Pure and Applied Geophysics

, Volume 176, Issue 2, pp 669–684 | Cite as

Correlations between Shear Wave Velocity and Geotechnical Parameters for Jiangsu Clays of China

  • Wei Duan
  • Guojun CaiEmail author
  • Songyu Liu
  • Anand J. Puppala


The shear wave velocity (\(V_{\text{s}}\)) is an important factor reflecting the dynamic characteristics of soil. Measured \(V_{\text{s}}\) values are always used in combination with laboratory parameters (e.g., effective confining pressure, \(\sigma_{\text{m}}^{{\prime }}\), and void ratio, e) and in situ penetration parameters from the standard penetration test (SPT) and piezocone penetration testing (CPTU). This study aims not only to estimate Vs based on correlations with other parameters in the absence of site-specific data, but also to outline relationships for estimation of soil properties. A database of seismic CPTU (SCPTU) and soil properties information for Jiangsu clays in East China was used to develop correlations between \(V_{\text{s}}\) and geotechnical parameters (vertical effective stress, unit weight, preconsolidation stress, site-specific parameters, undrained shear strength, and CPTU net cone resistance). Laboratory tests were carried out on thin-walled tube samples and high-quality block samples to measure soil properties. The results showed that the predicted values of \(V_{\text{s}}\) were in good accordance with measured values from field tests, especially the Vs values predicted from the CPTU net cone resistance. The relationship between \(V_{\text{s}}\) and the undrained shear strength showed better performance than the others. The good relationships between \(V_{\text{s}}\) and geotechnical parameters could be used to interpret engineering properties of Jiangsu clays for site investigation.


Shear wave velocity CPTU clay engineering characteristics 



The majority of the work presented in this paper was funded by the National Key R&D Program of China (grant no. 2016YFC0800200), National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant nos. 41672294 and 41877231), and Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities and Postgraduate Research & Practice Innovation Program of Jiangsu Province (KYCX17_0139). This financial support is gratefully acknowledged. The authors would like to express appreciation to the editor and anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions.


  1. Agaiby, S. S., & Mayne, P. W. (2015). Relationship between undrained shear strength and shear wave velocity for clays. In 6th Symp. on Deformation Characteristics of Geomaterials (pp. 358-365). IOS Press, Argentina.Google Scholar
  2. American Society for Testing and Materials. (2012). Standard test method for electronic friction cone and piezocone penetration testing of soils. ASTM International.Google Scholar
  3. Andrus, R. D., Stokoe, K. H., & Hsein Juang, C. (2004). Guide for shear-wave-based liquefaction potential evaluation. Earthquake Spectra, 20(2), 285–308. Scholar
  4. Ashford, S. A., Jakrapiyanun, W., & Lukkunaprasit, P. (2000). Amplification of earthquake ground motions in Bangkok. In Proceedings of the 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand.Google Scholar
  5. Bate, B., Choo, H., & Burns, S. E. (2013). Dynamic properties of fine-grained soils engineered with a controlled organic phase. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 53, 176–186. Scholar
  6. Becker, D. E., Crooks, J. H. A., Been, K., & Jefferies, M. G. (1987). Work as a criterion for determining in situ and yield stresses in clays. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 24(4), 549–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blake, W. D., & Gilbert, R. B. (1997). Investigation of possible relationship between undrained shear strength and shear wave velocity for normally consolidated clays. In Offshore Technology Conference. Offshore Technology Conference.
  8. Burns, S., & Mayne, P. (1996). Small- and high-strain measurements of in situ soil properties using the seismic cone penetrometer. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1548, 81–88. Scholar
  9. Butterfield, R. (1979). A natural compression law for soils (an advance on e–log p′). Géotechnique, 29(4), 469–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cai, G. J., Liu, S. Y., & Tong, L. Y. (2010). Field evaluation of deformation characteristics of a lacustrine clay deposit using seismic piezocone tests. Engineering Geology, 116(3), 251–260. Scholar
  11. Cai, G. J., Puppala, A. J., & Liu, S. Y. (2014). Characterization on the correlation between shear wave velocity and piezocone tip resistance of Jiangsu clays. Engineering Geology, 171, 96–103. Scholar
  12. Campanella, R. G., Robertson, P. K., & Gillespie, D. (1986). Seismic cone penetration test. In Use of in situ tests in geotechnical engineering (pp. 116–130). ASCE.Google Scholar
  13. Casagrande, A. (1936). The determination of the preconsolidation load and its practical influence. Proc. 1st Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. and Found. Eng., Boston, Discussion D-34. Vol. 3, 22–26.Google Scholar
  14. Cha, M., & Cho, G. (2007). Shear strength estimation of sandy soils using shear wave velocity. Geotechnical Testing Journal, 30(6), 484–495.Google Scholar
  15. Cha, M., Santamarina, J. C., Kim, H. S., & Cho, G. C. (2014). Small-strain stiffness, shear-wave velocity, and soil compressibility. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 140(10), 06014011. Scholar
  16. Chang, I., & Cho, G. C. (2010). A new alternative for estimation of geotechnical engineering parameters in reclaimed clays by using shear wave velocity. Geotechnical Testing Journal, 33(3), 171–182.Google Scholar
  17. Cunning, J. C., Robertson, P. K., & Sego, D. C. (1995). Shear wave velocity to evaluate in situ state of cohesionless soils. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 32(5), 848–858. Scholar
  18. Dickenson, S. E. (1994). Dynamic response of soft and deep cohesive soils during the Loma Prieta earthquake of October 17, 1989. PhD. Thesis, Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
  19. Fear, C. E., & Robertson, P. K. (1995). Estimating the undrained strength of sand: a theoretical framework. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 32(5), 859–870. Scholar
  20. Fumal, T. E. (1978). Correlations between seismic wave velocities and physical properties of near-surface geologic materials in the southern San Francisco Bay region, California (No. 78-1067). US Geological Survey.Google Scholar
  21. Fumal, T., & Tinsley, J. C. (1985). Mapping shear-wave velocities of near-surface geologic materials. Evaluating earthquake hazards in the Los Angeles region: an earth-science perspective. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper, 1360, 101–126.Google Scholar
  22. Hardin, B. O., & Black, W. L. (1968). Vibration modulus of normally consolidated clay. Journal of Soil Mechanics & Foundations Division, 94(2), 353–370.Google Scholar
  23. Hegazy, Y. A., & Mayne, P. W. (1995). Statistical correlations between VS and cone penetration data for different soil types. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing, CPT (Vol. 95, pp. 173–178).Google Scholar
  24. Hussien, M. N., & Karray, M. (2015). Shear wave velocity as a geotechnical parameter: an overview. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 53(2), 252–272. Scholar
  25. Jaime, A., & Romo, M. P. (1988). The Mexico earthquake of September 19, 1985—Correlations between dynamic and static properties of Mexico City clay. Earthquake Spectra, 4(4), 787–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Janbu, N. (1969). The resistance concept applied to deformations of soils. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Mexico City (Vol. 2529, pp. 191–196).Google Scholar
  27. Kang, X., Bate, B., & Ge, L. (2014). Characterization of shear wave velocity and its anisotropy in uniform granular materials. In Geo-Congress 2014: Geo-characterization and modeling for sustainability (pp. 2029–2041).
  28. Karray, M., Ben Romdhan, M., Hussien, M. N., & Ethier, Y. (2015). Measuring shear wave velocity of granular material using the piezoelectric ring-actuator technique (P-RAT). Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 52(9), 1302–1317. Scholar
  29. Karray, M., Lefebvre, G., Ethier, Y., & Bigras, A. (2011). Influence of particle size on the correlation between shear wave velocity and cone tip resistance. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 48(4), 599–615. Scholar
  30. Kayen, R., Moss, R. E. S., Thompson, E. M., Seed, R. B., Cetin, K. O., Kiureghian, A. D., et al. (2013). Shear-wave velocity-based probabilistic and deterministic assessment of seismic soil liquefaction potential. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 139(3), 407–419. Scholar
  31. Kim, D. S., Shin, M. K., & Park, H. C. (2001). Evaluation of density in layer compaction using SASW method. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 21, 39–46. Scholar
  32. Kim, D. S., Youn, J. U., & Park, H. J. (2013). Session report: Applications of shear wave velocity on various geotechnical problems. Geotechnical and geophysical site characterization, 4, 661–673.Google Scholar
  33. Ku, T., Subramanian, S., Moon, S. W., & Jung, J. (2016). Stress dependency of shear-wave velocity measurements in soils. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 143(2), 04016092. Scholar
  34. Kulkarni, M. P., Patel, A., & Singh, D. N. (2010). Application of shear wave velocity for characterizing clays from coastal regions. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 14(3), 307–321. Scholar
  35. L’Heureux, J. S., & Long, M. (2017). Relationship between shear-wave velocity and geotechnical parameters for Norwegian clays. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 143(6), 04017013. Scholar
  36. Lee, J. S., Seo, S. Y., & Lee, C. (2015). Geotechnical and geophysical characteristics of muskeg samples from Alberta, Canada. Engineering Geology, 195, 135–141. Scholar
  37. Likitlersuang, S., & Kyaw, K. (2010). A study of shear wave velocity correlations of Bangkok subsoil. Obras y Proyectos: Revista de Ingeniería Civil, 7, 27–33.Google Scholar
  38. Long, M., & Donohue, S. (2007). In situ shear wave velocity from multichannel analysis of surface waves (MASW) tests at eight Norwegian research sites. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 44(5), 533–544. Scholar
  39. Long, M., & Donohue, S. (2010). Characterization of Norwegian marine clays with combined shear wave velocity and piezocone cone penetration test (CPTU) data. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 47(7), 709–718. Scholar
  40. Long, M., Donohue, S., & O’Connor, P. (2008). Rapid, cost effective and accurate determination of in situ stiffness using MASW at Bothkennar. Ground Engineering, 43–46.Google Scholar
  41. Lunne, T., Robertson, P. K., & Powell, J. J. M. (1997). Cone penetration testing in geotechnical practice. London: Spon.Google Scholar
  42. Mayne, P. W. (2001). Stress-strain-strength-flow parameters from enhanced in situ tests. In Proc. Int. Conf. on In Situ Measurement of Soil Properties and Case Histories, Bali (pp. 27–47).Google Scholar
  43. Mayne, P. W. (2007). Cone penetration testing. National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 368, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  44. Mayne, P. W., Coop, M. R., Springman, S., Huang, A. -B., & Zornberg, J. (2009). State-of-the-art paper (SOA-1): Geomaterial behavior and testing. In Proceedings of the 17th international conference on soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering, ICSMGE. Millpress/IOS Press, Rotterdam, Alexandria, Egypt. pp. 2777–2872.Google Scholar
  45. Mayne, P. W., & Rix, G. J. (1995). Correlations between shear wave velocity and cone tip resistance in natural clays. Soils and Foundations, 35(2), 107–110. Scholar
  46. Moon, S. W., & Ku, T. (2016). Development of global correlation models between in situ stress-normalized shear wave velocity and soil unit weight for plastic soils. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 53(10), 1600–1611. Scholar
  47. Oh, T. M., Bang, E. S., Cho, G. C., & Park, E. S. (2017). Estimation of undrained shear strength for saturated clay using shear wave velocity. Marine Georesources and Geotechnology, 35(2), 236–244. Scholar
  48. Piratheepan, P. (2002). Estimating shear-wave velocity from SPT and CPT data. M.S. Thesis, Clemson University, Clemson, SC.Google Scholar
  49. Powell, J. J., & Lunne, T. (2005). Use of CPTU data in clays/fine grained soils. Studia Geotechnica et Mechanica, 27(3–4), 29–66.Google Scholar
  50. Robertson, P. K., & Cabal, K. L. (2010). Guide to cone penetration testing for geotechnical engineering (pp. 6–15). USA: Gregg Drilling and Testing Inc.Google Scholar
  51. Robertson, P. K., Woeller, D. J., Kokan, M., Hunter, J., & Luternaur, J. (1992). Seismic techniques to evaluate liquefaction potential. In Proceedings of the 45th Canadian Geotechnical Conference, Toronto, Ont (pp. 26–28).Google Scholar
  52. Santamarina, J. C., Klein, A., & Fam, M. A. (2001). Soils and waves: Particulate materials behavior, characterization and process monitoring. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 1(2), 130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schmertmann, J. H. (1953). The undisturbed consolidation behavior of clay. Transactions of ASCE, 120, 1208–1216.Google Scholar
  54. Schneider, J. A., Mayne, P. W., & Rix, G. J. (2001). Geotechnical site characterization in the greater Memphis area using cone penetration tests. Engineering Geology, 62(1), 169–184. Scholar
  55. Sully, J. P., & Campanella, R. G. (1995). Evaluation of in situ anisotropy from crosshole and downhole shear wave velocity measurements. Geotechnique, 45(2), 267–282. Scholar
  56. Taboada, V. M., Espinosa, E., Carrasco, D., Barrera, P., Cruz, D., & Gan, K. C. (2013, May). Predictive equations of shear wave velocity for Bay of Campeche clay. In Offshore technology conference. Offshore Technology Conference, Houston.
  57. Tang, L., Yan, M. H., Ling, X. Z., & Tian, S. (2016). Dynamic behaviours of railway’s base course materials subjected to long-term low-level cyclic loading: experimental study and empirical model. Géotechnique, 67(6), 537–545. Scholar
  58. Teachavorasinskun, S., & Lukkunaprasit, P. (2004). A simple correlation for shear wave velocity of soft Bangkok clays. Géotechnique, 54(5), 323–326. Scholar
  59. Tezcan, S. S., Ozdemir, Z., & Keceli, A. (2009). Seismic technique to determine the allowable bearing pressure for shallow foundations in soils sand socks. Acta Geophysica, 57(2), 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wang, L. B., & Frost, J. D. (2004). Dissipated strain energy method for determining preconsolidation pressure. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 41(4), 760–768. Scholar
  61. Yang, J., & Gu, X. Q. (2013). Shear stiffness of granular material at small strains: Does it depend on grain size? Geotechnique, 63(2), 165–179. Scholar
  62. Yoon, H. K., Lee, C., Kim, H. K., & Lee, J. S. (2011). Evaluation of preconsolidation stress by shear wave velocity. Smart Structures and Systems, 7(4), 275–287. Scholar
  63. Yun, T. S., Narsilio, G. A., & Santamarina, J. C. (2006). Physical characterization of core samples recovered from Gulf of Mexico. Marine and Petroleum Geology, 23(9–10), 893–900. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wei Duan
    • 1
  • Guojun Cai
    • 1
    Email author
  • Songyu Liu
    • 1
  • Anand J. Puppala
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Geotechnical EngineeringSoutheast UniversityNanjingChina
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringThe University of Texas at ArlingtonArlingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations