Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 86 (2019) 10–21

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tust

Underground survey to locate weathered bedrock depth using noninvasive T

microtremor measurements in Jurong sedimentary formation, Singapore
⁎
Palanidoss Subramaniam, Yunhuo Zhang, Taeseo Ku
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, National University of Singapore, 1 Engineering Drive 2, Singapore 117576, Singapore

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Determination of bedrock depth is an essential part of design/alignment/initial planning of any infrastructure
Bedrock detection projects such as tunneling, foundations and underground utilities. Drilling a borehole to identify the depth of
HVSR bedrock is often time consuming, costly and cumbersome process. In the present study, microtremor methods are
Microtremor measurement used to identify the depth of weathered bedrock. Series of ambient microtremor array measurements (MAM) and
Shear wave velocity
3-component microtremor methods are conducted in the weathered rock of Jurong formation in Singapore.
Surface wave
Based on these surface wave measurements and available reference borelog information, three different ap-
proaches – (1) shear wave velocity (Vs) based approach; (2) wavelength based approach and (3) Horizontal to
Vertical Spectral Ratio (HVSR) approach – are proposed to identify the depth of bedrock in the Jurong formation.
For the Vs based approach, a specific reference value of Vs is suggested to estimate the depth of bedrock in the
Jurong formation, which is readily determined by the Vs profile. In the wavelength based approach, an ex-
perimental dispersion curve in the form of wavelength and phase velocity is found able to identify a deviation
point that can be used for predicting the corresponding bedrock depth. A relationship between the deviation
point in wavelength and bedrock depth has been established. In the HVSR based approach, an empirical cor-
relation model is formed between the natural frequency obtained from the HVSR profile and the bedrock depth
information. To conclude, all three approaches can provide overall reasonable estimates in the depth of bedrock
although the Vs based approach is slightly better in statistics, followed by HVSR based approach. In practice, the
HVSR approach would be easy to implement in terms of field testing and analysis.

1. Introduction et al. (2017) used Multichannel Analysis of Surface Waves (MASW)

Identifying the depth of bedrock is very important in planning ideal
utilization of underground space, which involves determining founda-
tion system, alignment of underground tunnels, TBM selection and/or
excavation planning, as well as an appropriate design of buried drai-
nage network. Conventional vertical boring is commonly carried out to
locate the depth of bedrock. However, drilling a borehole to locate the
bedrock depth in a large infrastructure project is often a time con-
suming process. In addition, the cost of drilling a borehole is very ex-
pensive and subjected to environmental concern which involves cutting
of plants and trees for the transportation of drilling equipment.
Near surface geophysics are widely used in various infrastructure,
agricultural, mining, environmental and hydrological projects. Various
types of near surface geophysical methods and their applications in
geotechnical engineering are listed in Anderson et al. (2008). Apart
from these, microtremor methods have been also used in the health
assessment of various structural components (Gao et al., 2016). Pamuk
(Park et al., 1999), Refraction Microtremor (ReMi) (Louie, 2001) and
SPatial Auto Correlation (SPAC) (Aki, 1957) methods to estimate the
average shear wave velocity of 30 m depth (Vs30) and to determine the
depth of engineering and seismic bedrock in the Izmir Inner bay area in
Turkey. They have used an equal thickness layered approach in the
inversion of dispersion curve where each soil/rock layer is assumed to
have an equal thickness. Similarly, Ridwan et al. (2015) conducted
microtremor array measurements using a triangular array to locate the
engineering bedrock in Jakarta where the bedrock depth varies be-
tween 353 and 662 m. Akgün et al. (2013) used microtremor and
MASW methods to find ground parameters such as Vs30, bedrock depth,
attenuation and number of layers for ground response analysis. Most of
these studies were conducted in the view of seismic microzonation.
Coulouma et al. (2013) investigated the efficacy of Electrical Resistivity
Tomography (ERT) (Shima and Sakayama, 1987), diachronic ERT and
Spectral Analysis of Surface wave (SASW) (Nazarian and Stokoe, 1984)
methods to determine the depth of bedrock. However, the intended

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: ceesubp@nus.edu.sg (P. Subramaniam), zhangyunhuo@u.nus.edu (Y. Zhang), ceekt@nus.edu.sg (T. Ku).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2019.01.005
Received 29 May 2018; Received in revised form 21 December 2018; Accepted 9 January 2019
0886-7798/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
P. Subramaniam et al.
depth of investigation was less than 5 m and it was found that ERT is
applicable only when high contrast in electrical resistivity is expected
between soil and rock. Tamrakar and Luke (2013) proposed a disper-
sion curve based approach to find the depth of bedrock. However, the
depth of investigation was less than 10 m and based on active MASW
testing. They concluded that the approach is only applicable when a
sharp bend in the dispersion curve is visible i.e., clear contrast between
soil and rock layer. Moon et al. (2017) suggested a normalized phase
velocity approach and an average Vs30 based approach to find the depth
of weathered Bukit Timah Granite in Singapore. These methods were
based on combined active and passive MASW testing conducted at one
location and validated with a narrow bedrock range (28.2–35.6 m). In
contrast to array measurements, few studies have also been conducted
using HVSR (horizontal to vertical spectral ratio) to find the bedrock
depth. In this method, a fundamental natural frequency of the site is
correlated with the known bedrock depth (Yilar et al., 2017; Trevisani
et al., 2017; Parolai et al., 2002; Seht and Wohlenberg, 1999). From the
literature, it is evident that the past studies were based on either active
testing (< 10–15 m) or seismic microtremor measurements to identify
engineered/seismic bedrock located at deeper depths (> 100 m).
In the present study, the depth of weathered bedrock (weathering
grade - SIV/SIII; According to BS 5930 (1999), the weathering grade
SIV is highly to very highly fractured core with the rock quality des-
ignation (RQD) value of 0 whereas SIII is classified as weakened &
discolored large pieces with RQD > 0) is estimated based on passive
surface wave testing. Conducting active MASW testing is often un-
favorable in the urban environment like Singapore due to the inter-
ference of noises generated by heavy traffic and anthropological ac-
tivities. Due to the space constraints and environmental concerns, it
would be also not possible to plan for farther source (shot) location and
use a higher energy impact source to identify the deeper bedrock
(> 15 m) depth. In such situations, Microtremor Array Measurements
(MAM) is more suitable to locate the bedrock in which passive ambient
noise (e.g., traffic noise) is used as a source. In addition to this, in the
case of weathered rock, locating the rock depth is more challenging
where the impedance contrast between the soil and rock is not sig-
nificantly high enough to identify the bedrock depth from the layered
shear wave velocity profile. With this view, series of microtremor array
measurements (MAM) and 3-component geophone measurements were
taken in various locations of Jurong formations in Singapore. However,
noise sources within the MAM array/closer to the one leg of the array
need to be filtered out. The method is also not advisable for very
shallow bedrock depths (< 8 m). The depth of bedrock in the Jurong
formation varies between few meters to tenths of meters and the Jurong
weathered rock formation consists of sandstone, siltstone, limestone
and mudstone. Several important underground construction projects
are ongoing and planned to expand the present underground infra-
structure network such as deep tunnel sewerage system, Jurong rock
caverns, and Jurong region line. In terms of ways of inferring bedrock
depth, three different approaches are explored to estimate the depth of
weathered bedrock (SIV or SIII) and Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
refusal depth for the Jurong formation.
2. Experimental program
2.1. Testing location
In the present study, MAM and 3-component geophone measure-
ment methods were carried out at eight different locations of Jurong
formations in Singapore. The testing locations are shown in Fig. 1 along
with the various geological formations of Singapore (modified map
from Lee and Zhou, 2009). Jurong formations are basically sedimentary
rock spread over west and south west part of Singapore. The Jurong
formation’s origin dated back to late Triassic (235 myr) and late Jur-
assic (175 myr) (Zhao et al., 1999). Jurong formation predominantly
consists of limestone, sandstone, siltstone and mudstone. Due to heavy
11
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 86 (2019) 10–21
folds and faults, the rock type, layering and degree of weathering vary
widely, both vertically and laterally. Based on the British weathered
rock classification system (BS 5930, 1999), the rock can be classified as
S(I) to S(VI) where S(I) is fresh intact rock and S(VI) is residual soil
respectively. The most commonly found geomaterials in Jurong for-
mations are (i) residual soil (gravel to clay in various proportions), (ii)
limestone, (iii) sandstone, (iv) siltstone, and (v) mudstone. The SPT
refusal depth in particular testing location depends upon the type of
rock and degree of weathering. In this study, the subsurface information
of all the testing locations are inferred based on SPT testing and rock
coring data.
2.2. Field surface wave measurement
Microtermor Array Measurement (MAM) was carried out using
4.5 Hz vertical geophones in L shaped/angular shaped array and the
geophones were connected through geophone cables. Ambient micro-
tremors were recorded for 40 min at the sampling frequency of 2 ms at
each testing location using a 24 channel seismograph. In order to cal-
culate the horizontal to vertical spectral ratio, 3-component geophones
(2 horizontal - HEW, HNS; 1 vertical) were used. Since all the tested sites
were of natural ground, spike type geophones were used and the ver-
ticality of the geophones were ensured through bubble level attached in
the geophones. Totally eleven MAM tests at eight different locations in
the Jurong formations with L- shaped/angular shaped array were
conducted. The array shape, size and number of geophones were
decided based on the site conditions such as ground clearance, obstacles
and availability of area. It should be noted that the depth of in-
vestigation is approximately equal to the size of the array. The in-
formation on testing locations and geophone array (shape, size and
number of geophones) are listed in Table 1. The sites where larger ar-
rays are not possible to form, centerless circular array method (Cho
et al., 2006) or miniature array analysis of microtremors (Cho et al.,
2013) shall be tried to construct the dispersion curve.
Fig. 2(a–g) illustrates the overall process involved in the generations
of Vs profile and HVSR plot. The acquired signals were checked for data
consistency and the inconsistent channels were removed. For the mi-
crotremor array data in frequency domain, dispersion image (frequency
versus Rayleigh wave velocity) was constructed by Extended Spatial
Auto-Correlation method (ESPAC) (Ling and Okada, 1993; Okada,
1994). ESPAC is originally derived from the Spatial Auto-Correlation
(SPAC) algorithm proposed by Aki (1957). In the urban environment
like Singapore, it is often not possible to construct a circular array with
a central geophone. Unlike SPAC, ESPAC considers frequency as a
constant term instead of radius in the calculation of apparent phase
velocity (Ohori et al., 2002) and this eliminates constraint in forming
the L-shaped or angular shaped array. Moreover, the number of geo-
phones to be used in the circular array in order to calculate the SPAC
coefficient is not known clearly (Okada, 2006). The derivation of the
ESPAC method is explained in detail by Parolai et al. (2006).
Once the dispersion image is generated from the ESPAC velocity
spectrum, a theoretical dispersion curve is calculated based on the
forward modelling proposed by Lai and Rix (1998). The generation of
theoretical dispersion curve and inversion were performed through
winMASW® software. This matlab based environment uses a genetic
algorithm (GA) based optimization code to perform inversion (Dal
Moro et al., 2007). The number of populations and generations in the
genetic algorithm are adjusted in such a way to achieve the best fit in
the experimental and theoretical dispersion curves. Fig. 3(a–e) depicts
the various process involved in the generation of shear wave velocity
profile corresponding to site #4. Fig. 3(a) shows the dispersion image
together with the experimental dispersion curves and theoretical dis-
persion curve (i.e., associated to initial model). It is assumed that the
shear wave velocity increases with depth. Initial guess of the shear
wave velocity model can be constructed approximately by using the
following relationship (Brown et al., 2000):
P. Subramaniam et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 86 (2019) 10–21

6
9 2
5
4 3

1
7
8

Fig. 1. Testing locations in the Jurong formation (shown in green) and geological map of Singapore (inset) (modified from Lee and Zhou 2009). (For interpretation of
the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Table 1
Testing program of microtremor array measurement (MAM).
#. Testing Location Reference Borehole IDa Testing methods Array size Geophone base (Number of Geophone)

1. Jurong Central Park 1.1 Passive 40 m × 40 m Spike (11)

2. Jalan Boonlay 2.1 Passive 40 m × 40 m Spike (11)
2.2 Passive 40 m × 40 m Spike (11)
3. Bukit Batok 3.1 Passive 40 m × 40 m Spike (11)
3.2 Passive 28 m × 20 m Spike (14)
4. Jurong west st 82 4 Passive 36 m × 36 m Spike (19)
5. PIE Road 5.1 Passive 36 m × 36 m Spike (19)
6. Nanyang Technological University (NTU site 1) 6.1 Passive 36 m × 36 m Spike (19)
6.2 Passive 40 m × 28 m Spike (18)
7. Jurong Town Hall Road 7 Passive 40 m × 40 m Spike (21)
8. West Coast Road 8 Passive 32 m × 34 m Spike (17)

a
Testing at the same site but in different reference borehole is indicated in decimal.

12
P. Subramaniam et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 86 (2019) 10–21

(a) (b)
Battery 10 9 8 7 6 Geophone Number
5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0
Geophones 4 5
3

Time (sec)
10
2 15
1 20
Laptop for 0 25
data logging 30
Seismograph

(d) (c)
Shear wave velocity (m/s)
0 200 400 600 800

Phase Velocity (m/s)

0
700

20 500
Depth (m)

300
40 100
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 8 10 12
Frequency (Hz)
60

(e) Battery (f) (g)

E-W V N-S
3 component 0
Geophone 5
8
Time (sec)

10 6
15
HVSR

4
20 2
25 0
Laptop for 1 10
30 Natural Frequency (Hz)
data logging
Seismograph

Fig. 2. MAM – (a) experimental setup used for MAM testing, (b) typical records from microtremor array, (c) dispersion image, (d) shear wave velocity profile after
inversion. MM – (e) experimental setup used to measure 3-components of microtremor, (f) typical records from 3-component microtremor, (g) HVSR profile.

Vs = 1.1VR at z =
λ find the depth of medium to hard weathered bedrock directly from the
3 (1) Vs profile due to the poor impedance between soil and rock. Herein,
three different approaches are proposed to estimate the depth of bed-
where VR and Vs are the Rayleigh wave phase velocity and shear wave
rock at Jurong formation.
velocity respectively. z and λ denote the depth of layer and corre-
sponding wavelength respectively.
(i) Preselected Vs based approach
The initial shear wave velocity model and the search space for the
(ii) Wavelength based approach
best model are shown shaded green1 in Fig. 3(b). The calculated misfit
(iii) HVSR approach
at each generation is shown in Fig. 3(c). The Figure also shows the
misfit variation of the fittest model (i.e., best model) among all the
The first two methods are based on MAM while the third is using a
generated models in the framework of genetic algorithm within the
HVSR profile. Fig. 4 shows a flowchart that illustrates the process of
search space. The dispersion curves corresponding to the fittest model
detecting the bedrock based on all the three approaches. The accuracy
(i.e., best model) is shown in Fig. 3(d) and the mean model implies the
in the bedrock detection of all the tested sites based on these proposed
average of all the generated models in the search space. The shear wave
approaches are discussed in the next section.
velocity (Vs) profile corresponding to the best generated model
(Fig. 3(e)) in the GA is further used to find the depth of weathered rock
(SIV or SIII). The depth of bedrock at each testing location and the type 3.1. Preselected VS based approach
of bedrock are shown in Table 2.
This method is proposed based on the assumption that the variation
in the Vs of weathered sedimentary rock in Jurong formation is within a
3. Methodology
narrow band. Using the Vs profile generated from the MAM testing and
the known borelog information, a reference Vs is suggested to locate the
In the case of weathered bedrock, it may not be straightforward to
bedrock, which is determined based on the data collected from all the
test sites in Jurong formation. Fig. 5 illustrates a typical procedure to
1
For interpretation of color in Fig. 3, the reader is referred to the web version find the depth of bedrock. A horizontal line is drawn at the bedrock
of this article. depth (shown in borelog) to Vs profile, which allows to measure the Vs

13
P. Subramaniam et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 86 (2019) 10–21

(a) (b)
900 0
Experimental dispersion curve
Initial model

Phase Velocity (m/s)

15

Depth (m)
600

30

300

45
200 400 600 800
4 8 12 16 20 24
Shear wave velocity (m/s)
Frequency (Hz)

(c) -2

-3

-4
Misfit

-5

-6

-7
0 20 40 60 80 100
Generation

(d) (e)
Experimental dispersion curve Shear wave velocity (m/s)
700 Best model 0 400 800 1200
Mean model
600 0
Phase Velocity (m/s)

500

400
20
Depth (m)

300

200

100 40
4 8 12 16 20
Frequency (Hz)

60
Fig. 3. (a) Experimental and initial model dispersion curves (b) initial shear wave velocity model in the shaded search space (c) calculated misfit for fittest model and
average of all the considered models (d) dispersion curves for best model, mean model (considering all the models) together with experimental values (e) shear wave
velocity profile corresponding to the best model.

at the bedrock depth. In this case, the depth of bedrock is located at 9 m
and the corresponding Vs is about 420 m/s. Similarly, shear wave ve-
locities at engineering bedrock depths of all the testing sites in the
Jurong formation are examined. From this, as a reasonable bedrock
velocity for all the testing sites, a reference Vs of bedrock for Jurong
formation is suggested. This reference Vs can be applied to identify the
bedrock depth directly from the shear wave velocity profile. In this
study, after careful reviews on all the testing sites at Jurong formation,
the reference Vs is identified as 500 m/s. In Fig. 5, a vertical line is
drawn from the abscissa (500 m/s) to Vs profile, then a horizontal line is
drawn from the intersection point at Vs profile to ordinate (depth). This
implies the depth of bedrock (12 m) estimated using the preselected Vs.
3.2. Wavelength based approach
The experimental Rayleigh wave dispersion curve, calculated based
on ESPAC approach, is further analyzed to examine the possibility of
identifying the bedrock depth. Tamrakar and Luke (2013) developed

14
P. Subramaniam et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 86 (2019) 10–21

Table 2
Type of bedrock at various testing locations in Jurong formation.
Testing Location Reference Borehole ID Bedrock depth (m) Grade Type of bedrock

Jurong Central Park 1.1 27.5 SIII Limestone (27.5–37.5 m)

Alternative layers of SIV and Siltstone (37.5–41 m)
SIII
Jalan Boonlay 2.1 29 SIII Sandstone (29–34.8 m)
Limestone (34.8–40 m)
Siltstone (40–45 m)
2.2 34 SIII Sandstone (34–37 m)
Limestone (37–44 m)
Siltstone (44–45 m)
Bukit Batok 3.1 9 Alternative layers of SIV and Sandstone (9–40 m)
SIII
3.2 16 SIII Sandstone (16–27.5 m)
Alternative layers of SIV and Sandstone (27.5–40 m)
SIII
Jurong west st 82 4 21 SIV Siltstone (21–23 m)
Sandstone (23–26 m)
SIII Siltstone (26–40 m)
PIE Road 5.1 11 SIV Siltstone (11–30 m)
SIII Siltstone (30–31 m)
SIV Siltstone (31–40 m)
Nanyang Technological University (NTU site 1) 6.1 12 SIV Sandstone (12–15 m)
SV Gravelly sand (15–27 m)
SIV Siltstone (27–30 m)
SIII Mudstone (30–31 m)
SIII Sandstone (31–40 m)
6.2 17 SIII Sandstone (17–54 m)
Jurong Town Hall Road 7 19 SIII Sandstone (19–25 m)
Alternative layers of SIV and Sandstone (25–35 m)
SIII
SIII Siltstone (35–40 m)
West Coast Road 8 19.5 Alternative layers of SIV and Sandstone (19.5–23.5 m)
SIII
Alternative layers of SIV and Alternative layers of sandstone and siltstone
SIII (23.5–40 m)

Converting into Spatially auto

MAM test Generating
frequency correlation
dispersion curve
domain (ESAC)

Preselected wave Shear wave Phase velocity - Change point in

Inversion
velocity velocity wavelength plot wavelength

Bedrock
estimation
3 Component
H/V Natural
(H, V) Data
Spectrum Frequency
acquisition
Fig. 4. Methodology to estimate the depth of bedrock.

series of theoretical dispersion curves by varying the depth to bedrock
between 2 m and 10 m in order to study how it affects the variation in
the wavelength. In the view of active MASW testing and for very
shallow bedrock sites (< 10 m), an apparent relationship was found
between the bending point of wavelength and the bedrock depth. On
contrast to this, in the present approach, the dispersion curves are
generated from microtremor array measurement (i.e., passive MASW)
in the weathered rock sites. The depth of bedrock varies between 9 m
and 34 m. Fig. 6(a) shows the experimental dispersion curves of all the
testing sites in the Jurong formation. It can be seen that at most of the
sites, the dispersion curves fall in the close band. However, boreholes
#1 and #8 show relatively lower phase velocity profiles. From the
borelog information at these locations, it shows the presence of
estuarine layer (∼3 m) which is not seen in the rest of the sites. Though
boreholes #3.1 and #3.2 are 100 m apart, the dispersion curve corre-
sponding to #3.2 shows a higher phase velocity profile. This may be
due to dominant higher mode caused by closer heavy road traffic. The
dispersion curves are further converted into ‘wavelength vs frequency’
plots (Fig. 6(b)) through the following relationship (Eq. (2)).
Phase velocity = Frequency × Wavelength (2)
Each phase velocity point is divided by the corresponding frequency
in order to obtain the wavelength and is plotted against the frequency.
Although the bedrock depths of all the testing sites vary, wavelength
curves fall in very narrow band. However, it is observed that the
maximum bending point in the wavelength curve varies according to

15
P. Subramaniam et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 86 (2019) 10–21

Shear wave velocity (m/s) 120 50

0 300 600 900 1200 45

Wavelength (m)
0 100
40

Wavelength (m)
35
80
Actual Bedrock depth = 9 m 30
3m 450 500 550 600
60 Phse velocity (m/s)
Estimated bedrock
depth 40
20
20
Depth (m)

V = 500 m/s
s(Pre) 0
400 600 800 1000
Phase velocity (m/s)
Fig. 7. Typical phase velocity vs wavelength plot to identify the change in
40 wavelength.
Fill (Sand with rock fragments)
S VI (Residual soil) 3.3. HVSR method
S V (Weak to moderately weak)
S IV (moderately weak to Horizontal to vertical spectral ratio (HVSR) is calculated using Eq.
moderately strong) (3) from the ambient noise captured by three-component geophone (2
S III (Moderately strong) horizontal geophones – HEW, HNS; 1 vertical geophone) (Nakamura,
60 1989).

Fig. 5. Shear wave velocity profile corresponding to the reference borehole |fEW |2 + |fNS |2
#3.1. HVSR (f ) =
2 |fV |2 (3)

the bedrock depth. Thus, a novel attempt has been made to establish a
relationship between the wavelength bending point and the known
bedrock depth for Jurong formation. The procedure is explained briefly
as follows.
At first, wavelength is calculated from the experimental dispersion
curve and plotted against phase velocity as shown in Fig. 7. In the
‘phase velocity vs wavelength’ plot, a straight line is drawn along the
wavelength curve to find the bending/deviation point as shown in
Fig. 7. Using the bending point in wavelength of all the testing sites and
the corresponding depth of bedrock (from the borehole profile), a
correlation is established. This apparent relationship can be used to
estimate the bedrock depth.
where |fEW | and |fNS | are amplitude spectra of the horizontal components
in east-west and north-south directions respectively. |fV | is the ampli-
tude spectrum of the vertical component.
From the HVSR spectrum, the frequency corresponding to a peak
HVSR value is selected. In order to identify the reliable fundamental
frequency, Site EffectS assessment using AMbient Excitations (SESAME)
guidelines (Bard and Sesame-Team, 2004) are followed. During the
HVSR calculation, spectral smoothing of 15% is carried out in trian-
gular window. Tapering of 5% is allowed and the window length is
adjusted by trial and error method so as to satisfy the SESAME criteria.
In few cases, occurrence of double peaks could not be avoided since the
testing has been done along the express way. The highest peak is con-
sidered as the predominant frequency to establish the correlation be-
tween the fundamental frequency of the site and the bedrock depth. The
occurrence of secondary peak is attributed primarily to heavy traffic
and it does not significantly affect the predominant frequency of the site

800 200
BH ID BH ID
1 1
2.1 2.1
Phase Velocity (m/s)

2.2 150 2.2

600
Wavelength (m)

3.1 3.1
3.2 3.2
4 4
5 5
6.1 100 6.1
6.2 6.2
400 7 7
8 8

50
200

0
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)
Fig. 6. (a) Dispersion curves, (b) wavelength vs frequency of all the tested sites in Jurong formation.

16
P. Subramaniam et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 86 (2019) 10–21

Shear wave velocity (m/s) Shear wave velocity (m/s)

0 200 400 600 800 0 300 600 900 1200
0 0
500 m/s
500 m/s
10 10

20 20
Depth (m)

Depth (m)
30 1 30 3.1
2.1 3.2
2.2 4
40 40
1 2.1 3.1 3.2 4
Fill Fill
S VI S VI
50 SV 2.2
50 SV
S IV S IV
S III S III
60 60
Shear wave velocity (m/s) Shear wave velocity (m/s)

0 300 600 900 1200 0 300 600 900 1200

0 0
500 m/s 500 m/s

10 10

20 20
Depth (m)

Depth (m)

30 5 30 7
6.1 8
6.2
40 40
Fill 5 6.1 6.2 Fill 7 8
S VI S VI
SV SV
50 S IV 50 S IV
S III S III
S II
60 60
Fig. 8. Shear wave velocity profiles of all the tested sites in Jurong formation.

Table 3
Evaluation of proposed approaches in the bedrock estimation.
Testing Location Reference Borehole ID Actual Bedrock Depth (m) Preselected Vs based approach Wavelength based approach HVSR approach

Jurong Central Park 1.1 27.5 −2.7 −1.6 −0.3

Jalan Boonlay 2.1 29 −2.7 −4.8 +7.1
2.2 34 −7.0 −7.0 x
Bukit Batok 3.1 9 +3.4 −0.6 −2.3
3.2 16 −0.4 −1.1 x
Jurong west st 82 4 21 +1.1 −4.6 +3.9
PIE Road 5.1 11 +1.0 +1.5 −0.9
NTU site 1 6.1 12 +2.4 +2.2 −2.9
6.2 17 +2.5 +4.0 +4.2
Jurong Town Hall Road 7 19 −0.5 +6.8 −2.2
West Coast Road 8 19.5 +1.5 −1.1 −5.5
NTU site 2 9.1 10 * * +0.34
9.2 20 * * +1.88

Note: (+) indicates overestimation of depth & (−) indicates underestimation of depth, x – Reliable peak was not identified due to higher traffic volume; * – Space
constraint to form microtremor array.

(Harutoonian et al., 2013). In this study, the fundamental frequencies of formation in Singapore.
all the tested sites are correlated with corresponding bedrock depths
through a power function. Eventually, this empirical relationship can be
used to estimate the depth of weathered bedrock at the Jurong

17
P. Subramaniam et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 86 (2019) 10–21

60 120

100

Wavelength (m)
Wavelength (m)
40 80

60
1 3.1
20 2.1 40 3.2
2.2 4
20

0 0
400 500 600 400 600 800
Phase velocity (m/s) Phase velocity (m/s)

80 80

70
Wavelength (m)

60

Wavelength (m)
60

50
40 40
5 30
6.1 7
20 6.2 20 8
10
0 0
400 500 600 400 600 800
Phase velocity (m/s) Phase velocity (m/s)
Fig. 9. Change in phase velocity vs wavelength plot of all the tested sites in Jurong formation.

40 wavelength (λ) at lower bending point and bedrock depth (D) is es-
(b). Wavelength based approach
tablished as follows.
1 D = 345.9 λ−0.881 (R2 = 0.78) (4)
2.1
Outliner 2.2 The variations in wavelength with respect to phase velocity of all
Bedrock depth (m)

20
R2 = 0.78
D = 345.9 λ−0.881
0 the boreholes during the tests. No significant change between the two
0 20 40
Wavelength (λ)(m)
Fig. 10. Change in wavelength vs corresponding bedrock depth of all the tested
sites in Jurong formation.
4. Results & discussions
As discussed in the preceding Section 3.1, the Vs profiles corre-
sponding to all the testing sites were used in the identification of bed-
rock depth. Fig. 8 shows the Vs profiles of all the testing locations along
with the borehole profiles. A vertical line is drawn from abscissa cor-
responding to 500 m/s to locate the bedrock depth. The difference in
actual and estimated bedrock depth is shown in Table 3.
As stated in wavelength based approach, a relationship between
3.1 the testing sites are shown in Fig. 9. Nearer to the lower bending por-
3.2
tion, a straight line is drawn along the straight portion of the wave-
4
5 length profile to identify the lower deviation point. In all the cases the
6.1 bending portion is magnified to exactly identify the deviation/bending
6.2 point. At most care should be taken to identify the bend point and it
7 also depends on the quality of the microtremor signal. The wavelength
8 corresponding to this deviation point is plotted against the bedrock
depth for all the testing sites in Jurong formation as shown in Fig. 10.
Boreholes #2.1 and #2.2 are approximately 25 m apart, and MAM tests
were conducted using ‘L & shaped arrays’. The boreholes #2.1 and
#2.2 were located at the corner of the ‘L & shaped arrays’ respec-
tively and the horizontal legs of the arrays were overlapped between
60 80 dispersion curves was identified. However, the depths of bedrock cor-
responding to bore logs #2.1 and #2.2 are 29 m and 34 m respectively.
From Fig. 10, it can be seen that data corresponding to the borehole
#2.2 does not follow the trend and it is considered as an outliner.
Horizontal to vertical spectral ratio of all the tested sites are shown
in Fig. 11. Frequency corresponding to the peak HVSR is considered as a
natural frequency of the site. The observed natural frequencies of all the
tested sites in the Jurong formation are plotted against the corre-
sponding bedrock depths, which exhibits an inverse relationship as
shown in Fig. 12. A site-specific empirical correlation model is proposed
between the natural frequency (f) and the bedrock depth (D) as shown
below.
D = 69.4 f −0.996 (R2 = 0.75) (5)
These relationships can be applied to estimate the depth of bedrock

18
P. Subramaniam et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 86 (2019) 10–21

6
1
2.1
4
2.2

HVSR 2

0
1 10
Frequency (Hz)

8
3.1
6 4
5
HVSR

0
1 10
Frequency (Hz)

20

16 6.1
6.2
12 7
HVSR

8
4
0
1 10
Frequency (Hz)

10

8
8
6 9
HVSR

4 10

0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Frequency (Hz)
Fig. 11. HVSR profiles of all the tested sites in Jurong formation.

in Jurong formation. The estimated average shear wave velocity of
sedimentary layer considering quarter wavelength law (Delgado et al.,
2000) from Eq. (5) is about 279 m/s. Fig. 13(a)–(c) compare the actual
bedrock depth from borelog and the estimated bedrock depth using the
preselected Vs approach, the wavelength based approach, and the HVSR
approach respectively. As can be seen in Fig. 13(a), most of the data are
scattered around the line of equality and the preselected method shows
the best estimate (e.g., root mean square error, RMSE = 2.79) among
the three proposed methods. The higher RMSE value is due to some
outliners and site heterogeneity. For example, borehole #2.2 shows
considerable underestimation of bedrock depth (variation = 7 m) as
shown in Fig. 13(a). As discussed in the Section 3.2, boreholes #2.1 and
#2.2 are 25 m apart and one leg of the both microtremor arrays were
overlapped between the boreholes during the tests. Although the var-
iation in bedrock depth (obtained from borelog) between the boreholes
is 5 m, there may not be considerable variation in bedrock depth within
the overlapped array area. This may be the possible reason for the
underestimation of the bedrock depth.
It is seen from Fig. 13(b) that the wavelength based approach can
estimate the bedrock depth reasonably well (RMSE = 4.55) at most of
the testing sites except for boreholes #2.2 and #7. The possible un-
derestimation at borehole #2.2 was explained in the previous para-
graph. Similarly at the testing location #7, a gentle slope in the bedrock
is observed from the available nearby bore log information. This may
have resulted in some uncertainties in applying the wavelength based
approach. In addition, it should be noted that the approach is more
sensitive in prediction at lower wavelength regime.
HVSR based approach estimates the bedrock depth within ± 5 m
accuracy (RMSE = 3.52) at all the testing sites excepting the borehole
location #2.1. This is probably attributed to the uneven bedrock profile

19
P. Subramaniam et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 86 (2019) 10–21

40 result from the existence of different kinds of rock (limestone, sand-

stone and siltstone) materials that can affect the fundamental period of
1 the site.
2.1
Actual bedrock depth (m)

3.1 5. Conclusions
4
5
6.1 Surface wave tests (microtremor array method and 3-component
6.2 microtremor method) were carried out in the weathered Jurong for-
7 mation in Singapore to identify the depth of bedrock. Based on the
20 8
9
wave measurements, three independent methods were proposed to es-
10 timate the depth of bedrock: (i) preselected Vs based approach, (ii)
wavelength based approach, and (iii) HVSR based approach. The fol-
lowing conclusions are drawn based on the experimental results.

D = 69.4*( f -0.996) 1. All the proposed methods in this study are based on non-invasive
R2 = 0.75 seismic wave measurements and can be efficiently used for rea-
sonable estimation of the bedrock depth at Jurong formation.
0 Conceptually, the methodologies would be easily extended for si-
0 2 4 6 8 10 milar geologic formations (e.g., weathered sedimentary rock for-
Natural Frequency (Hz) mation).
2. In the present case, the preselected Vs based approach provided the
Fig. 12. Natural frequency and corresponding bedrock depth of tested sites in
Jurong formation.
best prediction of bedrock depth in Jurong formation. ESPAC ana-
lysis was adopted to generate the dispersion curve. Subsequently,
the Vs profile was derived from the best fit of theoretical dispersion
in the Jalan Boonlay testing site as explained in the previous para- curve with the experimental dispersion curve. Using the Vs profile,
graphs. Although the general prediction trend looks reasonable, rela- Vs of 500 m/s can be reasonably used as a guideline to identify the
tively wide scatters were observed around the line of equality. This may depth of bedrock in Jurong formation.

40 40
(a). Preselected Vs approach (b). Wavelength based approach
Estimated bedrock depth (m)
Estimated bedrock depth (m)

1 1
2.1 2.1
20 2.2
20 2.2
3.1 3.1
3.2 3.2
4 4
5 5
6.1 6.1
6.2 6.2
RMSE = 4.55
RMSE = 2.79 7 7
8 8
0 0
0 20 40 0 20 40
Actual bedrock depth (m) Actual bedrock depth (m)

40
(c). HVSR approach
Estimated bedrock depth (m)

1
2.1
3.1
20 3.2
4
5
6.1
6.2
7
8
RMSE = 3.52 9
10

0
0 20 40
Actual bedrock depth (m)
Fig. 13. Actual and estimated bedrock depth: (a) preselected Vs approach, (b) wavelength based approach, (c) HVSR approach.

20
P. Subramaniam et al.
3. Wavelength based approach used the experimental dispersion curve
to establish a relationship between the change in wavelength and
the corresponding bedrock depth. Since the method is very sensitive,
care should be taken in the picking of theoretical dispersion curve
and in the identification of change point.
4. HVSR based approach might be the simplest method in terms of
easiness in field testing and analysis. The method is most convenient
where the geophone array formation is not possible.
In the present study, dispersion curves and HVSR were analyzed
separately. However, the combination of these two methods may im-
prove the accuracy of bedrock estimation. These non-invasive based
methods would minimize the number of drilling required during the
initial planning of any large infrastructure projects such as design and
alignment of underground structures. However, the recommended va-
lues and equations given in the paper are regional specific which de-
pend on the type of rock and weathering conditions.
Acknowledgment
The authors appreciate the financial support from Singapore Land
Transport Authority (LTA, Award Number: R-302-000-164-490). We
also thank Mr. Vinoth Ganapathiraman for his assistance in the field
testing.
References
Akgün, M., Gönenç, T., Tunçel, A., Pamukçu, O., 2013. A multi-approach geophysical
estimation of soil dynamic properties in settlements: a case study in Güzelbahce-İzmir
(Western Anatolia). J. Geophys. Eng. 10. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-2132/10/4/
045001.
Aki, K., 1957. Space and time spectra of stationary stochastic waves, with special re-
ference to microtremors. Bull. Earthquke Res. Inst. 35, 415–456.
Anderson, N., Croxton, N., Hoover, R., Sirles, P., 2008. Geophysical methods commonly
employed for geotechnical site characterization. Transp. Research Circular, E-C 130,
TRB, Wshington DC.
Bard, P., Sesame-Team., 2004. Guidelines for the implementation of the H/V spectral
ratio technique on ambient vibrations measurements, processing and interpretation.
SESAME Eur. Res. Proj. WP12 – Deliv. D23.12 1–62.
Brown, L., Boore, D., Stokoe, K., 2000. Comparison of shear-wave velocity profiles from
SASW and downhole seismic tests at a strong-motion site. In: Proc. 12th World Conf.
Earthquake Eng, pp. 1–8.
BS 5930, 1999. Code of practice for site investigations. https://doi.org/10.3403/
01897862.
Cho, I., Senna, S., Fujiwara, H., 2013. Miniature array analysis of microtremors.
Geophysics 78, KS13–KS23. https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2012-0248.1.
Cho, I., Tada, T., Shinozaki, Y., 2006. Centerless circular array method: Inferring phase
velocities of Rayleigh waves in broad wavelength ranges using microtremor records.
J. Geophys. Res. 111. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005jb004235.
Coulouma, G., Lagacherie, P., Samyn, K., Grandjean, G., 2013. Comparisons of dry ERT,
diachronic ERT and the spectral analysis of surface waves for estimating bedrock
depth in various Mediterranean landscapes. Geoderma 199, 128–134. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2012.07.026.
Dal Moro, G., Pipan, M., Gabrielli, P., 2007. Rayleigh wave dispersion curve inversion via
genetic algorithms and Marginal Posterior Probability Density estimation. J. Appl.
Geophys. 61, 39–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2006.04.002.
Delgado, J., López Casado, C., Giner, J., Estévez, A., Cuenca, A., Molina, S., 2000.
Microtremors as a geophysical exploration tool: applications and limitations. Pure
Appl. Geophys. 157, 1445–1462. https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00001128.
Gao, Y., Jiang, Y., Li, B., 2016. Voids delineation behind tunnel lining based on the
21
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 86 (2019) 10–21
vibration intensity of microtremors. Tunn. Undergr. Sp. Technol. 51, 338–345.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2015.10.032.
Harutoonian, P., Leo, C.J., Tokeshi, K., Doanh, T., Castellaro, S., Zou, J.J.,
Liyanapathirana, D.S., Wong, H., 2013. Investigation of composite compacted ground
using microtremors. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 139, 1539–1553. https://doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000881.
Lai, C.G., Rix, G.J., 1998. Simultaneous inversion of Rayleigh phase velocity and at-
tenuation for near-surface site characterization. Georg. Inst. Technol. Report No: GIT-
CEE/GEO-98-2, 1-258.
Lee, K.W., Zhou, Y., 2009. Geology of Singapore. Defense Science and Technology Agency
(DSTA).
Ling, S., Okada, H., 1993. An extended use of the spatial autocorrelation method for the
estimation of structure using microtremors. In: 89th SEGJ Conference. Society of
Exploration Geophysicists of Japan, Nagoya, pp. 44–48 in Japanese.
Louie, J.N., 2001. Faster, better: Shear-wave velocity to 100 meters depth from refraction
microtremor arrays. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 91, 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1785/
0120000098.
Moon, S.-W., Hayashi, K., Ku, T., 2017. Estimating spatial variations in bedrock depth and
weathering degree in decomposed granite from surface waves. J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng. 143, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.
0001679.
Nakamura, Y., 1989. A method for dynamic characteristics estimation of subsurface using
microtremor on the ground surface. Railway Tech. Res. Inst., Quart. Rep. 30 (1),
25–33.
Nazarian, S., Stokoe, K., 1984. In situ shear wave velocities from spectral analysis of
surface waves. In: Proc. 8th world Conf. Earthq. Eng., vol. 3, pp. 31–38.
Ohori, M., Nobata, A., Wakamatsu, K., 2002. A comparison of ESAC and FK methods of
estimating phase velocity using arbitrarily shaped microtremor arrays. Bull. Seismol.
Soc. Am. 92, 2323–2332. https://doi.org/10.1785/0119980109.
Okada, H., 1994. A research on the practical application of microtremor exploration
technique to a wide area survey of a underground structure under 3,000 m in depth
(in Japanese). Report No. 03554009. Japan Science. Tech.
Okada, H., 2006. Theory of efficient array observations of microtremors with special
reference to the SPAC method. Explor. Geophys. 37, 73–85. https://doi.org/10.1071/
EG06073.
Pamuk, E., Akgün, M., Özdağ, Ö.C., Gönenç, T., 2017. 2D soil and engineering-seismic
bedrock modeling of eastern part of Izmir inner bay/Turkey. J. Appl. Geophys. 137,
104–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2016.12.016.
Park, C.B., Miller, R.D., Xia, J., 1999. Multichannel analysis of surface waves. Geophysics
64, 800–808. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1444590.
Parolai, S., Bormann, P., Milkereit, C., 2002. New relationships between Vs, thickness of
sediments, and resonance frequency calculated by the H/V ratio of seismic noise for
the cologne area (Germany). Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 92, 2521–2527. https://doi.org/
10.1785/0120010248.
Parolai, S., Richwalski, S.M., Milkereit, C., Fäh, D., 2006. S-wave velocity profiles for
earthquake engineering purposes for the Cologne area (Germany). Bull. Earthq. Eng.
4, 65–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-005-5758-2.
Ridwan, M., Widiyantoro, S., Afnimar, Irsyam, M., 2015. Identification of engineering
bedrock in Jakarta by using array observations of microtremors. Proc. Earth Planet.
Sci. 12, 77–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeps.2015.03.040.
Seht, M.I.-V., Wohlenberg, J., 1999. Microtremor measurements used to map thickness of
soft sediments. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 89 (1), 250–259.
Shima, H., Sakayama, T., 1987. Resistivity tomography: an approach to 2-D resistivity
inverse problems. In: {SEG} Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 1987. Society of
Exploration Geophysicists. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1892038.
Tamrakar, P., Luke, B., 2013. Feasibility of approximating depth to shallow bedrock di-
rectly from the rayleigh wave dispersion curve. Geotech. Test. J. 36 (6), 882–890.
https://doi.org/10.1520/GTJ20120080.
Trevisani, S., Boaga, J., Agostini, L., Galgaro, A., 2017. Insights into bedrock surface
morphology using low-cost passive seismic surveys and integrated geostatistical
analysis. Sci. Total Environ. 578, 186–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.
2016.11.041.
Yilar, E., Baise, L.G., Ebel, J.E., 2017. Using H/V measurements to determine depth to
bedrock and Vs30in Boston, Massachusetts. Eng. Geol. 217, 12–22. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enggeo.2016.12.002.
Zhao, J., Liu, Q., Lee, K.W., Choa, V., Teh, C.I., 1999. Underground cavern development
in the Jurong sedimentary rock formation. Tunn. Undergr. Sp. Technol. 14, 449–459.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0886-7798(00)00007-9.