Review

Review of Application and Innovation of Geophysics in

Geotechnical Engineering
Roshiya Fathima
Rajadhani Institute of Engineering and Technology, APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, Kerala

Abstract : In the realm of civil engineering, geophysical techniques that were first supported by geophysicists have
begun to gain popularity. The majority of engineers used their traditional way in the past and hardly ever used any other.
The present work highlights a few civil engineering applications in which the geophysical method is particularly well-
suited for the first site evaluation phase. For a variety of reasons, several geophysical techniques that can support civil
engineering projects are currently little understood. As a result, this study offers a resistivity and seismic refraction
method that is used to solve a variety of civil engineering issues, including pavement engineering, water and
environmental engineering, geotechnical engineering, and rock mechanics and engineering geology. The application of
geophysical methods can boost civil engineering projects' efficacy by offering the data that was difficult to identify using
the traditional civil engineering approach because of concerns about cost, schedule, and quality. As an illustration, the
technique lowers the number of traditional drilling methods used and may identify a crucial area of interest, both of
which immediately lower project costs.Minerals, soils, rocks, water, subsurface layers, thickness, and depth are a few
common earth components and related parameters in civil engineering applications that can be used using the
geophysical approach. The geophysical survey's results raise civil engineers' understanding of their broad range of
uses.This approach has been effectively applied in the field of civil engineering and has the potential to be combined with
conventional methods. to generate credible data and so increase the project's efficacy, particularly in the phases of design
and building.

1. Keywords: site evaluation, seismic refraction, resistivity, and conventional approach.

1. Introduction

Geophysical exploration techniques have been applied to geotechnical engineering problems since their introduction.
Still, the results often fail to measure up to the engineers' expectations. There is more work to be done before geophysical
techniques are commonly applied in engineering practice. This article provides an overview of more recent developments
and applications of near-surface geophysical techniques in geotechnical challenges. More importantly, possible remedies
are proposed and the limitations and challenges of the geophysical methods applied in this case up to this point are
identified. In the last few decades, advances in near-surface geophysical techniques such as trip-time velocity
tomography, electrical resistivity tomography, and multi-channel analysis of surface waves have been developed by the
scientific community

To assess the in-situ geo-mechanical properties of the soil, numerous strategies are used often.
i) The use of geophysical techniques, such as the seismic or electrical resistivity method (VES).
ii) Direct probing through boreholes and/or static or dynamic penetration methods
Numerous factors influence the extent to which geophysical techniques can be applied. The main variable is the presence
of a notable and detectable difference in the physical characteristics of the various subsurface units, including density,
electrical resistivity, conductivity, velocity, acoustic characteristics, subsurface geology, and environmental factors.
Overall soil disturbance from penetration devices is minimal. The Cone Penetration Test CPT (for soft soils) and the
Standard Penetration Test are the most popular static and dynamic penetration tests with driven piles or foundation in
soil; as a result, it is possible to calculate the pile bearing capacity—the amount of pressure that will cause shear failure
in the soil—directly from .As a result, CPT offers helpful limitations for any computations involving settlement and
stability.

Within five to ten times the cone diameter (standard = 35.6 mm) above and below the cone, CPT reacts to changes in the
soil. Even though CPT offers useful information about soil strength, the data is only available at the CPT location
(Eslaamizaad et al., 1998).

Tens or even hundreds of meters apart is the standard distance for CPTs. Large errors are obviously visible in soil models
based on lateral interpolation of CPT data obtained at a few points at a given site, which raises the risk in engineering
design.

There are two main types of subsurface information retrieval procedures: indirect approaches and direct methods. Aerial
photography, the interpretation of topographic maps, and the examination of already published geological reports, maps,
and soil surveys are examples of indirect methods. Modules for direct techniques consist of the following: Geological
field investigation involves the following tasks: (a) exploring in situ materials, man-made structures, groundwater levels,
and exploring shafts; (b) mapping subsurface structures using modern geophysical techniques; (c) extracting and
analyzing representative disturbed and/or undisturbed specimens of the in situ materials from borings, test pits, trenches,
and shafts; and (d) conducting basic geotechnical field tests, like the standard penetration test (SPT), which can be
correlated with other engineering parameters. Excavations in the framework of the construction works that followed the
geophysical survey confirmed that geophysical modelling could successfully approach the actual geological and
geotechnical soil conditions. Moreover, the particular data obtained through indirect geophysical techniques contributed
to the decision making process for choosing the appropriate footing of the structure based on the subsurface
inhomogeneity of the site.

Figure 1 An isolated geologic structure such as a limestone pinnacle might not be detected by a
routine drilling program.
2. Some commonly employed geotechnical geophysical methods
2.1. Seismic Refraction:

Typically, acoustic pulses are generated at predetermined source locations (S) along the length of the refraction
seismic profile. The travel times of acoustic energy that has been critically refracted at horizons of interest (L1) is
recorded at predetermined receiver locations (R1, R2, etc.). The recorded travel time information is used to generate
a velocity–structure profile of the shallow subsurface along the length of the refraction profile. If external constraints
are available, the velocity–structure profile can be transformed into a geologic model.

2.2. Seismic Reflection:

Typically, acoustic pulses are generated at predetermined source locations (S) along the length of the reflection
seismic profile. The travel times and amplitudes of reflected acoustic energy is recorded at predetermined receiver
locations (R1, R2, etc.). The recorded travel time–amplitude information is used to generate a reflection seismic
profile. These data can be transformed into a velocity–structure profile. If external constraints are available, the
velocity–structure profile can be transformed into a geologic model.
2.3. Refraction Microtremor (ReMi):

Surface wave (Rayleigh wave) energy, generated using a passive (background) acoustic source, is recorded at
predetermined receiver locations (R1, R2, etc.). A dispersion curve (phase velocity vs. frequency), generated from
the acquired field data, is inverted and used to generate a 1-D shear wave velocity profile (generally ―tied‖ to the
physical center of the receiver array). If additional ReMi data sets are acquired at adjacent locations, 2-D or 3-D
shear-wave velocity models can be created. If external constraints are available, these shear wave velocity models
can be transformed into geologic models.

2.4. Cross-Hole Seismic Tomography:

Typically, high-frequency acoustic pulses are generated at predetermined source locations (S) in the source
borehole (SB). The amplitude and arrival time of direct arrivals (and others) is recorded at predetermined
receiver locations in the receiver borehole (RB). The recorded travel time–amplitude data are statistically
analyzed and used to generate a velocity–attenuation cross-sectional model of the area between the source and
receiver boreholes. If external constraints are available, the velocity–attenuation profile can be transformed into
a geologic model.

2.5. GPR Ground Penetrating Radar:

Typically, pulsed EM energy is generated at predetermined station locations along the length of the GPR profile.
The travel times and amplitudes of reflected EM energy are usually recorded by a monostatic transmitter–receiver.
The recorded travel time–amplitude information is normally used to generate a GPR profile (2-D time–amplitude
image). These data can be transformed into a 2-D velocity–depth model. If external constraints are available, a
geologic model can be generated.
2.6. Gravity;

Gravimeters are designed to measure variations in the gravitational field of the Earth, and are typically used to generate
2-D or 3-D density–depth models of the subsurface. If external constraints are available, the density–depth models can be
transformed into a geologic model.

2.7. Magnetics:

Magnetometers are designed to measure variations in the magnetic field of the Earth. These are usually caused by the
presence of magnetically susceptible material of natural or human origin (typically magnetite or iron, respectively). In
certain instances, magnetic data can be interpreted quantitatively, and transformed into constrained geologic models.
More typically, however, magnetic data are interpreted qualitatively, and simply used to verify the presence or absence of
magnetically susceptible materials

2.8. IP: Induced Polarization ;

Two types of IP data are acquired: frequency domain and time domain. Frequency domain IP data are generated by
comparing the apparent resistivities determined for two variable frequency input currents. Time domain data are
generated by measuring rate of decay of the measured potential difference after current flow is terminated. IP
measures the capacitive properties of the ground, and is used to qualitatively–quantitatively estimate the
concentration– distribution of clay or metallic mineralization.
2.9. SP: Self-Potential ;

SP tools are used (mostly) to measure (a) natural potential differences arising from oxidization–reduction of
metallic bodies straddling the water table and (b) streaming potential associated with flowing groundwater. SP data
are usually interpreted in a qualitative manner, and are routinely used to locate zones of seepage in earth fill dams
and levees.

2.10. EM: Electromagnetics;

EM tools are used to measure the Earth’s response to natural or anthropogenic EM energy. Measurements can be
made in either the time or frequency domain. Some tools are used to locate metals or utilities; others are used to
create conductivity–depth models of the subsurface. If external constraints are available, conductivity–depth models
can be transformed into geologic models.

2.11. Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) ;

Here current is induced in the ground using two current electrodes. The electrical potential drop is then read using
two other electrodes. There are many different electrode array configurations available, but all configurations are
 aimed at gathering data that can be used to estimate lateral and vertical variations in ground resistivity values. ERT
can be used to map geologic variations including: soil lithology (e.g., clay versus gravel), presence of ground water,
fracture zones, variations in soil saturation, areas of increased salinity or, in some cases, ground water
contamination. ERT can be used to map bedrock depths and geometry; although in most geologic settings MASW
or SRT are better suited for mapping top-of-bedrock. ERT is often the best option for mapping cavities such as
caves, karst and/or evaporate dissolution sinkholes. Like seismic, the electrical method has the capacity to yield 1 D
(vertical electrical sounding), 2D (profile) or 3D (volume) imaging. Olson uses the appropriate electrode array and
choice of 1D, 2D or 3D based on objective and budget. Electrical methods are most affected by the geochemistry of
the subsurface; that is, grainsize distribution, ground water chemistry and/or the presence of contamination.

Figure 2 Installation of ERT

2.12. Conducting Multichannel analysis of surface waves (MASW) Testing:

Three main phases that can be used to finish an evaluation implementing MASW. During field testing, the numerous
seismic records must first be recorded. Second, after processing, each seismic data is inverted to create a unique one-
dimensional shear wave profile. The procedure could conclude, if desired, with the creation of a one-dimensional profile,
akin to what the SASW approach achieves. However, the MASW method's efficiency allows for the quick acquisition of
multiple shot records, resulting in the provision of many one-dimensional profiles along a single survey line. The last
phase entails interpolating separate profiles to create a single tomography image that represents the characteristics of
subsurface shear waves.
Figure 3 illustration of the overall procedure and main advantage of the MASW method. Complicated nature of
seismic waves is carried over into the measurement (multichannel record). Then, dispersion nature of different types of
waves is accurately imaged through a 2D wavefield transformation. Certain noise wavefields such as back- and side-
scattered surface waves and several types of body waves are automatically filtered during this transformation.
Dispersion curves are then extracted to be inverted for a 1D VS profile, multiples of which can be prepared to make a 2D
VS map

2.13. Active Multichannel Analysis of Surface Waves

The dispersion property of surface waves is attempted to be used by the multichannel analysis of surface waves (MASW)
approach for shear wave velocity (Vs ) profiling in 1D (depth) or 2D (depth and surface location) formats. It is
essentially an engineering seismic method that records frequencies in the range of a few to a few tens of hertz (e.g., 3–30
Hz) utilizing a multichannel recording system with 24 or more channels and a receiver array spread out over a few to a
few hundred meters (e.g., 2–200 m). Whereas the passive approach makes use of surface waves produced passively by
natural (like thunder and tide motion) or cultural (like traffic) activities, the active MASW method actively creates
surface waves using an impact source like a sledge hammer. The depth of the investigation is often shallower than 30 m
when using the active technique, but using the passive method, it can reach several hundred meters. The primary benefit
of using MASW is that it can fully account for the complex nature of seismic waves, which are always accompanied by
noise waves including undesirable higher modes of surface waves, body waves, scattered waves, and traffic waves.

If these waves are not taken into consideration appropriately, they might frequently have a negative impact on one
another when analysing their dispersion qualities. The multichannel approach uses a wave field-transformation method to
image the dispersion properties of all waves, including surface and body waves. This method directly transforms the
multichannel record into an image where a particular dispersion pattern is identified in the transformed energy
distribution

The required dispersion property, such as the fundamental mode's, is then taken out of the pattern that has been found.
During the transformation, any other reflected/scattered waves are often immediately eliminated.

Three steps typically make up the MASW process: (1) obtaining multichannel field records, also known as shot collects;
(2) deriving dispersion curves from each record; and (3) inverting these to get 1D (depth) VS profiles (one profile from
one curve), more dispersion curves must be obtained.

The construction of a 2D (surface and depth) Vs , map can then be accomplished by positioning each 1D Vs profile at a
surface location that corresponds to the midpoint of the receiver line using the proper interpolation scheme.

2.14. Passive Multichannel Analysis of Surface Waves

The passive remote (Figure 5) method employs a 2D receiver array such as a cross or circular layout to record passive
surface waves. This results in the most accurate evaluation of 1D shear-wave velocity at the expense of more intensive
field operation and the burden of securing a wide open space for the array. This can be a good choice if relatively
regional 1D Vs profiling is needed. Any type of 2D receiver array of fairly symmetric shape can be used. An array of
significant asymmetric shape, for example an elliptical or elongated rectangular shape, is not recommended due to bias
toward a specific direction of incoming surface waves that do not necessarily coincide with the actual direction of major
surface wave energy. Common array types may include the circle, cross, square, triangular, random, etc. A detailed study
comparing each different type of array and its effect on dispersion analysis has not been reported yet, as far as systematic
and scientific perspectives are concerned. Intensive modeling tests performed, however, indicated an insignificant
difference between different types insofar as the symmetry of the array is maintained. It is, therefore, the convenience of
field operation that determines the specific type to be used. Field experiments with circular and cross arrays indicate the
circle may result in dispersion images with a slightly higher resolution and better definition. Figure 4a shows a dispersion
image processed from a data set of the passive remote survey that used a circular receiver array with a diameter of 115 m.
Two higher modes (M1 and M2) were identified on the image from a joint analysis with another image processed from
an active-survey data set conducted at the center of the array. The passive roadside (Figure 5) MASW method adopts the
conventional linear receiver array and tries mainly to utilize those surface waves generated from local traffic. It attempts
to get over the drawbacks of the passive remote technique, such as the challenge of securing a large region and the
inconvenience of field operations, while compromising the accuracy (often less than 10%) of the Vs evaluation. This
method allows the survey to continue in roll-along mode for the purpose of 2D Vs profiling, with the array placed along
a sidewalk or the shoulder of a road. By using a land streamer for the array, survey speed can be increased by several
orders of magnitude. Additionally, a long recording (such as 30 seconds) can be started by applying an active hit, such as
with a sledge hammer, at one end of the array. As a result, a combined active-passive surface analysis may be produced,
waves to concurrently acquire deep (e.g., 20–100 m) and shallow (e.g., 1–20 m) Vs information (Figure 4). Despite the
possibility of significantly overestimating (typically by less than 10%) Vs values as compared to the remote technique
utilizing a 2D receiver array, this survey mode offers a major benefit in field operations, making it useful and
convenient.A roadside study using a linear receiver array spaced five meters apart and repeated recording at ten different
surface locations by shifting the array by four stations (20 m) produced the 2D Vs profile shown in Figure 4. At the start
of the 30-s, an active impact was made with a 10-lb sledge hammer, generating two different dispersion images that were
combined together (vertical stacking) for the purpose of enlarging the bandwidth of dispersion patterns.

Figure 4
2D Vs map obtained from a passive roadside MASW survey using a linear 24-channel receiver array of 5-m separation.
A sledge hammer delivered impact at one end of the array to trigger 30-s recording. This 2D Vs map was obtained from
a combined analysis of active (0–2 s) and passive (2–30 s) portions of each record.

Figure 5
Schematics of data acquisition with passive remote and passive roadside MASW
Figure 6 Dispersion images obtained from passive (top) and active (middle) MASW surveys. Two sets of
image data are combined to enlarge the frequency range of dispersion (therefore to enlarge the investigation depth
range) in (a), whereas in (b) they are combined to help modal identification of recognized dispersion trends and to
enlarge the usable bandwidth of dispersion
 Figure 7 Schematic of a prototype field system recently developed and tested at KGS illustrating the mobility and
effectiveness of the routine MASW survey in the near future.

2.15. Combining active and passive surveys

2.16.
. It is often useful or necessary to combine dispersion images processed from active and passive data sets for two reasons:
(1) to enlarge the analysable frequency (therefore depth) range of dispersion (Figure 6a), and (2) to better identify the
modal nature of dispersion trends (Figure 6b). The passive image in Figure 6a obtained from a remote survey using a 48-
channel cross receiver array deployed over a surface dimension of about 120 m shows a prominent dispersion trend in a
6–17 Hz range. In addition, the active image from a 24-channel active survey conducted with 1-m receiver spacing at the
centre of the passive cross array shows another dispersion trend in the higher frequencies (16–50 Hz). When these two
images are combined by vertically stacking both sets of image data, two trends are merged naturally to make one
continuous trend over a broader bandwidth (6–50 Hz). On the other hand, the passive dispersion image in Figure 6b
obtained from another remote survey conducted over a different soil site shows a trend prominent in 5–20 Hz range that
was originally interpreted as the fundamental mode (M0). When this image was combined with the active image obtained
from an active survey at the centre of the passive array, its modal nature is reinterpreted as more likely being a higher
mode (M1)
2.17. Cross-Hole Seismic Method using P- and S-waves

The simplest form of cross-hole seismic survey is the measurement of velocity by determining the travel time for packets
of seismic energy across accurately known distances. A borehole seismic source is deployed to generate P- and S-wave
energies at a known depth in one borehole. For example a set of receivers (hydrophones and/or tri-axial geophones) are
deployed in the adjacent boreholes at an equal depth level. These receivers respond to incident seismic energy released
by the source and recorded by the seismograph at the surface. For a single measurement the source and receivers were
maintained at constant depth-level such that the measured ray path will be horizontal. In addition to the seismic pulse,
which travels horizontally through the rock-mass, refracted or reflected arrivals from underlying or overlying strata can
also be identified in the received seismic pulse, but the direct arrivals are used to calculate the velocity of the medium.
These measurements are usually taken at regular interval along the full length of the borehole. In the past, much research
has been done by Butler (1981), McCann etal. (1986), and other workers to identify the heterogeneities (e.g. cavities and
sinkholes) in the subsurface using cross-hole seismic surveys. In the present study, cross-hole seismic survey was carried
out at every 0.5m interval from bottom to surface of the borehole. Borehole sparker source was used for generation of P-
and S-waves. P-wave source (sparker) produces a seismic pulse discharging 100-300joules of electric power (Rechtien et
al., 1993) with a dominant frequency of ~ 1.5 kHz and a half power band-width in excess of 1 kHz (Rechtien et al.,
1993). Similarly, the S-wave source, coupled with the borehole wall by a pneumatic clamping system (inflatable
bladder), generated the horizontally polarized shear wave (SH) and compressional (P-) wave. The source discharges the
seismic energy through the system of electromagnetic coupled coils adjacent to the copper plate. If the plate is rejected ,a
mechanical impact was generated against the borehole wall. A 12-channel hydrophone chain was used as P-wave
receiver and borehole geophone as S-wave receiver. The parameters used for data acquisition during cross-hole survey
are listed in Table 1. Cross-hole profiling (both for P- and S-waves) wascarried out first in the nearby virgin area
(between BH1 and BH2), where the ambient noise was minimum and there was no effect of soil piping or damage.
Profiling was continued between each pair of boreholes for four (L1 to L4) along the western diaphragm wall and nine
(R1 to R3 and R4 to R9)along the eastern diaphragm wall Typical seismic travel times were recorded for a single shot
position in the cross-hole survey using P-wave sparker source shown in Figure 8. The onsets of P-wave arrivals were
clear and there is no inconsistency in picking first arrival times (Fig. 8). Similarly, S-wave arrivals were recorded
between BH1 and BH2, where separation between source and receiver boreholes was 4.53m (Fig. 9). Individual recorded
signal of normally and reversely polarized S-waves were pasted together against their corresponding depth to generate
complete record of single borehole (Fig. 9). The arrival times were marked on each trace from surface to bottom most
depth level shown in Figure 9.

The borehole separation was determined by substituting the borehole coordinates into the straight-line equation. P-wave
and S-wave velocities were determined by dividing the borehole distance with arrival times of both the waves (Figs. 8
and 9). Boreholes perpendicular to the direction of excavation provide better opportunity for assessment of disturbed
influence range of excavation as well as better reference information for impact assessment, but the project compulsions
did not allow to access data from the adjacent areas for the investigation
 Figure 8 Cross-hole seismic (P-wave) data were recorded using P-wave sparker source and 12-channel hydrophone
chain for single shot. Five continuous shot records were stacked together to improve signal to noise ratio. First arrival
times were marked on the dataset

Table 1. Parameters used during data acquisition (P-and S-waves) for cross-hole seismic survey
Cross-hole using P-wave Cross-hole using S-wave

Source: Borehole sparker (P-wave) Source: Borehole sparker (SH- and P-waves)

Receiver: 12 channel hydrophone chain Receiver: Tri-axial borehole geophone

(2 m interval) (BGK3)

Discharge energy: 100-300 Joules Source frequency: up to 4 kHz

Source frequency: 1.5k Hz Receiver frequency: 30 Hz

Recording frequency: 100-400 Hz Clamping system: Inflatable bladder

Data acquired: 0.5 m interval Data acquired: 0.5 m interval

DAQ system: ABEM Terraloc DAQ system: ABEM Terraloc

Figure 9 The travel time data set showing S-wave arrivals recorded between BH1 and BH2. The separation between
source and receiver boreholes is 4.53m. Individual recorded signal of normal and reverse polarized S-waves were pasted
together against their corresponding depth to generate complete record of single borehole. The arrival times were
marked on each trace obtained from surface to bottom.
Table 2. Pairs of boreholes used for cross-hole seismic investigations and their separation
Sl. Borehole Pair Separation (m)
No.
1. BH1-BH2 4.53
2. L1-L2 9.02
3. L2-L3 8.06
4. L3-L4 8.45
5. R1-R2 6.35
6. R2-R3 4.85
7. R4-R5 4.52
8. R5-R6 5.2
9. R6-R7 9.36
10. R7-R8 8.12
11. R8-R9 8.12

2.18. LIDAR, or light detection and ranging

Exploration geophysics techniques, such as seismic waves, ground-penetrating radar, and LIDAR, can be used in civil
engineering applications to obtain soil and rock properties and stratigraphy from the surface ..Seismic waves can provide
information about the subsurface by analyzing the energy waves that travel through soil, rock, or water. Ground-
penetrating radar uses electromagnetic waves to penetrate the soil and create an image of the subsurface, allowing for the
detection of buried objects or structures. LIDAR, or light detection and ranging, uses laser beams to measure the time it
takes for the beam to reflect from an object and return to the receiver. This technology can be used to create detailed 3D
maps of the terrain or detect changes in elevation.

3. Depth to Bedrock determination

The determination of the overburden thickness and hence depth to the bedrock at a construction site or along the highway
road is one of the major applications of electrical resistivity in site investigation. The depth to the competent bedrock is
given by the total overburden thickness resting on the bedrock. Depth to bedrock is obtained from the summation of the
thicknesses of the layers that constitutes the lithological survey in an area

3.1. Structural mapping of bedock

the seismic and electrical resistivity methods can be used to investigate the structural setting of the bedrock, including
possible fault locations, fractures, joints, and buried river channels. Fractures in bedrock are commonly found in
competent rocks that are unable to adjust to the stresses placed upon them. These fractures are characterized by moisture,
which makes them more electrically conductive than non-fractured bedrock. Fractured regions in bedrock may be
topographically more depressed than the surrounding unfractured bedrock. This can be observed and mapped using
geophysical methods.

4. Seepage zones mapping

Geophysical methods play an important role in mapping seepage paths and monitoring changes in seepage over time in
earth and rock-fill dams. Anomalous seepages can occur through permeable soils, rock aquifers, and fault/joint structures
controlled by the structural bedrock topography.These methods enable the identification and mapping of seepage zones,
allowing engineers to plan technically and economically viable remedial measures. By using geophysical methods, such
as electrical resistivity and seismic methods, engineers can detect and map the pathways of seepage, providing valuable
information for the design and maintenance of dams.

5. Site subsoil competence:

Apparent resistivity values can be used to evaluate the competence of earth materials at a given site. High apparent
resistivity zones are considered to be more competent compared to regions with relatively low resistivity values. Certain
ranges of apparent resistivity values can be correlated with lithologic competence.The strength of geological materials is
influenced by factors such as mineralogy, particle contrast, and weathering agents. These factors contribute to the overall
competence of the materials.Geophysical methods, such as electrical resistivity, can be used to assess the apparent
resistivity values and determine the competence of the materials underlying a site

6. Case Histories

The engineering community uses ERT and MASW surveying techniques to supplement different kinds of geotechnical
investigations. The case studies that are linked show how geophysical testing has been effectively applied in a variety of
applications to enhance knowledge of site characteristics and geology. The research that are being presented also show
how practitioners are trying to establish a direct correlation between geophysical test findings and geotechnical in-situ
testing.These illustrations show how geophysical surveys are most effective when used in conjunction with other
geophysical methods or geotechnical field and lab testing initiatives.Other geophysical techniques may be used in
specific case studies covered here, however for the purposes of this study, the study's focus is on the application of
electrical and shallow seismic surface wave techniques.

6.1. Samples of Site Evaluation and Characterization

6.1.1. Comprehensive Site Evaluation at Anguilla, BWI

In the British West Indies, on the Island of Anguilla, N.S. Nettles & Associates (NSN) was contracted to do a wide scale
site review for a projected resort town. The evaluation's goals were to accurately map the site's geology, identify any
anomalous conditions, ascertain the depth of the limestone stratum beneath the surface, gauge the thickness of
unconsolidated soils, and identify possible drilling routes for channels that would flush water from an inland salt water
pond to Rendezvous Bay. NSN focused drilling efforts on areas of interest and concern by using both ERT and MASW
testing in addition to traditional geotechnical drilling and sampling programs. MASW was mainly employed to assess
material density, whereas ERT was used to image differences in stratigraphy.
Geophysical field studies consisted of 63 ERT transects and 33 MASW transects ,developed from 371 individual
MASW readings (as a side note, ERT measurements were collected using the AGI Super Sting Resistivity system and a
dipole-dipole array). ERT and MASW profiles were analysed and compared make preliminary assessments on
subsurface conditions, and make decisions regarding the sampling program in three regions of the site. Observable areas
of weakness within the underlying limestone formations and potentially developing or existing karst conditions were of
particular interest to the design team. Such areas of interest, as identified by the geophysical testing, were targeted.
Overall, 45 SPT borings, 71CPT soundings, and 60 four-inch rock core borings were performed to observe underlying
soil conditions and validate conclusions drawn by the geophysical testing. The final earthen model derived from the
combined effort allowed the design team to compile design parameters for the various commercial, residential and
infrastructure additions associated with the proposed development.
Additionally, the composition of a land-locked saltwater pond situated near Rendezvous Bay's western shore was
assessed using electrical resistivity profiling. The purpose of the study of the pond area was to identify possible
directional drilling courses for flushing channels and to evaluate the availability of sufficient volumes of sediment at the
pond bottom to provide the fill required for the development during construction. Drilling trajectories were guided away
from unstable subsurface characteristics, such as weak or fractured rock and deposits of loose sand and sediment, by
using ERT profiles. The project team also conducted electrical resistivity tests to locate pockets of gravel and sand in the
pond's bed that might be used as fill. Preliminary calculations indicated that roughly 500,000 cubic yards of fill material
would be needed to complete the proposed project. Based on ERT imagery and excavation plans generated from the ERT
analysis, approximately 450,000 cubic yards of sands and gravels would be readily available excavation, with the
remaining 50,000 cubic yards to be acquired by ripping underlying limestone exposed through the removal of sediment
overburden (Nettles, Jarrett and Cross 2008).

6.1.2. Site Characterization for Retaining Wall near Atlanta, Georgia

In this case, the authors were asked to perform a site assessment for the purposes of designing a mechanically stabilized
earth (MSE) wall at the site of an existing landfill. The retaining wall was required by the governing regulatory agency so
that the volume of the existing waste facility could be expanded. In order to successfully design the retaining wall,
geologic conditions in the area had to be adequately defined. The engineers were aware that the location of the retaining
wall is located in the southern piedmont region of Georgia, which is characterized as having alluvial deposits, coprolites
and bedrock in various conditions of weathering. One of the primary objectives of the wall designer was to determine a
depth to bedrock across the proposed area. In order to optimize the drilling program, seismic refraction and MASW
techniques were both utilized at the site. Seismic refraction is a conventional technique used to determine bedrock
horizons; however, there was thought to be a potential for encountering shallow lenses of rock which might effectively
―hide‖ other important subsurface features. So by combining surface wave and P-wave analysis tools, a more complete
analysis of subgrade could be obtained. Testing was focused along the alignment of the berm for the proposed MSE wall.
The berm was approximately 2,700 linear feet in length. Geophysical surveying was concentrated in known areas of
shallow rock conditions. Seismic refraction surveys were conducted over 1,140feet of the alignment and MASW
surveying was conducted over approximately 500 feet. Geophysical testing was performed using a 24 channel Geode
seismograph, with 14 hertz geophones for the refraction survey and 4.5 hertz geophones for the MASW survey. Source
signal was provided by using a 20 pound sledgehammer and steel strike plate. In order to acquire samples of soil and
rock and validate geophysical surveying results, 16 soil borings and 9rock core borings were collected .For the P-wave
analysis, the Geometric software package, Seis Imager, was used to determine first wave arrivals and plot respective
bedrock horizons. For shear wave analysis ,SurfSeis, produced by the Kansas Geologic Society, was utilized for shot
analysis and inversion. After reviewing the P-wave analysis and the boring data, it was concluded that the depth to rock
was accurately depicted by the geophysical analysis, which provided validity to refraction readings between boring
locations. Likewise, the MASW analysis indicated areas within the underlying rock formation where zones of weaker
material were present. Such conditions were validated through the collection of rock core samples in those isolated areas.
The combined geotechnical and geophysical efforts accurately depicted the horizon of bedrock, and various degrees of
densities within the underlying rock formation (Tomeh et al. 2006).

6.2. Foundation integrity assessment using integrated geophysical and geotechnical techniques: case
study in crystalline basement complex, south western Nigeria

Designing excellent foundations and evaluating the integrity of civil engineering projects depend on the precise depth to
bedrock and its lithological type, lateral changes in lithology, and the detection of fractures, fissures, or faults. In order to
address disasters in civil engineering infrastructure construction, this study used combined geophysical and geotechnical
techniques to characterize the soil and site in a typical hard rock geologic terrain in southwest Nigeria. Both very low
frequency electromagnetic (VLF-EM) and electrical resistivity methods (dipole–dipole imaging and vertical electrical
sounding (VES) techniques) were used in the deployed geophysical measurements along the designated traverses. The
latter technique involved testing the area's collected soil samples using the Atterberg limit-index and geological
laboratory sieve analysis. The outcomes of Based on the interpreted VLF-EM and dipole-dipole data, the geophysical
measurement identified conductive zones and linear characteristics that were interpreted as faults or cracks that pose a
threat to the foundations of public infrastructures. Based on the VES results, four different geoelectric layers were
identified in the area: topsoil, lateritic/clayey substratum, weathered layer, and bedrock. Strong evidence supported the
VLF-EM and dipole-dipole results, including a high degree of breakdown and fracture of the underlying bedrock as
shown by the VES results. Additionally, the geotechnical analysis of the soil samples yielded values in the range of
74.2%–77.8%, 55%–62.5%, 23.4%–24.5%, 7.7%–8.2%, 19.5%–22.4%, and 31.65%–38.25% for these geotechnical
parameters, namely soil percentage passing 0.075 mm sieve size, liquid limit, plasticity index, linear shrinkage, natural
moisture content, and plastic limit, respectively. In comparison, In accordance with the obtained geotechnical parameters,
the analyzed geophysical and geotechnical results showed a high weathering of charnockitic rocks, resulting in plastic
clay material mapped with a mean resistivity value of 73 Ohm-m. This material did not agree with the standard
specification of subsoil foundation materials, which can have a negative impact on the foundational integrity of
infrastructures. The local sub soils suitability for foundation has been evaluated poor to low based on these findings.
More people now know that integrated geophysical and geotechnical methodologies can be used effectively to evaluate
subsurface competency( Adeoti et al.2016)

6.3. Application of Geophysics to Delineate Buried/ Paleo channel, Luhri Stage –Himachal Pradesh

Luhri Stage-II hydroelectric project proposes for construction of a concrete gravity dam of ±71m high from the deepest
foundation level across river Satluj near Nanj village and falls in districts of Shimla and Mandi of Himachal Pradesh. The
Project proposed for run of river scheme and generating 172 MW power. Underground powerhouse and its appurtenant
structures are proposed on the left bank. The rock exposed on both the banks of the Dam site and the Powerhouse area is
the greyish-pink Dolomite/limestone belonging to Shali/Larji Group (Khatpul /Tattpani Formation). A very thin layer of
overburden on the left bank and very thick terrace deposits resting over the Dolomite/limestone was observed on the right
bank from El ± 820m. It was anticipated that terrace formed due to an ancient river channel. Geological mapping and
topography of the area have pointed to the presence of a Buried channel. A combined geophysical survey comprising
Refraction Microtremor (ReMi) and Multi-Channel Analysis of Surface Wave (MASW) has been carried out at Nanj
Terrace (right bank) to delineate the suspected paleochannel. It is concluded by the geophysical study that the upper layer
comprising soil/highly weathered rock varies in thickness from 1.0 m to 60m. In contrast, moderately weathered rock
resting below the upper layer of soil/highly weathered rock is projected to a maximum depth of about 100 m. Beyond a
depth of 100m, it is presumed to have similar or better rock strength

6.4. Site characterisation in Kangra Valley (NW Himalaya, India) by inversion of H/V spectral ratio
from ambient noise measurements and its validation by MASW technique

The ambient noise measurements were performed at 200 sites in and around the upcoming urban centre of Kangra Valley
to derive the predominant frequency of soil. The shear-wave velocity of the soft soil cover is obtained by joint-fit
inversion modelling of the horizontal-to-vertical spectral ratio and the dispersion curves derived from multichannel
simulation with one receiver survey. Simultaneously, shear-wave velocity investigations were also performed employing
an active 24-channel engineering seismograph using multichannel analysis of surface waves. Finally, the derived one-
dimensional shear-wave velocity profiles were compared between these two different approaches, which were found to
be in good agreement. The shear-wave velocity investigations of the study area have indicated that the majority of the
sites either fall in soil class D as per NEHRP classification. The microB tremor data also suggest high fundamental
frequency (4 to >20 Hz) within and on the fringes of the basin, thus covering 80% of the study area, which is in
agreement with the known shear-wave velocity variation in the Kangra Valley. The large variation in high frequencies
cannot be attributed to the presence of thick loose alluvial sediments (gravels and sand) but can be related to the presence
of moraine deposits or bedrock (upper conglomerates) underneath the basin. However, a few isolated locations in the
northern and southeastern parts of the basin are characterised by a low predominant frequency (2–3 Hz) or frequency less
than even 2 Hz. The results further suggest that both multichannel analysis of surface waves and horizontal-to-vertical
spectral ratio methods, in combination with multichannel simulation with one receiver, are complementary to each other
and are suitable for estimating the shear-wave velocity structure for hilly urban regions, where exploring a large area is a
major challenge. The analysis further reveals that Kangra Valley can have a major devastation from a near-source
earthquake rather than from a far-source event.

7. Real geological setting—comparison with geophysical results

An excavation commenced in an area, initiating the building construction. It was a great opportunity to verify the
geophysical modelling results by comparing them with the actual geological conditions. A 3 m thick discontinuity in
barely limestone filled with clay was detected at the location of anomaly, by the end of the excavation works (figure 10).
 Figure 10. Excavation works revealed a disrupted part of the marlylimestone, filled with red clay. The location of
thisgeological–geotechnical inhomogeneity, coincides with that of theresistivity anomaly determined by the
implementation ofgeophysical engineering methods

The geometrical regularity of this structure (e.g. vertical borders, invariant thickness)suggested that it was a hand dug
well .It is emphasized that the structure was found at the exact location indicated by the geophysical measurements, and
its geometrical characteristics were in agreement with the determined circular geophysical anomaly.

8. Limitations
 Standard seismic wave methods have limitations in characterizing challenging rock profiles.
 Low-velocity layers and embedded cavities pose challenges for seismic wave method ineffective and incomplete
communication between geoscientist and end users.
 Potential problems with design engineer and earthworks contractors
 The inversion results from the real data show some consistency with crosshole, SPT N-value, and material log
results, but there may still be some scatter in the data

Conclusion

When designing and building civil, environmental, and mining engineering structures, the behaviour and performance of
rocks and soils are the main topics of engineering geophysics and geotechnical engineering.

Many times, the anomalous subsurface zones that existing buildings are situated over are not suitable for supporting the
weight of a construction. Furthermore, it's possible that the foundations were not constructed correctly. Damage that is
recent or current, including house fractures and the subsidence of the ground, warrants attention and more research
utilizing non-destructive geophysical technologies to direct more exploratory drilling and trenching.

According to the information above, geophysical surveys could play a big role in large-scale building projects where
subsurface structural issues could arise. The method presented in this research enables quick characterisation of
subsurface formations that can assist to direct site studies by moving test pits or soil borings forward. Anomalous areas
can be used to prepare construction bid documents and estimate potential costs for in situ material handling and the
possible reinforcement of the local complex geological structure for safe construction. Anomalous areas are defined by
the results of the geophysical surveys (such as electrical resistivity tomography and shallow electromagnetic terrain
conductivity) conducted in the early stages of construction work.
All of this information is essential for the effective completion of construction projects, since inadequate site
characterization can result in high development expenses if the geological formation types and geotechnical parameters
seen during the actual construction process are not taken into account.

In field studies, obtaining bulk density information is challenging, so an alternative approach based on resistivity surveys
and water table location was proposed.

Interpretation of resistivity results above the water table requires an estimate of water content, which can be affected by
climate conditions and soil water characteristic curve (SWCC).

Mineral composition can significantly affect resistivity, and further investigation is needed, along with the development
of a global soil database for more precise prediction models.

Acknowledgements

I am indebted to Dr. K. BALAN Vice Principal of RIET for his generous allocation of time and resources, his
willingness to share their wealth of knowledge, and his unwavering dedication to pushing me to new heights. His
mentorship has not only enriched the quality of this research but has also had a profound impact on my personal and
intellectual growth. I am truly fortunate to have had the privilege of working under his guidance.

I would like to express my deepest gratitude to the anonymous peer reviewers who will be dedicating their time and
expertise to provide valuable feedback and constructive criticism on this reviewpaper. Their rigorous evaluation,
insightful comments, and suggestions for improvement will immensely contribute to the quality and credibility of this
work.

Reference

[1] O. J. Akintorinwa* and J. I. Adesoji, Application of geophysical and geotechnical investigations in engineering site
evaluation Department of Applied Geophysics, Federal University of Technology, P.M.B. 704, Akure. Nigeria, 2009

[2] B. Butchibabu, Prosanta Kumar Khan, P.C. Jha , Foundation evaluation of underground metro rail station using
geophysical and geotechnical investigations. Engeo(2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2018.12.001

[3] Chih-Ping Lin, Chun-Hung Lin, Po-Lin Wu, Hsing-Chang Liu, Ying-Chun Hung. Applications and challenges of
near surface geophysics in geotechnical engineering[J]. Chinese Journal of Geophysics (in Chinese), 2015

[4] P M Soupios, P Georgakopoulos, N Papadopoulos, V Saltas, A Andreadakis, F Vallianatos, A Sarris, J P Makris, Use
of engineering geophysics to investigate a site for a building foundation, Journal of Geophysics and Engineering,
Volume 4, Issue 1, March 2007, Pages 94–103, https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-2132/4/1/011

[5] B Choon. Park, D Richard. Miller, Jianghai, Julian, Multichannel analysis of surface waves (MASW)—active and
passive methods Kansas Geological Survey, Lawrence, USA 2008
[6] Anderson, L Neil ,Croxton, Neil, Rick, Phil Geophysical Methods Commonly Employed for Geotechnical Site
Characterization http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/160352.aspx

[7] G M Olayanju, K A Mogaji, H S Lim, T S Ojo Journal of Geophysics and Engineering, Volume 14, Issue 3, June
2017, Pages 675–690, https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-2140/aa64f7

[8] Oyediran , Falae Integrated Geophysical and Geotechnical Methods for Pre-Foundation Investigations. Geol
Geophys 7: 453. doi: 10.4172/2381-8719.1000453

[9] N. K. Kanyan, A. Shlykov, S. Sharma Application of Geophysics to Delineate Buried/ Paleochannel, Luhri Stage –II
HEP (172MW), Sjvn Ltd., Himachal Pradesh European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers Source: , 2nd
EAGE/Aqua Foundation Indian Near Surface Geophysics Conference & Exhibition, Nov 2023, Volume 2023, p.1 - 5
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.202375038

[10] Folahan Peter Ibitoye Geophysical Investigations for Design Parameters Related to Geotechnical Engineering
2023 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.108712

[11] Khiem T. Tran, Dennis R. Hiltunen, Ariel Sarno, Nick Hudyma Geophysical Testing of Rock and Its Relationships
to Physical Properties

[12] G. D. Granger Geophysics in the assessment of road materials borrow sites

[13] Behdad Mofarraj Kouchaki Laboratory Resistivity Measurements for Soil Characterization
https://typeset.io/authors/behdad-mofarraj-kouchaki-gop0vqzo81

[14] Mohd Hazreek , Rosli Saad, Fauziah Ahmad, Devapriya Chitral Mohamad Faizal Application of Geophysical
Methods in Civil Engineering https://www.researchgate.net/publication/216175351

[15] Rechtien, R. D., Greenfield, R. J., & Ballard, R. F. (1995). Tunnel signature prediction for a cross‐borehole seismic
survey. GEOPHYSICS, 60(1), 76–86. doi:10.1190/1.1443765