Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorMerriam, Jimen_US
dc.creatorLiang, Xiaoen_US
dc.date.accessioned2016-02-17T12:00:21Z
dc.date.available2016-02-17T12:00:21Z
dc.date.created2015-12en_US
dc.date.issued2016-02-16en_US
dc.date.submittedDecember 2015en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10388/ETD-2015-12-2386en_US
dc.description.abstractThe pole-dipole (PD) electrical resistivity array is used as part of a geophysical technique, which can be used in exploration for mineral, geothermal and hydrological resources. Furthermore, it can be used in archaeological investigations. The PD array is useful in obtaining large depths of investigation, but the array requires one pole to be planted at a greater distance from the other electrodes. Placing the infinite pole is time consuming and costly, especially in rough terrains. It can also be a liability in populated areas. Previous data inversion software assumes the infinite pole to be planted at infinity. Therefore, the field data collected has to mimic the assumptions of the inversion software. Some recent inversion programs use all 4-electrode positions for data inversion. In this case, is a good approximation of infinity for the infinite pole still necessary? Is the depth of investigation still the same or relevant with a non-infinite, infinite pole? Is the resolution of the cross-sections retained? To answer the above questions a Generalized Electrode Array (GEA) 1 dimensional (1D) inversion program is used. Different sets of field data were collected with non-infinite pole (NIP) PD arrays; these arrays are set up as PD arrays with an infinite pole planted relatively close to or on the survey lines itself. A COMSOL finite element model were modelled with varying infinite pole distances to identify the distance required for the retention of the depth of investigation and resolution of the PD array. Modelling from GEA shows the NIP distances do not affect the 1D inversion accuracy of the resistivity nor the layer thickness. The field data indicates that it is necessary to have an infinite pole, but the distance to the infinite pole can be substantially less than 10 times the array length, which is the usual rule of thumb for infinite pole placement. With 3 dimensional (3D) COMSOL modelling results, it indicates a minimum pole distance to be 2.5-array length to retain the depth of investigation and precision of the inverted sections of the PD array.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.subjectPole Dipole, resistivity array, Resistivity field surveys, Electrical resistivityen_US
dc.titleA STUDY OF THE ELIMINATION OF THE INFINITE POLE IN THE POLE-DIPOLE ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY ARRAYen_US
thesis.degree.departmentGeological Sciencesen_US
thesis.degree.disciplineGeologyen_US
thesis.degree.grantorUniversity of Saskatchewanen_US
thesis.degree.levelMastersen_US
thesis.degree.nameMaster of Science (M.Sc.)en_US
dc.type.materialtexten_US
dc.type.genreThesisen_US
dc.contributor.committeeMemberButler, Samuelen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record