Geology: The Supportive Science Beneath Our Civilization

        What comes to mind when someone says the word geology? Probably things like rocks, dirt, and the notion that geology is one of the most boring science topics. To most that view geology as boring, rocks are rocks and dirt is dirt. As a civil engineering student, I’ll admit that before I took a class on geotechnical engineering, I didn’t think too deeply into geology either. But having now completed most of my civil engineering coursework, I’ve learned to appreciate the critical role that geology plays in the design and long-term resilience of our infrastructure. 

        When designing any kind of infrastructure or solving a problem in general, you have to first consider the existing conditions or what is given. In the case of geotechnical engineering, this means conducting a series of soil tests before anything is designed. Not only do these tests help engineers gain insight into key soil properties such as strength, but they help us identify serious environmental concerns such as soil contamination.

        As geotechnical engineers focus on the design of foundations and retaining structures such as dams, it is absolutely essential that they use their geological findings to design safe and strong support structures. Just imagine the chain reaction that a foundation design mistake resulting from poor soil analysis could have on the rest of the structure it supports. In some cases, the impact of difficult geological situations can appear during construction and present serious long-term difficulties.

        A famous example of this can be seen with the Leaning Tower of Pisa, where geotechnical firms such as Geopier have stated that “the tower was built on excessively soft foundation soils. These soils could not support the weight of the structure, which began leaning after just the third story (of eight) was constructed” (Condon). It’s not surprising that this happened, knowing that construction started in 1173. In fact, it’s amazing that it was built in the first place and that we’ve figured out how to keep it standing. But my point is that geology can make designing (and fixing) structures much more complex and costly than we might initially anticipate. So when we wonder why it costs so much to put up a new building, part of the reason may be because of the specialized foundation that it needs to handle the particular geologic conditions.

        Even though we’ve made large strides in soil stabilization and geophysical science, it’s still true that soil can be hard to predict. It’s not uncommon that we hear stories about Manhattan sinking from being under the weight of its buildings. According to the New York Post, “The city is plopping closer to the water at a rate of 1 to 2 millimeters a year, ‘with some areas subsiding much faster’” (Mitchell). Hearing this makes me think that some people have forgotten about geology and how it’s basically keeping New York City from going under. If we keep adding to the weight with new buildings, how hard will it be for the geotechnical engineers to do their jobs with such pressured and stressed soil?  

        Although it can be tough to visualize what’s going on in the ground beneath us, geology is constantly changing with the Earth. When considering the physical means by how it changes, we can obviously point to gravitational forces and their influence on the behavior of soil and rocks. This is where soil and rock mechanics come into play, which both get much more complicated than one may expect in terms of theory and calculations (I know from experience). We can look at tectonic forces that trigger plate movements, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions. Or we can consider weather conditions such as wind, rain, and ice, which contribute to soil movement and erosion. 

        But diving deeper into why geology keeps changing and why it may be changing at an increasing rate, we can bring climate change into the picture. So then is climate change the sole force behind why geology is changing and cities are sinking? I don’t believe so and would agree with Horgan that scientists or engineers don’t have the answer to everything needed to make such determinations. So can we expect some unified theory of physics laws that solves the next generation of geophysical problems? I doubt it, even if AI actually improved.  

        Lastly, I wanted to connect to “Is the End in Sight for Theoretical Physics”, where Hawking examines emerging technologies in a sense that “it would seem quite possible that they will take over altogether in theoretical physics” (Hawking 17). When thinking about geology and the application of geophysics with how old it is, I wouldn’t think the end is in sight. The work of theoretical physicists regarding what we know still has room to grow from my perspective and there’s always going to be older ideas that linger around for theoretical improvements.

References

Condon, Rob. “The Leaning Tower of Pisa Foundation: Is It an Inch or a Mile?” Leaning Tower of Pisa Foundation: Example of Stabilization, Tensar, 20 Nov. 2022, www.geopier.com/resources/articles/is-it-an-inch-or-a-mile. 

Hawking, S. (1981). Is the End in Sight for Theoretical Physics? Physics Bulletin, 32(15).

Mitchell, Alex. “NYC Is Sinking under the Weight of Its Buildings, Geologists Warn.” New York Post, New York Post, 18 May 2023, nypost.com/2023/05/17/nyc-is-sinking-under-the weight-of-its-buildings-geologists/.