This website uses cookies to improve your experience. If you continue without changing your settings, you consent to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. You can disable cookies at any time.


Evidence of electrical anisotropy in limestone formations using the RMT technique


Azimuthal resistivity surveys are often applied to complement hydrological information or to improve the location of observation boreholes in pump tests. Symmetric electrode configurations cannot distinguish anisotropy from lateral changes or dipping layers, but asymmetric arrays (e.g., the offset Wenner array) can. Tensor radiomagnetotellurics (RMT) is presented as an alternative method in studies of electrical anisotropy in the shallow subsurface. The electromagnetic and geomagnetic transfer functions provide information about the dimensionality of the data. These transfer functions can also be used to find the directions of anisotropy. Data with an anisotropic signature can be inverted for a one‐dimensional (1D) azimuthal anisotropy model. The method is faster than the azimuthal resistivity method.

A 380‐m‐long profile of tensor RMT data (12.7–243 kHz) from limestones that overlie shale on the island of Gotland, Sweden, is used to show the merits of the method. The data have a clear anisotropic signature. The data are inverted for a three‐layer 1D model with azimuthal anisotropy using two different approaches: (1) a moving median filter of five neighboring stations and neglecting static shift parameters; and (2) treating each station separately and including static shifts of the electric field in the inversion. Both inversions show models having a marked anisotropy with anisotropy factors of 3.7 and 4.5, respectively, in the limestones. The second approach has a significantly better data fit. However, the first approach is preferred because the models are smoother from station to station.


  • 1.  ABEM Instruments AB, 2003, WADI VLF—international frequency list: ABEM printed matter no 93062. Scholar
  • 2.  Bastani, M., 2001, EnviroMT—a new controlled source/radio magnetotelluric system: Ph.D. thesis, Uppsala University.Google Scholar
  • 3.  Bastani, M., and Pedersen, L. B., 2001, Estimation of magnetotelluric transfer functions from radio transmitters: Geophysics, 66, 1038–1051.GPYSA70016-8033 GeophysicsAbstractWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • 4.  Karlqvist, L., Fogdestam, B., and Engqvist, P., 1982, Description and appendices to the hydrogeological map of Gotland County (in Swedish): The Swedish Geological Survey.Google Scholar
  • 5.  Lane, J. W., Jr., Haeni, F. P., and Watson, W. M., 1995, Use of square‐array direct‐current resistivity method to detect fractures in crystalline bedrock in New Hampshire: Ground Water, 33, 476–485.GRWAAP0017-467X Ground WaterCrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • 6.  Li, X., Oskooi, B., and Pedersen, L. B., 2000, Inversion of controlled‐source tensor magnetotelluric data for a layered earth with azimuthal anisotropy: Geophysics, 65, 452–464.GPYSA70016-8033 GeophysicsAbstractWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • 7.  Pellerin, L., and Hohmann, G. W., 1990, Transient electromagnetic inversion—a remedy for magnetotelluric static shifts: Geophysics, 55, 1242–1250.GPYSA70016-8033 GeophysicsAbstractWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • 8.  Persson, L., and Pedersen, L. B., 2002, The importance of displacement currents in RMT measurements in high resistivity environments: Journal of Applied Geophysics, 51, 11–20.Journal of Applied GeophysicsCrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • 9.  Reynolds, R. M., An introduction to applied and environmental geophysics, John Wiley & Sons Ltd.: 1997.Google Scholar
  • 10.  Ritzi, R. W., and Andolsek, R. H., 1992, Relation between anisotropic transmissivity and azimuthal resistivity surveys in shallow fractured, carbonate flow systems: Ground Water, 30, 774–780.GRWAAP0017-467X Ground WaterCrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • 11.  Siripunvaraporn, W., and Egbert, G., 2000, An efficient data‐subspace inversion method for 2‐D magnetotelluric data: Geophysics, 65, 791–803.GPYSA70016-8033 GeophysicsAbstractWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • 12.  Slater, L. D., Sandberg, S. K., and Jankowski, M., 1998, Survey design procedures and data processing techniques applied to EM azimuthal resistivity method: Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, 3, 167–177.JOEEDU0733-9372 J. Environ. Eng.AbstractGoogle Scholar
  • 13.  Szalai, S., Szarka, L., Prácser, E., Bosch, F., Müller, I., and Turberg, P., 2002, Geoelectrical mapping of near‐surface karstic features by using null arrays: Geophysics, 67, 1769–1778.GPYSA70016-8033 GeophysicsAbstractWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • 14.  Taylor, R. W., and Fleming, A. H., 1988, Characterising jointed systems by azimuthal resistivity surveys: Ground Water, 26, 464–474.GRWAAP0017-467X Ground WaterCrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • 15.  Watson, K. A., and Barker, R. D., 1999, Differentiating anisotropy and lateral effects using azimuthal resistivity offset Wenner soundings: Geophysics, 64, 739–745.GPYSA70016-8033 GeophysicsAbstractWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • 16.  Yin, C., 1999, Electromagnetic induction in a layered conductor with arbitrary anisotropy: Ph.D. thesis, Technical University Carolo‐Wilhelmina at Brunswick.Google Scholar
  • 17.  Yin, C., and Maurer, H. M., 2001, Electromagnetic induction in a layered conductor with arbitrary anisotropy: Geophysics, 66, 1405–1416.GPYSA70016-8033 GeophysicsAbstractWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • 18.  Zhang, P., Roberts, R. G., and Pedersen, L. B., 1987, Magnetotelluric strike rules: Geophysics, 52, 267–278.GPYSA70016-8033 GeophysicsAbstractWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar