Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-5jtmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-07T18:48:51.541Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

1 - Electrical methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 August 2009

By
C. Kneisel  and
C. Hauck
Edited by
C. Hauck  and
C. Kneisel
C. Hauck
Affiliation:
Université de Fribourg, Switzerland
C. Kneisel
Affiliation:
University of Würzburg, Germany
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Commonly used electrical methods in applied geophysics comprise direct-current (DC) electrical measurements, self-potential measurements (SP) and induced-polarisation methods (IP), including spectral-induced polarisation (SIP).

The SP method is based on passive measurements of natural electrical potential differences in the ground, which are often negligible in periglacial areas as electrically conductive materials or water flow have to be present to generate distinct SP patterns. A cryospheric example measuring subglacial drainage conditions with SP is given by Kulessa et al. (2003).

The IP and SIP methods are based on actively induced polarisation effects in the subsurface, which require polarisable material to be present. Again, these effects are usually small in frozen environments, which is why all three methods have seldom been used in periglacial research to date. A review concerning SP and IP methods is included in the review paper concerning the application of geophysical methods in permafrost areas by Scott et al. (1990). Further details on these techniques are given in Weller and Börner (1996) and Slater and Lesmes (2002).

In contrast, DC resistivity methods utilise distinct changes in the electrical resistivity within the subsurface, and constitute one of the traditional geophysical methods that have been applied in permafrost research. Since a marked increase of the electrical resistivity occurs at the freezing point, these methods are expected to be most suitable to detect, localise and characterise structures containing frozen material.

Information

Type
Chapter
Information
Applied Geophysics in Periglacial Environments , pp. 3 - 27
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Barker, R. D. (1989). Depth of investigation of collinear symmetrical four electrode arrays. Geophysics, 54(8), 1031–1037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barker, R. D. and Moore, J. (1998). The application of time-lapse electrical tomography in groundwater studies. The Leading Edge, 17, 1454–1458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cannone, N., Guglielmin, M., Hauck, C. and Vonder Mühll, D. (2003). The impact of recent glacier fluctuation and human activities on the permafrost distribution: a case study from Stelvio Pass (Italian Central-Eastern Alps). Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Permafrost, Zürich, Switzerland, 125–130.
Daily, W., Ramirez, A., Binley, A. and LaBrecque, D. (2004). Electrical resistance tomography. The Leading Edge, 23, 438–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pascale, G. P., Pollard, W. H. and Williams, K. K. (2008). Geophysical mapping of ground ice using a combination of capacitive coupled resistivity and ground-penetrating radar, NWT, Canada. Journal of Geophysical Research, 113, F02590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farbrot, H., Isaksen, K., Eiken, T., Kääb, A. and Sollid, J. L. (2005). Composition and internal structures of a rock glacier on the strandflat of western Spitsbergen, Svalbard. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift, 59(2), 139–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
French, H. K. and Binley, A. (2004). Snowmelt infiltration: monitoring temporal and spatial variability using time-lapse electrical resistivity. Journal of Hydrology, 297, 174–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
French, H. K., Hardbattle, C., Binley, A., Winship, P. and Jakobsen, L. (2002). Monitoring snowmelt induced unsaturated flow and transport using electrical resistivity tomography. Journal of Hydrology, 267(3–4), 273–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Günther, T., Rücker, C. and Spitzer, K. (2006). Three-dimensional modelling and inversion of dc resistivity data incorporating topography – II. Inversion. Geophysical Journal International, 166, 506–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haeberli, W. and Vonder Mühll, D. (1996). On the characteristics and possible origins of ice in rock glacier permafrost. Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie, Supplement, 104, 43–57.Google Scholar
Hauck, C. (2002). Frozen ground monitoring using DC resistivity tomography. Geophysical Research Letters, 29(21), 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauck, C. and Kneisel, C. (2006). Application of capacitively-coupled and DC electrical resistivity imaging for mountain permafrost studies. Permafrost and Periglacial Processes, 17(2), 169–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauck, C. and Vonder Mühll, D. (2003a). Evaluation of geophysical techniques for application in mountain permafrost studies. Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie, Supplement, 132, 161–190.Google Scholar
Hauck, C. and Vonder Mühll, D. (2003b). Inversion and interpretation of 2-dimensional geoelectrical measurements for detecting permafrost in mountainous regions. Permafrost and Periglacial Processes, 14(4), 305–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauck, C., Vonder Mühll, D. and Maurer, H. (2003). Using DC resistivity tomography to detect and characterise mountain permafrost. Geophysical Prospecting, 51, 273–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilbich, C., Hauck, C., Scherler, M., Schudel, L., Völksch, I., Hoelzle, M., Vonder Mühll, D. and Mäusbacher, R. (2008). Monitoring mountain permafrost evolution using electrical resistivity tomography: A 7-year study of seasonal, annual, and long-term variations at Schilthorn, Swiss Alps. Journal of Geophysical Research 113, F01590, doi:10.1029/2007JF00799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoekstra, P. and McNeill, D. (1973). Electromagnetic probing of permafrost. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Permafrost, Yakutsk, Siberia, 517–526.
Ishikawa, M., Watanabe, T. and Nakamura, N. (2001). Genetic difference of rock glaciers and the discontinuous mountain permafrost zone in Kanchanjunga Himal, Eastern Nepal. Permafrost and Periglacial Processes, 12(3), 243–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johansson, S. and Dahlin, T. (1996). Seepage monitoring in an earth embankment dam by repeated resistivity measurements. European Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, 1, 229–247.Google Scholar
Keusen, H. R. and Haeberli, W. (1983). Site investigation and foundation design aspects of cable car construction in Alpine permafrost at the “Chli Matterhorn”, Wallis, Swiss Alps. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Permafrost, Fairbanks, Alaska, 601–605.
Kneisel, C. (1999). Permafrost in Gletschervorfeldern – Eine vergleichende Untersuchung in den Ostschweizer Alpen und Nordschweden. Trierer Geographische Studien, 22, 156pp.
Kneisel, C. (2003). Electrical resistivity tomography as a tool for geomorphological investigations – some case studies. Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie, Supplement, 132, 37–49.Google Scholar
Kneisel, C. (2004). New insights into mountain permafrost occurrence and characteristics in glacier forefields at high altitude through the application of 2D resistivity imaging. Permafrost and Periglacial Processes, 15, 221–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kneisel, C. (2006). Assessment of subsurface lithology in mountain environments using 2D resistivity imaging. Geomorphology, 80, 32–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kneisel, C. and Hauck, C. (2003). Multi-method geophysical investigation of an isolated permafrost occurrence. Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie, Supplement, 132, 145–159.Google Scholar
Kneisel, C. and Kääb, A. (2007). Mountain permafrost dynamics within a recently exposed glacier forefield inferred by a combined geomorphological, geophysical and photogrammetrical approach. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 32(12), 1797–1810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kneisel, C., Hauck, C. and Vonder Mühll, D. (2000). Permafrost below the timberline confirmed and characterized by geoelectrical resistivity measurements, Bever Valley, eastern Swiss Alps. Permafrost and Periglacial Processes, 11, 295–304.3.0.CO;2-L>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kneisel, C., Beylich, A. A. and Sæmundsson, T. (2007). Reconnaissance surveys of contemporary permafrost environments in central Iceland using geoelectrical methods: implications for permafrost degradation and sediment fluxes. Geografiska Annaler, 89, 41–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krautblatter, M. and Hauck, C. (2007). Electrical resistivity tomography monitoring of permafrost in solid rock walls. Journal of Geophysical Research, 112, F02520, doi:10.1029/2006JF000546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kulessa, B., Hubbard, B. and Brown, G. H. (2003). Cross-coupled flow modeling of coincident streaming and electrochemical potentials and application to subglacial self-potential data. Journal of Geophysical Research, 108(B8), 2381, doi:10.1029/2001JB001167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loke, M. H. (2000). Topographic modelling in electrical imaging inversion. Proceedings of the 62nd EAGE Conference & Technical Exhibition, Glasgow, D02, 4pp.Google Scholar
Loke, M. H. (2004). Lecture notes on 2D and 3D electrical imaging surveys. Available in pdf-format on www.geoelectrical.com.
Loke, M. H. and Barker, R. D. (1995). Least-squares deconvolution of apparent resistivity. Geophysics, 60, 1682–1690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loke, M. H. and Barker, R. D. (1996). Rapid least-squares inversion of apparent resistivity pseudosections using a quasi-Newton method. Geophysical Prospecting, 44, 131–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loke, M. H., Acworth, I. and Dahlin, T. (2003). A comparison of smooth and blocky inversion methods in 2D electrical imaging surveys. Exploration Geophysics, 34, 182–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marescot, L., Loke, M. H., Chapellier, D., Delaloye, R., Lambiel, C. and Reynard, E. (2003). Assessing reliability of 2D resistivity imaging in permafrost and rock glacier studies using the depth of investigation index method. Near Surface Geophysics, 1(2), 57–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maurer, H. and Hauck, C. (2007). Geophysical imaging of alpine rock glaciers. Journal of Glaciology, 53(180), 110–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mauriello, P., Monna, D. and Patella, D. (1998). 3D geoelectric tomography and archaeological applications. Geophysical Prospecting, 46(5), 543–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, M., Mohnke, O., Schmalholz, J. and Yaramanci, U. (2003). Moisture assessment with small-scale geophysics – The Interurban Project. Near Surface Geophysics, 1(4), 173–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ogilvy, R., Meldrum, P. and Chambers, J. (1999). Imaging of industrial waste deposits and buried quarry geometry by 3-D resistivity tomography. European Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, 3, 103–113.Google Scholar
Olayinka, A. and Yaramanci, U. (1999). Choice of the best model in 2-D geoelectrical imaging: Case study from a waste dump site. European Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, 3, 221–244.Google Scholar
Oldenborger, G. A., Routh, P. S. and Knoll, M. D. (2005). Sensitivity of electrical resistivity tomography data to electrode position errors. Geophysical Journal International, 163(1), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Otto, J. C. and Sass, O. (2006). Comparing geophysical methods for talus slope investigations in the Turtmann valley (Swiss Alps). Geomorphology, 76(3–4), 257–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reynolds, J. M. (1997). An Introduction to Applied and Environmental Geophysics. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Rings, J., Scheuermann, A., Preko, K. and Hauck, C. (2008). Soil water content monitoring on a dike model using electrical resistivity tomography. Near Surface Geophysics, 6, 123–132.CrossRef
Ritz, M., Robain, H., Pervago, E., Albouy, Y., Camerlynck, C., Descloitres, M. and Mariko, A. (1999). Improvement to resistivity pseudosection modelling by removal of near-surface inhomogeneity effects: application to a soil system in south Cameroon. Geophysical Prospecting, 47, 85–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sass, O. (2003). Moisture distribution in rockwalls derived from 2D-resistivity measurements, Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie, Supplement, 132, 51–69.Google Scholar
Scott, W., Sellmann, P. and Hunter, J. (1990). Geophysics in the study of permafrost. In Geotechnical and Environmental Geophysics, ed. Ward, S., Society of Exploration Geophysics, Tulsa, pp. 355–384.Google Scholar
Slater, L. and Lesmes, D. (2002). IP interpretation in environmental investigations. Geophysics, 67(1), 77–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Telford, W. M., Geldart, L. P. and Sheriff, R. E. (1990). Applied Geophysics. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tong, L. and Yang, C. (1990). Incorporation of topography into two-dimensional resistivity inversion. Geophysics, 55, 354–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vonder Mühll, D., Hauck, C. and Lehmann, F. (2000). Verification of geophysical models in Alpine permafrost using borehole information. Annals of Glaciology, 31, 300–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weller, A. and Börner, F. (1996). Measurements of spectral induced polarization for environmental purposes. Environmental Geology, 27, 329–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoshikawa, K., Leuschen, C., Ikeda, A., Harada, K., Gogineni, P., Hoekstra, P., Hinzman, L., Sawada, Y. and Matsuoka, N. (2006). Comparison of geophysical investigations for detection of massive ground ice (pingo ice). Journal of Geophysical Research, 111(E6), CiteID E06S19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, B. and Dahlin, T. (2003). Properties and effects of measurement errors on 2D resistivity imaging surveying. Near Surface Geophysics, 1, 105–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×