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

Abstract

This paper presents a combination of high‐resolution seismic diffraction, reflection, refraction, continuous vertical electric sounding (CVES), ground‐penetrating radar (GPR) and microgravity methods to study the structure and properties of the shallow subsurface at the sinkhole development site in the Nahal Hever southern area (on the shore of the Dead Sea) in Israel. These methods have different resolutions and penetration depths. The methods are complementary to each other and reveal useful information about the subsurface. Each one investigates certain characteristics, but when combined they provide us with new information about the subsurface. The seismic refraction method is utilized to map salt layers and to detect dissolved zones. The analysis of all of the seismic refraction data obtained at the Dead Sea area, verified by the information gained from a borehole, has shown that the P‐wave velocity of the salt layer varies from 2900 to 4250 m/s. The velocity of 2900 m/s was used as the minimum velocity criterion for salt‐layer identification at this site.

A low‐velocity zone ( < 2800 m/s) revealed within a high‐velocity area ( m/s) is interpreted as a dissolved salt or non‐saline unit. The site is characterized by two significant geological features. The first feature is a water‐filled cave, detected recently by a borehole in the depth interval 23–28.5 m, and the second feature is a depression at the surface. Geophysical results show that the depression site is presently characterized as a heavily perturbed zone in both lateral and vertical directions. Soil decompaction in the subsurface is clearly identified by the CVES method as a high‐resistivity anomaly. This decompaction is assumed to be associated with the voids and fractures occurring down to a depth of 100–120 m (by diffraction data) and in the uppermost subsurface (by GPR data). The zone containing the cave is characterized by a lateral (funnel) and vertical (faults) distortion of the subsurface structure (by seismic reflection data) and has a faint diffraction anomaly in the shallow subsurface. A slightly increased resistivity anomaly appears in the depth interval 6–12 m (from CVES data). Drilling data reveal this interval as a decompaction zone. No GPR anomalies were detected at the buried cave site. The microgravity survey at the buried void site in 1999 detected an anomaly that is very similar to the funnel‐shaped one.

© European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers © 2006 European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2006007
2006-02-01
2024-04-26

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2006007
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AbelsonM., GidonB., StivelmanV., WachsD., RazE., CrouviO., KurzonI. and YechieliY.2003. Collapse‐sinkholes and radar interferometry reveal neotectonics concealed within the Dead Sea basin. Geophysical Research Letters30, 1545.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. AndersonN., MartinezA., HopkinsJ.F. and CarrR.T.1998. Case history: Salt dissolution and surface subsidence in central Kansas: a seismic investigation of the anthropogenic and natural origin models. Geophysics63,366–378
     [Google Scholar]
  3. ArkinY. and GilatA.2000. Dead Sea sinkholes ‐ an ever‐developing hazard. Environmental Geology39, 711–722
     [Google Scholar]
  4. ArkinY., GilatA. and KofmanL.2000. Developing Dead Sea sinkholes revealed by ground‐penetrating radar. Geological Survey of Israel, Current Research12, 25–30
     [Google Scholar]
  5. BarkerR.1992. A simple algorithm for electrical imaging of the subsurface. First Break10(2), 53–62
     [Google Scholar]
  6. BrunerI., EzerskyM., KeydarS. and TrachtmanP.2003. An integrated study of sinkhole development sites using geophysical methods. GII Report No. 728/314/03.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. DeGroot‐HedlinC. and ConstableS.1990. Occam’s inversion to generate smooth, two‐ dimensional models from magnetotelluric data. Geophysics55, 1613–1624
     [Google Scholar]
  8. EzerskyM.2003a. Geoelectric structure of the subsurface at sinkhole sites along the western shore of the Dead Sea. 9th EEGS‐ES Meeting, Prague, Czech Republic, Expanded Abstracts, P‐068.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. EzerskyM.2003b. Study of the shallow subsurface sinkhole hazard areas along the Dead Sea shore using geophysical methods, Parts 1 and 2. GII Report No. 211/247/02‐1,2.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. EzerskyM.2006. The seismic velocity of Dead Sea salt applied to sinkhole problem. Journal of Applied Geophysics58, 45–58
     [Google Scholar]
  11. FrumkinA. and RazE.2001. Collapse and subsidence associated with salt karstification along the Dead Sea. Carbonates and Evaporates16, 117–130
     [Google Scholar]
  12. GelchinskyB., BerkovitchA. and KeydarS.1999. Multifocusing homeomorphic imaging. Part 1: Basic concepts and formulas. Journal Applied Geophysics42, 3–4
     [Google Scholar]
  13. GelchinskyB. and KeydarS.1999. Homeomorphic imaging: theory and practice. Journal of Applied Geophysics42, 169–228
     [Google Scholar]
  14. GoldmanM. and EzerskyM.2000. Geoelectrical measurements at the Nahal Hever site. GII Report No. 841/92/98.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. GoldmanM., ShtivelmanV., WachsD. and YechieliY.2000. Shallow integrated geophysical study in the sinkhole development area at the Dead Sea coast, Israel. 6th EEGS Meeting, Bochum, Germany, Expanded Abstracts, CH04.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. LandaE. and KeydarS.1998. Seismic monitoring of diffraction images for detection of local heterogeneities. Geophysics63, 1093–1100
     [Google Scholar]
  17. LokeM.H.1999. Electrical Imaging Surveys for Environmental and Engineering Studies: A Practical Guide to 2D and 3D Surveys.Malaysia.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. LokeM.H. and BarkerR.D.1996. Rapid least‐squares inversion of apparent‐resistivity pseudo‐sections by a quasi‐Newton method. Geophysical Prospecting44,131–152
     [Google Scholar]
  19. MillerR.D., XiaJ., AndersonJ.M., LaflenD.R., EricksonJ.M., AckerP. M., BrohammerM.C., SteeplesD.W. and BlackR.A.1994. High resolution seismicreflection survey near SPR surface collapse feature at Weeks Island, Louisiana. Open‐file Report No.94–25
     [Google Scholar]
  20. ReynoldsJ.M.1997. An Introduction to Applied and Environmental Geophysics. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. PalmerD.1986. Refraction Seismics. The Lateral Resolution of Structure and Seismic Velocity.Geophysical Press, London‐Amsterdam.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. RybakovM., GoldshmidtV., FleischerL. and RotshteinY.2001. Cave detection and 4D monitoring: a microgravity case history near the Dead Sea. The Leading Edge 20, 896–900 Satellite Map of Israel, 1993. Historical Ltd., C.N.E.S.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. ShtivelmanV.2000. Shallow refraction surveys in the Nahal Hever area. GII Report No. 841/92/98.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. ShtivelmanV., GoldmanM., RonenA. and EzerskyM.1999. Shallow geophysical surveys in the sinkhole development area at the Nahal Hever site. GII Report No. 823/87/98.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. SteeplesD.W., KnappR.W. and McElweeC.D.1986. Seismic reflection investigations of sinkholes beneath Interstate Highway 70 in Kansas. Geophysics51, 295–301
     [Google Scholar]
  26. YechieliY., WachsD., ShtivelmanV., AbelsonM., OnnC., ShtivelmanV., RazE. and BaerG.2002. Formation of sinkholes along the shore of the Dead Sea – summary of the first stage of investigation. Geological Survey of Israel, Current Research13, 1–6
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2006007
Loading
Integrated study of the sinkhole development site on the Western shores of the Dead Sea using geophysical methods
Near Surface Geophysics 4, 335 (2006); https://doi.org/10.3997/1873-0604.2006007
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2006007
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2006007
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