Case histories on the use

of Electric Resistivity
Tomography (ERT) and
Induced Polarization (IPT)
in sediments

S. Bazin
Teknologidagene, 14th October 2010
 Outline
• Electric Resistivity Tomography (ERT) method
• Induced Polarization Tomography (IPT) method
• Quick clay mapping
1. Vålen
2. Smørgrav
3. Grong

• Geotechnical projects
1. Enebakk
2. Holmestrand

• Environmental projects
1. Hydrocarbon pollution
 Electric resistivity tomography (ERT)
Goal : obtain information on nature of
soils/rocks

Principle: electrical current is driven

through the ground and the resulting
potential differences are measured at the
surface. We invert the data to obtain a
vertical resistivity section.

Basic principle of electrical resistivity imaging. Survey principle with multi-electrodes cables:
possibility to roll-along.
 Induced Polarization Tomography (IPT)
Goal : search for disseminated ores, clay
minerals, pollution, and groundwater. measurement of the decaying voltage over
Used exclusively in the mineral a certain time interval

exploration field until recently. Over the

past two decades IP measurements
have improved, and new applications of
IP have emerged in the environmental
field.

Principle: when the current is switched

off, the voltage between the potential
electrodes does not drop to zero
The ground becomes electrically polarized:
immediately. The ground acts as a
capacitor and stores electrical charges.
a) membrane polarization: in the presence of
clay minerals where the pores are particularly
small
b) electrode polarization: when a metallic mineral
grain blocks a pore
 Data acquisition
• ABEM Terrameter (Lund system) acquired by NGI in April 2010
• The depth of investigation depends on the profile length:
• profile length = 40 m, electrode spacing = 0.5 m, depth of investigation = 6.5 m
• profile length = 400 m, Electrode spacing = 5 m, depth of investigation = 70 m : our maximum

• The resolution depends on the electrode spacing

• The time/cost depends on the profile length and on site conditions
Difficult site condition

Easy site condition

Typical section in Scandinavian sediments:
groundwater flow leaches salt from marine clay

dry crust
Quick Clay
Marine clay
Moraine

Bedrock

After Tor Løken

 Resistivity of Scandinavian sediments

Palacky [1987]
Solberg et al. [2008] :
• Marine Clay < 10 m
• Leached (quick) clay: 10-80 m
• Dry crust, sand, gravel and bedrock > 80 m
Leached marine clay (quick) has higher resistivity
Lateral extent of quick clay layers is crucial for hazard :
need drilling and surface geophysics to extrapolate
between boreholes

Drycrust

Quick clay

Clay

Retrogressive backward failure

Two quick clay research sites
Vålen and Smørgrav, Vestfossen area

Quick clay hazard zone:

Hazard level: High (low,med,high)
Consequence: 5 (1-5)
Risk: 5 (1-5)

www.skrednett.no
Quick clay: 1-Vålen
- 14 geotechnical boreholes
- monitoring (pore pressure, tiltmeters)
- 3 ERT lines

quick
clay scar
Geotechnical investigations indicate two
quick clay bodies

Dry crust
Quick clay
Clay

Quick clay ?
ERT
Res2Dinv

Clay Quick clay (10-80m) agrees with Solberg et al. [2008]

ERT cross-lines reveal 3D shape of
quick clay bodies

Q
UI
Y
LA CK
C CL
A Y C L QU
AY IC
K
AY CL
AY
CL
CK LE
I SHA
U
Q

Old quick
clay slide
A Y
E

CL
AL

CK
SH

I
U
Q
ERT, RCPT, and lab consistency
No quick clay in the samples…

the borehole missed

the deep quick clay
pocket or 3D effect?
RCPT

 in lab
Quick clay: 2-Smørgrav
main transect (~250m)
EM
Geotechnical profile
Rotary pressure and RCPTU soundings

RCPTU 506
505 and 524
525

flat
penetration
curve
 Rotary pressure and RCPTU soundings

RCPTU 506 and 524

flat penetration
resistance curve

RCPT data do not agree with Solberg et

al. [2008] quick clay range (10-80 m)
 1 resistivity[m] 10 100
Lab data quality 0

•Mismatch with RCPT is within 2

error (20%) due to uncertainty in 3

the sample geometry 4

rhov120Hz
5
rho1120Hz
•No significant anisotropy 6
rho2120Hz
7 RCPTdata

depth[m]
8

1 resistivity[m] 10
4

6
depth[m]
8

10

12

14
rhov1khz
16
rho11kHz
18
rho21kHz
20
 RCPTU database

5 more sites

Probe developped by NGI and Swedish

manufacturer Envi AB Romøen et al. [2010]
ERT inversion with & without RCPTU
constraints : good agreement

! inverted colour scale

ERT & RCPT & site investigations provide
detailed quick clay extent
RCPT
525
RCPT
524
Dry crust
Quick clay

clay Basement / moraine

Quick clay : 3- Grong
4 profiles north of Trondheim

Quick clay hazard zone

Hazard level: High
Consequence: 5
Risk: 5
Interpretations of the resistivities

flat penetration
resistance curve

Quick clay resistivities(10-80 m) agree with Solberg

et al. [2008] classification, but are lower than non
sensitive clay at the top (bulldoze landscaping ?)
?

Basement depth fits with 300 m contour

Other lines Hazard!

!
accurate
topography ?
necessary

?
Resolution test

Inhomogeneous clay
Synthetic model
Dipping basement

Pseudo-section
with 10% noise

Calculated
pseudo-section

Inverted model:
!
SMOOTH
 Geotechnical projects:
1-Enebakk
sediment thickness for
road construction

ERT vs boreholes: prefect fit!

Geotechnical projects:
2- Holmestrand
sediment thickness for tunnel
construction
ERT vs refraction seismic: prefect fit!

P-velocity

Geomap, 2010
Environmental project:
Hydrocarbon contamination
 IP for contamination plume mapping
resistivity
section
=
geology

IP section
=
chargeability

chargeability/resistivity
=
normalized chargeability
=
contamination plume
 Summary

• ERT is an excellent tool for detailed quick clay

delineation and sediment thickness mapping but needs
boreholes for calibration (there are no universal resistivity
thresholds) and synthetic tests for resolution
(interpretation is not straightforward...)
• Data processing requires accurate topography (no GPS
signal in forests...) and projection of the horizontal
distances into surface distances
• IPT can map contamination plumes but needs sampling
for validation
 Perspectives

• ERT results will be compared to RCPTU when data

become available (Grong, ...)
• Joint seismic and resistivity interpretation/inversion
(Vålen, Holmestrand,...)
• PhD proposal Guillaume Sauvin (ICG/UiO,
StatensVegVesen, NVE, Jernbaneverket)
Integrated geophysics for landslide mapping and monitoring along
coasts and rivers in Norway
• Research project on IPT (collaboration with universities,
coming workshop)
• Test 3D acquisition and monitoring with Terrameter
 Comparison with OhmMapper data(*):

10 m

(*) Courtesy Isabelle Lecomte, ICG

OhmMapper & ERT with alternative inversion
2.5D plume mapping