You are on page 1of 6

HBRC Journal (2013) 9, 144–149

Housing and Building National Research Center

HBRC Journal
http://ees.elsevier.com/hbrcj

FULL LENGTH ARTICLE

Comparison between results of dynamic & static moduli
of soil determined by different methods
A.H. Hammam
a
b

a,*

, M. Eliwa

b

Housing and Building National Research Center, Cairo, Egypt
Al-Jazzar Consulting Engineers, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

Received 28 November 2012; accepted 17 December 2012

KEYWORDS
Shear wave velocity;
Dynamic shear modulus;
Cross-hole;
Pressure-meter

Abstract A comprehensive study was carried out to investigate static and dynamic soil properties
for a high rise building in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. A total of 21 boreholes were drilled to a maximum
depth of 100 m including the performance of Standard Penetration Tests and core measurements
for rock formations. Pressure-meter tests were performed to determine Young, ES and shear, G
moduli while shear wave velocity were measured through cross-hole method. The dynamic shear
modulus Gmax and Poisson’s Ratio (t) could be estimated directly through relations with shear wave
velocity. Three boreholes at three locations were prepared during drilling for carrying out pressuremeter tests every 5.0 m from ground surface down to 60.0 m. Other two locations at the site were
chosen to perform cross-hole tests. These tests were performed from ground surface down to 55.0 m
at intervals of 1.50 m. A comprehensive comparison was established between the results of Young
and shear moduli determined from pressure-meter, cross-hole and S.P.T. It was observed that the
values of ES and G determined via pressure-meter are much less than those of Ei and Gmax determined via cross-hole tests. It was also observed that the results of shear wave velocity, estimated
via S.P.T correlations, have a wide range but are in fair agreement with the results of cross-hole
tests.
ª 2013 Housing and Building National Research Center. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V.
All rights reserved.

Introduction

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: adelhamam@yahoo.com (A.H. Hammam).
Peer review under responsibility of Housing and Building National
Research Center.

Production and hosting by Elsevier

The shear wave velocity of soils plays an important role in the
design of geotechnical structures under dynamic loads. Measurements of the subsurface shear wave velocity (VS) can provide input to seismic design methods such as site response
analysis and the evaluation of liquefaction potential. Moreover, as VS represents the material and structural condition
of the soil, it can be applied to the evaluation of layer structure, degree of compaction or consolidation of a soft soil
and weak zones of a site [1]. Hence, the researchers do their

1687-4048 ª 2013 Housing and Building National Research Center. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hbrcj.2013.05.002

35N0. (1975) Imai (1977) Ohta and Goto (1978) Seed and Idriss (1981) Imai and Tonouchi (1982) Sykora and Stokoe (1983) Jinan (1987) Okamoto et al. 1 [3]. The difference between static and dynamic loading is that the second induces very small shear strain less than the elastic strain of 0.516 Vs = 19N0. Author(s) Shibata (1970) Ohba and Toriuma (1970) Imai and Yoshimura (1975) Ohta et al.269 – – Vs = 44N0. Table 1 145 The target from measurement of VS is to determine the maximum or initial shear modulus Gmax. elastic and isotropic medium [m/s]. These curves can be used to solve dynamic problems when shear strains drive the soil beyond its elastic range. and shear wave velocity. VS.4N0.309 VSU = 23.1(N + 0.3185)0.01% [2].348 Vs = 61. number of loading cycles.337 Vs = 81.P.31 Vs = 76N0.9N0. N. seismic refraction. the equipment is not widely available and. and spectral analysis of surface waves (SASW). A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z AA AB All soils – Vs = 84N0.64N0. Sometimes the use of in situ tests to achieve field measurements.178 Vs = 131(N60)0. (1989) Lee (1990) Athanasopoulos (1995) Sisman (1995) Iyisan (1996) Kanai (1996) Jafari et al.26 Sand 0. Several studies have shown that the shear modulus decreases dramatically with increasing shear strain.36 – – – – – – – – – Vs = 80. while shear strains for static loading of foundations are generally in the range of 0. void ratio and over-consolidation ratio can affect the results of soil response. conventional drilling. and laboratory testing has become cost-effective to determine strength and stiffness parameters over an entire site.01% [2].001%.29 – Vs = 125N0.314 – Vs = 116.271 Vs = 107. sampling.5 Vs = 96.6 Vs = 22N0.001%.Results of dynamic & static moduli of soil by different methods best to measure VS using accurate methods whether in the laboratory or in the field.9N0. (1997) Kiku et al.61 VSL = 52.319 – – Vs = 73N0. Field measurements of shear wave velocity include cross-hole tests (CHT).54 Vs = 31.51 Vs = 51.82N0.79(N60)0.D. Poisson’s ratio (t) can also be determined from the following equation: t ¼ ððVP =VS Þ2  2Þ=2ððVP =VS Þ2  1Þ ð2Þ where VS is the shear wave velocity and VP is the compression wave velocity.73 Vs = 97.5N0. thus optimizing data collection [2].291 Ln(N)+405. Fig.445 – – – – – Vs = 27N0. Laboratory measurements include resonant column.341 Vs = 91N0. bender elements and tri-axial internal local strain [2]. the test is generally too expensive to perform for most construction projects.1–0.T.48 Vs = 132(N60)0.36 – – – Vs = 80. seismic reflection. However. consequently. and frequency.001%).85 Vs = 68.-N [3]. . exist in the literature as shown in Table 1 [3]. correlations.202 – – Vs = 107.6N0. Accordingly.011N Vs = 58N0.55N0. dynamic Young modulus Ei can be estimated as follows: Ei ¼ 2Gmax ð1 þ tÞ ð3Þ This paper is considered an attempt to understand the relation between the static soil parameters measured by pressuremeter and the dynamic soil parameters measured by cross-hole method and those estimated through S. blow count.39 Vs = 89. Gmax can be determined according to the following equation: Gmax ¼ q  V2S ½kPa ð1Þ 3 where q – mass density [Mg/m ]. VS – shear wave velocity for linear.6N0.T. In the laboratory.5N0. which can be related to very small shear strain (less than 0.77 – – – Vs = 60N0.2N0.1–0.3 Vs = 57. down-hole tests (DHT).39 – Vs = 104. confining pressure.36 Vs = 32. parameters such as shear strain. (1999) Hasancebi and Ulusay (2006) I. (2002) Hasancebi and Ulusay (2006) Ulugergerli and Uyank (2007) Ulugergerli and Uyank (2007) Dikmen (2009) Pitilakis et al.33 Vs = 145(N60)0.31 Vs = 76.1N0. Other correlations have been established between cone penetration tests CPT and shear wave velocity [4].8N0. So.337 Vs = 85. suspension logging. Several studies have shown that the shear modulus decreases Some existing correlations between VS and S. Laboratory measurements have long been the reference standard for determining the properties of geo-materials.7N – – Vs = 87.237 The difference between static and dynamic loading is that the second induces very small shear strain less than the elastic strain of 0.63(N60)0.33 – Vs = 92.32 – – – – – – Vs = 22N0.T. Hence.4N0.292 – – – – – – Vs = 114.89N0. (1972) Fujiwara (1972) Ohsaki and Iwasaki (1973) Imai et al.3N0. torsion shear.331 – – – Vs = 100.43N0. The seismic piezo-cone penetration test and seismic flat dilatometer test are two multi-use in situ tests that provide a down-hole measurement of shear wave velocity in addition to penetration test parameters.49 – – – – – – – Vs = 90. numerous relations between S.P.292 – Vs = 90N0. The shear wave velocity is typically measured using the seismic field tests.2N0.9e0.205 Silt Clay – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Vs = 105. (2001) Jafari et al. Empirical modulus reduction schemes have been developed to show the relation between G/Gmax and shear strain. while shear strains for static loading of foundations are generally in the range of 0.4N0.P.

In general. showing very poor to fair quality at certain depths. The proportion of Coral reef and Coralline soil sediments are varying at different depths.3 + 0.H. Ei and Gmax with depth at one location.T.0 m. On the other hand. 2. Young ES and shear G moduli are considered to be the main 0 0 20 40 Es (MPa) 60 80 100 BH # 1 BH # 2 -10 BH # 3 Depth. and at 55 m). VP. Standard Penetration Tests were carried out besides core measurements for rock formations. whenever it becomes very soft or whenever there is coralline soil sediments. the scattered values gave good indications about the successive layers of soil and coral reefs. However. These curves can be used to solve dynamic problems when shear strains drive the soil beyond its elastic range.0 m at intervals of 1. Saudi Arabia [6]. Rock coring was measured at varying depths whenever there are Coral Reef formations. which consist of successive layers of grayish brown to off-white.T. 1 Modulus reduction curves for different types of soils [3]. G.0 m below ground surface at the time of site investigation. Cavities or soft layers can be observed at different depths (at 10 m. Such variations in TCR and RQD values are noticed at different depths. Whenever the sampling by Coring is very poor. M. Hammam. which shows the variation of ES with depth. The site is located nearby the Red See shore so the ground water table fluctuated between 2. TCR (Total Core Recovery) and RQD (Rock Quality Designation) indicated the inconsistent nature of the Coral Reef formation. 3 and 4. it was difficult to estimate the thicknesses of these soft layers from the results. Each location consists of three boreholes drilled and prepared according to ASTM D4428-2000 [8]. Coralline soil sediments are considered the disintegrated portion of the Coral Reef formation.P. with multi basements) in Jeddah. were carried out. while RQD values are observed between 0% and 65%. calcareous sand/silty sand with gravel and traces of shells inter-bedded with Coral Reefs. 120 . Comparisons have been achieved between the results of pressure-meter and those estimated from S. 2 that the results of ES are scattered and there is no clear trend for the results.0 and 100 m. These tests were performed from the ground surface down to 55. A total of 21 boreholes were drilled to a depth ranging between 50. 1 [3]. the TCR values are varying from 20% to 100%. For dynamic ground analyses. Fig. the cross-hole method was used to measure the shear wave velocity VS and hence dynamic shear modulus Gmax could be determined. Fig. ES. Standard Penetration Tests also were performed to collect samples. The test results are presented in Fig. Standard Penetration Tests S.P. Standard Penetration Test results indicate medium dense to very dense state of relative densities for the soil layers and for the soft to very soft Coral Reefs layers.3 + 0. Complicated marine sediments have been encountered in the site.146 A. Site conditions A comprehensive study was carried out to investigate static and dynamic soil properties for a high rise building (305 m height. Two locations at the site were chosen to perform cross-hole tests. and shear. Eliwa dramatically with increasing shear strain. which are the basic characteristics of the Coralline deposits in general. m -20 -30 -40 -50 -60 Best-Fit Relationship Es (MPa)= 15. Empirical modulus reduction schemes have been developed to show the relation between G/Gmax and shear strain. which show the variation of VS. Pressure-meter tests were performed to determine Young. The test results are presented in Figs. The Coral Reef layers have been found at different depths with different thicknesses. Test results and analysis Pressure-meter measurements It can be noticed from Fig. They contain fresh shells and appear sometimes as Conglomeratic at different locations.47 depth (m)} could be established to enable the designer to maximize the benefit from the results.47 depth (m) -70 Fig. between 20 and 30 m. non plastic. However. best-fit relationship {ES (MPa) = 15.0 m from ground surface down to 60. Field test program A field test program was achieved to face the complicated site conditions and to get on soil properties to match the advanced analysis that would be carried out for this high-rise building. which are considered the most important elastic properties of soil and rock formations. correlations. 2 Variation of ES with depth (pressure-meter test).50 and 5.50 m. Nevertheless. moduli. Three boreholes at different locations were prepared during drilling for measuring ES via pressure meter according to ASTM D4719-2000 [7] every 5. denoting very soft or disintegrated to sound rock conditions. as it is highly inconsistent to predict the physical composition.

6 N) that is not consistent with the measured values.P.P. The researchers of soil mechanics established several initial. m Depth. field 0. Ei and G max (MPa) 0 0 -10 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Ei Gmax Depth. -30 -40 -50 -60 -70 0. between ES and S. So.6 N Es=1.-N correlations.T. C.P. soil is classified into six classes. Class A represents hard rock with measured VS > 600 m/s. m 250 -30 -35 -30 -40 -40 -45 -50 -50 -60 -55 -60 Fig.T. several correlations have been established.T. 6 shows the results of VS at all locations.-N [9.0 N Es = Em -20 -20 -25 Depth. except for the relation (ES = 2.10]. E and F with reference to shear wave velocity [11]. 5 shows relationships between values of ES measured using pressuremeter and those estimated from S. while E and F classes represent soft to very soft soil with measured -70 0 Fig. The effect of overburden pressure was not obvious. Fair to Good agreement can be noticed between measured and estimated values. correlations.T.85 Vs=22N0.Results of dynamic & static moduli of soil by different methods 0 0 100 200 300 Vs and Vp (m/sec) 400 500 600 700 147 Es (MPa) 800 900 1000 0 0 50 100 150 200 -5 300 Es=0. -10 -20 Depth. correlations. Fig. which reflects the complicated soil stratification. m elastic properties for estimating the behavior of soil and rock under foundations. The results obviously distinguish between the weak and stiff layers.33 Vs=76N0.5 Vs=61.33 Vs=76 N Vs=90N0. . The results allow good determination of the thicknesses of successive layers and their properties. B. correlations ignore also the effect of overburden pressure that can be obviously noticed through the measured values of ES. Moreover.309 Vs=90N 0. Vs (m/sec) 400 600 800 1000 1200 0 Variation of Ei and Gmax with depth (cross-hole test). It can be seen that the trend of the results reflect the general shape of soil stratification. VP. 3 -70 Variation of VS and Vp with depth (cross-hole test). simple and cost-less correlations for estimating these moduli related to basic tests or to simple soil descriptions.P. the scattered shape dominates the measured and estimated values. such types of complicated soil stratification could not depend on S.5 Vs=61. values for discovering weak sandy layers.309 Fig.5(N+15) -10 -10 Es=2. 3 and 4 show the results of VS. In general. According to ASSHTO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Highway Bridges.P. m -20 Series 2 Series 3 -30 -40 -50 -60 Cross-hole Measurements Figs. besides the thickness of each layer could be estimated.85 Vs=22N Vs. for example.T. 4 200 Shear Velocity.4N 0. A. 5 Relationship between values of ES measured using pressure-meter (Em) and those estimated using S.2(N+6) Vs -15 Vp Es=0. These S.4N0. Ei and Gmax at one location while Fig. 6 Relationship between values of Vs measured using crosshole testing and those estimated using S.7-1. Fig.T.P. D.

The results could obviously distinguish between the weak and stiff layers.00 0 0. rod length. The author would like to thank the general manager Eng Adnan and all the staff of AL-JAZZAR consulting engineers. exist in the literature as shown in Table 1.30 0. these correlations ignore the effect of overburden pressure and it is difficult to distinguish the inter-bedded soft layers.The results of cross-hole tests introduced good determination for the thicknesses of successive layers and their properties. the results of pressure-meter are completely different from those of cross-hole tests. in which case N would be replaced by N60.P. and sampler inside diameter.P. . Eliwa VS < 180 m/s. . where the constants a and b are determined by a statistical analysis of data set. It can be also noticed that the overburden pressure has an effect on the ratio G/Gmax. unlike the cross-hole tests. -40 Acknowledgement -50 -60 -70 Fig.P.T. as shown in Fig. deduced for the site under consideration. Values of VS estimated by the two relations (VS = 76N0. and shear wave velocity.T.The measurements of pressure-meter tests introduced good indications about the successive layers of soil and coral reefs.Shear wave velocity and hence dynamic soil properties can be estimated through a careful choice of VS–S. Comparisons have been performed between the results of cross-hole tests and those estimated from S. as shown in Fig. ES & G. which can be attributed to the following. N. Although these relations give good prediction for VS but still S.T. 7. Hammam.10 0.20 0.148 A. was responsible for the great decline of the ratio G/Gmax. The interbedded soft layers have very low shear strength in static analysis while at very low shear stain this soil can achieve relatively high shear strength.T. the successive layers at the site could be classified into class D with VS > 180 m/s and class E with VS < 180 m/s. Most values of G/Gmax are less than 20% and some values in the range of 5% or less. 7 Relationship between G/Gmax and depth.P. besides the thickness of each layer could be estimated. these correlations can over-estimate soil properties. which was obvious in cross-hole tests. which measure dynamic soil properties at very low shear-soil-strain. m -20 -30 strain.40 0. The most common functional form for the relations proposed in the literature is Vs = a Nb. the shear velocity and hence Gmax was not affected with increasing the depth.P. Although correlations can be chosen to be suitable for certain soil stratifications. 1 could be drawn. correlations. It is understood that the increase of overburden pressure improves generally the elastic modlui of soil. The first measures the elastic soil properties at pseudo-elastic phase. which have been measured by pressure-meter and cross-hole tests. the input of dynamic analysis depends mainly on the dynamic soil properties that can be determined through shear wave velocity. Cavities or soft layers could be obviously observed at different depths but the thicknesses of these layers could not be determined. are less than 20% and some values in the range of 5% or less.T. M Eliwa manager of Jeddah branch for his cooperation during the preparation of this research. these correlations over-estimate the dynamic soil properties and cannot discover the soft layers. . correlations. On the other hand. correlations. M.50 BH # 1 BH # 2 -10 BH # 3 Depth. Special appreciation to Dr. . blow count.309) are in good agreement with the measured values. 6 shows the relationship between values of VS measured by cross-hole and those estimated by S.P. So the existence of soft layers at site. Actually the soil stiffness has a major effect on the values of G/Gmax. Conclusions This paper presented field measurements of static and dynamic soil properties. 6. but sometimes are corrected for hammer energy. The most important observations could be summarized as follows: . As mentioned before. Numerous relations between S. It can be also noticed that the ratio G/Gmax was increased with increasing the overburden pressure. The N-values are typically not corrected for overburden. except that G was only measured at relatively large shear G / G max 0. Saudi Arabia for their assistance in carrying out the tests. Several researchers [5. Comparison between results of pressure-meter and cross-hole measurements In general. could not distinguish the soft layers. It can be noticed from Fig. The amount of decrease depends mainly on the stiffness and type of soil.12] tried to understand the relations between the two behaviors through cyclic shear tests and hence Fig. Similar results can be seen in Fig. which improved with increasing the depth.T.Most values of G/Gmax.33 and VS = 90N0. VS. Accordingly. 2.Static Young modulus ES or shear modulus G can be estimated from the correlations of S. In general.H. as shown in Figs 3 and 6. which could be produced at relatively large shear-soil-strain. Moreover. Soil stiffness has a major effect on the values of this ratio G/Gmax. Fig. 1 that the dynamic shear modulus Gmax dramatically decreases with increasing shear strain. .

Civil and Environmental Engineering.S. The Determination of Shear Modulus in OverConsolidated Cohesive Soils. Rix. Elsayed. Shear wave velocity as function of SPT penetration resistance and vertical effective stress at California bridge sites (Master degree thesis). Schneider.E.J. 2007.W. 24. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 117 (1) (1991) 89– 107. 12. in: Proceedings of the ASCE National Fall Convention.H. Egypt. Louis 1981. Foundation Analysis and Design. [2] J. P. Macari. Publishing House of Poznan University of Technology. St. [9] J. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. 2008. pp. Foundations of Civil and Environmental Engineering. G. [12] H. Egyptian Code for Soil Mechanics and Foundations. ASCE. 2009. 2000. Bellana. No.J. [7] ASTM D4719-00. 1999.Results of dynamic & static moduli of soil by different methods References [1] E. Bowles. Project # J-07-33. Cairo. GSP 92.M. Mayne. I. University of California. Egypt. New York. McGraw-Hill. Los Angeles. 1997. Markowska. 2009. E. [4] M. 3. . in: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering. [6] AL-GAZZAR Consultant Engineers. Geotechnical Report. Dobry. Evaluation of liquefaction potential of sand deposits based on observation of performance in previous earthquakes. Pezeshk. vol. Poznan´. [10] Housing & Building National Research Center. Jeddah.. 149 [5] M. Idriss. L. Reston. Standard test method for pre-bored pressuremeter testing in soils. Vucetic.B. [3] N. Arkansas State University and University of Memphis 2011. in: Behavioral Characteristics of Residual Soils. 2000. Shear wave velocity profiling and soil liquefaction hazard analysis. fifth ed. Seed. Session No. Alexandria. 12–25. Bang.A. 2005. Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic response. [8] ASTM D4428-00. Standard test methods for cross-hole seismic testing. S. Soil investigation for Lamar towers. Hoyos. Evaluation of shear wave velocity distribution map using SPT-uphole tomography method. [11] A. 953–956. J. M. AHTD TRC 0803. R. pp.Sc. Kim. Field and laboratory measurements of dynamic shear modulus of piedmont residual soils.