Integrated Seismic Refraction and Electrical Resistivity Survey for Geotechnical Zonation of a Large Industrial Site in Western Algeria
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22399/ijcesen.5273Keywords:
seismic refraction, vertical electrical sounding, dynamic elastic parameters, geotechnical zonati, western AlgeriaAbstract
Integrated geophysical surveys were conducted over a 300-hectare industrial development site in western Algeria to characterize subsurface conditions in heterogeneous Miocene formations. Eleven vertical electrical soundings (Wenner configuration; maximum electrode spacing AB = 300 m) and three representative seismic refraction profiles were acquired, providing complementary velocity and resistivity constraints down to 50 m depth.A consistent three-layer subsurface model was identified across the site: a surface silty sand horizon (Vp = 300–2000 m/s; ρ = 80–2000 Ω·m; 3–4 m thick), an intermediate sandstone and calcareous tuff layer (Vp = 1000–2000 m/s; ρ = 100–900 Ω·m; 8–25 m thick), and a consolidated Miocene sandstone substratum (Vp = 1100–4560 m/s; ρ = 15–130 Ω·m). The substratum top varies from +31.8 m to +59.5 m elevation.Dynamic elastic parameters derived from empirical Vp–Vs relationships indicate significant lateral variability in mechanical competence (Young's modulus E = 0.5–22 GPa; Poisson's ratio ν = 0.27–0.48). A statistically significant resistivity–velocity correlation (R² = 0.76) confirms dataset consistency. Four engineering zones (A–D) are delineated, ranging from very competent sandstone suitable for heavy direct foundations (Zone A) to water-saturated altered materials requiring drainage and ground improvement (Zone D). These results provide a quantitative geotechnical framework for rational foundation design across the site.
References
[1] Archie, G. E. (1942). The electrical resistivity log as an aid in determining some reservoir characteristics. Transactions of the AIME, 146(1), 54–62. DOI:10.2118/942054-G
[2] Biot, M. A. (1956). Theory of propagation of elastic waves in a fluid-saturated porous solid. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 28(2), 168–178. DOI:10.1121/1.1908239
[3] Boubaya, D. (2017). Combining Resistivity and Aeromagnetic Geophysical Surveys for Groundwater Exploration in the Maghnia Plain of Algeria. Journal of Geological Research, 2017, Article ID 1309053. DOI: 10.1155/2017/1309053
[4] Khadrouf, I., El Hammoumi, O., El Goumi, N., et al. (2024). Enhancing geotechnical zoning through near-surface geophysical surveys: a case study from eastern Agadir, Morocco. Mediterranean Geoscience Reviews, 6, 279–300. DOI: 10.1007/s42990-024-00137-3
[5] Brocher, T. M. (2005). Empirical relations between elastic wavespeeds and density in the Earth’s crust. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 95(6), 2081–2092. DOI:10.1785/0120050077
[6] Castagna, J. P., Batzle, M. L., & Eastwood, R. L. (1985). Relationships between compressional-wave and shear-wave velocities in clastic silicate rocks. Geophysics, 50(4), 571–581. DOI:10.1190/1.1441933
[7] Loke, M. H., Chambers, J. E., Rucker, D. F., Kuras, O., & Wilkinson, P. B. (2013). Recent developments in the direct-current geoelectrical imaging method. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 95, 135–156. DOI: 10.1016/j.jappgeo.2013.02.017
[8] Fehdi, C., Baali, F., Boubaya, D., & Rouabhia, A. (2011). Detection of sinkholes using 2D electrical resistivity imaging in the Cheria Basin (north-east of Algeria). Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 4(1–2), 181–187. DOI: 10.1007/s12517-009-0117-2
[9] Gabtni, H., Jallouli, C., Mickus, K. L., Zouari, H., & Turki, M. M. (2013). Geodynamics of the Southern Tethyan Margin in Tunisia and Maghrebian domain: new constraints from integrated geophysical study. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 6, 271–286. DOI: 10.1007/s12517-011-0362-
[10] Gardner, G. H. F., Gardner, L. W., & Gregory, A. R. (1974). Formation velocity and density — the diagnostic basics for stratigraphic traps. Geophysics, 39(6), 770–780. DOI:10.1190/1.1440465
[11] Hadji, R., Boumazbeur, A., Limani, Y., Baghem, M., Chouabi, A., & Demdoum, A. (2013). Geologic, topographic and climatic controls in landslide hazard assessment using GIS modelling: a case study of Souk Ahras region, NE Algeria. Quaternary International, 302, 224–237. DOI: 10.1016/j.quaint.2012.11.027
[12] Khalil, M. H., & Hanafy, S. M. (2016). Geotechnical Parameters from Seismic Measurements: Two Field Examples from Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, 21(1), 13–28. DOI: 10.2113/JEEG21.1.13
[13] Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. (2020). Array programming with NumPy. Nature, 585, 357–362. DOI:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2
[14] Hunter, J. D. (2007). Matplotlib: A 2D graphics environment. Computing in Science & Engineering, 9(3), 90–95. DOI:10.1109/MCSE.2007.55
[15] Loke, M. H. (2014). Tutorial: 2D and 3D electrical imaging surveys. Geotomo Software Malaysia. https://www.geotomosoft.com
[16] Reynolds, J. M. (2011). An introduction to applied and environmental geophysics (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.
[17] Zohdy, A. A. R. (1989). A new method for the automatic interpretation of Schlumberger and Wenner sounding curves. Geophysics, 54(2), 245–253. DOI:10.1190/1.1442648
[18] Mavko, G., Mukerji, T., & Dvorkin, J. (2009). The rock physics handbook: Tools for seismic analysis of porous media (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
[19] Telford, W. M., Geldart, L. P., & Sheriff, R. E. (1990). Applied geophysics (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
[20] Rücker, C., Günther, T., & Wagner, F. M. (2017). pyGIMLi: An open-source library for modelling and inversion in geophysics. Computers and Geosciences, 109, 106–123. DOI:10.1016/j.cageo.2017.07.011
[21] Palmer, D. (1980). The generalized reciprocal method of seismic refraction interpretation. Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
[22] Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., Haberland, M., Reddy, T., Cournapeau, D., Burovski, E., Peterson, P., Weckesser, W., Bright, J., van der Walt, S. J., Brett, M., Wilson, J., Millman, K. J., Mayorov, N., Nelson, A. R. J., Jones, E., Kern, R., Larson, E., & SciPy 1.0 Contributors. (2020). SciPy 1.0: Fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in Python. Nature Methods, 17(3), 261–272. DOI:10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 Python. Nature Methods, 17(3), 261–272. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 International Journal of Computational and Experimental Science and Engineering
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
