Sunteți pe pagina 1din 38

NON-DESTRUCTIVE TESTING OF GROUND SITES USING SPECTRAL ANALYSIS OF SURFACE WAVE TECHNIQUE

SITES USING SPECTRAL ANALYSIS OF SURFACE WAVE TECHNIQUE Department of Civil Engineering Indian Institute of Science

Department of Civil Engineering

Indian Institute of Science

Bangalore

by

Shubhrajit Maitra

Under the guidance of

Prof. Jyant Kumar

ORGANIZATION

Introduction

Literature Review

Equipment details and description of sites

Data acquisition

Signal processing

Results

Concluding remarks

References

INTRODUCTION

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

layers  Can be used up to a considerable depth • SWM Active Source Methods Passive

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

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

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

SPECTRAL ANALYSIS OF SURFACE WAVES (SASW)

SURFACE WAVES

Propagates parallel to earth’s surface without spreading energy through the earth’s interior

Most of the energy propagates in a shallow zone, roughly equal to one wavelength (λ) (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

SPECTRAL ANALYSIS OF SURFACE WAVES (SASW)

• HOMOGENEOUS MEDIUM 1 2 2 2 2  2 V  V 2 V
• HOMOGENEOUS MEDIUM
1
2
2
2
2
2
V
V
2
V
 
R
R
4 1
  
R
1
0
2
2
2
V
V
V
  
S
P
S
[Lord Rayleigh (1885)]
• NON-HOMOGENEOUS MEDIUM
 Dispersion occurs
 DISPERSION: Variation of phase
velocity as a function of
frequency or wavelength

Fig. 1 Geometric dispersion of surface waves in non-homogeneous medium

LITERATURE REVIEW

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 & Röesset,

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,

D=λ/3 (Heisey et al., 1982)

S 1.1

V

C

(C=Phase Velocity)

D=λ/2 (Heukelum et al., 1960)

EQUIPMENT DETAILS AND DESCRIPTION OF SITES

EQUIPMENT FOR GENERATING AND CAPTURING SEISMIC WAVES

SITES EQUIPMENT FOR GENERATING AND CAPTURING SEISMIC WAVES Fig. 2 Cylindrical dropping mass along with tripod

Fig. 2 Cylindrical dropping mass along

with tripod and pulley arrangement

Fig. 2 Cylindrical dropping mass along with tripod and pulley arrangement Fig. 3 Sledgehammer of mass

Fig. 3 Sledgehammer of mass 20 lbs (9.07 kg)

EQUIPMENT DETAILS AND DESCRIPTION OF SITES

EQUIPMENT FOR GENERATING AND CAPTURING SEISMIC WAVES

SITES EQUIPMENT FOR GENERATING AND CAPTURING SEISMIC WAVES Fig. 4 Geophone fixed to the ground Fig.

Fig. 4 Geophone fixed to

the ground

CAPTURING SEISMIC WAVES Fig. 4 Geophone fixed to the ground Fig. 5 Data acquisition system Fig.

Fig. 5 Data acquisition

system

Geophone fixed to the ground Fig. 5 Data acquisition system Fig. 6 Connecting cable of geophones

Fig. 6 Connecting cable of

geophones to DAqS

fixed to the ground Fig. 5 Data acquisition system Fig. 6 Connecting cable of geophones to

Fig. 7 Base Plate

10

EQUIPMENT DETAILS AND DESCRIPTION OF SITES

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

SOURCE DISTANCE (X)

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

X 0.5

max

or,

max

2X

(Stokoe et al., 1994)

…Eq. (1)

D=λ/3 (Heisey et al., 1982)…………………………………………………… Eq. (2)

D=λ/2 (Heukelum et al., 1960)

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

X 1.5D

For D=30 m,

X 45m

Three values of S was considered (46 m, 56 m, 66 m).

DATA ACQUISITION

RECEIVER SPACING

DATA ACQUISITION • RECEIVER SPACING Fig. 8 Conventional way of using just two receivers Fig. 9

Fig. 8 Conventional way of using just two receivers

SPACING Fig. 8 Conventional way of using just two receivers Fig. 9 Source and receiver distance

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

13

DATA ACQUISITION

FIELD TESTING

DATA ACQUISITION • FIELD TESTING Fig. 10 Spike for fixing geophones Fig. 11 Array of geophones

Fig. 10 Spike for fixing geophones

• FIELD TESTING Fig. 10 Spike for fixing geophones Fig. 11 Array of geophones fixed to

Fig. 11 Array of geophones fixed to ground

ACQUISITION OF DATA

Array of geophones fixed to ground • ACQUISITION OF DATA Fig. 12 Lifting and dropping of

Fig. 12 Lifting and dropping of 65 kg mass at site G-2

Sampling rate : 1024 data points per second

Mass was dropped six-seven times for each value of X

14

SIGNAL PROCESSING

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:

G

Y

1

Y

2

Y

1

*

(

f

).

Y

2

(

f

)

,

G

Y

1

Y

1

Y

1

*

(

f

).

Y

1

(

f

)

,

wrap

(

f

)

tan

1

[

(

imaginary G

Y

1

Y

2

)./(

real G

(

Y

unwrap

wrap

2

X

unwrap

,

2

n

C f

,

where, n= 0,1,2…

Coherence function

1

Y

2

G

Y

)]

2

Y

2

G

Y

1

Y

*

Y

2

(

f

2

(

f

)

2

).

Y

2

(

f

)

G

Y

1

Y

1

(

f

).

G

Y

2

Y

2

(

f

)

Here, G Y1Y1 ,G Y2Y2 are auto power spectra, G Y1Y2 is cross power spectra. ϕ wrap and ϕ unwrap are wrapped and unwrapped phase angle respectively. λ=Wavelength, C= Phase Velocity, f=frequency.

15

SIGNAL PROCESSING

PHASE UNWRAPPING PROCEDURE

It deals with calculating ϕ unwrap from ϕ wrap .

unwrap

wrap

2

n

n needs to be found out.

where, n= 0,1,2…

For correct value of n, (ϕ 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.

SIGNAL PROCESSING

ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE ON PHASE UNWRAPPING

PROCESSING • ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE ON PHASE UNWRAPPING Fig. 13 Plot of signals from receiver R 1

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

ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE ON PHASE UNWRAPPING

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

Fig. 14 Variation of wrapped phase angle with frequency

SIGNAL PROCESSING

ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE ON PHASE UNWRAPPING

For f < 22.3 Hz, n=0

For 22.3 Hz < f < 50 Hz, n=1

< 22.3 Hz, n=0 • For 22.3 Hz < f < 50 Hz, n=1 Fig. 15

Fig. 15 Variation of unwrapped and wrapped phase angle with frequency after filtering

out unwanted data

SIGNAL PROCESSING

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 (λ) = 2π radians.

Phase difference corresponding to receiver spacing X = ϕ unwrap radians.

X

unwrap

2

or,

2

X

unwrap

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

C f

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 λ is obtained.

SIGNAL PROCESSING

CONSTRUCTION OF SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY PROFILE

As per Tokimatsu et al., 1997,

S 1.1

V

C

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

As per Heisey et al., 1982,

Equivalent depth (D) = λ/3

Thus, without doing any rigorous inversion analysis, rough estimate of shear wave velocity profile can be determined.

RESULTS

COMPARISON OF SIGNALS IN TIME DOMAIN

Comparison between various sites

SIGNALS IN TIME DOMAIN  Comparison between various sites Fig. 16 (a) Signals shown by geophone

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

COMPARISON OF SIGNALS IN TIME DOMAIN

Comparison between various sites

SIGNALS IN TIME DOMAIN  Comparison between various sites Fig. 16 (b) Signals shown by geophone

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

COMPARISON OF SIGNALS IN TIME DOMAIN

Comparison of signals for various values of source to sensor distance (S)

for various values of source to sensor distance ( S ) Fig. 17 Signals shown by

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

COMPARISON OF SIGNALS IN TIME DOMAIN

Comparison of signals for different types of sources

 Comparison of signals for different types of sources Fig. 18 Signals shown by geophone R1
 Comparison of signals for different types of sources Fig. 18 Signals shown by geophone R1

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

COMPARISON OF SIGNALS IN FREQUENCY DOMAIN

Comparison between various sites

IN FREQUENCY DOMAIN  Comparison between various sites Fig. 19 Fourier amplitude spectrum of measured time
IN FREQUENCY DOMAIN  Comparison between various sites Fig. 19 Fourier amplitude spectrum of measured time
IN FREQUENCY DOMAIN  Comparison between various sites Fig. 19 Fourier amplitude spectrum of measured time
IN FREQUENCY DOMAIN  Comparison between various sites Fig. 19 Fourier amplitude spectrum of measured time

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

26

RESULTS

COMPARISON OF SIGNALS IN FREQUENCY DOMAIN

Comparison of signals for different values of source to sensor distance (S)

for different values of source to sensor distance ( S ) Fig. 20 Fourier amplitude spectrum
for different values of source to sensor distance ( S ) Fig. 20 Fourier amplitude spectrum
for different values of source to sensor distance ( S ) Fig. 20 Fourier amplitude spectrum

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

27

RESULTS

COMPARISON OF SIGNALS IN FREQUENCY DOMAIN

Comparison of signals for different types of sources

 Comparison of signals for different types of sources Fig. 21 Fourier amplitude spectrum of measured
 Comparison of signals for different types of sources Fig. 21 Fourier amplitude spectrum of measured

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

DISPERSION CURVES

RESULTS • DISPERSION CURVES Fig. 22 Phase velocity ( C ) versus frequency ( f )
RESULTS • DISPERSION CURVES Fig. 22 Phase velocity ( C ) versus frequency ( f )
RESULTS • DISPERSION CURVES Fig. 22 Phase velocity ( C ) versus frequency ( f )

Fig. 22 Phase velocity (C) versus frequency (f) plots for sites G-1, G-2, G-3 and G-4

29

RESULTS

DISPERSION CURVES

RESULTS • DISPERSION CURVES Fig. 23 Phase velocity ( C ) versus wavelength ( λ )
RESULTS • DISPERSION CURVES Fig. 23 Phase velocity ( C ) versus wavelength ( λ )
RESULTS • DISPERSION CURVES Fig. 23 Phase velocity ( C ) versus wavelength ( λ )
RESULTS • DISPERSION CURVES Fig. 23 Phase velocity ( C ) versus wavelength ( λ )

Fig. 23 Phase velocity (C) versus wavelength (λ) plots for sites G-1, G-2, G-3 and G-4

RESULTS

DISPERSION CURVES

Comparison between four sites

• DISPERSION CURVES  Comparison between four sites Fig. 24 Comparison of dispersion curves for sites

Fig. 24 Comparison of dispersion curves for sites G-1, G-2, G-3 and G-4

RESULTS

DISPERSION CURVES

Comparison for different types of sources

CURVES  Comparison for different types of sources Fig. 24 Comparison of phase velocity versus wavelength

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

RESULTS

SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY PROFILE

Comparison between four sites

WAVE VELOCITY PROFILE  Comparison between four sites Fig. 24 Comparison of approximate Shear Wave Velocity

Fig. 24 Comparison of approximate Shear Wave Velocity profile for sites

CONCLUDING REMARKS

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 λ max .

Higher sampling rate is not necessary for exploration up to a greater depth in case of ground sites.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

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.

THANK YOU