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

net/publication/331937555

Enhanced Analysis of Landslide Failure Mechanisms in the Ozark Plateau Region

with Electrical Resistivity Tomography

Conference Paper · March 2019

DOI: 10.1061/9780784482131.021

CITATIONS READS

5 161

6 authors, including:

Weston Koehn Stacey Tucker-Kulesza

Kansas State University Kansas State University
7 PUBLICATIONS 36 CITATIONS 35 PUBLICATIONS 258 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Salman Rahimi
Arup Los Angeles
25 PUBLICATIONS 186 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

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

Soil Health View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Salman Rahimi on 26 August 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Geo-Congress 2019 GSP 311 197

Enhanced Analysis of Landslide Failure Mechanisms in the Ozark Plateau Region with
Electrical Resistivity Tomography
Weston J. Koehn, S.M.ASCE1; Stacey E. Tucker-Kulesza, M.ASCE, P.E., Ph.D.2;
Vanessa LeBow3; Salman Rahimi4; Michelle L. Bernhardt, Ph.D.5; and Clinton M. Wood, Ph.D.6
1
Kansas State Univ., Dept. of Civil Engineering, 2118 Fiedler Hall, Manhattan, KS 66506. E-
mail: koehnw@ksu.edu
2
Kansas State Univ., Dept. of Civil Engineering, 2118 Fiedler Hall, Manhattan, KS 66506. E-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Arkansas on 03/28/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

mail: sekulesza@ksu.edu
3
Univ. of Arkansas, Dept. of Civil Engineering, 4190 Bell Engineering Center, Fayetteville, AR
72701. E-mail: vaburges@uark.edu
4
Univ. of Arkansas, Dept. of Civil Engineering, 4190 Bell Engineering Center, Fayetteville, AR
72701. E-mail: srahimi@uark.edu
5
Univ. of Arkansas, Dept. of Civil Engineering, 4190 Bell Engineering Center, Fayetteville, AR
72701. E-mail: mlbernha@uark.edu
6
Univ. of Arkansas, Dept. of Civil Engineering, 4190 Bell Engineering Center, Fayetteville, AR
72701. E-mail: cmwood@uark.edu

ABSTRACT
Landslides are a globally occurring geologic hazard that affect infrastructure such as
roadways constructed in steep mountainous terrain. In the Ozark Plateau portion of Arkansas, the
combination of sloping bedrock, decomposition of shale into high PI clays, and high rainfall
contribute to the formation of a significant number of landslides that impact transportation
infrastructure. There are currently 175 active landslides affecting roadways in Arkansas. This
case history employed electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) across a recurring landslide zone
within this portion of Arkansas to characterize the general stratigraphic architecture of the area.
ERT surveys conducted across the slide delineated the interface between the shale bedrock and
clay layer, and identified highly saturated regions above the clay/bedrock interface. Overall, the
addition of ERT data to landslide investigations provides a faster and more cost effective means
to develop a detailed subsurface image of the landslide compared to traditional geotechnical
instrumentation alone.

INTRODUCTION
Electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) is a near surface geophysical method that measures
the subsurface resistivity distribution. Hydrogeologic properties such as water content, porosity,
clay content, pore fluid salinity, and pore fluid temperature control the electrical resistivity of
soil and rock (Everett 2013). Numerous studies have utilized ERT to characterize the geologic
framework associated with unstable slopes (Lapenna et al. 2005; Drahor et al. 2006; Gance et al.
2016; Friedel et al. 2006). ERT surveys allow for identification of lithological boundaries,
providing a way to delineate potential failure zones within complex geologic environments
(Perrone et al. 2014). Additionally, the extent of a failure zone can be defined as ERT surveys
provide data across a wide range of spatial scales. Integration of traditional geotechnical data,
such as borehole and inclinometer data, provides an enhanced characterization of the geologic
framework.
The primary objectives of this study were to delineate the clay/bedrock interface and to gain

© ASCE

Geo-Congress 2019
 Geo-Congress 2019 GSP 311 198

insight into the main drivers behind the slope movement. Accurate slope stability analyses
require a well-defined geologic framework, and the integration of geophysical data and
traditional geotechnical data (borehole and inclinometer) provide the necessary information to
conduct an accurate analysis of the failure.

STUDY AREA
The study area (approximately 1 km2 in surface area) is located in the Ozark Mountain region
of north-central Arkansas just south of Sand Gap, Arkansas on Arkansas Highway 7. The area
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Arkansas on 03/28/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

sits within the Ozark National Forest, which is comprised of mountainous terrain, as a part of the
Ozark Mountains, and dense hardwood and softwood vegetation (USDA 2018). The Ozark
Mountains are plateaus with few folds or faults that are lifted as units and have been eroded by
rising and falling rivers. The Ozarks are a part of the Boston Mountains, which are characterized
by narrow V-shaped valleys and vertical bluffs of limestone and sandstone. The terrain is
dominated by steep hillslopes with slope angles ranging from 10 degrees to 30 degrees.
Interbedded shale and sandstone layers make up the bedrock system within the study area.
An aerial view of the study area, location of the borehole, and layout of ERT surveys are
shown in Figure 1A. The study area is located adjacent to Arkansas Highway 7, which was
constructed and is maintained by the Arkansas Department of Transportation (ARDOT). The site
slopes from North to South and from East to West, with the lowest elevation and steepest
gradient occurring near the West end of ERT line #3. The slope is moving westward, as indicated
by the red and yellow arrows in Figure 1B. This has caused a caused a number of cracks to form
in the pavement near the area, shown in Figure 2B, which has to be periodically repaired.

Figure 1. (A)-Overview map of study area showing the location of the ERT surveys and the
borehole instrumented with an inclinometer; (B)-Location of pavement cracking within the
study region and the delineated slide mass (gray polygon). The red and yellow arrows
indicate the direction of the slide movement, which is predominately westward.
The boring in the area indicates that a clay/bedrock interface is present between
approximately 4 m and 7 m below the ground surface. A sandstone/shale sequence make up the

© ASCE

Geo-Congress 2019
 Geo-Congress 2019 GSP 311 199

bedrock unit. The shale seams are highly fractured and highly weathered according to all
borehole logs within the surrounding area. The top 4 m of the site is predominantly composed of
a clay/gravel mixture and stiff clay. It is noted that all of the available boring logs and
inclinometer data for the site are located on the West side of Highway 7 and very little
information is available for the East side. Table 1 gives the layer depths and geologic description
for the borehole log located on the overview map in Figure 1A.

Table 1. Borehole log giving layer depths and material description

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Arkansas on 03/28/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Depth (m)
Layer Material Description
Below GS
Moist, Medium Stiff, Reddish Brown Clay
1 0.00 - 2.90
with Gravel (Shale Fragments)
2 2.90 - 5.80 Moist, Stiff, Reddish Brown Clay
Sandstone with Occasional Shale Seams,
3 5.80 - 5.94
Highly Weathered, Poorly Cemented, Reddish Brown and Gray
Sandstone with Frequent Shale Partings and Seams, Highly
4 5.94 - 8.84
Weathered, Poorly Cemented, Frequent Fractures, Reddish Brown
Sandstone - Weathered, Cemented,
5 8.84 - 11.89
Occasional Fractures, Reddish Brown
6 11.89 - 13.41 Sandstone - Weather, Cemented, Reddish Brown
13.41 Boring Terminated

METHODOLOGY
ERT surveys are conducted by injecting electrical current into the subsurface through a pair
of electrodes while simultaneously measuring the induced voltage potential across a separate pair
of electrodes. Repeated sets of measurements across various electrode pairs produces an apparent
resistivity pseudosection. Apparent resistivity is the resistivity of a completely homogeneous and
isotropic medium, and varies based upon the type of array used to conduct the survey. All
surveys must undergo inversion to produce the true resistivity distribution. The Supersting R8
from Advanced Geoscience Inc. was used to collect all datasets, and EarthImager 2D was used to
invert all datasets (Advanced Geosciences Inc. 2008).
Three ERT surveys were conducted parallel and perpendicular to the slope. Figure 1A shows
the location of the ERT surveys in relation to the approximate slide footprint (shown in Figure
1B). An electrode spacing of either 0.91 m or 1.52 m was used to conduct all surveys. A 56
electrode dipole-dipole/strong gradient array was used to collect all datasets within this study. A
dipole-dipole/strong gradient array is an optimized array, which uses electrode configurations
derived from the dipole-dipole and gradient arrays to collect data. This optimized array provides
better coverage of the subsurface and a higher signal to noise ratio than the dipole-dipole array
alone (Advanced Geosciences Inc. 2008). Figure 2 shows the field set up of ERT survey #1 and
the location of the inclinometer at the site.
The inversion of ERT surveys is required to produce the true subsurface electrical resistivity
distribution. The two statistical parameters used to quantify how well the inversion performed
are the root mean square error (RMS) and the L2-norm. An estimate of the measurement noise is
required prior to inversion, and is one of the stopping criteria for the inversion. A quality
inversion is produced when the RMS falls below the estimated data noise, and when the L2-norm
falls below 1.0 within a predefined number of iterations (8 for this study). The L2-norm should

© ASCE

Geo-Congress 2019
 Geo-Congress 2019 GSP 311 200

remain as close to 1.0 (always equal to or below) as possible to avoid overfitting.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Arkansas on 03/28/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure 2. Field setup of ERT survey #1

RESULTS
The inverted ERT survey shown in Figure 3 was conducted 1 m adjacent to the borehole
shown in Figure 1A. The elevations given on the y-axis are relative to the elevation of electrode
#52 (0.0 m). The corresponding layer interfaces from Table 1 have been superimposed onto the
inverted ERT profile. The elevation of the ground surface at the borehole is 0.80 m. Layer 1
corresponds to a gravel-clay mixture (0 m to 2.90 m below ground surface). Resistivity values as
high as 2,500 Ω-m were observed within layer 1 however, the resistivity scales within the
surveys shown here have a maximum value of 200 Ω-m to better illustrate the layer depths. The
starting point of the survey (0.0 m) was located outside of the slide footprint. The boundary of
the slide is located at 22.0 m along the survey transect, where the lowly resistive zone (dark
purple) within layers 2 and 3 appears. It is noted that the slide boundary locations were specified
based on visible damage to the asphalt pavement (i.e., longitudinal cracks running north and
south). There is a 50 Ω-m decrease in resistivity within layers 2, 3, and 4 from the left to right
across the slide boundary. Layers 5 and 6 (sandstone) have resistivity values ranging between 60
Ω-m to 100 Ω-m. According to the ARDOT, the depth to water within the borehole was 6.65 m
in March of 2017, and 6.67 m in April of 2017. At the time of the surveys (December 2017), the
depth to water was 6.32 m. All depths to groundwater correspond to layer 4 (sandstone/shale).
ERT survey #2 (Figure 4) was conducted 7 m to the east of ERT survey #1 as shown in
Figure 1, and also transitions from a region outside of the slide footprint to a region inside of the
slide footprint. The elevations given on the y-axis are relative to the elevation of electrode #56
(0.0 m). A highly resistive layer (greater than 200 Ω-m) makes up the top 1 m to 3 m of the

© ASCE

Geo-Congress 2019
 Geo-Congress 2019 GSP 311 201

subsurface. This layer decreases in thickness from left to right across the profile as the lowly
resistive layer approaches the ground surface. The resistivity of the middle layer (clay/bedrock)
decreases by as much as 50 Ω-m from left to right across slide boundary (45.7 m). A highly
resistivity layer appears at 45.7 m along the profile at a depth of -9.0 m.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Arkansas on 03/28/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure 3. Inverted ERT survey #1

Figure 4. Inverted ERT survey #2

ERT survey #3 (Figure 5) was offset approximately 45 degrees from the ERT surveys shown
in Figure 2 and Figure 3, and was conducted longitudinal to the slope. The elevations given on
the y-axis are relative to the elevation of electrode 52 (0.0 m). Two highly resistive (100 Ω-m to
> 200 Ω-m) layers bound a lowly resistive (less than 50 Ω-m) layer.

Figure 5. Inverted ERT survey #3

Evidence of a weep was noted between 32 m and 38 m along the survey #3 transect. Ponded
water was present at the surface, and resistivity values ranged between 30 Ω-m to 60 Ω-m within
this region. The westernmost boundary of the slope is located at 40 m along the survey line,
where the low resistivity layer disappears and moderate to high (> 100 Ω-m) resistivity values
dominate.
Data collected from the inclinometer detailed in Figure 2 were used to evaluate the
movement of the slope. The inclinometer was installed by ARDOT on March 22, 2017 and data
were collected again by ARDOT 13 days later on April 4th, 2017. The displacement (east to

© ASCE

Geo-Congress 2019
 Geo-Congress 2019 GSP 311 202

west) vs. depth is given by series A in Figure 6. A zone of displacement was observed between
1.0 m and 4.0 m below the ground surface. This zone corresponds to layer 1 (clay-gravel
mixture) and layer 2 (stiff clay) (see Table 1). There is some additional displacement between 6
m and 8 m below the ground surface, which corresponds to layer 4 (sandstone and highly
weathered shale). Series B in Figure 6 shows the North to South displacement vs. depth. The
majority of the north to south displacement was observed within the top 3 m of the surface.

0.00
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Arkansas on 03/28/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1.00
2.00
3.00
Depth below G.S. (m)

4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00 A
8.00 B
9.00
10.00
11.00
-0.20 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Cumulative Displacement (cm)
Figure 6. Inclinometer data collected on April 4th, 2017 by the Arkansas Department of
Transportation. The East-West displacement is given by series A and the North-South
displacement is given by series B.

DISCUSSION
The geologic stratification interpreted from the ERT surveys is in excellent agreement with
the reported layer depths given by the borehole log (Table 1). The resistivity values of the clay,
shale, and sandstone units are within the range of those reported by Everett (2013). The surveys
also identified a region of low resistivity just above the clay/bedrock interface within the slide
footprint. The localized features within this zone indicate that fully saturated conditions may
exist periodically, thus promoting further displacement. The borehole log given in Table 1 also
indicates that the shale bedrock unit (layer 3) is highly weathered. This also suggests that the
decomposition of shale in high PI clays is possible, which may also contribute to some of the
local saturation observed within this layer. The decrease in resistivity surrounding the
clay/bedrock interface across the slide clearly defines the lateral extent of the slide. Additionally,
the vertical discontinuity in electrical resistivity near the clay/bedrock interfaces data provides a
rough approximation of the bedrock depth and location of the slip plane.
Although the inclinometer readings were taken only 13 days after installation, a displacement
of nearly 1 cm was noted. At the time of the resistivity investigation on December 19, 2017,
another set of inclinometer readings were taken, but unfortunately the original raw data were not

© ASCE

Geo-Congress 2019
 Geo-Congress 2019 GSP 311 203

available to the team and cumulative displacements could not be plotted. Note that in December
2017 the team observed new cracks/distress in the pavement, indicating active movement. From
these readings, however, the water table depth recorded was similar to that noted on April 4th and
similar displacement shifts with depth were also noted. For both of the sets of data, the depths of
the displacements also directly support the conclusions drawn from the resistivity data which
suggest that the slide is likely occurring along the saturated clay/bedrock interface. Thus, the
combined ERT surveys, borehole, and inclinometer data provided a more complete geologic
framework, particularly at the clay/bedrock interface. The slope stability analysis of this failure
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Arkansas on 03/28/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

is currently underway so ARDOT can mitigate this active slide.

CONCLUSION
ERT surveys were conducted across a recurring landslide zone within the Ozark Plateau
region of northcentral Arkansas to better define the lithologic stratification and main drivers of
the slide. The layering of soil and rock interpreted from the ERT surveys is supported by nearby
borehole stratigraphy and limited inclinometer readings. Lowly resistive regions near the
clay/bedrock interface are associated with highly saturated regions. A distinct difference in the
resistivity structure across the approximate slide boundary allowed for a clear delineation of the
slide footprint. The ERT surveys provide a spatially robust geologic framework of the slide area
that will facilitate the development of a more detailed slope stability model.

REFERENCES
Advanced Geosciences, Inc. (2008). "EarthImager 2D Resistivity and IP Inversion Software
Instruction Manual." Austin, Texas.
Drahor, M. G., Gokturkler, G., Berge, M. A., & Kurtulmus, T. O. (2006). "Application of
electrical resistivity tomography technique for investigation of landslides: a case from
Turkey." Environmental Geology, 50, 10.1007/s00254-006-0194-4.
Everett, M. E. (2013). Near-Surface Applied Geophysics. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Friedel, S., Thielen, A., & Springman, S. (2006). "Investigation of a slope endagered by rainfall-
induced landslides using 3D resistivity tomography and geotechnical testing." Jouranl of
Applied Geophysics, 60, 10.1016/j.jappgeo.2006.01.001.
Gance, J., Malet, J.-P., and Supper, R., Sailhac, P., Ottowitz, D., & Jochum, B. (2016).
"Permanent electrical resistivity measurements for monitoring circulation in clayey
landslides." Journal of Applied Geophysics, 126, 10.1016/j.jappgeo.2016.01.011
Lapenna, V., Lorenzo, P., Perrone, A., Piscitelli, S., Rizzo, E., & Sdao, F. (2005). "2D electrical
resistivity imaging of some complex landslides in Lucanian Apennine chain, southern Italy."
Geophysics., 10.1190/1.1926571.
Perrone, A., Lapenna, V., & Piscitelli, S. (2014). "Electrical resistivity tomography technique for
landslide investigation: A review." Earth-Science Reviews, 135,
10.1016/j.earscirev.2014.04.002.
USDA (2018). Ozark – St. Francis National Forests, United States Department of Agriculture,
<https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/osfnf/home/?cid=fsm8_042910> (June 1, 2018).

© ASCE

View publication stats Geo-Congress 2019