31 views

Uploaded by Roland Rawlins Igabor

yyy

- fizik2 april06
- Polarisation
- Conductivity Guide
- Cambridge.Inverse.Theory.For.Petroleum.Reservoir.Characterization.And.History.Matching.pdf
- TEM and MT Methods_0
- 846024.pdf
- Seismic
- Configuration and Specification of Equipments Used in Dc resistivity survey
- NASA Shielding Guidlines
- CBSC_US
- CL 3 ES-EPT
- Das Terr
- EarthqkLoc Direct Search v2.0
- 33_2IIp
- Conductor Calculations
- 1101.3059
- WREF 2012 Diode Arc-Fault Modeling SAND2012-2024C
- Mansouri_et-al-JPCC.pdf
- [Florian_Gebhard]_The_Mott_Metal-Insulator_Transit(b-ok.xyz).pdf
- The Iteratively Regularized Newton Method for Reconstructing Image of Microwave Tomography

You are on page 1of 45

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND TO STUDY

In previous studies, attempts have been made at comparing the ability of different electrode

arrays to resolve, map or identify subsurface targets (Seaton and Burbey 2002; Dahlin and

Zhou 2004; Candansayar 2008). The electrical resistivity imaging technique is considered a

relatively new geophysical method, which has evolved rapidly over the past years. The

electrical resistivity method is widely used in the investigation and detection of targets at

shallow depth. The method aims to determine the variation of the subsurface resistivity by

conducting measurements at the ground surface or inside shallow boreholes. The electrical

method has been applied with great success in solving hydrogeological (Flathe, 1955; Dahlin

and Owen, 1998), geological (Caglar and Duvarci, 2001; Atzemoglou et al., 2003),

engineering and environmental problems (rogers and Kean, 1980; van et al., 1991; Ramirez

et al., 1996).

Most targets of environmental and engineering interest are at shallow depths. Geophysical

responses from near-surface sources usually treated as noise in traditional geophysical

exploration surveys are often the targets of interest in environmental and engineering

investigations. The subsurface geology can be complex, subtle, and multiscale such that

spatial variations can change rapidly both laterally and vertically. Thus, a closely spaced grid

of observation points is required for their accurate characterization, high spatial resolution of

the anomaly, and good target definition. Survey design in geoelectrical resistivity surveys

must take into account the capabilities of the data acquisition system, heterogeneities of the

subsurface electrical resistivities, and the resolution required. Other factors to be considered

are the area extent of the site to be investigated, the cost of the survey, and the time required

to complete the survey (Ahzegbobor, 2010)

The advent of fast processing computers allowed the development of automated resistivity

inversion schemes, which aim to construct an estimate of a subsurface resistivity distribution

that is consistent with the experimental data. Among others, the smoothness constraint

inversion (Constable et al., 1987) has become a popular technique for interpreting ERT data

because it produces a simplified subsurface resistivity model that is a reasonable

representation of the subsurface and at the same time guarantees inversion stability

archaeological sites (Clark, 1990).

The effectiveness and imaging capabilities of geoelectrical resistivity measurements for a

given configuration of electrodes can be evaluated using the anomaly effect

for an

effective geoelectrical resistivity survey, the value of the anomaly effect should be

significantly greater than the background noise of the electrode configuration. Thus,

anomaly effect is a measure of the signal-to-noise ratio of the electrode arrays and should

vary with different geological models for a given electrode configuration. Geoelectrical

resistivity data with high anomaly information usually produce good quality, high

resolution and reliable inversion images. Field measurements are often contaminated by

different kinds of noise; the noise characteristics being different for different

investigation sites but usually with a general trend, and depend on the electrode array

used for the measurements. Thus, the contamination of field observations with noise

generally depends on the potential values measured by a particular array, and hence the

observed apparent resistivity data (Militzer et al., 1979; Druskin, 1998, Storz et al., 2000;

Dahlin and Zhou, 2004).

Dahlin and Loke, 1998; Olayinka and Yaramanci, 2000 stressed the importance of the

sampling density in determining the resolution of this configuration. Recent studies have

shown that by using a large set of well-distributed and spaced measurements, it is generally

possible to obtain relatively accurate 2D or 3D resistivity images of the subsurface (Daily

and Owen, 1991; Park and Van, 1991; Shima, 1992; Sasaki, 1994; Loke and barker, 1995,

1996; Labrecque et al., 1996; chambers et al., 1999; Dahlin and Zhou, 2004).

In order to obtain a high resolution and reliable image, the electrode array used should ideally

give data with the maximum anomaly information, reasonable data coverage and high signalnoise ratio. In imaging data acquisition, a multi-electrode cable with a fixed inter-electrode

spacing is often employed. Different data acquisition schemes with different electrode arrays

can be measured with such a system. Theoretically, a complete data set of an array

(consecutively using a and n) with low noise contamination is useful to obtain a highresolution image, but acquiring a large number of data points significantly increases the

fieldwork time even when using an automatic data acquisition system. On the other hand, a

large number of data points can also increase the difficulty in reaching a good data misfit

from an inversion and probably produce more artefacts due to the unknown characteristics

2

of the noise contamination (Labrecque et al., 1996; Zhou and Dahlin, 2003).

Dipole-dipole arrays were applied to map four different synthetic models in order to determine

the image capabilities and effectiveness of the four selected arrays.

The response of a geologic structure differs for all electrode configurations. In order to

determine the relative effectiveness and imaging capabilities of four selected arrays, four

synthetic models simulating different geological situations were designed.

The aim of this study is to apply four commonly used electrode configuration on synthetic

geologic structures in order to assess the efficiency and image capabilities of the selected

arrays.

.

The objectives of the study are to:

i) simulate different synthetic structures.

ii) execute forward modelling investigation over these structures.

iii) perform inverse modelling to obtain 2D resistivity structure of the simulated objects.

iv) determine the efficiency and imaging capabilities of the arrays used.

CHAPTER TWO

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

Several researchers have compared different electrode arrays individually on the basis of their

sensitivity analysis, depth of investigations, and responses to resolving vertical or horizontal

structures and have been reviewed in this study.

Backus and Gilbert (1967) introduced a linear inverse theory for geophysical problems. They

thoroughly discussed model resolution, least-squares fit of the data and solution uniqueness.

The method is valid even for noisy or insufficient data, and they quantified the trade-off

between resolution and stability for solutions to inverse problems. The Backus-Gilbert

approach, as do many others, suffers from the difficulty in estimating the degree of

smoothness for all admissible models; this is required to calculate the greatest deviation

between the estimated and true models.

Parker (1984) addressed the non-uniqueness of 1D inverse resistivity problems using bilayer

expansion method. His models consisted of layers having uniform thickness, and the solution

determined the optimum number of layers and layer thicknesses that would minimize the

deviation in a least-squares manner.

Assal and Mahmoud (1987) developed an algorithm for interpretation of resistivity data over

a layered model, setting the thickness of each successive layer equal to the required depth

resolution. They derived spectral reflection coefficients at the earths surface for the model.

These coefficients are functions of the resistivity ratios of adjacent layers and are used in the

evaluation of model parameters. Their results indicated that the algorithm is suitable for

continuously varying resistivity with depth.

Zhou and Greenhalgh (2000) studied some specified electrode configurations for crosshole

resistivity imaging. Obviously, a comprehensive comparison of the imaging abilities is

needed to know the behavior of these electrode arrays for practical imaging applications.

More research should be made in the use of these arrays for imaging so that their

characteristics can be more fully known. in this way one can predict which features of the

earth model can be resolved and which details cannot be resolved from the imaging surveys

4

using these electrode arrays. Also, we should know the spatial resolutions and the noise

sensitivities of the arrays for fieldwork design and data interpretation.

Dahlin and Zhou (2004) performed various numerical simulations to compare the resolution

and efficiency of resistivity imaging surveys for ten different electrode arrays: polepole,

poledipole, half-wenner, wenner, wenner-schlumberger, dipoledipole, wenner-, -array,

moving gradient and midpoint-potential-referred measurement arrays. They recommended

the moving gradient, poledipole, dipoledipole and wenner-schlumberger arrays, rather than

the others, for resistivity imaging, although the final choice should be determined by the type

of geology expected, the purpose of the survey and logistical considerations.

Stummer et al. (2004) estimated that electrical resistivity data acquired using a large number

of four-point electrode arrays gave substantial subsurface information compared to the data

sets obtained from both individual arrays, such as the wenner, dipole-dipole or a combination

of the wenner and dipole-dipole Arrays.

Adeyemi et al. (2006) carried out a direct laboratory modeling of the spontaneous potential

(SP) and electrical resistivity responses of a thick conductor with different attitudes was

carried out. The aim of the investigation was to obtain characteristic signatures that may be

diagnostic of similar geological targets. The method of investigation involved the burial of

the conductor at different angles of inclination in sand within a model tank. Measurements

were then taken across the conductor and the obtained data were used to generate profiles.

The profiles were then interpreted both qualitatively and semi-quantitatively. The results

indicate that, on the one hand, SP profiles delineate the conductor better giving the location,

information on the magnitude and direction of inclination, and quantitative estimation of the

depth of burial. The resistivity profiles, on the other hand, roughly indicated the direction of

inclination and location of the conductor. The study concludes that the SP method is suitable

for the investigation of sheet-like targets of different attitude, since the results are amenable

to both quantitative and qualitative interpretations.

Wilkinson et al. (2006) provided two strategies for obtaining the maximum spatial resolution

in electrical resistivity tomography surveys using a limited number of four-electrode

measurement configurations. Both methods use a linear estimate of the model resolution

matrix to assess the effects of including a given electrode configuration in the measurement

5

set. The algorithms are described in detail, and their execution times are analyzed in terms of

the number of cells in the inverse model. One strategy directly compares the model resolution

matrices to optimize the spatial resolution. The other uses approximations based on the

distribution and linear independence of the Jacobian matrix elements. The first strategy

produces results that are nearer to optimal, but the second is several orders of magnitude

faster. Significantly however, both offer better optimization performance than a similar,

previously published, method. Realistic examples are used to compare the results of each

algorithm. Synthetic data are generated for each optimized set of electrodes using simple

forward models containing resistive and/ or conductive prisms. By inverting the data, it is

demonstrated that the linearized model resolution matrix yields a good estimate of the actual

resolution obtained in the inverted image. Furthermore, comparison of the inversion results

confirms that the spatial distribution of the estimated model resolution is a reliable indicator

of tomographic image quality.

Ahzegbolor (2010) carried out a field design using 2D and 3D geoelectrical resistivity

imaging. He deployed the use of various arrays such as the wenner array, schlumberger array,

dipole-dipole array, pole dipole array and pole-pole array. He was able to distinguish which

method has a better lateral and/or vertical resolution.

Direct current (DC) resistivity methods use artificial sources of current to produce an

electrical potential field in the ground. In almost all resistivity methods, a current is

introduced into the ground through current electrodes (C1, C2) and the potential field is

measured using two potential electrodes (P1and P2), as shown in Figure. 2.1. The source

current can be direct current or low-frequency (0.1 - 30 Hz) alternating current. The aim of

generating and ensuring the electrical potential field is to determine the spatial resistivity

distribution (or its reciprocal - conductivity) in the ground. As the potential between P1and

P2, the current introduced through C1and C2, and the electrode configuration are known, the

resistivity of the ground can be determined; this is referred to as the apparent resistivity

(Kearey and Brooks, 1991).

Figure 2.1: Principle of Resistivity Measurement with a Four-Electrode Array (Keary and

brooks, 1991)

Ohms law describes the electrical properties of any medium. Ohms law, V = I R, relates the

voltage of a circuit to the product of the current and the resistance. This relationship holds for

earth materials as well as simple circuits. Resistance, however, is not a material constant.

Instead, resistivity is an intrinsic property of the medium describing the resistance of the

medium to the flow of electric current. It was further shown that for a given material, the

resistance R is proportional to the length L and inversely proportional to the cross sectional

area a of the conductor, expressed in the following equations (Equations 2.1 and 2.2)

resistivity is defined as a unit change in resistance scaled by the ratio of a unit cross-sectional

area and a unit length of the material through which the current is passing. Resistivity is

measured in ohm-m or ohm-ft., and is the reciprocal of the conductivity of the material.

L

A

(2.1)

AR

L

The proportionality constant

(2.2)

(m). It is a physical property characteristic to the material of the conductor, which expresses

its ability to oppose a flow of current as represented in Figure 2.1. The inverse of resistivity

(2.3)

It can be deduced from the Figure. 2.2, that electric field e can be expressed as in equation 2.4

(2.4)

V

E

L

where J Current Density,

I

A

(2.5)

Inserting equation (2.1) into equation (2.2), and rearranging the terms, we have

V

I

L

A

8

(2.6)

Thus, substituting for equation (2.4) and (2.5) in equation (2.6), ohms law can then be

rewritten as

E J

(2.7)

This form is very useful in calculating the formulas used in resistivity methods of electrical

method of electrical surveying. However, the measured quantities are v and i (Loke, 1997;

Lowrie, 1997).

With an electrical current passed in to the ground via two electrodes known as current

electrodes, the two potential electrodes record the resultant potential difference between

them, depending on the arrangement or configuration of these pairs of electrodes, the current

and potential measurements may be used to calculate resistivity (Zohdy et al., (1974).

Therefore, a direct measure of electric impedance of the subsurface material (Dobrin and

Savit, 1988) can be obtained. This method is based on the fact that there is a large contrast in

resistivity values of the different layers in the subsurface and is also used to characterize

vertical and lateral changes in the subsurface electrical properties. Figure 2.3 shows the

general configuration of the four surface electrodes in linear resistivity surveys. Current is

delivered through the electrode A and B, and the voltage readings are made with electrodes

M and N.

Figure 2.3: Diagram showing basic concept of resistivity measurement (Herman, 2001).

AN = distance between electrodes A and N.

As illustrated in Figure 2.3, the current electrodes A and B act as source and sink,

respectively. At the detection electrode M, the potential due to the source A is shown in

equation 2.8a:

9

1

2 AM

(2.8a)

(2.8b)

1

2 MB

VM

1

1

(

)

2 AM MB

(2.9)

VN

1

1

(

)

2 AN NB

1

1

1

1

( AM MB ) ( AN NB )

V

I

1

1

1

1

( AM MB ) ( AN NB )

(2.10)

(2.11)

(2.12)

2

1

1

1

1

(

)(

)

AM MB

AN NB

(2.13)

K is called the Geometric Factor of the electrode arrangement. Equation 2.12, can be

rewritten as equation 2.14

V

I

10

(2.14)

Equation 2.12 gives the formula for the resistivity of a perfectly uniform conducting half

space. In real situation, the resistivity is determined by different lithologies and geological

structures and may be very inhomogeneous. The complexity is not taken into account when

measuring resistivity with the four-electrode method shown above, which assumes the ground

as uniform. The result of such a measurement is apparent resistivity of an equivalent uniform

half space and generally does not represent the true resistivity of any part of the ground

(Zohdy et al., 1974).

The value of apparent resistivity is a function of several variables; the electrode spacing, the

geometry of the electrode array, and the true resistivity and other characteristics of subsurface

material, such a layer thickness, angle of dip, anisotropic properties. The apparent resistivity,

depending on the electrode configuration and on the geology, may be crude average of the

true resistivities in the section, maybe larger or smaller than any of the true resistivities, or

may be negative (Lowrie, 1997).

The improvement of electrical tomography began with the presence of the multi-anode

frameworks (Griffiths and Turnbull, 1985) with similarly dispersed terminals and just as

separated pseudo-depth. Computer-controlled data acquisition can give very proficient and

savvy field estimations. Electrical tomography information can be deciphered utilizing

fitting inversion technique. There are three methodologies: one-dimensional, twodimensional and three-dimensional inversion. One-dimensional inversion is normally in

view of programmed understanding of electrical sounding information. The pseudo-section

is viewed as a progression of nearly dispersed electrical soundings, which have been

removed one after another. After automatic interpretation of each sounding, the interpreted

data is merged to form a quasi-2- d section. One-dimensional inversion is usually based on

Zohdys automatic interpretation of electrical sounding (Zohdy, 1989).

2.4

2D electrical imaging surveys (Figure. 2.4) are widely implemented for mapping areas with

complex geological structures where the traditional 1d resistivity soundings surveys are not

sufficiently accurate. It has become a standard geophysical technique (Dahlin, 1996). Two

11

dimensional electrical imaging surveys model are more accurate than 1d resistivity sounding

of surveys as it allows horizontal as well as vertical resistivity variations. Typical 1d (Figure

2.5a) resistivity sounding surveys usually involve approximately 10 to 20 readings, while the

2d imaging surveys contain 100 to 1000 measurements. The 2d electrical imaging method has

many applications such as mapping freshwater aquifers, mapping of groundwater

contamination, investigating landslides and mapping unconsolidated sediments (Acworth,

1987; Johansson and Dahlin, 1996; Ritz et al., 1999). There have been many developments

over the past decade in instrumentation and interpretation techniques so that 2d resistivity

surveys can be carried out rapidly. In addition, some research studies have shown that a

number of 2d data sections can be merged into a 3d (Figure 2.5c) data set to produce a more

accurate 3d subsurface model (Dahlin and Loke, 1997).

Figure 2.4: A typical field arrangement for 2D electrical imaging survey (Loke, 2004).

12

measurements: (a) 1D model, (b) 2D model and (c) 3D model (Loke, 2004).

In 2D electrical modelling, two approaches are applied in geophysical interpretation, the

forward modelling and inversion. For any given geological model, any geophysical

anomaly or field, a single-valued calculation is made. However, if there is a measured

geophysical anomaly or field, the solution is generally not single-valued, i.e. there are several

different geological models which cause the same geophysical anomaly. This is called an

ambiguity in interpretation. Forward modelling enabled the calculation, simulation of

measured pseudosections for any given block model in a homogenous environment, whereas

by means of inversion the detectability and recognition potential for a specific block.

Resistivity models are divided into a series of homogenous and isotropic elements, resulting

in a numerical model for whose solution either the finite difference method (Dey and

Morison, 1979; Loke, 1994) or the finite element method can be applied (Smith and Vozoff,

1984).

13

network of rectangular blocks, and the calculation is performed on the node points with

defined parameters. In the finite element method, a model is divided into regular elements:

triangles, squares, rectangles, etc., while the parameters are defined according to the

elements, thus the calculation is related to them. The advantage of the finite difference

method is the easier data entry, whereas the finite element method enables a more accurate

calculation for complex models with irregular limits and sudden lateral changes in resistivity.

The modelling process has certain difficulties which need mentioning. The calculated

theoretical pseudosections are exposed to inversion the same as the actual measured data.

However, it was observed that there appear strong deformations on the model boundaries,

which depend on the input model (resistivity ratio) and the electrode array (Griffiths and

Barker, 1993).

The different arrays used in this study include, Wenner (WN), Pole-dipole (PD), Dipoledipole (DD) And Wenner-Schlumberger (SCH) Arrays.

The Wenner array (Figure 2.6a) comprises of four collinear, similarly separated electrodes.

The external two electrodes are normally the current (source) electrodes and the internal two

electrodes are the potential (collector) electrodes. The array dividing extends about the array

midpoint while keeping up a proportional dispersing between every electrode. The

advantages of the wenner array are that the apparent resistivity is effortlessly ascertained in

the field and the instrument affectability is not as urgent as with other array geometries. One

detriment of this array for 2-D overviews is the generally poor flat scope (horizontal

coverage) as the electrode separating is expanded. This could be an issue on the off chance

that you utilize a framework with a moderately little number of electrodes. The wenner array

is great in resolving vertical changes (i.e. Flat structures), yet moderately poor in identifying

horizontal changes (i.e. Restricted vertical structures). Contrasted with different arrays, the

wenner array has a moderate depth of investigation. The signal quality is contrarily relative to

the geometric factor (k) used to compute the apparent resistivity for the array. For the wenner

14

array, the geometric factor is 2a, which is smaller than the geometric component for

different arrays. The wenner array has the most grounded signal quality (Loke 2004)

(a)

(b)

Figure 2.6: (a) Sensitivity plot of Wenner array (b) Wenner array (Milsom, 2007)

This is a new hybrid between the wenner and schlumberger arrays (Pazdirek and Blaha 1996)

arising out of relatively recent work with electrical imaging surveys (Figure 2.7a). The

Wenner-schlumberger array has a somewhat better flat scope contrasted and the wenner

array. The affectability design, that is, the sensitivity pattern for the wenner-schlumberger

array (Figure 2.7b) is somewhat not quite the same as the wenner array with a slight vertical

ebb and flow underneath the focal point of the array, and marginally bring down affectability

values in the locales between the C1 and P1 (furthermore C2 and P2) electrodes. The signal

quality for this array is smaller than that of the wenner array; however it is higher than the

dipole-dipole array (Milsom, 2007).

15

(a)

(b)

Figure 2.7: (a) Schlumberger Array (b) Sensitivity plot of Schlumberger Array (Milsom, 2007),

2.6.3 Dipole- Dipole Array

The Dipole-dipole array (Figure 2.8a) has a low E.M. Coupling between the potential and

current circuits. Due to this reason, it has been, is still, generally utilized as a part of

resistivity/I.P. Reviews. This array is most touchy (sensitive) to resistivity changes between

the electrodes in every dipole pair. The sensitivity (Figure. 2.8b) shape example is verging on

vertical. In this way the dipole-dipole array is extremely sensitive to horizontal changes in

resistivity, however generally harsh to vertical changes in the resistivity. This implies that it

is great in mapping vertical structures, for example, dykes and pits (cavities), however

generally poor in mapping horizontal structures, for example, ledges (sills) or sedimentary

layers. Basically, the dipole-dipole array gives insignificant data about the resistivity of the

locale encompassing the plotting point, and the circulation of the information focuses in the

pseudo segment plot does not mirror the subsurface region mapped by the obvious resistivity

estimations.

16

(a)

(b)

Figure 2.8: (a) Dipole-dipole array (b) Sensitivity plot of Dipole-dipole Array (Milsom, 2007)

Pole-dipole array (Figure 2.9a) is an asymmetrical array, not at all like the other basic arrays

and over symmetrical structures; the apparent resistivity abnormalities are uneven in the

pseudo-section. In some cases, the model acquired after inversion can be affected by the

asymmetry in the deliberate apparent resistivity values. The impact of the asymmetry can be

wiped out by arranging electrodes in the reverse manner (Figure 2.9b). With the mix of

"forward" and "reverse" pole-dipole arrays, any predisposition in the model brought on by the

uneven way of the array can be eliminated. Pole-dipole array has a signal quality that is

essentially higher when contrasted with the dipole-dipole array furthermore it is not as

sensitive as pole-pole array to telluric noise; however the pole-dipole array has generally

great horizontal scope. The Pole-dipole array requires a remote electrode, the C2 electrode.

The separation between this electrode and the review line ought to be adequately far. For the

pole-dipole array, the impact of the C2 electrode is roughly relative to the square of

proportion of the C1-P1 separation to the C2-P1 separation (Loke, 2004).

17

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 2.9: (a) The Forward Pole-Dipole Array (b) Reverse Pole-Dipole Arrays (c)

Sensitivity Plot Of Pole-Dipole Array (Milsom, 2007)

18

The depth of investigation, the sensitivity of the array to vertical and horizontal changes in

the subsurface resistivity, the horizontal data coverage and the signal strength are some of the

characteristics of an array that are to be considered. Depth of investigation is an important

parameter in any resistivity survey. Depth of investigation depends on the type of instrument,

electrode spacing and separation factor, property contrast, body geometry, data coverage and

signal-to-noise-ratio (Loke, 2004). The sensitivity function basically tells us the degree to

which a change in the resistivity of a section of the subsurface will influence the potential

measured by the array. The higher the value of the sensitivity function, the greater is the

influence of the subsurface region on the measurement (Loke, 2004)

The effective depth of investigation is increased as the distance between current source

electrodes and the potential electrodes is increased. The farther the distance, the greater the

vertical interval in which the current flows. As the separation between the electrodes is

incrementally changed, a different geological property is encountered and there would be a

contrast in resistivity measured. The depth of investigation, the sensitivity of the array to

vertical and horizontal changes in the subsurface resistivity, the horizontal data coverage and

the signal strength are some of the characteristics of an array that are to be considered. Depth

of investigation depends on the type of instrument, electrode spacing and separation factor,

property contrast, body geometry, data coverage and signal-to-noise-ratio (Loke, 2004).

Table 1 gives the median depth of investigation for the different arrays. This depth is not

dependent on the measured apparent resistivity or the resistivity of the homogeneous earth

model. The depth models are probably good enough for planning field surveys even it is

strictly valid only for a homogeneous earth model. The actual depth of investigation may be a

bit different if there are large resistivity contrasts near the surface.

19

Table 1: The median depth of investigation (z/e) for the different arrays. L is the

total length of the array (Edwards, 1977).

Factors affecting sensitivity and resolution the following are some of the factors that could

influence the sensitivity and resolution of 3d inversion in geoelectrical resistivity imaging:

(i) Data density and lateral coverage. The sensitivity of geoelectrical resistivity increases with

increasing data density relative to the grid size of the electrodes. The higher the lateral data

20

coverage of an electrode array the greater the model sensitivity values that would be obtained

in the inversion.

(ii) Depth of penetration. The sensitivity of electrical resistivity of the subsurface for a given

electrode configuration generally decreases with depth of investigation. Thus, electrode

configurations with greater depth of penetration are largely less sensitive than those with less

depth of penetration for the same data level. (Spitzer, 1998).

(iii) Damping factor and noise contamination. The choice of the damping parameters for a

particular data set also affects the overall sensitivity of the resulting model resistivity values.

Appropriate damping factor that would yield the optimum sensitivity can be selected through

trial and error method, or with experience based on the knowledge of the geology. Noisy data

generally require a higher damping factor than less noisy data. Some arrays are more

sensitive to noise than others; the sensitivity of the arrays to noise contaminations can

significantly affect the sensitivity of the inversion models (Spitzer, 1998).

(iv) Inter-line spacing and electrodes grid size. In the case of 3D geoelectrical resistivity

imaging using orthogonal or parallel 2D profiles, the interline spacing relative to the

minimum electrode separation can significantly affect the overall sensitivity of the resulting

inversion models. (Spitzer, 1998).

(v) Geological conditions. The nature of the subsurface geology, geometry of subsurface

features, and the electrical properties (or resistivity contrast) of the anomalous body can also

significantly influence the overall sensitivity of the inversion models. The sensitivity values

of electrode configurations provide information on the section of the subsurface with the

greatest effect on the measured apparent resistivity values. Generally, the spatial sensitivity

patterns for homogeneous environments

conductive material (Spitzer, 1998).

21

Electrical resistivity technique has ended up a standout amongst the most noteworthy

geophysical procedures for examining underground near-surface structures. It is a tool for

archaelogical, environmental and engineering site investigation to:

Hydrogeological Studies

Archaeological Investigations

The electrical resistivity technique has some natural impediments that identify the

arrangement and exactness that may be normal from it. Like all methods utilizing estimations

of a potential field, the value of a measurement acquired at any area represents a weighted

average of the effects created over a huge volume of material, with the adjacent segments

contributing most vigorously. Another element regular to all potential field geophysical

methods is that a specific dissemination of potential at the ground surface does not for the

most part have a unique interpretation. Information obtaining can be ease back contrasted

with other geophysical methods, in spite of the fact that the distinction is vanishing with the

most recent techniques.

natural currents and potentials. The circumstances may be hard to interpret, they are

additionally questionable, and along these lines independent geophysical and geologic

controls are important to separate between substantial options interpretations of resistivity

information

22

CHAPTER THREE

3.0 METHODOLOGY

3.1 DATA GATHERING

Four synthetic geologic models were created on the basis of the assumed resistivity

distribution of the subsurface which was used to calculate the apparent resistivities by

employing three electrode configurations namely, the Dipole-dipole (DD), Schlumberger

(SCH), Pole-dipole (PD) and Wenner (WN). The synthetic models used in this study

represent some geological structures useful for Groundwater, Archaeological and

Environmental studies (Figure. 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4). Tables 3.1 and 3.2 show the constructed

parameters of each model and Summary of parameters used during 2D resistivity inversions.

The four geologic synthetic models used in this study are as follows.

The first model is a resistive block prism (Figure 3.1), buried in a low resistivity half space

homogenous medium. The resistivity of the block is 100 m and the surrounding background

10 m. The block prism is positioned between the 15th and 20th electrodes. The block is

buried below a depth of 1.2 m.

This model comprised two resistive blocks with resistivity estimations of 300 m and 500

m for the left and right squares separately implanted in a homogeneous foundation with

resistivity of 10 m. The left block was situated between the 10th and 14th electrodes with

23

thickness of 2.81 m. Then again, the right block was set somewhere around 20th and 24th

electrodes with a thickness of 1.17 m (figure 3.2).

Three blocks of different shapes and resistivities as shown in figure 3. The resistivities of the

blocks prisms were 10 m each. The blocks were embedded in a homogenous half space

conductive medium with resistivity of 100 m. The forward response of the model was used

to generate the synthetic resistivity dataset. The thicknesses of the block 1, 2, 3 are 1.59, 4.13,

and 3.96 respectively.

24

A vertical dyke (Figure 3.4), of resistivity 500 m overlain by a layer of 300 m, across a

homogeneous medium with resistivity of 100m was simulated. The location of dyke lies

between 140-165 m along horizontal distance

Table 3.1 Parameters Of Models Along Horizontal Distance And The Assumed

Depth.

Model

One Block

Two

Block 1

Block

Block 2

Three

Block

Dyke

Block 1

Block 2

Block 3

Horizontal

Distance/Electrode

Location

15-20

11-15

Assumed

Depth (M)

Thickness (M)

Resistivity( m)

1.0

1.55

2.55

2.82

100

300

18-22

1.55

1.32

500

11-19

31-40

56-65

140-165

0.82

2.31

4.44

120

1.89

4.13

5.96

10

10

10

500

25

(modified after Martorana et al., 2009)

0.25

0.015

Convergence Limit

1.00

Number Of Iterations

3-7

Increase Of Damping Factor With Depth

1.0500

0.05

0.005

Effect Of Side Blocks Is Not Reduced

Normal Mesh Is Used

Finite Difference Method Is Used

Number Of Nodes Between Adjacent Electrodes

Logarithm Of Apparent Resistivity Used

Reference Resistivity Used Is The Average Of Minimum

And Maximum Values

Gauss - Newton Optimization Method

26

3.2

DATA PROCESSING

The models used are subdivided into a number of rectangular blocks arranged in such a way

as to reflect the changes in resistivity distribution and to allow for reliable estimation of the

potential difference variations across the region. The calculation of the apparent resistivity

data used in constructing pseudo-sections was carried out using res2dmod software (Loke,

2007). Forward modelling estimates/predicts data on the basis of the known distribution of

model parameters and electrode configuration used. The forward modelling for the dc

potentials is accomplished using a finite difference (FD) technique to solve the partial

differential equation for charge distribution. Forward modelling includes mapping a model

space to the information space (Schwarzbach et al., 2005).

The RES2DINV inversion software was used to carry out least-square inverse modelling of

the four models obtained from the forwards modelling. It displays a measured apparent

resistivity pseudo-section, a calculated apparent resistivity pseudo-section and an inverse

model resistivity section. The RMS error is given by the difference between the measured

and the calculated apparent resistivity values. It generally decreases as the number of

iterations increases. To allow comparison of the models for different arrays, a range of three

to seven iterations were used during all inversions of the synthetic models. The inversion

problem is to discover resistivity estimations of the cells that have best wellness between the

measured and calculated apparent resistivity values. All inversions were performed with a 6%

Gaussian noise to simulate a close to real life geologic condition in order to compare the

image capabilities of each array.

.

27

CHAPTER FOUR

4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 RESULTS

Figures 4.1-4.3 show the results of the inversion of images for four conventional arrays. The

arrays are Wenner, Wenner-Schlumberger, Dipole-Dipole and Pole-Dipole. Each of the 2D

resistivity images shows the distribution of resistivity, also the electrical contrast between the

target(s) and the host. A summary of the absolute error: a quantity that the inversion method

seeks to reduce in an attempt to find a better model after each iteration is presented in table

4.1. Tables 4.2 and 4.3 show summary of reconstructed resistivity of all models and pseudodepth respectively. Synthetic test allows us to compare the capabilities of the selected

electrode array and inversion settings to identify contact of geological layers.

4.2 DISCUSSION

4.2.1 RESISTIVITY STRUCTURES FOR A BLOCK MODEL

Figure 4.1 shows the inverted models for Wenner, Wenner-Schlumberger, Dipole-Dipole and

Pole-Dipole arrays, over a resistive synthetic block with resistivity and thickness of 100 m

and 2.55 m respectively, buried in a homogenous environment of resistivity 10 m. The unit

electrode spacing and the maximum electrode location are 1.00 m and 35.0m respectively.

The depth of measurement ranges from 0.259 m to 13.6 m. The inversion results show that

the models are well resolved. The Dipole-dipole array (Figure 4.1c), closely matches the

resistivity of the true block model (100 m) and the background environment (10 m). The

inverse resistivity modelled results show that for all the electrode configurations used in

mapping the resistive block, the dipole-dipole array with a RMS error of 4.7% (Table 4.1),

gives a better imaging resolution of the true model followed by Wenner, WennerSchlumberger and Pole-dipole arrays respectively.

The reconstructed resistivity value (Table 4.2) ranges from 4.67 m to 94 m, thus underestimating the true resistivity of 100 m. The pole-dipole has less resolution than the dipoledipole array but yields greater depth. Thus, in order to image such structure, the dipole-dipole

array is most suitable considering the image resolution and closeness to the true resistivity of

both the environment and buried block

28

Wenner

Figure 4.1: Inverse resistivity model of block of higher resistivity in a homogenous environment

of lower resistivity. (a) dipole-dipole, (b) pole-dipole, (c) wenner- schlumberger

(d) wenner arrays

29

For the two resistive blocks model of resistivity 300 m and 500 m embedded in a

homogenous host environment of 10 m, the inversion results of reconstructed resistivities

are presented in Figure 4.2a-d. Depth of measurement ranges from 0.259 m to 13.6m (Table

4.3). The geometries of the blocks are fairly resolved in all the images. It is observed that all

the arrays almost depict the true geometries of the blocks. From the inversion results, it

shows that the Dipole-dipole, Wenner-Schlumberger and Pole-dipole arrays may be highly

considered best when mapping structures of different resistivity values in a homogenous

environment. Wenner array (Figure 4.2a), as observed possess a low spatial (lateral)

resolution and gives the lowest resistivity values of the blocks.

30

Wenner

Figure 4.2: Inverse resistivity model of blocks of higher resistivity in a homogenous environment of

lower resistivity, and theoretical pseudosection for (a) dipole-dipole, (b) pole-dipole,

(c) wenner-schlumberger (d) wenner arrays

31

The reconstructed resistivities of three conductive block model for each electrode

configurations are illustrated in Figure 4.3a-d. The pseudo-depth ranges from 0.259 m to 42.5

m while the reconstructed resistivity values (Table 4.2) are all underestimated. This is a

reflection of the effect of the background resistivity on the blocks. Irrespective of this

underestimation, resistivity value of the three blocks for Dipole-dipole inverse model with a

RMS error of 8.7% (Table 4.1) is closest to the true resistivity of the blocks while the images

of Wenner inverse model is not close to the true resistivity of the three blocks. Table 4.3

illustrates the pseudo depth of each array across the three conductive block model. Based on

the models image resolution produced by individual electrode configuration, the Dipoledipole array gives the best representation followed by Wenner-Schlumberger and Pole-dipole

array. The Wenner array gives the least representation of the true model due to its low lateral

resolution.

32

Wenner

Figure 4.3: inverse resistivity model of three conductive blocks in a homogenous environment of

high resistivity, and theoretical pseudosection for (A) dipole-dipole, (b) pole-dipole,

(c) wenner-schlumberger (d) wenner arrays

33

The images of the vertical resistive dyke model of 500 m overlain by a top layer of 300

m, in a background of 100 m are shown in Figure 4.4. The modelled resistivity section of

the dipole-dipole with a RMS error of 12.8% (Table 4.2) corresponds best with the input

resistivity model followed by the Wenner-schlumberger and Wenner array. The reconstructed

resistivity of dipole-dipole, Pole-dipole, Wenner-schlumberger and Wenner arrays are 355

m, 312 m, 281 m, and 291 m respectively (Table 4.2), which indicate that the true

model resistivity of 500 m is underestimated. Wenner and Wenner-schlumberger produce a

clear image of the dike, both have distortions on each side of the dike (Figure 4a,b). The

modelled resistivity section for the Pole-dipole array gives the least agreement to the true

model. The Pseudo-Depth of each electrode configuration (Table 4.3), across the dyke model

ranges from 52.4 - 110 m.

34

Wenner

Fig 4.4: Model of a Dipping Dyke of Higher Resistivity, Overlain by a Resistive Layer, in a

Homogenous Environment of Lower Resistivity, and Theoretical Pseudosection for

(a) Dipole-Dipole, (b) Pole-Dipole, (c) Wenner-Schlumberger (d) Wenner Arrays

35

Table 4.1: RMS Errors (%) of Synthetic Models after Three Iterations

Model Type

DipoleDipole

WennerSchlumberger

Wenner

4.7

Forward

Pole

Dipole

4.9

Resistive Block

Model

Two Resistive Block

Model

3 Conductive Block

Model

Dyke Model

4.6

4.9

4.8

4.9

4.9

5.1

8.7

4.9

4.8

4.7

12.8

4.7

4.7

4.5

Model

True

Resistivity

Reconstructed Resistivity

Wenner

One Block

Two

Block 1

Block Block 2

100

300

46.7

38.7

WennerSchlumberger

77.8

82.4

500

30.4

82.4

95.0

140

Three Block 1

Block Block 2

Block 3

Dyke

10

10

10

500

6.12

10.5

30.5

6.01

8.81

12.9

8.96

12.3

17.0

4.68

7.07

10.7

Model

Wenner

Pole-Dipole

6.75

6.75

WennerDipole-Dipole

Schlumberger

7.88

9.12

7.88

9.12

One Block

Two

Blocks

Three

Blocks

Dyke

19.6

19.6

42.5

42.5

52.4

59.9

110.2

110.2

36

13.6

13.6

DipoleDipole

94.1

98.7

PoleDipole

90.9

145

CHAPTER FIVE

5.0

5.1

CONCLUSION

2D resistivity modeling of four electrode configurations has been carried out using synthetic

models in order to compare the imaging capabilities of the different arrays.

Generally, all electrode arrays are able to delineate the contact of two geologic units

especially with very high resistivity contrast; however, the image resolution for the location

of vertical (dyke) structure is dierent. The dipole-dipole array g i v e s the best

representation and is the most detailed method especially for the detection of vertical

structures such as dyke intrusions. This array shows the best in delineating the geometrical

characterisation of the dyke. The pole-dipole array gives somewhat less resolution than the

dipole-dipole array but yields greater signal strength; thus, the pole-dipole array may be a

good compromise between resolution and signal strength. The Pole-dipole has shown a n

e ffective method for detection of all vertical structures with high depth range. Wenner a r r a y shows

a low resolution, inconvenient for detailed investigation of dip structures and generally a

low spatial resolution. The W e n n e r - schlumberger array gives a good and sharp

resolution to assess the contact between two units but gives poor result for imaging

geometry of dipping contact.

RECOMMENDATION

From this study, it is recommended that the performance of all arrays at reproducing

resistivities and boundaries in the deep portions of the models be improved so that modeling

information would not be restricted to shallow to intermediate depth range. Also, the geologic

target should be in the middle of the data constrained region. In addition, future works in

synthetic modelling of electrical resistivity data should be improved in order to yeild more

efficient and reliable results.

Based on the findings of the current study, it is recommended that 2D electrical

resistivity surveys across horizontal structures such as, horizontal layers, and horizontal

boundaries between two geological bodies with contrasting resistivity, the use of Wenner

array is highly recommended. Wenner-Schlumberger array may also yield acceptable results

37

REFERENCES

Acworth, R. I. (1987). The Development of Crystalline Basement Aquifers in a Tropical

Environment. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology,

20(4):

265-272.

Electrical Resistivity Response Modelling for Thick Conductor, Journal of Applied

Sciences Research, 2(10): 691- 702.

Field

Assal H.M. and Mahmoud S.F. (1987). A New Inversion Technique for Apparent

Resistivity Measurements IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing, 25: 7-10

Structure

Electrical

Vertical

Backus G.E. and Gilbert J.F. (1967). Numerical Applications of Formalism for Geophysical

Inverse Problems Geophysics. J. Astron. Soc. 266: 123-92

Imaging at a Heterogeneous Remediation Site. Geophysics, 69(3): 674-680.

Caglar I. and Duvarci E. (2001). Geoelectric Structure of Inland Area of Go Kova Rift,

Southwest Anatolia and Its Tectonic Implications. Journal of Geodynamics 31:

48.

38

33

Candansayar, M.E. (2008). Two-Dimensional Individual and Joint Inversion Of Three and

Four Electrode Array Dc Resistivity Data. Journal of Geophysics and

Engineering.

5:290300.

Imaging of Buried Oil- and Tar-Contaminated Waste Deposits. European Journal of

Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, 4(1): 3-16.

Batsford:

London.

Constable S.C., Parker R.l, and Constable C.G. (1987). Occams Inversion: A Practical

Algorithm For Generating Smooth Models From Electromagnetic Sounding Data.

Geophysics, 52(3): 289300.

Applications. First Break, 14(7): 45-89.

Dimensional Structures Using Two Dimensional DC Resistivity Techniques. In

Proceedings of the 3rd Meeting of the Environmental and Engineering

Geophysical Society. 143-146.

Assessed

Electrode Arrays. Geophysical Prospecting. 52(5): 379398

39

With10

Zimbabwe. Proceedings of the IV Meeting of the Environmental and

Engineering

Geophysical

Barcelona.

151154

1228-1235.

Dey, A. and Morrison, H.F. (1979): Resistivity Modeling for Arbitrarily Shaped ThreeDimensional Shaped Structures, Geophysics, 44: 753-780.

Dobrin, M. B., and Savit, C. H. (1988). Introduction to Geophysical Prospecting. McGrawHill, New York. 245-246

Data, Siam J. Appl. Math., 58(5): 15911693

Polarization.

Hydrogeological Problems in the Coastal Areas of Northwest Germany.

Geophysical

Prospecting 3: 95110

Surveying. First Break, 3(7).

of Physics, 69(9), 943-952.

40

Journal

Dam by Repeated Resistivity Measurements. European Journal of Engineering

and

publishing, London, UK. 262.

Labrecque D., Miletto M., Daily W., Ramirez A. and Owen E 1996. The Effects of

Inversion of Resistivity Tomography Data, Geophysics. 61538

Occam

48.

62nd

Method. Manual for Res2dinv, 3, 53.

Loke, M.H., Wilkinson, P.B. and Chambers, J.E. (2010). Fast Computation Of Optimized

Electrode Arrays For 2d Resistivity Surveys. Computers and Geosciences. 36:

1414

1426.

Loke, M.H. and Barker, R. D. (1995). Rapid Least Squares Inversion of Apparent

Resistivity Pseudo-Sections by a Quasi-Newton Method. Geophysical

Prospecting, 44:131152.

Loke, M. H. and Barker, R. D. (1996). Practical Techniques for 3D Resistivity Surveys and

Data Inversion. Geophysical Prospecting, 44(3): 499-523.

Loke, M.H., Chambers, J.E., Rucker, D.F., Kuras, O. and Wilkinson, P.B. (2013).

New Developments in the Direct-Current Geoelectrical Imaging Method. Journal

Applied Geophysics, 95: 135156.

41

of

Martorana R., Fiandaca G., Casasponsati A. and Cosentino P.l. (2009) Comparative Tests

on Different Multi-Electrode Arrays Using Models In Near-Surface Geophysics. J

Geophys Eng 6:120

of Cavity Research with Geoelectrical Resistivity Methods.

Investigations

Geophysical

Milsom,J. (2007). Field Geophysics, John Wiley and Sons, West Sussex. 97-116

Three-Dimensional

Electrical

Resistivity

Imaging

Survey. Studia

Geophysica

in

et

Oldenburg, D.W. and Li, Y.G. (1999). Estimating Depth of Investigation in DC Resistivity

and IP Surveys. Geophysics, 64: 403416.

of Apparent Resistivity Data: Geophysical Prospecting, 48: 293316.

Parker, R.L. (1984). The Inverse Problem of Resistivity Sounding Geophysics, 49: 21432158

Park, S. K. and Van, G. P. (1991). Inversion of Pole-Pole Data for 3D Resistivity

Structure

Resistivity

Field

Acquisition

System.

42

EAGE

58th

Conference

and

Technical

Ramirez A, Daily W, Binley A, and Labrecque D. (1996). Tank Leak Detection Using

Electrical Resistance Methods. Symposium on the Application of Geophysics To

Engineering And Environment, Keystone, Co; 28 April1 May.

Ritz, M., Robain, H., Pervago, E., Albouy, Y., Camerlynck, C., Descloitres, M. and Mariko,

A. (1999). Improvement to Resistivity Pseudosection Modelling By

Removal

South

of

Rogers R.B. and Kean W.F. (1980). Monitoring Ground Water Contamination at a Fly Ash

Disposal Site Using Surface Resistivity Methods. Groundwater, 18(5): 472

478.

Simulation Geophysical Prospecting. 40: 453463.

Sasaki,

Y.

(1994).

3-D

Resistivity

Inversion

Using

the

Finite-Element

Method.

Schwarzbach, C., Brner, R. U. and Spitzer, K. (2005). Two-Dimensional Inversion of

Direct Current Resistivity Data Using a Parallel, Multi-Objective Genetic

Algorithm. Geophysical Journal International, 162(3): 685-695.

Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics 5(3): 4558.

Shima, H. (1992). 2-D and 3-D Resistivity Image Reconstruction Using Crosshole

Data. Geophysics, 57(10): 1270-1281.

43

Dipole-Dipole Data, IEEE Transactions on Geoscience And Remote

Sensing,

22: 21-28.

Storz, H., Storz, W. and Jacobs, F. (2000). Electrical Resistivity Tomography to

Investigate

Geological

Prospecting, 48(3):

Structures

of

the

Earth's

Upper

Crust. Geophysical

455-471.

Stummer, P., Maurer, H.R., Horstmeyer, H. and Green, A.G. (2002). Optimization of

Dc Resistivity Data Acquisition: Real-Time Experimental Design and a New

Multi-

40(12):

27272736.

Van P.V., Park S.K., and Hamilton P. (1991). Monitoring Leaks From Storage Ponds Using

Resistivity Methods. Geophysics, 56: 12671270.

Wilkinson, P.B., Meldrum, P.I., Chambers, J.C., Kuras, O. and Ogilvy, R.D. (2006).

Improved Strategies for the Automatic Selection of Optimized Sets of Electrical

Resistivity

Tomography

Measurement

Configurations.

Geophysical

Journal

York.

278.

Geophysics

to

Zohdy, A. A. (1989). A New Method for the Automatic Interpretation of Schlumberger and

Wenner Sounding Curves. Geophysics, 54(2): 245-253.

Resistivity Imaging Surveying. Near Surface Geophysics, 1(3): 105-117.

44

Electrode Configurations. Geophysical Prospecting, 48(5): 887-912.

45

Different

- fizik2 april06Uploaded bysemuty92
- PolarisationUploaded byzeroback90
- Conductivity GuideUploaded byArif Febrianto
- Cambridge.Inverse.Theory.For.Petroleum.Reservoir.Characterization.And.History.Matching.pdfUploaded bySandesh Chavan
- TEM and MT Methods_0Uploaded byGian Angga Pratama
- 846024.pdfUploaded byRoland Rawlins Igabor
- SeismicUploaded bysoumyasss
- Configuration and Specification of Equipments Used in Dc resistivity surveyUploaded byAditya Kumar Anand
- NASA Shielding GuidlinesUploaded bymivey
- CBSC_USUploaded bydeepak_gupta_priti
- CL 3 ES-EPTUploaded byweldsv
- Das TerrUploaded byDesy Khusna
- EarthqkLoc Direct Search v2.0Uploaded byputih_138242459
- 33_2IIpUploaded bymubeenkhan20
- Conductor CalculationsUploaded bysridhar_clt
- 1101.3059Uploaded byAslamic le Chauve
- WREF 2012 Diode Arc-Fault Modeling SAND2012-2024CUploaded bykhers_zal
- Mansouri_et-al-JPCC.pdfUploaded byAbrahamMansouri
- [Florian_Gebhard]_The_Mott_Metal-Insulator_Transit(b-ok.xyz).pdfUploaded byAvtar Singh
- The Iteratively Regularized Newton Method for Reconstructing Image of Microwave TomographyUploaded byIJAERS JOURNAL
- Analytical and Experimental Investigation of the Effect of Oxygen Chemisorptionon the Ellectrical Conductivity of CdSUploaded byAnonymous dLddeN4cA
- CIGRE_TORONTO_2009.pdfUploaded bypeloduro1010
- FAQ_Conductivity_Thornton.pdfUploaded byElafan
- Effect of Cr Doping in Structure and Magneto-Transport Properties of (La0.67Sr0.33)MnO3Uploaded byAlexander Decker
- Physics q PaperUploaded bymaulik2323
- is.8824.1.1978Uploaded byrajpd28
- Lecture 4 - Current Density, Conductors and CapacitanceUploaded byHannahmhel Muana
- 1.3.1-2 Current & ResistanceUploaded byAriaNathan
- ACSR conductor data.pdfUploaded bySaroj
- 1863-AUploaded byc_b_umashankar

- Ground Penetrating Radar & Avo (2)Uploaded byRoland Rawlins Igabor
- AVO ResponsesUploaded byMuhammad Arief Harvityanto
- Avoc Fogg 2001Uploaded byRoland Rawlins Igabor
- 7c633f48e267c460d1ea3c4bf968ad1e.pdfUploaded byRoland Rawlins Igabor
- ReadMePCUploaded bycavaldryg
- [Mark_Driscoll]_Porn-again_Christian__a_frank_dis(BookZZ.org).epubUploaded byRoland Rawlins Igabor
- Math FormulaUploaded byJames Ho
- Spgp320.PDF MASWUploaded byRoland Rawlins Igabor
- Spgp320.PDF MASWUploaded byRoland Rawlins Igabor
- [Craig Murray, Leissa Pitts] Sexpectations Girl a(BookZZ.org)Uploaded byRoland Rawlins Igabor
- Lecture 13Uploaded byShivamanth Angadi
- masw-firstpaper-140605065751-phpapp02.pdfUploaded byRoland Rawlins Igabor
- Vedic MathsUploaded byTB
- Devi Sageep16 Rev1Uploaded byRoland Rawlins Igabor
- [Yositaka Mimura, Hyôitirô Takeno] Wave Geometry(BookZZ.org) (1)Uploaded byRoland Rawlins Igabor
- ERT TLE Rev Website (1)Uploaded byRoland Rawlins Igabor
- PetrGeosc 2000 Hesthammer Fossen Fault SealingUploaded byRoland Rawlins Igabor
- 8 Gravity 2009Uploaded byRoland Rawlins Igabor
- T44Uploaded byRoland Rawlins Igabor
- Schaefer PermafrostUploaded byRoland Rawlins Igabor
- segam2012-1534%2E1Uploaded byRoland Rawlins Igabor
- Dormy06.pdfUploaded byRoland Rawlins Igabor
- Definition of PoissonUploaded byRoland Rawlins Igabor
- [Untitled] 1Uploaded byRoland Rawlins Igabor
- PROJECT REPORT GUIDELINESUploaded byShubhamKumawat
- Jolley Brent FaultsUploaded byRoland Rawlins Igabor
- 1-1.2.6 Location of Fluids in Oil and Gas ReservoirsUploaded byCordylus0824
- 1Introduction to Remote Sensing1Uploaded byRoland Rawlins Igabor
- Determination of Dipping Contacts UsingUploaded byRoland Rawlins Igabor
- Get PDF Serv LetUploaded byRoland Rawlins Igabor

- Signals and Systems Kuestion (EE)- By www.EasyEngineering.net.pdfUploaded bylaxmandasri
- pronunciation doctor - analyzing your diagnostic testsUploaded byapi-236943041
- 2017-18 Program of StudiesUploaded byRichard Lester
- United States v. John W. Downing, 753 F.2d 1224, 3rd Cir. (1985)Uploaded byScribd Government Docs
- Thesis Synopsis PrfoformaUploaded byShyam Panga
- INST 381: Midterm Study GuideUploaded byMiguel Centellas
- Syllabus and Model QuestionsUploaded byPrajwal Khatiwada
- Bcs Lab Manual (1)Uploaded byOmprakash Karlapady
- 9896Uploaded bythienvuong90
- Drv 8840Uploaded byali khan
- Soil Mechanics (Richard Brachman)Uploaded byapi-3763023
- Traffic Impact Assessment GuidelinesUploaded byManlio GutVa
- Dec ReportUploaded byamitsaraf11
- daftar pustaka finch.docUploaded byFurqon Cianda Holandra Holandra
- LaunchpadUploaded bycaxap
- STATISTICS FOR BUSINESS - CHAP05 - Sampling and Sampling Distribution.pdfUploaded byHoang Nguyen
- A Business Process RedesignUploaded byUMER HANEEF
- NSTSE Class 8 SolutionUploaded byMota Chashma
- Obesity Among Call Center AgentsUploaded byChesca Panlilio Reyes
- Migration Legislation, Institutions and policies in the EUROMED regionUploaded byEugenio Orsi
- Resumen Procedimiento de Actualización Plataforma Cisco 7600Uploaded byYesid Castañeda Llanos
- works citedUploaded byapi-239156716
- Water ResourcesArticlep362Uploaded byFz Slt
- CP II Lesson PlanUploaded byFaith Alacar
- 2016-09-01 MatrixUploaded bycamilovivi
- Autoscale Lab Guide v.1.4Uploaded bytoni-jefer
- OAPT Contest 08 Light and OpticsUploaded bymadhav
- PLC - Micro800 - D&A Expansion IOUploaded byBa Khoa Tran
- 11 8046 Cs Oxiteno FinalUploaded byLTORRESM
- Project Job SatisfactionUploaded byRijs John