1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Near Surface Geophysics
  4. Volume 11, Issue 5
  5. Article
Volume 11 Number 5
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

ABSTRACT

The aim of this work was to evaluate the gravity effect of a deformation zone, which forms around subsurface cavities and to assess which method of density determination of soils in the surveyed area is optimal. We measured and modelled a gravity anomaly above a tunnel excavated in stiff clays. Technical parameters of the tunnel were known. The shape of the deformation zone around the tunnel was determined by geotechnical modelling. Material parameters of clays necessary for the geotechnical model were obtained from a measurement of borehole samples in a soil mechanics laboratory. For calculation of the gravity anomaly of the tunnel we used densities of clays derived from laboratory measurements of borehole samples. However, the fit between observed and calculated gravity data was not accurate in this case. The reason was probably that the volume and water content in the borehole clay samples changed after their removal from the depth. A better fit was obtained when we used densities derived from a gamma‐gamma well log. We found that the gravity effect of the deformation zone that forms around the tunnel in stiff clays is negligible (0.001 mGal). In our case, a concrete tunnel lining has a bigger influence on the amplitude of the anomaly than the deformation zone (0.008 mGal). When we neglect the lining in the interpretation, we obtain an error of 20% in the estimate of the tunnel depth.

© European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers © 2013 European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2013032
2013-03-01
2024-04-18

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2013032
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. BanhamS.G. and PringleJ.K.2011. Geophysical and intrusive site investigations to detect an abandoned coal‐mine access shaft, Apedale, Staffordshire, UK. Near Surface Geophysics9, 483–496.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. BishopI., StylesP., EmsleyS.J. and FergusonN.S.1997. The detection of cavities using the microgravity technique: Case histories from mining and karstic environments. In: Modern Geophysics in Engineering Geology, 155–168. Geological Society Engineering Group, Special Publication No. 12. Geological Society, London.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. BlechaV. and MašínJ.2007. Gravity effects of deformation zones induced by tunneling in soft and stiff clays. Proceedings of the 13th European Meeting of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, Istanbul, Turkey.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. BlechaV. and MrlinaJ.2001. Microgravity prospecting for the voids in an abandoned coal‐working field. Proceedings of the 7th European Meeting of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, Birmingham, UK.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Brun–tZ., MašínD. and Boh–čJ.2009. Parameters of a hypoplastic model for numerical model of Březno tunnel. Proceedings of the 37th Conference Zakl–d–n–Staveb, Brno, Czech Republic, 187–192. (in Czech)
     [Google Scholar]
  6. ButlerD.K.1980. Microgravimetric techniques for geotechnical applications. US Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station Miscellaneous Paper, GL‐80‐13.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. ButlerD.K.1984. Microgravimetric and gravity gradient techniques for detection of subsurface cavities. Geophysics49, 1084–1096.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. ButlerD.K.1985. Topographic effects considerations in microgravity surveying. Proceedings of the International Meeting on Potential Fields in Rugged Topography. Institute de Geophysique. IGL Bulletin7, 34–40.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. CraigR.F.2004. Craig–s Soil Mechanics. 7th edition. Spon Press, Taylor & Francis Group, London and New York.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. DebegliaN., BitriA. and ThierryP.2006. Karst investigations using microgravity and MASW; Application to Orl–ans, France. Near Surface Geophysics4, 215–225.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. EppelbaumL.V.2011. Review of environmental and geological microgravity applications and feasibility of their implementation at archaeological sites in Israel. International Journal of Geophysics, 1–9. doi: 10.1155/2011/927080, ID 927080
     [Google Scholar]
  12. GhatgeS.L.1993. Microgravity method for detection of abandoned mines in New Jersey. Bulletin of the Association of Engineering Geologists30, 79–85.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. GM‐SYS modelling. 2012. Accessed on June 11, 2012, at http://www.geosoft.com/products/gm‐sys.
  14. Google maps. 2012. Accessed on January 15, 2012, at https://maps.google.com.
  15. GrantF.S. and WestG.F.1965. Interpretation Theory in Applied Geophysics. McGraw‐Hill, New York.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. HeřtJ.2007. Březno tunnel construction. Tunel6, 51–60. (in Czech)
     [Google Scholar]
  17. HoltzR.D. and KovacsW.D.1981. An Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering. Prentice‐Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. KobrM.1997. Petrophysics. Charles University, Karolinum, Prague. (in Czech)
     [Google Scholar]
  19. MašínD.2005. A hypoplastic constitutive model for clays. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics29, 311–336.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. MašínD.2009. 3D modelling of a NATM tunnel in high K0 clay using two different constitutive models. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering135, 1326–1335.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. NajserJ., MašínD. and Boh–čJ.2012. Numerical modelling of lumpy clay landfill. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics36, 17–35.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. NiemunisA. and HerleI.1997. Hypoplastic model for cohesionless soils with elastic strain range. Mechanics of Cohesive‐Frictional Materials2, 279–299.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. RodemannD.2012. Tochnog Professional user–s manual. Accessed on June 15, 2012, at http://www.feat.nl.
  24. RybakovM., GoldshmidtV., FleischerL. and RotsteinY.2001. Cave detection and 4‐D monitoring: A microgravity case history near the Dead Sea. The Leading Edge20, 896–900.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Sedl–kJ.2000. Gravity map of the Czech Republic 1:200 000, sheet M‐33‐XIV Teplice. Geofyzika a.s. Brno.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. SvobodaT. and MašínD.2011. Comparison of displacement fields predicted by 2D and 3D finite element modelling of shallow NATM tunnels in clays. Geotechnik34, 115–126.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. SvobodaT., MašínD. and BoháčJ.2010. Class A predictions of a NATM tunnel in stiff clay. Computers and Geotechnics37, 817–825.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. YuleD.E., SharpM.K. and ButlerD.K.1998. Microgravity investigations of foundation conditions. Geophysics63, 95–103.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. ZimaJ., HorčičkaR. and VojířM.2001. Rerouting of railroad track Březno‐Chomutov. Geologick–slu–by s.r.o. Unpublished manuscript, (in Czech).
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2013032
Loading
Observed and calculated gravity anomalies above a tunnel driven in clays – implication for errors in gravity interpretation
Near Surface Geophysics 11, 569 (2013); https://doi.org/10.3997/1873-0604.2013032
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2013032
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2013032
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

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