Characterizing Jointed Systems by Azimuthal Resistivity Surveys

Anisotropy, directional connectivity, and porosity of fracture systems can be estimated from surface azimuthal electrical resistivity surveys. Azimuthal resistivity surveys utilize conventional resistivity equipment and are performed by rotating a Wenner array about a fixed center point and measuring apparent resistivity as a function of azimuth. The depth of investigation is determined by the electrode spacing which is generally limited by practical considerations to approximately 70 m. The azimuthal survey generates an apparent resistivity ellipse from which the properties of a subsurface joint system can be determined. Theoretically the major axis of the resistivity ellipse will coincide with strike of the primary joint set. The ratio of major axis to minor axis of the ellipse defines the coefficient of anisotropy associated with the joints, and from this coefficient, secondary porosity can be calculated. Application of azimuthal surveys at 60 sites in bedrock and clayey till throughout Wisconsin generally yielded joint strikes within a few degrees of direct observations. Porosities calculated for jointed bedrock are within a few percent of values determined by other methods. The absolute values of porosities calculated for the tills appear unreliable due to conduction effects along the surface of clay minerals. Although the theoretical foundation for this technique is based on idealized jointing, the field results indicate that the method is effective in media with multiple joint sets. When mean joint length exceeds the electrode spacing, azimuthal resistivity peaks closely coincide with the mean strikes of observed joint sets. When joint lengths are less than the electrode spacing, the major ellipse axis indicates the most conductive path through the joint system. In both cases, ellipse shape indicates the direction (s) having the greatest joint connectivity, which are also the directions of greatest aquifer permeability.

[1]  Neville J. Price CHAPTER 2 – FAULTS , 1966 .

[2]  John A. Hudson,et al.  Printed circuits for studying rock mass permeability , 1980 .

[3]  N. Price Fault and Joint Development in Brittle and Semi-brittle Rock , 1966 .

[4]  J. A. Cherry,et al.  Hydrologic Characteristics and Response of Fractured Till and Clay Confining a Shallow Aquifer , 1975 .

[5]  F. Schwartz,et al.  An Analysis of the Influence of Fracture Geometry on Mass Transport in Fractured Media , 1984 .

[6]  J. S. Y. Wang,et al.  Validity of cubic law for fluid flow in a deformable rock fracture. Technical information report No. 23 , 1979 .

[7]  R. Parizek,et al.  Hydrogeologic Factors Influencing Well Yields in Folded and Faulted Carbonate Rocks in Central Pennsylvania , 1971 .

[8]  S. Davis,et al.  Optimum Depth of Wells in Crystalline Rocksa , 1964 .

[9]  G. M. Habberjam APPARENT RESISTIVITY, ANISOTROPY AND STRIKE MEASUREMENTS* , 1975 .

[10]  D. Huff,et al.  Computer model for determining fracture porosity and permeability in the Conasauga Group, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Tennessee , 1981 .

[11]  M. Gordon Dependence of Effective Porosity on Fracture Continuity in Fractured Media , 1986 .

[12]  W. A. Beetem,et al.  Porosity and Dispersion Constant Calculations for a Fractured Carbonate Aquifer Using the Two Well Tracer Method , 1971 .

[13]  Paul A. Witherspoon,et al.  A Model for Investigating Mechanical Transport in Fracture Networks , 1984 .

[14]  T. Edil,et al.  Ground‐Water Flow Systems and Stability of a Slope , 1982 .

[15]  P. Witherspoon,et al.  Porous media equivalents for networks of discontinuous fractures , 1982 .

[16]  J. Sharp Hydrogeologic Characteristics of Shallow Glacial Drift Aquifers in Dissected Till Plains (North‐Central Missouri) , 1984 .

[17]  Michael W. Asten The Influence of Electrical Anisotropy on Mise a la Masse Surveys , 1974 .

[18]  G. E. Grisak The Fracture Porosity of Glacial Till , 1975 .