Advanced

Resistivity Modelling of Fracture Zones and Horizontal Layers in Bedrock

Reiser, Fabienne; Dalsegg, Einar; Dahlin, Torleif LU ; Ganerød, Guri V. and Rønning, Jan S. (2009) In Ngu-Rapport 2009.070.
Abstract
2D resistivity modelling was done in order to examine the imaging resolution of 4 different configurations for mapping of fracture zones in bedrock. The studied arrays include Dipole-dipole, Gradient, Pole-dipole and Wenner. A variety of geological models were tested and the imaging possibilities and limitations of the different arrays were analysed. Apart from imaging fracture zones with various depth, width, contrast and dip, some models for horizontal layers were also examined.

The forward modelling was done with the program RES2DMOD whereas the inversion was carried out with RES2DINV. The protocol files simulate the measuring procedure with an ABEM Lund system which is based on a layout of 4 cables with total 81 electrode... (More)
2D resistivity modelling was done in order to examine the imaging resolution of 4 different configurations for mapping of fracture zones in bedrock. The studied arrays include Dipole-dipole, Gradient, Pole-dipole and Wenner. A variety of geological models were tested and the imaging possibilities and limitations of the different arrays were analysed. Apart from imaging fracture zones with various depth, width, contrast and dip, some models for horizontal layers were also examined.

The forward modelling was done with the program RES2DMOD whereas the inversion was carried out with RES2DINV. The protocol files simulate the measuring procedure with an ABEM Lund system which is based on a layout of 4 cables with total 81 electrode positions.

Generally it can be noted that the best results were achieved with Gradient and Dipole-dipole, especially for mapping fracture zones with various depth and width. The Gradient configuration gives the best response for mapping steeply dipping structures and different contrasts, whereas Wenner is good at illustrating horizontal layers. Dipole-dipole and Pole-dipole show the most accurate results for situations where a low resistivity top layer is present.

All in all it can be said that the vertical/horizontal filter value 2 clearly improves the image of vertical structures whereas a filter value of 0.5 increases the image quality of horizontal layers. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Book/Report
publication status
published
subject
in
Ngu-Rapport
volume
2009.070
pages
120 pages
publisher
NGU (Norwegian Geological Survey)
ISSN
0800-3416
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
97f67b96-c1cd-4fe5-8dc2-a91e5388d9a7 (old id 4139476)
date added to LUP
2013-11-05 14:22:15
date last changed
2016-04-15 22:59:13
@techreport{97f67b96-c1cd-4fe5-8dc2-a91e5388d9a7,
  abstract     = {2D resistivity modelling was done in order to examine the imaging resolution of 4 different configurations for mapping of fracture zones in bedrock. The studied arrays include Dipole-dipole, Gradient, Pole-dipole and Wenner. A variety of geological models were tested and the imaging possibilities and limitations of the different arrays were analysed. Apart from imaging fracture zones with various depth, width, contrast and dip, some models for horizontal layers were also examined.<br/><br>
The forward modelling was done with the program RES2DMOD whereas the inversion was carried out with RES2DINV. The protocol files simulate the measuring procedure with an ABEM Lund system which is based on a layout of 4 cables with total 81 electrode positions.<br/><br>
Generally it can be noted that the best results were achieved with Gradient and Dipole-dipole, especially for mapping fracture zones with various depth and width. The Gradient configuration gives the best response for mapping steeply dipping structures and different contrasts, whereas Wenner is good at illustrating horizontal layers. Dipole-dipole and Pole-dipole show the most accurate results for situations where a low resistivity top layer is present.<br/><br>
All in all it can be said that the vertical/horizontal filter value 2 clearly improves the image of vertical structures whereas a filter value of 0.5 increases the image quality of horizontal layers.},
  author       = {Reiser, Fabienne and Dalsegg, Einar and Dahlin, Torleif and Ganerød, Guri V. and Rønning, Jan S.},
  institution  = {NGU (Norwegian Geological Survey)},
  issn         = {0800-3416},
  language     = {eng},
  pages        = {120},
  series       = {Ngu-Rapport},
  title        = {Resistivity Modelling of Fracture Zones and Horizontal Layers in Bedrock},
  volume       = {2009.070},
  year         = {2009},
}