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

Abstract

ABSTRACT

An electrical resistivity tomography survey was conducted to assess the subsurface conditions associated with the coseismic liquefaction phenomenon in the epicentral region following the M 5.8 Mirpur earthquake (Pakistan) on 24 September 2019. The Mirpur earthquake produced extensive coseismic liquefaction‐induced surface deformations, including: sand blows, ground failure and lateral spreading along the Upper Jhelum Canal and in the nearby villages. Electrical resistivity data were acquired along three profiles and calibrated with available borehole data. The inverted electrical resistivity tomography profiles reveal three regional geoelectric layers, which consist of an upper 2–‐5‐m‐thick discontinuous zones of medium resistivity values ranging from 25 Ωm to 60 Ωm, underlain by a 7–8‐m‐thick zone of low resistivity (<10 Ωm) and a basal layer of high resistivity (> 100 Ωm). Based on geological and geophysical data, we infer that. (1) disrupted geoelectric layers in the shallow subsurface and spatially extended low electrical resistivity (<8 Ωm) layers document the elevated groundwater table due to sudden increase in pore‐water pressure triggered by the Mirpur earthquake. These lenses of high conductivity may represent potential hazards in the case of future earthquakes in the study area. (2) Fracture azimuths vary between 120° ± 15° and 335°–45° (subparallel and orthogonal to the strike of the Himalayan Frontal Thrust. (3) Common coseismic deformational features (e.g., sand blow and ground fracture) are located within the zone of maximum‐recorded ground shaking (intensity of VI) and underlain by Quaternary alluvial sediments. (4) Mega fractures (1.60 m wide and up to 187 m long) oriented parallel to the canal resulted from lateral spreading. We conclude that high resistivity structures extending from depth to the shallow subsurface resulted from either intrusion of air or eruption of sands from layer three. We suggest that high‐resolution geoelectrical imaging is a valuable complementary tool for evaluating the extent of subsurface liquefaction features and in understanding coseismic deformation during earthquakes, which can help with seismic hazard analysis and mitigation in seismically active regions.

© 2021 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers © 2021 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12148
2021-04-16
2024-04-25

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12148
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. ADB & WB . (2005) Preliminary Damage and Needs Assessment. Asian Development Bank World Bank.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Al‐Shukri, H.J., Mahdi, H.H. and Tuttle, M. (2006) Three‐dimensional imaging of earthquake‐induced liquefaction features with ground penetrating radar near Marianna, Arkansas. Seismological Research Letters, 77(4), 505–513.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Ali, U. and Ali, S.A. (2020) Comparative response of Kashmir Basin and its surroundings to the earthquake shaking based on various site effects. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 132, 106046.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Alladin, Y., Talebian, M., Arian, M. and Ahmad, M.M. (2015) Geotechnical investigation and seismic zonation of alluvial deposits in Western Tehran. Geoscience, 24(95), 333–343.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Allen, J.R.L. (1986) Earthquake magnitude‐frequency, epicentral distance, and soft‐sediment deformation in sedimentary basins. Sedimentary Geology, 46(1), 67–75.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Ambraseys, N.N. (1988) Engineering seismology: Part II. 17(1), 51–105.
  7. Arif, M., Hussain, S.H., Khan, R. and Hussain, A., (2000) Geological map of the Mirpur area, Mirpur and Bhimber districts, AJK and parts of the Gujrat and Jhelum districts, Punjab, Pakistan. Geological Survey of Pakistan, Geological Map Series, VI, 29.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Bilham. (2019) Himalayan earthquakes: A review of historical seismicity and early 21st century slip potential. Geological Society, 483(1), 423–482.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Calabrese, L., Martelli, L. and Severi, P. (2012) Stratigrafia dell'area interessata dai fenomeni di liquefazione durante il terremoto dell'Emilia (maggio 2012). Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 31st GNGTS, Italy.
  10. Caputo, R., Piscitelli, S., Oliveto, A., Rizzo, E. and Lapenna, V. (2003) The use of electrical resistivity tomographies in active tectonics: examples from the Tyrnavos Basin, Greece. Journal of Geodynamics, 36(1), 19–35.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Chen, W., Han, S., Khan, M.Y., Chen, W., He, Y., Zhang, L., et al. (2020) A surface‐to‐borehole TEM system based on grounded‐wire sources: synthetic modeling and data inversion. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 177(9), 4207–4216.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Claerbout, J.F. and Muir, F., (1973) Robust modeling with erratic data. Geophysics, 38(5), 826–844.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Dahlin, T. and Zhou, B. (2004) A numerical comparison of 2D resistivity imaging with 10 electrode arrays. Geophysical Prospecting, 52(5), 379–398.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. deGroot‐Hedlin, C. and Constable, S. (1990) Occam's inversion to generate smooth, two‐dimensional models from magnetotelluric data. Geophysics, 55(12), 1613–1624.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. de Jong, S.M., Heijenk, R.A., Nijland, W. and van der Meijde, M. (2020) Monitoring soil moisture dynamics using electrical resistivity tomography under homogeneous field conditions. Sensors, 20(18), 5313.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. DeMets, C., Gordon, R.G., Argus, D.F. and Stein, S. (1994) Effect of recent revisions to the geomagnetic reversal time scale on estimates of current plate motions. Geophysical Research Letters, 21(20), 2191–2194.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Devi, R., Sastry, R.G. and Samadhiya, N.K. (2017) Assessment of soil‐liquefaction potential based on geoelectrical imaging: A case study. Geophysics, 82(6), B231–B243.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Galli, P. (2000) New empirical relationships between magnitude and distance for liquefaction. Tectonophysics, 324(3), 169–187.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Galli, P., Castenetto, S. and Peronace, E. (2012) The MCS macroseismic survey of the Emilia 2012 earthquakes. Annals of Geophysics, 55(4), 663–672.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Giocoli, A., Galli, P., Giaccio, B., Lapenna, V., Messina, P., Peronace, E., et al. (2011) Electrical resistivity tomography across the Paganica‐San Demetrio fault system (L'Aquila 2009 earthquake). Bollettino di Geofisica Teorica ed Applicata, 52(3), 457–469.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Giocoli, A., Quadrio, B., Bellanova, J., Lapenna, V. and Piscitelli, S. (2014) Electrical resistivity tomography for studying liquefaction induced by the May (2012) Emilia‐Romagna earthquake (Mw=6.1, northern Italy). Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 14(4), 731–737.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Jayangondaperumal, R. and Thakur, V.C. (2008) Co‐seismic secondary surface fractures on southeastward extension of the rupture zone of the 2005 Kashmir earthquake. Tectonophysics, 446(1), 61–76.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Jefferies, M. and Been, K. (2015) Soil Liquefaction: A Critical State Approach. CRC Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Khan, M.Y., Rehman, K., Wajid, A., Turab, S.A., Latif, K. and Iqbal, S. (2019) Characterization of ground penetrating radar (GPR) wave response in shallow subsurface for forensic investigation in controlled environment. Journal of Himalayan Earth Sciences, 52(1), 58.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Khan, M.Y., Xue, G.Q., Chen, W.Y. and Boateng, C.D. (2020) Investigation of groundwater in‐rush zone using petrophysical logs and short‐offset transient electromagnetic (SOTEM) data. Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, 25(3), 433–437.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Khan, M.Y., Xue, G.Q., Chen, W.Y. and Zhong, H.S. (2018) Analysis of long‐offset transient electromagnetic (LOTEM) data in time, frequency, and pseudo‐seismic domain. Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, 23(1), 15–32.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Ko, K., Kim, S.W., Lee, H.‐.J., Hwang, I.G., Kim, B.C., Kee, W.‐.S., et al. (2017) Soft sediment deformation structures in a lacustrine sedimentary succession induced by volcano‐tectonic activities: an example from the Cretaceous Beolgeumri Formation, Wido Volcanics, Korea. Sedimentary Geology, 358, 197–209.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Kolawole, F., Atekwana, E.A. and Ismail, A. (2017) Near‐surface electrical resistivity investigation of coseismic liquefaction‐induced ground deformation associated with the 2016 Mw 5.8 Pawnee, Oklahoma, Earthquake. Seismological Research Letters, 88(4), 1017–1023.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Kolawole, F., Atekwana, E.A., Laó‐Dávila, D.A., Abdelsalam, M.G., Chindandali, P.R., Salima, J. and Kalindekafe, L. (2018) Active deformation of Malawi Rift's north basin hinge zone modulated by reactivation of preexisting precambrian shear zone fabric. Tectonics, 37(3), 683–704.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Loke, M.H. and Barker, R.D. (1996) Rapid least‐squares inversion of apparent resistivity pseudosections by a quasi‐Newton method. Geophysical Prospecting, 44(1), 131–152.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Lunina, O.V. and Gladkov, A.S. (2016) Soft‐sediment deformation structures induced by strong earthquakes in southern Siberia and their paleoseismic significance. Sedimentary Geology, 344, 5–19.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Mencin, D., Bendick, R., Upreti, B.N., Adhikari, D.P., Gajurel, A.P., Bhattarai, R.R., et al. (2016) Himalayan strain reservoir inferred from limited afterslip following the Gorkha earthquake. Nature Geoscience, 9(7), 533–537.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Mertzanides, Y., Tsakmakis, I., Kargiotis, E. and Sylaios, G. (2020) Electrical resistivity tomography for spatiotemporal variations of soil moisture in a precision irrigation experiment. International Agrophysics, 34(3), 309–319.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Michot, D., Benderitter, Y., Dorigny, A., Nicoullaud, B., King, D. and Tabbagh, A. (2003) Spatial and temporal monitoring of soil water content with an irrigated corn crop cover using surface electrical resistivity tomography. Water Resources Research, 39(5), 1138.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Minster, J.B. and Jordan, T.H. (1978) Present‐day plate motions. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 83(B11), 5331–5354.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Mucciarelli, M. (2011) Ambient noise measurements following the 2011 Christchurch earthquake: Relationships with previous microzonation studies, liquefaction, and nonlinearity. Seismological Research Letters, 82(6), 919–926.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Mucciarelli, M., Bianca, M., Ditommaso, R., Vona, M., Gallipoli, M.R., Giocoli, A., et al. (2011) Peculiar earthquake damage on a reinforced concrete building in San Gregorio (L'Aquila, Italy): site effects or building defects?Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 9(3), 825–840.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Muhammad, S., Ullah, R., Turab, S.A., Khan, M.Y., Khattak, N.U. and Khan, M.A. (2020) Radon concentration in drinking water and soil after the September 24, 2019, Mw 5.8 earthquake, Mirpur, Azad Jammu, and Kashmir: an evaluation for potential risk. Environmental Science Pollution Research International, 27, 32628–32636.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Naidu, S., Gupta, G., Tahama, K. and Erram, V.C. (2020) Two‐dimensional modelling of electrical resistivity imaging data for assessment of saline water ingress in coastal aquifers of Sindhudurg district, Maharashtra, India. Modeling Earth Systems and Environment, 6, 731–742.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. NDMA . (2019) NDMA situation report 18 – Mirpur Earthquake. Retrieved from www.ndma.gov.pk
  41. Obermeier, S.F. (1996) Use of liquefaction‐induced features for paleoseismic analysis – an overview of how seismic liquefaction features can be distinguished from other features and how their regional distribution and properties of source sediment can be used to infer the location and strength of Holocene paleo‐earthquakes. Engineering Geology, 44(1), 1–76.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Orense, R., Pender, M. and Wotherspoon, L. (2012) Analysis of soil liquefaction during the recent Canterbury (New Zealand) earthquakes. Journal Geotechnical Engineering, 43(2), 8–17.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Owen, L.A., Kamp, U., Khattak, G.A., Harp, E.L., Keefer, D.K. and Bauer, M.A. (2008) Landslides triggered by the 8 October 2005 Kashmir earthquake. Geomorphology, 94(1), 1–9.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Owen, L.A. and Moretti, M. (2011a) Identifying triggers for liquefaction‐induced soft‐sediment deformation in sands. Sedimentary Geology, 235(3–4), 141–147.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Owen, G., Moretti,M. and Alfaro,P. (2011b) Recognising triggers for soft‐sediment deformation: current understanding and future directions. Sedimentary Geology, 235(3–4), 133–140.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Pazzi, V., Ceccatelli, M., Gracchi, T., Benedetta Masi, E. and Fanti, R. (2018) Assessing subsoil void hazards along a road system using H/V measurements, ERTs and IPTs to support local decision makers. Near Surface Geophysics, 16(3), 282–297.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Pazzi, V., Morelli, S. and Fanti, R. (2019) A review of the advantages and limitations of geophysical investigations in landslide studies. International Journal of Geophysics, 2019, 2983087.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Rabeti Moghadam, M., Alielahi, H. and Sadeghi Abdollahi, A. (2017) Numerical evaluation of liquefaction‐induced damages in composite breakwaters and its application for performance‐based improvement design. Marine Georesources and Geotechnology, 35(3), 376–396.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Rodríguez‐Pascua, M.A., Silva, P.G., Perucha, M.A., Giner‐Robles, J.L., Heras, C., Bastida, A.B., et al. (2016) Seismically induced liquefaction structures in La Magdalena archaeological site, the 4th century AD Roman Complutum (Madrid, Spain). Sedimentary Geology, 344, 34–46.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Rodriguez, J., Ustin, S., Sandoval‐Solis, S. and O'Geen, A.T. (2016) Food, water, and fault lines: remote sensing opportunities for earthquake‐response management of agricultural water. Science of the Total Environment, 565, 1020–1027.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Romeo, R.W., Amoroso, S., Facciorusso, J., Lenti, L., Madiai, C., Martino, S., et al. (2015) Soil liquefaction during the Emilia, 2012 seismic sequence: investigation and analysis. Paper presented at the Engineering Geology for Society and Territory, Volume 5. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
  52. Rossetto, T. and Peiris, N. (2009) Observations of damage due to the Kashmir earthquake of October 8, 2005 and study of current seismic provisions for buildings in Pakistan. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 7(3), 681–699.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Sarker, M.A. (2019) Numerical modelling of tsunami in the Makran subduction zone – a case study on the 1945 event. Journal of Operational Oceanography, 12(Sup2), S212–S229.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Shafique, M. and Khan, M.Y. (2015) Earthquake hazards and risk mitigation in Pakistan. In Rahman, A.‐U.,Khan, A. N. and Shaw, R. (Eds.), Disaster Risk Reduction Approaches in Pakistan. Tokyo: Springer Japan, pp. 101–117.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Shao, Z.‐F., Zhong, J.‐H., Howell, J., Hao, B., Luan, X.‐W., Liu, Z.‐X., et al. (2020) Liquefaction structures induced by the M5.7 earthquake on May 28, 2018 in Songyuan, Jilin Province, NE China and research implication. Journal of Palaeogeography, 9(1), 3.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Sultan, M. (2015) Seismic hazard analysis of Pakistan. Journal of Geology and Geoscience, 4(1), 190.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Takahama, N., Otsuka, T. and Brahmantyo, B. (2000) A new phenomenon in ancient liquefaction: the draw‐in process, its final stage. Sedimentary Geology, 135(1–4), 157–165.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. USGS . (2019) Retrieved from https://earthquake.usgs.gov/
  59. Wotherspoon, L.M., Pender, M.J. and Orense, R.P. (2012) Relationship between observed liquefaction at Kaiapoi following the 2010 Darfield earthquake and former channels of the Waimakariri River. Engineering Geology, 125, 45–55.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Youd, T.L. (1977) Brief review of liquefaction during earthquakes in Japan. Soil and Foundations, 17, 82–85.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Youd, T.L. (1995) Liquefaction‐induced lateral ground displacement. Paper presented at the International Conferences on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil, St. Louis, Missouri.
  62. Yousuf, M., Bukhari, S.K., Bhat, G.R. and Ali, A. (2020) Understanding and managing earthquake hazard visa viz disaster mitigation strategies in Kashmir valley, NW Himalaya. Progress in Disaster Science, 5, 100064.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Zhao, Q.Y. (2012) Effect of groundwater and cover on sand liquefaction. West China Exploration Engineering, 1, 8–12.(in Chinese with English abstract).
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12148
Loading
Investigation of coseismic liquefaction‐induced ground deformation associated with the 2019 Mw 5.8 Mirpur, Pakistan, earthquake using near‐surface electrical resistivity tomography and geological data
Near Surface Geophysics 19, 169 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1002/nsg.12148
/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12148
/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12148
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Coseismic Liquefaction; Earthquake; Electrical resistivity tomography (ERT); Groundwater

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