CROSSHOLE/ 
DOWNHOLE 
SEISMIC TEST 

Cengrs Geotechnica Pvt 
Ltd By Mr.Sorabh Gupta
A‐100, Sector 63, Noida,  Workshop cum Demo Session 
UP‐201309
 
Tel:+01204206771

Fax:+01204206775

11/23/2013
 
C R O S S H O L E / D O W N H O L E S E I S M I C 
 

WELCOME NOTE 

On behalf of IGS Delhi Chapter and CENGRS, we have great pleasure in welcoming you to our Workshop 
on the use of latest seismic techniques in in‐situ ground characterization.  

The  Indian  Geotechnical  Society  (IGS),  Delhi  Chapter  is  an  active  association  of  academicians  and 
professions interested in, or involved with, Geotechnical Engineering.  One of the main objectives of the 
Society  is  to promote healthy  technical‐social interaction between  the  members, catalyze  information 
exchange, and contribute to the growth of Geotechnical Engineering in the country.  For those of us who 
are  not  yet  members  of  IGS Delhi Chapter,  we  urge  you  to  sign  up  for  the  same by  downloading  the 
membership form from the following website: http://igsdelhichapter.com/  

The  current  elected  Executive  Committee,  led  by  Dr.  A.K.  Nanda,  has  decided  to  conduct  a  series  of 
Practical Workshops / Demonstrations in the term 2013‐14, aimed at encouraging hands‐on engineering 
and fun interactions.  We are proud to be associated with the first such activity.  

The  Workshop  is  being  conducted by  the  team  at CENGRS,  which  is  a  leading  consultancy  firm  in  the 
field  of  Geotechnical  Engineering,  based  in  Delhi  NCR.    CENGRS  has  vast  experience  in  the  field  of 
Geotechnical  Engineering,  with  a  repertoire  of  more  than  4000  projects  successfully  executed  across 
India and abroad since 1990.  The team at CENGRS has conducted over 150 cross‐hole / down‐hole tests 
at various project locations up to a maximum depth of 100 m.   

We hope that you shall enjoy the Workshop.  Please feel free to ask questions and initiate discussions 
during the course of the presentations.  

In case you require any further technical clarifications on the subject even after the Workshop, you may 
contact the undersigned at the contact details given below.   

Warm Regards,  
Sorabh Gupta 
Sr. Project Engineer, CENGRS 
Executive Committee Member (2013‐14), IGS Delhi Chapter 
Cengrs House, A‐100, Sector‐63, Noida (U.P.)‐201309  
 t: +91 120 420 6771 | f: +91 120 420 6775 | m: +91 99108 61118  |  cengrs@gmail.com 
 

 
 
C R O S S H O L E / D O W N H O L E S E I S M I C 
 

TECHNICAL NOTE ON DOWN‐HOLE SEISMIC TESTING (DST) 

1.0 Introduction 

Construction  of  foundation  systems  for  civil  structures  often  requires detailed  information of  the  site 
soil  properties.  Bore  logs  provide  soil  samples  for  soil  type  classification  and  laboratory  testing  to 
determine  strength  and  consolidation  parameters  (among  other  properties)  with  respect  to  depth.  A 
number  of  soil‐boring  related  in‐situ  tests  have also  been  correlated  with  soil  strength  (e.g.  standard 
penetration  test,  cone  penetration  test),  etc.  However,  in  the  interest  of  accuracy,  it  is  certainly 
advantageous to measure an in‐situ soil property directly related to soil modulus. Shear wave velocity 
(Vs) has become the standard property from which in‐situ soil modulus is determined, due to its direct 
relationship  with  modulus  via  the  soil  mass  density  (which  can  be  assumed  with  little  error  or  easily 
measured from soil samples), as well as its relative ease of measurement, due to the advancement of 
seismic techniques. 

A number of in‐situ  test methods have been developed to  measure Vs with  respect  to depth;  such as 

Cross‐hole Seismic  (CS),  Down‐hole  Seismic  (DS),  Spectral Analysis  of Surface  Waves  (SASW),  Multiple 
Impact of Surface Waves (MISW), etc.  Traditionally, CS testing has been considered the most accurate 
method  in determining  Vs,  because  it  is  a  direct  measurement  of  the  wave  speed.    SASW and  MISW 
however,  can be employed  much more  rapidly and  economically  because the methods are performed 
on the ground surface (unlike CS where at least two boreholes are required to perform the testing).  

2.0 Benefits of DST in Geotechnical Engineering 

The utilization of DST in estimating in‐situ wave velocities and the corresponding elastic soil parameters 
is of considerable benefit to the Geotechnical Engineer.  

Some of the important  geotechnical design  problems which  require  the  input  of the elastic  constants 

and absorption properties are:  

• Static and dynamic soil analysis 

• Pile and Footing Foundation Design for Vibrating Loads 

o Calculate Constrained Modulus (M), Shear Modulus (G), and Poisson’s Ratio from local 
seismic velocities 

o Calculate dynamic spring constants 

• Liquefaction assessment 

• Input for near‐surface seismological models 

• Evaluation of soil improvement from blasting 

• Assessment of the regulatory requirements such as those included in the Uniform Building Code.  

 
 
C R O S S H O L E / D O W N H O L E S E I S M I C 
 

3.0 Choice between CS and DS Seismic Testing 

Crosshole Method   Downhole Method 

y Constant Travel Paths  y One Borehole 
y  Negligible Borehole Effects  y No Verticality Measurements 
y  Receivers Properly Aligned for SV‐Waves  y Simple Surface Source 
y  High Signal‐to‐Noise Ratio at All Depths  y Minimum Refraction Problems 
y Detailed Profile  y Less Expensive 
y Workable in Limited Space  y Generate P‐ and SH‐Waves  
y Accuracy Independent on the  y Reversible Source 
Measurement Depth  y Travel Path Increases with Depth 
y Two or More Boreholes  y  Possible Borehole Effects  
y Simple Borehole Source  y Control of Receiver Alignment  Preferable 
y Predominantly P‐ and SV‐ Waves, but SH‐waves  y Signal‐to‐Noise Ratio Decreases with 
Also Possible  Depth 
y Reversible Source   y Detect Low‐Velocity Layers 
y Measure Borehole Verticality  y  More Average Profile  
y Detect Low‐Velocity Layers  y  Useable in Noisy Areas 
y Possible Refraction Problems  y  Workable in Limited Space 
y  Useable in Noisy Areas  y  Accuracy dependent on the 
y  More Expensive  measurement depth 
 

4.0 Calculation of Dynamic Soil Parameters 

The  calculations  of  dynamic  soil  parameters  are  based  on  the  relationships  given  in  IS:  5249‐
1992. 

The Poisson’s Ratio is determined directly from the compression (P) wave and shear (S) wave 
data. It is expressed by the ratio of transverse strain to longitudinal strain.  
 
Young’s Modulus E is the uniaxial stress‐strain ratio. Its dynamic value is expressed by the 
following equation: 
(1+ μ ) (1− 2μ )  
E = ρ Vp 2
1− μ
where:

ρ  =  mass density of soil  = (γ/g) 
γ  =  bulk density of soil
Vp  =  P‐wave velocity 
μ   =  Poisson’s ratio 
 
C R O S S H O L E / D O W N H O L E S E I S M I C 
 

 
The shear modulus G is the stress‐strain ratio for simple shear. Its dynamic value is 
obtained by the following: 
 
E
G = = ρVs 2  
2 (1 + μ )

Coefficients of elastic uniform compression (cu), elastic uniform shear (cτ), elastic non‐
uniform compression (cφ) and the coefficient of elastic non‐uniform shear (cΨ) are given by the 
following relationships:  
 
E 1
cu =  1.13  ×   [A = Standard foundation area, taken as 10 m2] 
1− μ 2 A
cτ = 0.67 to 0.5 cu (for design purpose, cτ may be taken equal to 0.6 cu)
cφ = 3.46 cτ
cΨ = 1.5  cτ
 
5.0 Selection of Dynamic Parameters for Design 

Since the cross‐hole seismic tests completed on site are low‐strain methods, the 
dynamic soil parameters computed here correspond to very low strains.  However, actual design 
strains on the site are usually much higher (often in the range of 2~3%); particularly for 
earthquake conditions.  Hence, the design dynamic parameters should be selected carefully as 
per the anticipated strain  levels(1). 
 
The selection of dynamic parameters must be done based on the project specifications, 
as well as the general guideline given in IS 5249:1992.   
 
As per IS 5249:1992 (Clause 9.0), the value of dynamic shear modulus, G, is affected by 
a number of parameters; out of which confining pressure, shear strain amplitude, and relative 
density are most important. In the range of strains associated with properly designed machine 
foundations, the effect of variation in strain on shear modulus is small and the values of G for 
design purposes may be determined from the in‐situ test values using the relation given below:  
 
G1 σ 01 m
  =( )  
G σ0
 
 
                                                             
(1)
Steven L. Kramer (1996), “Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering”, Pearson Education, Inc.,
Section 6.4, pp. 232-238.
 
C R O S S H O L E / D O W N H O L E S E I S M I C 
 

 
where: 
 
G1 and G  =  Dynamic shear modulus for the prototype and from field test, respectively 

σ01 and σ0  =  Mean effective confining pressure, associated with the prototype foundation and 
the in‐situ test, respectively, and  
 
m    =  Constant depending upon the type of soil, shape of grains, etc.  Their value has 
been found to vary from 0.3 to 0.7 and may on the average be taken as 0.5.  
 
IS: 5249 states that in situations where high strain levels are associated (as in the case of 
analysis for earthquake conditions), the effect of strain level shall be considered along with that 
of  confining  pressure.    In  such  a  case,  the  values  of  G  from  different  field  tests  may  first  be 
reduced  to  the  same  confining pressure (expected  below the footing) and  their  variation with 
strain  levels  may  be  studied  to  arrive  at  an  appropriate  value  corresponding  to  the  expected 
strain level.   
 
The four parameters (Cu, C τ , C φ and CΨ) are highly dependent on strain levels.  Keeping 
this in view, we suggest that a range of ± 20 percent of the above values be used for design.  The 
higher  values  of  these  coefficients  may  be  used  for  machines  having  an  operating  frequency 
higher  than  that  of  the  machine‐foundation‐soil  system.    Similarly,  the  lower  values  of  the 
coefficients  may  be  used  for  machines  operating  at  frequency  that  is  lower  than  that  of  the 
system. 
 
 

                                 C R O S S H O L E / D O W N H O L E S E I S M I C 

DOW NHOLE SEISMIC TEST

  A P P L I C AT I O N  
 

 
The D OWNHOLE S EISMIC (DS)
investigations are similar to CS
investigations, but require only one
borehole to provide shear and
compressional velocity wave
profiles. The DS method uses a
hammer source at the surface to
impact a wood plank and generate
shear and compressional waves.
This is typically accomplished by
coupling a plank to the ground near
the borehole and then impacting
the plank in the vertical and
horizontal directions. The energy
from these impacts is then received
by a pair of matching three
component geophone receivers,
which have been lowered
downhole and are spaced 5 to 10 ft
(1.5 to 3 m) apart.

 
Features:  
 
■  DS method is cheaper than CS, since only one borehole is required for testing.
■ Real-time waveform display while testing
■ Thin layers, which are often invisible to surface methods, can be detected with CS/DS
investigations
■ Accuracy and resolution for CS/DS methods are constant for all test depths, whereas the
accuracy and resolution of the surface methods decreases with depth
■ Acquisition and processing software are easy to use yielding fast and accurate results
■ Triaxial geophones (receivers) can be oriented with inclinometer casing dummy probes 

  STANDARDS
(1)  IS: 13372 (Part 1): 1992, “Seismic Testing of Rock Mass‐ Code of Practice‐ Part 1: Within A Borehole”, 
Bureau of Indian Standards, Delhi. 
(2)  ASTM D7400‐ 08, “Standard Test Methods for Downhole Seismic Testing,” American Society for 
Testing and Materials. 
     

                                 C R O S S H O L E / D O W N H O L E S E I S M I C 

CROSSHOLE SEISMIC T EST

  A P P L I C AT I O N  
  CROSSHOLE S EISMIC (CS) A  customized  P‐SV 
investigations are performed source  provides  the  user 
to provide information on with  the  most  accurate 
dynamic soil and rock and  rapid  method  of 
properties for earthquake generating impacts.  
design analyses for structures,
liquefaction potential studies,
site development, and
dynamic machine foundation
design. The investigation
determines shear and
compressional wave depth
versus velocity profiles. Other
parameters, such as Poisson's
ratios and moduli, can be
easily determined from the
measured shear and
compressional wave
velocities. In addition, the
material damping can be
deter-mined from CS tests.
The CS method is a downhole
method for the determination
of material properties of soil
and rock. A source capable of
generating shear and compressional
waves is lowered in one of the boreholes, and a pair of matching three component geophone receivers
are lowered to the same depth in two additional boreholes set at evenly spaced increments (typically10
and 20 feet from the source borehole) in a line, as shown in the figure above. The receivers are
positioned on the side of the borehole casing to allow detection of the passage of shear and
compressional waves.
  
  Features:
■  CS method is the most accurate method for determining material properties of rock and soil
sites
■ Real-time waveform display while testing
■ P-SV source used in CS tests can impact in the vertical, transverse, and radial directions
■ Thin layers, which are often invisible to surface methods, can be detected with CS/DS
investigations
■ Accuracy and resolution for these methods are constant for all test depths, whereas the
accuracy and resolution of the surface methods decreases with depth
■ Correlation between CS and Spectral Analysis of Surface Waves (SASW) tests on soil sites
showed that the values from both tests typically compare within a 10-15% difference
■ Acquisition and processing software are easy to use yielding fast and accurate results
■ Sources and receivers can be oriented with inclinometer casing dummy probes
 
 
  STANDARDS
(1)  IS: 13372  (Part  2):  1992,  “Seismic  Testing  of  Rock  Mass‐  Code  of  Practice‐  Part  1:  Between  the 
Boreholes”, Bureau of Indian Standards, Delhi. 
(2)  American Society for Testing and Materials, “Standard Test Methods for Cross‐hole Seismic Testing,” 
ASTM D4428‐D4428M‐00. 

 
 C ROSSHOLE / D OWNHOLE S EISMIC

CASE STUDY PROPOSED M ALL

OF
At Noida

SCOPE OF WORK
Details of the tests completed on site are summarized and tabulated below:

UTM Co-ordinates, m
(Zone-43 R) Test Depth Maximum Test
Test
Interval, m Depth, m
Easting Northing
Cross hole seismic test 737883 3166886 1.5 30
Pressuremeter test 737900 3166848 3.0 30

A satellite image indicating the site location is presented below:

SITE LOCATION
C ROSSHOLE / D OWNHOLE S EISMIC

TEST RESULTS AND D E S I G N P R O F I L E S

 C ROSSHOLE / D OWNHOLE S EISMIC

INTERPRETATION BASED ON CROSS HOLE SEISMIC TEST

We have the following observations;

a. The strata at the site classifies as very soft soil (SE) to about 1.5 m depth, as per the Uniform
Building Code (1997). Below this, the strata typically classifies as stiff to very dense soil (S D &
Sc) to the maximum explored depth of 30 m.

b. The measured shear wave velocity (V s) at the test location generally ranges from 217-350 m/s (i.e.
SD: stiff soil) to about 28.5 m depth and 380 m/s (i.e Sc.: very dense soil) at final tested depth of 30
m. However topmost layer of 1.5 m shows lower velocity of 152 m/s (i.e. SE: Very soft soil).

c. There is no significant variation in the velocity of shear waves with depth to the maximum tested
depth of 30 m.

d. The measured compression wave velocities (Vp) below about 1.5 m depth are generally in the range
of 1764-1875 m/s (in the range of fluid wave velocity, possibly due to the saturation of strata owing
to the shallow groundwater table at the site .

UNIFORM BUILDING CODE (1997):CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

Based on the measured shear wave velocity, the strata may be classified into different
categories as per the UBC Code (1997):

Average Shear Wave

Type of Formation Classification
Velocities (Vs), (m/s)
Hard Rock >1500 SA
Rock 760 – 1500 SB
Very Dense Soil and Soft Rock 360 – 760 SC
Stiff Soil 180 – 360 SD
Very Soft Soil <180 SE
 C ROSSHOLE / D OWNHOLE S EISMIC

VS-N CORRELATIONS REPORTED IN LITERATURE VS TEST DATA

CORRELATION OF SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY