1887
Volume 17, Issue 5
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Terminating industrial activities may have harmful side effects on the infrastructure of a civil society. One effective method of solving environmental and geotechnical problems in urban areas is a direct‐current resistivity survey. In karstic areas, large‐scale geological structures directly affect the near‐surface, small‐scale events. Reliable data on the geological background of harmful events are acquired through suitable combinations of large‐scale and of small‐scale high‐resolution surveys. In this study, the geological background of three urban subsurface‐related problems was investigated in a karstic area: collapse of a sinkhole, suffusion of a basement area, and contamination of an urban creek. In each case, the scientific work aimed at setting up of a suitable model that describes the harmful event and its geological background. For this purpose, a combination of large‐scale and high‐resolution resistivity data was acquired and augmented by borehole information and laboratory analyses. The error analyses of the resulting models suggest that the methodology of dual‐scale geoelectric investigation of urban hazards in karstic areas can provide applicable models for mitigation measures.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12062
2019-09-13
2020-06-02
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Al DahaanS., Al‐AnsariN. and KnutssonS.2016. Influence of groundwater hypothetical salts on electrical conductivity total dissolved solids. Engineering8, 823–830.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. AlföldiL., CsepregiL. and KapolyiL.2007. Bányászati karsztvízszint süllyesztés a Dunántúli‐középhegységben. Magyar Tudományos Akadémia Földrajztudományi Kutatóintézet, 2007.
  3. BoydC.E.2000. Water Quality an Introduction, 330 p. Kluwer Academic.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. BlumR.1989. Geoelectrical Mapping and Groundwater Contamination. Lecture Notes in Earth Sciences. Vol. 37, pp. 251–260. Berlin Springer Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. CoronaM.P., GarciaJ.A, TallerG., PolgarD., BustosE.B. and PlankZ.2016. The cone penetration test and 2D imaging resistivity as tools to simulate the distribution of hydrocarbon in soil. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth Parts A/B/C Vol. 91, pp. 87–92. Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. CardarelliE., Di FilippoG. and TuccinardiE.2006. Electrical resistivity tomography to detect buried cavities in Rome: A case study. Near Surface Geophysics4, 87–392.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. CardarelliE., CercatoM., De DonnoG. and Di FilippoG.2014. Detection and imaging of piping sinkholes by integrated geophysical methods. Near Surface Geophysics12, 439–450.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. CuetoM., OlonaJ., Fernández‐ ViejoG., PandoL. and López‐FernándezC.2018. Karst‐induced sinkhole detection using an integrated geophysical survey: a case study along the Riyadh Metro Line 3 (Saudi Arabia). Near Surface Geophysics16, 270–281.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. DahlinT. and ZhouB.2004. A numerical comparison of 2D resistivity imaging with 10 electrode arrays. Geophysical Prospecting52, 379–398.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Delle RoseM. and LeucciG.2010. Towards an integrated approach for characterization of sinkhole hazards in urban environments: The unstable coastal site of Casalabate, Lecce, Italy. Journal of Geophysics and Engineering7, 143–154.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. DövényiZ.
    (ed.). 2010. Magyarország kistájainak katasztere (Inventory of microregions in Hungary). MTA Földrajztudományi Kutatóintézet, Budapest.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. IkardS. and PeaseE.2019. Preferential groundwater seepage in karstterrane inferred from geoelectric measurements. Near Surface Geophysics17, 43–53.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. KimJ‐H., TsourlosP., KarmisP., VargemezisG. and YiM.‐J.2016. 3D inversion of irregular gridded 2D electrical resistivity tomography lines: Application to sinkhole mapping at the Island of Corfu (West Greece). Near Surface Geophysics14, 275–285.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. LandL. and VentG.2012. Electrical resistivity surveys of anthropogenic karst phenomena, southeastern New Mexico. Geology34, 117–125.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. LokeM.H.2015. 2‐D and 3‐D ERT surveys and data interpretation Turin, Italy. Access on 10. September 2015.
  16. LokeM.H., ChambersJ., RuckerD.F., KurasO. and WilkinsonP.B.2013. Recent developments in the direct‐current geoelectrical imaging method. Journal of Applied Geophysics95, 135–156.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 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]
  18. MohamedA.M.E., El‐HussainI., DeifA., AraffaS.A.S., MansourKh. and Al‐RawasG.2019. Integrated ground penetrating radar, electrical resistivity tomography and multichannel analysis of surface waves for detecting near‐surface caverns at Duqm area, Sultanate of Oman. Near Surface Geophysics17, 379–401.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. NyariZ.2000. Quality controlled resistivity inversion in cavity detection. Geophysical Transactions43, 47–63.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. NyáriZ. and KanliA.I.2007. Imaging of buried 3D objects by using electrical profiling methods with GPR and 3D geoelectrical measurements. Journal of Geophysics and Engineering4, 83–93.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. O'ConnellY., DalyE., HenryT. and BrownC.2018. Terrestrial and marine electrical resistivity to identify groundwater pathways in coastal karst aquifers. Near Surface Geophysics16, 164–175.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. RonczkaM., WisénR. and DahlinT.2018. Geophysical pre‐investigation for a Stockholm tunnel project: joint inversion and interpretation of geoelectric and seismic refraction data in an urban environment. Near Surface Geophysics16, 258–268.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. RuckerD.F., LevittM.T. and GreenwoodW.J.2009. Three‐dimensional electrical resistivity model of a nuclear waste disposal site. Journal of Applied Geophysics69, 150–164.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. SelmecziP.2015. 10.2 Visszatérő forrásokkal kapcsolatos kockázatelemzés és vizsgálat Tata városában. Final report of the Geological and Geophysical Institute of Hungary (MFGI).
  25. SmithR.C. and SjogrenD.B.2006. An evaluation of electrical resistivity imaging (ERI) in Quaternary sediments, Southern Alberta, Canada. Geosphere2, 287–298.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. SzűcsP., MadarászT. and ZákányiB.2007. “Start” modeling of multifunctional recharge options for the Great‐Forest Park in Debrecen. In: Smart Fields, Smart Wells, and Smart Technologies Vol. 7 (ed I.Lakatos), pp. 245–252. Progress in Oilfield Chemistry, Akadémiai Kiadó.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. ToddD.K.1990. Groundwater Hydrology. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. ZhouB. and DahlinT.2003. Properties and effects of measurement errors on 2D resistivity imaging surveying. Near Surface Geophysics2003, 105–117.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. ZhouW., BeckF.B. and AdamsA.L.2002. Effective electrode array in mapping karst hazards in electrical resistivity tomography. Environmental Geology42, 922–928.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12062
Loading
/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12062
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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