Volume 24, Number 3, 2019
US Infrastructure Geophysics CONTENTS
Also Featured: • SAGEEP 20/20 Abstracts Deadline Extended to October 25 • Andrew Jackson’s Home - SAGEEP 2018 Geophysics • Reflections on NSG Shallow Reflections • Sustaining FastTIMES – a New Editorial Model • FastTIMES Regular Columns • FastTIMES 2020 Themes – Plan Your Contribution(s) • Calendar 2020 Update
FastTIMES is the Technical Magazine of the Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society
Page 2
Vol 24, 3 2019
ParkSEIS© (PS) for MASW Data Analysis ParkSEIS© (PS) AUTO (v. 3.0) includes a fully-automated ("one click") process to generate the 1D or 2D velocity (Vs) profile. It incorporates up-to-date algorithms for active, passive, and active/passive MASW surveys to produce • shear-wave velocity (Vs) profiles (1-D, 2-D, and depth slice) • back scattering analysis (BSA) for anomaly detection • common-offset sections for quick evaluation of subsurface conditions • modeling MASW seismic records and dispersion curves ParkSEIS© (PS) has been used to process data sets from hundreds of different sites and available for purchase and lease. Visit parkseismic.com or contact parkseis@parkseismic.com.
Vol 24, 3 2019
Page 3
K. D. Jones Instrument Corp.
Let us help you with your geophysical surveys. We rent and sell geophysical equipment. We are committed to providing a great user experience and excellent customer service. We offer training, competitive rates, and 24/7 customer service.
Some of the equipment available to rent. ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY EQUIPMENT Geometrics Ohmmapper with a single receiver
All prices are subject to change and do not include shipping, preparation fees, or taxes. Contact us for a quote and our terms.
$175 per day
AGI Ministing resistivity meter for four pin soundings
$50 per day
SuperSting R8/IP for electrical resistivity imaging (call for price on 84 electrode system)
$125 per day
ELECTROMAGNETIC INSTRUMENTS Geonics EM31's with data logger
$80 per day,
Geonics EM34
$90 per day,
Geonics EM38 with data logger
$80 per day
Geonics EM61-MK2 with data logger
$80 per day
EM61 stretcher for carrying EM61 is available upon request GROUND PENETRATING RADAR Sensors & Software pulseEKKO Pro SmartCart with DVL and processing software (50, 100, or 200 MHz antennas) Sensors & Software Noggin SmartCart or SmartTow with DVL and processing software (250, 500, or 1000 MHz antenna)
Call
$175 per day $125 per day
CENTIMETER and SUB-METER GPS Hemisphere Sub-meter DGPS receiver
$35 per day
Hemisphere Atlas Centimeter DGPS receiver
$58 per day
MAGNETOMETERS Geometrics Model G-858 Cesium Magnetometer with one sensor
$70 per day
Geometrics G-856AX Proton Magnetometer with one sensor
$20 per day
Schonstedt fluxgate magnetometer
$7 per day
Subsurface Instruments borehole magnetic gradiometer
$40 per day
MAGNETIC SUSCEPTIBILITY METER TerraPlus KT-10 Magnetic Susceptibility Meter
$20 per day
PIPE and CABLE LOCATORS RD8000 with corrosion detection
Coming Soon
Dynatel 2273M multi-frequency pipe/cable locator
$30 per day
Pipehorn 800 dual frequency pipe/cable locator
$18 per day
Aqua-Tronics A-6 Split Box pipe/cable locator
$18 per day
SEISMOGRAPHS and ACCESSORIES BALLARD borehole source
$72 per day
Geometrics Geode (call for cost on a 24 geophone system)
$60 per day
Very Shallow, Shallow, Deep, and Very Deep MASW Packages Available
Call
Geostuff land streamer
$60 per day
Geostuff triaxial borehole geophone
$35 per day
VIBRATION MONITORS Micromate, Minimate, and Blastmate ground vibration seismographs starting at Casella CEL-633.C1/K1 Type 1 sound level meter with 1/3 octave band analyzer kit and calibrator
$25 per day $27 per day
Visit our network KDJonesInstruments.com ParkSeismic.com GeophysicalServices.com Contact us today. Call 262-442-6327 or 936-396-9291. Email Art@KDJonesInstruments.com. Get assistance with training, survey design, and processing for electrical resistivity imaging, MASW, seismic reflection, and all other equipment we rent. We offer very shallow, shallow, deep, and very deep MASW rental packages, services, and processing! Please let us know what you would like to see in our rental pool. In 2297 we will have over 312 years of experience!
ISSN 1943-6505
Contents
Page 18 has a guide for better understanding of how to use this interactive PDF
Calendar – 2019-2022 EEGS Office Bearers & Management EEGS Committees – Finance Committee President’s Message Editorial Associate Editors FastTIMES FastTIMES – Themes & Deadlines 2019 Sustaining FastTIMES - A new Editorial Mode FastTIMES – Publishing and Advertising EEGS Membership Benefits EEGS Intersociety Committee JEEG Report SAGEEP 2020 SAGEEP 2020 Abstract Deadline Extended
7-11 12-13 14 15 16-17 18 19 20-21 22 23 24 25-26 27-36 28
EEGS Student Chapter News GPR2020 Professional Directory Archaeological & Forensic Geophysics Agricultural Geophysics Industry News Hydrogeophysics and Environmental Geophysics UXO Community Geophysics News Mining Geophysics geoDRONE Report Emerging World NSG News & GWB EEGS Membership EEGS Corporate Membership EEGS Publications Store
38-40 61 110 111-113 113 123 129-131 132-133 135-136 137-139 141 142-145 146-148 149-150
SPECIAL THANKS FOR THE SUPPORT OF ASNT 45 AEG 59 SEG 128 ASCE-GI
US Infrastructure Geophysics 41
Foreword to the Special Issue on US Infrastructure Geophysics
86
Role of Geology and Geophysics in Harbor Deepening, New York and New Jersey
46
The Future of Infrastructure Geophysics: Making the Most of New Sensing Techniques and Data Integration (a US-UK perspective)
96
Borehole Geophysics and Hydraulic Testing for a Nearshore Cable Tunnel
52
Report: A Forum on Infrastructure, August 24-26, 2018, Stillwater, OK
102
Nondestructive Evaluation of Bridge Foundations – For Quality Assurance and Forensic Purposes
62
Geophysical Surveys in Support of the Geohazard Evaluations for the Atlantic Sunrise Pipeline
114
71
Extraction of Depth to Bedrock from Airborne Electromagnetic Data Using Artificial Neural Networks
Integrated Geophysical Surveys at President Andrew Jackson’s Estate, “The Hermitage” at SAGEEP 2018
124
Reflections on Shallow Reflections
78
Experimental Modal Analysis of Bridges: How to Employ Few Resources and Get it Right
ISSN 1943-6505
Advertiser Directory FastTIMES Vol 24,3 Advertisers
ISSN 1943-6505
Advertiser Directory
(Click on the advertisers logo to be linked to the advertisement, which then by clicking on the advertisement then links to the advertisers website)
Olson FastTIMES VOL 23,3 advertisers
AGI
(Click on the advertisers logo to be linked to the advertisement, which then by clicking on the advertisement then links to the advertisers website)
Exploration Instruments
Park Seismic Mount LLC Sopris
AGI
Geostuff
EAGE Emerald Geomodelling
Qteq
Exploration Instruments
Fugro
Geometrics
Interpex
GDD
R.T. Clark (PEG-40) K. D. Jones
Geometrics (Geode EM3D)
Park Seismic LLC
Geonics Limited
Geonics Limited
G3 Group (MERIT)
Saga Geophysics
R.T. Clark (PEG-40)
Geometrics (OhmMapper)
6 SurfSeis SurfSeis 6
Geophex Ltd.
GPR-Slice GPR-Slice
Tromino (Moho)
Tromino (Moho)
K. D. Jones
Zonge
PROFESSIONAL DIRECTORY
Mount Sopris
Zonge Aerobotic Geophysical Systems
Intrepid
PROFESSIONAL DIRECTORY
East Tennessee Geophysical Services
Aerobotic Geophysical JeffSystems Sinski (EXI) GEOScene3D
R.T. Clark
IntrepidTerra Entheos Geoscience Waterloo Geophysics
East Tennessee Geophysical Services
R.T. Clark
Jeff Sinski (EXI)
Terra Entheos Geoscience
Page 6
Vol 24, 3 2019
EEGS Corporate Members (2019) - Applications for 2019 are open Corporate Benefactor Your Company Here! Corporate Membership Renewals and Applications open for 2019.
Corporate Associate Aarhus GeoSoftware www.aarhusgeosoftware.dk
Impulse Radar www.impulseradar.se
Mount Sopris Instrument Company Inc www.mountsopris.com
R. T. Clark Co. Inc. www.rtclark.com
Advanced Geosciences, Inc. www.agiusa.com
Scintrex Limited www.scintrexltd.com
Exploration Instruments LLC www.expins.com
Sensors & Software Inc. www.sensoft.ca
Geogiga Technology Corporation www.geogiga.com
Vista Clara Inc. www.vista-clara.com
Geomatrix Earth Science Ltd. www.geomatrix.co.uk
Zonge international, Inc www.zonge.com
Geometrics, Inc. www.geometrics.com
Geonics Ltd.
Corporate Donor Fugro Consultants, Inc.
www.geonics.com
www.fugroconsultants.com
Geophysical Survey Systems, Inc.
Geomar Software Inc.
www.geophysical.com
www.geomar.com
Geosoft Inc.
Quality Geosciences Company, LLC
www.geosoft.com
www.quality-geophysics.com
Geostuff
Spotlight Geophysical Services
www.geostuff.com
www.spotlightgeo.com
Page 7
Vol 24, 3 2019
Calendar 2019 September 2 - 5
Australian Institute of Geosciences, Australian Society of Exploration Geophysicists and Petroleum Exploration Society of Australia Australasian Exploration Geoscience Conference (AEGC 2019) Perth, Western Australia, Australia http://2019.aegc.com.au/
September 4 - 8
Institute of Technology Sligo & International Society for Archaeological Prospection (ISAP) 13th International Conference of Archaeological Prospection (ICAP 2019) Sligo, Ireland https://www.ap2019sligo.com
September 8 - 12
European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers Near Surface Geoscience Conference and Exhibition 2019 25th European Meeting of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics 1st Conference on Geophysics for Geothermal Energy-Utilisation and Renewable-Energy Storage 1st Conference on Geophysics for Infrastructure Planning, Monitoring and BIM https://events.eage.org/2019/Near%20Surface%202019
September 15 - 20
Society of Exploration Geophysicists SEG19 SEG International Exposition and 89th Annual MeetingSan Antonio, Texas, USA https://seg.org/Annual-Meeting-2019
September 17 - 19
Groundwater Resources Association of California Second Annual Western Groundwater Congress Sacramento, California, USA https://www.grac.org/events/226/
September 17-22
AEG Annual Meeting American Association of Engineering and Environmental Geologists Asheville, North Carolina, USA https://www.aegannualmeeting.org/
September 22-25
Geological Society of America 2019 GSA Annual Meeting Phoenix, Arizona, USA http://geosociety.org/GSA/Events/Annual_Meeting/GSA/Events/gsa2019.aspx
September 23-24
National Ground Water Association 2019 NGWA Conference on Fractured Rock and Groundwater Tucson, Arizona, USA https://ngwa.confex.com/ngwa/frc19/webprogram/meeting.html
September 25-27
Arizona Hydrological Society 32nd Annual Symposium cn Water Science, Technology, and Policy Burlington, Vermont, USA https://www.ahssymposium.org/2019/
September 29 October 2
October 6 – 9
3rd International Conference on Information Technology in Geo-Engineering International Association for Engineering Geology and the Environment Cultural Centre of Vila Flor, City of GuimarĂŁes, UNESCO World Heritage from September 29 to October 2, 2019. http://www.3rd-icitg2019.civil.uminho.pt/ South African Geophysical Association 16th SAGA Biennial Conference & Exhibition Elangeni & Maharani, Durban, South Africa http://sagaconference.co.za/
Page 8
Vol 24, 3 2019
October 15 - 18
Deep Foundations Institute 44th Annual Conference on Deep Foundations Chicago, Illinois http://www.dfi.org/dfieventlp.asp?13356
October 21 - 24
Society of Exploration Geophysicists Fifth International Conference on Engineering Geophysics (ICEG) Al Ain, United Arab Emirates https://seg.org/Events/ICEG-2019
October 21 - 24
American Geophysical Union Chapman Conference Quest for Sustainability of Heavily Stressed Aquifers at Regional to Global Scale Valencia, Spain https://connect.agu.org/aguchapmanconference/upcoming-chapmans/aquiferssustainability
November 5 - 7
2019 SEG 3rd International Workshop on Mathematical Geophysics: Traditional vs. Learning Beijng, China https://seg.org/events/mathgeo
November 11 - 12
British Geophysical Association & Near- Surface Geophysical Group of the Geological Society of London Geophysics in the Critical Zone: Modern Approaches to Characterising NearSurface Materials The Geological Society, at Burlington House on London’s Piccadilly. London, UK https://nag2019.wordpress.com/
November 18 - 21
American society for Non-Destructive Testing – ASNT ASNT Annual Conference Where the NDT World Comes Together Las Vegas, Nevada, USA https://www.asnt.org/MajorSiteSections/Events/Upcoming_Events/Annual_2019.aspx
November 18 - 21
Fifth EAGE Workshop on Borehole Geophysics Bridging the Gap between Surface and Reservoir Hague, Netherlands https://eage.eventsair.com/borehole-geophysics2019/
November 24 - 27
IAH/NCGRT Australasian Groundwater Conference 2019 Groundwater in a Changing World Brisbane, Queensland, Australia https://www.groundwaterconference.com.au/
November 26 - 29
AF Academy and EAGE 1st Indian Near Surface Geophysics Conference & Exhibition New Delhi, India https://www.nearsurfacegeophysics.in/insgc.php
December 1 - 6
American Exploration and Mining Association 125th Annual Meeting Sparks, Nevada, USA https://www.miningamerica.org/2019-annual-meeting/
December 2 - 4
First EAGE Workshop on Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Toulouse, France https://eage.eventsair.com/uav-workshop/
Page 9 December 3 - 5
December 9 - 13
December 10 - 12
Vol 24, 3 2019
National Groundwater Association Groundwater Week and Annual Meeting 2019 Las Vegas, Nevada, USA https://groundwaterweek.com/ American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting San Francisco, California, USA https://www2.agu.org/fall-meeting SEG | EAGE Workshop: Geophysical Aspects of Smart Cities Singapore https://seg.org/Events/SmartCitySingapore
Calendar 2020 February 10 - 12
Fifth EAGE Workshop on Rock Physics Milan, Italy https://eage.eventsair.com/rock-physics-2019/event-overview
February 25 - 28
American society of Civil Engineers Geo-Institute - ASCE-GI Geo-Congress 2020 Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA https://www.geocongress.org/
March 1 - 4
Prospectors & Developers Association of Canada PDAC 2020 – Mineral Exploration and Mining Convention Toronto, Canada https://www.pdac.ca/convention
March 2 - 8
International Union of Geological Sciences - IUGS 36th International Geological Congress New Delhi, India https://www.36igc.org/igc
March 15 - 20
Curtin University International Symposium on Deep Seismic Profiling of the Continents and their Margins (SEISMIX 2020) Fremantle, Western Australia, Australia http://seismix2020.org.au/
March 23 - 26
American society for Non-Destructive Testing – ASNT Research Workshop Williamsburg, Virginia, USA https://www.asnt.org/MajorSiteSections/Events/Upcoming_Events/Research_2020.aspx
March 23 - 26
Eighth EAGE Workshop on Passive Seismic Prague, Czech Republic https://eage.eventsair.com/eighth-eage-workshop-on-passive-seismic/eventoverview SAGEEP 2020 32nd Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems 1st Munitions Response Meeting Denver, Colorado, USA https://www.sageep.org/
March 29 - April 2
April 20 - 22
EAGE 3rd Asia Pacific Meeting on Near Surface Geoscience & Engineering Chang Mai, Thailand https://eage.eventsair.com/3rd-apac-nsge/
Page 10
Vol 24, 3 2019
April 20 - 24
National Cave and Karst Research Institute 16th Multidisciplinary Conference on Sinkholes and the Engineering and Environmental Impacts of Karst Puerto Rico http://www.sinkholeconference.com/
May 12 - 16
16th conference Engineering and Mining Geophysics 2020 Perm, Russia https://eage.eventsair.com/engineering-and-mining-geophysics-2020/
May 18 - 22
NAEP Annual Conference and Training Symposium Fort Lauderdale, Florida, USA https://www.naep.org/index.php?option=com_jevents&task=icalrepeat.detail&evid =81&Itemid=150&year=2020&month=05&day=18&title=naep-annual-conference-atraining-symposium&uid=0ab7aedf1c85e7e51db520d044f47f7f&catids=22
May 18 - 22
International Association of Hydrogeologists Karst Commission – IAH KC UNESCO Karst 2020 Conservation of Fragile Karst Resources: A Workshop on Sustainability and Community Bowling Green, Kentucky, USA https://unescokarst2020.com/
May 19 - 22
Watershed Management Conference 2020 SAVE THE DATE https://www.asce.org/geotechnical-engineering/conferences-and-events/
June 7 - 11
American Society for Mine Remediation 2020 ASMR Conference 37th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Mining & Reclamation Transforming Pits and Piles into Lakes and Landscapes Duluth, Minnesota, USA https://www.asmr.us/Meetings/2020-Annual-Meeting
June 8 - 11
EAGE 82nd Annual Conference and Exhibition Amsterdam, The Netherlands https://eage.eventsair.com/eageannual2020/
June 10 - 11
Groundwater Resources Association of California Third Annual Groundwater Sustainability Summit Sacramento, California, USA https://www.grac.org/events/285/
June 14 - 19
18th International Conference on Ground Penetrating Radar Colorado School of Mines Golden, Colorado, USA https://gpr2020.csmspace.com
June 15 - 20
Active and Passive Seismics in Laterally Inhomogeneous Media II and 19th international Workshop on Seismic Anisotropy Želiv Premonstratensian Monastery, Czech Republic http://sw3d.cz/apslim/apslim-iwsa_2020.htm
July 26 - 30
International Association for Hydro-Environment Engineering and Research (IAHR) and the International Water Association (IWA) 14th International Conference on Hydroinformatics Mexico City, Mexico https://hic2020.org/
August 30 –
Near Surface Geoscience Conference & Exhibition 26th European Meeting of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics 4th Applied Shallow Marine Geophysics Conference and 3rd Conference on Geophysics for Mineral Exploration & Mining. Belgrade, Serbia https://eage.eventsair.com/near-surface-geoscience-2020/
September 3
Page 11
Vol 24, 3 2019
September 7 - 11
International Society for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering (ISSMGE) 6th International Conference on Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterization – ISC’6 “Toward synergy at site characterisation” Budapest, Hungary http://www.isc6.org/
September 14-19
AEG Annual Meeting American Association of Engineering and Environmental Geologists Portland, Oregon, USA https://www.aegweb.org/events/EventDetails.aspx?id=1095752&group=
September 22 - 25 October 11 - 16
22nd Triennial Meeting of the International Association of Forensic Sciences Sydney, Australia https://iafs2020.com.au/ Society of Exploration Geophysicists SEG International Exposition and 90th Annual Meeting Houston, Texas, USA https://seg.org/AM/2020/
November 9 - 12
ASNT Annual Conference 2020 Lake Buena Vista, Florida, USA SAVE THE DATE
December 7 - 11
American Geophysical Union AGU Fall Meeting 2020 San Francisco, California, USA SAVE THE DATE
Calendar 2021 May 31 – June 3 September 26 – October 1 November 15 - 18
Date TBA
83rd EAGE Conference & Exhibition 2021 Madrid, Spain SAVE THE DATE Society of Exploration Geophysicists Annual Meeting Denver, Colorado, USA https://seg.org/Events/Upcoming-SEG-Annual-Meetings ASNT Annual Conference 2021 Phoenix, Arizona, USA SAVE THE DATE EEGS & EAGE SAGEEP 2021 33rd Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems Parallel Conferences to be advised New Orleans, Lousiana, USA
Calendar 2022 April 11 - 15
International Association of Hydrogeologists/Groundwater Resources Association (California)/Arizona Hydrological Society/ Orange County Water District ISMAR 11: 11th International Symposium on Managed Aquifer Recharge Long Beach, California, USA https://www.grac.org/events/272/
Vol 24, 3 2019
Page 12
EEGS Office-Bearers & Management
(Unless otherwise indicated - All Board Members and Office Bearers may be contacted via staff@eegs.org)
BOARD OF DIRECTORS Dale Werkema President Committees: Finance
Jeffrey Leberfinger Vice President Committees: Inter-society (NAOC Liaison) Communications and Publications (Advertising)
Jacob Sheehan Vice President – SAGEEP Committees: SAGEEP Steering Committee (Chair)
Barry Allred President-Elect Committees: Finance (Chair)
Rick A. Hoover Immediate Past President Committees: Nominations (Chair) Finance
David Valintine Vice President-Elect, Committees: Communications & Publications Publications Advertising (Chair)
Elliot Grunewald Vice President-Elect, SAGEEP
Darren Mortimer Vice President-Pre Elect, SAGEEP Committees: Communications & Publications
BOARD MEMBERS AT LARGE Judith L. Robinson Board Member at Large Committees: Communications and Publications (Chair) Inter-society (AGU Liaison) Publications Advertising
John Jackson Board Member at Large Committees: Student (Chair)
Lia Martinez Board Member at Large Committees: Membership (Chair) Inter-society (SEG Liaison)
Pete Pehme Board Member at Large Committees: Student Publications Advertising
Robert Garfield P.G. (NY & LA) Board Member at Large
CONTRIBUTORS Mark Dunscomb General Chair, SAGEEP 2020
Technical Chair SAGEEP 2020
mdunscomb@utgeng.com
Kisa Mwakanyamale kemwaks@illinois.edu
Micki Allen International Board Liaison (905) 474-9118
Dale Rucker Editor, JEEG (520) 647-3315
Geoff Pettifer Editor, FastTIMES (360) 989-6771
mickiallen@marac.com
druck8240@gmail.com
editorfasttimesnewsmagazine@gmail.com
Jeffrey Leberfinger (L) John Jackson (R) Technical CoChairs, SAGEEP 2020 1st Munitions Response Meeting
EEGS FOUNDATION MEMBERS Doug Laymon President EEGS Foundation
John Clarke Secretary EEGS Foundation
Dennis Mills Treasurer EEGS Foundation
doug@collierconsulting.com
jclark@coronares.com
dmills@expins.com
Page 13
Vol 24, 3 2019
(Unless otherwise indicated - All Board Members and Office Bearers may be contacted via staff@eegs.org)
EEGS COMMITTEE CHAIRS Barry Allred President-Elect Finance
Lia Martinez Board Member at Large Membership
Bruce Smith Inter-Society
Judith L. Robinson Board Member at Large Communications and Publications
John Jackson (L) Students
John.M.Jackson@usace.army.mil
Rick Hoover Immediate Past President Nominations and Awards
Kathie A. Barstnar Executive Director (303) 531-7517
Jackie Jacoby Managing Director (303) 531-7517
staff@eegs.org
staff@eegs.org
dyfrig43@gmail.com
EEGS BUSINESS OFFICES 1391 Speer Blvd., Ste. 450 Denver, Colorado, 80204 USA PH 303.531-7517 FX 303.820.3844 staff@eegs.org
FastTIMES (ISSN 1943-6505) is published by the Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society (EEGS). It is available electronically (as a pdf document) from the EEGS website (www.eegs.org). FastTIMES is published electronically five times a year. For the October, 2019 FastTIMES Vol 24,4 issue, please send contributions to any member of the editorial team by October 25th, 2019. Advertisements final copy for the Vol 24, 4 issue is due to Jackie Jacoby (staff@eegs.org) by October 25th, 2019. Unless otherwise noted, all material is copyright 2019, Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society. All rights reserved.
ABOUT EEGS
JOINING EEGS
The Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society (EEGS) is an applied scientific organization founded in 1992. Our mission:
EEGS offers individual, student and corporate memberships. Annual dues are $110 for an individual membership, $55 for introductory membership, $50 for a retired member, $50 developing world membership, and from $310 to $4025 for various levels of corporate membership. All membership categories include free online access to JEEG. The membership application is available at the back of this issue, or online at www.eegs.org.
“To promote the science of geophysics especially as it is applied to environmental and engineering problems; to foster common scientific interests of geophysicists and their colleagues in other related sciences and engineering; to maintain a high professional standing among its members; and to promote fellowship and cooperation among persons interested in the science.” We strive to accomplish our mission in many ways, including (1) h olding the annual Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems (SAGEEP); (2) publishing the Journal of Environmental & Engineering Geophysics (JEEG), a peerreviewed journal devoted to near-surface geophysics; (3) publishing FastTIMES, a magazine for the near-surface community and associated geoscience professionals that are endusers of geophysics, and (4) maintaining relationships with other professional societies relevant to nearsurface geophysics.
Vol 24, 3 2019
Page 14
Steering Committees, all play a vital role in advancing the overall mission of EEGS.
Dear EEGS Members, Thank you for taking the time to read the EEGS Finance Committee Charter that appears in this issue of FastTIMES. In FastTIMES, we will be highlighting the 2019 charters from one of our EEGS committees. The charters outline and detail the membership, mission and activities of our various committees. Our committees, including the Student, Nominations, Membership, Publications, Finance, Intersociety and SAGEEP
We welcome this opportunity to provide transparency to the society so that you, the members, can learn about what we do. We also welcome participation of all of our members in our committee activities and encourage you to reach out to members of the committees or the EEGS Board of Directors if you would like to play a more active role. Thanks again for taking the time to read about the EEGS Finance Committee Charter. We look forward to sharing charters from our other committees with you in future issues of FastTIMES. Regards, Jeff Leberfinger EEGS Vice President - Committees
EEGS Committees - Finance Committee Chair: Barry Allred, Barry.Allred@ars.usda.gov
Barry Allred, EEGS President-Elect Chair
Dale Werkema EEGS President
Charter of the Finance Committee Mission Statement The Finance Committee is charged with overseeing the monthly summation and reporting of the association financials to the EEGS Board of Directors and participating in the compilation of the annual budget. General Guidelines A total of three committee members is recommended for effective and efficient committee operation: EEGS President-Elect to serve as Chair, EEGS President, and all Past Presidents on the Board. The committee Chair reports directly to the Board at the monthly Board of Directors’ conference calls and oversees the work of the committee. Members • Chairperson: President-Elect – Barry Allred • President – Dale Werkema • Past President - Rick Hoover Annual Goals • Timely, concise reporting of financial data. • Clear data presentation and effective visualization of financial data in reports. • Adequate transitional training of financial reporting for new and • incoming committee members, including timely setup of online bill pay and check signing privileges. • Regular interaction with management on issues related to budget development.
Rick Hoover Past-President
• Oversight of EEGS financial audits or financial review by a CPA when deemed necessary. Tasks for Accomplishing Yearly Goals 1. Review the financial statements and present monthly to the Board. 2. Produce monthly reports (i.e., the “financial tracker”) that include graphical depiction of financial position(s). 3. Compare the budgeted figures with actual figures monthly (both for expenses and income) and provide explanation when necessary or requested, 4. Review, approve, and pay monthly invoices from management. 5. Review and approve expenses over $8000 for management, including major SAGEEP expenses. 6. Participate in the production of an annual budget. 7. Provide recommendations to the Board regarding implications of non-budgeted expenses of more than $1000. 8. Review and approval of SAGEEP budget. Yearly Products 1. M onthly financial reports, i.e. bank balances, financial statements and comparative reports between actual and budgeted figures for both expenses and income. 2. Annual budget. 3. Summary report delivered to the Board at the biannual inperson Board meetings. 4. Financial committee report delivered to members at the annual SAGEEP meeting (incoming President to deliver).
Vol 24, 3 2019
Page 15
President’s message
can, and should, help upgrade seriously degraded and aged infrastructure throughout the world. Your SAGEEP 2020 General Chair, Mark Dunscomb, and Technical Chair, Kisa Mwakanyamale, are actively putting together another amazing meeting in Denver, March 29 - April 2, 2020. Kisa is organizing the technical program and may be reaching out for volunteers. Please be on the lookout and remember EEGS is only as good as what we all put forth. The EEGS Board is greatly appreciative of everyone’s efforts to keep SAGEEP the premier applied near surface geophysics meeting.
Dale Werkema, President staff@eegs.com
Hello FastTIMES readers.
With Fall 2019 upon us, I trust the summer was geophysically productive as well as enjoyable with friends and family. I can attest my summer field season was very busy and productive. In my small part of the geophysics universe, the need and application for our science is ever in demand. A special thank you goes out to co-editors Nigel Cassidy and Geoff Pettifer for this important issue of FastTIMES focusing on the application of geophysics to infrastructure. If you are not already aware, this issue should prove that geophysics
Speaking of EEGS Board members, these are the volunteers that donate their time to keep this organization moving forward and serving our members (that’s you). In fact, someday it maybe you on the Board; so, consider how you might help EEGS grow, contribute to SAGEEP, and even recruit new members. Keep on the lookout for opportunities to become a contributor in your society. As fall 2019 rapidly moves forward, keep abreast of SAGEEP deadlines at https://www.sageep.org/. Best,
Dale Werkema
Call for Volunteers EEGS Membership Committee The lifeblood of any membership society is its members. We need volunteers to serve on the Membership Committee for the 2019/2020 term to: • help identify potential new members, • develop and communicate new member benefits, and • participate in efforts to retain our current members. EEGS is the premier membership organization representing near surface geophysics. Ours is a “big tent” society with members from diverse disciplines such as engineers, practitioners, academicians, students, service providers, manufacturers, software developers, and more.
Why not lend your support to help grow the association, add benefits to the the existing roster and identify strategies to let the geophysics world know of EEGS’ existence and value to the profession? This Committee has EEGS staff support to help implement programs and benefits - we need your perspective and passion! If you think you can contribute in this rewarding role, please Lia Martinez lia.martinez@mountstopris.com, EEGS Committee Membership Chair.
Page 16
Vol 24, 3 2019
Editorial FastTIMES Editor-in-Chief
Geoff Pettifer editorfasttimesnewsmagazine@gmail.com Co-Editor & Associate Editor
Nigel Cassidy Professor of Geotechnical Infrastructure Engineering University of Birmingham. UK N.J.Cassidy@bham.ac.uk
This Special Issue of FastTIMES focuses on US Infrastructure and near-surface geophysical and non-destructive testing applications to determining and monitoring the foundation conditions and condition assessment of new and existing infrastructure asset classes. It follows on from our FastTIMES Vol 23,3 Special Issue on Infrastructure: Dams and Levees in 2018, which like the current issue is freely downloadable from: https://www.eegs.org/latest-issue.
I am grateful to Co-Editor Nigel Cassidy, who has supplanted his regular column on Infrastructure and Geotechnical Geophysics column with assistance (and a foreword and article) in delivering this Special Issue. We hope this will be the second of a semi-regular series of FastTIMES Special Issues focussing on different infrastructure asset classes, this one giving the overview. This overall infrastructure focus Special Issue was prompted in response to the 2017 (and progressive 2019 updates) of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Infrastructure Report card (https://www.asce.org/infrastructure/), that highlights the aggregate D+ (poor to mediocre) asset condition ranking of the entire US infrastructure asset portfolio. Clearly the priorities for public spending in the US are strangely skewed when the US military is by far, the highest funded in the world, whereas both funding of public benefit programs as a percentage of GDP, and the beneficial actual outcomes for communities, in infrastructure (and affordable universal healthcare) programs are left wanting and also don’t compare favourably with other OECD countries. The politics aside, if the will is there, and the budget priorities and allocations and the public/ private partnerships are made, to address the infrastructure improvement challenges, then the NSG and NDT professions have much to contribute technically and stand ready to meet the challenges. The technical contributions in this Special Issue are a sample of how we in
the NSG and NDT professions, can be and are, contributing to infrastructure development and management. I am grateful also to our Associate Editors and EEGS correspondents with their ongoing regular columns and contributions and most importantly, to our technical article contributors and valued advertisers (page 11) and the advertising committee, for the help to produce this Special Issue. This 2019 Northern hemisphere summer is a busy period and has yet again proved a challenging time to publish. Therefore, the extra commitment of all concerned in giving back at this busy time of year, a commitment which underpins and sustains the outreach mission of a magazine like FastTIMES, is greatly appreciated. We hope you find the contents of value. Please share this Vol 24,3 (and the earlier Vol 23, 3) Special Issue with your geoscience and engineering colleagues (https://www.eegs. org/latest-issue). In bringing the current Special Issue to you, we present primarily an NSG community (and particularly an EEGS) perspective on how geotechnical and condition assessment challenges for US Infrastructure challenges could be addressed. In his foreword (page 41), Professor Nigel Cassidy, summarizes the technical article contributions and presents this NSG perspective along with a perspective of the non-destructive testing community from Dr. Sreenivas Alampalli from the American Society for Nondestructive Testing (https://www.asnt.org). The SEG perspective is given in an article by Dwain Butler. Dr Priyank Jaiswal and Laurie Whitesell summarizing the 2018 SEG-ASCE-USACE Workshop on Infrastructure in Oklahoma (page 52). We benefit also in wider publicizing of this Special Issue in the infrastructure sector, from the cross-promotional support of the following professional societies all of which, along with EEGS, have a stake in working in and for the infrastructure sector and therefore a keen interest in an improved emphasis on strengthening, maintaining and renewing US infrastructure assets:ASNT - https://www.asnt.org/) AEG – https://www.aegweb.org/
ASCE-GI GEOSTRATA magazine - https://www.geoinstitute.org/ publications/geostrata
SEG NS Technical Section - https://seg.org/News-Resources/ Near-Surface
Page 17 Some of these have chosen to advertise herein, so please visit the web-sites of all the above Societies to see what is on offer to existing and potential new members. The front cover of the magazine 1 encapsulates the US infrastructure dilemma. It could be any moderate sized city in the US. From a distance it all looks a wonderful place to be, if you like city living that is. In fact, it is the site of our recent SAGEEP 2019 and the site of the upcoming AEG 2020 Annual Conference. It is Portland Oregon, near where my wife and I reside. Portland city and the State of Oregon have a ticking “time-bomb” in terms of firstly, the state of the infrastructure and secondly, the proximity to the Cascadia Fault Zone and the lack of earthquake resilience for much of the design of the existing infrastructure. The ASCE Infrastructure report card score for Oregon infrastructure has been set at a C- (poor to mediocre by world standards, but better than the US average of D+), not atypical of many US States and cities. The ASCE 1F ront Cover Sources: Google Earth Image: Landsat/Copernicus and ASCE Infrastructure
Report Card for Portland, OR (https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/state-item/oregon/)
Vol 24, 3 2019
report card scores for your US State and maybe your resident city can be found at https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/ state-by-state-infrastructure/. Go check it out, and better still use your professional and personal networks, voice and influence to raise awareness with your local political representatives and decision makers, of US infrastructure imperatives, if for no other reason than this is the infrastructure legacy we leave our children and grand-children to deal with, more so of a problem for them , if we don’t start making a greater commitment now. Finally, if you value what we are doing with FastTIMES, I commend to you, the article following this Editorial (page 20) – Sustaining FastTIMES - a Precious NSG Community Outreach Resource
Geoff Pettifer Editor–in-Chief, FastTIMES editorfasttimesnewsmagazine@gmail.com
Vol 24, 3 2019
Page 18
FastTIMES Associate Editors
Ron Bell geoDRONE Report & EEGS Foundation News
Daniel Bigman
Nedral Bonal
dbigman@bigmangeophysical.com
nbonal@sandia.gov
rbell@igsdenver.com
John Jackson EEGS Student Chapter News
Angelos Lampousis Agricultural Geophysics News
John.M.Jackson@usace.army.mil alampousis@ccny.cuny.edu
Nigel Cassidy Infrastructure and Geotechnical Geophysics News
Katherine Grote Hydrogeophysics & Environmental Geophysics News
nigel.j.cassidy@gmail.com
grotekr@mst.edu
Jeff Leberfinger UXO Community Geophysics News
Moe Momayez Mining Geophysics News
Koya Suto Emerging World NSG News
jleberfinger@pikainc.com
moe.momayez@arizona.edu
koya@terra-au.com
To download recent issues of FastTIMES go to https://www.eegs.org/latest-issue. To download past issues of FastTIMES go to https://www.eegs.org/past-issues.
PUBLICATIONS ADVERTISING COMMITTEE Geoff Pettifer Editor-in-Chief editorfasttimesnewsmagazine@gmail.com +1-360-989-6771 +61407-841-098
David Valintine
Pete Pehme
Jeffrey Leberfinger
Judy Robinson
Go to https://www.eegs.org/advertising-information for FastTIMES advertising rates. Contact David Valintine (dvalintine@fugro.com) for advertising enquiries. Contact Jackie Jacoby (staff@eegs.org; 303-531-7517) to place an advertisement.
Interactive PDF user instructions • Cover page has active links to articles just click to navigate • TOC (page 4) have active links for all contents of this PDF just click to navigate Clicking on the logo will direct you back to the cover Clicking on this icon will direct you back to the TOC
• All website links are active and will direct you to the corresponding website when clicked on. Same with logos and advertisements.. • All images in the articles when clicked on will become larger, click on the large image to minimize (please note: depending on your PDF reader you may see overlapping of images when enlarged, to fix this simply scroll down one page and then return to the page, this resets your PDF reader to the proper display) Clicking on this icon brings you back to the first page of the current article you are reading
Clicking on this icon goes to the previous page Clicking on this icon goes to the next page • All email links are active and will open a new email when clicked on
Bio
Clicking on this icon will direct you to the author’s bio page
Vol 24, 3 2019
Page 19
FastTIMES 2019 – Call for Contributions Special Issues – Themes & Deadlines Vol 24, 4 - October - Near-Surface Geophysical Software - October 11
Vol 24, 5 - December - Geophysical Mapping for Completion of the Geological Mapping Coverage of the US - (this is fundamental to all site investigation work, particularly large sites and resource areas/provinces) - November 29
FastTIMES 2020 – 25 years - Magazine Format Silver Jubilee Call for Contributions & Editors - TentativeThemes & Deadlines Vol 25, 1 - April - SAGEEP Conference Volume (2 versions - pre- and post-Conference) - January 17th and April 10th
Vol 25, 3 - August - Drones and Remote Sensing - August 14th
Vol 25, 4 - September - Climate Change Geophysics - October 23rd
Vol 25, 2 - June - EPA Superfund Sites Geophysics - June 19th.
Vol 25, 5 - December - UXO: Munitions Response - November 27th
Page 20
Vol 24, 3 2019
AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN NEAR-SURFACE GEOPHYSICS AWARENESS RAISING
Sustaining FastTIMES a Precious NSG Community Outreach Resource. FastTIMES is the technical near-surface geophysics magazine of EEGS and globally, it is the only magazine devoted entirely to near-surface geophysics news and outreach, bringing the message, in an accessible way of the latest research and development, applications, value and limitations of nearsurface geophysical methods to both geophysicists and the broader audience of geoscience and engineering professionals who are the end-users of geophysics. As such it is a valuable NSGS community resource.
In addition to documenting and promoting the EEGS Annual SAGEEP Conference and its proceedings, FastTIMES features an ongoing series of Special Issues, each focused on a theme of sustainability for the Americas and globally (download recent issues from https://www.eegs.org/latest-issue). But what about the sustainability of magazine production?
A New Sustainable Editorial Model EEGS is looking to maintain, as well as continue to improve, FastTIMES magazine and with the current Editor-in Chief, Geoff Pettifer, intending to move on in 2020, or lighten considerably his time commitment to FastTIMES production, EEGS is considering new ways of sustainably maintaining the quality and delivery of the magazine with the approach of a managing Editor and a team of guest Special Issue Editors, along with the current
Vol 24, 3 2019
Page 21 Associate Editors, to share the workload more sustainably. The plan is to move therefore to a distributed Editor model for delivering FastTIMES, much like what is the case for ASCE-GI GEOSTRATA magazine which has an Editor -in-Chief providing strategic planning, continuity, mentoring and assistance to a team of Special Issue Editors who voluntarily take on almost full responsibility for a Special Issue once every 1-2 years with the Associate Editors and regular correspondents providing the regular copy material.
Join the Editorial Team EEGS is therefore seeking expressions of interest in joining the FastTIMES Editorial team, from geophysicists / geoscientists who have the passion, time, energy and interest in either being a Managing Editor or being responsible, under a Managing Editor, for occasionally delivering as a Special Issue Editor, a single issue of the magazine with a theme of your choice from the many themes of sustainability for geoscience and geoengineering identified as worthy of focus in the various sectors where near-surface geophysical methods can be applied, or from a technology theme.
What Themes Are Planned or Possible? Depending on the interest shown and preferences and availability of each Editor, the Special Issues themes are chosen from a long list of possible themes that cover the context and applications of near-surface geophysics methods to issues of sustainability for the infrastructure, geo-engineering, geotechnical, groundwater, environmental, mining, agriculture, archaeological, forensic, UXO and resource delineation sectors as well a technology themes (see above graphic for themes covered so far and tentative plans for 2020 on page 19).
Sustainability Themes Potential future sustainability application themes include such themes as climate change, riparian and wetland condition, sustainable groundwater resources, landfill, n uclear w aste
disposal, geothermal energy, infrastructure – underground excavations & cavities, infrastructure condition assessment – NDT, abandoned mines and mine rehabilitation and closure, coastal engineering, mine tailings management - geotechnical, environmental / groundwater, mine water management, catchment mapping, contaminated sites - investigation and cleanup / auditing – Superfund sites, sustainable irrigation - channel leakage, soil management, optimal agriculture, geohazards, micro-seismicity, documenting archaeological sites, underground and open pit mine safety geophysics, forensics geophysics, geophysical research and education, geological mapping, critical zone – surface and groundwater interaction, glaciology and permafrost.
Technology Themes Technological themes applicable to sustainability and advancement of near-surface geophysics science, in addition to focus on advances in individual geophysical methods, includes such themes as uncertainty in modelling, transformation of geophysical parameters incorporating uncertainty into other geoscience and geoengineering parameters, standards revisited, geophysical software, 3D inversion, calibration and instrument development, joint method inversion, advances in computing power, cross-hole methods, technology transfer from the O&G and minerals sector to NSG, NSG uses of mineral exploration data for mine site development, NSG uses of oil and gas exploration data, shallow marine geophysics, hyperspectral geophysics, remote sensing sensors and datasets, and 3D geophysical / geological integrated modelling. If you are interested in outreach of near-surface geophysics science and being part of the Editorial team delivering FastTIMES, or want to learn more about what is involved, please contact EEGS Communications and Publications Chair: Judith Robinson (judith.robinson@pnnl.gov) or FastTIMES Editor-in-Chief: Geoff Pettifer ( editorfasttimesnewsmagazine@gmail.com ; Cell phone: +1-360-989-6771).
Page 22
Vol 24, 3 2019
Publishing and Advertising in FastTIMES FastTimes Special Issues for 2019 and 2020 are listed on page 19 As for the 2017 California Groundwater, Agriculture Geophysics and the 2018 Mining, Infrastructure - Dams & Levees and Oil and Gas and the UXO Sector Geophysics Special Issues of FastTIMES, each issue will be sector focused and planned and publicized through relevant nongeophysical Societies, to ensure we maximize outreach and current awareness to non-geophysical end-users and geophysicists working in the relevant target sector. Regular existing and new columns such as Drone Report, Groundwater, Agriculture, Environment, Infrastructure & Geotechnical, Mining, UXO, Archaeology & Forensics, Industry News, Government sector, and Student Chapter News have been progressively added or will be added and maintained to ensure ongoing regular engagement with relevant sectors, as the need and the voluntary effort required to maintain such regular columns is forthcoming. Regular Columnists and papers/articles are needed. FastTIMES is your magazine dear reader and your input and
voluntary effort will help maintain and improve the information service provided. In 2019 another 5 issues per year is planned - 4 Special issues and the SAGEEP issue. Over 30 Special Issues topics have been identified to maintain a 4 to 5 year cyclical focus on key sustainability issues, applications, sectors, techniques and new developments in equipment, software, data management, visualisation and interpretation / synthesis. In addition to a series of articles for each Special Issue focused on the theme of that issue, we welcome one-off articles on other applications, to increase the diversity and appeal of each issue of FastTIMES. Underpinning this outreach approach of FastTIMES is that nearsurface geophysics is a means to an end and just one of many tools that geoscientists, environmental scientists and engineers use to characterize the subsurface. We as geophysicists, need to engage with our fellow end-users of geophysical techniques and maintain their current awareness of geophysical capabilities and limitations and encourage better integrated use of geophysical techniques.
ENHANCED VALUE ADVERTISING OPPORTUNITIES FastTIMES in 2019 offers enhanced advertising values because, with the new redesign and our plans to have more FastTIMES Special Issues in partnership with other geoscience societies as well as end-user sector focused Regular Columns, the intention is to increase the range and quality of content and provide greater appeal and technical value to a wider audience than just geophysicists. The circulation of FastTIMES is progressively increasing as we increasingly utilize FastTIMES to reach out and gain better engagement, publicity and circulation with the non-geophysical Societies and communities. Our aim is to have at least a 6-fold increase in notification to greater than 20,000 regular notifications for free download per issue throughout 2019 (compared to an early 2017 circulation of 3000). We expanded to 5 issues in 2018 including the SAGEEP 2019 FastTIMES and also will have 5 issues in 2019. This outreach, expansion and improvements means that your advertising in FastTIMES will increasingly reach decision makers that determine utilization and budgets of geophysical methods in
geoscience investigations, typically non-geophysicists (managers, engineers, geologists). This will inevitably generate greater potential utilization of the services of geophysical consultants, contractors / service providers and technologies (equipment and software). Consultants, contractors and geophysical technology providers are invited to take out a ¼, ½ or fullpage advertisement or advertise in our Professional Directory. Advertisements are available with discounts for a full year of advertising commitment. In addition, our regular Industry News column particularly welcomes technically informative (not blatantly commercial) articles about the benefits of new geophysical developments, services and technologies, especially from our valued advertisers. Special Issues provide particular focus for the benefits of advertiser’s products. Please visit http://www.eegs.org/advertisinginformation for more information and 2019 rates for FastTIMES advertising. To advertise in FastTIMES, contact: David Valintine: dvalintine@fugro.com , or Jackie Jacoby: staff@eegs.org; 303.531.7517
Page 23
Vol 24, 3 2019
Benefits of being an EEGS member The benefits of being a member of EEGS extend well beyond the quantifiable benefits described below. Being a member makes you part of one of the premier near-surface geophysical groups in the world. As a mostly volunteer run organization, EEGS provides a unique opportunity to get involved with the near-surface geophysical community in a more hands-on way than might be found in many professional societies. We count on our members for more than membership dues, they are what makes this society run. Join now and be part of a growing and exciting community.
To join EEGS online, go to: https://www.eegs.org/join-or-renew-online INDIVIDUAL MEMBERSHIP INCLUDES: • Access to the Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics (JEEG) • Proceedings archives of the Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems (SAGEEP), • Our regular technical news magazine FastTIMES 5 issues per year. • Monthly EEGS Newsletter and access to EEGS Social Media Facebook and LinkedIn • Complimentary access to SEG Technical Program expanded abstracts • Complimentay access to EAGE’s EarthDoc including papers from EAGE events from 1982 forward, articles from EAGE’s main magazine First Break and Near Surface Geophysics and Petroleum Geoscience (complete archives) • Discounted registration fees for SAGEEP • Voting rights for EEGS Board of Directors LIFETIME MEMBER Support EEGS, receive benefits on an ongoing basis and never renew again! Members of this category enjoy all the benefits of Individual membership. INTRODUCTORY MEMBERSHIP If you have never been a member of EEGS, Welcome! We offer a reduced rate (Electronic JEEG Option) for new members to enjoy all the benefits of individual membership (with the exception of voting privileges) for your first year (membership is calendar based, valid from January 1 through December 31).
CORPORATE MEMBERSHIP Corporate members enjoy all the benefits of individual membership and: • a brief profile and linked corporate logo on the Corporate Members page of the EEGS website • a company profile in FastTIMES • a 20% discount on JEEG article color figure charges and • a 10% discount on advertising in JEEG and FastTIMES. • All corporate sponsors will be recognized at SAGEEP for their support. Additional benefits are listed for each corporate level. STUDENT MEMBERSHIP & STUDENT CHAPTERS Students are the future of our organization and we offer you a complimentary membership to EEGS which is subsidized by the generous help of our Corporate Sponsors. Student members enjoy all the benefits of individual membership (with the exception of voting privileges). Student membership is available for all students in an accredited University up to one year post-graduation. Please submit a copy of your student ID. Students in year two beyond graduation are offered a special rate for one (1) year. The Student Chapters of EEGS are a way for Students to be more actively involved and the opportunity to receive benefits in terms of attendance at SAGEEP Conferences (go to http://www.eegs.tkboy.net/join.html to learn more). Publishing by students is actively encouraged and regular Student Chapter News in FastTIMES, welcomes information on student activities and student technical articles.
Additional corporate membership options are available, please see: https://www.eegs.org/membership-categories-benefits
Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society
Page 24 Page 15 Page 15
Vol 24, 3 2019 Vol 23, 5 2018 Vol 23, 5 2018
EEGSIntersociety IntersocietyCommittee Committee EEGS Intersociety Committee EEGS The EEGS EEGS Intersociety Intersocietycommittee committee isseeking seekingvolunteers volunteers toserve serve asliaison liaisontototechnical technical societies The societies The EEGS Intersociety committee isisseeking volunteers to to serve as as liaison to technical societies who have have an an interest interest innear nearsurface surfacegeophysical geophysicalapplications. applications.One Oneimportant importantobjective objective of who who have an interest ininnear surface geophysical applications. One important objective of of intersociety activities is to foster the use and applications of near surface geophysics and broaden intersociety activities activitiesisistotofoster fosterthe theuse useand andapplications applications near surface geophysics broaden intersociety of of near surface geophysics andand broaden thescope scope applications. This can be achieved through developing collaborative activities the scope of applications. ThisThis can be achieved through developing collaborative activities such as the ofofapplications. can be achieved through developing collaborative activities suchas astechnical technicalsessions SAGEEP, development of special workshops, and publications in technical sessions atsessions SAGEEP, development of special and publications in FastTIMES such at at SAGEEP, development of workshops, special workshops, and publications in FastTIMES or JEEG. Frequently intersociety relations are formalized through a memorandum of orFastTIMES JEEG. Frequently intersociety relations are formalized through a memorandum of understanding or JEEG. Frequently intersociety relations are formalized through a memorandum of understanding (MOU) similar document. EEGS is currently renewing and developing new MOUs (MOU) or similar document. EEGS is currently renewing andrenewing developing MOUs for understanding (MOU) ororsimilar document. EEGS is currently andnew developing newintersociety MOUs for intersociety collaboration. In particular, if you are a member of a society that you think would forcollaboration. intersociety collaboration. Inyou particular, if you areofaamember a society thatwould you think would In particular, if are a member society of that you think benefit from benefitcollaboration fromcollaboration collaboration with EEGS, this is ideal an ideal time to step forward. benefit from with EEGS, this isideal an time to step forward. with EEGS, this is an time to step forward.
Contact: Intersociety Committee, dyfrig43@gmail.com Contact: BruceSmith, Smith,Chair Chair Intersociety Committee, dyfrig43@gmail.com Contact: Bruce Bruce Smith, Chair Intersociety Committee, dyfrig43@gmail.com
Vol 24, 3 2019
Page 25
JEEG Report September 2019
Editor’s Note Dale Rucker, PhD
From my perspective, one of the largest accomplishments of my tenure over the past three years is the growth of the journal. When I talk of growth, I not only mean the number of submissions and articles published, but also in terms of maturity. Granted, we are a small journal and the overall number of submissions to JEEG relative to other journals is quite low, but the number of submissions has increased every year and with this comes higher quality. We reject roughly 40% of articles now due to being low a quality submission relative to all of the other great work that I am happy to publish. The maturation process is happening organically and honestly it is making my job a lot easier. One particular area of growth and maturity has been in electromagnetics. Roughly 30% of the papers published in the last three and a half years has been in TEM, AEM, CSAMT, MT, or other EM method. Eleven of these papers can be attributed to Dr. Guoqiang Xue of the Institute of Geology and Geophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing China. Examples of work by him and his team can be found in Khan et al. (2018), Li et al. (2018b,c), Xue (2018), Xue et al. (2018a,b,c,d), and Zhou et al. (2018). I have the fortunate privilege of having Dr. Xue as an associate editor for JEEG. Two other board members who specialize in EM, Antonio Menghini and Vincenzo Sapia, have also published in JEEG and I encourage you to familiarize yourself with their work if interested (e.g., Sapia et al., 2014; Vignoli et al., 2017). Some other favorites include Chang et al. (2017), Eadie et al. (2017), Li et al. (2018a), Ren et al. (2017), Wynn et al. (2016), and Yin et al. (2017). Dale Rucker, Editor
References Chang, J., Yu, J. and Su, B., 2017, Numerical simulation and application of mine TEM detection in a hidden water-bearing coal mine collapse column: Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, 22, 223-234. Eadie, T.W., Prikhodko, A. and Izarra, C., 2017, Mapping buried aquifers with HTEM in the Fort McMurray, Alberta Region: Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, 22, 25-33. Khan, M.Y., Xue, G.Q., Chen, W.Y. and Zhong, H.S., 2018, Analysis of long-offset transient electromagnetic (LOTEM) data in time, frequency, and pseudo-seismic domain: Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, 23, 15-32. Li, K., Sun, H., Cheng, M. and Guo, J., 2018a, CO2 Injection Monitoring Using Transient Electromagnetic in Ground-Borehole Configuration: Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, 23, 335-348.
JEEG Editor-in-Chief Chief Technical Officer, hydroGEOPHYSICS, Inc.
Tucson, AZ 520-647-3315 druck8240@gmail.com
The Journal of Environmental & Engineering Geophysics (JEEG), published four times each year, is the EEGS peer reviewed and Science Citation Index (SCI®)-listed journal dedicated to near-surface geophysics. It is available in print by subscription, and is one of a select group of journals available through GeoScienceWorld (www.geoscienceworld.org). It is also available to EEGS members who select the membership type that includes a printed JEEG. Also the pub is available via SEG’s Digital Library. Under Editor’s note, the URL for submitting is http://jeeg.allentrack.net JEEG is one of the major benefits of an EEGS membership. Information regarding preparing and submitting JEEG articles is available at http://jeeg.allentrack.net. The Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics (JEEG) is the flagship publication of the Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society (EEGS). All topics related to geophysics are viable candidates for publication in JEEG, although its primary emphasis is on the theory and application of geophysical techniques for environmental, engineering, and mining applications. There is no page limit, and no page charges for the first ten journal pages of an article. The review process is relatively quick; articles are often published within a year of submission. Articles published in JEEG are available electronically through GeoScienceWorld and the SEG’s Digital Library in the EEGS Research Collection. Manuscripts can be submitted online at http://www.eegs.org/jeeg.
Page 26 Li, H., Xue, G.Q. and Di, Q.Y., 2018b, Numerical analysis of land-based inline-source configuration for the controlledsource electromagnetic method: Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, 23, 47-59. Li, X., Xue, G.Q., Zhi, Q.Q., Li, H. and Zhong, H.S., 2018c, TEM Pseudo-Wave Field Extractions Using a Modified Algorithm: Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, 23, 33-45. Ren, X., Yin, C., Liu, Y., Cai, J., Wang, C. and Ben, F., 2017, Efficient modeling of time-domain AEM using finite-volume method: Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, 22, 267-278. Sapia, V., Viezzoli, A., Jørgensen, F., Oldenborger, G.A. and Marchetti, M., 2014, The impact on geological and hydrogeological mapping results of moving from ground to airborne TEM: Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, 19, 53-66. Vignoli, G., Sapia, V., Menghini, A. and Viezzoli, A., 2017, Examples of improved inversion of different airborne electromagnetic datasets via sharp regularization: Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, 22, 51-61. Wynn, J., Mosbrucker, A., Pierce, H. and Spicer, K., 2016, Where is the hot rock and where is the ground water–Using CSAMT to map beneath and around Mount St. Helens: Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, 21, 79-87. Xue, G.Q., 2018, The development of near-source electromagnetic methods in China: Journal of Environmental and Engineering
Vol 24, 3 2019
Geophysics, 23, 115-124. Xue, G.Q., Chen, W.Y., Ma, Z.J. and Hou, D.Y., 2018a, Identifying deep saturated coal bed zones in China through the use of large loop TEM: Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, 23, 135-142. Xue, G., Hou, D. and Qiu, W., 2018b, Identification of doublelayered water-filled zones using tem: a case study in China: Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, 23, 297-304. Xue, G.Q., Li, X., Yu, S.B., Chen, W.Y. and Ji, Y.J., 2018c, The application of ground-airborne TEM systems for underground cavity detection in China: Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, 23, 103-113. Xue, G.Q., Chen, K., Chen, W.Y. and Tian, Z., 2018d, The determination of the burial depth of coal measure strata using electromagnetic data: Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, 23, 125-134. Yin, C., Huang, X., Liu, Y. and Cai, J., 2017, 3-D Modeling for Airborne EM using the Spectral-element Method: Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, 22, 13-23. Zhou, N., Xue, G.Q., Hou, D.Y. and Lu, Y., 2018, An investigation of the effect of source geometry on grounded-wire TEM surveying with horizontal electric field: Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, 23, 143-151.
Vol 24, 3 2019
Page 27
CO-ORGANIZER
33 rd Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems 1st Munitions Response Meeting
ABSTRACTS DEADLINE EXTENDED - OCTOBER 25 MARCH 29 – APRIL 2, 2020
W W W. S AG E E P.O R G
Page 28
CALL FOR ABSTRACTS DEADLINE EXTENDED UNTIL OCTOBER 25, 2019
Vol 24, 3 2019
Page 29
Vol 24, 3 2019
Welcome to
SAGEEP 20/20 Visionary Geophysics “Geophysics extends our senses to see what cannot be seen. We incorporate our knowledge of physics, technology, geology, the scientific method, and material science to do this. At the same time, we are constantly looking forward to improve resolution, collection time, sensitivity, interpretive tools, knowledge, and how to apply these things to challenges we face. SAGEEP is where this all comes together as a premier international conference focusing on the near surface. It’s where we see ideas develop and mature to new approaches and methods. We literally see into the future.
“Every day, technology, lessons learned, and new and developing guidance impact the munition response program for industry and government. We are excited about the opportunity to partner with SAGEEP 20/20 to provide a forum for the munition response industry and government to partner and share new and upcoming innovations in our industry. We will be addressing project and programmatic lessons learned, and the impact of new and developing guidance documents and requirements in performing munition response.”
We encourage you to join us in March 2020; share your research, learn from others, see new technological improvements, and network in our profession. This is how we improve; this is how we look forward; this is Visionary Geophysics.”
Jeffrey Leberfinger 1st Munitions Response Meeting Technical Co-Chair Pika International
Mark Dunscomb SAGEEP 2020 General Chair UTG LLC
2
SAGEEP 2020
CONFERENCE & EXHIBITION
Vol 24, 3 2019
Page 30
ABOUT THE EVENT Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems (SAGEEP) The Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems (SAGEEP) is the leading international conference on non-invasive technology for engineering and environmental site characterization. Since 1988, SAGEEP has provided geophysicists, engineers, geoscientists and end-users from around the world an opportunity to meet and discuss near-surface applications of geophysics and learn about recent developments in near-surface geophysics. The 5-day conference features oral and poster presentations, several educational workshops, numerous vendor presentations, field trips, a conference evening, student events and a commercial exhibition. Technical papers presented at the conference comprise the set of proceedings produced in each meeting.
1st Munitions Response Meeting Conference planners have announced the addition of the 1st Munitions Response Meeting, scheduled for Denver, Colorado, March 29 April 2, 2020. Participants will pay one conference fee and attend both meetings’ sessions and poster presentations. Three organizations have come together to organize the “must attend” meeting of spring, 2020.
The Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society (EEGS) Is an applied scientific organization founded in 1992 as a not-for-profit corporation producing SAGEEP, the internationally recognized conference on the practical application of shallow geophysics. EEGS also offers educational, online publications - a peer-reviewed scientific journal JEEG and an industry newsmagazine, FastTIMES, other educational materials and merchandise.
Facts SUNDAY MARCH 29 – THURSDAY APRIL 2, 2020
The European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers (EAGE) Is a global professional, not-for-profit association for geoscientists and engineers with approximately 19,000 members worldwide. It provides a global network of commercial and academic professionals to all members. The association is truly multi-disciplinary and international in form and pursuits.
The National Association of Ordnance Contractors (NAOC) HILTON DENVER CITY CENTER, DENVER, COLORADO
400 ATTENDEES
Was established in 1995 as an industry trade association representing over 80 companies who perform munitions response services, both in the United States and internationally. NAOC’s membership collectively provides the full spectrum of munitions response services, including munitions detection, management and disposition; site characterization and remediation; geophysical surveying and data analysis; environmental sampling and analysis; regulatory support; research and development; and related environmental/ engineering services.
45 EXHIBITORS
SAGEEP 2020
CONFERENCE & EXHIBITION
3
Page 31
Vol 24, 3 2019
Attendance Profile
Outdoor Demonstration
Over 400 professionals, students and academicians in the environmental and engineering geophysical community from 21 countries attend SAGEEP. Last year’s attendance included 60% private industry, 17% academic/research facilities, 14% government agencies, and 9% students. 67% of the attendees were from the United States, 10% from Canada and 23% from international countries.
Also plan to attend the Outdoor Demonstrations, held at an outdoor space where you will see, first-hand, the cutting-edge technology and techniques developed by our exhibitors.
Exhibits Manager I Micki Allen Marac Enterprises I mickiallen@marac.com
Important dates Call for Abstracts
Open Now
Abstracts Submission Extended Deadline
October 25, 2019
Online Registration Open
November 2019
EXHIBITION AND SPONSORING The Hilton Denver City Center hotel in Denver, Colorado USA will host North America’s premier near surface-focused exhibition. Here you will meet the people behind the products, services and methodologies that are at the forefront of the near surface and munitions response industries. Exhibiting companies will be geophysical, environmental, engineering and munitions response related companies and service providers; developers and distributors of geo-scientific software computer and hardware; college/universities; government agencies; manufacturers and sales representatives of geophysical and geo-scientific instruments, equipment, and related supplies; publishers of scientific books and journals; research institutes; and scientific associations and societies. Exhibiting companies receive one full complimentary conference registration and two complimentary exhibit personnel registrations for each paid 10’ x 10’ booth space occupied. Prospective exhibiting companies can request additional information by contacting: Exhibits Manager I Micki Allen Marac Enterprises I mickiallen@marac.com
Join us for North America’s Most Important Near Surface Conferences! 4
SAGEEP 2020
For more information, access www.sageep.org and click on the Exhibitor tab. You can also contact:
CONFERENCE & EXHIBITION
VENUE SAGEEP 2020 and the 1st Munitions Response Meeting will be held at the Hilton Denver City Center, located in the heart of downtown boasting breathtaking views of the mountains and the Denver skyline. Step outside the hotel and the Mile High City’s top restaurants and attractions are within walking distance. One block away is the 16th Street Pedestrian mall and Free Mallride, the mall’s free shuttle transportation system, or hop on the light rail train to explore the rest of the city. Iconic attractions are within walking distance as well, including Larimer Square, Coors Field, the impressive Union Station and the Performing Arts Center. (The hotel offers a dedicated Uber/Lyft station and close proximity to pedicabs.) The Hilton Denver City Center hotel was recently redesigned and offers many amenities, including a 24hour fitness center, heated indoor pool, on-site Starbucks®. The hotel’s most valuable feature, however, is that sessions, posters, speaker presentations, networking, the conference information center and social events are an elevator ride away!
ABOUT DENVER Denver, the Mile High City, is one of the world’s most spectacular playgrounds with its 300 days of sunshine, a thriving cultural scene, diverse neighborhoods, and abundant natural beauty. Since its Wild West beginnings, Denver has evolved into a young, active city with stunning architecture, award-winning dining, micro-breweries and spectacular views year-round. The conference will be held in the heart of the city and adjacent to some of Denver’s most
Vol 24, 3 2019
Page 32
iconic attractions. Be sure to bring your walking shoes and visit LoDo, Larimer Square, Union Station, DCPA (the Denver Center for the Performing Arts), the Museum of Nature and Science at City Park and Coors Field – home of the Rockies baseball team - just to name a few of Denver’s “must see” sights. Denver is situated at the base of the Colorado Rocky Mountains, a series of majestic mountains that climb to as high as 14,000 feet. Plan to visit nearby Red Rocks amphitheater or extend your stay and visit Garden of the Gods, Mount Evans, the Rocky Mountain National Park or any of the other countless natural wonders that are within an easy drive from downtown.
DENVER INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (DIA) The first glimpse of DIA is the roof of the massive main terminal, made of formed fiberglass giving the appearance of snow-covered mountains. DIA is the 20th-busiest airport in the world and the fifthbusiest airport in the United States, boasting non-stop service to 199 destinations. Quite an impressive milestone since its beginning in September, 1989 under the leadership of Denver Mayor Federico Peña. Using federal funds for the first $60 million (equivalent to $121 million today), DIA’s construction included the most technologically advanced rail and baggage handling system ever created, using 1 million square feet of underground tunnels. Upon its completion, DIA was the largest landmass airport in America and is now the 5th largest in the world. The Regional Transportation District’s (RTD) airport rail link, also called the East Rail Line, connects passengers between downtown Denver and DIA in about 37 minutes. The line connects to RTD’s rail service that runs throughout the metro area.
SAGEEP ORGANIZING COMMITTEE Mark Dunscomb Kisa Mwakanyamale
General Chair SAGEEP Tech Chair
Jeff Leberfinger
1st Munitions Response Meeting Technical Co- Chair
John Jackson
1st Munitions Response Meeting Technical Co-Chair
Jacob Sheehan
VP SAGEEP
Elliot Grunewald
EEGS VP Elect – SAGEEP
Darren Mortimer
EEGS VP Pre-Elect - SAGEEP
Micki Allen
Exhibits Manager
Greg Byer
Short Courses Chair
Jim LoCoco
Field Trips Chair
Lia Martinez
Student Event Chair
Bruce Smith
Chair, EEGS Intersociety Committee
Geoff Pettifer
FastTIMES Editor-in-Chief
Dale Werkema
EEGS President
TECHNICAL PROGRAM The SAGEEP Technical Program, along with the other simultaneously running conferences, will offer both oral and poster presentations.
Call for Abstracts The call for papers is now open. The deadline for submitting
CONTACT For further information on the SAGEEP technical program, registration, field trips and workshops, please check out the website at www.SAGEEP.org, EEGS FastTIMES magazine 2019 issues or download the SAGEEP pre-Conference FastTIMES Vol 25,1 containing the short abstracts and other conference information (available in January 2020 from https://www.eegs.org/latest-issue). For more information on EEGS, and other EEGS activities, please contact staff@eegs.org.
extended abstracts is Friday, October 25, 2019. All abstracts must be submitted via the submission portal and follow specific guidelines provided on the SAGEEP website. The Scientific Committee will peer-review all papers before final selection. SAGEEP is a premier international conference focusing on the near surface. It’s where practitioners, academics, consultants, students and government representatives gather to hear presentations or view posters representing the latest in new approaches and methods. Please plan to submit your abstract for oral or poster presentation for both the SAGEEP 2020 conference and the 1st Munitions Response Meeting by the October 4 deadline and join us March 29 through April 2, 2020 for these two important conferences. SAGEEP 2020
CONFERENCE & EXHIBITION
5
Vol 24, 3 2019
Page 33
Topics 33 rd Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.
Geophysics in Hazard and Risk Evaluation Transportation and Infrastructure - Engineering, Monitoring & Evaluation Urban Geophysics Agricultural Geophysics UAS and Airborne Geophysics Ground Penetrating Radar method Electrical Methods Electromagnetic Methods Seismic Body Wave Methods Analysis of Surface Waves Methods Geophysics in Renewable Energy - Exploration & Development Borehole Geophysics Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Archaeology
15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27.
Humanitarian Geophysics Hydrogeophysics Modeling and Inversion of Geophysical Data: Current State and Future Trends for Geophysical Software Managing Uncertainty and Data Mining in Geophysics Advances in Exploration and Mineral Geophysics Full Waveform Analysis Geophysics General Contribution Geophysics 2020: The Past and Future of Near Surface Geophysics Dams and Levees - Safety Investigation & Monitoring Applications to Risk Analysis and Risk-Based Design Instrument Innovation Optical Sensing - DAS, Thermal, LIDAR & Multi-spectral Sensing Lessons Learned: When Things Don’t Go as Planned
Special Session Topics 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Induced earthquakes: Developments since the Rocky Mountain Arsenal Earthquakes of the 1960s Geophysical Methods for Dam Safety Investigation and Monitoring Correlating Geophysical and Geotechnical Parameters Proximal Soil Sensing using Geophysical Techniques The Enigmatic Crestone Crater - Part II Connecting the Surface to the Subsurface
7. 8. 9. 10. 11.
Applications in Geothermal Energy - Exploration & Development Historical Geophysics. Evolution of the Science Critical Zone Research Geologic Storage of CO 2 (2 subscript) Current State of the Practice and Future Trends for Geophysical Instrumentation
1st Munitions Response Meeting
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
6
Perspective on Munition Response DAGCAP - Project / Program Lessons Learned Risk Assessment for Explosives Hazards Applications for UAVs in Munitions Projects Site Application of Classification Technologies Innovative Applications of Geophysics on MMRP Projects Non-Acoustic (EM and other) Methods for Marine MEC Detection and Classification Recent Results in Marine Acoustic Methods for Detection and Classification
SAGEEP 2020
CONFERENCE & EXHIBITION
9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.
Robotic Applications to MR Emerging Geophysical Sensors Alternative Positioning Systems Munitions Response Safety Data Usability Assessment Underwater Munitions Response Operations MC Investigation Analog Geophysics in Munitions Response Disposal Trench / OBOD (i.e. non firing range) Geophysics International Demining and UXO
Vol 24, 3 2019
Page 34
SHORT COURSES Short Courses at SAGEEP and its parallel conferences are important elements of the total SAGEEP experience. Full and half day short courses are offered pre- and post-SAGEEP to allow attendees to economically delve deeper into topics that are timely and important in continued professional development. Short Courses are offered on Sunday, the first day of SAGEEP or Thursday, the last day. The Organizing Committee of SAGEEP 2020 is offering a chance for you to provide valuable input on topics for Short Courses and Workshops and, as an EEGS or NAOC member or SAGEEP participant, to influence what happens at the meeting. Because EEGS and the NAOC are jointly providing two parallel conferences, the Short Courses and Workshops have the potential to have a much broader impact to our community. In keeping with the SAGEEP 2020 theme of Visionary Geophysics, what topics would inspire you to improve, broaden or expand your expertise in geophysics? Striving to improve resolution, reduce collection time, enhance interpretation, and refine our ability to communicate to our clients and peers are central to our practice. Now is the time to make your voice heard as we look for ideas – please email the Short Course Chairman Greg Byer at gregory.byer@arcadis.com or the General Chairman Mark Dunscomb at mdunscomb@utgeng.com.
SAGEEP 2020
CONFERENCE & EXHIBITION
7
Vol 24, 3 2019
Page 35
SAGEEP 20/20 1st Munitions Response Meeting General Chair
EEGS VP-SAGEEP
Mark Dunscomb mdunscomb@utgeng.com
Jacob Sheehan jacob@collierconsulting.com
Technical Chair SAGEEP 2020
Technical Co Chair – Munitions Response
Technical Co Chair –
Kisa Mwakanyamale kemwaks@illinois.edu
Jeff Leberfinger jleberfinger@pikainc.com
John Jackson John.M.Jackson@usace.army.mil
Munitions Response
Managing Director, EEGS
Exhibitions and Sponsorships
EAGE SAGEEP 2020 Organizer
Jackie Jacoby staff@eegs.org
Micki Allen
Menia Katsamagka mka@eage.org
Marac Enterprises mickiallen@marac.com EEGS VP Elect -SAGEEP
EEGS VP Pre-Elect - SAGEEP
Elliot Grunewald elliot@vista-clara.com
Darren Mortimer darren.mortimer@seequent.com
Organizing Committee - General Members Short Courses Chair
Student Events Chair
Field Trips Chair
Greg Byers Gregory.Byer@arcadis.com
Lia Martinez lia.martinez@mountsopris.com
Jim LoCoco jim.lococo@mountsopris.com
FastTimes Editor
Chair EEGS Inter-Society Committee
EEGS President
Geoff Pettifer editorfasttimesnewsmagazine@gmail.com
Bruce Smith dyfrig43@gmail.com
Dale Werkema staff@eegs.org
https://www.sageep.org/
Vol 24, 3 2019
Page 36
C O N TA C T U S E N V I R O N M E N TA L A N D E N G I N E E R I N G G E O P H YS I C A L S O C I E T Y 139 1 S P E E R B LV D. SUITE 450 D E N V E R , C O 8 02 0 4 U S A P H O N E : (3 03) 5 3 1 -75 1 7 FA X : (3 03) 8 2 0 -3 8 4 4
A B S T R AC T S @ S AG E E P.O R G I R E G I S T R AT I O N @ S AG E E P.O R G
W W W . S A G E E P. O R G
CO-ORGANIZER
Vol 24, 3 2019
Page 37
Guiding Technologies Today. Preparing for a World of Needs Tomorrow. by Doug Laymon - Collier Geophysics, LLC Ron Bell – Collier Geophysics, LLC September 2019
2020 SAGEEP Silent Auction At the SAGEEP 2020, the EEGS Foundation will once again continue the tradition of holding a Silent Auction. Our goal is to raise $5000 or more for funding the student event at SAGEEP, student scholarships, and general support of EEGS. Please help us achieve our goal. The EEGS Foundation is looking for volunteers to help out with the auction. We need people to help out with organizing the items and executing the auction.The more volunteers pitching in, the more enjoyable it will be for all. We are also seeking donations of items to be sold in auction from individuals as well
as companies. We recently received pledges of donations of new geophysical equipment from some supporting companies. One individual is donating several classic texts on geophysics and another had pledged a very nice mineral specimens. Help make the Silent Auction a success, donate an item or several items. Space is limited. We ask that you take a few moments to email us about the item(s) you will be donating as soon as you are able. For more information or for volunteering, contact Ron Bell (rbell@igsdenver.com) or Doug Laymon (doug@ collierconsulting.com).
Support the EEGS Foundation The EEGS Foundation depends on monetary donations from the EEGS membership to fund the creation of as well as sustain the implementation of programs designed to further the mission of EEGS. We, the volunteers serving on EEGS Foundation Board, feel privileged and honored to be able to give back to the community that has been their professional family throughout their careers. However, we need your help to continue the good work of the EEGS Foundation. Please consider making a financial donation or the donation of an item for the 2020 Silent Auction today. Also, please consider volunteering to help with Silent Auction and other future fundraising initiatives of the EEGS Foundation. To learn more about making a tax deductible donating, contact Dennis Mills at dmills@expins.com.
EEGS Foundation Board of Directors President
Director-at-Large
Doug Laymon
Collier Consulting
doug@collierconsulting.com
William Doll
East Tennessee Geophysical Services
williamdoll01@gmail.com
Treasurer Dennis Mills
EXI, Inc.
dmills@expins.com
Director-at-Large Ronald Bell
IGS, LLC
rbell@igsdenver.com
Secretary John Clark
Corona Resources, Inc.
jclark@coronares.com
Director-at-Large Glenn Rix
Geosyntec
GRix@Geosyntec.com
Director-at-Large Mark Dunscomb UTG Engineering
Advisor
Mel Best
Bemex Consulting
mbest@islandnet.com
mdunscomb@utgeng.com
Page 38
EEGS Student Chapter News John Jackson John.M.Jackson@usace.army.mil
Vol 24, 3 2019
Finally, I am reintroducing the student chapter highlight column. This issue, we are focusing on the newest student chapterSuez University.
EEGS Suez University Student Chapter Mohammed Elakabawy
Welcome back to another exciting edition of FastTimes! This is a busy time for EEGS members, so I will try to keep this as short and sweet as possible to save room for our student highlight column. We continue to look for student contributors to FastTimes. Specifically, we are looking for student and professor volunteers to provide a “state of current research� from the academic perspective for each upcoming special edition of FastTimes. If interested, please contact me or the Editor-in-Chief, Geoff Pettifer (editorfasttimesnewsmagazine@gmail.com).
Chapter Founder and Former President (2017-2018) mohammed.elakabawy99@gmail.com
EEGS Suez University Student Chapter (EEGS SU SC) is considered the first internationally-approved student chapter of its kind in MENA (the Middle East and North Africa region). We are dedicated to bringing together a group of students who share a common interest in environmental and engineering geophysics and other related topics that our members may pay attention to (Figure 1). Our target is to enhance and develop the different skills of the university students through academic and practical events in order to qualify them to the requirements and needs of the labor market. We are working on two sides; boosting, and enhancing the interpersonal skills of our members in order to build calibers that are qualified to lead the chapter over the upcoming seasons; as well as organizing events, conducting sessions, and building a stellar reputation not only in Egypt, but also all over the world.
SAGEEP 20/20 is predicted to be the largest SAGEEP ever. The first Munitions Response Meeting will be the parallel conference at SAGEEP, bringing in many large environmental firms to SAGEEP for the first time. As a student, SAGEEP 20/20 will be an excellent opportunity to interact and network with academia, government, and industry. I encourage you to submit abstracts for talks and posters and participate in as many events as possible. The more student participation, the more likely industry will look at SAGEEP as an avenue for hiring. And just a reminder- as always, the benefits of an EEGS student chapter includes two free SAGEEP registrations, one free SAGEEP workshop/short course registration, and one free copy of SAGEEP proceedings for each year the student chapter remains active. The petition for the formation of a new chapter is available on the EEGS Student Chapter webpage. The petition process simply requires approval of the chapter petition by the EEGS Board of Directors. And remember- EEGS membership is free to all students!
Figure 1. It was the first chapter's meeting in our first season. The agenda of this meeting included Ice-breaking, sessions illustrating an introduction to EEGS International and EEGS Suez, and agreeing on a plan for the season.
Throughout our first two seasons, we achieved many accomplishments and reached a higher level of professionalism through our different chapter outreach activities. Our achievements include the following: (You can learn more about EEGS Suez through our FB Page: https://www.facebook.com/ EEGS.SU/ or through our website: http://www.eegs-susc.org/)
Page 39
Vol 24, 3 2019
Regarding the offline scale, we plan to have an effective print and great impact on the ground by organizing mega conferences which are full of technical sessions and competitions like: Petroleum & Exploration Day (PED), CAPIC (Cairo Annual Petroleum International Conference), and PetroZone conference, conducting beneficial sessions and courses like: seismic school (Figure 2), drilling course, and many other courses in respected companies, providing internship and yard-trip opportunities to students like: Corex winter training, EDC university program, Baker Hughes yard-trip (Figure 3), and Petro Services yard-trip. We also conducted many chapter meetings and outings, developmental programs for the members throughout the season, and awareness campaigns to give the university students an overview about the international organization as well as our chapter and its different activities. Figure 2. Seismic School is a technical event for the students who are interested in Petroleum and Geo-science fields.
• Participating in CAPIC (Cairo Annual Petroleum International Conference). • Initiating a strong social media base through (FB PageLinkedIn account-Website). • Enhancing relations among chapter members through different outings & meetings. • Providing the students with needed skills through organizing Mega events (both technical &non-technical) like: the compass, Petroleum & Exploration Day (PED), drilling course, and Petro-Zone conference. • Providing training opportunities to the students through EDC Winter University Program, EDC Leadership Program, Saknafta yard trip, Petro Services yard trip, Baker Hughes yard trip, Corex Winter Training, and other events. • Building a strong team to benefit the secondary school students through initiating Juniors Leadership Project.
Figure 3. In cooperation with Baker Hughes, we managed to provide yard trip opportunities for 10 students divided into 2 groups for maximum benefit. It was held on the 11th of November 2018, and was mainly about directional drilling. It was a fruitful day with Eng. Ahmed Khaled.
• Increasing the awareness of students towards environmental problems and discussing suggested solutions. This has been done through launching awareness campaigns in Suez University campus to let students know more about these problems and think of possible solutions to be discussed at the different seminars organized by the chapter. • Co-operating with other student chapters for the benefit of university students from different areas. • Marketing for the entity on both the online & ground (offline) scales. Regarding the online scale, we plan to market for the chapter and its products, market for EEGS International and the benefits of its membership, launch our online recruitment campaigns to give students the opportunity to join the entity, spread our mission, vision, and core values for the audience, post about both technical and non-technical topics in order to benefit all the followers.
• Conducting “Seismic School” program for the sake of Suez university students (Figure 2). Seismic School is a technical event for the students who are interested in petroleum and geoscience fields. The school consisted of 2 sessions conducted by pioneering characters in these fields throughout 2 days. Seismic school focused on three topics: Data acquisition, Data Processing, and Data interpretation • Organizing developmental programs for chapter members at different topics like: IT, soft skills, and leadership potentials. • A lot of implementations have been fulfilled within time interval of less than two years, and the more is yet to come over the next seasons. John Jackson Chair – Student Committee.
Page 40
Vol 24, 3 2019
EEGS Student Chapters
If you are interested in forming a new Student Chapter go to http://eegs.tkboy.net/ and also contact John Jackson: John.M.Jackson@usace.army.mil
Page 41
Foreword to the Special Issue on US Infrastructure Geophysics Nigel J. Cassidy Professor of Infrastructure Engineering, University of Birmingham, UK n.j.cassidy@bham.ac.uk
Bio Sreenivas Alampalli, Ph.D., P.E., MBA Structures Management Bureau, New York State Department of Transportation Sreenivas.Alampalli@dot.ny.gov
Bio Welcome to this FastTIMES Special Issue on US Infrastructure Geophysics. I’m delighted to be the guest editor for such an important topic and I’m sure that the presented articles will be of interest to the whole of our community. The deteriorating condition of US infrastructure is a common theme running through the issue and it is clear that new investment is needed to address the decline. This is evident from the ASCE’s 2017 National Infrastructure Report Card grades, as summarised in Figure 1 and discussed more widely in an excellent review by Dwain Butler and colleagues giving a summary of the 2018 SEGASCE-USACE Infrastructure Forum in Oklahoma. As part of this
Vol 24, 3 2019
foreword, Dr Sreenivas Alampalli of the New York State Department of Transportation illustrates perfectly how from his viewpoint, the American Society for Nondestructive Testing (ASNT) see the future of infrastructure inspection in the US. Technology is at the core of this and in the first of the regular articles I have attempted to critically evaluate the role of geophysics in infrastructure monitoring and how our community should adapt to keep up with the revolution in data technology. Tim King and colleagues from AECOM and Willams then present a comprehensive study on the use of geophysics to evaluate pipeline infrastructure in Karst environments followed by an enlightening article on the use of AI and airborne EM for bedrock determination by Andreas Pfaffhuber and team from Emerald Geomodelling, the Norwegian Geotechnical Institute and the Norwegian Public Roads Administration. Changing tack, Silvia Castellaro (University of Bologna) and Stefano Isani (MATILDE+Partners) present a fascinating technical article on the modal analysis of historical bridges whilst the use of geophysics for Harbour deepening operations is described in depth by Daniel Roche and his co-workers (from e4sciences and the USACE). In the final two articles, David Valintine (Fugro) and Marcos Donaldson (Qteq) provide an interesting case study on borehole geophysics for nearshore cable tunnel evaluation with Dennis Sack and Larry Olson of Olson Engineering completing the line-up with an informative piece on the nondestructive evaluation of bridge foundations. An eclectic mix, as I’m sure you will agree, which reflect the depth of expertise and innovation we have within our community. Please do enjoy reading in the issue and we look forward to seeing your own articles in FastTIMES in the future… Nigel Cassidy
Figure 1. Summary outcomes from the ASCE’s 2017 National Infrastructure Report Card grading the condition of each of the US’s key infrastructure components (Source: https://infrastructurereportcard.org).
Page 42
Use of Nondestructive Testing in Bridge Inspection and Evaluation Practice Sreenivas Alampalli, Ph.D., P.E., MBA The role of infrastructure in modern societies is multifaceted, as noted in President Obama’s inaugural speech on January 20, 2009: “We will build the roads and bridges, the electrical grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together.” Bridge and highway infrastructure are not viewed as just a means to move people and goods from one place to another, but also as a backbone of commerce. Thus, mobility, reliability, economic advantage, and security, as well as safety, are all becoming important performance measures for owners in a resource-constrained environment. At the same time, new materials and innovative construction methods are also becoming popular for the advantages they offer, such as quick construction to minimize traffic interruptions. Preserving the infrastructure of the United States is dependent on the successful implementation of advanced technology, such as nondestructive testing (NDT) methods and engineering structural health concepts, into routine evaluation to implement objective decision-making processes for effective asset management. Even though visual inspection is still predominantly used, bridge inspection techniques and technologies have been ever-evolving since the National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS) were established by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) over 50 years ago. The origins of current bridge inspection practices can be traced to the collapse of the Ohio River Bridge (known as the “Silver Bridge”) between Point Pleasant, West Virginia, and Kanauga, Ohio, in 1967. Following this tragedy, which killed 46 people, the FHWA Act of 1968 led to the establishment of NBIS, which led to systematic periodic inspections by qualified personnel and is the basis for the current NBIS. The NBIS has been modified several times, including after the failure of the Mianus River Bridge in Greenwich, Connecticut, and the Schoharie Creek Bridge near Fort Hunter, New York, which led to fracture-critical and underwater bridge inspections with established intervals. As technology has advanced, so have the tools and techniques that have become available to a bridge inspector. Periodic visual inspection, with qualified and trained inspectors using prescribed manuals and methods, is the primary technique used to perform bridge inspections. Standard bridge inspection is performed using a two-tier process: routine inspection that can trigger more detailed “in-depth” or “special” inspection. In addition to these procedures, analytical ratings of bridge load capacity are
Figure 1. Use of Infrared Thermography for detecting delamination between fiber reinforced polymers and concrete.
Vol 24, 3 2019
carried out as needed to reflect the bridge condition observed during the inspection, and inspection of underwater structures is performed generally by divers at least once every 60 months. Nondestructive evaluation (NDE) methods are becoming popular for augmenting visual inspections. Even though routine inspection essentially consists of common tools, for the last two decades or more, these have been supplemented by some very basic testing tools such as a chain drag and hammer for concrete members and dye penetrant and magnetic particle testing for steel members. Ultrasonic testing is used routinely as a second level of NDE when inspectors request further investigation, as well as during steel member fabrication. During the last decade, the use of ground penetrating radar (GPR) for evaluating bridge deck condition for planning further repair and rehabilitation actions has been increasing steadily. With the use of new materials such as fiber-reinforced polymers for bridge decks and concrete member wrapping, use of NDT methods, such as thermal/infrared testing, is also used for construction quality control as well as for periodic inspection (Figure 1). Each of the NDE methods has its own advantages and disadvantages for infrastructure inspection. Combining several methods may yield higher reliability of the results by taking advantage of the efficiencies of individual methods. Type, location, accessibility, and condition of a bridge as well as the type of inspection are some of the factors that determine what techniques are used. Table 1 presents a brief synopsis of typical bridge elements and some of the standard inspection and NDE tools available to address the concerns previously described. Additionally, there are several systems that can be used to monitor a bridge to provide real-time data and alert the owner of such things as failure of load-carrying members, excessive rotation or displacement of an element, overload in a member, crack growth, scour around bridge piers, or occurrence of a significant flood event. The type of information provided is typically very specific and provides data on isolated areas or members of the bridge. The most practical of these systems are being used by owners during “in-depth” or “special” inspections or implemented for long-term monitoring. The technology in this sector is advancing rapidly with more and more owners starting to experiment and incorporate these into their asset management practices. Future trends include: • More widespread use of NDE systems as part of visual inspection, such as use of augmented reality and technology fusion for data visualization (Figure 2). • Use of advanced multi-sensor robotic platforms (Figure 3), such as unmanned ground-based systems (UGS), unmanned aerial systems (UAS), and unmanned water-based systems (UWS). Automation in both multi-sensor data collection and data processing has resulted in near real-time data images. • Large-scale wired and wireless sensor networks for bridge structural health monitoring (SHM). • Use of artificial intelligence (AI) and deep learning for data analysis. • Remote sensing using satellite-based technologies for system-wide monitoring of the structural assets as a first level of monitoring.
Page 43
Vol 24, 3 2019
Table I- Typical Bridge Elements with Inspection Practices and NDE Methods Used Bridge Element
Main Concern
Standard Practice
NDE Tools Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR)
Concrete Deck
Delamination/ Rebar Corrosion
Chain Drag / Hammer sounding
Electric Resistivity Impact Echo (IE)/ Ultrasonic Surface Wave (USW) Infrared Thermography (IR)
Steel Pins/ Hangers/ Eye Bars
Fatigue cracks
Dye Penetrant/ Magnetic Particle
Ultrasonic (UT) and Phased array
Figure 2. GPR delamination map superimposed on LiDAR bridge scan (Courtesy: Dr. Nenad Gucunski, Rutgers University)
Eddy Current (EC)
Steel Girders/ Trusses / cables
Fatigue Cracks
Dye Penetrant / Magnetic Particle
Ultrasonic (UT) and Phased array Infrared (IR) Radiography Acoustic Emissions (AE)
Concrete Pre-Stressed Girders
Tendon Corrosion
Hammer sounding
Magnetic Flux Leakage Strain gauges Magnetic Flux Leakage Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR)
Concrete PostTensioned Girders
Tendon Corrosion, Grout Holes
Hammer sounding
Strain gauge Ultrasonic Echo, acoustic monitoring Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) X-ray
Bearing
Movement, Lack of Movement
-
Tilt Meters Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR)
Concrete Columns
Rebar Corrosion
Hammer sounding
Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity (UPV) Infrared Thermography Tilt Meters Underwater sonar imaging
Foundation Scour
Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) Scour Holes
Probing
Seismic profiling Remote monitoring Parallel seismic
Figure 3. Unmanned aerial vehicle for close monitoring of a railroad bridge (Courtesy: Jarlath O’Neil-Dunne, Spatial Analysis Lab, University of Vermont)
The American Society for Nondestructive Testing (ASNT), the world’s largest technical society for NDT professionals, has a major role to play in working with infrastructure owners and regulating agencies; in moving towards the implementation of NDE methods into routine inspection process through development of handbooks and standards; and in providing training and certification of personnel. ASNT has an infrastructure committee that comprises members representing owners, industry, and regulators. The committee organizes a biennial ASNT topical conference geared towards technology transfer and works with other professional societies including the Transportation Research Board’s standing committee AFF40 on “Testing and Evaluation of Transportation Structures” to advance the NDE technologies into practice and further develop them.
Acknowledgement Author thanks Farrokh (Frank) Jalinoos and Jill Ross for assistance in preparation and review of the article. Part of the content of this article was taken from a paper published by Alampalli and Jalinoos in the ASNT journal Materials Evaluation in 2009. Content has been updated to incorporate recent developments.
Page 44
Vol 24, 3 2019
Author Bios Nigel J. Cassidy
Sreenivas Alampalli, Ph.D., P.E., MBA
School of Engineering,
Structures Management Bureau
University of Birmingham, Edgbaston,
New York State Department
Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK n.j.cassidy@bham.ac.uk
of Transportation Sreenivas.Alampalli@dot.ny.gov
Nigel Cassidy is Professor of Geotechnical Infrastructure Engineering at the University of Birmingham in the School of Engineering. He has over 30 years’ academic and industrial experience in near-surface geophysics, hydrological & geotechnical engineering and numerical modelling research. Nigel’s current work is focused on the development of sensing technologies for infrastructure and environmental monitoring applications and the development of machine learning processes for the autonomous interpretation of sensor data. He is Deputy Director of the new National Buried Infrastructure Facility (NBIF) at the University which forms part of the wider, UK capital investment to support the UK Collaboratorium for Research in Infrastructure and Cities (UKCRIC).
Dr. Sreenivas Alampalli is the Director of the Structures Management Bureau at the New York State Department of Transportation. He is a Fellow of the American Society for Nondestructive Testing (ASNT), the American Society for Civil Engineers, the Structural Engineering Institute, and the International Society for Structural Health Monitoring of Intelligent Infrastructure. Dr. Alampalli obtained his Ph.D. in Civil Engineering and his MBA in Management and Technology from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. He has authored or co-authored more than 250 technical publications including books on infrastructure health in civil engineering, risk management in civil infrastructure, and multihazard considerations in civil infrastructure. He also coedited two books on the inspection, evaluation, and maintenance of suspension bridges. Dr. Alampalli has been a member of ASNT since 1992 and currently serves as an associate technical editor for the ASNT journal Materials Evaluation. Dr. Alampalli has been a member of the ASNT Infrastructure Committee since 2001 and served as its chair from 2006 through 2009. He also served on ASNT’s Board of Directors from 2003 to 2006. He received the William Via Bridge NDT Lifetime Service Recognition from ASNT in 2014 for outstanding voluntary service to the bridge and highway nondestructive testing and evaluation (NDE) industry. He also received the Mentoring Award from ASNT in 2009.
Vol 24, 3 2019
Page 45
ASNT EVENT
ASNT ANNUAL CONFERENCE Where the NDT World Comes Together
Registration Now Open November 18 – 21, 2019 Westgate Resort & Casino | Las Vegas, NV
ASNT...Creating a Safer World!
®
Page 46
Vol 24, 3 2019
The Future of Infrastructure Geophysics: Making the Most of New Sensing Techniques and Data Integration (a US-UK perspective) Nigel J. Cassidy School of Engineering, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham n.j.cassidy@bham.ac.uk
Bio
Introduction – The Economic Context of National Infrastructure It is almost impossible to accurately determine how many Trillions of dollars of public funding has been spent on major infrastructure projects across the US in the past 50 years. A 2018 report from the Congressional Budget Office estimated that US Public Spending on Transportation and Water Infrastructure alone amounted to between 2.5 and 5% of the total Federal spending budget, per year, between 1956 to 2017. For 2017, this equated to $441 Billion in direct federal, state and local government spending on highways, aviation, mass transit & rail, water transport, utilities and resources (CBO, 2018). Put in to context, this is not far off the level of funding for defence in the same year (at $600 Billion) and a per capita spend of approximately $1250 per year. Given that these CBO figures do not include private sector and domestic investment (i.e., by individual home/land owners) this figure likely to pushing the $600 Billion mark, even with conservative estimates. With this level of expenditure, one would expect US infrastructure to be in prime health and those responsible for its operation and maintenance to be at the forefront of technology and construction practice. Unfortunately, this is not the case and the American Society of Civil Engineers, 2017 National Infrastructure review (the ‘Infrastructure Report Card’ASCE, 2017) graded the average condition of US infrastructure, across all sectors, at a disappointing ‘D+’, with only a marginal increase from ‘C-D’ up to ‘D+’ over the period 1998 to 2017 (Figure 1). More strikingly, the review’s own descriptors said that US infrastructure is “in poor to fair condition and mostly below standard, with many elements approaching the end of their service life.” It goes on to say that “A large portion of the system exhibits significant deterioration. Condition and capacity are of serious concern with strong risk of failure”. The ASCE report (along with other federal organisations) estimate that between 300 and 800 Billion dollars per year of additional investment is needed to bridge the funding gap and restore US infrastructure
Figure 1. A comparison of US national infrastructure report ‘grades’ between 1988 and 2017 for each of the core infrastructure sectors (ASCE, 2017). *The first infrastructure grades were given by the National Council on Public Works Improvements in its report Fragile Foundations: A Report on America’s Public Works, released in February 1988. ASCE’s first Report Card for America’s Infrastructure was issued a decade later. **The 2017 Report Card’s investment needs are over 10 years. The 2013 Report is over eight years. In the 2001, 2005, and 2009 Report Cards the time period was five years. (Source: https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/making-the-grade/report-card-history/)
spend to historical levels. The impact of successive budget cuts can be seen in the breakdown of capital verses operational/ maintenance spend in the transport and water infrastructure sector since the late 1950s (Figure 2). There are two distinct points of change in the timeline; the late 70s and early 2000, where capital expenditure dipped well below operational and maintenance spending. In the 1980s, capital funding recovered to near parity was but still significantly less in terms of relative spend when compared to the 1950s and 1960s. More pertinently, the past 15 years has seen reduced levels of capital expenditure with little signs of recovery. This has seen the US drop in the international ranking
Page 47
Figure 2. Public spend on Transport and Water infrastructure in the US (19562017) and the UK (2006-2007). Data compiled from the “US Public Spending on Transportation and Water Infrastructure” report (CBO, 2018) and the UK’s Office for national statistics report, “Developing new statistics of infrastructure” (ONS, 2018).
for infrastructure quality from 5th in the world to 9th by 2018 (World Economic forum, Global Competitiveness Report, 2018 – Schwab, 2018). With the exception of the Netherlands (4th), Germany (7th) and France (8th), Europe does not fare well either. The UK, for instance, is placed 11th in the ranking and despite having slightly increased infrastructure spending in the past few years (Figure 2), suffers from the same lack of investment (an equivalent per capita spend of approximately $300 per year) and similar, aging infrastructure problems. Public spending mirrors social, economic and political situations and national infrastructure funding is not immune to these trends. Post-war recovery and economic expansion in the US led to major capital spending on highway infrastructure in the 1950-60s, as it did in Europe. Notably, a significant proportion of our ‘at risk’ transportation infrastructure dates from this period and is, ultimately, reaching the end of its natural design life. The 1980’s economic boom led to increased investment from the private sector and the emergence of the digital economy, with a need for national infrastructure to support it. Some would argue that the shortfall in physical infrastructure spend over the past 20 years has been more than matched by national investment in digital infrastructure, which is true to some extent. Our modern world relies on telecommunications/data infrastructure, which has become as essential as transport, energy and water infrastructure (if not more so to some). It may be that the way we live has had the biggest impact on how physical infrastructure is perceived, particularly by those who control the public purse – digital is on trend, bridges are not. Nevertheless, the disparity between operational infrastructure spend and capital investment is clearly evident and it obvious that our national infrastructure (both in the US and EU) is poorly placed to meet the challenges of the next 20-50 years.
Future Infrastructure Challenges It is not only the poor physical condition of our aging infrastructure that concerns engineers. The increasing intensity and likelihood of extreme weather events is challenging our ability to safely predict the long-term integrity of both legacy and recently built structures. Are we designing appropriately for the future? Can
Vol 24, 3 2019
we really predict the nature of extreme events a decade into the future, never mind 50 years from now - when do extremes become the norm? These are pressing, priority issues that engineers, scientists and governments are starting to address but they are not the only challenges we face. How will our infrastructure cope with an increasing level of security need? This is not just in terms digital security (of the data we hold) but also the physical security of the facilities and assets themselves. For instance, many regional water supply reservoirs are open to the public for leisure activities without restriction (as they should be). But this leaves them vulnerable to malicious interference or disruption. Likewise, much of our local energy infrastructure (electricity, gas, etc) is easily accessible to attack and misuse – how do we mitigate against this? The rapidly changing world of transport and communications is also putting demands on our infrastructure. For instance, can our urban-to-rural highway, power and digital information infrastructures cope with the rise in autonomous and electric vehicle use? In the UK, the Government’s “Road to Zero” emissions reductions strategy sets out an ambitious target for at least 50-70% of new car sales and 40% of new vans to be ultralow emission (essentially electric) by 2030. At the beginning of this year (2019) approximately 250,000 electric cars and vans had been registered in the UK (less than 0.7% of the 38 Million cars and vans currently registered - Hirst, D., 2018). However, there are less than 4000 public charging points installed across the UK to service this demand, with most being in the south of the country. This compares to some 500,000 registered low emission vehicles in the state of California alone and, nationally, a 1.1% ownership share for electric vehicles across the US. The UK lags significantly behind other countries in electric vehicle take up and the degree of upscaling required across the UK charging network will necessitate a re-think in how we design, build and monitor our power and transport infrastructures. This will include a complete overhaul of current highway and electrical distribution networks with major investments needed in the north of the country. As with the US, some of our most rural communities have power distribution networks that are nearly 80 years old. Locally-based, micro power generation could be the answer but this will also involve radical changes to home/workplace design and local planning regulations. These are all important aspects of new infrastructure development if the UK is serious about meeting its 2030 emission targets. There are also infrastructure challenges that the UK has not considered yet, or at least fully realised. The shale gas industry is in its infancy in the UK and we rely on US experiences to guide us. Regular, ‘low-magnitude’ earthquakes are common in the shale gas regions of the US and there are concerns about the long-term impact of such events on buildings and infrastructure in the UK (Taylor et al., 2018). A 2.9ML magnitude event was recently detected at the UK’s only active shale gas site in Lancashire. This was largest event so far recorded in 18 months of exploratory hydro-fracturing and has resulted in the postponement of operations and a scientific review. More significantly, the UK’s shale gas reserves are associated
Page 48
Vol 24, 3 2019
with denser urban populations than those of the US and they co-exist with legacy coal mining areas where subsidence and infrastructure damage has been an issue in the past. It is unknown how shale gas operations will impact on existing and new infrastructure but lessons from mining industry suggest that the long-term, comprehensive monitoring and evaluation of all key infrastructure is vital if we are to maintain its integrity and condition over the next 30-50 years.
advances in terrestrial and airborne laser scanning (Lidar), highresolution drone-based photogrammetry/inspection, low-cost wireless sensing networks and embedded sensors, there is a considerable monitoring tool-box available to infrastructure engineers and owners.
The Role of Geophysics in Infrastructure Monitoring
Having dense, high-resolution sensor network coverage of our infrastructure is vital for monitoring needs but, currently, we do not possess the digital capability, scale or data handling capacity to make these systems work. Even with recent advances in communications technology (5G mobile, autonomously optimised sensor networks), the volume of data generated would be staggering, even from a modest-scaled infrastructure scheme (a regional highway or rail road scheme, say). Local/regional governments do not have the funding to develop, build and maintain the digital infrastructure needed to transmit, store and process this data. Private sector investment could be a solution, but then there are sensitive issues with data ownership, security and accessibility.
In 2014, the UK completed a transport infrastructure resilience review that focused on the impact of previous year’s extreme weather events (winter flooding mainly). In the findings, better weather forecasting was quite reasonably recommended as a priority ‘need’, along with improved asset maintenance planning and inspection. However, little weight was placed on infrastructure monitoring with the railway sector being the only community tasked to “trial newly available condition monitoring and slope stabilisation technologies” (Department for Transport, 2014). This highlights the government’s reactionary response to extreme events and the perceived lack of investment value in long-term monitoring technologies. Similar behaviours are evident within the US infrastructure sector, as reflected by the ASCE’s, 2017 National Infrastructure review. Although geophysical approaches are considered relevant, there seems to be a reluctance to adopt these methods for condition monitoring. Yet, the Shale gas industry (and to some extent the mining industries) undertake asset ‘health monitoring’ with geophysics as a matter of course, and there is a lot we can learn from them. Part of this is a consequence of regulation; in most countries onshore petroleum or mining operations require some form of ground monitoring to be licenced, often through geophysics. With infrastructure projects, however, geophysics is only relevant at the ground investigation stage of a build and is not normally applied in the construction or implementation phases. If geophysics is required, it is usually to solve specific post-build problems with surveys conducted in isolation of the main project or construction activities. Looking wider, the nature of higher and professional education should also be considered culpable. When compared to their Earth Science counterparts, civil and geotechnical engineers have limited exposure to geophysical methods during their degrees. In many UK universities, geophysical methods are only taught at final-year or Masters level in engineering courses and practical experience tends to be gained only when working in industry. Whether this is true for the rest of the EU or the US is arguable, but it does seem that geophysical approaches do not have the same degree of coverage or cognisance across infrastructure engineering when compared to more conventional, direct sensing approaches (e.g., strain gauges, displacement transducers, vibration monitoring, etc). Nevertheless, engineering and geophysical sensing techniques are complimentary and when combined with recent
The Data Barrier
Handling the data is one thing, but getting something useful out of it all is another. A practicing geophysicist is essentially a human ‘expert system’ that is capable of making complex, interpretational decisions from often sparse and nebulous data. Artificial intelligence and machine learning systems are capable of performing some of these functions but not to the same degree of integrity and reliability as a human being. Conversely, human beings are not individually capable of processing, in real time, the volumes of data likely to be generated by future infrastructure monitoring systems. Reliably testing and validating the data is another concern with the complexity of the data streams being generated requiring new approaches to data assimilation and interpretation. To partly address some of these issues, the UK government published the “Data for the Public Good”, UK National Infrastructure Report in 2018 (National infrastructure Commission, 2018) to improve the quality and performance of the UK’s infrastructure through digital innovation. As core recommendations, the report sets out actions in three areas “collecting the right data; setting standards for data; and sharing that data securely” – all concepts familiar to the geophysical community. Interestingly, it also recommends the establishment of a national digital framework for infrastructure with a digital twin model for the UK’s whole infrastructure system and the coordination of nationally owned asset-related data through industry and stakeholder coordination (Figure 3). To achieve these goals, data sharing across private companies and public sector bodies will be required (not easy) and new approaches developed for data collection, processing and interpretation. Geophysicists will have to adapt to these challenges and change the way they look at sensing technology, data collection/handling, processing approaches and how data are integrated with monitoring and decision support systems. For instance, near-surface geophysical equipment is typically
Page 49
Vol 24, 3 2019
Figure 3. Three core recommendations from the “Data for the Public Good” UK National Infrastructure Report in 2018 (National infrastructure Commission, 2018).
designed for ‘survey mode’ deployment with data collected independently to the mechanism of processing and interpretation. This approach will have to change with new instruments having data collection fully integrated with real-time transmission, processing and interpretation. Whether this is achieved through on-board data management systems (i.e., all contained within the instrument), by networks of systems with centralised control or by “Cloud” hosted services, will ultimately depend on the specific nature of the monitoring problem. Nevertheless, equipment manufacturers will have to adapt their hardware and software products to account for a shift in user requirements with more autonomous data processing and interpretation being the most likely development over the next few years. This evolution can be seen in the recent introduction of smart geophones with wireless enabled, continuous data recording for Oil & Gas and engineering applications. Dynamic technologies (DTCC) have recently released the SmartSolo (https://smartsolo.com/), a selfcontained, geophone package with on-board data recording and memory (50 days recording), integrated GPS and wireless connectivity. Pitched at the petroleum market, the units can be deployed in dense configurations and come at a cost point that is comparable to conventional seismic systems. Similarly, Geometrics Ltd have developed a seismograph package for passive seismic applications called the ‘ATOM’ (https://www. geometrics.com/product/atom-passive-seismic-system/) that is self-contained, wireless and GPS enabled. Capable of being connected to a range of geophone types (vertical or horizontal, three component, different frequencies) plus other compatible sensor inputs, the units are well-suited for engineering and infrastructure applications. They have recently been used in passive seismic research at the University of Birmingham, UK to determine soil stiffness profiles for foundation and piling monitoring applications (Figure 5). The ability to communicate wirelessly with the units to set up, trigger and download data without direct physical interaction has been invaluable for their use on operational construction sites where access is severely restricted. The wide performance characteristics of the seismograph, its on-board data recording facility and the flexibility of geophone/ sensor connections has allowed for a range of passive seismic sources to be evaluated in terms of propagating wave frequency, detection range, attenuation, polarisation and dynamic behaviour. Importantly, the work has helped define the appropriateness of common construction noise sources (e.g., diggers, trucks), operational sources (traffic, human interaction) and natural passive seismic sources (trees, background microseisms) for continuous monitoring applications (Figure 4). Typically, ‘natural
Figure 4. Three component ATOM seismograph units being used for engineeringbased, passive seismic surveys. The ATOM units and three component geophones are shown in a ‘huddle test’ configuration to determine the base-line, crosscorrelation function for the units.
Figure 5. Typical frequencies and practical detection range for common passive and active seismic sources used in continuous seismic monitoring of infrastructure.
sources’, such as building and tree movements due to wind loading, provide the lowest frequency response (sub-Hz) with reliable detection ranges of up to 100m from the source. Active construction works produce sources in the 1Hz to 10s of Hz range and, depending on the nature of the source, can provide a detection range of 50 metres without too much difficulty. At higher frequencies (100Hz), industrial noise sources tend to be the most useful sources (e.g., rotating machinery, ventilation systems) with active ‘vibroseis’ systems filling in the highest frequency range up to 1000 Hz but with much limited detection range (10s of metres). The wide range of sources, both natural and anthropogenic, have been invaluable for developing new sub-surface geotechnical monitoring tools and the design of geophone networks to best detect the dynamic seismic wave field, particularly in urban environments. Current passive seismic research at
Page 50
Vol 24, 3 2019
event and builds up a more detailed knowledge of the network’s operational performance. As a consequence, experiential information about the incident is retained in the system allowing future problems to be characterised, evaluated and predicted more accurately and efficiently.
The Future of Geophysics – an Evolution in Data Thinking?
Figure 6. Autonomous water network system design combining digital twin numerical modelling, real-time operational & human-centric data plus sub-surface geophysical monitoring.
the University includes soil and slope stability monitoring for national rail and highway networks plus the monitoring of water pipework systems in cities. The latter project is of particular note as it aims to combine geophysical data with operational and human-centric data to support autonomous asset monitoring and decision making (Figure 6). Time-varying utility information (such as water pressure, flow and temperature) are monitored at the same time as geotechnical information (e.g., soil stiffness changes derived from passive seismic networks). Digital twin models of the subsurface are used to simulate the pipelinesubsurface system interactions and predict likely changes as a consequence of impacting events (e.g., flooding, water leaks). Mobile aps provide point of use information (e.g., individual water usage) and allow occupants to provide real-time feedback about the performance of the utility network. How will this work in practice? Imagine a number of individual users report a water pressure drop in the morning via the mobile app. The decision support system will map out the geographical distribution of the reports and gather the relevant, real-time data from the associated building management systems (e.g., pressure & flow before and after the report). The AI-based decision support system will then decide which part of the wider water network is likely to be responsible for the pressure drop from a knowledge of the network’s long-term, operational performance. Local geophysical and utility sensor data from the continuous monitoring systems located in that part of the system will be interrogated to identify any recent physical changes, such as subsurface temperatures, moisture content (from TDR) and ground stiffness (from inverted passive seismic). This data will then be used in the digital twin models to determine whether any of the identified physical changes could impact on (or be a consequence of) changes in the integrity of the network (e.g., a pipe undergoing increased stress and/or leaking). The system will then autonomously monitor this ‘focused’ part of the network intensely over the ensuing hours to identify whether the problem is getting worse or not. If so, performance alerts can be sent to maintenance staff before the situation deteriorates further, helping mitigate against the risk of catastrophic failure. If nothing appears to be an issue then the system learns from the
So how far are we away from the autonomous interpretation of geophysical data becoming commonplace? Closer than you may think. AI-based decision support systems have already been developed for utility repair operations that include conventional geophysical/geotechnical data and operational information from utility networks (Wei, et al., 2018). Machine learning approaches have been developed for geophysical well data analysis in the Oil and Gas sector (Naeini and Uwaifo, 2019) where auto-learning techniques have been used to improve the interpretational process when data is sparse. These recent examples are a glimpse into the future and indicate the way that geophysical data will used in the next 1020 years. As a community, we will need to adapt accordingly and not only evolve the way we collect, process and interpret geophysical data but also how we integrate it into real-time, dynamic numerical models. These challenges have already been recognised, certainly in the UK, where the concept of Physical-Digital twins is a core component of the UKCRIC National Infrastructure Research Programme (https://www.ukcric.com/). Funded by more than £130 million of central Government investment, UKCRIC (UK Collaboratorium for Research on Infrastructure and Cities) is a partnership of 14 World-leading UK Universities and over 150 supporting companies in the infrastructure, cities and construction sector. Within this consortium, new infrastructure research facilities and observatories are being built that will combine with the £8 million investment in new Data and Analytical Facilities for Infrastructure (DAFNI - www.dafni.ac.uk) including dedicated, high-performance computing for Digital Twins and numerical modelling. Research into new geophysical sensing techniques, and their application to buried infrastructure, is an important part of UKCRIC programme and the National Buried Infrastructure Facility (NBIF) at the University of Birmingham https://www.ukcric. com/facilities/national-buried-infrastructure-facility/ is where realtime geophysical data is being assimilated into finite-element based, digital twin numerical models of the subsurface, all linked to physical twins in the laboratory. From our initial trials, it has become evident that the data sets generated by conventional geophysical equipment are too complex and cumbersome for real-time data integration with current numerical and digital twin models. The raw data is too dense to manage across wireless networks and there is an inherent latency in the data management process due to most geophysical processing software being ‘stand-alone’ in terms of operational functioning. As such, the way we package, communicate and
Vol 24, 3 2019
Page 51 handle data will have to change and new software is needed that is capable of being fully integrated into building modelling and information systems (BIM and subsequent generations). Whether this is solved by on-board processing (as discussed previously) or via centralised data management systems, is something that the infrastructure-based geophysical community will have to address. Setting up appropriate autonomous data collection standards and protocols will be an important part of this process, including how data is processed and interpreted (even at basic levels). Nevertheless, experience tells us that we tend to get bogged down in the detail of developing standards and that those that we do produce are not really ‘standard’ at all (just look a seismic data).
World Economic Forum. http://reports.weforum.org/global-
A new way of thinking is needed were the application becomes the focus of the equipment design, not the sensor. This will mean that Machine Learning or AI processes will dictate the way in which geophysical data is specified, generated, handled and processed. In the future, human geophysicists will not be looking at the raw data, just the interpreted outcomes from the autonomous decision making process. Our digital systems will manage all the operational steps needed to make the basic decisions for us, automatically. Higher-level decisions will be made by humans (initially) but even these processes will be become increasingly hidden as AI methods become more sophisticated. If that makes you nervous (and, admittedly, I fall into that category) then we only need to look around our modern environment at the way that core national functions are being managed by background systems we take for granted (e.g., our financial, power distribution and transport systems). These are all critical parts of modern life where, increasing, AI and Machine Learning tools are being used for wholescale decision making support. Geophysics, and the geophysical community, will have to adapt accordingly and we should embrace this change so that geophysics plays an active, leading role in infrastructure design, monitoring and assessment, rather than being considered as an afterthought for when things go wrong.
Naeini, E. Z. and Uwaifo, J. 2019. Transfer Learning and AutoML: A geoscience perspective. First Break, vo. 37, 65-71.
References ASCE, 2017. American Society of Civil Engineers, 2017, Infrastructure report card. https://infrastructurereportcard.org CBO, 2018. Public Spending on Transportation and Water Infrastructure, 1956 to 2017. Congressional Budget Office Report. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/54539 Department for Transport, 2014. Transport resilience review: a review of the resilience of the transport network to extreme weather events, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ transport-resilience-review-recommendations. ONS, 2018. Developing new statistics of infrastructure: August 2018, Office for National Statistics. https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/ economicoutputandproductivity/productivitymeasures/articles/ developingnewmeasuresofinfrastructureinvestment/august2018
Schwab, K., 2018. The Global Competitiveness Report, 2018,
competitiveness-report-2018
Taylor, O.-D.S., Lee, T.A., Lester, A.P. and McKenna M.H., 2018. Can repetitive small magnitude-induced seismic events actually cause damage? Advances in Civil Engineering, Article ID 205612. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/2056123 National infrastructure Commission, 2018. Data for the public good, National Infrastructure Commission Report 2018. https://www.nic.org.uk/publications/data-public-good/
Hirst, D., 2018. Electric Vehicles and Infrastructure, Briefing Paper Number CBP07480, 28 June 2019. www.parliament.uk/commons-library
Wei, L, Clarke, B, Magee, D.R., Dimitrova, V. and Cohn, A.G., 2019. An Integrated Web-based Decision Support System for Inter-Asset Streetworks Management. In: 26th GIScience Research UK Conference (GISRUK). 26th GIScience Research UK Conference (GISRUK), 17-20 Apr 2018, Leicester, UK.
Author Bio Nigel J. Cassidy School of Engineering, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK n.j.cassidy@bham.ac.uk
Nigel Cassidy is Professor of Geotechnical Infrastructure Engineering at the University of Birmingham in the School of Engineering. He has over 30 years’ academic and industrial experience in near-surface geophysics, hydrological & geotechnical engineering and numerical modelling research. Nigel’s current work is focused on the development of sensing technologies for infrastructure and environmental monitoring applications and the development of machine learning processes for the autonomous interpretation of sensor data. He is Deputy Director of the new National Buried Infrastructure Facility (NBIF) at the University which forms part of the wider, UK capital investment to support the UK Collaboratorium for Research in Infrastructure and Cities (UKCRIC).
Page 52
Vol 24, 3 2019
Report: A Forum on Infrastructure, August 24-26, 2018, Stillwater, OK Dwain K. Butler Applied Geophysics Consultancy LLC agc.llc@bellsouth.net
Bio Priyank Jaiswal Boone Pickens School of Geology Oklahoma State University priyank.jaiswal@okstate.edu
Bio Laurie Whitesell Society of Exploration Geophysicists lwhitesell@seg.org
Bio
Figure1. An aerial view of the damaged Oroville Dam spillway is shown. Dams in the US are aging. In fact, the average age of of US dams is 56 years. Such aging dams are prone to damage from large flood events (a key factor in the case of the Oroville spillway failure along with foundation geology and spillway age), but are also subject to earthquake damage. Source: Adapted from Dale Kolke / California Department of Water Resources via Reuters (https://www.businessinsider.com/asce-gives-us-infrastructure-a-d-2017-3)
Introduction
The Forum Concept The SEG Near-Surface Geophysics Technical Section (NSTS), as part of its 2016-2017 strategic planning efforts proposed a new event format that was on a focused local or regional topic that could be developed in collaboration with partnering societies, institutes and/or governmental agencies that is small in size with around 30 attendees, a few keynote speakers, and panel discussions. The NSTS felt that partnering would help bring a more well-rounded perspective to a local challenge. This format was thought to better engage those who attended and create an atmosphere of collegial participation. In this case, SEG partnered with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and the American Society of Civil engineers’ Division of Infrastructure Resiliency (ASCE, IRD). Student poster session was also conducted in the evenings. The final outcome of a forum is for those who attended to work together to develop multiple written end products as well as a potential white paper on the subject. This article, represents one of those end products, a joint event document to be published by both SEG and ASCE.
SM
For the inaugural forum, the SEG NSTS Strategic Planning Subcommittee felt that the increased seismic activities in the central U.S. offered an interesting and focused subject with which to examine how near-surface geophysics and engineering practices could be utilized to examine the more or less constant low level seismicity’s impact on large scale infrastructure. This focused emphasis is part of the discussion of the state of infrastructure in the United States, which has been covered extensively in the news, by federal and state executives and legislatures, by government agencies, academia, and in scientific and engineering literature (e.g., ASCE, 2017; and Petroski, 2017). Generally, the focus is on the deteriorating condition of aging infrastructure across the country. For example, the Governor of Mississippi recently closed 100 bridges, effective immediately, due to failure of the bridges to meet Sate and Federal safety standards. Many communities are too familiar with failing water distribution systems that result in “boil-water” alters. Catastrophic bridge and dam failures are frequently in the news that have caused significant casualties and property damage. Aging and even newly constructed oil and gas pipelines develop leaks, which can cause environmental damages, if not detected and remediated promptly. An emerging general threat is extreme weather events, commonly attributed to climate change, which exacerbates the challenges to infrastructure (for example Figure 1). Many critical, lifeline structures have long exceeded their design age. This necessitates more frequent inspections, and assessments (see for example Figure 2). The deteriorating infrastructure issues require innovative engineering and geosciences approaches. All of these issues require a dedicated, long-term Federal, State and industry commitment to restoration, renewal, as well as a design for resiliency. SEG, led by its NSTS, seeks to better understand the
Vol 24, 3 2019
Page 53
Figure 2. A water main break on the 1600 block of Argonne Drive in Maryland Source: Kim Hairston | Baltimore Sun | AP https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/28/the-10-states-most-in-need-of-aninfrastructure-overhaul.html
issues and challenges to infrastructure in the United States. Nearsurface geophysicists want to better communicate the power and proper role of geophysics in assessing existing infrastructure in providing monitoring and condition assessment of new and rehabilitated infrastructure. The NSTS-sponsored Forum on Infrastructure was held 2426 August 2018, at Oklahoma State University in Stillwater, Oklahoma. The Forum engaged engineers and geoscientists in casual, round-table discussions on key issues, challenges, and solution approaches. A key feature that was well received by attendees, were 30-minute facilitated discussions following invited presentations in four sessions:(1) Keynote presentations in a general session highlighting ASCE and USACE infrastructure initiatives – Session Facilitator, Dr. Dwain Butler, P.G., Applied Geophysics Consultancy a. Keynote 1 – “ASCE Initiatives in Sustainability and Resiliency of Infrastructure” Dr. Norbert Delatte, Jr., P.E., F-ACI, F-ASCE, M.R. Lohmann Endowed Professor and Head, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Oklahoma State University b. Keynote 2 – “USACE Initiatives: Infrastructure Reliability and Resilience: R&D” Dr. Matthew Smith, P.E., ASCE, Senior Research Civil Engineer, USACE Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) (2) The unique challenges to infrastructure in the Central U.S., the recent dramatic increase in numbers of low to moderate magnitude earthquakes (MW2-5+) – Session Facilitator, Dr. Alexandros Savvaidis, Manager Texas Seismological Network (TexNet) a. Keynote 3 – “Oklahoma Seismicity and Observable Effects on Infrastructure” Dr. Walter Jacob, Oklahoma State Seismologist (3) Near-Surface Geophysics and Applications to Infrastructure Assessment, Remediation, Design, and Monitoring for Resilience – Session Facilitator, Dr. Steve Sloan, P.G., USACE (4) R egulatory and policy issues related to infrastructure rehabilitation and design for resilience – Session Facilitator, Dr. Matthew Smith, P.E., ASCE, USACE-ERDC A full list of presenters and their presentations can be found here https://seg.org/Events/Events-Calendar/Forum-on-Infrastructure.
Figure. 3. ASCE Infrastructure report card (www.infrastructurereportcard.org).
ASCE and USACE Infrastructure Initiatives and Program Developments INFRASTRUCTURE ASCE: Dr. Delatte (ASCE, OSU) RESILIENCE
emphasized several ASCE initiatives, specifically relevant to existing infrastructure, including (1) requirements for and preparation of ethical and competent engineers, (2) technical committees/divisions, (3) technical publications, and (4) the Infrastructure Report Card. In support of the first of these initiatives, is the ASCE Code of Ethics Canon 1: Hold Safety Paramount, “Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public and shall strive to comply with the principles of sustainable development in the performance of their professional duties”. Two Technical Committees were highlighted: the Forensic engineering Division and the Infrastructure Resilience Division (IRD). ASCE-IRD was one of the partnering organizations for organizing the Forum. While ASCE has many publications and reports devoted to infrastructure, three journals were highlighted: the Journal of Sustainable Water in the Built Environment; the Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities; the Journal of Natural Hazards Review. Of key relevance to the Forum is ASCE’s National Infrastructure Report Card (https://infrastructurereportcard.org). The Report Card is a systematic ranking of the condition of national, regional, and state by state of existing infrastructure according to category,
Page 54
Vol 24, 3 2019
e.g., roads, dams, bridges, etc. The 2017 composite score for the nation’s infrastructure is D+, and a simplified breakdown by category is shown in Figure 3. The state infrastructure report cards are issued by each state section of ASCE, using the same criteria as for the national report card. The last complete card for the states was in 2013, and 27 states and Washington D.C. have issued subsequent updated report cards. It is not difficult to see that the nation’s infrastructure is in need of renewal, including redesign and replacement of some elements. Notably, ASCE has issued a Grand Challenge and calls all civil engineers to join in the solution to significantly enhance the performance, as well as value of infrastructure projects over their life cycles by 2025. Additionally, ASCE calls all civil engineers to foster optimization of infrastructure investments for society. To reach this goal, the profession must influence major policy changes and infrastructure funding levels, while challenging civil engineers to focus on innovation, rethink life cycle costs, and drive transformational change – from planning to design to delivery. USACE: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are viewed by many as the “Nation’s Engineers”. When difficult engineering challenges face the nation, frequently the recommendation is to have the challenge managed by the Corps of Engineers. Although historically the USACE is viewed and chartered to manage the nation’s navigable waterways and provide flood protection through the use of locks, dams, and levees, its “portfolio” of projects spans a broad range of types of infrastructure. Dr. Smith (USACE-ERDC) provided a listed civil works under purview of the USACE that includes the following: 12,000+ miles of navigable inland waterways, 926 commercial harbors, 191 locks, 353 hydroelectric power generation units, 694 dams, 14,700 miles of levees, > 800 bridges, and buildings, roads, recreation sites, wetlands management, environmental cleanup projects, ecosystems management and restoration. This list is only for the infrastructure directly under USACE management responsibilities; for example, there are over 9,000 large dams (nominally greater than 15-m high and not less than 500-m in length) in the U.S. Some of the guiding principles of USACE infrastructure management include safety, flood control, sustainability, recreation and navigation. How can the USACE ensure the reliability and resilience of the infrastructure it builds and maintains? USACE must manage the portfolio of assets so that: (1) it is reliable in condition and performance from a systemic perspective; (2) individual components of the system meet the same standards; (3) it is flexible and resilient to variability, change, hazards, and evolving national need; (4) works with (not against) local ecosystems. Current USACE structural health monitoring (SHM) approaches include periodic inspections, monitoring, and alternative system operational schedules or concepts, which then feed into an engineering statistics model and extensive engineering/system experience to reach decisions on maintenance, renewal,
Figure 4. Edmond, OK, June 20-26, 2015, event reporting data Source: Data from the Oklahoma Geological Survey (OGS 2015) and USGS earthquake databases (USGS 2016).
restoration, and the need for enhanced monitoring. Research and development (R&D) initiatives seek to improve SHM approaches and instrumentation. A key goal of SHM is to determine asset resilience, and on R&D for future needs in determining current asset resilience and on engineering methodologies to improve asset resiliency. Dr. Smith concluded his presentation with a particularly appropriate quote from President Theodore Roosevelt “The nation behaves well if it treats the national resources [an infrastructure] as assets which it must turn over to the next generation increased and not impaired in value.”
Unique Challenge to Infrastructure in the Central United States In a The Leading Edge article (Butler, et al., 2018) highlighted the rise in induced seismicity effecting the Mid-continent U.S. and raised the issue of infrastructure impacts as well as resiliency to large lifeline infrastructure, such as dams and levees in the region. While most attention has been focused on causation of the increased earthquakes, the implications for infrastructure has not been fully researched. What makes the Mid-continent of the U.S. particularly vulnerable to induced seismicity is its location geologically and structurally. Part of the intra-plate regions, such as Oklahoma, are primed to be susceptible to induced earthquakes. This is because the geological structure is in a quasi-static equilibrium stress state, but combined with recent advances in fluid-based geo-engineering activities, there is an exponential increase in seismic activity within these historically aseismic regions by altering deep lithology effective stress states, which results in subsurface shear failure. Seismologists and earthquake engineers have recently issued concerns about fluid-based geo-engineering activities being the genesis of moderate induced seismicity, yet the topic of damage potential of geo-engineered-induced seismicity remains relatively unexplored (Taylor et al., 2015 a,b and Taylor et al., 2018a).
Page 55 The current seismic design procedures in Oklahoma and similar regions do not reflect the recent increased seismic activity, but instead are based on earlier, quieter historical records. Protective design and public policy have focused on tornadoes and not earthquakes. The long-term, low-level shaking associated with repeated minor to moderate magnitude earthquakes exposes infrastructure to possible failure modes not normally considered in design. Seismic design is focused on single large magnitude. Long duration events. However, the long-term, low-level events do not exhibit the same excitation characteristics as tectonic equivalent events and occur at a frequency in units of days compared to years (Taylor et al., 2015 a,b). The repetitious nature of these longterm, low-level events may generate cumulative damage effects, or fatigue, well in excess of the initial structural design. Moreover, these seemingly inconsequential dynamic loading scenarios are often dismissed as potentially damaging in favor of a single isolated event, i.e., if a structure can withstand a much larger extreme event then a minor event poses no significant threat. This would be a safe assumption provided that the occurrence frequency of the low-level events was not significant (Taylor, et al., 2018a). For example, the Edmond, OK, June 20-25, 2015 low-level seismic swarm event had 10 low-level events in excess of M3.5 with the largest reported event being M4.0 on June 20, 2015. However, the highest levels of damage potential, quantified by felt intensity, occurred with the last significant (>M3.5) event on June 26, 2015, M3.7, suggesting that instability or fatigue can potentially cause smaller events, later in temporal proximity, to exhibit higher factors of risk (i.e., lower measures of safety). The Edmond event is not an isolated occurrence, similar observations were reported in the South-Central Kansas swarm of January 2015, where 20 low-level shaking events were reported; the largest was M3.9 on January 19, 2015. In this case, damage observations and photography showed that the damage to the Harper County Courthouse continued to increase with subsequent events regardless of event magnitude; suggesting failure is more probable from fatigue (service loading failure) than any single event (ultimate load failure). The potential of long-term, low-level shaking to decrease safety, as measured in terms of increase in risk, is not a function solely of seismic characteristics of a single event. Risk is the function of the seismic hazard and the structural vulnerability, Equation 1: Seismic Risk = Seismic Hazard x Vulnerability, where the vulnerability of an area or point of interest is a function of the exposed, fragility and consequence (Mitchell and Green, 2017). If the seismic hazard is reduced (small magnitude events) but the exposure or frequency combined with increase in fragility or fatigue, it is clearly possible that the quantification of seismic risk increases compared to a single event of much larger magnitude. Applying this Risk approach to earth embankment dams, for example, the frequency of long-term, low-level shaking can introduce the increased potential for multi-hazard scenarios wherein the addition of small ground acceleration increases combined with changes in reservoir heights can decrease earth embankment stability (Quinn and Taylor, 2014). The probability of the occurrence of a critical pool height combined with a
Vol 24, 3 2019
large magnitude event is extremely low and often ignored in design calculations. However, as the frequency of the lowlevel events increases, so does the probability that an event may occur in conjunction with a critical reservoir height, thus potentially elevating the seismic hazard or both, is constrained by the proximity to the geo-engineering activity that induces or triggers the long-term, low-level shaking (Ortlepp, 2005; Ellsworth, 213; Keranen et al., 2013; McGarr, 214; Taylor et al., 2015 a, b; McNamara et al., 2015; Mitchell and Green, 2017). A parallel between long-term, low-level events and similar induced dynamic sources can be made. For example, there have been numerous cases wherein vibrations caused by pile driving have resulted in detrimental settlement of adjacent structures (similar to the damage correlated with long-term, low-level seismicity), leading to the demolition of some historic structures. These vibrations were caused by impact hammers operating at low strike frequencies wherein each pile strike generated seismic velocities well below construction thresholds for even the most sensitive structures. Soil, concrete, and steel structures are all susceptible to fatigue and other unique failure modes under this type of exposure to repeated low magnitude shaking. In the case of pile driving and long-term, low-level shaking, a single event is of little concern by itself, however if multiple events are in close spatio-temporal proximity, the cumulative impact has resulted in unforeseen damage. Recent research at the U.S. Army ERDC compared the treatment of short duration, low-level dynamic loading in two broad categories; (1) continuous sinusoidal loads and (2) short duration impulsive loads (Figure 5; Taylor et al., 2018b). The results, Figure 5, illustrated a stark contrast in deformations, axial strain, at the same loading conditions; the impulsive loading accumulated higher strains in the form of soil fatigue than the same load applied as a continuous sinusoidal load. This suggests that frequent, short duration, low-level shaking, when treated as multiple impulsive loads, can generate deformations in excess of those predicted under current engineering practice, i.e., continuous sinusoidal loads can readily explain why structural damage is observed over time and not immediately after the first event (Taylor et al., 2018b). Following an Introduction to the Unique Challenge Session by Dr. Alexandros Savvaidis, Manager of the Texas Seismological Network (TexNet) and a keynote address by Dr. Jacob Walter, Oklahoma State Seismologist, four speakers addressed various aspects of the issue. From measurements of ground and structural motions, to predictions of future events, and to prediction and assessment methods for cumulative damage
Figure 5. Impulsive (left) versus dynamic (right) loading at the same dynamic stress (from Taylor et al. 2018 b).
Page 56
Vol 24, 3 2019
from low-level shaking. The presenters gave a solid foundation for the subsequent facilitated discussion. The panel alluded to the notion that since buildings in Oklahoma are designed to withstand high winds, they may not perform as well in earthquakes, which are becoming a new reality in Oklahoma. Although the causation is not clear, these earthquakes that have been correlated largely with wastewater injection. They urged the community to start learning to live with low-magnitude earthquakes and think about their long-term ramifications on our infrastructure and lifestyle. Dr. Jacob emphasized on the value of permanent seismic networks deployments not only for monitoring seismicity but also for understanding the differences in spatial footprints and ground movement amplification impacts of below basement (igneous) versus sedimentary section above basement (e.g. Peterie, et al., 2018; Goebel and Broadsky, 2018), . In a related discussion, the need for novel efforts such as prediction of building motions (National Science Foundation sponsored project #1835371 led by Drs. Jaiswal and Soliman, Oklahoma State University), was emphasized.
Near-surface Geophysics: Applications to Infrastructure Assessment, Monitoring, and Design for Resiliency Two presenters gave an overview of geophysical methods applicable to infrastructure: general applicability, measurements, vertical and horizontal resolution, interpretation, correlation or direct conversion to engineering parameters. The first presentation highlighted geophysical methodologies for continuous, high resolution profiling of “elongated” features or structures – dams, levees, roadways, railroads, airfields, pipelines, powerlines, including seismic methods (refraction, reflection, surface waves, e.g. MASW), electrical resistivity tomography (ERT), electromagnetic induction, and ground penetrating radar (GPR). Each of these methods has specific geological and geometric advantages and limitations, but generally these advantages and limitations can be predicted in advance and the appropriate method(s) selected. Data acquisition, data processing, and interpretation algorithms have all progressively advanced in speed and resolution. The geophysical methods applied to these have also progressively advanced in speed and resolution. Generally, the geophysical methods applied to these elongated structures, result in 2-D models of the structure and its foundation. Figure 6 shows a frequent hazard to roadways and other infrastructure, namely sinkholes; these are amenable to study by geophysical methods. Geophysical methodologies for more localized critical infrastructure (e.g., dams, bridges, power plants, wind farms) and infrastructure foundation assessment, emphasize 2-D and 3-D interpretation models. Virtually all of the geophysical methods are applicable for assessment and monitoring for both aboveground and below-ground structures. The presentations explored
Figure 6. This sinkhole in Rosenberg is indicative of one of the reasons why the D+ rating is given to U.S. infrastructure by the American Society of Civil Engineers. Such sinkholes can be routinely investigated by near surface geophysical methods Source - Photo: Courtesy, Rosenberg Police Department https://www.houstonchronicle.com/local/gray-matters/article/How-can-the-U-S-fixour-failing-infrastructure-12625041.php
the symbiosis between geophysical and engineering design and maintenance of critical structures and lifeline infrastructure. 3-D models of geophysical parameters and derived geotechnical parameters (via well-understood correlations and direct relationships) give credibility to geophysical investigations and subsequent presentations to engineers and project managers. The two near-surface geophysics presentations were followed by a case history of the major rehabilitation of Clearwater Dam, MO, by the Little Rock District, USACE. Geology and geophysics, geotechnical investigations, design implementation and funding time-delays were highlighted. The case history is particularly significant in that near-surface geophysics played a significant role in guiding the geotechnical investigations and the design of the rehabilitation approach, as well as implementation.
Regulatory and Policy Issues Related to Infrastructure Rehabilitation and Design for Resiliency State and Federal laws and policy lead to regulations, which affect infrastructure, and of primary importance are the regulations that mandate safety, construction practices, and maintenance of infrastructure. In Oklahoma, for example, infrastructure is designed for tornadoes and tornado insurance is available, but infrastructure is not designed for earthquakes and earthquake insurance is generally not available. There are no seismic guidelines for private dams in Oklahoma (and 69% of the dams are privately owned). Regulations also affect the designs and time-line for rehabilitation of aging infrastructure, as well as budgetary delays of funding for rehabilitation (e.g., the case of Clearwater Dam, MO). The ASCE 217 Infrastructure Report Card had an average grade of D+ across all categories of infrastructure (Figure 3); and in
Page 57 terms of investment, estimated that $3.6 trillion over five years would be needed by 2020 to bring aging infrastructure up to a reasonable safety and functionality standard. Using dams in Oklahoma as an example, there are 345 high hazard dams, and the average age of all dams (publicly- and privately-owned) is 46 years. The Oklahoma Infrastructure Report Card grade for dams is D. A major problem for dam sites in Oklahoma, as well as the rest of the U.S. in general, is hazard creep, resulting from land development (housing, industry, small business) in proximity of dams. The most prominent example in recent history is the flooding during and after Hurricane Harvey in 2017 of large housing developments and businesses in the proximity of two large flood control dams in Houston. State and Federal governments tend, perhaps naturally, to be reactionary rather than proactive in response to natural disasters and the effects on infrastructure. All too often policy and regulations become entangled with politics and ideology (as an example, climate change or oil and gas production and resulting threats to infrastructure). Following the surge in seismic activity in Oklahoma, for example, the state proactively formed an advisory group on seismic activity and made rule changes: in 2013, a rules amendment, allowed for unscheduled inspection for dams within 50 miles of the epicenter of Mw ≥5.0 earthquakes, and formed an advisory group on seismic activity (2014). Proactively, the advisory group advocated a reclassification of hazard potential for dams and requirements for rehabilitation of structurally deficient dams. However, the permit fee for private dam development hasn’t increased and the state agency responsibility for monitoring and inspecting dams has a very small staff. High hazard dam owners are required to hire a professional engineer for verification and inspection; however, as is the case even for federal government operated dams, dam and other infrastructure inspections are generally visual, considered routine and are conducted only to satisfy regulatory requirements. To be noted in a routine visual inspection, a structural problem must be very evident and hence well developed: e.g., a major seep at the toe of a dam or significant cracking in bridge supports. Cost effective geophysical infrastructure assessment and monitoring methods are generally considered only after all other approaches are exhausted or after a failure.
Acknowledgements: The evening reception was sponsored by the Boone Pickens School of Geology, Oklahoma State University. Student attendance was made possible through support of the National Science Foundation Award # 1849273.
References American Society of Civil Engineers, 2017, Infrastructure report card, https://infrastructurereportcasrd.org
Dwain K. Butler , Priyank Jaiswal , and Laurie Whitesell (2018). ”A forum on infrastructure: Unique challenges for infrastructure in the central United States from low-level seismicity.” The Leading Edge, 37(5), 386–387. https://doi.org/10.1190/tle37050386.1 Ellsworth, W.L. “Injection-induced earthquakes,” Science, vol. 341, no. 6142, p. 1225942, 2013.
Vol 24, 3 2019
Keranen, K.M., H. M. Savage, G. A. Abers, and E. S. Cochran, 2013, “Potentially induced earthquakes in Oklahoma, USA: links between wastewater injection and the 2011 Mw 5.7 earthquake sequence,” Geology, vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 699–702. McGarr, A. “Maximum magnitude earthquakes induced by fluid injection,” Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, vol. 119, no. 2, pp. 1008–1019, 2014. J. K. Mitchell and R. A. Green, “Some induced seismicity considerations in geo-energy resource development,” Geomechanics for Energy and the Environment, vol. 10, pp. 3–11, 2017. McNamara, D.E., G.P. Hayes, H.M. Benz, R.A. Williams, N.D. McMahon, R.C. Aster, A. Holland, T. Sickbert, R. Herrmann, R. Briggs, G. Smoczyk, E. Bergman, and P. Earle. 2015. Reactivated faulting near Cushing, Oklahoma: Increased potential for a triggered earthquake in an area of United States strategic infrastructure. Geophysical Research Letters 42(20): 8328-8332. Oklahoma Geological Survey (OGS). 2015. OGS earthquake catalog. http://www.okgeosurvey1.gov/pages/earthquakes/catalogs.php
Ortlepp, W. D. (2005). “RaSiM comes of age—A review of the contributions to the understanding and control of mine rockbursts.” Proc., 6th Int. Symp. on Rockburst and Seismic Activity in Mines, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Nedlands, Australia. Petroski, H., 2017, The state of our infrastructure: American Scientist, 105(5), 274–278, https://doi.org/10.1511/2017.105.5.274. Peterie, S. L., R. D. Miller, R. Buchanan, and B. DeArmond (2018), Fluid injection wells can have a wide seismic reach, Eos, 99, https:// doi.org/10.1029/2018EO096199. Published on 17 April 2018. Quinn, M.C.L. and O.-D.S. Taylor. 2014. Hazard Topography: A visual approach for identifying critical failure combinations for infrastructure. Natural Hazards Review 15(4): 04014012. Goebel, Thomas H.W. and Brodsky, Emily E., The spatial footprint of injection wells in a global compilation of induced earthquake sequences, Science, 361(6405), pp. 899-904, 2018. Taylor, O.-D.S., T.A. Lee, and A.P. Lester. 2015a. Hazard and risk potential of uncon¬ventional hydrocarbon development-induced seismicity within the Central United States. Natural Hazards Review. ASCE. doi: 10.106/(ASCE)NH.1527 -6996.0000178. Taylor, O.-D.S., T.A. Lee, and A.P. Lester. 2015b. Unconventional hydrocarbon devel¬opment hazards within the Central United States, Report 1: Overview and potential risk to infrastructure. ERDC/GSL Technical Report. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. Taylor, O.-D.S., T.A. Lee, A.P. Lester and M.H. McKenna. 2018a. Can repetitive small magnitude-induced seismic events actually cause damage? Advances in Civil Engineering, Vol 2018, Article ID 2056123, 5 pages. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/2056123 Taylor, O.-.D.S., K.E. Winters, W.W. Berry, and M.L. Zuzulock. 2018b. “Dynamic Failure Potential of Partially Saturated Sand Under Ultra-low Confining Pressure” Proceedings of the Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V, Austin, TX, 2018. U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS). 2016. “Did You Feel It?” archive page. U.S. Geological Survey. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/dyfi/ archives.php.
Vol 24, 3 2019
Page 58
Author Bios Dwain K. Butler
Priyank Jaiswal
President
Boone Pickens School of Geology
Applied Geophysics Consultancy
Oklahoma State University
Vicksburg, Massachusetts, USA 39180
Stillwater, Oklahoma, US 74078 priyank.jaiswal@okstate.edu
agc.llc@bellsouth.net www.agc-llc.net
With a broad education in geophysics, physics, geology and geotechnical engineering, Dwain Butler has a Ph.D. in Geophysics (Geology) from Texas A&M University. His specific interests, developed in a career spanning more than 50 years as a physicist and geophysicist, include: engineering and environmental geophysics; solid earth geophysics; engineering geology; dynamic material properties; numerical modeling of dynamic processes; projectile penetration; rock mechanics; soil and rock testing; general site investigation/ characterization; karst geology and site characterization; cavity and tunnel detection; microgravimetry; electromagnetic methods of geophysics; shallow seismic methods; seismic risk and liquefaction assessment; Military Water Supply; ground water resources; ground water modeling; anomalous seepage assessment; Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) detection; landmine detection; archaeological geophysics and inverse modeling. Before starting his Applied Geophysics Consultancy he held various posts: as a Senior Principal Scientist with Alion Science and Technology; Senior Research Geophysicist, US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory; National Technical Expert, Environmental and Hydrogeology U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and as a Research Physicist, both with the US Army Engineers. Missouri River Division Laboratory, and also with the U.S. Naval Ordnance Laboratory. Dwain has also held various Adjunct Professor positions at Texas A&M, Mississippi State, Mississippi and Southern Mississippi Universities and is the recipient of numerous industry and professional society awards. He is a registered Professional Geologists in Arkansas and a member of SEG, AGU, EEGS, EAGE, Sigma Pi Sigma (Physics) and Sigma Xi.
Priyank Jaiswal has a PhD from Rice University. He has professional experience as a seismic processor, interpreter, and petrophysicist. His research interests include petroleum exploration, gas-hydrates, carbon sequestration, shale gas, and regional tectonics. His expertise in various fields has brought him millions of dollars in competitive grants from funding agencies such as the US National Science Foundation and Department of Energy. To date, he has over 50 publication and expanded abstracts in a variety of international journals and conferences on a broad range of applied and basic science topics ranging from seismology to bio-geosciences. He is a regular reviewer for several geoscientific journals and on the editorial board of Journal of Engineering. and Environmental Geophysics (JEEG) Laurie Whitesell Near Surface Geophysics Program Manager Society of Exploration Geophysicists Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA lwhitesell@seg.org
Laurie Whitesell joined the Society of Exploration Geophysicists (SEG) as the Near Surface Geophysics Program Manager in 2012. In 2016 she accepted the additional responsibility of business development for Eurasia, Europe, and Latin America. Laurie has a Bachelor of Science in Geology from the University of Arkansas and a Master of Science in Geology from the University of Tulsa, with a focus on hydrologic problems. It was as an intern at the New Jersey Geological Survey (NJGS) where Laurie first discovered the excitement of shallow marine geophysics. After graduate school, Laurie continued to work with the NJGS as a geologist for more than a decade. During that time, she was part of the geophysics group, and the team conducted numerous seismic surveys, analyzed hundreds of cores, interpreted thousands of nautical miles of seismic data, and correlated offshore to onshore stratigraphy. After graduate school Laurie also worked with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Ground Water Pollution Assessment Bureau. Laurie utilized various remedial methods on groundwater remediation cases involving several aquifer types and a broad spectrum of contaminants in geologic provinces across the state. Currently, Laurie is a doctoral candidate at Oklahoma State University with a focus on sequence stratigraphy, seismic stratigraphy, and reservoir characterization.
Page 59
Vol 24, 3 2019
Page 60
Vol 24, 3 2019
Vol 24, 3 2019
Page 61
GPR 2020
Colorado School of Mines
18th International Conference on Ground Penetrating Radar June 14 - 19, 2020 Golden, Colorado USA GPR 2020 will bring together more than 200 scientists, engineers, and practitioners from around the world who are interested in all aspects of ground penetrating radar. The Conference provides a venue to review developments in the field over the previous two years, and to take a first-look at future developments. Those involved with the use of ground penetrating radar comprise a diverse community, including academic researchers, industrial scientists and engineers, government scientists, and policy makers. All are welcome to this conference, ranging from those just beginning to those with substantial expertise. The Conference will host four special plenary sessions on scientifically and socially significant topics including: • GPR to help monitor impacts of climate change • How GPR can help with developing and renewing infrastructure • Biogeophysics and GPR • Exploration of planets and other extraterrestrial bodies In addition to the plenary sessions, many exciting themes are planned for the conference. Full information is available on the website.
Call for Abstracts Initial abstracts due :: November 30, 2019 Extended abstracts due :: February 15, 2020 Final extended abstracts due :: May 1, 2020
Who should attend? • Researchers • Scientists • Engineers • Technicians • Policy Makers
Opportunities for Sponsors and Exhibitors The Conference offers companies or organizations a special opportunity to enhance their image by supporting the goals of GPR 2020 for the international participants and local community. Exhibits from manufacturers, suppliers, service providers, and others involved with ground penetrating radar or related industries are welcome. Full information is available on the website.
GPR 2020 Website: https://gpr2020.csmspace.com
Page 62
Geophysical Surveys in Support of the Geohazard Evaluations for the Atlantic Sunrise Pipeline Timothy J. King Germantown, Maryland Timothy.King@AECOM.com
Bio Chulwoo Kim, Ph. D AECOM Conshohocken, Pennsylvania Chulwoo61@gmail.com
Bio Brett Becker Williams Houston, Texas Brett.Becker@williams.com
Bio Michael R, Greer AECOM Germantown, Maryland Michael.Greer@AECOM.com
Vol 24, 3 2019
Introduction The Williams Atlantic Sunrise Pipeline Project (Project) extends through central Pennsylvania and connects producing regions of the Marcellus gas supplies in northeastern Pennsylvania to markets in the Mid-Atlantic and southeastern states (Figure 1). Permitting of the nearly $3 billion expansion of the existing Transco natural gas pipeline network through the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) process began in 2015 and construction commenced in September of 2017. The Project included construction of approximately 183 miles of new 30-inch and 42-inch diameter greenfield pipeline (Central Penn North and Central Penn South). The Project also included construction of 12 miles of pipe looping, 2.5 miles of pipe replacement, two greenfield compressor stations and modification to existing compressor stations across five states. Construction was completed in the fall of 2018 and the pipeline was placed into service on October 6, 2018 (Williams, 2018). The greenfield pipeline sections extend through a region of Pennsylvania that is characterized by a variety of geologic hazards including karst and abandoned mine lands that present potential risks for ground subsidence.
Karst Portions of the Project area are located within karst terrain as identified by mapping compilation completed by the United
Bio Steven J. Husted AECOM Water Corporation Conshohocken, Pennsylvania Steven.Husted@AECOM.com
Bio Collin Strine-Zuroski AECOM Germantown, Maryland Collin.Strine-Zuroski@AECOM.com
Bio
Figure 1. Overview Map of Atlantic Sunrise Project.
Page 63
Vol 24, 3 2019
complex, the spatial and geographic distribution of known karst features is variable, thereby warranting completion of the multi-faceted investigation.
Abandoned Mine Lands The Project alignment extends through areas of potential risk for ground subsidence associated with past surface and subsurface mining of anthracite coal. Subsurface mine-impacted areas include two sections of the Project located in Schuylkill and Northumberland Counties totaling approximately 8 miles of the alignment (Figure 2). The portions of the alignment within the subsurface mine-impacted areas are generally characterized by wooded, steep and rugged terrain (e.g., talus or scree slopes). Ground loss over partial extraction (room and pillar) mine workings is variable. Low impact areas may be characterized by isolated open cracks in the ground surface to bands, or lattice networks of crop falls. These cropfalls may be expressed at the ground surface as subtle, broad troughs that are difficult to detect visually or as conical/elongated depressions extending to depths of several feet. However, larger crop falls extending to depths in excess of 20 feet are present in the project area.
Desktop Study
Figure 2. Overview Map of Karst and Mine Areas.
States Geological Survey (USGS, 2014). Karst is defined as a type of topography that is formed over limestone, dolomite or gypsum by dissolution and removal of the soluble minerals within the host rocks. Karst topography is generally characterized by closed depressions or sinkholes, caves and underground drainage. An irregular bedrock surface is typical of most karst areas as the dissolution tends to occur preferentially along joints and bedding planes where water flow is most prevalent. Areas of the Project underlain by carbonate bedrock include sections of the alignment in Lancaster, Lebanon and Columbia Counties totaling approximately 28.8 miles (Figure 2). The majority of the alignment within the identified carbonate bedrock areas extends across cultivated farm fields that generally exhibit rolling topography. However, portions of the alignment within the karst areas traverse wooded areas, streams, roadways and developed land. Sinkholes are typically more prone to form in topographically low areas because the concentration of surface water run-off provides a greater potential for infiltration and, in turn, increased flow into porous rock and open fractures where dissolution of the bedrock has been occurring. However, sinkholes can also develop on slopes underlain by inclined rock formations. Because the carbonate rock formations underlying these three counties are geologically old, and consequently are structurally
The geohazard evaluation commenced with an initial desktop study that consisted of compilation and evaluation of various datasets to identify features of concern including sinkholes and abandoned mines, to assess the risks associated with these potential geohazards along the Project alignment. Existing karst features, manifested as ground surface subsidence, were identified and investigated using a multi lines-of-evidence approach. This investigation included analysis of black and white aerial photographs , color infrared (CIR) images and light detection and ranging (LiDAR) generated topographic mapping data sets. A series of historic aerial photographs dating from 1940, 1969 and 1970 were obtained from the Penn Pilot Project (PA DCNR, 2015). Complete aerial photo coverage of the Project route through the subject carbonate belts were examined stereoscopically for indications of karst features. CIR imagery data were evaluated in an effort to identify karst features in the vicinity of the pipeline corridor. CIR data were acquired in Lancaster County in 1999 (Parrish and Wise, 2000), during a period of prolific drought, and in 2014 (PGS, 2015). These data were analyzed and areas identified as potential karst features were noted and incorporated into the evaluation. Potential subsidence or collapse features that developed between 1970 and 2014 were evaluated by review of high resolution LiDAR imagery from the PAMAP Program 3.2 feet digital elevation model (DEM) published by the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (PA DCNR, 2008) as well as LiDAR data specifically acquired for the Project in 2014.
Page 64
Vol 24, 3 2019
Figure 4. Desktop LiDAR Data and Mine Evaluation.
By comparing the observations from evaluation of aerial photographs with those of the LiDAR, geophysics, and ground reconnaissance, a high degree of congruence is considered significant evidence of a potential karst-related feature, or PKF.
Observed features were compared with published sinkhole, cave, surface mines, springs, and closed depressions available from the Pennsylvania Geologic Survey of the PA DCNR (PA DCNR, 2007) and the from the Pennsylvania State University (PSU) PA Spatial Data Access (PASDA) database (PSU, 2015).
The desktop study to identify potential abandoned mine hazards utilized a combination of industry-accepted techniques implemented in complementary fashion to assess conditions that could cause future ground subsidence. Investigation methods included literature review of abandoned and active underground mine maps and other references from the PA DEP (PA DEP 2015 and 2016), USGS (USGS, 1951, 1962 and 1968), Eastern Pennsylvania Coalition for Abandoned Mine Reclamation (EPCAMR, 2015), Pennsylvania State University (PSU, 2015), and the Office of Surface Mine Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRM, 2015), and evaluation of aerial photograph and LiDAR data. Representative results of the aerial photograph evaluation are presented on Figure 3. Representative results of the Lidar data evaluation and mine map review are provided on Figure 4.
Figure 5. Karst sinkhole identified through site reconnaissance.
Figure 6. Mine Opening identified through site reconnaissance.
Figure 3. Desktop Aerial Photograph Evaluation from Mine Area.
Page 65
Vol 24, 3 2019
The objective of the desktop mine investigation was to identify areas of potential mine-related features (PMFs) and evaluate and understand the potential for ground subsidence at the depth of the pipeline to help design measures for mitigating potential ground subsidence. The karst and abandoned mine desktop studies were followed by site reconnaissance surveys to further evaluate identified features of concern. Representative karst and abandoned mine features identified during the site reconnaissance are shown on Figures 5 and 6, respectively.
Geophysical Investigation An extensive geophysical investigation to thoroughly evaluate the risk associated with ground subsidence in the sections of the planned alignment within identified karst terrain and abandoned mine lands was performed. The geophysical investigation in the identified karst terrain portions of the alignment consisted of approximately 30 miles of MASW surveys augmented with pseudo 3D ERI across survey grids in targeted areas. The geophysical investigation in the identified abandoned mine land portions of the alignment consisted of approximately 8 miles of ERI along transects and pseudo 3D ERI across survey grids in targeted areas of concern. Targeted seismic refraction surveying was also completed in the karst terrain area to aid in evaluating areas where rock excavation would be required for construction of the pipeline. MASW surveying was completed along the 28.8 mile-long portion of the Project that crossed carbonate bedrock formations. The MASW method provides detailed, laterally continuous, 2-dimensional profiling of shear wave velocities of subsurface layers. In addition to providing information relative to subsurface layering, the MASW method is effective for detecting and delineating subsurface features associated with potential ground subsidence as there is general correlation between shear wave velocity and material stiffness. MASW data were collected in general accordance with the procedures and acquisition parameters listed in (Park, 2019). The
Figure 8. ERI data collection.
signal was generated using manual impacts with a 10- to 16-pound sledgehammer on a metal plate (Figure 7). Signal stacking from multiple shots was utilized at each location to increase the quality of the signal recorded at each shot location. The data were recorded using a Geometrics Geode 24-channel seismograph and a 24-phone land streamer or multi-geode system with 48, 4.5-hertz geophones, depending on conditions observed in the field. Areas identified as being impacted by significant and or a dense occurrence of PKFs based on the desktop study, MASW profiles and initial confirmatory drilling were further evaluated through a Focused Karst Investigation (FKI). Additional delineation of the areas was accomplished via a series of tightly spaced, parallel 2D ERI transects oriented parallel to the pipeline centerline. The individual 2D transect lines were processed individually then inverted as a group to provide a pseudo 3D dataset used for analysis and planning in the subsequent intrusive investigation, and ultimately remediation design. ERI surveying was completed along the approximately 8 mile section of the alignment underlain by the Western Middle and Southern anthracite fields. These areas were subject to potential impact by historic mining activities. The ERI method provides a rapid means of measuring electrical resistivities of subsurface materials and has been widely and effectively used to evaluate subsurface conditions related to ground subsidence risks associated with mines. The ERI data were acquired using an AGI Super Sting R8 electrical resistivity meter system with 112 electrodes (Figure 8). The ERI transects were generally positioned along the planned centerline of the pipeline. The data were collected in general accordance with the procedures and acquisition parameters detailed in (Loke, 1999) and (AGI, 2015).
Results and Conclusions Figure 7. Collection of MASW data in winter.
MASW profiles were plotted as color-enhanced 2-D shear wave velocity profiles. Logs of PKF borings acquired during
Page 66
Vol 24, 3 2019
the intrusive investigation completed along the alignment were also annotated on the profiles, where completed (Figure 9). Based on correlation between the results of the PKF borings and MASW survey, the transition from soil to rock along these particular profiles was interpreted to occur in the range of 1,200 ft/s. Shear wave velocities below 1,200 ft/s were interpreted to be generally representative of near surface soils, highly weathered rock, or void space. Shear wave velocities greater than 1,200 ft/s were interpreted to be generally representative of moderately weathered to competent bedrock. This transition velocity varied across the alignment and with rock type. The modeled results generally indicated an angulating and variable bedrock surface commonly characteristic of karst terrain. Karst environments may consist of bedrock pinnacles, solution-enlarged joints, weathered rock, variable size voids or cavities and other complex geologic features. Over 700 geophysical anomalies located within 50 feet of the alignment centerline were identified and annotated on results with pertinent information such as location, depth and relative size. Select PKFs of concern were further investigated utilizing pseudo 3D ERI surveying to further delineate the lateral and vertical extents of the indicated karst features. Representative pseudo 3D ERI results are presented as Figure 10. To further assess PKFs, intrusive ‘direct-reading’ geotechnical drilling utilizing the air-track and hollow stem auger drilling techniques was implemented. The air-track drilling allows for verifying the presence of voids and void-like features (i.e., pockets or zones of very soft/loose soils) via monitoring and recording the penetration resistance (i.e., time required to advance the drilling tool) of the drilling tools during drilling. The hollow stem auger drilling allows for verifying the presence of voids and void-like features via resistance of drilling tools during their penetration and soil sampling using Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) in general accordance with ASTM D-1586. The air-track and HSA drilling effectively explored the presence, depth and thickness of apparent subsurface voids and void-like features. Over 400 primary borings were drilled. Additional secondary offset borings were drilled at locations where further delineation of identified voids was warranted. Voids or void-like features were observed in fifty-four (54) PKF borings. Nineteen (19) areas characterized by dense clusters of PKFs were slated for mitigation prior to or during construction. The results of ERI surveying were presented as color-enhanced 2-D profiles, an example of which is presented as Figure 11. Identified anomalies of concern were characterized as potential mine features (PMFs). Generally speaking, coal seams, air-filled or water-filled voids or other similar features of potential concern would exhibit anomalous localized responses characterized by relatively low or high electrical resistivities. Approximately150 anomalies located within 50 feet of the alignment were identified. These features were generally indicated by localized anomalies characterized by areas of relatively low or high electrical resistivity. To further assess PMFs, intrusive ‘direct-reading’ geotechnical drilling utilizing the air-track drilling technique were implemented. The air-track drilling allows for verifying the presence of voids and void-like features (i.e., pockets
Figure 9. Representative MASW results over a mapped karst terrain area.
Figure 10.Representative pseudo 3D ERI results over a section of the alignment in karst terrain.
Figure 11. Representative ERI results over a section of the alignment in abandoned mine area.
or zones of very soft/loose soils) via monitoring and recording the penetration resistance (i.e., time required to advance the drilling tool) of the drilling tools during drilling. The air-track drilling effectively explored the presence, depth and thickness of apparent subsurface voids and void-like features. The geophysical and intrusive investigations facilitated implementation of a comprehensive mitigation program that included realignment of the pipeline to bypass elevated risk
Page 67
Vol 24, 3 2019
areas and usage of thick wall pipe to increase the spanning capability of the pipeline in relatively elevated risk areas. Mitigation in the karst areas primarily involved excavating to expose sinkhole ‘throats’ (i.e., a solution-enlarged conduit commonly filled with soil that extends down into possibly a larger open cavity in the carbonate bedrock below), and replacing with low-permeability backfill and/or flowable fill. In addition, mitigation measures implemented at selected areas included compaction grouting to modify and enhance subsurface conditions and installing mini-piles to structurally support pipes. Mitigation in the abandoned mine areas primarily involved excavating to expose mine openings and plugging of the openings prior to placement of the pipe and backfill materials. Photographs of the pipeline construction through the karst and abandoned mines areas are presented as Figure 12.
References Advanced Geosciences, Inc. (2015). SuperSting Earth Resistivity, IP & SP System with Wi-Fi. Eastern Pennsylvania Coalition for Abandoned Mine Reclamation (EPCAMR), Reclaimed Abandoned Mine Land Inventory System (RAMLIS) GIS Tool, http://epcamr.org/home/current-initiatives/minepool-mapping-initiative/, accessed October, (2015). Kochanov, W.E. and J. Parrish. (2008). Infrared imagery of the karst terrain of Lancaster County, southeastern Pennsylvania. In: Yuhr, L.B., E.C. Alexander, Jr., and B.F Beck (Editors), Proceedings of the 11th Multidisciplinary Conference on Sinkholes and the Engineering and Environmental Impacts of Karst. Tallahassee, FL. September 22-26, 2008. American Society of Civil Engineers. pp. 165-174. Kochanov, W.E., and S.O. Reese. (2003). Density of Mapped Karst Features in South-Central and Southeastern Pennsylvania, Bureau of Topographic and Geologic Survey Map 68. Loke, M. H. (1999). A Practical Guide to 2D and 3D Surveys. Electrical Imaging Surveys for Environmental and Engineering Studies, A Practical Guide to 2-D and 3-D Surveys. Office of Surface Mine Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRM), National Mine Map Repository, Accessed October, (2015). https://www.osmre.gov/programs/tdt/nmmr.shtm. Park, C.B. (2019). Multichannel Analysis of Surface Waves – Data Acquisition. Accessed January 7, 2019. http://MASW.com/DataAcquisition.html. Parrish, J.B. and D. Wise. (2000). Images acquired during extreme drought used to map geologic structure beneath agricultural areas, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs. Northeast Sectional Meeting. Volume 32 (1): A-64. Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (PA DCNR). (2007). Bureau of Topographic and Geologic Survey, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Digital data set of mapped karst features in southcentral and southeastern Pennsylvania.
Figure 12. Pipeline construction in karst and abandoned underground mine areas
Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (PA DCNR). (2008). PAMAP Program 3.2 Ft Digital Elevation Model of PA; 08-15-2008; Pennsylvania DCNR, Bureau of Topographic and Geologic Survey, Middletown, Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (PA DCNR). Bureau of Topographic and Geologic Survey, Historical Aerial Photographs of Pennsylvania. Penn
Vol 24, 3 2019
Page 68 Pilot. Accessed October, (2015). http://www.pennpilot.psu.edu/. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP). Bureau of Abandoned Mine Reclamation (BAMR). Abandoned Mine Land Inventory. Accessed January, (2016). http://www.depgis.state.pa.us/emappa/
Pennsylvania State University (PSU), Pennsylvania Spatial Data Access (PASDA). Accessed October, (2015). http://www.pasda.psu.edu/. U.S. Geological Survey, (1951). Geology of Anthracite in the Southwestern Part of the Mount Carmel Quadrangle, Pennsylvania; By Howard E. Rothrock, Holly C. Wagner, Boyd R. Haly, and Harold H. Arndt; Coal Investigations Map C-7. U.S. Geological Survey, (1962). Geology of Anthracite in the Eastern Part of the Shamokin Quadrangle, Northumberland County Pennsylvania, By Walter Danilchik, Harold H. Arndt,
and Gordon H. Wood, Jr.; Coal Investigations Map C-46. U.S. Geological Survey, (1968). Geologic Maps of AnthraciteBearing Rock in the West-Central Part of the Southern Anthracite Field Pennsylvania, Eastern Area, By Gordon H. Wood, Jr., J. Peter Trexler, and Thomas M. Kehn; Miscellaneous Investigations Map I-528. PADEP, eMapPA. http://www.depgis.state.pa.us/emappa/; accessed October, 2015. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), (2014). “Karst in the United States: A Digital Map Compilation and Database”; D.J. Weary and D.H. Doctor, Open File Report 2014-1156, 23 p. Williams (2018), Atlantic Sunrise Project Placed into Full Service. October 6, 2018. https://blog.williams.com/projectsand-operations/atlantic-sunrise/atlantic-sunrise-project-placed-intofull-service/.
Author Bios Timothy King
Brett Becker
AECOM
Williams
Germantown, Maryland Timothy.King@AECOM.com
Houston, Texas Brett.Becker@williams.com
Timothy is a Principal Geologist and Department at AECOM. In his 32 years at the firm, he has built and is the leader of a geophysical services team. His experience includes engineering geophysics, engineering geology, and hydrogeology applied to site investigations to evaluate subsurface conditions related to dams, tunnels, pipelines, mines, highways, bridges, dams, and other civil infrastructure. He has been responsible for technical and management aspects of investigations for thousands of domestic and international project sites.
Brett Becker is a Senior Pipeline Engineer at Williams. He manages the overall engineering of natural gas transmission pipeline expansion projects at Williams, from conceptual design, estimating, local, state and federal permitting support, detailed engineering and design, construction support and project closeout. He has been involved in numerous challenging transmission pipeline projects throughout the Northeast, as well as midstream pipeline projects in the Central and Southern portions of the US.
Chulwoo Kim, Ph.D.
Michael Greer
Langhorn, Pennsylvania Chulwoo61@gmail.com
AECOM
Dr. Kim has more than 34 years’ experience in geotechnical/ civil engineering and construction business. His responsibilities have been distributed over a wide variety of geotechnical and civil/environmental engineering and geohazard study, with particular emphasis on the management of pipeline projects consisting of geotechnical investigation for various trenchless pipeline installation techniques (conventional bore, HDD, Direct Pipe), geohazard investigation and mitigation (e.g., karst, landslide, abandoned mine), foundation evaluation and design for compressor stations, and M&R stations.
Germantown, Maryland Michael.Greer@AECOM.com
Michael is a Senior Geophysicist at AECOM. He has spent over 18 years working on multidiscipline construction, infrastructure, and environmental projects for government and private sector clients on domestic and international assignments. His experience includes planning, data acquisition, data processing, analysis and interpretation of the full suite of surface, marine and borehole geophysical surveys.
Vol 24, 3 2019
Page 69 Steven Husted
Collin Strine-Zuroski
AECOM
AECOM
Conshohocken, Pennsylvania Steven.Husted@AECOM.com
Germantown, Maryland Collin.Strine-Zuroski@AECOM.com
Steve is a Senior Geophysicist at AECOM. His professional experience includes environmental and engineering geophysics, geology, hydrogeology and geographic information systems applied to site investigations to evaluate subsurface conditions related to the design, planning, engineering, and construction phases of projects. He has been responsible for varying portions of the planning, execution, technical and management aspects of investigations at hundreds of sites across the United States and internationally.
Collin is a Senior Geoscientist at AECOM. His professional areas of expertise include engineering geohphysics, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and both land and hydrographic surveying. His experience includes planning, execution, data management, reporting and project management of projects located both inside the United States and abroad.
Vol 24, 3 2019
Page 70
Exploration Instruments North America’s Premier Source for Geophysical and NDT Equipment Rentals AFFORDABILITY AVAILABILITY DEPENDABILITY
Austin, TX 512-346-4042 Harrisburg, PA 717-303-5406 Service@expins.com
www.expins.com
Page 71
Extraction of Depth to Bedrock from Airborne Electromagnetic Data Using Artificial Neural Networks A. A. Pfaffhuber EMerald Geomodelling, Oslo, Norway andreas.a.pfaffhuber@emeraldgeo.com
Bio C. Christensen EMerald Geomodelling, Oslo, Norway craig.w.christensen@emeraldgeo.com
Bio A. O. Lysdahl NGI, Oslo, Norway asgeir.olaf.kydland.lysdahl@ngi.no
Bio M. VĂśge NGI, Oslo, Norway malte.voege@ngi.no
Bio H. Kjennbakken Norwegian Public Roads Administration, Oslo, Norway heidi.kjennbakken@vegvesen.no
Bio J. Mykland Norwegian National Rail Administration, Oslo, Norway
Vol 24, 3 2019
Large areas have to be covered to be able to see and compare the risk choosing between surface constructions on deep and soft sediments along one route or tunnels along another route. Conventional geotechnical ground investigation techniques are too costly and time intensive to provide full coverage over relatively large areas of interest. Airborne geoscanning is an emerging technology that can mitigate the geological uncertainty of these areas and it can give geologists the tool needed to make the right choices at an early stage in big infrastructure projects. Cost overruns in mega-projects have been found to reach 20-50% of the original budgeted project costs (Garemo et al. 2015), making well-informed choices crucial. Airborne geoscanning makes use of a well-established near-surface geophysical technique (airborne electromagnetics - AEM) providing a rapid and seamless overview of the geophysical properties within an area (Pfaffhuber et al. 2016). In the past, significant labor had to be invested to manually or semi-automatically interpret geophysical models into usable geotechnical parameters (Christensen et al. 2015). Recently, we have developed machine-learning-based methods that integrate the acquired geophysical model with sparse geotechnical soil investigations into a unified ground model (Lysdahl et al. 2018). In this study we compare the performance of our artificial neural network (ANN) to earlier interpretation techniques used in two past projects: a road project from 2013 and a railway project from 2016. Bedrock topography is our primary target. In addition to bedrock topography, other studies have illustrated the applicability of the method for mapping of sensitive clay (Lysdahl et al. 2017), identifying major weakness zones in rock (Pfaffhuber et al. 2016) and de-risking contaminated mass management (Pfaffhuber et al. 2017).
Method background We briefly outline the methodology and refer to articles for more detailed description.
Abstract Infrastructure cost overruns and delays are persistent challenges for engineers and project owners. Assessing geological risk is a significant part of planning; however, this risk is hard to control given the high cost of detailed ground investigation programs using traditional approaches (i.e. geotechnical drillings). Airborne geoscanning is a technology that is increasingly being used to mitigate geological uncertainty. We have translated complicated geophysical models to parameters valuable for engineers using artificial neural networks. In this study, we illustrate the applicability of airborne geoscanning surveys to derive bedrock topography (i.e. depth of cover). Tight integration of accurate geophysical models and sparse geotechnical data is a key element leading to final bedrock topography uncertainty of a few meters or 20 % – 30 % of the sediment thickness.
Introduction The geological risk in large scale infrastructure projects is frequently identified as a key factor leading to significant schedule delays and cost overruns (e.g. Beckers et al. 2013). In the early stages of planning, finding suitable areas for both tunnels and roads is critical.
Figure 1: Illustration of the airborne electromagnetic induction principle where a primary electromagnetic pulse (white) interacts with a secondary (yellow) response that is governed by ground conditions.
Page 72
Vol 24, 3 2019
The geophysical models that we interpret come from processed airborne electromagnetic survey data. In these surveys, a helicopter tows equipment 30 m above the ground (Figure 1). The SkyTEM 302 system was used in the road-building project, and the system SkyTEM 304 system in the railway project (Sørensen and Auken 2004). These systems measure electromagnetic induction effects between itself and the ground, a response that is dependent on the electrical resistivity of the uppermost few hundred meters of the ground. Data was processed manually removing potential noise and coupling effects and inverted to a 3D resistivity model using spatially constrained inversion with Aarhus Workbench, a specialized piece of software. The resulting 3D resistivity model has a vertical resolution ranging from meters close to the surface to tens of meters at larger depths and a lateral resolution of roughly 50 to 150 meters (Christiansen et al. 2006). These geophysical surveys were paired with ground investigations. At the time of the original projects, approximately 400 boreholes had been drilled in the road case and 17 in the railroad case. Some of these cored boreholes and rotarypressure drilled boreholes were drilled prior to geophysical surveys, whereas others were completed after the survey but before an interpreted project bedrock model was delivered cored boreholes were used in the railway project. Additional holes have been drilled since then. The survey areas now contain 1107 and 41 holes, respectively. A mix of core drilling and rotary-pressure drilling were used in the road case, whereas only total soundings were used in the other. These new drillings helped to evaluate the accuracy of earlier bedrock models. This involved both computing aggregate error statistics and inspecting the spatial distribution of errors with maps. Our new artificial neural network (ANN) extracts bedrock topography from the geophysical model by using existing geotechnical soundings as training data. It is based on multilayer perceptron regression and is implemented in the “scikitlearn” Python package (Pedregosa et al. 2011). Resistivity and borehole data are not always co-located. We solve this issue by interpolating resistivity data at borehole locations and training the networks on these interpolated resistivity values. We tested the performance of the ANN in several ways. In both field case studies, we compare the earlier bedrock models to new models created by ANNs trained on either the full set of boreholes or on a subset that was available at earlier time in the project. We also systematically tested the effect that the number of boreholes used as training data has on the accuracy of a bedrock model. For a given number of boreholes, we trained 50 neural networks on random subsets of boreholes and computed error statistics for all 50 bedrock models. With the same random subsets of boreholes, we also created bedrock models by simply triangulating the measured bedrock positions (which is essentially the current standard method when no additional information is available).
Study Area The presented study areas are close to Norway’s capital Oslo (Figure 2). One in the municipality of Eiker, 40 km south-west of Oslo, the other around Nes in Romerike, around 60 km northeast of Oslo.
Figure 2 Top: Overview map indicating project areas, Middle: Surficial geology and survey lines in area 1, Bottom: Surficial geology and flight lines in area 2, stippled box indicates subset shown in results section.
We observe post-glacial geomorphology typical for the Norwegian lowlands: exposed bedrock (high electrical resistivity), moraines (high resistivity), valleys filled with massive glacio-fluvial deposits (medium resistivity), large expanses of glacio-marine clay (very low resistivity), and even instances of quick clay (low resistivity). The bedrock geology is largely comprised of metamorphic rock types. Some igneous rocks are present in the northeastern corner of Nes, and some shales and limestones are present at Eiker.
es Case Study: Highway N Planning Project Background Extensive ground investigations for a proposed expansion of the E16 highway along a 30-km segment northeast of Oslo began in late 2012. A resistivity model was created based on 178 linekm of AEM surveys flown in January 2013 both along the road alignment and on an additional grid at two river crossings (Vorma and Uåa). Bedrock models were delivered in spring 2013 using two different methods: First, bedrock depths were chosen from a simple threshold resistivity (i.e. the shallowest occurrence of values greater than a fixed resistivity value was assumed to be
Page 73
Vol 24, 3 2019
Figure 3: Bedrock elevation models based on full AEM coverage combined with 3, 25 and more than 1000 boreholes focusing on the river crossing at Vorma and UĂĽa. The models are subsets of the data analyzed in table 1.
Page 74 Method Median (m) 100 Ωm 6.0 Manual 4.6 5 BH 5.7 50 BH 4.0 1107 BH 2.5
Mean (m) 7.9 5.8 7.4 5.5 3.2
Vol 24, 3 2019
Median (%) Median (%) 43 % 48 % 28 % 41 % 37 % 64 % 24 % 38 % 14 % 28 %
Table 1. Overall performance of each bedrock modelling method. Errors represent the difference between the model and overlapping borehole measurements
bedrock). Second, an expert manually picked bedrock depths from the resistivity models. At the time, approximately 400 boreholes were available to both help guide the manual picks and to guide the choice of an appropriate threshold resistivity. However, both methods had their limitations. Even though 100 Ωm was the threshold resistivity that worked best, its performance was still poor due to the heterogeneous sedimentary composition. Though the manual interpretation could adjust to local heterogeneities, it was time consuming, subjective, and strongly influenced by the way data was visualized. In our new analysis, we created many new models with ANNs. We show results from three examples in this article: 1) a neural network trained with five boreholes that were manually picked to be well distributed, 2) a neural network trained with 50 randomly selected boreholes, and 3) a neural network trained with all 1107 boreholes
Results The bedrock model based on only three boreholes outperformed the threshold resistivity method, but had higher average errors than the manual interpretation (Figure 3 and Table 1). a neural network with only 50 boreholes outperformed the manual method that relied on several hundred boreholes to guide the expert’s interpretation. The neural network trained on all 1107 has the best performance overall, having a median error of 14%. This error is due to both 1) errors due to interpolation of resistivity model from AEM sounding points to boreholes location and 2) due to the imperfect correlation between training data and the target output (i.e. network loss). The results in Figure 4 further underline the advantage of using neural networks and AEM in early phases of projects where few boreholes are available. For instance, with just 25 boreholes, the neural network averages a 4.8 m error (or 30% by depth) compared to a 7.0 m error (43%) of a surface produced by simple triangulation of borehole measurements.
Eiker Case Study: Railway Planning Project Background A new section of highway and high-speed rail is to be built in the Eiker area between the cities Drammen and Hokksund. The helicopter survey covered 17 km² with a 100 m line spacing (¨170 line km) within three days in June 2016.
Figure 4: Median absolute error versus the number of boreholes and average borehole density used as training points.
The bedrock model delivered at the time was based on a very sparse borehole set and was constructed by using a linear statistical algorithm (LSI) developed by Gulbrandsen et al. (2015). Measured bedrock positions from boreholes were projected to the nearest flight line. Given the error incurred in projecting, these were not used directly to train LSI. Instead, manual training points were created and the boreholes were considered alongside geologic information and experience with similar airborne data. Even when accounting for these conditions, the linear method was not able to distinguish the various geological situations such as thick sand deposits in the central part of the area. Various manual adjustments were
Page 75
Vol 24, 3 2019
Figure 5: 3D view of helicopter scanning resistivity model, three geotechnical boreholes and the final as well as preliminary bedrock interface.
necessary before making the final bedrock model. These issues made this location a good candidate to test ANNs.
Results The new ANN method was used to calculate a bedrock surface both for the drilling dataset from 2016 and from the present drilling dataset (Figure 5). We observed a large improvement in the mismatch between the two methods (Figure 4). This improvement can be attributed to two factors. First, as a nonlinear method, the ANN can adapt to locally-varying conditions. Second, accounting for location mismatch of the resistivity and borehole data by interpolation rather than projection improves the correlation between the two datasets. Further, in contrast to the previous Nes case, the boreholes are spread unevenly at the Eiker site. This leads to a significant improvement of the combined bedrock model in comparison to a triangulation of boreholes (Figure 4 and Figure 6). The geologic situation in the area is quite challenging, the moraine deposits from the southern hillside masks the weak transition to bedrock and makes it almost impossible for a human to identify the bedrock. However, the ANN method, noting this weak correlation between resistivity and bedrock depth, weighs this data less strongly and instead performs a simpler interpolation of the spatial coordinates (Figure 5). The ANN method outperforms the human interpreter in all cases.
Discussion and Conclusions The most significant added value of helicopter geoscanning to an infrastructure project is provided when the survey is carried out in an early project phase. With only a very small number of control boreholes the presented algorithm creates a representative bedrock topography model. The more boreholes are being acquired, the more accurate the model becomes. Thus, a frequent update of the derived model is crucial to extract the full value of the survey investment. The ANN provides an objective and consistent analysis of the models outperforming human subjectivity. The human expert can thus instead invest valuable time in quality controlling the ANN results. At a later project stage, when high spatial resolution and high accuracy is needed along the final infrastructure
Figure 6: Bedrock elevation models derived from drilling triangulation only (top) and by combining these drillings with the 3D resistivity model (bottom).
location, the geophysical method’s resolution sets limitations. The accuracy of the two bedrock modelling methods (borehole triangulation and AEM resistivity guided ANN) converge at around 20 boreholes per square kilometer (~200 m borehole spacing), which is just slightly more than the footprint of a single AEM sounding (~150 m, Figure 4). However, there is a high variability in performance of neural networks. In the Nes study, the average error of a bedrock model ranged from 28% to 62% when only 5 boreholes were
Page 76 used to train a neural network. Performance is thus highly dependent on the input training data. Early indications are that the neural network performs best where a wide range of geological conditions, resistivity models, locations, and depths are represented in a sample. We have successfully applied cluster analysis to optimize a borehole investigation plan based on early AEM models. Further developments of ANN based geotechnical interpretation linking the 3D resistivity models to geotechnical soundings and samples have shown convincing results. Table 2. Necessary drillings per km2 to achieve certain target accuracy in bedrock topography based on drillings only or the presented combined approach.
Target Accuracy
Drillings only
Combined method
60 %
3–8
0.3 – 0.4
30 %
7 - 10
2-8
Acknowledgement This study was carried out within the Norwegian Research Council’s FORNY2020 project “Airborne Geo-Intelligence”. Our project partners Bane NOR (Norwegian Railway Authorities) and Statens Vegvesen (National Public Road Authorities) have kindly granted permission to re-analyze and publish the presented data and have actively contributed in the assessment of new results. Our gratitude further extends to our colleagues M. Romøen, K. Kåsin and others within NGI and throughout the Norwegian geotechnical industry that have either inspired or contributed to aspects of the presented work.
Vol 24, 3 2019
Applied Geophysics, 119: 178–191. Christiansen, A. V., Auken, E. and Sørensen, K. 2006 The transient electromagnetic method, in Groundwater Geophysics – A tool for Hydrogeology, ed. Kirsch R. ISBN 10 3-540-29383-3Gulbrandsen, M.L., Bach, T., Cordua, K.S. & Hansen, T.M. 2015. Localized Smart Interpretation – a data driven semiautomatic geological modelling method, ASEG-PESA, 24th International Geophysical Conference and Exhibition, Perth, Australia, 24: 1-4. DOI 10.1071/ASEG2015ab232 Garemo, N., Matzinger, S. and Palter R. 2015. Megaprojects: The good, the bad and the better. McKinsey Insights, Lysdahl, A., Pfaffhuber, A. A., Anschütz, H., Kåsing, K., and Bazin S. 2017. Helicopter Electromagnetic Scanning as a First Step in Regional Quick Clay Mapping in V. Thakur et al. (eds.), Landslides in Sensitive Clays, Advances in Natural and Technological Hazards Research 46: DOI 10.1007/978-3-31956487-6_39 Lysdahl, A., Andresen, L., and Vöge, M. 2018. Construction of bedrock topography from Airborne-EM data by Artificial Neural Network, in Numerical Methods in Geotechnical Engineering, IX: 691-696. DOI 10.1201/9781351003629-86 Pedregosa F, et al. 2011. Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python, Journal of Machine Learning Research 12: 2825-2830.
References
Pfaffhuber, A. A., Anschütz, H., Ørbech, T., Bazin, S., Lysdahl, A. O. K., Vöge., M., Sauvin, G., Waarum, I.-K., Smebye, H. C., Kåsin, K., Grøneng, G., Berggren, A.-L., Pedersen J. B., and Foged, N. 2016. Regional geotechnical railway corridor mapping using airborne electromagnetics, 5th International Conference on Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterisation, Gold Coast, Australia: 923-928.
Beckers, F., Chiara, N., Flesch, A., Maly, J., Silva, E. and Stegemann, U. 2013. A risk-management approach to a successful infrastructure project, McKinsey Working Papers on Risk, Number 52
Pfaffhuber, A. A., Lysdahl, A.O.K., Sørmo, E., Bazin, S., Skurdal, G. H., Thomassen, T., Anschütz, H. and Scheibz, J. 2017. Delineating hazardous material without touching - AEM mapping of Norwegian alum shale, First Break 35: 35-39
Christensen, C., Pfaffhuber, A. A., Anschütz, H., and Smaavik, T.F. 2015. Combining airborne electromagnetic and geotechnical data for automated depth to bedrock tracking, Journal of
Sørensen, K.I. and Auken, E. 2004. SkyTEM – A new highresolution helicopter transient electromagnetic system, Exploration Geophysics, 35: 191-199.
Vol 24, 3 2019
Page 77
Author Bios Andreas. A. Pfaffhuber EMerald Geomodelling Oslo, Norway andreas.a.pfaffhuber@emeraldgeo.com
Craig W. Christensen EMerald Geomodelling Oslo, Norway craig.w.christensen@emeraldgeo.com
Andi is CEO at EMerald Geomodelling. He introduced airborne geophysics to NGI in 2007 initially for resource exploration and later for the unique application in geotechnical projects.
Craig is VP Technology at EMerald Geomodelling. Just like EMerald itself, Craig’s talent is bridging the gaps between seemingly disparate fields within applied geoscience.
Andi established the NGI Geosurveys section in 2012 based on a strategic research project. Geosurveys develops, adapts and implements geophysical, remote sensing and GIS methods in NGIs advanced geotechnical projects. For one year he contributed with Business Development to NGIs newly established daughter company in Perth, Australia.
In his MSc thesis, he combined geophysical measurements and geomorphological observations to analyse patterns in mountain groundwater distribution. Likewise, at both Emerald and NGI, he has led development of geostatiscial algorithms that model bedrock topography using both geophysical data and borehole data.
Andi holds a PhD in Applied Geophysics from Bremen University (2006) and an MSc in Applied Geoscience from Technical University Berlin (2001)
Craig started his career at NGI as a summer intern in 2013 and completed his MSc in Geology and Geophysics at the University of Calgary (2017). He also holds a BScE in Geological Engineering from Queen’s University (2014). His talents have been recognized by major academic awards from (among others) the National Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and Queen’s University.
Heidi Kjennbakken Norwegian Public Roads Administration Oslo, Norway heidi.kjennbakken@vegvesen.no
Malte Vöge NGI Oslo, Norway malte.voege@ngi.no
Heidi is a geologist at the Norwegian Roads Administration. Heidi holds a PhD (2013) and a MSc (2007) in Marine geology and paleoclimate from University of Bergen and a BSc (2005) in Environmental Sciences and Natural resources from Norwegian University of Life Sciences. Asgeir O. Lysdahl NGI Oslo, Norway asgeir.olaf.kydland.lysdahl@ngi.no
Asgeir completed his MSc in Applied Physics at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in 2013, and has worked at the Norwegian Geotechnical Institute since then. He focuses on advanced interpretation of geophysical data, computational implementation thereof and develops programs for modelling of bedrock surfaces as well as other applications.
Malte is senior engineer at the Norwegian Geotechnical Institute since 2008, after joining the institute in 2007 as a PostDoc. His research focus are electromagnetic methods, ranging from off-shore CSEM and AEM to satellite based radar remote sensing methods, most notably InSAR. He was actively involved in the development of software tools for signal processing, modelling and inversion for a range of EM applications. Malte has also extensive experience with methods for machine-learning based signal classification, especially using artificial neural networks. Malte holds a PhD in Geophysics from the University of Hamburg (2006) and a MSc in Computer Engineering University of Kiel (2001).
Page 78
Vol 24, 3 2019
Experimental Modal Analysis of Bridges: How to Employ Few Resources and Get it Right Silvia Castellaro Dep. of Physics and Astronomy University of Bologna, Italy silvia.castellaro@unibo.it
Bio
Figure 1. First four flexional modes (vertical and horizontal) of a simply supported single-span beam (length L). The percentual values in the legend indicate the modal participation factor.
Stefano Isani Matildi+Partners Bologna, Italy s.isani@matildi.com
Bio
Abstract Measuring the dynamic behavior of a structure, thus assessing its modal frequencies, shapes and damping, is a mandatory step in the tuning and validation phase of any numerical model. In this special issue, devoted to infrastructures, we focus on bridges. Many national building codes impose to experimentally assess the fundamental frequency of bridges to validate the numerical models used in the design of new structures and in the retrofit of existing ones. However, the ways in which this experimental assessment is undertaken are many and not all fruitful. In this paper we briefly review the basic principles of the dynamic characterization of bridges and the most common acquisition practices that can lead to wrong conclusions, through a set of examples.
Experimental Modal Analysis of Bridges: An Introduction Assessing the dynamic behavior of bridges1 is common in the design of any new structure and in the retrofit of the existing ones. This is required by many national construction codes to establish the resistance of the structure to earthquakes, wind and any other dynamic loads. Let us imagine the simplest bridge as possible, that is a simply supported single-span beam. Its first four natural flexion modes are illustrated in Figure 1, in terms of displacement of the structure, at a time of observation, compared to the ‘equilibrium’ position. From the picture it is clear that the best point to catch the 1st and the 3rd vibration modes is at the center of the structure, the best point to catch the 2nd vibration mode is at 1/4 of the length of the span. Ideally, to catch the 4th vibration mode we should 1 2
Figure 2. Minimum acquisition configuration on a single-span bridge (the same geometry can be applied to each span on more complex bridges). Positions marked in red are used to assess the horizontal and vertical flexion modes. Position marked in blue is used to assess torsion modes. On very narrow structures or wherever torsion is not expected to be relevant, the blue measurement point can also be skipped.
place an instrument at 1/8th of the span. However, since the instruments used to measure the natural vibrations of structures do have a physical dimension (they are not points), all modes can de facto be seen at any location, even though with large variations in amplitude. Nevertheless, in order to measure the flexion modes of a bridge, at least 2 measurement points are recommended (typically the center and Âź of the span). The flexion modes illustrated in Figure 1, are both vertical and horizontal, with different values in the two directions, depending on the geometry and composition of the specific bridge2, therefore the two measurement points must be 2D. A quantification of the relevance of the different modes in the response of the structure in each direction is given by the modal participation factor. In the beam of Figure 1 we see that the first 3 modes explain more than 90% of the entire mass movement (the threshold level established by most codes is usually larger than 80%). A third type of dynamic behavior that can be relevant in some types of structures is the torsion. In order to catch the torsional modes, a measurement distant from the torsion axis is required (in blue in Figure 2). Torsional modes will appear as spectral peaks at the sites far from the torsion center/axis and with spectral amplitudes tending to zero at the sites close to the torsion center/axis, as shown in Figure 3.
The same applies also to buildings. Generally speaking, the taller the bridge compared to the horizontal span, the lower the frequencies of the horizontal transversal flexional modes compared to the vertical ones and vice-versa.
Page 79
Vol 24, 3 2019
Figure 4. The Riccardo Morandi’s Vagli bridge in Tuscany (1955) and one of the two concrete hinges at the basis of the arch.
Figure 3. When recorded on the same transversal alignment (as the vertical gray dashed line in Figure 2), flexion modes have the same spectral amplitude while torsion modes have ‘null’ amplitude at the torsion center/axis, increasing while moving away from it.
Fundamentals of Data Acquisition and Processing Performing the dynamic characterization of a structure implies to measure: 1) the modal frequencies, 2) the modal shapes, 3) the modal damping. Modal frequencies and damping can be assessed in all cases with a single instrument1. Assessing the modal shapes in principle requires at least two synchronized points of measurement. However, under the assumption of stationary load (which is easily the case when the traffic is interrupted or regular on the bridge and when the recordings are performed under stationary weather conditions), many inferences on the modal shapes of the structure can be gained even by using a single instrument. What can be obtained for any case is the absolute value of the modal shapes, which coincides with the real modal shape for the first flexion mode. Depending on their size and structural features, bridges can have fundamental frequencies from a fraction of a hertz to a few hertz. Let us imagine a very long bridge with the fundamental mode at 0.1 Hz (10 s period). This bridge will perform six full oscillations per minute, therefore when the signal on it is acquired for a few minutes (let us say 10-20 minutes), we have 6x10 or 6x20 available periods to perform spectral analysis and any other kind of calculations, which is enough to satisfy the statistical treatment of experimental data. Clearly, if the bridge is smaller and has higher resonance frequencies, the measurements on it can also be shorter. It is therefore clear that establishing the dynamic characterization of bridges is a rather agile procedure on site. Engineers are used to think in terms of forces applied to structures. Since the Newtonian force is the product of acceleration and mass, this led engineers to select the accelerometer as the investigation tool. However, the modal shapes are a representation of displacement and would in principle require the use of displacement-meters. A variety of instruments exist that can perform dynamic measurements on structures. These range from interferometers 1
and inclinometers (that provide an output in terms of displacement), to geophones and seismometers (that provide outputs in terms of velocity) to analog and digital (MEMS) accelerometers. Whatever the instrument used, it is important to recall that modal shapes and damping, at the end, are referred to displacement. Sensors outputting velocity are usually more sensitive than accelerometers. This is a known fact in seismology (Evans et al., 2014), where accelerometers are used only as strong-motion recorders, while geophones are used for weak motion. In other words, even though accelerometers are low-pass filters, while geophones act as high-pass filters, accelerometers have an overall internal noise much greater than some class of seismometers in the whole frequency domain and are therefore less suitable than velocimeters in ambient noise applications. There exist many ways to extract the modal frequencies of a structure from natural or artificially induced vibrations (crosscorrelation methods, frequency domain decompositions, random decrement techniques, etc.). However, the simplest way to observe the modal frequencies of a structure is to perform a spectral analysis of the recorded motion. Structures vibrate at all frequencies but with a much larger amplitude at their own resonant frequencies and this can be seen with a simple spectral analysis.
Example of Operational Modal Analysis Let us consider a seemingly simple but very interesting bridge located in Vagli (Tuscany, Italy, Figure 4). This bridge was designed by the worldwide famous engineer Riccardo Morandi (Rome, 1902-1989) and was meant to be a pedestrian and coach bridge to connect two villages that were going to be separated by a lake, following the construction of a dam. Of particular interest is the way in which it was built in the early ‘50s (the two parts of the central arch were built along the mountain slopes and then rotated on the two small concrete hinges on their feet, Benvenuto et al., 1985). On this bridge, which is about 160 m long and 50 m high, we performed measurements at five locations (H1 to H5 in Figure 5), with 5 seismometer-accelerometers Tromino® by MoHo serl, each lasting a few minutes. Each device is a fully stand-alone instruments and synchronization was achieved by the built-in radio-system. Figure 6 shows the horizontal (transversal) velocity spectra recorded at the five positions and the first 3 modal shapes, as
e will not discuss the damping in this paper. The interested reader can find more information in Castellaro S., 2016. Soil and structure damping from single W station measurements, Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., 90, 480-493 and references therein.
Page 80
Vol 24, 3 2019
Figure 5. Location of the ambient vibration measurements along the bridge.
Figure 6. Top left panel: horizontal transversal spectra (in velocity) of the motion recorded at the 5 acquisition points on the left side of the bridge. Other panels: reconstruction of the modal shapes from the spectral amplitude at the different modal frequencies. The bottom part of each panel shows a portion of the acquired time-series, band-passed filtered at the value of the respective modal frequencies, in order to show the signal phase among the different acquisition points. When this information is not available, that is when the recordings at the different points are not synchronized, the absolute value of the modal shape can still be obtained
inferred from the spectral amplitudes. The radio-synchronization among the units allows the phase of the signal to be known at all the investigations sites. However, we emphasize once more that the absolute value (the modulus) of the modal shapes, as well as the modal frequencies and damping, can also be obtained by working with a single instrument. The experimental data acquired on the bridge were used to calibrate the numerical model performed with the software MIDAS Civil (Figure 7).
Acquisition Practices that Can Lead to Wrong Conclusions In our experience of designing, modelling (S.I.) and of measuring (S.C.) the dynamic behavior of hundreds of bridges, we have encountered three major problems.
Mode Detection in the Acceleration-frequency Domain The easiest way to assess the modal frequencies of a structure is to record its natural oscillations and perform a spectral analysis of the acquired signal, where the modes will appear as spectral peaks. J.B. Fourier (1768-1830) established that any periodic signal can be written as the summation of simple harmonics of the type A sin(ωt+ϕ), where A is the amplitude, ω is the pulsation (ω=2πf), where f is the frequency in hertz) and ϕ is the phase.
Figure 7. First three horizontal transversal modes of the structure as modelled by using the software MIDAS, tuned in terms of mass and stiffness to fit the experimental results (0.7, 1.3, 2 Hz).
If x=Σi Ai sin(ωi t+ϕi) is the displacement, v=Σi Ai ωi cos(ωi t+ϕi) is the velocity and a=-Σi Ai ωi2 sin(ωi t+ϕi) is the acceleration. While the conversion from displacement to velocity to acceleration (x→v→a) in the time-domain is achieved by a derivation (or integration, for the reverse transformation), the same process in the frequency domain is simply multiplication by ω_i (to move from displacement to velocity, x→v) or by ωi2 (for displacement to acceleration, x→a). Conversely a division by ωi or ωi2 in the frequency domain applies for the reverse transformation. This has important consequences on the way the displacement, velocity and acceleration spectra appear: peaks at frequencies
Page 81 below 1 Hz will appear amplified in the displacement spectra, compared to the acceleration spectra, while peaks at frequencies above 1 Hz will appear amplified in the acceleration spectra, compared to the displacement ones. The motion of the structure is always the same, but it appears differently in the analysis, depending on the way we look at it. However, if we do not identify this difference correctly, we could miss the first vibration modes of some structures. Let us consider the example of Figure 8, which represents the spectra of the horizontal transversal motion acquired on a 36-story building. If the data were acquired with accelerometers and analyzed in terms of acceleration (see the acceleration spectrum at the bottom of Figure 8), we would completely miss the first vibration mode of the structure (0.16 Hz), which appears so clearly in the displacement spectrum. In real life, this is exactly what happened. The company contracted to perform the dynamic characterization of this building (by placing 48 accelerometers on it and recording continuously for 8 days) stated that the first vibration mode of the structure was the 0.8 Hz peak, which is actually the 4th vibration mode in this direction. In our experience, this is by far not just a single case. Whenever accelerometric networks are used to investigate low frequency (< 1 Hz) structures, the risk of missing the first vibration modes is very high. This is because of the combined practice of using poorly sensitive instrumental chains for low frequency vibrations (as accelerometers can be when compared to velocimeters) and the habit of interpreting the data in terms of acceleration spectra instead of the, more relevant, displacement spectra.
Active Excitations Another debated topic is the difference between modal analysis under operative conditions, that is when the vibration source
Figure 8. Displacement, velocity and acceleration spectra acquired on a 36-story structure for 8 min with a single instrument (Tromino® by MoHo srl).
Vol 24, 3 2019
is ambient microtremor, and under natural or induced strong excitations. In terms of numerical models this turns into a different behavior of the structural constraints. In the case of microtremors, these must be modelled as fixed, because friction prevails, while in the case of strong excitations they should be modelled as sliding. Some experimenters prefer to excite the structure in an active way, by using vibrodyne®s or falling weights. The main issue with these devices is that in order to mobilise all the mass of the bridge, they must be very big/heavy and apply strong, dynamic forces, that could damage the bridge itself. In many cases, this level of excitation force cannot be practically achieved or would even alter the mass of the bridge itself by a considerable factor. Typically, a truck is used to drive over on a small obstacle placed transversally to the bridge in order to generate the excitation load, as illustrated in Figure 9. Let us consider the case of the Gravina ‘Langer’ bridge in the town of Matera (Southern Italy, Figure 10), European capital of culture in 2019. This bridge was tested by using the active excitation of a truck traversing across a ‘step’ obstacle (a beam). The resultant spectral analysis of the ‘forced’ bridge oscillations is illustrated in Figure 11. Note that the interpreted first longitudinal/transversal/vertical modes occurred at 2.5, 1 and 4 Hz, respectively (the main peaks in the black curves of Figure 11). However, if we measure the real natural oscillations of the bridge under no traffic or standard traffic (ambient conditions), we get a totally different (and clearer) picture of its modes (coloured curves in Figure 11), even in terms of acceleration. In this case we see that the real first longitudinal/transversal/ vertical modes occur respectively at 0.8, 1 and 0.8 Hz (this is a seismically isolated bridge), that is at frequencies completely different from those provided by the forced load test. The reasons for such difference lie in the fact that the truck imposed a vertical force to the bridge and what was measured was the response of the bridge to that specific vertical load. We do not expect that a truck would excite the horizontal transversal mode of the bridge, which was in fact captured in the ambient noise analysis.
Figure 9. Example of truck jumping on a transversal obstacle to perform an active test on a bridge.
Page 82
Vol 24, 3 2019
Figure 12. Variation of the vertical flexional frequency of the Vagli bridge (Figure 4) as a function of the water level in the lake. Figure 10. The Gravina steel bridge in Matera, Southern Italy (European capital of culture 2019).
In our experience, the combined use of accelerometers and active excitations (rather than the use of seismometers and natural vibrations) can often lead, unfortunately, to wrong interpretations of the dynamic behavior of structures where modal frequencies are below 1 Hz, as is the case of many mid-to-long span bridges.
Variations Due to External Phenomena As a final note, we recall that the modal frequencies of structures vary over time for several natural reasons. For example, in the case of the partly submerged bridge in Vagli (Figure 4), the modal frequencies vary with the water level, which acts somehow as an ‘added mass’ and ‘added damping’ (Figure 12). Another fact that changes the natural frequencies of all structures over time are the thermal variations. We have observed structures whose seasonal frequency variations were as large as 25% for
the third mode! This is an extreme case, however, and a few percent of variation (always with lower frequencies in winter and higher frequencies in summer) is normal for all modes experimentally assessed in concrete structures. This impacts on the degree of modal frequency accuracy derived from modelling evaluations and it makes sense to present results to 2 or 3 significant figures only (e.g. 0.3, 2.3, 10.7 Hz) since the decimal part of the modal frequency (in hertz) varies with thermal effects for the wide majority of structures. This clearly has implications for the amount of effort spent on the calibration of numerical models against experimental data.
Conclusions Experimentally assessing the dynamic behavior of bridges is very important in order to tune and to validate numerical models, monitor the ageing of structures, and establish the effect of interventions or different loads during tests. The
Figure 11. Left: apparent modal frequencies (black curves) emerging from the excitation of the bridge with a truck passing over a beam (forced oscillations) as compared to the ambient noise data. Right: real modal frequencies of the same bridge obtained from simple ambient noise recordings only. Note the different amplitudes compared to the left panel. Spectra are in acceleration. When evaluated in terms of velocity or displacement, the first mode of the bridge, being lower than 1 Hz, would be even clearer.
Page 83
Vol 24, 3 2019
to measuring the vibration modes of the ground by using seismometers and in a fully passive way, that is with no ad hoc excitations. This has been a standard practice in seismology since the late 1980s. If seismologists can do this with soils, then engineers are allowed to trust that this can be done with structures as well as, in all cases, they vibrate much more than soils. Standard structures have a dynamic behavior than can easily be assessed by using a single seismometer (or, as a second choice, an accelerometer) within a few minute of recordings under optimal conditions. In terms of modelling, this implies that the reference model must have fixed constraints in the horizontal plane, but this is something that can easily be set in a model and modified at will for different design purposes (sliding, isolation, etc.).
Figure 13. Horizontal (transversal) displacement spectrum acquired in 2009 with a Tromino® on the Golden Gate bridge in San Francisco. The recording lasted a few minutes.
accessibility to large networks of instruments and the ease of use of processing software (which are capable of performing several types of correlation procedures in order to retrieve interpreted data, e.g. modal shapes) could in some cases mean that users lose touch with the reality of a structure’s behavior. In our experience, the two elements that most often lead to wrong assessments of the modal frequencies of structures are: (1) forgetting that accelerometers could be not sensitive enough at low frequencies to be effective and that the acceleration spectra emphasize frequencies above 1 Hz, whilst tending to suppress peaks at frequencies lower than 1 Hz, when compared to the displacement spectra. (2) relying more on the forced-vibration signal rather than on the ambient noise signal. Exciting large-scale structures requires heavy masses acting in all the directions of interest. The common practice of letting trucks traverse across small ‘step’ obstacles to excite bridges can be very misleading because this only enhances the vertical motions and can make “local” higher modes appear stronger than the fundamental modes. Bridges are structures that usually vibrate at levels of orders of magnitude more than the soil. Seismologists are used
A notable example of an unsuccessful attempt at defining the fundamental vibration modes of a bridge is the Golden Gate bridge in San Francisco, despite the large instrumental network employed for its study (56 accelerometers). As described by Pakzad and Fenves (2009): “There is a large low-frequency content in the transverse direction, which is not distinguishable from noise, so the first transverse mode, expected to be symmetric, cannot be identified […]”. The first mode they managed to identify in the horizontal transversal direction was at 0.228 Hz, while Abdel-Ghaffar and Scanlan (1985) estimated the first transverse mode to have a frequency of 0.055 Hz (18.2 s). In 2009 we managed to take a few minutes recording on the bridge with a portable seismometer (Tromino®) It could be considered surprising that a short-period sensor (compared to the eigen-periods of the bridge) managed to capture the 0.05 Hz peak (Figure 13) as predicted by Abdel-Ghaffar and Scanlan (1985).
References Abdel-Ghaffar A.M. and Scanlan R.H., 1985. Ambient vibration studies of Golden Gate Bridge. I: Suspended structure, J. Eng. Mech., 111, 463–482. Benvenuto E., Boaga G., Bottero M., Cetica P.A., Gennari M., 1985. Riccardo Morandi Ingegnere Italiano, Alina Editore (Firenze), 11-24. Evans J.R., Allen R.M., Chung A.I., Cochran E.S., Guy R., Hellweg M. and Lawrence J.F., 2014. Performance of several low-cost accelerometers, Seismological Research Letters, 85, 147-158. Pakzad S.N., Fenves G.L., 2009. Statistical Analysis of Vibration Modes of a Suspension Bridge Using Spatially Dense Wireless Sensor Network, Journal of structural engineering, 135, 863872.
Vol 24, 3 2019
Page 84
Author Bios Silvia Castellaro Dep. Of Physics and Astronomy University of Bologna â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Italy
Stefano Isani Matildi+Partners Bologna â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Italy
silvia.castellaro@unibo.it
s.isani@matildi.com
SILVIA CASTELLARO, Ph.D. is associate professor of Geophysics and Seismology at the University of Bologna (Italy). After an initial interest in fracture mechanics and seismic hazard assessment, her interest is actually focused on the dynamic characterization of subsoils and structures for seismic engineering applications. She has published more than 50 papers in international peerreviewed journals.
STEFANO ISANI is the lead structural engineer at MATILDI+Partners (Bologna, Italy), a company founded in 1960 and specialized in the design of steel bridges. Stefano has 30 year experience in viaduct and bridge designing, including arch bridges and wide-span cable-stayed bridges. In the last 10 years he focused his attention on seismic engineering, antiseismic devices and bearings and on the dynamic characterization of structures.
Page 85
Vol 24, 3 2019
Page 86
Role of Geology and Geophysics in Harbor Deepening, New York and New Jersey Daniel A. Rosales Roche e4sciences Daniel.Rosales@e4sciences.com
Bio Jamal Sulayman US Army Corps of Engineers New York District Bio W. Bruce Ward e4sciences Bruce.Ward@e4sciences.com
Bio William F. Murphy 3 e4sciences (deceased) Bio Ben Baker US Army Corps of Engineers New York District
Vol 24, 3 2019
Introduction The Port of New York and New Jersey is the largest port on the East Coast of North America, the third largest in the nation, and one of the most productive high-volume port operations globally. The Port of New York and New Jerseyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s six container terminals receive vessels from all of the worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s major ocean carriers serving nearly every region of the world. Of the services that call on the Port of New York and New Jersey, 74 percent are first calls. Prior to the initiation of the Harbor Deepening Program, channels to the Harbor were inadequate to provide access to the large post-Panamax ships, which have drafts deeper than 48 ft. To accommodate the post-Panamax container ships, the federal government under the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 authorized the US Army Corps of Engineers New York District together with the local sponsor, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, to deepen the NYNJ Harbor from 40 ft. to a depth of 50 ft. The authorized project, which began construction in 2004, provided 50-foot water access to the container terminals by deepening 1) the Ambrose Channel from deep water in the Atlantic Ocean to the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge, 2) the Anchorage Channel from the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge to its confluence with the Port Jersey Channel, 3) the Port Jersey Channel, 4) the Kill van Kull Channel,
Bio
5) the main Newark Bay Channel to Port Elizabeth,
Matthew Art e4sciences
6) the Port Elizabeth and South Elizabeth tributary channels, and
Matt.Art@e4sciences.com
Bio Lisa M. Stewart e4sciences Lisa.Stewart@e4sciences.com
Bio
7) the Arthur Kill Channel adjacent to the New York Container Terminal The dredged materials included silts, sands, gravels, glacial deposits such as till and glacial lake silt and clay, and six different types of bedrock. Some of the beneficial uses included creating fishing reefs from blasted rock, restoring marshes, capping the ocean Historic Area Remediation Site (HARS) offshore New
Kurt Schollmeyer e4sciences Bio Beckett Boyd e4sciences Bio
Figure 1. Container carrier across New York and New Jersey Harbor during the harbor deepening project.
Page 87
Vol 24, 3 2019
Jersey, and capping/remediating existing impacted landfills and brownfields in the region. Removal of the hardest bedrock, on-land placement of industrial sediment, and relocating submarine infrastructure were among the highest costs. However, the application of near-surface geophysics and geological principles deployed in shallow water supported the 15-year $3 billion project to proceed on schedule and under budget. Geology and geophysics were instrumental in three major areas related to the harbor deepening project: mapping existing infrastructure, determining dredge volumes, and characterizing material type. Throughout the project we made geophysical and geological measurements to map the detailed multidimensional distributions of sediment, bedrock and infrastructure. We integrated into a single reference frame the following datasets: single- and multi-channel seismic reflection, side-scan sonar, bathymetric, magnetic, borehole logs, and geologic descriptions. From these data we produced sonar images of the channel floor (orthosonographsTM), sediment classification, single-channel seismic velocity cross sections, subsurface maps, and geophysical and geological cross sections. The side-scan images produced 100% coverage with 200% redundancy and 400% overlap of the area of investigation. The two independent orthosonographs insonified from two directions suffice to constitute the 200% redundancy. Orthosonographs are seamless aerial-photograph-like images that are insonified from one direction only. In fact, the data required to produce two images constitutes significantly greater overlap than an individual conventional side-scan image. We collected data in production mode in one of the nation’s most active industrial harbors. Measurements determined the location of submarine and subsurface infrastructure, compressional velocity of bedrock, thickness of material, strike and dip of strata, top of bedrock, diggability of nearsurface bedrock, and the thickness of Holocene sediments that required upland disposal. All our measurements and interpretations were continuously tested by active digging and removal. In 2015, the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey facilitated the movement of approximately 6.4 million twenty-foot equivalent units (TEU) of imports/exports, an increase of over 10 percent from 2014. Getting goods into the hands of the consumers through an efficient and reliable transportation network is the cornerstone of the port’s competitive edge with global markets.
Figure 2. Target locations for pipeline crossings on the Arthur Kill channel. There are 19 crossings, only 6 were anticipated. The locations and elevations were later confirmed by excavation and removal
Throughout the area of the project, multiple oil pipelines, electrical conduits, water siphons, and gas lines had to be identified, mapped, and monitored during the deepening of the New York and New Jersey Harbor. Some had to be decommissioned and removed for the dredging project to be completed. The presence of old and new pipelines played a critical role for the planning and construction of the project in one of the most populated harbors in the world. Figure 2 shows 19 pipelines that were found to cross Arthur Kill before the -40ft project (the deepening project prior to the -50ft project). The area had been designated as a pipeline crossing area, and 6 lines were expected. Nineteen was a surprise. We used sidescan orthosonographs, sub-bottom seismic reflection images, and magnetic field measurements to map the area. The pipelines were a combination of active lines; abandoned, cleaned and capped lines; undocumented lines; and debris. All the pipelines had to be removed for dredging to proceed. The mapping was incorporated in the plans and specifications for the Arthur Kill deepening. After the pipelines had been removed, we confirmed the removal by running acceptance surveys, and no additional volume of debris was claimed at the end of the dredging. For all these crossings, either as-builts were nonexistent, or the existing as-builts had errors larger than 25ft relative to the mapped infrastructure. The locations provided by geophysical mapping were used in the removal of the pipelines. Without the use of geophysical mapping, these crossings would have become navigation hazards.
Infrastructure
The Anchorage Channel forms the gateway into NYNJ Harbor. Two relatively shallow, secondary-supply water siphons under the Anchorage Channel impeded the deepening of the channel. The siphons, installed in the early 20th century, cross the Anchorage Channel from Brooklyn in the east to Staten Island in the west. Also, several deeper and newer active oil, gas, and electric lines cross farther south and also affected the channel. The deepening had to safeguard the water siphons as well as the private oil, gas, and electric lines.
Utilities cross the channels throughout the NYNJ Harbor. Oil and gas pipelines cross Newark Bay and Arthur Kill. A sewer tunnel crosses Port Jersey channel and water, oil, and gas lines cross the Anchorage Channel.
Geophysical mapping played a key role in successfully locating each crossing to within an accuracy of ±5ft in x and y and of ±0.5ft in z. The location of some of the infrastructure was verified by either diving operations or during removal of old pipelines. Figure
Page 88
Vol 24, 3 2019
Figure 3. Sub-bottom seismic profile showing water siphon along a navigation channel. Note the man-made trench and the siphon in it.
Figure 5. Removal of pipeline after identification and mapping using geophysical measurements.
High Definition Underwater Bedrock Mapping Figure 4. Seismic cross section derived from sub-bottom data. The two blue lines and the cyan lines correspond to multiple bathymetric measurements during the deepening project. The red lines correspond to the interpreted bottom of the trench that was constructed for installing multiple utility crossings. The three circles correspond to interpreted location of multiple crossings within the data; one of these crossings is observed in Figure 5 during the removal.
3 shows a sub-bottom seismic cross section across Anchorage Channel showing the location of one of the two water siphons. Additional investigations sought the status of the pipelines: whether they are (a) in the water column or (b) on the surface or (c) in the subsurface. The concern was whether these pipes would create a hazard to navigation. Just being near the surface presents the possibility of tilting into the water column. A combination of geophysical measurements, such as side-scan orthosonographs, magnetometer surveys, and sub-bottom seismic, helped map the locations of the pipes both horizontally and vertically, as well as to estimate the number of pipes to be removed. The data identified over eight crossings at various depths. The results formed the framework for the planning of pipeline-removal operations. During operations, continuous geophysical surveys guided the construction crew to locate and successfully remove the pipelines. Figure 4 shows a seismic cross section derived from sub-bottom data. The section shows the location of multiple pipelines in the subsurface During one removal operation, in which there were multiple pipes, the US Coast Guard reported a navigation hazard from a pipe standing upright in the channel. The contractor for pipe removal employed e4sciences (with the permission of the USACE) to check continually with sonar imaging for navigation hazards and exact pipe locations during construction. At the completion of the project, the dredge contractor reported no pipes or pipe debris upon dredging the area. (Figure 5) A final survey of the area showed no response due to the presence of crossings. This final survey was revised by the US Coast Guard and supported the final approval process of the channel as safe for navigation.
A major challenge in any dredging project is to quantify the volume of unrippable rock-rock that needs treatment before dredging. The cost of blasting and removing unrippable rock is many times that of removing sediments. We mapped the geology and the physical properties of the rocks and sediments throughout the NYNJ harbor project. All data, maps, and cross sections are compiled into a single reference frame. All measurements are integrated in the interpretation. The plans and specifications, maps and cross sections constitute the primary information for managing the construction and engineering of the harbordeepening project. We implemented geological and geophysical measurements to map the rock and the overlying sediments. In addition, we developed geophysical techniques that we now apply in other deepening projects to determine the top of rock and to map and quantify the volumes of rock and sediments to be removed and map the properties of the rock and its configuration as for example rock strata. Our techniques include calibration with core borings. Orthosonography yields aerial-photograph-like maps of the areal. Sub-bottom seismic images, which are depth migrated, profile the approximate depth to rock and rock strata. All images are georeferenced. We obtained several hundred standard penetration test (SPT) core borings during our operations. We interpret the seismic sections through selection of horizons and estimation of physical properties. The seismic properties are correlated with mechanical properties to estimate the response of the rock strata to ripping. The results are calibrated with the results from core borings. We present the results as geological and geotechnical cross sections with core borings. The dredged materials included different types of bedrock: shale with siltstone and sandstones, shale, diabase, and serpetinite. We mapped the top of rock (perhaps rippable) and the top of intact rock (perhaps requiring treatment). We used existing borings and unique multichannel seismic reflection to generate maps
Page 89 and cross sections of the top of rock and the top of intact, and high-velocity rock. We determined the top of rock in the Palisades Sill beneath the sediment overburden in the Kill van Kull. The use of multichannel seismic reflection imaging was key to map the rock surface beneath the sediments. The results were confirmed when a dredging company dug the sediment to top of the rock before blasting. The fundamental concept was to relate geophysical and geotechnical measurements of intrinsic properties such as elastic moduli and electrical resistivity to effective mechanical properties such as rippability, and diggability. Rippability and diggability are effective engineering properties. Both properties depend on a rockâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s intrinsic properties (e.g., density, modulus, and strength) and fabric (e.g., strike, dip, joints and fractures, foliation), and rock quality designation (RQD). Rippability is the response of rock to steel tines (teeth, claws) penetrating and ripping (pulling) through rock. Rippability is highly dependent on the size of the excavator, bucket, and ripping claw in use and the penetration and ripping process. Productivity is the rate (volume per time) of a process; there is ripping productivity and excavation productivity. Diggability is the quality describing the ease with which rock can be excavated. Diggable rock is both rippable and capable of good productivity. We briefly discuss the uncertainties associated with these relationships. Of particular interest is how the uncertainties may be approached from different positions in the project. The areal extent of and depth to unrippable rock must be characterized to determine the volume of rock that will require blasting before removal by dredging. To produce maps of the distribution and depth to rock, we use sidescan orthosonography, multibeam bathymetry, subbottom seismic profiling, calibration cores, and test digs. We calibrate the geophysical measurements using borings and laboratory measurements of ultrasonic velocities and rock strength.
Bedrock in Arthur Kill Channel. We mapped the geology and the physical properties of the rocks and sediments throughout the Arthur Kill navigation channel, as part of the New York New Jersey harbor deepening project. All data, maps, and cross sections are compiled into a single reference frame. All measurements are integrated in the interpretation. The maps and cross sections are the primary information for managing the harbor deepening project. We selected 10 areas for test digging based on seismic velocities and boring correlations. We estimated the seismic velocity using diffractions in single-offset, high-resolution seismic data. We performed test digs in these areas and correlated the field results with the estimated results from the seismic experiment. We obtained over 100 standard penetration test (SPT) borings. The geotechnical properties of the borings provide the ground truth for the maps and cross sections. The core testing provided estimates of unconfined compressive strength, tensile strength, and compressional- and shear-wave velocities. The estimates of the composition, bedding, and fracture density establish the
Vol 24, 3 2019
geometric configuration at the point of the boring. The high-definition reflection seismology is an important measurement for two reasons. Firstly, previous investigators and handbooks relate compressional-wave velocity to rippability. In the literature, a compressional-wave velocity less than 3km/s is considered rippable (Caterpillar, 2006). The second reason is that seismic imaging resolves bedding thickness, fracture density, and porosity. The rippability in Arthur Kill is strongly affected by the layering, strike and dip of the shale. Reflection seismology maps the top of rock. The sediments are readily distinguished by compressionalwave velocity of less than 2km/s (6,560ft/s). The rock strikes N36°E and dips to the northwest at 15°. The top-of-rock map shows that the shale is exposed on most of the channel bottom. The strata correlate extremely well along strike. We have produced a stratigraphic column for the Passaic Formation that relates erosion resistance to seismic velocity. We mapped this 3D stratigraphy by integrating multiple datasets. Each dataset was processed separately and then combined into a single analysis using geological principles. The areal extent of and depth to unrippable rock must be characterized to determine the volume of rock that will require blasting before removal by dredging. We developed techniques to derive the compressional-wave velocity from high-frequency seismic data. The technique automatically extracts diffraction hyperbolas from the seismic cross sections and then combines dip-filter to derive the seismic velocity on a layer-by-layer basis. This seismic velocity is then inverted to map a compressional-wave velocity at a resolution that depends on the data coverage and resolution. For this study diggability and rippability were based on (1) compressional-wave velocity of in-situ bedrock measured using a single-channel reflection seismic diffraction technique, and (2) unconfined compressive strength of core. In this case, fast rock is defined as the in-situ bedrock that has averaged compressionalwave velocity greater than 2,900 m/s. The seismic data is key to estimate the sub-surface velocity models. We developed techniques to use single-offset data to build a velocity model. To do this, every seismic section was migrated according to a velocity model derived from the ultrasonic velocities as a first approximation for the development of a layer model; this layer model varied horizontally and vertically. Thereafter, we iteratively improved the layer model based on focusing and defocusing of diffractions in each layer of the model. Separate velocity models were employed for the 1-10kHz and 0.5-6kHz datasets. The processing generated six images for every line. One may characterize unrippable hard rock as being intact and having low porosity, high ultrasonic and seismic velocity, high elastic modulus, high strength, high electrical resistivity, low fracture density, and high rock quality designation (RQD). We used a compressional-wave velocity of >2,300m/s (>7,540ft/s) to determine the presence of rock. We used a compressional-wave velocity of >3,000m/s (>9,840 ft/s) to determine harder, more intact, less fractured rock. We used a rock quality designation
Page 90
Vol 24, 3 2019
Figure 6. Arthur Kill Channel area of investigation for high definition under water rock mapping
(RQD) cut-off value of 50% to separate poor quality, fractured rock (RQD<50%) from good quality, intact rock (RQD>50%).
Rock Mapping in the Arthur Kill Channel
Figure 7. Seismic image and result of diffraction velocity analysis. Note that the global inversion result of diffraction analysis produces a velocity model consistent with the geology of the area.
Figure 6 shows a location map of this area of the Arthur Kill Channel investigation. North of Shooter’s Island and continuing west to the AK Railroad Bridge north of the Goethals Bridge Figure 6 also shows the channel that connects Howland Hook container terminal with the Kill Van Kull, New York Harbor, and the Atlantic Ocean. It also connects the Arthur Kill petroleum port with the Kill Van Kull, New York upper bay, and the Atlantic Ocean. The area of investigation is 9,750ft long and 700ft wide. The channel has a 40° turn, northwest of Port Ivory and east of Howland Hook. Most of the material was removed by dredging to achieve the required grade of -52ftMLW. This material was mapped as shale of the Passaic Formation. The material dredged was the Passaic Formation. The rock in other areas of Arthur Kill corresponded to the stratigraphically lowest strata, the thick Triassic-to-Jurassic Passaic Formation in the Newark Basin (Earthworks, 2003, 2009). The shale of the Lower Passaic Formation is highly stratified with alternating layers of hard sandstone (UCS<8,000psi) and softer shale (UCS<5,000psi). The strike of the beds is N36°E, and the dip is 15° to the northwest. The strike and dip are uniform throughout S-AK-2/3. In the earlier 42ft project, the rock in S-AK-2/3 was dug without blasting. The rock from -37 to -43ft MLW was compliant, weathered, and fractured. Ripping was a successful substitute for blasting. Seismic investigations indicate that some of the rock in the 42-52ft dredging prism would be stiffer than in the shallower 42ft project. The Passaic Formation underlies the Pleistocene sediments, most of which was removed in previous dredging projects. Figure 7 shows an example from the one of the several down-dip seismic cross sections through Arthur Kill. This section shows the stratigraphic package to estimate diggability. The dip is 15° to the northwest. The seismic data was processed to quantify
Figure 8. (A) Top of rock horizon map from seismic single-offset cross sections and boring. (B) Top of rock horizon based on 2.9 km/s. (C) Top of fast rock horizon based on 3.0 km/s.
the seismic velocity of the rock and sediments from seismic diffractions. The color of the strata indicates the seismic velocity measured two feet below the top of rock. The stratigraphically higher layers in the west have a higher compressional-wave velocity than the lower layers in the east. Figure 8A is the top of rock map based on an integrated interpretation of borings and reflection seismology. Note the strike is N36°E. The stratigraphic thickness (the thickness
Page 91
Vol 24, 3 2019
Material Separation Besides the economic value of the navigation channel and the waterways of the New York and New Jersey Harbor, the area also presents environmental and recreational value. Throughout much of the history of the New York New Jersey area, industrial activity has contributed sediment and fluid content to the NYNJ Harbor that must be taken into consideration during the dredging process. Of particular concern are Holocene sediments that contain an organic-rich fine-grained silt deposit that accumulates in low areas of the channel. These sediments must be removed and disposed of at upland sites at a cost that is several times that of offshore disposal of common dredged material. Quantifying the volume of these Holocene silt sediments and the volume of other sediment to be removed is called material separation.
Figure 9. Passaic Formation stratigraphic column and rock cores. The profile on the left is the top of rock elevation color coded to the left of the elevation profile by seismic velocity at -53.5ft elevation, according to the velocity color scale in Figure 7), the profile is derived from interpretation of multiple processed seismic images. This is related to the natural weathering profile. The rock in the Lockatong Formation and above 3200 ft (above the eastern SA-K-2 boundary) has been previously dredged. The rock core on the center has an RQD=9. The rock core on the right has an RQD=100. (In this figure the Passaic Shale refers to the shale of the Passaic Formation)
perpendicular to the strata) is almost 6,000ft along the 9,750ft of the channel. There are several regions that have sediment troughs down to -54.5ft MLW. Figures 8B and 8C display maps of the top of fast rock horizon. The map in (B) shows the top of fast rock horizon based on the 3.0km/s (9,840ft/s) criteria. The map in (C) shows an alternative rock horizon based on the 2.9km/s (9,150ft/s) criteria. Figure 9 shows the stratigraphic column of the Passaic Formation and two examples of rock cores in the channel. The stratigraphic column is interpreted and obtained from the seismic images and mapped with the results of the diffraction velocity analysis. The color represents the velocity at an elevation of -53.5ft elevation (based on the velocity color scale in Figure 7). The expected behavior of the rock is greatly simplified by understanding the stratigraphic erodibility within the shale of the Passaic Formation. We mapped the rock surface along the Arthur Kill channel and other navigation channels in the Harbor using a suite of geophysical and geological measurements. The volumes estimated were key to project managers and played a key role during contracting and construction. The estimation of rock properties provided realistic estimates for the cost and duration of the project. In addition, they provided an exploratory map that was refined for dredging production.
We have taken advantage of the fact that different sediment deposits have distinctive measurable properties and behaviors. On this basis, we have been able to map, quantify, and characterize the deposits. The maps form the basis of targeted coring and testing as opposed to more expensive random testing. We used side-scan orthosonographs, multibeam bathymetry, historic bathymetry, sub-bottom seismic, and core borings (push cores, vibracores, and gravity core) to map the recent Holocene sediments and their volume. Making multiple measurements simultaneously lowers the uncertainty in interpretation. One can quantify the accuracy of a mapping or cross section by correlating these independent measurements. Geophysical measurements used for material separation included multibeam bathymetry, side-scan sonar, and sub-bottom seismic profiling. Geological measurements included study of the historical data, historical borings, grab samples, sediment profiling images (Murphy et al., 2009), push-cores, vibracores, and gravity cores. These measurements were used to ground truth the multibeam bathymetry, side-scan sonar, and seismic data. A major challenge was the acquisition of high-resolution (+/-0.5 ft) shallow-marine (3 ft - 50 ft) data in the waters of the busy New York and New Jersey Harbor, with constant traffic from large ships, tugs and barges, recreational fishing boats, and others. Traffic causes wake and wave heave and bubbles; all strongly affect data quality. Other challenges are the weather and tides, which affect wave height and bathymetry, respectively. These factors also affect how data from different times of the day connect. Water depths (less than 5 ft) made data acquisition a challenge. Entry into the tributaries was more limited than expected because of shallow water depths. Ebb flow dominates the morphology at the junctions with tributaries; therefore, the key features were measured in the river. Additionally, accurate data positioning was a challenge in areas where interference from large bridges occured. Recent Holocene silt in this area is highly mobile and returns to southern Newark Bay even after it is removed. Figure 10 shows two orthosonographs of Newark Bay, both illuminated from the west. The difference lies in the acquisition time. Left was acquired in 2001. Right was acquired in 2005. The data acquired in 2001 was acquired when the channel was at -42ft elevation. Note the
Page 92
Vol 24, 3 2019
and sub-bottom profiling. The maximum thickness is 2.0ft in the channels and the maximum sedimentation rate is 1.0ft/yr. A careful and through combination of geological and geophysical measurements yields useful information for asset management, through the characterization of different type of sediments. The accurate data acquisition and processing of geophysical data is possible in very shallow waters and active harbor environments. The data for material separation provided asset managers and project managers with measurements, maps, and cross sections of geological structure and stratigraphy.
Conclusions Figure 10. Two orthosonographs for Newark Bay, both insonified from the west. Left was acquired in 2001. Right was acquired in 2005. Both images are overlayed on an orthorectified aerial photograph from USGS – 1995. The side-scan orthosonograph show accumulation of Holocene sediments with large content of oil and other contaminants in Newark Bay and prior to dredging. Ship traffic pushes the sediments to the shoals as noted by the marks on the sea-bottom surface.
We collected data in production mode in one of the nation’s most active industrial harbors. Measurements determined the location of submarine and subsurface infrastructure, compressional velocity of bedrock, thickness of material, strike and dip of strata, top of bedrock, diggability of near surface bedrock, and the thickness of Holocene sediments that required upland disposal. The results from geological and geophysical mapping supported project managers to estimate construction costs accurately and ensure that the awarded contracts were as close as possible to estimated budget. Geophysical and geological data, collected at different spatial and temporal resolutions, supported the successful design, engineering, and construction of this largescale infrastructure project. The $2.1 billion program was executed in a manner that allowed for over $800 million in savings, and all the dredge material was used beneficially to enhance the environment.
References Caterpillar (2000), Handbook of Ripping, 8th Edition, Caterpillar, Peoria, IL. Caterpillar Performance Handbook (2006), Edition 36, Caterpillar, Peoria, IL. Figure 11 shows a core image that was used to benchmark the geophysical measurements. This image also shows the thickness of the recent Holocene sediments.
areas of black silt (dark gray lines) and the ship tracks. Afterwards, the channel was deepened to -47ft. The surface black silt in the channels was cleared by environmental dredging. The orthosonograph obtained in 2005, after dredging, shows that much black silt had returned. Most of this recent sediment came from the flats on the eastern side of Newark Bay. The 2001 acquisition data guided the dredging and cleaning. The 2005 image shows that black silt has returned as it flushes from the flats. Dark gray circles mark the extension of black silt. The figure shows that the bottom has been scoured along the ship paths and turning areas. The black-silt footprint in the channels is dynamic and changing constantly with the currents and ship traffic. This interpretation from sonar imaging is consistent with core borings
Caterpillar Performance Handbook (2010), Edition 36, Caterpillar, Peoria, IL. Ward, W.B., Murphy 3, W., Fleming, R., Beda, S., Boyd, B., Fleming, G., Baker, B.A. “Geological mapping of underwater bedrock and stratigraphy, Newark Group, Arthur Kill Channel and Newark Bay, New York and New Jersey Harbor”, presented at the 11th Conference on Geology of Long Island and Metropolitan New York, April 17, 2004, Stony Brook University. URL: http://www.geo.sunysb.edu/lig/Conferences/abstracts-04/04_ program.htm (checked 2011-04-18). Murphy 3, W.F., Ward, W.B., Boyd, B., Nolen-Hoeksema, R., Murphy 4, W.F., Art, M., and Rosales, D.A. “Geophysics and rock-mechanic test for dredging in the Arthur Kill Channel, New York,” SEG Expanded Abstracts 29, Denver, Colorado, October 18-22, 2010. Fomel, S., Landa, E., and Taner, M. T. “Post-stack velocity analysis by separation and imaging of seismic diffractions,” Geophysics 72, U89 (2007), DOI:10.1190/1.2781533
Vol 24, 3 2019
Page 93
Author Bios Daniel A. Rosales Roche
Lisa Stewart e4sciences Lisa.Stewart@e4sciences.com
e4sciences Daniel.Rosales@e4sciences.com
Daniel A. Rosales is the Managing Scientist at e4sciences. Daniel is an expert on wave theory and geophysical processing techniques particularly applied to high-resolution shallow seismic that is key to engineering and geotechnical projects. In his research, Daniel combined the wave field information from both compressional and shear waves through numerical methods to produce a seismic image and velocity structure for the subsurface geology in marine environments for oil and gas exploration. Daniel has combined these techniques to describe, map, and measure the sediments and rocks of the Northeast US.
Lisa Stewart is a Science Advisor and Expert Geophysicist at e4sciences. Lisa provides expertise in quality control of studies that integrate measurements of multiple physical properties and that span orders of magnitude in spatial and temporal scales. She has 30 years of experience in subsurface investigations, geophysical measurements, technical and science writing and editing, presentations, quality control, research, technology management, and marketing communications. Beckett Boyd e4sciences
Matthew Art e4sciences Matt.Art@e4sciences.com
Matthew is General Manager and Senior Geologist at e4sciences LLC. He is familiar with the operation, processing, and interpretation of all e4sciences geological and geophysical measurements. Matthew Art holds a BS in Geology from Williams College. He oversees the integration and presentation of data to ensure that data is accurately represented and self-evident.
Beckett Boyd has 24.5 years of experience as a technical and staff management Geological Engineer in geophysical and geological measurement services, data interpretation, and data processing. She has conducted and been project manager of subsurface technical surveys. She has logged boreholes using advanced seismic, resistivity, sonar, electromagnetic and core sampling equipment. She has processed the technical data on an advanced level and interpreted the results for presentation to clients. She has participated in several archaeological field studies and wrote a cultural anthropological comparative study of six mining towns.
W. Bruce Ward
Kurt Schollmeyer
e4sciences Bruce.Ward@e4sciences.com
e4sciences
Dr. W., Bruce Ward is one of the founders of e4sciences. He is the Chief Geologists. Dr. Ward produces stratigraphy, mapping, cross sections, and multisensor integration. Bruce has over 35 years of experience describing, mapping, measuring and understanding sediment and rocks. In the last 19 years he has supervised the advancement and description of over 900 rock and sediment cores and borings. Over 400 of these have been geotechnical SPT and rotary core borings from a marine platform.
Kurt Schollmeyer is an Expert Civil and Geotechnical Engineer at e4sciences, LLC. He has 35 years of experience as project manager, project engineer, and senior civil and geotechnical engineer for dam rehabilitation, slope armor and erosion control, slope stability, landfill design, construction and CQA projects, refinery construction, radioactive / hazardous waste clean-up and wetland mitigation. Kurt supervised the test digs operations for the deepening of Arthur Kill Channel as part of the New York Harbor Deepening Project.
Page 94 William F. Murphy 3
Jamal Sulayman
e4sciences (deceased)
US Army Corps of Engineers
William F. Murphy 3: (Deceased) Founder and former Managing Scientist for over 18 years at e4sciences|Earthworks, LLC a small business providing geological, geophysical, geotechnical, and ecological services to civil and military engineers.
Vol 24, 3 2019
New York District
Jamal Sulayman is a technical manager for the New York District of the US Army Corps of Engineers. Jamal has been with the US Army Corps of Engineers for over 18 years. Jamal was responsible for the technical management of the contracts for NYNJ harbor deepening projects. He recognized the utility of and encouraged the use of geophysical measurements. Ben A. Baker US Army Corps of Engineers New York District
Ben A. Baker is a retired geologist for the New York District of the US Army Corps of Engineers. Ben has a MS in geology from the University of Houston. During his tenure at the USACE he was responsible for the geology for the assessment studies and contracts for NYNJ harbor deepening projects. He recognized the utility of and encouraged the use of geophysical measurements based on his previous experience in the oil field.
Page 95
MOUNT_SOPRIS_EEGS_fullpgcolor_Layout 1 2/24/15 4:09 PM Page 1
Vol 24, 3 2019
Mount Sopris Instruments and ALT are leading manufacturers of borehole geophysical logging systems for GROUNDWATER, ENVIRONMENTAL, GEOTECHNICAL, ENERGY and RESEARCH industries.
PROBES WINCHES LOGGERS SOFTWARE Learn more at
mountsopris.com BO R EHO L E LO G G I N G SYST E M S A L E S a n d RE NTALS
Page 96
Borehole Geophysics and Hydraulic Testing for a Nearshore Cable Tunnel D. Valintine PG Fugro, Houston, Texas geophysics@fugro.com
Bio M. Donaldson Qteq, Denver, Colorado mdonaldson@qteq.com.au
Bio
Introduction This article presents a case study of recent work done in the planning of a nearshore cable tunnel in northwest Wales, United Kingdom. As part of a comprehensive geotechnical investigation, geophysical wireline logging methods were conducted in nine marine borings along the tunnel alignment. In addition to basic logging methods to define stratigraphy, advance data was collected using an orientated 4-arm caliper, full waveform sonic and PS suspension logging, optical and acoustic televiewer logs and borehole magnetic resonance.
Vol 24, 3 2019
The advanced wireline logs provided valuable insights into the shallow unconsolidated sedimentary geology, greatly helping to reduce some of the ground risks associated with the design and planning of the cable tunnel.
Background National Grid, the owner and operator of the electricity transmission system in England and Wales, has proposed a new connection from the Wylfa Newydd nuclear power station on the island of Anglesey. This new connection is required to deliver the electricity from the island to the existing nationwide network on the mainland, which requires crossing the Menai Straits and the Anglesey Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. To reduce the environmental impact of the connection, rather than stringing the cable on traditional overhead pylons, a decision was made to place them in an underground cable tunnel. This would require the construction of a 4-kilometer long tunnel under the Menai Straits using horizontal directional drilling (HDD) methods (Figure 1). The local geology in the vicinity of the proposed tunnel alignment is comprised of carboniferous limestone, with notable sandstone strata interspersed (Figure 1). This limestone gives way to sedimentary mudstones and sandstones on the mainland. Older metamorphic rocks are found in the Anglesey Shear Zone on Anglesey along with igneous intrusions that form a dyke with several other smaller intrusions. The area is
Figure 1 (Top) Schematic conceptual model of the tunnel construction. (Bottom) Preliminary geologic section along the 4 kilometer tunnel alignment showing possible Menai Strait fault zone (red) within the carboniferous limestone and sedimentary mudstone series (blue and grey).
Page 97
Vol 24, 3 2019
known to be heavily faulted and may have seismic activity. The varied and transformed nature of the solid geology represents technical challenges for HDD tunneling methods. Some of the key ground risks identified during the conceptual planning phase of tunnel included: • I ntact rock strength: higher rock strengths in the igneous intrusions would require increased effort to excavate, but the resulting excavation could be more stable. In contrast, low strength rock or those affected by faulting may lead to raveling and unstable excavations. Furthermore, subhorizontal beds of weak and strong rock have been recorded in the carboniferous limestone series, representing mixed face conditions, which may result in reduced performance, increased wear to tunneling equipment and reduced penetration rates. •R ock mass characteristics: geologic faults and other structural discontinuities in the limestone and sandstone strata pose an increased risk of block failure within excavations. An understanding of the frequency, orientation and nature of such features will be critical to reducing construction risks. •H ydrogeology and permeability: large heads of groundwater can cause increased water pressure and flow into excavations, which would require specialized and costly constructions methods. The carboniferous limestone series is a principal
Figure 2 Fugro’s ARAN120 jack up barge used for the marine geotechnical borings. The barge is towed to location and elevated using the four corner legs, providing a stable elevated platform for rotary drilling, geotechnical testing and geophysical wireline logging.
aquifer and flow of groundwater is evident from the numerous springs that emerge from the banks of the Menai Strait. Similarly, as the tunnel will pass under a major water body, the permeability of the overlying rocks will also determine if the tunnel excavation will be inundated or not.
Page 98
Vol 24, 3 2019
Determining the intact rock strength is therefore of prime importance. From the suite of geophysical wireline logs, data collected with an orientated 4-arm caliper, full waveform sonic tool and PS suspension logger were used to evaluate the intact rock strength. An initial assessment of possible weak zones or caving of the borehole wall was made with the caliper data. The tool provides a continuous measurement of the borehole radius in four perpendicular directions and an onboard compass provides the orientation of each of the measured radius values. Weak zones or caving is inferred by identifying zones in the data where the average borehole diameter is larger than that of the drill bit size. In addition, as the orientation of the four individual arms is known and their readings are independent, the data can be used to determine the borehole ovality, with the dominate axis providing an indication of the in-situ stress field within the formation.
Figure 3 Example geophysical wireline log produced for assessment of intact rock strength. Noticeable increases in caliper and breakout zones (tracks 1 and 2) above 12m depth correlate well with lower compressional and shear wave velocities, and calculated modulus values (tracks 3 and 4). RQD values from retrieved core (far right track) also indicate lower rock strength across the same depth range.
The preliminary cost estimate for the tunnel construction was $125 million (approximately $10,000 per foot). A comprehensive site investigation was therefore required to identify and provide a better understanding of these potential ground risks and to minimize the likelihood of possible delays and cost overruns associated with them. Previous geotechnical exploration of the tunnel alignment had been conducted solely on the onshore approaches with only a shallow marine seismic reflection survey within the Menai Strait. The findings of these investigations were synthesized into the preliminary geologic section (Figure 1), which suggests the carboniferous limestone and sedimentary mudstone series are interrupted by a fault zone within the Menai Strait. To investigate this fault zone, along with characterizing the potential ground risks outlined above, a nearshore geotechnical investigation was commissioned. A total of nine marine geotechnical borings were drilled within the Menai Strait using a jack up barge (Figure 2). In addition to traditional geotechnical testing, Lugeon (packer) tests and a suite of advanced geophysical wireline logging methods were conducted to provide additional insight into the potential ground risks.
Evaluating Intact Rock Strength The intact rock strength will primarily determine the rate of boring during tunnel construction. Encountering unexpected zones of hard rock can slow progress and potentially damage the tunneling equipment causing delays and cost overruns.
A second approach to assessing the intact rock strength was based on the measurement of the compressional and shear wave seismic velocities. Combined with density estimates (obtained from a gamma-gamma density tool), the seismic velocities can be used to calculate the elastic properties (Youngâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s, bulk and shear modulus) of the formation. Both full waveform sonic and PS suspension logging tools were used to obtain the seismic velocities. These tools are similar but the full waveform sonic logging tool uses a high frequency piezoelectric source and is suited only to hard rock environments. In soils and soft rock environments, the PS suspension logger, with its low frequency mechanical source, performs best. Therefore, the combination of both tools is needed to be able to accurately measure a full range of seismic velocities in the alternating beds of weak and strong rock in the carboniferous limestone series. To assist visualizing potential variations in the intact rock strength, composite logs of the caliper data, seismic velocities and calculated modulus values were generated (Figure 3). In addition, the rock quality designation (RQD) from the retrieved core samples is also presented. The RQD signifies the degree of jointing or fracture within a rock mass measured in percentage, where RQD of 75% or more shows good quality hard rock and less than 50% shows low quality weathered rocks. From these composite logs, the correlation between the geophysical wireline data and RQD values are readily apparent with the upper 12 meters of the boring displaying an enlarged borehole diameter, lower seismic velocities and weak modulus values.
Measurement of Rock Mass Characteristics The frequency and orientation of discontinuities such as faults, fractures and bedding within rocks can greatly affect the stability of tunnels. There is an increased likelihood of the roof of the tunnel collapsing if a fault, persistent fracture or bedding plane crosses the tunnel bore at a shallow angle. Features that cross the tunnel at steeper angles may not
Page 99
Vol 24, 3 2019
pose as an significant risk of collapse but will complicate tunneling progress. Although these features can be readily identified within the core samples retrieved from the borings, it is generally not possible to determine their orientation as the core will rotate during retrieval. Furthermore, the drill process itself can induce additional fractures and in some instances, destroy the sample. To overcome these issues, the geophysical wireline logging suite included the use of optical and acoustic televiewers. These tools provide continuous and oriented 360 degree images of the borehole wall from which the character and orientation of lithologic and structural features can be identified and measured. The optical televiewer provides a true color image from a fisheye lens at the base of the tool. The acoustic televiewer emits an ultrasonic beam and recorded the amplitude and travel time of the reflected signal, which provides an acoustic image of the borehole wall and its diameter. The structural features identified in the televiewer data provided a useful insight into the rock mass characteristics along the tunnel alignment. Initially, plots showing the number of fractures per meter were generated to show the variability in the rock. Further analysis was conducted on the features that were present between the proposed tunnel invert and crown elevations, plus the zone immediately above. By generating stereoplots of this specific depth range for each boring along the tunnel alignment, it was apparent that rock mass characteristics were generally consistent, with the exception of the northernmost boring, which was drilled in close proximity to the anticipated Menai Strait fault.
Hydrogeology and Permeability The hydrogeology and permeability of the rock formations are of importance to tunneling operations to predict if the tunnel will be inundated during drilling, which will require specialist tunneling operations. To investigate this, borehole magnetic resonance (BMR) data was acquired as part of the geophysical wireline logging suite along with traditional Lugeon (packer) tests to characterize the hydraulic conductivity at discrete depth intervals. BMR is a method that measures the in-situ porosity, particle size distribution and bound and moveable water fraction. These data are then empirically modeled to estimate permeability. The method has been used for many years within the oil and gas industry (in consolidated shale and sandstone reservoirs) and permeability estimates are made using the SchlumbergerDoll Research (SDR) and the Timur-Coates methods are used, which have the form:
đ?&#x2018;&#x2DC;đ?&#x2018;&#x2DC;đ?&#x2018;&#x2020;đ?&#x2018;&#x2020;đ?&#x2018;&#x2020;đ?&#x2018;&#x2020;đ?&#x2018;&#x2020;đ?&#x2018;&#x2020; = đ?&#x2018;&#x17D;đ?&#x2018;&#x17D; â&#x2C6;&#x2122; đ?&#x2018;&#x203A;đ?&#x2018;&#x203A;đ?&#x2018;?đ?&#x2018;? â&#x2C6;&#x2122; đ?&#x2018;&#x2021;đ?&#x2018;&#x2021;2đ??żđ??żđ??żđ??ż đ?&#x2018;?đ?&#x2018;?
đ?&#x2018;&#x2DC;đ?&#x2018;&#x2DC; đ?&#x2018;&#x2021;đ?&#x2018;&#x2021;đ?&#x2018;&#x2021;đ?&#x2018;&#x2021;đ?&#x2018;&#x2021;đ?&#x2018;&#x2021;đ?&#x2018;&#x2021;đ?&#x2018;&#x2021;đ?&#x2018;&#x2021;đ?&#x2018;&#x2021;â&#x2C6;&#x2019;đ??śđ??śđ??śđ??śđ??śđ??śđ??śđ??śđ??śđ??śđ??śđ??ś
đ?&#x2018;&#x2020;đ?&#x2018;&#x2020;đ?&#x2018;Śđ?&#x2018;Ś đ?&#x2018;?đ?&#x2018;? = đ?&#x2018;&#x17D;đ?&#x2018;&#x17D; â&#x2C6;&#x2122; đ?&#x2018;&#x203A;đ?&#x2018;&#x203A; â&#x2C6;&#x2122; ( ) đ?&#x2018;&#x2020;đ?&#x2018;&#x2020;đ?&#x2018;&#x;đ?&#x2018;&#x; đ?&#x2018;?đ?&#x2018;?
where n is the porosity, T2LM and the ratio Sy/Sr relate to the porosity distribution (the logarithmic mean and ratio of bound and moveable water fractions, respectively). The remaining
Figure 4 Example geophysical wireline log produced for assessment of hydrogeology and permeability. Note increase in porosity and moveable water (tracks 3 and 4) correspond to sandstone lithology and strong correlation between calibrated BMR derived porosity and packer test data (track5).
parameters, a, b, and c are all empirically determined. From the wealth of data from oil and gas exploration, these parameters are relatively well-constrained for consolidated shale and sandstone reservoirs. However, the BMR method has only recently been adopted for groundwater studies in shallow unconsolidated deposits and therefore data to constrain the empirical models is sparse, which introduces some ambiguity to the permeability estimates. Initial estimates of the BMR derived permeabilities using parameters based on oil and gas data were approximately two orders of magnitude different to those measured from the Lugeon (packer) tests. Consistent with other recent work in unconsolidated environments, the Lugeon (packer) test data was used to deduce a site-specific calibration of the SDR and Timur-Coates methods and provide more consistent BMR derived permeability estimates. This allowed the BMR data to be used to provide a continuous log of permeability for the full borehole depth, as opposed to only having permeability for the discrete zones from the Lugeon (packer) tests (Figure 4). Crossplots were made to investigate possible correlations between the BMR data and the other geophysical wireline logging measurements in order to further validate the sitespecific calibration. A weak correlation between fracture density and BMR derived permeability was observed, indicating possible connection between permeable and fractured zones. While it is difficult to differentiate between primary and secondary porosity using BMR, these quantitative results were qualitatively supported by image logs showing the fracture network and gamma-gamma density logs that showed decreased response in the fractured regions.
Page 100
Vol 24, 3 2019
Vol 24, 3 2019
Page 101
Summary
Acknowledgements
This case study demonstrates the wealth of information available from the use of a full suite of geophysical wireline logging methods obtained during a geotechnical site investigation. Of note, the use of advanced logging techniques (oriented 4-arm caliper, optical and acoustic televiewers and borehole magnetic resonance) provide data to help characterize specific ground risk that are critical to the success of tunnel construction.
This study was carried out by Fugro for National Grid and their engineer, Mott MacDonald, who have kindly granted permission to present the data to the near-surface geophysics community. The authors would like to extent special thanks to Gareth Mason (Mott MacDonaldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s project manager), Denes Gartner and Balazs Rigler of Fugro (geophysical wireline logging specialists in the UK who oversaw the collection and processing of the data) and Ryan Gee and Benjamin Birt of Qteq (for assistance with BMR data acquisition, analysis and site-specific calibration).
Author Bios David Valintine PG
Marcus Donaldson PhD
Fugro, Houston, Texas, USA geophysics@fugro.com
Qteq, Denver, Colorado, USA mdonaldson@qteq.com.au
David is the Geophysics Service Line Manager for Fugro in the Americas and has been with the company for over 15 years. David and his team of geophysicists in Texas, Colorado and California work on a wide range of near surface geophysics projects, collecting and analyzing comprehensive information about the Earth and structure build upon it, helping Fugro become the worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s leading geo-data specialist. David holds a BS in Geophysics from the University of Liverpool (1999) and a MS in Applied Environmental Geology from the University of Wales (2000). He is a licensed Professional Geoscientist in Texas and is currently serving as Vice President Elect for the Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society.
Marcus is the Business Development Manager for Qteq in the Americas. He works to provide BMR measurement capabilities to clients with hydrogeological questions. Marcus received a BS in Chemistry from Brigham Young University and a PhD in Magnetic Resonance from University of California, Berkeley before joining Schlumberger where he first worked as a wireline field engineer before moving into research. As a research scientist, he developed methods and instrumentation for downhole magnetic resonance measurements, with emphasis on applications relevant to the oil industry. Marcus has broad experience in well logging, laser physics, chemical analysis, and other magnetic resonance applications. His current role focuses on utilizing MR technologies in the broader georesources industries.
Page 102
Nondestructive Evaluation of Bridge Foundations – For Quality Assurance and Forensic Purposes Dennis A. Sack, P.E. Olson Engineering, Inc. Wheat Ridge Colorado, USA dennis.sack@olsonengineering.com
Bio Larry D. Olson, P.E. Olson Engineering, Inc. Wheat Ridge Colorado, USA Larry.Olson@OlsonEngineering.com
Bio
Abstract The use of NDE methods is well established for the evaluation of deep foundations for bridges and other structures. However, there is often misunderstanding as to which of the various methods can or should be applied to different foundation situations such as quality assurance testing of newly placed foundations, determination of unknown tip depths for existing foundations, forensic investigations of foundations with suspected issues, etc. This article presents an overview of the most common methods used, including summaries of the advantages and limitations of each method. Included is an overview of how the methods are applied, how the data is analyzed, sample test data from real-world examples, and an overview of the when and when not to use each method.
Introduction Bridge foundations can be quite enigmatic – all you see above ground is the top of the foundation, if even that. Does the engineer or owner have to simply trust that what they expect (or are told by the drawings) is in the ground is actually what is present? And what about the not uncommon situation where there are NO drawings or information available? Determining the foundation tip depth, integrity, and even type can be a challenge, but this challenge can often be met with the use of one or more Nondestructive Evaluation (NDE) methods. There are three common, well-accepted methods for foundation evaluation. These include Crosshole Sonic Logging (CSL) and the similar Crosshole Tomography (CT) for quality assurance of new drilled shaft foundation construction, Sonic Echo/Impulse Response (SE/IR, also called “pile integrity testing”) for checking
Vol 24, 3 2019
the depth and integrity of both new and existing foundations, and the Parallel Seismic (PS) method for determining unknown depths of existing foundations. Each of these methods has their strengths and weaknesses, and it is important to be aware of the limitations and capabilities in selecting the right method for the task at hand. The CSL and CT methods, as noted are used almost exclusively on newlyconstructed drilled shafts for underwater concrete placement quality assurance (QA) due to the need for access tubes to be installed (although core holes can also work). These methods, however, offer the greatest sensitivity to problems in the concrete of all the methods available. The SE/IR method can be done on both newly placed as well as existing drilled shafts and driven piles, but there must be access to some portion of the foundation top or upper side to perform this method. Finally, the PS test method is the most versatile for unknown deep foundation depth determination as it can be performed on foundations where the foundation itself is inaccessible such as piles or shafts under a buried pilecap. However, this method is only used for pile tip/shaft bottom depth determination and does require a cased borehole be put into place near the foundation to be tested. The NDE methods available for deep foundations vary in terms of access requirements, sensitivity, and also speed which translates into cost. This article will present an overview of each method, illustrate the advantages and limitations of each, and show some typical sample results to provide the reader with some idea as to what to expect (and not to expect) from each method.
Parallel Seismic Method The PS test method is used to measure foundation tip depth when the SE/IR test method can’t be done due to access, or doesn’t apply due to foundation type or geometry. This method is commonly applied for scour safety analyses of older unknown bridge foundations, for determining if a foundation can handle an increase in loading, for re-use of existing foundations, or for any other situation where an unknown foundation tip depth is needed. Previous research performed for under National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) funding by Olson Engineering (1,2) has shown that of the various foundation evaluation methods available, the Parallel Seismic (PS) test method is the most versatile and reliable for tip depth measurements on existing bridges. The PS method is discussed in ACI 228.2R-16 (3) along with discussions of the SE/IR and CSL/CT methods presented in this article. This method can be applied to a wide variety of foundation types, including steel piles, sheet piles, drilled shafts, timber piles, etc. and used for almost any foundation depth. This method also does not require direct physical access to the foundation being tested. As noted above, the most significant limitation to the use of the PS method is that it requires a cased
Page 103
Vol 24, 3 2019
borehole be placed in the ground next to the foundation in question which should extend at least 10 ft and preferably 15 ft below the minimum suspected/hoped for/required depth of the foundation. The PS test is normally performed by impacting an exposed foundation top or side, or impacting a part of the structure above the foundation (such as a pile cap or column). The impacts can be either vertical or horizontal, and are typically done with an instrumented impulse hammer to generate compressional waves and trigger the data recording system. Testing can also be done with a non-instrumented hammer, using an accelerometer mounted nearby for the trigger source. The P-waves (compressional) generated by the impact travel down the foundation and couple into the surrounding soil as shown in Figure 1. The coupled waves are then picked up in the soil by a nearby hydrophone or tri-axial geophone receiver. A hydrophone receiver is typically suspended in a water-filled (or grouted if needed), cased borehole. The casing is typically a 2 inch internal diameter schedule 40 polyvinyl chloride PVC casing but steel casing can also be used), but a receiver can also be near the tip of an instrumented cone probe pushed into the ground. The data from typically 3 impacts is collected at each test depths as the receiver is retrieved from the casing bottom to the surface at vertical intervals of 1 to 2 ft and stored. This data is then used to create a plot of receiver signal arrival time versus depth, from which the analysis is performed. A photograph of typical PS testing setup on a bridge deck (with no direct access to the foundation at all) is presented in Figure 2 below. As seen, the casing from the borehole is seen coming up through a hole drilled in the deck. The hydrophone receiver is seen on the deck next to the borehole, ready to be inserted. The impact hammer is visible in the background – it was used to impact the bridge deck on top of the bridge pier directly above the foundation element (pile) which was being tested that was located closest to the boring.
Figure 1. Parallel Seismic (PS) testing schematic diagram. P-waves travel through the foundation at a greater velocity than surrounding soil, and a “break” in the direct arrival times indicates the depth of the foundation along with a reduction in signal amplitude when the hydrophone receiver is below the foundation.
Example PS Test Data – Concrete Bridge Foundation An example record from a PS test performed through a bridge deck is presented in Figure 3 below. The hydrophone was retrieved from the casing bottom at 1 foot increments, and the bridge deck over the foundation was impacted typically 3 times at each hydrophone receiver depth. As seen in Figure 3, there is a clear constant slope in the upper half arrival time versus depth plot. This slope is due to the slowly increasing arrival times versus depth from the foundation element, with the slope equal to the compressional wave velocity of the foundation (for saturated soil conditions between the casing and the foundation). The measured velocity of about 13,400 feet per second (fps) is typical of a foundation for good quality and strength concrete. The plot also shows a clear change in slope at about 45.2 feet, indicating the foundation tip depth below the 0 depth reference. Below this tip depth, the velocity
Figure 2 – Parallel Seismic (PS) test setup on a bridge deck with 3 lb impulse hammer, PC data acquisition system, hydrophone receiver and PVC boring casing filled with water.
Page 104
Vol 24, 3 2019
Sonic Echo/Impulse Response Method
Figure 3. Sample Parallel Seismic (PS) Test Results for a Concrete Pile Foundation with a velocity of about 13,400 ft/s. Note the pile tip depth is indicated by the slower velocity below 45 ft deep and the weaker amplitude signals.
The SE/IR pile integrity method is used to measure both depth and integrity of foundations and can be performed on both new foundation for quality assurance as well as on existing foundations. The method is referenced in ASTM D5882-16 (4). This method is relatively quick to perform, and does not require boreholes or access tubes. However, this method does normally require direct access to the foundation itself, either to some part of the top or to the upper side. Note that the SE/ IR test method has been also conducted through either thin slabs or through smaller pile caps, but these cases require special care and will only be successful if certain pile cap or slab geometry constraints are met. The SE/IR method is a low strain pile integrity test conducted from the top of a foundation as illustrated in Figure 4 below. Typical test equipment includes a 3 lb impulse hammer and an accelerometer mounted on the shaft top or on the upper shaft side. While the SE testing can be done with an ordinary hammer, the IR test hammer must have a built-in load cell that can measure the force and duration of the impact. The accelerometer receiver response is integrated from acceleration to be velocity vs. time in the SE data and it is more sensitive to echoes at shallow depths and from small defects than a geophone (velocity transducer). A geophone is often used in addition to an accelerometer to get better measurements of the foundation head flexibility/stiffness at low frequencies in the IR analyses. The test involves hitting the foundation top (or pile cap above the foundation top) with the hard-plastic tipped hammer to generate energy that travels to the bottom of the foundation. The wave reflects off irregularities (cracks, necks, bulbs, soil intrusions, voids, etc.) and/or the bottom of the foundation and travels back up along the foundation to the top. The receiver measures the vibration response of the foundation to each impact. The signal analyzer processes and displays the hammer and receiver outputs. Foundation length and integrity of concrete are evaluated by identifying and analyzing the arrival times, direction, and amplitude of reflections measured by the receivers in time.
Figure 4. Sonic Echo/Impulse Response (SE/IR) shaft/pile integrity/depth test method.
is indicated to be about 6,200 fps, which is typical of weak bedrock (in this case, weak limestone). The tip depth is further confirmed by the clear drop in signal amplitude for depths below 45 feet as the compressional wave energy spreads out into the limerock below the pile tip and is no longer guided down the pile foundation. As seen in this example, the PS test can be used for tip depth evaluation even in cases where there is absolutely no access to the foundation itself. In this case, testing was conducted from a bridge deck, with the borehole drilled through the deck concrete and then down into the soil/rock next to the foundation.
For SE time domain data analysis, the echo depth (D) is calculated by multiplying the reflection time (t) by the compressional wave velocity (V) and dividing this quantity by 2 to account for the fact that the wave has gone down and reflected back (i.e. D = V*t/2). If possible, the compressional wave velocity should be measured on an exposed portion of the pile for wood and concrete, otherwise a typical velocity of 12,000 to 13,000 ft/s may be assumed. Note that steel piles have a constant velocity of 16,600 ft/s for an SE/IR test. The IR analysis uses the same data as the SE analysis, but the data processing is done in the frequency domain, i.e., the vibrations of the foundation measured by the receivers are processed with Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) algorithms used in modal vibration testing to generate mobility (velocity/force) and flexibility (displacement/force) vs. frequency
Page 105
Vol 24, 3 2019
Page 106
Vol 24, 3 2019
transfer functions for analyses. The coherence of the impulse hammer impact and accelerometer receiver response data versus frequency is calculated to indicate the data quality. A coherence near 1.0 indicates good quality data. Because of the rod-like shape of a deep foundation, reflections are indicated by equally spaced resonant peaks that correspond to modes of vibration associated with the depth of the reflector. The inverse of the SE reflection time, t, is equal to the change in frequency, Δf, between the resonant peaks in the IR mobility plot. The reflector depth is then calculated as: D = V/(2*Δf). Analysis of the length determination and the integrity evaluation of a foundation for both the SE and IR methods is based on the identification and evaluation of reflections. The hammer impact energy reflects differently from increased foundation acoustic impedance (velocity*mass density*area) than from decreased foundation impedance. This phenomenon allows the type of reflector to be identified as follows. Soil intrusions, honeycomb, breaks, cracks, cold joints, poor quality concrete and similar defects (often referred to as a neck) are identified as reflections that correspond to a decrease in the foundation impedance. Increases in the foundation cross-section or the competency of surrounding materials such as an increase in shaft cross-sectional area (referred to as a bulb) or bedrock and other much stiffer soil strata are identified as reflections corresponding to increases in the foundation impedance. One of the limitations of the SE/IR method is based on the length versus diameter ratio of the foundation. As a rule of thumb, when embedded foundation length to diameter ratios exceed about 20:1 to 30:1 for foundations in stiffer soils/bedrock, the attenuation of compressional wave energy is high and bottom echoes are weak or unidentifiable in SE/IR test results.
Figure 5. SE/IR testing on timber pile – left photo shows 2 accelerometer receivers mounted on blocks with wood lag bolts on the timber pile side at 4.5 and 5.5 ft below the top of the concrete pile cap. The right photo shows the 3 lb instrumented impulse hammer impacting the 4 ft thick concrete pile cap directly over the timber pile.
Figure 6. Sample SE from a timber pile with a side-mounted accelerometer and pile cap top impact. The initial accelerometer response is shown by the first X followed by 2 multiple X marked (and more unmarked) echoes, indicating the pile tip to be at 10.5 ft below the bottom of the pilecap (9.0 ft below the lowest receiver on the pile side).
Example SE/IR Test Data – Timber Pile Bridge Foundation An investigation of two timber piles was carried out in a recent project to determine the unknown lengths of the piles. At the time of testing, about 2 ft of the upper sides of the piles were exposed in an excavation. The piles were nominally 12 inches in diameter and appeared to be creosote treated. The tops of the piles were embedded in a concrete pile cap, requiring side-mounting of the accelerometer receivers used for the SE/ IR measurements. Figure 5 shows photographs of the sidemounted accelerometers as well as the hammer impact location on the top of the pile cap above each of the tested piles. An example SE (time) record from a test on one of the piles is presented in Figure 6 below. As seen, there are a series of very clear downward-breaking echoes from the apparent pile tip at about 9 feet below the accelerometer. Since this SE record is from the bottom accelerometer receiver set at 1.5 feet below the bottom of the pile cap, the indicated pile length of about 10.5 feet below the bottom of the pile cap. Processing of the SE data from 3 impacts produced the IR mobility and
Figure 7. Sample IR Record from the Figure 6 SE data (3 impacts) with the coherence plot on top and the mobility plot (velocity/force) vs. frequency on the bottom. The evenly spaced resonant peaks correspond to an echo depth of 9.2 ft below the lowest receiver.
coherence plots versus frequency presented in Figure 7. The coherence of the impulse hammer impact and accelerometer receiver near 1.0 indicates good quality data. For foundations in air or in relatively soft soils, the coherence will typically only be near 1.0 at frequencies for which the mobility is non-zero.
Page 107
Vol 24, 3 2019
In the IR records the linear transfer function amplitude is in inches/second/pound force on the vertical axis (mobility) and frequency in Hz on the horizontal axis. Because of the rod-like shape of a deep foundation, reflections are indicated by equally spaced resonant peaks that correspond to modes of vibration associated with the depth of the reflector. The inverse of the SE reflection time, t, is equal to the change in frequency, Δf, between the resonant peaks in the IR mobility plot. The reflector depth is then calculated as: D = V/(2*Δf) and the resonant echo depth of 9.2 ft in the IR results agrees well with the SE results.
Crosshole Sonic Logging (Csl) and Crosshole Tomography (Ct) Methods The CSL test is a downhole method for quality assurance testing of drilled shaft foundations and concrete slurry walls per ASTM D6760-16 (5). Access tubes, typically PVC or steel, must be castin-place in the concrete during construction or coreholes must be cut to permit logging as illustrated in Figure 8. For a CSL test, logging involves passing an ultrasonic pulse through the concrete between source and receiver probes in a water-filled tube pair as the probe cables are pulled back to the surface over a depth measurement wheel. The CSL method thus tests the quality of the concrete lying between a given pair of access tubes which are typically 2 inch ID schedule 40 black steel pipes (bonds better with concrete than PVC pipes). A minimum of 2 tubes is required for the test and typically 1 tube is installed per foot of drilled shaft diameter. Normally CSL is done of the perimeter tube pairs and diagonally opposing tube pairs (4 tubes have 6 logs and 6 tubes have 9 logs, although 6 more sub-diagonal tubes can be done of a 6 tube shaft – 6 ft diameter). Analyses to evaluate the integrity of the concrete from CSL data include measurement of wave travel times between the source and receiver, calculation of corresponding wave velocities, and measuring receiver response energies. Longer travel times and corresponding slower velocities are indicative of irregularities in the concrete between the tubes. The complete loss of signal is indicative of a significant defect in the concrete between one or more tube pair combinations. The energy of the signal in an anomaly zone can be used to give an indication of the type of defect. As an example, a water-filled void will have a low velocity but a high signal amplitude, while a soil-filled void will have a low velocity and a low signal amplitude. Desirable results show consistent pulse arrival times with corresponding compressional wave velocities that are reasonable for concrete. Defects such as water or slurry contaminated weak concrete and soil intrusions will result in delayed arrivals (slower velocity) or no arrivals in the defect zone. The signal energy level is a secondary indicator of concrete quality with low energy also indicating poorer quality concrete in the case when the time of arrival is delayed (but not in the case of a good arrival time). The wave velocity increases
Figure 8. Crosshole Sonic Logging (CSL) test method diagram.
with time in concrete as it matures, particularly in the first few days of curing as the concrete hydrates and strength develops. If an anomaly is found with the single-path CSL testing, additional information about the size, shape, and severity of the anomaly can be obtained by performing Crosshole Tomography (CT) testing. This testing uses the same hardware as the basic CSL test, but the data is collected at a series of different transducer offsets to obtain angled source and receiver. The collected CT data is processed with a tomography modeling program which then creates a 2-D or 3-D image of the anomaly.
Example CSL and CT Test Data – Concrete Drilled Shaft Foundation A demonstration of the both the CSL and CT methods was conducted on a drilled shaft that had “artificial” defects built into it. The defects consisted of sand bags both tied to the rebar cage (to simulate a soil intrusion) and piled at the bottom (to simulate a “soft bottom” condition. These are the two most common types of defects seen in newly-placed drilled shafts. The shaft had 3 access tubes installed for CSL and CT testing. A photograph of the drilled hole showing the cage and the sandbag defects is presented in Figure 9 below. The CSL testing was done first, and showed the presence of both the mid-height sandbag on one side of the shaft, as well
Page 108
Vol 24, 3 2019
Figure 9. CSL and CT test shaft with sand bag defects that were installed at known depths prior to concrete placement.
Figure 10. CSL Test Shaft result log with Sand Bag Defects identified at 9-10.5 and 16.5-17 ft deep.
as the â&#x20AC;&#x153;soft bottomâ&#x20AC;? condition from the pile of sandbags at the shaft bottom. A sample CSL log showing these two conditions is presented in Figure 10 below. The blue line is the signal arrival time versus depth. The two anomalous areas at 9-10.5 and 16.517 feet deep are where the arrival time increases are from the two defect zones created by the sandbags. The red line is the signal energy (amplitude) and shows a clear drop in energy in each of the two defect zones. The shaft was next tested with the CT method, with the tomography data collected between each of the three tube pairs at 7 angles per tube pair. For this shaft, the 7 pulls were done at offset angles of 0, +/- 15 , +/30, and +/- 45 degrees from horizontal. After data
Figure 11. CT Test Shaft velocity tomogram result showing 3-D image of sand bag defects with velocity scale in thousands of ft/s.
collection, the full data set was processed with the GEOTOM CG tomography software package from GeoTom, LLC of Apple Valley, Minnesota to generate a 3-D tomography output data set. This output was then displayed with the Slicer Dicer imaging software by PIXOTEC, LLC of Renton, Washington to produce the final result seen in Figure 11 below. As seen, the large sandbag at 9-10.5 feet is clearly visible, including a reasonable estimate of its actual shape. The soft bottom from the pile of sandbags at the shaft bottom center is also clearly visible.
Vol 24, 3 2019
Page 109
Discussion and Conclusions There are a number of NDE methods available for evaluation of deep foundations. The methods can test a wide variety of foundation types, including drilled shafts, steel piles, timber piles, sheet piles, slurry and diaphragm walls, etc. However, as discussed in this article, it is important to recognize the strengths and limitations of each method so that the correct method (or combination of methods) can be selected for a given foundation. The Parallel Seismic (PS) method has been found to be the most accurate and versatile method for unknown foundation length determination, since it does not even require direct access to the foundation being tested. However, the PS method requires a cased borehole be installed next to the foundation, and this method is not very useful for locating smaller defects in a shaft. The Crosshole Sonic Logging (CSL) and Crosshole Tomography (CT) methods have the highest sensitivity to defects, and can even provide an image of a defect. These methods, however, require that access tubes (or coreholes) be present to allow testing and thus these methods are normally only performed on newly-placed drilled shaft foundations. The SE/IR method is generally the fastest and least expensive method for foundation length and integrity, but it is limited to drilled shafts and timber and concrete piles where access to the top or upper side is available.
References 1. Olson, L.D., Jalinoos, F. and Aouad, M.F., Determination of Unknown Subsurface Bridge Foundations, NCHRP 21-5, Final Report, August, 1995. 2. Olson, L.D., and Aouad, M.F., Unknown Subsurface Bridge Foundation Testing, NCHRP 21-5 (2), Final Report, June, 2001. 3. A merican Concrete Institute ACI 228.2R-13 Report on Nondestructive Test Methods for Evaluation of Concrete in Structures 4. ASTM D5882-16 Standard Test Method for Low Strain Impact Integrity Testing of Deep Foundations 5. ASTM D6760-16 Standard Test Method for Integrity Testing of Concrete Deep Foundations by Ultrasonic Crosshole Testing
Author Bios Dennis A. Sack, PE
Sr. Vice President and Principal Engineer Olson Engineering, Inc. Olson Instruments, Inc. Ph: 303-423-1212 Fax: 303-423-6071 dennis.sack@olsonengineering.com
Mr. Dennis Sack is a registered PE in several states and is currently Sr. Vice President and Principal Engineer at Olson Engineering, Inc., and is based in their Wheat Ridge, Colorado office. He is the Principal Engineer in charge of NDE consulting services at Olson and has a broad range of experience in nondestructive testing and evaluation of thousands of structural elements of various materials and with a wide range of NDT methods. Mr. Sack is also currently one of the instructors for an ASCE course on Structural Condition Assessment of Existing Structures. Mr. Sack is also responsible for the design and development of NDT instrumentation, both hardware and software for Olson Instruments, Inc. Larry D. Olson, PE
President and Chief Engineer Olson Engineering, Inc. Olson Instruments, Inc. Cell: (303) 883-2013 Ph: 303-423-1212 Fax: 303-423-6071 Larry.Olson@OlsonEngineering.com
Larry D. Olson, P.E., is nationally and internationally known for his expertise in nondestructive evaluation (NDE) and performance monitoring of civil infrastructure including dams, bridges, buildings, foundations, pavements, tunnels, etc. He is a past director of EEGS and a member or past member of several committees including: ASCE’s Geophysics Committee, Transportation Research Board (TRB) Committee AFF60 Tunnels, AFF40 on Field Testing and Nondestructive Evaluation of Transportation Structures and its Nondestructive Evaluation (NDE) subcommittee as well as the Earth Exploration Committee AFP20 and its Geophysical subcommittee. He has been an instructor in the American Society of Civil Engineers seminar on “Structural Condition Assessment of Existing Structure” since 1997 and in 2009 developed a new ASCE seminar “Bridge Condition Assessment and Performance Monitoring”. He was the primary instructor in an Engineering Education of Australia seminar series on Nondestructive Evaluation of Concrete, Asphalt and Wood in Sydney and Melbourne in 2010 and for the two ASCE seminars in Brisbane and Sydney in 2014 and again in 2015 and 2017. He holds BS and MS Geotechnical Engineering degrees from the Civil Architectural and Environmental Engineering Department of the University of Texas at Austin which honored him as a distinguished alumnus in 2006. Olson Engineering has its main office in Wheat Ridge CO (metro Denver) with a branch office in Rockville MD (metro Washington, DC). Mr. Olson founded Olson Instruments, Inc. to manufacture NDE and seismic geophysical instruments in 1995 with national and international sales.
terraentheosgeoscience@gmail.com Page Tel: +l-360-989-6771 (US); +61-(0)407-841-098 (Aust.)
Geoff Pettifer Principal
Vol 24, 3 2019
110
Aerobatic Geophysical Systems, LLC Ronald S. Bell
Geophysicist & geoDRONEo/ogist tel: 303-462-1466
e-mail: rbell@igsdenver.com
on the web at www.aeroboticgeo.com
Drone Enabled Geoscientific Mapping INTREPIDTM
The
1
R.T. Clarlt
�
GeoModellerTM
JetStreamTM
Seismographs GPR
Geophones
Mags Cables Resistivity Loggers EM&Mo:rem
COMPLETE SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS – GEOLOGY FROM GEOPHYSICS potential field geophysics 3D implicit geology model building mesh generation 2.5D AEM inversion service for high resolution geology
WWW.INTREPID‐GEOPHYSICS.COM
sales@intrepid‐geophysics.com; US/Canada +1‐360‐989‐6771
Web: rtclark.com Email: rtcl.ark@rtclark.com Tele: 405-751-9696 fax: 405-751-6711 P.O.Box 20957, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73157 USA
Your business card could be here Are you a researcher, consultant, contractor, equipment provider, software agent or in education. Your business card could be here to alert and inform potential customers, clients, partners or students of your services, technologies and capabilities
Would you like to see your business card reach the many FastTIMES readers?
Go to http://www.eegs.org/advertising-information to learn how affordable, it is.
Page 111
Vol 24, 3 2019
Archaeological & Forensic Geophysics News Geoff Pettifer editorfasttimesnewsmagazine@gmail.com
This issue of the FastTIMES Archaeological and Forensic Geophysics News Column includes a focus on ancient water supply infrastructure. We present articles on: • Vale Glen Dash • Machu Picchu Infrastructure – Earthquake Resilience • Palaeo-landscape mapping in Archaeology – Full Inversion of DualEM-421s data Example • 13th International Conference on Archaeological Prospection 2019 28 August - 1 September 2019 Sligo – Ireland • Wikipedia – Events in Archaeology The main piece however is the article accompanying the column on an infrastructure theme on the results of the SAGEEP 2018, Nashville Field Demonstration Archaeological survey by exhibitors, of The Hermitage, the residence of Andrew Jackson, which was also the venue for the Equipment demonstrations. Janet Simms and Bill Doll organised, coordinated, compiled and interpreted the work of a team of people and some serious technology firepower. We congratulate and thank all involved. We particularly appreciate the ongoing support of the foundation sponsor / advertiser of the Column – GPR-SLICE / Geophysical Archaeometry Laboratory Inc., a company that has developed highly respected GPR processing software that is tailored for archaeological, forensic and NDT 3D imaging (thanks to Dean Goodman - gal_usa_goodman@msn.com). Further sponsors / advertisers are most welcome (for details on advertising go to :- http://www.eegs.org/advertising-information). I am still looking for an Associate Editor to take over / share the role of Regular Columnist for the Archaeological and Forensic Geophysics News Column. Please contact me if you are interested or have ideas or if you have contributions for the Column. (Geoff Pettifer – Cell: 360-989-6771; editorfasttimesnewsmagazine@gmail.com).
engineer that discovered archaeology in the 1970s and made countless discoveries that broadened our understanding of Egyptian archaeology. Glen gave selflessly through his foundation to advance archaeological research. Glen was instrumental in understanding the 2nd set of surveys made at King Tuts tomb to put to rest notions of extra chambers existing by suggesting comparison of the treasury profiles as the standard to predict unknown corridors or rooms. We will miss his mentoring and discussions that we have had over the years and that have helped to make applications of the technology we use more useful!”
Vale Glen Dash
The photo opposite shows Glen Dash at the Great Pyramid site during his foundation’s 2006 survey
https://www.facebook.com/groups/gpr.slice/ permalink/2610519242338505/
Learn more about the archaeological geophysics and topographical survey work of the Glen Dash Foundation For Archaeological Research at: - http://glendash.com/
Dean Goodman has paid tribute to a remarkable man - Glen Dash in the above September 23rd GPR-Slice Facebook post. Dean writes:“We are saddened today to learn of the passing of Glen Dash. Glen was a passionate
Page 112
Machu Picchu Infrastructure – Earthquake Resilience https://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2019AM/webprogram/Session47798.html
Vol 24, 3 2019
making it amenable to masonry and suitably fractured to provide good engineered foundation drainage material in the high rainfall area. The characteristic almost seamless masonry jointing (Figure 3) also has given the structures earthquake resilience, the stones are said to “dance” during minor quakes but remain intact.
hhttps://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2019AM/webprogram/Paper330598.html
Figure 1. The location of Machu Picchu, the city layout, the masonry and the drainage systems all have a relationship to the tectonics
At the recent GSA Conference in Phoenix, Arizona the GSA Geoarchaeology Division; GSA Quaternary Geology and Geomorphology Division; GSA Soils and Soil Processes held a session on Geoarchaeological Insights into Paleoenvironmental Reconstruction and Cultural Dynamics. Relevant to the Infrastructure theme of this FastTIMES, as part of this session, a paper was presented by Rualdo Menegat of the Departamento de Paleontologia e Estratigrafia, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, entitled:- How Incas Used Geological Faults to Build Their Settlements.
Figure 2 the aerial view of Machu Picchu enables one to discern the three key fault directions (Source: Google Earth)
Menegat asserts that the ancient city of Machu Picchu (Figure 1) is deliberately located in an area of intersection of 3 key fault directions, 020º, 055º, and 330º – and two secondary directions: N-S and E-W (Figure 2). This has highly fractured the local rock
Figure 3 – Incan masonry – perfection in jointing also imparting earthquake resilience to the structures the Inca built.
The city layout mimics the fault directions. It seems the Incas knew a thing or two about how to minimize earthquake damage and how to work with the unstable terrain and seismicity. The location of Machu Picchu in a complex tectonic setting has been found to be not an isolated occurrence, in terms of the architecture and chosen locations of Incan settlements. Read more about Machu Picchu and ingenuity of the Inca people at :-https://www.nationalgeographic. com/travel/top-10/peru/machu-picchu/secrets/
Palaeo-landscape mapping in Archaeology – Full Inversion of DualEM-421s data Example Multi-frequency (or multi-coil separation) EM systems have been increasingly used for mapping shallow, buried palaeolandscapes to provide an understanding of the wider context of archaeological sites. In the past apparent conductivity maps or simple 1D layered models based on the low induction number (LIN) approximation assumption have been used to map and interpret such EM data. Utilizing the AEM full inversion software routines of Aarhus Workbench software applied to DUALEM421s data over an Iron Age human bone depositional site of an historic battle (Alken Enge site) in Denmark, Anders Vest Christiansen and colleagues (2016) have demonstrated the benefit of a full inversion approach to delineating the recent past and buried coastal sand dune-peat landscape of the site. An example of the results is summarized in an adaptation of Figures 1 and 6 of their paper shown on the next page. The full article is recommended to readers and can be downloaded from: - http://www.hgg.geo.au.dk/Papers_EndNote/3381001444/ CHRISTIANSEN2016A.pdf
Page 113
Vol 24, 3 2019
13th International Conference on Archaeological Prospection 2019 28 August - 1 September 2019 Sligo – Ireland https://docs.wixstatic.com/ ugd/705d57_716322feb86140fe8942658eb36da417.pdf
The programme of the recently convened 13th International Conference on Archaeological Prospection 2019 (ICAP2019) held in Sligo, Ireland is available for download from the above web link.
Source: Anders Vest Christiansen, Jesper Bjergsted Pedersen, Esben Auken, Niels Emil Søe, Mads Kähler Holst and Søren Munch Kristiansen, 2016 - Improved Geoarchaeological Mapping with Electromagnetic Induction Instruments from Dedicated Processing and Inversion. Remote Sensing. 2016, 8, 1022; doi:10.3390/ rs8121022 www.mdpi.com/journal/remotesensing
Agricultural Geophysics News Angelo Lampousis, PhD, City College of New York alampousis@ccny.cuny.edu
Welcome back to our FastTIMES Agricultural Geophysics column. Angelo is taking a break for this issue, but we welcome your contributions - news items and articles for upcoming issues. Please contact Angelo with your item. The deadlines for the next two FastTIMES issue Vol 24, 4 is October 25 and for Vol 24, 5 is November 29. Editor. We highlight recent and up-coming soil and agricultural geophysics conferences and proceedings.
PSS2019 - 5th Global Workshop on Proximal Soil Sensing, May 28-31, 2019 - Columbia, Missouri, USA The program and proceedings (mostly extended abstracts) can be downloaded from :- https://www.pss2019.org/proceedings
Wikipedia – Events in Archaeology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_in_archaeology
A handy reference is the Wikipedia compilation of progressive events and finds in Archaeology for the current year and access to similar information for almost every year back to 1600 AD.
Pedometrics 2019. June 2-6, 2019, University of Guelph, Guelph, Canada The program and proceedings (abstracts and extended abstracts) can be downloaded from :https://custom.cvent.com/9ECDF9471D85454A9EB8BE446FFB7579/ files/Event/81b34052775a43fcb6616a3f6740accd/ cb47235e5895433aabccebc4f8f47722.pdf
AGU 100 Fall Meeting, 9-13 December, 2019, San Francisco. California, USA An extensive program of sessions on agricultural systems, irrigation and shallow groundwater is planned, including a 12-poster session on Agricultural geophysics. The program and short abstracts can be explored via:https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm19/meetingapp.cgi/Keyword/ BIOGEOSCIENCES_0402%20Agricultural%20systems https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm19/meetingapp.cgi/Keyword/ HYDROLOGY_1842%20Irrigation https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm19/meetingapp.cgi/Keyword/ HYDROLOGY_1835%20Hydrogeophysics
Page 114
Integrated Geophysical Surveys at President Andrew Jackson’s Estate, “The Hermitage” at SAGEEP 2018
Vol 24, 3 2019
In 2018, the EEGS annual conference, SAGEEP, was held in Nashville, Tennessee from March 25-29. The Exhibitors Equipment Outdoor Demonstration and evening social event were held at The Hermitage (Figure 1), home of Andrew Jackson, who served as the seventh President of the United States from 1829 to 1837.
Janet E. Simms USACE Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS, USA Janet.E.Simms@erdc.dren.mil
Bio William E. Doll East Tennessee Geophysical Services, Oak Ridge, TN, USA williamdoll01@gmail.com
Bio Jason Greenwood Advanced Geosciences Inc., Austin, TX, USA JGreenwood@agiusa.com
Bio Dennis Mills and Jeff Leberfinger Exploration Instruments, Austin, TX, USA dmills@expins.com; jleberfinger@expins.com
Bio Mario Di Bello Foerster Instruments, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, USA DiBello.Mario@foerstergroup.com
Bio Mike Catalano Geonics Limited, Mississauga, ON, Canada mike@geonics.com
Bio Vit Gregor, Stanislav Drdla and Petr Michovsky GF Instruments, s.r.o., Brno, Czech Republic info@gfinstruments.cz
Figure 1. The Hermitage.
As with most historical sites, many questions regarding locations of former buildings or other cultural features are unresolved. Conference organizers arranged for Hermitage staff to identify areas of particular interest on the grounds of the estate that could be investigated with geophysical instruments in association with the Outdoor Demonstration and conference short courses. Short course chair Janet Simms set up flagged grids at each of the four sites of interest in advance of the conference, and exhibitors were provided maps and site descriptions to use for planning gratuitous surveys. Several exhibitors acquired data over some or all of the grids. The data were compiled by Janet Simms (SAGEEP 2018 Short Course Chair) and William Doll (SAGEEP 2018 General Chair) and presented at SAGEEP 2019. This article is a summary of the data that were acquired and their analysis.
Survey Areas
Four sites were identified by Hermitage staff as being of particular interest (Figure 2). They were: 1) the area surrounding
Bio Fabian Stickel Institute Dr. Foerster, Reutlingin, Germany stickel.fabian@foerstergroup.com
Bio Steve Cosway, Nectaria Diamanti and Greg Johnston Sensors & Software Inc., Mississauga, ON, Canada swc@sensoft.ca, rdiamanti@sensoft.ca, gbj@sensoft.ca
Bio Olivia Thompson Staff, Andrew Jackson’s Hermitage, Hermitage, TN, USA ogt2a@mtmail.mtsu.edu
Bio
Figure 2. Survey site map.
Vol 24, 3 2019
Page 115 Alfred’s Cabin, where historical photos show that additional buildings once existed; 2) a possible slave cemetery, located in proximity to the Jackson family cemetery; 3) a possible stable area, located in proximity to a current maintenance area; and 4) a large area south of the Cabin-by-the-Spring, a modern building where the SAGEEP evening event was held. This last area was included because very little is known about what may have existed there during Jackson’s lifetime. Alfred Jackson was a slave who was born at the Jackson estate and lived there until his death at age 99. Alfred’s Cabin is still standing a few hundred meters north of the mansion. Historical photos (Figure 3) show at least two additional buildings in proximity to Alfred’s Cabin, and these were the targets of the geophysical surveys.
Table 1. Summary of instruments used at each of the four Hermitage sites.
System
Alfred's Cabin
Cemetery
Cabin-bythe-Spring
Stable
Foerster Ferex 4.034 4-magnetometer array
X
X
X
X
X
X
Geonics EM38MK2
X
X
X
X
Sensors & Software Noggin 250 MHz
X
X
(X)
(X)
GF Instruments CMD Mini Explorer
AGI Sting/Swift Resistivity Array
X*
(X) – A few lines were collected at these sites, but not full coverage X* - A portion of the area was surveyed with a 2D array of electrodes to image a 3D volume Figure 3. Historical photo showing two historical structures (a and c) that are no longer standing, located in proximity to Alfred’s Cabin (b).
A slave cemetery was marked in an early 20th century map just outside the fence that bounds the Jackson family cemetery. There is no surface expression or markers that currently indicate the presence of such a cemetery. The purpose of the geophysical surveys was therefore to scan for undocumented grave sites and any other indications of historical activity within the area. At the third site, west of a current maintenance building, a foundation stone was found a few years ago and other documents indicate that a brick stable may have been located in this area. Surveys of this area were intended to investigate the area for evidence of the stable. As indicated above, a grid was also set up south of the Cabinby-the-Spring to search for evidence of any previous cultural activities, to include roads, buildings, burial sites, or other features.
Instrumentation Data were acquired at some or all of these sites with five instruments, as indicated in Table 1. The Foerster Ferex 4.034 array consisted of four vertical fluxgate magnetic gradiometers at 0.5-m lateral spacing between sensors, mounted on a cart with 2-m separation between passes over the grid. An initial data set was collected at the Alfred’s Cabin site by Mario DiBello and Fabian Stickel (Foerster) and Jeff Leberfinger (EXI). Based on interesting features in the initial dataset, William Doll (East Tennessee Geophysical Services) returned to The Hermitage two weeks later to collect larger datasets at all four sites with the instrumentation provided by Exploration Instruments.
The GF Instruments CMD Mini Explorer is a conductivity meter that acquires both in-phase and quadrature measurements at three depths simultaneously. It was used in horizontal dipole orientation with low range at the Alfred’s Cabin site and high range at the Cemetery site. Data were acquired at two sites with 1-m line spacing by Stanislav Drdla and Petr Michovský. Steve Cosway of Sensors & Software acquired detailed data over smaller areas within two of the grids with the Noggin GPR system using a 250 MHz antenna. Data were processed by Greg Johnston and Nectaria Diamanti. Line spacing for the GPR lines was 0.5m. Data were acquired at all four sites using irregular lines (approximate line spacing of 2 m) with the Geonics EM-38 MK2 soil conductivity meter. This instrument provides apparent conductivity and in-phase ratio of the secondary to primary magnetic field at coil spacings of 0.5 and 1.0 m. The data were acquired and processed by Mike Catalano. An AGI 3D radial dipole-dipole array was set up within the Cabin-by-the-Spring area using 48 electrodes at 2-m spacing with the SuperSting R8 Wifi system. Jason Greenwood conducted the data acquisition and processing. All data (except the AGI resistivity volume) were imported into Geosoft Oasis Montaj by William Doll to allow joint assessment. Grid corner coordinates were measured using two GPS systems: 1) a Novatel DL-4 rover baselined by a fixed Novatel DL-4 OPUS-corrected base station with rover data corrected using Waypoint software; and 2) a real-time system operated by USACE. Data sets that were acquired using grid flags were converted to a UTM coordinate system in Geosoft based on the grid corner GPS measurements.
Page 116
Vol 24, 3 2019
Results
Alfred’s Cabin Area Coverages for the four data sets acquired in the Alfred’s Cabin area are shown in Figure 4 and data for each instrument are shown in Figures 5-8.
Figure 6. CMD Mini Explorer results from Alfred’s Cabin.
Figure 7. Sensors & Software Noggin depth slices for Alfred’s Cabin.
Figure 4. Survey areas at Alfred’s Cabin.
Figure 5. Ferex magnetometer data from the Alfred’s Cabin site. The vertical component is shown on the left and an analytic signal map is shown on the right. All maps have 5-m grid cells.
Figure 8. EM38-MK2 results for Alfred’s cabin.
Page 117 Larger areas were covered with the Geonics EM-38 and Foerster magnetometer system, extending beyond the area that was specified by Hermitage staff as being of particular interest. The magnetometer vertical gradient and analytic signal maps (Figure 5) both reveal a regular two-dimensional grid of anomalies that appear to extend beyond the area that was surveyed. From discussions with Hermitage staff, we believe that these are associated with markers that were emplaced within the past two decades in association with a soil study that was conducted for archaeological purposes. All of the instruments (weakest in the Foerster magnetometer dataset) reveal a linear west-northwest-trending anomaly that is likely associated with a building foundation or ditch. No modern utilities are known to occur in that vicinity. The EM-38 in-phase data (Figure 8) show a large anomalous low amplitude area in the southern portion of the surveyed region, outlined with a yellow polygon in Figure 9. None of the other instrument surveys extended far enough to the south to detect this feature. It may be associated with foundations of former buildings.
Vol 24, 3 2019
Possible Slave Cemetery Area Figure 10 shows the coverage for each instrument in the possible slave cemetery, and data from four data sets that were acquired at the site are shown in Figures 11-14.
Figure 10. Instrument survey areas at the Cemetery site. All maps have 5-m grid cells.
Figure 11. Ferex magnetometer results for the Cemetery site (vertical component â&#x20AC;&#x201C; left; analytic signal â&#x20AC;&#x201C; right).
Figure 9. Anomaly map for Alfredâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Cabin survey areas.
Figure 12. CMD Mini Explorer data for the Cemetery site.
Page 118
Figure 13. EM-38 MK2 data for the Cemetery site.
Vol 24, 3 2019
Figure 15 is a composite of anomalies identified at this site. No anomalies were identified that seemed to correspond to possible slave burial sites. Most of the sensors showed high response in the northeast, just across the fence from the Jackson family cemetery, and this feature is identified as Anomaly 1 on the vertical magnetic field map in Figure 11. The magnetic data identify many other anomalies, including the linear Anomaly 2, a high amplitude Anomaly 3, and the “five-side-of-dice” Anomaly 4 (Figure 11). Anomaly 5 on Figure 11 is known to be associated with a large fence post stake, emplaced to protect a young tree. Several other localized anomalies are identified from each data set (Figure 15) with most instruments detecting a feature in the vicinity of magnetic Anomaly 3 (Figure 11). A select north-south profile from the GPR data is shown in Figure 14. It shows anomalies that correspond to the “hot” spots in the depth slice. The anomalies are at an approximate depth of 1 m, which is shallower than the expected depth of burial of 2 m. Typical soil structure at the site is reported to consist of 46 cm (18 in.) of loam over a very strong clay layer with underlying limestone. The clay soil in this area is limiting signal penetration.
Cabin-by-the Spring Area Figure 14. Sensors & Software Noggin 250 MHz data from the Cemetery site.
Data coverage and results for the Cabin-by-the-Spring (CBS) area are shown in Figures 16-20. Anomalies for all instruments are summarized in Figure 21.
Figure 16. Instrument survey areas at the Cabin-by-the-Spring area.
Figure 15. Anomaly map for the Cemetery site.
Figure 17. Ferex magnetometer data at the Cabin-by-the-Spring area.
Page 119
Vol 24, 3 2019
Figure 18. EM38-MK2 data at the Cabin-by-the-Spring area.
Figure 20. Comparison of three data sets in the area surveyed by the AGI Super Sting.
Figure 19. AGI SuperSting data at the Cabin-by-the-Spring area.
The magnetometer data from the CBS area (Figure 17) reveal numerous anomalies of various sizes that are all most likely cultural in origin. On the west side of the survey area there is a high density of magnetic anomalies that form northeast trending bands that coincide with a zone of higher conductivity and in-phase response in the EM-38 data (“A” and “B”, Figure 21). These could be associated with a historic road (if man-made) or paleo-channel (if natural). The 3D SuperSting R8 data support an interpretation of a paleochannel in this area, although this would not preclude an interpretation of a historic road overlying a paleochannel. Figure 20 shows a comparison of all data sets in the area the resistivity survey was conducted. The high resistivity response corresponds to lower magnetic and inphase values, and moderate conductivity values. The greatest resistivity response is at a depth beyond the investigation depth of the EM-38. Therefore, the moderate conductivity values represent lower resistivity values at a shallower depth, so the inverse relationship holds. Anomalies detected in the northern region by the EM-38 MK2 (Figure 18 and “C” in Figure 21) could be associated with former building foundations.
Figure 21. Anomaly map at the Cabin-by-the-Spring area.
Presumed Stable Area Of the four sites, the area examined for evidence of a historic brick stable had the most cultural interference. Results are shown in Figures 22-25. The proximity of the current maintenance building along with vehicles parked nearby (but removed from the grid before data were acquired) and fences had a notable influence on the periphery of the surveyed areas. High response from presumed utility lines (“A”, Figure 25) dominated the response at
Figure 22. Instrument survey areas at the Stable site.
Page 120
Vol 24, 3 2019
Figure 23. EM38-MK2 data at the Stable site.
Figure 24. Forster Ferex magnetometer data at the Stable site. Figure 25. Anomaly map at the Stable site.
the site. At locations “C” and trending north-northeast an electric fence was detected. Several localized anomalies of unknown origin were also detected. The most interesting anomaly at this site, anomaly “B”, Figure 25, was recognized as having high susceptibility (high in-phase response) with no conductivity response in the EM-38 data, indicating it was non-metallic and could be a possible fire pit.
Summary EEGS was able to provide a substantial volume of information to The Hermitage at no cost to them because of the generous donation of services by our exhibitors. It was nice to be able to repay them for providing a perfect venue for our conference at reasonable cost. Several features were identified, including possible foundations, pipelines/utility lines, a paleo-channel with associated possible road, and numerous localized anomalies, some of which are likely associated with artifacts from the time when the site was in use by the Jackson family. The data provide
a basis for selecting instrumentation should a larger and more comprehensive geophysical survey be conducted at the site in the future. They reinforce the use of multiple methods to aid in distinguishing the causes of individual anomalies. Many anomalies, even strong ones, were seen with one instrument while having no response from others. Some positional variability was the result of integrating data which used different positioning systems. Reasonable agreement was reached where instruments detected a common feature, so we conclude that the positioning should be sufficiently accurate to allow reacquisition of locations if follow-up is conducted.
Acknowledgement The authors would like to express our appreciation to the staff at The Hermitage, especially Marsha Mullin, VP Collections and Research and Chief Curator at Andrew Jackson’s Hermitage for their support and encouragement of this project.
Vol 24, 3 2019
Page 121
Author Bios Janet Simms USACE Engineer Research
Jeffrey Leberfinger Exploration Instruments Austin, Texas, USA jleberfinger@expins.com
and Development Center Vicksburg, Massachusetts, USA Janet.E.Simms@erdc.dren.mil
Janet Simms received a BS in Applied Geophysics, Michigan Technological University, 1982, and a Ph.D. in Applied Geophysics, Texas A&M University, 1991. She worked briefly as a Well Log Engineer with Schlumberger Well Services before joining the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center in Vicksburg, Mississippi as a Research Geophysicist in 1991. Her work involves the application of geophysical methods to nearsurface engineering and environmental problems. Dr. Simms has been involved in a range of geophysical projects, including archaeological investigations, the detection and discrimination of unexploded ordnance (UXO), levee integrity and vegetation studies, forensic investigations, structural health evaluation of levees and dams, and subsurface evaluation for the installation of monitoring/detection systems.
Jeffrey Leberfinger is a senior geophysicist with PIKA International Inc and Exploration Instruments LLC. He is a licensed Professional Geophysicist (CA) and Geologist (PA) with over 30 years’ experience performing geophysical surveys across the US for Munitions Response/UXO, environmental, geotechnical, water resource, mineral exploration, and archeological projects. Jeffrey is currently serving as the National Association of Ordnance Contractors (NAOC) Technology Committee Chairman and on the EEGS Board of Directors. Mike Catalano Geonics Limited Mississauga, Ontario, Canada mike@geonics.com
William Doll East Tennessee Geophysical Services Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA williamdoll01@gmail.com
Mike has a Bachelor of Science specialist degree in geophysics from the University of Toronto. He has been with Geonics Limited for the last 26 years focusing primarily on the North American market. Duties include instrument training, technical and software support, as well as general sales and marketing for the company. Nectaria Diamanti Sensors & Software Inc.
William Doll is a geophysicist based in Oak Ridge, TN. He received his B.S. from Montana State University in 1977, and his M.S. (1980) and Ph.D. (1983) from the University of Wisconsin – Madison. Bill is currently working in several part-time capacities. He is a Research Fellow through ORISE (Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education), and a Senior Geophysicist for Collier Consulting. In addition, he is owner and operator of East Tennessee Geophysical Services, LLC, and is an Adjunct Associate Professor at the University of Tennessee. He also may be tasked to support TetraTech’s munitions services group on an ‘as needed’ basis for airborne surveys. He has served as President of EEGS and the SEG Near Surface Section, and has published numerous papers, articles, and abstracts.
Mississauga, Canada rdiamanti@sensoft.ca
Nectaria Diamanti is a Research Scientist with the Department of Geophysics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece. From 2013 to 2018 she worked for Sensors & Software Inc., Canada in the area of ground penetrating radar (GPR) R&D and applications and she continues to be an active contributor to their scientific research and applications advancements as well as their outreach and cooperative projects. Nectaria has her Ph.D. in engineering & electronics from The University of Edinburgh, U.K. and her main research activity involves the development of geophysical techniques – especially GPR technologies – and their application to geophysical/engineering problems ranging from environmental monitoring to non-destructive testing and archaeological prospection. Her areas of research include: numerical modelling using the finite-difference time-domain (FDTD) technique, application of numerical modelling to GPR.
Vol 24, 3 2019
Page 122 Greg Johnston Sensors & Software Inc. Mississauga, Canada gbj@sensoft.ca
Greg has an Honours BSc in geophysics in 1988 from the University of Western Ontario. He started his geophysics career in the oil industry in Calgary, Canada, doing seismic interpretation for the Frontier Divisions of Texaco Canada and Imperial Oil. He joined Sensors & Software in 1992 where his responsibilities have included data acquisition and post-processing software development for GPR systems, customer training, technical support, and technical sales. In more than 25 years with Sensors & Software, Greg has trained customers on GPR in more than 40 countries. He is currently Market Manager for the Academic & Research and custom systems GPR markets.
刀⸀吀⸀ 䌀氀愀爀欀
䜀䔀伀倀䠀夀匀䤀䌀䄀䰀 䔀儀唀䤀倀䴀䔀一吀 匀䄀䰀䔀匀
ⴀ 刀攀瀀攀愀琀愀戀氀攀 䔀渀攀爀最礀 䔀瘀攀爀礀 琀椀洀攀 ⴀ ㌀ⴀ㘀 猀攀挀⸀ 䌀礀挀氀攀 刀愀琀攀猀 ⴀ 匀甀瀀攀爀椀漀爀 倀漀爀琀愀戀椀氀椀琀礀 ⴀ ㈀ 瘀漀氀琀 伀瀀攀爀愀琀椀漀渀 ⴀ 㔀Ⰰ ⬀ 倀漀甀渀搀猀 漀昀 漀昀 䘀漀爀挀攀 吀䔀䰀䔀㨀 ⬀⸀㐀 㔀⸀㜀㔀⸀㤀㘀㤀㘀 䘀䄀堀㨀 ⬀⸀㐀 㔀⸀㜀㔀⸀㘀㜀 䔀䴀䄀䤀䰀㨀 爀琀挀氀愀爀欀䀀爀琀挀氀愀爀欀⸀挀漀洀 圀䔀䈀㨀 眀眀眀⸀爀琀挀氀愀爀欀⸀挀漀洀 伀欀氀愀栀漀洀愀Ⰰ 唀匀䄀
倀䔀䜀ⴀ㐀 欀最
倀爀漀瀀攀氀氀攀搀 䔀渀攀爀最礀 䜀攀渀攀爀愀琀漀爀
Vol 24, 3 2019
Page 123
Industry News Geoff Pettifer editorfasttimesnewsmagazine@gmail.com
For this edition of the Industry News column, we have: • GSSI - New Appointment of Amber Onufer • ASEG News - AEGC2019 and ASEG Preview 200 Following on from the Industry News is an accompanying article from Doug Crice on Geostuff reflecting on his experiences in working to develop equipment for shallow reflection capability. We welcome contributions of industry news and articles relevant to near-surface geophysics in the Americas and globally from local and international service provider and consulting firms, researchers and research consortia, government, indeed any member of the global near-surface geophysics community with a good story to tell. This might entail technical and commercial topics, people news, research projects, regulatory changes, standards, workshops and conferences and good photos are always welcome. In fact, any news item that may be of interest and technically informative to both the near-surface geophysics practitioner and end-user communities. Please contact me if you have ideas or news / articles to contribute (editorfasttimesnewsmagazine@gmail.com).
GSSI Announces Appointment of Amber Onufer as New Technical Sales Support Team Member https://www.geophysical.com/products
GSSI, ground penetrating radar (GPR) equipment manufacture, is pleased to announce the hiring of Amber Onufer as Technical Sales Support. Amber will support GSSI’s Geophysical, / Environmental, and Transportation Infrastructure teams. With a B.S. in Geology, Amber has more than seven years of experience with ground penetrating radar technology. In prior roles, Amber provided consultative sales, customer training, applications engineering, and research and development. She has also consulted with clients on a variety of academic and government projects, including the United States Geological Service (USGS) Charleston earthquake study; USGS and Water Missions International well water identification in Kenya; USGS UAV Geophysics Regatta; Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories GPR training; and NASA shuttle launch station facility maintenance. Paul Fowler, VP of Sales and Marketing, stated “GSSI is thrilled to welcome Amber to the company. Her unique background combining technical sales and support in concert with direct
industry experience will prove invaluable as the company introduces new products into the geophysical and transportation infrastructure segments of our business.” Amber said, “I am so proud and excited to be part of my new family at GSSI who celebrate not only innovation and unprecedented creativity in the radar community, but also diversity and culture in the workplace. I very much look forward to working on new projects and with new customers to demonstrate how GSSI is the best product on the market.”
ASEG News
From September 2 to 5, 2019, the ASEG held a successful Annual Conference, AEGC2019 in Perth, Western Australia, jointly with Australian Institute of Geoscientists (AIG), Petroleum Exploration Society of Australia (PESA) and the Western Australia Basin Symposium (WABS) and it included several NSG relevant presentations. The program and proceedings can be accessed and the abstracts can be downloaded from :https://2019.aegc.com.au/program/
Next year the ASEG will be celebrating its 50th year of operation. ASEG Preview magazine is highly recommended to FastTIMES readers as it is the ASEG’s counterpart magazine to FastTIMES. It sets the standard that our magazine follows and it also regularly contains much of interest to NSG geophysicists including the regular Environmental Geophysics column and the Government geophysics news which is important in that it highlights the excellent work, data release etc of the State Geological Surveys and Geoscience Australia, the USGS counterpart organization. The ASEG magazine in June 2019 celebrated a milestone with its 200th Edition. EEGS congratulates the ASEG on the milestone. ASEG Preview magazine current issue can always be found and downloaded from: https://www.aseg.org.au/publications/PVCurrent
Past Issues can be accessed and downloaded at: https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/texp20/current
Based on the success of the Preview 20+ yearlong running Government Geophysics News, FastTIMES will be starting a regular Government Geophysics News column in our next issue Vol 24, 4.
Page 124
Vol 24, 3 2019
Reflections on Shallow Reflections Doug Crice Geostuff dcrice@geostuff.com
Bio
Abstract When one spends enough years in geophysics, one gets to watch, and even participate in, the evolution of methods and systems used in our profession. Old timers are well familiar with the history of equipment used for petroleum seismic. This paper is an written oral history of the development of seismic systems and methods applied to shallow reflection surveys. Over the author’s career, the acquisition of shallow reflection seismic has evolved from “almost never” to routine practice, driven by a combination of innovative field methods by pioneering geophysicists and emerging developments in electronics exploited by the instrument builders.
Introduction In the beginning, seismographs were analog—first with vacuum tubes and later with transistors. The data was recorded on photographic paper with a light-beam oscillograph¹. These systems worked to some extent for deep reflection surveys, but were difficult to use for shallow reflection. One early success was by Pakiser and Warrick, 1956, which was the paper regularly cited on that subject. The two authors successfully tested a specially-constructed, shallow-reflection seismic instrument in two areas in Oklahoma and Kansas. This instrument had high-frequency response, high oscillograph paper speeds, fastacting automatic gain control, and variable pre-suppression gain control. In principle they were straightforward modifications of conventional seismic reflection equipment. If you read the paper, some of the reflection events are difficult to see on the record. Shallow seismic surveys are generally done by geophysicists conducting research and solving engineering problems with limited budgets and small crews. The instruments in use were called “engineering seismographs” reflecting their application in studies like “depth to bedrock” and “rippability”. The instruments had to be portable and affordable to achieve wide use in the industry. Affordability and performance were very much influenced by the electronic components that we instrument makers had available. At the time, circa 1970, there was a popular single-channel seismograph produced 1
Figure 1 Pocket-Seis seismic timer.
by Bison Instruments that used digital storage and a CRT display. Repetitive hammer blows could be summed in a solid-state memory so that reasonable depth penetration could be achieved using a sledgehammer as an energy source. They gave it the name “Signal-Enhancement Seismograph”. My company, Nimbus Instruments, built a similar product. These instruments lacked the features that would allow routine reflection surveys, except in the hands of skilled innovators like Dr. Harold Mooney, the Godfather of engineering seismic. Nimbus had established a relationship with OYO Corporation through sales of the Pocket-Seis™, a single-channel seismic timer. The Pocket-Seis (Figure 1) was basically an electronic stop-watch, triggered by a hammer switch and stopped by the first arrival at a geophone. The design was inspired by the availability of a single-chip, 4-digit counting IC, an early example of technology making improved products possible (Existing seismic timers were the size of a portable typewriter). Effective use required a pretty thorough understanding of the process, and the difficulty from a marketing standpoint was that substantial skill was required to operate the unit successfully, but the people who bought the device tended to me neophytes in seismic surveys. However, the Japanese users at OYO became quite proficient at using it as a reconnaissance tool and their enthusiasm resulted in a long relationship between our companies. OYO Corporation wanted to build a multi-channel, signalenhancement seismograph, and contracted with me to design it. At the time, compact plotters were not available, so I based the design on a multi-channel analog seismograph currently manufactured by OYO Corporation. It used a light-beam oscillograph which wrote traces on self-developing, photo sensitive paper (Figure 2).This unit was given the model number ES-1200, and could have been used for shallow reflection surveys, but the practical techniques had not been developed
A fascinating account of the development of the reflection seismograph for petroleum surveys was written by J. Clarence Karcher in 1973 and reprinted in The Leading Edge in November 1987, (Karcher 1987).
Page 125
Vol 24, 3 2019
on the cassette). In the early 1980’s, Hunter and Pullan at the Canadian Geological Survey developed and popularized methods to collect and plot shallow reflection surveys. They used a combination of two techniques: the optimum window and analog filtering (Hunter and Pullan, 1989, describes the methods in substantial detail). They used an ES-1210F with the digital recorder, processing the data on an Apple II computer.
Figure 2. NimbusOYO 12-channel signal enhancement seismograph
yet. The ES-1200 was later augmented with an external CRT display, which let the operator adjust the trace amplitudes before writing the record. In hindsight, this was one of the keys to reflection surveys. Once again, the design was made possible by the availability of new components: a 10-bit A/D converter, some affordable 1K-byte static ram chips, and some low priced amplifiers. The ability to sum repetitive impacts allowed use with a sledge-hammer source. The self-developing paper was a nuisance. It had to be kept in the dark for several seconds before being exposed to sunlight and the resulting records had poor contrast. In 1978, after Nimbus Instruments was acquired by Geometrics, an affordable plotter became available, and we incorporated it into a new product, called the ES-1210 (later the ES-1210F, with filters; Figure 3). This model was introduced at the 1980 SEG meeting and was a resounding success. People really liked the plotter, which wrote high-contrast records by burning off an aluminum coating on special paper, a significant improvement over the light-sensitive paper. The ES-1210F also had a digital output connector for a digital recorder yet to be developed.
In the case of the optimum window, they chose a source offset so that the reflections arrived before the surface waves, and after the refractions. The window was site specific, and they were helped by the fact that glacial till over bedrock provided ideal geologic structure for developing the technique. Working with much more rudimentary equipment, Allen et al (1952) managed a similar experiment, but the available hardware didn’t support further development or widespread recognition of the optimum window technique. Shallow reflections are much higher in frequency than other arrivals on the typical record and one of the secrets to seeing them is to filter out the low frequencies as much as possible. Hunter and Pullan used 100-Hz geophones and set the highpass filter to 300-Hz. That gave them 12-dB/octave attenuation between 100 and 300 Hz, and 24-dB/octave below 100 Hz, virtually eliminating the surface waves and the refractions. In fairness, I should mention the work done by Klaus Helbig’s team (Helbig, 1985) on Dutch tidal flats, using an ES-1200. In the same time frame, Don Steeples at the University of Kansas was doing some terrific shallow reflection work, but he was using an Input/Output DHR-2400 acquisition system, an excellent seismograph, but outside the budget of most near surface geophysicists. Just search the EEGS/SEG library for “Steeples AND Author” and you will be deluged with references.
An analog filter was designed with four modes available: lowpass, high-pass, band-pass, and band-reject. The frequency range was adjustable from 30 to 300 Hz, with 12-dB/octave attenuation in low-pass and high-pass. At the time, I had no appreciation for what was to come later, because shallow reflection surveys were still uncommon. Key to shallow reflection surveys turned out to be the combination of a real-time display of the record, filters, and adjustment of the trace amplitudes as viewed on the CRT. Variable area plotting (shading in the positive excursions of the traces) was helpful in recognizing events. These features still appear on modern acquisition systems, except the records are displayed on a laptop computer connected to the acquisition system. A small digital tape drive from 3M became available for a few hundred dollars, and we built an external digital recorder using it. The cartridge held a modest 100 Kbits, enough for four records with a 10-bit word with 1024 samples (though the users often opted to record 8-bit words to double the data storage
Figure 3. Model ES-1210F seismograph.
Page 126
Vol 24, 3 2019
In 1986, this author was at a trade show in China and was shown some excellent shallow reflection records done by some Chinese geophysicists who worked for the Ministry of Railways². They actually constructed common offset gathers on their ES-1210F. Using the memory freeze function on the instrument, they were able to generate a composite COG, without digital recording, by collecting one channel at a time while moving the shot point. At the time, they were under the impression that shallow reflections were a common technique in the west, when there were really only a handful of practitioners. While personal computers were becoming available during this time period, there was no processing software readily available. In general, the near surface community didn’t have access or funding available to use the software and hardware developed for oil and gas exploration. Geophysicists had to write their own programs (Normington and Pullan, 1985), including developing a standard data format: SEG-2 (Pullan, 1990). Surprisingly, you can do quite a bit with 8 or 10 bits of data, if you can get the signal amplitude up toward the maximum range of the A/D converter. The dynamic range of an 8-bit A/D converter is 48 dB, and that of a 10-bit converter is 60 dB. The dynamic range of an analog chart (wiggle trace) is considerably less, which provides some flexibility in trace adjustment. The difficulty and the lack of awareness of the need to maximize the signal before the A/D converter more or less made routine collection of shallow reflection data challenging for some. Instantaneous floating point³, as was being done by oil and gas acquisition systems at the time, would have solved this problem, but the complexity wasn’t affordable by the nearsurface community (besides the requirement for higher speed sampling). Recognizing the problem, some strides were made toward automating amplitude control. Bill Honzik at Geometrics and Brian Herridge at Bison Instruments simultaneously came up with a working compromise. Using dual A/D converters, the signal was digitized twice, with and without a 12-dB amplifier in the signal path. Then, the best solution was chosen automatically by the instrument. This worked pretty well for shallow reflection acquisition while being affordable and fast enough. There was another problem: rollalong. By 1990, the oil and gas people had pretty much gone to distributed systems because cables didn’t easily support the number of channels being recorded then. Suppliers to the majors stopped building rollalong switches, and the ones on the surplus market were pretty worn out from continuous use. Besides that, they were the size of a typical office refrigerator, perhaps four times the volume of a typical shallow exploration seismograph. Anticipating that the market would be too small for Geometrics to support development of a compact rollalong switch,
Figure 4. Geostuff Rollalong Switch
I went home and built one in my garage (see Figure 4), planning on selling maybe a half dozen a year, and naming the company Geostuff. This was not a serious name, but it wasn’t a serious company in the beginning. I grossly underestimated the demand; it turned out to be two dozen a year for the next 10 or 15 years, which was some measure of the number of near surface geophysicists doing shallow reflections. The demand eventually declined down to 2 or 3 a year and Geostuff’s rollalong switch was finally discontinued in 2019 as more people started collecting data with large numbers of channels and editing rollalong during processing. Later, the electronics industry gave us the tools to build highquality acquisition systems. 24-bit Sigma-Delta converters, cheap, powerful microprocessors and memory, and spacious removable media became available. Any halfway competent geophysicist could reliably collect shallow reflection data and process it on his or her office computer. At the same time, the cost of these systems declined significantly in constant dollars, as discussed in the much better history of shallow reflection systems by Steeples and Miller, 2007. One issue that was never resolved to my satisfaction is the choice of geophone natural frequency. With a modern 24bit A/D converter, it is not only reasonable, but better, to record broadband data and filter later during processing (so that the data isn’t permanently corrupted by analog filtering). Given enough dynamic range, the user can pull out the highfrequency reflections or any other artifact of interest. For years, the community of users believed that you needed 100Hz geophones to do shallow reflections surveys even after modern systems made them unnecessary (they were also expensive) and yet we at Geometrics continued to get requests
2 Can you imagine a railway organization having their own geophysical team? 3 I nstantaneous floating point, or IFP, is a type of design where the input amplifier gain is adjusted in 6 or 12-dB steps automatically to maximize the signal to the A/D converter. Then the output of the A/D converter becomes the mantissa and the gain becomes the exponent.
Page 127
Vol 24, 3 2019
for quotations for 100-Hz geophones from all over the world, driven by Hunter and Pullan’s paper. Whenever I ran into Sue Pullan, I implored her to write a paper on the subject to be titled “You Don’t Need 100-Hz Geophones Anymore” so I wouldn’t have to deal with these requests.
SEG web sites, then cut and paste the links into the browser.
Geophones are complex mechanical structures that theoretically are flat from the natural frequency to some arbitrary high frequency. However, they have spurious resonances and other problems that limit the high frequency response. 4.5-Hz geophones don’t work very well for shallow reflections, and knowledgeable users typically pick something higher, like 28 or 40-Hz. It would be nice if some grad student looking for a research project could do a definitive study testing a variety of geophones over an assortment of geologic conditions and come up with a set of recommendations for choices of geophones. The problem with higher natural frequency geophones is that you lose the refractions, an often useful part of the seismic record.
Dankbaar, J. W. M., J. C. Doornenbal and K. Helbig, 1983, Highresolution shallow seismics, SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 1983, https://library.seg.org/doi/10.1190/1.1893903
The latest technical innovation is the elimination of those heavy, expensive, fragile, and electrical-noise susceptible geophone cables. Components are affordable enough now that the digitizer can be placed at the geophone. Systems are available with a single, 2-conductor wire and some are planned that are totally wireless. Both approaches have advantages and problems, but the multi-conductor geophone cable with fixed takeouts is on its way to obsolescence. Your author has been witness to the evolution of shallow seismic reflection methods and instrumentation, from analog systems with chart recorders, to modern, highly capable acquisition systems. Better systems were built when the components became available to make them possible and I in my way contributed to the science. With modern electronics, especially 24-bit A/D converters, any halfway-competent engineer can build a high quality system, and several companies have entered the business. The field is getting pretty crowded. If the links in these references don’t work, log into the EEGS or
Allen, C. F., L. V. Lombardi, and W. M. Wells, 1952, The Application of the reflection seismograph to near surface exploration, Geophysics, Volume 17, Issue 4, Oct 1952, Pages: 687-942 https://library.seg.org/doi/pdf/10.1190/1.1437817
Hunter, J.A., and S.E. Pullan, 1989, The Optimum Offset Shallow Seismic Reflection Technique, Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems. https://library.seg.org/doi/pdf/10.4133/1.2921838
Helbig, K., J. Brower, J. M. Dankbaar, and P. Jongerius, 1985, Shallow High Resolution Seismics on Tidal Flats: Acquisition Technology, SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, 1985 https://library.seg.org/doi/pdf/10.1190/1.1892764
Karcher, J. C., 1987, The reflection seismograph: its invention and use in the discovery of oil and gas fields, The Leading Edge, November 1987 https://library.seg.org/doi/pdf/10.1190/1.1439341 Pakiser, L. C. and R. E. Warrick, 1956, A preliminary evaluation of the shallow reflection seismograph, GEOPHYSICS, VOL. XXI, NO. 2 (APRIL, 1956), PP. 388-405, 10 FIGS. https://library.seg. org/doi/pdf/10.1190/1.1438241
Normington, E. J., and S. E. Pullan, 1985, Engineering seismic reflection software for the Apple microcomputer, SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 1985 https://library.seg.org/doi/ pdf/10.1190/1.1892756
Pullan, S. E., 1990, Recommended standard for seismic (/radar) data files in the personal computer environment, Geophysics, Volume 55, Issue 9 https://library.seg.org/doi/pdf/10.1190/1.1442942 Steeples, D., and Miller, R., 2007, Two Decades of Near-Surface Seismology Progress, SAGEEP 2007 https://library.seg.org/doi/ pdf/10.4133/1.2924682
Author Bio Doug Crice Geostuff Sacramento, California Email dcrice@geostuff.com www.geostuff.com
Doug Crice got his start in earthquake research in 1972, measuring fault slip in California. He was co-founder of Nimbus Instruments in 1971; president and chief design engineer. Nimbus was acquired by Geometrics in 1978 to extend their product line beyond radiometrics and magnetometers. He was product manager for the seismograph line, and eventually vice president of marketing. He started Geostuff in 1991 as a sideline hobby business, building products essential to the seismic market, but where the annual volume was too small for a real company. During his career, he was responsible for many innovations in instrument design that contributed to geophysics.
Page 128
Vol 24, 3 2019
2019 Virtual Near Surface Global Lecturer Adv愀ncing the use of geophysic愀氀 methods fo爀 sust愀in愀b氀e g爀oundw愀te爀 m愀n愀gement
by Rosemary Knight
Center for Groundwater Evaluation and Management Dept. of Geophysics, Stanford University Stanford, California, USA
Throughout the world, there is growing recognition of the need for the sustainable management of our groundwater resources. Sustainable management commonly builds on the development of a groundwater model, which can be used to predict and assess the impacts of changing conditions (e.g. climate, land use) and changing water demands on the groundwater system. The critical challenge is acquiring the data required to both develop an accurate groundwater model and to monitor changes in the groundwater system. Over the past decade, in collaboration with water agencies and with other scientists in academia and the private sector, we have advanced the use of borehole, surface, airborne and satellite geophysical methods to map and monitor groundwater systems at scales ranging from sub-meter to tens of kilometers. Examples include the use of interferometric synthetic aperture radar (InSAR) data to monitor changing water levels; the use of an airborne electromagnetic (AEM) method and electrical resistivity tomography to map the architecture of groundwater systems and coastal saltwater intrusion; and the integration of InSAR and AEM data to predict subsurface properties. These examples demonstrate the significant role that geophysical methods can play, and should play, in the sustainable management of our groundwater resources.
Biography Rosemary Knight has worked for more than 30 years on the challenge of using geophysical methods to image groundwater systems. Her research ranges from carefully controlled laboratory experiments to large-scale field experiments, all designed to explore new ways of remotely imaging hydrologic properties and processes. In 2008, Knight founded the Center for Groundwater Evaluation and Management, with the vision of advancing and promoting the use of geophysical methods through the development of partnerships - with real people, in the real world, with real problems. Knight has been active within the Society of Exploration Geophysicists, serving as Second Vice-President and Distinguished Lecturer, and within the American Geophysical Union, serving as the founding Chair of the Near-Surface Geophysics Focus Group, and as Associate Editor for Water Resources Research and the Journal of Geophysical Research. Current and past students and post-doctoral scientists within her research group all share her commitment to finding new ways to use geophysical methods to support the sustainable management of our groundwater resources. Format: Virtual Webinar. 45 min. presentation followed by 15 min. Q&A Time: Wednesday, Oct 9, 2019 7:00 pm to 8:00 pm, Pacific Time (US and Canada) Click HERE to register for FREE Now
If you are too late to register, the Webinar will be accessible along with other Virtual Webinars HERE
Page 129
Vol 24, 3 2019
Hydrogeophysics and Environmental Geophysics Katherine Grote & Geoff Pettifer Katherine Grote grotekr@mst.edu
In this Special Edition of FastTIMES focusing on US Infrastructure, we look at near-surface geophysics for renewable energy infrastructure, but first we highlight an upcoming critical zone geophysics conference. Please contact Katherine Grote if you are interested or have ideas / contributions / articles for the Column (grotekr@mst.edu). Geophysics in the Critical Zone: Modern Approaches to Characterising Near-Surface Materials, November 11-12, London, UK https://nag2019.wordpress.com/
Environmental geophysics and hydrogeophysics are usually performed in the relatively shallow critical zone. On Nov. ember11-12, the British Geophysical Association and the Near-Surface Geophysics Group of the Geological Society of London is having a conference that focuses on geophysics in this zone in London, UK. (Geophysics in the Critical Zone: Modern Approaches to Characterising Near-Surface Materials). Suggested topics include, but are not limited to:• Monitoring the stability of vulnerable landscapes • I nfrastructure and engineering, spanning offshore and onshore environments • Near-surface hydrology and contaminant processes • Evolution of the critical zone under climatic change • Agricultural applications of geophysical survey •G eophysical systems development for critical zone applications. Registration is still open, so consider adding it to your schedule. The EEGS and FastTIMES team is also inviting inaugural advertising / sponsorship of this Hydrogeophysics News regular column and also alerting readers to the opportunity of an affordable business card listing for groundwater professionals in the FastTIMES Professional Directory – see Page 110). If you are interested in sponsorship / advertising or you want to learn more, please contact (editorfasttimesnewsmagazine@gmail.com), or Jackie Jacoby (staff@eegs.org) and also visit: http://www.eegs.org/advertising-information.
Near-Surface Geophysics for Renewable Energy In the recent past, the European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers held a conference on Geophysics for GeothermalEnergy Utilization and Renewable-Energy Storage. Please see conference proceedings for recent advances in these areas. In addition to geothermal energy, geophysics can be used for other renewable energy systems such as wind and hydropower. The application of these techniques can be expected to grow as the proportion of energy supplied by renewables continues to increase globally. Some applications of geophysics for site characterization for renewable energy are discussed below.
Geothermal Energy Geothermal power (Figure 1) is an area where geophysical techniques can be used to characterize the thermal conductivity of the subsurface, where the thermal conductivity is needed to determine the number and depth of boreholes which must be drilled. Seismic techniques are especially useful, as P- and S-wave velocities can be correlated to the thermal conductivity of a given material (Blazquez e al., 2018). Using MASW and refraction techniques to measure these velocities, the changes
Page 130
Vol 24, 3 2019
1. The geotechnical properties of the soil and rock underlying a potential wind farm site must be evaluated, and heterogeneities in the foundation material should be identified. Geophysical techniques provide a method for inexpensive site characterization at the beginning of site investigation and for targeting areas in need of more extensive geotechnical investigations. MASW techniques are well suited for this application, since they provide variations in S-wave velocity with depth, and the relationships between S-wave velocity and geotechnical parameters such as the shear modulus and Young’s modulus are well established (Soupios, 2015). Seismic refraction has been used to evaluate foundation suitability for windfarms using both P- and S-wave velocities, and resistivity profiling has been used to help identify lithology at these sites (Ozcep et al., 2009). Figure 1. Geothermal Energy – Conceptual Model (Source British Geological Survey)
Hydropower For hydropower, including pumped storage sites (Figure 3), accurate site investigation is critical both for identifying optimal locations to construct hydropower dams and for examining the suitability of a site to support a dam. For identifying sites, accurate characterization of the depth to bedrock and rippability of rock is required for determining the feasibility of excavating the reservoir upgradient of the hydropower dam. Seismic refraction and MASW methods are well-established techniques for providing this information and estimates of rock strength in the foundation materials below the dam (Varughese et al., 2011).
Figure 2. Windfarm tower foundation construction – final stages
in thermal conductivity in a given area can be evaluated. The resulting 2-D thermal conductivity profiles can then be used to estimate changes in thermal conductivity with depth for specific formations. Resistivity methods can also be used to estimate thermal conductivity, where the resistivity response can be correlated to the thermal response for a given formation. With this correlation, electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) can be used to detect changes in thermal conductivity with depth. A comparison of seismic and resistivity techniques for estimating thermal conductivity found that seismic techniques were slightly closer to the thermal conductivity profile measured using borehole techniques than were the ERT results (Blazquez et al, 2019). Seismic, resistivity, and transient electromagnetic (TEM) techniques can also be used for more conventional geologic characterization, which can be used to identify geothermal targets. Anomalous variations in seismic velocity have been correlated to hydrothermal mineral assemblages, while TEM techniques have been used to infer hydrothermally altered sediments underlying aquitards (Nur et al., 2019).
Wind Energy For wind energy, the foundations used to anchor the turbines must be able to support both large dynamic and static loads (Figure
Another very important aspect of hydropower is dam maintenance. Since seepage through embankments could cause failure of these embankments, and possibly the entire dam, detecting seepage before excessive piping has occurred is critical. Electromagnetic techniques are an effective way of quickly scanning large areas of the embankment to detect possible seepage points. After these points are identified, ERT methods can be used for a more detailed analysis of potential soil erosion (fissuring or piping). Based on these results, selfpotential surveys are a valuable way to relate the anomalies observed in EM or ERT data to potential pathways for seepage inside the embankment. Used together, these geophysical techniques can identify areas in need of grouting or repair that could not be identified through invasive testing (Senteneac et al., 2018).
References Blázquez, C.S.; Martín, A.F.; García, P.C.; González-Aguilera, 2018, D. Thermal conductivity characterization of three geological formations by the implementation of geophysical methods. Geothermics, 72, 101–111. Blázquez, C.S.; Nieto, I.M., Martín, A.F.; García, P.C.; González-Aguilera, D., 2019. Comparative Analysis of Different Methodologies Used to Estimate the Ground Thermal Conductivity in Low Enthalpy Geothermal Systems. Energies, 12(9), 1672.
Page 131
Vol 24, 3 2019
Nur, A.A, Mutebi, D., Taufan, Y.A., and Ilmi, I., 2019. Application of Magneotellruics and Transient Electromagnetic in Kibiro Geothermal Prospect â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Western Uganda, J. Geol. Sciences and Applied Geology 3(1), 52-59. Ozkep, F., Guzei, M., Kepekci, D., Laman, M., Bozdaf, S., Cetin, H., and Akat, A., 2009. Geotechnical and geophysical studies for wind energy systems in earthquake-prone areas: Bahce (Osmaniye, Turkey) case, Int. J. of Physical Sciences Vol. 4 (10), pp. 555-561. Ryan, G.A. and Shalev, E., 2014. Seismic Velocity/Temperature Correlations and a Possible New Geothermometer: Insights from Exploration of a High-Temperature Geothermal System on Montserrat, West Indies, Energies, 7(10), 6689-6720 Sentenac, P, Benes, V., and Keenan, H., 2018. Reservoir assessment using non-invasive geophysical techniques, Environ Earth Sci (2018) 77: 293. Soupios, P., 2015. Prospection of Wind Farm Site Using Geophysics, Conference: 8th Balkan Geophysical Conference, Chania, Crete, Greece. Varughese, Al, Kumar, P., and Kumar, N., 2011. Seismic Refraction Survey: a Reliable Tool for Subsurface Characterization for Hydropower Projects, Proceedings of Indian Geotechnical Conference, Kochi (Paper No. B-008)
Figure 3. Schematic hydropower scheme augmented by lower cost off-peak power pumped storage used to generate higher value peak power
Page 132
UXO Community Geophysics News Jeff Leberfinger, PGp, PG jleberfinger@pikainc.com
Welcome to the UXO Geophysics Community News column. In this issue you will read contributions from Aqua Survey on the Smartcore Sediment System and a new Cloud Computing for UXO Classification and Project Management platform being developed by Geosoft and AcornSI. You will also read about upcoming meetings including SAGEEP 2020/1st Munition Response Meeting, NAOC General Membership Meeting, and the SERDP/ESTCP Symposium. If you wish to contribute to the column please send your article to jleberfinger@pikainc.com.
Vol 24, 3 2019
• Perspective on Munition Response • DAGCAP - Project / Program Lessons Learned • Risk Assessment for Explosives Hazards • Applications for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) in Munitions Projects • Site Application of Classification Technologies • Innovative Applications of Geophysics on Military Munitions Response Program (MMRP) Projects • Non-Acoustic (Electromagnetic and other) Methods for Marine MEC Detection and Classification • Recent Results in Marine Acoustic Methods for Detection and Classification • Underwater Munitions Response Operations • Robotic Applications to Munitions Response • Emerging Geophysical Sensors • Alternative Positioning Systems • Munitions Response Safety • Data Usability Assessment • Munitions Constituents Investigation • Analog Geophysics • Disposal Trench / Open Burn/ Open Detonation (OB/OD) (i.e., non firing range) Geophysics • International Demining and UXO
SAGEEP 2020 and 1st Munition NAOC General Membership Response – Session Topics The Environmental and Engineering Geophysics Society (EEGS) Meeting - December 2020 is partnering with the European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers (EAGE) and the National Association of Ordnance Contractors (NAOC) to offer the 1st Munition Response Meeting in conjunction with the Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems (SAGEEP) on March 29th - April 2nd, 2020 in Denver, Colorado. A call for abstracts has been released. A list of planned Munition Response related sessions are below. If you have a topic or project you would like to present, information on submitting an abstract can be found at: https://www.sageep.org. A preliminary list of planned sessions is presented below:
The NAOC will be holding their general membership meeting in Scottsdale, Arizona December 10th through the 12th, 2019. The NAOC Board of Directors will hold a meeting on the first day open to membership. During the board meeting updates will be provided by the various committees: Technology, Operations and Standards, Membership, Government, and Small Business. The Board of Directors (BOD) meeting will be led by NAOC President Lanette Waite from TetraTech. After the BOD meeting, there will be presentations from many government representatives from the various Department of Defence (DoD) agencies in charge of overseeing Munition Response clean-ups. At the end of the meeting an election will be held by NAOC membership to select new Board of Directors for 2020. For more information on the meeting visit: http://www.naoc.org/2019-general-membership-meeting
UltraTEM – New DAGCAP Validated Sensor for UXO AGC Surveys The UltraTEM sensor developed by Black Tusk Geophysics and Gap Explosive Ordnance Detection has successfully been validated at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds (APG) Accreditation Test Site this summer. The system was recently validated for Advanced Geophysical Classification (AGC) through the
Page 133
Vol 24, 3 2019
Department of Defense AGC Accreditation program (DAGCAP). It is the first sensor to be validated for one-pass detection and classification, an approach that can significantly reduce the costs and risks involved with AGC surveys. For more information contact: Kevin Kingdom of Black Tusk at kevin. kingdon@btgeophysics.com
2019 SERDP and ESTCP Symposium
The Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) and Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP) Symposium will be held in Washington DC from December 3rd through the 5th. The 2019 Symposium will offer 16 technical sessions, a number of short courses, more than 450 technical poster presentations, and exhibitors. The two primary Munitions Response sessions are Systems for Detection and Classification of Underwater UXO and Burial and Mobility Studies of Underwater UXO. For more information visit: http://www.symposium.serdp-estcp.org/events/ serdp-estcp-symposium-2019/event-summary-70e95296f1fe4812a 7ffd4da9fd44da2.aspx
Sediment Core Sampling in UXO Contaminated Waterways Aqua Survey-created technology provides real-time metal detection during collection of sediment cores. It is often desirable to collect sediment cores in areas with known, suspected or unknown unexploded bombs, utilities, cultural resources or other metal-based hazards.
Aqua Survey has developed a sediment vibracoring system which incorporates the same military-grade metal target detection equipment they use worldwide to locate bombs. Electromagnetic (EM) pulse induction technology is used to locate ferrous and non-ferrous metal targets. Since this is an intelligent way to collect sediment cores in highrisk sites, Aqua Survey has named this proprietary technology the SmartCore Sediment System. This breakthrough technology signals the operator when the nose cone of the core barrel is approaching a metallic object, allowing the operator to cease the core’s downward movement and reduce the probability of the coring system making contact with any metal object. The SmartCore can collect up to 20-feet of a continuous 4-inch diameter core in a flexible or rigid inner-core liner. Electromagnetic data are viewed real-time and can be logged simultaneously into a digital file, if desired. The SmartCore Approach Provides Several Key Benefits: • Eliminates days of markout surveying and data processing. • Elimination of GPS Error – no room for error with variability of GPS during survey and reacquisition, removing all uncertainty of GPS error from markout survey and reacquisition during coring activities. • Deeper detection – a traditional markout (magnetometer, electromagnetic, etc.) survey has limited detection depths. Since the SmartCore’s EM coil is on the tip of the core barrel, it will have an equally effective detection depth at a 20ft penetration as it would at a 1ft penetration. Depending on length of sediment core needed, Aqua Survey can perform 6-20 SmartCores a day. Jeff Leberfinger
Vol 24, 3 2019
Page 134
TOP 1
ACCESS to Government and Industry Decision-Makers -Government contracting agencies -Research and development entities -Federal and state regulatory agencies
10 REASONS
TO JOIN
2
PARTNERING opportunities with key clients
3
NETWORKING with a strong portfolio of munitions response companies
4
INFLUENCE program funding and industry standards
5
EXPOSURE to evolving industry technologies
6
TIMELY UPDATES on explosives safety and technology-related guidance
7
INFORMATION exchanges on all aspects of munitions response
8
MARKETPLACE VISIBILITY for you and your firm
9
TRAINING opportunities on new technologies and guidance
10
BEING A PART of a nationally recognized leader in munitions response
-Technology developments -Contracting strategies and project opportunities -Newest policies, guidance, procedures and standards
-Find and meet new business contacts and teaming partners for upcoming opportunities -Showcase your firm
-Participate in our Technology Committee -Learn about technology transfer and demonstration opportunities
-Participate in our Operations and Standards Committee -Receive real-time updates on industry standards of practice
-Work with NAOC Committees and Board to identify and raise issues impacting the industry -Support NAOC in its efforts to develop and champion safe, effective and efficient solutions
-Visit legislators during congressional budget development to raise awareness of MMRP issues -Be heard as a part of the organized voice of the profession
-Attend and participate in NAOC-sponsored events -Be recognized by displaying the NAOC logo
-NAOC events are tailored to your market with topics focused on program trends
-Join a committee and get even more out of NAOC membership! -Be an active member of the organization that serves as the “Voice of Industry” to government clients and decision makers
For more information visit: www.naoc.org
How to Join Membership Go to the NAOC Website - naoc.org Click on “Join Today”
Page 135
Mining Geophysics News Moe Momayez moe.momayez@arizona.edu
For this edition of the Mining Geophysics News column we feature a focus on rapid hyperspectral mapping of minerals in a mine face. EEGS welcomes contributions of mine site and mining geophysics news and articles from mining engineers, geophysicists, geologists, hydrogeologists, geotechnical engineers and environmental scientists in local and international firms, research, academia, service providers and government agencies on topics that may be of interest to both the mining geophysics practitioner and end-user communities. Please contact me, Moe Momayez (moe.momayez@arizona.edu), Associate Editor, (moe.momayez@arizona.edu) if you have ideas or news / articles to contribute.
Rapid Mapping of Minerals In the past decade, the discovery rate of both major and medium size deposits has been decreasing sharply, despite a tenfold increase in exploration expenditures. Experts agree that, over the next 10 to 20 years, the expected discovery rate will not keep up with market demand. This leads to the question everyone is asking: Why the industry is falling behind in productivity? There are several reasons for the looming mineral crisis â&#x20AC;&#x201C;financing and permitting challenges, more robust technology integration, better data integration from different sources, leadership in the field and management pressure from the board rooms. In this issue of Mining Geophysics News, we take a closer look at the hyperspectral imaging technology. This emerging technology has been shown to greatly enhance the efficiency of todayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s mineral exploration operations. For example, many minerals associated with the occurrence of gold, silver, and diamonds, can be identified
Figure 1. The process of hyperspectral mapping of minerals in a mine face
Vol 24, 3 2019
Vol 24, 3 2019
Page 136 from aerial images. However, existing hyperspectral imaging systems are not well-suited for industrial use; the high cost of collecting and processing hyperspectral data presents serious challenges for their routing use in the exploration of mineral. Thanks to recent advances in miniaturization, new, more economical sensors that are both high resolution and have lower power consumption have begun to be available. Hyperspectral scans can be carried out from a flying platform such as a drone and flown over open-pit mines or other desired areas, or using a ground-based system as depicted in Figure 1. Applications include improved grade control, mine planning, and increased production over the life of a mine. Conducting a simple spatial sampling of mineralized zones at the mine scale is costly and time-consuming with high uncertainty, due to incomplete information between drill holes. Geostatistical interpolation is commonly used to estimate variations between these holes, providing inaccurate estimates of mineralogy. Rapid mapping of minerals distribution will improve the reconciliation of geological, mining and mineral processing information, and mitigate risks associated with direct sampling in a highly unsafe zone. Attempts are underway to integrate information extracted from hyperspectral imaging in the mine planning and grade control processes. In a pilot study conducted last year by Dr. Isabel Barton, Assistant Professor at the University of Arizona (https://mge.engineering.arizona.edu/facultystaff/ faculty/ isabel-barton), images captured with the Headwall Photonics hyperspectral sensors (https://www.headwallphotonics.com/ hyperspectralsensors) showed a high degree of reliability in detecting certain types of spectrally active minerals at several mine sites operated by Freeport and ASARCO. Barton explains that, ‘Hyperspectral remote sensing is sensitive to phyllosilicate minerals such as clays, which are difficult or impossible to identify in the field using other techniques. Since clays are a huge metallurgical and geotechnical problem, that opens up a lot of opportunities for hyperspectral to contribute to safer, more efficient mining – not to mention that it can map other mineral types like carbonates and micas.’ The biggest bottleneck in using hyperspectral remote sensing on a production scale are data processing and turnaround time. Datasets produced by individual scans are typically hundreds of gigabytes each. Today, converting a day’s worth of data from intensities to mineralogical maps is a time- and laborintensive process requiring weeks to months, and merging the hyperspectral mineral maps with LiDAR and digital elevationmaps requires additional time and manual input. According to Dr Barton, ‘Hyperspectral imaging has a lot of potential for multiple applications in the mining industry.’ As the ability to integrate data from similar and dissimilar sources (geology, geophysics, geochemistry, and imagery) improves using more advanced modeling software and cloud computing power, future work focuses on developing near real-time algorithms for better grade control and a smooth integration of temporal data into mine planning packages. We will look to researchers like Dr. Barton to continue this important research in order to help ease the strain of the impending mineral crisis.
The EEGS and FastTIMES team is inviting inaugural advertising / sponsorship of this Mining Geophysics News regular column and is also alerting readers to the opportunity of an affordable business card listing for mining professionals in the FastTIMES Professional Directory – see Page 110). If you are interested in sponsorship / advertising or you want to learn more, please contact (editorfasttimesnewsmagazine@gmail.com), or Jackie Jacoby (staff@eegs.org) and also visit: http://www.eegs.org/advertising-information.
Further Reading on Hyperspectral Imaging for Minerals – Airborne, Ground and Borehole Core Modes. Trends in the discovery of new minerals over the last century https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/msa/ammin/ articleabstract/104/5/641/570184/trends-in-the-discovery-of-newminerals-overthe https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260341256_ Mineralogical_Face-Mapping_Using_Hyperspectral_Scanning_for_ Mine_Mapping_and_Control https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278696784_ MineralMapping_with_Airborne_Hyperspectral_Thermal_Infrared_ Remote_Sensing_at_Cuprite_Nevada_USA https://possibility.teledyneimaging.com/hunting-new-miningdepositshyperspectral-imaging/ https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/books/book/1381/ chapter/107029963/Development-of-Hyperspectral-Imaging-for-Mineral https://www.specim.fi/hyperspectral-imaging-in-geology/ http://www.photonetc.com/mining-oil-gas-operations
A survey of image classification methods and techniques for improving classification performance https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/ full/10.1080/01431160600746456?src=recsys
Mine Site Infrastructure Geophysics Given the infrastructure theme of the current FastTIMES, readers are referred again to FastTIMES Vol 23, 2, pp30-32 (freely downloadable from https://www.eegs.org/latestissue) where the Mining Geophysics Column lists and reviews the many NSG method applications for mine-sites in relation to mine site ongoing operational imperatives for timely investigations of geotechnical conditions for new infrastructure and condition assessment and environmental impact assessment of existing mine infrastructure
Vol 24, 3 2019
Page 137
geoDrone Report ©2017 IGS, LLC
Ron Bell President - AGS, LLC rbell@igsdenver.com
of such systems forward, some with the financial encouragement provided by the FAA. Ultimately, the implementation of BLVOS flight operations is directly dependent on convincing those that regulate the air space that the technology for managing the unmanned air traffic works and is acceptably safe. Once this happens, there will be a rush to obtain permission to conduct commercial flight operations beyond the pilot’s ability to visually observe the aircraft. And the cost of conducting commercial drone operations will increase. At the recently held New York UAS Symposium, NUAIR reported the following:
At the recent SEG Annual Meeting held in San Antonio, TX, a rather unusual looking UAV suspended in the air above me captured my attention for quite some time. The photograph below shows it to be an purpose built X formatted octocopter with huge motors and propellers capable of a lifting a significant amount of weight compared to off the shelf workhorse drones. There are six (6) vertical tubes located in the center of the of the motor arms. According to John Archer the VP of Technology for SAExploration, each tube holds a specially built autonomous geophone. When deployed, the drone deposits a geophone at a predetermined location. Gravity ensures the geophone will be properly coupled with the earth, GNSS satellite communication synchronizes the recording, and radio communication facilitates the transfer of the seismic data. And, when its mission has been accomplished the geophone bio- degrades into the environment leaving no trace.
Three Separate Videos were shown, showcasing the vast technologies and capabilities of New York’s 50-Mile UAS Test Corridor being developed between Rome and Syracuse, New York. The first video showcased multiple UAS Service Suppliers (USS) communicating with each other for safe flights and how public safety personnel can implement a “no fly zone” of airspace, in the case of an emergency where a public safety drone is being deployed. The second video was shot in downtown Rome, during a farmer’s market event to showcase UAS traffic management capabilities in an urban setting. Technology showcased in this video included communication and detection of manned and unmanned aircraft in the same airspace and how unmanned aircraft handled each situation. The third video showcased multiple Remote ID solutions from partners that are integrated into the New York UAS Test Site. Remote ID is like a “license plate” for a drone, which allows public safety personnel the ability to identify a drone in the air, who’s flying it and physically where that person is piloting the aircraft. This is another key technology being developed at the NY UAS Test Site, which will help deal with “rouge” drones flying in unauthorized areas. To learn more, check out the following link. https://nuair.org/news/
It does not take much thought to realize that the idea is cutting edge. Nor does it take much effort to envision the numerous technical challenges creating barriers to an effective execution of the concept. The recent terrorist drone strike on an oil refinery in Saudi Arabia casts a broad shadow over the concept due to non-technical obstacles of the modern age. Nevertheless, I applaud companies like Total who are willing to invest in research and development of this kind. Among other things, it demonstrates their understanding that geoscientific mapping and, more to the point, geophysical data collection is benefiting from adaption of airborne robotic technology. The next big technological and regulatory breakthrough in the drone space will undoubtedly be will be BLVOS – beyond visual line of sight – fight operations. “Agreed” you say, “but when can we expect it to be available?” Technology for tracking the drone and informing the pilots of other aircraft occupying the airspace is necessary to safe BVLOS flight operations. There are several companies moving the development
In the US and Canada, numerous companies are working on developing the technology needed to implement a viable Unmanned Traffic Management (UTM) system. In an effort to move the development forward, the FAA will be announcing contract awards at end of September. Perhaps, BVLOS flight operations will become a reality within the next couple of years. The following report was published by Unmanned Aerial Online. It and news about technologies, ideas, and trends driving the UAS industry can be found at https://unmanned-aerial.com/category/drone-news
FAA Partners Complete UAS Traffic Management Demos Across the Country Posted by Betsy Lillian
-September 4, 2019
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is highlighting progress it has made in partnership with NASA to lay the groundwork for an unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) traffic management system (UTM).
Page 138
Vol 24, 3 2019
Recent demonstrations, conducted at three separate test sites selected by the FAA for the UAS Traffic Management Pilot Program (UPP), showed that multiple drone flights taking place beyond the visual line of sight (BVLOS) can be safely conducted at low altitudes (below 400 feet) in airspace where FAA air traffic services are not provided.
a request to a USS to create a UVR, which is also shared with the FAA. The FAA shares the info with public portals, notifying each of the UAS operators that the firefighting helicopter was on its way to the flying area. Each of the drone operators, being properly notified, was able to either land or continue their operations at a safe distance.
As demand for low-altitude drone use increases, the FAA, NASA and the UPP partners are working together to accommodate these operations safely and efficiently.
The FAA’s video of the demos can be watched below:
In January, the FAA selected three UPP test sites: the Mid-Atlantic Aviation Partnership (MAAP) at Virginia Tech; the Northern Plains UAS Test Site (NPUASTS) in Grand Forks, N.D.; and the Nevada Institute for Autonomous Systems (NIAS) in Las Vegas. The first demonstration, which involved MAAP, took place at Virginia Tech on June 13. During the demo, separate drone flights delivered packages, studied wildlife, surveyed a corn field and covered a court case for TV. Because the flights were near an airport, all four flight plans were submitted through a service supplier and received approval to launch as planned. While these flights were being conducted, an emergency helicopter needed to quickly transport a car crash victim to a hospital. The helicopter pilot submitted a request for a UAS Volume Reservation (UVR), an alert used to notify nearby drone operators of the emergency. The deliveries were re-routed until the UVR was completed. The wildlife study, field survey and court coverage continued safely away from the helicopter’s path. Each operation was conducted without conflict, the FAA notes. The second demonstration, which involved NPUASTS, took place in Grand Forks on July 10. During the demo, which occurred near an airport, a photographer and Part 107 drone operator took photos of firefighter training. An aviation student at the University of North Dakota used a drone to scan for the best tailgating location. Another Part 107 operator, employed at an electric company, used a drone to assess power line damage after recent strong winds. The two Part 107 operators submitted flight plans due to their proximity to an airport and received proper approvals. During their flights, they received a UVR alert that a medevac helicopter was transporting a patient to the hospital from the firefighter training area. The operator taking photos of the training landed the drone before the UVR notice became active. The power line survey and the flight over the tailgate area continued at a safe distance. The third demo, which involved NIAS, took place in Las Vegas on Aug. 1. For this operation, separate UAS flights were conducted to survey a golf course before a tournament, get video footage of a property being sold and scan a nearby lake for boating opportunities. All three operators accessed UAS Facility Maps and worked with a UAS service supplier to receive the proper approvals to conduct their flights. A fire erupted at one of the golf course clubhouses, and first responders sent a helicopter to contain the fire. They submitted
https://youtu.be/zpc4aoJKefA
The UPP was established in April 2017. The analysis of results from the latest demonstrations will provide an understanding of the level of investment required for each stakeholder’s implementation, says the FAA. The results from the UPP will provide a proof of concept for UTM capabilities currently in research and development and will provide the basis for initial deployment of UTM, the agency adds. Ultimately, the FAA will define the UTM regulatory framework that third-party providers will operate within.
1st EAGE Workshop on Unmanned Aerial Vehicles The European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers (EAGE) will be convening a workshop on the application of drones. The event will be held from December 1 – 4 in Toulouse, France. The following is excerpted from the event’s web site Advances in Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) technology has allowed for the expansion of imaging and remote sensing techniques in both traditional and new applications. In recognition of this emerging technology the EAGE is organizing this workshop on UAVs to explore the potential application of these platforms to the oil and gas industry with a focus on platform technology, remote sensing, automated image analysis and processing, 3-dimensional modelling, sensor and communication technology, European civil aviation regulations and specific application to oil and gas industry processes. This three-day workshop will feature presentations, panel discussions, field demonstrations, and networking opportunities bridging expertise in the UAV community and oil and gas industry. Attendees will see presentation from E&P operators, Unmanned Aerial Vehicle professionals, academia, and technology suppliers that will focus on different components of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle systems. A special focus will also be made on existing and emerging UAV regulations in Europe as a support for this new business. Topics 1. Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Systems 2. Automated Image Processing and Analysis 3. 3-D Modelling Techniques 4. Remote Sensing Applications 5. Oil and Gas Applications 6. Related Emerging Technologies 7. European UAV Civil Aviation Regulations 8. Beyond Line-Of-Sight (BLOS) 9. HSSE
Page 139
Vol 24, 3 2019
“This three-day workshop will feature presentations, panel discussions, field demonstrations, and networking opportunities bridging expertise in the UAV community and oil and gas industry.” To learn more, click on the following link https://eage.eventsair.com/uav-workshop/
SAGEEP 2020 Post Conference Workshop Advances in UAS Geophysics The steering committee for SAGEEP 2020 is currently evaluating the merits of a post conference workshop titled Advances in UAS Geophysics. It will be an all-day Thursday event consisting of 12+ oral presentations and numerous poster presentations by researchers, UAS service providers, system manufacturers, sensor developers, software developers, and geoscientists working with data collected via a drone. On Friday, there will be a half day demonstration of drones and sensors.
A UAV services teaming preparing a Hovermap equipped drone to map a mine tunnel.
The content presented in the workshop will be the basis for a special issue of FastTIMES to be published in August 2019. If you are interested in attending or contributing to the workshop, please share your interest via an email to me at rbell@igsdenver.com.
Drones & Underground Mapping The application of drones for above ground mapping is an established technology enjoying a rapidly expanding growth as the financial benefits become more apparent. It is logical, therefore, that the next growth area for putting drones to the task of geoscientific mapping is underground and in confined spaces were the GNSS based navigation is simply not available.
A 3D rendering of a mine tunnel mapped with LiDAR using a Hovermap enabled drone
A geoDRONETM Shot
Emesent ( https://emesent.io/products/hovermap/ ), a drone autonomy and data analytics spin-out from CSIRO’s Data61 was launched in 2018 after raising $3.5 million in venture capital to commercialize Hovermap, a 3D LiDAR-mapping and autonomy payload for industrial drones. Hovermap enables drones to fly and map challenging underground, indoor and outdoor GPS-denied environments, without the need to send people into potentially hazardous areas. It provides collision avoidance, GPS-denied flight, advanced autonomy and SLAM-based LiDAR mapping. A Hovermap enabled drone can be deployed in challenging environments, to collect 3D and other data which was previously impossible to collect which in turn exposes new insights and discoveries. Upcoming Drone Relevant Events October 28-30, 2019 Commercial UAV Expo
The Westgate Resort
Las Vegas, NV
https://www.expouav.com/
Dec 1-4, 2019
1st EAGE UAV Workshop
Toulouse, France
https://eage.eventsair.com/uav-workshop/
A UAV MagArrow on survey over the Crestone Crater near sunset (photo courtesy of Brown Hawkins).
The geoDRONE Report© is a copyrighted publication of Aerobotic Geophysical Systems, LLC located in Lakewood, CO. I am always looking for news and information content pertaining to the application of drones to geophysical and geoscientific mapping. If you have an item to share with the readers, please do not hesitate to contact me at rbell@igsdenver.com.
Vol 24, 3 2019
Page 140
Emerging World NSG News Koya Suto koya@terra-au.com
The EEGS and FastTIMES team is inviting inaugural advertising / sponsorship of this Emerging World NSG News regular column If you are interested in sponsorship / advertising or you want to learn more, please contact: David Valintine (dvalintine@fugro.com), or (editorfasttimesnewsmagazine@gmail.com), or Jackie Jacoby (staff@eegs.org) and also visit: http://www.eegs.org/advertising-information.
This new column in FastTIMES plans to communicate among and give voice to the near-surface community of geophysics and geophysicists, in nations where near-surface geophysics is emerging in practice.
Contributions welcome We invite EEGS members and their geophysical colleagues around the world to write short articles (text, graphics, photos), starting with: •N ews items about students learning in a University (locally or abroad) - their experiences, research projects, new ideas and the challenges that you find, etc.; •L ocal geophysical societies / chapter activities – things done and things planned; • “Life as a geophysicist in our country”; • Joy of geophysics; • What is expected from geophysics in our country; • What makes it difficult to learn geophysics; and •G eoscientists Without Borders® (GWB) news items as articles as provided from time to time by SEG. We hope the column will grow around material submitted and may be a forum for discussion of the problems that geophysicists in different parts of the world face, socially, politically and technically as well as celebration of successes.
Supporting humanitarian applications of geoscience around the world for more than 10 years seg.org/gwb
Join our global network We would also like to build a support network of contacts in countries around the word to support the column by gathering in-country information and further contacts and seeking out stories to tell. For more details and contributions or to join the support network for this new column, please contact: Koya Suto: koya@terra-au.com Meng Heng Loke: drmhloke@gmail.com, or editorfasttimesnewsmagazine@gmail.com
The SEG Foundation and SEG thank the following organizations for supporting the GWB program:
F O U N D I N G SU PPO RT ER
Vol 24, 3 2019
Page 141 Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society
2019 Individual Membership Application
Join Online at www.EEGS.org
Individual Membership Categories EEGS is the premier membership organization for near surface geophysics applied to engineering and environmental problems. Our multi-disciplinary blend of professionals from the private sector, academia, and government offers a unique opportunity to network with researchers, practitioners, and users of near-surface geophysical methods. Memberships include access to the Journal of Environmental & Engineering Geophysics (JEEG), proceedings archives of the Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems (SAGEEP), and our electronic newsletter, FastTIMES. Members also enjoy complimentary access to SEG’s technical program expanded abstracts, as well as discounted SAGEEP registration fees, books and other educational publications. EEGS offers a variety of membership categories tailored to fit your needs. Please select (circle) your membership category and indicate your willingness to support student members below:
Yes, I wish to sponsor
student(s) @ $20 each to be included in my membership payment.
Individual Members
Individual members are invited to sponsor student members. Simply indicate the number of students you’d like to support (at $20 each) to encourage growth in this important segment of EEGS’ membership.
Category
Annual Dues (Calendar Year)
Individual
$110
Retired Members Your opportunity to stay connected and support the only membership organization focusing on near surface geophysics. Retired members are invited to sponsor student members. Simply indicate the number of students you’d like to support (at $20 each) to encourage growth in this important segment of EEGS’ membership. Category
Annual Dues (Calendar Year)
Retired (Must be Approved by EEGS Board of Directors)
$50
Introductory Members
If you have never been a member of EEGS, we offer a reduced rate for new members to enjoy all the benefits of individual membership (except voting or holding office) for one year.
Category Introductory
Annual Dues (Calendar Year) $55
Lifetime Members Support EEGS, receive benefits on an ongoing basis and never renew again! Members of this category enjoy all the benefits of Individual membership. Category Lifetime Member
Annual Dues (Calendar Year) $995
Developing World Members Those wishing to join this category of EEGS membership are invited to check the list of countries to determine qualification. Category Developing World (List of qualifying countries next page)
Annual Dues (Calendar Year) $50
Student Members
Students represent EEGS’ future and we offer complimentary membership subsidized by Corporate Student Sponsor Members and those who sponsor students. Student members enjoy all the benefits of individual membership (except to vote or hold office). Available to all students in an accredited university up to one year post-graduation. Please submit a copy of your student ID and indicate your projected date of graduation: ___ /____ (Month/Year). Students in year two beyond graduation are offered a special rate for 1 year.
Category
Annual Dues (Calendar Year)
Student up to 1 Year Post Graduation Student - Year Two Post Graduation (Grad Date: Mo/Yr.: ___/___)
$ 0 $50
Vol 24, 3 2019
Page 142 Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society
2019 Individual Membership Application
Join Online at www.EEGS.org
Membership Renewal Developing World Category Qualification If you reside in one of the countries listed below, you are eligible for EEGSâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Developing World membership category rate of $50.00.
Afghanistan Albania Algeria Angola Armenia Azerbaijan Bangladesh Belize Benin Bhutan Bolivia Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Cape Verde Central African Republic Chad China Comoros Congo, Dem. Rep. Congo, Rep. Djibouti Ecuador Egypt
El Salvador Eritrea Ethiopia Gambia Georgia Ghana Guatemala Guinea-Bissau GuyanaHaiti Honduras India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ivory Coast Jordan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo Kyrgyz Republic Lao PDR Lesotho Liberia Madagascar Malawi
Maldives Mali Marshall Islands Mauritania Micronesia Moldova Mongolia Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Nepal Nicaragua Niger Nigeria North Korea Pakistan Papua New Guinea Paraguay Philippines Rwanda Samoa Sao Tome and Principe Senegal Sierra Leone Solomon Islands
Somalia Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Swaziland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tonga Tunisia Turkmenistan Uganda Ukraine Uzbekistan Vanuatu Vietnam West Bank and Gaza Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe
1720 South Bellaire Street | Suite 110 | Denver, CO 80222-4303 (p) 001.1.303.531.7517 | (f) 001.1.303.820.3844 | staff@eegs.org | www.eegs.org
Vol 24, 3 2019
Page 143
Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society
Join Online at www.EEGS.org
2019 EEGS Membership Application CONTACT INFORMATION
SSalutation
SMiddle Initial
First Name
LCompany/Organization
LStreet Address
LLast Name
LTitle
LCity
LState/Province
LMobile Phone
LDirect Phone
LEmail
LCountry
LZip Code
LFax
LWebsite
ABOUT ME: INTERESTS & EXPERTISE In order to identify your areas of specific interests and expertise, please check all that apply: Role Consultant User of Geophysical Svcs. Student Geophysical Contractor Equipment Manufacturer Software Manufacturer Research/Academia Government Agency Other
Interest or Focus Archaeology Engineering Environmental Geotechnical Geo. Infrastructure Groundwater Hazardous Waste Humanitarian Geo. Mining Shallow Oil & Gas UXO Aerial Geophysics Other
Geophysical Expertise
Willing to Serve on a Professional/ Scientific Societies Committee?
Borehole Geophysical Logging Electrical Methods Electromagnetics Gravity Ground Penetrating Radar Magnetics Marine Geophysics Remote Sensing Seismic Other
AAPG AEG ASCE AWWA AGU EAGE EERI GeoInstitute GSA NGWA NSG SEG SSA SPWLA
1720 South Bellaire Street | Suite 110 | Denver, CO 80222-4303 (p) 001.1.303.531.7517 | (f) 000.1.303.820.3844 | staff@eegs.org | www.eegs.org
Publications Web Site Membership Student
Vol 24, 3 2019
Page 144
Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society
Join Online at www.EEGS.org
2019 EEGS Membership Application FOUNDATION CONTRIBUTIONS FOUNDERS FUND
The Founders Fund has been established to support costs associated with the establishment and maintenance of the EEGS Foundation as we solicit support from larger sponsors. These will support business office expenses, necessary travel, and similar expenses. It is expected that the operating capital for the foundation will eventually be derived from outside sources, but the Founder’s Fund will provide an operation budget to “jump start” the work. Donations of $50.00 or more are greatly appreciated. For additional information about the EEGS Foundation (an IRS status 501(c)(3) tax exempt public charity), visit the website at http://www.EEGSFoundation.org. Foundation Fund Total: $
STUDENT SUPPORT ENDOWMENT
This Endowed Fund will be used to support travel and reduced membership fees so that we can attract greater involvement from our student members. Student members are the lifeblood of our society, and our support can lead to a lifetime of involvement and leadership in the near-surface geophysics community. Donations of $50.00 or more are greatly appreciated. For additional information about the EEGS Foundation (a tax exempt public charity), visit the website at http://www.EEGSFoundation.org. Student Support Endowment Total: $
CORPORATE CONTRIBUTIONS
The EEGS Foundation is designed to solicit support from individuals and corporate entities that are not currently corporate members (as listed above). We recognize that most of our corporate members are small businesses with limited resources, and that their contributions to professional societies are distributed among several organizations. The Corporate Founder’s Fund has been developed to allow our corporate members to support the establishment of the Foundation as we solicit support from new contributors. Corporate Contribution Total: $ Foundation Total: $
Subtotals
PAYMENT INFORMATION
Membership: $
Check/Money Order
VISA
AmEx
Discover
SCard Number
MasterCard
Student Sponsorship: $ Foundation Contributions: $ Grand Total: $
LExp. Date
LCVV #:
LName on Card LSignature Make your check or money order in US dollars payable to: EEGS. Checks from Canadian bank accounts must be drawn on banks with US affiliations (example: checks from Canadian Credit Suisse banks are payable through Credit Suisse New York, USA). Checks must be drawn on US banks. Payments are not tax deductible as charitable contributions although they may be deductible as a business expense. Consult your tax advisor. Return this form with payment to: EEGS, 1720 South Bellaire Street, Suite 110, Denver, CO 80222 USA Credit card payments can be faxed to EEGS at 001.1.303.820.3844 Corporate dues payments, once paid, are non-refundable. Individual dues are non-refundable except in cases of extreme hardship and will be considered on a case-by-case basis by the EEGS Board of Directors. Requests for refunds must be submitted in writing to the EEGS business office. QUESTIONS? CALL 001.1.303.531.7517
Vol 24, 3 2019
Page 145
Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society
2019 Corporate Membership Application
Join Online at www.EEGS.org
EEGS is the premier membership organization for near surface geophysics applied to engineering and environmental problems. Our multi-disciplinary blend of professionals from the private sector, academia, and government offers a unique opportunity to network with researchers, practitioners, and users of near-surface geophysical methods. Annual (calendar year) memberships include access to the Journal of Environmental & Engineering Geophysics (JEEG), proceedings archives of the Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems (SAGEEP), and our electronic newsletter FastTIMES. Members also enjoy complimentary access to SEG’s technical program expanded abstracts, discounted SAGEEP registration fees, books and other educational publications. EEGS offers a variety of membership categories tailored to fit your needs. We’ve added value to all the Corporate Membership categories and added two new Website Advertising opportunities. We’ve packaged the two for an even greater value! Please select (circle) your membership category and rate below:
Category Corporate Student Sponsor
2019 Basic Dues Rate
2019 Basic + Web Ad Package
$310
$840
$675
$1225
$2425
$2975
Includes one (1) individual membership, a company profile and linked logo on the EEGS Corporate Members web page, a company profile in FastTIMES and the SAGEEP program, recognition at SAGEEP and a 10% discount on advertising in JEEG and FastTIMES and Sponsorship of 10 student memberships
Corporate Donor Includes one (1) individual EEGS membership, one (1) full conference registration to SAGEEP, a company profile and linked logo on the EEGS Corporate Members web page, a company profile in FastTIMES and the SAGEEP program, recognition at SAGEEP and a 10% discount on advertising in JEEG and FastTIMES
Corporate Associate Includes two (2) individual EEGS memberships, an exhibit booth and registration at SAGEEP, the ability to insert marketing materials in the SAGEEP delegate packets, a company profile and linked logo on the EEGS Corporate Members web page, a company profile in FastTIMES and the SAGEEP program, recognition at SAGEEP and a 10% discount on advertising in JEEG and FastTIMES
Corporate Benefactor
$4025
$4575
Includes two (2) individual memberships to EEGS, two (2) exhibit booths and registration at SAGEEP, the ability to insert marketing materials in the SAGEEP delegate packets, a company profile and linked logo on the EEGS Corporate Members web page, a company profile in FastTIMES and the SAGEEP program, recognition at SAGEEP and a 10% discount on advertising in JEEG and FastTIMES
NEW!
Purchase Separately
Website Advertising One (1) Pop-Under, scrolling marquee style ad with tagline on Home page, logo linked to Company web site
$600/yr.
One (1) Button sized ad, linked logo, right rail on each web page
$250/yr.
Package Rates include both website ad locations
Vol 24, 3 2019
Page 146 Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society
Join Online at www.EEGS.org
2019 Corporate Membership Application CONTACT INFORMATION
SSalutation
SMiddle Initial
First Name
LCompany/Organization
LStreet Address
LLast Name
LTitle
LCity
LState/Province
LMobile Phone
LDirect Phone
LEmail
LCountry
LZip Code
LFax
LWebsite
ABOUT ME: INTERESTS & EXPERTISE In order to identify your areas of specific interests and expertise, please check all that apply: Role Consultant User of Geophysical Svcs. Student Geophysical Contractor Equipment Manufacturer Software Manufacturer Research/Academia Government Agency Other
Interest or Focus Archaeology Engineering Environmental Geotechnical Geo. Infrastructure Groundwater Hazardous Waste Humanitarian Geo. Mining Shallow Oil & Gas UXO Aerial Geophysics Other
Geophysical Expertise
Willing to Serve on a Professional/ Scientific Societies Committee?
Borehole Geophysical Logging Electrical Methods Electromagnetics Gravity Ground Penetrating Radar Magnetics Marine Geophysics Remote Sensing Seismic Other
AAPG AEG ASCE AWWA AGU EAGE EERI GeoInstitute GSA NGWA NSG SEG SSA SPWLA
1720 South Bellaire Street | Suite 110 | Denver, CO 80222-4303 (p) 001.1.303.531.7517 | (f) 000.1.303.820.3844 | staff@eegs.org | www.eegs.org
Publications Web Site Membership Student
Vol 24, 3 2019
Page 147
Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society
Join Online at www.EEGS.org
2019 Corporate Membership Application FOUNDATION CONTRIBUTIONS FOUNDERS FUND
The Founders Fund has been established to support costs associated with the establishment and maintenance of the EEGS Foundation as we solicit support from larger sponsors. These will support business office expenses, necessary travel, and similar expenses. It is expected that the operating capital for the foundation will eventually be derived from outside sources, but the Founder’s Fund will provide an operation budget to “jump start” the work. Donations of $50.00 or more are greatly appreciated. For additional information about the EEGS Foundation (an IRS status 501(c)(3) tax exempt public charity), visit the website at http://www.EEGSFoundation.org. Foundation Fund Total: $
STUDENT SUPPORT ENDOWMENT
This Endowed Fund will be used to support travel and reduced membership fees so that we can attract greater involvement from our student members. Student members are the lifeblood of our society, and our support can lead to a lifetime of involvement and leadership in the near-surface geophysics community. Donations of $50.00 or more are greatly appreciated. For additional information about the EEGS Foundation (a tax exempt public charity), visit the website at http://www.EEGSFoundation.org. Student Support Endowment Total: $
CORPORATE CONTRIBUTIONS
The EEGS Foundation is designed to solicit support from individuals and corporate entities that are not currently corporate members (as listed above). We recognize that most of our corporate members are small businesses with limited resources, and that their contributions to professional societies are distributed among several organizations. The Corporate Founder’s Fund has been developed to allow our corporate members to support the establishment of the Foundation as we solicit support from new contributors. Corporate Contribution Total: $ Foundation Total: $
PAYMENT INFORMATION
Subtotals
Check/Money Order
VISA
AmEx
Discover
Membership: $
MasterCard
Student Sponsorship: $ Foundation Contributions: $ Grand Total: $
SCard Number
LExp. Date
LName on Card LSignature Make your check or money order in US dollars payable to: EEGS. Checks from Canadian bank accounts must be drawn on banks with US affiliations (example: checks from Canadian Credit Suisse banks are payable through Credit Suisse New York, USA). Checks must be drawn on US banks. Payments are not tax deductible as charitable contributions although they may be deductible as a business expense. Consult your tax advisor. Return this form with payment to: EEGS, 1720 South Bellaire Street, Suite 110, Denver, CO 80222 USA Credit card payments can be faxed to EEGS at 001.1.303.820.3844 Corporate dues payments, once paid, are non-refundable. Individual dues are non-refundable except in cases of extreme hardship and will be considered on a case-by-case basis by the EEGS Board of Directors. Requests for refunds must be submitted in writing to the EEGS business office. QUESTIONS? CALL 001.1.303.531.7517
Vol 24, 3 2019
Page 148 2017 Publications and Merchandise Order Form ALL ORDERS ARE PREPAY
1720 S. Bellaire Street, Suite 110 Denver, CO 80222-4303 Phone: 303.531.7517; Fax: 303.820.3844 E-mail: staff@eegs.org; Web Site: www.eegs.org
Sold To:
Ship To (If different from “Sold To”:
Name: _____________________________________________
Name: _____________________________________________
Company: __________________________________________
Company: __________________________________________
Address: ___________________________________________
Address: ___________________________________________
City/State/Zip: _______________________________________
City/State/Zip: _______________________________________
Country: _______________________ Phone: _____________
Country: _______________________ Phone: _____________
E-mail: _________________________ Fax: _______________
E-mail: _________________________ Fax: _______________
Instructions: Please complete both pages of this order form and fax or mail the form to the EEGS office listed above. Payment must accompany the form or materials will not be shipped. Faxing a copy of a check does not constitute payment and the order will be held until payment is received. Purchase orders will be held until payment is received. If you have questions regarding any of the items, please contact the EEGS Office. Thank you for your order!
SAGEEP PROCEEDINGS
Member/Non-Member
Member/Non-Member
0042
2017 (USB Thumb Drive)
$75
$100
0025
2008 (CD-ROM)
$75
$100
0041
2016 (USB Thumb Drive)
$75
$100
$100 each
2015 (CD-ROM)
$75
$100
0036
2014 (CD-ROM)
$75
$100
CD-ROMs for 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 are available upon request (call or email EEGS to check availability and place order)
$75 each
0040
0013, 0014, 0015, 0016, 0018, and 0020
0034
2013 (CD-ROM)
$75
$100
0012
1988-2000 (CD-ROM
$150
$225
0023
2007 (CD-ROM)
$75
$100
SUBTOTAL - PROCEEDINGS ORDERED
SAGEEP Short Course Handbooks 0039
2013 Agricultural Geophysics: Methods Employed and Recent Applications - Barry Allred, Bruce Smith, et al.
$35
$45
0038
2010 Processing Seismic Refraction Tomography Data (including CD-ROM) - William Doll
$35
$45
0037
2011 Application of Time Domain Electromagnetics to Ground-water Studies – David V. Fitterman
$20
$30
0032
2010 Application of Time Domain Electromagnetics to Ground-water Studies – David V. Fitterman
$20
$30
0027
2010 Principles and Applications of Seismic Refraction Tomography (Printed Course Notes & CD-ROM) - William Doll
$70
$90
0028
2009 Principles and Applications of Seismic Refraction Tomography (CD-ROM w/ PDF format Course Notes) - William Doll
$70
$90
0007
2002 - UXO 101 - An Introduction to Unexploded Ordnance - (Dwain Butler, Roger Young, William Veith)
$15
$25
0009
2001 - Applications of Geophysics in Geotechnical and Environmental Engineering (HANDBOOK ONLY) - John Greenhouse
$25
$35
0004
1998 - Global Positioning System (GPS): Theory and Practice - John D. Bossler & Dorota A. Brzezinska
$10
$15
0003
1998 - Introduction to Environmental & Engineering Geophysics - Roelof Versteeg
$10
$15
0002
1998 - Near Surface Seismology - Don Steeples
$10
$15
0001
1998 - Nondestructive Testing (NDT) - Larry Olson
$10
$15
0005
1997 - An Introduction to Near-Surface and Environmental Geophysical Methods and Applications - Roelof Versteeg
$10
$15
0006
1996 - Introduction to Geophysical Techniques and their Applications for Engineers and Project Managers - Richard Benson & Lynn Yuhr
$10
$15
Books and Miscellaneous Items 0031
New Pricing!! Advances in Near-surface Seismology and Ground Penetrating Radar—R. Miller, J.Bradford, K.Holliger
$79
$99
0022
Application of Geophysical Methods to Engineering and Environmental Problems - Produced by SEGJ
$35
$45
0019
Near Surface Geophysics - 2005 Dwain K. Butler, Ed.; Hardcover—Special student rate - $71.20
$89
$139
0035
Einstein Redux: A Humorous & Refreshing New Chapter in the Einstein Saga—D.Butler
$20
$25
Special Pricing Available for Limited Time—through March 23, 2017—end of SAGEEP 2017!
SUBTOTAL - SHORT COURSE/MISC. ORDERED ITEMS:
Vol 24, 3 2019
Page 149 Publications Order Form (Page Two)
Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics (JEEG) Back Issue Order Information: Member Rate: $15 | Non-Member Rate: $25
Select the quantity for each item you wish to order: Qt.
Year 1995 to 1999
Issue
Qt.
2001
Issue
1995 through 1999
JEEG 11/2 - June
2012
JEEG 17/1 - March
Contact EEGS (call or
JEEG 11/3 - September
JEEG 17/2 - June
email) for availability
JEEG 11/4 - December
JEEG 17/3 - September
JEEG 12/1 - March
JEEG 17/4 - December
2007
2013
JEEG 5/3 - September
JEEG 12/2 - June
JEEG 5/4 - December
JEEG 12/3 - September
JEEG 18/2 - June
JEEG 6/1 - March
JEEG 12/4 - December
JEEG 18/3 - September
JEEG 13/1 - March
JEEG 18/4 - December
2008
2014
JEEG 18/1 - March
JEEG 6/4 - December
JEEG 13/2 - June
JEEG 8/1- March
JEEG 13/3 - September
JEEG 19/2 - June
JEEG 8/2 - June
JEEG 13/4 - December
JEEG 19/3 - September
JEEG 14/1 - March
JEEG 19/4 - December
2009
2015
JEEG 19/1 - March
JEEG 8/4 - December
JEEG 14/2 - June
JEEG 9/1- March
JEEG 14/3 - September
JEEG 20/2 - June
JEEG 9/2 - June
JEEG 14/4 - December
JEEG 20/3 - September
JEEG 15/1 - March
JEEG 20/4 - December
JEEG 9/3 - September
2005
Year
JEEG 16/4 - December
JEEG 8/3 - September
2004
Qt.
2011
JEEG 6/3 - September
2003
2006
Issue JEEG 11/1 - March
To order volumes from
and to order 2000
Year
2010
2016
JEEG 20/1 - March
JEEG 9/4 - December
JEEG 15/2 - June
JEEG 10/1 - March
JEEG 15/3 - September
JEEG 21/2 - June
JEEG 10/2 - June
JEEG 15/4 - December
JEEG 21/3 - September
JEEG 16/1 - March
JEEG 21/4 - December
JEEG 10/3 - September
2011
JEEG 10/4 - December
JEEG 16/2 - June
2017
JEEG 21/1 - March
JEEG 22/1 - March
JEEG 16/3 - September SUBTOTAL - JEEG ISSUES ORDERED
SUBTOTAL - SAGEEP PROCEEDINGS ORDERED SUBTOTAL - SHORT COURSE / BOOKS & MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS ORDERED SUBTOTAL - JEEG ISSUES ORDERED CITY & STATE SALES TAX (If order will be delivered in the Denver, Colorado - add an additional 7.65%) SHIPPING & HANDLING (US—$15; Canada/Mexico—$25; All other countries: $50) GRAND TOTAL: Order Return Policy: Returns for credit must be accompanied by invoice or invoice information (invoice number, date, and purchase price). Materials must be in saleable condition. Out-of-print titles are not accepted 180 days after order. No returns will be accepted for credit that were not purchased directly from EEGS. Return shipment costs will be borne by the shipper. Returned orders carry a 10% restocking fee to cover administrative costs unless waived by EEGS. Payment Information: Check #: _________________________________ (Payable to EEGS) Purchase Order: _________________________________ (Shipment will be made upon receipt of payment.)
Important Payment Information: Checks from Canadian bank accounts must be drawn on banks with US affiliations (example: checks from Canadian Credit Sulsse banks are payable through Credit Sulsse New York, USA). If you are unsure, please contact your bank. As an alternative to paying by check, we recommend sending money orders or paying by credit card.
Visa MasterCard AMEX Discover Card Number: ______________________________ Exp. Date: __
Zip Code:
CVV# _____
Cardholder Name (Print) __________________________________ Signature:______________________________________________
