1887
Volume 16, Issue 3
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

ABSTRACT

The objective of this work was to characterise the bases of columns belonging to an industrial plant. We had to design a proper methodology for characterising these structures, in a place with limited available space and time for the deployment of sensors, and with other environmental constraints, such as high electromagnetic noise level, soil vibrations due to operating machines, and complex soil composition. In particular, the floor had a stainless steel cover about 1‐cm thick, below which there was first a layer of concrete about 30‐cm thick and then clay material used to absorb the oils of the machines. Finally, there was the natural soil on which the column bases stood.

Given these characteristics, we performed dipole–dipole geoelectric profiles. Holes were drilled through the metallic cover and the concrete layer, with fixed spacings, to insert the electrodes. Because of this and the space and time restrictions, only one profile could be performed for each column. Since we knew that the data could have high noise levels and other errors negatively impacting the data quality, and also because there was a limitation to the length of the profiles, we optimised the measurement configuration by jointly using several electrode apertures, to ensure the best possible resolution and sufficient penetration depth. To obtain adequate error estimations, we performed direct and reciprocal measurements. As an alternative technique, we also carried out a second set of direct measurements, after removing and reinstalling the electrodes.

Then, for each profile, we performed 2D inversions of the three datasets separately, without considering data errors. Besides, we inverted the datasets obtained by combining the first direct and the reciprocal measurements, and the first and second direct measurements, considering the two obtained error estimates. In addition, numerical simulations were made, combining direct 3D modelling with 2D inversions. To analyse the results, we took into account the knowledge we had in advance about the main characteristics of the structures.

The first conclusion obtained is that, at least for this type of structures, inverting each dataset without considering data errors provided more realistic images. However, although the best results were obtained by inverting without considering errors, it was still fundamental to have different sets of data, for evaluating the reliability of the images and for discarding possible spurious artefacts. This is especially important in environmentally complex urban sites, where errors could be particularly high. Finally, through the numerical simulations, a more rigorous interpretation could be made, and also, the effect of data errors in the quality of the images could be assessed.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.163001
2018-04-01
2020-04-08
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. ArjwechP., EverettM.E., BriaudJ.‐L., HurlebausS., Medina‐CetinaZ., TuckerS.et al.2013. Electrical resistivity imaging of unknown bridge foundations. Near Surface Geophysics11(6), 591–598.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. BonomoN., OsellaA., MartinelliP., de la VegaM., CoccoG., LetieriF.et al.2012. Location and characterization of the Sancti Spiritus Fort from geophysical investigations. Journal of Applied Geophysics83, 57–64.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. DabasM., CamerlynckC., FreixasI. and CampsP.2000. Simultaneous use of electrostatic quadrupole and GPR in urban context: investigations of the basement of the Cathedral of Girona (Catalunya, Spain). Geophysics65(2), 526–532.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. DahlinT. and ZhouB.2004. A numerical comparison of 2D resistivity imaging with 10 electrode arrays. Geophysical Prospecting52(5), 379–398.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. DrahorM.G.2011. A review of integrated geophysical investigations from archaeological and cultural sites under encroaching urbanization in Izmir, Turkey. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth36(16), 1294–1309.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. EdwardsL.S.1977. A modeled pseudosection for resistivity and IP. Geophysics42(5), 1020–1036.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. EppelbaumL.V.2011. Study of magnetic anomalies over archaeological targets in urban environments. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth36(16), 1318–1330.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. KarhunenK., SeppänenA., LehikoinenA., MonteiroP.J.M. and KaipioJ.P.2010. Electrical resistance tomography imaging of concrete. Cement and Concrete Research40(1), 137–145.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. LeucciG. and NegriS.2006. Use of ground penetrating radar to map subsurface archaeological features in an urban area. Journal of Archaeological Science33(4), 502–512.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. LokeM.H. and BarkerR.D.1996a. Rapid least‐squares inversion of apparent resistivity pseudosections by a quasi‐Newton method. Geophysical Prospecting44(1), 131–152.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. LokeM.H. and BarkerR.D.1996b. Practical techniques for 3D resistivity surveys and data inversion. Geophysical Prospecting44(3), 499–523.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. LokeM.H., AcworthI. and DahlinT.2003. A comparison of smooth and blocky inversion methods in 2D electrical imaging surveys. Exploration Geophysics34(3), 182–187.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. LokeM.H., ChambersJ.E., RuckerD.F., KurasO. and WilkinsonP.B.2013. Recent developments in the direct‐current geoelectrical imaging method. Journal of Applied Geophysics95, 135–156.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. MartoranaR., FiandacaG., Casas PonsatiA. and CosentinoP. L.2009. Comparative tests on different multi‐electrode arrays using models in near‐surface geophysics. Journal of Geophysics and Engineering6(1), 1–20.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. NiederleithingerE., AbrahamO. and MooneyM.2015. Geophysical methods in civil engineering: overview and new concepts. International Symposium Non‐Destructive Testing in Civil Engineering (NDT‐CE), Berlin, Germany, September 2015. Bundesanstalt für Materialforschung und‐prüfung (BAM).
    [Google Scholar]
  16. OsellaA., MartinelliP., GrunhutV., de la VegaM., BonomoN. and WeisselM.2015. Electrical imaging for localizing historical tunnels at an urban environment. Journal of Geophysics and Engineering12(4), 674–685.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. PapadopoulosN., SarrisA., YiM.‐J. and KimJ.‐H.2009. Urban archaeological investigations using surface 3D ground penetrating radar and electrical resistivity tomography methods. Exploration Geophysics40(1), 56–68.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. ParasnisD.S.1988. Reciprocity theorems in geoelectric and geoelectromagnetic work. Geoexploration25(3), 177–198.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. ParkS.K. and VanG.P.1991. Inversion of pole‐pole data for 3‐D resistivity structure beneath arrays of electrodes. Geophysics56(7), 951–960.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. SzalaiS., NovákA. and SzarkaL., 2011. Which geoelectric array sees the deepest in a noisy environment? Depth of detectability values of multielectrode systems for various 2D models. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth36(16), 1398–1404.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. SzalaiS., KoppanA., SzokoliK. and SzarkaL.2013. Geoelectric imaging properties of traditional arrays and of the optimized Stummer configuration. Near Surface Geophysics11, 51–62.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. SzalaiS., LempergerI., MetwalyM., KisÁ., V.Wesztergom, SzokoliK.et al.2014. Increasing the effectiveness of electrical resistivity tomography using Y11n configurations. Geophysical Prospecting63(2), 508–524.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. TsokasG.N., TsourlosP.I., VargemezisG.N. and PazarasN.T.2011. Using surface and cross‐hole resistivity tomography in an urban environment: an example of imaging the foundations of the ancient wall in Thessaloniki, North Greece. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth36(16), 1310–1317.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. ZhouB. and DahlinT.2003. Properties and effects of measurement errors on 2D resistivity imaging surveying. Near Surface Geophysics1(3), 105–117.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.163001
Loading
/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.163001
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