by Dato’ Ir. Dr.

Gue See Sew &

Ir. Chow Chee Meng

http://www.gnpgroup.com.my

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

 CONTENTS
• INTRODUCTION
• OBJECTIVES
• SCOPE
• INTERPRETATION
- JKR PROBE
- SPT

• DESIGN PARAMETERS
• 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
G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd
G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd
 Proton Iswara

Ferrari

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

 OBJECTIVES

• Illustrate the importance of

interpretation

• Show methods of compiling

results and recognising errors
• SCOPE
- Common field and laboratory tests

• FIELD TESTS
- JKR/ Mackintosh probe
- SPT (Standard Penetration Test)

• LABORATORY TESTS
- Unconfined compression
- Triaxial Test (CIU with pore pressure measurement & CD)
G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd
 JKR PROBE

- 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 = Mackintosh Probe
- Patented in the early days
• Termination criteria
Blows/300mm
(maximum 400 blows/300mm)

Max 15m depth

• Precautionary measures
Free fall and consistent drop height
Components 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

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

 • Comparison between JKR probe and SPT

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

 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'
G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd
 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'
G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd
 Number of Blows per 300 mm

Depth From Ground Surface In Meter (m)

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

 Shear Strength In kPa

Depth From Ground Surface In Meter

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

 • 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

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

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

Common errors

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

 AW Rod

63.5kg Hammer

760mm 450mm
Free Fall

Split-Spoon Sampler

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

 Split-Spoon Sampler

Driving Shoe

Split Barrel
• OD = 50mm
• ID = 35mm
• Length ~ 650mm

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

 SPT-N Value

Seating Test
drive drive

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

 5 - 10 - 30 - 20/30mm
Seating Test
drive drive

(30 + 20)
SPT-N = x 300 = 143
(75 + 30)

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

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

MS 1056 : Part 9

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd
G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd
 Formation Level

CLAY

SAND

SILTY CLAY

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd
 Reduced Level (ft)

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd
 Piezocone (CPTu) …automatic

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

 Piezocone (CPTu)

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

 Piezocone (CPTu)

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

 Piezocone Test

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

 Piezocone Test

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

 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)

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

 Piezocone Results

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

 Piezocone Results

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

 Nk = 11-19
Lunne & Kleven (1981)

Nkt = 15
Gue & Tan (2000)

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd
 Cone factors related to plasticity index of
the clays (After Dobie & Wong, 1990)
G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd
 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)

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd
G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd
 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

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd
 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 ’
G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd
G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd
G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd
 Depth (ft)

Shear Strength (lb/ft2)

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd
 Design Parameters
Foundation Design
• Stability / Bearing Capacity
• Settlement Prediction

Bearing Capacity
• Su
• C’ and ’

Settlement Prediction
• e vs Log10 p’ (mv, Cc)
• cv (k)

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd
 LABORATORY TESTS

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

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

 SPECIFICATIONS
A) Consolidation Test
1) Which samples are appropriate and suitable for the test?
2) For consolidation test
- Load increment } 0.5Po’ – 8Po’
} 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

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd
 Special Attention
Triaxial Compression Test
- No/Minimum Trimming
- No Side Drains
- No Multistage

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

LAB TEST
SCHEDULE
G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd
G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd
Consolidation Settlement
 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS

Void Ratio

Cv m²/year

Coefficient of Volume
Change
Mv X 10ˉ³ m² / KN

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

 Depth (m)

Compression Index

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

 Coefficient of Consolidation, Ch m²/yr

Depth (m)

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd
 Root time method
Log time method

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

 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.
G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd
G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd
 Conventional Foundation for
Low Rise Buildings

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

 Conventional Foundation for
Low Rise Buildings (Soil Settlement)

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

 Settling Platform Detached from Building

Settlement

Exposed Pile

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

 Concrete Raft

Fill / Alluvium
 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.

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

 Do you remember this?
qu=SuNc + gbD
qu = ultimate bearing capacity (kN/m2)
Su = undrained shear strength (kN/m2)
Nc = shape factor
gb = Bulk unit weight (kN/m3)
D = Depth of excavation (m)

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

 Check Bearing Capacity for
Embankment
qu = loading from filling
= Hf x gf

where, Hf = Height of embankment (m)

gf = Unit weight of fill material (kN/m3)

Hf gf = SuNC + gbD

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

 Check Bearing Capacity
• Allowable Embankment Height: (crude estimate)
Hf = Su x Nc
gf x FOS
Hf = Height of embankment (m)
cu = Undrained shear strength (kN/m2)
Nc = Shape factor = 5.14 (from Skempton’s)

gf = Unit weight of fill material (kN/m3)

FOS = Factor of Safety
G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd
Simple Check
qallow = (Nc.su / FOS)
qallow = allowable bearing pressure
= (gfill.H + 10) ( in kPa)

Nc = 5

Hfailure = (5 x Su) / gfill

e.g. :
When Su = 10 kPa ; gfill = 18 kN/m3

Hfailure = (5 x 10)/ 18 = 2.8 m

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd
 Excavation: Check Depth of Excavation

Clough et al. (1989)

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd
EXCAVATION FAILURES
13 Storey Apartment Collapsed in
China
13 Storey Apartment Collapsed in
China

First, the apartment Then the plan called for an

underground garage to be dug out.
building was constructed The excavated soil was piled up on
the other side of the building.
13 Storey Apartment Collapsed in
China

Heavy rains resulted in water The building began to tilt

seeping into the ground Then it began to shift and the
"hollow" concrete pilings
were snapped due to the
uneven lateral pressures.
13 Storey Apartment Collapsed in
China
 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

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
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’ & f’  Interpretation from
(i) Isotropic Consolidated Undrained Triaxial Test,
CIU + U
(ii) Isotropic Consolidated Drained Triaxial Test, CID
(iii) Laboratory Shear Box Test (at v. slow
rate)

Note : Advantage to use Stress Path

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

 Mohr-
Coulomb

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

 Stress Path Interpretation
Two types of Plot
(i) MIT Stress Path Plot (T.W. Lambe of MIT, 1967)
The vertical axis :
t = (s1 - s3)/2 = (s’1 - s’3)/2
The horizontal axis :
s = (s1 + s3)/2 & s’ = (s’1 + s’3)/2
(ii) Cambridge Stress Path Plot
(Roscoe, Schofield and Wroth (1958) at the Cambridge, England)
The vertical axis :
q = s1 - s3 = s’1 - s’3
The horizontal axis :
p = (s1 + s2 + s3)/3 & p’ = (s’1+ s’2+s’3)/3
Terminology & Interpretation
G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd
 MIT & Cambridge Stress Path Plot

Tan q = t’ / s
Tan q = Sin f’
K = c’ Cos f’
K
C’ =
Cos f’

Tan h = q / p’
Sin f’ = (3 h) / ( 6 + h )
r = c’ (6 Cos f’) / (3 – Sin f’)
r (3 – Sin f‘)
C’ =
6 Cos f’

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

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

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

 Large Strain

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

 Scattered CIU Results
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
500 500

450
BH1 UD2
BH2 UD1
f’ = sin-1 m 450
BH2 M1
BH3 UD2 c’ = a / (cos f’)
400 BH4 UD1 400
BH5 M1
350 BH6 M1 350
BH6 M2
BH9 M1 Proposed Design Line
c’ = 3.5 kPa,
300 300
t' = (s1' - s3')/2

BH10 UD1
BH10 UD3
250
f’ = 32º 250

Upper Bound
m
200
c’ = 5 kPa, 1
200

f’ = 39º
150 150

100
Lower Bound 100
c’ = 0 kPa,
50
f’ = 29º 50

a
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
s' = (s1'+s3')/2

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

 Correlations for
Preliminary Assessment of f’

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

 ’ Values vs Clay Content (Skempton, 1964)

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

 ’ vs % of Fines

35

30

25

Figure 3 : f’peak versus Percentage of Fines in Residual Soils

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd
 c’ vs % of Fines

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

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd
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
G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd
G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd
G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd
G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd
 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
G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd
 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

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

 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

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd