4.7 Article

Subsidence induced by urbanisation in the city of Rome detected by advanced InSAR technique and geotechnical investigations

期刊

REMOTE SENSING OF ENVIRONMENT
卷 112, 期 6, 页码 3160-3172

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.rse.2008.03.008

关键词

advanced InSAR; IPTA; urban subsidence; geotechnical investigation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We applied the Interferometric Point Target Analysis (IPTA) technique to study the city of Rome (Italy) aiming to detect and measure the surface movements of buildings and urban structures. The available SAR dataset has been delivered by ESA CAT1 3258 and ranges the period 1992-2005. In particular ERS1-ERS2 data processed covers 1995-2000, while Envisat ASAR 2002-2005. The Point Target velocity map shows a general stability except for some very local areas affected by subsidence rate larger than 10 mm/year. The analysis of the time series, compared to a detailed geological and geotechnical investigation of the lithostratigraphy of the alluvial sediments of the Tiber River, and combined with a temporal reconstruction of the expansion of the city over the alluvial valleys, allowed us to depict the main factors controlling the observed subsidence. These are: the in situ effective stress conditions, the related compressibility and viscous characteristics of the loaded soils, the thickness of the compressible stratum, the time since loading instant, and the entity of loading. Furthermore the observed subsidence is time-dependent, even at a long time-scale, with respect to the age of the buildings being most of the buildings constructed since the '50s still affected by slow subsidence. We mainly focused on the Grottaperfetta stream valley that is characterized by an anomalous high and time-lasting subsidence. Original data on the lithostratigraphic setting of this alluvial valley indicate that the high subsidence rate measured up to 2005 is caused by a still active primary consolidation process. (C) 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据