Foti OverviewGeophysicalMethods

Short Course 23rd of February 2014
Introduction to Geophysical Tests

VS (m/s)
Sebastiano Foti
(ITALY)
Email: sebastiano.foti@polito.it
www.soilmech.polito.it/people/foti_sebastiano
Geophysical methods for geotechnical site characterization
Outline
Geophysical methods
Scope and potential for geotechnical and
geoenvironmental characterization
Use of seismic velocities
Significance of other geophysical parameters
In-hole vs surface methods
Geocongress 2014 23rd February 2014
SEBASTIANO FOTI
POLITECNICO DI TORINO
Geophysical Methods
Geophysical methods are indirect surveying techniques based on
measurements carried out on the ground surface or in holes. They
allow the distribution of physical properties of the subsurface to be
estimated and correlated with engineering information.
They are based on the excitation of an object with an energy field (artificial
or natural) and on the measurement of the object response.
The interpretation of the object response allows the object to be
characterised.
?
SEBASTIANO FOTI
Geophysical parameters
Density
Electrical Conductivity (or Resistivity)
Electrical Permittivity
Magnetic Suscettibility
Chargeability
Seismic velocities
SEBASTIANO FOTI
Geophysical parameters
Density
Electrical Conductivity (or Resistivity)
Electrical Permittivity
Magnetic Suscettibility
Chargeability
Seismic velocities
Direct relationship to mechanical
parameters of the medium
(Elastic Moduli)
SEBASTIANO FOTI
Applicability of in situ tests
(Mayne et al, 2002)

SEBASTIANO FOTI
Geotechnical and geoenvironmental site characterization

In the context of site characterization for engineering purposes,
the role of geophysical methods is twofold:
evaluation of geometrical boundaries to model subsoil
conditions (e.g. stratigraphy but also physical inclusions or
hydrogeological features);
evaluation of physical/mechanical parameters of direct use
for geotechnical modeling.
SEBASTIANO FOTI
Identification of stratigraphic sequence
Pugin et al., 2009
Seismic methods:
e.g. seismic reflection to identify an acquifer
In combination with conventional investigation:

e.g. boreholes logs allow calibration / identification of litography
geophysical surveys allow for 2D/3D extension
SEBASTIANO FOTI
Lateral variations (shallow faults)

e.g. seismic methods: surface wave tests
Geological model
(expected)
2D VS model from
surface wave
analysis
Updated geological
model
[Ivanov et al., 2006]
SEBASTIANO FOTI
Cavity detection
Example 1: void detection in a minerary area in
canada with pseudo-2D VS sections from surface
wave analysis
Example 2: (ERT) Electrical Resistivity

Tomography and (GPR) Ground Penetrating Radar
surveys reveal a sinkhole beneath a house
ERT
VS
Xu et al., 2008
GPR
Dobecki and Upchurch, 2006
SEBASTIANO FOTI
Identification of stratigraphic sequence / local litography

e.g. electrical methods to identify clays below sands
Turesson and Lind, 2005
Non-seismic methods:
Powerful tools to investigate lateral variations at the site

(e.g. for assessing the potential for differential settlements)
SEBASTIANO FOTI
Hydro - geophysics
Sea coast-line
S1
Depth [ m ]
100
Land
Distance [ m ]
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
Salt water
intrusion
Macchiareddu - Cagliari (Italy)

50 150 250 350 450 550 650 750 850
[Ohm m]
Apparent resistivity pseudosection

Profile: n.3 Cardiga
2D rendering of time domain EM vertical 1D profiles for salt water

intrusion in coastal aquifer.
Courtesy of Alberto Godio
SEBASTIANO FOTI
Pollutants and waste detection
Buried waste disposal
Courtesy of Valentina Socco

SEBASTIANO FOTI
Hydrogeological / environmental applications

Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT)
(Martnez-Pagn et al., 2009)
Resistivity is sensitive to:

pore fluid content
pore fluid conductivity
Saturated vs unsaturated(for coarse materials)

Identification and monitoring of plumes
SEBASTIANO FOTI
Monitoring in environmental applications

Example:
3D resistivity tomography on lab
soil samples for diffusion of
conductive plume monitoring.
(Comina et al., 2011).
SEBASTIANO FOTI
site characterization
for engineering
purposes
Geotechnical
and geoenvironmental
site characterization
In the context of site characterization for engineering purposes,
the role of geophysical methods is twofold:
conditions (e.g. stratigraphy but also physical inclusions or
hydrogeological features);
evaluation of physical/mechanical parameters of direct use
for geotechnical modeling.
SEBASTIANO FOTI
Indagini geofisiche per la caratterizzazione geotecnica
Bulk waves
Longitudinal wave
(Primary wave P)
VP =
+ 2
=
Shear wave
(Secondary wave S)
VS =
(Animation courtesy of prof.Braile)

CISM Udine 7 Febbraio 2014
Sebastiano Foti
Seismic methods
In a linear elastic medium
Shear wave propagation
G = V S2
In soils
G 0 = V S2
Animation courtesy of
Dr. L. Braile, Purdue University
Gsec
G0
G0
1.0
Gsec
G0
Gsec
Strain range of
geophysical test
SEBASTIANO FOTI
Role of G0 in geotechnical engineering

Evaluation of seismic site response
Foundation vibrations
Dynamic soil structure interaction
Vibrations (e.g. railroads, industrial activities, )
Liquefaction suscettivity assessment
Monitoring of ground improvement projects
Correlation to operative values of G at medium strains
Numerical simulations with advanced constitutive laws
Evaluation of disturbance of soil samples
SEBASTIANO FOTI
Typical strain ranges for geotechnical problems
(Atkinson, 2000)
SEBASTIANO FOTI
Site vs Lab (Pisa)
G0 lab (MPa)
120
90
60
30
0
0
30
60
90
120
G0 sito (MPa)
G 0 = V S2
(Cross-Hole Test)
SEBASTIANO FOTI
G0 site vs lab
G
0
150
(m/s)
300
600
0.25
/G
0, sito
0.50
0.80 1.00
1.50
2.00
valori progetto
ROSRINE
campioni
ricostituiti
da sabbie
cementate
XX
X
campioni indisturbati
di sabbie cementate
S, sito
450
0.10
0,lab
750
900
Pisa
1050
0.0
valori usuali per

campioni di roccia
0.5
1.0
V
S,lab
G 0 = V S2
/V
1.5
S,sito
(Stokoe e Santamarina, 2000)
SEBASTIANO FOTI
Assessment of sample quality

The ratio
VS(lab) / VS(field)
Gives an indication of
sample quality
it can be used also for
coarse grained soils
DeGroot et al (2011).
SEBASTIANO FOTI
Site characterization for seismic projects

120
30
100
G (MPa)
80
25
G ( ) lab
20
60
15
40
10
20
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
D (%) u/ '0 (%)

G 0(sito ) = VS 2
Shear
strain (%)
deformazione
tangenziale,
G0 from in situ testing (geophysics)

G/G0() e D() from laboratory tests
SEBASTIANO FOTI
Site characterization for seismic projects

120
30
G()
G ( ) = (G 0 ) sito
G 0 lab
25
80
20
60
15
40
10
20
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
D (%) u/ '0 (%)
G (MPa)
100
deformazione
tangenziale,
Shear
strain (%)
In situ tests investigate a large volume of soil

whereas laboratory testing concerns small samples
SEBASTIANO FOTI
Body Waves
Compressional wave
VP =
(after Bolt, 1976)
Shear wave
VS =
Vertically polarized SV
or
Horizontally polarized SH
(after Bolt, 1976)
Direction of Propagation
SEBASTIANO FOTI
In a linear elastic isotropic homogeneous medium
VP =
VS: shear wave velocity

VP: dilational wave velocity
: density
G: shear modulus
VS =
M: laterally constrained modulus

(oedometric conditions)
Note: In saturated soils VP is strongly influenced by the

compressibility of the pore fluid (water)
SEBASTIANO FOTI
Biot Theory
Macroscopic approach: the medium is modeled as a binary continuum
arising from the superposition of a fluid and a solid phase occupying
simultaneously the same regions of space. The porosity is the link between
the two.
Hypothesis:
- isotropic, linear elastic soil skeleton
- a non-dissipative compressible fluid saturates all voids
- no relative motion between the solid and the fluid phases
(valid for low frequency range)
Writing the equations of motion for the porous media and applying the
Helmholtz decomposition, it is possible to show the existence of two
different compressional waves and of a unique shear waves.
The fastest compressional wave is called of the first kind or P-wave, the
slowest is called of the second kind or Biot wave.
SEBASTIANO FOTI
Biot solution
Under the hypothesis of grain incompressibility, the velocity of propagation of body
waves in porous media can be written as:
VP =
VS =
(K
SK
F
K
+ 43 G ) +
n
where
= (1 n) S + n F
S grain density
F water density
KF
KSK
G
n
water bulk modulus

soil skeleton bulk modulus
shear modulus
porosity
SK Poisson ratio of the (evacuated) soil skeleton
SEBASTIANO FOTI
Biot solution
Under the hypothesis of grain incompressibility, the velocity of propagation of body
waves in porous media can be written as:
VP =
VS =
(K
SK
F
K
+ 43 G ) +
n
= (1 n) S + n F
where
S grain density
F water density
KF
KSK
G
n
water bulk modulus

soil skeleton bulk modulus
shear modulus
porosity
SK Poisson ratio of the (evacuated) soil skeleton
4 ( S F ) K F
( )
1 SK 2
2
VS
VP 2
SK
1 2
n=
2 ( S F )
S
S 2
S,F,KF: standard values

VP & VS: measured
SK : range 0.10.4
SEBASTIANO FOTI
Soil porosity from seismic velocities
Leaning Tower of Pisa site
Velocity of Propagation [m/s]

0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Porosity
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
10
Depth [m]
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
LAB (Laval)
LAB (Osterberg)
Vp
Vs
Cross-Hole
test
(Foti et al., 2002)

4 ( S F ) K F
( )
1 SK 2
2
VS
VP 2
SK
n=
2 ( S F )
S
S 2
SEBASTIANO FOTI
Degree of saturation
Also very limited desaturation has a strong effect on the VP
Valle-Molina (2006)
SEBASTIANO FOTI
Influence of degree of salutarion on liquefaction resistance

saturation degree strongly affect liquefaction resistance
VP can be used to monitor saturation and esclude liquefaction
Tsukamoto et al (2006)
SEBASTIANO FOTI
Example: Zelasny Most tailing dam
West dam
Jamiolkowski, 2012
SEBASTIANO FOTI
Non seismic methods

Quantitative use of geophysical parameters other than
seismic velocities is less straightforward and typically require
the use of empirical correlations with geotechnical parameters
Example: electrical conductivity of soils
Trasport parameter related to:
-
fluid properties (solubility of ionic species, concentration);
mineralogy and specific surface of the solid grains;
porosity and fabric
w : pore fluid conductivity
Archie
t = w nm Srp
n: porosity
Bruggeman
t = w n3/2
m = 3/2 : theoretical
Waxman & Smits
t = X (w + s)
s : clay surface conductivity
SEBASTIANO FOTI
S: saturation
Example at Lab scale
Polito 2D ERT (Borsic et al., 2005)
Identification of zones with different compaction

levels in sand
Coarse Matrix
n 0.48
Dense Inclusion
n 0.43
1
mS/cm
2
Estimated values with
Bruggeman equation
Matrix n 0.46
3
Inclusion n 0.42
3. Tomographic reconstruction
SEBASTIANO FOTI

(Invasive vs Non-invasive methods)
Cross-Hole Test (CHT)

Down-Hole Test (DHT)
Seismic Cone (SCPT)
Seismic Dilatometer (SDMT)
P-S Suspension Logging
Vertical Seismic Profiling (VSP)
Surface Waves Methods SWM

(SASW, MASW, microtremors)
Seismic Refraction
(P-waves or SH-waves)
Seismic Reflection
(P-waves or SH-waves)
SEBASTIANO FOTI
Invasive Tests
Direct measurements: simple
and accurate interpretation
Costs and flexibility (in time and

space)
Good resolution also at great

depth
Non-intrusive (e.g. important for

waste landfills)
Easier standardization
Average properties (dynamic

behaviour of the whole soil
deposit)
Additional information from

borehole logging or the
penetration of the cone
Disadvantages
Non-Invasive Tests
Costs and necessity of planning

well in advance
Local measurement
Large volumes are investigated

Complex interpretation (indirect
measurements based on inversion
procedures or heavy processing)
Accuracy and resolution at depth
SEBASTIANO FOTI
\
VS1
VS2
VS3
SEBASTIANO FOTI
Combined use of geophysical methods

Synergies between different techniques can be
exploited at different level of integration:
Level 1: comparison for validation / calibration
Level 2: data integration and data fusion (combining
different information on the same medium)
Level 3: a priori info (one method help the other)
Level 4: joint inversion (simultaneous interpretation of
different dataset)
SEBASTIANO FOTI
Level 1: Comparison In-Hole methods vs SASW

Vs (m/s)
0
400
800
400
Saluggia
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
Cross Hole
25
Cross Hole
25
SASW-fk
SASW-fk
30
30
Vs (m/s)
400
Vs (m/s)
Vs (m/s)
800
400
800
1200
400
800
1200
1600
Pontremoli
Pontremoli
Pontremoli
site 1
site 2
site 3
Depth (m)
10
Depth (m)
Pisa
20
Down Hole
15
300
15
20
SASW-fk
200
10
10
10
100
15
Depth (m)
800
Castelnuovo
Depth (m)
Vs (m/s)
Vs (m/s)
10
10
Down Hole
Down Hole
Down Hole
SASW-fk
SASW-fk
SASW-fk
15
15
15
SEBASTIANO FOTI
Level 2: Data integration and data fusion
Electrical resistivity tomography
Pugin et al., 2009
SH-wave seismic reflection
resistivity
SEBASTIANO FOTI
Combined use
Level 1: comparison for validation

Level 2: data fusion
Example: synergies of
Level 3: a priori info
seismic refraction and
Level 4: joint inversions
surface wave analysis

(SWM)
SEBASTIANO FOTI
Example of synergy: SW + VP refraction

Same testing setup and
equipment
P-waves
VP1
Receivers (geophones)
VP2
VP3 VP2
Rayleigh waves
Experimental data contain both

surface waves and
direct/refracted P waves
VS1
VS2
VS3
SEBASTIANO FOTI
P-WAVE REFRACTION
70
travel time [ms]
60
50
VP1
40
VP2
30
VP3 VP2
20
10
0
10
20
30
40
50
spacing [m]
60
KF
( K + G) +
n
VP =
S
(1 n) + n F
SK
4
3
Shallow water table masks

variation of the mechanical
properties of the solid skeleton
(influence of the pore fluid)
70 0
80
200
400
600
Vp [m/s]
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Water table
1
Depth [m]
SEBASTIANO FOTI
Experimental Data
Shear Wave Velocity (m/s)
Depth (m)
200
400
600
800 1000
starting profile
inversion #1
inversion #2
inversion #3
cross-hole test
10
15
20
25
Hp#1 Water table from P-wave refraction

Hp#2 No water table
Hp#3 Water table deeper than Hp #1
700
phase velocity, m/s
experimental
inversion #1
inversion #2
inversion #3
600
500
400
300
200
100
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
frequency, Hz
30
(Foti and Strobbia, 2002)

SEBASTIANO FOTI
Level 4: joint inversion

(Piatti et al., 2012b)
A single inversion problems is solved considering all the available
experimental information: the best fit parameters for both VP and VS
models are obtained
A single misfit parameter include misfit on Rayleigh wave dispersion
curve and P-wave travel times
T -1
1
+
L=
d
-g
m
C
d
-g
m
(
)
(
)
(
)
(
)
obs
obs
obs
N + M + A
dobs = ( log (VR1 ) , log (VR2 ) , ...., log (VRN ' ) ) ( log ( t1 ) , log ( t2 ) , ...., log ( tN '' ) )
gSW ( m)
g ( m) =
gPR ( m)
m = [( log ( h1 ) , log ( h2 ) , ...., log ( hn ) ) ( log (VS1 ) , log (VS 2 ) , ...., log (VS n+1 ) )
( log (V ) ,
P1
SEBASTIANO FOTI
log (VP2 ) , ...., log (VPn+1 ) )]
Example on synthetic data

SEBASTIANO FOTI
Example on synthetic data

SEBASTIANO FOTI
Experimental data
SEBASTIANO FOTI
Case History #1
Combination of seismic and electrical methods for

the assessment of site conditions for seepage
analysis along an embankment
Combination of several methods for reliable evaluation of cover

thickness
Joint inversion to improve accuracy
SEBASTIANO FOTI
The PO river
LENGTH: 650 km
DISCHARGE
ave.= 1450 m3/s
max.= (nov 2000): 13000m3/s
SEBASTIANO FOTI
Seepage potential
Floods very often start with localized seepage that can
degenerate causing inundations
10 extreme events each 100 years
Levees for a total length over 2400 km
SEBASTIANO FOTI
Seepage potential
Geology: alluvial deposits: recent sands, gravel, clay
TARGET: clayey layer: continuity, thickness
Water level can reach 10 m
above the ground surface
Anthropic soil
?
Thickness of low permeability layer?
SEBASTIANO FOTI
Geophysical investigation
large extension of the areas
Interest in fast geophysical tests from the surface
At a test site several
methods have been
tested and compared
VES ERT
HEP
SWM
Prefr SHrefr
SEBASTIANO FOTI
Combinations MASW + VES
app
Processing
VR
Apparent
resistivity
AB
dispersion
curve
Inversion
VS
G0
VS profile
resistivity
profile
Z
SEBASTIANO FOTI
Joint inversion VES + MASW

Physical parameters: shear velocity and resistivity
Assumed parameter distribution: stack of homogeneous isotropic layers
VS,
MODEL PARAMETERS:
n
n
VS
n-1 H
VS,
LINK BETWEEN THE TWO MODELS:

geometry, thickness of the layers
(same position of interfaces: independent
variations of the two parameters, a variation
of resistivity does not imply a variation of
seismic shear velocity )
VS,
VS,
From 4n-2 to 3n-1 unkowns

with the same experimental information
SEBASTIANO FOTI
Joint inversion VES + MASW
Processing
app
AB
VR
Joint Inversion
VS
dispersion
curve
G0
VS profile
Z
Z
SEBASTIANO FOTI
Field test results
(Comina et al., 2004)
Resistivity curves
3
10
Electric stratigraphy
Seismic stratigraphy
0
joint
joint
2
10
1
10 0
10
10 1
AB/2 [m]
10
-2
-2
-4
-4
-6
-6
-8
-8
Best estimate
single
of the -10
clay layer
thickness
-12
z [m]
joint
-10
Dispersion curves
350
Vr [m/s]
single
-12
300
single
250
joint
200
z [m]
ro [Ohm.m]
single
-14
-14
-16
-16
150
-18
1000
10
15
freq [Hertz]
20
25
30
50 100 150 200 250 300

ro [Ohm.m]
SEBASTIANO FOTI
-18
100 200 300 400 500

Vs [m/s]
The joint inversion algorithm
(Garofalo, 2014)
Surface-wave
propagation
Body-wave
propagation
Electrical
current flow
Dispersion
curves
P-wave
travel-time
Apparent
resistivity
Joint
Inversion
Physical Laws
Physical
inversion
Thickness h
S-wave velocity VS
m
P-wave velocity Vp
Resistivity Rho
SEBASTIANO FOTI
dobs
reference model
Geometric
regularization
Structural
inversion

The model and the physical links
Unsaturated skeleton
h1
VS,1
VP,1
Rho1
Saturated mixture
of fluid and grains
h2
VS,2
VP,2
Rho2
VS,3
VP,3
Rho3
Half Space clay
Model Parameters m:

thickness (h)
density ()
S-wave velocity (VS)
P-wave velocity (VP)
Resistivity (Rho)
SEBASTIANO FOTI
Poissons ratio

The model and the physical links
Unsaturated skeleton
h1
VS,1
VP,1
Rho1
Saturated mixture
of fluid and grains
h2
VS,2
VP,2
Rho2
VS,3
VP,3
Rho3
Half Space clay
Model Parameters m:
Seismic wave Velocities
Porosity
Resistivity

thickness (h)
density ()
S-wave velocity (VS)
P-wave velocity (VP)
Resistivity (Rho)
SEBASTIANO FOTI
Field example: Results
(Garofalo, 2014)
Saturated layer
4 ( S F ) K F
( )
1 SK 2
2
VS
VP 2
SK
1 2
=
2 ( S F )
S
S 2
= 0.42 0.52
Bellotti and Selleri (1969)
SEBASTIANO FOTI
Field example: Results
(Garofalo, 2014)
= 0.13
Bergamo and Socco
(2013)
SEBASTIANO FOTI
Case history #2
Investigation of volcanoclastic slopes
Combination of several in situ geophysical tests to increase the

reliability of the results
Combination of laboratory and in situ testing for the assessment of
saturation conditions
SEBASTIANO FOTI
Flowslides of 1998 in Campania
SEBASTIANO FOTI
Sarno
Air-fall pyroclastic deposits
(Cascini et al., 2008)
flowslides occurred in May 1998
(Cascini et al., 2008)
Cover soils formed by volcanic ashes from the Vesuvio

(few meters thick) over a carbonatic bedrock
SEBASTIANO FOTI
Site characterization
Objectives
Quantification of potential volume of the flow (for the
design of mitigation infrastructures): thickness of the
soil cover
Prevision of onset of the flowslide: assessment and
monitoring of saturation condition of the soil cover
Critical issues
Very difficult site logistics with steep and vegetated
slopes poses strong limitations in the use of conventional
site tests (boreholes and penetration testing)
Necessity of investigating large areas
SEBASTIANO FOTI
Combination of different geophysical approaches

Surface wave method (MASW)
(Cosentini et al., 2012)
Seismic tomography (VP)
Electrical resistivity tomography
SEBASTIANO FOTI
Comments
Electical and seismic (VP) tomography show that the

assumption of a layered medium in MASW is reasonable
Inversion of MASW shows the relevance of higher
modes at this site: surface wave analysis is not a simple
and straightforward task
The estimated thickness of the cover material is
comparable with different methods
SEBASTIANO FOTI
Laboratory calibration of Archies law for unsat materials
t = w nm Srp
n: porosity
S: saturation
w : pore fluid conductivity

The two exponet m and p are found by fitting laboratory data
SEBASTIANO FOTI
Mapping resistivity into degree of saturation
SEBASTIANO FOTI
Closing Remarks
Geophysical test provide useful tools for

geotechnical site characterization
conditions (e.g. stratigraphy but also physical
inclusions or hydrogeological features);
evaluation of physical/mechanical parameters of
direct use for geotechnical modeling.
VS G0; sample quality

VP saturation; porosity (+M0 for dry soils)
Surface wave methods are cost and time
effective but their interpretation is not simple
SEBASTIANO FOTI
Closing remarks
Importance of choosing the right technique

for the specific application
Integration of different techniques reduces
uncertainties
Laboratory experimental can provide a
framework and calibration for quantitative
interpretation of field tests
SEBASTIANO FOTI
Thank you for your attention

Acknowledgments
Prof. Laura Valentina Socco (DIATI - Politecnico di Torino)
Dr Cesare Comina (University of Torino)
Prof. Guido Musso (DISEG Politecnico di Torino)
Dr Renato Cosentini (Politecnico di Torino)
Ms Flora Garofalo (PhD student at Politecnico di Torino)
Dr Paolo Bergamo (now at Queens University, Belfast UK)

Dr Margherita Maraschini (now at Fugro - UK)
Dr Daniele Boiero (now at Western-Gico - UK)
Dr Claudio Piatti (now at DApollonia - Italy)
Dr Claudio Strobbia (now at Western-Gico - UK)
Additional material available at
www.soilmech.polito.it/download
SEBASTIANO FOTI

Foti OverviewGeophysicalMethods

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Foti OverviewGeophysicalMethods

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Short Course 23rd of February 2014

Introduction to Geophysical Tests

Geophysical methods for geotechnical site characterization

Geocongress 2014 23rd February 2014

Geophysical methods for geotechnical site characterization

Geophysical methods for geotechnical site characterization

Geocongress 2014 23rd February 2014

Geophysical methods for geotechnical site characterization

Geocongress 2014 23rd February 2014

Geophysical methods for geotechnical site characterization

Applicability of in situ tests

(Mayne et al, 2002)

Geophysical methods for geotechnical site characterization

Geotechnical and geoenvironmental site characterization

Geocongress 2014 23rd February 2014

Geophysical methods for geotechnical site characterization

Identification of stratigraphic sequence

Pugin et al., 2009

In combination with conventional investigation:

Geophysical methods for geotechnical site characterization

Lateral variations (shallow faults)

Geophysical methods for geotechnical site characterization

Example 2: (ERT) Electrical Resistivity

Geocongress 2014 23rd February 2014

Geophysical methods for geotechnical site characterization

Identification of stratigraphic sequence / local litography

Turesson and Lind, 2005

Powerful tools to investigate lateral variations at the site

Geophysical methods for geotechnical site characterization

Macchiareddu - Cagliari (Italy)

Apparent resistivity pseudosection

2D rendering of time domain EM vertical 1D profiles for salt water

Geophysical methods for geotechnical site characterization

Pollutants and waste detection

Buried waste disposal

Courtesy of Valentina Socco

Geophysical methods for geotechnical site characterization

Hydrogeological / environmental applications

(Martnez-Pagn et al., 2009)

Resistivity is sensitive to:

Saturated vs unsaturated(for coarse materials)

Geophysical methods for geotechnical site characterization

Monitoring in environmental applications

Geocongress 2014 23rd February 2014

Geophysical methods for geotechnical site characterization

Geocongress 2014 23rd February 2014

Indagini geofisiche per la caratterizzazione geotecnica

(Animation courtesy of prof.Braile)

Geophysical methods for geotechnical site characterization

Shear wave propagation

Geophysical methods for geotechnical site characterization

Role of G0 in geotechnical engineering

Geocongress 2014 23rd February 2014

Geophysical methods for geotechnical site characterization

Typical strain ranges for geotechnical problems

Geophysical methods for geotechnical site characterization

Site vs Lab (Pisa)

Geophysical methods for geotechnical site characterization

valori usuali per

(Stokoe e Santamarina, 2000)

Geophysical methods for geotechnical site characterization

Assessment of sample quality

Geocongress 2014 23rd February 2014

Geophysical methods for geotechnical site characterization