1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Near Surface Geophysics
  4. Volume 18, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 18 Number 1
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Geoelectrical measurements have so far been tested in marine environments worldwide in order to detect subsea fracture zones. However, many of these datasets are processed without considering the extremely high electrical conductivity of seawater and its implications. This study summarizes our efforts to establish the basic rules as to whether marine electrical resistivity tomography can detect weak zones inside a resistive bedrock, a problem which the engineers in Norway usually encounter in tunnel construction sites. This study examines the theoretical response of electrical resistivity tomography in a classic Nordic environment where a highly resistive bedrock is located below the highly conductive seawater, and the capability of electrical resistivity tomography to detect fractured zones, as relevant in a geotechnical study. We performed a large number of synthetic modelling tests examining several factors that marine geoelectrical surveys are particularly sensitive to, such as the depth of the seabed, the seawater conductivity and the bedrock variation, and the survey layout and the inversion scheme. Our results indicate that electrical resistivity tomography surveys for fracture zone detection in geoelectrically demanding marine environments can be promising in case of a limited water depth, and with the use of either dipole–dipole or multiple gradient array and availability of a detailed knowledge of the conductivity distribution in water. However, results of electrical resistivity tomography surveys in such circumstances can be ambiguous since they potentially suffer from reduced resolution and due to the loss of electrical current in water and other artificial effects. Based on the results of modelling, we were able to improve interpretations of electrical resistivity tomography data from a field survey, where marine acquisition was carried at a strait in Kvitsøy, southern Norway.

© 2020 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers © 2020 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12086
2020-01-20
2024-04-25

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12086
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. ABEM . 2012. ABEM Terrameter LS. Instruction Manual. ABEM 20120109, based on release 1.10. ABEM AB, Sundbyberg, Sweden.
  2. ApostolopoulosG.2012. Marine resistivity tomography for coastal engineering applications in Greece. Geophysics77, B97–B105.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. BaradelloL. and CarcioneJ.2008. Optimal seismic‐data acquisition in very shallow waters: surveys in the Venice lagoon. Geophysics73, Q59–Q63.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. ColomberoC., CominaC., GianottiF. and SambuelliL.2014. Waterborne and on‐land electrical surveys to suggest the geological evolution of a glacial lake in NW Italy. Journal of Applied Geophysics105, 191–202.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. ConstableS.2010. Ten years of marine CSEM for hydrocarbon exploration. Geophysics75, 75A67.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. DahlinT.1993. On the automatization of 2D resistivity surveying for engineering and environmental applications. PhD thesis, Department of Engineering Geology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
  7. DahlinT. and ZhouB.2006. Multiple‐gradient array measurements for multi‐channel 2D resistivity imaging. Near Surface Geophysics4, 113–123.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. DahlinT., LokeM.H., SiikanenJ. and HöökM.2014. Underwater ERT survey for site investigation of a new Line for the Stockholm Metro. Abstract, 31st Nordic Geological Winter Meeting, Lund, Sweden, January 8–10 2014.
  9. DalseggE.2012. Geophysical measurements at Kvitsøy, Rogaland County. NGU Report 2012.033 (17 pp.) (in Norwegian).
  10. Day‐LewisF.D., WhiteE.A., JohnsonC.D. and LaneJ.W.Jr.2006. Continuous resistivity profiling to delineate submarine groundwater discharge—examples and limitations. The Leading Edge25, 724–728.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. GanerødG.V., RønningJ.S., DalseggE., ElvebakkH., HolmøyK., NilsenB.et al. 2006. Comparison of geophysical methods for sub‐surface mapping of faults and fracture zones in a section of the Viggja road tunnel, Norway. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment65, 231–243.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. KimJ.H.2009. DC2DPro‐2D interpretation system of DC resistivity tomography. User's Manual and theory. KIGAM, Daejeon, S. Korea.
  13. KwonH.S., KimJ.H., AhnH.Y., YoonJ.S., KimK.S., JungC.K.et al. 2005. Delineation of a fault zone beneath a riverbed by an electrical resistivity survey using a floating streamer cable. Exploration Geophysics36, 50–58.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. LagabrielleR.1983. The effect of water on direct current resistivity measurement from sea, river or lake floor. Geoexploration21, 165–170.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. LokeM.H.2002a. RES2DMOD ver. 3.01 Geoelectrical Imaging 2D & 3D. Instruction Manual.
  16. LokeM.H.2002b. Tutorial: 2‐D and 3‐D Electrical Imaging Surveys. Geotomo Software.
  17. LokeM.H.2010. RES2DINV ver. 3.59. Geoelectrical Imaging 2D & 3D. Instruction manual.
  18. LokeM.H. and LaneJ.W.L.Jr.2004. Inversion of data from electrical resistivity imaging surveys in water‐covered areas. Exploration Geophysics35, 266–271.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. LokeM.H., ChambersJ.E., RuckerD.F., KurasO. and Wilkinson, P.B.2013. Recent developments in the direct‐current geoelectrical imaging method. Journal of Applied Geophysics95, 135–156.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. LileO.B., BackeK.R., ElvebakkH. and BuanJ.E.1994. Resistivity measurements on the sea‐bottom to map fracture zones in the bedrock underneath sediments. Geophysical Prospecting42, 813–824.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. MansoorN. and SlaterL.2007. Aquatic electrical resistivity imaging of shallow‐water wetlands. Geophysics72, F211–F221.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. MilleroF.J. and HuangF.2009. The density of seawater as a function of salinity (5 to 70 g kg−1 ) and temperature (273.15 to 363.15 K). Ocean Science5, 91–100.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. OrlandoL.2013. Some considerations on electrical resistivity imaging for characterization of waterbed sediments. Journal of Applied Geophysics95, 77–89.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. PassaroS.2010. Marine electrical resistivity tomography for shipwreck detection in very shallow water: a case study from Agropoli (Salerno, southern Italy). Journal of Archaeological Science37, 1989–1998.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. PsomiadisD., TsourlosP. and AlbanakisK.2009. Electrical resistivity tomography mapping of beachrocks: application to the island of Thassos (N. Greece). Environmental Earth Sciences59, 233–240.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. ReiserF., DalseggE., DahlinT., GanerødG. and RønningJ.S.2009. Resistivity modelling of fracture zones and horizontal layers in bedrock. NGU Report 2009.070 (pp.1–120).
  27. RinaldiV., GuichonM., FerreroV., SerranoC. and PontiN.2006. Resistivity survey of the subsurface conditions in the estuary of the Rio de la Plata. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering132, 72–79.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. 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]
  29. RossiM., OlssonP., JohansonS., FiandacaG., BergdahlD.P. and DahlinT.2017. Mapping geological structures in bedrock via large‐scale direct current resistivity and time‐domain induced polarization tomography. Near Surface Geophysics15, 657–667.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. RønningJ.S., GanerødG.V., DalseggE. and ReiserF.2013. Resistivity mapping as a tool for identification and characterization of weakness zones in bedrock ‐ definition and testing of an interpretational model. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment73, 1225–1244.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. RuckerD.F. and NoonanG.E.2013. Using marine resistivity to map geotechnical properties: a case study in support of dredging the Panama Canal. Near Surface Geophysics11, 625–637.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. RuckerD.F., NoonanG. and GreenwoodW.J.2011. Electrical resistivity in support of geological mapping along the Panama Canal. Engineering Geology117, 121–133.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. SatrianiA., LoperteA. and ProtoM.2011. Electrical resistivity tomography for coastal saltwater intrusion characterization along the Ionian coast of Basilicata region (Southern Italy). Fifteenth International Water Technology Conference (IWTC‐15, 2011), Alexandria, Egypt.
  34. ShermanD., KannbergP. and ConstableS.2017. Surface towed electromagnetic system for mapping of subsea Arctic permafrost. Earth and Planetary Science Letters460, 97–104.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. SimyrdanisK., PapadopoulosN., KimJ.‐H., TsourlosP. and Moffat2015. Archaeological investigations in the shallow seawater environment with electrical resistivity tomography. Near Surface Geophysics13, 601–611.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. SimyrdanisK., PapadopoulosN. and CantoroG., 2016. Shallow off‐shore archaeological prospection with 3‐D electrical resistivity tomography: The case of Olous (Modern Elounda), Greece. Remote Sensing8, 897.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. SwarzenskiP.W., SimondsF.W., PaulsonA.J., KruseS. and ReichC.2007. Geochemical and geophysical examination of submarine groundwater discharge and associated nutrient loading estimates into lynch cove, Hood Canal, WA. Environmental Science & Technology41, 7022–7029.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. VargemezisG., TsourlosP., StampolidisA., FikosI. and BallasD.2012. A focusing approach to ground water detection by means of electrical and EM methods: the case of Paliouri, Northern Greece. Studia Geophysica et Geodaetica56, 1063–1078.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12086
Loading
Detection and characterization of fracture zones in bedrock in marine environment: possibilities and limitations
Near Surface Geophysics 18, 91 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1002/nsg.12086
/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12086
/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12086
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): 2D; Electrical resistivity tomography; Inversion modelling; Shallow marine

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