Inference of Geotechnical Property Values

117
5
5

INFERENCE OF
PROPERTY VALUES
FROM IN SITU TEST
DATA

5.1 INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS

A feature of geotechnical engineering over the last several decades has been a
growing interest in the uses of in situ testing as a site investigation technique.
Such methods eliminate much the uncertainty associated with recovery of and
testing of "undisturbed" samples. An indication of the enthusiasm with which this
approach has been embraced is the proliferation of ever more sophisticated
devices. This tendency is expected to continue. These notes are restricted to the
more traditional and simpler tests. What is required is the ability to translate data
acquired from a given in situ test result to something else. On occasion it may be
the conversion of one in situ test value to the equivalent for another in situ test,
for example conversion from CPT (Cone Penetration Test) to SPT (Standard
Penetration Test) and vice versa. More often what is required is the conversion
from an in situ test result to a numerical value for some soil property, for example
conversion of the CPT value to the small strain shear modulus (although with
additional instrumentation the CPT can measure shear wave velocity from which
the shear modulus can be obtained). The underlying concept is that the SPT and
CPT are relatively simple tests to execute whereas the small strain shear modulus
is comparatively expensive to determine in situ, hence the attractiveness of
obtaining the G value from the CPT via a correlation.

Design of Earthquake Resistant Foundations

118
A good reference for many of the headings in this chapter is Kulhawy and Mayne
(1990) which gathers together information from widely dispersed sources.
Recently a survey book, Schnaid (2009), has been published. A problem with
dealing with data from various sources is the different systems of units (pressures
in kPa and MPa for SI units, psi (pounds per square inch) for sources from the
United States and older Commonwealth practice, and kg/cm
2
for older
continental publications). Kulhawy and Mayne deal with this by normalisation of
stresses so that their diagrams are independent of units. This is achieved by
dividing quanities that are expressed in stress units by atmospheric pressure in the
same units. Consequently in Figures 5.22, 5.24, and 5.25 the ordinate is q
c
/p
a

where q
c
is the cone tip resistance and p
a
is atmospheric pressure.

A word of warning: All the relationships between one property and another
discussed in these notes have been derived empirically by comparing observations
on the soil at a particular site or some soil with a similar geological history. The
point of caution is that it may not be appropriate to employ a correlation derived
for one particular soil condition at some other site where the origin of the soil and
geological history is quite different. In the NZ environment soil forming
processes have often been different from those in North America and Europe.
Weathering and volcanic action have been important here whereas glacial action
has been very significant in North America and Europe. However, the 20th
century development of soil mechanics took place in Europe and North America
and so not in environments where residual and volcanic soils are dominant.
Because of these differences the well-known correlations between liquid limit and
compression index for normally consolidated clays and between plasticity index
and s
u
/o'
v
may not be applicable to soils derived from in situ weathering
processes. Thus we need to be careful about importing correlations from
other countries.

This difference between the origin of our soils and the Northern Hemisphere soils
is reflected in NZS4402: "Testing of Soils for Civil Engineering Purposes", the
procedures laid down therein are significantly different from those in British
standard (BS1377) and the relevant ASTM standard.

5.2 SOME COMPLEX SOIL PROFILES

On this and the following pages several soil profiles are discussed. The first is
from offshore Hong Kong which consists of a complex sequence of marine
deposits overlying the insitu bedrock. The remainder is from various New
Zealand sites from Auckland, Tauranga and Canterbury. These profiles are
included to make the point that natural soil deposits are nearly always complex.
Even in situations where the soil type appears to be homogeneous there will be
variations in water content and cone resistance that are not apparent to the naked
eye. Design methods for foundations need to take account of this complexity in a
realistic manner. Although some idealisation of the actual soil profile is always
necessary to represent the main features in the model that is adopted for design.
Clearly an important part of the foundation design process is to reach an
understanding of the types of soil present, the details of the layering, and the
nature of the variability at the site in question.
Chapter 5: Inference of property values from in situ test data
119
5.2.1 Chek Lap Kok Island (near Hong Kong)

The profile in Figure 5.1 is offshore from Chek Lap Kok Island near Hong Kong,
Koutsoftas et al (1987). In this case the profile consists of recent sediments with
relatively high water contents and consequent low undrained shear strengths.
Apart from layers of upper and lower marine clays there is an alluvial crust layer in
between. Below these there is more alluvium and weathered granite (labeled as
decomposed granite) followed by the underlying granite bedrock.

Figure 5.1 Soil profile offshore Hong Kong (after Koutsoftas et al (1987)).

Figure 5.2 Profiles of the upper marine clay at Chep Lak Kok Island

120

Figure 5.3 Profiles of the lower marine clay at Chep Lak Kok Island

Figures 5.2 and 5.3 present results from a thorough site investigation process. The
left hand part of the diagram plots the natural water content with depth along with
bars indicating the water contents corresponding to the liquid and plastic limit
values for the soils. In Figure 5.2 it is seen that the natural water content is greater
than the liquid limit value, a sure sign that the soil will be soft with low shear
strength. This is confirmed with the undrained shear strength results in the right
had diagram of the figure from which it is apparent that at depths of 10 m the
undrained shear strength is only about 20 kPa. The roughly linear increase in
undrained shear strength with depth in the right hand diagram and the fact that
the natural water content is higher than the liquid limit suggests that the soft soils
are normally consolidated or only lightly overconsolidated. This is confirmed in
the middle diagram where it is apparent that the maximum past vertical stress (the
so-called preconsolidation pressure) is typically less than twice the vertical effective
stress.

The deeper soil from the lower marine clay presents a different picture. Here the
natural water contents are about half way between the liquid and plastic limit and
the undrained shear strengths obtained from vane testing are rather larger than for
the upper marine clay. Undrained shear strengths greater than, say, 50 kPa
represent material well capable of sustaining shallow foundation loads. Values in
excess of 100 kPa are representative of stiff clays. The middle diagram indicates
that the inferred previous maximum vertical effective stresses tend to be several
times the in situ vertical effective stresses, again indicating soil with good shear
strength properties.

121

Figure 5.4 Soil profile data obtained with a piezometric cone penetrometer
(piezo-CPT).

Diagrams such Figures 5.2 and 5.3 are a very useful means of supplementing the
information in a borehole log and assist one to come to a useful understanding of
the nature of the soil present.

Figure 5.4 presents another view of the nature of the soil profile at Chep Lak Kok
Island obtained by profiling with a cone penetrometer equipped with a transducer
for measuring the pore water pressure adjacent to the cone tip. The CPT (cone
penetration test) produces a continuous profile of soil data in this case the tip
resistance, the sleeve friction (not plotted in the figure) and the pore water
pressure at the tip. With this information there are a number of interpretative
tools for identifying soil type and values for geotechnical properties. The
combination of tip resistance and tip pore water

122

Figure 5.5 Coefficient of consolidation values plotted against Liquid Limit

Figure 5.6 Soil compression coefficient values plotted against natural water
content.
123
pressure profiles in Figure 5.4 indicates the variability of the soil profile; even in
the various stratigraphic units identified in Figure 5.1 there is variability.

Figure 5.5 has the coefficients of consolidation plotted against the liquid limit
values for the specimens. These are representative of many correlations between
the liquid and plastic limit values and values for other geotechnical properties,
liquid and plastic limit tests being standard classification tests for cohesive soils.

Figure 5.6 shows another attempted correlation; this time between the natural
water content and compression coefficient. The rationale for this being that
greater water content gives more compressible soil. Although a plausible rule of
thumb the data in Figure 5.6 shows that there is a very large amount of scatter
among the data points.

Thus both Figures 5.5 and 5.6 indicate that correlations between simple
classification variables for cohesive soils, natural water content and liquid and
plastic limit values, may be helpful at the level of the broad-brush approach but
they are no substitute for proper investigation.

5.2.2 Auckland cone penetration profiles
An intense CPT investigation was done at Albany to obtain insight into the
variability of the Auckland residual soil profile, Holland and Pender (2008). As
shown in Figure 5.7 a total of 29 CPT probings were done at quite close spacing.

Figure 5.7 Layout of CPT probings at Albany.
08
17 21 20
30
29
28
27
22
23
24
01
02
16
07
06
05
25 03
26
19 18
15
14
13
12
11
10
09
04
8.0m
8
.
0
m
1
.
0
m
1.0m

124
Figure 5.8 gives some insight into the nature of the variability; at each level the
mean of the 20 values is plotted along with the extremes. In the right hand side
of the figure the coefficient of variation (standard deviation / mean value) is
plotted from which it is apparent that general the coefficient of variation of the
sleeve resistance is smaller than that for the cone resistance.

0 2 4 6 8
0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Penetration resistance (MPa)
0 5 10 15
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Friction ratio (%)
0 0.25 0.5 0.75
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Coeffs. of variation
Figure 5.8 CPT data averaged at each depth. Left: qc, middle: fs, right: coefficients
of variation of qc and fs.

f
s

q
c

125
5.2.3 Comparison of Auckland soft soil profile and a volcanic profile for
Tauranga

Figure 5.9 shows CPT profiles obtained in the Auckland area (one of many along
the SH20 route) in a sedimentary profile and from a volcanic soil profile in the
Tauranaga region (Pender et al 1999). This shows that the Auckland profile is
more complex that the volcanic one because of layering of sands and silty
materials. At both sites settlement data was available and so efforts were made to
correlate the inferred ground stiffness with the CPT q
c
values. It is of interest that
the volcanic material appeared to be much stiffer than the sedimentary soil
although the volcanic site was loaded to a smaller fraction of the bearing strength.

ChCh

5.2.3 Mangere bridge site (near Auckland)

The profile at the Mangere bridge site consists of a complicated mixture of soft
marine soils (referred to as muds), gravels and tuffs as well other volcanically
derived layers underlain by tertiary age sandstone and siltstone, Figure 5.8. The
lateral load data and strain gauge data from the test pile made it possible to infer
the coefficient of subgrade reaction for the various layers. It is apparent that the
tuff layer between 5 and 7 metres depth is very much stiffer than any other layer in
the top 17 metres of the profile. The nature of the materials in this profile would
preclude the CPT and even the SPT (standard penetration test) as routine
investigation tools.

The complexities of layering at these two sites are by no means unusual. Before
any foundation design can proceed an understanding of the site is essential. To
achieve this the input from engineering geologists and geotechnical engineerings is
vital. However, this is not a once only provision of data. Rather the design

Figure 5.9 Comparison of volcanic soil profile CPT (left) with that of a
sedimentary profile near Auckland (right) (after Pender et al (1999)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
q
c
(MPa)
- 20
- 18
- 16
- 14
- 12
- 10
- 8
- 6
- 4
- 2
0
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
q
c
(MPa)
- 20
- 18
- 16
- 14
- 12
- 10
- 8
- 6
- 4
- 2
0
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)


126
0 10 20
15
10
5
0
qc (MPa)
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)

Figure 5.10 CPT profiles from Spencerville 2010

5.2.4 CPTprofiles from sandy soil profiles in Canterbury.

Much CPT profiling has been done in Christchurch and the surrounding areas
since the earthquake of September 04 2010 with additional investigation following
the events of 2011. Figure 5.10 shows profiles from several of a number that were
done in the Spencerville area; the spacing between these was tens of metres in area
that had extensive lateral spreading but comparatively modest amounts of ejected
sand. It is clear that the upper 5 m of the profile is more susceptible to
liquefaction than the material below.

5.2.5 Mangere bridge site (near Auckland)

The profile at the Mangere bridge site consists of a complicated mixture of soft
marine soils (referred to as muds), gravels and tuffs as well other volcanically
derived layers underlain by tertiary age sandstone and siltstone, Figure 5.11. The
lateral load data and strain gauge data from the test pile made it possible to infer
the coefficient of subgrade reaction for the various layers. It was apparent that the
tuff layer between 5 and 7 metres depth is very much stiffer than any other layer in
the top 17 metres of the profile. The nature of the materials in this profile would
preclude the CPT and even the SPT (standard penetration test) as routine
investigation tools.
127

Figure 5.11 Geotechnical profile at the Mangere bridge site.


128

Figure 5.12 Details of the field vane apparatus that can be used at the base of
a borehole.

5.3 VANE SHEAR STRENGTH PROFILES

The vane shear test is a simple device that is useful for measuring the undrained
shear strength at shallow depths in saturated clay deposits. In soft ground it can be
attached to drill rods and pushed into the ground with measurements being taken
at regular intervals. In stronger soils it is pushed into the bottom of a borehole and
the measurement taken and the borehole advanced after the vane is withdrawn.
The device for this application is shown in Figure 5.12. The soil needs to be
cohesive as it is presumed that the vane test is done under undrained conditions,
consequently it gives a meaningful result only in saturated ground.

5.3.1 Liquidity Index to Soil State

The liquidity index is a way of expressing the in situ water content of a cohesive
soil in relation to the Atterberg limits.

PL
LL PL
w-w
LI=
w -w
5.1

where: LI is the liquidity index value (often expressed as a percentage)
w is the water content of the soil
w
LL
is the water content at the liquid limit
w
PL
is the water content at the plastic limit.

As shown in Figures 5.2 and 5.3 it is common to plot the Atterberg limits as a
horizontal line with barred ends and the natural water content shown as a bold
symbol, an example can be seen in Figures 5.2 and 5.3. This is a descriptive
129
representation of the liquidity index. As explained above with regard to the Chep
Lak Kok Island soil profiles, if the natural water content is close to the liquid limit
value, a liquidity index about unity, then the soil will be "soft" having a low
undrained shear strength and is most likely to be normally consolidated. If the
natural water content lies at the other end of the water content range, near the
plastic limit, the liquidity index is close to zero and the soil will be "stiff" having a
high undrained shear strength and will behave as a heavily overconsolidated.

5.3.2 Plasticity Index to soil stiffness

A common empirical relation for cohesive soils is to assume that the undrained
Youngs modulus is several hundred times the undrained shear strength. This
connection between stiffness and shear strength connects the behaviour at the
start of loading to the behaviour at failure; about the only justification one can
offer for such a crude approach is the common observation for laboratory soil
testing that stiffer is stronger. At the stress levels (or factor of safety) associated
with conventional settlement estimates it has been suggested that the appropriate
Young's modulus is about 500 times the undrained shear strength, but the data
presented in Figure 5.13 show that the plasticity index and overconsolidation ratio
are also factors involved.

Figure 5.13 Undrained Youngs modulus as a function of su and PI (after Duncan
and Buchignani (1976)).


130

Figure 5.14 The SPT penetrometer

5.4 SPTIN SITU PENETROMETER TESTING AND INTERPRETATION

The dimensions of the SPT penetrometer are shown in Figure 5.14.

The SPT has a long history and originated in the USA. The SPT value is the
number of blows of a 140 pound weight (0.625 kN) falling through a distance of
30 inches (762 mm) that are required to advance the penetrometer 1 foot
(~305mm). The main disadvantage of the test is that the result is that formerly to
test result was very operator and equipment sensitive, and also it does not provide
a continuous record. On the advantage side there is a vast amount of data that
has been accumulated from SPT testing and it can penetrate harder material than
the CPT.

Two modifications are commonly applied to SPT values: one for overburden
stress and the other to "normalise" the SPT value to a common energy input.

The first of these is intended to reduce the SPT values all to the same vertical
effective stress. The commomly used chart is given in Figure 5.15.

131
The next correction is an attempt to allow for the fact that different drilling rigs
and test setups will deliver various proportions of the theoretical energy. It has
been suggested that the 'standard' configuration delivers 60% of the available
energy and so the actual energy ratio is adjusted for a given type of rig is adjusted
using equation 5.2 according to the values in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1 Energy ratios and procedures for SPTtesting.
Summary of energy ratios for SPT procedures (Seed et al 1984)

Country Hammer
type
Hammer release Estimated rod
energy (%)
Correction
factor for 60%
rod energy
Japan

Donut
Donut
Free-fall
Rope and pully with
special throw
release
78
67
78/60 = 1.30
67/60 = 1.12
USA Safety
Donut
Rope & pulley
Rope & pulley
60
45
60/60 = 1.00
45/60 = 0.75
Argentina Donut Rope & pulley 45 45/60 = 0.75
Chine Donut
Donut
Free-fall
Rope & pulley
60
50
60/60 = 1.00
50/60 = 0.83
Recommended SPT procedures for liquefaction assessment (seed at al 1984)
Factor Recommended procedure
Borehole For to five inch (100 to 125 mm) rotary
borehole with bentonite drilling mud for
borehole stability.
Drill bit Upward deflection of drilling mud
(tricone or baffled drag bit)
Sampler OD = 2.0 in (50 mm)
ID = 1.38 in (35 mm) (constant no room
for liners in the barrel)
Drill rods AW for depths less than 50 ft (15 m), N,
BW or NW for greater depths.
Energy delivered to sampler (rod
energy)
2520 in-lb (60% of theoretical maximum)
Blowcount rate 30 to 40 blows per minute
Penetration resistance rate Measures over a range of 6 to 18 in of
penetration into the ground.


132

Figure 5.15 Factors for correction of SPT values for overburden pressure (after
Kulhawy and Mayne (1990)).

The following these suggestions the corrected N value is given by:
m
1 N m
60
ER
) ( =
N C N
60
5.2
where: C
N
is the correction for overburden pressure (Figure 5.15) and N
m
is the
measured blow count and ER
m
the corresponding energy ratio in per cent. Table
5.1 gives various details for the Standard Penetration Test suggested standard
procedures. The use of normalised SPT values given in equation 5.2 is important
in the assessment of liquefaction; further details about the normalization
procedure and alternatives are given by Youd et al (2000).

5.4.1 Correlations between SPTresistance and friction angle
Figure 5.16 gives some correlations of long standing between SPT N value and
relative density and friction angle. Note that the correlation depends on the in situ
effective stress. Reference to Figure 3.6 shows that friction angle for sand
determined in laboratory testing is also affected by the effective stress.

133
Figure 5.16 Factors for correction of SPT values for overburden pressure (after
Kulhawy and Mayne (1990)).

5.4.9 Relation between SPT resistance and coefficient of
subgrade reaction

One approach used to predict the lateral response of piles, particularly in layered
ground, is to use the Winkler spring-bed model (cf Chapter 14). Relations, again
of long standing, have been suggested between the SPT N value and the
coefficient of subgrade reaction.

The origin of correlations between the coefficient of subgrade reaction and N is
the method, given by Terzaghi and Peck (1948), for estimating the settlement of
footings on sands; this implies that:

k
s
= 0.33N (kPa/mm) 5.3

This value was increased in subsequent work by Peck and Bazzara (1970).

The size of the loaded area, the diameter or width of the pile shaft, has an effect
on the coefficient of subgrade reaction. Terzaghi (1955) explains how increasing
the size of the pile will reduce k
s
, he justifies this by considering sizes of stress
bulbs. Thus correlations between N and k
s
are usually given for a circular loaded
area of diameter 300mm.

Meyerhof (1965) gives:

k
s
= 0.75N (kPa/mm) 5.4

Scott (1981) suggests that the values given by Terzaghi (1955) be increased by
50% for submerged sand to give:

k
s
= 1.8N (kPa/mm) 5.5

134
Some data illustrating the effect of the diameter of the loaded area on the
coefficient of subgrade reaction is given by Terzaghi and Peck (1948) who
proposed that k
s
be adjusted for the size of the loaded area using:

k
s (B)
/ k
s (0.3m)
= [2B/(B + 0.3)]
2
5.6

where: B is the width of the loaded area in metres.

According to Sugimura (1986) the Road Bridge Standard Regulation in Japan
gives the following estimate for k
s
:

k
s
= 0.8E
S
D
-3/4
(kgf/cm
3
) 5.7

Note that the 0.8 term in this equation carries units of cm
-0.25
, that D (pile
diameter) is in cm, and that E
S
is in kgf/cm
2
. The term D
-3/4
serves the same
purpose as the term [2B/(B + 0.3)] in the Terzaghi and Peck relation. Note that
these two relations imply that the observed size effect is not simply a consequence
of elastic behaviour of the soil as k
s
does not decrease inversely with the
dimension of the loaded area.

Another approach to estimating the stiffness of sands and gravels is implied in the
settlement procedure of Burland and Burbidge (1985), this is also based on SPT
data.

Yet another approach, based on SPT values, has been proposed for estimating the
small strain shear modulus and shear wave velocity in sands by Seed et al (1986).
Note that this modulus refers to very small elastic strains, thus it will be
considerably larger than the modului given above which refer to the strain levels
associated with settlement of foundations at working loads. For example Seed et al
(1986) propose the following relation for the small strain shear modulus of
normally consolidated sands:

1
1/3
) = 3.6 [( ] (MPa)
G N
max m
60
o' 5.8

where: G
max
denotes the small strain shear modulus (the maximum value that it
may take for a given material and effective stress), o'
m
is the mean principal
effective stress (kPa) and (N
1
)
60
is a corrected N value, refer to the Seed et al paper
for more details.

5.5 CPTIN SITU TESTING AND INTERPRETATION

The CPT originated in Holland, hence the frequent name: "Dutch Cone". It is
also sometimes called the Static Cone to distinguish it from the dynamic mode of
advancement of the SPT. The original CPT measured both the point resistance
and the sleeve friction, Figure 5.17. More recently there has been much
development aimed at placing more instrumentation at the tip. The piezocone
can measure the pore pressure response. Other developments include
instrumentation to record lateral pressures on the sleeve and a miniature
accelerometer to allow shear wave velocity measurement. The chief advantages of
135
the CPT are the continuous penetration record, so that very thin layers can be
detected, and much less operator sensitivity.

For sands the cone resistance is greater than for clays, but the unit sleeve friction
is comparatively lower for sands than for clays. These two observations are the
basis of a method of soil classification based on CPT results. An early version of
such a classification diagram is reproduced in Figure 5.16. (The friction ratio
referred to in the diagram is defined in equation 5.10.)

An alternative to Figure 5.16 was suggested by Robertson et al (1986) and
updated by Robertson (2010); it is shown in Figure 5.17. More recent work has
moved towards normalisation of the variables used in the diagrams. First
though it is necessary to make a small correction for the effect the pore
pressure generated at the intersection of the sleeve and the cone as shown in
Figure 5.17. The following terms are defined:
2
(1 ) = +
t c
q q u a 5.9
where: a is the area ratio affected by the pore pressure u
2
indicated in Figure
5.17 (it is usually determined from laboratory calibration, a typical values being
0.70 to 0.85).

The friction ratio is expressed in two ways:

100 100
o
| | | |
= =
| |
\ . \ .
s s
r f
t vo t
f f
F R
q q
5.10

Figure 5.17 CPT details. Left: Basic device. Right: correction of pore pressure
effects


136
Figure 5.18 CPT soil type identification scheme (after Douglas and Olsen
(1981))

There are two versions of the normalised penetration resistance:

t vo
tl
vo
q
Q
o
o
=
'
5.11
and:
n
t vo a
tn
a vo
q p
Q
p
o
o
| |
=
|
'
\ .
5.12

where: p
a
is atmospheric pressure and the value of n is discussed below. The
second of these parameters is used to calculate a soil behavior index:
137

Zone Soil Behavior Type
1 Sensitive, fine grained
2 Organic soils - clay
3 Clay silty clay to clay
4 Silt mixtures clayey silt to silty clay
5 Sand mixtures silty sand to sandy silt
6 Sands clean sand to silty sand
7 Gravelly sand to dense sand
8 Very stiff sand to clayey sand*
9 Very stiff fine grained*
* Heavily overconsolidated or cemented

Figure 5.19 CPT Soil Behavior Type (SBT) chart (Robertson et al., 1986,
updated by Robertson, 2010).

( ) ( )
0.5
2 2
3.47 log( ) log( ) 1.22
c tn r
I Q F
(
= + +

5.13

0.381 0.05 0.15 1.0
vo
c
a
n I n
p
o | | '
= + s
|
\ .
5.14

Some iteration is required to achieve a satisfactory value for n, contours for a
vertical effective stress of one atmosphere are plotted in Figure 5.20.

138

Figure 5.20 Contours of stress exponent, n, (for o'vo/pa = 1.0) on normalized
SBTn Qtn- Fr chart. (after Robertson (2009)).

Figure 5.21 Normalised CPT Soil Behaviour Type chart with contours of Ic (after
Robertson (1990) and Robertson (2010)).

139
Table 5.2 Classification of soil type based on numerical values
for the soil type behaviour index, Ic
1 Sensitive, fine grained N/A
2 Organic soils clay >3.6
3 Clays silty clay to clay 2.95 3.6
4 Silt mixtures clayey silt to silty clay 2.60 2.95
5 Sand mixtures silty sand to sandy silt 2.05 2.6
6 Sands clean sand to silty sand 1.31 2.05
7 Gravelly sand to dense sand <1.31
8 Very stiff sand to clayey sand* N/A
9 Very stiff, fine grained* N/A
* Heavily overconsolidated or cemented

Figure 5.22 Conversion between SPT and CPT based on mean particle
diameter, D50. (after Kulhawy and Mayne (1990)).

Figure 5.21 shows contours of the soil behavior type index plotted against the
normalized variables given by equations 5.10 and 5.12. This figure also gives
indicative information about sensitivity, over consolidation and density. Soil type
classification based on soil type behavior index is given in Table 5.2.

5.4.2 Conversion between CPTand SPTdata and vice versa

Some of the correlations discussed here are in terms of SPT results and the others
in terms of CPT values. It may be necessary to convert from one to the other. It
has been found that the conversion factor depends on the particle size distribution
for the soil. As D
50
decreases so too does the factor to convert the cone resistance
to the SPT value. The data obtained by Kulhawy and Mayne (1990) are
reproduced in Figure 5.22.

140
Table 5.3 Suggested (q
c
/p
a
)/N
60
ratios (Robertson (2010)
1 Sensitive fine grained 2.0
2 Organic soils clay 1.0
3 Clays: clay to silty clay 1.5
4 Silt mixtures: clayey silt & silty clay 2.0
5 Sand mixtures: silty sand to sandy silt 3.0
6 Sands: clean sands to silty sands 5.0
7 Dense sand to gravelly sand 6.0
8 Very stiff sand to clayey sand* 5.0
9 Very stiff fine-grained* 1.0

Table 5.3 gives the suggestions of Robertson (2010) for the CPT/SPT ratio for
various soil types.

5.5 COMMON CPTEMPIRICAL RELATIONSHIPS

5.5.1 Cone resistance to undrained shear strength

As explained above, a frequently employed in situ means of measuring the
undrained shear strength of a saturated clay at is the vane test, at least for shallow
depths. The CPT has the advantage of a continuous record of penetration
resistance over greater depths but does not give the shear strength, so the question
of conversion of cone resistance to s
u
arises. Initially this conversion appeals to
bearing capacity theory for the | = 0 case which gives the result that the net cone
resistance will be 9 times the undrained shear strength.

Reality shows that this factor, usually denoted by N
k
, depends on the plasticity
index of the clay. Clays with low PI have been found to have a ratio of about 20
whilst a plasticity index of 50 or more is required to obtain a value near the
theoretical value of 9. Figure 5.23 gives a collection of results from one source,
Lunne et al (1976); there are a number of other publications that give similar
results. Although the data is scattered, the trend for N
k
to decrease with plasticity
index is apparent. A typical starting value for N
k
, in the absence of Atterberg
Limit data, is to use a number about 15.
141

Figure 5.23 Variation of Nk with plasticity index (after Lunne et al (1976)).

5.5.2 Relation between CPTresistance and relative density

Several methods have been developed to convert cone resistance to relative
density for sands. A selection of these given by Kulhawy and Mayne (1990) are
presented in Figure 5.24. Included in the figure is a diagram in which relative
density is expressed in terms of the CPT resistance by means of a simple equation
developed by Lancellotta (1983).

5.5.3 Relation between CPTand friction angle

There have been a number of studies of cone resistance based on bearing capacity
theories. The concensus is that since the bearing capacity theories do not include
the effect of compressibility they are at best an approximation. Shown in Figure
5.25 is a diagram with selections from the correlations given by Kulhawy and
Mayne (1990). They suggest that the scatter of data is at least partly a consequence
of differing overconsolidation ratios for the various sands.

Figure 5.26 gives the diagram from Robertson (2009) which has contours of peak
friction angle for sand deposits.


142
Figure 5.24 Various relative density - terms of penetration resistance relations.
Top left: CPT data for CPT uncemented and unaged quartz sands. Top right:
effect of compressibility of the sand particles. Bottom: an alternative method
of Italian origin for estimating relative density from CPT values. (after Kulhawy
and Mayne (1990)).

Figure 5.25 Various correlations between penetration resistance and friction
angle of sands. Top: two correlations based on SPT data. Bottom: a correlation
for triaxial compression friction angle based on CPT data. (after Kulhawy and
Mayne (1990)).

143

Figure 5.26 Contours of peak friction angle, |, on normalized Qtn Fr chart
for uncemented Holocene age sandy soils. (after Robertson (2009)).

5.5.4 Relation between penetration resistance and small strain
shear stiffness and shear wave velocity

The above comments relate the stiffness associated with estimating the settlement
of a shallow foundation. Another important question is the small strain modulus
of sand, the modulus associated with the passage of elastic waves through the soil.
This is very important with respect to earthquake site response and also because it
gives the upper limit of stiffness of a given soil.

The CPT resistance has been correlated with shear wave velocity by Baldi et al
(1989). They give the following equation:

0.13 0.27
s
c
q ) = 277 ( (m/sec) o'
vo
V
5.15
where: q
c
and o'
vo
are in MPa.

Robertson (2009) gives contours of a normalized shear wave velocity for
pleistocene and holocene soils as shown in Figure 5.27. The normalized shear
wave velocity is defined by:
0.25
1
a
s s
vo
p
V V
o
| |
=
|
'
\ .
5.16


144

Figure 5.27 Contours of normalized shear wave velocity Vs1 on normalized
SBTn Qtn Fr chart for uncemented, Holocene and Pleistocene age soils.
(after Robertson (2009)).

5.5.5 Relation between penetration resistance and stiffness

The conversion of CPT and SPT values to a modulus of some sort is a frequent
operation.

D'Appolonia et al (1968) observed the settlement of a large number of footings
on sand at a steel mill in Illinois. They then backfigured the modulus for the sand,
the results showed that overconsolidated sands are stiffer than normally
consolidated. In addition to overconsolidation aging is known to increase the
stiffness of sand as shown in Figure 5.28.

Schmertmann (1970), in his method for estimating settlement from cone profiles
suggested that the appropriate modulus is twice the cone resistance. The
Norwegian Geotechnical Institute has reviewed the various correlations based on
CPT values, Lunne and Christofferson (1983). These results also show that
overconsolidated sands are stiffer than normally consolidated sands. Their
recommendations are given below in equation 5.17
.
145

Figure 5.28 Influence of overconsolidation and aging on the stiffness of sands
at 0.1% strain. (after Baldi (1989)).

Figure 5.29 Correlation between constrained modulus and net cone resistance.
Influence (after Kulhawy and Mayne (1990)).


146
:
4 10 ,
20 2 10 50
120 50
:
5 50 ,
250 50
c c
c c
c
c c
c
for normally consolidated sands
E q for q MPa
q for q MPa
MPa for q MPa
for overconsolidated sands
E q for q MPa
MPa for q MPa
= s
+ < s
>
= s
>
5.17
Yet another aspect of the relation between soil stiffness and penetration resistance
is a correlation with the constrained soil modulus (that is the stiffness in one-
dimensional stiffness). Figure 5.29 presents a collection of data gathered by
Kulhawy and Mayne. A well defined trend is apparent, but note that at small net
cone resistance there is a considerable scatter in the correlation. Robertson (2009)
offers an alternative to Figures 5.28 and 5.29. Figure 5.30 presents a relation
between the normalized cone penetration data and a normalized Youngs modulus
expressed in terms of a modulus number K
E
or a modulus factor o
E
. These are
defined by:

( )
0.5
vo
E a E t vo
a
E K p E q
p
o
o o
| | '
' ' = =
|
\ .
5.18

Figure 5.30 Contours of Youngs modulus number, KE, and modulus factor,
oE, on normalized SBTn Qtn Fr chart for uncemented, Holocene and
Pleistocene age soils. (after Robertson (2009)).
147
5.6 APPLICATION OF THE MARCHETTI DILATOMETER

Penetrometer testing has been the mainstay of geotechnical investigation for many
decades. A more recent device, that has gradually gained a place in the collection
of tools available, is the Marchetti dilatometer (DMT). The device consists of a
spade shaped probe which is pushed into the ground. A diaphragm on the side is
used to measure the lateral stress acting against the spade. The concept of the
device is shown in Figure 5.31 and a photograph of the spade is in Figure 5.32 the
dimensions of which are about 95 mm wide and 15 mm thick. In operation of the
device is pushed to the required depth and the membrane is inflated from which
the liftoff pressure (p
o
) and the pressure to displace the diaphragm 1.1 mm (p
1
) are
noted (not explained here are some calibration steps needed in estimating these
two pressures). From these measurements values for various soil properties can be
inferred.

In another variation the device can be equipped to measure the shear wave
velocity of the soil.

Figure 5.31 The concept of the Marchetti dilatometer.


148

Figure 5.32 Photograph of the flat dilatometer spade.

Three parameters are calculated from the results obtained. These are the Material
Index I
D
, defined as:

1 o
D
o o
p p
I
p u
5.19

where: u
o
is the water pressure at the position where the measurement is taken
(before the spade is inserted).

The material index is thought to provide a reasonable estimate of soil type
following Marchetti (1980) who observed that the difference between p
o
and p
1
is
small for clay and large for sand.

The Horizontal Stress Index K
D
, is defined as:

o o
D
vo
p u
K
o
=
'
5.20

where: o'
vo
is the in situ vertical effective stress at the position in the soil profile
where the measurement is made. K
D
is related to K
o
but is greater than K
o

because of the effect of blade penetration.

The Dilatometer Modulus E
D
, is defined as

( )
1
35
D o
E p p = 5.21

149
This is obtained by assuming that the soil either side of the spade is an elastic half
space and that at the lateral displacement of 1.1 mm the soil can still be idealized
as elastic.

A profile of DMT data for a clay soil profile is shown in Figure 5.33 and for a
sand profile in Figure 5.34.

Figure 5.33 DMT results for a clay soil profile.

Figure 5.34 DMT results for a sand soil profile.


150

Figure 5.35 DMT results and soil type classification.

5.6.1 DMTcorrelations with soil property values

As with the SPT and CPT there are a whole suite of correlations between DMT
measurement values and soil property values. Figure 5.35 has a plot of dilatometer
modulus, E
D
, against material index, I
D
. This diagram shows how various soil
types fall into well-defined zones, the dilatometer equivalent of Figures 5.18 and
5.19.

151

Figure 5.36 Comparison between Ko values measured in a soft soil profile using
the DMT and self-boring pressuremeter (see section 5.7) (a) from a site in
Skotland and (b) from a site in Italy.

Figure 5.36 compares K
o
values for a soft soil profile obtained from the DMT
testing and the use of the self-boring pressuremeter (discussed in section 5.7). An
obvious objection to the DMT estimation of the K
o
is that there must be
considerable disturbance involved in pushing the spade into the ground so that p
o
,
must be greater than the in situ horizontal effective stress. The self-boring
pressuremeter, on the other hand, was specifically developed to introduce minimal
disturbance into the soil profile. Thus self-boring pressure values of K
o
are
regarded as being true. The comparison in Figure 5.36 shows that, even so, that
K
o
values from the DMT are in good accord with those from the self-boring
device.

Figure 5.37 shows data giving the undrained shear strength, normalized with
respect to the vertical effective stress, in relation to the values obtained for the
horizontal stress index. The regression line shown on the diagram has the
following equation:

125
022
2
.
.
D
u vo
K
s o
| |
' =
|
\ .
5.22


152

Figure 5.37 Relation between undrained shear strength and the DMT horizontal
stress index.

Figure 5.38 Comparison between constrained modulus values estimated from
DMT data and those obtained from high-quality oedometer test data.

Finally in this section Figure 5.38 compares constrained modulus values estimated
from DMT testing with results from high quality oedometer testing.
153
Thus we can conclude that, even though the DMT test might not be expected to
give values for undisturbed soil properties the above diagrams show the
correlations that have been developed seem to be able to account for these
problems. However, one needs to note that Figures 5.36 and 5.38 give data only
for soft cohesive soils.

5.7 PRESSUREMETER TESTING

Another in situ testing device is the pressuremeter. This is a way of applying a
pressure to the side of a borehole and through measurement of the radial
displacement of the side of the borehole to infer values for soil properties. There
are two versions of the device. The first illustrated in Figure 5.39 is the Menard
pressuremeter which is used extensively in France for the design of foundations.
An obvious criticism of the Menard pressuremeter is that the device needs to be
inserted into a pre-drilled borehole. The problem is that by the time the device is
inserted into the borehole there will be complete release of the in situ stresses in
the ground, which is a serious form of soil disturbance. Nevertheless, by means of
appropriate correlations it appears that the French geotechnical community has
been able to make good use of the device another illustration of the power of
careful correlation work.

Pressuremeter of similar design to the Menard device can be used effectively in
boreholes in rock in which case the disturbance because of the release of in situ
stress are not so serious but it is necessary to have a more sensitive way of
measuring radial deformation as the stiffness of the rock is so much greater than
that of soil.

Figure 5.39 Concept of the Menard pressuremeter.


154

Figure 5.40 Concept of the self-boring pressuremeter.

A second type of pressuremeter, especially developed for testing soil profiles is the
self-boring device, Wroth and Hughes (1973), which is illustrated in Figure 5.40.
The idea behind the development of this device is that it can be drilled into soft
soil layers with minimal disturbance so that the in situ horizontal effective stress as
well as the soil stiffness can be measured accurately. Attempts have been made to
use this device around Auckland but there have been problems with shell
fragments in sandy soils rupturing the thin rubber membrane.

5.8 GEOPHYSICAL METHODS OF SOIL PROFILING

An aim of site investigation work is to define the layering present in the soil
present at a site. The CPT is clearly an effective way of achieving this. Figures 5.1
to 5.11 illustrate just how variable are natural soil deposits and so the question
arises about how to fill in the details between boreholes and CPT probings. At
sites where the point to point variability is considerable there is a need for a
method that is capable of giving a good indication of average properties for the
various layers. Geophysical prospecting provides just such a tool. There are two
techniques that are of use in site investigation: SASW (spectral analysis of surface
waves) and MASW (multichannel analysis of surface waves).

In the past the geotechnical community has been disappointed with geophysical
methods, the promised performance has not often been realized. However, in
recent years there has been better instrumentation available and also much more
capable software for processing results of field testing. So it seems that these
methods need to be considered anew.
155

Figure 5.41 Shear strain ranges associated with various foundation engineering
applications.

Basically what is being measured is the shear wave velocity of the soil. Figure 5.41
complements Figures 3.24 and 4.41 and shows how various foundation
engineering applications are associated with certain ranges of shear strain. All the
design applications are well beyond the strains associated with elastic shear waves.
The diagram, as do Figures 3.24 and 4.41, show clearly that the shear modulus
associated with the passage of shear waves gives an upper bound on the stiffness
of the soil. Even so, the application to the very small strains involved in
geophysical investigation work is not a difficulty as long as the method is capable
of mapping the shear wave velocity distribution in the soil profile. The underlying
assumption of the use of these methods in site investigation work is that changes
in the shear wave velocity are indicative of changes in other soil properties.

5.8.1 Spectral analysis of surface waves (SASW)

The concept of this method is illustrated in Figure 5.42 and explained in more
detail by Stokoe et al (2004). As can be seen a pair of geophones are placed on the
ground surface and at some point is a source of vibration which is intended to
generate surface waves. The vibration source may be either steady state or
impulsive (ie hammer blows). For the steady state excitation the sensing devices
(usually geophones) remain at fixed positions and the excitation frequency is
gradually changed. For the impulsive excitation multiple blows are required with
the spacing of the sensors changed. From the information recorded it is possible
to estimate the distribution of shear wave velocity with depth at the site. Figure
5.43 shows some results for work done in Canterbury in 2010.


156

Figure 5.42 SASW field set-up and data processing to estimate soil shear wave
velocity with depth (after Stokoe et al (2004)).

10
8
6
4
2
0
D
e
p
t
h
,

m
300 250 200 150 100 50 0
Shear Wave Velocity, m/s
V
S
GWL

Figure 5.43 SASW results obtained in Canterbury in 2010.
157
5.8.2 Multichannel analysis of surface waves (MASW)

A further development of geophysical methods is the so-called Multichannel
Analysis of Surface Waves (MASW); the concept is shown in Figure 5.44. The key
difference with SASW is that there are more than two receivers, so, at the expense
of even more sophisticated numerical analysis, long sections with shear wave
contours are plotted. An example from recent work in Christchuch is reproduced
in Figure 5.45. It needs to be realized that what is plotted in Figure 5.45 is a
moving average of the shear wave velocity, not spot values.

Figure 5.44 MASW field set-up and illustrative processed results.

Figure 5.45 An MASW section from Christchurch.


158

References

Baldi, G., Bellotti, R., Ghionna, V.N., Jamiolkowski, M., and Lo Presti, D.F.C.,
1989. Modulus of sands from CPTs and DMTs. In Proceedings of the
12
th
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering. Rio de Janeiro. Balkema Pub., Rotterdam, Vol.1, pp. 165-
170.
Been, K., Crooks, D. E., Becker, D. E. and Jefferies, M. G. (1985) "A state
parameter for sands", Geotechnique.
Bjerrum, L. (1973) "Problems of soil mechanics and construction on soft clays",
State-of-the-Art Report 8th ICSMFE, Moscow, vol. 3, pp. 111-159.
Burland, J. B. and Burbidge, M. C. (1985) "Settlement of foundations on sand and
gravel", Proc. ICE, Part 1, pp. 1325-1381.
D'Appolonia, D. J., D'Appolonia, E. and Brissette, R. F. (1968) "Settlement of
spread footings on sand", Proc. ASCE, Jnl. Soil Mechanics Div., Vol. 94,
SM3, pp. 735-760.
Douglas, B.J., and Olsen, R.S., 1981. Soil classification using electric cone
penetrometer. In Proceedings of Symposium on Cone Penetration
Testing and Experience, Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE. St.
Louis, Missouri, October 1981, pp. 209-227.
Duncan, J. M. and Buchignani, A. L. (1976) "An engineering manual for
settlement studies", Geotech. Eng. Report, Dept. Civil Eng., Univ. Calif.
Berkeley.
Holland, A. and Pender, M. J. (2008) Variability of an Auckland residual soil
profile obtained from closely spaced CPT soundings, Proc. of the NZ
Geotechnical Society Geotechnical Symposium 2008, July, pp. 63-68.
Koutsoftas, D. C., Foott, R. and Handfelt, L. D. (1987) "Geotechnical
investigations offshore Hong Kong", Proc. ASCE, Jnl. Geotech. Eng.,
Vol. 113 No. 2, pp. 87-105.
Kulhawy, F. H. and Mayne, P. W. (1990) Manual on estimating soil proiperties
for foundation design, EPRI EL-6800 Project 1493-6 Final Report.
Lancellotta, R. (1983), cited by Jamiolkowski, M., Ladd, C. C., Germaine, J. T. and
Lancellotta, R. (1985) "New developments in field and laboratory testing
of soils", Proc. 11th. ICSMFE, San Francisco, Vol. 1, pp. 57-153.
Lunne, T and Christoffersen, H. P. (1983) "Interpretation of Cone Penetrometer
data for Offshore Sands", Proc. 15th. OTC Conference, Houston, Vol. 1,
pp. 181-192.
Lunne, T. H., Eide, O. and De Ruiter, J. (1976) "Correlations between cone
resistance and vane shear strength in some Scandanavian soft to medium
stiff clays", Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 13, pp. 430-441.
Lunne, T., Robertson, P.K., and Powell, J.J.M., 1997. Cone penetration
testing in geotechnical practice. Blackie Academic, EF
Spon/Routledge Publ., New York.
Maarchetti, S. (1997) The flat dilatometer: design applications. Keynote
lecture. Proc 3
rd
International Geotechnical Engineering Conference,
Cairo. Pages 421-448.
159
Park, Choon B, Richard D. Miller, Jianghai Xia, and Julian Ivanov
Multichannel analysis of surface waves (MASW); active and passive
methods, Leading Edge (Tulsa, OK) (January 2007), 26(1):60-64.
Park, C. B., and Miller, R.D., 2008, Roadside passive multichannel analysis of
surface waves (MASW): Journal of Environmental & Engineering
Geophysics, v. 13, no. 1, p. 1-11.
Pender, M. J., Jennings, D. N. & Crawford, S. A. (1999) Relation between
settlement and cone penetration resistance at two sites Proc. 5th
International Symposium on Field Measurements in Geomechanics
FMGM99, Singapore, Balkema, pp 601-608.
Robertson, P. K. (2009) Interpretation of cone penetration tests a unified
approach. Canadian Geotechnical Journal.
Robertson, P. K. and Cabal (Robertson), K. L. (2010) Guide to cone penetration
testing for geotechnical engineering Gregg Drilling and Testing, 4
th

edition.
Schmertmann, J. H. (1970) "Static cone to compute static settlement over sand",
Proc. ASCE, Jnl. Soil Mechanics Div., Vol. 96 SM3, pp. 1011-1043.
Schnaid, F. (2009) In situ testing in geomechanics: the main tests. Taylor &
Francis.
Seed, H. B., Tokimatsu, K., Harder, L. F. and Chung, R. M. (1984) "The influence
of SPT procedures in soil liquefaction resistance evaluations", Report No.
UCB/EERC-84/15, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University
of California, Berkeley.
Seed, H. B., Wong R. T., Idriss, I. M. and Tokimatsu, K. (1986) "Moduli and
Damping factors for Dynamic analyses of Cohesionless Soils", Proc.
ASCE, Jnl. Geotech. Eng. Div., Vol. 112, No. 11, 1016-1032.
Stokoe, K. H., Wright, S. G., Bay, J. A. & Roesset, J. M. (1994). Characterization of
geotechical sites by SASW method. Geophysical characterization of sites,
pp. 15-25.
Stokoe, K. H., Sung-Ho, Joh. And Woods, R. D. (2004). Some contributions to in situ
geophysical measurements to solving geotechnical engineering problems.
Proc. International Conference on Site Characterisation (ICS-2), Porto
Portugal, September.
Wroth, C.P., and Hughes, J.M.O. (1973). An instrument for the in situ measurement
of the properties of soft clays. In Proceeding of the 8th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Moscow, Vol. 1,
pp. 487494


160

File: Chapter 5 Inference of property values from in situ test data 30/07/12

Inference of Geotechnical Property Values

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Inference of Geotechnical Property Values

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

117

Potrebbero piacerti anche