Integrated geophysical approach in assessing karst presence and sinkhole susceptibility along flood-protection dykes of the Loire River, Orléans, France

Abstract

Integrated geophysical approach in assessing karst presence and sinkhole susceptibility along flood-protection dykes of the Loire River, Orléans, France.

Assessing subsoil void hazards along a road system using H/V measurements, ERTs and IPTs to support local decision makers

“…All the ERTs/IPTs were implemented using the Iris SyscalPro 48 electrodes (10‐channels receiver) sometimes joined with a 24‐electrode external link. Given the dimensions of the sinkholes (some metres) and the hypothesis of a deep trigger phenomena (Intrieri et al , ), the electrode spacing was planned to be equal to 5 m. Unfortunately, due to accessibility issues, the electrode spacing varied from 1 to 5 m. After accounting for the advantages and limitations of each array configuration (Smith ; Loke and Barker ; Zhou et al ; Dahlin and Zhou ; Szalai and Szarka ; Santarato et al ; Samyn et al ), the pole–dipole array was employed for both 2D‐ERT and 3D‐ERT measurements. This array combines consistent signal strength with a high resolution and large depth of investigation (Santarato et al ).…”

“…These methods are known to detect variations of the ground’s physical properties (e.g., electrical resistivity (ER), chargeability, seismic wave velocities, magnetic susceptibility, and density). Underground voids can be filled with water, air, or collapsed/unconsolidated material, and therefore, these features generate distinct geophysical contrasts detectable at the surface (Bishop et al ; Ivanov et al ; Kaufmann ; Samyn et al ).…”

“…Ground‐penetrating radar (GPR) is currently one of the most common and widely used geophysical survey methods, even though its penetration depth is limited to a few metres and the signal can be scattered in heterogeneous conditions, such as rocky soils or alluvial deposits with high clay contents (Pueyo Anchuela et al ; Lazzari et al ; Lee et al ). Finally, active and passive seismic methods are often employed to detect sinkholes (Ezersky ; Sgarlato, Lombardo and Rigano ; Krawczyk et al and references within; Ezersky et al ; Samyn et al ). Ivanov et al () states that roof rock failure can be approximately predicted from the shear modulus since the probability of a void’s roof failure increases as the measured shear‐wave velocity increases in the roof rock.…”

“…The interaction between human activities and geology is one of the causes of the progressive increase in the sinkhole hazards and vulnerabilities of several sites (Lazzari, Loperte and Perrone (e.g., electrical resistivity (ER), chargeability, seismic wave velocities, magnetic susceptibility, and density). Underground voids can be filled with water, air, or collapsed/unconsolidated material, and therefore, these features generate distinct geophysical contrasts detectable at the surface (Bishop et al 1997;Ivanov et al 2013;Kaufmann 2014;Samyn et al 2014). Martinez-Moreno et al (2013) summarised the main studies carried out from 1975 to 2011 to detect caves by means of geophysical surveys and indicated their approximate penetration depths (ranging from 4 up to 80 m).…”

A methodological framework to assess the socio-economic impact of underground quarries: A case study from Belgian Limburg

“…To assess potential losses, an assessment of the spatial and temporal probability of sinkhole formation is needed, as well as an assessment of the vulnerability of the elements at risk and an analysis of socio-economic sinkhole-related consequences. While sinkhole susceptibility and hazard studies are becoming more common (Argentieri et al, 2015;Galve et al, 2008;Guerrero et al, 2008;Ozdemir, 2015;Samyn et al, 2014;Taheri et al, 2015), few studies have concentrated on quantitatively analysing the socio-economic consequences of these features.…”