A combined seismic reflection and refraction study of a landfill and its host sediments
ABSTRACT In an attempt to delineate the base of a landfill and map the geometries of the host sediments, we have recorded a high-resolution seismic profile. To obtain sufficient resolution in the heterogeneous landfill environment, common midpoint (CMP) spacing was set to 0.125 m and subsurface coverage (i.e. fold) was maintained at ≥120 in the central region of the survey. Despite the high density and high redundancy of the data, severe source-generated noise (i.e. direct, refracted, guided and surface waves) and strong lateral velocity variations made it difficult to identify reflections on processed shot and CMP gathers. However, a quasi-continuous sequence of reflections R1–R3 was eventually traced along the length of the profile. After time-to-depth converting the stacked seismic reflection section using poorly resolved initial stacking velocities, no consistent correlations with boundaries identified in nearby boreholes and on three-dimensional georadar data were apparent. In a first attempt to obtain more reliable velocities, ∼183,000 first-arrival times were tomographically inverted. Unfortunately, the resultant velocity model was found to be incompatible with knowledge supplied by the borehole and georadar data and the seismic reflection section. By including the known depths to a key geological horizon and the R1–R3 traveltimes as constraints, a second suite of tomographic inversions produced a satisfactory model. This model included a thin capping layer of humus and sandy clay (velocities of 400–1000 m/s) overlying a distinctly lower velocity landfill (200–600 m/s) along the northern half of the profile and a southward thickening sequence of fluvial deposits (600–900 m/s) along the southern half. A southward thinning layer of compact lacustrine sediments and basal till (2000–3800 m/s) and a nearly horizontal bedrock interface (4000–5400 m/s) was mapped beneath the entire profile. Although independent applications of the seismic reflection and refraction techniques were not successful in meeting the survey objectives, a combination of the two approaches suitably constrained by borehole information finally provided the required details on the landfill and surrounding sediments. Nevertheless, our study has highlighted the limitations of employing 2-D seismic refraction and reflection methods for resolving problems in highly heterogeneous 3-D media.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Two examples of combined application of geophysical techniques for the pre-reclamation study of old waste landfills in Sardinia, Italy, are illustrated. The first one concerned a mine tailings basin and the second one a municipal solid waste landfill; both disposal sites date back to the 1970–80s. The gravity, shallow reflection, resistivity and induced polarization methods were employed in different combinations at the two sites, and in both cases useful information on the landfill's geometry has been obtained. The gravity method proved effective for locating the boundaries of the landfill and the shallow reflection seismic technique proved effective for the precise imaging of the landfill's bottom; conversely the electrical techniques, though widely employed for studying waste landfills, provided mainly qualitative and debatable results. The overall effectiveness of the surveys has been highly improved through the combined use of different techniques, whose individual responses, being strongly dependent on their specific basic physical characteristic and the complexity of the situation to be studied, did not show the same effectiveness at the two places.Journal of Geophysics and Engineering 02/2010; 7(1):64. · 0.72 Impact Factor
- Geophysics 10/2013; 78:EN107-EN116. · 1.72 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Electrical resistivitymethods arewidely used for environmental applications, and they are particularly useful for the characterization and monitoring of sites where the presence of contamination requires a thorough understanding of the location and movement of water, that can act as a carrier of solutes. One such application is landfill studies, where the strong electrical contrasts between waste, leachate and surrounding formations make electrical methods a nearly ideal tool for investigation. In spite of the advantages, however, electrical investigation of landfills poses also challenges, both logistical and interpretational. This paper presents the results of a study conducted on a dismissed landfill, close to the city of Corigliano d'Otranto, in the Apulia region (Southern Italy). The landfill is located in an abandoned quarry, that was subsequently re-utilized about thirty years ago as a site for urban waste disposal. The waste was thought to be more than 20 m thick, and the landfill bottom was expected to be confined with an HDPE (high-density poli-ethylene) liner. During the digging operations performed to build a nearby new landfill, leachate was found, triggering an in-depth investigation including also non-invasivemethods. The principal goal was to verify whether the leachate is indeed confined, and to what extent, by the HDPE liner.We performed both surface electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) and mise-à-la-masse (MALM) surveys, facing the severe challenges posed by the rugged terrain of the abandoned quarry complex. A conductive body, probably associated with leachate,was found as deep as 40 mbelowthe current landfill surface i.e. at a depth much larger than the expected 20 mthickness of waste. Given the logistical difficulties that limit the geometry of acquisition, we utilized synthetic forward modeling in order to confirm/dismiss interpretational hypotheses emerging from the ERT and MALM results. This integration between measurements and modeling helped narrow the alternative interpretations and strengthened the confidence in results, confirming the effectiveness of non-invasive methods in landfill investigation and the importance of modeling in the interpretation of geophysical results.Journal of Applied Geophysics 08/2013; 98:1-10. · 1.33 Impact Factor