Assessing the effect of offline topography on electrical resistivity measurements: insights from flood embankments

Summary Electrical resistivity tomography (ERT), a geophysical imaging method, is commonly used on flood embankments (dykes or levees) to characterise their internal structure and look for defects. These surveys often use a single line of electrodes to enable 2D imaging through the embankment crest, an approach that enables rapid and efficient surveying compared to 3D surveys. However, offline variations in topography can introduce artefacts into these 2D images, by affecting the measured resistivity data. Such topographic effects have only been explored on a site-specific basis. If the topographic effects can be assessed for a distribution of embankment geometries (e.g. slope angle and crest width) and resistivity variations, it would allow for targeted correction procedures and improved survey design. To investigate topographic effects on ERT measurements, we forward-modelled embankments with different trapezoidal cross-sections sat atop a flat foundation layer with contrasting resistivity values. Each was compared to a corresponding flat model with the same vertical resistivity distribution. The modelling workflow was designed to minimise the effect of forward modelling errors on the calculation of topographic effect. We ran 1872 unique embankment forward models, representing 144 geometries, each with 13 different resistivity contrasts. Modelling results show that offline topography affects the tested array types (Wenner-Schlumberger, Dipole-Dipole, and Multiple-Gradient) in slightly different ways, but the magnitudes are similar, so all are equally suitable for embankment surveys. Three separate mechanisms are found to cause topographic effects. The dominant mechanism is caused by the offline topography confining the electrical current flow, increasing the measured transfer resistance from the embankment model. The two other mechanisms, previously unidentified, decrease the measured transfer resistances from the embankment model compared to a layered half-space but only affect embankments with specific geometries and resistivity distributions. Overall, we found that for typical embankment geometries and resistivity distributions, the resistivity distribution has a greater control on the magnitude of the topographic effect than the exact embankment geometry: the subsurface resistivity distribution cannot be neglected. 2D inversions are suitable when both the embankment is more resistive than the foundations and when the embankment's cross-sectional area is greater than 4 m2/m2 (area scaled to an embankment with a height of 1 m). Topographic corrections, 3D data acquisition or 3D forward models are required when these conditions are not met. These are demonstrated using field data from an embankment at Hexham, Northumberland, UK. Improving the accuracy of the resistivity values in ERT models will enable more accurate ground models, better integration of resistivity data with geotechnical datasets, and will improve the translation of resistivity values into geotechnical properties. Such developments will contribute to a better characterised and safer flood defence network.