SEISMIC-WAVE-BASED TESTING IN

GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING
Wave Velocities
The far-field velocities of elastic stress
waves depend on the stiffness and mass
density of the material as:
Near field & far field
Material Damping
Damping effect- cause attenuation occurs-
seismic wave loses energy as it propagates
through the earth(nonhomogeneous)
attenuatio
n
2) dissipation of
energy due to
internal losses in
1) spreading of the soil or rock
wave energy called (intrinsic
from the source, material
generally called attenuation)
(geometrical) (internal
(radiational Damping.eg-
damping) Frictional
loss/thermoelasticit
y;
Geometric spreading
Complexity in Recorded
Signals
complexity increases significantly in a
layered medium
reflected and refracted body waves
Intrusive, Active Methods
Based on Stress Waves
Crosshole Method
Shear and compression wave velocities can
be determined from time-of-travel
measurements between source and one or
more receivers.
Source and receivers are placed at the
same depth in adjacent boreholes
Downhole Method
Measure the times for compression and shear
waves to travel between a source on the
surface and points within the soil mass.
one borehole only, so the cost is less.
Disadvantage-wave energy has to travel
increasingly larger distances as the depth
of testing increases.
In the writers experience, the optimum
testing depths range from about 10 m to 50 m.
Seismic Cone Penetrometer Testing (SCPT)
well established tool for characterizing soil
properties by measuring tip and side
resistances on a probe pushed into the soil
(Lunne et al., 1997).
allows measurement of shear wave
velocities
in a downhole testing arrangement.
Borehole Logging.
common practice in petroleum engineering
Different parameters can be estimated
using borehole logging, including: density,
conductivity, acoustic
velocity, clay content, degree of fracturing
CASE HISTORIES
Case History No. 1 Comparison of Field and
Laboratory VS Values
Case History No. 2 Prediction of Earthquake
Site Response
Case History No. 3 Evaluation of Liquefaction
Resistance
Case History No. 4 Evaluation of Soil
Improvement from Blasting
Case History No. 5 Evaluation of a Concrete-
Lined Tunnel and the Surrounding Host Rock
Case History No. 6 Process Monitoring
Changes in Effective Stress (Stress Tomography)
Case History No. 1 Comparison
of Field and Laboratory VS
Values
small-strain shear stiffness Gmax or Go (key
soil property) & geotechnical earthquake
engineering for site response analyses.
Invariably, when field and laboratory values of
Vs are compared, values of Vs lab range from
slightly less to considerably less than the in
situ values, Vs field (Anderson and Woods,
1975).
ROSRINE (1994) study Northridge earthquake-
Intact samples were recovered from depths
ranging from 4 to about 240 m.
 Case History No. 2 Prediction of Earthquake
Site Response
The key point in this example is that two
different Vs profiles are used in the site
response calculation.
 Case History No. 3 Evaluation of Liquefaction
Resistance

-various simplified
procedures for
-This procedure,
evaluating
-The field procedure termed the simplified
liquefaction
originally developed procedure, uses blow
resistance based on
by Seed and Idriss count from the
shear wave velocity
(1971) is used around standard penetration
have been proposed.
the world to evaluate test (SPT) correlated
--However, nearly all
the liquefaction with a parameter
of the simplified
resistance of granular representing the
procedures have been
soils. seismic loading on
developed with
the soil.
limited or no field
performance data.
The procedure proposed by Andrus et al.
(1999) uses field performance data from 26
earthquakes and in situ Vs measurements
at over 70 sites. The case history data from
this procedure, adjusted to an earthquake
moment magnitude (MW) of 7.5
Case History No. 4 Evaluation of
Soil Improvement from Blasting

Figure b- a significant reduction in Vs after blasting

 Figure c stiffness increase with time after blasting.
Figure d 10 month after blasting, the loose sand still had not
regained the stiffness it had before-blasting .
Case History No. 5 Evaluation of a
Concrete-Lined Tunnel and the
Surrounding Host Rock

100 locations SASW testing

D = 3m
Nominal Concrete liner 30cm
 to investigate:
1) the thickness and quality of the concrete liner in the
springline and crown areas
2) the thickness and quality of any grout in the area of the
crown
3) the identification of any voids in the crown area,
4. the stiffness an variability of the rock behind the liner.
Case History No. 6 Process
Monitoring Changes in Effective
Stress (Stress Tomography)
Monitoring the
evolution of the
state of effective
stress because soil
behavior is
objective determined by the
state of stress,
including strength,
stiffness, and
contractive-dilative
tendency