In-Situ Geocharacterization of Soils in The Year 2016 and Beyond

Geotechnical Synergy in Buenos Aires 2015 139
A.O. Sfriso et al. (Eds.)

IOS Press, 2015
© 2015 The authors and IOS Press. All rights reserved.
doi:10.3233/978-1-61499-599-9-139
In-Situ Geocharacterization of Soils in the

Year 2016 and Beyond
Paul W. MAYNEa,1
a
Georgia Tech, USA
Abstract. The best possible program for geotechnical soils exploration involves a
blend of rotary drilling, undisturbed sampling, laboratory testing, in-situ field tests,
and geophysics, all taken within the context of engineering geology. Yet, this is
only viable when sufficient allocations of time and funds are available, namely
large or critical projects. Therefore, for routine site investigations, the use of
hybrid geotechnical-geophysical methods should be adopted, including the seismic
piezocone test (SCPTù) and seismic dilatometer (SDMTà), since they collect as
many as five independent readings with depth, thereby optimizing the information
gathered in an efficient, expeditious, and economical manner..
Keywords. Cone penetration, dilatometer, field testing, geophysics, geotechnics,

in-situ testing, penetrometers, piezocone, seismic tests, site investigation
1. Introduction
For each and every civil engineering project, a site-specific investigation is required in
order to collect data regarding the subsurface conditions. This is because the natural
ground beneath any particular project or location is unique, having been established
under the authoritative hand of Mother Nature. As a consequence, geotechnical
explorations must be performed to determine the occurrence and extent of underlying
strata or zones, geomaterial types, their depths and thicknesses, groundwater table(s),
and the associated geoengineering parameters required for design of foundations, walls,
embankments, and excavations [1]. While many old practices are still available, a
number of newer technologies have emerged which offer more efficient and
economical facets, as well as improved interpretations and reliability.
1.1. Engineering Geology and Exploratory Methods
The prevailing geology plays an important role in governing which field methods and
in-situ tests are applicable for site investigations. The conventional approach to
subsurface exploration is accomplished using rotary drilling and augering methods to
create boreholes for extracting split-spoons and drive samples. Borings are advanced
using solid or hollow-stem augers, rotary wash methods, and/or wireline drilling. Much
reliance has been placed on laboratory testing to ascertain soil engineering parameters,
1
Corresponding Author: Professor and Geosystems Engineering Team Leader, School of Civil &
Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, 790 Atlantic Drive, Mason Building 2245,
Atlanta, Georgia USA 30332-0355: paul.mayne@ce.gatech.edu
140 P.W. Mayne / In-Situ Geocharacterization of Soils in the Year 2016 and Beyond
Figure 1. Conventional investigation using drilling, sampling, field methods, and laboratory testing.
yet this requires the collection of "undisturbed" samples. If deemed necessary, drilling
can be extended into bedrock using diamond coring, carbide tungsten bits, and/or
alternative percussive methods. Additional detailed information can be gained by use of
geophysical techniques and/or deployment of downhole in-situ probes to measure
specific soil parameters.
Within North America, the field and laboratory test procedures used in subsurface
investigations are documented by guidelines and standards established by the American
Society for Testing & Materials (ASTM), as summarized in [2] and [3]. Elsewhere,
geotechnical test standards are specified by the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) and European codes (CEN), as well as individual national
standards.
1.2. Traditional Site Investigation Program
For a comprehensive site exploration, Figure 1 shows a program of soil borings that
involve the dynamic technique known as standard penetration testing (SPT) which
includes drive sampling to procure small 38-mm diameter disturbed soil samples. The
SPT is more-or-less suited for use in loose to firm to dense granular and sandy soils,
with extended applications to stiff to hard fine-grained geomaterials [4].
When soft to firm clays or silts are encountered, vane shear testing (VST) can be
implemented in which the undrained shear strength (su) and sensitivity (St) can be
assessed [5]. Pressuremeter tests (PMT) are useful for modulus determinations (E' or
Eu), as well as evaluations of strength (either I' in sands or su in clays), initial horizontal
P.W. Mayne / In-Situ Geocharacterization of Soils in the Year 2016 and Beyond 141
stress state (P0 = Vho), and limit pressure (PL), as detailed by Briaud [6], Clarke [7], and
Gambin et al. [8]. Time rate of consolidation can be evaluated using PMT holding tests
to assess cvh = coefficient of consolidation. In desired, pumping tests (PMPT) can be
performed for determination of the coefficient of permeability (k), also known as
hydraulic conductivity, and transmissivity.
Geophysical crosshole tests (CHT) may be conducted in two- or three-aligned and
cased boreholes [9] or alternatively in a single borehole setup using downhole tests
(DHT) to evaluate the profiles of compression wave (Vp) and shear wave (Vs)
velocities with depth [10]. The shear wave profile allows the direct assessment of the
small-strain shear modulus (Gdyn = Gmax = G0 ):
G0 = Ut · Vs2 (1)
where Ut = total mass density = Jt/ga, and Jt = total unit weight, and ga = acceleration
constant. The value of G0 is valuable for seismic site amplification evaluations and
dynamic analyses, and moreover serves fundamentally as the initial monotonic stiffness
of soils, thus the beginning of all shear stress vs. shear strain curves [11, 12, 13].
1.3. Undisturbed Sampling and Laboratory Testing
In addition to small drive samples, borings provide "undisturbed" thin-walled tube

samples that are transported to the geotechnical laboratory. These samples usually have
nominal diameters (75 mm < d < 300 mm) and lengths of about 1± m which are
obtained for lab testing of the intact soil materials under carefully controlled conditions
using various devices, including: consolidometer, triaxial shear, fixed and flexible
walled permeameter, direct shear, simple shear, bender elements, and resonant column
apparatuses. Laboratory testing on soil specimens can take days or weeks or even
months in order to obtain data and the required information about geostatic stress state,
compressibility characteristics, soil strength, stress history, stiffness, and flow
parameters such as hydraulic conductivity.
Of foremost difficulty is the fact that laboratory soil samples are affected by issues
of sample disturbance and time effects which are unavoidable [14, 15, 16]. In soft soils,
improved results can be obtained by using special samplers (e.g., Laval, Sherbrooke,
JPN, NGI block, etc.), yet not affordable on most budgets. Undisturbed sampling of
granular soils is now possible by innovative freezing technology [17, 18], yet expensive
at approximately US $30k per frozen sand sample. The background and experience of
the field drilling crew also can affect the sample quality, although a numerical value for
this factor is hard to quantify.
While an elaborate drilling and sampling program can produce the necessary
information regarding geostratification and relevant soil engineering properties, it does
so at great time and cost [12, 19]. In fact, the full suite of drilling & sampling
operations, field testing, geophysics, and laboratory testing is so expensive and of such
long duration, a program of this magnitude can only be considered affordable for large
scale projects or critical infrastructure having significant budgets and schedules.
On small- to medium-size geotechnical projects, the economies of time and money
restrict the amount of exploration and testing that can be performed, even though the
engineering responsibilities still demand a thorough knowledge regarding the site-
specific geomaterials. Many budgets for investigations are restricted, and as a result,
insufficient information is obtained. In the Americas, for example, a common
occurrence is an overreliance on a single field measurement (e.g., SPT-N value) as the

only input number, often supplemented by a single lab test (i.e., plasticity index). The
consequence is that a reliance is based on limited low quality data, thus geotechnical
solutions are not optimized, or in some cases, compromised which affects final design
and construction [20].
1.4. Risks of Inadequate Site Investigation
A poorly-planned and inadequate subsurface exploration program can have very

important and significant outcomes on the final constructed facilities, including the
possibility of overconservative designs as well as unsafe and unconservative solutions
[21]. Some other potential consequences can include:
a. Excessively high construction costs and expenses due to unwarranted use of piled
foundations, whereas in reality, spread footings may have actually worked just fine.
b. Extra preparation time and costs for ground modification techniques, when in fact,
none were needed.
c. Unexpected poor performance of foundations, embankments, retaining walls, and
excavations, possibly including additional costs due to damage and/or repair.
d. Failure or instability during or after construction operations due to inadequate
characterization of the geomaterials
e. Issues related to the inability to detect soft zone anomalies, lenses, buried features,
and/or weak layers and inclusions.
f. Legal intervention via litigation, with loss of professional reputation and/or license.
Regardless of budget and time, the geotechnical site investigation must still proceed
and provide a reasonable amount of reliable and varied types of subsurface data for
analysis so that the design produces a safe, efficient, viable, and economical solution.
2. Field Test Methods
The primary field methods for subsurface exploration have developed over the past
century or so and a brief chronological summary on the early approaches is given by
Broms & Flodin [22]. As new technologies developed, the geotechnical profession
variably adopted an acceptance of these different methodologies, as depicted
conceptually in Figure 2 [23]. Starting around 1900, information was mainly collected
from auger cuttings, index testing, and the advance of the SPT. Combining a strong
background in geology and engineering "judgment", geotechnical engineering
decisions were made. Over the next century, the advent of a variety of laboratory
equipment, field tests, geophysics, analytical modeling, numerical computer software,
and probability theory have all become available to assist the geotechnical engineer in
her/his evaluation of the subsurface conditions. While judgment remains important, a
higher reliance can be placed on the collected data and direct measurements.
From an unfortunate standpoint, the typical introductory geotechnical course is still
based on a curriculum that was derived from the standard-of-practice that existed in
1930's, such that the array of civil engineering undergraduate students only see a
laboratory approach to soil mechanics that rely on old mechanical oedometers, Proctor
compaction molds, direct shear, and triaxial apparatuses. They are forced to study soil
mechanics based on a "world of clay" that can be sampled and tested in the laboratory.
Figure 2. Development of tests and methods for geocharacterization (modified after Lacasse [23])
Topics primarily cover compaction, one-dimensional compression, permeability, time-

rate-of consolidation, and shear strength in a laboratory environment. Typically missing
items from the curricula are an appreciation and coverage of the role of geophysics, in-
situ field testing, and 3-dimensional geostratigraphic modeling that utilize modern
technologies which would in fact be a more exciting venture that attracts BS students to
graduate studies in geotechnique [20, 24].
2.1 Geotechnical Tests
Well over 150 types of field devices, in-situ probes, and instruments are available for
geotechnical site investigation [25, 26, 27]. Figure 3 illustrates a selection of these
field devices which include vanes, blades, probes, penetrometers, tubes, bars, plates,
balls, and/or rigid cells. These are deployed in various ways, such as static push,
impact, drill, torque, twist, driving, inflate, vibrate, sonic, and other dynamic techniques.
Most popular are the cone penetration test (CPT), flat plate dilatometer test (DMT),
vane shear (VST), standard penetration test (SPT), and pressuremeter (PMT) that are
detailed elsewhere [2, 3, 28, 29]. Less common are specialty tests such as the Iowa
stepped blade (ISB), cone pressuremeter (CPMT), total stress cells (TSC), and borehole
shear test (BST). Newer equipment directed at low strength fine-grained soils (su < 10
kPa) include full-flow devices, such as T-bar, ball, toroid, and hemi-ball penetrometers
[30, 31, 32, 33].
One benefit of field testing is that the results are obtained immediately, whereas
lab tests can take days or weeks or even months after samples have been procured. Also
in-situ tests collect near continuous or very frequent data in contrast to samples.
Figure 3. Selection of in-situ test devices and probes (modified after Mayne [19]).
2.2. Geophysical Tests
For use in ground characterization, an assortment of geophysical techniques are now

available, all of which are nondestructive. Two broad areas of geophysics include [9,
34, 35]: (a) mechanical wave geophysical methods; and (b) electromagnetic wave
measurements. Both types of geophysics can be deployed using either noninvasive
methods (surface arrays) and/or invasively via cased boreholes and/or direct-push
soundings.
2.3 Mechanical Wave Geophysics
The mechanical wave groupings include measurements of four basic wave types:
compression (P-wave), shear (S-wave), Rayleigh (R-wave or Surface wave), and Love
waves. Figure 4 presents a summary graphic illustrating the primary methods:
refraction, reflection, crosshole testing (CHT), downhole testing (DHT), rotary
crosshole (RCHT), and suspension logging (SL), used for developing profiles of P-and
S-wave velocities with depth [10, 19]. In addition, a number of surface wave
techniques have arisen that are noninvasive: spectral analysis of surface waves (SASW),
multi-channel analysis of surface waves (MASW), continuous surface waves (CSW),
and multi-modal analysis (MMASW), as well as passive surface wave (PSW) readings,
such as ReMi [36]. These geophysical techniques employ Rayleigh waves (or surface
waves) to ascertain shear wave velocity profiles and the small-strain elastic properties
of the ground.
Mechanical Wave Geophysics

Spectral Analyzer
Seismograph
DHT Oscilloscope + Vibratory Source
SFLS + Impact Source SFRS + Source
Cased VsRW
Receivers Geophones
Boreholes
Vp high
VsHH
Layer 1 frequencies
UHT
medium
Layer 2 VsVH frequency
content
SRFS = Surface Refraction Survey Vertical Layer 3 low

CHT
SFLS = Surface Reflection Survey Source frequency
SASW = Spectral Analysis of Surface Waves content
MASW = Multichannel Analysis of Surface Waves
MMASW = Multi-Modal Analysis of SW VsHV
CSW = Continuous Surface Waves RCHT
PSW = Passive Surface Wave Testing Rotary
ReMi = Reflection MicroSeis Source Rayleigh Waves
SLP = Suspension Logger Probe VsHH
SASW
CHT = Crosshole Test
RCHT = Rotary Crosshole MASW
DHT = Downhole Test Torsional BTSD SLP MMASW
UHT = Uphole Test Source VsHH CSW
SCPTu = Seismic Piezocone Test
SDMT = Seismic Flat Dilatometer Test
VsVV

PSW
ReMi }
Ambient
Sources
BTSD = Borehole Torsional Shear Device
Figure 4. Selection of geophysical test methods for obtaining shear wave velocity
2.4. Electromagnetic Geophysics
Electromagnetics use electrical measurements of resistivity, dielectric, conductivity,

and/or permittivity, as well as magnetometer and gravimetric data. The most common
methods include: electrical resistivity surveys (ERS), electromagnetic conductivity
(EMC), and ground penetrating radar (GPR). These can be done expediently to map
the area of site and show relative differences in electrical readings across the property.
Thus, a quick screening can be made to identify anomalous zones, hard features, soft
zones or voids, or just basic differences in soil types related to site variability and
heterogeneity [9]. Electrical readings can also be interpreted to provide data on in-situ
moisture content and/or density, such as used in time domain reflectometry.
A set of 3 electromagnetic methods conducted at a site in Aiken, South Carolina is
presented in Figure 5. The survey results from the EMC and ERS are mapped over an
areal viewpoint (10 m by 10 m), while the GPR survey has been performed along a
linear array to show variations with depth (10 m long extending 10 m deep).
3. Optimized Site Exploration
A recommended modern approach to site investigation should include: (a) an initial

areal mapping via noninvasive geophysics; (b) ground truthing by hybrid geotechnical-
geophysical soundings, such as seismic cone or seismic flat dilatometer. Figure 6
depicts the combined use of geophysical mapping and geotechnical probings that offer
expedient, economical, and efficient collections of data.
EMC
ERS
GPR
Figure 5. Surveys at Aiken, South Carolina: (a) conductivity, (b) resistivity, (c) ground penetrating radar
Figure 6. Recommended approach to geocharacterization for routine projects in 2016 and beyond
3.1. Seismic Piezocone Tests
The seismic cone (SCPT), seismic piezocone (SCPTu), and seismic dilatometer
(SDMT) are not new methods, but were developed some three decades ago [37, 38].
These tests offer fast profiling of strata and soil parameters with multiple readings
taken at each depth in a fast and reliable manner. By adding dissipatory phases [39], the
enhanced SCPTù offers up to 5 separate readings with depth, including: cone tip
resistance (qt), sleeve friction (fs), porewater pressure (u2), time rate of dissipation (t50),
and shear wave velocity (Vs). Data are recorded continuously, digitally, and directly
into a computer data acquisition unit for immediate post-processing. Therefore, on-site
decisions can be made by the geotechnical engineer, else sent wirelessly to the chief
engineer at the office for review. Additional modules can provide downhole readings of
resistivity, pH, gamma, dielectric, and electrical conductivity.
Figure 7. Seismic piezocone sounding from the New Orleans East Levees investigations
An illustrative standard SCPTu sounding from east of New Orleans, Louisiana is

presented in Figure 7 showing four separate measurements with depth. The sounding
was completed as part of the investigations for levee restoration in the area, following
the destruction of Hurricane Katrina. The readings clearly show alternating layers of
clay/sand strata in the upper 9 m followed by a thick 11-m soft clay layer to 20 m depth,
underlain by a 10-m thick sand stratum extending beyond the termination depth at 30 m.
As a general guideline in the interpretation of CPT signatures, clean sands are
distinguished by resistances where qt > 50 atm (5 MPa), whereas clays exhibit qt < 50
atm. Also, porewater pressures in sand layers are nearly hydrostatic (u2
0) while in
clays that are intact: u2 > u0. The latter are quite evident in the depth region from 10 to
20 m in Figure 7. In fissured soils, u2 < u0 and may even be negative values.
3.2. Seismic Dilatometer Tests
In the SDMTà, as many as five or six independent readings can be obtained with depth
[40], usually at 0.02m intervals, including: contact pressure (p0), expansion pressure
(p1), deflation pressure (p2), time rate decay (tflex), compression wave velocity (Vp), and
shear wave velocity (Vs). Details on the field procedure and data processing are
covered by Marchetti et al. [41]. It is also possible to measure blade thrust resistance
(qD) between successive push depths.
3.3. Deep Seismic Soundings
With specialized equipment and procedures, very deep penetration depths of 100m or
more are now possible on land [42]. For example, the Pitt River Bridge was recently
constructed east of Vancouver and required driven steel pipe pile foundations that
extended to almost 100 m of soft to loose recent sediments with toes resting on dense
Figure 8. Deep seismic piezocone for the Pitt River Bridge, BC (courtesy of David Tara).
Pleistocene deposits [43]. The upper 30m to 40m of overburden consists of interbedded
clays, silts, and sands that overlie soft silty clays. A representative 96-m deep SCPTu
conducted for the bridge site investigation is shown in Figure 8. Comparable costs for
soil borings with sampling and borehole geophysics at the site are nearly ten-fold
greater in expenses and also in time scheduling. Thus, SCPTu offers a more economical
and quicker means to collect quality information and multiple types of data.
4. Geotechnical Parameters
The interpretation of in-situ tests for soil engineering parameters is challenging

because of the wide diversity in geomaterials, including differences in mineralogy,
grain size, geologic origins, stress history, environmental changes, and duration since
deposition. Complexities abound due to natural variability, geostatic stress state,
nonlinear stress-strain curves, strain rate effects, permeability, and drainage conditions.
Thus, interpretations must be generalized, at least until detailed calibrations are made.
This has recently become possible through established geotechnical test sites.
4.1. Geotechnical Experimentation Sites
Recent conferences and symposia have documented and compiled technical

information and data collected from over 70 international geotechnical experimentation
sites (IGES) with summary reports given by [44, 45, 46]. The IGES include a wide
variety and many types of geomaterials, each within a particular geology, terrain,
topographic setting, and environment. In all cases, the IGES research programs have
been underway for many years, if not decades. Yet, a comprehensive understanding of
these geomaterials has still not been fully achieved. The IGES have been established to
provide collective information from laboratory, geotechnics, geophysics, and full-scale
performance testing of structures such as footings, piling foundations, retaining walls,
and various ground modification techniques.
For instance, a summary of selected in-situ test profiles measured in Piedmont
residual soils at the Opelika IGES in eastern Alabama is presented in Figure 9 [19, 47].
The overburden consists of fine sandy silts and silty fine sands with mica that have
formed from the inplace weathering of gneiss, schist, and granite. The mean grain size
is about 0.08 mm which is very close to the US No. 200 sieve that demarcates "fine-
grained" soils from "coarse-grained" soils.
A rather full suite of in-situ tests have been made here including: SPT, CPT, CPTù,
SCPT, SDMT, PMT, CHT, SASW, DHT, and BST. In addition, the residual soils have
been tested in the laboratory using: PM, TX, RCT, CS, and DSB. For illustration, a
selection of in-situ test data from SPT, DMT, PMT, CPTu, and CHT are shown in
Figure 9. Full scale load tests have been performed on axial driven pilings, drilled shaft
foundations, lateral piles, and displacement type DeWaal piles.
The IGES are of great importance because many different types of measurements
are taken on the same geomaterials in the same vicinity. This permits a benchmark and
reference mark, where the laboratory tests can be compared with in-situ and
geophysical results, as well as the full-scale performance of prototype foundations,
walls, excavations, and slopes. Geotechnical parameters acquired from analytical
methods and/or numerical simulations, as well as various constitutive soil models, can
be calibrated and cross-validated.
Figure 9. Selected in-situ test results in Piedmont residual sandy silts at Opelika test site, Alabama:
(a) SPT, (b) DMT, (c) PMT, (d) CPTu, and (e) CHT.
4.2. In-Situ Test Interpretation
General approaches to the evaluation of soil parameters from in-situ test data are
available [2, 26, 27, 28, 29, 48, 49]. The author's basic approaches for parameter
evaluation of stress state in soils for four in-situ test methods (SPT, CPT, DMT, DHT)
are given in Table 1. Stress state includes the current effective vertical overburden
stress: Vvo' = (Vvo - uo), and apparent preconsolidation stress, or yield stress (Vy'). The
total overburden stress is obtained from the accumulation of unit weights with depth:
Vvo = Jt dz (2)
where Jt = total soil unit weight. The hydrostatic porewater pressure is calculated from
the groundwater table or obtained from piezometer measurements. The yield stress
ratio (YSR) is a more proper representation of the apparent overconsolidation ratio
(OCR = Pc'/Vvo') and is determined from:
YSR = Vy'/Vvo' (3)
An alternate means to express the stress history is via the yield stress difference (YSD),
analogous to the overconsolidation difference (OCD = Pc' - Vvo') as detailed by Locat et
al. (2003):
YSD = Vy' - Vvo' (4)
The YSD is advantageous for soil deposits that have been mechanically loaded-
unloaded because the value is constant with depth [27].
An interesting aspect of the relationships in Table 1 is that they apply to a wide
range of varied soil types, including intact clays, silts, silt-sand mixes, and quartz/silica
sands, primarily Holocene to Pleistocene. They do not apply, however, to structured or
cemented or crushable soils, such as carbonate or calcareous sands, nor sensitive to
quick clays, diatomaceous geomaterials, or highly organic peats.
Interpretative methods for assessing the effective stress friction angle (I') of soils
is also listed in Table 1. For the DHT, SPT, and DMT, data are currently limited to use
in clean quartz to silica sands, while for the CPT/CPTu, the results can be applied to
clean sands and extended to clays, silts, and mixed soils via the effective undrained
penetration theory from NTH = Norwegian Institute of Technology [27, 58].
With a knowledge of stress state and effective friction angle, the lateral stress
coefficient (K0 = Vho'/Vvo') can be assessed:
K0 = (1- sinI') (YSR) sinI' (5)
which applies to all soil types [2, 40, 49].

For clays, a profile of undrained shear strength (su) can be evaluated from the stress
history and adopted mode of shearing. The general form can be expressed [60]:
su = a · Vvo'· YSRb (6)
where "a" = normalized undrained shear strength ratio for normally-consolidated clay
TABLE 1. Evaluation of stress state parameters and effective friction angle for four primary in-situ tests
Soil In- Soil Interpretative Source

Parameter Situ Type Relationship
Test
Unit DHT All Jt = 8.32 log(Vs) - 1.61 log z >@
Weight, Jt Vs = shear wave velocity (m/s)
(kN/m3) z = depth (m)
SPT All a. Estimate Vs = 97 (N60) 0.337 [50]
b. Use above expression for Jt from DHT Vs
N60 (bpf) = energy-corrected SPT resistance
CPT All Jt = Jw [1.2 + 0.15·ln (100·fs/Vatm+ 0.1)] (see note 1) >@
fs = sleeve resistance
DMT All Jt = 1.12 Jw (ED/Vatm)0.1 (ID) -0.05 (see note 2) >@
ED = dilatometer modulus = 34.7(p1-p0)
ID = material index = (p1-p0)/(p0-u0)
Yield DHT All Vy' = 0.101 (Gmax )0.478 (Vvo') 0.420 (Vatm)0.102 >@
Stress, Vp' Gmax = Ut(Vs)2 = small-strain shear modulus (eqn 1)
or Vy' SPT All Vy' = 0.47 (N60)n* Vatm >@
(kPa) n* = soil-dependent exponent: intact clays (n*=1); silts
(n*=0.8); sands (n* = 0.6)
CPT All Vy' = 0.33 (qt - Vvo)m (Vatm/100)1-m >
qt = total cone resistance @
Vvo = total overburden stress
m = empirical soil-dependent exponent: intact clays
(m=1); silts (m = 0.85); silty sands (m=0.8); clean
quartz to silica sands (m = 0.72)
Note: see Figures 10 and 11
DMT All Vy

0 - u0) >@
p0 = contact pressure (corrected A-reading)
u0 = hydrostatic porewater pressure
Effective DHT Clean I' = 11.70 (Vs1)0.22 (see Note 3) >@
Friction quartz Vs1 = (Vs)/(Vvo'/Vatm)0.25 = stress-normalized shear wave
Angle, I' Sand velocity
(deg) Clay Not applicable, therefore: 1. Collect undisturbed
or Silt samples and run triaxial tests; or 2. Assume I' = 30°
SPT Clean I' = 200 + [15.4·(N1)60]0.5 >@
quartz (N1)60 = (N60)/(Vvo'/Vatm)0.5 = stress-normalized and
Sand energy-corrected SPT N-value
Clay Not applicable, therefore: 1. Collect undisturbed
CPTu Clean I' = 25.00 (qt1)0.10 (see note 4) >@
quartz qt1 = (qt/Vatm)/(Vvo'/Vatm)0.5 = stress-normalized CPT
Sand resistance for sands
Clay I' = 29.50·Bq0.121 [0.256 + 0.336·Bq + log Q] >
or Silt Bq = (u2-u0)/(qt-Vvo) = porewater pressure parameter @
Q = (qt-Vvo)/Vvo' = normalized cone resistance
DMT Clean I' = 28.00 + 14.6·log(KD) - 2.1·[log(KD)]2 >
Sand KD = (p0-u0)/Vvo' = horizontal stress index @
Clay Not applicable, therefore: 1. Collect undisturbed
Notes: 1. Jw = unit weight water
2. Vatm = atmospheric pressure (= 1 bar = 100 kPa)
3. Errata in [51,54]. Correct power law from regression given here.
4. This expression gives nearly identical values to I' = 17.60+11.00 log(qt1) cited by [2, 40, 47]
and "b" = exponent that generally varies between 0.75 and 0.95 [49]. An assumed value
of "b" = 0.80 is common [60]. The coefficient term "a" depends on shearing mode with
CK0UC triaxial compression often taken between 0.30 and 0.35, DSS simple shear
values between 0.20 and 0.25; and CK0UE triaxial extension ranging from 0.15 to 0.20.
The values are best obtained by lab tests on high-quality samples, else estimated from
index tests [20, 48] or constitutive soil models [49, 61].
5. Case Study Examples
A couple of case studies will be presented to show application of the aforementioned

approaches in the interpretation of in-situ data and comparison with available
laboratory test results. One example involves CPTu in clay in Sweden and the other
addresses CPT and SDMT in sands in Ireland.
5.1 Clay at Torp, Sweden
A hillside stability investigation is reported by Larsson & Åhnberg [60] involving clay
at Torp in western Sweden. In addition to series of borings, field vanes, piezocones,
and dilatometer tests, a program of laboratory strength testing by triaxial compression,
triaxial extension, and simple shear tests were carried out, in addition to many one-
dimensional consolidation tests and index testing. Geophysical surveys included
seismic refraction and resistivity. Groundwater is encountered about 2 m below grade.
For CPT data, an estimate of the yield stress is given simply as a function of net
cone resistance (qt-Vvo) and exponent parameter (m'), as shown in Figure 10. The value
of m' relates to the CPT material index (Ic) that is used to evaluate soil behavioral type
(SBT) from normalized cone resistance (Qtn) and normalized sleeve friction (F) per
details given elsewhere [53, 59]. The current observed relationship between m' and Ic is
presented in Figure 11.
Figure 10. Yield stress of soils versus net cone tip resistance [40]
Figure 11. Yield stress exponent m' versus CPT material index (Ic) for well-behaved sands and clays
A representative piezocone sounding (CPTu S9) is presented in Figure 12 showing a

respectable depth of 57 m has been reached. The readings of cone tip resistance, sleeve
friction, and porewater pressure are all seen to generally increase with depth. The mean
normalized piezocone values are: Qtn = 6.42, F = 1.32%, and Bq = 0.62. These give an
overall CPT material index value of Ic = [(3.47-logQtn)2 +(1.22+logF)2]0.5 = 3.00. This
agrees with an interval calculation for each set of Qtn and F where the mean value of Ic
for the depth range of 2 to 56 m at Torp is 3.01 ± 0.21.
For clays, the first-order assessment of yield stress from the generalized algorithm
for CPT given in Table 1 can be simplified (m = 1) in the form:
Vy' = 0.33 (qt - Vvo) (7)
which can be seen to produce a reasonably nice profile of preconsolidation at sounding

S9 location in Figure 13a. This shows rather good agreement with a considerably large
number of CRS-type consolidation benchmark values at Torp. Notably, two additional
assessments of stress history are afforded from CPTu results using the excess porewater
pressures ('u) and effective cone resistance (qt-u2), as detailed elsewhere [52, 61]:
Vy' = 0.53 (u2 - uo) (8)
Vy' = 0.60 (qt - u2) (9)
which are also seen to give good matching with the CRS lab data.
The average YSR (or OCR) from all three methods was taken to drive the profiles
of undrained shear strengths using an exponent "b" = 0.75 and corresponding
coefficient "a" values: triaxial compression (a = 0.30); simple shear (a = 0.21), and
triaxial extension (a = 0.15). The CPTu-interpreted profiles for CK0UC, DSS, and
CK0UE modes are shown in Figure 13b and agree well with the laboratory series where
specimens were consolidated to the in-situ geostatic stresses prior to shearing.
Figure 12. Representative piezocone sounding at Torp, Sweden. Data from Larsson & Åhnberg [60]
Figure 13. Profiles in clay at Torp: (a) yield stress ratio; (b) undrained shear strength for three modes.
Contact Pressure, p0 (kPa) Expansion Pressure, p1 (kPa) Shear Wave Velocity, Vs (m/s)
0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 100 200 300 400 500
0 0 0
NG-1 NG-1 SDMT-1

NG-2 NG-2 SDMT-2
1 NG-3 1 NG-3 1
SDMT-3
NG-4 NG-4
SDMT-4
2 2 2
Depth, z (m)
3 3 3
4 4 4
5 5 5
6 6 6
Figure 14. Profiles in dense OC Irish sand: (a) p0 pressures, (b) p1 readings, (c) Vs data [63, 64]
5.2 Dense sand at Blessington, Ireland
The University College Dublin (UCD) has established an experimental test site for pile
research in dense overconsolidated sands in eastern Ireland. Details are reported by
Tolooiyan & Gavin [62] and Doherty et al. [63]. These glacially-derived dense fine
sands have an in-situ relative density averaging DR 100% and mean particle size: 0.10
< D50 (mm) < 0.15 mm. Sand mineralogy is predominantly quartz with calcite, feldspar,
mica, and kaolinite. The in-situ testing program is ongoing and to date has included:
SPT, CPTs, DMTs, SDMT, MASW, and pile load tests. The results from a series of
four DMT soundings [63] with downhole shear wave velocity measurements reported
by Murphy et al. [64] using SDMT are presented in Figure 14. Groundwater lies about
13 m deep.
Samples of the sand were procured by continuous sonic drilling for the laboratory
test program, including grain size, mineralogy, consolidated drained triaxial
compression testing for Ip' evaluations, and one-dimensional consolidation tests to
define the yield stress (Vy'). For the latter, per the Casagrande criterion, the interpreted
values of yield stress range suggested a YSD = 400 kPa (= 4 atm) in the upper 10 m of
overburden.
The interpreted unit weights from the DMT readings and the downhole Vs
measurements peak friction angles are shown in Figure 15. These appear in good
agreement with the lab measured reference values. Also presented are values implied
from MASW Vs data obtained at the site [62] and these indicate lower Jt profiles.
The interpreted effective friction angles (I') at Blessington are presented in Figure
16. These include results from the four DMTs using KD relationships [57] which show
good agreement with drained TC tests on lab samples (Fig. 16a) and results from four
Unit Weight, Jt (kN/m3) Unit Weight, Jt (kN/m3)

10 15 20 25 10 15 20 25
0 0
Vs DATA
1 1
SDMT-1
DMT
Lab SDMT-2
2 NG-1 Samples
2
SDMT-3
NG-2 SDMT-4
3 3
NG-3 MASW Lab
Depth (m)
NG-4 Samples
4 4
5 5
6 6
Jt = 1.12 Jw (ED/Vatm)0.10 (ID) -0.05 Jt = 8.32 log(Vs) - 1.61 log (z)

7 7
where Jt (kN/m3); Vs (m/s); z (m)
8 8
Figure 15. Profiles of unit weight in dense OC Irish sand using: (a) DMT readings, (b) V s data
Friction Angle, I' (deg) Friction Angle, I' (deg)

25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
0 0
DMTs Lab Drained

1 1
Triaxial Tests
NG-1 on Samples
NG-2
2 2
NG-3
Vs DATA
NG-4
3 3
SDMT-1
Depth (m)
SDMT-2
4 Lab Triaxial 4
Compression SDMT-3
Tests
5
SDMT-4
5
MASW
6 6
I'=28°+14.6·logKD-2.1·(logKD)2 7
I' = 11.7°·(Vs1)0.22
7
where Vs1 = Vs/(Vvo'/Vatm)0.25
8 8
Figure 16. Profiles of friction angle in dense OC Irish sand using: (a) DMT readings, (b) Vs data
shear wave velocity profiles which are higher than the lab benchmark values (Fig. 16b).
The corresponding depths of the triaxial data are plotted at their appropriate elevations,
as determined as the applied effective confining stresses (Vc') divided by the unit
weight of the sand (Jt = 20 kN/m3). In addition, results from a series of four CPTs at
Blessington show excellent agreement in the interpreted I' in comparison with lab
triaxial values for these dense and overconsolidated sands [51, 63].
Next, the interpreted stress history profiles at Blessington are given in Figure 17
using the four sets of DMT results and four Vs profiles from SDMT soundings. Both
methods indicate moderately to highly-overconsolidated geomaterials, yet the profiles
of yield stress ratios (YSR) are somewhat underpredicted in these dense fine sands
when compared with the consolidometer data and interpreted YSD = 400 kPa. The
exponent for G0 was boosted a little from 0.48 to 0.50 from the original equation in
Table 1 for a better fitting. If boosted to 0.52, an even better fit is obtained. Therefore,
more work on this algorithm is warranted in calibration and verification as new data
become available.
Figure 17. Profiles of yield stress ratio in dense OC Irish sand using: (a) DMT readings, (b) Vs data
Finally, the measured cone tip resistance profiles from four CPTs at the Blessington
site are shown in Figure 18a. These have been interpreted using the aforementioned
approach using an exponent value m' = 0.75 which gives very good agreement with the
laboratory-measured values of effective yield stress or preconsolidation at the site [51].
6. Conclusions
Geocharacterization is best handled when many different types of in-situ probes,

penetrometers, borings, and soundings are coupled with results from geophysical
surveys, drilling and sampling, and laboratory testing. This is only feasible on large or
critical projects because of the lack of funding and time issues.
Cone Resistance, qt (MPa) Yield Stress, Vp' (kPa)

0 10 20 30 40 0 200 400 600 800 1000
0 0
1 1 YSD = 4 atm
2 2
Vp' = 0.33 qnet 0.75
3 3
Depth, z (m)
4 4
5 5
Consols
6 6
7 7
8 8
9 9
10 10 Vvo'
11 11
Figure 18. Profiles in dense OC Irish sand: (a) cone tip resistances, (b) CPT-interpreted stress history
For routine explorations on small- to medium projects, a two-phased investigation

should include: (a) areal geophysical mapping by electromagnetics or noninvasive
surface waves followed by: (b) hybrid geotechnical-geophysics testing, namely seismic
piezocone tests (SCPTù) and/or seismic dilatometer tests (SDMTà). These provide
multiple and independent readings with depth in a single sounding. In this way, no
compromise is made in acquiring sufficient and varied types of important subsurface
data that are needed in a proper design and solution for construction.
Methods of interpreting a suite of geotechnical parameters are reviewed for the
SPT, CPT, and DMT in various "well-behaved" soil types, including: unit weight (Jt),
stress history (OCR or YSR), and effective friction angle (I'), as well as evaluating the
K0 stress state and undrained shear strength (su) for clays that are dependent upon stress
history. Illustrative examples of post-processing in-situ data are given for a soft to firm
clay in Sweden and a dense sand site in Ireland.
7. Acknowledgments
The author appreciates the generosity and funding assistance provided by ConeTec
Investigations in their support of research activities at Georgia Tech.
References
[1] Simons, N., Menzies, B., and Matthews, M. (2002). A Short Course in Geotechnical Site Investigation,
Thomas Telford, London: 353 p.
[2] Mayne, P.W., Christopher, B.R. and DeJong, J.T. (2002). Subsurface Investigations: Geotechnical Site
Characterization. Publication No. FHWA-NHI-01-031, National Highway Institute, Federal Highway
Administration, Washington, DC: 301 p. http://geosystems.ce.gatech.edu/Faculty/Mayne
[3] Sabatini, P.J., Bachus, R.C., Mayne, P.W., Schneider, J.A. and Zettler, T.E. (2002). Manual on
Evaluating Soil & Rock Properties, Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 5, Report No. FHWA-IF-
02-034, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 385 pages.
[4] Stroud, M.A. (1988). The standard penetration test: its application and interpretation. Penetration
Testing in the U.K., Thomas Telford, London: 29-49.
[5] Chandler, R.J. (1988). The in-situ measurement of the undrained shear strength of clays using the field
vane. Vane Shear Strength Testing of Soils, STP 1014, ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA: 13-45.
[6] Briaud, J-L. (1992). The Pressuremeter. Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisse, The Netherlands: 340 p.
[7] Clarke, B.G. (1995). Pressuremeters in Geotechnical Design, Blackie Academic/ Chapman & Hall,
London: 367 p.
[8] Gambin, M., Magnan, J-P., and Mestat, Ph., ed. (2005). Intl. Symposium: 50 Years of Pressuremeters
(Proc. ISP5- Pressio 2005), Vols 1 and 2, Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chaussée, Paris: 1484 p.
[9] Wightman, W.E., Jalinoos, F., Sirles, P. and Hanna, K. (2003). Application of Geophysical Methods to
Highway Related Problems. Contract No. DTFH68-02-P-00083, Federal Highway Administration,
Washington, DC: 742 p. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/engineering/geotech/
[10] Campanella, R.G. (1994). Field methods for dynamic geotechnical testing. Dynamic Geotechnical
Testing II (STP 1213), ASTM, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania: 3-23.
[11] Burland, J.B. (1989). Small is beautiful: The stiffness of soils at small strain. Canadian Geotechnical J.
26 (4): 499-516.
[12] Clayton, C.R.I. (2011). Stiffness at small strain: research and practice. Geotechnique 62 (1): 5-37.
[13] Leroueil, S. and Hight, D.W. (2003). Behaviour and properties of natural soils and soft rocks.
Characterization & Engineering Properties of Natural Soils, Vol. 1, Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisse: 29-254.
[14] Tanaka, H. (2000). Sample quality of cohesive soils: Lessons from three sites: Ariake, Bothkennar, and
Drammen. Soils and Foundations 40 (4): 54-74.
[15] Lunne, T., Berre, T., Andersen, K.H., Strandvik, S. and Sjursen, M. (2006). Effects of sample
disturbance and consolidation procedures. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 43 (7): 726-750.
[16] Long, M., El-Hadj, N., and Hagberg, K. (2009). Quality of conventional fixed piston samples of
Norway soft clay. ASCE J. Geotechnical & Geoenv. Engrg. 135 (2): 185-198.
[17] Hoeg, K, Dyvik, R., and Sandbækken, G. (2000). Strength of undisturbed versus reconstituted silt and
silty sand specimens. Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engineering 126 (7): 606-617.
[18] Esposito, M.P., Andrus, R.D. and Camp, W.M. (2014). Ground freezing and sampling of Pleistocene
sand near Charleston, South Carolina. J. Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engrg. 140 (1): 185-193.
[19] Mayne, P.W. (2012). Invited keynote: Geotechnical exploration in the year 2012. Proceedings 16th
Nordic Geotechnical Meeting, Vol. 1, Danish Geotechnical Society, Copenhagen: 11-27.
[20] Mayne, P.W. (2012). Invited keynote: Quandary in geomaterial characterization: new vs. old. Shaking
the Foundations of GeoEngineering Education (Proc. UI-Galway), Taylor & Francis, London: 15-26.
[21] Littlejohn, G.S. 1991. Inadequate Site Investigations. Institution of Civil Engineers, published by
Thomas Telford, London: 1-26. www.ice.org.uk
[22] Broms, B.B. & Flodin, N. (1988). History of soil penetration testing, Penetration Testing 1988, Vol. 1
(Proc. ISOPT, Orlando), Balkema, Rotterdam: 157-220.
[23] Lacasse, S. (1985). Design parameters of clays from in-situ and lab tests. Proc. Symposium on New
Concepts in Geotechnical Engineering, Rio de Janeiro; also NGI Report No. 52155-50, Oslo.
[24] Mayne, P.W. (2014). GeoEducation needs: Updating our introductory course curricula, particularly
sections concerning geomaterial characterization. Geocharacterization for Modeling and Sustainability
(GSP 234: Proc. GeoCongress 2014, Atlanta), ASCE, Reston, Virginia: 3911-3919.
[25] Robertson, P.K. (1986). In-situ testing and its application to foundation engineering. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal 23 (6): 573-594.
[26] Lunne, T., Lacasse, S. and Rad, N.S. (1994). General report: CPT, PMT, and recent developments on
in-situ testing of soils. Proc. 12th Intl. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering (4), Rio de
Janeiro: 2339-2403.
[27] Mayne, P.W. (2007). Invited overview paper: In-situ test calibrations for evaluating soil parameters.
Characterization & Engineering Properties of Natural Soils, Vol. 3 (Proc. Singapore 2006), Taylor &
Francis Group, London: 1602-1652.
[28] Schnaid, F. (2005). Geocharacterization and properties of natural soils by in-situ tests. Proc. 16th Intl.
Conf. Soil Mechanics & Geotechnical Engrg, Vol. 1 (ICSMGE, Osaka), Millpress, Rotterdam: 3-46.
[29] Schnaid, F. (2009). In-Situ Testing in Geomechanics: The Main Tests. Taylor & Francis Group,
London: 329 p.
[30] Randolph, M.F. (2004). Characterization of soft sediments for offshore applications. Geotechnical and
Geophysical Site Characterization, Vol. 1 (Proc. ISC-2, Porto), Millpress, Rotterdam: 209-232.
[31] DeJong, J.T., Yafrate, N., DeGroot, D., Low, H.E. and Randolph, M.F. (2010). Recommended practice
for full-flow penetrometer testing and analysis. ASTM Geotechnical Testing J. 33 (2): 1-13.
[32] Yan, Y., White, D. J., and Randolph, M. F. (2011). Penetration resistance and stiffness factors for
hemispherical and toroidal penetrometers in uniform clay. Intl. J. Geomechanics 11 (4): 263–275.
[33] Stanier, S.A. and White, D.J. (2015). Shallow penetrometer penetration resistance. J. Geotechnical &
Geoenv. Engrg. 141 (3), 04014117.
[34] Santamarina, J.C., Klein, K.A. and Fam, M.A. (2001). Soils and Waves: Particulate Materials Behavior.
John Wiley & Sons, Chichester: 488 p.
[35] Sirles, P.C. (2006). Use of Geophysics for Transportation Projects. NCHRP Synthesis 357,
Transportation Research Board, Washington DC: 117p. www.trb.org
[36] Tran, K.T. and Hiltunen, D.R. (2011). An assessment of surface wave techniques at the Texas A&M
national geotechnical exper. site. Proc. GeoRisk 2011 (GSP 224), ASCE, Reston/VA: 859-866.
[37] Campanella, R.G., Robertson, P.K. and Gillespie, D. (1986). Seismic cone penetration test. Use of In-
Situ Tests in Geot. Engrg. (GSP 6), ASCE, Reston, VA: 116-130.
[38] Hepton, P. (1988). Shear wave velocity measurements during penetration testing. Penetration Testing in
the UK, Thomas Telford, London: 275-278.
[39] Mayne, P.W. and Campanella, R.G. (2005). Versatile site characterization by seismic piezocone tests.
Proc. 16th Intl. Conf. on Soil Mechanics & Geot. Engrg, (ICSMGE, Osaka), Vol. 2, Millpress,
Rotterdam: 721-724.
[40] Mayne, P.W., Coop, M.R., Springman, S., Huang, A-B., and Zornberg, J. (2009). State-of-the-Art Paper
(SOA-1): Geomaterial Behavior and Testing. Proc. 17th Intl. Conf. Soil Mechanics & Geotechnical
Engineering, Vol. 4 (ICSMGE, Alexandria, Egypt), Millpress/IOS Press, Amsterdam: 2777-2872.
[41] Marchetti, D., Marchetti, S., Monaco, P. and Totani, G. (2008). Experience with the seismic dilatometer
in various soils. Geotechnical & Geophysical Site Characterization, Vol. 2 (Proc. ISC-3, Taipei),
Taylor & Francis, London: 1339-1345.
[42] Mayne, P.W., Sharp, J., Styler, M. and Woeller, D.J. (2014). Very deep seismic piezocone tests in
geocharacterization. Proceedings, GeoRegina 2014, The 67th Canadian Geotechnical Conference,
Saskatchewan: www.cgs.ca
[43] Tara, D.J. (2012). Pitt River Bridge 2007 static pile loading test. Proceedings GeoCongress 2012 (GSP
225, Oakland), ASCE, Reston, Virginia: 289-305
[44] Benoît, J. and Lutenegger, A.J., editors (2000). National Geotechnical Experimentation Sites (GSP 93),
ASCE, Reston,Virginia: 398 p.
[45] Tan, T.S., Phoon, K.K., Hight, D.W. and Leroueil, S., editors. (2003). Characterization & Engineering
Properties of Natural Soils, Vols. 1 & 2, Balkema, Rotterdam: 1531 p.
[46] Phoon, K.K., Hight, D.W., Leroueil, S., and Tan, T-S. (2007). Characterization and Engineering
Properties of Natural Soils. Vol. 3 and 4, Taylor & Francis Group, London: 2791 p.
[47] Mayne, P.W. and Brown, D.A. (2003). Site characterization of Piedmont residuum of North America.
Characterization & Engineering Properties of Natural Soils (2), Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisse, 1323-1339.
[48] Jamiolkowski, M., Ladd, C.C., Germaine, J.T. and Lancellotta, R. (1985). New developments in field
and lab testing of soils. Proc., 11th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Vol. 1, San Francisco: 57-154.
[49] Kulhawy, F.H. and Mayne, P.W. (1990). Manual on Estimating Soil Properties for Foundation Design.
Report EL-6800, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, 306 p. Website: www.epri.com
[50] Imai, T. and Tonouchi, K. (1982). Correlation of N-value with S-wave velocity. Proc. 2nd European
Symposium on Penetration Testing, Amsterdam: 67–72.
[51] Mayne, P.W. (2014). KN2: Interpretation of geotechnical parameters from seismic piezocone tests. Proc.
3rd International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing (CPT'14, Las Vegas), edited by P.K.
Robertson and K.I. Cabal: 47-73. www.cpt14.com
[52] Mayne, P.W. (2005). Integrated ground behavior: in-situ and lab tests, Deformation Characteristics of
Geomaterials, Vol. 2 (Proc. IS Lyon'03), Taylor & Francis Group, London: 155-177.
[53] Mayne, P.W. (2014). Generalized CPT method for evaluating yield stress in soils. Geocharacterization
for Modeling and Sustainability (GSP 234: GeoCongress, Atlanta), ASCE, Reston, Virginia: 1336-1346.
[54] Uzielli, M., Mayne, P.W. and Cassidy, M.J. (2013). Probabilistic assessment of design strengths for
sands from in-situ testing data. Modern Geotechnical Design Codes of Practice, Advances in Soil
Mechanics & Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 1, IOS-Millpress, Amsterdam: 214-227.
[55] Marchetti, S. 1997. The flat dilatometer: design applications, Proc. 3rd Intl. Geotechnical Engineering
Conference, Cairo University, Soil Mechanics & Foundation Research Laboratory, Egypt: 423-448.
[56] Marchetti, S., Monaco, P., Totani, G. and Calabrese, M. (2006). The flat dilatometer in soil
investigations. A report by the ISSMGE Committee TC16, Proc. 2nd Intl. Conference on the Flat
Dilatometer, Arlington, Virginia: 8-48. Download: www.usucger.org
[57] Mayne, P.W. (2015). Peak friction angle of undisturbed sands using DMT. Proc. 3rd Intl. Conference on
Flat Dilatometer, Rome, Italy. www.dmt15.com
[58] Senneset, K., Sandven, R. and Janbu, N. (1989). Evaluation of soil parameters from piezocone tests.
Transportation Research Record 1235, National Academy Press, Washington DC: 24-37.
[59] Robertson, P.K. (2009). Cone penetration testing: a unified approach. Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
Vol. 46 (11): 1337-1355.
[60] Larsson, R. and Åhnberg, H. (2003). Long term effects of excavations at crests of slopes. Report 61.
Swedish Geotechnical Institute, Linköping: 372 p. www.swedgeo.se
[61] Mayne, P.W. (2008). Keynote paper: Piezocone profiling of clays for maritime site investigations.
Geotechnics in Maritime Engineering, Vol. 1 (Proceedings, 11th Baltic Sea Geotechnical Conference,
Gdansk), Polish Committee on Geotechnics: 333-350.
[62] Tolooiyan, A. and Gavin, K. (2011). "Modeling the cone penetration test in sand using cavity expansion
and arbitrary Lagrangian Eulerian finite element methods", Computers and Geotechnics 38, Elsevier:
382-490.
[63] Doherty, P., Kirwan, L., Gavin, K., Igoe, D., Tyrrell, S., Ward, D. and O'Kelly, B. (2012). "Soil
properties at the UCD geotechnical research site at Blessington", Proceedings, Bridge and Concrete
Research in Ireland. Trinity College Dublin: 499-509. www.bcri.ie
[64] Murphy, G., Doherty, P., Gavin, K., Cadogan, D. and Ward, D. (2014). Characterization of two dense
sand sites in Ireland using in-situ testing. Proceedings, 3rd International Symposium on Cone
Penetration Testing, Las Vegas, Nevada: 637-644. www.cpt14.com

In-Situ Geocharacterization of Soils in The Year 2016 and Beyond

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

In-Situ Geocharacterization of Soils in The Year 2016 and Beyond

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Geotechnical Synergy in Buenos Aires 2015 139

A.O. Sfriso et al. (Eds.)

In-Situ Geocharacterization of Soils in the

Keywords. Cone penetration, dilatometer, field testing, geophysics, geotechnics,

1.1. Engineering Geology and Exploratory Methods

1.2. Traditional Site Investigation Program

1.3. Undisturbed Sampling and Laboratory Testing

In addition to small drive samples, borings provide "undisturbed" thin-walled tube

occurrence is an overreliance on a single field measurement (e.g., SPT-N value) as the

1.4. Risks of Inadequate Site Investigation

A poorly-planned and inadequate subsurface exploration program can have very

2. Field Test Methods

Topics primarily cover compaction, one-dimensional compression, permeability, time-

2.1 Geotechnical Tests

2.2. Geophysical Tests

For use in ground characterization, an assortment of geophysical techniques are now

2.3 Mechanical Wave Geophysics

Mechanical Wave Geophysics

SRFS = Surface Refraction Survey Vertical Layer 3 low

2.4. Electromagnetic Geophysics

Electromagnetics use electrical measurements of resistivity, dielectric, conductivity,

3. Optimized Site Exploration

A recommended modern approach to site investigation should include: (a) an initial

3.1. Seismic Piezocone Tests

An illustrative standard SCPTu sounding from east of New Orleans, Louisiana is

3.2. Seismic Dilatometer Tests

3.3. Deep Seismic Soundings

The interpretation of in-situ tests for soil engineering parameters is challenging

4.1. Geotechnical Experimentation Sites

Recent conferences and symposia have documented and compiled technical

4.2. In-Situ Test Interpretation

YSR = Vy'/Vvo' (3)

YSD = Vy' - Vvo' (4)

K0 = (1- sinI') (YSR) sinI' (5)

which applies to all soil types [2, 40, 49].

su = a · Vvo'· YSRb (6)

Soil In- Soil Interpretative Source

5. Case Study Examples

A couple of case studies will be presented to show application of the aforementioned

5.1 Clay at Torp, Sweden

A representative piezocone sounding (CPTu S9) is presented in Figure 12 showing a

Vy' = 0.33 (qt - Vvo) (7)

which can be seen to produce a reasonably nice profile of preconsolidation at sounding

Vy' = 0.53 (u2 - uo) (8)

Vy' = 0.60 (qt - u2) (9)

NG-1 NG-1 SDMT-1

5.2 Dense sand at Blessington, Ireland

Unit Weight, Jt (kN/m3) Unit Weight, Jt (kN/m3)

Jt = 1.12 Jw (ED/Vatm)0.10 (ID) -0.05 Jt = 8.32 log(Vs) - 1.61 log (z)

Friction Angle, I' (deg) Friction Angle, I' (deg)

DMTs Lab Drained

Geocharacterization is best handled when many different types of in-situ probes,

Cone Resistance, qt (MPa) Yield Stress, Vp' (kPa)

For routine explorations on small- to medium projects, a two-phased investigation

You might also like