4.2 Article

Geophysical characterization of derelict coalmine workings and mineshaft detection: a case study from Shrewsbury, United Kingdom

Journal

NEAR SURFACE GEOPHYSICS
Volume 6, Issue 3, Pages 185-194

Publisher

EUROPEAN ASSOC GEOSCIENTISTS & ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.3997/1873-0604.2008014

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

multi-phase, near-surface geophysical investigations. Investigation objectives were: 1) site characterization for remaining relict infrastructure foundations, 2) locate an abandoned coalmine shaft, 3) determine if the shaft was open, filled or partially filled and 4) determine if the shaft was capped (and if possible characterize the capping material). Phase one included a desktop study and 3D microgravity modelling of the relict coalmine shaft thought to be on site. In phase two, electrical and electromagnetic surveys to determine site resistivity and conductivity were acquired together with fluxgate gradiometry and an initial microgravity survey. Phase three targeted the phase two geophysical anomalies and acquired high-resolution self potential and ground penetrating radar datasets. The phased-survey approach minimised site activity and survey costs. Geophysical results were compared and interpreted to characterize the site, the microgravity models were used to validate interpretations. Relict buildings, railway track remains with associated gravel and a partially filled coalmine shaft were located. Microgravity proved optimal to locate the mineshaft with radar profiles showing 'side-swipe' effects from the mineshaft that did not directly underlie survey lines. Geophysical interpretations were then verified with subsequent geotechnical intrusive investigations. Comparisons of historical map records with intrusive geotechnical site investigations show care must be taken using map data alone, as the latter mineshaft locations was found to be inaccurate.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available