1887
Volume 65, Issue 2
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

A slowly moving loess landslide along the River Danube in South Hungary was studied using electrical resistivity tomography. Our aim was to determine the fracture system of the study site. Due to the homogeneous composition of the loess, it seems to be the only possibility to get information about the landslide and its further evolution. The applicability of the electrical resistivity tomography technique for such a supposedly dense fracture system was studied by numerical modelling, and the results have been verified in the field. The dip of the fractures could not always been observed, and they could not be explored deeply. However, it was possible to map their surface projection to get the desired information about the structure of the landslide. Fracture zones could have been especially well localized, enabling the prediction of the positions of future rupture surfaces and thus the delineation of the endangered zone. Although the area outside of the already subsided one is not endangered yet, the area which has already started to move is going to break into two. Parts of the about 5 m wide blocks at the front of the landslide may fall or slide down anytime. A large area was assumed to move as one unit. Most of our predictions have been verified by the mass movements that occurred about one and half years after the measurements. The electrical resistivity tomography method proved to be a good tool to characterize the fracture system of such a landslide area, enabling the prediction of future rupture surfaces and also delineation of the endangered area. Its use is therefore highly recommended to monitor landslides to provide early risk warnings to avoid damage to constructions or endangering human life.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12421
2016-08-25
2024-03-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Advanced Geosciences, Inc
    Advanced Geosciences, Inc . 2006. Instruction Manual for EarthImager 2D, Version 2.1.7, Resistivity and IP Inversion Software.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. AgnesiV., CamardabM., ConoscentiaC., Di MaggioA., DilibertocI., MadoniacP.et al. 2005. A multidisciplinary approach to the evaluation of the mechanism that triggered the Cerda landslide (Sicily, Italy). Geomorphology65, 101–116.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. ArchieG.1942. The electrical resistivity log as an aid in determining some reservoir characteristics. Transactions of the AIME146, 54–62.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. BányaiL., ÚjváriG., MentesG., KovácsM., CzapZ., GribovszkiK.et al. 2013. Recurrent landsliding of a high bank at Dunaszekcső, Hungary: geodetic deformation monitoring and finite element modeling. Geomorphology.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. BichlerA., BobrowskyP., BestM., DoumaM., HunterJ., CalvertT.et al. 2004. Three‐dimensional mapping of a landslide using a multi‐geophysical approach: the Quesnel Forks landslide. Landslides1, 29–40.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. BièvreG., JongmansD., WiniarskiT. and ZumboV.2012. Application of geophysical measurements for assessing the role of fissures in water infiltration within a clay landslide (Trieves area, French Alps). Hydrological Processes26, 2128–2142.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. BrunoF. and MarillierF.1999. Test of high‐resolution seismic reflection and other geophysical techniques on the boup landslide in the Swiss Alps. Engineering Geology52, 113–120.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. CaicedoB., MurilloC., HoyosL., ColmenaresJ.E. and BerdugoI.R.2013. Advances in Unsaturated Soils, pp. 165–169. Taylor and Francis Group, London. ISBN 978‐0‐415‐62095‐6.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. CorsiniA., PasutoA., SoldatiM. and ZannoniA.2005. Field monitoring of the Corvara landslide (Dolomites, Italy) and its relevance for hazard assessment. Geomorphology66, 149–165.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. CarisJ.P. and Van AschT.W.1991. Geophysical, geotechnical and hydrological investigations of a small landslide in the French Alps. Engineering Geology31, 249–276.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. DahlinT. and ZhouB.2004. A numerical comparison of 2D resistivity imaging with ten electrode arrays. Geophysical Prospecting52, 379–398.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. DemoulinA., PissartA. and SchroederC.2003. On the origin of late Quaternary palaeolandslides in the Liège (E Belgium) area. International Journal of Earth Sciences92, 795–805.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. DikauR., BrundsenD., SchrottL. and IbsenM‐L.1996. Landslide Recognition: Identification, Movement and Causes. Wiley, Chichester, U.K.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. FalcoP., NegroF., SzalaiS. and MilnesE.2013. Fracture characterisation using geoelectric null‐arrays. Journal of Applied Geophysics93, 33–42.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. FanC., LiangS. and MaX.2012. Research advances on the loess–bedrock landslide in China. In: Asia Pacific Conference on Environmental Science and Technology, Advances in Biomedical Engineering, Vol. 6.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. FarquharsonC.G.2008. Constructing piecewise‐constant models in multidimensional minimumstructure inversions. Geophysics73, K1–K9.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. FarquharsonC.G. and OldenburgD.W.1998. Nonlinear inversion using general measures of data misfit and model structure. Geophysical Journal International134, 213–227.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. FarquharsonC.G. and OldenburgD.W.2004. A comparison of automatic techniques for estimating the regularization parameter in non‐linear inverse problems. Geophysical Journal International156, 411–425.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. FukuokaH., KodamaN., SokobikiH. and SassaK.1995. GPS monitoring of landslide movement. In: Proceedings of the International Sabo Symposium, Tokyo.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. GalliL.1952. A dunai és balatoni magaspartok állékonyságának törvényszerűségei. Hidrológiai Közlöny32, 409–415. (in Hungarian)
    [Google Scholar]
  21. HibertC., GrandjeanG., BitriA., TravellettiJ. and MaletJ.2012. Characterizing landslides through geophysical data fusion: example of the La Valette landslide (France). Engineering Geology128, 23–29.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. JonesG., SentanacP. and ZielinskiM.2014. Desiccation cracking using 2‐D and 3‐D electrical resistivity tomography: validation on a flood embankment. Journal of Applied Geophysics106, 196–211.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. JonesG., ZielinskiM. and SentanacP.2012. Mapping desiccation fissures using 3‐D electrical resistivity tomography. Journal of Applied Geophysics84, 39–51.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. JongmansD. and GaramboisS.2007. Geophysical investigation of landslides: a review. Bulletin de la Societe Géologique de France33, 101–112.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. KézdiÁ. 1970. A dunaújvárosi partrogyás. Mélyépítéstudományi Szemle20, 281–297. (in Hungarian)
    [Google Scholar]
  26. KlebB. and SchweitzerF.2001. A Duna csuszamlásveszélyes magaspartjainak településkörnyezeti hatásvizsgálata. In: Földtudományok és a földi folyamatok kockázati tényezői. (Eds. A.Ádám and A.Meskó ), pp. 169–193. Bp. MTA. (in Hungarian)
  27. KraftJ.2005. A dunaszekcsői Töröklyuk kialakulása és fennmaradása (Evolution and survival of the Töröklyuk cave at Dunaszekcső). Mecsek Egyesület Évkönyve a8, 133–153. (in Hungarian)
    [Google Scholar]
  28. LapennaV., LorenzoP., PerroneA., PiscitelliS., RizzoE. and SdaoF.2005. 2D electrical resistivity imaging of some complex landslides in Lucanian Apennine Chain, Southern Italy. Geophysics70, B11–B18.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. LatasteJ.F., SirieixC., BreysseD. and FrappaM.2003. Electrical resistivity measurement applied to cracking assessment on reinforced concrete structures in civil engineering. NDT & E. International36, 383–394.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. LebourgT., BinetS., TricE., JomardH. and El BedouiS.2005. Geophysical survey to estimate the 3D sliding surface and the 4D evolution of the water pressure on part of a deep seated landslide. Terra Nova17, 399–406.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. LecocqN. and VandewalleN.2003. Dynamics of crack opening in a one‐dimensional desiccation experiment. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications321, 431–441.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. LokeM.H., AcworthI. and DahlinT.2003. A comparison of smooth and blocky inversion methods in 2D electrical imaging surveys. Exploration Geophysics34, 182–187.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. LokeM., ChambersJ., RuckerD., KurasO. and WilkinsonP.2013. Recent developments in the direct current geoelectrical imaging method. Journal of Applied Geophysics95, 135–156.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. MaletJ.P., MaquaireO. and CalaisE.2002. The use of Global Positioning System techniques for the continuous monitoring of landslides: application to the Super‐Sauze earthflow (Alpes‐de‐Haute‐Provence, France). Geomorphology43, 33–54.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. MarescotL., MonnetR. and ChapellierD.2008. Resistivity and induced polarization surveys for slope instability studies in the Swiss Alps. Engineering Geology98, 18–28.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. MéricO., GaramboisS., JongmansD., WatheletM., ChatelainJ.L. and VengeonJ.M.2005. Application of geophysical methods for the investigation of the large gravitational mass movement of Séchilienne, France. Canadian Geotechnical Journal42, 1105–1115.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. MoyzesA. and ScheuerGy1978. A dunaszekcsői magaspart mérnökgeológiai vizsgálata. Földtani Közlöny108, 213–226. (in Hungarian)
    [Google Scholar]
  38. OldenborgerG.A. and RouthP.S.2009. The point‐spread function measure of resolution for the 3D electrical resistivity experiment. Geophysical Journal International176, 405–414.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. OldenburgD.W. and LiY.1999. Estimating depth of investigation in dc resistivity and IP surveys. Geophysics64, 403–416.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. PécsiM. and ScheuerG.1979. Engineering geological problems of the Dunaújváros loess bluff. Acta Geologica Hungarica22, 345–353.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. PerroneA., LapennaV. and PiscitelliS.2014. Electrical resistivity tomography technique for landslide investigation: A review, Earth‐Science Reviews135, 65–82.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. SamouelianA., CousinI., RichardG., TabbaghA. and BruandA.2003. Electrical resistivity imaging for detecting soil cracking at the centimetric scale. Soil Science Soc. Am. J.67, 1319–1326.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. SarahD. and DaryonoM.R.2012. Engineering geological investigation of slow moving landslide in Jahiyang Village, Salawu, Tasikmalaya Regency. Indonesian Journal on Geoscience7, 27–38.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. SentenacP. and ZielinskiĆ. M.2009. Clay fine fissuring monitoring using miniature geo‐electrical resistivity arrays. Environmental Earth Sciences59(1), 205–214.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. SolbergI.L., HansenL., RonningJ.S., HaugenE.D., DalseggE. and TonnesenJ.F.2012. Combined geophysical and geotechnical approach to ground investigations and hazard zonation of a quick clay area, mid‐Norway. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment71, 119–133.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. SzalaiS., KoppánA., SzokoliK. and SzarkaL.2013. Geoelectric imaging properties of traditional arrays and of the optimised Stummer configuration. Near Surface Geophysics11, 51–62.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. SzalaiS., KósaI., NagyT. and SzarkaL.2009. Effectivity enhancement of azimuthal geoelectric measurements in determination of multiple directions of subsurface fissures, on basis of analogue modelling experiments. In: 15th European Meeting of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, Dublin, Ireland, 2009, Proceedings & Exhibitors' Catalogue Near Surface 2009 , pp. 25–28.
  48. SzalaiS., SzarkaL., PrácserE., BoschF., MüllerI. and TurbergP.2002. Geoelectric mapping of near‐surface karstic fractures by using null‐arrays. Geophysics67, 1769–1778.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. SzalaiS., SzokoliK. and MetwalyM.2014. Delineation of landslide endangered areas and mapping their fracture systems by the pressure probe method. Landslides11(5), 923–932.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. TabbaghJ., SamouelianA. and CousinI.2007. Numerical modelling of direct current electrical resistivity for the characterisation of cracks in soils. Journal of Applied Geophysics62(4), 313–323.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. TaylorR.W. and FlemingA.H.1988. Characterizing jointed systems by azimuthal resistivity surveys. Groundwater26, 464–474.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. TofaniV., SegoniS., AgostiniA., CataniF. and CasagliN.2013. Technical Note: Use of remote sensing for landslide studies in Europe. Natural Hazards Earth System Sciences13, 299–309.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. TravellettiJ., MaletJ., SamynK., GrandjeanG. and JaboyedoffM.2013. Control of landslide retrogression by discontinuities: evidences by the integration of airborne‐ and ground‐based geophysical information. Landslides10, 37–54.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. UhlemannS., WilkinsonP.B., ChambersJ.E., MaurerH., MerritA.J., GunnD.A.et al. 2015. Interpolation of landslide movements to improve the accuracy of 4D geoelectrical monitoring. Journal of Applied Geophysics121, 93–105.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. ÚjváriG., MentesGy., BányaiL., KraftJ., GyimóthyA. and KovácsJ.2009. Evolution of a bank failure along the River Danube at Dunaszekcső, Hungary. Geomorphology109, 197–209.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Van WestenC.J.2004. Geo‐Information tools for landslide risk assessment: an overview of recent developments. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Landslides, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, pp. 39–56. Balkema, Rotterdam.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. WalterM., SchwadererU. and JoswigM.2012. Seismic monitoring of precursory fracture signals from a destructive rockfall in the Vorarlberg Alps, Austria. Natural Hazards Earth System Sciences12, 3545–3555.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. WisenR, ChristiansenA.V., AukenE. and DahlinT.2003. Application of 2D laterally constrained inversion and 2D smooth inversion of CVES resistivity data in a slope stability investigation. In: Proceedings of the 9th Meeting Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, Prague, Czech Republic. EAGE Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. ZhouB. and DahlinT.2003. Properties and effects of measurement errors on 2D resistivity imaging surveying. Near Surface Geophysics1, 105–117.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12421
Loading
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12421
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): ERT; Fracture; Landslide; Loess landslide; Slowly moving landslide

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error