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

net/publication/245403737

Shear Strength Estimation of Sandy Soils Using Shear Wave Velocity

Article  in  Geotechnical Testing Journal · November 2007

DOI: 10.1520/GTJ100011

CITATIONS READS

21 2,169

2 authors:

Minsu Cha Gye-Chun Cho

Texas A&M University Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology
28 PUBLICATIONS   277 CITATIONS    147 PUBLICATIONS   2,337 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Development of high-performance environmental-friendly levee technology using new bio-material (1/5) View project

NATM tunnel View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Gye-Chun Cho on 28 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 30, No. 6
Paper ID GTJ100011
Available online at: www.astm.org

Minsu Cha1 and Gye-Chun Cho1

Shear Strength Estimation of Sandy Soils Using

Shear Wave Velocity

ABSTRACT: Typically, shear strength is associated with large strain phenomena, while shear wave propagation is associated with small strain
phenomena. Yet, the effective stress and void ratio, both key determinants of sandy soil shear strength, are also the primary factors affecting shear
wave velocity. This study presents a shear wave velocity-void ratio-shear strength correlation through experimental tests. Natural sands taken from
various reclaimed or recently deposited sandy fields are used for reconstituting specimens at different void ratios in an oedometer cell. Shear wave
velocities are measured while changing the state of the stress in the cell for each specimen prepared at a specific void ratio. The relationship between
shear wave velocity and vertical effective stress is found at extreme values of void ratios (emin and emax). Direct shear tests are also performed on
specimens with various void ratios. Experimental results show that the internal friction angle of each sand type increases with decreasing void ratio,
rendering a unique relationship between friction angle and void ratio. Finally, a procedure is suggested to evaluate the in-situ shear strengths of a
sandy soil based on in-situ shear wave velocities. Results show that the suggested method effectively estimates in-situ shear strength.
KEYWORDS: shear wave velocity, void ratio, shear strength

Introduction Sands are particulate materials, and their shear wave velocity is
governed by the mean state of stress 共␴⬘mean兲 in the polarization
For general design purposes, the strength of sandy soils is often plane, where effective stresses ␴⬜ ⬘ and ␴⬘储 act in the direction of
estimated from SPT-N values or CPT data. However, this approach particle motion and in the direction of wave propagation, respec-
relies on empirical equations obtained from different sites. Thus, it tively (Hardin and Richart 1963; Roesler 1979; Knox et al. 1982;
would be useful for practitioners to have an alternative method for Lee and Stokoe 1986). Under the condition of one-dimensional
estimating the strength of sandy soils based on other in-situ charac- loading 共K0兲 and vertical wave propagation direction, the shear
teristics. wave velocity 共Vs兲 is:
For sandy soils, the internal friction angle is governed by inter-
particle friction, dilation (void ratio and confining pressure effects),
rotation (rolling and rotational frustration), structural rearrange-
ment, and particle crushing among other factors (Bishop 1950; Lee
Vs = ␣1 冉 冊 冉
␴⬘mean
1 kPa
␤
= ␣1
共1 + K0兲 ␴⬘v
2 1 kPa
冊 冉 冊
␤
=␣
␴⬘v
1 kPa
␤
(3)

and Seed 1967; Bolton 1986; Santamarina et al. 2001). The peak
internal friction angle 共␾peak兲 depends on the constant volume criti-
cal state friction angle 共␾cv兲 and the peak angle of dilation 共␸兲 (Bol-
ton 1986):
␾peak = ␾cv + 0.8␸ (1)
The critical state friction angle is unique for a specific sand and is
the same as the ultimate friction angle, which is observed at large
strains (Been et al. 1991; Ishihara 1993; Santamarina and Cho
2001). The angle of dilation 共␸兲 is zero at the critical state, in-
creases with decreasing void ratio, and decreases proportionally to
increasing confining stress. For subsurface sands under relatively
low confining stress (i.e., ␴⬘ 艋 300 kPa), the peak friction angle is
mainly governed by void ratio (Rowe 1962; Lambe and Whitman
1979). Then, the peak shear strength 共␶peak兲 of a sand can be ob-
tained following Coulomb’s failure criteria:
␶peak = ␴⬘tan共␾peak兲 (2)
where ␴⬘ is the effective stress.
Manuscript received October 20, 2005; accepted for publication March 19,
2007; published online May 2007.
1
Graduate Student and Associate Professor, respectively, Dept. of Civil and
Environ. Eng., Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST),
Daejeon 305-701, Republic of Korea, E-mail: gyechun@kaist.edu.
where K0 is the lateral earth pressure coefficient at rest, ␴⬘v is the
vertical effective stress, the ␣ factor (m/s) is the shear wave velocity
at ␴⬘v = 1 kPa, and the ␤-exponent reflects the sensitivity of the shear
wave velocity to the vertical effective stress. The ␣ and ␤ param-
eters capture the effects of loading history and packing density, and
have an opposite trend with respect to each other (Santamarina et
al. 2001). For a given sandy soil, the ␣ factor and ␤-exponent can
be uniquely determined depending on the void ratio. Indeed, vari-
ous theoretical and empirical relationships between wave velocity
versus void ratio have been suggested in the literature (e.g., Hardin
and Richart 1963; Hardin and Drnevich 1972; Chang et al. 1991;
Santamarina et al. 2001), and the void ratio of a fluid-saturated po-
rous medium can be estimated from shear and dilatational wave
velocities (Foti et al. 2002).
Shear strength is measured at large strains 共␥ ⬇ 1 ⬃ 30 % 兲,
while shear wave propagation is a small strain phenomenon 共␥
ⱕ 10−3 % 兲. A direct correlation between shear strength and shear
wave velocity may appear to lack physical justification. As dis-
cussed above, however, stress conditions and void ratio greatly im-
pact both shear strength and shear wave velocity. Thus, this paper
formulates an indirect relationship between friction angle, void
ratio, and shear wave velocity for sandy soils. This correlation is
derived from experimental tests and presents an alternative method
of evaluating the shear strength of sandy soils (young deposits, no
cementation) from in-situ shear wave velocities.

Copyright © 2007 by ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. 1
2 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL

TABLE 1—Basic properties and soil classification of tested soils.

Average In-situ Properties Particle Shape

Soil w (%) Gs ␥sat 共kN/ m3兲 emin emax R S USCS

Pyoungtaek A 25 2.65 19.5 0.58 0.90 0.8 0.7 SP
Pyoungtaek B 25 2.65 19.5 0.52 0.85 0.8 0.8 ML
Gun-Chang 25 2.67 20.0 0.48 0.97 0.6 0.7 SP-SM
Cheju 35 2.62 19.0 0.58 1.36 0.5 0.8 SP
Notation: w=water content, Gs=specific gravity, ␥sat=saturated unit weight of
soil, emax=maximum void ratio (ASTM D 4254 2000b), emin=minimum void
ratio (ASTM D 4253 2000a), R=roundness, S=sphericity, and USCS=unified
soil classification system.

FIG. 1—Grain size distribution curves of tested soils.
Experimental Program
A series of laboratory and field tests are performed to determine the
relationship between shear wave velocity and void ratio and the re-
lationship between void ratio and shear strength. Four kinds of
sandy soils collected from three sites are used for shear wave veloc-
ity measurement (18 specimens) and direct simple shear tests (51
specimens). One of the four soils is used for both tests in undis-
turbed conditions (4 specimens). Details of the tested soils, test
equipment, and experimental procedures are discussed below.
Sites of Interest and Soils Tested
Three different harbor construction sites in Korea are considered in
this paper. The first site of interest has been reclaimed with dredged
soils in several stages to expand the existing Pyoungtaek Harbor.
The second and third locations are the construction sites of a sea-
wall for the new Gun-Chang Harbor and the new Cheju Harbor,
respectively. Sand deposits are about 15 m in depth and located
across the upper region of those sites, so that the strength of the
sands is critical to the stability of the structures that are to be con-
structed at the sites. This study deals with the reclaimed sandy soils
of the first site and the recently deposited sandy soils of the second
and third sites.
Figure 1 shows the grain size distribution curves of four soils
sampled from the three sites. According to the Unified Soil Classi-
fication System, soils from the Pyoungtaek Harbor are classified as
SP (hereafter Pyoungtaek A) and ML (hereafter Pyoungtaek B).
Soils from the Gun-Chang Harbor and Cheju Harbor are classified
as SP-SM (hereafter Gun-Chang) and SP (hereafter Cheju). The av-
erage in-situ properties, range of void ratios, quantitative descrip-
tion of particle shapes, and soil types of each site are summarized in
Table 1. The unusually high maximum void ratio of Cheju sand is
attributed to its parent rock, which is a porous basalt. The in-situ
shear wave velocity of these sites was measured by performing sus-
pension PS (SPS) logging. Also, the standard penetration test (SPT)
was performed at the same sites. The in-situ testing results are pre-
sented later.
Undisturbed specimens were sampled by an in-situ freezing
method in the Pyoungtaek site. Three sets of undisturbed samples
were obtained with a stainless steel pipe (NX size) in a frozen state
at depths of 12.5, 15.5, and 17.6 m of a borehole. The undisturbed
samples were kept frozen prior to testing.
Experimental Setups
Oedometric Compression Tests with Vs
Measurement—Bimorph type bender elements 12-mm long,
8-mm wide, and 0.6-mm thick are used to send and receive shear
waves. Assembling the device for shear wave velocity measure-
ment involves connecting coaxial cables to the bender elements,
moisture protection, electrical shielding, and housing the bender
elements. As shown in Fig. 2(a), the inner core and outer shield of a
coaxial cable are soldered to opposite faces of the bender element.
A polyurethane coating is applied to the surface of the bender ele-
ments followed by a coat of conductive paint. The conductive paint
layer creates an electric shield that is grounded to avoid electro-
magnetic coupling and cross-talk between the source and the re-
ceiver bender elements. Finally, the bender elements are placed in
their housing, and fixed with epoxy. Details of bender element in-
stallation and signal interpretation can be found in Lee and San-
tamarina (2005).
The conventional oedometric cell is modified to measure the
shear wave velocity in the soil specimens under a condition of one-
dimensional loading. Bender element-anchored caps are installed
at the top and bottom of the cell. The source and receiver caps are
connected to peripheral electronics by coaxial cables as shown in
Fig. 2(b). Models and manufacturers of electronic equipments are
briefed in Table 2. Step input signals are used to excite the source
bender element to generate shear waves, and the bender element at
the opposite end of the soil specimen receives the signals. In the
bender element tests, the maximum shear strain is estimated to be
less than 10−5 so that the shear modulus measured can be consid-
ered the maximum shear modulus G0 (Dyvik and Madshus 1985;
Atkinson and Sallfors 1991; Santamarina et al. 2001).
Direct Shear Tests—Direct shear tests are performed, fol-
lowing the procedure of ASTM D 3080 (2004). A bronze circular
shear box provides drainage to the specimen top and bottom
through porous stones. The inner diameter of the shear box is 6 cm.
A load cell and LVDT (linear variable differential transformer) are
used for shear force and deformation measurement, respectively.
The rate of shearing is adjusted to 1.0 mm/ min, rendering a
drained condition.
Experimental Procedures
Oedometric Compression Tests with Vs
Measurement—Shear wave velocity is related to the void ratio
of soil for a given state of stress. Hence, the shear wave velocity-
 CHA AND CHO ON SHEAR STRENGTH ESTIMATION OF SANDY SOILS
FIG. 2—Setup for oedometric compression tests with Vs measurement 共a兲
bender elements installation 共b兲 oedometric cell and peripheral electronics.
void ratio relationship can be measured through laboratory tests.
For each soil type, specimens are reconstituted at different void ra-
tios from loose to dense. Moist tamped specimens are constructed
by compacting three layers of moist soil in an oedometric cell. The
remolded specimen has a diameter of 5.1 cm and a height of 5 cm.
The specimen is saturated to represent field conditions and is al-
lowed to drain (Fig. 2(b)). A specimen with a predefined void ratio
is placed in the cell and bender element-anchored caps are installed
at the top and bottom of the cell. Shear wave velocities are evalu-
ated from the waveforms recorded at different states of stress. Each
measurement is performed when the vertical displacement reaches
a constant value after each load increment. The vertical displace-
ments are small for a dense condition, while the void ratios de-
crease with each load in a loose condition. After a loading cycle, the
final void ratio of the specimen is determined. The average value of
void ratios is taken as the representative value. The process is re-
peated for specimens with different initial void ratios. Four or five
initial void ratios are tested for each soil type.
Direct Shear Tests—Direct shear tests are performed on
each soil sample to determine the relationship between strength and
void ratio. Just as in the bender element tests, specimens are recon-
stituted at different void ratios, ranging from minimum to maxi-
3
TABLE 2—Models and manufacturers of electronic equipments.
Electronic Equipment Model Manufacturer
Signal generator 33120A Agilent
Signal conditioner 3944 Krohn-Hite
Oscilloscope 54622D Agilent
mum void ratio for each soil type. The remolded specimens have a
diameter of 6 cm and a height of 2 cm. The specimens are saturated
and allowed to drain during testing.
The tested soils are reclaimed or recently deposited, or both,
thus these soils are unlikely to show cementation or aging effects.
However, the variation of shear wave velocity and friction angle
with void ratio of the Pyoungtaek soil is investigated using both
undisturbed and disturbed specimens. The undisturbed specimen is
recovered from a depth of 15.5 m. The tests are repeated using a
remolded specimen reconstituted at the same void ratio as that of
the undisturbed specimen.
Velocity Measurements in the Field and Laboratory
The SPS logging data are used as field seismic data. The impact
source of SPS logging generates a dominant frequency range from
a few hundred Hz to 1 kHz for shear waves, while the bender ele-
ment in the laboratory experiment generates square pulse-type
shear waves, which contain a wide frequency bandwidth. Wave
propagation in soils is commonly represented by viscoelastic mod-
els, in which the wave velocity is nearly constant or increases
slightly with an increase in frequency (White 1983; Carcione
1998). Thus, dispersion due to frequency difference between labo-
ratory and field measurements is disregarded in this study. How-
ever, field waves experience more attenuation than those of labora-
tory; thus, a sharp arrival may not exist in field measurements due
to attenuation of high frequency contents, which could lead to
lower velocity measurements in field. Therefore, careful interpreta-
tion is needed for correct measurement of field signals.
Results and Analyses
Typical Signals
Figure 3 shows the typical time series of input and output signals,
the Fourier spectra of the output signals, and typical wavelengths
共␭main兲 for the dominant frequency. While square waves are used as
input to generate a wide range of frequencies, the dominant fre-
quency of the received signal increases with increasing confine-
ment (increasing wave velocity or increasing soil stiffness). To cal-
culate shear wave velocity, the tip-to-tip distance is used as the
travel length, and the zero point after first inflection is selected as
the first arrival time, following the recommendation of Lee and
Santamarina (2005).
Estimation of Cementation and Aging Effects
The measured shear wave velocities and friction angles of the un-
disturbed and remolded specimens are compared in Fig. 4. The
shear wave velocity and the friction angle of disturbed specimens
are nearly identical to those of the undisturbed specimens, so the
4 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL
FIG. 3—Typical time signals and corresponding Fourier spectra of Cheju soil 共a兲 ␴ = 38 kPa, 共b兲 ␴ = 108 kPa, (c) ␴ = 271 kPa.
effects of cementation and fabric can be disregarded; and reconsti-
tuted specimens can be used to investigate the properties of the in-
situ soil.
Void Ratio-Shear Wave Velocity-Stress Correlation
Figure 5 shows the experimental results for the variation of shear
wave velocity with vertical effective stress for different void ratios.
Shear wave velocity increases with an increasing stress level and a
decreasing void ratio. For each void ratio, the shear wave velocity
can be expressed in terms of vertical effective stress as summarized
in Table 3. The equations represent the shear wave velocity-vertical
effective stress relationship at minimum and maximum void ratios,
respectively, for soils from different sites. Thus, the equations rep-
resent the extreme boundaries of shear wave velocity for each soil.
Figure 6 shows the relationship between shear wave velocity
and void ratio at three different stress levels. An increase in the
shear wave velocity is linearly related to a decrease in void ratio.
Linear or nearly linear trends of the relationship between void ratio
and shear wave velocity in the range of applied void ratios are also
reported by Hardin and Richart (1963) and Bryan and Stoll (1989).
Assuming that the variation of shear wave velocity with void ratio
is linear between the extreme boundaries, the in-situ void ratio
共efield兲 can be calculated from the field shear wave velocity 共Vs_field兲
as follows:
Vs_field − Vs_emax
efield = e max − 共e max − e min兲 (4)
Vs_emin − Vs_emax
The estimated field void ratios are bounded by the minimum and
maximum void ratios.
Void Ratio-Shear Strength Correlation
Results of direct shear tests are shown in Fig. 7. The peak internal
friction angle increases with a decrease in void ratio. The variation
of internal friction angle with void ratio varies greatly as shown in
Fig. 8. The relationship between void ratio and internal friction
angle is divided into three zones. In Zone 1, the void ratio is less
than the minimum void ratio 共emin兲. Computed void ratios (Eq 4)
cannot be smaller than emin, therefore the corresponding internal
friction angle in this Zone 1 is considered to be equal to the maxi-
mum value of Zone 2. A linear approximation between the void
ratio and internal friction angle is adopted in Zone 2 according to
the experimental results. Zone 3 is the lower boundary of the inter-
nal friction angle in which the void ratio exceeds the maximum
void ratio. Because there is no dilatancy in this zone, the internal
friction angle remains constant as a critical state friction angle
(Casagrande 1936; Wroth 1958; Lambe and Whitman 1969; Wood
1990). The critical state friction angles are shown in Fig. 8 as well.
Because linear equations are used for the relationship between fric-
tion angles and void ratios, the friction angles at extreme void ratios
can be slightly different from the measured values as shown in
Fig. 7.
 CHA AND CHO ON SHEAR STRENGTH ESTIMATION OF SANDY SOILS 5

FIG. 4—Comparison of shear wave velocity and friction angle of undisturbed and remolded specimens.

FIG. 5—Variation of shear wave velocity with applied vertical stress for specimens of different void ratios.
6 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL

TABLE 3—Relationship between shear wave velocity and effective stress at the literature (Dunham 1954; Hatanaka and Uchida 1996; Ohsaki’s
extreme void ratios. method; among others) and internal friction angles are averaged as
follows:
Soil Vs at e min (m/s) Vs at e max (m/s)
Vs_e min = 181· 共 ␴v⬘ Ⲑ 1 kPa 兲 Ⲑ
Vs_e max = 55· 共 ␴v⬘ 1 kPa 兲
0.145 0.241
Pyoungtaek A
Pyoungtaek B Vs_e min = 128· 共 ␴v⬘ Ⲑ 1 kPa 兲0.165
冑12Ncor + 2冑20Ncor + 55
= 40· 共 ␴⬘ Ⲑ 1 kPa 兲
0.285
Vs_e max v ␾= (5)
Vs_e min = 106· 共 ␴v⬘ Ⲑ 1 kPa 兲 = 57· 共 ␴⬘ Ⲑ 1 kPa 兲 3
0.224 0.218
Gun-Chang Vs_e max v
Vs_e min = 141· 共 ␴v⬘ Ⲑ 1 kPa 兲 = 77· 共 ␴⬘ Ⲑ 1 kPa 兲
0.174 0.208
Cheju Vs_e max v Results of both methods are shown in Fig. 9 and generally conform
to the pattern of the in-situ profiling data. The reliability of both
methods depends on the accuracy of in-situ data as well as the
Shear Strength Estimation from Field Shear Wave methodology. Figure 9 indicates that the SPT-N method often re-
sults in extreme values, while the proposed method produces
Velocity
proper values between a critical state friction angle and the friction
The soil types, tested specimens, calculated vertical effective angle at the minimum void ratio. The SPT-N correlation method
stress, and field shear wave velocity measured with SPS logging by uses a general equation, which is based on data from several other
depth are tabulated in Tables 4–7 for four boreholes. In-situ effec- sites. On the other hand, the estimation using the shear wave veloc-
tive stresses are substituted into the equations in Table 3 to estimate ity considers the specific site of interest, which would result in
the void ratios by using Eq 4. The internal friction angles by depth greater reliability. The proposed method using shear wave velocity
can be estimated from the estimated field void ratio by using the appears to be effective for a detailed estimation of shear strength in
void ratio to internal friction angle correlations (Fig. 8). Finally, the a large region.
shear strengths by depth can be estimated from the estimated inter-
nal friction angle and the in-situ vertical stress. These results are
documented in Tables 4–7 as well. Practical Implementation
Figure 10 shows a flowchart for shear strength estimation using the
Comparison with SPT-N Correlation Method shear wave velocity-void ratio-shear strength correlation in a sandy
soil. Shear strength can be extracted from field shear wave velocity
For comparison, internal friction angles are also estimated from measurements through a systematic methodology. A correlation
SPT-N values by using simple correlations between the SPT-N between shear wave velocities and void ratios is determined using
value and the friction angle. Three correlations are adopted from the soil collected from the site of interest. Also, the correlation be-

FIG. 6—Linear approximation of the relationship between shear wave velocity and void ratio at various vertical stresses.
 CHA AND CHO ON SHEAR STRENGTH ESTIMATION OF SANDY SOILS
tween void ratios and friction angles is obtained. The friction angle
of a soil can be estimated from shear wave velocities. Although ce-
mentation and fabric of in-situ soil may be evaluated using an un-
disturbed specimen, reclaimed soils, or recently deposited soils are
preferred for this method because of the difficulties of in-situ soil
sampling and testing. This method can provide a detailed character-
ization in a large area with the aid of subsurface geophysical char-
acterization methods such as spectral analysis of surface waves
(SASW), crosshole and downhole tests, suspension PS logging
method, and seismic cone penetration testing (sCPT).
Conclusions
This paper develops a shear wave velocity-void ratio-shear strength
correlation of sandy soils through experimental tests and presents
an alternative method for estimating the shear strength of those
soils from in-situ shear wave velocities for three sites in Korea.
Conclusions and findings are summarized as follows:
• Although shear strength is associated with large strain phe-
nomena and shear wave propagation is associated with small
strain phenomena, the effective stress and void ratio, which
FIG. 7—Direct shear test results.
7
are key properties of sandy soil shear strength, are also pri-
mary factors affecting shear wave velocity. Therefore, shear
strength is indirectly but inherently correlated with shear
wave velocity via void ratio and effective stresses.
• Cementation and fabric effects are investigated for one site.
The shear wave velocity and shear strength results of undis-
turbed and disturbed specimens are compared and found to
be identical to each other, so cementation or fabric effects are
disregarded.
• Peak internal friction angles for sandy soils can be expressed
as a linear function of the void ratio between the two limit
internal friction angles.
• This method may be limited to reclaimed or recently depos-
ited sandy soils, or both, due to the difficulty of sampling and
testing of undisturbed soils. Also this method would benefit
from verification using more elaborate field measurements
such as CPT.
• The reliability of the proposed method depends largely on
the accuracy of in-situ seismic data, yet provides more site-
oriented results than other approaches using general empiri-
cal equations.
8 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL

FIG. 8—Relationship between internal friction angle and void ratio.

TABLE 4—Shear strength estimation for borehole AD-1 of the Pyoungtaek site.

Depth Measured Estimated Estimated Average ␾ Difference

(m) Soil Type Specimen ␴v⬘ (kPa) Vs_field (m/s) efield (Eq 4) ␾ 共°兲 by N 共°兲 (%)a
3 CH 25.0 224
N/A N/A
4 CH 33.3 321

5 ML 40.6 214 0.60 35.3 28.5 19.3

6 ML Pyoungtaek 47.8 321 0.52 38.6 26.6 31.1
7 ML B 55.1 269 0.52 38.6 27.9 27.7
8 ML (sandy silt) 62.3 278 0.52 38.6 37.1 3.9
9 ML 69.6 312 0.52 38.6 47.6 23.3
Difference 共%兲 = 兩Estimated ␾ − Average ␾ by N兩 Ⲑ Estimated ␾ ⫻ 100.
a

TABLE 5—Shear strength estimation for borehole AD-6 of the Pyoungtaek site.

Depth Measured Estimated Estimated Average ␾ Difference

(m) Soil Type Specimen ␴v⬘ (kPa) Vs_field (m/s) efield (Eq 4) ␾ 共°兲 by N 共°兲 (%)
3 SP 20.3 214 0.71 36.8 29.3 20.4
4 SP 27.1 242 0.67 38.4 30.7 20.1
5 SP 33.8 231 0.71 36.6 31.4 14.2
6 SP 40.6 259 0.67 38.4 31.4 18.2
Pyoungtaek
7 SP 47.3 255 0.69 37.5 30.0 20.0
A
8 SP 54.1 272 0.67 38.5 31.4 18.4
(sand)
9 SP 60.9 283 0.66 39.0 34.9 10.5
10 SP 67.6 274 0.68 37.8 37.7 0.3
11 SP 76.2 336 0.59 42.6 41.1 3.5
12 SP 84.7 348 0.58 42.8 44.8 4.7
 CHA AND CHO ON SHEAR STRENGTH ESTIMATION OF SANDY SOILS 9

TABLE 6—Shear strength estimation for borehole NBH-10 of the Gun-Chang site.

Depth Measured Estimated Estimated Average ␾ Difference

(m) Soil Type Specimen ␴v⬘ (kPa) Vs_field (m/s) efield (Eq 4) ␾ 共°兲 by N 共°兲 (%)
3 SP-SM 17.9 224 0.48 43.2 34.9 19.2
4 SP-SM 23.9 226 0.48 43.2 36.2 16.2
Gun-Chang
5 SP-SM 29.9 201 0.60 40.4 36.5 9.7
(silty sand)
6 SP-SM 35.9 213 0.58 40.8 35.9 12.0
7 SP-SM 41.8 183 0.74 37.0 31.0 16.2

8 CL-ML 49.6 185

9 CL-ML 57.3 188
10 CL-ML N/A 65.1 196 N/A
11 CL-ML 72.8 215
12 CL-ML 80.6 219

13 SP-SM 90.8 237 0.67 38.7 43.7 12.9

14 SP-SM 101.1 269 0.58 40.9 47.6 16.4
15 SP-SM Gun-Chang 111.4 257 0.64 39.4 47.6 20.8
16 SP-SM (silty sand) 121.7 357 0.48 43.2 47.6 10.2
17 SP-SM 132.0 338 0.48 43.2 47.6 10.2
18 SP-SM 142.3 313 0.51 42.6 47.6 11.7

TABLE 7—Shear strength estimation for borehole DH-5 of the Cheju site.

Depth Measured Estimated Estimated Average ␾ Difference

(m) Soil Type Specimen ␴v⬘ (kPa) Vs_field (m/s) efield (Eq 4) ␾ 共°兲 by N 共°兲 (%)
4 SP 38.4 203 1.07 38.3 40.2 5.0
5 SP 48.0 210 1.09 38.0 35.7 6.1
6 SP 57.6 212 1.13 37.4 33.2 11.2
7 SP 67.2 223 1.09 37.9 34.4 9.2
8 SP 76.8 226 1.11 37.7 34.5 8.5
9 SP Cheju 86.4 243 1.03 39.0 33.8 13.3
10 SP (sand) 96.0 230 1.16 36.9 32.3 12.5
11 SP 105.6 213 1.30 34.5 30.7 11.0
12 SP 115.2 188 1.36 33.5 29.3 12.5
13 SP 124.9 219 1.31 34.4 32.1 6.7
14 SP 134.5 236 1.22 35.9 N/A N/A
15 SP 144.1 216 1.36 33.5 N/A N/A
10 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL

FIG. 9—Comparison of estimated friction angles 共a兲 borehole AD-1 of Pyoungtaek, 共b兲 borehole AD-6 of Pyoungtaek, 共c兲 borehole NBH-10 of Gun-Chang, 共d兲
borehole DH-5 of Cheju.
 CHA AND CHO ON SHEAR STRENGTH ESTIMATION OF SANDY SOILS
FIG. 10—Flowchart for shear strength estimation of sandy soils using the shear wave velocity-void ratio-shear strength correlation.
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by the Young Scientist Research Program
(Grant No. R08-2003-000-10452-0) and the Smart Infra-Structure
Technology Center (SISTeC, ERC2002) under KOSEF in Korea.
The writers are grateful to the reviewers and editorial board mem-
bers for their detailed comments.
References
ASTM Standard D 3080-04, 2004, “Standard Test Method for
Direct Shear Test of Soils Under Consolidated Drained Condi-
tions,” Annual Book of ASTM Standards, ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM Standard D 4253-00, 2000a, “Standard Test Methods for
Maximum Index Density and Unit Weight of Soils Using a
Vibratory Table,” Annual Book of ASTM Standards, ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM Standard D 4254-00, 2000b, “Standard Test Methods for
Minimum Index Density and Unit Weight of Soils and Calcula-
tion of Relative Density,” Annual Book of ASTM Standards,
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
Atkinson, J. H. and Sallfors, G., 1991, “Experimental Determina-
tion of Stress-strain-time Characteristics in Laboratory and In-
situ Tests,” Proceedings 10th European Conference on Soil
Mechanics, Florence, Vol. 3, pp. 915–956.
Been, K., Jefferies, M. G., and Hachey, J., 1991, “The Critical State
of Sands,” Geotechnique, Vol. 41, No. 3, pp. 365–381.
Bishop, A. W., 1950, “Discussion: Measurement of the Shear
Strength of Soils,” Geotechnique, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 113–116.
Bolton, M. D., 1986, “The Strength and Dilatancy of Sands,” Geo-
technique, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 65–78.
Bryan, G. M. and Stoll, R. D., 1989, “The Dynamic Shear Modulus
11
of Marine Sediments,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 83, pp. 2159–
2164.
Carcione, J. M., 1998, “Viscoelastic Effective Rheologies for Mod-
elling Wave Propagation in Porous Media,” Geophys. Prospect.,
Vol. 46, No. 3, pp. 249–270.
Casagrande, A., 1936, “Characteristics of Cohesionless Soils
Affecting the Stability of Slopes and Earth Fills,” J. Boston Soc.
Civ. Eng., Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 13–32.
Chang, C. S., Misra, A., and Sundaram, S. S., 1991, “Properties of
Granular Packings Under Low Amplitude Cyclic Loading,” Soil
Dyn. Earthquake Eng., Vol. 10, pp. 201–211.
Dunham, J. W., 1954, “Pile Foundations for Buildings,” Proceed-
ings ASCE, Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division.
Dyvik, R., and Madshus, C., 1985, “Laboratory Measurements of
Gmax Using Bender Elements,” Proceedings, American Society
of Civil Engineers Convention, American Society of Civil Engi-
neers, Detroit, New York.
Foti, S., Lai, C. G., and Lancellotta, R., 2002, “Porosity of Fluid-
Saturated Porous Media from Measured Seismic Wave Veloci-
ties,” Geotechnique, Vol. 52, No. 5, pp. 359–374.
Hardin, B. O. and Drnevich, V. P., 1972, “Shear Modulus and
Damping in Soils: Measurement and Parameter Effects,” J. Soil
Mech. and Found. Div., ASCE, Vol. 98, pp. 603–624.
Hardin, B. O. and Richart, F. E., 1963, “Elastic Wave Velocities in
Granular Soils,” J. Soil Mech. and Found. Div., ASCE, Vol. 89,
No. SM 1, pp. 33–65.
Hatanaka, M. and Uchida, A., 1996, “Empirical Correlation
Between Penetration Resistance and Internal Friction Angle of
Sandy Soils,” Soils and Foundations 0038–0806, Vol. 36, No. 4,
pp. 1–10.
Ishihara, K., 1993, “Liquefaction and Flow Failure During Earth-
quakes,” Geotechnique, Vol. 43, No. 3, pp. 351–415.
Knox, D. P., Stokoe, K. H., and Kopperman, S. E., 1982, “Effect of
State of Stress on Velocity of Low-amplitude Shear Waves
12 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL
Propagating Along Principal Stress Directions in Dry Sands,”
Civil Engineering Department, University of Texas, Austin,
Report GR82-23.
Lambe, T. W. and Whitman, R. V., 1979, Soil Mechanics, SI Ver-
sion, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 552 pp.
Lee, J. S. and Santamarina, J. C., 2005, “Bender Elements: Perfor-
mance and Signal Interpretation,” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,
ASCE, Vol. 131, No. 9, pp. 1063–1070.
Lee, K. L. and Seed, H. B., 1967, “Drained Strength Characteristics
of Sands,” J. Soil Mech. and Found. Div., Vol. 93, No. SM6,
pp. 117–141.
Lee, S. H. H. and Stokoe, K. H., II, 1986, “Investigation of Low-
amplitude Shear Wave Velocity in Anisotropic Material,” Civil
Engineering Department, University of Texas, Austin, Report
GR86-06, 34 pp.
Roesler, S. K., 1979, “Anisotropic Shear Modulus Due to Stress
View publication stats
Anisotropy,” J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., Vol. 105, No. 7, pp. 871–
880.
Rowe, P. W., 1962, “The Stress-dilatancy Relation for Static Equi-
librium of an Assembly of Particles in Contact,” Proceedings,
Royal Society, A269, pp. 500–527.
Santamarina, J. C. and Cho, G. C., 2001, “Determination of Critical
State Parameters in Sandy Soils-Simple Procedure,” Geotech.
Test. J., Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 185–192.
Santamarina, J. C., Klein, K. A., and Fam, M. A., 2001, Soils and
Waves, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK, 488 pp.
White, J. E., 1983, Underground Sound: Application of Seismic
Waves, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 253 pp.
Wood, D. M., 1990, Soil Behavior and Critical State Soil Mechan-
ics, Cambridge University Press, Chippenham, UK, 462 pp.
Wroth, C. P., 1958, “Soil Behavior During Shear—Existence of
Critical Voids Ratios,” Engineering, Vol. 186, pp. 409–413.