A comparative study of using geophysical methods for imaging subsurface voids of various sizes and at different depths

Subsurface voids pose significant geohazards, underscoring the need for their timely detection in order to mitigate the associated hazard. We report on a field study aimed at the comparative assessment of electrical resistivity tomography (ERT), seismic refraction tomography (SRT), and the multichannel analysis of surface waves (MASW) for void mapping in karstic regions. The field surveys were conducted at a site in central Texas, of typical karstic geomorphology, and involved the co-located deployment of ERT, SRT and MASW arrays. Post-surveying, boreholes were drilled at select locations for verification purposes. It is shown that MASW demonstrated limited ability to resolve voids due to its inherent theoretical limitations. In contrast, ERT revealed high-resistivity air-filled zones, and low-resistivity soil-filled regions, which aligned well with post-survey borehole logs, although deeper voids remained largely undetected. SRT clearly delineated voids through velocity reductions, but smoothing effects overestimated void velocities. Using ERT and SRT jointly provided improved void characterization compared to single-method-based interpretations, with ERT determining void type and SRT delineating boundaries. Despite the relative success of the joint ERT-SRT application, it is evident that without the corroboration provided by invasive testing, definitive void localization and characterization under arbitrary site conditions remains elusive. • MASW shows limited ability to accurately resolve subsurface anomalies. • ERT shows enhanced capabilities for detecting various subsurface anomalies. • ERT and SRT used together enhance void detection in karstic environments. • Small or deep voids may evade detection due to resolution limitations. • Geophysical methods guide but can't fully replace invasive site investigations.