Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1 s2.0 S0266352X15000439 Main
1 s2.0 S0266352X15000439 Main
1 s2.0 S0266352X15000439 Main
Research Paper
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 7 July 2014
Received in revised form 3 September 2014
Accepted 12 September 2014
Available online 3 April 2015
Keywords:
Standard pile group
Piled raft
Hypoplasticity
Finite element analysis
Load test
Tropical soil
Foundation design
a b s t r a c t
This paper presents and discusses the behavior of standard groups and piled rafts constructed with helical screw piles founded in the typical soil of the Federal District of Brazil (DF). The paper initially
characterizes the soil deposit of a new Experimental Site in the DF via laboratory (standard characterization, triaxial) and eld (standard penetration and at dilatometer) tests. It then moves to explain a
recently adjusted (hypoplasticity) constitutive model that takes on consideration the inherent soils structure to simulate the behavior of this typical geotechnical material. The model was calibrated via point
load test analyses and incorporated into a nite element methodology (FEM) routine internal to the traditional Abaqus software. Real scale eld load tests on standard pile groups and piled rafts executed with
this pile type were carried out in the new site. FEM analyses were used to calibrate the model and to
expand the knowledge on the shearing mechanisms, generated stresses, displacement elds, load sharing, group efciency, and on the contribution of the supporting raft to the overall systems performance.
Conclusions of practical and academic interest are given for this new type of foundation employed in the
region.
2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The city of Brasilia, the Brazilian capital, is situated in the
Midwest central area of the country, a at plateau with a common
(tropical) soil deposit. Generally speaking, this region contains in
its initial few meters a highly weathered, laterized and collapsible
clayey type soil, locally known as the Braslia porous clay. Research
theses and past publications from the University of Braslia (UnB),
as those from Araki [1], Cunha et al. [2], Cardoso [3], Mota [4] or
Anjos [5] have already extensively studied this material and others
in the DF. Since it covers more than 80% of the districts surface, it is
also logical to study the behavior of deep foundation systems in a
site with similar characteristics, specially for piled rafts where the
soil-raft contact do intervene in the mechanical performance of the
system.
Alluvial Anker piles, as locally known in Braslia, are a modied
type of the common helical screw pile (well described by Clayton
[6]). It has recently been introduced in construction sites in this
city [7] where the soil reinforcement is done underneath bridge
or viaduct abutments. It can also be adopted for light foundations
Corresponding author.
1
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2014.09.010
0266-352X/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
188
2. Experimental Site
All the experiments are related to a new Experimental Site
located in Solotrat Ltds headquarters in the DF, in the outskirts
of the city of Braslia. Fig. 1 graphically depicts the location of
the city within the national (Midwest), regional (DF) and local (district) context. Approximate coordinates of the site are 15 480 5900 (S)
and 47 570 5800 (W), with a mean elevation of 1084 m above sea
level.
Within this site several standard penetration tests with (SPTT)
and without (SPT) torque measurements were carried out, together
with Marchetti Dilatometer tests (DMT), and load tests on foundation systems (isolated-I, standard groups-PG and piled rafts-PR),
within a particular arrangement depicted in Fig. 2. Undisturbed soil
blocks were also retrieved from a trench excavated in the site (see
this same gure).
As previously noted, the main difference between the loaded
systems was the contact (PR), or not (PG), of the top raft with
the supercial soil during tests. In the particular conditions of
the former case, it was strictly followed the general denition of
Janda et al. [9] for PR systems.
As one can nally note in Fig. 2, systems of 16 piles (PG and PR)
were tested with distinct internal arrays for some cases, which
demanded a multitude of reaction piles (also depicted) all around
the systems.
3. Soil characteristics
3.1. In situ tests
SPT, SPTT and DMT tests were carried out in the site to geotechnically characterize it and to provide an initial basis of model
parameters for subsequent analyses. Disturbed samples from the
SPT thick-walled standard tube were also retrieved, and helped
in the visual & tactile assessment of the distinct soil layers. All tests
were carried out in accordance to the Brazilian NBR6484 (2001)
standard [10].
Fig. 3 presents both SPT and SPTT results, in terms of blow
counts and peak torque. It also describes the general division for
the layers at the site, in accordance to the following depths:
05 m: reddish, very soft to soft, laterized silty sand (Braslia
porous clay), with water level around 4.5 m;
58 m: brownish, medium to stiff, laterized sandy silt (Braslia
porous clay);
89 m: white, stiff to hard sandy silt (transition layer);
914 m: brownish, very stiff to hard silty clay (saprolite of
slate);
Deeper than 14 m: yellowish hard sandy silt (saprolite of slate).
Flat Marchetti dilatometer tests were carried out, in accordance
to the U.S.A. ASTM D6635-01 standard [11]. Unfortunately just one
sounding with this test was possible, as the blade got stuck at
around 8 m depth, and damaged the rods.
Fig. 4 presents the intermediate variables from the unique DMT
carried out (respectively the indexes for horizontal stress and
material). From this data one concludes that the material behaves
as normally consolidated silty sand up to around 5 m and as an
overconsolidated sandy silt from 5 to 8 m.
Fig. 1. Approximate location of Solotrats site (Google Maps and Earth and Arcview).
189
190
Using the interpreted data from in situ tests via well known
(empirical) equations proposed by Skempton [16], Meyerhof [17],
Clayton [18], Marchetti [19] and Lacasse and Lunne [20], together
with previously shown lab. (triaxial) data, it was possible to derive
estimates for strength and deformation parameters at each soil
strata.
191
had this contact with the top block (which needed to be constructed to load it), being also considered as a PR system. PG systems were simulated by excavating a gap underneath the raft
before the tests.
For the purpose of this paper only the tests loaded in the vertical direction will be presented, although laterally loaded tests were
also performed (see Mendoza 2013 [8]).
4.1. Alluvial Anker pile
This geotechnical interpretation set was complemented by published results from the traditional UnB Experimental Site, which
has a similar soil prole (see Araki [1], Mota [4] and Anjos [5]).
Table 1 presents the original derived parameters, valid in the
context of a Mohr Coulomb rheological model, as initially interpreted for the Solotrat site. Laboratory results have also conrmed
that shearing velocity is not a key aspect of the problem, hence,
constitutive models without the viscous effect can be undoubtedly
used without detriment to the analyses.
In Fig. 6 the effect of the structure of the soil is related to the differences between the consolidation line of the unstructured sample and the corresponding one of the structured sample. Similar
effect is observed in Fig. 9, where cohesion is noted (in the space
q p0 ) basically given by the structure of the soil.
4. Pile load tests
Several foundation systems were constructed in the
Experimental Site, side by side in a layout surrounded by reaction
piles that has facilitated the load tests.
The tests started on December 2010 (isolated pile) and nished
on June 2011 (6 piles PR). For each system (or no. of piles), the tests
with the soil in contact with the raft (PR) were always carried out
rst, followed by those without contact (PG), done in the same previously tested system.
One should note however that by the fact that PG systems were
carried out at the same previously tested ones (PR), and that an
excavation process took place from one series of tests to the others,
that some inherent input error may be included in the results,
given loadingunloading effects. Nevertheless, it is believed that
the errors may be of small magnitude to hinder the tendencies of
the correct results.
Fig. 11 depicts the general characteristics of the tested systems.
The triangular shaped system with 3 piles was solely tested
with the contact soil with raft (hence a PR). The single pile also
Fig. 9. Stress path in drained and undrained conditions for normally consolidated
soil.
192
Fig. 10. Stress and strain curves from for (a) CID triaxial tests and (b) CIU ones.
Table 1
Elasto-plastic (Mohr Coulomb) parameters interpreted for Solotrats Experimental
Site.
Parameter
First layer
Friction angle
Elasticity modulus
Cohesion
Poissons ratio
Second layer
Friction angle
Elasticity modulus
Cohesion
Poissons ratio
Third layer
Friction angle
Elasticity modulus
Cohesion
Poissons ratio
Fourth layer
Friction angle
Elasticity modulus
Cohesion
Poissons ratio
Symbols
/
E
c
l
/
E
c
l
/
E
c
l
/
E
c
Unit
Value
MPa
kPa
29
9
14
0.35
MPa
kPa
35
38
20
0.29
MPa
kPa
39
60
50
0.27
MPa
kPa
35
43
28
0.29
therefore based on this criterion that the ultimate load of each system was dened, in the intersection between the standard line and
the experimental load test result.
In some few cases where such intersection did not occur, due to
an insufcient displacement of the tested pile, the results had to be
extrapolated by the Van der Veen (1953) technique [23] (red line in
Figs. 20 and 21).
Fig. 22 shows the failure loads estimated by aforementioned
methodology, for both foundation systems. It is clearly noticeable
that PR systems do have a reasonable increase in load given the
contact of the raft with the supercial soil. The average increase
was in the range of 18% of the conventional failure load of the
PG systems, which is not negligible.
5. Constitutive models used in FEM
The selected constitutive models to the nite element simulations were, respectively, the hypoplastic with structure, the
standard elastoplastic one and the simple elastic model.
5.1. Hypoplastic with structure model
The rst tested model was the hypoplastic with structure. This
model was adopted in the rst layer of the strata (see Table 1),
where the soft Braslia porous clay prevails. It was further incorporated into the nite element simulations, yet to be presented.
In the present paper the proposal made by Masn [24] was chosen given the simplicity required to implement it into the code, as
well as recorded good accuracy. However, a brief discussion of the
soils structure and the constituent models with structure is presented next.
5.1.1. Introduction in the structured soils and constitutive models
The structure models were developed by research of Burland
[25], Leroueil and Vaughan [26], Adachi, et al. [27],
Anagnostopoulos, et al. [28], Cuccovillo and Coop [29], Cotecchia
and Chandler [30] among others. It has shown the difference in
the behavior of reconstituted and natural soils, explained such differences as the lack of structure (arrangement of particles and
bonds between particles) associated to natural soils. Based on that,
some researchers tried to develop constitutive formulations that
could take on consideration the structures effect. Among them,
one can name Gens and Nova [31], Vatsala, et al. [32], Liu and
Carter [33], Masn [24], Yan and Li [34]. The majority of formulations change the shape and size of the state boundary surface
193
Fig. 11. Arrangement, location and characteristics of the tested foundation systems.
Fig. 12. Self-drilling steel tube and open tip-Alluvial Anker piles base and body.
(SBS) of the soil by two state variables (in functions of the stress
state): the rst is sensitivity (s) and second is the shift of the SBS
towards the tensile stresses zone (natural cohesion). It means that
the stress tensor (r) of the model is the tensor without structure
(rReconstituted ), besides of the stress tensor for the soil structure
(rStructure ) (Eq. 1), with a parallel coupling. This proposal has already
been made by Baudet and Wu [35] and Vatsala et al. [32], where
the stress tensor for soil structure (rStructure ) is a simple linear elastic relation which disappears with the increasing stress.
r_ r_ Reconstituted r_ Structure
194
Fig. 15. Schematic phases of the Alluvial Anker pile execution (after Barbosa [7]).
195
and second order [24] invariants. The model is written as a nonlinear increasing function of time to correlate stresses and strains.
T L : D NkDk
j
s_ s sf _ d
rk
A
_ d _ 2v
_ 2
1A s
2
3
4
The second model tested herein was a simple, standard, elastoplastic model that responds to the known Mohr Coulomb failure
criteria. This model has been implemented for the nite element
simulation. Due to fact that this model has only four parameters
and due to the fact that all of them have a physical explanation,
it has a great popularity in the geotechnical practices [42]. Given
its simplicity (and lack of data from a deeper prole), this model
was adopted in the remaining 3 layers of the strata (see parameters
in Table 1). It was also further incorporated into nite element simulations, yet to be presented.
In the elastic range, the relationship between stress and strain
tensor is linear, with two parameters: Youngs modulus (E) and
Poissons ratio (l). This behavior is valid until the stress-path
reaches the yield envelope, at which time plastic deformation
starts. The yield envelope is of a Mohr Coulomb type and there
are with it two soil parameters (/ = friction angle of the soil and
c = cohesion) associated.
5.3. Elastic model
The third model is an elastic model. This is a very simple model
where the relationship between the stress and strain tensor is linear by means of a elastic modulus, which is function of the Youngs
modulus (E) and Poissons ratio (l) [43]. This model is used in FEM
analyses of pile foundations under assumptions that the piled raft
is innitely rigid in comparison with the soil (therefore the soil
deforms rst and to a larger extent).
196
197
Fig. 23. Isotropic compression behavior of natural and reconstituted soil (after
Masn [24]).
Fig. 24. Comparison to triaxial results: (a) Compression test with g = 0.00.5. (b)
Compression test with g = 0.3. (c) Compression test with g = 0.5.
Besides, the bulbs also extend vertically from the tip of the piles
to a dimension of around 23 times the piles diameter.
The main results from the numerical analyses in terms of the
direct comparison, and individual assessment, of the distinct PG
and PR systems are given next.
6.3. Main results from FEM analyses
6.3.1. Pile efciency
Efciency factor (g ) was calculated in accordance to the definition expressed in Eq. (5). It is basically a relationship between
the ultimate capacity of the group over the ultimate capacity of a
single pile similar to those in the group, without inclusion of any
effect of the raft. Group efciency (Ge ) on the other hand was calculated in accordance to Eq. (6). This variable expresses the
relationship of the average (pile) load in the group divided by the
load of a (similar) single pile at the same vertical displacement of
the group. Both equations are solely valid for the PG systems.
PPG
np
X
g P P
i1
where P PG = ultimate load capacity of the group; g = efciency factor; np = number of piles; and P P = ultimate capacity of a similar single pile.
Fig. 25. Comparison of stress paths for CID and CIU triaxial tests.
Ge
P wrk
np
Psng
198
Fig. 26. Left: Comparison of stress paths in drained conditions; Right: Similar for undrained conditions.
Table 2
Model parameters with simulations.
j
k
/c
0.0022
0.060
2.13
31
0.35
0.4
1.5
2.5
199
Another way of checking this performance is given by the bearing capacity coefcient fPR , as dened by Eq. 6.
fPR
PPR
PGP
where fPR = capacity coefcient; P PR = load capacity of the PR system; and PGP = similar capacity of the PG system.
According to Mandolini et al. [44] fPR may be assumed as a measure of the increase of bearing capacity due to raft-soil contact. It
was calculated and presented in Table 4 with experimental, rather
than numerical, results.
Results from Table 4 clearly indicate the small, but benecial
effect of the raft (in average 18%, as noticed for Fig. 22 too).
Besides, it agrees with Mandolini et al. [44] accounts that such factor should decrease with an increasing No. of piles.
Also according to these authors, there is a critical spacing ratio
(scrit /d) for a PR system above which the failure changes from block
failure to a pile group one. This latter case is related to an almost
(pseudo) independent pile behavior, that fails without much of
interaction with adjacent piles, or with the systems components
200
Fig. 32. Soil displacements and stresses around 5 pile PR system and along depth.
Table 3
Efciency factors from numerical simulations from PG systems.
System
1pile-PG
2piles-PG
3piles-PG
4piles-PG
5piles-PG
6piles-PG
Ultimate
Load [kN]
g
[]
Ge
[]
419
850
1100
1800
1900
2520
1.01
0.88
1.07
0.90
1.00
91
97
88
90
93
Fig. 34. Load share between components of the PR system, in relation to the
working loads.
(raft and soil around). Moreover, PR systems that fail as a pile group
tend to have fPR greater than one.
Taking on account results from Table 4, and the fact that spacing ratios above 4 are noticed for the systems of Fig. 11, one can
conclude that they indeed failed as pile group ones (which by the
way has already been noted in the section of load share).
Fig. 33. Load share between components of the PR system, in relation to the
ultimate loads.
Ultimate load
P PR [kN]
P PG [kN]
fPR
[]
1000
1200
2000
2190
2700
650
1100
1780
1950
2520
1.53
1.09
1.12
1.12
1.07
Table 5
Experimental results using data from the PR systems.
3.
System
Ultimate values
P PR [kN]
D [mm]
Breadth
B [mm]
D/B [%]
2piles-PG
2piles-PG
3piles-PG
4piles-PG
5piles-PG
6piles-PG
480
1000
1200
2000
2190
2700
500
350
350
580
580
580
1.36
2.85
3.08
2.55
2.74
3.29
6.8
10.0
10.8
14.8
15.9
19.1
2.
PR systems were loaded at distinct conditions of soils water content and individual geometries. The settlements attained during
the tests ranged between 20 and 45 mm, and in any case, the
PR systems did not reach a settlement larger than 3% of B (systems
breadth) at the maximum load.
Using the available data for the experimental PR systems, it was
also possible to construct Table 5. This table presents the values of
load (PPR ) and displacement (D) at ultimate conditions (in accordance to the Brazilian conventional failure load criterion). It also
brings the breadth of each of the systems and the relationship D/B.
As noticed, the systems reached an average settlement around
2.6% of B, the shortest rafts dimension. This value agrees with
aforementioned results for similar soil conditions. Similarly as
other (previously given) numbers in this paper, this relationship
can be adopted as a practical design number in a rst rough
assessment.
4.
5.
6.
7. Conclusions
7.
This paper focused on the experimental and numerical behavior
of standard groups and piled rafts constructed with helical screw
piles (a novel feature in the region), founded in the typical soil of
the Federal District of Brazil. This is a particular tropical and laterized soil, which characteristics that can be somehow found in other
deposits of the Midwest region of this country.
The paper investigated and characterized a new Experimental
Site, presenting an overview of the main geotechnical parameters
for a simple elasto-plastic model via laboratory and in situ tests.
Specic point load (lab) tests were coupled to numerical FEM
analyses to calibrate a new (modied) hypoplastic model that
can incorporate the soils structure. This model was further adopted
into numerical simulations to include some of the complex features of the supercial porous clay strata of the site.
The calibrated numerical tool aimed the expansion of the
knowledge on the behavior of the tested foundation systems, in
terms of traditional (piled raft) variables, design considerations,
and overall (shearing and displacement) mechanisms. Practical
and academic conclusions of real added value for professionals of
the studied region or elsewhere are given, as follows:
1. Hipoplasticity with the modications proposed in the present
paper has proved to grasp reasonably well the main, complex,
geotechnical characteristics of the supercial tropical soil of
the Federal District of Brazil. This rheological model can
201
denitively be used into numerical simulations as those presented herein, to acquire knowledge on the approximate behavior of common engineering structures founded on this
particular strata.
For (pile group) systems under similar conditions as those studied herein, the average efciency factor is close to unity, indicating that detrimental effects given by the superposition of
individual stress and displacement bulbs are negligible. It also
means, and conrms, that individual pile failures, rather than
block failures, are the main shearing mechanisms that takes
place underneath the systems during soil plastication.
Besides, at identical displacement levels, a pile within the (pile
group) system has a slight smaller load than the equivalent one
of a similar single pile. This feature leads to a conclusion that,
although small, there is indeed some interaction between the
piles of the group.
For (piled raft) systems under similar conditions as those studied herein, the region of inuence (stress and strain bulbs)
around the raft can stretch to around 4 times the rafts breadth
in the vertical direction, and 2 times in the horizontal one. This
bulb also extends downwards below the pile tips, within a zone
of around 23 times the piles diameter.
Besides, for such (piled raft) systems, there is a load share
between the elements that compose the system, i.e., raft, piles
and surrounding soil. The contribution of the raft to the total
load is not high, but nevertheless not insignicant. It has been
shown that the raft was able to absorb a value in the range of
12% of the total (ultimate or working) load. As one move
towards systems with higher number of piles, hence with larger
raft dimensions, the relative importance of the raft to the total
systems capacity slightly increases, as it also decreases the percentage of load share taken by each pile individually.
Finally, it is clearly noticeable that (piled raft) systems do have a
reasonable increase in load given the contact of the raft with the
supercial soil. It has been shown an average increase in the
range of 18% of the conventional failure load of standard (pile
group) systems, which is by no means negligible. Moreover, at
such ultimate conditions, it has also been shown that (piled
raft) systems do not displace more than around 3% of the rafts
breadth in the vertical direction.
Helical screw piles have shown to be feasible to be employed in
the region under certain construction characteristics (viaducts,
soil reinforcement, small structures, and so on), where the fast
speed of execution (15 min) and eld behavior (slender friction
piles for compression or tension loads), add a striking competitiveness to this pile when compared to other solutions.
202
studies carried out by the second author, either in terms of personal research grants, or via sabbatical and student scholarships.
One of such scholarships allowed the rst author to pursue his
Doctorate in Brazil, strengthening the cooperation links between
this country and his homeland.
The rst author thanks to the project Study of the mechanical
behavior of bases for pavements constructed with soilcement
mixes for the nancial support.
Appendix A
T f s L : D f s f d NkDk
A:1
1 2
bT
b
c1 F I c2 a2 T
b
b
T:T
A:2
s
1
2 tan2 w
1
p
tan2 w
F
p tan w
8
2 2 tan w cos 3h 2 2
p
33 sin /c
p
a
2 2 sin /c
A:3
A:4
c1
p1
trT
f s Si 3 a2 2a a 3
k
a
2p
fd
spe
A:12
A:13
References
p !
23 a2 2a 3a
9rSi
3
c2 1 1 c1 2
a
1
k j Si 3 a2
p
ln
a
k j Si a 3
ln 2
s s sf
Si
s
A:5
A:6
A:7
A:8
Tensor (m) (Eq. (A.10)) and function (Y) (Eq. (A.11)) can be used
to obtain the tensor (N) (Eq. (A.9)) with the materials ow rule.
Function (Y) (Eq. (A.11)) relates the critical stress with the stress
tensor invariants function.
m
N L : Y
kmk
"
!#
b 6T
b:T
b1
a b b T
TT
m
b:T
b
3 a 2 T
F
F
!
"
#
p
2
I1 I2 9I3 1 sin uc
3a
1
Y
2
3 a2
8I3 sin uc
A:9
A:10
A:11
[1] Araki MS. Aspects related to the properties of the porous and collapsible soils
of the Federal District. M.sc. thesis; University of Braslia; Braslia, DF, Brazil;
1997.
[2] Cunha R, Jardim N, Pereira J. In situ characterization of a tropical clay via
dilatometer tests. In: Geo-congress 99 on behavioral characteristics of residual
soils, ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication 92, Charlotte, vol. 1; 1999. p. 113
22.
[3] Cardoso F. Properties and mechanical behavior of soils from the Brazilian
Central Plateau. Ph.d. thesis; University of Braslia; Brasilia, DF, Brazil; 2002.
[4] Mota NMB. Advanced in situ tests in the porous unsaturated clay of Braslia:
interpretation for foundation projects. Ph.d. thesis; University of Braslia;
Brasilia, DF, Brazil; 2003.
[5] Anjos GJ. Study of the behavior of bored foundations in tropical soils. Ph.d.
thesis; University of Braslia; Brasilia, DF, Brazil; 2006.
[6] D.J. Clayton, Basic helical screw pile design. Internal report earth contact
products, vol. 1. LLC; 2005. p. 13.
[7] Barbosa M. Alluvial anker as alternative to foundations in soft clay. Tech rep 1;
Solotrat Engenharia Geotcnica Ltda.: Braslia, Brazil; 2009.
[8] Mendoza CC. Experimental and numerical behaviour of deep foundations
made up by anker alluvial type piles founded in a porous soil of federal district
(in portuguese). Ph.d. thesis; University of Braslia; Brasilia, DF, Brazil; 2013.
[9] Janda T, Cunha RP, Kuklk P, Anjos GM. Three dimensional nite element
analysis and back-analysis of CFA standard pile groups and piled rafts founded
on tropical soil. Soils Rocks 2009;32(1):318.
[10] ABNT-6484. Simple identication sounding with the SPT testing procedure.
Brazilian association of technical norms ABNT; 2001.
[11] ASTM-D6635-01. Standard test method for performing the at plate
dilatometer, 2001; 2007.
[12] Tatsuoka F, Santicci de Magistris F, Hayano K, Momoya Y, Koseki J. Some new
aspects of time effects on the stress and strain behavior of stiff geomaterials.
Geotech Hard Soils Soft Rocks 2000;1:1285371.
[13] Roscoe KH, Schoeld AN, Thurairajah A. Yielding of clays in states wetter than
critical. Geotechnique 1963;13(3):21140.
[14] Whitlow R. Basic soil mechanics. 1st ed. New York: Wiley; 1995. ISBN 968-261239-x.
[15] Nova R, Lagioia R. An experimental and theoretical study of the behaviour of a
calcarenite in triaxial compression. Geotechnique 1995;45:63348. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.1995.45.4.633.
[16] Skempton AW. The bearing capacity of clay. In: Building research congress,
ICE, vol. 1; 1951. p. 1809.
[17] Meyerhof GG. Penetration tests and bearing capacity of cohesion less soils. J
Soil Mech Found Div 1956;82(1):119.
[18] Clayton C. The standard penetration test (SPT) methods and use. Tech rep
funder report/CP/7. Construction Industry Research and Information
Association (CIRIA): London, England; 1993. p. 129.
[19] Marchetti S. In situ tests by at dilatometer. J Soil Mech Found Div ASCE
1980;106(3):299321.
[20] Lacasse S, Lunne T. Calibration of dilatometer correlations. In: Proceeding
international of penetration testing, ISOPT-1, vol 1; 1998. p. 53948.
[21] ABNT-12131. Piles static load test method of test. Brazilian association of
technical norms ABNT; 2006.
[22] ABNT-6122. Design and construction of foundations. Brazilian association of
technical norms ABNT; 2010.
[23] Vander V. The bearing capacity of a pile. In: Proc third international conference
soil mechanics foundation engineering, vol. 2; 1953. p. 8490.
[24] Masn D. Hypoplastic models for ne-grained soils. Thesis of doctor of
philosophy; Charles University; Prague, Czech Republic; 2006.
[25] Burland JB. On the compressibility and shear strength of natural clays.
Geotechnique 1990;40:32978. http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.1990.40.3.329.
[26] Leroueil S, Vaughan PR. The general and congruent effects of structure in
natural soils and weak rocks. Geotechnique 1990;40:46788. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.1990.40.3.467.
[27] Adachi T, Oka F, Hirata T, Hashimoto T, Pradhan T, Nagaya J, et al. Triaxial and
torsional hollow cylinder tests of sensitive natural clay and an elastoviscoplastic constitutive model. In: Proc Xth European conference on soil
mechanics and foundation engineering, vol. 1; 1991. p. 36.
[28] Anagnostopoulos AG, Kalteziotis N, Tsiambaos GK, Kavvadas M. Geotechnical
properties of the Corinth Canal marls. Geotech Geol Eng 1991;9:126. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00880981.
[29] Cuccovillo T, Coop MR. On the mechanics of structured sands. Geotechnique
1999;49:74160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.1999.49.6.741.
203