Advancements in Use of Geophysical Methods For Transportation Projects. NCHRP 547 (NAP)

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/25809 SHARE

   
Advancements in Use of Geophysical Methods for

Transportation Projects (2020)
DETAILS
106 pages | 8.5 x 11 | PAPERBACK

ISBN 978-0-309-67789-9 | DOI 10.17226/25809
CONTRIBUTORS
GET THIS BOOK Brent L. Rosenblad, Andrew Z. Boeckmann, University of Missouri; National
Cooperative Highway Research Program; Transportation Research Board; National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
FIND RELATED TITLES
SUGGESTED CITATION
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2020. Advancements in

Use of Geophysical Methods for Transportation Projects. Washington, DC: The
National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25809.

Visit the National Academies Press at NAP.edu and login or register to get:
– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientiﬁc reports

– 10% off the price of print titles
– Email or social media notiﬁcations of new titles related to your interests
– Special offers and discounts

Distribution, posting, or copying of this PDF is strictly prohibited without written permission of the National Academies Press.
(Request Permission) Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Advancements in Use of Geophysical Methods for Transportation Projects
N AT I O N A L C O O P E R AT I V E H I G H W AY R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M
NCHRP SYNTHESIS 547

Advancements in Use
of Geophysical Methods
for Transportation Projects
A Synthesis of Highway Practice
Brent L. Rosenblad
Andrew Z. Boeckmann
University of Missouri
Columbia, MO
Subscriber Categories
Highways • Geotechnology • Transportation, General
Research sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration
2020
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY NCHRP SYNTHESIS 547

RESEARCH PROGRAM
Systematic, well-designed, and implementable research is the most Project 20-05, Topic 50-01
effective way to solve many problems facing state departments of ISSN 0547-5570
transportation (DOTs) administrators and engineers. Often, highway ISBN 978-0-309-48137-3
problems are of local or regional interest and can best be studied by Library of Congress Control Number 2020935974
state DOTs individually or in cooperation with their state universities
© 2020 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
and others. However, the accelerating growth of highway transporta-
tion results in increasingly complex problems of wide interest to high-
way authorities. These problems are best studied through a coordinated
program of cooperative research. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION
Recognizing this need, the leadership of the American Association Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining
of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in 1962 ini- written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously
tiated an objective national highway research program using modern published or copyrighted material used herein.
scientific techniques—the National Cooperative Highway Research Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this
Program (NCHRP). NCHRP is supported on a continuing basis by publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the
funds from participating member states of AASHTO and receives the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA,
FTA, GHSA, NHTSA, or TDC endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice.
full cooperation and support of the Federal Highway Administration
It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and
(FHWA), United States Department of Transportation, under Agree- not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or
ment No. 693JJ31950003. reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP.
The Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Academies
of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine was requested by AASHTO to Cover photo credit: Clinton Wood – University of Arkansas
administer the research program because of TRB’s recognized objectivity
and understanding of modern research practices. TRB is uniquely suited
for this purpose for many reasons: TRB maintains an extensive com- NOTICE
mittee structure from which authorities on any highway transportation
The report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication according to
subject may be drawn; TRB possesses avenues of communications and procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved
cooperation with federal, state, and local governmental agencies, univer- by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
sities, and industry; TRB’s relationship to the National Academies is an The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the
insurance of objectivity; and TRB maintains a full-time staff of special- researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation
ists in highway transportation matters to bring the findings of research Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; the
directly to those in a position to use them. FHWA; or the program sponsors.
The program is developed on the basis of research needs iden- The Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering,
tified by chief administrators and other staff of the highway and and Medicine; and the sponsors of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program
transportation departments, by committees of AASHTO, and by do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein
solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report.
the FHWA. Topics of the highest merit are selected by the AASHTO
Special Committee on Research and Innovation (R&I), and each year
R&I’s recommendations are proposed to the AASHTO Board of Direc-
tors and the National Academies. Research projects to address these
topics are defined by NCHRP, and qualified research agencies are
selected from submitted proposals. Administration and surveillance of
research contracts are the responsibilities of the National Academies
and TRB.
The needs for highway research are many, and NCHRP can make
significant contributions to solving highway transportation problems
of mutual concern to many responsible groups. The program, however,
is intended to complement, rather than to substitute for or duplicate,
other highway research programs.
Published reports of the
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM

are available from
Transportation Research Board

Business Office
500 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
and can be ordered through the Internet by going to

http://www.national-academies.org
and then searching for TRB
Printed in the United States of America

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non-
governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for
outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the
practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering.
Dr. John L. Anderson is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National
Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions
to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent,
objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions.
The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase
public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.national-academies.org.
The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation improvements and innovation through
trusted, timely, impartial, and evidence-based information exchange, research, and advice regarding all modes of transportation. The
Board’s varied activities annually engage about 8,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from
the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by
state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation,
and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation.
Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS
CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP SYNTHESIS 547

Christopher J. Hedges, Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Lori L. Sundstrom, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Mariela Garcia-Colberg, Senior Program Officer
Sheila A. Moore, Program Associate
Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications
Natalie Barnes, Associate Director of Publications
NCHRP PROJECT 20-05 PANEL

Joyce N. Taylor, Maine DOT, Augusta, ME (Chair)
Socorro “Coco” Briseno, California DOT (retired), Sacramento, CA
Anita Bush, Nevada DOT, Carson City, NV
Joseph D. Crabtree, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY
Mostafa “Moe” Jamshidi, Nebraska DOT, Lincoln, NE
Cynthia L. Jones, Ohio DOT, Columbus, OH
Jessie X. Jones, Arkansas DOT, Little Rock, AR
Brenda Moore, North Carolina DOT, Raleigh, NC
Ben Orsbon, South Dakota DOT, Pierre, SD
Randall R. “Randy” Park, Avenue Consultants, Bluffdale, UT
Brian Worrel, Iowa DOT, Ames, IA
Jack Jernigan, FHWA Liaison
Jim McDonnell, AASHTO Liaison
Stephen F. Maher, TRB Liaison
TOPIC 50-01 PANEL

Adebola Adelakun, Georgia DOT, Forest Park, GA
Asif Ahmed, State University of New York Polytechnic Institute, Utica, NY
Aneliya P. “Ani” Carignan, South Carolina DOT, Columbia, SC
Madan Gaddam, Maryland State Highway Administration, Hanover, MD
Nabil M. Hourani, HNTB Corporation, Boston, MA
William P. Owen, California DOT, Sacramento, CA
Jason L. Richter, Minnesota DOT, Maplewood, MN
Benjamin S. Rivers, FHWA Liaison
Nancy M. Whiting, TRB Liaison
AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Benjamin Rivers from FHWA was instrumental in assembling the survey contact list and personally
requesting individual agency responses. The survey would not have achieved a high rate of response with-
out his participation, which the authors greatly appreciate.
Each of the following case example agency representatives graciously donated considerable amounts
of time and information during discussion, review, and retrieval of agency records: John Jamerson and
Amanda McElwain from New Jersey DOT; Paul Painter, Andrew Jalbrzikowski, and Chris Merklin from
Ohio DOT; Carl Benson, Chaz Weaver, and Brian Bruckno from Virginia DOT; Jason Richter from
Minnesota DOT; and Bill Owen from Caltrans.

ABOUT THE NCHRP SYNTHESIS PROGRAM

Highway administrators, engineers, and researchers often face problems for which information
already exists, either in documented form or as undocumented experience and practice. This infor-
mation may be fragmented, scattered, and unevaluated. As a consequence, full knowledge of what has
been learned about a problem may not be brought to bear on its solution. Costly research findings
may go unused, valuable experience may be overlooked, and due consideration may not be given to
recommended practices for solving or alleviating the problem.
There is information on nearly every subject of concern to highway administrators and engineers.
Much of it derives from research or from the work of practitioners faced with problems in their day-
to-day work. To provide a systematic means for assembling and evaluating such useful information
and to make it available to the entire highway community, the American Association of State High-
way and Transportation Officials—through the mechanism of the National Cooperative Highway
Research Program—authorized the Transportation Research Board to undertake a continuing study.
This study, NCHRP Project 20-05, “Synthesis of Information Related to Highway Problems,” searches
out and synthesizes useful knowledge from all available sources and prepares concise, documented
reports on specific topics. Reports from this endeavor constitute an NCHRP report series, Synthesis
of Highway Practice.
This synthesis series reports on current knowledge and practice, in a compact format, without the
detailed directions usually found in handbooks or design manuals. Each report in the series provides
a compendium of the best knowledge available on those measures found to be the most successful
in resolving specific problems.
FOREWORD
By Mariela Garcia-Colberg
Staff Officer
Transportation Research Board
In 2006, the Transportation Research Board published NCHRP Synthesis 357: Use of Geophysics
for Transportation Projects, which identified benefits and challenges of using geophysical methods for
transportation projects. Some of the obstacles identified by the study were recognition of appropriate
applications and conditions, definition of investigation scope, gathering of adequate data, and objective
interpretation by qualified professionals. The study identified such issues as the need for improved
education, standards, and training resources. Since publication of this synthesis, however, the hardware
and software used for geophysical methods and techniques have been improved.
The purpose of this synthesis is to provide an updated matrix of geophysical techniques for each
application, as well as to provide background and training resources for geophysical methods that
have consistently yielded quantifiable value through improvements to design efficiencies and reduc-
tions in construction risks. The synthesis assesses changes in the state of practice since publication of
NCHRP Synthesis 357 and includes downhole methods and developing technologies. The synthesis
also helps identify available tools and how the agencies can overcome obstacles to use.
The study, prepared by Brent L. Rosenblad and Andrew Boeckmann from the University of
Missouri, captures the current practice of using geophysical methods among state DOTs. It presents
a literature review and results of a survey distributed to 55 agencies, including transportation
agencies for all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia, as well as three offices of the
Federal Lands Division of FHWA. Forty-four completed responses were received from the 50 state
DOTs in the survey sample, a response rate of 88%. Case examples of five state DOTs identified
as frequent users of geophysical methods are provided; these present an in-depth analysis of the
common use methods and applications, challenges, and lessons learned of each program.
The members of the topic panel are acknowledged on page iv. This synthesis is an immediately
useful document that records acceptable practices within the limitations of available knowledge
at the time of its preparation. As progress in research and practice continues, new knowledge will
be added to that now at hand.


CONTENTS
1 Summary
3 Chapter 1 Introduction
3 Objectives
4 Methodology and Outline
5 Synthesis Definition of Geophysical Methods
6 Chapter 2 Literature Review

6 Review of Findings from NCHRP Synthesis 357: Use of Geophysics
9 Geophysical Methods and Applications for Transportation Projects
19 Educational and Training Resources
21 Chapter 3 Survey Results

21 General Information on Use of Geophysical Methods
26 Methods, Applications, and Objectives of Geophysical Investigations
30 Agency Practices for Application of Geophysical Methods
33 Training Resources Related to Geophysical Methods
35 Noteworthy and Challenging Applications of Geophysical Methods
35 Summary of Significant Findings
38 Chapter 4 Case Examples

38 Minnesota Department of Transportation
41 Virginia Department of Transportation
44 Ohio Department of Transportation
49 New Jersey Department of Transportation
52 California Department of Transportation
58 Lessons Learned from All Case Examples
60 Chapter 5 Conclusions
60 Summary of Major Findings
61 Conclusions
62 Suggestions for Future Research
63 References
A-1 Appendix A Survey Questionnaire
B-1 Appendix B Survey Responses


SUMMARY
Advancements in Use
Geophysical methods provide an effective and economical means to characterize sub-
surface conditions for transportation projects. Despite these benefits, challenges and
obstacles remain that must be overcome if routine implementation of geophysical methods for
transportation projects is to be realized. In 2006, the Transportation Research Board pub-
lished NCHRP Synthesis 357: Use of Geophysics for Transportation Projects (Sirles 2006).
Since publication of the report, much has changed in the development and application of
geophysical methods. These changes in the state of practice since 2006 are the motivation
for this study. This synthesis documents current practices for the application of geophysi-
cal methods in transportation projects. Practices were gleaned from a review of literature,
a survey of transportation agencies, and case examples of select agencies.
A review of current literature of near-surface geophysical methods found that numerous
surface and borehole geophysical methods are available and relevant to transportation
infrastructure problems. This document provides a brief overview of 15 surface geo-
physical methods and nine borehole methods. Compared with 2006, the ability to rapidly
generate two-dimensional and three-dimensional subsurface images has improved with
developments in tomographic and full waveform inversion techniques. Also, the capa-
bilities of active and passive surface wave methods have progressed significantly since
2006. In addition, the capabilities of borehole imaging and logging tools have continued
to improve. An updated matrix of geophysical methods and their application is provided
in this document.
A survey was distributed electronically to 55 agencies, including state transportation
agencies for all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia as well as three offices of
the Federal Lands Highway Division of FHWA. Forty-four of the 50 state DOTs responded
to the survey, which represents a response rate of 88% for the state agencies. In addition, the
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Central Federal Lands Highway, and Western Federal
Lands Highway responded to the survey.
Results of the survey indicate the vast majority of agencies use geophysical methods, with
43 of 48 respondents (90%) indicating their agency uses geophysical methods. That propor-
tion is little changed from the results of a 2006 NCHRP synthesis survey (Sirles), in which
86% of respondents indicated use of geophysical methods by their agency. A wide variety of
motivations for using geophysical methods were selected by survey respondents, but most
commonly cited was the ability to provide a subsurface image of a large mass of materials.
All five respondents who indicated their agency did not have experience with geophysical
methods reported that agency engineers were unfamiliar with geophysical methods.
According to the survey results, the most common estimate for how frequently agencies
use geophysical methods is three to five times per year. Seven respondents indicated their
1

2 Advancements in Use of Geophysical Methods for Transportation Projects
agency uses geophysical methods more than 10 times per year. For half of the agencies with
geophysical experience, respondents indicated the frequency of use of geophysical methods
is increasing. There is not much evidence that the frequency of application has increased
since the 2006 survey by Sirles. The estimated frequency of application of geophysical
methods was largely the same as reported by Sirles for the 2006 survey, but survey respon-
dent estimates provide some indication that agency spending on geophysical methods may
have increased slightly.
Ground-penetrating radar and seismic refraction are the most commonly applied geo-
physical methods, with nearly 90% of survey respondents indicating use of each method.
The 2006 survey by Sirles also found general seismic and ground-penetrating radar to be
the most common methods. This survey, however, indicated a significant increase in the
proportion of agencies with experience in several geophysical methods—notably seismic
refraction, surface wave methods (active and passive), electrical tomography, microgravity,
and both optical and acoustic televiewer methods. Survey results indicate that geologic
objectives pertaining to rock, specifically determining the depth to bedrock, bedrock
topography, and bedrock rippability, are the most common.
Responses to survey questions about potential new training resources were highly skewed
toward a favorable view of new training resources. At least 70% of respondents said new
training resources would be somewhat likely or very likely to increase agency use of geo-
physical methods. That result held for three different training formats, with in-person train-
ing viewed as most likely to increase use of geophysical methods. Another question asked
about the usefulness of five different training content areas. The majority of respondents
indicated all five content areas would be “very useful,” with uses and applications of geo-
physical methods and interpretation of engineering parameters from geophysical results
viewed as most useful.
Case examples were provided by five agencies identified as high-frequency users of geo-
physical methods. The history of use of geophysical methods among the agencies varied
considerably, as did the means of implementation. Three of the agencies performed most
of their geophysical measurements in-house. These agencies considered such methods to
save costs and used them on more projects. Two of the agencies performed measurements
almost exclusively through external contracting and reported few problems with the con-
tracting process.
The agencies provided several interesting case examples in which geophysical measure-
ments provided a benefit through cost savings, were the only viable approach for the condi-
tions encountered, allowed for imaging of a large subsurface volume, or allowed for rapid
collection of subsurface information. Examples where geophysical results were confirmed
by ground truth were also provided. All agencies commented on the need to supplement
geophysical investigations with a drilling and sampling program whenever possible.
The agencies interviewed also indicated a need for training resources. The primary need
identified by the agencies was for training for engineers on the capabilities, limitations, and
typical applications of geophysical methods.

CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Effective and economical characterization of subsurface site conditions is a critical component

of transportation projects. Uncertainties associated with insufficient or poor site characteriza-
tion can lead to overly conservative designs, increased risk of poor performance, cost increases
attributable to changed conditions, and project delays (Boeckmann and Loehr 2016). Geophysical
methods provide a means to rapidly and economically characterize subsurface conditions and
infer soil properties over a spatial extent that is not possible with conventional methods. Despite
these benefits, challenges and obstacles remain that must be overcome if routine implementa-
tion of geophysical methods for transportation projects is to be realized.
In 2006, the National Academies published NCHRP Synthesis 357: Use of Geophysics for
Transportation Projects (Sirles), which provided an eye-opening look at the way transportation
agencies were using geophysical methods and the obstacles faced in implementing those methods.
Among the many issues identified in that survey was the need for improved education, better
training resources, and consistent standards.
Since publication of that report, much has changed in the development and application of
geophysical methods, including new and improved methods, expanded applications for trans-
portation projects, and more user-friendly software. These changes in the state of practice since
2006 are the motivation for this synthesis, which documents current practices and challenges in
the use of geophysical methods for transportation projects.
Current practices for using geophysical methods on transportation projects are investigated
through a literature review of geophysical methods and applications, a survey of transportation
agencies, and case examples of agencies with particularly valuable experiences using geophysical
methods. Particular focus is given to identifying obstacles to use and how they can be overcome.
Objectives
The primary objective of this synthesis is to evaluate the current state of practice in the use of
geophysical methods by transportation agencies. The focus is on assessing changes in the state
of practice since publication of NCHRP Synthesis 357 in 2006, including the reasons for changes
in practice and the improvements achieved in practice. Through use of a comprehensive survey
sent to state transportation agencies, this study aimed to quantify
• Frequency of use of geophysical methods,
• Changes in use over the past 5 years,
• Reasons for using geophysical methods,
• Common methods and applications used,
• Policies and guidelines for implementing geophysics,
3

• Budgeting and contracting practices for geophysical measurements, and

• Familiarity with educational and training resources.
The survey included several questions that were similar to those asked of the agencies in 2006
to allow for comparison of the 2006 state of practice and the 2019 state of practice.
A second objective of this synthesis was to develop an updated matrix relating the geophysical
methods to appropriate objectives. This updated matrix includes the addition of several methods
and applications that were not shown in the 2006 synthesis.
Methodology and Outline

The required information was gathered through three activities: a literature review, a survey of
transportation agencies, and interviews with five agencies selected for case examples on the basis
of their high frequency of geophysics use. These activities are summarized below, and results of
each activity are presented in Chapters 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Conclusions are presented in
Chapter 5.
Literature Review
The literature review is separated into three sections. The first section presents a concise
summary of the important findings from NCHRP Synthesis 357: Use of Geophysics for Transpor-
tation Projects (Sirles 2006). Select figures from that document that are relevant to the findings
of the current survey are reproduced here to aid in comparisons of the 2006 and 2019 state of
practice in the use of geophysics on transportation projects.
The second section presents a brief overview of each of the geophysical methods mentioned
in the survey. The purpose of this review is not to provide a comprehensive background on each
method, but to familiarize the reader with the basic principles, implementation, and applica-
tions of each method referenced in the survey questions and synthesis document. Sources in
the literature that present the specific methods in more detail are also included in this section,
as are select examples of recent and noteworthy applications of some of the methods.
The third section provides a review of educational and training resources on the use of
geophysics that are available to transportation agencies. The section is divided into the fol-
lowing three areas of education and training: (1) education resources for understanding the
appropriate applications, capabilities, and limitations of geophysical methods for potential
users; (2) educational resources for a more in-depth understanding of the principles behind
geophysical methods and the interpretation of the results; and (3) training on how to perform
specific geophysical measurements.
Survey
A survey was distributed electronically to 55 agencies, including state transportation agen-
cies for all 50 U.S. states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia as well as three offices of
the Federal Lands Highway Division of FHWA. Forty-four of the 50 state DOTs responded
to the survey, which corresponds to a response rate of 88% for the state agencies. In addition,
responses were received from Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, Central Federal Lands
Highway, and Western Federal Lands Highway. The survey was distributed to agency geotech-
nical engineers, but the survey instructions encouraged the geotechnical engineers to share
the survey with any colleagues who might be better equipped to answer questions regarding
agency geophysical practices. The first question of the survey asked if the respondent’s agency

Introduction 5
had experience with geophysical methods for geotechnical site investigation. Respondents
who indicated their agency did not have experience with geophysical methods were asked to
indicate the reasons their agency had not used geophysical methods. Respondents who indi-
cated their agency did have experience with geophysical methods were asked 14 follow-up
questions. The follow-up questions inquired about motivations for application of geophysical
methods, frequency of use of geophysical methods, types of methods used, design applications
for geophysical methods, and contractual issues, among other topics. Finally, all respondents
(including those without geophysical experience) were asked three questions about training
resources related to geophysical methods. Results of the survey are presented in Chapter 3.
Case Examples
Survey responses were reviewed to identify five agencies that apply geophysical methods
frequently and have experience with noteworthy or challenging applications of geophysical
methods. Additional investigation into these agencies’ histories of developing geophysical
capabilities, common practices and applications, and specific case details was conducted
through interviews with agency personnel and reviews of available agency documents. Chapter 4
includes the results of each case example and a summary of lessons learned from the five case
example agencies.
Synthesis Definition of Geophysical Methods

For the purposes of this synthesis and its survey, the term “geophysical methods” is defined
as measurement techniques that apply physical principles to define geology and study earth
materials. This definition does not include nondestructive evaluation (NDE) methods that
are used to characterize the condition or properties of man-made materials and structures.
While some methods can be applied to both geological and man-made materials (e.g., surface
wave methods), this survey considers only the application of these methods for characterization
of geotechnical materials.

CHAPTER 2
Literature Review
The literature review presented in this chapter covers three topic areas. First, a summary
of relevant findings from the 2006 NCHRP Synthesis 357: Use of Geophysics for Transporta-
tion Projects is presented (Sirles). Second, a literature review of the various surface and bore-
hole geophysical methods discussed in this synthesis document is presented. This section also
includes a brief description of each method and its typical applications, recent examples of
method application, and an updated matrix of geophysical methods and associated geologic
investigation objectives. Third, a literature review of training and education resources related
to geophysical measurements is presented.
Review of Findings from NCHRP Synthesis 357:

Use of Geophysics for Transportation Projects
NCHRP Synthesis 357: Use of Geophysics for Transportation Projects (Sirles 2006) presented
the state of the industry on the use of geophysics in transportation projects. The synthesis
information was acquired from a variety of sources, including a literature review, interviews of
agency personnel, and a survey questionnaire. The survey questionnaire was sent to 70 agencies,
including transportation agencies for all 50 U.S. states, several federal agencies, and most
Canadian provinces. The response rate was 90%. A summary of the 2006 report is presented
in the following paragraphs. Among the most pertinent findings was that 86% of agencies
reported some use of geophysical methods. Percentages are given as a proportion of the agen-
cies that reported use of geophysical methods (i.e., agencies that did not use geophysical
methods were not included in the denominator).
Frequency of Geophysics Use

The survey found that among agencies that used geophysical methods, a majority (56%)
performed between 1 and 5 geophysical investigations per year, 9% performed less than 1 inves-
tigation per year, and 20% performed more than 10 investigations per year (Figure 1). Also,
60% of respondents reported that their agency’s use of geophysics had been increasing during
the past 5 years.
In-House versus External Contracting

The 2006 survey found the most common source of geotechnical measurements to be
external contractors (46%). The second most common source was a combination of both
in-house and contract capabilities (41%), and the least common source was only in-house
capabilities (13%).

Literature Review 7
Figure 1. Number of geophysical investigations

performed per year, as reported in 2006 synthesis
(Sirles 2006).
Perceived Benefits of Geophysics and Deterrent to Use

When agencies were asked what they considered the greatest benefits of geophysics in
transportation projects, their top three answers were as follows: data acquisition speed (21%),
cost benefit (19%), and better subsurface characterization (17%), as shown in Figure 2.
The three greatest deterrents to use were as follows: (1) lack of understanding, (2) non
uniqueness of results, and (3) lack of confidence, as shown in Figure 3. The top three actions
to overcome these deterrents were (1) training, (2) experience (and sharing experiences), and
(3) implementing standards.
Methods and Applications

The most commonly used methods reported by the respondents were seismic (26%),
ground-penetrating radar (GPR) (22%), and vibration monitoring (22%), as shown in Fig-
ure 4. The most common applications for geophysics (excluding nondestructive deflection
testing [NDT]) were bedrock mapping (32%), subsidence investigations (22%), and mapping
of soil deposits (11%), as shown in Figure 5. Also, 70% of the agencies reported that they use
only “proven, state-of-the-practice geophysical methods.”
Figure 2. Greatest benefits of geophysics in agency

transportation projects, as reported in 2006 synthesis
(Sirles 2006).

Figure 3. Greatest deterrents to use of geophysics

in agency transportation projects as reported in 2006
synthesis (Sirles 2006).
Figure 4. Most commonly used geophysical

methods, as reported in 2006 synthesis
(Sirles 2006).
Figure 5. Most common applications

of geophysics as reported in 2006 synthesis
(Sirles 2006).

Literature Review 9
Figure 6. Typical costs of geophysical

investigations and number of investigations
per year at certain cost level as reported in 2006
synthesis (Sirles 2006).
Budgeting and Cost

The 2006 survey results indicated that the fiscal budgets of most transportation agen-
cies (67%) do not include geophysics. Of “other” sources of funding for geophysics, 63% of
respondent agencies reported funds of less than $100,000. Only 10% used funds in excess of
$100,000 for geophysical investigations. Despite a lack of independent funds for geophysical
investigations, several agencies reported that such work is often funded through large annual
budgets for geotechnical investigations. The survey also reported that the decision maker for
budget issues related to the use of geophysics was typically either the division or branch manager
(32%) or the team leader or project manager (22%). Only 7% of agencies allocated annual
funds for geophysical research. The majority of geophysical investigations cost less than
$10,000, as shown in Figure 6.
Training
A common theme in the synthesis was the need for standards and more educational training.
At the time of the survey, FHWA’s Application of Geophysical Methods to Highway Related
Problems (Wightman et al. 2004) had only recently been developed. Though 69% of the
respondents indicated they were aware of the report, only 4% of the agencies reported that
they provided training related to geophysics. Training was also identified as one of the best
ways to increase staff confidence in the use of geophysical methods.
Geophysical Methods and Applications

This section includes brief descriptions of the basic principles and common applications of
the surface and borehole geophysical techniques referenced in the synthesis. Select examples
discussed in the literature of noteworthy applications are also presented. For detailed descrip-
tions of the methods and their applications, readers should refer to FHWA’s Application of
Geophysical Methods to Highway Related Problems (Wightman et al. 2004) or to other resources
described in the training and education section of this chapter.
In addition, this section includes an updated matrix of appropriate surface and borehole
methods and their associated geological investigation objectives.

Surface Geophysical Measurements

Surface geophysical methods are defined as methods that are performed without the need
for penetration into the subsurface through use of a borehole or penetrometer. All sources and
receivers used in the measurement are placed on or above the surface of the earth. Categories
of surface geophysical methods include seismic methods, electrical methods, electromagnetic
methods, magnetic methods, and gravity methods. Each category comprises several types of
measurements, which are briefly outlined in the next section.
Seismic Methods
When soil or rock is mechanically disturbed, body waves consisting of compression waves
(i.e., p-waves) and shear waves (i.e., s-waves) propagate outward from the source. If a free
surface is present, surface waves (i.e., Rayleigh waves or Love waves) will propagate along the
boundary. Seismic methods make use of these propagating mechanical waves to infer condi-
tions below the surface. One advantage of using seismic waves for measurement is that the
velocity of the waves can be directly related to the small-strain modulus of the material.
Therefore, in addition to providing a subsurface velocity profile, the velocity values serve as
important parameters for engineering analysis, especially for earthquake applications.
Seismic Refraction. Seismic refraction is used to create a model of the thickness, depth,
and velocity of subsurface layers by recording the arrival of waves at the surface emanating from
critically refracted waves that travel along layer boundaries. It is one of the most commonly used
methods in geotechnical near-surface applications. Refraction measurements may use either
p-wave or s-wave arrivals and are performed using a source (e.g., a sledge hammer, a weight
drop, or explosives) that is excited at multiple locations and a spread of geophones (typically
24 or more) that are placed at equal intervals along the surface. Where soft layers exist beneath
stiff layers, refraction will miss the soft layers and lead to errors in depth calculations. Common
applications of refraction are mapping bedrock topography, estimating groundwater depth, and
obtaining seismic velocities for excavation evaluation (i.e., rippability).
Seismic Reflection. Seismic reflection detects the arrival of body waves (p- or s-waves)
that travel downward from the source and reflect off of layer boundaries with a contrast in
impedance (i.e., a product of velocity and mass density). The measurement is performed with
a seismic source (e.g., a sledge hammer, a weight drop, a minivib [seismic vibrator], or explosives)
and a spread of receivers that record the wave arrivals. The reflected arrival is often of low
amplitude and is never the first on the wave record, so the data are processed in a number of
ways to determine the reflected arrivals. Reflection surveys are not as common as refraction
measurements are in engineering practice, but they are useful for applications that require
mapping of the subsurface stratigraphy or other features such as faults and subsurface
anomalies. Figure 7 shows a shear wave reflection profile from a survey performed in Norway
using a minivib source.
Seismic Refraction Tomography. Seismic refraction tomography is an alternative approach

to processing refraction data that produces two-dimensional (2D) profiles of p-wave or s-wave
velocities. In the tomographic approach, the subsurface is divided into a number of cells, as
opposed to the continuous layers of constant velocity used in conventional processing. The ray
paths are traced through the model, and velocity values for each cell are determined through
an inversion process. Compared with conventional refraction processing methods, the tomo-
graphic inversion approach to processing refraction data can better handle variations in lateral
velocity and provides a higher-resolution image of the subsurface. The method is used in many
of the same applications as is seismic refraction, but it is especially effective for imaging lateral

Literature Review 11
Figure 7. Depth migrated section from shear wave reflection measurements
using a minivib source in Trondheim, Norway (Krawczyk et al. 2013).
variability. An example of seismic tomography for imaging lateral variability between boreholes
using borehole-to-surface tomography is presented in Figure 39 (in Chapter 4).
Horizontal-to-Vertical Spectral Ratio. The horizontal-to-vertical (H/V) spectral ratio

(HVSR) method (sometimes called single-station passive) is a passive seismic method that uses
recordings of ambient noise on a single, three-component sensor collected over a span of
several minutes. When the sensor detects a strong impedance contrast (velocity contrast greater
than about 2), a peak will be observed in a plot of the ratio of the frequency spectrum from the
horizontal sensor divided by the spectrum from the vertical sensor. This frequency of the peak
in the HVSR plot is used in earthquake engineering applications to estimate site frequency but
can also be used to estimate the depth to bedrock. Recent studies have focused on using this
method to detect landslide slip surfaces (Pazzi et al. 2017), and a novel use of this method is
described in the case examples in Chapter 4.
Full Waveform Inversion. Methods such as seismic refraction tomography use the first
arrivals of the waves of interest to create subsurface velocity models. Full waveform inversion
(FWI) is a more complex approach that uses the full recorded waveform in the inversion process.
The data collection equipment, like that used in other seismic methods, consists of a spread of
geophones and multiple impacts of a seismic source (typically a sledge hammer) in and around
the geophone spread. The subsurface velocity model is divided into cells, and an inversion
approach is used to generate a 2D model of p-wave and s-wave velocities that produces theo-
retical waveforms that match the recorded waveforms. The method has been shown to be effec-
tive for detecting subsurface anomalies such as abandoned mines and karst features (see Sullivan
et al. 2016; Zheng et al. 2016) and has also been used for applications such as foundation
reuse (Nguyen et al. 2016). Recently, the capabilities of FWI have expanded to include three-
dimensional (3D) modeling, which has successfully detected voids in karst terrain (Tran et al.
2019). An example of the imaging capabilities of 3D FWI is shown in Figure 8.
Active Source Surface Wave Methods. Surface wave methods use measurements of surface
waves (typically Rayleigh waves) to infer shear wave velocity profiles. Active source methods use an
impact source (hammer or drop weight) or a vibratory source (e.g., Vibroseis) to create
surface wave energy that is recorded by a spread of vertically oriented geophones positioned
on the surface. The phase velocity of the surface wave at different frequencies is determined from

Figure 8. Field experiment results showing distribution of shear wave velocity (Vs ) and compression wave
velocity (Vp ) (m/s) in final inverted model. Low-velocity regions indicating voids were confirmed by standard
penetration test (V = velocity) (Tran et al. 2019).
the geophone recordings, and a dispersion curve that relates phase velocity to frequency is
developed. The shear wave velocity profile that produces a matching dispersion curve is deter-
mined through an inversion process. The spectral analysis of surface waves (SASW) method
and the multichannel analysis of surface waves (MASW) method are two surface wave
methods commonly used in geotechnical applications. Common applications include devel-
opment of shear wave velocity profiles for earthquake engineering and imaging of the subsur-
face for stratigraphy or anomaly detection. One limitation of the method is that it requires
a low-frequency source (heavy drop weight or large vibrator) to generate deep shear wave
velocity profiles.
Passive Surface Wave Methods. Passive surface wave methods are based on the same prin-
ciples as are active surface wave methods, but they use ambient surface wave energy. Because the
location of the source is not known, a 2D (e.g., circular) array is used so the source direction can
be determined. The abundance of ambient low-frequency energy makes this method especially
useful for deep profiling applications (i.e., depths of hundreds of meters). Recently, Deschenes
et al. (2018) used passive measurement to generate shear wave velocity profiles to depths of
more than 1,000 meters in the Canterbury region of New Zealand, as shown in Figure 9.
A variation on the passive method is the refraction microtremor (ReMi) method, which uses
a linear array and makes assumptions regarding the characteristics of the ambient wavefield.
Electrical Methods
Electrical methods measure the electrical characteristics of subsurface materials, such as resis-
tivity, voltage decay, or electric fields, to infer subsurface conditions. Although the electrical
properties measured are rarely of direct use in engineering analysis, the values can be associated
with subsurface conditions.

Figure 9. Deep shear wave velocity profile developed from inversion of passive surface wave measurements
(Deschenes et al. 2018).
Resistivity. Electrical resistivity (ER) measurements are among the most common in geo-
technical applications. This method measures the apparent resistivity of a volume of soil and rock
by injecting current through a pair of electrodes, then measuring the potential difference between
those electrodes and a pair of electrodes on the surface. Resistivity soundings to determine varia-
tion in depth can be performed by increasing the spacing between electrodes to increase the depth
of penetration. Traverses to determine lateral variation can be performed by maintaining fixed
spacing between electrodes and placing them at fixed intervals along the surface. Electrical resis-
tivity tomography (ERT), or electrical resistivity imaging (ERI), involves creating 2D images of
the subsurface resistivity values from the apparent resistivity values collected by a multielectrode
configuration at the surface. The resulting image shows both the depth and the lateral variation
in resistivity and can be useful for detecting features with different electrical properties, such as
changes in soil, voids and fractures in rock, depth of bedrock, variations in saturation, and
changes in groundwater conditions. Field conditions, such as buried metal, overhead lines, or
metal fences, can negatively influence the quality of the data. The use of ERI to determine bedrock
depth and detect the disturbed area of a shallow landslide is illustrated in Figure 28 and Figure 33,
respectively, in Chapter 4.
Induced Polarization. Induced polarization (IP) measurements are often performed in

conjunction with ER measurements. Like ER, the IP measurement is performed by injecting
current into the ground through two electrodes and monitoring the potential using two other
electrodes. In this case, the decay in voltage over time is monitored. In geotechnical applications,
the ER/IP method has been used to detect open and clay-filled cracks (Schmutz et al. 2011) and
to map landfills (Gazoty et al. 2012), and has recently proved useful for estimating the unknown
depths of bridge foundations (Tucker et al. 2015), as shown in Figure 10.
Self-Potential. Self-potential or spontaneous potential (SP) is a passive electrical technique

that infers subsurface conditions by measuring small, naturally occurring electrical fields. The
survey is performed by measuring the potential difference between two electrodes—one base

Figure 10. Inverted IP section showing interpreted foundation element

(rectangular) in a medium-dense fine sand (Tucker et al. 2015 with permission
from ASCE).
electrode and one mobile electrode that is moved around the survey location. In engineering
applications, the SP method is used primarily to map the flow of groundwater, including flow
conditions in karst terrain (Bumpus and Kruse 2014).
Electromagnetic Methods
Several geophysical methods use the principles of electromagnetism (EM) to infer subsurface
conditions. These methods are used to image the subsurface in an effort to detect features of
interest. Induction methods (time-domain EM and frequency-domain EM) use a time-varying
magnetic field as a source to generate electrical currents in the ground and are effective for
locating changes in conductivity (the reciprocal of resistivity) in the subsurface. Another EM
method, GPR, uses high-frequency EM radiation to propagate radar pulses into the ground and
detect subsurface features from reflections of the radar pulse.
Ground-Penetrating Radar. GPR is one of the most commonly used methods in near-

surface geophysical investigations. The method propagates high-frequency EM waves into
the subsurface to record reflections from subsurface interfaces with contrasts in the dielectric
constant. The travel time and amplitude of the received waves can be used to infer the location
of subsurface structures or features. For geophysical applications, antennae with frequencies
in the range of 25 to 1,500 megahertz are typically used, while higher-frequency systems are
used for nondestructive testing applications such as pavement evaluations. Lower-frequency
systems will penetrate deeper below the subsurface at the expense of target resolution. GPR
can be used to detect a wide range of features for geotechnical engineering applications. Such
features might include subsurface stratigraphic changes, bedrock depth, the water table, or
underground storage tanks. One common application is the detection of cavities and voids in
karst terrain (see Estrada-Medina et al. 2010), as illustrated in Figure 11. A major limitation of
GPR is its limited depth penetration in conditions of clayey and saturated soils.
Time-Domain EM. Time-domain EM (TDEM, also known as transient EM) is an active

source method to determine the resistivity distribution of the subsurface. TDEM is based on the
induction of electrical currents in the subsurface by an EM transmitter loop. After the transmitting
signal is turned off, a receiver coil is used to record the secondary currents that are generated in
the subsurface by the EM source. A sounding curve that relates the measured resistivity as a func-
tion of time after the signal is turned off is developed. A model of subsurface resistivity is created
by matching the theoretical sounding curve to the measured curve. The depth of investigation is
controlled by the size of the transmitter loop and can range from tens of feet to thousands of feet.
TDEM is effective for identifying conductive layers and is commonly used in engineering applica-
tions to detect metallic objects (such as utilities, underground tanks, or unexploded ordnance),
to map the groundwater surface, and to map changes in soil and rock (Hicken and Best 2013).

Figure 11. Soil pockets observed in a quarry wall (left), and GPR record showing
soil pockets (SP = soil pocket) (Estrada-Medina et al. 2010).
Frequency-Domain EM. In the frequency-domain EM (FDEM) method, the transmitter

loop generates a sinusoidally varying current at a specific frequency. The measurement is based
on analysis of the in-phase and out-of-phase components of the secondary field recorded at the
surface. Terrain conductivity meter and very low frequency EM are two types of FDEM. Terrain
conductivity meter measurements can be performed without ground contact and are effective
for detecting a range of subsurface features associated with changes in conductivity.
Magnetic Methods
Magnetic methods are passive methods used to measure localized distortions in the Earth’s
magnetic field caused by the presence of ferromagnetic materials. Data can be collected either
through a single sensor that measures the strength of the magnetic field or through two sensors
placed at different heights above the ground surface that measure the gradient of the magnetic
field. Magnetic methods are commonly used to locate buried metallic objects.
Gravity Methods
Gravity methods passively measure changes in the force of gravity—attributable to local
variations in density—to infer subsurface conditions. Engineering applications of gravity methods
are often termed “microgravity measurements.” Measurements are taken with a gravimeter, and
the data are corrected to account for other factors, such as elevation, surrounding topography,
and tidal effects. Precise values of ground elevation (within 2 centimeters) at the measurement
points must be determined. The gravity method is used in engineering applications to detect
subsurface voids or cavities and to determine overburden thickness. Paine et al. (2012) describe
the use of microgravity measurements and radar interferometry to assess the risk of collapse in
sinkhole-prone areas.
Borehole Geophysical Measurements

Many of the surface geophysical measurements just described can also be performed in a
borehole. The objective of borehole geophysical methods is typically to infer properties of the
surrounding soil and rock. In addition, many of these methods provide a continuous record
of depth that can be correlated with data from other boreholes or data from soil samples
taken at specific depths. The borehole methods mentioned in the survey are briefly described
in the following paragraphs, along with the soil properties that can be obtained from the
measurements.

Seismic Methods
Seismic borehole methods involve exciting body wave (p-wave and s-wave) energy and detect-
ing the waves’ arrival to determine the propagation velocity in the soil or rock. The product
derived from these measurements is a depth profile of p- and s-wave velocities, which can be used
to determine a material’s small-strain stiffness properties. Common seismic borehole methods
include the downhole seismic, crosshole seismic, and P-S suspension logger methods.
Downhole Seismic. Downhole measurements require a single borehole with the source at
the surface and a downhole geophone sensor that can be moved to different depths in the bore-
hole. P-wave and s-wave energy is excited at the surface, and wave arrival times are recorded by
the downhole sensor. The sensor is incrementally moved down the hole, where the measurement
is repeated. Downhole measurements can also be taken with a seismic cone penetrometer.
Crosshole Seismic. Crosshole seismic measurements require two or three boreholes with an
in-hole source and receivers in adjacent boreholes. Measurements are taken by exciting p- and
s-waves from the source borehole and detecting the wave arrivals in the receiver boreholes. After a
measurement is completed at a given depth, the source and receivers are typically moved together
to the next depth. When measurements are performed at several combinations of source and
receiver depths, tomographic images of the velocity profile between boreholes can be developed.
P-S Suspension Logger. The P-S suspension logger is a single 7-meter downhole probe that
contains a source and two receivers. The P-S logger requires only a single fluid-filled borehole
and is often used to measure profiles in deep uncased boreholes of several hundred feet. A
common engineering application of P-S logging measurements is the generation of deep velocity
profiles for use in earthquake site response calculations.
Electrical and EM Methods

Several of the electrical and EM methods described earlier have also been adopted for use in
boreholes, as described in the following paragraphs.
Borehole Radar. Borehole radar, like GPR, uses transmitting and receiving antennae to send
radar pulses and detect the reflected arrivals. The system must be used in uncased or PVC (polyvinyl
chloride)–cased boreholes. Measurements are usually taken in a single borehole but may be used
in a crosshole fashion to generate tomographic images. Typical applications of borehole radar
include mapping voids, determining fracture orientation and density, imaging the soil profile,
and imaging embedded manufactured structures. An example of borehole radar used for
fracture mapping (Liu et al. 2006) is presented in Figure 12.
Borehole Electrical Resistivity. Measurements of resistivity and spontaneous potential can

also be performed in boreholes. Normal resistivity logs use electrodes variably spaced along the
borehole probe to record the resistivity of surrounding soil and rock. Borehole measurements
of spontaneous potential are performed in fluid-filled holes and record potentials developed
between the borehole fluid and the surrounding soil and rock. These measurements are often
used to determine lithology.
Borehole EM Induction. Borehole EM induction methods are used to measure conductivity

or resistivity of the soil and rock surrounding the borehole. This method can be used in both
PVC-cased boreholes and dry boreholes. The conductivity and resistivity values can be related
to the porosity, permeability, and clay content of the surrounding materials.
Nuclear
Borehole nuclear methods are passive or active measurement techniques that rely on
the detection of unstable isotopes near the borehole. Natural gamma logging measures the

Figure 12. Example of (a) borehole radar section, (b) interpreted fracture
reflections, and (c) spatial distribution of fractures (Liu et al. 2006).
background levels of radiation and can be used for lithology, for correlation of strata, and to
infer permeability. Active methods such as gamma-gamma logging and neutron logging intro-
duce small levels of radiation and measure backscatter from the soil and rock. Gamma-gamma
logging can be used to determine density of subsurface strata, and neutron logging can be used
to determine moisture content and porosity.
Televiewers
Borehole televiewers provide oriented images (either optical or acoustic) of the borehole wall.
Optical televiewers use a high-resolution digital camera to obtain an optical image of the bore-
hole wall. Acoustic televiewers use a sonar transducer to obtain an image of acoustic waves
reflected from the borehole wall. The resulting high-resolution images are useful for detecting
lithologic contacts, cavities, fractures, and joints, as well as for characterizing the strike, dip, and
spacing of these features. An example of an acoustic televiewer image is shown in Figure 36.
Table 1 presents a matrix of the applicability of the methods described here to specific geologic
investigation objectives. Explanations of the specific objectives listed in Table 1 are as follows:
• Determine rock depth. Determine depth to top of rock below a single point.
• Determine rock topography. Create 2D model of top of rock.
• Detect fracture/fault zones. Detect and locate areas of faulting and fracturing of rock.
• Characterize fractures/faults. Determine characteristics of faults and fractures such as
orientation, spacing, and in-fill material.
• Determine rippability. Determine ease with which rock can be mechanically excavated.
• Map weak zones in rock. Locate regions of weakness attributable to factors such as weathering
and fracturing.

Table 1. Matrix of commonly used geophysical methods in relation to geologic investigation objectives.
Surface Methods Borehole Methods
Resistivity/SP
Acoustic Tele.
Surface Wave
Tomography
Optical Tele.
Resistivity
Downhole
Refraction
Refraction
Reflection
PS Logger
Crosshole
Induction
Magnetic
Nuclear
Gravity
TDEM
FDEM
HVSR
Radar
Application
GPR
FWI
SP
IP
Determine rock depth 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2
Determine rock topography 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 2
Detect fracture/fault zones 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1
Characterize fractures/faults 1 2 1 2 1 1 1
Determine rippability 1 1 2 2 1 1 1
Map weak zones in rock 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1
Map lithology in rock 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
Determine rock mass stiffness 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Determine rock mass density 2 2 1
Map sands, clays, gravels 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1
Map organic materials 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
Map landfills 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1
Determine soil stiffness 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1
Determine soil density 2 2 2 1
Map groundwater table 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Map groundwater flow 1 2
Map landslide extent 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Identify landslide slip surface 2 2 2 2 2 2
Detect voids, cavities 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1
Image scour features 1 1
Estimate clay content 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1
Notes: 1 = primary application (method is effective and commonly used for this application); 2 = secondary application (method can provide valuable
direct or indirect information for application); blank spaces indicate that method is not typically used for application.
• Map lithology in rock. Map changes in rock type (most effective in conjunction with borehole
control).
• Determine rock mass stiffness. Determine quantitative value of small-strain rock stiffness
from velocity measurements.
• Determine rock mass density. Correlate measurements with rock density or rock density
variations.
• Map sands, clays, gravels. Map soil type (most effective in conjunction with borehole control).
• Map organic materials. Map the lateral extent and depth of organic deposits.
• Map landfills. Map the lateral extent and depth of landfill materials.
• Determine soil stiffness. Determine quantitative value of small-strain soil stiffness from
velocity measurements.
• Determine soil density. Correlate measurements with soil density or soil density variations.
• Map groundwater table. Locate the depth to the groundwater table or depth to full satura-
tion of soils.
• Map groundwater flow. Map locations of groundwater movement and flow paths.
• Map landslide extent. Map the lateral extent and depth of disturbed soil from a landslide
event.
• Identify landslide slip surface. Locate the depth of the landslide slip surface.
• Detect voids, cavities. Detect the presence of voids and cavities such as karst features or
abandoned mines.
• Image scour features. Determine depth and extent of existing scour features, as well as previ-
ously in-filled scour holes and surfaces.
• Estimate clay content. Estimate percentage of clay in soil.

Educational and Training Resources

A variety of educational and training resources are available to geotechnical engineers and
other users of geophysical methods. This portion of the literature review provides a summary of
current educational and training resources regarding (1) applications of geophysical methods,
(2) fundamentals of geophysical methods, and (3) performing geophysical measurements.
Applications of Geophysical Methods

Several training and educational resources are available to help geotechnical engineers under-
stand the capabilities, limitations, and appropriate applications of the various geophysical methods.
This basic level of training does not require users to know how to perform the measurements
or even how the methods work, but it instead provides information on how the methods can
be used for engineering applications. One of the best sources on appropriate applications of
geophysical methods for transportation projects is FHWA’s Application of Geophysical Methods
to Highway Related Problems (Wightman et al. 2004). Although this manual is now 16 years old,
its information is still relevant and helps users easily identify appropriate methods for different
investigation objectives. Another older resource is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ document
titled Geotechnical Investigations (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2001), which provides in
Chapter 4 a 1–4 scale for rating the applicability of methods for various objectives.
A more recent resource is Transportation Research Circular No. E-C130: Geophysical Methods
Commonly Employed for Geotechnical Site Characterization (Anderson et al. 2008), which
includes tables of potential applications as well as information on selecting appropriate methods
and geophysical contractors. In addition, a recent California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans) document titled Geophysical Methods for Determining Geotechnical Engineering
Properties of Earth Materials (Coe et al. 2018) presented a comprehensive overview of the
various engineering properties that can be measured or inferred from geophysical methods.
Several organizations sponsor webinars or short courses on geophysics-related topics. In
2018, FHWA offered an Every Day Counts (EDC)-5 webinar to transportation agencies. The
webinar, Advanced Geotechnical Methods in Exploration (A-GaME), presented examples of the
successful use of geophysical methods in transportation projects. Other organizations that offer
webinars and short courses include ASCE’s Geo-Institute, the Environmental and Engineer-
ing Geophysical Society (EEGS), and the Society of Exploration Geophysicists (SEG). EEGS
has even offered the short course “Near Surface Characterization Using the HVSR Passive
Seismic Method” during its Annual Meeting/Symposium on the Application of Geophysics
to Engineering and Environmental Problems (SAGEEP). The organization also maintains a
“What Is Geophysics?” web page that covers many of the basics of geophysical methods and
their common applications.
Other sources of information on practical applications of geophysics are conference
proceedings and journal publications. The ASCE Geo-Institute annual GeoCongress confer-
ence, Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, Society of Exploration Geophysicists
Near-Surface Geophysics Technical Section Annual Meeting, and EEGS Annual Meeting/
SAGEEP are all sources of papers on practical use of near-surface geophysics in engineering
applications. Relevant journals include Geophysics, Leading Edge, Near Surface Geophysics,
Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, and the Transportation Research Record,
to name a few.
In addition, most of the major suppliers of geophysical services maintain web pages or down-
loadable documents with summary information on the various geophysical methods and their
appropriate applications.

Fundamentals of Geophysical Measurements

In some cases, practicing engineers either need or want a deeper understanding of geophysical
methods. Training and education for this audience help users grasp the principles of geophysical
measurements and understand the offerings of geophysical contractors.
FHWA’s Application of Geophysical Methods to Highway Related Problems (Wightman et al. 2004)
describes the techniques, data collection, and data analysis involved in the various methods. So
many books and textbooks are devoted to near-surface geophysical methods that it is impos-
sible to provide a comprehensive list. A few recent examples include Field Geophysics (Milsom
and Eriksen 2011), a small handbook that covers the fundamentals of various geophysical methods;
An Introduction to Applied and Environmental Geophysics (Reynolds 2011), which is more
comprehensive; and the textbook Surface Wave Methods for Near-Surface Site Characterization
(Foti et al. 2017), which is devoted solely to seismic surface wave methods.
Performing Geophysical Measurements

As more transportation agencies choose to perform geophysical measurements in-house,
those agencies are experiencing a growing need for training. Some methods commonly per-
formed in-house by transportation agencies include GPR, resistivity, refraction, MASW, and
ReMi. Because these methods are often carried out by personnel with limited backgrounds in
geophysics, effective training is critical. Equipment vendors are the most frequent suppliers of
training on geophysical methods. Many vendors offer courses on how to collect, process, and
interpret geophysical data, and some even assist with data processing for difficult cases.
In addition to vendors, most of the major conferences mentioned earlier routinely offer
short courses on how to perform geophysical measurements. The 2019 SEG meeting offered
a 2-day course titled “Practical Seismic Surface Wave Methods,” which covered MASW
measurements. In 2018, EEGS offered “Passive Surface Wave Methods: Theory and Practice”
and “GPR Principles, Practices, and Processing.”

CHAPTER 3
Survey Results
A survey was distributed electronically to 55 agencies, including state transportation agen-

cies for all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia as well as three offices of the
Federal Lands Highway Division of FHWA. The complete survey questionnaire is provided
in Appendix A, and complete survey results are presented in Appendix B. Forty-four of the
50 state DOTs responded to the survey, which represents a response rate of 88% for the state
agencies. Responding agencies are shown in the map of Figure 13. In addition, the District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico, Central Federal Lands Highway, and Western Federal Lands Highway
responded to the survey. This chapter summarizes results of the survey, including general
information on experience with geophysical methods; geophysical methods, objectives, and
applications; and agency practices for application of geophysical methods.
The first question of the survey asked if the respondent’s agency had experience with geo-
physical methods for geotechnical site investigation. Respondents who indicated their agency
did not have experience with geophysical methods were asked to indicate the reasons their
agency had not used geophysical methods. Respondents who indicated their agency did have
experience with geophysical methods were asked 14 follow-up questions. The follow-up ques-
tions inquired about motivations for application of geophysical methods, frequency of use of
geophysical methods, types of methods used, design applications for geophysical methods,
and contractual issues, among other topics. Finally, all respondents (including those without
geophysical experience) were asked three questions about training resources related to geo-
physical methods.
Results from the survey are presented in this chapter, which is organized by survey topic.
For most topics, results are compared with the results of the previous synthesis (Sirles 2006),
which was summarized in Chapter 2.
General Information on Use of Geophysical Methods

Survey responses established which agencies have experience with geophysical methods,
motivations for or against use of geophysical methods, frequency of use of geophysical methods,
and agency spending on application of geophysical methods. Results for each topic are
summarized in the following sections.
Agencies with Geophysical Methods Experience

For survey purposes, the term “geophysical methods” was defined as measurement techniques
that apply physical principles to define geology and study earth materials. The survey defini-
tion explicitly excluded methods used to characterize manufactured materials and structures.
21

AK WA VT
ME
MT ND
OR MN NH
WI MA
ID SD NY
RI
WY MI
PA CT
NE IA
NV IL IN OH NJ
UT WV DE
CO MD
CA KS MO KY VA
NC
HI TN
AZ OK AR
NM SC
MS AL GA
LEGEND TX
LA
Response
FL
No Response
PR
Figure 13. Agency responses to survey. Transportation agency for the District of Columbia also
responded, as did Central and Western Federal Lands Highway divisions.
Forty-three of the 48 agencies (90%) that responded to the survey reported experience with
geophysical methods as defined in the survey. Agencies with geophysical experience are shown
in Figure 14. In addition, the Central and Western Federal Lands Highway divisions both
indicated experience, while the District of Columbia indicated no experience.
The 90% of agencies that use geophysical methods is little changed from the 86% reported
in 2006 by Sirles. As in 2006, a small minority of agencies today do not use any geophysical
methods. Although the proportion of agencies that use geophysical methods has remained
essentially the same, the survey results shed light on how geophysical methods have changed
among the agencies that use them.
Motivations for and Reasons against Geophysical Methods

The 43 respondents who indicated their agency had experience with geophysical methods
were asked to select the factors that had motivated their agency to apply geophysical methods.
The list of six possible factors appears in Figure 15. The survey software randomized the
order in which the factors were presented. The reason selected most frequently was the capability
of geophysical methods to produce subsurface imaging of a large mass of materials in two
or three dimensions (selected by 33 of 43 respondents, or 77%). Four of the other five responses
provided in the survey were also selected by a majority of respondents: site access by 29 respon-
dents (67%), direct measurement of engineering parameters by 28 respondents (65%), cost-
effectiveness by 27 respondents (63%), and quick implementation by 23 respondents (53%).
The other response, environmental constraints, was selected by 15 respondents (35%). The
survey also allowed respondents to list other motivations for use of geophysical methods. One
agency used geophysical methods when conventional methods were unable to provide sufficient
information to assess problematic areas, and another agency used geophysical methods to help
geologists interpret site geology.

Survey Results 23
AK WA VT
MT ME
ND
OR MN NH
WI MA
ID SD NY
RI
WY MI
NE IA PA CT
NV IL IN OH NJ
UT WV DE
CO MD
CA KS MO KY VA
NC
HI TN
AZ OK AR
NM SC
MS AL GA
LEGEND TX
LA
Geophysical Methods Experience
FL
No Geophysical Methods Experience
No Response
PR
Figure 14. Agency experience with geophysical methods. In addition to agencies shown on
map, Central Federal Lands Highway and Western Federal Lands Highway divisions indicated
experience with geophysical methods, while District of Columbia indicated no experience.
Subsurface imaging of a large mass of

materials 77%
Site access (i.e. where conventional

67%
methods were not feasible)
Direct measurement of engineering 65%

parameters (e.g. shear wave velocity)
Cost-effective 63%
Quick implementation (from

planning to reporting) 53%
Environmental constraints (i.e. where 35%

conventional methods not feasible)
Other: Assess problematic sites 2%
Other: Assists
geologist with site 2%
interpretation
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Number of Respondents
Figure 15. Agency motivations for use of geophysical methods (43 responses).

The 2006 survey by Sirles inquired about motivations for geophysical methods in a different
manner, by asking respondents to select the greatest value provided by geophysical methods.
The speed of data acquisition, cost benefits, better subsurface characterization, and ability to
perform two- and three-dimensional assessments were all selected by between 15% and 21% of
respondents. Those top reasons are consistent with the findings presented in Figure 15.
The five respondents who indicated their agency had no experience with geophysical
methods were asked to select the reasons that their agency had not used geophysical methods.
The list of possible reasons appears in Figure 16. The survey software randomized the order
in which the reasons were presented. All five respondents (100%) indicated they had not used
geophysical methods because agency engineers were unfamiliar with the methods. Four respon-
dents (80%) selected a similar response: agency engineers did not know how to interpret results
from geophysical methods. Three respondents (60%) selected contracting difficulties, and two
respondents (40%) selected a lack of local contractors or in-house expertise for performing
geophysical methods. Three reasons had one respondent (20%) each: high cost, reluctance to
apply new methods for geotechnical site characterization, and uncertainty of results. One agency
selected “other” and indicated that incorrect information from a geophysical method had led
to a construction claim. Three of the potential reasons for not using geophysical methods were
not selected by any respondents: unreliability of results, time required for implementation, and
site access.
Although the 2006 survey did not ask respondents without geophysical experience why
their agencies had not used geophysical methods, it did ask respondents with geophysical
experience to identify the biggest deterrents to use. The most frequent responses were lack
of understanding of geophysical results, nonuniqueness of geophysical results, lack of con-
fidence in geophysical results, and results that created more questions than they answered.
These deterrents are generally consistent with the unfamiliarity and interpretation challenges
identified in Figure 16.
Agency engineers are unfamiliar with methods 100%
Agency engineers do not know how to interpret results 80%
Contracting difficulties 60%
No local contractors or in-house expertise 40%
Cost is too great 20%
Reluctance to apply new methods for site characterization 20%
Too uncertain (i.e. imprecise) 20%
Too unreliable (i.e. inaccurate) 0
Take too long (from planning to reporting) 0
Site access prevents effective implementation 0
Other: Bad experience leading to claim 20%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Figure 16. Agency reasons for not using geophysical methods (5 responses).

Survey Results 25
Frequency of Application of Geophysical Methods

and Agency Spending on Geophysical Methods
The 43 respondents who indicated agency use of geophysical methods were asked how frequently
their agency had used geophysical methods over the past 5 years. Respondents were asked to
select among the ranges shown in Figure 17. The results are somewhat bell-shaped, with the largest
number of respondents, 12 (28%), selecting 3 to 5 agency applications of geophysical methods
per year. Eighteen respondents indicated less frequent use (on average, 1 application or less per
year or 2 applications per year), while 12 respondents indicated more frequent use (6 to 10 appli-
cations per year or more than 10 applications per year). Notably, seven agencies indicated in
their responses that they use geophysical methods more than 10 times per year: Caltrans, Florida
DOT, Kansas DOT, Minnesota DOT, South Carolina DOT, Virginia DOT, and Wisconsin DOT.
The frequency of geophysical method applications reported in Figure 17 is strikingly consistent
with the results of the 2006 survey. As reported in Chapter 2 (Figure 1), the 2006 survey found
that 56% of agencies used geophysical methods 1 to 5 times per year, while 9% used them
less than 1 time per year on average. The corresponding categories in Figure 17 (n ≤ 1, n = 2,
3 ≤ n ≤ 5) sum to 70%. The 2006 survey found that 32% of agencies used geophysical methods
more than 5 times per year; 28% of respondents from the more recent agency survey indicated
more than 5 applications per year.
The 43 respondents who indicated agency use of geophysical methods were also asked how
the frequency of use has changed compared with 5 years ago. The results, shown in Figure 18,
indicate that agency use of geophysical methods has increased for about half of the agencies
surveyed (21 agencies, or 49%). Eighteen respondents (42%) indicated that use of geophysical
methods has stayed about the same over 5 years, and four respondents (9%) indicated that
agency use has decreased. Interestingly, 60% of respondents to the 2006 survey by Sirles also
indicated that agency use of geophysical methods was increasing. The results presented in
Figure 17 do not indicate that any significant increase has actually occurred.
The 43 respondents that indicated agency experience with geophysical methods were
also asked to estimate average annual agency spending on geophysical methods over the
14
12
10
0
n≤1 n=2 3≤n≤5 6 ≤ n ≤ 10 10 < n I don't know.
Avg. No. of Applications of Geophysical Methods per Year from 2014-2018, n
Figure 17. Average annual number of applications of geophysical

methods over 5 years (43 responses).

4
9%
Less frequent
About the same

21 18 frequency
49% 42%
More frequent
Figure 18. Frequency of agency

use of geophysical methods in 2019
versus 2014 (43 responses).
previous 5 years. Respondents were asked to select among the ranges shown in Figure 19,
which presents responses to the question. The most common response was $50,000 or less,
with 16 respondents (37%). Seven respondents (16%) indicated the next smallest range, $50,001
to $100,000, and eight respondents (19%) selected $100,001 to $150,000. Five respondents
selected higher ranges, and seven respondents selected “I don’t know.”
The results from Figure 19 may indicate that agency spending on geophysical applications has
increased somewhat since the 2006 survey. Though the most common response was $50,001 or
less per year for both surveys, nearly half of the 2006 respondents selected that range, compared
with about one-third of respondents in Figure 19.
Methods, Applications, and Objectives

of Geophysical Investigations
The 43 respondents who indicated agency experience with geophysical methods were asked
to select the methods their agency had used from among the methods listed in Table 2, which
also presents results. Four respondents were unsure of which specific geophysical methods had
been used at their agency; percentages shown in Table 2 are therefore based on 39 responses.
18
16
14
12
10
0
0 to $50,000 $50,001 to $100,001 to $150,001 to $250,001 to More than I don’t know.
$100,000 $150,000 $250,000 $500,000 $500,000
Annual Agency Spending on Geophysical Methods, 2014-2018
Figure 19. Average annual agency spending on application

of geophysical methods over 5 years (43 responses).

Survey Results 27
Table 2. Geophysical methods used by respondent agencies

(39 responses).
Geophysical Method Number Percent
Seismic methods:
Seismic refraction 33 85
Seismic reflection 10 26
Seismic tomography 9 23
H/V spectral ratio 2 5
Full waveform inversion 3 8
Active source surface wave techniques (e.g., SASW, MASW) 19 49
Passive surface wave techniques (e.g., ReMi) 15 38
Seismic methods, but I don’t know which ones specifically. 0 0
Electrical methods:
1D resistivity soundings (e.g., VES) 4 10
2D resistivity profiling (e.g., Dipole/Dipole, Wenner, etc.) 16 41
2D resistivity imaging (e.g., pole-Dipole, electrical resistivity 13 33
tomography [ERT], etc.)
Induced polarization (IP) 5 13
Self-potential (SP) 2 5
Electrical methods, but I don’t know which ones specifically. 3 8
Electromagnetic (EM) methods:
Ground-penetrating radar (GPR) 34 87
Time-domain EM 7 18
Frequency-domain EM (terrain conductivity) 4 10
Very low frequency (VLF) 0 0
Seismoelectric 1 3
Electromagnetic methods, but I don’t know which ones specifically. 1 3
Magnetic methods:
Total-field 2 5
Gradiometer 1 3
Magnetic methods, but I don’t know which ones specifically. 2 5
Gravity methods:
Microgravity 8 21
Standard gravity 0 0
Gravity methods, but I don’t know which ones specifically. 3 8
Borehole logging methods:
Downhole seismic 17 44
Crosshole seismic 15 38
Electrical (e.g., SP, resistivity, e-logs) 3 8
Electromagnetic induction 1 3
Nuclear (e.g., gamma-gamma, natural gamma, neutron, etc.) 4 10
Optical televiewer 18 46
Acoustic televiewer 9 23
Suspension logging (e.g., PS logger) 2 5
Hydrophysical 0 0
Borehole deviation 7 18
Other responses:
Other: Full waveform sonic 1 3
Other: Cement bond logging (CBL) 1 3
Other: Full waveform borehole sonic 1 3
Other: Single station passive seismic stratigraphy 1 3
Other: Capacitively coupled resistivity 1 3
Note: VES = vertical electrical sounding.

The most commonly used methods are ground-penetrating radar and seismic refraction, with
34 and 33 respondents, respectively (87% and 85%). Among other seismic methods, active
source surface wave techniques had been used by about half of respondents (19, or 49%), and
seismic reflection and seismic tomography had each been used by about a quarter of respon-
dents. Other than ground-penetrating radar, electromagnetic methods were not used com-
monly. Several borehole logging methods were used by about half of responding agencies,
including optical televiewer, with 18 respondents (46%), and downhole seismic and crosshole
seismic, with 17 and 15 respondents (44% and 38%), respectively. About half of agencies had
used at least one electrical method, most commonly 2D resistivity profiling, with 16 respon-
dents (41%). Magnetic and gravity methods were not used commonly, although one-fifth of
agencies had used the microgravity method (8 respondents, or 21%).
Compared with the 2006 survey, the results in Table 2 indicate little change in the most com-
monly applied geophysical methods, but they show a significant increase in the proportion of
agencies that have applied some of the methods. Sirles (2006) reported that seismic methods
were the most commonly used among geophysical methods, followed by GPR, resistivity, and
borehole logging. (Two categories excluded from this survey, vibration monitoring and non-
destructive testing, were also included in Sirles’s ranking of common methods.) The 2006 list is
consistent with the results from Table 2. However, some of the percentages in Table 2 indicate a
significant increase in agency experience with particular methods:
• Seismic refraction, from 59% in 2006 to 85% in 2018
• Active source surface wave techniques such as SASW/MASW, from 17% to 49%
• Passive surface wave techniques such as ReMi, from 17% to 38%
• 2D resistivity imaging such as electrical tomography, from 9% to 33%
• Microgravity, from 5% to 21%
• Optical televiewer, from 12% to 46%
• Acoustic televiewer, from 9% to 23%
The survey also requested that respondents with agency geophysical experience select the design
applications for which their agency had undertaken geophysical investigations from among the
options listed in Table 3. Table 3 also shows the responses to the survey question. Results indicate
Table 3. Applications of agency geophysical

investigations (43 responses).
Geophysical Method Number Percent
Routine design of bridge foundations 21 49
Routine design of embankments or cut slopes 20 47
Routine design of retaining walls 11 26
Seismic site effects 17 40
Liquefaction 12 28
Landslide evaluation 12 28
Utility location 18 42
Evaluation of roadway subsidence 28 65
Evaluation of scour (extent of existing scour, 3 7
potential for future scour)
Evaluation and QC of construction (e.g., fill 6 14
placement, excavation of unsuitable material)
Forensic investigation of failed infrastructure 9 21
Other: Rock mechanics, i.e., rock stability 2 5
analysis, rippability, etc.
Other: Roadway cut evaluation 2 5
Other: Excavation characteristics 1 2
Other: Postconstruction monitoring 1 2
Other: Soundwall design 1 2
Other: Archeological investigation 1 2
Note: QC = quality control.

Survey Results 29
a relatively wide variety of applications, with some applications more common than others but
none dominating. The most common applications were evaluation of roadway subsidence
(28 respondents, 65%), routine design of bridge foundations (21 respondents, 49%), and routine
design of embankments or cut slopes (20 respondents, 47%). Among the eight other applications
presented to respondents (i.e., not including the “other” responses), all but one were selected by
at least six respondents (14%).
Respondents with agency geophysical experience were also asked to select the geological investi-
gation objectives for which geophysical methods had been performed. The objectives presented to
respondents and their responses to the question are shown in Table 4. The most common objective
was to determine the depth to bedrock, which had been attempted by all but four respondents
(38 of 42, or 90%). Determining the topography of bedrock was also a common objective, with
32 respondents (76%). The third most common objectives also concerned rock evaluation:
specifically, mapping bedrock strength (i.e., rippability), with 23 respondents (55%). The next
most common objective was related to identifying subsurface voids, most commonly karst, with
20 respondents (48%). Mapping soil overburden lithology (18 respondents, 43%) and mapping
the groundwater table and evaluating subsurface voids (specifically failed culverts/sewers) (both
17 respondents, 40%) were the other geologic objectives with more than a third of respondents.
Table 4. Geologic investigation objectives of agency geophysical

Geological Investigation Objective Number Percent
Evaluation of rock:
Depth to bedrock 38 90
Topography of bedrock 32 76
Faulting in bedrock 7 17
Fractures in bedrock 12 29
Mapping bedrock strength (i.e., rippability) 23 55
Mapping weak zones in bedrock (e.g., shear zones or weathered areas) 12 29
Mapping lithology in bedrock 5 12
Estimating rock mass stiffness (e.g., elastic modulus, shear modulus, 7 17
etc.)
Estimating rock mass density 5 12
Evaluation of soil:
Mapping lithology in overburden soils 18 43
Mapping sand and/or gravel deposits (i.e., borrow investigations) 7 17
Mapping clay (i.e., excavation issues for expansive or swelling clays) 1 2
Mapping unsuitable materials (e.g., rubble, organics, etc.) 11 26
Estimating soil stiffness (e.g., elastic modulus, shear modulus, etc.) 11 26
Estimating soil density 5 12
Estimating clay content 2 5
Evaluation of groundwater:
Mapping groundwater table 17 40
Mapping groundwater flow 3 7
Mapping groundwater salinity 2 5
Landslide evaluation:
Mapping landslide extents (laterally) 5 12
Slip surface identification and definition 10 24
Evaluation of deformations 3 7
Evaluation of sinkholes, voids, or erosion features:
Karst or other dissolution features 20 48
Failed culverts/sewers 17 40
Abandoned mines 16 38
Scour features 2 5
Other: Mapping animal burrows in and under foundations 1 2
Other: ARD characterization 1 2
Other: Low-density sands above karstic bedrock 1 2
Other: Location of manmade features, piping/sinkholes 2 5
Note: ARD = acid rock drainage.

The geologic investigation objective results presented in Table 4 indicate the objectives are
largely the same as indicated by the 2006 survey by Sirles. Both surveys indicated evaluating the
depth to bedrock is most common, while mapping soil lithology and potential voids were also
common objectives. The 2006 survey question also found subsidence investigations to be a
common application, which is consistent with the results from Table 3.
Agency Practices for Application of Geophysical Methods

The 43 respondents who indicated agency experience with geophysical methods were asked
a series of questions about agency administrative practices related to geophysical methods.
Responses to those questions are presented in this section, which covers policy and procedure
documents related to geophysical methods, use of contractors for performance of geophysical
methods, and agency funding mechanisms for geophysical methods.
Agency Policy and Procedure Documents Related to

Geophysical Methods
As shown in Figure 20, of the 43 respondents who indicated their agency has experience with
geophysical methods, nine (21%) indicated their agency has policies, guidelines, or procedures
for application of geophysical methods. Seven of those nine agencies shared documentation of
such policies, guidelines, or procedures, which are summarized in Table 5. The documents vary
in their level of detail, with some specifying when specific methods are to be used and others
pointing readers to other resources. In addition to the document described in Table 5, Caltrans
developed a more extensive research report (Coe et al. 2018) that summarized the use of geo-
physical methods for geotechnical engineering as discussed in Chapters 2 and 4.
In-house versus Contractor Performance of Geophysical Methods

The 43 respondents with agency geophysical experience were asked whether geophysical
methods were performed in-house, by contractors, or by a mix of both in-house staff and
contractors. The majority of respondents, 22 (51%), indicated a mix of both in-house staff
and contractors. As shown in Figure 21, 19 respondents (44%) indicated that all geophysical test
methods were performed by contractors. Only two agencies, Kansas DOT and Mississippi DOT,
indicated that all geophysical test methods were performed in-house. Those methods performed
by a mix of both in-house staff and contractors are listed in Appendix B3.
Agencies that use contractors to perform at least some geophysical test methods rely on a variety
of contract types. The distribution of contract types is shown in Figure 22, with 37 respondents.
Has your agency

1
2% established specific
9 policies, guidelines,
21% and/or procedures for
application of
geophysical methods?
33 Yes
77% No
I don't know.
Figure 20. Agencies with policies,

guidelines, or procedures related to
geophysical methods (43 responses).

Table 5. Description of agency documentation of policies, guidelines,

or procedures related to geophysical methods.
Agency Description of Agency Documentation of Geophysical Methods
Caltrans Caltrans’s Geophysics and Geology Branch of the Division of
Engineering Services has a quality management plan that documents
agency objectives and practices for quality assurance related to
geophysical method testing and data. In addition to administrative
information, the document lists and briefly describes the ASTM
standards used by the branch and provides a bibliography of useful
resources. Among the appendices to the document, one contains one-
page summaries of 14 methods performed by the branch and another
documents equipment used by the branch.
In addition, Caltrans (2019) has published a more general geotechnical

manual online. The manual includes a paragraph on potential uses
and benefits of geophysical methods for small and large projects.
Colorado DOT A 2006 internal agency document, Geophysical Investigations for
Subsurface Characterization, includes a table for selecting geophysical
methods that is based on ASTM D6429-99. The rest of the document
focuses on procedures and highway applications of seismic refraction.
Maine DOT Maine DOT’s (2003) Bridge Design Guide references the use of
geophysical methods (ground-penetrating radar and “various seismic
methods”) in investigations of existing foundations under
consideration for reuse.
Maryland DOT The Maryland DOT ’s (2018) Pavement and Geotechnical Design Guide
includes a section on geophysical investigations (Section 3.07). The
section includes a table with commonly used geophysical methods for
various investigation applications. The section also includes summaries
of the principles, advantages, and limitations of five commonly used
geophysical methods.
South Carolina DOT South Carolina DOT’s (2010) Geotechnical Design Manual includes
Section 5.3.10: Geophysical Testing Methods. The section includes
information about eight methods: surface, downhole, and crosshole
shear wave velocity methods; suspension logging; acoustic televiewer;
seismic refraction; seismic reflection; and resistivity. For each method,
the manual explains general principles, notes potential applications,
and typically references external documents for test procedures.
Virginia DOT Chapter 3 of the agency’s Manual of Instructions for the Materials
Division (VDOT 2019) covers geotechnical engineering, and Section
303.02 pertains to subsurface exploration methods. The section
references the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2001) manual EM 1110-
1-1804, Geotechnical Investigations—specifically Table 4-2, which
identifies potential uses for various geophysical methods. The manual
states that methods scoring 3 or 4 are “appropriate for use on VDOT
projects” (p. III-23). The manual stipulates that the use of geophysical
methods must be related to project requirements, must consider
existing boring data, must be performed under direct supervision of a
licensed professional engineer, and must be approved by the district
materials engineer. The manual also lists methods useful for
characterizing intermediate geomaterials.
Wyoming DOT Chapter 12 of the agency’s Geology Manual focuses on geophysical
methods. The chapter includes descriptions of methods for electrical
resistivity, seismic refraction, and ground-penetrating radar. The
chapter emphasizes rippability evaluations via seismic refraction.
2
5%
All in-house
19
22 44% All by contractors
51%
Some in-house, some
contractor
Figure 21. Performance of geophysical

methods by in-house staff or contractors
(43 responses).

Lump sum / firm fixed price 51%
Unit price (i.e. cost per subsurface profile,

38%
etc.)
Indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) or 30%

similar On-Call service agreement
Cost-plus (a.k.a. cost

reimbursement 27%
Time and materials 32%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Figure 22. Contract types used for performance of geophysical test methods
(37 responses).
Just more than half of the respondents, 19 (51%), have used lump sum or firm-fixed-price
contracts. The four other types of contracts listed as potential responses (unit price; indefinite
delivery, indefinite quantity; cost-plus; and time and materials) had all been used by approxi-
mately one-third of respondents.
Funding Mechanisms for Application of Geophysical Methods

Several survey questions were asked of the respondents with agency geophysical experience
in an effort to determine how applications of geophysical methods are funded. First, respon-
dents were asked how subsurface investigations in general are funded; this question addressed
all methods of subsurface investigation, not just geophysical methods. Results are shown in
Figure 23. Only five of 42 respondents (12%) indicated that subsurface investigations are
funded through annual agency budget allocations. For 33 respondents (79%), other agency
funds are used to fund subsurface investigations, while four respondents (9%) indicated that
both annual budget allocations and other agency funds are used.
Among the five agencies that fund subsurface investigations through annual agency budget
allocations, two include specific allocations for geophysical investigations; the other three do
4
5 Annual agency budget
9%
12% allocations
Other agency funds
Combination of agency
33 budget allocations and
79% other agency funds
Figure 23. Agency funding sources

for subsurface investigations
(42 responses).

Survey Results 33
Project design funds 91%
Project construction funds 52%
Agency maintenance funds 33%
Agency emergency response funds 36%
Other: State-or district-wide contract for

6%
geophysical services
Other: Research funds 3%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Figure 24. Funding sources for geophysical methods among agencies

that do not include annual agency budget allocations for subsurface
not. For the 33 agencies that fund subsurface investigations through other sources, those sources
are summarized in Figure 24. Nearly every responding agency (30 of 33, or 91%) indicated
that project design funds have been used to fund geophysical investigations. Project construc-
tion funds have also been used commonly, by 17 of 33 respondents (52%). About one-third
of respondents have used agency maintenance funds and agency emergency response funds.
Three respondents indicated “other” sources of funding, with two citing a state- or district-
wide contract for geophysical services and one citing research funds.
Training Resources Related to Geophysical Methods

All respondents, including those without agency geophysical experience, were asked a series
of questions on the use of existing training resources for geophysical methods, perceived utility
of resource format, and potential content for future resources. The first question asked about
the use of five existing resources. The resources and responses are shown in Figure 25. The most
commonly used resource is FHWA’s Application of Geophysical Methods to Highway Related Prob-
lems (Wightman et al. 2004), with 26 respondents (54%) having used the resource. About half of
respondents (22, or 46%) had used ASTM or AASHTO standards related to geophysical methods.
These 22 respondents were asked to list the specific ASTM and AASHTO standards they had
used; results are presented in Appendix B3. Nineteen respondents (40%) had used FHWA’s Every
Day Counts (EDC)-5 webinar, which was introduced shortly before the survey was adminis-
tered. About one-third of respondents had used the other two resources presented in the survey
question, NCHRP Synthesis 357 (Sirles 2006) and Transportation Research Circular No. E-C130
(Anderson et al. 2008). For four of the five resources, the majority of respondents who had not
actually used the resource were familiar with the resource. The exception was Transportation
Research Circular No. E-C130, with which 20 respondents (42%) were not familiar.
The respondents were also asked how likely it would be that each of three new training
resources would increase their agency’s use of geophysical methods. The three potential resources
included in-person training (e.g., a National Highway Institute course), an online webinar, and a

Figure 25. Agency use of various training resources related to

geophysical methods (48 responses).
guidance manual (e.g., a new FHWA Geotechnical Engineering Circular). Results are presented in
Figure 26. The respondents generally viewed all three potential resources as likely to increase their
agency’s use of geophysical methods. For each resource, at least 70% of respondents indicated that
the resource would be somewhat likely or very likely to increase agency use of geophysical methods.
In-person training was viewed most favorably, with 27 respondents (56%) indicating that in-person
training would be very likely to increase agency use of geophysical methods and 15 respondents
(31%) indicating that in-person training would be somewhat likely to increase use. An online
webinar was viewed least favorably, though 35 respondents (73%) indicated that an online
webinar would be somewhat likely or very likely to increase agency use of geophysical methods.
Figure 26. Respondent perception of how likely new resources would be

to increase agency use of geophysical methods (NHI = National Highway
Institute) (48 responses).

Survey Results 35
Figure 27. Respondent perception of how useful various content areas

would be for new training or guidance resources (48 responses).
The final survey question asked respondents to indicate the perceived usefulness of five content
areas for new training resources on geophysical methods. The five content areas and the per-
ceived usefulness of each are presented in Figure 27. The respondents viewed all five content areas
favorably, with the majority of respondents indicating that each content area would be very useful
and at most one respondent (2%) indicating that any of the content areas would not be useful. The
content areas viewed most favorably were (1) use and applications of geophysical methods and
(2) interpretation of engineering parameters from results of geophysical methods. For both con-
tent areas, 39 respondents (81%) indicated that training on the topic would be very useful.
Noteworthy and Challenging Applications

Respondents with agency geophysical experience were asked to describe any noteworthy or
challenging applications of geophysical methods. Results are presented in Appendix B3.
The results were used to aid in the selection of agencies for the case example portion of the
synthesis, which is presented in Chapter 4.
Summary of Significant Findings

• Forty-three of 48 responding agencies (90%) have experience with geophysical methods. This
is approximately the same proportion found in the 2006 survey by Sirles.
• Agency use of geophysical methods is commonly motivated by a variety of factors. Among six
potential reasons listed in the survey, five were selected by more than half of the agencies with
geophysical experience as having motivated them to use geophysical methods. With 77% of
respondents, the most commonly selected reason was that geophysical methods can provide
a subsurface image of a large mass of materials. Site access, direct measurement of engineer-
ing parameters, cost-effectiveness, and quick implementation were also cited by at least half
of the respondents.
• Among the five agencies without geophysical experience, the most commonly cited reasons
for an agency’s not using geophysical methods were technical. All five agencies indicated that

agency engineers were unfamiliar with geophysical methods, and four of five (80%) indicated
that agency engineers did not know how to interpret geophysical results. Multiple respondents
also selected practical challenges—contracting difficulties and a lack of local contractors or
in-house expertise—as reasons for their agency’s not using geophysical methods.
• The most common estimate for how frequently agencies use geophysical methods is 3 to
5 times per year, with 28% of respondents with geophysical experience selecting frequencies
within this range. Among the other respondents with geophysical experience, slightly more
than half indicated less frequent application of geophysical methods, whereas slightly less than
half indicated more frequent use. The latter group included seven respondents who indicated
that their agency uses geophysical methods more than 10 times per year. According to responses
to a subsequent question, the frequency of use of geophysical methods is increasing for about
half the agencies that use geophysical methods. The estimated frequency of geophysical appli-
cations based on this survey is largely unchanged from the results of the 2006 survey by Sirles.
• Respondents most commonly estimated average annual agency spending on geophysical
methods to be less than $50,000, although about 12% of respondents estimated average annual
agency geophysics spending to exceed $150,000. Although $50,000 or less was the most com-
mon response, the percentage of respondents who selected $50,000 or less decreased signifi-
cantly compared with the 2006 survey by Sirles, which could indicate that agency spending is
increasing.
• Nine geophysical methods were reported to have been used by at least one-third of respondents
with knowledge of agency geophysical experience: ground-penetrating radar (34 respondents,
87%), seismic refraction (33 respondents, 85%), active source surface wave techniques (e.g.,
SASW, MASW; 19 respondents, 49%), optical televiewer (18 respondents, 46%), downhole
seismic (17 respondents, 44%), 2D resistivity profiling (16 respondents, 41%), passive surface
wave techniques (e.g., ReMi; 15 respondents, 38%), crosshole seismic (15 respondents, 38%), and
2D resistivity imaging (13 respondents, 33%).
• The most commonly used geophysical methods from the 2006 survey by Sirles were seismic,
GPR, resistivity, and borehole logging—a list that is consistent with this survey. However,
this survey found a considerably greater proportion of agencies with experience using seismic
refraction, surface wave methods (active and passive), electrical tomography, microgravity,
and both optical and acoustic televiewer methods.
• Survey results indicate agencies implement geophysical methods for a relatively wide variety of
applications, with some more common than others but none dominating. The five applications
reported by at least 40% of respondents are evaluation of roadway subsidence, routine design
of bridge foundations, routine design of embankments or cut slopes, evaluation of seismic side
effects, and utility location.
• Geologic investigation objectives pertaining to rock—especially to determine the depth
to bedrock, bedrock topography, and bedrock rippability—dominated the use of geophysical
methods. Objectives pertaining to evaluation of sinkholes, voids, or erosion features;
mapping overburden lithology; and mapping the groundwater table were also reported by at
least a third of respondents with agency geophysical experience.
• Nine agencies have established specific policies, guidelines, or procedures for application of
geophysical methods. Seven agencies shared documentation of such policies, guidelines, or
procedures for review. Most of the documents included general information on geophysical
methods and commonly referenced external documents (e.g., the ASTM standards, FHWA’s
Application of Geophysical Methods to Highway Related Problems [Wightman et al. 2004],
or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Geotechnical Investigations manual [2001]) for more
detailed information.
• The majority of agencies with geophysics experience, 51%, use a mix of in-house capabilities
and contractors for performance of geophysical test methods. Forty-four percent perform all
geophysical test methods using contractors.

Survey Results 37
• The most common source of funding for geophysical investigations is project design funds,
with 30 of 33 respondents indicating such funds had been used. Project construction funds
were also used by more than half the respondents. Five agencies have annual agency budget
allocations specifically for geophysical investigations.
• About half of respondents had used three resources related to geophysical methods: FHWA’s
Application of Geophysical Methods to Highway Related Problems (Wightman et al. 2004),
ASTM or AASHTO standards pertaining geophysical methods, and the EDC-5 webinar on
geophysical methods. Most of the respondents who had not used these resources were familiar
with them.
• Responses to two questions about potential new training resources were highly skewed toward
a favorable view of new training resources. One question asked how likely it would be that each
of three resources would increase agency use of geophysics: in-person training, an online
webinar, and a guidance manual. For all three potential formats, at least 70% of respondents
said the new resource would be somewhat likely or very likely to increase agency use of geo-
physical methods, with in-person training viewed as the most likely. The second question asked
about the perceived usefulness of five different training content areas. The majority of respon-
dents indicated that all five content areas would be very useful, with (1) use and applications of
geophysical methods and (2) interpretation of engineering parameters from geophysical results
viewed as the most useful.

CHAPTER 4
Case Examples
The survey results presented in Chapter 3 were used to select five agencies for further case
examination. The agencies were primarily identified on the basis of responses that indicated
the agency had frequent experience with geophysical methods or experience on noteworthy
projects. The agencies selected were the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT),
Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT), Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT),
New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) and California Department of Transpor-
tation (Caltrans). For each, the survey contact was interviewed and additional documentation
was reviewed to document the history of geophysical use by the agency, common applications
and noteworthy experiences, and helpful lessons on the application of geophysical methods for
transportation projects.
Minnesota Department of Transportation

According to responses to the synthesis survey questions, the Minnesota Department
of Transportation (MnDOT) is among the most prolific and experienced users of geophysical
methods. MnDOT reported using geophysical methods at the highest rate—more than 10 times
per year. The agency reported using 18 of the 36 geophysical methods listed in the survey,
for nine of the 11 applications listed in the survey. MnDOT’s experiences with geophysical
methods, including agency practices, commonly used methods, typical applications, and an
example project, are discussed in the following sections.
History of Geophysics Use and Agency Practice

Geophysical methods became necessary for MnDOT after the agency experienced issues
related to karst throughout Minnesota in the late 1990s. The agency found that the point-based
approach of drilling alone to characterize the 3D subsurface structure was inadequate. As it con-
tinued to deal with failures associated with karst features, such as subsidence and collapse within
the MnDOT right-of-way, the agency looked to geophysical methods, particularly resistivity,
to provide additional information about subsurface conditions. Over the past 20 years, MnDOT’s
use of geophysics has expanded to other methods and applications. Geophysical methods are
now used in a variety of applications that involve scoping, preliminary design, and assessment
of postconstruction failures.
MnDOT primarily uses in-house capabilities to perform geophysical measurements unless
the project is designated design-build or construction manager/general contractor, in which
case the geophysical measurements are performed by an external contractor. The agency has
found that developing in-house capabilities for frequently used geophysical methods
(such as resistivity, refraction, and surface wave methods) has been a cost-effective approach.
38

Case Examples 39
A three-person group consisting of a geologist, geologic engineer, and geophysicist is responsible

for collecting and analyzing geophysical data when the need arises. This group works closely with
MnDOT’s drilling crews to provide supplementary information and fill in subsurface informa-
tion between boreholes. In an interview, MnDOT personnel noted the importance of having
borehole data to correlate and compare with the geophysical results; in some cases, though, as
in the following case example, geophysics may be the only viable approach.
MnDOT does not have specific guidelines for when to use geophysical methods. The selec-
tion of geophysical methods is done on a case-by-case basis. Agency personnel weigh the
quality of subsurface information available for the site, the expected quality of data for the
specific application and field environment, the value of the information to be obtained from
the measurement, and the cost of deploying equipment and processing the data. When select-
ing the appropriate method for a site, MnDOT personnel also use a checklist of possible issues
that could affect the results. For example, buried metal or power lines could affect electrical
methods. Typical applications and environments in Minnesota where geophysical methods
have proved effective are discussed in the next section.
The availability of training resources has been important for MnDOT’s expansion of its
in-house geophysics capabilities. Most training has been provided by equipment manufacturers.
Training on how to process and interpret the geophysical data has been especially important.
MnDOT personnel also report that short courses at conferences, such as surface wave courses at
SAGEEP and other in-person training, have been beneficial.
Commonly Used Methods and Applications

MnDOT’s use of geophysics began with ER, which remains the most common and effective
approach for many of the problems the agency encounters. Moist subsurface soil conditions
make resistivity an especially effective method, while other approaches such as GPR are
hampered by moist soil conditions that attenuate the signal. A common application of resistivity
has been characterization of karst features such as cavities and voids, though it has also been
used to determine general soil-rock stratigraphy, bedrock depth, and groundwater elevation,
and to locate buried structures (Richter 2010).
The most common application of ER in Minnesota has been to identify the locations and
constrain the extent of organic soil deposits. MnDOT reports that ER provides a clear contrast
between organic muck and the surrounding granular soils. Use of ER for this application has
helped curb construction-phase costs for unplanned or excessive organic excavations. MnDOT
also reports effective use of ER for forensic investigations, such as the investigation of the
failure mechanism in an embankment constructed with Geofoam.
In addition to ER, MnDOT performs several other methods in-house, including MASW,
IP, SP, refraction, and downhole and crosshole measurements. MnDOT often runs IP in
tandem with ER measurements and uses SP less frequently. For seismic methods, MnDOT
reports that MASW is its go-to method for applications on the roadway, while refraction is
typically used off the roadway for applications such as determining depth of bedrock.
In the phone interview, MnDOT personnel noted how important it is for users of geophysical
data to understand the methods’ capabilities and limitations. With better understanding of the
methods, users can better determine if a measurement will provide the type of data they want.
Geophysical methods have intrinsic limitations in terms of sensitivity and resolution, and are
affected by environmental factors, such as cultural noise; geologic complexity; and other factors,
such as the presence of power lines and buried metal. Unreasonable expectations of method
capabilities may lead to application of the methods in unsuitable conditions. Knowledgeable
practitioners and a good screening process can help avoid these problems.

MnDOT Example Project: Bridge over Miller Creek

in Duluth, Minnesota
An early application of ER by MnDOT took place in 2006 in Duluth, Minnesota, at the site
of a new bridge, roadway, and retaining walls. The decision to use a shallow or a deep founda-
tion for the new bridge at this site required information about the depth to bedrock. Although
bedrock is typically around 20 ft deep in this area, nearby borings showed bedrock at 40 ft.
The description that follows is taken from the Richter (2010) paper and the phone interview
with MnDOT personnel.
Access to the proposed bridge location for site investigation was difficult. Property owners
denied access because of concerns about property damage and because Miller Creek, which runs
through the area, is a designated trout stream. Because of these restrictions, MnDOT determined
that traditional soil and rock borings and cone penetration test soundings could not be used.
Instead, MnDOT used its newly acquired ER system to obtain subsurface information. Soil con-
ditions within the bridge area were complex, with variably saturated silty, sandy, and gravelly
organic soil and many boulders present (Richter 2010). Two ER surveys were performed, the
first using 28 electrodes with 1-m spacing and the second performed orthogonally to the first
using 56 electrodes with 1-m spacing.
In this case, the resistivity results were interpreted without the benefit of boreholes for
corroboration. The results generally showed a large contrast in resistivity at about 10 ft, which
was attributable to the change between the more conductive near-surface soils and the underlying
bedrock (Figure 28). Noisy data in the western portion of the survey produced artifacts that
complicated the interpretation (Figure 28, bottom). Region C in Figure 28 (top) indicates a
low-resistivity region in the interpreted bedrock, which was thought to be either a glacial pothole
or a zone of highly weathered or fractured bedrock. The high-resistivity regions A and B in
Figure 28 (top) were thought to be knobs of the gabbro bedrock.
The survey results were communicated to personnel from the bridge office and the Duluth
district. Before the survey, the default foundation option had been to use drilled piles because no
information was available to support other options. The results from the resistivity survey, how-
ever, provided support for using shallow foundations on the east side of the creek for the retaining
walls and bridge abutment and possibly on the west side. Shallow foundations were designed for
Figure 28. Resistivity results along north-south line (top) and east-west line
(bottom) showing shallow bedrock starting at about 10 ft (courtesy of MnDOT).

Case Examples 41
the east end of the abutment, and deep foundation elements were designed for the west end
with the option to switch to shallow foundations. When excavations were performed for the
foundation, bedrock was encountered within 10 ft of the surface on both the east and the west
side of the creek, which precluded the need for the deep foundation elements originally designed
for the west side. The excavation also offered an opportunity to ground-truth the resistivity results.
The exposed excavation showed two bedrock knobs (A and B) and a pocket of weathered and
highly fractured bedrock (C), as shown in Figure 29.
Primarily because of differences in material and equipment costs, MnDOT saw a modest cost
savings of between $50,000 to $100,000 by constructing shallow foundations (Richter 2010).
This project was the first time that MnDOT had based a bridge design solely on geophysical data.
Because of its novel approach, the project was given an award for bridge construction by the
General Contractors of America. More importantly, the project instilled in MnDOT personnel
confidence in their use of geophysical methods.
Figure 29. Photo
of excavated site
MnDOT: Lessons Learned associating features
with two high-
MnDOT uses geophysical methods more than most state transportation agencies in the United resistivity regions
States. The agency has found it cost-effective to perform most of its geophysical work in-house (A and B) and low-
with on-the-job training supplied primarily by equipment manufacturers. Electrical resistivity has resistivity region
proved to be the most useful method for the conditions the agency faces, and MnDOT has had (C) in resistivity results
notable success using ER to define karst features and to delineate the extent of organic soil deposits (courtesy of MnDOT).
for excavation. In the phone interview, MnDOT personnel emphasized the importance of know-
ing the capabilities and limitations of the methods and of having a screening process to ensure
that methods are used for the appropriate applications and environmental conditions. Person-
nel also emphasized the need to corroborate the geophysical results with soil and rock borings
whenever possible. The case example project presents a unique and successful case of an agency
using ER results exclusively to design bridge foundations where soil and rock borings could not be
performed. The ER results also showed strong agreement with ground truth from the excavation.
Virginia Department of Transportation

The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) was also among the seven agencies
that reported the highest frequency of geophysical method use (more than 10 times a year).
VDOT also reported using 13 of the 36 geophysical methods listed in the survey, for 6 of the
11 applications listed in the survey and for one application that was not listed. Addition infor-
mation about VDOT’s use of geophysical methods was gathered from a phone interview and
review of relevant documents. VDOT’s experiences with geophysical methods, including agency
practices, commonly used methods, typical applications, and details of a project, are presented
in the following sections.

Geophysics has been part of VDOT’s toolbox for about 30 years, but only since about 2010
has geophysics become a routine part of the subsurface investigation program. Unlike MnDOT,
which performs many geophysical measurements in-house, VDOT’s current practice is to use
geophysics through professional on-call contractors, who evaluate many of the agency’s promi-
nent projects. With the exception of GPR, all geophysical methods at VDOT are performed by
external contractors. When geotechnical services are procured, VDOT requires that geotechni-
cal consultants either have the capability to perform geophysical measurements themselves or
have subcontractors who can perform the work.

Chapter 3 of the agency’s Manual of Instructions for the Materials Division (2019), Section 303.02,
states that “geophysical exploration is an appropriate adjunct to a subsurface exploration
program.” As stated in this manual and confirmed in the phone interview, VDOT requires that the
methods score a 3 or 4 according to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers manual EM 1110-1-1804
Geotechnical Investigations (2001) and are “appropriate for use on VDOT projects.” Appropriate
use of geophysical methods is approved by the district materials engineer before implementation
of the program.

VDOT’s use of geophysical methods has largely been driven by karst issues encountered in
several areas of the state. The Staunton district in particular deals extensively with karst on
many of its projects. Electrical methods, particularly electrical resistivity, have been the most
commonly used in karst terrain because of their cost. In the phone interview, VDOT personnel
reported generally good experiences with these methods but emphasized the need to perform
confirmation borings to calibrate and corroborate the results. During the phone interview, VDOT
personnel mentioned that electrical methods are commonly applied in situations where borings
spaced 200 ft apart show very different subsurface profiles. In these cases, geophysical methods
are often used to fill in between the boreholes and aid in selecting locations to perform addition
borings. Agency personnel also mentioned that they have observed cases where geophysical
methods produced inaccurate or ambiguous results; thus, the personnel cautioned against
an overreliance on geophysical measurements in karst terrain. An example case is presented in
the following section. VDOT personnel emphasized the benefits of using multiple geophysical
methods at the same site, and also reported successful use of acoustic and optical televiewers on
some projects. The agency reported some use of refraction measurements, and less frequent use
of other seismic methods such as ReMi and MASW.
The agency’s Manual of Instructions for the Materials Division (2019) emphasizes the use
of geophysical methods to help characterize subsurface conditions in areas with intermediate
geomaterials and suggests the following methods may be appropriate for this application:
electrical resistivity, electromagnetic methods, refraction, reflection, GPR, microgravity, and
surface wave methods.
In both the manual and the phone interview, the importance of understanding the strengths
and weaknesses of various techniques was emphasized. VDOT personnel also discussed in the
phone interview the need for training resources on the types of geophysical methods available
and their capabilities and limitations.
VDOT Example Project: Inaccurate Prediction of Bedrock Depth

on Bridge Project
VDOT provided an example of a project where a complex resistivity image provided an
inaccurate interpretation of bedrock depth. The project involved construction of a geosynthetic
reinforced soil bridge, where the depth to bedrock at the site was of particular interest.
Resistivity profiles were developed along three cross-sections that intersected borehole locations.
The interpreted profile from one of the resistivity lines that passed through the location of
borehole 14BH-002 and near borehole 14BH-001 is shown in Figure 30.
Using the resistivity profile shown in Figure 30, the depth to bedrock at the location of 14BH-001
was interpreted to be about 23 ft (indicated by the dashed line). However, the boring 14BH-001
encountered bedrock at a shallower depth of 14.5 ft, where the resistivity interpretation indicated
resistivity values consistent with wet clay soil. Although this borehole was offset 18 ft from the

Case Examples 43
Figure 30. Resistivity image with generalized interpretation and location of boreholes 14BH-001
and 14BH-002 (courtesy of VDOT).
resistivity line, another resistivity line (not shown) passed though the 14BH-001 location and
showed a similar predicted bedrock depth. The rock core from 14BH-001 is shown in Figure 31a.
The error was more significant at boring 14BH-002, where the resistivity image indicated bedrock
at about 17 ft and the boring showed bedrock at 35 ft. The rock core from 14BH-002 is shown in
Figure 31b. A thin, 0.5-ft layer of limestone was encountered at 21 ft but was underlain by 14 ft of
very stiff fat clay (CH). In this case, the CH material was interpreted as bedrock in the resistivity
image. These results illustrate that the interpretation of resistivity is not unique and can provide
inaccurate results in some circumstances.
VDOT: Lessons Learned

VDOT’s use of geophysical measurements has been driven to a large degree by karst issues
the agency has faced in many areas of Virginia. Electrical and EM methods have been VDOT’s
primary geophysical methods, though seismic methods such as refraction and surface wave
methods have also been used on occasion. With the exception of GPR, VDOT contracts out all
of its geophysical work and has found few problems with this approach. The agency’s experi-
ence with geophysics has been generally positive, though some cases have had geophysical
results that were ambiguous or inaccurate and that did not add value to VDOT projects. The
case example presents a project where geophysical methods underperformed expectations for
detecting the depth to bedrock. These results illustrate that the effectiveness of geophysical
methods can vary depending on the problem investigated and the field conditions encountered.
They also underscore the importance of performing ground truth measurements to corroborate
the geophysical results.

(a)
(b)
Figure 31. Rock core from (a) borehole 14BH-001

starting at 14.5-ft depth and (b) 14BH-002 starting
at 21-ft depth showing CH material to 35 ft
(courtesy of VDOT).
Ohio Department of Transportation

The synthesis survey revealed that the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) applies
geophysical methods on projects about six to 10 times per year, which the agency reported is
more frequent than 5 years ago. ODOT reported experience using 13 of the 36 geophysical
methods listed in the survey, for seven of the 11 applications listed in the survey. Detection of
voids from abandoned mines and characterization of karst features are common applications
for ODOT, as described in the following case examples. ODOT’s experiences with geophysical
methods, including agency practices, commonly used methods, typical applications, and three
example projects, are discussed in the following sections.

ODOT has been using geophysical methods for approximately 15 years. ODOT initially con-
tracted out geophysical work, but in the past 10 years it has developed in-house capabilities to
perform ER and some seismic work. ODOT also has in-house capabilities to perform CPT, as
well as drilling and sampling.
The decision to use geophysical methods on specific projects typically originates in ODOT’s
Field Exploration Group. The design engineer puts together an exploration request, which is

Case Examples 45
further developed by the Field Exploration Group. When the group sees value in using geophysics
for a project, it will suggest doing so in the field exploration program. ODOT reported that,
as designers have become more familiar with the capabilities of the geophysical methods, they
will sometimes request measurements directly. ODOT also reported that the in-house capability
to perform geophysical measurements has made the agency more inclined to use equipment on
marginal applications because it costs less and is relatively easy to deploy. Though ODOT has
not quantified the cost savings from its use of geophysics, the agency has generally found that it
is cost-effective to be able to perform geophysical measurements in-house. ODOT also reported
cases where geophysics has not resulted in cost savings, particularly where the geophysical results
were ambiguous and the site needed an extensive drilling and sampling program.
Two individuals in ODOT’s Field Exploration Group have the experience to lead in-house
geophysical investigations, and others are recruited to help in the field on specific projects. ODOT
typically uses a three-man crew when both ER and seismic work is performed, and a two-man
crew when only one method is used. Generally, training on the use of ER and seismic methods
has come from vendors, and ODOT personnel have been satisfied with the level of training they
have received. They see a need for a concise training course that is specific to geotechnical work
as well as short tutorial videos on the various methods. In addition to their in-house capabilities,
ODOT personnel also contract out work that they are not capable of performing. For example,
ODOT has contracted out for FWI of seismic measurements to characterize underground mines,
as described in one of the following case examples.

The synthesis survey results indicate that ODOT has used a variety of seismic and electrical
methods, as well as GPR, gravity, and some borehole methods. In a phone interview, ODOT
personnel reported that ER is the most commonly used method. They developed in-house capa-
bilities to perform ER in 2010 and have used it for a wide range of applications. Initially, ODOT’s
primary application for ER was identification of underground mines, karst features, and top of
rock. Lately, the agency has had positive experiences using ER to determine the extent of shallow
embankment failures and to delineate the extent of high-organic soil deposits. ODOT reported
using its ER system about 3 or 4 times a year.
ODOT also makes use of seismic methods, including refraction and surface wave methods.
In the past year, it has developed in-house capabilities to perform ReMi measurements but has
not used ReMi as extensively as ER. ODOT personnel collect both ReMi and ER data for some
applications, such as development of rock profiles for rock-socketed drilled shafts, and have
found ReMi to be very useful as an alternative to ER in urban environments where utilities may
interfere with ER.
During the phone interview, ODOT personnel emphasized the need for users to understand the
capabilities and limitations of the methods. They noted that anomalies in geophysical measure-
ments can be caused by multiple factors and that identifying a definitive interpretation is usually
not possible. For this reason, ODOT personnel typically do not rely solely on geophysical measure-
ments, except in cases of small, low-risk projects—such as characterizing shallow embankment
failures—where misinterpretation of the results would not have significant consequences.
ODOT Example Project 1: Irregular Bedrock at Interstate 70—

Harper Road Crossing in Columbus, Ohio
Interstate 70 crosses over a surface street, Harper Road, on the western side of Columbus, Ohio.
The current three-span structure was constructed in 1973, with the geotechnical exploration

completed in 1967. In 2019, ODOT planned a project to replace the existing superstructure and
widen the bridge. The existing structure is supported by driven H-piles bearing on limestone
bedrock at the abutments and spread footings bearing on limestone bedrock at the piers.
For the widening, a limited geotechnical exploration consisting of two borings to confirm top
of bedrock was planned because of high confidence in the historical geotechnical information.
One boring was planned at the rear pier and one boring at the forward abutment, with top of
rock anticipated at around elevation 730 ft, or 7 ft deep at the rear pier and 25 ft deep at the
forward abutment. During the early summer of 2017, both borings were completed. The first
boring was completed within the footprint of the proposed rear pier, encountering top of
bedrock at elevation 689.0 ft, or 48.5 ft below ground surface. The second boring was completed
within the footprint of the proposed forward abutment and encountered bedrock at elevation
720.3 ft, or 34.5 ft below ground surface.
The bedrock elevation at the rear pier was approximately 30 ft lower than anticipated. The
structure is also located in an area known to have clay-filled voids associated with paleo-karst
features. To better define the bedrock elevation, OODT completed ER surveys along the proposed
alignments of both pier widenings.
The results of the ER surveys indicated that the bedrock surface was highly variable and
dropped quickly across the proposed area of the pier widening—not only at the rear pier but
also at the forward pier location, as shown in Figure 32. The surveys were not long enough to
completely image the depth of the bedrock surface. A third boring was planned at the forward
pier location to confirm top of bedrock and encountered top of bedrock at elevation 699.8 ft,
or 38.6 ft below ground surface. However, several large limestone boulders were encountered
within the overburden, and a clay-filled void was encountered within the bedrock between
elevations of 695.4 ft and 691.7 ft.
Informed by the exploration results, ODOT personnel recommended that the proposed
widened piers and abutments be supported on H-piles driven to refusal on bedrock. Construc-
tion was started in the spring of 2019. Pile driving encountered a highly variable bedrock surface.
The abutment piles were driven to 137% to 220% of the planned lengths at the rear abutment
and 34% to 125% of the planned lengths at the forward abutment. At the rear pier, the piles were
driven to 38% to 200%+ of the planned lengths. One pile at the rear pier was driven to 100 ft and
stopped despite not bearing on bedrock.
Before driving the forward pier piles, the area of the pile cap was excavated. Limestone bed-
rock was observed at the bottom of the excavation, except for the last few feet furthest from
the existing bridge where it appeared that the top of bedrock dropped off to greater depths.
Consequently, only two piles were driven at the forward pier with the remainder of the foun-
dation consisting of a spread footing bearing on bedrock. These piles were driven to 68% and
80% of the plan lengths.
Through the use of ER surveys and a conventional drilling exploration, ODOT was able
to anticipate a widely variable bedrock surface and select appropriate foundations. However,
because of the limited geophysical program, the full breath of variability was not established.
ODOT Example Project 2: Imaging a Shallow Embankment

Failure in Northwest Ohio
Paulding County in northwestern Ohio lies within the Paulding Clay Basin physiographic
region, an area characterized as a nearly flat lacustrine plain. Soils are typically high-plastic clays,
which tend to have poor long-term strength when used for embankment construction. The proj-
ect area is where US-24 passes over a county road and a railroad spur. The embankments were

Case Examples 47
Figure 32. Subsurface profiles determined from ER measurements at rear pier (top) and forward pier (bottom)
showing highly irregular bedrock surface (courtesy of ODOT).
experiencing instability at all four quadrants of the overpass, with the northeastern quadrant
exhibiting the greatest distress. The surface features indicated a shallow surficial sloughing of
the outer embankment soils.
A subsurface exploration was planned to determine the failure mode of the embankment
using traditional borings, dynamic cone penetration (DCP) soundings, and geophysical surveys.
Borings were completed at the top, mid-slope, and base of the embankment. Inclinometers
were installed mid-slope and at the toe to determine a failure surface. The DCP soundings were
completed in section with the borings to confirm the potential sliding surface. In addition to the
traditional exploration techniques, an ER imaging survey was completed perpendicular to the
roadway down the embankment slope.
The traditional exploration and monitoring techniques indicated that the shallow embank-
ment failure was a result of saturated and low-strength soils along the outer embankment slope.
The ER survey indicated a shallow layer of higher-resistivity material underlain by low-resistivity
material (Figure 33). This contrast in resistivity was probably attributable to higher moisture
contents along the failure surface. The results from the ER survey showed strong agreement with
slope inclinometer data from the site, which showed the slide surface at a depth of 4 ft to 6 ft.

Figure 33. Profile of ER measurements performed over shallow landslide with approximate slide surface
shown with solid black line separating high-resistivity material from lower-resistivity material below
(courtesy of ODOT).
Informed by the results of this project, ODOT expects to use ER surveys in the future to image
shallow embankment failures and to minimize the disturbance and effort needed for traditional
drilling exploration at mid-slope locations.
ODOT Example Project 3: Full Waveform Inversion

to Characterize Abandoned Mines
While many other seismic methods are based on matching first arrival times of recorded
waveforms, full waveform inversion (FWI) works by developing a subsurface model that provides
a match to the full recorded waveform at each location. The 2D FWI technique was applied by
researchers from Clarkson University to image abandoned underground coal mines under
US 33 in Athens County, Ohio. The description that follows is summarized from Sullivan et al.
(2016). The test area selected was thought to be a likely location of abandoned mines. Previous
borings performed by ODOT showed a 1.5- to 2.5-m thick coal seam located about 12 m to 18 m
below the surface, with the overburden consisting of clay shales and sandstones. A total length
of 576 m was investigated using test segments of 36 m consisting of 24 4.5-Hz geophone receiv-
ers spaced at intervals of 1.5 m (Figure 34). A sledgehammer source was used to excite energy
at 25 locations spaced 1.5 m apart along the geophone spread, and a land streamer was used to
collect the data, which allowed for rapid data collection along the roadway.
The results indicated the presence of two anomalies along the profile. The results from one
of the segments that contained an anomaly are shown in Figure 35. A low shear wave velocity
anomaly is observed at a depth of about 15 m in the image. Borings performed at this location
about 3 weeks after the measurement showed the presence of a void over the depth range of
13.8 m to 14.6 m. The other suspected void was also confirmed with drilling.
This case example shows the capabilities of one of the more advanced seismic methods, full
waveform inversion. The method successfully detected small voids at depths of about 15 m,
although the size of the void appeared to be overestimated by the FWI results.

Case Examples 49
Figure 34. Land streamer of geophone used

to collect data (Sullivan et al. 2016).
ODOT: Lessons Learned

ODOT has used geophysical measurements for a variety of applications, with many driven
by issues associated with karst terrain (e.g., voids, irregular bedrock) and effects of abandoned
mines on roadways. ODOT has also used geophysics to characterize organic deposits and the
disturbed zone in shallow landslides. The agency has found it cost-effective to develop in-house
capabilities for performing ER and some seismic measurements. Agency personnel have received
training on the implementation of the methods primarily from equipment vendors and have
reported good experiences. ODOT also reported that in-house capabilities make more frequent
use of certain geophysical methods possible, and for more marginal applications, as well. ODOT
contracts out for other geophysical measurements and reported good experiences with the FWI
approach for detecting abandoned mines. Like the other agencies, ODOT emphasized the need
for training resources to educate engineers on the capabilities and limitations of geophysical
methods for engineering applications.
New Jersey Department of Transportation

According to the synthesis survey results, the New Jersey Department of Transportation
(NJDOT) showed moderately frequent use of geophysical methods (three to five times per year)
and a large number of geophysical methods used (12 of the 36 methods listed in the survey).
The agency reported an increase in the use of geophysics over the past 5 years, which has been
driven to a large extent by rock mechanics applications. NJDOT’s experiences with geophysical
methods, including agency practices, commonly used methods, typical applications, and three
example projects, are presented in the following sections.
Figure 35. Inverted image of shear wave velocities showing

low-velocity region at depth of about 15 m (Sullivan et al. 2016).


Though NJDOT has used geophysical methods for approximately 20 years, it reported a slow
build-up to its present level of use. NJDOT’s earliest use of geophysics involved sporadic use of
GPR until about 20 years ago, when the agency began to apply other geophysical methods to the
problem of abandoned mine characterization. At the time, the results were met with some skepti-
cism, but over the past 20 years NJDOT has observed a cultural shift in the value of geophysical
investigation and agencies’ openness to using geophysical methods on major projects. The Engi-
neering Geology section of the NJDOT is largely responsible for suggesting, selecting, and con-
tracting geophysical work. All of NJDOT’s geophysical work is contracted to external providers,
and agency personnel reported few problems with the contracting process. They also noted how
important it is for those involved in the contracting process to understand who is responsible for
interpreting the data and how the data will ultimately be factored into the project design.
NJDOT reported having contracted with geotechnical firms that are unfamiliar with the geo-
physical methods the agency would like to use on a project. From their experience, NJDOT per-
sonnel see a need for training resources for geotechnical engineers who are not well versed in the
capabilities and limitations of geophysical methods, including appropriate applications, basics of
data collection (such as equipment used and space requirements), and environmental constraints
on applying the methods (e.g., cultural noise, interference). Because NJDOT personnel do not
perform the measurements in-house, they do not have a need for detailed training on how to
perform and interpret the measurements.

NJDOT has seen a dramatic increase in its use of geophysics over the past 5 years. This
increase has been driven largely by rock mechanics applications. The agency has found
geophysics particularly useful for rock mass characterization. The two most common methods
used by the agency are seismic refraction, primarily for rippability evaluation, and borehole
televiewers (acoustic and optical) for assessing rock characteristics such as weathering. Agency
personnel have experience on projects where seismic velocities (and hence rippability) have
varied greatly across the site and where the use of seismic methods, particularly MASW and
refraction, to characterize the rock has helped avoid large cost overruns.
Abandoned iron ore mines in the northern portion of New Jersey are often an issue for
NJDOT. A common and early application of geophysics by NJDOT was to characterize such
abandoned mines beneath roadways. For example, about 20 years ago, problems on Interstate
80 were caused by the collapse of abandoned mines beneath the roadway. Seismic tomography
was used to image the site and found many low-velocity areas that indicated the possible pres-
ence of voids. Ground truth boreholes drilled at the site found that many of the features were
smaller in-filled voids that did not present a hazard. This experience underscored both the value
of geophysics for identifying possible hazards and the need to tie the geophysical results to hard
data, a point that was made by several of the agencies interviewed.
NJDOT has also found value in using multiple methods to verify and calibrate the results
against each other. One of the major practical issues the agency faces is the fact that most of its
work is on high-capacity roadways, which necessitates performing the measurements at night to
avoid noisy conditions. Even at night, the high-capacity roads are heavily traveled and preclude
the use of some geophysical methods because of the noisy conditions.
NJDOT Example Project 1: Determining the Depth of Bedrock

beneath a Large-Block Talus Deposit
This project was conducted along a busy (55,000 vehicles per day) interstate highway and
involved a series of exposed near-vertical highway rock cuts interspersed with areas of soil slopes

Case Examples 51
overlying shallow bedrock. In addition, a unique aspect of the project site was an extensive
(approximately 600,000-square-ft) talus field composed of large (on average, 15-cubic-ft) rock
blocks overlying deeper bedrock. Rock types consisted of several members of a sedimentary
suite. Preliminary alternative analyses required comprehensive site characterization and sub-
surface exploration to determine top of rock, soil-bedrock, and talus-bedrock interface, as well
as prevailing rock structure and rock properties.
Control borings were performed in accessible areas (i.e., in the roadway and the lower soil slope
areas). In addition, several borings were taken within the talus field. These talus borings were
extremely labor intensive and costly; thus, a limited number were done. Optical televiewers and
acoustic televiewers were implemented in all boreholes. However, because many areas were
inaccessible to conventional boring equipment, additional geophysical methods were used
to supplement the ground truth data of the borings. In areas where soil was present, seismic
refraction was used to better define the soil-bedrock interface.
Because the location’s talus field contains a large number of air voids and a corresponding
lack of interstitial material, seismic refraction was eliminated as an applicable method. Alter-
natively, horizontal/vertical inversion—specifically, single-station passive seismic stratigraphy
(S-SPSS)—was used in this area. The S-SPSS used a surface instrument placed upon the talus at
specific grid points to obtain point data. Ambient vibrations were measured to stitch together
a shear wave velocity profile of the soil column. After data collection, the corresponding profile
was used to assess the depth of hard, resonating layers such as bedrock.
The S-SPSS results were encouraging, resulting in an improved subsurface soil-rock profile to
assist in further evaluation of design alternatives, as well as constructability concerns. Interest-
ingly, though reduction or elimination of background noise (such as highway traffic) is desirable
in many geophysical applications, because S-SPSS uses ambient vibrations, it can be reasonably
assumed that the high traffic volumes experienced within the project area likely resulted in more
accurate results. However, as with all geophysical methods, there are limitations to this technol-
ogy, and it is best used in conjunction with other applications where suitable.
NJDOT Example Project 2: Reconfiguration and Expansion

of an Existing Interchange
This project involved the planned reconfiguration and expansion of an existing interchange
of an interstate highway and state highway. In addition to numerous proposed new structures,
new ramps, and the widening or reconstruction of existing ramps, six known abandoned iron
ore mines from the early 1800s are located within the project limits.
Preliminary alternatives analyses required comprehensive subsurface exploration and site
characterization to determine the soil profile, top-of-rock interface, and prevailing rock struc-
ture and rock properties. These investigations also helped assess whether there was a need to
incorporate mine remediation measures into the project design. The subsurface investigation
was conducted in three separate phases. The first phase mapped the known abandoned mines in
relation to the project area and identified potential issues; the remaining two phases of investiga-
tion were developed for the furtherance of the project design.
During Phase One, MASW and 2D ERI were chosen to map the known mines and compare
the size, location, and current conditions against the existing literature and maps of the mines
themselves. The operations were conducted overnight and used lane closures in an effort to
reduce background noise caused by typical daytime traffic volume.
Phase Two consisted of seismic refraction surveys along a proposed ramp alignment to evaluate
rippability and delineate top of rock. The results indicated seismic velocities for the rock mass on the
ramp alignment approaching 40,000 ft per second. In addition, the results provided corroborating
evidence of previous mine remediation on adjoining properties adjacent to NJDOT right-of-way.

Phase Three consisted of a series of borings, including rock coring, for a proposed widen-
ing of one of the existing ramps. To facilitate structural rock analysis and rock cut design along
the ramp, borehole logging with optical televiewers was performed on all borings. Interference
from magnetite veins within the rock mass made it necessary to adjust the boring angle. Seismic
refraction was also performed in this area; results showed lower seismic velocities than measured
elsewhere on the project.
The overall results of the three geophysical investigations supplemented the characterization of
the site conditions. The staggered approach of the individual phases afforded NJDOT the ability to
tailor each successive phase according to the results of the preceding phase. Every geophysical appli-
cation used had its inherent advantages and limitations, and bundling several methods with borings
to provide ground truth was preferable to using a single method. In this way, the project developed
a more comprehensive model of the existing subsurface conditions and site characteristics.
NJDOT Example Project 3: Costly Project before the Use of Geophysics

NJDOT also discussed a case example from more than 20 ago—before geophysical methods
were used routinely by NJDOT. The project is a good example of the costs associated with not
using geophysics.
The project involved excavation in rock in the karst terrain of western New Jersey, where
ground conditions consisted of pinnacled bedrock. The soil borings performed at the site picked
up the highest points in the pinnacled rock such that the bedrock surface was interpreted to be
at a fairly consistent depth and rather shallow. When the cut was performed, the bedrock depth
was found to be highly erratic and much deeper in several locations. Although the presence of
soil allowed for easier excavation than expected, the absence of rock required re-engineering of
all of the slopes and the construction of retaining walls. The resulting multimillion-dollar claim
could potentially have been avoided if geophysics had been among the tools used by NJDOT at
that time. NJDOT reported that if the same project were performed today, geophysics would be
used and the likelihood of this problem and the resulting claim would be significantly reduced.
NJDOT: Lessons Learned

NJDOT has used geophysics for about 20 years but reported a more rapid expansion of use
in the past 5 years. In the past 20 years, the agency has observed a culture shift as engineers have
become more open to using geophysics on their projects. NJDOT has found the most value in
applying geophysics to rock problems, particularly seismic methods that can be used to characterize
rock rippability and bedrock depth. NJDOT’s cost savings have been primarily realized through
improved subsurface characterization, which has helped avoid claims. The agency has also had cases
where geophysics was the only viable option to obtain the information needed, as was the case for
the talus deposit case example presented earlier. All of NJDOT’s geophysical work is contracted
out. The agency has experienced some frustration over dealing with geotechnical engineering firms
that are unfamiliar with the geophysical methods the agency would like to use. Agency personnel
see a need for better training of engineers on the capabilities and limitations of geophysical methods.
California Department of Transportation

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) indicated the highest level of use of
geophysics among the agencies that responded to the survey. Caltrans reported using 20 of the
36 methods listed in the survey, and applied those methods to all 11 of the applications listed in
the survey. Like many of the other agencies, Caltrans reported more frequent use of geophysics

Case Examples 53
now compared with 5 years ago. Caltrans was also the only agency interviewed that had a formal
geophysics group within the agency. Caltrans’s experiences with geophysical methods, including
agency practices, commonly used methods, typical applications, and two example projects, are
presented in the following sections.

The use of geophysics at Caltrans dates back to the 1950s, as evidenced by photographs
from that period showing refraction measurements performed on a bridge project. In the 1970s,
several research projects in California were initiated to investigate the correlation between
p-wave velocity and excavation potential. Until the 1990s, geophysical work at Caltrans consisted
primarily of refraction measurements for determining rock rippability and depth of bedrock.
After the Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989, a large effort was undertaken to seismically retrofit
toll bridges in California, which required p-wave and s-wave velocity logging. In 1993, Caltrans
acquired a P-S suspension log, which was used extensively in onshore and especially offshore
applications. Caltrans continued to develop additional borehole logging capabilities, including
conductivity measurements and acoustic and optical televiewers. In 1998, a formal group dedi-
cated to geophysics was created. The group initially consisted of two people and currently consists
of eight individuals, including geologists, technicians, and engineering geophysicists.
The mission of the Geophysics and Geology Branch is “to provide geologic and engineering data
through nondestructive geophysical methods in support of foundation and geotechnical studies
for state highway construction projects.” The group currently has extensive in-house capabilities
to perform surface surveys, including seismic refraction, refraction tomography, ReMi, GPR, EM
induction, resistivity, and magnetometry, as well as borehole logging methods, including
PS logging, borehole caliper, natural gamma, induction, acoustic televiewer, full waveform sonic,
and resistivity. In addition, oversight and review of contracted geophysical projects are conducted
by the group. Caltrans reported that surface wave measurements and seismic reflection are
typically contracted out, and the agency reported few problems with the contracting process.
Policies for the use of geophysics are presented in the Caltrans (2019) Geotechnical Manual
within the Geotechnical Investigations section. The manual states that geophysical methods are
not typically used in the project planning phase unless the project needs justify such methods. After
the project comes into the design office, the Geophysics and Geology Branch acts as a support
office to bolster logging of boreholes or augment drilling information with surface geophysical
methods. Cost savings are realized both through using the cheaper geophysical measurement in
lieu of additional borings and—more significantly—through avoiding the unforeseen costs of
unexpected site conditions.
Another role of the Geophysics and Geology Branch is to train and inform engineers about
the capabilities of geophysical methods. The branch has found that, because of staff turnover,
many engineers coming on board are not well versed in how geophysical techniques can be used
on their projects. The branch thus sees a need for training materials that would help educate
geotechnical engineers on the capabilities of modern geophysical methods, such as a National
Highway Institute course on geophysics.

Caltrans has extensive in-house capabilities to perform both surface and borehole geophysical
measurements. It has a borehole logging truck that travels throughout the state with the capa-
bility to perform PS logging, borehole caliper, natural gamma, induction, acoustic televiewer,
full waveform sonic, and resistivity measurements. The borehole measurements are used to

provide a continuous record of the physical properties of the soil and rock; this augments the
discrete information obtained from lab analysis. Caltrans reported extensive use of the acoustic
televiewer in agency projects that seek to find orientations of failure surfaces, fractures, and
bedding. Acoustic logging negates the need to perform other more cumbersome methods, such
as oriented core or manned-hole logging. An example of an acoustic televiewer log from a
foundation investigation is shown in Figure 36.
Caltrans frequently uses surface geophysical methods to interpolate geologic data into areas that
have not been explored with boreholes. The surface methods employed by the agency most routinely
are p-wave refraction tomography and GPR. An example of p-wave tomography and of GPR results
are presented in the sections that follow. Caltrans has a number of GPR units that are used for both
geophysical and nondestructive evaluation applications. Among these units are a 3D radar unit
that is capable of mapping beneath roadways at high speeds. In addition to seismic tomography
and GPR, Caltrans reported frequent use of resistivity for mapping sand and clay deposits, as well
as frequency-domain EM for soil conductivity mapping and time-domain EM for utility mapping.
Caltrans Example Project 1: Freeway Improvement Project

at Interstate 80 and Willow Avenue in Contra Costa County
Refraction tomography is the most common surface method used by Caltrans and has largely
replaced conventional refraction processing. An example of the use of borehole-to-surface
Figure 36. Example of acoustic

televiewer log performed by Caltrans
from foundation investigation.
Shows identification of open joint
with aperture of about 10 cm
(courtesy of Caltrans).

Case Examples 55
refraction tomography for a freeway improvement project at Interstate 80 and Willow Avenue
in Contra Costa County is presented here.
The site is located near a heavily traveled urban freeway, whose traffic produced significant
broad-band seismic noise. Refraction tomography measurements were performed to fill in
information between two boreholes spaced approximately 60 m apart at the site, as shown in
Figure 37. The depth to rock at these two boreholes varied from about 3 m to the north to 20 m
to the south. Because a limited footprint was available for performing surface refraction mea-
surements, two source shots were performed at depth in the borehole in addition to the surface
shots, in an effort to adequately image the deep end of the profile. The ray coverage produced by
this shot arrangement is shown in Figure 38, where the hit count indicates the number of rays pass-
ing through a pixel. The refraction tomography results provided an excellent image of the variable
subsurface conditions between the boreholes, as shown in Figure 39. For comparison, the pseudo
ray path model without the borehole shots is shown in Figure 40. When the borehole shots are not
included, the depth of resolution is greatly limited and the measurement is unable to image the
deeper rock. These results illustrate the dramatic effect of adding just a few borehole shots on the
depth resolution of refraction tomography measurements.
Caltrans Example Project 2: GPR to Determine Stratigraphy

Caltrans provided information on a case example of using GPR to image stratigraphy.
The project involved an area adjacent to an existing roadcut, referred to as Big Pumice Cut, along
US 395. Ground-penetrating radar data were collected along transects of a southwest-facing natural
hillslope at different distances from the edge of an existing cut, as shown in Figure 41. The purpose
of the investigation was to determine if the stratigraphy exposed in the cut extended back into the
hillslope. The cut exposes the Sherwin Till overlain by the Bishop Tuff, as shown in Figure 41.
Ground-penetrating radar surveys were conducted using 50 MHz antennas to obtain reflec-
tion data in the area under investigation. Estimates of the contact depth between the Bishop Tuff
and Sherwin Till were based on extending the exposed stratigraphy back into the hillslope.
Figure 37. Plan view of location of refraction tomography

measurements used to fill in between two boreholes at project
site (courtesy of Caltrans).

Figure 38. Pseudo ray path model for velocity section

shown in Figure 39 (courtesy of Caltrans).
Figure 39. Velocity model and lithology interpretation between boreholes

using borehole logs and borehole-to-surface tomography at I-80 and Willow
site (courtesy of Caltrans).

Case Examples 57
Figure 40. Pseudo ray path model using only surface sources,
showing change in depth of investigation (courtesy of Caltrans).
The GPR measurements showed clear reflections that were interpreted to be the interface between
the Bishop Tuff and Sherwin Till, as shown in Figure 42. Seismic refraction data of the Bishop Tuff
and Sherwin Till showed that the materials could not be distinguished by seismic velocity, and
resistivity measurements were unsuccessful because of the high resistance of the dry tuff.
Caltrans: Lessons Learned

Caltrans makes extensive use of geophysical methods and has a dedicated in-house geo-
physics group with the capability of performing a wide range of borehole and surface geophysical
Figure 41. Road cut along US-395 showing locations of three

transects (courtesy of Caltrans).

Figure 42. GPR reflections interpreted to represent

contact between Sherwin Till and overlying Bishop Tuff
(courtesy of Caltrans).
techniques. Caltrans has found that selective use of geophysics can improve the quality of geo-
technical investigations and produce significant cost savings. These cost savings are realized
through the use of in-house expertise to perform routine geophysical services. The case examples
presented illustrate results obtained from two of the agency’s most commonly used methods—
seismic refraction tomography and GPR.
The favorable results from geophysical investigations that Caltrans has experienced have
demonstrated the effectiveness of geophysical service within the agency. The Caltrans geophysi-
cal group also educates engineers in Caltrans on the capabilities and limitations of geophysical
measurements. Like many of the other agencies interviewed, Caltrans sees a need for training
resources to help educate engineers on geophysics and would make use of such resources if they
were developed.
Lessons Learned from All Case Examples

Although the experiences of the five agencies described in this chapter vary significantly, they
also overlap in several areas. Each interview provided valuable lessons on how geophysical capa-
bilities have been developed, how they are typically used, and benefits to their use in transporta-
tion projects. A summary of lessons learned from these five agencies is as follows.
• All the agencies interviewed agreed that geophysical methods act as a cost savings tool when
they are applied to the appropriate problem and field conditions. The degree of cost savings

Case Examples 59
varies by project and has not been quantified by the agencies in most cases. The main source
of cost savings mentioned by most of the agencies was avoidance of claims or unanticipated
delays through better characterization of ground conditions.
• Implementation of geophysics differs significantly among the agencies interviewed. Three of
the agencies, MnDOT, ODOT, and Caltrans, have developed in-house capabilities to perform
at least some of the more routine geophysical methods. Caltrans in particular stands out as
having a broad range of in-house capabilities and a group dedicated to geophysics. These three
agencies all credited in-house capabilities for both cost savings in performing the measure-
ments and an increased likelihood of using the methods. These agencies also contract out
some geophysical work. Two of the agencies, VDOT and NJDOT, obtain all or nearly all geo-
physical measurements through external contracts. None of the agencies reported significant
problems with the contracting process.
• As expected, given the geographic distribution of the agencies interviewed, the applications
and primary methods used differed among the agencies. For MnDOT, VDOT, and ODOT,
identification of voids and cavities in karst conditions and of abandoned mines was a com-
mon application. These agencies also identified ER as the most common method used. For
NJDOT and Caltrans, seismic methods, particularly refraction, seismic tomography, and
GPR, were the most common methods used. NJDOT used geophysics primarily for rock-
related issues, whereas Caltrans used it for a wide range of soil and rock applications.
• Some agencies reported experiences where geophysical measurements provided ambiguous,
confusing, or inaccurate results. Agency personnel emphasized the need to apply the
methods under the right conditions and to avoid using certain methods at sites with known
sources of interference.
• All the agencies emphasized the need to correlate the results with ground truth from borehole
data. Many cautioned against relying too much on geophysical measurements because of the
uncertainty in relating geophysical anomalies to specific subsurface features.
• Personnel from two of the agencies that performed geophysical measurements in-house—
MnDOT and ODOT—developed the technical skills to perform the measurements through
vendor training. Personnel from each agency expressed satisfaction with the training and
level of support they had received from the vendor. The Caltrans group hires geophysicists
and geologists with the necessary background and does not rely as much on vendor training.
• Most of the agencies mentioned experiences working with geotechnical engineers or contrac-
tors who were unfamiliar with geophysical methods. Personnel from each of the agencies
thought there was a need for better training of geotechnical engineers on the capabilities and
limitations of geophysical methods.
• The extensive use of acoustic televiewers was another consistent comment from most of the
agencies.
• Many of the agencies indicated a culture change over the past decade or so, during which
engineers have become more comfortable with using geophysical methods.

CHAPTER 5
Conclusions
This synthesis documents current practices for the application of geophysical methods to
transportation projects. Practices were gleaned from a review of literature, a survey of transpor-
tation agencies, and case examples of select agencies. This chapter summarizes the most notable
findings from each before presenting conclusions and suggestions for future research.
Summary of Major Findings

The review of the literature on near-surface geophysical methods found a wide range of surface
and geophysical techniques available that are applicable to transportation-related problems.
This synthesis focused on 15 surface techniques and nine borehole techniques. Brief summaries
of each method were provided, as were select applications from the literature. The literature
review was also used to assemble an updated matrix of surface and borehole methods and their
applications, as well as a summary of relevant training resources on the application, implemen-
tation, and fundamentals of geophysical methods.
The synthesis survey revealed the vast majority of agencies use geophysical methods, with 43
of 48 respondents (90%) indicating their agency uses geophysical methods. This proportion is
approximately the same as that found in the 2006 survey by Sirles. Agency motivations for using
geophysical methods varied, with five reasons cited by at least half of the respondents; the most
commonly cited was the ability to provide a subsurface image of a large mass of materials. Among
the five agencies without geophysical experience, the most commonly cited reasons for not using
geophysical methods were technical. All five indicated that agency engineers were unfamiliar
with geophysical methods.
According to the survey results, the most common estimate for how frequently agencies use
geophysical methods is three to five times per year. Seven respondents indicated their agency
uses geophysical methods more than 10 times per year. For half of the agencies with geophysical
experience, respondents indicated the frequency of use of geophysical methods is increasing.
There is not much evidence that the frequency of application has increased since the 2006
survey by Sirles. The estimated frequency of application of geophysical methods was largely
the same as reported by Sirles for the 2006 survey, but survey respondent estimates provide
some indication that agency spending on geophysical methods may have increased slightly.
Eight geophysical methods are reported to have been used by at least one-third of respondents
with knowledge of agency geophysical experience. The most common are ground-penetrating
radar and seismic refraction, both of which were reported by nearly nine in 10 respondents.
These same methods were also found to be the most commonly applied in the 2006 survey.
However, active and passive surface wave methods, electrical tomography, microgravity, and
optical and acoustic televiewer methods have all experienced a three- to four-fold increase in the
60

Conclusions 61
proportion of agencies that report experience with those methods. Electrical resistivity imaging
(ERI), in particular, was well represented in the case examples provided. Geologic objectives of
the geophysical investigations are dominated by those pertaining to rock, especially determina-
tion of the depth to bedrock, bedrock topography, and bedrock rippability.
The majority of agencies with geophysics experience, 51%, use a mix of in-house capabilities
and contractors for performance of geophysical test methods. Forty-four percent perform all geo-
physical test methods using contractors. The most common source of funding for geophysical
investigations is project design funds, which have been used by more than 90% of respondents.
Responses to survey questions about potential new training resources were highly skewed
toward a favorable view of such resources. At least 70% of respondents said new training
resources would be somewhat likely or very likely to increase agency use of geophysical methods.
That result held for three different training formats, with in-person training viewed as the most
likely to increase agency use of geophysical methods. Another question asked about the per-
ceived usefulness of five different training content areas. The majority of respondents indicated
that all five content areas would be very useful, with (1) uses and applications of geophysical
methods and (2) interpretation of engineering parameters from geophysical results viewed as
the most useful.
Five case examples were examined in this survey. The agencies interviewed were all identi-
fied as prolific users of geophysical methods. The history of geophysics use among the agencies
varied considerably, as did the means of implementation. Three of the agencies performed most
geophysical measurements with in-house capabilities. These agencies considered in-house use
to be cost saving, allowing them to use the methods for more projects. Two of the agencies per-
formed the measurements almost exclusively by external contracting and reported few problems
with the contracting process.
The agencies provided interesting case examples where geophysical measurements had pro-
vided a benefit through cost savings, were the only viable approach for the conditions encoun-
tered, allowed for imaging of a large subsurface volume, or allowed for rapid collection of
subsurface information. Examples where geophysical results were confirmed by ground truth
were also provided. All agencies commented on the need to supplement geophysical investiga-
tions with a drilling and sampling program whenever possible.
The agencies interviewed also indicated a need for training resources. The primary need
identified by the agencies was training for engineers on the capabilities, limitations, and typical
applications of geophysical methods. Several commented that a National Highway Institute
course on geophysics would be welcomed.
Conclusions
Comparison of survey results from this synthesis and the 2006 synthesis by Sirles provides a
unique opportunity to evaluate how the state of practice for geophysical methods has changed
among U.S. transportation agencies. The number of agencies that use geophysical methods and
the frequency of geophysical applications do not appear to have changed significantly. Roughly
nine of 10 agencies use geophysical methods. Most agencies are relatively casual users with five
or fewer geophysical applications per year, though a small handful of agencies implement geo-
physical methods routinely. Although the overall frequency of geophysical applications does
not appear to have increased since 2006, the survey from this synthesis provides some evidence
that agency spending on geophysical methods has increased slightly, and there is strong evidence
in the survey results that a variety of methods from across the geophysical spectrum have been
implemented by significantly more agencies since 2006.

The survey results from this synthesis indicate that agency use of geophysical methods
is commonly motivated by a wide variety of factors. Among six potential reasons for using
geophysical methods, five were selected by more than half of the agencies with geophysical
experience as having motivated their use of geophysical methods. The case example agencies
provide strong anecdotal support for these motivators. For example, MnDOT provided a case
example where resistivity measurements were used exclusively for foundation condition assess-
ment because of site access issues. NJDOT provided an interesting example of opting for a simple
and quick passive geophysical method when drilling was too slow and difficult. Caltrans showed
an excellent example of imaging a large volume of material between boreholes, and ODOT
provided examples of imaging a shallow landslide with resistivity. Last, NJDOT provided an
example from a time before it used geophysics, where major cost savings would have been real-
ized if geophysical methods had been applied.
As evidenced by survey results from this synthesis and the 2006 synthesis, the greatest deter-
rent to greater application of geophysical methods is a lack of familiarity and understanding of
the methods among agency engineers. Both the 2006 and the present survey indicate broad sup-
port for development of new training resources related to geophysical methods.
Suggestions for Future Research

There are countless avenues for research into geophysical methods that could produce useful
and effective results for transportation agencies. For example, there is a need to further develop
correlations between geophysical measurements and geotechnical parameters. Toward this end,
development of processing routines and interpretation methods that use several geophysical
measurements from the same location could be beneficial. It is suggested that research into
near-surface applications of cutting-edge methods such as FWI continue to be studied, and that
continued documentation of the use of geophysical methods to infer geotechnical parameters
and site conditions from case histories is encouraged. Transportation agencies that are able to
do so might consider encouraging, supporting, and funding such research.
The results of this and of the 2006 (Sirles) synthesis, however, point not to specific research
needs but rather to a more basic undertaking that would improve agency use of geophysical
methods: development of training resources. That lack of knowledge of geophysical methods
among agency engineers impedes the use of geophysical methods, and that agency engineers are
eager for new training resources were among the clearest of the survey results. Taken together,
the survey findings suggest that development and implementation of training resources would
effectively increase agency use of geophysical methods. The survey results also suggest two
training content areas would be most useful: (1) appropriate selection of geophysical methods
that consider investigation objectives and site characteristics and (2) interpretation of engineering
parameters from geophysical results. The case example agency interviews support the survey
findings. The most common comment on training was that there was a need to educate engi-
neers on the value that geophysical methods can provide to their projects. The experience
of case example agencies suggests that agencies could realize significant cost savings, project
schedule accelerations, and reliability improvements if training resources were to success-
fully move the state of practice toward more frequent and more thoughtful applications of

References
Anderson, N., N. Croxton, R. Hoover, and P. Sirles, Transportation Research Circular No. E-C130: Geophysical
Methods Commonly Employed for Geotechnical Site Characterization. Transportation Research Board, National
Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2008.
Boeckmann, A. Z., and J. E. Loehr. NCHRP Synthesis 484: Influence of Geotechnical Investigation and Subsurface
Conditions on Claims, Change Orders, and Overruns. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.,
2016.
Bumpus, P. B., and S. E. Kruse. Self-Potential Monitoring for Hydrologic Investigations in Urban Covered Karst
Terrain. Geophysics, Vol. 79, No. 6, 2014.
California Department of Transportation. Geotechnical Manual [online]. California Department of Trans-
portation, Sacramento, 2019. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/geotech/geo_manual/manual.html. Accessed
May 14, 2019.
Coe, J. T., S. J. Brandenberg, S. Ahdi, and A. Kordaji. Geophysical Methods for Determining the Geotechnical
Engineering Properties of Earth Materials. Report CA-17-2111. California Department of Transportation,
Sacramento, 2018.
Colorado Department of Transportation. Geophysical Investigations for Subsurface Characterization. Internal
document. Denver, 2006.
Deschenes, M. R., C. Wood, L. Wotherspoon, B. Bradley, and E. Thompson. Development of Deep Shear
Wave Velocity Profiles in the Canterbury Plains, New Zealand. Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 34, No. 3, 2018,
pp. 1065–1089.
Estrada-Medina, H., W. Tuttle, R. C. Graham, M. F. Allen, and J. Jimenez-Osornio. Identification of Under-
ground Karst Features Using Ground-Penetrating Radar in Northern Yucatan. Vadose Zone, Vol. 9, No. 3,
2010, pp. 653–661.
Foti, S., C. G. Lai, G. J. Rix, and C. Strobbia. Surface Wave Methods for Near-Surface Site Characterization,
CRC Press, 2017.
Gazoty, A., G. Fiandaca, J. Pedersen, E. Auken, and A. V. Christiansen. Mapping of Landfills Using Time-Domain
Spectral Induced Polarization Data: The Eskelund Case Study. Near Surface Geophysics, Vol. 10, No. 6, 2012.
Hickin, A. S., and M. E. Best. Mapping the Geometry and Lithostratigraphy of a Paleovalley with a Time-Domain
Electromagnetic Technique in an Area with Small Resistivity Contrasts, Groundbirch, British Columbia,
Canada. Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, Vol. 18, No. 2, 2013, pp. 119–135.
Krawczyk, C. M., U. Polom, and T. Beilecke. Shear-Wave Reflection Seismics as a Valuable Tool for Near-
Surface Urban Applications. The Leading Edge—Special Section: Urban Geophysics, Vol. 32, No. 3, March
2013, pp. 256–263.
Liu, S., and M. Sato. Subsurface Water-Filled Fracture Detection by Borehole Radar: A Case History. Journal of
Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, Vol. 11, No. 2, 2006, pp. 95–101.
Maine Department of Transportation. Bridge Design Guide [online]. Maine Department of Transportation,
Augusta, 2003. http://maine.gov/mdot/bdg/. Accessed July 5, 2016.
Maryland Department of Transportation. Pavement and Geotechnical Design Guide [online]. Maryland
Department of Transportation, Hanover, 2018. https://www.roads.maryland.gov/OMT/pdguide0718.pdf.
Accessed August 13, 2019.
Milsom, J., and A. Eriksen. Field Geophysics, 4th ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New Delhi, 2011.
Nguyen, T. D., K. T. Tran, and M. McVay. Evaluation of Unknown Foundations Using Surface-Based Full
Waveform Tomography. Journal of Bridge Engineering, Vol. 21, No. 5, 2016.
Paine, J. G., S. M. Buckley, E. W. Collins, and C. R. Wilson. Assessing Collapse Risk in Evaporite Sinkhole-Prone
Areas Using Microgravity and Radar Interferometry. Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics,
Vol. 17, No. 2, 2012, pp. 75–87.
63

Pazzi V., L. Tanteri, G. Bicocchi, A. Caselli, M. D’Ambrosio, and R. Fanti. H/V Technique for the Rapid Detection
of Landslide Slip Surface(s): Assessment of the Optimized Measurements Spatial Distribution. In Advancing
Culture of Living with Landslides (M. Mikos, B. Tiwari, Y. Yin, and K. Sassa, eds.), Springer, 2017.
Reynolds, J. M. An Introduction to Applied and Environmental Geophysics, 2nd Ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
New Delhi, 2011.
Richter, J. L. Proceedings from SAGEEP 2010: Resistivity Imaging at Mn/DOT: “Building Bridges” in Duluth.
Keystone, CO, 2010.
Schmutz, M., A. Ghorbani, P. Vaudelet, and A. Revil. Spectral Induced Polarization Detects Cracks and Dis-
tinguishes between Open and Clay-Filled Fractures. Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics,
Vol. 16, No. 2, 2011, pp. 85–91.
Sirles, P. C. NCHRP Synthesis 357: Use of Geophysics for Transportation Projects. TRB, National Research Council,
Washington, D.C., 2006.
South Carolina Department of Transportation. Geotechnical Design Manual, Ver. 2.0 [online]. South Carolina
Department of Transportation, Columbia, 2019. http://www.scdot.org/doing/structural_geotechnical.aspx.
Accessed March 7, 2010.
Sullivan, B., K. T. Tran, and B. Logston. Characterization of Abandoned Mine Voids under Roadways with
Land-Streamer Seismic Waves. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board, No. 2580, 2016, pp. 71–79. DOI: 10.3141/2580-09.
Tran K. T., M. Mirzanejad, M. McVay, and D. Horhota. 3D Time-Domain Gauss–Newton Full Waveform
Inversion for Near-Surface Site Characterization. Geophysical Journal International, Vol. 217, 2019,
pp. 206–218.
Tucker, S. E., J.-L. Briaud, S. Hurlesbaus, and M. Everett. Electrical Resistivity and Induced Polarization Imaging
for Unknown Foundation Bridge Foundations. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
Vol. 141, No. 5, 2015.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Geotechnical Investigations. EM 1110-1-1804. Washington, D.C., 2001.
Virginia Department of Transportation. Manual of Instructions for the Materials Division [online]. Virginia
Department of Transportation, Richmond, 2019. http://www.virginiadot.org/business/materials-download-
docs.asp. Accessed May 14, 2019.
Wightman, W. E., F. Jalinoos, P. Sirles, and K. Hanna. Application of Geophysical Methods to Highway Related
Problems. Publication No. FHWA-IF-04-021. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C.,
2004.
Wyoming Department of Transportation. Geology Manual. Internal document.
Zheng, Y., A. H. Malallah, M. C. Fehler, and H. Hu. 2D Full-Waveform Inversion of Seismic Waves in Layered
Karstic Media. Geophysics, Vol. 81, No. 2, 2016.

APPENDIX A
Survey Questionnaire
Dear Geotechnical Engineer,
The Transportation Research Board (TRB) is preparing a synthesis on the use of geophysical
methods for transportation projects. This is being done for NCHRP, under the sponsorship of the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, in cooperation with the
Federal Highway Administration.
Your cooperation in completing the questionnaire will ensure the success of this effort. If there is
someone else at your agency who is more familiar with agency use of geophysical methods,
please forward the survey request to that person. You may also share the survey response effort
with a colleague by following the instructions included below, although only one response per
question per agency is allowed.
Please complete the survey by February 22. We estimate the survey will take approximately 20
minutes to complete. If you have questions, please contact the co-investigator, Andy Boeckmann,
at 573-884-7613 or boeckmanna@missouri.edu. Any supporting materials or additional
documents that might be useful for this study would be much appreciated and can be sent
directly to Andy by email. Thank you for participating in the survey!
The remaining sections before the page break appear on the first page of the survey.
MOTIVATION
Effective and economical characterization of subsurface site conditions is a critical component of
transportation projects. Geophysical methods provide a nondestructive means to rapidly and
economically characterize subsurface conditions over a spatial extent that is not possible with
conventional methods. Despite these benefits, challenges and obstacles remain that must be
overcome if routine implementation of geophysical methods for transportation projects is to be
realized. The goal of the study is to document current practices and guidelines used by
transportation agencies for the application of geophysical methods to transportation projects.
This survey is the most critical component of the project effort.
NOTES ON COMPLETING THE QUESTIONNAIRE

1. A PDF of the survey was included in the distribution email. Please use the PDF to preview
questions, share with colleagues, or print a hardcopy of the questionnaire.
A-1

A-2 Advancements in Use of Geophysical Methods for Transportation Projects
2. Responses will automatically save each time you click on the forward or back buttons
found on the bottom of each page. Your responses will repopulate if you click on the link
sent with the original distribution. You must be on the same computer and using the same
browser for your responses to repopulate.
3. You will have a chance to preview your responses prior to submitting.
4. To forward a partially completed response to a colleague, use the forward buttons at the
bottom of each screen to progress to the final page of the survey. The final page asks if
you would like to share the response with a colleague. If so, please check the checkbox
associated with the question, enter your colleague’s email address, and click the forward
button. Scroll to the bottom of the response summary page and click the forward button
one more time and Qualtrics will send your colleague a new link to finish the
questionnaire.
QUESTIONNAIRE DEFINITION OF GEOPHYSICAL METHODS

The term “geophysical methods” here is defined as measurement techniques that apply physical
principles to define geology and study earth materials. This definition does not include methods
that are used to characterize the condition or properties of man-made materials and structures.
While some methods can be applied to both geological and man-made materials (e.g., surface
wave methods), this survey only considers the application of these methods for geotechnical site
characterization.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Contact information will be collected for the agency’s point of contact for the survey using the
survey software.

Survey Questionnaire A-3
SURVEY
1) Has your agency used geophysical methods for geotechnical site investigation?
(For the purposes of this survey, geophysical methods refer to measurement techniques that
apply physical principles to define geology and study earth materials.)
Yes
No
I’m not sure.
If “No” or “I’m not sure” is selected:
Is there someone in your agency who is more familiar with agency experience regarding
geophysical methods?
Yes
No
If yes, the respondent will be asked to forward the survey to a colleague.
Question 2 will be presented to respondents who indicate in Question 1 that their agency has not used
geophysical methods. After responding to Question 2, these respondents will be presented with Questions
17 through 21 (skipping Questions 3 through 16).
2) Please indicate the reasons your agency has not used geophysical methods by selecting all
responses below that apply.
Cost of geophysical methods is too great.

Practical limitations regarding site access prevent effective implementation.
It takes too long to implement geophysical methods (from planning to reporting of
results).
Results from geophysical methods are too uncertain (i.e., imprecise).
Results from geophysical methods are too unreliable (i.e., inaccurate).
Agency engineers do not know where or when to apply geophysical methods because
of unfamiliarity with the capabilities and limitations of the methods.
Agency engineers do not have a good understanding of how to interpret the results
or evaluate their reliability.
Our agency is reluctant to apply any new methods for geotechnical site
characterization, geophysical or otherwise (i.e., agency inertia).
There are no local contractors or in-house expertise available for performing
Contracting
Other, please specify: _____________________________

All remaining questions will be presented to respondents who indicate in Question 1 that their agency has
applied geophysical methods.
3) Please indicate the reasons your agency has used geophysical methods by selecting all
responses below that apply. For the responses below, “conventional subsurface investigation
methods” refer to drilling, sampling, and laboratory testing, the standard penetration test,
and the cone penetration test.
Geophysical methods are cost-effective.

Because of site access, geophysical methods have been applied where conventional
subsurface investigation methods were not feasible.
Because of environmental constraints, geophysical methods have been applied where
conventional subsurface investigation methods were not feasible.
Geophysical methods can be implemented quickly (from planning to reporting of
results).
Geophysical methods provide a direct measure of certain engineering parameters
(e.g., shear wave velocity) to be used in analysis.
Geophysical methods produce subsurface imaging of a large mass of materials in two
or three dimensions.
4) In the past five years, about how frequently has your agency applied geophysical methods on
average?
One time per year or less

Two times per year
Three to five times per year
Six to ten times per year
More than ten times per year
I don’t know.
5) Who performs geophysical investigations?
Agency personnel perform all geophysical investigations (i.e., all investigations are in-
house).
Contractors perform all geophysical investigations.
Some investigations are performed in-house; others are performed by contractors.
I don’t know.
If “Some investigations are performed in-house…” is selected, respondents will be asked to indicate which
methods are performed in-house.

6) How does your agency’s current use of geophysical methods compare with its use of
geophysical methods five years ago?
o Geophysical methods are used less frequently now than five years ago.
o Geophysical methods are used with about the same frequency now as five years ago.
o Geophysical methods are used more frequently now than five years ago.
o Geophysical methods were not used five years ago.
o I don’t know.
7) Which geophysical methods has your agency used? Please select all that apply.
Seismic methods:
□ Seismic refraction
□ Seismic reflection
□ Seismic tomography
□ H/V spectral ratio
□ Full Waveform Inversion
□ Active source surface wave techniques (e.g., SASW, MASW)
□ Passive surface wave techniques (e.g., ReMi)
□ Seismic methods, but I don’t know which ones specifically.
Electrical methods:
□ 1D resistivity soundings (e.g., VES)
□ 2D resistivity profiling (e.g., Dipole/Dipole, Wenner, etc.)
□ 2D resistivity imaging (e.g., pole-Dipole, electrical resistivity tomography [ERT], etc.)
□ Induced polarization (IP)
□ Self-potential (SP)
□ Electrical methods, but I don’t know which ones specifically.
□ Ground-penetrating radar (GPR)
□ Time-domain EM
□ Frequency-domain EM (terrain conductivity)
□ Very low frequency (VLF)
□ Seismoelectric
□ Electromagnetic methods, but I don’t know which ones specifically.
Magnetic methods:
□ Total-field
□ Gradiometer
□ Magnetic methods, but I don’t know which ones specifically.
Gravity methods:
□ Microgravity
□ Standard gravity
□ Gravity methods, but I don’t know which ones specifically.


Downhole seismic
Crosshole seismic
Electrical (SP, Resistivity, E-logs)
Electromagnetic induction
Nuclear (e.g., gamma-gamma, natural gamma, neutron, etc.)
Optical televiewer
Acoustic televiewer
Suspension logging (e.g., PS Logger)
Hydrophysical
Borehole deviation
Other responses:
Geophysical methods, but I don’t know which ones specifically.
8) For which applications has your agency applied geophysical methods? Please select all that
apply.
Routine design of bridge foundations

Routine design of embankments or cut slopes
Routine design of retaining walls
Seismic site effects
Liquefaction
Landslide evaluation
Utility location
Evaluation of roadway subsidence
Evaluation of scour (extent of existing scour, potential for future scour)
Evaluation and QC of construction (e.g., fill placement, excavation of unsuitable
material)
Forensic investigation of failed infrastructure

9) For which geologic investigation objectives has your agency applied geophysical methods?
Please select all that apply.
Evaluation of rock:
Depth to bedrock
Topography of bedrock
Faulting in bedrock
Fractures in bedrock
Mapping bedrock strength (i.e., rippability)
Mapping weak zones in bedrock (e.g., shear zones or weathered areas)
Mapping lithology in bedrock
Estimating rock mass stiffness (e.g., elastic modulus, shear modulus, etc.)
Estimating rock mass density
Evaluation of soil:
Mapping lithology in overburden soils
Mapping sand and/or gravel deposits (i.e., borrow investigations)
Mapping clay (i.e., excavation issues for expansive or swelling clays)
Mapping unsuitable materials (e.g., rubble, organics, etc.)
Estimating soil stiffness (e.g., elastic modulus, shear modulus, etc.)
Estimating soil density
Estimating clay content
Mapping groundwater table
Mapping groundwater flow
Mapping groundwater salinity
Mapping landslide extents (laterally)
Slip surface identification and definition
Evaluation of deformations
Evaluation of sinkholes, voids or erosion features:
Karst or other dissolution features
Failed culverts/sewers
Abandoned mines
Scour features

10) Has your agency established specific policies, guidelines, and/or procedures for application
of geophysical methods?
Yes
No
I don’t know.
If yes:
Please provide a link(s) to an online version of the document(s), or upload the document(s)
as an attachment below.
Link to documents (Insert text box)

Upload documents (Insert upload button)
Documents are not available for sharing.
11) Has your agency applied geophysical methods on any especially noteworthy or challenging
projects?
Yes
No
I don’t know.
If yes:
Please briefly describe any noteworthy or challenging applications of geophysical methods.
(Text box)
12) Considering the past five years, about how much has your agency spent on geophysical
investigations on average each year?
0 to $50,000
$50,001 to $100,000
$100,001 to $150,000
$150,001 to $250,000
$250,001 to $500,000
More than $500,000
I don’t know.
13) How are subsurface investigations generally funded at your agency? Note this question refers
to all methods of subsurface investigation, not just geophysical methods.
The annual agency budget includes funds allocated for subsurface investigation.
Funding for subsurface investigations comes from other agency funds (project design
funds, project construction funds, agency maintenance funds, etc.).
Other, please specify: ________________________
I don’t know.

Question 14 will be asked of respondents who indicate the annual agency budget includes funds allocated
for subsurface investigation. All other respondents will be asked Question 15.
14) Do the annual agency budget funds allocated for subsurface investigation include specific
allocations for geophysical investigations?
Yes
No
I don’t know.
15) Which funding sources have been used to pay for geophysical investigations? Please select all
that apply.
Project design funds

Project construction funds
Agency maintenance funds
Agency emergency response funds
I don’t know.
Question 16 will be asked to all respondents except those who indicate in Question 5 that all geophysical
investigations are performed in-house.
16) What types of contracts have been used to procure geophysical investigation services? Please
select all that apply.
Unit price (i.e., cost per subsurface profile, etc.)

Cost-plus (a.k.a. cost reimbursement)
Time and materials
Lump sum/firm fixed price
Indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) or similar on-call service agreement
I don’t know.

The remaining questions will be asked to all respondents, including those who indicate in Question 1 that
they have not used geophysical methods.
17) Please indicate your familiarity and use of each of the following resources related to
geophysical methods by selecting one column per row.
I have heard of this

I am not familiar I have used this
Resource resource, but have
with this resource. resource.
not used it.
FHWA Manual: Application
of Geophysical Methods to
Highway Related Problems
NCHRP Synthesis 357: Use
of Geophysics for
Transportation Projects
EDC-5 Webinar on
Advanced Geotechnical
Exploration Methods
Transportation Research
Circular No. E-C130:
Geophysical Methods
Commonly Employed for
Geotechnical Site
Characterization
ASTM/AASHTO
Standards
If respondent indicates use of ASTM/AASHTO standards, respondent will be asked to list the standards
that have been used.
18) (Optional) Please indicate any other resources or training related to geophysical methods
your agency has utilized.
(Text box)

19) Please indicate how likely each of the following resources would be to increase your agency’s
use of geophysics by selecting one column per row.
Likelihood of increasing agency use of geophysics:

Neither
Not at Somewhat Somewhat Very I don’t
Resource likely nor
all likely unlikely likely likely know.
unlikely
In-person training
(e.g., NHI course)
Online webinar
Guidance manual
(e.g., FHWA
Geotechnical
Engineering Circular)
20) Please indicate how useful each of the following content areas would be for new training or
guidance resources:
Value of content area:

Somewhat I don’t
Content area Not useful Very useful
useful know.
Technical background of
specific geophysical methods
Use and applications of
geophysical methods
Procedures for field
performance of geophysical
methods
Interpretation of engineering
parameters from results of
geophysical methods
Case histories documenting
projects with effective use of
geophysical methods
21) (Optional) Please use the text box below to offer any additional thoughts regarding
development of training resources for geophysical methods.
(Text box)
END OF SURVEY
Your responses have been submitted. Thank you for completing the survey. Your responses are
very important, and your feedback is welcome. If you have questions or comments, please contact
the co-investigator:
Andrew Boeckmann
E2509 Lafferre Hall, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211, 573-884-7613
boeckmanna@missouri.edu


APPENDIX B
Survey Responses
Responding Agencies
Agencies responding to the survey are shown in the map below.
Appendix B1—Summary Table
One large summary table provides the responses to all questions for all respondents. Responses
on the summary table are coded with numbers that correspond to the relatively lengthy selections
from the question response options. The key for these numbers is provided in Appendix B2. The
summary table is a convenient method for identifying an agency’s response to a particular
question quickly, or for evaluating all responses to a particular question quickly.
Appendix B2—Key for Summary Table with Response Counts
Tables for each survey question are presented. The tables are similar to those presented
throughout Chapter 3 of the synthesis. The number “code” from Appendix B1 is listed with the
accompanying question selection.
Appendix B3—Responses to Short Answer Questions
Some responses to the short answer questions were quite long, so the responses to all short
answer questions are presented in their own section of the appendix.
B-1

B-2 Advancements in Use of Geophysical Methods for Transportation Projects
Appendix B1—Summary Table

Agencies w/o
All Geophysics
Agencies Experience Agencies with Geophysics Experience
Question: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Subsurface
Frequency Note- Invest Geophysics
Geo- Why Not Reasons for 5-year Who vs. 5 years Appli- worthy Fund Allocation for funding Contract
Agency physics? Geophysics? Geophysics Frequency performs? ago Methods cations Objective Policies? projects $ Spent Mechanism geophysics? sources types
Alabama 2 1467 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A
Alaska 1 15 2 2 3 38 45 1 14 2 1 1 2 #N/A 12 4
Arizona 1 2356 3 3 3 1 32 12 1 5 11 2 2 2 2 #N/A 1 2
Arkansas 1 12456 3 2 3 1 4 6 7 11 15 27 28 32 2467 1 2 5 10 17 21 2 1 5 2 #N/A 5 4
1 2 3 7 9 10 12 13 15 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 11 12 13
17 21 22 29 30 31 32 33 7 8 9 10 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 24
California 1 123456 5 3 3 34 36 37 11 12 25 26 27 1 1 6 2 #N/A 1234 45
Colorado 1 12456 3 3 2 1 3 6 7 10 11 15 12347 1 2 5 10 17 27 1 2 1 2 #N/A 123 134
Connecticut 1 12346 3 2 2 1 2 15 26 27 28 32 36 1 2 3 8 10 1 2 11 13 17 24 2 2 1 2 #N/A 12 4
Delaware #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A
7 8 9 11
Florida 1 126 5 3 3 5 11 15 28 37 12 13 23 24 2 1 7 2 #N/A 1345 14
Georgia 1 235 1 2 2 1 2 6 15 2 4 7 8 1 2 5 6 9 14 15 17 23 24 2 2 2 2 #N/A 1234 125
Hawaii 1 0 145 1 2 2 1 2 15 24 27 48 1 24 2 3 7 2 #N/A 6 134
Idaho #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A
Illinois 1 0 67 1 2 3 6 10 11 17 27 37 68 1 2 10 20 21 22 25 2 1 1 #N/A #N/A 34
Indiana 1 356 1 3 3 1 2 6 7 10 11 15 16 24 458 1 2 5 13 17 23 2 1 5 2 #N/A 14 35
Iowa 1 0 126 1 2 3 14 15 23 6 8 12 2 17 21 23 27 2 3 1 2 #N/A 124 7
Kansas 1 256 5 1 3 38 18 1 25 3 3 1 4 #N/A
Kentucky 1 1456 2 3 2 10 11 12 15 24 8 1 2 4 6 7 10 23 25 2 2 3 2 #N/A 123 4
Louisiana 2 67 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A
Maine 1 126 4 2 2 1 6 15 27 32 33 1 2 3 8 11 1 2 4 10 19 24 1 2 1 2 #N/A 1 1
1 2 3 6 9 10 11 15 24 28 1 2 3 6 7 8
Maryland 1 1234567 4 2 3 29 32 10 1 2 5 8 9 21 23 24 25 1 1 3 2 #N/A 1234 35
Massachusetts 1 467 2 2 2 1 15 28 1 3 8 12 1 2 5 13 17 2 1 1 2 #N/A 5 5
1 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 11 23 24
Michigan 1 567 2 3 3 1 6 10 15 24 28 32 5 7 8 12 25 2 1 2 2 #N/A 1234 25
1 2 3 6 7 10 11 12 13 15 1 2 3 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 10 11 13 14
Minnesota 1 123456 5 3 2 16 24 27 28 32 33 36 37 10 11 12 17 18 20 21 23 24 25 27 2 1 2 #N/A #N/A 14
Mississippi 1 7 1 1 1 38 1 16 17 2 2 7 2 #N/A 1
Missouri 1 12456 2 3 3 3 6 10 15 27 28 31 1 5 6 8 12 1 2 14 15 22 23 25 2 1 3 2 #N/A 1 245
Montana 1 123456 4 3 3 1 27 15 1 2 6 8 12 1 2 5 6 10 22 24 25 2 1 2 #N/A #N/A 25
Nebraska #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A
1 2 5 8 10 11 14 15 17
Nevada 1 12456 3 3 2 1 6 7 15 23 26 27 28 12478 25 2 2 1 2 #N/A 13 1234
New Hampshire 1 26 3 2 2 1 15 32 33 36 12 1 13 2 3 7 2 #N/A 1 14
1 3 4 6 7 11 15 27 28 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 13 23
New Jersey 1 12456 3 2 3 33 36 37 2 11 12 25 1 1 4 #N/A #N/A 12
Agencies w/o
All Geophysics
Agencies Experience Agencies with Geophysics Experience
Question: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Subsurface
Frequency Note- Invest Geophysics
Geo- Why Not Reasons for 5-year Who vs. 5 years Appli- worthy Fund Allocation for funding Contract
Agency physics? Geophysics? Geophysics Frequency performs? ago Methods cations Objective Policies? projects $ Spent Mechanism geophysics? sources types
New Mexico 1 123456 4 3 2 1 6 7 15 28 148 1 5 17 23 2 1 3 2 #N/A 14 45
New York 1 126 2 3 1 1 7 15 27 28 1458 1 2 7 10 24 26 2 3 2 1 2 1
North Carolina 1 1456 3 2 2 1 2 6 10 12 15 16 32 33 7 8 10 1 2 4 5 13 23 24 25 2 2 3 2 #N/A 123 24
North Dakota 2 6 7 9 10 11 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A
1 2 3 5 6 7 10 11 12 15 1 2 3 4 6 7 1 2 4 6 10 13 20 21 23
Ohio 1 12456 4 3 3 26 28 31 37 8 24 25 2 1 7 1 2 24
Oklahoma 2 6 7 8 9 10 11 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A
Oregon 1 236 1 2 2 1 10 15 27 29 32 36 2457 1 2 5 24 2 2 1 2 #N/A 124 3
Pennsylvania 1 467 1 2 3 6 14 24 32 12 1 2 17 18 23 2 1 7 2 #N/A 1 7
Rhode Island #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A
South Carolina 1 5 5 2 2 6 7 27 34 45 1 2 3 1 1 15
South Dakota 1 2 2 3 2 1 15 12 15 2 2 1 2 #N/A 12 7
Tennessee 1 1234 2 2 3 1 15 16 27 38 345 1 2 10 23 2 2 3 2 #N/A 123 13
Texas 1 6 1 2 2 1 11 15 23 789 1 2 17 23 2 2 7 2 #N/A 1 7
Utah #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A
Vermont 1 12456 3 3 3 1 15 28 32 1 4 7 8 11 1 2 3 4 10 24 2 2 1 2 #N/A 14 2
1 2 10 11 15 16 17 27 32 1 2 3 6 8 1 2 5 6 7 8 10 13 14 17
Virginia 1 123456 5 3 3 37 6 7 23 26 10 12 20 21 23 25 27 1 1 5 2 #N/A 12 3
1 7 9 10 11 15 21 24 27 4 5 7 8 11
Washington 1 1456 3 3 2 31 32 33 36 12 1 2 3 4 5 10 14 24 27 2 1 1 1 2 3
West Virginia #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A
Wisconsin 1 123 5 3 3 1 7 15 17 1 2 7 8 11 1 2 5 6 14 23 24 25 27 2 2 1 2 #N/A 1234 34
Wyoming 1 25 2 3 1 1 2 6 12 1 2 4 5 21 1 2 1 2 #N/A 12 3
D.C. 2 6 10 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A
Puerto Rico 1 5 6 2 1 1 9 10 15 19 28 7 8 12 5 6 17 18 23 2 3 1 2 #N/A 124 1
12345
Central Federal Land 1 123456 3 3 2 1 3 5 6 7 10 15 16 32 33 11 1 2 5 6 8 10 14 17 23 25 1 1 2 1 1 45
Eastern Federal Land #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A
Western Federal Lan 1 123456 3 3 3 1 3 6 7 14 15 27 32 33 37 1 2 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 9 10 14 15 21 2 2 3 2 #N/A 1 14

Total Respondents 48 5 43 43 43 43 43 43 42 43 43 43 39 5 33 41
Survey Responses B-5
All Agencies
Question: 17a 17b 17c 17d 17e 19a 19b 19c 20a 20b 20c 20d 20e
FWHA Synthesis TRC E- ASTM Specific Appli- Field Pro- Inter- Case
Agency Manual 357 EDC-5 C130 AASHTO NHI Webinar GEC methods cations cedures pretation Histories
Alabama 2 2 3 2 2 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 3
Alaska 2 2 1 1 2 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3
Arizona 3 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 2 2 2 1 2
Arkansas 1 1 3 3 2 5 5 5 2 3 2 2 3
California 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 3
Colorado 3 3 2 3 3 5 1 3 3 3 3 3 3
Connecticut 3 1 2 2 3 4 4 5 3 3 2 2 2
Delaware #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A
Florida 3 2 3 2 3 5 4 4 3 3 2 3 3
Georgia 2 2 1 1 2 5 5 5 3 3 2 3 3
Hawaii 2 1 2 1 1 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 2
Idaho #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A
Illinois 3 1 2 1 2 5 4 4 3 3 3 3 3
Indiana 3 2 3 2 1 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 3
Iowa 2 1 2 1 1 5 5 4 3 3 2 3 3
Kansas 2 1 2 2 2 4 3 4 2 2 3 3 3
Kentucky 2 2 1 2 2 5 4 4 3 2 2 3 1
Louisiana 1 1 3 1 1 5 3 5 2 3 3 3 3
Maine 1 #N/A 1 #N/A 1 5 4 4 3 3 3 2 3
Maryland 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 4 3 3 3 3 3
Massachusetts 2 2 2 1 1 4 3 4 1 3 2 3 3
Michigan 2 2 2 1 2 4 4 4 2 2 2 3 3
Minnesota 3 3 2 3 3 4 4 4 2 2 3 3 3
Mississippi 2 1 1 1 3 1 5 5 3 3 3 3 3
Missouri 3 2 3 2 2 5 4 3 2 3 2 2 3
Montana 3 2 3 1 3 5 4 5 3 3 2 3 3
Nebraska #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A
Nevada 2 2 1 1 3 3 1 5 3 3 3 3 3
New Hampshire 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 2
New Jersey 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

All Agencies
Question: 17a 17b 17c 17d 17e 19a 19b 19c 20a 20b 20c 20d 20e
FWHA Synthesis TRC E- ASTM Specific Appli- Field Pro- Inter- Case
Agency Manual 357 EDC-5 C130 AASHTO NHI Webinar GEC methods cations cedures pretation Histories
New Mexico 3 3 2 1 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 2
New York 2 2 2 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
North Carolina 1 3 3 1 2 5 4 5 3 3 3 3 3
North Dakota 2 2 3 2 2 5 4 5 3 3 3 3 2
Ohio 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 5 3 2 3 3 2
Oklahoma 2 2 2 2 2 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Oregon 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 5 2 3 2 3 3
Pennsylvania 2 1 1 1 1 5 6 5 2 3 3 3 3
Rhode Island #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A
South Carolina 3 1 3 1 3 5 4 4 3 3 2 3 2
South Dakota 3 1 3 1 2 4 3 4 2 2 2 3 2
Tennessee 3 3 2 3 3 5 5 4 3 3 3 3 3
Texas 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 2 3 3 3 3
Utah #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A
Vermont 3 3 3 2 3 5 4 3 2 3 2 3 3
Virginia 3 2 1 3 3 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 3
Washington 2 1 2 1 2 5 4 3 3 3 2 3 2
West Virginia #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A
Wisconsin 3 3 2 3 3 5 4 5 3 3 3 3 3
Wyoming 3 2 1 1 2 4 5 5 2 3 3 3 3
D.C. 2 1 2 1 2 4 5 5 3 3 3 2 3
Puerto Rico 2 2 2 2 2 5 5 4 2 3 2 3 3
Central Federal Land 3 3 3 2 3 4 2 5 3 3 3 3 2

Eastern Federal Land #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A
Western Federal Lan 3 2 2 2 3 5 4 3 2 3 2 3 2

Total Respondents 48 47 48 47 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48

Appendix B2—Key for Summary Table with Response Counts

Question 1
Has your agency used geophysical methods for geotechnical site Number of
investigation? Key Responses
Total responses: 48
Yes 1 43 90%
No 2 5 10%
I'm not sure. 3 0 0%
Question 2
Please indicate the reasons your agency has not used geophysical Number of
methods by selecting all responses below that apply. Key Responses
Total responses: 5
Cost of geophysical methods is too great. 1 1 20%
Practical limitations regarding site access prevent effective implementation. 2 0 0%
It takes too long to implement geophysical methods (from planning to reporting
of results). 3 0 0%
Results from geophysical methods are too uncertain (i.e. imprecise). 4 1 20%
Results from geophysical methods are too unreliable (i.e. inaccurate). 5 0 0%
Agency engineers do not know where or when to apply geophysical methods
because of unfamiliarity with the capabilities and limitations of the methods. 6 5 100%
Agency engineers do not have a good understanding of how to interpret the
results or evaluate their reliability. 7 4 80%
Our agency is reluctant to apply any new methods for geotechnical site
characterization, geophysical or otherwise (i.e. agency inertia). 8 1 20%
There are no local contractors or in-house expertise available for performing
geophysical methods. 9 2 40%
Contracting 10 3 60%
Other: Bad experience leading to significant claim 11 1 20%
Question 3
Please indicate the reasons your agency has used geophysical methods
by selecting all responses below that apply. For the responses below,
“conventional subsurface investigation methods” refer to drilling,
sampling, and laboratory testing, the standard penetration test, and the Number of
cone penetration test. Key Responses
Total responses: 43
Geophysical methods are cost-effective. 1 27 63%
Because of site access, geophysical methods have been applied where
conventional subsurface investigation methods were not feasible. 2 29 67%
Because of environmental constraints, geophysical methods have been applied

where conventional subsurface investigation methods were not feasible. 3 15 35%
Geophysical methods can be implemented quickly (from planning to reporting of
results). 4 23 53%
Geophysical methods provide a direct measure of certain engineering
parameters (e.g. shear wave velocity) to be used in analysis. 5 28 65%
Geophysical methods produce subsurface imaging of a large mass of materials
in two or three dimensions. 6 33 77%
Other: Assess problematic sites 1 2%
Other: Assists geologist with geological site interpretation 7 1 2%

Question 4
In the past five years, about how frequently has your agency applied Number of
geophysical methods on average? Key Responses
Total responses: 43
One time per year or less 1 9 21%
Two times per year 2 9 21%
Three to five times per year 3 12 28%
Six to ten times per year 4 5 12%
More than ten times per year 5 7 16%

I don't know. 6 1 2%
Question 5
Number of
Who performs geophysical investigations? Key Responses
Total responses: 43
Agency personnel perform all geophysical investigations (i.e. all investigations
are in-house) 1 2 5%
Contractors perform all geophysical investigations. 2 19 44%
Some investigations are performed in-house; others are performed by contractors 3 22 51%
I don’t know. 4 0 0%
Question 6
How does your agency’s current use of geophysical methods compare Number of
with its use of geophysical methods five years ago? Key Responses
Total responses: 43
Geophysical methods are used less frequently now than five years ago. 1 4 9%
Geophysical methods are used with about the same frequency now as five years
ago. 2 18 42%
Geophysical methods are used more frequently now than five years ago. 3 21 49%
Geophysical methods were not used five years ago. 4 0 0%

Question 7
Which geophysical methods has your agency used? Please select all that Number of
apply. Key Responses
Total responses: 39
Seismic methods:
Seismic refraction 1 33 85%
Seismic reflection 2 10 26%
Seismic tomography 3 9 23%
H/V spectral ratio 4 2 5%
Full Waveform Inversion 5 3 8%
Active source surface wave techniques (e.g. SASW, MASW) 6 19 49%
Passive surface wave techniques (e.g. ReMi) 7 15 38%
Seismic methods, but I don’t know which ones specifically. 8 0 0%
Electrical methods:
1D resistivity soundings (e.g. VES) 9 4 10%
2D resistivity profiling (e.g. Dipole/Dipole, Wenner, etc.) 10 16 41%
2D resistivity imaging (e.g. pole-Dipole, electrical resistivity tomography [ERT]) 11 13 33%
Induced polarization (IP) 12 5 13%
Self-potential (SP) 13 2 5%
Electrical methods, but I don’t know which ones specifically. 14 3 8%
Ground penetrating radar (GPR) 15 34 87%
Time-domain EM 16 7 18%
Frequency-domain EM (terrain conductivity) 17 4 10%
Very low frequency (VLF) 18 0 0%
Seismoelectric 19 1 3%
Electromagnetic methods, but I don’t know which ones specifically. 20 1 3%
Magnetic methods:
Total-field 21 2 5%
Gradiometer 22 1 3%
Magnetic methods, but I don’t know which ones specifically. 23 2 5%
Gravity methods:
Microgravity 24 8 21%
Standard gravity 25 0 0%
Gravity methods, but I don’t know which ones specifically. 26 3 8%
Downhole Seismic 27 17 44%
Crosshole Seismic 28 15 38%
Electrical (SP, Resistivity, E-logs) 29 3 8%
Electromagnetic induction 30 1 3%
Nuclear (e.g. gamma-gamma, natural gamma, neutron, etc.) 31 4 10%
Optical televiewer 32 18 46%
Acoustic televiewer 33 9 23%
Suspension logging (e.g. PS Logger) 34 2 5%
Hydrophysical 35 0 0%
Borehole deviation 36 7 18%
Other responses:
Other: Full waveform sonic 37 1 3%
Other: Seismic CPT 37 1 3%
Other: Cement bond logging (CBL) 37 1 3%
Other: Full waveform borehole sonic 37 1 3%
Other: Single Station Passive Seismic Stratigraphy 37 1 3%
Other: Capacitively coupled resistivity 37 1 3%
Geophysical methods, but I don’t know which ones specifically. 38 4 10%

Question 8
For which applications has your agency applied geophysical methods? Number of
Please select all that apply. Key Responses
Total responses: 43
Routine design of bridge foundations 1 21 49%
Routine design of embankments or cut slopes 2 20 47%
Routine design of retaining walls 3 11 26%
Seismic site effects 4 17 40%
Liquefaction 5 12 28%
Landslide evaluation 6 12 28%
Utility location 7 18 42%
Evaluation of roadway subsidence 8 28 65%
Evaluation of scour (extent of existing scour, potential for future scour) 9 3 7%
Evaluation and QC of construction (e.g. fill placement, excavation of unsuitable
material) 10 6 14%
Forensic investigation of failed infrastructure 11 9 21%
Other: Rock Mechanics, i.e., Rock Stability Analysis, Rippability, etc. 12 2 5%
Other: Roadway cut evaluation 12 2 5%
Other: Excavation characteristics 12 1 2%
Other: Post-construction monitoring 12 1 2%
Other: Soundwall design 12 1 2%
Other: Archeological investigation 12 1 2%

Question 9
For which geologic investigation objectives has your agency applied Number of
geophysical methods? Please select all that apply. Key Responses
Total responses: 42
Evaluation of rock:
Depth to bedrock 1 38 90%
Topography of bedrock 2 32 76%
Faulting in bedrock 3 7 17%
Fractures in bedrock 4 12 29%
Mapping bedrock strength (i.e. rippability) 5 23 55%
Mapping weak zones in bedrock (e.g. shear zones or weathered areas) 6 12 29%
Mapping lithology in bedrock 7 5 12%
Estimating rock mass stiffness (e.g. elastic modulus, shear modulus, etc.) 8 7 17%
Estimating rock mass density 9 5 12%
Evaluation of soil:
Mapping lithology in overburden soils 10 18 43%
Mapping sand and/or gravel deposits (i.e. borrow investigations) 11 7 17%
Mapping clay (i.e. excavation issues for expansive or swelling clays) 12 1 2%
Mapping unsuitable materials (e.g. rubble, organics, etc.) 13 11 26%
Estimating soil stiffness (e.g. elastic modulus, shear modulus, etc.) 14 11 26%
Estimating soil density 15 5 12%
Estimating clay content 16 2 5%
Mapping groundwater table 17 17 40%
Mapping groundwater flow 18 3 7%
Mapping groundwater salinity 19 2 5%
Mapping landslide extents (laterally) 20 5 12%
Slip surface identification and definition 21 10 24%
Evaluation of deformations 22 3 7%
Evaluation of sinkholes, voids or erosion features:
Karst or other dissolution features 23 20 48%
Failed culverts/sewers 24 17 40%
Abandoned mines 25 16 38%
Scour features 26 2 5%
Other: Mapping animal burrows in and under foundations 27 1 2%
Other: ARD characterization 27 1 2%
Other: Low-density sands above karstic bedrock 27 1 2%
Other: Location of manmade features, piping/sinkholes 27 2 5%
Question 10
Has your agency established specific policies, guidelines, and/or Number of
procedures for application of geophysical methods? Key Responses
Total responses: 43
Yes 1 9 21%
No 2 33 77%
Question 11
Has your agency applied geophysical methods on any especially Number of
noteworthy or challenging projects? Key Responses
Total responses: 43
Yes 1 19 44%
No 2 18 42%

Question 12
Considering the past five years, about how much has your agency spent Number of
on geophysical investigations on average each year? Key Responses
Total responses: 43
0 to $50,000 1 16 37%
$50,001 to $100,000 2 7 16%
$100,001 to $150,000 3 8 19%
$150,001 to $250,000 4 1 2%
$250,001 to $500,000 5 3 7%
More than $500,000 6 1 2%
Question 13
How are subsurface investigations generally funded at your agency? Note
this question refers to all methods of subsurface investigation, not just Number of
geophysical methods. Key Responses
Total responses: 43
The annual agency budget includes funds allocated for subsurface investigation. 1 5 12%
Funding for subsurface investigations comes from other agency funds (project
design funds, project construction funds, agency maintenance funds, etc.). 2 33 77%
Other: Combination of above (see short answer responses) 3 4 9%
Question 14
Do the annual agency budget funds allocated for subsurface investigation Number of
include specific allocations for geophysical investigations? Key Responses
Total responses: 5
Yes 1 2 40%
No 2 3 60%
Question 15
Which funding sources have been used to pay for geophysical Number of
investigations? Please select all that apply. Key Responses
Total responses: 33
Project design funds 1 30 91%
Project construction funds 2 17 52%
Agency maintenance funds 3 11 33%
Agency emergency response funds 4 12 36%
Other: State- or district-wide contract for geophysical services 5 2 6%
Other: Research funds 6 1 3%

Question 16
What types of contracts have been used to procure geophysical Number of
investigation services? Please select all that apply. Key Responses
Total responses: 37
Unit price (i.e. cost per subsurface profile, etc.) 1 14 38%
Cost-plus (a.k.a. cost reimbursement) 2 10 27%
Time and materials 3 12 32%
Lump sum / firm fixed price 4 19 51%
Indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) or similar On-Call service agreement 5 11 30%
Question 17a
Please indicate your familiarity and use of the FHWA Manual Application Number of
of Geophysical Methods to Highway Related Problems. Key Responses
Total responses: 48
I am not familiar with this resource. 1 4 8%
I have heard of this resource, but have not used it. 2 18 38%
I have used this resource. 3 26 54%
Question 17b
Please indicate your familiarity and use of NCHRP Synthesis 357 - Use of Number of
Geophysics for Transportation Projects Key Responses
Total responses: 47
Question 17c
Please indicate your familiarity and use of the FHWA EDC-5 Webinar on Number of
Advanced Geotechnical Exploration Methods Key Responses
Total responses: 48
Question 17d
Please indicate your familiarity and use of the Transportation Research
Circular No. E-C130 - Geophysical Methods Commonly Employed for Number of
Geotechnical Site Characterization Key Responses
Total responses: 47
Question 17e
Please indicate your familiarity and use of ASTM/AASHTO Standards Key Number of
Total responses: 48

Question 19a
Please indicate how likely in-person training (e.g. NHI course) would be to Number of
increase your agency’s use of geophysics. Key Responses
Total responses: 48
Not at all likely 1 1 2%
Somewhat unlikely 2 1 2%
Neither likely nor unlikely 3 4 8%
Somewhat likely 4 15 31%
Very likely 5 27 56%
Question 19b
Please indicate how likely an online webinar would be to increase your Number of
agency’s use of geophysics. Key Responses
Total responses: 48
Question 19c
Please indicate how likely a guidance manual (e.g. FHWA Geotechnical
Engineering Circular) would be to increase your agency’s use of Number of
geophysics. Key Responses
Total responses: 48

Question 20a
Please indicate how useful each of the following content areas would be
for new training or guidance resources: (a) Technical background of Number of
specific geophysical methods Key Responses
Total responses: 48
Not useful 1 1 2%
Somewhat useful 2 18 38%
Very useful 3 29 60%
Question 20b
for new training or guidance resources: (b) Use and applications of Number of
geophysical methods Key Responses
Total responses: 48
Not useful 1 0 0%
Question 20c
for new training or guidance resources: (c) Procedures for field Number of
performance of geophysical methods Key Responses
Total responses: 48
Not useful 1 0 0%
Question 20d
for new training or guidance resources: (d) Interpretation of engineering Number of
parameters from results of geophysical methods Key Responses
Total responses: 48
Not useful 1 1 2%
Question 20e
for new training or guidance resources: (e) Case histories documenting Number of
projects with effective use of geophysical methods Key Responses
Total responses: 48
Not useful 1 1 2%

Appendix B3—Responses to Short Answer Questions

2. Please indicate the reasons your agency has not used geophysical methods: Other _______
Use of Ground Penetrating Radar on a Mine and Blend Paving contract to use GPR to determine existing Asphalt
North Dakota
and Base thicknesses provided incorrect information leading to a claim by the contractor
Many engineers are satisfied with current, well-established procedures and resistant to significant change. (Note:
Oklahoma
this response was counted under the "agency inertia" answer, rather than as "other.)
3. Please indicate the reasons your agency has used geophysical methods: Other _______
Geophysical methods are mostly used when conventional subsurface investigation methods are unable to provide
Illinois
enough information to assess problematic areas.
Michigan Image voids from solution mined cavities, underground abandoned mines, and karst
Mississippi As a supplemental part of conventional methods to assist geological interpretation by the geologist.
Maryland Rock rippability
Geophysical methods provide additional subsurface data via non-destructive methods that aids design and
Massachusetts
construction
We use geophysics in conjunction with conventional investigation methods in karst areas to better understand the
Pennsylvania
subsurface conditions.
7b. Which methods are performed in-house?

Arizona Seismic refraction
Seismic Refraction
Refraction Tomography
Ground Penetrating Radar
Frequency-domain EMI (conductivity)
California
Time-domain EMI
Refraction Microtremor
Borehole geophysical logging
Magnetometry
Seismic refraction
Central Federal Lands
MASW
Seismic Refraction
Colorado
Seismic Surface Wave
GPR
Florida ER
seismic (surface)
Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR)
Michigan
Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD)
ERI
IP
SP
Minnesota Seismic Refraction
MASW
Cross-hole/Downhole Shear
GPR
Missouri Electrical Resistivity
ReMi
MASW
Nevada
Seismic Refraction
Down-Hole Shear Wave Velocity
Seismic refraction
New Mexico
GPR
Electric resistivity imaging (ERI)
Seismic refraction
Ohio
Refraction microtremor (ReMi)
Shear wave velocity with CPT
South Dakota Seismic refraction
Falling weight deflectometer
Virginia
Ground penetrating radar
Vermont We have a small GPR unit that works to identify reinforcement in concrete and some utilities at shallow depths.
Seismic refraction
Washington
ReMi
Western Federal Lands Seismic Refraction
FWD
GPR
Wisconsin
Seismic refraction
Vibration Monitoring

10b. Please share the policy/procedure documents.

California http://dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/geotech/geo_manual/manual.html
Colorado Uploaded document.
Maine Uploaded document.
South Carolina https://www.scdot.org/business/geotech.aspx
Virginia http://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/Materials/bu-mat-MOI-III.pdf
Wyoming Uploaded document.
11. Please briefly describe any noteworthy or challenging applications of geophysical methods.
Simplified methods predicted extensive lateral spread at a bridge site. However, very deep, soft deposits were
expected to dampen the seismic motions and so a geophysical analysis was performed, in order to obtain shear
Alaska wave velocity values. These were then input into a finite difference model to estimate lateral spread. The results
indicated that the previous significant lateral spread was not duplicated, and the required stability could be achieved
with pile pinning techniques.
Most of our geophysical testing has been associated with research projects. We have a project to help evaluate cut
Arkansas slopes on a new alignment with extreme topography and geology. We are evaluating a very large landslide. We are
attempting to create seismic maps of the New Madrid seismic zone.
1) PS Suspension logging to develop amplitude response spectra for seismic design of the toll bridge system retrofit
in California.
2) 3-D seismic reflection for the foundation design of the east span of the new San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge
California 3) Emergency response at Oroville Dam Spillway failure
4) 2-D surface-to-borehole seismic tomography investigation of SR-162 landslide
5) Borehole geophysical logging for proposed I-710 extension tunnel
6) Refraction tomography investigation for East Portal, Caldecott Tunnel 4th Bore
Sinkhole investigations - emergency road closures. seismic (full waveform inversion) - investigate cause of gases
Florida vetting during pile driving operations. seismic refraction survey over water supplemental investigation as part of
design-build RFP package.
Large slow moving active landslides and subsidence due to unknown origins are always challenging to evaluate and
Illinois develop effective long-term repairs. Various geophysical methods are currently being used to evaluate subsidence
at a location on US 24 and landslides at locations on IL 29 and IL 127.
SR 25 for assessing rock topography.
Indiana I-69 assessing reclaimed quarry area.
I-69 evaluating karst features.
Maryland Sideling hill rock cut, Abandoned mines, Haystack mountain mudslide
Re-alignment and upgrade of the of Route 2, Route 2A, and Concord Turnpike intersection to a highway interchange
in Concord=Lincoln, MA. Area known as Crosby Corner. Work consisted of seismic refraction survey consisting of
Massachusetts
three (3) seismic lines comprised of eight (8) sections totaling 1,729 meters. Work consisted of defining depth to
bedrock and rippability of bedrock along the three (3) transects.
Cross hole seismic was used to image abandoned solution mine cavities to clear alignment for future Gordie Howe
Michigan
International bridge crossing between Detroit Mi. and Windsor Ca.
Challenging: Generally speaking, any evaluation performed in the presence of open water, near- to sub-zero air
temps, frozen ground, traffic noise, to name a few.
Noteworthy:
1.) Slope stability evaluation using cross-hole shear wave data for founding a 200-foot tall bridge pier on a
steepened, mine waste rock fill side-slope which would be subject to seismic loading from future mine blasting and
Minnesota future water table fluctuations from mine pit dewatering.
2.) Underground abandoned mine risk evaluation using electrical resistivity imaging for establishing limits of
continuously-reinforced concrete pavement (2 miles) for preventing catastrophic mine working collapses in the
roadway. Post-construction monitoring performed on 5-year intervals on roadway via towed MASW utilizing dual
streamers (i.e., one record per lane recorded concurrently).
3.) QA testing of reclaimed base and subgrade characterization using 4-streamer, towed MASW array.
We are currently looking into use of electrical resistivity (with underwater cable) at a proposed bridge site on Route
Missouri C over Saint Francis in Madison County to investigate subsurface profile across stream including substructure
locations in stream where use of barge-mounted drilling equipment would otherwise potentially be required.
We have used geophysical methods to identify voids in dispersive soils and have also used them for abandoned
Montana
underground mine features.
New Mexico Exploration and evaluation of karst terrain on 22 mile highway corridor for new road and bridge construction project.
1. Use of Single Station Passive Seismic Stratigraphy to map extensive talus deposits over bedrock at Route I-80 in
Delaware Water Gap
New Jersey
2. Extensive abandoned mine investigation adjacent to Interstate I-80 Wharton
3. Extensive foundation retrofit for Pulaski Skyway
Characterizing a solution feature beneath a bridge widening where the existing bridge was supported by spread
Ohio
footing on bedrock, but the new foundation was driven piles within filled paleo-karst.
Pennsylvania On interstate projects and at a bridge failure location in karst.

11. Please briefly describe any noteworthy or challenging applications of geophysical methods. (Cont'd)
We use geophysics via our professional on-call contracts to evaluate almost all of our prominent projects. It would
Virginia
be hard to itemize the effective use of such methods in this text box.
Borehole geophysics was used extensively for the Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement project to characterize shear
wave velocity/soil stiffness.
Washington
Borehole geophysics (optical/acoustic televiewer) was used extensively for the rock cut designs for the Snoqualmie
Pass widening projects.
13. How are subsurface investigations generally funded at your agency? Other _______
Funding for subsurface investigations performed by consultants is covered by project design funds and in-house
Illinois subsurface investigations is covered through various agency budget line items for labor, fuel, equipment, repairs,
and the like which are shared with other agency activities.
Minnesota Funded via agency construction budget, office operating budget and district consultant budgets.
Montana Funding comes from both project design funds (primary funding) and allocated funds (secondary funding).
Combination of project design funds & agency dedicated geotechnical/subsurface investigation funds ('Term
New Jersey
Agreement')
17f. Please list any ASTM/AASHTO standards your agency has used.
ASTM D420_(Site_Characterization_Engineering_Design)
ASTM D4428_(Crosshole_Seismic)
ASTM D4748_(Thickness_Pavement_Radar)
ASTM D5714_(Digital_Geospatial_Metadata)
ASTM D5753_(Conducting_Geophysical_Logging)
ASTM D5777 _(Seismic_Refraction)
ASTM D5922_(Geostatistical_Site_Investigations)
ASTM D6087 _(GPR_Bridge_Deck_Eval)
California ASTM D6167 _(Caliper_Geophysical_Logging)
ASTM D6274_(Gamma_Geophysical_Logging)
ASTM D6429_(Selecting_Surface_Geophysics)
ASTM D6431_(Resistivity)
ASTM D6432_(GPR)
ASTM D6639_(Frequency_Domain_EM)
ASTM D6726_(EM_Geophysical_Logging)
ASTM D7400_(Downhole_Seismic).pdf
AASHTO Manual on Subsurface Investigations (2018 ed.)
ASTM D6429
ASTM D6432
Florida
ASTM D6431
AASHTO R 37
ASTM D6431-18
ASTM D4428M-14
Minnesota
ASTM D7400-17
ASTM D5777-18
Mississippi LRFD Bridge Design Specs
New Mexico ASTM D-4428 (CSL testing)
ASTM D5777
Ohio
ASTM D6431
South Carolina The ASTM and AASHTO standards used by SCDOT are listed in Chapter 5 of the SCDOT GDM v2.0.
ASTM 4428
Vermont AASHTO R37-04
ASTM D5777
Western Federal Lands Seismic site classification based on seismic velocity

18. Please indicate any other resources or training related to geophysical methods your agency has utilized.
Have on-going research project with Auburn University to help us learn how to utilize the equipment and technology
Alabama
on transportation projects. At the conclusion of the research, we will receive further instruction on the technology.
Arkansas We rely heavy on the experience of the PI's on our research projects,
1) Contracted with manufacturers and service providers for target training
2) Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP2) Subject Matter Experts for investigation support and targeted
California
training related to specific SHRP2 products
3) In-house training
Training from seismic vendors
Colorado Geo3T2 conference
SAGEEG conference
Geophysical Engineering for Transportation Projects (videos), FHWA-CFL/TD-13-007, May 2013 Geophysical
Exploration, US Army Corps, EM 1110-1-1802, May 1979 2D & 3D Electrical Imaging Surveys, Loke, July 2004
Florida
Detection of Sinkholes or Anomalies Using Full Seismic Wave Fields, McVay & Tran, FDOT Contract No.: BDV31-
977-29 Final Report, October 2016
Presentation on various geophysical methods was given by the Illinois State Geological Survey at the 2018 IDOT
Geotechnical Engineer's Annual Meeting.
Illinois
Presentation on geophysical applications for transportation projects was given at the 2018 Midwest Geotechnical
Conference.
Agency representatives attended EDC-5 Summit in Fall 2018. EDC-5 Deployment presentation made by FHWA at
Maine
Fall 2018 Northeast States Geotechnical Engineers Conference.
Maryland ASCE Webinars
As part of TPID, pre-EDC initiative, in coordination with geophysical contractor, provided geophysical application
Massachusetts
training to highway staff.
Michigan Technological University- Professor Roger Turpening was consultant for Cross Hole Seismic Logging on
Michigan
Gordie Howe International Bridge Crossing.
Conference short courses
Training from software and hardware developers
Minnesota
Training via consultants
Webinars
Mississippi GEC 3, GEC 5, GEC 10, and FHWA NHI-05-037
Electrical Resistivity Imaging Seminar - Electrical Resistivity, Induces Polarization (IP), & Self-Potential (SP) for
Missouri Engineering and Environmental Applications - Presented by Advanced Geophysics, Inc., Austin, Texas
Various equipment and software manuals by Advanced Geophysics, Inc., Austin, Texas
New Mexico Multi-channel analysis of surface waves (SurfSeis software) course offered by Kansas Geological Survey
Ohio Technical journals
Puerto Rico USACE Geophysical Exploration for Engineering and Environmental Investigations EM 1110-1-1802
Years ago, we had Hager-Richter come in to give us a talk on various methods of geophysical investigation. Staff
Vermont have attended a training put on by Geophysical Survey Systems, Inc. in Nashua NH to learn more about the use and
capability of our in-house GPR unit.
Washington Existing formal coursework background of staff. Discussion with geophysics consultants.
Western Federal Lands Internal knowledge sharing/transfer

21. Please offer any additional thoughts regarding development of training resources for geophysical methods.
My experience with geophysical methods has been that it is greatly oversold and the benefits are not as "clear" as
Alaska promised. In my opinion it would be a good idea to address the limitations so that these methods are not used in
situations where they are not appropriate, because in those cases it only reduces the likelihood of being used again.
In person, on hand training of equipment. Classrooms are nice for dispersing information. Actually using the
Colorado
equipment is best for learning.
With the use of specialty consultants for geophysical investigations, I have heard from many of our (FDOT) district
geotechnical engineers that there is a need for training with respect to reviewing scope of work for geophysical
testing, as well as reviewing consultant reports when work is performed. In addition, a summary would be helpful of
Florida
pros/cons, limitations of each method, advantages of each method, etc. (i.e. geophysical testing for dummies for
geotechnical engineers using & reviewing the results versus a working knowledge of each test for consultants
actually performing tests & analyzing data).
During a recent review of courses available for FY20 training, it was observed that there do not appear to be any NHI
Illinois
courses currently offered for geophysics on the NHI website.
Training from equipment manufacturer/software developer was effective because it incorporated general technical
Missouri background along with hands-on demonstration and analysis. This training also included presentation of case
studies with review and analysis of various additional applications and techniques.
High-level training that targets non geotechnical personnel would also be useful to help educate these individuals on
Montana
what types of methods are available.
Ohio Quick webinars are beneficial.
Applications and case histories would be hugely beneficial, especially to share with not only the geotech group, but
also the structures, roadway, and maintenance folks. A webinar from a "30,000 foot" perspective for these folks
would be very helpful to the geotech group in selling some of these ideas on projects. Something similar to GeoTech
Vermont
Tools for Geophysical methods could achieve some of this. EDC-5 A-Game and the roll out of that has already
helped increase the awareness to Structures folks. Cost information for those who haven't done much of this could
also be helpful.
Don't forget to include precision and accuracy. The pitch is often greater than the return in many instances. This is
Virginia
especially true in limestone terrain and the detection of voids.
Western Federal Lands Acknowledge limitations, standardize where possible, continue to build credibility

Abbreviations and acronyms used without definitions in TRB publications:

A4A Airlines for America
AAAE American Association of Airport Executives
AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America
ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
APTA American Public Transportation Association
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
ATA American Trucking Associations
CTAA Community Transportation Association of America
CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DOE Department of Energy
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (2015)
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
FRA Federal Railroad Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012)
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials
NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program
NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NTSB National Transportation Safety Board
PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration
SAE Society of Automotive Engineers
SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act:
A Legacy for Users (2005)
TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program
TDC Transit Development Corporation
TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998)
TRB Transportation Research Board
TSA Transportation Security Administration
U.S. DOT United States Department of Transportation

ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED
Washington, DC 20001
500 Fifth Street, NW
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD
ISBN 978-0-309-48137-3
NON-PROFIT ORG.
COLUMBIA, MD
PERMIT NO. 88
U.S. POSTAGE
90000
PAID
9 780309 481373

Advancements in Use of Geophysical Methods For Transportation Projects. NCHRP 547 (NAP)

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Advancements in Use of Geophysical Methods For Transportation Projects. NCHRP 547 (NAP)

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/25809 SHARE

Advancements in Use of Geophysical Methods for

106 pages | 8.5 x 11 | PAPERBACK

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2020. Advancements in

– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientiﬁc reports

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

NCHRP SYNTHESIS 547

A Synthesis of Highway Practice

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY NCHRP SYNTHESIS 547

Published reports of the

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM

Transportation Research Board

and can be ordered through the Internet by going to

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS

CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP SYNTHESIS 547

NCHRP PROJECT 20-05 PANEL

TOPIC 50-01 PANEL

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

ABOUT THE NCHRP SYNTHESIS PROGRAM

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

6 Chapter 2 Literature Review

21 Chapter 3 Survey Results

38 Chapter 4 Case Examples

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

2 Advancements in Use of Geophysical Methods for Transportation Projects

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Effective and economical characterization of subsurface site conditions is a critical component

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

4 Advancements in Use of Geophysical Methods for Transportation Projects

• Budgeting and contracting practices for geophysical measurements, and

Methodology and Outline

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Synthesis Definition of Geophysical Methods

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Review of Findings from NCHRP Synthesis 357:

Frequency of Geophysics Use

In-House versus External Contracting

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Literature Review 7

Figure 1. Number of geophysical investigations

Perceived Benefits of Geophysics and Deterrent to Use

Methods and Applications

Figure 2. Greatest benefits of geophysics in agency

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

8 Advancements in Use of Geophysical Methods for Transportation Projects

Figure 3. Greatest deterrents to use of geophysics

Figure 4. Most commonly used geophysical

Figure 5. Most common applications

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Literature Review 9

Figure 6. Typical costs of geophysical

Budgeting and Cost

Geophysical Methods and Applications

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

10 Advancements in Use of Geophysical Methods for Transportation Projects