ARTICLE IN PRESS

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 27 (2007) 741–758

www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

Evaluation of shear wave velocity profile using SPT based

uphole method
Eun-Seok Banga, Dong-Soo Kimb,
a
Geotechnical Engineering Division, Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources (KIGAM), 30 Gajeong-dong, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 305-350, Korea
b
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST), Guseong-dong, Yuseong-gu,
Daejeon 305-701, Korea
Received 28 May 2006; received in revised form 15 December 2006; accepted 16 December 2006

Abstract

The uphole method is a field seismic test which uses receivers on the ground surface and an underground source. A modified form of
the uphole method is introduced in order to obtain efficiently the shear wave velocity (VS) profile of a site. This method is called the
standard penetration test (SPT)-uphole method because it uses the impact energy of the split spoon sampler in the SPT test as a source.
Since the SPT-uphole method can be performed simultaneously with the SPT test it is economical and not labor intensive compared to
the original uphole methods which use small explosives or a mechanical source. Field testing and interpretation procedures for the
proposed method are described. To obtain reliable travel time information of the shear wave, the first peak point of the shear wave using
two component geophones is recommended. Through a numerical study using the finite element method (FEM), the procedure of the
proposed method was verified. Finally, the SPT-uphole method was performed at several sites, and the field applicability of the proposed
method was verified by comparing the VS profiles determined by the SPT-uphole method with the profiles determined by the downhole,
the spectral analysis of surfaces waves (SASW) method and from the SPT-N values.
r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: SPT; Uphole method; Shear wave velocity; Field seismic test; Site characterization

1. Introduction for a site investigation for VS profiling is increasing rapidly

The shear wave velocity (VS) profile is very important
geotechnical parameter in practice. During an earthquake,
the ground motion of the site is significantly affected by the
local site condition, and the average VS up to 30 m is the
key variable for site characterization in geotechnical
earthquake engineering [1]. For the vibration problems in
an urban area from blasting for underground construction
or from heavy traffics, the VS value is used to estimate the
propagation of vibration and its impact [2,3]. Recently, in
addition to these dynamic problems, the VS value has also
been used for a static deformation analysis such as
excavations and the settlement and an evaluation for
ground improvements [4,5]. For these reasons, the demand
Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 42 869 3619; fax: +82 42 869 3610.
E-mail addresses: esbang@kigam.re.kr (E.-S. Bang),
dskim@kaist.ac.kr (D.-S. Kim).
in the field of geotechnical engineering.
Many field seismic tests such as the crosshole, downhole,
suspension PS logging, spectral analysis of surface waves
(SASW), multi-channel analysis of surface waves (MASW)
and harmonic wavelet analysis of waves (HWAW)
methods are now generally used for an evaluation of the
VS profile [6–8]. Each test has its own advantages and
disadvantages and the results may not be coincident in
many cases due to scale problems and the difference among
the tests. Therefore, it is important to select an adequate
field testing technique that considers the site conditions and
the importance of the projects for obtaining a reliable VS
profile.
Generally, it is known that borehole seismic methods
provide better results than surface wave methods, as
surface wave methods do not use the shear wave directly
and contain an inversion process which remains somewhat
uncertain for obtaining reliable VS profile. The downhole

0267-7261/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2006.12.004
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
742 E.-S. Bang, D.-S. Kim / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 27 (2007) 741–758
method among the borehole seismic methods is very
attractive for several reasons. This method requires just
one borehole to perform the test and uses a simple surface
source, thus it is easy to operate while field testing and it is
relatively economic. However, in the layers of sedimentary
gravels, for the weathered and fractured rocks that are
frequently encountered in a site investigation in Korea, it is
difficult to construct a test hole and to obtain a good
coupling between the surrounding soils and the casing,
factors that are crucial in borehole seismic testing. In
addition, the wave propagation is hindered by these layers
and the substantial amount of source energy is required in
order to acquire a discernible signal in the downhole
method [9]. Alternatively, the uphole method uses receivers
on the ground surface and an underground source such as
a small explosive or a mechanical source. It has the reverse
form of source and receiver locations compared with the
downhole seismic method and the result can be interpreted
similarly to the downhole seismic method. However, in
practice the application of this original uphole method
used for obtaining VS profile is somewhat uncommon, as it
is difficult to generate the shear wave component under-
ground and for this reason that it is not cost effective.
In this study, a modified form of the uphole method is
introduced to obtain the VS profile of a site efficiently. A
schematic diagram of the proposed uphole method, termed
the standard penetration test (SPT)-uphole method, is
shown in Fig. 1. The SPT is the most frequently used
method in a geotechnical site investigation. The impact
energy generated by the SPT can be used as a source for the
uphole method. The significant amount of compression
and shear waves caused by tip and side stresses (st and ss in
the circle of Fig. 1) will be generated in the ground when
the split spoon sampler is penetrated into the soil through
hammering at the ground surface. The SPT is usually
performed at every 1 or 1.5 m intervals. If a series of
receivers are placed on the ground surface, it would be
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the SPT-uphole method.
feasible to perform the uphole test during SPT. The boring
and SPT is performed in tandem; therefore, the
SPT-uphole method can be performed simultaneously
while boring without additional cost such as the prepara-
tion of the testing hole including the casing, grouting, and
sourcing work compared to other borehole seismic
methods. For this reason, it is usually very simple,
economic and not labor intensive, which are the main
advantages of the proposed method [10,11].
In this paper, the field testing and data reduction
procedures of the proposed method were investigated.
Due to the characteristics of the SPT source that contains a
large amount of compression wave components as well as
the shear wave component, and cannot act in reverse to use
the polarity characteristics of the shear wave as in a
downhole method, it is difficult to know the exact first
arrival time of the shear wave component. To overcome
these difficulties, the proposed method should have a
procedure to obtain exact travel time information. The
interpretation method should consider refracted ray paths,
as the distances between the borehole and the receivers are
somewhat distant.
Through a numerical study using the finite element
method (FEM), the procedure for obtaining the exact
travel time information of the shear wave was investigated
and the feasibility of the proposed data reduction method
was verified. Finally, the SPT-uphole method was per-
formed at several sites and the applicability was verified
by comparing the VS profiles determined by the pro-
posed method with the profiles determined by the down-
hole method, the SASW method and from the SPT-N
values.
2. Numerical simulation of SPT uphole
An understanding of the wave types generated by
the SPT sampler is crucial for the development of the
SPT-uphole method. As the sampler moves downward
during the impact, it can be postulated that the shear (S)
wave of the particle motion in a vertical direction (SV type)
as well as compression (P) wave near the source are
generated as shown in Fig. 2. The P-wave component is
detected mainly in a radial direction on the ground surface
when the SPT source is located at a shallow depth while it
is detected mainly in a vertical direction at deeper depths.
In contrast, as the vertical motion of an SV-type wave
changes to a horizontal motion due to Snell’s law as
propagating vertically to the ground surface, the S-wave
component is detected mainly in the vertical direction on
the ground surface when SPT source is located at shallow
depth and mainly detected in the radial direction when
located at deeper depths as shown in Fig. 2. Specifically,
the major direction of each wave motion will vary
depending on the locations of the source and receiver and
both vertical and radial horizontal motions are simulta-
neously governing the surface motion when the elastic
wave is generated by the vertical source in the ground.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
E.-S. Bang, D.-S. Kim / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 27 (2007) 741–758
Fig. 2. Prediction of Particle Motion at the surface generated by the SPT
impact source.
Fig. 3. Numerical model for the FEM analysis to predict particle motion
at the surface due to an underground vertical source.
In order to investigate the types of waves generated by
the SPT sampler in an actual condition, a numerical study
using the FEM was performed. The ABAQUS Standard
which is a widely used commercial FEM program was
employed. As shown in Fig. 3, a two-layer model that has
different VS values was selected. To simulate the condition
of the SPT impact source which is generated at one point
and propagating spherically without reflection at the outer
boundary of the model, an axisymmetric four-node element
(CAX4) with an infinite element (CINAX4) was imple-
mented. The size of each element was 0.1 m  0.1 m and the
calculation step was determined as 0.0001 s based on the
criteria of Zerwer et al. [12], who proposed the adequate
factor criteria for a numerical study concerning wave
propagation. Seven vertical and horizontal component
geophones were placed on the ground surface with 2 m
spacing to a distance of 18 m and the particle motions were
recorded for 0.25 s after sourcing. The depths of the sources
are at 3 m interval from 3 to 30 m and the last depth of
743
source point is at 39 m. The shape of the wave propagation
when the vertical impact source acted at a depth of 12 m
was contoured at a time of 0.0365 s in Fig. 4. It can be
noticed that the P and S waves propagate spherically.
The typical signal traces of the vertical and horizontal
components at each distance when the depth of source is 3,
18, and 39 m are shown in Fig. 5. In the case of the vertical
motion when the testing depth is 3 m as shown on the left
of Fig. 5(a), it is interesting to note that a weak P-wave
component arrived earlier and was separated by a strong
S-wave component and that the S-wave components are
clearly detected at each receiver distance. In the case of the
horizontal motion (in the middle of Fig. 5(a)), the shear
wave arrival is not clear because the source and sensing
direction for shear wave is discordant. In the case where
the testing depth is 18 m in Fig. 5(b), it was found that
the shear wave components are clearly detected at both the
vertical and horizontal motions. However, in the case of
the vertical motion, the S-wave arrival is confused by the
earlier P-wave component that arrived, especially at close
distances from the source. As it increases with the testing
depth, this effect is extended to a long distance. In the case
of a testing depth of 39 m in Fig. 5(c), the vertical motion is
mainly dominated by the P-wave component while the
S-wave component is very weak compared to this P-wave
component. In contrast, the S-wave component is clearly
shown in a horizontal motion, however, particularly at
close distances from the source, it was found that the
S-wave component is relatively weak and is easily infected
by surrounding noise.
This can be well understood from the characteristics of
particle motion at the ground surface. Fig. 6 shows the
particle motion in space in both vertical and radial
horizontal directions in every case of this numerical study.
The vertical distances are the testing depth and the
horizontal distances are the distances from the borehole
(offsets). The motion of the P-wave component is identical
to the direction of the ray path and the motion of the
S-wave component is perpendicular to the direction of
the ray path. On the left side of Fig. 6, the representative
particle motions at source depths of 6, 15, and 24 m and
the receiver location of 8 m are enlarged. It is shown that
Fig. 4. Shape of the wave propagation at a time of 0.0365 s after sourcing.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
744 E.-S. Bang, D.-S. Kim / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 27 (2007) 741–758
Fig. 5. Signal traces at each receiver generated by a numerical simulation of the SPT-uphole method with source depth of (a) 3 m, (b) 18 m, and (c) 39 m.
The dot is first peak of the shear wave component.
the direction of particle motions of the P and S-waves
changes according to the location of the source and
receiver as previously held in Fig. 2.
3. Field setup and testing procedure
Based on the preliminary numerical study, the testing
procedure of SPT-uphole method is introduced in this
chapter. To perform the seismic field tests, a source to
generate an elastic wave, a receiver system to detect the
motions, and a data acquisition system to record the
signals are generally required. In the SPT-uphole method, a
vertical impact source in the ground during the SPT is
employed as previously mentioned in Fig. 2. The generated
energy is much larger than that of the surface source in the
downhole method, although the reverse signal cannot be
generated to capture the initial arrival point using the
polarity characteristics of the shear wave. A series of
surface geophones are used as a receiver system and a
multi-channel signal analyzer or seismograph, spread
cables and a trigger switch are used as a data acquisition
system to digitize and record the signals. A schematic
diagram of the proposed uphole test is shown in Fig. 1. The
testing procedure is as follows.
The surface geophones are placed on the ground at the
selected intervals from the boring point. A minimum of
two receivers are required and the use of more than five
receivers is recommended, as using more receivers will
provide better results. For example, if five geophones are
used, the geophones can be placed from the boring point to
10 or 15 m at an interval of 2 or 3 m. The receiver locations
depend on the site condition and the final testing depth.
For interpretation, the site is assumed to comprise of
horizontal layers. With this assumption, using close
receivers is more favorable than using distant receivers,
as the soil sites have horizontal variations, in general.
Conversely, closer receivers can be easily affected by the
engine noise of the boring machine and it is difficult to
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
E.-S. Bang, D.-S. Kim / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 27 (2007) 741–758 745

Fig. 6. Characteristics of the particle motion on the ground surface in the space domain of a vertical and radial horizontal direction at every source depth.

Fig. 7. Signal traces at the 8 m receiver generated by the numerical simulation of the SPT-uphole method with all testing depths (a) vertical components,
(b) horizontal components, (c) signal traces converted into a major P-wave direction, and (d) signal traces converted to major S-wave directions.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
746 E.-S. Bang, D.-S. Kim / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 27 (2007) 741–758
detect the shear wave motion precisely from a deep source,
as previously described in Fig. 5. Therefore, using several
receivers in a series is recommended for obtaining reliable
results from the final testing depth. Additionally, using
two-component (radial, horizontal and vertical) geophones
is recommended in order to obtain better travel time
information in terms of a deep testing depth as stated in the
numerical study. Generally the main frequency range of
body wave passed through the soil site is approximately
40–60 Hz, and using 4.5 or 10 Hz geophones is recom-
mended, as it is cost effective and tends to the ease of the
operation with the spread cable.
Data acquisition can be accomplished using a general
seismograph. To perform the SPT-uphole method effi-
ciently, in excess of ten 10 channels are required. At least
five are for vertical component geophones and at least five
are for the radial horizontal component geophones. If the
final testing depth is not deep, using only vertical
component geophones is possible. A contact switch,
geophone, and accelerometer can be used as a trigger
system. As it is difficult to install the trigger system near the
source (split spoon sampler), it should be installed below
Fig. 8. Determination of the VS value at the first layer in the DTR
method.
Fig. 9. Schematic diagram of SPT-uphole data reduction methods: (a) DTR method and (b) DTS method.
the anvil and the triggering points are not coincident in the
acquired signals at different testing depths because the total
length of connected rods is different with testing depth.
Therefore, this should be considered when determining the
travel time information by a calibration of the time delay.
The trigger calibration will be described in detail in the
interpretation procedure.
Generally, the SPT is performed at intervals of 1 or
1.5 m. After drilling to a given depth, an uphole method
can be performed with the SPT simultaneously. It is usually
advised to drop the hammer manually after turning off the
engine in order to reduce the noise from the machine. In
order to check the repeatability, signal traces should be
obtained by hammering more than twice at each testing
depth. Measuring the exact source depth is of high
importance, and the length from the tip of the split spoon
sampler to the ground surface should be measured at each
hammering and recording of the signals. After drilling to
the next testing depth, these steps should be repeated until
the final depth for the site investigation.
4. Data reduction method
4.1. Obtaining travel time information
For an interpretation of uphole method, reliable travel
time information is crucial, as is common to every seismic
method. Due to the characteristics of the SPT source
containing a great amount of compression wave compo-
nents as well as shear wave components, and with its
inability to reverse to use the polarity characteristics of the
shear wave as in the downhole method, it is very difficult to
measure the first arrival of the shear wave component
precisely with the acquired signals. Therefore, the travel
time difference between the two signals is utilized in the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
E.-S. Bang, D.-S. Kim / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 27 (2007) 741–758 747

interpretation instead of the direct arrival time of the shear
wave from the source to the receiver. There are two general
methods for obtaining the travel time difference informa-
tion from the signals. These are the peak-to-peak method
and the cross-correlation method [13]. Both methods can
be used reliably when the shapes of the two signals are not
distorted, especially in the case of the cross-correlation
method, but the travel time difference can be determined
automatically without introducing the subjective opinion.
The signals received at the surface during the SPT impact
are poor for application to the cross-correlation method, as
those signals contain the P-wave component and the shape
of S-wave components are not similar (see Fig. 5). In the
case of the application of the peak-to-peak method, it is
possible to select the first peak point of the shear wave
clearly at most signals. The dot at each signal denotes the
estimated first peak point of the shear wave. For the
vertical component, the first arrival of the shear wave is on
the down side while it is on the up side for the horizontal
component. However, the first peak point of the shear
wave in the vertical motion becomes ambiguous, as the
testing depth increases, as the direction of the S-wave
particle motion is not coincident with the direction of
sensing at a deep source while it is clear in a horizontal
motion at a deep testing depth. A similar phenomenon is
also found in the case of the horizontal component at a
shallow testing depth. Conversely, as previously shown in
the space particle motions of the vertical and radial
horizontal plane (see Fig. 6), the first peak points of the
shear wave are clearly shown in every case. If the space
particle motions are employed, the exact first peak of the
shear wave component can be easily estimated. The two-
component signal is more perfectly presented as the real
wave form in the time domain by converting the orienta-
tion of axis if the incident angle of the ray path (y) is
known.
As shown in Fig. 6, if the major direction of the S-wave
or incident angle of the ray path is clear, the P-wave and
S-wave components can be maximized and separated in the
time domain by
!   !
signalP cos y sin y signalH
¼ . (1)
signalS  sin y cos y signalV

Signal traces were converted to the major direction of P

Fig. 10. Determination of the VS value at the first and second layer using a
conventional interval method.
and S-wave components by using this procedure, and they
are plotted in Fig. 7. The signal traces of the vertical and
horizontal components at 8 m receiver with testing depth
are shown in Fig. 7(a) and (b), respectively. The incident
angle of the ray path (y) can be estimated from the particle
motions as shown on the left side of Fig. 6. Signal traces

a Theoretical Travel times (ms) b Shear Wave Velocity (m/s)

0 20 40 60 80 100 0 200 400 600 800 1000
0 0
Model
DTR_6m&9m
5
DTR_9m&12m
DTS_6m
10 10 DTS_9m
DTS_12m
Depth (m)
Depth (m)

15 15

20 20
Receiver 1_6m

25 Receiver 2_9m 25
Receiver 3_12m
30 30

Fig. 11. Verification of the proposed of SPT-uphole data reduction methods: (a) calculated theoretical travel time at each receiver distance in the subsoil
model and (b) comparison of the VS profiles determined by each data reduction method with the subsoil model value.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
748 E.-S. Bang, D.-S. Kim / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 27 (2007) 741–758

converted to major P-wave and S-wave directions are
shown in Fig. 7(c) and (d). It is clear that the S-wave
component at the whole depth and the first peak travel
time can be clearly estimated from Fig. 7(d) while
ambiguous cases can occur if only the vertical or horizontal
component is used (see question marks in Fig. 7(a) and
(b)). However, this method has a low applicability in the
applied field, as the incident angle of the ray path under
field conditions is occasionally unclear or ambiguous, and
the major direction of the shear wave is not consistent for
all recording times.
Therefore, within the proposed method, another method
is introduced for obtaining reliable travel time information.
On the right side of Fig. 5, the root mean square signals of
the vertical and horizontal components in the time domain
(two-component signals) are plotted. The first peak points
of the shear wave in these signals coincide with the first
peak points of the shear wave in the space particle motions
in Fig. 6. From these root mean square signals, the first
peak travel times can be determined in the entire depth
range without the need for a subjective opinion, and
without determining the major direction of the shear wave.
Though the root mean square signals introduced in this
study are not actual wave forms, it is also possible to single
out first peak point of the shear wave accurately in a field
test.
4.2. Evaluation of the VS profile
Interpretation methods to evaluate the VS profile in the
proposed uphole method are similar to those in the
downhole data reduction method [9]. The fundamental
principle is that the velocity value can be determined by the
travel time delay and the difference in distances of each ray
path between two ray paths. The testing depths, receiver
distances and travel time information are required for the
interpretation. The refracted ray path based on Snell’s law
should be considered because the distance from borehole to
each receiver is somewhat distant and the difference
between straight ray path and refracted ray path cannot
be neglected. In this paper, two methods for the data
reduction of the SPT-uphole method are introduced. One
involves the use of the travel time difference between two
receivers at the same testing depth and the other involves
using the travel time difference between difference testing
depths at the same receiver (see Fig 9). The former is
termed the delay time between serial receivers (DTR)
method and the latter is termed the delay time between
serial sources (DTS) method in this paper. These methods
proceed step by step from the first to the final testing
depths.
In DTR method, the VS value of the first layer was
obtained by using the time delay between receivers as
shown in Fig. 8. Eq. (2) shows the determination of the
time delay between the closer receiver and the distant
receiver at the same testing depth using the peak-to-peak
method. The wave velocity of the first layer can be
obtained using Eq. (3). In this case, there is only one layer
and it is homogeneous, thus the ray paths are straight.
DTR1 ¼ PT1;f  PT1;n , (2)
R1;f  R1;n
V1 ¼ . (3)
DTR1
Here, DTR1 is the delay time between the near and more
distant receivers at the first testing depth, PT1,n or f is the

Table 1
A subsoil model and calculated theoretical travel times of the subsoil model for verification of proposed data reduction methods of SPT-uphole method

Testing depth (m) VS of model (m/s) Theoretical travel times (ms)

DTR_6 m&9 m DTR_6 m&12 m DTS_6 m DTS_9 m DTS_12 m

1.5 200 14.697 14.846

3.0 250 11.566 11.825 1.394 4.525 7.546
4.5 250 10.666 11.335 2.676 1.775 1.286
6.0 250 9.663 10.694 3.689 2.686 2.045
7.5 400 6.859 7.279 0.858 1.947 5.362
9.0 400 6.047 6.811 2.314 1.503 1.035
10.5 400 5.356 6.288 2.776 2.085 1.561
12.0 300 4.974 6.008 4.471 4.089 3.810
13.5 300 4.616 5.708 4.562 4.204 3.903
15.0 300 4.290 5.407 4.633 4.307 4.007
16.5 300 3.996 5.116 4.690 4.396 4.105
18.0 500 3.511 4.511 2.563 2.078 1.473
19.5 500 3.145 4.083 2.665 2.299 1.871
21.0 650 2.740 3.543 1.962 1.557 1.016
22.5 650 2.444 3.187 2.045 1.749 1.394
24.0 800 2.144 2.791 1.620 1.319 0.923
25.5 800 1.920 2.518 1.678 1.454 1.181
27.0 800 1.742 2.301 1.718 1.540 1.323
28.5 800 1.596 2.122 1.746 1.600 1.420
30.0 800 1.472 1.969 1.767 1.644 1.491
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
E.-S. Bang, D.-S. Kim / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 27 (2007) 741–758 749

travel time from the trigger point to the first peak point at H 1 tan ai1;f þ H 2 tan ai2;f þ    þ H j tan aij;f
the near and more distant receiver, and R1,n or f is the þ    þ H i tan aii;f ¼ Of , ð5Þ
distance from source to the near and more distant receiver
to the first testing depth. where Vj is the VS of the jth layer at the ith testing depth, Vi
To determine the VS value in a general ith layer, the is the VS of the ith layer at ith testing depth, aij;f is the
refracted ray path should be considered, as the layers are incident angle from the jth layer to the next layer of the ith
vertically heterogeneous (see Fig. 9(a)). The refracted ray ray path, Hi is the thickness of the ith layer or the testing
path can be determined considering following two condi- interval between the ith and previous testing depth, Of is
tions, one is Snell’s law shown in Eq. (4) and the other is the distance from the boring point to the distant receiver.
the geometrical criterion given in Eq. (5). From the determined new refracted ray path using
Eqs. (4) and (5), the passage length of each layer can be
sin ai1;f sin ai2;f sin aij;f sin aii;f calculated as shown in Eq. (6). The travel time from the
¼ ¼  ¼ ¼  ¼ , (4)
V1 V2 Vj Vi source to each receiver at the ith testing depth is given by

a First Peak Travel Times of Shear-wave Component

(ms)
0 50 100 150
0

10
Testing Depth (m)

20 Receiver1_2m
Receiver2_4m
Receiver3_6m
Receiver4_8m
30 Receiver5_10m
Receiver6_12m
Receiver7_14m
Receiver8_16m

40

b Travel Time Error (ms) c Travel Time Error (ms)

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
0 0

10 10
Testing Depth (m)

Testing Depth (m)

20 DTR_2m&4m 20 DTS_2m
DTR_4m&6m DTS_4m

DTR_6m&8m DTS_6m
DTS_8m
DTR_8m&10m
30 30 DTS_10m
DTR_10m&12m
DTS_12m
DTR_12m&14m DTS_14m
DTR_14m&16m DTS_16m
40 40

Fig. 12. Travel time information using only vertical components: (a) first peak travel time information at each receiver distance with testing depth,
(b) travel time error relative to the theoretical travel time based on delay time between serial receivers, and (c) travel time error relative to the theoretical
travel time based on delay time between serial sources.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
750 E.-S. Bang, D.-S. Kim / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 27 (2007) 741–758

Eq. (7), and the travel time delay between the serial receivers Lii;f  Lii;n
Vi ¼ P Pi1 , (9)
can be calculated by using Eq. (8), which is a general case of i1
DTRi  j¼1 ðLij;f =V j Þ  j¼1 ðLij;n =V j Þ
Eq. (2). Finally, Eq. (9) that determines the VS value of the ith
layer can be deduced using Eqs. (7) and (8). where Lij,n or f is the passage length of the jth layer at the ith
Lij;f ¼ H j = cos aij;f , (6) testing depth and the near and more distant receivers,
Ti,nor f is the travel time from the trigger point to the first
arrival point at the near and more distant receivers, DTRi
X
i is the delay time between the near and more distant
Lij;f Li1;f Li2;f Lii;f
T i;f ¼ ¼ þ þ  þ ; (7) receivers at the ith testing depth, PTi,n or f is the travel time
j¼1
Vj V1 V2 Vi from the trigger point to the first peak point at the near and
more distant receivers.
In this interpretation method, an iterative calculation
DTRi ¼ PTi;f  PTi;n ¼ Ti;f  Ti;n , (8) should be employed. During the procedure for determining

a First Peak Travel Times of Shear-wave Component

(ms)
0 50 100 150
0

10
Testing Depth (m)

20 Receiver1_2m
Receiver2_4m
Receiver3_6m
Receiver4_8m
30 Receiver5_10m
Receiver6_12m
Receiver7_14m
Receiver8_16m

40

b Travel Time Error (ms) c Travel Time Error (ms)

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
0 0

10 10
Testing Depth (m)
Testing Depth (m)

20 DTR_2m&4m 20 DTS_2m
DTR_4m&6m DTS_4m
DTR_6m&8m DTS_6m
DTS_8m
DTR_8m&10m
30 30 DTS_10m
DTR_10m&12m
DTS_12m
DTR_12m&14m DTS_14m
DTR_14m&16m DTS_16m
40 40

Fig. 13. Travel times using two-component system: (a) first peak travel time information at each receiver distance with testing depth, (b) travel time error
relative to the theoretical travel time delay times between serial receivers, and (c) travel time error relative to the theoretical travel based on delay times
between serial sources.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
E.-S. Bang, D.-S. Kim / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 27 (2007) 741–758 751

the refracted ray path using Eqs. (4) and (5), the VS values
from the first to the i1th layer are known values, but the
VS value of the ith layer is assumed for the calculation. To
obtain the final VS value of ith layer, the procedure should
be iterated until the calculated VS value using Eq. (9) well
matches the assumed VS value.
In the DTS method, the travel time difference informa-
tion between the serial sources or testing depths is used,
and this can be calculated by using Eq. (10) (see Fig. 9(b)).
As the travel time difference is calculated from signals with
different triggers, differing from the DTR method, a
correction for the inconsistent trigger should be considered
for the DTS method. It is highly impractical to install a
trigger system at a sourcing point during the SPT;
accordingly, the trigger system is normally installed below
the anvil. The length of the rod will change with a different
testing depth and the corrected travel time TC should be
subtracted from the travel time difference. TC is easily
calculated from Eq. (11) and the rod wave velocity of the
SPT rod (VRod) is commonly 5000 m/s.
DTSi;f ¼ PTi;f  PTi1;f  TC;i , (10)
Hi
T C;i ¼ . (11)
V rod
The time delay between serial testing depths at a given
surface location is often negative when the layer between
serial testing depths is much stiffer than only the upper
layer. When this occurs, a conventional interval method
cannot provide a result, and the refracted ray path method
is employed in order to obtain a reliable result with
downhole method [9]. If the time delay is negative, VS of
the first layer cannot be obtained through the use of
Eq. (12) which is the general equation for obtaining the VS
value using the interval travel time of serial testing depths.

a Shear-wave Velocity (m/s) b Shear-wave Velocity (m/s)

0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600
0 0

10 10
Testing Depth (m)

Testing Depth (m)

20 20 DTR_2m&4m
DTR_4m&6m
DTR_6m&8m
DTR_8m&10m
30 DTR_8m&10m 30 DTR_10m&12m
DTR_10m&12m
DTR_12m&14m DTR_12m&14m
DTR_14m&16m DTR_14m&16m
Model Model
40 40

c Shear-wave Velocity (m/s) d Shear-wave Velocity (m/s)

0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600
0 0

10 10
Testing Depth (m)

Testing Depth (m)

DTS_2m DTS_2m
20 DTS_4m 20 DTS_4m
DTS_6m DTS_6m
DTS_8m DTS_8m
DTS_10m DTS_10m
30 DTS_12m 30 DTS_12m
DTS_14m DTS_14m
DTS_16m DTS_16m
Model Model
40 40

Fig. 14. VS profile determined by the proposed data reduction method in a numerical study: (a) results of the DTR method using vertical component,
(b) results of the DTR method using the two-component, (c) results of the DTS method using the vertical component, and (d) results of the DTS method
using the two-component geophones.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
752 E.-S. Bang, D.-S. Kim / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 27 (2007) 741–758
Though the time delay is not negative, the VS values of the
first and second layers should be assumed to be equal, and
it is not the mean VS value of these layers but instead the
VS value of the second layer (see Fig. 10).
R2;f  R1;f
V1 ¼ V2 ¼ . (12)
DTS1
If the VS value of the first layer is inaccurate, the VS value
of the following layers will be incorrectly determined at
each step. Accordingly, to obtain the reliable VS profile, the
VS value of the first layer is obtained through the use of
Eq. (3) which uses travel time delay between the serial
distant receivers. From the second layer the VS value can
be obtained by using travel time delay between the serial
testing depths.
The first arrival time at first testing depth can be
calculated using Eq. (13) and the travel times from the
source to the distant receiver location at every testing depth
can be calculated using Eq. (14). The refracted ray path can
be determined by considering two conditions; the first is
Snell’s law and the second is the geometrical criteria as in
the DTR method. From the determined new refracted ray
path, the passage length of each layer can be calculated as
in Eq. (6), and the VS of the ith layer can be determined
using Eq. (15), which is deduced from Eq. (7). In the DTS
method, the same manner of iterative work is also
necessary for obtaining the final VS value of the ith layer.
R1;f
T 1;f ¼ , (13)
V1
T i;f ¼ T i1;f þ DTSi;f , (14)
Lii;f
Vi ¼ Pi1 . (15)
T i;f  j¼1 ðLij;f =V j Þ
The data reduction methods introduced in this paper
involve the inconvenient procedure of finding the refracted
ray path along using an iterative calculation procedure.
Simple programming is necessary for the data reduction
methods. In this study, the program SPT-UPHOLE Ver.
1.0 was coded using visual basic.
5. Verification of SPT-uphole method
For a verification of the proposed data reduction
methods, a parametric study was performed using the
DTR and DTS methods. The subsoil model is a seven-layer
model that has different thicknesses and the VS values vary
with depth (see Fig. 11(b)). A total of three imaginary
receivers were used with distances of 6, 9, and 12 m,
respectively. The testing depth interval was 1.5 m and the
final testing depth was 30 m. The theoretical travel time was
calculated based on Snell’s law for a stratified layer model
[9] and this is plotted in Fig. 11(a). Through the use of this
travel time data, the delay time information was calculated
using the DTR and DTS methods. The exact model value
and the calculated delay time information are tabulated in
Table 1. As shown in Table 1, the initial DTS values are all
negative. If the conventional interval method is employed
in these cases, the VS value will be also negative and the
first and second layers will have identical VS value,
although these are different in the model. However, in
the proposed DTS method considering the ray path, the
exact VS values of the first and second layers can be
determined. The VS profiles were determined by the
proposed data reduction methods and plotted in
Fig. 11(b). All of the VS values in the profile are precisely
coincident with the model. The proposed data reduction
methods worked well and were programmed properly.
In order to verify the entire procedure of the SPT-uphole
method, a procedure that estimated the travel time
information was also verified through the use of the
theoretical travel time based on the refracted law ray path.
The procedure for obtaining the travel time information is
verified by comparing the theoretical travel time and
evaluated the VS profiles using the generated synthetic
signals from the numerical study in Fig. 5. Fig. 12(a) shows
the variations in the first peak travel times with the testing
depth at all receiver locations when only the vertical
component was used. These variations can be automati-
cally measured without the use of a subjective view.
However, this becomes more ambiguous is selecting the
6.0m Dry Field
BH-1
3.0m
3.0m
3.0m
BH-2
Unpaved Road
SPT-uphole line
Geophone
Dry Field Boring point
BH-1 : Uphole Testing Hole
B H-2 : Downhole Testing Hole
1m
Fig. 15. Schematic diagram of the field setup of the Kim-je site. All four
vertical component geophones were placed at distances of 6, 9, 12, and
15 m and downhole method was performed at BH-2 for comparison
purposes.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
E.-S. Bang, D.-S. Kim / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 27 (2007) 741–758
first peak point with an increase in testing depth with the
closer receivers. Using the first peak travel time data, the
time delay information was calculated and the time
difference errors were estimated with the theoretical travel
time which was calculated based on the refracted ray path
(see Fig. 12(b) and (c)). Fig. 13 shows the variations in the
first peak travel times with a testing depth at all receiver
locations when both vertical and radial components in
motion were considered. Here, the time difference errors
compared to the theoretical value are also included for the
DTR and the DTS methods. Comparing Fig. 12 with
Fig. 13, it is clearly shown that the time difference error is
smaller when using both component signals, especially at a
deep testing depth. This is caused by the ambiguity when
choosing the first peak point of the shear wave at a deep
testing depth when only the vertical component is used.
Therefore, the use of a series of two-component geophones
is recommended when investigating a deep site using the
SPT based uphole method.
Fig. 16. Signal traces of each receiver at the Kim-je site: (a) receiver 1 at 6 m, (b) receiver 2 at 9 m, (c) receiver 3 at 12 m, and (d) receiver 4 at 15 m.
753
The VS profiles were evaluated based on the DTR and
the DTS methods using the travel time information in
Figs. 12 and 13. As shown in Fig. 14, the VS profiles
evaluated by the DTR method are not feasible compared to
the numerical model values while those of the DTS method
match well with the model’s values. When verification was
performed using the theoretical travel time information,
the results by both data reduction methods are all coincide
with the model values (see Fig. 11). However, the estimated
travel times based on the FEM model contain a number of
numerical and selection errors compared to the theoretical
travel times as shown in Figs. 12 and 13. It can be
postulated that the DTR method is more sensitive to
selection error of the travel time information than the DTS
method, as the DTR method uses two different ray paths
that contain the procedure for finding the refracted ray
path that can provide the error. Comparing Fig. 14(c) and
(d), it was found that using two-component geophones
and/or a more distant receiver provided better results, as
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
754 E.-S. Bang, D.-S. Kim / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 27 (2007) 741–758

the travel time information is estimated with an improved 6. Field studies

condition that is less affected by the P-wave component.
Therefore, the use of the DTS method that utilizes two
component (vertical and horizontal) signals in the SPT
based uphole test is recommended. In an actual soil site, a
horizontal variation in layers exists, and a data reduction
using a more distant receiver has the possibility to prevent
the supposition of the horizontal layers.
Travel time (ms)
0 40 80
0 tion by using the proposed interpretation methods. The
5 casing problem, which often occurs during use of the
Depth (m)
Field tests were performed at four sites in order to verify
the applicability of the proposed uphole method. A
schematic diagram of the field setup at the Kim-je site is
shown in Fig. 15. Four vertical receivers were placed at
distances of 6, 9, 12, and 15 m from the borehole. The
signal traces with the source depth recorded by each
receiver are shown in the Fig. 16. The dots denote the
estimated first peak point of the shear wave. It is clear that
the arrival of the shear wave and the time delay
information can be obtained easily using these first peak
points, and that is plotted in Fig. 17. The VS profiles were
120
determined at each receiver from this time delay informa-
results were compared with those determined by the
downhole method and from the SPT-N values at the same
location (see Fig. 18). Unfortunately, the downhole
method was performed to a depth of 5.5 m owing to a
borehole seismic method. In the case of the DTR method,
the VS profiles determined at each receiver differ, as is
discussed in the numerical study. In the case of the DTS

10
method, the VS profiles determined at each receiver were
generally in accordance, and the shape of the profile is
similar to the results obtained by the downhole method and
the SPT-N value. However, the VS profile obtained by the
Receiver 1_6m receiver 1 (6 m) did not coincide with the other results at
15 deep testing depths. As previously mentioned, the signals
Receiver 2_9m
obtained from the close receiver could be interfered easily
Receiver 3_12m with a quantity of noise due to the P-wave component
Receiver 4_15m (Fig. 16(a)). It is important to determine the adequate
location of the close receivers considering the final testing
20
depth, as the P-wave component complicates the selection
Fig. 17. Estimated first peak travel time at each receiver at the Kim-je site. of the exact first peak of S-wave if only the vertical

Shearwave velocity (m/s) Drill Log

Shearwave velocity (m/s)
&
0 200 400 600 800 SPT-N 0 200 400 600 800
0 0
11
DTS_6m Fill
DTR_6m&9m
12
DTS_9m
DTR_9m&12m
4 15 4
DTS_12m
DTR_12m&15m
DTS_15m 17
Downhole
Downhole 20
8 8
Depth (m)

50/ 30
Depth(m)

Weathered
Soil
32
50/26
12 12
50/28

50/30
16 50/26 16

50/15
20 20

Fig. 18. Results of the Kim-je site. The left side shows the results of both the DTS method and the downhole method; the right side shows the results of
both the DTR method and the downhole method. The drilling log and SPT-N values are shown in the middle.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
E.-S. Bang, D.-S. Kim / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 27 (2007) 741–758 755

Shear wave velocity (m/s) Drill Log Shear-wave Velocity (m/s) Drill Log
& &
0 200 400 600 800 SPT-N 0 200 400 600 800 SPT-N
0 0
16
Fill
DTS_9m 7 Alluvial
8
16
DTS_12m 5 34
3
DTS_15m 24 34
32
Do wnho le
30 10 50/14
50/28
6 35 50/28
Depth (m)

50/24
15

Depth (m)
Weathered 50/22
Soil
43 50/20
50/18
9 50/18 Weathered
20 Soil 50/8
50/12
50/7
50/10
50/12
50/6 25 50/10
12
50/9
50/5 SASW 50/13
50/10
Weathered 30
Rock SPT_ Uphol e
15 Weathered
(DTS_12m)
Rock
Fig. 19. Results of the Yi-chon site. The left side shows the results of both 35
the DTS method and the downhole method, and the right side shows the
drilling log and SPT-N values.
Fig. 20. Results of the Gwang-ju site. The left side shows the results of the
DTS, SASW and SPS logging methods and the right side shows the
drilling log and SPT-N values.
component is used. To avoid this problem, the use of multi-
receivers is recommended. Inferred from the evaluated VS
profiles of all receivers, it was thought that the horizontal
variation was not severe at this site and that the
Rice Field
representative VS profile could be determined by averaging
BH-1 8.0m
the results from DTS_9 m, DTS_12 m and DTS_15 m.
A similar SPT-uphole test was performed at the Yi-chon Road 4.0m
site. The result was affected by noise due to the P-wave Receiver 1
4.0m
component at the close receiver of 6 m and the results using SASW survey line Receiver 2
the DTR method were excluded in the analysis. Fig. 19
SPT-uphole line Receiver 3
shows the VS profiles determined by the proposed method
as compared with the downhole and SPT results. The VS Vertical component geophone
profiles obtained by the proposed uphole tests are shown to Radial horizontal component geophone
1m
match fairly well with the other test results, showing the Transverse horizontal component geophone
potential of this method for use in site characterizations. Boring point
The VS profiles at the Gwang-ju site determined by the
SPT-uphole method were compared with the results of Fig. 21. Schematic diagram of the field setup at the Chang-won site. All
three 3D component geophones were placed at distances of 8, 12, and 16 m
the SASW and the SPT in Fig. 20. The VS profile of the and the SASW method was performed along the same survey line as the
SPT-uphole method matches fairly well with the SASW SPT-uphole method.
result. The SASW method was performed on an unpaved
road away from the boring point to ensure that the survey
line was longer for the deeper exploration. The longest The SPT-uphole method using three component surface
survey line for the SASW method was approximately 100 m geophones was performed at the Chang-won site. Fig. 21
at this site. Additionally, a heavy Caterpillar tractor, an shows the schematic diagram of the field setup at the
expensive item to employ, was used as the source of the Chang-won site. All three-component (3D) geophones were
SASW method in order to acquire long wavelength data. used, and these were placed at distances of 8, 12, and 16 m
The survey line for the SPT-uphole method was 12 m, and from the borehole. The typical time domain signals at three
this was performed by boring simultaneously and only directions (radial, transverse and vertical) and the particle
placing the several receivers on the surface without incurring orbits obtained from the 3D geophone at a source depth of
any additional cost for the source and testing holes. 12 m are shown in Fig. 22. It is interesting to note that the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
756 E.-S. Bang, D.-S. Kim / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 27 (2007) 741–758

Radial P S
major direction of shear wave
Horizontal

Vertical
Transverse P S
Horizontal

P S
Vertical first peak of shear wave

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Radial Horizontal

Time (Sec)

Transverse Horizontal
Vertical

Transverse Horizontal Radial Horizontal

Fig. 22. Typical time domain signals in three directions and particle motions in two-dimensional space domains at the Chang-won site.

Fig. 23. Signal traces with testing depth at each receiver recorded by the SPT-uphole method at the Chang-won site: (a) receiver 1 at 8 m, (b) receiver 2 at
12 m, and (c) receiver 3 at 16 m. The dot is the estimated first peak point of shear wave component.

P-wave with higher frequency components arrived earlier the SPT sampler were dominant in the radial and vertical
and was separated by the shear wave, as discussed in the geophones as expected. Judging from the particle motions
numerical study. The shear wave components generated by measured by the 3D geophones, the arrival of the S-wave
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
E.-S. Bang, D.-S. Kim / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 27 (2007) 741–758
Drill Log
Shear-wave Velocity (m/s) & However, the applicability of using two-component geo-
0 500 1000 1500 SPT-N
0 phone can be confirmed through the field study overall.
Alluvial
SASW method
Vertical 8m 50/27
2 7. Conclusions
Vertical 12m 16
Vertical 16m
4 A SPT based uphole test, which was simple and
29
Two component 8m
Two component 12m
6 41
Two component 16m
Depth (m)
50/27
8 Weathered
Soil
50/25
10 50/27
50/11
12
50/12
14
50/8
Weathered
Rock
16
Fig. 24. Results of the Chang-won site. The left side shows the results of
DTS method using vertical and two-component geophones and the results
of the SASW method. The right side shows the drilling log and SPT-N
values.
could be determined using the two component of the
vertical and radial horizontal motions, as indicated by the
arrow in the figure, where the substantial energy is arriving
at the radial and vertical receivers as shown in the right
upper part of Fig. 22. Compared to the particle motions in
the numerical study, the major direction of the shear wave
is not clearly shown in the field condition. Therefore,
converting to the major direction of the S-wave component
is not easy as it was in the cases of the numerical study
(Fig. 7). The proposed method, which sums both of the
components, is employed in this field study to estimate the
first peak of the S-wave component.
The signal traces with a testing depth at each receiver are
shown in Fig. 23. The vertical component is on the left side,
the horizontal component is in the middle and the
summation of the two components is on the right side of
the figure. The dot indicates the estimated first peak point
of the shear wave. As shown for the vertical motion, the
S-wave component is relatively weaker than the P-wave
component as the testing depth increases. For the
horizontal motion, the P-wave component was not strong
compared to the vertical motion. The VS profiles deter-
mined by the SPT-uphole method using two component
surface geophones were compared with the VS profiles
determined by the SASW method and the SPT-N values
(Fig. 24). The SASW method was performed at the same
survey line with the SPT-uphole method. The VS profiles
determined by the SPT-uphole method matched well each
other and have nearly the same trend as the SASW method
and the SPT-N value. As the final testing depth was
shallow up to 15 m, the advantage of using the two-
757
component geophone was not shown effectively at this site.
economical for determining VS profiles, is proposed. A
testing procedure and interpretation method for obtaining
the VS profile were introduced. To obtain the travel time
information, a procedure using the sum of the vertical and
horizontal components based on the particle motion at the
ground surface was suggested. The overall procedure of the
proposed method was verified through a numerical study.
The reliability and applicability of the proposed method
was also verified by performing field studies and by
comparing the results with those obtained by downhole
and SASW methods as well as the SPT-N values.
Acknowledgment
This study was supported by a fund of the Construction
Research and Development Program (04 construction
kernel B01-04) contributed by the Ministry of Construction
and Transportation (MOCT) and Smart InfraStructure
Technology Research Center (SISTeC). It is gratefully
acknowledged.
References
[1] UBC, Uniform Building Code (International Building Code),
International Code Council. International conference of building
official; 1997.
[2] Taniguchi E, Sawada K. Attenuation with distance of traffic-induced
vibrations. Soil Found 1979;19(2):16–28.
[3] Woods RD, Jedele LP. Energy attenuation relationships from
construction vibrations. Vibration problems in geotechnical engineer-
ing. ASCE convention in Detroit, Michigan; 1985. p. 229–46.
[4] Burland JB, Longworth TI, Moore JFA. Study of ground and
progressive failure caused by a deep excavation in Oxford clay.
Géotechnique 1977;27(4):557–91.
[5] Kim DS, Park HC. Evaluation of ground densification using SASW
method and resonant column tests. Can Geotech J 1999;36:291–9.
[6] Hunter JA, Benjumea B, Harris JB, Miller RD, Pullan SE, Burns RA,
et al. Surface and downhole shear wave seismic methods for thick soil
site investigations. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 2002;22:931–41.
[7] Stokoe KH, Joh SH, Woods RD. Some contributions of in situ
geophysical measurements to solving geotechnical engineering
problems. International site characterization ISC’2 Porto, Portugal;
2004. p. 19–42.
[8] Park HC, Kim DS. Development of seismic site characterization
method using harmonic wavelet analysis of wave (HWAW) method.
International site characterization, ISC-2 Porto, Portugal; 2004.
p. 767–74.
[9] Kim DS, Bang ES, Kim WC. Evaluation of various downhole data
reduction methods to obtain reliable VS profile. Geotechn Testing J
2004;27(6):585–97.
[10] Bang ES. Evaluation of shear wave velocity profiles using downhole
and uphole tests. Dissertation of Master of Science in Engineering,
KAIST, Daejon, Korea; 2001.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
758 E.-S. Bang, D.-S. Kim / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 27 (2007) 741–758

[11] Kim DS, Bang ES, Seo WS. Evaluation of shear wave velocity profile [13] Campanella RG, Stewart WP. Seismic cone analysis using digital
using SPT-Uphole method. International site characterization, ISC-2 signal processing for dynamic site characterization. Can Geotech J
Porto, Portugal; 2004. p. 339–44. 1992;29:477–86.
[12] Zerwer A, Cascante G, Hutchinson J. Parameter estimation in finite
element simulations of Rayleigh waves. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
2002;128:250–61.