| Ss | mri) Ne UES Ra Pes lon] FS EOPR DO RUIN OSCR CNTY PEAS , NECEICUPINS EL er . Ley APs oo Teens i a _and Rock Propertie in Geotechnical meee vay SastreJay Ameratunga Nagaratoam Sivakugan Golder Associates James Cook University Brisbane, QLD. Ausualia Townsville, QLD, Australia Braja M. Das California State University Henderson, CA, USA ISSN 2364-5156 ISSN 2364-5164 (electronic) ‘Developments in Geotechnical Engineering ISBN 978.81-322-2627-7 ISBN 978-81-322-2620-1 (eBook) DOT 10.1007/978-81-322-2629-1 Litrary of Congress Control Number: 2015951662 ‘Springer New Delhi Heldstbeng Now York Doses London © Springr indi 2016 ‘Tic work i subject to copyright. Al right are reserved by tho Publisher, whether the whole or prt of the mera is concemed, specially the rights of anslation, reprinting, reuse of lusts, recisation,broasaiing, rpredistion on migraine or in any’ eiher physical way ond tenaenen {information storage and revival, clectonic adaption, computer software, or by similar OF Aissimilar methocology now known ox herster developed. ‘The use of peneral descriptive names, repstered names, vademarks, service marks, ete inthis publication does not imply. even in the absence ofa specie stafemert, that such names are exernpt ‘Hom the relevan protective laws snd egultions and terete fre for general use “The pubister he authors and he editors are sate to assume that the advice fd formation in tis book are believed to be ue and aceurue the date of publication. Nether the publisher nor the lauhoes er he editors give a warranty, express or imple, with respect tothe wera contuined betein or for any eros cromisios thas may have been made Printed on acid ee paper Preface Geotechnical engineering has grown rapiily in the past bal century with the contribution from academics, researchers and practising professionals, I i stil considered s combination of art and scienc> with research and observations in the field refining and improving geotechnical design. Although in situ and laboratory geotechnical testing still remain the two preferred methods of determining design parameters, empiricism has a unique an} a big role to play in geotechnical engineering. Geotechnical literature is full of empirisal equations and graphs, and they are used regularly by practitioners worldwide. These are derived based on laboratory or ficld data, past experience and good judgement. Where little or no geotechnical information is available, or where reasorableness of a test result needs to be checked, these empirical equations provide an alternative very useful to the engi- reer. For some parameters, you may be confronted with several empirical equa- tions, andit is a good practice to clearly state the source so that the readers can make their own judgement ‘The main objective of this book is to provide comelations commonly used by «geotechnical practitioners to assess design rarameters important in the geotechnical design activities. It is intended mainly for the practitioners although its value extends 10 academies and researchers as well. We have arranged the chapters on the basis of the main types of in situ tests with laboratory tests on soil and rock given wo separate chapters, I Chapter 2, we huve provided a brief overview of the ‘geotechnical properties commonly determined in the laboratory, their elevance in soil mechanies and laboratory tests for determining them. It gives the necessary ‘background for the chapters that follow.Preface Acknowledgements Contents We are thankful to Professor Harry Poulos who provided valuable suggestions on the first draft. Thanks are also due to Dr, Chris Bridges and Thayalan Nallarulanatham for assisting and reviewing some of the chapters. Allan MeConnell of Insitu Geotech Services and Yvo Keulemans of Cone Penetration esting Services have provided some valuable pictures for this book, We are ‘thankful to them for their contributions, Finally we would like to thank the staf? at Springer for their assistance and advice, especially Swati Meherishi, senior editor, and Kamiya Khater, senior editorial assistant. Brisbane, QLD, Australia Jay Ameratunga Townsville, QLD, Australia Nageramam Sivakugen Henderson, CA, USA ‘Bruja M. Bas 1 Introduction. . 1 1.1 Laboratory Testing 1 1.2 In Situ Testing A 2 1.3 Empirical Correlations... ae mee 14 Contents of the Book 8 References, a 9 2 Geotechnical Properties of Soils ~ Fundamentals ,.....0..2.005 0 2.1 Laboratory Tests for Soils . ? u 22 Phase Relations. . alge 2 22.1 Terminology and Defiritions... Hoe sl 22.2 Relationships Between the Variables, : 8 23 Granular Soils... : ren 16 23.1 Grain Size Distribution 16 232 _ Relative Density . Concrete 24 Plasticity. : 19 241 Aterberg Limits an) 24.2 Classification of Fine Grained Soils Based on Plasticity... Peas 20 25 Compaction : ee 26 Permeability vee Oh 26.1. D*Atcy’s Law and Permeability Measurements oa 262 Intrinsic Permeability von 28 2.63 Reynold’s Number anc Laminar Flow . a) 264 Anisotropy... 29 2.65 One-Dimensional Flow in Layered Soils... 2.2. 30 266 _ Effect of Applied Pressure on Permeability 31 26.7 Critical Hydraulic Gratient. E 32 2.7 Effective Stresses and Total Suesses... . . 33Contents 28 Consolidation 3 28.1 Computation of Final Consolidation Settlement... 34 282 Time Rate of Consolidation area ea 28.3 Coefficient of Volume Compressibility m, 39 2.8.4 — Secondary Compression weeeee * 4 29 Shear Strength 4B 29.1 Shear Strength, Friction Angle and Cohesion: ss. 0.0s 43 29.2 — Undrained and Drained Loadings in Clays 44 29.3 Undrained Shear Strength of Clays.......00000.01 44 284 Peak, Residual and Critical States...» me 29.5 Dilatancy Angle aavees 46 29.6 Cooficient of Earth Pressure at Rest. ce sccvcssss 46 2.10. Soil Varibili a7 References 48 Correlations for Laboratory Test Parameters . . fs a St 31 Permeability 31 3.11 Granular Soils 2 3.12 Cohesive Soils : a) 3.2. Consolidation on 3.2.1 Compression Index . wee . 4 3.22. Recompression Index or Swelling Index 37 3.2.3 Compression Ratio and Recompression Ratio. ..... 57 324 Constrained Modulus... 0. .2s000eesessesveess 58 3.2.5 Coefficient of Consolidation ¢, 59 3.2.6 Secondary Compression... . . . secceene 6D 3.3. Shear Strength Parameters c’ and"... .. 60 3.3.1 Cohesion in Terms of Effective Stress c' . 60, 3.3.2 _ Effects of Dilatancy in Granular Soils. 2 33.3 scat @ow Gees Relationships with Plasticity Index for Clays... ig see 8B 3.34 Other Friction Angle Correlations nl 66 3.3.5 Stress Path Dependence of Friction Angles......... 69 3.3.6 Skempton’s Pore Pressure Parameters... cone TE 33.7 Sensitivity of Clays n 3.4 Undrained Shear Strength of a Clay cy 8 to B 35 — Soil Stiffness and Young's Modulus ae 3.6 — Coefficient of Earth Pressure at Rest K,.. neeeeee 9 37. Using Laboratory Test Data in Pile Designs 81 References peace : 83 Standard Penetration Test. 87 4.1 Standard Penetration Test Procedure. 87 42 Correction of N Value for Effective Overburden Pressure (or Granular Soils). Baca... 89 Contents 4.3 Correction for SPT Hammer Energy Efficiency 44 Correlation of Standard Penetration Number with Relative Density (D,) of Sand. 45° Correlation of N with Peak Draned Friction Angle (P) for Sand... 46 — Correlation of N with Modulus of Elasticity (E) for Sandy Soils 47 — Correlation of Undrained Cohesion (c,) with for Clay Soil 48 Correlation of Preconsolidation Pressure (a,’) with N for Clay Soil 49 Comelation of Overconsolidatien Ratio (cr) with 1 for Clay Soil 4.10. Correlation of Cone Penetration Resistance (q.) with N 4.11 Correlation of Liquefaction Potential of Sand with N 4.12 Correlations for Shear Wave Velocity, v, 4.13 SPT Correlations with Foundat on Bearing Capacity References. S Cone Penetrometer Test... . 5. 52 33 34 58 56 37 58 Cone Penetrometer Test ~ General Piezocone Test - Equipment ard Procedure. . Practical Use of Penetrometer “est Results Soil Classification Correlations for Sands. . 55.1 Correlation with Relat ve Density of Sand 5.5.2. Correlation of g. with Sand Friction Angle, 6. . 55.3 Correlation with Constrained Modulus of Cohesiontess Soils 554 Correlation with Smal, Strain Shear Modulus of Cohesionless Soils Correlations for Cohesive Soils 56.1 Correlation with Undrained Shear Strength of Cohesive Soils. 562 Correlation with Sensitivity of Cohesive Soils. 5.6.3. Correlation with Over Consolidation Ratio of Cohesive Soils. a 5.64 Correlation with Constained Modulus 5.65. Comelation with Compressibilty of Cohesive Soils. 5.66 — Correlation with Friction Angle of Cohesive Soils. 5.6.7 Correlation with Smal. Strain Shear Modulus of Cohesive Soils . Correlation with Unit Weight 91 93 99 102 103 108 105 105 106 107 107 10 us us uy 121 121 125 125 128 130 132 134 136 137 138 139 139 141 142Contenss 59 Comelation with SPN... : eevee 142 5.10 Correlation with Bearing Capacity... see 145 5.10.1 Shallow Foundations : ones 145 5.10.2 Deep Foundations sestessencomness THB 5.11 Liquefaction Assessment 148 S.ILL Cyolie Stress Ratio. 149 5.11.2 Normalization of Resistance |... 150 5.113 Computation of Cyclic Resistance Ratio (RR)... 152 References. ose eee ee : Seater cases 198 Pressuremeter Test... eens a seve 159 6.1 Pressuremeter Test ~ General» : so 159 6.1.1 Menard Type Pressuremeter. 160 6.1.2 Self-Boring Pressuremeter bis 162 6.13 Other Developments... ; 164 62 Pressuremeter Test — Theoretical Interpretation... 165; 63. Parameter Derivation. . se 165 63.1 In-Situ Lateral Stress Babee ernscees 16S 632 Young's Modulus.....00 see ceesevscseesees 167 63.3 Undrained Shear Strength in Clay apteeraec | 63.4 Friction Angle in Sands. et im 64 Comelations with Other Tests... | 173 641 Comelation Between Limit Pressure from Menard Type Pressuremeter and q. from Cone Penetrometer Test... 173 642 Corelations with Other Soil Parameters ~ Menard ‘Type Pressuremeter. . 173 65 Use of Menard Type Pressuremater Test Results Disectly in Design... 173 65.1 Ultimate Bearing Capacity (q,) of Shallow Foundations ~ Menard Type Pressuremeter m4 652 Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Deep Foundations ~ Menard Type Pressuremeter Test... 176 65.3 Skin Friction for Deep Foundations ~ Menard Te Pressuremeter. i 176 65.4 Correlation with g. and SPT... 106 6.5.5 Other Design Parameters from Menard The Pressuremeter. m References... 179 Dilatometer Test... 183 7.1 Introduction i 183, 72 Intermediate DMT Parameters... : : 186 73° Correlations Eee etc 187 74 Summary... veces 19 References... 191 Contents 8 Vane Shear Test BL Vane Shear Test ~ General 82 Vane Shear Test Equipment and Procedure in the Field R3__ Assessment of Shear Strength in the Field Using the Vane Shear Test 8.3.1 Assessment of Sensitivity of Clay 84 Vane Shear Test Corrections 85. Comvelations for c, in Normally Consolidated Soils. 8.6 Correlations for c, in Over Consolidated Soils. 87 Summary... References. 9 Laboratory Rock Tests . 9.1 Rock Cores and ROD. . 9.2 Permeability.........0eeeceeeve 9.3. Uniaxial Compressive Strength 94 — Brazilian Indirect Tensile Strergth 9.5 Point Load Strength 9.6 Slake Durability 9.7 Summary... References Index 193 193 194 196 198 198 + 201 202 204 204 207 208 209 209 216 218 219 220 i 225About the Authors Jay Ameratunga has been a practising civil engineer for over 35 years specialising in geotechnical engineering. After graduating from the University of Ceylon, Peradeniya in Sri Lanka, he obtaired his master’s at the Asian Institute of ‘Technology, Bangkok, and obtained his Ph.D. from Monash University, Australia ‘The early part of his career was spent in Sri Lanka before joining the Coffey Group in 1989, He had been involved with the irvestigation, design and construction of many major projects, especially in Australia and New Zealand, including the Gateway Upgrade Project and the Future Port Expansion Seawall Project in Bris- bane and the State Highway 16 Project in Auckland. He is currently attached to Golder Associates, He works closely with universities on major researeh projects and mentors Ph.D. students and young engineers. He has also been a visiting lecturer at Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane. He has co-authored close to 50 technical papers on soft clay, rezlamation and ground improvement and hnas presented in conferences in Australia, New Zealand and at other international venues. He is a past chair of the Australian Geomechanics Society, Queensland Division, a member of the Australian Standards Committee for Geosynthetics and a fellow of the Institution of Engineers, Australia. Nagaratnam Sivakugan received his bactelor’s degree in civil engineering from the University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka, with first class honours, and M.S.C.E and Ph.D. from Purdue University in West Lafzyete, Indiana. His writings include five books, 110 refereed intemational journal papers, 75 refereed international confor ence papers and more than 100 consulting reports. As a registered professional engineer of Queensland and a chartered prafessional engineer, he does substantial consulting work forthe geotechnical and ming industry in Australia and overseas, including the World Bank. He is a fellow of the American Society of Civil Engineers and Engineers Australia. He has supervised 13 Ph.D. students to com- pletion at James Cook University, Queensland, Australia, where he was the head of civil engineering from 2003 to 2014.xiv About the Authors Braja M, Das is dean emeritus of the College of Engineering and Computer Science st California State University, Sacramento, He received his M.S. in civil engineering from the University of Towa and his Ph.D. in the area of geotechnical engineering from the University of Wisconsin, He is the author of a number of geotechnical engineering texts and reference books and has authored more than 250 technical papers in the area of geotechnical engineering. His primary areas of research include shallow foundations, earth anchors and geosynthetics. He is a fellow and life member of the American Society of Civil Engineers, life member of the American Society for Engineering Education and an emeritus member of the Chemical and Mechanical Stabilization Committee of the Transportation Research Board of the National Research Council (Washington, D.C.). Dr. Das has received numerous awards for teaching excellence, including the AMOCO Foundation Award, the AT & T Award for Teaching Excellence from the American Society for Engineering Education, the Ralph Teetor Award from the Society of Automo- ive Engineers and the Distinguished Achievement Award for Teaching Excellence from the University of Texas at El Paso, Chapter 1 Introduction Abstract This chapter is an introduction to the book. It discusses laboratory and in situ tests, their advantages and limitations. The chapter introduces the test covered by the ‘book and discusses the necessity of empirical relationships forthe practising engineer. Finally, it briefly mentions how the book is organised into the nine different chapters Keywords Laboratory test « In situ test + Empirical correlations Geotechnical engineering deals with soil and rock, their characteristics and belav- jor and their effects on design and construction. I covers the broad spectrum of civil ‘engineering including slopes, foundations, embankments and levees, retaining walls, soil nails, anchors, excavations and fils, and the list goes on, As geotechnical engineers our main objective is to understand the behavior of soil and rock, and provide appropriate advice to control and mitigate geotectinical risks associated ‘with any project, large or small, Such advice has to depend on deriving parameters requited to assess, analyse and solve problems using the following tools; 1, Laboratory testing 2. Insitu testing 3, Trials and/or monitoring during construction ‘This book covers the frst two items listed above, When discussing geotechnical testing, it is difficult to say which is more appropriate, in situ testing or laboratory testing, as it depends on the particular project and its constraints, as well as objectives of the development. 1.1 Laboratory Testing Laboratory testing cannot be conducted untess samples are collected from the site which means some form of in situ testing, ie. at least a borehole or a test pit Depending on the laboratory test 10 be conducted, # disturbed, bulk or an undisturbed sample will be required. Most geotechnical investigations use a com- bination of in situ testing and laboratory testing to assess soil properties. While some may be biased against one or the otfer, a reasonable geotechnical engineer © Springer India 2016 12 1 Introduction will assess the objectives of the investigation and the materials encountered or likely to be encountered prior to determining which tests would assist his objective to deliver sound geotechnical advice. ‘The advantages and limitations for laboratory tests could be summarized as follows (modified from Jamiolkowski et al, 1985): Advantages ~ Laboratory Tests Well defined boundary conditions. Strictly controlled drainage conditions. Pre-selected and well defined stress paths are followed during the tests. In principle, uniform strain fields. Soil nature and physical features are positively identified ‘Multiple tests can be undertaken if sufficient soil sample is available. Useful if confirmation is requited when unusualfunexpected results are obtained from a test. Limitations ~ Laboratory Tests + In cohesive soils, the effects of unavoidable sample disturbance in even so-called “high quality” undisturbed samples are sometimes difficult to assess, + In cohesionless soils, undisturbed sampling is still an unsolved problem in everyday practice. + The small volume of laboratory specimens (Rowe 1972) cannot incorporate the frequently present macrofabric and inhomogeneities of natural soil deposits, This leads to doubts as to what extent the field behavior of a large soil mass ‘can be successfully modeled by small scale laboratory tests, + The factors causing the formation of the shear plane during the testing of labora- tory specimens are sill ery poorly understood. It must be emphasized that once a shear plane has developed, deformations are concentrated along this plane and dlsplacements and stresses measured al the specimen boundaries are consequently no longer a function of the stress strain behavior of the tested material + In principle, the discontinuous nature of information obtained from laboratory tests may lead to erroneous modeling of the behavior of a large mass. + Ingeneral terms, soil explorations based on the laboratory testing of soil samples obtained from borings are likely to be more expensive and time consuming than explorations which make use of in situ testing techniques. + Forsome laboratory tests, operator error could have a significant influence on the end results 1.2. In Situ Testing ‘There are many types of in situ testing methods, some more appropriate for Cohesive materials and the others more suitable for cohesionless materials. It is ‘qumnahameen memeaibln tecaamiianie tia hatin iailt oni emmenind an fen die enh tt, dravel Sand Silt Clay | Pea = horizontal stress ‘over consolidation teas Soll parameters ype | Profle a nN amie (SCPT/ Se | Piezocone (CPTU) | searing (SRP) Device meters Pre Bored (PEP) Go shear modulus at sal tains: OCR only when displacement sensor fited = will depend on soil type 5 CoLaw, Nene pore pressure; effective intemal fiction angle, c, —undrained shear strength 4 E E g z 2 4 q = 2 nf Crussholedownboley ity: A=High, B Moders when pore pressure senor fied, moter definition: «—in Hydrant fracas ficient of consol4 1 Inroduetion As presented in Table 1.1, Lunne et al. (1997) summarized the various in situ {ests in operation at the time and classified them according to their applicability and usefulness in deriving different design parameters as well as in different material types. There have been advances since the publication of this table, especially in piezocone and dilatometer testing, which are covered later in this book. ‘The advantages and limitations for in situ tests could be summarized as follows (modified from Jamiolkowski et al. 1985): Advantages ~ In Situ Tests + A larger volume of soil is tested than is usually done in most laboratory tests; hhence in situ tests should in principle reflect more accurately the influence of ‘macrofabric on the measured soil characteristics, + Several in situ tests produce a continuous record of the soil properties which allows the soil macrofabric and layer boundaries to be determined. + Insitu tests can be carried out in soil deposits in which undisturbed sampling is still impossible or unreliable. Examples include eohesionless soils, soils with highly-developed macrofabrics, intensively layered and/or heterogeneous soils, and highly fissured clays, + The soils are tested in their natural environment which may not be preserved in laboratory tests, For example, the most successful attempts to measure the existing intial total in situ horizontal stress are the recent developments in sita techniques, eg. self boring pressuremeter, flat dilatometer, Towa stepped blade, spade-like total stress calls, + Some in situ tests are relatively inexpensive compared to investigations based on Laboratory tests + In general terms, soil exploration by means of in situ techniques is less time consuming than investigations based on laboratory tests, + Results from in situ tests are readily available and could be interpreted with ‘minimum delay compared to the delivery of sample to a laboratory and time for the test to be carried out. This is most significant when the test site is a long distance from a laboratory Limitations — In Situ Tests + Boundary conditions in terms of stresses and/or strains are, with the possible exception of the self boring pressuremeter, poorly defined, and a rational inter pretation of in’stu tests is very difficult + Drainage conditions during the tests sre generally unknown and make it uncertain if the derived soil characteristics reflect undrained, drained or partially drained behavior, In this respect, quasistatic cone penetration tests with pore pressure ‘measurements and self boring pressuremeter tests (also with pore pressure mea- surements), when properly programmed, help to minimize the problem. + The degree of disturbance caused by advancing the device in the ground and its influence on the test results is gencrally (with the possible exception of the self boring pressuremeter) large but of unknown magnitude, 1.3 Empirical Coreations 5 + Modes of deformation and failure imposed on the surrounding soil are generally different from those of civil engineering structures; furthermore, they are frequently not well established, as for example in the field vane test + The strain fields are nonuniform and strain rates are higher than those applied in the laboratory tests or those which are amicipated in the foundation on structure. ‘+ With the exception of the Standard Penetration test which allows the collection Of samples, the nature of the tested soil i not directly identified by in situ tests. In this book we have concentrated on anly a select few in situ tests which we believe are used more frequently than othe's. They include the following: + Standard Penetration test, + Cone Penetrometer test, + Pressuremeter test, + Dilatometer test and + Vane Shear test. ‘Summary of advantages and limitations relevant to these tests are presented in ‘Table 1.2 (modified from Becker, 2001). 1.3 Empirical Correlations While in situ testing and laboratory testing on samples recovered during a site investigation remain the two preferred metiods for determining the design param- eters in geotechnical engineering, there is a substantial cost associated with these two methods In the preliminary stages including feasibility studies, when there is limited funds available for soil exploration, empirical correlations become very valuable. For example, from simple index properties, one can get a fair idea about the shear strength and consolidation characteristics of a clay at litle or no cost. In geotechnical engineering, empiricism has a big role to play. In addition to giving preliminary estimates, the correlatiens can also be used to compare against the values determined from laboratory and in situ tests. There are so many empirical equations and graphs available in the literoture, which are regularly being used in the designs worldwide. These are derived based on laboratory or field data, past experience, and good judgement. In US, the Army, Navy and Air Force de exceltent engineering work, and invest significantly in research and development. All their design guides, empirical equa- tions, and charts are very well proven and tested. They are generally conservative, which is nota bad thing in engineering, Most of these manuals are available for free download, They (e.g. NAVEAC 7.1) are valuable additions to your professional library ‘The Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual is a well respected design man- val used in Canada, Kulhawy and Mayne (1990) produced a good report that takes a close look at the different empirical correlations and charts, in the light of more1 Introduction Table 12. Summary of advantages and imitations of in sin tess covered by this book 1.3. Empirical Correlations Table 12 (continues) Tes ‘Avaninges [Limiaons Tes Taran imitations ‘Standard * Standardized tet that is robust, |» Affected by borehole distr: important engineering preperics relief nood to be considered and penetration inergensive tenes, sua piping, bse eave |_sstcsenspnizatoes tsken into acount test (SPT) + Feasible to camry out in a wide ‘and stress relief Dilatometer test + Robust, simple standardized test, _ + Not suited for soils with large range of materials liquefaction assessment of ‘mites Rohs and easy to use siandardized test + Continuous profiles obtained “Piezoeane penetration test (CPTu) ay |) obstructions encountered | earied out properly, test | abte + Different measurements made, Which enhinee interpretation assessment of materials ‘esign applications + Avoids disturbance effets associated with boreholes +The stress sain curve ean be + Pressuremeter testand se boring peessuremeter an engineering property |+ Boundary conditions are con 1 inserted insti ble sols with stross roi effets horizontal stress + Use oF loading and unloading ceyeles can mi other disturbances effects and enhance interpretation |+ Conelations available for + Provides a sample (slit spoon) + Widely used for many years nc tsa large database and correla ‘ons for most engineering proper + Boss of design for foundations and + Relatively quick test and a large ruber of tests ean be done ia 1 No need for a borehole unless resolis are accurate and repeat + Increasingly used in liquefaction + Many correlations available for ‘most engineering properties and derived; not jut single value of tooled and well defined, Testing ‘carried out ar both small and large + Self horing prescuremeter can be minimal dstnbance and avoiding + Useful for determination ofin situ ae borehole and + Affected by equipment to make borehole, energy efficiency and by operator + Results influenced by grain size, soil structure and sess history + Many comections required for ‘interpretation and design Jarge panicles, which obstruct penetration. Best suited for uni- form, fine grained sols + Not easy o penetate very dense or hard materials + Problems ean develop with rod buckling when bard material is suddenly encountered under softer soils + Needs calibration agains other ‘ests to obtain strength and sutfaes data + No sample is obtsined + Instrument relatively expensive 1+ No sample is obtained and test results shouldbe supported by other strength data + Sophisticate, relatively expen: sive instrument reouiing exper- enced, skilled operators + Testing istime consuming and on 1 lene continaou bass than other tests such as CPT + Tost reslls affected by procedure, and method of iner= pretation is imporant. Different methods of interpretation give sitfrent results + Borehole required for Menard 'ype resaremeter and ome |+ Effects of disturbance and stress ‘Wewdaaes ‘Not stable Tor materials with wr Vane shear test wst) easy to cary out using same equipment as other tests ‘Testing on a neat-coninuous basis Results generally repeatable ‘Avoids disturbance effects of boreholes ‘Corclations available for Important engineering prepetes snd design applications ‘Good test fr interpeeaton ‘fin sity horizontal stress and seformation at small stain Robust, simple standardized test, that is easy fo carry out Direct measurement of shear siength (Only in sin es that prow des iret measurement of residual strength | + Tnsome cases, no berchol is needed; but rd fiction neds 0 he eliminated or measured particles or that are too dense or hard orhard to permit penetration ‘without use of borebole + No sample obtained. + Different methods of incerpretation give sifferent resus | + Testing more time consuming | and fess continuous basis than | tests such as CPT + Limited strain imposed during test. Results not suited for large strain behavior * Generally limited to lays which shear strength <150 kPa + Not suitable for most other soils + Ress affected by sandy/sity layers and gravel inclusions + Generally corretions required |+ Results may be misleading in some soils e.g. silts) + Gives shear strength in the hoi zontal direction + May not give operational strength in fissured soils |+ Nor suituble for materials with, | arge particles, which obstruct || penetration; Best suited for uni ‘onm, fine grained soils + Difficult to penetrate very dease ‘or hard materials | + Problems can develop with rod | buckling when a hard material is | suddenly encountered wader | selier ssl ata. They also came up with their own correlations and simplifications, which are ‘quite popular among practicing engineers. Geotechnical data, whether from the field or laboratory, can be quite expensive. We afien have access 10 very limited field data (e.g. SPT) from a few boreholes,5 1 Inieoduetion along with some laboratory test data on samples obtained from these bore holes andjor trial pits. We use the empirical correlations sensibly to extract the maximum possible information from the limited laboratory and field data which come at a high price. 1.4 Contents of the Book ‘The main objective of this book is to provide readers correlations commonly used by geotechnical practitioners to assess design parameters important in the geotech- nical design activities. Such correlations may be the sole weapon available to the designer when no or poor soil or rock data is available and/or only limited testing has been carried out. In some situations, itis simply not practical to carry out ‘complex or expensive testing, whether in situ or laboratory, because the gains are not significant and the risks or opportunities are very litle. In other instances, correlations are required as a test of reasonableness on the derived design param- cters. Generally, at concept design stage of a project, most practitioners are left with the use of correlations and typical values as site investigation data may not be available or limited. Chapter 2 provides an overview of geotechnical properties commonly used in the designs and analysis, definitions of main soil mechanics terms and phase relationships. In Chapter 3, laboratory tests required to obtain geotechnical properties of sols, and the empirical correlations relating to the different parameters are discussed. ‘Chapter 4 i reserved for the Standard Penetration tes, popularly known as SPT, ‘simple test bur that proviles very useful data on the resistance of soils which could be translated into strength and stiffness as well as to obtain many other geotechnical parameters ‘Chapter 5 describes the Cone Penetrometer test (CPT) which is increasingly used by practitioners because the tes is easy to earry out and quick. [thas become a routine test for site investigations worldwide to characterize clays and sands. In Chapter 6, the Pressuremeter is described and its use to derive geotechnical design parameters using standard correlations is explored. The test is unique amongst in situ tests because it can be performed in soft clays to weak rock. Chapter 7 describes the Dilatometer test, the test measurements and the methods for determining the design parameters and the soil types. Chapter 8 covers the vane shear test, most popular for the testing of soft to firm clayey soils. Chapter, the last chapter, is devoted to rocks, and includes some understanding of their properties, the different tests caried out on intact rock specimens and the correlations that can be used to estimate the properties of the intact rock and the parent rock mass, References 9 References [Becker DE (2001) Chapter 4: Site characterization. In: Rowe RK (ed) Geotechnical and geoenvise ‘onmenal engineering handbook. Klswer Academic Publishers, Nowwell, pp 69-108 Jamsolkowski M, Ladd CC, Germaine IT, Lancellyta R (1985) New developments in field and laboratory testing of soils. In: Proceedings 11th intemationl conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, vel 1, San Francisco, pp ST-1S4 ‘Kulhawy FH, Mayne PW (1990) Marual on estimating soil properties tor foundation desi, Report EL 6800 submitted 9 Electric Power Research Insitute, Palo Alt, California, 306 p Lunne T, Robertson PK, Powell JJM (1997) Cone penetration testing in geotechnical practice. Blackie Acadomic/Chaprnan-Hall Publishers, London, 312p Rowe PW (1972) The relevance of sol fabric ost investigation practice. 12th Rankine Lecture, Geotecinique, No 2Chapter 2 Geotechnical Properties of Soils - Fundamentals Abstract ‘This chapter gives a brief overview of the geotechnical properties ‘commonly determined in the laboratory, their relevance in soil mechanics and laboratory tests for determining them, The properties discussed include Atterberg limits, the different densities, particle size distribution, permeability, and the parameters related to consolidation and shear strength. The tests required to obtain these parameters are also discussed. The information in this chapter gives the necessary background to understand the empirical correlations relating the different parameters determined in the laboratory. Keywords Soil properties * Design parameters + Soil mechanics * Permeability + Consolidation + Shear strength ‘This chapter gives a brief overview of the geotechnical properties commonly determined in the laboratory, their relevance in soil mechanics and laboratory tests for determining them. It gives the necessary background for Chap. 3, which covers the empirical correlations relating the different parameters determined in the laboratory. For an in-depth understanding of the soil mechanics principles, the reader is referred to the geotechnical engineering textbooks. The laboratory test procedures are covered in good detail in some specialized references such as Das (2009), Sivakugan et al, (2011), ete 2.1 Laboratory Tests for Soils Laboratory soil lests ate carvicel out on intact or disturbed soil samples collected from the site, In granular (cohesionless) soils, it is very difficult to obtain intact samples and therefore, their soil parameters are determined indirectly through in situ (field) tests, Altematively, laboratory (es can be carried out on reconstituted ‘granular soils, where the grains are packed at censities that match the in situ soils. In cohesive soils, intact samples are obtained generally in sampling tubes which are capped, the ends waxed and wrapped in Polythene bags to maintain the moisture until they ate extruded and tested in the laboratory (Fig. 2.1). The sampling tubes © Springer India 2016 n2 2 Geotechnical Propenies of Soils - Fundamentals Fig. 2.1. Soil samples from the st showing the sampling date, projet and borehole amber nd the depth are clearly labeled, showing the project number, borchole number, date of sam- pling, and sample depth, as shown in Fig. 2.1 Laboratory tests and in situ tests complement each other. One can never be the substitute ofthe other. They have their advantages and disadvantages, and hence a well-designed site investigation program with a good balance of laboratory and in situ tests can be very effective in deriving the design parameters. Laboratory tests are carried out under well-defined boundary conditions, on small specimens that are ‘often homogeneous. This makes the laboratory tests reproducible, and the interpre- tation of the laboratory test data is generally carried out using rational soil mechan- ies principles. The small specimen size and the effort involved in testing the specimen, makes it difficult to test large volumes. 2.2. Phase Relations The soil consists of three phases: soil grains (ic., solids), water, and air, Their relative proportions are represented schematically as shown in Fig, 2.2 in a phase diagram, where the volumes are shown on the left and the masses are shown on the right, denoted by V and M, respectively. The subscripts s, w, a, and v denote soil 2.2. Phase Relations 8 Fig. 22, Phase diagram Volume: srains, water, air and void, respectively. V,and M, represent the total volume and total mass, which includes the soil grains, water and air. 2.2.1 Terminology and Definitions ‘The water content w, generally expressed a a percentage, is defined as: 4) is also known as moisture content, Dry soils have w=0 %. In organic or soft clays and peats, water content can exceed 100 %.’The water content of «soil in its in situ natural state is known as the natural water content (¥,). The soils near the surface are rarely dry and they absorb some water from the atmosphere, and remain at Iygroseopic water content. Void ratio (e) and porosity (n) are both measures of the void volume within the soil. They are defined as: (2.2) and (e) = ¥2 100 03) ‘Void ratio can be as low as 0:3 in compacted or well graded soils (significantly less in rocks) to very much greater than 2.0 fr soft clays ar organic soils such as peats ‘Theoretically, porosity lies in the range of 0-100 %.6 2 Geotechnical Properties of Solls - Fundamentals Degree of saturation § defines the percentage of the void volume that is filled by water, and is defined as: 4) = 2, S07) = 7 x 100 (24) It varies between 0 % for dry soils and 100 % for saturated soils. The air content «ais a term that is used with compacted soils. I is a measure of the air volume, ‘expressed as a percentage of the foral volume, and hence defined as: a(%) = 2 x 100 (2.5) Density ps the mas per nit volume, There ar few deen ways of defining the density, which include bulk density, dry density, saturated density and submerged density, The bulk density pp, is the ratio of M, to V,, where the soil can contain all three phases. tis also known as total, moist or wet density. When the sol is dried at the same void ratio, with ai in the entire voids, the dry density pis the ratio of M, to Vs. ‘When the sol is saturated atthe same void rato, the voids refilled with water and the soil has only two phases, and the bulk density is known as saturated density Pax. Submerged density p| accounts for the buoyancy effects under water, and is defined as: ? = Pua ~ Pa (2.6) Where py is the density of water, which is 1.0 gem’, 1.0 vm’, 1.0 Mav? or 1000 kg/m’. Density becomes the unit weight (7), when the mass is replaced by the weight. When using phase relations, itis possible to work with densities (and ‘masses) or unit weights (and weights) as long as proper units are maintained. Note that y= pg where g is the gravity (9.81 m/s*). Bulk, dry, saturated and submerged unit weights are denoted by 7m 7am. And 7 respectively. The unit weight of water yu:is 981 N/m, The unit weights of saturated soils vary in the range of 15-22 kN/ rm’, with cohesive soils atthe lower end of the range and granular soils at the upper end. Remember that the unit weight of concrete is about 24 kN/m’, which can be seen as an upper limit for soils, Rocks generally have unit weights greater than that of concrete. ‘The water content of a wet sol cam be determined inthe laboratory, by noting the ‘wet mass of a sample and the dry mass after drying it in an oven at 105 °C for 24 h (ASTM 12216; BS 1577-2; AS 1289.2.1.1), Knowing the volume of the specimen, it is possible to determine the density or unit weight. Specific gravity (G,) of the soil grains i often required in the computations ofthe ‘masses and volumes of the three phases. Specific gravity is a measure of how heavy the soil grains are compared to water, Its defined as Density of soil grains Density of water 27) Determining of specific gravity, using a density bottle or pycnometer, is 2.2 Phase Relations 15 ‘Table 24 Typical values of G, Mineral [Mineral ‘Quan! K-Feldspar ‘No-CaFeldspar” [Calcite olomite™ Muscovite® Biotte™ [Calor 7 Pyrophylie® Serpent | Halloyste HOF te an — Mentmortonie Atapiigi [ess fom eel olen ah Kaas | Mieceous sit Ala Gypsnt ale Pri Adapcd from Lambe ané Whitman (1979), Handy and Spangler (2007), and Winchell (942) Lambe and Whitman (1979) Sandy and Spangler (2007) ‘Winchel (1942) For most soils G, varies in a narrow range of 2.6-2.8. For mine tailings rich in heavy minerals, G, ean be as high as 4.0 or even larger, and for lighter materials such as fly ash, peat and organic soils, it canbe significantly less than the lower end of the above range, Typical values of G, for different minerals are summarized in Table 2.1. 2.2.2 Relationships Between the Variables Phase relations ate the equations that relate the masses and volumes of the three different phases, Thete are several different parameters (e.g, €, nS, ¥, Gy as 810.) that were defined in this section, One can write dozens of equations expressing one variable in terms of few others. The three mejor phase relations that are adequate for computing the masses and volumes of the different phases are given below IEgs. (2.8), (2.9), and (2.10)]. Proving these relations is a fairly straightforward exercise that is discussed in most geotechnical textbooks (Das 2010; Holtz ct al, 2011; Sivakugan and Das 2010), In these equations, w, n and S are expressed as decimal numbers instead of percentages. (2.8) (2.9) on (S42 )p, (210) ee a16 2 Geotechnical Properties of Soils ~ Fundamentals pam (Sa )r6 at) pam (F22\p, 12) Dry density is related to bulk density by Pn Taw 13) which is a useful relationship in compaction, for computing p, from py. The air content a (see Eq. (2.5)] is a term used in compaction that can be expressed as = (2.4) ‘The Eqs. (2.10), (2.11), (2.12), and (2.13) apply for unit weights as well, where p is replaced by 7 on both sides of the equations. A good knowledge of typical values for unit weights of different soils is required for estimating the overburden stresses at different depths. The unit weight can vary in the range of 15-21 kN/m: for most soils, depending on whether they are saturated ‘or not, Some typical values suggested by the Australian standard for earth retaining, structures (AS 4678-2002) are given in Table 2.2 Itcan be seen from Table 2.2 that there is no difference in the unit weight ofthe bulk and saturated weights of cohesive soils. In granular soils, the difference is slightly greater for loose material than dense ones. 2.3. Granular Soils Grain size distribution quantifies the relative proportions of the different grain sizes [present within a soil. Relative density is a measure of how densely (or loosely) the grains are packed within a specific grain size distribution. These two terms are sussed below. 2.3.1 Grain Size Distribution Grain size distribution plays a major role in how the granular soils behave. This is not the case with the clays, where the mineralogy and Atterberg limits become more important, The grain size distribution test is generally cartied out using sieves (ASTM D6913; BSI377-2; AS 1289,3.6.1) and hydrometer (ASTM. D422; 23. Granular Soils 0 ‘Table 2.2. Typical values fr bulk snd saturated unit weights ] Bulk uit weight [Sanat uit weight anim) Liki) 3 Loose [Dense [Loose [Bese Grnalar sos | Gravel 30 tk [200 [a0 [Well graded sand nd gravel [190210 /21s__|230 | Coane or median sand 2001s Seer [Wel gaded sand [Fino sity sand Rock fl Brick hae Shag fil Ash fll Cobwsive sols | ea high variably) [Organic lay soft cay [Firm cay Sif cay iar clay | Storia is iy ‘Alter AS 4678-2002 BS1377-2; AS 1289,3.6.3) A set of sieves s use for separating the different sizes of coarse grained (gravels and sands) sols and a hydrometer is used on the fine grained (sills and clays) soils, The resulting grain size data are plotied as the percentage passing versus grain size (logarithmic scale). Dy, Dys, Dag, Do Dao Das are some of the common grain sizes cerived from the grain size distribution curve for soil classification, designs of filters and vibroflotation. Do isthe grain size ‘corresponding to 10 % passing. In other werds, 10 % ofthe grains are smaller than this size. Do is also known as the effective grain size, which reflects the sizeof the pore channels that conduct water through soils. Dso isthe median grain size ~ 50 % of the grains are larger than this size, which is different from the mean grain size. “The spread of the grain sizes within the soi is reflected in the magnitude of the Coefficient of uniformity (Cy) defined a a= (2.15) Cys always greater than unity. A value close to unity implies thatthe grains are about the same size. Another grain size distribution parameter that is used in1s 2 Geotechnical Properties of Soils— Fundamentals classifying granular soils isthe coefficient of curvature or coefficient of gradation €. defined as: Diy = Dee (2.16) Sands are considered well graded when C,>6 and C,=1-3, Gravels are well graded when C,>4 and C.=1~3. Well graded soils have a wide range of grain sizes present, Coarse grained soils that do not meet these criteria are classified as poorly graded soils, which includes uniformly graded soils and gap graded soils. (Gap graded soils are the ones where there are little or no grains in a specific size range. Coarse grained soils are generally classified on the basis of the grain size distribution, and fine grained soils based on Atterberg limits which take into account the soil plasticity, 2.3.2 Relative Density ‘A granular soil can be packed to different densities. Its strength and stiffness are determined by the state of packing. The maxinuem void ratio and the minimum dry density, which occur atthe loosest possible state, are denoted bY ejay ANG Pussy respectively. The minimum void ratio and the maximum dry density which take place at the densest possible state are denoted by ¢in And mays spectively. They ‘are easily determined by laboratory tests (ASTM 4253/4254, BSI377-4;, AS 1289.5.5.) “The relative packing of the grains within a granular sol is quantified through relative density D, (also known as density index 1) defined as Dyl%) = P= —* «100 (2.7) where, ¢ is the void ratio of the current state at which the relative density is being determined, Between the loosest and the densest state, D, varies from 0-100 %. Granular soils ean be classified on the basis of D, as suggested by Lambe and Whitman (1979) and shown in Fig. 2.3, The term relative density should not be used in granular soils containing more than 15 % fines. In terms of densities, D, can be written as: D, (9) = Pas x —Pa Panto x 199 (2:18) Pa Paswas ~ Pasa where, py is the dry density at which the relative density is being determined, Equation (2.18) can also be written in terms of unit weights. 24 Plasticity 9 very Median very loose tose ene Dense dense 15 5 6 e100 \ Relative dersty (8) u Pome nin Pamoe fig, 2.3. Classincaton of granular soils based on lative density D, ‘Table 2.3. Typical values for ¢nac ANd enn Sol c Uniform sub-angular sand Well-graded t ‘ery well graded sity sandy gravel + 6s ‘Micaceous sand and silt ‘Well graded fine to coarse and Silysand and pel “Micaceous and and si Tide eres Sandan On tad ‘Clean wiforn sind ‘Union organs sit Sly sand Fins coo ad Micseous snd Silty sad and gravel — Some typical values for éyjay and éygy ate given in Table 2.3. It ean be seen that for granular soils ey,,,can be in the range of 0.2-0.7 and éyyq Can be in the range of 07-12. 24° Plasticity Plastlcty is term that is associated with clays. The mineralogy Uf the clay uxains, their grain shapes resembling flakes and needles with large surface area per unit ‘mass, and the charge imbalance make them cohesive and plastic, Gravels, sands and silts are non-plastic. 2.4.1 Atterberg Limits Liquid limit (LL or w), plastic limit (PL or wp), and shrinkage limit (SL or ws) areEy 2 Geotechnical Properties of Soils - Fundamentals uso uso y uso Britlasalid __Semi-solld Plastic sold gui Prery ** Fig. 24 Averberg limits ~ The borderline vater contents separate the different states at which a fine grained soil can exist, as shown in Fig. 2.4, The soil remains plastic when the water content lies between LL and PL, and the difference between LL and PL is known as the plasticity index (PI or Ip), ‘When dried below shrinkage limit, there will be no volume reduction (ic. shrink- age) with the loss of moisture. The soil becomes unsaturated, losing some water in the voids, while there is no further volume reduction. Liquid limit is determined in the laboratory by Casagrande’s percussion cup method (ASTM D4318; BS 1377-2; AS 1289.3.1.1) or Swedish fall cone method (BS1377-2; AS 1289.3.9.1). Plastic limit is defined as the lowest water content at which the fine grained soil ean be rolled into a 3 mm diameter thread (ASTM D4318; BS1377-2; AS 1289.3.2.1) Liquidity index (Ll) is defined as: woPL u oa (2.19) where w is the water content at which LF is being determined. LT is a measure of ‘where the current water content () lies with respect to the PL-LL range. In bore logs, itis @ common practice to show the LL-PL range and the natural water content with respect to this range for clay sols at different depts, The natural water content lying to the right ofthis range implies L/ greater than 1. Left ofthis range, LT is negative. Consistency index (CI) isa term used sometimes in the literature, which is defined as L-w ed “PL (2.20) Plasticity is associated with clays. Plasticity index is a measure of plasticity, Pure silts are non-plastic, with P/~0. Burmister (1949) classified cohesive soils on the basis of plasticity, as shown in Table 2.4. Table 2.4 suggests P/ as the single imieasure of plasticity. It may not necessarily be the case. AS Casagrande (1948) noted, P/ should be seen along with LL when defining plasticity. 24.2 Classification of Fine Grained Soils Based on Plasticity Pl and LL are the main parameters used in the classification of fine grained soils including silty clays and clayey silts. The Unified Soil Classification System 25° Compaction a Table 24 Clasifieation of py Chasiia clays based on PL Non plastic Slightly plastic =10 Low plastic ‘Mediu plastic High plastic > ery high phic (USCS) isthe most widely used soil elassitication system, The fine grained soils are classified and assigned a two-letter symtol based on LL and PY as shown in Casagrande’s (1948) PI-LL chart in Fig. 25, The first letter denotes the soil group (Ge. silt, clay or organic soil) and the second letter describes the plasticity. A soil that lies above the A-line is a clay (symbol C) and below the line it is classified as silt (symbol M). Uline isthe upper limit below which all soils are expected to lie, Depending on whether LL is less or greater than 50, the fine grained soil is classified as a soil wit low (L) or hgh (H) plasty. The fine grained soil can have a symbol of CL, CH, ML or MH. When there is significant organic content in the soi, it can be classified as organic soi, and assigned symbol of OH or OL depending on the liquid limit. Peats have symbol of Pt. When the values of LZ and Pare such that the sol Les within the shaded region in Fig. 2.5 the fine grained soil is classified as silty clay or clayey silt, wi symbol of CL-ML. Plastic limit and liquid limit tests are generally carried out on the soil fraction passing No. 40 (0.425 mm) sieve. This fraction can contain clays, silts and some fine sands. Two clays having the same phsicity index ean have quite different ‘behavior depending on their mineralogical characteristics and the clay content They can be distinguished by activity, dencted by A and defined as Plasticity index iz ‘Activity = Percentage of clay fraction ean This is a good measure of the potential swell problems in clays. Typical values of activity for different clay minerals are shown in Table 2.5. Clays with activity larger than one may show very high swell potential, Such clays are known as expansive clays or reactive clays. Due to repeated watting and drying, they undergo swell- Shrink cycles and cause significant damage to the inirastructure such as light buildings and roads. 2.5 Compaction Compaction is the simplest form of ground improvement that is carried out to improve the ground conditions, prior to the construction of buildings, roads, ‘embankments, etc. The effectiveness of the compaction depends on the type of2 Posi index nr a a a a a ) Lg ie Fig. 25 Casagrande's PHL chart for classification affine grained soils ‘Table 2$ Type ales of Mint — Tot Rainy y Caleite Kaolinite Mascovite Quartz ee Aer Skempton (1953) and Mitchell (1976) rollers used, numberof passes, andthe moulding water content. Typical variation of the dry density ofthe compacted soil against the water conten is shown in Fig. 2.6. At the optimum water content (Wp) the Gry density is the maximum (pains) ad the void ratio isthe minimum Compacted soils show excellent engineering prop- erties ator near the optimum water content. Nevertheless, in the ease of clay sols, there can be significant variation in the strength, stiffness, permesbility, swell) shrink potential and the fabric depending on the water content. Clays compacted ary of optimum are britle, stronger, stiffer, and will have greater swell potential and are more permeable. Depending on the nature ofthe compacted earthwork, the compaction is carried out slightly dry or wet of optimum I-any soil the optimum water content and the maximum dry density vary with the compactive effort. Higher the compactive effort, higher the maximum dry density and lower the optimum water content. To effectively specity and control the field compaction, itis necessary to know Wand Papa OF the Soil under the specific compactive effort. These are two of the key parameters that are used as the 25° Compaction 2 Fig, 26 Moisture-densty relation in compaction Pe Dryof ‘optimuri ‘optimum Woot wi through standard (ASTM D698; BS1377-4; AS 1289.5.1.1) or modified (ASTM D1SS7; BS1377-4; AS 1289.5.2.1) Proctor compaction tests in the laboratory. The ro air void curve in Fig. 2.6 is the locus of § = 100 % All compaction test points should lie to the let of the zero air void curve, implying S < 100 %. A point lying 10 the right of the zero air void curve suggests S > 100 %, which is not possible. The zero air void curve will shift upwards with larger G, values. Therefore, it is necessary to use the right value for G, when plotting the zeto air void curve, ‘Standard Proctor and modified Proctor ace the two different compactive efforts adopted commonly in earthworks, Standard Proctor compactive effort applies 592 kN-m/m’ and the modified Proctor compactive effort applies 2678 kN m/m* For standard Proctor compactive effort oa fine grained soils, the optimum water content is about 2-4 % less than the plastic limit, with high plastic cla’ falling at the lower end of the range. This can be used as a guide in estimating the optimum ‘water content without actually doing the compaction test. In sand, the lowest water content at which a drop of water ean be squeezed out is approximately the optimum ‘water content. Fine grained soils, compactec to standard Proctor compactive effor, are at 80-85 % degree of saturation at the eptimum water content. When they are compacted wet of optimum, the degree of saturation is in the range of 90-95 % ‘where the compaction curve is roughly parallel to the zeto air void curve. ‘The differences in the optimum water content and maximum dry density, between the standard and modified Proctor compaction tests, are more pronounced for clays than sands. The maximum dry density under a standard Proctor compactive effort can be about 85-97 % of the modified Proctor compactive effort. Tre optimum water content under modified Proctor compactive effort ean be 2-5 % lower than that of standard Proctor compactive effort (Hausmann 1990). ‘These days, modified Proctor compactive effort is specified more commonly, and some typical requirements as suggested by U.S. Navy (1982) and Hausmann, (1990) are summarized in Table 2.6. Relative desirability ratings of different types of soils for specific applications are summarized in Table 2.7.™ 2 Geotechnical Properties of Soils - Fundamentals 2.6 Permeability 2s ‘Table 2.6 Typical compaction requirement sae 3 | oF rs, mx from modified | Water content range ahout Fr used for Provan ont (3, i fp eerie ees! - = r Depo D5 moa are 4 Depth > 0.5 m [0-958 By ial cath dam | 90-88 i Tange eah dam [95 Foundation for structure 95 Backfill behind walls!’ | 90 reaches onal ings af cigs | anket or fer 90 ‘fer IS Navy 982) and Hausa (1950) “Depending on sil epee a funtion ofthe layer 2.6 Permeability Soils are porous media which allow water to flow through the interconnected voids. Permeability kis a measure of how easily the water can flow through the soils. resistance earth lining important important possible posible |S |Brosion | Compacied | Seepaze | not 2.6.1 D’Arey’s Law and Permeability Measurements In laminar flow through soils, the velocity v is proportional to the Aydrautic ‘gradient 1. They are related by (D'Arcy 1836) voki (2.22) embankment Core) Shell Role earth ill dams Homogensons | compacted ‘The hydraulic gradient is the fotal head loss per unit length along the flow path, and isa dimensionless number. The permeability, also known as hydraulic conductivity, has the unit of velocity. It is commonly expressed in cm/s of mis. Permeability of the intact ar reconstituted specimens can he measured in the laboratory by constant head or falling head permeability tests, that are suited for coarse grained soils (ASTM D2434: BS1377-6; AS 1289.6.7.1) and fine grained soils (BS1377-6; AS 1289.6.7.2), respectively. In the field, pump-in or pump-out Tests are carried out within wells for computing the permeability, Here, water is pumped into or out of the wells until steady state is reached, when the water levels at the observation wells are measured and the permeability is computed. Simple field infiltrometers can be used for estimating the average saturated in situ perme- ability of the ground, A metal ring is driven a short distance into the ground and filled with water. The wetting front advances downward and the hydraulic gradient of si ro fins by 5 z 3 E 3 2 yey gravel, pool a nivel sund-clay mibtres Wel Poorly graded sand gravelly silt nntures 5 uses. Symbol_| Soil type ‘Table 27 Relative desrai sw26 Table 2.7 (continued) = ability foe various uses (No. 1 is considered the Best; No. 14 isthe least desirable" uscs Ziee | # 2 FF | | : é z gl ys, saely clays aly cays, 7 5 5 2 Geotechnical Propetes of Soils ~ Fundamentals 0 iw 25 Permeability u o 10 (ires)-0.044s4mins) Inftrated Volume (izes) 5010018000250 Elapsed Time (ins) Fig. 2.7 Field infitromete: (a) Field setup, and (b) Test data ccan be assumed as unity, which is reasonabe in granular soils. In clayey soils, ‘matric suction comes into play, and makes this assumption questionable. A double- ring infiltrometer, with water filling the space between the two rings, can ensure that the flow beneath the inner ring is vertical Figure 2.7a shows a square-base infiltrometer with 750 mm x 750 mm base dimensions, and a flow meter to measure the flow rate. The drum filled with water simply provides the vertical load required to hold the infiltrometer firmly seated into the soil. At steady slate, the flow rate can be calculated from the data shown in Fig, 2.7b as 0.0445 Yimin. Assuming hydraulic gradient of unity and applying D'Arcy’s law, pemeability can be estimated as 1.3 x 10-* emis. Permeability has slight dependence on the temperature. Higher the temperature lower the viscosity and higher the permeability. The standard practice is to report the value at 20 °C (ASTM D2434). It can be obtained from: bre Mave bare — bre (2.23) Where oy-c= dynamic viscosity at 20 °C, and se-e=dynamie viscosity at 7°C, ASTM DS084 suggests that wrcifanec can be approximated as: dpe _ 2.2902 x 0.98427 a Gas) ‘Noting that the flow takes place only through a fraction of the eross section, the actual velocity of the water (or the pore fluid), known as seepage velocity vy, is28 2 Geotechnical Properties of Sos ~ Fundamentals higher than the discharge velocity v [Eq. (2.22)] generally used in soil mechani can be determined as (2.25) where, 1 is the porosity, expressed as a decimal number, In geotechnical enginees- ing computations, when applying D’Arcy’s law, the discharge velocity is used, However, the seepage velocity is the real velocity of a water molecule, Permeability of a soil depends on the grain size distribution, void ratio, the soil fabric and the degree of saturation. The permeability of an unsaturated soil is often significantly less than that ofthe saturated one. When dealing with groundwater and seepage problems, full saturation is often assumed. The values and the empirical correlations for permeability discussed in this chapter are those for saturated soils, 2.6.2 Intrinsic Permeability ‘The permeability 4, as defined in Eq. (2.22) depends on the hydraulic properties (e.g. viscosity and density) ofthe permeant. Within the same porous soil skeleton, the flow characteristics can be quite different for water and oil. In petroleum industry, geologists and engineers deal with flow of il through rocks. Intrinsic permeability of absolute permeability Kis introduced to eliminate this dependence of permeability onthe hydraulic propenies, defining Kas (2.26) wheres and 75 are the dynamic viscosity and the unit weight of water, respec- tively. The dimension of K is L? with unit of cm?, m?, ete, This intrinsic perme- ability of the soil matrix K is a measure of the geometry and size of the void network, and is independent ofthe permeant characteristics ni and gas industry, Darcy isa common unit for K (1 Darey =0.987 ym), For low of water through soils, assuming 7y=9810 N/m" and y., = 1,002 x 10-* N.s/mn® at 20°C, K (em?) = k(om/s} x 1.02 x 10-5 (2.27) K(Darey) = k(em/s) * 1.035 « 10° (2.28) Kenney et al. (1984) carried out laboratory permeability studies on compacted ‘granular soils and concluded that: K (mm?) = (0510 0.1)02 (229) where Ds is in mm, 26 Permeability 29 ew ena = voter cra: Peon oneg t= ete sot coy Le siveiy he MM sind he coe oo we ew ee ee Casita: POR te veg he be Mesum He ermesbity (ems) Fig. 28 ‘Typical values of permeability 2.6.3 Reynold’s Number and Laminer Flow Figure 2.8 can be used as a rough guide for the flow (laminar or turbulent) and Be (235) ‘where AH is the change in thickness (same as s,) during the consolidation ‘Gaile (hs effRacHe: remand] eireen drermene- eof iat a ek 28 Consolidation as at the beginning of consolidation. The reciprocal of m, is known as the constrained modulus or oedometer modulus D, which is a measure of stiffness, ‘when the soil is restrained from any lateral deformation. It is similar to the Young's modulus E determined without any lateral constraints. The problem. ‘with m, is that unlike C, and C,, it varies with the stress level. It is necessary to know the appropriate value of m, at the relevant stress level for estimating the final consolidation settlement realistically. The final consolidation settlement can be estimated from Se= AH = rmSoH (2.36) Where de’ isthe normal stress increase a! the middle ofthe clay layer, and Fis the thickness of the clay layer. The unit of mis KPa~t or MPa“! (©) Determining s- using change in void ratio Ae: Using the inital void ratio eo, compression index C...recompression index Cy, preconsolidation pressure @ >, iitcl effective vertical stress ¢ yy, and the increase in vertical stress lo, the reduction in the void ratio de due to complete consolidation can be computed. The final consolidation settlement s. can be computed from Ae T+% - 37 2.8.2 Time Rate of Consolidation ‘Terzaghi (1925) showed that the three varisbles excess pore water pressure w, the depth within the clay z, and the time f since application of the load, are related by the following goveming differential equation: (238) where ¢, is the coeficient of consolidation, defined as = (239) Tire where 7. is the unit weight of water (=9.81 kN/in’) and & is the permeability of the clay ‘Consolidation testis commonly carried out on an intact clay specimen in a rigid ‘metal ring known as oedometer (ASTM D243S; AS 1289.6.6.1) or in a Rowe cell (BS1377-5) which is common in Europe. The load is applied in increments, with 24h between the increments, allowing for fell consolidation under each increment. From the consolidation test data, the e—log a’, plot (see Fig. 2.12b) can be generated and the parameters such as C., Cy, @ pt, and c, can be determined.36 2 Geotechnical Properties of Soils ~ Fundamentals 01 02 03 04 G5 06 a7 08 08 1+ Degree of consoldaton, U, Fig, 213 UZ-T relationship ‘The Bq. 2.36 or 2.37 only gives the final consolidation settlement that occurs at the end of the consolidation process. The fraction of the excess pore water pressure that has dissipated ata specific depth = (see Fig. 2.12a) ata specific time 1 is called the degree of consolidation U(=4), which varies with depth and time. It is given by 1- Sosa (ze (2.40) UGA) where M=(x/2)2m-+1). Z and T are the dimensionless depth factor and time factor defined as wae (241) and ot oe 4 Toe (2.42) ‘Here, His the maximum length of the drainage path, which is H for singly drained layers and H1/2 for doubly drained layers, where H isthe thickness of the clay layer (see Fig. 2.124). The interrelationship among U,Z and Tis shown in Fig. 2.13. This figure can be used to determine the excess or undissipated pore water pressure at any depth at any time, 28 contdation 9 } + T os —— TU + Une. S00 0 oe oo oes Gate sos oe oe tHe ae : $2 bet later Sa for 83 Be] 030" game — a + + 24 Gi || 99) a6 yee 32 Slr oes — 55 Sie 8m gare — is 8 —}.— + os oser | 0.70 0.865 Hep ser at eee oes foe a 085 1.163 10.848 0.800 eS Se Sere os E {83 See — & 150 0.98 Boe aur iee of | C 4 } Por ae a2 080s 0a)? StS “ine factor, 7 Fig, 214 Unny~T relationship ‘The average degree of consolidation g(t) of the clay layer at time ¢, is given by (2.43) Ung isthe same as the fraction of the consolidation settlement that has taken place at time f. UgaeT relation is shown in Fig. 2.14. This ean be approximated as (Terzaghi 1943) T= aby for Uavg < 52.6% (244) T= 1.781 —0.933l0g(100— Un) for Uayy = 52.6% (24s) “The Uy chart in Fig. 2.14 is developed assuming that the initial excess pore water presse that drives the consolidation process is uniform or linearly increases or decreases with depth, andthe clay layer doubly drained. The same chart also applies when the inital excess pore water pressure is uniform and singly drained, These are adequate for most practical applications. The Ung values for other initial excess pore water pressure cistributions, for singly and doubly drained situations, are given in Table 2.8 Constant Rate Loading In camying out the consolidation analysis and computing the settlements, itis Se i iePy 2 Geotechnical Properties of Soils - Fundamentals Table 2.8 Uny-T values for different inital pore water pressure disibutions for singly and doubly drained clay layers “Ting (Singy dined —mpevios Was) Ty, oy tae) 28, Consolidation 2 Time fact, ° os 1 as 2 2 ia [aie Ya ale Consort laine va T [Union |tintne [Dec _|sine —_|Sine [linear {sine 10 _—instartaneovs lovding toes oor onTiaonneo[as7e_JOomR anise JaoTia— Joust A ‘nemeteerhtifeces | [os ieee ‘000.1 0.0380 0.0839 PIN pote meron ton aap an | Dor 0.1236 0.0558 | ~Jo.ioso Sap) | a RB || ‘0020 0.1596 0.0896 0.1366 = 1 aa 1102801888 : i, | | sm Do 214i |uara0-oasex ae 22 |] Dis /02472 | 40560” 0.988 is [om on “060 |02764 [o.1199 [0.8329 | 2 | ame aH “bora 03028 [0.1436 [06 3 We | Be ‘oss [03251_|0.1851 [0.481 2 ia nee ‘04100 [0.3568 | 0.1977 [0.5139 ’ | te 75s {I us 0.a589 034205836 i iB te || uso Joao ai “aie? |oast0 ins [oarin Joss [a3 wi | et “0200. (0.5041 [0.3704 | 0.6378, ao 862 a2 asa 10 pie | 030006132 |osmms_[aai87 “038006582 | jos fori 07515 ‘40004979 _|.s184 [0.7808 I 06273 ‘0500 [0.7640 06995 [082 0.7088 600 |os1s6 [0.7652 [08660 [0.7725 [0059 |o1s9 oms. 00/0559 [0si6s [08953 |oazz2 |oa91_|ossso — 09222 ‘soo [oss7s {045659182 |o.a611 oak2I loss7s Oxon 900 |0.9120 | oas80 (09361 |oao1s 09079 [09120 oss 1000 [09313 /09125 [0.9500 [o91s2_|09280 [0.9313 00182 1.500 |oas00~losras_jasess [09733 09790 |o.9s00 losrss 2.000 [n9982 09925 [a.99s8 [0.9928 |0.9939 |a9o42 Courtesy of Dr. alle Lovso, James Cook University case. Generally, a building or embankment is constructed in stages, and the construction can take several months. Assuming constant rate of loading, where the load is applied over a period fo at a constant rate, the average degree of consolidation U., at any time ( 2, Coe i less than 0,001 Alonso et al. (2000) suggested that the ratio of Cy for overconsolidated and normally consolidated clays can be written as -(OCR-An =(1=m)e » (2.58) where, m and n are constants. The constant m is the minimum possible value for the above ratio which applies for very large OCR, and is similar to the C,/C. ratio. ‘The magnitude of m controls the rate of decay in the ratio with OCR, with larger ‘values of giving a faster decay. Alonso ct al. (2000) suggested m— 0.1 and n—12 from limited data. In practice, smaller values for n are being used conservatively. ‘Wong (2006) suggested = 6 in organic clays for preliminary assessments, A proper consolidation test, with 6-8 load increments and an unloading cycle, with all the associated measurements, can take about 2 weeks, and can cost $1000 ‘or more. The following parameters can be derived from these tests: + e—log 6, plot which defines C, and C; + o'p based on Casagrande’s (1936) graphical procedure + Insitu virgin consolidation line based on Schmertmann’s (1955) procedure 29° Shear Strengts 3 + my as a function of oy + cas a function of ¢, + Kas a function of + Casa function of o', 2.9 Shear Strength ‘Stability of an embankment, foundation, or aretaining wall is govemed by the shear strength characteristics of the surrounding soil. The salient features of shear strength are briefly discussed in this section 2.9.1 Shear Strength, Friction Angle and Cohesion Soils generally fail in shear where the soil grains slide over each other along the failure surface, and not by crushing of soil grains, Shear strength tyof soils can be described by Mohr-Coulomb failure criterioa which relates the shear stress z-0n the failure plane (.e., shear strength) with the normal stress ¢ on the same plane and {wo soil constants: friction angle #, and cokesion c. According to Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion, Fy =otanp +c (2.59) ‘which is an equation of a straight line shown in Fig. 2.16 where tan g isthe slope or ‘gradient of the Tine and ¢ is the intercept on r-axis. Te can be seen from Eq, (2,59) that the shear strength of a soil consists of two independent components, Which are derived from friction (o tan) and cohesion (¢) ‘The frictional component is proportional to the normal stress on the plane, and the cohesive component is independent of the normal stress. For example, when the Fig, 216 Mokr-Coulomb faire envelope4 2 Geotechnical Properties of Soils— Fundamentals normal stress on the failure plane isa”, the shear stress required 0 cause failure (Ge,, the shear strength) is given by o” tan +c (see Fig. 2.16). The constants cand remain the same at all stress levels. When analyzing in terms of total stresses, the normal stress, friction angle and cohesion are simply denoted by «, c and @, respectively. In terms of effective stresses, they are denoted by o’, cand q, respectively. Shear stress is the same in terms of effective and total stresses; pore water does not carry any shear stress. 2.9.2, Undrained and Drained Loadings in Clays When a building or an embankment load is applied on a clayey ground, iis often assumed that he entire load is applied instantaneously. Soon ater the loading (i.e short-term), with very litle time for any drainage, itis fair to assume that the ela is loaded under undrained conditions. Under undrained conditions, the clay is often analyzed in terms of total stresses, without worrying about the effective stresses and pore water pressures induced within the clay which are often unknown, Here, no attempt is made to separate the stresses carried by the soil skeleton formed by’ the clay particles and the pore water; the cntire clay is teated as one homogeneous material. After a long time (Le. long-term), itis a different story. The clay would have fully drained, with no excess pore water pressures, and te loading can be treated as drained loading, where the analysis can be caried out in terms of effective stresses There can sill be static pore water pressures due to the phreatic surface (i.z., water table). Similarly, if it is known that the clay i loaded very slowly without any build: up of excess pore water pressures, such situations can also be analyzed us drained loading, in terms of effective stresses. In granular soils, where the drainage is always good with little or no build-up of excess pore water pressures, all loadings axe under drained conditions. “Total stress analysis is carried out in terms of undrained shear strength param- eters c, and gy, (=0), discussed in Section 2.9.3 Effective stress analysis is carried out in terms of drained shear strength parameters ¢ and 2.9.3 Undrained Shear Strength of Clays ‘The failure envelope of a saturated clay during undrained loading, in terms of total stresses is horizontal. Therefore, with subscript u denoting undrained loading, =O and the shear strength r,—cy at any stress level. Here, o, is commonly known as the wndrained shear strength of the clay. Its a total stress parameter that varies with the water content (ie, the consolidation pressure) ofthe clay. Larger the ‘consolidation pressure, lesser is the water content and larger is the undrained shear strength, 29. Shear Stengt a Shear stress itil state imamate (at very age strains) — Fig. 2.17 Swoss strain plots showing peak, critical snd residual states sah Short-term analysis of a saturated clay is generally carried out in terms of total siresses using total stress parameters ¢, and gy=0. There are a few ways of deriving the undrained shear strength ¢, of a clay. They are: + unconsolidated undrained triaxial tet (ASTM D2850; BSI377-7; AS 1289.6.4.1), + unconfined compression test (ASTM D216; BS1377-9), «+ field (ASTM 2573; BS1377-9; AS 1289.6.2.1) of laboratory (ASTM D4648: BS1377-7) vane, + handheld torvane, + laboratory vane (ASTM D4648), + pocket penetrometer, and + empirical comelations (Chap. 3). ‘The ratio of intact to remoulded undrained shear strength, at the same water content, is known as the sensitivity of the clay. It is denoted by 5, and is greater than tunity, tis approximately equal to the ratio of the peak to residual undrained shear strength, which can be determined by a vane shear test. 2.9.4 Peak, Residual and Critical States Figure 2.17 shows typical stress-strain plots of two different types of soils: (a) nor- mally consolidated clays or loose sands, ard (b) overconsolidated clays or dense sands. The first one exhibits contractive (i.e. volume reduction) behavior throughout the shearing process, and the shear stress peaks at critical stale which occurs at relatively large strains. At critical state, the soil deforms under constant volume or void ratio. The second type of soil exhibits dilative (i.e. volume increase) behavior46 2 Geotechnical Properties of Soils Fundamnenals during the shear after some initial contraction, and the peak value ofthe shear stress is reached at relatively small strain in the order of 1-2 %, where the friction angle is ‘known as the peak friction angled yay, The shear siress reduces on further straining, and reaches the critical state which occurs at stains inthe order of 10-20 %. Irrespective of the initial state (i.e. normally consolidated or overconsolidated clay; or lose or dense sand), the shear stress and the void rato reach a constant value atctitical state. The friction angle snd the wo ratin atthe critical state are known as the critical state friction angle wy and critical state void ratio ez, respectively, where “ey” stands for constant volume or critical state void ratio. ¢ .y largely depends on the mineralogy of the soil grains. ‘AL very large strains, clay soils would go from critical state to residual stat, where the friction angle is known as the residual friction angle ¢ z.. In clays, strains in the onder of 100 % or more are required to remold the clay and reach residual state (Kulhawy and Mayne 1990). In granolar soils, residual state isnot Fa fom the critical state, where it can be assumed that @ res @ ey. For cohesive soils. Pres C00 be several degrees lower than gf. Forall sols in general es < ey rovided, Keywords Laboratory tests + Design paraneters + Correlations + Consolidation + Shear strength + Pile design ‘With the necessary theoretical framework covered in Chap. 2, this chapter discusses the correlations relating the different soil parameters determined in the liboratory ‘The relationships between the parameters d scussed hnerein are not necessarily all ‘empirical, Some theorctical relationships are also given. In addition to the theoret- ial and empirical relationships, typical values of the parameters are provided wherever possible. 3.1 Permeability Permeability relationships for granular and cohesive soils depend on different parameters, Therefore, they are covered separately in this section, © Springer India 2016 a2 3 Comlations for Laboratory Test Parameters 3.1.1 Granular Soils Granular soils have higher permeability than cohesive soils. Within granular soils, the permeability increases with the grain size. Generally, granular sols are assumed to be free draining, However, when they contain more than 15 % fines, they are no longer free draining, Fines in excess of 30 % can reduce the permeability significantly. Tn clean uniform loose sands with less than $ % fines, with Do in the range of 0.1-3.0 mm, Hazen (191 1, 1930) suggested that the permeability & can be related to Diby (cm/s) = C Diy Ga) ‘where D,o isin mmm, and C isa constant that varies between 0 and 1.5. The scatter in C is considerably large as reported by many researchers and documented by Cartier IN (2003). who suggested using Kozeny-Carman equation instead of Hazen's Kozeny-Carman equation, proposed by Kozeny (1927) and improved by Carman (1938, 1956) is: Lite & Cr-c8 ty 146 where Cy.c=Kozeny-Carman factor (approximately 5) 10 a shape and tortuosity of the flow channels, and $= specific surface area per unit volume of grains. For uniform spherical grains, S=6/D whete D is the grain diameter. For non-spherical grains of different sizes, determining S is not straight forward, Carrie III (2003) modified Eq. (3.2) slightly and suggested a method to derive the specific surface from the sieve analysis data Lambe and Whitman (1979) noted that e versus loz & variation is often linear for both fine and coarse grained soils. Further, k varies linearly with ¢?, e+e), and e'/(1-+e) in granular soils. Figure 3.1 shows the k-e-D,p chart proposed by US Navy (1982) for coarse grained soils with C,=2-12 and Dyo/Ds < 1.4, based fon laboratory test data on remolded compacted sand. Chapuis (2004) related & {em/s), ¢ and Dio (mm) through the following equation for natural uniform sand and gravel, which ic valid when permeability is in the range of 10-1107 emis cm/s) = 2.4622 (33) ‘e-D,o variation, based on Chapuis (2004) equation are also shown in Fig. 3.1 for comparison. 3.1 Permeability 3 (yey (3982) Chaps Permeabiity cm/s) 001 bs oss z 3 ecive rar sla Oy fm] Fig. 34 Permeability — void ratio ~ effective grain size relation for coarse grained soils from US [Navy (1982) and Chapuis (2004) 3.1.2 Cohesive Soils Kozeny-Carman equation does not hold very well for cohesive soils. However, as noted by Taylor (1948) and Lambe and Whiman (1979), void ratio is proportional to the logarithm of permeability. Therefore, logk = logy — G4) where, bis the permeability at void ratio of (possibly under some surcharge), and i is the in situ permeability at in situ void catio of 9. 1/Cy is the slope of the log versus e line. Cy is the dimensionless permeability change index that can be taken 1s approximately 0.5 go. Equation (3.4) works well for ey <2.5. Mesri and Olsen (2971) suggested that, for clays, log & varies linearly with log For remoulded clays, Carrier IIT and Becsman (1984) showed that (m/s) 65) 0.0174 fe — 0.027(PL ~ 0.242P1) \" ol T+e Pr ‘The permeability of compacted clays is significantly lower for clays compacted wet of optimum than dry of optimum. For aoplications requiring low permeabilityst 3 Comelaions for Laboratory Test Parameters (ex. clay liners at the bottom of waste disposal ponds), it may be better to compact A water contents greater than the optimum water content, 3.2 Consolidation There are several parameters defining the consolidation behavior of clays. They include, compression index, recompression index, constrained modulus, coefficient ‘of consolidation and coefiicient of secondary compression. They are discussed separately in this section. 3.2.1 Compression Index Compression index C, (see Fig, .12b) isthe slope ofthe virgin consolidation line, a straight line in the e— logo’, space. The ¢ — 0, values will be located on this line when the clay is normally consolidated, irrespective of the stress level. C, is a ‘measure of how stiff the clay is when it is normally consolidated, and is an important parameter in computing the final consolidation settlements. It is often related to the in situ natural water content w, initial in situ void ratio ep, liquid limit LL. or plasticity index PI. Kulhawy and Mayne (1990) suggested that the correla- tions based on natural water content work better than the ones based on LL ot €5, Koppula (1981) evaluated the relationship between C, and eight other parameters and observed that the one with the least error is given by ¢, 01», 36) ‘where, w, isin percentage. For saturated soils, assuming G,=2.70, Eq, (3.6) can be written as Co =0.37e9 7) Kulhawy and Mayne (1990) classify the clays based on compressibility as shown in Table 3.1 Winterkom and Fang (1975) tabulated C, values showing that they are signif icantly larger for undisturbed clays than the remolded ones. Some of the empirical correlations for C, are summarized in Table 3.2. Further correlations for C, are given in Sridharan and Nagaraj (2000) and Djoenaidi (1985), Some typical values of compression index reported in the literature are surnmarized in Table 3.3, 32 Consolidation 5s Table 31. Commressiility —“Copressibiiy elasitcation based on Ce Sit erow Moderate of itermediaie igh Conmenis Referens ‘Undisrbed day of was Tos | Terni and Peck than 4 Rib ‘as —_[Remoulded clay Skempton (1944) Corzine (1961 Sof sity Brian css Corzln (1961 Alleys sac 09901 naa alle Land Lovell (983) ested 0 Bughok cigs Balasubramanian an Bremer (1981) 0k inorganic ity clay ‘Hush 0957) 11S(e)035) Alleys ‘Azzour etal 978) eennsnchig) ™ amide a C.=054 (eo -035) | Allclays shida (1956) €.=022+039 ¢) | Weathered and wll Bangkok clays | Balasobramanian and Brenser 1981) Balasubramanian Brenner (1981) C=O, OA ~ Goldberg (1575) €.=0496 e=0.195 Indiana sis {an Lavell 98) C.=040(e)~025) | Chys fom Grsee & pas of US| Azzoaz eal. 1976) C= 001mg Chiego cays Azzoar eal. (1976) C= 001, Canada ls Koppula (1981) C= 00115, Onin sis peat USACE (199%) and Aarons eta Ea 00i ms, 1 0.162 diana soils 0,008, +0.20 | Weathered soft Banghok clays Balasubramaniam and Brenner (1981) C= 00747 w,— 0213 | French clays Balasubramaniam and ner (1 CU papld 10.006 | Varved clays [USACE 1980) G_~25))_ L36 3 Corelations for Laboratory Test Parameters Table 33. Typical values of compression inex for endured ays Sei c ‘Normally consoled medium senalive “Organist ant lye sits (LM) Organic cays (O#) References Holtz and Kovacs (1981) “Benton Us day abe CO) “Chicago cla unsure (CH) enna lay CL) abe and Whitman (1979) “Now Orla clay uninrbed (CH) Sibuus clay CH) Kaolinite (CLICH) ‘Monimorilonte(CH) Chicago sky lay (CL) Boston bs clay (CL) Vicksburg buckshot Holtz and Kovacs (1981) ‘Mexico City clay (MH) San Francisco Bay mud (CL) gkok cls (CH) form sand, oose SE) Uniform send, dense (SP) hiform sts ¢ si USACE (1990) For normally consolidated clays, m, and C, are related by O434C. Te} (3.8) Where o'neage is the average value of the vertical normal stress during consolidation The undrained shear strengths of a clay at plastic limit and Liquid limit ane approximately 170 kPa and 1.7 kPa, respectively, differing by about 100 times. Noting that the undrained shear strength is proportional to the effective consolida- tion pressures, the effective consolidation pressures at plastic limit and liquid limit also would differ by 100 times. Noting that the change in void ratio between the plastic and liquid limit of a saturated clay is given by Px G,, the compression index can be written as (Wroth and Wood 1978) C=G, () a9) 32 Consolidation 0 3.2.2 Recompression Index or Swelling Index ‘There are no reliable comelations reported in the literature for the recompression index (C,) oF the swelling index (C,), whick can be assumed to be equal for all practical purposes. In reality, the recompression index can be slightly less than the swelling index. ecompression index can be estimated on the basis that C,/C- is typically in the range of 1/5-1/10, There are exceptions. Lambe and Whitman (1979) reported that in Na-Montmorillonite, the swelling index can be as high as 2.5. During recompression, m, and C, are relaed by OBC, Osc 2.19 (L+ Co} iverage en Where @'serage is the average value of the vertical normal stress during consolida- tion while the clay is still oyerconsolidated In critical state soil mechanics, the stress path is monitored in the three dimen- sional In p/-g-V space. Here p' is the mean effective stress, defined as (o +0's-+-0'3)/3, qs the deviator stress defned as 6-03, and V = specific volume defined as 1 +e. The parameters 2 and x, very similar to C. and C,, are the slopes of the virgin consolidation line andthe unloading line in the V—In p' space where the specific volume V (=1 +e) is plotted agairst the natural logarithm of the mean effective stress p/Tt can be shown that Ce = Aln10 = 2.30264 Ga) C, = xIn10 = 2.3026 3.12) ‘The plastic volumetric strain ratio A is defined as (3.13) It is a parameter that is commonly used in the critical state soil mechanics. 3.2.3 Compression Ratio and Recompression Ratio In the early days of soil mechanics, a parameter known as compression ratio (CR) ‘or modified compression index (C,,) was used widely in computing consolidation settlements It is similar to C., and is the slope of the virgin compression line when the vertical normal strain (instead of void ratio) is plotted against the logarithm of effective normal stress. Its defined as C,/(1+¢n) where ep isthe initial void ratio. For most clays subjected to consolidation tests, it varies in the range of 0.2-0.4,5 3. Comelaions for Laboratory Test Parameters Table34 Clasifcaion ‘based on soil compressibiliy Desorption ___ CRorRR Very slightly compres Highly compressbe ‘ery highly compressible ‘Table 3 Empirical coreations forthe compression ratio Soil ype ‘[Conelation References ‘Mane clays of souteast Asia ‘Azzouz etal. (976) Balasubramaniam end Brenner (1981) ‘Bangkok clays CR=0.OMESLL 0013 | Balasubramaniam and [oR = 000566 w, — 0037 French cys ‘CR =0.0039 9, -0.013 ee Brenner (1981) Indiana clays (0.0249 + 0.008 w, [Lo and Lovet! (1982) 0.0304 + 0.00238 LE Goldberg et al. 1979) 204 2a. (1976) CR=O.14e9 +0007) [CR=0.003 (v5, +7) (CR=0.126(e9 + DOCRLL-0.06) ‘Chicago clays [CR = 0.208 ep + 0.0083 | Azzouz et al. (1976) ‘organic & organic cays and | CR=0.156 e, + 0.0107 lnaggar and Krizek sity soil | 1970) Similarly, a recompression ratio (RR) ot a modified recompression index is defined as C,(1 +e). Based on the compression ratio or recompression ratio, the com- pressibility of a clay can be classified as shown in Table 3.4. CR and RR are still used by the practicing engineers Selected empirical correlations for the compression ratio, from the extensive list, collated and presented by Djoenaidi (1985) are listed in Table 3.5. 3.2.4 Constrained Modulus ‘The constrained modulus D is approximately related to the preconsolidation pressure by (Canadian Geotechnical Society 1992): 32. Consolidation 59 D = (4010 30)o,, 14) where, the upper end ofthe range is applicable for stiff clays and lower end forthe soft clays 3.2.5 Coefficient of Consolidation cy ‘When a load is applied at the ground level, hew quickly the consolidation process is, completed depends on the coefficient of consolidation ,. Larger the cy, faster is the consolidation process. Generally, c, is an onder of magnitude larger i ‘overconsolidated clays than in normally consolidated clays. It can be deduced from Eq, (2.39) that ¢, increases with incressing permeability and stiffness of the soil skeleton. Siffer soi skeletons enables faster consolidation ‘can vary from less than | m*/year for low permeability clays t0 as high as 1000 m' year for sandy clays of high permesbiity. Tezaghi etal. (1996) suggested that clays with LE= 10-100 have c, in the range of 0.3-30 m*iyear. Figure 3.2 proposed by U.S. Navy (1982) can be used as @ rough guide or frst order estimates for checking c, values determined in the lsboratory. Soil disturbance delays the consolidation and hence reduces the coefficent of consolidation of both normally consolidated and overconsolidated clays. - = 4 : | Loner bound for undisturbed = 1 - Sraeasiiacs cae | = = = = ae ‘Nomally, g Stile 3 Sess g é = + Lp aor & | Fremouted cys an p08 UGguic tit Fig. 32 c,—LL relation (After U.S. Navy 1982)0 3 Comelations for Laboratory Tes Parameters Table36 Somecpicd —iai— Tee waco 002 +0.01 0.03 £0.01 (040.01, ‘Granular soils eluding rock ‘Shale and mudstone Inorganic clays and sis ‘Organic clays and sis uuskeg ‘ter Mesi etal. (1994) 3.2.6 Secondary Compression Mesri and Godlewski (1977) suggested that the ratio of C./C. generally varies in the range of 0.025-0.10, with an average value of about 0.05. The upper end of the range applies to organic soils including peat and muskeg. The lower end is for inorganic soils including clays and granular sols. Some of the values suggested by Mesri et al. (1994) are given in Table 3.6. ‘Asa first approximation, Cu. [see Eq. (2.56)] of normally consolidated clays can be estimated as (US Navy 1982) Cac = 0.001015 For 10 < wel %) < 3000 (6.15) ‘where w, is the natural water content in percentage. When overconsolidated, C, and Cue can be significantly less, in the order of 30-50 % of the values reported for normally consolidated clays. Figure 3.3 can be used for estimating the modified secondary compression index from the natural water content, for normally consol- idated clays. (On the basis of the coefficient of secondary compression clays can be classified as shown in Table 3.7. 3.3. Shear Strength Parameters cand ¢ ‘The cohesion ¢ and friction angle ¢ are the two main shear strength parameters required in any geotechnical analysis, They are discussed inthis section, along with relevant empirical correlations. The diferent ways of defining these parameters and their inter-relationships are discussed here 3.3.1 Cohesion in Terms of Effective Stress ¢ In terms of effective stresses, the failure envelope generally passes through the origin inthe +-o' plane for most normally consolidated soils, suggesting c =0. Only in the case of cemented soils, partially saturated soils and heavily overconsolidated 3.3 Shear Swength Parameters ¢ and 6 Lwtenenateodar epee [ Settmeswegmiene LEE a leandoy 5: Noreen lt op { Rvrphousane oruonst canadien mses 1 §.Orpanemarnedesosts 10 chieagobluedly HL Organi coy © Organs te L 100 20co0 Natural watercontent, wg (36) Modified secondary compression index, Cue Fig. 33. Modified secondary compression index versus natural water content for NC clays (Adapted from Holtz ad Kovacs 1981; Daa fom Nest: 1973) Table27 Casitewion “Deon = iene ‘Very low Fear Low aot (0.002-0.004 Mein “0004-0008 pot a 0.008-0.016 Ver igh ~~ noienase Exremsiyh 1064 soils, there can be some effective cohesion. Zor uncemented soils including clays, the shear strength in terms effective stresses is mainly frictional. Based on the Danish code of practice for foundations, Sorensen and Okkels (2013) suggest that a cautious estimate of ¢’ for overconsolidated clays can be obtained from ¢ 0124 (3.16) They also suggest that c’ is poorly comelated to PI. Australian Standards for retaining walls (AS 4678) suggests the values for ¢’and gin Table 3.8,a 3. Comelations for Laboratory Test Parameters ] [Soll parameters Soll cg group » apa Poor | Softand firm clay of medium to high plasticity; sity lays; loose | 0-S ‘arable clayey fils Joose sandy sits | ‘Average | Stiff sandy clays: pravlly clays: compact clayey sands andl sandy sits; compacted clay fs | velly sands, compacted sands, controlled crshed sandstone | 0-32-37 and graveed ils, dense well graded sands [touares contzlled fills of road base, gravel and (0-28 36-43 reeyoled canerele Good ee Ses(Degrees) 1 10 100 Normalised mean effective principal stress at fallue oj/p. Fig. 34 Dilatancy angle ftom triaxial compression tsts versus normalised mean effective stress for diffrent lave densities in sands (Adopted from Bolton 1986) For natural intact normally consolidated clays, g can vary from less than 20° 10 little more than 30°. For compacted clays, 6 is typically in the range of 25°-30°, but can be slightly higher. 3.3.2. Effects of Dilatancy in Granular Soils ‘The relation between the dilatancy component # peck ~@ ev ftom a triaxial com- pression test, the relative danity, and the mean’ principal stress st fale pir ‘suggested by Bolton (1986) for sands is shown in Fig. 3.4. Here, p, is the 3.3. Shear Strength Parameters ¢ and g 8 atmospheric pressure, which is about 101.3 kPa, The relationship can be expressed as (Bolton 1986; Kulhawy and Mayne 1990) é-é-ifo[i-a(m-4)]-s} om Kulhawy and Mayne (1990) suggest taking de ~ as the dilataney angle yr. Bolton (1986) suggested from laboratory test data that for plane strain compression loading peat = Gor +08 0 (3.18) For triaxial compression loading, Eq. 3.18 can be modified as (Salgado 2008) peat * oy OS ¥ 3.19) |A simple and somewhat crude approximation for dilatancy angle, as often used in Plaxis analysis, is Vv =F 30 (5.20) where y=0 for pear < 30°. Now that we have defined different friction angles, which one should we use in practice? It depends on the level of strain expected in the field situation. Most ‘geotechnical problems involve small strains, and it is unlikely that the peak is exceeded, Therefore, itis recommended 10 Use peak a8 default value, For problems involving large strains and for those with very large strains (c.g. landslides, slopes, pre-existing shear failures such as old landslide sites) #,.. would be appropriate. 3.3.3 Wpeats er res Relationships with Plasticity Index Sor Clays There is clear evidence that increasing plasticity leads to a reduetion in the peak friction angle @ sea The increasing plasticity is often due to the increasing clay fraction of flaky grains which have lesser ffictional resistance. From the limited data reported inthe literature, U.S. Navy (1971) and Ladd et al, (1977) observed the trend between @ ex and plasticity index, shown in Fig. 3.5, for normally consol- {dated clays, as documented by Holtz and Kovacs (1981). These @ pea, values were ‘measured at failure conditions defined as maximum values of @ ,/o's in triaxial4 2 Comelasions for Laboratory Test Parameters \—4 + 1— ne atone ro. Hs a sha] ‘tnt dation Nat 1572) Fret (oil ofl ie I | tanaofor ea eat °. w » » © » © mm © %0 i” Plasticity index Fig. 35 Variation of fea and @ ys with plasticity index for normally consolidated clays compression tests. The average values and the +1 standard deviation band are shown in the figure, along with the test data used in developing these trend lines. Tt is clear thatthe peak friction angle decreases with increasing PT. “The lower part of Fig, 3.5 shows the variation of the average residual friction angle #w of normally consolidated cohesive soils with the plasticity index, as suggested by U.S, Air Force (1983). Some test daa for clayey shales are also shown in the figure, At residual state, the clays are completely remolded and have undergone very large strains. The clay fraction and the mineralogy are the two faciors that govern the residual friction angle qq It ean range from 15° for kaolinite 10 5° for montmerillonte, wth ilite at 10° (Kulhawy and Mayne 1990). Soils with less than 15 % fines behave like granular soils, with es greater than 25°, and close to thei $y Sorensen and OkKels (2013) analysed an extensive database of normally con- solidated reconstituted and undisturbed natural clays from the Danish Geotechnical Institute, along with the data trom Kenney (1959), Brooker and Irland (1963), Bjerrum and Simons (1960) and Tezaghi et al. (1996) shown in Fig. 3.6. They suggested that fora cautious lower bound estimate, the peak friction angle can be taken as Pye = 39 — VL TogP (321) ‘The best estimate ({e., mean) of the peak friction angle is given by 33 Shear Strength Parameters ¢ and g! 68 1233 points Sorauen ane Obl 2033) Dat rom Kenney (298), rooker an I ireland (296) eerrum ad Simos (1360) — = nd Teragh sta. (586), ° = 1 Fa 11000 Plasticity index Fig. 36 ya Versus PY for normally consolidated clays (After Sorensen and Okkels 2013) Sex =43 ~ 10 bg (32) For overconsolidated clays, Sorensen and Okkels (2013) suggested that the cautious lower bound estimate of the peak friction angle can be given by oy Bigg, = 30 ~ 6 logPt for $0 < P< 150 (G24 44 — 14 logPl ford < PI < 50 G23) ‘The best estimates for overconsolidated clays are given by Ging = 45 ~ 14 logPi ford < PL < 50 6.25) binge = 25 ~3 loge fr $0 < PL-< 150 6.26) Sorensen and Okkels (2013) lower bound estimates for normally consolidated clays are very close to those of overconsolidated clays ‘The critical stae friction angle @ .y in normally consolidated cohesive soils can be related to PI by (Mitchell 1976; Kulhawy and Mayne 1990) sing, 08 — 0094inP? ‘The data used in developing this relation is shown in Fig, 3.7. The Iriction angle decreases with increasing P/ and activity of the clay mineral. It is greater for Kaolinite of low activity than Montmorillonite of very high activity,66 4. Coneations for Laboratory Test Parameters 0 Pre ere eee ee ee asec $ a9 — 6 104 — ounasnateaso . 2 Ramated so | eee a L Lith 5 Pr 2s 0 100 200 Plasticity index Fig. 37 Variation of de with plasticity index for normally consolidated clays With considerable scatter seen inthe Fig. 2.22, 2.23, and 2.24, Bqs. 3.21), 3.22), 823), G.24), G25), (3.26), and (3.27) should be used with caution. For normally consolidated clays, yaa, should be very close to the x which can also be seen from Figs. 35 and 37. 3.3.4 Other Friction Angle Correlations What is referred to simply as friction angle in literature, especially in most textbooks, generally means the peak friction angle in terms of effective stresses, which is obtained from a triaxial compression test, We will do the same from now ‘on and omit the subscripts, unless stated otherwise. In fact this isthe friction angle that is used commonly in geotechnical and foundation designs. ‘The friction angle ¢ of a granular soils increases with the angularity of the grains, surface roughness and relative density. Anecdotal evidence suggests some increase in friction angle with the grain size. Well graded granular soils generally have higher friction angle than the poorly graded ones. Wet soils have I’-2° lower @ than the dry soils. Figure 3.8 shows the friction angles determined from triaxial ‘compression tests for different granular soils that have no plastic fines. Here, the friction angle is related to the soil type, relative density and unit weight. It can be seen that densely packed well graded gravels can have @ as high as 45°. Even higher friction angles have been reported in the literature. Terzaghi and Peck (1967) suggested some representative values of @ for sands and silts, as shown in Table 3.9. ‘The relationship between the friction angle, the blow count from standard penetra- tion test, and the relative density for sands is shown in Fig. 3.9. Strength Parameters ¢ and o 6 5 6 » ai a 2» ae Friction ale 0 (Degrees) 25 2 PA 16 Fa 2» 2 u Dry unit weight (ym) ig. 38 Frtion angles grams (U.S. Navy 1982) ‘Table 3.9 Representative = y (Degrees) ‘values of g for sands and silts gy 2 ep Sd ound ga, wim — Sond, angular gies vel ded Sony govels iy and Toogai ‘ter Teragh and Pek (1967) Dense Friction angle of « granular soil determined from triaxial compression tests. ‘was related to relative density by Schmertmann (1978) as shown in Fig. 3.10. Some effective friction angle values sugested by the Australian Standard for earth retaining structures (AS 4678-2002) for soils and rocks are given in Table 3.10. ‘The peak effective friction angle @yeay of a granular soil ean be writen as (BS 8002 1994) ject ~ 30+ ha thy the (328) where, ks, Ay and ke account for the angularity of the grains (04), grain size 6) a 10 Aer AS 4678-2002 oy = 304k the (3.29) 3.3.5 Stress Path Dependence of Friction Angles In reality, the friction angle depends on the boundary conditions and the stress path followed to failure, In the field situations, within axisymmetric and plane strain conditions that are commonly assumed, there 2an be compressive or tensile loading, ‘Some of the laboratory tests carried out to replicate the field situations are triaxial ‘compression, triaxial extension, plane strain compression, plane strain extension, direct shear, direct simple shear, etc. Plane strain compression friction angle @ x. of ‘sand is 27° greater than the direct shear friction angle @q.. Allen et al. (2004) suggested that for granular soilsa 3° Correlations for Laboratory Test Parameters 3.3 Sheur Strength Parameters c' and u Table 312 Relative values of ton angles f cohesion si fom rent tests “0 py ; Test ype Fron nue | | _ “Tristial compression ___—(10dqe 5 a ast +—+ tT =oeey or f x0 2s Kothtwy and Mayoe 0990) Table 3.13 Relative values of friction angles of normally consolidated cohesive soils from zor we - ~ [Friction angle a sas E wil campeon Ay : “Triaxial extension [122¢. a Plone san compression | 1.10 he Piatra camo foe? sf Direc shear test [un gpa 0s 6. f 1k 4 Kulhawy and Mayne (1990) ot a + 6 po = tan “(1.2tan gy) (3.30) Direct shear friction angle a, of a sand can be greater or less than the triaxial ‘compression friction angle gx, depending on relative density and the stress level. The relationships among the values of for cohesionless soil, as determined ‘rom the different test are summarized in Table 3.12 (Kulhawy and) Mayne 1990). Similar relationships for cohesive soil are given in Table 3.13 Itcan be seen from Tables 3.12 and 3.13 thatthe conventional siaxial compres- sion test gives the lowest possible values for pea Therefore, using @ «for other types of loadings, without any adjustment, can lead to conservative: solutions. Castellanos and Brandon (2013) showed from an extensive database of tests conducted on riverine and lacustrine alluvial intact specimens from New Orleans, USA. that the effective friction angle from CU wiaxial test is significantly greater than the ones from consolidated drained direct shear tests, and they both decrease with increasing Pf (Fig. 3.11). Their @ versus PY relationship can be approximated ; PL deco = 48-755 00aPT G31) and ig, = 31 + 0.001 7PF* — 0.3642PF (3.32) re ee ee ee ee ee) Pasticny index Fig. 31g versus PF relationship for CU triaxial and divect shear tests on intact specimens (Odapted fom Castellanos and Brandon 2013) ‘They also noted that the difference was insignificance in the case of remoulded clays, They attributed this t0 the destructicn of the anisotropic fabric during remoulding which makes the shear strength independent of the failure plane orientation. From the work of Bolton (1986), and supported by other test data, Schanz and Vermeer (1996) suggested that the peak friction angles of sands under triaxial and plane strain conditions are related by 62 (38 pe +28) (3.33) ‘They noted that while j,i Significantly larger for plane strain compression than triaxial compression, the dilatancy angle y and the critical state friction angle & oy ‘appear to be the same for both loading conditions. Its also evident from Eq. (3.33) that the difference between ¢} a. and @ (both peak values) becomes smaller with lower relative densities where @ x gets closer to 4 ey. In critical state soil mechanics, the slope of the failure envelope for triaxial compression loading in p'- plane is Mz, given by (3.34)n 3 Correlations for Laboratory Test Parameters ‘Table3A4 Typical values of “oi ‘Skempion'sA-parameter at 2 failure “Sensitive clays Overconsldted clays Heavily oveeonslnail days “ery lose ie sand fi “Medium fine sand “Des fine snd jams sane Sanur sit, moderely dense 5 ‘Alter Witferkorn and Fang (1975) and Leonards (1982) 6sind). Me = somite 34 sing, (3.35) 3.3.6 Skempton’s Pore Pressure Parameters ‘Skempton (1954) proposed a simple method to estimate the pore water pressure cchange in a saturated or partially saturated soil, when subjected to undrained loading under principal stress increments A, and Aes. The equation is given as Au = Bde; +A(Ao a03)] (336) where A and B are known as Skempton’s pore pressure parameters. B is a measure of the degree of saturation, which varies between 0 for dry soils and 1 for saturated soils. The A-parameter can vary during the shear, and is denoted by Ay at failure. ‘Some typical values of A, are given in Table 3.14 From modified Cam clay model, it can be shown that Ayis given by (3.37) 3.3.7. Sensitivity of Clays ‘The level of sensitivity observed in the clays varies geographically. Significantly greater values of sensitivity have been reported from Scandinavian countries, Compared to those from Canada or USA. As a result, there are slightly different classification sales, which are shown in Table 3.15. High sensitivity is generally associated with high liquidity index. Scandinavian clays have liquidity index significantly larger than 1.0. 34 Unisined Shei Strong of Cly 6 B Table 318 Sensiviy, §—§ ——— Sensviy, slesstiation Description Us. | Canada’ | Sweden yew a eso Metter tae oa |to-30 Highly sensive [6 [ea (so-so 16 [1650-100 [= pis 00 *anaian Geel Society (92) “tepid heh 9 uae hom) “ashy oe Fig. 342 Unctained strength classifications 3.4. Undrained Shear Strength of a Clay cy Cohesive soils can be classified based on the unconfined compressive strength gu 4s shown in Fig, 3.12. Undrained shear strength c, is given by half of q,, For very stiff and hard clays, the water content would be less than the plastic limit. For very soft clays, the liquidity index is generally greater than 0.5, ‘Although standard penetration test is not reliable in clays, when there are some data, they can be used in evaluating the consistency of the clay as shown in Fig, 3.12. ‘A rough estimate of the undrained shear strength can be obtained from (Hara tal, 1971; Kulhawy and Mayne 1990) Fm ODN (3.38) ‘equation (3.38) can give unrealistically high estimates of ¢,. For Ky-consoli- dated soils, it can be shown from the first principles that (3), Meza otlse Folexuc 1+ PAy—1) sing, (3.39) For isotropically consolidated soils, the 3g. 3.39 reduces toa 3: Conlin for Laborer Tes Pens ®) a G40) Feo) ewe TAL Wind “The friction angle i the same for Ky and isotropic consolidation (Mayne 1985; Kihawy and Mayne 1990, From modified Cam Clay model, it can be shown that for normally consolidated clays that are consolidated isotropically (Kulhawy and Mayne 1990) ( From modified Cam clay model, it can also be shown that (Wroth and Houlsby ) = 0.129 + 0.00435PI (4) crue 1985): () (3.42) Fro cove Wroth (1984) showed that fa _ Bey 10 (3.43) ‘The undrained strength determined from isotropic consolidation and Ky consol- {dation are related by (Kulhawy and Mayne 1990): (Peue [Equation (3.44) was obtained by regression analysis of 48 data points from different normally consolidated clays. clo, of normally consolidated clays in situ generally varies in the range of 0.2-0.3. Skempton (1957) suggested that for normally consolidated clays, based on ‘vane shear test data, os +049($) (3.44) cme = .0037r1 + 0.11 (3.45) For overconsolidated, this ratio is larger and it increases with the overconso lidation ratio. Ladd et al. (1977) showed that @),.-@,00" iG Jamiolkowski et al. (1985) suggested that for clay’ of low to moderate plasticity 34 Undesined Shear Strength of a Clay 6, 5 ed —snelnaven © Senstity SS 5,3 0.8713 0227 HEE 0.8638 100 Sensitivity oO Remolded undrained shear strenath, KPa 02 04 06 08 Lagden lg 333 Renied mid sea sont, inex, and sesivtyrelaiaip (Aap fom Skemp ad Non 1953) (=) = (0.23 + 0.04)0CR°* G47) For overconsolidated clays of low to moderate plasticity, the above equation can also be approximated as (Jamiolkowski et al. 1985) (¢) = 0234008 (348) “Mest (1989) suggested that c,fop =0.22 where opis the preconsolidation pressure. In a triaxial compression test, the undrained shear strength increases with the increase in strain rate. A ten-fold (i.e. one Ing eyele) increase in the strain rate will increase the undrained shear strength by 10%. Kulhawy and Mayne (1990) suggested strain rate & of 1% per hour as the standard reference rate, and the following equation to adjust the undrained shear strength to this reference rate. ee ~T#O.Mogé (a9) leale=ts how Graham et al, (1983) reported that these treads are also true for direct simple shear tests and K; consolidated triaxial extension tests, ‘Skempton and Northey (1952) summarized some sensitivity — liquidity index%6 3. Comeltions for Laboratory Test Perameters | 10 ~ = hea sieeve cawiis50) wood) raa990) Wot) pee ‘2 0p ~O2~SoaS OSS Liguiity index Undisturbed undrained shear strength, KPa | t } | Fig. 3444 Undistrbed undrained shear stength versus Iiguiity index deived from Fig. 3.13 ‘The trend of sensitivity increasing with liquidity index is clear and they can be related by 5, = O.87exp(2.28L/) (3.50) ‘Skempton and Northey (1952) also produced the remolded undrained shear strength versus liquidity index variation for four different clays which fall into a narrow band in Fig, 3.13. At a specific L/, from the sensitivity estimated from Eq, (3.50) o Fig. 3.13, and the remolded undrained shear strength derived from the same figure, it is possible to estimate the undisturbed undrained shear strength. The shear sitength values thus derived for undisturbed Horten and Shellhaven clays are used as the upper and lower bound of the shaded band shown in Fig. 3.14. Also shown in the figure is the band suggested by Wood (1983) and recommended by Kullawy aud Mayne (1990), 3.5. Soil Stiffness and Young’s Modulus Young's modulus £ is the most common parameter used as a measure of stiffness. It is requited in determining deformations, including settlements. In granular soils. it is derived through penetration test data from in situ tests such as standard 3.5. Soll Stifaass and Young's Modulus 7 4600 7- 1400 400 20600 ‘grained and gravel Remarks / Wiath of footing B> Tm. Water __jtable at> B below the footing seil [Compact gravel orcomact [200-6 |sndantgme | Loose gravel orloose snd” | <200 | and gravel | | th = TIEPI> 30 and clay content 25 6 there are possible swell ____ Stink problems dite | Novapplcsle | te Fine | Very sl orbard clays or fined | fecrganeoes mixtures Soil | sacha als [Very so “After Canadian Geotechnical Society (1992) 3.6 Coefficient of Earth Pressure at Rest K,, ‘Treating the soil as a linear elastic continuum, it can be shown that (355) where » is the Poisson's ratio, Taky (1948) showed that forall particulate materials including soils sin? (yin g’ La 80 (14 Zein 3.56) tring ( 3 *) Baal Noting that 1 + {22> is about 09 for tyseal values of fiction angles, Taky's original suggestion Was to take Ko as (Ko)ye = 0.9(1 = sing) (357) which has been simplified and commonly used as (Ko}ye =1- sing’ (3.58)9 3 Coxelations for Laboratory Test Parameters for normally consolidated soils. When the soils are overconsolidaied, Ko can be significantly greater, and can be estimated as (Brooker and Ireland 1965; European Committee for Standardization 1994) (Ko)oc = (KolweWOCR (3.59) Mayne and Kulhavy (1982) suggested that Woloc= (1 - sing’) ocr? (3.60) (oc commonly expressed as (Ko)oe = (Ko)yeOCR™ (3.61) ‘where, m is an exponent commonly taken as 0.5, which is also suggested by the Eurocode (European Committee for Standardisation 1994). Ladd et al. (1977) suggested that m =0.42 for low plastic clays an m = 0.32 for highly plastic clays. For sloping ground, where and a, are no longer principal stresses, Kezdi (1972) extended Jaky’s equation to le sing Ko~ Ty sing (3.62) where fis the inclination of the slope to the horizontal, Brooker and Ireland (1965) showed that for normally consolidated clays Ko = 0.95 ~ sing (3.63) ‘Alpan (1967) showed that for normally consolidated clays: Ky =0.19 +0.23310gPI (3.64) Massarsch (1979) showed that for normally consolidated clays, Ko = 044+ 0.0042P7 (3.65) ‘Some typical values of Ky reported in literature are summarized in Table 3.19 (Craig 2004). ‘Table319 Typical values of Kp 37 Using Laboratory Test Data in Pile Desigas a ‘Table 3:20, Relationships for the wit skin fiction f, in ven piles | coefficient of sath pressure at est, ad is funtion 0” Soi Tyne [Byun [Remarks Referens Clay fia acy |@=10 (6,525 KN) ‘APL (1984) | | a=0.5 (c, > 70 kN") “inca ation inbetween _ 0435 KN) Semple & Rigdon > 80 kfm?) (1984) aon nbetveen "Fling eta (1988) Barand (973) - ieee Meserot 1976) Silica smd———| f, = la, | P= 0.15 ~ 0.35 (eempression) | McClelland (1974) Goh) |i 024 tension Peers eet Mexehot (17) |ogstorg 35 | | |12forg’=37 ge B= (KoRn 90) | Sis and Kalhawy Sp depenison merce materials | 0985) [ange 05-10) | | Kiks depends on isttaon method “tange 05-20) | ~ Poulos (1988) Uncemented c caeous sand ‘After Poulos (1989) 3.7 Using Laboratory Test Data in Pile Designs ‘The unit shaft resistance f. for driven piles can be estimated as f, =a ¢, (fotal stress method) or f, = Be, (effective stress method), where «= adhesion factor and B=K, tan 6 with K, and 6 being the lateral earth pressure coefficient and the interfacial friction angle, respectively, at the soil-pile interface, The correlations for f, of driven piles are summarized in Table 3.20. The unit skin friction correla tions for the bored piles are given in Table 2.21. Correlations for the end bearing ‘capacity of the ple tip f, are given in Table 3.22.@ 3. Conclations for Laboratory Test Parameters ‘Table 121, Reaonships forthe unit skin tition fn bored pites Soll ype [Remarks [References Cay | a=045 (London clay) ‘Skempton 1959) sy Bras aap SRST ce Iss Sees Fro | nae "| Meyerhor ao on ea Slice and 7 (compression) & 05 “|e 58 ‘ter Poul (1989) ‘Table 3.22. Rolationships fr the endearing capaciy or lass aera oe een oy [>t [Reno ae atc fg [seed a | inane | eae [TH Faun)? | Topical ange of, | 1, determined for reduc | tea. 18 ‘After Poulos (1989) Notes |. For silica and calcareous sands the above expressions apply for driven piles only 2 Typical limiting values fom range from 10 MINn wo 15 MNin" fr silica sand, and 3-$ MN for calcareous sand; the later value depends on soil compressibility References 8 References Allen TM, Bathurst BI, Holtz RD, Lee WE, Walters D (2004) New method for prediction of Toads in steei reinforced sail walls, J Geotech Geoenviten Eng ASCE 130(11)1L09-1120 Alpan (1967) The empirical evaluation of the coefcent Ky ane Kye. Soils Found 7(1):31-40 ‘Ameren Petroleum Instiute (1984) Recommended practice for planning. designing and ‘consisting fined offshore platforms, APY RP2A.1Sth eda, American Petrleunt Insti, ‘Washington, DC |AS 4675-2002 Earth retaining tuctures, Australian Sandant ‘Azzouz AS, Krizek RI, Conti RB (1976) Regression analysis of sol eompressibiity, Soils Found 162: 19-29 ‘Balasubramaniam AS, Brenner RP (1981) Chapter 7: Consolidation and setlement of so clay. In Brand EW, Brenoer RP (eds) Soft clay engineering. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 481-565 [erezantzev VG, Kiristoforov VS, Golubkoy VN (1951) Load bearing capacity and deformation ‘of piled foundations, In: Proceedings of Sth intertional conference an soll mechanles and foundation engineering, Paris, 2. pp L1-15 Bjesrum L, Simons NE (1960) Comparison of shear strength characteristics of normally consal~ ‘elas In: Pszedings of rach confcce onthe ser sength fees ai ASCE, Boulder, Colorado, pp 7! olan MD 1980 ine ate nd taney of sans. Geteciaue 36(1365-78 Bowles JE (1988) Foundation anlysis and design, 4th eda. McGraw-Hill, New York Brooker EW, Island HO (1965) Earth pressures at rest olted to stress history. Cam Geotech 1 23-15 [BS 8002 (19%) Code of practice for earth retaining structures. Bris Standards Insiution, London Burland JB (1473) Shaft friction of pies in clay — a simple fundamental approach. Ground Eng 6(3)30-42 ‘Burmister DM (1948) Principles and techniques of sil identfcuion, In: Proceedings of annual highway research board meeting, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 29, pp 402-433 ‘Canadian Geotectnical Society (1992) Canadian founttion engineering manual, 3d edn, 311 pp ‘Carman PC (1938) The determination ofthe specific surfaces of powders. I Sac Chem Ind Trans 57.225) Carman PC (1956) Flow of gases through porous wedia, Butterworths Scientific Publications, ‘London Carrier WD IIL (2003) Good bye Hazen; Hello, Kezeny-Caman, J Geotech Geoenviron Eng "ASCE 129(11):1054-1086 Carrier WD Ill, Beekman JF (1984) Cometations between index tests and ihe propeties of remolded clays, Geoteshnique 34(2):211-228 CCusiellanos BA, Brandon TL (2013) A comparison between the shear srength measured wth iret shear and trianal devices on undisturbed and remolded sels. In: Proceedings ofthe 18th Jnueenatonal conference on soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering. Pats, 1. pp 317-220 Cchapuis RP (2004) Predicting the saturated hydraulic conductivity of sand and gravel using ctfective diameter and void ratio, Can Geotech J <1(8):787-195 Cozzoliny VM (1961) Statistical forecasting of compression index. In: Proceedings of the Sth ICSMFE, Paris, pp 51-53 CCmaig RE (2004) Craig's soil mochanies, Tn edn. Spen Press/Taylor and Francis Group, London Datta M, Gulati SK, Rao GY (1980) Aa appraisal of fe existing practise of determining the axial Toad capacity of deep peneration piles in calcareous sands. In: Proceedings of 12th annual ‘OTC, Houston Paper OTC 3861, pp 119-130 Djoeneidi WI (1985) A compendium of soil properties and eomelations, MEngSe thesis, Univer= sity of Sydney, Australia4 3 Correlations for Laboratory Test Parameters ‘Duncan JM, Buchignani AL (1976) An engineering manual for seitementstadies, Geotechnical ‘Engineering Repor, Deperiment of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, USA, 94 p Dutt RN, Ingram WB (1984) Jackup sg siting in aleareous sols In: Proceedings of 16th annual ‘OTC, Houston Paper OTC 4840, 541-548 European Commitee for Standardisation (1994) Eurocode 7: geotechnical design — Past 1, Brassels Flnagpar MA, Keizek RJ (1970) Statistical approximation for consolidation setlement. Highway esearch record, no, 323, HRB, pp 87-96 Fleming WGK, Weliman AJ, Randolph MF, Elson WK (1985) Piling engineering, Surey University PresyWiley, Glesgow/New York Goldberg GD, Lovell CW, Miles RD (1979) Use of geotechnical data bunk, Transpomation Reseirch Record, No, 702, TRB, pp 140-146 Graham , Crooks THA, Bell AL (1983) Time effects on the stress-strain behavior of natural soft clays, Geotechnique 33(3:327-240 Hara A, OhataT, Niwa M (1971) Shear modalus and shear strength of cohesive soils. Soils ound 14Gpt—12 Hazen A (1911) Discussion on “Dams on sand foundations” Trans ASCE 73:19 Haren A (1930) “Water supply” American civil engineers handbook. Wiley. New York olte RD, Kovaes WD (1981) An introduction to geotechnical engineering. Prentice-Hall, Engle- wood Cliffs Hough BK (1957) Basic soils engineeing. The Ronald Press Co., New York Jy J (1948) Pressures in silos. In: Proceedings of 2nd ICSMFE, Rotterdam, Holland, 1, pp 103-107 JIamiolkowski M, Ladd CC, Germaine IT, LancellttaR (1985) New developmen in field and laboratory testing of soils. In: Proceedings of the lth intemtional conference on soil rctanies and foundation engineering, San Francisco, 1. pp 57-154 Kenney TC (1959) Discussion of “Geotechnical properties of glacial lake lays.” by TH. Wa 1 Soil Mech Found Div ASCE 85(SM3)67=79 Keedi A (1972) Stability of rigid siictres, In: Proceedings of Sih ECSMFE, Madrid, 2, pp 105-130 Koppula SD (1981) Statistica evaluation of compression index. Geotech Test ASTM A(2}:68-73, Kozeny 3 (1927) ueberkapillarLliung des Wassers im Boden, Wien, Akad Wiss 136(20):271 raft LM, Lyons CG (1974) State-of-the at: ultimate axial capacity of erouted piles. In: Pro- ‘ceedings of 6th anmual OTC, Houston, pp 487-803 Kulhawy FH, Mayne PW (1990) Manual on estimating soil properties for foundation design, Report EL-6800, Electio Power Research Institue, Palo Alto, California, USA Lad CC, Foott R, Ishihara K, Schlosser F, Poulos HG (1977) Stess-deformation and strength ‘characteristics, In: Proceedings of Sth ICSMFE, Tokyo, 2, pp 421-494 Lambe TW, Whitman RV (1979) Soil mechanics S version. Wiley, New York, 583 9 LLeonatds Ga (1962) Foundation engineering, McGraw-Hil. New York Lo YET, Lovell CW (1982) Prediction of soil properties from simple indices, Transportation Research record, No. 673, Overoonrlidated clays: Shales, TRB, pp 13 18 Massarsch KR (1979) Lateral earth pressure in nonmally consolidated clay In: Proceedings ofthe “Th ECSMFE, Brighton, England 2, pp 245-250 Mayne PW (J98S) Stress anisotropy effects on clay strength. J Geotech Eng ASCE 111 356-366 ‘Mayne PW, Kulhawy FH (1982) KO-OCR relationships in soils. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE 108 iots\851-872 ‘McClelland B (1974) Design of deep penetration piles for coean structures. J Geotech Eng ASCE 1OO(GT 705-747 Mesti G (1973) Coefficient of secondary compression. J Soil Mech Found Div ASCE ‘90(SM1} 128-137 References 85 Mest G (1989) A reevalUation of sum) *0.22 of tsing Iaboratory shear tests, Can Geotech J 26(1):162-164 -MestiG, Godlewski PM (1977) Time and stress compessiilityinterelationsp. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE 108(GTS):417_430 ‘Mest G, Olsen RE (1971) Mechanisms controlling tte permeability of et 19:151-158 Mesti G, Lo DOK Feng TW (1994) Settlement of embankments on sft clays. In: Proceedings of setlement °94, ASCE specialty conference, Geotechnical Special Publication No, 4 1, pps-s6 Meyerhof GG (1976) Besring capaci 102(GT3):195-228 Mitchell JK (1976) Fundamentals of soil behavior. Wiley, New York Nishida ¥ (1956) A brief note on compression index of soil. J Sail Mech Found Div, ASCE, 82 (GM3}:1027-1 19 1027-14 Peck RB, Hanson WE, Thorburn TH (1974) Foundation engineering, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York Poulos FG (1988) Tae mechinies of calcareous sediments, Jaeger Memorial Lecture, Sth ‘Australia-New Zealand Geomechanics Conferenes,pp 8-41 Poulos HG (1989) Pile behavior ~ theory and applicaton, Geotechnique 3(3):365—415 Rendon-Herrero O (1980) Universi compression inlex equation. 1 Geotech Eng Div ASCE 106(GT11):1179-1200 Salgado R (2008) The engineering of foundation, MeGraw Hill, New York, 882 p Schanz T, Vermeer PA (1996) Angles of fiction and dilataney of sand. Geotechrigue 46(1): 185-151 Sehmertmann JH (1978) Guidelines for cone penettion test performance and design, Report FHWA-TS-78.209, LS. Dept of Transporation, Washington, 148 pp SSchmertmann JH, Hartman JP, Brown PR (1978) Improved stain influence factor agra 1 Geotech Eng Div ASCE 104(8):1131-1138 ‘Semple RM, Rigden W1 (1984) Shat capacity of drivn piles in clay, Analysis and design of pile foundations, ASCE, pp 59-79 ‘Skempton AW (1944) Notes on the compressibility of clays. QJ Geol Soc Lond 100:119-135 ‘Skempton AW (1954) The pore pressure coeiciens 4 and B. Geotechnique 4143-147 ‘Skempton AW (1957) Discussion on “The planning ond design ofthe new Hong Kong airport ‘Poe Inst Civil Eng Lond 7:305-207 Skempron AW (1959) Cast-in-sits bored piles in London clay. Geotechnique 9(4):153-173, ‘kempton AW (1986) Standard penetration test procedures andthe effects in sands of overburden pressure, relative density, particle size, ageing ata overconsolidation. Geotechnique 36(3) 828-487 ‘kempeon AW, Northey RD (1952) The sensitivity of clays. Geotechnique 8:30.53 Sorensen KK, Okkels N (2013) Correlation between dined shea strength and plasticity index of undisturbed overconsoidated clays, In: Procesdirgs of the 18th intematonal conference on soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering, Pars, Presses des Ponts, 1, pp 423-428 Sridharan, A, Nagara) HB (2000) Compressbiiy hevavior of remoulded fine grained soils and ‘conlations with index properties, Can Caotech J7(9 12-722 ‘tas CV, Kulhawy FH (1984) Critical evaluation of design methods for foundations under axial ‘uplift aed compression loading, Report for EPRI, No. EL-2771, Comell Unversity ‘Suechy K. Varga L (1978) Foundation engineering ~ soil exploration and spread foundations ‘Akademiai Kiado, Budapest, 508 p “Taylor DW (1948) Fundamentals of soil mechanios. Wiley, New York, 700 po ‘Terzaghi K, Peck R (1928) Sei mechanics in enginecring practice. Wiey. New York ‘Teraaghi K. Peck R (1967) Soil mechanics in enginesing practice, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York ‘Teraghi K, Peck RB, Mest G (1996) Soil mechanics i engineering practice, 3nl edn. Wile, ‘New York Miner ys. Clay Clay snd setlemen of pile foundations. J Geotech Eng ASCa6 3. Comclations for Laboratory Test Parameters “Tokimatsu K, Seed HB (1987) Evaluation of setements in sands due to eutiquake shaking. J-Geotech Eng ASCE 113(8):861-878 [USACE (1990) Engineering and design —setlement analysis, EM1110-1-1004, Department of the ‘Amy, US Army Comps of Enginesrs US Air Force (1983) Soils and geology procedures for foundation design of buildings and other structures, Air Force Manual AFM pp 88-3 Chapter 7 (Also U.S. Amy Techical Manual 5818-1), Deparents of the Amy and Air Force, Washington, DC US Any (1994) Setlsment analysis, Technical Engineering and Design Guides, ASCE. US. Navy (1971) Soil mechanics, foundations and earth structures, NAVFAC Design manual DM-7, Washington, DC US. Navy (1982) Soil mechanics — design manual 7.1, Department ofthe Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, US. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC Vesie AS (1972) Expansion of cavities in ininite soil mass. J Soil Mech Found Div ASCE 98:265-290 Winterkor HF, Fang H-Y (1975) Foundation engineering handbook, Vani Nostrand Reinbold ‘Company, New York Wood DM (1983) Index properties and critical state soil mechanics. In: Proceedings of the symposium on rent developments in laboratory and feld tests aad analysis of geotechnical problems, Asian lnstiute of Technology. Bangkok, pp 301-309 ‘wrath CP (1984) The interpretation of in sia soil tests. Geeseehnique 34(4):449-489 ‘Woot CP, Houlsby GT (1985) Soil mechanies ~ property characterisation and analysis pro- ‘edues. In: Proceedings of the Ith TCSMFE, Sen Francisco, pp 1-55 \Wroth CP, Wood DM (1978) The corelation of index properties with some basic engineering ‘properties of sols. Can Geotech J 15(2): 137-145 Chapter 4 Standard Penetration Test Abstract ‘This chapter provides a detailed description of the Standard Penetration ‘Test (SPT) procedure and corrections to be applied to the SPT N value and hammer energy. Correlations of SPT NV value with reative density, peak drained friction angle and modulus of elasticity of sand are discussed in detail. In clays, correlations to obtain the undrained shear strength, precorsolidation pressure, over consolida: tion ratio are provided, As the SPT N value is used extensively in the design of foundations, correlations to obtain foundation bearing capacity for both shallow and deep Foundations are provided. Keywords Standard penetration test + SPT + Correlations + Relative density + Liquefaction + Bearing capacity 4.1 Standard Penetration Test Procedure ‘The standard penetration test (SPT) is a test conducted during a test boring in the field to measure the approximate soil resistence to penetration of a split-spoon sampler at various depths below the ground surface. The test allows a disturbed soil sample to be collected at various depths. This testis elaborated upon in ASTM Test Designation D-1586 (2014). ‘A section of a standard split-spoon sampler is shown in Fig. 4,la, The tool consists of a steel driving shoe, a steel tube that is longitudinally split in half, and a coupling at the top. The coupling connects the sampler to the drill rod. The standard, split tube has an inside diameter of 34.93 mm and an outside diameter of $0.8 mm. ‘When a borehole is extended to a predetermined depth, a standard penetration test (SPT) can be conducted by removing the drill cols. The sampler is connected to the drill rod and lowered to the bottom of the hole. 1t is then driven into the soil by hammer blows to the top of the drill rod, The standard weight of the hammer is 622.72 N and, for each blow, the hammer drops a distance of 0,762 m. The number Of blows required for a spoon penetration of three 152.4-mm intervals is recorded. ‘The number of blows required for the last two intervals is added to give the standard penetration number NV at that depth. This number is generally referred to as the V value. The sampler is then withdrawn, and -he shoe and coupling are removed. © Springer India 2016 8788 4 Standard Penctraton Test Water port Head. Fin j-——457.2mm +} 76.2mm-={ t 249mm |50.8 mm Dring “Threads Driving re soe Courting . Fig. 4.1 (a) Standard splitspoon sampler: () spring coe catcher Finally, the soil sample recovered from the tube is placed in a glass bottle and transported to the laboratory’ "The degree of disturbance for a soil sample is usually expressed as (4a) where Ap =area ratio (ratio of disturbed area to total area of soil) outside diameter of the sampling tube ide diameter of the sampling tube is 10 4 ot less, the sample generally is considered to be undisturbed, Fora standard spit spoon sampler, (50.8) — (34.93)? iz > 100 = 111.5% (3493) Aal%) = Hence, these samples are highly disturbed. Split-spoon samples generally are taken at intervals of about 1.5 m, When the material encountered in the field is sand (particularly fine sand below the water table), recovery of the sample by a split- 42. Comection of W Value for Etfective Overburden Pressure (For Granular Soils) 89 spoon sampler may be difficult, In that case, s device such as a spring core catcher may have to be placed inside the split spoon ‘Fig. 4.1b). 4.2 Correction of N Value for Effective Overburden Pressure (For Granular Soils) In granular ols, te value of Vis affected by the effective overburden pressure, For that reason, the value of’ obiained from field exploration under diferent effective overburden pressures shouldbe charged to correspond io a standard value of ¢.08 Ny = Cyal (42) where Ny =Vvalue of N corrected to a standard value of ¢/, = py * 1004N/m* Cy=correction factor P= atmospheric pressure = 100 N/m? 4g, = effective overburden pressure A number of empirical relations have been proposed for the correction factor, Cy. in the past. Some ofthe relationships are given next, The most commonly cited relationships ate those of Liao and Whitman (1986) and Skempion (1986), + Liao and Whitman (1986) (43) + Skempton (1986); (for nomally comolidated fine sd) (4.4) (for normally consolidated coarse sand) (4.5) Tp =——— > _ [for overconsolidated sand) (4.6) 07+ (2)%0 4 Standard Penetration Test ‘Tokimatsu and Yoshimi (1983): Cy 7) + Seed et al. (1975): Cy = 1 —1.25I0g(% (4.8) m(a) “ + Peck et al. (1974): cx erm] (ord 202) a) * Bazaraa (1967): oe (oe & 15) (470) E = 4000-+ 100C(N — 6) kN/m? (4.47) E=C(N +6) kg/em*(forN < 15) (448) 4.7. Comelation of Undrained Cohesion (,) with Nfor Clay Soil 03 E 100C(W +6) KN/m? (449) C=3 for silt with sand to 12 for gravel with sand Due to the uncertainty of estimating £, Kulhawy and Mayne (1990) proposed the following as an initial approximation. = sNey —(Forsand with fines) (4.50) 10Nq (for clean normally consolidated sand) (4.51) 1SNso (for clean overconsolidated sand) (4.52) Po 4.7 Correlation of Undrained Cohesion (c,,) with N for Clay Soil Table 4.7 provides the approximate consistency, comesponding N value, and undrained cohesion (c,) of clay soils (Terzaghi and Peck 1967), These values need to be used with care. From the table itis evident that ex(kN/m?) KN (43) where K 6 and N= Neo Szechy and Varga (1978) provided a correlation between the consistency index (CD, N, and cy. The consistency index is defined as, L-w ‘af IL-PL (454) 1 =natural moisture content Table 47 Approximate variation of consistency. N, snd ndrained cohesion of hay 5 GN)10 44 Standard Penetration Test Tabled Vaiation of C1,N, WCF onnvoney oN a <03 [Very sori <3 05-075 [Sofi medium | 12.5-40 sue ‘da | Wexy sft Su [515 Hard Based on Savchiy sd Vanya (1978) ‘Table 49 Vacation of? wth plasticity index (PI) ‘The correlation is given in Table 4.8 ‘Stroud (1975) provided a correlation between N, c,, and plasticity index (PY) of clay soils, which is ofthe form Sea (455) Pa ‘The hammer used for obtaining the data had an energy ratio of approximately 73%. For an energy ratio of 60 %, the a value provided by Stroud (1975) have been ‘modified by Salgado (2008) as, Hence, (4.4) can be reriten Sadia 1456) ‘The interpolated values of a’ with plasticity index are given in Table 4.9. 4.8 Correlation of Preconsolidation Pressure (¢/.) with N for Clay Soil “Mayne and Kemper (1988) analyzed standard penetration test results of 50 different clay deposits along with the results of oedometer tests performed on thin-wall tube 44.10 Correlation of Cone Penetration Resistance (q2) with N 105 (4.57) where 0, = preconsolidation pressure Equation (4.57) can also be approximated as we aay (48) Po It is important to point out that the NV values [tased on which Egs. (4.57) and (4.58) have been developed] were not corrected to a standard energy ratio (i.¢., Ngo). SO this may be considered as a first approximation only. 4.9 Correlation of Overconsolidation Ratio (Ocr) with N for Clay Soil Mayne and Kemper (1988) provided regression analysis of 110 data points to obtain ‘8 correlation between N and overconsolidation ratio (OCR) of clay soil, According to this analysis ock = 0.193 @)" (6.59) swhere oi in MN/ For a forced exponent = 1, the repression data indicates 0a(2) (4.60) OCR = 4.10 Correlation of Cone Penetration Resistance (q.) with N Geotechnical engineers do not always have the luxury of having the standard ‘penetration test data and the cone penetration test data. When only one is available, it is useful to have some means of converting from one to the other. Section 5.9 in Chap. 5 provides a detailed discussion and available correlations for g, and N.106 4 Suandaré Penetration Test 4.11 Correlation of Liquefaction Potential of Sand with N During earthquakes, major destruction of various types of structures occurs due to the creation of fissures, abnormal and/or unequal movement, and loss of sirength or stiffness of the ground. The loss of strength or stiffness of the ground results in the settlement of buildings, failure of earth dams, landslides, and other hazards, The process by which loss of strength occurs in soil is called soi! liquefaction. The phenomenon of soil liquefaction is primarily associated with medium- to fine- rained saturated cohesiontess soils. Example of soil tiquefaction-related damage are the June 16, 1964 earthquake at Niigata, Japan, and also the 1964 Alaskan earthquake, Since the mid-1960s intensive investigations have been carried out around the world to determine the soil parameters that control liquefaction. Aer the occurrence of the Niigata earthquake of 1964, Kishida (1966), Kuizami (1966), and Ohasaki (1966) studied the areas in Niigata where liquefaction had and had not occurred. They developed criteria, based primarily on the standard pene- tration number of sand deposits, to differentiate between liquefiable and non-liquefiable conditions. Following that, Seed (1979) used the results of several studies to develop the Jower-bound correlation curves between the cyclic stress ratio in the field (t)/6",)hets and (V)eo for earthquake magitudes (Mf) of 6, 7.5, and 8.25. This is shown in Fig. 4.10, in which r= peak cyclic shear stress and ¢, = initial effective overbur- den pressure For given values of (Vi)so and M, if (sy/o,)gas falls above the plot, then liquefaction is likely to occur. For estimation of r», the readers may refer to Das and Ramana (2010). (Crulo’ Jaws With (Noo and a of (aL os A . (Noes 4.13 SPT Corcelations with Foundation Beacing Capacity 107 ‘Semi-empirical field based procedures have been given strong attention in the last 2-3 decades and SPT, CPT (cone penetrometer test) and shear wave velocity have become the main in situ tests favoured by academics and practitioners 10 assess liquefaction potential, Although SPT hes been the main test historically used, the CPT is becoming more common in liquefaction assessments (Robertson and Wride 1998) especially as the database of case histories grows. Semi-empirical procedures for evaluating liquefaction porential during earthquakes is well ‘established and in 1996 NCEER workshop achieved a worldwide consensus on the semi-empirical assessment prevailing at the time. The procedures have been further developed as more data has become evailable and more research has been carried out, Section 5.11 in Chap. 5 discusses one of the methodologies currently adopted to assess liquefaction potential for both SPT and CPT tests. 4.12 Correlations for Shear Wave Velocity, v, Several correlations between the shear wave velocity v, and field standard penetra~ tion number N have been presented in the past A few of these correlations are given in Table 4.10, Significant differences exist among the published relations that may ‘be due 10 differences in geology along with tie measurement of NV and v,. If shear ‘wave velocity , is known, the small strain shear modulus (Ge) can be obtained from the following expression: Go= pv? (461) 4.13 SPT Correlations with Foundation Bearing Capacity SPT results are most useful in foundation design. There are correlations between SPT N value and the base resistance for shallow foundations and, many for shaft and base resistances of foundations. Poulos (2014) reports the work of Deccurt (1995) and Table 4.11 presents correlation factors for shallow and deep foandations which could be used with the equations given below. Shallow foundations : ultimate bearing capacity g, =Ky.N)kPa (4.62) Piles : ultimate base resistance f,, = KN kPa (4.63) Piles : ultimate shaft resistance f,=a.2.8N,+ 10]kPa (4.64) where N,=average SPT (Neo) value within depth o° one-half of the footing width N, =SPT value along pile shaft108 4 Standard Penetration Test ‘Table 4.10, Some Correlations between ¥ (avs) and N 4.13 SPY Comlations with Fouevation Bearing Capacity 109 ‘Table 4.11 Comlation factors Kj and K K KR Tks ani Soiliype | Shallow ongs [Displacement piles | Non-dplacement ls Sand “30 = Saniysit 0 Srraa “Dita and Goto 1978) a “Seed and lariss (1981) Spon and Sickoe (53) “Okamoto et al. (1989) “Paks a 1999, ‘Riku etal. 2001) After Decourt (1995), ‘Table 4.12 Correlaons between shat resistance f,and SPT N value with Tafa et N,=SPT value close to pile tip K;, Kz= factors shown in Table 4.11 1 for displacement piles in all soils and non-displacement piles in clay 0,5 ~0.6 for non-displacement piles in granular soils, For pile foundations, Poulos (1989) divides analysis and design procedures for axial capacity into three categories: Category 1: Correlations with SPT or CPT and total stress method (e.g. Tomlinson 1957) Category 2: Effective stress method (e.g. Burland 1973; Fleming et al. 1985) Category 3: Plasticity solutions for end bearing capacity (e.g. Meverhof 1963), analytical and numerical solutions Poulos (1989) state that “Category J procedures probably account for most pile designs done throughout the world’. He compiled correlations as presented in ‘Tables 4.12 and 4.13, File T a ee “owns Driven |Coesons 2 f= aveege vale over Meyerot 56) a | hat "Shite Fo 7 (098) | | ay | i [Cohesionios & 10 | cohesive Cast in place [Cohesive [0 Bored | Cohesionless (0 [Cohesive Cohesive |coatk [oias /i28 I { “After Poulos (1989) 1982) Yamashita etal. (1987) Shioi and Fukui (982) Findlay (1988) Shiol ana Fukui (axa) i ‘Weight and Resse 097%) Shioi and Puke ee gece ‘Piles cast under bentonte_| Decour (1983) [s0>N>3 [f* CORN i [30> N15 ‘AfierFeicher and ipa 20 Mizon (1984)0 4 Standard Penesaion Test ‘Table 4.13 Comelations between end bearing resistance fy and SPV value with: Pile ] KNMNint type Soil ype Remarks References Driven [Send ‘verage value falocal | Martin etal, 987) displ. | sa ~ Joo | fare zone Decourt (1982) Si, sandy si Manin etal (1987) Glacial coarse to fine ‘Thorburn and Mae silt deposits | Vieur (971) | Decourt (1982) Residual sandy ate | 025 Decourt (982) Forks | Shioiand Fuku | hiewiaes, Rai poor 098) | (close end piles) or | | 0,06 Lid(open-enxled | piles) Castin | Cobesoniese |e 30 Nin? |Shio’ and Fukui place | L | |1982), [us [> 75a? Yara |e, 987) Caheve = =O 01) Yamashita eth fm) | etal (1987) Bowed nS and Fak L | (19s) ‘Gay ais Shioi and aka ase} a Gai a2s [wea Hobs (177) - i (020 |N> 40 ‘Aer Poulos (1989) References American Society for Testing andl Mateials (2014) Annual book of ASTM standards, 04.08, ‘Wes! Conshohocken Bazaraa A (1967) Use of the standard penetration test for estimating settlements of shallow oundations on sand, PhD. dissertation, Civil Engineering Department, University of Minos, (Champaign Urbana Begemann HKS (1974) General report fo central and westem Europe. In: Proceedings, European ‘symposium on penetration testing, Stock. Bowles JE (1996) Foundation analysis and design, Sth edn. McGraw-Hill, New York Burland 18 (1973) Soft frction piles in clay ~ a simple fundamental approach. Ground Eng 6(3):30-42 CCubrinovski M, Ishihara K (1999) Empirical comelations between SPT N'valuss and relative density for sandy soils. Soils Found 39(5):51-92 Refsrences a CCbrinovski M, Ishibare K (2002) Maximum and minimum void ratio characterises of sands Soils Found 4216):65-78 Das BM, Ramana GV (2011) Principles of soil dynamics, 2nd edn. Cengage, Stamford Decour L (1982) Prediction of the bearing capacity of ples based exclusively on N values of the ‘SPT, In: Proceedings ESOPT Tl, Amsterdam, 1, yp 29-34 Decour L (1995) Prediction of load-setlement relatonships for foundations on the basis of the 'SPT-T, In: Ciclo de Conferencas Ine, "Leonardo Zeevaert”, UNAM, Mexico, pp 85-104 DeMello VFB (2971) Standard penetration tet In: Proceeding, sth Panarmercan conference on ‘soil mechanics and foundation engineering, San Juan, Pueto Rico, ASCE, pp 1-86 Dikmen © (2000) Statistical correlations of shear wave velovty and penetration resistance for soils. Geophys Eng 6(1):61-72 Ferrent TA (1963) The prediction of fel verificaon of setlement on cohesonfess soils. In; Proceedings, ah Australia-New Zealand confereace on soil mechanis and fourdation eng neering, pp U-17 Findlay JD (1984) Discussion. fn: Piling and ground treatment, Institution of Civil Engineers, “Thomas Telford, London, pp 189-190 Fleming WGK, Welinan AJ, Randolph MF, Elsen WK (1985) Piling Engineering. Suey University Pres/Halsied Press, New York Flejeher MS, Mizon DH (1984) Piles in chalk for Orvel bridge In: Piling and ground treatment Tnstiution of Civil Engineers, Thomas Telford Landon, pp 203-209 Gibbs HJ, Holtz WG (1957) Research on determining the density of sand by spoon penetration vesting. In: Proceedings, 4th intemational confence on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, Landon. [pp 35-39 Hasancebi N, Ulusay R (2007) Empirical correlations between shear wave velocity and penetra tion resistance for ground shaking assessments. Bull Eng Geo! Environ 66(2):203-213 Hatanaka M, Uchida A (1996) Empirical contelations between penetmtion resistance and intemal Fiction ange of sandy sols. Soils Found 36(4):1-10 Hobbs NB (1977) Behavior and design of piles in halk ~ an introduction to the discussion of the Pers on chalk, In: Proceedings, sympasium on ples on weak rack, London, pp 148-175 Holtz WG, Gibbs HI (1979) Discussion of “SPT ond relative density in coarse sand”. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE 105(3):439-41 Imai T (1977) P- and S-wave velocities of the grouné in Japan, In: Proceedings, Mh international ‘conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, Tekyo, Japan, 2, pp 257-260 Jafar MK, Shafice A, Razmkhal A (2002) Dynamic properties ofthe fine grained soils in south of ‘Tehran, J Seismol Eanthquake Eng 4(1):25-35 ‘Kiku H, Yoshida N, Yasuda S, Insawa T, Nakazawa H, Shimizu Y. Ansal A, Erkan A (2001) Ines penetration tes and soil profiling in Adapazast, Turkey, In: Proceedings, 15th inter national eonference ox soil mechanies and gectectnica engineering, TC4 Satelite Conference ‘on Lessons Learned frm Recent Strong Earthquckes Istanbul, Turkey, pp 259-269 Kishida H (1966) Damage to reinforced concrete bu dings in Niigata City wit special reference to foundation engineering, Soils Found 7():75-92 ‘Kuizurni ¥ (1966) Changes in density of sand subsoil coused by the Niigata earthquake Soils Found 82):38 44 Kulhawy FH, Mayne PW (1990) Manual on estimating soil propertos for foundation design Electic Power Research Institue, Palo Alto Lino SSC, Whitman RV (1986) Overbunden correction factors for SPT in sand. J Geotech Eng ASCE 11231373377 Marcusoa WF II, Biegenousky WA (1977) SPT ane relative density in course sands. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE 103(11):1205-1309 Marin RE, Sei JJ, Powell GW, Bertoulin M (1987) Conerete pile design in Tidewater, Vegi I Geotech Eng ASCE 113(6): 568-585 Mayne PW, Kemiper 1B (1988) Profiling OCR in siff clays by CPT and SPP. Geotech Test J ASTM 11(2):139-14712 4 Standard Penetration Test Meyerbof GG (1956) Penetration tests and bearing capacity of cohsionless soils. J Soil Mech Found Eng ASCE 82(SM1):1~19 Meyehof GG (1957) Discussion on research on determining the density of sand by spoon ‘penetration testing. In: Proceedings, 4th intemational conference on soil mechanics and Foundation engineering, London, 3. pp 110-114 Meyerhof GG (1959) Compaction of sands and the bearing capacity of piles. Soil Mech Found Div ASCE 85(6):1-29 -Meyerhof GG (1963) Some econt research on the bearing eapaciy f foundations. Can Geosech J 116-26, Mitchell JK, Gardner WS (1975) In situ measurement of volume characteristics. In: Proceedings, specialty conference, geotechnical engineering division, ASCE 2, pp 279-345 ‘Otusaki ¥ (1966) Niignte earthquake 1968, building damage and soil Conditions, Soils Found ocr1437 (Ohta ¥, Goto N (1978) Empirical shear wave velocity equations in tems of characteristic soil indexes, Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 6:167-I87 ‘Okamoto T, Kekusho T, Yoshida Y. Kusuonoki K (1989) Comparison of surface versus subsut= face wave source for P-S logging in sand layer. In: Proceedings, 44th annual conference, Japan society of civil engineers, 3, pp 996-997 (in Japanese) Peck RB, Hanson WE, Thornbarn TH (1974) Foundation engincering, 2nd ed, Wiley, New York Piiilakis K, Raptakis D, Lontetgis KT, Vassiikou T, longmans D (1999) Geotechnical and ‘geophysical description of euro seistests using field and laboratory tests, and moderate strong ‘ground motions. Earthquake Eng 3:281-409 ‘Poulos HG (1989) Pile behaviout-theory and application, Georechnique 39(3:365-415 Poulos HG (2014) Tall building foundations ~ design methods and applications. In: Proceedings conference XXVII RNIG, Sociedad Mexicana de Ingenieria Geotécnia A.C., Puero Vallarta, Jalisco Robertson PK, Wride CE (1998) Evaluating eyclie liquefaction potential using the cone peae- tuometer test. Can Geotech J 35(3):442-459 Salgado R (2008) The engineering of foundations. McGraw-Hill, New York Salgado R, Boulanger R, Mitchell 1K (1997) Lateral stress effects on CPT liquefaction resistance conelatons. J Geotechn Geoenviron Eng 125(8):726-735 Sehmertmana JH (1975) Measurement of in sit shear strength In: Proceedings, specialty con- ference on in stu measurement of sil properties, ASCE. 2, pp $7-138 Seed HB (1979) Sol liquefaction and eyclic mobility evaluation for level ground during ean quakes. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE 105(21:201-255, Seed HB, Idriss IM (1981) Evaluation of liquefaction potential of sand deposits based on ‘observations and performance in previous earthquakes, Preprint No, 81-544, In situ testing to evaluate liquefaction susceptibility, Session No. 24, ASCE Annual Conference, St Lous, Missouri Seed HB, Arango 1, Chan CK (1975) Evalution of soil liquefaction potential during earthquakes, Report Na, EERC 75-28, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of Califomia, Berkeley Seed HB, Tokimatte K, Harder LE, Chung RM (085) Infvence of SPT procedures in si liquelaetion resistance evaluations, J Geotech Eng ASCE 111(12):1425-14as Shioi ¥, Fukut (1982) Application of N-vave to design of foundations in Japan. In: Proceedings 2nd European symposium on penetration testing, Amsterdam, 1, 9p 159-164 ‘Skempton AW (1986) Siandard peneiation tes procedures und te effect in sands of overburden pressure, relative density, particle size, aging and overconsolidation. Geotechnique 363) 425-407 ‘Stroud MA (1975) The standard penetration test in insensitive clays and soft rocks, In: Pro: ‘ceedings, European symposiam on penetration testing 2, pp 367-378 ‘Spkora DE, Stokoe KH (1983) Coneations of in-situ measurements in sands of shear wave velocity Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 20:125-136 References us Scechy K, Varga L (1978) Foundation engineering ~ soil exploration and spread. foundation, ‘Akaulemiai Kiado, Hungary Terzaghi K, Peck RB (1967) Sol mechanic in engineering practice, 2nd ed. Wiley. New York. ‘Tokimatsw K, Yoshimi ¥ (1982) Empirical corelatinn of soil liquefaction based on SPT N-value and fines content. Soils Found 234):56-74 ‘Tomlinson MI (1957) The adhesion of piles driven ino clay soils. In: Proceedings th inerns- sional conference sol mechanics and foundation engineering, Landon, 2, pp 66-71 ‘Thombumm S, MacViear BS (1971) Pile lo tess to lure inthe Clyde alloviun In: Proceedings, conference on behaviour of piles, London, pp 1-7 ‘Webb DL (1969) Setlement of structures on deep alluvial sandy sediments in Durbas, South ‘Affi, In: Proceedings, conference on the in sits behavior of soils and rocks, Iasttion of Civil Engineering. London, pp 181-188 Woltt TF (1980) Pile capacity prediction using parimeter functions. In: Predicted and observed ‘xial behavior of ples, resus of a pile prediction symposium, ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication 23, pp 96-105 ‘Wright SI. Reese LC (1979) Design of large diameter bored piles. Ground Eng 12(8):47-81 ‘Yamashita K, Tomono M, Kakurai M (1987) A method for estimating immediate setiement of piles and pile groups. Sols Found 27()61-76 Yoshida ¥,Ikem M, Kokusho T (1988) Empirical formulas of SPT blow: counts fr gravelly soil In: Proceedings, Ist intemationel symposium on penettation testing, Orlando, Florida, 1. pp 381-387Chapter 5 Cone Penetrometer Test Abstract This chapter covers one of the most popular insitu tests, the cone Penetrometer test (CPT). A brief description of different types of tests has been Provided, The piezocone test, an advanced CT, is described including the test procedure and the parameters obtained in the field, Pore pressure transducer placement locations and the corections to measured pore pressures are presented. ‘A detailed discussion of soil classification using cone test results is provide. Correlations for design parameters related to sands and clays are discussed sepa rately, For sands, correlations include relative censty, friction angle, modulus and small strain modulus. For clays, comelations include the undrained shear strength, over consolidation ratio, constrained modulus, small strain shear modulus, eom- pressibiliy, friction angle, unit weight and permeability. As the CPT test competes, with SPT test for popularity, correlations between the iwo tests are also discussed. Correlations to use CPT derived parameters directly 10 calculate the ultimate bearing capacity of shallw and deep foundations are presented. The chapter con- ‘cludes witha section on liquefaction assessment using CPT as well as SPT results. Keywords Cone penetrometer test + CPT + Correlations + Piezocone + Soil classification * Liquefaction + Bearing capacity 5.1 Cone Penetrometer Test - General ‘The cone penetrometer test (CPT) is a versatie in situ test (Fig. 5.1) which has become a routine test for site investigations worldwide to characterize clays and sands, There is litle doubt that the cone penetrometer test is one of the the most widely used in situ test in areas where soft and compressible soils occur. As the test Js. continuous test, the subsoil profile variation is captured with significantly more details compared to a vane shear test or a SPT which are generally carried out at 11.5 m depth intervals. It is a test most useful in weak clays and sands, Latest ‘machinery used for advancing CPT in soils have more power and robustness compared to early equipment and therefore is use in competent soils such as very stiff to hard clays and dense sands is generally not an issue, Modern advances on CPT rigs allow the recovery of undisturbed samples or carry out vane shear tests in addition to carrying out conventional CPT -esting. This is very advantageous © Springer India 2016 1slie 5S Cone Penetromter Tel Fig. 1. CPT machine in mod fats (Courtesy Yvo Keulemans, CPTS) because of significant additional costs involved if a separate borehole rig has 10 ‘mobilised for sampling and vane shear testing. ‘The main disadvantage of the CPT is that it does not provide an absolute valu for soil parameters and the results need to be calibrated against other tests such vane shear and laboratory tests such as triaxial tests. Where such data are available, practitioners use local experience and/or empirical values to deriv design parameters There are generally three main types of cone penetrometers: 1. Mechanical cone penetrometer ~ Also known as the Dutch Cone Penetrometer the Static Cone Penetrometer, this uses a set of solid rods or thick walled tubes i operate the penetrometer, The penetrometer tip is initially pushed about 4 c1 and the tip resistance is recorded. Then both cone and sleeve are pushed together to record the combined tip and cone resistance. This is repeated with depth 10 provide a profile for cone and sleeve resistances. The procedure allows & ‘measurement be taken at about every 20 om. Electric cone penetrometer ~ An advancement of the mechanical cone, the electric cone has transducers 10 record the lip and sleeve resistances separately. ‘Therefore it has the advantage of advaneing the cone continuously 10 abtain a continuous resistance profile and the inner rods are not required 3. Electric cone penetrometer with pore pressure measurements (Piezocone) ~ A further addition to the penetrometer is the inclusion of pore pressure transducers at the tip or on the sleeve to record continuous pore pressure measurements, The testis widely known with the abbreviation CPTu, A more popular name for the CPTu equipment isthe piezocone. In Chap. 1, Table 1.1, where applicability and usefulness of in situ tests are summarised, itis evident thatthe piezocone has the best rating amongst in situ tests for parameters obtained or the ground type investigated. 52 Piezocone Test Equipment and Procedure ut ‘A further development of penetrometer type isthe seismic cone penetrometer test which allows the measurement of the shear wave velocity with depth, The cquipment consisis of the piezocone unit plus & receiver for seismic measurements. Generally, at every 1 m interval (ie. at rod breaks), a shear wave is generated atthe ground surface and the seismic wave arrival time is recorded. The shear wave velocity could be converted to a shear modulus (see Sect. 55.4) using empirical correlations. The seismie cone penetrometer wst is not addressed here and the reader is referred to Mayne (2007) ‘The main difference between the traditional CPT and the CPTu is the measure iment of pore pressure in the later test, The measurement of pore pressure provides a wealth of data, with @ pore pressure profile at the test location, reflecting the «itferent soi types. This type of data was never available to the designer as no other test in history could measure continuous pore pressure with depth. CPTu therefore ‘became very popular within a relatively short time although traditional CPTS are sill in use, probably because of the cost of new equipment and accessories. Most likely, the traditional CPT will be phased out from the market, especially in the developed world, because of the advantages oflered by the CPT Equations and empirical relationships available for the CPT are equally valid for the CPTu with additional relationships established due to extra information pro vided by pore pressure measurements. Therefore, in this chapter, we will be referring 1 the CPTu rather than the CPT although correlations that do not include pore pressure measurements would still be valid for both One of the other achievements inthe CPTu i its ability o carry out dissipation {ests t0 obiain the coefficient of consolidatior of clays. At a nominated depth, advancement ofthe cone is stopped and the pore pressure generated is allowed to dissipate and the measurements are recorded continuously. Generally a target of 50 % dissipation is adopted because of time constraints. Even such a limited duration in soft soils could be inthe order of anhour or two. Where the dissipation is very slow because the coefficient ofcansolida‘in, ,, 8 very low, some operators Teave the test overnight for dissipation. Readers are referred to Lune etal. (1997) fora description of the test and derivation of geotechnical parameters related to the rate of consolidation 5.2. Piezocone Test ~ Equipment and Procedure ISSMGE Technical Committee 16 (TC16) (Ground Characterization from In Situ Testing) published an International Test Procedure for the CPT and the CPTu, The information given below on the equipment (see Fig. 5.2) and procedure is mostly based on that report The piezocone test consists of a cone and a surface sleeve continuously pushed into the ground and the resistance offered by the cone and sleeve measuredus 5 Cone Ponetrometer Test Fig, 52 Various Cone Pencirometer including Electric Friction and Piezacone types (After FHWA NHLO1.031 ~ Mayne etal, 2002) electronically, in addition 1o measuring the pore pressure by the use of a pore pressure transducer. The standard cone tip is usually 10-15 cm and has an apex angle of 60°). The cone is pushed with a standard rate of penetration of 20-4 5 mms Figure 5.3 shows the location of main components ic. cane, sleeve and the pore pressure transducer of the probe whichis pushed down by rods. The measurements taken with depth include: + Tip resistance (4,) + Sleeve friction (/) + Pore water pressure (i) ~ could be measured at the cone face (1), shoulder (uz) or top of the sleeve (1) (see Fig. 5.3) ‘Tip resistance (q) i obtained by measuring the ultimate force (Q.) experienced by the cone only divided by the area of the cone (A). ea 6.1) Sleeve friction (f,) is obtained by measuring the ultimate force (Q,) only on the sleeve, ie., side friction, divided by the area of the sleeve (A,). (52) In piczoconen/CPTu's, the pore pressure transducer is located generally at mid-facs Of the cone (measuring uj) or at the shoulder (measuring 1) ie. where cone and sleeve mect (sce Fig. 5.2). The resistance measurements are influenced by the water pressure acting behind the cone tip and the edge of the sleeve, Therefore a correction needs to be ap When the pore pressure transducer is located at the shoulder, the following equation could be used to correct the cone resistance (Jamioikowski et al. 1985; ‘Campanella and Robertson 1988; Lunne ct al. 1997; Campanella etal. 1982; Mayne 2007): 52. Piezocome Test~ Equipment and Procedire 19 Fig. 5.3. Components and correction dels of a piezocone (Adapted from FHWA NHL-O1-081 — “Mayne eta, 2002) Frisian sloove Pore pressure ft 4 Cone ‘A, = SURFACE AREA OF CONE SLEEVE CONE SLEEVE MEASURING SIDE RESISTANCE adhe (83) where corrected tip resistance pore pressure measured at the shoulder 4, =net area ratio, approximately equal to the ratio of shaft cross section and cone ‘ross section areas (usually measured in a calibration cell, Lune et al, 1997) ‘As Lunne et al. (1997) points out, although = value close to 1.0 is ideal, the ratio a generally ranges from 0.55-0.9, However, values as low as 0.38 have been120 5 Cone Penetrometer T recorded which should be unacceptable when the testis carried out in very soft fn ‘stained soils because the correction becomes the main contribution 10 qy ‘A correction factor is also applicable to the sleeve friction (Lunne et al. 1997}: (4) where Ay =¢ross sectional area of the sleeve at the base ~ Fig. $.3. ‘Avy =cross sectional area of the sleeve at the top ~ Fig. 5.3. ‘A, surface area of the sleeve — Fig. 5.3, In clayey soils, the magnitude of pore water pressures generated during a test could be high and the correction can be significant, Therefore, the correction factor is most important to correct the recorded tip resistance and provide more accural results, However, pore water pressure correction is not important for sands because the pore pressure generated is not significant and therefore the measured pore pressure purely reflects the height of the groundwater table i.e, measures the hydrostatic pressure, Therefore it is not significant whether g, or qe is used for engineering assessments when sandy soils are present. ‘Although the ISSMGE TC16 (1999) Reference Test Procedure refers to pore pressure measurement at the soulder, ic. u2, some penetrometers measure the pressure at the cone (ij) in which case uz could be obtained as follows (Lunne et al. 1997): (us ~ wo) = K (uu ~ wo) (5.5) equilibrium pore pressure (due to groundwater table) "Typical values for K’ presented by Lunne et al. 1997 (modified after Sandevan 1990) are presented in Table 5.1 “Two other important parameters related 10 CPTu and will be discussed later are the Friction Ratio (R) and the pore water pressure parameter (B,). Ry is deduced. from the two parameters q, and fi: Ry (9) a By is derived from the following equation: (5.7) where ‘= total overburden stress 54 Soil Clasiication rey ‘Table 5.1 ‘Typical values fr adjustment factor K if fers located at the cone (Lanne etal. 1997) Soil ype ‘CLAY nommally consolidated [3 CLAY slighily overconsolidated, sensitive oo CLAY heavily overconsolidated, stiff {1042 SILT loose, compressible ore a5 SILT dens, diative ‘SAND loose, sil 5.3 Practical Use of Penetrometer Test Results ‘The cone penetrometer test is a complex tes! to be analysed and itis largely used with empirical relationships for all practical purposes. In addition to soil classifi- cation and provision of a continuous profile the test allows the derivation of several geotechnical parameters. The main uses of the test for the practitioners could be summarized as follows: 1, Soil classification 2. Correlations for Cohesiontess soils (a). Relative density (b) Friction angle (©) Modulus (@)_ Small strain shear modulus 3. Correlations for Cohesive soils (a) Undrained Shear Strength (b)_ Sensitivity (©) Over consolidation ratio (OCR) (@) Modulus and compressibility (e) Small strain shear modulus (1). Friction angle Correlation with unit weight Correlation with foundation resistance Correlation with SPT Correlation with permeability 5.4. Soil Classification One of the primary objectives of a cone penetrometer test is to identify the soil profile from the test results. While empirical rules have been established for this purpose as discussed later, it should be stressed that a probe test can never displace/ replace borehole sampling which allows physical observation of the materials and12 5 Cone Penetrometer Test allows laboratory ts tobe carted out. Therefore itis generally considered good practice to conduct boreholes to supplement the CPT programme so that CPT results could be calibrated against and also to collect samples for laboratory testing. Initially, calibration of penetrometer test results were caried out using the cone resistance and friction ratio as pore pressure measurements were not available until the advent of the piezocone. One of the earliest comprehensive classifications was, carried out hy Dowiglas and Olsen (1981) nsing come resistance and th friction ratio tis generally accepted thatthe measurement of sleeve friction is often less accurate and less reliable than the cone resistance. The advent of the piezocone allowed the additional measurement of pore pressure which allows better classification of sols. The main additional parameter used for soil classification is the pore pressure ratio B, [Eq. (5.7)} (Over the years, many an author has proposed classification methods and charts based on either CPT or CPTu test results. They include Schmertmann (1978), Robertson et al. (1986), Robertson (1990), Eslami and Fellenius (1997), Olsen. and Mitchell (1995), Senneset et al. (1989), Jones and Rust (1982), Ramsey (2002) and Jefferies and Davies (1991). Long (2008) reviewed the proceedings of various conferences to find out the commonly used classification charts by aca- demics, researchers and practitioners. He concluded that, over the period 1998-2006, Robertson et al, (1986) and Robertson (1990) charts are the most popular. Long (2008) also reports on Molle (2005) who canied out a review of Published literature to determine the reliability of different classification chars and concluded that Robertson et al. (1986) and Robertson (1990) charts provided reasonable {0 very good results. Therefore only these two methods are briefly discussed below. ‘The two methods of Robertson et al (1986) and Robertson (1990) use the following parameters forthe classification charts + Robertson et al. (1986) ~ g,, By and Ry (Fig. 5.4) + Robertson (1990) ~ Q, (normalized q.), By and F, (normalized friction ratio) Fg. 55) Normalized coneresistance Q, = \— = (68) Normalized friction ratio, qn 10% (5.9) effective vertical stress¢y = ay ~ uo (6.10) From the two charts in Fig. 5.5, only the first chart could be used if a CPT is carried out without pore pressure measurements, Robertson ct al. (1986) state that linear normalization of cone resistance (Q.) is best suited for clay soils and less appropriate for sands. So Soil Classification 13 1000 109 Cone Resistance ap, “700204 as 08 T a4 Pore Pressure Parameter 8, Frlction tl) Fig. 54 Proposed soil behaviour type classification system from CPTu data (Adapted from Robertson et al. 1986)Baie Bama OM Fig. 55. Soil behaviour ype classification char hased on nommalised CPTICPTu data (adapted ‘from Robertson 1990) 5.3. Conlations for Sunds 135 = seearanetoamces| one | centres yet Ee Normalized cone resistance, Oy, Normalized tet rato, F, Fig. 6 Contours of SBT inex, 1, on nonmalized SBT charts of Roberson (1990) [Note Normally Consolidated Zone (see Fig. $5) lt out for elarity but shoul be superimposed Jefferies and Davies (1993) introduced an index /, 10 represent Soil Behaviour “Type (SBT) zones in the Q, vs F, chart (Fig.5.5) of Robertson (1990). Th index f> is the radius of eile defining the zone boundaries. Robertson and Wride (1998) presented a modification to this index that could be applied to the chart in Fig. 5.5. ‘The modified definition is: (3.47 -10g0,)* + (logk, + 1.22)"]"* (5.11) Figure 5.6 shows the modified chart of Fig. 5.5, 5.5 Correlations for Sands 5.5.1 Correlation with Relative Density of Sand Relative density, D,, is a parameter used in sands to identify the level of compaction Of the material (see Sect. 2.3.2). Itis given by the formula:126 5 Cone Penetrometer Test ~ (6.12) ‘where mae =Maximum void ratio nin =tinimum void ratio in situ void ratio ‘This equation can be re-written as follows: (5.13) where 4 max Maximum dry density Pa min minimum dry density ain situ dry density Relative Density could be evaluated using laboratory and field tests specifically catered to obtain density values: 1. Use laboratory procedures to find minimum and maximum density, and ena and 2. Use in situ tests such as sand replacement method and nuclear gauge test to find the in situ dry density and hence e. ‘There are various country standards detailing the laboratory procedures to obtain the maximum and minimum density including ASTM Standards D4253-14 and 4254-14. However, the in situ density using sand replacement or nuclear gauge can only be measured at shallow depth because it is not practical or feasible to excavate test pits more than about 1 m deep to carry out such tests, The use of CPT and SPT type tests are used widely in the industry to assess relative density by the use of empirical rules to convert the penetration resistance. Early research has categorized the density to describe the relative behaviour as shown in Table 5.2 Baldi ct al. (1986) presented several correlations for both normally consolidated (NC) and over consolidated (OC) sands, The following correlation is for NC sand: @(ahs) (4) oil constants (For moderately compressible, normally consolidated, ‘unaged and uncemented, predominantly quartz sands, Cy= 157 and C=2.41) D, 155 Correlations for Sands ry ‘Table 5.2. Borderline values of Dy .N and for granalar soils “Very loose Loose -Meclumdense Dense Verydenss 1%) 08 35 6s 8 100 Nea 4 10 30 50 3 8 25 ® “eo 4 a 0 36 a ‘s(dea) 6 58 50 Neo? "Teen and Peck (148) "Gs and Ht (157; "kamptn (196); "Peek a (1974) qe=cone penetration resistance in kPa ogo =effective vertical siress in kPa Mayne (2007) states that most correlatiors in the 70°s and 80's did not consider the boundary effects of the calibration chambers and refers to Jamiolkowski et al. (2001) who introduced a correction factor in reexamining previous results and the expression proposed was as follows GfPa_\ _ 10 |o2sn(—248-) ow| (5.15) Another widely used relationship was proposed by Kulhawy and Mayne (1990) who highlighted the effects of compressibility and over consolidation ratio (OCR) on the relationship between the relative dersity and the dimensionless cone resis- tance, Based on available comected calibration studies they proposed the following, approximate solution to capture the differen relationships: D, yz __ Few P5050, Oncn 6416) where (ae | Pa) {Coy bad Qc=Compressibility factor (0.91 for high, 1.0 for medium and 1.09 for low). Kulhawy and Mayne (1990) state that majority of the natural sands are likely to be of medium to high compressibility Qoce = Overconsolidation factor = OCR?" tmospheric pressure in same units as Jo di di cans18 5 Cone Penetrometer Test of coeftcients a and in Ea 5.19) 5.5. Comelatons for Sands ne ‘Table $4. Correlation of gc and relative density with fiction angle for eubesionless soils (After Meyerhoff 1956), ems | ‘Burland and Burbidge (1983) Upper limit ‘State of | Relative ‘al friction angle Lower limit packit Density Woke nd Capea (985) Very less | <02 aa Wee 02-04 [410 Median Joras —]i030 [O12 ]s40 ae | | a = tenes ee EO ‘Anagnstpouos ta (2003) cS - Ce sspreopens oa BOE) - vey dane ]>08 >a fans ‘The above equation is similar in form to the equation Kulhawy and Mayne (1990) proposed for the SPT with the most important difference being SPT rela- tionship included aging whereas the above CPT relationship is only for unaged sands, They suggested that, if the same functional relationship for aging holds for ‘both the SPT and CPT, then itis necessary to include the aging factor they proposed for the SPT relationship. This results in the following equation although they warm that this addition is currently speculative: * 2. pia Ou 527 3050, Ovex x Lia where Q, = Aging fact 1.2 + 0.05log (1/100), rinyears (5.18) Das and Sivakugan (2011) summarise the work of several authors who investi- gated the relationship between q,, Nao (SPT at 60 % efficiency) and Dso (median again size). The correlations can be expressed as follows: ® = Ds, (5.19) ‘Table 5.3 lists the average values for a and ¢ from these studies. Further relationships between SPT N and q. are presented in Sect. 5.9. 5.5.2 Correlation of qe with Sand Friction Angle, ‘There have been several attempts to interpret the friction angle of sand from CPT, specifically the CPT tip resistance, q. (Janbu and Senneset 1974; Durgunoglu and ‘Mitchell 1975; Villet and Mitchell 1981). One of the earliest contributions was by ‘Meyerhoff (1956) who presented the following Table 5.4 based on the Static Cone Penetrometer. ‘Table $$ Comclation of qe “Relaive den and relative density wick friction ange for cohesionless for mixed soils (Afar ‘Bergdabl tal. 1993) “very weak a [ana Robertson and Campanella (1983) progosed an empirical relationship to be applicable to uncemented, unaged, moderately compressible quartz sands after reviewing calibration chamber test results and comparing with peak friction angle ‘rom drained triaxial tess. The relationship was presented as a graph of log (ql) ‘against tan The design chart has been approximated (0 te following (Robertson ‘and Cabal 2012): and? vg () +0 23| (520) a [*(!) Dysti and Steiner (2011) cite the contriburion by Bergdahl etal, (1993) as shown, in Table 5.5 correlating the friction angle with q, and relative density, for granular soils, Mayne (2007) cites the following correlation based on the results obtained in calibration chambers: 7.6 + 11 0log(4u) (s.21) where Gu!) la O8 (5.22) Cola) oa130 5 Cone Penetrometer Test 5.5.3 Correlation with Constrained Modulus of Cohesionless Soils As previously discussed, to obtain undisturbed samples in cohesionless soils is difficult and expensive, Therefore, practitioners favour the use of in sit testing to determine the deformation properties by the use of empirical correlations, At shallow depth, tests such as the plate load test provide a simple but effective test although this test cannot be used to assess the deeper profile. Trial embankments could provide good evaluation of the modulus along the depth profile if adequate instrumentation such as settlement plates and extensometers are used. Obviously such tests re very expensive and may not be justified when only a limited budget is available for the site investigation. CPT, presuremeter test and dilatometer test therefore become an important tool available to the geotechnical designer. ‘As Baldi etal. (1989) state, although the stiffness of cohesionless soils depends ‘on many factors including the grading, mineralogy, angularity, grain fabric, stress- strain history, mean effective stress, drainage conditions etc. in a given soil, ppenctration resistance is primarily controlled by the void ratiojtelative density ‘and the state of the effective stress. Based on a large number of tests carried out in situ and in a calibration chamber, proposed correlations to obtain the drained ‘Young's modulus of silica sands based on cone penetration resistance is shown in Fig. 5.7 (Bellotti etal, 1989). Fig. 57 Evaluation of deuined Young's modulus from CPT for slies sands (Adspted from Bellotti et al. 1989) SS. Conelations for Sands ma ‘TableS.6 Initial tangent consreined modulus conlstion wits q. (Reported by Lunne etal. 1997) ‘Constrained modulus (M,) relationsip with g. (MPa) _| Applicable g.range NC Unsaed Age 2g, + 20 (MP) __/My= 120 MPs - OO od Sq mamas 2s MPa [Note -M, value represens the modulus atthe insu ef etve vera tes, oy, before the start of ‘As Lunne et al, (1997) points out, most correlations between penetrometer test results and the drained constrained modulus fer to the tangent modulus as found from oedometer tests, The correlations are typically represented as: M=aq. (6.23) where M-= Constrained modulus and « = ccnstrained modulus factor, a constant Robertson and Campanella (1983), summarizing the work of Lune and Kleven (1981) who reviewed calibration chamber results of different authors, commented. that the results indicate an a of 3 should provide the most conservative estimate of [-D settlement and that the choice of a value depends on judgment and experience. Lunne etal. (1997) presented the work of Lunne and Christophersen (1983) for in situ tangent modulus (Mp) for unaged, uncemented, predominantly silica sands (see Table 5.6). As noted by Lunne et al. (1597), these correlations were based on tests carried out to a level of axial strain equal to 0.1 %, corresponding to the upper limit of the average vertical strain of practical interest of shallow and deep foun- dations in cohesionless soils. To calculate modulus for higher stress ranges, Lune and Christophersen (1983) recommended Janbu’s (1963) formulation (s2e Lunne et al. 1997): (524) where ‘Ao’, = additional stress above the initial stress Robertson and Cabal (2014) suggested the following formulation: M=aula,~ 00) (5.25)12 5) Cons Penetrometer Test When [< <2.2 (coarse grained soils) 7 ay, = 0.0188 [10954718] (5.26) I: has been defined in Eq. (5.11) 5.5.4 Correlation with Small Strain Shear Modulus of Cohesionless Soils ‘Small stain shear modulus, Go, is considered vali for very small strain levels up to 0.001 %. It is generally recognized that the most appropriate way of assessing Go is by measuring the shear wave velocity, V,. Go could then be calculated as follows: Go= ov? (527) where p = bulk density However, unless project specific detailed investigations are carried out, itis generally the practice 10 use penetration tests to assess Gp using empirical, correlations. Lunne tal (1997) reports the correlation proposed by Rix and Stokes (1992) for uncemented quartz sands, shown in Eq. (5.28) and Fig. 5.8, which is based on calibration chamber test results where God. and oye. are given in kPa in the range equal to Average +Average/2. Schnaid (2009) presented a theoretical relationship for Go against q, of unaged cemented soils as shown in Fig. 5.9. Together with the theoretically derived database, Schnaid (2009) has shown empirically established upper and lower bounds on the same plot. Robertson and Cabal (2014) state that available empirical correlations to interpret in situ tests apply to unaged, uncemented silica sands. To use such equations for other sands could lead to erroneous assessments in parameters, in the current case, Go. ‘Therefore they proposed the following lower and upper boundaries to characterize uncemented, unaged sands based on Eslaamizaad and Robertson (1997): (5.29) Where *b’ is a constant of 280 for upper bound and 110 for lower bound, cis a narrow range and if the results fall outside the validity of the basic 5.5. Comelations for Sands 13 % ‘verge SOs Average Fig. 58 Gilg, (Adapted from Rix and Stokes 1992) Upper bound uneeartin w 125 ‘00 Fig. 59 Theoretical comalation between Gulg, and gor (Adapted from Schnaid 2008)cord 5. Cone Penetometer Test 5.6 Correlations for Cohesive Soils 5.6.1 Correlation with Undrained Shear Strength of Cohesive Soils Undrained shear strength of a clayey soil is one of the most derived parameters from ‘a CPT test, apart from classification of the soil profile. The CPT test cannot directly measure the shear strength and only could be derived by empirical correlations ‘associated with other tests either in situ or laboratory, It is universally known and highlighted elsewhere in this book that the measured undrained shear strength is not lunique and that it depends on many factors including rate of strain, loading arrangement, anisotropy, stress history etc. Therefore, when the CPT test result is calibrated against a particular test whether it is the vane test, direct shear or triaxial ‘compression, the resulting values would be related to that particular test. The commonly adopted test to calibrate against CPT is the vane shear test although other tests such as triaxial tests are also used. Extensive research and studies have been conducted over the years and various theories postulated, However, the common, standard expression adopted by prac- titioners to derive ¢, is based on Terzaghi’s bearing capacity equation and can be “written as follows: (5:30) ‘where N, is called the cone factor, With the emergence of CPTu and the measurement of pore pressures, as previously discussed, the tip resistance g, measured by CPTu needs to be corrected to yield q, (see Eq. (5.3)), and Eq. (5.30) could be re-written with a different cone factor Ni fb ~ Ovo) ir (5.21) Many studies have predicted Ny values in the segion of 10-20, sometimes even ‘outside this range, and therefore a universally accepted unique value is not possible. It is strongly recommended that additional tests such as vane shear, direct shear, triaxial tests be conducted at test locations adjacent to cone penetrometer tests and calibrate to establish site specific Ny values. Where such luxury is not available and there is no previous experience in the particular soil deposit, practitioners tend to adopt an Ng value in the range of 14-16. However, it is recommended that sensitivity analysis be carried out especially where it is critical to the design. Several researchers have attempted to identify correlations between the cone factor and the plasticity of the material, Aas et al, (1986) concluded that Ni, increases with plasticity although there was significant scatter in the 5.5 Correlations for Cohesive Soils uss results, Discussion by Powell and Quarterman (1988) and recent research by Kim et al. (2010) appear to confirm the conclusions of Aas et al. Robertson and Cabal (2014) also state that Ni, tends to increase with plasticity and decrease with sensitivity. However, others have found either no correlation or, in fact, Ny decreasing with increasing plasticity index (La Rochelle et al. 1988; Hong et al, 2010; Remai 2013). Kulhawy and Mayne (1990) mention the work by Battaglio et al. (1973) who concluded that a trend exists for Ny for uncomected ‘vane shear test data in terms of plasticity index (P/). However, later reanalysis after correcting the vane hear test data indicated that Ne is not influenced by PL. Until further research confirms a correlation. it is advised not to make any judgment unless site specific data is available. Tis suspected that the cone resistance is subjected to errors especially in softer clays, Therefore, researchers have proposed an alternative to derive ey from excess [pore pressure measurements. The corresponding equation could be written as follows: tae (5.32) Xcess pore pressure measured at up position and Pore pressure cone factor Equations (5.7) (5.31) and (5.32) lead to the following relationship between N3, and Ne Naw = BeNuc (9.33) Robertson and Cabal (2014) indicate that Nj, varies between 4 and 10, Findings of other researchers found values of similar order, perhaps slightly narrower range (La Rochelle et al. 1988). 5.6.2 Correlation with Sensitivity of Cohesive Soils Sensitivity can be defined as follows; peakundsturbed shear strength Sensitivity Se) =F emnoudded shear strength ‘One would deduce that sensitivity is somewhat related to the skin frietion ‘measured by the cone penetrometer, Schmertmann (1978) proposal was based on this and could be simply written as follows:136 5 Cone Penetrometer Test (3:34) where Nisa constant and Ry isthe fretion ratio. Although Schmertmann (1978) suggested values for Ny it was based on a ‘mechanical cone and therefore not applicable to electric cones. including piezocones. While several proposals have been put forward, Lunne et al. (1997) suggestion of an average value of 5 with 6-9 likely range appears practical and reasonable. 5.6.3 Correlation with Over Consolidation Ratio of Cohesive Soils ‘Over consolidation ratio is an important parameter for cohesive soil deposits and is expressed as the ratio of the maximum past effective stress a soil element had ever been subjected to and the current effective vertical stress. ‘maximum pasteffecrive pressure Over consolidation raio (OCR) utonrario (OCR) current effective vertical stress ‘There are several methods to derive OCR from cone penetrometer data and some of the common or simple methods are given below. ‘Method 1 (Based on Mayne 2007) + Estimate the overburden pressure a, + Caleulate o/, using Eq, 5.36 (a- 4) (5.36) where k is « preconsolidation cone factor. An average of 0.33 is proposed with an expected range of 0.2-0.5 + Assess o', and calculate OCR Mayne (2007) points out that this is a first order estimate of the OCR for intact clays; it underestimates values for fissured clays. A similar order of factor k is recommended by Demers and Leroueil (2002) Method 2 + Estimate o', + Estimate o, from CPT or CPTu as discussed previously in this Seetion + Calenlate cy! a, (62. (C4! Joo) + Adopt (cy! op )vc (Say 0.22 as per Eq, (8.16) 5.6 Comtelations for Cohesive Soils ur Table 8.7 Constrained modulus eoeficient for cehesive soils (Adopted from Sanglerat 1972; after Frank and Magnan. 1995) Saye Je Tow Fasicy Gay (2) icuct leaes Leae2s ‘Silt, Low Liquid Limit (ML) dea Teac? High Plscty Clay (HY Si. High Liquid Limi (RD d 300 | aces Note —w= nat I moisure content (5) + Calculate OCR using Eg. (5.37) @.e = @),20 (537) where mr could be assumed to be 0.8 (see Sect. 8.6). ‘Method 3 (Based on Mayne and Kemper 1988) ocr = 0.37 («@ i" (5.38) 5.6.4 Correlation with Constrained Modulus of Cohesive Soils (Constrained modulus of soft 10 firm clays is commonly assessed using the cunsol= ‘dation test: M=1/m, (5:39) where my is the coefficient of volume compressibility. ‘Table 5.7 and Eq. (5.40) from Frank and Magnan (1995), who cites the work of ‘Sanglerat (1972), could be used to obtaine th: constrained modulus, Equation (5.40) is similar in nature to Eq. (5.23) for sands.138 5 Cone Ponetrometer Test Table §8 Constrained modulus factor for clays Aor [ae Meigh (1987) — 2s Kuthawy and Mayne (1990) = ‘Mayne. is [for @,>14 when >22 0.03 10°"1) when ke < ‘Table $9 Coefficient of constrained modulus factor for NC and lightly OC clays and silts (After Meigh (1987), Sai Canticain Tay Tigh na Ca al cas] a 337, Clays of Intermediate Plasticty cc Fee i Ge.IMNim* 37-10 fsonmm Ss of Intermediate or low Plasticity 3575 _ Ogaiaie 25-10 Peat and rpc oy soca os teocwcat0 lass ev 03 M=aq, (5.40) ‘More recent studies indicate that M could be obtained from CPT profile using Eq. (5.41) which is of a similar form to Ea, (5.25) for sands. M = aw (q, — 00) (3.41) ‘Some of the values for ay reported in the literature are shown in Table 5.8. A more detailed assessment for different materials was carried out by Sanglerat (1972), However, as Meigh (1987) points out the recommendations were based on a Dutch Cone penetrometer. Meigh (1987), based on limited field evidence, adopted a factor (up) of 1.25 to the values proposed by Sanglerat (1972) and the modified factors are shown in Table 5.9, 5.6.5 Correlation with Compressibility of Cohesive Soils Centre for Civil Engineering Research and Codes (CUR) (1996) suggests the following formula to calculate the compression ratio. CR: 5.6. Condation for Cohesive Sie 139 ‘Table 5.10 Coefficient f in Coefficient HSA Cer cu) — Pus cay — oao8 pest os-i6 (5.42) ‘The coefficient fi for different soil types of cohesive materials is presented in Table 5.10. 5.6.6 Correlation with Friction Angle of Cohesive Soils For soft to firm clays where can be assumed tobe zer0, Eg. (5.43) could be used to find gf where i related to B, (Mayne 2014). The assumption of e =o preclude the use ofthis equation to assess the friction angle of OC soils. Mayne (2014) sates that the equation is only applicable if 20° < 9 < 45° and 0.1< By < 1.0, @ (degrees) = 29.58%" [0.256-+0.336B, +100) (5.43) Where Q, 548 as previously defined, 5.6.7 Correlation with Small Strain Shear Modulus of Cohesive Soils As previously discussed, the small strain shear modulus is related to the shear wave velocity, v,. Mayne and Rix (1995) presented the following equation to obtained v, from q. values of intact and fissured clays, ve = 1.7546)” (5.44) where vis in units of m/s and qe in KPa. By considering as a bearing capacity problem, Mayne and Rix (1993) stated that it is more appropriate to utilize a net cone resistance, such as (qe — 00), OF more correctly (g;— 2). The data for both fissured and intact clays were re-examined ‘but no statistical improvement could be detected. Therefore only the intact clay results were re-examined and the following correlation resulted:140 5 Cone Penetromerer Test Table $.11. CPT —V, Comslation equations (After Weir el. 2012), soll | T re lm re a ‘leas dae Qutra {1.ttogta.) — 114 (100%) soils i | z | Mayne 2006) Quatemary TB Blog(f,) + ree [Pirtheepan (2003) | Holocene 32,3 go 9121 poms [anunnetcary jane 2a 2D [Robeson 008) [Qustemnry | (1958-9, aa) “Sand | Sykors nd Soko 31 F008 4, oi (dos) i [Bata eral G98) Holocene Tae | Hezazy and Mayne | Quaternary 1a fe, | a995) | | Hegazy and Mayne | Quatemary 12.0 ig 0 | 0983) iraheepan (2002) | Holocene iogazy and Mayne | Quaternary | 985) | | Hogazy and Mayne | Quaterary “(253 9 7905 DHS joe) dl Seat [Mayne and Rix | Quatemary [eas ee jax | ‘Mayne and Rix | Quatemary 2995) | Piratheepan (2002) >, =100KPa ; “SF = 0.92 for Holocene and 1.12 for Pleistocene Stress unit in KPa and depth (D} in meters (Quaternary vy = 9.44 (GJ (60) 87 (5.45) where v, is in m/s and q, in kPa. “Mayne and Rix (1993) developed the following equation for clays where Gnesi the initial tangent shear modulus (i.e. same as Go) Gas = 99.5 p,™ (9, (5.46) where p, , Gray and 4, of same units and ¢g is the initial void ratio. ‘Various other authors have provided correlations for v, and q.. Wair et al. (2012) summarized v, prediction equations as shown in Table 5.11. For consistency, Wair etal. (2012) have modified the equations to use consistent units of KPa for qc, f, and o', with depth in metres. 5.7 Corelation with Unit Weight Mi 5.7 Correlation with Unit Weight ‘There have been several studies linking the unit weight to CPT measurements. ‘There have also been correlations for the unit weight involving the shear wave velocity. Two of the recent correlations for unit weight derivation based on mea- surements of CPT are by Robertson and Cabl (2010) and Mayne etal. (2010) who have used the sleeve friction in addition to the tp resistance to propose useful relationships. Robertson and Cabal (2010) froposal is shown in Fig. 5.10 and in Eq, (5.56) while Mayne et al. (2010) derivation is shown in Eq. (5.47). 236 (5.47) 27 [logy] + 0.36[log(/n.} rim" oa 1000 = Sendto | Very Sgeyeand Fee gees Dimensionless cone resistance ap, Fretion etl, A= ae 00 (8) Fig. 5.10 Normalised unit weight and friction ratio (Adapted from Robertson and Cabal 2010)142 3 Cone Penetrometer Test ‘Table 12 Permeability fom CPT rests Soll Behaviour Tye Sensitive fine gained 1107110 “0 we 10 Li Gravelly sand co sand ian Tot "Very stiff sand to clayey sand 1x07 iT ‘Very stf fine aaine [x10 1 x10 “Over consolidated ar cemented 5.8 Correlation with Permeability Robertson (1990) provided a correlation between the Soil Behaviour Type (see Sect. 5.4) and the permeability as shown in Table 5.12, Robertson and Cabal (2010) state thatthe average permeability (k) shown in Table 5.12 can be represented by Eq. (5.49) and Ea. (5.50) using SBT index, J, defined by Eq, (5.11). When L0§ [0.30 Jas n ND = ron dispacement ile, D= displacement pil 3 = 5.10.2, Deep Foundations & Frank and Magnan (1995) in their national report for France for the CPT9S conference state that the French practice does not use the sleeve ‘fiction f, to caleulate bearing capacity but only the cone resistance q.. The ultimate base resistance is given by: Pant y= keg (5.37) where k, i the base bearing capacity factor. The values of &; recommended by the design code for foundations of the French road administration (MELT 1993) are given in Table 5.15. The unit skin friction g, is obtained from using the following equation 1 For some types of piles specific study is ned of casing 4 = minimum value of {gc/f: dmae} (358) limit skin fection from CPT (AI where f and qua Values recommencded for different soil types and pile types are given in Table 5.16. Frank and Magnan (1995) state that CPT pile design rules used in France are based on a large database of full scale pile loading tests and therefore probably one of the best design rules used. r ‘Sioa driven closed waded Pile ype led Drilled removed easing Driven concrete “in chalk, g, can be very lo Table 5.16 Uniry 5 Cone Penetrometer Test 5.11 Liquefaction Assessment ‘As discussed in Sect. 4.11 in Chap. 4, soil liquefaction is a serious phenomenon ‘which could create major destruction to life and property during earthquakes, The use of in situ tests to characterize soil liquefaction is quite popular and itis widely accepted that they provide better solutions than laboratory tests because of inherent difficulties associated with collecting undisturbed samples from sandy soils. His- torically, SPT test results were used to assess liquefaction potential, however, with the advent and rapid advancement of the CPT, the later has provided an additional tool that could be used for the same purpose, Table 5.17 lists the advantages and disadvantages of the two methods CPT is now accepted as a primary tool for liquefaction assessment because of, as Roberison and Campanella (1995) point out, simplicity, repeatability and accuracy, CPT also provides a continuous record in addition to being quicker and less costly It is quite common to use both SPTs and CPTs especially when the project is large and{or critical Liquefaction potential is generally assessed based on a factor of safety related 10 the soil resistance. The factor of safety (FS) is defined as the ratio of eyclie shear strength of the soil (ie., eyclic resistance ratio, CRR) and the cyelie stress devel- oped by the design earthquake (i.e., cyclic stress ratio, CSR): FS), = CRR/CSR (5.59) ‘The use of appropriate FSy depends on the site, information available, assessment tools and design assumptions made. If design assumptions are conservative and ‘good quality data are available and the designer adopts a conservative approach & F5y, of 1 could be adopted if valid computational method is used. Even then, a wr value may be warranted if the consequences of failure could have a signif- icant effect on the environment and health and safety, ‘Table 5.17 Comparison of SPT and CPT for assessment of liquefaction potential (After Youd etal. 2001) Fearare [SPT PT ‘Norbert messiemens a Tgweacion | Abunda ‘nda shes “Type af asin chav ifuoning to [Paral Gave lage rane. lage [Poor good [Very geal Detection vrs ‘Good ery good Soil pein which eis recommended] Non gavel “Test provides sample of il Yes "Test messes index or ngincsing propery {Inde S.LL_ Liquefaction Assessment 19 CRR and CSR values are often adjusted to an equivalent shear stress induced by ‘an earthquake magnitude M = 7,5 and commonly referred to as CRR7.s and CSR; = and therefore Eq. (5.59) could be written as follows FS = fos (5.60) ‘The methodology to assess liquefaction potential oe FS), could be summarized as follows (Idriss and Boulanger 2006): Calculate CSR for the design earthquake. M (CSRry) ~ Sect. 5.11.1) Calculate Magnitude Scaling Factor (MSF) ~ Sect, 5.11.1.1 Convert CSRy to a standard earthquace magnitude of 7.5 (ie. CSR75) Sect. 5.11.1 4, Normalise resistance and correct for ove-burden stress ~ Sect, $.11.2 (a) CPT-Seet, 5.11.21 (b) SPP ~ Sect, 5.11.22 5, Correct for Fines Content, FC ~ Sect. §.:1.2.3, 6. Calculate CRR for a magnitude of 7.5 and 1 atmosphere, ic. CRRys,.00 — Sect. 5.11.3 7, Caleulate CRR - Sect, 5.11.3 (afier assessing the overburden factor, Ke = Sect. 5.11.3.1) 8, Calculate FS), ~ Sect, 5.11 introduction 5.1.1 Cyelic Stress Ratio Cyclic Stress Ratio (CSR) for a design earthquake magnitude M could be calculated by the following (Seed and Idtiss 1971): ‘dae Maximum horizontal acceleration at the ground surface g acceleration due to gravity Oo total vertical overburden stress o'.a offective overburden stress ry Stress reduction factor TEériss (1999) proposed the following expressions to compute the stress reduction factor, ri where190 5 Cone Penetrometer Test a = elatFoyM) (5.62a) 1.012 — 1.1265in (555 +5.133) (5.626) z og + 542) (5.62c) depth below ground surface AAs Idriss and Boulanger (2008) state, although the above equations are mathe- ‘matically applicable to a depth of 2 < 34 m, uncertainty in rg increases with depth and therefore should only be applied to depths less than 20 m or so. For deeper sites specitic site response analysis should be carried out. Other correlations have been proposed and the following trilinear function provides a good fit to 7, originally proposed by Seed and Idriss in 1971 (Youd etal. 2001): LO ~ 0.00765 zif2 < 9.15m (5.638) rq = 1.174 = 0.0267 2/f9.15m<2 < 23m (5.630) Magnitude Scaling Factor (MSF) is used to convert the CSR calculated for the design earthquake to a common or reference earthquake magnitude, generally accepted to be of magnitude 7.5 using Eg, (5.64), CSRs Ru / MSF (5.64) 5.11.11 Magnitude Scaling Factor (MSF) ‘There are several expressions that could be used to calculate MSF. The participants at the NCEER Workshops in 1996/98 recommended the following expression as a lower bound for MSF (Youd et al. 2001): MSF =" soa (5.65) ‘The MSF relationship was re-evaluated by Idriss (1999) as reported by Idriss and Boulanger (2006) and presented below. MSF = 6.9) ~ 0.058 < 18 (5.66) 5.11.2 Normalization of Resistance ‘The methodology described below is as deseribed by Boulanger (2003) and, Idriss and Boulanger (2006) including fines correction proposed by Rabertson and Wride (1998), To be consistent and simple, it is assumed that the unit for pressure/stress ‘would be kPa SIL Liquefaction Assessment 151 $.11.2.1 Normalization of Resistance ~ CPT CPT penetration resistance, qc, is initially corrected for overburden stress effects using an equivalent effective vertical stress (.) of one atmosphere (100 kPa) and an overburden correction factor, Cj, a8 part of the semi-empirical procedure (Boulanger 2003): ov 5 (3.67) day = Oven = Gs 284 (368) ov= (BY cur (5.69) 8-020 fgay (5:70) Solving for Cy sequites an iterative process because of its dependence on 4.19. 5.11.2.2 Normalization of Resistance ~ SPT ‘The equivalent equations for SPT are as fol ows (Boulanger 2003): (Ni}eo = Cx Noo (5.71) oy (ey sin If «can be found in the laboratory by testing a disturbed sample, from Eqs. (6.16) and (6.17), both g aod y’ could be found by solving the equations or using a chart presented by Mair and Wood (1987) and shown in Fig, 6.5. Mair and Wood (1987) ‘comment that in the absence of test data, approximate values could be taken (based ‘on experience) and the range 30° < # <35° covers most quartz sands and the uncertainty of 5° in gf, corresponds to an uncertainty of about 2.5°in ‘The above relates to tests carried out by a self-boring pressuremeter. In a Menard type pressuremeter, as the disturbance is significant, the use of the above theory 10 derive @! and y’ is not recommended, An empirical method of determining the friction angle of a granular soil has been adopted by Menard and his colleagues in France which is based on the following equation (Baguelin et al. 1978). pr apat-a4 8) where 1eteffective limit pressure at whichthe initial volume of the probedoubles sausical gi elena 155 Use of Menard Type Pressuremeter Test Results Directly in Desion im 1.8 for wet soil with loose structure 3.5 for dry, structured soil However, the accuracy of the empirical method does not appear to provide a hhigh confidence in the derivation of friction angle in sands, 6.4 Correlations with Other Tests 6.4.1 Correlation Between Limit Pressure from Menard Type Pressuremeter and qq from Cone Penetrometer Test Amar etal. (1991) reports the following relationship given in Table 6.3 (After Van ‘Wambeke and d’Hemricourt J 1982), 64.2. Correlations with Other Soil Parameters - Menard Type Pressuremeter Briaud (2013) provided several correlations (se Tables 6.4 and 6.5) for the Menard type pressuremeter based on a data base of 426 tests carried out at 36 sites in sand, 44 sites in clay and 2 silt sites, and reported in Briaud et al. (1985) and Briaud (1992), The latter comments on the significant scatter and cautions on their use but ‘admits they would be very useful in preliminary calculations and for estimate purposes. 6.5 Use of Menard Type Pressuremeter Test Results Direetly in Design ‘The Menard Pressuremeter (MPM) has bee1 extensively used in France in site investigations for various types of foundations and semi empirical design rules have been developed, hased partly on theory and partly on observations of founda- tion behaviour. Menard, the inventor of the MPM, commenced the establishment of design rules so that what is measured could be directly related to design of foundations. After significant research carried out in France the latest design rules for the MPM test were incorporated in a Code of Practice called “Pascicule 62 — Titre V", was approved and officially adopted by MELT114 6 Pressuremeter Test, ‘Table 63. Correlation ‘Soil ype [Clay [Sit [Sand [Dense sand and gravel between Tmt pressure and ge am 13 (6 |p {2 665 Use of Menard Type Pressuremeter Test Results Directly in Design 175 ‘Table 6.6. MPM Bearing factor forthe desiga of shallow foundations iceland me ‘After Van Wambeke and d'Hemricout J (1982) OFT, { Chay & Sin {1+035(05+ 081% /, ‘Table 64 Conlaions for Sand (Column A = Nunberin Table» Row B) cuyc (0540s 1% /, Colm = Nomar in Table x Row B sa Sund’A : z 64081), 2 T b | 1 Sand & Givel = (reos0(06+08)1"/, eee Sand & Gri ~ [(iFoso(oe+osn ffs ea cansac 705208) DL (kPa) 0.125 (00156 Tins Marl & Caeareous Mae & Weak Rook -getkPa) 1087 016 86 “Category defined in Table 6.7 “ay 001740003 (00 ~jas8 “SPIN 0.0026 .00086 ~fo.o02i L ‘ater Brad 2013) Sai “Chy Sit Number in Table x Row B) . | Hard (ely) FVARiaae Sanaa © anes enum peer “Sind & Gravel fire) {fire era | ap 1 [2518] 100 [5013 [260 [00 Chalk 1 ara ——]78 sf [ao i a0 0% 0s 1 Mi & Cale 00 [0003s [oss |o0s7 08 ‘SPTN [oom —|o0ws [002 —[o00s6 ‘0001 fos Weak Rock ‘Ate Brinad (2013) (minisiere de "Equipment, du Logement et des Transpons) in March 1993 (Frank 2009), In the sub-sections below 8 summary of most ased parameters are viene discussed based on Frank (2009). sr, = Menard Type Pressuremeter bearing fator 6.5.1 Ultimate Bearing Capacity (qu) of Shallow Foundations ~ Menard Type Pressuremeter ‘The ultimate bearing capacity is related to the ultimate limit pressure py (Ge. pressure at which the initial volume doubles) and the ultimate bearing capacity equation for a vertically loaded foundation is written in the simple form: quand po — confining vertical and horizonta Di ~ Bo = net limit pressure, p/* ‘The bearing factor kis a function of the type and consistency/density of the soil, relative embedment D./b (D. is the equivalert embedment depth) and ofthe width’ length (biL) ratio, A summary is presented in Table 6.6 for shallow foundations and. the categories are presented in Table 6.7. Schnaid (2009) reports that MELT approach requires the net limit pressure to be taken to be the equivalent value ‘over a zone within 1.5 B of the foundation level where B is the width ofthe footing.176 © Prossuremeter Test, ‘Schnaid also discusses the MELT requirements for inclined loads and foundations adjacent to slopes. 65.2 Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Deep Foundations ~ Menard Type Pressuremeter Test Equation (6.19) is still valid for the assessment of the ultimate bearing capacity of a deep foundation with the end bearing factor k, shown in Table 6,8, Sehnaid (2009) describes the Menard approach to calculate the equivalent net limit pressure of a pile having an equivalent diameter ‘B” equal to 4A/P, A being the cross sectional ‘area and P the perimeter of the pile. The procedure involves the integrated average ‘over a zone from the base of pile: + extending upwards to ‘b’, and + extending downward to “3a” where ‘a’ is equal to BI2 or 0.5 m whichever is greater “bis the minimum of ‘a’ and *h’ where ‘his the embedment in the beaving layer 6.5.3 Skin Friction for Deep Foundations - Menard Type Pressuremeter Figure 6.6 provides the limit unit skin friction values for bored and driven piles and Table 6.9 provides the category based on the type of soil, type of pile and also construction conditions (see Frank 2009), 6.5.4 Correlation with q. and SPIN Bustamante and Gianeselli (1993) states that, in France, although SPT tests are considered totally unsuitable for some soils, they are not ignored because of he versality and because in many countries SPT isthe only test available at preliminary stages. For practical reasons they present a correction chart for SPT WV value and ge from CPT against pressuremeter test results in Table 6.10, 165. Use of Menard "Type Pressuremeter Test Results Directly in Design ™ ‘Table 68 End beating factors for deep foundations (,) ———e ae Soil [Non displacement splacement Chay & Sil Ti ‘Send & Gavel Chalk ‘Mati & Caleareous Mart ‘Weak Rock Limit pressure, pl(MPa) Fig, 666 Menard ype pressuremcter — limit skin fiction (Adapted from Bustamante and Gianeseli 1981) 6.5.5 Other Design Parameters from Menard Type Pressuremeter Many other design procedures related to shallow foundations, deep foundations, retaining walls, stone columns etc are available, The reader is directed to Baguelin et al. (1978), Briaud (1992), Clarke (1995), Frank (2009) and Schnaid (2009),6 Prossuremeter Test, References 1 Rock ® o ow) Ma A & References ‘Amat 8, éaéquel FI (1972) Essis en place et en Laboratoire sur sols coherens comparison des sesultats, Bulltin de Liaison de LCPC, Pars, No $8, pp 97-108, ‘Amar A, Clarke BGF, Gambin MP, Orr TL (1991) “he uppication of pressuremeter tes results (0 foundtion design in Europe, A site-ofshe-ar report by the ISSMFE Europcan Technical ‘Commitee on Pressuremeters Baguelin F, JézSquel JF, Le Mée E, Le Méhauté A (1972) Expansion of cylindrical probes in cohesive soils. J Soil Mech Found Eng Div ASCE 98(SMI):1120-1 42 Baguclin F, Kéeéquel JF, Le Méhauté A (1974) Se-boring placement meibod of sol character. istics measurements. In: Proceedings conference on subsurface exploration for underground excavation and heavy construcion, ASCE, Hemmer NH. pp 312-332 ‘Baaguelin F,Jérequél JF, Shileds DH (1978) The pressuremeter and foundation engineering. Trans “Tech Publications, Clausthal ‘Braud JL (1992) The pressuremeter. AA Balkema, Rotterdam Braud JL (013) The pressuremeter test: expanding is use, Menard Lecture. In: Proceedings ‘ntemational conference on soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering. Pars, vol 1, pp 107-126 Brisud JL, Noubani A, Kilgore J, Tucker LM (1685) Correlation between pressuremeter da other parameters. Research repor, Civil engineering, Texas A&M University Brooker EW, Irland HO (1965) Earth pressure a est related to 0055 history. Can Geotech J 21S ‘Bustamante M, GianescliL (1981) Provision de lacapacte portant des peu isles sous charge ‘erticale, Regles pressiomeriques et penetrome rigues, Bull Liaison Labo. P. et Ch., No.113, Ref, 2536, 83-108 (in French) Bustamante M, Gianeselli L (1983) Desiga of auge* displacement piles from in stu tes In: 2nd intemational geotechnical seminar on deep fcundations on bored and auger piles, Ghent Belgium), pp 21-34, Balkema (Cassan M (1972) Coréation entre essisin situ en néchanique des sls Intemal repo, Fendasol, ‘Avignon Clarke BG (1995) Presuremeters in geotechnica design. Blackie Academic & Professional Giesgow Clarke BG, Gambin MP (1998) Pressuremerer testing in onshore ground investigations. A Report, by the ISSMGE Committee TC 16. in: International conference on geotechnical site charac- veszation, Atlanta Fraik R (2009) Design of foundations in France with the use of Menard presuremeter tes (MPM), Soil Mech Found Eng 46(6):219-231 B A ie oO Qu) 18 Quy ‘Bored with temporary casing For bored and grouted piles, readers are refered to Frank (2009) ‘Bored with permanent cing {or mortar) ino the annular space Bored without Gang ‘Bored under starry ‘Type of pile180 6 Pressutemeter Test, Gibson RE, Anderson WF (1961) In stu measurement of sil propertis withthe pressaremeter, Civil Eng Public Works Rey 56(658):615-618 Harman JP (1974) Finite element parametric study of vertical influence factors and the pressuremeter test to estrutethe Settlement of footings in sand. PRD thesis, University of Florida, Hughes JMO, Wroth CP, Windle D (1977) Pressuremetr tess in sands. Gotechnique 27(4):455-477 Jaky J (1944) The coefficient of earth pressure a rest. J Soe Hung Archit Eng 7:355-358, Johnson LD (1986) Correlation of soil parameters Frm in situ and laboratory tess for building tn: Proceedings ASCE specialty conference in situ "86: use of in situ tests in geotecrical engineering, Blacksburg Virgina, pp 625-648 [Ladanyi B (1972) In-situ determination of undrained stress-strain behavior of sensitive clays with pressuremeter. Can Geotech J 93):313-319 Lukas GL, LeClere de Bussy B (1976) Presuremeter and laboratory test correlations for clays, J Gootech Eng Div ASCE 102(GT9)954-953 Mair Rd, Wood DM (1987) Pressuremeter testing ~ methods of and interpretation. Butterworth, ‘London Marsland A, Randolph MF (1977) Comparison ofthe results fom pressuremeter test and large in sit pte tests in London Clay. Geotechnique 27(2):217-243 Manin RE, Drahos EG (1986) Pressuremeter corelations for preconsolidated clay. In: Prooeed- ‘ings ASCE specialty conference in stu "86: use of in situ tests in geotechnical enginsering, Blacksburg Virginia, pp 206-220 MELT-Minist re de I’Eauipement, du logement et des transports (1993). R gles Techniques de Conception ct de Calcul des Fondations des Ouvrages de Genie Civil (Technical rules forthe design of foundations of civil engineering strctres) Cahier des causes techniques generles applicables aux marches publics de travaux, FASCICULE N°62 -Tite V, Testes Officiels N” 9337.0, 182 p Menard L (L957) Mesures in situ des proprités physiques des sols. Annales dos Ponts ot ‘Chaussées, Pars, No, 14, pp 387-377 Palmer AC (1972) Undrained plane-sain expansion of a eylindical cavity in cay: a simple interpretation ofthe pressuremeter test. Geotechnique 22):451457 Poulos HG, Davis EH (1972) Laboratory determination of in sw horizontal sess in sol masses Geowechnique 22:177-182 Robertson PK, Hughes JMO (1985) Determination of properties of sand from selt-boring pressuremeter tess. In: Proceedings 2nd intemtional symposium on pressuremeter marine applications, Texam, USA, ASTM No STP 950, p 283-402 Rowe PW (1962) The sess-ilaancy elation fr ttc equilibrium of an assembly of panicles in contac. Proc R Soe Lond A269:300-527 Roy M, Juneau R, La Rochelle P, Tavenas F (1973) In-situ messurement ofthe properties of ‘sensitive clays by pessuremeter tests, In: Proceedings conference in stu measurement of soil properties, Raligh, vol I, pp 350-372 ‘Schmermann JH (1975) Measurement of in sit shear steagth, Keynote lecture, In: Proceedings ofthe conference on in-situ measurement of soil properties. ASCE. va 2, pp 57-138 Sehnaic) F (2000) Im sity seeing in geomechanics, the main tests, Taylor and React, London/New York Tavenas FA, Blanchetie G, Leroueil 8, Roy M, LaRochelle P (1975) Difficulties in in-situ ‘determination of Kin sot sensitive ela. In: Proceedings conference on in situ measurement cof sol properties, Raleigh, vol 1, pp 450-476 Van Wambeke A, d'Hernricourt J (1982) Correlation between the results of static and dynamic probings and pressitemeter tess, In: Proceedings 2nd ESOPT, Balkema, Rosterdam References 181 Wroth CP (1975) In sitr measurement of intial stresses and deformation characteristics. In: Proceedings conference on in situ measurement of soil properties, vol 1, pp 181-230 |Wroth CP, Hughes JMO (1973) An istmunent forthe n-sit measurement ofthe proper of soft ‘lay. ln Proceeding 8th international conference sol mechenics and foundation engineering, Moscow, vol .2, pp 487-494Chapter 7 Dilatometer Test Abstract Dilatometer is one of the latest arrivals among the in situ testing devices thas become more versatile with the development of seismic dilatometer, which also measures the shear wave velocity. The three major indices computed in the ilatometer test are the material index Ip, horizontal stress index Kp, and dilatom- cter modulus Ep, These three are used in idertilying the soil type and determining the soil parameters and this chapter provides correlations to obtain these parameters, Keywords Dilatometer + Correlations * Coefficient of earth pressure at rest « Over consolidation ratio * Constrained modulus « Friction angle 7.1 Introduction ‘The fat dilatometer (ASTM 6635) was developed by Dr. Sylvano Marchetti in 1975 in Naly. It consists of a 240 mm long, 95 mm wide and 15 mm thick stainless steel blade with a flat, thin and expandable 60 mm diameter and 0.20-0.25 mm thick circular steel membrane that is mounted flush with one face (See Fig. 7.1). The blade has a cutting edge at the bottom end, tarered over $0 mm, with an apex angle ‘The blade is generally pushed into the ground by the penetration test rig, at a rate ‘of 20 mm/s, Sometimes, impact driven hammers, similar to those used to drive the standard penetration test split-spoon sampler, are also being used. One of the advantages of DMT is the wide variety of eqaipment and techniques available for pushing the blade into the ground. Nowadays, it is suggested that the 20 mmis penetration rate does not have to be maintained, When using a 20 tonne penctrom- eter truck, itis possible t0 achieve 100 m of profiling ina day. A gas pressure unit at the surface is used to inflate the steel membrane when itis pushed into the ground, ‘When the dilatometer blade is pushed inte the ground, three pressure readings are taken in a sequence: (@) The pressure required to bring the membrane in fush with the soil (Le, 10 just. move the membrane), known as liftoff pressure or “A. pressure” (See Fig. 71a); © Springer India 2016 183184 a Fae b Fig, 71 (a) Schematic diagram of a dilatometer test (Adapted from Marchetti 2001) and (b) Photograph ofa dilatometer blade and the steel men (b) The pressure required to expand the membrane against the soil laterally by LI mm, known as "B pressure"; and (©) The pressure when the membrane is deflated, known as the closing pressure or °C pressure.” This is an optional reading. The first two are the most used in the computations. C pressure is used for determining the pore water pressure in the ground, Pressures A, B and C are ccortected for the membrane stiffness, determined through calibration. These three corrected values are denoted by py, py and p, respectively. The test is generally carried out at 200 mm depth intervals. In stiffer soils, py and p, can be determined as (Marchetti 1980) Po AH AA (2.1) pi =B- AB (72) where, 4A and AB are the calibration corrections applied on the A and B pressures. AA is the extemal pressure required on the membrane in free air to collapse it against its seating, in overcoming the membrane stiffness. Tis determined through applying suction to the membrane, AB is the internal pressure which in free ait \would lift the centre of the membrane by 1.1 mm from its seating, thus overcoming the membrane stiffness. It is obtained by pressurising the membrane in the ai 2 Introduction 18s Fig, 7.2 Seismic dilatometer In softer soils, the equations suggested by Schmerimann (1986) will give more realistic values. They are: O5(A + 8A ~ zn) — 205(8 ~ a8 ~ 3) p= B-AB—25 a) Py Here, 2» is the zero reading of the pressure gcuge which is generally zero for new gauge. Corrected pressure p» is given approximately by p= C+ DA~aq (03) Seismic flat dilatometer (Fig. 7.2) was introduced in 2006, with two geophones located above ihe Llade, 500 una apart. When a plate is suuck at the ground level, the signals are received at different times by the geophones, These data are used t0 compute the shear wave velocity v, with 1-2 % repeatability, and its variation with depth can be established, From the shear wave velocity, the small strain shear ‘modulus Go can be computed as Go=pvi (16)186 7 Dilatometer Test, In addition, SDMT gives all other parameters derived from DMT. Borehole dilatometer or rock dilatometer is different device. It is a radially expandable cylindrical probe that is inserted into the borehole and expanded by air at pressures up t0 30 MPa, The device is used to assess the deformability of in situ rock mass. The correlations discussed in this chapter are for the flat dilatom- ters used in soils Mayne et al. (2009) categorised all the in situ tests as “old” and “new” methods, with seismic cone penctration tests with pore pressure measurements (SCPTu) and seismic dilatometer tests (SDMT) falling under the new methods. A DMT can be used in very soft to very stiff clays or maris, with ¢,=2-1000 kPa. 7.2 Intermediate DMT Parameters Interpretation of dilatometer test data is essentially empirical, based on the two corrected pressures ps and pp. Here py is the corrected pressure A and py is the comected pressure B. The three intermediate parameters that are used for deriving the other soil parameters are the material index Ip, horizontal stress index Kp, and dilatometer modulus Ep. They are computed empirically ‘Material index Jp is defined as: = PIS Py G7 M ‘where, uo is the hydrostatic pore water pressure that as present prior to insertion of the blade. Material index, which is low for clays (<0.6), medium for silts (0.61.8) and high for sands (1.8) is used to idemify the sol. Tis typically in ‘range of 0.110 10. Horizontal stress index Kp is defined as: (78) where, ¢,, is the effective in situ overburden stress. Kp can be seen as the Ky {coefficient of earth pressure at rest) amplified by the penetration (Marchetti 1994), Ikistypically about two in normally consolidated clays, which is significantly larger than Ky, In overconsolidated soils, Kis greater than 2, Horizontal stress index is wed 0 determine horizontal stress and hence Ko, OCR and undrained shear strength (c,) in clays and effective friction angle (p) in sands. Kp is a measure of the soil’s resistance to volume reduction, and is highly sensitive to aging and is sometimes called the stress history index Dilaiometer modulus Ey is obtained from elastic analysis by relating the mem= brane displacement sto the pressure difference dp =p — py. Assuming an elastic 13. Conetations eT half space surrounding the membrane, using che theory of elasticity, the displace- ‘ment sp can be expressed as (Marchetti 1980} 20(p) = re) L = E (79) where £ = Young's modulus, D=membrane diameter and v= Poisson's ratio. For membrane diameter D = 60 mm and sp = 1.1 mm, Eq, (7.9) becomes s4."(> — Po) (7.10) Dilatometer modulus is used in determining the constrained modulus and hence ‘modulus of elasticity. It must be noted that the sol is loaded laterally in determining the modulus, In reality, the soil modulus is required for vertical loading. The £p computed from Eq, (7.10) is drained in sanc, undrained in clays and is partially drained in sand-clay mixtures, 7.3 Correlations ‘One ofthe main uses ofthe dilatometer test isin identifying the sol type. Figure 7.3 shows the soil identification chart based on the material index fp and the dilatom- ter modulus En. The original chart was propesed by Marchetti and Crapps (1981), Which was modified slightly by Schmertmann (1986). The chart also gives an estimate of the unit weights “Marchetti (1980) showed that for uncemened clays with Ip < 1.2 and sands/sils| with fp > 1.2 OCR = (0.5Kp)'* (7.1) ‘This was verified experimentally by Kamei and Iwasaki (1995) and theoretically by Finno (1993). Kulhawy and Mayne (1990) showed test data suggesting that the ‘coefficient 0.5 in Bq, (7.11) can vary in the range of 0.27-0.75, depending on the degree of ligeuring, sensitivity and geologic crigin Ge ws asuning (jp) 022 a sped ty Mes 975, Ma 8) cay as (),,20 oe proposed that for fp 1.2,188 7 Dilatometer Test 2000 Normalised dilatometer modulus, Ele 77 | MUD/PEAT ef (2:50) apo Phe Material index, ly 5093518 37 gsc in pacontovs. | THr> so, resuea byt HHH Fig. 7.3 Soil identification chan (After Schmertmans: 1986) SH) = (4) (0.5Ke)'* ~0.22(0:5Kp)"* (7.12) Gee" Ge! Kulhawy and Mayne (1990) suggest that this equation should be limited to fp < 0.6. ‘The undrained shear strength of the clay can be determined from Eq. (7.12) ‘Similar equations suggested by others include the following Iwasaki and Kamei (1994): y = O.118Ep (7.13) Kamei and Iwasaki (1995): (<2), oasis" on 73 Comelations 189 Constrained Modulus Mpyir ‘The one-dimensional constrained modulus (D) can be determined from an coedometer test using Eq. (2.47) 1 1- Pa Tay (247) In this chapter, the constrained modulus is denoted by Moyer, when itis deter- ‘mined using a DMT, Moyrr can be derived from the dilatometer modulus Ey as: Mour = RuEo (7.13) where, Ry i a function of Kp and [p. Ko typically varies in the range of 2-20. Ry varies in the range of 1-3, Typically, Mosrr varies in the range of 0.4 10 400 MPa. Ry =0.14+236l0¢Ky — for Ip < 0.6 (7.16) Ry =Ryo+(25—Ryo)logko for 0.63 (7.19) IfKp> 10, Ry = 0.32 + 2.18108K (7.20) ‘When computing Mpyr using Eq, (7.15), Ry should not be less than 0.85, ‘Young's Modulus E From the definition of Ep, the Young's modulus can be computed as E=(\-V)Ep (721) From Eq, (2,60), for =0.0 t0 0.3, E=(0,75t0 1.0) D. Assuming D=Mpyyr, E can be estimated once Mpr is determined. Effective Friction Angle @ Marchetti (1997) suggested an approximate equation for the effective friction angle, which he believes is a lower bound value that underestimates the in situ {riction angle by 24°. The equation is (degrees) = 28 + 14.610:Kp — 2.1 (logXp)* (7.22) From tests conducted in ML and SP-SM soils in Venice, suggested an upper bound as jeceri et al. (2002)190 7. Dilatometer Test, Table 7A. Suggested values Spi Mayne 1990) Fisured ets Insensitive clays Sensitive clays lac a ko 91+ THE 008K ° Coefficient of Earth Pressure at Rest Ky Marchetti (1980) proposed that the coefficient of earth pressure at rest Kecan be estimated from the horizontal stress index Ky using the following equation, for clays with fp <1.2 and sands or silts with Ip > 1.2, (sy" ~06 (24) Ko= (Fz TS Equation (7.24) was based on data from insensitive Italian clays and uncemented normally consolidated sands. This was modified by Kulhawy and Mayne (1990) as Ky @ 06 (725) ‘where fr depends on the soil type and geologic origin. Some values suggested by Kulhawy and Mayne (1990) are shown in Table 7.1 Powell and Uglow (1988) showed that for young. UK clays Ky = 034K5 7.26) Settlement Computations Assuming one-dimensional compression, settlements can be computed by Setement = S72 ae aan ‘where Moyer is the constrained modulus derived from DMT from Eg, (7.15). When the settlement is truly 3-dimensional, it may be computed from Settlement Y flor —v(dor + dey)] (7.28) References wt 7.4 Summary Dilatometer is one of the latest arrivals amoxg the in situ testing devices. Tt has become more versatile with the developmen: of seismic dilatometer, which also ‘measures the shear wave velocity. The thee major indices computed in the dilatometer test are the material index Jp, horizontal stress index Kip, and dilatom- eter modulus Fp, ‘These three are used in identifying the sotl type and determining the soil parumeters. References Fino RJ (1993) Analytical interpretation of lat dilauseter penetration through saturated cohe= sve soils, Gootechnique 43(2)-241-254 Ivasaki K, Kamei T (1994) Evaluation of in stu strergth and deformation characteristics of soils ‘sing ft dilatometer, JSCE J Gootech Eng 4901-28): 167-176 (in Japanese) ‘Kamei T, Iwasaki K (1995) Evaluation of undrained shear strength of cohesive scils using @ at . ROTATON 6 RAPD TATION Fig. 8.3. Vane shear test operation in. horchole Fig. 84 Vere housing (Courtesy Allan McConnell IGS) 8.3 Assessment of Shear Strength in the Field Using the Vane Shear Test ‘The applied torque is resisted by the shear stress mobilized along the failure surface, Since the test is cavtied out relatively fast, suuliined conditions ean be axsuinied aid hence the shear stress at failure is the same as the undrained shear strength, ¢, Based on the schematic diagram showa in Fig. 8.1, the maximum torque T required to rotate the vane shear blades and cause failure could be expressed as per Eq, (8.1) T = Muy + Mouse + Msi (8) where ‘Mrop= Resisting moment at the top of the blades/eylinder ‘Ah Ninsinitn eereeni ah thn bean den' blade 8.3. Assessment of Shoar Strength inthe Field Using the Vane Shear Test a) By taking moments about the shaft axis: ay ee wd iy “lle 31 ots pena Ccmbiniog Ep. 8192 ond 3 r= [eon xe 2)-2 «| ea) stich simples vo 7 re (2H?) cee ‘As highlighted previously, the H/D ratio is usually 2 and Eq, (8.5) simplifies to he Following: r= TaD xe 86) c= 7/(220°) (8.7) eu = T/(3.€7D°) (8.8) ‘The peak unclrained shear strength is caleulated from Eq. (8.8) using the max imum torque recorded by the test. The remculded shear strength is also assessed188 8 Vane Shear Test, using the same equation but, inthis instance, using the torque measured towards the ‘end of the test when five to ten revolutions are done very rapidly (Step 4 in Sect. 8.2), 8.3.1 Assessment of Sensitivity of Clay ‘As previously mentioned. the vane shear test could be used wo assess the sensitivity of clayey soils. Sensitivity is « measure of the loss of undrained soil srength when isturbed and is defined as follows: peak undisturbed shear strength Sensi) = moulded shear siren (8.9) As discussed by Mitchell and Houston (1969), it was Terzaghi (1944) who proposed the above definition for strengths determined from unconfined compres- sion test but which is not useful for highly sensitive clays because unconfined ‘compression test specimens cannot be formed as the remoulded strength is so low. Mitchel! and Houston (1969) provide Table 8.1 summarizing several classifications proposed by different authors, Section 3.3.7 provides additional sensitivity defini- tions adopted by US, Canada and Sweden, 8.4 Vane Shear Test Corrections No in situ ot laboratory test is perfect and the vane shear test is no different (Sect. 8.1), Bjerrum (1972) carried out back calculation of several embankment failures and found that factors of safety of the failed embankments were signifi- ‘cantly higher than 1.0. He concluded that plasticity of soil has a major influence and should be corrected for, prior to using the undrained shear strength values derived from vane in the design of embankment loading and excavation stability, It was suggested thatthe c, derived in the feld be multiplied by a correction factor g. The correction factor, #, proposed by Bjerrum (1972) to multiply the measured field ‘vane shear strength (cyry) in order to obtain the mobilized shear strength (c,) is related to Plasticity Index (PP) and this relationship is shown in Fig. 8.5. Figure 8.5 also shows relationships proposed based on research by others including Morris and ‘Williams (1994) and Chandler (1988). Although data in their research show some scatter, the plots indicate that the shear strength correction shows a trend that decreases with plasticity of the soil. Ladd et al. (1977) included data from other sites and they found that the scatter increases. As Ladd et al. (1977) point out, “These additional points increase the scatter about Bjerrum's recommended curve, which has led 10 some (e.g. Milligan 1972; Schmertmann 1975) 10 seriously ‘question this entire design approach in view of the scatter, probable variations in 84 Vane Shear Test Corrections 199 ‘Skempton and Northey (1952) _| Rosengvist (1955) “‘Brsensitive clays | 4-8: very sensitive oy a: exewsensve lye [S16 ghey que clays 1-4: igh [ Shannon and Wilson (1968) >iGquick cays 1420; High to ven high ryawickcays | 20-40: Very high [64s ex quick days [540 Brenly gh Aer Mitchell nd Howson (196 —djorum 1672) Morris and Willams (1964) ~~~ Chandler (1288) Correction Factor 0 2 40 60 80 100 120 Plasticity Index (%) Fig. 85. Field vane conection factor vs plasticity index the determination of the plasticity index (especially with varved clays) and uncer- tainties in the circular arc stability analyses used to develop the correction Variable field vane test procedures should be added 10 this list. Nevertheless, the trend of the relationship is considered sound and supported hy the data, which are distributed fairly evenly about Bjerrum’s curve and generally fall within 20 % of its Wale.” ‘Since Bjerrum’s work, several others have examined the correction factor phenomenon. Lerovcil et al. (1990) and Lerozeil (2001) provide information for soft slays suggesting that no correction is necessary. Azzoug et al. (1983) suggest that the Bjerrum correction factor should be further reduced by about 10 % for field situations that resemble plane strain conditions. Morris and Williams (1994) pro- posed the following (See Fig. 8.5): 1.18 €9%"" 4 0.57 (forPI > 5) (8.10)200 8 Vane Shear Test (mina) 10 100 correction for normal ~ 0.8) rates of construction o zm 4 6 8 100 120 Plasticity Index (6) Fig. 86 Vane correction factor in terms of PI and time to failure (Adopted from FHWA NHLOI- (031 ~ Mayne etal. 2001 and Chandler 1988) = 1.01 ONL) + 0.57 (ForLL > 20) (en) where 1. = Liquid Limit %) I= Plasticity Index (%) ASTM D2573-08, while not endorsing or recommending any method for cor rection, cites the following correction factor by Chandler (1988) in an Appendix (non-mandatory information): = 1.03 — 6(Pr"* (8.12) where parameter ‘bisa rate factor that depends on the time to failure (fin minutes) in the actual failure (not in the field test) and given by: b= 0015 + 0.0075 logty (8:13) ‘The combined relationship is given in Fig. 86, ASTM 2573.08 states that, for ‘guidance, for embankments on soft ground, f; is of the order of 10* min and Bqs. (6-12) and (813) become: = 1.05 — 0,045 (Pr) (8.14) Although various equations and relationships have been proposed over the years, Bjerrum’s correction (or curve) is still widely accepted by practicing engineers and remains very popular to this day. 8S. Conlation for , in Normally Consolidated Soils 201 8.5 Correlations for c,, in Normally Consolidated Soils Some corelations for the undrained shear strength were discussed in Chap. 2 However, for completeness and their imporance and relevance to vane shear test some of the correlations are revisited in this Chapter. From early research it was quite evidert that the undrained shear strength is related to soil plasticity as well as the effertive vertical stress. Skempron (1948) proposed Eq, (8.15), a widely used empirical equation, which relates the ratio of undrained shear strength measured by the field vane (c, rr) and effective vertical overburden stress (¢,) to the plasticity index (PD) for normally consolidated (NC) soils Le. over consolidation ratio (OCR) = 1.0. (« w/o.) y= Ol + 00.0037 Pr (8.15) ‘This lationship indicates how the undated strength rato derived from the vane shear test increases with Pl fornormally consolidated soils. Therefor, ifthe physical characteristics (Atterberg limits) ofa normally consolidated soil depositare known the lundraned shear strength obtained from afield vane test could be estimated, The values derived shouldbe subjected to the correction factor discussed previously to obtain a ‘mobilized undraned shear strength expected, By combining the variation ofthe shear vene strength with PY and vane correction fector with PY, Mesi (1975) proposed that the mobilized undraied strength ratio @.)ve for NC and slightly OC soils, is independent of PY and is a constant of 0.22 (£0.03): ca) ) = 022 $8.16 (a/e),_= 022 + 003 (816) A constant value (or nearly constant value) for the mobilized strength ratio is not surprising when one considers the opposite effects created by: (a). the increasing field vane shear strength ratio with increasing PY (Eq. (8.15) and (b) the vane correction factor (x) decreasing with increasing Pl (Fig. 8.5) Chandler (1988), based on examination of sther data suggests thatthe overall range of scatter in the value of Mess quoted mebilized seni ratio i of the onder of (2005) (eo/e,),.= 022 £ 008 (8.17) According to Jamiolkowski et al. (1985), Larsson (1980) suggested a similar ‘equation for elays (PI < 60 %) after examining several embankment failures: (culo) see = 023 0.04 (8.18)me 8 Vane Shear Test 8.6 Correlations for c, in Over Consolidated Soils ‘The general equation for undrained strength ratio for an overconsolidated soil can bbe approximated by Jamiolkowski et al. 1985; Ladd and DeGroot 2003) as follows: (eww /ey oe = (cutv /0yye(OCR)™ (8.19) Chandler (1988) adopted an ‘m' value of 0.95 whereas Ladd and DeGroot (2003) obiained a value of 0,890.08 for the data analysed by them, Chandler (1988) summarized the parameter (cyrv/ay))yc and ‘m' given by Jamiolkowski ‘et al. (1985) for field vane tests and this is shown in Table 8.2. Itis generally accepted that the ‘m’ value varies with the type of test. A value of (0.8 is used quite often by practicing engineers for ‘im, although it was fist proposed by Ladd etal. (1977) based on CKU direct simple shear tests and not vane shear tests. Then Eq. (6.19) becomes: (curv (4, Joc = (curv /ayyo(OCR)* (820) To calculate mobilized undrained shear strength (c,), Bjerrum's vane shear cortection needs 10 be applied. (64/6, oe (curv/2,) yo =H (carv/e,),. (OCR)* (821) Ia feld vane shear testis carried out in the fed, the results could then be used to caleulate the OCR of the soil deposit by combining a relationship from Fig, 8.6 with Eas. (8.15) and (8.21) ifthe Aterberg limits ofthe sols are known. Another approach to obiain OCR would be the use of Mesri's Eq, (8.16) if expressed using the effective maximum past pressure (c for an overconsolidated soil, ie, (a/¢)) = 022 + 008 (322) ‘Therefore, ifa vane shear test icarried cut andthe assessed strength is corrected tw obi (ee Sect. 8:4, the maximum past pressure, ¢, canbe easily calculated. Table 82 (eyyyioy vc and m values Parameter [Extreme value (one in each ease) Mean (all values) ‘Mean (discarding exter value) 86 Comelations for cin Over Consolidated Soils 208 As the vertical effective stress at the test depth can be calculated to provide o,, OCR ‘can be calculated as OCR = 6,/0, (823) ‘Several authors have commented on the derived undrained strength ratio for organs sls Jamiows el (158) covlaes hat “Re nt ey apo priate for analyses of embankment stability probably falls within a fairly narrow Pang or mo! sof sedimentary lay of alr oo platy How ever theres some evidence Indetng ht for Mh lat organs higher hn quoted above. For Spee la for aber peas ery mnt ‘Terzaghi ct al. (1996) state that the “fiber content of organic soils may act as a toca ehfrcement dena ens asthe realy i sea coe i the vane test and lead to vane strengths that are too high. Therefore Eq. (8.23) may ideas the mbllaed ndraed shes enh or ogi in nd sugges for rg ols ending pens) an tonal reduction fro 04S should be used in addition to the vane correction factor in Eq. (8.10), and (cad), = 026 sould be sed Ladd (1991) recommends procedures to obtain oe, ws OCR relationships box suggests there ae thee levels of assessments Level A — For final design of major projects and for sites with soils exhibiting strength anisotropy or unusual features (sich as organic soils, fissuring ete) and projects where lateral deformation is important Level B - For preliminary design and for final design of less important projects involving “ordinary” soils with low to moderate anisotropy Level C - For preliminary feasibility studies and to check the reasonableness of in situ or laboratory test assessments Lada (1991) suggests that empirical correlations play a role in Level C selection Of strength parameters in the form of (60/490 ‘obtained by substituting m= s(ocr\" (8.24) inthe above equation, ie, Ss (cu/#!) (8.25) Ladd (1991) states that when estimating *m’, which according to Modified Cam-Clay theory of soil behavior, should equal to 1~C,/C, (relate to the slopes of the swelling and virgin compression lines, respectively — Roscoe and Burland 1968), Based on his interpretation of data and experience, Ladd and DeGroot (9003) recommended values for“S” and “m” in Ea. 8.24 as presented in Table 8.3.204 8 Vane Shear Test, ‘Table 83 5 and m values for estimation of average cy via SHANSEP equation (Ladd and DeGroot 2003) Soil Desripion A = T,Sesive eens 020 Nowa 100 Champlin dag of Gagnitiesml>13)_|Sb=0015 [Gana 2- Homogeneous CLand CH |5=020+ O05 |8K~ Cy) | Nose. ad se scents clesofiow to mot |(PrI00 or |.)005" len eatesestosy 1 =20-805) | smplyO22— SBor simply os 3 Nonessem US vaned clays 016 jars ‘Assan at Dit Single Sear SS) | | ne of ae | donne — oe “Sediment poss of sits [025 Nomad ~O8KI=C/[Eslues pea anlogmesois (ater |SD=005 |e) 006 Lis plot below Alin) and |Sdarsimpy Sys wah sels | aw “m= 0.881 ~ CC) based on aalss of CKOU DSS dat on 13 sls with max, OGR=5-10 SD Standard deviation, L Light index, CLICH Lowi Psy, C, and Cy Slopes of he ‘slings isin emprenton nes Rosce an Buran 1968) 8.7. Summary This chapter provides a brief overview of the vane shear test, the procedure, interpretation of the data, and how the results could be used in geotechnical design. Empirical correlations are provided to correct the measured field vane shear strength values and the shortcomings in these methods are highlighted References ASTM 2573.08 Standard test method for field vane shear test in cohesive sel ‘Arzouz AS, Baligh MM, Ladd CC (1983) Correced field vane strength For embankment design J Geotech Eng ASCE 109(5):730-734 Bjerrum L (1972) Emtankments on soft ground. n: Proceedings Performance of earth and earth suppomed structures, vol 2, ASCE, Lafayette Ind, pp I-54 ‘Chane: RU (1988) The nesta measurement of the unrated shear srength oF elas using the field vane. Vane shear srengih testing of sols eld & lab studies, STP1O14, ASTM, West Conshohocken, pp 13-84 Donald TB, Jordan, DO, Parker RJ, Tok CT (1877) The vane test a evtcal apprise, In Proceedings of Sth imemationl conference on soil mechani and foundation engineerig, Toby, vol I, pp 151-171 Flodin N, Broms B (1981) Historical development of civil engineering in soft cl. In: Brand EW, Brenner RP (eds) Soft clay engineering. Elsevier Publications, Amsterdam Jamlokowski M, Ladd CC, Germaine JT, Lancelloua R (1985) New developments ia feld and Inboraiory testing of soils. In: Proceedings of Ith intemational conference on soi mechanics and foundation engineering, vol 1, pp 37-153 Roerences 205 Johnston TW (1983) Why in-sit testing? In: Ervin MC (ed) Proceedings of an extension course on ‘insta testing for geotechnical investigation, Sydtey. A A Bulkema, Roterdam Ladd CC (1991) Stbiiy evaluation during staged constuction (22nd Terzaghi Lectre) I Geotech Eng 117(4):540-615 Ladd CC, DeGroetDI 2003) Recommended practice fr soft ground site characterization (Athur ‘Casagrande Lecture) In: Proceedings 12th Pan Amesiean conference on sil mechanies and ‘geotechnical engineering, Massachusetts Insitute of Technology. Cambridge, MA Ladé CC. Foott R,Ishihars K, Schlosser F, Poulos 4G (1977) Siress-deformation and suengih ‘chracteristies, In: Proceedings Sth intemational conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, Tokyo, 2, pp 421-494 Larsson R (1980) Undrained shear strength in stabilty caeulations of embankments & founda- ‘ions on clays, Can Geotech J Y74}:591-602 ‘Leroueil $2001) Natural slopes and cuts: movement and failure mechanisms, 39th Rankine ‘Lecture. Geotechnique $1(3):197-243 LLeroucl $, La Rochelle P, Tavenas F, Rey M (1990)Rematks onthe stability of temporary cus Can Geowech 127(5): 687-692 Lunne T, Robertson PK, Powell JJM (1997) Cone penetration testing in geotechnical practice. Blackie Academic and Professional, London, 31299 Mayne PW, Christopher BR, Delong J (2001) Manval on subsurface investigations, Nationa highway insttate publication 99 6, FHWA NHL-DI-031 Federal Highway Administration, ‘Washington, DC ‘Messi G (1975) Discussion on “New design procedure for stability of soft clays". J Geotech Eng Div ASCE 101(GT$)408-412 Milligan V (1972) Pane discussion, Session 1, Embankments on Soft ground. In: Proceedings [ASCE specialty conference on performance of eth and eath-supportd structures, Lafayette, vol I, pp 4118 Mitchell JK, Houston WN (1969) Causes of clay sensitivity. J Soil Mech Found Eng ASCE 95(SM3)848-871, ‘Morris PM, Wiliams DY (1094) Effective stress vane shea strength conection factor corelations (Can Gootech J 31(3):835-360 Roscoe KH, Burland JB (1968) On the goneraized stress-strain behavior of “wet clay. fa Heyinaa J, Leckie FA (eds) Engineering plasiiy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 535-009 Rosengvst | (1955) Investigations in the clay electclyie water system, Norwegian Geotechnical Testitute Publication No 9, Oslo ‘Schmertnamn JH (1975) Messtremens of ia stu shea strength. In: Proceedings ASCE specialty ‘conference on in-situ measurement of soil properies, Raleigh NC, vl 2. pp 57-138 ‘Shanaon and Wilsen, Inc, (1964) Report on anchorage ar soil studies, Alaska to US Army Engineering District, Anchorage, Alaska, Seattle, Washington ‘Skempion AW (1948) Vane tess’ in the alluvial plain of River Forth near Grangemouth Geotechnique 1(2):111=125 ‘Skemptan AW, Northey RD (1982) The sensitivity eF clays. Geotechnique IE):30-53 ‘Tereughi K (1954) Ends and moons in sil mechani. Eng J Can 27.608 ‘Teraaghi K, Peck RB, Mest G (1996) Soil mechasies in engineering practice, 3d edn, John ‘Wiley, New York \Watker BF (1983) Vane shear strength testing. In: Ervin MC (e) In sit testing for geotecinical Investigations, A A Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 65-"2Chapter 9 Laboratory Rock Tests Abstract ‘The rock mass is made of intact rock and one or more sets of disconti- nities. ‘The intact rock specimens that are recovered from coring represent & relatively small volume of the rock mass and do not fully reflect the presence of discontinuities. The behaviour of the rock mass is governed mostly by the discon- tinuities than the properties of the intact rvcks. Uniaxial compressive strength, Brazilian indirect tensile strength and the point load strength are some of the properties that reflect the strength of the intact tock, Typical values of these ‘parameters and the interelationships among them are discussed in this chapter. Keywords Correlations + Rock + Uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) It is difficult to exclude rock mechanics conpletely from the day-to-day life of a ‘geotechnical engincer. In many geotechnica. projects, there is a need to deal with rocks and some understanding of their properties and the correlations that can be used to estimate them can become very valuable. While the emphasis throughout this book is on the parameters and correlations for soils, this very last chapter is devoted to rocks. ‘The classification and characterisation of the rock are generally carried out through (a) iazact rock specimens tested in te laboratory and (b) rock mass tested in situ, When testing intact rock specimens, the most common parameters derived are as follows. (@) Unit weight, water content, porosity and water absorption (b) Hardness ©) Durability (@)_ Point load strength index (©) UCS and stiffness (1) Wave velocities (g) Permeability ‘The intact rock parameters used in rock engineering designs include cohesion, friction angle, UCS, Young’s modulus, shear modulus, bulk modulus, Poisson's ratio, shear strength and stiffness of discontinuities and tensile strength. The © Springer India 2016 07208 9 Laboratory Rock Tests parameters derived from the intact specimens have to be translated to the larger rock mass with due considerations to the discontinuities present. ‘The measurements carried out in situ rock mass include deformability, strength, permeability and the in situ stresses. Some of the common in situ tests carried out in rocks are as follows, (a) Borehole dilatometer test (b) Borehole jack test (©) Plate load test (@)_ In situ dizect shear test (e) Borehole slotter test () Hydraulic fracture test These days geophysical tests are increasingly becoming popular for covering a larger terrain in a relatively shorter time. The geophysical tests include seismi refraction, seismic reflection, Spectral Analysis of Surface Waves (SASW), Mult- channel Analysis of Surface Waves (MASW), Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR), electrial resistivity tests, cross hole and down hole test, 9.1 Rock Cores and RQD ‘The behaviour of a rock mass is governed by the presence of discontinuities (e, joints, fissures, faults) their orientations, strength ete. Intact rock is the material between the discontinuities, a specimen of which is tested in the laboratory. It requires good judgment in arriving at the bigger picture using the lab data and the discontinuities present in the field. We generally test the intact rock in the labora- tory, and then extrapolate to the rock mass in the field situation, considering the presence of discontinuities, boundary conditions, ete, ‘The sock cores recovered from the boreholes are generally taken to the labora tory for strength and deformability tests. The common core size designations and their nominal diameters are given in Table 9.1. The core barrel may consist of single, double or triple tubes to minimize the disturbance, When attempting to obtain a rock core over a certain depth, due to the presence of joints and fractures, a significant length may be “lost”. This can be seen as a measure of the quality of the intact rock. Two similar parameters commonly used to ascertain the quality of intact rock based on the drill record are core recovery ratio (CR) and rack quality designation (ROD). Core recovery ratio is defined as: Length of rock core recovered CRAP) = Tal length of te core run x 100 1) Rock quality designation (ROD) is a modified measure of core recovery, defined as (Deere 1964): 9.3 Uniaxial Compressive Strength 209 ‘Table 9.1 Cor size designations and nominal sameters —— — Ao 5 i a Lengths of core pieces longer than 100 mm R02 (= Total length ofthe core run ai 2S Table 9.2 summarises the classification of rocks based on RQD, and the allowable bearing capacities suggested by Peck et al. (1974). 9.2 Permeability Permeability tests on intact rock specimens are carried out in laboratories. Due to the presence of joints and fissures, known as discontinuities. the permeability of the rock mass (secondary permeability) in the field can be substantially greater than that of the intact rock specimen (primary permeability) in the laboratory. The flow characteristics is the rock mass are often governed by the flow through these discontinuities than the flow through the intact rock. Goodman (1980) tabulated some values of permeabilities as measured ir the laboratory and in situ, where the in situ values were orders of magnitude larges. Some typical permeability values of different rock types, measured on intact rock specimens in the laboratory are given in Table 9.3 (Serafim 1968; Serafim and Del Campo 1965). Intact basalt and granite are typical of low permeability rocks, and intact sandstone and limestone generally have high permeabilities 9.3 Uniaxial Compressive Strength Uniaxial compression test (ASTM D7012; ISRM 19793; AS 4133.4.2.1), also known as unconfined compression test, is the most common rock test for assessing the strength of intact sock and rock masses. Itis generally carried out on specimens ‘with diameters larger than NX core size (54mm diameter) and length to diameter ratios of 2-3. In the literature, uniaxial compressive strength or unconfined210 9 Laboratory Rock Tests ‘Table 9.2. RQD, in situ rock quality description and allowable hearing pressure 93. Uniaxial Compressive Strength ‘Table 94. Typical values of Poisson's ratios for rks au ROD Rock qui er z O25 a Rock ype Gers (107) Tam ad Waa 97) 25-50 ‘Amphitlie 028-030 0-75 ‘90-100, [excetent Peck etal. (1974) Table9.3 Typical values of Rock ype permeability for intact rock specimens from labartory tests = 46x10 [0793x107 [10 100107 = [46w 12x 107 Granite Limestone Marbe 110 1010 ____|610 20107 "16 0120 «107 Thess [ori 16% 10% = 2310" Serafm (1968) and Serafin and Del Campo (1965) compressive strength is denoted by 0.. q. oF US. Its the most commonly used parameter in rock characterisation and designs, and numerical modelling of rock mechanics problems. Daring the UCS test, itis possible to measure the Poisson’s ratio and the Young's modulus. Typical values of Poisson’s ratios of different rock types are given in Table 94, The values suggested by Lambe and Whitman (1979) are within a relatively nartower range compared 1© those suggested by Gercek (2007). The relative ductility of the rock can be classified based on the axial strain at peak load, a8 suggested in Table 0.5, Classification of rocks based on UCS, as suggested by ISRM (1978a) and Hoek and Brown (1997), is given in Table 9.6, The Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual suggests the presumed bearing capacity values shown in Table 9.7 for footings founded on rock. Zhang and Einstein (1998) suggested that the ultimate skin friction (f,) of piles in rocks can be estimated as Sa(MPa) = afc)? (93) where a =0,2 100.3 and b =0.5. The value of a increases with the socket roughness and Seidel and Haberfield (1994) reported a range of 0.22-0.67. The range 010-030 1 010-0.33 ‘Reckst eco sue Sie Sex he Ta z To10-038 Gercok (2007) and Lambe and Whitman (1979) ‘Table 95 Relative ductility based on axial srain at peak load Hancin (1966)a2 9 Laboratory Rook Tests ‘Table 9.6 Classification of soil and rock strengths 93 Uniaxial Compressive Strength 213 ‘Table 9.7. Presumed bearing capacity values Jeera. T [Peximed Grade _ Description | Field identification LtPa) "| Roce pes | owable SL | Very soft | Easily penewated several | <0.025 | “beating |ewy inches by ‘Rock ype and condition |stength capacity (Po) _| Remarks SE | Sony | Easily penrad real [0 aces by hab Firmly [Can be pone vere 005-00 Inches tan th od ___|ete effort. | IF hy | Realy ned by a, ae ened | | sete “Tier at | Rend indeed By 33 a ely 135-10" Sa gos aseee == Gasset hateanedee | Bi] Wek rece | Grumble dmb (oS gy weno ar | rpoin or grotgeal tied | hammer; Can be peeled by | __|pocte it pai Weakiock | Cmte pce byapocia [5525 | CHC oka posh Ite nt cmc, Sa | ew dees abr | | bow th pote | ilogical hammer. i Ba | Men Camere sep oped | 25-3] Cos cot, name strong rock | with a pocket knife; Speci- schist, shale, slstone men canbe inctured with a | single frm Blow of & ge0- Logica hammer RE | Strong Fock | Specimen requires more [50-100 Limestone, marble, |taan one bios by geological | phyllite, sandstone schist, to facture i shale ven specimen requires many | 100-250 | Amphibiolite, sandstone, strong rock | blows of geological hammer | basalt, aabbro, gneiss, to fracture it | gnadiorte limestone, — ‘marble rhyolite wi RG | Extremely | Specimen can only he 3250 | Fresh basalt, cher, dabass, strong rock_| chipped aya geological | gneiss, granite, quate harnmer RM (19783) and Hoek and Browa (1997) a “Slightly different to classification in geotechnical context, suggested by Zhang and Einstein (1998) leads to a conservative estimate of f,, They also suggested an expression for estimating the ultimate end bearing pressure in rocks as Based on assumpions Oat “the foundations ae eried “down to unweahered eek ‘Massive igneous and metamorphic |High- 10,000 rocks (eg. granite, diorite, basalt, | Very feiss) in sound condition Foliatod metamorphic rocks (ee: slat, schist) in sound condition Sedimentary rocks (eg, cemented shale, siltsone, sandstone, lime- stone withoat cavities, thoroughly ‘cemented conglomerates) in Sound ‘condition Compaction sale and wther all> “aceous rks in sound condition Broken rocks of ay kind with 1000-8,000 Tow 390-1,000 medium 7000 | moderately close spacing of diss | continuities (0.3 morgrester), | except argillacenas rocks closely space bedi | ests it necessary Heavily shatored or weathered ks “After Canadian Geotetnial Society (1992) unhMPa) = eo)" (9.4) where ¢=4.8 and d=0.. In most of the data used in suggesting this equation, the pile load has not really reached the ultimete value. Therefore, using d=0.5 in Eq, (9.4) gives a conservative estimate of the ultimate end bearing pressure. The modulus ratio, defined as the ratio of the Young's modulus (E) to the uniaxial compressive strength (q,), is a useful parameter for estimating E from ‘0. Ths ratio varies in the range of 100-1000, depending on the rock type. Typical values for the modulus ratios as suggested by Hoek and Diederichs (2006) ate ‘summarised in Table 9.8. The Young’s modulus inthe horizontal direetion ean be estimated as 75 % of the vertical modulus. This applies to soils and rocks. Geophysical tests are quite common in rocks, where shear wave velocity (P,) oF ‘compression wave (vp) is measured. The wave velocities are related to the shear and bulk modulus as24 Laboratory Rock Tests ‘Table 98 Typical values of modulus ratios Fextre Cone Neti he [eye Seaimesnny | Congres | Sansines | Sites Geto 300-400 200-50 350-200 [secs] TGreywackes [Shakes 230-380 Sasa 1a0-28iF [ess eo Tae canis eae ewe oat 0-10 t Gypsum. Anhydrite aso" (0° ‘Metamorphic | Marble 700-1000 Metasandsione 200-300 Migamatve Taneous = pa 250-880 i Agglomeraie Volcanic Breccia [Tuff | 400-600 (500) [200-400 i [Aer Hock and Diederich (2006) "Highly anisotropic rocks: the modulus ratio willbe significantly different if normal sain nor Joading occurs parallel (high modulus rato) or perpendicalar (low modulus ratio) to « weakness plane. Uniaxial est loading direction shouldbe equivalent vo fet application Felsc Granivoids: Coarse grained or altered (High modulus ratio), fie grained (low modulus ratio) ‘No dats available; Estimate on the bass of geological logic 913. Unianisl Compressive Strength 2s (93) (9.6) Noxing that oxy BA) and keg ay 8) This can be used to estimate the small stair Youne’s modulus a E=21+y)0t (09) (1-2)0+9 3 pO (9.10) ‘The intact rock specimens tested in the laboratory for UCS are free of joints and do not truly reflect the load-deformation behaviour of the larger sock mass. Rock mass rating (RMR) and tunnelling quality index (Q) and are two popular classification systems that were developed mainly for tunnelling in rocks. These ratings are assigned 10 the rock mass on the basis of the UCS of the intact rock. RQD, discontinuity spacing, orientation of the discontinuity, joint roughness, and ground ‘water conditions, Geological strength index (GSI) was introduced more recently by Hoek (1994), again for classifying the rock mass on the basis of the discontinuities. ‘Tomlinson (2001) suggested that the rock mass, the Young's modulus can be determined as JX modulus ratio * 6: (on) where, jis a mass factor that accounts for te discontinuity spacing and is given in Table 9.9, Some of the empirical expressions relating the rock mass modulus to the intact rock modulus and one of the three rock mass ratings are summarised below. ‘Coon and Merritt (1969) suggested that Ew [0.0231(8QD) ~ 1.32) (9.12) where Eg is the Young's modulus of the intact rock and Ey/Ey to be larger than 0.15, Bieniawski (1978) suggested that216 9 Laboratory Rock Tests Table 99 Mass fctorjin “Discontinuity spacing (mn) ]<30 Ez ELe1D vate nr Ta Ey = Ex(RQD/350) for RQD-< 70 (0.13) By = Bylo2+82P=™| — forrao > 70 0.14) 375 Kuthawy (1978) suggested that RMR Eu =Ex fo 1+ yg9— 11 arume| for ROD > 70 (9.15) Serafin and Pereira (1983) suggested that, for 0 < RMR <90, Eu(GPa) = 108 (9.16) Equation (9.16) was later modified by Hoek et al. (2002) as, Ey(GPa) = (0 3) x 10%" fora. <100MPa (9.17) Ey(GPa) = ( 2) 10% for ae > 100 MPa (0.18) Here, D is a factor (0 account forthe disturbance in the rock mass due to blasting and stress relief, varying between 0 and 1; 0 for undisturbed and 1 for highly sisturbed rock. Bieniawski (1984) suggested that, for 45.< RMR <90 Ey(GPa) = 2RMR — 100 (9.19) Grimstad and Barton (1993) suggested that, for 1

You might also like

• The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck: A Counterintuitive Approach to Living a Good Life

  

  From Everand

  The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck: A Counterintuitive Approach to Living a Good Life

  Mark Manson

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (5819)
• The Gifts of Imperfection: Let Go of Who You Think You're Supposed to Be and Embrace Who You Are

  

  From Everand

  The Gifts of Imperfection: Let Go of Who You Think You're Supposed to Be and Embrace Who You Are

  Brené Brown

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1092)
• Never Split the Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On It

  

  From Everand

  Never Split the Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On It

  Chris Voss

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (845)
• • Magazines
  • Podcasts
  • Sheet music
• Principles: Life and Work

  

  From Everand

  Principles: Life and Work

  Ray Dalio

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (609)
• The Glass Castle: A Memoir

  

  From Everand

  The Glass Castle: A Memoir

  Jeannette Walls

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (1717)
• Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance

  

  From Everand

  Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance

  Angela Duckworth

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (590)
• Sing, Unburied, Sing: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Sing, Unburied, Sing: A Novel

  Jesmyn Ward

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1104)
• Hidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space Race

  

  From Everand

  Hidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space Race

  Margot Lee Shetterly

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (897)
• Shoe Dog: A Memoir by the Creator of Nike

  

  From Everand

  Shoe Dog: A Memoir by the Creator of Nike

  Phil Knight

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (540)
• The Perks of Being a Wallflower

  

  From Everand

  The Perks of Being a Wallflower

  Stephen Chbosky

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (2104)
• The Hard Thing About Hard Things: Building a Business When There Are No Easy Answers

  

  From Everand

  The Hard Thing About Hard Things: Building a Business When There Are No Easy Answers

  Ben Horowitz

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (348)
• Bad Feminist: Essays

  

  From Everand

  Bad Feminist: Essays

  Roxane Gay

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1018)
• Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future

  

  From Everand

  Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future

  Ashlee Vance

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (474)
• Her Body and Other Parties: Stories

  

  From Everand

  Her Body and Other Parties: Stories

  Carmen Maria Machado

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (822)
• The Outsider: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Outsider: A Novel

  Stephen King

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1866)
• The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer

  

  From Everand

  The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer

  Siddhartha Mukherjee

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (271)
• The Sympathizer: A Novel (Pulitzer Prize for Fiction)

  

  From Everand

  The Sympathizer: A Novel (Pulitzer Prize for Fiction)

  Viet Thanh Nguyen

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (122)
• Angela's Ashes: A Memoir

  

  From Everand

  Angela's Ashes: A Memoir

  Frank McCourt

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (441)
• Brooklyn: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Brooklyn: A Novel

  Colm Tóibín

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (1947)
• The Little Book of Hygge: Danish Secrets to Happy Living

  

  From Everand

  The Little Book of Hygge: Danish Secrets to Happy Living

  Meik Wiking

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (401)
• A Man Called Ove: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  A Man Called Ove: A Novel

  Fredrik Backman

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (4770)
• The World Is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century

  

  From Everand

  The World Is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century

  Thomas L. Friedman

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (2259)
• Steve Jobs

  

  From Everand

  Steve Jobs

  Walter Isaacson

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (808)
• The Yellow House: A Memoir (2019 National Book Award Winner)

  

  From Everand

  The Yellow House: A Memoir (2019 National Book Award Winner)

  Sarah M. Broom

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (98)
• Devil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New America

  

  From Everand

  Devil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New America

  Gilbert King

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (266)
• The Art of Racing in the Rain: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Art of Racing in the Rain: A Novel

  Garth Stein

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (4208)
• A Tree Grows in Brooklyn

  

  From Everand

  A Tree Grows in Brooklyn

  Betty Smith

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (1929)
• A Heartbreaking Work Of Staggering Genius: A Memoir Based on a True Story

  

  From Everand

  A Heartbreaking Work Of Staggering Genius: A Memoir Based on a True Story

  Dave Eggers

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (231)
• Yes Please

  

  From Everand

  Yes Please

  Amy Poehler

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1902)
• Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln

  

  From Everand

  Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln

  Doris Kearns Goodwin

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (234)
• The Woman in Cabin 10

  

  From Everand

  The Woman in Cabin 10

  Ruth Ware

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (2522)
• Fear: Trump in the White House

  

  From Everand

  Fear: Trump in the White House

  Bob Woodward

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (738)
• Wolf Hall: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Wolf Hall: A Novel

  Hilary Mantel

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (3811)
• John Adams

  

  From Everand

  John Adams

  David McCullough

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (2409)
• On Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New Deal

  

  From Everand

  On Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New Deal

  Naomi Klein

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (74)
• The Light Between Oceans: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Light Between Oceans: A Novel

  M.L. Stedman

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (789)
• Manhattan Beach: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Manhattan Beach: A Novel

  Jennifer Egan

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (792)
• The Constant Gardener: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Constant Gardener: A Novel

  John le Carré

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (104)
• The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America

  

  From Everand

  The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America

  George Packer

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (45)
• Rise of ISIS: A Threat We Can't Ignore

  

  From Everand

  Rise of ISIS: A Threat We Can't Ignore

  Jay Sekulow

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (137)
• Little Women

  

  From Everand

  Little Women

  Louisa May Alcott

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (104)