Engineering Geology 169 (2014) 112–123

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Geology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enggeo

Electrical resistivity tomography to understand clay behavior during

seasonal water content variations
M. Chrétien a,⁎, J.F. Lataste b, R. Fabre b, A. Denis b
a
G.T.S. (Groupe NGE), 69800 Saint Priest, France
b
Université Bordeaux 1, I2M-GCE UMR 5295, 33450 Talence, France

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Problems with foundations highlight a lack of understanding surrounding factors which influence ground move-
Received 14 December 2012 ments during wet–dry cycles (Vincent, 2009). To address this issue, geotechnical characterizations of a clayey
Received in revised form 26 November 2013 formation can be used to identify significant variability in lithological facies, both vertically and horizontally
Accepted 30 November 2013
over very short distances. Soil heterogeneities explain in this case a wide range of geotechnical parameters and
Available online 12 December 2013
weak correlations between them, assessed on soil behavior observed on site. This paper focuses on soil water
Keywords:
deficits and benefits over time, related to soil composition in a heterogeneous clay formation through the use
Clayey soil of electrical resistivity tomography (ERT). Electrical resistivity tomography and time domain reflectometry
Electrical resistivity tomography (TDR) were used simultaneously to measure resistivity and soil moisture at an experimental field site with the
Soil heterogeneity unique objective of qualifying soil moisture in this first stage of the study. The resistivity variations obtained
Monitoring from ERT were compared to local effective rainfall and soil moisture measurements from time domain reflectom-
etry (TDR) down to a depth of 3 m. Results show the potential of qualifying soil water content variations over the
seasons, and especially of detecting a rapid increase in humidity thanks to spatial soil heterogeneity at a
decimetric scale. ERT proves to be a useful method of delineating soil facies based on their drying and humidifi-
cation behavior.
Crown Copyright © 2013 Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The engineering properties of alluvium deposits can vary greatly.
Terraces make ideal construction sites as they are relatively flat, are
not subject to flooding and are typically underlain by sand and gravel.
However, in areas where there were slow-moving streams, very thick
deposits of clayey silt can occur, giving rise to a lack of bearing strength
for large loads. Where such conditions exist, pilings are extensively used
in the construction of multi-story buildings. A further problem resulting
from these alluvial deposits is the delineation of specific sand and clayey
lenses; if slabs or continuous spread footing are distributed onto hetero-
geneous layers, differential settlements can occur (Houy et al., 2005;
Denis et al., 2011). Engineering problems associated with clayey soils
are typically due to their low shear strength, making these kinds of
soils very hazardous for shallow foundations. Expansive clayey soils
are also hazardous due to the expansion and contraction accompanying
soil moisture changes, causing damage when the soil shrinks on drying
or when it expands as it becomes wet, and these resulting soil move-
ments can affect the structural integrity of houses. Houses with inade-
quate (i.e. shallow) foundations develop damage ranging from sticking
doors and hairline cracks in the plaster to their complete destruction
⁎ Corresponding author at: G.T.S. (Groupe NGE), 29 rue des Tâches, 69800 Saint Priest,
France. Tel.: +33 557979460; fax: +33 556780483.
E-mail address: mchretien@gts.fr (M. Chrétien).
(Vincent, 2009; Andrieux et al., 2011). Expansive soils owe their charac-
teristics to the presence and arrangement of swelling clay minerals,
determining their ability to swell and shrink after annual moisture
changes. Numerous residential constructions, both recent and old, with
no previous history of even minimal differential movements, have devel-
oped foundation problems over a very short period of time due to chang-
es in moisture content during extended periods of drought (Vincent,
2009). To address this problem, the swell–shrinkage behavior has been
investigated in situ, and specifically on a Plio-Quaternary clayey forma-
tion (Brach formation) responsible for around a hundred structural
issues in buildings since 1989 in the suburbs of Bordeaux (south of
France) (Chrétien, 2010; Andrieux et al., 2011).
Localization of soil facies variation and seasonal water content mea-
surement remain the two principal elements in traditional geotechnical
investigation. Electromagnetic measurements obtained through time
domain reflectometry (TDR) allow reasonably accurate water content
measurements (Robinson et al., 2003; Bittelli et al., 2008); the disadvan-
tages of these measurements are related to the limited volume of inves-
tigation and to the installation itself which can alter the soil structure.
Geophysical methods do not affect the soil structure and the resulting
measurement overlays a first level of soil spatial variability at a
decimetric scale depending on the spacing between electrodes. Electri-
cal resistivity can be adapted to assess the variability of material proper-
ty like the water content, notably in the framework of investigation
prior to geotechnical sounding (De Benedetto et al., 2012; Lataste

0013-7952/$ – see front matter. Crown Copyright © 2013 Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2013.11.019
 M. Chrétien et al. / Engineering Geology 169 (2014) 112–123
et al., 2012; Guerrero et al., 2013). Electrical resistivity tomography
(ERT) is a tool that can monitor moisture variations within geological
materials (Zhou et al., 2001; Brunet et al., 2010; Bourennane et al.,
2012). The relationship between electrical resistivity and humidity
was clearly understood by Archie (1942), and used in laboratory appli-
cations (Kalinski and Kelly, 1993) as well as on site (Rapti-Caputo et al.,
2009). On material with clay content, Archie's law must be completed
by a second part, to take into account the surfacic conductivity within
clay (Simandoux, 1963; Waxman and Smits, 1968). In any case, whatev-
er the law considered, the influence of water content is clear and, when
increasing, leads to decreases in resistivity. Links between resistivity
variations and water distribution in soils were done through numerous
studies. It demonstrates the effectiveness of this approach for studying
transient phenomena within the scope of geotechnical matters
(Santarato et al., 2011), for seepage monitoring in earth embankments
(Johansson and Dahlin, 1996; Sjödahl et al., 2008), for studying the dy-
namics of aquifers (Brunet et al., 2010; Fowler and Moysey, 2011), or of
soils (Benderitter and Schott, 1997). These studies are based on the
comparison of ERT sections carried out on different occasions, identify-
ing changes in soil properties. Because of the potential of this approach,
it is now widely studied (Rein et al., 2004; Samouellian et al., 2005;
Schwartz et al., 2008). Previous studies (Binley et al., 2002; Hagrey
et al., 2004; Robinson et al., 2012) deal with the moisture dynamic of
soil and were able to highlight the impact of its environment on soil
properties over time. We want to include the concept of spatial variabil-
ity in addition to the seasonal variations (Besson et al., 2004) to under-
stand the interaction between these two scales of variations (spatial and
temporal) on the behavior of expansive soils. Without aiming at calibra-
tion between moisture and resistivity we will use the sensitivity of
electrical resistivity tomography to monitor soil water deficits and
benefits over time. We focus on water content variations in relation to
lithological composition in a heterogeneous clay field. This paper pre-
sents (i) the test site and the data collected in situ, (ii) the ERT method
and investigation over time, (iii) the results discussed in comparison
with TDR measurements and lithological soil structure at the profile
scale.
2. Field site
The area under investigation is located in the west of Pessac, a town
in the suburbs of Bordeaux (France). The region is characterized by an
PESSAC
*Corresponding author at: G.T.S (groupe NGE), 29 rue des Tâches, 69800 Saint Priest, France,
Tel. : +33557979460 ; Fax : +33556780483 E-mail adress : mchretien@gts.fr (Marie Chrétien)
Fig. 1. Location of the field site (Google Earth, 2010) and experimental in situ monitoring systems:
geological excavation; and L1, L2 and L3: ERT profiles.
113
oceanic climate, with a 984 mm/year annual mean rainfall recorded
by the local MeteoFrance rain gauge for the period 1971–2000. There
is no topography, only small trees, and there are no buildings on the
site. This area is located on the Brach geological formation (Thierry
and Breysse, 2006) (Figure 1), composed mainly of gray-blue clayey
soils with orange marblings and dating back to the upper Pleistocene
(Platel and Astruc, 2000). This clayey formation is composed mainly of
kaolinite (60 to 80%) and smectites (10 to 25%). Geological drilling cam-
paigns dating from December 2006 to August 2008 show that, within
this formation, clay–sandy lenses could be the consequence of a fluvial
environment during the Plio-Quaternary period, with the partially
cemented brown sandstone called “Alios”, the ferruginous sandstone
typical of the “Landes de Gascogne” (Gourdon-Platel, 1975; Tastet and
Pontee, 1999). Sand filled the cracks in clayey soils and made the clay
soils less impermeable, allowing temporary water flows through
sandy lenses between a depth of 2 and 5 m. The water level was 15 m
below ground surface, which is deep enough not to be relevant in this
case. The bedrock is located between a depth of 15 and 25 m.
3. Soil characterization
3.1. Geotechnical characterization
Mechanical properties of the soils were characterized by geotechni-
cal analysis of 66 samples collected from destructive and core drillings
on the site at different depths: natural water content (wi), percent
finer than 2 μm (2 μm), Atterberg limits (PI), methylene blue absorp-
tion test method (Vb) on particle size of 400 μm. Then we focused on
the investigation of the swelling and shrinkage characteristics on intact
clayey samples: swelling and compressibility parameters (compressive
index Cc, swelling potential εg, swelling coefficient Cg, initial void ratio
e0, dry density γd/γw, permeability coefficient at saturation k0).
Table 1 gives the minimum and maximum values obtained by tradition-
al geotechnical analysis and consolidation tests at different depths and
for two distinct soil facies (A/BOG: clayey facies and SA: sandy–clay
facies).
Table 1 shows that the samples (collected in the same area) differ
widely in their clay content (from 27 to 74%) with a mean of 40%.
Soils present medium to high liquidity limits with a maximum plasticity
index above 57%, and high blue methylene values, up to 11 (mean of 6).
These results reflect the heterogeneity of the geotechnical parameters of
P4
L1
L3 L2
B C
A
rain gauge and temperature probes at depths of 0.50, 1, 2, 3 and 5 m; TDR tubes;
114 M. Chrétien et al. / Engineering Geology 169 (2014) 112–123

Table 1
Summary of geotechnical and consolidation test results of studied samples on field site.

Depth (m) Facies wi (%) γd/γw (−) e0 (−) Vb (g/100 g) PI (%) b2 μm (%) Cc (−) εg/ (%) Cg (−) k0 (m/s)

0–1 A/BOG 14–29 1.4–1.6 0.60 5–11 25–55 34–74 0.15–0.24 7–12 0.06 2.10−7
1–2 A/BOG 16–32 1.5–1.7 0.65 6–8 30–57 50–64 0.13–0.16 5–7 0.05 4.5.10−9
2–3 A/BOG 11–35 1.3–1.6 0.6–1 5–12 32–60 27–64 0.14–0.31 5–11 0.05–0.12 3/27.10−9
2.00 SA 10–17 1.6–1.7 0.50 0.5 10–15 10–25 / / / /
Total mean 20.2 1.52 0.74 4.2 35 30.1 0.88 8.38 0.51 2.1.10−7
Total standard 7.9 0.21 0.33 3.5 14.8 14.3 0.30 2.64 0.17 /
deviation

soils within the same lithological unit, and the influence of the varia-
tions in clay content. From direct measurements we can see that the
clayey samples present a medium swelling potential highlighted by a
medium to high compressibility possibility (0.15 b Cc b 0.20).
3.2. Initial sub-surface investigation
In order to characterize the heterogeneity of the soils, apparent
ground conductivity measurements were performed using the EM
31-MK2 electromagnetic equipment (Geonics) over an area of about
65 000 m2 (Figure 2). This equipment can produce cost-effective
maps of apparent electric conductivity, associated with changes in
ground properties. The effective depth of exploration is about 6 m in
vertical dipole mode (Mc Neill, 1980). Measurements taken in Septem-
ber 2007 used 5 m spacing along parallel profiles with 20 m spacing.
The map of apparent resistivity, the inverse of apparent conductivity,
shows the spatial variation in the soil (Figure 2). The results show a pro-
gressive lateral resistivity variation, pointing to the existence of three
distinct zones: a resistive zone, a transition zone and a conductive
zone. The calibration on drillings enables the identification of materials
for each of these zones on the site: granular facies (alluvial terraces,
sandy–gravel soils) whose resistivity is greater than 115 Ω · m, mixing
soils (sandy–clay deposits, facies SA) whose resistivity is between 115
and 80 Ω m, and clayey soils (facies A/BOG) whose resistivity is below
80 Ω · m.
4. Methods
The sensitivity to water content of electrical resistivity for geological
material is clear. The different laws based on Archie's law (1942), subse-
quently expanded to include clayey materials (Simandoux, 1963;
Waxman and Smits, 1968) prove this to be the case. Water content is
the most influential parameter regarding resistivity variations of soils
in natural conditions. Consequently, in order to estimate soil moisture
distributions in deep clayey soils, an understanding of the soil system
and the distribution of physical parameters which influence soil mois-
ture and resistivity is required. The analysis done is based on time mon-
itoring of resistivity variation for facieses covered by ERT. Our aim was
not to accurately quantify moisture content. Our focus was rather on
the dynamic behaviors over time. We employed three distinct methods
to study the area: (1) a sub-surface physical characterization with
temperature data; (2) TDR soil moisture profiling and (3) ERT measure-
ments. A weather station was set up on the site to record the meteoro-
logical conditions (rainfall, atmospheric temperature, etc).
4.1. Soil temperature measurements
Temperature data were collected every 3 h daily over the course of
2009 using temperature probes at different depths, ranging from the
surface to a depth of 5 m: 0.50, 1, 2, 3 and 5 m (Figure 3). As shown in
Fig. 3, we can see that the soil temperature is influenced both by an an-
nual seasonal cycle and a daily cycle due to changes in meteorological
conditions. Only at 0.50 m and 1 m are temperatures influenced by
the daily cycle. The effect of the annual cycle is visible even up to a
depth of 5 m, in the range of 3 °C (Figure 3).
4.2. Time domain reflectometry (TDR)
Three TDR access tubes were installed on the experimental site, at a
depth of 3 m (Trime FM3, Imko GmbH, Germany). The TRIME T3 Tube ac-
cess probe unit is specially designed for use in PVC access-tubes which
allow vertical moisture profiles to be measured to the desired depths.

High resistivities
115 Ohm.m limit
zone
80 Ohm.m limit
Transition
zone
Y-axis : UTM North

Experimental site

Conductive
zone
Sandy-gravel soils
(alluvial terrace)

Clayey soils (Brach

+ : measuring point
formation)

X-axis: UTM East

Fig. 2. Map of apparent electrical resistivities (Ω · m) measured using electromagnetic device (EM31).
 M. Chrétien et al. / Engineering Geology 169 (2014) 112–123 115

Fig. 3. Soil temperature (T °C in degree Celsius) measured on field site from 01/01/09 to 31/12/09 at 0.50 m, 1 m, 2 m, 3 m and 5 m depths. Dates of the ERT profiles (7) performed over
the year 2009.

We used the TRIME probe to measure percent soil moisture four times a
month between 2007 and 2012. The three profiles (A, B & C) were located
between 5 and 10 m from the lines of electrodes used for ERT (Figure 1).
Only TDR-A and TDR-B profiles are presented here. All the data are com-
pared to total rainfall collected in the field rain gauge. To analyze the in-
fluence of rainfall on soil parameters, the quantity of water passing
through the soil (effective rainfall, ER) was calculated as the difference
between the total rainfall (TR) measured in situ and the quantity of
water absorbed by the vegetation (ETR). In this article, as a simplification,
we calculated ER as follows: ER (mm) = TR − ETR. Evapotranspiration
(ETR) was recorded at the airport meteorological station near the field
site (about 5 km away).
For the TDR-A profile, the average of volumetric water content is
presented down to 3 m deep from summer 2008 to winter 2009, and
compared to lithological levels and effective rainfall (Figure 4). Surface
layers down to 1 m deep show major variations in water content
through the seasonal cycle (Figures 4 & 5). The results suggest that the
water content increases rapidly after heavy rainfall (42% at a depth of
1.60 m). Subsequently, the soil suffered from desiccation, initially at
the surface (in springtime) down to 1.80 m deep in periods of drought
(20 to 28% during summertime). The seasonal difference in soil mois-
ture in compact clay is above 8%, which is very minor relative to large
variations occurring between 1 m and 2 m deep. We can see that the
dry period of 2009 was more significant in soils compared to summer
2008, with a decrease in water content down to 25% (desiccation
boundary) at 1.80 m depth compared to 1.60 m depth in 2008.
The average volumetric water content is presented in Fig. 5 for the
TDR-B profile, from summer 2008 to winter 2009 to a depth of 3 m,
sept.-08

sept.-09
mars-09
janv.-09
févr.-09
août-08

août-09
nov.-08

nov.-09
déc.-08

déc.-09
avr.-09
oct.-08

oct.-09
mai-09
juin-09
juil.-09

Volumetric Water Content (%)

0 20 40 60 80 0
0.00

Organic Soil 50
Rainfall (mm)

-0.50
100

Effective Rainfall
-1.00 150
DEPTH (m)

Clayey Soil with

cracks 200
-1.50 B Total Rainfall
250

-2.00
Compact Clayey Soil
SUMMER 08 (Aug-Nov.)
Winter 08-09 (Dec.-May)
-2.50 SPRING 09 (June-Jully.)
Summer 09 (Aug-Sept.)
A
H1 WINTER 09 (Nov.-Dec.)
-3.00

Fig. 4. A) Seasonal average of soil water content measured on TDR-A, from surface to 3 m depth, from summer 2008 to winter 2009, B) total and effective rainfall over the same timeframe
on the right panel and on the related text in caption.
116 M. Chrétien et al. / Engineering Geology 169 (2014) 112–123
Volumetric Water content (%)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
0.00
Organic Soil
-0.50
-1.00
DEPTH (m)
Clayey Soil with
cracks
-1.50
-2.00
Compact
Clayey Soil
-2.50
A
B WINTER 09 (Nov.-Dec.)
-3.00
Fig. 5. A) Seasonal average of soil water content measured on TDR-B, from surface to 3 m depth, from summer 2008 to winter 2009, B) total and effective rainfall over the same timeframe
on the right panel and on the related text in caption.
and compared to lithological levels and effective rainfall for the same
period. From 1 m deep, we can see that soil moisture variations be-
tween summer and winter are above 5 to 8% down to 1.70 m deep,
which is less significant compared to the TDR-A profile over the same
period. On TDR-B, the increase in soil moisture is noticeable at depths
of 2 and 2.50 m during the wet period (maximum water content
value above 38%) after heavy effective rain passing through fissured
clay soils at the surface. These same cracks in clayey soils are highlighted
by two reductions in water content (above 21%) in summer.
4.3. Electrical resistivity tomography (ERT): acquisition and processing
ERT measurements are highly sensitive to saturated pore spaces
(Miller et al., 2008). On clayey soils, saturation, which does not have
the same importance, nevertheless has the same influence in terms of
resistivity variation. The use of ERT measurements was chosen to qual-
ify the change in soil electrical resistivity between wet and dry periods
in cracked clayey soils and mixed soils. Linking ERT and TDR is a poten-
tially useful approach to characterizing the unsaturated zone because
ERT gives 2D coverage of a study area and can reveal spatial and tempo-
ral variations in subsurface properties which might not otherwise be de-
tected using the 1D TDR method. This study used the performance of
ERT measurements to image soil moisture variations in heterogeneous
soils. The instrument used for ERT data acquisition was the IRIS Syscal
Pro Switch 72 (IRIS Instruments). Two permanent electrode arrays
were chosen, of 72 and 48 electrodes respectively, with 50 cm intervals
between probes sealed on site, corresponding to lines L1 and L2 shown
above. Electrodes were installed below the ground surface, fixed with
concrete inside a small PVC plot and covered with a removable PVC
cap. A preliminary study was done to identify the influence on measure-
ment noises of the distance between probes relative to the investigated
volume; of the electrode penetration depths and of the injection dura-
tion. The study argues for 50 cm between electrodes, driven 10 cm
into ground. This way allows us to keep close to the hypothesis for
inversions (punctual electrodes). It appears as a good compromise to
have a reasonable resolution with a sufficiently high signal to noise
ratio.
The Syscal Pro (Iris Instrument) used is set with injection cycle of 1 s.
The minimum resolution in this study is above the chosen spacing
between electrodes (a = 50 cm). This level is insufficient to directly de-
tect the small heterogeneous bodies (cracks or sand lenses). But what
we aim to do is to identify the influence area, at a decimetric scale, of
these heterogeneities at different depths in the investigated area over
mars-09
sept.-09
janv.-09
sept.-08
févr.-09
nov.-08
nov.-09
août-09
août-08
déc.-09
déc.-08
avr.-09
oct.-08
mai-09
oct.-09
juin-09
juil.-09
0
50
fall (mm)
Pluviométriecumulée
100
Pluviometry
Effective Rainfall
150
Rain
200
B Total Rainfall
250
SUMMER 08 (Aug-Nov.)
Winter 08-09 (Dec.-May)
SPRING 09 (June-Jully.)
Summer 09 (Aug-Sept.)
swell–shrinkage periods. Several sections with three different arrays
were made in autumn 2008 to assess the average noise level observed
for each level on a specific date: a) pole–dipole array with electrodes
spaced at 0.50 m intervals (a deeper investigation depth for an
identical spacing between electrodes; b) pole–dipole and c) Wenner–
Schlumberger array with electrodes spaced at 1 m intervals. Not all
the results are presented here, but ERT profiles showed that Wenner–
Schlumberger sequences seemed the ideal combination for delivering
the best resolution with the best signal-to-noise ratio, as we had expect-
ed, knowing the respective abilities of Wenner and Schlumberger arrays
(Dahlin and Zhou, 2004). With each ERT measurement taken over the
course of 2009 (February to December 2009), the three arrays were
performed on both L1 and L2 ERT lines. This geometry and the selected
arrays were chosen to get a good image of the studied depth, while at
the same time ensuring that there was a satisfactory degree of sensitiv-
ity over the first meters. For reasons of clarity and space, only results
from ERT line L1 (Figure 1) will be discussed in this paper.
4.3.1. Inversion method of ERT data
The apparent electrical resistivity of the 7 ERT measurements,
made between February and December 2009, were inverted with the
RES2DINV© software (version 3.58) to estimate a 2D resistivity model
(Loke and Barker, 1996). Only the Wenner–Schlumberger sequences
measured on ERT line L1 (72 electrodes, a = 0.50 cm) are presented
in this paper, because this configuration is less sensitive to noise
(Dahlin and Zhou, 2004). According to Edwards (1977) and Barker
(1989), the expected depth of investigation is about 5 m (considering
n = 27 levels with WS sequence and 1161 data), which exactly corre-
sponds to the depth that interested us on this site and is particularly
relevant to the study as only the first 5 m from the surface have a signif-
icant effect on damage to buildings linked to swell–shrinkage periods.
We chose settings which, based on preliminary visual analyses,
produced resistivity models that we believed best represented the
physical conditions observed in the soil profiles at our field site. We
used the L2-Norm data misfit criterium (mean square optimization),
with model refinement. We did not use the L1-Norm (robust model
constraint) in this instance following some preliminary tests. During in-
version, outlying points contributing to more than 50% misfit on root
mean square error were removed. Inversions stopped after five itera-
tions. All ERT inversions show RMS error values of between 1.6% and
2.6%, indicating reliable resistivity models. The results analysis is done
by doing model subtraction after separate inversion (Miller et al.,
 M. Chrétien et al. / Engineering Geology 169 (2014) 112–123
2008). We used the same parameters for inversion of the various ERTs
to avoid any degradation by inversion process.
The relative variation of resistivity is defined for each point as the ab-
solute value of the difference between resistivity at the studied date and
resistivity at the reference date (February 2008), divided by resistivity
at the reference date. At each point, the value of the relative variation
of resistivity Δρ [Eq. (1)] can be expressed by:
ρi −ρref
Δρ ¼
ρref
where ρi is the resistivity at time i, and ρref is the resistivity at reference
time. If Δρ b 0, it reveals a decrease in resistivity between time ref and i
(linked to a progressive wetting). If Δρ N 0, it means that the resistivity
is increasing between time i and ref.
Electrical resistivity is known to be sensitive to various physical fac-
tors, such as temperature, clay content, salinity (water electrical con-
ductivity), pore connectivity and water content. In order to qualify the
relationship between our TDR profiles with ERT profiles (no quantifica-
tion wanted here; Schwartz et al., 2008), we have assumed that Archie's
law (Archie, 1942) would be valid here with a precaution, in particular
without calibration on our site yet. Archie's law was originally devel-
oped and used to link water content, the porosity and pore water resis-
tivity of surrounding petroleum reservoir rocks. This law is considered
to be valid for medium to coarse-grained soils and rocks (Benderitter
and Schott, 1997), but it is more complex for clay soil (Waxman and
Smits, 1968).
4.3.2. Repeatability uncertainty in measurements
In addition, a study of uncertainty propagation in inverted models
was conducted in order to compare variations in data measured along
several successive measurements in a day (LaBrecque et al., 1996).
These measurements, carried out later in May 2010, deal with 6 repeti-
tions of measurement on the same panel on the same day. These
repeated measurements allow the detection of data disturbed by
measurement noises, which could be due to electrode contact, random
errors, or sporadic errors related to external factors (Slater et al., 2000).
The repeatability is estimated on each point of apparent resistivity data
from a coefficient of variation (CoV = standard deviation “σ”/mean
“μ”) on 6 repeated panels, which correspond to the standard deviation
on 6 measures divided by the mean. This noise level identification, cru-
cial for data inversion (Miller et al., 2008), lets us know how well the
Fig. 6. Distribution of the repeatability (CoV) assessed on with 6 measurements for each 529 points.
117
apparent resistivity variations are related to an evolution in soil proper-
ties (Robert et al., 2012). This repeatability is on average 0.78% on the
panel tested (median = 0.4%) (Figure 6). The weak noise level allows
the analysis of the variation of resistivity to investigate soil hydraulic be-
havior (Miller et al., 2008). Less than 3% of the considered points have a
repeatability higher than 5% (15 points among 529), and analysis of the
distribution of errors does not emphasize a link with the soil geological
formations. It is considered that the uncertainties on our site is lower
than 4%; any variation higher than this limit is indicative of a strong
ð1Þ
probability of a change in resistivity which may be related to variations
of soil moisture (Robert et al., 2012).
4.3.3. Soil temperature correction
In this study, we assumed that the influence of the soil temperature
was relatively less significant than the soil moisture to capture the var-
iability of the electrical resistivity. We tried however to make qualitative
considerations about the role of soil temperature. Soil temperature is
taken into account for the interpretation of ERT in terms of water con-
tent and water deficit. Indeed, temperature has a direct effect over a
year on the assessment of resistivity as we can see in Fig. 3. True resis-
tivities were corrected for temperature to the date from the sensors
on the experimental site (Figure 3). We assumed that the temperatures
recorded at each depth would be representative of the ground layers lo-
cated below the ERT profiles at the same depth. Various models allow
the electrical resistivity values recorded at temperature T to be adjusted
to the reference temperature of 25 °C (Hayley et al., 2007, 2010; Ma
et al., 2010; Hermans et al., 2012). The correction factor fT can be
expressed by means of various functions: linear (Campbell et al.,
1948), exponential (Corwin and Lesch, 2005) and power (Besson
et al., 2008). Ma et al. (2010) compared these various expressions of
the correction factor to measurements of electrical resistivity taken at
various soil temperatures. We have chosen here to use the Campbell
equation [Eq. (2)] to correct the values of electrical resistivity to a
25 °C standard temperature:
ρ25  C
ρt ¼ ð2Þ
ð1 þ α ðt−25ÞÞ
where ρt electrical resistivity at temperature t (°C); ρ25 °C electrical re-
sistivity at T = 25 °C; α the coefficient of resistivity which has a value
of about 0.025 per degree centigrade for most electrolytes (Keller
and Frischknecht, 1966). Our choice of equation allows an average
118 M. Chrétien et al. / Engineering Geology 169 (2014) 112–123
correction of temperature, between the corrections suggested by Revil
et al. (1998) due to surface conduction (leading to α = 0.04), and the
one suggested by Hayley et al. (2007) for fluids α = 0.018 °C−1,
which leads to very similar results as per Corwin and Lesch (2005)
with an exponential law. This choice (law and value) is also a traditional
correction for geophysicists. As this correction aims at a mean correction
to have a qualitative analysis of resistivity variation, there is no further
discussion here on this correction. Additional results will need calibra-
tions on soil samples from the site.
5. Results
5.1. Validation of resistivity model with the lithology profile
In order to compare inverted electrical resistivity cross section
values with the local lithology, a lithological excavation (P4) was per-
formed next to the L1 profile (Figure 1). In Fig. 7 we can identify the pro-
gressive lateral transition between a compact gray blue or gray oxidized
clay zone on the west side and sandy–gravel partially cemented brown
sandstone (“Alios”) soils on the east side.
The inverted electrical resistivity reference panel L1, with a
Wenner–Schlumberger sequence “WS” (Figure 8), is similar to the geom-
etry of the studied soils (Figure 7). The highest resistivities correspond to
“alios” as recognized a few meters away, the lowest resistivities are iden-
tified to be the “clay zone”, and intermediate values are due to material
with variable sand rates, representative of the high soil heterogeneous-
ness, at the metric scale.
The percentage root mean square error “RMS” between measured
and calculated apparent resistivities was 1.3% here after the final itera-
tion (Loke and Barker, 1996). Resistivity data measured in the compact
clay zone indicates significant differences in electrical resistivity. The
differences, with values between 10 and 93 Ω · m, confirm variations
in soil structure and in soil permeability obtained from laboratory
tests (Table 1). The results show a significant difference between the
clay zone and the gravel–sand zone (Figure 8), as one would expect.
5.2. 2D imaging of the field site
The data were acquired in May 2009 along three ERT profiles
(Figure 1) to assess the variability of 2D structures (pole–dipole config-
uration, with 50 cm between probes, and measurements made with
Syscal Pro Switch equipment (IRIS Instruments)—Figure 9). Note the
marked heterogeneity of structures that show little continuity regard-
less of which direction one is looking at, this observation being con-
firmed by our drilling. The investigated subsurface is characterized by
a heterogeneous sedimentary deposit. The resistivity measurements
having been taken, any variations would reflect only the soil moisture
Horizon of alterated grey sandy clay
A/BOG
Grey oxidized clay (A/BOG) Alios (partially cemented
brown sandstone)
Grey-blue clay (A/BOG) Gravels with a silty matrix
Fig. 7. Geological cross-section throughout P4 excavation showing the lithological variation of Brach formation (Figure 1); excavation carried out in August 2008, and refilled soon
afterwards.
differences (the temperature effect having been corrected for), and
other effects could be neglected (Benderitter and Schott, 1997).
5.3. Relative variations of resistivity from ERT data
The ERT measurements of February 2009 correspond to the first
measurements carried out on the site with the sealed device installed
(sealed electrodes in the ground). Indeed from November 2008 to
January 2009 the site was flooded and ERT measurements were not
available. Although the higher moisture content in soil according to
the TDR data from December 2008 could not be considered as the refer-
ence owing to the lack of ERT data over this period. February was there-
fore taken as the reference, considering the continued high moisture in
soil (TDR data). They were obtained on soil that was very wet at the
surface following significant effective rains in winter (November to
December), and before the beginning of the drought period in soils in
May (resulting from the evapotranspiration due to vegetation and
roots). This study does not aim to link resistivity to water content
value, but to describe only qualitative variations of water content
along the ERT imaging and over time.
This first ERT shows a wide range of resistivity values from 10 to
1000 Ω · m. Those values higher than 300 Ω · m correspond to the
gravel–alios formations; the values lower than 40 Ω · m to the compact
clay formation, and the intermediate values are associated with sandy
clays, as in the preliminary electrical campaigns. 6 other ERTs were
made over the course of 2009 (Figures 3, 10): profile 1 (17/03/09), pro-
file 2 (05/05/09), profile 3 (23/06/09), profile 4 (21/09/09), profile 5
(09/11/09) and profile 6 (09/12/09). During the summer and the fol-
lowing weeks, electrical measurements are not possible with our specif-
ic sealing procedure due to the dryness of soil at shallow depths.
Resistivity data collected during this period was too noisy to be used,
which was linked to the fact that very dry soil conditions led to cracks
of around a centimeter in width appearing in the field and around all
the electrodes. The ERT measurements (profiles 1 to 6, except 4) are
presented in Fig. 10 with the effective rains measured over the year
2009 at the research site.
The study of the relative variations in resistivities is carried out for all
the ERT measurements compared to the inverted resistivities from
February 2009 (Figure 11). This reference is a single snapshot and
thus represents a critical choice which influences any further analysis.
Considering moisture loss revealed by positive resistivity variation
(and inversely for gain), preliminary analysis indicates the following:
high moisture in the alios zone in February 2009 (alios shows higher re-
sistivity for other data except December 2009), and surrounding clayey
soils are wetter only in December 2009.
The calculated variations for Δρ (Eq. (1)) show a range of values
between + 1 and −0.6 between February and December 2009. Com-
pared to the reference values of February, variations seem to indicate
Organic soil horizon
Depth (m)
Alios
Gravels with a clayey matrix
Whites and S
 M. Chrétien et al. / Engineering Geology 169 (2014) 112–123
Depth W
(m)
Clay Zone
Fig. 8. Inverted electrical resistivity reference panel L1 for the investigations carried out in February 2009 (Wenner–Schlumberger sequence with electrodes spaced at 50 cm intervals).
a significantly greater loss of soil moisture (an increase in resistivity
corresponds to positive values of variations) than humidification (a de-
crease in resistivity means negative variation values). This is consistent
with the fact that December to February is the wettest period for the
area given its oceanic climate. If we observe the variation measured
over the 3 ERTs from the spring (March, May and June), we note that
there are no significant variations, the ERT inversion results being very
similar (Figure 11). High resistivity variations are noticeable in two
areas (higher than + 20%) between March and May, and then three
anomalies are observed for June. We would highlight the following:
– a progressive increase in resistivity compared to February in the
alios zone (X N 20 m and at depth Z N 2 m). From the surface, a
drought is apparent in this granular-alios horizon between March
and June.
– a decrease in effective resistivity probably due to an increase in
water content (12 b X b 15 m and Z N 4 m).
– an overall drought in the upper horizon (down to 1 m deep) in June
(positive values of resistivity variations interpreted as a drop of re-
sistivity and a loss of water content at the surface).
– In the upper horizons, the high resistivities can be explained by
evapotranspiration due to vegetation and weak effective rains, as
seen in Fig. 10.
This analysis of variations of resistivity during seasonal variations
improves the reliability of ERT investigation to delineate facies. By
Fig. 9. View of L1, L2 and L3, ERT inverted profiles, underlining 2D site heterogeneities.
119
E
Alios
(Sandy-gravel)
Location of P4
excavation
including the drying and humidification behavior, the method allows
us to differentiate materials having similar ranges for resistivity. Thus
the results underline the strong heterogeneities of soil on this study.
Such an approach is rich in qualitative information concerning the
hydrological parameters (i.e.: hydraulic conductivity), and, what is
more, is better than the classical approach based only on static ERT.
The ERT data from September are not presented here because of
their very poor quality. Specifically, the data are very unreliable due to
very high noise levels (high apparent resistivities at the surface). A
large number of cracks (due to soil shrinkage) are visible and wide
open on the surface of the ground with a depth superior to 1 m
(no more contact soil/electrode), which impacts the continuity of elec-
tric circulation in the ground and explains why the measurements suffer
from the interference. The data are thus not worth using.
These cracks caused by desiccation are present on the surface of the
ground up until the first major effective rains at the end of October
(Figure 10). This explains why the next measurement was only carried
out in November (after humidification). The results obtained in Novem-
ber illustrate a progressive return to a state of moisture close to that of
springtime (soil is wetter), after intense and prolonged rainy episodes,
when evapotranspiration becomes less significant. The distributions of
variations of resistivities in the soils appear less homogeneous than in
spring, revealing stronger contrasts of soil properties at a metric scale.
We could find the two zones clearly identified on the previous ERT: a
more resistive alios zone and a deep zone which was more conductive
120 M. Chrétien et al. / Engineering Geology 169 (2014) 112–123

30

25
5 6

Total Effective Rainfall (mm)

20
0 1 2 3

15

10

Fig. 10. Effective rainfall over 2009 on research site, with date of ERT measurements.

than in February 2009. We also noticed that the clay conductive zone
had become wetter than previously (X ~ 5 m and Z N 1 m).
Finally, ERT measurements from December present a map of exclu-
sively negative resistivity variations compared to February's values,
representing only falls in resistivities following abundant precipitations.
The granular-alios zone is still discernible by presenting the weakest
variations in absolute values. This initial analysis fully vindicates our
choice of device as well as the corrections implemented, and shows
that electrical resistivity in soil can be used to distinguish between ex-
treme structural states of an identical soil sample over time, even if
the variations in soil moisture are smaller than expected. In addition
to the use of ERT to characterize soil structure variabilities, the intervals
between measurements selected enabled us to incorporate the tempo-
ral variability of these locally very heterogeneous soils.
Using time-lapse analysis over the year we observed certain varia-
tions which are yet to be explained at this stage of our research. For in-
stance, the decrease in resistivity for 12 b X b15 m which indicates that
during springtime this zone is wetter than in February (known to be the
wettest month). This zone corresponds to a sandy–clay lithology, and
no explanation can be given at this stage. This point highlights the
question of the reference date for the study with time-lapse, and in
our case the reference in February. To limit this effect, it should be better
to analyze results along seasonal variations thus avoiding the question
of the reference measurement.

Length
Depth (m)

Feb-March 09 1

Feb-May 09 2

0
3
Feb-June 09

Feb-Nov. 09 5

Feb-Dec. 09

Fig. 11. Relative variation of resistivity of Line L1 over time, in 2009. Inverted resistivities have been corrected to a standard temperature of 25 °C.
 M. Chrétien et al. / Engineering Geology 169 (2014) 112–123 121

TDR-A
Length (m)

Depth (m)
A May-June 09

B Nov.-Dec. 09

Fig. 12. A) ERT profile between May and June 2009; B) ERT profile between November and December 2009. For all inverted ERT profiles, resistivities have been corrected to a standard
temperature of 25 °C. The red line indicates the position of the TDR A profile.

6. Discussion
An analysis of the seasonal resistivity variations highlights informa-
tion (Figure 12) in parallel to the hydrological data. The short term anal-
ysis would allow us to highlight other soil behaviors and to detect
quicker soil moisture variation, complementary to lithological hetero-
geneity influence on moisture distribution identified on the analysis
over the year (Figure 11). In Fig. 12 we present a second ERT profile
with May as the reference point in order to focus on seasonal variations.
The data show that the beginning of the drought in soils started in the
upper horizons between May and June 2009, a period when the vegeta-
tion undergoes considerable hydric stress (maximum evapotranspira-
tion linked to low effective rains). No other variations between May
and June 2009 (Figure 12) are highlighted, indicating that similar values
of electrical resistivities were obtained in field conditions for a constant
state. The relative difference observed previously (Figure 11) as the
drought of the alios zone and the humidification zone inside the clay
zone, are no longer visible on this time scale.
The only observable variations are limited to the surface because of
the drought of the clay–organic soil and the evapotranspiration of the
vegetation. They correspond to variations of more than 0.4 in resistivity
down to the first meter, then approximately 0.15 at a depth of 2 m
(strong variations near the surface). Beyond, and in spite of, the litho-
logical differences, we observe very weak variations (b 0.05) of the
same amplitude over the whole of the area under investigation, which
are not meaningful since they are of the same order of magnitude as
the noise on the data. Focusing on the singular resistivity variation
profile right to the TDR-A location (Figure 13-B), we can directly com-
pare these observations with volumetric water content data measured
using the TDR-A profile (Figure 13-A) for the same period. We notice
that the highest variations are also over the first meter, corresponding
to the organic horizon (which equates to the limit of measurement of
the TDR method in organic saturated soil), with variations in volumetric
water content (Δwv) of about 25 to 50%. In the clay soils where there
were cracks, a decrease in volumetric soil moisture is noted from ap-
proximately 5 to 20% down to 2 m deep, then about 5 to 8% between
2 and 3 m deep. If refined, this approach could be used to quantify mois-
ture directly from resistivity measurement on this site. This calibration
step is not the goal of the work presented in this paper.
As for the autumn (variations between November and December
with November used as a reference, Figure 12), the results show
strong heterogeneity of the resistivity variations, with zones character-
ized by a decrease in resistivities exceeding 20%: a sandy–clay zone (for
5 b X b 8 m and Z N 2.5 m), and the alios zone (for 20 b X b 25 m and
Z ~ 0.75 m). The rapid humidification of these soils is marked by dis-
turbed resistivity variations, influenced by the lithological and perme-
ability heterogeneities of these soils, highlighted by the profile of
relative variation of resistivity (Figure 13-B). This difference in the per-
meability of soils could allow water to locally and easily infiltrate soils
through sandy lenses and existing cracks. The “alios–clay interface” is
clearly visible during an increase in soil moisture, whereas a loss of
water in drying periods (mainly during spring) does not reveal the tran-
sition between the two distinct soil facies. It is worth noting that the
resistivity variations measured at the time of a winter humidification

Volumetric Water Content (%)

0 20 40 60 80
0.00
Depth (m)

Organic Soil

0.50

1.00
DEPTH (m)

Clayey Soil

1.50

2.00
Compact Clayey Soil
SUMMER 08 (Aug-Nov.)
Winter 08-09 (Dec.-May)
2.50 SPRING 09 (June-Jully.)
Summer 09 (Aug-Sept.)

3.00
A
H1 WINTER 09 (Nov.-Dec.) B
Fig. 13. A) Seasonal average of soil water content measured on TDR-A from surface to a depth of 3 m, from summer 2008 to winter 2009, and localized along ERT Line L1 as in Fig. 12;
B) seasonal relative variation of resistivity profiles right to the TDR-A location (from Figure 12).
122 M. Chrétien et al. / Engineering Geology 169 (2014) 112–123
of a clayey soil is less pronounced (approximately 10 to 20%) than the
propagation of the desiccation phenomenon from the surface (about
15 to 40%) to the deeper horizons. If we compare these variations
to the change in the water content after episodes of heavy rain
(Figure 13-A&B), we can see that the humidification is rapid and
marked up to a depth of 2 m (approximately 20 to 50%), but relatively
weak around a depth of 3 m (8%). We can deduce from this that the
humidification occurs as much via the surface as through local deeper
heterogeneities which influence the overall permeability of the soils
(“sandy drains”) in winter. But they remain negligible in periods of
dry weather compared to the suction of clays which increases.
The differences between soil layers are not particularly evident and
the soil facies is not the determining factor when it comes to the
drought of soils—other physical factors are more likely to be the cause
(percentage and mineralogy of clay). These observations are correlated
with weak variations in resistivity, and with significant variations only
on the surface because of substantial evapotranspiration and of the
development of suction in the clay soils.
The measurements taken in September were too noisy to be
interpreted, testifying however to the extent of the loss of soil moisture
in the upper horizons and its effects on the soil mass (large cracks—
caused by dessication—of up to a centimeter on the surface). On the
other hand, in the autumn the return of heavy effective rainfalls imme-
diately shows up considerable local variations in resistivities, influenced
by the heterogeneity of soils. The areas that are most influenced by the
humidification are localized on the surface, or even deeper under the
ground, near granular materials (drains). The data collected from the
site demonstrate that clayey soils react more rapidly to humidification
of soils. The variations observed are related to the presence of substan-
tial variations in soil facies and the phenomenon of drought in these
local soils is very slow and progressive. Observations resulting from
the measurement of water content on the site (in the same clayey
soils) support these findings.
7. Conclusion
We developed a new approach for qualifying 2D field-scale soil
moisture distribution using a specifically two-dimensional electrical
resistivity tomography (ERT) to prove the efficacy of ERT tools in
geotechnical applications (investigation before construction to limit
damage buildings due to the presence of mixed soils). Our method
can be applied to heterogeneous field sites where a quantitative assess-
ment of 2D soil moisture distribution is not possible. Geophysical sur-
veys are capable of highlighting significant variations in resistivities
based on season cycles, depending on the evolution of the soil water
content over time and the correct design of the device used. We showed
that a satisfactory degree of sensitivity and resolution can be achieved
for the subsurface to be investigated, driven in a non-invasive way at
the soil surface. The results indicate that this method is sensitive to sub-
stantial loss of moisture during long dry periods, and to increases in soil
water content after heavy effective rainfalls on dry soil at the surface.
The description of heterogeneous material distribution in the investi-
gated volume is better with the sequential measurement in time
(in this case over a year) than with a purely static ERT approach.
These results also allow us to follow and visualize the evolution of the
process of desiccation in clayey soils. Temporal analysis demonstrates
the strong influence that cracks filled with sandy materials have on
re-humidification. The process is different for wetting and drying, and
this information is helpful in better understanding soil deformations
on heterogeneous construction sites.
Substantial variations in resistivities were observed up to the first
2 m, which coincide with values of variations in water content
measured by TDR along three vertical profiles and with the presence
of a large number of cracks (caused by desiccation) on the surface. Geo-
physical surveys using ERT would appear to be a good indicator of the
temporal and spatial changes in soil moisture in a heterogeneous clay
soil. This type of electrical survey opens up new horizons in allowing
us to visualize soil heterogeneities and their influence on humidification
(resistivity variations). It highlights a semi-permeable behavior at the
building scale, on the contrary to the homogeneity observed at the sam-
ple scale. ERT proves to be a useful tool for delineating soil facies based
on their drying and humidification behavior. However, further testing is
required to corroborate these results and to refine the interpretation of
ERTs conducted on complex soils.
Acknowledgments
This work was done within the framework of programme ARGIC
(Analyse du Retrait-Gonflement et Incidences aux Constructions), co-
financed by the French National Agency (ANR), which was started in
2006 and finished in 2009, and in collaboration with BRGM, LCPC,
INRA, Météo-France, LMSSMat, LAEGO, CERMES, Armines, I2M
(ex-GHYMAC), Insavalor, INERIS, HydrASA and Fondasol.
References
Andrieux, C., Chrétien, M., Denis, A., Fabre, R., Lataste, J.F., 2011. Shrinkage and swelling of
clay soil. Comparison between laboratory and in situ measurement. Eur. J. Environ.
Civ. Eng. 15 (5), 819–838.
Archie, G.E., 1942. The electrical resistivity log as an aid in determining some reservoir
characteristics. Trans. AIME 146, 54–62.
Barker, R.D., 1989. Depth of investigation of collinear symmetrical four-electrode arrays.
Geophysics 54 (8), 1031–1037.
Benderitter, Y., Schott, J.J., 1997. Chutes de pluie et résistivités du sol. Geofcan 127–131
(11–12 Sept. 97).
Besson, A., Cousin, I., Samouëlian, A., Boizard, H., Richard, G., 2004. Structural heterogene-
ity of the soil tilled layer as characterized by 2D electrical resistivity surveying. Soil
Tillage Res. 79, 239–249.
Besson, A., Cousin, I., Dorigny, A., Dabas, M., King, D., 2008. The temperature correction for
the electrical resistivity measurements in undisturbed soil samples: analysis of the
existing conversion models and proposal of a new model. Soil Sci. 173, 707–720.
Binley, A., Winship, P., West, L.J., Pokar, M., Middleton, R., 2002. Seasonal variation of
moisture content in unsaturated sandstone inferred from borehole radar and resistiv-
ity profiles. J. Hydrol. 267, 160–172.
Bittelli, M., Salvatorelli, F., Rossi Pisa, P.R., 2008. Correction of TDR-based soil water
content measurements in conductive soils. Geoderma 143, 133–142.
Bourennane, H., Nicoullaud, B., Couturier, A., Pasquier, C., Mary, B., King, D., 2012.
Geostatistical filtering for improved soil water content estimation from electrical
resistivity data. Geoderma 183–184, 32–40.
Brunet, P., Clément, R., Bouvier, C., 2010. Monitoring soil water content and deficit using
electrical resistivity tomography (ERT)—a case study in the Cevennes area, France.
J. Hydrol. 380, 146–153.
Campbell, R.B., Bower, C.A., Richard, L.A., 1948. Change in electrical conductivity with
temperature and the relation with osmotic pressure to electrical conductivity and
ion concentration for soil extracts. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 13, 33–69.
Chrétien, M., 2010. Compréhension des mécanismes de retrait-gonflement des sols
argileux: approche sur site expérimental et analyse des sinistres sur constructions
individuelles. Thèse Université Bordeaux, 1 (315 pp.).
Corwin, D.L., Lesch, S.M., 2005. Apparent soil electrical conductivity measurements in
agriculture. Comput. Electron. Agric. 46, 11–43.
Dahlin, T., Zhou, B., 2004. A numerical comparison of 2D resistivity imaging with 10
electrode arrays. Geophys. Prospect. 52, 379–398.
De Benedetto, D., Castrignano, A., Sollitto, D., Modugno, F., Buttafuoco, G., Lo, Papa G.,
2012. Integrating geophysical and geostatistical techniques to map the spatial varia-
tion of clay. Geoderma 171–172, 53–63.
Denis, A., Elashachi, S.M., Niandou, H., 2011. Effect of longitudinal variability of soil on a
continuous spread footing. Eng. Geol. 122, 179–190.
Edwards, L.S., 1977. A modified pseudosection for resistivity and IP. Geophysics 42 (5),
1020–1036.
Fowler, D., Moysey, S.M.J., 2011. Estimation of aquifer transport parameters from resistiv-
ity monitoring data within a coupled inversion framework. J. Hydrol. 409, 545–554.
Gourdon-Platel, N., 1975. Les alios et les garluches dans le sable des Landes. Bull. Soc. Linn.
Bordeaux 9–10, 79–87.
Guerrero, O., Lataste, J.F., Marache, A., 2013. High yield electrical prospection for charac-
terization of soil. Fourth International Conference on Geotechnical and Geophysical
Site Characterization (ISC'4), 18–21 Sept. 2012, Porto de Galinhas, Pernambuco
Brazil, vol. 1, pp. 587–595.
Hagrey, S.A., Meissneir, R., Werban, U., Rabbel, W., Ismael, A., 2004. Hydro-biogeophysics.
The Leading Edge 670–674 (July).
Hayley, K., Bentley, L.R., Gharibi, M., Nightingale, M., 2007. Low temperature dependence
of electrical resistivity: implications for near surface geophysical monitoring.
Geophys. Res. Lett. 34, L18402. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2007GL031124.
Hayley, K., Bentley, L.R., Pidlisecky, A., 2010. Compensating for temperature variations in
time-lapse electrical resistivity difference imaging. Geophysics 75 (4), WA51.
 M. Chrétien et al. / Engineering Geology 169 (2014) 112–123
Hermans, T., Vandenbohede, A., Lebbe, L., Nguyen, F., 2012. A shallow geothermal exper-
iment in a sandy aquifer monitored using electric resistivity tomography. Geophysics
77 (1), B11–B21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/GEO2011-0199.1.
Houy, L., Breysse, D., Denis, A., 2005. Influence of soil heterogeneity on load redistribution
and settlement of an hyperstatic 3-support frame. Geotechnique 55 (2), 163–170.
Johansson, S., Dahlin, T., 1996. Seepage monitoring in an earth embankment dam by re-
peated resistivity measurements. Eur. J. Environ. Eng. Geophys. 1, 229–247.
Kalinski, R.J., Kelly, W.E., 1993. Estimating water content of soils from electrical resistivity.
ASTM Geotech. Test. J. 16 (3), 323–329.
Keller, G.V., Frischknecht, F.C., 1966. Electrical Methods in Geophysical Prospecting.
Pargamon Press, Oxford.
LaBrecque, D.J., Miletto, M., Daily, W., Ramirez, A., Owen, E., 1996. The effects of noise on
Occam's inversion of resistivity tomography data. Geophysics 61 (2), 538–548.
Lataste, J.F., De Larrard, T., Benboudjema, F., Semenadisse, J., 2012. Electrical resistiv-
ity variability of two concretes: protocol study in laboratory and assessment on
site. Eur. J. Environ. Civ. Eng. 16 (3–4), 298–310. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
19648189.2012.667708.
Loke, M.H., Barker, R.D., 1996. Rapid least-squares inversion of apparent resistivity
pseudo-sections using a quasi-Newton method. Geophys. Prospect. 44, 131–152.
Ma, R., McBratney, A., Whelan, B., Minasny, B., Short, M., 2010. Comparing temperature
correction models for soil electrical conductivity measurement. Precis. Agric. 12,
55–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11119-009-9156-7.
Mc Neill, J.D., 1980. Electromagnetic terrain conductivity measurement at low induction
numbers. Technical Note, 6. Geonics Ltd (13 pp.).
Miller, C.R., Routh, P.S., Brosten, T.R., McNamara, J.P., 2008. Application of time-lapse ERT
imaging to watershed characterization. Geophysics 73, G7–G17.
Platel, J.P., Astruc, J.G., 2000. Cartographie des principales formations argileuses et marneuses
affleurantes dans la région Aquitaine. Rapport BRGM/RP-50181-FR (210 pp.).
Rapti-Caputo, D., Bratus, A., Santarato, G., 2009. Strategic groundwater resources in the
Tagliamento River basin (northern Italy): hydrogeological investigation integrated
with geophysical exploration. Hydrogeol. J. 17, 1393–1409.
Rein, A., Hoffmann, R., Dietrich, P., 2004. Influence of natural time-dependent variations of
electrical conductivity on DC resistivity measurements. J. Hydrol. 285, 2215–2232.
Revil, A., Cathles III, L.M., Losh, S., Nunn, J.A., 1998. Electrical conductivity in shaly sands
with geophysical applications. J. Geophys. Res. 103 (B10), 23925–23936.
Robert, T., Caterina, D., Deceuster, J., Kaufmann, O., Nguyen, F., 2012. A salt tracer test
monitored with surface ERT to detect preferential flow and transport paths in
123
fractured/karstified limestones. Geophysics 77 (2), B55–B67. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1190/geo2011-0313.1.
Robinson, D.A., Jones, S.B., Wraith, J.M., Or, D., Friedman, S.P., 2003. Advances in
dialelectric and electrical conductivity measurement using time domain reflectome-
try: simultaneous measurement of water content and bulk electrical conductivity in
soils and porous media. Vadose Zone J. 2, 444–475.
Robinson, J.L., Slater, L.D., Schäfer, K.V.R., 2012. Evidence for spatial variability in hydraulic
redistribution within an oak–pine forest from resistivity imaging. J. Hydrol. 430–431,
69–79.
Samouellian, A., Cousin, I., Tabbagh, A., Bruand, A., Richard, G., 2005. Electrical resistivity
survey in soil science: a review. Soil Tillage Res. 83, 173–193.
Santarato, G., Ranieri, G., Occhi, M., Morelli, G., Fischanger, F., Gualerzi, D., 2011.
Three-dimensional electrical resistivity tomography to control the injection of
expanding resins for the treatment and stabilization of foundation soils. Eng.
Geol. 119, 18–30.
Schwartz, B.F., Schreiber, M.E., Yan, T., 2008. Quantifying field-scale soil moisture using
electrical resistivity imaging. J. Hydrol. 362, 234–246.
Simandoux, P., 1963. Dielectric measurements on porous media application to the mea-
surement of water saturations: study of the behaviour of argillaceous formations.
Rev. Inst. Fr. Pétrol. 18, 193–215 (Supplementary Issue).
Sjödahl, P., Dahlin, T., Johansson, S., Loke, M.H., 2008. Resistivity monitoring for leakage
and internal erosion detection at Hällby embankment dam. J. Appl. Geophys. 65,
155–164.
Slater, L., Binley, A.M., Daily, W., Jonhson, R., 2000. Cross-hole electrical imaging of a
controlled saline tracer injection. J. Appl. Geophys. 44, 85–102.
Tastet, J.P., Pontee, N., 1999. A new investigation of the morpho-chronology of Holocene
coastal dunes on the Medoc peninsula, SW France. Geomorphology 25, 93–109.
Thierry, P., Breysse, D., 2006. Le Projet RIVIERA: Risques en ville: Equipements, réseaux,
archéologie. Rapport final BRGM/RP-55085 (200 pp.).
Vincent, M., 2009. Projet ARGIC: Analyse du Retrait-Gonflement et de ses Incidences sur
les Constructions. Projet ANR-05-PRGCU-005, Rapport Final, Rapport BRGM/RP-
57011.
Waxman, M.H., Smits, L.J.H., 1968. Electrical conductivities in oil-bearing shaly sands.
J. Pet. Technol. 20, 107–122.
Zhou, Q.Y., Shimada, J., Sato, A., 2001. Three-dimensional spatial and temporal monitoring
of soil water content using electrical resistivity tomography. Water Resour. Res. 37,
273–285.