Abstract
We explore the role of non-invasive multi-electrode electrical resistivity imaging (ERT) and induced polarisation imaging (IPI) as an alternative to multichannel analysis of surface waves (MASW) for geotechnical site characterisation in view of their higher near-surface spatial resolution. By using regression equations, we assess the relative performance of ERT, IPI and MASW in predicting geotechnical test results (standard penetration test (SPT), dynamic cone penetration test (DCPT) and static cone penetration test (SCPT)) in a site investigation on our IIT Roorkee Campus, India. The results indicate that the average root mean square (RMS) errors in predicting SPT based on ERT, IPI and MASW are 16.95%, 21.9% and 28.03%, respectively. Likewise, the average RMS errors in predicting DCPT based on ERT, IPI and MASW are 15.4%, 15.3% and 56.99%, respectively, and the average RMS errors in predicting SCPT based on ERT, IPI and MASW are 20.15%, 18.65% and 36.49%, respectively. In view of higher resolution for near-surface investigations, ERT/IPI seems to score over MASW in geotechnical site investigation studies. So, a leading role for non-invasive and cost-effective ERT/IPI in geotechnical site investigations is envisaged.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anbazhagan P, Abhishek K and Sitharam T G 2013a Liquefaction hazard mapping of Lucknow – A part of Indo-Gangetic Basin (IGB); Int. J. Geotech. Earthq. Eng. 4(1) 17–41.
Anbazhagan P, Kumar A and Sitharam T G 2013b Seismic site classification and correlation between standard penetration test N value and shear wave velocity for Lucknow city in Indo-Gangetic basin; Pure Appl. Geophys. 170(3) 299–318.
Anbazhagan P, Uday A, Moustafa S S R and Arifi N N S A 2017 Soil void ratio correlation with shear wave velocities and SPT N values for Indo-Gangetic basin; J. Geol. Soc. India 89(4) 398–406.
Cosenza P, Marmet E, Rejiba F, Cui Y J, Tabbagh A and Charlery Y 2006 Correlations between geotechnical and electrical data – A case study at Garchy in France;J. Appl. Geophys. 60 165–178.
Drahor M G, Gokturkler G, Berge M A and Kurtulmus T O 2006 Application of electrical resistivity tomography technique for investigation of landslides: A case study from Turkey; Environ. Geol. 50 147–155.
Foti S 2000 Multi-station methods for geotechnical characterisation using surface waves; PhD Thesis, Politecnico di Torino, 229p.
Gautam P K 2009 Geotechnical site characterization through geoelectrical imaging; Unpublished PhD Thesis, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, India, pp. 52–106.
Gautam P K, Sastry R G and Mondal S K 2007 The utility of multi-electrode resistivity data in geotechnical investigations – A case study; In: 20th Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems (SAGEEP), pp. 731–737.
Giao P H 2001 Some applications of engineering and environmental geophysics in geotechnical engineering; Presentation at Gifu University, Japan.
Giao P H, Kim J H and Chung S G 2002 Application of engineering geophysics in investigation of the Pusan clays with reference to reclamation projects; Eur. J. Environ. Eng. Geophys. 7(3) 201–218.
Giao P H, Chung S G, Kim D Y and Tanaka H 2003 Electrical imaging and laboratory resistivity testing for geotechnical investigation of Pusan clay deposits; J. Appl. Geophys. 52 157–175.
Hadidi R and Gucunski N 2003 Inversion of SASW dispersion curve using numerical simulation; In: Proceedings SAGEEP, 1289p.
Iyisan R 1996 Correlations between shear wave velocity and in situ penetration test results; Tech. J. Turk. Chamber Civil Eng. 7(2) 1187–1199.
Joh S H 1996 Advances in the data interpretation technique for spectral analysis of surface waves measurements; PhD Thesis, University of Texas, USA, 240p.
Kumar G 2005 Geology of Uttar Pradesh and Uttaranchal; Geological Society of India, Bangalore, 383p.
Kumar A 2013 Development of a Monte-Carlo inversion technique for MASW data; Unpublished Dissertation Report; Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, India, pp. 9–29.
Loke M H and Barker R D 1995 Least-squares deconvolution of apparent resistivity pseudo-sections; Geophysics 60 1682–1690.
Loke M H and Barker R D 1996a Rapid least-squares inversion of apparent resistivity pseudo-sections by a quasi-Newton method; Geophys. Prospect. 44 131–152.
Loke M H and Barker R D 1996b Practical techniques for 3D resistivity surveys and data inversion; Geophys. Prospect. 44 499–523.
Matthews M C, Hope V S and Clayton C R I 1996 The use of surface waves in the determination of ground stiffness profiles; Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Geotech. Eng. 119 84–95.
Matthews M C, Clayton C R I and Own Y 2000 The use of field geophysical techniques to determine geotechnical stiffness parameters; Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Geotech. Eng. 143(1) 31–42.
Mondal S K, Sastry R G, Gautam P K and Pachauri A K 2007 High resolution resistivity imaging of Naitwar Bazar landslide; In: Proceedings of the 20th Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems (SAGEEP), Garhwal Himalaya, India, pp. 629–635.
Mondal S K, Sastry R G, Gautam P K and Pachauri A K 2008 High resolution 2-D electrical resistivity tomography to characterize active Naitwar Bazar landslide, Garhwal Himalaya, India – A case study; Curr. Sci. India 94(7) 871–875.
Morgan F D, Gay D A, Vichabian Y, Reppert P, Wharton A E and Sogade J A 2005 Geophysical and geotechnical investigations for proposed Dominica airport, Cite abstract, AGU; Jt. Assem. Suppl. 86 18.
Murthy V N S 2008 Soil mechanics and foundation engineering; CBS Publishers and Distributors, New Delhi, 1043p.
Oh Y, Jeong H, Lee Y and Shona H 2003 Safety evaluation of rock-fill dam by seismic (MASW) and resistivity methods; In: Proceedings of SAGEEP, 1377p.
Park C B, Miller R D, Ryden N, Xia J and Ivanovo J 2005 Combined use of active and passive surface waves; J. Environ. Eng. Geoph. 10 323–334.
Parkash B, Kumar S, Rao M S, Giri S C, Kumar C S and Gupta S 2001 Active tectonics of Western Gangetic Plains: DST’s Spl; In: On seismicity (ed.) Verma O P, IGC Publication, Roorkee, Vol. 2, pp. 141–158.
Pujari P R and Nanoti M V 2006 Integrated resistivity imaging and GPR studies to assess groundwater pollution near landfill site, Nagpur, India; In: Proceedings of the Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems (SAGEEP).
Pujari P R, Pardhi P, Harkare P and Nanoti M V 2007 Assessment of pollution near landfill site in Nagpur, India by resistivity imaging and GPR; Environ. Monit. Assess. 131 489–500.
Ranjan G and Rao A S R 2005 Basic and applied soil mechanics; New Age International Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, 762p.
Roth M J S and Nyquist J E 2003 Evaluation of multi-electrode earth resistivity testing in Karst; Geotech. Test J., ASTM 26 167–178.
Roth M J S, Mackey J R, Mackey C and Nyquist J E 2002 A case study of the reliability of multielectrode earth resistivity testing for geotechnical investigations in karst terrains; Eng. Geol. 65 225–232.
Rucker D F and Noonan G E 2013 Using marine resistivity to map geotechnical properties: A case study in support of dredging the Panama Canal; NSG 11(6) 625–637.
Rumpf M and Tronicke J 2014 Predicting 2D geotechnical parameter fields in near-surface sedimentary environments; J. Appl. Geophys. 101 95–107.
Sastry R G and Sumedha C 2014 Geoelectric imaging scores over MASW in geotechnical site characterization; In: Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems (SAGEEP), Boston, Massachusetts.
Sastry R G and Viladkar M N 2004 Role of integrated geophysical studies in defining the rock profile below steep hill slope at the base of an endangered multi-storeyed building in Himachal Pradesh; J. Geol. Soc. India 63 282–290.
Seshunarayana T 2006 Multichannel analysis of surface waves – An application to site characterization, Jabalpur, India; Unpublished PhD Thesis, Centre of Exploration Geophysics, Osmania University, Hyderabad, India.
Seshunarayana T and Sundararajan N 2004 Multichannel analysis of surface waves, MASW, for mapping shallow subsurface layers – A case study, Jabalpur, India; In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference & Exposition on Petroleum Geophysics, Society of Petroleum Geophysicists, Hyderabad, India.
Siddiqui F I and Osman S B 2013 Simple and multiple regression models for relationship between electrical resistivity and various soil properties for soil characterization; Environ. Earth Sci. 70 259–267.
Sitharam T G, Samui P and Anbazhagan P 2008 Spatial variability of rock depth in Bangalore using geostatistical, neural network and support vector machine models; J. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 26 503–517.
Srivastava P, Pal D K, Aruche K M, Wani S P and Sahrawat K L 2015 Soils of the Indo-Gangetic Plains: A pedogenic response to landscape stability, climatic variability and anthropogenic activity during Holocene; Earth Sci. Rev. 140 54–71.
Sudhish Kumar B, Anbazhagan P and Sitharam T G 2006 Development of theoretical dispersion curves and comparison with multichannel analysis of surface waves (MASW); In: 13th Symposium on Earthquake Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee.
Sumedha C and Sastry R G 2016 Multivariate regres-sion analysis of geoelectric imaging and geotechnical test results; In: Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems (SAGEEP), Denver, Colorado.
Ulugergerli E U and Uyanik O 2007 Statistical correlations between seismic velocities and SPT blow counts and the relative density of soils; ASTM JOTE 35(2) 1–5.
Vipin A S, Anbazhagan P and Sitharam T G 2008 Identification of liquefaction susceptible areas in Bangalore using probabilitistic approach based on SPT data; Proc. Indian Geotech. Conf. Banglore 2 444–447.
Ward S H (ed.) 1990 Geotechnical and environmental geophysics: Investigations in geophysics; SEG 5(1) 1–30.
Xia J, Miller R D, Park C B, Hunter J A and Harris J B 2000 Comparing shear-wave velocity profiles from MASW with borehole measurements in unconsolidated sediments, Fraser River Delta, B.C., Canada; J. Environ. Eng. Geophys. 5(3) 1.
Xia J, Miller R D, Park C B, Hunter J A, Harris J B and Ivanov J 2002 Comparing shear-wave velocity profiles from multichannel surface wave with borehole measurements; Int. J. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 22 181–190.
Xu C and Butt S D 2006 Evaluation of MASW techniques to image steeply dipping cavities in laterally inhomogeneous terrain; J. Appl. Geophys. 59(2) 106–116.
Acknowledgements
We express our sincere thanks to Mr Anil Kumar for providing MASW-based shear wave velocity logs. The second author acknowledges the financial support (scholarship) provided by the M/S MHRD, Government of India, New Delhi.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Corresponding editor: N V Chalapathi Rao.
Appendix A
Appendix A
1.1 A1. Subsurface exploration and geotechnical tests
The in-situ geotechnical tests in the field have the advantage of testing the soils in their natural, undisturbed condition to obtain various parameters for the design of foundations (Ranjan and Rao 2005). The purpose of subsurface exploration is to obtain information that will aid the geotechnical engineer in:
-
1.
determining the nature of soil at the field site and its stratification;
-
2.
selecting the type and depth of foundation suitable for a given civil structure;
-
3.
evaluating the load-bearing capacity of the foundation;
-
4.
estimating the probable settlement of a civil structure;
-
5.
determining the potential foundation problems (e.g., expansive soil, collapsible soil, sanitary landfill, etc, ...);
-
6.
determining the location of the water table exactly;
-
7.
determining the depth and nature of bedrock, if and when encountered;
-
8.
performing some in-situ field tests, such as permeability tests, van shear test and SPT;
-
9.
predicting the lateral earth pressure for structures such as retaining walls, sheet pile and braced cuts.
The field tests that are commonly used in the subsurface investigation (Ranjan and Rao 2005) are included in table A1.
1.1.1 A1.1 Standard penetration test
This is the most extensively used penetrometer test (plate A1) in almost every country. The test uses a split-spoon sampler, which consists of a driving shoe, a cylindrical split barrel which is longitudinally split into two halves. IS: 2131-1981 suggests the standard procedure for carrying out the test.
SPT: (a) site plan, (b) test details, (c) sampling from SPT split spoon.
The borehole is drilled to the required depth with its bottom cleaned. The split-spoon sampler attached to the standard drill rods of the required length, which is lowered into the borehole and allowed to rest at the bottom. The SPT is carried out at every 0.75 m vertical depth intervals in a borehole and it can be 1.50 m for large depth borehole. For this the split-spoon sampler is driven into the soil for a depth of 450 mm by the blows of a drop hammer of 65 kg weight falling vertically and freely from a height of 750 mm (plate A1). The number of blows required to affect the first 150 mm of penetration, called the seating to derive, is disregarded. SPT does not perform well in a rocky formation where the boring log shows refusal and the test is halted. For refusal, 50 blows are required for any 150 mm and 100 blows for 300 mm penetration and 10 successive blows that produce no advance (plate A1). SPT blow ‘N’ values obtained in the field for sand have to be corrected as per IS: 2131-1981. After completion of the test the split-spoon sampler is withdrawn and detached from the drill rods with split barrel disconnected from cutting shoe and the coupling. The soil sample is collected carefully from the split barrel and transported to the laboratory for classification tests.
Static cone penetration test.
Setup and procedure of CPT.
1.1.2 A1.2 Static cone penetration test
The SCPT is also known as CPT, which is widely used in place of SPT for soft clay silts and fine-to-medium sand deposits. The test was developed in Holland, and is therefore also called as Dutch cone test (plate A2). The penetrometer uses a cone with an apex angle of \(60^{\mathrm{o}}\) with a base area of \(10~\hbox {cm}^{2}\). CPT gives a continuous depth-wise record of both the cone-point-bearing resistance and the skin friction resistance, which are often used in pile foundation. A disadvantage of this device is that no samples can be obtained. This test is unsuitable for gravels, rocks and very dense sands owing to the difficulty experienced in pushing the cone. A correlation has been established between cone tip resistance \(q_{\mathrm{c}}\) and recorded a number of blows N for granular soils (Ranjan and Rao 2005).
1.1.3 A1.3 Dynamic cone penetration test
In DCPT, a cone which has an apex angle \(60^{\mathrm{o}}\) is attached to drill rods, which are driven into the soil by blows of a hammer of 65 kg, falling from a height of 750 mm (plate A3). The blows are counted for every 150 mm penetration of the cone and the cone is driven till refusal or up to the required depth. The number of blows required for 300 mm penetration is the dynamic cone penetration resistance \(N_{\mathrm{cd}}\). The number of blows provides an indication of uniformity or variability of the soils including the identification of any local soft pocket in the subsurface and no samples are recovered in this test. DCPTs are performed either by using 50 mm diameter cone without bentonite slurry or 65 mm diameter cone with bentonite slurry. If the tests are carried out close to a few boreholes, the data from DCPT can be compared with the SPT data and correlation can be established between them for the particular site conditions (Ranjan and Rao 2005).
