Coursenotes Final

Higher Education Quality Improvement programme
Development of Post-Graduate Research and Degree Programmes in Disaster Risk

Reduction at New Institute on Disaster Prevention and Urban Safety
A training Course on
Non-destructive and Geophysical techniques for Geotechnical Site
Characterization and applications to Civil Engineering
For
Department of Civil Engineering
Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology
Dhaka – 1000, Bangladesh
By
Department of Civil Engineering,
Indian Institute of Science
Bangalore 560012, India
1
Introduction
Geophysical methods and Geotechnical Techniques which are becoming popular now are
strongly connected and can provide way for effective site characterization at minimal cost and
time. Geophysical tests can provide reliable information about the nature and variability of the
subsurface between existing boreholes or can be used at preliminary assessment of the site to
design a detailed geotechnical investigation. Nondestructive testing is a method usually deployed
in the health monitoring of concrete and steel structures to test its integrity or to evaluate the
strength. With ease of doing and fast interpretations of results these tests are an effective
alternative for assessment of capacity of structures. This course presents the non-destructive test
methods with emphasis on pile testing, geophysical test methods, and its applications in civil
engineering particularly in the preliminary stage of site assessment and geotechnical property
characterisation with case studies where these tests are used for design and construction stages.
Objectives
The main objective of this course is to make aware of the participants about the non-destructive
and geophysical test methods applicable in Civil Engineering and update of the recent
advancements in this field. Upon completion of the course the participants will also appreciate
the importance of these methods in the characterization of natural hazards such as earthquakes,
landslides etc.
Contents
The application discussed in this workshop are varied covering problems in geotechnical
engineering, rock mechanics and engineering geology, pile and shallow foundations, ground
improvement techniques, offshore marine engineering, water and environmental engineering and
pavement engineering. The tests which are covered in this course are surface wave techniques
like SASW, MASW, electrical resistivity techniques, GPR, borehole geophysical investigation
techniques like seismic cross hole, uphole, downhole tests, geotechnical instrumentation and
Geotechnical tests like CPT, pressure meter tests along with non-destructive testing of piles
using PIT, PDA, accelerated pile testing techniques and model testing of piles. Most used other
NDT tests on concrete such as Rebound hammer, Ultrasonic pulse velocity, core test, half-cell
2
potential, carbonation etc are also discussed briefly. These contents will be covered viz following
lectures.
1. Overview of Geotechnical and Geophysical techniques: Complimentary Tools for studying

subsurface and applications to Civil engineering
2. Pile Integrity testing and accelerated pile testing by Dr. Parthasarathy
3. Borehole Geophysical Investigations, GPR and NDT – An Overview
4. Use of Multi Channel Analyses of Surface waves(MASW) for site investigation and
geotechnical characterization
5. Shallow subsurface and Marine offshore geotechnical/Geophysical Investigations – By Dr.
Partha Sarathy
6. Evaluation of Dynamic properties of soils and rocks using Geotechnical and Geophysical
methods - Lab and field tests
7. Application of geophysical testing methods and instrumentation in the estimation and
prediction of some natural hazards
8. Case studies of pile load testing both on land and offshore and Lateral Dynamic Load tests on
Piles Dr. Partha Sarathy
Contact:
Contact at IISc: Contact at BUET:
Dr. T.G. Sitharam, Ph.D. (Waterloo, Canada) Dr. Tahmeed M. Al-Hussaini

Professor in Civil Engineering and CiSTUP Professor, Department of Civil Engineering
(founder Chairman), and Sub-Project Manager, CP-3140
KSIIDC Chair Professor in the area of Energy Former Director, BUET – JIDPUS
and Mechanical Sciences,
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE Bangladesh University of Engineering and
Bangalore, 560 012, INDIA Technology Dhaka - 1000, Bangladesh
Email: sitharam@civil.iisc.ernet.in E-mail: htahmeed@yahoo.com
Vice President, Indian Society for Earthquake

Technology, IIT Roorkee and Vice President of
Indian Society for Earthquake Science
Chief Editor, International Journal of
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering (IJGEE),
PA, USA
3
Faculty
Dr. T. G. Sitharam (Ph.D, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada)

Dr.Sitharam is a Senior Professor in the Department of Civil Engineering at Indian Institute of
Science, Bengaluru - India. He has been working in the area of geotechnical earthquake
engineering, disaster risk reduction using seismic microzonation, geophysical testing,
geotechnical engineering and earthquake engineering for the past 35 years, guided more than 30
PhDs and has published more than 500 papers on these topics in journals of international repute
and conferences. He has received many grants from Indian governments and also from
international collaboration for his research work. He is the chief editor of International journal of
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering published by IGI Global, PA, USA. He has been actively
involved in consultancy activities over these years and provided innovative solutions to industrial
problems from his research findings. He has served as a visiting Professor in Yamaguchi
University - Japan, Technical University of Nova Scotia - Canada, University of Waterloo -
Canada and visited many universities worldwide to give invited/keynote lectures. He is the
president of International Association of Coastal Reservoirs (IACRR). He is presently vice
president of Indian Society of Earthquake technology (ISET); Vice president of Indian Society
for Earthquake Science and fellow of Indian Geotechnical Society, Institution of Engineers
(India).
Dr. C.R Parthasarathy (Ph.D, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India)
Dr.Parthasarathy completed his PhD from IISc in Geotechnical Engineering in 2002. He has got
25+ years of International Experience in offshore industry and onland geotechnical testing. Dr.
Parthasarathy has undertaken pile drivability studies, jack-up rig foundation investigations and
design. He was involved in the pile installation, monitoring of several offshore platforms,
involved in several Jackup rig moves and in addition has served as QA/QC Engineer for several
Geotechnical Investigations on dedicated international survey vessels. He has also worked for
Benthic Geosciences Australia for site investigations utilizing PROD (Portable Remote Operated
Drill) in deep waters. His sphere of activities has extended beyond from India to Singapore,
Australia, Tunisia, Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand, Brunei, Middle East, Africa etc. He
is instrumental in promoting quality testing of deep foundations in India. He was Elected
4
National Executive Member of Indian Geotechnical Society (IGS) for 2016-18. He has presented
Keynote lectures and was invited speaker in various conferences, workshops, short term courses
organized by IISc, IITs, NITs and government firms like ONGC throughout India.
Mr. R M Subramanian (PhD, Indian Institute of Technology, Chennai, India)

Mr. Subramanian is a Geotechnical Engineer, has involved in more than 50 industrial projects,
visited sites throughout India and carried out many geophysical testing such as MASW,
Refraction, Cross Hole etc and Block Vibration Test, Dynamic Pile Test in the last 8 years for
companies like L&T, Cairns India Pvt Ltd, Tamil Nadu State Government affiliated firms, IOCL,
BHEL, Reliance Industries, Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation Ltd, etc. He is completing his PhD
from IIT Chennai in the area of dynamic studies on piles. He was awarded fellowship by
Government of India to present his research work in 7th International Conference on Case
Histories in Geotechnical Engineering held in Chicago, USA. He has published about 12 papers
in reputed International Journals and Conference proceedings. Before joining Sarathy Geotech as
Scientific Officer, he worked as Scientist at National Institute of Ocean Technology Chennai
where he had carried out finite element studies related to monopile foundations for offshore wind
turbines and visited offshore sites to carry out and supervise offshore soil investigations. He is a
life member of Indian Geotechnical Society and member of Deep Foundations Institute – USA
and International Society for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering.
5
Tentative Programme

Day 1 – 26 September 2017
09 : 00 09 : 30 Registration and Inauguration
09 : 30 10 : 00 Tea Break
Overview of Geotechnical and Geophysical techniques:
10 : 00 11 : 30 Complimentary Tools for studying subsurface and applications to
Civil engineering
Prof. T.G.Sitharam
11 : 30 13 : 00 Lecture 2
Dr. C.R.Parthasarathy
13 : 00 14 : 00 Lunch Break
Borehole Geophysical Investigations, GPR and NDT – An
14 : 00 15 : 30 Overview
RM. Subramanian
15 : 30 16 : 00 Tea Break
Use of Multi Channel Analyses of Surface waves(MASW) for site
16.00 17 : 15 investigation and geotechnical characterization
Prof. T.G.Sitharam
Day 2 – 27 September 2017
09 : 30 11 : 00 Lecture 5
11 : 00 11 : 15 Tea Break
Evaluation of Dynamic properties of soils and rocks using
11 : 15 12 : 45 Geotechnical and Geophysical methods - Lab and field tests
Prof. T.G.Sitharam
12 : 45 13 : 30 Lunch Break
Application of geophysical testing methods and instrumentation in
13 : 30 14 : 45 the estimation and prediction of some natural hazards
RM. Subramanian
14 : 45 16 : 00 Lecture 8
16 : 00 16 : 15 Tea Break
16 : 15 16 : 30 Closing Ceremony
th
28 Sept 2017: Day 3 – Half day – Training Session on Day 3 –
Demonstrations of tests, Discussions and video presentations - Concluding with a panel
discussions on Future of Geophysical techniques in Geotechnical Engineering
6
Course Material
on
Contributors:
Prof. T G Sitharam, Ph.D.

Dr. C R Parthasarathy, Ph.D.
Mr. R M Subramaniyan (Ph.D)
26th Sept 2017 to 28th Sept 2017
at
Department of Civil Engineering

Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology
Dhaka - 1000, Bangladesh
7
SARATHY GEOTECH & ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT LTD
(An ISO 9001:2008 & OHSAS 18001:2007 Certified)
www.sarathygeotech.com
Geophysical Tests and

Geotechnical Instrumentation
By
RM. Subramanian
Scientific Officer
Overview
• Geophysical Investigations
– Description and Overview
– Commonly employed Geophysical methods
– Estimating parameter for Liquefaction analysis
• Geotechnical Instrumentation
– Need
– Common instruments
– Application in landslide studies
Key Parameters
• Sand • Clay
– Current state of stress – Current state of stress
– Relative density – Preconsolidation stress
– Drained shear strength – Undrained shear
– Stiffness strength
– Cyclic and Dynamic – Stiffness
Properties – Cyclic and Dynamic
Properties
Geophysical Investigation
 Geophysics is the application of physics principles to the
study of the Earth.
 The Earth is comprised of materials that have different

physical properties. Clay and granite, for example, have
different densities, acoustic velocities, elastic moduli,
electrical conductivities.
 Geophysical instruments are designed to map spatial

variations in the physical properties of the Earth.
 Investigations normally extend to a total depth of less 100

m but can be extended to > 100 m in some instances.
Applications
1. Subsurface characterization: bedrock depth, rock type,
layer boundaries, water table, groundwater flow, locating
fractures, weak zones, expansive clays, etc.
2. Engineering properties of Earth materials: stiffness,

seismic velocities, electrical resistivity, Poisson ratio etc.
3. Detecting cavities beneath roadways caused by sinkholes,

abandoned mines, etc.
4. Locating buried manmade objects—buried utilities,

underground storage tanks, etc.
Highlights
• Cost-effective and rapid means of obtaining subsurface
information, especially over large study areas.
• Geotechnical geophysics can be used to select borehole

locations and can provide reliable information about the
nature and variability of the subsurface between existing
boreholes.
• An isolated geologic structure such as a limestone pinnacle

might not be detected by a routine drilling program. An
effective geophysical survey however, could detect the
presence of the pinnacle and map the height and aerial
extent of the same.
Advantages
• Site accessibility, portability, noninvasiveness, and operator safety.
• Geophysical equipment can often be deployed beneath bridges and power lines,
in heavily forested areas, at contaminated sites, in urban areas, on steeply dipping
slopes, in marshy terrain, on pavement or rock, and in other areas that might not
be easily accessible to drill rigs or cone penetration test (CPT) rigs.
• Mostly surface-based and noninvasive, unlike boring or trenching, leave little if

any imprint on the environment.
– crucial in environmentally sensitive areas, on contaminated ground, or on private
property.
• Less dangerous than drilling since there are fewer risks associated with utility
encounters and operations.
• Lastly, geophysical surveys can enable engineers to reduce the number of

required boreholes.
– Integrated Survey and more coverage of the site
– 100 Bore Holes at a site = 10 Bore Holes + Geophysical testing
Applicability of In-Situ Tests
CLAY S SILT S SANDS GRAV ELS Cobbles/ Boulders
SPT
In-Situ Test Method
CPT
DMT
PMT
VST
Geophysics
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Grain Size (mm)

Is it enough?
• Geotechnical geophysics is not a substitute for
boring and direct physical testing. Rather it
complements a well-planned, cost-effective
drilling and testing program, and provides a
volumetric image of the subsurface rather than a
point measurement.
• Geotechnical engineers refer to borehole

information and field geologic maps as “ground
truth,” and rely on ground truth to constrain and
verify all geophysical interpretations.
Commonly employed Geophysical
tests
• MASW
• Refraction*
• Cross hole
• Down Hole
• Electrical resistivity*
• GPR*
• *can be used both

onland and offshore
Body Waves: P and S waves
• Body waves
– P or primary waves
• fastest waves
• travel through solids,
liquids, or gases
• compressional wave,
material movement is
in the same direction
as wave movement
– S or secondary waves
• slower than P waves
• travel through solids
only
• shear waves - move
material
perpendicular to
wave movement
Surface Waves: R and L waves
• Surface Waves
– Travel just below or along the ground’s surface
– Slower than body waves; rolling and side-to-side
movement
– Especially damaging to buildings
Geophysical Testing
MASW – multichannel analysis of surface waves
1. Data acquisition - Surface wave (Rayleigh wave) energy,

generated using a nearby acoustic source, is recorded at
predetermined receiver locations (R1, R2, etc.).
2. A dispersion curve (phase velocity versus frequency),
generated from the acquired field data, is inverted and
used to generate a 1-D shear wave velocity profile
(generally tied to the physical center of the receiver
array).
3. If additional MASW data sets are acquired at adjacent
locations, 2-D or 3-D shear-wave velocity models can be
created.
• Make use of the surface wave energy

• Active and Passive Survey
• Number of geophones used in an array – 12, 24 or 48
• Impact generated by drop of a hammer
• Source offset from first receiver – 0.2 L to 1 L
• Maximum depth of investigation – fn of max wavelength –
impact energy, soil conditions
• Receiver spacing related to shortest wavelength
• Generally upto 30 m coverage with sledge hammer source –
active
• Upto 100 m in passive
Shallow bedrock
Intermediate bedrock
Deep bedrock
Grouting evaluation
oscilloscope
Seismic Refraction
ASTM D 5777
Note: Vp1 < Vp2
Determine depth t1
to rock layer, zR t2
Vertical Geophones t3
Source t4
(Plate)
x1
x2
x3
Soil: Vp1
zR x4
Rock: Vp2
Seismic Refraction
Horizontal Soil Layer over Rock
T r a v e l T im e ( s e c o n d s )
0.020
xc Vp2  Vp1
zc 
0.015 2 Vp2  Vp1
1
Vp2 = 4880 m/s
0.010
xc = 15.0 m
0.005
1 Depth to Rock:
zc = 5.65 m
Vp1 = 1350 m/s
0.000
t values
0 10 20 30 40 50
Distance From Source (meters)
x values
Crosshole
The source and geophone are always at the same elevation, and the energy from each
shot is measured in each receiver hole.
The traveltimes are then converted to velocities by dividing them into the distance
between the holes to get a 1D shear wave velocity profile.
Oscilloscope Crosshole Testing
ASTM D 4428
Pump
t
Shear Wave Velocity:
Vs = x/t
Downhole
Hammer
(Source) Velocity
Test Transducer
Depth (Geophone
Receiver)
packer
x
Slope Slope
Note: Verticality of casing
Inclinometer Inclinometer
must be established by
slope inclinometers to correct PVC-cased PVC-cased
distances x with depth. Borehole Borehole
Oscilloscope Downhole Testing
Pump
Horizontal Plank
with normal load
x
t
Hammer
z1
z2 packer
Horizontal
Test
Depth
Velocity
Interval Transducers
(Geophone
Receivers)
Shear Wave Velocity:

R12 = z12 + x2
R22 = z22 + x2
Cased
Vs = R/t Borehole
Electrical Resistivity Method
All geological formations have a property called electrical
resistivity which determines the ease with which
electric current flows through them. This resistivity is
expressed in the units of Ώm ohms meter and is indicated
by the symbol ᵖ
♦Electrical resistivity is the resistance of a

volume of material to the flow of electrical
current.
♦ current is introduced into the ground

through a pair of current electrodes
♦ Resulting potential difference is measured V

between another pair of potential electrodes  a  2a
I
♦ Apparent resistivity is then calculated as:
Electrical Resistivity
multielectode (usually greater than 20

electrodes) data acquisition
a resistivity meter system with an internal

microprocessor controlled circuitry together
with an electronic switching unit is commonly
used to automatically select the relevant four
electrodes for each measurement.
Electrical Resisitivity Measurements
Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR)
GPR uses a high frequency radio signal
that is transmitted by the antenna and
travels downward until it hits an object
that has different electrical properties
from the surrounding medium then its
get scattered from the object and
receive by the receiver antenna and
stored on digital media.
The computer measures the time taken

for a pulse to travel from the target
which indicates its depth and location.
The reflected signals are interpreted by
the system and displayed on the unit's
LCD panel in the form of cross-sectional
profile .
Propagation depth and center frequency used
in GPR
Generally low frequencies are used for deep probing (>50 m) and high
frequencies are used for shallow probing (<50 m).
Choice of survey
What are the physical properties of interest?
– Surface targets,
– For shallow air filled cavities – spatial variations in velocity, electrical resistivity
Which techniques can provide the required spatial resolution and target definition?
GPR high frequency 1.5 GHz – high lateral resolution, limited depth
GPR low frequency 80 MHz – low lateral resolution, greater depth
Which geophysical tools can perform well under study-area conditions?
Predominantly a soft clayey site – ERT
High contrast soils –GPR
Which techniques are most cost effective?
It should consider acquiring optimum and quality data.
Use of Geophysical test arrived Parameters in
Geotechnical Engineering analysis -
Liquefaction
Liquefaction
a b c
1964, Nigatta
1995, Kobe
San Fernando, 1971 – upstream slope failure,
Hydraullic filling, mixing soil and water, transporting by pipeline, allowing to consolidate
Loose unconsolidated fills failed
Liquefaction in the past
• Alaska Earthquake, USA, 1964
• Niigata Earthquake, Japan, 1964
• Loma Prieta Earthquake, USA, 1989
• Kobe Earthquake, Japan, 1995
• Chi-Chi Earthquake, Taiwan, 1999
• Bhuj Earthquake, India, 2001
• Christchurch Earthquake, New Zealand, 2011
Liquefaction Potential Evaluation
• Appropriate soil type
• Groundwater table
• CSR induced by earthquake
• CRR by SPT or CPT or SWV or
Laboratory tests
• FS = CSR/CRR
CSR
Estimate the Peak Horizontal acceleration in at bedrock level through PSHA.
Carry out equivalent linear ground response analysis to estimate the PGA (surface
level). The input parameter, maximum shear modulus is a function of shear wave
velocity and is best obtained by geophysical tests.
CRR based on SWV
FS = CSR/CRR
Liquefaction Mitigation
Densification of soil :- Various
methods of compaction
• Dynamic Compaction
• Vibro Compaction
• Compaction Grouting
• Compaction by Pile Driving

Dynamic
compaction
Vibro
compaction
Compaction
Grouting
Compaction
by pile Driving
Do a geophysical survey before and after ground improvement.

Carry out Liquefaction analysis and ensure the ground in not susceptible to Liquefaction
Geotechnical instrumentation
• Geotechnical sensors are used extensively in the monitoring

of earth structures and hazards.
• The main geotechnical sensors used for deformation
monitoring include; extensometers, inclinometers,
piezometers, strain meters, pressure cells, geophones, tilt
meters and crack meters.
Need for Instrumentation
– Site Investigations (Initial soil conditions – pore pressure, permeability, slope
stability)
– Design Verification – verify design assumptions and check that performance
is as predicted
– Construction control – to determine how fast the construction can go
without failure
– Quality control – to ensure workmanship and work done to specifications
– Safety – early warning of impending failures, allowing time for safe
evacuation and implement remedial action
– Performance – in service performance of a structure (leakage, pore water
pressure and deformation can provide an indication of the performance of
the dam; monitoring loads on tie backs or rock bolts and movements within
a slope can provide an indication of performance of a drainage system
installed in a stabilized slope
– Legal Protection – evidence for legal defence of designers and contractors
should owners of adjacent properties claim that construction has caused
damage
Piezometers
 Many landslides are

triggered by slope
saturation
following heavy rainfall.
 Measurement of pore
water pressures and
piezometric levels form
an important part of
slope stability analysis.
 Threshold levels can be

defined to provide early
warning of conditions
that may lead to
catastrophic failure.
Inclinometers
 They are instruments installed

in boreholes drilled within the
landslide mass.

The angle of the probe from
the vertical axis is measured in
both directions with the use of
a sensitive gravity pendulum,
tiltmeters, or a servo
accelerometer.
 The deflections are calculated

automatically from this angular
measurement and from the
distance between the wheels
(which is known).
 Deflections are always

compared to an initial reading
since the casing may not be
installed in the vertical position.
Extensometer
Borrows – soft ground

Groutable – downward directed BH
Hydraulic – soft round and rock
Snap ring – competent rock
Crack meter
measure movement
across surface cracks and
joints.
It is installed by grouting,
bolting, or bonding two threaded
anchors (with ball joints) on
opposite sides of the crack and
then attaching the ends of the
gage to the anchors.
Using Instrumentation for
Landslide Studies
Types of Landslides
• The term "landslide" describes a
wide variety of processes that
result in the downward and
outward movement of slope-
forming materials including rock,
soil, artificial fill, or a combination
of these. The materials may move
by falling, toppling, sliding,
spreading, or flowing.
– They are:-
1. Flow
2. Slide
3. Falls
4. Topples
Landslide Fatalities, 2007
Source - American Geophysical Union, Nick Rosser

Recent landslides
Date Place Casualties
16 June 2013 Kedarnath, 5,700
Uttarakhand,
India
31 July 2014 Malin, Ambegaon 50
taluka, Pune
district,
Maharashtra,
India
30 Oct 2014 KOSLANDA, 200

Sri Lanka
20 August 2014 Hiroshima 100
Prefecture, Japan
Landslide Mitigation
a. Revegeitation removes water
and tree roots bind regolith
b. Resdistributing mass, terracing

help catch debris
c. Lowering water table strengthen

potential failure surface
d. Relocating river prevent under

cutting
e. Adding riprap slows undercutting

of coastal cliffs
f. Retaining wall trap falling rock
g. Bolting a cliff face can hold loose

rocks in place
h. Avalanche shed diverts debris or

snow over a road
56
Geotechnical Instrumentation in Landslides
1. Inclinometer
2. Piezometer
3. In place inclinometer
4. Centre hole load cell
5. Extensometer
6. Fixed tiltmeter
7. Crack meter
8. Stress meter
9. Rain gauge
10. Flow measurement
Finite Element Simulations – Comparison of seismic response of
vertical and batter piles
1
acceleration
0.5
(m/s2)
0
-0.5 0 10 20 30
-1
Time (s)
Peak Responses – Varied Super Structure Mass
250
1200
200 1000
Shear force, kN
B20B20
Axial force, kN
150 800
B0B0
600
100
B20B20 400
50 B0B0
200
0 0
0 500 1000 1500 0 500 1000 1500
mass of the structute in tonnes Mass of the structure in tonnes
900 25
Bending moment, kNm
800
700
Displacement, mm 20
600 15
500
400 10
B20B20
300 B20B20
5 B0B0
200 B0B0
100
0
0
0 500 1000 1500
0 500 1000 1500
Mass of the structure in tonnes
mass of the structure in tonnes
Finite element analysis – Slope Stability
FE Model Deformed meshes
FOS = 0.59
Contours of total displacement

Conclusions
• More than 70% of structural failures happen because of
geotechnical failures. Geotechnical Engineering is a versatile field
and not limited only to SPT. Hence by exploring a full scope of
Geotechnical Engineering services and solutions available for a site
or a particular problem can provide effective solutions to avoid
failures and overdesign.
• By making use of the all new available technologies in geotechnical,
geophysical investigations, instrumentation and software's; a
comprehensive analysis, site characterization supported with expert
opinion is required in order to warrant a optimized design in terms
of safety and economy.
• An little extra premium spent for professional geotechnical
investigation program could guarantee the avoiding of structural
failures and loss of human life which are of much more values and
provide long term savings.
Thank You for your Kind attention
Instrumentation and its Benefits
Do nothing and redesign to inevitability of slope failure and eventual

destruction caused by it.
Monitor slope to detect any sign of instability. Remedial measures can then be
instrumented before alarm conditions are generated
Stabilize slopes that need corrective action
Devise a monitoring program to verify that stability of slope is achieved
By implementing a good prediction and forewarning system coupled with effective

efforts to control and mitigate landslides, destruction caused by landslides can be
reduced by more than 75% of what would normally occur.
Any worthwhile plan for corrective and preventive measures in a landslide susceptible
area must be based on detailed integrated geophysical, geotechnical investigation;
geotechnical instrumentation; and finite element studies
RECENT ADVANCES IN SOIL DYNAMICS RELEVENT TO GEOTECHNICAL EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING
T.G. Sitharam
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Science (IISc), Bangalore – 12.
ABSTRACT
Evidences from past earthquakes clearly shows that the damages due to an earthquake and its severity
at a site are controlled mainly by three factors i.e., earthquake source and path characteristics, local
geological and geotechnical characteristics, structural design and quality of the construction. Seismic
ground response at a site is strongly influenced by local geological and soil conditions. The exact
information of the geological, geomorphological and geotechnical data along with seismotectonic details
are necessary to evaluate the ground response. The geometry of the subsoil structure, the soil type, the
lateral discontinuities and the surface topography will also influence the site response at a particular
location. In the case of a nuclear power plant, the details obtained from the site investigation will have
multiple objectives: (i) for the effective design of the foundation (ii) assessment of site amplification (iii)
for liquefaction potential evaluation. Since the seismic effects on the structure depend fully on the site
conditions and assessment of site amplification. The first input required in evaluation of geotechnical
aspect of seismic hazard is the rock level peak horizontal acceleration (PHA) values. The surface level
acceleration values need to be calculated based on the site conditions and site amplification values. This
paper discusses the advances in various methods for evaluating the local site effects, dynamic soil
properties, different filed and laboratory tests required, various site classification schemes and the
evaluation of surface level ground motion. In addition to this, the aspects which need to be considered
in liquefaction potential evaluation, is also covered.
Key words: Site characterization, dynamic soil properties, site amplification, liquefaction.
1. INTRODUCTION
Earthquakes hazards are one of the worst natural disasters, causing huge loss to human life and
destruction of structures. The influence of local soil condition on seismic hazard has been known for
many years. It‟s a well known concept that the characteristics of ground level motion like amplitude,
frequency and duration are strongly influenced by topography and material properties of soil overlying
the bed rock. This change in the ground motion characteristics when the waves travel from bed rock to
ground surface is termed as local site effect. Tdue to the local site effects, the earthquake motion at the
surface will be entirely different from that at the rock level. The study of this variation is very important
1
for shallow founded structures, geotechnical structures like retaining walls and dams, floating piles and
underground structures. Much of the earthquake damages due to shaking, lateral spreading and
liquefaction can attributed to local site effects. The characteristics and thickness of soil conditions are to
be identified based on borings, in-situ geophysical and geotechnical tests. The geological,
geomorphological and geotechnical databases are needed for assessing the local site effects for site
amplification as well as for liquefaction and landslide susceptibility.
The accurrate assessment of local site effects requires the knowledge of the geology, geomorphology,
geophysical properties and geotechnical details. Since the load acting on the soil during an earthquake is
dynamic in nature, it is essential to evaluate the dynamic soil properties. This paper discusses the recent
advances in evaluation of the dynamic soil properties and the various methods which are being used for
site characterization.
2. EFFECT OF LOCAL SITE CONDITIONS ON GROUND MOTION
The analysis of strong motion records have found out that the difference of stiffness between the
overlying soil and the underlying bedrock will affect the amplitude, frequency and duration of
seismic waves. These changes in parameters will depend on the local site conditions (properties and the
geometry of the overlying soil) (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1: Effect of local site conditions

Many historical evidences of the influence of local geological characteristics on the intensity of ground
shaking and damage caused due to an earthquake are found. However, it was not until the early 1970s that
the local site conditions were included in building codes and provisions. In addition to theoretical
evidence, amplification functions developed from measurements of surface and bedrock motions at the
same location, and comparisons of surface motion characteristics from nearby sites with different
subsurface conditions, all confirm the effects of local site conditions of earthquake ground motions.
2
The effects of site amplification were evident at some locations during the Mexico (1985) Loma Prieta
(1989) and Bhuj (2001) Earthquakes. The earthquake ground acceleration records for two sites at Loma
Prieta (Fig.2) – rock site (Yerba Buena) and soft soil site (Treasure Island).
Fig. 2: Site amplification during Loma Prieta earthquake (Seed et al., 1990)
The major factors which will influence the local site effects are discussed in the following sections.
2.1 Effect of Topography
Local site effects produce significant amplifications of the ground motion during an earthquake. One of
the important cause of local site effects is topographical effects. Irregular topography can substantially
affect the amplitude and frequency characteristics of seismic motion. Macro seismic observations of
destructive earthquakes often show higher damage intensity at the tops of hills, ridges and canyons than at
lower elevations and on flat areas.
Two general types of topography have to be distinguished
 Surface topography, mainly characterized by mountainous features, such as the presence of rock
ridges or steep soil slopes.
 Subsurface (or subsoil) topography, is either caused by lateral heterogeneities of the subsoil layers
or by sharp basin geometry (Fah et al., 1997; Mayer-Rosa & Jimenez, 1999).
2.2 Effect of Ground Water
Groundwater can also play a significant role in how earthquakes affect the ground surface when an
earthquake occurs. The most well known effect is liquefaction.
2.3 Deep Soil Effects
The local site effects observed at Mexico and Loma Prieta brought the importance of assessment of Deep
Soil Effects. Both the cities were underlain by thick soil deposits and based on the records of these two
3
earthquakes, Idriss (1990) suggested methods for evaluating the surface level acceleration values for sites
with deep soil deposits.
2.4 Estimation of Local Site Effects
There are different techniques available for the estimation of local site effects. Broadly they can be
categorized as empirical, experimental and numerical methods.
2.4.1Empirical Methods
Several researchers have developed empirical relations between surface geology and various ground
motion parameters. These relationships are developed from particular set of data where both earthquake
observations and information on surface geology are available, which can be applied at other sites where
only geological information is known. The site amplification will depend on various other factors also and
hence these methods should be used when there is not enough geotechnical data to evaluate the site
amplification.
(i) Earthquake Intensity Increment Based on Geology: The relationship between surface geology and
seismic intensity increments has been developed by various researchers. The correlations given by
Medvedev (1962), Evernden and Thomson (1985), Kagami et al. (1988) and Astroza and Monge (1991)
are based on the seismic observations in Asia, California, Japan and Chile respectively.
(ii) Relative Amplification Based on Geology: Borcherdt and Gibbs (1976) proposed the concept of
relative amplification which can be used to evaluate the effect of local geology quantitatively. Relative
amplification is defined as the amplification with respect to reference site. They measured ground
motions generated by nuclear explosions at sites with various geological conditions to obtain the spectral
amplifications of the motions with respect to granitic rock sites.
(iii) Relative Amplification Based on Geotechnical Parameters: The most important geotechnical
parameters, which can be used to estimate the amplification factors are average shear wave velocity and
SPT „N‟ value. Shima (1978) found that the analytically calculated amplification factor is linearly related
with the ratio of shear wave velocity of the surface layer to that of bedrock. When the bedrock shear wave
velocity is found to be relatively constant over a wide area, the relative amplification in each locality can
be obtained from the shear wave velocity of the surface layer.
(iv) Amplification Based on Surface Topography: Topographical effects can play important role on
ground motion characteristics and this has been highlighted by many researchers (Geli et al., 1988;
Faccioli, 1991; Chávez-García et al., 1996, Reinoso et al., 1997; Athanasopoulus et al., 1999). Theoretical
and experimental studies on topographical effects on ground motion have been made by Aki (1988) who
4
showed the effects of topography using a simple structure of a triangle edge model. Facioli (1991) used
Aki‟s model as ridge-valley topography and addressed the relative amplification at the crest of the ridge
compared to the base and also the deamplification in the valley.
2.4.2 Experimental Methods
These methods are based on different kinds of data based on microtremor measurements, weak seismicity
survey and strong motion data. Detailed description for estimating site effects using the above methods is
given below.
(i) Microtremor Data: The site effects are often expressed by the amplification factor and
resonance/fundamental frequency. Usually there are various vibrations in the ground which are caused
by natural or ambient noise like wind, sea waves, traffic, industrial machinery etc. The vibrations that
have comparatively small periods of less than 1 second are called microtremors and those that have a
larger period range is called microseisms. Applications of this method include site response analysis,
natural frequency of structures etc. In India, Mukhopadhyay et al. (2002) conducted microtremor
studies in Delhi and compared the resonance frequency obtained by microtremor with that estimated
from strong motion records.
(ii) Weak Motion Data: Weak motion data are the records from small to moderate, natural or artificial
seismic events (small magnitude earthquakes, aftershocks of big events, mine or quarry blasts, nuclear
tests). Such data can be recorded by digital, high sensitive instruments identical to those used by
seismologists for microseismicity and seismotectonic studies. Field and Jacob (1993) quoted that the
greatest challenge in the estimation of site response from such instrumental recordings is removing the
source and path effects. Two techniques are developed depending on whether or not they need a
reference site with respect to which the particular effects at other sites are estimated.
(a) Reference Site Technique: The identification and removal of the effects of source, path and the site
characteristics is the greatest challenge in evaluating the site response. The simplest method to evaluate
the site response is to divide the response spectrum obtained at the site with that of the bed rock
(reference site). If the recording in the rock is at a close distance to the soil site, then the three
governing factors, which will affect the ground motion, will be the same for both the soil site and the
rock.
(b) Non Reference Site Technique: In practice, adequate reference sites are not always available. For this
reason, different methods without reference sites have been developed. It consists of taking the
spectral ratio between the horizontal and the vertical components of the shear wave part. This
5
technique is a combination of Langston’s (1979) receiver function method for determining the velocity
structure of the crust from the horizontal to vertical spectral ratio (HVSR) of teleseismic P waves, and
the Nakamura’s (1989) method.
(iii) Strong Motion Data: The development of strong motion arrays makes it possible to evaluate site
effects in mega cities like Los Angeles, Tokyo, Taipei and Mexico City using the strong motion data.
While using this method, even the non-linear site effects are included in the recordings. Recent studies
show that there is a fairly good agreement between the old and new techniques.
6
2.4.3 Numerical Methods
The most commonly used methods for one, two and three dimensional analysis of site response are
discussed below.
(i) One dimensional site response analysis: The basic assumption of one dimensional analysis is that all
the boundaries (between different soil layers) are horizontal and the response is caused by the wave
propagating in a vertical direction.
The linear approach has been implemented in the following procedures, which are commonly used for
ground response analysis (Kramer, 1996).
 Transfer functions
 Equivalent linear approximation of non linear response
 Deconvolution
Nonlinear Approach: The linear approach is very simple and it is easy to compute, but it cannot evaluate
the non linear response of the soil precisely. This issue can be overcome by using the nonlinear response
of soil using direct numerical integration (in small time intervals) in time domain. The integration of
motion in small time intervals will permit the use of any linear or non linear stress-strain models. There
are many types of software, which can incorporate the nonlinear response of soils such as PLAXIS,
SASSI2000, FLAC, QUAKE/W and etc.
(ii) Two dimensional site response analysis: The one dimensional analysis may not give very accurate
results in cases where the soil profile is level or gently sloping. In the case of sites where embedded
structures like pipe lines or tunnels are there, one dimensional analysis will not yield the desired results.
The two dimensional analysis can be done either based on frequency domain or time domain methods.
This analysis can be done using dynamic finite element methods adopting either equivalent linear
approach or nonlinear approach (Kramer, 1996). Numerical modeling software like PLAXIS, FLAC,
QUAKE/W, etc can be used for modeling two dimensional cases.
(iii) Three dimensional site response approach: There may be cases in which there is variation in soil
profile in three dimensions and the two dimensional approach may not be adequate. This is ideal for
studying the response of three dimensional structures. The method and the approaches adopted is similar
to the two dimensional approach. The important approaches adopted are equivalent linear finite element
approach, nonlinear finite element approach, and etc. Softwares like ABAQUS, PLAXIS, FLAC,
SASSI2000, etc can used for the modeling purpose.
3. EVALUATION OF DYNAMIC PROPERTIES
7
The response of the soil to cyclic loading strongly influences the earthquake damage. Hence the
evaluation of the dynamic properties (shear modulus and damping ratio) of soils is of utmost importance
in geotechnical earthquake engineering. The dynamic properties can be evaluated based on field and lab
tests and these tests can be broadly divided into two – High strain and Low strain tests. Since soil
properties are highly non linear, the properties which influence wave propagation, stiffness, damping,
Poisson‟s ratio etc. need to be evaluated at low strain. The high strain tests are most commonly used to
measure the soil strength, which need to be evaluated at higher strain levels.
3.1 Filed Tests
The field tests or the in situ tests measure the dynamic soil properties without altering the chemical,
thermal or structural condition of the soil. The field test can be broadly divided into two – low strain and
large strain tests.
3.1.1 Low Strain Tests
The strain levels in these types of tests will be around 0.0001%. Some of the important low strain tests
are discussed below.
(i) Seismic Reflection Test: This test is used to evaluate the wave propagation velocity and the thickness
of soil layers. The test setup will consist of a source producing a seismic impulse and a receiver to
identify the arrival of seismic waves and the travel time from source to receiver is measured. Based on
these measurements, the thickness of soil layer can be evaluated. Even though it is more commonly used
than seismic reflection test, its major application is for delineation of major stratigraphic units.
(ii) Seismic Refraction Test: The successful application of seismic refraction and reflection for profiling
depends upon how well we modeled the wave propagation in the surface layers. The propagation of
seismic waves through near surface deposits is very complex. The particulate, layered and fractured
nature of the ground means that waves undergo not only reflection and refraction but also diffraction,
making modeling of seismic energy transmission impractical. This test will use the arrival time of the first
seismic wave at the receiver. Using the results obtained from this test the delineation of major
stratigraphic units is possible.
(iii) Seismic Cross-hole Test: Crosshole testing provides useful information on dynamic soil properties
required for site-specific ground response analyses, liquefaction potential studies and dynamic machine
foundation design. Perhaps it is best in-situ method used for obtaining the variation of low strain shear
wave velocity with depth. Unlike MASW/SASW testing, it does not rely on any indirect methods to
determine the wave velocities. Dynamic soil parameters, such as moduli and Poisson‟s ratios, can be
easily determined from the measured shear and compressional wave velocities. Only disadvantage with
8
this method is that it requires drilling of bore holes for its testing.
(iv) Down-hole and Up-hole Tests: Procedure for testing of down-hole seismic method is similar to the
seismic cross test discussed in the previous section. The borehole drilled for cross-hole testing can be
used for this test. Three orthogonally oriented geophones are lowered in to the borehole to different
depths. At each depth, geophones are clammed to the bore hole and are used in recording arrival times of
seismic waves. Source is placed at the ground surface. Test set up for uphole is just opposite to downhole.
In uphole test, source is lowered and receiver is placed at the surface. Rest of the procedure is similar.
(v) Steady state vibration test: In this test the wave propagation velocities are measured from steady state
vibration characteristics. However these tests can be useful for determining the near surface shear wave
velocity and they fail to provide the details of highly variable soil profiles.
(vi)Multichannel Analysis of Surface Wave (MASW): Shear wave velocity (Vs) is an essential parameter
for evaluating the dynamic properties (Shear modulus and modulus reduction curve) of soil and also for
site classification. A number of geophysical methods have been proposed for near-surface
characterization and measurement of shear wave velocity by using a great variety of testing
configurations, processing techniques, and inversion algorithms. The most widely-used technique is
MASW (Multichannel Analysis of Surface Waves). MASW is a geophysical method, which generates a
shear-wave velocity (Vs) profile (i.e., Vs versus depth) by analyzing Raleigh surface waves on a
multichannel record. MASW identifies each type of seismic waves on a multichannel record based on the
normal pattern recognition technique that has been used in oil exploration for several decades. The
MASW method was first introduced in Geophysics by Park et al. (1999). It is a very conventional mode
of survey using an active seismic source (e.g., a sledge hammer) and a linear receiver array, collecting
data in a roll-along mode. The MASW is used in geotechnical engineering for the measurement of shear
wave velocity and dynamic properties, identification of subsurface material boundaries and spatial
variations of shear wave velocity.
The captured Rayleigh wave is further analyzed using suitable software to generate shear wave
velocity (Vs) data. This is being done in three steps i) preparation of a Multichannel record (sometimes
called a shot gather or a field file), ii) dispersion-curve analysis, and iii) inversion. MASW has been
effectively used with highest signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) of surface waves.
The generation of a dispersion curve is a critical step in MASW method. A dispersion curve is
generally displayed as a function of phase velocity versus frequency. Phase velocity can be calculated
from the linear slope of each component on the swept-frequency record. A dispersion curve generated for
a particular location in Karnataka is shown in Fig. 3. The shear wave velocity profile obtained by iversion
9
of this dispercurve is shown in Fig. 4.
Hunter et al. (2002) compared the shear wave velocity measured through borehole method and
MASW technique for several sites in the Fraser river delta and found that the difference between the
results was only 9 %. Under normal conditions, MASW can provide the profile up to 30 to 80 m.
However, with special equipments it can go up to 250 – 300 m, as depth of profile depth mainly depends
upon the source energy and geophone spacing. These tests are very useful when the rock depth is more
than 30 m.
Fig. 3: Dispersion curve for a particulare location in Karnataka
10
Fig. 4: Shear wave velocity profile obtained from the above dispersion curve
Advantages and Disadvantages of VS Measurements: The VS measurements are possible in very stiff and
gravelly soils. The VS values can be obtained in sites where borings are not permitted. The shear wave
velocity is directly related to the mechanical property of soil and it is related to small strain shear modulus
Gmax. No soil sample is obtained in the test and hence visual inspection of soils may not be possible. Very
thin layer of loose soil strata may go unnoticed in the test. Various models are assumed for interpretation
of results and the results can be influenced by ground water conditions, presence of clay. The Vs
measurement is a low strain test and the pore pressure buildup and liquefaction initiation are high strain
behaviors.
2.1.2 High Strain Tests
The most commonly used in situ soil tests are high strain test. There are correlations available between
the results of high strain tests and low strain tests and based on these correlations, one can easily calculate
in-situ shear modulus. Some of the commonly used high strain tests are given below.
(i) Standard Penetration Test (SPT): The standard penetration test is done using a split- spoon sampler in
a borehole / auger hole. This sampler consists of a driving shoe, a split- barrel of circular cross-section
(longitudinally split into two parts) and a coupling. The standard penetration test is performed at every
0.75 m intervals in a borehole. Even though it is one of the most common tests, the SPT- N value
obtained has to be corrected before it can be used for any of the empirical relations. Energy correction
11
becomes very important considering the use of various types of equipments/hammers being used in India.
Generally the 60 % energy correction is recommended worldwide.
Use of SPT values in evaluating the site effects: The major use of SPT data is in evaluating various soil
parameters, soil profiling and liquefaction potential evaluation. There are lots of correlations available
for obtaining other soil properties from SPT values. These include correlations to evaluate the relative
density, angle of internal friction, specific weight, unconfined compressive strength etc. Readers can
refer to Bowles (1997) for more details.
(ii) Cone Penetration Test (CPT): Cone Penetration Test (CPT) is an in-situ test done to determine the soil
properties and to get the soil stratigraphy. This test was initially developed by the Dutch Laboratory for
Soil Mechanics (in 1955) and hence it is sometimes known as the Dutch cone test. There are different
correlations available in the literature relating CPT values with other soil properties. Using the CPT
results, the soil type can be identified from the soil behaviour type index (Ic).
(iii) Seismic Cone Penetration Test (SCPT): The seismic cone penetration test uses a standard cone
penetrometer with two geophones. One set of geophones is located behind the friction sleeve and the
other set is located one meter above the first set. It can also be fitted with a geophone or an accelerometer
fitted above the friction sleeve. The test method consists of measuring the travel time of seismic waves
propagating between a wave source and ground surface.
(iv) Dilatometer Test: Dilatometer consists of a stainless steel blade with a thin flat circular expandable
steel membrane on one side. Dilatometer is advanced into a bore hole from the ground surface and tests
are conducted at an interval of 10 to 20 cm. At each interval, the dilatometer is stopped and membrane is
inflated under gas pressure. The readings of inflation of the membrane and corresponding gas pressure are
recorded. There are correlations available to relate the test results with low-strain soil stiffness and
liquefaction resistance of soil.
(v)Pressuremeter Test: A pressuremeter is a cylindrical device that uses flexible membrane for
application of uniform pressure to the walls of a borehole. It measures the stress-deformation behavior of
the soil by measuring volume of fluid injected into the flexible membrane and the corresponding pressure
applied. This is the only in-situ test that can measure stress-strain as well as strength behavior of in-situ
soil.
(vi) Field Vane Shear Test: Vane shear test is done on fully saturated clays for evaluation of undrained
shear strength. This is very suitable for soft clays whose shear strength (less than 100 kPa) will be
changed considerably by sampling. The equipment consists of stainless steel vane (with four blades)
12
connected to the end of a high tensile rod. The rod is enclosed by a sleeve packed by grease. The typical
dimension of the vanes is usually 50 mm by 100 mm or 75 mm by 150 mm and the diameter of the rod
should not exceed 12.5 mm (BIS-4434, 1978). After pushing the vane and the rod into the clay, torque is
gradually applied to the top end of the rod till the clay fails in shear. The shear strength can be calculated
based on the torque applied and the test is repeated at the desired depths. The advantages and
disadvantages of three commonly used in-situ tests are listed in Table 1 (Youd et al., 2001).
Table 1: Comparison of major in-situ tests
Features SPT CPT Vs

Past measurements at liquefaction
Abundant Abundant Limited
sites
Type of stress-strain behavior Partially drained, large Drained, large Small strain
influencing test strain strain
Quality control and repeatability Poor to good Very good Good
Detection of variability of soil Good for closely spaced Very good Fair
deposits tests
Soil types in which test is Non-gravel Non-gravel All
recommended
Soil sample retrieved Yes No No
Test measures index or Index Index Engineering
engineering property
3.1.3 Laboratory Tests
These tests are usually performed on very small representative samples. The success of the laboratory
testing depends heavily on simulating the actual field conditions (initial state of the sample and the
loading conditions). Since the dynamic soil properties depend on lots of factors, the preparation of soil
sample for testing need to be done with utmost care. Some of the laboratory tests used for evaluating
dynamic properties of soil is given below.
(i) Resonant Column Test (low strain test): This is most common low strain test which is being used to
evaluate the dynamic properties of soil. In this test the soil sample, either solid or hollow cylindrical
samples are subjected to torsional or axial loading using an electromagnetic loading system. The
fundamental frequency of the sample can be evaluated and this in turn will give the value of the shear
modulus of the soil specimen. Even though the resonant column test is very good in evaluating the
damping and strain dependent properties of soils, the response will depend on the response of the
apparatus also.
(ii) Bender Element Test (low strain test): In this test the shear wave velocity of laboratory specimen can
13
be measured using a piezoelectric bender element. A transmitter and receiver elements (piezoelectric) are
placed at each end of the sample. There will be a change in dimension of these piezoelectric elements
when subjected to change in voltage. An electric pulse applied to the transmitter causes it to deform
rapidly and produce a stress wave that will travel through the specimen toward the receiver. When the
stress wave reaches the receiver, it generates a voltage pulse and this is measured. The wave speed is
calculated from the arrival time and the known distance between transmitter and receiver.
(iii) Cyclic Triaxial Tests (high strain test): The test device consists of the standard triaxial testing
equipment with a cyclic axial loading unit. In some cases, the cell pressure is also applied cyclically and it
is possible to simulate isotropic or anisotropic initial stress conditions. The values of the shear modulus
and damping ratio can be obtained from the stress strain response of the samples. Cyclic triaxial test is
very useful in determining the liquefaction potential of the soil.
(iv) Cyclic Direct Simple Shear Test (high strain test): The cyclic direct simple shear test can simulate the
earthquake loading more precisely than the cyclic triaxial test and hence this is one of the tests which is
commonly used for liquefaction testing. When a cyclic shear stress is applied to the top or bottom of the
specimen, the deformation is similar to that of a soil element in which there is a vertical propagation of S
wave.
(v) Cyclic Torsional Test: In cyclic torsional test, cylindrical soil specimen is subjected to torsion and
hence the reversibility in shear stress can be achieved when compared to the cyclic triaxial and cyclic
simple shear tests. This test is the most suitable and the most commonly used one to measure stiffness and
damping characteristic for wide range of strain level. While testing on solid specimen, it was noted that
the shear strain is maximum at the outer edge and close to zero along the axis of the specimen. In order to
achieve the radial uniformity of shear strains, hollow cylindrical specimens are preferred over solid
cylindrical specimens.
The above tests have been used for evaluating the modulus reduction curves – G/Gmax with shear strain
and the damping ratios with shear strains.
4. SEISMIC SITE CHARACTERIZATION METHODS
One of the most important steps in earthquake hazard evaluation is site characterization. This involves
acquisition, synthesis and interpretation of qualitative and quantitative information about the site of
interest. The scale (number of tests per grid points) at which the insitu field testing can be carried out
for site response studies is also an important parameter. The number of field tests will vary with the
14
scale of study and heterogeneity of the soil. When the study areas are very large, guidelines of
geotechnical testing for railway lines, tunnels and highways becomes the yard stick. Seismic site
characterization can be carried out based on following methods.
4.1 Based on Geology
The first step in a site characterization is the geological investigation of the region to determine the
geological settings. Geological maps, aerial photographs and field reconnaissance performed by
geologists can be used for this purpose.
4.2 Based on Geotechnical Data
Site response and ground failure are strongly influenced by the properties of soil. Geotechnical reports
for the sites may be available from various governmental or non governmental agencies. The traditional
methods like drilling and undisturbed sampling can provide adequate stratigraphic details and estimates of
geotechnical parameters. But they cannot provide useful estimates of hydrogeological conditions which
are very important in estimating the seismic hazards like liquefaction, landslides etc.
Dynamic response of soils under dynamic loads depends on the cyclic stress strain characteristics of
the soil in shear. The small strain shear modulus (G max), the shear modulus ratio (G/Gmax) and the cyclic
shear strain amplitude are the basic characteristics of soil deformation that play an important role in
dynamic response analysis (Sun et al., 1988; Seed et al., 1986). During earthquakes, soils are subjected to
irregular dynamic loads that cause degradation of stiffness and shear strength with respect to number of
cycles.
The other important parameter controlling the cyclic stress strain characteristics of soils is the number
of cycles. This parameter plays a crucial role especially in analyzing the behavior of soil layers under
earthquake loads.
The in-situ tests generally conducted to identify the soil stratification and engineering properties of
the soil layers are penetration tests. Two methods that have been widely used are the Standard
Penetration Test (SPT) and Cone Penetration Test (CPT). SPT is generally used to investigate
cohesionless or relatively stiff soil deposits, whereas CPT is used to identify soil properties in soft
soil deposits (Lunne et al., 1997).
4.3 Based on Geophysical Investigations
Seismic tests are classified into borehole (invasive) and surface (non invasive) methods. They are based
15
on the propagation of body waves and surface waves, which are associated to very small strain (<
0.001%). The shear wave velocity (Vs) is a soil property used to determine the shear modulus (G) of the
soil as below:
G=ρVs2 (1)
Seismic tests are also used to determine the material damping ratio by measuring the spatial attenuation of
body or surface waves.
Do = α V/ 2πf (Do < 10%) (2)
Where, Do - small strain damping ratio, α - attenuation coefficient; V - velocity respectively of P, S or R

waves; f - frequency.
Recently most of codes like Eurocode-8 (2003), NEHRP (BSSC, 2003), International Building Code
(IBC, 2009) etc. specify the site classification based on the average shear wave velocity values in the top
30 m (Vs30). The amplification of shear waves mainly depends on the density and the shear wave velocity
of the overlying soil layer. Since the variation in density of soil is comparatively less, the amplification
depends heavily on the shear wave velocity near the earth surface. There are two methods to denote the
near surface shear wave velocity (Vs) – depth corresponding to one quarter wave length of the period of
interest and the average shear wave velocity in the top 30 m. The main disadvantage with quarter
wavelength Vs is that the depths associated with this will be very deep. Hence the classification based on
Vs30 is being used more commonly now days. It is calculated using the equation
30
Vs30  (3)
d 
 iN1  i 
 vi 
Where di - thickness of the ith soil layer in metres; vi - shear wave velocity for the ith layer in m/s and N
– no. of layers in the top 30 m soil strata which will be considered in evaluating Vs30 values.
Eurocode-8 and NEHRP: A site classification scheme based on Vs30 values was proposed by
Burckhardt (1994) and a similar scheme was adopted by the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction
Program (NEHRP) also. The NEHRP (BSSC, 2003) site classification scheme is given in Table 2.
Eurocode-8 (2003) has also classified the site based on Vs30, standard penetration test (SPT) and cone
penetration test (CPT) values. The classification given by Eurocode-8 is given in Table 3. Even though
both the schemes use similar methods to identify the site classes, the range of Vs30 values specified for
each site class is different in both the methods. However IS code BIS-1893 (2002) addresses only three
site classes (hard rock, medium soil and soft soil) based on SPT „N‟ values.
16
Table 2: Site classification as per NEHRP scheme. (BSSC, 2003)
NEHRP Site Class Description Vs30
A Hard rock > 1500 m/s

B Firm and hard rock 760 – 1500 m/s
C Dense soil, soft rock 360 – 760 m/s
D Stiff soil 180 – 360 m/s
E Soft clays < 180 m/s
Special sandy soils, eg. liquefiable soils,
F sensitive clays, organic soils, soft clays >
36 m thick
Table 3: Site classification adopted by Eurocode – 8 (2003)

Parameters
Ground
Description of stratigraphic profile Vs30
Type SPT CU (KPa)
(m/s)
A Rock or other rock-like geological formation, > 800

including utmost 5 m of weaker material at the
surface.
B Deposits of very dense sand, gravel, or very 360 – 800 > 50 > 250
stiff clay, at least several tens of metres in
thickness, characterized by a gradual increase
of mechanical properties with depth.
C Deep deposits of dense or medium dense 180 – 360 15 - 50 70 - 250
sand, gravel or stiff clay with thickness from
several tens to many hundreds of metres.
D Deposits of loose-to-medium cohesionless soil < 180 < 15 < 70
(with or without some soft cohesive layers), or
of predominantly soft-to-firm cohesive soil.
E A soil profile consisting of a surface alluvium
layer with Vs30 values of type C or D and
thickness varying between about 5 m and 20
m, underlain by stiffer material with Vs30 > 800
m/s.
S1 Deposits consisting, or containing a layer at < 100 10 - 20
least 10 m thick, of soft clays/silts with a high
(indicative)
plasticity index (PI > 40) and high water
content
17
Parameters
Ground
Description of stratigraphic profile Vs30
Type SPT CU (KPa)
(m/s)
S2 Deposits of liquefiable soils, of sensitive clays,

or any other soil profile not included in types A
– E or S1
A modified site classification system based on geotechnical data was proposed by Rodriguez-Marek
et al. (2001). In this system the stiffness of soil was also taken into account for the site classification. This
system is presented in Table 4. The main advantage of this system is that it correlates the Vs30 values
with the geotechnical and surface geological features.
Table 4: Classification based on geotechnical features (Rodriguez-Marek et al., 2001)

Site Description Comments
A Hard rock Crystalline bedrock; Vs30 ≥ 1500 m/s
B Competent bed rock Vs30 > 600 m/s or < 6 m of soil. Most unweathered
California rock cases
C1 Weathered rock Vs30 ~ 300 m/s increasing to > 600 m/s, weathering zone
> 6 m and < 30 m
C2 Shallow stiff soil Soil depth > 6 m and < 30 m
C3 Intermediate depth stiff soil Soil depth > 30 m and < 60 m
D1 Deep stiff Holocene soil Soil depth > 60 m and < 200 m
D2 Deep stiff Pleistocene soil Soil depth > 60 m and < 200 m
D3 Very deep stiff soil Soil depth > 200 m
E1 Medium thickness soft clay Thickness of soft clay layer 3 – 12 m
E2 Deep soft clay Thickness of soft clay layer > 12 m
F Potentially liquefiable sand Holocene loose sand with high water table, Zw ≤ 6 m
5. EVALUATION OF GROUND RESPONSE SPECTRA AND PGA VALUES FOR DIFFERENT

SITE CLASSES
When the study area is very vast, it is extremely difficult to classify the region into different site classes
based on the geotechnical or geophysical data. Hence in those cases the PGA values can be evaluated for
different NEHRP or Eurocode site classes. Based on site investigation we can identify the site class at any
18
location can be determined and for the appropriate site class the PGA or Sa values can be obtained from
the respective maps.
The response of a structure to the earthquake ground motion is given by response spectra and hence it
has evolved as the back bone of earthquake resistant design. Despite some of the shortcomings of this
method, it remains popular among the practicing engineers. There are various provisions adopted by
codes for smoothing the response spectra. A comparison of smoothed response spectra obtained using
various codal provisions for Mumbai is shown in Fig. 5. The details of the calculation are available at
Vipin and Sitharam (2010).
0.35
Eurocode
0.30
IS Code
0.25 NEHRP
Actual Values
0.20
Sa (g)
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00
Period of oscillation (Sec)
Fig. 5: Comparison of actual (simulated) and design response spectra for site class D (Mumbai)
based on different codal provisions (Return period 475 years)
6. LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL EVALUATION
During an earthquake, soil can fail due to liquefaction with devastating effect such as land sliding, lateral
spreading, or large ground settlement. The phenomenon of seismic soil liquefaction had been observed for
many years, but was brought to the attention of researchers after Niigata (1964) and Alaska earthquakes
(1964). Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which the strength and stiffness of a soil is reduced by
earthquake shaking or by other sudden dynamic loading. This is due to the reduction in effective stress of
the soil due to the sudden earthquake loading. In the case of saturated soils, the sudden loading will cause
an increase in porefluid pressure and this will reduce the effective stress. In the case of dry soils
liquefaction can occur with increase in pore air pressure (Lohse et al., 2004).
6.1 Evaluation of Liquefaction Susceptibility
19
The liquefaction susceptibility is evaluated by considering the soil properties alone, without considering
the earthquake loading. If a soil at a particular site is susceptible to liquefaction then only is it prone to
the liquefaction hazards. The important factors that will decide the susceptibility of soil liquefaction at
the site are:
 Type of Soil (Index Properties of Soil)
 Shape of Soil Particles
 Permeability of Soil
 Presence of Seismic Waves
 Depth of Ground Water Table
 Historical Environment
 Age of Soil
 Confining Pressure
 Relative Density of Soil
 Natural Soil Deposits in Water Bodies
6.2 Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential
There are number of approaches available to evaluate the liquefaction potential of the soils such as
cyclic strain approach, cyclic stress approach, energy dissipation approach, effective stress-based
response analysis approach, probabilistic approach. Out of these approaches, cyclic stress approach is
most commonly used due to its simplicity and robustness to accurately model earthquake induced
stresses within the ground. Over the years many design charts and correlations were developed based
on cyclic stress approach for the estimation of liquefaction resistance of soils through laboratory as well
as in situ tests. However the cyclic strain approach is also becoming popular.
The evaluation of liquefaction potential involves two stages – (i) evaluation of earthquake loading and
(ii) evaluation of soil strength against earthquake loading. The earthquake loading on soil is expressed
using the term cyclic stress ratio (CSR) and the soil strength (capacity of soil) to resist liquefaction is
expressed using cyclic resistance ratio (CRR).
One of the first methods to quantify the liquefaction potential of soils is the simplified procedure
developed by Seed and Idriss (1971). The “simplified method” suggested by Seed and Idriss (1971) to
20
evaluate the cyclic stress ratio (CSR) values is
amax vo rd
CSR  0.65 (4)
g vo MSF
Where amax is the peak ground acceleration (at surface level), vo and vo are the total and effective
over burden pressure, rd is the depth reduction factor and MSF is the magnitude scaling factor. The
above relation was developed for an earthquake of magnitude Mw – 7.5 and if the magnitude of
earthquake is different from this, it is being taken care by the MSF.
Evaluation of the liquefaction resistance can be obtained from both laboratory and field tests. The
former method is seldom used because of the cost and the difficulties involved in getting undisturbed
samples.
6.2.1 Liquefaction Resistance of Soils from Field Tests
The difficulties and the high cost involved in the laboratory test makes the insitu-tests convenient method
for evaluating liquefaction potential. The four major in-situ test methods which are considered for the
liquefaction potential evaluation are given below.
1. The Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
2. The cone penetration test (CPT)
3. Measurement of in-situ shear wave velocity (Vs)
4. The Becker penetration test (BPT).
Of the above mentioned tests, the most commonly used tests are based on SPT. A brief description
of some of the important methods adopted for liquefaction potential evaluation based on SPT values
are discussed in this paper.
The most widely used methods to evaluate the liquefaction potential based on SPT values were
proposed by Seed and Idriss (1971), Seed and Peacock (1971), Seed et al. (1984). The NCEER workshops
in 1996 and 1998 (Youd et al., 2001) resulted in a number of suggested revisions to the SPT based
procedure. Idriss and Boulanger (2004) presented a revised curve between CSR and modified SPT value
based on the reexamination of the available field data.
Probabilistic Methods
21
A number of researchers have developed correlations based on probabilistic methods to
evaluate the liquefaction potential. One of the first to develop a relation was Liao et al. (1988) and more
recently Youd and Noble (1997) and Toprak et al. (1999). The relationships provided by these
researchers are in the form of probability contours (probability of triggering soil liquefaction). A recent
and comprehensive work in the area of probabilistic liquefaction potential evaluation was done by Cetin
et al. (2004). The probability of liquefaction can be evaluated using the procedure suggested by Cetin et
al. (2004). A probabilistic performance based approach for liquefaction potential evaluation was
suggested by Kramer and Mayfield (2007). In this approach, the uncertainty in the earthquake loading
for the initiation of liquefaction is explicitly included. Readers can refer Vipin et al. (2010) and Vipin and
Sitharam (2011) for more details of this analysis.
The liquefaction potential of Gujarat was evaluated using the performance based approach, in
terms of SPT values required to prevent liquefaction. The liquefaction hazard curve for selected cities in
Gujarat is shown in Fig. 6. Thes curves give the variation of corrected SPT values (N1,60,cs) required to
prevent liquefactino against the mean annual rate of exceedance. Based on a geotechnical investigation
the corrected SPT values need to be evaluated for any of these locations. If the corrected SPT value is
higher than the SPT value obtained from the curve, for a given return period, then the site is safe against
liquefaction for that givenreturn peiod. For an example, if the corrected SPT value for a site at Bhuj is 20,
then it can be seen that the location is safe against liquefaction for a return period of 100 years
(approximately). Whereas for the same SPT value at Vadodara, the liquefaction return period is of the
order of 5x104 years. This cleraly indicates that the Bhuj region is more vulnerable to liquefction than
Vadodara.
22
1.E-02
Annual rae of Exceedance
1.E-04
Bhuj
Jamnagar
1.E-06 Rajkot
Ahmadabad
Surat
Vadodara
1.E-08
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Corrected N Value
Fig. 6: Liquefaction hazard curve for some of the selected cities in Gujarat.
7. CONCLUDING REMARKS
An overview of various methods adopted for site characterization studies and evaluation of dynamic soil
properties are discussed in this paper with an emphasis on the recent advances in these techniques. The
recommended method for site characterization is based on Vs30 values. For all the critical sites, the site
amplification values need to be evaluated based on the geotechnical study. However, in the absence of
this geotechnical data, the site amplification factors can be evaluated based on empirical relations.
8. REFERENCES
1. Aki, K. (1988). “Local site effects on strong ground motion.” Proc. Earthquake Engineering and Soil
Dynamics II, Park City, Utah, June 27–30, 103–155.
2. Astroza, M. and Monge, J. (1991). “Seismic microzones in the city of Santiago. Relation damage-
geological unit.” Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Seismic Zonation, Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute, Stanford, CA, USA, August 25 –29, 3, 595–601.
23
3. Athanasopoulus, G.A., Pelekis, P.C. and Leonidou, E.A. (1999). “Effects of surface topography on
seismic ground response in the Egion (Greece) 15 June 1995 earthquake.” Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering, 18, (2), 135-149.
4. BIS-4434 (1978). “Code of practice for in-situ vane shear test for soils (First revision).” Bureau of
Indian Standards, New Delhi.
5. Bowles J.E. (1997). “Foundation analysis and design.” McGraw-Hill, Singapore.
6. Borcherdt, R.D. and Gibbs, J.F. (1976) “Effects of Local Geological Conditions in the San Francisco Bay
Region on Ground Motions and the Intensities of the 1906 Earthquake”, BSSA, (66): 467- 500.
7. BSSC (2003). “NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings and other
structures (FEMA 450), Part 1: Provisions,” Building Seismic Safety Council for the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Washington, D.C., USA.
8. Chávez-García, F.J., Sanchez, L.R. and Hatzfeld, D. (1996). “Topographic site effects and HVSR: a
comparison between observations and theory.” Bull Seismol Soc Am, 86, 1559–1573.
9. Cetin, K.O., Seed, R.B., Kiureghian, D.A., Tokimastu K., Harder, L.F., Kayen, R.E. and Moss, R.E.S.
(2004). “Standard penetration test-based probabilistic and deterministic assessment of seismic soil
liquefaction potential.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 130(12), 1314 -
1340.
10. Eurocode-8 (2003). “BS-EN 1998-1, “Design of structures for earthquake resistance – part 1: General
rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings.” European Committee for Standardization, Brussels.
11. Evernden, J.F. and Thompson, J.M. (1985). “Predicting seismic intensities.”, In: J.I. Ziony, Editor,
Evaluating Earthquake Hazards in the Los Angeles Region — an Earth-Science Perspective, U.S.
Geological Survey Professional Paper vol. 1360, 151–202.
12. Faccioli E., (1991). “Seismic amplification in the presence of geological and topographic irregularities”
Proceedings of the second International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake
Engineering and Soil Dynamics, St. Louis, Missouri, S, Prakash (editors), Univ. of Missourri-Rolla, 2,
1779-1797.
13. Fäh, D., Rüttener, E., Noack, T. and P. Kruspan (1997). “Microzonation of the City of Basel.” Journal of
Seismology, 1, 87-102.
24
14. Field, E.H. and Jacob, K.H. (1993). “The theoretical response of sedimentary layers to ambient seismic
noise.” Geophysics Research Letters, 20, 2925 - 2928.
15. Geli, L., Bard, P.Y. and Jullen, B. (1988). “The effect of topography on earthquake ground motion: a
review and new results.” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 78, 42–63.
16. IBC (2009). “International Building Code.” International Code Council, Washington.
17. Idriss, I.M. (1990). “Response of Soft Soil Sites During Earthquakes.” Proc. Memorial Symposium to
Honor Professor H. B. Seed, Berkeley, California.
18. Idriss, I.M. and Boulanger, R.W. (2004). “Semi-empirical procedures for evaluating liquefaction
potential during earth-quakes.” Proc. 11th Int. Conf. on Soil Dynamics & Earth-quake Engineering &
33d Int. Conf. on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, Berkeley, 32-56.
19. Idriss, I.M. and Boulanger, R.W. (2006). “Semi-empirical procedures for evaluating liquefaction
potential during earthquakes”, Journal of Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engg., 26, 115-130.
20. Kagami, H., Okada, S. and Ohta, G. (1988). “Versatile Application of Dense and Precision Seismic
Intensity Data by an Advanced Questionnaire Survey.”, Proc. 9th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, (8), 937-942.
21. Kramer, S.L. (1996). “Geotechnical earthquake engineering.” Prentice Hall Publishers, Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey.
22. Kramer, S.L., Mayfield, R.T. (2007). “Return period of soil liquefaction.”, Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 133(7), 802 - 813.
23. Langston, C.A. (1979). “Structure under Mount Rainier, Washington, inferred from teleseismic body
waves.” Bull. Seism. Soc. Am, 84(B9), 4749–4762.
24. Lohse, D., Remco Rauhé, Raymond Bergmann and Devaraj van der Meer (2004). “Granular physics:
Creating a dry variety of quicksand.” Nature, 432, 689-690.
25. Liao, S.S.C., Veneziano, D. and Whitman, R.V. (1988). “Regression models for evaluating liquefaction
probability.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering., 14(4), 389 - 411.
26. Lunne, T., Robertson, P.K. and Powell, J.J.M. (1997). “Cone penetration testing in geotechnical
practice.” Blackie Academic and Professional, London.
25
27. Mayer-Rosa, D. and M.-J. Jimenez (1999). “Seismic zoning, recommendations for Switzerland.”
Landeshydrologie und -geologie, Geologischer Bericht, in Vorbereitung.
28. Medvedev, J. (1962) “Engineering Seismology.” Academia Nauk Press, Moscow, 260.
29. Mukhopadhyay, S., Pandey, Y., Dharmaraju, R., Chauhan, P.K.S., Singh, P. and Dev, A. (2002). “Seismic
microzonation of Delhi for ground shaking site effects.” Curr. Sci., 82, 877–881.
30. Nakamura, Y. (1989). “A method for dynamic characteristics estimation of subsurface using
microtremor on the ground surface.” Quarterly Report of Railway Technical Research Institute. 30 (1),
25–33.
31. Park, C.B., Miller, R.D., Xia, J., (1999). "Multi-channel analysis of surface waves.” Geophy., 64(3), 800-
808.
32. Reinoso, E., Wrobel, L.C. and Power, H. (1997) “Three-Dimensional Scattering of Seismic Waves from
Topographical Structures”, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, (16):41-61.
33. Rodriguez-Marek, A., Bray, J.D. and Abrahamson, N.A. (2001). “An empirical geotechnical seismic site
response procedure.” Earthquake Spectra, 17(1), 65 - 87.
34. Sun, J.I., Golesorkhi, R. and Seed, H.B. (1988) “Dynamic Moduli and Damping Ratios for Cohesive
Soils.” EERC Report No.UCB/EERC-88/15.
35. Seed, H.B. and de Alba, P. (1986). “Use of SPT and CPT tests for evaluating the liquefaction resistance
of sands. In Use of in situ tests in geotechnical engineering.” American Society of Civil Engineers,
Geotechnical Special Publication, 6, 281 - 302.
36. Seed, R.B. and Harder, L.F. (1990). “SPT-based analysis of cyclic pore pressure generation and
undrained residual strength.” H.Bolton Seed Memorial Symposium Proceedings, Vol. 2, BiTech
Publishers Ltd, Vancouver, B.C., Canada.
37. Shima, E. (1978) “Seismic Microzoning Map of Tokyo”, Proc. 2nd International Conference on
Microzonation, (1):433-443.
38. Seed, H.B. and Idriss, I.M. (1971). “Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential.”
Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation, 97, 1249 - 1273.
39. Seed H. B. and W. H. Peacock, W. H. (1971) “Test procedures for measuring soil liquefaction
characteristics”, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE , 1971, 97(8), 1099-1119.
26
40. Seed, H.B., Tokimatsu, K., Harder, L.F. and Chung, R.M. (1984). "The Influence of SPT Procedures in
Soil Liquefaction Resistance Evaluations." Report no. UCB/EERC-84/15. Earthquake Engineering
Research Center, Berkeley, California.
41. Toprak, S., Holzer, T.L., Bennett, M. J. and Tinsley, J.C. III (1999). “CPT and SPT based probabilistic
assessment of liquefaction potential.” Proc., 7th U.S.-Japan Workshop on Earthquake Resistant Des.
of Lifeline Facilities and Countermeasures Against Liquefaction, Technical Report MCEER-99-0019,
Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Buffalo, N.Y., 69 - 86.
42. Vipin K.S. and Sitharam T.G.(2010). “Development of Site Specific Design Response Spectrum Based
on Different Codal Provisions”, 14th Symposium on Earthquake Engineering, IIT Roorkee, 212 - 223.
43. Vipin, K.S. and Sitharam, T.G. (2011). “Evaluation of Liquefaction Return Period Based on Local Site
Classes: Probabilistic Performance Based Logic Tree Approach.” International Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, 5, 245 – 254.
44. Vipin, K.S., Anbazhagan, P. and Sitharam, T.G. (2010). “Probabilistic evaluation of seismic soil
liquefaction potential based on SPT data.” Natural Hazards, 53, 547 - 560.
45. Youd, T.L. and Noble, S.K. (1997). “Liquefaction Criteria Based on Statistical and Probabilistic
Analyses,” Proceedings of the NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils,
Technical Report NCEER-97-0022, Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research,
Buffalo, New York.
46. Youd, T.L, Idriss,I.M, Andrus,R.D, Arango,I , Castro,G, Christian J.T, Dobry,R Liam Finn, W.D., Harder,
L.F , Jr. Hynes, M.E,. Ishihara K,. Koester J.P, Laio, S.S.C., Marcuson, W.F., III, Martin, G.R., Mitchell,
J.K, Moriwaki,Y, Power,M.S., Robertson,P.K, Seed R.B. and Stokoe,K.H II, (2001) “Liquefaction
resistance of soils: summary report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on
evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils”, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 127, 10, 817–833.
27
15th Symposium on Earthquake Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee
December 11-13, 2014
Paper No. 000
DYNAMIC PROPERTIES OF SOIL AND GROUND RESPONSE

ANALYSIS INCLUDING LOCAL SITE EFFECTS
Sitharam T.G1 and Naveen James2

1
Professor, and 2Research Associate , Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Science,
Bangalore 560012, email: sitharam@civil.iisc.ernet.in
ABSTRACT
The intensity of earthquake damages at a location are controlled mainly by, earthquake source, path
characteristics, local site condition, design standards and quality of the construction. Of these, the factor
which is of interest to a geotechnical engineer is the local site effects. The local site effect can be defined
as the change in the earthquake ground motion characteristics (such as its amplitude, frequency content
and duration of ground shaking). The local site effects are strongly dependent on the topography and
dynamic properties of the overlying soil layers. In this paper, a detailed discussion on the dynamic soil
properties and local soil effects has been presented. Major methodologies for the evaluation of dynamic
soil properties and local soil effects have been discussed in this paper. This paper also presents a typical
case study for the determination of dynamic properties and local site effect for a nuclear power plant site
in India.
Keywords: Local site effect, PHA, ground motion, site response
Introduction
The response of soil varies from type to type, when they are subjected to earthquake ground motion. It is
observed that the younger loose soils often amplify the ground motion more when compared to the older
compact soils or hard rock. Damages caused by 1985 Michoacan earthquake (Ms=8.1), 1989 Loma Prieta
earthquake (Ms=7.1) and 2001 Bhuj earthquake (Mw =7.7) have all reaffirmed the effect of local soil
conditions on the seismic ground motion, influencing the damage potential of an earthquake (Kramer
1996 and Narayan & Sharma 2004). The predominant influence of local soil geology/conditions on the
earthquake ground motion characteristics is termed as local site effects, which have a direct impact on the
structural response during earthquakes. Hence, considering the effect of local site in the seismic design of
structural and geotechnical system will improve the performance of buildings against future earthquakes.
28
The study of this variation is very important for shallow founded structures, geotechnical structures like
retaining walls and dams, floating piles and underground structures. Much of the earthquake damages due
to shaking, lateral spreading and liquefaction can be attributed to local site effect.
DYNAMIC SOIL PROPERTIES AND LOCAL SITE EFFECT

The seismic wave tries to conserve its energy flux when it propagates through different medium. The
energy flux developed during the transmission of a seismic wave in any medium depends upon the
particle velocity and impedance (product of its density and wave velocity) of the medium. So the wave
motion gets exaggerated when the wave enters a loose medium having low impedance, in order to
conserve the energy. This results in the amplification of seismic waves as shown in fig. 1.
Fig. 1Schematic diagram showing the effect of local site

The amplification of seismic waves in each soil layer depends on the dynamic properties of soil and the
thickness of the soil layer. One of the important dynamic properties of the soil is the dynamic shear
modulus (G) which is an effective indication of the in-situ state of the soil layer. The dynamic property of
a given soil layer is significantly dependent upon the level of strain induced in that soil layer. Thus the
dynamic shear modulus (G) has its maximum value at lower strains (in the order of 10 -5)which can be
measured using geophysical method (Ishihara 1996, Kramer 1996). Another major dynamic soil property
is the damping ratio (β) which indicates the amount of energy dissipated when the soil subjected cycles of
dynamic loading. Hence a precise knowledge of dynamic shear modulus (G) and damping ratio (β) is very
much required for the assessment of local site effects.
EVALUATION OF DYNAMIC PROPERTIES

The local site effect on the earthquake ground motion is strongly dictated by the cyclic behavior of the
soil.Hence the evaluation of the dynamic properties (shear modulus and damping ratio) of soils is of
utmost importance in geotechnical earthquake engineering.The evaluation of dynamic properties can be
done either by laboratory or field testing. The laboratory tests are usually performed on very small
representative or undisturbed samples. The success of the laboratory tests mainly depends on simulating
29
the actual field conditions, i.e. preserving the initial state of the sample and the accurate loading
conditions. Hence utmost care is required towards sample preparation and testing. The field tests or in situ
tests measure the dynamic soil properties. Evaluation of dynamic properties based on field tests have
gained much popularity due to the difficulties associated with obtaining good soil samples as well as the
complexities associated with the laboratory testing.Studies have proved that the shear modulus and
damping ratio of soils strongly depend on the level of strain induced in the soil mass. Hence the
laboratory and field tests for the evaluation of dynamic properties can be broadly divided into two, based
on the level of strain induced in the soil sample. They are the high strain tests and the low strain tests. In
order to evaluate the dynamic properties of the soils corresponding to the in-situ condition, tests need to
be carried out at low strain. However, the high strain tests are also required to measure the soil strength
and for liquefaction studies.
Low Strain Laboratory Tests
There are two major laboratory tests that work at very low strain, viz. (i) Resonant Column Test and (ii)
Bender Element Test. In the resonant column test, the fundamental frequency of the soil sample, (solid or
hollow cylindrical samples) was evaluated by subjecting it to torsional loading. This frequency is then
used to evaluate of the shear modulus of the soil specimen at very low strain values (10-5 to 10-4).
However, in the Bender Element Test the shear wave velocity of soil specimen is measured using a
piezoelectric bender element. A transmitter and receiver elements (piezoelectric) are placed at each end of
the sample which will produce and electric pulse resulting in the generation of stress wave in the
specimen. This wave is recorded at the receiver end of the specimen and the wave speed is calculated
from the arrival time and the known distance between the transmitter and receiver.
High Strain Laboratory Tests
These include cyclic triaxial tests, cyclic simple shear test and cyclic torsional test. The cyclic triaxial test
is a modified version of standard triaxial testing with an additional cyclic axial loading unit. In some
cyclic triaxial equipment, it is even possible to simulate isotropic or anisotropic initial stress conditions.
The values of the shear modulus and damping ratio can be obtained from the stress strain response of the
samples. The cyclic triaxial test is very useful in determining the liquefaction potential of the soil. The
cyclic direct simple shear test can simulate the earthquake loading more precisely than the cyclic triaxial
test. In cyclic torsional tests, the cylindrical soil specimen is subjected to torsion and hence the
reversibility in shear stress can be achieved when compared to the cyclic triaxial and cyclic simple shear
tests. This test is the most suitable and the most commonly used one to measure stiffness and damping
characteristics for a wide range of strain level.
Low Strain Field Tests
Compared to the laboratory testing, field tests are much more convenient and more accurately considers
the insitu condition. Studies have proved that the phenomenon of vibrations and wave propagation
induces very low strain in the soil. Hence geophysical field tests like seismic reflection/refraction, seismic
up/downhole test, suspension logging test, seismic cross-hole test MASW test and SASW test, etc. are
widely used to estimate low strain shear modulus (Kramer, 1996).
High Strain Field Tests
The conventional geotechnical field tests used to measure in situ soil properties comes under high strain
test. Several correlations are available relating the results of high strain tests with that of low strain tests,
hence the in-situ shear modulus can easily be calculated. Some of the commonly used high strain tests are
30
Standard Penetration Test (SPT), Cone Penetration Test (CPT), Seismic Cone Penetration Test (SCPT),
Dilatometer Test, Pressuremeter Test, Field Vane Shear Test. The standard penetration test (SPT) is the
most widely used geotechnical field tests, especially in India for subsurface exploration. However the
SPT is associated with lots of errors and thus require various corrections, which is very well overcome in
CPT.
Evaluation of Dynamic Properties for the Kalpakkam NPP Site
This paper also discusses about evaluation of dynamic properties of soil stratum for the Kalpakkam
nuclear power plant (NPP) site. The Kalpakkam NPPsite is situated on the eastern coastal belt of South
India (Fig. 2) known as Coromandel coast, having the Bay of Bengal on the east side.
Fig. 2 Geographic location of the study area

In this paper, shear wave velocity (Vs) and low strain shear modulus (Gmax) profile for the nuclear power
plant site was evaluated by correlating borehole data and MASW test data obtained for the selected
locations. MASW is a non-destructive, indirect geophysical method, in which the variation of shear-wave
velocity with depth is obtained by analyzing Rayleigh surface waves recorded using multiple channel.
MASW test data gives the variation of shear wave velocity with depth. The MASW tests were carried out
at 8 major locations in the study area as shown in Fig. 3. The other details such as the type of soil and the
in-situ density at different depths were obtained from the borelog data of the corresponding location. Low
strain shear modulus (Gmax) is obtained from the equation (4).
 
G max   Vs 2 (4)
g
31
Where γ is the in-situ density (in kN/m3), g-acceleration due to gravity (in m/s2) and Vs is the shear wave
velocity (in m/s). Figure 4 and 5 shows the shear wave velocity (Vs) and Gmax profile of 8 major locations
in the study area (as per Fig. 3) which are close to boreholes.
EVALUATION OF LOCAL SITE EFFECT

As the local site effects play a crucial role in aggravating the damage potential of an earthquake, it must
be accounted in the earthquake resistant design. There are many methods available for the estimation of
site effects which can be broadly categorized as 1) Empirical methods, 2) Experimental methods and 3)
Numerical studies.
Fig 3 Locations within the study area where MASW tests were carried out
32
a) b)
Fig. 4a) Shear wave velocity and b) low strain shear modulus profile at 8 major locations in the
study area
Empirical Method
Many researchers have observed significant dependency of site amplification on the local surface geology
based on the strong motion records of many earthquake events. Based on earthquake records for each
geological formation, many empirical relations between surface geology and various ground motion
parameters have been developed which can be applied in another region having same geology. These
empirical relations will give only an approximate value of site amplification and hence is good for first
level assessment. Intensity based empirical correlations proposed by Medvedev (1962), Evernden &
Thomson (1985), Kagami et al. (1988) and Astroza & Monge (1991) are the major ones which were
developed using earthquake records in Asia, California, Japan and Chile respectively. Many researchers
(Borcherdt & Gibbs, 1976; Shima, 1978; Midorikawa, 1987) have given the relative amplification factors
for different geological and soil conditions (Table 1) based on analytical studies.
Table 1 Correlations between Surface Geology and Relative Amplification (TC4- ISSMGE, 1999)
Geological Unit Relative Amplification

Borcherdt and Gibbs (1976)
Bay mud 11.2
Alluvium 3.9
Santa clara formation 2.7
Great valley sequence 2.3
Franciscam formation 1.6
Granite 1.0
Shima (1978)
Peat 1.6
Humus soil 1.4
Clay 1.3
Loam 1.0
Sand 0.9
Midorikawa (1987)
Holocene 3.0
Pleistocene 2.1
Quaternary volcanic rocks 1.6
Miocene 1.5
Pre- Tertiary 1.0
Experimental Methods
These methods are based on different kinds of data obtained from microtremor measurements, weak
seismicity survey and strong motion data. Detailed description for estimating site effects using the above
methods is given below. Kanai (1961) have presented the use of the microtremor method for site response
evaluations. Microtremors are vibrations, having comparatively small periods (less than 1 second).
Udwadia & Trifunac (1973) compared the site amplification obtained from microtremor method and
33
strong motion records. Nakamura (1989) has proposed H/V ratio technique to predict the amplification
factor for a site. Aki (1957) has measured phase velocities of surface waves by analyzing the spatial
correlation of the microtremors.
Numerical Approach
Numerical methods of estimating site amplification mainly include ground response analysis. Ground
response analysis techniques are often categorized based on the dimensionality of the problem and the
complexity of the soil model employed (Kramer, 1996). On the basis of dimensionality there are one, two
and three dimensional ground response analysis. Similarly, based on the soil model used, the three can be
further grouped into linear, equivalent linear and non-linear.
1D ground response analysis proposed by Seed and Idriss (1969) approximates the non-linear behaviour
of the soil by adopting an iterative procedure. It assumes that the response of soil is predominantly due to
the vertically propagating SH-waves from bedrock and soil layers are assumed to be horizontal and
infinitely extending in the horizontal direction. A two dimensional (2D) analysis is normally carried out
for the sites having sloping/irregular ground surface or locations where deep basin formations are present.
The curvature of a soft alluvium deposited basin can trap body waves and cause them to propagate as
surface waves. Hence the shaking produced will be of higher intensity and of longer duration when
compared with those predicted using 1D analysis (Kramer, 1996). Three dimensional (3D) analysis is the
most rigorous analysis which is generally carried out to understand the response of three dimensional
structures. 2D and 3D analyses are generally carried out using dynamic finite analysis.
Ground Response Studies for the Kalpakkam NPP Site

The influence of local soil conditions on earthquake ground motion for the Kalpakkam NPP site was
evaluated using 1D equivalent linear ground response analysis. Critical structures such as the NPP
facilities are to be analyzed rigorously for the estimation of site amplification. Surface level ground
motion, response spectrum and predominant frequency at 8 major locations in the NPP site were
evaluated. In the present study, 1D ground response analysis for the Kalpakkam NPP site was carried out
using SHAKE 2000 (Ordonez, 2000). The synthetic ground motion was generated from a target response
spectrum, based on the methodology proposed by Zhao & Zhang (2006). This methodology is simple as it
does not require the knowledge of complex seismological parameters.
The soil strata at the site were identified based on the borelog data and shear wave velocity data. Five
major types of soil strata namely sand, soft silty clay, residual soil (gravelly Sand), weathered rock and
bedrock (Charnockite rock type) were identified based on field test and their geotechnical properties are
described in Table 2. Details of modulus reduction and damping curves used for each stratum are given in
Table 3.
Table 2 Details of typical subsurface profile in the study area
Sl. Stratum In-situ Particle size N-value Shear Index

no Name density observed wave properties
(KN/m3) velocity
observed
(m/s)
C M S G WL Ip
34
1
Sand 17 - 19 0 2 98 0 10 - 40 107 - 300 - -
2 Soft silty
17 - 20 64 36 0 0 2 - 20 120 – 280 91 65
clay
3 Filled up
20-22 5 20 75 - >50 390 – 500 35 25
soil
4 Residual
19-23 4 57 39 >50 310 -500 - -
soil
5 Weathered >100 (RQD 0 -
25-27 - - - - 386 – 500
rock 50%)
6 >100 (with
Rock 27 - - - - > 710 - -
RQD =100%)
Analysis was carried out at eight major locations in the Kalpakkam NPP site and the results are briefly
presented in Table 4. The spatial variation of surface level PHA values obtained from SHAKE 2000 is
presented in figure 4(a). The maximum PHA at the ground surface of the study area is 0.45g, close to the
location BH-3. As the depth of ground water table is very low such a high value of the PHA aggravates
liquefaction hazard in the location. Figure 4(b) presents the spatial variation of the amplification factor
for PHA (corresponding to zero period) over the entire the Kalpakkam NPP site, where maximum
amplification occurred at the location close to BH-3. Figure 4(c) presents the spatial variation of
predominant frequency throughout the study area.
Table 3 Dynamic properties assigned to each soil type
Sl.no Soil Type G/Gmax curve Damping curve
1 Sand Sand Ave. [Seed and Idriss 1970] Sand Ave. [Seed and Idriss
1970]
2 Clay Clay upper range [Seed and Idriss Clay upper [Seed and Sun
1970] 1989]
3 Residual Soil Gravel (Mean) – [Rollins et al., Gravel (Mean) – [Rollins et
1998] al., 1998]
4 Weathered rock Rockfill [Gazetas and Rockfill [Gazetas and
Dakoulas1992] Dakoulas1992]
5 Hard Rock Rock [Schnabel 1973] Rock [Schnabel 1973]
Table 4 Results of 1D equivalent ground response analysis obtained from SHAKE 2000
35
Sl. Location PHA Predominant Spectral Amplification
no description frequency (PF) acceleration for factor
(Hz) PF (g)
1 BH-1 0.22 2.98 0.89 1.9
2 BH-2 0.19 3.61 0.67 1.48

3 BH-3 0.45 6.59 2.39 3.52
4 BH-4 0.34 9.33 2.21 2.64
5 BH-5 0.33 9.27 2.07 2.55
6 BH-6 0.34 3.71 1.40 2.64
7 BH-7 0.15 4.05 0.54 1.19
8 BH-8 0.25 5.03 0.75 1.79
a) b)
36
c)
Fig. 4 Spatial variation of (a) PHA at surface (b) amplification factor and (c) predominant frequency
throughout the Kalpakkam NPP site
CONCLUSIONS
This paper presents a discussion on the dynamic properties and local site effects and their influence on
earthquake ground motion. As the local site effect strongly depends on the cyclic behavior of soil, the
precise knowledge of dynamic properties of soils is required for its evaluation. This paper also discuss on
the various methodologies available for the determination of dynamic soil properties and evaluation of
local site effect. A case study for the evaluation of dynamic soil properties and local site effect for the
Kalpakkam NPP site also has been discussed in the present paper. One-dimensional equivalent ground
response analysis was carried out to evaluate peak horizontal acceleration (PHA) at the ground surface
and predominant frequency. Analysis shows that the central sector has a high site amplification hazard.
Since the existing nuclear reactor facility is located in the central sector, appropriate mitigation works
are very essential to reduce the effect of aggravated ground shaking.
REFERENCES
Aki, K. (1957). „Space and time spectra of stationary stochastic waves, with special reference to
microtremors‟. Bulletin of the Earthquake Research Institute,Tokyo University 35:415–456.
Astroza, M. & Monge, J. (1991). „Seismic microzones in the city of Santiago. relation damage geological
unit‟. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Seismic Zonation, vol. 3, pp. 25–29
37
Borcherdt, R.D. & Gibbs, J.F. (1976). „Effects of local geological conditions in the San Francisco bay
region on ground motions and the intensities of the 1906 earthquake‟. Bulletin of the Seismological
Society of America 66(2):467–500.
Evernden, J.F. & Thomson, J.M. (1985). „Predicting seismic intensities‟. Evaluating Earthquake Hazards
in the Los Angeles Region; an Earth-Science Perspective, US Geological Survey Professional Paper
1360:151–202.
Gazetas, G. and Dakoulas, P. (1992) “Seismic Analysis and Design of Rockfill Dams: State-of-the-Art,”
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 11(1), 27-61.
Ishihara, K. (1996) Soil Behaviour in Earthquake Geotechnics, Oxford Science Publications.
ISSMGE, T.C. (1993). Manual for Zonation on Seismic Geotechnical Hazard
Kagami, H., Okada, S., & Ohta, Y. (1988). „Versatile application of dense and precision seismic intensity
data by an advanced questionnaire survey‟. In Proc. Ninth World Conf. on Earthquake Eng, vol. 8, pp.
937–942.
Kanai, K. (1961). „On microtremors VIII‟. Bullettin of Earthquake Research Institute 39:97–114.
Kramer, S.L. (1996) Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, Pearson Education Pvt. Ltd, Reprinted 2003,
Delhi, India
Medvedev, J. (1962). „Engineering seismology‟. Academia Nauk Press Moscow p. 260.
Midorikawa, S. (1987). „Prediction of isoseismal map in the kanto plain due to hypothetical earthquake‟.
Journal of Structural Engineering 33B:43–48
Nakamura, Y. (1989). „A method for dynamic characteristics estimation of subsurface using microtremor
on the ground surface‟. Railway Technical Research Institute, Quarterly Reports 30(1).
Narayan, J.P. and Sharma, M.L. (2004) “Effects of Local Geology On Damage Severity During Bhuj,
India Earthquake,” 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering Vancouver, B.C., Canada, Paper
No. 2042
Ordonez, G.A. (2000). SHAKE-2000, a Computer Program for the 1-D Analysis of Geotechnical
Earthquake Engineering Problems, User‟s Manual
Rollins, K.M., Evans, M.D., Diehl, N.B. and Daily, W.D. (1998) “Shear modulus and damping
relationships for gravels,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 124(5), 396–405.
Schnabel, P.B. (1973) “Effect of Local Geology and Distance from Source on Earthquake Ground
Motions,” PhD Thesis, University of California, Berkeley, California.
Shima, E. (1978). „Seismic microzoning map of Tokyo‟. In Proc. Second Inter. Conf. on Microzonation,
vol. 1, pp. 433–443.
Seed, H.B. & Idriss, I.M. (1969). Influence of soil conditions on ground motions during earthquakes.
University of California, Institute of Transportation and Traffic Engineering, Soil Mechanics Laboratory.
Seed, H.B., and Idriss. I.M. (1970) “Soil Moduli and Damping Factors for Dynamic Response Analysis,”
Report No. EERC 70-10, University of California, Berkeley
38
Udwadia, F.E. & Trifunac, M.D. (1973). „Comparison of earthquake and microtremor ground motions in
El centro, California‟. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 63(4):1227–1253.
Zhao, F. & Zhang, Y. (2006). „Artificial ground motion compatible with specified peak velocity and
target spectrum‟. Acta Seismologica Sinica 19(4):461–471.
39
Forensic investigations and rehabilitation of the misaligned MSE wall:
Geophysical investigations using GPR and MASW Survey
T.G. Sitharam1 & A.Hegde2
1
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India 560012, E-mail:
sitharam@civil.iisc.ernet.in
2
Assistant Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology
Patna, India 801103, E-mail: ahegde@iitp.ac.in
Corresponding author
T. G. Sitharam
Professor,
Department of Civil Engineering,
Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India 560012,
E-mail: sitharam@civil.iisc.ernet.in
Fig.1 shows the outline of the problem statement.
Misaligned RE wall
Forensic investigations
Field studies Stability analyses
SPT
SLIDE
MASW test
GPR test
Selection of suitable
technique for rehabilitation
of RE wall
Rehabilitation of the RE
wall
Fig.1 Outline of the problem statement
40
Abstract
This paper presents the details of the forensic geotechnical investigations carried out as part of the
rehabilitation of the misaligned Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) wall in Anantapur in Andhra
Pradesh in India. The reported MSE wall is part of the approach to the Railway over bridge (ROB) in
Hyderabad-Bangalore highway. The MSE wall of height 13.85 m was misaligned vertically when it was
opened to traffic in August 2010. The vertical alignment of the MSE wall for about 49 m length on one
side (on the LHS of Hyderabad end of MSE wall) was found out of plumb. Initially, the only option
seemed to be to dismantle and reconstruct the entire MSE wall. However, the detailed forensic analysis
revealed that the existing MSE wall can be retained with minor repair on the side panels. This paper
highlights the various forensic investigations performed to understand the causes for the misalignment
of the MSE wall. Forensic investigations included the analysis of this MSE wall during the design phase,
review of the geotechnical assumptions/calculations and quality checks adopted during construction. As
part of the forensic analysis, both field tests and the design analyses were performed. The field tests
included Standard Penetration test (SPT), Multichannel Analyses of Surface Waves (MASW) and Ground
Penetrating Radar (GPR). The design analysis included the stability assessment of the MSE wall using
SLIDE software. The results of the forensic investigations revealed that there was no structural instability
in the MSE wall. The major cause of the misalignment was attributed to poor construction practices
followed during the construction. As part of the rehabilitation, the minor repair works were performed.
After the completion of the rehabilitation, the wall has sustained heavy traffic loads in the last six years
without developing any additional misalignment or cracks. The wall continues to be performing at its
best condition till date. The remedial measures have saved the huge cost and time as compared to the
alternative options; such as, demolition and reconstruction of the MSE wall or by adopting soil nail
strengthening.
41
Keywords: MSE wall, misalignment, stability analysis, field tests, forensic investigations, remedial
measures
1. Introduction
Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) walls are known for quick and low cost constructions (Bathurst
1993; Miyata et al. 2011; Esfandiari and Selamat 2012; Leshchinsky et al. 2012; Suksiripattanapong et al.
2013; Naeini and Gholampoor 2014; Riccio et al.2014; Han 2015; Yu et al.2015). The cost associated with
the construction of the MSE wall is about half of the construction cost of traditional gravity walls
(Koerner et al. 1998). MSE walls are the integral component of the highway projects. These systems
typically consist of the pre-cast concrete facing elements with reinforcement embedded in the free
draining backfill material. Generally, sand and gravel are the typically used backfill materials. Either
extensible material (e.g. geosynthetics and bamboo) or inextensible materials (e.g. wire mesh, steel
strip, bar mat etc.) are used as the reinforcements. The reinforcing strips give an anisotropic cohesion to
the soil mass in the direction perpendicular to the reinforcement (Schlosser and Elias, 1978). The
presence of the strips improves the overall mechanical properties of the soil (Abdelkader et al. 2011).
Over the years, numerous MSE walls have failed due to various reasons including poor construction
practices, aggressive designs, improper drainage and the use of the lower quality backfill materials.
Moreover, using the conventional design methods, it is not possible to calculate lateral deformation,
settlement, and soil stress distribution in MSE walls (Ho and Rowe 1994; Rowe and Ho 1998; Han and
Leshchinsky 2004). According to Paxson et al. (2004), the MSE walls fail either by complete collapse or
misalignment of the walls due to significant movement. Koerner and Koerner (2013) analyzed the 171
failure cases of geosynthetics reinforced MSE walls. Out of 171 cases analyzed, 44 cases of excessive
wall deformation and 127 cases of complete collapse were observed. Further, Paxson et al. (2004)
noted that the demolition and reconstruction of the MSE wall is the obvious solution in case of the
42
complete collapse. Otherwise, it is appropriate to go for the repair and rehabilitation of the MSE wall
using the various techniques such as soil nails, soldier pile or concrete counterfort wall. The present
study discusses one of such failure cases of the MSE wall located on the national highway in Anantapur
in India. The MSE wall was misaligned vertically when it was opened to traffic in August 2010. The
vertical alignment of the MSE wall for about 49 m length on one side of the ROB (on the LHS of
Hyderabad end of MSE wall), was found to be out of plumb. The paper summarizes the forensic
investigation details conducted to understand the cause of the misalignment and the remedial measures
implemented on the site.
2. Background and study area
In 2010, the vertical alignment of the MSE wall found distorted in Hyderabad-Bangalore highway in
Anantapur in Andhra Pradesh. The MSE wall was constructed as part of the highway approach to the
railway over bridge. The construction of the MSE wall was completed in April 2010. The highway was
opened for traffic movement in August 2010. The misalignment of the MSE wall was observed
immediately after opening for the traffic. The total height of MSE wall is 13.85 m with 9.5 m above
ground level. The steel strips were used as the reinforcement in the construction of the MSE wall. The
49 m stretch of the MSE wall was found misaligned on one side. Fig.1 shows the location and
photograph of the misaligned MSE wall. The maximum offset of 210 mm inward was observed at
about 2/3rd the height (at 6.5m level) of the wall. Beyond this height, the outward alignment of 50
mm was observed. Many panels had developed cracks or minor damages in the corners. There were no
horizontal or transverse cracks observed on the carriage way. Subsequently, the wall movement was
continuously monitored for one year. Except the initial misalignment, no further movement of the wall
was observed. Several experts had opined that the MSE wall in this stretch has to be dismantled and
rebuilt or strengthened using the nailing technique through the facing elements.
43
India
Railway Line
Andra
Pradesh
Anantpur
Fig.1 Location and photograph of the misaligned MSE wall
3. Forensic investigation details
In order to understand the causes of the misalignment of the MSE wall, a detailed forensic investigation
was carried out. As part of the forensic investigation, both field tests and the design analyses were
performed. The field tests included the drilling of boreholes and conducting Standard Penetration Test
(SPT) at different depths, Multichannel Analyses of Surface Waves (MASW) and the Ground Penetrating
Radar (GPR) tests. The design analyses included the internal and external stability checks. Global stability
of the MSE wall was checked using the limit equilibrium software SLIDE. Further, the stability of the
44
MSE wall was also analyzed for sliding and overturning mode of failures. The reinforcement details and
their connection details were also examined.
3.1 Field investigations
The field tests were conducted to verify the cause of the misalignment and also to assess the quality of
the backfill materials used in the construction of the MSE wall. The SPT test was conducted to
understand the strength and other engineering properties of the backfill materials. The GPR tests were
conducted to identify the presence of any cavities or any anomalies below the road carriage way. The
MASW tests were performed to understand the density and the modulus of the fill material. Fig.2
shows the locations of the different field tests performed in the vicinity.
Fig.2 Location of the field tests
In total three boreholes along with SPT tests were conducted at the site. The boreholes were drilled up
to a depth of 10 m. The samples were collected at different depths using split spoon samplers. The
45
various laboratory tests, namely, specific gravity, grain size distribution and shear strength were
performed on the collected soil samples. Fig.3 shows the typical soil profile of the vicinity. The results of
the SPT tests revealed that the presence of the dense sand and gravel along the depth of the MSE wall.
The SPT-N values were found to vary between 17 and 38 at different depths. Fig.4 shows the grain size
distribution of the backfill material. The coefficient of uniformity (Cu) value of 7.5 was observed. Based
on the, Cu value, the soil was classified as well graded sand as per the unified soil classification system.
As per AASHTO (2012) guidelines, the soil with the coefficient of uniformity greater than 4 should be
used as the backfill material. Hence, it was perceived that the good quality backfill material was used
during the construction of the MSE wall.
Soil Profile Depth (m) SPT-N Moisture (%)
1
2
Silty sand 52
3
4 8.2
17
5
Sandy gravel 6 38 7.2
7 Rebound
4
8
Well graded gravel 9 Rebound 4.5
Fig. 3 Typical borehole at the middle of the MSE wall
46
100
Percentage Finer (%)

80
60
40
20
0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Particle size (mm)
Fig.4 Grain size distribution of the backfill soil
MASW system with 24 channel geode seismograph with 24 geophones, each of 4.5 Hz capacity
were used in the investigation. The seismic waves were created by impulsive source of 15 pounds
(sledge hammer) with 300 mm x 300 mm size hammer plate with ten shots. These waves
were captured by vertical geophones and further analyzed using ‘SurfSeis’ software. Fig. 5 shows
the photograph of the MASW test performed at site. In order to enhance the signal to noise ratio,
vehicle movements on the road over bridge (ROB) were stopped during MASW survey. From the
geophone data, the dispersion curve and the shear wave velocity profiles were developed. Fig. 6 shows
the typical shear wave velocity profile for MSE wall soil layers. The results of the MASW test indicated
the presence of dense surface layers (pavement and subgrade) with the shear wave velocity more than
675 m/s. This layer was followed by medium dense layers (compacted soil) with a lowest shear wave
velocity of 195 m/s. The MASW results are comparable with SPT test results. Shear wave velocity of 195
m/s and SPT-N value of 17, both correspond to the medium dense layer. Shear wave velocity
determined from MASW test was used to estimate the shear modulus and Young’s modulus of the
47
backfill material. Modulus values were estimated by assuming density and position ratio. Table 1 lists
the values of shear modulus and Young’s modulus of the backfill material.
Fig. 5 Typical photograph of the MASW testing on site
Fig 6. Typical shear wave velocity profile for embankment soil layers
48
Table 1. Low strain modulus of backfill material
Depth Vs Density Shear Poisson’s Young’s
(m) m/sec g/cc Modulus Ratio Modulus
MN/m2 (E) MN/m2
0 - 0.5 675 2.2 1002 0.3 2606
0.5-1.75 500 2.1 525 0.30 1365
1.75-3.9 260 2 135 0.30 352
3.9-7 195 1.6 61 0.30 158
>7.0 580 1.7 572 0.30 1487
Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) with 100 MHz, 500 MHz and 25 MHz antennas were used for the
survey. This is capable of penetrating from 1.5 m to 15 m depth. The GPR consists of a control unit,
antenna, monitor and the cart with a distance measuring wheel. Fig.7 shows the photograph of the GPR
survey done at the top of MSE wall. It is important to note that the resolution of GPR image
increases with increase in antenna frequency. However, the depth of penetration decreases with
the increase in the antenna frequency. All the recorded data was processed by removing the
noise and applying filters and time corrections. Complete sectional details of the MSE wall was
interpreted from 100 MHz results. Fig. 8 shows the typical GPR test results obtained using 100 MHz
antenna. In GPR tests, several hyperbolas were noticed within non-uniform wave form sections
close to the bridge abutment. This indicates the presence of stone/gravel/rock pieces in the backfill
material. The uniform wave forms were observed near the edges of the MSE wall. Slightly distorted
wave pattern with hyperbola were observed near the median of the road indicating the presence of
loosely compacted layers with stone/gravel/rock pieces.
49
Fig 7. Photograph of the GPR survey at the site
Fig. 8. Typical GPR study results using 100 MHz
3.2 Stability analysis
3.2.1 External stability analysis
The external stability analysis of the MSE wall includes the assessment of the global stability of the
structure and check for the bearing capacity foundation soils. A detailed global stability analyses of
the designed section as well as the misaligned section of the MSE wall were analyzed. All the
analyses were carried out using SLIDE software. SLIDE is a 2-dimensional program with a CAD
based graphical interface with a wide range of modeling and data interpretation options. Among the
50
various analysis methods available in SLIDE, Bishop’s simplified method (Bishop, 1955), was adopted for
the analysis considering the circular failure surfaces. The Mohr-Coulomb model was used for strength.
The MSE wall section was modeled with the RCC panel. The steel strips were arranged in 3 groups. The
top most layer consisted of strips of length 10.5 m, the middle layer consisted of strips of 8.5 m and
the bottom layer consisted of strips of 6.5 m. The tensile strength of these strips was assigned as 40
kN. The maximum horizontal acceleration value of 0.05 was considered for the seismic analysis as
the area lies in Zone II (IS 1893:2002). The section considered was assumed to be having good
drainage due to the presence of filters and geofabric. Table 2 lists the soil properties used in the
analysis. A surcharge of 24 kPa was applied to represent the load imparted by the components of the
carriage way. Fig.9 represents the global stability analysis result for the full section of the MSE wall. The
Factor of Safety (FOS) value of 1.39 was observed. This FOS value found to be more than the critical
factor of safety value 1.3 (AASHTO, 2007). Fig. 10 and Fig. 11 represent the typical stability analysis
results of the half section of the MSE wall before and after misalignment. Even with the misalignment,
the factor of safety obtained from the analysis was greater than 1.3.
51
Table 2. Properties of the soil used in the analysis
Properties Foundation soil Backfill soil Retained soil
Unit weight, γ (kN/m3) 20 19 21
Friction angle, φ (degrees) 35 36 36
Cohesion, c (kPa) 36 20 20
Fig. 9. Global stability of the full section of the MSE wall
52
Fig.10 Global Stability of the half section MSE wall: (a) before misalignment; (b) after misalignment
53
Further, the external stability of the MSE wall was analyzed for sliding and overturning mode of failures.
The conventional limit equilibrium methods were used to evaluate the factor of safety. The limit
equilibrium analysis uses a coherent gravity structure approach to determine external stability of the
reinforced mass, similar to the analysis for any conventional or traditional gravity structure (FHWA,
2009). The lateral earth pressure distribution for external stability, was assumed to be based on
Coulomb’s method with a wall friction angle δ assumed to be zero. The factor of safety values was found
to be 3 and 2.1 respectively, for sliding and overturning mode of failures. The obtained values were
greater than the critical factor of safety values reported in the literature (Murthy, 2007; Babu and
Jaladurgam, 2013).
3.2.2 Internal stability analysis
The internal stability of the reinforced soil zone is dependent on three fundamental features,
namely, the soil- reinforcement interaction (resistance to pullout), the tensile resistance of the
reinforcement and the durability of the reinforcing material. Hence, the internal stability analyses of
an MSE wall in Load Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) is evaluated by (i) determining the maximum
factored load in each reinforcement and (ii) comparing this maximum factored load to the
factored pull-out resistance and to the factored tensile resistance of the reinforcement for all
applicable strength, service, and extreme event limit states (FHWA, 2009). The lateral earth pressure
coefficient Kr is determined by applying a multiplier to the active earth pressure coefficient. The active
earth pressure coefficient (Kr) is determined using the Coulomb earth pressure relationship, assuming no
wall friction and horizontal ground surface. The multipliers used in the calculations were obtained from
the Fig.11.
54
Fig. 11. Variation of the coefficient of lateral stress ratio kr /ka with depth in a MSE wall (Courtesy, Elias
et al. 2001; AASHTO, 2002; AASHTO, 2007)
For internal stability analysis, the distribution of horizontal stress, σH was first established using the
following expression.
 H  Kr v   H (1)
where, Kr is the coefficient of lateral earth pressure in the reinforced soil zone and was obtained
from Fig. 11. σv is the factored vertical pressure at the depth of interest and σh is the additional
factored horizontal stress due to external surcharges. Further, the maximum factored tension (Tmax) in
each reinforcement layer per unit width of the wall was calculated based on the vertical spacing (Sv).
 H Sv
Tmax  (2)
Rc
where, Rc is the coverage ratio and is defined as the ratio of the width of the reinforcement to the
center to center spacing between the reinforcements. Generally, σH is calculated at the level of the
reinforcement. Next, the factored tensile resistance (Tr) was calculated by multiplying the allowable
tensile strength (Tal) with the resistance factor.
55
Tr  f1  Tal (3)
Ac Fy
Tal  (4)
b
where f1 is the resistance factor equal to 0.75 as per the AASHTO (2007) guidelines; Ac is the cross
sectional area of the reinforcement; b is the width of the reinforcement, Fy is the yield strength of the
steel.
Further, the over design factor (odf) was calculated. The over design factors are similar to factor of
safety and were calculated by comparing the tensile strength of the reinforcement (Tr) with the tension
load (Tmax) coming from the structure.
Tr
odf  (5)
Tmax
The over design factors were calculated for design state as well as the out of plumb state. Since the top
two panels were out of plumb, the over design factors were calculated for top 2.25m. Table 2 compares
the over design factors of the MSE wall for design and out of plumb state. In all the cases, over design
factor value more than one was observed. Using the similar principles, the over design factors were
calculated for the connections. In case of the connections, the manufacture given value of the tensile
resistance of the connectors was compared with the maximum tension developed in the reinforcement.
Table 3. Over design factors of the MSE wall for design and out of plumb state in top 2.25 m
Layers Depth from the Design state Out of plumb state

top panel (m)
Main body Connections Main body Connections
1 0.35 3.82 3.34 3.16 2.77
2 0.75 3.25 2.85 2.77 2.42
3 1.5 1.98 1.73 1.75 1.53
4 2.25 1.69 1.48 1.53 1.34
56
The internal stability with respect to the pullout of the reinforcements was also checked. The factored
effective pullout length (Le) was calculated using the following equation.
Tmax
f 2 Le  (6)
F *  v CRc
Tmax is the maximum reinforcement tension; f2 is the Resistance factor for soil reinforcement pullout=0.9
as per AASHTO (2007) guidelines; F* is pullout resistance factor =tan φ; φ is the friction angle of the soil;
α is the scale correction factor =1 as per FHWA (2009); σv is the vertical stress at the reinforcement level
in the resistant zone, including distributed dead load surcharges; C is a constant = 2 for steel strip
reinforcement (AASHTO, 2007) and Rc is the coverage ratio. The lengths provided at the site were found
to be greater than the calculated Le. The value of the over design factors and the calculated pullout
length suggested that the reinforcement length and the spacing provided at the site was adequate.
4. Remedial measures
The probable reason for the wall misalignment was attributed to poor workmanship and
negligence of not measuring the alignment of the panels during construction. The MSE wall was found
stable against the all possible modes of the failures even in the misaligned state. Moreover, the wall
with this misalignment has taken the traffic load for more than one year. No major movements of the
wall or propagation of cracks on the MSE wall panels were observed during one year monitory period.
As there was no structural instability in the MSE wall, it was decided not to dismantle the MSE wall.
Instead, it was decided to perform a minor repair work and open the MSE wall for movement of traffic.
The cracks were filled with appropriate chemical grout. The broken edges and corners of the MSE wall
were restored using cement mortar. For the past six years, the repaired MSE wall is continuously
facilitating the movement of the traffic and performs at its best conditions. No further cracks or
misalignment has been observed. In March 2017, the offset of the MSE wall was again measured after
57
six years. No significant movement of the wall was observed. Table 3 compares the offset measured in
the MSE wall in the year 2010 and in 2017. In overall, the suggested remedial measures have saved the
huge cost and time as compared to the alternative options such as the reconstruction or the soil nail
strengthening.
Table 4. Comparison of the offset measured in the MSE wall in the year 2010 and 2017
Offset of the MSE wall

Height from
Year 2010 Year 2017 Difference
the top(m)
(mm) (mm) (mm)
1.5 6 6 0
3 119 113 6
4.5 169 166 3
6 216 196 20
7.5 151 133 18
9 56 68 -12
Negative value indicates the wall movement away from the backfill
5. Conclusions
The paper summarizes the forensic investigation details of the 13.85 m high misaligned MSE wall in
Anantapur in Andhra Pradesh in India. As part of the forensic analysis, both field tests and the design
analyses were carried out. The field tests comprised of the Standard Penetration Test (SPT),
Multichannel Analyses of Surface Waves (MASW) and the Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) tests. The
design analyses included the internal and external stability checks. External stability of the MSE wall was
checked using the limit equilibrium method based software ‘SLIDE’.
The results of the forensic investigations revealed that there was no structural instability in the MSE
wall. The observed global factor of safety value was found to be more than the critical value of 1.3. In
addition, the factor of safety values of 3 and 2.1 were observed for sliding and overturning mode of
failures respectively. The over design factor values calculated to assess the internal stability was found
58
to be more than one in all the cases. The major cause of the misalignment was attributed to poor
workmanship and negligence of not measuring the alignment of the panels during construction. Since
the misaligned MSE wall was safe for all possible modes of failure, it was decided not to demolish the
MSE wall. The MSE wall was opened for the traffic with minor repair works. The cracks were filled with
chemical grout and broken edges were restored using cement mortar. The repaired MSE wall is
continuously facilitating the movement of the traffic in past six years and continues to perform at its
best conditions. Recent inspection in March 2017 has shown that the wall is intact without any further
movement. The remedial measures have saved the huge cost and time in comparison with alternative
options such as demolition and reconstruction of the MSE wall or the soil nail strengthening.
References
Abdelkader, A., Daniel, D. and Nicolas F. (2011). Numerical analysis of the behaviour of mechanically
stabilized earth walls reinforced with different types of strips, Geotextiles and Geomembranes,
29(2), 116-129.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 2002. Standard
specifications for highway bridges, Seventeenth ed., Washington, D. C.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 2007. LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications, 4th Edition, Washington, DC, USA.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 2012. LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications. 6th Edition, Washington, DC, USA.
Sivakumar Babu, G.L. and Raja, J. (2015). Rehabilitation of distressed retaining walls using soil nails.
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Ground Improvement, 168 (1), 22-32.
Bathurst, R. J., 1993. Investigation of footing resistant on stability of large-scale reinforcement soil
wall tests. Proceedings of 46th Canadian Geotechnical Conference, Saskatoon, British
Columbia, Canada, pp. 389 – 398.
59
Bishop, A.W., 1955. The use of slip circle in the stability analysis of slopes, Geotechnique, 5, 7–17.
Elias, V., Christopher, B.R. and Berg, R.R. (2001). Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil
Slopes Design and Construction Guidelines. FHWA-NHI-00-043 Report. National Highway Institute,
Washington, DC.
Esfandiari, J. and Selamat, M. R., 2012. Laboratory investigation on the effect of transverse member on
pull out capacity of metal strip reinforcement in sand. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 35, 41 – 49.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2009. Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil
Slopes Design and Construction Guidelines. FHWANHI-10-024. Washington, DC.
Han, J., 2015. Principles and Practice of Ground Improvement. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, USA.
Han, J. and Leshchinsky, D., 2004. Limit equilibrium and continuum mechanics-based numerical
methods for analyzing stability of MSE walls. Proceedings of 17th ASCE Engineering Mechanics
Conference, Reston, DE, USA, June 13 –16.
Ho, S. K. and Rowe, R. K., 1994. Predicted behavior of two centrifugal model soil walls. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, 120 (10), 1845 – 1873.
IS 1893, 2002. Criteria for earthquake resistant design of the structures, Indian standard, New Delhi.
Koerner, R.M. and Koerner, G. R., 2013. Data base, statistics and recommendations regarding 171 failed
geosynthetic reinforced mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls. Geotextiles and Geomembranes,
40, 20-27.
Koerner, J., Soong T. Y. and Koerner, R.M., 1998. Earth retaining wall costs in the USA. GRI
Report #20. Geosynthetics Research Institute, Philadelphia, PA.
Leshchinsky, D., Vahedifard, F. and Leshchinsky, B. 2012. Revisiting bearing capacity analysis of
MSE walls. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 34, 100 –107.
Miyata, Y., Bathurst, R. J. and Konami, T., 2011. Evaluation of two anchor plate capacity models for MAW
systems. Soils and Foundations, 51(5), 885 –895.
Murthy V. N.S (2007). Advanced foundation Engineering. CBS Publishers & Distributers, New Dehli-
110002.
Naeini, S. A. and Gholampoor, N., 2014. Cyclic behaviour of dry silty sand reinforced with a geotextile.
Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 42(6), 611 – 619.
Paxson, G., Cadden, A., Wargo, R. and Gomez, J., 2004. MSE Walls in Distress: Repair Them or Rebuild
Them? Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Case Histories and Geotechnical
Engineering. New York, 1-8.
Riccio, M., Ehrlich, M. and Dias, D., 2014. Field monitoring and analyses of the response of a
block-faced geogrid wall using fine-grained tropical soils. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 42(2),
127 – 138.
60
Rowe, R. K. and Ho, S. K., 1998. Horizontal deformation in reinforced soil walls. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 35(2), 312 – 327.
Suksiripattanapong, C., Horpibulsuk, S., Chinkulkijniwat, A. and Chai, J. C., 2013. Pullout resistance
of bearing reinforcement embedded in coarse-grained soils. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 36, 44
– 54.
Schlosser, F., Elias, V., 1978. Friction in Reinforced Earth, A.S.C.E. Convention, Pittsburgh, April 24-28.
Yu, Y., Bathurst, R. J. and Miyata, Y., 2015. Numerical analysis of a mechanically stabilized earth wall
reinforced with steel strips. Soils and Foundations, 55 (3), 536 – 547.
61
®
Pile monitoring and Dynamic testing of piles

(Historical perspective and Case studies)
by
Dr CR Parthasarathy
Founder and Managing Director
Sarathy Geotech & Engineering Services Pvt Ltd
(An ISO 9001:2008 and OHSAS 18001:2007 Certified)
671, 6th C Main, 11th Cross, 3rd Phase, JP Nagar, Bangalore-560078.

www.sarathygeotech.com info@sarathygeotech.com
DRIVEN PILES
Tapping Instrumentation holes Instrumentation when piles on barge
PILE CAPACITY BY STATIC LOAD TEST
PILE CAPACITY BY DYNAMIC FORMULAE
Richard J. Fragasy etal, 1985
Richard J. Fragasy etal, 1985
Richard J. Fragasy et al, 1985
Notes: Rabe’s formula is a combined dynamic and static formula.

The Simplicity of most pile driving formulas
leads to the major disadvantage – ACCURACY.
The use of pile driving formula exclusively can

lead to dangerously low safety factors or
uneconomically high ones.
The variety and number are matched only by

their shortcomings.
24
DYNAMIC PILE LOAD TEST
BACKGROUND
• Research began at Case Institute of Technology (Cleveland) –
1964 under G. Goble
• Developed Case Method – “PDA”

Pile Capacity From Pile Top Measurements
• Wave Equation Analysis Program (WEAP)
• CAPWAP (Case Pile Wave Analysis Program)

Today owners, engineers and
contractors have a whole arsenal
of modern technology and tools
available to them to assist in
providing efficient and economical
deep foundation solutions
PILE CAPACITY
STATIC METHODS (FOS – 2.5)
STATIC LOAD TEST (FOS – 2.0)
DYANAMIC FORMULA (FOS >3)
HIGH STRAIN DYNAMIC LOAD TESTING

(FOS – 2.25)
DYNAMIC PILE LOAD TEST
I. TESTS ON BORED PILES
II. DRIVEN PILES
a. PRE INSTALLATION DRIVEABILITY STUDY

b. PILE MONITORING DURING DRIVING
C. POST INSTALLATION ANALYSIS
TESTS ON BORED PILES
DRILL SHAFT TESTING
DYNAMIC TESTING
LOW STRAIN TEST

PILE INTEGRITY TESTER –PIT
[ASTM D5882]
HIGH STRAIN TEST –

PILE DRIVING ANALYSER - PDA
[ASTM D4945]
Low Strain Pile Integrity Testing is a quick and cost
effective method to evaluate the shaft integrity of
concrete piles. The testing is able to provide information
on:
• pile continuity
• location of defect &
• degree of defect
The test method is performed with a hand held hammer, a

sensitive accelerometer and the Pile Integrity Tester.
HIGH STRAIN DYNAMIC TEST
Strain gage Accelorometer
PDA
METHODOLOGY
• When hammer strikes the top of a pile,

compression wave travels down the pile
• The impact induces force F and particle

velocity V
• The force is computed by the product the

measured strain signal and pile c/s area and
modulus
• The velocity is computed by integrating the

measured acceleration
• Force/velocity time histories is captured by

PDA
RAM
F/V
Curve
Height of fall
Cushion
PDA
Gauges
Pile
INFORMATION REQUIRED
• Pile Geometry (Diameter & Length)
• Grade of Concrete & Volume of Concrete used
• Steel reinforcement details

(Grade, Diameter & No. of bars used)
• Geotechnical / soil boring information
• Load to be proved
• Pile length available for test area

PILE TOP PREPARATION
POOR PILE TOP PREPARATION
India – 35 Tons Dead wt 5 Tons Dead wt
CAPWAP
• CAPWAP analysis is made on the PDA data after the

test is complete.
• Signal matching technique

- Computes resistance distribution
(End Bearing and Side friction)
- Compute soil quake and damping
- Useful in premature refusal of pile
CASE STUDY
ONLAND BORED PILE
SOIL PROFILE
Depth Soil Standard Penetration Test Value,
Description No of Blows for
(m) First 15cm Next 15cm Next 15cm ‘N’ Value
1 Reddish 2 2 4 6
2 brown 1 2 4 6
3 Clayey Sand 5 7 10 17
4 10 12 20 32
5 Yellowish 50/10cm - - >100
7 Grey highly 50/4cm - - >100
weathered
rock
CASE STUDY
ONLAND BORED PILE
PILE DETAILS
Pile diameter = 750mm

Concrete = M20
Grade of steel = Fe415
Pile length = 7m
Ultimate load to be proved = 375T
CASE STUDY
ONLAND BORED PILE
PDA – RESULTS - 5 T Dead wt

FORCE-TIME HISTORY
CASE STUDY
ONLAND BORED PILE
PDA - RESULTS
Ht of Energy, Comp. Tensile Mobilized Net

fall, ft kN-m Stress, Stress, Resistance, settlement,
MPa MPa Ton mm
3 10 8.4 0.3 325 4
4 15 12.3 0.6 558 1

CASE STUDY
ONLAND BORED PILE
CAPWAP ANALYSIS
CASE STUDY
ONLAND BORED PILE
RESULTS FROM CAPWAP ANALYSIS

CASE STUDY
ONLAND BORED PILE
RESULTS FROM CAPWAP ANALYSIS
Pile Name Diameter, Skin End Total Net

mm Friction, Bearing, mobilized Settlement
Ton Ton resistance, , mm
Ton
C-147 750 107 341 449 1
Soil Dynamic Constants

Skin Damping, Skin quake, mm Toe Damping, Toe quake, mm
sec/m sec/m
1.3 2.6 1.3 2.0
CASE STUDY
Marine Driven steel pipe pile
PILE MONITORING SERVICE

FOR CONSTRUCTION OF
JETTY – 3, IRAQ GAS PROJECT.
SARATHY GEOTECH & ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.

(ISO 9001:2008 & OHSAS 18001:2007 CERTIFIED)
Safety Briefing
Safety
Briefing
CASE STUDY
Personnel Basket Transfer
Personnel
Basket
Transfer
CASE STUDY
MOCK DRILL
MOCK
DRILL
CASE STUDY
Marking
Marking
CASE STUDY
Drilling
Drilling
CASE STUDY
Tapping
Tapping
CASE STUDY
Gauges and Cables
Gauges
and Strain Gauge Connection Cable
Cables
Accelerometer Main Cable
Placements
of the
Guage
Its mandatory that both the accelerometer and strain gage are fixed
parallel to the pile axis at a predetermined distance from the pile
top. When two sets of gauges are used, they shall be diametrically
opposite
CASE STUDY
Calibration Check
Calibration
Check • Calibration Check:
Internal calibration checks has to be conducted before the
equipment's are taken to the site, to ensure that the PDA &
transducers (Straingauges & Accelerometers) are good in
condition.,
CASE STUDY
Gauge Fixing
Gauge
Fixing
CASE STUDY
Instrumentation
CASE STUDY
Pile Lifting and Stabbing
Pile
Lifting
and
Stabbing
CASE STUDY
Hammer Placement and Driving
Hammer
Placement
and
Driving
CASE STUDY
Blowcount
Observation
CASE STUDY
CASE STUDY
• When hammer strikes the top of a
pile, compression wave travels
down the pile
• The impact induces force F and

particle velocity V
PDA • The force is computed by the

product of the measured strain
Theory signal and pile c/s area and modulus
• The velocity is computed by

integrating the measured
acceleration
• Force/velocity time histories is

captured by PDA
Force / Velocity time histories
captured by PDA
CASE STUDY
FIELD RESULTS
Hammer Performance
Pile Stresses
Pile Capacity
CAPWAP
Computes resistance distribution (End Bearing and Side friction)

Compute soil quake and damping values in friction and end bearing
Useful in premature refusal of pile
CAPWAP analysis is made on the PDA data after the test is complete.
CASE STUDY
REPORT
Field Report:
The following information is attached in the Field Report.
1.Energy of Hammer actually transferred to pile.
2.Efficiency of the hammer.
3.Pile Driving Stresses at the measured location.
4.Total Soil Resistance to Driving using GRLWEAP Software.
REPORT Final Report:

The following information is attached in the Final Report.
1.Results of wave equation analyses on instrumented piles.
2.Details of pile instrumentation & Recording equipment.
3.Records of the field measurements.
4.Analyses of the measured data using Signal Matching Software
- CAPWAP.
5.Advise on Pile Adequacy and the appropriate parameters to be
used for pile drivability.
CASE STUDY
DATA PRESENTATION
SGES – 2013
Offshore Brunei
DATA PRESENTATION
SGES – 2013
Offshore Brunei
DATA PRESENTATION
OBSERVED VS PREDICTED
BLOWCOUNTS
SGES 2011
Offshore Brunei
SGES 2012
Offshore India
CONCLUSIONS
• Proven worldwide application now
• Confirms capacity, even at large loads
• Reduced testing time and large cost savings (cost 10 to
30 times less than static cost)
• PDA with CAPWAP evaluates capacity at low cost for
driven piles, drilled shafts & augercast piles
• PDA gives extra valuable information (integrity, stresses,
hammer energy)
• PDA potentially saves time
• Improves quality control by more pile tests
• Replace static test for offshore piles
SARATHY GEOTECH & ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.
(ISO 9001:2008 & OHSAS 18001:2007 CERTIFIED)
#671, 6th C Main, 3rd Phase J. P. Nagar, Bangalore – 560078, India.
Telefax: 91-80-41208676 / 26584696, Mobile: +91 98442 79055.
info@sarathygeotech.com; partha@sarathygeotech.com
www.sarathygeotech.com
THANK YOU
®
RECENT TRENDS IN PILING AND GROUND IMPROVEMENT
(STRENGTHENING OF EXISTING OFFSHORE PILES)

Pile monitoring and dynamic testing of offshore piles -
Methodology, Interpretation and Case study(s)
by
Dr CR Parthasarathy
Founder and Managing Director
Sarathy Geotech & Engineering Services Pvt Ltd
(An ISO 9001:2008 and OHSAS 18001:2007 Certified)
671, 6th C Main, 11th Cross, 3rd Phase, JP Nagar, Bangalore-560078.

www.sarathygeotech.com info@sarathygeotech.com
A - CASE STUDY
STRENGTHING OF EXISTING PILE FOUNDATION FOR A JACKET

PLATFORM, OFFSHORE PERSIAN GULF
STRENGTHING OF EXISTING MOORING PILE FOR NEW LATERAL

LOADS
B - DYNAMIC PILE LOAD TEST
I. TESTS ON BORED PILES
II. OFFSHORE PILE INSTALLATION
a. PRE INSTALLATION DRIVEABILITY STUDY

b. DYNAMIC PILE TESTING
(OFFSHORE PILE MONITORING)
CASE 1 :
STRENGTHING OF EXISTING PILE FOUNDATION FOR

A JACKET PLATFORM, OFFSHORE PERSIAN GULF
INTRODUCTION
 Further development of existing platform, which was

installed in the year 1969, is planned
 Site specific geo-tech borehole not available
 Geotechnical information from a near by platform 50m
away is used for assessment.
SCOPE
 Review Available Geotechnical information
 Estimate existing pile capacity
 Carryout existing pile adequacy check for future
loads
 Advise the Solution if existing piles are inadequate
Existing Platform Details
 Eight legged jacket platform

 Eight regular piles and four skirt pile
 All piles are of 30-In OD with variable WT
 All piles were driven to 41.1m below seabed
 J171, J173, J113 and J111 are skirt piles
SOIL STRATIGRAPHY
• Mainly carbonate clay with several layers of non-cohesive carbonate sand

• 8.6m thick weak calcarenite is present at 34.4m
Top of Unit
Thickne
Layer below
Soil Description ss
Number seabed
(m)
(m)
1 Very Soft, Siliceous carbonate SILT 0.00 1.0
2 SAND 1.0 0.5
Very soft to firm, calcareous to siliceous
3 1.50 15.50
carboate CLAY
Very weak to weak, slightly silty siliceous
4 16.50 1.90
CALCARENITE
5 Firm, calcareous CLAY 18.40 1.70
Slightly to Moderately cemented, siliceous
6 20.10 4.50
carbonate SILT
7 Firm to stiff, siliceous carbonate CLAY 24.60 6.60
8 Slightly cemented, siliceous carbonate SILT 31.20 3.20
Weak, siliceous CALCARENITE, with
9 gypsum crystals and locally layers of slightly 34.40 8.60
cemented silt
Stiff to very stiff, siliceous carbonate CLAY
10 locally slightly cemented, with some gypsum 43.00 2.50
crystals
Sleeve Existing Skirt Pile (30-In φ )
Very Soft CLAY 1.0

m
SAND 0.5
m
Very Soft to Stiff
CLAY 15.0m
41.1m
SAND 1.9
m
Stiff to Very Stiff

CLAY
16.0m
CALCARENITE 8.6
m
Figure 3 : Pile Soil Model
FUTURE PILE HEAD LOADS
Axial Load, kN
Pile Joint Pile Type
Comp Ten
101L Regular Pile 2999.67 1171.68
107L Regular Pile 2871.37 -
119L Regular Pile 2395.72 1218.59
181L Regular Pile 2578.11 309.69
199L Regular Pile 2756.66 2077.44
J113 Skirt Pile 5871.86 -
Maximum
J111 Skirt Pile 6705.37
Load
Compression Capacity =
4.5MN @ 41.1m < Future
Load of 10MN (factored)
Existing 30-In Skirt Pile Capacity

SOLUTION
 Capacity of existing regular piles are adequate for the furnished
design loads.
 It is proposed to install an insert pile through the existing skirt pile

until the penetration where pile capacity is more than future load
and grout the annular space between the insert pile and skirt pile.
INSTALLATION METHODOLOGY
 The soil plug in the skirt piles shall be removed using plug
removal equipment till the final penetration
 Insert 26-In OD pile through the skirt pile till the final
penetration.
 Grout the annular space between the insert and skirt pile
Capacity at 75m = 10MN
Existing Skirt Pile (30-In φ )
Sleeve
Insert Pile (26-In φ )
Very Soft CLAY 1.0m
SAND 0.5m
Very Soft to Stiff 15m

CLAY
41.1m
SAND 1.9m
75.0m
Stiff to Very Stiff 16.0m
CLAY
CALCARENITE 8.6m
ATERNATE CLAY
& CALCARENITE 32.0m
up to 75m
Grout Length Calculation
Skirt
Pile t
Dp : Diameter of Insert = 26-In p
Pile Insert t
Pile g ts
Dg : Diameter of grout = 28.5-In
L
Ds : Diameter of Skirt Pile = 30-In
Grout
tp : Thickness of insert = 0.75-In
pile
tg : Thickness of grout = 1.25-In DDp p
ts : Thickness of skirt pile = 0.65-In Dg

Ds
(avg)
Following criteria shall be fulfilled as per API
Skirt
Pile t
p
Insert t
Pile g ts
L
Grout
DDp p
• Allowable axial load transfer stress (API Cl Dg

Ds
7.4.4) for extreme load case (API Cl 2.2.2) =
1.104MPa
• Assuming a FS of 6 and no shear keys
fba = 0.184MPa
Pu/ π*Dp*L = 0.184 MPa
• Required Grout Length = 26.2m < 58.5m

(available) = OK
• The bond strength contribution from grout UCS

is neglected as no shear keys are present.
CASE B :
STRENGTHING OF EXISTING MOORING PILE FOR NEW
LATERAL LOADS
SCOPE
Reviewing the available capacities of mooring piles and

strengthening measures for new lateral loads encountered
during anchoring FPSO in Persian Gulf.
REVIEW OF GEOPHYSICAL AND GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION
The soil comprises of stiff clay from mudline to a depth of 21m

followed by Calcareous SAND from 21m to 32m. The water depth
is measured to be 46m at the project location.
Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Angle

Layer Number
Description (kN/m3) (kPa) (deg)
1 Stiff CLAY 20 130 --
Calcareous
2 20 -- 32
SAND
The existing piles properties
Pile Type: Steel Pipe Pile

Pile Diameter OD = 1800mm
Pile WT = 38mm
Pile material = API 5L X52
Pile total length = 32m
Current pile penetration after refusal = 22 to 24m. As the worst case a pile
penetration of 22m is considered for present analysis.
Piles are open top piles with padeye located 10m below the top
Maximum Anchor Pile Load (horizontal load) on the pile pad eye = 7104KN
Design Anchor Pile Load (horizontal load) on the pile pad eye = 9650KN
Existing Pile Model
Layer 1 Properties
Layer 2 Properties
DISPLACEMENT, BENDING MOMENT AND LATERAL RESISTANCE
EXISTING PILE CHECK
Allowable
Horizontal Bending Stress
BM(maximum) Depth below Extreme Fibre
load (MPa) Remarks
(kN-m) mud line (m) Stress (MPa)
(kN) API criteria of
permissible stress
Section Not
O.K
7104 24833.00 5.0 240 273.7
Needs an
Insert Pile
INSER PILE CHECK (1.524mm dia 38mm WT)
Horizontal BM(maxi Depth Allowable Extreme Remarks

load mum) below Bending Fiber
(kN) (kN-m) mud line Stress ( MPa) Stress
(m) API criteria of (MPa)
permissible
stress
7104 27550.00 5.2 240 191.45 Section

O.K
Extreme
9650 39105.00 5.9 Yield stress 271.75 fiber Stress
( BRAKING 345 is checked
LOAD) against
Yield
stress.
Section
O.K
ALTERNATE PILE MODEL
1219mm dia 12.7mm wall thickness
914mm dia, 10mm wall thickness

PILE CHECK
Allowable
Bending Stress
Horizontal BM Depth Extreme
(MPa)
load (maximum) below mud Fibre Stress Remarks
API criteria of
(kN) (kN-m) line (m) (MPa)
permissible
stress
Extreme fibre
Stress exceeds by
7104 25378 5.1 240 245.4 1.7%
Section still O.K
Extreme fibre
Stress is checked
against Yield
9650 stress.
( BRAKING 37855 5.7 Yield stress 345 366 Extreme fibre
LOAD) Stress exceeds by
5.2%
Section still O.K
TESTS ON BORED PILES
DRILL SHAFT TESTING
• THANK YOU
35
DYNAMIC TESTING
BACKGROUND
• Research began at Case Institute of Technology (Cleveland) –

1964 under G. Goble
• Developed Case Method – “PDA”

Pile Capacity From Pile Top Measurements
• Wave Equation Analysis Program (WEAP)
• CAPWAP (Case Pile Wave Analysis Program)

DYNAMIC TESTING
LOW STRAIN TEST

PILE INTEGRITY TESTER –PIT
[ASTM D5882]
HIGH STRAIN TEST –

PILE DRIVING ANALYSER - PDA
[ASTM D4945]
Low Strain Pile Integrity Testing is a quick and cost
effective method to evaluate the shaft integrity of
concrete piles. The testing is able to provide information
on:
• pile continuity
• location of defect
• degree of defect
The test method is performed with a hand held hammer, a sensitive

accelerometer and the Pile Integrity Tester.
Multiple Reflection
NECKING
43
Strain gage Accelorometer
PDA
METHODOLOGY
• When hammer strikes the top of a pile, compression wave travels
down the pile
• The impact induces force F and particle velocity V
• The force is computed by the product the measured strain signal

and pile c/s area and modulus
• The velocity is computed by integrating the measured acceleration
• Force/velocity time histories is captured by PDA

RAM
F/V
Curve
Height of fall
Cushion
PDA
Gauges
Pile
INFORMATION REQUIRED
• Pile Geometry (Diameter & Length)
• Grade of Concrete & Volume of Concrete used
• Steel reinforcement details (Grade, Diameter &

No. of bars used)
• Geotechnical / soil boring information
• Load to be proved
• Pile length available for test area

India – 35 Tons Dead wt
5 Tons Dead wt
CAPWAP
• Signal matching technique

- Computes resistance distribution
(End Bearing and Side friction)
- Compute soil quake and damping
- Useful in premature refusal of pile
CAPWAP analysis is made on the PDA data after the test is

complete.
SGES Bangalore – 5 Tons dead wt - 2009
SGES Bangalore – 9 Tons dead wt - 2009
OFFSHORE PILE INSTALLATION
PRE INSTALLATION DRIVEABILITY STUDY

GRLWEAP
• INPUT
– Hammer properties
– Hammer and pile cushion properties
– Pile properties
– Soil Properties
• OUTPUT
– Resistance Vs Blow Count
– Stress vs pile length
– Transferred Hammer Energy
SGES - 2014
Offshore Malaysia
SGES - 2014
Offshore Malaysia
SOIL RESISTANCE TO DRIVING METHODS:
• Steven et. al. (1982)

Method.
• Puech et. al. (1990)

Method.
• Modified Colliat et.

al. (1993) Method.
• Alm & Hamre 2001

Method
• Custom method
(in-house) based
on percentage
shaft resistance
and end bearing
CASE STUDIES - PREDICTING SOIL RESISTANCE TO DRIVING
IN SOUTH EAST ASIA
C. R. Parthasarathy, Ramesh Gangisetti & Nikita Keshav

Sarathy Geotech & Engineering Services Pvt Ltd.,
3rd International Symposium on Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics

(ISFOG) 10-12 June 2015, NORWAY
70
• Predicting Soil Resistance to pile Driving (SRD) has been a challenge
• Steven’s et al (1982), Puech et al (1990) and Colliate et al (1993) are

site specific and developed for Arabian Gulf, offshore Congo and
Angola
• Appropriateness of these methods to offshore sites in South East

Asia has been assessed through SRDs computed from Pile
Monitoring Data
• Four case studies on pile driving behaviour of soils present in South

East Asia have been carried out and proposed a methodology to
predict SRD
• Proposed Methodology results found in good agreement with field

observations or measurements
• Offshore soils in Thailand, Brunei, Indonesia and Vietnam are
predominantly of normally consolidated very stiff to hard clay layers with
intermittent medium dense to dense silty sand layers
• Undrained shear strength from depths 40m to 120m below seabed, varies
from 100kPa to 220kPa.
• Plasticity index of soils vary from 30% to 40%
• Water depth in the region generally varies from 50m to 70m
• Jacket foundation depths range from 100m to 125m with pipe pile size
varying from 36-In (914.4mm) to 60-In (1524mm)
OCR = 0.9 to
OCR =
1.0
1.2
OCR = 1.0 to
1.1
OCR =
1.2
SITE-A (Offshore Vietnam)
Computed from CAPWAP Predicted (from available methods)
22% of API (2010) static capacity Steven’s et al – 74% to 100% of API (2010)
Puech et al – 50% to 100% of API (2010)
Colliat et al – 25% to 57% of API (2010)
SITE-B (Offshore Thailand)
Continuous-23% of API (2010) static capacity Steven’s et al – 62% to 83% of API (2010)
Delay-43% of API (2010) static capacity Puech et al – 27% to 83% of API (2010)

SITE-C (Offshore Brunei)
Continuou-28% of API (2010) static capacity Steven’s et al – 62% to 80% of API (2010)
SITE-D (Offshore Indonesia)
Continuous-20% of API (2010) static capacity Steven’s et al – 53% to 71% of API (2010)

For Clays,
For Sands,
Blowcount Range (Proposed
Method)
CAPWAP Results-Site A
Ultimate Static Damping Quake

Predicted SRD Resistance shaft Toe shaft Toe
Range (MN) (MN) (s/m) (s/m) (mm) (mm)

Proposed 10.3 1.1 0.8 1.3 2.0 8.8
Method
Range
Fig 1 Site A –Offshore Vietnam (SRD Plot) Fig 2 Site A –Offshore Vietnam (Blowcount Plot)
Predicted SRD CAPWAP Results-Site B
Damping Quake
Range Drive
Condition
Ultimate Static
Resistance shaft Toe shaft Toe
(MN) (MN) (s/m) (s/m) (mm) (mm)
Continuous 6.6 0.5 0.65 0.2 4.5 7.5
Proposed Re-strike 11.3 0.5 0.7 1.0 2.9 2.7
SRD
Range Blowcount Range (Proposed
Method)
Fig 3 Site B-Offshore Thailand (SRD Plot) Fig 4 Site B-Offshore Thailand (Blowcount Plot)
Method)
CAPWAP Results-Site C
Drive Ultimate Static Damping Quake
Condition Resistance shaft Toe shaft Toe
Proposed (MN) (MN) (s/m) (s/m) (mm) (mm)
Continuous 7.5 1.5 0.61 1.1 2.2 5.8
SRD Re-strike 17.3 1.7 0.61 0.9 3.6 1.8
Range Predicted SRD

Range
Fig 5 Site C-Offshore-Brunei (SRD Plot) Fig 6 Site C-Offshore-Brunei (Blowcount Plot)
Method)
CAPWAP Results-Site D
Drive Ultimate Static Damping Quake
Condition Resistance shaft Toe shaft Toe
(MN) (MN) (s/m) (s/m) (mm) (mm)
Continuous 11.3 0.6 0.55 1.3 1.3 4.4
Proposed Predicted SRD Re-strike 20.0 0.7 0.65 1.3 2.0 1.9
SRD Range
Range
Fig 7 Site D-Offshore Indonesia (SRD Plot) Fig 8 Site D-Offshore Indonesia (Blowcount Plot)
CAPWAP analyses indicate the soil resistance to driving to be in the range
of 20% to 35% and 40% to 65% of static capacity as per API 2010 for
continuous driving and re-strike tests after time delays up to 24hrs
respectively.
The soil dynamic parameters computed have been found to be in close
agreement with the values suggested in GRLWEAP software.
The proposed method to predict soil resistance to driving for both
continuous and delay driving conditions has been found suitable for soils
in South East Asia.
The proposed method is developed by back-calculation of the results of
offshore pile installation at four locations in South East Asia, where soils
are predominantly normally consolidated stiff to very stiff clay layers
with plasticity index varying from 30% to 40%.
SGES - 2012
Offshore India
SGES - 2008
Offshore India
STICK-UP ANALYSIS:
The pile stick-up analysis is
performed to evaluate the
following for the pile cross-
section at jacket top brace
level.
• The static stresses due to the
self weight of pile stickup &
hammer.
• The dynamic stresses
induced during the pile
driving.
• The combined stress unity
check ratios as per API
RP2A.
SGES – 2010 Offshore India
DYNAMIC PILE TESTING
(OFFSHORE PILE MONITORING)
OBJECTIVES:
• Measure soil resistance to driving (SRD) during Pile driving,
which will be useful to estimate available pile capacity.
• Measure hammer energy and driving stress to assist in planning

and controlling the pile installation in case of unexpected driving
conditions
STEPS - OFFSHORE PILE MONITORING
• Instrument offshore piles – using strain gauges and accelerometers
• Capture signature of every blow during pile driving into PDA
• Data Processing
• Assess energy transfer and stresses
• Assist in safe installation of piles to reach target penetration
• Estimate pile capacity achieved at the time of testing
• Post Installation Analysis – CAPWAP

•Data Calibration
•Data Acquisition
•Data Quality
•Data Interpretation
•Data Communication
CALIBRATION
PDA Instrument
Accelerometer
Strain gage
CALIBRATION
CALIBRATION
TAP TEST
Internal calibration checks has to be conducted before the equipment's
are taken to the site, to ensure that the PDA & transducers (Straingages
& Accelerometers) are good in condition.,
CALIBRATION TEST
INSTRUMENTATION
SGES – 2013 Offshore Indonesia

RIG UP THE GAGES
SGES – 2013 Offshore Indonesia
Pile Measurement Drilling Instrumentation holes
Data Aquisition
Tapping Instrumentation holes Instrumentation when piles on barge

Instrumentation from work basket
Data Acquisition
Pile Upended
SGES – 2013
Offshore Indonesia
Connect to the main cable
SGES – 2013
Offshore Indonesia
Insert the pile to the skirts
SGES – 2013
Offshore Indonesia
Data Acquisition

Data Acquisition
DATA QUALITY
DATA QUALITY
DATA QUALITY
DATA QUALITY
DATA QUALITY
DATA QUALITY
DATA QUALITY
DATA QUALITY
DATA INTERPRETATION
SGES – 2013
Offshore Brunei
SGES – 2013
Offshore Brunei
SGES – 2013
Offshore Brunei
SGES – 2013
Offshore Brunei
SGES – 2013
Offshore Brunei
DATA INTERPRETATION
DATA INTERPRETATION
DATA PROCESSING SGES – 2013 Offshore Brunei
DATA PRESENTATION
SGES – 2013 Offshore Offshore Brunei

SGES – 2013 Offshore Brunei
DATA PRESENTATION
SGES – 2008
Offshore India
DATA PRESENTATION
SGES – 2013
Offshore Brunei
DATA PRESENTATION
SGES – 2013
Offshore Brunei
DATA PRESENTATION
OBSERVED VS PREDICTED
BLOWCOUNTS
SGES 2011
Offshore Thailand
SGES 2011
Offshore Brunei
SGES 2012
Offshore India
SGES 2012
Offshore India
SGES 2012
Offshore India
ADVANTAGES OF PDA
• Proven worldwide application now
• Confirms capacity, even at large loads
• Reduced testing time and large cost savings (cost 10 to 30 times less than
static cost)
• PDA with CAPWAP evaluates capacity at low cost for driven piles, drilled
shafts & augercast piles
• PDA gives extra valuable information (integrity, stresses, hammer energy)
• PDA potentially saves time
• Improves quality control by more pile tests
• Replace static test for offshore piles

• THANK YOU
138

Coursenotes Final

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Coursenotes Final

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Higher Education Quality Improvement programme

Development of Post-Graduate Research and Degree Programmes in Disaster Risk

1. Overview of Geotechnical and Geophysical techniques: Complimentary Tools for studying

Dr. T.G. Sitharam, Ph.D. (Waterloo, Canada) Dr. Tahmeed M. Al-Hussaini

Email: sitharam@civil.iisc.ernet.in E-mail: htahmeed@yahoo.com

Vice President, Indian Society for Earthquake

Dr. T. G. Sitharam (Ph.D, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada)

Dr. C.R Parthasarathy (Ph.D, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India)

Mr. R M Subramanian (PhD, Indian Institute of Technology, Chennai, India)

Non-destructive and Geophysical techniques for Geotechnical Site

Prof. T G Sitharam, Ph.D.

26th Sept 2017 to 28th Sept 2017

Department of Civil Engineering

Geophysical Tests and

 The Earth is comprised of materials that have different

 Geophysical instruments are designed to map spatial

 Investigations normally extend to a total depth of less 100

2. Engineering properties of Earth materials: stiffness,

3. Detecting cavities beneath roadways caused by sinkholes,

4. Locating buried manmade objects—buried utilities,

• Geotechnical geophysics can be used to select borehole

• An isolated geologic structure such as a limestone pinnacle

• Mostly surface-based and noninvasive, unlike boring or trenching, leave little if

• Lastly, geophysical surveys can enable engineers to reduce the number of

Grain Size (mm)

• Geotechnical engineers refer to borehole

• *can be used both

1. Data acquisition - Surface wave (Rayleigh wave) energy,

• Make use of the surface wave energy

Note: Vp1 < Vp2

Shear Wave Velocity:

♦Electrical resistivity is the resistance of a

♦ current is introduced into the ground

♦ Resulting potential difference is measured V

multielectode (usually greater than 20

a resistivity meter system with an internal

The computer measures the time taken

• Compaction by Pile Driving

Do a geophysical survey before and after ground improvement.

• Geotechnical sensors are used extensively in the monitoring

 Many landslides are

 Threshold levels can be

 They are instruments installed

 The deflections are calculated

 Deflections are always

Borrows – soft ground

Source - American Geophysical Union, Nick Rosser

30 Oct 2014 KOSLANDA, 200

b. Resdistributing mass, terracing

c. Lowering water table strengthen

d. Relocating river prevent under

e. Adding riprap slows undercutting

f. Retaining wall trap falling rock

g. Bolting a cliff face can hold loose

h. Avalanche shed diverts debris or

FE Model Deformed meshes

Contours of total displacement

Do nothing and redesign to inevitability of slope failure and eventual

Stabilize slopes that need corrective action

Devise a monitoring program to verify that stability of slope is achieved

By implementing a good prediction and forewarning system coupled with effective

2. EFFECT OF LOCAL SITE CONDITIONS ON GROUND MOTION

Fig. 1: Effect of local site conditions

2.1 Effect of Topography