of rock samples
in the test (Fig. 17). The electrical resistivity was measured
with a digital electrical instrument (ZD-8). The press section
and sample were separated by PTFE membrane. In the testing
process, with uniform loading pressure interval, the pressure
rate was 2.5 to 3.0 MPa/s.
When the ratio between the loading stress and peak stress is
79~85 % (Figs. 15 and 16), the resistivity varies sharply, with
a jump in the vicinity of the yield point, indicating accelerated
variation of the resistivity.
Case 3: uniaxial compression test of granite sample

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Fig. 8 Diagram of rock deformation mode

A sample of Sichuan Baihujian granite is cut to a hexahedron

specimen with dimensions of 404080 mm3 (Chen et al.
1987, An et al. 1996). The electrode hole was prepared on one
side without being confined. The power supply wire was
prepared by the quadrupole method for three or four directions. Before pressuring, the nonpolarized electrode was
inserted to the measuring hole, and bound on the stand. The
samples were vacuum-soaked to saturation, and there was no
water supply in the loading process (Fig. 17).
When the loading stress reaches 30 MPa, two times
unloading was carried out, each time unloading 5 MPa. When
the loading stress reaches 60 MPa, two times unloading was
carried out, each time unloading 5 MPa. Three phases can be
identified in the stress-strain curve with different characteristics of electrical resistivity variation during the compression
process of rock specimens before the peak strength is reached,

Arab J Geosci
Table 2 Summary of yield stress
level from laboratory test by
electrical resistivity

No of rock samples

Rock type

Stress level (%) of Pinot C

Resistivity variation characteristics

1
2
3
4
5

Mudstone
Sandstone
Sandstone
Sanding mudstone
Limestone

69.8
80.2
74.8
72.5
71.6

Stationarydecrease
Decrease-increase
Increase-decrease
Continuous decline
Increase-decrease

6
7
8
9
Average

Limestone
Limestone
Coal petrography
Quartz sandstone

75.4
72.9
79.8
78.9
75.1

Increase-decrease
Increase-decrease
Decrease-increase
Continuous decline

as shown in Figs. 18, 19, and 20. (1) The compaction and
elastic phase. The resistivity was increasing with the increase
of stress level. (2) The elastic-stable cracking phase. The
resistivity changes slightly with the increase of stress level.
(3) The yielding phase. In this phase, the resistivity sharply
decreased with the increase of stress level.
When the ratio between the loading stress and peak stress is
70~85 %, the resistivity varies sharply with a jump in the
vicinity of the yield point, indicating accelerated variation and
accelerated decrease of the resistivity.

Where a is the proportional coefficient; is rock electrical

resistivity; w is pore water (with certain salinity) electrical
resistivity; is rock void ratio; m is rock cementation index;
and n is saturation index. m is between 1.3 and 2.5; n is related
to water content and close to 2 when more than 30 % of the
pore space is filled with water (Sun 2007).
(2) The elastic-stable cracking phase (AC), with continuous
compaction at the beginning, and micro fractures developed later. In this phase, electrical resistivity is relatively
stable (Fig. 7). The differential expression of Eq. (3) can
be expressed as (Lu et al. 1998)

Theoretical analysis

Change of electrical resistivity at this stage is related to

initial water content and the compaction degree of specimen
(Sun 2007), and can be represented by Eq. (3).
aw m S n ;

100
90

100

100

180

90

90

160

80

40

80

30
60
20

Axial strain /%

100

Resistivity /%

Axial strain /%

Point C
Resistivity

50

Resistivity

70

140
120

80

Point C

70
Strain level

Where, =Vp/V is the rock void ratio (Vp is the rock pore
volume, V is the rock total volume), S=Vw/Vp is the rock
saturation (Vw is the volume of water).

80

60





S
m
n
mln nlnS ;

70

60

60

50

50

Strain level

40

40

30

30

20

20

10

10

Resistivity /%

(1) The compaction and elastic phase O-A (shown in Fig. 7).

40

10

0
0

10

20

30

40
50
60
Stress level /%

70

80

90

20
100

Fig. 9 Relationship between resistivity and stress level (No. 5 limestone)

10

20

30

40
50
60
Stress level /%

70

80

90

0
100

Fig. 10 Relationship between resistivity and stress level (No. 1

mudstone)

Arab J Geosci
100

800

90

100

700

80

50

400

40

300

30
20

Strain level

Resistivity /%

500

60

Resistivity /%

Axial strain /%

90

600

Resistivity

70

100

0
10

20

30

40
50
60
Stress level /%

70

Point C
70

200

Point C

10
0

80

80

90

60

0
100

50
0

Fig. 11 Relationship between resistivity and stress level (No. 3

sandstone)

In this stage, generally, the value of Vw is very small.


 


V   V w 
n
Therefore, nm


V
V w  , the Eq. (4) can be expressed as

nm V V w
V w
a
n
an

V
Vw
Vw

10

20

30

40
50
60
Stress level /%

70

80

90

100

Fig. 13 Relationship between resistivity and stress level (No. 4 sanding

mudstone, Li et al. 1999)




nm V V w
nm V
a
n
;
a

V
Vw

where, V>0. The resistivity increases sharply, with a jump

in the vicinity of the yield point.
From Eq. (5), one can get that the influence of pore water
changes to resistivity is greater than the contribution of volume change. In this stage, the resistivity changes consistent
with moisture content changes.
(3) The yielding phase CD. In this stage, if the influence of
growth rate of cracks is greater than the change of
moisture content, the Eq. (3) is expressed as






nm V V w
V W
a
n
mln a n
mln

V
Vw
VW

7
where, <1, m<0, Vw >0. The resistivity decreased sharply with a jump in the vicinity of the yield point. In the testing
process, the change of S is very small, so, the nlnS can be
ignored, which does not affect the results of above analysis.

100

118
116

95
114
112
Resistivity /%

Resistivity /%

90

85

80

Point C

110
108
106

Point C

104

75
102
100

70
0

10

20

30

40
50
60
Stress level /%

70

80

90

100

Fig. 12 Relationship between resistivity and stress level (No. 8 coal

petrography, Li et al. 1999)

10

20

30

40
50
60
Stress level /%

70

80

90

100

Fig. 14 Relationship between resistivity and stress level (No. 9 quartz

sandstone, Li et al. 1999)

Arab J Geosci

Press
machine

100
98
96

Monitoring sensor
Rock smaple

Resistivity /%

94
92

Press
machine

90
88

Constant
current
source

86
Point C
84

Galvanometer

82

Elctrical
instrument

Oscillograph
of 16 ray

Acoustic
detector

80
0

10

20

30

40
50
60
Stress level /%

70

80

90

100

strain
indicator

Fig. 17 Block diagram of apparatus and measurement system (Chen

et al. 1987)

Fig. 15 Relationship between resistivity and stress level (sandstone #1,

Lu et al. 1992)

Many current technical problems need to be solved to

understand rock failure process, such as accurately determining the Poissons ratio and identifying rock yield point. Additionally, the evolution of cracks with macro deformation and
failure is not well understood yet. However, as the variation of
rock resistivity is closely related to rock failure process, the
variation of resistivity may provide information about rock
failure (such as yield point, yield stress level and strain level,
etc.), and can be used to predict seismic and geological disasters (such as rock burst, collapse, and landslides, etc.).

Conclusions
To assess crack initiation and crack damage stress levels in
rock mass, the characteristics of resistivity variation during the

loading process are studied in this paper for detecting crack

damage threshold. It is found that
1. The resistivity variation is related to the development of cracks in uniaxial compression. In the vicinity of the threshold point C (Crack coalescence),
the resistivity has a sharp variation with the rapid
generation and growth of micro cracks inside the
rocks.
2. The data collected from laboratory samples show that
onset of crack coalescence starts at stress levels of approximately 7585 % of the peak strength, when the
resistivity signals change sharply. The relation between
resistivity and stress-strain in uniaxial rock compression is
observed in laboratory tests. Therefore, these conclusions
need further validation before their robustness under various conditions can be confirmed and incorporated in

100

130

Point C

95

R1
R2
R3

125

90
Resistivity /%

Resistivity /%

120

85
80
75
70

115
110
105

65
100

60
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Stress level /%

Fig. 16 Relationship between resistivity and stress level (sandstone #2,

Lu et al. 1992)

10

20

30

40
50
60
Stress level /%

70

80

90

100

Fig. 18 Relationship between resistivity and stress level (granite #19,

Chen et al. 1987)

Arab J Geosci
128
124

R1
R2
R3

Resistivity /%

120
116
112
108
104
100
0

10

20

30

40
50
60
Stress level /%

70

80

90

100

Fig. 19 Relationship between resistivity and stress level (granite #21,

Chen et al. 1987)

140
120

Resistivity /%

100
80
60

R1
R2
R3
R4

40
20
0

10

20

30

40
50
60
Stress level /%

70

80

90

100

Fig. 20 Relationship between resistivity and stress level (An et al. 1996)

physical predicative methods to recognize the threshold

information of rock destruction.
Acknowledgments This research was supported by the State Basic
Research and Development Program of China (No. 2013CB036003),
the Project Funded by the Priority Academic Program Development of
Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions and the Project supported by the
National Science Youth Foundation of China (Grant No.41102201,
No.41302233, No.51309222).

References
An JZ, Xiu JG, Chen F et al (1996) Anisotropy studies of rock resistivity
changes under uniaxial pressure and water replenishment (in
Chinese). Earthquake Res China 12(3):300306

An JZ, Zhou PG, Ma MN et al (2008) Experiments on exploring and

monitoring landslip-mass using geoelectric resistivity observations
(in Chinese). Acta Seismol Sin 30(3):254261
Bieniawski ZT (1967) Mechanism of brittle fracture of rock, parts I, II
and III. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 4(4):395430
Brace WF (1975) Dilatancy-related electrical resistivity changes in rocks.
Pure Appl Geophys 113(86):207217
Brace WF (1981) The effect size on mechanics properties of rocks.
Geophys Res Lett 8(7):651662
Brace WF, Orange AS (1968a) Further studies of effects of pressure on
electrical resistivity of rocks. J Geophys Res 73(4):14331445
Brace WF, Orange AS (1968b) Electrical resistivity changes in saturated
rocks during fracture and frictional sliding. J Geophys Res 73(16):
54075420
Brace WF, Orang AS, Madden TR (1965) The effect of pressure on the
electrical resistivity of water-saturated crystalline rocks. J Geophys
Res 70(22):56695678
Brace WF, Paulding B, Scholz C (1966) Dilatancy in the fracture of
crystalline crocks. J Geophys Res 71(16):39393953
Brantut N, Heap MH, Meredith PG et al (2013) Time-dependent cracking
and brittle creep in crustal: a review. J Struct Geol 52:1743
Busby J, Jackson P (2006) The application of time-lapse azimuthal
apparent resistivity measurements for the prediction of coastal cliff
failure. J Appl Geophys 52:261272
Chen GY, Lin YM (2004) Stress-strain-electrical resistance effects and
associated state equations for uniaxial rock compression. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci 41:223236
Chen DY, Chen F, He GY (1987) Influences of stress reversal on rock
resistivity during loading procedure (in Chinese). Acta Seismol Sin
9(3):303311
Chen DY, Xu DJ, Lu YQ et al (1992) Experimental research on chance of
georesistivity anisotropy of pressed rocks and on the spot observation (in Chinese). Acta Seismol Sin 14(3):356362
Hadjicontism V, Mavromatou C (1994) Transient electric signals prior to
rock failure under uniaxial compression. Geophys Res Lett 21(16):
16871690
Li DC, Ge BT, Shu JS (1999) Experiment of resistivity variation of rocks
in failure process (in Chinese). J China Univ Min Tech 28(5):491
493
Liu SC, Liu XM, Jiang ZH et al (2009a) Research on electrical prediction
for evaluating water conducting fracture zones in coal seam floor (in
Chinese). Chin J Rock Mech Eng 28(2):348356
Liu SD, Wu RX, Zhang PS et al (2009b) Three dimensional parallel
electric surveying and its applications in water disaster exploration in coal-mines (in Chinese). J China Coal Soc 34(7):927
932
Lu YQ, Liu JY, Liang ZB (1998) The resistivity precursor features of the
large-scale limestone sample under loading condition (in Chinese).
South China J Seismol 18(3):2127
Lu YQ, Qian J D, Zhao JL, et al (1992) Preliminary research on induced
polarization effect before rupture of instable rocks (in Chinese).
Earthquake 12(4):2836
Martin CD, Chandler NA (1994) The progressive fracture of Lac du
Bonnet granite. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 31:643659
Matias MJS, Habberjam GM (1986) The effect of structure and anisotropy on resistivity measurements. Geophys 51(4):964971
Morrow C, Brace WF (1981) Electrical resistivity changes in tuff due to
stress. J Geophys Res 86:29292934
Seokhoon O (2013) Geostatistical intergration of seismic velocity and
resistivity data for probabilistic evolution of rock quality. Environ
Earth Sci 69:939945
Sun J (2007) Archies formula: historical background and earlier debates
(in Chinese). Prog Geophys 22(2):472486
Tu JN, Sun Q, Jiang ZH et al (2013) Critical rock apparent resistivity
variation with stress ration along loading progress (in Chinese). J
China Coal Soc 38(2):221225

Arab J Geosci
Wang JX (2012) Theoretical and experimental research on resistivity
properties of rock under loading (in Chinese). Chongqing: Master.
Thesis, Chongqing University
Wang YH, Liu YF, Ma HT (2012) Changing regularity of rock damage
variable and resistivity under loading condition. Safety Sci 50:718
7227
Wong TF (1982) Micromechanics of faulting in Westerly granite. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 19:4964
Xiu JG, Chen DY (1987) Test of the saturation effect on rock apparent
resistivity under uniaxial pressure (in Chinese). Earthquake 7(2):38
45

Xue L (2011) Renormalization study of percolation critical

state in rock failure (in Chinese). Beijing: Ph.D. Thesis,
Institute of Geology and Geophysics Chinese Academy of
Sciences
Zhang L, Huang JG, Gao P (2003) Influence of water on electric resistivity of deforming rock samples (in Chinese). Earthquake 23(1):
140148
Zhang PS, Liu SD, Wu XR et al (2009) Dynamic detection of overburden
deformation and failure in mining workface by 3D resistivity
method (in Chinese). Chin J Rock Mech Eng 28(9):1870
1875