The three principal rock groups (see also Fig.

18)
Igneous rocks originate within the earth's crust and solidify from magma bodies as, for example, some
granites (e.g. Fig. 17). Those which solidify before reaching the surface, form intrusive rocks such as dolerite,
and when lava erupts or flows at the surface it forms extrusive volcanic rock types such as basalt (e.g. Figs
17 and 19). It may be ejected as showers of ash or lumps (volcanic bombs). Slow cooling of igneous rocks
produces large crystals within the rock; quicker cooling produces small. Variations of mineral composition
lead to wide variation of rock type and many different names are given to them which, to a geologist, indicate
composition as well as its mode of formation. The processes involved in this, for the geologist, can all be
conveniently explained by the processes in plate tectonics.
Material form or fabric of rocks may be altered during earth movements by high confining pressures
and/or high temperatures to produce metamorphic rocks (e.g. Fig. 20). Sedimentary rocks modified in this
way are called metasediments.
Sedimentary rocks are those formed at or close to the earth's surface from material derived from
pre-existing rocks, together with material of organic origin. Particles derived from the mechanical breakdown
of other rocks generally followed by transport and deposition by rivers, seas, winds or glaciers form clastic
(i.e. particulate) sediments (e.g. alluvium) which lithify with time to form sedimentary rocks. Deposition of
sediments can also result from chemical reactions and precipitation: for example, some limestones are of this
origin. Sedimentary rocks resulting from accumulation of salts in conditions of evaporation are called
evaporites; rocksalt (sodium chloride) or gypsum (calcium sulphate) are examples. Deposits of organic origin
are skeletons of corals, shells and calcareous matter, e.g. some limestones, peat and coal. A distinctive feature
of sedimentary rocks is their stratification or bedding.

Making the geological model

Cost and efficiency
It is a continuing cry from all those involved in site
investigation that construction projects often cost sig-
nificantly more than the predicted tender price because
of inadequate investigation. The Site Investigation
Steering Group (Anon 1993a,b) stressed, yet again, the
magnitude of these problems for engineering situations
and reported, by way of example, that in a study of ten
large highway construction projects the final cost was on
average 35% above the tender sum. In half of these,
increases related to inadequate planning of the ground
investigation or poor interpretation of the results.
Money spent on site investigation varies widely,
depending on the local geology, the project, the Client,
and so on. It ranges typically from 0.1 to 2%, sometimes
even up to 5%, of the total cost of the project.
There is a small but beginning to grow field where
aspects of planning, investigation, uncertainty and cost
are looked at in a statistical way. For example, Attewell
et al. (1987) in Geological Society Engineering Geology
Special Publication No. 4 (Culshaw et al. 1987) on
Planning and Engineering Geology, consider that reduc-
tion in uncertainty about ground conditions achieved
by site investigation may be related through simple
probabilistic theory to the consequent loss expected in
construction or maintenance. Thus in planning decisions
a financial optimum can be identified. This development
is beyond the scope of this lecture and here I treat the
subject more conceptually, e.g. Figs 10 and 11 give a
simple view of the relationship between information
acquired and the project stages, and Table 11 outlines
the relative costs and the order of resulting benefits in
site investigation, depending upon the stage.
From these albeit somewhat intuitive judgements, it is
possible to conclude that the maximum value of the
geological model is in the earlier stages of the study as
the benefits it would bring are enhanced quality of
design and improved data from the main ground inves-
tigation. As the investigation progresses, so the accuracy
of the model improves and decisions dependent on it
change from more qualitative to more quantitative.
Decisions affecting investigation costs are probably bet-
ter made at the end of each of the investigation stages
rather than continuously during the investigation, but
the investigation must be as flexible as possible. As the
knowledge about the site increases, so the marginal cost
of gaining more information increases. There is there-
fore a realistic cut-off point for each investigation which
has to be decided.
The site geology
A lot has been written about the many techniques used
in site investigation for different geological situations
and also the various problems that occur. This is not the
place to attempt any summary of these (the accompany-
ing box illustrates the tip of the iceberg), but I will
explore a little the use of the model in investigating the
geological features of the site.
The model building starts with a consideration of the
broad conceptual geological environment of the site.
Figures 19, 20 and 21 are examples of models of main
rock-forming environments and Figs 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33
are examples of models of some of the main rock
modifying environments of Table 2 described in the
following section. Figures 41(a) to 41(e) are an example
of the igneous environment portrayed by Fig. 19, put
together as if it were being built up through the stages of
a site investigation.
I have included in Appendices 1 to 5 various simple
statements on which I originally worked with Prof. P.
Vaughan in Fookes & Vaughan (1986), which can be
used to predict likely geotechnical problems that could
be met in the near-surface situations identified, depend-
ing on the conceptual engineering geological environ-
ment. The symbol identifying the geological rock
forming and rock modifying environments from Table 2,
described later, has been added to each item in these
appendices where appropriate. A good desk study and
walkover survey would confirm or further identify the
sort of points made in the Appendices and raise new
questions and define additional objectives, and elabor-
ation and answers would come with the preliminary
investigation phase and beyond.
Geometric relationship and the geology
Figures 56 and 57 are simple examples of composite
block models which could be from Britain, each showing
more than one rock forming and rock modifying
environment, i.e. 'normal' geological situations. The first
is a bedded coal measure sequence overlain by ancient
desert, intersected by faults and incised by a deep buried
valley infilled by glacial and fluvial deposits; and the
second (based on Fig. 19) is of dipping sedimentary
rocks intruded by a major igneous body with some
subtropical weathering. It is emphasized that these
examples are only simple models and many such
hypothetical models of different geological associations
could be quickly sketched. They have been annotated
to show conceptual ground investigations for various
engineering projects.
The layouts of subsurface investigation techniques
and methods in each model are drawn to illustrate the
relationship between the subsurface technique and the
spatial distribution of the geological features within
the model. The aim of the site investigation design is to
maximize the collection of data and to be cost effective:
a much greater density of boreholes and pits could be
made on the site if the findings indicated more investi-
gation to be necessary. In variable ground a balance has
to be struck between the cost of further investigation
and the value to the designer and constructor of the
information that it is likely to yield. The more variable
the ground, the less information might be got from any
one particular borehole or test pit on adjacent con-
ditions. Geophysical techniques might help extrapolate
such information: a geological model would certainly
help. Alternatively, it may be decided that an obser-
vational method would be the most appropriate way of
solving potential design and construction problems that
appeared to be based on inadequate geotechnical infor-
mation, or because further, but excessively large, inves-
tigation work stood little chance of much improving the
information available.
Looking at Figs 56 and 57, the following general
points, inter alia, can be made:
During the preliminary investigation (if there is one),
a small number of widely spaced boreholes of ap-
proximately equal spacing, could be used to give the
basic stratigraphical sequence and weathering profile
of the bedrock. A geophysical survey should be
considered (in this case seismic) to determine the
depth of the bedrock with the use of boreholes to aid
interpretation. The seismic survey should be carried
out on a grid plan, or at least between points of the
borehole investigation. Additional boreholes could be
sunk around areas of geophysical anomalies.
Use of exploratory pits and trenches is a relatively
cheap (depending on depth) and quick method of
retrieving intbrmation, depending on material type
and groundwater, on the depth of the bedrock and the
variability of the superficial deposits and may be more
effective than boreholes at shallow depths. Below
1.5 m depth of a pit or trench, costs rise because of the
need for support (which may inhibit logging) and
requirements for extra supervising personnel.
Topography should be considered, for example,
exploratory trenches or pits laid parallel in a downhill
sequence would not only reveal the lateral and vertical
variability of the superficial deposits, but in bedrock
could also indicate in detail the vertical variability and
weathering.
A sequence of trenches, laid parallel to one another
and normal to the direction of any suspected buried
valleys, should be suitable for locating shallow buried
valleys as well as sampling the ground conditions The
spacing of the trenches would be dependent on the site
and the success in locating buried valleys often de-
pends on the thickness of the valley fill (e.g. collu-
vium, terrace alluvium). Boreholes would replace
trenches where the alluvium is thick. If the likely
position of a buried valley is not known, a geophysical
survey should be carried out in a grid pattern with a
relatively wide and equal spacing of boreholes. These
could highlight areas needing additional investigation.
In the model (Fig. 56), it can be seen that vertical bore-
holes sunk in relatively flat lying beds will reveal the
stratigraphy of the site bedrock. Depth and spacing are
much dependent on site conditions and type of engineer-
ing project, as indicated in the specific project annotated
on the model. As a general rule in flat lying strata,
boreholes can be fairly widely spaced and sunk to a depth
below that of the engineering structure to allow strati-
graphic horizons to be correlated between boreholes.
In the case of dipping beds (Fig. 57), trenches and
boreholes laid out parallel to the dip direction of the
beds can reveal a complete stratigraphic sequence of a
site. Additionally, the variation of properties within