1

Electrical Surveying Methods: Active Versus Passive

Electrical methods are a group of geophysical exploration techniques that are based on the study of natural
and artificial electromagnetic fields. Electrical surveys can be classified into one of two types namely active
and passive electrical surveys. Passive electrical surveys incorporate measurements of naturally occurring
fields or properties of the earth. Active electrical surveys employ a signal (say an electric current)
artificially injected into the earth and then measurement of how the earth responds to this signal. In
general, the classification of electrical methods is shown in the chart below (Fig. 5.1).

Fig. 5.1: Classification of the major electrical methods

Most electrical surveys rely on measurements of the voltages or magnetic fields associated with electric
currents flowing in the ground and are divided into the following:

Electrical Resistivity - This is an active method that employs measurements of electrical potential
associated with subsurface electrical current flow generated by a DC, or slowly varying AC, source. Factors
that affect the measured potential, and thus can be mapped using this method, include the presence and
quality of pore fluids and clays.

Induced Polarization (IP) - This is an active method that is commonly done in conjunction with DC
resistivity. It employs measurements of the transient (short-term) variations in potential as the current is
initially applied or removed from the ground. It has been observed that when a current is applied to the
ground, the ground behaves much like a capacitor, storing some of the applied current as a charge that is
dissipated upon removal of the current. In this process, both capacitive and electrochemical effects are
responsible. IP is commonly used to detect concentrations of clay and electrically conductive metallic mineral
grains.
Self Potential (SP) - This is a passive method that employs measurements of naturally occurring
electrical potentials commonly associated with the weathering of sulphide ore bodies. Measurable
electrical potentials have also been observed in association with ground-water flow and certain biologic
processes. The only equipment needed for conducting an SP survey is a high-impedence voltmeter and some
means of making good electrical contact with the ground.
 2

Electromagnetic (EM) - This is an active method that employs measurements of a time-varying

magnetic field generated by induction through current flow within the earth. In this technique, a time
varying magnetic field is generated at the surface of the earth that produces a time-varying electrical
current in the earth through induction. A receiver is deployed that compares the magnetic field produced by
the current-flow in the earth to that generated at the source. EM is used for locating conductive basemetal
deposits, for locating buried pipes and cables, for the detection of unexploded ordnance, and for near-
surface geophysical mapping.
Magnetotelluric (MT) - This is a passive method that employs measurements of naturally occurring
electrical currents, or telluric currents, generated by magnetic induction of electrical currents in the
ionosphere. This method can be used to determine electrical properties of materials at relatively great
depths (down to and including the mantle) inside the Earth. In this technique, a time variation in electrical
potential is measured at a base station and at survey stations. Differences in the recorded signal are used to
estimate subsurface distribution of electrical resistivity.

Among the major physical properties of rocks, the following are subjects of electrical surveying:

 Electrical resistivity () or conductivity (=1/) – This property characterizes the ability of rocks to
conduct (transmit) electric current when a voltage is applied. Resistivity of rocks is measured in
(Ohm-m), whereas the conductivity, 1/Ohm-m, is expressed in siemens.

 Electro-chemical activity () – It is a property of rocks to create secondary electric fields due to
different types of chemical reactions taking place in the subsurface, such as oxidation-reduction,
filtration, diffusion-absorption and other processes. The intensity of the secondary electric field is
measured in mV.

 Electric polarization () – This characterizes the ability of rocks to create secondary electric field
when the primary field is turned off. Electrical polarizability (chargeability) of rocks may be
expressed in mV/V, msec or percentage (%).

 Dielectric permeability () – ability of rocks to concentrate or discharge electromagnetic energy (unit
- farad/meter).
 3

Electrical Resistivity Method

In the Resistivity Method, measurements are made by passing an artificially generated electric current into
the ground using a pair of electrodes (current electrodes) and the resulting potential differences are
measured at the surface using a second pair of electrodes (potential electrodes) normally located between
the current electrodes (Fig. 5.2). Deviations from the pattern of potential differences V expected from a
homogeneous ground provide information on the form and electrical properties of subsurface variations.

Fig. 5.2: A conventional set-up of the earth resistivity meter geoelectrical resistivity field observation

Electrical Resistivity-Conductivity of rocks and minerals

Consider a conducting cylinder taken as wire of resistance R, length L and cross-sectional area A where a
current I is driven through it by a voltage potential V (Fig. 5.3). Empirical relationship between I, R and V is
based on Ohm’s Law which is given by:
V  IR (5.1)

Fig. 5.3: The parameters used in defining resistivity.

Furthermore, R is directly proportional to L and inversely proportional to A expressed by:
L L
R  R (5.2)
A A
Where the proportionality constant  is called resistivity of the material out of which the wire is made. If
we were to increase the length L of wire, for example, the measured resistance would increase. Also, if we
were to decrease the cross-sectional area A of the wire, the measured resistance R would increase.
Example: (a) Copper has ρ =1.7 X 10-8 -m. The resistance of 20 m of copper with a cross-sectional radius of 0.005m
amounts to RC = ρ[L/A] = 1.7x10-8[20/π(0.005)2] =4.3x10-3  (b) Quartz has ρ = 1 X 1016 -m. The resistance of 20m
quartz with the same cross-sectional radius amounts to RQ = ρ[L/A] = 1x1016[20/π(0.005)2] = 2.5x1021 
The results in (a) and (b) indicate that the resistance R may not be used as a measurement as it depends not
only on the material of the wire, but also the geometry of the wire. Therefore, the resisitivity  of a
material in the earth is a more useful concept than resistance R of a wire.
Resistivity () or conductivity (=1/) is a physical property that characterizes the ability of material bodies
(rocks) to conduct (transmit) electric current when a voltage is applied. The resisitivity  of a rock material
is thus expressed as:
RA VA
 or  (5.3)
L IL
The SI unit of resistivity is ohm-metre (-m) and the reciprocal of resistivity is termed conductivity 
(=1/). Units of : Siemens (S) per metre; 1 S/m = 1 /-m; the term ‘mho’ for inverse of ohm is sometimes
encountered)
 4

Resistivity of Earth’s subsurface Materials: Basic Principles

Certain minerals such as native metals and graphite are conductors that is conduct electricity via the passage
of electrons (electronic conduction). Most rock-forming minerals are electrical insulators, and electrical
current is carried through a rock mainly by the passage of ions in pore waters (electrolytic conduction -Salts
disassociate into ions in solution and move as cations(+) and anions (-) in opposite directions).

Measured resistivities of subsurface rocks are primarily controlled by the movement of charged ions in pore fluids. This
implies, groundwater is characterized by the porosity, permeability and conductivity of saturated subsurface rocks.
When dealing with saturated rock layers (Fig.5.3B) where the pores are filled with air and water, the water content is
equal to its porosity (%) defined by:
volume of pores
Porosity ( ) 
volume of the rock
Porosity () is expressed in %. Absolute (total) porosity corresponds to amount of water contained in clay, even if
clay is impermeable. For groundwater exploitation, it is important to determine the porosity of free water (water
which can move), and the effective porosity (the ratio of the volume of the pores to the volume of the rock aquifer).
Permeability (hydraulic conductivity) is the ability of the rock layer to let a water current flow through it when a
hydraulic pressure (hydraulic pressure gradient=∆h/∆l) is applied. Permeability is thus defined by:
Water Yield (m3 / s)
Permeability (m / s)  ( ) (Pr essure gradient ( m / m))
sample sec tion (m2 )
A highly permeable layer can have permeability values as high as 10-2 m/s. A weakly permeable layer can have permeability
values as low as 10-6 m/s. The permeability of a clay layer (even if clay is impermeable) can be as low as 10-10 m/s.
For a given value of porosity, large size pores lead to a higher permeability than small size pores, as the water
flows more easily in the first case than in the second one.
Conductivity is ability of a material (rock) to let an electric current flow through it when an electric voltage is applied.
The conductivity of a saturated rock and the quantity of salts dissolved in the water are related by:
Conductivity (microS/cm) = 1.4 x Total Dissolved Salts (mg/L)
As a rule of thumb, drinkable water has a water resistivity ρw = 10 -m, or conductivity = 1000 microS/cm, or 0.7 g/l

Equation (5.3) refers to electronic conduction but it may still be used to describe the effective resistivity of a rock;
that is, the resistivity of the rock and its pore water.
An empirical formula for calculating the effective resistivity  of a porous non-clayey rock formation of porosity ()
water resistivity (w) was developed by Archie (1942) known as Archie's Law formula given by:
  aw n (5.4)
Where a and n are constants which depend on the nature of the rock. With a very rough approximation, “a” can be taken
equal to 1 and “n” to 2.  w can vary considerably according to the quantities and conductivities of dissolved materials.
For example, a 10 -m water resistivity and a 20% porosity give a rock resistivity ρ=1x10x(0.2)-2 = 250 -m.
Thus, Archie's Law formula indicates that a low value of a non-clayey rock resistivity means either high porosity or a
low water resistivity, hence an uncertainty in the interpretation of resistivity anomalies

Groundwater is ionically conductive due to the various dissolved salts it contains and enables electric currents to flow into the ground.
Consequently, measuring the subsurface ground resistivity gives the possibility to identify the presence of groundwater with the
following properties taken into consideration.
- a hard rock without pores and a dry sand without water or clay are very resistive (several thousands of -m).
- a porous or fractured rock bearing free water has a resistivity value which depends on the water resistivity and the porosity of the
rock (several tens to several thousands of -m).
- an impermeable clay layer, which has bound water, has a low resistivity (several units to several tens -m)
- mineral orebodies (iron, sulphides, …) have very low resistivities due to their electronic conduction (lower or much lower than 1 -m)

In conclusion, the resistivity of rocks depend on the water content (porosity) of the rocks, the resistivity of the water, the clay content
of the rocks and the content in metallic minerals of the rocks. In addition to pores, fractures within crystalline rocks can lead to low
resistivities if they are filled with fluids.
 5

The resistivity of rocks and minerals exhibit the largest ranges of all physical properties, from 1.6 x 10-8 -m
for native silver to 106 m for pure sulphur (Table 5.1).

Table 5.1: Resistivities of common geologic materials

General rules of thumb for the variation of resistivities with respect to rock type are:
- Igneous rocks tend to have the highest resistivities due to a minor component of pore fluids they contain.
- Sedimentary rocks tend to be most conductive, largely due to their abudendent pore spaces and fluids.
- Metamorphic rocks have intermediate but overlapping resistivities due their hydrous minerals and fabrics.

Resistivity of rocks depends on age and the general rule of thumb for resistivity variations with age are:

- Older rocks (Precambrian in age) tend to have the highest resistivities (in the range of 100-2000 m) due
to the far longer time they took to be exposed to fill in their fractures and pore spaces (by mineralization
and compaction) and thereby decreasing their porosity and permeability, etc.

-Younger rocks (Quaternary in age) tend to have the lowest resistivities (in the range of 10-200 m) due
to the abundant fractures and pore spaces they constitute.
 6

Current flow in the ground

Consider the element of homogeneous material shown in Fig. 5.3. A current I is passed through the cylinder
causing a potential drop V between the ends of the element. Ohm’s law relates the current, potential
difference and resistance such that V  RI , and from equation (5.3) R   L A . Substituting
V  I
   J (5.5)
L A
V L represents the potential gradient in volt/m and J  I A the current density in A/m2.
Consider a single current electrode on the surface of a medium of uniform resistivity  (Fig. 5.4). The circuit
is completed by a current sink at a large distance from the electrode. Current flows radially away from the
electrode so that the current distribution is uniform over hemispherical shells centered on the source (I).

(b)
Fig. 5.4: (a) Current flow from a single current electrode. (b) Current and equipotential produced by a current source and sink

At a distance r from the electrode the shell has a surface area of 2 r 2 , so that J is given by:
J  I 2 r 2 (5.6)
From equation (5.5), the potential gradient associated with this current density is:
V I
  J   (5.7)
r 2 r 2
This equation can be simplified to give:
I
dV   dr
2 r 2
The potential Vr at distance r from the source now can be obtained by integration as:
I I
Vr   dV   dr  (5.8)
2 r 2
2 r
The constant of integration is zero since Vr  0 when r .
Equation (5.8) allows the calculation of the potential at any point on or below the surface of a homogeneous
half -space. The hemispherical shells in Fig. 5.4 b mark surfaces of constant voltage and are termed
equipotential surfaces.
 7

Measuring Resistivity
The conventional practice in electrical resistivity surveying is to use source (A) and sink (B) current
electrodes connected to a battery, to compel current (I) to flow in the ground. An ammeter is included
in this circuit to measure the current I. Two potential electrodes (M & N) connected to a voltmeter are
placed in other positions to measure voltage (potential) differences V . Usually, b u t not always. the
four electrodes are placed in line as shown in Fig. 5.5. Now consider the case where the current sink (-I)
is a finite distance (AB) from the current source (+I) (Fig. 5.5).

Fig. 5.5: The generalized form of the electrode configuration used in resistivity measurements.
The potential VM at an internal electrode M is the sum of the potential contributions V A and VB from the
current source at A and the current sink at B given by VM  VA  VB .
I I
From equation (5.8) VA  and VB   where VM can be derived as:
2 rA 2 rB
I I I 1 1
VM   ( ) (  ) (5.9)
2 rA 2 rB 2 rA rB
Similarly the potential VN at an internal potential electrode N is:
I I I 1 1
VN  VA  VB   ( ) (  ) (5.10)
2 RA 2 RB 2 RA RB
The measured potential difference V between the potential electrodes M and N is:
 I  1 1   1 1 
V  VM  VN          ; by letting    a this equation further reduces to:
2   rA rB   RA RB   
1
V 
 1 1   1 1  V
a  2         G  Apparent resistivity (5.11)
I 
 A B   A
r r R R 
B  I
1

 1 1   1 1 
The quantity G  2       Geometric factor (5.12)

 rA rB   RA RB  

The Geometric factor G depends on the arrangement of the four electrodes.
For a homogeneous ground, the true resistivity calculated from equation (5.11) should be constant and
independent of both electrode spacing and surface location. When subsurface inhomogeneities exist, the
resistivity will vary with the relative positions of the electrodes. In this case, any resisitivity value computed
using Equ. (5.11) is then known as the apparent resistivity ρa. We call it the apparent resistivity for the
reason that we can always compute ρa, and we only need knowing the locations of the electrodes and
measuring the amount of current I input into the ground and the voltage (potential) difference V between
the two potential electrodes. For an earth with more than one layer, the apparent resistivity measured will
be the bulk average resistivity of all soils and rock of the layers involved influencing the current. The
apparent resistivity data is interpreted in terms of a subsurface model in order to determine the actual
resistivities of the layers. All field resistivity data obtained by measurement are apparent resistivity while
those obtained by interpretation techniques are ‘true’ resistivities. Thus, equation (5.11) is the basic equation
for calculating the apparent resistivity ρa for any electrode configuration.
 8

Electrode Configurations
A number of electrode configurations have been used in recording resistivity field data, each
suitable for a particular geological situation. The conventional arrays most commonly used include
Wenner (alpha), Schlumberger, dipole-dipole, pole-pole and pole-dipole arrays (Fig. 5.6).

Fig. 5.6: Electrode configurations commonly used in geoelectrical resistivity surveys with their corresponding geometric factors.
The choice of a particular array depends on the geological structures to be delineated, heterogeneities of
the subsurface, sensitivity of the resistivity meter and the background noise level and electromagnetic
coupling. Other factors to be considered are the sensitivity of the array to vertical and lateral variations in
the resistivity of the subsurface, its depth of investigation, and the horizontal data coverage and signal
strength of the array.
Wenner configuration (Array)
In resistivity surveying, the most commonly used arrays are the Wenner and Schlumberger arrays.
The Wenner configuration is the simpler in that current and potential electrodes are maintained at
an equal interval a (Fig. 5.6(a)). Substitution of rA  RB  a and rB  RA  2a into equation (5.12)
gives the geometrical factor GW for the Wenner array as:
1 1
 1 1   1 1   1 
GW  2          2    2 a (5.13)
 a 2a   2a a   a 
The measured apparent resistivity using the Wenner array then becomes:
V
a   2 a (5.14)
I
Schlumberger array
In the Wenner array all the four electrodes need to be moved between successive readings. This labour is
partially overcome by the use of the Schlumberger array in which the inner, potential electrodes have a
spacing 2 which is a small proportion of that of the outer, current electrodes 2L (Fig. 5.7 b). Substitution
of rA  RB  L  and rB  RA  L  into equation (5.12), the geometrical factor GS for the
Schlumberger array will be:
1
 1 1   1 1   ( L2  2
)
GS  2   
      (5.15)
 L  L   L L   2
The measured apparent resistivity using the Schlumberger array then becomes:
V  ( L2  2
)
a   (5.16)
I 2
Similar procedures can be used to derive the geometric factor ( GS ) and the measured apparent resistivity
(  a ) using the dipole-dipole, pole-pole and pole-dipole arrays (Fig. 5.6c,d,e).
 9

Depth of Current Penetration Versus Current Electrode Spacing

Arrays are usually chosen at least partly for their depth of penetration. The depth to which a given fraction
of current penetrates depends on the layering as well as on the separation between the current electrodes.
The current penetrations of the Wenner and Schlumberger arrays are likely to be very similar for similar
total array lengths. For Schlumberger arrays, the expansion at which the existence of a deep interface first
becomes evident is generally of the order of half the spacing between the outer electrodes. For any array,
there is an expansion at which the effect of a homogeneous ground is a maximum. In homogeneous ground
the depth of current penetration increases as the separation of the current electrodes is increased.
Quantitative determination of the resistivity change would, of course, require much greater expansion.

When two current electrodes are close to one another, current flows along arc-shaped paths connecting the
two electrodes (Fig. 5.6a). If the medium has a constant resistivity, about 50% of the current flows through
the medium at depths shallower than the current electrode spacing (say Z < 10 m). This implies that by
increasing the current electrode spacing, more of the injected current will flow to greater depths (Fig. 5.6b).
Figure 5.7c shows the proportion (fraction) of current flowing beneath a given depth Z as the ratio of
current electrode separation L (L=AB) to depth Z increases.

Fig. 5.7: (a) Effect of depth of current penetration versus current electrode spacing. (b) The fraction of current penetrating below a
depth Z for a current electrode separation L.
Referring to Fig. 5.7c, at L = Z, L/Z = 1 where about 0.3 or 30% of the current flows below. That is, if target
depth Z equals electrode separation L, only 30% of current flows beneath the target depth Z. At L = 2Z, L/Z
= 2 and about 0.5 or 50% of the current flows below Z, that is, in order for at least 50% of the current to
flow through an interface at a depth of Z into a second medium, L needs to be at least twice Z (L=2Z) and
preferably more than three times Z. Thus, the electrode separation must be chosen so that the ground is
energized to the required depth, and at least L should equal Z. This imposes practical limits on the depth of
penetration attainable by normal resistivity methods due to the difficulty in laying long lengths of cable and
usage of high capacity generators to generate sufficient power. Depth of penetration of about 1km is the
limit for a normal equipment.
Resistivity Survey Types
The aim of resistivity surveys is to delineate vertical and horizontal lithologic boundaries based on electrical
resistivity contrasts. Two common techniques are used: vertical electrical sounding (used to determine
vertical lithologic boundaries) and electrical profiling (used to determine lithologic horizontal boundaries).
 10

Vertical electrical sounding (VES), also known as ‘electrical drilling’, is used to determine overburden
thickness in geotechnical surveys and to define horizontal zones of porous strata in hydrogeology by
determining apparent resistivity variations with depth below some fixed surface location (Fig. 5.8 c). When
doing resistivity sounding surveys, electrodes are distributed along a line, centered about a midpoint that is
considered the location of the sounding (VES-point). The simplest array in terms of the geometry of
electrode placement is referred to as Wenner survey (Fig. 5.8 b) and the time effective array in terms of
field work is referred to as a Schlumberger survey (Fig. 5.9 b).

Fig. 5.8: (a) Electrode configurations for a Wenner array (b) Expanded arrays (with successive positions displaced for clarity) for a
Wenner array (c) Near-horizontally stratified subsurface interfaces having varying thicknesses and densities that is object of VES.
For a Wenner survey, the current electrodes and the potential electrodes are placed in line with each other,
equidistant from one another, and centered on some location marked by X (Fig. 5.8 a). That is, the potential
electrodes and the current electrodes are placed at a fixed spacing AB=MN=a and measurement is taken at
the midpoint of the electrode array marked by X (Fig. 5.8 b). After making a measurement we would have to
progressively move all the four electrodes to new positions for a variety of electrode spacing such as a = 1, a
= 2, a = 3, etc (Fig. 5.8 b). The injected current I and the resulting potential difference ΔV for the variety
of electrode spacing are noted to compute the apparent resistivity ρa by using equ (5.14).

For a Schlumberger survey, the current electrodes and the potential electrodes are still placed in line with
one another and centered on some location marked by X (Fig. 5.9 a). Both the potential electrodes and
current electrodes are maintained at fixed relative intervals but are not placed equidistant from one another
(Fig. 5.9 a). That is, the potential electrodes are placed at a fixed spacing MN= b  2 and the current
electrodes are placed at a fixed spacing AB=2 L (where AB  MN ). After making a measurement we would
have to progressively move all the four electrodes to new positions for a variety of electrode spacings such
as a1,b1; a2,b1; a3,b1; a4,b2; etc (Fig. 5.9 b). Consequently, readings are taken as the current reaches
progressively greater depths. The injected current I and the resulting potential difference ΔV for the
variety of electrode spacing are noted to compute the apparent resistivity ρa by using equ (5.16).

Fig. 5.9: (a) (b) Expanded arrays (with successive positions displaced for clarity) for a Schlumberger array (c) Near-horizontally
stratified subsurface interfaces having varying thicknesses and densities that is the object of VES.
A typical scheme of current-electrode separation (AB=2L) in the Schlumberger sounding procedure is to
start with a potential electrode separation of say MN=b=2 m and, keeping this constant, take observations
with current electrode separations AB=2L =10, 20, 30, 50,70, 100, 200, 300, 500, 700.. . m. If at any stage
the voltage between the potential electrodes MN=2 m is deemed to be too small, then MN is increased to,
say, MN=10 m and the observations continued with the next current electrode separation in the series. A
typical data recording sheet for a Schlumberger sounding procedure is shown in Fig. 5.10.
 11

Fig. 5.10: A typical data recording sheet for a Schlumberger sounding procedure
 12

Electrode spacings and apparent resistivity plots

The first step in the interpretation of VES observations is to prepare a log-log paper (Fig. 5.11) in which the
calculated apparent resistivities are plotted to produce VES curves for a further interpretation.
The x- and y-axes of this graph paper represent the logarithmic values of the current electrode separation
(AB) and the apparent resistivity ρa respectively. In Wenner surveys, it is customary to plot the electrode
interval AB=a as the x-axis, while in Schlumberger surveys the half current-electrode separation AB/2=L is
chosen as the x-axis.

Fig. 5.11: Log-log paper for plotting apparent resistivity versus half current electrode spacing (AB/2)
Interpretation of Vertical electrical sounding (VES) data
Interpreting VES curves is one of the most intricate ones in the whole of applied geophysics unless one has
considerable experience in the interpretation of VES curves.
Vertical sounding field curves can be interpreted qualitatively using simple curve shapes, semi-quantitatively
with graphical model curves and quantitatively with computer modelling. The first stage in any interpretation
of apparent resistivity sounding curves is to note the curve shape. From the curve shape, the minimum number
of horizontal layers and the relative magnitudes of the respective layer resistivities can be estimated.
 13

VES curve shapes for two electrical layers can be classified into one of the two basic two layer curve shapes
(Fig. 5.12). VES curve shapes for three electrical layers can be classified into one of the four basic three
layer curve shapes (Fig. 5.14).
Interpretation of VES Curves for Two Electrical Layers.
Consider a Wenner electrode spread above a single horizontal interface between two layers with resistivities
ρ1 (overburden) and ρ2 (bedrock) with ρ1 ‹ ρ2 (Fig. 5.12 a). Presence of two turning points in the curve indicates
existence of a single subsurface interface. Number of the identified layers is equal to number of the turning
points in the curve. The top layer which has a thickness h is a better electric conductor (has lower
resistivity) than the underlying bottom layer (bedrock) which extends downwards to “infinity”. Such a case
may arise, for example, when conducting (low resistivity) soil or moraine overlies a poorly conducting (high
resistivity) substratum.

Fig. 5.12: Schematic VES curves over a horizontally stratified earth. The variation of apparent resistivity ρa as the current
Electrode spacing AB=a over a single horizontal interface is varied for the two cases of (a) ρ1 < ρ2 and (b) ρ2 < ρ1.
When the electrode separation is small, most of the current flows in the upper layer with the consequence
that the apparent resistivity tends towards ρ1. As the current electrode separation is gradually increased,
more and more current flows into the bedrock and the apparent resistivity then approaches ρ2 (Fig. 5.12 a).

If the top layer (overburden) is more resistive than the bedrock (ρ2 < ρ1), a curve of another type will then
be obtained (Fig. 5.12 b). Such a case may arise in a geological situation where the bedrock is impregnated
(saturated) with conducting sulphides like pyrite or magnetite and in a hydrological situation where a
conducting water table underlies a more drier and resistive soil or rocks in which the apparent resistivity
decreases with increasing electrode separation and approaches ρ2 (Fig. 5.12 b).
Interpretation of VES data by a curve matching technique
Before the advent of portable computers, two-layer cases were interpreted with the aid of theoretical
curves known as master curves. Interpretation of field curves by matching against a set of master curves is
based on the assumptions that the model relates to a horizontally stratified earth and that successively
deeper layers are thicker than those overlying. Field curves (observed VES curves) are compared with
master curves representing the calculated effects of layered models by a once-important but now abandoned
(or little-used) technique known as curve matching.

Fig. 5.13: The interpretation of a two-layer apparent resistivity graph by comparison wita set of master curves. The upper layer resistivity 1 is 68 m and
its thickness z1 is 19.5m
 14

Fig. 5.13 illustrates interpretation an observed VES curve (a plot of VES data collected with a Wenner
spread over two horizontal layers) using a set of two layer master curves. The master curves are prepared in
dimensionless form by dividing the calculated apparent resistivity values ρa by the upper layer resistivity ρ1
(as ρa/ρ1) for the y-axis plot and by dividing the electrode spacings a by the upper layer thickness z1 (as a/z1)
for the x-axis plot of the master curves (Fig. 5.13).
The master curves (solid lines) are prepared (plotted on log-log paper) for a number of values of the reflection
coefficient k =1.0, k=0.9, k=0.8, …, k=0.1 ( Fig. 5.13). The field curve (a plot of the VES data, ρa vs a) to be interpreted is
plotted on a transparent log-log paper with the same modulus (a/z1 -axis ↔ a-axis and ρa/ρ1 -axis ↔ ρa-axis) as that of
the master curves. The field curve (broken line) is then shifted horizontally and/or vertically over the master curves,
keeping the coordinate axes of both the master curves and the field curve parallel to each other. Shifting of the field
curve (horizontally and vertically) over the master curves is continued, until a reasonable match of the field curve with
one of the master curves or with an interpolated master curve is obtained. When a match of the field curve with one of
the master curves is obtained, the point at which ρa/ρ1 = a/z1 = 1 on the master sheet is considered to determine the
true values of the upper layer resistivity ρ1 and its thickness z1 on the relevant axes (ρa-axis & a-axis) of the field sheet.

From Fig. 5.13, when the point ρa/ρ1 = a/z1 = 1.0 on the master sheet is horizontally projected on to a point on the ρa-axis
of the field sheet, this point value gives the upper layer resistivity 1= 68 m. Correspondingly, when the point ρa/ρ1 =
a/z1 = 1.0 on the master sheet is vertically projected on to a point on the a-axis of the field sheet, this point value gives
the upper layer thickness z1=19.5 m.
ρ2 is obtained from the k-value of the best-fitting master curve and the relation k =(ρ2- ρ1)/(ρ2+ ρ1).
Since k = 0.7 ↔ the k-value of the best-fitting master curve and 1= 68 , ρ2 can obtained as:
(ρ2- ρ1)/(ρ2+ ρ1)=0.7 ↔ (ρ2- 68)/(ρ2+68)=0.7 → ρ2=

If a third layer is sandwiched between the top layer and the bedrock, apparent resistivity curves which generally have
one of the four typical curve shapes (type K, H, A and Q) are determined (Fig. 5.14).

Fig. 5.14: The four common curve shapes of apparent resistivity curves for a layered structure consisting of three horizontal layers
Type K curve (ρ1<ρ2> ρ3): This curve rises to a maximum then decreases, indicating that the resistivity of the
intermediate layer is higher than the resistivities of the top and bottom layers (Fig. 5.14 a).
Type H curve (ρ1>ρ2< ρ3):This curve shows the opposite effect type K; it falls to a minimum then increases
again due to an intermediate layer that is a better conductor than the top and bottom layers (Fig. 5.14 b).
Type A curve (ρ1<ρ2< ρ3): This curve type may show some changes in gradient but the apparent resistivity generally
increases continuously with increasing electrode separation, indicating that the true resistivities increase with depth
from layer to layer (Fig. 5.14 c)
Type Q curve (ρ1>ρ2>ρ3):This curve type exhibits the opposite effect Type A curve; it decreases continuously along with
a progressive decrease of resistivity with depth (Fig. 5.14 d).,
Curve matching is simple for two-layer cases since only a single sheet of master curves is required. When
three layers are present much larger sets of master curves are required to represent the increased number
of possible combinations of layer resistivities and layer thicknesses (Fig. 5.15).
 15

Computer Modelling
Although characteristic curves can also be computed for the interpretation of structures with multiple
horizontal layers, modern VES analyses take advantage of the flexibility offered by small computers with
graphic outputs on which the apparent resistivity curves can be assessed visually.
The first step in the analysis consists of classifying the shape of the vertical sounding profile. Once the
observed resistivity profile has been identified as K, H, A or Q type, the next step is equivalent to one-
dimensional inversion of the field data. The technique involves iterative procedures that would be very time-
consuming without a fast computer. The method assumes the equations for the theoretical response of a
multi-layered ground. Each layer is characterized by its thickness t and resistivity , each of which must be
determined. A first estimate of resistivities and thicknesses is made for each layer at each of the VES points
considered. Interpretation is made by compiling geoelectric sections (sections drawn to display variation of
resistivity of subsurface rocks with depth along a profile) for the VES points considered (eg. Fig. 5.16).

Fig. 5.15: Computer Modeling Inversion scheme in geoelectric sounding

Procedure on how to compile geoelectric sections

For each the VES points (VES-1, VES-2 … VES-6) considered during a particular survey (Fig. 5.16):
- A plot of apparent resistivity ρa versus electrode spacing (AB/2) is made on the log-log paper (Fig. 5.11).
- From the shape of the plotted curve, the number of turning points in the curve is identified.
- Based on the number of the identified turning points, the number of horizontal layers and the relative
magnitudes of the respective layer resistivities are inferred.
- Either a curve matching technique or a computer modelling procedure is applied to determine the layer
Parameters (thicknesses ti and resistivities ρi of the inferred horizontal layers) for each of the VES.
- The thicknesses h1, h2, hn and the corresponding apparent resistivities ρ 1, 2, n of each VES point are
plotted as a function of horizontal distance (profile) along which all the VES points are distributed at a
specific interval (L=500m = interval between each VES point).
- Depths of the VES points that have equal resistivity values are connected by straight lines to compile the
geoelecrtical section shown in Fig. 5.16.

A preliminary interpretation of the geoelectric section in Fig. 5.16 is made as follows:

The compiled geoelectric section consists of three distinct layers (Layer 1, Layer 2 and layer 3) having
specific layer resistivitys (1=20 m, 2=30 m and 3=60 m).
Layer 1 (top layer) with resistivity values upto 20 m is treated as a salt water zone.
Layer 2 with resistivity values 20-30 m is treated as potable/drinking water horizon.
Layer3 with resistivity values 60 m is considered as hard rock in the Precambrian hard rock terrain.
 16

Fig.5.16: Geoelectrical sections compiled after curve matching computer modelling

Constant separation traversing (CST), also known as ‘electrical profiling’ is used to map (study)
vertical or near-vertical geologic structures (interfaces) to locate lateral variations in apparent resistivity
(Fig. 5.17 b). Constant-separation traversing surveys usually use the Wenner array (Fig. 5.17 a) for ease of
operation, in which the electrode separation is kept fixed.

Fig. 5.17:(a) Wenner array (b) Near-vertically stratified subsurface interfaces having varying widths and densities object of CST.

Constant separation traverses are obtained by moving an electrode spread with fixed electrode separation
along a traverse line. The array (direction of spread) of the electrodes is aligned either in the direction of
the traverse (longitudinal traverse) or at right angles to the direction of the traverse (transverse traverse).
The longitudinal traverse technique is more efficient as only a single electrode has to be moved from one end
of the spread to the other, and the electrodes reconnected, between adjacent readings
The entire array is moved along a profile and a series of apparent resistivity measurements is made at
discrete intervals along the profile. The values of apparent resistivity are plotted on a linear graph as a
function of distances along the profile or can be presented as contour maps. Variations in the magnitude of
apparent resistivity at specific locations highlight anomalous areas along the traverse.
 17

Interpretation of electrical profiling data

The interpretation of electrical profiling data is generally qualitative, and the primary value of electrical
profiling data is employed to map steep discontinuities, buried stream channels, veins, and dikes.

Fig. 5.17 (a) A transverse traverse across a single vertical interface. (b) A longitudinal traverse across a single vertical interface
employing a configuration in which all four electrodes are mobile

Figure 8.17(a) shows a transverse traverse across a single vertical contact between two media of resistivities
ρ1 and ρ2 (a higher resistivity material to the left and a lower resistivity material to the right). The apparent
resistivity curve varies smoothly from ρ1 to ρ2 across the contact.
A longitudinal traverse over a similar structure shows the same variation from ρ1 to ρ2 at its extremities, but
the intermediate parts of the curve exhibit a number of cusps (Fig. 8.17b), which correspond to locations
where successive electrodes cross the contact. There will be four cusps on a Wenner profile but two on a
Schlumberger profile where only the potential electrodes are mobile.

The CST method is employed in mineral prospecting to locate vertical faults or shear zones and to detect
localized bodies of anomalous conductivity. It is also used in geotechnical surveys to determine variations in
bedrock depth and the presence of steep discontinuities.

Fig. 5.18: Longitudinal traverses across a series of faulted strata CST profile across a clay filled solution feature in limestone

Figure 5.18 shows the results of longitudinal traversing across a series of faulted strata. The results
illustrate well the strong resistivity contrasts between the relatively conductive sandstone and relatively
resistive limestone.
 18

Apparent resistivity contour maps.

Results from a series of CST traverses with fixed electrode spacing can be employed in the production of apparent
resistivity contour maps (5.19). The procedure followed in constructing apparent resistivity map is that:
1 The apparent resistivity values computed at each VES point for different values of AB/2 (AB/2 = 3m, AB/2 = 5m,
AB/2 = 10, AB/2 = 100m, etc) are plotted at the locations of the VES points considered in the survey area.
2. Points having equal apparent resistivity values for a particular AB/2 (say AB/2 = 3m) are connected by smooth
lines so that they generate isoresistivity contour map similar to that of Figure 5.23 or computer generated color
shaded map similar to that of Figure 5.24.

Fig. 5.19: Apparent electrical resistivity contour map compiled for a fixed electrode spacing.

Such maps are expressions of the lateral resistivity variation of the ground below the survey area in the range of the
depth which is penetrable with chosen electrode spacings (say AB/2 = 3m, AB/2 = 5m, AB/2 = 100m, etc.).
Qualitative interpretation of CST data using maps can be obtained by making sufficient number of profiles with
different electrode spacing and along sets of traverses of different azimuths as shown in Figure 5.19. Generally,
best interpretative results are obtained from a combination of CST and vertical electrical sounding (VES) data.
Apparent resistivity sliced section map
Apparent resistivity sliced section map (Fig. 5.20) is an alternate way of representing resistivity survey data. The
procedure followed in constructing apparent resistivity sliced section map is that:
1 The apparent resistivity values computed at each VES point for different values of AB/2 (AB/2 = 3m, AB/2 = 5m,
AB/2 = 10, AB/2 = 100m, AB/2 = 1000m) are plotted at the locations of the VES points considered in the survey.
(2) Points having equal apparent resistivity values for a particular AB/2 (say AB/2 = 3m) are connected by smooth
lines so that they generate isoresistivity contour map similar to that of Figure 5.19 or computer generated color
shaded map similar to that of Figure 5.20.
(3) Steps (1) and (2) are repeated until the maximum AB/2 (say AB/2 = 1000m) is reached.
(4) The compiled isoresistivity maps corresponding to the different AB/2 values considered are stacked vertically to
show the approximate lateral and vertical apparent resistivity variations of the different horizons beneath the survey
area considered.
 19

Fig. 5.20: Apparent resistivity sliced stacked section map for different AB/2

Computer softwares (such as Surfer, Geosoft, etc.) can be used to construct the apparent resistivity sliced section
map. The vertical line of the apparent resistivity sliced section map represents pseudo depth, hence to know the true
depth we can generally apply the rule of thumb which states that the true depth is approximately equal to 1/3 to 1/5
of AB/2.
Apparent resistivity pseudo depth sections
In many engineering and environmental studies, the subsurface geology is very complex where the resistivity can
change rapidly over short horizontal distances. Therefore, when looking for both lateral and vertical variations in
subsurface resistivity, such lateral and vertical variations in apparent resistivity of the subsurface are represented by
apparent resistivity pseudo depth section (Fig. 5.21).

Fig. 5.21: Apparent resistivity pseudo depth section map from VES data
Pseudo depth section (Fig. 2.21) is another alternate technique through which VES data can be represented to
obtain a firsthand interpretation of the subsurface resistivity structures. A pseudo depth section map is constructed
 20

by plotting apparent resistivity values computed at each VES point vertically with the Schlumberger electrode
spacing (AB/2) taken as depth and the interspacing between the VES points taken as horizontal distance.
The compiled pseudo depth section is considered to give approximate subsurface resistivity variations laterally and
vertically. However, a pseudo depth section is not a true representation of the distribution of resistivity in the
subsurface.
Applications of resistivity surveying
Resistivity surveys are usually restricted to relatively small-scale investigations because of the labour involved in
physically planting the electrodes prior to each measurement. For this reason resistivity methods are not commonly used
in reconnaissance exploration.
Resistivity methods are widely used in engineering geological investigations of sites prior to construction
VES is a very convenient, non-destructive method of determining the depth to rockhead for foundation purposes and also
provides information on the degree of saturation of subsurface materials in groundwater exploration.
CST can be used to determine the variation in rockhead depth between soundings and can also indicate the presence of
potentially unstable ground conditions. Fig. 5.22 (a) shows a CST profile which has revealed the presence of a buried mine
shaft from the relatively high resistivity values associated with its poorly-compacted infill. Similar techniques can be
used in archaeological investigations for the location of artifacts with anomalous resistivities. Fig. 5.20 (b) shows CST
profiles across an ancient buried ditch

Fig. 5.22: (a) CST resistivity profile across a buried mineshaft. (b) CST resistivity profiles across a resistive landfill
The most widely-employed use of resistivity surveys is in hydrogeological investigations, as important information
can be provided on geological structure, lithologies and subsurface water resources without the large cost of an
extensive programme of drilling. The results can determine the locations of the minimum number of exploratory
boreholes required for both essential aquifer tests and control of the geophysical interpretation.
Limitations of the resistivity method
Resistivity surveying is an efficient method for delineating shallow layered sequences or vertical discontinuities involving
changes of resistivity. It does, however, suffer from a number of limitations:
1. Electrical resistivity surveying is slow because electrodes must be driven into the ground between measurements.
2. Arrays cannot be oriented parallel to buried electrical power lines, utilities and fences since the current
injected into the ground will flow more easily through the metal feature.
3. The depth of penetration of the method is limited by the maximum electrical power that can be introduced into the
ground and by the physical difficulties of laying out long lengths of cable. The practical depth limit for most
resistivity surveys is about 1km.
4. Topography and the effects of near-surface resistivity variations can mask the effects of deeper variations.
5. Data are influenced by near surface conductive layers. The current will always travel most easily along highly
conductive layers. If the surface is highly conductive it may not be possible to collect data below the top layer.
6. Interpretations are ambiguous, meaning that many different “models” can produce the same data. To narrow down the
number of possible models, other geological information is needed (borehole and/or monitoring well data) to
discriminate between valid alternative interpretations of the resistivity data.
7. Interpretation is limited to simple structural configurations. Any deviations from these simple situations may be
impossible to interpret.