Professional Documents
Culture Documents
By Rex A. Crouch
Page 1 of 20
Copyrighted © by Rex A. Crouch, 2008
Page 2 of 20
Electrical Resistivity of Soil
Soil Resistivity Fundamentals and the Soil Resistivity Meter
By Rex A. Crouch
Abstract
This paper is a learning tool addressing soil resistivity consisting of an introduction
to electrical resistivity, a brief history, the fundamentals of soil resistivity, data
graphing, interpretation, and results. The paper then addresses the basics, building
and operation of a soil resistivity meter, graphing and interpreting the data
collected.
Page 3 of 20
Introduction. Electrical resistivity of technique. While a multitude of other
soil may be made with low frequency approaches have been applied with
alternating current in which the Rooney and Gish presenting strong
current is applied at two locations, techniques, Hummel with impressive
and the potential difference is theoretical techniques, the
measured between two points where Schlumberger and Wenner methods,
the term potential difference, as used which will be addressed in detail,
in physics, means voltage difference. prevailed as the most effective, and
Along this same method, a direct accurate techniques in active electrical
current may be applied in lieu of an resistivity measurement. All original
alternating current thus causing an techniques assumed a single uniform
induced polarization in subsurface overburden with a second layer being
features wherein, the operator times of indefinite thickness. One initial
how long the potential difference lasts shortfall was equipment. The
after the current is removed for the equipment shortfall did not entail
purpose of identifying large enough current for deep penetration
subsurface conductors. These nor were the meters accurate enough
aforementioned means are considered to distinguish between multiple
active as the operator is inducing a layers; with an increase in current and
current into the ground for the accuracy, new formulas and methods
purpose of measuring a potential of calculation were developed which
difference. Passive means would be created a more inclusive picture of the
the measurement of self-potential subsurface features [1] and [4].
which is sometimes called
spontaneous potential. This occurs as This paper will focus on the
a sulfide breaks down into a sulfate. Schlumberger and Wenner methods.
This is an indicator of an ore body that
may be residing in a moist
environment.
Page 4 of 20
Basic Formulas. There are four basic
formulas employed when discussing I
j
electrical resistivity and these are A
current, current density, Ohm’s law,
and resistivity [1]. Ohms law is the relation of voltage,
resistance, and current. This was first
Current is determined by charge in presented by the German physicist
columbs over a given period of time in Georg S. Ohm. In this formula the
seconds where current is represented term V represents voltage and R
as I, columbs in q, and time as t. represents resistance.
q V
I I
t R
Page 5 of 20
Generalizing the Concept.
figure 1
Page 6 of 20
resistivity, and subsequently chosen. The character of the electrical
variations in the subsurface features. field depends on the properties of the
In terms of homogeneous space, the space that the current is passing
electric current is applied to the through. A strong electrical field will
medium creating an electrical field. occur in moist silt whereas a weak
Within this field there are various field will occur in dry gravel. In either
potential differences between all of case, a homogeneous space is the
the possible points that may be easiest to work with or model [4].
Page 7 of 20
Current in Multiple Layers. You can easily imagine taking your
voltage probes as represented in figure
As current is applied to the ground, it 1, and placing them in figure 2, you
will always attempt to follow the path would have a high voltage
of least resistance or the path of lowest measurement as most of your current
resistivity is passing through the area you are
measuring. Conversely, if you were to
In figure 2 below, rho 1 has a lower place your voltage probes as
resistivity than rho 2, and the majority represented in figure 1 into figure 3,
of the current passes through the rho you would have a low voltage
1, 1 2. measurement because the majority of
the current is passing through a lower
layer with lower resistivity.
figure 2
figure 3
Page 8 of 20
Basics of Conducting Soil Resistivity
Surveys.
Page 9 of 20
figure 5 figure 6
Page 10 of 20
Department of Transportation, [2] but
by no means is comprehensive as all
materials changes in Ohm meters
based on a variety of factors using silt,
Ohms meters as an example, it changes
based on water content as well as sand
percentage as well as other minerals
present, but the below mine water
mentioned will change based on the pH
level of the water.
figure 7
Material Ohm Meters
Page 11 of 20
multi-meters are employed to monitor
amperage, and voltage. For conducting
induced polarization the inverter is
removed from the system and the 12
volt source is use to apply the current.
figure 8.
Page 12 of 20
% Written by Rex A. Crouch
% racrouch@mtu.edu
% For: Special Topics in Geophysics - GE 4933 - 01
% Soil Resistivity Graphing
% This script accompanies a soil resistivity meter I built
%================================
Page 13 of 20
My first test-run of the my soil image 1.
resistivity meter was conducted
adjacent to the road that parallels the
Quincy Mine, next to the Quincy fire The below graph is from my very first
station (above Hancock, MI along state test-run of the resistivity meter at the
road 41). I have previous inspected mentioned location.
this area from underground through
one of the civil war era drifts in the
Quincy Mine, and the area, although
copper rich, had not been fully stoped.
In conducting a passive survey from
the surface using the Geonics EM 16, I
also confirmed a very strong
conductive ore body. Subsequently, I
knew the dip angle of the stratigraphic
layers was about 45 degrees and that
there was in fact a significant
conductive ore body at my test-run
survey site.
graph 1.
Using the Wenner method, I began
with a 1.5 meter separation in the Graph 1 is produced by my MATLAB
posts and increased in increments of script, the blue line represents the raw
1.5 meters until I had reached 15 data where the resistivity continued to
meter, roughly 50 foot, separations in climb and then dropped sharply
each of the posts. At this point I knew I leveling out to a constant low and then
had passed the ore body in question begin to climb again. The green line
but the raw data on a piece of paper was a function I applied to data to
made little sense so returned to my show a curve while maintaining the
computer to enter the data, and form of the data. This is what I was
produced a log log graph. expecting to see. The graph indicated
that we went through several different
The below image is of me taking contact layers to include an area that
measurements at the first test-run site. could be considered highly conductive.
With data from the USGS, the known
layers are an overburden, footwall,
Pewabic lode, and a hanging wall [5]
were all well known here, thus my first
application was confirmed.
Page 14 of 20
expecting to see dike like features. present and plunging in the direction
Also, the terrain was very rugged. For of the dipping stratigraphic layers.
these two reasons I chose to use the
Schlumberger method. My traverse My second test run was over a known
line was N40W running 150 meters. area of geologic stratigraphy, and the
The first anomaly was the current results, other than the fluctuating
reading. The current rapidly current, were somewhat as expected
fluctuated between 1.1 mA to 2.3 mA. when applying a best fit curve which
I reviewed multiple articles on current removed many jumps in data, but
but found nothing that immediately without the best fit curve the data was
explained why it fluctuated. I also otherwise complicated as depicted
contacted several leaders in -soil above. The running of a second
resistivity meter- manufacturing and traverse to confirm data from the first
asked how their professional systems traverse has inspired the thought of
reconciled this problem. I received no creating a contouring script for
responses, and worked on my own visualizing an entire area.
conclusions. Considering the terrain
and the fact that a stream was at the Choosing the site was the first
top of the ridge but disappeared into a consideration. I wanted a flat area to
hole—left me to believe that this work with this time; an area without
fluctuation may represent a pulsating boulders, falling rocks, trees, bushes,
flow of an underground stream. needles, and growling noises that came
Considering that, I assumed a mean from the cave like cavities in between
current of 1.7 mA for all calculations. the rocks. I also wanted to develop
The data depicted what I would some knowledge about the area before
interpret as possibly six contacts with working on it. The MTU football field
strong variation in the conductivity of is probably the largest and flattest area
the various layers. around Houghton, Michigan. Going to
the Copper County Archives, I
researched mapping of the area and
found a bedrock mapping of the area as
well as a soil resistivity mapping of the
area in preparation for construction of
the Student Development Center
(SDC). The soil resistivity mapping
was based on various gray scale
shading, and had lost is shading, and
was of no use but the bedrock mapping
was still usable. As no development
graph 2 was going to take place on the football
field, this area was not mapped but the
To confirm the data, I ran a second contour lines stopping at the edge of
traverse line still N40W, 18 meters the football field could be used to help
S50W away from the first traverse line confirm my data. As many items in the
and found that the two major features archives cannot be photographed or
in the middle of the graph were still photocopied I redrew the map by hand
Page 15 of 20
retaining it to scale to the best of my Below is a picture which represents
ability. Below is my redrawing of the how my system was setup:
area in question.
80 120
140
160
140
80
120
100
image 2.
80
MTU
FOOTBALL
FIELD
N My cart, behind me in the photo,
contained most of the equipment used
160 in the survey:
140
180
140
120
figure 10
Page 16 of 20
Below is the script used for creating
my subsurface contour map:
% Written by Rex A. Crouch
% racrouch@mtu.edu
% For: Special Topics in Geophysics - GE 4933 - 01
% Soil Resistivity Graphing
% This script accompanies a soil resistivity meter I built
% This script Does the following saves the data from the resistivity matrix
% as "A" and then conducts a contour map of the resistivity
%================================
A=
[1.1053 0.2512 0.3391 0.0816 0.2449 0.0942
0.7285 2.1352 0.6908 1.884 0.9546 1.6077
1.9028 0.5652 0.2638 1.7898 3.8245 1.055
2.4366 0.1256 1.4821 0.1005 2.0598 1.1555]
C=contourf(A,10);
colorbar
caxis([-20 20])
% End of script
Script 2
Page 17 of 20
The contour plot was then taken and we see the imaging going to yellow
placed over the football field. The again being the area of the field
northeast section of the football field adjacent to a stream. The fill areas of
that was built-up does not really the football field were probably the
correlate to the bedrock diagram on darkest green.
the northeast edge. Mindful that this
is two different types of data-the Summary. I found that the Wenner
bedrock data and the resistivity method was the easiest to employ with
data. Despite this difference in data a self built 4 lead system because it
types, correlations can still be drawn. gave the most control, and ease in
calculations, but I can see that the
Schlumberger method would be the
most effective with a multi-lead self
calculating system. I am still not
entirely sure how to treat/interpret an
area that may have rapidly flowing
underground water sources, and can
see this as being a study in of itself.
Setting this topic aside, and addressing
resistivity surveys in general, I have to
note that they are an effective way of
visualizing the subsurface, and
identifying various layers with minimal
cost associated with the equipment
however, the employment of the four
lead system, particularly while
working alone, is a time intensive task.
Despite this drawback I will continue
to use the system because it is
figure 11
effective.
Looking further southwest we see
I highly recommend any student
lower resistivity values approaching
interested in geophysics to build their
yellow in color which more closely
own equipment whenever possible as
correspond to the tight contour lines of
it brings you closers to understanding
the bedrock topography. If you were
the system you are studying. The
to remove this built-up overburden in
theory of geophysics is fine, but the
the northeast of the football field you
actual applied geophysics is a hands-on
could envision the contour lines
adventure.
finding a common ground. Also, in the
very south corner of the contour map
Page 18 of 20
Works Cited.
[1] Burger, Sheehan, and Jones, eds. 1992. Introduction to Applied Geophysics:
Exploring the Shallow Subsurface. New York: W.W. Norton & Company Inc
[2] Johnson and Monroeville, eds. 2005. Geophysical Technologies for Detecting
Underground Coal Mine Voids: Applications of the Electrical Resistivity Method for
Detection of Underground Mine Workings. U.S. Department of Transportation
[3] Nostrand and Cook, eds. 1966. Interpretation of Resistivity Data: Geological
Survey Professional Paper 499. U.S. Department of the Interior. 224.
Figure 1. Basic configuration of soil resistivity system derived from [1], illustrated
by R.A. Crouch April 2007
Figure 2. Example of layering when layer 1 has lower resistivity then layer 2 [1],
illustrated by R.A. Crouch April 2007
Figure 3. Example of layering when layer 2 has lower resistivity then layer 1 [1],
illustrated by R.A. Crouch April 2007
Figure 7. Example of loglog graphing as used with fictional data, illustrated by R.A.
Crouch May 2007
Figure 9. Block diagram of a soil resistivity system, illustrated by R.A. Crouch May
2007
Page 19 of 20
Figure 10. Representation of the subsurface bedrock of the area adjacent to the
MTU football field derived from the Copper Country Archives, map drawer 48c,
compiled by W Johnson and J Ringler (undated), illustrated by R.A. Crouch May 2007
Figure 11. Representation of the subsurface bedrock of the area adjacent to the MTU
football field derived from the Copper Country Archives, map drawer 48c, compiled
by W Johnson and J Ringler (undated), illustrated by R.A. Crouch May 2007 with
overlay of resistivity contour map.
Table 1. Fictional data to develop a working example of plotting on log log graphs,
in support of Figure 7. R.A. Crouch May 2007.
Graph 1. Graph from data collected during initial test run of soil resistivity meter
orthogonal to the strike along the road adjacent to the fire station next to Quincy
Mine (Houghton Co, MI), R.A. Crouch May 2007.
Graph 2. Graph from data collected during second test run of soil resistivity meter
near base of Green Stone Ridge running parallel to the strike along Cliff Drive
(Keweenaw Co, MI), R.A. Crouch May 2007.
Image 1. R.A. Crouch collecting data during initial test run of system during the first
quarter of May 2007.
Image 2. R.A. Crouch collecting data during initial run on football field behind SDC
during the second quarter of June 2007
Image 3. Resistivity system as used on football field behind SDC during the second
quarter of June 2007
Script 1. R.A. Crouch, MATLAB script. Converting distance, amperage, and voltage
into a log log plot. May 2007.
Script 2. R.A. Crouch, MATLAB script. Matrix of resistivity into a contour plot. June
2007.
Page 20 of 20