Environ Earth Sci (2013) 70:259–267

DOI 10.1007/s12665-012-2122-0

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Simple and multiple regression models for relationship

between electrical resistivity and various soil properties
for soil characterization
Fahad Irfan Siddiqui •
Syed Baharom Azahar Bin Syed Osman

Received: 15 March 2012 / Accepted: 9 November 2012 / Published online: 24 November 2012
Ó Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Abstract Precise determination of engineering properties Introduction

of soil is essential for proper design and successful con-
struction of any structure. The conventional methods for Precise determination of engineering properties of soil is
determination of engineering properties are invasive, costly essential for proper design and successful construction of
and time-consuming. Electrical resistivity survey is an any structure (Cosenza et al. 2006). The conventional
attractive tool for delineate subsurface properties without method of obtaining these engineering parameters is
soil disturbance. Reliable correlations between electrical laboratory investigations performed on soil samples
resistivity and other soil properties will enable us to char- acquired from site/field through borehole sampling.
acterize the subsurface soil without borehole sampling. However, borehole sampling is generally time-consuming
This paper presents the correlations of electrical resistivity and expensive. Soil properties are subjected to high spa-
with various properties of soil. Soil investigations, field tial and temporal variations. Hence, for accurate assess-
electrical resistivity survey and laboratory electrical resis- ment of soil properties, high-density sampling will be
tivity measurements were conducted. The results from required but borehole sampling would be a very costly
electrical resistivity tests (field and laboratory) and labo- and time-consuming option in such condition (Pozdn-
ratory tests were analyzed together to understand the yakova 1999, 2001). Geophysical methods (geoelectrical,
interrelation between electrical resistivity and various soil ground penetrating radar, seismic refraction, etc.) have
properties. The test results were evaluated using simple and become increasingly practiced in engineering site char-
multiple regression analysis. From the data analysis, sig- acterization as being non-invasive, non-destructive, rapid
nificant quantitative and qualitative correlations have been and cost-effective. Among these methods, geoelectrical
obtained between resistivity and moisture content, friction survey is a very attractive tool for delineating subsurface
angle and plasticity index. Weaker correlations have been properties without soil disturbance (Samouëlian et al.
observed for cohesion, unit weight of soil and effective size 2003).
(D10). An electrical resistivity of soil is the measure of its
resistance to the passage of current through it. Solid and
Keywords Correlations  Electrical resistivity  Shear liquid play a significant role in soil spontaneous electrical
strength  Non-destructive testing phenomena and in behavior of electrical fields, artificially
generated in soil (Ozcep et al. 2009). The electrical current
flows in soil by electronic and electrolytic conduction.
Some specific soil minerals usually metallic minerals
F. I. Siddiqui (&)
Department of Mining Engineering, Mehran University of conduct current through electronic conduction. However,
Engineering and Technology, Jamshoro, Pakistan conducting minerals rarely exist in sufficient quantities to
e-mail: [email protected] have considerable effect on the electrical properties of soil.
Electrolytic conduction is mainly responsible for the flow
S. B. A. B. S. Osman
University Technology Petronas, Tronoh, Malaysia of current in soils through the movement of ions in pore
e-mail: [email protected] fluids.

123
260 Environ Earth Sci (2013) 70:259–267

This research work proposes a non-destructive, quick An investigation of electrical resistivity of soil–cement
and low-cost method for the assessment of geotechnical admixture, at varying cement-mixing ratio, water content
problems, such as bearing capacity and factor of safety in and curing time was carried out by Liu et al. (2008). The
soil slopes based on correlations of soil parameters such as results show a good correlation of SPT and compressive
cohesion, internal angle of friction, and unit weight with strength with electrical resistivity of soil–cement admix-
electrical resistivity values. ture. Combined analysis of electrical resistivity and SPT
Several attempts have been made by many researchers for the assessment of earth filled dam was carried out by
to explore the phenomenon of electrical resistivity in soils (Oh and Sun 2008) and concluded that electrical resis-
and its relationship with other soil properties. Water tivity of soil has a good correlation with SPT values. It is
content and electrical resistivity of soil has been suc- also suggested that electrical resistivity survey can be
cessfully correlated by various researchers (Cosenza et al. used as preliminary tool to assess any troubled subsurface
2006; Fukue et al. 1999; Kalinski and Kelly 1993; Ozcep zone and could be later confirmed by geotechnical
et al. 2009, 2010; Pozdnyakov et al. 2006, 2002; Schwartz investigations.
et al. 2008; Son et al. 2009; Yoon and Park 2001). The A thorough investigation into the relationship between
obtained correlation models showed nonlinear relationship electrical resistivity and soil parameters (such as cohesion,
between soil moisture and resistivity. The knowledge of friction angle, unit weight etc.) was conducted by Syed
electrical resistivity is also used to determine thermal et al. (2011) on homogeneous samples of sand, silt and clay
resistivity of soil (Erzin et al. 2010; Sreedeep et al. 2005), at laboratory scale. Moisture content found to have strong
hydraulic conductivity of compacted clay liners (Abu- relationship with resistivity. Poor correlations are observed
Hassanein et al. 1996; Kalinski and Kelly 1994; McCarter between cohesion and friction angle with electrical resis-
1984), and chemical weathering index (CWI) (Son et al. tivity for sand and silt samples, whereas clay samples
2009). showed a good correlation between shear strength param-
Few studies have been carried out to correlate electrical eters and resistivity. Findings of the work is quite
resistivity and geotechnical parameters of soil. A 2D encouraging to conduct more field and laboratory investi-
electrical resistivity survey with Wenner electrode config- gations in order to establish more reliable relationships
uration was conducted by Cosenza et al. (2006) to establish between resistivity and soil properties.
qualitative and quantitative correlations between resistivity
and cone penetration resistance CPT values. No clear
relationship between cone resistance and resistivity was
Materials and methods
observed and authors suggested an extensive study to be
conducted for more reliable correlations. The relationship
The research methodology consist of both field and labo-
of electrical resistivity and standard penetration test SPT
ratory investigations. The study area is located at Univer-
N value was assessed using 2D electrical resistivity
sity Technology PETRONAS, Perak, Malaysia. Field
tomography at two different sites in India by Sudha et al.
investigations comprise electrical resistivity survey (VES)
(2009). The obtained correlations indicated a site-specific
and soil boring. Laboratory investigations consist of soil
relationship between electrical resistivity and N values. A
characterization tests and electrical resistivity test.
resistivity survey was performed by Braga et al. (1999) in
sandy-clay formation and obtained a weak correlation of
SPT and electrical resistivity. A thorough study of geo- Vertical electrical sounding (VES)
technical properties and resistivity of clayey soil was
conducted by Giao et al. (2003) and found poor correlation The vertical electrical sounding or 1D survey was con-
between resistivity and plasticity index, unit weight, and ducted at the locations of boreholes (BH-01 to BH-10),
organic content of Pusan clay. Abu-Hassanein et al. (1996) using simple equipments and accessories in acquiring the
performed a comprehensive study on the effect of molding electrical resistivity value e.g. handheld multimeter, D.C.
water content and compactive effort in soil resistivity. power source, insulated wires, measuring tapes, stainless
They also investigated the relationship between soil resis- steel electrodes. The electrical sounding was conducted
tivity and plasticity index and grain-size distribution. using Wenner electrode configuration with electrode
Higher resistivity values were observed at optimum dry spacing ranging from 0.5 to 6 m. The apparent electrical
compaction and lower values were obtained at wet opti- resistivity of soil (qa) is determined by Eq. (1)
mum compaction. A curvilinear relationship was found qa ¼ 2pRL ð1Þ
between plasticity index and electrical resistivity of clay
and it is concluded that soils with higher plasticity index The obtained apparent electrical resistivity values that were
generally have lower electrical resistivity values. inverted to true resistivity values using Ipi2win software

123
Environ Earth Sci (2013) 70:259–267 261

were used for interpretation. IPI2win is an open-source Results and discussion

algorithm freely distributed by Moscow State University
(Moscow 2012). The procedure for inversion involves Soil investigations results
automatic and manual technique. Initially automatic
inversion was selected in order to get initial model and A total of 79 soil samples were obtained from ten (10)
later on inversion models were refined or fine-tuned using boreholes (BH-01 to BH-10) and brought to geotechnical
manual method until least RMS error was obtained. laboratory for various soil tests (e.g. moisture content, unit
weight, direct shear, sieve analysis, hydrometer test, plas-
Soil boring ticity index, laboratory resistivity test). Locations of all 79
soil samples taken from BH-01 to BH-10 are shown in
Soil boring was performed using percussion drilling set Fig. 1. Moisture content of soil samples ranges from 6.11
CobraTT equipped with 1 m core sampler. Depth of all to 52.42 %. Grain-size analysis shows that soil samples
boreholes (BH-01 to BH-10) was 3 m. Prior to drilling from BH-01 to BH-06 are classified as ‘‘silty-sand’’ and
PVC pipe was fixed in core sampler for easy and smooth soil samples obtained from BH-07 to BH-10 as ‘‘sandy’’
recovery of soil samples from the core barrel. The obtained soil samples according to British Soil Classification System
samples were brought to the laboratory for soil character- (BSCS). Based on grain-size distribution analysis, it can be
ization and electrical resistivity test in laboratory concluded that 43 soil samples are silty-sand and 36 soil
conditions. samples are course-grained sandy soils.
Direct shear test results indicate that cohesion of silty-
Soil investigations sand soil samples ranges from 3.63 to 68.23 kPa and the
mean value is 30.86 kPa. The friction angle values for
The basic idea behind this research is to estimate various silty-sand samples ranges between 5.36o and 42.51o. The
soil properties using resistivity values. Therefore, various mean friction angle values measure as 18.12o. The cohe-
soil characterization tests were performed to determine sion values for sandy soil samples ranges between 0.00 and
engineering properties of soil. Laboratory tests were per- 17.41 kPa and average cohesion is 5.25 kPa. The friction
formed on the soil samples obtained from boreholes BH-01 angle values ranges from 26.10o to 42.50o and average
to BH-10, such as moisture content, unit weight, direct friction angle is 33.27o. Silty-sand soil samples exhibits
shear, sieve analysis, hydrometer test, liquid limit, plastic higher cohesion and lower friction angle values whereas
limit etc. as per methods suggested in British standards sandy soils show lower cohesion and higher friction angles.
(BS). In plasticity index test all samples were found below the
A-line in silt zone (as shown in Fig. 2). Sandy soil samples
Laboratory resistivity test have lower plasticity index ranging from 0 to 4.60 %
whereas silty-sand soils have intermediate plasticity index
Electrical resistivity of soil samples from various depths between 1.41 and 26.27 %.
was measured in order to determine resistivity values in A little spatial variation was observed in the unit weight
laboratory condition. Two disc electrodes were connected of all soil samples. For silty-sand, unit weight ranges
to both ends of cylindrical soil samples and also attached to between 15.99 and 21.87 kN/m3 and for sandy soils, unit
DC power source and multimeter for current measurement. weight varies from 15.4 to 18.34 kN/m3. The effective size
Potential difference varying from 30, 60, and 90 V were (D10) is a well-known parameter in soil classification and
applied and resulting variation in current was recorded. permeability determination. The effective size D10 refers to
Laboratory temperature during electrical resistivity test the maximum size of the smallest 10 % of soil samples.
was recorded as 24 °C. Silty-sand generally exhibits smaller D10 ranging from
The electrical resistivity of soil samples were deter- 0.014 to 0.064 mm. Sandy soil samples have higher D10
mined by Eqs. 2 and 3. Where V is voltage in volts, I is values ranging between 0.08 and 0.389 mm.
current in amperes, R is the resistance in ohms, A is the
cross-sectional area of soil sample in meters, L is the length Field resistivity survey results
of soil sample in meters and q is the resistivity in
ohms.meter The Ipi2win software was used to interpret and invert the
apparent resistivity values obtained during VES survey
V
R¼ ð2Þ around the boreholes. The apparent resistivity inversion
I
  process produced sub-surface resistivity models for all the
A boreholes (BH-01 to BH-10). All developed models show
q¼ R: ð3Þ
L multiple layers of different resistivity and thickness.

123
262 Environ Earth Sci (2013) 70:259–267

Fig. 1 Locations of soil samples in all borehole columns

Laboratory electrical resistivity results

The soil samples obtained from all boreholes (BH-01 to

BH-10) were subjected to laboratory resistivity measure-
ment in order to determine electrical resistivity of different
samples under laboratory conditions. Samples were taken
from the different layers of known resistivity values as
determined from field resistivity survey, for instance in
BH-01, the upper layer has resistivity value 875.64 X m
and thickness is 0.5 m according to field survey, so that soil
samples were taken from upper 0.5 m for laboratory
resistivity test. Similarly, all 79 soil samples were taken
from different depths in all boreholes.

Comparison of resistivity results

Fig. 2 Plasticity chart of all soil samples

Figure 3 shows variation of electrical resistivity values at
different depths obtained by field and laboratory tech-
niques. In general, resistivity values obtained in laboratory
The upper 1–1.5 m in all boreholes is mostly unsaturated are higher than those measured in field due to various
indicating higher resistivity values than the bottom portion. reasons such as change in saturation conditions, tempera-
The lower portion of all boreholes shows very low resis- ture difference and overburden pressure. The maximum
tivity due to the presence of water tables. percentage difference in resistivity values obtained at field

123
Environ Earth Sci (2013) 70:259–267 263

Fig. 3 Comparison of
resistivity values obtained at
field and laboratory

and laboratory is 97 % and minimum variation is 1.22 %. correlation was observed for all soil samples with deter-
Higher variation in lab and field resistivities is observed for mination co-efficient R2 = 0.56 (as shown in Fig. 5).
those samples which were obtained from below water Relationship of resistivity with moisture was also deter-
table. In case of water table, the field resistivity values are mined for each soil type individually. In silty-sand soils,
quite lower indicating the water saturated soil. Whereas the obtained determination coefficient is R2 = 0.25 which is
laboratory resistivity value of the same soil sample is not as strong as it was observed in sandy soils (R2 = 0.51).
higher than field resistivity. This high variation is probably Electrical resistivity decreases with increasing moisture
due to the change in saturation condition of the soil sam- content in soils as reported in various previous studies
ples. A good linear trend with R2 = 0.76 was also found (Cosenza et al. 2006; Fukue et al. 1999; Syed et al. 2011;
between the electrical resistivity values obtained in field Giao et al. 2003; McCarter 1984; Ozcep et al. 2009, 2010;
and laboratory condition (as shown in Fig. 4). Pozdnyakov et al. 2006, 1999). Higher moisture content
From the relationship of laboratory and field electrical facilitates conduction of electrical current through move-
resistivity values, following linear equation is developed; ment of ions in pore water. Figure 6 compares the mois-
qLab ¼ 0:710qField þ 313:2 ð4Þ ture–resistivity relationship obtained by the current
research and established relationships reported in published
In Eq. (4), qLab is the resistivity value obtained in labora- literatures (Cosenza et al. 2006; Fukue et al. 1999; Ozcep
tory and qField is resistivity value obtained in field. et al. 2009; Syed et al. 2011).
Unit weight has a very poor relationship with resistivity.
Simple regression analysis of geotechnical Figure 7 indicates a poor polynomial correlation between
and resistivity data

The results from electrical resistivity tests (field and labo-

ratory) and soil characterization tests were analyzed to
understand the relationship between electrical resistivity
and various soil properties such as friction angle, cohesion,
plasticity index, unit weight, effective size (D10) and
moisture content of soil. The correlations between electri-
cal resistivity and various properties of soil samples were
evaluated using least-squares regression method. Linear,
logarithmic, polynomial, exponential and power curve fit-
ting approximations were applied and the best approxi-
mation equation with highest coefficient of determination
(R2) was selected.
Relationship between moisture content and resistivity
values demonstrates non-linear correlation. A good power Fig. 4 Correlation between field and laboratory resistivity values

123
264 Environ Earth Sci (2013) 70:259–267

Fig. 5 Correlations of moisture content and electrical resistivity of Fig. 8 Correlations of friction angle and electrical resistivity of soil
soil

60
Moisture Content %

50
Cosenza 2006
40 Syed 2011
Fukue 1999
30 Current Research
20

10

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Electrical Resistivity (ohm.m)

Fig. 6 Comparison of moisture-resistivity model obtained by current

research with various published relationships

Fig. 9 Correlations of cohesion and electrical resistivity of soil

Fig. 7 Correlations of unit weight and electrical resistivity of soil

electrical resistivity and unit weight of soil with determi- Fig. 10 Correlations of plasticity index and electrical resistivity of
soil
nation coefficient R2 = 0.10 for all soil samples. Similarly
determination coefficients for silty-sand soils and sandy
soils are found to be R2 = 0.12 and R2 = 0.10. It can be to the fact that the unit weight of soil depends more on
concluded that unit weight of soil has no definite rela- solid constituents than liquid portion of the soil whereas
tionship with resistivity. Weaker correlations might be due resistivity is largely affected by moisture content.

123
Environ Earth Sci (2013) 70:259–267 265

from literatures (Spoor and Godwin 1979) that shear

strength parameters of soil decreases with increasing
moisture content thus decreasing the electrical resistivity.
Results indicate a good correlation between plasticity
index and resistivity with determination coefficients
R2 = 0.42, R2 = 0.19 and R2 = 0.24 for all soil samples,
silty-sand soils, and sandy soils, respectively (shown in
Fig. 10). Abu-Hassanein et al. (1996) also found similar
relationship between plasticity index and resistivity and
concluded that soils with higher plasticity index, a greater
percentage of fines or clay, or a smaller coarse fraction
generally have lower electrical resistivity.
The effective size (D10) is the maximum diameter of soil
particles corresponding to 10 % passing on a grain-size
Fig. 11 Correlations of effective size (D10) and electrical resistivity distribution curve. Correlations between effective size and
of soil resistivity for all type of soils and silty-sand soils show that
resistivity will increase as the effective size increases,
The relationship between friction angle and resistivity whereas sandy soil shows a very different relationship
indicates increasing logarithmic trend with R2 = 0.29 for indicating that resistivity increases with decreasing effective
all soil samples (as shown in Fig. 8). It is found that silty- size (as shown in Fig. 11). The difference in particle size may
sand soils also have increasing relationship of resistivity be the reason for different behaviors in silty-sand and sandy
and friction angle. The relation between friction angle and soil. In silty-sand, fine particles tend to reduce the perme-
resistivity is not well defined in sandy soil. Cohesion has ability and affect the transmission of fluid thus resulting in
weak relationship with resistivity for all types of soil. increase of resistivity in silty-sand soil. Sandy soils have
Figure 9 shows that the cohesion in silty-sand and sandy larger grain size that facilitates the transmission of ion in
soil increases with resistivity. pore fluid which in turn decreases the electrical resistivity.
The obtained behaviors of cohesion and friction angle Table 1 summarizes the results from simple regression
with resistivity are quite understandable as it is established analysis. From Table 1, it can be concluded that resistivity

Table 1 Summary of simple regression analysis results for all types of soils
Soil properties Sample description Equations Determination
coefficient (R2)

Moisture content (%) All soil samples 0.9756q-0.263 0.5625

-0.156
Silty-sand samples 0.6261q 0.2554
Sandy samples 0.1954e-2E-04q 0.51
Unit weight (kN/m3) All soil samples 7E - 08q2 - 0.0007q ? 17.935 0.099
Silty-sand samples 16.593q0.0202 0.121
Sandy samples -8E - 08q2 ? 0.0005q ? 16.081 0.1044
Cohesion (kPa) All soil samples 1E - 06q2 - 0.0117q ? 25.508 0.1386
Silty-sand samples 3.068 ln(q) ? 15.309 0.1199
Sandy samples 2.3078 ln(q) - 10.218 0.2787
Friction angle (°) All soil samples 3.9722 ln(q) ? 1.9778 0.2902
Silty-sand samples 3E - 07q2 - 0.0017q ? 34.312 0.0508
Sandy samples 10.574q0.0891 0.0386
Plasticity index (%) All soil samples -3.276 ln(q) ? 26.329 0.4233
Silty-sand samples 13.731e-0.001q 0.1532
Sandy samples -0.707 ln(q) ? 6.4154 0.2437
Effective size D10 (mm) All soil samples 0.0134q0.3044 0.2043
Silty-sand samples 1.589q-0.314 0.0429
2
Sandy samples -3E - 08q ? 2E - 05q ? 0.0361 0.6523
q = Electrical resistivity in X m

123
266 Environ Earth Sci (2013) 70:259–267

survey method could be a good tool for estimation of References

moisture content and plasticity index for all type of soils.
Cohesion for sandy soil samples is also predictable with Abu-Hassanein ZS, Benson CH, Blotz LR (1996) Electrical resistivity
of compacted clays. J Geotech Eng-ASCE 122(5):397–406
moderate accuracy. Friction angle can also be estimated Braga A, Malagutti W, Dourado J, Chang H (1999) Correlation of
with reduced confidence. Effective size (D10) in sandy soils electrical resistivity and induced polarization data with geotech-
also has good sensitivity toward electrical resistivity. nical survey standard penetration test measurements. J Environ
Eng Geophys 4:123–130
Cosenza P, Marmet E, Rejiba F, Jun Cui Y, Tabbagh A, Charlery Y
Multiple linear regression analysis (2006) Correlations between geotechnical and electrical data: a
case study at Garchy in France. J Appl Geophys 60(3–4):
Multiple linear regression analysis was carried out using 165–178
SPSS v.17 in the expectation of obtaining more significant Erzin Y, Rao BH, Patel A, Gumaste SD, Singh DN (2010) Artificial
neural network models for predicting electrical resistivity of
relations for cohesion and friction angle than those of the soils from their thermal resistivity. Int J Therm Sci 49(1):
simple regression. The amount of moisture content affects 118–130
shear strength parameters as well as resistivity of the soil. Fukue M, Minato T, Horibe H, Taya N (1999) The micro-structures of
For this reason, resistivity and moisture together were clay given by resistivity measurements. Eng Geol 54(1–2):43–53
Giao PH, Chung SG, Kim DY, Tanaka H (2003) Electric imaging and
included in models for prediction of shear strength laboratory resistivity testing for geotechnical investigation of
parameters. The derived models for the estimation of Pusan clay deposits. J Appl Geophys 52(4):157–175
cohesion and friction angle are as following: Kalinski RJ, Kelly WE (1993) Estimating water content of soils from
Cohesion: electrical resistivity. Geotech Test J 16(3):323–329
Kalinski RJ, Kelly WE (1994) Electrical-resistivity measurements for
CðkPaÞ ¼ 18:986  0:005q þ 14:625wt% ð5Þ evaluating compacted-soil liners. J Geotech Eng-ASCE 120(2):
451–457
Friction angle: Liu SY, Du YJ, Han LH, Gu MF (2008) Experimental study on the
electrical resistivity of soil–cement admixtures. Environ Geol
/ð Þ ¼ 39:187 þ 0:001q  61:336wt% ð6Þ 54(6):1227–1233
McCarter WJ (1984) Electrical resistivity characteristics of com-
The determination coefficient of multiple regression model pacted clays. Geotechnique 34(2):263–267
for cohesion is R2 = 0.11 which is less than simple Moscow SU (2012) IPI2Win Resistivity Interpretation Software 3.0.1
regression model (R2 = 0.13) whereas multiple regression edn. Moscow, Russia
model (R2 = 0.45) for friction angle is higher than that of Oh S, Sun CG (2008) Combined analysis of electrical resistivity and
geotechnical SPT blow counts for the safety assessment of fill
simple regression (R2 = 0.29). dam. Environ Geol 54(1):31–42
Ozcep F, Tezel O, Asci M (2009) Correlation between electrical
resistivity and soil-water content: Istanbul and Golcuk. Int J Phys
Conclusion Sci 4(6):362–365
Ozcep F, Yildirim E, Tezel O, Asci M, Karabulut S (2010)
Correlation between electrical resistivity and soil-water content
Electrical resistivity measurement is a non-destructive based artificial intelligent techniques. Int J Phys Sci 5(1):47–56
method and could be applied for quick estimation of soil Pozdnyakov AI, Pozdnyakova LA, Karpachevskii LO (2006) Rela-
properties. The obtained correlations between electrical tionship between water tension and electrical resistivity in soils.
Eurasian Soil Sci 39:S78–S83
resistivity and various soil properties show a greater pos- Pozdnyakova L (1999) Electrical properties of soils. University of
sibility to use electrical resistivity survey as an effective Wyoming, Laramie
in situ assessment tool for predicting some soil properties. Pozdnyakova A, Pozdnyakova L (2002) Electrical fields and soil
From the above results it can be concluded that moisture properties. In: 17th World Congress of Soil Science, Thailand,
14–21 August 1558
content, plasticity index and friction angle of soil could be Pozdnyakova L, Pozdnyakov A, Zhang R (2001) Application of
efficiently estimated. geophysical methods to evaluate hydrology and soil properties in
A high spatial distribution was observed in unit weight urban areas. Urban Water 3(3):205–216
and resistivity relationship. The relationship of resistivity Samouëlian A, Cousin I, Richard G, Tabbagh A, Bruand A (2003)
Electrical resistivity imaging for detecting soil cracking at the
with cohesion and effective size (D10) of soil mainly centimetric scale. Soil Sci Soc Am J 67(5):1319–1326
depends on soil type, so no generalized equation could be Schwartz BF, Schreiber ME, Yan T (2008) Quantifying field-scale
proposed rather different equations were obtained for each soil moisture using electrical resistivity imaging. J Hydrol
soil type. 362(3–4):234–246
Son Y, Oh M, Lee S (2009) Estimation of soil weathering degree
using electrical resistivity. Environ Earth Sci 59(6):1319–1326
Acknowledgments This research study is supported by Universiti
Spoor G, Godwin RJ (1979) Soil deformation and shear strength
Teknologi PETRONAS under Graduate Assistantship scheme.
characteristics of some clay soils at different moisture con-
Authors extend special thanks to Ms. Izhatul Imma, Mr. Zaaba,
tents. J Soil Sci 30(3):483–498. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2389.1979.
Iskandar, Azaran, and Rizwan for their help in field and laboratory
tb01003.x
work.

123
Environ Earth Sci (2013) 70:259–267 267

Sreedeep S, Reshma AC, Singh DN (2005) Generalized relationship possible prediction of slope stability and bearing capacity of soil
for determining soil electrical resistivity from its thermal using electrical parameters. Pertanika J Sci Technol
resistivity. Exp Therm Fluid Sci 29(2):217–226 Yoon GL, Park JB (2001) Sensitivity of leachate and fine contents on
Sudha K, Israil M, Mittal S, Rai J (2009) Soil characterization using electrical resistivity variations of sandy soils. J Hazard Mater
electrical resistivity tomography and geotechnical investigations. 84(2–3):147–161
J Appl Geophys 67(1):74–79
Syed BSO, Fikri MN, Siddiqui FI (2011) Correlation of electrical
resistivity with some soil parameters for the development of

123
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.