Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterization: Proceedings of the Second

International Conference on Site Characterization, Isc-2, Porto, Portugal, September

19-22, 2004

In situ tests for the geotechnical characterization of airship hangar soil in

the city of Augusta

Cavallaro A.
CNR IBAM, Catania, Italy

Maugeri M. & Ragusa A.

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Catania, Italy

Keywords: small shear modulus, in situ tests.

ABSTRACT: The military Airship Hangar overlooks the city of Augusta (SR) in Sicily. The Hangar is a big
building and was built in order to provide South Italy with an air defence by airships against the continuous
attacks from German U-boats during the First world war. Its construction began in 1917, but it became operative in 1920 because of the majesty of the project. On 1987 Sicily Region Government declared it a highly interesting historical monument. To preserve this monument a project for the reinforcement of the Hangar was
made, based on accurate geotechnical investigation. This paper is a contribution to this project. In situ investigations were carried out with a view to determine the soil profile and the geotechnical properties of area of
Hangar, with special attention to the variation of shear modulus with depth. Boreholes, SPT, Down Hole
tests, Field Vane tests, Pressuremeter tests and Permeability tests were performed. The in situ obtained results
by means of empirical correlations were also compared with those experimentally determined by laboratory
tests.

INTRODUCTION

In order to analyse the response of the soil deposit

to the work for the reinforcement of the Airship
Hangar the following informations are necessary:
geometry of soil strata and their spatial variability;
ground water condition, geostatic stresses and related stress history, deformation and damping characteristics assessed in the strain range of interest,
undrained monotonic and cyclic shear strength of
both cohesionless and cohesive strata. This information can be obtained by means of in situ and laboratory tests assisted by geological studies. The scientific results obtained in these years enable us to
consider that these in situ and laboratory experimental techniques are both complementary rather than
competing methodologies.
The following applications of the in situ techniques appear of prioritary interest in the field of the
geotechnical earthquake engineering: soil profiling
and characterisation including spatial variability,
evaluation of the horizontal stress, assessment of
hydraulic conductivity, assessment of the small
strain elastic (Go) and Young (Eo) moduli, assessment of the undrained monotonic and cyclic shear
strength of both cohesionless and cohesive strata,
correlations between in situ results and the response
of boundary value problems of practical interest.

Detailed reviews of in situ testing techniques can

be found in Mitchell (1978), Woods (1978, 1991 and
1994), Woods and Stokoe (1985), Wroth (1984),
Jamiolkowski et al. (1985, 1988 and 1995).
This paper tries to summarize the situ test results
in a comprehensive way in order to provide a representative model of ground condition for restoration
works and for realistic seismic scenarios response
analysis. In particular the following in situ tests were
analysed, discussed and improved:
Standard penetration tests (SPT), Mnard pressuremeter tests (MPT), Field vane tests (FVT), Permeability tests, Down Hole (DH).
The in situ obtained results by means of empirical
correlations (Ohta, and Goto, 1978; Yoshida and
Motonori, 1988; Jamiolkowski, 1995) were also
compared with those experimentally determined in
the laboratory for a specific borehole.
2

THE MILITARY AIRSHIP HANGAR

The military Airship Hangar (SR) is located on the

eastern coast of Sicily, which is one of the most
seismically active areas of Italy. The eastern coast of
Sicily has been struck by various disastrous earthquakes with a MKS intensity from IX to XI in the
last 900 years. For this reason Augusta zone has

Proceedings ISC'2 on Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterization, Viana da Fonseca & Mayne (eds.)

1053

been often object of numerous site investigations

(Cavallaro and Maugeri, 1996; Cavallaro, 1997;
Cavallaro et al., 1998).
The Airship Hangar is the unique military building existing in Europe and perhaps all over the world
for its dimensions: its length is of 105.50 m, its
width is of 45.20 m and its height is of 37.00 m. It
was designed by the civil engineer Antonio Garboli
who was one of the pioneers of the reinforced concrete in Italy. The Hangar can contain 12.000 m3 airships and is the only example made out of reinforced
concrete (Figure 1).
The structure consists of 15 reinforced concrete
frames with brick walls on the horizontal beam connections.
Another interesting element, was the Hangar gate,
consisting of a folding gear with 14 elements, each
31m high and controlled by a powerful electrical engine. The gate is insert in a reinforced concrete portal; it has the pillars similar to those rear frame ones,
instead the upper lattice has a different design: it has
a classic style that recalls the Greek temples.
The Hangar gate caused differential settlements
concentrate in the front part of the Hangar especially
under the right pillars.

ment between the piers of gate regarding those rear

ones has caused the macrocospic cracks on the lateral reinforced concrete walls particularly serious
between the 3 and 4 portal and the break of the
vaults connecting the same portals.
The folding gate, whose total weight has been estimated approximately 1500 kN, currently turns out
supported on the soil, with obvious deformation
signs of sheets in the contact points.
In the eighties, Military Navy had decided to anchor the front part of the Hangar to the rear stable
soil in order to contrast the settlements, in action
from various time, that interested the Hangar gate.
In spite this temporary remedial work realized by
Military Navy, settlements did not stopped.
On 1987 Sicily Region Government declared the
Hangar a highly interesting historical monument and
actually is in progress a project of reinforcement for
the Hangar.
Topographical investigations and the analyses of
the cracks confirm the hypotheses described: the settlements are in progress.
In order to study the static and dynamic characteristics of soils in the Augusta Hangar area, in situ and
laboratory investigations have been carried out to
obtain soil profiles with special attention being paid
to the variation of the shear modulus (G) and damping ratio (D) with depth.
3

Figure 1. The first Airship at Augusta in 1920.

The topographical levelling and investigation,

have lead to define diagnostic picture.
It appears clear, in fact, that the present cracks
have been caused by the foundation settlements of
the Hangar gate and in particular from the two footstools of right piers that, under the cargo of the
heavy steel gate have consolidated the clayey soil
which they rest.
The settlements have produced various cracks to
the structure. In particular the differential settlements between right pier and that one of left has
produced the formation of one plastic hinge in the
first external node of the right pier while the settle-

1054

SITE CHARACTERIZATION PROGRAMME

The site investigation was performed within the area

of Hangar and reached a maximum depth of 50 m
(Figure 2). Laboratory tests have been performed on
undisturbed samples retrieved by means of a 101
mm tube sampler.
To evaluate the geotechnical characteristics the
following in situ and laboratory tests were performed in the foundation soil located in the area of
Augusta Hangar:
n. 7 Boreholes;
n. 3 Borehole Permeability tests;
n. 7 Standard Penetration test (SPT);
n. 3 Field Vane tests (FVT);
n. 6 Mnard Pressuremeter tests (MPT);
n. 4 Down-Hole tests (DHT);
n. 8 Oedometer tests;
n. 10 Direct shear tests (DST);
n. 3 Triaxial CU tests (TxCU);
n. 6 Triaxial UU tests (TxUU);
n. 1 Cyclic loading torsional shear tests (CLTST);
n. 1 Resonant column tests (RCT).

2004 Millpress, Rotterdam, ISBN 90 5966 009 9

0m

Asphalt

2.40 m

Vegetable soil
Clayey silty sand with calcareous stone

8.00 m

Alternance of brown-red clayey

silt and grey silty clay

0.35 m

12.70 m

Brown-red clayey silt

50.00 m

Grey clay

Figure 2. Borehole 6 profile and layout of Augusta Hangar site. The water level was found at 2.25 m from ground surface.

The Augusta Hangar area mainly consists of grey

clay in the lower layer, an alternation of clayey silt
and silty clay layers, and silty sand with gravel
lenses in the upper layers.
On the basis of laboratory tests the Augusta Hangar deposits mainly consist of overconsolidated
clayey silt soil. The preconsolidation pressure 'p
and the overconsolidation ratio OCR = 'p/ 'vo were
evaluated from the compression curves of incremental loading (IL) oedometer tests. It varies from 2
to 7.
The value of the natural moisture content wn
prevalently ranges from between 22 - 35 %. Characteristic values for the Atterberg limits are: wL = 49 67 % and wP = 21 - 33 %, with a plasticity index of
PI = 21 - 40 %, Gs (specific gravity) ranged between
2.57 and 2.79. The soil deposits can be classified as
inorganic silt and clay of medium to high plasticity.
The water level ranged between 2.25 m and 2.7 m
from the ground surface for boreholes 1, 2, 4, 5, 6.
For boreholes 3 and 7 the water level was located at
4.85 m from the ground surface.
As regard strength parameters of the deposits
mainly encountered in this area c' ranged between 19
kPa and 28 kPa while ' ranged between 19 and
23. The permeability values obtained by in situ Lefranc tests ranged between 10-8 and 10-9 m/s.

ing until the soil failure occurs. Maximum torque

value must be measured and recorded.
Afterwards the remoulding shear resistance of
the soil can be measured rotating the vane for several turns.
The vanes have a rectangular shape and a height
double their diameter, according to the recommendation included in the EUROCODE 7 (1997) and
ASTM Standard Code (D 2573); in the latter one
vanes having a tapered end are also allowed.
The above mentioned codes prescribe that the rotation must be carried out at a rate of 0.1 - 0.2 degrees/sec.
The general formula, referred to rectangular vanes
having height (H) and diameter (D), is:
cu(FV) = T /(( D3/2) (H/D + a/2))

where: T = maximum applied torque (deducted any

friction); a = factor depending by the assumed shear
stress distribution at the ends of the cylinder obtained rotating the vane blades and amounting to 2/3
for uniform shear stress, to 1/2 for triangular shear
stress and to 3/5 for parabolic shear stress distribution.
For rectangular vanes having H/D = 2 and a = 2/3,
equation (1) can be re-written in the following form:
cu(FV) = 6T / 7 D3 = 0.273T / D3

(1)

(2)

SOIL PROPERTIES BY IN SITU TESTING

4.1 Field Vane Tests

The test consists of forcing into the soil a vane
equipped with four orthogonal blades and then rotat-

The remoulded shear strength value is calculated

using the above mentioned formula (2) introducing
the value of the torque, free from any friction, measured after some vane rotation turns, that is when the
soil offers a fast constant resistance.

Proceedings ISC'2 on Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterization, Viana da Fonseca & Mayne (eds.)

1055

These values were also corrected according to Aas

et al. (1986) considering the PI and OCR values of
the soil.
The cu values obtained by field vane tests were not
influenced by shear stress distribution assumed and
were always smaller than those obtained by Triaxial
UU tests, Figure 3. This different experimental finding can be tentatively explained by considering that
the vane test results were probably affected by disturbance and the anisotropy of overconsolidated Augusta Hangar soil.
0

200

400

CU [kPa]
600
800

1000

1200

1400

H [m]

5
10
15
20
25

FVT - Uniform Distribution

FVT - Parabolic Distribution
FVT - Triangular Distribution
TxUT
MPT

Figure 3. cu values from in situ vane tests and laboratory tests.

where: Vs = shear wave velocity (m/s), NSPT =

number of blows from SPT, 'vo = vertical pressure,
= geological factor (any soil = 55, fine sand = 49).
When Vs is evaluated by empirical correlation,
then the shear modulus at small strain Go can be
evaluated by the theory of elasticity by the well
known relationships:
Go = Vs2

where: = mass density.

The success in obtaining good correlations between Go and the SPT results should encourage one
to establish such empirical correlations for a specific
site. This approach makes it possible to consider the
spatial variability of soil properties in a very cost effective way. However, due to their purely empirical
nature, these correlations, when applied to sites
which are different than those considered in the
original database, can provide just an approximate
estimate Go.
Because the use of empirical correlations based
on in situ tests is very useful for engineering design
when seismic tests were not available, in Figure 4
the Go evaluation is presented as a function of the
SPT results by means of empirical correlations.
Go [MPa]

4.2 Standard Penetration Tests

(3)

where: Vs = shear wave velocity (m/s), N60 = number of blow/feet from SPT with an Energy Ratio of
60 %, Z = depth (m), FG = geological factor (clays =
1.000, sands = 1.086), FA = age factor (Holocene =
1.000, Pleistocene = 1.303);
- proposed by Yoshida and Motonori (1988):
Vs = (NSPT)0.17 'vo0.2

1056

(4)

100

200

300

400

500

600

0
5
10
15
H [m]

In the following, the possibility of inferring soil

stiffness from SPT is discussed.
In spite of the fact that penetration resistance
represents the soils response to very large deformations, it is possible to establish good correlations between small strain moduli and these parameters. The
reason why it is possible to correlate small strain
moduli to the penetration resistance is that both are
mainly dependent on the soil state.
Many empirical correlations between the penetration resistance from SPT (Ohta and Goto, 1978; Imai
and Tonouchi, 1982; Yoshida and Motonori, 1988)
and the small strain shear modulus Go have been established using different databases. Among the many
available correlations it is worthwhile to mention the
following:
- proposed by Otha and Goto (1978), and adapted by
Seed et al. (1986):
Vs = 69 N600.17 Z0.2 FA FG

(5)

20
25
30
35

Ohta e Goto (1978)

Yoshida (1988), fine sand
Yoshida (1988), any soil
Jamiolkowski (1995)
Down Hole
CLTST
RCT
MPT
Augusta Hangar - Borehole S6

40
45
50

Figure 4. Shear modulus from in situ and laboratory tests.

4.3 Menard Pressumeter Tests

A Menard Pressuremeter (MPT) device is used to in
situ assess the stiffness of cohesive soil. The Menard
Pressumeter (MPT) is generally inserted in a prebored hole. This device was developed in the early
sixties in France and is widely used in the case of direct interpretation methods (Baguelin et al. 1978).
A pressumeter test consists of the expansion of a
cylindrical cavity which has a finite length L and diameter D. During the test, the applied cavity pressure (p) and the corresponding circumferential strain
at the cavity wall are measured. The test yields an
expansion curve of the type shown in Figure 5 which
allows, at least in principle, the direct determination
of the small strain shear modulus Go from the initial
slope of the expansion curve.
2004 Millpress, Rotterdam, ISBN 90 5966 009 9

wave velocities, to obtain the small strain deformation characteristics according to the well known relationships:

1200
Correct Pressure [kPa]

1000
800

Go = Vs2
Mo = Vp2
= (Vp2 - 2 Vs2) / (Vp2 - Vs2)

600
400

Augusta Hangar - MPT6

S6 - 2 - 9.00 m

200
0
0

50

100

150
200
250
Correct Volume [cm3]

300

350

Figure 5. Expansion curve from Menard pressumeter tests.

This modulus can be directly determined from the

expansion curve because it is possible to neglect soil
non-linearity as a first approximation. However, the
initial shape of the expansion curve can be sensitive
to soil disturbance and to the compliance of the
measuring system. Consequently, the direct assessment of Go from the expansion curve can be affected
by some mistakes and the obtained shear modulu
seems quite suitable and reliable if appropriate assumptions are made (Byre et al. 1990, Fahey &
Carter 1993, Ghionna et al. 1994). The values of Go
evaluated by the MPT are reported in Figure 4.

where: Go, Mo = small strain shear and constrained

moduli respectively; = mass density; Vs, Vp = velocities of shear and compressional waves respectively; = Poisson ratio.
The above relationships are based on the hypotheses of elasticity and isotropy.
Among the various borehole seismic methods, the
well known Down Hole (DH) test was performed in
this study. Current practice and recent innovations of
borehole methods for seismic exploration are covered by many comprehensive works (Auld 1977,
Stokoe and Hoar 1978, Woods 1978, Woods and
Stokoe 1985, Woods 1991 and 1994, Jamiolkowski
et al. 1995).
In Figure 7, the shear and compression wave velocities are showed against depth.
0

500

V [m/sec]
1000
1500

2500

Vp [m/sec]
Vs [m/sec]

15
20

H [m]

1000

Correct Pressure [kPa]

2000

0
10

1200

(6)
(7)
(8)

25

800

30
35

600

40

Augusta Hangar
Borehole S6

45

400

Augusta Hangar - MPT6

S6 - 2 - 9.00 m

50

200
0
0.0001

Figure 7. Vs and Vp from Down Hole test.

0.001

0.01
log V/V [%]

0.1

Figure 6. P- log (V/V) curve from Menard pressumeter tests.

Using the Menard Pressumeter results the cu values were also obtained considering the slope of correct pressure-log (V/V) curve (Figure 6).
Also for MPT (Figure 3) the cu values obtained
are smaller than those obtained by laboratory tests.
4.4 Seismic Tests
Seismic tests are conventionally classified into borehole and surface methods. These methods enable
one to determine the velocity of body waves [compressional (P) and/or shear (S)] and surface waves
[Rayleigh] respectively which induce very small
strain levels into soil, i.e. ij < 0.001 % (Woods,
1978). It is possible, on the basis of the measured

In Figure 8 the dynamic Poisson ratio variation

with depth, obtained from a Down Hole (DH) test, is
plotted to show site characteristics. It is seen that
apart from the top 6 m, the values oscillates around
0.49.
A comparison between Go values obtained from in
situ test performed on the area under consideration
are showed in Figure 4. The Down Hole test performed in Augusta Hangar area showed Go values
increasing with depth. Very high values of Go are
obtained for depths greater than 40 m.
According to these data, it is possible to assume
Go values oscillates around 100 MPa for depths
smaller than 40 m.
In the same Figure, Go values obtained from empirical correlation by SPT are also plotted. Unfortunately these values considering only the first 3 m of
depth and are smaller than that obtained by DH test.

Proceedings ISC'2 on Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterization, Viana da Fonseca & Mayne (eds.)

1057


0.30
0

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

0.55

5
10
15

Figure 4 clearly shows that the small strain shear

modulus obtained from RCT is about 20 % smaller
than that inferred from CLTST. The results obtained
for shear modulus Go by RCT and by CLTST are in
good agreement with those inferred from in situ DH
test.

H [m]

20
25
Augusta Hangar
Borehole S6

30
35

40
45
50

Figure 8. Poisson ratio from in situ tests.

COMPARISON BETWEEN IN SITU AND

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS FOR GO

Moreover the small shear values obtained from the

following equation by Jamiolkowski et. al. (1995)
based on laboratory tests results are also showed in
Figure 4:
Go =

600 'm0.5 p a0.5

e1.3

(9)

where: 'm = ('v + 2 'h)/3; pa = 1 bar is a reference pressure; Go, 'm and pa are expressed in the
same unit.
On the whole, eq. (9) seems to provide the most
accurate trend of Go with depth. It is worthwhile to
point out that the considered equations underestimate Go for depths greater than 40 m.
The small strain shear modulus Go was generally
determined from an in situ Cross Hole (CH) or
Down Hole (DH) tests. In the case of laboratory
tests, the Go values are determined at shear strain
levels of less than 0.001 %. The equivalent shear
modulus (Geq) and damping ratio D were determined
in the laboratory by means of a Resonant Column
test (RCT) and cyclic loading torsional shear tests
(CLTST) performed on undisturbed specimens by
means of a Resonant Column/Torsional shear apparatus (Lo Presti et al. 1993).
G is the unload-reload shear modulus evaluated
from CLTST and RCT, while Go is the maximum
value or also "plateau" value as observed in the Glog() plot. Generally G is constant until a certain
strain limit is exceeded. This limit is called elastic
threshold shear strain ( et ) and it is believed that
soils behave elastically at strains smaller than et .
The elastic stiffness at < et is thus the already defined Go.
The laboratory test results and the obtained small
strain shear modulus Go are showed in Figure 4.

1058

CONCLUSIONS

In this paper some information concerning geotechnical properties of the Augusta Hangar area has
been presented. Available data enabled one to define
the small strain shear modulus profile for this site
and empirical equations to describe the Go variation
with depth. The Go profile, inferred from available
empirical correlations based on in situ test results
was compared with laboratory test results determined. On the whole, these correlations provided Go
values in good agreement with those determined in
the laboratory. On the basis of the in situ results, it is
possible to stress that, the small strain shear modulus
measured in the laboratory is in good agreement
with that measured in situ by means of DH tests.
Empirical correlations between the small strain
shear modulus and penetration test results were used
to infer Go from SPT. The values of Go were compared to those measured in a DH test. This comparison clearly indicates that a certain relationship exists
between Go and the penetration test results, which
would encourage one to establish empirical correlations for a specific site. This approach makes it possible to consider the spatial variability of soil properties in a very cost effective way.
Relationships like those proposed by Jamiolkowski et al. (1995) seems to be capable of predicting Go profile with depth. The accuracy of these
relationships could obviously be improved if the parameters which appear in the equations were experimentally determined in the laboratory for a specific site.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors would like to thank Novatech Consalting s.r.l. for the geotechnical investigation of Augusta Hangar area.
7

REFERENCES

Aas, G., Lacasse, S., Lunne, T. & Hoeg, K., 1986. Use of In
Situ Tests for Foundation Design on Clay. Proceeding of
the Spc. Conf. ASCE, IN-SITU 86, Blacksburg (USA).
Auld, B., 1977. Cross-Hole and Down-Hole Vs by Mechanical
Impulse. Journal GED, ASCE. 103 (GT12), pp.1381-1398.
Baguelin, F. & Jezequel, J. F., 1978. Le Pressiometre Autoforer. Annales de lISTBTP, 97, pp. 135-159.

2004 Millpress, Rotterdam, ISBN 90 5966 009 9

Byre, P. M., Salgado, F. M. & Howie, J. A., 1990. Relationship

between the Unload Shear Modulus from Pressumeter Tests
and the Maximum Shear Moduli of Sand. Proceeding of the
3rd International Symposium Pressumeter, Oxford, pp. 231242.
Cavallaro, A. M. F. & Maugeri, M., 1996. Comportamento
Tensionale Deformativo dell'Argilla di Augusta Sottoposta
a Carichi Ciclici. Ingegneria Sismica, Vol. XIII, No. 1, pp.
30-40.
Cavallaro, A. M. F., 1997. Influenza della Velocit di Deformazione sul Modulo di Taglio e sullo Smorzamento delle
Argille. Ph. D. Thesis, University of Catania.
Cavallaro, A., Lo Presti, D. C. F., Maugeri, M. & Pallara, O.,
1998. Strain Rate Effect on Stiffness and Damping Ratio of
Clays. Italian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. XXXII, N. 4,
pag. 30 - 50.
Eurocode 7: Geotechnical Design, 1997. European Committee
for Standardization, Brussels.
Fahey, M. & Carter, J. P., 1993. A Finite Element Study of the
Pressumeter Test in Sand Using a Non-Linear Elasto Plastic
Model. Canadian Ggeotechnical Journal, 30, pp. 348-362.
Ghionna, V. N., Jamiolkowski, M., Pedroni, S. & Piccoli, S.,
1994. Interpretation of Unload-Reload Modulus from Pressumeter Test in Sand. Proceeding of the Conference on the
Pressumeter and its New Avenue, Sherbrooke, Canada, pp.
471-480.
Imai, T. & Tonouchi, K., 1982. Correlations of N-Values with
S-Wave Velocity. Proceeding of ESOPT II, Amsterdam, 2,
pp.67-72.
Jamiolkowski, M., Ladd, C. C., Germaine, J. T. & Lancellotta,
R., 1985. New Developments in Field and Laboratory Testing of Soils. State of the Art, Proceeding of the 11th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, San Francisco, 12 16 August, 1985.
Jamiolkowski, M., Ghionna, V. N., Lancellotta, R. & Pasqualini, E., 1988. New Application of Penetration Tests in Design Practice. Proceeding of the 1st International Symposium on Penetration Testing, ISOPT-1, Orlando 20-24
March 1988, Vol. 1, pp. 263-296.
Jamiolkowski, M., Lo Presti, D. C. F. & Pallara, O., 1995. Role
of In-Situ Testing in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering.
Proceeding of the 3rd International Conference on Recent
Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and
Soil Dynamics, St. Louis, Missouri, April 2-7, 1995, vol. II,
pp. 1523-1546.
Lo Presti, D.C.F., Pallara, O, Lancellotta, R., Armandi, M. &
Maniscalco, R., 1993. Monotonic and Cyclic Loading Behaviour of Two Sands at Small Strains. Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 16, No 4, pp 409-424.
Mitchell, J. K., 1978. In Situ Techniques for Site Characterization. Proceeding Speciality Workshop Site characterization
and Exploration, ASCE, pp. 107-129.
Mitchell, J. K., Lodge, A. L., Coutinho, R. Q., Kayen, R. E.,
Seed, R. B., Nishio, S. & Stokoe, K. H. II, 1994. In Situ
Test Results from Four Loma Prieta Earthquake Liquefaction Sites: SPT, CPT, DMT and Shear Waves Velocity.
EERC Report No. UCB/EERC 1194.
Ohta, Y. & Goto, N., 1978. Empirical Shear Wave Velocity
Equations in Terms of Characteristic Soil Indexes. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 6.
Seed, H. B., Woang, R.T. Idriss, I. M. & Tokimatsu, K., 1986.
Moduli and Damping Factors for Dynamic Analysis of Cohesionless Soils. Journal GED, ASCE, 112(11), pp. 10161032.
Stokoe, K. H. II & Hoar, R. J., 1978. Variable Affecting In Situ
Seismic Measurement. Proceeding of the Conference on
Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, ASCE, Pasadena; CA, 2, pp. 919-939.

Woods, R. D., 1978. Measurement of Dynamic Soil Properties.

Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, Pasadena,
CA, Vol. 1, pp. 91-179.
Woods, R. D., 1991. Field and Laboratory Determination of
Soil Properties at Low and High Strains. Proceeding of the
2nd International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, St.
Louis, Missouri, April 2-7, 1995, SOA1.
Woods, R. D., 1994. Borehole Methods in Shallow Seismic
Exploration. State of the Art, Proceeding of the 13th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, New Delhi, India TC N. 10, pp. 91-100.
Woods, R. D. & Stokoe, K. H. II, 1985. Shallow Seismic Exploration in Soil Dynamics. Richard Commemorative Lectures, ASCE, pp. 120-156.
Wroth, C. P., 1984. The Interpretation of In-Situ Soil Tests.
Proceeding of the 24th Rankine Lecture, Geotechnique. Vol.
40, N. 4.
Yoshida, Y. & Motonori, I., 1988. Empirical Formulas of SPT
Blow-Counts for Gravelly Soils. Proceedings of ISOPT-1,
Orlando (USA).

Proceedings ISC'2 on Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterization, Viana da Fonseca & Mayne (eds.)

1059