| 03 Mar 2026
Dataset of a 4 km combined seismic and electric streamer survey along the embankment of the Po river in Crescentino
Abstract. For river embankment characterization non-invasive geophysical investigations are a valuable complementary tool to standard geotechnical testing. To this aim, resistivity and seismic methods are often adopted and can offer complementary information with respect to pore fluid properties and solid skeleton characteristics, respectively. The use of streamer cables for these surveys can reduce the acquisition times, making geophysical investigations ideal for preliminary screening. Few examples of combined seismic and electric streamer systems were already proposed in the literature, but their applicability for long and extensive surveys still need to be demonstrated. Moreover, tailored processing and interpretation methods are necessary given the large amount of data collected with such systems, which can be challenging for standard processing and inversion software.
We present a dataset of a 4 km combined seismic and electric streamer survey acquired along the embankment of the Po River in Crescentino, near Torino, in north-west Italy. Data acquisition strategies are discussed and preliminary data analyses are reported. The survey demonstrated the efficiency and potentiality of combined seismic and electric streamer systems in investigating river embankments. All the acquired geophysical data, together with complementary geotechnical and topographic information, are made available in a structured dataset (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18183049). The presented dataset can be an ideal playground to test and benchmark alternative processing and interpretation approaches, and enable an advancement in the state-of-the-art of these characterization methodologies.
General comments
Interesting and original dataset produced with a promising land streamer prototype for rapid combined acquisitions of ERT and MASW data.
The data cover a 4km case study along a Po river earth levee.
The acquisition methodology and the geophysical dataset are well documented. An example of a very preliminary analysis of these data is also included.
Very useful dataset made available to the scientific community for evaluating the methodology and for developing and testing customized analysis procedures or data processing techniques.
Specific comments
Geophysical data are sensitive to meteorological conditions. And the state of the levee is affected by rainfalls.
I did not find any indication about the weather conditions during the week of the survey activities.
I suggest to include the meteorological data (temperatures and rainfalls) from one month before the date of the survey to the last day of the survey using the meteo stations closer to the survey area.
Introduction
Lines 87-89
I suggest moving the reference to Arosio et al. 2017 into the group of references concerning the detection of seepages and leakage problems since this work shows nice examples of this ERT application, while I suggest the following reference from the same research team for the group about ERT use for monitoring water saturation, since this work provides a better description of the prototype monitoring system named GRETA specifically designed for that.
Tresoldi, G., Hojat, A., Zanzi, L., 2020, G.RE.T.A. installations for real-time monitoring of irrigation dams and canals, Procedia Environmental Science, Engineering and Management 7 (2) 271-276.
Line 116
There is a more recent and mature work from Hojat about how to deal with 3D effects produced by the levee geometry. I suggest citing this in substitution of Hojat et al. 2019, which is older and an expanded abstract rather than a journal paper.
Hojat, A., 2024. An iterative 3D correction plus 2D inversion procedure to remove 3D effects from 2D ERT data along embankments, Sensors, 24(12), 3759, doi: doi.org/10.3390/s24123759.
Section 2
Figure 1
A scale might be useful. Or indicate the length of the yellow line (4km?).
Section 3.1
Figure 7
I presume that inverted resistivities are shown in these images but I suggest to specify it in the caption and/or in the text.
Lines 309-312
This statement should be expanded and better described. The point is not very clear.
Section 4.1
Figure 10
Black dots are too big and they hide the color of the pixel. I suggest using either smaller symbols or circles rather than black filled circles.
Technical corrections
Section 2
Correct the title “…..TOPORAPHIC…”
Section 2.1
Figure 3
Eastern and western attributes in the caption are probably inverted.
Section 3.1
Figure 8
Western and Eastern indications are probably inverted both in figure caption and text (Line 332).
Line 315
I suggest changing “above number 49” into “beyond 49 m from the source”.
References
The alphabetical order has to be checked. Some papers at the beginning of the list should be moved down after the works from authors with names starting with “A”.
The position of the publication year is not homogeneous: sometimes after the author list, sometimes at the end or elsewhere.
References to Borgatti et al. 2017 and to Busato et al. 2016 are duplicated.
The reference to Al-Fares 2014 is missing in the reference list.
The reference to the Brodic et al. paper (2015) is missing in the manuscript text.