Advertisement

Characterization of electrical anisotropy in North Yorkshire, England using square arrays and electrical resistivity tomography

Original Article
  • 2 Downloads

Abstract

Fracture characteristics were quantified at a site underlain by limestone bedrock in Spaunton Moors, North Yorkshire, England, with the use of electrical resistivity tomography and azimuthal square arrays. The electrical resistivity tomography survey was conducted to generate a two-dimensional picture of the subsurface. The azimuthal square array survey was conducted to characterize electrical anisotropy due to similarly oriented fractures within the Coralline limestone. Values of fracture strike obtained from graphical analysis of the square array data corresponded with values obtained from geological mapping of the quarry face. On the square array polar plots, the fracture zone was where resistivity was lowest. Secondary porosity was estimated to range between 20 and 27%. This range of values was interpreted to be a result of foliation. The azimuthal inhomogeneity ratio, computed to estimate the severity of lateral resistivity variations on the site, had a value averaging 0.7. This implies that the effects of lateral resistivity variations are not very severe. Electrical anisotropy observed on the study location is due to the presence of fractures. The lateral variations in resistivity are due to lithological heterogeneities within the bedrock. Square array detected anisotropic behavior within the bedrock in spite of overburden effects. The azimuthal square array technique is therefore useful for characterizing fractures and for quantifying anisotropy within the bedrock to generate results consistent with that obtained from geological mapping of existent outcrops.

Keywords

Square arrays Electrical resistivity tomography Electrical anisotropy Fractures Spaunton Moors 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The funding was provided by Akwa Ibom State University.

References

  1. Anderson B, Bryant I, Luling M, Spies B, Helbig K (1994) Oilfield anisotropy: its origins and electrical characteristics. Oilfield Rev 6:48–56Google Scholar
  2. Aspinall A, Saunders MK (2005) Experiments with the square array. Archaeol Prospect 12:115–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Astin T, Eckardt H, Hay S (2007) Resistivity imaging survey of the Roman barrows at Bartlow, Cambridgeshire, UK. Archaeol Prospect 14:24–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barker RD (1997) Electrical imaging and its application in engineering investigations. Geol Soc Lond Eng Geol Spec Publ 12:37–43Google Scholar
  5. Boadu FK, Gyamfi J, Owusu E (2005) Determining subsurface characteristics from azimuthal resistivity surveys: a case study at Nsawam, Ghana. Geophysics 70:B35–B42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Busby JP, Peart RJ (1997) Azimuthal resistivity and seismic measurements for the determination of fracture orientations. Geol Soc Lond Eng Geol Spec Publ 12:273–281Google Scholar
  7. Busby J, Jackson P (2005) The application of time-lapse azimuthal apparent resistivity measurements for the prediction of coastal cliff failure. J Appl Geophys 59:261–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carlson DA, Taylor RW, Cherkauer DS (1996a) Azimuthal resistivity as a tool for determination of the orientation of preferred hydraulic transmissivity for a dolomite aquifer in Southeastern Wisconsin. In: SAGEEP 1996 conference, environmental engineering and geophysical society proceedings, pp 51–59Google Scholar
  9. Carlson DA, Taylor RW, Cherkauer DS (1996b) Use of azimuthal electrical resistivity method used for determining joint orientations in glacial tills around Milwaukee, Wisconsin. In: SAGEEP 1996 conference, environmental and engineering geophysical society proceedings, pp 1085–1094Google Scholar
  10. Chapman MJ, Lane JW (1996) Use of directional borehole radar and azimuthal square-array D.C. resistivity methods to characterize a crystalline-bedrock aquifer. In: SAGEEP 1996 conference, environmental and engineering geophysical society proceedings, pp 833–842Google Scholar
  11. Christensen NB (1992) On the importance of determining electrical anisotropy in hydrogeological investigations. In: 54th annual meeting, European association of geoscientists and engineers, Paris, France, Extended Abstracts, pp 712–713Google Scholar
  12. Christensen NB (2000) Difficulties in determining electrical anisotropy in subsurface investigations. Geophys Prospect 48:1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Degnan JR, Moore RB, Mack TJ (2001) Geophysical investigations of well fields to characterize fractured-bedrock aquifers in southern New Hampshire. U.S. geological survey water-resources investigations report 01-4183, 54 ppGoogle Scholar
  14. deGroot-Hedlin C, Constable S (1990) Occam’s inversion to generate smooth, two-dimensional models from magnetotelluric data. Geophysics 55:1613–1624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Edwards LS (1977) A modified pseudosection for resistivity and IP. Geophysics 42:1020–1036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. George NJ, Obianwu VI, Akpan AE, Obot IB (2010) Assessment of shallow aquiferous units and coefficients of anisotropy in the coastal plain sand of southern Ukanafun local government area, Akwa Ibom State, Southern Nigeria. Sch Res Libr 1(2):118–128Google Scholar
  17. George NJ, Akpan AE, Ekanem AM (2016) Assessment of textural variational pattern and electrical conduction of economic and accessible quaternary hydrolithofacies via geoelectric and laboratory methods in SE Nigeria: a case study of select locations in Akwa Ibom State. J Geol Soc India 88(4):517–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. George NJ, Ekanem AM, Ibanga JI, Udosen NI (2017) Hydrodynamic implications of aquifer quality index (AQI) and flow zone indicator (FZI) in groundwater abstraction: a case study of coastal hydrolithofacies in South-eastern Nigeria. J Coast Conserv 21(5):759–776.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11852-017-0535-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Habberjam GM (1967) On the application of the reciprocity theorem in resistivity prospecting. Geophysics 32:918–919CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Habberjam GM (1972) The effects of anisotropy on square array resistivity measurements. Geophys Prospect 20:249–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Habberjam GM (1975) Apparent resistivity, anisotropy and strike measurements. Geophys Prospect 23:211–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Habberjam GM, Watkins GE (1967) The use of a square array in resistivity measurements. Geophys Prospect 15:221–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Harrison IB (1973) The hydrogeology of the vale of pickering. Ph.D. Thesis, University of LeedsGoogle Scholar
  24. Ibanga JI, George NJ (2016) Estimating geohydraulic parameters, protective strength, and corrosivity of hydrogeological units: a case study of ALSCON, Ikot Abasi, southern Nigeria. Arab J Geosci 9(5):1–16.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-016-2390-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ibuot JC, Akpabio GT, George NJ (2013) A survey of the repository of groundwater potential and distribution using geoelectrical resistivity method in Itu Local Government Area, Akwa Ibom State,Southern Nigeria. Cent Eur J Geosci 5(4):538–547Google Scholar
  26. Keller GV, Frischknecht FC (1966) Electrical methods in geophysical prospecting. Pergamon Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Kunetz G (1966) Principles of direct current resistivity prospecting. Gebriider Borntraeger, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  28. Lane JW, Haeni FP, Watson WM (1995) Use of a square-array direct-current resistivity method to detect fractures in crystalline bedrock in New Hampshire. Ground Water 33:476–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lane JW, Haeni FP, Soloyanis S, Placzek G, Williams JH, Johnson CD, Buursink ML, Joesten PK, Knutson KD (1996) Geophysical characterization of a fractured-bedrock aquifer and blast-fractured contaminant-recovery trench. In: SAGEEP 1996 conference, environmental engineering and geophysical society proceedings, pp 429–441Google Scholar
  30. Lane JW, Williams JH, Johnson CD, Savino DM, Haeni FP (2002) An integrated geophysical and hydraulic investigation to characterize a fractured-rock aquifer, Norwalk, Connecticut. U.S. geological survey water-resources investigation report 01-4133, 22 ppGoogle Scholar
  31. Lieblich DA, Haeni FP, Cromwell RE (1992a) Integrated use of surface geophysical methods to indicate subsurface fractures at Tibbetts Road, Barrington, New Hampshire. U.S. geological survey water-resources investigations report 92-4012, 33 ppGoogle Scholar
  32. Lieblich DA, Haeni FP, Lane JW (1992b) Integrated use of surface-geophysical methods to indicate subsurface fractures at Milford, New Hampshire. U.S. geological survey water-resources investigations report 92-4056, 38 ppGoogle Scholar
  33. Loke MH, Baker RD (1995) Least-squares deconvolution of apparent resistivity pseudosections. Geophysics 60:1682–1690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Loke MH, Baker RD (1996) Rapid least-squares inversion of apparent resistivity pseudosections by a quasi-Newton method. Geophys Prospect 44:131–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nunn KR, Barker RD, Bamford D (1983) In situ seismic and electrical measurements of fracture anisotropy in the Lincolnshire Chalk. J Eng Geol Hydrogeol 16:187–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Page LM (1968) Use of the electrical resistivity method for investigating geologic and hydrologic conditions in Santa Clara County, California. Ground Water 6:31–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Powers CJ, Wilson J, Haeni FP, Johnson CD (1999) Surface-geophysical investigation of the University of Connecticut landfill, Storrs, Connecticut. U.S. geological survey water-resources investigations report 99-4211, 34 ppGoogle Scholar
  38. Rawson PF, Wright JK (1995) Jurassic of the Cleveland Basin. In: Taylor PD (ed) Field geology of the British Jurassic. Geological Society of London, LondonGoogle Scholar
  39. Reynolds JM (1997) An introduction to applied and environmental geophysics. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  40. Sasaki Y (1992) Resolution of resistivity tomography inferred from numerical simulation. Geophys Prospect 40:453–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Skinner D, Heinson G (2004) A comparism of electrical and electromagnetic methods for the detection of hydraulic pathways in a fractured rock aquifer, Clare Valley, South Australia. Hydrogeol J 12:576–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Taylor RW, Fleming AH (1988) Characterizing jointed systems by azimuthal resistivity surveys. Ground Water 26:464–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tepper DH, Phelan DJ (2001) Use of azimuthal square array direct current resistivity to locate a geologic fort at Detrick, Maryland. U.S. geological survey open-file report 01-285, 38 ppGoogle Scholar
  44. Tsokas GN, Tsourlos PI, Szymanski JE (1999) The effect of terrain topography on commonly used resistivity arrays. Geophysics 64:1357–1363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Watson KA, Barker RD (1999) Differianting anisotropy and lateral effects using azimuthal resistivity offset Wenner soundings. Geophysics 64:739–745CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Physics, Geophysics Research GroupAkwa Ibom State UniversityMkpat-EninNigeria

Personalised recommendations