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

Abstract

ABSTRACT

The reconstruction of the current status of a historic building is essential for seismic safety assessment and for designing the retrofitting interventions since different safety and confidence factors have to be assumed, depending on the level of information about the subsoil structure. In this work, we present an investigation of the shallow subsurface below and around a historic building affected by differential settlements in order to define its geometry and to characterise its stiffness at low strain. To this end, we employed high‐resolution electrical resistivity and seismic (both P‐wave and S‐wave) tomographies. A three‐dimensional electrical resistivity tomography survey was performed to obtain more information about the type and the maximum depth of the building foundation. Electrical resistivity and seismic tomographies were carried out alongside the building, aimed at imaging the top soils and the near‐surface geometry. The corresponding inverted models pointed out a remarkable heterogeneity of the shallow subsoil below the building, which is partly founded on a weathered layer and partly on a more rigid lithotype. This heterogeneity is probably a concurrent cause of the building’s instability under both static and seismic loading. Our results demonstrate that the man‐made fillings and the top soils have to be thoroughly investigated to fully understand the soil‐structure behaviour. In this light, the integration of non‐invasive high‐resolution geophysical techniques, especially tomographic methods, has been proved to properly address the problem of imaging the shallow subsoil.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2017044
2017-08-01
2020-07-16
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AdlerA. and LionheartW.R.2006. Uses and abuses of EIDORS: an extensible software base for EIT. Physiological Measurement27, S25.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. AsakawaE. and KawanakaT.1993. Seismic ray tracing using linear travel time interpolation. Geophysical Prospecting41, 99–111.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. BinleyA. and KemnaA.2005. DC resistivity and induced polarization methods. In: Hydrogeophysics, pp. 129–156. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. BowlesJ.E.1996. Foundation Analysis and Design, 5th edn, pp. 135–166. Singapore: McGraw‐Hill.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. BusatoL., BoagaJ., PeruzzoL., HimiM., ColaS., BersanS.et al. 2016. Combined geophysical surveys for the characterization of a reconstructed river embankment. Engineering Geology211, 74–84.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. CardarelliE. and De NardisR.2001. Seismic refraction, isotropic anisotropic seismic tomography on an ancient monument (Antonino and Faustina temple AD 141). Geophysical Prospecting49, 228–240.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. CardarelliE. and CerretoA.2002. Ray tracing in elliptical anisotropic media using linear travel‐time seismic interpolation (LTI) method applied to travel time seismic tomography. Geophysical Prospecting50, 55–72.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. CardarelliE., CercatoM. and Di FilippoG.2007. Assessing foundation stability and soil‐structure interaction through integrated geophysical techniques: a case history in Rome (Italy). Near Surface Geophysics5, 141–147.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. CardarelliE., CercatoM. and De DonnoG.2014. Characterization of an earth‐filled dam through the combined use of electrical resistivity tomography, P‐and SH‐wave seismic tomography and surface wave data. Journal of Applied Geophysics106, 87–95.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. CardarelliE., De DonnoG., ScatignoC., OlivetiI., MartinezM.P. and Prieto‐TaboadaN.2016. Geophysical and geochemical techniques to assess the origin of rising damp of a Roman building (Ostia Antica archaeological site). Microchemical Journal129, 49–57.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. CEN
    CEN2003. EuroCode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. Draft 6. Brussels, Belgium: European Committee for Standardization.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. CercatoM. and De DonnoG.2016. Focusing on soil foundation heterogeneity through high‐resolution tomography. 22nd European Meeting of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics,Barcelona, Spain, September 4–8, 2016.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. De DonnoG.2013. 2D tomographic inversion of complex resistivity data on cylindrical models. Geophysical Prospecting61, 586–601.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. De DonnoG. and CardarelliE.2014. 3D complex resistivity tomography on cylindrical models using EIDORS. Near Surface Geophysics12, 587–598.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. De DonnoG. and CardarelliE.2017a. VEMI: a flexible interface for 3D tomographic inversion of time‐ and frequency‐domain electrical data in EIDORS. Near Surface Geophysics15, 43–58.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. De DonnoG. and CardarelliE.2017b. Tomographic inversion of timedomain resistivity and chargeability data for the investigation of landfills using a priori information. Waste Management59, 302–315.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. LancellottaR.2009. Geotechnical Engineering.Taylor and Francis.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. NguyenF., KemnaA., AntonssonA., EngesgaardP., KurasO., OgilvyR.et al. 2009. Characterization of seawater intrusion using 2D electrical imaging. Near Surface Geophysics7, 377–390.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. NiederleithingerE., WellerA. and LewisR.2012. Evaluation of geophysical techniques for dike inspection. Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics17, 185–195.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. PaascheH., RumpfM., HausmannJ., FechnerT., WerbanU., TronickeJ.et al. 2013. Advances in acquisition and processing of near‐surface seismic tomographic data for geotechnical site assessment. First Break31, 59–65.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. ParkS.K. and VanG.P.1991. Inversion of pole‐pole data for 3D resistivity structure beneath arrays of electrodes. Geophysics56, 951–960.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. PeltonJ.R.2005. Near‐surface seismology: surface‐based methods. In: Investigations in Geophysics (ed D.K.Butler ) Near‐Surface Geophysics 13, 219–263. Tulsa, OK: Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. SamouëlianA., CousinI., TabbaghA., BruandA. and RichardG.2005. Electrical resistivity survey in soil science: a review. Soil and Tillage Research83(2), 173–193.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. SoupiosP.M., GeorgakopoulosP., PapadopoulosN., SaltasV., AndreadakisA., VallianatosF.et al. 2007. Use of engineering geophysics to investigate a site for a building foundation. Journal of Geophysics and Engineering4, 94–103.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. SoupiosP.M., LoupasakisC. and VallianatosF.2008. Reconstructing former urban environments by combining geophysical electrical methods and geotechnical investigations ‐ an example from Chania, Greece. Journal of Geophysics and Engineering5, 186–194.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. SudhaK., IsrailM., MittalS. and RaiJ.2009. Soil characterization using electrical resistivity tomography and geotechnical investigations. Journal of Applied Geophysics67(1), 74–79.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. SultanS.A. and SantosF.A.M.2007. 1D and 3D resistivity inversions for geotechnical investigation. Journal of Geophysics and Engineering5(1), 1.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2017044
Loading
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2017044
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