Professional Documents
Culture Documents
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING: Site Investigation Report: June 2016
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING: Site Investigation Report: June 2016
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING: Site Investigation Report: June 2016
net/publication/304406229
CITATIONS READS
0 7,134
1 author:
Topu Amar
University of Bologna
3 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Topu Amar on 25 June 2016.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
Project # 1: Site Investigation Report
A geotechnical site investigation was carried out in the city of Parma, Italy with the aim of providing
of geotechnical data for the design and construction of sixteen metal silos. This project seeks to
analyze all the site data including in-situ and laboratory test. A geotechnical model of the site was
then obtained from the campaign test data.
The project is divided into two parts; the first part involves report of analysis of ground investigation
and mechanical properties. The second part includes the design of foundation; shallow and deep
foundation.
2. Site description
Site descriptions of the area under investigation are shown in figure 1 to 3. The location of
boreholes and CPT verticals are shown in figure 3.
Due to the many limitations associated with laboratory tests data in obtaining strength and
stiffness parameters of soil, in-situ test are developed to overcome these limitations. For
the purpose of this project two types of in-situ testing techniques were considered to
provide rapid assessment of key parameters that can be conducted during ground
investigations. The techniques employed are; Standard penetration tests (SPT) and cone
penetration (CPT) test
Cone piezocone penetrations test is one of the versatile tools available for soil exploration.
These tests are mainly used in identifying and profiling the different strata within the
ground, it can be used to reliably estimate soil strength, stiffness and consolidation
parameters. CPTU are commonly used to assess undrained conditions.
Seismic piezocone penetration tests allow for descrete seismic sound to be made inorder to
determine shear wave velocity and strain shear modulus (Go).
Figure 7: Soil behaviour type classification using the Ic method
The OCR, Cu and qt plots of each penetration tests were performed from ground
investigation data obtained. A comparison of the CPT test is shown in the below figures
Where, the OCR and CU were computed using the following formula;
𝑞𝑡 − 𝜎𝑣0
𝑂𝐶𝑅 = 0.33 × ( ′ )
𝜎𝑣0
𝑞𝑐 − 𝜎𝑣0
𝑐𝑢 =
𝑁𝑘
10 Cpt1
Cpt2
15
Depth (m)
Cpt3
20 Cpt4
Scpt1
25
Scpt2
30
35
40
Cu VALUES
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
0.00
-5.00
CTP1
-10.00
CPT2
-15.00 CPT3
DEPTH [M]
CPT4
-20.00
SCPT1
-25.00 SCPT2
-30.00
-35.00
-40.00
-35
-30
CPTU1
-25
CPTU2
Depth (m)
CPTU3
-20
CPTU4
SCPTU 1
-15 SCPTU 2
-10
-5
-0.5 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5
0
The OCR values reduces with depth, thus the deeper you go the higher is the vertical stress
resulting in a decreasing trend in OCR values.
From the data obtained one can conclude that during cone penetration test, excess pore
water around the cone increases this in return influence pore water pressure. Lower pore
water pressure is observed in coarse grained material due to high permeability, while high
pore water pressure depicts fine grained material.
A plot of cone resistance against depth clearly show low qt value in fine grained soil (i.e clay)
in comparison to coarse grained sand or gravel.
The CPT test results illustrate that different soil types exhibit different sleeve friction
resistance (fs) and qt; gravel have low fs and high qc while clay have high fs and low qt.
SPT is a rapid and cost effective in-situ testing techniques used in the investigation of the
coarse-grained soils. This method uses a drop hammer to determine the number of blows
required for the sampler penetration.
Due to the variation in rod hammer system used, amount of energy transferred to the
standard sampler is varied. Therefore blow counts (N) are corrected to a standardized
(reference) free fall hammer energy ratio of 60% (N60). Blow counts also depend on the size
of the borehole.
Penetration resistance increase with stress level, therefore corrected N SPT values were
normalized using a depth correction factor (CN). Angle of shear resistance was evaluated
using Schmertmann and Bolton the latter show slightly high value compared to
Schmertmann method.
ER Emeas
N60 = NSPT. 60 ; Where ER (%) = Etheo
According to Schemertmann NSPT values are related to the friction angle, vertical stress and
relative density, such that NSPT = f (σv’ , ϕ’) and NSPT = f (σv’ , DR)
Different friction angle values were evaluated by Schmertmann method using the below
equations and figure:
Figure 11: ϕ’ versus DR graph
S1 36 0.329 1.498 77.76 72 116.45 139.31 47.50 47.52 48.43 49.15 48.15
35 0.320 1.498 108.00 100 161.74 164.19 50.99 50.38 50.92 51.13 50.86
S2 54.5 0.495 1.496 108.00 100 161.60 164.11 50.98 50.37 50.91 51.13 50.85
35 0.320 1.498 66.96 62 100.28 129.28 46.10 46.37 47.43 48.34 47.06
38 0.347 1.497 88.56 82 132.61 148.67 48.81 48.60 49.37 49.89 49.17
51.5 0.468 1.496 92.88 86 138.99 152.20 49.31 49.00 49.72 50.18 49.55
S3 56 0.509 1.496 108.00 100 161.59 164.11 50.98 50.37 50.91 51.13 50.85
Avg 0.398 1.497 92.88 86 139.04 151.70 49.24 48.94 49.67 50.14 49.50
The CN , (N1)60 , depth correction factor and DR are calculated according to the Skempton
method.
3
CN = σ′v
; For coarse grained sands
2+(100)
0.5
(N1)60
DR = ( )
60
The Skempton method was necessary to obtain the above parameters used both in
Schmertmann and Bolton
Bolton suggested the best used equation to estimate peak friction angle from relative
density. Where,
5.1 Determination of the Young’s modulus (Eu)
In fine-grained soils the corresponding over consolidated ratio (OCR) and undrained shear
strength (Cu) at defined strata were used to evaluate the Young’s modulus (Eu). The below
Figure used the interpolation of OCR value to obtain the ratio of the secant shear modulus
at 25% (Eu25) of applied pressure (qf) and Cu at corresponding plasticity index (IP). Where,
Average 26.75
6 Laboratory test
Laboratory tests are necessary to determine relevant soil parameters, boreholes or trial pits
is used to collect soil samples for data analysis. Two kinds of samples were collected; 13
undisturbed samples and 1 disturbed sample and subjected to laboratory tests. Two open
standpipes were installed in the boreholes S1 (with perforated tube between 33 and 36 m
b.g.l.) and S3 (with perforated tube between 6 and 12 m b.g.l.).
Undisturbed samples are mainly required for shear strength and consolidation test and
disturbed samples are used in soil classification and visual compact test. In this project two
test were conducted, namely Triaxial and oedometer test.
Triaxial test is widely used for measuring soil behavior in shear and is suitable for all types of
soil. The main advantage it has over direct shear test is that, its drainage condition can be
controlled. Three undisturbed samples were collected and triaxial lab test was performed on
each of these individual samples where by friction angle (φ’) and cohesion (c’) of the soil are
computed.
A general Failure envelope curve for obtaining strength parameters; friction angle (φ’) and
cohesion (c’) using the stress invariant (q - p’) is shown in figure xxx below
Where;
Sample: S1 B
q400
300
p versus q (maximum)
200 Linear (p versus q (maximum))
100
0
0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00
p'
Sample 2_C
p versus q (maximum)
450
400 y = 0.6316x + 128.42
350
300
q 250 p versus q (maximum)
200
Linear (p versus q (maximum))
150
100
50
0
0.00 100.00 200.00 p' 300.00 400.00 500.00
16.60 60.62
Specimen 2 295.34 255.45 452.34 200
Sample 3
p versus q (maximum)
400
350
y = 0.7558x + 55.12
300
250
q 200
p versus q (maximum)
150 Linear (p versus q (maximum))
100
50
0
0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00
p'
19.61 25.98
Specimen 2 207.14 194.05 332.14 200
Cell
pressure Depth G
Sample [kpa] (z) q/2 [Mpa] εa v [Mpa] E [Mpa]
16.5 -
S1 - B 200 17 0.12975 0.00858 0.5 5.04 15.12
42 -
S2 - C 400 42.5 0.21138 0.00357 0.5 19.74 24.67
24.5 -
S3 - C 200 25 0.10357 0.003915 0.5 8.82 13.23
The shear and Young’s modulus are computed using the following equations; where v is the
Poisson ratio (0.5)
𝑞
G= + 3 𝑥 ∗ ℰa
2
𝐸 = 2𝐺 𝑥 (1 + 𝑣)
Table 8: Comparison of Young's Modulus (E) from CPT and Triaxial test
The compression index Cc and the expansion index Cs were obtained from the void ratio (e) –
effective axial stress curve. The coefficient of primary (Cv) and secondary consolidation (Cα)
were obtained from the log time method (Casagrande), see figures below.
Where,
𝑒0 −𝑒1 0.196×𝑑2
𝐶𝑐 /𝐶𝑠 = 𝜎′
𝑐𝑣 = , where d is half the average thickness of the
log( 1⁄ ′ ) 𝑡50
𝜎2
specimen.
1
1-D elastic modulus (constrain modulus); 𝐸′𝑜𝑒𝑑 =
𝑚𝑣
1 𝑒0 −𝑒1
Coefficient of volume of compressibility; 𝑚𝑣 = × ( ′ ′)
1+𝑒0 σ1 −σ0
Sample S1_D
Sample S1 D
0.8
0.75
0.7
0.65
0.6
e
0.55
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
10 100 1000 10000
P [kPa]
H0 18.8
18.7
18.6
H 50
18.5
18.4
18.3
18.2
18.1
18
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
t50
t [s]
Figure 20: Settlement versus time – log time method (casagrande) for S1D
Sample S2_A
18.2
18
h [mm]
17.8
17.6
17.4
17.2
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
t[s]
Figure 22: Settlement versus time – log time method (casagrande) for S2 A
Sample S2_B
Sample S2 B
0.95
0.85
0.75
0.65
e
0.55
0.45
0.35
10 100 1000 10000
P [kPa]
18.7
18.6
18.5
18.4
18.3
18.2
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
Figure 24: Settlement versus time – log time method (casagrande) for S2 B
Sample S2_E
Sample S2 E
0.75
0.7
0.65
0.6
0.55
e
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
10 100 1000 10000
P [kPa]
19.2
19.15
19.1
h [mm]
19.05
19
18.95
18.9
18.85
1 10 100 Time [s] 1000 10000 100000
Figure 26: Settlement versus time – log time method (casagrande) for S2 E
Sample S3_D
Sample S3 D
0.65
0.6
0.55
0.5
e
0.45
0.4
0.35
10 100 1000 10000
P [kPa]
18.5
18.4
h [mm]
18.3
18.2
18.1
18
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
t[s]
Figure 28: Settlement versus time – log time method (casagrande) for S3_ D
Comment Comment mV
Sample Cc Cs Cs/Cc Cv cα cα/cc 2 k Eoed
(Cs/Cc) (cα/cc) [m /MN]
S1 D 0.312 0.043 0.138 Ok, within range 6.913E-08 0.010 0.033 Ok, within range 0.178 1.229E-07 5.625
S2 A 0.704 0.083 0.118 Ok, within range 3.591E-08 0.027 0.038 Ok, within range 0.504 1.809E-07 1.985
S2 B 0.322 0.027 0.082 Ok, within range 5.810E-07 0.010 0.030 Ok, within range 0.199 1.154E-06 5.035
S2 E 0.223 0.030 0.134 Ok, within range 9.576E-08 0.008 0.035 Ok, within range 0.134 1.285E-07 7.453
S3 D 0.246 0.027 0.108 Ok, within range 1.800E-07 0.007 0.029 Ok, within range 0.132 2.382E-07 7.555
Table 10: Comparisons of parameters with corresponding stratum test
Stratum Cc Cs Cv cα
Clay 0 - 8 - - - -
Clay 8 - 21 - - - -
Gravel 34 - 38 - - - -
Gravel 44 - 58 - - - -
ɣs mv Eoed
Lcum(% Scum(% G ɣ (KN/m^ [m2/M [MN/m
Sample Z(m) A0 Acum(%) L(%) ) S(%) ) G(%) cum(%) wP(%) wL(%) W(%) IP(%) IC (KN/m^3) 3) e0 N] 2] Cα k Cc Cs Cv
S1-1 5.4 0 28.46 28.46 71.31 99.77 0.23 100 28.9 18.95
S1-A 6.25 0 98.64 98.64 1.36 100 0 100 29 70 36.9 41 0.80732 17.95
S1-B 16.75 0 99.11 99.11 0.89 100 0 100 29 74 33.9 45 0.89111 18.44
S1-C 31.75 0 99.19 99.19 0.81 100 0 100 30 68 36.2 38 0.83684 18.02
S1-D 42.25 0 75.58 24.25 99.83 0.17 100 0 100 25 56 29.5 31 0.85484 18.96 25.51 0.753 0.178 5.625 0.103 1.23E-07 0.312 0.043 6.91E-08
S2-A 20.25 0 64.06 33.9 97.96 2.04 100 0 100 67 143 80.5 76 0.82237 15.2 23.48 1.890 0.504 1.985 0.027 1.81E-07 0.704 0.083 3.59E-08
S2-B 30.75 0 70.65 27.4 98.05 1.95 100 0 100 28 49 32.5 21 0.78571 18.34 25.54 0.830 0.199 5.035 0.0097 1.15E-07 0.322 0.027 5.81E-07
S2-C 42.25 0 70.44 29.18 99.62 0.38 100 0 100 25 70 28.5 45 0.92222 18.68
S2-D 60.25 0 70.73 29.02 99.75 0.25 100 0 100 27 69 25.7 42 1.03095 19.71
S2-E 69.25 0 83.16 16.82 99.98 0.02 100 0 100 31 77 27.3 46 1.08043 19.09 25.34 0.692 0.134 7.453 0.0077 1.28E-07 0.223 0.03 9.58E-08
S3-B 12.25 0 99.11 99.11 0.89 100 0 100 29 43 32.6 14 0.74286 18.45
S3-C 24.75 0 73.3 26.66 99.96 0.04 100 0 100 30 50 32.4 20 0.88 18.72
S3-D 43.75 0 42.53 53.83 96.36 3.62 99.98 0.02 100 24 51 25.1 27 0.95926 19.54 25.52 0.641 0.132 7.55 0.0072 2.38E-07 0.246 0.027 1.80E-07
WL (%) − W(%)
Ic =
IP (%)
W(%) ɣs
eo = 𝑥
100 ɣ𝑤
eo
Gs = x 100
W
View publication stats