Premium
Cross‐hole resistivity tomography using different electrode configurations
Author(s) -
Bing Zhou,
Greenhalgh S.A.
Publication year - 2000
Publication title -
geophysical prospecting
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.735
H-Index - 79
eISSN - 1365-2478
pISSN - 0016-8025
DOI - 10.1046/j.1365-2478.2000.00220.x
Subject(s) - electrode , electrical resistivity tomography , electrical resistivity and conductivity , electrical conductor , noise (video) , geology , materials science , electrical engineering , acoustics , physics , computer science , engineering , composite material , image (mathematics) , quantum mechanics , artificial intelligence
This paper investigates the relative merits and effectiveness of cross‐hole resistivity tomography using different electrode configurations for four popular electrode arrays: pole–pole, pole–bipole, bipole–pole and bipole–bipole. By examination of two synthetic models (a dipping conductive strip and a dislocated fault), it is shown that besides the popular pole–pole array, some specified three‐ and four‐electrode configurations, such as pole–bipole AM – N , bipole–pole AM – B and bipole–bipole AM – BN with their multispacing cross‐hole profiling and scanning surveys, are useful for cross‐hole resistivity tomography. These configurations, compared with the pole–pole array, may reduce or eliminate the effect of remote electrodes (systematic error) and yield satisfactory images with 20% noise‐contaminated data. It is also shown that the configurations which have either both current electrodes or both potential electrodes in the same borehole, i.e. pole–bipole A – MN , bipole–pole AB – M and bipole–bipole AB – MN , have a singularity problem in data acquisition, namely low readings of the potential or potential difference in cross‐hole surveying, so that the data are easily obscured by background noise and yield images inferior to those from other configurations.