2011
DOI: 10.1002/9780470972311
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Field Geophysics

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
89
0
20

Year Published

2012
2012
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4
4

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 166 publications
(109 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
89
0
20
Order By: Relevance
“…The interpretation of electrical resistivity profiles must be treated with caution because the application of this method is burdened with several errors (KEA- REY et al 2002;MILSOM 2003;SCHROTT and SASS 2008). Such errors include the selection of an electrode array that does not correspond to the soil conditions, lack of distinct boundaries between the resistivity of different sediments on the output model, changing hydrogeological conditions of the soil and, primarily, over-interpretation of the obtained results.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The interpretation of electrical resistivity profiles must be treated with caution because the application of this method is burdened with several errors (KEA- REY et al 2002;MILSOM 2003;SCHROTT and SASS 2008). Such errors include the selection of an electrode array that does not correspond to the soil conditions, lack of distinct boundaries between the resistivity of different sediments on the output model, changing hydrogeological conditions of the soil and, primarily, over-interpretation of the obtained results.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These methods vary in a distance between pairs of current (C 1 , C 2 ) and potential (P 1 , P 2 ) electrodes. In practice the WennerSchlumberger method is used to 15 % deeper measurements than the Wenner-Alpha and is recommended for horizontal and quasi-horizontal (declined) layers (MILSOM 2003;LOKE 2012). By default, resistance results (in X/m) are compared to a range of values for various rock/sediments presented in a literature (e.g., TELFORD et al 1990;MILSOM 2003), although the final outcome was influenced by groundwaters (SAAD et al 2012).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although depth dependent on probe spacings, generally the method is cheap, easily manoeuvrable, and data are collected rapidly. 35 In 2016, after testing with different probe spacings, a Geoscan™ RM15-D Resistivity Meter, using a parallel twin probe array setting, was used with a probe separation of 0.5 m at 0.10 m sample position intervals over the eleven available survey lines ( Figure 6). Standardized sequential data processing steps were applied to each profile by: (1), conversion of resistance to apparent resistivity measurements; (2), removal of anomalous data points due to acquisition issues (termed 'despiking'); and finally, (3), de-trending to remove longer wavelength site trends in the data.…”
Section: Bulk-ground Electrical Resistivity Surveysmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The same density value of 1.8 g∕cm 3 was used to calculate the Bouguer correction for all survey data sets. For stations at which three readings were taken, the readings were compared and averaged, or anomalous readings were removed during despiking following standard methodologies (Milsom, 2007;Reynolds, 2011). Topographic corrections were applied using the data collected during each survey.…”
Section: Data Processingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Rock densities were assigned to respective lithologies using borehole log and published data (Branston, 2003;Milsom, 2007). The rock densities used were (sequentially listed from model surface to base) as follows: 1.275 g∕cc for fill, 1.5 g∕cc for boulder clay drift, 1.9 g∕cc for halite top and bottom beds with 1.2 g∕cc for marl interbeds, and 1.0 g∕cc for brine-flooded mines.…”
Section: Data Interpretationmentioning
confidence: 99%