Journal of

Marine Science
and Engineering

Review
Review and Future Perspective of Geophysical Methods
Applied in Nearshore Site Characterization
Chia-Cheng Tsai 1,2 and Chun-Hung Lin 3, *

1 Bachelor Degree Program in Ocean Engineering and Technology, National Taiwan Ocean University,
Keelung 202301, Taiwan; cctsai@mail.ntou.edu.tw
2 Center of Excellence for Ocean Engineering, National Taiwan Ocean University, Keelung 202301, Taiwan
3 Department of Marine Environment and Engineering, National Sun Yat-sen University,
Kaohsiung 804201, Taiwan
* Correspondence: chlin.geo@mail.nsysu.edu.tw

Abstract: Seabed surveying is the basis of engineering development in shallow waters. At present,
geophysical survey methods mainly utilize sonars for qualitative surveying, which requires the
calibration of the results found through in situ drilling and sampling. Among them, the parameters
required for engineering designs are obtained from either in situ tests or laboratory experiments of soil
samples retrieved from drilling. However, the experience from onshore applications shows that the
physical quantities obtained through quantitative geophysical survey methods for shallow waters can
be indirectly used to estimate engineering parameters or directly as parameters for engineering evalu-
ation, which has high application potential. This review analyzes various geophysical survey methods
for nearshore site characterization (i.e., side-scan sonar, single/multi- beam sonar, sub-bottom profiler,
seismic reflection method, and underwater magnetometer) and challenges in their application, and
introduces quantitative geophysical survey methods (including the underwater seismic refraction
method, seismic surface wave method and underwater electrical resistivity tomography) that are





 worth focusing on for future development. Three application difficulties have been identified, namely,
Citation: Tsai, C.-C.; Lin, C.-H. the lack of operational efficiency, appropriate operational equipment and systems, and sufficient
Review and Future Perspective of guidance for experimental shallow sea applications. It is hoped that comprehensive discussion of
Geophysical Methods Applied in these challenges will increase awareness leading to engineering improvements in the surveying and
Nearshore Site Characterization. J. measuring capabilities in shallow waters, further reducing the risk of geotechnical hazards.
Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 344. https://
doi.org/10.3390/jmse10030344 Keywords: underwater geophysical methods; shallow water; underwater seismic refraction method;
Academic Editor: Alfredo underwater surface wave method; underwater electrical tomography
L. Aretxabaleta

Received: 12 January 2022

Accepted: 12 February 2022
1. Introduction
Published: 1 March 2022
In the past, human development moved from the plains into the mountains, yet with
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
the demand for marine resources, this development is currently actively expanding to
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
coastal and offshore areas. With the increasing reliance on the coastal and marine environ-
published maps and institutional affil-
ment, more construction is being carried out, including the development of underwater
iations.
foundations for existing bridges, sea tunnels or ports, as well as offshore wind farms,
floating cities, and tidal stream generators, in an attempt to meet the needs for energy and
living environments. Offshore wind power generation, in particular, is being developed
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
for both the coastal and marine environment. Various infrastructure projects have been
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. erected on the sea floor. Because of this, the surveying of the sea floor plays an important
This article is an open access article role, as it influences the selection of the project site as well as construction, operation, and
distributed under the terms and maintenance details.
conditions of the Creative Commons At the present stage of application, geophysical survey methods for shallow waters
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// are mainly used in the planning stage to assist investigations; in addition to surveying
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ seabed depth and landforms, it is an important application to determine the geological
4.0/). conditions under the seabed, using reflected waves from sonar signals, which determine

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 344. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse10030344 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/jmse

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 23

seabed depth and landforms, it is an important application to determine the geological

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 344 conditions under the seabed, using reflected waves from sonar signals, which determine 2 of 22
material changes qualitatively and assist in evaluating the geologic structure with min-
imum drilling data. These common shallow water geophysical survey methods mainly
provide changes
material interfacequalitatively
information, andbut areinunable
assist evaluating to provide
the geologic its structure
engineering withproperties.
minimum
However, many quantitative survey techniques can
drilling data. These common shallow water geophysical survey methods mainly still be applied, such as underwater
provide
seismic refraction
interface information, andbut
electrical
are unableresistivity
to providetomography
its engineering[1]. These methods
properties. can provide
However, many
the physical survey
quantitative properties of materials
techniques beneath
can still the seabed,
be applied, such as which can be used
underwater to further
seismic de-
refraction
rive electrical
and their engineering
resistivityproperties,
tomography or [1].
canThese
directly be the can
methods designing
provideparameters.
the physicalTo help the
properties
engineering
of community
materials beneath the improve
seabed, whichthe investigative
can be usedcapability
to furtherinderivethis area,
theirthis paper re-
engineering
views various
properties, or cangeophysical
directly besurvey methods
the designing for shallow
parameters. Towaters
help the and evaluates community
engineering the current
challenges in their application. Based on the experience of land-based
improve the investigative capability in this area, this paper reviews various geophysical survey methods,
quantitative geophysical survey methods for shallow waters
survey methods for shallow waters and evaluates the current challenges in their application.that can be further devel-
oped in
Based onthe thefuture are identified,
experience of land-based while their methods,
survey current state of development
quantitative geophysical is reviewed
survey
and analyzed.
methods It is hoped
for shallow waters thatthat
thecanimprovement
be further of these technologies
developed in the future andare theidentified,
populari-
zationtheir
while of applications
current state canofenhance
developmentseabedissurveying
reviewedinand shallow waters.
analyzed. It is hoped that the
improvement of these technologies and the popularization of applications can enhance
2. Geophysical
seabed surveying Survey Methods
in shallow waters.and Engineering Survey Objectives
2.1. Geophysical Survey Methods
2. Geophysical Survey Methods and Engineering Survey Objectives
Geophysical survey methods are used to indirectly measure the properties of the
2.1. Geophysical Survey Methods
subsurface layers of an area, including seismic, optical wave, direct-current, electro-
Geophysical
magnetic, survey
and gravity methodsEngineering
methods. are used to indirectly
surveyingmeasure involvesthe properties
many of the sub-
geophysical sur-
surface layers of an area, including seismic, optical wave, direct-current,
vey methods based on these physical fields, such as the seismic refraction method, sur- electromagnetic,
and gravity methods. Engineering surveying involves many geophysical survey methods
face wave method, and reflection method. Other examples include the electric resistivity
based on these physical fields, such as the seismic refraction method, surface wave method,
tomography and induced polarization methods, which are derived from direct current
and reflection method. Other examples include the electric resistivity tomography and
injection. These techniques have different levels of applicability, depending on the pur-
induced polarization methods, which are derived from direct current injection. These
pose of the survey. They have their own characteristics and application limitations.
techniques have different levels of applicability, depending on the purpose of the survey.
Geophysical survey methods provide different results after different analytic pro-
They have their own characteristics and application limitations.
cesses, sometimes, even when based on the same physical measurements. According to
Geophysical survey methods provide different results after different analytic processes,
the properties of the provided results, geophysical survey methods can be roughly clas-
sometimes, even when based on the same physical measurements. According to the
sified into three major categories, as shown in Figure 1. The first category is the physical
properties of the provided results, geophysical survey methods can be roughly classified
value map, which includes the magnetic, electromagnetic, and self-potential methods.
into three major categories, as shown in Figure 1. The first category is the physical value
The main
map, whichcharacteristic of this category
includes the magnetic, is that it and
electromagnetic, generally uses point-by-point
self-potential methods. Themeas- main
urements, that is, the measurement results do not need to
characteristic of this category is that it generally uses point-by-point measurements, be inverted, as the physical
that is,
measurements
the measurement can be obtained
results do not needeithertodirectly, or after
be inverted, as thesimple
physicalcomputation,
measurements and can be
can be
presented based on the location where the measurement is made,
obtained either directly, or after simple computation, and can be presented based on the before evaluation. This
result is where
location mainlythe used to survey abnormal
measurement is made, signals underneathThis
before evaluation. the measurement
result is mainly area,
usedandto
survey abnormal signals underneath the measurement area, and confirm the locationme-
confirm the location of the target object (e.g., unknown buried objects underwater, of
tallic
the minerals,
target objector abnormal
(e.g., unknown leakage
buriedpoints).
objects Under the premise
underwater, metallicofminerals,
simplifying assump-
or abnormal
tions, one can roughly estimate either the volume of a target
leakage points). Under the premise of simplifying assumptions, one can roughly estimate object (e.g., applying per-
meability in underwater surveys can provide the estimated size
either the volume of a target object (e.g., applying permeability in underwater surveys can of an iron-hulled ship),
or its depth
provide [2]. However,
the estimated size ofsince there are many
an iron-hulled ship), orinfluencing
its depth [2]. factors, it is still
However, since difficult
there areto
achieve
many this with unknown
influencing objects.
factors, it is still difficult to achieve this with unknown objects.

Figure 1. Classifications of geophysical methods based on survey results. (a) the physical value map
including the magnetic, electromagnetic, and self-potential methods (b) cross-section of interfaces
including the use of side-scan sonar, single/multi-beam sonar, sub-bottom profiler, seismic reflection
method, and ground-penetrating radar (c) spatial distribution of physical values including the seismic
refraction, seismic surface wave, electric resistivity tomography, and induced polarization methods.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 344 3 of 22

The results obtained in the second category of geophysical survey methods can iden-
tify the interface where the physical quantity changes; these methods include the use of
side-scan sonar, single/multi-beam sonar, sub-bottom profiler, seismic reflection method,
and ground-penetrating radar. These methods use elastic or electromagnetic waves for
detection, with the data being recorded in a time series. Following the signal processing of
the time series data, it is presented either as horizontal distance (side-scan sonar) or as a
vertical section. The image will show the location of the surface with the change in physical
quantity, detecting stratification or unknown objects in the seabed. The distance or depth of
this surface needs to be converted using the elastic or electromagnetic wave velocity of the
material; this velocity varies from substance to substance, and is usually obtained through
hypothesis or physical measurement. However, since it is difficult to obtain measurements
under certain conditions (e.g., in soil), the measurements are expressed in time without
being converted to depth.
The third category consists of geophysical survey methods in which the physical
quantities of the results are spatially distributed. This includes the seismic refraction,
seismic surface wave, electric resistivity tomography, and induced polarization methods.
After the physical data is collected, these methods use inversion technologies to obtain
the physical values below the survey line. Since the physical values of the material in the
layer as well as its location are considered in the inversion process, the physical values of
different positions below the survey line and the depth of the target object can be provided.

2.2. Purpose of Engineering Surveying in Nearshore

Since the water depth in nearshore is usually shallow, the geophysical survey methods
reviewed, herein, will mainly be based on waters with depths of less than 50 m, while
primarily using depths of up to 20 m. This range includes the permanently submerged
sea area, intertidal zones, wetlands, and fish farms that are influenced by tides. The aim
of engineering surveying in shallow waters can be divided into two categories, namely,
(1) above, and (2) below the seabed. Above the seabed, the main objective is to obtain the
topography and landform of the seabed, while below the seabed, the main objective is
to survey the stratification of the sub-bottom, the engineering properties of the materials,
and any unknown buried objects, and ultimately to obtain the stratigraphic information
required for the planning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of a project. In
recent years, the focus on underwater cultural heritage has increased, and unknown buried
objects are no longer assumed to cause engineering risks such as unexploded bombs or
abandoned fishing gear, but could also possibly be underwater cultural heritage [3].

2.3. Applications of Geophysical Survey Methods

To meet the engineering surveying aims mentioned above, geophysical and geotech-
nical survey methods are used together to obtain seabed information. Currently, the
topography and landform above the seabed are mostly measured using side-scan and
single- or multi-beam sonars, while sub-seabed measurements are conducted using sub-
bottom profilers or seismic reflection method (depending on the depth) and magnetometers.
However, sub-bottom profilers and seismic reflection mainly provide interface informa-
tion on material changes and cannot provide the engineering properties of the seabed.
Practically, they are obtained through geotechnical surveying methods such as drilling
and sampling, or cone penetration tests. The geotechnical results at different locations are
compared with geophysical surveying results for calibrating the engineering meaning of
the interface. Then, the point data collected from the geotechnical survey are converted
into 2D or even 3D data to help create a geological model of the field site.
When considering the above categories, the first and second geophysical survey
methods are more commonly and routinely applied in nearshore engineering surveying,
whereas the third category of methods to obtain physical measurements of materials is less
common. However, many laboratory experiments have shown a clear correlation between
these physical quantities and engineering parameters, which can be obtained indirectly
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 344 4 of 22

from these physical quantities. For example, Lu and Liang [4] used laboratory experiments
to investigate the S-wave velocity of the seabed in relation to its density and liquid limit,
showing that the S-wave velocity of the seabed can be used to estimate the density and
liquid limit; Gaiser [5] collected the P- and S-wave velocities of numerous seabed materials
and calculated their Poisson’s ratio, and then proposed an empirical correlation between
this ratio and seabed porosity. Further, Ayres and Theilen [6] used the empirical correlation
between S-wave velocity and strength of the local seabed material to analyze the slope
stability. Archie [7], Biella et al. [8], Klein and Santamarina [9], and others have suggested a
highly linear relationship between formation factor (soil electric conductivity divided by
the water electrical conductivity) and porosity; moreover, soil conductivity (the inverse of
electrical resistivity) can be used to estimate hydraulic conductivity ([8,10]).
Based on these theoretical findings, an increasing number of cases have recently
emerged in which shallow water geophysical methods of the third category have been
applied in different engineering surveys: Punzo et al. [11] used the imaging profiles
obtained from the underwater seismic refraction method to create a 3D model of harbor
sediment and estimate its volume for use in further dredging planning. Caiti et al. [12],
Park et al. [13], Ritzwoller and Levshin [14], Bohlen et al. [15], Puech et al. [16], Shtivelman [17],
Park et al. [18], Kaufmann et al. [19], Hunter et al. [20], Boiero et al. [21], Paoletti et al. [22],
and Long et al. [23] used the underwater seismic surface wave method to measure the S-
wave velocity profiles of seabed sediments. Moreover, Johansen and Ruud [24] used the
underwater seismic surface wave method on ice floes to find seabed properties in the
arctic circle. Wilken et al. [25] used an underwater seismic surface wave method to survey
S-wave velocity profile of the seabeds to allocate possible sites for offshore windtower
installation, and subsequent dynamic analysis of monopile foundations.
Goto et al. [26] and Tartis et al. [27] used underwater electrical resistivity tomography
to survey natural gas hydrates in the seabed. Passaro [28] and Simyrdanis et al. [29] used
underwater electrical resistivity tomography to survey metal vessels buried under the
seabed. Rucker et al. [30], Apostolopoulos [31], Okyar et al. [32], and Dahlin et al. [33]
used underwater electrical resistivity tomography to survey seabed composition and
understand the distribution of sediments, which was used as a reference for dredging
planning. Apostolopoulos [31] used underwater electrical resistivity tomography to sur-
vey the location of the foundation of an older bridge under the seabed, which was used
for bridge maintenance and renovation planning. Dahlid and Loke [34] used underwa-
ter electrical resistivity tomography to survey seabed composition for the design and
planning of an undersea tunnel. Hermans and Paepen [35] combined land and marine
electrical resistivity tomography data in the intertidal zone to survey seawater intru-
sion. Tassis et al. [36] used underwater electrical tomography to survey fracture zones in
bedrocks. Papadopoulos et al. [37] applied underwater electrical tomography to investi-
gate the prehistoric submerged site within ultra-shallow waters.
Mouton and Robert [38] used the underwater seismic refraction method and seismic
surface wave method to classify sediment types within 10 m below the seabed, which was
applied to the planning of a submarine pipeline. Ronczka et al. [39] used both underwater
electrical resistivity tomography and underwater seismic refraction method to survey
prominent fracture zones in nearshore bedrock. Kritikakis et al. [40] combined underwater
electrical resistivity tomography, underwater seismic refraction method, and seismic surface
waves to survey underwater ruins buried under the seabed in shallow waters.
All the successful cases above demonstrate that the quantitative geophysical meth-
ods have high potential in nearshore site characterization. In the following sections, to
differentiate the existing and promising geophysical survey methods in category three, the
commonly applied side-scan sonar, single- and multi-beam sonar, sub-bottom profiler, seis-
mic reflection method and marine magnetic survey are categorized as common geophysical
methods, and geophysical methods capable of obtaining physical quantities in category
three are categorized as quantitative shallow water geophysical methods.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 344 5 of 22

3. Common Geophysical Methods for Nearshore Site Characterization

3.1. Seismic Survey Methods Related to Changes in Physical Quantities
In the application of engineering surveying in nearshore, the common geophysical
methods belong mainly to categories one and two in Figure 1. In these two categories,
several methods are based on electromagnetic waves. However, due to the influence of the
high conductivity of seawater, the energy of electromagnetic signals attenuates strongly in
seawater. Consequently, the electromagnetic wave-based methods are not often applied,
and the popular methods are based on longitudinal waves (sound waves), which are less
affected by seawater. These methods include the use of a side-scan sonar, single-beam
sonar, sub-bottom profiler, and the seismic reflection method.
These methods use the reflected waves generated by the acoustic waves as their
detection signal [41]. When an artificial vibration is generated in the water, it is affected by
the inability of water to propagate shear waves, hence the vibration is instead transmitted
as a longitudinal wave. Once this wave encounters a difference in the acoustic impedance
of the material, it will become reflective and transmissive, and this behavior will follow
Snell’s Law. The reflected/backscattered signal, which is used to analyze the information of
the target layer, then propagates back and is picked up by a hydrophone. Here, the acoustic
impedance is the product of the density of the material and the velocity of the longitudinal
wave. The density of the geological material usually has little variation, meaning that the
acoustic impedance is mainly determined by the material’s longitudinal velocity. However,
if non-geological materials such as metals are encountered, their density also plays an
important role.
These techniques, which are mainly based on reflected waves, make the distance
between the vibration source and the hydrophone smaller. The time T is the time required
for the wave to travel the distance (2× D) from the vibration source to the interface of the
material change and then back to the vibration source, which is known as the two-way
travel time. If the material’s longitudinal velocity Vp is already known, the interface depth
D of the material change is located at T/(2Vp) below the vibration source.
The principles of these methods are the same. However, due to the difference in
the frequency of the vibration sources used, they can be applied to different surveying
purposes. The energy attenuation of longitudinal waves transmitted in water is extremely
low, but when it enters the seabed, the attenuation will greatly increase. The soil type of the
seabed and the frequency of the longitudinal waves are the main factors affecting energy
attenuation in the seabed. In terms of soil type, the energy attenuation of longitudinal
waves in the seabed is greater in sandy or compact sediments than that in clay or loose
sediments and, in terms of frequency, the energy attenuation of high-frequency longitudinal
waves is greater than that of low-frequency longitudinal waves [42]. Additionally, the
detection accuracy of these longitudinal waves is affected by their wavelength (longitudinal
wave speed/frequency): the shorter the wavelength (with high frequency), the higher the
resolution, and vice versa. From this, it can be understood that high-frequency waves have
a good resolution but a poor ability to penetrate the seabed, while low-frequency waves
have a great ability to penetrate the seabed but a low resolution. Based on these features,
the following four subsections will introduce each survey method.

3.1.1. Side-Scan Sonar

The side-scan sonar is mainly used for geomorphology surveys of the seabed, and its
results can provide photo-like details of the seabed surface. The sonar generates underwater
vibrations. Mostly, the center frequency of the vibration would be between 100–900 kHz,
which is the highest frequency used in reflected-wave-based survey. This frequency, pro-
vides a high resolution, but little penetration. During the surveying (as shown in Figure 2),
a boat towed the tow-fish, where the sonar was installed in port and starboard; in order to
reduce its unstable movement during the surveying, stabilizing fins were installed in the
tow-fish [1].
 water vibrations. Mostly, the center frequency of the vibration would be between 100–900
kHz, which is the highest frequency used in reflected-wave-based survey. This frequen-
cy, provides a high resolution, but little penetration. During the surveying (as shown in
Figure 2), a boat towed the tow-fish, where the sonar was installed in port and starboard;
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 344 in order to reduce its unstable movement during the surveying, stabilizing fins were in-
6 of 22
stalled in the tow-fish [1].

Illustration of
Figure2.2.Illustration
Figure of the
the operation
operation of
of side-scan
side-scansonar.
sonar.

When surveying, the acoustic wave is emitted diagonally downward at a small angle
When surveying, the acoustic wave is emitted diagonally downward at a small an-
toward the seabed; the signal (shown in Figure 2) is fan-shaped, covering more than a
gle toward the seabed; the signal (shown in Figure 2) is fan-shaped, covering more than a
single direction. Since the angle between the emitted waves and the seabed surface is
single direction. Since the angle between the emitted waves and the seabed surface is
relatively small, the travel distance can be converted to a horizontal distance, and since
relatively small, the travel distance can be converted to a horizontal distance, and since
there is almost no seabed penetration under such a high frequency signal, it is certain that
there is almost
all reflected no seabed
signals penetration
originate underthe
from or above such a highwithin
seafloor frequency signal,
the sonar it is Following
range. certain that
all reflected signals originate from or above the seafloor within the
the recording, the intensity of the received backscattered signals is color-coded, and sonar range. Follow-
the
ing
obtained data is shown in Figure 3a. Initially, before the wave meets the seabed, there and
the recording, the intensity of the received backscattered signals is color-coded, is
the obtained data is shown in Figure 3a. Initially, before the wave meets
no backscattered energy from the signal. The blind spot, marked in black in the figure, is the seabed, there
isthe
noresult
backscattered energybetween
of the distance from thethe signal. The blind
side-scan sonarspot,
and themarked in black
seabed. Wheninthe thesignal
figure,
ismeets
the result of the distance between the side-scan sonar and the seabed.
the seabed, it will start to maintain a certain level of backscattered energy, which When the signal
meets
variesthe seabed,
slightly it will start
depending to maintain
on changes a certain roughness
in elevation, level of backscattered
of seafloor, andenergy, which
material
varies slightlyofdepending
composition the seabed.onWhen changes
thereiniselevation, roughness
a significant change in of seabed
seafloor, and material
conditions, or
composition
when other objects of the seabed. When
are present on there is a significant
the seabed, change in
the backscattered seabed
energy conditions,
becomes muchor
greater.
when As the
other detected
objects object protrudes
are present from thethe
on the seabed, surrounding
backscatteredseabed, the seabed
energy becomes surface
much
behind the
greater. As thelocation will be
detected obscured.
object protrudes Thisfrom
presents a similar effect
the surrounding as when
seabed, thea seabed
flashlight sur-
shines
face outward,
behind a shadowwill
the location willbeappear behind
obscured. anypresents
This object puta in front of
similar the light,
effect producing
as when a flash-
a shaded
light shines area withoutareflection
outward, shadow on willtheappear
recorded image,
behind which
any objectwill revert
put to normal
in front of theafter
light,
a certain distance.
producing a shaded area without reflection on the recorded image, which will revert to
normal Forafter
eacha measurement,
certain distance. images of the seabed surface from both sides of the survey
pathFor
are each
obtained, allowing the
measurement, images recorded reflected
of the seabedsignals to from
surface be presented
both sidesin aofcontinuous
the survey
sequence of images. Although it is technologically possible to use image stitching to present
path are obtained, allowing the recorded reflected signals to be presented in a continuous
the products of side-scan sonar as one whole image, when it comes to actual interpretation,
image sequences are still used to clearly identify the seabed topography and possible target
objects (as shown in Figure 3b). Furthermore, in addition to being able to detect target
objects, the length of the shaded area in an image sequence allows the height of the target
object to be estimated.

3.1.2. Single- and Multi-Beam Sonar

Compared with the side-scan sonar, which transmits its signal at a small angle to
the seabed, when using a single- or multi-beam sonar, the signal is transmitted to the
seabed surface in a near-vertical manner. For surveying, the commonly used frequency
is 10–400 kHz, depending on the required depth and resolution. The earliest form of
sonar surveying, which can be seen in Figure 4a, uses a single beam and is known as a
single-beam sonar. Its frequency does not allow for effective penetration of the seabed.
 J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 344 7 of 22

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 23

Its signal will be reflected from the seabed and received by the hydrophone close to the
sonar (Figure 4b). Through analysis of the signal, the sonar’s software records the time
sequence
of received ofreflected
images. signals
Althoughfromit the
is technologically possible
seabed (i.e., two-way to time),
travel use image stitching
after which the to
present
longitudinal wave velocity is used to calculate the seabed depth. To ensure greater accuracyin-
the products of side-scan sonar as one whole image, when it comes to actual
terpretation,
of the surveyimage sequences
results, the sonarare still usedfixed
is normally to clearly
on theidentify
hull of the
the seabed topography
surveying vessel, andand
possible
the final target
resultsobjects (as shown
are obtained in Figurea 3b).
by combining Furthermore,
satellite positioninginsystem,
addition to being
motion able to
reference
detect
units, gyro compass (which accounts for swaying caused by waves) on the vessel, andheight
target objects, the length of the shaded area in an image sequence allows the tide
of the target
gauge (whichobject to bewater
converts estimated.
depth into an elevation value) nearby.

Figure
Figure 3.
3. (a) Schematicdiagram
(a) Schematic diagramofof a shipwreck
a shipwreck sonar
sonar recording
recording andside-scan
and (b) (b) side-scan sonar
sonar of of a ship-
a shipwreck
wreck recorded in Taiwan
recorded in Taiwan Strait. Strait.

3.1.2. ItSingle-
is worthand Multi-Beam
mentioning Sonar
three characteristics of the sonar. First, the signal emitted from
the sonar is concentrated in a small
Compared with the side-scan sonar, angle (called
which beam angle,
transmits itsusually
signal in
at the orderangle
a small from to
5–20 degrees, depending on the instrument). Since the emitted wave is
the seabed, when using a single- or multi-beam sonar, the signal is transmitted to thea cone-shaped
beam, the received signal is reflected from an area on the seafloor, called a footprint. As
seabed surface in a near-vertical manner. For surveying, the commonly used frequency
the depth increases, the footprint becomes larger. For example, if the angle of the signal is
is 10–400 kHz, depending on the required depth and resolution. The earliest form of so-
nine degrees, at a depth of 10 m, the signal’s footprint forms a circle 1.57 m in diameter.
nar surveying, which can be seen in Figure 4a, uses a single beam and is known as a sin-
At a depth of 20 m, this circle will thus be 3.15 m in diameter. Therefore, as the water
gle-beam sonar. Its frequency does not allow for effective penetration of the seabed. Its
signal will be reflected from the seabed and received by the hydrophone close to the so-
nar (Figure 4b). Through analysis of the signal, the sonar’s software records the time of
received reflected signals from the seabed (i.e., two-way travel time), after which the
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 344 8 of 22

depth increases, the horizontal resolution of the seabed elevation will decrease. Second,
different frequencies of emitted waves have different levels of penetrating depth. When
using different frequencies to survey a seabed with a higher proportion of fine-grained
sediments, the signal will be affected by the suspension sediments, resulting in differences
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 23
in the obtained water depths. Third, since the water depth is obtained by converting the
longitudinal wave velocity, and the longitudinal velocity in shallow waters does not vary
much with depth, the average value is generally around 1500 m/s. However, in special
longitudinal
cases, such as wave
turbidvelocity
water withis used toamount
a large calculate
of the seabed sediments,
suspension depth. To ensure greaterinac-
the difference
curacy of the survey results, the sonar is normally fixed on the hull of
longitudinal wave velocity may be greater, making the depth conversion less accurate. the surveying
In
vessel,
such andathe
cases, final
better results to
approach are obtained
obtain more by combining
accurate depth aresults
satellite positioning
would system,
be to measure
motion
the reference
seawater units,
velocity gyro
of the compassarea.
surveying (which accounts
When for swaying
interpreting caused
the results and by waves)a on
planning
project, these
the vessel, effects
and should(which
tide gauge be taken into consideration.
converts water depth into an elevation value) nearby.

Figure 4.
Figure 4. Illustrations
Illustrations of of (a)
(a)the
themeasurement
measurementofofsingle-beam
single-beamsonar,
sonar,
(b)(b) raw
raw datadata received
received by by
thethe
single-beamsonar,
single-beam sonar,(c)(c)measurement
measurement of of multi-beam
multi-beam sonar,
sonar, and and (d) example
(d) example of theofcontour
the contour
map ofmap
the of
the elevation
elevation of theofseabed.
the seabed.

In
It recent years,
is worth with advances
mentioning threeincharacteristics
technology, the multi-beam
of the sonar.sonar hasthe
First, been developed.
signal emitted
It combines
from several
the sonar single beaminsonars,
is concentrated a smalleach transmitting
angle (called beama signal
angle,with a small
usually beam
in the order
angle,
from 5–20 degrees, depending on the instrument). Since the emitted wave in
creating a combined detection range of more or less 160 degrees, as can be seen is a
cone-shaped beam, the received signal is reflected from an area on the seafloor, called a
footprint. As the depth increases, the footprint becomes larger. For example, if the angle
of the signal is nine degrees, at a depth of 10 m, the signal’s footprint forms a circle 1.57
m in diameter. At a depth of 20 m, this circle will thus be 3.15 m in diameter. Therefore,
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 344 9 of 22

Figure 4c. This allows the sonar to survey a larger area in a single session, increasing seabed-
detection efficiency, and has become the mainstream technology for bathymetry survey
recently [43,44]. However, since some of the beams are emitted from a larger angle, sonar
clutter creates interference problems. Thus, in very shallow waters (water depth < 10 m),
its application is not ideal, and single-beam sonars are still preferred. As the sonar only
retains the depth and location of the seabed surface, the data obtained are points from
different spatial locations forming a point cloud. These point clouds can be visualized by
using colors to indicate elevation/depth (see Figure 4d), or simply by using contour maps.

3.1.3. Sub-Bottom Profiler

A sub-bottom profiler (due to the complexity of signal processing, this review considers
a sub-bottom profiler to be the use of a single hydrophone for signal recording, and the use
of multiple hydrophones for signal recording to be the marine seismic reflection method) is
mainly used to survey the sub-seabed soil structure or buried materials. Because of this, a
lower frequency wave which has larger penetrating depth is used, usually ranging between
500 Hz and 40 kHz. To meet this frequency range, a more diverse range of vibration sources
is used, depending on the required depth and resolution. The most commonly used sources
are as follows [1]:
1. Pingers: single frequency, generally between 3.5–15 kHz; can survey a seabed up to
50 m deep; resolution of about 0.3 m;
2. CHIRP: Uses a wide range of frequencies, generally between 3–40 kHz; can survey a
seabed up to 50 m deep; resolution of about 0.3 m;
3. Boomer: Frequency generally between 500 Hz and 5 kHz; can survey a seabed up to
30–100 m deep; resolution between 0.3–1 m;
4. Sparkers: Frequency generally between 0.05–4 kHz; can survey a seabed up to 1000 m
deep; resolution between 0.3–3 m.
The sub-bottom profiler is similar to the single-beam sonar in that the source of
vibration and the hydrophone are ideally placed at almost the same location to obtain a
better reflected signal; when it comes to measuring depth, the main difference with the
single-beam sonar is in the lower sound frequency. In a survey using an electroacoustic
transducer or a CHIRP sonar as its source of vibration, the device can either be attached
to the hull of the survey vessel (see Figure 5a) or towed behind the vessel. When using a
boomer or a sparker, the larger size of these vibration sources means that they generally
need to be towed behind the survey vessel. The hydrophone is placed as close as possible,
and is towed behind the vessel to collect data.
From these sources of vibration, the longitudinal wave signal will be reflected back to
the hydrophone after touching the seabed surface, while at the same time, the longitudinal
wave will continue to pass down into the seabed until it touches another interface with a
significantly different acoustic impedance, reflecting back to the hydrophone once more
(see Figure 5b). This penetrating nature allows it to obtain information about the strata or
buried objects below the seabed. The recorded signal is presented as an image; however, an
envelope is first computed using the Hilbert transform (see Figure 5b). Then, the values
of the envelope are color-coded to obtain the vertical image (see Figure 5c) below the
survey line. This image can then be used to identify possible stratification or signs of
buried objects.

3.1.4. Marine Seismic Reflection Method

When using the marine seismic reflection method in shallow waters, the focus is
on surveying the soil structure at a deeper depth. A boomer or a sparker would be the
main source of vibration. As shown in Figure 6a, the source of vibration is towed behind
the survey vessel, followed by a series of hydrophones (called a streamer) recording the
reflected waves. During the recording, the source continues to emit vibrations at set
intervals, and the signal generated by each shot is recorded and stored.
 the strata or buried objects below the seabed. The recorded signal is presented as an im-
age; however, an envelope is first computed using the Hilbert transform (see Figure 5b).
Then, the values of the envelope are color-coded to obtain the vertical image (see Figure
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 344 10 of 22
5c) below the survey line. This image can then be used to identify possible stratification
or signs of buried objects.

Figure 5. Illustrations of (a) the measurement of sub-bottom profiler sonar and (b) signal received by
Figure 5. Illustrations of (a) the measurement of sub-bottom profiler sonar and (b) signal received
the sub-bottom profiler sonar; (c) example of a sub-bottom profiler image.
by the sub-bottom profiler sonar; (c) example of a sub-bottom profiler image.
Since multi-channel receivers are used for data recording, a more complex signal
3.1.4. Marinemethod
processing SeismiccanReflection
be used Method
to improve data quality. First, it is necessary to locate the
position of the data that generate
When using the marine seismic thereflection
vibrationmethod
and receive signals waters,
in shallow at different locations.
the focus is on
Then, after determining the position of each shot and its corresponding
surveying the soil structure at a deeper depth. A boomer or a sparker would be the receiver, a set of
main
signalsofwith
source the sameAs
vibration. shot point,inand
shown whose
Figure receivers
6a, haveof
the source the same midpoint,
vibration is towedarebehind
collected;
the
this is known
survey as the Common
vessel, followed Depth
by a series ofPoint (CDP). Finally,
hydrophones (calledtoacarry out sequence
streamer) recordinganalysis
the re-
of CDP
flected data, During
waves. which includes predictive
the recording, deconvolution,
the source continuesmultiple
to emit suppression,
vibrations at velocity
set inter-
vals, and the signal generated by each shot is recorded and stored. the reflected signal
analysis, and normal moveout correction, the data are stacked to obtain
data of the CDP. All the processed data are gathered according to the CDP position, and
Since multi-channel receivers are used for data recording, a more complex signal
the data are then further proceeded with F-X deconvolution and migration [45]. After the
processing method can be used to improve data quality. First, it is necessary to locate the
complex signal processing, the gathered seismogram is presented as shown in Figure 6b.
position of the data that generate the vibration and receive signals at different locations.
Different to the sub-bottom profiler data, the envelope of the signal is usually not calculated
when the processed vibration signal is presented. Instead, the vibration signal is presented
directly. Finally, these results are used for stratigraphic interpretation.
 position, and the data are then further proceeded with F-X deconvolution and migration
[45]. After the complex signal processing, the gathered seismogram is presented as
shown in Figure 6b. Different to the sub-bottom profiler data, the envelope of the signal
is usually not calculated when the processed vibration signal is presented. Instead, the
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 344 vibration signal is presented directly. Finally, these results are used for stratigraphic
11 ofin-
22
terpretation.

Figure 6. (a) Illustration of the measurement of marine seismic reflection method. (b) Profile image
Figure 6. (a) Illustration of the measurement of marine seismic reflection method. (b) Profile image
of marine seismic reflection method (after [45]).
of marine seismic reflection method (after [45]).
3.2. Underwater Magnetometer
3.2. Underwater Magnetometer
The underwater magnetometer is a method used to survey the horizontal distribution
of anThe underwater
anomaly magnetometer
in magnetic force onisora method
below the used to survey
seabed the During
surface. horizontal distribu-
engineering
tion of an anomaly
surveying, in magnetic
it can mainly force on orthe
help in examining below the seabed
horizontal surface.
position During engineer-
of semi-buried or buried
ing surveying,
objects it canferromagnetic
containing mainly help in examining
material the horizontal
underwater. position ofmaterial
Ferromagnetic semi-buried or
usually
buried
includesobjects containing
materials ferromagnetic
containing material
iron or steel. underwater.
The underwater Ferromagnetic
magnetometer material
needs to be
towed behind
usually includes the survey vessel
materials and asiron
containing close
orto the seabed
steel. as possible.
The underwater If the survey needs
magnetometer vessel
is an iron/steel vessel, the underwater magnetometer is usually towed at least 2.5-fold
the vessel length behind, to reduce the influence of the vessel itself on the measurement
results [46,47].
The underwater magnetometer survey results are shown in Figure 7a, which shows the
distribution of the measured location and magnetic force (the figure shows the measured
time in sequence, and has not been redrawn in accordance with spatial location). In this
data, the magnetic intensity is the sum of the earth’s magnetic field, the induced magnetic
field of the regional geology, and anomalies caused by the target object. Although the
magnetic signal created by the target object usually has a higher frequency, the magnetic
disturbance caused by the target object is small and difficult to identify if the signal has not
been separated from the total magnetic field. As a result, it is usually necessary to deduct the
regional magnetic field intensity before presenting the results. After graphing the residual
magnetic intensity according to its horizontal spatial position, a contour plot can be created
 duced magnetic field of the regional geology, and anomalies caused by the target object.
Although the magnetic signal created by the target object usually has a higher frequen-
cy, the magnetic disturbance caused by the target object is small and difficult to identify
if the signal has not been separated from the total magnetic field. As a result, it is usually
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 344 necessary to deduct the regional magnetic field intensity before presenting the results. 12 of 22
After graphing the residual magnetic intensity according to its horizontal spatial posi-
tion, a contour plot can be created by color-coding the intensity (see Figure 7c). From
this image, the locations
by color-coding of anomalies
the intensity (see Figurecan
7c).be interpreted.
From When
this image, interpreting
the locations the mag-
of anomalies
netic
can beanomalies of man-made
interpreted. objects such
When interpreting as iron/steel
the magnetic ship or
anomalies ofaircraft
man-madewreckages, posi-
objects such
tive and negative
as iron/steel values
ship or usually
aircraft appear
wreckages, next to
positive andeach other,values
negative resulting from
usually the dipole
appear next
to each other,
character resulting
of the from themagnetic
object induced dipole character
field. of the object induced magnetic field.

Figure 7.
Figure (a) Total
7. (a) Total magnetic field; (b)
(b) Residual
Residual magnetic
magnetic field;
field;(c)
(c)Magnetic
Magneticanomaly
anomalycontour
contourplot
plot
(after
(after [48]).
[48]).

3.3. Challenges in the Application of Common Shallow Water Geophysical Methods

The common geophysical methods for shallow waters are mainly conducted by towing
a survey instrument behind a vessel or by fixing it on the vessel. As such, when data are
collected, the survey vessel simply needs to reduce its speed rather than stopping, making
it highly efficient. However, there are still difficulties in the application of current survey
methods. According to the author’s experience, it can be divided into three main categories:

3.3.1. Difficulties in Surveying Very Shallow Waters (Water Depth < 5 m)

All common geophysical survey methods suffer from this problem. First, in the case of
underwater magnetometers, a suitable vessel for surveying in very shallow waters needs to
be found. Second, it is difficult to collect data when towing an instrument in shallow waters,
as there is a risk of the instrument hitting the bottom or getting entangled in discarding
fishing gear and other objects. In addition to finding a suitable vessel, when the survey
method uses a source of vibration, another issue arises. Due to the small distance between
the seabed and surface, when the survey is conducted, the reflected waves, returning after
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 344 13 of 22

the longitudinal waves touch the seabed, will be transmitted downward again. This means
that multiple reflected signals that detect the same interface will continuously appear at
very similar times, thereby interfering with the target signal. In addition, in these shallow
waters, waves and coastal currents cause severe interference. Consequently, even if multiple
reflections from the sea surface can be avoided, it is difficult to obtain clear images from
side-scan sonar surveys since they require a stable flow field [49–51].

3.3.2. Limited Information Acquired below the Seafloor

The use of an underwater magnetometer for the surveying of semi-buried or buried
objects is only effective when it comes to materials with magnetic susceptibilities. Fur-
ther, as it is difficult to identify the unknown object’s depth or size, this method cannot
provide complete information of the object below the seafloor. The use of a sub-bottom
profiler requires a sufficiently different change in the acoustic impedance of the material
for detection to be possible, meaning that gradual changes in materials below the seabed
might not be captured. In addition, as can be seen in Figures 4b and 5b, the longitudinal
wave signal used for surveying has a specific frequency, meaning that it requires a certain
amount of time for the reflected signal from an interface to end. If the reflected signal from
the next interface or the bottom of a buried object appears before the end of the prior signal,
detecting the presence of this interface becomes difficult or impossible. Similarly, if the
buried object is below and close to the seabed surface, the multiple reflections between the
surface of the object and seabed surface will make the surveying impossible, as the bottom
profiler can detect the existence of the buried object but cannot determine its possible
vertical size.

3.3.3. Inability to Obtain Material Properties of the Seabed

Regardless of whether a survey uses a magnetometer or a sub-bottom profiler, it is very
difficult to obtain the material properties of the seabed from the results. Although there
are already studies using a side-scan sonar [52], multi-beam sonar [53], and sub-bottom
profiler [54] to obtain the average properties of the seabed surface at a certain depth, these
methods require a complicated calibration process and are affected by the stability of the
vibration source, making it difficult to obtain data on material change at different depths.
These three challenges regarding the application of common geophysical survey meth-
ods for shallow water require further development and improvement. Among them, the
limited information acquired from surveying below the seafloor and the inability to obtain
material properties from the seabed can be improved through quantitative geophysical
methods for nearshore site characterization, which will be introduced in Section 4.

4. Quantitative Geophysical Methods for Shallow Waters

The third category of quantitative geophysical methods for shallow waters includes
several methods. By adjusting the measurement equipment, the techniques applied onshore
can be applied to shallow waters, including the underwater seismic refraction method
(USRM), the underwater seismic surface wave method (USSWM), underwater electrical
resistivity tomography (UERT), and the underwater-induced polarization method. The
underwater-induced polarization method, as is used in obtaining the polarization proper-
ties of a material, which is relative to the electrical capacitance, is suitable for surveying
subseafloor minerals, disseminated sulfide deposits, or marine pollution [55]. The others,
USR, USSW and UERT, are valuable for engineering surveying, as has been mentioned
in Section 2.3. However, based on their land-based applications, their potential is still
highly underestimated.
Research on land-based applications shows that, in addition to being used for engi-
neering surveying, these methods can also be tools for engineering inspection and quality
control. For example, the seismic refraction method and electrical resistivity tomogra-
phy have been frequently applied in the surveying of unstable strata [56]. Additionally,
Lin et al. [57] applied the three techniques for safety inspections of dams in Taiwan, while
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 344 14 of 22

Kim and Park [58] used the results of the seismic surface wave method to measure the den-
sity of a field after dynamic compaction, in order to evaluate its effectiveness. Lin et al. [59]
used the S-wave velocity obtained through the seismic surface wave method for the as-
sessment of seismic-induced liquefaction potential of soil. Fratta et al. [60] combined
longitudinal wave velocity with time-domain reflectometer measurements for rapid de-
tection of in situ density. Madun et al. [61] applied the seismic surface wave method to
examine the effectiveness of stone columns on ground improvement. Lin et al. [62] used the
seismic surface wave method to examine the overall improvement rate by looking at the
difference in S-wave velocity measured before and after jet grouting for site improvement.
Lin et al. [63] used electrical resistivity tomography to examine the pile diameter and
completeness of soilcrete columns. The engineering problems tackled in land-based case
studies such as the investigation of unstable strata, soil improvement effectiveness testing,
soil liquefaction due to earthquakes, and safety inspection of dams, are also important
and needed in nearshore engineering, showing that quantitative geophysical methods for
shallow waters have not been fully explored in engineering operations, and possess high
potential for development.

4.1. Underwater Seismic Refraction Method (USRM)

The underwater seismic refraction method generates artificial shock waves, which are
transmitted to the submerged strata. Due to the difference in velocity between strata, the
shock waves are reflected in each layer in accordance with Snell’s law. Once the incident
angle is large enough, the reflected wave will follow the interface to propagate. This will
generate a refraction wave and return to the surface. There, the waves are received by a
geophone or hydrophone, positioned either on the surface or in the water. The refraction
waves are easily identified, as they are the first signals to arrive at the receiver (as shown in
Figure 8a). The collected first-arrival times at different locations is called the travel-time
curve, allowing for the structure of the stratum to be found.
To make the number of travel-time curves large enough to conduct two-dimensional
stratigraphic analysis, it is necessary to distribute multiple shot points evenly inside and
outside the survey line. Usually, there will be 5–7 shot points inside the survey line, and
one shot point on each side outside the survey line. The first-arrival time would be picked
for each shot to create a travel-time curve. After which, the travel-time tomography is
applied to back-calculate the two-dimensional velocity profile. As shown in Figure 8b, the
velocity distribution of soils below the seafloor is usually expressed using different colors.
This velocity is generally the longitudinal wave velocity (P-wave velocity, or Vp), but can
also be the shear wave velocity (S-wave velocity, or Vs) when specialized vibration sources
are used.

4.2. Underwater Seismic Surface Wave Method (USSWM)

When a source generates vibrations in the water or on the seabed surface, in addition
to generating longitudinal waves and shear waves, interface waves are created at the
interface between the water and the soil. These interface waves in the vertical direction
generally come in two forms, one being Scholte waves, and the other being Leaky Rayleigh
waves. Leaky Rayleigh waves occur mainly on the seabed surface when the shear wave
velocity of the shallow depth of seabed is greater than the longitudinal velocity of the
water [24]. Due to this, in most non-rocky shores, only Scholte waves exist.
Scholte waves are the underwater surface waves mentioned in this review. They
propagate along the seabed surface, and their sampling volume in depth is limited to
approximately the depth of one wavelength. Because of this, the sampling depth of
underwater surface waves depends on the wavelength. As the shear modulus (function
of shear wave velocity) of a soil layer varies with depth, the phase velocity of surface
waves at different wavelength will change. This is called the dispersion phenomenon.
The relationship between the wavelength (frequency) and the phase velocity within this
phenomenon is called the dispersion curve, which is primarily driven by the shear wave
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 344 15 of 22

velocity of the stratum and, therefore, is less sensitive to the longitudinal velocity and
density of the soil layer. The process of underwater surface wave analysis is shown in
Figure 9a. After the signal recorded by hydrophones or geophones, the phase velocity
of surface waves at different frequencies can be obtained by dispersion curve analysis.
Subsequently, the shear wave velocity of the layered structure is inverted, based on layered
model assumption. Each measurement can obtain a one-dimensional shear wave velocity
profile. In practice, the velocity is represented by the halfway point of the survey line.
By continuously moving the location of the survey line, all the collected 1D shear wave
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 23
velocity profiles at different locations can be converted into a two-dimensional image, as
can be seen in Figure 9b.

Figure 8.
Figure (a) Illustration
8. (a) Illustration of
of the
the Underwater Seismic Refraction Method (USRM). (b) 2D
2D Vp
Vp image
image
retrieved
retrieved from
from USRM
USRM (after [11]).

4.3. Underwater
To make Electrical Resistivity
the number of Tomography
travel-time (UERT)
curves large enough to conduct
The surveying
two-dimensional principle ofanalysis,
stratigraphic underwater it is electrical
necessaryresistivity tomography
to distribute multiple is based
shot on
points
the injection of low-frequency electric currents into the seabed through
evenly inside and outside the survey line. Usually, there will be 5–7 shot points inside two electrodes at
different locations, after which, the voltage difference at another two locations
the survey line, and one shot point on each side outside the survey line. The first-arrival is measured
by electrodes.
time would be Eachpicked measurement
for each shotisto made
createin aa travel-time
group of four electrodes.
curve. Following
After which, the
the trav-
measurement, the voltage and current values are used to calculate the
el-time tomography is applied to back-calculate the two-dimensional velocity profile. As apparent resistivity
of the tested
shown layer
in Figure 8b,using the electrostatic
the velocity distribution theory. Thebelow
of soils effective
the depth of is
seafloor theusually
apparentex-
resistivity is dependent on the distance between the electrodes (see Figure
pressed using different colors. This velocity is generally the longitudinal wave velocity 10a). During
the measurement
(P-wave process,
velocity, or thecan
Vp), but electrodes
also be arethe switched
shear wave and the spacing
velocity is altered
(S-wave velocity,to obtain
or Vs)
apparent resistivity data at different
when specialized vibration sources are used. locations and depths of influence (with the advance

4.2. Underwater Seismic Surface Wave Method (USSWM)

When a source generates vibrations in the water or on the seabed surface, in addi-
tion to generating longitudinal waves and shear waves, interface waves are created at
 phenomenon is called the dispersion curve, which is primarily driven by the shear wave
velocity of the stratum and, therefore, is less sensitive to the longitudinal velocity and
density of the soil layer. The process of underwater surface wave analysis is shown in
Figure 9a. After the signal recorded by hydrophones or geophones, the phase velocity of
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 344 surface waves at different frequencies can be obtained by dispersion curve analysis. 16 of 22
Subsequently, the shear wave velocity of the layered structure is inverted, based on lay-
ered model assumption. Each measurement can obtain a one-dimensional shear wave
velocity profile. In practice, the velocity is represented by the halfway point of the sur-
of technology, nowadays, the data are obtained through automated switching sequencing
vey line. By continuously moving the location of the survey line, all the collected 1D
of electrodes at different spacing and locations). The data are often expressed as a two-
shear wave velocity
dimensional profilesandatthedifferent
pseudo-section, locations
two-dimensional can beprofile
resistivity converted into can
distribution a
two-dimensional image, as can be seen in Figure 9b.
be inverted from these data using tomography techniques (see Figure 10b).

Figure
Figure 9. (a)
9. (a) Illustration
Illustration of of
thethe procedure
procedure ofof Underwater
Underwater Seismic
Seismic SurfaceWave
Surface WaveMethod
Method(USSWM)
(USSWM)
(b)(b)
2D2D
vs.vs. image
image from
from USWM
USWM (after
(after [38]).
[38]).

4.4. Challenges in the Application of Quantitative Geophysical Methods for Nearshore Site
4.3.Characterization
Underwater Electrical Resistivity
and Future Tomography
Development (UERT)
Directions
TheAssurveying
reviewedprinciple of underwater
above, quantitative electrical resistivity
geophysical methods havetomography is based
high potential toon
be
theapplied
injection
in of low-frequency
nearshore electric currents
site characterization and into the seabed
in solving through
engineering two electrodes
problems. However,at
as difficulties in the application of these geophysical methods exist, they are still not widely
used for surveying shallow waters. The three main difficulties are as follows:
1: Shortcomings in operational efficiency
Quantitative geophysical methods for nearshore site characterizations require high-
density data to invert the physical quantities of materials, and usually require multi-
channel equipment. The operation of these geophysical methods can be divided into
three categories: boat tow, deep tow, and settle down on seabed. The boat tow and deep
tow methods allow for continuous data collection, which makes the surveying efficient.
However, they need to discard some information to earn the efficiency. For example, the
boat tow UERT measures the seawater column and seabed simultaneously. Seawater as
the intermediate medium, with very low electrical resistivity, reduces the sensitivity of
 different locations, after which, the voltage difference at another two locations is meas-
ured by electrodes. Each measurement is made in a group of four electrodes. Following
the measurement, the voltage and current values are used to calculate the apparent re-
sistivity of the tested layer using the electrostatic theory. The effective depth of the ap-
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 344 parent resistivity is dependent on the distance between the electrodes (see Figure 17 of10a).
22
During the measurement process, the electrodes are switched and the spacing is altered
to obtain apparent resistivity data at different locations and depths of influence (with the
advance
the seabed of measurement.
technology, nowadays,
Further, thethe data
rate are data
of the obtained through
acquisition automated
needs switching
to be considered
sequencing
for continuous of measurement.
electrodes at different spacingfor
A better practice and locations).
collecting UERTThe
datadata are oftentheex-
is switching
pressed as a two-dimensional
measurement pseudo-section,
electrodes at different and the in
locations. However, two-dimensional
order to meet the resistivity pro-
rate of data
acquisition,
file the data
distribution can collection
be invertedintensity must data
from these be reduced, which affectstechniques
using tomography the resolution
(seeandFig-
reliability
ure 10b). of the results.

Figure
Figure 10.
10. (a)
(a) Illustration
Illustration of the static
of the static survey
survey of
ofUnderwater
UnderwaterElectrical
ElectricalResistivity
ResistivityTomography
Tomography
(UERT). (b) 2D electrical resistivity image from UERT (after [29]).
(UERT). (b) 2D electrical resistivity image from UERT (after [29]).

4.4. Challenges
The deepin themethod
tow Application
can ofreduce
Quantitative Geophysical
the impact Methods
of seawater. for Nearshoretowing
Continuously Site a
long series of sensors
Characterization closeDevelopment
and Future to the seabed surface to collect data means it can easily hit
Directions
or get entangled in protrusions, causing
As reviewed above, quantitative geophysical damage to methods
the equipment.
have highTherefore, stationary
potential to be ap-
plied in nearshore site characterization and in solving engineering problems.reliability
measurement is more desirable than deep tow measurement if the resolution and However,
are required in engineering applications. However, more working time is not the only effort
as difficulties in the application of these geophysical methods exist, they are still not
needed to be offered in stationary measurement. The directional change in tidal current is
widely used for surveying shallow waters. The three main difficulties are as follows:
usually significant in nearshore areas. It would limit the working time if the survey vessel
1: Shortcomings in operational efficiency
was anchored for stationary measurement.
Quantitative geophysical methods for nearshore site characterizations require
In the short term, a countermeasure of insufficient efficiency of quantitative geophys-
high-density
ical methodsdata to invertwaters
for shallow the physical quantities ofwith
is complementary materials,
common andmarine
usuallygeophysical
require mul-
ti-channel equipment. The operation of these geophysical methods
methods which are highly efficient but cannot obtain physical quantities of materials, can be divided
whileinto
three categories: boat tow, deep tow, and settle down on seabed. The boat
quantitative geophysical methods can obtain these at the cost of efficiency. When surveying tow and deep
tow methods
a large allow formethods
area, common continuous data
with highcollection,
efficiencywhich
can be makes
used the
first.surveying efficient.
Then, after the
However, theyresults
initial survey need have
to discard
furthersome information
limited the survey toarea
earninthe efficiency.
accordance Forengineering
with example, the
boat tow UERTquantitative
requirements, measures the seawater column
geophysical methodsand canseabed simultaneously.
be applied for more detail Seawater
survey.as
the
However, in the long term, improvement in equipment and optimized analytical programsof
intermediate medium, with very low electrical resistivity, reduces the sensitivity
the
andseabed measurement.
algorithms Further, the rate of the data acquisition needs to be considered
are still needed.
2: Lack of appropriate
for continuous measurement. application
A better equipment
practice forand systemsUERT data is switching the
collecting
As mentioned, the lack of appropriate equipment with high application efficiency
is one of the problems that needs to be fixed. Other shortcomings in existing equipment
and measurement systems for seabed positioning remain. In the practical applications,
the underwater seismic refraction method and seismic surface wave method are often
combined for surveying sub-seafloor depth to 20 m. This is very suitable when planning
the installation of submarine pipelines or similar projects as it utilizes a one-sided shot
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 344 18 of 22

point survey [38,64,65]. The most commonly used seismic system is the airgun as the
acoustic source and a deep-towed streamer as the receivers. The SHRIMP system, which
was designed by Puech et al. [66] (later named the GAMBAS® system by the Fugro NV,
Leidschendam, Netherlands) falls into this category. By using stop-and-go winches, the
survey vessel can be operated continuously, i.e., without stopping, allowing this system
to operate in water depths from 10 m up to 350 m [21,64]. However, the seismic airgun
requires a highly efficient air compressor with great capacity, and the survey vessel used
must be of a certain tonnage. Additionally, a certain distance from both the surface and
seabed is required, which makes the seismic airgun not suitable for shallow waters (<10 m),
let alone intertidal areas. Alternatively, since a relatively large wavelength (low frequency,
basically less than 10 Hz) is required to obtain sufficient depth information for USSWM,
either the weight-drop [67,68] or the shotgun [18,69] could be used as a replacement for
very shallow waters (<10 m) or intertidal zones. However, the weigh-drop requires the
weight to be lifted to a certain height to free fall before it hits the seabed surface, which
makes this method highly inconvenient. Additionally, the hit position of the weight is
difficult to control after the drop, making it difficult to superimpose signals and relocate
after the operation is completed. The shotgun is relatively convenient, but its use may be
restricted under the laws of different countries, hence, very few cases have been recently
published. Because of these, it is necessary to further develop suitable sources of vibration
for surveying in both very shallow waters and intertidal zones.
For underwater electrical resistivity tomography, as mentioned above, the best survey
results are obtained using a stationary setup. However, as soon as the instruments are
submerged, the influence of tides make the recording time extremely limited. To shorten
this time, there are two different directions for development. One is to develop a multi-
channel recording device that can quickly record data from multiple locations at the same
time, reducing the time spent on repeatedly sending currents at fixed points due to channel
limitations, thereby increasing efficiency. However, and secondly, a suitable electrode
array needs to be developed before the multi-channel capabilities of this device can be
fully utilized.
In addition, when using any of the three quantitative geophysical methods introduced
here, the use of multi-channel sensors for data acquisition makes it difficult to locate the
position of each sensor after it is placed on the seabed. Consequently, the development of
cost-effective underwater positioning equipment is also warranted. From these examples,
the level of commercialization of quantitative geophysical equipment for shallow waters
is still far less than that of land or deep-sea equipment. Active investments in Research
and Development, and construction are required before these methods can be universally
applied in an efficient and cost-effective manner.
3: Insufficient guidance for experimental shallow sea applications
Although quantitative geophysical methods have long been developed, the equipment
and analytical algorithms continue to be upgraded and improved. Basically, there are no
standard operation procedures for these methods. Instead, only testing guidelines are
available to plan tests and design field configuration (e.g., sensor spacing and survey line
length). Additionally, these guidelines are used as reference for application procedures and
data analysis, as well as for the presentation and interpretation of results. For example,
the U.S. Federal Highway Administration has established an application manual for the
application of geophysical methods to highway-related problems [70]. The Society of
Exploration Geophysicists of Japan has established an application manual for geophysical
methods to be used in geotechnical and environmental applications [71]. Foti et al. [72]
proposed application guidelines for the seismic surface wave method.
Nevertheless, quantitative geophysical methods for nearshore applications are rel-
atively lacking. On the one hand, their applications are still limited to a few specific
institutions. They are not as widely used as land-based methods; relatively little relevant
knowledge and experience is publicly shared, and the accumulation of engineering appli-
cations is insufficient. On the other hand, it is still difficult to establish relevant guidelines
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 344 19 of 22

when the equipment and operation methods are in need of further improvement. Nonethe-
less, the establishment of relevant guidelines has a great impact on the promotion and
popularization of emerging technologies, for instance, by defining various measurement
parameters for underwater seismic surface wave method, setting up the relative distance
of receivers, calculating the maximum possible distance between the streamer and seabed,
establishing the analytical capabilities and electrode setup for the underwater electrical
resistivity method, and so on. The above documentations should be gradually established
through numerical simulation and field experience to create guidelines for the application
of these quantitative geophysical methods in nearshore site characterizations.

5. Conclusions
As the demand for marine energy (e.g., offshore wind energy) increases worldwide,
engineering development is moving into the coastal and marine environment, and with
it, surveying in nearshore and shallow waters is increasing. These surveys are mainly
conducted using comprehensive geophysical methods in combination with more localized
geotechnical surveys. This paper reviewed the common geophysical methods for shal-
low waters, such as the underwater magnetometer, side-scan sonar, single/multi- beam
sonar, sub-bottom profiler, and seismic reflection method, as well as the difficulties in
their implementation. The use of quantitative geophysical methods to solve the limited
information acquired below the seabed is proposed, highlighting the inability to obtain
material properties of the seabed, using international case studies to illustrate the great
potential of physical quantities obtained using quantitative geophysical methods as rele-
vant applications for engineering properties. At present, the application of quantitative
geophysical methods for nearshore applications is still relatively limited in practice. For
this reason, the three challenges in the application of quantitative geophysical methods are
summarized, namely, the lack of operational efficiency, appropriate operational equipment
and systems, and sufficient guidance for experimental shallow sea applications. These
challenges need to be actively addressed if the potential of geophysical methods for shallow
waters is to be fully realized. The authors hope that the academic community will conduct
further research related to the theories, measurement techniques, and analysis methods
of these methods to tackle the insufficient operational efficiency. Cooperation between
the industry and academia to develop appropriate operational equipment and systems is
encouraged to complete commercialization of these high potential technologies. At the
same time, guidelines for related engineering applications will be established by official or
related associations based on relevant experience through practical applications in order to
enhance the survey and measurement capabilities in nearshore site characterizations.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, C.-H.L.; validation, C.-C.T.; writing—original draft prepa-

ration, C.-H.L.; writing—review and editing, C.-C.T.; supervision, C.-C.T. and C.-H.L. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was partly funded by Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan, grant
number MOST 110-2628-E-110-003 and 109-2221-E-019-061-MY3.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: The authors wish to thank Shiahn-Wern Shyue for his suggestions on preparing
the manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 344 20 of 22

References
1. International Society for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering (ISSMGE). Geotechnical and Geophysical Investigations for
Offshore and Nearshore Developments; International Society for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering: London, UK, 2005.
2. Liu, Y.; Zhang, Y.F.; Yi, H. The New Magnetic Survey Method for Underwater Pipeline Detection. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2012,
239–240, 338–343. [CrossRef]
3. Pater, C. Seabed infrastructure projects, underwater cultural heritage and the environmental assessment process: The UK example.
In The Archaeology of Europe’s Drowned Landscapes. Coastal Research Library; Bailey, G., Galanidou, N., Peeters, H., Jöns, H.,
Mennenga, M., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; Volume 35, pp. 509–520. [CrossRef]
4. Lu, B.; Liang, Y. Statistical correlation of physical parameters with sound velocity in marine sediments of South and East China
Sea. Sci. China 1995, 38, 613–618.
5. Gaiser, J.E. Multicomponent Vp/Vs correlation analysis. Geophysics 1996, 61, 1137–1149. [CrossRef]
6. Ayres, A.; Theilen, F. Relationship between P- and S-wave velocities and geological properties of near-surface sediments of the
continental slope of the Barents Sea. Geophys. Prospect. 1999, 47, 431–441. [CrossRef]
7. Archie, G.E. Electrical-Resistivity Log as an Aid in Determining Some Reservoir Characteristics. Trans. Am. Inst. Min. Metall. Eng.
1942, 146, 54–62. [CrossRef]
8. Biella, G.; Lozej, A.; Tabacco, I. Experimental study of some hydrogeophysical properties of unconsolidated porous media. Ground
Water 1983, 21, 741–751. [CrossRef]
9. Klein, K.A.; Santamarina, J.C. Electrical Conductivity in Soils: Underlying Phenomena. J. Environ. Eng. Geophys. 2003, 8, 263–273.
[CrossRef]
10. Urish, D. Electrical resistivity-hydraulic conductivity relationships in glacial outwash aquifers. Water Resour. Res. 1981, 17,
1401–1408. [CrossRef]
11. Punzo, M.; Cavuoto, G.; Tarallo, D.; Fiore, V.D. Ensuring very shallow-water sediment properties: Case study from Capo
Granitola harbour, Sicily (Italy). Mar. Geophys. Res. 2017, 38, 313–323. [CrossRef]
12. Caiti, A.; Akal, T.; Stoll, R.D. Determination of shear velocity profiles by inversion of interface wave data. In Shear Waves in
Marine Sediments; Hovem, J.M., Richardson, M.D., Stoll, R.D., Eds.; Kluwer Academic Press: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1991;
pp. 557–566. [CrossRef]
13. Park, C.B.; Miller, R.D.; Xia, J.; Ivanov, J.; Hunter, J.A.; Good, R.L.; Burns, R.A. Multichannel analysis of underwater surface
waves near Vancouver, B.C., Canada. In 70th Annual Meeting, Society of Exploration Geophysics (SEG), Extended Abstracts; Society of
Exploration Geophysics: Houston, TX, USA, 2000; pp. 1303–1306. [CrossRef]
14. Ritzwoller, M.H.; Levshin, A.L. Estimating shallow shear velocities with marine multicomponent data. Geophysics 2002, 67,
1991–2004. [CrossRef]
15. Bohlen, T.; Kugler, S.; Klein, G.; Theilen, F. Case history: 1.5D inversion of lateral variation of Scholte-wave dispersion. Geophysics
2004, 69, 330–344. [CrossRef]
16. Puech, A.; Rivoallan, X.; Cherel, L. The Use of Surface Waves in the Characterisation of Seabed Sediments: Development of a
MASW System for Offshore Applications. In Caractérisation In Situ Des Fonds Marins; SEATECH WEEK: Brest, France, 2004.
17. Shtivelman, V. Estimating seismic wave velocities below the sea bed using surface waves. Near Surf. Geophys. 2004, 2, 241–247.
[CrossRef]
18. Park, C.B.; Miller, R.D.; Xia, J.; Ivanov, J.; Sonnichsen, G.V.; Hunter, J.A.; Good, R.L.; Burns, R.A.; Christian, H. Underwater MASW
to evaluate stiffness of water-bottom sediments. Lead. Edge 2005, 24, 724–728. [CrossRef]
19. Kaufmann, R.D.; Xia, J.; Benson, R.C.; Yuhr, L.B.; Casto, D.W.; Park, C.B. Evaluation of MASW data acquired with a hydrophone
streamer in a shallow marine environment. J. Environ. Eng. Geophys. 2005, 10, 87–98. [CrossRef]
20. Hunter, J.A.; Burns, R.A.; Good, R.L.; Pullan, S.E.; Pugin, A.; Crow, H. Near-surface geophysical techniques for geohazards
investigations: Some Canadian examples. Lead. Edge 2010, 29, 964–977. [CrossRef]
21. Boiero, D.; Wiarda, E.; Vermeer, P. Surface- and guided-wave inversion for near-surface modeling in land and shallow marine
seismic data. Lead. Edge 2013, 32, 638–646. [CrossRef]
22. Paoletti, L.; Mouton, E.; Liposcak, I. Comparison of underwater MASW, seismic CPT and downhole methods offshore Croatia.
In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterisation (ISC’4), Recife, Brazil,
17–21 September 2013; Coutinho, R.Q., Mayne, P.W., Eds.; pp. 1457–1462.
23. Long, M.; Trafford, A.; McGrath, T.; O’Connor, P. Multichannel analysis of surface waves (MASW) for offshore geotechnical
investigations. Eng. Geol. 2020, 272, 105649. [CrossRef]
24. Johansen, T.A.; Ruud, B.O. Characterization of seabed properties from Scholte waves acquired on floating ice on shallow water.
Near Surf. Geophys. 2020, 18, 49–59. [CrossRef]
25. Wilken, D.; Wolz, S.; Muller, C.; Rabbel, W. FINOSEIS: A new approach to offshore-building foundation soil analysis using high
resolution reflection seismic and Scholte-wave dispersion analysis. J. Appl. Geophys. 2009, 68, 117–123. [CrossRef]
26. Goto, T.; Kasaya, T.; Machiyama, H.; Takagi, R.; Matsumoto, R.; Okuda, Y.; Satoh, M.; Watanabe, T.; Seama, N.; Mikada, H.; et al.
A marine deep-towed DC resistivity survey in a methane hydrate area, Japan Sea. Explor. Geophys. 2008, 39, 52–59. [CrossRef]
27. Tarits, P.; Hussher, A.; D’Eu, J.F.; Balem, K.; Hautot, S.; Girault, R. Free gas mapping with a new marine DC resistivity technique.
In SEG Las Vegas 2012 Annual Meeting Expanded Abstracts; Society of Exploration Geophysics: Houston, TX, USA, 2012; pp. 1–5.
[CrossRef]
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 344 21 of 22

28. Passaro, S. Marine electrical resistivity tomography for shipwreck detection in very shallow water: A case study from Agropoli
(Salerno, southern Italy). J. Archaeol. Sci. 2010, 37, 1989–1998. [CrossRef]
29. Simyrdanis, K.; Moffat, I.; Papadopoulos, N.; Kowlessar, J.; Bailey, M. 3D Mapping of the submerged Crowie barge using electrical
resistivity tomography. Int. J. Geophys. 2018, 2018, 6480565. [CrossRef]
30. Rucker, D.F.; Noonan, G.; Greenwood, W.J. Electrical resistivity in support of geological mapping along the Panama Canal. Eng.
Geol. 2011, 117, 121–133. [CrossRef]
31. Apostolopoulos, G. Marine resistivity tomography for coastal engineering applications in Greece. Geophysics 2012, 77, B97–B105.
[CrossRef]
32. Okyar, M.; Yilmaz, S.; Tezcan, D.; Cavas, H. Continuous resistivity profiling survey in Mersin Harbour, Northeastern Mediter-
ranean Sea. Mar. Geophys. Res. 2013, 34, 127–136. [CrossRef]
33. Dahlin, T.; Loke, M.H.; Siikanen, J.; Hook, M. Underwater ERT Survey for Site Investigation for a New Line for Stockholm Metro.
In Proceedings of the Near Surface Geoscience 2014—First Applied Shallow Marine Geophysics Conference, Athens, Greece,
14–18 September 2014. [CrossRef]
34. Dahlin, T.; Loke, M.H. Underwater ERT surveying in water with resistivity layering with example of application to site
investigation for a rock tunnel in Central Stockholm. Near Surf. Geophys. 2018, 16, 230–237. [CrossRef]
35. Hermans, T.; Paepen, M. Combined Inversion of Land and Marine Electrical Resistivity Tomography for Submarine Groundwater
Discharge and Saltwater Intrusion Characterization. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2020, 47, e2019GL085877. [CrossRef]
36. Tassis, G.A.; Tsourlos, P.I.; Ronning, J.S. Detection and characterization of fracture zones in bedrock in marine environment:
Possibilities and limitations. Near Surf. Geophys. 2020, 18, 91–103. [CrossRef]
37. Papadopoulos, N.; Oikonomou, D.; Cantoro, G.; Simyrdanis, K.; Beck, J. Archaeological prospection in ultra-shallow aquatic
environments: The case of the prehistoric submerged site of Lambayanna, Greece. Near Surf. Geophys. 2021, 19, 677–697.
[CrossRef]
38. Mouton, E.; Robert, D. Combination of Seismic Refraction and Marine Surface Wave to Characterize Near Surface Marine
Sediments. In Proceedings of the Near Surface Geoscience 2014—First Applied Shallow Marine Geophysics Conference, Athens,
Greece, 14–18 September 2014. [CrossRef]
39. Ronczka, M.; Hellman, K.; Günther, T.; Wisen, R.; Dahlin, T. Electric resistivity and seismic refraction tomography: A challenging
joint underwater survey at Äspö Hard Rock Laboratory. Solid Earth 2017, 8, 671–682. [CrossRef]
40. Kritikakis, G.; Papadopoulos, N.; Simyrdanis, K.; Theodoulou, T. Imaging of shallow underwater ancient ruins with ERT and
seismic methods. In Proceedings of the 8th Congress of the Balkan Geophysical Society, Chania, Greece, 4–8 October 2015.
[CrossRef]
41. Jones, E. Marine Geophysics; John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, UK, 1999; p. 466.
42. Hamilton, E.L. Geoacoustic modeling of the sea floor. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1980, 68, 1313–1340. [CrossRef]
43. Brown, C.J.; Beaudoin, J.; Brissette, M.; Gazzola, V. Multispectral Multibeam Echo Sounder Backscatter as a Tool for Improved
Seafloor Characterization. Geosciences 2019, 9, 126. [CrossRef]
44. Šiljeg, A.; Marić, I.; Domazetović, F.; Cukrov, N.; Lovrić, M.; Pand̄a, L. Bathymetric Survey of the St. Anthony Channel (Croatia)
Using Multibeam Echosounders (MBES)—A New Methodological Semi-Automatic Approach of Point Cloud Post-Processing.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 101. [CrossRef]
45. Marine National Park Headquarters. Seismic Survey and Data Analysis of the Seabed in Dongsha Atoll; Marine National Park
Headquarters, Ministry of the Interior: Kaohsiung, Taiwan, 2012. (In Chinese)
46. Weiss, E.; Ginzburg, B.; Cohen, T.R. High Resolution Marine Magnetic Survey of Shallow Water Littoral Area. Sensors 2007, 7,
1697–1712. [CrossRef]
47. Plets, R.; Dix, J.; Bates, R. Marine Geophysics Data Acquisition, Processing and Interpretation; English Heritage: Swindon, UK, 2013.
48. Su, B. The Applications of Magnetometer on Underwater Survey and Identification: The Search for Underwater Cultural Heritage
in Peng-Hu Sea Area. Master’s Thesis, National Sun Yat-sen University: Kaoshiung, Taiwan, 2018. (In Chinese).
49. Roberts, H.; Wilson, C.; Supan, J. Acoustic Surveying of Ultra-Shallow Water Bottoms (<2.0 m) for Both Engineering, and
Environmental Applications. In Proceedings of the Paper presented at the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, USA,
1–4 May 2000. [CrossRef]
50. Gasperini, L. Extremely shallow-water morphobathymetric surveys: The Valle Fattibello (Comacchio, Italy) test case. Mar.
Geophys. Res. 2005, 26, 97–107. [CrossRef]
51. Ueda, T.; Mitsuhata, Y.; Uchida, T.; Mrui, A.; Ohsawa, K. A new marine magnetotelluric measurement system in a shallow-water
environment for hydrogeological study. J. Appl. Geophys. 2013, 100, 23–31. [CrossRef]
52. Colliera, J.S.; Brown, C.J. Correlation of sidescan backscatter with grain size distribution of surficial seabed sediments. Mar. Geol.
2005, 214, 431–449. [CrossRef]
53. Amiri-Simkooei, A.R.; Koop, L.; van der Reijden, K.J.; Snellen, M.; Simons, D.G. Seafloor characterization using multibeam
echosounder backscatter data: Methodology and results in the North Sea. Geosciences 2019, 9, 292. [CrossRef]
54. Chiu, L.; Chang, A.; Lin, Y.T.; Liu, C.S. Estimating geoacoustic properties of surficial sediments in the North Mie-Hua Canyon
region with a chirp sonar profiler. IEEE J. Ocean. Eng. 2015, 40, 222–236. [CrossRef]
55. Wynn, J.C.; Fleming, J.A. Seawater capacitance—A promising proxy for mapping and characterizing drifting hydrocarbon plumes
in the deep ocean. Ocean. Sci. 2012, 8, 1099–1104. [CrossRef]
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 344 22 of 22

56. Baroň, I.; Supper, R. Application and reliability of techniques for landslide site investigation, monitoring and early warning—
outcomes from a questionnaire study. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2013, 13, 3157–3168. [CrossRef]
57. Lin, C.-H.; Lin, C.-P.; Hung, I.-C.; Chung, C.-C.; Wu, P.-L.; Liu, H.-C. Application of geophysical methods in a dam project: Life
cycle perspective and Taiwan experience. J. Appl. Geophys. 2018, 158, 82–92. [CrossRef]
58. Kim, D.S.; Park, H.C. Evaluation of Ground Densification Using SASW and Resonant Column Tests. Can. Geotech. J. 1999, 36,
291–299. [CrossRef]
59. Lin, C.-P.; Chang, C.-C.; Chang, T.-S. The use of MASW method in the assessment of soil liquefaction potential. Soil Dyn. Earthq.
Eng. 2004, 24, 689–698. [CrossRef]
60. Fratta, D.; Alshibli, K.; Tanner, W.; Roussel, L. Combined TDR and P-wave velocity measurements for the determination of in situ
soil density-experimental study. Geotech. Test. J. 2005, 28, 553–563. [CrossRef]
61. Madun, A.; Jefferson, I.; Foo, K.Y.; Chapman, D.N.; Culshaw, M.G.; Atkinsc, P.R. Characterization and quality control of stone
columns using surface wave testing. Can. Geotech. J. 2012, 49, 1357–1368. [CrossRef]
62. Lin, C.-H.; Lin, C.-P.; Dai, Y.-Z.; Chien, C.-J. Application of Surface Wave Method in Assessment of Ground Modification with
Improvement Columns. J. Appl. Geophys. 2017, 142, 14–22. [CrossRef]
63. Lin, C.-H.; Lin, C.-P.; Ngui, Y.-J.; Wang, H.; Wu, P.-L.; He, G.-J.; Liu, H.-C. Diameter assessment of soilcrete column using in-hole
electrical resistivity tomography. Géotechnique 2020, 70, 1120–1132. [CrossRef]
64. Cunningham, A.B. Refraction data from single-ended refraction profiles. Geophysics 1974, 39, 292–301. [CrossRef]
65. Puech, A.; Foray, P.; Emerson, M. Correlation of Seismic Refraction Compressive Velocity and CPT Data with Particular
Application to the Continuous Burial Assessment of Pipelines and Cables. In Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference,
O.T.C. Paper 14 074, Houston, TX, USA, 6–9 May 2002. [CrossRef]
66. Puech, A.; Cour, F.; Meunier, J.; Michel, J.L.; Dubois, J.C. SHRIMP: An investigation tool for pipeline and cable burial.
In Proceedings of the OCEANS’94, Brest, France, 13–16 September 1994; pp. II/677–II/682.
67. Luke, B.A.; Stokoe II, K.H. Application of SASW method underwater. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 1998, 124, 523–531. [CrossRef]
68. Potty, G.R.; Miller, J.H. Measurement and modeling of Scholte wave dispersion in coastal waters. Am. Inst. Phys. Conf. Proc. 2012,
1495, 500. [CrossRef]
69. Stoll, R.D.; Bryan, G.M.; Bautista, E.O. Measuring lateral variability of sediment geoacoustic properties. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1994,
96, 427. [CrossRef]
70. Wightman, W.; Jalinoos, F. Application Geophysical Methods to Highway Related Problem; Federal Highway Administration, U.S.
Department of Transportation: Washington, DC, USA, 2003.
71. Society of Exploration Geophysicists of Japan (SEGJ). Application Manual of Geophysical Methods to Engineering and Environmental
Problems; EAGE Publications: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2014.
72. Foti, S.; Hollender, F.; Garofalo, F.; Albarello, D.; Asten, M.; Bard, P.-Y.; Comina, C.; Cornou, C.; Cox, B.; Di Giulio, G.; et al.
Guidelines for the good practice of surface wave analysis: A product of the InterPACIFIC project. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2018, 16,
2367–2420. [CrossRef]