Quick Search:    advanced search

GSW Home   GeoRef Home   My GSW Alerts   Contact GSW   About GSW   Journals List   Help

Environmental and Engineering Geoscience

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Anderson, N. Articles by Hoffman, D. Search for Related Content GeoRef GeoRef Citation

A Comparison of Four Geophysical Methods for Determining the Shear Wave Velocity of Soils

¹ Department of Geological Sciences and Engineering, University of Missouri–Rolla, Rolla, MO 65401
² Illinois State Geological Survey, 615 E. Peabody Drive, Champaign, IL 61820
³ Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering, University of Missouri–Rolla, MO 65401

The Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) routinely acquires seismic cone penetrometer (SCPT) shear wave velocity control as part of the routine investigation of soils within the Mississippi Embayment. In an effort to ensure their geotechnical investigations are as effective and efficient as possible, the SCPT tool and several available alternatives (crosshole [CH]; multichannel analysis of surface waves [MASW]; and refraction microtremor [ReMi]) were evaluated and compared on the basis of field data acquired at two test sites in southeast Missouri. These four methods were ranked in terms of accuracy, functionality, cost, other considerations, and overall utility. It is concluded that MASW data are generally more reliable than SCPT data, comparable to quality ReMi data, and only slightly less accurate than CH data. However, the other advantages of MASW generally make it a superior choice over the CH, SCPT, and ReMi methods for general soil classification purposes to depths of 30 m. MASW data are less expensive than CH data and SCPT data and can normally be acquired in areas inaccessible to drill and SCPT rigs. In contrast to the MASW tool, quality ReMi data can be acquired only in areas where there are interpretable levels of "passive" acoustic energy and only when the geophone array is aligned with the source(s) of such energy.

Key Words: Crosshole, Seismic cone penetrometer test, Multichannel analysis of surface waves, Refraction microtremor