COMPARISON OF SIMULTANEOUS BENDER ELEMENTS AND RESONANT

COLUMN TESTS ON PORTO RESIDUAL SOIL

Ferreira, C.
PhD Student, FEUP, University of Porto; cristiana@fe.up.pt
Viana da Fonseca, A.
Associate Professor, FEUP, University of Porto; viana@fe.up.pt
Santos, J.A.
Assistant Professor, IST, Technical University of Lisbon; jaime@civil.ist.utl.pt

ABSTRACT

Bender elements are a powerful and increasingly common laboratory tool for determining
the shear wave velocity hence the small strain shear stiffness (G0) in soil samples. There
are several advantages of the bender element technique, namely its simplicity and ease of
use; however, there is no standard developed for this technique as the interpretation of the
results involves some uncertainty and subjectivity. Different approaches have been
proposed to deal with these issues, especially in terms of the interpretation techniques,
based on the time and on the frequency domain. In the present work, a modified resonant
column, equipped with bender elements, has been used, where shear wave velocities can be
measured independently and different interpretation methodologies of the bender element
results can be applied. For this study, natural samples of Porto granitic residual soil were
tested, since this geomaterial has been object of research and interest for many years in the
University of Porto. The paper will focus on the comparison of simultaneous results of
shear wave velocities by the resonant column and the bender elements. It is intended to
provide some contribution to the routine laboratory practice using bender elements, with
further insight in the interpretation of the results.

1 INTRODUCTION

Widely recognised as a reference parameter for the definition of constitutive properties of

soils, the maximum shear modulus (G0) or very small strain stiffness can be determined in
the laboratory in dynamic tests, by measuring shear wave velocities, namely in the
resonant column or in bender element tests. The resonant column (RC) is a classical
dynamic laboratory test, in which the vibration frequency can be varied, in order to induce
resonance of the system. Its main advantage lies on the reliability of the derived
parameters, which are based on one-dimensional wave propagation theory. As an
alternative, bender elements (BE) are rapidly becoming common laboratory tools for
determining the shear wave velocity in soil samples. The installation of bender elements
into a conventional static soil test device, such as the triaxial cell, is relatively easy and the
determination of G0 is simpler and performed more rapidly than in the expensive resonant
column apparatus (Gordon & Clayton, 1997). There are indeed several advantages of the
bender element technique, namely its simplicity and ease of use; however, there is no
standard developed for this technique as the interpretation of the results, under different
methodologies, involves some uncertainty and subjectivity.

Considering the current discussion on the interpretation methods for BE tests, it seems
interesting to compare results of the application of both tests (RC and BE), not only on the

1
same material under identical conditions, but also if possible in a unique specimen, at the
same time. Hence, in an attempt to bring together the benefits of both tests, that is, the
reliability of the RC and the usefulness of the BE, simultaneous tests have been carried out,
after modification of the resonant column apparatus to accommodate bender elements.
Relatively few publications can be found in the literature reporting these experiments. One
of the exceptions is the bender elements reference work of Dyvik & Madshus (1985), who
found good agreement between G0 derived from the two techniques. Similar observations
have been reported by Fam et al. (2002). Before presenting the results of this research, it is
worthwhile detailing, even if briefly, the most common techniques for the interpretation of
bender element tests, which are the fundamental subject under research.

2 INTERPRETATION METHODS FOR BENDER ELEMENTS TESTS

As previously mentioned, the interpretation of bender elements traces involves some

uncertainty and it is widely accepted that however simple the transmitted wave is, a far
more complex wave will be received (Moncaster, 1997). Arroyo (2001) points out that
pulse tests in soils should cope not just with a slow, highly attenuated transmission, but
also with an important distortion of the transmitted signal. Different approaches have been
proposed to deal with these issues, in terms of the interpretation techniques, usually based
on the time or on the frequency domain. The frequency domain method generally produces
an estimate of shear wave velocity, which is lower than that from traditional time domain
readings (Greening et al., 2003). These discrepancies have not yet been systematized and
the reasons are still unclear and diverse. In the present study, first direct arrival (at various
input frequencies) and continuous sweep input frequency (using a specific software,
ABETS) were applied. A brief description of each of these methodologies is presented as
follows.

a) Time domain: First direct arrival method, at various frequencies [TD]

The first direct arrival method is the most simple, common and usual procedure for
interpreting BE measurements. It consists on the identification of the first instant of arrival
of the wave in the output signal, similarly to the techniques used in geophysical tests
(namely Cross-Hole and Down-Hole). While it is sometimes easy to determine first arrival,
it is often the cause of much uncertainty. For instance, Arroyo (2001) has estimated
uncertainties of up to 100% in estimation of the small strain shear stiffness (G0). Many
authors (Sanchez-Salinero et al., 1986; Viggiani & Atkinson, 1995; Jovicic et al., 1996;
Arulnathan et al., 1998; Pennington, 1999) have reported several sources and factors of
error and inherent near field effects, which mask and compromise the identification of the
arrival point. Several solutions have been proposed in order to minimize the subjectivity of
this method. Changing the frequency and shape of the pulse is sometimes advised, either to
a square wave (Dyvik and Madshus, 1985; Jamiolkowski et al, 1995), a single pulse, a
burst, or to a distorted sinusoidal (Jovicic et al., 1996; Pennington, 1999). On the other
hand, it is recommended that a number of technical requirements and boundary conditions
are accomplished (Jovicic, 2004; Lee and Santamarina, 2005). These requirements
comprise good electronics equipment, well shielding and grounding, properly connected
and encased transducers, leak free connections, and noise free environment. It is important
to be aware that other issues also play a part, especially spatial conditions, such as
alignment of the BE, reflections of the wave on the edges and sides of the sample, near
field effects, relative distance between transmitter and receiver; contact between the BE

2
and the soil, which might induce poor coupling, especially at low confining pressures; and
overshooting, since at high frequencies the bender element changes its mode shape and the
response becomes very complex.

Recently, analytical approaches (Fratta and Santamarina,1996; Arroyo, 2001; Lee and
Santamarina, 2005) and numerical studies have been reported on the propagation of
seismic waves in cylindrical specimens, modelled in finite differences, finite elements, and
spectral elements (Arroyo et al., 2002; Hardy et al., 2002; Rio et al, 2003). These studies
have revealed significant influences of sample geometry and boundary conditions in the
shape, frequency, and velocity of the wave travelling through the sample, while
highlighting the limitations of time domain interpretations.

b) Frequency domain: Continuous sweep input frequency via ABETS [FD]

The use of continuous signals which require the shear wave velocity to be decoded from
measurements of relative phase of transmitted and received signals has been gaining in
popularity (e.g. Brocanelli and Rinaldi, 1998; Blewett et al., 1999; 2000; Greening et al.,
2003). While this technique has been used across a wide range of fields, Viggiani and
Atkinson (1995) were the first to apply phase-delay method to BE testing. According to
Greening et al. (2003), these methods have a number of advantages over traditional pulse-
based measurements, namely the possibility of creating an algorithm to determine travel
time by establishing the gradient of a graph of phase difference against frequency. Phase
delay methods can be performed reliably using “traditional” equipment i.e. a signal
generator and oscilloscope (Kaarsberg, 1975), where a continuous harmonic sinusoid is
used as the input signal. The frequency of the signal is changed and the frequencies at
which the transmitted signal and received signal are exactly in and out of phase with one
another (so called π-points) are noted. Greening and Nash (2003) showed that the same
information could be established less onerously using a sweep input signal and a spectrum
analyser. The continuous sweep input method enables the acquisition of a continuous
phase angle versus frequency relationship.

Greening et al. (2003) suggested a setup, consisting of a low-cost spectrum analyser

system implemented in Microsoft ExcelTM, which makes use of a PC on which a specific
software, ABETS (Automatic Bender Element Testing System) is loaded to control a high-
speed dual channel data acquisition unit. The software details, namely on data processing,
can be found in Greening et al. (2003). Slight modifications have been introduced to the
program, namely for post-processing data and analysis. A screenshot of this program, in its
Portuguese version, is presented in Figure 1, with an example of the data acquisition results
spreadsheet.

Best results have been obtained with a sweep sine input signal with a 0-20kHz bandwidth.
The first graph on Figure 1 shows the input and output signals in the time domain, where it
is unfeasible to determine a direct arrival time. Below it, is the graph of the coherence
between the two signals (from 0 to 1) against input frequency; by definition, the coherence
of two waves indicates how well correlated the waves are, as quantified by the cross-
correlation function, which essentially quantifies the ability to predict the value of the
second wave by knowing the value of the first. Hence, the higher the coherence, the more
correlated the signals will be. The plots at the right show the relative phase against
frequency; in the top one, the phase angle is “wrapped”, ranging from -π to π, while on the

3
bottom one, it is “unwrapped”, starting near zero, and continuously increasing. The travel
time is derived directly from the slope of this curve, given from the best fit line, for a
selected range of frequencies. Such selection is evidenced by the vertical lines of the
bottom right graph.

15000 250 4

200 3 Frequency range :

10000
150 2
f1 = 8000
1
100
5000
0 f2 = 16000
50
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000
-1
0 0
-2
0 2 4 6 8 10 -50
-3
-5000
-100
-4
travel time = 0.305783328 ms
-150
-10000
-200 corr. coeff. = 0.99552152
-15000 -250
15
10 distance = 105 mm
5
1 0 density = 1977 kgm-3
0.9 -5 0 5000 10000 15000 20000
0.8
0.7
-10
0.6 -15 wave velocity, Vs = 343.380 ms-1
0.5
-20
0.4
0.3 -25
0.2
0.1
-30 estimate G0 = 233.108 MPa
0
-35
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 -40

Figure 1 – Data acquisition results using ABETS

A non-linear relationship between the relative phase and the signal frequency can be
generally observed, showing that the 0-20kHz range is too broad to provide reasonable
results. However, this is useful as an overview of the full coherence function as well as the
complete unwrapped phase against frequency relationship, with the purpose of deciding the
most adequate ranges to select. A selection of a high coherence range is necessary to obtain
low dispersion in the results, thus a high correlation coefficient of the best fit line.

3 BE AND RC TESTS ON RESIDUAL SOIL SAMPLES

3.1 Outline of the tests

In this research, the RC apparatus is a Hardin oscillator, manufactured by Seiken (Japan)

and installed at the Geotechnical Laboratory of IST, in Lisbon. The modifications in the
platens for the BE were designed by the authors and new platens were made by the
manufacturer. The bender elements were manufactured at COFS (in UWA, University of
Western Australia) and consist of a T-shaped pair encased in a stainless steel casing. The
electronic equipments used for BE measurements comprise a programmable function
generator; input and output multiplexers (also specifically developed at COFS); an
oscilloscope connected to a PC or, alternatively, a data acquisition with spectral analyser
device (PICOScope), also connected to a PC, acquiring on ABETS. In each test,
simultaneous measurements of the RC and BE were made, using the two interpretation

4
methodologies for the BE results, in order to identify any discrepancies in the measured
shear wave velocity, towards determining which method most closely estimates the true
travel time. In Figure 2 a photograph of the apparatus is shown, with emphasis to the
modified platens equipped with a T-shaped pair of bender elements.

a) b)
Figure 2 – Resonant column device with bender elements: a) test apparatus; b) modified platens

Porto granitic residual soil has been selected on this work as it is regionally dominant and
has been thoroughly studied for many years. Residual soils result from physical, chemical
and mechanical weathering processes acting on rocks and, in the present case, this soil is a
weathered granite. A reference work on its characterization has been presented by Viana da
Fonseca (2003). The typical Porto granite is a leucocratic alkaline rock, with two micas
and of medium to coarse grain size. The natural variability of the rock generates a fairly
heterogeneous mass in macro scale. This soil is characterised by the presence of a bonded
structure and fabric that has significant influence on its engineering behaviour. For the
present research, it is relevant to mention its wide grain size distribution, usually defined in
the Unified Classification of Soils (ASTM D 2487-85), as silty (SM) or well graded (SW)
sands, or more rarely as clayey sands (SC). The presence of fines adds higher
compressibility than that of sands, though permeability is relatively high (k=10-6-10-5 m/s).

Four simultaneous RC and BE tests were carried out on natural samples of Porto residual
soil, which will be analysed in this work. The main properties of the test specimens are
summarized in Table 1 and it must be emphasized that each of these were fairly
homogeneous in texture and fabric.

Table 1 - Identification and soil index properties of the residual soil samples
γ w wL wP <2um <#200 <#10
Specimen Borehole e Sr %
kN/m3 % % % % % %
S2
01CRBE 19.5 22.4 0.64 93 n/a n/a 5.0 42.0 94.5
[6.25-6.50m]
S2
02CRBE 19.3 19.4 0.62 83 30 26 5.5 36.9 89.8
[2.00-2.30m]
S1
03CRBE 19.5 22.9 0.65 94
[2.20-2.30m]
32 25 7.3 46.4 88.4
S1
04CRBE 19.4 23.0 0.66 93
[2.10-2.20m]

The tests comprised the application of isotropic and (or) anisotropic confining pressures, at
various stages, as outlined in Table 2. All tests were drained, but the samples were almost

5
but not fully saturated during testing, maintaining the natural moist. After a stabilization
period of about 30 minutes, RC readings of the resonance frequency were made, followed
by the acquisition of the wave traces for the time and frequency domain with the BE.

Table 2 - Testing conditions for each specimen

Specimen Testing conditions
01CRBE Anisotropic consolidation (Kc = 0.5): 6 stages up to σ’v = 400kPa
02CRBE Anisotropic consolidation (Kc = 0.5) and shear: 7 stages up to σ’v = 120kPa
03CRBE Isotropic consolidation: 8 stages up to σ’c = 400 kPa
04CRBE Isotropic consolidation: 8 stages up to σ’c = 400 kPa, with creep (for 48 days)

The final results of the variation of the shear modulus, determined by RC and BE
measurements, with mean effective stress are shown in Figure 3, for the four specimens.
200
0.619
GRC = 4.535 p'
180
R2 = 0.904

160 0.624
GBE(TD) = 4.310 p'
R2 = 0.917
140
0.658
GBE(FD) = 3.467 p'
120
R2 = 0.892
G
100
(MPa)
80

60
01: BE(TD) 01: BE(FD) 01: RC
40 02: BE(TD) 02: BE(FD) 02: RC
03: BE(TD) 03: BE(FD) 03: RC
20 04: BE(TD) 04: BE(FD) 04: RC
Power (all: BE(TD)) Power (all: BE(FD)) Power (all: RC)
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

p' (kPa)

Figure 3 – Variation of G0 with p’ for all samples, from RC and BE readings

The results exhibit significant similarities in terms of the G0 versus p’ relation and the
dispersion between RC and the two BE results are very small. The derived equations for
this relation, respective to each method, evidence good convergence. These equations are
merely indicative for the dependence of G0 with p’, as it is beyond the scope of this paper
to examine this relation. It is assumed that the obtained constants (multiplier and exponent)
incorporate very important contributions from void ratio, structure, stress history, among
others, which must be addressed separately. It is interesting to note that, despite having
being followed diverse stress paths in each test, the overall curve for each method closely
matches the individual points.

This is, however, the final graph obtained after careful analyses of the acquired data. The
RC test is known to be very accurate dynamic test and the experience from these (and
previous) tests confirm it. The margin of error from one operator to another is generally
less than 1Hz for the resonant frequency under standard testing conditions. BE readings are
clearly more controversial: time domain results remains subjective and the frequency
domain technique, despite being automated and clearly more objective, still requires
judgement and an “experienced eye” for post-processing the data. It is therefore
worthwhile taking a closer look at one of the tests, to understand the underlying
requirements towards good and reliable results.

6
3.2 Analysis and Discussion of the Results

As an example of the BE test procedure and analysis, test 04CRBE will be examined in
detail. In the present tests, the first arrival method was used and several input frequencies
at relevant levels were applied, in order to minimize the sources of errors. Figure 4
illustrates the BE traces for 2, 4, 8, 10 and 15kHz input pulse sine waves, for stage #02,
corresponding to an isotropic effective stress of 50kPa.
15000 350

10000 300

output voltage (mV)

250
input voltage (mV)

5000
200
0
150
-5000
100

-10000 50

-15000 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
time (ms)
input-s02-1-1-2kHz input-s02-1-1-4kHz input-s02-1-1-8kHz input-s02-1-1-10kHz input-s02-1-1-15kHz cursor

output-s02-1-1-2kHz output-s02-1-1-4kHz output-s02-1-1-8kHz output-s02-1-1-10kHz output-s02-1-1-15kHz

Figure 4 - Time domain results in stage #02 of test 04CRBE

Despite the diverse configurations of the response waves for different input frequencies, it
is possible to identify a “most likely” arrival point, even if questionable. The distortions in
the traces evidence effects of different nature as frequency increases. More relevant to the
discussion is to observe the aspect of the output waves with the increase of applied
confining pressure, as shown in Figure 5. For clarity, the complete set of frequencies
acquired is not displayed, and only selected frequencies of the input waves are shown for
each test stage. Since the travel time is decreasing as a consequence of higher effective
stresses, the most relevant frequencies of the input wave change and need to be readjusted.
This comment is based on experience and is theoretically confirmed by the requirement of
a minimum normalised distance from the source, defined . The recording of several
frequencies, by default, evidences and safeguards this important “rule of thumb”.
450

10
400 input-s01-1-1-2kHz

input-s02-1-1-2kHz
0
350 input-s04-1-1-8kHz

input-s06-1-1-10kHz 04CRBE
-10 300 input-s12-1-1-20kHz stress stages
output voltage (mV)

(selected)
input voltage (V)

output-s01-1-1-2kHz
250
-20 cursor
s01 20 kPa
output-s02-1-1-2kHz
200
cursor s02 50 kPa
-30

150
output-s04-1-1-8kHz
s04 200 kPa
cursor
-40
output-s06-1-1-10kHz
s06 300 kPa
100
cursor s12 400 kPa
-50 output-s12-1-1-20kHz
50
cursor

-60 0
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40
time (ms)

Figure 5 – Time domain results in various stages of test 04CRBE

7
Similarly, it is interesting to compile the results of the application of the frequency domain
technique into a single graph, as presented in Figure 6. As an example, the curves of
unwrapped phase angle versus frequency for selected stages of 04CRBE are depicted,
where the best fit line is also represented, for the selected range of frequencies of each test
stage, from which the travel time of the shear wave is calculated.
frequency (Hz)
0 5000 10000 15000 20000
0

-5
unwrapped phase angle (rad)

-10
test 04CRBE
-15
s01 bestfit
-20

-25 s02 bestfit

-30
s04 bestfit
-35

-40 s06 bestfit

-45 s12 bestfit

-50

Figure 6 – Travel time determination from the unwrapped phase angle versus frequency

It can be seen that in the time domain, changes in confining pressure are noticeable in the
shape of the wave, yet more subtle in the distinction of travel time. In the frequency
domain, the slope variation is clearer and more illustrative of such stress variations.

An interesting and useful analysis of the frequency domain results consists on selecting
different ranges of frequencies in order to observe the changes in the travel time. With the
purpose of further understanding this variation of travel time with this method, another
approach has been investigated. This consists on a different method of representing the
travel time from the sweep results. A simple Visual Basic program was implemented, to
manipulate the sweep data considering “unbiased” and objective pre-established ranges of
frequencies and to calculate the respective best fit line. The frequency ranges considered
were 0.2, 1, 2, and 4kHz. The generated graph of travel time versus frequency, called “time
chart”, is presented in Figure 7, where the corresponding first arrival results are included,
within the respective frequency range. For the purpose of comparison, the coherence plot,
which gives an indication of the dependence of the received signal on the input signal, is
combined in the same chart, in a secondary vertical axis. It is only reasonable to compute
the travel time for frequencies of highest coherence, near unity.

The time charts show that the lowest range selections are highly variable and very sensitive
to noise. Nevertheless, this works well as reference to the original data trends. All charts
exhibit significant fluctuation on the travel time calculation, with lower variability for
higher frequency ranges. Obviously, these tend to smooth down and average the results.
On the other hand, the principle of unity coherence is not sufficient to guarantee a stable
and unequivocal determination of the travel time. Correspondence between the variability
of the two plots is clear, but only partly does it justify the inconsistencies of the time chart.

It can also be noted that the fluctuations of travel time with frequency for the various
ranges decrease substantially with the stress increase, as well as the differences with the
travel time measured by the first arrival method. This fact is likely to be associated with a
higher coupling between the soil and the BE, aided by the stiffening of the soil.

8
 2.0 1

1.8 0.9

1.6 0.8 04CRBE: s01

1.4 0.7 0.2 kHz

travel time (ms)

1.2 0.6 1 kHz

coherence
1.0 0.5 2 kHz
4 kHz
0.8 0.4
first arrival
0.6 0.3
first arrival
0.4 0.2
coherence
0.2 0.1

0.0 0
2.0 1

1.8 0.9

1.6 0.8 04CRBE: s04

1.4 0.7 0.2 kHz

travel time (ms)

1.2 0.6 1 kHz

coherence
1.0 0.5 2 kHz
4 kHz
0.8 0.4
first arrival
0.6 0.3
first arrival
0.4 0.2
coherence
0.2 0.1

0.0 0
2.0 1

1.8 0.9

1.6 0.8 04CRBE: s06

1.4 0.7 0.2 kHz

travel time (ms)

1.2 0.6 1 kHz

coherence

1.0 0.5 2 kHz

4 kHz
0.8 0.4
first arrival
0.6 0.3
first arrival
0.4 0.2
coherence
0.2 0.1

0.0 0
2.0 1

1.8 0.9

1.6 0.8 04CRBE: s12

1.4 0.7 0.2 kHz

travel time (ms)

1.2 0.6 1 kHz

coherence

1.0 0.5 2 kHz

4 kHz
0.8 0.4
first arrival
0.6 0.3
first arrival
0.4 0.2
coherence
0.2 0.1

0.0 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000

frequency (Hz)

Figure 7 – Time charts for selected frequency ranges (0.5, 1, 2, 4 kHz) for 04CRBE

The time chart, besides enabling an overview of the travel time in a continuous manner, is
seen also as a useful and practical way of selecting the most adequate travel time, with less
iterations and error. Therefore, it is an improvement and complement of the sweep method,
applied in ABETS, since these charts demonstrates how slight changes in the frequency
range can vary significantly the computed travel time.

9
Having shown the analysis process for the BE methods, it is now important to address the
main topic of this work, which resides on the comparison of RC and BE tests. As
illustrated in Figure 3, the results from both tests show good agreement and convergence.
Taking as reference the RC results for the G0 values, it is relevant to assess the relative
distance between methods. Figure 8 provides such information and enables to conclude
that the FD domain technique results on G0 values that deviate from those measured by the
RC by less than 1% in average. The time domain has provided values of G0 that are within
an average of 2% of the RC values. The lower and upper limits of the ratio between G0
values for the FD compared with the RC are of about 58% and 110%, respectively. These
limits are similar to the ones measured in the TD, which are 58% and 125%, respectively.
200.0

175.0 GBE(TD) = 0.982 GRC - 0.734

R2 = 0.969
150.0

GBE(FD) = 0.996 GRC - 5.016 01: BE(TD) x RC

125.0 R2 = 0.981 01: BE(FD) x RC
02: BE(TD) x RC
G - BE
100.0 02: BE(FD) x RC
(MPa)
03: BE(TD) x RC
75.0 03: BE(FD) x RC
04: BE(TD) x RC
50.0 04: BE(FD) x RC
1:1 line
25.0 Linear (all: BE(TD) x RC)
Linear (all: BE(FD) x RC)
0.0
0.0 25.0 50.0 75.0 100.0 125.0 150.0 175.0 200.0

G - RC (MPa)
Figure 8 – G0 values derived from the RC versus from the two BE methods

Based on these results, it can be stated that the bender element tests provide good and valid
results, comparable to the resonant column. It is acknowledged that the methods currently
available, and herein applied, have some subjectivity and still require some judgement, but
at a much lower degree than that associated with a first peak detection on a single pulse
reading.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of bender elements in the laboratory as means to determine the shear wave
velocity hence the small strain stiffness continues to increase worldwide. Recent and old
discussions on the inherent subjectivity of the interpretation of its results continue to leave
room for improvement and research. This paper has analysed the performance of the two
most common interpretation techniques for the BE test, by comparing the results with the
resonant column test, which is renowned for the quality of its measurements of the
dynamic parameters. This has been made by modifying a RC apparatus to accommodate
BE and by performing simultaneous readings of the RC frequency and the BE waves in the
time and the frequency domain.

10
Results show that the two testing methods compare well. Both BE interpretation
techniques can yield very close values of travel time, though its determination cannot be
fully automated nor unambiguous, even for the frequency domain. In effect, both
techniques require some degree of judgement and experience that has not yet been
eliminated. Data acquisition and post-processing procedures are suggested, as these have
proven to lead to reliable values of G0 in the light of the close agreement obtained between
RC and BE test results.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work was developed under the research activities of CEC from FEUP
(POCTI/ECM/55589/2004) and ICIST of IST, supported by multi-annual funding from
FCT (Portuguese Science and Technology Foundation). Special thanks are due to Eng.
Gouveia, for his technical support during setup and laboratory testing.

REFERENCES

Arroyo, M. (2001). Pulse tests in soil samples. PhD thesis, University of Bristol, UK.
Arroyo, M.; Medina, L. and Muir Wood, D. (2002). Numerical modelling of scale effects in
bender-based pulse tests. NUMOG VIII, Pande, G.N. & Pietruszczak, S. (eds), pp. 589-594.
Arulnathan, R.; Boulanger, R.W. and Riemer, M.F. (1998). Analysis of Bender Element Tests.
Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 120-131.
Blewett, J.; Blewett, I.J. and Woodward, P.K. (1999) Measurement of shear wave velocity using
phase sensitive detection techniques. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 36, pp. 934-939.
Blewett, J.; Blewett, I.J. and Woodward, P.K. (2000). Phase and amplitude responses associated
with the measurement of shear-wave velocity in sand by bender elements. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 37, pp. 1348-1357.
Brocanelli, D. and Rinaldi, V. (1998). Measurement of low strain material damping and wave
velocity with bender elements in the frequency domain. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol.
35, pp. 1032–1040.
Dyvik, R. and Madhsus, C. (1985). Lab measurements of Gmax using bender elements.
Proceedings ASCE Annual Convention: Advances in the art of testing soils under cyclic
conditions, Detroit, Michigan, pp. 186-197.
Fam, M. A.; Cascante, G. and Dusseault, M. B. (2002). Large and Small Strain Properties of Sands
Subjected to Local Void Increase. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
Vol. 128, No.12, pp. 1018-1025.
Fratta, D. and Santamarina, J.C. (1996). Wave propagation in soils: Multi-mode, wide-band testing
in a waveguide device. Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 130-140.
Gordon, M.A.and Clayton, C.R.I (1997). Measurement of stiffness of soils using small strains
triaxial testing and bender elements. Modern Geophysics in Engineering Geology. McCann,
D.M.; Eddleston, M.; Fenning, P.J. & Reeves, G.M. (eds.). Geological Society Engineering
Geology Special Publication, No. 12, pp. 365-371.
Greening, P.D. and Nash, D.F.T. (2004). Frequency domain determination of G0 using bender
elements ASTM Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 288-294.
Greening, P.D.; Nash, D.F.T.; Benahmed,N.; Viana da Fonseca, A. and Ferreira, C. (2003).
Comparison of shear wave velocity measurements in different materials using time and
frequency domain techniques Proceedings of Deformation Characteristics of Geomaterials,
Lyon, France, 22-24 September, Lyon, France:Balkema, pp. 381-386.
Hardy, S.; Zdravkovic, L. and Potts, D.M. (2002). Numerical interpretation of continuously cycled
bender element tests. Numerical Models in Geomechanics (NUMOG VII). Pande &

11
 Pietruszczak (eds.). Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisse, pp. 595-600.
Jamiolkowski, M.; Lancellotta, R. and Lo Presti, D.C.F. (1995). Remarks on the stiffness at small
strains of six Italian clays. Pre-failure Deformation of Geomaterials. Shibuya, Mitachi & Miura
(eds). Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 817-836.
Jovicic, V.; Coop, M.R. and Simic, M. (1996). Objective criteria for determining Gmax from
bender element tests. Geotéchnique, Vol. 46, No. 2, pp. 357-362.
Jovicic, V. (2004). Rigorous bender element testing. Workshop on Bender Element Testing of
Soils, UCL, London.
Kaarsberg, E.A. (1975). Elastic wave velocity measurements in rocks and other materials by phase-
delay methods. Geophysics, Vol. 40, pp. 855-901.
Lee, J. S. and Santamarina, C. (2005). Large and Small Strain Properties of Sands Subjected to
Local Void Increase. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 131, No.
9, pp. 1063-1070.
Moncaster, A.M. (1997). The shear modulus of sand at very small strains. MSc thesis. Department
of Civil Engineering, University of Bristol, UK.
Pennington, D.S. (1999). The anisotropic small strain stiffness of Cambridge Gault clay. PhD
thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Univ. Bristol.
Rio, J.; Greening, P. and Medina, L. (2003). Influence of sample geometry on shear wave
propagation using bender elements. Proceedings of Deformation Characteristics of
Geomaterials, Lyon, France, 22-24 September, Lyon, France:Balkema, pp. 963-967.
Sánchez-Salinero I, Roesset JM & Stokoe II KH (1987) Analytical studies of wave propagation and
attenuation Geotechnical report No GR86-15. Civil Engineering department, University of
Texas at Austin.
Viana da Fonseca, A. (2003). Characterising and deriving engineering properties of a saprolitic soil
from granite, in Porto. ‘Characterisation and Engineering Properties of Natural Soils’. Swets &
Zeitlinger, Lisse, pp. 1341-1378.
Viggiani,G.; Atkinson, J.H.(1995). Interpretation of bender element tests. Géotechnique, Vol. 45,
No. 1, pp. 149-154.

12