1 / 13

Resistivity Results

Resistivity Results. GPH 492 Spring 2013 Schurz, NV. Field Map. Box 1. Box 2. Box 3. Model Types. Q-type: Decreasing apparent r esistivity with depth. A-type: Increasing apparent resistivity with depth. H-type: Layer 2 apparent resistivity is less than layer 1 and layer 3.

sanaa
Download Presentation

Resistivity Results

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Resistivity Results GPH 492 Spring 2013 Schurz, NV

  2. Field Map Box 1 Box 2 Box 3

  3. Model Types Q-type: Decreasing apparent resistivity with depth A-type: Increasing apparent resistivity with depth H-type: Layer 2 apparent resistivity is less than layer 1 and layer 3 K-type: Layer 2 apparent resistivity is greater than layer 2 and layer 3

  4. Plot of Apparent Resistivity vs. A-Spacing

  5. Plot of Apparent Resistivity vs. A-Spacing

  6. Box 2 • Most profiles yield shallow high resistivity layer at the surface of less than 2 m • Low resistivity layer at depth ranges from 4.5 to 40 m • Range of imaginary component values is 0.01 to 0.33 ohms • Depth of confidence of arrays: 20 meters

  7. Box 3, all arrays parallel to fault trace -all arrays (except 8 and 10) showed a thin low resistivity layer at a shallow depth -Depth of the 1st layer varied from ½ - 2 m, with one plot reaching 6.4 m, resistivity varied from 161 – 319 ohm-m. -All arrays were H or K-type models, 2 arrays could not be modeled with a RMS values less than 100. -The depth of confidence was between 1-3 m, this is probably too shallow to see a fault

  8. Box 3 Imaginary Component error

  9. Sources of error • Metal spiked rod electrodes not completely grounded • Electrodes not placed at exact A-spacing values • Sand and Clay layers in Box 3 • Open line in array; electrodes moved perpendicular from array

  10. Conclusions • We believe we found a low-resistivity anomaly at depth indicating possible location of fault in Box 1 • Box 2 and 3 did not exhibit similar anomaly as in Box 1 • May have missed the fault trace in Box 2

More Related