Acta Geodaetica et Geophysica Hungarica

, Volume 47, Issue 2, pp 161–171 | Cite as

Dry density derived by factor analysis of engineering geophysical sounding measurements

  • N. P. Szabó


Statistical processing of engineering geophysical sounding data is applied to the determination of dry density as an important geotechnical parameter of shallow formations. Dry density has been measured in laboratory or in the field as point information. In order to get more extensive results, dry density is extracted from high-resolution penetration logs. Dry density is related to measured bulk density as well as porosity and shale volume computed directly from engineering geophysical sounding data. The most critical parameter for the calculation is water saturation, which is estimated by factor analysis of all penetration logs. This approach is based on a strong linear correlation between water saturation and one of the extracted variables (factors). The interpretation method is tested in twelve penetration holes drilled in a Hungarian location. A 2D multi-well application is presented, in which the spatial distribution of dry density between the drill-holes is given. A local relationship between bulk density and dry density is also estimated. The study demonstrates that dry density can be estimated as continuous and in-situ information to support geotechnical operations in soil environments.


dry density engineering geophysical sounding local inverse modeling maximum likelihood multi-well factor analysis penetration log 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bartlett M S 1937: Brit. J. Psychol., 28, 97–104.Google Scholar
  2. Buoro A B, Silva J B C 1994: Geophysics, 59, 336–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cardarelli E, Cercato M, Filippo G D 2007: Near Surf. Geophys., 5, 141–147.Google Scholar
  4. de Nardis R, Cardarelli E, Dobroka M 2005: Geoph. Prosp., 53, 705–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Denis A, Marache A, Obellianne T, Breysse D 2002: J. Appl. Geophys., 50, 319–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dobecki T L, Romig P R 1985: Geophysics, 50, 2621–2636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Drahos D 2005: Acta Geod. Geoph. Hung., 40, 193–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fejes I, Jósa E 1990: Geotechnical and Environmental Geophysics. Volume II: Environmental and Groundwater, S H Ward ed., SEG, 321–331.Google Scholar
  9. Grana G, Dvorkin J, Cibin P 2011: First Break, 29, 63–72.Google Scholar
  10. Gyulai Á, Ormos T, Dobróka M 2010: J. Appl. Geophys., 72, 232–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Herron M M 1986: Clays Clay Min., 34, 204–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Isaaks E H, Srivastava R M 1989: An introduction to applied geostatistics. Oxford University Press Inc.Google Scholar
  13. Jöreskog K G 2007: Factor analysis at 100, Historical developments and future directions. R Cudeck, R C MacCallum eds, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 47–77.Google Scholar
  14. Kaiser H F 1958: Psychometrika, 23, 187–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kazmierczuk M, Jarzyna J 2006: Acta Geophys., 54, 378–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kemna A, Binley A, Slater L 2004: Geophysics, 69, 97–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kwon H-S, Song Y, Yi M-J, Chung H-J, Kim K-S 2006: J. Environ. Eng. Geophys., 11, 237–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lanz E, Maurer H, Green A G 1998: Geophysics, 63, 1414–1433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Larionov V V 1969: Radiometry of boreholes (in Russian). NEDRA, MoscowGoogle Scholar
  20. Lawley D N, Maxwell A E 1962: The Statistician, 12, 209–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lunne T, Robertson P K, Powell J J M 1997: Cone penetration testing in geotechnical practice. Blackie Academic and Professional, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Martí D, Carbonell R, Flecha I, Palomeras I, Font-Capó J, Vázquez-Suñé E, Pérez-Estaún A 2008: Geophysics, 73, B41–B50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Moret G J M, Knoll M D, Barrash W, Clement W P 2006: Geophysics, 71, B63–B73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Paillet F, Hite L, Carlson M 1999: J. Environ. Eng. Geophys., 4, 45–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rao B N, Pal P C 1980: Geoph. Prosp., 28, 112–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Scott C R 1980: Soil mechanics and foundations. Third edition, Applied Science Publishers, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. Serra O 1984: Fundamentals of Well-Log Interpretation: The Acquisition of Logging Data. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  28. Sharma V 1997: Environmental and engineering geophysics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Szabó N P 2011: Acta Geophys., 59, 935–953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Szabó N P, Dobróka M, Drahos D 2012: Geophysics, 77, No. 3, DOI: 10.1190/GEO2011-0265.Google Scholar
  31. Urbancic T I, Bailey R C 1988: Geoph. Prosp., 36, 752–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Witten A, Won I J, Norton S 1997: J. Environ. Eng. Geophys., 2, 105–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of GeophysicsUniversity of MiskolcMiskolc-EgyetemvárosHungary

Personalised recommendations