Indian Geotechnical Conference 2010, GEOtrendz December 1618, 2010 IGS Mumbai Chapter & IIT Bombay

Interpretation and Assessment of Electrical Resistivity Soundings Data

Kate, J.M.
Professor e-mail: jmkate@civil.iitd.ac.in

Shanker, Hari
Senior Scientific Officer e-mail: hsg@civil.iitd.ac.in

Janaki Ramaiah, B.
Research Scholar e-mail: janakiramsvu@gmail.com

Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi

ABSTRACT
In this article field electrical resistivity soundings data have been interpreted adopting techniques such as Moores cumulative plot with Hummelss extension, Direct slope, Inverse slope, Barnes layer and softwares. Detailed subsurface profiles have been prepared for every sounding locations from each of the above techniques. These subsurface profiles thus derived have been compared and assessed with respect to number of layers, their thicknesses, sequence and other relevant exploratory aspects. These subsurface profiles have also been compared with actual bore hole logs at a selected location. The comparative statement and assessment of these interpretation techniques, in general indicate that each one is associated with certain limitations may it be towards providing reasonably accurate layer thicknesses or number of layers or true resistivity values or depth to GWT. In order to assist geotechnical engineer to choose a technique for fair estimation of ground truth, suitable guidelines have been suggested. 1. INTRODUCTION Geotechnical engineers have well realized the importance of Geophysical methods for subsurface explorations. Electrical resistivity is one such non-destructive method, which is now being increasingly used as a complementary to direct and semi-direct methods of exploration. In order to obtain sub-surface profile (bore hole logs), it is imperative to interpret field vertical electrical soundings (VES) data to derive true resistivities and thicknesses of various subsurface strata. There are a number of interpretation techniques available and each one is based on a separate approach and methodology. The literature review points out that very little work is available to understand the limitations, suitability, accuracy and reliability of these techniques in relation to different subsurface conditions. In the present study field VES data at a number of locations have been collected/adopted from different sources including literature. These locations have been selected/ identified so as to understand the influence of ground water table (GWT), depth of exploration, availability of ground truth, etc., on subsurface profiles thus interpreted by different techniques. The choice of techniques is made based on their classification e.g. graphical, analytical, software etc., amongst commonly practiced/popular techniques generally adopted by engineers for VES data interpretation. Finally, an attempt has been made to suggest guidelines for choice of suitable technique based on practical considerations. 2. REVIEW Interpretation of VES Data The interpretation of electrical resistivity sounding data is the process of deriving the values of true resistivities (r) and thicknesses (t) of various subsurface strata from the values of recorded resistance (R) or apparent resistivity (ra) at electrode separations (a). There are a number of interpretation techniques for evaluating r and t of each of the stratum as proposed by many investigators. These can be grouped as analytical, numerical, empirical, graphical, computer (software) based etc. and several amongst each category. The commonly practiced techniques other than computer softwares are Inverse slope (Sankar Narayan et al. 1967), Barnes layer (Barnes 1954), Direct slope (Baig 1980), Moores cumulative plot (Moore 1961) and Hummels principle (Hummel 1931). The Inverse slope, Direct slope and Moores cumulative plot are graphical, Hummels principle is analytical whereas Barnes layer

42 technique involves both the graphical and analytical approaches. There are a number of softwares available for interpretation of field VES data. These softwares are based on solution of mathematical expression correlating a, a with , t and other variables. Comparative Study Kate and Khichchu Mal (1983) conducted field VES and interpreted same data by different techniques and compared with the ground truth. The comparative study reported by them highlighted suitability of these techniques in the context of accuracy of data interpretation, depth (deep, shallow) to be explored, number of strata, their thicknesses, nature and sequence of strata. Laboratory studies on dry layered soils under controlled conditions of layer thickness, sequence, unit weights, etc. was conducted by Kate and Shamsher (2007) and interpreted soundings data by various graphical techniques only. They reported that each technique in general is associated with certain limitations to provide the value of either the layer thickness or its resistivity or both when compared with their true values. 3. DATA ACQUISITION AND METHODOLOGY A number of site locations from literature and unpublished subsurface exploration reports providing field VES data were studied. After scrutiny of such data, five site locations have been identified and selected considering factors such as exploratory depth, circuit array, GWT and availability of ground truth (required for verification), etc. Field VES data at these locations referred here for simplicity by sites A, B, C, D and E are presented in Table 1. At all these sites VES data available corresponds to Wenners circuit array. As the electrode separation (a) adopted were not common at these sites, the VES data have been presented in terms of ratio of electrode spacing to apparent resistivity (a/a) computed from Eq. (1) given below. a = 2a.R (1) The exploratory depths are 36 m at sites A, B and C whereas these are 45 m at sites D and E. The Techniques adopted for interpreting VES data at these sites are Barnes layer, combination of Moores cumulative with Hummels extension, Inverse slope and softwares. The above techniques are common in practice and preferred for geotechnical exploration, where in the exploratory depths are relatively shallow compared to geophysical and geological explorations. Considering the limitations to provide true resistivity by Moores cumulative and layer thickness by Hummels extension, their combination has been preferred in this study. The softwares used are SSR-MP-AT (IGIS, 2007) and IX1D v3.38

J.M. Kate, Hari Shanker and B. Janaki Ramaiah

(Interpex, 2004). The software SSR-MP-AT is based on inverse slope principle and interpret the data both through Auto as well as Manual joining of points.
Table 1: VES Data at Various Sites

Sl. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Electrode Spacing /Apparent resistivity (a/ a), ohm-1 Site-A Site-B Site-C Site-D Site-E 0.0060 0.0092 0.0130 0.0147 0.0149 0.0178 0.0199 0.0200 0.0203 0.0211 0.0214 0.0223 0.0260 0.0833 0.1200 0.1347 0.1376 0.1500 0.1533 0.1539 0.1551 0.1562 0.1625 0.1666 0.1034 0.2725 0.4289 0.5218 0.5766 0.5808 0.6168 0.6315 0.6576 0.6659 0.6860 0.7073 0.1034 0.1666 0.1999 0.3157 0.3657 0.3912 0.4468 0.4948 0.5454 0.5661 0.6000 0.6051 0.6190 0.6774 0.6818 0.0576 0.1538 0.2250 0.2857 0.3409 0.3673 0.4038 0.4285 0.4736 0.4918 0.5238 0.5454 0.5652 0.5833 0.5844

In order to prepare borehole logs representing the actual subsurface conditions existing at these sites, relevant information available from the literature/sources of VES data have been extracted wherever available. Such data is compiled from records of drillings (power auger and wash borings) in the vicinity of these locations, and subsequently used to prepare borehole logs. 4. RESULTS AND ASSESSMENT The magnitude of thickness and true resistivity derived through various interpretation techniques are illustrated in Table 2. It can be observed from Table 2 that at the same location, different techniques exhibit different number of strata layers. For example at site A, all other techniques show two layers whereas IX1D software shows three layers. Further, significant variations in thicknesses as well as true resistivities can be noticed almost at each and every site as interpreted from these techniques. It is interesting to note that at site D, no other technique except Moore with Hummels extension exhibit ground water table (GWT). It has been verified from the ground truth that the GWT really existed at site D very close to the ground surface. It appears that at this site only this technique exhibited one single layer as a result of saturated soil up to full exploratory depth of 45 m. This

Interpretation and Assessment of Electrical Resistivity Soundings Data Table 2: Comparative Statement of Interpreted VES Data

43

Barnes Layer Site t m A 9 27 9 3 24 18 18 33 12 27 18 .m 857 9322 83 203 1696 31 712 71 584 68 166

Moore with Hummel's Extension t m 12 24 18 18 15 21 45 .m 664 5553 97 1268 24 251 15

Direct Slope

Inverse Slope SSR-MP-AT Software Graphical Auto Joining t m .m 9 27 9 3 24 15 21 33.3 11.7 26.4 15.2 3.4 689 10000 73 204 1728 36 714 72 395 68 148 2812
D irect Slop e

IX1D v3 Software

T m 9 27 9 12 15 36 28 17 29 16

.m 690 1850 75 183 327 50 46 103 52 123

t m 13 23 10 26 13.5 22.5 42 3 17 25 3

.m 722 5348 76 1000 24 164 63 750 43 137 3000

Manual Joining t m .m 9 27 9 9 18 13.6 22.4 26.3 15.7 3 14.4 30.6 689 4000 73 323 1035 24 156 48 145 729 43 231

t m 3 6 27 9 3 24 18 18 27 6 12 27 18

.m 500 860 9000 80 205 2200 700 200 71 120 410 70 160

C D

45

30

observation very well supports the merit of Moores cumulative plot in locating the ground water table as reported by Kate (2007). The subsurface profiles interpreted from all these techniques are illustrated in Fig. 1 typically for location at site B. The borehole log prepared from the available data of drilling carried out in the vicinity of location B is also presented in Fig. 1. As a qualitative assessment it is seen that all the techniques exhibit top stratum of clay which is in agreement with the ground truth. It is evident from borehole log (ground truth) that up to full depth of exploration the subsurface comprises of three strata in a sequence of clay, clayey silt and silty sand. The subsurface profiles interpreted by techniques other than Moores with Hummels and Inverse slope (graphical) show all the three strata whereas intermediate stratum of clayey silt is missing in these two. The bottom layer of silty sand is obtained by all other techniques except direct slope, which shows silt as the bottom layer. At site B, the subsurface profiles interpreted by Barnes layer, SSR-MP-AT (auto joining) and IX1D v3 softwares are in close agreement with borehole log both qualitatively as well as quantitatively. It has been seen that amongst five sites assessed here, the Barnes layer provided close or marginally deviated match with bore hole log at 4 sites (sites A, B, C and E), whereas any other technique show such comparable profile at no more that two sites. In general, while making a suitable choice for VES data interpretation, it appears that Barnes layer technique carries more weightage compared to any other technique.

Barnes L ayer

M oore's w ith H um m el's E xtension

Inv erse SSR -M P-AT SSR-M P-AT Slop e softw are softw are (G rap hical) (AutoJoining) (M anualJoining)

IX1Dv 3 softw are

Bore hole log

0 4 8
Depth below GL (m)

12 16 20 24 28 32 36

Fig. 1: Interpreted Sub-surface Profiles and Bore Hole (Ground Truth) Log at Site B 5. CONCLUDING REMARK & RECOMMENDATION All the interpretation techniques and softwares studied and assessed here with ground truth, it appears that no single technique can be considered as fully reliable in all types of subsurface conditions. In general, Barnes layer technique carries much weightage for its acceptability. However, in the interest of accuracy and reliability of subsurface profiles derived through any interpretation technique, the engineers/ explorers are advised to verify such profiles with ground truth by drilling bore holes at few selected locations. In case of any mismatch or discrepancy, ground truth may be used as calibration data for next trial during interpretation.

44 REFERENCES Baig, M.Y.A (1980). Direct slope technique of determining absolute resistivity. Journal of Civil Engg. Div., Institution of Engineers (India), (61) Sept., 55-60. Barnes, H.E. (1954). Electrical subsurface exploration simplified. Roads and Streets, May, 81-84. Hummel, J.N. (1931). A theoretical study of apparent ressistivity in surface potential method. AIME technical publication, No. 418, 1-48. IGIS (2007). SSR-MP-AT v1.01.2007 Inverse slope method software, Integrated GeoInstruments and Services (p) Ltd., Tarnak, Hyderabad, India (www.igisindia.com). Interpex (2004). IX1D v.3.38 1D Inversion software, Interpex Limited, Golden, Colorado, USA (www.interpex.com).

J.M. Kate, Hari Shanker and B. Janaki Ramaiah

Kate, J.M. and Khichchu Mal (1983). Comparative study of resistivity interpretation techniques. Proc. IGC-83, Vol. 1, VII 49-53. Kate, J.M. (2007). Electrical resistivity method for ground characterization. Engineering in rocks, Ed. (T. Ramamuthy), Prentice Hall of India, 209-234. Kate, J.M. and Shansher, F.H. (2007). Electrical resistivity behaviour of layered soil system. Indian Geotechnical Journal, 37(4), 321-339. Moore, R.W. (1961). Geophysics efficient in exploring the subsurface. Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, ASCE, 87, SM-3, 69-100. Sankar Narayan, P.V. and Ramanujachar, K.R. (1967). Short note-an inverse slope method of determining absolute resistivities. Geophysics, 32, 00. 6-15.