Abstract
This report details four geophysical testing projects that were conducted in Kentucky for the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet. The four projects were as follows: KY 101, Edmonson and Warren Counties, US 31-W, Elizabethtown Bypass, Hardin County, KY 61, LaRue County, and US 27, Pulaski County.
Two contractors conducted the investigations for this study and they were as follows: KY 101 – (PELA) Electrical Resistivity and Microgravity, US 31-W – (CCKS) Microgravity, KY 61 – (CCKS) Electrical Resistivity and Microgravity, and US 27 – (CCKS) Electrical Resistivity and Microgravity.
These two methods preformed well and this report recommends that these geophysical methods be used in Kentucky on a regular basis. One contractor (PELA) dconducted the investigations for this study: P.E. LaMoreaux and Associates (PELA), and The Center for Cave and Karst Studies, Western Kentucky University (CCKS).
The geophysical meid not perform well. Although his report was well written and his analysis clearly illustrated, he was over a year behind schedule in finishing his report and he was over budget by $15,000. This report recommends that this contractor not be permitted to do further geophysical work in Kentucky.
The second contractor (CCKS) performed very well. His report was also well written and his analysis was clear. He finished each of his projects on time and within budget. This report recommends that this contractor be permitted to do more geophysical work in Kentucky.
Report Date
3-2007
Report Number
KTC-07-10/SPR244-02-1F
Digital Object Identifier
http://dx.doi.org/10.13023/KTC.RR.2007.10
Repository Citation
Allen, David L., "Evaluation of Geophysical Methods and Geophysical Contractors on Four Projects in Kentucky" (2007). Kentucky Transportation Center Research Report. 143.
https://uknowledge.uky.edu/ktc_researchreports/143
Notes
The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the University of Kentucky, the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, nor the Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. The inclusion of manufacturer names or trade names is for identification purposes only and are not to be considered as endorsements.