Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics III – Meyer (Ed.

)
© 2015 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN: 978-1-138-02848-7

Predictive equations of shear wave velocity for Bay of Campeche sand

V.M. Taboada
NGI, Inc., Houston, Texas, USA

D. Cruz Roque & P. Nabor Barrera

Instituto Mexicano del Petróleo, México, D.F., México

S.D. Renovato Carrión & J.M. Hernández Duron

PEMEX Exploración y Producción, Ciudad del Carmen, Campeche, México

K.C. Gan
Fugro-McClelland Marine Geosciences, Inc., Houston, Texas, USA

ABSTRACT: A database with in-situ measurements of VS and cone tip resistance (qc ), and basic soil properties
of sand has been established from fifteen offshore geotechnical investigations performed in the Bay of Campeche.
Values of VS were obtained from P-S logging. The database was tailored to develop empirical correlations for
VS and Gmax based on qc (or relative density), void ratio and effective stress, using linear regression analyses. To
evaluate the accuracy of the correlations, a comparison was made between VS computed from three recommended
empirical correlations, and in-situ measurements of VS at an independent site.The predictions ofVS fall in a rather
narrow band, 15 percent lower and higher than the in-situ measurements of VS , concluding that these equations
provide a useful approach to estimating VS for use in ground response analyses at sites where time-constraints
and finite resources prevent the feasibility to make in situ VS measurements.

1 INTRODUCTION sand with rounded particles under isotropic consol-

idation shown in Figure 1. This figure illustrates the
Shear modulus (Gmax ) at cyclic shear strains of less effect of void ratio, e, upon velocity, for a fixed confin-
than about 10−4 % is very often the key soil property ing pressure σo , VS decreases when the void ratio gets
in the analysis and design of structures and founda- larger. They fitted the straight lines shown in Figure 1,
tions subject to dynamic loads. It can be computed corresponding to the equation:
from shear wave velocity (VS ) which in turn can
be measured in the field using seismic techniques
(Gmax = ρV2S , where ρ = mas density). Since in-situ
measurements of VS is part of the scope of work of a where VS in m/s and σo in kPa. A derived approximate
limited amount of offshore sites, there is the need to expression for Gmax of clean rounded sand, proposed
develop site-specific correlations to estimate VS based by Richart et al. (1970) based on the same data in SI
on basic soil properties. units becomes:
Several empirical correlations relating Vs or Gmax
to other soil parameters have been devised on the basis
of laboratory test results and qc . Most of these corre-
lations have been developed mainly for onshore soils
with different geological settings than those of the
Bay of Campeche sand. Thus, to take advantage of where Gmax and σo are in kPa. Iwasaki & Tatsuoka
the abundant basic soil properties and in-situ mea- (1977) also conducted an extensive program of tests
surements of VS and qc , site-specific correlations for on a number of sands using both resonant column and
VS and Gmax have been developed for the Bay of slow torsional testing techniques. They proposed the
Campeche sand. The geographic location, geology and following equation for Gmax of clean uniform sand:
stratigraphy of the Bay of Campeche is presented in
detail elsewhere (Taboada et al. 2013).

2 VS AND GMAX OF DRY SAND

where Gmax and σo are in kPa. Note that the void ratio
Hardin & Richart (1963) reported the results of several factor is the same proposed by Richart et al. (1970)
resonant column tests conducted in clean dry Ottawa for rounded sand in Eq. (2). However, in Eq. (3) the

1115

Figure 1. Variation of VS with confining pressure and void
ratio (Hardin and Richart, 1963).
power of σo is m = 0.4, slightly different from m = 0.5
used by Richart and coworkers. Seed & Idriss (1970)
modified Equation (2), rewriting it as:
where Gmax and σo are in pounds per square foot
(psf), and the dimensional empirical coefficient K2max
(dimension: square root of stress) depends on the rel-
ative density of the sand, Dr , and is given in English
units, (psf)0.5 , by:
The corresponding values of K2max when Gmax and
σo are in SI units, kPa, are given by:
3 VS AND GMAX OF ANISOTROPICALLY
LOADED DRY SAND
The above expressions were developed based on dry
cohesionless soils consolidated isotropically by an
all-around pressure σo and characterized with veloc-
ities and modulus being the same in all directions,
neglecting the structural anisotropy of the soil.
In many practical applications, even when it is clear
that σ1 , σ2 and σ3 are different, very often it is assumed
that the dry sand can be characterized as an elastic
isotropic material anyway, withVS and Gmax calculated
using expressions such as Eqs (1) through (4). In this
1116
approximation, the isotropic stress σo is replaced by
the mean normal stress σm :
where, σ1 , σ2 and σ3 are the major, intermediate and
minor principal stresses, respectively. For field con-
ditions at any given depth, σ1 = vertical stress = σv ,
σ2 = σ3 = Ko σv . Where Ko = at rest earth pressure
coefficient = 1 − sin φ (where φ = drained friction
angle).
4 VS AND GMAX IN SATURATED SOILS
The key to the determination of VS and Gmax of fully
saturated soils is the application of Soil Mechanic’s
principle of effective stresses given by:
where u = pore water pressure and σo and σo are total
and effective isotropic confining pressure, respec-
tively. This principle will allow use of the findings on
dry cohesionless soils presented above to determine
VS and Gmax of the same soil when wet. Laboratory
tests have shown that the shear modulus at all strain
levels, including Gmax is the same in dry and fully satu-
rated sand, provided that the comparison is performed
at the same value of σo .
5 VS -QC RELATIONSHIPS FOR SAND
Correlations have been developed between cone pen-
etration tests (CPT) and VS or Gmax . Rix & Stokoe
(1991) reviewed the field data from two Italian sites,
three U.S. sites, and one calibration chamber test series
on sand and suggested:
where Gmax , qc , and σv are in kPa, and qc = cone tip
resistance. Andrus et al. (2001) compiled CPT and
shear wave velocity data from sites in California, Japan
and Canada and determined the following empirical
relationship for sand:
where VS in m/s, ASF = 1.41 for Pleistocene soils,
Pa = atmospheric pressure in kPa, σv = effective ver-
tical stress in kPa, and qc1 is the normalized cone tip
resistance given by:
Table 1. Summary of index properties of sands at 15 sites.

Standard
Index property Range Average deviation

Carbonate content (%) 0–48 10 8

Water content (%) 7–53 28 7
Void ratio 0.44–1.03 0.77 0.11
Specific gravity 2.60–2.77 2.68 0.03
Total unit weight (kN/m3 ) 17.7–20.6 19.4 0.6
Fines content (%) 2–50 14 10
Relative density (%) 13–106 74 15
Friction angle (degrees) 25–40 32 4

Figure 3. Summary of cone resistance, qc , measurements.

Figure 2. Summary of VS measurements.

6 BAY OF CAMPECHE DATABASE

Data is compiled from 15 sites in the Bay of Campeche,

Gulf of Mexico, Mexico where in-situ measurements
of shear wave velocity and cone tip resistance were
available. The water depths at these sites varied
between 10.5 m and 80.5 m.
The soil conditions at these sites were investigated
by drilling and sampling to a termination depth of
121.9 m below the seafloor. Following completion of
the drilling, sampling and in-situ testing activities,
downhole P-S suspension seismic velocity logging
was performed every 0.5 m from 3.0 m to 121.9 m
below the seafloor.
The range, average and standard deviation of index
and mechanical properties of the sands at 15 sites
included in the Bay of Campeche database are pre-
sented in Table 1.
A summary of the VS and qc data for the 15
sites is presented in Figures 2 and 3, respectively.
Representative VS values for various Dr for given
σm calculated from Eq. (14) are plotted on Figure 2.
Figure 4. Correlation between Gmax , σm and e.
Profiles of qc for various Dr for given σv calculated
from the Eq. (13) are plotted on Figure 3, and gives an
indication of the state of compaction of the sand strata.
7 EMPIRICAL CORRELATIONS FOR BAY OF
CAMPECHE SAND.
The basic conclusion that Hardin and Richart reached
was the paramount importance of σm and e in deter-
mining Gmax . Therefore, an empirical correlation sim-
ilar to that proposed by Richart and coworkers for
rounded sand (Eq. 2) was developed.
The relationship between in-situ measurements of
Gmax , (converted from VS ), e and σm for the Bay
of Campeche sand is presented in Figure 4, and the

1117
Figure 5. Predicted (V∗S ) and measured (VS ) values of VS .
f Figure 6. Relation between σm , Dr and Gmax .

equation developed through least square regression

analysis to the n = 325 data sets is:

where Gmax and σm are in kPa , and the coefficient of

correlation r2 is 0.88. It was found that the void ratio
factor (2.17 − e)2 /(1 + e) proposed by Richart and
coworkers based on laboratory test data is also valid
for the range of void ratios of the Bay of Campeche
sand (e = 0.35–1.0). However, in Eq. (12) the power of
σm is m = 0.54, slightly different from m = 0.5 used by
Richart et al. (1970).
The expressions proposed by Richart and his
coworkers (Eq. 2), and by Iwasaki and Tatsuoka (Eq. 3)
are included as curves in Figure 4. It is interesting
to note that Richart and coworkers correlation delim-
its the lower bound of measured values. The trend Figure 7. Predicted (V∗S ) and measured (VS ) values of VS .
f

between measured and predicted VS using Eq. (12)

is shown in Figure 5. It presents a band of ±20%.
Points that fall to the left of the band indicating an
underestimate of VS by Eq. (12).
An expression similar to that proposed by Seed &
Idriss (1970) that relates Gmax with effective stress and
relative density was developed.
The relative density from the cone tip resistance, qc ,
is estimated using an empirical expression proposed by
Baldi et al. (1986), as is given below:
where qc and the in-situ effective vertical stress σv
are in kPa. This equation applies for normally consol-
idated moderately compressible, uncemented, unaged
quartz sands (with ≤5 percent mica by volume). Where
appropriate, the cone tip resistance is corrected for
the influence of fines content by using the procedures
suggested by Lunne et al. (1997).
The correlation based on Gmax , σm and relative
density is shown in Figure 6, and it is defined by:
where Gmax and σ  m are both in kPa, K2max in SI units
given by Eq. (6), the coefficient of determination r2 is
0.922, and the total number of data sets is n = 340. Pao-
letti et al. (2010) also using Seeds and Idriss expression
found that the power of σm is m = 0.64 for the offshore
sands in the Adriatic Sea.
It is interesting to note that the expression proposed
by Seed & Idriss (1970) in Eq. (4) and included as
curve in Figure 6, estimate slightly higher Gmax val-
ues than the predicted with Eq. (14) for σm less than
250 kPa, and estimate lower Gmax values that those
with Eq. (14) for σm higher than 250 kPa.
The trend between measured and predicted VS using
Eq. (14) is presented in Figure 7. In general, most of

1118
Figure 8. Correlation between Gmax and qc . Figure 9. Correlation between VS1 and qc1 .

the predicted values are between the bands of ±15%

of the measured VS .
Measured values of Gmax and qc were used to calcu-
late the ratio of Gmax to qc and the normalized qc with
respect to the square root of σv . This normalization is
presented in Figure 8, and it is defined by:

where qc , σv and Gmax are in kPa, r2 = 0.862, and the

total number of data sets is n = 325.
The relationship proposed by Rix and Stokoe (Eq. 9)
is also included as curve in Figure 8. The estimated
ratio of Gmax to qc with the expression of Rix and
Stoke is smaller than the predicted with Eq. (15), and
with this difference increasing as the normalized qc
with respect to the square root of σv increases. The
ratio of Gmax to qc estimated with the expression of
Rix & Stokoe is 15% smaller than that predicted with
Eq. (15) for a normalized qc with respect to the square
root of σv of 200 and 34% smaller than the prediction
with Eq. (15) for normalized qc with respect to the
square root of σv of 2500. The relationship of Rix &
Stokoe define the lower bound of the measured values
of the ratio Gmax /qc .
Finally, measured values of VS and qc were used to
calculate the ratio of normalized shear wave velocity
(VS1 ) to normalized cone tip resistance (qc1 ). This ratio
versus the normalized cone tip resistance is presented
in Figure 9, and it is defined by:
where Pa and σv are in the same units, VS in m/s,
r2 = 0.978 and n = 325.The normalizedVS is given by:
The relationship proposed by Andrus et al. (2001)
in Eq. (10) is also included as curve in Figure 9. It
Figure 10. Predicted (V∗S ) and measured (VS ) values of VS .
f
is interesting to note that Eqs (10) and (16) provide
strikingly similar values of the ratio of normalized VS
to normalized qc , the difference being between 3% at
qc1 of 20 and 1% at qc1 of 250.
The trend between measured VS and predicted VS
using Eq. (16) is presented in Figure 10. In general,
most of the predicted values are between the bands of
±10% of the measured VS . Eq. (16) is recommended
for practical use to predict VS since it has a higher
coefficient of correlation (r2 ) than Eq. (15).
Independent, in-situ measurements of VS and qc at
a site in the Bay of Campeche outside the database
provided an opportunity to evaluate the accuracy
of the three recommended empirical correlations to
predict VS of sand deposits. The correlations were
directly applied to the best estimate of the correlated
parameters. All the results were converted to VS for
comparison purposes.

1119

Figure 11. Blind prediction of in-situ measurements of Vs.
Good agreement between the measured VS and
those inferred from the recommended Eqs (12), (14)
and (16), for the above mentioned site is indicated by
the data shown in Figure 11.
Figure 11 is extremely interesting and reveals that
the predictions fall in a rather narrow band, 15 percent
lower and higher than the measured VS , practically
bounding the oscillations of the measured VS . This
trend was already observed in Figures 5, 7 and 10
where most of the predicted values are between the
bands of ±15% of the measured VS .
8 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A database of in-situ measurements of VS and qc , and
standard geotechnical engineering material properties
for the Bay of Campeche sand has been established.
The database allowed the development of empirical
correlations, three of them, Eqs (12), (14) and (16), rec-
ommended to be used to determine the best-estimate
VS profile of sand for use in ground response analysis
at sites without in-situ measurements of VS .
The prediction of Gmax of the correlation based
on e and σm , exceeded those from the correlations
based on laboratory testing, and the prediction of the
correlation based on Dr and σm was very similar to
the correlation based on lab testing for σm less than
250 kPa, and higher for σm greater than 250 kPa.
The empirical correlations based on in-situ mea-
surements of qc were also compared to previously
published correlations with qc . It was found that the
estimated ratio of Gmax to qc with the previously
published correlation was 15%–34% lower than the
expression from this investigation (Eq. 15). How-
ever, the comparison of estimated ratio of normalized
1120
shear wave velocity to normalized cone tip resistance
between the expression from this investigation (Eq. 16)
and the previously developed expression (Eq. 10) is
quite good, 1%–3% difference.
The accuracy of the empirical correlations devel-
oped in this research was also investigated. It was
found to be also quite good, ±15% of the in-situ
measurements of VS .
To account for uncertainties in the determination of
VS , site response analyses should be conducted for
three VS profiles: 1) a best-estimate profile (using
the three recommended empirical correlations), 2)
a slower velocity profile, and 3) a faster velocity
profile. The slower and faster velocity profiles are esti-
mated applying scaling factors of (2/3)1/2 and (3/2)1/2 ,
respectively, to the best-estimate VS profile.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the authorization
provided by PEMEX to access the data collected in
the Bay of Campeche and publish the results of this
research.
REFERENCES
Andrus, R.D., Pirapeethan, P. & Juang, C.H. 2001. Shear wave
velocity-penetration resistance correlations for ground
shaking and liquefaction hazards assessment. USGS
Grant 01HQGR0007, USGS Annual Project Summaries.
Baldi, G., Bellotti, R., Ghionna, V., Jamiolkowsky, M. &
Pasqualini, E. 1986. Interpretation of CPT’s and CPTU’s,
2nd Part: Drained Penetration in Sands. 4th Int. Geotech-
nical Seminar Field Instrumentation and In-Situ Mea-
surements, Nanyang Tech. Inst., Singapore, Nov. pp.
143–156.
Hardin, B.O. & Richart, F.E. 1963. Elastic wave veloci-
ties in granular soils. JSMFD, ASCE, Vol. 89, No. SM1,
February 1963, pp 33–65.
Iwasaki, T. & Tatsuoka, F. 1977. Effects of Grain Size and
Grading on Dynamic Shear Moduli of Sands, Soils and
Foundations, 1977, 17(3), pp. 19–35.
Lunne, T., Robertson, P.K., & Powell, J.J.M. 1997. Cone Pene-
tration Testing in Geotechnical Practices, BlakieAcademic
Professional, New York.
Paoletti, L., Hegazy, Y., Monaco, S. & Piva, R. 2010. Predic-
tion of shear wave velocity for offshore sands using CPT
data – Adriatic Sea. 2nd Int. Symposium on Cone Pene-
tration Testing, May 9–12, 2010, Huntington Beach,CA.
Rix, G.J. & Stokoe, K.H. 1991. Correlation of initial tangent
modulus and cone penetration resistance. International
Symposium on Calibration Chamber Testing, A.B. Huang,
ed., Elsevier Publishing, New York, pp. 351–362.
Richart, F.E., Hall, J.R. & Woods, R.D. 1970. Vibrations of
soils and foundations. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 414 pp.
Seed, H.B. & Idriss, I.M. 1970. Soil moduli and damp-
ing factor for dynamic response analyses. Report No.
EERC 70-10, EERC, University of California, Berkeley,
California.
Taboada, V.M., Cruz, D., Barrera, P., Espinosa, E., Carrasco,
D. & Gan, K.C. 2013. Predictive equations of shear wave
velocity for Bay of Campeche clay. Offshore Technology
Conference, Houston, Texas, 6–9 May 2013, OTC 24068.