A Comparative Study on Borehole Seismic Test Methods for Site Classification

InterPACIFIC project: Comparison of invasive and non-invasive methods for seismic site characterization. Part II: Inter-comparison between surface-wave and borehole methods

“…The authors conducted a comparative study of invasive methods in two different environments: a natural soil deposit and a shallow embankment. With the exception of the Cadarach site, the Vs,30 results between invasive methods from this project are generally in better agreement than those presented by Jung et al (2012).…”

“…At Cadarache, the SL V S,30 is quite similar to the XH, but both SL and XH Vs,30 values are higher than the DH result. In Figure 12 the results of Jung et al [1] are also reported. The authors conducted a comparative study of invasive methods in two different environments: a natural soil deposit and a shallow embankment.…”

“…Among invasive methods, the Cross-Hole test is widely considered the most reliable as the measurements are performed locally at any specific depth along short travel paths. However, a comparative study by Jung et al [1] showed that Cross-Hole results are very close to those of other invasive methods. Because they are based on local measurements at multiple depths, invasive methods exhibit minimal decreases in resolution with increasing depth (within limits of investigation depth associated to the equipment).…”

“…Comparisons are reported also in terms of time-averaged S-wave velocity (V S,Z ), which is computed as: (1) where N is the total number of layers to a depth of z m. V S,30 (where z = 30 m in Eq. 1) is the parameter used for seismic soil classification for simplified assessments of seismic site response in most modern seismic codes and in several Ground Motion Prediction Equations (GMPEs).…”

Análisis dimensional de la relación entre el ensayo de penetración estándar (SPT) y las velocidades de propagación sísmica primaria y secundaria

“…Sin embargo, estas técnicas suelen tener mayores costes y ciertos problemas de operatividad en comparación a las técnicas superficiales (como describiremos en el apartado 3.4.1). Así, se pueden destacar entre las alternativas más conocidas las siguientes (Ishihara, 1996;Jung et al, 2012;Lau, 2000;Sirles y Viksne, 1990;Viksne, 1976):…”