APPLICATION OF MULTICHANNEL ANALYSIS OF

SURFACE WAVES AND SEISMIC REFRACTION TO

DEFINE THE ENGINEERING PROPERTIES OF
SUBSURFACE FORMATIONS

Principal Researcher: Betselot Yinesu

Co-Researchers: Yohannes Belete
Ashenafi Yilkal

29 Oct 2021

1
2
Contents

1. Literature Review ................................................................................................................................ 6

2. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 8
3. Local Geological and geotechnical setting .......................................................................................... 9
4. Field Survey ....................................................................................................................................... 10
5. Data Processing ................................................................................................................................. 13
6. Result Interpretation......................................................................................................................... 18
6.1. Seismic Refraction ......................................................................................................................... 18
6.2. Multi-Channel Analysis of Surface Wave (MASW) ........................................................................ 21
7. Analysis and Discussion..................................................................................................................... 23
7.1. Geotechnical Analysis from Seismic Data ................................................................................. 23
 Poison’s Ratio ............................................................................................................................ 23
 Shear Modulus (G) .................................................................................................................... 23
 Young’s Modulus (E) ................................................................................................................. 23
 N-Values .................................................................................................................................... 23
 Bearing Capacity ....................................................................................................................... 24
7.2. DATA Correlation...................................................................................................................... 30
8. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 34
References: ............................................................................................................................................... 35

List of Figures
Figure 1: Location of surveyed seismic lines ............................................................................................. 11
Figure 2: Seismic refraction survey layout ................................................................................................ 11
Figure 3: MASW data acquisition field set up ........................................................................................... 12
Figure 4: MASW survey layout .................................................................................................................. 12
Figure 5: MASW data processing flow charts; A) Acquired waveform traces B) Common Mid-Point Cross
Correlation Gather C) Phase Velocity curve D) 1D Vs value with depth E) Inverted 2D VS sections. ....... 16
Figure 6: Seismic refraction tomographic section along line JM-1 ........................................................... 18
Figure 7: Seismic refraction tomographic section along line JM-2 ........................................................... 19
Figure 8: Seismic refraction tomographic section along line JM-3 ........................................................... 19
Figure 9: Seismic refraction tomographic section along line JM-4 ........................................................... 19
Figure 10: Seismic refraction map of the study area at A) 5m depth B) 10m depth C) 15m depth ......... 20
Figure 11: A) Seismic refraction surface maps at different depth B) seismic refraction surface maps and
iso-chore map at 1000m/s and 2000m/s .................................................................................................. 20
Figure 12 Shear wave velocity section along line JM-Vs-1 ....................................................................... 21
Figure 13: Shear wave velocity section along line JM-Vs-2 ...................................................................... 22
Figure 14: Shear wave velocity section along line JM-Vs-3 ...................................................................... 22
3
Figure 15: Shear wave velocity section along line JM-Vs-3 ...................................................................... 22

List of Tables
Table 1: Seismic Survey Line Location....................................................................................................... 11
Table 2: ASTM International, 2011. Standard Guide for Using the Seismic Refraction Method for
Subsurface Investigation ........................................................................................................................... 18
Table 3: Geotechnical Properties @ BH-319 from Seismic analysis ......................................................... 26
Table 4: Geotechnical Properties @ BH-305 from Seismic analysis ......................................................... 26
Table 5: Geotechnical Properties @ BH-309 from Seismic analysis ......................................................... 27
Table 6: Geotechnical Properties @ BH-307 from Seismic analysis ....................................................... 27
Table 7: Geotechnical Properties @ BH-313 from Seismic analysis ......................................................... 28
Table 8: Geotechnical Properties @ BH-314 from Seismic analysis ......................................................... 28
Table 9: N values from SPT and Seismic Analysis ..................................................................................... 30

List of Charts
Chart 1: Seismic refraction processing flow chart .................................................................................... 13
Chart 2: MASW data processing flow chart .............................................................................................. 14
Chart 3: N1 vs Depth .................................................................................................................................. 31
Chart 4: N2 vs Depth .................................................................................................................................. 31
Chart 5: N3 vs Depth .................................................................................................................................. 31
Chart 6: N (SPT) counts vs N2 (Seismic) Regression Line Fit Plot ............................................................... 32

4
5
1. Literature Review
The main application of the Seismic method is typically to support and seal the data gap during
geotechnical investigation. The mechanical properties associated with dynamic loading are
shear wave velocity (Vs), shear modulus (G), damping ratio (D), and Poisson’s ratio (n).

Most seismic geophysical methods or tests induce shear strains lower than 10-4 % and the shear
wave velocity (Vs) can be used to compute the Gmax using the expression Gmax = r×Vs, where
r is the mass density of the soil. The measured shear wave velocity is generally considered the
most reliable means to obtain the Gmax for a soil deposit. These methods involve the creation
of transient and/or steady-state stress waves (source) and the interpretation of the arrival time
and spectral response at one or more locations (receivers).

Estimation of rock mechanical properties is considered to be the most important components in

any engineering project. One of the most commonly used and fundamental mechanical
parameters is uniaxial compressive strength (UCS). The method for measuring UCS has been
standardized by both ASTM and ISRM. This method is destructive in nature, time consuming,
expensive, and also it requires a large number of well-prepared rock specimens. Geotechnical
properties of soils have been identified by laboratory tests and in situ measurements (Bowless,
1988; Kulhawy and Mayne, 1990; Das, 2009). Investigations of bearing capacity of soil were
started with Prandtl’s work which includes plastic equilibrium theory (Prandtl, 1921). After this
work, several fundamental research papers were written about this topic (Terzaghi, 1943;
Terzaghi and Peck, 1948; Meyerhof, 1956, 1965).

The stress strain behavior of cyclically loaded soils is complex and geotechnical engineers are
challenged by the need to characterize this behavior with accurate and simple models. The
balance between accuracy and simplicity depend on many factors and several combinations
have been proposed. For geophysical methods that induce low-strain (<10-3 %) the soil models
are based on an equivalent linear model. These models are the simplest and most commonly
used in dynamics, but they have a limited ability to represent many aspects of soil behavior
under cyclic loading conditions (Luna, R. and H. Jadi, 2000). Advanced correlations to estimate
the value of the dynamic shear modulus are available based on the standard penetration test,
Atterberg Limits (plasticity index) and grain size distributions (Vucetic and Dobry, 1991, Idriss,
et al., 1980). The shear modulus is used to perform more advanced soil modeling, and dynamic
response of the soil-structure interactions. Shear modulus at low strain levels as measured by
geophysical techniques will provide the elastic parameter for machine foundation analysis or
earthquake engineering (Luna, R. and H. Jadi, 2000). The P-waves have been widely used in
seismic refraction tests (Woods, 1978; Whiteley, 1994). However, in most dynamic soil’s
problems, the shear wave velocity and shear moduli are the most important properties of the
soils (Luna, R. and H. Jadi, 2000). Gardner et al., carried out a series of controlled filled and
laboratory measurement of saturated sedimentary rocks and determined a relationship between
Vp and density that has long been used in seismic analysis as given in the following equation,
6
ƿ=aVb, Where ƿ is in gcm-3 and a=0.31 (if V is in ms-1) or a=0.23 (if V is in fts-1) and b=0.25.
However, many researchers have been discussing the accuracy of Gardner’s equation that
predicts the density value of different lithologies using compressional wave velocity. However,
It is found that although the default Gardner’s parameters of a=0.23 and b=0.25 are fairly
adequate for lithology discrimination, the best discrimination was achieved when different
values of a and b are used for different lithologies (Emudianughe J.E., Ahmad M.M, 2019).

The relationship between uniaxial compressive strength and P-wave velocity (Vp) was
investigated by many researchers such as Mccann et al. (1990), Kahraman (2001), Yasar and
Erdogan (2004), Entwisle et al. (2005), Cobanglu and Celik (2008), and Yagiz (2011).

The response of soils to cyclic loading is controlled mostly by the mechanical properties of the
soil. There are several types of geotechnical engineering problems associated with dynamic
loading, some examples include: wave propagation, machine vibrations, seismic loading,
liquefaction and cyclic transient loading, etc. The mechanical properties associated with
dynamic loading are shear wave velocity (Vs), shear modulus (G), damping ratio (D), and
Poisson’s ratio (n). The customary name for this type of properties is “dynamic soil properties”,
even though they are also used in many non-dynamic type problems. The engineering problems
governed by wave propagation effects induce low levels of strain in the soil mass.
On the other hand, when soils are subjected to dynamic loading that may cause a stability
problem then, large strains are induced.

7
2. Introduction
Major engineering projects such as dams, roads, and tunnels are now under construction in
different parts of the country which have various geological formations. Geophysical methods
have been used for many years by engineers in soils and foundation investigation. However, in
Ethiopia, geophysical methods, especially seismic investigation, have rarely applied in major
projects. This article will review the application of Multichannel Analysis of Surface Wave
(MASW) and seismic refraction which the earlier one is a new methodology of seismic
investigation. Multichannel analysis of surface waves (MASW) is a seismic surface-wave
technique developed specifically for near-surface applications at depths usually shallower than a
few tens of meters (Park et al., 1999).

The 2013 site investigation manual of Ethiopian Road Authority stated the application of
Seismic refraction and MASW for road site investigation. The manual clearly describes the
importance of seismic refraction and MASW for establishing stratification of subsurface
materials, depth to bedrock, groundwater level, presence of geological structures, the stiffness
properties of subsurface materials and depth of existing foundations.
Seismic, MASW not only provides means for probing the properties of soils, sediments and
rock outcrops but are also used to calculate dynamic properties of soils including the soil’s
compression and shear wave velocities. These properties are key parameters in predicting the
response of soils and soil-structure systems to dynamic loading (Sevda and Kenan, 2017).
The MASW method is a non-invasive investigation technique, through which the vertical
profile of Vs30 can be obtained by measuring the propagation of the surface waves at several
geophones placed at the free surface of the site. Generally, the main contribution to the surface
waves is given by the Rayleigh waves, which travel through the upper part of the site at a speed,
which is correlated to the stiffness of the ground. Multichannel Analysis of Surface Wave
(MASW) test can be used to produce a single 1-D VS profile as well as 2-D VS profile that
covers a wide range of area. Construction of a shear (S)-wave velocity (Vs) profile through the
analysis of plane-wave, fundamental-mode Rayleigh waves is one of the most common ways to
use the dispersive properties of surface waves (Collins C. Chiemeke, 2014).

Seismic refraction and MASW data are acquired at Addis Ababa particularly western part of the
city. This site is investigated by core drilling which would help to make a comparison between
the geophysical analysis result and borehole data analysis. The drilling data is covered up to
30m depth. To maintain the balance of good resolution with maximum depth of investigation a
3m geophone interval survey was conducted. With this seismic survey setup, it is possible to
cover a 30 to 35m depth of investigation.

8
3. Local Geological and geotechnical setting
Addis Ababa city is situated in the western margin of the Main Ethiopian Rift and represents a
transition zone between the Ethiopian Plateau and the rift with poorly defined escarpment. The
geology of Addis Ababa area is represented by four volcanic units dominated in the lower part
by basaltic lava flows (Addis Ababa basalt), followed by a pyroclastic sequence, mainly
represented by ignimbrites (Addis Ababa Ignimbrite),central composite volcanoes (Central
Volcanoes unit) and their products, and finally small spatter cones and lava flows (Akaki unit).

The sub-surface geology of the project site is generally a layered soil and rock formations and
fairly correlable in all bore holes. Visual description of soil and rock core samples is made
following widely used and practiced international procedures (such as, ASTM D 2488 – 93, BS
5930: 1981). This geological material is mostly related with the central volcanic sequence of the
regional geology.

The geotechnical core drilling recoveries from boreholes intercepted soil and rock layers. The
project site top layer is dominantly covered with a Black cotton soil underlain by Trachy
basaltic rock with fractured and decomposed rock interlayer. These units based on their mode of
occurrence and properties are characterized and subdivided into the following seven
geotechnical layers. These are, Black cotton soil, Brownish medium stiff high plastic silt clay
soil, Completely decomposed gravelly Sandy Silt Clay, Slightly -moderately weathered
Trachyte Rock, Highly weathered and fractured Rock, Vesicular Basalt and the last layer
Slightly weathered Fresh Rock. However this research project deals only with the top three
layers which are soil formations.

9
4. Field Survey
Four seismic survey profiles are conducted in the study area for the geotechnical analysis of the
study area as shown in Fig. 1. Both seismic refraction and MASW data are acquired using a 24
channel Geometrics Geode seismograph. This seismograph is a specialized engineering seismic
wave prospecting instrument known as geode-24. The instrument accessories used during the
fieldwork include; 120m geophone cable with 5m takeout, a 90m trigger geophone cable and 24
pieces of geophones. For an energy source 8kg sledge hammer was used.

Seismic Survey Design

467700 467720 467740 467760
990660

990660
990640

990640
JM-1
990620

990620
990600

990600
JM-2
990580

990580
990560

990560
JM-3
990540

990540
990520

990520
JM-4
990500

990500

Scale 1:1000
990480

990480

10 0 10

(meters)

467700 467720 467740 467760

10
 A total of 24 pieces of geophones are set, each geophone is driven into the ground in a straight
line and connected with multi-channel cable to the main seismograph unit. A hammer switch is
stuck to the hammer and connected to the seismograph through a trigger cable.

Seismic Survey Line Locations

Start End
Line Name Length(m)
X Y X Y
JM-1 467706 990659 467713 990596 69
JM-2 467762 990618 467698 990589 69
JM-3 467764 990590 467722 990536 69
JM-4 467709 990497 467767 990533 69
Coordinate System: UTM, Adindan, Meter, Zone 37N
Table 1: Seismic Survey Line Location

For seismic refraction survey a 24 channel and seven shot location is used for a 3m geophone
interval which has a 69m spread length. There are seven shot points for a single spread survey
which is distributed at an equal 16.5m distance interval. A simple schematic field survey layout
is shown in the following figure.

Figure 1: Location of surveyed seismic lines

Figure 2: Seismic refraction survey layout

11
Fixed receiver spread geometry was deployed to acquire all the 2D MASW line data. In this
field setup geophones are placed in a line at fixed locations and the shot is moved through the
spread. The first shot is located off-end at a near offset of one-half the geophone interval. The
shot is then advanced at an increment equal to the geophone interval so subsequent shots are
located midway between geophones. In this survey technique, the number of sources = the
number of receivers +1, hence there are 25 shot locations for a 24 channel spread survey. The
geophone interval is 3m similar with that of the seismic refraction survey. As the Shot number
increases, the shot location advances by one interval across the survey line.

Figure 3: MASW data acquisition field set up

The maximum investigation depth is determined by multiplying the longest surface wave
wavelength (λmax) by ½, which is obtained during data acquisition (Park & Carnavele, 2010).

12
5. Data Processing

Chart 1: Seismic refraction processing flow chart

13
The collected seismic refraction data have been subjected to a sequence of processing steps
started by filtering out noisy data with high and low cut filters. Once the data has attained its
maximum signal to noise ratio then first break picking is done for all collected data. Following
the incorporation of topographic data for each shot and geophone location initial modeling is
done. Information of local geological setting and borehole data will be considered to constrain
the seismic data inversion. A repeated iteration until a variation of calculated and observed data
is within the acceptable range.

Data processing and analysis of MASW comprises three major steps (Park et al., 1999); Data
acquisition; considering the data processing begins with acquiring data with high signal to noise
ratio, dispersion analysis and inversion analysis (refer Figure 6 ). Multichannel Analysis of
Surface Wave (MASW) method utilizes the dispersive properties of the Rayleigh waves. For
each survey line 25 shot points are deployed with four to eight stacks for each shot point. The
processing flow started with importing of the raw seismic data recorded in SEG2 format into the
SeisImager (Pickwin) software.

Chart 2: MASW data processing flow chart

14
Data would be edited or deleted if there are noisy traces and inactive geophone traces before
proceeding to the main processing steps. Data from all receivers were processed at once, instead
of repeated calculations for multiple pairs of receivers. Geometry assignment to the seismic data
was carried out, so that each trace is given a number of values which were, consequently, saved
in the specified header fields of the dataset in the project database.

A plot of phase velocity versus frequency which is a dispersion image, was calculated for each
Common Mid-Point –Cross Correlation (CMPCC) gathered. The dispersion image was
calculated in a range of phase velocities 0 to 1000 m/s and in frequency range of 0 to 20 Hz.

15
 Source= -1.5m Distance (m)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
0
Source= 12.0m Phase velocity (m/s)
0.0 Spacing (m) 66.0
0 500 1000
200

0
1
400 1
2
3
600 4
5

CMPCC Gather No.

6
800 7
Time (msec)

Frequency (Hz)
9
1000
10
11

1200 12
13
14
1400 15
11
16
17
1600
B 18
19
20
1800

Dispersion curve : E:\Research seismic survey\line-2\All 25 shots of line-2\cmp_006000.

2000
C
2200

E:\downloads\papers for research\Wabe research\Research seismic survey\Line-4\all 25 shots of Line-4\1.dat

A 1.dat-25.dat
S-wave velocity (m/s)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

0

6
S-wave velocity cross-section
1
9

S-w ave velocity

6
12
676
11
619 15

16 563
Depth (m)

18
507

Depth (m)
21 21
451

395
26 24

339
31 27
283

226 30
36
(m/s)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 33

Distance (m)
36
S-w ave velocity models (inverted) : Line-2 final S-w ave inverted result

E
D
Figure 5: MASW data processing flow charts; A) Acquired waveform traces B) Common Mid-Point Cross Correlation Gather C) Phase Velocity curve D) 1D Vs value with depth E)
Inverted 2D VS sections. 16
The dispersion curve was extracted by clicking on the maximum and the minimum point on the
fundamental mode. The final 2D shear wave velocity model was obtained after a repetitive
iteration process; almost for all lines 10 iterations were deployed.

17
6. Result Interpretation
6.1. Seismic Refraction
Considering the local geology and referring ASTM International, 2011, it is possible to classify
the subsurface into three geo-seismic layers. The first layer which corresponds to the p-wave
value of less than 1000 m/s is labeled as Layer-I. The second layer (Layer-II) has a p-wave
velocity between 1000m/s-2000m/s and the bottom Layer (Layer-III) has p-wave velocity of
more than 2000m/s. A relatively higher p-wave velocity (2700m/s) is recorded along line JM-1
at a depth of around 17m.

Table 2: ASTM International, 2011. Standard Guide for Using the Seismic Refraction Method for Subsurface Investigation

JM-Vp-1 Section
10

S
5 P-w ave velocity
N

0 300
Elevation (m)

-5 600
1000 m/s 900
-10
1200
-15 2000 m/s 1750
-20 2250
-25 2750
3500
-30
(m/sec)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70

Distance (m) Scale(H) = 1/400

Scale(V) = 1/800

Figure 6: Seismic refraction tomographic section along line JM-1

18
 JM-Vp-2 Section
10

5 P-w ave velocity

E
SW

N
0 300
Elevation (m)

-5 600
1000 m/s 900
-10
1200
-15
1750
-20 2000 m/s 2250
-25 2750
3500
-30
(m/sec)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70

Distance (m) Scale(H) = 1/400

Scale(V) = 1/800

Figure 7: Seismic refraction tomographic section along line JM-2

JM-Vp-3 Section
10

5 P-w ave velocity

SW

E
N
0 300
Elevation (m)

-5 600
900
-10
1000 m/s 1200
-15
1750
-20 2250
2000 m/s
-25 2750
3500
-30
(m/sec)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70

Distance (m) Scale(H) = 1/400

Scale(V) = 1/800

Figure 8: Seismic refraction tomographic section along line JM-3

JM-Vp-4 Section
10

5 P-w ave velocity

SW

E
N

0 300
Elevation (m)

-5 600
900
-10 1000 m/s
1200
-15
1750
-20 2250
-25 2000 m/s 2750
3500
-30
(m/sec)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70

Distance (m) Scale(H) = 1/400

Scale(V) = 1/800

Figure 9: Seismic refraction tomographic section along line JM-4

Layer-I has a maximum thickness of 13m identified towards the end of line JM-4 while in most
parts of the area it has an average thickness of 8-9m. The second layer (Layer-II) is
19
predominantly thick towards the south and Southwest part of the study area, as it is observed
15m thick at the center of JM-Vp-4 and at the beginning of JM-Vp-2 sections. Only 5m
thickness of Layer-II is identified from the JM-Vp-1 section. The top of Layer–III is detected at
a shallow depth at the north part of the study area while deep seated towards the south side
which is located at 25m depth.

B
A

Figure 11: A) Seismic refraction surface maps at different depth B) seismic refraction surface maps and iso-chore map at
1000m/s and 2000m/s

A B C
20 B) 10m depth C) 15m depth
Figure 10: Seismic refraction map of the study area at A) 5m depth
The seismic refraction analysis has been done at different depths as seen in the above figures.
There are some parts of the study area mapped by extrapolation. These extrapolated spots are
characterized by a relatively higher Vp than areas with actual data collection. Therefore detailed
geophysical and geotechnical data analysis and correlation is done along the actual survey lines.
However, the general trend of the Vp distribution over the study area shows a low Vp anomaly
is mapped at deeper (> 15m depth) towards the SE direction (Figure 11, B&C). At 5m depth the
Vp is in the range of 560 m/s to 700m/s except the NE end of Line JM-2 which recorded around
900m/s. The major difference between a depth at 5m and 10m is that Line JM-1 shows a
significant velocity variation of more than 700m/s (700m/s at 5m to 1400m/s at 10m depth).

The 2000m/s iso-chore map (Figure-10 B) has also shown that it is deeper than 25m at the SE
and detected at 10m depth at NW direction.

6.2. Multi-Channel Analysis of Surface Wave (MASW)

Surface wave methods have utilized Rayleigh wave for near surface applications, where it
travels along the free surface of the earth with elliptical retrograde particle motion. The use of
surface waves for determining the dynamic properties of the subsurface are based on their
dispersive characteristics, where the velocity propagation of Rayleigh waves are dependent on
the frequency. Thus, the higher frequency will penetrate the shallow layer while the low
frequency will influence the deeper material.

JM-Vs-1 Section
-10
9
31

-5 Vs
BH
N

-0 142
5 182
Depth (m)

10 223
15 263
20 304
25 344

30
(m/sec)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70

Distance (m)

Figure 12 Shear wave velocity section along line JM-Vs-1

Almost all four MASW sections shows high anomaly zone starting from around 7m at JM-Vs-1
to 20m at JM-Vs-4 section. In other words there is a low velocity layer beneath a high velocity
layer. These anomaly could be corresponds to either a water saturation formation or weathered
21
and fractured formation. The last three sections (JM-Vs-2, JM-Vs-3 and JM-Vs-4) show more
or less a similar trend of shear wave velocity distribution.

JM-Vs-2 Section
-10

5
30
BH
-5 S-w ave velocity

SW
E
N

-0 132
5 226
Depth (m)

10 320
15 414
20 508
25 602

30
(m/sec)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70

Distance (m)

Figure 13: Shear wave velocity section along line JM-Vs-2

JM-Vs-3 Section
-10

7
9

30
30

BH
BH

-5 S-w ave velocity

SW

E
N
-0 98
145
5
191
Depth (m)

10 237
15 284
330
20
376
25 423
469
30
(m/sec)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70

Distance (m)

Figure 14: Shear wave velocity section along line JM-Vs-3

JM-Vs-4 Section
-10
3
4

31
31

-5 S-w ave velocity

SW

E
BH
BH

-0 123
5 228
Depth (m)

10 332

15 436

20 541

25 645

750
30
(m/sec)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70

Distance (m)

Figure 15: Shear wave velocity section along line JM-Vs-3

22
7. Analysis and Discussion
7.1. Geotechnical Analysis from Seismic Data
 Poison’s Ratio
This ratio represents the geometrical change in the shape of an elastic body. Its value is 0.5 for
fluids, and it approaches 0 for very hard indurated rocks (H. Almalki, et.al. 2010), (U. E. Essien,
et. al. 2014). Poisson’s ratio (σ) were calculated using this expression, VP/VS has proved to be
an efficient parameter to highlight the existence of melt or aqueous fluid phase in these regions
(Takei, 2002), since the liquid phase affects VP and VS differently (Biot, 1956 a,b).

Equation 1

 Shear Modulus (G)

The dynamic shear modulus p is an important parameter for the basic calculation of the safety
of buildings against dynamic forces (H. Stumpel, et. al., 1984).

G = ρVs² Equation 2

Where; G is Shear Modulus

ρ is density
Vs is shear wave velocity

 Young’s Modulus (E)

Equation 3

 N-Values
The standard penetration test or N-value is applicable only for soils; it is not valid for rocks. It is
defined according to Imai et al. (1976) and Stumpel et al. (1984) as the soil resistance to
penetration by normalized cylindrically pointed bars under a standard load. For this research we
have tested the accurateness of N values that are derived from different equations.
N (1) is N value calculated from (Seisimager Software)
Log10 (Vs) = 0.314*Log10 (N) +log10 (97) or Vs = 97.0N 0.314 Equation 4

N(2) is calculated from an empirical equation established by Imai et al. & Stumpel et al.

Equation 5

23
N (3) is N value calculated from an empirical equation established by O. O. Adewoyin et.al 2017
Equation 6

 Bearing Capacity

The maximum load volume needed to break ground shear failure is called bearing capacity. It
can be estimated using the Parry formula by using the standard penetration test (SPT) or N
value as:
Br = log(30N) Equation 7

Bearing capacity is the power of foundation soil to hold the forces from the engineering
structure without undergoing shear failure or excessive settlement. Therefore, the bearing
capacity of a foundation is defined as the critical load per unit area at either the ground surface
or at a certain depth below the ground surface.

The velocity of compressional waves propagating through groundwater is close to 1500 m/s,
slightly depending on water temperature and salinity (Kramer,1996). Their propagation velocity
through soft, saturated soil can reach these high velocities, i.e. the compressional waves
propagate through the groundwater. Hence, the compressional wave velocity is not indicative of
the stiffness of the saturated soil. In such cases, the soil’s apparent Poisson’s ratio will be
substantially higher than usually expected or closes to 0.5 (Gazetas, 1991; Foti, Lai, Rix, &
Strobbia, 2014). The stiffness of the soil might be significantly overestimated if the presence of
the groundwater is ignored (Kramer, 1996). The ultimate and allowable bearing capacity
determined in this paper is listed in the following table.

The calculations of the geotechnical parameters mainly depend on the values of Vp and Vs. The
density values are derived from the p wave velocity however, the analyses result would have
been more accurate if direct measurement for each formation at respective depth was taken.

24
 Where, ϒ is the unit weight of the soil and g is the acceleration due to gravity which is given by 9.8m/s2
 ϒo is the reference unit weight values in KN /m3 for soil and rock types. The value of ϒo is 16 for loose, sandy, and clayey soil (Atat
et al.,2013; Tezcan et al., 2009).
Equation 7

Equation 8

Equation 9

Equation 10

25
 Table 3: Geotechnical Properties @ BH-319 from Seismic analysis

Geotechnical Properties at BH-319 from Seismic (MASW and Refraction) analysis

N counts
Vs Vp Density
Z(m) (m/s) (m/s) (g/cc) 1 2 3 σ G (kpa) E (kpa) (ϒ0) (ϒ) ks (Kpa) qf (Kpa) qa (Kpa)
2 150.0 304.8 2.46 4.0 4.5 19.7 0.34 55358.2 148382.9 16.0 16.61 9965.69 249.14 166.09
4 237.0 521.8 2.48 17.2 12.7 28.9 0.37 139104.4 381164.9 16.0 17.04 16156.11 403.90 269.27
6 237.0 709.3 2.49 17.2 12.7 36.8 0.44 139905.7 402137.5 16.0 17.42 16511.58 412.79 275.19
8 294.0 709.3 2.49 34.2 20.6 36.8 0.40 215315.7 601284.0 16.0 17.42 20483.72 512.09 341.40
10 276.7 1282.2 2.53 28.2 18.0 61.1 0.48 194078.2 572754.4 16.0 18.56 20547.53 513.69 342.46

Table 4: Geotechnical Properties @ BH-305 from Seismic analysis

Geotechnical Properties at BH-305 from Seismic (MASW and Refraction) analysis

N counts
Vs Vp Density
Z(m) (m/s) (m/s) (g/cc) 1 2 3 σ G (kpa) E (kpa) (ϒ0) (ϒ) ks (Kpa) qf (Kpa) qa (Kpa)
2 138.8 403.5 2.47 3.1 3.8 23.9 0.43 47569.3 136319.9 16.0 16.81 9333.60 233.34 155.56
4 316.1 533.3 2.48 43.0 24.2 29.4 0.23 247504.6 608527.3 16.0 17.07 21575.80 539.40 359.60
5 316.1 533.3 2.48 43.0 24.2 29.4 0.23 247504.6 608527.3 16.0 17.07 21575.80 539.40 359.60
6.5 280.1 677.3 2.49 29.3 18.5 35.5 0.40 195269.3 545518.5 16.0 17.35 19444.72 486.12 324.08
13 430.7 1286.3 2.54 115.4 48.5 61.3 0.44 470369.8 1351699.8 16.0 18.57 32000.44 800.01 533.34

26
 Table 5: Geotechnical Properties @ BH-309 from Seismic analysis

Geotechnical Properties at BH-309 from Seismic (MASW and Refraction) analysis

N counts

Vs Vp Density
Z(m) (m/s) (m/s) (g/cc) 1 2 3 σ G (kpa) E (kpa) (ϒ0) (ϒ) ks (Kpa) qf (Kpa) qa (Kpa)
2 171.0 409.9 2.47 6.1 6.1 24.2 0.39 72185.8 201341.8 16.0 16.82 11505.29 287.63 191.75
4 216.0 515.0 2.48 12.8 10.3 28.6 0.39 115520.4 321910.4 16.0 17.03 14712.81 367.82 245.21
6 216.0 769.4 2.50 12.8 10.3 39.4 0.46 116423.4 339311.8 16.0 17.54 15152.36 378.81 252.54
8 236.8 769.4 2.50 17.1 12.6 39.4 0.45 139907.8 405089.6 16.0 17.54 16610.44 415.26 276.84
9.5 328.6 1231.0 2.53 48.7 26.4 58.9 0.46 273206.7 798666.2 16.0 18.46 24263.31 606.58 404.39

Table 6: Geotechnical Properties @ BH-307 from Seismic analysis

Geotechnical Properties at BH-307 from Seismic (MASW and Refraction) analysis

N counts
Vs Vp Density
Z(m) (m/s) (m/s) (g/cc) 1 2 3 σ G (kpa) E (kpa) (ϒ0) (ϒ) ks (Kpa) qf (Kpa) qa (Kpa)
2 133.3 382.5 2.47 2.8 3.5 23.0 0.43 43809.4 125374.2 16.0 16.76 8937.65 223.44 148.96

4 255.0 457.4 2.47 12.2 14.9 26.2 0.27 160737.3 409714.3 16.0 16.91 17252.77 431.32 287.55

6 255.0 652.5 2.49 23.5 14.9 34.4 0.41 161702.8 455961.2 16.0 17.31 17650.83 441.27 294.18

9 357.4 908.4 2.51 51.8 31.9 45.3 0.41 320073.1 901620.4 16.0 17.82 25468.10 636.70 424.47

27
 1100.
11 409.4 0 2.52 129.6 43.3 53.4 0.42 422616.2 1199878.2 16.0 18.20 29807.51 745.19 496.79
Table 7: Geotechnical Properties @ BH-313 from Seismic analysis

Geotechnical Properties at BH-313 from Seismic (MASW and Refraction) analysis

N counts
Vs Vp Density
Z(m) (m/s) (m/s) (g/cc) 1 2 3 σ G (kpa) E (kpa) (ϒ0) (ϒ) ks (Kpa) qf (Kpa) qa (Kpa)
2 179.0 350.8 2.46 7.0 6.7 21.7 0.32 78958.9 209072.9 16.0 16.70 11959.33 298.98 199.32
4 224.3 558.0 2.48 14.4 11.2 30.4 0.40 124806.4 350350.4 16.0 17.12 15359.70 383.99 255.99
6 224.3 764.2 2.50 14.4 11.2 39.2 0.45 125596.2 364942.0 16.0 17.53 15729.79 393.24 262.16
8 322.2 764.2 2.50 45.8 25.3 39.2 0.39 259038.4 721110.4 16.0 17.53 22590.03 564.75 376.50
12 432.8 1099.3 2.52 117.1 49.0 53.4 0.41 472175.1 1329922.1 16.0 18.20 31504.81 787.62 525.08

Table 8: Geotechnical Properties @ BH-314 from Seismic analysis

Geotechnical Properties at BH-314 from Seismic (MASW and Refraction) analysis

N counts
Vs Vp Density
Z(m) (m/s) (m/s) (g/cc) 1 2 3 σ G (kpa) E (kpa) (ϒ0) (ϒ) ks (Kpa) qf (Kpa) qa (Kpa)
2 153.3 469.1 2.47 4.3 4.8 26.7 0.44 58145.7 167481.9 16.0 16.94 10389.25 259.73 173.15
4 247.3 617.8 2.48 19.7 13.9 33.0 0.40 151936.2 426811.1 16.0 17.24 17049.85 426.25 284.16
6 247.3 731.8 2.49 19.7 13.9 37.8 0.44 152467.0 437742.4 16.0 17.46 17275.45 431.89 287.92
8 372.7 731.8 2.49 72.8 35.1 37.8 0.32 346357.2 917725.9 16.0 17.46 26037.76 650.94 433.96
12 496.2 1174.9 2.53 181.0 66.7 56.6 0.39 622018.5 1731054.3 16.0 18.35 36418.80 910.47 606.98

28
N (1) is N value calculated from (Seisimager Software) Log10 (Vs) = 0.314*Log10 (N) +log10 (97) or Vs = 97.0N 0.314
N (2) is N value calculated from an empirical equation established by Imai et al. and Stumpel et al.

N (3) is N value calculated from an empirical equation established by O. O. Adewoyin et.al 2017

29
 7.2. DATA Correlation
The SPT data from six borehole data were collected with 33 N values at different depth within
the study area. We try to associate and N vales from SPT with those calculated from Seismic
data.

Table 9: N values from SPT and Seismic Analysis

N from Seismic N from Seismic

SPT Analysis SPT Analysis
BH # BH #
Depth (N Depth (N
1
counts) N N2 N3 counts) N
1
N2 N3
2 12 3.1 3.8 23.9 2 8 7 6.7 21.7
4 15 43 24.2 29.4 4.5 20 14.4 11.2 30.4
305 5 30 43 24.2 29.4 6 28 14.4 11.2 39.2
6.5 50 29.3 18.5 35.5 313 7.5 31 45.8 25.3 39.2
13 50 50 48.5 50 12 30 50 49 50
2 9 2.8 3.5 23 16 50 50 50 50
3.7 9 12.2 14.9 26.2 21 50 50 50 50
5.5 16 23.5 14.9 34.5 2.5 11 4.3 4.8 27.2
307
9 30 50 31.9 45.3 4 35 19.7 13.9 33
10.5 30 50 43.3 50 6 30 19.7 13.9 37.8
15 50 50 50 50 314 9 30 50 35.1 49.2
2 8 6.1 6.1 24.2 13 50 50 50 50
4 13 12.8 10.3 28.6 21 50 50 50 50
6 14 12.8 10.3 39.4 30 50 50 50 50
309
8 15 17.1 12.6 39.4 2 10 4 4.5 19.7
319
9.5 30 48.7 26.4 50 4 25 17.2 12.7 28.9
27 50 50 50 50

Simple linear regression analyses have been done for the N values calculated from seismic data.
Empirical equations which shows the relationship between N values with respect to depth has
been established. Different statistical analyses have been implemented to examine the accuracy
of the N counts derived from the seismic analysis.

30
 N1 is the number of blows
N1 Vs Depth
calculated from a shear wave
80
y = 2.0694x + 13.517 velocity using the following
60 R² = 0.4576
equation,
N1

40
N1 Log10 (Vs) = 0.314*Log10 (N)
20 Linear (N1)
+log10 (97) or Vs = 97.0N1 0.314 or
0 N1 = (Vs/97)1/0.314
0 10 20 30
Depth (m) In this linear regression

Chart 3: N1 vs Depth analysis we try to establish an

empirical equation which
N2 Vs Depth shows a relationship of N1 with
70 depth (Z).
60
50 y = 2.1767x + 6.15 N1 = 2.0694*Z + 13.517
R² = 0.6987
40 Equation 11
N2

30 N2
20 Linear (N2)
10 Since, R2 is 0.458 we could say
0 depth and N1 counts have less
0 10 20 30
Depth (m) relationship compared with the
others (N2 and N3) vs Z
Chart 4: N2 vs Depth
relationships. The second
N3 regression analysis is made
70
between N2 and depth, where
60 y = 1.3458x + 26.483
50 R² = 0.6391 N2 is established by Imai et al.
N Counts

40
and Stumpel et al. using shear
30 N3
20 Linear (N3) wave velocity. The following
10
empirical equation shows a
0
0 10 20 30 relationship of N2 with depth.
Depth (m)
N2 = 2.1767*Z + 6.15

Chart 5: N3 vs Depth 31
Equation 12

The R2 for this simple regression test shows a relatively high value compared with the other
regression equations. This implies that the depth has more controlling factor for the N2 result.

The last regression analysis is done between the N values derived from compressional wave by
O. O. Adewoyin et.al 2017, labeled as N3. The following empirical equation shows a
relationship of N3 with depth (Z).

N3 = 1.3458*Z + 26.483
Equation 13

According to equation 4 the N counts at the surface is around 26 which are far from the N
counts resulted from SPT data, however equation 3 and 4 shows the N values are closer to the
field data at shallower depth.

Among the three N counts from seismic analyses the N2 are more associated with the N value
from SPT data. Therefore a simple equation has been established to show the relation of the two
N values. The amount of collected data and the quality of the SPT data could negatively affect
the output of the analysis result.

N(SPT) counts vs N2 (Seismic) Regression Line Fit

Plot
60
y = 0.9618x - 2.1646
50 R² = 0.7194

40
N2

30
N2
20 Linear (N2)

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
(N counts)

Chart 6: N (SPT) counts vs N2 (Seismic) Regression Line Fit Plot

32
N2 = 0.96*N-2.16
Equation 14

33
8. Conclusion

34
References:
Biot, M. A., 1956a. Theory of propagation of elastic waves in a fluid-saturated porous solid. I.
Low-frequency range. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, Vol. 28(2), p.
168–178. (Cité en pages 2, 14, 60 et 82)

Biot, M. A., 1956b. Theory of propagation of elastic waves in a fluid-saturated porous solid.
II. Higher frequency range. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, Vol.
28(2), p. 179–191. (Cité en pages 2, 14, 60 et 82)

Bowles, J.E., 1988. Foundatıon analyses and design. 4th Edition, McGraw - Hill International
Editions, Civil Engineering Series, New York, USA.

Cobanglu I, Celik S (2008) Estimation of uniaxial compressive strength from point load
strength, Schmidt hardness and P-wave velocity. Bull Eng Geol Environ 67:491–498.

Collins C. Chiemeke, (2014) Investigation of Dam Safety Making Use of Multichannel

Analysis of Surface Wave (MASW) Seismic Method. World Academy of Science,
Engineering and Technology International Journal of Environmental and Ecological
Engineering Vol:8, No:1.

Comparative Analysis of Gardner’s Relation in Lithology Discrimination for Density Modelling

in the Niger Delta Emudianughe J.E., Ahmad M.M. Journal of Scientific and
Engineering Research, 2019, 6(6):22-27.

Das, B.M., 2009. Soil mechanics: Laboratory manual, Oxford University Press Inc. New York,
USA. 299p.

Entwisle DC, Hobbs PRN, Jones LD, Gunn D, Raines MG (2005) The relationship between
effective porosity, uniaxial compressive strength and sonic velocity of intact Borrowdale
Volcanic Group core samples from Sellafield. Geotech Geol Eng 23:793–809.

Ethiopia Roads Authority, 2013. Site Investigation Manual. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Foti, S., Lai, C. G., Rix, G. J., & Strobbia, C. (2014). Surface Wave Methods for Near-Surface
Site Characterization. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group.

Gardner, G.H.F., Gardner, L.W., and Gregory. A.R., (1974). Formation velocity and density-
The diagonistic basis for stratigraphic traps. Geophysics, 39, 770-780.

Gazetas, G. (1991). Foundation Vibrations. In H.-Y. Fang (Ed.), Foundation engineering

handbook (2nd ed., pp. 553–593). New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

35
Hashim, A., Abdel, K. E.W., and Kamal A. R., (2010). Estimation of near-surface geotechnical
parameters using seismic measurements at the proposed KACST expansion site, Riyadh,
KSA
H. Stumpel, S. Kahler, R. Meissner and B. Milkereit, (1984), The use of seismic shear waves and
compressional waves for lithological problems of shallow sediments. Geophysical
prospecting 32,662-675.

Idriss, I.M., Dobry, R., and Singh, R.D., 1978, Nonlinear behavior of soft clays during cyclic
loading, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 104(GT12), 1427-
1227.
Imai, T., Fumoto, H., and Yokota, K., 1976, P- and S-wave velocities in subsurface layers of
ground in Japan: Urawa Research Institute, Tokyo, 2384 pp.

Kahraman S (2001) Evaluation of simple methods for assessing the uniaxial compressive
strength of rock. Int J Rock Mech Mining Sci 38:981–994.

Kramer, S. L. (1996). Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.

Kulhawy, F.H., Mayne, P.W., 1990. Manual of estimating soil properties for foundation design.
Research Project 1493–6, Geotechnical. Engineering Group, Cornell University, Ithaca,
New York, USA.

Luna, R. and H. Jadi, "Determination of Dynamic Soil Properties Using Geophysical Methods,"
Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Application of Geophysical and
NDT Methodologies to Transportation Facilities and Infrastructure, St. Louis, MO,
December 2000.

Mccann DM, Culshaw MG, Northmore KJ (1990) Rockmass assessment from seismic
measurements. Culshaw B, Coffey C (eds) Fields testing in engineering geology. Geol.
Soc. Eng Pub No 6:257–266.

Meyerhof, G.G., 1956. Penetration tests and bearing capacity of cohesionless soils. Journal of
the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, 82 (SM1): 1-16.

Meyerhof, G.G., 1965. Shallow foundations. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations
Division, ASCE 91(SM2): 21-31.

Park, C. B. and Carnevale, M. (2010). Optimum MASW Survey - Revisit after a Decade of Use.
In Fratta, D. O., Puppala, A. J. & Muhunthan, B (editors), GeoFlorida 2010: Advences
in Analysis, Modeling and Design (pp. 1303-1312). doi: 10.1061/41095(365)130

Park, C. B., R. D. Miller, and J. Xia, 1999, Multichannel analysis of surface waves: Geophysics,
36
 64, no. 3, 800–808.

Sevda Gören , Kenan Gelisli, 2017. Determination of engineering properties of soil on railway
track routes (An example of Turkey between the cities of Sivas and Erzincan) Eurasian J
Soil Sci 2017, 6 (4) 337 – 349.

Takei, Y., 2002. Effect of pore geometry on Vp/Vs: From equilibrium geometry to crack.
Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, Vol. 107(B2), p. 2043. (Cité en pages 14,
60 et 76)
Terzaghi, K., 1943. Theoretical Soil Mechanics. John Wiley & Sons. Inc. New York, USA.
503p.

Terzaghi, K., Peck, R.B., 1948. Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, Wiley, New York,
USA.

U. E. Essien, A. O. Akankpo, M. U. Igboekwe, 2014. Poisson’s Ratio of Surface Soils and

Shallow Sediments Determined from Seismic Compressional and Shear Wave
Velocities. International Journal of Geosciences, 2014, 5, 1540-1546.

Vucetic, M. and Dobry, R., 1991, Effect of Soil Plasticity on Cyclic Response, Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, 117(1), 89-107.

Yasar E, Erdogan Y (2004a) Correlating sound velocity with the density, compressive strength
and Young’s modulus of carbonate rocks. Int J Rock Mech Mining Sci 41:871–875.

37