Soil Modulus Correlations

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WASHINGTON UNIV IN ST LOUIS on 09/08/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

J. Michael Duncan1, P.E., Dist.M.ASCE and Andrew Bursey2, P.E., P.G., M.ASCE
1
Distinguished Professor Emeritus, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Virginia Tech,
Blacksburg, VA 24061
2
Senior Tunnel Engineer, Jacobs Engineering Group, Norcross, GA, 30071

ABSTRACT: This paper focuses on procedures for estimating modulus values for soils that are
useable with simple elastic solutions and linear finite element analyses for stresses and
deformations. Relationships among Young’’s modulus, shear modulus, constrained modulus and
bulk modulus are defined so that correlations for any of these various measures of soil stiffness
can be adapted to the purpose at hand. Because the stress-strain behavior of soil is nonlinear and
stress-dependent, soil modulus values depend on confining pressure and load magnitude, as well
as soil type, strength, stress history, and drainage conditions. Modulus correlations for gravel,
sand, silt and clay are discussed, and best practices for their use in geotechnical engineering are
suggested, together with methods of judging their reliability.

INTRODUCTION

Soil modulus values provide a convenient measure of soil stiffness, which, together with
suitable elastic solutions or finite element analyses, provide simple first-order estimates of
settlement and other movements in soil masses. In order that calculations based on elastic theory
provide useful results, it is imperative that the modulus values used in such calculations are
representative of actual conditions, including soil type and density, stress and strain magnitude,
and whether loading occurs under drained or undrained conditions.
Evaluation of soil modulus by means of laboratory tests is difficult and often inaccurate
because disturbance has a significant effect on soil modulus, often several times as great as the
effect of disturbance on soil strength. As a consequence, correlations of soil modulus values with
results of laboratory or in situ tests are often more useful and effective than direct measurements
of modulus. Correlations are also useful for comparison with directly measured values of soil
modulus, to provide a quality control ““second opinion.”” The objective of this paper is to
summarize what are believed to be some of the most accurate and useful modulus correlations for
gravels, sands, silts and clays, and to discuss methods of judging their reliability and accuracy.

LINEAR AND NONLINEAR STRESS-STRAIN BEHAVIOR

Although all soils exhibit nonlinear stress-strain behavior, modulus values are based on
linear elasticity. Nonlinear behavior is approximated by using modulus values that reflect not
only the properties of the soil, but also the stress and strain conditions involved in the application
to which the modulus values will be applied.
The following paragraphs discuss first the elastic stress-strain relationships and modulus
values, and then the methods used to approximate nonlinear behavior as equivalent linear
behavior.

321

Foundation Engineering in the Face of Uncertainty

 322 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING IN THE FACE OF UNCERTAINTY

The relationships between stress and strain in the theory of elasticity can be expressed as
follows (Jaeger, 1962):
1
'H x = ( 'V x  Q'V y  Q'Vz ) (1)
E
1
'H y = ('V y  Q'V z  Q'V x ) (2)
E
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WASHINGTON UNIV IN ST LOUIS on 09/08/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1
'H z = ( 'V z  Q'V x  Q'V y ) (3)
E
1
'J xy = 'W xy (4)
G
Where x, y, and z are three mutually perpendicular directions, 'H = an increment of normal
strain, 'J = an increment of shear strain, 'IJ = an increment of shear stress, 'ı = an increment of
normal stress, E = Young’’s modulus, Q = Poisson’’s ratio, and G = shear modulus.
Although Equations 1 through 4 can be written for stresses and strains rather than increments
of stress and strain, for soils it is usually more appropriate to consider increments of stress and
strain. We almost always deal with conditions involving the effect of a change in stress on a soil
mass that is already under stress due to its own weight, and sometimes other loads. Thus we are
almost always interested in the effect of an increment of stress.

TYPES OF SOIL MODULI

Young’’s Modulus, Shear Modulus, Bulk Modulus, and Constrained Modulus

Table 1 shows definitions of these types of modulus:

change in axial stress 'Va

Young's modulus = E = = (5)
change in axial strain 'H a

Young’’s modulus is defined for ““uniaxial”” loading, where the stress changes in only one
direction, as for example in a triaxial compression test during application of the deviator stress.
The definition of E stems from Eq. 1. If the x-direction is the axial direction, and y and z are the
lateral directions, it can be seen that:

1
'H x = 'V x when 'V y and 'V z are zero (6)
E

Although Young’’s modulus is useful in many circumstances, the other parameters in Table 1
are suited for particular cases:

change in shear stress ǻW zx

Shear modulus, G = = for ““pure shear”” loading (7)
change in shear strain ǻJ zx

change in all-around stress ǻV0

Bulk modulus, B = = (8)
change in volumetric strain ǻH v

where 'ı0 = isotropic stress change, and 'Hv = volumetric strain.

Foundation Engineering in the Face of Uncertainty

 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING IN THE FACE OF UNCERTAINTY 323

change in axial stress ǻı a

Constrained modulus, M = = (9)
change in axial strain ǻİ a

for conditions where there is no strain in the lateral direction.

Table 1. Types of soil modulus.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WASHINGTON UNIV IN ST LOUIS on 09/08/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(After Lambe & Whitman, 1969; Duncan & Wong, 1999).

Two elastic constants are required to describe the behavior of an elastic material. Although
Equations 1 through 4 contain three parameters (E, Q, and G), only two are independent, because
shear modulus can be expressed in terms of Young’’s modulus and Poisson’’s ratio, as shown in

Foundation Engineering in the Face of Uncertainty

 324 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING IN THE FACE OF UNCERTAINTY

Table 2. Reasonable values of Poisson’’s ratio (Q) can be estimated using the empirical
relationship Q = (1-sinI)/(2-sinI) for either total or effective stress analyses.
Relationships among the various types of modulus are shown in Table 2. These relationships
are useful when data is available for one type of modulus, and a different modulus is needed for
the purpose at hand.

Table 2. Relationships among types of soil modulus.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WASHINGTON UNIV IN ST LOUIS on 09/08/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(After Lambe & Whitman, 1969; Duncan & Wong, 1999).

Relationship (1 + Q) (1  2Q)
between E and E=M
E = 2G (1 + Q ) E = 3B (1  2Q ) (1  Q)
other stress-strain
parameters
Relationship
between G and E 3B (1  2Q) (1  2Q)
G= G= G=M
other stress-strain 2(1 + Q) 2 (1 + Q) 2 (1  Q)
parameters
Relationship
between B and E 2G (1 + Q ) M (1 + Q)
B= B= B=
other stress-strain 3(1  2Q) 3 (1  2Q ) 3 (1  Q )
parameters
Relationship E(1  Q) 2G (1 + Q) (1  Q )
between M and M= M= (1  Q)
(1 + Q)(1  2Q) (1 + Q) (1  2Q) M = 3B
other stress-strain (1 + Q)
parameters

Initial Modulus, Secant Modulus, Tangent Modulus, and Unload-Reload Modulus

Figure 1 shows a typical stress-strain curve for a soil sample subjected to triaxial
compression, followed by an unloading and reloading cycle. Although some segments of the
curve are well represented by linear relationships (i.e. at low strains and for unload-reload), a
significant proportion of the stress-strain curve is nonlinear.

Figure 1. Initial modulus, tangent modulus, secant modulus, and unload-reload modulus.
(After Duncan & Chang, 1970; Duncan & Wong, 1999; Duncan & Bursey, 2007).

Foundation Engineering in the Face of Uncertainty

 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING IN THE FACE OF UNCERTAINTY 325

Dashed lines on Figure 1 illustrate how the nonlinear stress-strain behavior can be
approximated using various moduli. For this purpose, four moduli are defined:

•• Ei, the initial tangent modulus, or slope of the stress-strain curve at the origin.
•• Es, the secant modulus, or slope of a line between two points on the curve. The secant
modulus is most often based on a line connecting the origin to some point (like A) on the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WASHINGTON UNIV IN ST LOUIS on 09/08/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

stress-strain curve, as shown in Figure 1.

•• Et, the tangent modulus, or slope of the stress-strain curve at some point (like A).
•• Eur, the unload-reload modulus, or slope of an unloading or reloading stress-strain curve.
For most practical purposes the slopes of unloading and reloading curves are the same.

As a result of the curvature of the stress-strain curve, the farther up the stress-strain curve is
the point A, the smaller the values of Es and Et become.
Each of the four values (Ei, Es, Et, and Eur) can be defined for drained or undrained loading
conditions. Drained modulus values are usually indicated using the prime symbol (e.g. Ecs
indicates the drained secant Young’’s modulus), although the subscript ““d”” has also been used.
Undrained modulus values are usually indicated by the subscript ““u”” (e.g. Eut indicates the
undrained tangent Young’’s modulus). Drained modulus values should be used for long-term
loading conditions in all types of soils, and all but extremely rapid loading conditions in sands or
gravels.
Numerical subscripts have been used to indicate the percent of strength mobilized for which
the modulus applies. For example, E50 to indicate the modulus value appropriate when 50% of the
strength is mobilized. Symbols such as E25, E50, E75, E90, etc. have been used for various purposes,
and have been used to indicate the values of secant modulus or tangent modulus for the
corresponding points on the stress-strain curve. Eur is commonly used to approximate either
unloading or reloading modulus, ignoring hysteresis effects.
The significant differences among the various types of modulus shown in Table 1, and the
various moduli shown by Figure 1 illustrate the importance of determining which modulus is
applicable for the problem at hand. Unfortunately, specific terminology has not always been
applied to modulus parameters in geotechnical engineering, potentially leading to confusion about
which modulus is intended. In some cases, ambiguous terms such as ““the”” elastic modulus have
been used. In others, the symbol for Young’’s Modulus, ““E,”” has been used when the constrained,
or ““one-dimensional”” modulus, ““M”” is intended.
An important first step in solving problems involving soil modulus is to determine which
modulus is required for the analysis, and to carefully assess which modulus is provided by a
particular correlation. Therefore, we have included specific definitions of the various types of
modulus in this section.
The term ““modulus”” of subgrade reaction (or the ““subgrade modulus””) is often used in
foundation and pavement design to refer to the ratio of pressure applied to a specific area divided
by the resulting displacement. This parameter is defined on the basis of a specific loading area,
and has units of pressure per unit of displacement or force per length unit cubed. This
terminology is common, but has led to confusion among uninitiated engineers. For this reason, it
is probably better to refer to such so-called ““moduli”” as ““coefficients”” of subgrade reaction.

Variation of Modulus with Confining Pressure

As shown in the left side of Figure 2, stress-strain curves for soils are dependent on the
confining pressure (ı3). As the confining pressure (ı3) increases, the strength of the soil and the
steepness of the stress-strain curve increases.
The right side of Figure 2 shows that values of tangent modulus increase with increasing
confining pressure (V3), and decrease with increasing strain. Tangent modulus values decrease to

Foundation Engineering in the Face of Uncertainty

 326 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING IN THE FACE OF UNCERTAINTY

zero where the stress-strain curve becomes horizontal. Secant modulus values also decrease, but
not to zero.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WASHINGTON UNIV IN ST LOUIS on 09/08/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure 2. Effect of confining pressure and strain on modulus values for soil subjected to triaxial
loading. (After Duncan & Wong, 1999).

Modulus Degradation with Strain

Decrease in modulus values with increasing strain is often called ““modulus degradation.””
Shear modulus degradation is an important consideration for dynamic geotechnical engineering
problems, which are often concerned with small shear strain increments. Modulus degradation
relationships can also be useful for certain static problems requiring adjustment of Young’’s
Modulus or Bulk Modulus appropriate for one strain level to approximate values for another
strain, as described in this section.
Seed & Idriss (1970) described the effect of increased shear strain on dynamic shear
modulus (G). They noted that the stress-strain behavior of soils subjected to symmetrical cyclic
loading is hysteretic, as shown in Figure 3, and that the shear modulus can be expressed as the
slope of the line drawn between the extreme points on the hysteresis loop. Values of G defined in
this way are secant modulus values. By comparing the average slopes of the hysteresis loop for
smaller shear strain (J1), with the loop for larger shear strain, (J2), it can be seen that larger strain
amplitude results in smaller shear modulus.
““Modulus degradation”” factors are used to relate modulus to strain magnitude. Table 3
shows shear modulus degradation factors developed by Seed & Idriss (1970), Vucetic & Dobry
(1991), Ishibashi (1992), Darendeli (2001), and Stokoe et al. (2004). Modulus degradation factors
are expressed as G/Gmax, where G = shear modulus at a particular value of shear strain (J), and
Gmax = shear modulus at J = 10-4%. Values of Gmax can be obtained using shear wave velocity
measurements.

Gmax = Uvs2 (10)

where U is the mass density of the soil, U = Jt/g, in which Jt = total unit weight, g = the
acceleration of gravity and vs = shear wave velocity.

Foundation Engineering in the Face of Uncertainty

 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING IN THE FACE OF UNCERTAINTY 327
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WASHINGTON UNIV IN ST LOUIS on 09/08/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure 3. Hysteretic stress-strain relationships at small and large strain amplitudes.

(From Seed & Idriss, 1970).

Table 3. Modulus degradation factors, G/Gmax.

Shear strain (%)

Soil type and reference -4
10 10-3 10-2 10-1 1.0
Sand Minimum 1.00 0.94 0.62 0.22 0.04
Seed & Idriss (1970) Maximum 1.00 1.00 0.84 0.36 0.08
Vƍ0 = 25 kPa 1.00 0.94 0.68 0.48 0.03
Non-plastic soil with PI = 0 Vƍ0 = 100 kPa 1.00 0.96 0.77 0.37 0.04
Stokoe et al.(2004), Darendeli (2001) Vƍ0 = 400 kPa 1.00 0.98 0.83 0.27 0.06
Vƍ0 = 1,600 kPa 1.00 0.99 0.89 0.19 0.10
Vƍm = 1 kPa 1.00 0.92 0.50 0.10 0.02
Non-plastic soil with PI = 0 Vƍm = 50 kPa 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.37 0.08
Ishibashi (1992) Vƍm = 200 kPa 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.57 0.14
Vƍm = 400 kPa 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.72 0.20
Vƍm = 1 kPa 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.65 0.17
Fine-grained soil with PI = 50 Vƍm = 50 kPa 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.70 0.18
Ishibashi (1992) Vƍm = 200 kPa 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.73 0.19
Vƍm = 400 kPa 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.74 0.20
Fine-grained normally consolidated PI = 0 1.00 0.97 0.76 0.27 0.03
soils PI = 5 1.00 0.97 0.79 0.30 0.04
(OCR = 1, V0ƍ = 100 kPa) PI = 20 1.00 0.98 0.82 0.36 0.06
Stokoe et al.(2004), Darendeli (2001) PI = 80 1.00 0.99 0.90 0.52 0.12
PI = 0 1.00 0.96 0.70 0.24 0.02
PI = 15 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.40 0.10
Saturated fine-grained soils with
PI = 30 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.52 0.17
OCR = 1 to 15
PI = 50 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.68 0.26
Vucetic & Dobry (1991)
PI = 100 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.82 0.37
PI = 200 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.48
Vƍm = average confining pressure, Vƍ0 = isotropic confining pressure

Foundation Engineering in the Face of Uncertainty

 328 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING IN THE FACE OF UNCERTAINTY

Considering the relationships between shear modulus and the other types of soil modulus
shown in Table 2, it can be seen that the other modulus values will also decrease with increasing
strain. Figure 2 and Table 3 show how both Young’’s modulus and shear modulus decrease with
increasing strain in the same manner.
The consequence is that shear modulus degradation relationships such as those presented in
Table 3 can be used to adjust Young’’s Modulus values from one strain level to obtain
approximate modulus values at another. Stokoe et al. (2004) presented examples illustrating the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WASHINGTON UNIV IN ST LOUIS on 09/08/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

use of the relationships presented in Table 2 to estimate Emax from Gmax values obtained from
shear wave velocity measurements, and the use of modulus degradation factors to obtain modulus
values applicable to solving foundation settlement problems.
Using shear wave velocity measurements as a means of determining values of Gmax has the
advantage that the measurements are made in situ, under ambient stress conditions, with
essentially no disturbance of the soil. The disadvantage of this method is that it is necessary to
make quite significant corrections for modulus degradation to derive values corresponding to
larger values of strain, thereby introducing a measure of uncertainty.

MODULUS CORRELATIONS FOR GRAVELS, SANDS, AND SILTS

A correlation between Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blow count and secant values of
constrained modulus developed by D’’Appolonia et al. (1970) is shown in Figure 4. These values
were determined by back analysis of the settlement of bridge piers and footings. They are thus
most directly applicable to fairly shallow depths, approximately one footing width beneath a
foundation. The correlations are valuable because the measurements on which they are based
involved significant volumes of soil in its undisturbed condition in situ.

Figure 4. Correlation between M's and SPT blow count for sand and gravel.
(After D’’Appolonia et al., 1970; Tan et al., 1991).
(Note: 1 tsf = 0.096 MPa; 1 ft = 0.305 m)

Correlations between constrained modulus, cone penetration resistance qc, and relative
density for normally consolidated and overconsolidated sands based on data from calibration

Foundation Engineering in the Face of Uncertainty

 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING IN THE FACE OF UNCERTAINTY 329

chamber tests are shown in Figure 5. The advantage of this method of modulus determination is
that it is possible to control all of the variables in calibration chamber tests closely and produce
specimens of uniform, repeatable relative density. The disadvantage of such correlations is that
the relative density of soils in situ must be known to apply these correlations to field conditions,
and estimating in situ relative density requires use of a separate correlation. The standard
deviations of the trend lines in Figures 4 and 5 are shown in the figures, which is helpful for
estimating the reliability of the correlations.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WASHINGTON UNIV IN ST LOUIS on 09/08/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure 5. Relationship between M'dt/qc and Dr for sands from calibration chamber tests.
(After Kulhawy & Mayne, 1990).

Correlations between E's and the corrected blow count (N1)60 are shown in Table 4. The
advantages of these correlations are that they cover a variety of soil types, including silts, sands,
and gravels, and they are very simple. However, no data are shown, which makes it impossible to
judge the reliability of the correlations. It seems logical only to use such correlations in
conjunction with other correlations or measurements, to provide a ““second opinion”” as a means of
verifying their validity.

Foundation Engineering in the Face of Uncertainty

 330 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING IN THE FACE OF UNCERTAINTY

Table 4. Relationship between E's and (N1)60 for silts, sands, and sandy gravels.
(From Sabatini et al., 2002).

Soil Type E's (kPa)

Silts, sandy silts, slightly cohesive
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WASHINGTON UNIV IN ST LOUIS on 09/08/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

400 (N1)60
mixtures
Clean fine to medium sands and
700 (N1)60
slightly silty sands
Coarse sands and sands with little
1,000 (N1)60
gravel
Sandy gravels 1,200 (N1)60

MODULUS CORRELATIONS FOR SILTS AND CLAYS

Modulus data and correlations for silt are not as well represented in geotechnical literature as
are data and correlations for other types of soil. Table 4 includes one correlation between E's and
(N1)60 for silts. Janbu (1963, 1967, 1985) proposed the dimensionless ““modulus number”” m,
which he related to porosity for silt. The relationship between constrained modulus for silt and the
modulus number m is expressed as follows.
0.5
§ ı' ·
M' = m p ¨ va ¸ (11)
t a¨ p ¸
© a ¹
where M't = drained tangent constrained modulus, m = Janbu’’s dimensionless modulus number,
pa = atmospheric pressure § 100 kPa, V'va = average vertical effective stress before and after
loading, expressed in the same units as pa. Values of m for silt are given in Table 5.

Table 5. Values of Janbu’’s dimensionless modulus number m for silts.

(From Duncan & Wong, 1999, after Janbu 1963, 1967, 1985).

Porosity (n) Value of m (dimensionless)

Percent Normally loaded silt Preloaded silt
50% 25 –– 50 120 –– 240
40% 60 –– 120 300 –– 600
30% 100 –– 200 500 –– 1,000

Porosity can be computed from dry density and specific gravity. For saturated soils, n can be
computed using the following relationship:
wG
n= s (12)
(1+wG )
s
where w = water content and Gs = specific gravity. For unsaturated soils, the porosity is larger
than the value computed using Eq. (12).
Kulhawy & Mayne (1990) developed the correlation between the drained secant constrained
modulus M's for clays, and net cone tip resistance qT shown in Figure 6. They suggested that the
correlation was appropriate only for first order approximations. Similar advice would apply to all

Foundation Engineering in the Face of Uncertainty

 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING IN THE FACE OF UNCERTAINTY 331

of the correlations discussed in this paper. The standard deviation of the correlation is shown in
the figure, making it possible to make an informed judgment regarding the degree of accuracy
inherent in use of the correlation. The advantage of this correlation is that it is based on high
quality data from 12 sites, and includes clays of varying sensitivity.
The net cone tip resistance qT = qc + (1 - a)u2, where qc = measured cone tip resistance, a =
net area ratio which is dependent on the design of the cone, and u2 = the pore pressure behind the
cone tip. The horizontal and vertical axes in Figure 6 are dimensionless, with the constrained
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WASHINGTON UNIV IN ST LOUIS on 09/08/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

modulus and the net cone tip resistance divided by atmospheric pressure, which, as noted above,
is approximately 100 kPa.

Figure 6. Approximate relationship between M's (= Mds) and qT

for clays, based on high-quality tests from 12 sites.
(After Kulhawy & Mayne, 1990).

The small-strain shear modulus (Gmax) for clays can be estimated based on cone penetrometer
tip resistance using the correlation shown in Figure 7, which was developed by Mayne & Rix
(1993). The advantages of this correlation are that both qc and Gmax are determined in situ, and
that a considerable amount of data from a variety of sites is included.

Figure 7. Relationship between Gmax and cone tip resistance (qc) for 31 clays.
(After Mayne & Rix, 1993, with permission from ASTM International,
100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428).

Foundation Engineering in the Face of Uncertainty

 332 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING IN THE FACE OF UNCERTAINTY

The drained tangent one-dimensional compression modulus, M't, for clays can be estimated
using Figure 8 and the following relationships:

2.3 V'va
M' = (15)
t c Hc
where cHc = cc/(1+e0) = compression ratio (dimensionless), cc = slope of e-log p curve, and V'va =
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WASHINGTON UNIV IN ST LOUIS on 09/08/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

average of pressures before and after loading.

Figure 8. Relationship between cHc and water content for

normally consolidated and overconsolidated clays.
(Developed by Ignacio Arango, used with permission).

Values of cHc can be estimated using the correlation shown in Figure 8. This correlation was
developed by Ignacio Arango based on data from projects he was involved with beginning in the
1960s. An early version of this figure, with fewer data points, was published by Lambe &
Whitman (1969). The correlation, which applies to both normally consolidated and
overconsolidated clays, has surprisingly little scatter for values of water content above 50%. The
standard deviation of the average trend line is 0.033.
The drained and undrained initial tangent Young’’s modulus (Eui, and E'i), for lean clays at
depths of roughly 2 to 5 feet, compacted between 95% and 100% of Standard Proctor, can be
estimated using the correlations in Table 6.

Foundation Engineering in the Face of Uncertainty

 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING IN THE FACE OF UNCERTAINTY 333

Table 6. Undrained (short term) and drained (long term) initial tangent Young’’s modulus for CL
clays compacted to RC = 95% to 100% of Std Proctor max dry density at depths of 0.6 to 1.5 m.
(From Duncan & Mokwa, 2001, after Duncan et al., 1980).

Compaction water Short-term modulus Long-term modulus

content (MPa) (MPa)
w = opt. –– 2% Eui = 19.2 –– 57.5 E'i = 5.7 –– 19.2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WASHINGTON UNIV IN ST LOUIS on 09/08/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

w = optimum Eui = 9.6 –– 28.7 E'i = 5.7 –– 19.2

w = opt. + 2% Eui = 4.8 –– 14.4 E'i = 5.7 –– 19.2

USE AND MISUSE OF SOIL MODULUS CORRELATIONS

Effective use of elastic solutions and linear finite element analyses in geotechnical
engineering requires that the calculations be done using appropriate values of soil modulus. To
achieve useful results, it is important that careful consideration be given to the modulus values
used in the analyses, which requires consideration of the reliability of the correlation used and its
suitability for the purpose at hand.
Selection of appropriate soil modulus correlations requires first identifying the type of
modulus required for the problem at hand. For example, to evaluate the dynamic response of a
footing on clay supporting a vibrating machine, values of Gmax from Figure 7 would be
appropriate. To estimate long-term settlements of the same footing, however, modulus values
calculated using data from Figure 8 would be more suitable.
In order to assess the applicability of a particular correlation, it is worthwhile to consider the
conditions under which the correlation was developed, and how these conditions compare to
those at the site. Numerous site-specific factors affect soil modulus, and contribute to differences
between the soil modulus estimated using a correlation and the modulus indicated by in situ
behavior. Factors that have been shown to affect soil modulus values include:

•• Loading history (as illustrated in Figures 4 and 5, for example).

•• Aging.
•• Cementation.
•• Residual rock structure (in the case of residual soils).

The loading history of clays can be assessed using OCR. However, the other site-specific factors
mentioned above can usually only be assessed in a qualitative sense, and they are not reflected in
engineering soil classifications. This illustrates the value that knowledge of geological conditions
at the site can provide for guiding selection and use of modulus correlations.
One simple but useful tool for judging reliability of a correlation is its standard deviation.
Using the value of standard deviation, confidence limits can be constructed to provide guidance
with regard to modulus values determined using the correlation. If a correlation is assumed to
have either a normal or log-normal distribution, confidence limits vary with standard deviation as
shown in Table 7. Thus selecting a modulus value from the average minus one standard deviation
line in Figure 7 will reduce the possibility that the selected value could be too large from 50%
(for the average line) to 16%.
The method of determining the correlated modulus values should also be considered. The
greatest reliability will be achieved when modulus values back-calculated from field
measurements are used to compute movements for the same or similar type of loading. An ideal
example would be use of modulus values from Figure 4 to estimate settlements of footings or
piers on sand or gravel. The reliability of the settlements calculated in this case would be
expected to be consistent with the standard deviation of the data in Figure 4 (V = 46 tsf [4.4

Foundation Engineering in the Face of Uncertainty

 334 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING IN THE FACE OF UNCERTAINTY

MPa], for preloaded sand, or V = 64 tsf [6.1 MPa], for normally loaded sand or sand and gravel).
For analyses of the dynamic response of the same footing supporting a vibrating machine,
however, these modulus values require adjustment for the smaller strains involved in the dynamic
response, which would be possible using modulus degradation factors from Table 3. However,
this adjustment would introduce additional uncertainty.

Table 7. Relationship between standard deviation and confidence limits.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WASHINGTON UNIV IN ST LOUIS on 09/08/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Number of standard deviations

Corresponding confidence limit
above or below the trend line
±1 84% confidence limit
±2 98% confidence limit
±3 99.9% confidence limit

Using more than one correlation always provides valuable additional information for
selecting soil modulus values, and a basis for judging overall reliability. Thus, although no data
are shown in Tables 4, 5, or 6, they provide useful second opinions for quality control.
A further consideration regarding correlations is the degree of uncertainty involved in the
value of the parameter used as the basis for the correlation, which in Figure 4 is the Standard
Penetration Test blow count. It is well understood that the Standard Penetration Test is in fact not
““standard.”” Harr (1984) and Kulhawy (1992) have shown that the coefficient of variation of SPT
blow count can range from 15% to 45%. This variation should also be considered when Figure 4
is used to estimate modulus values for sand and gravel. Similarly, with other correlations, the
reliability of whatever parameter is used as the basis for the correlation should be considered, as
well as the effect on the degree of confidence in the estimated modulus value.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Soil modulus correlations are useful for geotechnical engineering because they can provide a
meaningful basis for comparison against directly-measured values, and in many situations yield
first-order approximations of modulus values that are suitable for simple elastic solutions and
linear finite element analyses. Obtaining useful soil modulus values from correlations requires
reasoned assessment of the basis, limitations, reliability and accuracy of each correlation used.
Correlations can never be considered to be precise, because of the inevitable differences
between the soils and conditions on which the correlations are based and those to which they are
applied. As a result, a range of modulus values should always be estimated, rather than a single
value. This can be achieved by using two or more correlations rather than just one, by increasing
and decreasing the estimated modulus value by a multiple of the standard deviation in cases
where the standard deviation is known, or by using experience and judgment to estimate how
much higher or lower than the best estimate the modulus value might be for the particular soil and
conditions of interest.
Even though precision can never be expected, the thought process involved in making the
estimate is worthwhile, and having some idea of what is a reasonable value is better than having
no idea at all. In the end, estimating modulus values based on correlations is an art, not a science,
and this art should involve the use of all available data, experience and judgment.

Foundation Engineering in the Face of Uncertainty

 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING IN THE FACE OF UNCERTAINTY 335

REFERENCES

Arango, I. (2012). Personal communication.

Darendeli, M.B. (2001). ““Development of a new family of normalized modulus reduction and
material damping curves.”” Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, Austin, TX.
D'Appolonia, D.J., D'Appolonia, E. & Brissette, R.F. (1970). ““Settlement of spread footings on
sand (Closure).”” J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., 96(SM2), 754-761.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WASHINGTON UNIV IN ST LOUIS on 09/08/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Duncan, J.M., & Bursey, A. (2007). ““Soil and Rock Modulus Correlations for Geotechnical
Engineering,”” Center for Geotechnical Practice and Research, Virginia Tech, 71 pp.
Duncan, J.M., Byrne, P., Wong, K.S. & Mabry, P. (1980). ““Strength, Stress-Strain, and Bulk
Modulus Parameters for Finite Element Analysis of Stresses and Movements in Soil
Masses.”” Report UCB/GT/80-01, Department of Civil Engineering, University of California,
Berkeley, CA.
Duncan, J.M., & Chang, C.-Y. (1970). ““Nonlinear analysis of stress and strain in soils.”” J. Soil
Mech. Found. Div., 96(5), 1629-1653.
Duncan, J.M. & Mokwa, R.L. (2001). ““Passive earth pressures: theories and tests.”” J. Geotech. &
Geoenv. Eng. 127(3), 248-257.
Duncan, J.M. & Wong, K.S. (1999). ““User's Manual for SAGE: Volume II - Soil Properties
Manual.”” Report of a study sponsored by the Center for Geotechnical Practice and Research,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA.
Harr, M.E. (1984). ‘‘‘‘Reliability-based design in civil engineering.’’’’ 1984 Henry M. Shaw
Lecture, Dept. of Civil Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, N.C.
Ishibashi, I. (1992). ““Effect of Soil Plasticity on Cyclic Response (Discussion).”” J. of Geotech.
Eng, 118(5), 830-832.
Jaeger, J.C. (1962). ““Elasticity, Fracture and Flow.”” John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 208 pp.
Janbu, N. (1963). ““Soil compressibility as determined by oedometer and triaxial tests.”” Proc.,
European Conference of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Eng., Wiesbaden, Vol. 1, 19-25.
Janbu, N. (1967). ““Settlement Calculations Based on Tangent Modulus Concept.”” Bulletin No. 2,
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering Series, The Technical University of Norway,
Trondheim, Norway.
Janbu, N. (1985). ““Soil models in offshore engineering.”” Géotechnique, 25th Rankine Lecture,
35(3).
Kulhawy, F.H., & Mayne, P.W. (1990). ““Manual on Estimating Soil Properties for Foundation
Design.”” Final Report for Project 1493-6, EPRI EL-6800, Electric Power Research Institute,
Palo Alto, California, Prepared by Cornell University, Geotechnical Engineering Group,
Ithaca, NY.
Kulhawy, F.H. (1992). ‘‘‘‘On the evaluation of soil properties.’’’’ GSP No. 31, Stability and
Performance of Slopes and Embankments-II, A 25-Year Perspective , R.B. Seed and R.W.
Boulanger, eds.,95––115.
Lambe, T.W. & Whitman, R.V. (1969). Soil Mechanics, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.
Mayne, P.W. & Rix, G.J. (1993). ““Gmax and qc relationships for clays.”” ASTM Geotech. Test. J.,
16(1), 54-60.
Sabatini, P. J., Bachus, R.C., Mayne, P.W., Schneider, J.A. & Zettler, T.E. (2002). ““Geotechnical
Engineering Circular Number 5: Evaluation of Soil and Rock Properties.”” Report FHWA-IF-
02-034, GeoSyntec Consultants report sponsored by U.S. DOT, Office of Bridge
Technology, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.
Seed, H.B. & Idriss, I.M. (1970). ““Soil Moduli and Damping Factors for Dynamic Response
Analyses.”” Report EERC-70-10, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of
California, Berkeley, CA.

Foundation Engineering in the Face of Uncertainty

 336 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING IN THE FACE OF UNCERTAINTY

Stokoe, K.H., II, Joh, S.H. & Woods, R.D. (2004), ““Some Contributions of In Situ Geophysical
Measurements to Solving Geotechnical Engineering Problems.”” 2nd International
Conference on Site Characterization (ISC-2), Porto, Portugal, September.
Tan, C.K., Duncan, J.M., Rojiani, K.B. & Barker, R.M. (1991). ““Engineering Manual for Shallow
Foundations.”” National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP Project 24-4).
Sponsored by American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials and
Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC..
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WASHINGTON UNIV IN ST LOUIS on 09/08/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Vucetic, M. & Dobry, R. (1991). ““Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic response.”” J. Geotech. Eng.,
117(1), 89-107.

Foundation Engineering in the Face of Uncertainty