Acta Geophysica

vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 400-412

DOI: 10.2478/s11600-008-0077-z

Seismic Technique to Determine

the Allowable Bearing Pressure
for Shallow Foundations in Soils and Rocks
Semih S. TEZCAN1, Zuhal OZDEMIR1, and Ali KECELI2
1
Bogazici University, Bebek, Istanbul, Turkey
e-mails: tezokan@superonline.com, ozdemirzuhal@yahoo.com
2
Istanbul University, Beyazit, Istanbul, Turkey; e-mail: keceliali@hotmail.com

Abstract
Based on a variety of case histories of site investigations, including
extensive bore-hole data, laboratory testing and geophysical prospecting,
an empirical formulation is proposed for the rapid determination of al-
lowable bearing capacity of shallow foundations. The proposed expres-
sion consistently corroborates the results of the classical theory and is
proven to be rapid and reliable. It consists of only two soil parameters,
namely, the in situ measured shear wave velocity, and the unit weight.
The unit weight may be also determined with sufficient accuracy by
means of another empirical expression using the P-wave velocity. It is
indicated that once the shear and P-wave velocities are measured in situ
by an appropriate geophysical survey, the allowable bearing capacity as
well as the coefficient of subgrade reaction and many other elasticity pa-
rameters may be determined rapidly and reliably through a single step
operation, not only for soils, but also for rock formations. Such an inno-
vative approach, using the seismic wave velocities only, is considerably
cost- and time-saving in practice.

Key words: bearing capacity, shear wave velocity, shallow foundations,

allowable bearing pressure, seismic technique.

1. INTRODUCTION
Professor Schulze (1943), a prominent historical figure in soil mechanics and
foundation engineering in Germany, stated that: “For the determination of
________________________________________________
© 2009 Institute of Geophysics, Polish Academy of Sciences
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 11/24/15 7:50 PM
 ALLOWABLE BEARING PRESSURE 401

allowable bearing pressure, the geophysical methods, utilising seismic wave

velocity measuring techniques, with absolutely no disturbance of natural site
conditions, may yield relatively more realistic results than those of the geo-
technical methods, which are based primarily on bore-hole data and labora-
tory testing of the so-called undisturbed soil samples”.
Since that time, various significant contributions have been made to
solving geotechnical problems by means of geophysical prospecting. The
P-wave velocities, for instance, have been used to determine the unconfined
compressive strengths and modulus of elasticity of soil samples by Coates
(1970). Hardin and Black (1968), and also Hardin and Drnevich (1972),
based on extensive experimental data, established indispensable relations be-
tween the shear wave velocity, void ratio, and shear rigidity of soils. Similar-
ly, Ohkubo and Terasaki (1976) supplied various expressions relating the
seismic wave velocities to weight density, permeability, water content, un-
confined compressive strength and modulus of elasticity.
The use of geophysical methods in foundation engineering has been ex-
tensively studied also by Imai and Yoshimura (1976), Tatham (1982), Will-
kens et al. (1984), Eberhart-Phillips et al. (1989), Keceli (1990), Jongmans
(1992), Sully and Campanella (1995), and Pyrak-Nolte et al. (1996). Cam-
panella and Stewart (1992) determined various soil parameters by digital
signal processing, while Butcher and Powell (1995) supplied practical geo-
physical techniques to assess various soil parameters related to ground stiff-
ness. An empirical expression is also proposed by Abd El-Rahman et al.
(1992), for the ultimate bearing capacity of soils, using the logarithm of
shear wave velocity. A series of guidelines have been also prepared in this
respect by the Technical Committee TC 16 of ISSMGE (IRTP 1999), and al-
so by Sieffert and Bay-Gress (2000). Turker (2004), based on extensive case
studies, supplied an explicit expression for the allowable bearing pressure,
using shear wave velocity. Massarsch (2004) determined deformation prop-
erties of fine-grained soils from seismic tests.
In this presentation, typical empirical expressions have been proposed
for the rapid determination of the allowable bearing pressures in soils, in
“soft” and “hard” rocks. This is actually an extension of an earlier publica-
tion by present authors (Tezcan et al. 2006), presenting a theoretical back-
ground for the formulation and also introducing a number of refinements,
including the correction factors for the foundation size. Numerous case his-
tories have been also introduced to substantiate the reliability and validation
of the method.
The in situ measured shear wave velocity, as a single field index,
represents the real soil conditions much more effectively and reliably than
the in situ or laboratory tested shear strength parameters. In addition to geo-
physical refraction seismic survey, there are several other techniques of mea-

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 11/24/15 7:50 PM
402 S.S. TEZCAN et al.

suring the shear wave velocity at site as discussed by Stokoe and Woods
(1972), Tezcan et al. (1975), and Butcher et al. (2005). In situ measured
shear wave velocity reflects the true photograph of the soil, containing the
contributions of void ratio, effective confining stress, stress history, shear
and compressive strengths, geologic age etc. As will be seen later in this
study, the shear wave velocity enables the practicing engineer to determine
the allowable bearing capacity in a most convenient, economic, reliable and
straight forward manner. For most practical cases, the cost of P- and S-wave
measurements at a particular site will not exceed a quarter of the total cost of
the conventional bore-hole and laboratory testing.

2. THEORETICAL BASIS FOR THE EMPIRICAL EXPRESSION

The state of stress and the related elastic parameters of a soil column under-
neath a shallow foundation with a thickness of H is shown in Fig. 1. Assum-
ing a unit cross-sectional area of A = 1 the compressive stress at the base of
the column becomes
qf = γ H , (1)

where qf = ultimate bearing capacity at failure, γ = unit weight of soil. We

may express the general form of the allowable bearing pressure qa as
qa = q f / n = γ H / n , (2)

P = A qf d = settlement under load P

d = P H / AE d = qf H / E
d d = qf / ks ks = E / H

qf = ultimate bearing capacity

qf = P / A = A H γ / A = γ H
P = A qf = A H γ
H
ks = coefficient of subgrade reaction
ks = qf / d ks = E / H
ks = 40 qf if d = 0.025 m

P = ks d

Fig. 1. Soil column and related parameters.

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 11/24/15 7:50 PM
 ALLOWABLE BEARING PRESSURE 403

where n = factor of safety. In order to be able to include the shear wave ve-
locity Vs of the soil into the above empirical expression of the allowable
bearing pressure qa , the depth parameter H may be replaced by
H = Vs t , (3)

where Vs = the shear wave velocity measured under the foundation within a
depth H, t is an unknown time parameter. Substituting eq. (3) into eq. (2),
yields
qa = γ Vs t / n . (4)

The unknown time parameter t will now be determined and replaced by

an “arbitrary” value on the basis of a calibration process. For this purpose,
a well established soil data concerning a typical “hard” rock formation will
be used as follows:
qa = 10000 kN/m 2 , γ = 35 kN/m3 ,
(5)
Vs = 4000 m/s , n = 1.4 for " hard" rocks .

Substituting these values into eq. (4), we obtain t = 0.10 s, enabling us to

write
qa = 0.1 γ Vs / n = q f / n , (6a)
q f = 0.1 γ Vs . (6b)

This is the desired empirical expression to determine the allowable bearing

pressure qa in soils and rocks, once the unit weight γ and the in situ meas-
ured, wave velocities Vp and Vs are available for the soil layer immediately
beneath the foundation. The only unknown parameter is the factor of safe-
ty n, which may be estimated on the basis of practical considerations, as fol-
lows:
n = 1.4 for "hard rocks" Vs ≥ 4000 m/s , (7a)

n = 4.0 for soils Vs ≤ 750 m/s . (7b)

For “soft” rocks for which 750 < Vs < 4000 m/s a linear interpolation
between n = 4 and n = 1.4 is recommended. The factors of safety, as well
as the empirical allowable bearing pressure expressions, for various soil/rock
types, are given in Table 1.
It is a well known fact that the shear modulus, as well as the shear wave
velocity of a soil layer is reduced with increasing shear strain as outlined
clearly by Massarsch (2004). The ultimate failure pressure, for instance, is
related to very large shear strains. However, the levels of shear strains asso-
ciated with the allowable bearing pressures are compatible with those gener-

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 11/24/15 7:50 PM
404 S.S. TEZCAN et al.

Table 1
Factors of safety n for soils and rocks.
Linear interpolation is made for “soft” weak rocks with 750 ≤ Vs ≤ 4000 m/s.

Soil type Vs-range [m/s] n qa [kN/m2]

“Hard” rocks Vs ≥ 4000 1.4 0.071 γ Vs
“Soft” weak rocks 750 ≤ Vs ≤ 4000 4.6–0.0008 Vs 0.1 γ Vs /n
Soils 750 ≥ Vs 4.0 0.025 γ Vs β

ated during the in situ measurement of shear wave velocities. Nevertheless,

the format and the nature of the empirical expression proposed above for the
determination of the allowable bearing pressure, using the shear wave ve-
locities measured at low shear strains, is most appropriate to produce reliable
results for a wide range of soil and rock formations. For instance, when the
soil is saturated with water, the reduction necessary to consider in the value
of allowable pressure is readily taken care of by a likewise reduction in the
values of in situ measured shear wave velocities.

3. EFFECT OF FOUNDATION WIDTH

It has been determined by Terzaghi and Peck (1967) that the width of footing
B has a reducing influence on the value of allowable bearing pressure.
Therefore, a correction factor β is introduced into the formula for “soils”
type formations only, as shown in the third line of Table 1. The proposed
values of this correction factor, for different foundation widths B, are as fol-
lows:
β = 1.00 for 0.0 ≤ B ≤ 1.20 m ,
β = 1.13-0.11 B for 1.2 ≤ B ≤ 3.00 m , (8)
β = 0.83-0.01 B for 3.0 ≤ B ≤ 12.0 m .

4. ESTIMATION OF UNIT WEIGHT USING VP

The unit weight of soil right under the foundation may be easily and accu-
rately determined in geotechnical laboratories, simply by taking appropriate
samples of soils. If, however, the seismic P-wave velocities of subsoil layers
are measured, the unit weight γ may be determined, in kN/m3 units, from
anyone of the two following empirical expressions:
γ = 3.2 V p0.25 , (9)
γ = γ 0 + 0.002 V p , (10)

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 11/24/15 7:50 PM
 ALLOWABLE BEARING PRESSURE 405

in which Vp = P-wave velocity in m/s, γ0 = the reference unit weight values

in kN/m3, for soil and rock types, given as follows:
γ0 = 16 for loose sandy, silty and clayey soils,
γ0 = 17 for dense sand and gravel,
γ0 = 18 for mudstone, limestone, claystone, conglomerate, etc.,
γ0 = 20 for cracked sandstone, tuff, graywacke, schist, etc.,
γ0 = 24 for hard rocks.
The validity and reliability of these expressions, especially that of
eq. (10), have been verified extensively, on the basis of numerous laboratory
testing of real soil samples, as reported earlier by Tezcan et al. (2006). The
unit weights calculated by eq. (10), are in excellent agreement with those de-
termined in the laboratory. In the absence of any bore hole sampling and la-
boratory testing of soil samples, the above empirical expression provides
a reliable first approximation for the unit weights of various soils, once the
in situ measured P-wave velocities are available. In fact, the speedy evalua-
tion of unit weights, prior to any soil sampling, enables the practicing engi-
neer to calculate the allowable bearing capacity q readily from eq. (6a).
a

5. COEFFICIENT OF SUBGRADE REACTION

The shear wave velocity may be used successfully to determine the coeffi-
cient of subgrade reaction ks and the modulus of elasticity E as already illu-
strated in Fig. 1. The coefficient ks is defined, similar to the definition of
spring constant in engineering mechanics, to be the necessary vertical pres-
sure in order to produce a unit vertical displacement, and is expressed as
ks = q f / d . (11)

For shallow foundations, the total vertical displacement is restricted to

one inch, i.e., dmax = 0.025 m, as prescribed clearly by Terzaghi and Peck
(1967). When d = 0.025 m is substituted in eq. (11), the coefficient of sub-
grade reaction in units of kN/m3 becomes, as proposed by Bowles (1982)
ks = 40 q f , (12)

or, when qf is replaced by its equivalent in eq. (6b)

ks = 4 γ Vs . (13)

Similarly, the modulus of elasticity of the soil E under the foundation

within a layer of thickness H, as shown in Fig. 1, is obtained from
E = ks H , (14a)

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 11/24/15 7:50 PM
406 S.S. TEZCAN et al.

or, substituting ks = 4 γ Vs from eq. (13), E in terms of shear wave velocity,

becomes
E = 4 γ H Vs . (14b)

6. SHEAR MODULUS AND BULK MODULUS

Once the seismic wave velocities, Vp and Vs , are measured by geophysical
means for a particular sublayer in the field, several parameters of elasticity,
such as shear modulus G, oedometric modulus of elasticity Ec , modulus of
elasticity E (Young’s modulus), bulk modulus K, and Poisson’s ratio ν may
be obtained from the following expressions. The shear modulus G and the
oedometric modulus Ec are related to the shear and P-wave velocities by the
following expressions, respectively:
G = ρ Vs2 , (15a)

Ec = ρ V p2 , (15b)

where ρ = mass density given by ρ = γ /g . From the Theory of Elasticity it

is known that Young’s modulus E is related to oedometric modulus Ec and
also to shear modulus G by the following expressions:
E = Ec (1 + ν )(1 − 2ν ) / (1 −ν ) , (16)

E = 2 (1 + ν ) G . (17)

Utilising eq. (15) and substituting α as

α = Ec / G = (V p / Vs ) 2 (18)

into eqs. (16) and (17), we obtain

2(1 + ν ) = α (1 + ν )(1 − 2ν ) / (1 − ν ) , (19)

which yields Poisson’s ratio ν as follows:

ν = (α − 2) / 2(α − 1) , (20a)
or
α = (2ν − 2) / (2ν − 1) . (20b)

Similarly, the shear modulus G from eq. (15a), is determined to be

G = γ Vs2 g . (21)

Hence, the modulus of elasticity E is directly obtained from eq. (17), or,
substituting eq. (20a) into eq. (17), we obtain

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 11/24/15 7:50 PM
 ALLOWABLE BEARING PRESSURE 407

E = (3α − 4)G / (α − 1) . (22)

The oedometric modulus Ec may be also obtained in terms of α and E
from eqs. (16) and (18) as follows:
Ec = α E / 2(3α − 4) . (23)

The bulk modulus K of the soil layer, may be expressed, from the Theory
of Elasticity, as
K = E / 3(1 − 2ν ) , (24)
which may be also expressed, using eqs. (17), (20) and (21), as follows:
K = (α − 1) E / 3 = γ (V p2 − 4Vs2 / 3) / g . (25)
For purposes of quick and convenient reference, various elasticity para-
meters of the soil or rock layer immediately under a shallow foundation, for
which the Vp and Vs velocities are available, are summarised in Table 2.
Table 2
Various elasticity parameters in terms of Vp and Vs

Parameter Formula Equation

Shear modulus G = γV / g
s
2
(21)
E = ks H = 4 γ H Vs (alternate) (14)
Modulus of elasticity
E = (3α – 4) G / (α – 1) = 2 (1 + ν) G (22)
Ec = (1 – ν) E / (1 + ν) (1 – 2ν) (16)
Oedometric modulus
Ec = α E / 2 (3α – 4) (23)
K = E/3 (1 – 2ν) = 2(1 + ν) G/3(1 – 2ν) (24)
Bulk modulus
K = (α − 1) E / 3 = γ (V p2 − 4Vs2 / 3) / g (25)
ν = (α – 2) / 2(α – 1) (20a)
Poisson’s ratio
α = 2(ν – 1) / (2ν – 1) (20b)
Subgrade coefficient ks = 4γ Vs = 40 qf (13)
Allowable bearing pressure qa = qf / n = 0.1 γ Vs β / n (6)
Note: α = Ec / G = (Vp / Vs)2, β is the correction factor for the width of foundation,
(see eq. 8), only in soils, not in rocks.

7. COMPUTATIONAL EXAMPLE
For purposes of illustration, a soft clayey soil layer of H = 15 m beneath a
shallow foundation will be considered. The in situ measured seismic wave
velocities are determined to be Vp = 700 m/s and Vs = 200 m/s. A compre-

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 11/24/15 7:50 PM
408 S.S. TEZCAN et al.

hensive set of classical soil investigations, including a number of bore-hole

data and laboratory testing exist for this particular site, together with the val-
ues of various soil parameters, including the allowable bearing pressure de-
termined by the classical method of Terzaghi and Peck (1967). Therefore,
the validity and the reliability of the proposed empirical formulae have been
rigorously verified.
Calculation of the same soil parameters using the empirical expressions
presented herein are summarised in Table 3. The results of the empirical me-
thod are in very close agreement with those of the geotechnical survey. For
instance, the laboratory-determined unit weight is γ = 17.2 kN/m3, and the
ultimate failure and allowable bearing pressures determined by the con-
ventional Terzaghi and Peck (1967) method are qf = 322 kN/m3 and qa =
qf /3.5 = 92 kN/m3, respectively.
Table 3
Results of computational example if H = 15 m, Vp = 700 m/s, Vs = 200 m/s

Formula Equation Numerical calculations Result Unit

γ = 3.2 V 0.25
p (19) γ = 3.2 (700)0.25
16.5 kN/m3
γ = γ0 + 0.002 Vp (10) γ = 16 + 0.002 (700) 17.4*) kN/m3
n=4 Table 1 soils, Vs ≤ 700 m/s 4 -
qf = 0.1 γ Vs (6b) qf = 0.1 (17.4) 200 348 kN/m2
qa = qf / n (6a) qa = 348/4 87 kN/m2
ks = 40 qf (12) ks = 40 (348) 13 920 kN/m3
E = ks H (alternate) (14) E = 13 920 (15) 208 800 kN/m2
G = γ Vs2 / g (21) G = 17.4 (200)2/9.81 70 948 kN/m2
α = (Vp / Vs)2 (18) α = (700/200)2 12.25 -
μ = (α – 2) / 2(α – 1) (20) ν = (12.25 – 2)/2(11.25) 0.456 -
E = 2 (1 + ν) G (17) E = 2(1.456) 70 948 206 537 kN/m2
Ec = α E / 2(3α – 4) (23) 206 537 (12.25) / 2 (32.75) 38 627 kN/m2
K = E / 3(1 – 2ν) (24) 206 537 / 3 (1 – 0.91) 774 510 kN/m2
K = E (α – 1)/3 (25) 206 537 (12.25 – 1) / 3 774 510 kN/m2
d = displacement (11) d = 0.025 (constant) 0.025 m

*) Result of eq. (10), γ = 17.4 kN/m3, is used in all subsequent expressions.

8. CASE STUDIES
The allowable bearing pressures have been determined at more than 373
construction sites in and around the Kocaeli and Istanbul Provinces in Tur-

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 11/24/15 7:50 PM
 ALLOWABLE BEARING PRESSURE 409

key, between the years 2005 and 2008. At each construction site, by virtue of
city by-law, a sufficient number of bore holes were drilled, SPT counts con-
ducted, undisturbed soil samples were taken for laboratory testing purposes,
where cohesion c and internal angle of friction φ were determined.
Subsequently, following the classical procedure of Terzaghi and Peck
(1967), the ultimate and also the allowable bearing pressures were deter-
mined, by assuming an appropriate factor of safety, which for all soil types
was taken to be n = 3. For granular soils, immediate settlement calculations
were also conducted, in order to determine whether the shear failure mechan-
ism or the maximum settlement criterion would control the design. The nu-
merical values of the allowable bearing pressures qa determined in accord-
ance with the conventional Terzaghi theory, are shown by a triangular sym-
bol in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2. Comparison of conventional and seismic methods. (From a data base contain-
ing 373 case studies in and around the Kocaeli and Istanbul Provinces, 2004-2006).

Parallel to these classical soil investigations, the P- and S-wave veloci-

ties have been measured in situ, right under the foundation base level for the
purpose of determining the allowable bearing pressures qa by means of em-
pirical formulae presented herein. The allowable bearing pressures deter-
mined by the seismic method at the same sites are shown by means of a
circle in Fig. 2.
A solid linear regression line was also shown in Fig. 2, for the purpose of
indicating the consistency, uniformity, and stability of the allowable bearing
pressures qa determined by the seismic method proposed herein. The list of

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 11/24/15 7:50 PM
410 S.S. TEZCAN et al.

soil parameters determined by in situ and laboratory testing through geo-

technical prospecting, as well as the in situ measured velocities Vp and Vs at
each site, are too voluminous to be included herein. The researchers interest-
ed to have access to these particular data bases, involving 373 construction
sites, may inquire from the internet: tezokan@superonline.com.

9. CONCLUSIONS
‰ The shear wave velocity is a single and most powerfull soil parame-
ter representing a family of geotechnical soil parameters, ranging
from compressive strength to void ratio, from shear rigidity to cohe-
sion etc.
‰ Extensive bore hole and laboratory testing of soil samples would no
longer be needed if the shear and P-wave velocities are measured, as
accurately as possible, right under the foundation level. Then, the al-
lowable bearing pressure, the coefficient of subgrade reaction, vari-
ous other elasticity parameters, as well as the approximate value of
the unit weight are rapidly determined, using relatively simple empir-
ical expressions.
‰ The results obtained from seismic method are more stable, consistent
and reliable when compared with those of the conventional method,
as already demonstrated by more than 373 case studies in Fig. 2.

A c k n o w l e d g e m e n t . The authors gratefully acknowledge the technic-

al support and encouragement, as well as the constant and ample supply of
field data and results of geotechnical survey reports for the case studies by
Mr. Mustafa Cevher, Chief Geophysical Engineer, Municipality of the
Greater City of Kocaeli, Turkey.

References

Abd El-Rahman, M.M., I. Setto, and A. El-Werr (1992), Inferring mechanical prop-
erties of the foundation material at the 2nd industrial zone, Sadat city, from
geophysical measurements, Egyptian Geophysical Society, Proceedings of
9th Annual Meeting, 206-228.
Bowles, J.E. (1982), Foundation Analysis and Design, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill Book
Company, New York.
Butcher, A.P., and J.J. Powell (1995), Practical considerations for field geophysical
techniques to used assess ground stiffness, Proc. Int. Conf. on Advances in
Site Investigation Practice, ICE London, March 1995, Thomas Telford,
701-714.

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 11/24/15 7:50 PM
 ALLOWABLE BEARING PRESSURE 411

Butcher, A.P., R.G. Campanella, A.M. Kaynia, and K.R. Massarsch (2005), Seismic
cone downhole procedure to measure shear wave velocity – A guideline
prepared by ISSMGE TC10: Geophysical Testing in Geotechnical Engi-
neering, Proc. XVIth Inter. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical En-
gineering, May 2006, Osaka, Japan, 5 pp.
Campanella, R.G., and W.P. Stewart (1992), Seismic cone analysis using digital sig-
nal processing for dynamic site characterization, Canad. Geotech. J. 29, 3,
477-486.
Coates, D.F. (1970), Rock Mechanics Principles, Mines Branch Monographs 874,
Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, Canada.
Eberhart-Phillips, D., D.-H. Han, and M.D. Zoback (1989), Empirical relationships
among seismic velocity, effective pressure, porosity, and clay content in
sandstone, Geophysics 54, 82-89, DOI: 10.1190/1.1442580.
Hardin, B.O., and W.L. Black (1968), Vibration modulus of normally consolidated
clays, J. Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division ASCE 94, SM2, 353-369.
Hardin, B.O., and V.P. Drnevich (1972), Shear modulus and damping in soils,
J. Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division ASCE, 98, SM7, 667-692.
Imai, T., and M. Yoshimura (1976), The relation of mechanical properties of soils to
P- and S-wave velocities for soil ground in Japan, Urana Research Institute,
OYO Corporation, Tokyo, Japan (internal publication), http://www.
geophysical.com, e-mail: prosight@oyonet.oyo.co.jp.
IRTP (1999), ISSMGE Technical Committee TC16 Ground Property Characteriza-
tion from In situ Testing, International Reference Test Procedure (IRTP) for
the Cone Penetration Test (CPT) and the Cone Penetration Test with pore
pressure (CPTU). In: F.B.J. Barends, J. Lindenberg, H.J. Luger, L. de
Quelerij, and A. Verruijt (eds.), Proc. XIIth ECSMGE, Vol. 3, 2195-2222,
A.A. Balkema, Amsterdam.
Jongmans, D. (1992), The application of seismic methods for dynamic characteriza-
tion of soils in earthquake engineering, Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 46, 63-69,
DOI: 10.1007/ BF02595035.
Keçeli, A.D. (1990), Determination of bearing capacity of soils by means of seismic
methods, Geophys. J. 4, 83-92 (in Turkish).
Massarsch, K.R. (2004), Deformation properties of fine-grained soils from seismic
tests. Keynote lecture, Inter. Conf. on Site Characterization, ISC’2, 19-22
Sept. 2004, Porto, 133-146.
Ohkubo, T., and A. Terasaki (1976), Physical property and seismic wave velocity of
Rocks, OYO Corporation, Tokyo, Japan (internal publication),
http://www.geophysical.com, e-mail: prosight@oyonet.oyo.co.jp.
Pyrak-Nolte, L.J., S. Roy, and B.L. Mullenbach (1996), Interface waves propagated
along a fracture, J. Appl. Geophys. 35, 2-3, 79-87, DOI: 10.1016/0926-
9851(96)00009-2.

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 11/24/15 7:50 PM
412 S.S. TEZCAN et al.

Schulze, W.E. (1943), Grundbau, Deutsche Forschungsgesellschaft für Bodenme-

chanik, 7th ed., B.G. Taubner Publishers, Leipzig; also available: Technical
University of Istanbul, 48, DK624-15, Uçler Printing House, Istanbul.
Sieffert, J.G., and Ch. Bay-Gress (2000), Comparison of the European bearing ca-
pacity calculation methods for shallow foundations, Geotech. Eng., Inst.
Civil Eng. 143, 65-74.
Stokoe, K.H., and R.D. Woods (1972), In situ shear wave velocity by cross-hole
method, J. Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division ASCE 98, SM5, 443-
460.
Sully, J.P., and R.G. Campanella (1995), Evaluation of in situ anisotropy from
crosshole and downhole shear wave velocities measurements, Geotech-
nique 45, 2, 267-282.
Tatham, R.H. (1982), Vp/Vs and lithology, Geophysics 47, 3, 336-344, DOI: 10.1190/
1.1441339.
Terzaghi, K., and R.B. Peck (1967), Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, 2nd
ed., John Wiley & Sons, London.
Tezcan, S.S., S.M. Erden, and H.T. Durgunoğlu (1975), In situ measurement of
shear wave velocity at Boğaziçi University Campus, Proc. Inter. Conf. on
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 2, 157-164, Istanbul
Technical University, Istanbul.
Tezcan, S.S., Z. Ozdemir, and A. Keceli (2006), Allowable bearing capacity of shal-
low foundations based on shear wave velocity, J. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 24,
203-218, DOI: 10.1007/s.10706-004-1748-4.
Turker, E. (2004), Computation of ground bearing capacity from shear wave veloc-
ity. In: D. Bergman et al. (eds.), Continuum Models and Discrete Systems,
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands, 173-180.
Wilkens, R., G. Simmons, and L. Caruso (1984), The ratio Vp/Vs as a discriminant
of composition for siliceous limestones, Geophysics 49, 11, 1850-1860,
DOI: 10.1190/1.1441598.

Received 27 June 2008

Accepted 31 October 2008

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 11/24/15 7:50 PM