Relationship between Shear-Wave Velocity and

Geotechnical Parameters for Norwegian Clays

Jean-Sebastien L’Heureux, Ph.D. 1; and Michael Long 2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by THE UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE on 02/13/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: A database of shear-wave velocity (V s ) measurements using a variety of techniques and soil properties measured on high-quality
samples for 28 Norwegian sites has been established. The purpose was to evaluate the different methods of measuring V s , to present guide-
lines and correlations to assist in estimating V s profiles in these clays in the absence of site-specific data, and to outline relationships that can
be used to give first-order estimates of soil properties. It was found that consistent measurements of V s can be obtained from a variety of
techniques and that for practical engineering purposes the V s values obtained from the different methods are similar. Surface wave techniques
can be particularly useful but careful survey design is necessary and in particular the inversion process needs to be carefully controlled.
Differences of about 15–20% can be obtained in the V s values depending on the algorithm used. V s values for Norwegian clays are consistent
with well-established frameworks for other materials, based on relationships between effective stress and index parameters. Piezocone pen-
etration testing (CPTU) can be used to give acceptable estimates of V s and this includes techniques which utilize the CPTU data only and are
independent of any index property. V s correlates well with triaxial compression and direct simple shear derived undrained shear strength (su )
values. There appears to be a particularly good link between V s and preconsolidation stress (pc0 ). Satisfactory relationships also exist
between V s and the tangent moduli of the clays at in situ stress (M 0 ) and at pc0 (ML ). DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001645.
© 2017 American Society of Civil Engineers.

Introduction of eastern Canada and Scandinavia. Additionally, laboratory tests

only measure Gmax at discrete sample locations, which may not be
Characterization of the stress–strain behavior of soils is an integral representative of the entire soil profile.
part of many geotechnical design applications including site char- Unlike laboratory testing, in situ geophysical tests do not require
acterization, settlement analyses, seismic hazard analyses, site re- undisturbed sampling, maintain in situ stresses during testing, and
sponse analysis, and soil-structure interaction. The shear modulus measure the response of a large volume of soil. In situ measurement
(G) of geomaterials is highly dependent upon strain level. The of V s has become the preferred method for estimating the small
small-strain shear modulus (Gmax or G0 ) is typically associated strain shear properties and has been incorporated into site classifi-
with strains on the order of 10−3 % or less. With information of cations systems and ground motion prediction equations worldwide.
Gmax , the shear response at various level of stain can be estimated As an example, Eurocode 8 (Norsk standard, NS-EN 1998-
using published modulus reduction curves (i.e., G=Gmax ). Accord- 1:2004 + NA:2008), for seismic design, requires an earthquake risk
ing to elastic theory, Gmax may be calculated from the shear-wave assessment to be carried out for all important structures. Sites are
velocity using the following equation: classified based on the V s of the top 30 m of the soil profile (V s30 ).
Gmax ¼ ρV 2s ð1Þ In addition to site classification, V s may be required for site-
specific seismic evaluation or dynamic analysis when required
where Gmax = shear modulus (in Pa); V s = shear-wave velocity (in by the seismic design criteria.
m=s); and ρ = density (in kg=m3 ). In this paper, a short overview of different geophysical methods
Gmax and V s are primarily functions of soil density, void ratio, for assessing V s is initially presented. Some emphasis is placed
and effective stress, with secondary influences including soil type, on the use of the multichannel analysis of surface waves (MASW)
age, depositional environment, cementation, and stress history technique, which has proven to be a cost effective, accurate, and
(e.g., Hardin and Drnevich 1972). Gmax can be measured in the efficient technique in Norwegian conditions (e.g., Long and
laboratory using a resonant column device or bender elements. Donohue 2010). A database of results from 28 Norwegian clay sites
As suggested by Kramer (1996), although the void ratio and is then presented where V s and soil geotechnical properties were
stress conditions can be recreated in a reconstituted specimen, other gathered for correlation purposes. At 12 of the sites direct V s mea-
factors such as soil fabric and cementation cannot. Laboratory test- surements using more than one technique were available. Relation-
ing requires very high-quality, undisturbed samples, which is often ships between V s and index properties, piezocone penetration
a challenging and expensive task given the soft and sensitive clays parameters, undrained shear strength and one-dimensional (1D)
compression parameters are subsequently presented and compared
1
Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, 7034 Trondheim, Norway. to existing correlations in the literature. Laboratory undrained shear
2
Associate Professor, School of Civil Engineering, Univ. College strength and compression properties from high-quality, undisturbed
Dublin, Newstead Bldg., Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland (corresponding samples (usually Sherbrooke block samples) only are used.
author). E-mail: [email protected]
Relationships presented herein can be then used to evaluate either
Note. This manuscript was submitted on March 21, 2016; approved on
September 11, 2016; published online on February 13, 2017. Discussion V s from a given soil property, or the way around to evaluate soil
period open until July 13, 2017; separate discussions must be submitted for properties from V s . The principle objective of this paper is to
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical and present guidelines for reliable estimation of V s in Norwegian clays
Geoenvironmental Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241. and to outline relationships that can be used by practicing engineers

© ASCE 04017013-1 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., -1--1

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by THE UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE on 02/13/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 1. Techniques for measurement of V s (modified from Menzies and Matthews 1996, with permission): (a) invasive techniques; (b) MASW

to give first-order estimates of soil properties and for controlling the shear wave velocities for the intervals in between the receivers. This
results of laboratory tests. would make the shear wave velocities less dependent on the source
signature. Having multiple geophones also alleviates potential is-
sues with inaccuracies of the target depths. The SCPTU method
Techniques Used for the Measurement was used for collecting shear-wave velocity information at seven
of Shear-Wave Velocity of the sites presented in the database.
The seismic dilatometer is the combination of the standard flat
dilatometer (DMT) with a similar seismic module for measuring V S
Invasive Methods
as employed in the SCPTU (Marchetti et al. 2008). The crosshole
Geophysical methods can be divided into two categories: invasive test (CHT) is often considered the reference standard by which
and noninvasive. Invasive methods require drilling into the ground. other in situ shear-wave velocity tests are compared. The tests
Common invasive methods include downhole logging (ASTM are performed in a series of two or more cased boreholes. A bore-
2014), crosshole logging (ASTM 2014), suspension logging, hole seismic source generates waves that propagate past receivers at
seismic dilatometer (SDMT), and the seismic cone penetration test the same depth in adjacent boreholes. In these tests the velocity is
(SCPTU) [Fig. 1(a)]. In Norway, most invasive testing is done with determined from the travel time of the waves over the distances be-
the SCPTU but use has also been made of SDMTand crosshole tests. tween adjacent boreholes. A review of crosshole test procedures can
The SCPTU was first introduced in 1984 at the University of British be found in Hoar and Stokoe (1978) and Woods (1978). One major
Columbia (Rice 1984; Campanella et al. 1986; Robertson et al. advantage of crosshole testing is the direct measurement through
1986). Recent upgrades include development of continuous V s only the desired material of a particular select layer. The greatest
measurement during cone penetration using a specially developed disadvantage of CHT is the need for multiple boreholes. As a con-
automatic seismic source (e.g., Ku et al. 2013). sequence, the CHT is slow, time consuming, and very expensive.
In the work presented here all the SCPTU equipment had a sin- In the database presented here CHT was used at five of the sites.
gle geophone only. The seismic signals are only recorded during
pauses in penetration, commonly every 0.5 or 1.0 m. A horizontal
Noninvasive Methods
beam coupled to the ground surface by the weight of the testing
vehicle is the source of the seismic energy. The beam is struck Noninvasive geophysical methods include spectral analysis of
on end with a hammer to generate horizontally polarized vertically surface waves (SASW), multichannel analysis MASW, continuous
propagating shear waves that can be detected by the horizontal surface waves (CSW), frequency wavenumber methods (f-k meth-
receiver within the cone penetrometer embedded below. The veloc- ods), seismic refraction, and seismic reflection. The SASW tech-
ity is determined from the travel-time differences between recorded nique was developed in the early 1980s by Heisey et al. (1982)
waves and the difference in the assumed travel path length for and Nazarian and Stokoe (1984). This method uses a single pair
receiver depth. In principle, it is advantageous and recommended of receivers that are placed collinear with an impulsive source
to use multiple geophones, and use identical shots to determine (e.g., a sledgehammer) and utilizes the dispersion property of

© ASCE 04017013-2 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., -1--1

 surface waves for the purpose of V s profiling. Lo Presti et al. (2003) MASW allows relatively large volumes of soil to be investigated
and Soccodato (2003) compared V s derived from SASW with that but suffers loss in resolution with depth. However, crosshole testing
obtained from other techniques for Pisa clay and Fucino clayey allows for the detailed investigation of a particular horizon in the
soil, respectively. Reasonable agreement was found in both cases. soil profile. Larger volumes will encompass factors such as layer-
Crice (2005) acknowledged the usefulness of SASW but suggested ing and anisotropy, which are not evident in smaller-scale testing.
that solutions are neither unique nor trivial and that an expert user is Cercato (2009) suggests that the various methods can be considered
required for interpretation. The SASW method was used for record- to be complementary to one another.
ing and processing of surface wave data for four sites discussed in
this report. Uncertainties in the MASW Method
The MASW technique was introduced in the late 1990s by the
Kansas Geological Survey (KGS) (Park et al. 1999), to address the As the MASW method was used extensively in this work it is im-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by THE UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE on 02/13/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

problems associated with SASW. The entire procedure for MASW portant to consider the potential pitfalls and limitations from survey
usually consists of four steps [Fig. 1(b)]: design to final interpretation of the results. Sauvin et al. (2016) have
1. Acquire field records by using a multichannel recording system studied these issues in detail with special reference to work in
and a receiver array deployed over a few to a few hundred me- Norwegian soft clays including those considered in this paper. They
ters of distance, similar to those used in conventional seismic found that care is needed when planning field surveys and that
reflection surveys. In this study the test configuration comprised source offset distance, geophone spacing, array length, source fre-
either 24 10-Hz geophones or 12 4.5-Hz geophones spaced at quency content, and the sampling time can all influence the results.
3 m center over the survey length. Although KGS recommends Following some careful trials of the previously mentioned param-
the use of 4.5-Hz geophones on soft clay sites, it was found that eters stable raw data with high signal to noise ratio which requires
they provided little advantage over the higher frequency instru- minimal preprocessing can be obtained.
ments (Sauvin et al. 2016). For the 10-Hz geophones, the lower The inversion technique applied is the largest source of error in
frequency level was not limited by their natural frequency, the MASW method due to the inversion process and the subsequent
and they could detect signals as low as 5-Hz. With the 4.5-Hz lack in uniqueness of the V s profile (e.g., Xia et al. 2003; Socco and
geophones, the lowest recordable frequency was 2–3 Hz. A Strobbia 2004; O’Neill and Matsuoka 2005; Cercato 2011; Luo
similar finding is reported by Park et al. (2002), who discuss et al. 2007; Foti et al. 2015). Some issues that arise include mode
optimum acquisition parameters for MASW surveying. An im- jumping in the dispersion curve especially when a steep nonlinear
pulsive source (10-kg sledgehammer in this case) was used to gradient in V s exists near the surface. With careful surveying, mode
generate the surface waves at the Norwegian clay sites. Seismic jumping can be overcome by prior identification of situations
data were recorded using an RAS-24 seismograph (Seistronix, where difficulties may arise (Boaga et al. 2014) or by varying offset
Rancho Cordova, California) and the corresponding Seistronix distance (Cercato 2009). Cercato (2011) proposes a global inver-
software. sion algorithm to help overcome these problems.
2. Use is then made of the dispersive properties of the soil, Sauvin et al. (2016) studied this issue specifically for Norwegian
i.e., longer wavelength signals reflect the deeper soils and short- soft clays by employing different inversion routines to good quality
er wavelengths represent the shallower soils to produce a phase data from the Esp site near Trondheim. The surface wave V s pro-
velocity versus wavelength relationship from the measured data. files were compared to those obtained from SPTU and CH testing.
3. This phase velocity versus wavelength trace is converted into Although good agreement was obtained, differences of up to
a dispersion curve (phase velocity versus frequency). Usually 20 m=s (i.e., about 10%) were obtained from the different inversion
fundamental mode dispersion only is used. procedures. Similarly, Sutton (1999) concluded that errors of the
4. The dispersion curve is inverted to obtain 1D (depth) V s profiles order of 8% (≈10 m=s) could be obtained when comparing sur-
(one profile from one curve). The inversion process involves the face wave and other data for Bothkennar soft clay in the United
user specifying a synthetic ground profile (number of layers as Kingdom. The Bothkennar site is also included in this study.
well as the density, V s , and Poisson ratio of each layer) and the Xia et al. (2000) found an overall difference of approximately
software then iterates until the synthetic and field dispersion 15% when comparing MASW results with borehole measurements
curves match. The software tools used in this study for the pur- on unconsolidated sediments of the Fraser Delta. Similarly, Luo
pose of inversion were Surfseis (Park and Brohammer 2003), et al. (2007) found relative errors up to 15.9% when comparing
winMASW (Eliosoft), and a Norwegian Geotechnical Institute joint inversion results to borehole results. Mulargia and Castellaro
(NGI) in-house inversion code. (2009) suggested an intrinsic 20% error in the field estimation of V s
Advantages of the MASW method include the need for only is generally found. One should note that according to Eq. (1), a
one-shot gather and its capability of identifying and isolating noise. 20% error in estimation of V s leads to an approximate 30% error
Also, its ability to take into full account the complicated nature of in the estimation of the small strain shear modulus (Gmax ).
seismic waves that always contain noise waves such as unwanted The authors are not in agreement with Crice (2005) who
higher modes of surface waves, body waves, scattered waves, traf- suggests that MASW survey data can be reliably interpreted by
fic waves, as well as fundamental-mode surface waves. These computer software without human intervention. The authors have
waves may often adversely influence each other during the analysis found that this is only accurate for simple soil profiles. Significant
of their dispersion properties if they are not properly accounted for. user experience and intervention are required for more complex
The MASW method was used for recording and processing of profiles. In the view of the authors an informed user is certainly
surface wave data for nearly all sites presented in the database important for MASW data analysis.
(i.e., 28 out of 29).
Test Sites and Soil Properties Included in the
Scaling Issues Database
When comparing V s data from different methods, care needs to be In situ shear-wave velocity measurement has been carried out at a
taken with respect to the scale of the measurements. For example, few Norwegian clay sites during the last decades for research

© ASCE 04017013-3 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., -1--1

 Table 1. Summary of Sites Surveyed
Number Location Site Soil type Technique References for sites
Southeast Norway
1 Østfold Onsøy Soft clay SCPT/MASW Eidsmoen et al. (1985), Lunne et al. (2003)
2 Seut Bridge Soft organic clay (quick) MASW APEX files, Multiconsult files
3 Akershus Eidsvoll Firm to stiff clay (silty) MASW Karlsrud et al. (1996, 2005), Karlsrud and
Hernandez-Martinez (2013), and Lunne
et al. (1997, 1997, 2006)
4 Hvalsdalen Firm to stiff clay MASW As Eidsvoll
5 Skøyen-Asker Very soft clay (quick) MASW NGI files, e.g., NGI 990032-1
6 RVII Soft clay MASW Long et al. (2009), Hagberg et al. (2007)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by THE UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE on 02/13/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

7 Oslo NGI car park Soft clay MASW/SASW NGI files, Kaynia and Cleave (2006)
8 Buskerud- Danviksgata/ Soft clay SCPT/MASW/Raleigh/CHT Lunne and Lacasse (1999), Eidsmoen et al.
Drammen Museum-park (1985), Butcher and Powell (1996), and
BRE (1990)
9 Lierstranda Soft clay MASW/Raleigh Lunne and Lacasse (1999), and Lunne
et al (1997)
10 Hvittingfoss Soft to firm quick clay SW inversion (MASW)/ Sauvin et al. (2013, 2014)
SCPTU/seismic reflection
11 Smørgrav Soft (quick) clay MASW Donohue et al. (2009, 2012), and
Pfaffhuber et al. (2010)
12 Vålen Soft clay MASW Sauvin et al. (2011)
13 Vestfold Farriseidet Organic quick clay MASW NGI files
14 Månejordet Silty quick clay MASW Statens Vegvesen/UCD files
15 Telemark Skienselven Soft to firm quick clay MASW NGI files, e.g., 20011544-1,
February 2003
Mid-Norway
16 Trondheim Tiller Soft to firm (quick) clay MASW/SASW/SCPTU/CHT Gylland et al. (2013), Sandven et al.
(2004), Sandven (1990), and Takle-Eide
(2015)
17 Berg Firm clay MASW/CHT Rømoen (2006), Westerlund (1978)
18 Esp Soft to firm (quick?) clay MASW/CHT/SCPTU Torpe (2014), King (2013), Montafia
(2013), Knutsen (2014), and Hundal
(2014), NGI files
19 Klett (south) Soft silty (quick) clay MASW/SCPTU APEX, Multiconsult and NGI files
20 Dragvoll Very soft quick clay MASW, SW inversion Montafia (2013), Pasquet et al. (2014), and
Eide–Helle et al. (2015)
21 Rosten Soft clay MASW NGI files
22 Saupstad Firm to quick clay MASW NGI files
23 Eberg Soft organic clay SASW/Seismic ref. Røsand (1986), Sandven (1990), and
Langø (1991)
24 Hoseith Quick clay (silty) MASW APEX, Multiconsult and Trondheim
Kommune files
25 Okstad Stiff, silty clay MASW As Hoseith
26 Rissa Rein Kirke Soft and quick clay MASW Sauvin et al. (2013), Aasland (2010), and
Kornbrekke (2012)
27 Stjørdal Glava Firm clay MASW/SASW Sandven (1990), and Sandven and Sjursen
(1998)
28 Namsos Kattmarka Layered soft clay MASW NGI and NTNU files
29 Scotland Bothkennar Soft clay/silt SCPT/SDMT/MASW/CSW CHT See Géotechnique, No. 2, 1992. For
summary of V s values see Long et al.
(2008)

purposes and/or as a part of construction projects. Source of The database includes index properties such as total unit weight,
existing data includes Langø (1991), Long and Donohue (2007, water content, clay content, remolded shear strength, sensitivity, and
2010), and L’Heureux et al. (2013). In this paper, existing data Atterberg limits. Also, engineering properties such as undrained
are assembled and collated with field data from about 12 new sites. shear strength derived from anisotropically consolidated undrained
The additional sites were chosen based on the availability of high- triaxial compression and extension tests (CAUC and CAUE), direct
quality samples and associated laboratory testing. In all the data simple shear tests (DSS) and in situ vane tests, net CPTU cone
originate from a total of 28 Norwegian sites as summarized in resistance, in situ effective vertical stress and 1D compression
Table 1. Out of these sites, 15 are located in southeastern Norway parameters based on the classical Janbu theory (Janbu 1963,
and 13 are in mid-Norway (Fig. 2). A 29th site included in the data- 1969). Full details of the database are given in NGI (2015).
base is the Bothkennar clay site in Scotland where much work has The Norwegian clays in the database are of marine or glacio-
been carried out over the last 30 years (including testing of block marine origin. Natural water content (w) data range between 20
samples by NGI) (e.g., Long et al. 2008). and 80% [Fig. 3(a)]. Most of the plasticity index data vary between

© ASCE 04017013-4 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., -1--1

 Validation of Data

Sites in Mid-Norway Area

To validate the data and to gain confidence in the techniques used,
comparative studies were undertaken at a number of sites. Data for
the three sites Tiller, Esp, and Klett, in mid-Norway are shown in
Fig. 6. The sites are reasonably similar in nature with water con-
tents (w) of 30–40%, bulk unit weight (γ) of 18–19.5 kN=m3 , clay
content between 35 and 40%, and average plasticity index (I p )
of about 5%. Each site has clear zones of low sensitivity (St ) to
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by THE UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE on 02/13/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

medium sensitivity clay and of quick clay. In Norway, according

to NGF (1982), quick clay has remolded shear strength, sur ,
<0.5 kPa. MASW, SCPTU, and CH testing were carried out by
APEX Geoservices, NGI, and NTNU, respectively, without any
party being aware of the others’ results. In addition SASW results,
obtained by GDS Ltd., are available for Tiller. At several of the sites
the MASW and/or the SCPTU measurements were repeated
and there was good repeatability of the data. It can be seen from
the results that all methods gave comparable results and can be
considered to give equivalent V s values for engineering design
and site characterization purposes.

Sites in Southeast Norway

Although the marine clays in southeast Norway have similar dep-
ositional history and mineralogy to those in the mid-Norway area,
they often have slightly higher clay content and consequently
higher water content and lower bulk unit weight. Most notably
they are usually of higher plasticity (e.g., Gylland et al.
2013).
Long and Donohue (2007) previously presented data similar to
that shown in Fig. 5 for the Onsøy and Drammen Museumpark sites
Fig. 2. Location of sites in database (reprinted from NGI 2015, with in southern Norway and concluded that for practical purposes all
permission) the methods used will give similar values of V s . Additional data for
the Hvittingfoss site in southern Norway are shown in Fig. 7. Data
are taken from the work of Sauvin et al. (2013, 2014). Here MASW
5 and 20% [Fig. 3(b)]. The clay content of the soil tested ranges and SCPTU data can be compared with results from seismic reflec-
from 10 to 70% with the data mainly being in the range of 30–50% tion. Once more it can be seen the MASW data produces repeatable
[Fig. 3(c)]. Due to the isostatic uplift and resulting emergence of the results and it can be seen that all the techniques give very similar
marine and glaciomarine deposits during the last 10,000 years or values of V s . The difference in the V s value at any one depth is of
so, fluxes of fresh groundwater through the clay deposits have led the order of 20 m=s, which is less than the possible 20% intrinsic
to leaching of the salts within the grain structure of the material. error suggested by Mulargia and Castellaro (20089).
According to Rosenqvist (1953), such process is the main factor
affecting the sensitivity of the clays. Sensitivity is defined as the
ratio of the undrained peak shear strength over the remolded shear Summary of All V s Values
strength. In the database, the sensitivity of the clays (as measured
by the Swedish fall cone) ranges between 0 and 240 with most of A summary of all the available MASW data are given in Fig. 8,
the data in the interval 0–20 [Fig. 3(d)]. with sites from southeast Norway shown in Fig. 8(a) and those
The histogram of sample depth for the various clay samples in the from mid-Norway in Fig. 8(b). All sites show a very similar trend
database is presented in Fig. 4(a) and the corresponding vertical in between V s and depth and differ only in the value of V s close to the
situ effective vertical stress for these depths is shown in Fig. 4(b). The surface. Teachavorasinskun and Lukkunaprasit (2004) found a sim-
effective vertical stress in the database varies between 10 and 240 kPa ilar pattern for soft Bangkok clays and they expressed the relation-
with the highest number of observations at around 100 kPa corre- ship in the form
sponding to a depth of approximately 6–7 m below ground surface. V sz ¼ V sg þ mz ð2Þ
Most of the clays have developed some apparent overconsolidation
due to aging. The overconsolidation ratio (OCR) data range between where V sz ¼ V s m=s at any depth z (m); V sg ¼ V s close to the
1.0 and 8 with most of the OCR data falling between 1.5 and 2.0, ground surface (m=s); and m = slope of the line of V s versus depth
indicating that most of the soil samples in the database are normally (units m=s · m).
consolidated to lightly over consolidated [Fig. 5(a)]. Hence, corre- Some exceptions are the very soft, high water content and
lations developed later may not be valid for heavily overconsolidated organic clays at Onsøy and especially Farriseidet, which show
clays. The undrained shear strength data from CAUC triaxial tests much lower values of V s .
concentrates in the range 25–60 kPa, whereas results from CAUE Data for the Trondheim and mid-Norway sites can be broadly
and DSS tests are mostly below 50 kPa [Fig. 5(b)]. divided into two groups. The main group shows similar values to

© ASCE 04017013-5 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., -1--1

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by THE UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE on 02/13/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 3. Summary of soil properties from database of Norwegian clays: (a) water content; (b) plasticity index; (c) clay content; (d) sensitivity

those from southern Norway. However, there is a second group of Correlations with Index Parameters
sites all located in south and southwest Trondheim (comprising
the Rosten, Saupstad, Okstad, and Hoseith sites) with higher val- Correlations between index parameters and V s or Gmax can provide
ues. All of these sites are located at the bottom of high slopes and rapid estimates useful for preliminary design and for verifying in
are more overconsolidated than the other sites. The very soft clay situ and laboratory results. According to Leroueil and Hight (2003)
at Dragvoll shows the lowest V s values. and Hardin (1978) the empirical equation describing the influence
As has been shown, the V s values deduced from the different of the controlling factors on Gmax can then be written as follows
geophysical methods (i.e., MASW, SASW, SCPTU, and CHT)
ð1−2nÞ
at a given site generally give very similar results. For the data pre- Gmax ¼ SFðeÞðσv0 σh0 Þn pa ð3Þ
sented here, the results do not seem to be affected by the technique
used or the directions of propagation and polarization of the waves. where S = dimensionless parameter characterizing the considered
This is likely to be due to the largely isotropic nature of these soil; FðeÞ = void ratio function; σv0 and σh0 (kPa) = vertical and
materials. Isotropy of V s measurement in soft clay has also been horizontal effective stresses, respectively; n = parameter indicating
documented by Soccodato (2003). However, as pointed out by the influence of stress; and pa (kPa) = atmospheric pressure.
Butcher and Powell (1996) and others, V s values measured Fig. 9 presents the relationship between in situ shear-wave
0
with different techniques can be significantly different in heavily velocity and σv0 for samples at all sites in the database. Results
0
overconsolidated clays or layered soils. show a clear tendency for V s to increase with σv0 . The best fit

© ASCE 04017013-6 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., -1--1

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by THE UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE on 02/13/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. (a) Sampling depth; (b) in situ vertical effective stress for samples in the database

Fig. 5. (a) Overconsolidation ratio (OCR); (b) laboratory undrained shear strength for soils in the database

equation for the data gives a regression coefficient of 0.71. The (where K 0 = coefficient of earth pressure at rest), and n ¼ 0.25.
linear relationship determined from the data in Fig. 9 is in the form Full details can be found in NGI (2015).
0
Norwegian practice often normalizes Gmax with respect to the
V s ¼ 1.11σv0 þ 53.24 ð4Þ sum of the mean consolidation stress (σm0 ) and attraction (a) to
0 = vertical effective stress. obtain a dimensionless parameter that depends on friction only,
where σv0
e.g., Janbu (1985). This normalized small-strain shear modulus
Most of the data fall within 90% of Eq. (4). The main reason for
(gmax ) can be written as
the large spread in the data is associated to uncertainties in the
0 in the field and to a lesser extent to intrinsic
evaluations of σv0
Gmax
assessment of in situ V s . gmax ¼ ð5Þ
Long and Donohue (2007, 2010) and L’Heureux et al. (2013) σm0 þ a
have previously shown that the relationship described in Eq. (3)
works well for Norwegian clays if S is taken to be in the range Gmax was calculated using the sample density and Eq. (1). A
500–700, FðeÞ ¼ 1=e1.3 (where e = void ratio), K 0 ¼ 0.5 systematic variation of gmax against water content was found with

© ASCE 04017013-7 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., -1--1

 gmax decreasing with increasing water content, in a similar way The coefficients V sg and m in Eq. (2) are plotted against average
to that proposed by Janbu (1985) for odometer moduli. Similarly, water content (w) and unit weight (γ) for each site (over the interval
there was a reasonable correlation between gmax and plasticity where V s data are available) in Fig. 10. It can be seen that both
index I p . parameters decrease with increasing w and increase with increasing
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by THE UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE on 02/13/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. Validation check for sites in the Trondheim area: (a–c) Tiller; (d–f) Esp; (g–i) Klett with each plot showing water content, sensitivity and V s ;
note change in y-axis scale for Klett site

© ASCE 04017013-8 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., -1--1

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by THE UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE on 02/13/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. (Continued.)

Fig. 7. Validation check for southern Norway site at Hvittingfoss with plot showing (a) water content; (b) sensitivity; (c) V s

© ASCE 04017013-9 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., -1--1

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by THE UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE on 02/13/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 8. Summary of all MASW data for (a) sites in southeastern Norway; (b) sites in Trondheim and mid-Norway

γ as would be expected. The trend between the parameters is

reasonably good and these relationships could therefore be used
for first-order estimates of V s or for controlling site measurements.
A reasonable fit would have been expected here as both w and γ are
amongst the parameters, which most strongly influence V s as has
been discussed previously. Teachavorasinskun and Lukkunaprasit
(2004) found that for Bangkok clay V sg varied between 45 and
64 m=s (i.e., at the lower end of the values recorded here) and that
m varied between 3.3 and 8.8 m=s=m. They found a correlation
between decreasing m and increasing plasticity index. Attempts
were also made to correlate V sg and m against plasticity index
for the Norwegian data. Broad trends exist but there was significant
scatter in the data.

Correlations with CPTU

The piezocone (CPTU) test is widely used in Scandinavia for char-
acterizing soft clays and there is widespread confidence amongst
geotechnical engineers in its use (e.g., Lunne et al. 1997; Karlsrud
et al. 2005). Therefore, it is important to relate the V s values to the
various CPTU parameters so that the two techniques can be used in Fig. 9. In situ shear-wave velocity against vertical effective stress for
a complementary fashion. Various researchers have studied rela- all sites in the database
tionships between CPTU parameters and V s in clayey soils. These
studies have explored relationships between in situ V s and various
parameters such as CPTU tip resistance (qc ), corrected tip resis-
tance (qt ), cone net resistance (qnet ), sleeve friction (f s ), pore pres- • An improvement in the fit of the data can be found if qt is used
sure parameter (Bq ), effective stress (σv0 ), water content (w), and instead of qc ;
void ratio (e). • The introduction of a soil property, as measured in a laboratory
An overview of the V s prediction equations found in the liter- test (e.g., e0 or w) can improve the efficiency of the equa-
ature for clays is presented in Table 2. For consistency, some of the tion; and
equations have been modified to use of SI units: qc , qt , qnet , fs , • However, such an approach is then dependent on having labora-
and (σv0 ) are in kPa and depth (D) is in meters. The number of tory test data as well as CPTU results and a better approach
points used to develop each correlation equation is presented as may be to use Bq instead of the soil index property.
well as the coefficient of determination (R2 ). Some conclusions Furthermore based on work at NGI, e.g., Powell and Lunne
on the range of equations available are as follows: (2005) and on experience in Ireland and the United Kingdom, Long
• Relationships of a similar form have been found to work (2008) suggested that CPTU sleeve friction (fs ) measurements are
successfully worldwide; less reliable than cone resistance (qt ), which in turn are less reliable
• Even if the form of the equation is the same from place to place than pore pressure (u2 ). It follows then that the most reliable cor-
it is necessary to have different factors in the equation in order to relations between V s and CPTU parameters are likely to involve qt ,
get a good fit for the local soils; qnet , u2 , or Bq and that use of f s readings could be unreliable.

© ASCE 04017013-10 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., -1--1

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by THE UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE on 02/13/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 10. Coefficients V sg and m in equation V sz ¼ V sg þ mz: (a) V sg against water content; (b) V sg against unit weight; (c) m against water content;
(d) m against unit weight

Table 2. Examples of Available CPTU-V s Correlations for Clays

Study/reference Clays from Number of data pairs R2 V s (m=s) or Gmax (kPa)
Jaime and Romo (1988) Mexico City 3 sites — V s ≈ 0.1qc
Bouckovalas et al. (1989) Greece 35 0.94 Gmax ¼ 2.8q1.4
c
Mayne and Rix (1993) Worldwide 481 0.713 Gmax ¼ 2.78q1.335
c
Mayne and Rix (1993) Worldwide 418 0.901 Gmax ¼ 406q0.695
c =e1.13 0.305 0.695 1.13
0 , Gmax ¼ 99.5pa qc =e0
Tanaka et al. (1994) and Leroueil Japan, Canada — — Gmax ¼ 50 · ðqt − σv0 Þ
and Hight (2003)
Hegazy and Mayne (1995) Worldwide 406 0.890 V s ¼ 14.13 · ðqc Þ0.359 · ðe0 Þ−0.473
Hegazy and Mayne (1995) Worldwide 229 0.780 V s ¼ 3.18 · ðqc Þ0.549 · ðf s Þ0.025
Mayne and Rix (1995) Worldwide 339 0.830 V s ¼ 9.44 · ðqc Þ0.435 · ðe0 Þ−0.532
Mayne and Rix (1995) Worldwide 481 0.740 V s ¼ 1.75 · ðqc Þ0.627
Simonini and Cola (2000) Venice 87 0.628 Gmax ¼ 21.5q0.79
c ð1 þ Bq Þ
4.59

Piratheepan (2002) United States 20 0.910 V s ¼ 11.9 · ðqc Þ0.269 · ðfs Þ0.108 · D0.127
Anagnostopoulos et al. (2003) Greece 152 0.85 Gmax ¼ 58q1.17
c
Mayne (2006) Worldwide 161 0.820 V s ¼ 118.8 logðf s Þ þ 18.5
Long and Donohue (2010) Norway 35 0.613 V s ¼ 2.944 · ðqt Þ0.613
Long and Donohue (2010) Norway 35 0.758 V s ¼ 65 · ðqt Þ0.15 · ðe0 Þ−0.714
Long and Donohue (2010) Norway — 0.777 V s ¼ 1.961 · ðqt Þ0.579 · ð1 þ Bq Þ1.202
Taboada et al. (2013) Gulf of Mexico 274 0.94 V s ¼ 14.4 · ðqnet Þ0.265 · ðσv0
0 Þ0.137

Taboada et al. (2013) Gulf of Mexico 274 0.948 V s ¼ 16.3 · ðqnet Þ0.209 · ðσv0
0 =wÞ0.165

Cai et al. (2014) Jiangsu, China 35 (7 sites) 0.631 V s ¼ 7.95ðqt Þ0.403

Cai et al. (2014) Jiangsu, China 35 (7 sites) 0.794 V s ¼ 90 · ðqt Þ0.101 · ðe0 Þ−0.663
Cai et al. (2014) Jiangsu, China 35 (7 sites) 0.825 V s ¼ 4.541 · ðqt Þ0.487 · ð1 þ Bq Þ0.337

© ASCE 04017013-11 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., -1--1

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by THE UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE on 02/13/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0
Fig. 11. Comparison of measured and predicted V s as a function of (a) net cone resistance (qnet ) and effective stress (σv0 ); (b) net cone resistance
0
(qnet ) and effective stress (σv0 ) normalized by water content (w)

Multiple regression analyses were conducted on the Norwegian capture the profile of increased V s with depth. For Dragvoll two
clay database to provide power function expressions for in situ V s MASW tests and an independent surface wave inversion procedure
in terms of qnet . The relationship with the highest coefficient of by Pasquet et al. (2014) give similar results and in this case all three
correlation using qnet , and one additional parameter was a power CPTU based methods match well with the measured data. It would
function similar to those listed on Table 2 seem then that satisfactory predictions of V s can be made from
independent CPTU data for Norwegian clays and that V s and
V s ¼ 8.35 · ðqnet Þ0.22 · ðσv0
0 Þ0.357 ð6Þ CPTU data can be used as a cross check of one another.

The coefficient of determination R2 is 0.73 and a total of 115

datasets were used in the analysis [Fig. 11(a)]. The figure shows Correlations with Undrained Shear Strength
most of the predicted values of V s are within 20% of the measured
V s . The prediction given by Eq. (6) can be improved when the As discussed previously, Gmax and V s of cohesive soils primarily
water content is introduced giving rise to the following expression: depend on void ratio, effective stress, and stress history. Therefore

0 0.33 Gmax (or V s ) has been frequently related to undrained shear strength
0.09 σv0 (su ) since both properties depend on common parameters.
V s ¼ 71.7 · ðqnet Þ · ð7Þ
w An overview of some Gmax (or V s ) relationships with su for clays
used in Scandinavia and internationally is presented in Table 3.
The coefficient of determination R2 is 0.89 and a total of 101 Many of the expressions summarized on Table 3 are of the same
datasets were used in the analyses. When using Eq. (7) most of format with different coefficients. This is largely due to the fact
the predicted values of V s are within 10–15% of the measured V s that the value of su depends on the testing method used. It is therefore
[Fig. 11(b)]. important to recognize the origin of the data from which such
The usefulness of the equations involving qt and e0 and qt and conclusions are made. This is especially true for low-plastic clays
Bq , respectively, for Norwegian marine clays presented by Long where it can be difficult to obtain consistent values of su
and Donohue (2010) (Table 2) and Eq. (7) is investigated for all Many of the relationships follow the same format, i.e.
sites in the database in NGI (2015). In conclusion, it was found that
• All three equations predict V s values that are numerically close V s ¼ asbu ð8Þ
to those measured; and
• The equations involving qt and Bq and qnet , σv0 0 , and w better In Norway it is common practice to carry out triaxial testing
capture the profile of increased V s with depth. after the sample has been first consolidated anisotropically to the
Two examples of these comparisons are shown in Fig. 12 for the best estimate of its in situ stress. Shearing can subsequently be by
Vålen site in southern Norway and the Dragvoll site in Trondheim. compression (CAUC tests) or by extension (CAUE tests). The su
Neither of these sites was included in the original study by Long values obtained from CAUC and CAUE triaxial tests on high-
and Donohue (2010) and therefore they represent an independent quality samples of Norwegian clay are plotted against in situ
evaluation of the approach. In addition, the Dragvoll site is under- shear-wave velocity in Figs. 13(a and b), respectively. In both cases
lain by unusually soft clay. the results show an increase in su with increasing V s . For the
For the Vålen site a single MASW trace is available and it can be CAUC tests there is a good relationship between the two sets of
seen that this matches well with all the data derived from the CPTU data. The best fit relationship is given by the following equation,
test. Although all three CPTU techniques give similar results it which is generally of the same format as suggested for soft clays
0
seems that the approaches qt and Bq and qnet , σv0 and w better worldwide [Table 3 and Eq. (8)]. This equation can also be used to

© ASCE 04017013-12 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., -1--1

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by THE UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE on 02/13/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 12. Comparison between measured and predicted V s for (a–c) Vålen site in southern Norway; and (d–f) Dragvoll site in Trondheim with each
plot showing water content, sensitivity, and V s ; note change in x-axis scale for St at Vålen

assess undrained shear strength from V s measurements by rewriting For the CAUE tests the best fit relationship gives R2 of 0.6,
the relationships and solving for su as follows: which is not considered sufficiently high for practical use of the
equation. For both su (CAUC) and su (CAUE) the scatter in the
V s ¼ 12.72s0.66
u;CAUC or su;CAUC ¼ 0.021V 1.52
s with
data increases for increasing V s and the greatest variation is for
2
R ¼ 0.85 ð9Þ the highly overconsolidated Eidsvoll and Hvalsdalen clays.

© ASCE 04017013-13 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., -1--1

 Table 3. Examples of Available Correlations between the Undrained Shear Strength of Clays and V s or Gmax
Study/reference Type of clays V s (m=s) or Gmax (kPa) su determined from
 
Larsson and Mulabdic (1991) Swedish (10) and Norwegian (4) sites. Gmax ¼ 208I p þ 250 su Unspecified
Medium-high plasticity
Larsson and Mulabdic (1991) Swedish (10) and Norwegian (4) sites. Gmax ¼ 504 · su =wL Unspecified
Low-plastic clays to high-plastic clayey
organic soils
Dickenson (1994) San Francisco Bay clay V s ¼ 23s0.475
u Fall cone tests
Blake and Gilbert (1997) Offshore NW United States (55 tests) su ¼ 1.87V 1.12
s Triaxial
Ashford et al. (1997) Bangkok clays (13 sites) V s ¼ 23s0.475
u Unspecified
V s ¼ 187ðpsua Þ0.372 , V s ¼ 228ðpsua Þ0.510
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by THE UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE on 02/13/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Likitlersuang and Kyaw (2010) Bangkok clays (3 sites) based on Unspecified

and Likitlersuang et al. (2013) downhole and MASW, respectively
Ip 2
Andersen (2004) Normally consolidated clays Gmax
sDSS
¼ 325 þ 55=ð100 Þ DSS
u

Andersen (2004) Sensitive and quick clays (remolded Gmax

suDSS ¼ 800 to 900 DSS
strength; sur < 0.5 kPa)
Yun et al. (2006) Gulf of Mexico (38 tests) V s ¼ 19.4s0.36
u Unspecified
Kulkarni et al. (2010) Indian coastal soils (130 tests, R2 ¼ 0.82) su ¼ 5 × 10−4 V 2.5
s Unconsolidated undrained triaxial
Taboada et al. (2013) Bay of Campeche clay V s ¼ 31s0.414
u Unconsolidated undrained triaxial
and in situ vane tests
Baxter et al. (2015), Gulf of Mexico clay, Presumpscot clay Follows same relationship with I p DSS
Baffer (2013) (Gulf of Maine), and organic silt as proposed by Andersen (2004)
Agaiby and Mayne (2015) Worldwide soils (360 tests, R2 ¼ 0.76) su ¼ 0.152V 1.142
s Triaxial compression
Worldwide soils (362 tests, R2 ¼ 0.87 su ¼ 0.038V 1.063 0.14 0.31 0.07 00.23
Agaiby and Mayne (2015) h s I p OCR i e0 σv0 Triaxial compression
300
Andersen (2015) Worldwide soils I p in range 10–100% Gmax
sDSS
¼ 30 þ Ip OCR−0.25 DSS
u ð100 þ0.03Þ

Fig. 13. V s versus su from (a) CAUC triaxial tests; (b) CAUE triaxial tests on high-quality samples

A similar plot for V s against undrained shear strength from The data in Fig. 14(a) are compared to the relationships
DSS is presented in Fig. 14(a). There seems to be a particularly proposed by Andersen (2004) (i.e., Gmax =su;DSS ¼ 800–900
good fit between V s and suDSS . Perhaps this is not surprising given (Table 3). This latter relationship is that currently used in Norwe-
that the mode of deformation is the same in the two sets of tests. gian design practice for choice of Gmax based on DSS test results.
The best fit relationship is given by To compare with the relationships proposed by Andersen (2004)
density has been assumed to vary between 1.6 and 1.9 Mg=m3 and
V s ¼ 13.32s0.72
u;DSS or su;DSS ¼ 0.027V 1.39
s with R2 ¼ 0.87
the empirical factor to vary between 800 and 900. Fig. 14 shows the
ð10Þ two extreme lines from the Andersen (2004) relationship. The fit is

© ASCE 04017013-14 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., -1--1

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by THE UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE on 02/13/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 14. (a) V s versus su from DSS tests; (b) Gmax =su (DSS) versus I p

test. He defined the tangent modulus (or the constrained modulus),

M, as the ratio of the change in stress (δσ 0 ) to the change in strain
(δε) for a particular load in increment, i.e.

dσ 0
M¼ ð11Þ
dε

For a low stress level, around the in situ vertical effective stress
0
(σv0 ), the resistance against deformation (M 0 ) is large. When the
stress increases this high resistance decreases appreciably owing to
partial collapse of the grain skeleton. Resistance reaches a mini-
mum (M n ) around the preconsolidation stress (pc0 ). Subsequently
when the effective stress is increased beyond pc0 the resistance
increases linearly with increasing effective stress. In the overcon-
solidated range M 1 (the average between M 0 and M n ) is often used
in design. The minimum value of the tangent modulus is M L .
The ratio between M 0 and M L was proposed by Karlsrud and
Fig. 15. NGI interpretation of classical Janbu tangent modulus versus Hernandez-Martinez (2013) as an index for assessing sample dis-
stress model turbance in soft clays.
Behavior in the normal consolidation stress range can be ap-
proximated by a linear odometer modulus M. Hence, for σ 0 > pc0
good at low V s value, but large difference arise for higher V s
results. The reason for these differences may come from the fact M ¼ mðσ 0 − σr0 Þ ð12Þ
that the relationships proposed by Andersen (2004) are based on
laboratory measurements of V s and Gmax , whereas in situ V s data where m = modulus number and σr0 = intercept on the σ 0 axis and is
are used in this study. It would seem that current Norwegian prac- the reference stress.
tice for a choice of Gmax based on suDSS is conservative but there is Here odometer test data were obtained from tests on high-
great potential for optimization of the approach. quality Sherbrooke block samples or miniblock samples only
Similarly the ratio of Gmax (determined from V s ) and su (DSS) is was used. The relationship between M0 and M L and V s is shown
plotted against I p in Fig. 14(b) and is compared to the relationships in Fig. 16. Correlations would be expected here as V s is a function
proposed by Andersen (2004) and Larsson and Mulabdić (1991) of the current state of stress. There is a clear trend of both M 0 and
(Table 3). The fit between the data and the two relationships is M L increase with increasing V s as expected. The scatter in the data
reasonable if a little conservative for I p greater than 30%. increases for increasing V s and the greatest variation is for the
highly overconsolidated Eidsvoll and Hvalsdalen clay. The best-
fit power trend lines shown give reasonable R2 values of 0.78
Correlations with 1D Compression Parameters and 0.8 for M 0 and M L , respectively. A similar relationship for
M 1 gives R2 of 0.69.
In this section in situ shear-wave velocity measurements are com- Values of the preconsolidation stress (pc0 as determined by the
pared to the classical 1D compression parameters published by Janbu procedure) are plotted against V s in Fig. 17. Again a reason-
Janbu (1963, 1969). The classical Janbu plot of 1D compression able correlation would be expected here as the shear-wave velocity
stiffness against stress is shown in Fig. 15. Janbu (1963) used is strongly dependent on the maximum past stress experienced by
the resistance concept to interpret 1D consolidation in an odometer the clay. The relationship between pc0 and V s is satisfactory and the

© ASCE 04017013-15 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., -1--1

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by THE UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE on 02/13/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 16. Janbu tangent moduli: (a) M 0 ; (b) M L versus V s

tendency for an increase in m with increasing V s . However, the

fit is not as good for M 0, M 1 , and pc0 . This is not surprising as
one would expect V s to represent the current state of stress not
at some arbitrary higher stress stiffness.

Conclusions

The purpose of this study was to present guidelines and correlations

to assist geotechnical engineers in estimating V s profiles in Norwe-
gian clays in the absence of site-specific data. Additionally, the
study aimed to highlight relationships that can be used by practic-
ing engineers to give first-order estimates of soil properties. To
achieve this, a database of in situ V s measurements and standard
geotechnical engineering material properties for Norwegian clays
from 28 sites has been established. Data from high-quality
Sherbrooke block or miniblock samples only were used. It was
found that
• Reliable measurements of V s can be obtained from a variety of
techniques such as SCPTU, downhole tests or surface wave
(principally MASW) testing. Intrinsic differences of the order
of 20% or less can be expected between the various methods;
• For surface wave testing, survey design needs to be carried out
carefully on a site-by-site basis and the inversion process needs
to be carefully controlled;
• There are some small differences between the clays from south-
Fig. 17. Preconsolidation stress (pc0 ) versus V s ern and eastern Norway and from mid-Norway. However V s
values show similar trend with depth but differ mainly by the
value of V s at the surface;
• The link between the V s measurements and index data for the
best-fit power function has an R2 value of 0.8. This is an important Norwegian clays fit well with established relationships for clays
finding given the sensitivity of settlement calculations to the pc0 worldwide;
value. However, the fit is not good for OCR. • CPTU can be used to give reliable estimates of V s in Norwegian
The variation in the modulus number m versus shear-wave clays. Relationships that involve the input of an index property
velocity has also been explored (NGI 2015). There is a clear such as the water content (w) and the in situ effective stress

© ASCE 04017013-16 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., -1--1

 0
(σv0 ), or which rely on the CPTU-measured data only (qt and References
Bq ) both work well;
• V s correlates satisfactorily with CAUC and DSS derived su Aasland, R. (2010). “Kartlegging av kvikkleire med 2D resistivitet
values. These relationships can be used either to evaluate V s og RCPT i Rissa.” NTNU Trondheim, Trondheim, Norway
(in Norwegian).
from a given soil property, or the way around to evaluate soil
Agaiby, S. S., and Mayne, P. W. (2015). “Relationship between undrained
properties from V s ; and
shear strength and shear wave velocity for clays.” 6th Symp. on Defor-
• There appears to be a good link between V s and preconsolida- mation Characteristics of Geomaterials, V. A. Rinaldi, ed., IOS Press,
tion stress (pc0 ). Useful relationships also exist between V s and Argentina, 358–365.
the tangent moduli M 0 and M 1 . Anagnostopoulos, A., Koukis, G., Sabatakakis, N., and Tsiambaos, G.
As there is an intrinsic uncertainty associated with all geophysi- (2003). “Empirical correlations of soil parameters based on cone
cal techniques, it is recommended that engineers consider all avail- penetration tests (CPT) for Greek soils.” Geotech. Geol. Eng., 21(4),
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by THE UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE on 02/13/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

able data including available relationships, in situ measured V s 377–387.

profiles, and site-specific geotechnical data. The use of correlations Andersen, K. H. (2004). “Cyclic clay data for foundation design of struc-
in geotechnical engineering should be limited to the conditions for tures subjected to wave loading.” Proc., Int. Conf. on Cyclic Behaviour
which they were developed and calibrated. of Soils and Liquefaction Phenomena, Taylor & Francis Group,
London.
Andersen, K. H. (2015). “Cyclic soil parameters for offshore foundation
design.” 3rd McClelland Lecture: Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics
Acknowledgments III, V. Meyer, ed., Taylor & Francis Group, Oslo, Norway, 5–82.
Ashford, S. A., Jakrapiyanum, W., and Lukkanaprasit, P. (1997).
This work is funded by the Norwegian Geotechnical Society (NGF) “Amplification of earthquake ground motion in Bangkok.” Research
through NGF stipend 2014-2015 and through the NFR strategic Rep. Cu\CE\EVR\1997.002, Chulalongkorn Univ., Bangkok, Thailand.
research project SP8-GEODIP at NGI. The authors would like to ASTM. (2014). “Standard test methods for crosshole seismic testing.”
thank their many colleagues at NGI, NTNU, Multiconsult, SVV, ASTM D4428/D4428M-14, West Conshohocken, PA.
APEX, and UCD for help in assembling the large dataset. The ASTM. (2014). “Standard test methods for downhole seismic testing.”
authors gratefully acknowledge their colleagues’ assistance during ASTM D7400-14, West Conshohocken, PA.
field-data acquisition as well as their numerous helpful discussions. Baffer, B. A. (2013). “Relationship between small strain shear modulus and
undrained shear strength in direct simple shear.” M.S. dissertation, Univ.
of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI.
Baxter, C. D. P., Guadalupe Torres, Y., Baffer, B., and Sharma, M. S. R.
Notation
(2015). “Links between small and large strain behaviour of Presumps-
cot clay.” Symp. on the Presumpscot Formation, Portland, ME, 1–8.
The following symbols are used in this paper:
Blake, W. D., and Gilbert, R. B. (1997). “Investigation of possible relation-
A = attraction; ship between undrained shear strength and shear wave velocity for nor-
Bq = piezocone pore water pressure coefficient = mally consolidated clays.” Offshore Technology Conf. (OTC), Offshore
ðu2 − u0 Þ=qnet ; Technology Conference, Houston, 411–419.
e=e0 = void ratio/initial void ratio; Boaga, J., Vignoli, G., Deiana, R., and Cassiani, G. (2014). “The influence
f s = piezocone sleeve friction; of subsoil structure and acquisition parameters in MASW mode
mis-identification.” J. Eng. Environ. Geophys., 19(2), 87–99.
Gmax = small strain shear modulus;
Bouckovalas, G., Kalteziotis, N., Sabatakakis, N., and Zervogiannis, C.
gmax = normalized small strain shear modulus; (1989). “Shear wave velocity in a very soft clay—Measurements
I p = plasticity index; and correlations.” Proc., 12th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foun-
M = constrained modulus in odometer test = δσv0 =δε; dation Engineering (ICSMFE), Taylor & Francis Group, Abingdon,
m = modulus number; U.K., 191–194.
OCR = overconsolidation ratio; BRE (Building Research Establishment). (1990). “Raleigh wave measure-
ments at Lierstranda.” Rep. G/GP/9015, Holmen and Museumpark in
pa = atmospheric pressure/reference stress; Drammen, Garston, Watford, U.K.
pc0 = preconsolidation pressure; Butcher, A. P., and Powell, J. J. M. (1996). “Practical considerations for
qt = corrected piezocone cone end resistance; field geophysical techniques used to assess ground stiffness” Proc.,
qnet = piezocone net end resistance = qt − σv0 ; Conf. on Advances in Site Investigation Practice Thomas Telford
St = sensitivity; London, Thomas Telford Ltd., London, 701–715.
Cai, G., Puppala, A. J., and Liu, S. (2014). “Characterization on the
su = undrained shear strength;
correlation between shear wave velocity and piezocone tip resistance
sur = remolded undrained shear strength; of Jiangsu clays.” Eng. Geol., 171, 96–103.
u = pore pressure; Campanella, R. G., Robertson, P. K., and Gillespie, D. (1986). “Seismic
u0 = in situ pore water pressure; cone penetration tests.” ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No.
u2 = pore pressure measured by piezocone; 6, Use of Insitu Tests in Geotechnical Engineering (GSP 6), ASCE,
Reston, VA, 116–130.
V s = shear-wave velocity;
Cercato, M. (2009). “Addressing non-uniqueness in linearized multichan-
w = natural water content; nel surface wave inversion.” Geophys. Prospect., 57(1), 27–47.
γ b = bulk unit weight; Cercato, M. (2011). “Global surface wave inversion with modal
ρ = density; constraints.” Geophys. Prospect., 59(2), 210–226.
σa0 = axial effective stress in triaxial test; Crice, D. (2005). “MASW, the wave of the future.” J. Environ. Eng.
σd0 = deviator stress = σa0 − σr0 ; Geophys., 10(2), 77–79.
Dickenson, S. E. (1994). “Dynamic response of soft and deep cohesive
σh0 = horizontal effective stress;
soils during the Loma Prieta earthquake of October 17, 1989.” Ph.D.
σm0 = mean effective stress; thesis, Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA.
σv0 = vertical effective stress; and Donohue, S., Long, M., O’Connor, P., Eide-Helle, T., Pffaffhuber, A. A.,
0
σv0 = in situ vertical effective stress. and Rømoen, M. (2012). “Geophysical mapping of quick clay:

© ASCE 04017013-17 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., -1--1

 A case study from Smørgrav, Norway.” J. Near Surf. Geophys., technique.” NGI Rep. 20061061–1, Norwegian Geotechnical Institute,
10(3), 207–219. Oslo, Norway.
Donohue, S., Long, M., O’Connor, P., Eide–Helle, T., Pfaffhuber, A. A., King, J. (2013). “Testing of clays at landslide site at Esp, Bynesset.”
and Rømoen, M. (2009). “Assessment of geophysical techniques for the Master’s thesis, Norwegian Univ. of Science and Technology, Geotech-
mapping of quick clay deposits in Norway.” Proc., Near Surface 2009– nical Division, Trondheim, Norway.
15th European Meeting of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, Knutsen, M. (2014). “On determination of Gmax by bender element and
European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers (EAGE), Houten, cross-hole testing.” Master’s thesis, Norwegian Univ. of Science and
Netherlands. Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
Eide–Helle, T., Bryntesen, R. N., Amundsen, H. A., Emdal, A., Nordal, S., Kornbrekke, H. A. (2012). “Stability evaluation of Rissa clay slopes based
and Aagaard, P. (2015). “Laboratory setup to evaluate the improvement on block samples.” Master’s thesis, Norwegian Univ. of Science and
of geotechnical properties from potassium chloride saturation of a quick Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
clay from Dragvoll, Norway.” GEOQuébec 2015—Challenges from Kramer, S. (1996). Geotechnical earthquake engineering, Simon &
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by THE UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE on 02/13/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

North to South Québec, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Schuster, London.
Eidsmoen, T., Gillespie, D. T. L., and Campanella, R. G. (1985). “Tests Ku, T., Mayne, P. W., and Cargill, E. (2013). “Continuous-interval shear
with UBC seismic cone at three Norwegian research sites.” NGI wave velocity profiling by auto-source and seismic piezocone tests.”
Rep. No. 59040–1, Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, Oslo, Norway. Can. Geotech. J., 50(4), 382–390.
Foti, S., Lai, C. G., Rix, G. J., and Strobbia, C. (2015). Surface wave meth- Kulkarni, M. P., Patel, A., and Singh, D. N. (2010). “Application of shear
ods for near surface site characterisation, Taylor & Francis Group, wave velocity for characterising clays from coastal regions.” KSCE J.
New York. Civ. Eng., 14(3), 307–321.
Gylland, A., Long, M., Emdal, A., and Sandven, R. (2013). “Characterisa- Langø, H. (1991). “Cyclic shear modulus of natural intact clays.” Ph.D.
tion and engineering properties of Tiller clay.” Eng. Geol., 164, 86–100. thesis, NTH, Trondheim, Norway.
Gylland, A. S. (2012). “Material and slope failure in sensitive clays.” Ph.D. Larsson, R., and Mulabdić, M. (1991). “Shear moduli in Scandinavian
thesis, Norwegian Univ. of Science and Technology, Trondheim, clays.” Rep. No. 40, Swedish Geotechnical Institute, Linköping,
Norway. Sweden.
Hagberg, K., Long, M., and El Hadj, N. (2007). “Experience of 54 and Leroueil, S., and Hight, D. W. (2003). “Behavior and properties of natural
75 mm sampling in Norwegian soft clays.” Proc., 14th European
soils and soft rocks.” Proc., Int. Workshop on Characterisation and En-
Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering (ECSMGE),
gineering Properties of Natural Soils, T. S. Tan, K. K. Phoon, D. W.
MillPress, Madrid, Spain, 1643–1649.
Hight, and S. Leroueil, eds., A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands,
Hardin, B. O. (1978). “The nature of stress–strain behaviour for soils.”
29–254.
Proc., ASCE Specialty Conf. on Earthquake Engineering and Soil
L’Heureux, J.-S., et al. (2013). “Settlement prediction from high-resolution
Dynamics, ASCE, Reston, VA, 3–90.
shear-wave reflection seismic data: The Trondheim Harbour case study,
Hardin, B. O., and Drnevich, V. P. (1972). “Shear modulus and damping
mid Norway.” Eng. Geol., 167, 72–83.
in soils: Measurement and parameter effects.” J. Soil Mech. Found.
Likitlersuang, S., and Kyaw, K. (2010). “A study of shear wave velocity
Div., 98(SM6), 603–624.
correlations of Bangkok subsoil.” Obras y proyectos, 7, 27–33.
Hegazy, Y. A., and Mayne, P. W. (1995). “Statistical correlations between
Likitlersuang, S., Teachavorasinskun, S., Surarak, C., Oh, E., and
Vs and CPT data for different soil types.” Proc., Symp. on Cone Pen-
etration Testing, Swedish Geotechnical Society, Linköping, Sweden, Balasubramaniam, A. S. (2013). “Small strain stiffness and stiffness
173–178. degradation curve of Bangkok clays.” Soils Found. Jpn. Geotech.
Heisey, J. S., Stokoe, K. H., and Meyer, A. H. (1982). “Moduli of pavement Soc., 53(4), 498–509.
systems from spectral analysis of surface waves.” Transport. Res. Rec., Long, M. (2008). “Design parameters from in situ tests in soft ground–
852, 21–31. recent developments.” Proc., 3rd Int. Conf. on Geotechnical and
Hoar, R. J., and Stokoe, K. H. (1978). “Generation and measurement Geophysical Site Characterization-ISC’3, Taylor & Francis, London,
of shear waves in situ.” Dynamic geotechnical testing, ASTM, 89–116.
Philadelphia, 3–29. Long, M., and Donohue, S. (2007). “In situ shear wave velocity from multi-
Hundal, E. (2014). “CPTU med målt total sonderingsmotstand, Nye channel analysis of surface waves (MASW) tests at eight Norwegian
muligheter for å detektere kvikkleire?” Masteroppgave Norges research sites.” Can. Geotech. J., 44(5), 533–544.
Teknisk-Naturvitenskapelige Universitet, Institutt for Bygg, Aalegg og Long, M., and Donohue, S. (2010). “Characterisation of Norwegian marine
Transport (NTNU) (in Norwegian). clays with combined shear wave velocity and CPTU data.” Can.
Jaime, A., and Romo, M. P. (1988). “The Mexico earthquake of September Geotech. J., 47(7), 709–718.
19, 1985—Correlations between dynamic and static properties of Long, M., Donohue, S., and O’Connor, P. (2008). “Rapid, cost effective
Mexico City clay.” Earthquake Spectra, 4(4), 787–804. and accurate determination of in situ stiffness using MASW at
Janbu, N. (1963). “Soil compressibility as determined by oedometer Bothkennar.” Ground Eng., 43–46.
and triaxial tests.” Proc., 3rd European Conf. on Soil Mechanics Long, M., El Hadj, N., and Hagberg, K. (2009). “Quality of conventional
and Foundation Engineering, 19–25. fixed piston samples of soft clay.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,
Janbu, N. (1969). “The resistance concept applied to deformations of soils.” 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2009)135:2(185), 185–198.
Proc., 7th Int. Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering Conf., Lo Presti, D. C. F., Jamiolkowski, M., and Pepe, M. (2003). “Geotechnical
Rotterdam, Netherlands, 191–196. characterization of the subsoil of Pisa Tower.” Characterization and
Janbu, N. (1985). “Soil models in offshore engineering: The 25th Rankine Engineering Properties of Natural Soils: Proc., Int. workshop, T. S.
lecture.” Géotechnique, 35(3), 241–281. Tan, K. K. Phoon, D. W. Hight, and S. Leroueil, eds., A.A. Balkema,
Karlsrud, K., and Hernandez-Martinez, F. G. (2013). “Strength and Rotterdam, Netherlands, 909–946.
deformation properties of Norwegian clays from laboratory tests on Lunne, T., Berre, T., Andersen, K. H., Strandvik, S., and Sjursen, M.
high-quality block samples.” Can. Geotech. J., 50(12), 1273–1293. (2006). “Effects of sample disturbance and consolidation procedures
Karlsrud, K., Lunne, T., and Brattlien, K. (1996). “Improved CPTU inter- on measured shear strength of soft marine Norwegian clays.” Can.
pretations based on block samples.” Proc., XII Nordic Geotechnical Geotech. J., 43(7), 726–750.
Conf., 195–201. Lunne, T., Berre, T., and Strandvik, S. (1997). “Sample disturbance in
Karlsrud, K., Lunne, T., Kort, D. A., and Strandvik, S. (2005). “CPTU soft low plasticity Norwegian clay.” Proc., Symp. on Recent Develop-
correlations for clays.” Proc., 16th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and ments in Soil and Pavement Mechanics, A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam,
Geotechnical Engineering, 693–702. Netherlands, 81–92.
Kaynia, A. N., and Cleave, R. (2006). “Risk assessment for slides and Lunne, T., and Lacasse, S. (1999). “Geotechnical characterisation of the
earthquakes—Site characterization at a test site in Oslo by SASW low plasticity Drammen clay.” Proc., Int. Symp. on Characterisation

© ASCE 04017013-18 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., -1--1

 of Soft Marine Clays-Bothkennar, Drammen, Quebec and Ariake Clays, Geotechnical Engineering, A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands,
A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 33–56. 729–734.
Lunne, T., Long, M., and Forsberg, C. F. (2003). “Characterisation and en- Rice, A. H. (1984). “The seismic cone penetrometer.” M.Sc. thesis, Univ. of
gineering properties of Onsøy clay.” Proc., Int. Workshop. on Charac- British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
terisation and Engineering Properties of Natural Soils, A. A. Balkema, Robertson, P. K., Campanella, R. G., Gillespie, D., and Rice, A. (1986).
Rotterdam, Netherlands, 395–427. “Seismic CPT to measure in situ shear wave velocity.” J. Geotech.
Lunne, T., Robertson, P. K., and Powell, J. J. M. (1997). Cone penetration Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1986)112:8(791), 791–803 .
testing in geotechnical practice, Blackie Academic and Professional, Rømoen, M. (2006). “Evaluation of stability and deformations in the Berg
London. area Trondheim.” M.Sc. thesis, NTNU, Trondheim, Norway.
Luo, Y., Xia, J., Liu, J., Liu, Q., and Xu, S. (2007). “Joint inversion of Røsand, R. H. (1986). “Vurdering av konsoliderings—koeffisienten tolket
high-frequency surface waves with fundamental and higher modes.” fra trykksonderingsforsøk.” Hovedoppgave, Høsten 1986, Institutt for
J. App. Geophys., 62(4), 375–384. Geoteknikk, Dept. of Civil and Transport Engineering, Norges Teknisk
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by THE UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE on 02/13/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Marchetti, S., Monaco, P., Totani, G., and Marchetti, D. (2008). “In situ Høyskole (NTH now NTNU), Trondheim, Norway.
tests by seismic dilatometer (SDMT).” Res. Pract. Geotech. Eng., Rosenqvist, I. T. (1953). “Considerations on the sensitivity of Norwegian
180, 292–311. quick clays.” Géotechnique, 3(5), 195–200.
Mayne, P. W. (2006). “In situ test calibrations for evaluating soil param- Sandven, R. (1990). “Strength and deformation properties of fine grained
eters: Overview paper.” Characterization and Engineering Properties soils obtained from piezocone tests.” Ph.D. thesis, Norges Tekniske
of Natural Soils II (Proc., Singapore Workshop), Taylor & Francis Høgskole(now NTNU), Trondheim, Norway.
Group, London. Sandven, R., Ørbech, T., and Lunne, T. (2004). “Sample disturbance in
Mayne, P. W., and Rix, G. J. (1993). “Gmax − qc relationships for clays.” highly sensitive clay.” Proc., 2nd Int. Conf. on Geotechnical and
ASTM Geotech. Test. J., 16(1), 54–60. Geophysical Site Characterisation—ISC’2, Millpress, Rotterdam,
Mayne, P. W., and Rix, G. J. (1995). “Correlations between cone tip Netherlands, 1861–1868.
resistance and shear wave velocity in natural clay.” Soils Found., Sandven, R., and Sjursen, M. (1998). “Sample disturbance in soils-results
35(2), 107–110. from investigations in an overconsolidated marine clay.” Proc., 1st Int.
Menzies, B., and Matthews, M. C. (1996). “The continuous surface wave Conf. on Geotechnical Site Characterisation, A. A. Balkema,
system: A modern technique for site investigation.” Special Lecture Rotterdam, Netherlands, 409–417.
at the Indian Geotechnical Conf. Madras, Geotechnical Data Systems Sauvin, G., et al. (2013). “Towards geophysical and geotechnical integra-
(GDS), Egham, U.K., 11–14. tion for quick clay mapping in Norway.” J. Near Surf. Geophys., 11(6),
Montafia, A. (2013). “Influence of physical properties of marine clays 613–623.
on electric resistivity and basic geotechnical parameters.” Master’s the- Sauvin, G., et al. (2016). “Impacts of data acquisition parameters and
sis, Norwegian Univ. of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, processing techniques on S-wave velocity profiles from MASW–
Norway. examples from Trondheim, Norway.” 17th Nordic Geotechnical
Meeting (NGM) Reykjavik, Icelandic Geotechnical Society, London,
Mulargia, F., and Castellaro, S. (2009). “Experimental uncertainty on the
1297–1306.
Vs(z) profile and seismic soil classification.” Seismic Res. Lett., 80(6),
Sauvin, G., Bazin, S., Vanneste, M., Lecomte, I., and Pfaffhuber, A. A.
985–988.
(2011). “Towards joint inversion/interpretation for landslide-prone
Nazarian, S., and Stokoe, K. H. (1984). “In situ shear wave velocities from
areas in Norway-integrating geophysics and geotechnique.” Near Sur-
spectral analysis of surface waves.” 8th World Conf. on Earthquake
face 2011—17th European Meeting of Environmental and Engineering
Engineering, San Francisco, 31–38.
Geophysics Leicester, European Association of Geoscientists and
Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI). (2015). “Correlations between Engineers (EAGE), Houten, Netherlands.
shear wave velocity and geotechnical parameters in Norwegian clays.”
Sauvin, G., Lecomte, I., Bazin, S., Hansen, L., Vanneste, M., and
Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, Oslo, Norway. L’Heureux, J.-S. (2014). “On the integrated use of geophysics for
Norwegian Geotechnical Society (NGF). (1982). “Veilding for symboler og quick-clay mapping: The Hvittingfoss case study, Norway.” App.
definisjoner i goeteknikk-presentasjon av geotekniske undersøkelser.” Geophys, 106, 1–13.
Norwegian Geotechnical Society (Norsk Geoteknisk Forening), Oslo, Sauvin, G., Lecomte, I., Bazin, S., L’Heureux, J.-S., and Vanneste, M.
Norway (in Norwegian). (2013). “Geophysical data integration for hazard assessment of
O’Neill, A., and Matsuoka, T. (2005). “Dominant higher surface-wave quick-clay landslide prone areas: The Hvittingfoss case study, Norway.”
modes and possible inversion pitfalls.” J. Environ. Eng. Geophys., Proc., Int. Conf. on Landslides in Sensitive Clays (ICLSC),
10(2), 185–201. J.-S. L’. Heureux and S. Leroueil, eds., Univ. of Laval, Quebéc City.
Park, C. B., and Brohammer, M. (2003). “SurfSeis.” Multichannel analysis Seistronix [Computer software]. Seistronix, Inc., Rancho Cordova, CA.
of surface waves, Kansas Geological Survey, Lawrence, KS. Simonini, P., and Cola, S. (2000). “Use of piezocone to predict maximum
Park, C. B., Miller, D. M., and Miura, H. (2002). “Optimum field param- stiffness of Venetian soils.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061
eters of an MASW survey.” Proc., 6th SEG-J Int. Symp., Tokyo. /(ASCE)1090-0241(2000)126:4(378), 378–382.
Park, C. B., Miller, D. M., and Xia, J. (1999). “Multichannel analysis Socco, L. V., and Strobbia, C. (2004). “Surface-wave method for near
of surface waves.” Geophysics, 64(3), 800–808. surface characterization: A tutorial.” Near Surf. Geophys., 2(4),
Pasquet, S., Sauvin, G., Andriamboavonjy, M. R., Bodet, L., Lecomte, I., 165–185.
and Guérin, R. (2014). “Surface-wave dispersion inversion versus SH Soccodato, F. M. (2003). “Geotechnical properties of Fucino clayey soil.”
wave refraction tomography in saturated and poorly dispersive quick Proc., Int. Workshop Characterization and Engineering Properties of
clays.” 20th European Meeting of Environmental and Engineering Natural Soils, T. S. Tan, K. K. Phoon, D. W. Hight, and S. Leroueil,
Geophysics (EAGE) Athens, European Association of Geoscientists eds., A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 791–807.
and Engineers (EAGE), Houten, Netherlands. Sutton, J. A. (1999). “Engineering seismic geophysics at Bothkennar.”
Pfaffhuber, A. A., et al. (2010). “Multi-method high resolution geophysical M.Phil. thesis, Univ. of Surrey, Guildford, U.K.
and geotechnical quick clay mapping.” Near Surface 2010-16th Euro- Taboada, V. M., Cruz, D., and Barrera, P. (2013). “Predictive equations of
pean Meeting of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics Zurich, shear wave velocity for Bay of Campeche clay.” Offshore Technology
European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers (EAGE), Houten, Conf. (OTC), OTC, Houston.
Netherlands. Takle-Eide, H. (2015). “On shear wave velocity testing in clay.” Masters
Piratheepan, P. (2002). “Estimating shear-wave velocity from SPT and CPT thesis, Geotechnical Division, Norwegian Univ. of Science and
data.” M.Sc. thesis, Clemson Univ., Clemson, SC. Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway.
Powell, J. J. M., and Lunne, T. (2005). “A comparison of different sized Tanaka, H., Tanaka, M., and Iguchi, H. (1994). “Shear modulus of soft
piezocones in UK clays.” Proc., 16th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and clay measured by various kinds of tests.” Proc., Symp. on Pre-Failure

© ASCE 04017013-19 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., -1--1

 Deformation of Geomaterials Sapporo, A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, winMASW [Computer software]. Eliosoft, Palmanova, Italy.
Netherlands, 235–240. Woods, R. D. (1978). “Measurement of dynamic soil properties.” Earth-
Teachavorasinskun, S., and Lukkunaprasit, P. (2004). “A simple correlation quake engineering soil dynamic, ASCE, Reston, VA, 91–178.
for shear wave velocity of soft Bangkok clays.” Géotechnique, 54(5), Xia, J., Miller, R. D., Park, C. B., Hunter, J. A., and Harris, J. B. (2000).
323–326. “Comparing shear-wave velocity profiles from MASW with borehole
Torpe, G. R. (2014). “Utvikling og evaluering av prosedyrer for measurements in unconsolidated sediments, Fraser River Delta, BC,
gjennomføring av udrenerte skjærkrypforsøk i kvikkleire [Development Canada.” J. Environ. Eng. Geophys., 5(3), 1–13.
and evaluation of procedures for undrained shear creep tests on quick Xia, J., Miller, R. D., Park, C. B., and Tian, G. (2003). “Inversion of high
clay].” Master’s thesis, Geotechnical Division, Dept. of Civil and frequency surface waves with fundamental and higher modes.” J. App.
Transport Engineering, Norwegian Univ. of Science and Technology Geophys., 52(1), 45–57.
(NTNU), Trondheim, Norway (in Norwegian). Yun, T. S., Narsilio, G. A., and Santamarina, J. C. (2006). “Physical char-
Westerlund, G. J. (1978). Undersøkelser av dynamisk skjærmoduli i leire. acteristics of core samples recovered from Gulf of Mexico.” Mar. Pet.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by THE UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE on 02/13/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

NTNU, Trondheim, Norway. Geol., 23(9–10), 893–900.

© ASCE 04017013-20 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., -1--1