1887
Volume 11 Number 6
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

ABSTRACT

The distribution of subbottom geotechnical strength properties within the Panama Canal are needed to help with the Canal’s expansion. Core data already exist in the Canal, including lithological/stratigraphical descriptions and qualitative measurements of rock hardness. These data have been acquired within the Canal during previous expansion activities conducted over the past 60 years. Alone, the core data can be used to estimate rock hardness at unsampled locations using geostatistical methods. However, to help reduce uncertainty in the interpolation of rock hardness, a spatially continuous electrical resistivity survey was conducted to provide a better means of bridging information between cores. Although no direct causative link between rock hardness and resistivity exists, it was thought that the resistivity would be dependent upon jointly influencing parameters that comprise the geome‐chanical attributes of the rock, in this case porosity. For example, tuff generally had lower hardness and lower resistivity values compared to andesite and differences in porosity of these rock types would help explain the trend. When considering the resistivity in this geologic context, the spatial interpolation of rock hardness showed better agreement with measured data at sampled locations compared to methods that did not consider any geological context (including kriging of core data or a polynomial regression model between resistivity and rock hardness). Additionally, it is believed that full three‐dimensional inverse modelling of the resistivity data helped to correctly resolve the location of low‐resistivity features that could have been detected as off‐line effects in two‐dimensional processing algorithms. With these results, it is anticipated that the costs of dredging could be reduced by the simple fact that necessary resources can be anticipated for some of the harder rock types.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2012017
2012-05-01
2024-03-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Adbul NassirS.S., LokeM.H., LeeC.Y. and NawariM.N.M.2000. Saltwater intrusion mapping by geoelectrical imaging surveys. Geophysical Prospecting48, 647–661.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. ArchieG.E.1942. The electrical resistivity log as an aid in determining some reservoir characteristics. Transactions. American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers146, 54–62.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. BelavalM., LaneJ.W., LesmesD.P. and KinekeG.C.2003. Continuous‐resistivity profiling for coastal groundwater investigations: Three case studies. Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems (SAGEEP), April 6–10, 2003, San Antonio, Texas, Proceedings: Denver, Colorado, Environmental and Engineering Geophysics Society, CD‐ROM, 14p.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. BoaduF.K.2011. Predicting the engineering and transport properties of soils using fractal equivalent circuit model: Laboratory experiments. Geophysics76, F329–F338.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. BoaduF.K. and Owusu‐NimoF.2010. Influence of petrophysical and geotechnical engineering properties on the electrical response of unconsolidated earth materials. Geophysics75, G21–G29.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. BoaduF.K. and Owusu‐NimoF.2011. Exploring the linkages between geotechnical properties and geophysical responses of unconsolidated materials – Laboratory measurements. Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics16, 73–84
    [Google Scholar]
  7. BragaA.C.O., MalaguttiW., DouradoJ.C. and ChangH.K.1999. Correlation of electrical resistivity and induced polarization with geotechnical survey standard penetration test measurements. Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics4, 123–130.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. CaseJ.E.1974. Oceanic crust forms basement of eastern Panama. Geological Society of America Bulletin85, 645–652.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. CosenzaP., MarmetE., RejibaF., CuiY.J., TabbaghA. and CharleryY.2006. Correlations between geotechnical and electrical data: A case study at Garchy in France. Journal of Applied Geophysics60, 165–178.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Day‐LewisF.D., WhiteE.A., JohnsonC.D. and LaneJ.W.Jr.2006. Continuous resistivity profiling to delineate submarine groundwater discharge‐examples and limitations. The Leading Edge25, 724–728.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. DeutschC.V. and JournelA.J.1992. GSLIB: Geostatistical Software Library and User’s Guide.Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. DeyA. and MorrisonH.F.1979. Resistivity modeling for arbitrarily shaped three‐dimensional shaped structures. Geophysics44, 753–780.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. DovetonJ.H.1986. Log Analysis of Subsurface Geology.John Wiley and Sons, New York.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. EllisR.G. and OldenburgD.W.1994. Applied geophysical inversion. Geophysical Journal International116, 5–11.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. FisherD.M., GardnerT.W., MarshallJ.S. and MonteroP.1994. Kinematics associated with late Cenozoic deformation in central Costa Rica: Western boundary of the Panama microplate. Geology22, 263–266.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. FriedelS., ThielenA. and SpringmanaS.M.2006. Investigation of a slope endangered by rainfall‐induced landslides using 3D resistivity tomography and geotechnical testing. Journal of Applied Geophysics60, 100–114.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. FurmanA., WarrickA.W. and FerréT.P.A.2002. Electrical potential distributions in response to applied current in a heterogeneous subsurface, solution for circular inclusions. Vadose Zone Journal1, 273–280.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Geotomo Software
    Geotomo Software . 2011. Software Manual for RES3DINVx64 v3.03.47 for Rapid 3D Resistivity & IP inversion using the least‐squares method.
  19. GreenhalghS.A., ZhouB., GreenhalghM., MarescotL. and WieseT.2009. Explicit expressions for the Fréchet derivatives in 3D aniso‐tropic resistivity inversion. Geophysics3, F31–F43.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. de Groot‐HedlinC. and ConstableS.C.1990. Occam’s inversion to generate smooth, two‐dimensional models from magnetotelluric data. Geophysics55, 1613–1624.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. IsaaksE.H. and SrivatsavaR.M.1989. An Introduction to Applied Geostatistics.Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. JonesS.M.1950. Geology of Gatun Lake and Vicinity, Panama. Geological Society of America Bulletin61, 893–922.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. KahramanS. and AlberM.2006. Predicting the physico‐mechanical properties of rocks from electrical impedance spectroscopy measurements. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences43, 543–553.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. KellerG.V.1989. Electrical Properties. In: Practical Handbook of Physical Properties of Rocks and Minerals.CRC Press, Boca Raton.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. KirbyM.X., JonesD.S. and MacFaddenB.J.2008. Lower Miocene stratigraphy along the Panama Canal and its bearing on the Central American Peninsula. PLoS ONE3, e2791.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. LokeM.H., AcworthI. and DahlinT.2003. A comparison of smooth and blocky inversion methods in 2D electrical imaging surveys. Exploration Geophysics34, 182–187.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. LokeM.H. and BarkerR.D.1996. Practical techniques for 3D resistivity surveys and data inversion. Geophysical Prospecting44, 499–523.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. LokeM.H. and DahlinT.2002. A comparison of Gauss‐Newton and quasi‐Newton methods in resistivity imaging inversion. Journal of Applied Geophysics49, 149–162.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. LokeM.H., WilkinsonP. and ChambersJ.2010. Parallel computation of optimized arrays for 2‐D electrical imaging. Geophysical Journal International183, 1202–1315.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. LowrieA., StewartJ., StewartR.H., Van AndelT.J. and McRaneyL.1982. Location of the eastern boundary of the Cocos Plate during the Miocene. Marine Geology45, 261–279.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. MoormanC. and SaulR.2009. High Capacity Bored Piles in Soft Volcanic Rock‐experiences Based on Single‐ and Multi‐level Tests. Deep Foundations on Bored and Auger Piles – Van Impe & VanImpe (eds). Taylor & Francis Group, London.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. OhS. and SunC.‐G.2008. Combined analysis of electrical resistivity and geotechnical SPT blow counts for the safety assessment of fill dam. Environmental Geology54, 31–42.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. PidliseckyA., HaberE. and KnightR.2007. RESINVM3D: A 3D resistivity inversion package. Geophysics72, H1–H10.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. PrattT.L., HolmesM., SchweigE.S., GombergJ. and CowanH.A.2003. High resolution seismic imaging of faults beneath Limon Bay, northern Panama Canal, Republic of Panama. Tectonophysics368, 211–227.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. RinaldiV., GuichonM., FerreroV., SerranoC. and PontiN.2006. Resistivity survey of the subsurface conditions in the estuary of the Rio de la Plata. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering132, 72–79.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. RothM.J.S., MackeyJ.R., MackeyC. and NyquistJ.E.2002. A case study of the reliability of multielectrode earth resistivity testing for geotechni‐cal investigations in karst terrains. Engineering Geology65, 225–232.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. RuckerD.F.2010. Moisture estimation within a mine heap: An application of cokriging with assay data and electrical resistivity. Geophysics75, B11–B23.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. RuckerD.F. and FinkJ.B.2007. Inorganic plume delineation using surface high‐resolution electrical resistivity at the BC cribs and trenches site, Hanford. Vadose Zone Journal6, 946–958.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. RuckerD.F., GlaserD.R., OsborneT. and MaehlW.C.2009. Electrical resistivity characterization of a reclaimed gold mine to delineate acid rock drainage pathways. Mine Water and Environment28, 146–157.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. RuckerD.F., LevittM.T. and GreenwoodW.J.2009. Three‐dimensional electrical resistivity model of a nuclear waste disposal site. Journal of Applied Geophysics69, 150–164.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. RuckerD.F., LokeM.H., NoonanG.E. and LevittM.T.2010. Electrical resistivity characterization of an industrial site using long electrodes. Geophysics75, WA95–WA104
    [Google Scholar]
  42. RuckerD.F., NoonanG. and GreenwoodW.J.2011. Electrical resistivity in support of geological mapping along the Panama Canal. Engineering Geology117, 121–133.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. SasakiY.1989. Two‐dimensional joint inversion of magnetotelluric and dipole‐dipole resistivity data. Geophysics54, 254–262.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. SchonJ.H.1996. Physical Properties of Rocks, Fundamentals and Principles of Petrophysics.Pergamon Press, London.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. SnyderD.D. and WightmanE.W.2002. Application of continuous resistivity profiling to aquifer characterization. Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems, 1–21. Las Vegas, Nevada. Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. SongS.H. and ChoI.K.2009. Application of a streamer resistivity survey in a shallow brackish‐water reservoir. Exploration Geophysics40, 206–213.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. SoupiosP.M., GeorgakopoulosP., PapadopoulosN., SaltasV., AndreadakisA., VallianatosF.et al.2007. Use of engineering geophysics to investigate a site for a building foundation. Journal of Geophysics and Engineering4, 94–103.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. StewartR.H., StewartJ.L. and WoodringW.P.1980. Geologic map of the Panama Canal and vicinity, Republic of Panama. United States Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I‐1232, scale 1:100,000, 1 sheet.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. SudhaK., IsrailM., MittalS. and RaiJ.2009. Soil characterization using electrical resistivity tomography and geotechnical investigations. Journal of Applied Geophysics67, 74–79.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. TelfordW., GeldartL. and SheriffR.1990. Applied Geophysics.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 790 pp.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. USBR.
    USBR.2001. Engineering Geology Field Manual, Vol. 1, Second Edition. United States Bureau of Reclamation, Washington DC.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2012017
Loading
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2012017
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