Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2017GeoOttawa Cu-SPT
2017GeoOttawa Cu-SPT
net/publication/320226702
CITATION READS
1 34,440
4 authors:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Jinyuan Liu on 05 October 2017.
ABSTRACT:
This paper presents a statistical analysis of the correlation between the undrained shear strength (CU) and both
standard penetration test blow count (SPT-N) and net limit pressure (PL) value for cohesive glacial tills in the city of
Toronto. The Cu values were derived from the field vane shear test (FVST) and PL values were derived from SPT-N.
This study is based on the results of a comprehensive geotechnical investigation for the Eglinton Crosstown Light
Rail Transit (LRT) project in Toronto. This study focused primarily on the statistical correlations between CU and both
SPT-N and PL value for cohesive glacial tills with different textures, such as silty clay till and clayey silt till. In this
paper, the correlation equations between SPT – (N) 60 values and CU, PL values and CU are suggested for cohesive
glacial tills. Additionally, the range of SPT – (N) 60, CU, PL and the pressuremeter constant (β) factor for cohesive
glacial tills is suggested.
RÉSUMÉ:
Cet article présente une analyse statistique de la corrélation entre la force de cisaillement non découpée/ drainée(CU)
et le taux de détection de pénétration standard (SPT-N) et la pression de limite nette (PL) pour les calculs glaciaires
cohésifs dans la ville de Toronto. Les valeurs de Cu ont été dérivées du test de cisaillement de la piste de champ
(FVST) et les valeurs de PL ont été dérivées de SPT-N. Cette étude est basée sur les résultats d'une enquête
géotechnique globale pour le projet Eglinton Crosstown Light Rail Transit (LRT) à Toronto. Cette étude portait
principalement sur les corrélations statistiques entre la C U et la SPT-N et la valeur PL pour les labies glaciaires
cohésives avec différentes textures, telles que la till d'argile et le till de limon argileux. Dans cet article, les équations
de corrélation entre SPT - (N)60 valeurs et CU, PL valeurs et CU sont suggérées pour les cultures glaciaires cohésives.
En outre, la gamme de SPT - (N)60, CU, PL et le facteur de constante de pressionmètre (β) pour les calculs glaciaires
cohésifs est suggérée.
.
2.1 The literature review on statistical correlation 2.2 The literature review on SPT- N correction
between SPT- N values and CU
In the literature, most researchers express their
Approximate ranges of CU and corresponding SPT- N concerns in regards to energy correction which was
values for cohesive soils proposed by Terzaghi & elaborated as follows. The energy delivered to the
Peck (1967) are given in Table1. Further they rods during a SPT expressed as a ratio of the
theoretical free fall potential energy, can vary from Stiff to very 15
30% to 90% (Kovacs and Salomone 1982 and stiff clays
Robertson et al. 1983). Schmertmann and Palacios Stiff clays 6.8 Marsland & Randolph
(1979) have shown that the SPT blow count is 1977
inversely proportional to the delivered energy. Kovacs All clays 5.1 Lukas and Le Clerc de
et al. (1984), Seed et al. (1984) and Robertson et al. Bussy 1976
(1983) have recommended that the SPT-N value has Stiff clays 10 Martin & Drahos 1986
to be corrected to an energy level of 60% (CFEM
2006). The SPT N-values corresponding to 60%
efficiency is termed as N60. The practice in the United Other non – linear relationships were
States/Canada the SPT N-value measured to an recommended by Baguelin et al. (1978) and Bozbey
average energy ratio of 60% (ERR=60%) according to et al. (2010) between CU and PL. The Baguelin et al.
ASTM D1586-11 (2014). In this study energy ratio of
(1978) and Bozbey et al. (2010) suggested the
60% (ERR=60%) is adopted.
factor varies between 5.5 and 10 and 5.5 and 15
respectively.
2.3 The literature review on statistical correlation
Currently, there is no such relationship available
between PL values and CU
for cohesive glacial tills in the city of Toronto. This
study is performed based on an extensive site
In the literature, most researchers expressed that
investigation conducted for the Eglinton Crosstown
Pressuremeter test (PMT) is a commonly suitable test
LRT project for the Toronto Transit Commission and
to estimate the undrained shear strength of cohesive
Metrolinx.
soils. There are different approaches for the
estimation of undrained shear strength which can be
listed as limit pressure method, yield pressure method
3.0 ENGINEERING BACKGROUND
and shear curve method etc. Yield pressure method
uses the yield pressure result and employs the
The site is situated along Eglinton Avenue from the
following equation for the estimation of CU such as CU
existing Kennedy subway station in the east to the
= py - 𝑜ℎ , where py - yield pressure and 𝑜ℎ - total
Mount Dennis station in the west, in Toronto, Ontario,
horizontal stress at rest. However, yield pressure
Canada.
method is not recommended because yield pressure
The Toronto area acquired at least three glacial
is generally a large value that may lead to
and two interglacial periods from the published
overestimated results (Briaud 1992). Shear curve
geological data (Karrow 1967 and Sharpe 1980). The
method, on the other hand, uses a graphical solution
geological history of the Toronto area has included
for the entire shear stress and strain graph is derived
several advances and retreats of glaciers of Illinoian
from the test. This method is also not recommended
and Wisconsinan ages (Karrow and White 1998). The
for being a graphical solution and leading high
glacial tills in this area were generally deposited
undrained shear strength estimations. The limit
during the early to late Wisconsinan period,
pressure method is commonly accepted in the
represented by the Sunnybrook, Seminary,
practice which uses the theoretical expression such
𝑃 Meadowcliffe, Newmarket and Halton tills (Sharpe
as CU = 𝐿 stated by Cassan (1972) (cited in Clarke 1999). The glacial till deposits in Toronto can be
1995). Factor is referred as pressuremeter divided into low plasticity cohesive glacial tills (silty
constant. According to many researchers such as clay to clayey silt glacial till) and cohesionless glacial
Cassan (1972) and Briaud (1992), value ranges tills (sandy silt to silty sand glacial till) (Manzari et al.
between 5.5 and 7.5 with an average of 6.5. Similarly, 2014). This kind of soil is derived due to the wearing
Clarke (1995) presented a summary of factors away and entrainment of material as a result of the
proposed in the literature which is given in Table 2. moving ice of a glacier. As shown in Figure 1, this
The variation of factor can be related to type of soil can be described as high variability
uncertainties involved in the measurement of 𝑜ℎ , materials in both horizontal and vertical axis, and it
differences in reference strength, an influence of normally contains complex non-linear stress-strain
disturbance and anisotropy (Clarke1995). characteristics (Baker et al. 1998). In addition to that,
the tills consist of a heterogeneous mixture of gravel,
sand, silt and clay size particles in varying
proportions. Cobbles and boulders are common in
Table 2. Proposed values of the factors in the
these deposits (Robert et al. 2011). However, the
literature (Clarke1995)
behaviour of glacial tills in southern Ontario is not fully
understood.
Soil Type factors Source
All clays 2 -5 Menard 1957
Soft to firm 5.5 Cassan 1972, Amar &
clays Jezequel 1972
Firm to stiff 8
clays
The glacial tills are interbedded with silty clay, clayey
silt, sandy silt, sand and silt and silty sand.
SPTs conducted near the FVSTs at similar depths
were selected to develop the relationship between
SPT-N values and CU in this paper for the following
stations such as Bermondsey, Keel, Victoria Park,
West portal. The pairs of readings (SPT-N and CU)
for silty clay till and clayey silt till were collected from
these tests in this study.
Silty clayey till from the above stations contains 1
to 19% gravels, 9 to 41% sand, 36 to 62% silt and 14
to 31% clay size particles based on grain size
analysis. The water contents are generally between 6
3
to 31% and unit weight is from 20.6 – 23.7 kg/m .
Based on the consistency (Atterberg) limits test the
range of LL is 17 to 28%, PL is 7 to 17% and PI is 7 to
Figure 1. Typical glacial till (Source-Mark Clark, 14. These values are shown in Table 3.
(http://www.free-stockillustration.com) Clayey silt till from the above stations contains 1 to
13% gravels, 22 to 44% sand, 37 to 60% silt and 11 to
22% clay size particles based on grain size analysis.
The proposed Eglinton Crosstown LRT is The water contents are generally between 6 to 31%
approximately 33 km in length and located 3
and unit weight is from 21.7 – 23.1 kg/m . Based on
approximately 7 km north of Lake Ontario. There are the consistency (Atterberg) limits test the range of LL
25 proposed stations along the alignment as shown in is 15 to 22%, PL is 10 to 16% and PI is 4 to 7. These
Figure 2. values are shown in Table 3.
Overall cohesive glacial till from the above stations
contains 1 to 19% gravels, 9 to 44% sand, 36 to 62%
silt and 11 to 31% clay size particles based on grain
size analysis. The water contents are generally
between 6 to 31% and unit weight is from 20.6 – 23.7
3
kg/m . Based on the consistency (Atterberg) limits
test the range of LL is 15 to 28%, PL is 7 to 17% and
PI is 4 to 14. These values are shown in Table 3.
C Range (kPa)
equipment and operating conditions, direct use of
SPT-N values for geotechnical design is not 150
recommended. As a result, many corrections shall be 58% 95%
65%
done on the field SPT-N values. Those corrections 100
are rod length, borehole diameter, sampler, energy
and overburden described in CFEM (2006). The
U
50
practice in the Canada the SPT N-value measured to
an average energy ratio of 60% (ERR=60%)
0
according to ASTM D1586-11 (2014). In this study
energy ratio of 60% (ERR=60%) is adopted. In the Silty clay till Clayey silt till All soil
case of cohesive glacial tills, overburden correction is
Figure 4. Range of CU values for cohesive glacial tills
not accommodated in this study. In these situations,
the SPT-N became SPT-(𝑁) 60. Then the net limit
pressure (PL) value is predicted according to
Balachandran et al. (2016) equation for that particular 2000
SPT-(𝑁)60 values.
P Range (kPa)
After corrected the SPT-N, the pair of data were 1500
collected for both SPT- (N) 60 values and CU, PL
values and CU for cohesive glacial tills. In order to 1000 73% 65% 75%
analyze more accurately, the compiled data were
filtered by using the following methodology:
L
500
(1) The data situated far from the trend line was
discarded by visual inspection compared to other 0
data. Silty clay till Clayey silt till All soil
(2) In such cases the same SPT-(𝑁) 60 values was
associated with different values of CU and this Figure 5. Range of PL values for cohesive glacial tills
pair of readings was omitted.
4.1 General Range of SPT--(𝑁) 60, CU and PL for Table 4. Approximate range of SPT--(𝑁) 60, CU and PL
cohesive glacial tills for cohesive glacial tills
The ranges of SPT- (𝑁) 60, CU and PL values are Soil type SPT--(𝑁) 60 CU (kPa) PL (kPa)
determined for cohesive glacial tills of the data are Silty clay till 2 - 16 18 - 197 184 - 1840
collected from in-situ tests. The ranges of (𝑁) 60, CU Clayey silt 5 - 12 78 - 93 520 - 1248
and PL values of cohesive glacial tills are shown in till
Figure 3 to 5 and Table 4 respectively. The All soil 2 - 16 18 - 197 184 - 1840
percentages (%) marked in Figure 3 to 5 represents
most of the range values that belong to the thick
portion of the range diagrams.
4.2 Correlation between SPT--(𝑁) 60 values and CU
15
65% 62%
10 60%
200
5
150
(kPa)
0
Silty clay till Clayey silt till All soil
100
U
y=
1000 200
L
C (kPa)
All soil 2
Stroud & Butlers R
0 100
0 50 100 150 200
m1
U
C (kPa)
U
Figure 7. Correlation between PL vs CU for cohesive 50 Chisq
glacial tills R
2
0 m1
0 5 10 15 20 25
Table 5. Summary of correlation between SPT- (N) 60 SPT - (N) Chisq 8
60
values and CU, PL values and CU and “” factors for Figure 8. Correlation between SPT- y = 10.521x
(N) 60 and CU for 2
y = 11.695x R
cohesive glacial tills cohesive glacial tills (Linear relationship)
y = 10.834x
2
Soil type Correlation equation (R ) “”
CU (kPa) PL (kPa) In this comparison, there is good agreement with
Stroud (1974) and Stroud and Butler’s (1975). Stroud
Silty clay 8.42 (N) 60 (0.80) 10.52 CU (0.80) 11
and Butler’s (1975) expressed CU = 8N for low
till
plasticity clay (PI =15%) and Stroud (1974) expressed
Clayey 8.22 (N) 60 (0.34) 11.70 CU (0.62) 12 CU=6-7(N) 60 for PI<20%. Studied cohesive glacial tills
silt till also have a PI range 4 -14 in this project. Plasticity
All soil 8.32 (N) 60 (0.79) 10.83 CU (0.76) 11 Index value also has a good agreement with literature
value.
150 Predicted
Baguelin
C (kPa)
PL (kPa) = 10.83 CU
2
R =0.76 [3]
8.0 REFERENCES
.
The predicted PL values were calculated by using ASTM D 1586 – 11 2014. Standard test method for
“Equation 3” and the measured PL and predicted PL standard penetration test (SPT) and split –barrel
values also presented in Figure 10. sampling of soils. Annual book of ASTM
standards, vol 04.09.
ASTM D 2573 – 01 2002. Standard tests method for
field vane shear test (FVST) in cohesive soils.
2500 Annual book of ASTM standards, vol 04.08 yy==10.834x
Measured 10.83x
Predicted Baguelin, F., Jezequel, J. F. and Shields, D.H. 1978.
y = 7.75x
2000
Baguelin et al. The Pressuremeter and foundation engineering, y = 10x
Trans tech publications, 617p.
P (kPa)
1000
Urban Geology of Canadian Cities. Edited by: P.F.
500 Karrow, 42, 323-352.
Bjerrum L. 1972, Embankments on soft ground
0 Proceedings of ASCE Speciality Conference on
0 50 100 150 200
C (kPa) Performance of Earth and Earth Supported
U Structure, PurdueUniversity, pp 1–54.
Figure 10. Correlation between PL and CU for Briaud, J.L. 1992. The Pressuremeter, A. A. Balkema,
cohesive glacial tills (Linear relationship) Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Canadian Geotechnical Society, 1992. Canadian
rd
Foundation Engineering Manual. 3 ed., the
In this comparison, there is good agreement with Canadian Geotechnical Society Co & Bi Tech,
Martin and Drahos (1986). Martin and Drahos (1986) Publishers Ltd. Canada.
expressed PL =10 CU for stiff clay. In this study also Clarke, B.G. 1995. Pressuremeter in Geotechnical
cohesive glacial till was stiff to very stiff. st
Design. 1 ed., Chapman & Hall, Glasgow.
Finally, the Menard pressuremeter constant “” Eglinton Cross – Town (LRT), Geo-Engineering
factors are suggested for cohesive glacial tills in this Factual data report.
study for the city of Toronto. According to literature, Karrow, P.F. 1967. Pleistocene Geology of the
the “” factors are between 2 and 15 for different Scarborough area. Ontario Department of Mines,
types of soils such as soft to firm, firm to stiff and stiff Geological Reports 46.
to very stiff. In this study, these factors are retrieved Karrow, P.F. and White, O.L. 1998. Urban geology of
Canadian cities, Geological Association of Thorburn, S. 1986. Field testing: Standard Penetration
Canada, GAC Special Paper 42. Test, Engineering Geology Special Publication,
Kovacs, W.D. and Salomone, L.A. 1982. SPT No: 2, Geological Society.
hammer energy measurements. American Society Toronto Transit Commission Geo Technical Standards
of Civil Engineers, ASCE, Journal of the 2014 Version 8.
Geotechnical Engineering Division, vol.108, GT4,
pp.599-620
Kovacs, W.D., Yokel, F.Y., Salomone, L.A and Holtz,
R.D. 1984. Liquefaction potential and the
international SPT; Proceeding of the 8th world
conference on earthquake engineering, San
Francisco, CA.
Manzari, M., Drevininkas, A., Olshansky, D. and
Galaa, A. 2014. Behavioral modelling of Toronto
Glacial Soils and implementation in numerical
modeling, Geo Regina
NAVFAC, 1986, “Soil Mechanics Design Manual
7.01”, Naval Facilities Engineering Command,
Alexandria.
Phoon, K.K. and Kulhawy, F.H. 1999. Evaluation of
geotechnical variability. Canadian Geo- tech J
36:625-639.
Robertson, P. K., Campanella, R. C. and Wightman,
A. 1983. SPT-CPT correlations, American society
of civil engineers, ASCE, Journal of the
geotechnical engineering division, vol.109, GT11,
pp. 1449-1459.
.Schmertmann, J.H. and Palacios, A. 1979, Energy
dynamics of SPT, American society of civil
engineers, ASCE, Journal of the geotechnical
engineering division, vol. 105, GT8, pp. 909-926.
Seed, H.B., Tokimatsu, K., Harder, L.F. and Chung,
R.M. 1984. Influence of SPT procedures in soil
liquefaction resistance evaluations. Report no:
UCB/EERC-84/15, Berkeley. Reprinted in journal
of geotechnical engineering, ASCE, vol. 111,
no.12, pp 1425-1445.
Sharp, D.R. 1980. Quaternary geology of Toronto and
surrounding area. Ontario geological survey,
Geological series preliminary map, p 2204.
Sharpe, D.R., Barnett, P.J., et al.1999. Regional
geological mapping of Oak Ridges Moraine –
Greater Toronto Area – Sourthern Ontario, In
current research 1999 – E, Geological Survey of
Canada, 123-136.
Sivrikaya, O., Toğrol, E., 2007, “Türkiye’de SPT N
Değeri ile Đnce Daneli Zeminlerin Drenajsız
Kayma Mukavemeti Arasındaki Đliskiler”,
Technical Magazine of Chamber of Civil
Engineers, Issue 4229 – 4246, Paper No: 279.
Stroud, M. A. 1974. “The Standard Penetration Test in
Insensitive Clays and Soft Rocks”, 1st European
Conference on Penetration Testing, Vol.1, pp. 372
– 373.
Stroud, M. A. .and Butler, F.G. 1975. “The standard
penetration test and the engineering properties of
glacial materials’’ Proceedings of the symposium
on Engineering Properties of glacial materials,
Midlands, U.K.
Terzaghi, K., Peck, R., B., 1948 / 1967, “Soil
Mechanics in Engineering Practice”, John Wiley &
Sons, USA.