Advancements in Use of Geophysical Methods for Transportation Projects (2020)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

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

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

All Agencies Agencies w/o Geophysics Experience Question: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Agency Geo- physics? Why Not Geophysics? Reasons for Geophysics 5-year Frequency Who performs? Frequency vs. 5 years ago Methods Appli- cations Objective Policies? Note- worthy projects $ Spent Subsurface Invest Fund Mechanism Allocation for geophysics? Geophysics funding sources Contract types Alabama 2 1 4 6 7 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A Alaska 1 1 5 2 2 3 38 4 5 1 14 2 1 1 2 #N/A 1 2 4 Arizona 1 2 3 5 6 3 3 3 1 32 12 1 5 11 2 2 2 2 #N/A 1 2 Arkansas 1 1 2 4 5 6 3 2 3 1 4 6 7 11 15 27 28 32 2 4 6 7 1 2 5 10 17 21 2 1 5 2 #N/A 5 4 California 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 5 3 3 1 2 3 7 9 10 12 13 15 16 17 21 22 29 30 31 32 33 34 36 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 24 25 26 27 1 1 6 2 #N/A 1 2 3 4 4 5 Colorado 1 1 2 4 5 6 3 3 2 1 3 6 7 10 11 15 1 2 3 4 7 1 2 5 10 17 27 1 2 1 2 #N/A 1 2 3 1 3 4 Connecticut 1 1 2 3 4 6 3 2 2 1 2 15 26 27 28 32 36 1 2 3 8 10 1 2 11 13 17 24 2 2 1 2 #N/A 1 2 4 Delaware #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A Florida 1 1 2 6 5 3 3 5 11 15 28 37 7 8 9 11 12 13 23 24 2 1 7 2 #N/A 1 3 4 5 1 4 Georgia 1 2 3 5 1 2 2 1 2 6 15 2 4 7 8 1 2 5 6 9 14 15 17 23 24 2 2 2 2 #N/A 1 2 3 4 1 2 5 Hawaii 1 0 1 4 5 1 2 2 1 2 15 24 27 4 8 1 24 2 3 7 2 #N/A 6 1 3 4 Idaho #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A Illinois 1 0 6 7 1 2 3 6 10 11 17 27 37 6 8 1 2 10 20 21 22 25 2 1 1 #N/A #N/A 3 4 Indiana 1 3 5 6 1 3 3 1 2 6 7 10 11 15 16 24 4 5 8 1 2 5 13 17 23 2 1 5 2 #N/A 1 4 3 5 Iowa 1 0 1 2 6 1 2 3 14 15 23 6 8 12 2 17 21 23 27 2 3 1 2 #N/A 1 2 4 7 Kansas 1 2 5 6 5 1 3 38 1 8 1 25 3 3 1 4 #N/A Kentucky 1 1 4 5 6 2 3 2 10 11 12 15 24 8 1 2 4 6 7 10 23 25 2 2 3 2 #N/A 1 2 3 4 Louisiana 2 6 7 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A Maine 1 1 2 6 4 2 2 1 6 15 27 32 33 1 2 3 8 11 1 2 4 10 19 24 1 2 1 2 #N/A 1 1 Maryland 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4 2 3 1 2 3 6 9 10 11 15 24 28 29 32 1 2 3 6 7 8 10 1 2 5 8 9 21 23 24 25 1 1 3 2 #N/A 1 2 3 4 3 5 Massachusetts 1 4 6 7 2 2 2 1 15 28 1 3 8 12 1 2 5 13 17 2 1 1 2 #N/A 5 5 Michigan 1 5 6 7 2 3 3 1 6 10 15 24 28 32 5 7 8 12 1 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 11 23 24 25 2 1 2 2 #N/A 1 2 3 4 2 5 Minnesota 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 5 3 2 1 2 3 6 7 10 11 12 13 15 16 24 27 28 32 33 36 37 1 2 3 6 7 8 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 10 11 13 14 17 18 20 21 23 24 25 27 2 1 2 #N/A #N/A 1 4 Mississippi 1 7 1 1 1 38 1 16 17 2 2 7 2 #N/A 1 Missouri 1 1 2 4 5 6 2 3 3 3 6 10 15 27 28 31 1 5 6 8 12 1 2 14 15 22 23 25 2 1 3 2 #N/A 1 2 4 5 Montana 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 4 3 3 1 27 15 1 2 6 8 12 1 2 5 6 10 22 24 25 2 1 2 #N/A #N/A 2 5 Nebraska #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A Nevada 1 1 2 4 5 6 3 3 2 1 6 7 15 23 26 27 28 1 2 4 7 8 1 2 5 8 10 11 14 15 17 25 2 2 1 2 #N/A 1 3 1 2 3 4 New Hampshire 1 2 6 3 2 2 1 15 32 33 36 1 2 1 13 2 3 7 2 #N/A 1 1 4 New Jersey 1 1 2 4 5 6 3 2 3 1 3 4 6 7 11 15 27 28 32 33 36 37 2 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 13 23 25 1 1 4 #N/A #N/A 1 2 Agencies with Geophysics Experience

All Agencies Agencies w/o Geophysics Experience Question: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Agency Geo- physics? Why Not Geophysics? Reasons for Geophysics 5-year Frequency Who performs? Frequency vs. 5 years ago Methods Appli- cations Objective Policies? Note- worthy projects $ Spent Subsurface Invest Fund Mechanism Allocation for geophysics? Geophysics funding sources Contract types New Mexico 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 4 3 2 1 6 7 15 28 1 4 8 1 5 17 23 2 1 3 2 #N/A 1 4 4 5 New York 1 1 2 6 2 3 1 1 7 15 27 28 1 4 5 8 1 2 7 10 24 26 2 3 2 1 2 1 North Carolina 1 1 4 5 6 3 2 2 1 2 6 10 12 15 16 32 33 7 8 10 1 2 4 5 13 23 24 25 2 2 3 2 #N/A 1 2 3 2 4 North Dakota 2 6 7 9 10 11 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A Ohio 1 1 2 4 5 6 4 3 3 1 2 3 5 6 7 10 11 12 15 26 28 31 37 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 1 2 4 6 10 13 20 21 23 24 25 2 1 7 1 2 2 4 Oklahoma 2 6 7 8 9 10 11 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A Oregon 1 2 3 6 1 2 2 1 10 15 27 29 32 36 2 4 5 7 1 2 5 24 2 2 1 2 #N/A 1 2 4 3 Pennsylvania 1 4 6 7 1 2 3 6 14 24 32 12 1 2 17 18 23 2 1 7 2 #N/A 1 7 Rhode Island #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A South Carolina 1 5 5 2 2 6 7 27 34 4 5 1 2 3 1 1 1 5 South Dakota 1 2 2 3 2 1 15 1 2 1 5 2 2 1 2 #N/A 1 2 7 Tennessee 1 1 2 3 4 2 2 3 1 15 16 27 38 3 4 5 1 2 10 23 2 2 3 2 #N/A 1 2 3 1 3 Texas 1 6 1 2 2 1 11 15 23 7 8 9 1 2 17 23 2 2 7 2 #N/A 1 7 Utah #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A Vermont 1 1 2 4 5 6 3 3 3 1 15 28 32 1 4 7 8 11 1 2 3 4 10 24 2 2 1 2 #N/A 1 4 2 Virginia 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 5 3 3 1 2 10 11 15 16 17 27 32 37 6 7 23 26 1 2 3 6 8 10 12 1 2 5 6 7 8 10 13 14 17 20 21 23 25 27 1 1 5 2 #N/A 1 2 3 Washington 1 1 4 5 6 3 3 2 1 7 9 10 11 15 21 24 27 31 32 33 36 4 5 7 8 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 10 14 24 27 2 1 1 1 2 3 West Virginia #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A Wisconsin 1 1 2 3 5 3 3 1 7 15 17 1 2 7 8 11 1 2 5 6 14 23 24 25 27 2 2 1 2 #N/A 1 2 3 4 3 4 Wyoming 1 2 5 2 3 1 1 2 6 12 1 2 4 5 21 1 2 1 2 #N/A 1 2 3 D.C. 2 6 10 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A Puerto Rico 1 5 6 2 1 1 9 10 15 19 28 7 8 12 5 6 17 18 23 2 3 1 2 #N/A 1 2 4 1 Central Federal Land 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 3 3 2 1 3 5 6 7 10 15 16 32 33 1 2 3 4 5 11 1 2 5 6 8 10 14 17 23 25 1 1 2 1 1 4 5 Eastern Federal Land #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A Western Federal Lan 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 3 3 3 1 3 6 7 14 15 27 32 33 37 1 2 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 9 10 14 15 21 2 2 3 2 #N/A 1 1 4 Total Respondents 48 5 43 43 43 43 43 43 42 43 43 43 39 5 33 41 Agencies with Geophysics Experience

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

B-6 Advancements in Use of Geophysical Methods for Transportation Projects Question: 17a 17b 17c 17d 17e 19a 19b 19c 20a 20b 20c 20d 20e Agency FWHA Manual Synthesis 357 EDC-5 TRC E- C130 ASTM AASHTO NHI Webinar GEC Specific methods Appli- cations Field Pro- cedures Inter- pretation Case Histories New Mexico 3 3 2 1 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 New York 2 2 2 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 North Carolina 1 3 3 1 2 5 4 5 3 3 3 3 3 North Dakota 2 2 3 2 2 5 4 5 3 3 3 3 2 Ohio 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 5 3 2 3 3 2 Oklahoma 2 2 2 2 2 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Oregon 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 5 2 3 2 3 3 Pennsylvania 2 1 1 1 1 5 6 5 2 3 3 3 3 Rhode Island #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A South Carolina 3 1 3 1 3 5 4 4 3 3 2 3 2 South Dakota 3 1 3 1 2 4 3 4 2 2 2 3 2 Tennessee 3 3 2 3 3 5 5 4 3 3 3 3 3 Texas 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 2 3 3 3 3 Utah #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A Vermont 3 3 3 2 3 5 4 3 2 3 2 3 3 Virginia 3 2 1 3 3 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 3 Washington 2 1 2 1 2 5 4 3 3 3 2 3 2 West Virginia #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A Wisconsin 3 3 2 3 3 5 4 5 3 3 3 3 3 Wyoming 3 2 1 1 2 4 5 5 2 3 3 3 3 D.C. 2 1 2 1 2 4 5 5 3 3 3 2 3 Puerto Rico 2 2 2 2 2 5 5 4 2 3 2 3 3 Central Federal Land 3 3 3 2 3 4 2 5 3 3 3 3 2 Eastern Federal Land #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A Western Federal Lan 3 2 2 2 3 5 4 3 2 3 2 3 2 Total Respondents 48 47 48 47 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 All Agencies

Survey Responses B-7 Appendix B2—Key for Summary Table with Response Counts

B-8 Advancements in Use of Geophysical Methods for Transportation Projects Question 1 Has your agency used geophysical methods for geotechnical site investigation? Key 48 Yes 1 43 90% No 2 5 10% I'm not sure. 3 0 0% Question 2 Please indicate the reasons your agency has not used geophysical methods by selecting all responses below that apply. Key 5 Cost of geophysical methods is too great. 1 1 20% Practical limitations regarding site access prevent effective implementation. 2 0 0% It takes too long to implement geophysical methods (from planning to reporting of results). 3 0 0% Results from geophysical methods are too uncertain (i.e. imprecise). 4 1 20% Results from geophysical methods are too unreliable (i.e. inaccurate). 5 0 0% Agency engineers do not know where or when to apply geophysical methods because of unfamiliarity with the capabilities and limitations of the methods. 6 5 100% Agency engineers do not have a good understanding of how to interpret the results or evaluate their reliability. 7 4 80% Our agency is reluctant to apply any new methods for geotechnical site characterization, geophysical or otherwise (i.e. agency inertia). 8 1 20% There are no local contractors or in-house expertise available for performing geophysical methods. 9 2 40% Contracting 10 3 60% Other: Bad experience leading to significant claim 11 1 20% Question 3 Please indicate the reasons your agency has used geophysical methods by selecting all responses below that apply. For the responses below, “conventional subsurface investigation methods” refer to drilling, sampling, and laboratory testing, the standard penetration test, and the cone penetration test. Key 43 Geophysical methods are cost-effective. 1 27 63% Because of site access, geophysical methods have been applied where conventional subsurface investigation methods were not feasible. 2 29 67% Because of environmental constraints, geophysical methods have been applied where conventional subsurface investigation methods were not feasible. 3 15 35% Geophysical methods can be implemented quickly (from planning to reporting of results). 4 23 53% Geophysical methods provide a direct measure of certain engineering parameters (e.g. shear wave velocity) to be used in analysis. 5 28 65% Geophysical methods produce subsurface imaging of a large mass of materials in two or three dimensions. 6 33 77% %21setiscitamelborpssessA:rehtO Other: Assists geologist with geological site interpretation 7 1 2% Number of Responses Total responses: Number of Responses Total responses: Number of Responses Total responses:

Survey Responses B-9 Question 4 In the past five years, about how frequently has your agency applied geophysical methods on average? Key 43 One time per year or less 1 9 21% Two times per year 2 9 21% Three to five times per year 3 12 28% Six to ten times per year 4 5 12% More than ten times per year 5 7 16% I don't know. 6 1 2% Question 5 Who performs geophysical investigations? Key 43 Agency personnel perform all geophysical investigations (i.e. all investigations are in-house) 1 2 5% %44912.snoitagitsevnilacisyhpoegllamrofrepsrotcartnoC Some investigations are performed in-house; others are performed by contractors 3 22 51% I don’t know. 4 0 0% Question 6 How does your agency’s current use of geophysical methods compare with its use of geophysical methods five years ago? Key 43 Geophysical methods are used less frequently now than five years ago. 1 4 9% Geophysical methods are used with about the same frequency now as five years ago. 2 18 42% Geophysical methods are used more frequently now than five years ago. 3 21 49% Geophysical methods were not used five years ago. 4 0 0% I don’t know. 5 0 0% Total responses: Number of Responses Total responses: Number of Responses Total responses: Number of Responses

B-10 Advancements in Use of Geophysical Methods for Transportation Projects Question 7 Which geophysical methods has your agency used? Please select all that apply. Key 39 Seismic methods: %58331noitcarfercimsieS %62012noitcelfercimsieS %3293yhpargomotcimsieS %524oitarlartcepsV/H %835noisrevnImrofevaWlluF A %94916)WSAM,WSAS.g.e(seuqinhcetevawecafrusecruosevitc %83517)iMeR.g.e(seuqinhcetevawecafrusevissaP %008.yllacificepssenohcihwwonkt’nodItub,sdohtemcimsieS Electrical methods: 1D resistivity soundings (e.g. VES) 9 4 10% 6101).cte,renneW,elopiD/elopiD.g.e(gniliforpytivitsiserD2 41% 2D resistivity imaging (e.g. pole-Dipole, electrical resistivity tomography [ERT]) 11 13 33% Induced polarization (IP) 12 5 13% %5231)PS(laitnetop-fleS 41.yllacificepssenohcihwwonkt’nodItub,sdohtemlacirtcelE 3 8% Electromagnetic (EM) methods: %784351)RPG(radargnitartenepdnuorG %81761MEniamod-emiT Frequency-domain EM (terrain conductivity) 17 4 10% Very low frequency (VLF) 18 0 0% %3191cirtceleomsieS Electromagnetic methods, but I don’t know which ones specifically. 20 1 3% Magnetic methods: Total-field 21 2 5% Gradiometer 22 1 3% 5232.yllacificepssenohcihwwonkt’nodItub,sdohtemcitengaM % Gravity methods: Microgravity 24 8 21% Standard gravity 25 0 0% %8362.yllacificepssenohcihwwonkt’nodItub,sdohtemytivarG Borehole logging methods: %447172cimsieSelohnwoD %835182cimsieSelohssorC Electrical (SP, Resistivity, E-logs) 29 3 8% %3103noitcudnicitengamortcelE %01413).cte,nortuen,ammaglarutan,ammag-ammag.g.e(raelcuN Optical televiewer 32 18 46% Acoustic televiewer 33 9 23% Suspension logging (e.g. PS Logger) 34 2 5% %0053lacisyhpordyH %81763noitaivedeloheroB Other responses: %3173cinosmrofevawlluF:rehtO %3173TPCcimsieS:rehtO %3173)LBC(gniggoldnobtnemeC:rehtO %3173cinoseloherobmrofevawlluF:rehtO Other: Single Station Passive Seismic Stratigraphy 37 1 3% %3173ytivitsiserdelpuocyleviticapaC:rehtO Geophysical methods, but I don’t know which ones specifically. 38 4 10% Number of Responses Total responses:

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

B-12 Advancements in Use of Geophysical Methods for Transportation Projects Question 9 For which geologic investigation objectives has your agency applied geophysical methods? Please select all that apply. Key 42 Evaluation of rock: %09831kcordebothtpeD %67232kcordebfoyhpargopoT %7173kcordebnignitluaF %92214kcordebniserutcarF Mapping bedrock strength (i.e. rippability) 5 23 55% Mapping weak zones in bedrock (e.g. shear zones or weathered areas) 6 12 29% Mapping lithology in bedrock 7 5 12% Estimating rock mass stiffness (e.g. elastic modulus, shear modulus, etc.) 8 7 17% %2159ytisnedssamkcorgnitamitsE Evaluation of soil: Mapping lithology in overburden soils 10 18 43% Mapping sand and/or gravel deposits (i.e. borrow investigations) 11 7 17% Mapping clay (i.e. excavation issues for expansive or swelling clays) 12 1 2% 21131).cte,scinagro,elbbur.g.e(slairetamelbatiusnugnippaM 6% Estimating soil stiffness (e.g. elastic modulus, shear modulus, etc.) 14 11 26% Estimating soil density 15 5 12% Estimating clay content 16 2 5% Evaluation of groundwater: Mapping groundwater table 17 17 40% Mapping groundwater flow 18 3 7% Mapping groundwater salinity 19 2 5% Landslide evaluation: Mapping landslide extents (laterally) 20 5 12% %420112noitinifeddnanoitacifitnediecafruspilS %7322snoitamrofedfonoitaulavE Evaluation of sinkholes, voids or erosion features: %840232serutaefnoitulossidrehtorotsraK %047142srewes/strevlucdeliaF A %836152senimdenodnab %5262serutaefruocS %2172snoitadnuofrednudnanisworrublaminagnippaM:rehtO %2172noitaziretcarahcDRA:rehtO Other: Low-density sands above karstic bedrock 27 1 2% %5272selohknis/gnipip,serutaefedamnamfonoitacoL:rehtO Question 10 Has your agency established specific policies, guidelines, and/or procedures for application of geophysical methods? Key 43 Yes 1 9 21% No 2 33 77% I don't know. 3 1 2% Question 11 Has your agency applied geophysical methods on any especially noteworthy or challenging projects? Key 43 Yes 1 19 44% No 2 18 42% I don't know. 3 6 14% Total responses: Number of Responses Total responses: Number of Responses Total responses: Number of Responses

Survey Responses B-13 Question 12 Considering the past five years, about how much has your agency spent on geophysical investigations on average each year? Key 43 0 to $50,000 1 16 37% $50,001 to $100,000 2 7 16% $100,001 to $150,000 3 8 19% $150,001 to $250,000 4 1 2% $250,001 to $500,000 5 3 7% More than $500,000 6 1 2% I don’t know. 7 7 16% Question 13 How are subsurface investigations generally funded at your agency? Note this question refers to all methods of subsurface investigation, not just geophysical methods. Key 43 The annual agency budget includes funds allocated for subsurface investigation. 1 5 12% Funding for subsurface investigations comes from other agency funds (project design funds, project construction funds, agency maintenance funds, etc.). 2 33 77% %943)sesnopserrewsnatrohsees(evobafonoitanibmoC:rehtO I don’t know. 4 1 2% Question 14 Do the annual agency budget funds allocated for subsurface investigation include specific allocations for geophysical investigations? Key 5 Yes 1 2 40% No 2 3 60% I don't know. 3 0 0% Question 15 Which funding sources have been used to pay for geophysical investigations? Please select all that apply. Key 33 %19031sdnufngisedtcejorP %25712sdnufnoitcurtsnoctcejorP A %33113sdnufecnanetniamycneg A %63214sdnufesnopserycnegremeycneg Other: State- or district-wide contract for geophysical service %625s %316sdnufhcraeseR:rehtO Number of Responses Total responses: Number of Responses Total responses: Number of Responses Total responses: Number of Responses Total responses:

B-14 Advancements in Use of Geophysical Methods for Transportation Projects Question 16 What types of contracts have been used to procure geophysical investigation services? Please select all that apply. Key 37 %83411).cte,eliforpecafrusbusreptsoc.e.i(ecirptinU %72012)tnemesrubmiertsoc.a.k.a(sulp-tsoC %23213slairetamdnaemiT %15914ecirpdexifmrif/muspmuL Indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) or similar On-Call service agreement 5 11 30% I don’t know. 7 4 11% Question 17a Please indicate your familiarity and use of the FHWA Manual Application of Geophysical Methods to Highway Related Problems. Key 48 %841.ecruosersihthtiwrailimaftonmaI %83812.tidesutonevahtub,ecruosersihtfodraehevahI %45623.ecruosersihtdesuevahI Question 17b Please indicate your familiarity and use of NCHRP Synthesis 357 - Use of yeKstcejorPnoitatropsnarTrofscisyhpoeG 47 %72311.ecruosersihthtiwrailimaftonmaI %04912.tidesutonevahtub,ecruosersihtfodraehevahI %13513.ecruosersihtdesuevahI Question 17c Please indicate your familiarity and use of the FHWA EDC-5 Webinar on Advanced Geotechnical Exploration Methods Key 48 %9191.ecruosersihthtiwrailimaftonmaI %24022.tidesutonevahtub,ecruosersihtfodraehevahI %04913.ecruosersihtdesuevahI Question 17d Please indicate your familiarity and use of the Transportation Research Circular No. E-C130 - Geophysical Methods Commonly Employed for yeKnoitaziretcarahCetiSlacinhcetoeG 47 %24021.ecruosersihthtiwrailimaftonmaI %92412.tidesutonevahtub,ecruosersihtfodraehevahI %72313.ecruosersihtdesuevahI Question 17e Please indicate your familiarity and use of ASTM/AASHTO Standards Key 48 %5171.ecruosersihthtiwrailimaftonmaI %04912.tidesutonevahtub,ecruosersihtfodraehevahI %64223.ecruosersihtdesuevahI Total responses: Number of Total responses: Number of Responses Total responses: Number of Responses Total responses: Number of Responses Total responses: Number of Responses Number of Responses Total responses:

Survey Responses B-15 Question 19a Please indicate how likely in-person training (e.g. NHI course) would be to increase your agency’s use of geophysics. Key 48 Not at all likely 1 1 2% Somewhat unlikely 2 1 2% Neither likely nor unlikely 3 4 8% Somewhat likely 4 15 31% Very likely 5 27 56% I don't know. 6 0 0% Question 19b Please indicate how likely an online webinar would be to increase your agency’s use of geophysics. Key 48 Not at all likely 1 2 4% Somewhat unlikely 2 1 2% Neither likely nor unlikely 3 9 19% Somewhat likely 4 21 44% Very likely 5 14 29% I don't know. 6 1 2% Question 19c Please indicate how likely a guidance manual (e.g. FHWA Geotechnical Engineering Circular) would be to increase your agency’s use of geophysics. Key 48 Not at all likely 1 0 0% Somewhat unlikely 2 0 0% Neither likely nor unlikely 3 11 23% Somewhat likely 4 17 35% Very likely 5 20 42% I don't know. 6 0 0% Number of Responses Total responses: Total responses: Number of Responses Total responses: Number of Responses

B-16 Advancements in Use of Geophysical Methods for Transportation Projects Question 20a Please indicate how useful each of the following content areas would be for new training or guidance resources: (a) Technical background of specific geophysical methods Key 48 Not useful 1 1 2% %83812lufesutahwemoS Very useful 3 29 60% I don't know. 4 0 0% Question 20b Please indicate how useful each of the following content areas would be for new training or guidance resources: (b) Use and applications of geophysical methods Key 48 Not useful 1 0 0% %9192lufesutahwemoS Very useful 3 39 81% I don't know. 4 0 0% Question 20c Please indicate how useful each of the following content areas would be for new training or guidance resources: (c) Procedures for field performance of geophysical methods Key 48 Not useful 1 0 0% %24022lufesutahwemoS Very useful 3 28 58% I don't know. 4 0 0% Question 20d Please indicate how useful each of the following content areas would be for new training or guidance resources: (d) Interpretation of engineering parameters from results of geophysical methods Key 48 Not useful 1 1 2% %7182lufesutahwemoS Very useful 3 39 81% I don't know. 4 0 0% Question 20e Please indicate how useful each of the following content areas would be for new training or guidance resources: (e) Case histories documenting projects with effective use of geophysical methods Key 48 Not useful 1 1 2% %52212lufesutahwemoS Very useful 3 35 73% I don't know. 4 0 0% Number of Responses Total responses: Number of Responses Total responses: Number of Responses Total responses: Number of Responses Total responses: Total responses: Number of Responses

Survey Responses B-17 Appendix B3—Responses to Short Answer Questions

B-18 Advancements in Use of Geophysical Methods for Transportation Projects North Dakota Use of Ground Penetrating Radar on a Mine and Blend Paving contract to use GPR to determine existing Asphalt and Base thicknesses provided incorrect information leading to a claim by the contractor Oklahoma Many engineers are satisfied with current, well-established procedures and resistant to significant change. (Note: this response was counted under the "agency inertia" answer, rather than as "other.) Illinois Geophysical methods are mostly used when conventional subsurface investigation methods are unable to provide enough information to assess problematic areas. Michigan Image voids from solution mined cavities, underground abandoned mines, and karst Mississippi As a supplemental part of conventional methods to assist geological interpretation by the geologist. Maryland Rock rippability Massachusetts Geophysical methods provide additional subsurface data via non-destructive methods that aids design and construction Pennsylvania We use geophysics in conjunction with conventional investigation methods in karst areas to better understand the subsurface conditions. Arizona Seismic refraction California Seismic Refraction Refraction Tomography Ground Penetrating Radar Frequency-domain EMI (conductivity) Time-domain EMI Refraction Microtremor Borehole geophysical logging Magnetometry Central Federal Lands Seismic refractionMASW Colorado Seismic RefractionSeismic Surface Wave Florida GPR ER seismic (surface) Michigan Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR)Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) Minnesota ERI IP SP Seismic Refraction MASW Cross-hole/Downhole Shear GPR Missouri Electrical Resistivity Nevada ReMi MASW Seismic Refraction Down-Hole Shear Wave Velocity New Mexico Seismic refractionGPR Ohio Electric resistivity imaging (ERI) Seismic refraction Refraction microtremor (ReMi) Shear wave velocity with CPT South Dakota Seismic refraction Virginia Falling weight deflectometerGround penetrating radar Vermont We have a small GPR unit that works to identify reinforcement in concrete and some utilities at shallow depths. Washington Seismic refractionReMi Western Federal Lands Seismic Refraction Wisconsin FWD GPR Seismic refraction Vibration Monitoring 2. Please indicate the reasons your agency has not used geophysical methods: Other _______ 3. Please indicate the reasons your agency has used geophysical methods: Other _______ 7b. Which methods are performed in-house?

Survey Responses B-19 California http://dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/geotech/geo_manual/manual.html Colorado Uploaded document. Maine Uploaded document. South Carolina https://www.scdot.org/business/geotech.aspx Virginia http://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/Materials/bu-mat-MOI-III.pdf Wyoming Uploaded document. Alaska Simplified methods predicted extensive lateral spread at a bridge site. However, very deep, soft deposits were expected to dampen the seismic motions and so a geophysical analysis was performed, in order to obtain shear wave velocity values. These were then input into a finite difference model to estimate lateral spread. The results indicated that the previous significant lateral spread was not duplicated, and the required stability could be achieved with pile pinning techniques. Arkansas Most of our geophysical testing has been associated with research projects. We have a project to help evaluate cut slopes on a new alignment with extreme topography and geology. We are evaluating a very large landslide. We are attempting to create seismic maps of the New Madrid seismic zone. California 1) PS Suspension logging to develop amplitude response spectra for seismic design of the toll bridge system retrofit in California. 2) 3-D seismic reflection for the foundation design of the east span of the new San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge 3) Emergency response at Oroville Dam Spillway failure 4) 2-D surface-to-borehole seismic tomography investigation of SR-162 landslide 5) Borehole geophysical logging for proposed I-710 extension tunnel 6) Refraction tomography investigation for East Portal, Caldecott Tunnel 4th Bore Florida Sinkhole investigations - emergency road closures. seismic (full waveform inversion) - investigate cause of gases vetting during pile driving operations. seismic refraction survey over water supplemental investigation as part of design-build RFP package. Illinois Large slow moving active landslides and subsidence due to unknown origins are always challenging to evaluate and develop effective long-term repairs. Various geophysical methods are currently being used to evaluate subsidence at a location on US 24 and landslides at locations on IL 29 and IL 127. Indiana SR 25 for assessing rock topography. I-69 assessing reclaimed quarry area. I-69 evaluating karst features. Maryland Sideling hill rock cut, Abandoned mines, Haystack mountain mudslide Massachusetts Re-alignment and upgrade of the of Route 2, Route 2A, and Concord Turnpike intersection to a highway interchange in Concord=Lincoln, MA. Area known as Crosby Corner. Work consisted of seismic refraction survey consisting of three (3) seismic lines comprised of eight (8) sections totaling 1,729 meters. Work consisted of defining depth to bedrock and rippability of bedrock along the three (3) transects. Michigan Cross hole seismic was used to image abandoned solution mine cavities to clear alignment for future Gordie Howe International bridge crossing between Detroit Mi. and Windsor Ca. Minnesota Challenging: Generally speaking, any evaluation performed in the presence of open water, near- to sub-zero air temps, frozen ground, traffic noise, to name a few. Noteworthy: 1.) Slope stability evaluation using cross-hole shear wave data for founding a 200-foot tall bridge pier on a steepened, mine waste rock fill side-slope which would be subject to seismic loading from future mine blasting and future water table fluctuations from mine pit dewatering. 2.) Underground abandoned mine risk evaluation using electrical resistivity imaging for establishing limits of continuously-reinforced concrete pavement (2 miles) for preventing catastrophic mine working collapses in the roadway. Post-construction monitoring performed on 5-year intervals on roadway via towed MASW utilizing dual streamers (i.e., one record per lane recorded concurrently). 3.) QA testing of reclaimed base and subgrade characterization using 4-streamer, towed MASW array. Missouri We are currently looking into use of electrical resistivity (with underwater cable) at a proposed bridge site on Route C over Saint Francis in Madison County to investigate subsurface profile across stream including substructure locations in stream where use of barge-mounted drilling equipment would otherwise potentially be required. Montana We have used geophysical methods to identify voids in dispersive soils and have also used them for abandoned underground mine features. New Mexico Exploration and evaluation of karst terrain on 22 mile highway corridor for new road and bridge construction project. New Jersey 1. Use of Single Station Passive Seismic Stratigraphy to map extensive talus deposits over bedrock at Route I-80 in Delaware Water Gap 2. Extensive abandoned mine investigation adjacent to Interstate I-80 Wharton 3. Extensive foundation retrofit for Pulaski Skyway Ohio Characterizing a solution feature beneath a bridge widening where the existing bridge was supported by spread footing on bedrock, but the new foundation was driven piles within filled paleo-karst. Pennsylvania On interstate projects and at a bridge failure location in karst. 11. Please briefly describe any noteworthy or challenging applications of geophysical methods. 10b. Please share the policy/procedure documents.

B-20 Advancements in Use of Geophysical Methods for Transportation Projects Virginia We use geophysics via our professional on-call contracts to evaluate almost all of our prominent projects. It would be hard to itemize the effective use of such methods in this text box. Washington Borehole geophysics was used extensively for the Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement project to characterize shear wave velocity/soil stiffness. Borehole geophysics (optical/acoustic televiewer) was used extensively for the rock cut designs for the Snoqualmie Pass widening projects. Illinois Funding for subsurface investigations performed by consultants is covered by project design funds and in-house subsurface investigations is covered through various agency budget line items for labor, fuel, equipment, repairs, and the like which are shared with other agency activities. Minnesota Funded via agency construction budget, office operating budget and district consultant budgets. Montana Funding comes from both project design funds (primary funding) and allocated funds (secondary funding). New Jersey Combination of project design funds & agency dedicated geotechnical/subsurface investigation funds ('Term Agreement') California ASTM D420_(Site_Characterization_Engineering_Design) ASTM D4428_(Crosshole_Seismic) ASTM D4748_(Thickness_Pavement_Radar) ASTM D5714_(Digital_Geospatial_Metadata) ASTM D5753_(Conducting_Geophysical_Logging) ASTM D5777 _(Seismic_Refraction) ASTM D5922_(Geostatistical_Site_Investigations) ASTM D6087 _(GPR_Bridge_Deck_Eval) ASTM D6167 _(Caliper_Geophysical_Logging) ASTM D6274_(Gamma_Geophysical_Logging) ASTM D6429_(Selecting_Surface_Geophysics) ASTM D6431_(Resistivity) ASTM D6432_(GPR) ASTM D6639_(Frequency_Domain_EM) ASTM D6726_(EM_Geophysical_Logging) ASTM D7400_(Downhole_Seismic).pdf AASHTO Manual on Subsurface Investigations (2018 ed.) Florida ASTM D6429 ASTM D6432 ASTM D6431 AASHTO R 37 Minnesota ASTM D6431-18 ASTM D4428M-14 ASTM D7400-17 ASTM D5777-18 Mississippi LRFD Bridge Design Specs New Mexico ASTM D-4428 (CSL testing) Ohio ASTM D5777ASTM D6431 South Carolina The ASTM and AASHTO standards used by SCDOT are listed in Chapter 5 of the SCDOT GDM v2.0. Vermont ASTM 4428 AASHTO R37-04 ASTM D5777 Western Federal Lands Seismic site classification based on seismic velocity 17f. Please list any ASTM/AASHTO standards your agency has used. 13. How are subsurface investigations generally funded at your agency? Other _______ 11. Please briefly describe any noteworthy or challenging applications of geophysical methods. (Cont'd)

Survey Responses B-21 Alabama Have on-going research project with Auburn University to help us learn how to utilize the equipment and technology on transportation projects. At the conclusion of the research, we will receive further instruction on the technology. Arkansas We rely heavy on the experience of the PI's on our research projects, California 1) Contracted with manufacturers and service providers for target training 2) Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP2) Subject Matter Experts for investigation support and targeted training related to specific SHRP2 products 3) In-house training Colorado Training from seismic vendors Geo3T2 conference SAGEEG conference Florida Geophysical Engineering for Transportation Projects (videos), FHWA-CFL/TD-13-007, May 2013 Geophysical Exploration, US Army Corps, EM 1110-1-1802, May 1979 2D & 3D Electrical Imaging Surveys, Loke, July 2004 Detection of Sinkholes or Anomalies Using Full Seismic Wave Fields, McVay & Tran, FDOT Contract No.: BDV31- 977-29 Final Report, October 2016 Illinois Presentation on various geophysical methods was given by the Illinois State Geological Survey at the 2018 IDOT Geotechnical Engineer's Annual Meeting. Presentation on geophysical applications for transportation projects was given at the 2018 Midwest Geotechnical Conference. Maine Agency representatives attended EDC-5 Summit in Fall 2018. EDC-5 Deployment presentation made by FHWA at Fall 2018 Northeast States Geotechnical Engineers Conference. Maryland ASCE Webinars Massachusetts As part of TPID, pre-EDC initiative, in coordination with geophysical contractor, provided geophysical application training to highway staff. Michigan Michigan Technological University- Professor Roger Turpening was consultant for Cross Hole Seismic Logging on Gordie Howe International Bridge Crossing. Minnesota Conference short courses Training from software and hardware developers Training via consultants Webinars Mississippi GEC 3, GEC 5, GEC 10, and FHWA NHI-05-037 Missouri Electrical Resistivity Imaging Seminar - Electrical Resistivity, Induces Polarization (IP), & Self-Potential (SP) for Engineering and Environmental Applications - Presented by Advanced Geophysics, Inc., Austin, Texas Various equipment and software manuals by Advanced Geophysics, Inc., Austin, Texas New Mexico Multi-channel analysis of surface waves (SurfSeis software) course offered by Kansas Geological Survey Ohio Technical journals Puerto Rico USACE Geophysical Exploration for Engineering and Environmental Investigations EM 1110-1-1802 Vermont Years ago, we had Hager-Richter come in to give us a talk on various methods of geophysical investigation. Staff have attended a training put on by Geophysical Survey Systems, Inc. in Nashua NH to learn more about the use and capability of our in-house GPR unit. Washington Existing formal coursework background of staff. Discussion with geophysics consultants. Western Federal Lands Internal knowledge sharing/transfer 18. Please indicate any other resources or training related to geophysical methods your agency has utilized.

B-22 Advancements in Use of Geophysical Methods for Transportation Projects Alaska My experience with geophysical methods has been that it is greatly oversold and the benefits are not as "clear" as promised. In my opinion it would be a good idea to address the limitations so that these methods are not used in situations where they are not appropriate, because in those cases it only reduces the likelihood of being used again. Colorado In person, on hand training of equipment. Classrooms are nice for dispersing information. Actually using the equipment is best for learning. Florida With the use of specialty consultants for geophysical investigations, I have heard from many of our (FDOT) district geotechnical engineers that there is a need for training with respect to reviewing scope of work for geophysical testing, as well as reviewing consultant reports when work is performed. In addition, a summary would be helpful of pros/cons, limitations of each method, advantages of each method, etc. (i.e. geophysical testing for dummies for geotechnical engineers using & reviewing the results versus a working knowledge of each test for consultants actually performing tests & analyzing data). Illinois During a recent review of courses available for FY20 training, it was observed that there do not appear to be any NHI courses currently offered for geophysics on the NHI website. Missouri Training from equipment manufacturer/software developer was effective because it incorporated general technical background along with hands-on demonstration and analysis. This training also included presentation of case studies with review and analysis of various additional applications and techniques. Montana High-level training that targets non geotechnical personnel would also be useful to help educate these individuals on what types of methods are available. Ohio Quick webinars are beneficial. Vermont Applications and case histories would be hugely beneficial, especially to share with not only the geotech group, but also the structures, roadway, and maintenance folks. A webinar from a "30,000 foot" perspective for these folks would be very helpful to the geotech group in selling some of these ideas on projects. Something similar to GeoTech Tools for Geophysical methods could achieve some of this. EDC-5 A-Game and the roll out of that has already helped increase the awareness to Structures folks. Cost information for those who haven't done much of this could also be helpful. Virginia Don't forget to include precision and accuracy. The pitch is often greater than the return in many instances. This is especially true in limestone terrain and the detection of voids. Western Federal Lands Acknowledge limitations, standardize where possible, continue to build credibility 21. Please offer any additional thoughts regarding development of training resources for geophysical methods.

Abbreviations and acronyms used without definitions in TRB publications: A4A Airlines for America AAAE American Association of Airport Executives AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program ADA Americans with Disabilities Act APTA American Public Transportation Association ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials ATA American Trucking Associations CTAA Community Transportation Association of America CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program DHS Department of Homeland Security DOE Department of Energy EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (2015) FHWA Federal Highway Administration FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration FRA Federal Railroad Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012) NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NTSB National Transportation Safety Board PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration SAE Society of Automotive Engineers SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (2005) TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program TDC Transit Development Corporation TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998) TRB Transportation Research Board TSA Transportation Security Administration U.S. DOT United States Department of Transportation

A dvancem ents in U se of G eophysical M ethods for Transportation Projects N CH RP Synthesis 547 TRB TRA N SPO RTATIO N RESEA RCH BO A RD 500 Fifth Street, N W W ashington, D C 20001 A D D RESS SERV ICE REQ U ESTED N O N -PR O FIT O R G . U .S. PO STA G E PA ID C O LU M B IA , M D PER M IT N O . 88 ISBN 978-0-309-48137-3 9 7 8 0 3 0 9 4 8 1 3 7 3 9 0 0 0 0