Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Insitu Testing Methods

    Uploaded by

    alafdilscaffolding
    7 views16 pages
    At 12.5 m depth: qt = 50 MPa fs = 500 kPa Friction Ratio = 500/50,000 = 1% From Figure 1, for qt = 50 MPa and Friction Ratio = 1%, the soil is likely to be clean sand or silty sand (Zone 8-9). From Figure 2 (a), for clean sand with qt = 50 MPa, the estimated friction angle φ' is around 40°. From Figure 2 (b), for clean sand with qt = 50 MPa, the estimated Young's modulus E is around 100 MPa. Therefore, at 12.5 m depth: Estimated friction angle φ' is 40°

    Original Description:

    INSITU TESTING METHODS

    Original Title

    INSITU TESTING METHODS

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    At 12.5 m depth: qt = 50 MPa fs = 500 kPa Friction Ratio = 500/50,000 = 1% From Figure 1, for qt = 50 MPa and Friction Ratio = 1%, the soil is likely to be clean sand or silty sand (Zone 8-9). From Figure 2 (a), for clean sand with qt = 50 MPa, the estimated friction angle φ' is around 40°. From Figure 2 (b), for clean sand with qt = 50 MPa, the estimated Young's modulus E is around 100 MPa. Therefore, at 12.5 m depth: Estimated friction angle φ' is 40°

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    7 views16 pages

    Insitu Testing Methods

    Uploaded by

    alafdilscaffolding
    At 12.5 m depth: qt = 50 MPa fs = 500 kPa Friction Ratio = 500/50,000 = 1% From Figure 1, for qt = 50 MPa and Friction Ratio = 1%, the soil is likely to be clean sand or silty sand (Zone 8-9). From Figure 2 (a), for clean sand with qt = 50 MPa, the estimated friction angle φ' is around 40°. From Figure 2 (b), for clean sand with qt = 50 MPa, the estimated Young's modulus E is around 100 MPa. Therefore, at 12.5 m depth: Estimated friction angle φ' is 40°

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 16

    INSITU TESTING METHODS

     CONE PENETRATION TEST

    SPT and CPT are used in more than 90% of soil exploration programs worldwide
    In the case of SPT tests, a sample is driven with a hammer.
    In CPT testing, the cone is pushed instead of being driven.
    CONE PENETRATION TEST (CPT) (ASTM D5778-07)

    The CPT is one of the most used and accepted soil methods for soil investigation worldwide.

    • The cone tip angle is standardized at 60°.


    • Typical cone tips having a cross-sectional area of either 10 or 15 cm²
    • The cone is pushed into the ground at a standard rate (between 1.5 -2.5 cm/s ).
    • The resistance at the cone, known as cone resistance (qc), and the sleeve friction (fs) are measured.
    • No Boring, No Samples.
    • Continuous readings of stress, friction, pressure.
    • The modern cones, which are also able to measure pore water pressure, are known as piezocones (CPTu).
    The cone penetration test (CPT), originally known as the Dutch cone penetration test
    • Developed in Holland in 1932
    • Different types of mechanical and electric cone penetrometers exist, but the electric cone
    is most widely used
    • A CPT probe equipped with a pore-water pressure sensor is called a CPTU
    CONE PENETRATION TEST (CPT) RIGS
    Advantages of Cone Penetration Tests:
    • Gives a rapid and continuous profile of soil strength
    • Much less operator dependent than other in situ tests
    • Faster and generally cheaper than drilling and sampling.
    • Identification of problem soils
    • It is one of the best ways to obtain ultimate vertical pile capacity

    Disadvantages of Cone Penetration Tests

    • Soil Sample not obtained


    • Depth limited
    • The penetration depth is limited in stronger soils
    CONE PENETRATION TESTING (CPT) RESULTS
    It varies in the range of 0–10%, with the lower end of the range for
    granular soil and the upper end for cohesive soil.

    The friction ratio would be 10% for the clay and 1% for the sand.

    Gravelly sand. very low friction ratio


    Sand. low friction ratio moderate tip resistance
    Clays. high friction ratio and low tip resistance

    Cone penetrometer test with friction measurement


    Example:

    The following CPT data were obtained from a site. Predict the soil types for each layer

    Layer 1: tip resistance is very low and friction ratio very high.
    This layer could be identified as a clay layer.

    Layer 4: tip resistance is high and friction ratio is low. This


    layer can be identified in the a sand layer.
    Correlations of Soil Types

    Robertson (1986) provided the correlations


    shown in Figure 1 between cone resistance and
    the friction ratio to identify various types of
    soil encountered in the field.

    Maximum values of sleeve friction might


    be about 200 kPa for both sand and clay,
    whereas the maximum tip resistance may
    be 2000 kPa in a hard clay and 20,000 kPa
    in a dense sand

    1
    Clay soils have high skin friction and sandy soils have high tip resistance
    Example 1:
    Use the CPT profiles data of the Figure below classify the soil at depth 3 and 10 m according to the CPT
    classification systems.
    At 3 m depth
    qt = 1.5 MPa and fs = 25 kpa 0.025 MPa:
    Friction Ratio =
    Convert qt from MPa to bar qt= 15 bar

    From soil classification chart Figure 1 , the soil is possibly sandy silt (6).

    At 10 m depth,
    qt = 29 MPa and fs = 250 kpa 0.25 MPa
    Friction Ratio =
    Convert qt from MPa to bar qt= 290 bar
    From soil classification chart in Figure 1 , the soil is possibly gravelly sand (Zone 10).
    Friction angle and Young’s modulus
    Example 2:
    6
    Estimate the friction angle and Young’s modulus in Example 2 at depth 12.5 m.
    The water table is deeper than 15 m.

    You might also like