Geotech Geol Eng
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-018-0508-9
ORIGINAL PAPER
Undrained Shear Strength in Cohesive Soils Estimated
by Directional Modes of In-Situ Shear Wave Velocity
Sung-Woo Moon . Taeseo Ku
Received: 2 May 2017 / Accepted: 1 March 2018
Ó Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018
Abstract The estimated undrained shear strength
(su) is often not a unique value because it can be
evaluated by various test types and/or procedures,
such as different failure modes, shear strain rates, and
boundary conditions. This study explores (1) the
relationship between reference undrained shear
strength and in situ shear wave velocity in terms of
the effective overburden stress, and (2) the indepen-
dent relationships to evaluate the undrained shear
strength with special consideration of different direc-
tional and polarization modes (VH, HV, HH shear
waves), which has not been reported. This evaluation
is done via a worldwide database compiled from 43
well-documented geotechnical test sites associated
with soft ground. Finally, new correlation models are
proposed to estimate the undrained shear strength
based on the in situ shear wave velocity as well as the
plasticity index or the overconsolidation ratio. The
application of the shear wave velocity–undrained
shear strength relation is illustrated through two
independent case studies. The proposed relationships
S.-W. Moon
Department of Civil Engineering, Nazarbayev University,
53 Qabanbay Batyr Avenue, Astana, Kazakhstan 010000
e-mail: sung.moon@nu.edu.kz
S.-W. Moon  T. Ku (&)
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
National University of Singapore, 1 Engineering Drive 2,
Singapore 117576, Singapore
e-mail: ceekt@nus.edu.sg
are expected to contribute to reasonable estimates of
undrained shear strength as well as offer practical
guidance on even extrapolation beyond the data that is
available to geotechnical engineers.
Keywords Stress-dependency  Anisotropy 
Overconsolidation ratio  Plasticity index  Shear wave
velocity  Undrained shear strength
1 Introduction
The shear wave velocity ðVs Þ of geo-materials such as
soils and rocks is one of the fundamental engineering
measurements for geotechnical design problems since
it is directly related to the initial shear modulus ðG0 Þ at
small strains. The initial shear modulus, which indi-
cates the beginning of all stress–strain-strength curves,
is calculated using G0 ¼ q  Vs2 where q is the bulk soil
density. It is used for estimating seismic site ampli-
fication as well as for performing ground deformation
analysis with respect to the foundation system.
A variety of invasive (e.g., downhole test, crosshole
test) and non-invasive (e.g. surface wave survey,
reflection test, refraction test) geophysical methods as
well as laboratory testing methods (e.g., bender
element test and resonant column test) have been
developed for measuring Vs . Utilizing in situ data to
establish several empirical relationships may lead to
123

potential uncertainty and scattered outliers, which are
attributed to the inherent site conditions and the
sensitivity of the applied test methods. Nevertheless,
in situ Vs measurement methods are generally efficient
and useful for assessing geotechnical engineering
problems, because Vs data with minimum soil distur-
bance can be collected quickly and economically.
Moreover, G0 obtained from in situ Vs measurement is
commonly considered to be more accurate and reliable
than that determined from laboratory tests, which
generally presents lower G0 values due to sample
disturbance, stress relief, and the loss of aging effect
(Ghionna and Jamiolkowski 1991; Ku and Mayne
2014; Stokoe and Santamarina 2000; Tatsuoka and
Shibuya 1992).
With respect to wave propagation, Roesler (1979)
proposed that shear waves have directional and
polarization characteristics. This means that the
determination of the soil plane related to wave
propagation and particle motion directions is critical
for interpreting the relation between Vs and stress in
soils. Generally, shear wav are divided into multiple
types in an elastic soil medium: Vsij where i = prop-
agation direction and j = polarization direction.
Specifically, when the wave propagation direction is
assumed to be parallel to the vertical or horizontal
major axis, shear waves are expressed mainly in three
different types (i.e., VsVH ; VsHV ; VsHH where the sub-
script V = vertical and H = horizontal).
In field testing, each shear wave type can be
obtained by Down-Hole Testing (VsVH), conventional
Cross-Hole Testing (VsHV) using a downhole vertical
hammer, and special Cross-Hole Testing (VsHH) which
uses a horizontal triggering system such as a rotary
hammer (Butcher and Powell 1996), a special tor-
sional vane (Sully and Campanella 1995), or an
encased horizontal solenoid (Hiltunen et al. 2003).
In terms of advanced geotechnical applications of
Vs, several studies have investigated the empirical
relationships between in situ Vs measurements and
geotechnical engineering properties such as soil unit
weight, peak friction angle, and undrained shear
strength (su) (Levesques et al. 2007; Mayne 2007;
Moon and Ku 2016, 2017; Uzielli et al. 2013).
Especially in cohesive soils, su is a critical soil
strength parameter required for short-term geotechni-
cal analysis. It is not a unique or unvarying soil
parameter, however, because the measured su at large
123
Geotech Geol Eng
strains depends on test factors such as failure mode,
strain rate, and stress path, as well as stress status such
as geostatic overburden stress and stress history
(Kulhawy and Mayne 1990; Mayne et al. 2009). In
contrast, the magnitude of Vs depends on the current
effective confining stress, particle stiffness, and soil
structure as well as aging, structurally complex
formations, and other variables (Clayton 2011; Fab-
brocino et al. 2015; Santamarina et al. 2001). These
factors can cause small strain anisotropy consisting of
stress-induced anisotropy and inherent structural
anisotropy in natural soils. In addition, a considerable
degree of Vs anisotropy in geomaterials is caused by
the combination of stress-induced anisotropy and
inherent structural anisotropy in heavily overconsol-
idated soils. In this study, based on a specially
compiled extensive global database, some outstanding
aspects of Vs such as stress-dependent and directional
wave characteristics (i.e., effect of Vs mode) in soils
are examined with respect to reference su. Using
different modes of shear waves, new correlation
models for estimating su in soft soils are suggested.
2 Compiled Database
The worldwide database used in this study is based on
43 well-documented test sites including some in
Australia, Canada, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Japan,
Korea, Norway, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, and
the United States (Fig. 1). From the clay database,
which covers a wide range of the overconsolidation
ratio (OCR) and the plasticity index (PI), the following
data was obtained:
1. Field Vs ðVsVH ; VsHV ; VsHH Þ and/or
G0 ðG0VH ; G0HV ; G0HH Þ values based on various
in situ tests, including the cross-hole test (CHT),
and the down-hole type test (DHT or the seismic
cone penetrometer).
2. su values based on in situ tests, including the field
vane (FV) and the cone penetration test (CPT).
3. su values from different types of laboratory tests,
including isotropically consolidated undrained
compression (CIUC), K0-consolidated undrained
compression (CK0UC), and direct simple shear
(DSS), and triaxial extension (TE).
4. Engineering properties of soil such as PI and
OCR.
Geotech Geol Eng
Site Number
=1
=2-5
<5
Fig. 1 Worldwide site locations from the compiled database in this study (background map from http://thefutureofeuropes.wikia.com/
wiki/File:Yoni.png)
The details of this extensive database, including the
available modes of Vs and/or G0 and the corresponding
su selected from various types of tests, are illustrated in
Table 1. For this study, su(FV) values obtained from FV
were used as a primary option, because they are
generally considered to be reference values, and they
are also correlated with other strength parameters. It
should be noted that corrected su(FV) values with PI
(e.g., su multiplied by a correction factor (l) which
varies with PI) were collected for the database. For a
few sites with unknown correction information, su(FV)
data were assumed to be corrected values. As a second
option, su(TC) values that were measured from labora-
tory CIUC or CK0UC tests were also used for this
study. In addition, some su(CPT) values were compiled
based on CPT at four test sites because no other
reference su data were available. In practice, when
CPT data are applied, it is known that a reference value
of su (e.g., vane test) is adopted using an assumed
value of cone bearing factor (Nkt). The reference su
will be further discussed later.
3 Estimation of Undrained Shear Strength (su)
of Soil
0
3.1 Shear Wave Velocity (Vs Þ-Stress (rv Þ
Relationship
It has been well studied that the magnitude of Vs relies
on several factors such as effective confining stress
0
(rc Þ; void ratio (e), and structural characteristics of
soil formations (Fabbrocino et al. 2015; Roesler 1979;
Santamarina et al. 2001; Sully and Campanella 1995;
Yan and Byrne 1990). In this study, the stress
dependency of Vs among the suggested factors is
examined and expressed as follows:
0
Vs ¼ a  ðrc =1 kPaÞb ð1Þ
where r0c is the effective confining stress (kPa in this
study), the coefficient a (m/s) is the material constant,
and the exponent b represents the sensitivity of the
stress dependent effect. Effective confining pressure
0
ðrc Þ in Eq. 1 has been known as (1) the mean normal
0 0
stress ðrm Þ; Vs ¼ C  ðrm Þn where r0m ¼ r01 þ r02 þ
r03 Þ=3 where r01 ; r02 ; r03 are effective stresses in x, y, z
directions, respectively; (2) the average stress
   
r0avg ; Vs ¼ C  ðr0avg Þn where r0avg ¼ r0x þ r0y =2;
123
 Geotech Geol Eng

Table 1 Details of collected database

Test Site Country Depth PI OCR Available Selected su Additional References
(m) mode of su data from
Vs or G0

AIT Thailand 2.5–8.5 9–77 1.1–2.7 VH FV – Shibuya and Tamrakar

(2003)
Ballina Australia 1–9 52–121 1.4–1.8 VH FV CPT Kelly and Whiteley (2013)
Bangkok Thai 2–25 13–52 1.2–1.9 VH FV* ? TC – Litkitlersuang et al. (2013)
Bothkennar U.K 4–18 29–55 1.3–2.2 VH, HV, FV* TC,DSS, TE Hight et al.(1992) (2003b)
HH Nash et al.(1992)
British Canada 1.6–9.6 – – VH FV CPT Schaeffers and Weemees
Columbia (2012)
Chattenden U.K 2–15 53–67 19–53 VH, HV, TC CPT Brown and Powell (2012) ,
HH Crilly et al. (1992)
Cowden U.K 2–24 15–22 2–20 VH, HV, TC CPT Powell and Butcher (2003)
HH
Danvikgata Norway 5–10 30 1.5 VH CPT – Long and Donohue (2007)
(Nkt = 10)
Dublin DPT Ireland 1–26 8–21 1.5–4 VH, HV TC TE Long and Menkiti (2007a, b)
Fucino Italy 5.7–38.4 41–72 1.5–3.1 VH, HV FV CPT,TC Soccodato and Tamrakar
(2003)
Hachirogata Japan 4–24 61–151 1.2 VH FV CPT Tanaka (2007)
Heathrow U.K 6–20 33–43 14–23 VH, HV, TC – Hight et al. (2003a)
HH
Louiseville U.S 1.2–14.8 37–48 2.3–4 HV FV* TC Leroueil et al. (2003)
Madingley U.K 2–14 51–60 20–66 VH, HV, CPT TC Butcher and Lord (1993),
HH (Nkt = 30) Butcher and Powell (1995)
MIT BBC U.S 3.6-26.5 17–24 1.6–6 VH CPT – Olsen (2001)
(Nkt = N/A)
NNH Thailand 3.5–13.5 47–80 1.0–1.6 VH FV – Shibuya and Tamrakar
(2003)
Newbury U.S 5.6–9.6 19–21 2.2–4.3 HV TC – Marjanovic (2012)
BBC
OBRR Thailand 1.5–12.5 20–44 1.1–1.7 VH FV – Shibuya and Tamrakar
(2003)
Opelika U.S 0.6–14 11–21 1.1–4.0 VH, HV, TC CPT Mayne and Brown (2003)
HH Mayne et al. (2000)
Ottawa Canada 3.3–15.5 – – VH FV TC Nader (2014)
Oxford U.K 10–15.2 47–48 13.6–44 VH, HV, TC – Parry (1972) Bates and
HH Phillips (2000)
Onsøy Norway 2.1–17 23 1.5–4 VH FV* CPT, TC, Lunne et al. (2003)
DSS,TE
Patras Greece 13–54 – – HV CPT – Tsiambaos and Sabatakakis
(Nkt = N/A) (2011)
Pietrafitta Italy 20–63 9–45 1.6–4.4 HV TC CPT Rampello et al. (2003)
Pisa Italy 1–39 8–43 1.3–3.7 VH, HV, TC – Lo Presti et al. (2003),
HH Rampello and Callisto
(1998)
Pusan- Korea 3.4–25.4 23–38 1–2 VH FV* Chung and Giao (2003)
Yangsan
SLMC Singapore 15–26 39–57 1.4–2 VH FV CPT,TC Tan et al. (2003)

123
Geotech Geol Eng

Table 1 continued
Test Site Country Depth PI OCR Available Selected su Additional References
(m) mode of su data from
Vs or G0

SUT Thailand 2.5–19.5 26–70 1.1–4.1 VH FV – Shibuya and Tamrakar

(2003)
Taipei Taiwan 9–43 10–26 1.4–6.3 VH FV TC, DSS Chin et al. (2007)
UMA U.S 3–20 11–21 1.4–7.9 VH, HH FV TC, DSS DeGroot and Lutenegger
NGES (2003)
FV = field vane test (* = no information about correction factor), CPT = cone penetration test (Nkt = an assumed value of cone
bearing factor, N/A = not available), TC = triaxial compression test, TE = triaxial extension test, DSS = direct simple shear
AIT Asian Institute of Technology, MIT BBC Massachusetts Institute of Technology Boston Blue Clay, NNH Nong Ngoo Hao, OBRR
Outer Bangkok Ring Road, SLMC Singapore Lower Marine Clay, SUT Suranaree University of Technology, UMA University of
Massachusetts Amherst, NGES National Geotechnical Experimentation Site

0 0
0:53
(3) the individual stress, Vs ¼ C  ðrx Þnx  ðry Þny where Vs ¼ 12:64 r0v0 ; n ¼ 345; R2 ¼ 0:64;
0 0 ð2Þ
rx and ry are the principal effective stresses in the S:E:Y: ¼ 0:12
direction of propagation and polarization which are
considered a factor affecting the Vs in references where n = a total number of data, R2 = a coefficient of
(Kang et al. 2014; Ku et al. 2016; Sully and determination, and S.E.Y. = a residual standard error
Campanella 1995; Yan and Byrne 1990). Due to the in regression.
difficulty in measuring actual in situ horizontal Equation 2 indicates that the magnitude of the Vs
effective stresses, this study simply employs the depends on the effect of the effective overburden
0 0 stress for clayey soils. Although Eq. 2 is probably the
effective vertical stresses, Vs ¼ C  ðrv Þn where rv is
simplest form for illustrating the stress dependency of
the effective vertical stress.
Vs, considering the effect of additional important
Based on the compiled database, this study exam-
parameters (e.g., OCR specifically for clay) on Vs can
ines fundamental behaviors that relate to the effective
lead to a better empirical Vs regression.
stress state dependency of Vs. Figure 2 presents a trend
between the shear wave velocity (Vs) and the effective 0
0 3.2 Undrained Shear Strength ðsu Þ-Stress ðrv Þ
overburden stress (rv0 Þ for all cohesive soils. This
Relationship
trend is appropriately fitted with the following
expression:
In clayey soil, the su is the maximum shear resistance
during undrained loading under no volume change.
For typical correlations with the plasticity index (PI)
VsVH (kPa) = 12.64( 'v0)0.53 with 'v0 (kPa)
Shear Wave Velocity, Vs (m/s)

1,000 n = 345, R2 = 0.64, S.E.Y. = 0.12 or the overconsolidation ratio (OCR), the su is
generally expressed in stress-normalized forms adopt-
0
ing an effective overburden stress ðrv0 Þ or a maximum
0
pre-consolidation pressure ðrp Þ, as indicated in
100 Table 2. In previous studies, Skempton (1957) and
Chandler (1988) proposed a linear relationship
0
between su =r0v0 or su =rp and PI for normally consol-
idated clay and overconsolidated clay, respectively.
Ladd and Foott (1974) introduced the SHANSEP
10
10 100 1,000 method by examining the in situ strength and stress–
Effective Overburden Stress, 'v0 (KPa) strain behaviors for stability analyses, expressed in
0
terms of normalized su with a rv0 versus OCR
0
Fig. 2 Vs trend with rv0

123
 Geotech Geol Eng

Table 2 Empirical Empirical relationship Note References

correlations related to su
0 0
and rv0 or rp
FV field vane test, FC fall
cone test, TC triaxial
compression test, DSS
direct simple shear test, wL
liquid limit, IL liquidity
index, m varies from 0.75 to
0.85 with increasing OCR
0
su =rvo ¼ 0:11 þ 0:0037PI FV for N.C clays Skempton (1957)
0
su =rp ¼ 0:0045wL FC for clays from Scandinavia Hansbo (1957)
0
su =rp ¼ 0:45ðPI=100Þ1=2 FV for N.C clays Bjerrum and Simons (1960)
0
su =rp ¼ 0:18ðIL Þ1=2 FV for N.C clays Bjerrum and Simons (1960)
0
su =rp ¼ 0:14 þ 0:003PI TC for all clays Lambe and Whitman (1969)
0
ðsu =rv0 Þoverconsolidated SHANSEP Ladd and Foott (1974)
0
ðsu =rv0 Þnormally consolidated
¼ OCRm
0
ðsu =rp ÞDSS ¼ ð0:23  0:04Þ0:8 DSS for O.C clays Jamiolkowski et al. (1985)
0
su =rp ¼ 0:129 þ 0:00435PI TC for N.C clays Worth and Houlsby (1985)
0
su =rp  0:11 þ 0:0037PI FV for O.C clays Chandler (1988)
0
su =rp ¼ 0:22 DSS for lightly O.C clays Mesri (1989)

relationship. Jamiolkowski et al. (1985) and Mesri
(1989) proposed similar constant values of the ratio
0
su =rp for lightly overconsolidated clay and for
normally consolidated and lightly overconsolidated
clays that are independent of PI.
3.3 Undrained Shear Strength ðsu Þ–Shear Wave
Velocity ðVs Þ Relationship
Since su in a given soil depends on the combination of
its composition and effective stress history, it is
reasonable to examine a possible relationship between
su and Vs. In fact, several studies, listed in Table 3,
have developed a series of empirical correlations to
estimate su using Vs. For instance, Blake and Gilbert
(1996) and Kulkarni et al. (2010) suggested empirical
correlations to estimate su based on Vs obtained from
laboratory tests. Yun et al. (2006) demonstrated that
small-strain Vs is correlated with large-strain su via
effective overburden stress, although they are devel-
oped from individual processes at different strain-
levels. Levesques et al. (2007) proposed an empirical
relationship between su and Vs for intact clays based
on the regression analysis of in situ test results that
were obtained from sites at Saguenay Fjord, Eastern
Canada, and the North Sea. In addition, an in situ Vs-
based estimation of su has been investigated site-
specifically for Bangkok clay and Dublin boulder clay
(Ashford et al. 1996; Likitlersuang and Kyaw 2010;
Likitlersuang et al. 2013; Long et al. 2013). More
recently, Oh et al. (2016) proposed correlation models
between su and Vs via void ratio which is a common
influencing parameter, based on normally consoli-
dated clays in Korea. However, it appears that most
prior studies suggested empirical correlations merely
based on a rather selective and limited laboratory and/
or in situ data obtained from a few sites. Thus, the
application might be limited to site-specific condi-
tions. Moreover, V s mode dependency has not been
addressed in previous studies.
Figure 3 presents the apparent trends between the
field Vs and the su from (a) in situ tests and (b)
laboratory tests. The compiled and selected database is
validated by examining the relationship between su
and Vs. In Fig. 3a, both su(FV) (R2 = 0.59, S.E.Y. =
0.15) and su(CPT) (R2 = 0.59, S.E.Y. = 0.09) obtained
from FV and CPT tests exhibit overlapped trends with
Vs. By comparison, Terzaghi et al. (1996) showed
three different ratios of su to consolidation pressure
from laboratory tests (i., TC, DSS, and TE) with the
plasticity index. In this study, Fig. 3b shows the
comparison of su data from TC, DSS, and TE tests that
are used for the purpose of accounting for the effect of
distinct modes of failure. From Fig. 3b, three distinc-
tive trends of su from TC, DSS, and TE tests with Vs are
observed (i.e., su anisotropy with respect to test
modes). A simple relationship for the regression
equations using each test can be expressed as follows:
suðtestÞ ¼ a  ðVs Þb ð3Þ
The coefficients of a and b corresponding to each test
are presented in Table 4. Note that the empirical
equations in this section are derived based on down-
hole type Vs data.

123
Geotech Geol Eng

Table 3 Empirical correlations related to su and Vs

Empirical relationship Based References

log su ðlb=ft2 Þ ¼ ðlogðVs ðft=sÞ=18ÞÞ=0:475 VsVH Dickenson (1994)

su: FV, UC, TC, DSS
log su ðkPaÞ ¼ ðlogðVs ðm=sÞ  0:90ÞÞ=0:63 VsVH Perret (1996)
su: FC
log su ðkPaÞ ¼ ðlogðVs ðm=sÞ=23ÞÞ=0:475 VsVH Ashford et al. (1996)
ln su ðlb=ft2 Þ ¼ 1:4 ln Vs ðft=sÞ  0:87 VsVH Blake and Gilbert (1996)
su: FV, WFV
logðsu =Pa Þ ¼ ðlogðVs ðm=sÞ=19:4ÞÞ=0:36 VsVH Yun et al. (2006)
su: Penetrometer
su ðkPaÞ ¼ ðVs ðm=sÞ=7:93Þ1:59 VsVH Levesques et al. (2007)
su: FC
log (su/Pa) = (log(Vs(m/s)/187))/0.372 VsVH Likitlersuang and Kyaw (2010)
su: FV, TC
logðsu =Pa Þ ¼ ðlogðVs ðm=sÞ=228ÞÞ=0:510 VsVH Likitlersuang and Kyaw (2010)
su: FV, TC
su ðkPaÞ ¼ 5  104 ðVs ðm=sÞÞ2:5 VsVH Kulkarni et al. (2010)
su: TC
su ðkPaÞ ¼ 100  Vs0:9 ðm=sÞ  w1 ð%Þ  CL0:15 ð%Þ VsVH, w, CL Kulkarni et al. (2010)
su: TC
su ðkPaÞ ¼ 0:001  Vs2 ðm=sÞ þ 0:016  Vs ðm=sÞ þ 60:8 VsVH Long et al. (2013)
su: TC
su ðkPaÞ ¼ 61:5  logðVs =32:3Þ  5:2 for 8:1  11:0 m depth VsVH Oh et al. (2016)
su ðkPaÞ ¼ 88:1  logðVs =28:8Þ  15:2 for 11:0  14:0 m depth su : Flat dilatometer
su ðkPaÞ ¼ 86:4  logðVs =30:2Þ  11:9 for 14:0  17:8 m depth

Pa atmospheric pressure and z depth (z), su undrained shear strength, CL clay content, w moisture content, OCR overconsolidation
ratio, FV field vane test, FC fall cone test, WFV Wykeham Farrance lab vane test, TC triaxial compression test, UC unconfined
compression test, DSS direct simple shear test

(a) (b)
1,000 1,000
Undrained Shear Strength, su (kPa)

Undrained Shear Strength, su (kPa)

su(TC) (kPa) = 0.19(VsVH)1.19

su(CPT) (kPa) = 0.06(VsVH)1.35
R2 = 0.78
R2 = 0.59

100 100

10 10 su(DSS) (kPa) = 0.001(VsVH)2.05

R2 = 0.92
FV TC
su(FV) (kPa) = 0.26(VsVH)1.02
su(TE) (kPa) = 0.007(VsVH)1.55 DSS
R2 = 0.59 CPT
R2 = 0.93 TE
1 1
25 250 25 250
Shear Wave Velocity, Vs (m/s) Shear Wave Velocity, Vs (m/s)

Fig. 3 Apparent trends between a su from in situ tests and Vs and b su from laboratory tests and Vs

123
 Geotech Geol Eng

Table 4 Proposed coefficients of a and b, and statistical Figure 5 presents a trend of su with Vs using the
information corresponding to each test compiled database associated with FV, CPT, and TC
Relationship Coefficient No. data R2 S.E.Y. tests. For TC, as mentioned earlier, converted suðTCÞ
between values corresponding to the reference suðFVÞ were
a b
applied. It appears that there is a reasonably strong
suðFVÞ  VsVH 0.26 1.02 206 0.59 0.15 trend between su and Vs (e.g., su increases with
suðCPTÞ  VsVH 0.06 1.35 69 0.59 0.09 increasing Vs ). Equation 4 expresses the best fit line
suðTCÞ  VsVH 0.19 1.19 95 0.78 0.12 (n = 373, R2 = 0.79, S.E.Y. = 0.14) obtained from
suðDSSÞ  VsVH 0.001 2.05 70 0.92 0.09 regression analysis employing a power function. The
suðTEÞ  VsVH 0.007 1.55 34 0.93 1.12 general trend is shown in Fig. 5.

su ¼ 0:09ðVs Þ1:25 ; n ¼ 373; R2 ¼ 0:79; S:E:Y:

Due to the dependency of the measured su on
various factors (e.g., testing method, strain rate), it is
unreasonable to compare the selected su values
directly. Thus, several transformation methods have
been proposed to convert the su obtained from
different types of tests to the reference value (Bjerrum
1972; Kulhawy and Mayne 1990; Mesri and Huvaj
2007). In order to convert suðTCÞ to the reference value
(su(FV)), this study employs a correction factor deter-
mined by comparing the ratio between suðTCÞ and
su(FV). Figure 4 presents the average ratios and average
ratios ± one standard deviation between su(TC) and
su(FV) at eight test sites where both the suðTCÞ and the
su(FV) values are in the compiled database. In addition,
the ratios for Boston Blue Clay (BBC) obtained from
Mayne (2008) and sixteen test sites collected from
Chandler (1988) are calculated. Except for the
Bothkennar site, the average ratio (0.76) of all twenty
four available test sites is considered to be the
correction factor and applied to convert the su(TC)
values. Interestingly, the average ratio of the compiled
test sites for this study (excepting Bothkennar) was
almost identical to the average ratio obtained from the
large database in Chandler (1988).
¼ 0:14 ð4Þ
Interestingly, Fig. 5a presents relatively smaller su
values when compared to the relationship for intact
clays proposed by Levesques et al. (2007).
To quantify the variability of data from several
sources (e.g., FV, CPT, and TC) in terms of su , the
standard deviation (SD) of correction factors at eight
test sites where both su(TC) and su(FV) values are known
within the compiled database was calculated as
follows: Standard Deviation (SD) = 0.10. The effect
of the variability on the proposed approach was
described in Fig. 5b using the expression (mean ±
SD). su corrected by mean ? SD (0.86) and mean
- SD (0.66) were used to develop the trend with Vs .
Figure 5b shows similar trends having similar R2 and
S.E.Y. Thus, the effect of variability of the data does
not seem significant in this study.
3.4 Undrained Shear Strength ðsu Þ–Directional
Shear Wave Velocity ðVsVH ; VsHV ; VsHH Þ:
Mode Dependency
In order to investigate relationships between reference
su and Vs modes ðVsVH ; VsHV ; VsHH Þ; Fig. 6 presents
the plot of su as a function of (a) Vs and (b) G0 with

1.4
Ratio (μ·su(FV)/su(TC))

From: Compiled Database From: Chandler (1988)

1.2 Correction Factor = 0.76

0.8

0.6

0.4
Ave + 1 SD Ave Ave - 1 SD
0.2

Test Sites

Fig. 4 Ratios between suðTCÞ and l  suðFVÞ to determine the correction factor for suðTCÞ . Note: BBC* data obtained from Mayne (2008)

123
Geotech Geol Eng

(a) (b)
Correction Factor = 0.86

Undrained Shear Strength, su (kPa)

Undrained Shear Strength, su (kPa)

1,000 1,000 su (kPa) = 0.07(Vs)1.31,R2 = 0.79,S.E.Y. = 0.15

Levesques et al. (2007)
su (kPa) = (Vs/7.93)1.59 This study (Correction Factor = 0.76)
su (kPa) = 0.09(Vs)1.25,R2 = 0.78,S.E.Y. = 0.14

100 100

This study
C.F=0.76
10 10 C.F=0.86
FV C.F=0.66

su (kPa) = 0.09(Vs)1.25 with Vs (m/s) CPT

Correction Factor = 0.66
n = 373, R2 = 0.79, S.E.Y. = 0.14 TC su (kPa) = 0.12(Vs)1.19,R2 = 0.82,S.E.Y. = 0.14
1 1
10 100 1,000 10 100 1,000
Shear Wave Velocity, Vs (m/s) Shear Wave Velocity, Vs (m/s)

Fig. 5 su trend with Vs , compared with a a trend suggested by Levesques et al. (2007) and b two trends modified by different correction
factors (i.e., 0.66 and 0.86)

(a) (b)
Undrained Shear Strength, su (kPa)

500 Undrained Shear Strength, su (kPa) 500

su (kPa) = 0.05(VsHH)1.35 su (kPa) = 0.31(G0HV)0.48
R2 = 0.85 R2 = 0.87

su (kPa) = 0.09(VsVH)1.25
R2 = 0.79

50 50

su (kPa) = 0.16(VsHV )1.22 su (kPa) = 0.07(G0HH)0.60

R2 = 0.81 R2 = 0.85

VH VH
HV HV
su (kPa) = 0.13(G0VH)0.56
HH R2 = 0.78 HH
5 5
10 100 1,000 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000

Shear Wave Velocity, Vs (m/s) Inital Shear Modulus, G0 (kPa)

Fig. 6 Anisotropic characteristics of su with a Vs ; and b G0

three different shear wave modes. In Fig. 6, the best-fit be difficult when the all compiled database is used for
lines of su obtained from different shear wave modes the regression analyses. The su  Vs model anisotropy
provide predictions similar to the general trend of su , will be discussed later in more detail.
which increases with increasing Vs and G0 magni-
tudes. The su equations derived from VsVH , VsHV and
VsHH are shown together in Fig. 6a. Note that su from 4 Undrained Shear Strength ðsu Þ-Shear Wave
VsVH is identical to Eq. 4. In Fig. 6b, similar empirical Velocity (Vs): Multi-regression Analysis
equations using G0 are also obtained. All the equations
are summarized in Table 5. In terms of OCR, the compiled database is divided into
Based on su trends with Vs and G0 adopting the two categories to examine the su linked to the different
logarithmic forms above, it appears that su is reason- modes of Vs (e.g., su Vs model anisotropy): (1)
ably correlated with Vs and G0 . However, delineating normally consolidated clay and lightly overconsoli-
the evident tendencies of anisotropic behaviors of su dated clay (OCR \ 2), and (2) over-consolidated clay
associated with three different Vs and G0 modes may (OCR [ 2).

123
 Geotech Geol Eng

Table 5 Proposed relationships for estimating su using Vs or G0

Relationship between OCR range Best-fit relationship No. data R2 S.E.Y. Eqs.

su  Vs All su = 0.09(VsVH)1.25 373 0.79 0.14 5-1

su  Vs All su = 0.16(VsHV)1.22 225 0.81 0.13 5-2
su  Vs All su = 0.05(VsHH)1.35 97 0.85 0.08 5-3
su  G0 All su = 0.13(G0VH)0.56 349 0.78 0.14 6-1
su  G0 All su = 0.31(G0HV)0.48 184 0.87 0.10 6-2
su  G0 All su = 0.07(G0HH)0.60 96 0.85 0.08 6-3
su  Vs \2 su = 0.10(VsVH)1.21 256 0.83 0.14 7-1
\2 su = 0.15(VsHV)1.11 115 0.85 0.13 7-2
1.17
\2 su = 0.12(VsHH) 38 0.52 0.11 7-3
su  Vs [2 su = 0.08(VsVH)1.32 110 0.82 0.13 8-1
[2 su = 0.12(VsHV)1.22 102 0.87 0.09 8-2
[2 su = 0.03(VsHH)1.43 59 0.92 0.06 8-3
G0 =su  PI \2 0:77 188 0.55 0.19 9
G0VH =su ¼ 12; 546ðPIÞ
[2 0:52 88 0.64 0.09 10
G0VH =su ¼ 5; 239ðPIÞ
su  Vs & OCR All su = 0.114(VsVH)1.18(OCR)0.15 320 0.82 0.13 11
su  Vs & PI All su = 0.009(VsVH)1.55(PI)0.30 294 0.81 0.14 12

Ku and Mayne 2015), the Vs anisotropy with r0v0 (i.e.,

0
4.1 OCR Effect on V s  rv0 Relationship
VHH [ VHV [ VVH Þ is also observed at OCR [ 2.
Figure 7 shows Vs trends with effective overburden Since su is also strongly related to stress history
stress in terms of (a) OCR \ 2, and (b) OCR [ 2. The (Sect. 3.2), the OCR term provides a possible linkage
best-fit lines with effective overburden stress (Fig. 7a) between su and Vs.
do not show distinct differences in Vs modes in
OCR \ 2, whereas the best-fit line for HV mode is in 4.2 OCR Effect on su  V s Relationship
between the parallel lines for VH and HH modes
(Fig. 7b) in OCR [ 2. As noticeable shear modulus In Fig. 8, apparent trends between su and different Vs
(G0) anisotropy in overconsolidated soils (i.e., G0,HH- modes representing the model anisotropy are investi-
[ G0,HV [ G0,VH) was known (Ku and Mayne 2013; gated separately for (a) OCR \ 2, and (b) OCR [ 2.

(a) 1,000 (b) 1,000

VsHH (m/s) = 30.09( 'v0)0.36 VsHH (m/s) = 34.45( 'v0)0.43
R2 = 0.82
Shear Wave Velocity, Vs (m/s)
Shear Wave Velocity, Vs (m/s)

R2 = 0.70

100 100

VsHV (m/s) = 27.62( 'v0)0.36 VsVH (m/s) = 24.64( 'v0)0.44

R2 = 0.66 R2 = 0.62

VH VsHV (m/s) = 25.30( 'v0)0.46 VH

VsVH (m/s) = 8.39( 'v0)0.59
HV R2 = 0.72 HV
R2 = 0.792
HH HH
10 10
10 100 1,000 10 100 1,000
Effective Overburden Stress, 'v0 (KPa) Effective Overburden Stress, 'v0 (KPa)

0
Fig. 7 Vs trends with rv0 a OCR \ 2, and b OCR [ 2

123
Geotech Geol Eng

(a) (b)
500 500
su (kPa) = 0.15(VsHV)1.11 su (kPa) = 0.08(VsVH)1.32
Undrained Shear Strength, su (kPa)

Undrained Shear Strength, su (kPa)

R2 = 0.85 R2 = 0.82

50 50
su (kPa) = 0.03(VsHH)1.43
su (kPa) = 0.12(VsHH)1.17 R2 = 0.92
R2 = 0.52
VH VH
su (kPa) = 0.10(VsVH)1.21 HV su (kPa) = 0.12(VsHV)1.22 HV
R2 = 0.83 R2 = 0.87
HH HH
5 5
10 100 1,000 50 500
Shear Wave Velocity, Vs (m/s) Shear Wave Velocity, Vs (m/s)

Fig. 8 su trends with Vs a OCR \ 2, and b OCR [ 2

Table 5 illustrates the trends fitted appropriately. For 4.3 G0/su-PI

three different Vs modes, the regression analyses
provide good correlation coefficients for (a) OCR \ 2 The small-strain shear modulus (G0) is defined as the
(b) OCR [ 2 as shown in Eqs. 7-1, 2, and 3, and 8-1, tangent value of the stress–strain curves at the initial
2, and 3, respectively. In Eqs. 7-3, the unexpected high shear stress. It is often expressed in terms of normal-
su values corresponding to high Vs values obtained ized G0 using su, which is referred to as the rigidity
from a small number of data in the compiled database index (i.e., Ir = G/su). It has been employed for
cause the extremely moderate correlation. In compar- controlling various geotechnical engineering prob-
ison, the best-fit lines in Fig. 8b indicate clearly lems, such as cavity expansion, tunneling, and shallow
anisotropic characteristics of su models associated and deep foundations. As listed in Table 6, the ratio of
with Vs modes (i.e., a hierarchy among VH, HV, HH G0/su has been suggested as a constant value in several
modes), compared to the best-fit lines in Fig. 8a. In previous studies: (1) 2200 from Seed and Idriss
Fig. 8b, it seems that the regression lines of su (1970); (2) 300 from Stroud (1988); (3) 100–1200
obtained from different shear wave modes can provide from Dickenson (1994); (4) 700 from Chew et al.
quite different trend predictions, especially in the (1997); and (5) 600 from Andersen (2004). Other
ranges of Vs between about 150 and 450 m/s. correlations have subsequently found that the ratio G/
Accordingly, the empirical correlations considering su is not a constant and varies with su, water content (w,
different shear wave modes estimate very similar %), OCR, and PI (Dickenson 1994; Gourvenec and
values of su for normally consolidated clay (OCR \ 2) White 2010; Hara et al. 1974; Keaveny and Mitchell
regardless of shear wave modes. For overconsolidated 1986). In addition, the relationships between the ratio
clay (OCR [ 2), the empirical correlation related to of G0/su and PI have been demonstrated using the
commonly used VsVH mode produces higher su values, direct simple shear (DSS) test based on different soils
compared to other empirical correlations associated that have various values of OCR (Andersen et al. 2008;
with VsHH, and VsHV modes. Thus, it is important to Baffer 2013). There was a clear tendency for the
take into account the anisotropic characteristics normalized shear modulus, G0/su(DSS), to decrease
between su and the three different Vs modes, especially with increasing PI. G0/su(DSS) also consistently
for overconsolidated clay (OCR [ 2). decreased with increasing OCR.
Based on the special database used in this study,
Fig. 9 presents the relationships between G0/su and PI
with different shear wave modes. The available set of

123
 Geotech Geol Eng

Table 6 Empirical correlations between G0 and su

G0 - su relationship Based References

G0/su = 2200 G0VH & su from TC Seed and Idriss (1970)

G0 kg/cm2 ¼ 516su1:012 G0VH & su from TC Hara et al. (1974)
G0 =su ¼ 300 G0VH Stroud (1988)
G0 =su ¼ 100 to 1200 su from FV, UC, TC, DSS Dickenson (1994)
G0 =su ¼ 960  6:11w
G0 =su = 700 G0VH Chew et al. (1997)
G0 =su = 600 G0VH & su from DSS Andersen (2004)
G0 =sDSS
u ¼ ð30 þ 300=ðIP =100 þ 0:03ÞÞ  OCR0:25 G0VH & su from DSS Gourvenec and White (2010)

in situ measurements consists of a total dataset of anisotropy of the normalized initial modulus (G0/su) is
n = 188 and n = 88 for normally consolidated and obviously induced by three different modes of Vs,
lightly overconsolidated clay (OCR \ 2), and over- compared to normally and lightly overconsolidated
consolidated clay (OCR [ 2). In Fig. 9, although clay (OCR \ 2).
there are some outliers and scattered data, both
(G0VH/su)OCR\2 (R2 = 0.55, S.E.Y. = 0.19) and 4.4 Undrained Shear Strength-PI or OCR Multi-
(G0VH/su)OCR[2 (R2 = 0.64, S.E.Y. = 0.09) seem to regression
exhibit generally comparable trends with PI.
There are clear links between G0VH/su and PI for In terms of su, the higher order regressions are
both normally consolidated clay and overconsolidated investigated by including the plasticity index (PI) or
clay, which decrease with increasing PI (Eqs. 9 and 10 the overconsolidation ratio (OCR) with VsVH in an
in Table 5). In fact, the observed inverse trends attempt to improve the fitting and statistics (e.g., an
roughly match with the characteristic behavior of the increase in coefficient of determination (R2) and/or
rigidity index (e.g., Ir decreases with increasing PI). decrease in the standard error of the dependent
As shown in Fig. 9, a major portion of the measured variable (S.E.Y.)). Significant statistical trends relating
data is significantly higher than the conventionally su as a function of both shear wave velocity (VsVH) and
suggested constant value (i.e., G0/su = 300) from PI or OCR are observed in Fig. 10. The multi-
Stroud (1988). For overconsolidated clay (OCR [ 2), regressions are expressed as follows:

(a) (b)
10,000 G0VH/su = 12,546(PI)-0.77 10,000
Initial Shear Modulus/ Undrained
Initial Shear Modulus/ Undrained

VH VH
R2 = 0.55 G0VH/su = 5,239(PI)-0.52
HV R2 = 0.64 HV
Shear Strength, G0 / su
Shear Strength, G0 / su

HH HH
Stroud (1988) Stroud (1988)

1,000 1,000

Stroud (1988) Stroud (1988)

G0/su = 300 G0/su = 300
100 100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Plasticity Index, PI (%) Plasticity Index, PI (%)

Fig. 9 Small-strain shear modulus normalized by su as a function of PI, a OCR \ 2, and b OCR [ 2. Note, data of Louiseville in U.S.
are excluded due to the severe deviation

123
Geotech Geol Eng

(a) (b)
700 700
VsVH VsVH
Undrained Shear Strength, su (kPa)

Undrained Shear Strength, su (kPa)

su (kPa) = 0.114(VsVH)1.18(OCR)0.15 OCR = 50 su (kPa) = 0.009(VsVH)1.51(PI)0.30
600 600 n = 294, R2 = 0.81, S.E.Y. = 0.14
n = 320, R2 = 0.82, S.E.Y. = 0.13

500 500 PI=100

su (kPa) = 0.09(VsVH)1.25
400 400 su (kPa) = 0.09(VsVH)1.25
OCR = 10
300 300 PI=30

200 200

100 100
OCR = 1 PI=5
0 0
30 300 30 300
Shear Wave Velocity, Vs (m/s) Shear Wave Velocity, Vs (m/s)

Fig. 10 Trends between su and Vs with respect to a OCR, b PI

su ¼ 0:114ðVsVH Þ1:18 ðOCRÞ0:15 ; n ¼ 320; R2 shear wave should be carefully clarified for the right
¼ 0:82; S:E:Y: ¼ 0:13 ð11Þ application.

su ¼ 0:009ðVsVH Þ1:55 ðPI Þ0:30 ; n ¼ 294; R2

¼ 0:81; S:E:Y: ¼ 0:14 ð12Þ 5 Case Study

Figure 10 shows the calculated su lines correspond- To examine the applicability of the proposed new
ing to three different OCR and PI based on Eqs. 11 and regression models for su estimation, we reviewed
12. Also, Eq. 4 using a single variable Vs is included available geotechnical and geophysical data from the
for the sake of comparison. It is indicated that su well-known Burswood clay in Australia and Ariake
increases with increasing OCR or PI, as shown in the clay in Japan. These two sites were not included in the
three sets of data for (1) OCR = 1, 10, and 50; and (2) compiled database, so independent case studies can be
PI = 5, 30, and 100. The calculated line based on performed using the data from both sites. Figures 12
Eq. 4 has a similar trend with that for OCR = 10 and 13 present selected engineering properties of soils
(Fig. 10a) and PI = 30 (Fig. 10b). Moreover, the such as PI, OCR and Vs, based on a variety of site
proposed regression model (i.e., Eq. 12, n = 294, investigations performed for Burswood clay (Low
R2 = 0.81, S.E.Y. = 0.14) using PI is quite comparable 2009) and for Ariake clay (Ohtsubo et al. 1995;
to the model using OCR (i.e., Eq. 11, n = 320, Tanaka et al. 2001; Watabe et al. 2004), respectively.
R2 = 0.82, S.E.Y. = 0.13), albeit the prediction using Profiles of the measured Vs are obtained from seismic
OCR is considered to be slightly more reliable. cone tests, as shown in Figs. 12c and 13c. For
Figure 11 presents the measured su versus the esti- Burswood clay, the soil layers consist of a 3 m thick
mated su using (1) only Vs (2) Vs and OCR, (3) Vs and weathered crust (stiff and fine sand) and a 12 m thick
PI. The dashed lines show ± 1 standard deviations soft silty clay. It is a lightly overconsolidated and
(SD) from 1 to 1 lines. It was evident that most of the sensitive silty clay, having high to very high plasticity.
predicted su data are within the dashed lines. In Shell fragments and silt lenses are frequently found at
practice, the estimation of su using Vs can be a depth of 12 m, and tiny shell fragments are
performed separately and in combination with OCR occasionally found at a greater depth. In addition,
or PI, depending on the available data. The correla- dessicated plants are found at a depth of 7 m (Low
tions proposed in this study for estimating the su are 2009). For Ariake clay, it is lightly overconsolidated,
summarized in Table 5. The mode information on composed of two soil layers: (1) the upper clay from a
0 to 12 m depth and (2) the lower clay from a 12 to

123
 Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 11 Measured su versus (a)

predicted su using a Vs , b Vs 1000
and OCR, c Vs and PI. Note:
SD standard deviation
(a) Vs:
su (kPa) = 0.09(VsVH)1.25

Measured su (kPa)
N = 373, r2 = 0.79, S.E.Y. = 0.14
(b) Vs & OCR:
100 su (kPa) = 0.114(VsVH)1.18(OCR)0.15
N = 320, r2 = 0.82, S.E.Y. = 0.13
- (c) Vs & PI:
su (kPa) = 0.009(VsVH)1.51(PI)0.30
N = 294, r2 = 0.81, S.E.Y. = 0.14

10
10 100 1000
Predicted su (kPa)
(b) (c)
1000 1000

Measured su (kPa)
Measured su (kPa)

100 100
-
-

10 10
10 100 1000 10 100 1000

Predicted su (kPa) Predicted su (kPa)

Undrained Shear Strength,

Plasticity Index (%) OCR Vs (m/s) su (kPa)
20 30 40 50 0 2 4 6 8 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
(a) (b) (c) (d) Ashford et al (1996)
Levesques et al (2007)
Weathered crust

Measured
5
Depth (m)

Soft silty clay Estimated from

Vs
including
shell fragments Estimated
and silt lenses from Vs & PI
10
w = 65 to 120 %
= 14 to 15.8 Estimated
kN/m3 from Vs & OCR
Clay fraction
= 7 to 29 %
15

Fig. 12 Case study for Burswood clay (data from Low (2009)): a PI, b OCR, c Vs , and d comparison of estimated and measured su

123
Geotech Geol Eng
Plasticity Index (%)
0 20 40 60 80 100 0
0
(a)
2 Levesques et al (2007)
4 Estimated
Upper clay
Depth (m)
6
w = 120 - 150 %
= 12.5 - 13 kN/m3 8
Clay fraction
= 50 %
10
12
Lower clay
14
w = 90 - 100%
3
16
Clay fraction =
50 %
18
Fig. 13 Case study for Ariake clay [data from Ohtsubo et al. (1995), Tanaka et al. (2001), Watabe et al. (2004)]: a PI, b OCR, c Vs ; and
d comparison of estimated and measured su
18 m depth. It is found that natural water content is
greater than the liquid limit, resulting in a greater
liquid index (i.e., more than unity) when compared
with cohesive soils in Japan (Ohtsubo et al. 1995;
Tanaka et al. 2001; Watabe et al. 2004).
For Burswood clay (Fig. 12d) and Ariake clay
(Fig. 13d), the measured su profiles from field vane
tests are compared with the estimated su profiles from
the Eqs. 11 and 12 derived in this study. In addition,
the reference su profile is compared with two existing
empirical correlations using (1) Ashford et al. (1996)
and (2) Levesques et al. (2007), as listed in Table 3.
Figures 12d and 13d show that the predicted su profiles
from the equations derived in this study using PI and
OCR provide reasonable agreements with the mea-
sured su profiles for both clays when compared with
the estimated su profiles from the equations using Vs,
as suggested in previous studies.
6 Conclusion
In geotechnical engineering practice, the use of
appropriate correlations and empirical relationships
can often be fast and cost-effective ways to estimate
su . This study described the statistical evaluation of su
using Vs which was directly examined via a special
database compiled from various well-documented
geotechnical test sites, mainly involving soft ground.
Undrained Shear Strength,
OCR Vs (m/s)
su (kPa)
1 2 3 0 50 100 150 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
(b) (c) (d) Ashford et al (1996)
from Vs
Measured
Estimated
from Vs & PI
Estimated
from Vs & OCR
From different types of in situ shear wave modes
including downhole (VH), crosshole (HV), and rotary
crosshole (HH), the expressions for su and G0 were
derived from regression studies in terms of each shear
wave mode. The corresponding reference su values
were carefully determined from various in situ and
laboratory tests. Empirical su estimation was proposed
with special consideration of different shear wave
modes ðVsVH ; VsHV ; VsHH Þ via statistic-based regres-
sion analyses. su values for VsVH mode were especially
represented by first order approximation: su-
= 0.09(VsVH)1.25. In overconsolidated soils, the su
induced by different shear wave modes is found to be
noticeably anisotropic. In addition, it is noted that the
ratio of G0 and su not only decreases with increasing
PI, but also shows apparent anisotropy of initial shear
stiffness. Finally, using the Vs combined with PI or
OCR is recommended for estimating su. Furthermore,
applying the proposed equations to some sites with
anisotropic conditions (i.e., highly overconsolidated
sites) would be recommended for future study.
While the empirical correlations developed in most
prior studies have been proposed based on a rather
selective and limited laboratory and/or in situ data
obtained from a few sites, this paper’s novelty lies in
the use of a globally compiled extensive database
based on in situ Vs. Furthermore, this study aimed at
incorporating different directional and polarization
modes (VH, HV, HH shear waves) with su, which has
123

not been reported. Thus, Vs anisotropy (i.e., different
Vs modes) can be significantly considered to develop
new regression models for overconsolidated soils
(e.g., geologic stress history).
Acknowledgements The authors appreciate the financial
support from Singapore Ministry of Education (MOE, Award
No. R-302-000-091-133).
References
Andersen KH (2004) Cyclic clay data for foundation design of
structures subjected to wave loading. In: Triantafyllidis T
(ed) International conference on cyclic behaviour of soils
and liquefaction phenomena, CBS04, Bochum, Germany.
Balkema Publishers, pp 371–387
Andersen KH, Lunne T, Kvalstad TJ, Forsberg CF (2008) Deep
water geotechnical engineering. In: XXIV national con-
ference of the Mexican society of soil mechanics, Aguas-
calientes, Nov 26–29, pp 1–57
Ashford SA, Jakrapiyanum W, Lukkanaprasit P (1996) Ampli-
fication of earthquake ground motions in Bangkok.
Research Report, submitted to the Public Works Depart-
ment, Asian Institute of Technology Thailand
Baffer BA (2013) Relationship between small strain shear
modulus and undrained shear strength in direct simple
shear. Master of Science, University of Rhode Island,
Kingston, RI
Bates CR, Phillips DR (2000) Multi-component seismic sur-
veying for near surface investigations: examples from
central Wyoming and southern England. J Appl Geophys
44:257–273
Bjerrum L (1972) Embankments on soft ground. In: ASCE
specialty conference on performance of earth and earth-
supported structures, Purdue University, Lafayette, IN.
ASCE, pp 1–54
Bjerrum L, Simons N (1960) Comparison of shear strength
characteristics of normally consolidated clays. In:
Research conference on shear strength of cohesive soils.
ASCE, pp 711–726
Blake WD, Gilbert RB (1996) Relationships between undrained
shear strength and compression and shear wave velocities
for offshore clays. Offshore Technol Research Center,
Austin
Brown MJ, Powell JJM (2012) Comparison of rapid load pile
testing of driven and CFA piles installed in high OCR clay.
Soils Found 52:1033–1042
Butcher AP, Lord JA (1993) Engineering properties of the Gault
clay in and around Cambridge, UK. Paper presented at the
geotechnical engineering of hard soils—soft rocks, Balk-
ema, Rotterdam
Butcher AP, Powell JJM (1995) The effects of geological his-
tory on the dynamic stiffness in soils. Paper presented at the
proceedings of the eleventh European conference on soil
mechanics and foundation engineering: XI ECSMFE E:
DGF-bulletin 11, Copenhagen, 28 May–1 June 1995
Butcher AP, Powell JJM (1996) Practical considerations for
field geophysical techniques used to assess ground
123
Geotech Geol Eng
stiffness. In: International conference on advances in site
investigation practice. Institution of Civil Engineers, Tel-
ford, London, pp 701–714
Chandler RJ (1988) The in situ measurement of the undrained
shear strength of clays using the field vane. In: Vane shear
strength testing in soils: field and laboratory studies, vol
STP 1014. ASTM, pp 13–44
Chew CH, Lee FH, Lim SC, Lim SP, Quek ST, Tan TS (1997)
Review of floating slab track system for north-east line.
Stage II: ground vibration study. Land Transport Authority,
Singapore
Chin C-T, Chen J-R, Hu I-C, Yao DTC, Chao H-C (2007)
Engineering characteristics of Taipei clay. Paper presented
at the characterization and engineering properties of nat-
ural soils, London
Chung SG, Giao PH (2003) Geotechnical characteristics and
engineering problems of Pusan clays. Paper presented at
the charaterisation and engineering properties of natural
soils, Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisse
Clayton CRI (2011) Stiffness at small strain: research and
practice. Geotechnique 61:5–37
Crilly MS, Driscoll RMC, Chandler RJ (1992) Seasonal ground
and water movement observations from an expansive clay
site in the UK. In: Proceedings of the 7th international
conference on expansive soils, Dallas, TX, Aug. 3–5,
pp 313–318
DeGroot DJ, Lutenegger AJ (2003) Geology and engineering
properties of Connecticut Valley Varved Clay. Paper pre-
sented at the characterisation and engineering properties of
natural soils, Singapore
Dickenson SE (1994) Dynamic response of soft and deep
cohesive soils during the Loma Prieta Earthquake of
October 17, 1989. University of California, Berkeley
Fabbrocino S, Lanzano G, Forte G, de Magistris FS, Fabbrocino
G (2015) SPT blow count vs. shear wave velocity rela-
tionship in the structurally complex formations of the
Molise Region (Italy). Eng Geol 187:84–97
Ghionna V, Jamiolkowski M (1991) A critical appraisal of
calibration chamber testing of sands. In: 1st international
symposium on calibration chamber testing (ISOCCTI),
Potsdam, N.Y. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 13–39
Gourvenec S, White D (2010) Frontiers in offshore geotechnics
II. CRC Press, Cambridge
Hansbo S (1957) A new approach to the determination of the
shear strength of clay by the fall-cone test. In: Proceedings
of Royal Swedish Geotechnical Institute, vol 14
Hara A, Ohta T, Niwa M, Tanaka S, Banno T (1974) Shear
modulus and shear strength of cohesive soils. Soils Found
14:1–12
Hight DW et al (2003b) The characterisation of the Bothkennar
clay. Paper presented at the characterisation and engi-
neering properties of natural soils, Singapore, 2–4 Dec
2002
Hight DW, Bond AJ, Legge JD (1992) Characterization of the
Bothkennar clay: an overview. Geotechnique 42:303–347
Hight DW, McMillan F, Powell JJM, Jardine RJ, Allenou CP
(2003a) Some charateristics of London Clay. Paper pre-
sented at the characterisation and engineering properties of
natural soil, Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisse
Hiltunen DR, Griffin LM, Woods RD (2003) Liquefaction
evaluation of Vincent Thomas Bridge sites via crosshole
Geotech Geol Eng
seismic shear wave measurements. In: Soil and rock
America, 12th Pan American conference on soil mechanics
and geotechnical engineering. Verlag-Gluckhauf, Essen,
pp 253–260
Jamiolkowski M, Ladd CC, Germaine JT, Lancelotta R (1985)
New developments in field and laboratory testing of soils.
In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on soil
mech. and foundation engineering, San Fransisco, CA.
A.A. Balkema, pp 57–153
Kang X, Kang G-C, Bate B (2014) Measurement of stiffness
anisotropy in kaolinite using bender element tests in a
floating wall consolidometer. Geotech Test J 37:1–16
Keaveny JM, Mitchell JK (1986) Strength of fine-grained soils
using the piezocone. Paper presented at the use of in situ
tests in geotechnical engineering (GSP6), Reston, VA
Kelly RB, Whiteley RJ (2013) Geotechnical model develop-
ment for a very soft estuarine clay with MASW geophysics,
in situ and laboratory testing. Paper presented at the
geotechnical and geophysical site characterization, vol 4,
London
Ku T, Mayne PW (2013) Profiling of K0 lateral stress coefficient
in soils using paired directional G0 ratios. J Appl Geophys
94:15–21
Ku T, Mayne PW (2014) Stress history profiling using OCD-G0
anisotropy relationship geotechnical engineering. Proc Inst
Civ Eng (ICE) J 167:476–490
Ku T, Mayne PW (2015) Directional properties of small strain
shear stiffness in soils. Geomech Geoeng 10:68–81
Ku T, Subramanian S, Moon S-W, Jung J (2016) Stress
dependency of shear-wave velocity measurements in soils.
J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 143(2):04016092
Kulhawy FH, Mayne PW (1990) Manual on estimating soil
properties for foundation design. Electric Power Research
Inst., Palo Alto, CA (USA); Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY
(USA). Geotechnical Engineering Group,
Kulkarni MP, Patel A, Singh DN (2010) Application of shear
wave velocity for characterizing clays from coastal
regions. KSCE J Civ Eng 14:307–321. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s12205-010-0307-1
Ladd CC, Foott R (1974) New design procedure for stability of
soft clays. J Geotech Eng Div 100:763–786
Lambe TW, Whitman RV (1969) Soil mechanics. Wiley, New
York
Leroueil S, Hamouche K, Tavenas F, Boudali M, Locat J, Virely
D, Roy M, La Rochelle P, Leblond P (2003) Geotechnical
characterization and properties of a sensitive clay from
Quebec. Paper presented at the charaterisation and engi-
neering properties of natural soils, Swets & Zeitlinger,
Lisse,
Levesques CL, Locat J, Leroueil S (2007) Characterization of
postglacial sediments of the Saguenay Fjord, Quebec.
Paper presented at the characterization and engineering
properties of natural soils, London
Likitlersuang S, Kyaw K (2010) A study of shear wave velocity
correlations of Bangkok subsoil. Paper presented at the
Obras y Proyectos: Revista de Ingenieria Civil, vol 7
Likitlersuang S, Teachavorasinskun S, Surarak C, Oh E, Bala-
subramaniam A (2013) Small strain stiffness and stiffness
degradation curve of Bangkok Clays. Soils Found
53:498–509
Lo Presti DCF, Jamiolkowski M, Pepe M (2003) Geotechnical
characterisation of the subsoil of Pisa tower. Paper pre-
sented at the characterisation and engineering properties of
natural soils, Singapore
Long M, Donohue S (2007) In situ shear wave velocity from
multichannel analysis of surface waves (MASW) tests at
eight Norwegian research sites. Can Geotech J 44:533–544
Long M, Menkiti CO (2007a) Characterisation and engineering
properties of Dublin Boulder clay. Paper presented at the
characterisation and engineering properties of natural soils,
London
Long M, Menkiti CO (2007b) Geotechnical properties of Dublin
boulder clay. Geotechnique 57:595–611
Long M, Quigley P, O’Connor P (2013) Undrained shear
strength and stiffness of Irish glacial till from shear wave
velocity. Ground Eng 26–27
Low HE (2009) Performance of penetrometers in deepwater soft
soil characterisation. The University of Western Australia
Lunne T, Long M, Forsberg CF (2003) Characterisation and
engineering properties of Onsøy clay. Paper presented at
the Characterisation and Engineering Properties of Natural
Soils, Singapore
Marjanovic J (2012) The study of shear and longitudinal
velocity measurements of sands and cohesive soils. Mas-
sachusetts Institute of Technology
Mayne PW (2007) Synthesis 368: Cone penetration testing.
National Cooperative Highway Research Program
(NCHRP), Washington, D.C
Mayne PW (2008) Piezocone profiling of clays for maritime site
investigations. Paper presented at the 11th Blatic Sea
Geotechnical Conference Geotechnics in Maritime Engi-
neering, Gdansk, Poland,
Mayne PW, Brown DA Site characterization of Piedmont resi-
duum of North America. In: Characterization and Engi-
neering Properties of Natural Soils, Singapore, 2003.
Workshop, Balkema/Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisse, pp 1323-
1339
Mayne PW, Coop MR, Springman S, Huang A-B, Zornberg J
State-of-the-Art Paper (SOA-1): Geomaterial behavior and
testing. In: 17th International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, ICSMGE,
Alexandria, Egypt, 2009. Millpress/IOS Press, Rotterdam,
pp 2777-2872
Mayne PW, Brown DA, Vinson J, Schneider JA, Finke KA
(2000) Site characterization of piedmont residual soils at
the NGES, Opelika, Alabama. In: Jean Benoit & Alan
Lutenegger A (ed). ASCE Geotechnical Special Publica-
tion (GSP) -National Geotechnical Experimentation Sites
(NGES), Reston/VA, pp 160-185
Mesri G (1989) Re-evaluation of Su = 0.22 r’p using labora-
tory shear tests. Can Geotech J 26:162–164
Mesri G, Huvaj N (2007) Shear strength mobilized in undrained
failure of soft clay and silt deposits Proc Geo-Denver 1-22
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. Can Geotech
J 53:1600–1611. https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2016-0015
Moon S-W, Ku T (2017) Reply to the discussion by Danziger
and Jannuzzi on ‘‘Development of global correlation
models between in situ stress-normalized shear wave
velocity and soil unit weight for plastic soils’’. Can
123

Geotech J 54(12):1790–1792. https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-
2017-0284
Nader A (2014) Engineering characteristics of sensitive marine
clays—examples of clays in eastern Canada
Nash DFT, Powell JJM, Lloyd IM (1992) Initial investigation of
the soft clay test site at Bothkennar. Geotechnique
42:163–181
Oh T-M, Bang E-S, Cho G-C, Park E-S (2016) Estimation of
undrained shear strength for saturated clay using shear
wave velocity. Mar Georesour Geotechnol 35:1–9
Ohtsubo M, Egashira K, Kashima K (1995) Depositional and
post-depositional geochemistry, and its correlation with the
geotechnical properties of marine clays in Ariake Bay.
Japan Geotechn 45:509–523
Olsen MB (2001) Measured performance of a large excavation
on the MIT campus. Master’s of Science, M.I.T
Parry RHG (1972) Some properties of heavily overconsolidated
Oxford clay at a site near Bedford. Geotechnique
22:485–507
Perret D (1996) Diagenèse mécanique précoce des sédiments
fins du fjord du Saguenay
Powell JJM, Butcher AP (2003) Characterisation of a glacial
clay till at Cowden, Humberside. Paper presented at the
characterisation and engineering properties of natural soils,
Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisse
Rampello S, Callisto L (1998) A study on the subsoil of the
Tower of Pisa based on results from standard and high-
quality samples. Can Geotech J 35:1074–1092
Rampello S, Calabresi G, Callisto L (2003) Geotechnical
characteristics and engineering problems of a stiff clay
deposit. Paper presented at the characterisation and engi-
neering properties of natural soils, Swets & Zeitlinger,
Lisse
Roesler S (1979) Anisotropic shear modulus due to stress ani-
sotropy. J Geotech Eng Div 105:871–880
Santamarina JC, Klein KA, Fam MA (2001) Soils and waves—
particulate materials behavior, characterization and pro-
cess monitoring. Wiley, New York
Schaeffers J, Weemees I (2012) Comparison of in situ shear
strength measurement techniques of soft clays. Paper pre-
sented at the 20th Vancouver geotechnical society sym-
posium soft ground engineering, Vancouver
Seed HB, Idriss IM (1970) Soil moduli and damping factors for
dynamic response analyses. Report; no. EERC 70-10.
College of Engineering University of California Berkeley,
Berkeley
Shibuya S, Tamrakar SB (2003) Engineering properties of
Bangkok clay. In: Tan TS, Phoon KK, Hight DW, Leroueil
S (eds) Charaterisation and engineering properties of nat-
ural soils. Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisse, pp 645–692
Skempton AW (1957) Discussion: further data on the c/p ratio in
normally consolidated clays. Paper presented at the pro-
ceedings of the institution of civil engineers, vol 7, London
Soccodato FM, Tamrakar SB (2003) Geology and engineering
properties of Fucino clayey soil. In: Tan TS, Phoon KK,
123
Geotech Geol Eng
Hight DW, Leroueil S (eds) Characterisation and engi-
neering properties of natural soils. Swets & Zeitlinger,
Lisse, pp 791–807
Stokoe KH, Santamarina JC (2000) Keynote: seismic wave-
based testing in geotechnical engineering. In: GeoEng,
Melbourne, Australia, pp 1490–1536
Stroud MA (1988) The standard penetration test: its application
and interpretation. Paper presented at the ICE conference
on penetration testing in the UK, University of Birming-
ham, Thomas Telford
Sully JP, Campanella RG (1995) Evaluation of in situ anisotropy
from crosshole and downhole shear wave velocity mea-
surements. Geotechnique 45:267–282
Tan TS, Phoon KK, Lee FH, Tanaka H, Locat J, Chong PT
(2003) A characterisation study of Singapore Lower Mar-
ine Clay. Paper presented at the characterisation and
engineering properties of natural soils, Swets & Zeitlinger,
Lisse
Tanaka H (2007) Geotechnical properties of Hachirogata clay.
Paper presented at the characterization and engineering
properties of natural soils, London
Tanaka H, Locat J, Shibuya S, Soon TT, Shiwakoti DR (2001)
Characterization of Singapore, Bangkok, and Ariake clays.
Can Geotech J 38:378–400
Tatsuoka F, Shibuya S (1992) Deformation characteristics of
soil and rocks from field and laboratory tests, Keynote
Lecture. Paper presented at the IX Asian conference on
SMFE, Bangkok
Terzaghi K, Peck RB, Mesri G (1996) Soil mechanics in engi-
neering practice, 3rd edn. Wiley, New York
Tsiambaos G, Sabatakakis N (2011) Empirical estimation of
shear wave velocity from in situ tests on soil formations in
Greece. Bull Eng Geol Environ 70:291–297. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10064-010-0324-9
Uzielli M, Mayne PW, Cassidy MJ (2013) Probabilistic
assessment of design strengths for sands from in situ testing
data. Paper presented at the modern geotechnical design
codes of practice, Amsterdam
Watabe Y, Tanaka M, Takemura J (2004) Evaluation of in situ
K0 for Ariake, Bangkok and Hai-Phong clays. In:
Geotechnical and geophysical site characterization, Rot-
terdam, pp 1765–1772
Wroth CP, Houlsby GT (1985) Soil mechanics-property char-
acterization and analysis procedures. In: 11th international
conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering,
San Francisco, pp 1–55
Yan L, Byrne PM (1990) Simulation of downhole and crosshole
seismic tests on sand using the hydraulic gradient simili-
tude method. Can Geotech J 27:441–460
Yun TS, Narsilio GA, Santamarina JC (2006) Physical charac-
terization of core samples recovered from Gulf of Mexico.
Mar Pet Geol 23:893–900. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpetgeo.2006.08.002