5.0 Conclusion: 5.

1 Field survey techniques

5.1.1 Seismic reflection

Advantages: Reflection seismic observations are collected at small source-receiver offsets. Reflection seismic methods can work no matter how the speed at which motions propagate through the Earth varies with depth. Reflection seismic observations can be more readily interpreted in terms of complex geology. Reflection seismic observations use the entire reflected wavefield (that is, the time-history of ground motion at different distances between the source and the receiver). The subsurface can be directly imaged from the acquired observations.

Disadvantages: Because many source and receiver locations must be used to produce meaningful images of the Earth's subsurface, reflection seismic observations can be expensive to acquire. Reflection seismic processing can be very computer intensive, requiring sophisticated computer hardware and a relatively high-level of expertise. Thus, the processing of reflection seismic observations is relatively expensive. Because of the overwhelming amount of data collected, the possible complications imposed by the propagation of ground motion through a complex earth, and the complications imposed by some of the necessary simplifications required by the data processing schemes, interpretations of the reflection seismic observations require more sophistication and knowledge of the process.

5.1.2 Ground penetrating radar

Advantages:

The use of GPR as a geophysical method of site investigation has several beneficial advantages. GPR measurements are relatively easy to make and are not intrusive. Antennas may be pulled by hand or with a vehicle from 0.8 to 8 kph, or more, which can produce considerable data/unit time. GPR data can often be interpreted right in the field without data processing.

Graphic displays of GPR data often resemble geologic cross sections. When GPR data are collected on closely spaced (less than 1 meter) lines, these data can be used to generate dimensional views of radar data greatly improving the ability to interpret subsurface conditions (US ACE, 1995).

Disadvantages: GPRs major limitation is its site specific performance. Often, the depth of penetration is limited by the presence of mineralogic clays or high conductivity pore fluid. It is also important to note that the GPR method is sensitive to unwanted signals (noise) caused by various geologic and cultural factors. Geologic (natural) sources of noise can be caused by boulders, animal burrows, tree roots, and other inhomogeneties can cause unwanted reflections or scattering. Cultural sources of noise can include reflections from nearby vehicles, buildings, fences, power lines, and trees. Shielded antennas can be used to limit these types of reflections. Electromagnetic transmissions from cellular telephones, two-way radios, television, and radio and microwave transmitters may cause noise on GPR records. Also, the data collected through GPR methods are highly subject to the interpretation of the data, especially if interferences are not identified correctly (Beres & Haeni, 1991). As far as costs are concerned, the costs of GPR systems vary widely depending on the complexity of the systems. Most systems fall in the $15,000 to $50,000 range. GPR systems can be rented for about $1,000 per week and a $300 mobilization charge. Contractors can conduct GPR surveys with costs ranging from $1,000 to $2,000 per day depending on the amount of interpretation needed and if a report is required (Geomodel Inc., 2003)

5.1.3 Self potential & electrical resistivity method

Advantages: Less costly than drilling. Non disturbing.

Disadvantages Cultural problems cause interference, e.g., power lines, pipelines, buried casings, fences .

5.1.4 Borehole

Advantages: In situations where it is difficult to obtain undisturbed samples, borehole geophysics may be a way to reliably estimate in situ engineering parameters, including in-situ permeability. Some borehole methods may be used to directly determine engineering parameters, while others maybe most useful in conjunction with field or laboratory test results. As ground conditions are not normally this simple, a model derived from geophysical data can only be realistic if sufficient borehole data is available for calibration.

Disadvantages It is an intrusive method, too much ground disturbance is not ideal as it can affect the construction. More expensive and not economical compare to non-intrusive and noninvasive method.

5.2 Recommendations:

Seismic methods are often the most suitable because the measurements depend on the mechanical properties that are also important in the mechanical calculation of slope stability analyses. Other geophysical methods, such as electric resistivity, selfpotential methods may be useful to determine the internal structure, but require a correlation of found boundaries with mechanical properties. Other than that, electromagnetic and gravity methods are also frequent in slope stability investigations.

Electromagnetic methods have been used in slope stability investigations for a long time (Bogoslovsky and Ogilvy, 1977; Bruno et al., 1998; Stotzner, 1974). Penetration of an electromagnetic field in the sub-surface depends on the electric conductivity and dielectric constant of the materials in the sub-surface and on the frequency of the transmission field. Electromagenetic methods do not result directly in a postion of the measured features in space. A conversion of the electromagnetic measurements to distance has to be made. This is straightforward if electromagnetic properties of the materials are known in detail. However, mostly these are unknown and electromagnetic properties have to be determined from samples or the measured profile has to be correlated with borehole information.

Gravimetry surveys investigate the difference in densities between different subsurface materials. In geotechnical work, the name micro-gravity is used to indicate the differences measure are very small. The gravity measurements are influenced by a whole series of factors, such as tidal effect, elevation, topographic relief and instrumental drift, that need to be compensated for the proper corrections. In microgravity surveys for geotechnical work, most of the influences may be less critical as only relative measurements are made on short distance. Interpretation is carried out by comparing the observed anomaly with a numerical model of the bodies that cause them. Micro-gravity surveys have been used with success to establish karst holes and differences in groundwater levels. The applications to slope stability studies are rare and require an accurate topographic map to correct the effect of irregular topographic relief on the gravity measurements. Potentially, gravimetry can give insitu estimate of the density of slope material using methods that correlate elevation with gravity differences (Nettleton, 1939; Parasnis, 1962)

Apparently, none of the geophysical methods is better than another method. The success with which a method is applied fully depends on the circumstances at the site and on the sub-surface materials. Unsuccessful surveys are nearly always due to a lack of proper preparation. Often a survey is done only based on a vague article describing a similar type of survey, or on just the recommendation of an assumed expert. To avoid disappointing results it is therefore important to establish on forehand whether it is likely that the required structures or properties can be measured with success in a particular situation. This should not be done only qualitative by estimation based on experience, but calculations should be done that simulate reality at the actual site as best as possible. Many surveys are unsuccessful because this has not been done properly.