See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233682955

Characterization of Norwegian marine clays

with combined shear wave velocity and
piezocone cone penetration test (CPTU) ....

Article in Canadian Geotechnical Journal · July 2010

DOI: 10.1139/T09-133

CITATIONS READS

22 170

2 authors:

Michael Long Shane Donohue

University College Dublin University College Dublin
93 PUBLICATIONS 774 CITATIONS 46 PUBLICATIONS 294 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Dublin Port Tunnel View project

Quick-clay mapping using frequency-domain helicopter-borne EM View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Shane Donohue on 01 August 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Provided by the author(s) and University College Dublin Library in accordance with publisher policies. Please
cite the published version when available.

Characterisation of Norwegian marine clays with combined

Title shear wave velocity and CPTU data

Author(s) Long, Michael (Michael M.); Donohue, Shane

Publication 2010-07
Date

Publication Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 47 (7): 709-718

information

Publisher NRC Research Press

Link to
publisher's http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/T09-133
version

This item's
record/more http://hdl.handle.net/10197/3076
information

DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/T09-133

Downloaded 2014-08-01T11:23:29Z

Some rights reserved. For more information, please see the item record link above.
Title of paper: Characterisation of Norwegian marine clays with

combined shear wave velocity and CPTU data

Names of authors: Michael Long1 and Shane Donohue1

Affiliation of authors: 1: School of Architecture, Landscape and Civil

Engineering, University College Dublin (UCD), Ireland

(Mike.Long@ucd.ie and Shane.Donohue@ucd.ie)

Contact address: Michael Long, School of Architecture, Landscape and

Civil Engineering, University College Dublin (UCD),

Newstead Building, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland.

Phone: +353-1-7163221

Fax: +353-1-7167399

e-mail: Mike.Long@ucd.ie

Paper originally written: October 2008

Paper revised: June 2009

Title: Characterisation of Norwegian marine clays with combined shear wave

velocity and CPTU data

Abstract: A database of research quality CPTU and shear wave velocity

information for Norwegian marine clays has been assembled so as to study the small

strain stiffness relationships for these materials and to examine the potential use of

CPTU and Vs data in combination for the purposes of characterising these soils. Data

for sites where high quality block sampling was carried out have mostly been used.

Improvements have been suggested to existing correlations between Gmax or Vs and

index properties for these soils. Recent research has shown that CPTU qt and

especially u2 and Vs can be measured reliably and repeatably and are not operator or

equipment dependant. Therefore a new soil classification chart involving Qt and

normalised shear wave velocity (Vs1) or Vs1 and Δu/σv0' is presented. Using this chart

it is possible to clearly distinguish between clays of different OCR.

Key words: soft clays; shear wave velocity; cone penetration tests; overconsolidation

ratio
Introduction

As the piezocone cone penetration test (CPTU) grows more popular throughout the

world, it is also becoming more commonplace to combine the standard test with

measurements of shear wave velocity (Vs) using the seismic CPT (SCPTU). Recent

work by Long (2008) and others has shown that Vs can be measured in situ easily and

reliably by a variety of methods. For soft reasonably isotropic clays, the results seem

to be relatively independent of the technique used and of the operator. Therefore if

SCPTU results are not available, they could be substituted with results from other

techniques such as seismic dilatometer (SDMT), continuous surface wave (CSW),

spectral analysis of surface waves (SASW) or multi channel analysis of surface waves

(MASW).

In parallel, work by various researchers such as Powell and Lunne (2005a), Long

(2008), Boylan et al. (2008), Tiggelman and Beukema (2008) and Lunne and Powell

(2008) have shown that for CPTU tests in soft clays, if the pore pressure measurement

system is sufficiently well saturated, the measured pore pressure (u2) is the parameter

that shows least variation from one type of CPTU equipment to another. This research

also demonstrates that corrected end resistance (qt) values show somewhat more

variation from one type of equipment to another as compared with u2. Measured

sleeve friction (fs) shows most variation from one type of equipment to another and

these values should be treated with caution.

As CPTU u2 (and possibly qt) and Vs are two of the more reliable and accurate

parameters that can be obtained from in situ testing, it seems logical then to attempt to

use them in combination for the purposes of characterising and classifying soft clays.

In this paper data from eleven soft to firm clay sites are used in order to

investigate these ideas. For all of these sites research level CPTU and Vs data were
available. In addition results of high quality laboratory tests on Sherbrooke block

samples were available for most of the sites.

In this paper relationships between small strain shear modulus (Gmax) (or Vs) and

index properties are first examined in order to check that the soil properties are

consistent with other published data. Existing relationships between Vs and qt are then

examined and some new correlations are proposed. Finally some suggestions are

made for a new soil classification chart involving CPTU and Vs data.

The Sites

A summary of the ten sites surveyed is given on Table 1. Most of the sites were

developed for research purposes either by the Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI)

or by the Geotechnics Division of the Norwegian University of Science and

Technology (NTNU formerly NTH). Nine of the sites are onshore Norway, one is

located offshore Norway and the last is located at Bothkennar in Scotland. This latter

site was included, as its characteristics are well known internationally. UCD have

carried out MASW work on the site and NGI have carried out block sampling and

testing at the Bothkennar site.

Soil parameters for the eleven study sites, over the depth range for which shear

wave velocity and high quality sample data are available, are summarised on Table 2.

Correlations between Gmax and e or w

Long and Donohue (2007) attempted to relate Gmax to natural water content (w) or

in situ void ratio (e0) for four of the Norwegian clay sites. Note that Gmax is directly

related to Vs by:

[1] Gmax = ρVs2

where ρ = density.
 Here data for seven additional sites is included in an attempt to improve these

correlations and to investigate which of the index parameters is the most useful. The

overall objective of this work is to check that these soils fall into the framework well

established for other materials and also to allow engineers working on future projects

to make rapid estimates of Gmax for preliminary design or for verification of in situ or

laboratory measurements.

Hardin (1978) suggested that for clays, Gmax depends on the in situ (or applied)

stress (σ'), e and overconsolidation ratio (OCR). It has however been shown that the

effects of OCR are, to a large extent, taken into account by the effect of e and could

be neglected (Leroueil and Hight, 2003). The empirical equation describing the

influence of the controlling factors on Gmax can then be written as follows:

[2] (
Gmax = S ⋅ F (e ) σ v`σ h` )
n
pa(1−2 n )

where F(e) is a void ratio function, σv' and σh' are the vertical and horizontal effective

stresses respectively, n is a parameter indicating the influence of stress, pa is

atmospheric pressure (100 kPa) and S is a dimensionless “structure” parameter

characterising the considered soil.

As can be seen on Figure 1a Gmax/σv0' typically varies between 200 and 1000 and

as expected Gmax/σv0' decreases with increasing e in a similar manner to that described

by others, e.g. Jamiolkowski et al., (1991) for a variety of soils. On Figure 1b the data

have been normalised as suggested by Hardin (1978) and Hight and Leroueil (2003),

(Equation 2). A line has been added corresponding to S = 700, F(e) = 1/e1.3, K0 = 0.6

and n = 0.25. It can be seen that the fit is good confirming that Gmax for Norwegian

clays are consistent with a large volume of other published experimental data.

Norwegian practice (see for example Janbu, 1985) is to normalise with respect to

the sum of consolidation stress and attraction, so as to obtain a dimensionless

parameter which depends on friction only. For the case of small strain shear modulus,

Langø (1991) suggested that Gmax should be normalised by:

Gmax
[3] g max =
σ m `+ a

where σm' and a are the mean effective consolidation stress and the attraction (a =

c'/tanφ') measured in a triaxial test respectively. He suggested a systematic variation

of the normalised shear modulus may be obtained by plotting gmax against w, in a

similar way to that proposed by Janbu (1985) for oedometer moduli.

Figure 2a shows gmax data from this study. Attraction (a) was assumed to equal 3

kPa, which is a typical value for the clays under study from Janbu (1985). There is a

reasonable correlation between gmax and w. . The data form roughly two groups.

There is more scatter in the data where water content is about 30% (e ≈ 0.8).

According to Janbu (1970) w of about 30% corresponds to the division between

normally to lightly overconsolidated clay and moderately overconsolidated clay.

Therefore it would seem that the effects of overconsolidation on Gmax are not

completely taken into account by w (or e) and there may be some merit in normalising

these data by preconsolidation stress rather than in situ vertical effective stress.

The data are plotted against plasticity index (Ip) on Figure 2b. Again there is

reasonable agreement, with gmax being relatively independent of Ip for values greater

than about 25%. A similar analysis was performed using liquidity index but no clear

pattern emerged.

Correlations between qt and Vs

Previously published correlations

As discussed by Mayne and Rix (1993) and others Gmax depends on e0, σv0' and OCR.

Since measured cone resistance (qc) also depends on σv0' and OCR, previous
researchers have sought a relationship between Gmax and qc despite the fact that they

are operable at different ends of the strain spectrum.

Mayne and Rix, (1993) summarise site-specific correlations between Gmax or Vs

and qc. For example Jaime and Romo (1988) and Bouckovalas et al. (1989) found that

for Mexico city clays and Greek clays respectively that:

[4] Vs (m / s ) ≈ 0.1qc (kPa)

[5] Gmax = 2.8qc1.4

Mayne and Rix (1993) established a database from on 31 different sites in Europe

and North America, where CPT and SASW or SCPT data was available. All were

clay sites with varying OCR, strength and stiffness. Two of the sites were the same as

used in this study namely Drammen and Onsøy. The equation of the best – fit

regression line from an assumed log – log relationship was found to be:

[6] Gmax = 2.78q1c .335

which is very similar to the expression derived by Bouckovalas et al. (1989), see

Equation 5.

Mayne and Rix (1993) also found that the strong dependence of Gmax upon e0,

however requires that qc is only successful as a profiler of Gmax if e0 is included in the

correlation and they derived empirically the formula:

99.5 pa0.305 qc0.695

[7] Gmax =
e10.13

where qc is in units of kPa and pa = atmospheric pressure in kPa, e0 = in situ void

ratio.

In a later paper Mayne and Rix (1995) argued that in order to reduce scatter the

correlation should be between qc and Vs as these are both directly measured

parameters. In the earlier study Gmax had to be calculated from Vs using Equation 1.

Mayne and Rix (1995) derived the empirical formulae:

[8] Vs = 1.75qc0.627

[9] Vs = 9.44qc0.435 e0−0.532

As there was only a small change in the resulting correlation coefficient,

Powell and Lunne (2005b) suggest that Equations 7 or 9 are only slightly better than

the simpler ones based only on qc. Another important issue with both Mayne and Rix

equations is that they make use of the uncorrected cone resistance, qc, rather than the

corrected value, qt. This is because much of their data was obtained before the

introduction of the piezocone.

As the reconstruction of the in situ void ratio profile can be a difficult task,

particularly given the cost of high quality undisturbed sampling, Simonini and Cola

(2000) suggest that the CPTU pore pressure parameter Bq could be used to replace e0

in the correlation. The standard derivation of Bq (Lunne et al., 1997a) is:

u2 − u0 Δu
[10] Bq = =
qt − σ v 0 q net

where u0 = ambient pore pressure and σv0 = total overburden stress

However Simonini and Cola (2000) simply assumed Bq to be the ratio between Δu

and qc (termed Bq* here to avoid confusion). They show that, when considering

relatively lightly overconsolidated mixed deposits in Venice, a better correlation

between qt and Gmax was obtained when incorporating Bq* as follows:

[11] (
Gmax = 21.5qt0.79 1 + Bq* )
4.59

New correlations for Norwegian clay database

Data for the ten Norwegian soft clay sites, plotted simply in terms of qt and Vs, are

shown on Figure 3. In order to permit later normalisation or correlation against index

properties each data point represents a single high quality sample (all block samples

except for Troll and Eberg where thin walled tube sampling was used). The best fit

power function, namely:

[12] Vs = 2.944qt0.613

is also shown. Regression analysis gives a moderate R2 of 0.630. Those data which

show the greatest scatter are from Eidsvoll, where OCR values are relatively high, and

Tiller and RVII, where sensitivity, St, is high.

Measured Vs values and those predicted by the original Mayne and Rix (1995)

expression (Equation 9) are shown on Figure 4a. It can be seen that in general the

Mayne and Rix (1995) expression underpredicts the Vs for Norwegian soft clays by

some 20%. Note that here e0 has been reliably determined from high quality block

samples. The correlation coefficient, R2, is 0.690 which, consistent with the comments

made by Powell and Lunne (2005b), is not a significant improvement on that from the

simple Vs – qt relationship. The data points which show most scatter are again from

the high OCR Eidsvoll site and the high St RVII site.

The relationship can be improved using multiple regression analysis, as shown on

Figure 4b to give an improved formula, namely:

[13] Vs = 65.00qt0.150 e0−0.714

with R2 = 0.758.

A similar exercise has been carried out using the Simonini and Cola (2000)

formula (Equation 11) on Figure 5a and 5b. Here Gmax has been calculated from the

measured Vs value using the density measurements from block samples. It can be seen

that a much better correlation coefficient R2 of 0.799 (compared to 0.554) can be

achieved by modifying the constants in the expression and using Bq rather than Bq*.

The resulting expression is:

[14] (
Gmax = 4.39qt1.225 1 + Bq )
2.53

Logically then a new expression can be developed which relates Vs directly with

qt and Bq as follows and as shown on Figure 6. This relationship yields an R2 value of

0.777 for the Norwegian soft clay database.

[15] (
Vs = 1.961qt0.579 1 + Bq )
1.202

Discussion

A major issue with the most commonly used correlation by Mayne and Rix

(1995) is that it relies on the measured cone resistance (qc) rather than the corrected

one (qt). It is well known that in soft clays the correction can be very significant

perhaps of the order of 15% in many cases. Secondly it also relies on the in situ void

ratio (e0) as input. This parameter can be very susceptible to sampling disturbance.

Hence in this paper a database comprising high quality samples and research level

CPTU tests have been assembled in order to minimise these uncertainties and improve

the Mayne and Rix (1995) correlation for use in Norwegian soft clays or similar

materials.

Unfortunately this new correlation (Equation 13) also relies on e0 as input. This

parameter is not always readily available, especially at an early stage in the

investigation, as sampling and laboratory testing are required. Therefore two

additional correlations have been proposed for these materials, which do not need

laboratory data as input. The first which involves the pore water pressure parameter

(Bq) is a revision of the Simonini and Cola (2000) expression (Equation 14) and the

second (Equation 15) is a new expression which relates qt and Bq directly to Vs rather

than to Gmax.

All three formulae have similar correlation coefficients and are considered

equally reliable.
Enhanced soil characterisation using CPTU and Vs data

Existing classification chart

Robertson et al. (1995) proposed a CPTU soil classification chart (or perhaps

more correctly termed a soil behaviour chart) based on normalised cone resistance Qt

(=qnet/σ'v0) and normalised small strain shear modulus (Gmax/qt). This chart was

intended mostly for identifying “unusual” soils such as highly compressible sands,

cemented and aged soils and clays with either high or low void ratio. A portion of the

chart (focus on clays and silts) is shown on Figure 7. The x-axis has been extended

from a maximum value of 100 to 1000. The data for the sites under study here mostly

fall as expected in the zone of “young uncemented” soils. Note the boundaries of this

region have also been extended in parallel with the extension of the x-axis. Data for

the moderately overconsolidated sites, e.g. Eidsvoll, Glava, and Tiller, fall above the

zone of young un-cemented soils consistent with the pattern suggested by Robertson

et al. (1995).

Proposed new chart

Charts of the type presented by Robertson et al. (1995) have been criticised in the

literature because:

1. They involve a plot of one parameter against another, which is a function of

the first parameter.

2. They use log scales on the axes; thus masking any trends.

Therefore attempts are made here to study the application of alternative charts,

using Vs, but avoiding these two issues. On Figure 8 Qt values are plotted against

normalised shear wave velocity Vs1, where:

 Vs
[16] Vs1 = 0.5
(Mayne et al., 1998)
⎛ σ v0 `⎞
⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ pa ⎠

Similarly on Figure 9 Vs1 is plotted against Δu/σv0'. This latter parameter was

originally proposed by Azzouz et al. (1983) so as to avoid the use of cone resistance

but at the same time to take into account the effect of overburden stress. Schneider et

al. (2008) also use this parameter in a new CPTU based soil classification chart.

On both charts a clear division can be made between the lightly overconsolidated

material (OCR < 2) and the moderately overconsolidated soils (OCR > 3). Arguably

the Vs1 / Δu/σv0' formulation separates the data more clearly and has less scatter.

The Qt against Vs1 data for the Norwegian soft clays is compared to that for high

quality sand samples (data from Mayne, 2006) and for UK stiff clays (Lunne et al.,

1997a, Powell et al., 1988, Hight et al., 2003 and Powell and Butcher, 2003) on

Figure 10. It can be seen that in a global sense the soft clay data is consistent with that

of other materials. A similar proposal was made by Gillespie (1990) who suggested a

plot of Gmax / qt versus qt /σv0' should be used. However it was found here that the Qt

against Vs1 formulation separates the data sets more clearly.

Discussion

Classification charts such as those of Robertson et al. (1986 and 1995) have been

successfully used in geotechnical engineering practice for some time. However the

charts have been criticised as they involve plotting one parameter against a derivative

of the same parameter and also they make use of log scales, thus potentially masking

trends. In addition recent research (e.g. Long, 2008) has shown that CPTU sleeve

friction (fs) can be unreliable in soft clays and that pore water pressure (u2) and shear

wave velocity can be determined much more reliably. Hence in this paper two new

charts are suggested which avoid these problems and make use of Vs and u2 more
directly. In addition it has been shown that if the data are plotted in this way extra

information on the OCR of the soils can be determined. Also it has been shown that

the Norwegian soft clay data fits the trend for other materials in a global sense.

Conclusions

1. A database of research quality CPTU and shear wave velocity data for

Norwegian marine clays has been assembled so as to study the small strain

stiffness relationships for these materials and to examine the potential use of

CPTU and Vs data in combination for the purposes of characterising these

soils.

2. In general the small strain stiffness behaviour of Norwegian soft clays follow

the framework published for other soils. It is possible to get satisfactory

estimates of Gmax using correlations with water content (w), void ratio (e) or

plasticity index (Ip). It would seem that the influence of overconsolidation on

Gmax is not completely taken into account by normalisation by w (or e).

3. Reasonable estimates of Vs can be obtained from correlation with CPTU qt

using modified versions of the Mayne and Rix (1995) or Simonini and Cola

(2000) formulae or from a new expression involving qt and Bq. It would seem

that use of Bq as a substitute for e0 leads to an improvement in the predictions

for Norwegian soft clays.

4. A new soil classification chart involving Qt and normalised shear wave

velocity (Vs1) or Vs1 and Δu/σv0' is presented. Using this chart it can be seen

that the soft clay data is consistent with that of other materials and also is

possible to give reliable estimates of the stress history and OCR of the soft

clay materials.
Acknowledgements

The authors are particularly grateful to Tom Lunne of NGI, Rolf Sandven of NTNU

and Nouri El Hadj and Knut Hagberg of Statens Vegvesen for arranging access to the

various sites and for sharing their experience of the soils under study. Peter O’Connor

of APEX Geoservices, Gorey, Ireland provided the MASW equipment, which was

used on all of the sites studied and general support for the work. In addition Chris

Jones and Karl Snelling of GDS Instruments Ltd. carried out SASW surveys of four

of the sites in the Trondheim area.

References

Azzouz, A.S., Baligh, M.M. and Ladd, C.C. 1983. Cone penetration and the

engineering properties of the soft Orinoco clay. In Proceedings 3rd Int. Conf on the

behaviour of offshore structure, BOSS’83, Cambridge, MASS, Hemisphere Pub.,

Washington. Vol. 1. pp 161 – 180.

Bouckovalas, G., Kalteziotis, N., Sabatakakis, N. and Zervogiannis, C. 1989. Shear

wave velocity in very soft clay. In Proceedings 12th International Conference on

Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Rio da Janeiro, Balkema, Vol 1. pp.

191 – 194.

Boylan, N., Mathijssen, F., Long, M. and Molenkamp, F. 2008. Accuracy of

piezocone testing in organic soils. In Proceedings of the 11th Baltic Sea

Geotechnical Conference, Gdansk, Poland, 15-18 September 2008, Vol. 1, pp 367

– 375.

In Proceedings 11th Baltic Sea Geotechnical Conference, Gdansk, Poland, 15-18

Gillespie, D.G. 1990. Evaluating velocity and pore pressure data from the cone

penetration test. PhD thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C.

Hardin, B.O. 1978. The nature of stress – strain behaviour for soils. In Proceedings

ASCE Speciality Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics,

Pasadena. Vol. 1. pp 3 – 90.

Hight, D.W., Bond, A.J., and Legge, J.D. 1992. Characterisation of the Bothkennar

clay: an overview. Géotechnique, 42 (2): 303 - 347.

Hight, D.W. and Leroueil, S. 2003. Characterisation of soils for engineering purposes.

In Proceedings International Workshop on Characterisation and Engineering

Properties of Natural Soils (“Natural Soils 2002”). NUS Singapore, December.

Edited by Tan, T.S. et al. Published by Balkema. Vol. 1. pp 255 - 362.

Hight, D.W., McMillan, F., Powell, J.J.M, Jardine, R.J. and Allenou, C.P. 2003.

Some characteristics of London clay. In Proceedings International Workshop on

Characterisation and Engineering Properties of Natural Soils (“Natural Soils

2002”). NUS Singapore, December. Edited by Tan, T.S. et al. Published by

Balkema. Vol. 2, pp 851 - 908.

Jaime, A. and Romo, M.P. 1988. The Mexico earthquake of September 19, 1985 –

correlations between dynamic and static properties of Mexico City clay.

Earthquake Spectra, 4: 787 – 804.

Jamiolkowski, M, Leroueil, S. and Lo Presti, D.C.F. 1991. Theme Lecture: Design

parameters from theory to practice. In Proceedings Geo-Coast 1991, Yokohama,

Vol. 2. pp 877 – 917.

Janbu, N. 1970. Grunnlag i Geoteknikk. Tapir Forlag Trondheim (In Norwegian)

Janbu, N. 1985. Soil models in offshore engineering. 25th Rankine Lecture.

Géotechnique, 35 (3); 241 – 281.

Langø, H. 1991. Cyclic shear modulus of natural intact clays. PhD thesis NTH,

Trondheim, August.
Leroueil, S. and Hight, D.W. 2003. Behaviour and properties of natural soils and

rocks. In Proceedings International Workshop on Characterisation and

Engineering Properties of Natural Soils (“Natural Soils 2002”). NUS Singapore,

December. Edited by Tan, T.S. et al. Published by Balkema, Vol. 1. pp 29 - 254.

Long, M. 2008. Design parameters from in situ tests in soft ground – recent

developments. In Proceedings 3rd International Conference on Geotechnical and

Geophysical Site Characterisation (ISC’3), Taipei. Edited by Huang and Mayne,

Taylor and Francis, April, Vol. 1. pp. 89 –116.

Long, M and 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.

Long, M., Donohue, S. and O’Connor, P. 2008. Rapid, cost-effective and accurate

determination of in situ stiffness using MASW at Bothkennar. Ground

Engineering, November, pp 43 – 46.

Long, M., El Hadj, N., Hagberg, K. 2009. Quality of conventional fixed piston

samples of soft clay. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental

Engineering, 135 (2), pp 185 – 198.

Lunne, T., Robertson, P.K. and Powell, J.J.M. 1997a. Cone Penetration Testing in

Geotechnical Practice. Spon Press, London.

Lunne, T., Berre, T. and Strandvik, S. 1997b. Sample disturbance effects in soft low

plasticity Norwegian clay. In Proceedings Sym. on Recent Developments in

Soil and Pavement Mechanics, Rio de Janeiro, June 1997. Published by

Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 81 – 92.

Lunne, T. and Lacasse, S. 1999. Geotechnical characteristics of low plasticity

Drammen clay. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on

 Characterisation of Soft Marine Clays, Yokosuka, Japan, February 1997.

Characterisation of Soft Marine Clays, Edited by Tsuchida and Nakase.

Published by Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 33 - 56.

Lunne, T., Long, M and Forsberg, C.F. 2003. Characterisation and engineering

properties of Onsøy clay. In Proceedings International Workshop on

Characterisation and Engineering Properties of Natural Soils (“Natural Soils

2002”). NUS Singapore, December. Edited by Tan, T.S. et al. Published by

Balkema, Vol. 1, pp. 395 - 428.

Lunne, T., Long, M. and Uzielli, M. 2007. Characterisation and engineering

properties of Troll clay. In Proceedings 2nd International Workshop on

Characterisation and Engineering Properties of Natural Soils (“Natural Soils

2006”). NUS Singapore. Edited by Tan, T.S. et al. Published by Taylor and

Francis Group, London, Vol. 3, pp. 1939 -1972.

Lunne, T. and Powell, J.J.M. 2008. Comparative testing of piezocones at the Onsøy

test site in Norway. Submitted for publication

Mayne, P.W., and Rix, G.J. 1993. Gmax-qc relationships for clays, Geotechnical

Testing Journal, ASTM, 16 (1): 54 - 60.

Mayne, P.W., and Rix, G.J. 1995. Correlations between cone tip resistance and shear

wave velocity in natural clay. Soils and Foundations, 35 (2): 107 – 110.

Mayne, P.W., P.K. Robertson, and T. Lunne. 1998. Clay stress history evaluated from

seismic piezocone tests. In Proceedings 1st. International Conference on

Geotechnical Site Characterisation ISC’1, Atlanta. Edited by Robertson and

Mayne. Published by Balkema. Vol. 2. pp. 1113–1118.

Mayne, P.W. 2006. Undisturbed sand strength from seismic cone tests. The 2nd J.K.

Mitchell Lecture. Geomechanics and Geoengineering, 1 (4): pp 239 - 257

Powell, J.J.M, Quarterman, R.S.T and Lunne, T. 1988. Interpretation and use of the

piezocone test in UK clays. Penetration testing in the UK, Thomas Telford,

London, pp 151 – 156.

Powell, J.J.M and Butcher, A.P. (2003). Characterisation of a glacial till at Cowden,

Humberside. In Proceedings International Workshop on Characterisation and

Engineering Properties of Natural Soils (“Natural Soils 2002”). NUS Singapore,

December. Edited by Tan, T.S. et al. Published by Balkema. Vol. 2, pp 983 -

1020.

Powell, J.J.M. and Lunne, T. 2005a. A comparison of different sized piezocones in

UK clays. In Proceedings 16th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and

Geotechnical Engineering, Osaka, September, Vol. 1. pp 729 – 734.

Powell, J.J.M. and Lunne, T. 2005b. Use of CPTU data in clays / fine grained soils.

Studia Geotechnica et Mechanica. Published by Wroclow University of

Technology Press. 28 (3-4)

Robertson, P.K., Campanella, R.G., Gillespie, D. and Greig, J. 1986. Use of

piezometer cone data. In Proceedings ASCE Speciality Conf. In Situ ’86: Use of

In Situ Tests in Geotechnical Engineering, Blacksburg, pp 1263 – 1280.

Robertson, P.K., Sasitharan, S., Cunning, J.C. and Segs, D.C. 1995. Shear wave

velocity to evaluate flow liquefaction. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,

ASCE, 121 (3): 262 – 273.

Rømoen, M. 2005. Study of geological background and slope stability in Berg,

Trondheim, Diploma thesis, NTNU, Trondheim, December 2005.

Røsand, R.H. 1986. Vurdering av konsoliderings – koeffisienten tolket fra

trykksonderingforsøk: Hovedoppgaven (Diploma thesis), Høsten, NTH,

Trondheim, December (In Norwegian).

Sandven, R. 1990. Strength and deformation properties of fine grained soils obtained

from piezocone tests: PhD thesis NTH, Trondheim

Sandven, R.B. and Sjursen, M. 1998. Sample disturbance in soils - results from an

oversonsolidated marine clay. In Proceedings 1st. International Conference on

Geotechnical Site Characterisation ISC’1, Atlanta. Edited by Robertson and

Mayne. Published by Balkema. Vol. 1, pp. 409 - 417

Sandven, R., Ørbech, T., and Lunne, T. 2004. Sample disturbance in highly sensitive

clay. In Proceedings 2nd. Int. Conference on Geotechnical Site Characterisation,

ISC’2, Porto. Edited by da Fonseca and Mayne. Published by MillPress. Vol. 2,

pp. 1861 – 1868

Schneider, J.A., Randolph, M.F., Mayne, P.W. and Ramsey, N. 2008. Influence of

partial consolidation during penetration on normalised soil classification by

piezocone. In Proceedings 3rd International Conference on Geotechnical and

Geophysical Site Characterisation (ISC’3), Taipei. Edited by Huang and Mayne,

Taylor and Francis, April, pp. 1159 –1165.

Simonini, P. and Cola, S. 2000. Use of piezocone to predict maximum stiffness of

Venetian soils. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental

Engineering, 126 (4): 378 – 382.

Tiggelman, L. and Beukema, H.J. 2008. Sounding ring investigation. In Proceedings

3rd International Conference on Geotechnical and Geophysical Site

Characterisation (ISC’3), Taipei. Edited by Huang and Mayne, Taylor and

Francis, April, pp. 757 - 762

Westerlund, G.J. 1978. Undersøkelser av dynamisk skjærmoduli i leire. PhD thesis,

Institute for Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, NTNU, Trondheim,

Norway, August (in Norwegian).

List of symbols

a = attraction = c'/tanφ')

c' = effective cohesion

e0 = in situ void ratio

fs = sleeve friction measured during CPTU tests

pa = atmospheric pressure = 100 kPa

qc = the measured cone tip resistance

qnet = net cone resistance = qt - σv0

qt = corrected cone tip resistance

u0 = ambient pore water pressure

u2 = pore pressure measured during CPTU tests

w = natural water content

Bq = CPTU pore water pressure parameter = (u2-u0)/qnet

Gmax = small strain shear modulus

Ip = plasticity index

K0 = σ'h0/σ'v0

OCR = overconsolidation ratio

Qt = normalised cone resistance = qnet /σ'v0

St = sensitivity

Vs = shear wave velocity

Vs1 = mormalised shear wave velocity

ρ = density

σ'm = mean effective stress = ⅓ (σ'v0 +2σ'h0)

σv0 = in situ vertical total stress

σ'h0 = in situ horizontal effective stress

σ'v0 = in situ vertical effective stress

Table 1. Summary of sites surveyed

Location Site Soil type Vs measured Background references

by*

Fredrikstad Onsøy soft clay SCPT / MASW Lunne et al. (2003), Long

and Donohue (2007)

Drammen Danviksgata soft clay SCPT / MASW Lunne and Lacasse (1999), Long and

/ Raleigh / Cross Donohue (2007)

hole

Lierstranda soft clay MASW / Lunne and Lacasse (1999), Lunne et

Raleigh al. (1997b)

Trondheim Eberg soft clay SASW / Røsand (1986), Sandven (1990),

Seismic ref. Langø (1991)

Berg firm clay MASW / Cross Rømoen (2005), Westerlund (1978),

hole Long and Donohue (2007)

Tiller soft to firm SASW Sandven (1990), Sandven et al.

(quick) clay (2004)

Stjørdal Glava firm clay MASW / SASW Sandven (1990), Sandven and

Sjursen (1998), Long and Donohue

(2007)

Akershus Eidsvoll firm to stiff MASW NGI files

clay

RVII soft clay MASW Long et al. (2009)

Offshore west Troll soft clay SCPT Lunne et al. (2007)

Norway

Scotland Bothkennar soft clay / SCPT / SDMT / Hight et al. (1992), Long et al. (2008)

silt MASW / CSW

Cross hole
* Terms defined in Introduction

Table 2. Summary of soil parameters

Site w (%) ρ (Mg/m3) clay Ip (%) su1(kPa) St1 OCR Vs (m/s)

(%)

Onsøy 60 - 65 1.635 40 - 60 33 - 40 15 - 35 4.5 - 6 1.5 - 1.3 80 - 140

Danviks- 50 - 55 1.72 – 1.78 48 30 18 – 30 7–8 1.5 100 - 170

gata2

Lier- 32 - 42 1.83 – 1.95 31 - 36 13 - 19 10 - 45 7 - 15 1.4 – 2.0 125 - 175

stranda

Eberg 50 - 70 1.6 – 1.8 42 - 62 7 - 11 10 - 15 5 - 10 1–2 65 - 175

Berg 25 - 30 2.0 30 7 - 10 35 - 60 4 - 10 5-3 100 - 300

Tiller 30 - 45 1.8 – 2.0 35 - 40 2-8 20 - 65 5 - 1000 2–4 75 - 225

Glava 30 - 35 1.8 – 2.0 30 - 60 15 - 30 30 - 50 7 - 10 4-5 100 - 350

Eidsvoll 25 - 35 1.9 – 2.0 37 - 48 13 - 19 60 – 2-5 2-6 175 - 250

100
RVII 30 - 40 1.82 – 1.89 28 - 45 8 - 18 15 - 35 7 - 135 1.2 – 2.6 170 - 270

Troll 19 - 70 1.68 – 2.13 24 - 49 20 - 37 5 - 50 2 – 5.5 1.5 40 - 340

Both- 66 - 72 1.58 – 1.61 17 - 35 42 - 53 25 - 35 8 - 13 2 102 - 144

kennar

1. From fall cone test

2. Only upper Drammen plastic clay encountered.

Figure captions and Summary of figures

Fig. no Title Ref.

1 Relationship between: (a) Gmax DELL/Reports/MASWNorwayHost
normalised by σ'v0 and void ratio e 06/NormGmaxandvoidratio.grf
and (b) Gmax normalised according to
Hardin (1978) and Hight and Leroueil
(2003) and e
2 Normalised shear modulus gmax DELL/Reports/MASWNorwayHost
versus (a) water content, (b) void 06/gmax.grf
ratio and (c) plasticity index
3 qt versus Vs for Norwegian soft clay DELL/Papers/CanGeoJnl/NorskCla
database ysVsqt/qtVs.grf
4 Vs measured and predicted from (a) DELL/Papers/CanGeoJnl/NorskCla
original Mayne and Rix (1995) ysVsqt/qtVsMayneandRix.grf
expression and (b) modified version
of this expression
5 Vs measured and predicted from (a) DELL/Papers/CanGeoJnl/NorskCla
original Simonini and Cola (2000) ysVsqt/qtVsSimandCola.grf
expression and (b) modified version
of this expression
6 Vs measured and predicted from new DELL/Papers/CanGeoJnl/NorskCla
expression involving qt and Bq ysVsqt/qtVsBq.grf
7 Robertson et al. (1995) soil DELL/Reports/CPTUStudy/Phase2/
classification chart with data for NorskClaysQtG0qtOCR.grf
Norwegian soft clays
8 Possible new classification chart DELL/Reports/CPTUStudy/Phase2/
based on Qt and Vs1 NorskClaysQtVs1OCR.grf
9 Possible new classification chart DELL/Reports/CPTUStudy/Phase2/
based on Vs1 and Δu/σ'v0 NorskClaysVs1DeluOCR.grf
10 Comparison between soft clays, stiff DELL/Reports/CPTUStudy/Phase2/
clays and sands on Qt – Vs1 chart GlobalQtVs1.grf
Figures for paper by Long and Donohue on: Characterisation of Norwegian marine
clays with combined shear wave velocity and CPTU data

Onsoy Correlation from Hardin (1978) with

Drammen
S = 700, F(e) = 1/e1.3 K0 = 0.6 and n = 0.25
Berg
1200 Glava
16000
Bothkennar
Eidsvoll
RVII
Eberg 12000
Tiller

Gmax / (0.6`v02)0.25
800 Troll
Gmax / `v0

Lierstranda

8000

400
4000

0 0
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2
Void ratio Void ratio
(a) (b)

Fig. 1. Relationship between: (a) Gmax normalised by 'v0 and void ratio e and (b) Gmax
normalised according to Hardin (1978) and Hight and Leroueil (2003) and e

Onsoy
1600 1600 Drammen
Berg
Glava
Bothkennar
1200 1200 Eidsvoll
RVII
Eberg
Tiller
gmax

Troll
800 800
Lierstranda

400 400

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60
Water content (%) Plasticity index (%)
(a) (b)
Fig. 2. Normalised shear modulus gmax versus (a) water content, (b) void ratio and (c)
plasticity index
 Best fit
300 power function
Vs = 2.944qt0.613
R2 = 0.630

250

200
Vs (m/s)

150
Eidsvoll
Glava
Eberg
100 Bothkennar
Danviksgata
Tiller
Onsøy
50 RVII
Troll
Lierstranda

0
0 400 800 1200 1600 2000
qt (kPa)

Fig. 3. qt versus Vs for Norwegian soft clay database

Vs calculated from modified Mayne and Rix (m/s)

300 300
Vs calculated from Mayne and Rix (1995)(m/s)

Fit on original Fit on modified

Mayne and Rix (1995) Mayne and Rix
expression expression
250 250
Vs = 9.44qt0.435e0-0.532 Vs = 65.00qt0.150e0-0.714
gives R2 = 0.690 gives R2 = 0.758
200 200

Eidsvoll
150 150 Glava
Eberg
Bothkennar
100 100 Danviksgata
Tiller
Onsøy
50 50 RVII
Troll
Lierstranda
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Vs measured (m/s) Vs measured (m/s)
(a) (b)

Fig 4. Vs measured and predicted from (a) original Mayne and Rix (1995) expression
and (b) modified version of this expression
 Gmax calculated from modified Simonini and Cola (MPa)
Gmax calculated from Simonini and Cola (2000)(MPa)
200 Fit on original 200 Fit on modified
Simonini and Cola (2000) Simonini and Cola (2000)
expression expression
Gmax = 21.5qt00.79(1+Bq*)4.59 Gmax = 4.39qt1.225(1+Bq)2.53
150 gives R2 = 0.554 150 gives R2 = 0.799

Eidsvoll
100 100 Glava
Eberg
Bothkennar
Danviksgata
Tiller
50 50 Onsøy
RVII
Troll
Lierstranda
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
Gmax measured (MPa) Gmax measured (MPa)
(a) (b)

Fig 5. Gmax measured and predicted from (a) original Simonini and Cola (2000)
expression and (b) modified version of this expression

300
Vs = 1.961qt0.579(1+Bq)1.202
250 gives R2 = 0.777
Vs calculated (m/s)

200 Eidsvoll
Glava
Eberg
150
Bothkennar
Danviksgata
100 Tiller
Onsøy
RVII
50 Troll
Lierstranda

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Vs measured (m/s)

Fig. 6. Vs measured and predicted from new expression involving qt and Bq

 100
Eidsvoll
Glava
Bothkennar
Danviksgata
Onsøy
RVII
Eberg
Labels show OCR
Tiller
Troll
6
Lierstranda
4.4
1.45
Qt

10 1.3
4.96 5.5
2.22
2
1.9 2.02
1.3
1.4 2.2 3.83
1.45
1.45
1.45 3.48
3.63
Silt mixtures 1.45
1.45
1.45 1.5
1.9
2.7
1.44 Lines extended from
2.7 2.36
Clays 1.2
1.2
Robertson et al. (1995)
2.28

Robertson et al. (1995)

Young uncemented
e decreasing

1
1 10 100 1000
Gmax / qt

Fig. 7. Robertson et al. (1995) soil classification chart with data for Norwegian soft
clays (material zones extended by authors)

20 Eidsvoll
Glava
Bothkennar
Danviksgata
6
Onsøy
16 RVII
Eberg
Tiller
Troll
Lierstranda
4.4
12
Labels show OCR 1.45
Qt

1.3
4.96
5.5
2.22
8
2
1.9
2.02
1.3
1.4 3.83
2.2 3.48
1.45
1.45
1.45 3.63
1.45
1.45
1.45 1.51.9
2.7
4 1.44
2.7 2.36
1.2
1.2 2.28

OCR > 3
OCR < 2

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Vs1

Fig. 8. Possible new classification chart based on Qt and Vs1

 3.48
3.63
250 OCR > 3 3.83

4.4
OCR < 2 2.22 4.96 5.5 6

200 1.3
1.31
1.9 2.02
2.281.44 2.6
1.5 1.58
2 2 2
2.36 1.98 2
2 1.9
150 1.2
1.2 2.2
1.45 1.45
1.45 1.451.3
1.45 1.42.7
Labels show OCR
Vs1

1.45 1.45

Eidsvoll
100 Glava
Bothkennar
Danviksgata
Onsøy
RVII
50 Eberg
Tiller
Troll
Lierstranda

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
u / v0`
Fig. 9. Possible new classification chart based on Vs1 and u/'v0

200

UK stiff clays
Sands
160 Soft clays

120
Qt

80
Sands Stiff clays

40

Soft clays
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Vs1

Fig. 10. Comparison between soft clays, stiff clays and sands on Qt – Vs1 chart

View publication stats