See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/334532341

Derivation of empirical relationships between geotechnical parameters and

resistivity using electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) and borehole data at
Sohag University site, Uppe...

Article · July 2019

DOI: 10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2019.103563

CITATIONS READS

0 21

3 authors, including:

Mohammed Mohammed A. M. Abudeif

Sohag University Sohag University
11 PUBLICATIONS   19 CITATIONS    25 PUBLICATIONS   112 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

petrophysics, well logging, reservoir characterization View project

Formation Damage Analysis View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohammed Mohammed on 19 April 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of African Earth Sciences 158 (2019) 103563

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of African Earth Sciences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jafrearsci

Derivation of empirical relationships between geotechnical parameters and T

resistivity using electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) and borehole data at
Sohag University site, upper Egypt
M.A. Mohammeda, M.M. Senosyb, A.M. Abudeifa,*
a
Sohag University, Faculty of Science, Geology Department, Egypt
b
Assiut University, Faculty of Science, Geology Department, Egypt

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The new site is located in desert region of rugged topography. Quaternary boulders, gravels, sands and clays
2D electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) intercalation are the main rock types in the area. Geophysical evaluation of the subsurface lithology and
Geotechnical properties structures using 2D and 3D electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) of the proposed site for construction was the
Rock resistivity and geotechnical parameters main target of the present study, in addition finding empirical relationships between rock's electrical resistivity
relationships
and some geotechnical parameters are also another target. Four geoelectrical resistivity layers were dis-
New sohag university
criminated after the 2D inversion. Inspection of all 2D inverted profiles and 3D electrical resistivity depth slices
showed rapid lateral and vertical variations in electrical resistivity values indicating heterogeneity in soil sec-
tion. Clayey gravels or clayey sands and clays facies are predominant and hence swelling actions of the foun-
dation beds is highly expected. The results of electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) were correlated with that
inferred from the boreholes within the investigated area. The geotechnical parameters: liquid limit L.L%, plastic
limit P.L%, free swelling F·S% and density Qu were calculated for representative samples collected from drilled
boreholes. All samples showed considerably high L.L%, low to moderate P.L% with high F·S% which char-
acterizes clayey soil. A trial for finding empirical relationships between the geotechnical properties and the rock
electrical resistivity (L.L%, P.L%, F·S% and Qu) were carried out. These relations revealed that there is a con-
siderable correlation between them when the rock has a resistivity more than 400 Ω m and poor correlation
when the electrical resistivity is less than 400 Ω m. Accordingly, inferring applicable empirical equations be-
tween rock electrical resistivity and geotechnical parameters can be strong in the dry successions with a limited
clays content, but in the wet or clayey soil materials the correlation will be weak and risky in application. From
all obtained results and relationships, highly engineering awareness should be taken into account during es-
tablishing any construction in this site.

1. Introduction
2D Electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) technique was employed
for wide range of applications (Takahashi et al., 2006; Khesin, 2005;
Takahashi, 2004) since the end of the twentieth century when rapid
progress of the geophysical equipments based on computer technique
allowed the use of 2D/3D observation schemes (Vladimir et al., 2008;
Cardarelli and Fischanger, 2006; Dahlin and Zhou, 2004; Wu et al.,
2003). It has been commonly used for material categorization in several
geoengineering uses such as: aquifer examinations (Chandra et al.,
2006; Hamzah et al., 2006; Sherif et al., 2006; Froese et al., 2005;
Bowling et al., 2005), archeological surveys (De Dominico et al., 2006;
Dogan and Papamarinopoulos, 2006; Vafidis et al., 2005), land- and
rock slide descriptions (Grandjean et al., 2006; Drahor et al., 2006),
fracturing mapping and karst (Leucci, 2006; Gibert et al., 2006), fault
imaging (Nguyen et al., 2005; Rizzo et al., 2004) and agricultural study
(Rey et al., 2006; Loke, 2000).
The reason for the wide use of electrical method is due to the fact
that it is low-cost, fast and non-invasive technique that yields useful
idea about the subsurface circumstances (Keany and Brooks, 1984).
Remarks of soil state actions and estimations of soil parameters are
required in geotechnical work and other partitions of civil engineering
(Benson and Trast, 1995). The performances of the soil can be separated
into the basic states of solid, semisolid, plastic and liquid contingent on
humidity fillings. The change from one state to the next is measured
with increasing of moisture contents. The liquid limit (L.L) of a soil is

*
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: a_abudeif@yahoo.com, a.abudeif@science.sohag.edu.eg (A.M. Abudeif).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2019.103563
Received 3 May 2019; Received in revised form 22 June 2019; Accepted 17 July 2019
Available online 17 July 2019
1464-343X/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M.A. Mohammed, et al.
defined as the moisture content above which the soil behaves as liquid
and the plastic limit (P.L) is the moisture content above which the soil
behaves plastically. The moisture contented between P.L and L.L is
well-defined as the plasticity index (P·I), where P·I is a measure of the
plasticity of soil.
The swelling potential is a guide property and equivalents the per-
centage swell of a laterally restricted soil sample that has saturated
under a supplement of 1 pound per square inch after being compressed
to the supreme density at optimal water content according to the
standard compaction test technique (Sridharan and Gurtug, 2004).
Calculations of soil parameters particularly L.L and P.L in addition
to its electrical resistivity display the vital character in the creation of
construction, structural engineering and others geotechnical en-
gineering (Yoon and Park, 2001; Osella and Favetto, 2000). Electrical
resistivity of the soil is influenced by soil type, grade of saturation, ions
concentration, water fillings and pore water temperature. Transporta-
tion properties such as soil electrical resistivity (Huang and Fraser,
2002), electrical, hydraulic and thermal conductivities show associa-
tions with the porosity, water saturations, composition, grain size dis-
tribution, salinity of the pore water and particle shape and orientation
(Friedman, 2005; Samouelian et al., 2005).
Different trials were done to find the relationships between the
electrical resistivity with several soil characteristics. For example, Abu-
Hassanein et al. (1996) examined the correlation between electrical
resistivity in compacted clay and hydraulic conductivity and some
index properties. A former study suggested the possible correlation
between electrical resistivity and hydraulic conductivity which helped
as non-destructive means of assessing the quality of compacted soil
liner (Kalinski and Kelly, 1994). Meanwhile, a widespread work by
Pozdnyakova et al. (2001) studied the effects of electrical resistivity in
diverse soil kinds with variable water contents, humus contents, salt
contents and numerous additional parameters. Other researchers also
studied the assessment of water content of soil using electrical re-
sistivity (Kalinski and Kelly, 1993). Using of electrical resistivity to
evaluate liquefaction of soil (Ronald and Ronald, 1982), to identify and
detect geomembrane failures (Schulz et al., 1984), to relate of electrical
resistivity with some soil parameters for the development of possible
forecast of slope stability and bearing capacity of soil (Syed Baharom
et al., 2014) and to evaluate soil salinity for agricultural (Shea and
Luthin, 1961). Although, several studies were done as mentioned
above, none of them has actually looked into the characteristics of
correlation of electrical resistivity with particular soil engineering
parameters such as (L.L%), (P.L%), (F·S%) and (Qu).
The present study aims to identify the subsurface structure and li-
thology of the sedimentary succession using 2D and 3D ERT concepts
and matching these results with the borehole data. In addition, this
work is focusing to derive empirical relationships between earth elec-
trical resistivity and some geotechnical parameters: liquid limit, plastic
limit, free swelling and density (L.L%, P.L%, F·S % and Qu) which are
represent the main parameters for any constructions. These equations
can be validated for applying in unknown areas exhibiting the same
geologic conditions. Detection of any geological structures or features
that may have future hazards affecting on the buildings or constructions
were also targets of the study.
The study site was selected to be a new central management
building for Sohag University which locates at the western bank of the
Nile River valley, Sohag Governorate, Egypt. It is bounded from the east
and the west by the cultivated lands (Nile silts and muds) and the Lower
Eocene limestone plateau, respectively (Fig. 1).
2. Geologic setting
Geomorphologically, the investigated area and the surrounding
parts are characterized by relief features of the second and third orders.
These features are represented by the Lower Eocene plateau, scarps,
terraces, plains and drainage lines (Mahfoz, 1980). The Lower Eocene
2
Journal of African Earth Sciences 158 (2019) 103563
plateau is dissected by several wadies and has general fault scarp ex-
tending in NW-SE, N–S and NE-SW directions. This scarp is bundling
the study area from the west and northwest. The floor of the area rises
from 3 m to 30 m above the cultivated land and covered by clays, sands
and gravels. Some Pleistocene terraces are found with elevation ranging
between 150 m and 175 m above the cultivated plain. These terraces
are composed of limestone and gravels intercalated with sands and
clays. Sand dunes with a maximum height of 6 m are present along the
foot of the scarp face at different places. The predominant wadies
(drainage lines) in the study area and the surrounding parts are running
in a general NW-SE direction. Some of these wadies are running in the
direction of the general topographic slope parallel to the Nile Valley
and some others are runing in the opposite direction. Most of these
wadies are not structurally controlled, where they do not follow the
main structural trends of the area (Fig. 2).
Lithostratigraphically, Sohag area in general is characterized by
sedimentary succession ranging from Lower Eocene to Recent times.
These successions are discussed by different authors (e.g. budeif et al.,
2019a,b; Mohammed and Abudeif, 2019; El-Haddad, 2014; Mahran
et al., 2013; Issawi, 2005; Issawi et al., 1999; Omer and Issawi, 1998;
Abudeif, 1996; Omer, 1996; Abdel Moneim, 1988; Issawi and
McCauley, 1992; Mahran and El-Haddad, 1992; Said, 1981, 1993,
1983; Ahmed, 1980; Mostafa, 1979; Abdel Kareem, 1972) and grouped
into three main lithostratigraphic sequences (Fig. 3). The Lower Eocene
limestone sequence, the Late Oligocene- Late Miocene sequence (Pre-
Eonile- Eonile) and the Pliocene-Quaternary sequence (Paleonile-Neo-
nile). The Pliocene-Quaternary sequence which is mainly from gravels,
sands and clays are the main rock types in the study area. These sedi-
ments are present separately or intercalated in layers raging in thick-
ness from few centimeters to meters.
3. Materials and methods
The present work comprises implementation of 2D electrical re-
sistivity tomography (ERT) survey and geotechnical estimation of some
geotechnical parameters, which include L.L, P.L, F·S and density for
subsurface soils. Boreholes data were used for calibration and correla-
tion of electrical resistivity values to the different subsurface soils.
Electrical resistivity values of the main subsurface soil types were
compared empirically with the geotechnical parameters of the same soil
at the same subsurface levels for establishing the characterizing re-
lationships.
3.1. Electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) survey
Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) takes into account the
vertical and lateral changes in electrical resistivity the subsurface rocks
or soil. 2D and 3D ERT are the recent and developed techniques applied
in engineering and environmental purposes. 2D surveys were im-
plemented by large numbers of electrodes attached to a multi-core
cable. The cable is attached to a control unit (Loke, 1997). The Remote
Controlled Multiplexer (RCM) is connected to the control unit. It selects
four electrodes for each measurement. When conducting 2D electrical
resistivity surveying, researchers use linear arrays that consist of elec-
trical current sources and voltage potential receivers. The application of
the current at the surface interacts with materials, objects and structure
in the subsurface, each with unique resistivity, to produce voltage po-
tential differences along the array. In the real field measurements of
electrical resistivity, there are numerous diverse types of electrode
configurations or arrays. Some of the typical electrode arrays are
Schlumberger, Wenner, Dipole-dipole and Pole-pole. In this work,
however, the dipole-dipole configuration was applied to carry out 2D
ERT survey. This technique is characterized by a very good horizontal
resolution and more sensitive to laterally extended formations while its
main disadvantage is the relatively low signal strength (Samouëlian
et al., 2005; Furman et al., 2003).
M.A. Mohammed, et al. Journal of African Earth Sciences 158 (2019) 103563

Fig. 1. Location of Egypt on the world map (up) and Distribution of the ERT profiles and the drilled boreholes in the study area (down), the contours represent the
topographic map of the site which was measured during data acquisition.

3
M.A. Mohammed, et al.
Fig. 2. Geomorphological map of western Sohag area including the study site
(Mahfoz, 1980).
Fig. 3. Chronostratigraphic Units summary chart of Early Oligocene-
Pleistocene sequences of the Pre-Eonile-Neonile stages of the Nile evolution at
Sohag area (Said, 1993).
In a dipole–dipole electrical profiling, two electrodes are separated
by a constant spacing called the ‘‘a’’ spacing and are used to inject
current into the ground. Two other electrodes also separated by the ‘‘a’’
spacing are moved along the survey line at distances from the current
4
Journal of African Earth Sciences 158 (2019) 103563
Fig. 4. Syscal-R2 resistivity meter and multi-electrode system that used during
the field survey.
electrodes that are multiples of the ‘‘a’’ spacing (na) (Johnson, 2005).
Twenty ERT profiles were conducted at the study area. Ten of them
are running from the north to the south direction and the others are
perpendicular to them (Fig. 1). Syscal-R2 Resistivity meter (IRIS-com-
pany, France) and Multi-electrode system with 48 electrodes was em-
ployed to implement the ERT profiles (Fig. 4). The total distance of each
profile was 124 m with electrode spacing of 4 m.
3.1.1. Processing and interpretation of the 2D ERT data
Processing and inversion of the measured 2D ERT profiles were
performed using RES2DINV software (RES2DINV ver. 3.4., 2001). The
inversion program tries to define the resistivity values of the model
prisms directing towards reducing the difference between the observed
and calculated apparent electrical resistivity values. The goodness of fit
is expressed in term of the RMS error. In this study the mean values of
RMS errors for all the geoelectrical profiles are less than 5%. These
terminally electrical resistivity values (1–3995.64 Ω m) cause several
computational problems during the inversion process. Moreover, bad
contact between the electrodes and the ground could be responsible for
higher noise levels that could further affect the inversion process.
Consequently, the resulted 2D inversions were correlated with the
nearest borehole data to calibrate the results and accept the RMS va-
lues. As the RES2D has limited color codes, after obtaining the best
inversion, the data exported to the Surfer (Golden Software Inc., 2012)
for lithology contacts separation and identification. Disadvantages of
this program are a limited color palette and hard discrimination of the
internal boundaries between regions of increasing/decreasing electrical
resistivity, which in turns gives a visual impression of subsurface
structure (Loke, 1997).
As the 2D ERT profiles were distributed along a regular grid (Fig. 1)
and horizontal distance between the parallel lines is not changed
greatly. The data of all twenty 2D profiles were combined into a single
data file using RES3DINV and consequently processed and interpreted.
The 3D electrical resistivity inversion was sliced at different subsurface
depths and exported into XYZ data format for presenting using Surfer
software. The electrical resistivity characterization at each depth slice
will discussed later.
3.1.2. Calibration of electrical resistivity ranges
Thirty nine shallow drilling boreholes of depth ranging between 10
and 18 m from the ground surface with 10 cm were drilled using rotary
method in study area (Fig. 1). Soil samples of 500 g weight were col-
lected from the boreholes every 1 m and less if changing in soil was
appeared. The common geotechnical parameters (liquid limit L.L%,
plastic limit P.L%, density Qu and free swelling F·S%) were estimated
from analysis in the geotechnical lab based on STEM standard. These
shallow boreholes showed that four lithological layers are observed.
The first (surface) layer is mainly of boulders, gravels and sands with
different grain size. The second one is sands of different grain size with
M.A. Mohammed, et al. Journal of African Earth Sciences 158 (2019) 103563

Fig. 5. 2D resistivity depth inversion model for dipole–dipole configuration along profiles № 1–5. The definition of the legend inside this figure is valid for all 2D ERT
sections from profile 1 to profile 20.

5
M.A. Mohammed, et al. Journal of African Earth Sciences 158 (2019) 103563

Fig. 6. 2D resistivity depth inversion model for dipole–dipole array along profiles № 6–10.

some clays and gravels intercalations. The third one is clays layer with
some sand and gravel intercalations. The fourth one is mainly of shale
with few fine sand intercalations. Thickness and percentage of inter-
calations of the four layers are greatly changed laterally and vertically.
For estimating the electrical resistivity ranges which characterizing the
mentioned lithologic layer, a close correlation between the resulted 2D
electrical resistivity inversion and the subsurface lithology of the
borehole drilled along or close to the ERT profiles. This is carried be-
tween BH1– BH26, BH30– BH37 and BH39 with the inversion of pro-
files 2–8, 10 and 12–19 (Figs. 5–8). From this correlation the following
electrical resistivity ranges are identified which are in consistent with
the different lithologic layers: boulders to fine crushed gravels with a

6
M.A. Mohammed, et al. Journal of African Earth Sciences 158 (2019) 103563

Fig. 7. 2D resistivity depth inversion model for dipole–dipole array along profiles № 10–15.

percentage of sands and reddish clays (surface) layer (electrical re- layers based on its electrical resistivity were discussed for the obtained
sistivity > 1300 Ω m); crushed calcareous gravels and sands layer 2D and 3D inversions.
(600–1150 Ω m); sands and clayey sands layer (200–500 Ω m); shale
layer (20–150 Ω m). It is seems that there are repetitions and inter-
calations in some layers because of sedimentation cycles and weath-
ering processes.
From these ranges the lithological difference of the subsurface

7
M.A. Mohammed, et al.
Fig. 8. 2D resistivity depth inversion model for dipole–dipole array along profiles № 16–20.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Description of the 2D ERT inversions
In general, electrical resistivity distributions of the subsurface layers
in the study area show significant lateral and vertical variation along
the all profiles indicating lithologic variation.
4.1.1. The N–S direction profiles
Profiles № 1 to 10 were implemented which trending N–S (Figs. 5
and 6). The inverted 2D of P1 showed that four geoelectric layers were
discriminated. The first one is crushed gravels with a percentage of
sands and reddish clays (surface) layer with an electrical resistivity
value changes from 1300 to 3000 Ω m (between the electrode 52 m at
horizontal spacing from the northern part to the end at the southern
part). The layer thickness is changing from 2.5 to 3.5 m. The second
8
Journal of African Earth Sciences 158 (2019) 103563
layer is distinguished by sands and clayey sands with an electrical re-
sistivity changes from 200 to 500 Ω m (between electrodes 20–118 m)
intercalated with lenses of larger size of boulders and massive clays in
different locations. Thickness of this layer changes from 1.5 to 17 m.
The third layer is crushed calcareous gravels and sands with an elec-
trical resistivity changes from 600 to 1150 Ω m. Thickness of this layer
changes from 2 to 4 m. The forth layer is the deeper unit and exhibits
very high electrical resistivity values consistent with the first layer.
Thickness of this layer changes from 2 to 5.5 m.
The inverted 2D of P2 showed that six geoelectric layers were de-
fined. The surface layer has an electrical resistivity changes from
1300 Ω m to 3000 Ω m (between electrodes 53–103 m) which indicating
layer of crushed gravels with a percentage of sands and reddish clays.
Thickness of this layer changes from 1.5 to 2.5 m. The second layer is
crushed calcareous gravels and sands with an electrical resistivity
changes from 600 to 1150 Ω m (between electrodes 43–118 m).
M.A. Mohammed, et al.
Thickness of this layer changes from 1 to 2 m. The third layer is clays
with an electrical resistivity changes from 20 to 150 Ω m. This layer
includes two lenses of gravels and sands. Thickness of this layer changes
from 19 m at the northern part to 2 m at the south one. The forth layer is
sands and clayey sands with electrical resistivity changes from 200 to
500 Ω m. Thickness of this layer changes from 2 m at the northern part
to 8 m at the south. This layer was underlain by a lithological unit si-
milar to the second layer, with thickness ranging from 2 to 8 m. The last
layer exhibits very high electrical resistivity values corresponding to the
first layer. Thickness of this layer changes from 5 to 7.5 m.
The inverted 2D of P3 showed that seven geoelectric layers were
defined. The first one is crushed gravels with a percentage of sands and
reddish clays layer with electrical resistivity changes from 1300 to
3000 Ω m (between electrodes 53–111 m). Thickness of this layer
changes from 0.5 to 1.5 m. The second layer is crushed calcareous
gravels and sands with thickness changed from 0.5 to 5 m at the south.
The third layer is sands and clayey sands with electrical resistivity
changes from 200 to 500 Ω m (between electrodes 35–112 m).
Thickness of this layer changes from 7 to 10 m. This layer includes three
lenses of inhomogeneous electrical resistivity, which are due to the
presence of larger size of boulders and clays. The fourth layer is clay
which occupies the majority of the entire profile, with electrical re-
sistivity changes from 20 to 150 Ω m. Thickness of this layer changes
from 5 to 14 m. Below this unit, three different layers with different
electrical resistivities are recorded, from top to bottom, the electrical
resistivity changes from 200 to 500 Ω m with thickness changes from 2
to 4 m, electrical resistivity changes from 600 to 1150 Ω m with thick-
ness of this layer changes from 1.5 to 3.5 m and electrical resistivity
changes from 1300 to 3000 Ω m with thickness changes from 1 to 5 m.
The inverted 2D of P4 showed that three geoelectric layers were
defined. The first one is crushed gravels with a percentage of sands and
reddish clays (surface) layer with electrical resistivity changes from
1300 to 3000 Ω m (between electrodes 58–111 m). Thickness of this
layer changes from 1 to 2 m. The second layer is crushed calcareous
gravels and sands with an electrical resistivity changes from 600 to
1150 Ω m. Thickness of this layer is changing from 1 to 5 m. The third
layer is the massive clays, almost along the entire profile line, with an
electrical resistivity changes from 20 to 150 Ω m. Thickness of this layer
is changing from 2.5 to 25 m. This layer includes some lenses of dif-
ferent sizes with different electrical resistivities, which representing the
presence of gravels and sands.
Three geoelectric layers were defined along the 2D inverted of P5.
The first one is the clays layer with electrical resistivity changes from 20
to 150 Ω m (between electrodes 32–70 m), with zones of high electrical
resistivity materials (between electrodes 6–32 m and 70–118 m).
Thickness of this layer changes from 5 to 22 m. The second layer is
sands and clayey sands with an electrical resistivity changes from 200
to 500 Ω m. Thickness of this layer changes from 1 to 5 m. The third
layer is crushed calcareous gravels and sands with an electrical re-
sistivity changes from 600 to 1150 Ω m. Thickness of this layer is
changing from 3 to 10 m. This layer includes three lenses of larger size
of boulders, gravels, sands and clays.
In profile 6, five geoelectric layers were defined. The surface layer is
clays with electrical resistivity changes from 20 to 150 Ω m until the
electrode 76 m. This layer includes a local anomaly at the center of
electrical resistivity changing from 250 to 700 Ω m. Thickness of the
clays layer changes from 4 to 17.5 m. The second layer is sands and
clayey sands with electrical resistivity changes from 200 to 500 Ω m.
Thickness of this layer changes from 1.7 to 3 m. The third layer is
crushed calcareous gravels and sands with electrical resistivity changes
from 600 to 1150 Ω m. Thickness of this layer changes from 2.5 to 11 m.
This layer includes five pockets of different materials from boulders,
gravels, sands and clays. The fourth layer is crushed gravels with a
percentage of sands and reddish clays with electrical resistivity changes
from 1300 to 3000 Ω m (between electrodes 46–93 m). Thickness of this
layer changes from 6 to 12.5 m. The last layer is matching with the
9
Journal of African Earth Sciences 158 (2019) 103563
second one. Thickness of this layer changes from 1 to 3 m. Five geo-
electric layers were defined from the 2D inverted of P7. The first one is
crushed gravels with a percentage of sands and reddish clays layer with
electrical resistivity changes from 1300 to 3000 Ω m (between elec-
trodes 40–86 m). Thickness of this layer changes from 1 to 7.5 m. In
addition to, there is a horizon of crushed calcareous gravels and sands
with electrical resistivity changes from 600 to 1150 Ω m (between
electrodes 55–81.5 m) with thickness changed from 0.5 to 4 m. The
second layer is sands and clayey sands with electrical resistivity
changes from 200 to 500 Ω m. This layer includes two lenses of very
high electrical resistivities, intercalated with the clays layer with elec-
trical resistivity changing from 20 to 150 Ω m with thickness ranges
from 2 to 13 m. The fourth layer is crushed calcareous gravels and sands
with electrical resistivity changes from 600 to 1150 Ω m. Thickness of
this layer changes from 4 to 6 m. The fifth layer is the deeper unit and
exhibits very high resistivity values corresponding to the first layer.
Thickness of this layer changes from 2 to 7 m.
The inverted 2D of P8 showed that six geoelectric layers were de-
fined. The surface layer is crushed gravels with a percentage of sands
and reddish clays with electrical resistivity changes from 1300 to
3000 Ω m (between electrodes 68–94 m). Thickness of this layer
changes from 0.5 to 3 m. The second layer is crushed calcareous gravels
and sands with electrical resistivity changes from 600 to 1150 Ω m
(between electrodes 66–96 m). Thickness of this layer changes from 1 to
2 m. The third layer is sands and clayey sands with electrical resistivity
changes from 200 to 500 Ω m. This layer includes three lenses of dif-
ferent electrical resistivities, with thickness ranges from 1 to 7 m. The
fourth layer is clay which occupies the majority of the entire profile,
with electrical resistivity changes from 20 to 150 Ω m. Thickness of this
layer changes from 2.5 to 27.5 m. Below this unit the third layer is
appeared again with a thickness changes from 2.5 to 3.5 m. The last
unit is matching with the second layer of 1–2.5 m thickness.
The inverted 2D of P9 showed that four geoelectric layers were
defined. The first layer is crushed calcareous gravels and sands with
electrical resistivity changes from 600 to 1150 Ω m (between electrodes
30–58 and 72–103 m). Thickness of this layer changes from 3.5 to 4 m.
The second layer is the clays with electrical resistivity changes from 20
to 150 Ω m. Thickness of this layer changes from 4 to 20 m. This layer
included four lenses of sands. The third layer is sands and clayey sands
with electrical resistivity changes from 200 to 500 Ω m. Thickness of
this layer changes from 2.5 to 3 m. The fourth layer is crushed calcar-
eous gravels and sands with electrical resistivity changes from 600 to
1150 Ω m. Thickness of this layer changes from 3 to 7 m. However, the
2D inverted of P10 showed that five geoelectric layers were defined.
The first one is crushed gravels with a percentage of sands and reddish
clays layer (between electrodes 42–74 and 94–116 m). Thickness of this
layer changes from 0.5 to 1 m. The second layer is the clays with
electrical resistivity changes from 20 to 150 Ω m. Thickness of this layer
changes from 4 to 17 m. The third layer is sands and clayey sands with
electrical resistivity changes from 200 to 500 Ω m (between electrodes
25–101 m). Thickness of this layer changes from 1.5 to 5 m. This layer
includes a pocket of gravel and sand. The forth layer is crushed cal-
careous gravels and sands with electrical resistivity changes from 600
to 1150 Ω m (between electrodes 26–86 m). Thickness of this layer
changes from 4 to 13 m. The fifth layer is crushed gravels with a per-
centage of sands and reddish clays layer with electrical resistivity
changes from 1300 to 3000 Ω m (between electrodes 27–42 and
48–78 m).
4.1.2. The E-W direction profiles
The E-W oriented ERT profiles included P11–P20. (Figs. 7 and 8).
The inverted 2D of P11 showed that three geoelectric layers were de-
fined. The first layer is clay with electrical resistivity changes from 20 to
150 Ω m. Thickness of this layer changes from 5 to 16 m. This layer
includes six lenses of sands. The second layer is sands and clayey sands
with electrical resistivity changes from 200 to 500 Ω m. Thickness of
M.A. Mohammed, et al.
this layer changes from 3 to 5 m. The third layer is crushed calcareous
gravels and sands with electrical resistivity changes from 600 to
1150 Ω m. Thickness of this layer changes from 2 to 5 m. However, the
inverted 2D of P12 showed that four geoelectric layers were defined.
The first layer is the clay with electrical resistivity changes from 20 to
150 Ω m. Thickness of this layer changes from 4 to 18 m. The second
layer is sands and clayey sands with electrical resistivity changes from
200 to 500 Ω m. Thickness of this layer changes from 3 to 5 m. The third
layer is crushed calcareous gravels and sands with electrical resistivity
changes from 600 to 1150 Ω m. Thickness of this layer changes from 3
to 6 m. This layer includes a lens of clays. The forth layer is crushed
gravels with a percentage of sands and reddish clays layer with elec-
trical resistivity changes from 1300 to 3000. Thickness of this layer
changes from 1.5 to 4 m.
The inverted 2D of P13 showed that five geoelectric layers were
defined. The surface layer is crushed gravels with a percentage of sands
and reddish clays layer with electrical resistivity changes from 1300 to
3000 Ω m (between electrodes 6–50 and 74–86 m). Thickness of this
layer changes from 1 to 2 m. The second layer is the clays with electrical
resistivity changes from 20 to 150 Ω m. Thickness of this layer changes
from 5 to 18 m. This layer includes an anomaly of gravel and sand. The
third layer is sands and clayey sands with electrical resistivity changes
from 200 to 500 Ω m. Thickness of this layer changes from 2 to 4 m. The
forth layer is crushed calcareous gravels and sands with electrical re-
sistivity changes from 600 to 1150 Ω m. Thickness of this layer changes
from 2 to 9 m. The fifth layer is matching with the first one with
electrical resistivity changes from 1300 to 3000 Ω m. Thickness of this
layer changes from 4 to 4.5 m. Four geoelectric layers were defined
from the 2D inverted of P14. The surface layer is crushed gravels with a
percentage of sands and reddish clays layer with electrical resistivity
changes from 1300 to 3000 Ω m (between electrodes 7.5–58 m).
Thickness of this layer changes from 2 to 2.5 m. The second layer is clay
which occupies the majority of the entire profile, with electrical re-
sistivity changes from 20 to 150 Ω m. Thickness of this layer changes
from 5 to 19.5 m. This layer includes three lenses of sands. The third
layer is sands and clayey sands with electrical resistivity changes from
200 to 500 Ω m. Thickness of this layer changes from 3.5 to 4 m. The
forth layer is crushed calcareous gravels and sands with electrical re-
sistivity changes from 600 to 1150 Ω m. Thickness of this layer changes
from 2.5 to 3 m.
The inverted 2D of P15 showed that five geoelectric layers were
defined. The surface layer is crushed gravels with a percentage of sands
and reddish clays layer with electrical resistivity changes from 1300 to
3000 Ω m (between electrodes 7.5–54 and 78–102 m). Thickness of this
layer changes from 3 to 5 m. The second layer is the clays with electrical
resistivity changes from 20 to 150 Ω m. Thickness of this layer changes
from 5 to 15 m. This layer includes an anomaly of gravel and sand. The
third layer is sands and clayey sands with electrical resistivity changes
from 200 to 500 Ω m. Thickness of this layer changes from 2 to 3 m.
This layer includes two lenses of clays. The forth layer is crushed cal-
careous gravels and sands with electrical resistivity changes from 600
to 1150 Ω m. Thickness of this layer changes from 2 to 7 m. The fifth
layer is matching with the first one with electrical resistivity changes
from 1300 to 3000 Ω m. Thickness of this layer changes from 4 to 7 m.
Four geoelectric layers were defined from the 2D inverted of P16. The
surface layer is crushed gravels with a percentage of sands and reddish
clays layer with electrical resistivity changes from 1300 to 3000 Ω m
(between electrodes 7.5–54 and 78–102 m). Thickness of this layer
changes from 2 to 5 m. The second layer is sands and clayey sands with
electrical resistivity changes from 200 to 500 Ω m. Thickness of this
layer changes from 2 to 15 m. This layer includes five lenses of clays
with electrical resistivity changes from 20 to 150 Ω m. The third layer is
crushed calcareous gravels and sands with electrical resistivity changes
from 600 to 1150 Ω m. Thickness of this layer changes from 4 to 7 m.
The forth layer is crushed gravels with a percentage of sands and red-
dish clays with electrical resistivity changes from 1300 to 3000 Ω m.
10
Journal of African Earth Sciences 158 (2019) 103563
Thickness of this layer changes from 4 to 6 m.
Five geoelectric layers were defined from the 2D inverted of P17.
The surface layer is crushed calcareous gravels and sands with electrical
resistivity changes from 600 to 1150 Ω m (between electrodes 9–82 and
94–112 m). Thickness of this layer changes from 2 to 12 m. This layer
includes two lenses of sands. The second layer is sands and clayey sands
with electrical resistivity changes from 200 to 500 Ω m. Thickness of
this layer changes from 2 to 8 m. This layer includes a lens of gravel.
The third layer is clays with electrical resistivity changes from 20 to
150 Ω m. Thickness of this layer changes from 4 to 12 m. The forth layer
is matching with the second one. Thickness of this layer changes from
0.5 to 4 m. The fifth layer is similar to the first layer. Thickness of this
layer changes from 5 to 6 m.
The 2D inverted of P18 showed that five geoelectric layers were
defined. The surface layer is crushed gravels with a percentage of sands
and reddish clays layer with electrical resistivity changes from 1300 to
3000 Ω m (between electrodes 7.5–103 m). Thickness of this layer
changes from 5 to 10 m. This layer includes four lenses of sands. The
second layer is sands and clayey sands with electrical resistivity
changes from 200 to 500 Ω m. Thickness of this layer changes from 2 to
3 m. The third layer is the clays with electrical resistivity changes from
20 to 150 Ω m. Thickness of this layer changes from 2 to 17 m. The forth
layer is matching with the second one. Thickness of this layer changes
from 0.5 to 1 m. The fifth layer is similar to the first layer. Thickness of
this layer changes from 1 to 2 m. The same five geoelectric layers were
defined from the 2D inverted of P19 with remarkable changes in elec-
trical resistivity values. The surface layer is crushed calcareous gravels
and sands with electrical resistivity changes from 600 to 1150 Ω m.
Thickness of this layer changes from 2 to 12 m. This layer includes some
lenses of larger boulders and sands. The second layer is sands and
clayey sands with electrical resistivity changes from 200 to 500 Ω m.
Thickness of this layer changes from 2 to 2.5 m. The third layer is the
clays with electrical resistivity changes from 20 to 150 Ω m. Thickness
of this layer changes from 2.5 to 19 m. The forth layer is matching to
the second one (between electrodes 28–61 m). Thickness of this layer
changes from 0.5 to 4 m. However, the 2D inverted of P20 showed four
geoelectric layers were defined. The surface layer is crushed gravels
with a percentage of sands and reddish clays layer with electrical re-
sistivity changes from 1300 to 3000 Ω m (between electrodes
55–118 m). Thickness of this layer changes from 2 to 4 m. This layer
includes two lenses of sands and clays. The second layer is sands and
clayey sands with electrical resistivity changes from 200 to 500 Ω m
(between electrodes 7.5–87 m). Thickness of this layer changes from 2
to 17 m. This layer includes five lenses of clays. The third layer is
crushed calcareous gravels and sands with electrical resistivity changes
from 600 to 1150 Ω m. Thickness of this layer changes from 5 to 6 m.
The fourth layer is matching with the first one. Thickness of this layer
changes from 2 to 8 m.
4.2. Description of the 3D ERT inversions
Eight slices at different depths from the 3D electrical resistivity in-
version were selected to describe the vertical and the horizontal dis-
tributions of electrical resistivities reflecting the horizontal and vertical
changes of lithology along the study site. These slices include depths
from 0 to 19.2 m, these depth ranges are as following: 0–1.4, 1.4–3.01,
3.01–4.86, 4.86–6.99, 6.99–9.44, 9.44–12.3, 12.3–15.5, 15.5–19.2 m
(Fig. 9). Zero depth here is representing the ground surface. This slice of
depth from 0 to 1.4 m shows that the lithology changes horizontally
along three facies of high electrical resistivities. It reveals presence of
boulders, fine crushed gravels with a percentage of sands and reddish
clays that cover all the studied area, in addition, crushed calcareous
gravels, sands and clayey sands. Their electrical resistivities are ranging
from 1300 to 3000 Ω m, 500–1150 Ω m and 50–500 Ω m, receptively.
Meanwhile, the slice of depth from 1.40 to 3.01 m with electrical re-
sistivities from 50 to 3000 Ω m shows that the facies of boulders,
M.A. Mohammed, et al. Journal of African Earth Sciences 158 (2019) 103563

Fig. 9. Three-dimensional illustration maps of electrical resistivity distribution at different depths slices.

gravels with a percentage of sands and reddish clays and crushed cal-
careous gravels and sands are reduced in their areal extension with
decreasing in electrical resistivity values where the sands and clayey
sands facies show a wide extension. Slice 3.01–4.86 m depth exhibits
more extension of the sands and clayey sands facies; the other facies are
slightly decreased with appearing of the shale of electrical resistivity
values from 5 to 50 Ω m.
Slices 4.86–6.99, 6.99–9.44 and 9.44–12.3 m show that the sands
and clayey sands facies as well as the clay one extend laterally and
vertically occupying the area with electrical resistivity values from 50
to 500 Ω m. The crushed calcareous gravels and sands facies is de-
creased. However, slice 12.3–15.5 m shows a small three localized
pockets of the crushed calcareous gravels and sands inside the clay of
moderately to low electrical resistivity value. The last slice 15.5–19.2 m
depth shows more extension of sands and clayey sands facies en-
countered with limited extension of crushed gravels and sands.

4.3. Geotechnical investigations

Figure (10) is an example of borehole lithological column and the

geotechnical parameters of representing soil samples opposite selected
depths. These parameters were correlated with the results of ERT pro-
files which crossing or close to the boreholes. This correlation was to
derive empirical relationships between geotechnical parameters and
resistivity of the tested soil samples which can help in expecting the
geotechnical parameters from electrical resistivity values at locations in
which no boreholes present. Such relationships will save money, time
and efforts as ERT survey is comparatively cheap and covers wide areas
in compared with direct drilling.

Fig. 10. An example of borehole lithological column and the geotechnical

4.4. Geotechnical parameters and electrical resistivity relationships
parameters of representative soil samples.

As discussed before, a trial for deriving relationships between

11
M.A. Mohammed, et al. Journal of African Earth Sciences 158 (2019) 103563

a. Liquid Limit (L.L%) vs. earth resistivity at values <400 b. Plastic Limit (P.L%) vs. earth resistivity at values
<400

c. Density (Qu) vs. earth resistivity at values <400 d. Free swelling (F.S%) vs. earth resistivity at values
<400

e. Liquid Limit (L.L%) vs. earth resistivity at values >400 f. Plastic Limit (P.L%) vs. earth resistivity at values
>400

g. Density (Qu) vs. earth resistivity at values >400 h. Free swelling (F.S%) vs. earth resistivity at values
>400
Fig. 11. Empirical relationships between the earth electrical resistivity and the geotechnical parameters (L.L%, P.L%, F·S% and Qu) for representative soil samples
collected at different depths in the drilled boreholes. a, b, c, d are for soil of electrical resistivity less than 400 Ω m and e, f, g, h are for soil of electrical resistivity more
than 400 Ω m.

geotechnical parameters and electrical resistivity of subsurface li-
thology were carried out. The electrical resistivity values were pre-
sented on the abscissa against the estimated L.L%, P.L%, Qu and F·S on
the ordinate. The best fit between the two variables and the corre-
sponding empirical equations and correlation coefficient (R) are ob-
tained (Fig. 11). In the present case study most of the subsurface li-
thology contain percentage of clays, therefore based on electrical
resistivity changing with lithology type the value of 400 Ω m was used
as a cut off value. Accordingly, at certain depths, the relationships were
established between the geotechnical parameters of rocks and/or soils
which have electrical resistivity values less than 400 Ω m characterizing
materials of low clay contents (Fig. 11a, b, 11c and 11d), and again
with rocks and/or soils of electrical resistivity values more than
400 Ω m characterizing materials of moderate to high clay contents
(Fig. 11e, f, 11g and 11h).
Visual inspection of the derived relationships, for sediments of
electrical resistivity values more than 400 Ω m, exhibited a good linear
relationship between L.L%, P.L%, F·S% and electrical resistivity with
correlation coefficient (R2) 0.756, 0.703 and 0.787 respectively
(Fig. 11e, f and 11h), while no correlation between electrical resistivity
and density (Fig. 11g). However, sediments of electrical resistivity va-
lues less than 400 Ω m do not exhibit any correlations (Fig. 11a, b, 11c
and 11d). The latter is due to high moisture and clay contents leading to
decreasing the electrical resistivity values with no degradation with L.L

12
M.A. Mohammed, et al. Journal of African Earth Sciences 158 (2019) 103563

% or P.L% or F·S%. On the other hand, when electrical resistivity values City, Akhmim, Sohag, Egypt. Russ. Geol. Geophys. 60 (2), 231–239.
are more than 400 Ω m, due to low moisture and clay contents a wide Abu-Hassanein, Z.S., Benson, C.H., Blotz, L.R., 1996. Electrical resistivity of compacted
clays. J. Geotech. Eng. 122 (5), 397–406.
range electrical resistivity values encountering to changes in the geo- Ahmed, S., 1980. Geology of the Area East and Southeast of Sohag. M.Sc. Thesis, Geology
technical parameters. Dept. Faculty of Science. Assiut University, Sohag.
From this study, it can be concluded that the relationships between Benson, C., Trast, J., 1995. Hydraulic conductivity of thirteen compacted clays. Clay Clay
Miner. 43 (6), 669–681.
the geotechnical parameters and the electrical resistivity are good and Bowling, J.C., Rodriguez, A.B., Harry, D.L., Zheng, C., 2005. Delineating alluvial aquifer
applicable in dry and low clayey rocks or soils and vice versa. heterogeneity using resistivity and GPR data. Gr. Water 43 (6), 890–903.
Cardarelli, E., Fischanger, F., 2006. 2D data modelling by electrical resistivity tomo-
graphy for complex subsurface geology. Geophys. Prospect. 54, 121–133.
5. Conclusion Chandra, S., Rao, V.A., Krishnamurthy, N.S., Dutta, S., Ahmed, S., 2006. Integrated stu-
dies for characterization of lineaments used to locate groundwater potential zones in
2D ERT and the resulted 3D one are effective and cheaper tools in a hard rock region of Karnataka, India. Hydrogeol. J. 14, 767–776.
Dahlin, T., Zhou, B., 2004. A numerical comparison of 2D resistivity imaging with 10
site investigation for engineering purposes. The investigated site shows
electrode arrays. Geophys. Prospect. 52, 379–398.
rapid lateral and vertical variations in electrical resistivity distributions De Dominico, D., Giannino, F., Leucci, G., Bottari, C., 2006. Integrated geophysical sur-
indicating heterogeneity in subsurface section. Clayey gravel or clayey veys at the archaeological site of Tindari (Sicily, Italy). J. Archaeol. Sci. 33, 961–970.
sands and clay layers are predominant in the study site and hence Dogan, M., Papamarinopoulos, S., 2006. Exploration of the Hellenistic fortification
complex at Asea using a multigeophysical prospection approach. Archaeol. Prospect.
swelling phenomenon is highly expected in the foundation beds. This is 13, 1–9.
confirmed by swelling tests carried out on some representative samples Drahor, M., Gokturkler, G., Berge, M., Kurtulmus, T., 2006. Application of electrical re-
from the drilled boreholes. Therefore, all engineering awareness must sistivity tomography technique for investigation of landslides: a case from Turkey.
Environ. Geol. 50, 147–155.
be taken into account during establishing any construction on the in- El-Haddad, B., 2014. Evolution of the Geological History of the Egyptian Nile at Sohag
vestigated site. Area Using Sedimentological Studies and Remote Sensing Techniques. M.Sc. Thesis.
The empirical relationships between earth electrical resistivity and Geology Dept. Sohag University, Egypt.
Friedman, S., 2005. Soil properties influencing apparent electrical conductivity: a review.
geotechnical parameters (L.L%, P.L%, F·S% and Qu) show good corre- Comput. Electron. Agric. 46, 45–70.
lation when the soil has electrical resistivity more than 400 Ω m. Froese, D.G., Smith, D.G., Clement, D.T., 2005. Characterizing large river history with
However, no relationships were derived in case of electrical resistivity shallow geophysics: middle yukon river, yukon territory and Alaska. Geomorphology
67, 391–406.
less than 400 Ω m, where no correlation was detected between the Furman, A., Ferré, T., Warrick, A., 2003. A sensitivity analysis of electrical resistivity
variables. Accordingly establishing applicable empirical equations be- tomography array types using analytical element modeling. J. Vadose Zone 2,
tween earth electrical resistivity and geotechnical parameters can be 416–423.
Gibert, D., Nicollin, F., Kergosien, B., Bossart, P., Nussbaum, C., Grislin- Mouëzy, A.,
strong in dry sequences with limited clay and moisture contents, but in
Conil, F., Hoteit, N., 2006. Electrical tomography monitoring of the excavation da-
wet or clayey soils or rocks the correlations will be weak and can't be maged zone of the Gallery 04 in the Mont Terri rock laboratory: field experiments,
applied. modelling, and relationship with structural geology. Appl. Clay Sci. 33, 21–34.
Golden Software Inc, 2012. Surfer for windows, version 11, powerful contouring and
gridding, and 3-D surfer mapping.
Acknowledgement Grandjean, G., Pennetier, C., Bitri, A., Meric, O., Malet, J., 2006. Caracte'risation de la
structure interne et de l'e'tat hydrique de glissements argilo-marneux par tomo-
The Authors are grateful to all staff member of the Electrical graphie ge'ophysique: l’exemple du glissement-coulee' de Super-Sauze (Alpes du Sud,
France). C R Geosci. 338, 587–595.
Department, National Research Institute of Astronomy and Geophysics, Hamzah, U., Yaacup, R., Samsudin, A., Ayub, M., 2006. Electrical imaging of the
Helwan, Egypt for providing the instruments and cooperation during groundwater aquifer at Banting, Selangor, Malaysia. Environ. Geol. 49, 1156–1162.
the field work and data processing. Huang, H., Fraser, D., 2002. Dielectric permittivity and resistivity mapping using high-
frequency, helicopter-borne EM data. Geophysics 67 (3), 727–738.
Issawi, B., 2005. Archean-Phanerozoic birth and the development of the Egyptian Land.
List of used abbreviations and symbols In: 1st Int. In Conf. On Geol. Tethys. vol. 2. Cairo University, pp. 339–380.
Issawi, B., McCauley, J., 1992. The Cenozoic rivers of Egypt: the Nile problem. In: In:
Freidman, R., Adams, B. (Eds.), The Followers of Horus, Egypt: Studies Assoc. Public.,
(ERT) Electrical Resistivity Tomography
No.2, vol. 20. Oxbow Monog. 20, Park End Place, Oxford, pp. 121–138.
(2D) Two-dimension Issawi, B., El-Hinnawi, M., Francis, M., Mazhar, A., 1999. The Phanerozoic Geology of
(3D) Three-dimension Egypt – a Geodynamic Approach. The Egyptian Geological Survey Press, Cairo, pp.
462.
(L.L) Liquid Limit
Johnson, W.J., 2005. Applications of the electrical resistivity method for detection of
(P.L) Plastic Limit underground mine workings. In: Geophysical Technologies for Detecting
(F·S) Free Swelling Underground Coal Mine Voids: an Interactive Forum, Available at: http://www.
(Qu) Density fhwa.dot.gov/engineering/geotech/hazards/mine/workshops/ktwkshp/ky0311.cfm.
Kalinski, R., Kelly, W., 1993. Estimating water content of soils from electrical resistivity.
(Ω.m) Ohm.meter Geotech. Test J. 16 (3), 323–329.
(RCM) Remote Controlled Multiplexer Kalinski, R., Kelly, W., 1994. Electrical resistivity measurements for evaluating com-
(STEM) Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics pacted soil liner. Geotech. Test J. 120 (2451), 451–457.
Keany, P., Brooks, M., 1984. Heritage Geophysics.
(RMS) Root Mean Square Khesin, B., 2005. Use of geophysical methods for the solution of environmental problems
(BH) Borehole in Israel. HAIT J. Sci. Eng. 2 (1–2), 95–124.
(P) Profile Leucci, G., 2006. Contribution of ground penetrating radar and electrical resistivity to-
mography to identify the cavity and fractures under the main church in botrugno
(N–S) North-South (lecce, Italy). J. Archaeol. Sci. 33, 1194–1204.
(E-W) East-West Loke, M.H., 1997. RES2DINV Ver. 3.3 for Windows 3.1, 95, and NT Advanced
Geosciences, Inc., vol. 66.
Loke, M.H., 2000. Electrical Imaging Surveys for Environmental and Engineering Studies.
References
A Practical Guide to 2D and 3D Surveys. pp. 61. http://www.
heritagegeophysicscom/images/lokenotepdf.
Abdel Kareem, A., 1972. Geology of the Area East of the Nile Valley between Sohag and Mahfoz, S., 1980. Geological Studies on the Area West and Southwest of Sohag. M.Sc.
Girga. M.Sc. Thesis. geology Dept. Assiut University. Thesis. Faculty of Science, Sohag, pp. 11–18 Assiut University.
Abdel Moneim, A., 1988. Hydrogeology of the nile basin at Sohag provinces. M.Sc. Mahran, T., El-Haddad, A., 1992. Facies and depositional environments of upper
Thesis. Geology Dept. Faculty of Science, Sohag, Assiut University. Pliocene- Pleistocene Nile sediments around Sohag area, Nile valley, Egypt. J.
Abudeif, A.M., Fat-Helbary, R.E., Mohammed, M.A., Alkhashab, H.M., Masoud, M.M., Saharian Stud. 1 (2), 11–40.
2019a. Geotechnical engineering evaluation of soil utilizing 2D multichannel analysis Mahran, T., El-Shater, A., Youssef, A., El-Haddad, B., 2013. Facies analysis and tectonic-
of surface waves (MASW) technique in New Akhmim city, Sohag, Upper Egypt. J. Afr. climatic controls of the development of Pre-Eonile and Eonile sediments of the
Earth Sci. 157, 103512. Egyptian Nile west of Sohag. In: The 7th International Conference on the Geology of
Abudeif, A.M., Fat-Helbary, R.E., Mohammed, M.A., El-Khashab, H.M., Masoud, M.M., Africa, Assiut, Egypt.
2019b. Estimation of the site effect using microtremor technique at New Akhmim Mohammed, M.A., Abudeif, A.M., 2019. Applications of electrical resistivity for

13
M.A. Mohammed, et al.
construction in Al Kawamil, Sohag, Egypt: A case study. J. Environ. Eng. Geophys. 24
(2), 327–332.
Mostafa, H., 1979. Geology of the Area Northeast of Sohag. M.Sc. Thesis, Faculty of
Science. vol. 01. Assiut University, Sohag, pp. 229–260.
Nguyen, F., Garambois, S., Jongmans, D., Pirard, E., Loke, M., 2005. Image processing of
2D resistivity data for imaging faults. J. Appl. Geophys. 57, 260–277.
Omer, A., 1996. Geological, mineralogical and geochemical studies on the Neogene and
Quaternary Nile basin deposits, Qena-Assiut stretch, Egypt. Ph.D. Thesis. Geol. Dept.
Fac. Sci., Sohag, S. Val. Univ. 320.
Omer, A., Issawi, B., 1998. Lithostratigraphical, mineralogical and geochemical studies on
the Neogene and Quaternary Nile basin deposits, Qena-Assiut stretch, Egypt. In: The
4th International Conference on Geology of the Arab World, Cairo.
Osella, A., Favetto, A., 2000. Effects of soil resistivity on currents induced on pipelines. J.
Appl. Geophys. 44, 303–312.
Pozdnyakova, L., Poznyakov, A., Zhang, R., 2001. Application Of Geophysical Methods Of
Evaluate Hydrology And Soil Properties In Urban Areas. 3. Urban Water, London,
UK, pp. 205–216.
RES2DINV ver 3.4, 2001. Rapid 2D resistivity and IP inversion using the least-squares
method, Geoelectric Imaging 2D and 3D. Geotomo. Softw Available at: http://www.
Geoelectric.com.
Rey, E., Jongmans, D., Gotteland, P., Garambois, S., 2006. Characterization of soils with
stony inclusions using geoelectrical measurements. J. Appl. Geophys. 58, 188–201.
Rizzo, E., Colella, A., Lapenna, V., Piscitelli, S., 2004. High-resolution images of the fault-
controlled High Agri Valley basin (Southern Italy) with deep and shallow electrical
resistivity tomographies. Phys. Chem. Earth 29, 321–327.
Ronald, A.E., Ronald, C.G., 1982. Electrical resistivity used to measure liquefaction of
sand. J. Geotech. Eng. 108 (5), 779–782.
Said, R., 1981. The Geological Evaluation of the River Nile. Springer-Verlag, New York,
pp. 151.
Said, R., 1983. Proposed classification of the quaternary of Egypt. J. Afr. Earth Sci. (1),
41–45.
Said, R., 1993. The Nile River: Geology, Hydrology and Utilisation. Pergamon Press,
Oxford, pp. 320.
14
View publication stats
Journal of African Earth Sciences 158 (2019) 103563
Samouelian, A., Cousin, I., Tabbagh, A., Bruand, A., Richard, G., 2005. Electrical re-
sistivity survey in soil science: a review. Soil Tillage Res. 83, 173–193.
Samouëlian, A., Cousin, I., Tabbagh, A., Bruand, A., Richard, G., 2005. Electrical re-
sistivity survey in soil science: a review. Soil Tillage Res. 83, 173–193.
Schulz, D., Duff, B., Peters, W., 1984. Performance of an electrical resistivity technique for
detecting and locating geomembrane failures. In: International Conference on
Geomembrane, Denver, USA, pp. 445–449.
Shea, P., Luthin, J., 1961. An investigation of the use of the four electrode probe for
measuring soil salinity in situ. Soil Sci. 92, 331–339.
Sherif, M., El Mahmoudi, A., Garamoon, H., Kacimov, A., Akram, S., Ebraheem, A.,
Shetty, A., 2006. Geoelectrical and hydrogeochemical studies for delineating sea-
water intrusion in the outlet of Wadi Ham. UAE Environ. Geol. 49, 536–551.
Sridharan, A., Gurtug, Y., 2004. Swelling behavior of compacted fine-grained soils. Eng.
Geol. 72, 9–18.
Syed Baharom, S., Mohammad, N., Fahad, I., 2014. Correlation of electrical resistivity
with some soil parameters for the development of possible prediction of slope sta-
bility and bearing capacity of soil using electrical parameters. J. Sci. Technol.,
Malaysia 22 (1), 139–152.
Takahashi, T., 2004. ISRM Suggested Methods for land geophysics in rock engineering.
Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 41, 885–914.
Takahashi, T., Takeuchi, T., Sassa, K., 2006. ISRM Suggested Methods for borehole
geophysics in rock engineering. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 43, 337–368.
Vafidis, A., Economou, N., Ganiatsos, Y., Manakou, M., Poulioudis, G., Sourlas, G.,
Vrontaki, E., Sarris, A., Guy, M., Kalpaxis, T., 2005. Integrated geophysical studies at
ancient Itanos (Greece). J. Archaeol. Sci. 32, 1023–1036.
Vladimir, F., Gady, L., Dmitriy, D., 2008. Evaluation of landfill disposal boundary by
means of electrical resistivity imaging. Environ. Geol. 53 (7), 1503–1508.
Wu, X., Yifei, X., Qi, C., Wang, T., 2003. Computations of secondary potential for 3D DC
resistivity modeling using an incomplete Choleski conjugate-gradient method.
Geophys. Prospect. 51 5678–577.
Yoon, G., Park, J., 2001. Sensitivity of leachate and fine contents on electrical resistivity
variations of sandy soils. J. Hazard Mater. 84, 147–161.