1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Near Surface Geophysics
  4. Volume 19, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 19, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604
PDF

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Renovation of water and central heating pipelines is a very costly and time‐consuming process; therefore, a way to prioritize the limited resources between different parts of the systems is very important. The risk for corrosion damage can be assessed from the resistivity of the ground, because the processes facilitating the metal oxidation also affect the resistivity. However, galvanic resistivity mapping is time consuming and work‐intensive in paved areas. To determine the resistivity in the vicinity of pipes two different resistivity methods were applied: electrical resistivity tomography using galvanic coupling, and the logistically easier and rapid electrostatic measurements using capacitive coupling. The two methods were tested in a series of experiments undertaken in the province of Scania in southern Sweden with the aim to acquire a better knowledge about the electrical resistivity of the soil surrounding the heating and water distribution pipes, in order to better assess the corrosivity of the environment. From the experiments it is shown that the electrical resistivity tomography and electrostatic methods mostly give comparable results for the shallow investigated depths in focus here, where differences might be caused by different sensitivities and noise characteristics. In the case of both methods, it is shown, with the help of modelling of the different expected ground models including the pipes, that the pipes only influence the data in cases of pipes of very large diameters or those buried at a very shallow depth, even without any protective surface coating. The missing influence of the pipes on the data makes the methods very applicable for knowing the resistivity of the soil surrounding the pipes and thus evaluation of corrosion risk.

© 2021 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers © 2020 The Authors. Near Surface Geophysics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12135
2021-01-20
2024-04-26

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12135
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/nsg/19/1/nsg12135.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12135&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Alfano, L.M. (1959) Introduction to the interpretation of resistivity measurements for complicated structural conditions. Geophysical Prospecting, 7, 311–368.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Benderitter, Y., Jolivet, A., Mounir, A. and Tabbagh, A. (1994) Application of the electrostatic quadripole to sounding in the hectometric depth range. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 31, 1–6.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Boulanger, O. and Chouteau, M. (2005) 3D modelling and sensitivity in DC resistivity using charge density. Geophysical Prospecting, 53, 579–617.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Burton, B.L. and Cannia, J.C. (2011) Capacitively coupled resistivity survey of the levee surrounding the Omaha Public Power District Nebraska City Power Plant: U.S. Geological Survey Open‐File Report, 2011–1211, 10 p.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Dabas, M., Camerlynck, C. and Freixas, P. (2000) Simultaneous use of electrostatic quadrupole and GPR in urban context: investigation of the basement of the Cathedral of Girona (Catalunya‐Spain). Geophysics, 65, 526–532.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Dahlin, T. and Zhou, B. (2006) Multiple‐gradient array measurements for multichannel 2D resistivity imaging. Near Surface Geophysics, 4, 113–123.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Flageul, S., Dabas, M., Thiesson, J., Réjiba, F. and Tabbagh, A. (2013) First in situ tests of a new electrostatic resistivity meter. Near Surface Geophysics, 11, 265–273.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Hesse, A., Andrieux, P., Atya, M., Benech, C., Camerlynck, C., Dabas, M., et al. (2002) l'Heptastade d'Alexandrie. Etudes alexandrines, 6, IFAO, J.‐Y.Empereur (Ed), 191–273.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Kuras, O., Beamish, D., Meldrum, P.I. and Ogilvy, R.D. (2006) Fundamentals of the capacitive resistivity technique. Geophysics, 71, G135–G152.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Li, Y. and Oldenburg, D.W. (1991) Aspects of charge accumulation in D.C. resistivity experiments. Geophysical Prospecting, 39, 803–826.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Loke, M.H., Acworth, I. and Dahlin, T. (2003) A comparison of smooth and blocky inversion methods in 2‐D electrical imaging surveys. Exploration Geophysics, 34(3), 182–187.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Loke, M.H., Chambers, J.E., Rucker, D.F., Kuras, O. and Wilkinson, P.B. (2013) Recent developments in the direct‐current geoelectrical imaging methods. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 95, 135–156.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Malm, A., Horstmark, A., Larsson, G., Uusijärvi, J., Meyer, A. and Jansson, E. (2011) Rörmaterial i Svenska VA‐ledningar – egenskaper och livslängd. Rapport nr 2011–14, Svenskt Vatten, Stockholm.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Oldenburg, D.W. and Li, Y. (1999) Estimating depth of investigation in dc resistivity and IP surveys. Geophysics, 64, 403–416.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Roberge, P.R. (2008) Corrosion Engineering. McGraw Hill Professional, 754 pp.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. SGU, Geological Survey of Sweden , (2019) Map generator. [Online]. [20 March 2019]. Available from: http://apps.sgu.se/kartgenerator/maporder_en.html
  17. Spahos, Y. (1979) Calculs sur modèle et rôle du quadripôle en prospection électrique de subsurface. Application à la détection archéologique. Thèse, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris.
  18. Tabbagh, A., Hesse, A. and Grard, R. (1993) Determination of electrical properties of the ground shallow depth with an electrostatic quadrupole: field trials on archaeological sites. Geophysical Prospecting, 41, 579–597.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Tabbagh, A. and Panissod, C. (2000), 1D complete calculation for electrostatic soundings interpretation. Geophysical Prospecting, 48, 511–520.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Thiesson, J., Tabbagh, A., Dabas, M. and Chevalier, A. (2018) Characterization of buried cables and pipes using electromagnetic induction (EMI) loop‐loop frequency domain devices. Geophysics, 83, E1–E10.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Uhlemann, S. and Kuras, O. (2014) Numerical simulations of capacitive resistivity imaging (CRI) measurements. Near Surface Geophysics, 12, 523–537.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12135
Loading
Determination of the resistivity distribution along underground pipes in urban contexts using galvanic and capacitive methods
Near Surface Geophysics 19, 27 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1002/nsg.12135
/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12135
/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12135
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Near‐surface; Resistivity; Site characterization

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