Near Surface Geophysics, 2006, 387-392

Electrical resistivity tomography to detect buried cavities

in Rome: a case study
E. Cardarelli*, G. Di Filippo and E. Tuccinardi
University ‘La Sapienza’, Idraulica Trasport e Strade, Via Eudossiana 18, Rome, Italy

Received March 2005, revision accepted March 2006

ABSTRACT
Cavities located in shallow layers of the subsoil represent a major hazard especially in sites located
in town centres. For this reason, it is necessary to determine their location and size in order to
evaluate the risk of subsidence and to draw up plans for restoration and safety.
In this study, electrical resistivity tomography was carried out, both to detect cavities and to test
a new inversion algorithm that we developed. The cavities are located in a volcanic formation in a
public recreation park where there are municipal buildings. The survey was performed using two
different arrays: dipole-dipole and Wenner. A new approach to adopting an initial model and ine-
quality constraints was used and the results from different algorithms were compared. The effective
range of the dimensions of cavities was determined in order to make an approximate evaluation of
ground stability and any potential subsidence hazard.

INTRODUCTION Microgravimetry is one of the main techniques that are used

In some places, the exploitation of the subsoil can represent a
problem, especially near urban areas where the growth of sub-
urbs is rapid, thus limiting and influencing any subsequent devel-
opment and in some cases even representing a danger to the
stability of buildings and the safety of the inhabitants. In central
Italy, the cavities excavated since the Etruscan time and used for
catacombs, aqueducts, underground passages and (mainly) min-
ing purposes now pose major problems.
The problems of man-made cavities are obviously aggravated
in old and historic towns such as Rome, where the cavities interact
with urbanization works, creating limits and technical difficulties
for the construction of new buildings. Some of these cavities are
currently used for the growing of mushrooms or as stores. In other
cases, the cavities show instability due to the high degree of deg-
radation caused by open fractures and cracks, visible on the vaults
and on the pillars of the galleries. These cavities represent a high
risk especially in cases where their locations are unknown because
the entrance has been blocked and hidden for many centuries.
The questions arising from such a situation are: Is it possible
to map these cavities and is it possible to evaluate the hazards?
In this study, we try to answer the first question and to lay the
foundations for solving the second one.
Geophysical imaging may be an effective tool with which to
detect and determine the dimensions of cavities and to aid the
assessment of the degree of degradation of these structures, i.e.
the extent of fractures and cracks of vaults and pillars as demon-
strated by other authors (Sciotti 1982; Borelli 1999).
*
ettore.cardarelli@uniroma1.it
to detect both natural and artificial cavities (McDonald and
Davies 2003). The limitations of this technique lie in the high
ambient noise that reduces the accuracy of the measurements,
especially in surveys conducted in urban areas. It is vital to main-
tain a high level of accuracy during data processing, including
the removal of local terrain effects when the topography is not
regular. For these reasons, microgravimetry is a relatively expen-
sive survey.
Ground-penetrating radar is another technique used, especially
when the limited dimensions of the investigation sites do not per-
mit the use of techniques requiring large spaces and when the
electrical characteristics of the subsoil allow the penetration of
electromagnetic waves to the depth of the target (Benson 1995;
Sellers and Chamberlain 1998; Neducza et al. 2003). The presence
of a conductive overburden and of public services structures (i.e.
cables, pipes, etc.) can, however, render radargrams unreadable
and noisy; this is generally the condition in Rome.
For this type of problem, geoelectrical techniques, in particu-
lar electrical resistivity tomography (ERT), are a popular choice
due to the low costs of the survey and the high resistivity contrast
that exists between the air-filled cavity and the surrounding for-
mation (Jacobs 2000; van Schoor 2002; Zhou et al. 2002). The
volcanic formations consisting of clayey tuff found in many
places in Rome have significantly lower resistivity values com-
pared to the empty cavities (Bernabini et al. 1982).
ERT METHODOLOGY
It is well known that unconstrained electrical resistivity inver-
sion is a non-linear and ill-posed problem. Consequently, the

© 2006 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers 387

388 E. Cardarelli, G. Di Filippo and E. Tuccinardi
inversion process shows a high degree of indeterminacy, with
some parameters being over-determined and others being under-
determined. To solve this kind of problem, it is necessary to use
a priori information and/or to regularize the inverse problem by
damping or smoothness constraints (deGroot-Hedlin and
Constable 1990; Barker 1992; Chunduru et al. 1996; Loke and
Barker 1996).
Because commercially available programs do not generally
permit the incorporation of a priori information, an algorithm
was developed that takes into account explicitly the necessary a
priori information in the inverse problem formulation (Cardarelli
and Fishanger 2003). This is the ERT scheme that has been
applied in the present study.
The inversion program, which we named VERDI (Versatile
Electrical algorithm Resistivity Data Inversion), is based on an
iterative smoothness-constrained least-squares algorithm (deG-
root-Hedlin and Constable 1990; Morelli and LaBrecque 1996;
Tsourlos et al. 1998). As stated above, the code is constructed in
order to ensure flexibility in the model resolution.
We adopt the well-tested smoothness-constrained least-
squares approach (Tikhonov et al. 1995; Loke and Barker 1996)
that seeks the minimum structure solution that best reproduces
the data. Taking into account the Gaussian random noise of the
data field, a solution is sought which fits the data to a statisti-
cally reasonable accuracy, minimizing the objective function
(Constable et al. 1987),
(1)
where m is the vector containing the model parameters (block
resistivity), d is the vector of the apparent resistivity measure-
ments, h(m) is the modelled response, W is the weight matrix of
data variance reciprocals, L is the smoothness matrix (see
Appendix ), α is the Lagrange multiplier (damping factor) and
m0 is a reference resistivity model.
Minimization of (1), obtained from a Gauss–Newton algo-
rithm, leads to an iterative solution. At iteration k, we can express
the model update δmk as follows:
(2)
where J(mk) is the Jacobian matrix (i.e. the matrix of the partial
derivatives of the modelled response with respect to the model
parameters).
Using the above formulation for inversion, a homogeneous
starting model was considered, taking into account the smooth-
ness constraint of our objective function in order to emulate the
approach adopted in standard commercial programs. Our algo-
rithm was then used to its full flexibility in incorporating the
constraints. In this case, the initial model and inequality con-
straints (see Appendix) were used to limit the range of resistivity
© 2006 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Near Surface Geophysics, 2006, 4, 387-392
FIGURE 1
Map of the survey area: red lines indicate the earlier survey; blue lines
indicate the new survey.
values in the bounded anomaly where we anticipate the presence
of cavities. Results obtained using a priori information were
compared with those derived from the standard unconstrained
approach.
The size of the cavity was initially evaluated from the results
of the previous inversion (a posteriori information) and from the
knowledge of the dimensions of similar cavities detected in the
surrounding area (a priori information). These cavities generally
exhibit a rectangular shape; they are galleries that were exca-
vated for mining purposes in the Roman age and are generally
2–3 metres long and wide and 2–5 metres high. Different dimen-
sions were tested in order to determine the best size and a com-
parison of the final data misfits (root-mean-square), obtained
with different initial models, was performed. The maximum
number of iterations was usually four because the random noise
of field data is generally around 5%; when such a value is
reached, the inversion process is stopped in order to avoid over-
fitting of the data (Olayinka and Yaramanci 1999) and creating
artefacts; also because in some cases (Line 5) convergence was
reached.
It is essential to find a method of calculating sensitivities: in
our approach the Jacobian matrix is calculated at each iteration
using a generalization of Cohn’s network sensitivity theorem
(Tripp et al. 1984). Another versatile feature of our program is
the introduction of a priori information regarding the solution:
we can constrain regions of the domain to vary between two
limits, a lower and an upper bound (inequality constraints, see
Appendix). Another possibility is to include the starting model in
the objective function used, to determine an improved estimate
of the unknown parameters and to constrain the solution to the
above-mentioned model; this is performed by fixing the depth of
the layers and by permitting the resistivity values to change dur-
ing the inversion process. This possibility can be utilized, when
the geology of the area is known, for example from a drill-hole
 ERT to detect buried cavities in Rome 389

or other direct surveys, to limit the number of unknowns and Two different surveys were performed in the past. In the first,
reduce the ill-posedness of the problem. Furthermore, the possi- drill-holes were made in a small area of the park; cavities of dif-
bility of defining a discretization of the domain to conform ferent sizes and located at different depths were detected in this
exactly to the underground structures or of reducing the size of area (Table 1). In the second, a geophysical survey was carried
the mesh of the grid certainly provides an opportunity to obtain out using ERT and electromagnetic techniques. In this second
improved solutions. Our code allows the option of introducing survey, high-resistivity anomalies were detected that can pre-
nodes at any (x, z) coordinate of the domain. Such flexibility in sumably be linked to the presence of cavities.
building the grid is important, both in the modelling step, to
represent complex geometry structures, and in the inversion step;
the possibility of varying the block thickness and width ensures
a better fit to underground structures. In addition, the smoothness
matrix can be corrected in order to penalize roughness in either
the x- or y-direction (see Appendix). An empirical method of
assigning the regularization parameter (the damping factor) is
defined, but it can also be assigned by the user at each iteration.
An appropriate tool was then constructed to control the inver-
sion results, for example to correct reconstructed models and to
check the effects of such changes on the calculated apparent
resistivity.

APPLICATION TO THE GEOLOGICAL PROBLEM

A map of the area surveyed is shown in Fig. 1; cave-in and sub-
sidence of the surface occur in the area. It is an approximately
rectangular area of about 4 hectares, situated in the central park
of Rome, where municipal and nursery school buildings are
present, and where people spend their free time. The subsoil,
below a shallow weathered layer of heterogeneous material
1–2 m thick, is characterized by a sequence of volcanic forma-
tion, composed mainly of pyroclastic material (0–25 m); this
sequence overlies the Palaeotiber formation (silt sand and gravel,
25–50 m) and the Vaticano hill formation (clay, >50 m). The
cavities are located in the volcanic formation, and were exca-
vated in Roman times to mine pozzolana for making cement. The
cavities form a network of galleries that follow unpredictable
directions, depending on the direction taken by the mining of the
pozzolana deposits.

TABLE 1
(a) Results of drilling survey; (b) percentage of holes in which different
numbers of cavities were detected
(a)
Result of drilling survey Percentage
Drillings with cavities 60%
Drillings without cavities 40%

(b)
Number of cavities detected
Percentage FIGURE 2
by drilling survey
One cavity 51% Inversion results for Line 2. (a) Resistivity distribution obtained by
standard inversion; (b) resistivity model; (c) resistivity distribution
Two cavities 37%
obtained using the VERDI algorithm with the starting model; (d) plot of
Three cavities 12%
RMS versus number of iterations.

© 2006 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Near Surface Geophysics, 2006, 4, 387-392
390 E. Cardarelli, G. Di Filippo and E. Tuccinardi

FIGURE 3
Inversion results for Line 5. (a) Resistivity distribution obtained by
standard inversion; (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) resistivity distributions obtained
using the VERDI algorithm with different starting models; (g) plot of
RMS versus number of iterations.

FIELD SURVEY
Because previous surveys had not covered all the area of the
park, we surveyed additional 11 electrical profiles located as
shown in Fig. 1. Blue lines represent the new survey that was
performed with Wenner and dipole-dipole arrays using 48 elec-
trodes with 2 m or 3 m spacing between electrodes. The length
of the lines varies between 94 m and 141 m. Red lines in Fig. 1
indicate the earlier survey. Wenner arrays with 2 m or 3 m elec-
trode-spacings were performed using a maximum of 16 or 15
electrode-spacings, respectively; the maximum number of meas-
urements for each ERT line was 360. Dipole-dipole arrays were
performed using a maximum dipole separation of 6 electrode-
spacings; the maximum number of measurements was 476.

RESULTS
Resistivity sections, and the results obtained with standard inver-
sion and with VERDI are compared for three representative
profiles. The resistivity distribution of Line 2, obtained starting
from a half-space of 100 Ωm is shown in Fig. 2(a). The results
obtained for Line 2, starting from an initial model characterized
by a bounded anomaly (Fig. 2b), are shown in Fig. 2(c). In this
case, the resistivity of the anomalies could vary between 500
and1000 Ωm (inequality constraints); this interval was suggested
because in some cases these cavities are partially filled due to
collapse of the vault. In such a case, if the resistivity values in the
bounded anomaly vary between two limits (e.g. 500 and
1000 Ωm), it should be possible to recognize the above-described
condition (i.e. partially filled cavities). At the same time, a mean
value of 100 Ωm was used for the surrounding area. The model
that we used to invert field data with VERDI was suggested by
the results of the previous inversion (standard inversion). Only
the largest resistivity anomaly was taken into account in the
model. We assumed that the anomaly on the right in the profile
was due to lateral resistivity contact. A comparison of root-mean-
square (RMS) errors of both inversion procedures is seen in
Fig. 2(d). Note that the results obtained for the model in Fig. 2(c)
show lower RMS values.
The results for Line 5 are shown in Fig. 3(a, b c, d, e, f). The
results obtained, starting from a half-space of 100 Ωm and with
no constraints, are shown in Fig. 3(a). Figure 3(b–f) shows the
results obtained from different models, characterized by different
sizes and locations of the bounded anomalies, and using inequal-
ity constraints. In the bounded anomalies, the resistivity ρ could
be in the ranges 500 Ωm<ρ1<3000 Ωm and 100 Ωm<ρ2<1000 Ωm
for the higher and lower anomalies, respectively. In all models,
the same damping factor was used, starting from a value of 0.1
and halving it at each iteration. Figure 3(g) shows a plot of RMS

© 2006 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Near Surface Geophysics, 2006, 4, 387-392

FIGURE 4
Inversion results for Line 4. (a) Resistivity distribution obtained by
standard inversion; (b) resistivity distribution obtained using the VERDI
algorithm with the starting model; (c) plot of RMS versus number of
iterations.
versus the number iterations. Note that the same minimum val-
ues are reached in models B and C. This means that the true size
and location of the cavities are probably somewhere between
these two models, in accordance with the average size of the
cavities detected in this area. The results for Line 4 are shown in
Fig. 4. In this case, the smoothness-constrained inversion also
detected a high-resistivity anomaly that was modelled subse-
quently using the VERDI algorithm. The inversion results are
shown in Fig. 4(a, b). In Fig. 4(c), the RMS errors are plotted
versus the number of iterations; here, too, better results are
obtained using a starting model characterized by bounded
anomalies and using inequality constraints.
Finally, a map summarizing the results of the whole survey is
shown in Fig. 5. In this map, a good correspondence between the
sections can be noted in terms of size and depth of anomalies.
CONCLUSIONS
Electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) is, without doubt, one of
the most suitable geophysical techniques to detect buried cavi-
© 2006 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Near Surface Geophysics, 2006, 4, 387-392
ERT to detect buried cavities in Rome 391
FIGURE 5
Assonometric view of the resistivity profiles
ties, with respect to both the speed of execution and the low cost
of surveys. To reduce the high degree of indeterminacy of ERT,
we applied a new inversion method. By using VERDI, we were
able to determine accurately the probable sizes, shapes and loca-
tions of the cavities. Also, the use of a standard smoothness-con-
strained inversion program was important in defining the starting
model that we used for the new approach (a posteriori informa-
tion).
The possibility of using an algorithm that permits us to insert
the shape and size of anomalies (in this case cavities) into the
starting model, and that includes the possibility of adding resis-
tivity values in bounded anomalies ranging within a closed
interval, is certainly the best way to obtain a solution close to the
physical reality of the subsoil.
Furthermore, a method of estimating the shape and dimen-
sions of the cavities is a very useful tool for town planners, mak-
ing it possible to evaluate the hazard of cave-in and to plan the
reclamation or infilling of the cavities.
REFERENCES
Barker R. 1992. A simple algorithm for electrical imaging of the subsur-
face. First Break 10, 53-62.
Benson A.K. 1995. Applications of ground penetrating radar in assessing
some geophysical hazards: examples of groundwater contamination,
faults, cavities. Journal of Applied Geophysics 33, 177–193.
Bernabini M., Brizzolari E., Monna D., Padula G., Piro S. and Versino L.
1982. Individuazione di cavità sepolte mediante prospezione geoelet-
trica. Esempio di applicazione: ricerca di tombe nella necropoli sabina
di Colle del Forno nei pressi di Montelibretti (Roma). Bollettino del
Servizio Geologico d’Italia.
Borelli G.B. 1999. Metodologia di indagine per ricerca e mappatura di
cavità sotterranee, con particolare riferimento alle aree urbane.
Proceedings of ASSONET Meeting, “Le cavità sotterranee nell’area
urbana di Roma e nella provincia. Problemi di pericolosità e ges-
tione”.
Cardarelli E. and Fishanger F. 2003. 2D data modelling by electrical
resistivity tomography for complex subsurface geology. (Is it possible
to improve interpretation of electric resistivity measurements with
multielectrodic devices in undetermined cases?) Proceedings of 9th
EEG Meeting, Prague, Czech Republic, Inv-01.
392 E. Cardarelli, G. Di Filippo and E. Tuccinardi

Cardarelli E. and Fishanger F. 2005. 2D data modelling by electrical

resistivity tomography for complex subsurface geology. Geophysical APPENDIX (AFTER CARDARELLI AND FISHANGER
Prospecting 54, 121–133. 2005)
Chunduru R.K., Sen M.K. and Stoffa P.L. 1996. 2-D resistivity inversion The smoothness matrix L acts as a regularization operator. In our
using spline parametrization and simulated annealing. Geophysics 61, algorithm, L is a second-difference operator. For jth model
151–161.
block, the smoothness operator is defined as
Constable S.C., Parker R.L. and Constable C.G. 1987. Occam’s inver-
sion: A practical algorithm for generating smooth models from elec-
tromagnetic sounding data. Geophysics 52, 289–300.
deGroot-Hedlin C. and Constable S. 1990. Occam’s inversion to generate
smooth, two-dimensional models from magnetotelluric data. where the superscripts U, D, L and R denote the four immediate
Geophysics 55, 1613–1624.
neighbours of the jth block (Sasaki 1989, 1992). To take into
Jacobs F. 2000. Earth resistivity tomography and cavity investigation.
Proceeding of 6th EEG Meeting, Bochum, Germany, pp. 154–157. account the loss of resolution with depth, as suggested by de
Kim H.J., Song Y. and Lee K.H. 1999. Inequality constraint in least- Groot-Hedlin and Constable (1990), the coefficients of the
squares inversion of geophysical data. Earth Planets Space 51, 255– matrix L, referring to the difference between laterally adjacent
259. blocks, are modified by multiplying them by a factor equal to
Loke M.H. and Barker R.D. 1996. Rapid least-squares inversion of
ratio of the actual block height to the minimum block height. To
apparent resistivity pseudosections by a quasi-Newton method.
Geophysical Prospecting 44, 131–152. take into account the different roughnesses in the x- and z-direc-
McDonald R. and Davies R. 2003. Integrated geophysical surveys tions, two smoothness matrices were considered: Lx contains the
applied to karstic studies. First Break 21, 32–35. parameters of the model that are laterally adjacent, Lz contains
Morelli G. and LaBrecque D.J. 1996. Advances in ERT inverse mode- the parameters of the model that are vertically adjacent and L is
ling. European Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics
the summation of the two matrices; α1 and α2 are the weights to
1, 171–186.
Neducza B., Hermann L. and Pattantyus-Abraham M. 2003. Cave detec- compensate the roughness in either direction, i.e.
tion with GPR and seismic methods. Geophysical Research, Expanded
Abstract; European Geophysical Society Vol. 5.
Olayinka A.I. and Yaramanci U. 1999. Choice of the best model in 2-D
geoelectrical imaging: Case study from a waste dump site. European
To introduce inequality constraints, we adopted the approach
Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics 3, 221–244.
Sasaki Y. 1989. Two-dimensional joint inversion of magnetotelluric and used by Kim et al. (1999). Instead of using the resistivity loga-
dipole-dipole resistivity data. Geophysics 54, 254–262. rithms as model parameters, our inversion routines use (in the
Sasaki Y. 1992. Resolution of resistivity tomography inferred from presence of constraints) the transformed parameters m’, given
numerical simulation. Geophysical Prospecting 40, 453–463. by
Sciotti M. 1982. Engineering geological problems due to old under-
ground quarries in the urban area of Rome. 4th International Congress
of the International Association of Engineering Geology, New Delhi, (A1)
India, Expanded Abstracts,
van Scoor M. 2002. Detection of sinkholes using 2D electrical resistivity where min and max are the vectors containing the minimum and
imaging. Journal of Applied Geophysics 50, 393–399. maximum parameter bounds.
Sellers B. and Chamberlain A. 1998. Cave detection using ground pen-
The inversion is then performed using the equation,
etrating radar. The Archaeologist 31, 20–21.
Tikhonov A.N., Goncharsky A.V., Stepanov V.V. and Yagola A.G. 1995.
Numerical Methods for the Solution of Ill-Posed Problems. Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Tripp A.C., Hohmann G.W. and Swift C.M. 1984. Two-dimensional where the unknown m is now substituted by m’.
resistivity inversion. Geophysics 49, 1708–1717.
Such a formulation, although less robust with respect to (2),
Tsourlos P.I., Szymanski J.E. and Tsokas G.N. 1998. A smoothness-con-
strained algorithm for the fast 2-D inversion of DC resistivity and is more suitable to invert the parameters expressed in equation
induced polarization data. Journal of the Balkan Geophysical Society (A1).
1, 3–13. Inequality constraints make the inversion procedure less
Zhou W., Beck B. and Adams A.L. 2002. Effective electrode array in dependent on other regularization methods, such as damping or
mapping karst hazard in electrical resistivity tomography.
smoothing.
Environmental Geology 49, 922–928.

© 2006 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Near Surface Geophysics, 2006, 4, 387-392