NON-DESTRUCTIVE TESTING OF GROUND

SITES USING SPECTRAL ANALYSIS OF

SURFACE WAVE TECHNIQUE
by
Shubhrajit Maitra

Under the guidance of
Prof. Jyant Kumar
Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Science
Bangalore
ORGANIZATION
Introduction
Literature Review
Equipment details and description of sites
Data acquisition
Signal processing
Results
Concluding remarks
References
2
INTRODUCTION
3
BACKGROUND
In-situ Surface Wave Methods (SWM) : Identification of soil properties at
large scale, under undisturbed conditions, at very low strain.

Advantages of SWM
Non-destructive and non-invasive method
Saves time and money
Can detect low-velocity layers
Can be used up to a considerable depth
SWM Active Source Methods

Passive Source Methods
Spectral Analysis of Surface Waves (SASW) : Active source surface
wave method that capitalize upon the dispersive nature of Rayleigh waves.
INTRODUCTION
4
OBJECTIVE
Study the shear wave velocity (V
S
) profiles for site specific investigations

Compare these profiles with available V
S
profiles obtained from other
tests, such as cross bore hole tests

Study the variation of maximum depth of exploration with stiffness
characteristics of the site

Study the effect of change in impact energy at the source on depth of
exploration
LITERATURE REVIEW
5
IN SITU NON-DESTRUCTIVE METHODS FOR OBTAINING THE
SUBSURFACE PROFILE OF THE GROUND
Reflection survey

Refraction survey

Down-hole and up-hole seismic surveys

Cross-hole seismic survey

Steady state vibration technique

Surface wave methods

SPECTRAL ANALYSIS OF SURFACE WAVES (SASW)

MULTI-CHANNEL ANALYSIS OF SURFACE WAVES (MASW)
LITERATURE REVIEW
6
SPECTRAL ANALYSIS OF SURFACE WAVES (SASW)
SURFACE WAVES

Propagates parallel to earths surface without spreading energy through
the earths interior

Most of the energy propagates in a shallow zone, roughly equal to one
wavelength () (Richart et al., 1970)

More than two-thirds of total seismic energy generated is imparted into
Rayleigh waves (Richart et al.,1970)

SPECTRAL ANALYSIS OF SURFACE WAVES

Non-intrusive method to determine the shear wave velocity profile

Based on the geometric dispersion of surface waves

LITERATURE REVIEW
7
SPECTRAL ANALYSIS OF SURFACE WAVES (SASW)
NON-HOMOGENEOUS MEDIUM

Fig. 1 Geometric dispersion of surface
waves in non-homogeneous medium
0 1 1 4 2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
=
|
|
.
|

\
|

|
|
.
|

\
|

|
|
.
|

\
|

S
R
P
R
S
R
V
V
V
V
V
V
HOMOGENEOUS MEDIUM

[Lord Rayleigh (1885)]
Dispersion occurs

DISPERSION: Variation of phase
velocity as a function of
frequency or wavelength
LITERATURE REVIEW
8
SPECTRAL ANALYSIS OF SURFACE WAVES (SASW)
METHODOLOGY

Data Acquisition
Evaluation of dispersion curve by phase unwrapping method
Determination of shear wave velocity profile by inversion process

INVERSION ANALYSIS

Can be achieved using various numerical techniques proposed by several
researchers (Thomson, 1950; Haskell, 1953; Lysmer, 1970; Kausel & Resset,
1981; Nazarian, 1984; Nazarian et al., 1988; Hossain & Drnevich, 1989;
Tokimatsu et al., 1992a; Park et al., 1999; Xia et al., 2002; Kumar, 2011)

SIMPLEST APPROACH TO INVERSION

According to Tokimatsu et al., 1997, (C=Phase Velocity)

D=/3 (Heisey et al., 1982) D=/2 (Heukelum et al., 1960)
C V
S
1 . 1 ~
EQUIPMENT DETAILS AND DESCRIPTION OF SITES
9
EQUIPMENT FOR GENERATING AND CAPTURING SEISMIC WAVES
Fig. 2 Cylindrical dropping mass along
with tripod and pulley arrangement

Fig. 3 Sledgehammer of
mass 20 lbs (9.07 kg)
EQUIPMENT DETAILS AND DESCRIPTION OF SITES
10
EQUIPMENT FOR GENERATING AND CAPTURING SEISMIC WAVES
Fig. 4 Geophone fixed to
the ground
Fig. 5 Data acquisition
system
Fig. 6 Connecting cable of
geophones to DAqS
Fig. 7 Base Plate
EQUIPMENT DETAILS AND DESCRIPTION OF SITES
11
DESCRIPTION OF SITES

Testing was done on four sites (G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4)

Location of sites: New BARC Campus, Visakhapatnam

Sites G-1 and G-2:
Located near the foot of a hill
Separated by a distance of 300 m
Sites G-3 and G-4:
Located in an open field close to sea
Separated by a distance of 120 m
DATA ACQUISITION
12
SOURCE DISTANCE (X)

Plane-wave propagation of surface waves does not occur in most cases until

or,
max
5 . 0 > X
X 2
max
s
(Stokoe et al., 1994)
D=/3 (Heisey et al., 1982) Eq. (2)

D=/2 (Heukelum et al., 1960)

Eq. (1)
Combining Eq. (1) and Eq. (2), we get

D X 5 . 1 >
Three values of S was considered (46 m, 56 m, 66 m).
For D=30 m, m X 45 >
DATA ACQUISITION
13
RECEIVER SPACING
Fig. 8 Conventional way of using just two receivers
Fig. 9 Source and receiver distance configurations at sites G-1, G-2, G-3 and G-4
PURPOSE OF USING MORE NUMBER OF GEOPHONES
Resolve the issue of phase unwrapping
Quick generation of input data for several simultaneous values of X
DATA ACQUISITION
14
FIELD TESTING
Fig. 12 Lifting and dropping of
65 kg mass at site G-2
Fig. 11 Array of
geophones fixed to
ground
Fig. 10 Spike for
fixing geophones
ACQUISITION OF DATA

Sampling rate : 1024 data points per second

Mass was dropped six-seven times for each value of X
SIGNAL PROCESSING
15
SPECTRAL CALCULATIONS IN SASW TECHNIQUE
y
1
(t) and y
2
(t) are time domain records of two geophones separated by distance X.

Measured time records were transformed into the frequency domain, Y
1
(f) and Y
2
(f)
with the help of Fast Fourier Transform(FFT).

As per Nazarian & Desai, 1993:
) ( ). (
2
*
1 2 1
f Y f Y G
Y Y
= ) ( ). (
1
*
1 1 1
f Y f Y G
Y Y
= ) ( ). (
2
*
2 2 2
f Y f Y G
Y Y
=
)] ( /( ). ( [ tan ) (
2 1 2 1
1
Y Y Y Y wrap
G real G imaginary f

= |
t | | n
wrap unwrap
2 =
unwrap
X
|
t

2
=
f C =
Coherence function
) ( ). (
) (
2 2 1 1
2
2 1
f G f G
f G
Y Y Y Y
Y Y
=

, ,
, ,
where, n= 0,1,2
Here, G
Y1Y1
,G
Y2Y2
are auto power spectra, G
Y1Y2
is cross power spectra.

wrap
and
unwrap
are wrapped and unwrapped phase angle respectively.
=Wavelength, C= Phase Velocity, f=frequency.

SIGNAL PROCESSING
16
PHASE UNWRAPPING PROCEDURE

It deals with calculating
unwrap
from
wrap
.



n needs to be found out.

For correct value of n, (
unwrap
/X) becomes constant for a given frequency.

Thus, by making use of simultaneous records gathered by geophones (R
1
,
R
2
,R
3
etc.), n can be found out by trial and error.
t | | n
wrap unwrap
2 =
where, n= 0,1,2
SIGNAL PROCESSING
17
ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE ON PHASE UNWRAPPING

Fig. 13 Plot of signals from receiver R
1
and R
6
at site G-1 for 65 kg drop mass and
46 m source to R
1
distance
SIGNAL PROCESSING
18
ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE ON PHASE UNWRAPPING

Fig. 14 Variation of wrapped phase angle with frequency
SIGNAL PROCESSING
19
ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE ON PHASE UNWRAPPING

Fig. 15 Variation of unwrapped and wrapped phase angle with frequency after filtering
out unwanted data
For f < 22.3 Hz, n=0

For 22.3 Hz < f < 50 Hz, n=1
SIGNAL PROCESSING
20
CONSTRUCTION OF FIELD DISPERSION CURVE

After obtaining unwrapped phase Fourier spectrum, field dispersion curve is
obtained using the procedure discussed below.

Phase difference corresponding to one wavelength () = 2 radians.

Phase difference corresponding to receiver spacing X =
unwrap
radians.







Phase velocity (C) is then calculated using the expression:


Calculations done for all combinations of frequency (f), source to sensor
distance (S), receiver spacing (X) and type of source used.

Plot of C versus f and C versus is obtained.
t

| 2
=
unwrap
X
or,
unwrap
X
|
t

2
=
f C =
SIGNAL PROCESSING
21
CONSTRUCTION OF SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY PROFILE

As per Tokimatsu et al., 1997,


(C=Phase Velocity, V
S
=Shear Wave Velocity)


As per Heisey et al., 1982,

Equivalent depth (D) = /3

Thus, without doing any rigorous inversion analysis, rough estimate of shear
wave velocity profile can be determined.
C V
S
1 . 1 ~
RESULTS
22
COMPARISON OF SIGNALS IN TIME DOMAIN
Comparison between various sites
Fig. 16 (a) Signals shown by geophone R
1
for S = 46 m and 65 kg drop mass used as
source for Site G-1 and Site G-2
RESULTS
23
COMPARISON OF SIGNALS IN TIME DOMAIN
Comparison between various sites
Fig. 16 (b) Signals shown by geophone R
1
for S = 46 m and 65 kg drop mass used as
source for Site G-3 and Site G-4
RESULTS
24
COMPARISON OF SIGNALS IN TIME DOMAIN
Comparison of signals for various values of source to sensor distance (S)
Fig. 17 Signals shown by geophone R1 at site G-1 for (a) S = 46 m, (b) S = 56 m,
(c) S =66 m for 65kg mass used as source
RESULTS
25
COMPARISON OF SIGNALS IN TIME DOMAIN
Comparison of signals for different types of sources
Fig. 18 Signals shown by geophone R1 at site G-1 for S = 46 m when (a) 65 kg mass
dropped from a height of 4 m, (b) sledgehammer; was used as source
RESULTS
26
COMPARISON OF SIGNALS IN FREQUENCY DOMAIN
Comparison between various sites
Fig. 19 Fourier amplitude spectrum of measured time records at geophone R
1
for
S=46m and 65 kg drop mass for (a) Site G-1, (b) Site G-2, (c) Site G-3 and (d) Site G-4
RESULTS
27
COMPARISON OF SIGNALS IN FREQUENCY DOMAIN
Comparison of signals for different values of source to sensor distance (S)
Fig. 20 Fourier amplitude spectrum of measured time records at geophone R
1
for
65kg drop mass at Site G-2 for (a) S =46 m, (b) S = 56 m and (c) S = 66 m
RESULTS
28
COMPARISON OF SIGNALS IN FREQUENCY DOMAIN
Comparison of signals for different types of sources
Fig. 21 Fourier amplitude spectrum of measured time records at geophone R1 for
S=46m at Site G-2 for (a) 65 kg drop mass and (b) 20 lbs sledgehammer
RESULTS
29
DISPERSION CURVES
Fig. 22 Phase velocity (C) versus frequency (f) plots for sites G-1, G-2, G-3 and G-4
RESULTS
30
DISPERSION CURVES
Fig. 23 Phase velocity (C) versus wavelength () plots for sites G-1, G-2, G-3 and G-4
RESULTS
31
DISPERSION CURVES
Fig. 24 Comparison of dispersion curves for sites G-1, G-2, G-3 and G-4
Comparison between four sites
RESULTS
32
DISPERSION CURVES
Fig. 24 Comparison of phase velocity versus wavelength plots for X= 46 m at site G-2 for
(a) 65 kg drop mass and (b) 20 lbs sledgehammer used as input energy at the source
Comparison for different types of sources
RESULTS
33
SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY PROFILE
Fig. 24 Comparison of approximate Shear Wave Velocity profile for sites
G-1, G-2, G-3 and G-4
Comparison between four sites
CONCLUDING REMARKS
34
CONCLUDING REMARKS

Using SASW method, exploration can be carried up to a greater depth on hard soil
stratum as compared to soft stratum for the same input source energy.


Exploration up to considerable depth can be achieved by
proper configuration of equipment in fields,
proper choice of parameters during testing,
In order to explore up to greater depth, higher values of source to sensor
distances needs to be considered.

An increase in input impact energy at the source results in increase of value of
max
.

Higher sampling rate is not necessary for exploration up to a greater depth in case
of ground sites.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
35
SCOPE FOR FURTHER WORK

Determination of the stiffness profiles of various layers needs to be done using
an inversion analysis. This would allow obtaining shear wave velocity profile
more accurately. Sharp changes in values of shear wave along depth can be
detected.


Obtained shear wave velocity profile can be then compared with available
cross bore hole data to validate the results obtained.

More field tests needs to be done on various kinds of ground conditions to
validate the results obtained. The primary aim is to explore more number of
sites more effectively.


REFERENCES
Banab, K.K., & Motazedian, D., 2010. On the efficiency of the multi-channel analysis of
surface wave method for shallow and semideep loose soil layers. International Journal of
Geophysics, Volume 2010, Article ID 403016, doi:10.1155/2010/403016.

Ceballos, M.A., & Prato, C.A., 2011. Experimental estimation of soil profiles through
spatial phases analysis of surface waves. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 31,
91103.

Chen, L., Zhu, J., Yan, X., & Song, C., 2004. On arrangement of source and receivers in
SASW testing. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 24, 389396.

Haskell, N.A., 1953. The dispersion of surface waves on multilayered media. Bull. Seismol
Soc Am, 43(1), 1734.

Heisey, J.S., Stokoe II, K.H., Hudson, W.R., & Meyer, A.H., 1982b. Determination of in situ
shear wave velocities from spectral analysis of surface waves. Summary report 256- 2(S),
Project 3-8-80-256, Center for Transportation Research, Bereau of Engineering Research,
The University of Texas at Austin, November 1982.

Heukelom, W., & Foster, C.R., 1960. Dynamic testing of pavements. Journal of the Soil
Mechanics and Foundations, ASCE, Vol. 86, No. SM1, Part 1, 2368-2372.
36
REFERENCES
Nazarian S., 1984. In situ determination of elastic moduli of soil deposits and pavement
systems by spectral-analysis-of-surface-waves method. Ph.D. Dissertation, The University
of Texas at Austin.

Park, C.B., Miller, R.D., & Xia, J., 1999. Multichannel analysis of surface waves, Geophysics,
64(3), 800808.

Rakaraddi, P.G., 2012. Non-destructive testing of ground and pavement sites using surface
wave technique. PhD thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Science.

Tokimatsu, K., Kuwayama, S., Tamura, S., & Miyadera, Y., 1991. Vs determination from
steady state Rayleigh wave method. Soils and Foundations, 31 (2), 153163.

Tokimatsu, K., 1997. Geotechnical site characterization using surface waves. Earthquake
Geotechnical Engineering, Ishihara (ed.), Balkema, Rotterdam, 1333 1368.

Jones, R., 1962. Surface wave technique for measuring the elastic properties and
thickness of roads: Theoretical development. British Journal of Applied Physics, 13, 21-29.
37
THANK YOU
38