SOILS AND FOUNDATIONS Vol. 49, No. 4, 545–556, Aug.

2009
Japanese Geotechnical Society

ESTIMATION OF THE SMALL-STRAIN STIFFNESS OF

CLEAN AND SILTY SANDS USING STRESS-STRAIN
CURVES AND CPT CONE RESISTANCE

JUNHWAN LEEi), DOOHYUN KYUNGii), BUMJOO KIMiii) and MONICA PREZZIiv)

ABSTRACT
The initial, linear elastic range of a soil stress-strain curve is often deˆned by the small-strain elastic modulus E0 or
shear modulus G0. In the present study, simpler and eŠective methods are proposed for the estimation of the small-
strain stiŠness of clean and silty sands; these are based on triaxial compression test results and the CPT cone resistance
qc. In the method based on stress-strain curves obtained from triaxial compression tests, an extrapolation technique is
adopted within the small-strain range of a transformed stress-strain curve to obtain estimates of the small-strain elastic
modulus. Calculated small-strain elastic modulus values were compared with the values measured using bender ele-
ment tests performed on clean sands and sands containing nonplastic ˆnes. The results showed that the method
proposed produces satisfactory estimates of the small-strain elastic modulus for practical purposes. In the CPT-based
method, two G0-qc correlations available in the literature were evaluated. For isotropic conditions, both correlations
produced reasonably good estimates of G0 for clean sands but overestimated it for silty sands. A G0-qc correlation
which is proposed takes into account the eŠect of silt content of the sand and stress anisotropy.

Key words: cone resistance, horizontal eŠective stress, hyperbolic stress-strain curve, modulus degradation, silt con-
tent, small-strain elastic modulus, triaxial tests (IGC: D6/E2)

have been used most of the time. Laboratory determina-

INTRODUCTION tion of shear wave velocity requires somewhat sophisti-
It is well known that the stress-strain response of soil is cated testing devices and high-accuracy data acquisition
highly nonlinear. The nonlinear stress-strain curve from systems. In situ evaluation of shear wave velocity mea-
the origin to the peak in the stress-strain plot may be surements is well established, and various techniques, in-
divided into the following two representative stages: the cluding down-hole, cross-hole and Spectral Analysis of
small-strain linear elastic range and the nonlinear elastic Shear Wave (SASW) tests, have been developed. While in
range ending at the peak state. Post-peak softening may situ evaluation of shear wave velocity measurements ap-
be observed as well. Within the initial linear elastic range, pears to be more appropriate for G0 estimation, it re-
the soil behaves as a linear elastic material, and induced quires values of the soil density, which are highly variable
strains are fully recoverable. The initial linear elastic in natural soil deposits. Although other geophysical tech-
range can be represented by the small-strain modulus ( E0 niques, such as well logging tests, may be used for the es-
or G0 ). After the initial linear elastic range, the stress- timation of in situ soil density, they require calibration
strain curve becomes highly nonlinear with the modulus and a methodology for interpretation of the test results.
degrading as a function of stress or strain level (Shibuya Various empirical correlations have been proposed for
et al., 1992; Fahey and Carter, 1993; Lee and Salgado, the estimation of G0. The correlations can be grouped
2000). into property-based methods (Hardin and Black, 1966;
A number of experimental and empirical methods have Yu and Richart, 1984), which utilize intrinsic and state
been proposed for the estimation of the small-strain shear soil variables, and in situ correlations based on ˆeld test
modulus G0 (Hardin and Black, 1966; Yu and Richart, results, such as the SPT blow count number N and the
1984; Robertson and Campanella, 1983; Baldi et al., CPT cone resistance qc (Imai and Tonouchi, 1982;
1989; Viggiani and Atkinson, 1995). In the case of the ex- Robertson and Campanella, 1983; Rix and Stokoe,
perimental methods, shear wave velocity measurements 1991). The property-based methods are simpler to use
i)
Associate Professor, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea (junlee＠yonsei.ac.kr).
ii)
Graduate Research Assistant, ditto.
iii)
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Dongguk University, Seoul, Korea.
iv)
Associate Professor, School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, USA.
The manuscript for this paper was received for review on March 24, 2008; approved on June 8, 2009.
Written discussions on this paper should be submitted before March 1, 2010 to the Japanese Geotechnical Society, 4-38-2, Sengoku, Bunkyo-
ku, Tokyo 112-0011, Japan. Upon request the closing date may be extended one month.

545

This is an Open Access article under the CC-BY-NC-ND license.

546 LEE ET AL.

and produce reasonable estimates of G0 when the soil

properties and correlation parameters are known a priori.
If either intrinsic or state soil variables are not known,
which happens frequently in the ˆeld, the property-based
methods are no longer applicable. In such cases, use of in
situ test results would be more appropriate. This ap-
proach, however, requires the development of reliable
correlations between G0 and in situ test measurements for
various soil types.
In the present study, two methods are proposed for the
estimation of the small-strain modulus: one is based on
the stress-strain relationship obtained from conventional
triaxial compression tests without measurement of the
small-strain response using wave-related testing devices,
and, the other, on the CPT cone resistance qc. In the ˆrst
method, transformed stress-strain curves are investigat-
ed, and an extrapolation technique within the small-
strain range is adopted to estimate E0. In the development
of the second method, a careful evaluation, for various
soils and stress states, of two existing correlations be-
tween G0 and qc was performed. Estimates of G0 obtained
using these correlations were compared with estimates of
G0 obtained from bender element test results and an em-
pirical, property-based equation that has been widely
veriˆed. Based on this careful evaluation, a correlation
between G0 and qc is proposed that takes into account the
silt content of the sand and stress anisotropy, two factors
that are not accounted for in the afore-mentioned G0-qc
correlations. Fig. 1. Hyperbolic stress-strain relationship: (a) stress-strain curve
and (b) stress-strain curve in transformed space

NONLINEAR STRESS-STRAIN CURVE AND

MODULUS DEGRADATION as the failure ratio, relating the limit stress tlim of the
It is well known that the stress-strain behaviour of soil original nonlinear stress-strain curve to the actual shear
is highly nonlinear from the very early stages of loading. stress of soil at failure tf:
Nonlinear soil models have been widely used to represent
tf＝Rftlim (2)
such nonlinear soil behaviour over a wide range of
strains. Since Kondner (1963) ˆrst proposed the original The modiˆed hyperbolic equation is then written as:
hyperbolic equation for the stress-strain relationship of
g
soil, several modiˆcations have been suggested (Duncan t＝ (3)
and Chang, 1970; Fahey and Carter, 1993; Tatsuoka et 1 g・Rf
＋
al., 1993; Lee and Salgado, 2000). The hyperbolic equa- Gi tf
tion proposed by Kondner (1963) is written as: where Gi is the initial tangent shear modulus, t and g are
the current shear stress and strain, respectively. Using t＝
g
t＝ (1) G・g, Eq. (3) can be rewritten as:
a ＋ bg
G t
where t and g are the shear stress and strain; and a and b ＝ 1－ R f (4)
Gi tf
are the material constants that deˆne the stress-strain
curve. Figure 1 shows stress-strain curves in the original where G＝secant shear modulus. According to Duncan
and transformed spaces. For the hyperbolic stress-strain and Chang (1970), Rf is typically in the range of 0.75–1.0.
relationship given by Eq. (1), the parameters a and b in If Eq. (4) is applied to triaxial compression stress-strain
Fig. 1 represent the reciprocal of the initial tangent shear curves, then Eq. (4) can be rewritten as:
modulus Gi and of the asymptotic value of the limit shear E (s?1 －s?3 )
stress tlim. ＝1－ Rf (5)
Ei (s?1 －s?3 )f
Figure 1 and Eq. (1) show that considerable strain is
required for the stress-strain curve to reach tlim. In order where E＝secant Young's modulus; Ei＝initial tangent
to ˆt a nonlinear relationship to a real soil stress-strain Young's modulus; (s?1 －s?3 )＝deviatoric stress; (s?1 －s?3 )f
curve, Duncan and Chang (1970) modiˆed Eq. (1) by in- ＝deviatoric stress at failure.
troducing a material parameter Rf into it. Rf is referred to Equation (4) implies linear degradation of the soil stiŠ-
 SMALL-STRAIN ELASTIC MODULUS
ness from its initial maximum value G0. However, the
degradation of the elastic modulus obtained experimen-
tally for real soils under static or quasi-static loading is
not linear. In order to describe more realistically the
modulus degradation relationship, Fahey and Carter
(1993) and Lee and Salgado (2000) proposed modiˆed
hyperbolic models for 2D and 3D conditions, respec-
tively, as follows:
Ø »
g
G t
＝1－f (6)
G0 tmax
＝« －f Ø » $ Ø I »
g ng
G J－ J 2 I 20 1
1 (7)
G 0 J － J 2max 20 10
where J2, J20, and J2max are the second invariants of the
deviatoric stress tensor at the current, initial, and failure
states, respectively; I1 and I10 are the ˆrst invariants of the
stress tensor at the current and initial states, respectively;
and ng is the material constant. The parameter f in Eqs.
(6) and (7) has the same role as Rf in Eq. (4). The
parameter g determines the shape of the degradation
curve as a function of stress level. G0 is used in Eqs. (6)
and (7), whereas Gi is used in Eq. (4). As mentioned
previously, Gi is obtained from the transformed hyper-
bolic curve shown in Fig. 1. If the stress-strain curve of
Eq. (3) and the modulus degradation relationship given
by Eq. (4) in fact represented the actual stress-strain
response of soils, then Gi would be the same as G0. As will
be discussed later, however, Gi is signiˆcantly diŠerent
from G0.
SMALL-STRAIN MODULUS
The small-strain shear modulus G0 is a state soil varia-
ble that is observed for strains in the range of 10－6 to 10－5
for sands. Within this small-strain range, soil behaves as
a linear-elastic material and strains are recoverable. The
corresponding Young's modulus is denoted by E0. As G0
is a state soil variable, its value is constant for a given soil
condition, regardless of the nature of the loading type
(Shibuya et al., 1992).
There are a number of ways to estimate G0 for a given
soil and stress state. These may be grouped into in situ
tests, laboratory tests, and empirical equations (Yu and
Richart, 1984; Baldi et al., 1989; Viggiani and Atkinson,
1995). While the laboratory tests allow accurate determi-
nation of the shear wave velocity Vs, these are still consi-
dered costly for use in routine projects as they require
complex testing systems speciˆcally designed to measure
the wave propagation characteristics or other small-strain
soil properties. In experimental approaches using shear
wave velocity measurements, G0 is determined from the
following relationship:
G0＝r(Vs )2 (8)
where r＝total mass density of the medium through
which the shear wave propagates. Values of r are known
with certainty in laboratory tests. In the ˆeld, while rela-
tive evaluation of soil density using geophysical tech-
547
niques such as well logging tests would be possible, iden-
tiˆcation of absolute values of soil density requires a
calibration procedure.
Empirical equations can be used to estimate G0 if the
relevant soil parameters are known. Most of the empiri-
cal equations proposed for the estimation of G0 are based
on either soil properties or in situ test results such as the
SPT blow count number N or the CPT cone resistance qc
(Hardin and Black, 1966; Robertson and Campanella,
1983; Yu and Richart, 1984; Rix and Stokoe, 1991). The
property-based empirical equations are generally ex-
pressed as:
Ø »
n
G0 s?m
＝CF(e) (9)
pA pA
where pA＝reference stress＝100 kPa; C and n are non-
dimensional material constants; F(e) is the function of
the void ratio; s?m is the mean eŠective stress. An example
of a property-based empirical equation is that suggested
by Hardin and Black (1966) and given by:
Ø » Ø »
ng
G0 (eg－e)2 s?m
＝Cg (10)
pA 1 ＋ e pA
where Cg, eg and ng are the intrinsic soil variables that de-
pend only on the nature of the soil and e is the initial void
ratio.
Application of Eq. (10) is limited as values of the in-
trinsic soil variables are likely to be unknown for in situ
soils. In such cases, the use of in situ test results would be
more appropriate since estimation of these variables is
not necessary. This approach, however, requires the de-
velopment and validation of correlations between G0 and
in situ test measurements for various soil conditions.
ESTIMATION OF ELASTIC MODULUS BASED ON
TRANSFORMED STRESS-STRAIN CURVES
Transformed Stress-Strain Curves
In this section, a methodology to estimate the small-
strain elastic modulus based on conventional triaxial
compression stress-strain curves is proposed. For this
purpose, triaxial compression test results by Salgado et
al. (2000) and Lee et al. (2004) are adopted. The drained
triaxial compression tests were performed under static
conditions using a CKC automatic triaxial testing system
(Chan, 1981). The soil samples were prepared with the
slurry deposition method of Kuerbis and Vaid (1988). All
triaxial tests were performed for isotropically-consolidat-
ed soil samples at strain rates that were slow enough to al-
low full dissipation of pore pressures during loading. The
soil samples used in the triaxial compression tests were
mixtures of Ottawa sand and nonplastic silt (silt contents
sco equal to 0, 2, 5, 10, 15, and 20z by weight) prepared
in a wide range of relative densities ( DR＝10 to 100z).
Conˆning stresses (s?c ) ranging from 100 to 500 kPa were
used in these tests.
G0 was measured with bender element (BE) tests. The
BE tests were performed using a wave generator and
receiver (the bender elements) attached at the base
548 LEE ET AL.

Table 1. Basic properties of Ottawa sand with diŠerent silt contents (after Salgado et al., 2000)

Silt content (z) gmin (kN/m3) gmax (kN/m 3) emin emax Cg eg ng qc

0 14.59 17.55 0.48 0.78 611 2.17 0.44 29.59

2 15.18 17.91 0.45 0.71 514 2.17 0.58 29.69
5 15.28 18.29 0.42 0.70 453 2.17 0.46 31.09
10 15.74 19.09 0.36 0.65 354 2.17 0.58 32.09
15 (DRÀ38z) 15.93 19.67 0.32 0.63 238 2.17 0.75 32.59
15 (DRº38z) 15.93 19.67 0.32 0.63 238 2.17 0.75 32.59
20 (DRÀ59z) 16.03 20.13 0.29 0.62 270 2.17 0.69 33.09
20 (DRº59z) 16.03 20.13 0.29 0.62 207 2.17 0.81 33.09

pedestal and top platen of the triaxial apparatus (Salgado
et al., 2000; Lee et al., 2004). The BE tests were per-
formed after consolidation for a number of triaxial sam-
ples. G0 values for these samples were obtained using Eq.
(8). The shear wave velocity from the test was measured
from the eŠective length of the test sample (i.e., the dis-
tance between tips of the bender elements) and the travel
time of the shear wave identiˆed from the ˆrst arrival of
the signal generated by the source bender element. Ac-
cording to Viggiani and Atkinson (1995), possible errors
in G0 values from the BE tests could be up to 15z, in ex-
treme cases. The errors are mainly due to deviation from
1-D wave propagation, wave interference at the caps, and
diŠerent time delays between the generation of the electri-
cal signal and its transformation into a mechanical pulse
(Salgado et al., 2000). As indicated by Arulnathan et al.
(1998), these factors sometimes compensate each other,
while sometimes they do not. Therefore, it can be said
that values of G0 from the BE tests considered in this
E0 versus Ei calculated following Duncan and Chang's
procedure. As shown in Fig. 4, the initial tangent elastic
modulus obtained from Duncan and Chang's procedure
is signiˆcantly smaller than the measured small-strain
elastic modulus. The degree of underestimation depends
on the relative density of the sand. Figure 5(a) shows Ei
/E0 ratios as a function of DR. From Fig. 5(a), it is seen
that the denser the soil, the higher the values of Ei/E0.
This indicates that, as the soil becomes more dilative, the
underprediction of the small-strain modulus by Duncan
and Chang's (1970) procedure becomes less pronounced.
Such tendency can be more clearly observed in Fig. 5(b).
According to Bolton (1986), the dilatancy of sands,
which is essentially controlled by relative density and con-
ˆning stress can be quantiˆed using the dilatancy index IR
as follows:
«
IR＝ID Q－ln Ø 100s?mp
pA » $－R (11)

paper may include errors of up to 15z, while the actual where ID＝relative density as a number between 0 and 1;
errors are likely to be smaller due to the self-compensat- pA＝reference stress＝100 kPa; s?mp＝mean eŠective stress
ing eŠects (Salgado et al., 2000). Other basic properties of at peak strength (in the same units as pA ); and Q and R＝
the test sands used in the triaxial and bender element tests intrinsic soil variables. Values of Q and R for the clean
are given in Table 1. and silty sands tested are given by Salgado et al. (2000)
Figure 2 shows the stress-strain, modulus degradation, and Lee et al. (2004). As shown in Fig. 5(b), the degree of
and transformed stress-strain curves obtained from underprediction of the small-strain modulus obtained
drained triaxial compression tests performed on two with Duncan and Chang's procedure becomes less
clean sand (i.e., sco＝0z) samples with DR＝38 and 63z pronounced with increasing IR.
at s?3 ＝400 kPa (tests were also performed for other sands The diŠerence between Ei and E0 can be attributed to
with diŠerent conˆning stress). In Fig. 2(b), the secant the inability of the hyperbolic relationship to represent
elastic modulus E was normalized with respect to E0 (the the rate of modulus degradation in the small-strain range.
small-strain elastic modulus obtained from the bender The transformed stress-strain relationship shown in Fig.
element tests). As expected, the denser sand sample 1 is given by:
shows higher strength and lower modulus degradation
e
rate at a given stress level. The curves shown in Fig. 2(c) ＝ a ＋ be (12)
s
were plotted until the peak strength was reached (axial
strain levels of around 15.7 and 4.7z were observed for The initial tangent elastic modulus is then deˆned as
the sand samples with DR＝38 and 63z, respectively). (Tatsuoka et al., 1993):
Figure 3 shows measured peak deviatoric stresses s?d, p
d ( e /s ) 1 Rf
versus those calculated using Eqs. (1) and (3) by Kondner lim ＝ b＝ ＝ (13)
eª / de slim sf
(1963) and Duncan and Chang (1970), respectively. As
shown in Fig. 3, both approaches are in reasonably good
e 1
agreement with the measured values of s?d, p. lim ＝a＝ (14)
eª 0 s E0
Determination of Small-Strain Elastic Modulus from where s and e are the axial stress and strain; slim is the
Transformed Stress-Strain Curves limit axial stress as deˆned in Fig. 1; and sf is the axial
Figure 4 shows measured small-strain elastic modulus stress at failure. If the stress-strain curves of the soils fol-
 SMALL-STRAIN ELASTIC MODULUS 549

Fig. 3. Measured and calculated peak deviatoric stresses using (a)

Kondner's procedure and (b) Duncan and Chang's procedure

Fig. 2. Stress-strain responses of clean sand samples prepared at

diŠerent relative densities: (a) stress-strain curves, (b) modulus
degradation curves and (c) transformed stress-strain curves

lowed well the hyperbolic relationship of Eq. (12), then

the transformed stress-strain curve (as shown in Fig.
1(b)) would be linear in e/s (or g/t ) vs. e (or g) space,
and Eqs. (12) and (14) would be deˆned by constant Fig. 4. Values of Ei calculated with the hyperbolic model versus E0
values of a and b. This is, however, not observed in the from bender element tests
stress-strain curves of typical soils, as in the small-strain
range, the transformed stress-strain relationship is not
linear (Shibuya et al., 1992).
550
Fig. 5. Ei/E0 ratios vs. (a) relative density and (b) dilatancy index
Figure 6 shows typical stress-strain curves obtained
from triaxial compression tests and transformed stress-
strain curves. As shown in Fig. 6, a stress-strain curve
referred to as type A represents a stress-strain curve
which is well reproduced by the hyperbolic relationship,
except within an initial portion of the small-strain range
(a curved shape is observed only initially, as shown in Fig.
6(b)); this is due to a higher degree of modulus degrada-
tion than that deˆned by the conventional hyperbolic
function given by Eqs. (4) and (5). For a stress-strain
curve as the one referred to as type B in the ˆgure, a rela-
tively linear stress-strain response exists before the peak,
and the transformed stress-strain curve shows a concave
upward portion, as shown in Fig. 6(b). In both cases,
values obtained using Duncan and Chang's (1970) proce-
dure do not correspond to E0 or G0 values due to the cur-
vature in the initial portion of the transformed hyperbolic
stress-strain curve. It can be concluded that, if a proce-
dure is capable of predicting values of a compatible with
the initial linear-elastic strain range, then realistic values
of the small-strain elastic modulus can also be found
from these stress-strain curves.
LEE ET AL.
Fig. 6. DiŠerent types of stress-strain responses: (a) original stress-
strain curves and (b) transformed stress-strain curves
In order to evaluate values of the parameter corre-
sponding to the small-strain modulus, the nonlinear por-
tion of the transformed stress-strain curves (i.e., see the
region I in Fig. 6(b)) needs to be examined in detail. As
conventional triaxial testing systems cannot accurately
measure soil response within the initial, linear-elastic
strain range (typically up to 10－6–10－5 ), the initial, non-
linear portion of the transformed hyperbolic stress-strain
curves were reverse-extended down to a strain level equal
to zero using an extrapolation technique. From the ex-
trapolation procedure, modiˆed values of the parameter
a (referred to as a*) were determined.
Figure 7 shows an example of the extrapolation proce-
dure used in the determination of the parameter a*. Note
that adoption of a fairly well deˆned initial stress-strain
curve and an appropriate extrapolation function is key
for successful implementation of this approach. In this
paper, a 2nd-order polynomial function was adopted for
the extrapolation of the stress-strain response within the
small-strain range. As shown in Fig. 7, the parameter a*
obtained with the extrapolation method (Fig. 7(b)) is
equal to 0.0005978, while the parameter a obtained with
the Duncan and Chang's approach is equal to 0.0039
 SMALL-STRAIN ELASTIC MODULUS
Fig. 7. Determination of the parameters a and a* for calculation of
the initial small-strain elastic modulus with (a) Duncan and
Chang's method and (b) extrapolation method proposed
(Fig. 7(a)). The 2nd order polynomial regression curve
shown in Fig. 7(b) is given by:
e which is beyond the initial, linear elastic range. Duncan
＝－0.0279e2＋0.0157e＋0.0005978 (15)
(s?1 －s?3 )
The values of a*＝0.0005978 and a＝0.0039 correspond
to values of the initial tangent elastic modulus Ei equal to
167.3 and 25.6 MPa, respectively. The measured E0 value
for this case is equal to 187.3 MPa.
A suitable range of well deˆned initial strain data
should be used in the extrapolation procedure proposed
in this paper since values of a* are sensitive to the strain
range considered and the quality of the strain data. If the
upper bound of the strain range considered in the ex-
trapolation procedure is too large, a* will approach the
value of a obtained with Duncan and Chang's procedure,
and, hence, result in underestimation of the small-strain
elastic modulus. Based on the results of this study, the
upper bound of the strain range considered in the ex-
trapolation procedure should be about 0.2–0.25z to
produce reasonably satisfactory estimates of E0. The
proposed extrapolation procedure is further evaluated in
551
the next section.
Comparison of Measured and Calculated Small-Strain
Elastic Modulus
In order to evaluate the extrapolation method
proposed in this paper, values of the small-strain elastic
modulus obtained from triaxial compression tests com-
bined with bender element tests were compared with
values calculated with the procedure outlined in the previ-
ous section, the method of Duncan and Chang (1970),
and the tangent method. In the case of the tangent
method, the initial elastic modulus was estimated from
simple calculation of the initial tangent modulus using
the ˆrst numerical data point of the stress-strain response
obtained from triaxial compression tests (note that the
tangent method is not considered reliable as it is aŠected
by experimental noise). As discussed earlier, if measure-
ment of stresses and strains within the linear-elastic range
were available, then the tangent method would produce
virtually the same value for the small-strain elastic modu-
lus that would be obtained using other methods such as
the resonant column and bender element tests. However,
when a conventional triaxial test system is used with a
typical strain increment equal to more or less 0.1z, the
ˆrst stress-strain data point is beyond the linear elastic
range. The bedding error observed between the soil sam-
ple and the top and bottom platens also contributes sig-
niˆcantly to the diŠerence between the small-strain
modulus values measured with diŠerent techniques
(Shibuya et al., 1992).
Figure 8 compares the measured values of the small-
strain elastic modulus E0 with those calculated using
diŠerent methods. Results from the proposed method are
shown in Fig. 8(a). While some scatter is observed, ap-
proximately 80z of the data points (82 data points from
a total of 101 data points) fall within the ±30z bounds.
The tangent method results are shown in Fig. 8(b). It
underestimates the small-strain elastic modulus because,
as indicated earlier, it is based on the ˆrst data point,
and Chang's procedure also underestimates the actual
values of the small-strain elastic modulus. As seen in Fig.
8(c), the modulus values calculated with Duncan and
Chang's procedure are signiˆcantly smaller than the
measured values (no data points were higher than ap-
proximately 15z of E0 ). This is because the hyperbolic
model neglects the existence of the initial, linear elastic
range and does not adequately represent the rate of
modulus degradation in the small-strain range. Based on
these results, it can be concluded that the method
proposed in this paper, which is based on a simple ex-
trapolation procedure applied to conventional triaxial
compression test data, can be used eŠectively to estimate
the small-strain modulus for practical purposes, particu-
larly when equipment with small-strain measurement
capability is unavailable. However, use of the bender ele-
ment technique or high-resolution internal strain measur-
ing devices is always preferable to obtain more accurate
modulus estimates.
552 LEE ET AL.
Fig. 8. Measured and calculated small-strain elastic modulus obtained
from (a) extrapolation method proposed, (b) tangent method and
(c) Duncan and Chang's method
The performance of the proposed method was quite
consistent for the sands with diŠerent silt contents (see
Fig. 8(a)) considered in this paper, indicating that the
proposed method is applicable to sands containing diŠer-
ent silt contents without additional correction proce-
dures. The stress-strain curves from the triaxial compres-
sion tests depend on the silt content of the sample, and
thus the initial portion of the stress-strain curves (used in
the extrapolation procedure) also includes the eŠect of
silt content.
DETERMINATION OF SMALL-STRAIN SHEAR
MODULUS FROM CPT CONE RESISTANCE
Correlations between G0 and qc
Determination of the small-strain shear modulus in the
laboratory requires sample preparation and test proce-
dures that reproduce in situ conditions. When collection
of soil samples is not a possibility, use of in situ tests is an
option that can be considered. Several correlations have
been proposed between the small-strain shear modulus
and cone resistance qc (Robertson and Campanella, 1983;
Rix and Stokoe, 1991). However, there are di‹culties in
establishing reliable correlations between G0 and qc, as qc
is related essentially to the shear strength that is mobi-
lized at large strains, whereas G0 is a small-strain proper-
ty. Nonetheless, both these quantities depend on similar
soil variables, that is, relative density and stress state.
Robertson and Campanella (1983) proposed the fol-
lowing relationship between qc and G0:
Ø »
0.389
G0 pA
＝ G1 (16)
qc qc
where G1＝correlation parameter＝50; and pA＝reference
stress＝100 kPa＝1 bar. Originally, Eq. (16) was
proposed in terms of the SPT blow count N by Imai and
Tonouchi (1982). It was later modiˆed by Robertson and
Campanella (1983) by converting N to qc. The relation-
ship between qc and G0 of Rix and Stokoe (1991), on the
other hand, can be given in a normalized form as follows:
Ø »
－ 0.75
G0 qc pA
＝G2 (17)
qc pA s?v0
where s?v0＝initial vertical eŠective stress; and G2＝corre-
lation parameter＝290; and pA＝reference stress＝100
kPa. The units in Eqs. (16) and (17) are the same as the
units of pA.
Measured and Calculated Small-Strain Shear Modulus
Figure 9 shows measured G0/qc ratios for the triaxial
test dataset used in this study as a function of qc (Fig.
9(a)) and qc/(s?v0 )0.5 (Fig. 9(b)). Curves corresponding to
Eqs. (16) and (17) by Robertson and Campanella (1983)
and Rix and Stokoe (1991) were also plotted in Figs. 9(a)
and (b), respectively. The cone resistance qc for the soil
states in the triaxial compression tests was calculated us-
ing the cone resistance analysis program CONPOINT,
which has been extensively veriˆed (Salgado and Ran-
dolph, 2001). As shown in Fig. 9, for clean sands, both
correlations produce a reasonably good prediction of G0.
For silty sands, however, these correlations do not seem
to work well, as G0/qc ratios plot much below the predict-
 SMALL-STRAIN ELASTIC MODULUS
Fig. 9. G0/qc ratios plotted with results from the correlations by (a)
Robertson and Campanella (1983) and (b) Rix and Stokoe (1991)
ed curves shown in Fig. 9.
The curves and data shown in Fig. 9 indicate that an
additional factor that needs to be accounted for in corre-
lations between G0 and qc is the ˆnes content of the sand.
As can be seen in Fig. 9, both correlations overestimate
the small-strain shear modulus of silty sands. This is be-
cause G0 and qc are aŠected by the silt content (sco ) of the
sand in a diŠerent way. According to Salgado et al.
(2000), the small-strain shear modulus decreases with in-
creasing silt content while the shear strength (i.e., peak
friction angle q?p ) increases; this is due primarily to a
higher degree of particle interlocking. The increase of
shear strength with increasing silt content would produce
higher cone resistance qc and thus, as a result, lower
values of G0/qc.
Based on the triaxial compression test results of Salga-
do et al. (2000) and Lee et al. (2004), new values for the
correlation parameters G1 and G2 were proposed in order
to take into account in Eqs. (16) and (17) the eŠect of the
silt content of the sand. Figure 10 shows values of G1 and
G2 obtained in this study as a function of sco. As shown in
Fig. 10, G1 and G2 decrease with increasing silt content
553
Fig. 10. Values of the correlation parameters G1 and G2 for sand con-
taining diŠerent silt contents
sco. From Fig. 10, equations for G1 and G2 were found in
terms of sco as follows:
G1＝25・e－0.24・s ＋25co
(18)
G2＝150・e－0.23・s ＋140 co
(19)
Figure 11 compares measured versus calculated G0
values for the same triaxial test datasets shown in Fig. 9.
G0 values were calculated with Eqs. (16) and (17), and G1
and G2 were calculated with Eqs. (18) and (19). Figure 11
shows that satisfactory estimates of the measured small-
strain shear modulus can be obtained by using the corre-
lation parameters presented in Fig. 10 in Eqs. (16) and
(17). Note that the G1 and G2 values given in Fig. 10 were
obtained from triaxial compression samples that were
consolidated to an isotropic stress condition (i.e., s?v0＝
s?h0 ). Further research should be conducted to obtain cor-
relation parameters that take into account anisotropic
stress states, which are most often found in practice. In
addition, these correlation parameters are valid only for
silty sands with properties similar to the ones considered
in this study.
EŠect of Anisotropic Stress State
It is known that values of the cone resistance qc are
predominantly in‰uenced by the horizontal eŠective
stress s?h rather than by the vertical eŠective stress s?v
(Houlsby and Hitchman, 1988). The small-strain shear
modulus G0 on the other hand is in‰uenced by the mean
eŠective stress s?m, re‰ecting eŠects of both s?v and s?h
(Hardin and Black, 1966; Iwasaki and Tatsuoka, 1977;
Robertson and Campanella, 1983; Ghionna et al., 1994).
Stress anisotropy therefore is another factor to be ad-
dressed in correlations between G0 and qc.
In order to investigate the eŠect of anisotropic stress
states, a total of 60 soil state conditions were considered
for clean and silty sands. DiŠerent values were considered
for the relative density (30z and 70z) of the sand and
the lateral earth pressure coe‹cient K0 (0.4 and 0.8).
Table 2 shows the stress and soil conditions used in the
calculations. Basic properties of the clean sand and silty
sand mixtures were assumed to be those given in Table 1.
For each case, values of G0 and qc were obtained using
Eq. (10) and CONPOINT (Salgado and Randolph,
554 LEE ET AL.

Fig. 12. Values of G0/qc for the conditions given in Table 2, as well as
those from Eq. (17)

2001), respectively. The parameters required as input in

Eq. (10) and CONPOINT are given in Table 1 (Salgado
et al., 2000; Lee et al., 2004). As Eq. (10) and CON-
POINT have been extensively veriˆed, values of G0 and qc
obtained as outlined in this paper represent closely those
that would be measured in situ for the corresponding soil
type and soil state conditions considered.
Figure 12 shows values of G0/qc for the stress and soil
conditions given in Table 2 as a function of qc/(s?v0 )0.5, as
well as the curves given by Eqs. (17) and (19). Some
diŠerences are still observed in Fig. 12 between the data
points of G0/qc and the correlation curves of Eqs. (17)
and (19). Contrasting these results with those presented in
Fig. 9, one can conclude that these diŠerences can be at-
tributed to the diŠerent initial stress states considered:
isotropic (i.e., K0＝1.0 with constant conˆning stress s?3 )
in the triaxial compression tests and anisotropic (i.e., K0
º1.0) for the stress states considered in the calculations
Fig. 11. Measured and calculated small-strain shear modulus using the
correlations by (a) Robertson and Campanella (1983) and (b) Rix ( see Table 2).
and Stokoe (1991) (calculations were done using the correlation As G0 and qc are governed by diŠerent stress compo-
parameters given in Fig. 10) nents, the correlation of Eq. (17) was further investigated
with respect to diŠerent stress components of s?v0, s?h0,
and s??m0. From the investigation of all the cases in Table
Table 2. Stress and soil conditions used to obtain the G0-qc correlation 2, it was found that the correlation based on s?m0 produces
proposed improved predictions with less data scatter. This is be-
K0＝0.4 K0＝0.8 cause G0 and qc represent dependencies on diŠerent stress
sco DR
(z) (z ) components and, therefore, eŠects of both s?v0 and s?h0
s?v0 (kPa) s?h0 (kPa) s?v0 (kPa) s?h0 (kPa)
need to be included in the correlation. Based on the
250 100 125 100 results of this study, a modiˆed version of the G0-qc cor-
0 30, 70 500 200 250 200 relation of Eq. (17) is proposed:
750 300 375 300

Ø »
－ 0.75
250 100 125 100 G0 qc pA
5 30, 70 500 200 250 200 ＝ G3 (20)
qc pA s?m0
750 300 375 300
250 100 125 100
10 30, 70 500 200 250 200 G3＝110・e－0.23・s ＋160
co
(21)
750 300 375 300
where sco＝silt content in z; s?m0＝in situ mean eŠective
250 100 125 100
15 30, 70 500 200 250 200 stress and pA＝reference stress＝100 kPa＝1 bar.
750 300 375 300 Note that Eqs. (20) and (21) apply only to recently
250 100 125 100 deposited, uncemented clean and silty sands with proper-
20 30, 70 500 200 250 200 ties similar to the ones considered in this study. It is well
750 300 375 300
documented in the literature that in situ G0-qc correla-
tions depend on many factors such as sand compressibili-
 SMALL-STRAIN ELASTIC MODULUS 555

Table 3. Values of qc from calibration chamber tests and G0 from

resonant column tests for the test conditions considered

DR (z) s?v0 (kPa) s?h0 (kPa) K0 qc (MPa) G0 (MPa)

55 100 27 0.27 3.39 64.6

55 100 40 0.40 5.39 68.7
55 100 70 0.70 6.92 77.0
55 100 100 1.00 8.42 84.2
55 57 40 0.70 5.36 61.7
55 150 40 0.27 5.32 75.7
86 100 40 0.40 18.69 84.9
86 100 70 0.70 19.65 95.3
86 100 100 1.00 22.64 104.1
86 57 40 0.70 15.40 76.3
86 150 40 0.27 18.68 93.7

ty, aging and cementation (Baldi et al., 1989; Schnaid et

al., 2004), which are not accounted for in the correlations
proposed in this paper.

Comparison with Calibration Chamber Test Results

In order to compare the measured and predicted G0/qc
ratios, results from calibration chamber cone penetration
tests by Lee et al. (2008) were used. The sand used to pre-
pare the calibration chamber samples was Jumunjin
sand, a standard Korean sand. A series of resonant
column tests were performed on Jumunjin sand samples
prepared at various soil states to obtain G0 values; these
results were then used to obtain the intrinsic soil variables
needed in Eq. (10). A total of 11 calibration chamber
CPTs were performed at diŠerent relative densities and
stress states. Other experimental details of the calibration
chamber tests can be found in Lee et al. (2008). Table 3
shows values of qc from calibration chamber tests and G0
from resonant column tests.
Figure 13 shows the values of G0/qc as a function of qc
/(s?v0 )0.5, qc/(s?h0 )0.5, and qc/(s?m0 )0.5 (qc obtained from
calibration chamber CPTs and G0 from resonant column
tests). Curves corresponding to the correlations given by
Eqs. (17) and (20) were also plotted in Fig. 13. As shown
in Fig. 13, results from the approaches based on s?v0, s?h0,
and s?m0 are in fairly close agreement with the measured
values. Average correlation errors between predicted (us-
ing Eqs. (17) and (20); note that the silt content of
Jumunjin sand is equal to zero and thus the correlation
parameters G2 and G3 are equal to 290 and 270, respec-
tively) and measured data were 13.5z, 12.8z, and 7.6z
for the stress components of s?v0, s?h0, and s?m0, respec-
tively.
Fig. 13. Values of G0/qc for calibration chamber tests in terms of (a)
the vertical eŠective stress s?v0, (b) the horizontal eŠective stress s?h0
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS and (c) the mean eŠective stress s?m0

In the present study, simple and eŠective methods are

proposed for the determination of the small-strain modu-
lus. One method is based on an extrapolation procedure:
the initial nonlinear portion of the transformed stress-
strain curve is reverse-extended down to a strain level
equal to zero using an extrapolation technique to obtain a
parameter (a*), which is then used to calculate the small-
strain elastic modulus. The second method is based on
the CPT cone resistance qc.
A series of stress-strain curves from triaxial compres-
sion tests performed on clean and silty sands were ana-
lyzed to evaluate the method of estimation of the small-
strain elastic modulus based on the extrapolation proce-
dure proposed in this paper. The following conclusions
556 LEE ET AL.
were reached:
1) Values of s?d, p calculated using the hyperbolic
procedure of Duncan and Chang were in good agreement
with measured values of s?d, p.
2) Values of Ei obtained from the Duncan and
Chang's procedure, on the other hand, were signiˆcantly
smaller than the measured E0 values. The denser the soil,
the higher the values of Ei/E0; this indicates that, as the
soil becomes more dilative (the larger the relative density,
the greater the tendency for dilation, as indicated by Eq.
(11)), underestimation of the small-strain modulus by the
Duncan and Chang's procedure becomes less
pronounced.
3) The extrapolation procedure proposed in this
paper produced satisfactory estimates of the measured
stress-strain responses of clean and silty sands within the
small-strain range. Measured and calculated small-strain
elastic modulus values were found to be in reasonably
good agreement.
Two G0-qc correlations available in the literature
(Robertson and Campanella, 1983; Rix and Stokoe,
1991) and the one proposed in this paper were evaluated.
The following conclusions were reached:
1) For isotropic conditions, the correlations by
Robertson and Campanella (1983) and Rix and Stokoe
(1991) produced good estimates of G0 for clean sands, but
overestimated G0 for silty sands.
2) For isotropic conditions, very good estimates of
the measured small-strain shear modulus of silty sands
were obtained with the correlations by Robertson and
Campanella (1983) and Rix and Stokoe (1991) by using
the new values proposed in this paper for the correlation
parameters G1 and G2, which account for the eŠect of the
silt content of the sand.
3) Values of G0/qc obtained for clean and silty sands
tested under various anisotropic stress states (G0 calculat-
ed with the Hardin and Black (1966) correlation and, qc
with CONPOINT) were in good agreement with G0/qc
values calculated using the G0-qc correlation presented in
this paper, which takes into account not only the silt con-
tent of the sand but also stress anisotropy.
REFERENCES
1) Arulnathan, R., Boulanger, R. W. and Riemer, M. F. (1998): Anal-
ysis of bender element tests, Geotechnical Testing Journal, 21(2),
129–131.
2) Baldi, G., Bellotti, R., Ghiona, V. N., Jamiolkowski, M. and
LoPresti, D. C. F. (1989): Modulus of sands from CPT and DMT,
Proc. 12th ICSMFE, Rotterdam, 1, 165–170.
3) Bolton, M. D. (1986): The strength and dilatancy of sands,
Geotechnique, 36(1), 65–78.
4) Chan, C. K. (1981): An electropneumatic cyclic loading system,
Geotechnical Testing Journal, 4(4), 183–187.
5) Duncan, J. M. and Chang, C. Y. (1970): Nonlinear analysis of
stress-strain in soils, Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation En-
gineering Division, ASCE, 96(SM5), 1629–1653.
6) Fahey, M. and Carter, J. P. (1993): A ˆnite element study of the
pressure meter test in sand using a non-linear elastic plastic model,
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 30(2), 348–361.
7) Ghionna, V. N., Jamiolkowsi, M., Pedroni, S. and Salgado, R.
(1994): The tip displacement of drilled shafts in sands, Proc. Settle-
ment '94, ASCE, 2, 1039–1057.
8) Hardin, B. O. and Black, W. L. (1966): Sand stiŠness under various
triaxial stresses, Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation En-
gineering Division, ASCE, 92(SM2), 27–42.
9) Houlsby, G. T. and Hitchman, R. (1988): Calibration chamber
tests of a cone penetrometer in sand, Geotechnique, 38(1), 39–44.
10) Imai, T. and Tonouchi, K. (1982): Correlation of N values with S-
wave velocity and shear modulus, Proc. 2nd Symposium on
Penetration Testing, Amsterdam, 1, 67–72.
11) Iwasaki, T. and Tatsuoka, F. (1977): EŠects of grain size and grad-
ing on dynamic shear moduli of sands, Soils and Foundations,
17(3), 19–35.
12) Kondner, R. L. (1963): Hyperbolic stress-strain response: cohesive
soil, Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering Divi-
sion, ASCE, 189(SM1), 115–143.
13) Kuerbis, R. and Vaid, Y. P. (1988): Sand sample preparation—The
slurry deposition method, Soils and Foundations, 28(4), 107–118.
14) Lee, J. and Salgado, R. (2000): Analysis of calibration chamber
plate load tests, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 37(1), 14–25.
15) Lee, J., Salgado, R. and Carraro, A. (2004): StiŠness degradation
and shear strength of silty sands, Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
41(5), 831–843.
16) Lee, J., Eun, J., Lee, K., Park, Y. and Kim, M. (2008): In-situ
evaluation of strength and dilatancy of sands based on CPT results,
Soils and Foundations, 48(2), 261–271.
17) Rix, G. J. and Stokoe, K. H. (1991): Correlation of initial tangent
modulus and cone penetration resistance, Proc. 1st International
Symposium on Calibration Chamber Testing, Potsdam, New York,
351–362.
18) Robertson, P. K. and Campanella, R. G. (1983): Interpretation of
cone penetration tests I: sand, Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
109(11), 1449–1459.
19) Salgado, R. and Randolph, M. F. (2001): Analysis of cavity expan-
sion in sands, International Journal of Geomechanics, ASCE, 1(2),
175–192.
20) Salgado, R., Bandini, P. and Karim, A. (2000): StiŠness and
strength of silty sand, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenviron-
mental Engineering, ASCE, 126(5), 451–462.
21) Schnaid, F., Lehane, B. M. and Fahey, M. (2004): In situ test
characterisation of unusual geomaterials, Proc. 2nd International
Conference on Site Characterisation (ISC-2), Porto, Portugal,
Millpress, Rotterdam, 1, 49–74.
22) Shibuya, S., Tatsuoka, F., Teachavorasinskun, S., Kong, J., Abe,
F., Kim, Y. and Park, C. (1992): Elastic deformation properties of
geomaterials, Soils and Foundations, 32(3), 26–46.
23) Tatsuoka, F., Siddiquee, M. S. A., Park, C., Sakamoto, M. and
Abe, F. (1993): Modelling stress-strain relations in sand, Soils and
Foundations, 33(2), 60–81.
24) Viggiani, G. and Atkinson, J. H. (1995): Interpretation of bender
element tests, Geotechnique, 45(1), 149–154.
25) Yu, P. and Richart, F. E. (1984): Stress ratio eŠects on shear modu-
lus of dry sands, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 110,
331–345.