Interpretation of Laboratory and Field Test Results For Design

INTERPRETATION OF
LABORATORY AND
FIELD TEST RESULTS
FOR DESIGN
by Ir. Dr. Gue See Sew & Ir. Chow Chee Meng
http://www.gnpgroup.com.my
G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION
2. OBJECTIVES
3. SCOPE
4. INTERPRETATION
JKR PROBE
SPT
5. DESIGN PARAMETERS
6. LABORATORY TESTS

INTRODUCTION
NEED
Neglected topic; only briefly covered in universities
Danger of using results directly without interpretation
Decision on choice of values for soil parameters
SCOPE
Common tests only
PROCESSES
Specifications, Supervision, Presentation & Interpretation

Proton Iswara
Ferrari

OBJECTIVES
1) Illustrate the importance of

interpretation
2) Show methods of compiling

results and recognising errors

SCOPE
Common field and laboratory tests
FIELD TESTS
JKR/ Mackintosh probe
SPT (Standard Penetration Test)
Piezocone
Field Vane Shear
Geonor vane
LABORATORY TESTS
Unconfined compression
Triaxial Test (UU, CIU with pore pressure measurement & CD)
Consolidation
JKR Probes
Primitive tool
Limited use
Shallow bedrock profile (limestone with slump zone)
Weak zone at shallow depth
Shallow foundation
• No recent fill and future settlement
• Structure of low risk
• If in doubt – use borehole

• Apparatus
Cased hardened steel pointer of
25mm dia. and 60o cone.
22mm outer
dia. coupling Prevent buckling during driving
28
12mm dia. HY 5kg drop

55C steel rod hammer

CONE PENETROMETER

For practical application:
- Results of JKR Probe and Mackintosh
Probe can be taken as equivalent
- JKR Probe created as equivalent to
Mackintosh Probe as Mackintosh Probe is
patented in the early days

• Termination criteria
9Blows/300mm
(maximum 400 blows/300mm)
9Max 15m depth
• Precautionary measures
9Free fall and consistent drop height
9Components and apparatus properly
washed and oiled

• Typical test results

• Applications
Identifying localised soft/weak or slip plane.

• Applications
Identifying localised soft/weak or slip plane.

T
T
T = compaction lift
Identifying non-compliance fill.

Allowable Bearing Capacity V.S. J.K.R. Dynamic Cone Penetration
Resistance (After Ooi & Ting, 1975) ** Conditions applied

• Comparison between JKR probe and SPT

JKR Blows
0 100 200 300 400
0 0
4 4
Depth (m)
8 8
12 12
JKR Plot
SPT'N' Plot
0 10 20 30 40 50
SPT'N'
JKR Blows
0 100 200 300 400
0 0
2 2
4 4
6 6
Depth (m)
8 8
10 10
12 12
14 JKR Plot 14
SPT'N' Plot
16 16
0 10 20 30 40
SPT'N'
Number of Blows per 300 mm
Depth From Ground Surface In Meter (m)

Shear Strength In kPa
Depth From Ground Surface In Meter

• Limitations
Shallow depth
Not for gravelly ground
Human errors (e.g. wrong counting, non-consistent

drop height, exerting force to the drop hammer
Misleading results at greater depth

Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
A popular test
useful for pile foundation design
Common errors

AW Rod
63.5kg Hammer
760mm 450mm
Free Fall
Split-Spoon Sampler

Split-Spoon Sampler
Driving Shoe
Split Barrel
• OD = 50mm
• ID = 35mm
• Length ~ 650mm

SPT-N Value
Seating Test
drive drive

5 - 10 - 30 - 20/30cm
Seating Test
drive drive
(30 + 20)
SPT-N = x 300 = 143
(75 + 30)

Maximum blows to be applied
In seating drive In test drive
Soil 25 50
‘Soft rock’ 25 100
BS1377: Part 9

Formation Level
CLAY
SAND
SILTY CLAY

Reduced Level (ft)

New Technology …automatic

Piezocone (CPTu)
1)To obtain soil profile and stiffness

(strength) profile of the subsoil
2) To determine coefficient of
consolidation of soil
3) Results can also be used directly
for design (e.g. pile design)

Piezocone Results

Piezocone Results

Nk = 11-19
Lunne & Kleven (1981)
Nkt = 15
Gue & Tan (2000)

Cone factors related to plasticity index of
the clays (After Dobie & Wong, 1990)
Soil Behaviour Type
Classification Charts
for CPT
(after Robertson, 1990)
1. Sensitive, fine grained

2. Organic soils – peats
3. Clays – clay to silty clay
4. Silt mixtures – clayey silt to silty clay
5. Sand mixtures – silty sand to sandy silt
6. Sands – clean sand to silty sand
7. Gravelly sand to sand
8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand (heavily overconsolidated or cemented)
9. Very stiff fine grained (heavily overconsolidated or cemented)

Vane Shear Test
1)Vane test in borehole
2) Geonor vane
3) Lab vane
Use
- To determine in-situ undrained
shear strength (Suv) of soft clayey
soils

Most common errors
- Computation – spring factor
- Clay with organic materials
Recognise errors
Summarise results with Su from
unconfined compression, UU and lab
vane superimposed
Plot Suv against PI
Po’
Or Suv against Po’ then find Suv
Po’
Depth (ft)
Shear Strength (lb/ft2)

Design Parameters
Foundation Design
• Stability / Bearing Capacity
• Settlement Prediction
Bearing Capacity
• Su
• C’ and Φ’
Settlement Prediction
• e vs Log10 p’ (mv, Cc)
• cv (k)

LABORATORY TESTS
- Why?
- Types of Tests!
- How?
- Specifications?
(Load, Pressure, Time)

SPECIFICATIONS
A) Consolidation Test
1) Which samples are appropriate and suitable for the test?
2) For consolidation test
- Load increment } 0.5P ’ – 8P ’
o o
} or to
- Pressure } e ~~ 0.42eo
B) Triaxial test
1) For triaxial tests
- Strain rate
- Back pressure
Ref: Head, K. H (1984) - Manual of soil Laboratory testing

Special Attention
Triaxial Compression Test
- No/Minimum Trimming
- No Side Drains
- No Multistage

G&P-Form6 (Rev3)
G&P GEOTECHNICS SDN. BHD.
(Geotechnical Consultants)
LABORATORY TEST SCHEDULE
Project No : ……………………………….. Lab. Schedule No. ……………….. Requested by : …………………………………………… Date : …………………..
Project : ……………………………………………………………………………………..………………… Reviewed by : …………………………………………... Date : ……………………
Direct SIEVE ANALYSIS CONSOLIDATION TRIAXIAL CHEMICAL ANALYSIS

SAMPLE DEPTH
BOREHOLE M/C A.L. B.D. S.G. Shear UCT OR GANIC SULPH ATE CHLORIDE
NO. m Mech. Hydro. Std. Rapid S.S. CIU UU PH
Box CONTENT CONTENT CONT ENT
TOT AL Requested
Performed
Note :
1) CIU - Isotropic Consolidated Undrained Triaxial Test with pore pressure measurements 5) To determine Cv from Consolidation Tests :-
- Use 70mm diameter sample (i.e. untrimmed Mazier sample) - Use Square-Root Time Method to determine d0.
- Sample should not have side filter during consolidation - Then use Log-Time Method to determine d100
- Shearing strain should be calculated using Cv values calculated during consolidation 6) Direct shear box test - Three (3) reconstituted specimens (60mm x 60mm x 20mm thick) shall be used.
stage. - Applied normal stress pressure of 0.5 σ v, 1.0σ v , 2.0σv shall be adopted for the
- Multi-stage testing not allowed shear box test, where σv is the total vertical in-situ stress.
- P-Q Stress Path Plotting shall be submitted. 7) All specimens for triaxial or consolidation tests shall be obtained from center of the recovered samples in
2) For CIU Tests, stress path and other relevant data shall be submitted in Hard Copy (Plots and Tabulated UD sampler.
Data) and Soft Copy (Computer files data). Cell confining pressure of 0.5 σv , 1.0σ v , 2.0σv shall be adopted 8) 2 moisture content tests shall be carried out on soil immediately besides the specimens retained for
for the CIU test, where σ v is the total vertical in-situ stress. triaxial or consolidation tests.
3) UU - Unconsolidated Undrained Test (at total overburden pressure of the sample) 9) Bulk density, particle size distribution and Atterberg Limit tests shall be carried out on every specimen
4) UCT - Unconfined Compression Test (untrimmed sample) after the triaxial or consolidation tests.
Consolidation Settlement
CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
Void Ratio
Cv m²/year
Coefficient of Volume
Change
Mv X 10ˉ³ m² / KN

Depth (m)
Compression Index

Coefficient of Consolidation, Ch m²/yr
Depth (m)

NAVFA
C DM7.1

Root time method
Log time method

Compression index, Cc and
Recompression index, Cr
a) Cc = 0.009 (LL – 10%) For inorganic soils,
with sensitivity less
than 4
b) Cc = 0.007 (LL – 10%) For normally

consolidated clay
c) Cc = 0.0115 Wn For organic soils, peat
d) Cc = 1.15 (eo – 0.35) For all clays
e) Cc = (1 + eo) [0.1 + (Wn – 25)0.006] For varved clays
f) Cc = 0.5*PI*Gs For OC clays

Compression index, Cc and
Recompression index, Cr
• For inorganic normally -consolidated Klang Clay (Tan et

al., 2004):
– Cc = 0.02LL – 0.87
– Cc = 0.61eo – 0.17
– Cc = 0.02 Wn – 0.37
• Cr ≈ (0.1 to 0.2)*Cc
Coefficient of secondary compression, Cα
• Cα / Cc = 0.04 ± 0.01 For inorganic soft clays
• Cα / Cc = 0.02 ± 0.01 For granular soils including

rockfill
• Cα / Cc = 0.03 ± 0.01 For shale and mudstone
• Cα / Cc = 0.05 ± 0.01 For organic clays and silts
• Cα / Cc = 0.06 ± 0.01 For peat and muskeg

Interpretation of Laboratory Tests
TWO Major Categories :
(1) Strength Parameters :
- Stability Analyses of Slopes & Embankment.
- Bearing Capacity Analyses for Foundation.
(2) Stiffness & Deformation Parameters :

Prediction & evaluation of :-
Settlement, Heave, Lateral deformation,
Volume Change.
Conventional Foundation for
Low Rise Buildings

Conventional Foundation for
Low Rise Buildings (Soil Settlement)

Settling Platform Detached from Building
Settlement
Exposed Pile

Strength Parameters
TWO Conditions :
(A) Total Stress :
- For Short Term Conditions in Cohesive Soils.
- Little of no drainage.
(B) Effective Stress :

- For Long Term & Permanent Conditions.
- Fully “Drained” Conditions.

Simple Check
qallow = (Nc.su / FOS)
qallow = allowable bearing pressure
= (γfill.H + 10) ( in kPa)
Nc = 5
Hfailure = (5 x Su) / γfill

e.g. :
When Su = 10 kPa ; γfill = 18 kN/m3
Hfailure = (5 x 10)/ 18 = 2.8 m

Excavation: Check Depth of Excavation
Clough et al. (1989)

Total Stress Strength, su
Undrained Shear Strength, su from :
(i) Unconfined Compression Test, UCT
(ii) Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial Test, UU
(iii) Laboratory Vane Shear Test

Typical Set-up of Triaxial
Test
a)Base
b)Removable cylinder and
top cap
c)Loading ram
d)Rubber membrane
Equipment for Triaxial Test
Effective Stress Strength
Parameters c’ & φ’ Æ Interpretation from
(i) Isotropic Consolidated Undrained Triaxial Test,
CIU + ΔU
(ii) Isotropic Consolidated Drained Triaxial Test,
CID
(iii) Laboratory Shear Box Test (at v. slow
rate)
Note : Advantage to use Stress Path

Mohr-
Coulomb

Stress Path Interpretation
Two types of Plot
(i) MIT Stress Path Plot (T.W. Lambe of MIT, 1967)
The vertical axis :
t = (σ1 - σ3)/2 = (σ’1 - σ’3)/2
The horizontal axis :
s = (σ1 + σ3)/2 & s’ = (σ’1 + σ’3)/2
(ii) Cambridge Stress Path Plot
(Roscoe, Schofield and Wroth (1958) at the Cambridge, England)
The vertical axis :
q = σ1 - σ 3 = σ’1 - σ’3
The horizontal axis :
p = (σ1 + σ2 + σ3)/3 & p’ = (σ’1+ σ’2+σ’3)/3

Terminology & Interpretation
MIT & Cambridge Stress Path Plot
MIT & Cambridge Stress Path Plot
Tan θ = t’ / s
Tan θ = Sin φ’
K = c’ Cos φ’
K
C’ =
Cos φ’
Tan η = q / p’
Sin φ’ = (3 η) / ( 6 + η )
r = c’ (6 Cos φ’) / (3 – Sin φ’)
r (3 – Sin φ‘)
C’ =
6 Cos φ’

For Slopes & Walls Analyses
Parameter c’ and φ’ shall be
Interpreted from
i) Isotropically Consolidated Undrained
Triaxial Test, CIU + Δu
ii)Isotropically Consolidated Drained
Triaxial Test, CID
iii)Laboratory Shear Box Test (at very
slow rate)
Note: Advantage to use Stress Path

Large Strain

Scattered CIU Results
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
500 500
450
BH1 UD2
BH2 UD1
φ’ = sin-1 m 450
BH2 M1
BH3 UD2 c’ = a / (cos φ’)
400 BH4 UD1 400
BH5 M1
350 BH6 M1 350
BH6 M2
BH9 M1 Proposed Design Line
300 300
t' = (σ1' - σ3')/2
BH10 UD1
BH10 UD3
c’ = 3.5 kPa,
250
φ’ = 32º 250
Upper Bound
200
m 200
c’ = 5 kPa, 1
φ’ = 39º
150 150
100
Lower Bound 100
c’ = 0 kPa,
50
φ’ = 29º 50
a
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
s' = (σ1'+σ3')/2

Correlations for
Preliminary Assessment of φ’

φ’ Values vs Plasticity Index (after Terzaghi)
Typical PI = 30% to 70%

(Malaysia
G&P Geotechnics Soft Clay)
Sdn Bhd
Φ’ Values vs Clay Content (Skempton, 1964)

Φ’ vs % of Fines
35
30
25
Figure 3 : φ’peak versus Percentage of Fines in Residual Soils

c’ vs % of Fines
Figure 4 : c’ versus Percentage of Fines in Residual Soils

Correct Interpretation
Undrained Shear Strength
• Limitations of UU Tests:
– Sample disturbance
– Negative pore pressures generated during
removal of sample from tube
• Undrained shear strength is best

obtained from in-situ testing such as
field vane, piezocone, etc.
YOU PAY FOR SOIL
INVESTIGATION
WHETHER YOU
CARRY OUT OR
NOT
REFERENCES
ASTM, (1986)
Standard Test Method for Deep Quasi-static, Cone and Friction Cone
Penetration Tests of Soil, D3441-86, ASTM Committee D-18 on Soil and
Rock, USA
Dobie, M.J.D., & Wong, J.T.F. (1990)

“Piezocone testing; Interpretation in Malaysia Alluvial Clays” Geotechnical
Aspects of the North-South Expressway, PLUS & PL, Kuala Lumpur
Fleming, W.G.K. et al (1985)

Piling Engineering Survey University Press, Glasgow
Head, K. H (1984)
Manual of Soil Laboratory Testing
International Society for Soil Mechanics and Foundation (1988)

International Reference Test Procedure, ISSMFE Technical Committee on
Penetration Testing, Proposal to ISSMFE, Orlando, USA
REFERENCES
Meigh, A.C. (1987)
Cone Penetration Testing: Methods and Interpretation, Construction
Industry Research and Information Association, CIRIA Ground
Engineering Report: In-site Testing, London
Proceedings of 1st International

Symposium on Penetration Testing/ ISOPT – I/Florida, USA, 1988
Proceedings of 2nd European

Symposium on Penetration Testing/ ESOPT – II/ Amsterdam/ May 1982
Robertson, P.K. and Campanella, R.G. (1988)

Guidelines for using the CPT, CPTU and Marchetti DMT for Geotechnical
Design, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration, Office of Research and Special Studies, Report No. FHWA-
PA-87-023+84-24

REFERENCES
Sanglerat, G, (1972)
The Penetrometer and Soil Exploration, Elsevier Publishing Company,
Amsterdam, Netherlands
Teh, C.I. and Houlsby, G.T. (1991)

An Analytical Study of the Cone Penetration Test in Clay, Geotechnique,
Vol. 41, No. 1, pp: 17-34
Gue, S.S. & Tan, Y.C. (2003)

Current Status & Future Development of Geotechnical Engineering
Practice in Malaysia, 12th ARC on Soil Mechanics & Geotechnical
Engineering, Singapore
Gue, S.S. & Tan, Y.C. (2006)

Landslides: Abuses of the Prescriptive Method, International
Conference on Slopes, Malaysia

Interpretation of Laboratory and Field Test Results For Design

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Interpretation of Laboratory and Field Test Results For Design

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INTERPRETATION OF

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

1) Illustrate the importance of

2) Show methods of compiling

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

12mm dia. HY 5kg drop

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

9Max 15m depth

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

Identifying localised soft/weak or slip plane.

Identifying localised soft/weak or slip plane.

Identifying non-compliance fill.

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

Depth From Ground Surface In Meter (m)

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

Depth From Ground Surface In Meter

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

 Not for gravelly ground

 Human errors (e.g. wrong counting, non-consistent

 Misleading results at greater depth

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

1)To obtain soil profile and stiffness

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

1. Sensitive, fine grained

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

Shear Strength (lb/ft2)

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

Ref: Head, K. H (1984) - Manual of soil Laboratory testing

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

LABORATORY TEST SCHEDULE

Project : ……………………………………………………………………………………..………………… Reviewed by : …………………………………………... Date : ……………………

Direct SIEVE ANALYSIS CONSOLIDATION TRIAXIAL CHEMICAL ANALYSIS

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

b) Cc = 0.007 (LL – 10%) For normally

c) Cc = 0.0115 Wn For organic soils, peat

Not for gravelly ground

Human errors (e.g. wrong counting, non-consistent

Misleading results at greater depth

f) Cc = 0.5PIGs For OC clays