Acta Geophysica

, Volume 66, Issue 6, pp 1397–1411 | Cite as

Integrated geophysical survey on the ancient Deák Ferenc Sluice of Hungary

  • Ali Ismet KanliEmail author
  • Zsolt Pronay
  • Peter Tildy
  • Endre Toros
  • Boriszlav Neducza
  • Peter Nagy
Research Article - Applied Geophysics


The west channel of the ancient Deák Ferenc which was constructed in 1875 in Hungary was used for controlling the water amount and the east channel was used for the shipping. In the study, four geophysical nondestructive methods were used to this old channel which needs the restoration and reinforcement works. The high-frequency seismic and acoustic measurements were carried out, the resistivity measurements were carried out to map the resistivity distribution of the slab, the seismic direct wave method was used to map the seismic velocities for understanding the stability conditions of the walls and the ground penetrating radar measurements were carried out on the slab and on the walls. The results of integrated study showed us that voids, faults and cracks were detected and the inhomogeneous construction materials were used in the slab. The obtained results emerged that the usage of nondestructive geophysical methods is essential in all stages of restoration and reinforcement works, especially for the ancient structures.


Ultrahigh frequency Acoustic Seismic Geoelectric GPR Ancient structures 



The authors thank the anonymous reviewers and the associate editor Dr. Ilias Fikos for their constructive remarks in the preparation of the final form of the paper. The author “Ali Ismet Kanli” was supported by The Division of Scientific Research Projects of Istanbul University, Project Number: BEK-2017-27284.


  1. Daily W, Ramirez A (1995) Electrical resistance tomography during in situ trichloroethylene remediation at the Savannah River site. J Appl Geophys 33:239–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Daily W, Ramirez A, LaBrecque D, Nitao J (1992) Electrical resistivity tomography of vadose water movement. Water Resour Res 28:1429–1442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Garcia GF, Blanco R, Abad RI, Sala M, Ausina T, Marco B, Conesa MJL (2007) GPR technique as a tool for cultural heritage restoration: San Miguel de los Reyes Hieronymite Monastery, 16th century (Valencia, Spain). J Cult Herit 8:87–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Grit M, Kanli AI (2016) Integrated seismic survey for detecting landslide effects on high speed rail line at Istanbul-Turkey. Open Geosci 8:161–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Günther T (2004) Inversion methods and resolution analysis for the 2D/3D reconstruction of resistivity structures from DC measurements. Ph.D. thesis, University of Mining and Technology FreibergGoogle Scholar
  6. Kanli AI, Neducza B (2015) Electromagnetic measurements for monitoring molybdenum contamination in near-surface survey. Earth Sci Res J 19:107–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kanli AI, Taller G, Nagy P, Tildy P, Pronay Z, Toros E (2015) GPR survey for reinforcement of historical heritage construction at fire tower of Sopron. J Appl Geophys 112:79–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Loke MH (2004) Tutorial: 2-D and 3-D electrical imaging surveys. Geotomo Software, Res2dinv 3.5 SoftwareGoogle Scholar
  9. Masini N, Persico R, Rizzo E (2010) Some examples of GPR prospecting for monitoring of the monumental heritage. J Geophys Eng 7:190–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Nyari Z, Kanli AI (2007) Imaging of buried 3D objects by using electrical profiling methods with GPR and 3D geoelectrical measurements. J Geophys Eng 4:83–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Nyari Z, Kanli AI, Stickel J, Tillmann A (2010) The use of non-conventional CPTe data in determination of 3-D electrical resistivity distribution. J Appl Geophys 70:255–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Park S (1998) Fluid migration in the vadose zone from 3-D inversion of resistivity monitoring data. Geophysics 63:41–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Pérez-Gracia V, García F, Pujades LG, González-Drigo R, DiCapua D (2008) GPR survey to study the restoration of a Roman monument. J Cult Herit 9:89–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Pieraccini M, Mecatti D, Luzi G, Seracini M, Pinelli G, Atzeni C (2005) Non-contact intrawall penetrating radar for heritage survey: the search of the ‘Battle of Anghiari’ by Leonardo da Vinci. Nondestruct Test Eval Int 38:151–157Google Scholar
  15. Plets RMK, Dix JK, Adams JR, Best AI (2008) 3D reconstruction of a shallow archaeological site from high-resolution acoustic imagery: the Grace Dieu. Appl Acoust 69:399–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ranalli D, Scozzafava M, Tallini M (2004) Ground penetrating radar investigations for the restoration of historic buildings: the case study of the Collemaggio Basilica (L’Aquila, Italy). J Cult Herit 5:91–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Tildy P, Neducza B, Nagy P, Kanli Aİ, Hegymegi C (2017) Time lapse 3D geoelectric measurements for monitoring of in-situ remediation. J Appl Geophys 136:99–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Törös E (2007) Critical review of the application of seismic-based methods in civil engineering. Ph.D. thesis, University of West Hungary, SopronGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Geophysics, Polish Academy of Sciences & Polish Academy of Sciences 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geophysical Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringIstanbul University-CerrahpasaIstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Geological and Geophysical Institute of HungaryBudapestHungary
  3. 3.MinGeo Ltd.BudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations