Review of correlations between SPT N and shear modulus: A new correlation applicable to any region

A low strain shear modulus plays a fundamental role in earthquake geotechnical engineering to estimate the ground response parameters for seismic microzonation. A large number of site response studies are being carried out using the standard penetration test (SPT) data, considering the existing correlation between SPT N values and shear modulus. The purpose of this paper is to review the available empirical correlations between shear modulus and SPT N values and to generate a new correlation by combining the new data obtained by the author and the old available data. The review shows that only few authors have used measured density and shear wave velocity to estimate shear modulus, which were related to the SPT N values. Others have assumed a constant density for all the shear wave velocities to estimate the shear modulus. Many authors used the SPT N values of less than 1 and more than 100 to generate the correlation by extrapolation or assumption, but practically these N values have limited applications, as measuring of the SPT N values of less than 1 is not possible and more than 100 is not carried out. Most of the existing correlations were developed based on the studies carried out in Japan, where N values are measured with a hammer energy of 78%, which may not be directly applicable for other regions because of the variation in SPT hammer energy. A new correlation has been generated using the measured values in Japan and in India by eliminating the assumed and extrapolated data. This correlation has higher regression coefficient and lower standard error. Finally modification factors are suggested for other regions, where the hammer energy is different from 78%. Crown Copyright (C) 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

[1]  H. Bolton Seed,et al.  Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential Using Field Performance Data , 1983 .

[2]  Jong-Sub Lee,et al.  Effect of Secondary Impacts on SPT Rod Energy and Sampler Penetration , 2010 .

[3]  Osman Sivrikaya,et al.  Determination of undrained strength of fine-grained soils by means of SPT and its application in Turkey , 2006 .

[4]  Tokiharu Ohta,et al.  SHEAR MODULUS AND SHEAR STRENGTH OF COHESIVE SOILS , 1974 .

[5]  William D. Kovacs,et al.  Energy Measurement in the Standard Penetration Test , 1981 .

[6]  T. G. Sitharam,et al.  Mapping of Average Shear Wave Velocity for Bangalore Region: A Case Study , 2008 .

[7]  Riley M. Chung,et al.  Influence of SPT Procedures in Soil Liquefaction Resistance Evaluations , 1985 .

[8]  T. G. Sitharam,et al.  Site Characterization and Site Response Studies Using Shear Wave Velocity , 2008 .

[9]  K. Ishihara,et al.  Soil Behaviour In Earthquake Geotechnics , 1996 .

[10]  P. Anbazhagan.  Liquefaction Hazard Mapping of Bangalore, South India , 2009 .

[11]  T. G. Sitharam,et al.  Site classification and estimation of surface level seismic hazard using geophysical data and probabilistic approach , 2009 .

[12]  Jianghai Xia,et al.  Estimation of near‐surface shear‐wave velocity by inversion of Rayleigh waves , 1999 .

[13]  S. Kramer.  Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering , 1996 .

[14]  Buddhima Indraratna,et al.  Using a seismic survey to measure the shear modulus of clean and fouled ballast , 2010 .

[15]  Ali Ismet Kanli,et al.  VS30 mapping and soil classification for seismic site effect evaluation in Dinar region, SW Turkey , 2006 .

[16]  Armen Der Kiureghian,et al.  STANDARD PENETRATION TEST-BASED PROBABILISTIC AND DETERMINISTIC ASSESSMENT OF SEISMIC SOIL LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL , 2004 .

[17]  T. G. Sitharam,et al.  Relationship between Low Strain Shear Modulus and Standard Penetration Test N Values , 2010 .

[18]  K. K. S. Thingbaijam,et al.  Multi-criteria seismic hazard evaluation for Bangalore city, India , 2010 .

[19]  John A. Howie,et al.  Discussion of "Review of Standard Penetration Test Short Rod Corrections" , 2005 .

[20]  Alec Westley Skempton,et al.  Standard penetration test procedures and the effects in sands of overburden pressure, relative density, particle size, ageing and overconsolidation , 1986 .

[21]  Ryoji Iwasaki,et al.  ON DYNAMIC SHEAR MODULI AND POISSON'S RATIOS OF SOIL DEPOSITS , 1973 .

[22]  J. Schmertmann,et al.  Energy Dynamics of SPT , 1979 .

[23]  Richard D. Miller,et al.  Multichannel analysis of surface waves , 1999 .

[24]  T. G. Sitharam,et al.  Spatial Variability of the Depth of Weathered and Engineering Bedrock using Multichannel Analysis of Surface Wave Method , 2009 .

[25]  Jamison H. Steidl,et al.  SPT Hammer Energy Ratio versus Drop Height , 2008 .

[26]  D. Wald,et al.  Global earthquake casualties due to secondary effects: a quantitative analysis for improving rapid loss analyses , 2010 .

[27]  W. F. Marcuson,et al.  Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils , 2001 .

[28]  Jianghai Xia,et al.  Multichannel analysis of surface waves to map bedrock , 1999 .

[29]  T. G. Sitharam,et al.  Seismic microzonation of Bangalore, India , 2008 .

[30]  John S. Nickell,et al.  ENERGY LOSS IN LONG ROD PENETRATION TESTING - TERMINUS DAM LIQUEFACTION INVESTIGATION , 1998 .

[31]  I. M. Idriss,et al.  Moduli and Damping Factors for Dynamic Analyses of Cohesionless Soils , 1986 .

[32]  T. G. Sitharam,et al.  Seismic Microzonation: Principles,Practices and Experiments , 2008 .