Relationship between Low Strain Shear Modulus and Standard Penetration Test N Values

A low strain shear modulus plays a fundamental role in the estimation of site response parameters In this study an attempt has been made to develop the relationships between standard penetration test (SPT) N values with the low strain shear modulus (G(max)) For this purpose, field experiments SPT and multichannel analysis of surface wave data from 38 locations in Bangalore, India, have been used, which were also used for seismic microzonation project The in situ density of soil layer was evaluated using undisturbed soil samples from the boreholes Shear wave velocity (V-s) profiles with depth were obtained for the same locations or close to the boreholes The values for low strain shear modulus have been calculated using measured V-s and soil density About 215 pairs of SPT N and G(max) values are used for regression analysis The differences between fitted regression relations using measured and corrected values were analyzed It is found that an uncorrected value of N and modulus gives the best fit with a high regression coefficient when compared to corrected N and corrected modulus values This study shows better correlation between measured values of N and G(max) when compared to overburden stress corrected values of N and G(max)

[1]  K. Stokoe,et al.  Liquefaction resistance of soils from shear-wave velocity , 2000 .

[2]  C. Hsein Juang,et al.  Comparing liquefaction evaluation methods using penetration-VS relationships , 2004 .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[10]  Peter K. Robertson,et al.  Seismic cone penetration test for evaluating liquefaction potential under cyclic loading , 1992 .

[11]  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 .

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

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

[14]  Hidetoshi Miura,et al.  Optimum Field Parameters of an MASW Survey , 2002 .

[15]  P. Robertson,et al.  Evaluating cyclic liquefaction potential using the cone penetration test , 1998 .

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

[17]  D. Sykora Creation of a data base of seismic shear wave velocities for correlation analysis , 1987 .

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

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

[20]  H. Bolton Seed,et al.  Ground Motions and Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes , 1982 .

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

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

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

[24]  Estimation of Ground Response Parameters and Comparison with Field Measurements , 2009 .

[25]  Evaluation of Low Strain Dynamic Properties using Geophysical Method: A Case Study , 2008 .

[26]  Ronald D. Andrus,et al.  Assessing probability-based methods for liquefaction potential evaluation , 2002 .

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

[28]  T. G. Sitharam,et al.  Seismic Microzonation of Bangalore , 2007 .

[29]  Işık Yilmaz,et al.  Soil liquefaction susceptibility and hazard mapping in the residential area of Kütahya (Turkey) , 2006 .

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

[31]  Ross W. Boulanger,et al.  Semi-empirical procedures for evaluating liquefaction potential during earthquakes , 2006 .

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

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

[34]  T. G. Sitharam,et al.  Site-specific ground response analysis , 2004 .