The National Academies Press

Currently Skimming:

Appendix C - Survey Results
Pages 78-98

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.

From page 78... ... 79 APPENDIX C Survey Results Read the entire page →
From page 79... ... 47 17 4 19 38 1 5 2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 R es po nd en ts Geotechnical Engineers Civil Engineers Structural Engineers Pavement Engineers Geologists Hydrologists Other No Response N=133 Read the entire page →
From page 80... ... Geophysical Manual? 69 29 2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Pe rc en t Yes No No Response N=58 #7 Does Your Office or Agency Have a Hardcopy of the FHWA Geophysical Manual? Read the entire page →
From page 81... ... #14 Rate Your Personal Experience Using Geophysical Methods 20 44 19 8 5 0 4 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Excellent Good Fair Poor Unacceptable Not Applicable No Response N=59 13 8 5 8 59 38 3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Pe rc en t Pe rc en t Yes No No Response <25% 25 to 50% 50 to 75% >75% N=58 R es po nd en ts N=34 #15 Rate Your Organizations' Experience Using Geophysical Methods 8 46 34 7 2 0 3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Pe rc e n t Excellent Good Fair Poor Unacceptable Not Applicable No Response N=59 Read the entire page →
From page 82... ... 28 15 4 20 21 24 11 13 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 R es po nd en ts Pavement Condition Bridge Superstructure Baseline Measurements Concrete Condition Bridge Substructure Construction QA/QC Other No Response N=136 PART 2 -- METHODS AND APPLICATIONS #21a Seismic Methods Used within Past Five Years 34 10 10 23 5 3 2 9 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 R es po nd en ts Refraction Reflection SASW/MASW Crosshole/Downhole SeisOpt Remi Not Sure Other No Response N=96 #21b Electrical Methods Used within the Past Five Years 4 23 3 5 2 3 0 5 25 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 R es po nd en ts 1D Soundings 2D Profiling 3D Imaging Tomography Induced Polarization Self Potential Mise-a-la-mass Not Sure No Response N=70 Read the entire page →
From page 83... ... 84 #21c Electromagnetic Methods Used within the Past Five Years 13 7 3 7 1 0 4 37 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 R es po nd en ts TDEM TDEM Metal TDEM 1D Soundings FDEM VLF Seismoelectric Not Sure No Response N=72 #21d Ground Penetrating Radar Used within the Past Five Years 5 22 28 7 16 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 R es po nd en ts Did Not Specify Bedrock Mapping Soil Mapping Bedrock Fracture Mapping No Response N=78 #21e Magnetic Methods Used within the Past Five Years 1 3 1 7 48 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 R es po nd en ts N=60 #21f Gravity Methods Used within the Past Five Years 3 0 2 53 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 R es po nd en ts N=58 Did Not Specify Total Field Gradiometer Not Sure No Response Microgravity Gravity Not Sure No Response #21g Borehole Logging Used within the Past Five Years 1 9 2 7 7 5 10 1 5 34 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 R es po nd en ts Did Not Specify Electrical EM Induction Nuclear Optical Acoustic Seismic Hydrophysical Borehole Deviation No Response N=81 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 R es po nd en ts #21h Marine Methods Used within the Past Five Years 5 6 5 6 45 Fathometer Sonar GPR Sub-Bottom Profiling No Response N=67 #21i Airborne Methods Used within the Past Five Years 2 0 1 56 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 R es po nd en ts Magnetics Gravity EM No Response N=59 #21j Vibration Measurements Used within the Past Five Years 35 35 18 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 R es po nd en ts Blasting Construction No Response N=88 Read the entire page →
From page 84... ... 85 #21k Other Geophysical Methods Used within the Past Five Years 2 1 1 1 53 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 R es po nd en ts Falling Weight Deflectometer Marine Resistivity Laser Infrared Downhole Magnetic and Seismic Reflection ahead of TBM No Response N=58 #21L No Geophysical Methods Used within the Past Five Years 0 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Pe rc en t None of Above No Response N=58 #22 Most Commonly Used Geophysical Methods (Same as Figure 9, See Table C1 for Details) 5% 9% 10% 22% 6% 22% 26% Seismic GPRVibration Monitoring Resistivity NDT Borehole Logging Others N=130 #23a Geophysics Applications Used within the Past Five Years 45 33 7 10 19 14 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 R es po nd en ts Bedrock Depth Bedrock Topography Bedrock Faulting Bedrock Fractures Bedrock Strength Bedrock Weak Zones N=128 #23b Geophysics Applications Used within the Past Five Years 15 7 8 4 1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 R es po nd en ts Overburden Soil Lithology Bedrock Lithology Sand or Gravel Deposits Clay Estimating Clay Content N=35 #23c Geophysics Applications Used within the Past Five Years 0 9 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 R es po nd en ts Groundwater Salinity Groundwater Table Groundwater Flow N=9 #23d Geophysics Applications Used within the Past Five Years 8 1 7 3 4 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 R es po nd en ts Landslides Volume Assessment Slip Surface Identification Pre-slide Measurements Post-slide Measurements N=23 #23e Geophysics Applications Used within the Past Five Years 11 9 6 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 R es po nd en ts Engineering Properties Overburden Soils Rock Formations N=26 Read the entire page →
From page 85... ... 3 18 3 2 6 24 13 18 1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 R es po nd en ts Contractor Highway Engineer Program Manager Contracting / Procurement In-house Geophysicist Project Manager Division/Branch Manager Other No Response N=88 #27 Comments Regarding Other Experiences Related to Geophysical Methods and/or its Applications See Table C3 12 88 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Pe rc en t Comment No Comment N=58 #28 Do You Make Budget Decisions for the Geophysical Program? 22 5 73 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Pe rc en t Yes No No Response N=58 PART 3 -- BUDGETS AND COSTS Read the entire page →
From page 86... ... 2 9 7 22 55 5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Pe rc en t > $500,000 > $100,000 < $100,000 < $50,000 No Way to Estimate No Response N=58 #34 Percentage of Allocated Budget Spent by: 23 7 4 2 4 1 6 7 1 0 1 6 3 0 1 4 12 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 R es po nd en ts 100-76% 75-51% 50-26% 25-1% No Response Design Branch Construction Branch Emergency Response Other N=36 N=18 N=8 N=8 #35 Research Funds Allocated Annually to Geophysical Investigations 7 90 3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Pe rc en t Yes No No Response N=58 Read the entire page →
From page 87... ... (Same as Figure 18) 26 57 17 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Pe rc en t Hinder Help No Response N=58 #40 What is the Rationale for Not Using Leading-Edge or State-of-the-Art Geophysical Methods (Same as Figure 17) Read the entire page →
From page 88... ... 86 14 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Pe rc en t Response No Response N=58 PART 4 -- CONTRACTING #45 Use of In-House or Contract Geophysicists 7 26 23 2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 R es po nd en ts In-House Contractor Both No Response N=58 #46 If You Self Perform Geophysical Investigations is the Geophysics Equipment Rented or Owned? 3 48 12 37 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Pe rc en t Rent Own Both No Response N=58 #47 If You Self Perform Geophysical Investigations is the Geophysics Software Rented or Owned 3 5 40 52 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Pe rc en t Rent Own Both No Response N=58 #48 What Type of RFP Solicitation is Used by Your Agency? Read the entire page →
From page 89... ... 12 85 3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Pe rc en t Yes No No Response N=58 #53 Use of Academic Institutions to Perform CuttingEdge Technology 22 73 5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Pe rc en t Yes No No Response #54 Use of Professional Contractors to Perform CuttingEdge Technology 29 66 5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Pe rc en t Yes No No Response N=58 #55 What Would Increase the Level of Comfort Using Geophysics (Same as Figure 25) 47 2 47 2 38 9 34 8 32 7 29 12 4 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 R es po nd en ts Yes No No Response N=271 Training Knowledge Experience Standards Easy Software Easy Equipment Database of Qualified Providers #56 Confidence Using Geophysics more Frequently on Geotechnical Projects (See Table C5 for Comments) Read the entire page →
From page 90... ... 10 32 2 0 1 1 12 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 N um be r o f U ns u cc es sf ul P ro jec ts 0 Projects 1 to 5 Projects 6 to 10 Projects 11 to 20 Projects 21 to 100 Projects > 100 Projects No Response N=58 PART 5 -- CASE HISTORIES/PROJECT EXAMPLES #60 Comments Regarding the Successes and Failures Experienced with Geophysics (See Table C7 for Details) 48 52 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Pe rc en t Yes No N=58 #61 Case Histories to Share for Successful and Unsuccessful Geophysical Projects on Highway Related Problems (See Table 4 for Details) Read the entire page →
From page 91... ... 92 TABLE C1 THREE MOST COMMON GEOPHYSICAL METHODS Agency First Second Third AKDOT Downhole -- -- AZDOT Refraction Blast monitoring -- CALTRANS Refraction Borehole logging GPR CFLHD Seismic EM Magnetic CODOT -- -- CODOT Vibration monitoring of pile driving operations ER CTDOT CSL GPR Vibration monitoring DCDOT Vibration monitoring -- -- FLDOT GPR Refraction -- GADOT Vibration monitoring Seismic resistivity GPR IADOT Seismic Resistivity Vibration monitoring IDDOT Refraction Blasting vibration measurement Construction vibration measurements ILDOT None KSDOT Reflection Resistivity CSL KYDOT Resistivity Microgravity GPR MADOT Seismic GPR Vibration MDDOT GPR Resistivity Vibration MEDOT Refraction Resistivity -- MIDOT Falling weight deflectometer GPR Vibration monitoring MIDOT CSL GPR -- MNDOT Vibration monitoring GPR -- MODOT Downhole seismic Resistivity GPR MSDOT Vibration monitoring GPR Refraction MTDOT Refraction -- -- NDDOT GPR -- -- NHDOT GPR Refraction Resistivity NJDOT GPR Tomography CSL NMDOT Refraction Crosshole FWD/GPR NYSDOT Refraction Vibration monitoring SeisOpt ReMi OHDOT Resistivity GPR Reflection OKDOT Refraction -- -- ORDOT Refraction Vibration measurement Magnetic ORDOT Vibration monitoring Magnetic and EM GPR PADOT Resistivity Crosshole Refraction PANYNJ Blasting vibrations Marine applications Crosshole surveys RIDOT GPR -- -- SDDOT Electric logs Vibration monitoring -- TNDOT Resistivity GPR -- TXDOT GPR Falling weight deflectometer Seismic UTDOT Vibration monitoring Refraction Crosshole logging VADOT Vibration monitoring Refraction Resistivity VTDOT CSL GPR Vibration measurement WFLHD Refraction Vibration measurement GPR/ER GPR GPR WIDOT Vibration measurement -- -- WSDOT Refraction Resistivity Optical televiewer WYDOT Seismic Vibration monitoring GPR Edmonton Vibration GPR Manitoba Terrain electrical conductivity (TEC) surveys GPR New Brunswick IP EM Seismic Ontario GPR Hammer seismic -- Quebec Refraction MASW GPR Saskatchewan Borehole logging GPR Electromagnetic Refraction Read the entire page →
From page 92... ... of overburden (in-house SCPT and research MASW) Abandoned mines, caves, karst Rock profile, lithology MSDOT Subsurface mapping -- -- MTDOT Mapping depth to bedrock Mapping topography of bedrock Determining bedrock rippability NDDOT Thickness of pavements and bases Detection of buried RCP Test condition of bridge decks NHDOT Bedrock profile mapping Mapping soils Void detection NJDOT Abandoned mines Karst/sinkholes Unknown foundations NMDOT Bedrock depth/rippability NDT drilled shaft foundations/piers Pavement layers modulus NYSDOT Depth to bedrock for road cuts Mapping water table elevation in overburden aquifers Identifying possible voids or culverts OHDOT Abandoned underground mines -- OKDOT Depth to rock Rippability Water table ORDOT Location of underground structures, tanks, drums Vibration monitoring Depth of overburden ORDOT Locating utilities Locating USTs -- -- PADOT Karst Mine voids Mapping bedrock surface PANYNJ Impact of microtunneling and directional drilling on surface pavements Minipile evaluations (continuity of grouted socket) Read the entire page →
From page 93... ... Most Project Managers/Districts are hesitant or have difficulty finding funds for geophysical investigations. MTDOT Limited number of projects that have utilized geophysical methods; therefore, budget type information is limited at this time (the above-cited information is a very general estimate) Read the entire page →
From page 94... ... Usually through project lead's experience and/or discussion with geophysics branch. CFLHD If the geotechnical engineer feels it is cost-effective to incorporate geophysical methods in the planning stages or if the use of geophysical methods reduces risk, such as in the case of UXO, or if there is no other way to obtain their data, such as in the case of vibration monitoring. Read the entire page →
From page 96... ... NHDOT Geotechnical engineers expecting too much from geophysics (GPR, seismic refraction, resistivity) on every project they consider its use on (i.e., if it can't give them the exact information they want, it is no good) Read the entire page →
From page 97... ... Training to address geotechnical engineers expecting too much from geophysics (GPR, seismic refraction, resistivity) on every project they consider its use on (i.e. Read the entire page →
From page 98... ... The only problem is that it is so voluminous as to discourage its use somewhat. There is need for an expert system to aid engineering professionals in the selection of the appropriate geophysical methods. Read the entire page →

From page 78...

... 79 APPENDIX C Survey Results

Read the entire page →

From page 79...

... 47 17 4 19 38 1 5 2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 R es po nd en ts Geotechnical Engineers Civil Engineers Structural Engineers Pavement Engineers Geologists Hydrologists Other No Response N=133

Read the entire page →

From page 80...

... Geophysical Manual? 69 29 2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Pe rc en t Yes No No Response N=58 #7 Does Your Office or Agency Have a Hardcopy of the FHWA Geophysical Manual?

Read the entire page →

From page 81...

... #14 Rate Your Personal Experience Using Geophysical Methods 20 44 19 8 5 0 4 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Excellent Good Fair Poor Unacceptable Not Applicable No Response N=59 13 8 5 8 59 38 3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Pe rc en t Pe rc en t Yes No No Response <25% 25 to 50% 50 to 75% >75% N=58 R es po nd en ts N=34 #15 Rate Your Organizations' Experience Using Geophysical Methods 8 46 34 7 2 0 3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Pe rc e n t Excellent Good Fair Poor Unacceptable Not Applicable No Response N=59

Read the entire page →

From page 82...

... 28 15 4 20 21 24 11 13 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 R es po nd en ts Pavement Condition Bridge Superstructure Baseline Measurements Concrete Condition Bridge Substructure Construction QA/QC Other No Response N=136 PART 2 -- METHODS AND APPLICATIONS #21a Seismic Methods Used within Past Five Years 34 10 10 23 5 3 2 9 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 R es po nd en ts Refraction Reflection SASW/MASW Crosshole/Downhole SeisOpt Remi Not Sure Other No Response N=96 #21b Electrical Methods Used within the Past Five Years 4 23 3 5 2 3 0 5 25 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 R es po nd en ts 1D Soundings 2D Profiling 3D Imaging Tomography Induced Polarization Self Potential Mise-a-la-mass Not Sure No Response N=70

Read the entire page →

From page 83...

... 84 #21c Electromagnetic Methods Used within the Past Five Years 13 7 3 7 1 0 4 37 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 R es po nd en ts TDEM TDEM Metal TDEM 1D Soundings FDEM VLF Seismoelectric Not Sure No Response N=72 #21d Ground Penetrating Radar Used within the Past Five Years 5 22 28 7 16 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 R es po nd en ts Did Not Specify Bedrock Mapping Soil Mapping Bedrock Fracture Mapping No Response N=78 #21e Magnetic Methods Used within the Past Five Years 1 3 1 7 48 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 R es po nd en ts N=60 #21f Gravity Methods Used within the Past Five Years 3 0 2 53 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 R es po nd en ts N=58 Did Not Specify Total Field Gradiometer Not Sure No Response Microgravity Gravity Not Sure No Response #21g Borehole Logging Used within the Past Five Years 1 9 2 7 7 5 10 1 5 34 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 R es po nd en ts Did Not Specify Electrical EM Induction Nuclear Optical Acoustic Seismic Hydrophysical Borehole Deviation No Response N=81 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 R es po nd en ts #21h Marine Methods Used within the Past Five Years 5 6 5 6 45 Fathometer Sonar GPR Sub-Bottom Profiling No Response N=67 #21i Airborne Methods Used within the Past Five Years 2 0 1 56 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 R es po nd en ts Magnetics Gravity EM No Response N=59 #21j Vibration Measurements Used within the Past Five Years 35 35 18 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 R es po nd en ts Blasting Construction No Response N=88

Read the entire page →

From page 84...

... 85 #21k Other Geophysical Methods Used within the Past Five Years 2 1 1 1 53 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 R es po nd en ts Falling Weight Deflectometer Marine Resistivity Laser Infrared Downhole Magnetic and Seismic Reflection ahead of TBM No Response N=58 #21L No Geophysical Methods Used within the Past Five Years 0 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Pe rc en t None of Above No Response N=58 #22 Most Commonly Used Geophysical Methods (Same as Figure 9, See Table C1 for Details) 5% 9% 10% 22% 6% 22% 26% Seismic GPRVibration Monitoring Resistivity NDT Borehole Logging Others N=130 #23a Geophysics Applications Used within the Past Five Years 45 33 7 10 19 14 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 R es po nd en ts Bedrock Depth Bedrock Topography Bedrock Faulting Bedrock Fractures Bedrock Strength Bedrock Weak Zones N=128 #23b Geophysics Applications Used within the Past Five Years 15 7 8 4 1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 R es po nd en ts Overburden Soil Lithology Bedrock Lithology Sand or Gravel Deposits Clay Estimating Clay Content N=35 #23c Geophysics Applications Used within the Past Five Years 0 9 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 R es po nd en ts Groundwater Salinity Groundwater Table Groundwater Flow N=9 #23d Geophysics Applications Used within the Past Five Years 8 1 7 3 4 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 R es po nd en ts Landslides Volume Assessment Slip Surface Identification Pre-slide Measurements Post-slide Measurements N=23 #23e Geophysics Applications Used within the Past Five Years 11 9 6 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 R es po nd en ts Engineering Properties Overburden Soils Rock Formations N=26

Read the entire page →

From page 85...

... 3 18 3 2 6 24 13 18 1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 R es po nd en ts Contractor Highway Engineer Program Manager Contracting / Procurement In-house Geophysicist Project Manager Division/Branch Manager Other No Response N=88 #27 Comments Regarding Other Experiences Related to Geophysical Methods and/or its Applications See Table C3 12 88 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Pe rc en t Comment No Comment N=58 #28 Do You Make Budget Decisions for the Geophysical Program? 22 5 73 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Pe rc en t Yes No No Response N=58 PART 3 -- BUDGETS AND COSTS

Read the entire page →

From page 86...

... 2 9 7 22 55 5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Pe rc en t > $500,000 > $100,000 < $100,000 < $50,000 No Way to Estimate No Response N=58 #34 Percentage of Allocated Budget Spent by: 23 7 4 2 4 1 6 7 1 0 1 6 3 0 1 4 12 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 R es po nd en ts 100-76% 75-51% 50-26% 25-1% No Response Design Branch Construction Branch Emergency Response Other N=36 N=18 N=8 N=8 #35 Research Funds Allocated Annually to Geophysical Investigations 7 90 3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Pe rc en t Yes No No Response N=58

Read the entire page →

From page 87...

... (Same as Figure 18) 26 57 17 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Pe rc en t Hinder Help No Response N=58 #40 What is the Rationale for Not Using Leading-Edge or State-of-the-Art Geophysical Methods (Same as Figure 17)

Read the entire page →

From page 88...

... 86 14 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Pe rc en t Response No Response N=58 PART 4 -- CONTRACTING #45 Use of In-House or Contract Geophysicists 7 26 23 2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 R es po nd en ts In-House Contractor Both No Response N=58 #46 If You Self Perform Geophysical Investigations is the Geophysics Equipment Rented or Owned? 3 48 12 37 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Pe rc en t Rent Own Both No Response N=58 #47 If You Self Perform Geophysical Investigations is the Geophysics Software Rented or Owned 3 5 40 52 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Pe rc en t Rent Own Both No Response N=58 #48 What Type of RFP Solicitation is Used by Your Agency?

Read the entire page →

From page 89...

... 12 85 3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Pe rc en t Yes No No Response N=58 #53 Use of Academic Institutions to Perform CuttingEdge Technology 22 73 5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Pe rc en t Yes No No Response #54 Use of Professional Contractors to Perform CuttingEdge Technology 29 66 5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Pe rc en t Yes No No Response N=58 #55 What Would Increase the Level of Comfort Using Geophysics (Same as Figure 25) 47 2 47 2 38 9 34 8 32 7 29 12 4 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 R es po nd en ts Yes No No Response N=271 Training Knowledge Experience Standards Easy Software Easy Equipment Database of Qualified Providers #56 Confidence Using Geophysics more Frequently on Geotechnical Projects (See Table C5 for Comments)

Read the entire page →

From page 90...

... 10 32 2 0 1 1 12 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 N um be r o f U ns u cc es sf ul P ro jec ts 0 Projects 1 to 5 Projects 6 to 10 Projects 11 to 20 Projects 21 to 100 Projects > 100 Projects No Response N=58 PART 5 -- CASE HISTORIES/PROJECT EXAMPLES #60 Comments Regarding the Successes and Failures Experienced with Geophysics (See Table C7 for Details) 48 52 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Pe rc en t Yes No N=58 #61 Case Histories to Share for Successful and Unsuccessful Geophysical Projects on Highway Related Problems (See Table 4 for Details)

Read the entire page →

From page 91...

... 92 TABLE C1 THREE MOST COMMON GEOPHYSICAL METHODS Agency First Second Third AKDOT Downhole -- -- AZDOT Refraction Blast monitoring -- CALTRANS Refraction Borehole logging GPR CFLHD Seismic EM Magnetic CODOT -- -- CODOT Vibration monitoring of pile driving operations ER CTDOT CSL GPR Vibration monitoring DCDOT Vibration monitoring -- -- FLDOT GPR Refraction -- GADOT Vibration monitoring Seismic resistivity GPR IADOT Seismic Resistivity Vibration monitoring IDDOT Refraction Blasting vibration measurement Construction vibration measurements ILDOT None KSDOT Reflection Resistivity CSL KYDOT Resistivity Microgravity GPR MADOT Seismic GPR Vibration MDDOT GPR Resistivity Vibration MEDOT Refraction Resistivity -- MIDOT Falling weight deflectometer GPR Vibration monitoring MIDOT CSL GPR -- MNDOT Vibration monitoring GPR -- MODOT Downhole seismic Resistivity GPR MSDOT Vibration monitoring GPR Refraction MTDOT Refraction -- -- NDDOT GPR -- -- NHDOT GPR Refraction Resistivity NJDOT GPR Tomography CSL NMDOT Refraction Crosshole FWD/GPR NYSDOT Refraction Vibration monitoring SeisOpt ReMi OHDOT Resistivity GPR Reflection OKDOT Refraction -- -- ORDOT Refraction Vibration measurement Magnetic ORDOT Vibration monitoring Magnetic and EM GPR PADOT Resistivity Crosshole Refraction PANYNJ Blasting vibrations Marine applications Crosshole surveys RIDOT GPR -- -- SDDOT Electric logs Vibration monitoring -- TNDOT Resistivity GPR -- TXDOT GPR Falling weight deflectometer Seismic UTDOT Vibration monitoring Refraction Crosshole logging VADOT Vibration monitoring Refraction Resistivity VTDOT CSL GPR Vibration measurement WFLHD Refraction Vibration measurement GPR/ER GPR GPR WIDOT Vibration measurement -- -- WSDOT Refraction Resistivity Optical televiewer WYDOT Seismic Vibration monitoring GPR Edmonton Vibration GPR Manitoba Terrain electrical conductivity (TEC) surveys GPR New Brunswick IP EM Seismic Ontario GPR Hammer seismic -- Quebec Refraction MASW GPR Saskatchewan Borehole logging GPR Electromagnetic Refraction

Read the entire page →

From page 92...

... of overburden (in-house SCPT and research MASW) Abandoned mines, caves, karst Rock profile, lithology MSDOT Subsurface mapping -- -- MTDOT Mapping depth to bedrock Mapping topography of bedrock Determining bedrock rippability NDDOT Thickness of pavements and bases Detection of buried RCP Test condition of bridge decks NHDOT Bedrock profile mapping Mapping soils Void detection NJDOT Abandoned mines Karst/sinkholes Unknown foundations NMDOT Bedrock depth/rippability NDT drilled shaft foundations/piers Pavement layers modulus NYSDOT Depth to bedrock for road cuts Mapping water table elevation in overburden aquifers Identifying possible voids or culverts OHDOT Abandoned underground mines -- OKDOT Depth to rock Rippability Water table ORDOT Location of underground structures, tanks, drums Vibration monitoring Depth of overburden ORDOT Locating utilities Locating USTs -- -- PADOT Karst Mine voids Mapping bedrock surface PANYNJ Impact of microtunneling and directional drilling on surface pavements Minipile evaluations (continuity of grouted socket)

Read the entire page →

From page 93...

... Most Project Managers/Districts are hesitant or have difficulty finding funds for geophysical investigations. MTDOT Limited number of projects that have utilized geophysical methods; therefore, budget type information is limited at this time (the above-cited information is a very general estimate)

Read the entire page →

From page 94...

... Usually through project lead's experience and/or discussion with geophysics branch. CFLHD If the geotechnical engineer feels it is cost-effective to incorporate geophysical methods in the planning stages or if the use of geophysical methods reduces risk, such as in the case of UXO, or if there is no other way to obtain their data, such as in the case of vibration monitoring.

Read the entire page →

From page 96...

... NHDOT Geotechnical engineers expecting too much from geophysics (GPR, seismic refraction, resistivity) on every project they consider its use on (i.e., if it can't give them the exact information they want, it is no good)

Read the entire page →

From page 97...

... Training to address geotechnical engineers expecting too much from geophysics (GPR, seismic refraction, resistivity) on every project they consider its use on (i.e.

Read the entire page →

From page 98...

... The only problem is that it is so voluminous as to discourage its use somewhat. There is need for an expert system to aid engineering professionals in the selection of the appropriate geophysical methods.

Read the entire page →

← Previous Chapter Skim

Next Chapter Skim →

This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.

Appendix C - Survey Results Pages 78-98

Appendix C - Survey Results
Pages 78-98