Depth estimation of buried targets using integrated geophysical methods: comparative studies at Ahmadu bello university geophysics test site

Q2 Environmental Science
Joseph Omeiza Alao, Kolawole Muyideen Lawal, Bala Bello Muhammad Dewu, Jimoh Raimi
{"title":"Depth estimation of buried targets using integrated geophysical methods: comparative studies at Ahmadu bello university geophysics test site","authors":"Joseph Omeiza Alao,&nbsp;Kolawole Muyideen Lawal,&nbsp;Bala Bello Muhammad Dewu,&nbsp;Jimoh Raimi","doi":"10.1016/j.envc.2024.100910","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Accurate prediction of depth and position of underground structures is a critical step in structural foundation surveys such as civil engineering excavations to adequately maintain the existing underground utilities. The study presents the results of comparative studies conducted to evaluate the performance of electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) alongside the VLF-EM method regarding depth estimation and location of buried targets of known materials, properties and dimensions. A laboratory test was carried out on the buried targets to determine the electrical properties of the buried targets before burial. The pre-burial geophysical investigation indicates no major anomaly within the site that could influence the geophysical response of the buried objects significantly. The results of the post-burial geophysical investigation indicate high variations in electrical resistivity values varying from 47 Ωm – 1081 Ωm (before) and 0.113 Ωm – 19,879 Ωm (after) the buried targets, while the VLF-EM data indicates that the current density values within the site were significantly influenced due to the presence of buried materials, confirming major influence or distortion of geophysical signature of the site. In post-burial ERT investigation, the Wenner and dipole-dipole (DD) arrays registered 67 % and 80 % degrees of alignment with the actual depth of the buried targets, respectively. Both Wenner and DD arrays show strength in depth estimation. However, the DD array indicates higher strength in terms of depth estimation and it is potentially suitable for near-surface utilities investigation due to its high precision in depth estimation. In comparison, VLF-EM captured six (6) out of eight (8) buried targets with a 47 % degree of alignment with the actual depth of the buried targets, which is far lower than the ER method, and may not be considered the most preferable method for geophysical prospecting where depth estimation of targets is of prime interest. However, the depth of targets varies from one method to another and one array to another.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":34794,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Challenges","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667010024000763/pdfft?md5=a15b5b7bfdd206e9322ea7dba1ca7336&pid=1-s2.0-S2667010024000763-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Challenges","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667010024000763","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Environmental Science","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Accurate prediction of depth and position of underground structures is a critical step in structural foundation surveys such as civil engineering excavations to adequately maintain the existing underground utilities. The study presents the results of comparative studies conducted to evaluate the performance of electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) alongside the VLF-EM method regarding depth estimation and location of buried targets of known materials, properties and dimensions. A laboratory test was carried out on the buried targets to determine the electrical properties of the buried targets before burial. The pre-burial geophysical investigation indicates no major anomaly within the site that could influence the geophysical response of the buried objects significantly. The results of the post-burial geophysical investigation indicate high variations in electrical resistivity values varying from 47 Ωm – 1081 Ωm (before) and 0.113 Ωm – 19,879 Ωm (after) the buried targets, while the VLF-EM data indicates that the current density values within the site were significantly influenced due to the presence of buried materials, confirming major influence or distortion of geophysical signature of the site. In post-burial ERT investigation, the Wenner and dipole-dipole (DD) arrays registered 67 % and 80 % degrees of alignment with the actual depth of the buried targets, respectively. Both Wenner and DD arrays show strength in depth estimation. However, the DD array indicates higher strength in terms of depth estimation and it is potentially suitable for near-surface utilities investigation due to its high precision in depth estimation. In comparison, VLF-EM captured six (6) out of eight (8) buried targets with a 47 % degree of alignment with the actual depth of the buried targets, which is far lower than the ER method, and may not be considered the most preferable method for geophysical prospecting where depth estimation of targets is of prime interest. However, the depth of targets varies from one method to another and one array to another.

利用综合地球物理方法估算埋藏目标的深度:在艾哈迈杜-贝洛大学地球物理试验场进行的比较研究
准确预测地下结构的深度和位置是土木工程挖掘等结构基础勘测的关键步骤,以便充分维护现有的地下公用设施。本研究介绍了为评估电阻率层析成像法(ERT)与甚低频电磁法在已知材料、属性和尺寸的埋藏目标的深度估计和定位方面的性能而进行的比较研究的结果。对埋藏目标进行了实验室测试,以确定埋藏目标在埋藏前的电特性。埋藏前的地球物理调查表明,场地内没有可能对埋藏物的地球物理响应产生重大影响的重大异常现象。埋藏后地球物理勘测结果表明,埋藏目标的电阻率值变化很大,埋藏前为 47 Ωm - 1081 Ωm,埋藏后为 0.113 Ωm - 19 879 Ωm,而甚低频电磁波数据表明,由于埋藏物的存在,遗址内的电流密度值受到很大影响,这证实了遗址地球物理特征的重大影响或扭曲。在埋藏后 ERT 勘测中,温纳阵列和偶极-偶极(DD)阵列与埋藏目标实际深度的吻合度分别为 67% 和 80%。温纳阵列和偶极-偶极阵列在深度估计方面都有优势。然而,DD 阵列在深度估计方面显示出更高的强度,由于其深度估计精度高,可能适用于近地表公用事业调查。相比之下,VLF-EM 捕获了 8 个埋藏目标中的 6 个,与埋藏目标实际深度的吻合度为 47%,远低于 ER 方法,可能不被认为是地球物理勘探中最理想的方法,因为目标的深度估计是最重要的。然而,不同方法和不同阵列的目标深度是不同的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Environmental Challenges
Environmental Challenges Environmental Science-Environmental Engineering
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
249
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信