Cent. Eur. J. Geosci.

• 4(1) • 2012 • 81-93

DOI: 10.2478/s13533-011-0052-0

Central European Journal of Geosciences

Investigating sediments and rock structures beneath

a river using underwater ERT
Research Article

Jannis Epting∗1 , Andreas Wüest1,2 , Peter Huggenberger1

1 Applied and Environmental Geology, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Basel,

Bernoullistrasse 32, 4056 Basel, Switzerland
2 Present address: Keller + Lorenz AG, Tribschenstrasse 61, 6005 Luzern, Switzerland

Received 27 October 2011; accepted 14 January 2012

Abstract: This article presents hydrogeophysical investigations performed in a well-developed, long-term hydrogeological
gypsum karst research site where subsurface evaporite dissolution has led to the subsidence of a river dam and
an adjacent highway; both constructed on gypsum-containing rock, southeast of Basel, Switzerland. An obser-
vation system was set up to improve the protection of surface and subsurface water resources during remedial
construction measures of the highway and in order to understand the processes, as well as the temporal evolu-
tion, of rock water interaction (flow and dissolution).
However, no detailed hydrogeological information beneath the river could be derived from the previous investi-
gations. To supplement the basic knowledge on this area, underwater Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT)
measurements were conducted in the river bed upstream of the dam. The ERT-data are interpreted together with
drill-core information and a conceptual 3D-Model of the area behind the dam and beneath the river. Results help
to delineate weathered zones, associated faults and the thickness of sediment deposits behind the dam, as well
as to locate voids within the local karst system. The combination of the ERT and modeling allows the optimization
of future site-specific remedial construction measures.
Keywords: Dam site • Subsidence • Karst evolution • Conduit development • Underwater ERT
© Versita sp. z o.o.

1. Introduction present hydrogeophysical investigations derived from a

Infrastructures constructed on soluble geologic formations
are prone to subsidence [1, 2]. Karst features develop
much more rapidly when found within gypsum-bearing for-
mations than they do in carbonate formations. While the
characterization and modeling of flow in heterogeneous
and porous media has been investigated intensively, we
∗
E-mail: jannis.epting@unibas.ch
well-developed long-term hydrogeological research site
for gypsum karst [3, 4].
The common procedures for controlling gypsum karst de-
velopment beneath subsided infrastructure are deep cut-
off trenches backfilled with impermeable material, close-
spaced grout curtains that are intended to fill all cavities,
as well as piling measures to support the infrastructure.
Such remedial measures profit from the understanding of
the principal processes that lead to karstification and the
subsequent localized weathering of rock and preferential
flow paths (conduits) to some degree.

81
 Investigating sediments and rock structures beneath a river using underwater ERT

Non-destructive geophysical methods can result in a more

comprehensive and detailed site characterization than
could be achieved by drilling alone, especially in com-
plex environments such as karst areas and unstable sites
where invasive techniques, such as drilling, cannot be per-
formed [5–9]. ERT surveys also play an important role in
investigating water-covered areas; as they can efficiently
produce continuous underground images [10–12].
In this study, the results of underwater ERT within a river
bed upstream of a dam are presented. At the site, sub-
surface evaporite dissolution has led to subsidence of a
river dam and an adjacent highway, both constructed on
gypsum-containing rock. Furthermore, the integration of
underwater ERT into a 3D model of the river sediment de-
posits and the underlying weathered gypsum rock is pre-
sented. Results are discussed together with previous hy-
drogeological and hydrogeophysical investigations [3, 4]
to describe the current state of the rapidly developing
gypsum karst.

2. Settings and previous investiga-

tions
The area of investigation is located along the Birs River
southeast of Basel, Switzerland (Fig. 1). The hydrology
is strongly affected by an artificial river dam and the pro-
duction of hydropower from a small hydro-electric power
plant. The dam, as it is today, was constructed in the
1890’s [13]. However, documentation of anthropogenic im-
pacts in this region, including the deviation of water for
early manufacturing business in Basel, reaches back as
far as the 11th century [14].
Upstream of the dam, river water infiltrates into the highly
permeable fluvial gravel and into the weathered bedrock,
where it follows the hydraulic gradient around and be-
neath the dam and exfiltrates downstream into the river.
These processes enhance karstification in the soluble com-
ponents of the Gipskeuper and result in an extended
weathering zone within the bedrock as well as in the de-
velopment of preferential flow within cavities. Such fea-
tures play a major role in the evolution process of a rapidly
evolving karst system. As a result, these processes have
enhanced karstification in the soluble components of the
gypsum-containing rock and have led to the subsidence
of the dam and the highway of up to 21 cm over the
last 30 years. To prevent further subsidence, construction
measures were carried out in two major project phases in
2006 and 2007 [3, 4].
The vertical drop to the base level downstream of the dam
is 7.3 m. As there is sufficient water supplied by the
Birs River, the pondage is practically constant at 266.2 m
Figure 1. Investigation area in the urban agglomeration of Basel
showing the remedial measures as well as ERT profiles.
a.s.l. River-groundwater interaction is dominated by the
hydraulic river head and variations of river bed conduc-
tance upstream of the dam during flood events.
The stratigraphic column includes the lithological se-
quences for the geological and hydrogeological model-
ing and extends from the Quaternary river gravel to the
Gipskeuper sequence (Fig. 2). Quaternary gravel, silty
flood deposits, as well as artificial fillings beneath the
highway overlie the Triassic and Jurassic strata on the
right side of the river. On the map in Figure 2, the Qua-
ternary sequence has been removed, and the complex pat-
tern of lithological changes in some parts of the investiga-
tion area is illustrated. These sequences consist of marls
and clays (Obere Bunte Mergel), dolomites (Gansinger
Dolomit) and sandstones, marls (Schilfsandstein/Untere
Bunte Mergel), and, for most of the investigation area,
Gipskeuper. Gipskeuper is made up of a series of evap-
orite layers and intercalations of marls. The lithological
term Gipskeuper as used in this paper generally includes
the mineral gypsum and also refers to anhydrite, which, in
the deeper subsurface, is the more common anhydrous form
of calcium sulfate. In its non-weathered appearance the

82
J. Epting, A. Wüest, P. Huggenberger

Figure 2. Geological, tectonic map with removed Quaternary sequence (modified after unpublished data, Pfirter [49]), as well as lithostratigraphy,
hydrostratigraphy, modeled geological units (modified after Bitterli-Brunner et al. [50], Gürler et al. [51], Pearson et al. [52], Spottke
et al. [53]) and longitudinal cross section. Expression of regional geological formations: Obstusus Tone – clay; Arietenkalk, Rhät –
limestone; Untere and Obere Bunge Mergel - greyish to reddish marls and clays; Gansinger Dolomit – Dolomite; Schilfsandstein –
sandstone; Gipskeuper – gypsum Keuper.

Gipskeuper is characterized as having a low permeabil-
ity, however, with its weathered appearance, Gipskeuper
can be considered as a heterogeneous (karstified) aquifer.
Areas below the dam and the highway are strongly weath-
ered due to gypsum dissolution in the Gipskeuper and are
loosened over several meters of thickness.
The investigation area is characterized by the Eastern
Rhinegraben Master fault accompanied by an intense tec-
tonic segmentation into compartments [15]. The Triassic
strata dip at an angle of approximately 45◦ to the West
and are subdivided by a series of NNE-SSW normal faults
(Fig. 2). Fracture zones are associated with rock weakness
and can locally increase permeability within sequences,
resulting in enhanced groundwater leakage and the de-
velopment of paths for preferential flow (Tectono-karstic
conduits).
Multiple data sources were available for the investiga-
tion area: (1) lithostratigraphic profiles from borehole
logs as well as coarse geological information on piling
measures and locations with supplementary cement injec-
tion (Fig. 1); (2) continuous groundwater measurements
(Fig. 1); (3) results from dye tracer tests; and (4) the na-
tional geological map. A total of 24 vertical boreholes
were drilled in several investigation phases from 1993
to 2007. Most boreholes were equipped as observation
wells for groundwater or subsidence measurements. In to-
tal, 12 observation wells were fitted with automatic data
loggers for monitoring the following physical parameters:
hydraulic head, temperature and electrical conductivity.
Additional lithostratigraphic information could be derived
from reports made during the installation of the piles. Hy-
draulic connections and flow velocities within the inves-
tigation area were investigated by a dye tracer test in
1996. Maximal groundwater flow velocities ranged from
85 to 111 md−1 ; values typical for conduits within well-
developed mature karst systems [16].
The first investigational studies beginning in the 1990’s
focused on drilling campaigns providing 1D lithostrati-
graphic profiles from borehole logs. The primary purpose
for drilling boreholes was to find significant permeable
zones within the underlying bedrock and existing cavi-
ties. Although the probability of encountering cavities is
fairly low and relies on a hit-or-miss approach, in total,
7 cavities with diameters ranging from 0.3 to 2.7 m were
detected at a depth of 15 to 18 m. The borehole data
suggests that the thickness of the weathered Gipskeuper
ranges from 2.2 to 14.8 m. Additionally, in the 1990’s
several boreholes hydraulically connected aquifers. The
connection is documented by drill-core protocols and was

83
 Investigating sediments and rock structures beneath a river using underwater ERT
recently confirmed by geochemical and hydraulic data (Ta-
ble 1; [3]).
The borehole data suggest that the occurrence of cavities,
and consequently the development of conduits, is concen-
trated at the base of the weathered Gipskeuper (lixiviation
front), where most of the solution cavities were encoun-
tered. The majority of the encountered cavities contain
clay, gravel and calcite fillings. During episodic floods,
these fillings are partially flushed, allowing more aggres-
sive water to enter the system. Consequently, the devel-
opment of conduits occurs in response to the flooding of
passages. The map in Figure 2 also shows the course of
the Birs River in 1798 compared to the situation in 1983.
The river was straightened in the 19th century and cut into
the Triassic bedrock, resulting in a narrow couloir.
However, such intrusive exploration methods deliver lim-
ited information on the geometry of karst features and
their connectivity; in addition they are costly, time-
consuming and can leave hydraulic connections. In the
current case study, the drilling of several boreholes re-
sulted in a connection of groundwater-bearing horizons in
the gravel deposits and of the easily soluble evaporitic
bedrock. This caused the accelerated vertical groundwa-
ter movements to locally stimulate karstification.
Further hydrogeological and hydrogeophysical investiga-
tions, including groundwater and karst evolution model-
ing [3, 4, 16] within the investigation area on the river
bank, under different hydrologic and geotechnical bound-
ary conditions, both before and after the construction re-
mediation measures, allowed the description of: (1) pref-
erential flow in the shallow subsurface (calculated leak-
age rate range between 25 ls−1 during base flow and up to
90 ls−1 during major flood events [4]); (2) zones that are re-
lated to groundwater flow around the dam, including flow
dynamics; (3) drainage phenomena of karst features such
as cavities and conduits; (4) the weathering horizon within
the Gipskeuper; (5) near-surface faults and fractures that
are associated with “weak” zones; and (6) buried pale-
ochannels. However, no information on the thickness of
sediment deposits, weathered zones, or karst and fault
features within the gypsum rock beneath the river behind
the dam could be derived from these investigations. The
current study focused on filling this deficit by applying
further non-destructive methods.
3. Methods
There are a number of geophysical techniques which are
applicable to investigations of geological structures near
the surface (e.g. [3]). All methods are based on mapping
specific physical contrasts between the target and the sur-
84
rounding media as well as an interpretation and/or assign-
ment of changes in physical parameters. Each method has
limitations in depth of exploration and resolution, depend-
ing on the settings.
Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) can be effective
in settings where faults and “weak” zones beneath the wa-
ter layer can be expected. Among others, Dahlin [17], Loke
and Barker [18], Donner [19], Pellerin [20] and Khalil [21]
describe various ERT applications for environmental sci-
ences and hydrological questions. Geophysical mapping
with ERT has been successful for investigating and map-
ping features in karst terrains (e.g. [22–25]), exploring
shallow subsurface cavities [26–28], within complex ge-
ological areas [29, 30], and in urban areas (e.g. [31]). Fur-
thermore, numerous ERT investigations have focused on
dam leakage (e.g. [32]) and buried paleochannels [33, 34].
Active faults are often imaged as low resistivity zones
(e.g., [35–37]), so continuous imaging of resistivity struc-
ture can be a powerful tool for mapping active fault zones.
In addition, since a resistivity survey is sensitive to ver-
tical structure, the delineation of the location of vertical
weak zones is auspicious.
For ERT surveys in water-covered areas, electrodes are
installed on the lake or river bed, or floated on the water
surface, however, direct contact with the earth is favorable
as it amplifies the current into the earth, and with this
the sensitivity to subsurface anomalies. Kwon et al. [38]
used ERT in a river to detect faults by employing floating
electrodes as well as electrodes on the river bed. In ad-
dition to their field case study, Kwon et al. [38] presented
a numerical study evaluating the potential of underwater
ERT surveys when using floating electrodes or electrodes
placed at the bottom of the river bed with regards to elec-
trode spacing, sensitivity and electrode spreads. Nyquist
et al. [39] used stream bottom ERT to map groundwater
discharge and assess groundwater-surface water interac-
tion within streams. They show that patterns of groundwa-
ter discharge can be mapped at the meter scale. Crook et
al. [40] used ERT imaging to characterize the architecture
of substream sediments, whereby they used electrodes in-
stalled on the river bed. Their results provide an estimate
of the sediment volume behind a log jam.
In this case study, underwater ERT measurements were
conducted in the river bed upstream of the dam to sup-
plement the basic knowledge within the outlined gypsum
karst research site. 56 underwater graphite electrodes
with a fixed spacing of 1 m for all measurements limit the
maximal profile line to 55 m (Advanced Geosciences, Inc.
(AGI), Sting/Swift R1 resistivity meter). From Loke [41],
the maximum prospective depth for the Wenner setup can
be calculated by multiplying the length of the profile line
with a factor of 0.173. The minimum length of a profile
J. Epting, A. Wüest, P. Huggenberger

Table 1. Compilation of borehole information (Epting et al. 2009a).

OW monitoring filter section in status from (m a.s.l.) to (m a.s.l.) difference

1 inclinometer Gipskeuper void (filled) 259.48 257.18 2.30
2 - fluvial gravels and Gipskeuper connection sealed - - -
3 head, T, EC fluvial gravels and Gipskeuper (sep- connection unclear, siphon mechanism - - -
arate)
4 head, T, EC fluvial gravels and Gipskeuper void, connection 250.92 248.62 2.30
5 - Gipskeuper void (filled), connection sealed 254.20 251.50 2.70
6 - - void (filled), connection sealed 253.60 252.80 0.80
7 head, T, EC Gipskeuper - - - -
8 - - sealed - - -
9 head, T, EC fluvial gravels and Gipskeuper void (filled), connection 257.05 256.25 0.80
10 head, T, EC fluvial gravels and Gipskeuper connection, siphon mechanism - - -
11 - - sealed - - -
12 head, T, EC fluvial gravels siphon mechanism - - -
13 head, T, EC fluvial gravels and Gipskeuper connection unclear, siphon mechanism - - -
14 head artificial fillings and Gipskeuper connection unclear, siphon mechanism - - -
15 - - sealed - - -
16 head unweathered rock dry - - -
17 - - sealed - - -
18 head slope clay to Obere Bunte Mergel - - - -
19 inclinometer - - - - -
20 head, T, EC weathered Gipskeuper void 252.17 250.77 1.40
void 249.87 249.57 0.30
21 head artificial fillings, Schilfsandstein, connection - - -
Gipskeuper
66 - - - - - -
69 - - - - - -
72 - - - - - -

line is 28 m (constrained by the river width) and the max-

Table 2. Compilation of underwater ERT profiles. Grey: ERT Profiles
imum length of the profile line is 55 m (constrained by that were combined to one 220 m long longitudinal profile
the electrode layout), resulting in an exploration depth of (We 1 to 7). The Dipole-Dipole layout was tested for com-
parison of layout types. We 8 is the closest profile to the
approx. 5 to 10 m. dam followed by We 9, 10 and 11 (see Fig. 1)
Reaching this depth allowed the entire thickness of the
sediment deposits to be investigated down to the weath- profile date length (m) comment
ering zone, as documented by the boreholes and the depth Longitudinal profiles parallel to the river
We1 07.08.2008 55 Wenner layout
of the subsurface structures of the dam [3, 4]. The rela-
We2 06.08.2008 55 Wenner layout
tively heavy electrodes and anchors at the end of the elec-
We3 06.08.2008 55 Wenner layout
trode cables sufficed to secure the installation on the river
Dd1 06.08.2008 55 Dipole-Dipole layout
bed. All measurements were carried out during low river We4 22.08.2008 55 Wenner layout
discharge situations (4 to 7 m3 s−1 , average discharge is We5 22.08.2008 55 Wenner layout
15 m3 s−1 ) in July and August 2008 (Table 2). The topog- We6 22.08.2008 55 Wenner layout
raphy of the river bed and depth of the water along the We7 22.08.2008 55 Wenner layout
survey lines was also recorded. Transverse profiles perpendicular to the river
Figure 1 shows the locations for the various ERT profiles We8 07.08.2008 49 Wenner layout
lines within the river behind the dam, where the longitudi- We9 06.08.2008 43 Wenner layout
nal profile line of 220 m (parallel to the river) - (Table 2). We10 22.08.2008 40 Wenner layout
The single profiles were recorded 2 to 4 m from the right We11 02.07.2008 28 Wenner layout, not covering
river board. The length of the four transverse profile lines the total river width
across the river was adapted to the width of the river bed

85
 Investigating sediments and rock structures beneath a river using underwater ERT

varying between 28 and 49 m (Table 2). The transverse

profile lines could not be continued outside the river be-
cause of the steep highway dam.
Reynolds [42] summarizes the strengths and weaknesses
of the commonly used electrode arrangements (arrays) for
ERT (Wenner, Schlumberger and Dipole-Dipole). Gener-
ally, the Wenner setup was chosen because of the high
signal strength obtained within areas where major back-
ground noise is expected and the good resolution of verti-
cal changes in the subsurface. Also, Wenner arrays were Figure 3. Distribution of measured resistivity values in comparison
to the results of other authors.
the best in terms of signal to noise ratio [11]. A con-
siderable disadvantage of the Wenner setup is the poor
resolution of horizontal changes in the subsurface. One
of the longitudinal profiles (Table 2) was also carried out the dam and beneath the river. The conceptual 3D-Model
with a Dipole-Dipole setup; the gain in capturing horizon- was modeled using GoCAD© (Geological Objects 47-48).
tal changes in the subsurface was only slightly improved.
Therefore, the Wenner setup was favored.
Post-processing and data interpretation was carried out
4. Results
using the inversion program RES2DINV [43]. It automat-
Figure 3 shows the distribution of measured resistivity
ically determines topographically corrected 2D electrical
values in comparison to the results of other authors. Gen-
resistivity models of the subsurface by inverting the data
erally, two resistivity zones or layers can be distinguished
obtained from electrical imaging [30]. A robust inversion
(Fig. 4): a resistive (100 to 500 Ωm) surface layer corre-
was used as it is more suitable for detecting and sharp-
sponding to the streambed sediments as well as two ver-
ening linear features such as faults and contacts within
tical structures corresponding to karst and or fault zone
such complex geological settings of karst regions [3]. The
fillings and a conductive (10 to 40 Ωm) bottom layer cor-
inversion parameters were kept constant in order to retain
responding to the bedrock. Nyquist et al. [38] identified
the comparability of the various measurements. The in-
three resistivity layers in similar settings: a resistive (100
version parameters for RES2DINV are summarized in the
to 400 Ωm) surface layer corresponding to the streambed
appendix.
sediments, a conductive (20 to 100 Ωm) middle layer cor-
As a large proportion of the current flows through the wa- responding to residual clay sediments, and (unrelated to
ter layer, electrical resistivity in water-covered areas is the current case study) a resistive (100 to 450 Ωm) bottom
greatly influenced by the water depth. Therefore, elec- layer corresponding to the carbonate bedrock. Crook et
trical resistivity and geometry of the water column must al. [39] could show that, for similar settings, the bound-
be known for an accurate robust inversion [12, 39, 44, 45]. ary between the lower two resistivity regions correlates
The electrical resistivity and geometry of the water col- well with the interface previously logged between the al-
umn is fixed in the earth model and the inversion program luvial gravels (95 to 1500 Ωm) and underlying weathered
attempts to determine the electrical resistivity of the cells limestone (10 to 75 Ωm).
that would most accurately reproduce the observed elec- For all measurement values of the apparent resistivity, the
trical resistivity measurements [46]. The electrical con- calculated Root Mean Square (RMS) error was less than
ductivity of the river water was measured by digital con- 5%, indicating that the measurements were undisturbed
ductivity meter for each field day and varied between 390 and that the electrical resistivity models resulted in one
and 417 µScm−1 . This results in an average electrical plausible solution [19].
resistivity of the water column of 25 Ωm (conversion 1 Ωm
Figure 4 shows a three-dimensional fence diagram of the
equals 1 S−1 m−1 ). The water layer within the investiga-
inversion results from the longitudinal profile combined
tion area varied between 0.4 and 1.85 m. As the height
with the transverse profiles and the lithostratigraphic in-
of the ponded water upstream of the dam is practically
formation of 4 boreholes. The results of the ERT mea-
constant at 266.2 m a.s.l. the depth variations of the wa-
surements show that the underground can be divided into
ter layer are brought about by the topography of the river
two layers, a water-saturated layer of sediments with high
bed, which was measured after installing the electrodes.
resistivity and a weathered rock layer with low resistivity.
The ERT-data are interpreted together with drill-core in- Furthermore, two anomalies in the ERT results indicate
formation and a conceptual 3D-Model of the area behind vertical structures with high resistivity. The interpreta-

86
J. Epting, A. Wüest, P. Huggenberger
Figure 4. 3D fence diagram of ERT results illustrated together with lithostratigraphic information in boreholes (all axes in m). The topmost blue
color stands for the water layer.
tion of the results of the ERT measurements are covered
in the discussion.
5. Discussion
The discussion is focused on the occurrence of two ERT
anomalies: (1) karst features such as cavities, conduits,
fractures and fault zones generally result in an increase in
electrical resistivity if they are filled with air (near-infinite
electrical resistance), and, providing there is a electrical
resistivity contrast with the surrounding rock, a decrease
if they are filled with clay and water. Although clay frac-
tions will decrease electrical resistivity more than water,
in the field their influence cannot be determined due to
the shape of the features and the fact that the degree of
the filling is, most of the time, unknown; and (2) electrical
resistivity contrasts between various sedimentological se-
quences and their degree of weathering. In the following,
the observed features are discussed in detail:
(1) Zones with relatively high electrical resistivity values
above 100 Ωm are associated with sediment deposits be-
hind the river dam. The rather high electrical resistivity
values could be explained by the existence of coarse fluvial
gravel. The thickness of the fluvial sediments range from
2 to 3 m and correlate with the lithostratigraphic informa-
tion derived from the boreholes. The thickness of the sed-
iment deposits increases from upstream regions towards
the dam. These findings correlate with the progression of
the surface of the gypsum rock (c.f. Fig. 2).
(2) The bottom of the sediment deposits corresponds to an
erosion surface of the river preceding the dam construc-
tion. The undulating interface of low and high electrical
resistivity values might be explained by the former pro-
gression of paleochannels and pool sequences. Findings
agree with the results of the previous ERT measurements
and information from geological as well as historical maps.
(3) Zones with relatively low electrical resistivity values
up to a maximal 40 Ωm, beneath the sediment deposits,
could be associated with the weathered gypsum. Low
electrical resistivity values result from water with high
solution content within water-saturated clays. Especially
within these zones, the weathering process resulted in the
removal of gypsum and the remains of the clay component.
Zones with comparably higher electrical resistivity values
between 40 and 100 Ωm on the western part of the first
transverse profile could be explained by the more resis-
tant Schilfsandstein (c.f. Fig. 2). Findings correlate with
the lithostratigraphic information derived from the bore-
holes at the river board and information from the geo-
87
 Investigating sediments and rock structures beneath a river using underwater ERT

Figure 5. Conceptual 3D-Model derived from ERT results and interpreted lithological and fault features. A (view from NW): ERT-Profiles and
drill-core information; B (view from NW): ERT-Profiles, drill-core information and interpreted lithology of the bedrock (pink: Gipskeuper;
violet: Schilfsandstein; cf. Fig. 2); C (view from SW): ERT-Profiles, drill-core information, interpreted lithology of the bedrock (transparent
pink: Gipskeuper; transparent violet: Schilfsandstein; cf. Fig. 2) illustrated together with faults and the progression of the Gipskeuper-
Schilfsandstein interface (dark and light grey, respectively); D (view from NW): ERT-Profiles, drill-core information, interpreted lithology
of the bedrock (transparent pink: Gipskeuper; transparent violet: Schilfsandstein; cf. Fig. 2) illustrated together with faults and the pro-
gression of the Gipskeuper- Schilfsandstein interface (dark and light grey, respectively); and E (view from NW): water- (blue), river bed-
(brown) and bedrock- surfaces (pink and violet) illustrated together with faults and the progression of the Gipskeuper- Schilfsandstein
interface (dark and light grey, respectively).

88
J. Epting, A. Wüest, P. Huggenberger
logical map. As the underwater ERT measurements only
reach to a maximum depth of 10 m, the detection of sharp
boundaries between weathered and non-weathered zones
was not possible.
(4) The subsurface image shows that the high resistivity
anomalies develop vertically under the river bed. Within
the longitudinal profile at approx. 50 m, as well as in the
second transversal profile at approx. 18 m, regions can be
observed where the interpreted weathered gypsum rock is
vertically cut through and high electrical resistivity values
occur. The reason for these structures beneath the river
bed could be gravel-filled sinkholes, possibly in combi-
nation with the local fault system. Similar karst features
were observed in the river bed further south. Furthermore,
this karst feature could be part of a conduit system that
reveals a siphon mechanism according to the hydrological
characteristics of the river stage as has been described
in Epting et al. [4]. The location of the anomaly on the
longitudinal profile correlates with a mapped small-scale
fault on the surface which is associated with large-scale
fault activities (Fig. 2). The location of the anomaly on
the second transversal profile correlates with the mapped
boundary of lithofacies (Fig. 2). Both locations interpreted
as karst features or faults are associated with geologically
weak zones. Both anomalies extend down to the bottom
of the resistivity image, which implies that the structures
extend much deeper.
Figure 5 shows the final interpretation result as a concep-
tual 3D-Model derived from ERT results and interpreted
lithological and fault features. Figure 5A shows the loca-
tion of the longitudinal and four transversal ERT-profiles
within the modeled 3D body. Figure 5B illustrates the
ERT-profiles and the interpolated surface of the bedrock,
including the lithologies of the Gipskeuper and the Schil-
fsandstein. Figure 5C shows the progression of the East-
ern Rhinegraben Master fault together with two small-
scale faults derived from the geological map (Fig. 2). The
small-scale fault in front was extended according to the
vertical anomaly observed in the longitudinal ERT-profile
(see above). The derived strike direction of this anomaly
is approx. 300◦ WNW, and corresponds to to the strike
direction of the mapped fault further to the south. Both
faults indicate a steep dip. Furthermore, the progression
of the interface of the lithologies of the Gipskeuper and
the Schilfsandstein is visible. An approximate dipping of
45◦ to the West that was derived from geological mapping
is also indicated within the ERT-profile. Figure 5D illus-
trates the various modeled surfaces, including the water-,
river bed- and bedrock- surfaces as well as faults and
the progression of the Gipskeuper-Schilfsandstein inter-
face. The volume of sediment being held behind the dam
is approx. 3.2E04 m3 .
6. Conclusions
The conducted underwater ERT measurements and high
electrical resistivity contrasts in the subsurface enabled
the separation of the river sediment deposits from the un-
derlying weathered gypsum rock. Furthermore, results en-
abled the description of the progression of paleochannels
and pool sequences, as well as karst features in combi-
nation with the local fault system. Through the analysis
of the images from five resistivity profiles anomalies ap-
peared to be connected to each other and the strike di-
rection could be derived. These results help to delineate
the thickness of sediment deposits behind the dam, and
to locate distinct karst features that promote preferential
flow, which play a major role in the karst evolution pro-
cess. The observations suggest that the karst system is
already in a well-developed, mature state.
The main limitations of underwater ERT measurements in-
clude the restricted investigation depth for cross sections
in narrow rivers and the requirement of high electrical re-
sistivity contrasts in the subsurface. For the present case
study, the applicability was supported by previously con-
ducted surface ERT measurements that already indicated
high subsurface heterogeneity and electrical resistivity
contrasts. For cases where structural subsurface hetero-
geneity but no electrical resistivity contrasts are to be
expected, as in coarse gravel environments with low elec-
trical conductivity and water with low mineralization con-
tent, other hydrogeophysical investigation methods, such
as GPR (Ground Penetrating Radar) could be employed.
Due to the multiple data sources and hydraulic data from
observation wells and high-resolution 3-D hydrogeologi-
cal models, it was possible to partially eliminate ambigu-
ity in data interpretation and to describe the relationship
between the different observed features in a spatial con-
text.
The results give the opportunity to optimize future inves-
tigations and remedial construction measures to extend
existing observation networks for subsidence monitoring
and to stabilize the dam; including the implementation of
optimal localized grout curtains and stabilizing piles. The
regions where fault or karst features were detected should
be especially considered as “weak” zones and reinforce-
ment prioritized. However, during remedial construction
measures and reinforcements water protection issues must
be considered in an appropriate way.
This subsurface information now allows the adaptation of
the geometries and distribution of aquifer properties in
existing hydrogeological karst evolution models that were
set up for process modeling and to document the develop-
ment of the karst system.
89
 Investigating sediments and rock structures beneath a river using underwater ERT
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Rebecca Page for lan-
guage editing the manuscript and Horst Dresmann for as-
sisting in the setup of the conceptual 3D-Model in Go-
CAD. The field surveys were supported by Fabian Wigger,
Johannes Darnutzer, Max Respondek, Piotr Halicki, An-
nette Affolter, Rebecca Page and Hanspeter Wüest.
References
[1] Gutiérrez F., Gypsum karstification induced subsi-
dence: effects on alluvial systems and derived geo-
hazards (Calatayud Graben, Iberian Range, Spain).
Geomorphology, 1996, 16, 277-293
[2] Lamont-Black J., Younger P.L., Forth R.A., Cooper
A.H., Bonniface J.P., A decision-logic framework for
investigating subsidence problems potentially at-
tributable to gypsum karstification. Engineering Ge-
ology, 2002, 65, 205-215
[3] Epting J., Huggenberger P., Glur L., A Concept for
Integrated Investigations of Karst Phenomena in Ur-
ban Environments - Merging geophysical and hy-
drometrical investigations with 3D hydrogeological
modeling for applied urban hydrogeology within a
gypsum karst area. Engineering Geology, 2009, DOI
10.1016/j.enggeo.2009.08.013.
[4] Epting J., Romanov D., Huggenberger P., Kaufmann
G., Integrating Field and Numerical Modeling Meth-
ods for Applied Urban Karst Hydrogeology. Hydrol-
ogy and Earth System Sciences, 2009, 13, 1163–
1184
[5] Gabbani G., Lavorini G., Pacini L., Geophysical and
geotechnical investigation of an areal landslide in the
Tuscan Northern Apennines (Italy) with an extensive
consolidation design. In: Proceedings for the EEGS-
ES 2000 Annual Meeting, 2000, Bochum, Germany
[6] Lapenna V., Perrone A., Pietro L., Piscitelli S., Rizzo
E., Sdao F., 2D resistivity and 3D self-potential to-
mographies in the study of the Giarrossa landslide
(southern Italy). In: Proceedings for the EEGS-ES
2000 Annual Meeting, 2000, Bochum, Germany
[7] Sretenovic B., Lokin P., Sretenovic N., Djordjevic M.,
Kisin S., Some possibilities of electrical scanning
method in landslides exploration, in Proceedings for
the EEGS-ES 2000 Annual Meeting, 2000, Bochum,
Germany
[8] Yaramanci U., Kiewer M., Geoelectrical Character-
isation of the Opalinus ClayFormation in the Un-
derground Rock Laboratory ‘Mont Terri’. Mont Terri
Project, Technical Note 99-27, ED-C Experiment,
90
2000,Technische Universität Berlin
[9] Fenning P.J., Brown A.J., Nind D., Geophysical sur-
veys across a ground subsidence feature, in Proceed-
ings for SAGEEP 2000, Washington D.C., 2000, 857-
866
[10] Chung H.J., Kim J.H., Park K.P., Kwon H.S., Choi
H.S., Kim K.S., Kim J.S., Application of geophys-
ical results to designing bridge over a large fault:
Geotechnical Problems in Asian Countries, Proceed-
ing of Fourth Asian Young Geotechnical Engineers
Conference, 2001, 45–48
[11] Kim J.H., Yi M.J., Song Y., Cho S.J. Chung S.H., Kim
K.S., DC resistivity survey to image faults beneath
a riverbed: Symposium on the Application of Geo-
physics to Engineering and Environmental Problems
(SAGEEP), 2002, 13IDA10
[12] Cho S.J., Kim J.H., Yi M.J., Lee S.K., Son J.S., Sato
M., Effective methodology of DC resistivity survey for
imaging the underground structure at water-covered
area: Proc. 110th SEGJ Conference, 2004, 180–183
[13] Golder E., 100 years Birswuhr Neue Welt (in
German). 1984, Baudepartement Basel-Stadt, Tief-
bauamt
[14] Fechter D., Topography with the consideration of the
cultural and conventional history (in German). In:
Basel in the 14th century, 1856, Basel
[15] Schmassmann H., Baselbieter and Western Aargauer
Tafeljura (in German). In: Jäckli H., Kempf T., Er-
läuterungen zum Blatt Bözberg-Beromünster 1. Hy-
drogeologische Karte der Schweiz, 1972, 93-100
[16] Birk S., Liedl R., Sauter M., Identification of local-
ized recharge and conduit flow by combined analysis
of hydraulic and physico-chemical spring responses
(Urenbrunnen, SW-Germany), J. Hydrol., 2004, 286,
179-193, doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2003.09.007
[17] Romanov D., Kaufmann G., Hiller T., Karstification
of aquifers interspersed with non-soluble rocks From
basic principles towards case studies. Engineering
Geology, 2010, DOI 10.1016/j.enggeo.2010.09.008
[18] Dahlin T., 2D resistivity surveying for environmental
and engineering applications. First Break, 1996, 14,
275-283
[19] Loke M.H., Barker R.D., Rapid least-squares inver-
sion of apparent resistivity pseudosections using a
quasi-Newton method, Geophys. Prosp., 1996, 44,
131-152
[20] Donner F., Modern measurement and evaluation pro-
cedures for resistivity geoelectrics, with application
examples (in German). Zeitschrift für angewandte Ge-
ologie 1997, 42
[21] Pellerin L., Applications of electrical and electromag-
netic methods for environmental and geotechnical in-
J. Epting, A. Wüest, P. Huggenberger
vestigations. Surveys in Geophysics 2002, 23, 101-
132
[22] Khalil M.H., Geoelectric resistivity sounding for de-
lineating salt water intrusion in the Abu Zanima area,
west Sinai, Egypt. Journal of Geophysics and Engi-
neering 2006, 3, 243-251
[23] S̆umanovac F., Weisser M., Evaluation of resistivity
and seismic methods for hydrogeological mapping in
karst terrains. Journal of Applied Geophysics 2001,
47, 13-28
[24] McGrath R.J., Styles P., Thomas E., Neale S., Inte-
grated high-resolution geophysical investigations as
potential tools for water resource investigations in
karst terrain. Environmental Geology 2002, 42, 552-
557
[25] van Schoor M., Detection of sinkholes using 2D elec-
trical resistivity imaging, Journal of Applied Geo-
physics 2002, 50, 393-399
[26] Kaufmann G., Romanov D., Geophysical investigation
of a sink in the northern Harz foreland (North Ger-
many). Environmental Geology 2009, 58, 401-405
[27] El-Qady G., Hafez M., Abdalla M.A., Ushijima K.,
Imaging subsurface cavities using geoelectric tomog-
raphy and ground-penetrating radar. Journal of Cave
and Karst Studies, 2005, 67, 174-181
[28] Leucci G., De Giorgi L., Integrated geophysical sur-
veys to assess the structural conditions of a karstic
cave of archaeological importance. Natural Hazards
and Earth System Sciences 2005, 5, 17-22
[29] Soupios P., Papadopoulos I., Kouli M., Georgaki I.,
Vallianatos F., Kokkinou E., Investigation of waste
disposal areas using electrical methods: a case study
from Chania, Crete, Greece. Environmental Geology
2007, 51, 1249-1261
[30] Griffiths D.H., Barker R.D., Two-dimensional resistiv-
ity imaging and modelling in areas of complex geol-
ogy. Journal of Applied Geophysics 1993, 29, 211-226
[31] El-Hussain I., Holbrook J., Sneed C., Integrated geo-
physical and geological methods to delineate buried
paleochannels in the New Madrid seismic zone of
southeastern Missouri. In: Proceedings for SAGEEP
2000, Washington D.C., 2000, 253-262
[32] Wise’n R., Bjelm L., Dahlin T., Resistivity imaging
as a preinvestigation method in urban environments.
Proceedings EEGS-ES 6th Meeting, 2000, CH05
[33] Al-Saigh N.H., Mohammed Z.S., Dahham M.S., De-
tection of water leakage from dams by selfpotential
method. Engineering Geology 1994, 37, 115-121
[34] Baines D., Smith D.G., Froese D.G., Bauman P.,
Nimeck G., Electrical Resistivity Ground Imaging
(ERGI): a new tool for mapping the lithology and ge-
ometry of channel-belts and valley-fills. Sedimentol-
ogy 2002, 49, 441-449
[35] Maillet G., Rizzo E., Revil A., Vella C., High resolution
electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) in a transition
zone environment: Application for detailed internal
architecture and infilling processes study of a Rhône
River paleo-channel. Marine Geophysical Researches
2005, 26, 317-328
[36] Fujita K., Ikuta O., Resistivity structure of the central
part of the Yamasaki fault studied by the multiple
electrodes resistivity method, Earth Planets Space,
2000, 52, 567–571
[37] Unsworth M., Bedrosian P.A., Electrical resistivity
structure at the SAFOD site from magnetotelluric
exploration. Geophysical research letters, 2004, 31,
L12S05, doi:10.1029/2003GL019405
[38] Kwon H., Kim J., Ahn H., Yoon J., Kim K., Jung C.,
Lee S., Uchida T., Delineation of a fault zone be-
neath a riverbed by an electrical resistivity survey us-
ing a floating streamer cable. Exploration Geophysics
2005, 36, 50–58
[39] Nyquist J.E., Freyer P.A., Toran L., Stream Bottom
Resistivity Tomography to Map Ground Water Dis-
charge, Ground water 2008, 46, pages 561–569
[40] Crook N., Binley A., Knight R., Robinson D.A.,
Zarnetske J., Haggerty R., Electrical resistivity
imaging of the architecture of substream sedi-
ments, Water Resour. Res., 2008, 44, W00D13,
doi:10.1029/2008WR006968.
[41] Loke M.H., Electrical imaging surveys for environ-
mental and engineering studies. 2000
[42] Reynolds J.M., An Introduction to Applied and Envi-
ronmental Geophysics. 1997, Wiley, New York.
[43] Loke M.H., Res2dinv Software User‘s Manual, Ver-
sion 3.57. Geotomo Software, Penang, Malysia, 2007
[44] Kim J.H., Yi M.J., Song Y., Cho S.J., Lee S.K., Son J.S.,
Chung S.H., A study on the DC resistivity method to
image the underground structure beneath river or lake
bottom: Mulli-tamsa, 2002, 5, 223–235 (in Korean
with English abstract)
[45] Snyder D.D., MacInnes S.C., Raymond M.J., Zonge
K.L., Continuous resistivity profiling in shallow ma-
rine and fresh water environments: Symposium on the
Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Envi-
ronmental Problems (SAGEEP), 2002, 13GSL4
[46] Loke M.H., Lane J.W. Jr Inversion of data from electri-
cal resistivity imaging surveys in water-covered ar-
eas. Explor Geophys, 2004, 35, 266–271
[47] Mallet J.L., Discrete Smooth Interpolation in Geo-
metric Modeling. Computer-Aided Design 1992, 24,
178-191
[48] Mallet J.L., Geomodeling. 2002, Oxford University
Press, New York.
91
 Investigating sediments and rock structures beneath a river using underwater ERT

[49] Pfirter U., Geologie und Morphologie des Birstals
von St. Jakob bis Münchenstein. Diplomarbeit
Geologisch-Paläontologisches Institut, Universität
Basel (in German), 1973
[50] Bitterli-Brunner P., Fischer H., Explanations map
Blat Arlesheim 1067 (in German). Geological Atlas
of Switzerland, 1989
[51] Gürler B., Hauber L., Schwander M., Geology of the
surrounding area of Basel with suggestions usage op-
tions of geothermal energy (in German). In: Beitrag
zur Geologischen Karte der Schweiz, 1987, N.F. 160,
33p.
[52] Pearson F.J., Balderer W., Loosli H.H., Lehmann B.E.,
Matter A., Peters T., Schmassmann H., Gautschi A.,
Applied Isotope Hydrogeology-a case study in north-
ern Switzerland. 1991, Elsevier, Studies in Environ-
mental Science 43, 439pp.
[53] Spottke I., Zechner E., Huggenberger P., The south-
eastern border of the Upper Rhine Graben: A 3D
geological model and its importance for tectonics and
groundwater flow. International Journal of Earth Sci-
ences 2005, 94, 580-593

Appendix: Inversion settings for the underwater ERT data processing in

RES2DINV.
Parameter Value
Initial damping factor 0.16
Minimum damping factor 0.015
Line search option Always
Convergence limit for relative change in RMS error 0.4%
Number of iterations 5
Vertical to horizontal flatness filter ratio 1
Model for increase in thickness of layers Default
Number of nodes between adjacent electrodes 4
Flatness filter type, Include smoothing of model resistivity Model changes only
Reduce number of topographical datum points No
Carry out topography modeling Yes
Type of topography trend removal Average
Type of Jacobian matrix calculation Gauss-Newton
Increase of damping factor with depth 1.1
Type of topographical modeling None
Robust data constrain Yes
Cutoff factor for data constrain 0.05
Robust model constrain Yes
Cutoff factor for model constrain 0.02
Allow number of model parameters to exceed datum points? Yes
Use extended model? No
Reduce effect of side blocks? No
Type of mesh Normal
Optimize damping factor? No
Time-lapse inversion constrain None
Type of time-lapse inversion method Simultaneous
Thickness of first layer 0.5
Factor to increase thickness layer with depth 1.1
Use finite element method Yes
Width of blocks Normal width
Make sure blocks have the same width Yes
RMS convergence limit 1%
Use logarithm of apparent resistivity Yes
Type of inversion method Concurrent
Proceed automatically for sequential method No
IP damping factor No
Use automatic IP damping factor No
Limit resistivity values Yes
Upper limit factor 50
Lower limit factor 0.02
Type of reference resistivity Average

92
J. Epting, A. Wüest, P. Huggenberger

Model refinement Normal

Combined Marquardt and Occam inversion Not
Type of optimization method Gauss-Newton
Convergence limit for Incomplete Gauss-Newton method 0.003
Use data compression with Incomplete Gauss-Newton No
Use fast method to calculate Jacobian matrix. Yes
Use higher damping for first layer? No
Extra damping factor for first layer 2.5
Type of finite-element method Triangular
Factor to increase model depth range 1
Resistivity variation within water layer Minimize variation
Optimize Jacobian matrix calculation No
Automatically switch electrodes for negative geometric factor Yes
Force resistance value to be consistent with the geometric factor No
Shift the electrodes to round up positions of electrodes No

93