2016 3rd International Conference on Advances in Computational Tools for Engineering Applications (ACTEA)

Use of MASW and Electrical Resistivity in

Assessing a Small Earth Dam in Remote Area

Maalouf, Y., M.S. and Khoury, N., Ph.D., P.E.

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Notre Dame University-Louaize
Zouk Mosbeh, Lebanon
ymaalouf@ndu.edu.lb

Abstract— Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT),
Multichannel Analysis of Surface Wave (MASW) and Dynamic
Cone Penetration (DCP) test were conducted to assess any
anomalies in an earth dam. ERTs were recorded using AGI
Supersting R1/IP equipment - a total of 28 electrodes, spaced at
one meter, were used in the resistivity setup - and then analyzed
with EarthImager 2D. The MASW testing was performed using
24 geophones at one-meter spacing using Geometrics’ GEODE
G24 seismograph; the recorded data were analyzed using
Geopsy for 1D and SeisImager for 2D profiles of the shear wave
velocity. DCP test was conducted on the crest at various
locations. Findings showed that the embankment of the dam
consisted of three layers up to 5.8 meters of depth investigation.
ERT also showed the existence of an area with low resistivity,
indicating the potential for internal seepage. The shear wave
velocity and DCP confirmed the existence of three layers, which
was consistent with the resistivity results.
2015). MASW has also been used to assess earth dams (Sirles
et al., 1990, Ivanov et al., 2009 and Cardarelli et al., 2014).
Recent studies by El Hajj, T. et al. (2015) and Saad L., et
al., (2015) have assessed the health of earth dams in Lebanon
using visual and electrical resistivity. Additional studies are
needed, however, to provide Lebanon’s communities with a
better understanding of earth dam monitoring and inspection,
hence the use of MASW, ER and DCP.
II. METHODOLOGY
The earth dam used in this study is located in Laqlouq, a
mountainous village having an altitude ranging from 1800 to
2000m, located in Jbeil District, Lebanon. Approximately 200
earth dams have been identified in a remote area in Laqlouq
as depicted in Figure 1.

Keywords—Electrical Resistivity; MASW; Geophysical; Earth

Dams; Seepage; Shear Wave Velocity.

I. INTRODUCTION
Earth dams have been used extensively throughout the
years to store water for various purposes. Designs should
consider three criteria: leakage, partial settlement and strength
(Poomvises et al., 2010, Hickey and Sabatier, 2011). In
Lebanon, the first earth dam was built in the early 1930’s
under the French mandate authority. It was the beginning of
an irrigation plan to help farmers in their agricultural projects
(Amery, 2002). Unfortunately, farmers have been counting on
community services and trial and error techniques to build
their earth dams. This practice recently resulted in internal
erosion and the ultimate failure of an earth dam in Aqoura, a
village in the Jbeil district, Lebanon, flooding the surrounding
region and destructing large cultivated areas (MTV, 2015).
The investigation of old earth dams for strength and soil
properties is sometimes hard to manage using regular
geotechnical techniques (e.g., standard penetration test,
boreholes) (Poomvises et al., 2010). Electrical resistivity
tomography (ERT) and Multi-Channel Analysis of Surface
Wave (MASW) have become well accepted techniques to
detect any anomalies (e.g., soil strata) within the structure of
an earth dam (Chiemeke, 2014). Electrical resistivity is a well-
known technique for identifying seepage (Sintuboon et al.,
2015, Kim et al., 2011, Ikard et al., 2014 and Ikard et al.,
Figure 1 Photographic of Laqlouq Earth dams
The field testing included electrical resistivity and seismic
tests as shown in Figure 2. One survey line was performed on
the crest of the earth dam using AGI Supersting R1/IP. A total
of 28 electrodes were laid on the crest of the earth dam with 1
m electrode spacing. The configuration of sources and
receivers was initialized by the use of the dipole-dipole array.
Data acquired from the field were analyzed using EarthImager
2D. Seismic investigation was carried out using the MASW
technique which consists of laying 24 vertical geophones (4.5
Hz) at a spacing of 1m. The geophones were connected to a
seismograph then to a laptop. A Geometrics Seismodule
Controller was used for data acquisition. The sample interval
adopted was 0.125 ms. Shots were performed using a
sledgehammer of 5Kg at the spacing indicated in Figure 3.
The blue dots represent the location of the shot; yellow dots
represent the geophones. Each shot was repeated 5 times for
better analysis of data. In addition to the geophysical
techniques, DCP testing was conducted in accordance with the
ASTM D 6951 at 21 m from the survey line.

978-1-4673-8523-7/16/$31.00 ©2016 IEEE 78

 2016 3rd International Conference on Advances in Computational Tools for Engineering Applications (ACTEA)

Figure 2 Field electrical resistivity and MASW tests setup Figure 5 Misfit Crossplot

ER (Ohm.m)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0

Depth (m)
Location 1
3 Locaiton 2
Location 3
4

Figure 3 MASW Geometry Profile 6

Figure 6 Variation of ER values with depth at three locations

III. PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
A. Electrical Resistivity Technique Previous ERTs were performed on the same location at
different dates. The ERT shown in Figure 7 represents data
A smooth model inversion, the most stable and gathered a year ago when the earth dam is at its minimum
recommended inversion method, was used for analysis of data capacity. The anomaly showing a possible area of seepage is
inversion in the ERT. It represents the data in a smooth way also present in Figure 7.
and fits them to a prior Chi-squared statistic. This type of
inversion is based on the assumption of the Gaussian
distribution of data errors.
The 2D inverted model obtained at the crest of the dam is
shown in Figure 4. RMS value of 2.34% for the investigated
profile indicated that the data fit with the computed response.
Figure 5 shows a crossplot for the predicted apparent
resistivity versus the measured apparent resistivity. The Figure 7 ERT at the Crest Conducted Previously
resistivity values ranged between approximately 10 ohm.m
and 89 ohm.m, indicating clay-type soil. Figure 6 indicates the B. MASW Technique
variation of the Electrical Resistivity (ER) values at three
Figure 8 summarizes the seismogram obtained when the
different locations. It is obvious that the crest contains three
shot was performed at 1 m from the first geophone. It shows
distinct soil layers: 1) top layer, up to a depth of 1.5m, of dryer
a clear delay in the time of arrival followed by a ground roll.
soil with an ER up to 89 ohm.m; 2) wetter area, up to a depth
For each location, data of the 5 shots were staked to increase
of approximately 3m, with resistivity values ranging from 30
the accuracy of the recorded signal. Figure 9 indicates
ohm.m to 50 ohm.m; 3) Lower values of ER (below 30
multiple 1D shear wave velocity profiles corresponding to
ohm.m) beyond a depth of 3m represent saturated areas. The
ranges of misfit values. The red profile, which possesses the
presence of an anomaly at a depth of 4.5m is clear due to the
least misfit value of 1%, was chosen for the analysis. It clearly
low resistivity values of this area (10 ohm.m) which could be
shows a two layer strata with the first layer having a shear
the location of possible seepage.
velocity of approximately 70 m/s reaching a depth of 2.2 m.
The second layer has a higher shear velocity of 250 m/s. These
Possible Seepage values are common for a soft clay-type soil in earth dams for
a similar depth (Karl et al., 2011).

Figure 4 ERT Results of the Crest Setup

79
 2016 3rd International Conference on Advances in Computational Tools for Engineering Applications (ACTEA)
Figure 8 Seismogram of a Shot
Figure 9 1D Shear Wave Velocity Profile
The data gathered from the shots at different locations
were analyzed using SeisImager software modules (i.e.,
Pickwin, Wave Eq, Surface Wave Analysis and GeoPlot). The
dispersion curves obtained were combined and inverted to
obtain the 2D shear wave velocity shown in Figure 10. Results
reveal increased shear wave velocities with depth (Goff et al.,
2015). The shear wave velocity obtained from 2D varied from
40m/s to 250m/s compared to 70 m/s to 250m/s in the 1D
analysis. Figure 11 summarizes the variation of shear wave
velocity with depth at three locations. The layers can be
identified by the high change of velocities. The first layer is
represented by values ranging between 40 m/s and 80 m/s up
to a depth of 1.7 m. The shear wave velocity of the second
layer ranged between 80 m/s and 190 m/s up to a depth of 3.5
m. The third layer had a shear wave velocity higher than 180
m/s. The values correspond to a soft clayey type material
which is consistent with laboratory testing for soil
classification (CL).
80
Figure 10 2D Shear Wave Velocity Profile
Shear Wave Velocity (m/s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
0
Location 1
1
Location 2
2 Location 3
Depth (m)
3
Figure 11 Variation of Shear Wave Velocity with depth at three locations
C. Comparisons among Geophysical and Geotechnical
Techniques
Data are summarized in Figure 12. Average DCP data in
mm/blow reveal the presence of three layers. The first layer of
2.5mm/blow reaching a depth of 1.5m, a second layer of
approximately 2mm/blow up to 2.5m and a third layer of 1.5
mm/blow up to a depth of 3.5m.
Corresponding ER values at the same location are shown
in Figure 13. Changes in the ER values also reveal the
existence of three layers at approximately the same depth
mentioned previously. Figure 14 shows the changes of shear
wave velocities with depth at the location of the DCP testing
(Bauer, 2007 and Iodice et al., 2015). The same soil strata
identified in the MASW testing is shown in the DCP data. The
increase in the shear wave velocity is evident with the increase
in the density of soil which is shown by the decrease in the
DCP data (from 2.5 mm/blow to 1.5 mm/blow).
 2016 3rd International Conference on Advances in Computational Tools for Engineering Applications (ACTEA)

DCP (cm/Blow) IV. CONCLUSIONS

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0
This study was undertaken to identify areas with anomalies
and the strata of an earth dam using geophysical and
geotechnical techniques. Results of electrical resistivity
50

100
revealed the presence of an area with high water content which
DCP Values
could be a possible seepage zone. The results of the MASW
150 Average DCP Values testing identified the soil strata of the earth dam which consists
of soft clayey soil with different densities as indicated by the
Depth (cm)

200
DCP testing. The use of MASW did not reveal any anomaly
that can be correlated to the presence of seepage within the
structure of the embankment. The authors recommend further
250

300
testing that would identify weaknesses in the earth dam. The
recommended tests include: (1) additional ERTs and MASW
350 survey lines (2) conducting geotechnical testing such as split
spoon test and borehole shear test and (3) develop
400
mathematical approaches to correlate ER, shear wave
Figure 12 DCP Results velocities, N-values and shear strength parameters of soil.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This paper is made possible by the generous support of the
ER (Ohm.m) American people through the United States Agency for
0 20 40 60 International Development (USAID). The contents are the
0 responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the
views of USAID or the United States Government. The
1 authors are thankful for this generous support and would like
to acknowledge the students, namely Louis Junior Saad, Roy
Hajje, and Mr. Elie Lahoud the lab technician at Notre Dame
2 University-Louaize who assisted in this project.
Depth (m)

3
REFERENCES
4 [1] Amery, H. A. (2002). Irrigation planning in Lebanon: Challenges and
opportunities. Modern and traditional irrigation technologies in the
Eastern Mediterranean, 111.
5
[2] Cardarelli, E., Cercato, M., & De Donno, G. (2014). Characterization
of an earth-filled dam through the combined use of electrical resistivity
6 tomography, P-and SH-wave seismic tomography and surface wave
data. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 106, 87-95.
Figure 13 ER Values at 21 m
[3] Chiemeke, C. C. (2014). Investigation of Dam Safety Making Use of
Multichannel Analysis of Surface Wave (MASW) Seismic Method.
International Journal of Environmental, Ecological, Geological and
Mining Engineering. World Academy of Science, Engineering and
Technology. http://www. waset. org/Publications Vol: 8 No, 1, 1625-
Shear Wave Velocity (m/s) 1628.
0 100 200 300 [4] Goff, D. S., Lorenzo, J. M., & Hayashi, K. (2015, March). Resistivity
0 and shear wave velocity as a predictive tool of sediment type in coastal
Levee foundation soils. In SAGEEP 2015-28th Annual Symposium on
the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental
1 Problems.
[5] Hickey, C., and Sabatier, J. (2011). Overview of the Workshop on
2 Monitoring and Failure Detection in Earthen Embankments, 24th EEGS
Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and
Depth (m)

Environmental Problems.
3 [6] Ikard, S. J., Revil, A., Schmutz, M., Karaoulis, M., Jardani, A., &
Mooney, M. (2014). Characterization of Focused Seepage Through an
Earthfill Dam Using Geoelectrical Methods. Groundwater, 52(6), 952-
4
965.
[7] Ikard, S. J., Rittgers, J., Revil, A., & Mooney, M. A. (2015).
5 Geophysical investigation of seepage beneath an earthen dam.
Groundwater, 53(2), 238-250.
[8] Iodice, M., Curioni, G., CHAPMAN, D., Muggleton, J., Royal, A., &
6
Rustighi, E. (2015). Joint use of seismic and electromagnetic methods
Figure 14 Shear Wave Velocity at 21 m in geophysical surveys.
[9] Ivanov, J., Johnson, C. D., Lane, J. W., Miller, R. D., & Clemens, D.
(2009, January). Near-surface evaluation of Ball Mountain Dam,

81
 2016 3rd International Conference on Advances in Computational Tools for Engineering Applications (ACTEA)
Vermont, using multi-channel analysis of surface waves (MASW) and
refraction tomography seismic methods on land-streamer data. In 2009
SEG Annual Meeting. Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
[10] Karl, L., Fechner, T., Schevenels, M., François, S., & Degrande, G.
(2011). Geotechnical characterization of a river dyke by surface waves
surface waves. Near Surface Geophysics, 9(6), 515-527.
[11] Kim, K. Y., Jeon, K. M., Hong, M. H., & Park, Y. G. (2011). Detection
of anomalous features in an earthen dam using inversion of P-wave
first-arrival times and surface-wave dispersion curves. Exploration
Geophysics, 42(1), 42-49.
[12] MTV, 2015, Newsfeeds, [online]. Available from
http://mtv.com.lb/News/480452.
82
[13] Poomvises, N., Kongsuk, A., Liberty, L., Mikesell, D., & Satitpittakul,
A.(2010) “Multichannel Analysis of Surface Wave–An Application to
Diagnose Dam Bodies”, proceedings of the 5th international conference
on applied geophysics, Phuket Thailand, 2010.
[14] Sintuboon, N., Kongsuk, A., & Poomvises, N. An integrated
geophysical investigation of earth dam embankment, Proceeding of the
5th GEOINDO 2015, Phuket-Thailand, 2015
[15] Sirles, P. C., & Viksne, A. (1990). Site-specific shear wave velocity
determinations for geotechnical engineering applications.
Geotechnical and enviromental geophysics, 3, 121-131.
[16] Su, W. J., Counts, R. C., & Karaffa, M. D. (2007). Shear wave velocity,
geology and geotechnical data of earth materials in the Central US
urban hazard mapping areas. Illinois State Geological Survey.