Seismic Testing

What Is Seismic Testing in Geotechnical Engineering?

Seismic Testing measures how stress waves (P- and S-waves) travel through soil and rock to determine stiffness, damping, layering, and dynamic properties that govern earthquake response. The headline output is shear-wave velocity, VS (and often VS30), from which engineers compute small-strain shear modulus (Gmax) and assemble depth profiles for site response analysis, liquefaction screening, and performance-based design.

Tests range from non-intrusive surface-wave methods to downhole and crosshole logging performed during Site Characterization. Seismic results complement index testing like Sieve Analysis and Atterberg Limits, and they feed directly into Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering tasks including Liquefaction checks.

Seismic testing captures the ground’s “elastic DNA”—a must-have for reliable site class, site response, and seismic demand estimates.

Why Seismic Testing Matters

  • Site Class & Code Parameters: VS30 determines Site Class used to select design spectra in structural codes; see enduring national resources at the USGS and FEMA.
  • Liquefaction & Cyclic Softening: Shear-wave velocity provides fines-insensitive stiffness metrics to backstop SPT/CPT correlations—tie into our Liquefaction guide.
  • Ground Improvement Verification: Pre-/post-treatment VS profiles quantify stiffness gains achieved by densification, grouting, or stone columns; see Ground Improvement Techniques.
  • Retaining & Slopes: Dynamic earth pressures and seismic stability analyses rely on small-strain modulus and damping—connect with Retaining Wall Design and Slope Stability.
  • Stratigraphy & Rippability: Seismic refraction delineates bedrock depth and rippability, informing Geotechnical Earthworks planning.

Stable External References

Anchor hazard and code context to organizations unlikely to change URLs: USGS, FEMA, and NIST NEHRP.

Field & Lab Seismic Methods

Choose methods based on required depth, resolution, access, and project risk. Combining multiple methods often yields the most defensible profile.

  • MASW / SASW (Surface Waves): Surface-wave dispersion inversion returns VS vs. depth without drilling. Ideal for rapid screening and VS30. Array geometry and frequency content control depth/resolution.
  • ReMi / Microtremor Arrays: Passive arrays use ambient noise to extend depth. Great for urban areas and deep sediment basins.
  • Seismic Refraction: P- (and sometimes S-) wave travel times map layer boundaries and bedrock; useful for rippability and depth-to-refusal.
  • Downhole Logging: A source at the surface and a triaxial geophone in a borehole measure travel times between depths to compute interval velocities.
  • Crosshole Logging: Sources and receivers in adjacent cased boreholes measure direct travel times over short paths—highest-resolution VS for critical structures.
  • PS Suspension Logging: Geophone package lowered through fluid-filled casing; efficient continuous VS/VP profiles.
  • SCPTu (Seismic Cone): Adds a geophone to CPT to measure VS at stops; integrates with tip/resistance and pore pressure for powerful correlations.
  • Lab Bender/Extender Elements & Resonant Column: Determine Gmax and modulus degradation/damping curves on reconstituted or undisturbed samples to support nonlinear site response.

Did you know?

Even a “basic” MASW line can be optimized: longer spreads, lower-frequency sources, and multi-mode inversion improve depth and resolution—critical for reliable VS30.

Data Reduction & Key Equations

Converting raw waveforms and travel times into design-ready parameters hinges on careful picking, interval processing, and density assumptions. Cross-check against multiple methods whenever possible.

Interval Shear-Wave Velocity

\( V_{S,i} = \dfrac{\Delta z_i}{\Delta t_{S,i}} \)
\(\Delta z_i\)Layer thickness
\(\Delta t_{S,i}\)Shear-wave travel time through layer

Small-Strain Shear Modulus

\( G_{\max} = \rho\, V_S^2 \)
\(\rho\)Bulk density (kg/m³)
\(V_S\)Shear-wave velocity (m/s)

Time-Averaged \( V_{S30} \)

\( V_{S30} = \dfrac{30\,\text{m}}{\sum_{i=1}^{n} \dfrac{h_i}{V_{S,i}}} \)
\(h_i\)Thickness of layer i within top 30 m

Material Damping (Concept)

\( \xi \approx \dfrac{1}{2Q} \quad \text{with} \quad Q^{-1} = \text{slope of spectral decay} \)
\(\xi\)Equivalent viscous damping ratio
\(Q\)Quality factor from spectral methods

For nonlinear site response, combine G/Gmax and damping curves from lab resonant column/cyclic tests with the VS profile. Keep density consistent with unit weights used elsewhere (e.g., in Bearing Capacity or Retaining Wall calcs).

Planning, Quality Control & Common Pitfalls

Successful seismic testing is as much about logistics and QC as it is about algorithms. Use a methodical plan and document everything for traceability in your Geotechnical Reporting.

  • Acquisition Planning: Choose spread lengths, sensor spacing, and source energy to hit target depths (e.g., 30 m for VS30).
  • Borehole QA: For crosshole, maintain verticality and fixed spacing; grout casing properly to ensure coupling.
  • Picking & Polarity: Mis-picked first breaks and reversed polarity are top error sources; use multiple shots and stacking.
  • Anisotropy & Heterogeneity: Lenses, cementation, or layering can bias inversions—cross-check MASW with downhole/SCPTu where feasible.
  • Shallow Soft Layers: Near-surface weathered zones strongly affect VS30; don’t under-sample the top 3–5 m.
  • Documentation: Log GPS, elevations, array geometry, source details, receiver coupling, and environmental conditions for auditability and re-use in Geotechnical Data Analysis.

Important

Never report a single-method VS profile without a plausibility check (e.g., compare to density/stratigraphy, or verify with an independent seismic method).

How to Use Seismic Results in Design

With a vetted VS profile, you can quantify seismic demand and deformation potential with far greater confidence. Integrate results with your ground model and risk register—see Geotechnical Risk Assessment.

  • Site Class & Spectra: Compute VS30 and select Site Class. Retrieve hazard values from the USGS for code spectra development.
  • Site Response Analysis: Build 1D/2D profiles with modulus reduction and damping curves; evaluate amplification and peak ground strains for walls and slopes.
  • Liquefaction Screening: Use VS-based methods where SPT/CPT are limited or fines-sensitive; compare with CPT/SPT-based triggering for convergence (see Liquefaction).
  • Ground Improvement Design: Set target VS increases for densification programs and verify improvement post-construction—coordination with Ground Improvement Techniques.
  • Foundation Input: Translate Gmax and strain-compatible modulus to foundation springs and kinematic interaction models (link with Shallow Foundations and Deep Foundations).

Real-World Example: Urban Mid-Rise on Soft Alluvium

A downtown project sits on 25 m of silty clay over dense sand. MASW suggested low near-surface VS, while downhole data refined deeper layers. The final profile yielded VS30 in the “soft soil” class and indicated significant amplification near 2–6 m. The design team added a mat foundation with ground improvement beneath the shear walls to raise VS and reduce predicted drifts. Post-treatment MASW confirmed a 20–30% increase in VS in the top 6 m, aligning with performance goals.

Check: Strain-Compatible Modulus

Use \( G = G_{\max}\, f(\gamma) \) with project-specific modulus reduction curves to size springs for soil–structure interaction.

FAQs: Quick Answers on Seismic Testing

Which method should I choose first?

For most building projects, start with MASW to obtain a cost-effective VS profile and VS30; add downhole or SCPTu for critical structures or where layered soils produce inversion ambiguity.

How deep do I need to measure?

At minimum, measure to 30 m for VS30. Deeper profiles are needed for tall or vibration-sensitive structures and basin effects—coordinate depth with your Geotechnical Design Software workflow.

How accurate is VS from surface waves?

With good geometry and QC, MASW accuracy is typically within ±10–20% for interval VS. Cross-check with borehole methods where decisions are high-stakes or where strong lateral variability exists.

Can seismic tests replace SPT/CPT?

No. They complement each other. Use seismic methods for stiffness and layering at small strain and SPT/CPT for penetration resistance and soil behavior type. Together with lab tests, they provide a robust model.

Where can I find long-lived references?

National resources from USGS, FEMA, and NIST NEHRP remain accessible and regularly maintained.

Conclusion

Seismic Testing is central to quantifying how the ground will respond to earthquakes. By measuring VS, deriving Gmax, and assembling layered models, engineers set Site Class, perform site response analyses, and evaluate liquefaction potential with confidence. Select methods that match project risk and stratigraphy—often a MASW baseline enhanced by downhole, crosshole, or SCPTu for critical decisions. Convert data with transparent equations (interval velocities, VS30, Gmax), apply realistic density and damping assumptions, and document QC steps rigorously. Then connect results to design choices across retaining systems, slope stability, shallow and deep foundations, and post-improvement verification (see Ground Improvement Techniques). Ground your process in durable references from the USGS, FEMA, and NIST. With a defensible seismic profile and disciplined QA/QC, your geotechnical models will stand up to peer review—and earthquakes.

Scroll to Top