| ||Format||Pages||Price|| |
|PDF (252K)||19||$25||  ADD TO CART|
|Complete Source PDF (3.5M)||220||$55||  ADD TO CART|
Cite this document
Electromagnetic (em) and direct-current (d-c) methods of measuring ground resistivity have been compared at permafrost and nonpermafrost sites. The em methods utilized the principles of magnetic induction and plane wave surface impedance. Layered ground models were derived from the d-c sounding data, and the theoretical values of the em methods for these models were compared with the em field results. Both em methods correlated well with the d-c data in the two cases of simple, multilayered ground of large extent. In several cases of resistive inhomogeneities, the magnetic induction data correlated well with the d-c data. In one case of a resistive inhomogeneity, the surface impedance responded well only qualitatively and may have given some false indications of resistive substructure. It appears that in all cases where the volume of exploration was comparable, there was reasonable correlation. It is estimated that the standard data analysis procedure which assumes layering of infinite extent will apply well for the surface impedance method when disturbances in the local layering are greater than a skin depth away from the point of measurement; and for the magnetic induction method when disturbances in the layering are at a distance from the interloop axis that is greater than the interloop separation.
resistivity surveying, electromagnetic resistivity surveying, plane wave exploration methods, magnetic induction, surface impedance, underground corrosion
Research geophysicist, United States Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, N.H.