1887
Volume 16 Number 1
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

ABSTRACT

In the past few years, the focus on Alum shale hazards and the need for efficient mapping tools have increased in Norway. Alum shale is highly toxic and poses a substantial obstacle to infrastructure development such as tunnel projects. We present an evaluation of the ground‐based electrical resistivity tomography, induced polarisation, and airborne electromagnetic methods for mapping purposes using a recent case study. This evaluation is done in combination with resistivity and chargeability laboratory measurements applied to drill cores. The aim of the geophysical survey was to improve the knowledge of Alum shale occurrence to assist a tunnel project in Gran, southeast Norway. Resistivity and chargeability models derived from an electrical resistivity tomography/induced polarisation survey enabled us to map the presence of Alum shale during the tunnel investigation. The resistivity models point to geological layers that are in agreement with the rock types observed from early drillings together with subsequent geological logging during tunnelling. The time‐domain chargeability models are imperfect but nonetheless reveal the presence of polarisable minerals. These are likely due to the high levels of sulphides contained in black shale. An airborne electromagnetic survey was done close to the area of interest, which enabled us to fly some sparse lines across the tunnel alignment as a piggyback survey. Although the airborne electromagnetic resolution is lower than electrical resistivity tomography, the successful test flight lines illustrate the potential of airborne electromagnetic surveys for Alum shale mapping in Norway and affirm the promise of airborne electromagnetic in the early stages of project exploration.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2017036
2017-07-01
2020-08-13
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. ABEM
    ABEM2010. Terrameter LS Instruction Manual. http://abem.se, pp 63.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. AGI
    AGI1972. Glossary of Geology American Geological Institute, pp 805.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. AnschützH., BazinS., KåsinK., PfaffhuberA.A. and SmaavikT. in press. Airborne sensitive clay mapping ‐ stretching the limits of AEM resolution and accuracy. Near surface Geophysics.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. AnschützH., VögeM., LysdahlA., BazinS., SauvinG., PfaffhuberA.A.et al. 2017. From manual to automatic AEM bedrock mapping. Special issue Airborne Geophysics of Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics22, 35–49.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. AukenE., ChristiansenA.V., JacobsenB.H., FogedN. and SørensenK.I.2005. Piecewise 1D laterally constrained inversion of resistivity data. Geophysical Prospecting53, 497–506.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. AukenE., ChristiansenA.V.KirkegaardC., FiandacaG., SchamperC., BehroozmandA.A., BinleyA.et al. 2014. An overview of a highly versatile forward and stable inverse algorithm for airborne, groundbased and borehole electromagnetic and electric data. Exploration Geophysics46, 223‐235.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. AukenE., ChristiansenA.V., WestergaardJ.H., KirkegaardC., FopgedN., ViezzoliA.2009. An integrated processing scheme for high‐resolution airborne electromagnetic surveys, the SkyTEM system. Exploration Geophysics40, 184–192.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. BazinS., AnschützH., LysdahlA.K., PfaffhuberA.A. and ScheibzJ.2015. ERT inversion industry standard versus cutting edge developments, time for a change? Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems (SAGEEP), TX, USA, 535‐538.
  9. ChristiansenA.V. and AukenE.2012. A global measure for depth of investigation. Geophysics77, 171–178.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. DahlinT.2000. Short note on electrode charge‐up effects in DC resistivity data acquisition using multi electrode arrays. Geophysical Prospecting48(1), 181–187.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. DahlinT. and ZhouB.2006. Gradient array measurements for multichannel 2D resistivity imaging. Near Surface Geophysics4, 113–123.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. DahlinT. and LerouxV.2012. Improvement in time‐domain induced polarisation data quality with multi‐electrode systems by separating current and potential cables. Near Surface Geophysics10, 545–565.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. DahlinT. and LokeM.H.2015. Negative apparent chargeability in timedomain induced polarisation data. Journal of Applied Geophysics123, 322–332.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. DanielsenB.E. and DahlinT.2009. Comparison of geoelectrical imaging and tunnel documentation at the Hallandsås Tunnel, Sweden. Engineering Geology107, 118–129.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. FiandacaG., RammJ., BinleyA., GazotyA., ChristiansenA. V. and AukenE.2013. Resolving spectral information from time domain induced polarization data through 2‐D inversion. Geophysical Journal International192, 631–646.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. GüntherT., RückerC., and SpitzerK.2006. 3D modelling and inversion of dc resistivity data incorporating topography – II. Inversion. Geophysical Journal International166, 506–517.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. GüntherT. and MartinT.2016. Spectral two‐dimensional inversion of frequency‐domain induced polarization data from a mining slag heap. Journal of Applied Geophysics135, 436‐448.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. HeinckeB.H., SmethurstM.A., BjørlykkeA., DahlgrenS., RønningJ.S. and MogaardJ.O.2008. Airborne gamma‐ray spectrometer mapping for relating indoor radon concentrations to geological parameters in the Fen region, southeast Norway. Geology for Society, Geological Survey of Norway11, 131–143.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. JohanssonS., FiandacaG. and DahlinT.2015. Influence of non‐aqueous phase liquid configuration on induced polarization parameters: conceptual models applied to a time‐domain field case study. Journal of Applied Geophysics123, 295–309.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. KaminskyV. and ViezzoliA.2017. Modeling induced polarization effects in helicopter time‐domain electromagnetic data: field case studies. Geophysics82, 49–61.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. KratzerT. and MacnaeJ.C.2012. Induced polarization in airborne EM. Geophysics77, E317–E327.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. LysdahlA.K., BazinS., AnschützH. and PfaffhuberA.A.2015. Black shale mapping by AEM for geotechnical applications. EAGE European Airborne Electromagnetics Conference,Turin, Italy.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. LysdahlA.K., EndreE. and RadicT.2016. The IP response of black shales in the Oslo graben, Norway. 5th international workshop on Induced Polarization,Århus, Denmark.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. LokeM.H.2010. RES2DINV version 3.59.102. Geoelectrical Imaging 2D and 3D. Instruction Manual. Geotomo Software,http://www.geotomosoft.com.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. NGI
    NGI2013. Tunnel Gran Jaren: identifisering og karakterisering av skifer‐horisonter i tunneltrasé. NGI report 20120110‐01R, 43.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. NGI
    NGI2015. Identifisering og karakterisering av syredannende bergarter. NGI report 20120842‐01R, 57. Public document in Norwegian for the Norwegian Environment Agency. http://www.miljodirektoratet.no/Documents/publikasjoner/M310/M310.pdf.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. NGU
    NGU2009. A compilation of previously published geochemical data on the lower Cambro‐Silurian sedimentary sequence, including the alum shales in the Oslo region. NGU report 2009.053, 25.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. NielsenA.T. and SchovsboN.H.2007. Cambrian to basal Ordovician lithostratigraphy in southern Scandinavia. Bulletin of the Geological Society of Denmark53, 82–84.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. NylandB. and TeiglandJ.1984. Sedimentologisk og geokjemisk under‐søkelse av de kambriske og underordoviciske marine sedimenter i Oslofeltet. Thesis, Geologisk institutt, Universitetet i Oslo, pp. 196.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. OkazakiK., MogiT., UtsugiM., ItoY., KunishimaH., YamazakiT.et al. 2011. Airborne electromagnetic and magnetic surveys for long tunnel construction design. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth36, 1237–1246.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. OldenburgD.W. and LiY.1994. Inversion of induced polarization data. Geophysics59, 1327–1341.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. OlssonP.‐I., DahlinT., FiandacaG. and AukenE.2015. Measuring timedomain spectral induced polarization in the on‐time: decreasing acquisition time and increasing signal‐to‐noise ratio. Journal of Applied Geophysics123, 316–321.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. PeltonW.H., WardS.H., HallofP.G., SillW.R. and NelsonP.H.1978. Mineral discrimination and removal of inductive coupling with multi‐ frequency IP. Geophysics43, 588–609.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. PfaffhuberA.A., GrimstadE., DomaasU., AukenE., HalkjærM. and FogedN.2010. Airborne EM mapping of rock slides and tunneling hazards, EAGE 16th European Meeting of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, Zurich, Switzerland, B10.
  35. RadicT.2014. Measuring IP effects at high frequencies: first lab and field data from 0.001 Hz–250 kHz. 3rd International Workshop on Induced Polarization,Boulder Colorado, USA.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. RevilA., MaoD., ShaoZ., SleeviM.F. and WangD.2016. Induced polarization response of porous media with metallic particles — Part 6: the case of metals and semimetals. Geophysics82, E77‐E96.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. SmithR.S. and WestG.F.1989. Field examples of negative coincident‐loop transient electromagnetic responses modeled with polarizable half‐planes. Geophysics54, 1491–1498.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. SmithR.S. and KleinJ.1999. A special circumstance of airborne induced polarization measurements. Geophysics61, 6–73.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. SørensenK.I. and AukenE.2004. SkyTEM – a new high‐resolution helicopter transient electromagnetic system. Exploration Geophysics35, 191–199.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. VanhalaH.1997. Laboratory and field studies of environmental and exploration applications of the spectral induced‐polarization (SIP) method. PhD thesis, Geologian Tutkimuskeskus, Helsinki University of Technology, Espoo, Finland.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. ViezzoliA., ChristiansenA.V., AukenE. and SørensenK.I.2008. Quasi‐3D – modeling of airborne TEM data by spatially constrained inversion. Geophysics73, F105–F113.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. ViezzoliA., JørgensenF and SørensenC.2012. Flawed processing of airborne EM data affecting hydrogeological interpretation. Groundwater51 (2), 191–202.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. ViezzoliA. and KaminskiV.2016. Airborne IP: examples from the Mount Milligan deposit, Canada, and the Amakinskaya kimberlite pipe, Russia. Exploration Geophysics.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. WangZ., GeliusL.J. and KongF.N.2009. Simultaneous core sample measurements of elastic properties and resistivity at reservoir conditions employing a modified triaxial cell ‐ a feasibility study. Geophysical Prospecting576, 1009–1026.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. WennermarkM., OlssonP.‐I., JohanssonS. and HellmanK.2015. A comparison of DCIP Inversion Software. EAGE European Airborne Electromagnetics Conference,Turin, Italy.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2017036
Loading
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2017036
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
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