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

Abstract

ABSTRACT

We present an approach to underwater electrical resistivity tomography surveying under conditions with several water layers with different resistivity in the water above the electrode layout. The approach is verified against a synthetic model example and tested in full scale on data from a field survey. The field survey was carried out in central Stockholm as part of pre‐investigations for a new metro train (T‐bana) tunnel planned to pass under seawater. The water passage is associated with major tectonic zones that can potentially be very difficult from a tunnel construction point of view. The aim was to identify variations in depth of the bottom sediments and variations in rock quality including the possible presence of weak zones in the rock. Survey conditions are complicated by boat traffic and electrical disturbances from the power grid and train traffic. The water depth was mapped using sonar combined with recording pressure transducers, and water resistivity as a function of water depth was recorded using geophysical borehole logging equipment. Water resistivity as a function of depth was integrated in the inversion model. The results show that the rather difficult survey conditions could be handled in a satisfactory way thanks to adequate equipment, careful planning, and attention to details. The measured data contain information that is relevant for creating coherent models of the variation in depth to rock, which corresponds well with data from drilling. The results also indicate that information in variation in rock quality that can be of critical importance for planning of underground construction can be derived from the data.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2018007
2018-03-01
2020-05-26
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. DahlinT., BjelmL. and SvenssonC.1999. Use of electrical imaging in the site investigations for a railway tunnel through the Hallandsås Horst, Sweden. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology32, 163–173
    [Google Scholar]
  2. DanielsenB.E. and DahlinT.2009. Comparison of geoelectrical imaging and tunnel documentation. Engineering Geology107(3–4), 118–129.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. deGroot‐HedlinC. and ConstableS.1990. Occam’s inversion to generate smooth, two‐dimensional models form magnetotelluric data. Geophysics55(12), 1613–1624.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. DeyA. and MorrisonH.F.1979. Resistivity modelling for arbitrary shaped two‐dimensional structures. Geophysical Prospecting27(1), 106–136.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. FarquharsonC.G. and OldenburgD.W.1998. Nonlinear inversion using general measures of data misfit and model structure. Geophysical Journal International134(1), 213–227.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. FarquharsonC.G. and OldenburgD.W.2004. A comparison of automatic techniques for estimating the regularization parameter in non‐linear inverse problems. Geophysical Journal International156(3), 411–425.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. GanerødG.V., RønningJ.S., DalseggE., ElvebakkH., HolmøyK., NilsenB. et al. 2006. Comparison of geophysical methods for subsurface mapping of faults and fracture zones in a section of the Viggja road tunnel, Norway. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment65, 231–243.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. LileO.B, BackeK.R., ElvebackkH. and BuanJ.E.1994. Resistivity measurements on the sea bottom to map fracture zones in the bedrock underneath sediments, Geophysical Prospecting42(7), 813–824.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 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]
  10. LokeM.H. and BarkerR.D.1996. Rapid least‐squares inversion of apparent resistivity pseudosections using a quasi‐Newton method. Geophysical Prospecting44(1), 131–152.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. LokeM.H., DahlinT. and RuckerD.F.2014. Smoothness‐constrained time‐lapse inversion of data from 3D resistivity surveys. Near Surface Geophysics12, 5–24.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. LokeM.H. and LaneJ.W.2004. Inversion of data from electrical resistivity imaging surveys in water‐covered areas. Exploration Geophysics35(4), 266–271.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. MorfeldtC.O.1993. Underground construction on engineering geological terms: a fundamental necessity for the function of metropolitan environments and man’s survival. Engineering Geology35(3–4), 149–165.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. NyquistJ.E., FreyerP.A. and ToranL.2008. Stream bottom resistivity tomography to map ground water discharge, Ground Water46(4), 561–569.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. NyquistJ.E., HeaneyM.J. and ToranL.2009. Characterizing lakebed seepage and geologic heterogeneity using resistivity imaging and temperature measurements. Near Surface Geophysics7(5‐6), 487–498.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. OrlandoL.2013. Some considerations on electrical resistivity imaging for characterization of waterbed sediments. Journal of Applied Geophysics95, 77–89.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. PerssonL.1998. Engineering geology of Stockholm, Sweden. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment57(1), 79–90.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. PerssonL., SträngM. and AntalI.2001. Berggrundskartan 101 Stockholm (Bedrock Map 101 Stockholm), Scale 1:100 000, Series Ba, No. 60, Swedish Geological Survey, Uppsala.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. RonczkaM., HellmanK., GüntherT., WisenR. and DahlinT.2017. Electric resistivity and seismic refraction tomography: a challenging joint underwater survey at Äspö Hard Rock Laboratory. Solid Earth, 8(3), 671–682.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. RønningJ.S., GanerødG., DalseggE. and ReiserF.2013. Resistivity mapping as a tool for identification and characterisation of weakness zones in crystalline bedrock: definition and testing of an interpretational model. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment, 73(4), 1225–1244.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. SilvesterP.P. and FerrariR.L.1990. Finite Elements for Electrical Engineers,2nd ed.Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. SimyrdanisK., PapadopoulosN., KimJ.‐H., TsourlosP. and MoffatI.2015a. Archaeological investigations in the shallow seawater environment with electrical resistivity tomography. Near Surface Geophysics13(6), 601–611.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. SimyrdanisK., TsourlosP., SoupiosP., TsokasG., KimJ.‐H. and PapadopoulosN.2015b. Surface‐to‐tunnel electrical resistance tomography measurements. Near Surface Geophysics13(4), 343–354.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Stockholm Municipality 1997
    Stockholm Municipality 1997 . Byggnadsgeologisk karta (Engineering Geological Map), https://iservice.stockholm.se/open/GeoArchive/Pages/Search.aspxPages/Search.aspx (accessed 2014‐04‐15).
    [Google Scholar]
  25. TassisG.A., TsourlosP.I., RønningJ.S. and DahlinT.2014. Detection and characterization of fracture zones in bedrock: possibilities and limitations. Proceedings of Near Surface Geoscience 2014, Athens, Greece, September 2014, 5p. EAGE.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. TsourlosP. and TsokasG.N.2004. Underwater resistivity surveying for sludge layer parametrization. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Advances in Mineral Resources Management and Environmental Geotechnology, AM1REG 2004, Crete, Greece, June 2004, pp. 113–118. Heliotopos Conferences.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2018007
Loading
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2018007
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): ERT , Pre‐investigation. , Resistivity , Tunnel and Underwater
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