A comparative study of using geophysical methods for imaging subsurface voids of various sizes and at different depths

IF 6.9 1区 工程技术 Q1 ENGINEERING, GEOLOGICAL Engineering Geology Pub Date : 2024-09-03 DOI:10.1016/j.enggeo.2024.107711
{"title":"A comparative study of using geophysical methods for imaging subsurface voids of various sizes and at different depths","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.enggeo.2024.107711","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Subsurface voids pose significant geohazards, underscoring the need for their timely detection in order to mitigate the associated hazard. We report on a field study aimed at the comparative assessment of electrical resistivity tomography (ERT), seismic refraction tomography (SRT), and the multichannel analysis of surface waves (MASW) for void mapping in karstic regions. The field surveys were conducted at a site in central Texas, of typical karstic geomorphology, and involved the co-located deployment of ERT, SRT and MASW arrays. Post-surveying, boreholes were drilled at select locations for verification purposes. It is shown that MASW demonstrated limited ability to resolve voids due to its inherent theoretical limitations. In contrast, ERT revealed high-resistivity air-filled zones, and low-resistivity soil-filled regions, which aligned well with post-survey borehole logs, although deeper voids remained largely undetected. SRT clearly delineated voids through velocity reductions, but smoothing effects overestimated void velocities. Using ERT and SRT jointly provided improved void characterization compared to single-method-based interpretations, with ERT determining void type and SRT delineating boundaries. Despite the relative success of the joint ERT-SRT application, it is evident that without the corroboration provided by invasive testing, definitive void localization and characterization under arbitrary site conditions remains elusive.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":11567,"journal":{"name":"Engineering Geology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Engineering Geology","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013795224003119","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, GEOLOGICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Subsurface voids pose significant geohazards, underscoring the need for their timely detection in order to mitigate the associated hazard. We report on a field study aimed at the comparative assessment of electrical resistivity tomography (ERT), seismic refraction tomography (SRT), and the multichannel analysis of surface waves (MASW) for void mapping in karstic regions. The field surveys were conducted at a site in central Texas, of typical karstic geomorphology, and involved the co-located deployment of ERT, SRT and MASW arrays. Post-surveying, boreholes were drilled at select locations for verification purposes. It is shown that MASW demonstrated limited ability to resolve voids due to its inherent theoretical limitations. In contrast, ERT revealed high-resistivity air-filled zones, and low-resistivity soil-filled regions, which aligned well with post-survey borehole logs, although deeper voids remained largely undetected. SRT clearly delineated voids through velocity reductions, but smoothing effects overestimated void velocities. Using ERT and SRT jointly provided improved void characterization compared to single-method-based interpretations, with ERT determining void type and SRT delineating boundaries. Despite the relative success of the joint ERT-SRT application, it is evident that without the corroboration provided by invasive testing, definitive void localization and characterization under arbitrary site conditions remains elusive.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
使用地球物理方法对不同大小和不同深度的地下空洞进行成像的比较研究
地下空洞会造成严重的地质灾害,因此有必要对其进行及时探测,以减轻相关危害。我们报告了一项实地研究,旨在比较评估电阻率层析成像(ERT)、地震折射层析成像(SRT)和多通道面波分析(MASW)在绘制岩溶地区空隙图中的应用。实地勘测是在德克萨斯州中部一个具有典型喀斯特地貌的地点进行的,包括在同一地点部署 ERT、SRT 和 MASW 阵列。勘测后,在选定地点钻孔进行验证。结果表明,由于其固有的理论限制,MASW 分辨空隙的能力有限。相比之下,ERT 显示了高电阻率的空气填充区和低电阻率的土壤填充区,与勘测后的钻孔记录非常吻合,但更深的空隙仍基本未被探测到。SRT 通过降低速度清楚地划分了空隙,但平滑效应高估了空隙速度。与基于单一方法的解释相比,联合使用ERT和SRT可改进空隙特征描述,ERT可确定空隙类型,SRT可划定边界。尽管 ERT-SRT 联合应用取得了相对成功,但很明显,如果没有侵入性测试提供的佐证,在任意现场条件下进行明确的空隙定位和特征描述仍然难以实现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Engineering Geology
Engineering Geology 地学-地球科学综合
CiteScore
13.70
自引率
12.20%
发文量
327
审稿时长
5.6 months
期刊介绍: Engineering Geology, an international interdisciplinary journal, serves as a bridge between earth sciences and engineering, focusing on geological and geotechnical engineering. It welcomes studies with relevance to engineering, environmental concerns, and safety, catering to engineering geologists with backgrounds in geology or civil/mining engineering. Topics include applied geomorphology, structural geology, geophysics, geochemistry, environmental geology, hydrogeology, land use planning, natural hazards, remote sensing, soil and rock mechanics, and applied geotechnical engineering. The journal provides a platform for research at the intersection of geology and engineering disciplines.
期刊最新文献
Insight into failure mechanisms of rainfall induced mudstone landslide controlled by structural planes: From laboratory experiments Evaluating the thresholds for predicting post-earthquake debris flows: Comparison of meteorological, hydro-meteorological and critical discharge approaches Rayleigh wave ellipticity from ambient noise: A practical method for monitoring seismic velocity variations in the near-surface Frozen and unfrozen moisture content estimation in coral calcareous sand during artificial freezing Can satellite InSAR innovate the way of large landslide early warning?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1