See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/291262199

Integration of controlled-source and radio magnetotellurics electric

resistivity tomography, and reflection seismics to delineate 3D structures of a
quick-clay landslide site in s...

Research · January 2016

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.1388.1367

CITATIONS READS

3 284

5 authors, including:

Chunling Shan Mehrdad Bastani

Institute of Geophysics and Geomatics Geological Survey of Sweden
15 PUBLICATIONS   50 CITATIONS    107 PUBLICATIONS   827 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Alireza Malehmir Lena Persson

Uppsala University Geological Survey of Sweden
271 PUBLICATIONS   2,105 CITATIONS    54 PUBLICATIONS   329 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

TRUST 4.2 Integrated use and interpretation of geophysical and non-geophysical data in preinvestigations for underground infrastructure facilities. View project

SEG-GWB project (2011-2013 and continuation): Integration of geophysical, hydrogeological and geotechnical methods to aid monitoring landslide in Nordic countries:
A 4D approach for landslide risk assessment View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Chunling Shan on 20 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 GEOPHYSICS, VOL. 81, NO. 1 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2016); P. B13–B29, 16 FIGS., 1 TABLE.
10.1190/GEO2014-0386.1
Downloaded 01/19/16 to 202.114.202.219. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Case Histroy

Integration of controlled-source and radio magnetotellurics,

electric resistivity tomography, and reflection seismics
to delineate 3D structures of a quick-clay landslide
site in southwest of Sweden

Chunling Shan1, Alireza Malehmir2, Mehrdad Bastani3, Lena Persson3, and Emil Lundberg2

ABSTRACT resistive crystalline bedrock underlying the marine conductive

Quick clay, which is the main cause of landslides that occur in
the northern countries, liquefies easily, and its presence implies an
increased risk of landslide. Geophysical methods have been in-
creasingly used in landslide investigations. Three-dimensional
electric resistivity tomography, radio magnetotelluric (RMT),
controlled-source RMT (CSRMT), and high-resolution reflection
seismic data were acquired at a quick-clay landslide site in the
southwest of Sweden. The main objectives were to evaluate
the capability of each method in delineating different subsurface
geologic structures that controlled a peculiar and hazardous retro-
gressive-type landslide in the study area. A 3D resistivity model
from the inversion of CSRMT data showed the best correlation
with the reflection seismic data and borehole information, thanks
to the broad frequency range of the data set. It better imaged the
clays and showed considerable correlations with the 3D reflection
seismic data in resolving a coarse-grained layer that was inter-
preted to act as a conduit directing freshwater into the clays under
a confined pressure, leaching their salt and forming quick clays.
The 3D CSRMT resistivity model and 3D reflection seismic data
showed that the coarse-grained layer has a varying thickness. At
some locations, it was too thin to be resolved by the methods used
here. Combination of the CSRMT model, reflection seismic data,
and the borehole data suggested that a layer with thickness of
approximately 5 m and resistivity between 20 and 30 Ωm was
potentially quick clay, which probably extended laterally in
the entire study area. These observations suggested that future
developments should focus on joint inversion of such 3D data
sets incorporating sharp boundaries as constraints in the inversion
and particularly when quick clays were studied.

INTRODUCTION
A landslide is the movement of rock mass, sediments, or debris
down a slope (Cruden, 1991), which is an important landscape-form-
ing process, providing the main mechanism for sediment release from
slopes to permit rock and/or soil transportation through the fluvial
system (Petley, 2010). Landslides constitute a major part of geologic
hazard because they can affect large areas in a short period of time.
They have been reported for example in all 50 states in the USA and
cause 1–2 billion dollars damage and on average more than 25 fatal-
ities annually (USGS, 2013). The most recent landslide that occurred
in Oso, Washington, during 22 March 2014 claimed 43 lives (Keaton
et al., 2014). Petley (2012) reports that 2620 fatal landslides were
recorded worldwide during a seven-year study period from 2004
to 2010, causing a total of 32,322 fatalities. Landslide hazard pro-
grams have been established in many countries (Eeckhaut and Her-
vas, 2012) to reduce long-term losses by improved understanding of
the causes of ground failure and suggesting mitigation strategies.

Manuscript received by the Editor 16 August 2014; revised manuscript received 7 September 2015; published online 12 January 2016.
1
China University of Geosciences, Hubei Subsurface Multi-scale Imaging Key Laboratory, Institute of Geophysics and Geomatics, Wuhan, China. E-mail:
chunling.shan@cug.edu.cn.
2
Uppsala University, Department of Earth Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden. E-mail: alireza.malehmir@geo.uu.se; emil.lundberg@geo.uu.se.
3
Geological Survey of Sweden, Uppsala, Sweden. E-mail: mehrdad.bastani@sgu.se; lena.persson@sgu.se.
© 2016 Society of Exploration Geophysicists. All rights reserved.

B13
 B14 Shan et al.
Landslides also occur in Sweden and other northern countries.
The Geological Survey of Sweden (SGU) has reported nine known
major landslides in Sweden during the past century. One of the
largest landslides with no casualties occurred at Tuve (Figure 1)
in November 1977, damaged seven electric cables, and destroyed
Downloaded 01/19/16 to 202.114.202.219. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
65 single-family houses (Nadim et al., 2008). Landslides in Sweden
have a slightly different nature. What makes them different is a par-
ticular type of clay, the so-called quick clay, that is the main cause
for most landslides in Sweden. During the last glaciation (approx-
imately 10,000 years ago), the earth’s crust, in Scandinavia, was
compressed by the weight of a nearly 3 km thick ice sheet (Freden,
1984). After the retreat of the ice sheet, large boulders of rocks,
gravels, silts, and clays transported by the glaciers to the surround-
ing ocean under a marine condition were then deposited (Rankka
et al., 2004). The deposition took place at locations where the water
flow was rather low and clam (i.e., at great distances from the ice
front and mainly in sea and lake bays). Rankka et al. (2004) point
out that the formation of these sediments with different structures
was highly dependent on the concentration of particles and the salt
content in the water, among other factors. The postglacial sediments
were further affected by later sedimentation of younger deposits and
other subsequent processes. A common characteristic of the clays in
Sweden formed in this way is that they consist of aggregates con-
nected by links made of smaller particles. Due to the isostatic re-
bound, the landmass was (and is) uplifted, and the clays deposited
in the marine conditions started to gradually be exposed above sea
level. The exposed marine clays can be found in Scandinavia, North
America, and northern parts of Russia (see Malehmir et al., 2013a;
Shan et al., 2014). During the postglacial period, fresh-/rainwater
resulted in the infiltration of water in the subsurface, which in turn
caused extensive leaching of salt from the highly porous, open
structures with a high void ratio of clays. This process leads to
the formation of quick clays. These quick clays liquefy easily,
and areas with a presence of quick clays have a higher risk of land-
slides. The leaching process affects the physical and mechanical
Figure 1. Landslide hazard map (right side figure)
of Sweden and location of the study area near the
Göta River. A historical quick-clay landslide, the
Lilla Edet landslide, 1957, is approximately 5 km
south of the study area. Modified from Malehmir
et al. (2013b).
properties of the normal clay considerably. Bjerrum (1954) studies
the differences in geotechnical properties of quick and non-quick
clays, such as the remolded shear strength Sr , which is less than
0.4 kPa for quick clays (Table 1). The sensitivity of clays is defined
as the ratio between undisturbed shear strength Su and the remolded
shear strength Sr . The sensitivity is greater than 50 for quick clays.
Low-, medium-, and high-sensitivity clays have sensitivities of <8,
8–30, and >30, respectively (Rankka et al., 2004). Shan et al.
(2014) also summarize the physical properties of quick clays in-
cluding their electric properties as well as their host soils (see also
Berger, 1980; Solberg, 2007). Table 1 shows the resistivity and sen-
sitivity variations among different soil types. More information
and physical properties of quick clays are introduced in Shan et al.
(2014).
Changes in the subsurface physical (and chemical) properties due
to a landslide are likely affecting the geophysical responses, which
in turn can not only be used to map the landslide body but also to
monitor its motion and physical or chemical changes (Jongmans
and Garambois, 2007). After the pioneering work of Bogoslovsky
and Ogilvy (1977), geophysical techniques have been increasingly
used in landslide investigations. Geophysical techniques, as pointed
out by Mccann and Forster (1990) and Hack (2000), have the fol-
lowing attributes: They (1) are flexible, fast, and deployable on
slopes; (2) provide information about the internal structure of the
soil or rock mass; and (3) allow a large volume to be investigated
in a relatively short time. Moreover, reliable and portable geophysi-
cal equipment as well as advanced 2D and 3D geophysical imaging/
modeling techniques have dramatically attracted geologic engineers
to use geophysical techniques for landslide investigations and mon-
itoring (e.g., Fell et al., 2000). An example of using multigeophys-
ical methods is presented by Bichler et al. (2004) in which a 3D
model of the Quesnel Forks landslide in Canada was generated from
different-type data sets including ground-penetrating radar, direct
current resistivity (DCR), reflection, and refraction seismic. The
DCR data were effective for resolving stratigraphic relationships
 3D delineation of quick clays
between geologic units to a maximum depth of 40 m. The seismic
surveys obtained unit boundaries up to a depth of more than 80 m.
Electric resistivity is one of the most popular geophysical meth-
ods used for near-surface investigations (Telford et al., 1990; Reyn-
olds, 1997). By providing 2D or 3D models of electric resistivity, it
Downloaded 01/19/16 to 202.114.202.219. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
has widely been used in landslide studies, such as for delineation of
slip-surface geometry and depth, bedrock depth, and various geo-
logic boundaries (Havenith et al., 2000; Batayneh and Al-Diabat,
2002; Demoulin et al., 2003; Wisén et al., 2003; Bichler et al.,
2004; Lapenna et al., 2005; Lebourg et al., 2005; Meric et al.,
2005; Dahlin et al., 2013).
Electromagnetic (EM) methods are also used for landslide inves-
tigations to determine the geometric boundaries of an unstable mass
(Jongmans and Garambois, 2007). Controlled-source tensor magne-
totelluric (CSTMT, 1–12 kHz) and radio magnetotelluric (RMT,
14–250 kHz) methods are two EM methods that have not been
widely used for landslide investigations. The CSTMT method is
proposed by Li and Pedersen (1991). They prove that the imped-
ance and a tipper tensor could uniquely be defined for any earth
structure and any source and receiver positions; these tensors are
independent of the orientation and strength of the electric or mag-
netic dipole sources. We combine the data sets from the RMT and
CSTMT methods, and we call the combined method the CSRMT
method. The CSRMT method has been successfully applied for
groundwater exploration and other types of near-surface studies
(e.g., Pedersen et al., 2005; Bastani et al., 2009, 2012; Kalscheuer
et al., 2013). In most cases, the data were collected along single or
sparsely situated profiles, and as a result, the resistivity models de-
rived from the RMT and CSTMT data were only modeled in 2D
even though the geologic evidences suggested 3D structures. A
landslide is a 3D phenomenon; 2D models of 3D structures may
be highly biased and difficult to interpret (Wisén et al., 2005). Be-
cause of increasing computational performance, algorithms of 3D
magnetotelluric (MT) inversion have now been developed that
make 3D modeling and interpretation of MT data possible (e.g.,
Newman and Alumbaugh, 2000; Zhdanov et al., 2000; Sasaki,
2001; Farquharson et al., 2002; Siripunvaraporn et al., 2005). New-
Table 1. Resistivity classifications of different soils in a quick-clay area from Berger (1980) and Solberg (2007). Modified from
Shan et al. (2014).
Classification of soil material from resistivity (Berger, 1980)
Soil material Resistivity interval
Clay, salt 1 − 20 Ωm
Leached, possible quick clay 20 − 90 Ωm
Clay, dry crust 70 − 300 Ωm
Silt, wet 50 − 200 Ωm
Sand, saturated 200 − 1000 Ωm
Classification of soil material from resistivity (Solberg, 2007)
Soil material Resistivity interval
Salt/intact marine clay 1 − 10 Ωm
Leached, possible quick clay 10 − 80 Ωm
Dry crust clay, slide deposits, coarser >80 Ωm
B15
man et al. (2003) apply a 3D MT inversion algorithm to a scalar
RMT data set acquired over a buried waste site in Germany. They
find that the applied 3D analysis could overcome previous limita-
tions in the RMT method using 2D data analysis and inversion. Bas-
tani et al. (2012) carry out 2D and 3D inversions of full tensor RMT
to study an aquifer underlying a contaminated site at Trecate in
Italy. They find that the resistivity models from 3D inversion of
RMT data modeled the depth to the top and thickness of the
water-saturated zone more accurately than do the models from
the 2D independent inversions.
Malehmir et al. (2013a) present a preliminary assessment of po-
tential utility of various geophysical measurements carried out in a
quick-clay landslide area in Sweden (Figure 2, labeled lines 2–5),
which is the same area of this study. Their results showed that geo-
physical data are capable of delineating major subsurface structures
associated with quick-clay landslides. Malehmir et al. (2013b)
present high-resolution reflection seismic data from the same four
2D profiles crossing the quick-clay landslide scar (Figure 2, lines 2–
5). They find that a layer containing coarse-grained materials ap-
pears to be spatially linked to the presence of quick clays. Shan et al.
(2014) present the results of 2D inversion of electric resistivity
tomography (ERT) and RMT data along the same profiles shown
in Malehmir et al. (2013b) and make an integrated interpretation of
the collected data together with the reflection seismic and borehole
data. They find that the integration of ERT and RMT data with re-
flection seismic data is superior for quick-clay landslide studies than
their individual implementation. They also underline that a 2D
assumption may not be accurate enough to explain the subsurface
geology. Lundberg et al. (2014) study the 3D seismic data collected
in the same study area (Figure 2), and they also note that the 3D
seismic data better resolved the smaller scale structures than the 2D
seismic data; two sets of coarse-grained layers, one at approxi-
mately 20 m depth and another one located deeper, were found.
The bedrock topography was clearly imaged. The 2D traveltime
and full-waveform tomography data along the seismic profiles pre-
sented by Adamczyk et al. (2013, 2014) provided complementary
results to the reflection seismic data from the study area. Salas-Ro-
Sensitivity Remolded shear strength
(Lundström et al., 2009) (Rankka et al., 2004)
kPa
<15 >2
>50 <0.4
<8 >2
<15 >2
<15 >2
<15 >2
>50 <0.4
<8 >2
 B16
mero et al. (2015) use surface geophysical, core sample, and down-
hole property to identify landslide preconditions in the same area.
As part of a detailed study over the landslide scar (Figure 2), we
collected 3D ERT, RMT, and CSRMT data over the same 3D reflec-
tion seismic area as presented by Lundberg et al. (2014). The moti-
Downloaded 01/19/16 to 202.114.202.219. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
vation of incorporating CSTMT measurements in this study was to
improve the EM signal strength and to obtain deeper information not
resolved just by using the RMT method. We present the results from
3D inversions of these data sets with the main objective of evaluating
the performance of each method in delineating the geometry and
physical properties of subsurface structures that are crucial to under-
stand the formation of quick clays and their role in occurrence of
landslides. The resistivity models are compared with the migrated
reflection seismic sections extracted from the 3D seismic volume
to improve the interpretation of the geometry of the different layers
and their physical properties. These models are also compared with
the geotechnical data for a better understanding of the geologic struc-
tures that give rise to retrogressive landslides in the area as well as for
checking the validity of the models.
STUDY AREA
The study area is located in the Göta älv (or Göta River) valley
(Figures 1 and 2). The valley stretches between Lake Vänern in
the north to Gothenburg in the south. The bedrock in this area is do-
minated by crystalline gneissic, partly banded granitoids aged at ap-
proximately 1.1–1.8 Ga, partly intruded by other rock types (Freden,
2002). The Göta älv valley is intersected at several locations by the
Göta älv shear zone, a tectonic zone stretching from Lake Vänern to
Kungsbacka. The depth to the bedrock in the Göta älv and in our study
area varies from exposed to more than 80 m deep (Dahlin et al., 2001).
The postglacial sediments are dominant at the surface in the western
part of Sweden. They are comprised of clay, silt, and sand to gravel. As
the ice retreated from the west coast approximately 10,000–
14,000 years ago, the compressed crust gradually started to uplift,
Figure 2 Surface geologic map of the study area
(from SGU) showing the locations of the geo-
physical lines (black lines, surveyed during
2011, Malehmir et al., 2013a, 2013b) and avail-
able geotechnical boreholes (black dots). The dark
red circle shows the location of the CSTMT
source. The black square marks the boundaries
of the 3D survey area (this study) that covers an
approximately 40-year-old landslide scar. The
landslide scar within the 3D survey area is shown
by the closed blue region. The inset map shows the
data acquisition setup; black lines are the reflec-
tion seismic and ERT profiles, green dots are
RMT stations, and green dots with red squares
are the CSRMT stations. Note that the CSRMT
data were acquired along every second RMT pro-
file. The profiles are numbered as P1, P2, etc.
Shan et al.
due to the isostatic adjustments. The most common sediments along
the west coast are marine clays (often silty with different proportions),
sand, and gravel (Lindström et al., 2000). The sediments originally
deposited in a marine environment are now exposed approximately
20–30 m above sea level in the study area. Some of the clays in
the GötaÄlv valley are classified as quick clay, which are mainly close
to the surface and are on top of or below permeable layers.
The Swedish Geotechnical Institute (SGI) in a nationwide project
carried out several geotechnical investigations in the study area in-
cluding cone penetration tests (CPTs) of various types (e.g., CPT,
piezo-CPT, and resistivity CPT) and laboratory (mainly geotechni-
cal) measurements (Löfroth et al., 2011). The collected data (the
locations are shown in Figure 2) suggested the presence of
coarse-grained materials (often sandy) at varying depths and thick-
nesses. The SGI’s measurements showed a clear increase in the fric-
tional resistance and electric resistivity where the coarse-grained
materials were intersected (Löfroth et al., 2011). Quick clays (or
highly sensitive clays) were found above the coarse-grained mate-
rials and were not found in boreholes toward the west. Based on the
results from the processing of high-resolution reflection seismic
data, Malehmir et al. (2013b) show that the coarse-grained materials
deepen from the east toward the west along an east–west-directed
profile, a profile that crosses the 3D survey area (Figure 2, line 4),
further supporting the reason why these quick clays were missing
toward the west of the study area.
GEOPHYSICAL DATA ACQUISITION AND
QUALITY
ERT data
The ERT data were collected along 11 profiles (Figure 2) using a
multielectrode system, ABEM Terrameter LS, and a Wenner elec-
trode configuration with a minimum dipole length of 5 m. In the
ERT method, direct current voltage is maintained to a pair of elec-
 3D delineation of quick clays
trodes (current electrodes), and as a result, an electric current flows
into the ground. At the same time, the potential difference between
two other points is measured using another pair of electrodes (po-
tential electrodes). The apparent resistivity of the ground is then
estimated, which is a function of the applied voltage, the injected
Downloaded 01/19/16 to 202.114.202.219. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
current, and the electrode configuration (Daily et al., 2005). The
ERT data are of good quality along all the profiles.
RMT and CSRMT data
In RMT and CSTMT methods, three components of the magnetic
field (H x ; H y ; Hz ) and two horizontal components of the electric field
(Ex ; Ey ) of the EM signals are recorded simultaneously. Using the
measured components, the EM transfer functions that contain infor-
mation about the variation in the electric resistivity of the ground can
be estimated (Chave and Jones, 2012) at each frequency. In the fre-
quency domain, the impedance tensor Z is defined as
     and induction arrows from real parts of T(A, B) (Parkinson, 1962;
Ex Zxx Zxy Hx
¼ ;
Ey Zyx Zyy Hy
and the magnetic transfer function or tipper T(A, B) is defined as
 
Hx
H z ¼ TðA; BÞT ; (2)
Hy
where x and y denote the magnetic north and east, respectively: Z, the
complex impedance tensor, relates the two horizontal magnetic field
components to the two horizontal electric field components via the
earth’s electric resistivity structure. When an EM wave travels within
a conductive medium, the energy is dissipated as heat, and the wave
amplitude is attenuated faster than when traveling in a resistive
medium. The penetration depth of an EM wave is inversely related
to its frequency and the medium’s electric conductivity (Bazinet and
Legault, 1985).
In the RMT method, the sources of the signal are the distant very
low frequency and low-frequency transmitters in the frequency
range 10–250 kHz. CSTMT makes use of a remotely controlled
source that is either a grounded double-electric or double-magnetic
dipole. We used the latter (see Figure 2 for the CSTMT source lo-
cation), and generated source frequencies of 2, 4, 8, and 12.5 kHz.
Hereafter, we use the term CSTMT when we present the results
from the combination of both methods. The RMT and CSTMT data
were acquired by the EnviroMT system from Uppsala University
(for details about the instrument and CSTMT source, see Bastani
et al., 2009) in the 3D study area. The RMT data were collected
over 11 profiles with station spacing of 10 m and profile spacing
of 20 m (Figure 2). Profile number 1 is located in the westernmost
side of the 3D study area. Totally, 259 RMT data points were col-
lected along the 11 profiles. A total of 35 CSRMT stations with
spacing of 40 m were measured along every second RMT profile
(Figure 2). The data acquisition took two days for the RMT and one
day for the CSRMT.
Reflection seismic data
The 3D seismic data were acquired using a SERCEL 428 record-
ing system. Single 28 Hz vertical component geophones were used
with a spacing of 4 m in the inline direction and with receiver line
spacing of 20 m. Shots were recorded along the receiver lines at
B17
most of the receiver stations and with each shot location repeated
up to five times using an accelerated weight-drop source. In some
locations in which the weight drop was not possible for logistical
reasons (i.e., the northern margins of the scar close to the river), a
sledgehammer was used instead. Standard 3D CMP stacking was
applied using a bin size of 2 m in the inline direction and 10 m in the
crossline direction. Strong coherent noise remained in the inline
data after stacking was removed using an f-k filter. The maximum
frequency (containing data) was approximately 140 Hz in the final
stack and with a main frequency of approximately 100 Hz. Details
of the 3D seismic survey and processing results can be found in
Lundberg et al. (2014).
Near-field effect of CSTMT data
To illustrate the quality of the acquired CSRMT data, we present
the measured apparent resistivities, phases from an example profile,
Schmucker, 1964) in Figures 3 and 4, respectively. The resistivity
(1)
and phases are shown as XY and YX modes, where X is used for the
magnetic north direction and Y is used for magnetic east direction.
Prior to modeling, we have to make sure that the plane-wave
assumption (Chave and Jones, 2012) that is used in the modeling
programs is valid. That is to say that the CSTMT data are not biased
by the near-field effect. Li and Pedersen (1991) study the near-field
effects on the collected data generated from various types of nearby
EM sources (transmitters). Near-field effects are different depend-
ing on the type of source used. For the magnetic dipole source used
in this study, near-field effects on the apparent resistivity would ap-
pear as sudden drops of resistivities and on the apparent phase as
sudden increases in phases (Li and Pedersen, 1991). For electric
dipole source, the apparent resistivity and phase behave oppositely
(Li and Pedersen, 1991; Zonge and Hughes, 1991). The near-field
effects increase with decreasing frequencies. Moreover, the real part
of the induction arrow points toward the source/transmitter location
(Li and Pedersen, 1991).
The RMT signals are considered as plane waves, and the first data
quality control to study is the continuity of the data in the transition
from RMT to CSTMT frequencies. The resistivities and phases in
both directions at the transition frequencies seem to be stable, and
no abrupt changes are observed (Figure 3e and 3f). As mentioned
above, the near-field bias is stronger and closer to the EM sources,
and in the case of a magnetic dipole source, it corresponds to sudden
decrease in resistivity values and sudden increase in phase values
closer to the source location or at the lower frequencies. In the ap-
parent resistivities of CSRMT data (Figure 3a and 3b), the southern
part of the profile shows decreasing resistivities and the phases (Fig-
ure 3c and 3d) become slightly higher. However, as is shown in
Figure 3f, the phase at the lowest CSTMT frequency changes its
trend and decreases. We can therefore conclude that the dropping
resistivities and rising phases in the southern part of the profile
might be due to the conductive layers at depth instead of effects
from the near-field source. Furthermore, the induction arrows (Fig-
ure 4) for the lowest frequency (2 kHz) do not indicate any regular
pattern caused by the source. The arrow from the closest profile to
the source does not have the largest amplitude. The arrows closer to
the source do not point toward the source implying that the near
field even at lower frequencies does not affect the CSTMT data,
and the variations observed in the data are related to the underlying
geology.
 B18 Shan et al.
3D INVERSION ALGORITHMS
ERT
The inversion program RES3DINV (Loke et al., 1996) was used
to invert the acquired ERT data in 3D. Topography information is
Downloaded 01/19/16 to 202.114.202.219. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
included as part of the inversion process. The program divides the
subsurface into many small rectangular blocks and attempts to de-
termine the resistivity values of the prisms by minimizing the differ-
ence between the calculated and observed apparent resistivity
values in an iterative manner. The inversion routine used by the pro-
gram is based on the smoothness-constrained least-squares method
(de Groot-Hedlin and Constable, 1990; Sasaki, 1992; Loke et al.,
1996). We use two nodes between adjacent electrodes for the inver-
sion. This corresponds to 2.5 m along the profiles and 10 m
perpendicular to the profiles. The minimum root-mean square
(rms) value of 1.9% is reached after 10 iterations.
RMT and CSRMT
The 3D inversions of the RMT and the CSRMT data were carried
out using WSINV3DMT (Siripunvaraporn et al., 2005), which is a
full 3D inversion program for MT data or other data that are as-
sumed to be in the far field. The program is extended and imple-
mented from the 2D data space Occam’s inversion (Siripunvaraporn
and Egbert, 2000). The inversion algorithm seeks the smoothest
minimum structure model subject to an appropriate predefined fit
to the data. The inversion scheme is based on a data space approach,
in which matrix dimensions depend on the size of data set (N),
rather than the number of model parameters (M). Generally, N ≪
M for the MT data. For further details on the Occam-type inversion
Figure 3. Measured CSRMT data along profile 7
(see Figure 2). (a) Apparent resistivity, XY mode,
(b) apparent resistivity, YX mode, (c) phase, XY
mode, and (d) phase, YX mode. (e) Resistivity ver-
sus period plot of the station closest to the source
from the same profile. The dashed line shows the
transition from the RMT to the controlled-source
frequency band. (f) Phase versus period plot of the
same station.
in data space, see Constable et al. (1987), de Groot-Hedlin and Con-
stable (1990), Parker (1994), and Siripunvaraporn and Egbert
(2000). Data space inversion significantly reduces the computa-
tional costs in memory and CPU time, and it is therefore practical
to run it on ordinary PCs and workstations (Siripunvaraporn
et al., 2005).
The WSINV3DMT uses all the elements of the impedance
tensor Z (equation 1) including the real and imaginary parts. When
applying 3D inversion, it is no longer necessary to meet any dimen-
sionality assumptions, and small-scale inhomogeneities can be ac-
counted for in the model by proper discretization (Siripunvaraporn
et al., 2005).
One important point to emphasize here is that the inversion code
assumes a quasistatic approximation (see Nabighian, 1991) to cal-
culate the model responses. Because it is stated by several studies
(Huang and Fraser, 2001, 2002; Hatch et al., 2013; Kalscheuer et al.,
2013) at higher frequencies (>100 kHz) where the ground resistiv-
ity is considerably high (>5000 Ωm), the displacement currents
have a large impact on the measured field components, which
has to be taken into account in the inversion process. In this study,
the shallower parts of the subsurface are mainly postglacial sedi-
ments that are composed of conductive marine clays or silts that
have resistivities of less than 100 Ωm. The data at the highest
RMT frequencies are used to model the shallowest parts of the sub-
surface, which implies that compared to the conduction currents, the
displacement currents are low enough to be neglected in the inver-
sion and the quasistatic approximation is valid for the RMT and
CSRMT data sets.
In the 3D RMT and CSRMT inversion, the model blocks had
horizontal dimensions (x and y) of 10 m and a thickness that log-
 3D delineation of quick clays
arithmically increased with depth. Every second, a data point was
taken from the 259 RMT points along all the profiles to reduce the
calculation time and CPU memory demanding for the RMT data. In
total, 130 stations were inverted for the RMT data and 35 stations
for the CSRMT data and nine frequencies for both data sets. An
Downloaded 01/19/16 to 202.114.202.219. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
error floor of 2.5% was applied on the impedances to avoid over-
Figure 4. Induction arrows from the real part of tippers for trans-
mitter frequency of 2 kHz (CSRMT data). The magnetic source lo-
cation is indicated at approximately 250 m from the beginning of
profile 7.
B19
weighting the data points with unrealistic low error values. Data
points with unrealistic large error bars were excluded before carry-
ing out the inversion. We tested inversions for RMT and CSRMT
data with a homogeneous half-space as initial models. We inverted
one data set from RMT data (because the whole data set was divided
into two data sets, each data set consists of data points from every
second station along profiles in the north–south), and we used the
final model as initial model in the inversion of the other data sets to
save time. We also carried out a test to study the effect of the re-
sistivity values in the starting model. It turned out that the a priori
model had more influence on the final model than the starting model
because the final model tries to deviate less from the a priori model
during the inversion process. We finally chose an a priori model that
is a homogeneous half-space with resistivity of 100 Ωm for RMT
and CSRMT inversions. It took approximately one full day to finish
eight iterations. The smallest overall rms reached after three itera-
tions for RMT (1.474) data and seven iterations for CSRMT (1.30)
data. The inversions were carried out assuming a flat topography,
and real topography was introduced to the final models afterward.
We anticipate some geometric artifacts from this inclusion and take
this into account when interpreting the results.
RESULTS
ERT data
A layered structure is observed in the 3D ERT resistivity model
(Figure 5). The differences between the observed data and the for-
ward response from inversion along profile 1 (south–north) are
shown in Figure 6 suggesting a good data fit. To study the resolution
of the models, we present model sections in two perpendicular di-
rections (Figure 7), along the profiles (north–south) and across the
profiles (east–west). The data coverage is mainly semi-3D than in a
real full 3D case (Loke and Dahlin, 2010) because we have coarser
sampling in the east–west direction than the north–south direction
and also the electric current runs mainly in the north–south direction
and the variations in the perpendicular direction (east–west) are less
pronounced in the collected data. The model is shown down to 60 m
Figure 5. The 3D ERT resistivity model with
topography (Lidar data) included during inversion
process. The origin is at the center of the model in
horizontal plane with coordinate (0,0). Minus co-
ordinates in the east–west and north–south direc-
tions are to the west or south from the origin, and
positive coordinates are to the east or north from
the origin. The region marked by the black line
marks the location of the landslide scar (Figure 2).
Transparent triangles cover the model blocks esti-
mated from no data coverage due to the electrode
configuration.
 B20 Shan et al.

Figure 6. Difference between measured ERT data

and forward response shown as log resistivity
along a south–north-running section in the west-
ernmost part of the study area. White areas
represent no data coverage. Note the big difference
in data coverage and density from electrode spac-
ing of 20 m and higher than that.
Downloaded 01/19/16 to 202.114.202.219. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Figure 7. Resistivity sections extracted from the 3D inversion model of ERT data: (a) the east–west-running sections and (b) north–south
sections. (c) The locations of the sections in panels (a and b) in the 3D area. The central point (0, 0) is in the middle of the 3D model. The black
arrow in panel (c) points to an example location of the north–south section at 60 m. The landslide scar is clearly visible in some of the sections
(e.g., the high-resistivity feature on the east–west section 60 m from 25 m toward the east and the south–north section 60 m from 50 m toward
the north). Evidence of resistive bedrock is only evident in the north–south sections at 20 and 60 m. Translucent triangles cover the model
blocks estimated from extrapolations for no data coverage in the ERT data acquisition.
 3D delineation of quick clays
below sea level because there are no considerable resistivity varia-
tions observed below this elevation. For the purpose of presenting
more details on the structural variations, a few north–south sections
were extracted from the 3D ERT model (Figure 7). Shan et al.
(2014) interpret the geologic structures in their 2D resistivity mod-
Downloaded 01/19/16 to 202.114.202.219. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
els based on the resistivity classification suggested by Berger (1980)
and Solberg (2007) as shown in Table 1. We use the same classi-
fication scheme to interpret the 3D resistivity model, the topmost
resistive layer (often oxidized and weathered clay) represents the
resistivity between 300 and 1000 Ωm, with a thickness of 2 to
3 m. The second layer has a relatively low resistivity of approxi-
mately 20 Ωm and thickness of 5 m, which is interpreted to be
a mixture of marine and quick clays. The third layer represents
coarser-grained sediments mainly composed of sand and gravel (ap-
proximately 100 Ωm, 10 m thick). A very low resistivity zone/layer
of approximately 1–10 Ωm represents marine clays. It seems that
B21
the thickness of this layer varies, but due to the limited penetration
depth, the bottom of this layer is not resolved by the 3D inversion.
However, the more resistive feature in the southeast corner of the 3D
model may be an indication of the resistive crystalline bedrock.
RMT data
Figure 8 shows the 3D resistivity RMT model. To show the data
fit, the observed data and the forward response of all the impedance
elements at a given station (station 1 in the south from profile 1) are
shown in Figure 9. Figure 10 shows a selection of resistivity
sections from the 3D model in east–west and north–south direc-
tions. The forward responses fit reasonably well to the observed
data, which is almost valid for most of the stations used in the in-
version. All the sections generally display a five-layer structure. In
the sections shown in Figure 10a, we observe a resistive top
Figure 8. A 3D inversion model from the RMT
data. Elevation data were added to the final inver-
sion model afterward and were not included
during the inversion process. The final rms is
1.47. The region marked by the black line marks
the location of the landslide scar (see Figure 2).
Figure 9. Impedance comparisons of observed
data and forward response from 3D inversion of
one example RMT station: (a) Zxx, (b) Zxy,
(c) Zyx, and (d) Zyy. The plus symbols and circles
are the real and imaginary parts of each imped-
ance, and the solid and dashed lines are the corre-
sponding forward response.
 B22 Shan et al.

thin layer (100–1000 Ωm) overlying a relatively conductive layer nal, it is difficult to judge if it can be an indication of the resistive
(20–30 Ωm), which is followed by a more resistive layer crystalline bedrock.
(30–300 Ωm). The latter overlies a very conductive (less than
10 Ωm) and considerably thicker layer. The deepest layer is rela- CSRMT data
tively more resistive (approximately 100 Ωm) than the overlying
Downloaded 01/19/16 to 202.114.202.219. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

conductive layer, which may correspond to the bedrock. The bed-
rock has an undulating shape in the south and becomes more flat
toward the north (see the east–west sections at 60 and 100 m). The
deepest resistive feature has a more undulating top surface (see Fig-
ure 10b). However, due to the limited penetration of the RMT sig-
The 3D resistivity model from the inversion of CSRMT data is
shown in Figure 11. Figure 12 shows the data fit between the ob-
served impedance tensor elements and calculated responses from
the 3D inversion. The off-diagonal elements Zxy and Zyx are much
larger than the diagonal elements Zxx and Zyy. The error bars of the

Figure 10. Resistivity sections from 3D RMT

model. (a) East–west and (b) north–south sections.
The numbers on top of the sections are the loca-
tions as described in Figure 7. The landslide scar is
clearly visible in some of the sections. The resis-
tive bedrock is more evident than those from the
ERT model (Figure 7).
 3D delineation of quick clays
observed data are small, implying good-quality data. The 3D
CSRMT model, similar to the RMT model, also mainly pictures
five different layers with changing resistivities and depths. In the
results from 2D inversion of RMT data along profile 5 (Figure 2)
presented by Shan et al. (2014), the resistivity models show a re-
Downloaded 01/19/16 to 202.114.202.219. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
sistive feature at depth (probably the bedrock) that deepens toward
the Göta River. The same resistive feature at depth is also observed
here in the north–south sections at −20 and 20 m (Figure 13b). The
top of the resistive feature is approximately 40 m and becomes even
deeper toward the north. The top surface of the resistive feature
(probably bedrock) is much shallower in the south and deepens to-
ward the river in the north. The same feature also occurs at a shal-
lower level in the northeastern corner close to the boundary of the
3D study area where the surface elevation is higher. The top resis-
B23
tive layer becomes more resistive toward the north especially at the
landslide scar area. The second layer is more conductive than the
top layer and the underlying layer below. At some parts of the pro-
file, this layer is not distinguishable from the top and bottom layers
(i.e., in the north–south section −60 m, at 0 and at 60 m along the
section). The third layer, which is likely the coarse-grained layer,
becomes more resistive in the northeastern part of the study area
(i.e., in the north–south section −60 m, from 0 to 50 m along
the section). The conductive layer becomes gradually thicker as
the bedrock deepens toward the north (see the east–west sections
in Figure 13a). In the southernmost part of the section at
−100 m, the shallowest top surface of the deepest resistor/bedrock
imaged by the model is approximately −40 m elevation and has an
undulating shape. The depth to the bedrock is still uncertain in this
Figure 11. The resistivity model from 3D inver-
sion of CSRMT data projected on high-resolution
topography data. The region marked by the black
line marks the location of the landslide scar (Fig-
ure 2).
Figure 12. Impedance comparisons of observed
data and forward response from 3D inversion of
one example CSRMT station: (a) Zxx, (b) Zxy,
(c) Zyx, and (d) Zyy. The plus marks and the
circles are the real and imaginary parts of each
impedance, and the solid and dashed lines are
the corresponding forward response.
 B24 Shan et al.
model even though lower frequency CSTMT data are incorporated
in the inversion. It is, therefore, vital to use other independent in-
formation such as those from the reflection seismic survey and geo-
technical data to verify the results from the 3D inversions.
Downloaded 01/19/16 to 202.114.202.219. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
Comparison with CPT data
Leached marine clays have electric resistivities ranging between
20 and 90 Ωm (Berger, 1980; Solberg, 2007). Because other ma-
Figure 13. Resistivity sections extracted from the
3D CSRMT model. (a) East–west running sections
and (b) north–south running sections. The loca-
tions are shown on top of each subplot.
terials such as silt or dry clay may have resistivities in the same
range (depending on their pore content), we have used the available
geotechnical data to validate and refine our interpretations. In the
previous studies conducted by SGI (Löfroth et al., 2011), quick
clays have often been associated with an underlying layer made
up of coarse grains. Two of the boreholes (7202 and 7203) are lo-
cated next to one of south–north profile 6 in the middle of the 3D
survey area. Variations in the measured CPT-R (CPT with resistivity
measurements) inside different boreholes are presented by Mal-
 3D delineation of quick clays B25

ehmir et al. (2013b). The observed depth and thicknesses of the
coarse-grained and quick-clay layers inside the two boreholes
are superimposed on the closest resistivity sections from the
ERT, RMT, and CSRMT models and are shown in Figure 14.
The resistivity variations in the second (from 15 to 20 m eleva-
tion) and third layers (from −5 to 15 m elevation) shown in the three
Downloaded 01/19/16 to 202.114.202.219. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
ducted by Adamczyk et al. (2013). The origin of the S2 reflection
is uncertain, although it can likely be attributed to a similar coarse-
grained layer as for S1. The S1, S2, and B1 reflections can be traced
across most of the 3D volume. Some reflections occur in between
the main horizons in some inlines (e.g., between S1 and S2 in Fig-

ure 15a), but these cannot be traced across the volume to the same
sections (Figure 14) correlate relatively well with those of the extent as the main picked horizons. These reflections are interpreted
coarse-grained and quick-clay layers measured in the geotechnical also as similar coarse-grained layers, but less extended, although it
borehole. This correlation is somewhat better for RMT and CSRMT could also represent reflections from the bottom or top boundaries
data than for the ERT data (Figure 14). From the geotechnical in- of the coarse-grained layer in places where the layers are thicker.
formation, at borehole 7202 (Figure 2), the coarse-grained layer With a main frequency of 100 Hz and a velocity of approximately
starts at 11 m depth with 1 m thick quick clay on top. At borehole 2000 m∕s in the sediments (Adamczyk et al., 2013), the seismic
7203, the coarse-grained layer starts at 21 m depth with 1.5 m thick wavelength is approximately 20 m. This gives a vertical resolution
quick clay on top. The resistivities of the second layer in the three of between 5 and 10 m for the seismic data. Because the coarse-
sections generally vary from 20 to 30 Ωm and approximately grained layer thicknesses are expected to be within this range most
200 Ωm for the third layer. But the two layers observed from
the three sections are somewhat thicker than those determined in
the two boreholes. The thickness of the coarse-grained layers from
the borehole data is unknown due to the limited drilling depth and
technical difficulties of these types of geotechnical soundings.
However, there is a good indication in the resistivity models from
all the inversions that a very conductive layer (probably intact post-
glacial marine clays) is located below the coarse-grained layer at
elevation of approximately 20 m below the surface.

Comparison with the reflection seismic data

The resistivity overlap of quick clay with other types of materials
cannot provide clear boundaries, whereas reflection seismic meth-
ods can provide some information about the geometry of the con-
tacts’ internal structures within the normally consolidated materials
(Jongmans and Garambois, 2007). The conductive marine clays
(clays with high salt content either as solid or salt water in the pores)
in the area strongly attenuate the EM signals and thus limit their
penetration depth. So we compare the 3D CSRMT resistivity model
with the reflection seismic data collected along the same profiles
(Lundberg et al., 2014). Reflections at approximately 0.5 s (corre-
sponding to a maximum depth of 750 m) could be detected in the
raw shot gathers, indicating that the signal was strong enough to
penetrate the sediments and down to the bedrock contact. The
processing was, however, geared toward the upper 0.2 s and aimed
at attaining a high-resolution 3D seismic volume of the layering and
the bedrock topography. Glacial sediments exhibit velocities on the
range of 1300–1800 m∕s, but generally, they are approximately
1500 m∕s at our site (Adamczyk et al., 2013, 2014; Salas-Romero
et al., 2015). Thus, a 0.2-s two-way traveltime corresponds to a
depth of approximately 150 m at the site. Three sections are selected
from the 3D seismic volume and compared with sections extracted
from the 3D CSRMT resistivity model along the same lines (Fig-
ure 15). The south–north-directed sections −80 m are selected from
the western part of the study area, and two sections at 20 and 40 m
are selected from the central part of the area. These two sections (20
and 40 m) cross the landslide scars in their northern part. The upper
Figure 14. North–south sections extracted from the 3D resistivity
reflection (S1) is interpreted to be from the coarse-grained layer in- models. (a) ERT, (b) RMT, and (c) CSRMT sections at 0 m in the
tersected by several boreholes in the area. The bedrock reflection middle of the 3D study area close to the geotechnical boreholes. The
(B1) was interpreted after correlation with a longer 2D seismic pro- purple and black boxes represent the interpreted coarse-grained
file (using a dynamite source) on which the reflection could be layer and quick clay from the CPT measurements (Löfroth et al.,
2011). The thickness of the coarse-grained layer is unknown at
traced to the near surface further south, close to where outcrops the two boreholes due to the limited drill depth. The models, how-
are visible (Malehmir et al., 2013b). The interpretation was also ever, indicate a thickness on the order of 10 m. Interpretations for
aided by the results of the 2D traveltime tomography study con- different layers are shown in panel (c).
 B26 Shan et al.

often, the seismic sections show these layers as a single reflection
(Lundberg et al., 2014).
DISCUSSION
The results presented in this study indicate that there are certain
Downloaded 01/19/16 to 202.114.202.219. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
various sections (Figures 7, 10, and 13) have not been able to image
the boundaries of the shallowest layer (the dry crust), which is
mainly because of the frequency content of the signal. Instead,
the seismic data are superior in finding the sharper layer boundaries
and they demonstrate the best correlation with the borehole infor-

mation. CSRMT method is superior to the RMT method because it

features that are commonly observed in almost all of the models
from the methods used in this study, including the following: layers
closer to the surface that include the dry soil/sediments at the sur-
face, which is mostly more resistive than the underlying layer; quick
clay; a coarse-grained layer; and marine clay that is very conduc-
tive. As is evident from Figures 5, 8, and 11, all the resistivity sec-
tions generally show the same second layer with resistivity from
20 − 30 Ωm. Among these methods due to a limitation with data
coverage (usually at two ends of one profile), the 3D ERT inversion
models cannot image the structures close to the two ends of the lines
(Figure 6). This is more problematic where one end of the line
reaches an obstacle, as is the case in our study area of the Göta
River. The 3D ERT models lose their resolutions below a certain
depth especially at the boundaries of the 3D study area (Figures 5
and 7). The 3D RMT model (Figure 8) is better at delineating the
resistivity variations than the ERT model and reveals sharper var-
iations at the layer boundaries especially from a conductive to a
resistive layer at depth. In Figure 10, a conductive layer with resis-
tivities of less than 10 Ωm is observed in all of the sections. The
CSRMT model shows similar structures at shallower parts of the
model down to the elevation of −40 m; however, due to the coarser
spacing between the profiles and stations, it shows smother lateral
resistivity variations. The ERT, RMT, and CSRMT data as shown in
uses higher and lower frequencies. In the CSRMT model (Fig-
ures 11 and 13), better resolution at depth is observed because it
better delineates the coarse-grained layer and the bedrock as higher
resistivity features. According to Berger (1980), sand (or saturated
sand) in a quick-clay area can show resistivities between
200 and 1000 Ωm. The fact that the coarse-grained materials in
our study area appear as resistive is an indication of the flow of
fresh ground water through them. These materials then act as a con-
duit (Malehmir et al., 2013a, 2013b) directing freshwater from the
south where the bedrock is closer to the surface (Figure 16) toward
the Göta River. The continuous or nearly continuous flow of fresh-
water then can leach the salt from the clays above and leads to the
formation of quick clays above the coarse-grained layer. An excess
of rain and meltwater in the layer would then increase the pore water
pressure and destabilize the system and as a result triggers a land-
slide (combined with other natural and human activities such as ero-
sion of the river embankments or excavation). A layer with
resistivity of 20–30 Ωm between 5 to 10 m elevation is well re-
solved in the RMT and ERT models. The borehole data indicate
that this layer contains quick clays (Figure 14).
The layering structures imaged by the CSRMT model show good
correlations with the interpreted horizons from the reflection seis-

Figure 15. (a, c, e) Selected sections extracted

from the 3D migrated seismic volume and (b, d,
f) their corresponding resistivity sections from
the 3D CSRMT model. S1 and S2 reflections
are interpreted to be generated from coarse-grained
materials, and B1 is interpreted to be a bedrock re-
flection (Lundberg et al., 2014). The interpreted
coarse-grained and bedrock horizons are marked
with red and pink arrows, respectively, in panels
(b, d, and f). The depth to the coarse-grained layer
from the geotechnical boreholes (Löfroth et al.,
2011) is indicated by red (on seismic sections)
and white vertical lines (on the resistivity sections).
Note that the coarse-grained layer is modeled to be
resistive, which may be an indication of freshwater
flow in the layer (Malehmir et al., 2013b).
 3D delineation of quick clays
mic data (Figure 15), and they support the use of integrated EM and
seismic methods for quick-clay landslide studies. These two meth-
ods are often not routinely used for these purposes. Figure 16 shows
the iso-resistivity surfaces of the 3D CSRMT model with four re-
sistivity values and elevations of the B1 and S1 horizons. Our in-
Downloaded 01/19/16 to 202.114.202.219. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
terpretation of each surface is labeled with a text in the figure. As
pointed out by Lundberg et al. (2014), the S1 horizon (Figure 16c),
which represents the top surface of the coarse-grained layer, be-
comes shallower with a northeast direction toward the river. We
have found the same tendency in the resistivity model (e.g., section
20 m in Figure 10a) in which the depth to the top of the third layer
(with a resistivity of approximately 25 Ωm) is smaller in the east
with a northeast direction. We also observed discontinuities of this
layer in the middle of the 3D study area (Figure 16a), which cor-
relates well with the discontinuities in the S1 horizon (Figure 16c).
An example discontinuity can be observed at approximately 0 m in
the eastmost part of the model (Figure 16a). The red line in Fig-
ure 16a outlines the top surface of the bedrock. The surface of
the bedrock reaches its deepest point in the easternmost direction
B27
at approximately −25 m along the south–north direction (without
the topography incorporated). The depth variations in the bedrock
modeled by the CSRMT data are well supported by the seismic
horizons (Figures 15 and 16b); the elevation of B1 (Figure 16b)
shows that the shallowest top surface of the bedrock is in the south
and deepens toward the north. In the northeast (Figure 16b), the
elevation of the bedrock is approximately −65 m, which correlates
with the CSRMT sections with the topography incorporated in Fig-
ure 13a (section 100 m).
CONCLUSIONS
The collected 3D ERT, RMT, CSRMT, and reflection seismic data
sets have reasonably high quality to be used for delineating detailed
subsurface structures that control the formation of quick clays and
their associated landslides. The 3D resistivity models resolved four
relatively distinct layers on top of the resistive crystalline bedrock.
The 3D resistivity model from the inversion of CSRMT data better
delineates the bedrock underlying the conductive marine clays.
Figure 16. (a) Isosurfaces of the 3D CSRMT
model without considering the topography. Four
resistivities are chosen to image the approximate
boundaries of structures, and they represent very
conductive marine clays (5 Ωm), quick clays
(25 Ωm), coarse grains (80 Ωm), and bedrock
(300 Ωm). (b) Elevation of the B1 bedrock reflec-
tion (also shown in Figure 15) from Lundberg et al.
(2014). (c) Elevation of the S1 reflection horizon.
The region marked by the black line marks the lo-
cation of the main landslide scar (study area).
Black dots in panels (b and c) represent where
the seismic horizons could be picked. The red line
in panel (c) indicates discontinuities observed in
seismic horizon S1.
 B28 Shan et al.
The coarse-grained layer with a resistivity of 30–300 Ωm is iden-
tified as the permeable layer that plays an important role in the oc-
currence of landslides in the study area because it acts as a conduit
directing freshwater into the clays above, leaching their salt and
forming quick clays. The 3D resistivity models from CSRMT data
Downloaded 01/19/16 to 202.114.202.219. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
and 3D reflection seismic data reveal that this layer has a varying
thickness and at some location is very thin so that it cannot be re-
solved by the methods used. This can be partly caused by the
smoothing regularization used in the inversions and partly by the
diffusing nature of the ERT, RMT, and CSRMT methods, which
does not allow resolving the sharp layer boundaries and thus accu-
rate estimation of the depth to the top and thickness of the layers. To
overcome this problem, reflection seismic data and geotechnical
data collected in the nearby boreholes were used instead to make
a more realistic use of the resistivity models and to gain a better
understanding about the physical properties and geometry of the
structures close and within the landslide area.
Future studies should focus on joint 3D inversion of the ERT,
RMT, or CSTMT with seismic data to take the advantages of each
individual method and to minimize their limitations. We suggest
development of an algorithm in which a joint 3D inversion of
ERT, RMT, and CSRMT data using constraints from the reflection
seismic and borehole data can be performed.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was initiated at Uppsala University while C. Shan was
studying there. This study is part of a joint research collaboration
between Uppsala University and SGU. SEG, through its Geoscient-
ists Without Borders program, and SGU, through its internal re-
search program, have supported this work. H. Löfroth and
several other personnel from SGI provided critical information that
helped us to design our survey and interpret our data. The geophysi-
cal data acquisition would have not been possible without the par-
ticipation of Ph.D. and undergraduate students from Uppsala
University, Leibniz Institute for Applied Geophysics, University
of Cologne, Syiah Kuala University, Polish Academy of Sciences,
and the SEG Student Chapter of Uppsala University. Critical and
constructive comments from three anonymous reviewers helped
to improve the quality of the paper, for which we are grateful.
REFERENCES
Adamczyk, A., M. Malinowski, and A. Malehmir, 2013, Application of first-
arrival tomography to characterize a quick clay landslide site in Southwest
Sweden: Acta Geophysica, 61, 1057–1073, doi: 10.2478/s11600-013-
0136-y.
Adamczyk, A., M. Malinowski, and A. Malehmir, 2014, High-resolution
near-surface velocity model building using full-waveform inversion —
A case study from southwest Sweden: Geophysical Journal International,
197, 1693–1704, doi: 10.1093/gji/ggu070.
Bastani, M., J. Hübert, T. Kalscheuer, L. B. Pedersen, A. Godio, and J. Ber-
nard, 2012, 2D joint inversion of RMT and ERT data versus individual 3D
inversion of full tensor RMT data: An example from Trecate site in Italy:
Geophysics, 77, no. 4, WB233–WB243, doi: 10.1190/geo2011-0525.1.
Bastani, M., A. Malehmir, N. Ismail, L. B. Pedersen, and F. Hedjazi, 2009,
Delineating hydrothermal stockwork copper deposits using controlled-
source and radio-magnetotelluric methods: A case study from northeast
Iran: Geophysics, 74, no. 5, B167–B181, doi: 10.1190/1.3174394.
Batayneh, A. T., and A. A. Diabat, 2002, Application of a two-dimensional
electrical tomography technique for investigating landslides along the
Amman-Dead Sera Highway, Jordan: Environmental Geology, 42,
399–403, doi: 10.1007/s00254-002-0543-x.
Bazinet, R., and J. Legault, 1985, Scalar audio-magnetotellurics: A tool in
the evaluation of nuclear waste disposal sites: 55th Annual International
Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 149–150.
Berger, B., 1980, Rapport om bertikaleelectriskesonderinger I Verdal: Uni-
versity of Trondheim (UNIT), Norwegian Institute of Technology (NTH).
Bichler, A., P. Bobrowsky, M. Bestdouma, J. Hunter, T. Calvert, and R.
Burns, 2004, Three-dimensional mapping of a landslide using a multi-
geophysical approach: The Quesnel Forks landslide: Landslides, 1,
29–40, doi: 10.1007/s10346-003-0008-7.
Bjerrum, L., 1954, Geotechnical properties of Norwegian marine clays:
Geotechnique, 4, 49–69, doi: 10.1680/geot.1954.4.2.49.
Bogoslovsky, V. A., and A. A. Ogilvy, 1977, Geophysical methods for the in-
vestigation of landslides: Geophysics, 42, 562–571, doi: 10.1190/1.1440727.
Chave, A. D., and A. G. Jones, 2012, The magnetotelluric method: Theory
and practice: Cambridge University Press.
Constable, C. S., R. L. Parker, and C. G. Constable, 1987, Occam’s inver-
sion: A practical algorithm for generating smooth models from electro-
magnetic sounding data: Geophysics, 52, 289–300, doi: 10.1190/1
.1442303.
Cruden, D. M., 1991, A simple definition of a landslide: Bulletin of the
International Association of Engineering Geology, 43, 27–29, doi: 10
.1007/BF02590167.
Dahlin, T., R. Larsson, V. Leroux, M. Svensson, and R. Wisén, 2001, Geo-
fysik isläntstabilitetsutredningar Rapport 62: Statens Geotekniska Institut.
Dahlin, T., H. Löfroth, D. Schälin, and P. Suer, 2013, Mapping of quick clay
using geoelectrical imaging and CPTU-resistivity: Near Surface Geophys-
ics, 111, 659–670, doi: 10.3997/1873-0604.2013044.
Daily, W., A. Ramirez, A. Binley, and D. LaBrecque, 2005, Electrical re-
sistance tomography — Theory and practice: Near Surface Geophysics,
13, 525–550, doi: 10.1190/1.9781560801719.
De Groot-Hedlin, C., and S. C. Constable, 1990, Occam’s inversion to gen-
erate smooth, two dimensional models from magnetotelluric data: Geo-
physics, 55, 1613–1624, doi: 10.1190/1.1442813.
Demoulin, A., A. Pissart, and C. Schroeder, 2003, On the origin of
late Quaternary palaeo landslides in the Liège (E Belgium) area:
International Journal of Earth Sciences, 92, 795–805, doi: 10.1007/
s00531-003-0354-7.
Eeckhaut, V. D. M., and J. Hervas, 2012, State of the art of national landslide
databases in Europe and their potential for assessing landslide susceptibil-
ity, hazard and risk: Geomorphology, 139–140, 545–558, doi: 10.1016/j
.geomorph.2011.12.006.
Farquharson, C. G., D. W. Oldenburg, E. Haber, and R. Shekhtman, 2002,
An algorithm for the three-dimensional inversion of magnetotelluric data:
72nd Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 649–652.
Fell, R., O. Hunger, S. Leroueil, and W. Iemer, 2000, Geotechnical engineer-
ing of the stability of natural slopes and cuts and fills in soil: Presented at
the International Conference on Geotechnical and Geology Engineering,
paper no. ISRM-IS-2000-002.
Freden, C., 1984, Beskrivning till jordartskartan Vänersborg SO: Sveriges
Geologiska Undersökning 48.
Freden, C., 2002, Berg och jord: Sveriges Nationalatlas.
Hack, R., 2000, Geophysics for slope stability: Surveys in Geophysics, 21,
423–448, doi: 10.1023/A:1006797126800.
Hatch, M., G. Heinson, T. Munday, S. Theil, K. Lawrie, J. D. A. Clarke, and
P. Mill, 2013, The importance of including conductivity and dielectric
permittivity information when processing low-frequency GPR and
high-frequency EMI data sets: Journal of Applied Geophysics, 96, 77–
86, doi: 10.1016/j.jappgeo.2013.06.007.
Havenith, H. B., D. Jongmans, K. Abdrakmatov, P. Trefois, D. Delvaux, and
A. Torgoev, 2000, Geophysical investigations of seismically induced
surface effects: Case study of a landslide in the Suusamyr valley,
Kyrgyzstan: Surveys in Geophysics, 21, 349–369, doi: 10.1023/A:
1006788808145.
Huang, H., and D. Fraser, 2001, Mapping of the resistivity, susceptibility and
permittivity of the earth using a helicopter-borne electromagnetic system:
Geophysics, 66, 148–157, doi: 10.1190/1.1444889.
Huang, H., and D. Fraser, 2002, Dielectric permittivity and resistivity map-
ping using high-frequency helicopter-borne EM data: Geophysics, 67,
727–738, doi: 10.1190/1.1484515.
Jongmans, D., and S. Garamois, 2007, Geophysical investigation of land-
slides: A review: Bulletin of the Geological Society of France, 178,
101–112, doi: 10.2113/gssgfbull.178.2.101.
Kalscheuer, T., M. Bastani, S. Donohue, L. Persson, A. A. Pfaffhuber, F.
Reiser, and Z. Ren, 2013, Delineation of a quick clay zone at Smorgrav,
Norway, with electromagnetic methods under geotechnical constraints:
Journal of Applied Geophysics, 92, 121–136, doi: 10.1016/j.jappgeo
.2013.02.006.
Keaton, J. R., J. Wartman, S. Anderson, J. Benoit, J. deLaChapelle, R. Gil-
bert, and D. R. Montgomery, 2014, The 22 March 2014 Oso landslide,
Snohomish County, Washington: Geotechnical Extreme Events Recon-
naissance (GEER) report.
Lapenna, V., P. Lorenzo, A. Perrone, S. Piscitelli, E. Rizzo, and F. Sdao,
2005, 2D electrical resistivity imaging of some complex landslides in Lu-
canian Apennine chain, southern Italy: Geophysics, 70, no. 3, B11–B18,
doi: 10.1190/1.1926571.
 3D delineation of quick clays
Lebourg, T., S. Binet, E. Tric, H. Jomard, and S. Bedoui, 2005, Geophysical
survey to estimate the 3D sliding surface and the 4D evolution of the water
pressure on part of a deep seated landslide: Terra Nova, 17, 399–406, doi:
10.1111/j.1365-3121.2005.00623.x.
Li, X., and L. B. Pedersen, 1991, Controlled source tensor magnetotelluric:
Geophysics, 56, 1456–1461, doi: 10.1190/1.1443165.
Lindström, M., J. Lundqvist, and T. Lundqvist, 2000, Sveriges geologi från
Downloaded 01/19/16 to 202.114.202.219. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
urtid till nutid 2nd ed.: Lund studentlitteratur.
Löfroth, H., P. Suer, T. Dahlin, V. Leroux, and D. Schälin, 2011, Quick-clay
mapping by resistivity-surface resistivity, CPTU-R and chemistry to com-
plement other geotechnical sounding and sampling: Swedish Geotechni-
cal Institute, report GÄU 30.
Loke, M. H., and R. D. Barker, 1996, Practical techniques for 3D resistivity
surveys and data inversion: Geophysical Prospecting, 44, 499–523, doi:
10.1111/j.1365-2478.1996.tb00162.x.
Loke, M. H., and T. Dahlin, 2010, Methods to reduce banding effects in 3-D
resistivity inversion: Presented at the 16th European Meeting of Environ-
mental and Engineering Geophysics.
Lundberg, E., A. Malehmir, C. Juhlin, M. Bastani, and A. Andersson, 2014,
High-resolution 3D reflection seismic investigation over a quick-clay
landslide scar in southwest Sweden: Geophysics, 79, no. 2, B97–
B107, doi: 10.1190/geo2013-0225.1.
Lundström, K., R. Larsson, and T. Dahlin, 2009, Mapping of quick clay
formations using geotechnical and geophysical methods: Landslides, 6,
1–15, doi: 10.1007/s10346-009-0144-9.
Malehmir, A., M. Bastani, C. M. Krawczyk, M. Gurk, N. Ismail, U. Polom,
and L. Persson, 2013a, Geophysical assessment and geotechnical inves-
tigation of quick-clay landslides — A Swedish case study: Near Surface
Geophysics, 11, 341–350, doi: 10.3997/1873-0604.2013010.
Malehmir, A., M. U. Saleem, and M. Bastani, 2013b, High-resolution re-
flection seismic investigations of quick-clay and associated formations
at a landslide scar in southwest Sweden: Journal of Applied Geophysics,
92, 84–102, doi: 10.1016/j.jappgeo.2013.02.013.
Mccann, D. M., and A. Forster, 1990, Reconnaissance geophysical methods
in landslide investigations: Engineering Geology, 29, 59–78, doi: 10
.1016/0013-7952(90)90082-C.
Meric, O., S. Garambois, D. Jongmans, M. Wathelet, J. Chatelain, and J. M.
Vengeon, 2005, Application of geophysical methods for the investigation
of the large gravitational mass movement of Séchilienne, France: Cana-
dian Geotechnical Journal, 42, 1105–1115, doi: 10.1139/t05-034.
Nabighian, M. N., 1991, Electromagnetic methods in applied geophysics:
SEG.
Nadim, F., S. A. S. Pedersen, P. Schmidt-Thomé, F. Sigmundsson, and M.
Engdahl, 2008, Natural hazards in Nordic countries: Episodes, 31, 176–
184.
Newman, G. A., and D. L. Alumbaugh, 2000, Three-dimensional magneto-
telluric inversion using non-linear conjugate gradients: Geophysics Jour-
nal International, 140, 410–424, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-246x.2000.00007.x.
Newman, G. A., S. Recher, B. Tezkan, and F. M. Neubauer, 2003, 3D in-
version of a scalar radio magnetotelluric field data set: Geophysics, 68,
791–802, doi: 10.1190/1.1581032.
Parker, R. L., 1994, Geophysical inverse theory: Princeton University Press.
Parkinson, W. D., 1962, The influence of continents and oceans on geomag-
netic variations: Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society,
6, 441–449, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.1962.tb02992.x.
Pedersen, L. B., M. Bastani, and L. Dynesius, 2005, Ground water explora-
tion using combined controlled source and radio magnetotelluric tech-
niques: Geophysics, 70, no. 1, G8–G15, doi: 10.1190/1.1852774.
View publication stats
B29
Petley, D. N., 2010, Landslide hazards, in I. Alcántara-Ayala, and A. S. Gou-
die, eds., Geomorphological hazards and disaster prevention: Cambridge
University Press, 63–73.
Petley, D. N., 2012, Global patterns of loss of life from landslides: Geology,
40, 927–930, doi: 10.1130/G33217.1.
Rankka, K., Y. Andersson-Sköld, C. Hultén, R. Larsson, V. Leroux, and T.
Dahlin, 2004, Quick-clay in Sweden: Swedish Geotechnical Institute,
Technical report number 65, 137.
Reynolds, J. M., 1997, An introduction to applied and environmental geo-
physics: John Wiley & Sons.
Salas-Romero, S., A. Malehmir, I. Snowball, B. C. Lougheed, and M.
Hellqvist, 2015, Identifying landslide preconditions in Swedish quick
clays — Insights from integration of surface geophysical, core sample-
and downhole property measurements: Landslides, 1–19, doi: 10.1007/
s10346-015-0633-y.
Sasaki, Y., 1992, Resolution of resistivity tomography inferred from numeri-
cal simulation: Geophysical Prospecting, 40, 453–463, doi: 10.1111/j
.1365-2478.1992.tb00536.x.
Sasaki, Y., 2001, Full 3-D inversion of electrical and electromagnetic data on
PC: Journal of Applied Geophysics, 46, 45–54, doi: 10.1016/S0926-9851
(00)00038-0.
Schmucker, U., 1964, Anomalies of geomagnetic variations in the
southwestern United States: Journal of Geomagnetism and Geoelectricity,
15, 193–221, doi: 10.5636/jgg.15.193.
Shan, C., M. Bastani, A. Malehmir, L. Persson, and M. Engdahl, 2014, In-
tegrated 2D modeling and interpretation of geophysical and geotechnical
data to delineate quick clays at a landslide site in southwest Sweden: Geo-
physics, 79, no. 4, EN61–EN75, doi: 10.1190/geo2013-0201.1.
Siripunvaraporn, W., and G. Egbert, 2000, An efficient data-subspace inver-
sion method for 2D magnetotelluric data: Geophysics, 65, 791–803, doi:
10.1190/1.1444778.
Siripunvaraporn, W., G. Egbert, Y. Lenbury, and M. Uyeshima, 2005, Three-
dimensional magnetotelluric inversion: Data-space method: Physics of the
Earth and Planetary Interiors, 150, 3–14, doi: 10.1016/j.pepi.2004.08.023.
Solberg, I., 2007, Geological, geomorphologic and geophysical investiga-
tions of areas prone to clay slides: Examples from Buvika, Mid Norway:
Ph.D. thesis, Norwegian University.
Telford, W. M., L. P. Geldart, R. E. Sherif, and D. A. Keys, 1990, Applied
geophysics: Cambridge University Press.
USGS, 2013, About us, http://landslides.usgs.gov/aboutus/, accessed 30 No-
vember 2015.
Wisén, R., E. Auken, and T. Dahlin, 2005, Combination of 1D laterally con-
strained inversion and 2D smooth inversion of resistivity data with a priori
data from boreholes: Near Surface Geophysics, 3, 71–79, doi: 10.3997/
1873-0604.2005002.
Wisén, R., A. V. Christiansen, E. Auken, and T. Dahlin, 2003, Application of
2D laterally constrained inversion and 2D smooth inversion of CVES re-
sistivity data in a slope stability investigation: Proceedings of the 9th
Meeting Environmental Engineering Geophysics, EAGE, Extended Ab-
stracts, paper no. O-002.
Zhdanov, M. S., S. Fang, and G. Hursin, 2000, Electromagnetic inversion
using quasi-linear approximation: Geophysics, 65, 1501–1513, doi: 10
.1190/1.1444839.
Zonge, K. L., and L. J. Hughes, 1991, Controlled source audio-frequency
magnetotellurics, in M. N. Nabighian, ed., Electromagnetic methods in
applied geophysics: SEG, 713–810.