See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245411373

Source near-field effects and pulse tests in soil

samples
Article in Gotechnique January 2003
Impact Factor: 1.87 DOI: 10.1680/geot.2003.53.3.337

CITATIONS

READS

52

46

3 authors:
Marcos Arroyo

David Muir Wood

Polytechnic University of Catalonia

University of Bristol

85 PUBLICATIONS 347 CITATIONS

148 PUBLICATIONS 2,744 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

SEE PROFILE

P. D. Greening
University College London
30 PUBLICATIONS 301 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,

letting you access and read them immediately.

Available from: Marcos Arroyo

Retrieved on: 23 June 2016

Arroyo, M., Muir Wood, D. & Greening, P. D. (2003). Geotechnique 53, No. 3, 337345

Source near-field effects and pulse tests in soil samples

M . A R ROYO
, D. M U I R WO O D { a n d P. D. G R E E N I N G {
La mesure des modules de cisaillement utilisant des
elements flechissants dans des echantillons de laboratoire
est devenue tre`s populaire. Cependant, les resultats des
essais sont difficiles a` interpreter. Les mode`les simples
donde plane ne sont pas assez raffines et peuvent donner
lieu a` une incertitude substantielle quant aux mesures:
pre`s de 100% en G 0 . Une redefinition possible du mode`le
dessai est basee sur la solution fondamentale de Stokes
pour une source isolee. Des effets de champ rapproche
apparaissent et ceux-ci ont ete regulie`rement cites comme
une grande source dincertitude dans les essais. Il existe
certains crite`res utilises pour eviter les distorsions de
champ rapproche mais ils dependent du signal et ne sont
pas toujours efficaces. Apre`s avoir considere la solution
fondamentale de Stokes, les auteurs proposent un nouveau crite`re de domaine de frequence independant du
signal pour eviter les effets de champ rapproche. Nous
donnons egalement des crite`res de domaine de temps
mais ceux-ci se reve`lent dependant du signal. Appliquant
ce crite`re a` certains resultats experimentaux, les auteurs
montrent alors egalement pourquoi les erreurs dues au
champ rapproche ne sont pas responsables de la plus
grande partie de la distorsion de signal observee. Lincertitude dans larrivee du signal dure bien au-dela` de la fin
du champ rapproche de la source de Stokes.

Shear modulus measurement using bender elements in

laboratory samples has become very popular. However,
the test results are hard to interpret. Simple plane wave
test models are too coarse and result in substantial measurement uncertainty: near 100% in G0 . A possible refinement of the test model is based on Stokess fundamental
solution for an isolated source. Near-field effects appear,
and they have been regularly quoted as a major source
of uncertainty in tests. There are some criteria in use for
avoidance of near-field distortions, but they are signal
dependent and not always successful. After some consideration of Stokess fundamental solution the authors
propose a new frequency domain signal-independent criterion to avoid near-field effects. Time-domain criteria
are also given, but they are shown to be signal dependent.
Applying this criterion to some experimental results the
authors then also show how near-field induced errors are
not responsible for much of the observed signal distortion. Uncertainty in signal arrival lasts well beyond the
end of the Stokes source near field.

KEYWORDS: dynamics; elasticity; laboratory tests; numerical

modelling and analysis; stiffness

G rv 2S

INTRODUCTION
The small-strain stiffness of soils is usually modelled as
elastic. During the last decade extensive research programmes have been carried out to measure elastic properties
(Shibuya et al., 1994; Jamiolkowski et al., 1999). Laboratory
techniques now available to measure the small-strain stiffness of soils are quite diverse (Lo Presti et al., 1999).
Laboratory pulse testing, a particular type of dynamic procedure, has nevertheless become a popular choice. Although
other configurations are possible, the recent surge in popularity of these tests is built on the incorporation of bender
elements. These are piezoelectric cantilever beam-shaped
transducers, generally installed in standard static testing
devices; used to generate and detect shear motion. Atkinson
(2000) recently signalled how both the usefulness and the
perceived simplicity of this technique are quickly driving it
into the realm of routine laboratory practice.
The popularity of bender elements does not mean, however, that there are no problems left regarding either the
performance or the interpretation of laboratory pulse tests in
general and bender-based tests in particular. As pointed out
by Jovicic (1997), the dominant interpretative model is that
of a shear bulk plane wave travelling between source and
receiver. Hence the measured velocity is simply related to
the shear modulus G and the soil density r by

(1)

Two measurements are needed to obtain a velocity value: the

distance between source and receiver, and the travel time.
The second is by far the more problematic, as the output
signals are always very different from the input signals.
Recently Arroyo et al. (2001) have shown how different
estimates of travel time that should be equal under the plane
wave assumption may differ by up to 50% of their average
value. This is equivalent to a 100% uncertainty in modulus
determination.
These difficulties in test interpretation have been noticed
before, and various strategies for minimising the error have
been put forward. For example, Brignoli et al. (1996)
advocated simultaneous measurements with P-wave transducers. Viggiani & Atkinson (1995) introduced frequencydomain-based methods of examining the test results. Jovicic
et al. (1996) suggested that time domain procedures may be
adequate with a properly specified input signal. A common
feature of these works was the identification of source nearfield effects as the main cause of test uncertainty. Further
work by Arulnathan et al. (1998) and Blewett et al. (1999)
introduced new considerations, but near-field effects are still
held as central to the problem (e.g. Kawaguchi et al., 2001).
The consideration of near-field effects in geotechnical
testing practice was introduced by Sanchez-Salinero et al.
(1986) working at the University of Texas, Austin. With a
multiple aligned receiver, field cross-hole set-up in mind,
they performed a systematic sensitivity analysis of the
propagation of a single sinusoidal pulse in an isotropic
elastic medium. They did numerically produce striking evidence of how near-field effects could affect the recorded
shear movement. One of the main results established the

Manuscript received 21 May 2002, revised manuscript accepted 9

September 2002.
Discussion on this paper closes 1 October 2003, for further details
see p. ii.

Engineer, Iberinsa, Madrid; formerly University of Bristol, UK.
{ Department of Civil Engineering, University of Bristol, UK.
{ Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University
College London; formerly University of Bristol, UK.

337

338

ARROYO, MUIR WOOD AND GREENING

importance of proper receiver placement. The following

limits were proposed:
d
nap , 4
ap
ap v s Tap

2,

(2)

where Tap is the apparent period of the single sinusoidal

pulse employed, d is the distance between measurement
points, ap is the wavelength, and nap is the normalised
distance. The upper limit was introduced to make allowance
for signal attenuation via damping, the lower limit for nearfield effects.
It is important to note that Sanchez-Salinero et al. were
working with a multi-receiver set-up in mind. The signals
they were comparing, correlating, etc. were theoretical records from two receivers, placed at different distances. This
has not discouraged other researchers from applying their
results in source-to-receiver experiments, and in fact they
have been extensively used, almost to the point of becoming
standard (e.g. Viggiani, 1992; Brignoli et al., 1996; Jovicic,
1997; Kuwano, 1999; Lo Presti et al., 1999; Pennington,
1999).
An apparently good corroboration was obtained by
Brignoli et al. (1996). They performed source-to-receiver
experiments with simultaneous measurement of compressive
and shear motion. The results showed the simultaneous
appearance of movement in both traces, and the way in
which an increased nap resulted in a clearer arrival in the
shear trace, in accordance with the results of SanchezSalinero et al. Despite this, recommendations of SanchezSalinero et al. have not been a recipe for unalloyed success.
Gajo et al. (1997), Kuwano (1999) and Pennington (1999),
among others, have reported difficulties in obtaining clear
arrivals even when abiding by these rules. Moreover, the
numerical results shown by Sanchez-Salinero et al. used
only one input waveform shape, a sinusoidal single cycle. It
is not clear how far their recommendations extend to different waveshapes, such as those recommended by Jovicic
(1997), or to the customary square signal.
Near-field effects appear as the consequence of a slightly
more elaborate test model than plane wave propagation
between source and receiver. It is our contention here that,
despite its recurrent appearance in the literature, the abilities
of this model to reduce the uncertainty associated with
bender-based sample pulse testing are rather limited. To
show this we shall first describe the model origin and major
characteristics. We shall then elaborate on them to obtain
some easily testable predictions that will be compared with
experimental results from bender-based pulse tests. Finally,
we shall discuss the possible reasons for these limitations.
As a separate result, Sanchez-Salineros limits are extended
to differently shaped signals.
STOKESS FUNDAMENTAL SOLUTION
In the geophysical literature that inspired the work of
Sanchez-Salinero et al., the term near field is a shorthand
for the peculiarities of the movement field near its source.
Its starting point is the inhomogeneous isotropic elastodynamic equilibrium equation
r
u b ( )=(=  u) =2 u

force isolated in an infinite elastic medium in 1849 (Aki &

Richards, 1980). Stokess proof of the fundamental solution
is reproduced and explained in many books (e.g.
Dominguez, 1993), and there is no need to reproduce it
again here. It is nevertheless interesting to appreciate one
aspect of it. The elastic space is assumed infinite and the
load isolated: hence the problem is naturally posed in terms
of spherical coordinates centred at the load.
Stokess fundamental solution is indeed fundamental. Analytically it has been used to obtain solutions to more
complicated source problems, implying moment or distributed sources (Achenbach, 1973; Aki & Richards, 1980).
Numerically it lies at the heart of the boundary element
method for elastodynamics (Dominguez, 1993). A rather less
ambitious use of the fundamental solution, albeit still an
interesting one, is as a transfer function for arbitrarily
oriented dynamic load histories within an infinite elastic
body. This transfer function links the output displacement
vector u(t) to the input source force vector b(t). Note that
we shall be referring to it as a transfer function throughout
even if, strictly speaking, when used in the time domain it
is a unit response function. This technique was used by
Sanchez-Salinero and co-workers and is also exploited here.
As the transfer function relates two vectors, matrix notation is convenient. The relation linking an isolated force and
the generated displacement field is expressed as
u GR
b

(4)

where the
symbol indicates convolution in time and GR is

known as the Green tensor. It is a matrix, GRij , in which
each element is the displacement along the axis i corresponding to a unit impulsive force acting along the axis j.
We shall first inspect its general structure before going into
more detail. Considering its structure, then, GR can be
written
GR N (r, t)[3A  1] FP (r, t)A  FS (r, t)[A  1]
A =r  =r ~
r ~
r

(5)

k~
rk 1
The vector ~
r indicates position relative to the source, and, as
it is formed by its direction cosines, it makes A dependent
only on the angular coordinates. Fig. 1 presents a schematic,
identifying this vector, as well as b and u. The coefficients,
depending only on time and distance from the source, are
the far-field term Fp travelling at velocity vp,
the far-field term Fs travelling at velocity vs, and the nearfield term N travelling at some intermediate velocity. Velocities vp and vs are those of plane bulk waves, compressive
and shear. These observations will be justified later; it is first
desirable to make some deductions from the structure of the
u

b(t)
r

(3)

where u is the displacement field, b is the forcing, and 

are the Lame coefficients, and  G, the shear stiffness.
The possibilities offered by superposition make the solution
for the case of a single isolated impulsive force extremely
important. Stokes obtained the so-called fundamental solution describing the movements generated by a unit impulsive

Fig. 1. Fundamental solution: vector nomenclature

SOURCE NEAR-FIELD EFFECTS AND PULSE TESTS IN SOIL SAMPLES

fundamental solution. The first thing to note is that the
character of the movementthat which is propagated
depends only on the angular coordinates, that is on the
propagation direction. Additionally, propagation takes place
in the same form in all directions, as the propagation
characteristics depend only on the radius.
It is important to establish when and where movement is
parallel to and when and where it is perpendicular to the
propagation direction. The first type of movement is that
associated with a compressive plane wave travelling at vp ;
the second is associated with a shear plane wave travelling
at vs . Some algebraic manipulation of the fundamental
solution offers a clear demonstration. The general expressions of movement parallel (up ) and perpendicular (us ) to
the propagation direction are given by
r)~
r (~
r  b)
[2N Fp ]~
r
up (u ~
r (~
r ^ b)
[Fs  N ]
us u ^~

(6)

Therefore when the propagation direction is chosen parallel

to the source, there is no s-like movement, as (r ^ b) 0,
and when the propagation direction is contained in a plane
perpendicular to the source there is no p-like movement, as
(r  b) 0.
The most common arrangement for bender-based pulse
tests has source and receiver probes symmetrically opposite
one another. In this configuration one may identify the
source bender as a point source of motion orthogonal to the
transducer and the receiver as picking up the movement
propagating on a plane perpendicular to that source (Fig. 2).
No p-like movement should then be detected, but s-like
movement does not mean propagation ruled only by vS.
Indeed, equation (6) shows that it is only when far-field
coefficients, Fi , are much larger than the near-field onethat
is, only when N =Fi ! 0, will p-like movement be associated with vp , and s-like movement with vs .
The last point above can also be understood as stating the
conditions under which plane wave propagation will be a
good model for the movement velocity. As this condition

vs(vh)b

depends on the coefficients of equation (5) we shall now

take a closer look at them. The expression of these coefficients in the time domain, using H for the Heaviside step
function and  for the Dirac delta function, is given by
(Dominguez, 1993)
"



#

kt
r
r
N 2 H t
 H t
r
p
s






k
r
k
r
Fs 2  t 
(7)
Fp 2  t 
p
p
s
s
k

1
4rr

r krk

It can be appreciated that, as stated above, Fp and Fs

correspond to an instantaneous disturbance passing through r
at times given by r=vp and r=vs respectively, whereas N
corresponds to a disturbance acting at r between those two
times. Also, the presence of r 2 in N indicates that the
attenuation of this factor with distance is two orders of
magnitude higher than that of Fp and Fs, which attenuate
with r.
It seems that we have already found a good justification
for the terminology far field and near field. Far will mean
simply distances from the source where 1=r 2 is small
enough. However, our reasoning has conveniently forgotten
that squared velocities divide the far-field factors, and also
that a time factor multiplies the whole near-field coefficient,
suggesting that for large times this coefficient will increase.
To understand how the two phenomena interact with one
another we turn now to the frequency domain expression of
the fundamental solution.
In the frequency domain, the structure of the Green tensor
given by equation (6) does not change; only the timedependent coefficients have a new, frequency-dependent, expression. This expression might be obtained applying a Fourier transform to equation (7). After some rearrangement we
can write an expression equivalent toalbeit more compact
thanthe one given by Aki & Richards (1980):
N NS  Np
p
k 1 n2s i[ ns arctan( ns )]
NS 2
e
s
n2s
q
2
k 1 np i[ np arctan( np )]
NP 2
e
p
n2p

vs(vh)

Fp
k
vs(hh)
vs(hv)

hbelt

Fig. 2. Idealisation of bender-element-based pulse tests (after

Pennington, 1999)

k i np
e
2p

Fp

(8)

k i n s
e
v2s

1
4rr

where we have emphasised the symmetry between the terms

where each respective bulk velocity vs or vp intervenes,
expressing the near-field coefficient as a difference of two
components, NS and NP, one of each kind. All the coefficients are expressed using two dimensionless ratios, whose
definitions are given by

r
np r 2 2np
p
p
ns

h90

339

r
r 2 2ns
s
s

(9)

As we see these ratios are proportional with scaling factor

2 to the normalised distances that measure the distance
between source and evaluation point against the corresponding characteristic wavelengths. Looking at equation (8) it is

ARROYO, MUIR WOOD AND GREENING

340

clear that the difference between corresponding near- and

far-field terms Np and Fp, say is dependent exclusively
on the corresponding dimensionless ratio. The exponential
form chosen makes it very simple to compare modulus and
phase separately for paired terms.
Looking first at the modulus, it can be appreciated that
the quotient of corresponding near- and far-field terms has
the general form
p
1 n2i
Ni

(10)
Fi
n2i
In Fig. 3 this quotient is plotted against the normalised
distance. The ratio is only higher than 025 within the first
wavelength of the source. At distances bigger than two
wavelengths the near-field modulus is less than 10% of the
corresponding far-field term. This gives a more precise meaning to the terminology: the term far field refers to large
distances measured against the corresponding wavelength.
Turning to the phase, it can readily be appreciated that
near-field terms have a more complicated form than the
corresponding far-field terms. Fig. 4 represents their phase
as a function of normalised distance. The difference between
them is also represented; it quickly stabilises as
arctan(nS ) ! =2.
Velocity information is contained in the phase. As the
only spatial coordinate is r, we can obtain the wave number
as the phase derivative with respect to r (Graff, 1975). The
phase velocity for corresponding near- and far-field terms is
then given by
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
Ni /Fi

1.2
1

0.6
0.4
0.2
0.5

1.5
ns /2

2.5

Fig. 3. Moduli ratio of corresponding near- and far-field terms

plotted against normalised distance
18
16
14

Phase

12
10
8
Fs
Fs-Ns
Ns

6
4
2
0

Ni
V PH

0.5

1.5
ns/2

2.5

Fig. 4. Phase and phase difference of corresponding near- and

far-field terms plotted against normalised distance

"

i
i 1
r

2 #


1
i 1 2
ni

(11)

As expected, the phase velocity of the far-field term is

constant and equals the corresponding bulk velocity. In
contrast, the phase velocity of the near-field term is not
constant but frequency and distance dependent. This means
that near-field terms are dispersive and, for a given distance
between source and receiver, every frequency will propagate
with a different velocity. But as the normalised distance
increases dispersion fades and the phase velocity of
near-field terms quickly approaches the corresponding bulk
velocity.
NEAR-FIELD LIMIT AND SHEAR-LIKE MOVEMENT
Although the term-by-term comparison just made is illustrative, it does not address our concern directly. This is
mostly related to bender-based shear tests, where there is a
certain possibility of the near-field term travelling at vp
causing premature detection. Considering now the complete
expression for us equation (6) it can be seen that the
relevant transfer function is given by the difference between
the far-field term, Fs , and the whole near-field term. Using
equation (8) this can be written explicitly as:
S Fs  Ns Np
8
q
< i n
1 n2s
e s
S(, r) k : 2 
ei[ n s arctan( n s )]
s
2s n2s
9
q
=
1 n2p
i[ n p arctan( n p )]
e

;
2p n2p
k

0.8

Fi
i
V PH

(12)

1
4rr

This expression is equivalent to one used by SanchezSalinero et al. (1986) and quoted later by Jovicic et al.
(1997). We shall refer to it as the S transfer function. There
are two different dimensionless ratios in it, np and ns, as
well as two bulk velocities, vp and vs . Some insight is
gained if the p-related quantities are expressed in terms of
the s-related quantities, using the Poisson-ratio-dependent
speed ratio vr :
(
p
1 n2s i[ ns arctan( ns )]
ei ns

e
S(, r) k
2
s
v2s n2s
)
p
1 2r n2s i[vr n s arctan(vr ns )]

e
2s n2s
r
s
1  2

r
(13)
2  2
p
To interpret this expression, apart from the already examined
quotient between NS and FS, it is interesting to consider also
the ratio of NP and FS . Fig. 5 shows a slight dependence of
this quotient on the Poisson ratio, but also a steady and
quick reduction as ns increases. It is already clear that the
relative magnitude of the whole near-field and the far-field
terms would be very small at some wavelengths from the
source. To be more precise, both near-field terms should be
combined, taking account of their respective phases. This
has been done, and the corresponding result is plotted in
Fig. 6. It shows a somewhat oscillatory pattern, remaining
however below 10% after three normalised distances.

SOURCE NEAR-FIELD EFFECTS AND PULSE TESTS IN SOIL SAMPLES

on their relative phases. The =2 angle assumed in the

figure gives the highest delay
for given moduli and therefore bounds the phase correction d and, consequently, the
corresponding phase velocity, . Then
r
r

s
FS
FS  d

2
1.8
1.6

NFp/FFs

1.4
1.2
1

d <

0.8
0
0.2
0.4

0.6
0.4

jN j
jFS j

(14)


FS
<

s FS  d

0.2
0

341

0.5

1.5
ns/2

2.5

Fig. 5. Moduli ratio NFp =FFs for Poissons ratio 0, 02, 04

However, our main interest lies elsewhere, as the time

delay between input and output and, consequently, the wave
velocity are not controlled directly by the modulus but by
the phase of the transfer function. It is possible to obtain an
exact expression for the phase of S, but it is cumbersome
and needs unwrapping. Numerical evaluation is possible, and
this was the road followed by Sanchez-Salinero et al.
(1986). However, it is now relatively simple and perhaps
more interesting to obtain directly an upper bound for phase
and group velocity.
Figure 7 represents the effect of the near-field term on the
phase of the S transfer function as a correction to that given
by the FS term. This term has a phase directly related to the
bulk shear velocity by equation (11). The actual near field
would generally form a variable angle with FS , depending
1

0.8

FS 

jN j
jFS j

Figure 8 represents this last ratio as a function of normalised

distance. As the slope is always negative this also represents
an upper bound for the S group velocity (Graff, 1975). It
appears that if phase or group velocity is measured at more
than about 16 normalised distances from the source the
possible excess induced by Stokess near field over the shear
bulk velocity, S , will stay below 5%.
In general, given a constant wave speed, there are two
possible methods of achieving far-field conditions: by separating source and receiver, thus increasing r, and by specifying a high frequency. However, in laboratory conditions this
is not the case. Sample dimensions limit the distance between source and receiver and are often machine dependent,
with little scope for change once the apparatus has been
built. Therefore the adjustment has to be made via frequency, and the near-field influence limit just suggested will
translate into
s
s
.
(15)

1  6d
This minimum frequency has been plotted in Fig. 9 for a
range of shear stiffness typical of sands (Jovicic & Coop,
1999) and for several distances typical of usual laboratory
configurations. Testing with bender elements commonly proceeds between 2 and 20 kHz; it can be appreciated how, for
the smaller distances, corresponding for instance to hollow
cylinder walls or small triaxial diameters, tests might proceed well within the near field. On the other hand, larger
distances, corresponding for instance to the height of samf lim

N/FFs

0.6

FS

0.4

1.5

0
0.2
0.4

0.2

1.4
1.3

0
1

1.2

0
0.2
0.4

v/vs

ns/2

Fig. 6. Moduli ratio N=FFs for Poissons ratio 0, 02, 04

1.1
1

N
0.9

FFs

0.8
d

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1
1.2
ns/2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Fig. 8. Upper limit of S phase velocity against normalised

distance: Poissons ratio 0, 02, 04
FF-d

Fig. 7. Phase delay due to the near field in S-like movement

With our Fourier transform conventions a phase delay signifies a

time advance.

ARROYO, MUIR WOOD AND GREENING

342

30

f: kHz

25

Normalised shifted amplitude

r 3 cm
r 5 cm
r 9 cm
r 18 cm

20
15
10
5
0

50

100

150
200
G0: MPa

250

300

350

Fig. 9. Near-field frequency limit against sand stiffness for

varying source-to-receiver distances

ples in triaxial cells, will provide some possibility of testing

even relatively stiff materials.
AVOIDANCE OF NEAR-FIELD EFFECTS IN PRACTICE
The question now is how to apply the frequency limit just
established when interpreting pulse tests in soils. Two
answers are possible, depending on whether this interpretation proceeds in the frequency domain or the time domain.
In the former case the answer is simple and direct, as a
frequency limit is directly enforceable. For instance, if we
measure velocity fitting a line to the cross-spectrum phase
(e.g. Viggiani & Atkinson, 1995), it is only necessary to
take care and begin the fitting range beyond an appropriate
f lim , selected with the help of diagrams such as Fig. 9. This
idea is also valid if more detailed use of the spectral
information is needed: an example is given by its application
to dispersion curve inversion in the similar technique of
SASW (Foti, 2000).
In the time domain the answer is less clear cut. This is
natural, as time domain procedures do not deal directly with
the transfer function but with the recorded output: that is, a
convolution of the transfer function and input signal. It is
then to be expected that the character of the input signal
will also play an important role. There are a number of
features, nevertheless, that are valid for any input signal:
(a) The near-field term attenuates faster than the far-field
term.
(b) First arrival of the near-field term happens at r=p , and
that of the far-field term at r=s .
(c) In the time domain the far-field term translates the
input without distortion, whereas the near-field term
produces a transposed and distorted replica of the input.
All these aspects are illustrated in Fig. 10, where the effect
of both terms has been computed (using an FFT with 2048
samples at 2 s) separately for a distorted sine (after Jovicic,
1997) input, propagated to nap , of 2. The amplitudes have
been scaled by different factors, and it is clear that in this
particular case the near-field term has a very slight effect on
the total output. To be more precise, the initial bump due to
the near-field term represents just below 5% of the output
peak.
Stokess near field would not cause problems to an arrival
selection criterion that ignores trace deviations below some
value. Hence, in this particular case, ignoring peaks below
10% of the maximum will be successful, identifying the first
arrival of the signal as that corresponding to the bulk shear
velocity (note that, in the figure, time is scaled so as to
make the theoretical arrival time equal to 1). This criterion

7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1

0.5

1.5

2
3

2.5

3.5

Normalised time
Input

Output

Near field (6)

Far field

Fig. 10. Stokes propagation of a distorted sine pulse at nap

may be applied by a trained eye or, if higher standardisation

is required, by a dedicated acquisition program.
But this very same procedure will fail with other input
shapes. Fig. 11 compares four signals propagated under the
same conditions. The figure is represented for an apparent
normalised distance, nap , of 25. It can be seen that the nearfield term again causes initial bumps in all of the transmitted
signals. But, while it attains a height of nearly 5% in the
Jovicic shape, it is 10% in the single sinusoidal and the sine
burst and almost 30% in the square signal. At least, in the
latter case, the 10% specification will have picked an arrival
time corresponding to the compressive bulk velocity. Evidently, such a minor program setting might be modified to
cater for the signal in use. But the key point here is that no
single criterion is valid for all kinds of input. Fig. 12
represents the way the near-field-induced bump height falls
as the normalised distance increases for various signal
shapes.
This figure suggests that the choice of input signal might
be important if time domain procedures are used to select
the arrival time. It is apparent that the square-shaped signal
is the least favourable shape and the distorted sine the most
favourable, as experimentally observed by Jovicic et al.
(1996). However, this result is strongly dependent on the
amount of distortion introduced. This signal is given by
I Afsin[(2tf ap d i =2)]  sin(d i =2)g

(16)

The results correspond to a distortion factor, d i , of 1=3. It is

also interesting to note that sine and sine-burst signals
behave very similarly in this respect, although the burst has
a much narrower spectrum than the single sine.
These results extend what Sanchez-Salinero et al. found
for the single sine shape. We can see now that their limit of
8
7
Normalised amplitude

35

6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1

0.5

1.5
t/vs d

2.5

Fig. 11. Input shape and near-field effect in time domain.

nap 2:5

SOURCE NEAR-FIELD EFFECTS AND PULSE TESTS IN SOIL SAMPLES

35

1.5
Normalised amplitude

30
25
20
15
10
5
0

Single sine

4
6
8
Apparent normalised distance, nap
Square

Distorted sine

10

12

Sine burst 4

Fig. 12. Effect of input signal type on the percentage height of

the near field

nap 2 for the single sine corresponds roughly to a policy

of ignoring bumps of 10% maximum height. It is important
to note that the normalising factor here is taken to be the
apparent frequency of the input signal, f ap (i.e. the inverse
of its apparent period), a convenient shorthand to characterise signals that may have quite wide spectra.
Sanchez-Salinero et al. also introduced the effect of
hysteretic damping in their simulations, and, for reasonable
values, observed that their time domain criterion still held.
Although it will be simple now to do the same for other
shapes, we shall not follow that route here. From our viewpoint it would seem more sensible in future work to employ
the unequivocal frequency domain criterion established
above. Besides, our main interest lies elsewhere, in the
model predictive value, and we have already developed the
appropriate tools to check how well Stokess model fits
experimental data.
APPLICATION TO A BENCH TEST SERIES
So far we have obtained clear rules to avoid and=or
estimate Stokess near-field influence in pulse tests. However,
the question remains about the possible relevance of this
problem in actual soil test configurations. Recall that, for
sine pulses, we have recovered very similar limits to those
proposed by Sanchez-Salinero et al. Recall also that, even
when using sine pulses and abiding by those limits, various
researchers have signalled problems in arrival time identification. To clarify the importance of the near-field effect in
pulse tests, a bench test series on Gault clay was performed.
In it the normalised distance between a pair of bender
transducers placed along the vertical axis of a triaxial
sample was systematically explored, varying distance and
apparent frequency. The kind of input signal employed was
also varied, using single cycle square, sinusoidal and distorted sinusoidal pulses as well as sine bursts. More details
about the arrangement and results of these tests can be
found in Arroyo et al. (2001).
Beginning with time domain estimates, it is clear that
near-field effects will be most visible in first-arrival-based
velocity estimates. First arrivals were picked automatically
in the trace by a program in which it was specified that
bumps below 10% of the maximum trace value were to be
ignored. An example of the program performance is shown
in Fig. 13. It is worth noting how the evident distortion that
the receiver signal shows relative to the input signal in this
figure bears little resemblance to what Stokess model predicts. Truly, there is something akin to an initial bump that
may be construed as near-field effect, but the overall shape

0.5

Time (s)
1.5

2.5

1
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
Input

Output f1

T(i )

Fig. 13. Example of bender trace and first arrival selection

of the signal shows many other changes that cannot be

related to anything similar on the simulated signals.
In Fig. 14 we represent this first arrival estimate against
the apparent normalised distance of each test. This last value
is computed assuming that the vertical shear velocity for our
sample is, say, 120 m=s. In the figure we show the results
corresponding to square signals and to sinusoidal signals
separately, asaccording to Fig. 12there is no need to
distinguish between single cycles and bursts. The results are
interesting, as the square signals systematically show higher
values than the sinusoidal ones. Near-field effects might
explain this bias, as most normalised distances are below the
value needed for the 10% limit to be effective for square
signals around 9nap but above that working for sinusoidal shapes around 2:5nap . Still, the substantial spread of
results within both signal categories remains unexplained.
In the frequency domain our search for near-field influence is simpler, as it is not affected by signal shape. Using a
procedure described by Viggiani & Atkinson (1995) we
obtained cross-spectrum estimates of velocity for each test.
As a by-product of the algorithm estimating the crossspectrum velocities, we also obtained the frequency interval
say f min to f max where the normalised cross-spectrum
modulus was over 10% of its maximum value. That was the
frequency interval used for the velocity estimate. On the
other hand, using equation (15) and again assuming a vs of
120 m=s we can obtain f lim for each source-to-receiver
distance in our test series. It is then possible to define a
near-field spectral ratio as
NFSR

f max  f lim
f max  f min

(17)

This ratio represents Stokess near-field influence in the

cross-spectrum velocity estimate. Negative values mean that
190.00
170.00
150.00
vs: m/s

Near-field relative height: %

40

343

130.00
110.00
90.00
70.00
50.00
0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

nAP
Sine and sine burst

Square

Fig. 14. Bench tests on Gault clay. Influence of near field on

first-arrival estimate of vs

ARROYO, MUIR WOOD AND GREENING

344

all the testing frequencies were in the near field, for values
between 0 and 1 the near-field overlap progressively decreases, and values above 1 correspond to tests performed
well within the far field. Plotting this ratio against vCS we
shall expect a clear relation to appear: that is, an increase in
the measured velocity with the ratio, as opposed to time
domain results. This increase should be expected because
the cross-spectrum method measures an average group velocity (Arroyo, 2001), and, considering the negative slope of
phase velocity in Fig. 8, group velocity should approach s
asymptotically from below. Fig. 15 supports this view. If
some effect is there at all, it is an increase of the estimated
velocity as NFSR increases: that is, tests that are within the
near field show on average lower s than those well out of
it. But the figure also shows that measurements outside the
near field do not quietly approach any asymptote, but instead
show a much higher variation than those inside it.

DISCUSSION
It seems then that the disparate results obtained in pulse
tests cannot be explained by reference only to source nearfield effects. The complaints of previous researchers about
the inability of the criteria of Sanchez-Salinero et al. to
deliver clear, non-ambiguous results seem now perfectly
reasonable. Neither these criteria, nor the more comprehensive analysis developed above, will be of much help if nearfield effects are not the culprits for the observed signal
dispersion. Of course, this does not mean that all efforts
should not be made to work outside the near field, and the
criteria given above might help in this respect. It means
rather that working in the far field, desirable as it may be,
will not generally be sufficient to ensure adequate measurement precision.
Part of the confusion surrounding this issue stems from
ambiguous and insufficiently detailed specification of the test
interpretative model. We have tried to be as clear as possible
in this respect. It is worth noting, for instance, that different
near-field effects also appear in more detailed models of
finite sources and receivers. The case of a radiating plane
piston has long been studied for acoustical media (e.g.
Krautkramer & Krautkramer, 1990) and more recently (Tang
et al., 1990) for elastic media. No similar study seems
to have been performed as yet for internal bender-like transducers.
It is also appropriate to insist here on the fact that
Stokess solution is valid only for isotropic elasticity. Anisotropic elastic behaviour is now well recognised as a distinctive feature of soils (e.g. Lings et al., 2000). The isotropic
near-field characteristics explored here and the near-field

limit proposed will not hold in anisotropic conditions.

Results by Saez & Dominguez (2000) suggest that the nearfield limit will also be directionally dependentthat is,
anisotropic.
These may be directions worth pursuing if a comprehensive pulse test model has to be developed, but they are
clearly not the only ones. Other dispersive phenomena may
need to be taken into account. Non-linearity does not seem
to be important (deformation levels may reasonably lie
below 105 ; Arroyo, 2001), but even within the linear realm
dispersion-inducing phenomena are available. Remember that
the work of Sanchez-Salinero et al. was prompted by
concerns about field pulse tests, particularly cross-hole, and
only later, and after apparent success, was it applied to
laboratory tests. This suggests that, although Stokess isolated source may be an adequate model for field pulse tests,
it might not be directly translated to laboratory practice
without losing some major element in the intent. One
obvious difference is that, in the field, transmission seems
more unbounded than in the laboratory. Stokess model does
not account for any boundary or shape effect, and more
elaborate elastodynamic models are required to provide insight in this respect. Using such a model Arroyo et al.
(2002) have shown, for instance, that waveguide effects are
important while testing along the vertical axis of cylindrical
samples.

CONCLUSION
Near-field effects are a feature of Stokess solution for an
isolated source. When examining shear wave propagation
there is good justification for dividing the space into near
field and far field. In the near field, contributions from
p-related quantities may have a parasitic effect on shear
movement, resulting in overestimation of s . Analysis shows
that, if phase or group velocity is measured at more than 16
normalised distances from the source, this overestimation
will remain below 5%. This limit may be unambiguously
enforced in the frequency domain, but not in the time
domain, where it is signal dependent. Experimental data
suggest that errors due to near-field effects are not sufficient
to explain the scatter observed in laboratory bender element
measurements, and one must look elsewhere for the reasons.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The research described in this paper was performed in the
Department of Civil Engineering at the University of Bristol.
Financial support for the first author was provided by a
Needham Cooper scholarship and from the Fundacion
Entrecanales.

140.0

CS vs: m/s

120.0

NOTATION

100.0

80.0

b
d
FS , FP

60.0
40.0
y 1.600x 2 12.351x 64.295
R 2 0.1016

20.0
1.00

0.0
0.00

1.00

2.00
3.00
4.00
Near-field spectral ratio
CS vs

5.00

6.00

7.00

Regression

Fig. 15. Bench tests on Gault clay. Influence of near field on

cross-spectrum estimate of vs

Fi
f lim
f max , f min
G
GR
H
N
NS , NP

matrix appearing in Stokess fundamental solution;

defined in equation (5)
forcing vector
distance between measurement points
far-field s-related and p-related coefficients of Stokess
fundamental solution
any of the above
limiting frequency of near-field influence
maximum and minimum frequency in cross-spectrum
group velocity fitting range
elastic shear modulus
Green tensor
Heaviside step function
near-field coefficient of Stokess fundamental solution
s-related and p-related components of near-field
coefficient

SOURCE NEAR-FIELD EFFECTS AND PULSE TESTS IN SOIL SAMPLES

Ni
NFSR
ns , np
ni
nap
r
~
r
S(, r)
T ap
t
u
us , up
VPH
s , p
i
r


s , p
ap


r

any of the above

near-field spectral ratio defined in equation (17)
dimensionless s and p ratios defined in equation (9)
any of the above
distance normalised by the apparent wavelength
radius coordinate
unit vector from the source
transfer function for shear movement
apparent period of a single cycle pulse
time
displacement vector
displacement vectors of shear and compressive
movements
phase velocity
elastic bulk shear and compressive wave velocity
any of the above
speed ratio, defined in equation (13)
Dirac delta function
phase of a transfer function
Lame coefficient
shear and compressive wavelengths
apparent wavelength of a single cycle pulse
Lame coefficient
Poissons ratio
soil density
angular frequency

REFERENCES
Achenbach, J. D. (1973). Wave propagation in elastic solids.
Amsterdam, North Holland.
Aki, K. & Richards, P. G. (1980). Quantitative seismology: theory
and methods. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman & Co.
Arroyo, M. (2001). Pulse tests in soil samples. PhD thesis, University of Bristol.
Arroyo, M., Greening, P. D. & Wood, D. M. (2001). An estimate of
uncertainty in current laboratory pulse test practice. Riv. Ital.
Geotec. (submitted).
Arroyo, M., Medina, L. & Wood, D. M. (2002). Numerical modelling of scale effects in bender-based pulse tests. Numerical
Models in Geomechanics, NUMOG VIII, Rome, (eds G. N.
Pande and S. Pietruszczak), pp. 589595.
Arulnathan, R., Boulanger, R. W. & Riemer, M. F. (1998). Analysis
of bender element tests. ASTM Geotech. Test. J. 21, No. 2, 120
131.
Atkinson, J. H. (2000). Non-linear soil stiffness in routine design.
Geotechnique 50, No. 5, 487508.
Blewett, J., Blewett, I. J. & Woodward, P. K. (1999). Measurement
of shear-wave velocity using phase-sensitive detection techniques. Can. Geotech. J. 36, No. 5, 934939.
Brignoli, E. G. M., Gotti, M. & Stokoe, K. H. (1996). Measurement
of shear waves in laboratory specimens by means of piezoelectric transducers. ASTM Geotech. Test. J. 19, No. 4,
384397.
Dominguez, J. (1993). Boundary elements in dynamics. Elsevier
Applied Science.

345

Foti, S. (2000). Multistation methods for geotechnical characterisation using surface waves. PhD thesis, Politecnico di Torino.
Gajo, A., Fedel, A. & Mongiovi, L. (1997). Experimental analysis
of the effects of fluidsolid coupling on the velocity of elastic
waves in saturated porous media. Geotechnique 47, No. 5,
9931008.
Graff, K. F. (1975). Wave motion in elastic solids. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Jamiolkowski, M., Lancellotta, R. & Lo Presti, D. (1999). Prefailure deformation characteristics of geomaterials. IS Torino99.
Rotterdam: Balkema.
Jovicic, V. (1997). The measurement and interpretation of smallstrain stiffness of soils. PhD thesis, City University, London.
Jovicic, V. & Coop, M. R. (1999). The influence of state on the
very small-strain stiffness of sands. In Pre-failure deformation
characteristics of geomaterials. Proc. IS Torino 99 (eds
M. Jamiolkowski, R. Lancellotta & D. Lo Presti), pp. 175181.
Rotterdam: Balkema.
Jovicic, V., Coop, M. R. & Simic, M. (1996). Objective criteria for
determining Gmax from bender element tests. Geotechnique 46,
No. 2, 357362.
Kawaguchi, T., Mitachi, T. & Shibuya, S. (2001). Evaluation of
shear wave travel time in laboratory bender element test. Proc.
15th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Engng, Istanbul 1,
155158.
Krautkramer, J. & Krautkramer, H. (1990). Ultrasonic testing of
materials, 4th edn. Springer-Verlag.
Kuwano, R. (1999). The stiffness and yielding anisotropy of sand.
PhD thesis, Imperial College of Science, Technology &
Medicine, London.
Lings, M. L., Pennington, D. S. & Nash, D. F. T. (2000). Anisotropic stiffness parameters and their measurements in a stiff
natural clay. Geotechnique 50, No. 2, 109125.
Lo Presti, D. C. F., Shibuya, S. & Rix, G. J. (2001). Innovation in
soil testing. Pre-failure deformation characteristics of geomaterials.Proc. IS Torino 99 (eds M. Jamiolkowski, R. Lancellotta & D. Lo Presti). Swets and Zeitlinger, Lisse, 2,
pp. 10271076.
Pennington, D. S. (1999). The anisotropic small-strain stiffness of
Cambridge Gault clay. PhD thesis, University of Bristol.
Saez, A. & Dominguez, J. (2000). Far field dynamic Greens functions for BEM in transversely isotropic solids. Wave Motion 32,
No. 2, 113123.
Sanchez-Salinero, I., Roesset, J. M. & Stokoe, K. H. (1986).
Analytical studies of body wave propagation and attenuation,
Geotechnical Engineering Report No GR8615. Civil Engineering Department, University of Texas at Austin.
Shibuya, S., Mitachi, T. & Miura, S. (eds) (1994). Pre-failure
deformation characteristics of geomaterials, International Symposium Sapporo 94. Rotterdam: Balkema.
Tang, X. M., Toksoz, M. N. & Cheng, C. H. (1990). Elastic wave
radiation and diffraction of a piston source. J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
87, No. 5, 18941902.
Viggiani, G. (1992). Small-strain stiffness of fine grained soils. PhD
thesis, City University, London.
Viggiani, G. & Atkinson, J. H. (1995). Interpretation of bender
element tests. Geotechnique 45, No. 1, 149154.