EXPLORATION, SAMPLING, AND IN SITU SOIL MEASUREMENTS 177 from Sarac and Popovic (1982) as follows: qc = a+ ble qe = 612.6 + 587.51. kPa 3-15) Ge = a+ bu Ye = 525.1 + 1,076q, kPa In these equations / is a decimal quantity, and both qy and q- are in kPa, These two corre- lations can be as much as +30 percent in error—for example, if the computed value is 1000 kPa, the field value can be anywhere in a range of 700 to 1300 kPa. Sully et al, (1988) give a correlation for the OCR using a piezocone as shown in Fig. 3- 15a with pore pressure sensors installed at the cone base and either on the tip or in the lower half of the cone face. During a test the tip sensor should read a higher pore pressure than the sensor at the cone base. Defining this pore pressure difference as PPD gives us PPD = (&) -@). @-16) ito ip \uo where u, = in situ static pore pressure yz in the same units as the pore pressures u- mea- sured at the cone tip and base. A least squares analysis using a number of soils gives OCR = 0.66 + 1.43 PPD (3-17) with a correlation coefficient of r = 0.98 (1.0 would be exact). Sully (1988a) revised Eq. @B-17) to OCR = 0.49+1.50PPD — (r = 0.96) (3-174) Again, on a much larger database, Sully (1990) revised Eq. (3-17) to OCR = 0.50 + 1.50 PPD (3-17b) The best range of this equation is for OCR < 10. Equations (3-17) were developed using pore-pressure data in clays, so they probably should not be used for sands. See Eq. (3-19a) for another equation for OCR applicable for both clay and sand. 3-11.2 CPT Correlations for Cohesionless Soils Figure 3-20 is a plot of the correlation between cone pressure q- and relative density D,. This figure represents the author’s composite from references given, The curves are for normally consolidated cohesionless material. If the soil is overconsolidated, D, requires correction ac- cording to Schmertmann (and others). The correction uses the following equations: W.0CR ( 4e0CR = 1 +k Gone - :) (3-18) Schmertmann (1978) suggested that the & term in this equation be 0.75, however, in other locales a different value may produce a better correlation. In Eq. (3-18) the K, ratio might be obtained from Eq. (2-23) rearranged and given here as a reader convenience: Koocr _ ocR (2-23)178 FOUNDATION ANALYSIS AND DESIGN Cone tip resistance q-, MPa 50 & 19 __39 __30 Vertical effective stress p,, kPa \ 3501-2. 1 L Figure 3-20 Approximate relationship between cone q- and relative density D,, as a composite from Schmert- ‘mann (1978) and Villet and Mitchell (1981) for normally consolidated saturated recent (noncemented) deposits, ‘Schmertmann suggested using n = 0.42, but later data suggest that 1 is site-dependent and may be from 0.32 to 0.52*, perhaps 0.4 for medium dense, 0.48 for dense, and 0.52 for very dense sands. If the soil is normally consolidated, Fig. 3-20 can be used directly. For example: at z = 10 m, y' = 10 kN/m? measure g- = 10 MPa; now compute effective stress pi, = y’: 10 KN/m* x 10 m = 100 kPa; and using Fig. 3-20 at the intersection of gq. = 10 and pi, = 100 interpolate and obtain D, ~ 70%). When the cohesionless deposit is overconsolidated (OCR > 1) the CPT gives qc,ocr which must be converted using Eq. (3-18) to an equivalent qc,n¢ in order to use Fig. 3-20. Do this as follows: 1, First plot Eq. (3-18) using several values of the K, ratio such as 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3,... about 5 to 6. 2. Find the K, ratio for the site using one of the procedures given. 3. Enter the chart and project from the plot to the g,-ratio axis and obtain the ratio g.,ocr/Ge,ne as Val.EXPLORATION, SAMPLING, AND IN SITU SOIL MEASUREMENTS 179 4. Now solve WOR _ Vay Ione = 400R Yom = Sar Use this value of qenc as the cone tip resistance term q- and using the computed value of in-situ p’, enter Fig. 3-20 and obtain the overconsolidated value of D,. 5. Save the plot so that you can plot local data on it to see whether a better correlation can be obtained. When the relative density D, is estimated, use Table 3-4 or Eq. (3-7) to estimate the angle of internal friction ¢. Figure 3-21 may be used to estimate the OCR for both sands and clays. A pressure ratio By is computed using the measured cone pore pressure and total overburden pressure po = z as Me =o _ _ Au qt~ Po 4 ~ Po where terms are identified either on Fig. 3-15b or Fig. 3-18b. Use this equation to compute B,, enter Fig. 3-21 for OCR, and then back-compute Eq. (2-23) for the K, ratio if a suitable exponent n can be estimated. An equation for the relationship between OCR and B, for clays (3-19) Figure 3-21 A relationship between B, and OCR. Relationship may be site-specific but it is based on soils from ‘a number of geographic locations. [After Keaveny and Mitchell (1986).1 Lo +o se OC Pressure sensor on tip sls LE 06 SS wort Son face t Ve os ~ SS. On base- S 02 = 1 2 so 00Bearing capacity factor V’, or limiting cone resistance qq, kg/em? Bes S88 i g 180 FOUNDATION ANALYSIS AND DESIGN Cone bearing q., MPa 8 00 00 1 Tt T [aq = Curve from Meyerhof (1974) | —— SO | Fottowing curves from Begemann (1974) Eq. 3: De Beer Ea 0 R L tan} 4544) Aa 24 Pe Eq. K Fee Kerrie eet] 10 a. t: Caquot T+ sin? 67 2 « Fy, iopotune LI 2 5 | fy _| i \ = § 200 3 ° £ 2 20] i \ € 300 . \ 350} 2 30 32 1 W350 ~—45—«SO 400 Angle of internal fiction ¢ () Correlation between peak friction angle $' and 4. (@) Cone-bearing versus 6 relationship. for uncemented quartz sands. Dara from Robertson ‘and Campanella (1983) and others. Figure 3-22 Correlations between cone data and angle of internal friction ¢. The Meyerhof plot in (a) is a replot from five sources but valid only in the range of 30 = $= 45° of sensitivity 5, < 8 is given by Chang (1991) as (3-194) Figure 3-22 is an alternative means to estimate the friction angle ¢ using the bearing capacity factor V;, shown on the figure that is defined as 1 Oo where pl, = y'z and qi. are both “effective” stresses. The Meyerhof M curve is similar to those labeled “Eq. 1, 2, and 3” (on Fig, 3-22a), except that the limiting zoral cone pressure ger is used instead of Vj, for the ordinate axis. In most cases—particularly if the CPT is a continuous push—gu is the “limiting” total cone bearing pressure ger. In the range shown the Meyerhof M curve tends to give larger g-angles for the same pressure ratio, In practice one should probably use both figures (a) and (b) and average the values to obtain a design angle of internal friction ¢. An approximate equation for 4 using the total cone bearing pressure qe (in MPa) is the following (with corrections shown): b= + Sq + 5° for gravel; 5° for silty sandEXPLORATION, SAMPLING, AND IN SITU SOIL MEASUREMENTS 181 Ry g Clayey silts Sandy silt ae = and sity lay and silt Sity sand] Sand 10 7, N = SPT blow count q= kPa 9] Bxample From sieve analysis Do = 0 Simm IN primatily for E, = 45-55 From in site CPT ey = 6O Kafe? (6000Kps) ‘Required Estimate Nos Sehation Enter char at Diy =05 project vertically tocarve then horizontally to read =62 ae Fo0Ns Nig = 5 000.. 29.6 +10 blows/03m qu $96 10 blows. (Check using Ba. (4-20) 1 itin pod ad 7 005 007 05 OF 5 10 Mean grain size Dso, mm Figure 3.23 Relationship between mean grain size (Dsp) and q_/N ratio. Note the energy ratio E, on which the relationship is based. [After Robertson etal. (1983) and Ismael and Jeragh (1986); reference numbers correspond to references in original sources.] A number of correlations have been proposed for making an SPT N-blow count estimate using CPT resistance in both clay and cohesionless materials, The reasons for this are that there is a larger database of N numbers than q- pressures and that the SPT produces recovered (but disturbed) soil samples for visual inspection. Alll of these correlations used various bridging parameters {desired quantity = A + BN; r = f(N)), but it was (and still is) difficult to produce anything that one can use with much confidence. The widespread use of the CPT makes it less important to put much additional development effort into this type of correlations—rather, plot local data on existing curves to improve their correlation reliability as much as possible. Figure 3-23 is the most reliable of the q--N correlations presently in use. It uses the Dso grain size (the grain size where 50 percent is finer—see Fig. 2-3) as the bridging parameter. It appears that grain size gives better correlation than any other parameter in coarse-grained soils. Some correlations for both clay and cohesionless soils use a generic form of Qe = kN (3-20) where qc is in units of MPa and coefficient k tends to range from 0.1 to about 1.0 as in the following table [from Ramaswamy et al. (1982) with some author revisions] which uses Nép: Soil type aN Silts sandy sis, and slightly cobesive siltsand mixtures 0.1-02 Clean fine to medium sands and slightly silty sands 03-04 Coarse sands and sands with little gravel 0.50.7 ‘Sandy gravels and gravel 08-10182 FOUNDATION ANALYSIS AND DESIGN To illustrate the scatter in ge versus Nig, one study found that a best fit for a fine silty sand was k = 0.77 [see Denver (1982)]. Comparing this value to the foregoing table, where one might obtain something between 0.1 and 0.4 (since qe/N%y > qo/Néq), we can see that there could be a substantial difference in what the soil is typed as. Example 35. Given. qc = 300 kg/cm? at depth z = 8 min sand, y’ = 11.15 kN/m’, Required, Estimate angle of internal friction @. Solution. pi = 8X 1115 = 89.2kPa (effective pressure) Ge = Vipy (from Fig. 3-22a) Vi = & = 300 x 3a = 330 (98.07 converts kg/cm? to kPa) From Fig. 3-22a at Vj, = 330, we project to curves and down and obtain d = 34.5 to 39.5°, say, = 37°. According to Fig. 3-20, qe versus p’, plots into the upper right corner above D, = 100 and since the maximum D, = 100 we can with D, = 100 use Fig. 2-246 to obtain = 42 t0 46°, say, & = 44°, From Fig. 3-22b and q- = 300 x 98.07/1000 = 29.4 MPa, we obtain g ~ 46” ‘We could use ¢ = 44° (which is high; also, it is somewhat doubtful whether the soil really has D, = 100). A better estimate might be 37+ 44 + 46) 3 ‘The author would probably not use over 40°. Question: Could this soil have OCR > 1? ¢ =a Mm Example 3-6. Classify the soil on Fig. 3-172 at the 10- to 12-m depth. Also estimate the undrained shear strength s, if the average y = 19.65 kN/m? for the entire depth of the CPT. It is known that the profile is entirely in cohesive soi Solution. Enlarge the figure on a copy machine and estimate g, = 11 MPa at the depth of interest by eye (with this data digitized into a microcomputer we could readily compute the average qe as the depth increments x q- summed and divided by the depth interval of 2 m). From ge = 11 MPa = 11000 kPa and fr = 4 percent (from adjacent plot), use Fig. 3-18a and note the plot into the “silty sand” zone. This zone is evidently stiff from the large qc, so classify as Soil: stiff, sandy silt (actual soil is a gray, stiff clay, CH) For Sus Compute p. = y X average depth = 19.65 x 11 = 216 kPa From Fig. 3-19 estimate Ny = 18 (using our just-made classification for a stiff sandy silt, we would expect an Jp on the order of 10 or less). With this estimate we can use Eq. (3-11) directly to obtain 4, = 1000 = 216 oe 216 _ 600 kPa (From laboratory tests sy was approximately 725 kPa.) Mit