E Eshaghi; A Kamkar-Rouhani; A Arab-Amiri
Abstract
Every geophysical method has its own advantages and disadvantages. The integration of the results obtained from surveys using various geophysical methods causes the weaknesses of a particular geophysical method to be covered by the other geophysical methods. For this, different exploration, engineering, ...
Read More
Every geophysical method has its own advantages and disadvantages. The integration of the results obtained from surveys using various geophysical methods causes the weaknesses of a particular geophysical method to be covered by the other geophysical methods. For this, different exploration, engineering, environmental and other investigations using various geophysical methods usually provide more reliable results. In this research work, it is attempted to integrate the results of electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) and ground-penetrating radar (GPR)surveys in order to examine the advantages and weaknesses of each of the two methods, and finally, to present more accurate and more reliable interpretation as a result of this integration. The ERT method that is, in fact, one of optimal resistivity survey methods, renders acceptable results in complex geology areas. The GPR method as a high resolution non-destructive geophysical method, which is based on transmission of electromagnetic waves in the ground and recording the reflected waves from the interfaces of the subsurface layers, is used for shallow subsurface investigations. In this research work, a water qanat was selected as a suitable target for detection by these two geophysical methods, and the, ERT and GPR surveys were carried out in an area enclosing the target. The results obtained from processing, modeling and interpretation of the acquired data indicated that the GPR method, compared to the ERT method, had higher resolution than the ERT method. However, the ERT method, compared to the GPR method, had higher depth of penetration. The results of both methods were mainly in good agreement with each other in depicting features such as subsurface cavities, variation of the grain sizes of the subsurface sediments and water percolation from the qanat to its surroundings. Furthermore, following the integration of the results of these two methods, it was found that the accuracy and reliability of the interpretation were considerably enhanced.
M. Mohamadi Vizheh; A. Kamkar Rouhani
Abstract
Ground water, cavities, and isolate buried structures embedded at shallow depths are well detectable by resistivity and GPR methods because of distinct contrast in their electric and electromagnetic properties in comparison with their surrounding media. In this research work, 3 different profiles on ...
Read More
Ground water, cavities, and isolate buried structures embedded at shallow depths are well detectable by resistivity and GPR methods because of distinct contrast in their electric and electromagnetic properties in comparison with their surrounding media. In this research work, 3 different profiles on such targets have been chosen, and their responses have been investigated. Using both resistivity and GPR methods together, it has also been possible to investigate capabilities and limitations of the methods in practice. The results obtained from this research work indicate that the GPR method, in addition to its speed and simplicity in data acquisition, is very successful in detection of interfaces or boundaries between different media in which electromagnetic properties at the boundaries change rapidly. The resistivity surveys, which have been carried out using Wenner array in this study, indicate low resistivity of the media under investigation. The low resistivity of the subsurface media caused the depth of penetration of the GPR method to be low, and as a result, made it impossible to investigate the targets buried at depths greater than 2 meters. Unlike the GPR method, the resistivity method has not been very successful in detection of multiple targets with high resistivity contrasts. Lower resolution of the resistivity method in comparison with GPR method has caused this problem. In this study, considerable information has been obtained by selecting two different processing algorithms and applying them on a series of raw GPR dataset. The obtained information from the resistivities of the subsurface structures as a result of the resistivity surveys has made it possible to choose and apply these processing algorithms. This research work well indicates that high conductive areas in resistivity sections coincide with the areas in the GPR sections having intensive attenuation. This characteristic can be used well in the interpretation of the GPR sections. Finally the resistivity method can be introduced as a suitable supplementary geophysical method to the GPR method.
