1

P082 MODEL STUDY OF THE RESOLUTION OF

RESISTIVITY TOMOGRAPHY WITH DIFFERENT
ELECTRODE ARRAYS
1 1 1,2
B. E. DANIELSEN , T. DAHLIN , J. E. DANIELSEN
1
Lund University, Engineering Geology, Box 118, S-221 00 Lund, Sweden
2
Now at EMGS, Norway

Introduction

In connection to a large tunnel project in Sweden a model study of the resolution of resistivity
tomography with different electrode arrays has been carried out. Resistivity tomography will
be used within the tunnel project for in site measurements in boreholes in front of a TBM and
possibly for monitoring the freezing of a weak zone.

Method
The model study was divided in two parts. The first part of the study comprised modelling the
resolution by using 15 meter long borehole electrode arrays with 1 meter electrode spacing,
with 5 meter separation between the boreholes. The second part of the study focussed on
modelling the resolution by using electrode arrays of 120 meter with 4 meter electrode
spacing, with the boreholes 7 meter apart. The former was used for modelling the
measurements in front of a TBM. The latter was used for modelling the resolution of a non-
frozen and a frozen water bearing rock. The forward modelling was done with RES2DMOD
and inversion with RES2DINV.
For the first part of the study several different models were tested. The one presented here has
an inclined fracture zone with a resistivity of 800 m in a 5000 m matrix, see Figure 1a.
The high resistive area in the top of the model is the air-filled tunnel front. 5% Gaussian noise
was applied to the data.

In the second part of the study 2-D models with and without a frozen zone were made
(Figure 2). The models are based on the geology revealed in a core-drilling made at the tunnel
site. Model 02 in Figure 2a has a zone with good rock with a resistivity of 5000 m. Next
there is a 5 meter zone with fractured water bearing rock with a resistivity of 200 m. This is
followed by a 21 meter wide zone with rock weathered to clay-silt and a resistivity of 80 m.
After that is a zone with fractured water bearing rock. The area in the top of the model with a
resistivity of 100000 m shows the air-filled tunnel front. A ring of boreholes with 7 metres
diameter will be drilled for freezing the rock, in which cooling tubes will be installed. In
addition some observation boreholes will be drilled. Four boreholes with 3.5 meters spacing
drilled on a line are considered in the modelling presented here (Figure 2a). Borehole number
1 and 3 are for freezing, whereas the electrode arrays are inserted in number 2 and 4. This is a
2D simplification of a slice through the centre of the freezing ring, where borehole 2 is placed
in the centre of the ring. Thus the electrodes in borehole 2 will be influenced by both cooling
tubes whereas the electrodes in borehole 4 will primarily be influenced by the cooling tube in
borehole 3, Figure 2a. According to (Palacky 1987) the resistivity of frozen water-saturated
earth materials is a function of temperature. In the actual case the freezing temperature is -
40oC in the cooling tubes, but it will take time to reach temperatures close to that. Therefore
two different models that represent two different temperatures have been made. In model 03

Near Surface 2005 Palermo, Italy, 4 - 7 September 2005

 2

the resistivity of the frozen zone is raised with a factor 20 and in model 04 the resistivity is
raised with a factor 100. In both cases an approximately 5 meter wide frozen zone between
and below the two boreholes is assumed because of the cooling tubes in borehole 1 and 3, see
Figure 2c and 2e. This represents the case at the tunnel site at a certain time step, although
freezing may in reality progress at different speeds in the different materials. Furthermore, the
frozen zone will gradually increase through the monitoring electrodes and beyond, so these
models only represent one idealised time step.

Results
Five different electrode arrays were tested in the first part of the study; dipole-pole
configuration (AM-N), cross-hole dipole-dipole configuration, cross-hole pole-tripole
configuration (CHPT) (Goes and Meekes, 2004), gradient and a combination of gradient and
CHPT. The inversion with the various electrode arrays is shown in Figure 1. When the dipole-
pole configuration is used several artefacts appear at the electrodes. In the case with the
dipole-dipole and the CHPT arrays the inclined fractured zone appears thicker than in the
actual model. In the latter the resolution is limited to the area between the boreholes because
of the sensitivity of this configuration. In both cases there are a few artefacts at the electrodes.
The gradient array resolves the inclined fractures zone as steps. The artefacts around the
electrodes are less prominent with this configuration. A combination of the gradient and the
CHPT resolves the actual thickness of the inclined fractured zone better then in the previous
examples. But also here there are several artefacts around the electrodes. Some of the artefacts
are due to the 5% Gaussian noise.

Figure 1. Model of inclined fracture zone with a resistivity of 800 m in a 5000 m

matrix. a) true model, b) dipole-pole configuration AM-N, c) cross-hole dipole-dipole
configuration, d) pole-tripole configuration, e) gradient, f) gradient and pole-tripole. Black
crosses are the electrodes in the boreholes.
In the second part of the study three different electrode configurations were considered: cross-
hole pole-tripole (CHPT), gradient and a combination of the two. Only the results from the
inversion with CHPT are shown on the right side in Figure 2. In the inversion of model 02 the
four different layers are resolved, but the resistivity is slightly higher for the fractured water
bearing and clay-silt zone than in the actual model. With this electrode configuration only the
 3

area between the boreholes is resolved. The low resistivity at the edge is an artefact. The
inversion of model 03 shows a small change in resistivity for the frozen zone. This change is
much more pronounced in the inversion of model 04.

Figure 2. a) Model 02 with the non-frozen rock. The red lines are the cooling tubes and the
black crosses are the electrodes, b) Inversion result of model 02 using the pole-tripole
configuration, c) Model 03 where the resistivities in the frozen rock have been raised with a
factor 20, d) Inversion result of model 03 using the pole-tripole configuration, e) Model 04
where the resistivities in the frozen rock have been raised with a factor 100,
f) Inversion result of model 04 using the pole-tripole configuration.
It is difficult to see how much the resistivity changes, so to get a clearer image of the change
in resistivity due to freezing the difference between the non-frozen and the frozen models are
shown for all arrays in Figure 3. This ratio should ideally reflect the factor with which the
resistivity has been raised. For model 03 the change in the good rock and the large fractured
zone is best resolved when CHPT is used, Figure 3a. There is little change in the small
fractured and the clay-silt zone. The largest sensitivity of this configuration is between the
boreholes. This is shown by the lack of alteration in the area outside the freezing zone. For the
gradient configuration, Figure 3b, the change in resistivity between the boreholes is hardly
altered. Here the main change lies in the area containing the frozen zone around borehole 1. In
the case where a combination of gradient and CHPT is used the resolution of the clay-silt
zone is better compared to the other two examples. The only layer that is not resolved is the
narrow zone with fractured rock. Again the result shows a slight change in resistivity below
the boreholes.
In model 04 the contrast between the resistivities of non-frozen and frozen rock is larger. As
expected it means that the difference between model 02 and 04 is more pronounced, Figure
3d-f. For the CHPT configuration a change is resolved for the entire area between the
boreholes. Again this is where the main sensitivity for this configuration is. When the gradient
array is used the largest change is in the clay-silt zone. There is a small change in the whole
area between the boreholes. Also in this case a change is resolved in the area with the frozen
zone outside (below) the electrodes. The high change at the bottom is an artefact. With a
combination of the two array types the change in resistivity is resolved in the area between the
boreholes except for the narrow fractured zone. Also here a change below the boreholes is
resolved but the dissemination of this zone is not. The artefact manifested by a large change at
the bottom of the model remains.
Near Surface 2005 Palermo, Italy, 4 - 7 September 2005
 4

Figure 3. The difference in resistivities between model 02 for a) the pole-tripole, b) gradient
and c) the gradient+pole-tripole configurations. The difference in resistivities between model
04 and model 02 for d) the pole-tripole, e) gradient and f) the gradient + pole-tripole
configurations.

Discussion and Conclusions

For the first part of the study the best results were obtained by using dipole-dipole array and
the combination of gradient and CHPT. The former gives the least artefacts and the latter the
best resolution of the inclined zone. A combination of all three configurations might give an
even better result.
The second part of the study shows that for a successful monitoring of the freezing of the rock
the contrast between a non-frozen and a frozen zone is important. This contrast in resistivity
depends on the temperature of the rock. The best result is obtained by using the CHPT
electrode configuration. For the case where the resistivity only is raised by a factor 20 it is not
possible to resolve a silt zone or a narrow zone with fractured water bearing rock. With the
electrode geometry considered here, the width of a zone has to be larger then 5 meter and the
contrast has to be much more pronounced. In later stages of the freezing operation when the
zone has expanded the detection of it will obviously be easier, but it remains to be
investigated if the expansion of the zone can be monitored outside the electrode lines with any
confidence.
The inversion of the effect of freezing would probably give a clearer results with less artefacts
if the data sets had been inverted together with constrains on the change between the two time
steps, so called time-lapse inversion (Loke, 1999). This option was however not available.

References
Goes, B. J. M. and J. A. C. Meekes. (2004) "An Effective Electrode Configuration for the
Detection of DNAPLs with Electrical Resistivity Tomography" Journal of Environmental &
Engineering Geophysics 9.3: 127-42.
Loke, M. H. (1999) "Time-Lapse Resistivity Imaging Inversion" 5th Meeting of the
Environmental and Engineering Society European Section, Sept.6-9 1999, Budapest,
Hungary.
Palacky, G. J. (1987) "Resistivity Characteristics of Geologic Targets" Electromagnetic
methodes in applied geophysics. Ed. M. N. Nabighian. 2 ed. 3 vols. Investigations in
geophysics. Ed. E. B. Neitzel. Society of Exploration Geophysics, 56-130.