Development of an Empirical Correlation for Predicting Shear Wave Velocity of Christchurch Soils from Cone Penetration Test Data
Abstract
Following the companion study of McGann et al. [1], seismic piezocone (SCPTu) data compiled from sites in Christchurch, New Zealand area are used with multiple linear regression to develop a Christchurch-specific empirical correlation for use in predicting soil shear wave velocities, Vs, from cone penetration test (CPT) data. An appropriate regression functional form is selected through an evaluation of the residuals for regression models developed with the Christchurch SCPTu database using functional forms adopted by previous empirical correlations between Vs and CPT data. An examination of how the residuals for the chosen regression form vary with the predictor variables identifies the need for non-constant depth variance in the regression model. The performance of the model is assessed through comparisons of predicted and observed Vs profiles and through forward predictions with synthetic CPT data. The new CPT-Vs correlation provides a method to estimate Vs from CPT data that is specific to the non-gravel soils of the Christchurch region in their current state (caution should be used for western portions of the Springston Formation where SCPTu data were sparse). The correlation also enables the utilization of the large, high-density database of CPT logs (> 15, 000 as of 1/1/2014) in the Christchurch region for the development of both site-specific and region-wide models of surficial Vs for use in site characterization and site response analysis.
Keywords: cone penetration test (CPT), shear wave velocity, multiple linear regression, seismic piezo-cone (SCPTu), empirical correlation
References
[1] McGann C, Bradley B, Taylor M, Wotherspoon L, Cubrinovski M. Applicability of existing empirical shear wave velocity correlations to seismic cone penetration test data in Christchurch New Zealand. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 2014;00(0):1–14.
[2] Bradley B. Ground motions observed in the Darfield and Christchurch earthquakes and the impor-tance of local site response effects. New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics 2012;55(3):279–86.
[3] Montalva G. Site-Specific Seismic Hazard Analyses. Washington State University: Ph.D. Disserta-tion; 2010.
[4] Rodriguez-Marek A, Montalva G, Cotton F, Bonilla F. Analysis of single-station standard deviation using the KiK-net data. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 2011;101:1242–58.
[5] Bazzurro P, Cornell C. Nonlinear soil-site effects in probabalistic seismic-hazard analysis. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 2004;94(6):2110–23.
[6] Idriss I, Seed H. Soil moduli and damping factors for dynamic response analysis. University of California, Berkeley: Report EERC 70-10; 1970.
[7] Darendeli M. Development of a new family of normalized modulus reduction and damping curves. University of Texas, Austin, TX, USA: Ph.D. Dissertation; 2001.
[8] Stokoe II K, Santamarina J. Seismic-wave-based testing in geotechnical engineering. In: Proc. of the International Conference on Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, GeoEng 2000. Melbourne, Australia; 2000, p. 1490–536.
[9] Nazarian S, Stokoe II K. In-situ shear wave velocities from spectral analysis of surface wave tests. In: Proc. 8th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. San Franciso, CA; 1984, p. 31–8.
[10] Park C, Miller R, Xia J. Multichannel analysis of surface waves. Geophysics 1999;64(3):800–80.
[11] Louie J. Faster, better shear wave velocity to 100 meters depth from refraction microtremor arrays. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 2001;91(2):347–64.
[12] Park C, Miller R. Roadside passive multichannel analysis of surface waves (MASW). Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics 2008;13(1):1–13.
[13] Tokimatsu K, Shinzawa K, Kuwayama S. Use of short-period microtremors for Vs profiling. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 1992;118(10):1544–58.
[14] Okada H. The Microtremor Survey Method. Society of Exploration Geophysicists: (K. Suto, trans.): SEG Geophysical Monograph Series No. 12; 2003.
[15] Woods R. Measurement of dynamic soil properties, state of the art report. In: Proc. ASCE Specialty Conference on Earthquake Engineering & Soil Dynamics; vol. 1. California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA; 1978, p. 91–178.
[16] Woods R. Borehole methods in shallow seismic exploration. In: Woods R, editor. Geophysical Characterization of Sites. New Delhi, India: ISSMFE Technical Committee #10; 1994, p. 91–100.
[17] Kaneko F, Kanemori T, Tonouchi K. Low-frequency shear wave logging in unconsolidated formations for geotechnical applications. In: Paillet F, Saunders W, editors. Geophysical Applications for Geotechnical Investigations, ASTM STP 1101. Philadelphia, PA, USA: American Society for Testing and Materials; 1990, p. 79–98.
[18] Ohta Y, Goto N. Empirical shear wave velocity equations in terms of characteristic soil indexes. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 1978;6(2):167–87.
[19] Sykora D, Stokoe II K. Correlations of In-Situ Measurements in Sands and Shear Wave Velocity. The University of Texas at Austin: Geotechnical Engineering Report GR83-33; 1983.
[20] Rollins K, Evans M, Diehl N, Daily W. Shear modulus and damping relationships for gravels. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 1998;124(5):396–405.
[21] Wair B, DeJong J, Shantz T. Guidelines for Estimation of Shear Wave Velocity Profiles. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley: PEER Report No. 2012/08; 2012.
[22] Andrus R, Mohanan N, Piratheepan P, Ellis B, Holzer T. Predicting shear-wave velocity from cone penetration resistance. In: Proc. 4th International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering. Thessaloniki, Greece, June 25-28, Paper No. 1454; 2007,.
[23] Hegazy Y, Mayne P. A global statistical correlation between shear wave velocity and cone penetration data. In: Puppala A, Fratta D, Alshibli K, Pamukcu S, editors. Proc. of GeoShanghai, Site and Geomaterial Characterization (GSP 149). ASCE, Reston, VA; 2006, p. 243–8.
[24] Robertson P. Interpretation of cone penetration tests – a unified approach. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 2009;46(11):1337–55.
[25] Baldi G, Belloti R, Ghionna V, Jamiolkowski M, Lo Presti D. Modulus of sands from CPTs and DMTs. In: Proc. 12th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol.
1. Rio de Janeiro; 1989, p. 165–70.
[26] Mayne P, Rix G. Gmax–Vs relationships for clays. Geotechnical Testing Journal 1993;16(1):54–60.
[27] Hegazy Y, Mayne P. Statistical correlations between Vs and cone penetration data for different soil types. In: Proc. of CPT ‘95, Vol. 2. Link¨oping, Sweden: Swedish Geotechnical Society; 1995, p. 173–8.
[28] Tarantola A. Inverse problem theory and methods for model parameter estimation. Philadelphia, PA, USA: Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM); 2005.
[29] Xia J, Miller R, Park C. Estimation of near-surface shear-wave velocity by inversion of Rayleigh waves. Geophysics 1999;64(3):691–700.
[30] Bradley B, Cubrinovski M. Near-source strong ground motions observed in the 22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquake. Seismological Research Letters 2011;82(6):853–65.
[31] Bradley B. Strong ground motion characteristics observed in the 4 September 2010 Darfield, New Zealand earthquake. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 2012;42:32–46.
[32] Cubrinovski M, Bradley B, Wotherspoon L, Green R, Bray J, Wood C, et al. Geotechnical aspects of the 22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquake. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering 2011;44(4):205–26.
[33] Cubrinovski M, Bray J, Taylor M, Giorgini S, Bradley B, Wotherspoon L, et al. Soil liquefaction ef-fects in the central business district during the February 2011 Christchurch earthquake. Seismological Research Letters 2011;82(6):893–904.
[34] Cubrinovski M, Green R, Allen J, Ashford S, Bowman E, Bradley B, et al. Geotechnical recon-naissance of the 2010 Darfield (Canterbury) earthquake. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering 2010;43(4):243–320.
[35] Campanella R, Gillespie D, Robertson P. Pore pressures during cone penetration testing. In: Proc. 2nd European Symposium on Penetration Testing, ESPOT II. Amsterdam, May 24-27; 1982, p. 507–12.
[36] Robertson P, (Fear) Wride C. Evaluation cyclic liquefaction potential using the cone penetration test. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 1998;35(3):442–59.
[37] Zhang G, Robertson P, Brachman R. Estimating liquefaction-induced ground settlements from CPT for level ground. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 2002;39(5):1168–80.
[38] Ang AS, Tang W. Probability Concepts in Engineering Emphasis on Applications to Civil and Environmental Engineering. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2007. 2nd Edition.
[39] McGann C, Bradley B, Cubrinovski M, Taylor M, Wotherspoon L. Development and evaluation of CPT-Vs correlation for Canterbury New Zealand soils of the shallow Christchurch and Springston formations. University of Canterbury Research Report No. 2014-01; 2014.
[40] Wasserman L. All of Nonparametric Statistics. Secaucus, NJ, USA: Springer-Verlag New York, Inc.; 2006.
[41] Jefferies M, Davies M. Soil classification by the cone penetration test: Discussion. Canadian Geotech-nical Journal 1991;28(1):173–6.
[42] Robertson P. Soil behaviour type from the CPT: an update. In: CPT ‘10, 2nd International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing. Huntington Beach, CA, May 9-11, Paper No. 2-56; 2010,.
[43] Brown L, Weeber J. Geology of the Christchurch urban area. Lower Hutt, New Zealand: Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences Ltd.; 1992.
[44] Massey, Jr. F. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for goodness of fit. Journal of the Americal Statistical Association 1951;46(253):68–78.
[45] Idriss I, Boulanger R. Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI), MNO-12; 2008.
[46] Taylor M. The Geotechnical Characterisation of Christchurch Sands for Advanced Soil Modelling. University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand: Ph.D. Dissertation; 2014.
[47] McGann C, Bradley B, Wotherspoon L, Cox B. Comparison of a Christchurch-specific CPT-Vs corre-lation and Vs derived from surface wave analysis for strong motion station velocity characterization. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society of Earthquake Engineers 2014;00(0):–.
