Integrated shallow seismic imaging of a settlement located in a historical landslide area

  • Gulseda Vanlı Senkaya
  • Mustafa SenkayaEmail author
  • Hakan Karsli
  • Recep Güney
Original Paper


Uzungöl settlement and Lake Uzungöl are located in the south of Çaykara, Trabzon, Eastern Black Sea region, and are an important tourist destination in Turkey, with natural beauty and rich flora. However, the settlement and the lake were formed by a historical landslide that covered the front of the Haldizen stream. Residential buildings, tourist facilities, transportation routes, and agricultural activities are located on ground that consists of the material that accumulated from the landslide. In this study, a geophysical investigation using integrated shallow seismic methods was carried out in Uzungöl settlement to provide detailed scientific imaging data on the structure of the subsurface, the physical properties of the soil and rock, the bedrock topography, and the vertical and lateral variation in the landslide deposits. For this purpose, seismic refraction and active and passive multichannel surface wave data were collected from 16 profiles in four separate zones designated according to the agricultural activity and geomorphology of the area. In addition, an electrical resistivity tomography survey of a profile was carried out to determine the reason for low-velocity anomalies such as cavities or man-made voids appearing in P-wave velocity–depth sections and underground water content. After applying basic processes including trace killing/editing, random noise filtering of the data, and amplitude balancing to all seismic data, 2D P-wave velocity–depth sections obtained by tomographic inversion, 1D S-wave velocity–depth profiles, and 2D S-wave velocity–depth sections were generated via analysis of MASW and ReMi data. P- and S-wave velocity–depth sections generally demonstrate three main lithological units in the area: the soil (Vp = 300–600 m/s, Vs = 195–350 m/s and H = 0–2.5 m), the landslide material (Vp = 600–2400 m/s, Vs = 350–680 m/s and H = 2.5–15 m), and the bedrock (Vp > 2400 m/s, Vs > 680 m/s and H ≥ 15 m). In particular, the landslide material exhibits variable thickness from profile to profile and represents the complexity of the subsurface. However, we observed that the deposit thickness increases close to the lake. It was determined that the high seismic velocities of the landslide deposits are attributable to the densely packed deposits and the primarily dry or very poor underground water, according to electrical resistivity tomography results. Moreover, the top of the bedrock is characterized by soft rock, and the deeper part of the bedrock is harder and more compact. We believe that this information will be a useful contribution to geotechnical project development and risk mitigation in the Uzungöl area.


Landslide Seismic tomographic imaging Surface waves Uzungöl settlement and lake 



This study was supported by the Research Foundation of Karadeniz Technical University (Project No. 11522). We would like to thank dear Satish Pullammanappallil, PhD, Chief Scientist of Optim, for his contributions. Some parts of this study were presented at ICEG-SEG 2015 (honored with best student paper award) and 77th EAGE Conference & Exhibition 2015.


  1. Altundağ D (2008) Environmental changes in Holocene period in Uzungöl and its catchment area. MSc Thesis, Ankara University, Institute of Social SciencesGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker GS, Schmeissner C, Steeples DW, Plumb RG (1999) Seismic reflections from depths of less than two meters. Geophys Res Lett 26:279–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Belfer I, Bruner I, Keydar S, Kravtsov A, Landa E (1998) Detection of shallow objects using refracted and diffracted seismic waves. J Appl Geophys 38:155–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benjumea B, Gabàs A, Bellmunt F, Macau A, Figueras S, Vilà M (2011) Geophysical Techniques Improving Geological Mapping in Urban Areas at Two Different Scales, Near Surface 2011 - 17th EAGE European Meeting of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, 12–14 September 2011, Leicester, United KingdomGoogle Scholar
  5. Bulut (1989) Investigation of Çambaşı (Trabzon-Çaykara) dam and Uzungöl hydroelectric power plant locations in terms of engineering geology, Ph.D thesis, Karadeniz Technical University Institute of Natural Sciences, Trabzon-Turkey (in Turkish)Google Scholar
  6. Cardarelli E, Cercato M, Cerreto A, Di Filippo G (2010) Electrical resistivity and seismic refraction tomography to detect buried cavities. Geophys Prospect 58(4):685–695. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dal Moro G, Pipan M, Forte E, Finetti I (2003) Determination of Rayleigh wave dispersion curves for near surface applications in unconsolidated sediments. In: 2003 SEG Annual Meeting, 2003. Society of Exploration GeophysicistsGoogle Scholar
  8. Dal Moro G, Pipan M (2007) Rayleigh wave dispersion curve inversion via genetic algorithms and marginal posterior probability density estimation. J Appl Geophys 61:39–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kanli AI, Tildy P, Pronay Z, Pinar A, Hemann L (2006) Vs30 mapping and soil classification for seismic site effect evaluation in dinar region. Geophys J Int SWTurkey 165:223–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kritikakis GS, Vafidis A (2011) Different alternatives of surface waves data inversion. Applications on environmental and geotechnical case studies, 6th congress of the Balkan geophysical society, 3–6 October 2011. Budapest, HungaryGoogle Scholar
  11. Loke MH, Barker RD (1995) Least -squares deconvolution of apparent resistivity pseudo-sections. Geophysics 60:1682–1690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Louie JN (2001) Faster, better: shear-wave velocity to 100 meters depth from refraction microtremor arrays. Bull Seismol Soc Am 91(2):347–364. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Luo Y, Xia J, Miller RD, Xu Y, Liu J, Liu Q (2008) Rayleigh-wave dispersive energy imaging by high-resolution linear radon transform. Pure Appl Geophys 165(5):903–922CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mohamed AME, Abu El Ata ASA, Abdel Azim F, Taha MA (2013) Site-specific shear wave velocity investigation for geotechnical engineering applications using seismic refraction and 2D multi-channel analysis of surface waves. NRIAG J Astron Geophys 2(1):88–101. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Palmer D (1986) Refraction seismics: in: Helbig K. and Treitel S. (eds): handbook of geophysical exploration. Section I. Seismic exploration, Volume 13, Geophysical Press, London-Amsterdam, pp. 1–265Google Scholar
  16. Park CB, Miller RD, Xia J (1998) Imaging dispersion curves of surface waves on multi-channel record. SEG Expanded Abstracts 1:1377–1380Google Scholar
  17. Park CB, Miller RD, Xia J (1999) Multichannel analysis of surface waves. Geophysics 64(3):800–808. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Park C, Miller R (2008) Roadside passive multichannel analysis of surface waves (MASW). J Environ Eng Geophys 13:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pullammanappallil SK, Louie JN (1994) A generalized simulated-annealing optimization for inversion of first-arrival times. Bull Seismol Soc Am 84(5):1397–1409Google Scholar
  20. Sastry RG, Mondal SK (2012) Geophysical characterization of the Salna sinking zone, Garhwal Himalaya, India. Surv Geophys 34(1):89–119. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sheehan JR, Doll WE, Madell WE (2005) An evaluation of methods and available software for seismic refraction tomography analysis. J Environ Eng Geophys 10:21–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Steeples DW, Miller RD (1998) Avoiding pitfalls in shallow seismic reflection surveys. Geophysics 63:1213–1224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Steeples DW (2000) A review of shallow seismic methods. Ann Geofis 43:1021–1044Google Scholar
  24. The State Hydraulic Works of Turkey (1982) Engineering geology report of the project of-Solaklı – Uzungöl unit, Trabzon-Turkey ( in Turkish)Google Scholar
  25. Verep B, Şahin C, Çiloğlu E, İmamoğlu HO (2010) Uzungöl’ün İklimi ve Çevresel Sorunları Üzerine Bir Çalışma / A Study on The Climate and Environmental Problems of Uzungöl. Atatürk Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Derg 33(4). (accessed 5 January 2018)
  26. Xia J, Miller RD, Park CB (1999) Estimation of near-surface shear-wave velocity by inversion of Rayleigh waves. Geophysics 64:691–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Xia J, Miller RD, Park CB, Ivanov J (2000) Construction of 2-D vertical shear-wave velocity field by the multichannel analysis of surface wave technique. p. 20–24. In Proceedings of the symposium on the application of geophysics to engineering and environmental problems, ArlingtonGoogle Scholar
  28. Xia J, Miller RD, Park CB, Ivanov J, Tian G, Chen C (2004) Utilization of high-frequency Rayleigh waves in near-surface geophysics. Lead Edge 23(8):753–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geophysical EngineeringKaradeniz Technical UniversityTrabzonTurkey
  2. 2.General Directorate of Mineral Research and ExplorationAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations