Pdfjoiner

FLAT DILATOMETER TESTS IN CLAY: NUMERICAL
MODELLING AND FIELD EXPLORATION
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements
For the degree of
Master of Technology
by
Singam Naresh Kumar

(Roll Number: 153040022)
Supervisor:
Prof. Santiram Chatterjee
Department of Civil Engineering

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, BOMBAY
June, 2017
ABSTRACT
This dissertation describes numerical analysis and field exploration data of Flat Dilatometer Test (DMT)
in clay. DMT, first developed by Prof. Silvano Marchetti, is a good in-situ test to find out properties of
both clay and sand. In this study, commercial finite element software Abaqus was used to construct a
plane strain numerical model of dilatometer test in clay. Tresca constitutive model was used to simulate
undrained condition. Cavity expansion principle was applied to mimic the installation of Dilatometer.
Both normally consolidated and overconsolidated soils were considered. For normally consolidated soils,
effect of installation on the horizontal stress index KD was quantified. Field tests were also conducted at
a very soft clayey site in Cochin, Kerala. Side by side DMT and Cone Penetration Tests were performed
and site specific CPT-DMT correlations are developed. This dissertation consists of total six chapters.
A brief description of Flat Dilatometer components, testing procedure, applications is given in the
introductory chapter. Comprehensive review of existing literature on DMT is then presented in the second
chapter.
The next chapter presents the details of numerical modelling of DMT in normally consolidated clay. In
this chapter, a simple strain softening model has been incorporated to study the effect of installation
induced softening during DMT penetration. It is observed that with the increase in sensitivity of the clay,
KD value decreases by only 5-6%.
The fourth chapter presents numerical model in overconsolidated soil. Unlike normally consolidated soils,
KD value is dependent on depth because of variation of over consolidation ratio (OCR) wih depth. Simple
expression of KD as a function of OCR is presented and compared with that available in the literature.
The fifth chapter describes the details of field tests carried out at soft clay site. Three sets of DMT and
cone penetration tests were conducted side by side at Puthuvype, Cochin, India. Two site specific CPT-
DMT correlations have been developed by using the test data. DMT evaluated undrained shear strength
(su) is compared with su obtained from CPT, SPT and UCS and applicability of Marchetti correlations to
find soil properties is discussed.
The final chapter presents a summary of the work carried out in this dissertation. It also describes the key
conclusions that came out from this study.
iv
CONTENTS
APPROVAL SHEET ............................................................................................................................... ii

DECLARATION ..................................................................................................................................... iii
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................. iv
CONTENTS .............................................................................................................................................. v
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................... vii
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................................. ix
Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 General.............................................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Suitability of soils ............................................................................................................................. 1
1.3 DMT Equipment Components ......................................................................................................... 2
1.4 Brief description of Flat dilatometer test .......................................................................................... 3
1.5 Working principle ............................................................................................................................. 4
1.6 Membrane calibration ....................................................................................................................... 5
1.7 Advantages of using DMT ............................................................................................................... 5
Chapter 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ON FLAT DILATOMETER TEST ....................................... 7
2.1 Intermediate and common soil parameters (Marchetti, 1980) .......................................................... 7

2.1.1 Material index ID ........................................................................................................................ 7
2.1.2 Horizontal stress index KD ......................................................................................................... 8
2.1.3 Dilatometer modulus ED ............................................................................................................ 8
2.2 Compressibility of soil ..................................................................................................................... 8
2.2.1 Settlements of shallow foundations by DMT .......................................................................... 11
2.2.2 DMT measured Vs Observed settlements................................................................................ 14
2.3 Applicability of Marchetti, 1980 correlations to find the soil properties ....................................... 18
2.4 DMT-CPT Correlations .................................................................................................................. 21
2.5 Advantages of Flat dilatometer test over other tests ...................................................................... 24
2.6 Research goal .................................................................................................................................. 26
Chapter 3 NUMERICAL EVALUATION OF THE EFFECT OF STRAIN SOFTENING DUE
TO DILATOMETER PENETRATION ON HORIZONTAL STRESS INDEX (KD) .................... 27
3.1 Methodology................................................................................................................................... 27
v
3.2 Finite element model ...................................................................................................................... 28
3.2.1 Analysis details (boundary conditions, mesh and material model) ......................................... 28
3.2.2 Strain softening ........................................................................................................................ 30
3.3 Parametric study ............................................................................................................................. 30
3.4 Results from numerical analysis ..................................................................................................... 32
3.5 Discussion....................................................................................................................................... 35
Chapter 4 NUMERICAL EVALUATION OF THE EFFECT OF OCR ON HORIZONTAL
STRESS INDEX (KD) ............................................................................................................................ 36
4.1 Objective......................................................................................................................................... 36
4.2 Numerical model ............................................................................................................................ 36
4.3 Results from numerical analyses and Discussion ........................................................................... 39
Chapter 5 FIELD TESTS BY DMT AND CPT ................................................................................. 43
5.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 43

5.2 Site description ............................................................................................................................... 43
5.2.1 CPT data................................................................................................................................... 43
5.2.2 DMT data ................................................................................................................................. 46
5.3 Equivalent CPT Method for Calculating Shallow Foundation Settlements Based on the DMT
Constrained Modulus Approach (only for clays at Puthuvype site, Cochin) ....................................... 48
5.4 Applicability of Marchetti correlation to calculate undrained shear strength ................................ 51
5.5 Discussion....................................................................................................................................... 52
Chapter 6 CONCLUDING REMARKS ............................................................................................. 53
6.1 Summary......................................................................................................................................... 53
6.2 Limitations and scope for future work ........................................................................................... 54
References55
Acknowledgement...58
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 General layout of the dilatometer test (Marchetti et al., 2001) ................................................. 2
Figure 1.2 Details of DMT blade (Hayes, 1990)........................................................................................ 3
Figure 1.3 DMT working principle (Marchetti et al., 2001) ...................................................................... 4
Figure 1.4 Dilatometer test sequence (Hayes, 1990) ................................................................................. 5
Figure 2.1 Comparison of MDMT with Moed (Komatsugawa site, Japan) (Iwasaki et al., 1991) ................ 9
Figure 2.2 Comparison between MDMT & Moed (onsoy clay, Norway) (Lacasse, 1986) .......................... 10
Figure 2.3 Determination of one sublayer settlement (Hayes 1990)........................................................ 11
Figure 2.4 DMT moduli Vs Moduli Back calculated from other methods .............................................. 15
Figure 2.5 Observed vs DMT calculated settlements (Hayes, 1990) ....................................................... 16
Figure 2.6 comparison of settlements under the Treporti test embankment (Marchetti et. Al 1990) ...... 18
Figure 2.7 Correlation between K0 and KD .............................................................................................. 19
Figure 2.8 Correlation between OCR and KD .......................................................................................... 20
Figure 2.9 Relationship between the DMT Elastic Modulus and CPT Tip Stress in Piedmont Soils (Mayne
2002)......................................................................................................................................................... 22
Figure 2.10 Relationship between DMT material index and CPT friction ratio in Piedmont residuum
(Mayne 2002) ........................................................................................................................................... 22
Figure 2.11 Validation of CPT Method for Evaluating DMT Constrained Modulus in Piedmont Soils
(Mayne 2002) ........................................................................................................................................... 23
Figure 2.12 Comparison of distortion in soil during penetration (Baligh & Scott, 1975) ....................... 25
Figure 3.1 Movement of soil during dilatometer (half thickness) penetration (Marchetti, 1980) ........... 27
Figure 3.2 Modelling of Dilatometer penetration as Expansion of Flat Cavity (Marchetti, 1980) .......... 28
Figure 3.3 FEM mesh and boundary conditions of flat cavity expansion model..................................... 29
Figure 3.4 Effect of sensitivity on Horizontal stress index (KD) ............................................................. 33
Figure 3.5 Deformation pattern of soil due to flat expansion .................................................................. 33
Figure 3.6 Soil softening due to flat cavity expansion (at depth = 1m) ................................................... 35
Figure 3.7 Concentration of plastic strains due to flat cavity expansion for sensitivity = 4 .................... 35
Figure 4.1 Variation of OCR with depth .................................................................................................. 39
Figure 4.2 Variation su with depth ........................................................................................................... 39
Figure 4.3 KD profile with depth obtained from numerical analyses ....................................................... 40
Figure 4.4 Comparison of numerically obtained KDOCR values with empirical expressions and field
data available in the literature .................................................................................................................. 41
Figure 4.5 Comparison of numerically obtained KDK0 values with empirical expressions and field data
available in the literature .......................................................................................................................... 42
Figure 5.1 Site map (Puthuvype, Cochin) ................................................................................................ 44
Figure 5.2 (a) CPT data recorded at Test point 1; (b) Classification of soil at site from all CPT data .... 45
Figure 5.3 Simplified soil type classification for standard electric friction cone (Robertson, 1986) ...... 46
Figure 5.4 Dilatometer test setup at site ................................................................................................... 46
Figure 5.5 DMT results at Puthuvype site................................................................................................ 47
vii
Figure 5.6 Relationship between the DMT Elastic Modulus and CPT tip resistance (Puthuvype site,
Cochin clays) ............................................................................................................................................ 48
Figure 5.7 Relationship between DMT material index and CPT friction ratio (Puthuvype site, Cochin
clays) ........................................................................................................................................................ 49
Figure 5.8 Validation of CPT Method for Evaluating DMT Constrained Modulus (Puthuvype site, Cochin
clays) ........................................................................................................................................................ 50
Figure 5.9 su profile with depth from CPT & DMT (Puthuvype site, Cochin clays) ............................... 52
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Soil profiling and corresponding ID values range (Hayes 1990) ............................................... 7
Table 2.2 Basic DMT reduction formulae (Marchetti, 2001) .................................................................. 10
Table 2.3 Comparisons between DMT and Observed settlement (Schmertmann, 1986) ........................ 14
Table 3.1 Different input parameter for numerical analyses .................................................................... 31
Table 3.2 Classification of clays based on sensitivity (Skemption & Northey, 1952) ............................ 32
Table 3.3 Horizontal stress index (KD) values obtained from numerical analysis .................................. 32
Table 4.1 Different input parameter for numerical analyses .................................................................... 37
Table 4.2 Calculations of different input parameters (@ surcharge = 50 kPa) ........................................ 37
Table 4.3 Calculations of different input parameters (@ surcharge = 100 kPa) ...................................... 38
Table 4.4 Calculations of different input parameters (@ surcharge = 150 kPa) ...................................... 38
Table 4.5 Horizontal stress index (KD) values obtained from numerical analysis for three cases of
overconsolidated clays ............................................................................................................................. 40
Table 5.1 Constrained Modulus Parameter (RM) for Settlement Calculations (Marchetti 1980, Marchetti,
et al. 2001) ................................................................................................................................................ 50
Table 5.2 Correlation between qu-N (SPT) (Terzaghi & peck 1967), where qu = 2su ............................ 51
ix
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
To find the soil in situ parameters Prof. Silvano Marchetti developed a tool called Flat Dilatometer,
in 1975 in Italy. Initially it is introduced at ASCE speciality conference in Raleigh in 1975. Dr.
John Schemartmann introduced it in North America in 1979. Flat dilatometer test provides the
simple procedure to find the rapid, economical and accurate in situ determination of important soil
parameters.
DMT provides following parameters.
x Tangent modulus
x Lateral stress
x Pre-consolidation pressure
x Stratigraphy of soil
x Undrained cohesion (clays)
x Drained friction angle (sands)
x Quick settlement calculations
x Compaction control
x p- y curves for laterally loaded piles
x Ground Water table
x Liquefiability of soil
1.2 Suitability of soils

This test can be done in soft soils as well as in hard soils (soft rocks). Generally, it is suitable for
soils of small grains like sands, silts and clays where as it is not suitable for gravels, however it
can pass through the gravel layers of around 0.5 m thickness. Even in extremely soft - nearly liquid
1
soils, it can give accurate results as null method is adopted. As the blade can withstand up to
250kN it can penetrate through the soft rocks.
1.3 DMT Equipment Components

The basic equipment for dilatometer testing consists of the components as shown in Figure 1.1.
x Dilatometer blade
x Control unit
Pressure gauges
Gas flow control valves
Electrical circuits
x Pneumatic electrical cable
x Gas pressure source
x Electrical ground cable
Field equipment for inserting DMT blade:
x Pushing equipment
x Push rods
x Rod adaptors
Figure 1.1 General layout of the dilatometer test (Marchetti et al., 2001)
2
1.4 Brief description of Flat dilatometer test
This is a blade, which is made up of high-strength stainless steel having a circular steel membrane
on one side of it. DMT test starts by inserting the blade into the ground. Generally it is advancing
by pushing from a cone penetration rig. It can also be pushed with hydraulic capability of a drill
rig. Test can also be started from the bottom of the bore hole. The blade is connected to a control
unit on the surface of ground by pneumatic electrical tube through which gas pressure is
transmitted. After the penetration to interested depth, by using control unit at the surface, operator
inflates the steel membrane to take the two pressure readings called A-pressure and B- reading.
Generally these readings will be taken at every 20 cm interval.
Steel membrane is shown in the following Figure 1.2 whose diameter is 60 mm and thickness
around 0.20 mm to 0.25 mm.
Figure 1.2 Details of DMT blade (Hayes, 1990)
3
1.5 Working principle
DMT works like an electrical switch. In the blade, plastic insulating seat separates the sensing disk
and underlying steel body of DMT to prevent the electrical contact between them. The electrical
contact is signalled by the audio signal (see Figure 1.3). Under following two situations signal is
given by the DMT when,
x Membrane rests against sensing disk before expansion.

x Centre of membrane is moved through 1.1 mm against the soil (spring loaded steel cylinder
touches the sensing disk)
Figure 1.3 DMT working principle (Marchetti et al., 2001)
As internal pressure increases to inflate the membrane, it starts losing contact with support
(signal off). At this point lift-off A-pressure will be taken. Pressure flow is continued to take
the B-pressure reading when centre of the membrane moves 1.1 mm (steel cylinder touches
the sensing disk- signal on). Another reading C also be taken some times by slowly deflating
the membrane until it gets original position after taking the B reading (Figure 1.4).
4
Figure 1.4 Dilatometer test sequence (Hayes, 1990)
(Vertical section through centre of the blade)
1.6 Membrane calibration

Membrane correction involves in determining the A and B pressures to overcome the membrane
stiffness. A and B pressures are corrected by using them. There is a standard procedure to find
out the pressure corrections. These corrections are important and to be accurate especially in soft
soils because, A and B are small values, just higher than A and B respectively.
1.7 Advantages of using DMT

x DMT is a good in situ test, which has the advantage of being fast, economical and easy to
perform and the productivity on the order of CPT.
x The DMT data obtained are highly reproducible and the parameters are measured in situ,
which avoids the delay and costs of the laboratory testing.
x DMT gives nearly continuous profile and provides good understanding of the deposit.
x The data from a DMT can be easily reduced to soil properties using personal computer
(immediate availability of the results).
5
x In favourable soil conditions, the time requires to perform a 10 m deep DMT sounding,
with readings taken every 20 cm is about 1.5 to 2 hours.
x Measures lateral stresses, important parameter for design and repair of pipelines, tunnels
and retaining walls.
x Provides quick settlement calculations of soil which is a main application of DMT.
6
Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW ON FLAT DILATOMETER
TEST
This chapter presents a comprehensive review of literature on Marchetti reduction formulae to find
out soil properties from the DMT data, applicability of Marchetti correlations and site specific
correlations by different researchers which make DMT more applicable to different locations in
the world.
2.1 Intermediate and common soil parameters (Marchetti, 1980)

The readings A and B which are obtained directly from the DMT are corrected by A and B to
get p0 and p1 pressures.
The basic indices of DMT are Material index ID, Horizontal stress index KD and Dilatometer
modulus ED which are determined by using the p0 and p1 pressures readings. These are also called
as intermediate parameters. These are basic, unique, repeatable index values from the DMT.
Common soil parameters like vertical constraint modulus M, OCR, , cu etc. are derived from
these intermediate soil parameters.
2.1.1 Material index ID

This is a good soil profile indicator. This index value accurately indicates the soil profile and
detects relatively thin discontinuities in homogeneous soil deposits. Marchetti proposed a
classification scheme which is described in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1 Soil profiling and corresponding ID values range (Hayes 1990)
Soil Peat/sensitive Clay Silt Sand

type Clay
ID Silty Clayey Sandy Silty

value < 0.1 0.1-0.35 0.35- 0.6-0.9 0.9-1.2 1.2-1.8 1.8-3.3 >3.3
0.6
7
2.1.2 Horizontal stress index KD
This is also an important parameter which gives the nature of the soil deposit regarding stress
history. Generally KD varies highly in sand from one depth to another depth compared to normally
consolidated clay. In the NC clays, it is almost constant which ranges in between 1.8 and 2.3. The
KD profile is highly reproducible.
2.1.3 Dilatometer modulus ED

This is obtained from elastic theory from p0 and p1. It lacks stress history. So it is to be used in
combination with KD and ID. This is an indication of Modulus of Elasticity of soil.
These DMT indices will give information about soil behaviour and also number of common soil
parameters like su, OCR, coefficient of earth pressure etc. can be derived by using by these indices
as given in Table 2.2
2.2 Compressibility of soil

Settlement analysis is one of the best applications of DMT. Settlements of shallow foundations
can be found by using DMT parameter constraint modulus (MDMT).Tangent constraint modulus is
defined as slope of tangent at a point on the 1-D stress strain curve.

M= (2.1)

There is a theoretical correlation among Constraint modulus (M), Modulus of elasticity (E) of soil
and Poissons ratio ().
E(1)
M= (2.2)
(1+)(12)
Dilatometer modulus (ED) can be given as
E
ED = (2.3)
(12 )
From above two formulae,
8
ED (1)2
M= (2.4)
(12)
Marchetti has used oedometer test results to establish the empirical relation constraint modulus
and DMT modulus.
MDMT = Rm ED (2.5)
Where, Rm= f (ID, KD), Rm value depends on ID and KD values as given in Table 1. Generally, it
varies in between 1 and 3. As ED lacks details of stress history, this correction is applied.
This MDMT is similar parameter like oedometer modulus Eoed = 1/mv. MDMT is determined by a
correction to ED. So compressibility properties are derived from MDMT which is corrected modulus,
instead of using ED. MDMT is used in the same manner as Elastic moduli obtained from oedometer
etc. Figures 2.1 and Figure 2.2 show the comparisons are made between MDMT and M from high
quality oedometer test at two sites.
Figure 2.1 Comparison of MDMT with Moed (Komatsugawa site, Japan) (Iwasaki et al., 1991)
9
Figure 2.2 Comparison between MDMT & Moed (onsoy clay, Norway) (Lacasse, 1986)
Table 2.2 Basic DMT reduction formulae (Marchetti, 2001)
SYMBOL DESCRIPTION BASIC DMT REDUCTION FORMULAE

p0 = 1.05 (A - ZM +A) - 0.05 (B - ZM ZM = Gage reading when
p0 Corrected First Reading - B) vented to atm.
If A & B are measured with
the same
gage used for current readings
A & B, set
ZM = 0 (ZM is compensated)
p1 Corrected Second Reading p1 = B - ZM - DB
u0 = pre-insertion pore
ID Material Index ID = (p1 - p0) / (p0 - u0) pressure
v0= pre-insertion overburden
KD Horizontal Stress Index KD = (p0 - u0) / v0 stress
ED is NOT a Young's modulus E. ED
should be used only AFTER
combining it with KD (Stress
History). First obtain MDMT=RM ED,
ED Dilatometer Modulus ED = 34.7 (p1 - p0) then e.g. E 0.8 MDMT
K0 Coefficient of Earth Pressure in Situ K0,DMT = (KD / 1.5)0.47 - 0.6 for ID < 1.2
OCR Over consolidation ratio OCRDMT = (0.5 KD) 1.56
for ID < 1.2
cu Undrained Shear Strength cu,DMT = 0.22 v0 (0.5 KD)1.25 for ID < 1.2
safe,DMT = 28 + 14.6 log KD - 2.1 log2
Friction Angle KD for ID > 1.8
tflex from A-log t DMT-A
ch Coefficient of Consolidation ch,DMTA 7 cm2 / tflex decay curve
kh Coefficient of Permeability kh = ch w / Mh (Mh K0MDMT)
Unit Weight and Description ED vs ID Chart Marchetti,1981
MDMT = RM ED
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)
Vertical Drained Constrained if KD > 10 RM = 0.32 + 2.18 log KD
M Modulus if RM < 0.85 set RM = 0.85
u0 Equilibrium Pore Pressure u0 = p2 = C - ZM + A In free-draining soils
10
2.2.1 Settlements of shallow foundations by DMT
Settlement of a soil layer (S) can be determined by following relationship.
v (z)
S= (2.6)
MDMT
Where,
= Increment in vertical stress at the middle of the layer of soil due to applied load.
(Generally it is determined by boussinesqs equation)
= Soil layer thickness.
MDMT = Average constraint modulus over the soil layer obtained by DMT.
Generally test is done at every 20 cm depth intervals. So MDMT values are also obtained for each
interval. Since that, it is found appropriate, to split the layer of soil into 20 cm sublayers as shown
in Figure 2.3. The total settlement is given by summation of individual settlements of sublayers.
Here it is to be noted that total settlement corresponds to only primary settlement (in case of clays),
but does not include immediate and secondary consolidation.
The total settlement is given by,
v (z)
S= (2.7)
MDMT
Figure 2.3 Determination of one sublayer settlement (Hayes 1990)
11
The MDMT value is to be checked whether it is appropriate or not for the stress, induced by applied
load. Generally in highly over consolidated (HOC) soils value of MDMT is adequate, if stress from
applied load does not cross beyond the pre consolidation pressure (Pc). There is no complication
for normally consolidated (NC) soils. But in lightly over consolidated (LOC) soils there is
probability of induced stress to cross the pre consolidation pressure. Then value of MDMT misleads
because of increased stress over pre consolidation pressure (Pc).
If layers of LOC are found below the structure, then MDMT values are to be revised such that it is
to give higher compressibility for stresses more than pre consolidation pressure. Schmertmann
(1986) has proposed a Special method in which modulus number (m) relationship is used which
is given by Jambu (1985) to revise the values of MDMT in LOC soils.
If we use values of MDMT directly without any modification, then that is called as Ordinary
method. In this MDMT does not vary with the stresses in the soil. These two methods are described
briefly in the following steps.
Ordinary method (Marchetti, 1980):
i. Conduct a DMT sounding test in the soil up to the interested depth to find the DMT
parameters. Values of M are to be determined at every test depth.
ii. Split the soil strata into sublayers of same thickness and stiffness.
iii. For each layer average M values are to be calculated.
iv. Incremental in vertical stress due to applied structural load at mid height of each
layer is to be found. Any appropriate method can be used to find increase in stress.
Generally boussinesq equation is used to find .
v. 1-D settlement of each layer is determined as follows.

increase in stress x sublayer thickness v (z)
vi. Settlement = = (2.8)
constraint modulus MDMT
vii. Total settlement is determined by adding all the sublayer settlements obtained from step
(vi)
12
Special method (Schmertmann, 1986):
i. In this method first, initial effective overburden pressure (0) at middle of each layer is to
be determined.
ii. As in the first four steps of ordinary method, M and are to be calculated.
iii. Average pre consolidation (Pc) over depth of each layer is to be determined.
iv. Depending upon the values of Pc and (0+ ) one of the following three cases will be
carried out.
a) If it is found that total compression is virgin compression (NC soils), M is used
which is determined directly from the DMT.
b) If it is total recompression (OC soils), use same M as that of NC soils.
c) If some part of it is recompression and some part of it is virgin compression M
value which is obtained from DMT is to be revised by using M vs v graphs
according to Schmertmann procedure.
v. Then settlement calculation is carried out.
Based on observations and studies Schmertmann came to a conclusion that MDMT has given
adequate results without any adjustments.
13
2.2.2 DMT measured Vs Observed settlements
There are, some case studies of comparisons between DMT measured and Observed settlements
by different authors recorded in chronological order.
Schmertmann (1986) did comparison studies at some places in North America which are shown
in Table 2.3.
Table 2.3 Comparisons between DMT and Observed settlement (Schmertmann, 1986)
Compressible soil Settlement (mm) Ratio
No. Location structure DMT measured

1 Tampa Bridge pier HOC clay *25 15 1.67
2 Jacksonville Power plant Compacted sand *15 14 1.07
3 Lynn haven Factory Peaty sand 188 185 1.02
4 British Columbia Test embankment Peaty organic sand 2030 2850 0.71
5a Fredericton Surcharge 3 plate Sand *11 15 0.73

building
b ,, Sand *22 28 0.79
c ,, Quick clay silt *78 35 2.23
6a Ontario Road embankment Peat *300 275 1.09

building
b ,, Peat *262 270 0.97
7 Miami 4 plate Peat 93 71 1.31
8a Peter- borough Apt. building factory Sand &silt *58 48 1.21
b ,, Sand &silt *20 17 1.18
9 ,, Water tank Silty clay *30 31 0.97
10 a Linkoping 2*3 m plate Silty sand *9 6.7 1.34
b ,, 1.1*1.3 m plate Silty sand *4 3 1.33
11 Sunne House Silt &sand *10 8 1.25
Where, star * indicates M value from Ordinary method.
14
In this table there are sixteen examples in which settlements are calculated by DMT (rapid
determination of foundation settlements). From this table it found that average value of ratio of
theoretical to observed settlement equal to 1.18. These areas are containing different type of soils
such as sand, clays, silts and organic soils. Settlement values are varying from 4 mm to 2850 mm.
These settlements were calculated from Ordinary method as well as Special method.
Lacasse & Lunne (1986) has done comparisons between constrained moduli measured from DMT
and moduli back calculated from observed settlements (Figure 2.4) which are determined from
CPT and Screw Plate test in Drammen sand (Norway), in the soil deposit of medium to coarse
loose sand of 40 m depth.
Figure 2.4 DMT moduli Vs Moduli Back calculated from other methods
(Monaco et al., 2006)
Hayes (1990) used some additional data points in addition to the data points obtained by
Schemertmann (1990) in Table 2.3, has shown comparisons in Figure 2.5 which give good
agreement between DMT settlements and Observed settlements.
15
Figure 2.5 Observed vs DMT calculated settlements (Hayes, 1990)
Dumas (1992) has compared and shown good agreement between settlements calculated by DMT
and settlement calculated by Pressurermeter (PMT) in a silty sandy soils in Quebec, Canada. Here
he noticed that time taken for PMT is around four times to that of DMT. Similar types of
comparisons were done by other authors Sawada & Sugawara (1995). They observed that Self-
boring Pressuremeter (SBPM) is good to estimate soil parameters, but it is more time taking and
costly. Schnaid et al. (2000) has compared soil parameters from DMT and SBPM in a granite
saprolite (Kowloon Bay, Hong Kong). He noticed that parameters obtained from the DMT were
reliable.
Woodward & McIntosh (1993) predicted the settlements for the 4-storey steel framed office
building in Jacksonville, Florida by DMT and considered acceptable. Use of the DMT in this site
enabled structure to be built on a conventional shallow foundation, reducing the cost and avoiding
soil improvement techniques.
Skiles & Townsend (1994) reported good agreement between settlements predicted by the DMT
and 11 load tests conducted in a controlled test pit filled with uniformly graded subangular sand.
Tests were conducted for different densities of sand at four different times. Square footings of four
different sizes are used and full load settlement curves were plotted. Settlements calculated by
DMT were in good agreement with measured settlements for working load conditions. Average
ratio of DMT calculated to measured settlements was 1.87. The predictions were more
conservative for low sand density and small size footings.
16
Didaskalou (1999) reported that the maximum settlement given by the DMT calculations for the
Hyatt Regency Hotel in Thessaloniki (Greece), supporting on shallow foundation on highly
compressible silt was 105 mm, while observed settlement was nearly 120 mm (probably including
some secondary settlement).
Failmezger et al. (1999) presents 5 case studies of comparisons between settlements calculated
by DMT and observed settlement. At Route 460 Bypass, Blacksburg, Virginia, settlement
calculated by SPT was 100 mm, whereas DMT calculated is 27 mm (confirmed by oedometer),
leading to change in design and reduction in cost. Sometimes SPT over predicts the settlements.
Pelnik et al. (1999) presented that, comparisons between CPTU and DMT settlement calculations
in the sedimentary soils in the Atlantic coastal Plain region of Virginia. The DMT is considered as
Excellent for estimating the settlements in sands and soft clays. Also this paper presents that
good agreement between MDMT and Oedometer moduli at Hoskins Creek (New Bridge at US Route
17), a very soft NC soil profile.
Marchetti et al. (2004) presented the comparisons between DMT calculated and observed
settlements under a full-scale instrumented test embankment (40 m diameter, 6.7 m height, applied
load 104 kPa) at the research site of Treporti (Venice, Italy). Soil profile consisting of stratified
silts or silty clays and sands. MDMT is highly variable in this soil, from 5 MPa in soft clay layers to
150 MPa in in sand layers. Observed settlement at the end of the construction was 36 cm, in which
secondary settlement is also included (occurred essentially in drained conditions, as indicated by
zero excess pore pressure measured by piezometer). Settlement predicted by DMT was 29 cm
(only primary consolidation) i.e. 20% less than original settlement in which secondary
consolidation is also included. Figure 2.6 shows the graph of DMT predicted and observed
settlements during and after the construction process with respect to time.
17
Figure 2.6 comparison of settlements under the Treporti test embankment (Marchetti et. Al
1990)
2.3 Applicability of Marchetti, 1980 correlations to find the soil

properties
2.3.1 Marchetti, 1980
Prof. Silvano Marchetti invented Flat Dilatometer, in 1975 in Italy. Marchetti, S. 1980 is the first
literature on flat dilatometer test to be published. This paper describes the flat dilatometer test to
investigate the soil properties. He established correlations (see Table 2.2) to find the important soil
properties based on DMT performed at over 40 selected sites reasonably homogeneous in Italy.
While establishing the correlations for clays, data relative to sensitive clays has not been
considered.
K0 versus KD
The correlation in Figure 2.7 is based mostly on data reletive to uncemented clays and given by
K0 = (KD/1.5)0.47 0.6 (2.9)
This correlation is not relevant for clays that have experienced aging, thixotropic hardening,
cementation, etc.
18
Figure 2.7 Correlation between K0 and KD
OCR versus KD
It is observed a marked similarity between OCR and KD profiles and the correlation OCR versus
KD has been investigated (Figure 2.8), which is fairly well defined by the expression
OCR= (0.5 KD)1.56 (2.10)
This relation is applicable only in the clays and is not relevant with the deposits which have
experienced a complex stress history (so that the horizontal stresses are not those corresponding
to simple unloading) and cemented clays.
19
Figure 2.8 Correlation between OCR and KD
2.3.2 Powell & Uglow (1988)

Initially, Powell and Uglow have done dilatometer at sites, Stiff London clay site at Canons Park
and soft alluvial clay at Grangemouth, Scotland. DMT estimated values of OCR and K0 are
compared with OCR values obtained from oedometer tests, K0 values obtained from spade cells &
self-boring pressuremeter tests. They found that the DMT estimated values of OCR and K0 using
Marchetti correlations were underestimated at London site and overestimated at Grangemouth site.
It was observed that Marchetti correlations are not correct to convert the DMT data to soil
properties for UK clays. Again dilatometer tests were done in clays at different sites in the UK and
were found that DMT estimated soil properties were wrong and new correlations were proposed
to make the DMT more applicable to UK clays.
K0 = 0.34 KD0.55 (2.11)

and
OCR = 0.24 KD1.32 (2.12)
20
2.3.2 Kamei & Iwasaki (1995)
Kamei, T. & Iwasaki, K. (1995) proposed a modification in Marchettis equations concerning the
evaluation of undrained shear strength for clays in Japan based on the limited available dilatometer
test data. A new relationship between OCR and KD is proposed which is similar to Marchettis
correlation (equation 2.10),
OCR = 0.34 KD1.43 (2.13)
Using the relationship (2.13), Kamei, T. & Iwasaki, K. (1995) proposed a modified Marchettis
relation to find the undrained shear strength as,
cu = 0.35v (0.47KD) 1.14 (2.14)
Where (cu/ v) N.C = 0.35 as per Japanese design manual.
2.3.3 Kouretzis et al. (2015)

This presents a study on the amplification of horizontal soil stresses during flat dilatometer blade
penetration based on three-dimensional total and effective stress numerical analyses using large
deformation finite element model in Abaqus. Numerical analyses were done for saturated estuarine
clays at New South Wales (Australia) and two new expressions were proposed to estimate OCR
and K0 from flat dilatometer tests in estuarine clays.
OCR = 0.58 exp(0.23KD) (2.15)
and
K0 = 0.36 exp(0.11KD) (2.16)
2.4 DMT-CPT Correlations

Mayne and Liao (2002) developed an equivalent method for the CPT to obtain constrained moduli
for use in the same procedure as the DMT to calculate shallow foundation settlements within the
Piedmont residual soils, consists of clayey silts, residual silty sands and sandy silts derived from
the old gneiss, schist and granite. In this method two correlations are proposed based on
compilation of three sets of CPT-DMT data, between DMT modulus (ED) and CPT tip resistance
(qt), DMT material index (ID) and Normalized CPT friction ratio (Fr%).
21
Figure 2.9 Relationship between the DMT Elastic Modulus and CPT Tip Stress in
Piedmont Soils (Mayne 2002)
Figure 2.10 Relationship between DMT material index and CPT friction ratio in Piedmont
residuum (Mayne 2002)
22
From above Figure 2.9 and Figure 2.10, following expressions are derived to convert CPT data to
equivalent DMT indices.
Dilatometer Modulus, ED = 5 qt (2.17)

Material Index, ID = 2.0 - 0.14 (Fr) (2.18)
Where, qt = cone tip resistance corrected for pore pressure
Fr (%) = (fs/(qt - v0)) x 100, Normalized CPT friction ratio in percentage (%)
Now DMT horizontal stress index (KD) can be found out from the following formula

= (2.19)
34.7
Constrained modulus is obtained by,
M = RM ED (2.20)
Where RM is function of (ID, KD) as given by (Marchetti 1980, TC16 (2001)).

CPT evaluated M and DMT Modulus MD are compared (Figure 2.11) and are in good agreement
Figure 2.11 Validation of CPT Method for Evaluating DMT Constrained Modulus in
Piedmont Soils (Mayne 2002)
23
Robertson (2009) developed following correlation based on published records from adjacent
DMT-CPT profiles.
Ic = 2.5 1.5 log ID (2.21)

Or
ID = 10(1.67-0.67Ic) (2.22)
Where,
Ic = Soil behavior type index (SBT index) = [(3.47- log Qt1)2 + (log Fr + 1.22)2]0.5
(Robertson and Wride 1998)
Qt1 = Normalized cone tip resistance
The CPT based SBT index can be used to represent the boundaries between different soil types.
Clays Ic > 2.95
Silt mixtures 2.05 < Ic < 2.95
Sands Ic < 2.05
In general terms, the CPT SBT index can vary from 1 to 4.
Robertson (2009) also developed two more correlations using existing correlations of OCR, KD
and Qt1.
KD = 0.3(Qt1)0.95 + 1.05 when Ic > 2.6 (2.23)
and ED/v = 5 Qt1 (2.24)
2.5 Advantages of Flat dilatometer test over other tests

Failmezger & Bullock (2011) describes briefly the advantages of the Flat dilatometer test over
other tests.
Oedometer
This is a laboratory test, time consuming and is generally done at a depth intervals of 3 m.
disturbance of soil during sampling and handling may reduce the accuracy of results.
24
Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
Mainly this test is dynamic penetration test which in turn strains the soil to the failure. To determine
the soil deformation modulus from the SPT N-value requires extrapolation from a failure strain to
an intermediate strain. N-value correlations for the static deformation modulus are very poor or
sometimes invalid. Generally it is inaccurate to predict the settlements.
Cone penetrometer tests (CPT)

Like the SPT, soil is strained up to the failure. So moduli obtained are not accurate to calculate
settlements. It is must to extrapolate to a deformation modulus at an intermediate strain level.
Distortions in soil caused by CPT and SPT are very high compared to DMT, demonstrated in
Figure 2.12 below.
Figure 2.12 Comparison of distortion in soil during penetration (Baligh & Scott, 1975)
Dilatometer test (DMT)

The dilatometer is a static deformation test that strains the soil to intermediate strains. It is also a
good predictor of settlement. Tests are generally performed at depth intervals of 0.20 m. Tests
typically take about 1 minute to perform and there is sufficient data for risk assessment of
settlement with DMT. The dilatometer test is therefore the best choice of in-situ tests for settlement
prediction of shallow foundations.
25
2.6 Research goal
As seen in the literature review section, there is no study on the effect of installation induced
softening on the horizontal stress index (KD) of DMT. Also, as mentioned by many researchers,
most of the DMT correlations proposed in the literature are case specific and vary location to
location. The present study tries to address some of these and the specific objectives are:
- To develop a numerical model of flat dilatometer test in clay, based on cavity expansion
principle.
- To quantify the effect of soil softening (due to the dilatometer penetration) in sensitive
clays on DMT evaluated soil parameters
- To propose a relationship of horizontal stress index (KD) as a function of overconsolidation
ratio.
- Check for the applicability of the Marchetti proposed correlation to find the undrained
shear strength for a construction site located at Puthuvype, Cochin in Kerala, India by
conducting few dilatometer and cone penetration tests.
26
Chapter 3
NUMERICAL EVALUATION OF THE EFFECT OF
STRAIN SOFTENING DUE TO DILATOMETER
PENETRATION ON HORIZONTAL STRESS INDEX (KD)
3.1 Methodology
The penetration of the dilatometer causes a horizontal displacement of the soil elements originally
on the vertical axis by 7.5 mm (half thickness of the dilatometer) as shown in Figure 3.1.
Figure 3.1 Movement of soil during dilatometer (half thickness) penetration (Marchetti,
1980)
A possible way of analysing the penetration process is to model it as the expansion of a flat cavity
(Marchetti, 1980), tractable as the enforcement of two vertical rigid strips into the soil (Figure 3.2
a). Such analysis would result into amplification of the horizontal soil pressure against the cavity
27
edge as it is being expanded, which can simulate the penetration process of the dilatometer into
the soil.
(a) (b)
Figure 3.2 Modelling of Dilatometer penetration as Expansion of Flat

Cavity (Marchetti, 1980)
3.2 Finite element model

This study presents the effect of strain softening due to the dilatometer penetration in soil on
horizontal stress index (KD, a DMT soil parameter).The dilatometer installation is modelled as a
plane strain problem with no strain in the vertical direction. Only the penetration of the dilatometer
is modelled here, but not the expansion of membrane. Considering one analysis, a horizontal soil
layer at a particular depth is modelled as a 2-D problem using the commercial finite element
software ABAQUS (Dassault Systmes, 2013). Flat cavity expansion is adopted to simulate the
penetration of dilatometer in soil.
3.2.1 Analysis details (boundary conditions, mesh and material model)

All analyses were performed using 2-D plane strain model as shown Figure 3.3. Size of the initial
flat cavity is 94 mm x 0.5 mm which indicates length and breadth of initial rectangle flat cavity
(length is along X-direction and breadth is along Y-direction). To avoid the influence of the
boundary effect, all boundaries of the model are selected as 100 times the major dimension of
initial flat cavity (size of the model is 9.4 m x 9.4 m). There are two steps in the analysis which
28
are Geostatic and flat cavity expansion. As the model represents the horizontal soil layer at a
particular depth, all boundaries were given effective horizontal pressure, calculated for that
particular depth. This horizontal pressure is given in Geostatic step to simulate the at rest
horizontal soil pressure before dilatometer is penetrated into soil. Two minor sides of flat cavity
were restrained in X-direction whereas two major sides of flat cavity were given displacement of
7.5 mm each in Y- direction opposite to each other in flat cavity expansion step so that it makes
a cavity of size 94 mm x 15 mm which equals to horizontal cross section of the dilatometer as
shown in Figure 3.2 (b). This simulates the penetration process of dilatometer which will result
into amplification of horizontal soil pressure against major sides of flat cavity which act as sides
of dilatometer blade.
Meshing of the model is developed by 8 nodded 2-D plane strain element with reduced integration
(CPE8R of the Abaqus Standard Library). The optimized mesh density was established by giving
fine mesh around the cavity and coarser mesh towards the boundaries which would minimize the
discretization errors. Minimum side dimension of mesh element is adopted as 0.25 times breadth
of initial flat cavity near the edges flat cavity.
Figure 3.3 FEM mesh and boundary conditions of flat cavity expansion model
29
All analyses presented in this section, were performed using simple elastic perfectly plastic tresca
soil model to model undrained behaviour of soil. To ensure this undrained behavior, a Poissons
ratio of 0.49 is considered. The youngs modulus of soil (E) was assumed to be 700Su for all
analyses. As the analysis is done for a particular depth, a uniform Su is considered for that
horizontal soil layer. A series of analyses was performed for different depths with linearly
increasing shear strength profile.
3.2.2 Strain softening

The objective of present chapter is to account the effect of strain softening on undrained shear
strength due to dilatometer penetration in normally consolidated (NC) clays and to find how the
KD value is affected in normally consolidated (NC) clays with different sensitivity values. To
capture that effect following equation 3.1 (Einav & Randolph, 2005) is used with the help of
FORTRAN subroutine. FORTRAN subroutine is written such that it is called repeatedly at each
increment of analysis to account for a reduction in shear strength due to strain softening.

= rem + (1- rem)exp(-3 / 95) (3.1)

Where and are the softened strength and initial strength, respectively.
rem = fully remolded strength ratio (inverse of sensitivity)
= accumulated absolute plastic shear strain at the Gauss point
95 = cumulative shear strain required to cause 95% shear strength reduction (from peak to
remolded) with typical range of values 1050 (10005000%). All analyses were performed in this
study with 95 =10.
3.3 Parametric study

Different input parameters which were used for all numerical analyses are shown Table 3.1.
Undrained shear strength of normally consolidated (NC) clays for different depths were calculated
by using the (su/v0)N.C = 0.22 suggested by Mesri, 1989. The soil rigidity (E/su) was assumed as
700 for all analyses. For each depth, corresponding effective horizontal soil pressure is calculated
while assuming K0 = 0.6 for NC clays.
h0 = Ko( v0) (3.2)
30
A series of analyses was performed using the FE model shown in Figure 3.3 at every depth (up to
15m) with 1 m interval by taking sensitivity value 1 and KD was calculated from the each analysis
using the equation 3.3 (Marchetti, 1980)
P0 - u0
KD = (3.3)
v0
Where,
(P0 - u0) = Effective horizontal soil pressure acting on the centre of the dilatometer membrane just
after penetration in to the soil before inflation of membrane. It was calculated as the average
horizontal stress along the flat cavity major edge after cavity expansion in present numerical
analyses.
u0 = In-situ Pore water pressure before penetration of the dilatometer
In general, for NC clays (no aging, no structure, no cementation and insensitive) KD is almost
constant with depth and it nearly equals to 2 (KD, NC 2) (Marchetti, 1980 & Pineda et al., 2014).
For the case of sensitivity 1 (insensitive), KD value obtained from the numerical analyses is 2.03
for all the depths and is found to be constant with depth. This is in good agreement with the mean
empirical value KD, NC 2 reported in literature.
Table 3.1 Different input parameter for numerical analyses
Parameters values
(su/v0)N.C 0.22 (Mesri, 1989)
undrained shear strength Linearly increasing with depth
Depths 1, 5, 10, 15
soil rigidity (E/su) 700
Poisson's ratio () 0.49
Sensitivities (St) 1, 4, 6, 10 & 20
submerged unit weight of soil () 10
Ko 0.6
Effective horizontal earth pressure
(h0) K0( v0)
Same FE model (which was used for the case of sensitivity 1) was used to find the KD value for
different sensitivities at different depths mentioned in Table 3.1. Sensitivity of clay is defined as
the ratio of undisturbed strength and remoulded strength. Generally, value of the sensitivity varies
from about 1 to values of over 100 (prevails in quick clays). Based on sensitivity to remoulding,
31
clays can be classified and is shown in Table 3.2. In the present study, maximum value of
sensitivity is taken 20 and effect of soil softening on horizontal stress index (KD) due to dilatometer
installation is quantified for variety of sensitive clays mentioned in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2 Classification of clays based on sensitivity (Skemption & Northey, 1952)
St = 1 insensitive clays
St = 1 to 2 clays of low sensitivity
St = 2 to 4 clays of medium sensitivity
St = 4 to 8 sensitive clays
St > 8 extra sensitive clays
St >16 quick-clays
3.4 Results from numerical analysis

Results of numerical analyses are presented in Table 3.3. Results have shown that the KD value is
decreasing as the sensitivity of clay increases. But it was observed to be very less decrement in KD
value. Even for high sensitivity value of 20, decrement in KD value is very low (around 6%) (Figure
3.4) which does not make any considerable difference in soil parameter values which are found
from DMT correlations given by Marchetti, 1980 for insensitive soils. Soil softening was observed
only at the edges of the flat cavity due to accumulation plastic strains only at the edges (Figures
3.6 & 3.7). It was also observed that KD value is constant with depth even in sensitive soils. There
is no effect of sensitivity found on KD even with depth.
Table 3.3 Horizontal stress index (KD) values obtained from numerical analysis
Sensitivity
Depth (m) 1 4 6 10 20
1 2.03 1.94 1.922 1.917 1.908

5 2.03 1.94 1.922 1.917 1.908
10 2.03 1.94 1.922 1.917 1.908
15 2.03 1.94 1.922 1.917 1.908
32
2.1
2
Horizontal stress index (KD)
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
Sensitivity (St)
Figure 3.4 Effect of sensitivity on Horizontal stress index (KD)
Figure 3.5 Deformation pattern of soil due to flat expansion
33
34
Figure 3.6 Soil softening due to flat cavity expansion (at depth = 1m)
Figure 3.7 Concentration of plastic strains due to flat cavity expansion for sensitivity = 4
(at depth = 1m)

3.5 Discussion
In this chapter, this numerical study focused on quantifying the effect of sensitivity (soil softening)
on horizontal stress index (KD) due to dilatometer penetration in to soil. It was found that KD is
much less sensitive to soil softening which can be taken as extra advantage of Flat dilatometer test.
The reasons (why KD is less sensitive to the soil softening) can be explained from the flow
mechanism of soil in numerical analyses and are as follows,
- Main advantage of dilatometer is its shape. It is a flat blade having less thickness and when
it is penetrating, soil is moving in horizontal direction as a block without getting much
disturbance (see the Figure 3.5)
- During the penetration of dilatometer there is a concentration of plastic shear strain near
the edges of the blade (Figure 3.7), so that the volume of soil facing the membrane
undergoes a smaller shear strain than other areas. Because of accumulation of plastic shear
strains, soil is getting softened only near the edges of the blade (Figure 3.6), but not near
the face of the dilatometer blade (near the membrane) against which dilatometer pressure
reading P0. So, it is observed that, DMT parameter horizontal stress index (KD) will not be
affected much by the soil softening due to penetration.
From the above study, it can be suggested that Marchetti correlations (to find out soil properties)
can be used also for sensitive clays.
35
Chapter 4
NUMERICAL EVALUATION OF THE EFFECT OF OCR
ON HORIZONTAL STRESS INDEX (KD)
4.1 Objective
This chapter investigates parametrically the effect of OCR on the horizontal stress index KD as if
undrained shear strength varies according to equation (4.1) (Mayne, 1988) and K0 varies according
to equation (4.2) (Ladd et al., 1977) both of which are applicable for natural clays. For this purpose,
additional analyses were performed considering OCR values, calculated by giving artificial
surcharge.

( )O.C= ( )N.C x OCR0.8 (4.1)
v0 v0
K0 = K0, N.C x OCR0.5 (4.2)
4.2 Numerical model

All analyses were performed using the same flat expansion approach with the same 2-D plane
strain model as shown Figure 3.3. Mesh, boundary conditions and material model were the same
as those mentioned in Section 3.2.1. Different input parameters which were used for all numerical
analyses and their calculations are shown Tables 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 & 4.4.
All analyses were performed for three different cases of over consolidated clays assuming that clay
was given three artificial surcharges 50 kPa, 100 kPa and 150 kPa in the past. It was assumed that
surcharge is over a large area in all three cases such that increment in stress due to surcharge was
uniform throughout the depth. OCR was calculated as highest stress experienced divided by
current stress (Tables 4.2, 4.3 & 4.4). Undrained shear strength of over consolidated (OC) clays
for different depths were calculated by using the Equation 4.1. The variation of OCR and undrained
shear strength with depth are shown Figures 4.1 & 4.2 for all three cases of over consoldation. The
soil rigidity (E/su) was assumed as 700 for all analyses. For each depth, corresponding effective
36
horizontal soil pressure is calculated while assuming K0 is obtained from Equation 4.2. K0, N.C was
assumed as 0.6.
Table 4.1 Different input parameter for numerical analyses
Parameters values
(su/v0)N.C 0.22 (Mesri 1989)
undrained shear strength Linearly increasing with depth
Depths 1 to 15m
soil rigidity (E/su) 700
Poisson's ratio () 0.49
submerged unit weight of soil () 10
K0, N.C 0.6
Effective horizontal earth pressure
(h0) K0, O.C( v0)
Table 4.2 Calculations of different input parameters (@ surcharge = 50 kPa)

( )O.C=

Z v0 v0max
OCR= ( )N.C x OCR0.8 su E K0, O.C h0

2
m kPa kPa kN/m kPa kPa
0 0 50
1 10 60 6 0.948118 9.481182 6636.827 1.469694 14.69694
2 20 70 3.5 0.616022 12.32043 8624.302 1.122497 22.44994
3 30 80 2.666667 0.495583 14.86749 10407.24 0.979796 29.39388
4 40 90 2.25 0.432601 17.30404 12112.83 0.9 36
5 50 100 2 0.3937 19.685 13779.5 0.848528 42.42641
6 60 110 1.833333 0.367227 22.03362 15423.53 0.812404 48.74423
7 70 120 1.714286 0.348023 24.36161 17053.13 0.785584 54.99091
8 80 130 1.625 0.333445 26.6756 18672.92 0.764853 61.18823
9 90 140 1.555556 0.321996 28.9796 20285.72 0.748331 67.34983
10 100 150 1.5 0.312762 31.27624 21893.36 0.734847 73.48469
11 110 160 1.454545 0.305157 33.56727 23497.09 0.723627 79.59899
12 120 170 1.416667 0.298783 35.85394 25097.76 0.714143 85.69714
13 130 180 1.384615 0.293363 38.13714 26696 0.706018 91.78235
14 140 190 1.357143 0.288697 40.41755 28292.28 0.698979 97.85704
15 150 200 1.333333 0.284638 42.69566 29886.96 0.69282 103.923
37

( )O.C=

Z v0 v0max

2
m kPa kPa kN/m kPa kPa
0 0 100 ---- ---- ------
1 10 110 11 1.539769 15.39769 10778.38 1.989975 19.89975
2 20 120 6 0.948118 18.96236 13273.65 1.469694 29.39388
3 30 130 4.333333 0.730801 21.92403 15346.82 1.249 37.46999
4 40 140 3.5 0.616022 24.64086 17248.6 1.122497 44.89989
5 50 150 3 0.544551 27.22754 19059.28 1.03923 51.96152
6 60 160 2.666667 0.495583 29.73498 20814.49 0.979796 58.78775
7 70 170 2.428571 0.459856 32.18994 22532.96 0.935032 65.45227
8 80 180 2.25 0.432601 34.60808 24225.65 0.9 72
9 90 190 2.111111 0.411103 36.99924 25899.47 0.87178 78.46018
10 100 200 2 0.3937 39.37 27559 0.848528 84.85281
11 110 210 1.909091 0.379317 41.72491 29207.44 0.829019 91.1921
12 120 220 1.833333 0.367227 44.06724 30847.07 0.812404 97.48846
13 130 230 1.769231 0.356918 46.3994 32479.58 0.798075 103.7497
14 140 240 1.714286 0.348023 48.72323 34106.26 0.785584 109.9818
15 150 250 1.666667 0.340267 51.04012 35728.09 0.774597 116.1895

( )O.C=

Z v0 v0max

m kPa kPa kN/m2 kPa kPa
0 0 150 ------
1 10 160 16 2.077961 20.77961 14545.73 2.4 24
2 20 170 8.5 1.252785 25.0557 17538.99 1.749286 34.98571
3 30 180 6 0.948118 28.44354 19910.48 1.469694 44.09082
4 40 190 4.75 0.786496 31.45983 22021.88 1.30767 52.30679
5 50 200 4 0.685472 34.27358 23991.51 1.2 60
6 60 210 3.5 0.616022 36.96129 25872.9 1.122497 67.34983
7 70 220 3.142857 0.565199 39.56391 27694.74 1.063686 74.45804
8 80 230 2.875 0.526322 42.10578 29474.05 1.017349 81.38796
9 90 240 2.666667 0.495583 44.60248 31221.73 0.979796 88.18163
10 100 250 2.5 0.470645 47.0645 32945.15 0.948683 94.86833
11 110 260 2.363636 0.449993 49.49926 34649.48 0.922447 101.4692
12 120 270 2.25 0.432601 51.91212 36338.48 0.9 108
13 130 280 2.153846 0.417747 54.30709 38014.97 0.880559 114.4727
14 140 290 2.071429 0.404909 56.68726 39681.08 0.863548 120.8967
15 150 300 2 0.3937 59.05501 41338.5 0.848528 127.2792
38
OCR
0 5 10 15 20
0
6
Depth (m)
10
12 @ surcharhe = 150 kPa

@ surcharhe = 50 kPa
16
Figure 4.1 Variation of OCR with depth
Undrained shear strength (su)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
4
6
Depth (m)
10
12
14
16
Figure 4.2 Variation su with depth
4.3 Results from numerical analyses and Discussion

All analyses were performed using the FE model shown in Figure 3.3 at every depth (up to 15m)
with 1 m interval for all three cases of overconsolidated clays and KD was calculated from the each
analysis using the Equation (Marchetti 1980) and are shown in Table 4.5. It was observed that the
KD profile is similar in shape to the OCR profile (Figure 4.3).
39
Table 4.5 Horizontal stress index (KD) values obtained from numerical analysis for three
cases of overconsolidated clays
KD, O.C KD, O.C KD, O.C

Depth (m) @ surcharge = 50 kPa) @ surcharge = 100 kPa) @ surcharge = 150 kPa)
1 7.48 11.7 15.6
2 5.12 7.48 9.69
3 4.12 5.88 7.48
4 3.68 5.03 6.29
5 3.34 4.49 5.54
6 3.14 4.12 5.025
7 2.99 3.849 4.65
8 2.88 3.64 4.35
9 2.79 3.47 4.12
10 2.72 3.34 3.93
11 2.65 3.232 3.77
12 2.59 3.13 3.64
13 2.56 3.05 3.527
14 2.52 2.99 3.429
15 2.49 2.93 3.34
KD, O.C
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
0
6
Depth (m)
@ surcharge = 100 kPa

10
12
14
16
Figure 4.3 KD profile with depth obtained from numerical analyses
40
Here, an attempt is made to correlate the input OCR values with the calculated KD. Results of these
analyses are compared against published correlations and field measurements (Marchetti, 1980;
Lacasse & Lunne, 1988; Powell & Uglow, 1988; Kouretzis, 2015; Kamei & Iwasaki, 1995) in
Figure 4.4. KDOCR combinations of present study appear compatible with the expression
proposed by Kamei & Iwasaki, 1995 for Japan clays (OCR= 0225(KD)167). For low OCR values,
the results appear to be considerable match with Marchettis interpretation.
Similar attempt is made to correlate the input K0 values with the calculated KD. These results are
also compared against published correlations (Marchetti, 1980; Lacasse & Lunne, 1988; Powell &
Uglow, 1988; Kouretzis et al., 2015) in Figure 4.5. The results appear in good agreement with the
Marchettis expression.
In present study, Curve fitting of the numerical results resulted in new expressions to estimate
OCR and K0 from KD for natural clays
OCR= 038(KD)136 (4.3)
and Ko= 037(KD) 068 (4.4)
18
16
14
12
10
OCR
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
KD
Figure 4.4 Comparison of numerically obtained KDOCR values with empirical

expressions and field data available in the literature
41
2.2
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
K0
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
KD
Figure 4.5 Comparison of numerically obtained KDK0 values with empirical expressions
and field data available in the literature
42
Chapter 5
FIELD TESTS USING DMT AND CPT
5.1 Introduction
Flat Dilatometer tests and Cone penetration tests were carried out side by side at 3 locations at one
construction site Puthuvype, Cochin, Kerala, India. This chapter presents an equivalent method
which has been developed for the CPT to obtain constrained moduli for use in the same procedure
to calculate settlements in clays as that of DMT. This method is used only for the clays within the
Puthuvype site. As a part of the method developed, two new site specific DMT-CPT correlations
are proposed. It also describes the applicability of correlations given by Marchetti, 1980 to find
the soil parameters for the site mentioned.
5.2 Site description

The site is located near the Puthuvypeen beach at Puthuvype, Cochin, Kerala, India (see Figure
5.1). DMT-CPT were conducted side by side with 1m apart at three different locations in the site
up to a depth of 20 m from the ground level. The soil tested is divided in to 3 layers based on the
results from the tests done.
5.2.1 CPT data

Results from the CPT have shown that, geology of the site is comprised of silty sand for top 3 m
with Cone resistance (qc) = 4 MPa to 11 MPa & friction ratio (Rf) <1 %, sandy silt from 3 m to 6
m with qc = 3 MPa to 7 MPa & Rf = 1 % to 4% and clay layer from 6 m to 20 m with qc < 0.45 MPa
& Rf = 2 % to 5%. Classification of soil in the site (Figure 5.2(b)) was done by using the chart
given by Robertson, P. K. 1986 (Figure 5.3) and the data obtained from the Cone penetration tests
done. Figure 5.2(a) shows the profile of cone resistance (qc), sleeve friction (fs) and friction ratio
(Rf in %) with depth at test point 1. Similar profiles are obtained at other two test points which are
not shown in figure.
43
Figure 5.1 Site map (Puthuvype, Cochin)
44
(a) (b)
Figure 5.2 (a) CPT data recorded at Test point 1; (b) Classification of soil at site from all CPT data
45
Figure 5.3 Simplified soil type classification for standard electric friction cone (Robertson,
1986)
5.2.2 DMT data

Dilatometer test setup is shown in Figure 5.4. DMT data also has shown same classification of soil
as that of CPT data. The upper layer of 3m, all three dilatometer tests have given Material index
(ID) values more than 1.8, which represents silty sand and sand layers and ID value was found to
be in the range of 1.2 to 1.8 from 3m to 6m depth from all tests which represents sandy silt. From
6m to 20m depth, ID was found to be less than 0.35 which represents soft clay. Horizontal stress
index varying highly at top 6 m, below which its value was found to be around 2. Clay can be
characterized as normally consolidated clay. Constrained modulus of clay, determined here is very
low, which corresponds it is of very soft clay. Figure 5.5 shows the profile of material index,
constrained modulus, undrained shear strength and horizontal stress index with depth obtained
from DMT at site
Figure 5.4 Dilatometer test setup at site
46
(a) Test point 1
(b) Test point 2
(c) Test point 3
Figure 5.5 DMT results at Puthuvype site
47
5.3 Equivalent CPT Method for Calculating Shallow Foundation
Settlements Based on the DMT Constrained Modulus Approach (only
for clays at Puthuvype site, Cochin)
By using the data from three sets of DMT-CPT which were done in Puthuvype site, Cochin, an
equivalent method has been developed for the CPT to obtain constrained moduli for use in the
same procedure to calculate settlements as that of DMT. This method can be used only for clay
within the Puthuvype site, Cochin in Kerala. In this method two new site specific DMT-CPT
correlations are proposed. This method is developed based on Mayne, P. W. (2002) method which
was developed for Piedmont soils. Explanation of the method is given below.
Three sets of CPT-DMT data have been compiled to derive new site specific CPT-DMT
correlations. DMT modulus (ED) obtained from dilatometer tests are cross compared with values
of corrected cone tip resistance (qt) for pore pressure at respective location and depths (Figure 5.6).
Same type cross comparison is done between DMT material index and Normalized CPT friction
ratio both of which are related to type of soil (Figure 5.7).
3.5 y = 3.5365x
DMT elastic modulus, ED (MPa)
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
CPT tip resistance, qt (MPa)
Figure 5.6 Relationship between the DMT Elastic Modulus and CPT tip resistance
(Puthuvype site, Cochin clays)
48
0.2
0.18
DMT material index, ID 0.16

0.14
0.12
0.1 y = -0.0009x + 0.1684
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Normalized CPT friction ratio, Fr (%)
Figure 5.7 Relationship between DMT material index and CPT friction ratio (Puthuvype
site, Cochin clays)
From above Figure 5.6 and Figure 5.7, following expressions are derived to convert CPT data to
equivalent DMT indices.
Dilatometer Modulus, ED = 3.5365qt (5.1)

Material Index, ID = 0.1684-0.0009 (Fr) (5.2)
Where, qt = Cone tip resistance, corrected for pore pressure = qc + (1-)u2

u2 = Pore pressure at shoulder of the cone; = Cone area ratio
Fr (%) = (fs/(qt - v0)) x 100, Normalized CPT friction ratio in percentage (%)
v0 = Total overburden pressure
Three dilatometer indices can be interrelated as shown in expression (5.3) below. Now DMT
horizontal stress index (KD) can be found out from expression (5.3) by using the values of ED, ID
which will be obtained from above two correlations 5.1 and 5.2.
ED
KD = (5.3)
34.7ID v
Constrained modulus is obtained by,

M = RM ED (5.4)
49
Where RM is function of (ID, KD) (see Table 5.1).
Table 5.1 Constrained Modulus Parameter (RM) for Settlement Calculations (Marchetti
1980, Marchetti, et al. 2001)
Conditions Relationship for RM = M'/ED Notes
ID < 0.6 RM = 0.14 + 2.36 log KD Clay soils
ID > 3 RM = 0.5 + 2 log KD Clean (quartz) Sands
0.6 < ID < 3 RM = RM,0 + (2.5 - RM,0) log KD Silts to silty Sands
where RM,0 = 0.14 + 0.15 (ID - 0.6)
KD > 10 RM = 0.32 + 2.18 log KD
RM < 0.85 RM = 0.85
The forward evaluation of M values from CPT data for Puthuvype site clays (using above
approach) are compared with DMT Modulus MD in following Figure 5.8 to validate proposed
approach.
4.5
4 y=x
DMT modulus, MD (MPa)
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
CPT- evaluated M (MPa)
Figure 5.8 Validation of CPT Method for Evaluating DMT Constrained Modulus
(Puthuvype site, Cochin clays)
50
5.4 Applicability of Marchetti correlation to calculate undrained
shear strength
This section compares the undrained shear strength values from different tests CPT, DMT, SPT
and UCS of the clays presented in the Puthvype construction site, there by checks the applicability
of the Marchetti correlation to calculate the undrained shear strength. su values were calculated
from DMT data by using,
su = 0.22 v0(0.5KD)1.25 (Machete, 1980) (5.5)
su values were calculated from CPT data by using,
su = qnet/Nkt (5.6)
Where,
Nkt = Cone factor and undrained shear strength cone factor (Nkt) for clays is assumed as 15.
qnet = (qt - v0), Net cone tip resistance
v0 = Total overburden pressure
SPT and UCS data is available for the site. SPT-N value is observed to be constant in clays and
equal to 2 up to the depth of 20 m. Based on the SPT-N value obtained, it can be said that the clay
is soft and undrained shear strength can be taken around 12.5 kPa (Table 5.2 by Terzaghi & Peck,
1967). su, from UCS test is around 13 kPa.
Table 5.2 Correlation between qu-N (SPT) (Terzaghi & peck 1967), where qu = 2su
Consistency SPT-N qu (kPa)
Very soft <2 < 25
Soft 2- 4 25 - 50
Medium 4-8 50 - 100
Stiff 8 - 15 100 - 200
Very stiff 15 - 30 200 - 400

Hard > 30 > 400
The DMT results, using Marchettis correlation, significantly overestimate the values of undrained
shear strength compared to CPT, SPT and UCS (Figure 5.9). From observations, present study
51
noticed that Marchettis correlation to find undrained shear strength is not applicable for
Puthuvype clays and site specific correlation may be required.
su
0 10 20 30 40
5
5.5
6
6.5 Su (from CPT)
7
7.5 Su (from DMT)
8
8.5
9
9.5
10
10.5
11
11.5
12
Depth (m)
12.5
13
13.5
14
14.5
15
15.5
16
16.5
17
17.5
18
18.5
19
19.5
20
20.5
21
Figure 5.9 su profile with depth from CPT & DMT (Puthuvype site, Cochin clays)
5.5 Discussion
Field results have shown that the Puthuvype construction site comprised of silty sand at top 3 m,
sandy silt from 3m to 6m underlined by soft clay layer. Two site specific correlations have been
developed, those link key DMT parameters (ED and ID) to CPT parameters (qt and Fr (%))
respectively. These relations are considered as very approximate as they are developed based on
less number of tests. In this study, applicability Marchetti correlation is checked to find undrained
shear strength by comparing with CPT, SPT and UCS data. DMT evaluated undrained shear
strength is considerably overestimated, which indicates site specific correlations are to be
developed to convert DMT data into soil properties.
52
Chapter 6
CONCLUDING REMARKS
6.1 Summary
The Flat Dilatometer test, developed by the Silvano Marchetti, is a good in-situ method to assess
the soil characteristics. Case histories and investigations, done by many authors have shown that
DMT predicted settlements are in good agreement with observed settlements. As MDMT takes into
account over-consolidation and existence of lateral stress (from the stress history parameter K D)
that significantly reduce soil compressibility, it is accepted that settlement predictions are accurate
by MDMT. DMT settlement analysis can be adopted in wide variety of soil profiles like very dense
sand to very soft organic soils. Correlations given by Marchetti are totally based on insensitive
clays present in the Italy. Marchetti proposed correlations are found not applicable for UK, Japan
and Australian soils. Still there is a fallacy in using existing DMT correlation. There is a need of
strong site specific correlations to be proposed to convert the DMT data to soil properties.
Horizontal stress index (KD) is an important DMT parameter which is used for finding OCR, K0,
undrained shear strength (su) etc. A numerical study on effect of strain softening due to dilatometer
penetration in soil on horizontal stress index (KD, a DMT soil parameter) has been carried out for
different cases of sensitive clays using the commercial finite element software ABAQUS. Results
from this study have shown that KD is less sensitive to soil softening which can be taken as extra
advantage of Flat dilatometer test. As the sensitivity increases, KD is decreasing but the decrement
is very less (around 6%) and doesnt make any considerable change in soil properties. KD is not
affected by strain softening even with depth. This is the main advantage of DMT, it does not disturb
the soil much during penetration. This study can state that Marchetti correlations can also be used
for sensitive clayey soils.
A parametric study has been carried out using finite element software Abaqus to see the effect of
OCR on KD. Undrained shear strength and K0 vary according to the equations given by Mayne
53
1988 and Ladd et al. 1977 respectively (equations 4.1 &4.2). Curve fitting of the numerical results
resulted in new expressions to estimate OCR and K0 from KD for natural clays.
Flat Dilatometer tests and Cone penetration tests were coducted side by side at 3 locations at one
construction site Puthuvype, Cochin, Kerala, India. Field results have shown that the Puthuvype
construction site comprised of silty sand at top 3 m, sandy silt from 3m to 6m underlined by soft
clay layer. An equivalent CPT method has been proposed for calculating shallow foundation
settlements in the Puthuvype site based on DMT parameters. Three sets of DMT-CPT were done
based on which two correlations are developed, those link key DMT parameters (ED and ID) to
CPT parameters (qt and Fr(%)) respectively. These relations are approximate and site specific. In
this study, applicability of Marchetti correlation to find undrained shear strength is checked by
comparing with CPT, SPT and UCS data. DMT evaluated undrained shear strength is considerably
overestimated, which indicates site specific correlations are to be developed to convert DMT data
into soil properties.
6.2 Limitations and scope for future work

The numerical study presents only the effect of soil softening on KD, but not the effect of strain
rate on it. Study can be done to find the effect of different strain rates on KD. All the numerical
analyses in this study were carried out using the plane strain model with no strain in the vertical
direction. This assumption may not simulate actual movement of soil during dilatometer
penetration. Three dimensional modelling of dilatometer test while considering large deformations
may be necessary for more realistic solutions.
Proposed DMT-CPT correlations are approximate as they are developed based on only three sets
DMT-CPT and they can be modified by conducting more number of side by side dilatometer and
cone penetration tests. In the present study, it is indicated that site specific correlations are to be
developed to convert DMT data into soil properties. For that, more number of DMT have to be
performed at the site along with the laboratory testing on undisturbed samples.
54
REFERENCES
Baligh, M. M., & Scott, R. F. (1975). Quasi-static deep penetration in clays. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 101(ASCE# 11706 Proceeding).
Davis, R. O., & Selvadurai, A. P. (2005). Plasticity and geomechanics. Cambridge University
Press.
Einav, I., & Randolph, M. F. (2005). Combining upper bound and strain path methods for
evaluating penetration resistance. International Journal for Numerical Methods in
Engineering, 63(14), 1991-2016.
Hayes, J. A. (1990, September). The marchetti dilatometer and compressibility. In Seminar on" In
Situ Testing and Monitoring", Southern Ont. Section of Canad. Geot. Society, Sept.
Kamei, T., & Iwasaki, K. (1995). Evaluation of undrained shear strength of cohesive soils using a
flat dilatometer. Soils and Foundations, 35(2), 111-116.
Kim, Y. H., & Hossain, M. S. (2015). Dynamic installation of OMNI-Max anchors in clay:
numerical analysis. Gotechnique, 65(12), 1029-1037.
Kouretzis, G. P., Ansari, Y., Pineda, J., Kelly, R., & Sheng, D. (2015). Numerical evaluation of
clay disturbance during blade penetration in the flat dilatometer test. Gotechnique Letters, 5(3),
91-95.
Lacasse, S., & Lunne, T. (1986). Dilatometer tests in sand. In Use of In Situ Tests in Geotechnical
Engineering (pp. 686-699). ASCE.
Marchetti, S. (1980). In situ tests by flat dilatometer. Journal of Geotechnical and

Geoenvironmental Engineering, 106(ASCE 15290).
Marchetti, S. (1997, January). The flat dilatometer: design applications. In Proc. Third
International Geotechnical Engineering Conference, Keynote lecture, Cairo University, Jan (pp.
421-448).
55
Marchetti, S., Monaco, P., Totani, G., & Calabrese, M. (2001). The flat dilatometer test (DMT) in
soil investigations ISSMGE TC16 Report; Bali: Proc.
Mayne, P. W. (1988). Determining OCR in clays from laboratory strength. Journal of

Geotechnical Engineering, 114(1), 76-92.
Mayne, P. W. (2002). Equivalent CPT method for calculating shallow foundation settlements in
the Piedmont residual soils based on the DMT constrained modulus approach.
Monaco, P., Totani, G., & Calabrese, M. (2007). DMT-predicted vs observed settlements: a review
of the available experience. Studia Geotechnica et Mechanica, 29(1-2), 103-120.
Nassaji, F., & Kalantari, B. (2011). SPT capability to estimate undrained shear strength of fine-
grained soils of Tehran, Iran. Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 16, 1229-1238.
Pineda, J. A., McConnell, A., & Kelly, R. B. (2014). Performance of an innovative direct-push
piston sampler in soft clay. In P. K. Robertson, K. L. Cabal, & R. E. S. Moss (Eds.), Proceedings
of the 3rd symposium on cone penetration testing (pp. 279-288). Las Vegas, NV, USA: CPT14
Press.
Powell, J. J. M., & Uglow, I. M. (1989). The interpretation of the Marchetti dilatometer test in UK
clays. In Penetration testing in the UK: Proceedings of the geotechnology conference organized
by the Institution of Civil Engineers and held in Birmingham on 68 July 1988 (pp. 269-273).
Thomas Telford Publishing.
Robertson, P. K. (2009). CPT-DMT Correlations. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental

Engineering, 135(11), 1762-1771.
Schmertmann, J. H. (1986). Dilatometer to compute foundation settlement. Use of Insitu Tests in

Geotechnical Engineering, Geotechnical Special Publication, (6), 303-321.
Skemption, A. W., & Northey, R. D. (1952). The sensitivity of clays. Geotechnique, 3(1), 30-53.
Skiles, D. L., & Townsend, F. C. (1994). Predicting Shallow Foundation Settlement in Sands from
DMT. In Vertical and Horizontal Deformations of Foundations and Embankments: (pp. 132-142).
ASCE.
56
Totani, G., Marchetti, S., Monaco, P., & Calabrese, M. (2001). Use of the Flat Dilatometer Test
(DMT) in geotechnical design. In situ.
Version, A. 6.13 Documentation (Abaqus), 2013. Abaqus users guide.
Woodward, M. B., & McIntosh, K. A. (1993). Case history: shallow foundation settlement
prediction using the Marchetti dilatometer. In ASCE Annual Florida Section Meeting.
Yu, H. S., Carter, J. P., & Booker, J. R. (1992). Analysis of the dilatometer test in undrained clay.
University of Newcastle.
Zhou, H., Kong, G., Li, P., & Liu, H. (2015). Flat cavity expansion: theoretical model and
application to the interpretation of the flat dilatometer test. Journal of Engineering
Mechanics, 142(1), 04015058.
57
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I wish to express my sincere gratitude to Prof. Santiram Chatterjee, Assistant Professor at Civil
Engineering Department, IIT Bombay for his guidance and valuable support for the past two 2
years throughout my project work as well as providing necessary information regarding this
dissertation. I am grateful to have him as my supervisor for his constant help in learning ABAQUS
software.
I would like to express my special heartful gratitude and thanks to my friends Abhishek Ghosh,
Bithin and Pradnya Singbal, Research scholars at IIT Bombay for giving me such attention and
time to help me throughout this project.
Finally, my deep and sincere gratitude to my family for their continuous motivation and support
without which this work would not have been possible.
58

Pdfjoiner

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pdfjoiner

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FLAT DILATOMETER TESTS IN CLAY: NUMERICAL

MODELLING AND FIELD EXPLORATION

Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements

For the degree of

Singam Naresh Kumar

Prof. Santiram Chatterjee

Department of Civil Engineering

APPROVAL SHEET ............................................................................................................................... ii

2.1 Intermediate and common soil parameters (Marchetti, 1980) .......................................................... 7

5.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 43

DMT provides following parameters.

1.2 Suitability of soils

1.3 DMT Equipment Components

Field equipment for inserting DMT blade:

Figure 1.2 Details of DMT blade (Hayes, 1990)

x Membrane rests against sensing disk before expansion.

Figure 1.3 DMT working principle (Marchetti et al., 2001)

(Vertical section through centre of the blade)

1.6 Membrane calibration

1.7 Advantages of using DMT

2.1 Intermediate and common soil parameters (Marchetti, 1980)

2.1.1 Material index ID

Soil Peat/sensitive Clay Silt Sand

ID Silty Clayey Sandy Silty

2.1.3 Dilatometer modulus ED

2.2 Compressibility of soil

Dilatometer modulus (ED) can be given as

From above two formulae,

Table 2.2 Basic DMT reduction formulae (Marchetti, 2001)

SYMBOL DESCRIPTION BASIC DMT REDUCTION FORMULAE

The total settlement is given by,

Figure 2.3 Determination of one sublayer settlement (Hayes 1990)

Ordinary method (Marchetti, 1980):

v. 1-D settlement of each layer is determined as follows.

Compressible soil Settlement (mm) Ratio

No. Location structure DMT measured

1 Tampa Bridge pier HOC clay *25 15 1.67

2 Jacksonville Power plant Compacted sand *15 14 1.07

3 Lynn haven Factory Peaty sand 188 185 1.02

5a Fredericton Surcharge 3 plate Sand *11 15 0.73

c ,, Quick clay silt *78 35 2.23

6a Ontario Road embankment Peat *300 275 1.09

7 Miami 4 plate Peat 93 71 1.31

8a Peter- borough Apt. building factory Sand &silt *58 48 1.21

b ,, Sand &silt *20 17 1.18

9 ,, Water tank Silty clay *30 31 0.97

10 a Linkoping 2*3 m plate Silty sand *9 6.7 1.34

b ,, 1.1*1.3 m plate Silty sand *4 3 1.33

11 Sunne House Silt &sand *10 8 1.25

Where, star * indicates M value from Ordinary method.

(Monaco et al., 2006)

2.3 Applicability of Marchetti, 1980 correlations to find the soil

2.3.2 Powell & Uglow (1988)

K0 = 0.34 KD0.55 (2.11)

OCR = 0.34 KD1.43 (2.13)

cu = 0.35v (0.47KD) 1.14 (2.14)

Where (cu/ v) N.C = 0.35 as per Japanese design manual.

2.3.3 Kouretzis et al. (2015)

2.4 DMT-CPT Correlations

Dilatometer Modulus, ED = 5 qt (2.17)

Where, qt = cone tip resistance corrected for pore pressure

Constrained modulus is obtained by,

10 a Linkoping 23 m plate Silty sand 9 6.7 1.34

b ,, 1.11.3 m plate Silty sand 4 3 1.33