THE UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE

SCHOOL OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING DESIGN III

M. B. Jaksa

IN SITU TESTING

References: Bowles, J. E. (1996). Foundation Analysis and Design, 5th ed., McGraw-Hill, 1175p.
Craig, R. F. (2004). Soil Mechanics, 7th ed., Spon Ltd., 464p.
Ervin, M. C. (ed.) (1983). In-Situ Testing for Geotechnical Investigations, A. A. Balkema, 131p.
Fang, H.-Y. (ed.) (1991). Foundation Engineering Handbook, 2nd ed., Chapman and Hall, 923p.
Ground Engineering (1996). In situ Testing. Vol. 29, No. 2, March, Emap Business Publ., pp. 10-11.
Holtz, R. D. and Kovacs, W. D. (1981). An Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering, Prentice-
Hall, 733p.
Lunne, T., Robertson, P .K. and Powell, J. J. M. (1997). Cone Penetration Testing in Geotechnical
Engineering Practice, Blackie Academic and Professional, New York.
Orchant, C. J., Kulhawy, F. H. and Trautmann, C. H. (1988). Critical Evaluation of In-Situ Test
Methods and their Variability. Report EL-5507, Vol. 2, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto.
Whitlow, R. (1990). Basic Soil Mechanics, 2nd ed., Longman, 528p.

1. INTRODUCTION

In Geotechnical Engineering II a number of in situ tests were introduced. In this extension of the
topic, these tests will be examined in more detail and relationships between common geotechnical
engineering properties will be presented. Table 1.1 details the applicability and usefulness of the
most common in situ tests.

2. STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT)

As described in Geotechnical Engineering II, the SPT consists of a split-spoon sampler, which is
placed at the base of a borehole, and driven into the subsurface by blows of a 65 kg hammer which
falls from a height of 760 mm. The sampler is driven a total of 450 mm into the soil, and the
number of blows required to drive the sampler the last 300 mm is called the standard penetration
resistance, N. The method for this test is outlined in AS 1289.F3.1.

Bowles (1996) suggested that correlations should be based on a standard blow count, N'70 , which is
the standard penetration resistance, N, adjusted to account for effective overburden pressures and
different input energies, rod lengths, samplers and borehole diameters. (Note that the ' indicates that
N has been adjusted). The standard blow count is based on a standard energy ratio (100%×actual
energy to sampler/input energy) of 70, and is determined via the following relationship:

N' 70 = CN × N × η1 × η2 × η3 × η4 (2.1)

where: CN is an adjustment for the effective overburden pressure, σ'vo (kPa),

using the following relationship: CN = 95.76 σ' vo ; and
ηi are adjustment factors as given in Table 2.1.
Table 1.1 The applicability and usefulness of in situ tests (Ground Engineering, 1996).
(a) Soil Parameters
Group Device Soil Type Profile u φ' 1 su RD mv cv k G σh OCR σ−ε
Penetrometers Dynamic C B C C C C C
Mechanical CPT B B/A C C B C C C C
Electric CPT B A C B B/A C B C/B B
Piezocone (CPTU) A A A B B B/A B B/A B B C/B B C
Seismic A A A B B/A B/A B B/A B A B B B
Dilatometer (DMT) B A C B B C B B B B C
SPT A B C C B C C
Resistivity Probe B B B C A C
Pressuremeters Pre-Bored (PBPMT) B B C B C B C B C C C
Self-Boring (SBPMT) B B A2 B B B B A2 B A3 B/A B B/A 3
Full Displacement B B C B C C C A3 C C C
Other Vane Shear (VST) B C A C/B
Plate Load C C B B B C C A C B B
Screw Plate (SPLT) C C C B B B C C A C B B
Borehole Permeability C A B A
Hydraulic Fracture B C C B
Seismic4 C C A B
(b) Ground Type
Group Device Hard Rock Soft Rock Gravel Sand Silt Clay Peat LEGEND
Penetrometers Dynamic C B A B B B Applicability: A: High; B: Moderate; C: Low
Mechanical CPT C C A A A A Soil Parameters: u: in situ pore water pressure
Electric CPT C C A A A A φ': effective int’l angle of friction
Piezocone (CPTU) C A A A A su: undrained shear strength
Seismic C A A A A RD: relative density
Dilatometer (DMT) C C A A A A mv: constrained modulus
SPT C B A A A A cv: coefficient of consolidation
Resistivity Probe C A A A A k: coefficient of permeability
Pressuremeters Pre-Bored (PBPMT) A A B B B A B G: shear modulus
Self-Boring (SBPMT) B B B A B σh: horizontal stress
Full Displacement C B B A A OCR: overconsolidation ratio
Other Vane Shear (VST) A B σ−ε: stress-strain relationship
Plate Load B A B B A A A Notes: 1: Depends on soil type
Screw Plate (SPLT) A A A A 2: When pore pressure sensor used
Borehole Permeability A A A A A A B 3: When displacement sensor used
Hydraulic Fracture B B C A C 4: Crosshole, downhole and
Seismic4 A A A A A A A surface
2
Table 2.1 Values of ηi for calculating N'70 in Equation (2.1). (Source: Bowles, 1996.)

Table 2.2 provides relationships between N'70 and the internal angle of friction, φ, the relative
density, RD, and the bulk unit weight, γ. Table 2.3 gives relationships for Young’s modulus of
elasticity, E, for various soil types.

Table 2.2 Empirical values for φ, RD and γ based on the SPT. (Bowles, 1996).

Description Very Loose Loose Medium Dense Very Dense

Relative Density, RD 0 0.15 0.35 0.65 0.85
SPT, N'70: fine 1-2 3-6 7-15 16-30 ?
medium 2-3 4-7 8-20 21-40 >40
coarse 3-6 5-9 10-25 26-45 >45
φ' (degrees): fine 26-28 28-30 30-34 33-38
medium 27-28 30-32 32-36 36-42 < 50
coarse 28-30 30-34 33-40 40-50
Bulk Unit Weight, γ (kN/m3) 11-16 14-18 17-20 17-22 20-23

As mentioned in Geotechnical Engineering II, whilst the SPT is widely used throughout the world,
the test has many limitations. The greatest disadvantage of the SPT is the lack of reproducibility of
the test results.
Table 2.3 Relationships between Young’s modulus of elasticity, E, and various soil types
based on the SPT and CPT. (Bowles, 1996).

Soil Type SPT (E in kPa) CPT (E in units of qc )

Sand (normally consolidated) E = 500( N + 15) E = ( 2 to 4) qc
E = 7000 N E = 8000 qc
E = 6000 N
Sand (saturated) E = 250( N + 15) E = 3.5qc for e = 1.0
E = 7.0qc for e = 0.6
Sands, all (normally consolidated) E = ( 2600 to 2900) N
Sand (overconsolidated) E = 40,000 + 1,050 N E = ( 6 to 30) qc
EOC ≈ ENC OCR
Gravelly sand E = 1200( N + 6)
E = 600( N + 6) for N ≤ 15
E = 600( N + 6) + 2000 for N > 15
Clayey sand E = 320( N + 15) E = ( 3 to 6) qc
Silts, sandy silt, or clayey silt E = 300( N + 6) E = (1 to 2) qc
Soft clay or clayey silt E = ( 3 to 8) qc
Clay and silt E = (100 to 500 )su (in units of su )
Silty or sandy clay E = (500 to 1500 )su (in units of su )

3. CONE PENETRATION TEST (CPT)

As described in Geotechnical Engineering II, the electrical cone penetration test consists of
continuously driving a 35.7 mm diameter, 60° cone into the ground. The cone is fitted with two
load cells, one measuring the cone tip resistance, qc , and the other measuring the sleeve friction, fs .
The advantage of this test is that it enables a continuous profile to be obtained.

By means of the friction ratio, FR , given in Equation (3.1), it is possible to obtain an indication of
the soil profile, as shown in Figures 3.1 and 3.2.

fs
FR = × 100% (3.1)
qc

For cohesive soils, the cone tip resistance is related to the undrained shear strength, su , via the
following relationship which is derived from the ultimate bearing capacity of a deep foundation:

qc − σ vo
su = (3.2)
Nk

where: σvo is the vertical overburden pressure;

Nk is the cone tip factor which is assumed to be constant for a particular
soil type.

4
 Figure 3.1 Profile interpretation from the CPT. (Source: Bowles, 1996.)

Figure 3.2 Profile interpretation from the CPT. (Source: Lunne et al., 1997.)

The cone tip factor is usually in the range 5 to 75, with values between 15 and 20 commonly used.
In general, Nk is determined by cone penetration testing in parallel with reference measurements of
su . The undrained shear strength, su , is normally obtained from triaxial tests performed on high
quality specimens, or from in situ vane shear tests. It has been suggested that the sleeve friction, fs ,
of the clay be used as a lower bound for su .
5
For cohesionless soils, the CPT can be used to evaluate the relative density, RD, and the internal
angle of friction, φ, as shown in Figures 3.3 and 3.4, respectively.

As for the SPT, several relationships are available for evaluating Young’s modulus of elasticity, E.
These are given in Table 2.3 for various soil types.

Figure 3.2 Relationship between the relative density, RD, and cone tip resistance, qc ,
from the CPT, for cohesionless soils. (Source: Bowles, 1996.)

Figure 3.3 Correlations between cone tip resistance, qc , and internal angle friction, φ,
from the CPT, for cohesionless soils. (Source: Bowles, 1996.)
6
4. MARCHETTI FLAT PLATE DILATOMETER TEST (DMT)

As described in Geotechnical Engineering II, the Flat plate dilatometer, as proposed by Marchetti,
consists of a 95 mm wide × 14 mm thick blade which is driven into the ground. Associated with the
blade is a 60 mm diameter flexible membrane which is able to be pressurised and expanded laterally
into the subsoil. The dilatometer is shown in Figure 4.1.

Figure 4.1 Flat plate dilatometer. (Source: Bowles, 1996.)

The test involves the following steps:

1. The dilatometer is driven into the subsurface profile to the desired depth, z.
2. Pressure is applied to the membrane and an audible beep will sound when lift-off has occurred;
that is, the membrane pressure is matching the in situ horizontal stress. The lift-off pressure is
known as the A-pressure.
3. The membrane pressure is increased until the membrane has expanded 1.1 mm into the soil.
Again a beep will sound. This pressure is known as the B-pressure.
4. The membrane pressure is decreased until the membrane has returned to the lift-off position.
Again a beep will sound. This pressure is known as the C-pressure.

The following parameters can be obtained from the DMT:

p1 − p0
Material Index, ID: ID = (4.1)
p0 − u 0
p −u
Horizontal Stress Index, KD: KD = 0 0 (4.2)
σ'v 0
Dilatometer Modulus, ED: E D = 34.7( p1 − p0 ) (4.3)

Vertical Drained Constrained Modulus, MDMT: M DMT = RM ED (4.4)

where: p0 = 1.05( A − Z M + ∆A) − 0.05 p1 ;

7
 p1 = B − Z M − ∆B ;
∆A, ∆B are corrections determined by membrane calibration;
ZM is the gauge zero offset (gauge reading when vented to atmospheric
pressure);
u0 is the pre-insertion pore water pressure;
σ'v0 is the pre-insertion overburden stress;
RM : if ID ≤ 0.6; RM = 0.14 + 2.36 log KD;
if ID ≥ 3; RM = 0.5 + 2 log KD;
if 0.6 < ID < 3; RM = RM,0 + (2.5 – RM,0) log KD,
with RM,0 = 0.14 + 0.15 (ID – 0.6);
if KD > 10; RM = 0.32 + 2.18 log KD; and
if RM < 0.85; set RM = 0.85.

Figure 4.2 provides a correlation between the in situ coefficient of earth pressure at rest, K0 , and the
lateral stress index, KD . Figure 4.3 provides a correlation between soil type and ID and ED .

Figure 4.2 Correlation between KD and K0 . Figure 4.3 Correlation between soil type,
(Source: Bowles, 1996.) ID and ED . (Source: Bowles, 1996.)

5. SELF-BORING PRESSUREMETER TEST (SBPMT)

As described in Geotechnical Engineering II, the self-boring pressuremeter test involves inserting
the pressuremeter device into a pre-drilled borehole. The pressuremeter is then advanced into the
hole to the required test depth by means of the self-boring pressuremeter’s cutting tools. In this
way, the pressuremeter is located at the test depth with minimal soil disturbance. The cylindrical
pressuremeter membrane is then inflated and the pressure in the membrane is recorded. The results
of the SBPMT are generally presented as a plot of pressure versus volume, as shown in Figure 5.1.

8
 Figure 5.1 Typical SBPMT curve. (Source: Orchant et al., 1988.)

Three characteristic pressures are determined from this curve:

• p0 : representing the pressure at which recompression of disturbed soil is complete and
expansion into undisturbed material is initiated;
• pf : an inflection point, known as the creep or yield pressure, where the soil behaviour changes
from pseudo-elastic to plastic and shearing is initiated;
• pl : the limit pressure, representing the pressure to which the curve becomes asymptotic.

The SBPMT can be used to evaluate the following parameters:

p0
K0 = (5.1)
σ vo
∆p
G=V (5.2)
∆v
E = 2G(1 + ν) (5.3)
pl − p0
By iteration: su = (5.4)
1 + ln(G su )

where: V is the current volume of the borehole cavity;

∆p/∆v is the slope of the linear section of the curve, usually an unloading-
reloading cycle.

Geotech3_LS4_In Situ.doc
 2006, M. B. Jaksa