A GENERALIZED PROTOCOL FOR SELECTING

APPROPRIATE GEOPHYSICAL TECHNIQUES

Neil Anderson ([email protected] ) and Ahmed Ismail ([email protected])

Department of Geology and Geophysics

University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, Missouri 65401

Abstract

Geophysical tools provide information about the physical properties of the subsurface, and are routinely
applied to mining-related problems of a geotechnical nature. Geophysical data, if properly acquired,
processed, constrained and interpreted, can be transformed into site models (typically subsurface
geologic models). These site models can be of great practical utility inasmuch as they provide subsurface
control in inter-boreholes areas and at sub-borehole depths.

The mining engineer responsible for geotechnical site characterization should ensure all geophysical
techniques employed are capable of providing useful and cost-effective information about the subsurface
feature(s) of interest at the required levels of spatial resolution and target definition. As an aid to the
geotechnical engineer, tabularized information about ten commonly employed geophysical methods and
a generalized approach (protocol) for evaluating their utility as site characterization tools are presented
herein. The accompanying discussions are intended to be informative - not exhaustive. The reader is
referred to the selected bibliography for more rigorous treatments of the geophysical techniques. The
engineer engaged in geophysical survey design is strongly encouraged to work with a knowledgeable
geophysicist.

Introduction

Geophysical tools (Table 1) are routinely used to image the subsurface of the earth in support of mining-
related geotechnical investigations, including the detection and mapping of abandoned underground coal
mines. Commonly employed geophysical methods include seismic refraction, seismic reflection, seismic
tomography, ground-penetrating radar (GPR), electromagnetics (EM), electrical resistivity, induced
polarization (IP), magnetics, self potential (SP) and gravity (Table 1; Figures 1 and 2).

Geophysical tools are designed to measure specific parameters, and are generally used to measure
spatial variation in these specific parameters within a study area of interest (Table 1). Ground-
penetrating radar (GPR) instruments, for example, are designed to measure the two-way travel times and
amplitudes of reflected pulsed electromagnetic radiation (Figure 1 and Table 1). During the course of a
typical GPR survey, these tools are used to measure spatial variations in the travel times and amplitudes
of EM radiation that has been reflected from subsurface horizons (or features) of interest. The example 2-
D GPR profile presented as Figure 3a consists of multiple adjacent traces (reflection amplitude plotted as
a function of two-way travel time) which were acquired at predetermined intervals along a 2-D traverse
across a shallow stream. The GPR profile contains only one prominent reflection and hence is
considered to be two-layered (water overlying sand).

The specific parameters measured by geophysical tools (Table 1) are functions of the physical properties
of the earth’s subsurface. For example, the travel times and amplitudes of the reflected pulsed
electromagnetic radiation recorded during a GPR survey, are functions of the variable electrical and
magnetic properties of the subsurface (including dielectric constant, magnetic permeability, conductivity
and EM velocity) along the respective raypaths (Figure 1). The dielectric constants and EM velocities
assigned to each of the two layers identified on the GPR profile of Figure 3 were determined/estimated on
the basis of in-situ GPR field tests. The arrival time of the reflected event (water/sand interface) at any
trace location on the GPR profile (Figure 3a) is a function of the EM velocity of water; the amplitude of the
GPR event at any trace location is a function of the contrasting dielectric constants of water and sand.
Geophysical Measured Physical Property or Physical Property Typical Site
Method Parameter(s) Properties Model Model
(Geotech Application) (Geotech Application)
Shallow Travel times of Acoustic velocity Acoustic velocity/depth Geologic profile.
Seismic refracted seismic (function of elastic model.
Refraction energy (p- or s- moduli and density).
wave).
Travel times and Density and acoustic Acoustic velocity/depth Geologic profile.
Shallow amplitudes of velocity (acoustic model.
Seismic reflected seismic velocity is a function of
Reflection energy (p-or s- elastic moduli and
wave). density)
Travel times and Density and acoustic Model depicting spatial Geologic profile.
Seismic amplitudes of velocity (acoustic variations in acoustic
Tomography seismic energy (p- velocity is a function of velocity.
or s-wave). elastic moduli and
density).
Ground- Travel times and Dielectric constant, EM velocity/depth Geologic, material or
Penetrating amplitudes of magnetic permeability, model. structure profile.
Radar reflected pulsed conductivity and EM
(GPR) electromagnetic velocity.
energy.
Electro- Response to Electrical conductivity Conductivity/depth Geologic/hydrologic
magnetics natural/induced and inductance. model. profile.
(EM) electromagnetic
energy.
Potential Electrical resistivity. Resistivity/depth model. Geologic/hydrologic
Electrical differences in profile.
Resistivity response to
induced current.
Polarization Electrical capacitance. Capacitance/depth Model depicting spatial
Induced voltages or model. variations in clay
Polarization frequency content (or metallic
(IP) dependent ground mineralization).
resistance.
Self Potential Natural electrical Natural electric Model depicting spatial Hydrologic model
(SP) potential potentials. variations in natural (seepage through dam
differences. electric potential of the or fractured bedrock,
subsurface. etc.).
Spatial variations in Magnetic susceptibility Model depicting spatial Geologic profile or map
Magnetics the strength of the and remanent variations in magnetic (location of faults,
geomagnetic field. magnetization. susceptibility of variable depth to
subsurface. bedrock, etc.).
Spatial variations in Bulk density. Model depicting spatial Geologic profile or map
Gravity the strength of variations in the density (location of voids,
gravitational field of of the subsurface. variable depth to
the earth. bedrock, etc.).

Table 1: Summary of ten geophysical surveying methods

commonly employed for geotechnical investigations.
 Seismic Refraction: Typically, acoustic pulses are
R1 R2 R3 generated at predetermined source locations (S)
G along the length of the refraction seismic profile.
The travel times of acoustic energy that has been
V1 critically refracted at horizons of interest (L1) is
Z1 recorded at predetermined receiver locations (R).
L1 The recorded travel time information is used to
V2 generate a velocity/structure profile of the shallow
Z2 subsurface along the length of the refraction
profile.

R1 R2 R3 R4 Seismic Reflection: Typically, acoustic pulses are

G generated at predetermined source locations (S)

ed
along the length of the reflection seismic profile.
V1 The travel times and amplitudes of reflected
Z1 acoustic energy is recorded at predetermined
receiver locations (R). The recorded travel
L1 time/amplitude information is used to generate a
V2
Z2 reflection seismic profile. These data can be
transformed into a velocity/structure profile.

SB RB Seismic Tomography: Typically, high frequency

G acoustic pulses are generated at predetermined
R1 source locations (S) in the source borehole (SB).
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
iv
R2
R3
R4
R5
R6
R7
The amplitude and arrival time of direct arrivals
(and others) is recorded at predetermined receiver
locations in the receiver borehole (RB). The
recorded travel time/amplitude data are statistically
analyzed and used to generate a velocity/
attenuation cross-sectional model of the area
between the source and receiver boreholes.
ch
monostatic antenna Ground-Penetrating Radar (GPR): Typically,
T/R pulsed electromagnetic energy is generated at
predetermined station locations (S) along the
ε1 length of the GPR profile. The travel times and
Z1 amplitudes of reflected EM energy are usually
recorded by a monostatic transmitter/receiver. The
ε2 recorded travel time/amplitude information is
Z2 normally used to generate a GPR profile (2-D
Ar

time/amplitude image). These data can be

transformed into a 2-D velocity/depth model.

Electromagnetics (EM): Typically, a receiver is

used to measure the earth's response to natural or
artificial, primary EM energy. The secondary EM
field (generated by causative body) can be
expressed in terms of an in-phase component and
an out-of-phase component. These data can be
interpreted, and in some instances, used to
generate a conductivity/depth model of the
subsurface.

Figure 1: Generalized overviews of five commonly employed geophysical tools: seismic refraction,
seismic reflection, seismic tomography, ground-penetrating radar (GPR) and electromagnetics (EM).
 Electrical Resistivity: Typically, current (I) is
I induced between paired electrodes (C1, C2). The
C1 P
V
P2 C2
potential difference (∆V) between paired voltmeter
1
G electrodes P1 and P2 is measured. Apparent
equipotential resistivity (Da) is then calculated (based on I, ∆V,
surfaces electrode spacings). If the current electrode spacing
is expanded about a central location, a
resistivity/depth sounding can be generated. If the
current lines
array is expanded and moved along the surface, a
resistivity/depth profile can be created.

Induced Polarization (IP): Two types of IP data are

I
generated: frequency domain and time domain.

ed
V
C1 P
1
P2 C2 Frequency domain IP data are generated by
G comparing apparent resistivities as determined for
equipotential variable frequency input currents. Time domain IP
surfaces
data are generated by measuring rate of decay in
potential difference after current flow is terminated. IP
current lines measures the capacitive properties of the ground.
Often acquired simultaneously with resistivity data.

BS BE Magnetic: Magnetometers are designed to measure

S
iv
N
BE
G
either the vector or scalar sum of the earth's magnetic
field (BE) and superposed secondary magnetic fields
(BS) created by causative, magnetically susceptible
materials. Generally, the secondary field is isolated
and interpreted with a view to elucidating the nature
of the secondary causative body.
ch
SE ME
G Self Potential (SP): Self (spontaneous) potential
tools are designed to measure natural potential
differences arising (mostly) from either current flow
associated with metallic bodies straddling the water
WT table or groundwater flow in the subsurface. SP data
current metallic are usually interpreted in qualitative manner.
flow body
Ar

Gravity: Gravimeters are designed to measure the

G vertical component of the vector sum of the earth's
∆g void background gravitational field (gE) and superposed
ρ1
ge secondary fields (∆g) created by localized, causative
bodies of anomalous density. Generally, the
anomalous secondary field is isolated and interpreted with a view
mass to elucidating the nature of the secondary causative
body

Figure 2: Generalized overview of five commonly employed geophysical tools: electrical

resistivity, induced polarization (IP), magnetics, self potential (SP) and gravity.
 0 50 m
0

20

40
T
60
i
m 80
e
100

120

140
ns
(a)

D 2
e Dielectric
p Constant ~ 80
t 3
h

4
Dielectric
Constant ~ 25
5
m
(b)
0 50 m
1

water
D 2
e
p
t 3
h
4
stream sub-bottom

5
m
(c)

Figure 3: (a) GPR profile across a stream bed; (b) Physical Property Model
(dielectric constant vs. depth); (c) Typical Site Model.
Properly acquired and processed geophysical survey data can generally be transformed into a physical
property model. GPR data, for example, are frequently transformed into corresponding 2-D or 3-D
“dielectric constant/depth” model. The typical GPR physical property model of Figure 3b consists of one
reflecting horizon (water/sand interface). In this “dielectric constant/depth” model, the vertical “time-depth”
scale has been transformed into a vertical “depth” scale (time-to-depth conversion). Alternative physical
property models could be in the form of “EM velocity/depth”, “EM velocity/time-depth”, etc.

If additional geophysical and/or geological (including hydrologic, engineering, mining) constraints are
available, physical property models can be transformed into “typical site models”. A typical site model for
mining-related investigations is a geologic model. In Figure 3c, the GPR physical property model of
Figure 3b, has been transformed into a simple hydrologic/geologic model on the basis of site
geomorphology and subsurface lithologic control.

Geophysics in Support of Geotechnical Site Characterization

In the normal course of a geotechnical site investigation, one or more geophysical data sets may be
acquired for the purpose of determining subsurface physical properties of interest (Table 1). Typically,
non-geophysical information (borehole, geohydrologic, surficial geology, mining records, construction
records, etc.) is also acquired, all contributing to the interpretation of the geophysical data and the
development of a typical site model.

To ensure the most appropriate geophysical techniques are employed, the supervising engineer (working
with a knowledgeable geophysicist) should critically evaluate the potential utility and cost-effectiveness of
available geophysical methods. There are several key “issues/questions” that should be considered/
addressed including:

• What are the physical properties of interest?

• Which geophysical methods respond to the physical properties of interest?
• Which techniques can provide the required spatial resolution and target definition?
• Which geophysical tools can perform well under study area conditions?
• Which techniques are most cost-effective?
• Which techniques can provide complementary data?
• What non-geophysical control is required to constrain the interpretation of acquired geophysical
data?
• Is the overall geophysical program cost-effective?

If these issues are not addressed, inappropriate geophysical data may be acquired, unnecessary
expenditures may be incurred, and undesirable time delays may occur. In the worst case scenario, the
acquired geophysical data – even when constrained and interpreted - may not be capable of providing
the required/desired results (re: typical site model). The engineer responsible for geophysical site
characterization is encouraged to raise and resolve these issues prior to the commencement of field
work.

Protocol for Selecting Appropriate Geophysical Techniques

The eight “issues/questions” posed in the preceding section constitute a generalized protocol for
selecting appropriate geophysical techniques. In the following section, these “questions/ issues” are
briefly discussed, using a hypothetical case study situation to illustrate some of the ideas presented.
These discussions are intentionally general in nature (and illustrative) rather than comprehensive. The
intent is to raise, summarize and illustrate some pertinent issues in an effort to assist the supervising
engineer.

What are the physical properties of interest? Geophysical surveys are usually conducted with specific
objectives (subsurface targets) in mind. These targets and their physical properties need to be clearly
defined from the outset, to ensure appropriate geophysical methodologies are employed.
To illustrate the interrelationship between subsurface targets, their physical properties and appropriate
geophysical technologies, consider a hypothetical situation where a mining engineer intends to
investigate a proposed construction site (300 m x 300 m) with the objective of mapping any and all
shallow air-filled voids (associated with previous coal mining activities). For the purpose of illustration,
assume the voids can be modeled as oblate spheroids (height of ~1 m and width of ~3 m) with extended
north-south oriented near-horizontal axis, centered at depths on the order of 3.5 m (Figure 4). Assume
there are no
physical constraints with
respect to site accessibility,
and that the subsurface
geology is as depicted in
Figure 4. For the sake of
simplicity, assume the voids
are intact and devoid of metal
objects. Lastly, assume
surface control at intervals on
the order of 2 m is required.

The engineer responsible for

the acquisition of geophysical
data in support of this
hypothetical site character- air-filled void
ization would recognize that
shallow, air-filled cavities within
otherwise intact sedimentary
rock are characterized by
spatial variations in density,
acoustic velocity, EM velocity,
dielectric constant, electrical
conductivity and electrical
resistivity (Figure 4). Collec-
tively, these variable attributes
represent the physical
properties of interest (Table 1).
0 1
Silty sand Coal

Sandstone Clay
m
Marine ls Limestone

Marine ss Shale

Figure 4: (a) Schematic Physical Property Non-Saturated Air-Filled

west-east geologic Sedimentary Rock Void
profile through Density ~ 2.4 g/cc 0
hypothetical study Acoustic velocity ~ 4000 m/s ~ 350 m/s
area; (b) Physical EM velocity 108 m/s 3 x 108 m/s
property table for non- Dielectric constant ~9 ~1
saturated rock and Electric conductivity
-8
10 mho 0
void.
Electric resistivity 3 X 10 7 Ωm ~ infinite
Magnetic susceptibility 0.3 ~ 0
Electric chargeability 10 – 20 ms ~ 0
Which geophysical methods respond to the physical properties of interest? The engineer charged
with site characterization responsibilities, working in consultation with a knowledgeable geophysicist,
would consider all available geophysical technologies with a view to determining which tools are designed
to respond to one or more of these physical properties of interest.

As far as the hypothetical case study is concerned, several geophysical techniques would appear to be
potentially suitable site investigation tools (based on the limited information provided in Table 1 only)
including seismic refraction, seismic reflection, seismic tomography, GPR, EM, electrical resistivity and
gravity. (Note: the supervising engineer is strongly encouraged to work with a knowledgeable
geophysicist to ensure all potentially appropriate geophysical technologies are considered.)

The seismic refraction, seismic reflection and seismic tomography techniques respond to subsurface
variations in acoustic velocity and density (either directly or indirectly). The GPR tool responds to spatial
variations in dielectric constant, magnetic permeability, electrical conductivity and EM velocity. The EM
tools respond to changes in electrical conductivity and inductance; the electrical resistivity tools respond
to changes in electrical resistivity. The gravity tool is designed to respond to spatial variations in the
density of the subsurface.

Each of the seven geophysical techniques still in consideration measures specific physical parameters
(Table 1; Figures 1 and 2). These measured parameters are functions of the physical properties of the
subsurface (and variations therein). The seismic refraction, reflection and tomography techniques, for
example, measure the amplitudes and travel times of acoustic energy. The GPR tool measures the
amplitudes and arrival times of pulsed EM energy. The EM and electrical resistivity tools measure the
earth’s response to natural/induced electromagnetic energy, and potential differences in response to
induced current, respectively. The gravity tool measures spatial variations in the strength of gravitational
field of the earth.

Which techniques can provide the required spatial resolution and target definition? Each of the
seven geophysical techniques still in consideration is typically used to measure spatial variations in
specific parameters within a designated study area. Each of these tools provides varying degrees of
spatial resolution (vertical and horizontal) and target definition (shape, depth, etc.).

In Table 2, short qualitative discussions of spatial resolution and target definition are presented for each
of the ten techniques listed in Table 1. All of these geophysical techniques, with the notable exception of
seismic tomography, provide greater spatial resolution and target definition at shallower depths. A high-
frequency GPR tool (e.g., 1.5 GHz) for example, can provide very high spatial resolution (on the order of
0.01 m) but has limited depth penetration (generally less than 1m). A low-frequency GPR tool (e.g., 80
MHz) provides only intermediate spatial resolution (on the order of meters), but is capable of imaging
targets at depths on the order of 20 m or more under ideal circumstances.

As noted in Table 2, the spatial resolution and target definition provided by each geophysical technique
are functions of multiple variables including (but not limited to) the contrast between the physical
properties of the target and host rock, the depth of the target, background noise levels, the attributes of
the specific tool employed, etc. These variables must be considered during this phase of pre-planning.

With respect to the hypothetical case study and based on spatial resolution/target definition
considerations provided in Table 2 only, GPR, electrical resistivity, gravity and seismic tomography
appear to be potentially suitable tools for locating the relatively small, shallow air-filled cavities of interest.
Seismic refraction and seismic reflection are probably not capable of directly imaging small, air-filled
voids at shallow depth (<4 m). The electromagnetic tool works best when the target is conductive, and
may not be capable of resolving an air-filled void in fairly resistive sedimentary rock.

Consultation with an expert is essential during the spatial resolution and target definition phase of tool
selection as only a knowledgeable geophysicist will be able to determine (on the basis of experience
and/or modeling) which specific geophysical tools are theoretically capable of providing the required
spatial resolution and target definition (given target properties, depth, shape and size).
 Method Spatial Resolution and Target Definition
Intermediate. Spatial resolution and target definition are functions mostly of source frequency,
propagation velocities, velocity contrasts, layer thickness and homogeneity, receiver spacing,
Shallow
background noise levels and site conditions. The shallow refraction tool is generally used to
Seismic map horizons across which there is a significant positive velocity contrast (e.g., bedrock, water
Refraction table, etc.). The refraction tool cannot be used to map low-velocity layers or thin high-velocity
layers. Low-frequency sources provide greater depth penetration but lower resolution.
Intermediate. Spatial resolution and target definition are functions mostly of source frequency,
propagation velocities, velocity and density contrasts, layer thickness and homogeneity,
receiver spacing, background noise levels and site conditions. The shallow reflection tool can
Shallow be used to map both low- and high-velocity layers. It is generally assumed that layers with
Seismic thicknesses of less than ¼ wavelength (function of seismic pulse frequency and layer velocity)
Reflection cannot be accurately resolved. Subsurface discontinuities (such as an air-filled void) can
generate identifiable, interpretable diffractions. Low-frequency sources provide for greater
depth penetration but lower resolution.
Intermediate - High. Spatial resolution and target definition are functions mostly of source
frequency, propagation velocities, velocity and density contrasts, layer/unit homogeneity,
Seismic
source/receiver spacing, multiplicity of travel paths, background noise levels and other site
Tomography conditions. Seismic tomography employs very high-frequency acoustic source pulses (in KHz
range) compared to seismic refraction and reflection and therefore provides superior resolution
and target definition.
Intermediate - Very High. Spatial resolution and target definition are functions mostly of
dominant EM source pulse frequency, propagation velocities, dielectric contrasts, layer
thickness and homogeneity, lateral trace sampling density, background noise levels and site
GPR conditions. GPR employs high-frequency (in MHz range) pulsed EM radiation traveling at
velocities approaching the speed of light. High-frequency (1500 MHz) antenna can effectively
image layers with a thickness on the order of centimeters. Low-frequency sources provide for
greater depth penetration but lower vertical and lateral resolution.

Table 2a: The spatial resolution and target definition provided by a geophysical technique is a function of
the characteristics of the specific tool employed, site conditions, and the physical properties of the target.

Which geophysical tools can perform well under study area conditions? The usefulness of a
specific geophysical tool is a function of site conditions. Variables include (but are not limited to)
accessibility, areal extent, density of vegetation, topography, soil thickness and lithology, groundwater
salinity, etc. Site conditions must be taken into consideration during the pre-planning phase, to ensure
the technique(s) selected have a reasonable probability of working well in the study area. Consultation
with an expert geophysicist is strongly encouraged.

In terms of the hypothetical site conditions, the intended targets are small, linear, oblate (1 m x 3 m),
mined-out, linear, air-filled voids centered at depths on the order of 3.5 m in sedimentary rock overlain by
about 1 m of unconsolidated sandy silt (devoid of clay). As noted in Figure 4, the ground and bedrock
surfaces are characterized by undulating topography.

With respect the hypothetical case study and on the basis of the site considerations (as provided in Table
3 only) and spatial resolution and target definition (as provided in Table 2 only), GPR would probably be
ranked highest in terms of potential utility (Table 4). The GPR tool should provide the necessary spatial
resolution and target definition, as the air-filled voids are relatively shallow. Additionally, the voids and the
encompassing rock are characterized by markedly different EM velocities (Table 2). Lastly, the
sedimentary section is relatively dry and devoid of clay. If quality GPR data were recorded along profiles
oriented perpendicular to the linear voids, the interpreter might be able to map the subsurface location of
voids with a spatial precision of less than one meter.

The resistivity tool is similarly capable of imaging the air-filled subsurface voids. This technique is ranked
nd
2 in Table 4 (in terms of utility based on spatial resolution, target definition and site conditions). If the
resistivity profiles are oriented perpendicular to the strike of the linear voids, the tool is theoretically
capable of imaging the intended target. However, the spatial resolution provided by the electrical
resistivity tool would probably be less than that provided by GPR.

A high precision gravity tool is theoretically capable of imaging the air-filled linear voids, given their
shallow depth and cross-sectional area. However, undulating surficial topography and variable depth to
bedrock could create problems due to the subtle signature associated with the target. Even with high
density sampling and precise reduction, the spatial resolution provided by a high precision gravity tool
would probably be less than that provided by either the GPR or resistivity tools.

The seismic tomography tool is also theoretically capable of imaging the target voids. However, this
technique is considered to be the least viable because the small size of the target would require the
generation/recording of very high frequency source signals, and the drilling of very closely spaced test
boreholes through sedimentary rock.

Method Spatial Resolution and Target Definition

Low - Very High. Spatial resolution and target definition are functions mostly of primary source
frequency, target depth and conductivity, conductivity contrast, and sophistication of tool and
inversion software. For example, a 5 cm diameter, 2m long, conductive metal pipe at shallow
depth (< 0.5 m) in dry soil can be readily located using a suitable high-frequency EM tool.
EM However the metal pipe, placed at a depth of 3 m, might be “invisible” to the same EM tool.
Lower frequencies provide for greater depth penetration but poorer resolution and target
definition. Technique works best when imaging conductive targets. Data acquired over a range of
frequencies can be inverted and used to generate a conductivity profile of the subsurface. Some
tools provide data suitable for qualitative analyses only.
Low – High. Spatial resolution and target definition are functions mostly of primary current
frequency, current and voltmeter electrode spacing, target depth and resistivity, resistivity
contrast, and sophistication of tool and inversion software. Technique works best in resistive
Electrical environments and when imaging resistive targets. Lower frequency current and increased
Resistivity electrode spacing provide for greater depth penetration but poorer resolution and target
definition. Apparent resistivity data acquired over a range of electrode spacings can be inverted
and used to generate a conductivity profile of the subsurface. Some tools/electrode
configurations provide data suitable for qualitative analyses only.
Low – Intermediate. Spatial resolution and target definition are functions mostly of electrode
spacing, target depth and resistivity, suscepibility of target to induced polarization, resistivity
contrast, and magnitude of background noise. Tool works best in resistive environments and
IP when imaging targets susceptible to induced polarization. Increased electrode spacing and lower
current frequencies provide for greater depth penetration but poorer resolution and target
definition. Data are often acquired during course of resistivity surveying.
Low – Intermediate. Spatial resolution and target definition are functions mostly of voltmeter
electrode spacing, target size and depth, magnitude of naturally occurring potential differences,
SP
and magnitude of background noise. Data generally suitable for qualitative analyses only.
Low – High. Spatial resolution and target definition are functions mostly of sophistication of tool
and mode of deployment, spatial sampling intervals, magnitude of background noise, target
Magnetics
depth and magnetic susceptibility, magnetic susceptibility contrasts, and external modeling
constraints. Data are often interpreted qualitatively.
Low – Intermediate. Spatial resolution and target definition are functions mostly of
sophistication of tool and inversion software, spatial sampling interval, magnitude of background
Gravity
noise, target depth, density contrasts and external modeling constraints. Data are often
interpreted quantitatively.

Table 2b: The spatial resolution and target definition provided by a geophysical technique is a function of
the characteristics of the specific tool employed, site conditions, and the physical properties of the target.
Which geophysical tools can perform well under study area conditions? The usefulness of a
specific geophysical tool is a function of site conditions. Variables include (but are not limited to)
accessibility, areal extent, density of vegetation, surficial topography, soil thickness and lithology,
groundwater salinity, level of background noise, etc. Site conditions must be taken into consideration
during the pre-planning phase, to ensure the technique(s) selected have a reasonable probability of
working well in the study area. Consultation with an expert is strongly encouraged.

In terms of the hypothetical site conditions, the targets are small, linear, oblate (1 m x 3 m), mined-out,
linear, air-filled voids centered at depths on the order of 3.5 m in sedimentary rock overlain by about 1 m
of unconsolidated sandy silt (devoid of clay). As noted in Figure 4, the ground and bedrock surfaces are
characterized by undulating topography.

With respect the hypothetical case study and on the basis of the site considerations (as provided in Table
3 only) and spatial resolution and target definition (as provided in Table 2 only), GPR would probably be
ranked highest in terms of potential utility (Table 4). The GPR tool should provide the necessary spatial
resolution and target definition, as the air-filled voids are relatively shallow. Additionally, the voids and the
encompassing rock are characterized by markedly different EM velocities (Table 2). Lastly, the
sedimentary section is relatively dry and devoid of clay. If quality GPR data were recorded along profiles
oriented perpendicular to the linear voids, the interpreter might be able to map the subsurface location of
voids with a spatial precision of less than one meter.

The electrical resistivity tool is similarly capable of imaging the air-filled subsurface voids. This technique
nd
is ranked 2 in Table 4 (in terms of utility based on spatial resolution, target definition and site
conditions). If the 2-D resistivity profiles were oriented perpendicular to the strike of the linear voids, the
tool is theoretically capable of imaging the intended target. However, the spatial resolution provided by
the electrical resistivity tool would probably be less than that provided by GPR.

A high precision gravity tool is theoretically capable of imaging the air-filled linear voids, given their
shallow depth and cross-sectional area. However, undulating surficial topography and variable depth to
bedrock could create problems due to the subtle gravity signature associated with the target. Even with
high density sampling and precise reduction, the spatial resolution provided by a high precision gravity
tool would probably be less than that provided by either the GPR or resistivity tools.

The seismic tomography tool is also theoretically capable of imaging the target voids. However, this
technique is considered to be the least viable because the small size of the target would require the
generation/recording of very high frequency source signals, and the drilling of very closely spaced test
boreholes through sedimentary rock.

Which techniques are most cost-effective? The relative cost-effectiveness of prospective geophysical
tools is a function of both cost (planning, acquisition, processing and interpretation) and the overall
usefulness of the interpreted results (re: resolution and target definition). Consultation with an expert
geophysicist is essential at this step in the suggested protocol, because it is absolutely imperative that
cost estimates are based on appropriate acquisition and processing parameters. The projected utility of a
particular geophysical tool is also very much a function of the acquisition and processing schemes
employed. (Unfortunately, in an effort to trim costs, acquisition and processing efforts are sometimes
minimized at the expense of data quality, and to the extent that projected deliverables cannot be
obtained. Unacceptable quality data is not cost-effective at any price.)

In our hypothetical case study, tool options have been narrowed down to GPR, electrical resistivity,
gravity and seismic tomography. In Table 5, the cost-effectiveness of the tools still under consideration
(given the nature of the target and site accessibility) is summarized. On the basis of cost-effectiveness,
the GPR technique is ranked first (Table 5). These data (given the size of the site and nature of the
target) would be the least expensive to acquire, process and interpret, and should provide the best spatial
resolution. The electrical resistivity technique is ranked second (Table 5). These data (given the size of
the site and nature of the target) would be relatively inexpensive to acquire, process and interpret, and
should provide reasonable spatial resolution. The gravity technique is ranked third in terms of cost-
effectiveness because these data would be relatively expensive to acquire, process and interpret, and
would provide poorer spatial resolution than either GPR or resistivity. The seismic tomography tool is
ranked a distant fourth in terms of cost-effectiveness. These data would be extremely expensive to
acquire because closely spaced test boreholes would have to be drilled throughout the study area.

Method Site Conditions Site Conditions

(Strengths) (Weaknesses)
Technique can provide reliable velocity/depth Velocity/depth models are usually restricted to five
profile of subsurface (interfaces with positive layers or less. Low-velocity and thin, high-velocity layers
velocity contrasts only). Ideal for mapping the top cannot be imaged. Resolution is diminished in
Shallow
of the saturated zone (p-wave only) and bedrock, structurally complex and highly fractured areas. Voids
Seismic estimating soil/rock velocities, and determining cannot be directly imaged, but may be characterized by
Refraction rippability. Relatively inexpensive compared to anomalous travel times. Presence of fluids is not
seismic reflection and resistivity techniques. detected by s-wave tool. Tool doesn’t work well if site is
covered by loose, dry, soils/sediment because of poor
source and receiver coupling.
Shallow Technique is deal for imaging bedrock and sub- Technique is labor and processing intensive, and
Seismic bedrock layers. Can provide relatively detailed therefore relatively expensive. Tool doesn’t work well if
velocity/depth control in structurally complex site is covered by loose, dry soil because of poor source
Reflection
areas. Large voids at depth may be characterized and receiver coupling.
by prominent diffractions and imaged indirectly.
Technique is ideal for imaging lateral/vertical Technique is very expensive as cased boreholes are
Seismic heterogeneities (including cavities), and for required. Tool doesn’t work well if subsurface is
determining elastic moduli in-situ. Provides for comprised of thin (relative to borehole spacing) layers
Tomography
much greater resolution and target definition than characterized by significant velocity variations. Smaller
reflection or refraction techniques. targets require more closely-spaced boreholes.
Technique is relatively rapid and inexpensive. Can Tool doesn’t work well in conductive (clayey)
GPR provide detailed structural control in complex environment. Depth penetration is limited (typically <10
areas. Suitable for analyzing concrete, pavement, m) compared to resistivity technique. Determination of
quarry rock, locating voids, etc. velocities (for inversion purposes) may require invasive
ground-truth.
Technique works well in conductive environment Technique doesn’t work well in highly resistive
and when imaging a conductive target. Acquisition environments. Resolution and target definition (re:
is rapid and relatively inexpensive. Equipment generation of cross-sectional lithology/structural model)
EM
doesn’t need to be coupled to surface. Can be is usually less than that provided by resistivity methods.
used to generate moderately detailed Output models usually are restricted to five layers or
conductivity/depth model. Lithologies, salinities, less.
clay content, etc., can often be inferred.
Technique works well in resistive environments. Tool often doesn’t work well in highly conductive
Electrical Can be used to generate moderately detailed environments. Resolution and target definition is usually
resistivity/depth model in areas where seismic and less than that provided by GPR method. Acquisition is
Resistivity
EM techniques are not effective. Lithologies, expensive relative to EM technique. Electrodes need to
salinities, etc., can be inferred. Suitable for be coupled to surface. Output models are usually
mapping moderate to large subsurface voids. restricted to five layers or less.
IP Good indicator of clay content (or metallic Low spatial resolution and target definition. Not suitable
mineralization). Complements resistivity data. for detecting air-filled voids.
SP Good indicator of fluid flow in subsurface (or Provides low spatial resolution and target definition. Not
metallic mineralization). Rapid and relatively suitable for detecting air-filled voids in this situation.
inexpensive.
Good indicator of ferrimagnetic and ferromagnetic Interpretation is usually qualitative rather than
Magnetics materials in the subsurface. Acquisition, quantitative. Generally provides low spatial resolution
processing and interpretation are relatively rapid and target definition. Not suitable for detecting air-filled
and inexpensive. Equipment doesn’t need to be voids.
coupled to surface.
Good indicator of intermediate to large air-filled Acquisition and processing are relatively slow and
voids in shallow subsurface. Equipment doesn’t expensive. Generally provides low to intermediate
need to be coupled to surface. spatial resolution and target definition. Effects of
Gravity
irregular surface and subsurface topography, and
subsurface heterogeneities can mask signature of
target.

Table 3: The overall usefulness of a specific geophysical tool is partly a function of site conditions.
 Ranking: Rationale
(scale 1-4)
This technique should provide adequate spatial resolution and target
1 definition inasmuch as the subsurface is relatively dry (resistive) and devoid
GPR of clay. The air-filled voids should be readily imaged on GPR data acquired
using intermediate frequency (about 400 MHz) antenna.
2 Resistivity tool should provide reasonable definition of voids in resistive
Electrical terrain. Resolution and target definition will probably be less than that
Resistivity provided by the GPR technique.
Anomalies generated by target could be too small to be differentiated from
3 background noise and confidently identified. Closely spatial sampling would
Gravity be required. Resolution and target definition would be less than that provided
by either GPR or electrical resitivity.
3 Anomalies generated by target are probably too small to be confidently
Seismic identified, unless test boreholes (to depths on the order of 8 m) were very
Tomography closely spaced.
4 The electromagnetic tool does not work well in resistive terrain or when
EM imaging a resistive target.
4 The targets are too small and too shallow. Reflections/diffractions originating
Seismic Reflection from the voids would be masked by first breaks.
4 The targets are too small and too shallow. Refracted events originating from
Seismic Refraction interfaces immediately beneath the voids would be masked by first breaks.

Table 4: Generalized ranking (based on spatial resolution and target definition) of seven
geophysical techniques considered for hypothetical void detection case study.

Which techniques can provide complementary data? Generally, if two or more geophysical
techniques provide similar target definition and cost is the overriding concern, the less expensive method
is selected. However, if accuracy of interpretation is the overriding concern, more than one geophysical
technique is often employed because complementary data sets will constrain interpretations. Another
consideration is whether a geophysical tool can contribute information above and beyond
defining/imaging a specific target. Interpreted GPR and electrical resistivity data for example, can provide
information about bedrock topography, subsurface lithology, etc.

In terms of the hypothetical case study, it might be reasonable to recommend the acquisition of detailed
GPR control and less detailed electrical resistivity control (for confirmation purposes). The target voids
should be effectively imaged on both data sets.

What non-geophysical control is required to constrain the interpretation of acquired geophysical

data? The interpretation of geophysical data is inherently ambiguous. Interpretations will be more
rigorous if constrained and verified by ground truth. Accordingly, the next step in the recommended
protocol is to plan/budget for the acquisition of non-geophysical constraints. Non-geophysical control
(generally borehole ground truth) is frequently acquired prior to the acquisition of geophysical data in
order to constrain interpretations. It is also normally acquired (for verification purposes) after geophysical
interpretations have been completed and submitted.

In terms of the hypothetical case study, the supervising engineer would probably plan to drill at least one
borehole prior to the commencement of field work, and multiple boreholes after interpretations are
rendered. The latter suite of boreholes would be selectively drilled into both features interpreted as voids
and sub-surface zones interpreted as pristine in order to validate geophysical interpretations.
 Ranking: Summary of Cost Effectiveness Complementary Nature
Cost- Considerations of Tool of Acquired Data
Effectiveness
About 150 parallel GPR profiles (~300 GPR is probably the best GPR profiles will also
m length; spaced at 2 m intervals; tool for investigating the provide detailed information
intermediate frequency antenna) hypothetical study area. about depth to bedrock and
1 would be required to fully investigate The tool is capable of internal character
GPR the shallow subsurface. Acquisition, providing the required (fracturing, bedding,
processing and interpretation are spatial resolution and lithological variations, etc.).
relatively rapid. target definition.
Resistivity data are relatively Resistivity will provide Resistivity and
2 expensive to acquire and will not supplemental and simultaneously acquired IP
provide the resolution afforded by complementary control. data provide info about the
Electrical GPR. Resistivity data are not as cost- subsurface (e.g., depth to
Resistivity effective as GPR, however limited ground water surface,
control could be acquired to constrain conductivity of clay/soil/
and validate the interpretation of the rock, metallic
GPR data. mineralization, etc.).
The targets may be too small to Gravity data provide less The gravity tool will
3 resolve/define with confidence. resolution and target probably provide little
Gravity data are expensive to acquire definition than either GPR additional information about
Gravity and process. The tool is probably not or resistivity. the nature of the study site.
cost-effective as far as the
investigation site is concerned.
Seismic tomography data are If a grid of closely spaced Seismic tomography data
4 expensive to acquire and process. boreholes was employed, (p-wave and s-wave) will
The tool functions much better below excellent results could be provide information about
Seismic the water table than above. The expected. However, this the elastic modulus of
Tomography technique is therefore probably not approach could be bedrock at various depths.
cost-effective. prohibitively expensive.

Table 5: Generalized ranking of four geophysical techniques considered potentially

suitable for hypothetical void detection case study. Cost-effectiveness and overall
usefulness of interpreted data are considered.

Is the overall geophysical program cost-effective? The last step is to assess the cost-effectiveness of
the overall geophysical effort relative to non-geophysical alternatives such as a patterned invasive drilling
program (as per hypothetical example). The final “go/no go” decision is based on projected costs and
deliverables, and probability of success (re: obtaining desired deliverables). The engineer would also
consider important non-technical issues such as timing, the potential for litigation, the cost of failure, etc.

As far as the hypothetical case study is concerned, the supervising engineer would probably conclude
that a constrained (i.e., borehole and possible electrical resistivity control) GPR survey is the most cost-
effective means of investigating the construction site. However, the engineer, being cost-conscious,
would ensure the negotiated contract consisted of at least two-phases. In phase 1, test geophysical data
would be acquired and processed (using variable parameters), in order to ensure the target is effectively
imaged. If the engineer was satisfied with the probable deliverables, the production phase of data
acquisition would commence.

Summary

The engineer designing or responsible for a geophysical investigation should raise several pertinent
questions/issues, and select appropriate methodologies (if any) based on the responses. A
recommended protocol includes the following queries:

• What are the physical properties of interest?

• Which geophysical methods respond to the physical properties of interest?
• Which techniques can provide the required spatial resolution and target definition?
• Which geophysical tools can perform well in the study area?
• Which techniques are most cost-effective?
• Which techniques can provide complementary data?
• What non-geophysical control is required to constrain the interpretation of acquired geophysical
data?
• Is the overall program cost-effective?

Herein these “questions/issues” have been briefly discussed, using a hypothetical case study situation to
illustrate some of the ideas presented. These discussions are intentionally general in nature (and
illustrative) rather than comprehensive. The intent was to raise and summarize pertinent issues in an
effort to assist the engineer involved in designing geophysical surveys, and inform the engineer charged
with decision responsibilities.

The reader is referred to Table 6 for a general summary of some applications of the ten geophysical
methods considered in this paper. For more in-depth discussions of these geophysical methods, the
reader is referred to Table 7. This bibliographical list is not exhaustive, nor is it comprised of the most
theoretically rigorous papers. Rather, it is intended to serve as a resource for the mining engineer
requiring information about methodology above and beyond that presented in this paper. References to
well logging techniques are also included in Table 7.

Selected Bibliography

Blakely, R.J., 1996, Potential theory in gravity and magnetic applications: Cambridge University Press,
441 p.
Clay, C.S., 1990, Elementary Exploration Seismology: Prentice Hall, 346 p.
Corwin, R.F., 1990, The self-potential method for environmental and engineering applications, in Ward,
S.H., editor, Geotechnical and Environmental Geophysics, Volume 1: Review and Tutorial:
Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 389 p.
Daniels, D., 1996, Surface-penetrating radar: IEEE, 320 p.
Daniels, J.J., and Keys, W.S., 1990, Geophysical welt logging for hazardous waste sites, in Ward,
S.H., editor, Geotechnical and Environmental Geophysics, Volume 1: Review and Tutorial:
Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 389 p.
Evans, B.J. 1997, A Handbook for Seismic Data Acquisition in Exploration: Society of Exploration
Geophysicists, 305 p.
Fink, J.B., Sternberg, B.K., McAlister, E.O., Wieduwilt, W.G., and Ward, S.H., editors, 1990, Induced
Polarization, Applications and Case Histories: Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 414 p.
Hinds, R. C., Anderson, N. L., and Kuzmiski, R., 1996, VSP Interpretative Processing: Theory and
Practice: Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 205 p.
Hinze, W. J., 1990, The role of gravity and magnetic methods in engineering and environmental
studies, in Ward, S. H., editor, Geotechnical and Environmental Geophysics, Volume 1: Review
and Tutorial: Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 389 p.
Howard, K. W. F., 1990, Geophysical well logging for detection and characterization of fractures in
hard rocks, in Ward, S. H., editor, Geotechnical and Environmental Geophysics, Volume 1:
Review and Tutorial: Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 389 p.
Kearey, P. and Brooks, M. 1994, An Introduction to Geophysical Exploration, Second Edition: Blackwell
Scientific Publications, 254 p.
Lankston, R.W., 1990, High-resolution refraction seismic data acquisition and interpretation, in Ward,
S.H., editor, Geotechnical and Environmental Geophysics, Volume 1: Review and Tutorial:
Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 389 p.
McCann, D. M., Eddleston, M., Fenning, P. J., and Reeves, G. M., editors, 1997, Modern Geophysics
in Engineering Geology: The Geological Society of London, 441 p.
McNeill, J.D., 1990, Use of electromagnetic methods for groundwater studies, in Ward, S. H., editor,
Geotechnical and Environmental Geophysics, Volume 1: Review and Tutorial: Society of
Exploration Geophysicists, 389 p.
Reynolds, J.M., 1997, An Introduction to Applied and Environmental Geophysics: John Wiley & Sons,
796 p.
Sheriff, R.E., 1991, Encyclopedic Dictionary of Exploration Geophysics, Third Edition: Society of
Exploration Geophysicists, 376 p.
Sheriff, R.E., and Geldart, L.P., 1995, Exploration Seismology, Second Edition: Cambridge University
Press, 592 p.
Steeples, D.W., and Miller, R.D., 1990, Seismic reflection methods applied to engineering,
environmental and groundwater problems, in Ward, S.H., editor, Geotechnical and
Environmental Geophysics, Volume 1: Review and Tutorial: Society of Exploration
Geophysicists, 389 p.
Telford, W.M., Geldart, L.P., and Sheriff, R.E., 1990, Applied Geophysics, Second Edition: Cambridge
University Press, 770 p.
Tychsen, J. and Nielson, T., 1990, Seismic reflection used in the sea environment, in Ward, S. H.,
editor, Geotechnical and Environmental Geophysics, Volume 1: Review and Tutorial: Society of
Exploration Geophysicists, 389 p.
Ward, S. H., 1990, Resistivity and induced polarization methods, in Ward, S. H., editor, Geotechnical
and Environmental Geophysics, Volume 1: Review and Tutorial: Society of Exploration
Geophysicists, 389 p.
 Application Seismic Seismic Seismic GPR EM Resist. IP SP Mag. Grav.
Refraction Reflect. Tomo.
Mapping lithology (<10m depth) M X M x x
Mapping lithology (>10m depth) x M X x x
Estimating clay/mineral content M x x
Locating shallow sand and gravel M M
deposits
Locating sand and gravel deposits M
(that contain heavy minerals)
Determining volume of organic M M M M
material in filled-in lakes or karsted
features
Mapping top of ground water surface M M M M M
(P-wave) (P-wave)
Determining water depths M
(including bridge scour)
Mapping groundwater cones of x x M x x
depression
Subsurface fluid flow M
Mapping contaminant plumes M M x x
Mapping crop land salination and M M
desalination over time
Locating underwater ferromagnetic M M
objects
Mapping bedrock topography (<10m M M x x x
depth)
Mapping bedrock topography (>10m x M x x x
depth)
Mapping sub-bedrock structure x M x x x
Delineating steeply dipping geologic M M M M
contacts (<10m depth)
Delineating steeply dipping geologic x M x x x x
contacts (>10m depth)
Mapping fracture orientation (near- M M
surface bedrock)
Mapping fracture orientation M M
Identifying regions of potential M x M x x x
weakness (e.g., shear zones & faults;
<10m depth)
Identifying regions of potential x x M x x x
weakness (e.g., shear zones & faults;
>10m depth)
Identifying near-surface karstic M M M x x x
sinkholes and the lateral extent of
their chaotic, brecciated, and
otherwise disrupted ground
Mapping air-filled cavities, tunnels, x x x M x M x
(<10m depth)
Mapping air-filled cavities, tunnels, x M M x x x
(>10m depth)
Mapping water-filled cavities, tunnels X M M x
(P-wave) (P-wave)
Mapping clay-filled cavities, tunnels x M M x x
Estimating rippability M x
Foundation integrity studies M x M
Dam-site integrity studies M M M M x x M
Landslide site evaluation M M x M M
Locating buried well casings (metal) M M M

Table 6: Some potential applications of various geophysical methods in engineering and

environmental studies (M-major application; x-minor application)
 Application Seismic Seismic Seismic GPR EM Resist. IP SP Mag. Grav.
Refraction Reflect. Tomo.
Locating buried drums, pipelines and M M M
other ferromagnetic objects
Locating buried non-magnetic utilities M
Locating buried non-magnetic utilities M
Mapping archeological sites (buried M M M
ferro-magnetic objects, fire beds,
burials, etc)
Mapping archeological sites (non M
magnetic - excavations, burials, etc)
Concrete integrity studies and M
inspection
Detection of delamination and M
incipient concrete spallage on bridge
decks
Locating rebar in concrete M M M
Detection of corrosion of rebar M
embedded in concrete
Evaluation of presence, pattern and M x x
density of rebar embedded in
concrete destined for demolition
Pavement integrity studies M
Detection of voids beneath pavement M
Detection and delimitation of zones of M
relatively thin sub-grade or base
course material
Detection and monitoring of areas of M
insufficiently dense sub-base
Large-area differentiation and M
monitoring of insufficient thickness of
pavement as a quality assurance
measure during construction
Large-area differentiation and M
monitoring of insufficient pavement
thickness as post-construction
monitoring technique
Detection of bodies of sub-grade in M
which moisture content is
anomalously high, as a precursor to
development of pitting and potholes
Mapping/locating landfills x x M x M
Determining in-situ rock properties M M
(bulk, shear and Young's moduli)
Estimating in situ rock properties M M
(saturation, porosity, permeability)
Determining in situ rock densities M
Determining in situ rock properties x
(dielectric constant)
Mapping abandoned, in-filled open-pit M M x x x x x
mines and quarries
Mapping abandoned underground M x x
mines
Detecting abandoned x x M M x x
Mine shafts

Table 6 (continued): Some potential applications of various geophysical methods in engineering

and environmental studies (M-major application; x-minor application).
Geophysical Suggested Bibliography
Technique
Seismic Evans (1997), Griffiths and King (1981), Keary and Brooks (1994), Lankston (1990), McCann et
Refraction al. (1997), Sheriff (1991), Sheriff and Geldart (1995), Telford et al. (1990)
Seismic Clay (1990), Evans (1997), Hinds et al. (1996), Keary and Brooks (1994), McCann et al. (1997),
Reflection Sheriff (1991), Griffiths and King (1981), Sheriff and Geldart (1995), Telford et al. (1990), Tychsen
and Nielson (1990)
Seismic Clay (1990), Hinds et al. (1996), Keary and Brooks (1994), McCann et al. (1997), Sheriff (1991),
Tomography Sheriff and Geldart (1995), Telford et al. (1990)
GPR Daniels (1996), McCann et al. (1997), Sheriff (1991)
EM Keary and Brooks (1994), McNeill (1990), McCann et al. (1997), Sheriff (1991), Telford et al.
(1990)
Resistivity Keary and Brooks (1994), McCann et al. (1997), Sheriff (1991), Telford et al. (1990) Ward (1990)
IP Fink et al. (1990), Keary and Brooks (1994), McCann et al. (1997), Sheriff (1991), Telford et al.
(1990), Ward (1990)
SP Corwin (1990), Keary and Brooks (1994), McCann et al. (1997), Sheriff (1991), Telford et al.
(1990)
Magnetics Blakely (1996), Hinze (1990), Keary and Brooks (1994), McCann et al. (1997), Sheriff (1991),
Telford et al. (1990)
Gravity Blakely (1996), Hinze (1990), Keary and Brooks (1994), McCann et al. (1997), Sheriff (1991),
Telford et al. (1990)
Well Logging Daniels and Keys (1990), Howard (1990), Keary and Brooks (1994), McCann et al. (1997), Sheriff
(1991), Telford et al. (1990)

Table 7: Suggested bibliography. This reference list is by no means exhaustive. The engineer
is strongly encouraged to work with a knowledgeable geophysicist.