Combined geophysical methods for detecting soil thickness distribution on a weathered granitic hillslope

The usefulness of electrical resistivity imaging (ERI) as a highly accurate method for determining the soil thickness distribution on hillslopes was validated by combining intensive measurements using invasive methods, i.e., cone penetration testing and boreholes, with ERI in three granitic watersheds. Areas of high electrical resistivity (ρ) contrast reflecting soil–bedrock interfaces were found in all three study watersheds. However, ρ values of soil and weathered granite just below the soil mantle varied over a relatively wide range at each site, as well as considerably from site to site. The patterns of low–high contrast in ρ profiles, reflecting the soil–bedrock interface, also differed from site to site despite similarly dry conditions. Differences in the water retention characteristics of soil and weathered granitic bedrock, as found by a previous study of bedrock hydrological properties, may have been a major factor in the observed subsurface ρ variations. The ERI method, with electrode spacing of 0.5 to 2.0 m, was successful in determining soil thickness distributions ranging from about 0.5 to 3 m depth based on its ability to detect high contrast in ρ in the subsurface zone. Closer electrode spacings are expected to more sensitively reveal the distribution of ground material properties and thus more accurately replicate the soil–bedrock interface. ERI failed to clearly identify the soil–bedrock interface at some points along our measurement lines because of local intermediate materials with different properties such as unconsolidated soil and clayey intermediation just below the soil–bedrock interface. Two types of seismic survey (SS) techniques were also used, combining seismic refraction (SR) and the surface wave method (SWM) with the ERI method in a granitic watershed to compare ERI with other geophysical methods. The profile of S-wave velocity (Vs) by SWM also reasonably duplicated the soil–bedrock interface; the Vs profile showed larger variation in lateral direction and corresponded to the soil thickness distribution better than the P-wave velocity (Vp) profile by SR. The combined use of ERI and SWM may be more effective in detecting the soil–bedrock interface because each method compensates for the deficiencies of the other method.