Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Assessing the effect of offline topography on e...

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Assessing the effect of offline topography on electrical resistivity measurements: insights from flood embankments

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

Assessing the effect of offline topography on electrical resistivity measurements: insights from flood embankments. / White, Adrian; Boyd, James; Wilkinson, Paul et al.
In: Geophysical Journal International, Vol. 239, No. 2, 30.11.2024, p. 1117-1132.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

White, A, Boyd, J, Wilkinson, P, Unwin, HE, Wookey, J, Kendall, JM, Binley, A & Chambers, J 2024, 'Assessing the effect of offline topography on electrical resistivity measurements: insights from flood embankments', Geophysical Journal International, vol. 239, no. 2, pp. 1117-1132. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggae313

APA

White, A., Boyd, J., Wilkinson, P., Unwin, H. E., Wookey, J., Kendall, J. M., Binley, A., & Chambers, J. (2024). Assessing the effect of offline topography on electrical resistivity measurements: insights from flood embankments. Geophysical Journal International, 239(2), 1117-1132. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggae313

Vancouver

White A, Boyd J, Wilkinson P, Unwin HE, Wookey J, Kendall JM et al. Assessing the effect of offline topography on electrical resistivity measurements: insights from flood embankments. Geophysical Journal International. 2024 Nov 30;239(2):1117-1132. Epub 2024 Sept 6. doi: 10.1093/gji/ggae313

Author

White, Adrian ; Boyd, James ; Wilkinson, Paul et al. / Assessing the effect of offline topography on electrical resistivity measurements : insights from flood embankments. In: Geophysical Journal International. 2024 ; Vol. 239, No. 2. pp. 1117-1132.

Bibtex

@article{31eac5e9ed1a42d09bc447a49d7131c4,
title = "Assessing the effect of offline topography on electrical resistivity measurements: insights from flood embankments",
abstract = "Summary Electrical resistivity tomography (ERT), a geophysical imaging method, is commonly used on flood embankments (dykes or levees) to characterise their internal structure and look for defects. These surveys often use a single line of electrodes to enable 2D imaging through the embankment crest, an approach that enables rapid and efficient surveying compared to 3D surveys. However, offline variations in topography can introduce artefacts into these 2D images, by affecting the measured resistivity data. Such topographic effects have only been explored on a site-specific basis. If the topographic effects can be assessed for a distribution of embankment geometries (e.g. slope angle and crest width) and resistivity variations, it would allow for targeted correction procedures and improved survey design. To investigate topographic effects on ERT measurements, we forward-modelled embankments with different trapezoidal cross-sections sat atop a flat foundation layer with contrasting resistivity values. Each was compared to a corresponding flat model with the same vertical resistivity distribution. The modelling workflow was designed to minimise the effect of forward modelling errors on the calculation of topographic effect. We ran 1872 unique embankment forward models, representing 144 geometries, each with 13 different resistivity contrasts. Modelling results show that offline topography affects the tested array types (Wenner-Schlumberger, Dipole-Dipole, and Multiple-Gradient) in slightly different ways, but the magnitudes are similar, so all are equally suitable for embankment surveys. Three separate mechanisms are found to cause topographic effects. The dominant mechanism is caused by the offline topography confining the electrical current flow, increasing the measured transfer resistance from the embankment model. The two other mechanisms, previously unidentified, decrease the measured transfer resistances from the embankment model compared to a layered half-space but only affect embankments with specific geometries and resistivity distributions. Overall, we found that for typical embankment geometries and resistivity distributions, the resistivity distribution has a greater control on the magnitude of the topographic effect than the exact embankment geometry: the subsurface resistivity distribution cannot be neglected. 2D inversions are suitable when both the embankment is more resistive than the foundations and when the embankment's cross-sectional area is greater than 4 m2/m2 (area scaled to an embankment with a height of 1 m). Topographic corrections, 3D data acquisition or 3D forward models are required when these conditions are not met. These are demonstrated using field data from an embankment at Hexham, Northumberland, UK. Improving the accuracy of the resistivity values in ERT models will enable more accurate ground models, better integration of resistivity data with geotechnical datasets, and will improve the translation of resistivity values into geotechnical properties. Such developments will contribute to a better characterised and safer flood defence network.",
author = "Adrian White and James Boyd and Paul Wilkinson and Unwin, {Holly E} and James Wookey and Kendall, {John Michael} and Andrew Binley and Jonathan Chambers",
year = "2024",
month = nov,
day = "30",
doi = "10.1093/gji/ggae313",
language = "English",
volume = "239",
pages = "1117--1132",
journal = "Geophysical Journal International",
issn = "0956-540X",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "2",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Assessing the effect of offline topography on electrical resistivity measurements

T2 - insights from flood embankments

AU - White, Adrian

AU - Boyd, James

AU - Wilkinson, Paul

AU - Unwin, Holly E

AU - Wookey, James

AU - Kendall, John Michael

AU - Binley, Andrew

AU - Chambers, Jonathan

PY - 2024/11/30

Y1 - 2024/11/30

N2 - Summary Electrical resistivity tomography (ERT), a geophysical imaging method, is commonly used on flood embankments (dykes or levees) to characterise their internal structure and look for defects. These surveys often use a single line of electrodes to enable 2D imaging through the embankment crest, an approach that enables rapid and efficient surveying compared to 3D surveys. However, offline variations in topography can introduce artefacts into these 2D images, by affecting the measured resistivity data. Such topographic effects have only been explored on a site-specific basis. If the topographic effects can be assessed for a distribution of embankment geometries (e.g. slope angle and crest width) and resistivity variations, it would allow for targeted correction procedures and improved survey design. To investigate topographic effects on ERT measurements, we forward-modelled embankments with different trapezoidal cross-sections sat atop a flat foundation layer with contrasting resistivity values. Each was compared to a corresponding flat model with the same vertical resistivity distribution. The modelling workflow was designed to minimise the effect of forward modelling errors on the calculation of topographic effect. We ran 1872 unique embankment forward models, representing 144 geometries, each with 13 different resistivity contrasts. Modelling results show that offline topography affects the tested array types (Wenner-Schlumberger, Dipole-Dipole, and Multiple-Gradient) in slightly different ways, but the magnitudes are similar, so all are equally suitable for embankment surveys. Three separate mechanisms are found to cause topographic effects. The dominant mechanism is caused by the offline topography confining the electrical current flow, increasing the measured transfer resistance from the embankment model. The two other mechanisms, previously unidentified, decrease the measured transfer resistances from the embankment model compared to a layered half-space but only affect embankments with specific geometries and resistivity distributions. Overall, we found that for typical embankment geometries and resistivity distributions, the resistivity distribution has a greater control on the magnitude of the topographic effect than the exact embankment geometry: the subsurface resistivity distribution cannot be neglected. 2D inversions are suitable when both the embankment is more resistive than the foundations and when the embankment's cross-sectional area is greater than 4 m2/m2 (area scaled to an embankment with a height of 1 m). Topographic corrections, 3D data acquisition or 3D forward models are required when these conditions are not met. These are demonstrated using field data from an embankment at Hexham, Northumberland, UK. Improving the accuracy of the resistivity values in ERT models will enable more accurate ground models, better integration of resistivity data with geotechnical datasets, and will improve the translation of resistivity values into geotechnical properties. Such developments will contribute to a better characterised and safer flood defence network.

AB - Summary Electrical resistivity tomography (ERT), a geophysical imaging method, is commonly used on flood embankments (dykes or levees) to characterise their internal structure and look for defects. These surveys often use a single line of electrodes to enable 2D imaging through the embankment crest, an approach that enables rapid and efficient surveying compared to 3D surveys. However, offline variations in topography can introduce artefacts into these 2D images, by affecting the measured resistivity data. Such topographic effects have only been explored on a site-specific basis. If the topographic effects can be assessed for a distribution of embankment geometries (e.g. slope angle and crest width) and resistivity variations, it would allow for targeted correction procedures and improved survey design. To investigate topographic effects on ERT measurements, we forward-modelled embankments with different trapezoidal cross-sections sat atop a flat foundation layer with contrasting resistivity values. Each was compared to a corresponding flat model with the same vertical resistivity distribution. The modelling workflow was designed to minimise the effect of forward modelling errors on the calculation of topographic effect. We ran 1872 unique embankment forward models, representing 144 geometries, each with 13 different resistivity contrasts. Modelling results show that offline topography affects the tested array types (Wenner-Schlumberger, Dipole-Dipole, and Multiple-Gradient) in slightly different ways, but the magnitudes are similar, so all are equally suitable for embankment surveys. Three separate mechanisms are found to cause topographic effects. The dominant mechanism is caused by the offline topography confining the electrical current flow, increasing the measured transfer resistance from the embankment model. The two other mechanisms, previously unidentified, decrease the measured transfer resistances from the embankment model compared to a layered half-space but only affect embankments with specific geometries and resistivity distributions. Overall, we found that for typical embankment geometries and resistivity distributions, the resistivity distribution has a greater control on the magnitude of the topographic effect than the exact embankment geometry: the subsurface resistivity distribution cannot be neglected. 2D inversions are suitable when both the embankment is more resistive than the foundations and when the embankment's cross-sectional area is greater than 4 m2/m2 (area scaled to an embankment with a height of 1 m). Topographic corrections, 3D data acquisition or 3D forward models are required when these conditions are not met. These are demonstrated using field data from an embankment at Hexham, Northumberland, UK. Improving the accuracy of the resistivity values in ERT models will enable more accurate ground models, better integration of resistivity data with geotechnical datasets, and will improve the translation of resistivity values into geotechnical properties. Such developments will contribute to a better characterised and safer flood defence network.

U2 - 10.1093/gji/ggae313

DO - 10.1093/gji/ggae313

M3 - Journal article

VL - 239

SP - 1117

EP - 1132

JO - Geophysical Journal International

JF - Geophysical Journal International

SN - 0956-540X

IS - 2

ER -