Consideration of technogenic interference during geophysical shallow-depth work

Metal and reinforced concrete aboveground and underground structures at construction sites and hydrogeological surveys create anomalies of electric and magnetic fields. It is possible to exclude or weaken anomalies of technogenic nature by calculating their intensity from bodies with known anomalous parameters, through smoothing procedures, field separation, selection of techniques and installations that weaken the influence of technogenic interference. The exclusion of false technogenic anomalies makes it possible to obtain more accurate data on the elements of the geological structure of the subsurface, to increase their resolution. An example of the allocation of geological structures by a complex of electrical and magnetic exploration works on a site containing magnetized technogenic objects is given. An example of taking into account and excluding potential differences in electrical exploration by resistance methods in a section with metal grounded circuits. It is shown that it is impossible to completely exclude technogenic distortions from the picture of the observed physical fields. Even in such cases, geophysical data carry a certain and significant share of useful information about the studied subsurface. These examples show their negative impact on the effectiveness of geophysical research. Analytical and methodological techniques for attenuation and exclusion of man-made interference allow us to obtain a certain and significant share of information about the geological structure of the studied subsurface. Even in such cases, geophysical data carry a certain and significant share of useful information about the studied subsurface. The use of geophysical methods for the study of sites, including man-made anomalous objects, is advisable, but requires additional methodological techniques to weaken the influence of interference, their exclusion in the processing of materials.

Kuzin A. V., Torhov V. S. Consideration of technogenic interference during geophysical shallow-depth work. MIAB. Mining Inf. Anal. Bull. 2023;(12-1):70—81. [In Russ]. DOI: 10.25018/0236_1493_2023_121_0_70.

Kuzin A. V., Cand. Sci. (Geol. Mineral.), Docent kaf. geofiziki Ural’skogo gosudarstvennogo gornogo universiteta; kuzin-av@mail.ru, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4105-6567
Torhov V. S., student 3 kursa UGGU, q185514@mail.ru, https://orcid.org/0009-0004-9604-9294.

Kuzin A.V., kuzin-av@mail.ru.

1. Vinogradov V. B., Bolotnova L. A. Magnetic field of a pipeline. Izvestiya Ural`skoj gosudarstvennoj gorno-geologicheskoj akademii. Seriya: Geologiya i geofizika. 2003, vol. 18, pp. 198–202. [In Russ].

2. Gershanok L. A. Shallow magnetic prospecting under conditions of industrial interference. Bulletin of Perm University. 2013, issue 1(18), pp. 34–51. [In Russ].

3. Starikov V. S. Engineering magnetometry in the study of the technical condition of large-diameter steel pipelines. Bulletin of VSU. Series: Geology. 2016, no. 3, pp. 114–118. [In Russ].

4. Novikova P. N. Technogenic interference during magnetic exploration work. Mining echo. 2020, no. 4, pp. 70–75. [In Russ]. DOI: 10.7242/echo.2020.4.14.

5. Novikova P. N., Vorotilov V. A., Kopytin V. V., Subbotin P. A., Kalashnikova M. M., Temirov P. A. Engineering magnetic prospecting in the detection of underground communications in conditions of man-made interference. Eighteenth Ural youth scientific school in geophysics: Collection of scientific works. Materials. Perm: GI Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2017, pp. 147–151. [In Russ].

6. Aleev R. M., Balashova S. P., Bobachev A. A. Geoecological surveys of oil industry enterprises. Ed. V. A. Shevnin and I. N. Modina, Moscow, RUSSO, 1999, 511 p. [In Russ].

7. Keller P. Magnetic Field Sensing Techniques. Magnetic Measurement Techniques for Materials Characterization. — Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2021, pp. 275–299.

8. Jiang L., Tian G., Wang B., Guo X., He X., Zou A. Application of three-dimensional electrical resistivity tomography in urban zones by arbitrary electrode distribution survey design. Journal of Applied Geophysics. 2021, vol. 199, p. 104460. DOI: 10.1016/j. jappgeo.2021.104460.

9. Lalomov D. A., Artyugin A. I. Peculiarities of joint processing and interpretation of electrical tomography and georadioradiation data under the influence of man-made interference at transport construction sites. Georesursy. 2014, no. 3 (58), pp. 37–40. [In Russ]. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18599/grs.58.3.

10. Dyadkov P. G., Tsibizov L. V., Borisenko D. A. Methodology for taking into account intense industrial interference when conducting magnetic surveys. Interexpo Geo-Siberia. 2015, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 57–62. [In Russ].

11. Zhizhikina E. A., Mandrikova O. V., Khomutov S. Yu. Algorithm for identifying manmade interference in geomagnetic data. Bulletin of KamchatGTU. 2016, no. 35, pp. 21–26. [In Russ]. DOI: 10.17217/2079-0333-216-35−21−26.

12. Mukhametshin A. M., Sanfirov I. A., Voznesensky A. S., Porshnev S. V., Anisimov V. M. Complex engineering-geophysical and engineering-geological studies at the construction site of especially critical objects (using the example of multi-story buildings) of the business center of Yekaterinburg City. Ed. A. M. Mukhametshina and I. A. Sanfirova. Ekaterinburg, Polygraphist, 2008, 162 p. [In Russ].

13. Chen W. Y., Xue G. Q., Song W. T., Heu D. Y. Accurate calculation and characteristic analysis of power frequency electromagnetic field generated by AC high voltage transmission line. Chinese Journal of Geophysics. 2022, vol. 65, no. 5, pp. 1813–1821.

14. Mukhametshin A. M. Problems of mining geophysics (using the example of underground vector magnetometry). IGD Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Ekaterinburg, 2001, 210 p. [In Russ].

15. P`adua M. B., Padilha A. L. and Vitorello I. Disturbances on magnetotelluric data due to DC electrifield railway: A case study from southlasterh Brazil. Earth Planets Space. 2002, vol. 54, pp. 591–596.

16. Kuzin A. V. Three-electrode VES near electrically conductive linear interference. Izvestiya UGGGA. Seriya Geologiya i geofizika. 2003, vol. 18, pp. 202–206. [In Russ].

17. Kuzin A. V., Kiselev D. A., Poezzhaev O. S. The influence of freezing and changes in soil moisture on their electrical resistivity. Ural Geological Journal. 2017, no. 1 (115), pp. 49–54. [In Russ].

18. Davydov V. A. Geophysical research in the area of the Krylatov water well. News of the Ural State Mining University. 2021, issue 1 (61), pp. 65–73. [In Russ]. DOI: 10.21440/2307-2091-2021-1-65−73.

19. Kozak S. Z. State and prospects for the development of geophysical methods in prospecting and exploration for water. Razvedka i oxrana nedr. 2003, no. 10, pp. 87–93. [In Russ].

20. Pavlova A. M., Shevnin V. A. 3D electrical tomography in the study of glacial deposits. Geophysics, EAGO. 2013, no. 6, pp. 32–37. [In Russ].

21. Melkanovitsky I. M., Ryapolova V. A., Khordikainen M. A. Methods of geophysical research in the search and exploration of fresh waters. Ed. A. A. Ogilvi. Moscow, Nedra, 1982, 239 p. [In Russ].