n situ Testings and

Soil Properties
Correlations

1000

500

300
Nf AVERAGE TREND FOR
TICINO SAND TESTED
IN ITALIAN
CALIBRATION CHAMBERS

200
о
<
1—
CO 100
CO
Ш
О MONTEREY SAND
ш 50 • ERKSAK SAND
о * OTTAWA SAND
Ш
Ш ) (NGI "
HO
a f o » S n N D l SOUTHAMPTON UN
D ) ( ENEL CRIS
V HILTON MINES SAND
СИ
A TICINO SAND, GOLDER & ASSOCIATES
о I I 1 1
-1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 -0.0 -0.2
NORMALIZED STATE PARAMETER
* * Ул-Г
e
max 6r

in conjunction with
International Conference on In Situ Measurement of
Soil Properties and Case Histories
Bali-Indonesia, May 21-24,2007
 Iniitu Testing and Soil Properties Correlation

Preface
The use of in situ testing has been widely gained popularity to establish general soil profile and
to derive soil parameters to be used in design and geotechnicai analysis. The use of CPT, SPT,
DMT and PMT for ground improvement control has also been accepted by practical engineers.
Nowadays the addition of sensors and testing technology has caused -even positive development
in the practice of geotechnicai engineering.

The main advantages of the present use of in situ testing derives its favor from the fact that
empirical correlation has been so much developed and may be used to accurately estimate the
parameters. These publications of correlation are scattered everywhere, in the seminar and
conference proceedings, in journals, and research reports. By effort of the graduate students of
the Parahyangan Catholic University, they have tried to put all these together to make the most
practical and handy application of the in situ testing results.

This publication is nothing but the first embryo of the effort. Although many other publications
have not been included in this book, we believe that the present collection is advantageous as
reference for every geotechnicai engineer. Comprehensive examples rather than simple
interpretation has been added in the final chapter to enable further thought towards a more
rational application of the empirical correlations.

Finally we expect that this book will be beneficial for everyone who use it and for students who
want to go deeper into the geotechnicai engineering practice. We apologize for incompleteness
of the published correlation which has not been included in the book. In the future this effort
will be continued to update with the state of the art so that this book will be more acceptable
and more useful.

Bandung, May 12, 2001

Paulus P. Rahardio
Geotechnics Laboratory
Parahyangan Catholic University

In SFtli Z001 I
 Itiiitu Testing and Soil propertie Correlation

TABLE OF CONTENT

PREFACE

CHAPTER 1 . I N SITU TESTING DEVICE AND TEST PROCEDURE 1-1

1.1. Vane Shear Test (VST) 1-1
1.2. Bore Hole Shear Test (BST) 1-2
1.3. Standard Penetration Test (SPT) 1-3
1.4. Cone Penetration Test (CPT) 1-4
1.5. DilatometerTest (DMT) 1-6
1.6. Pressuremeter Test (PMT) 1-7

CHAPTER 2. ENGINEERING PROPERTIES OF SOILS 2.1-1

2.1. Soil Classification and Weight Volume Relationship 2.1-1

2.2. Soil Plasticity 2.2-1
2.3. Permeability 2.3-1
2.4. In Situ Stress and State Parameter 2.4-1
2.5. Shear Strength 2.5-1

2.5.2. Undrained Shear Strength of Clays 2.5-4

2.6. Compressibility and Consolidation Characteristics 2.6-1
2.7. Stiffness and Shear Rigidity 2.7-1
2.7.1. Applicability of Strains in Various Construction 2.7-1
2.8. Expansive Soils 2.8-1

CHAPTER 3. USE I N SITU TESTING TO IDENTIFY SOIL TYPES AND SOIL

BEHAVIOUR TYPES 3-1

CHAPTER 4. I N SITU TESTING FOR PREDICTION OF DENSITY OF SOILS

AND STATE PARAMETERS 4-1

CHAPTER 5. I N SITU TESTING FOR PREDICTION OF I N SITU STRESS AND

STRESS HISTORY 5-1

5.1. Prediction of Preconsolidation Pressure or Yield Stress 5-1

5.2. Prediction of Overconsolidation Ratio (OCR) 5-3
5.3. Prediction of Horizontal Stress and K0 5-7

CHAPTER 6. MEASUREMENT OF SHEAR STRENGTH BY IN SITU TESTINGS 6-1

6.1. Drained Shear Strength of Sand 6-1

6.1.1. Prediction of Ф' by SPT 6-1
6.1.2. Prediction of ф' by CPT 6-4
6.1.3. Prediction o f f by Dilatometer 6-6

6.2. -Effective Friction Angles of All Soils 6-7

6.3. Undrained Shear Strength of Clays 6-8

6.3.1. Shear Strength of Clays by SPT 6-8
6.3.2. Shear Strength of Clays by CPT 6-8
6.3.3. Shear Strength of Clays by Dilatometer Test 6-11
6.3.4. Shear Strength of Chalk by CPT ^-11

In Situ zooi ii
 imitu letting and Soil propertie Correlation

CHAPTER 7. I N SITU TESTING TO ESTIMATE SOIL STIFFNESS AND

SHEAR RIGIDITY 7-1

CHAPTER 8. I N SITU TESTING TO ESTIMATE CONSOLIDATION

CHARACTERISTIC 8-1

CHAPTER 9. I N SITU TESTING FOR EVALUATION OF LIQUEFACTION

POTENTIAL 9-1

CHAPTER 10. COMPARISON BETWEEN THE RESULTS OF I N SITU TEST 10-1

CHAPTER 1 1 . COMPREHENSIVE EXAMPLE 11-1

11.1. SPT and CPT Interpretation on Clays 11-1

11.2. SPT and CPT Interpretation of Sand Layer 11-6
11.3. CPTU Interpretation in Soft Alluvial Soils 11-11

REFERENCES

InSituzooi • " iii

 CHAPTER 1

1№ШТ№Т^ШЙ@ ВЕЙ
AND TEST PROCEDURE
 Chapter! in Situ Taring Device and Tat Procedure

CHAPTER 1
I N S I T U T E S T I N G D E V I C E A N D TEST PROCEDURE

1.1. VANE SHEAR TEST (VST)

Device :

• Four-bladed rectangular vane

(Normally H/D = 2)
• Rotating rod
• Torque measuring device

Test Procedure :
Test carried out in a borehole or directly pushing
the vane into the ground. I t is important that the
vane is pushed ahead of disturbance caused by
vane housing or drilling operations. The vane rod
is then rotated at a rate of 6°/min., while the
torque is read at interval of 30 s. After maximum
torque isachieved, the^ yane is rotated at higher
rate to Obtainг thef remolded-strengthof the^soiis.

Measured Parameters:

г
fir,peak
Fig. 1.1.1 Swedish Vane Borer • Peak t o r q u e (т р е а к) => реак=~ч

6ТГ1
• R e s i d u a l t o r q u e (^residual) =>
Muastmng irii

Factors Affecting Results:

1. Disturbance due to vane insertion

2. Blade thickness
-Squortlw 3. Rate of rotation
4. Time lapse between insertion of the vane and
the beginning of the test
5. Strength anisotropy
.-Casing 6. Type of soils
7. Possible friction of the rod and surrounding
soils
8. Failure planes around the vanes
■Bdbtwring spacer
Corrections for Interpretation:
■Ffietafttfiminoioc <Ь5и
Skempton recommended multiplying the vane
diameter by 1.05 for interpretation of strength
•Vane and Bjerrum has used plasticity index to
incorporate field strength to vane shear strength
(see chapter 6).
Fig. 1.1,2. Details of VST
(Ortigao & Collet, 1 9 8 8 )
 1.2. BOREHOLE SHEAR TEST (BST>

Device:

• Shear head
• Pressure source
• Pulling Yoke
• Cabling
• Control/measuring unit

Test Procedure:

Shear head is lowered in a borehole to perform

the test. At the required position the two shear
plates are expanded until seated in a borehole
walls at preselected pressure. Some time is
allowed for consolidation to occur. When
consolidation is complete the shear head is either
pulled upward, or pushed downwards at a steady
rate of 2 mm/ min. Thje required forces for
shearing are measured, and the shearing stress
:,pjs£ted=aga!ns£^he^^aki3^^^
the shear plates may be contracted, the shear
head lowered to its original position, rotated 90°
and the test repeated. The shear head is then
returned to the original position, another seating
pressure selected and the test repeated.
Tranducers
Factors affecting results :

• Drainage condition
— Deairing Ports • Disturbance and size of drilling hole

Porous Stones
100 kPa
D_£i
Shear Head

Fig. 1.2.1. The Iowa Borehole Shear Device (BSH

fWineland. 1975^

I.

Normal Stress, psi

Fig. 1 -? о Typical Results

tettezwi- 1-2 -i*

 Спарил. In Situ Tating Dora and l e t Procedure

1.3. STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT)

Device =

$ • Split spoon sampler

• Hammer (63.5 kg)
• Rods

Automatic
Test Procedure :
63.5 kg free drop trip
hammer ('Monkey!
Test carried out in a borehole by lowering the split
spoon sampler and driving it using repeated blows
Striker plate
by the hammer freely dropped at falling height of
Connector to 762 mm at the top of the borehole. Blow count is
32mm rods
recorded 3 times, each 150 mm penetration and the
N value is the sum of the blow count of the last 300
Round 'A' tods
or square 32mm mm penetration as blows/300 mm.
boring rods

Measured Parameters:
Spill spoon

N blows/30 cm
—.—"О*- Standard
cutting shoe
Corrections for blow count:
60* cone (0( gravel.

0i) and overburden pressure (Сы)

Fig. 1.3.1. Equipment For The Ni(60) « T J . C N - N

Standard
Penetration Test Factors Affecting Results:

1. Variations in the test apparatus

2. Disturbance and size of drilling hole
3. Type and consistency or density of soils
4. Confining pressure or overburden pressure
5. Energy
6. Drainage condition
7. Disturbance and size of drilling hole

Types of Hammers :

1. Automatic Trip Hammers

2. Slip-Rope-Hammers (pin weight hammer, safety
and donut hammer)

Fig. 1.3.2. Sections through

American SPT slip-
rope hammers
(a) pin weight hammer
(b) safety hammer
(c) donut hammer
(Riggs, 1986)

in Situ zoo) 1-3

 flapttn. In Situ feting Device and Test Procedure

1.4. CONE PENETRATION TEST fCPT>

Device :

D=15 • Cone
• Friction sleeve
• Pore pressure transducer (for piezocone)
.D-12.5
.D-30 • Other sensors (if any)
• Rods
fl • Control/ measuring device
E=2p Types of Cone :
D-36-
• Mechanical cone
• Electric cone
tei Test Procedure :

D-23 Test is carried out by mechanically or

«rf hydraulically pushing a cone into the ground at a
constant speed (2 cm/s) whilst measuring the tip
and shear force, f o r piezocone, pore pressure is
measured along depth of penetration and a
d isslpa" ^ n - ^ | s Y ; Can =№=perfcWi^~ara"n"yiTe"q u i red
D=32.5 depth by stopping the penetration and measuring
the decay of pore water pressure with time. It is
D=35.7; recommended that the dissipation be continued to
at least 5 0 % degree of dissipation.

(Dimensions are in mm) Measured Parameters :

Fig. 1.4.1, Begemann Mechanical • Tip resistance, q c (kg/cm 2 )

Friction Cone fMeiah, • Friction resistance, fs (kg/cm 2 )
1987) • Pore pressure, u (for piezocone)

Factors Affecting Results :

Water seal Soil seal
Type and consistency or density of soils
Confining pressure or overburden pressure
Verticality
Rate of penetration
S load cell
Calibration of sensors
Wear of the cone
Water s e a l ^ r Soil seal Temperature changes
A rigid pore pressure measuring system and a
fully saturated system (for piezocone)
Rate of dissipation of pore pressures (for
*Г<^ \ j > >r4nf*tJ/7 piezocone)
C + S load cell X TС load cell Location of the filter and axial load on the cone
(for piezocone)
Variations in the test apparatus
Fig. 1.4.2. Electric Friction Cone
(Meigh. 1987)

In Situ кип 1-4

 Chapter],toSitu Toting Device and Test Procedure

Correction for Interpretation :

3 major area of cone design that influence

interpretation are :

1. Unequal area effects

2. Piezometer location, size and saturation
3. Accuracy of measurement

Additional sensors :

Local side Iriciion. In recent year, the CPT or CPTU is supplemented

by additional sensors, such-as geophone arrays
(seismic cone), lateral stress sensing,
pressuremeter module behind cone-penetrometer,
electrical resistivity or conductivity for estimating
in situ porosity or density and has also been used
as an indicator of soil contamination, heat flow
measurement, radioisotope measurement,
acoustic noise, and other geo-environmental
devices.

Fig. 1.4.3. Typical Result

 Chapteri. In SimfetingDevice aid Tat Procedure

i к IYTI ATOMFTER TEST (DMT)

Device :

• Blade with a stainless-steel membrane

mounted on one side of the blade
• Rods
• Control/measuring unit
• Pressure source

Test Procedure :

Test is carried out by pushing or hammering a

dilatometer blade into the soil at between
lOmm/s and 30 mm/s, whilst measuring
penetration resistance and then using gas
pressure to expand the membrane approximately
1.1 mm into the soil. Various pressures are
measured during the inflation- deflation cycle.

Measured Parameters:
I о pressure source
. D, ■= Gorr^ctej^eressure_^on _the,jriembrane
Pressure gauge
before lift-off (i.e. at 0.00 mm)
— Regulator valve • Pi corrected membrane pressure at 1.10
mm expansion
-High pressure • P2 corrected pressure at which the
tubing
membrane just returns to its support
after expansion
• KD horizontal stress index (a normalized
Drill rods
lateral stress)
Friction reducer ring
• Ь material index (a normalized modulus
which varies with soil type)
• UD pore pressure index (a measure of the
-Diaphragm (60rr.mdia.) pore pressure set up by membrane
expansion)
En = dilatometer modulus {an estimate of
elastic Young's modulus)

Dilaiomeier test sequence

Factors Affecting Results:
Inflate Deflate
1. Disturbance due to blade insertion
Щ 2. Blade thickness
■ilia
А
I1
Й Й s
3. Type of soils
4. Membrane-stiffness

Corrections for Pressures :

v V v v
A_ao;gnal;
R&Sdoj: P
On
А
Ofl
В
On (OH) On
С
Calibration of the unrestrained membrane should
take place at ground surface before and after
each DMT sounding. Two values of pr-essure are
Fig. 1.5.1. Marchetti Dilatometer measured :
fMarchetti. 1975^ • The gauge pressure necessary to suck the
membrane back against it support
• The gauge pressure necessary to move it
outward to the 1.10 mm position

toilwwi ?-6
 Chapter!. In Situ Testing Device and Tet Procedure

1-fi. PRESSUREMETER TEST fPMT)

Waie г «ijeciion Device

Pressure
I. СО г botile • Probe
volumeter
• Control/ measuring unit
• Tubing/ cabling
Air lo guard
cells

Test Procedure
■Ground level Test carried out in a borehole or directly pushing
_2
MAS -TZ^- the probe into the ground and loading it
horizontally until it reaches the limit pressure or
PrelbfiTied
borehole ч capacity of the device. Normally the pressure
increments are between 5 - 1 4 kPa. The aim of a
pressuremeter test is to obtain information of the
Guard cell (air-filled)
relationship between radial applied pressure and
Probe
>.
} Measuring cell (waler-lillea)
the resulting deformation.
Guard cell (air-filled)
Measured Parameters :
Tr
c^=rr^":;a^pressu reme
Fig. 1.6.1. Diagramatic Sketch of The cu = undrained shear strength
Menard Pressuremeter
Gh0 = in-situ horizontal stress in the ground
(Gibson & Andersonl96i)

Types of Pressuremeter :
Rubber membrane

• Borehole pressuremeter
• . Self-boring pressuremeter
• Displacement pressuremeter -(Push-in
pressuremeter and cone-pressuremeter)

Factors Affecting Results :

• Type of soils
• The rate of expansion to assure drained or
undrained test condition
• Membrane stiffnes and system compliance
• Disturbance and size of drilling hole
■ Cutter drive rod
Corrections for Pressures:
Soil and water
1. The resistance of the probe itself t o expansion
■ Bottom bearing 2. The expansion of the tubes connecting the
probe with the pressure-volumeter
Tapered passage 3. Hydrostatic effects

Fig. 1.6.2. The Cambridge Self-

Boring Pressuremeter
(Windle & Wroth. 19771

|Л Ш1! 2001
и
 Chapter]. In Situ Testing Device and Tat Procedure

CPM tubing
Control
Push head ■, system
Ш1Ш

, Standard ■■
cone'rod

r;c6ne rouv-
adaptor.'; f i g . 1.6.4. Typical Expansion Curve

^Pressuremeter
module

.Cone' _Щ£.}
' penetrometer

fig. 1.6.3 The Push-in Pressuremeter

ID SJtU 200} 1-8

 CHAPTER 2

ЕШШШШ
PROPERTIES OF SOILS
 Chapter Engineering Properrie of Soils

CHAPTER 2 . E N G I N E R I N G PROPERTIES OF S O I L S
2 . 1 . S O I L C L A S S I F I C A T I O N A N D W E I G H T VOLUME R E L A T I O N S H I P

Table 2.1.1. Volume Weight Relationships for Soils f NAVFAC, 19711

VOLUME-WEIGHT RELATIONSHIPS FOR SOILS

Saturated Unfaturmtod
•ample \W„ Ww, «ample (W^WW,
Property G, are Vnown) G„ V are known) Uluitratlon of sample

Volume of solids V, W,
G.T-t

Volume of water V„

Puiosity, y-voia ratio volume o' oi' o' gas

Volume of air or gas V - (V. + Vw)
V„ T7T7 t
n e Volume v v
Volume I ol voids^*j
Volume of voids V„
Components V - Totol Volume
74 Gftw volume ,У V," 0(
01 souas
/ \ \
somple-^ I 1
Total volume of V. + V„ Measured
~Vo! ume-cwipbw nl-t-L-~—-йа^.„r " — ,
sample V somple

Porosity n Vv e

Vv _ Gsyw ~ 1
I Void ratio e e = wG./lOO (saturated soil)

Weight of solids VV, Measured

Weights
for Weight of water Ww Measured
specific
sample Total weight of W, + VV„
sample W, _Weights for unit.
volume ot soil

j Dry-unit weight yd W, vv. -0.0s Assumed weight less

Weight '
V , + V„ V

™
1 I / - Totol

I ,1
li "llI ll
Weight I w » w e ' 9 h t
W . + W„ s. o(
Wet-unit weight yt vv. + ww of .W, sample
solids-' I
Weights for v . + vw V
sample of
■ Weight components -
unit volume Saturated-unit weight
W.+ Ww W,+ VvyY
У, v,+ v „ V

j Submerged (buoyant) 7*4

1 unit weigh! 7 b

I Moisture content vv
VV,

Combined j D e g r e e of saturation S 1.00

Relations j 7d У. = 7d + yw
1 +W 1 + e

I Specific gravity G, VV,

V,7W

In Situ 1001 2.M

 Chapter Engineering Pnipettie OfSoih

Rounded Subrounded

Subangular Angular

Fig.2.1.1. Typical Shapes of Coarse-Grained Bulky particles (Photograph

bvM. Surendral. (Robert P., Holtz & William D. Kovacs, 1981)

Table.2,1.2. Particles Size Distribution of Soils.

(Wagner, 1957r and Anonr 1995)

Types of material Sizes (mm)

Boulders Over 200

Cobbles 60 - 200
Coarse 20-60
Gravel Medium 6-20
Fine 2-6

Coarse 0.6-2
Sand Medium 0.2-0.6
Fine 0.06-0.2

Coarse 0.02 - 0.06

Silt Medium 0.006 - 0.02
Fine 0.002 - 0.006

Clay Less than 0,002

In Situ гол гл-г

l-Vl LOOZIUpl

2?
to" PERCENT PASSING (FINER THAN)
■

BY WEIGHT (OR MASS)

л. от со о
о о о о
о о
н о
о
\
!
\
a

I \ о

ч\
p
0) "

N
2 "О
Щ
О

Vч
ID

ft
-i g. 2
с

3
»^
о (7)
|
о
=
■ \

\
N — - о

-
о

о
X \ с о С
о a 3=
(Л ЕЛ
г* (Л гп
N i—i
\ 3 <
>
m / ~ о
ГП
_j

<
rn
73
\
J^ т >
JL
« 3
....... 7Г \ г
4
о
10
00
/ \

из \
о Q.
го
О.

р"

-
_ со
5"
о

PERCENT RETAINED (COARSER THAN)

BY WEIGHT (OR MASS)

доНоддойц^ОДгоЛ
 (tapteri Engineering Propertia Of Soih

Table 2.1.3.Unified Soils Classification Systems fASTM D2487) (USAWES. 1967)

Group
Major DMsiont Symbol! Typical Name* Laboratory ClastHkation Criteria

GW W e l t - g r s d a d gravels, gravel-sand m i x ­
D60 lOjo'
С, » greater t h a n 4 ; C . between 1 and 3
tures, little or n o fines O,0 Dl0XD6O

II GP P o o r l y graded gravels, gravel-sand m i x ­

_ л
N o t meeting ell gradation requirements f o r G W

i
t u r e s , l i t t l e or n o fines

= 3:S 3 Atterberg limits below " A " Above " A " line with P.I.
E - GM" S i l t y gravels, gravel-sand-silt m i x t u r e s
l i n e o r P . I . less t h a n 4 b e t w e e n 4 a n d 7 are border­
line cases r e q u i r i n g use o f
GC C l a y e y gravels, gravel-sand-clay m i x ­ Atterberg limits below " A " dual s y m b o l s
tures
S= l line w i t h P . I . greater t h a n 7

S-5
IE
D60 IDJO)1
W e l l - g r a d e d sands, g r a v e l l y sands, l i t t l e C, ■ greater t h a n 6 ; G- " b e t w e e n 1 and 3
Or n o f i n e s O,o O,o * O 6 0
£ о
SP P o o r l y graded sands, g r a v e l l y sands, N o t m e e t i n g all g r a d a t i o n r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r S W

!i
v> О
ок
l i t t l e or n o fines

о i

с —
<3°

§
SW£i i S j l.ty_.sand s-.sand-sJl!;mi«.turet
Vi — v

^_ :a.-C*~f} ;
A t t e r b e r g l i m i t s above " A "
ti л e-or-. P; \-.i essriha я -A-..----~—
L i m i t s p l o t t i n g , i n . hatched.
^ne^;wHrT>l(:f:,bet'vrte'iv=4"

si
C l a y e y sands, sand-clay m i x t u r e s
IflilS A t t e r b e r g l i m i t s above " A "
l i n e w i t h P . I , greater t h a n 7
and 7 are borderline
r e q u i r i n g use o f d u a l sym­
bols
cases

I n o r g a n i c silts a n d v e r y f i n e sands,
l№"
r o c k f l o u r , s i l t y o r c l a y e y l i n e sands,
o r c l a y e y silts w i t h ( l i g h t p l a s t i c i t y
si Inorganic clays o f l o w t o m e d i u m
Plasticity Chart
p l a s t i c i t y , gravelly c l a y s , sandy clays,
с u
» E s i l t y clays, lean clays /
OL
/
O r g a n i c silts a n d o r g a n i c s i l t y clays o f
/
t o w plasticity

1/ CH

'
?! I n o r g a n i c silts, m i c a c e o u s o r d i a t o m s - Л ■

MH ceoos f i n e sandy o r s i l t y soils, elastic

silts
2- 30
.•V 1У -OH and ЛН

4 CH I n o r g a n i c clays o f h i g h p l a s t i c i t y , f a t
clays
* 20
CJ,
/
/
II O r g a n i c clays o f m e d i u m t o high 'CL-ML /
p l a s t i c i t y , organic silts
'ШШ? OL j
0 v
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 9 0 100
Liquid limit
Peat a n d o t h e r h i g h l y organic soils
S»S

In №кп M-4
 Soil Density/compactncss/scrength, Composite и Particle Particle size PRINCIPAL Composite job] Minor
Bedding types (miiiurei Visual identification types (mixtures of
group Field lesl bajic soil types) Sf shape !(mm) SOIL TYPE basic soil types) constituents
Scale of spacing of Scale of bedding For mixtures Angular Only seen complete in pits or For mixtures
By inspection of voids'" discontinuities thickness involving very exposures involving very
II! and panicle packing Mean
spacing mm
Mean
thickness mm
Red
Orange
coarse soils, sec
Table 1.10 Sub-
angular
200

-60
Often difficult to recover whole
from boreholes
coarse soils, sec
Table 1.10
visual Borehole with Very Very thickly Term before Term after
ID SPT N-value widely bedded Yellow principal principal
Very Thickly soil type soil type
Can be Widely Brown Rounded Easily visible to naked eye;
excavaied with loose bedded Slightly with a link
Green (sandy *) panicle shape can be described; (sand л)
a spade. 50 mm Medium grading can be described
wooden peg bedded with some
Blue
easily driven (sandy i ) (sand 1}
Medium Thinly
S" Closely White Elongate
loose bedded Very with much
Requires pick Very VeryQunly (sandy A ) (sand A)
Cream
for excavation. closely .bedded ■ SAND AND
SAND AND
50 mm wooden Grey GRAVEL
Very Ennemcly Thickly GRAVEL
peg bard to under 20 Visible to naked eye; no
drive dense closely laminated Black cohesion when dry; grading can
Thinly
Breaks into etc.gravelly or be described gravelly or
Visual examination; pick Laminated sand and/or
Slightly blocks along sandy and/or
removes soil in lumps which Supple­ silty or clayey silly or clayey
cemented unpolished
can be abraded mented its
discontinuities
Alternating necessary Term before Only coarse sill visible with Term а Пег
Un- Easily moulded or Inter- layers of with: principal hand lens exhibits little principal
Breaks into soil type soil type
compact crushed in the fingers bedded different types. plasticity and marked dilalancy:
blocks along Prcqualificd by Lighl Slightly slightly granular or silky to with a link
polished thickness term (sandy u ) medium (sand Д)
Dark touch. Disintegrates in water,
Can be moulded or crushed discontinuities if in equal lumps dry quickly; possesses with some-
Compact by strong pressure in proportions. Mottled (sandy A) cohesion but can be powdered (sand a)
the fingets Otherwise easily between fingers.
and Very wi;h much
thickness of (sandy u) (undu)
Very Finger easily pushed and spacing Intermediate in behaviour
Reddish CLAY/
soft in up to 25 mm Inter- between between day and silt. Slightly
Spacing terms also \ SILT
Finger pushed ii lamina­ subordinate Orangish gravelly and/or dilatant. gravelly and/or
up to 10 mm used for distance layers defined
between partings,
ted Yellowish sandy Dry lumps can be broken but sandy
Thumb makes not powdered between fingers;
isolated beds or
impression easily Brownish they also disintegrate under
laminae, desiccation,
Can be indented slightly cracks, rootlets etc. water but niore slowly than silt;
by thumb smooth to the [ouch; exhibits S8
Very Can be indented by plasticity but no dilalancy;
sittr thumb nail sticks to tie fingers and drys
slowly; shrinks appreciably on
Can be scratched by
thumbnail , drying usually showing cracks.

Plant remains Transported т

Fibres already comprcsed Slightly organic clay n Contains finely divided orj^liscretc
recognisable and panicles of organic mRllcrjflftcn with D Or described as coarse I depending™ mass
together SI ighlly organic sand
retains some strength distinctive smell, may oxidise rapidly.
Organic clay о dark urcy behaviour
Organic Sana dark grey Describe as for inorganic soils using
Planl remains « Or described as fi soil depending on mass
Very compressible and open Pseudo terminolugy above. i] '
Spongy behaviour
structure fibrous recognisable and
strength lost
PrtHlominanlly planl remains, usually dark brown or
• Minor constituent lypc I
Can be moulded in hand and Amor- Recognisable plant bt:ick in cnluur. distinctive smcli.lnw built Idcnsily. t.'ai i % coarse or fine soil type assessed excluding ■5 E
smears fingers phous | remains abscnl conEaiit disseminated or discrelo mineral sriils. cobbles and boulders
Examples of composite soil types, Loose brown very sandy Medium dense light brown StilTvr-ry closely fissurcit orange mottled Firm thinly laminalcd grey Plastic brnu-n clayey
indicating preferred order of subahgular fine to coarse Hint clayey fine SAND with brown sandy CLAY with a j p CLAY witb closely spaced unrarphmis PEAT.
descriplioi GRAVEL with small pockets (up to 30 mml some fine gravel. little rounded quanzile gravci.: thick laminae of sand. (RECENT DEPOSITS]
of clay. (TERRACE GRAVELS) (GLACIAL DEPOSITS] (REWORKED WEATHERED LONDON CLAY) (ALLUVIUM)

Table. 2.1.4. Identification and Description of Soils (Anon, 1995)

 (tapttri Engineering Prepertlo Of Soils

32 ,— Peal from British Columbia

Lea &Brawner (1963)

28

Sp. g- = 2: S, = 100%
24
Sp. g. = 1.5: St= 100%
or
20 Sp.g. = 1.4: Sr = 93.5%
Canada
Cook (1956) / ,
16
U.S.A. \ j * / "Quebec
Moore (1962) M
Brochu and Pare (1964)
12
Welsh bog jSp.g. = 1.4
x Cheshire poor fen
о Norfolk buried peat
л
Shropshire fen ' Sp. g. varies
* Sizeweil fen
_J
400 800 1200 1600 2000

Rg.2.1.3. Variation of Water Content of Peats with Void

Ratio fHobbs, 19861.

14
■E
0)

d
1.2

о
о
> 1.0

ж.
ж. 08 ■
I—I

3
06

E.
Ш ;
O.B
d
Об
Q
§
z
1—1

ог 2 3 4 6 ю
COEFFICIENT OF UNIFORMITY, C u

Fig.2.1.4, Generalized Curves for Estimattno emRV and e mir

from Gradiational arid Particle Shape
Characterisitic. (Youd, T. L.. 19731.

Ill JitU 2001 2.1-6

 Chapter i Engineering Praperrie efSoiH

2.2. SOIL PLASTICITY

Table 2.1.1. Engineering Properties of Soils and Rocks

Plasticity Range of Liquid Limit
Low Plasticity Less than 35
Intermediate Plasticity 35-50
High Plasticity 50-70
Very High Plasticity 70-90
Extra High Plasticity Over 90

Table 2.1.2. Plasticity of Soils f Anonr 19791

Class Plasticity Index (%") Description

1 Less than 1 Non-plastic
2 1-7 Slightly plastic
plasticity index 3 7-17 Moderately plastic
Activity =ь 17-35
% by mass finer than 0.002 mm 4 Highly plastic
5 Over 35__ Extremely Plastic

x
Ш
D SKEMPTON DEFINITION
Activity =
и i= slope)
I—I 1EED ET AL DEFINITION
PI
5 Activity = - Д -
a. С Ъ
Actual relationship between PI and С
±Z 20 40 60
i
80
i
100

CLAY CONTENT, С (%)

Fig.2.2.1. Simplified Relationship Between Plasticity Index and

Clay Content (Seed et.al.. 1962^

Iniitrai г.г-i
 Ctiaptea btgineering Propertie ofSoIIs

2.3. PERMEABILITY

к (cm/sec)

Ю2 10 I Ю"1 КГ 2 I0" 3 10"4 I0" 5 I0" e Ю"7 I0" 8

.'"f"" ±— ■' -. ■■' 1
Silts Homogeneous
Cloys *"
-*— Grovels Sands
Fissured, Weathered Clays

Fractured Cvt Clays, Tills

Fractured Heovily Lightly Jo nted/
Jointed Rock Sound Roc ( * ■

Fig. 2 . 3 . 1 . Approximation Range of Permeability ( k ) in Soil

and Rock.(Milligan f 1975).

Table. 2 . 3 . 1 . Typical Values o f Coefficient of Permeability

For Various Soils (Braja M. Das, 19871

Material Coefficient of
Permeability, cm/s
Coarse 1 to Ю 2
3
Fine gravel, coarse and medium sand 10~ to l
Fine sand, loose silt 10"5 to 1С1"3
Dense sift, clayey silt 10" 6 to 1Q"5
Silty clay, clay 10"9 to 10"6

Table. 2.3.2. Typical Permeability Values for Highway

Materials. (Krebs and Walker, 1971)

Material Permeability, cm/s

Uniformly graded coarse aggregate 40 - 4 x l 0 ' 1
Well-graded aggregate without fines 4xi0"f - 4xi0" s
Concrete sand, low dust content 7xio* z - 7X10"4
Concrete sand, high dust content 7X10"4 - 7xI0' 6
Silty and clayey sands 10"5 - 10"7
Compacted silt 7*10' 6 - 7xi0" 8
Compacted clay Less than 10"7
Bituminous concrete* 4xl0" 3 - 4*10"6
Portland cement concrete Less than 1 0 8

* New pavements; values as (ow as 10-10 have been

reported for sealed, traffic compacted highway
pavement.

latom 4-1
 Chaptff i . Ei^nealrtg Prepertia Of SoiK

U.S. std. sieve

10 30 GO £00
1 1 1 ■

IS s \
4OO0

—
-N As Ocni* •oiit
-!2. гооо
4-
О
i4
s
4N
лsV ^
£ : ooo
N \> k■
■ 4

6 eoo
\ \ \ \ \ \ Ct
— 600 \4
Si 400
N s\ ^
- v \v Л
> , \ \\%
fc 200
v\
—'
w Л\
t—i
\ \^
< 100 \\ \S'T
g 80 \ V\
\
Ш
a.
60
\\J5 s N
yy
w \
\
го
[
\ \
1
w \ ;\
\ 1
Oi
2.0 1.0 0.3 0-25 0.1 0.05 0

, &oVer-"--j'G6Gf5e"Scnd:[RVd;^
i-
""" — —
D50 GRAIN (mm)

Fig. 2.3.2 Prugh Permeability Estimates Dense Soils

(J. Patrick Powersr 19861

U.S. std. sieve

10 30 60 200

GOOO

4000
^ 1
Щ
w N s 50% re atiJe density

S >N
T*" 2000
О
i-i
X 4 1
^ ^ \
£ loco
^ 800 N\
и ° 60
\ i
\ \ \ \
V
^ t\> i
£ 40.0
N ^ \s* — i
i
\ \ \
it го
а ° xN Л ^
Ш \
< \ \ x
\ \
Ш
E: юо
\ 1 .

\ \ \
\\
\ s \л \ W
X-
Й
60 \ \ \v) \ \ ^
\ \
0\
40

1
\ \
1
W \Y У N
1
^
1
20 1.0 0 5 0.25 С .1 005 001
DJO Grain ы e (mm)
Grovel (Coorse Sand | Med.sortdj Fine sa nd | Silt ond cloy ■

Fig. 2.3.3 Prugh Permeability Estimates 50% Relative Density

O. Patrick powers, 1986)

IR Sitil 2001
 Chapter г. Engineering Properties efSoiK

US. Std. Sieve

30 60 200
i 1

^
О
6000

4000
c-^ —
Ш
(Л Looie (0(1:
* " * 2OQ0
О N1
i4 N
X
% 10 00 \\>\ \A-
X 80
° ^fv\
\
A«
Ш 600 4 \ A V%
(ft
"3: 4oo AV \ \ \ Д
\
s \
<
Ш
гоо

юо
\
\ w \v \ Nn \k
a: ^ \
vvV
ш
a.
80
N
60
t\ \\
L
40
\
2 6 6 14
v\л 6 I4
..
i
20 1.0 QS 0.25 0.1 0.05
0.05 0.01
Duo Groin t h e (min)
| Grovel | u o o f t e Sond | Med.sond] Fine tend | Sill ond cloy

D so GRAIN ( m m )

Fig. 2.3.4. Prugh Permeability Estimates Loose Soils

fJ. Patrick. 1986^

1Л-1
 Chapter*. Engineering Propertie of Soik

2.4. I N SCTU STRESS AND STATE

PARAMETER

2 . 4 . 1 . Coefficient of Earth
Pressure at Rest (Ко)

Key to data:
(1). Brooker and Ireland (1965).
(2). Ladd (1965).
(3). Bishop (1958).
(4). Simons (1958).
(5). Campanelta and Vatd (1972).
(6). Compiled by Wroth (1972).
(7). Abdelhamid and Krizek 1976).

Fig. 2.4.1. Correlation Between the Coefficient of Earth Pressure at

Rest and The Angle of Shearing Resistance, in Terms of
Effective Stresses fLadd et a!..1977V

- 1.0
(Л
Ш К = 0.44 + 0.42(Р1/100)
6Ш 0.8
a:
Ш 0.6
a:
Q.
x
< 0.4
ID
LL.
О • Undisturbed

И 0.2 о Disturbed or laboratory reconsolidated

from a sediment
ш
О
U
20 40 60 80 100 120

PLASTICITY INDEX, PI

Fig. 2.4.2. Correlation Between The Coefficient of Earth Pressure at

Rest Obtained from Laboratory Tests f and Plasticity
Index (Massarscti. 1979).

In Situ looi 2.4-1

 Chapter Ш Ш ш Properties OfSoih

^?
h-
U)
Ш
»

Ш
* OCR-32
<F
5» • ~-»L
Ш
cc К
Q- IS
X . 4
D
•
u.
О В
h- 05
г л •
Ш
1—1
О
£ 0 10 20 30 40 SO 60 70 60
ш
8 PLASTICITY INDEX, PI

Fig. 2.4.3. Coefficient of Earth Pressure at Rest. K», as a

Function of Overconsolidated Ratio, OCR;
PJastidty^lridex^PoifstAtsRInterporatedFrom:
Data by Hendron (1963). (Brooker and Ireland,
1965)

Яд. 2.4.4. Correlation Between The Coefficient of Earth

Pressure at Rest Obtained and Overconsolidated
Ratio For Clays of Various Plasticity Indices
(Data by Ladd. 1965, and Brooker and Ireland,
1965 : Reported by Ladd. 1971)

2
|Д SitO 2001 ' -4~*
 Chapteri Engineering Ptupertia ofSotH

fo , Л.__ - - * - _ TYPICAL STATE POIWT

0)

d ф » e — e
5
N.
D
О Си
>

\SSL

Aftw Been & JeflertM (1W5)

"tOG^tp^ " " "

Fig. 3.4.5. Definition of State Paremeter (Been,К &

Jefferies. M.G. 1986^

LEGEND

350/б\ Ч ,\ I J-SILT CONTENT: %

0.8 >
О

1
S 0.7
^ Л ^ « - \ ^ Щ 0 / { 1

g
*° /1 \ \N^»«
О-в
1 10 100 1000

Р' = ( C i ' + <у2' + аз')/3 (kPa)

Fig. 2.4.6. SSL'S For Kogyuk Sand With Different

Silt Contents. (3efferiesr M.G. &
BeenrK 1987V

4
InSitnooi i-4-3
 Chapter! Englneoing Ргерешо of m

2 . 5 . SHEAR STRENGTH Table 2.5.l.Tvpical Angle of Shearing Resistance of

Cohesionless Soils (US Navy, 1982)
2.5.1 Shear S t r e n g t h of S a n d s
Material Ф(deg)
Loose Dense
Uniform s a n d , round grains 27 34
Well-graded sand, angular grains 33 45
Sandy gravels 35 50
Silty sand 27-33 30-34
Inorganic silt 27-30 30-35

Table 2.5.2. Typical Values of The Angle of Shearing

Resistance For Compacted Sands and
Gravels (US Navv. 1982)

Angle of
Soil Description Class* Shearing
Resistance,
«^9)
- Well-graded sand gravel mixtures GW >38
- Poorly-graded sand gravel mixtures GP >37
- Silty gravels, poorly graded sand- GM >34
gravel-silt
- Clayey gravels, poorly graded sand- GC >31
gravel-clay
- Well-graded clean sand, gravelly sands SW 38
- Poorly-graded clean sands, gravelly
sands SP 37

Table 2.5.3. Relationship Between Relative Density.

Penetration Resistance, and Angle of
Friction of Cohesionless Soils
(G. Meverhoff, 1956)

State of Relative Standard Static Cone Angle of

Packing Density Penetration Resistance Friction, ф,
Resistance, q= deg
N, blows/ft (kg/em?)
Very Loose < 0.2 <4 < 20 < 30
Loose 0.2 to 0,4 4tQlQ 2Q to 40 30 to 35
Compact 0.4 to 0.6 10 to 30 40 to 120 35 to 40
Dense 0.6 to 0.8 30 to 50 120 to 200 40 to 45
Very Dense > 0.8 > 50 > 200 > 45

Table 2.5.4. Typical values of ф and Ф™ For Granular

Soils (Braia M. Das. 1987)

Type of Soil
Ф фсу'

Sand : round grains

Loose 28 t o 30
Medium 30 to 35 26 to 30
Dense 35 to 38

Sand : angular grains

Loose 30 to 35
Medium 35 to 40 30 to 35
Dense 40 to 45

Sandv qravel 34 to 48 33 t o 36

In M i 2001 г.-5-1
 O a p i f f i Engineering Propetia OfSoib

1 I i l
• Quartz ) - ■ , , ,
44 —■ } u n i f o r m l y graded —
Э Feldspar or feldspar quartz m i x t u r e s I
X Well graded
42
X
40 x
X
9
38 - i xx
\ x x
36
Ф' Cv v \tf x
34 - ••
32

30 •^-—•
28

26 J i l l
Iv Ang
Sub Sub Rounded Well rounded
ang ang round
1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

RO.UND.N£SS,.Risee Youd,,.19.72) '

Fig. 2.5.1. Relationship Between Particle Shape and Ф^„ Based

TriaxialTest (Youd, T.D., 1972)

Bolton (1986) collected

together data for 17
different sands. Figure 20
1 I 1 1
2.5.2. shows the variation p' = 150-600 kN/m 2
of ф' - фи with relative 0 ' measured as secant value
density for a mean effective
16 -
stress at failure in the
range 150-660 kN/m 2 .
7
■
Plane strain values were /
higher than triaxial values
121- У ■ —
as would be expected.
Bolton reported that values
of ф'ст varied from about т
s
и' ■/ «Л
о
<Ъ
J
33° for the quartz sands to
37° for sands containing a plane s t r a i n / / ° s° t
o,0% 0х'
significant proportion of
ш'
s ° 9 ^\s
triaxial
°
feldspar.
у o-o°
-
' ^°°
■v'
■ ^ s^ О

® - e — o " ^ o — °l 1 1
20 40 60 80 100
Dr (%)

Fig. 2.5,2. Variation of 6 / - h'~, with Relative Density <Boltonf

1986)

InSltWi 2,5-2
 ChapteriEngineerinsPropmlQOfSoili

45

43
41 Соогъе мпди or,p>
Well Gradec

3 37

35 Fine nounaea
Uniform
33
X
3!
<
О 20 40 60 80 100
RELATIVE DENSITY, Dr (%)

Fig.2.5.3. Approximate Correlation Between Effective

Angle <4Q and Relative Density (Dr) in Quartz
Sands .(Schmertmann. 1975^

2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4

DRY DENSITY {Mg/mO

Fig. 2.5.4.Correlation Between The Effective Friction Angle in Triaxial Compression and The Dry
Density, Grain Size, and Gradation For Granular Soils (U.S. Navy DM-7)

In Situ 2001 M-3.

 Chapters Engineering Properties Of Joiii

Ш
и2
s -
1Л
1-1 •*
l£GENO

1Л : *.,
Ш « *. • * ' I In»!**»»
cc •
о ■
• t ™". i?«T
S !»»! № •
s
* * °* -Г.**»" / . . I Шг*"'
M
X 5^ *••*■.**•* . i i^'s: is;'.
M
U. 3
o-** .
■j * * *'" * * .- * °
ш
-i » ■

*': .£** '* .* ■, ■ *' '

ID
El Э0
■
<
Q •
Щ м ■

0.1
Z 0-4 -01 -0.1 0

3 STAT£ PARAMETER, v
a

Fig. 2.5.5. Avsw For 20 Sands fBeen f K.. and Jefferies, M.G.,
1986)

2.5.2. Undrained Shear

Strength of Clavs

Table. 2.5.5. Estimate of The Shear Strength of Clays

Shear Strength Descriptive Characteristics

(kN/m2) term
< 20 Very soft Exudes between finger
when squeezed
20-40 Soft Moulded by light finger
pressure
40-75 Firm Moulded by strong finger
pressure
75 - 150 Stiff Can be indented by
thumb
150 - 300 Very stiff Can be indented by
thumb nail
> 300 Hard
Note : these strength description and tests conform with standard
practise and with the recommendations of B.S. 5930 (1981)

Table. 2.5.6. Consistency and UnconfinedCompression

Strength of Clays

Consistency Qu
(kg/cm2)
Very soft 0 to 0.25
Soft 0.25 to 0.5
Medium 0.5 to 1
Stiff lto2
Very Stiff 2 to 4
Hard >4

toJlWMm 1-5-4
 CtiapterLEngineeringPropertieofSoiii

Table. 2.5.7. Typical Shear Strength Properties of Compacted

Clays (AASHTO T 9 9 , BS B77 : 1975)
Undrained Shear Strength
Soil Description Class» (kN/m2)
As compacted Saturated
Silty sands, sand-silt mix SM 50 20
Clayey sands, sand-clay mix SC 74 11
Silts and clayey silts ML 67 9
Clays of tow plasticity CL 86 13
Clayey silts, elastic silts MH 72 20
Clay of high plasticity CH 103 11
:
Unified classification system

£ 30
\ •
25
X • N.
1 N. •
1 20
•N.

S 15 N. •
X
(Л
Q
z "' ~~
s •
i 5 •4*

1 s 1 1 1 1 1
0 0.6 0.7 OS 0.У 1.0 1.1 1.2

LIQUIDITY INDEX

Fig. 2.5/6. Strength vs Liquidity Index for a Loessial Soil

( L u t e n e g g e r a n d Hallbera, 1988^

1000

500 - Eden and Kubota (1962)

200

> 100 Bjerrum (1954)

fc Ы)
гt;(П
■г
Ш
У) 20

10

Kenney(1976)

1 2 3 4
UQUIDJTY INDEX

Fig. 2,5,7. Relationship Between Sensitivity and Liquidity

I n d e x for D a y s

^5-5
 Ctepreri Engineer^ Pnjpettie O M

1.8

1.6 /

1.4 /

1.2
V
1.0
'/ /
/
S 0.8 / V /

0.6 MY/
/W
/

0.4 ,£
0.2 # ^

0
1 2 3 4 6 8 10

OVERCONSOLIDATION RATIO

Fig. 2.5.8. S.i/P' For Several Clays ГС.С.

Ladd and R. Foot)

o.e
AG EDv
0.6
M(FV)
ол
0.2
^-^
s f^ ~\~~~
4
Y0UNG
о i

t
2.5 1
AGE0 4

2.0
&
1.5 JNG
/ /

s
u c e r r a M su(Fv)

40 BO 120
IP(%)

Fig. 2.5.9. Normalized Field Vane Strength.

Apparent Preconsolidation and Field
Vane Correction Factor ц as
Function of Plasticity Index. Ь
fBierrum. 1972^

In Situ гот г.с-61

 Chapter г Engineering Properria of Soils

Table. 2.5.8. Typical Angles of Effective Shearing

Resistance For Compacted Clays
(AASHTO T99, BS B77 : 1975)

Soil Description Class' 4>'(deg)

Silty clays, sand-silt mix SM 34
Clayey sands, sand-clay mix SC 31
Silts and clayey silts ML 32
Clayey of low plasticity CL 28
Clayey silts, elastic silts MH 25
Clays of high plasticity CH 19
* Unified classification system

Table 2.5.9. Typical Values of A at Failure

Type of Soil
Clay with high sensitivity 4 t o 14
Normally consolidated clay 4 to 1
Overconsolidated clay -4 to 0
Compacted sandy clay 4 to 4

Table 2:5714): Values of ф a n a ~ A 7 for Normally

Consolidated Clavs ГГ.С . Kennev,
1959}
Clay Type Liquid Plasticity Sensiti Ai Ф
Limit Index vity
Natural soils
Toyen Marine 47 25 8 1.50 28.5
47 25 8 1.48
Drammert Marine 36 16 4 1.2 35.0
36 16 4 2.4
Saco River Marine 46 17 10 0.95 32.5
Boston Marine - - - 0.85 34.6
Bersimis Estuarine 39 18 6 0.63 38.7
Chew Stoke Alluvial 28 10 - 0.59 33
Kapuskasing Lacustrine 39 23 4 0.46 30
Decomposed Talus Residual 50 18 1 0.29 34.6
St. Catharines Till (?) 49 28 3 0.26 25.6

Remolded Soils
London Marine 78 52 1 0.97 19.2
Weald Marine 43 25 1 0.95 3
Beauharnois Till (?) 44 24 1 0.73 30.5
Boston Marine 48 24 1 0.69 30.7
Beauharnois Estuarine 70 42 1 0.65 32.8
Bersimis Estuarine 33 13 1 0.38 39

i Undisturbed Norwegian clay

> -Clay from other countries

(Skempton, Gibson, and Bjerrum)

Fig. 2.5.10. Variation of True Anole Friction With Plasticity Index. (L.
Bjerrum and N.E. Simons, I960}

tafttrcooi ^ 1.5-7
 Chapter! Engineering Propertie of Soils

2 . 6 . COMPRESSIBILITY AND
CONSOLIDATION
CHARACTERISITICS

NATURAL WATER CONTENT (%)

Fig. 2.6.1. Relation Between Compression Ratio and

Natural Water content. (Lambe & Whitmann,
1969V

50
2
E ю - 30
о
20
с?
z
О 10
ё
о 5.0
о 10 3
z Ж
о
и 2.0 o'
U-
о
ь- 1.0
Z
ш
О
и.
ш - 0.5
4
8 ю- Completely remolded 0.3
samples: cv lies below this upper limU"
0.2
4 Х10-5 J I I L_
20 80 100 120 160 0.1
LIQUID LIMIT (LL)

Fig. 2.6.2, Approximate Correlations of the Coefficient of

Consolidation с with the Liquid Limit. (U.S.
Navy, 1971).

№ioo] 2.6-1
 (tiapteri Engineering Propettie Of Soils

Table 2.6.1. Typical Values of the Coefficient of Volume

Compressibility and Descriptive Terms Used.
(Carter, 1983).

Type of Clay Descriptive Coefficient of

Term Volume
Compressibility
m v <cm2/kq)
Heavy overconsoli dated Very low < 0.005.
boulder clays, stiff compressibility
weathered rocks (e.g.
weathered mudstone
and hard clays)
Boulder clays, marls, Low 0.005-0.01
very stiff tropical red compressibility
clays
Firm clays, glacial Medium 0.01-0.03
outwash clays, lake compressibility
deposits, weathered
marl, firm boulder
clays, normally
consolidated clays at
depth and firm tropical
red clays
Normally consolidated High 0.03-0.15
alluvial clays sucfi as compressibility
estuarine and delta
deposits, and sensitive
clays
High organic alluvial Very high > 0.15
clays and peats compressibility

Table 2.6.2. Some Empirical Equations for С and G-»*

Equation Regions of Applicability
Cc = 0.007 (LL - 7) Remolded clays
( ^ , - 0 . 2 0 8 6° + 0.0083 Chicago clays
Q = 17.66xl0"5 wn2 + 5.93xl0' 3 Chicago clays
wn - 1.35X101
C c = 1.15 (во-0.35) All clays
Cc = 0.30 {во-0.27) Inorganic, cohesive soil; silt
some clay; silty clay; clay
Cc = 1.15 xlO" 2 wn Organic soils - meadow mats
peats, and organic silt anc
clay
Q = 0.75 ( в о - 0.50) Soils of very low plasticity
Cce = 0.156 во + 0.0107 All clays
Cc = 0.01 Wn Chicago clays
* As summarized by Azzouz, Krizek, and Corotis (1976).
Note : Wn = natural water content.

Table 2.6.3. Classification of Soil Based on Secondary

Compressibility. (G. Mesri. 1973).

C^ Secondary Compressibility
<0.002 Very low
0.004 Low
0.008 Medium
0.016 High
0.032 Very high
0.064 Extremely high

№2001 2.6-2
 Chapter*. Engineering Prapetie of Soft

2.7. STIFFNESS AND SHEAR

RIGIDITY
SHEAR SMALL \ MEDIUM \ LARGE \ FAILURE
2 . 7 . 1 . Applicability of Strains STRAIN
in Various Construction
The stiffness and shear rigidity of
soils depend on:
• Confining pressure ELASTIC-
PLASTIC
• Soil type
• Magnitude of strains FAILURE

STRAIN
REPETITION
STRAIN
RATE
Q U A
SOIL MODEL LINEAR \ .|l;^\ ELASTIC-PLASTIC
ELASTIC \ ELASTICX W 0 R K HARDENING

MACHINE FOUNDATIONS

Fig. 2.7.1. Soil Behaviour-Constitutive Models and

Deformation States Oamiolkowksi, M. &
Robertson, P. К., 1988V

By averaging the strains to depth

of twice the footing width a 0.7 1 1 1
relationship can be obtained
between average shear strains у
0.6 -
and q/q U | t .
M
0.5 ОС NC ._, _
/ a
/ %S^ о
0.4 // ■ _
4mt / s<^ a
/ ^
' */
Чл 0.3 / ■ a / —
/ / о Dr %
■ 85
0.2 / # °/ • 85
/ S a 44
0.1 ~. y ^ _ Derived from -
О 34
t/b fggestad (1963)
Г 1 | i
0
0 1 2 3 4
у % . A V £ R A G £ SHEAR S T R A I N (OVER DEPTH 2 B )

Fig. 2.7.2. Relationship Between Degree of Loading and Average

Shear Strain Beneath a Footing on Sand (Eaoestad,
A „ 1963).

№12001 2.7-1
 Chapter*. Engineering Propertie Of Ш

i6
!
I
I
I
14 i

i°
■i
о
i
Ы
1
1 _i
-i
о
юн
-I
Ь
о
1
и
t
сч

- . г O/Overconsolidated sands and gravels

О

°^o °
° о Ъо-°
oo°~~o~oo-- о ,
2
- i*##p- «1.
о 0.2 0.3
0.1
[net

lutt

Soil type Ебо В D T ЧпеЕ Reference

(m) (m) (m) (kN/m 2 )
■ 1 f-m sand 12 6 0 18 <180 Webb
(1986)
■ 2 f-m sand 10 33 0 18 155 Webb
(1986)
► 1 m sand 8 11 3.5 13 76 Glick
(1970)
►2 f sand 44 55 9 30 85 Dunn
(1974)
♦ 1 fsand 14- 26 2 26. 220 Nonveiler
(1963)
♦ 2 fsand 14 11 2 20 260 Nonveiler
(1963)
• 1 sand 28 23 0 7 180 Farrent
(1963)
■ 2 m sand 13 24 0 10 182 Farrent
(1963)
• 3 m sand 13 24 0 10 158 Farrent
(1963)
т 1 f & m sand 11 43 0 25 157 Davisson et
at (1972)
▼2 f & m sand 11 34 0 25 148 Davisson e t
al{1972)
▼3 f &msand 11 38 0 25 228 Davisson et
al (1972)
T 4 f a m sand 11 27 0 25 146 Davisson e t
al О 9 7 2 )

Fig. 2.7.3. Variation of EYNfin with Degree of Loading for

Normally Consolidated Sands. (Burland. 3. B.
& Burbridge, M. С , 1985V

In Ши 2001 ij-i
 Chapter! Engineering Properties of Soih

Applied stress ratio'

Clay WL, PI.
% %
Boston blue clay 41 22
Maine organic clay 65 ± 10 33 + 2
1000 Bangkok clay 65 41

800

600

400

200

2 4 6 8 10 20
OVERCONSOLIDATION RATIO

Fig. 2.7.4. Relationship between E/s., and Overconsolidated

Ratio from CU Test on Three Clays Determined
from CkoU-tvpe Direct Tests. (D. 3. D'Appoloniaf
H. G. Poulos and С. С l a d d , 1971V

fig. 2.7.5. Values of Poisson's Ratio for Liohtv Overeonsolidated

Soils. (Wroth, 19751.

№2001 2-1-3
 Chaprerz. Щтщ Propotia Of Soils

1.0

0.8-

0.6
G_
Range of values
G. Seed & Idriss 1970
'0.4!

0.2

10
SHEAR STRAIN у (%)

Fig. 2.7.6. Variation of Secant Shear Modulus (G) with Shear Strain
(Seed, H. B. and Idriss, I. M., 1970V

№2001 '1.7-4
 Chapters Engineering Properties of Ш

2.8. EXPANSIVE ЯПТ1 с Table 2.8.1. Volume Change Potential

Plasticity Index Potential

Over 35 Very high
22-48 High
12-32 Medium
Less Than 18 Low

20.0

10.0 —

5.0
4.0
3.0

Ш 2.0
«
<
h-
7
ш 1 0
О
tc
ш
Q.
_J
-J
111
0.5
0.4 * £ ь*
X 0=3 .%iv *..*
7
. *
> -
■ - - ■

■■JSV=
«-=^-=
o.2 : — ъЪ о о

0.1 ±
0 10 20 30 40 50
NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT (%)

f i g . 2.8.1. Prediction of Percentage Swell for Clay, LL = Liquid

Limit. (Vijayvergiya and Ghazzaly, 1973)

70

60 — /

- 50 —
/ . Very high s
X ■V/ | expansion J/ i
§ 40
>

£ 30 v1 л5^х ^
<
Л '■■■" ■' O * ^ - '
* 20
j j Medium <4"j3^*^^
/ t expansion^>^'^

10 : —. / ^ У Low expansion

о ^ 1 J 1 1 1 1
с 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
CLAY CONTENT (% > 0.002mm)

f i g . 2.8,2. Estimation of The Degree of Expansiveness of

a clay soil (Van der Merwe, 1964 : modified
by Williams and Donaldson, 19805

toSituwoi i-M
 Chapters Engineering Properties of Soils

2000
I II ! I ! I I I I
—' 1
£. 1800 U
at
^
"-^ \\ -
£ 1G00
(Л
2
ш
a 1400
>
a: N\ Expansion
3a
Ь 1200 Collapse NN.
(Л
z1—I N^N, _
1000 ^^\^

800 i _J i i i i i i**^>-^i
() 20 40 60 80 100

LIQUID LIMIT (%)

1=igv2iSi5v ^Cfaide teethe-Stiscepfeibiiity teGsHapseof^Expansion of,

Soilsr Based on Liquid Limit and In Situ Drv Density
(Hoitz and Kovacs, 1981).
Table. 2.8.3. Estimation of Potential Volume Changes of Clays
(Holtz and Gibbsf 1956^.

Data from index tests

Colloid content Probable Potential
% finer than expansion % for
0,001 mm PI SL total volume expansion
■change*
> 28 > 35 < 11 > 30 Very high
20-31 25-41 7-12 20-30 High
13-23 15-28 10-16 10-30 Medium
< 15 < 18 > 15 < 10 Low

с SWELL (Ah/h) __*

\ Ш ^ \ ^ Whio
>
У Д У У ^ — S U R F A C E HEAVE = SHADED AREA

h
M' PARABOLA

Q GROUND WATER TABLE

Fig. 2.8.6. Variation of Swell With Depth According To

Vijayverqiya and Sullivan (1974).

iflSituzooi гЛ-г\
 Chapters Enginery Properties Of Soils

PLASTICITY INDEX OF WHOLE SAMPLE

15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

1000 300 100 0 2 3 4 5 6

SOIL SUCTION kPo SWELL PERCENT

Fig. 2.8.3. Nomogram for Deriving The Amount free Swell of an Expansive
Clay (Brackley. 1980)

50

Shrinkage
-limit
Vereeniging

Shrinkage limit
Welkom
100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 kPa
L J I I
4 - 5 6
Permanent wilting point Suction (pF)
of most plants
of drought-tolerant plants
Field capacity (and point of
onset of desiccation
according to Driscoll, 1983)

Fig. 2.8.4. Moisture Content-Suction Relationship for

Onderspepoort, Vereeniging and Welkom
Clays, South Africa (Williams and Pidgeon,
1983)

Table 2.8.2. USAEWES Classification of Swell Potential /O'Neil

and Poormvoaved. 1980)
Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Initial (in situ) Potential Swell Classification
(%) suction (kPa) (%)
Less than Less than 25 Less than 145 Less than 0.5 Low
SO 25-35 145 - 385 0.5-1.5 Marginal
Swell % = 0.1(PI - 10)log10(S/p) Over 385 Over 1.5
50-60 Over 35 High
Over SO
 CHAPTER 3

uS«lN SfTUTESTING ТО
IDENTIFY SOIL TYPES AND
SOIL BEHAVIOUR TYPES
 Chapter i Die In Situ Toting to Identity Soil Types and Soil Behaviour Type

CHAPTER 3,
USE I N SITU TESTING TO IDENTIFY SOIL TYPES AND SOIL BEHAVIOUR TYPES

Fig. 3.1. Relationship Between Soil Type and Cone Resistance

and Local Friction (Begemann. 1965).

Eи
en
л;

FRICTION RATIO, Rf <%)

fig. 3.2. Identification of Soil Type {Schmertmann's . 1978^

In Sim looi 3-1

 Chapter ifeeIR Situ testing To identify Soil Type and Soil Behavior Type

100 II
I I р ! \
: 10 J 12 / 11

(0 У у8 -
a.
7
10 -

и
s
Ш

Р£ 6

5/ /
3
-

CO
Ш
a: ^^•ч^
• ^ \ © \

о ***-
и - 1
2
0.1 — i i
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

FRICTION RATIO (%)

I
:9, L-10
-10, :

Zone Soil Behaviour Type Q.

'-"1 У ЭД
or 12
Uollll mi *—U-,
/8Д
1 sensitive fine grained & ю
i V
2 organic material " ^ ^ ^ "ч q,-o v0
ш f/6/
3 clay и I i
< ( i 5
4 silty clay / /
- 4 ^ ^ ^"""•^-^^ -
5 clayey silt
6 sandy silt 1Л
Ш 1 ;
а. ' > <
7 silty sand s I/ % /
8 sand t o silty sand ш
zО -
9 sand - з ^ -s; , /
и \ Гл . ^^^/ >r -
10 gravelly sand t o sand . / ^ 1
11 very stiff fine grained ( * ) \ .
12 sand t o clayey sand ( * ) 0.14 *-
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

(*) overconsolidated or cemented

PORE PRESSURE PARAMETER, Bq

Fig. 3.3, Soil Behaviour Type Charts (Robertson, et.al., 1986)

In Sit» 3-2
 thajfter itoeIn Situ Testing to Identify Soil Typo and Soil Befcawur Types

1000

PJ
о 100
I
и
►—<

§
о
Q
Щ
N
i—i

<
О

FRICTION RATIO,- -x!00%

qT-a,

1. SENSmVE 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
9. VERY5TIFFFINE GRAINED*

* HEAVILY OVERCONSQUDATED
OR CEMENTED

Fig. 3,4, Soil Behaviour Type Classification Charts

for CPTU/Robertson, et.al., 1986')

H
 Chapter 3. Use In iitti tetiig To identify foil Type and toil Behavior Types

ш
U
Z

f
1Л
I—I
1Л
LU
a:
ш
О
u
Q
Ш
Ш
oi
о
и
-<—г
0.4 0.6 0.8 \ 8 10

CORRECTED FRICTION RATIO <%) in terms of kg/cm2

Fig. 3 . 5 . Cone Penetration Test (СР"П Soil

Characterization Chart (Douglas and Olson f 1981)

1000 L-l-L
Enpecl pooi CPT piedicled 10 Tieasured S P T cor<elat>ons
800- because o l problems associated with lieid n-,«jsuremerns

600-
4C0- Calculated
и

200- 44 N l
4
\ based on
3 N, trends
100-
11 60-
и 60-

40-
Ш

I
Ш
го-
Predicted

aL
Ш
z S o l Character! i ate л

8 (clsssiticalioo; contour

SPT;
m, f*i..m^Js/av -.100 Rotary WashSoring ^^'TCPVZZ^H
<*cl <}cKo-vf о Safety Hammer , n e , 1 5 l 0 0 , d e p l h -и1вгуа,
и ТЛЮ i u m s O l a n O l d r o p e
ove(
when predicting SPT blow counls
fs 1 H"
-.100 0.1 о.г o.-; 0.6 o.e j 6 в 10
*c (^v)^-")
CORRECTED FRICTION RATIO <%) in terms of kg/cm2

Fig. 3,6. CPT Prediction of Corrected SPT Blow Count

( N i U O I s o n . 1984^

In Situ гот 3-4

 Oiapter i Uie In Situ Toting to Identify Soil Type and Soil Behaviour Тура

fig. 3.7. Soil Classification Chart from CPTU Data

Proposed bv Jones and Rust (1982^

Heavily Over
Consolidated Overconsolidated very
silty clay Low plastic
and/or highly
sensitive
clays

Nomially
consolidated
gyKjasSt
organic clays
20QO_

Medium stiff
1O0O_

Soft

Very soft

0.0 tt2

Fig. 3.8. Classification According to Larssonr R. and Mulabdic,

M.<1991), (Murray &.BenoiQ.

IHiwzooi IS
 Chapter 3. the In Situ testing To Identify Soil Type and Soil Behavior Types

1РГ

tf
Rf »1.64-1.47K>gD5o
Correlation co*t п<Х64
• Kola ma*a s l t t
oOth»c *lmllor t l t t »
QL

oooi 0.0050.010.020.050.1 ол ол vo 20 ьокю

Dso (mm)

Fig. 3.9; ReSationshio Between Friction Ratio. Rf and P^n

(Muromachi. 1 9 8 1 ^

100 г 1 1 1 1 1 I I I ! 1 * Г"**"' 1 I'l"

• в

• • ••
? ''
**—•
•• *
•
и
IX. •
ь •• * •
5 CONTEN

ш •
да.
* *
]
z
IJL
,
••

1
l l i0
0
FRICTION RATIO, Rf (%)

Fig. 3.10. Variation of Fines Content With -CPT Friction Ratio

(Suzuki e t a j . , 1995).

toii»i 3-6
 Chapter i Ike in Ш Testing to identify Soil Type and SoilfienavioarТура

CLAY SILT SAND

in
z>
Q
О
a:
ш
\~
ш

.15 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.2 1.8 3.3

MATERIAL INDEX, I D

Яд, 3,11. Soil Classification Using Dilatometer Test

(Marchetti, 1980).

In Situ гост И
 CHAPTER 4

IN bl i U i'fcS i IN© F
PREDICTION OF DENSITY OF
SOILS AND STATE
PARAMETER
 Chapter 4, In Situ Tating for Prediction of Bercity of Soft and State Parameter

CHAPTER 4 .
I N S I T U T E S T I N G FOR P R E D I C T I O N OF DENSITY OF S O I L S A N D STATE PARAMETER

ISO r

140 -

E *■

o> _
- •
л
Ш ^
и ™
-
<
H
Ш
Ш eo
л
Ш — •#••«
on

•• •
g"
H
• LEGEND
£ «
Щ
CHAIN PORE
SVMBOL SIZE FLUID
20 • 270.400 AIR
v 140.200 AIR
■ 70.100 AIR
*■ 70.100 WATER
) ! ( , ,
DM 0 76 0 72 O.W 0.64 0.60

Яд. 4 . 1 . Penetration Resistance vs Void Ratio (Richard

W.Peterson, 19881

Calcareous Quiou sand

1.2
□ j Dry specimens
QS
Щ Saturated specimens

Silica Ticino sand

1.0
Сеж diameter
П TS
О 35.7mm
d • Cone diameter
2S.7mm &. 20.0mm
£ 0.9
4i
c*co
g 0.8
сno о

0.7 >~
O ^ Ь
C.6 SP«£°

0.5
100 2C0 300 400

NORMALIZED CONE RESISTANCE

"Vo*

Fig. 4,2, Normalized Cone Resistance vs Void Ratio in

NC Ticino and Quiou Sands (Almeida et.at., 1992)

4-1
 Chapter 4. in Sim Testing For Prediction of Density of Soil and № Parameten

1.0 ■■' I Г ' ' г-'-г-

: \> p,= 1 atm s 100 kPa

Unaged, Uncemented W g ^ b " ' - . . 4

о -. •. ч
Quartzitic Sands
о NCdata ■ ОС data
0.4 J 1 J L_J_
10 20 50 100 200 500 1000

Ш Е Ш Ш Е Ш ^ RESISTANCE (qc/p a )/(ovoVp a } 0 ^

Fig. 4.3. Void Ratio vs Normalized Tip Resistance

(Ghionna, V.N. and Jamiolkowski. M.. 19911

4Ь

4 **• • *
i'-f* XIX
40

V • .' %

35
10 15 20 25
cone resistance (MN/m1)

Fig. 4.4. Relationship Between Cone Resistance and

Porosity for Holocene Sands 150 urn < dsn <
ц т (H.A.M. Nelissen. 19881

1пШвмл 4-2
 Chapter 4. In Situ feting for Prediction of Density otSoih and State Parameter

10 20 30 40 50 60 70
ra 0
o.
-M
*~~r
0
100
Q.

< *^
(Лn 200
Ш
(Y
H
1Л 300
Ш
>
Ь 400 .
u
Ш
u.
u.
Ш 500
?- ЬО DR = 100X
<
Ш 1 ! L_

C 0 = 20S ; C.,-0.51; С э = 2.93; q c & pi, (kPo)

CONE RESISTANCE, q c (MPa)

fig. 4.5. DP Versus q„ for NC and ОС Ticino Sand

(Baldieta!.. 1986)

Q 100 200 300 400 500

О
'
1Л
6
1!
X
1
~^dЛ\\\\ \ \
\ \ \
to

S
-4 A
\ \ \ \
t> ^ , i \ \ \"\ \
1Л
Ш
\ \ \ \ \ \
a:
\-
1Л
Ш
>
3
1
M
\ \ b\ ^\
\
ьШ
U_
u. \ \ \
Ш
_l
\ \ \
■

4
6
t—< \
\ \
ё \ \ \ \ \
Щ
> 5 У 0 % 50% 60°/ . 7 0 % eo% 90%

CONE BEARING, q c <barS)

Fig. 4.6, Relative Density Predicted bv a,

(Baldi et a l . 1985)

ШШ1 H
 Chapter 4. In Situ Tettng For Prediction of Bmity of Soil and State Parameter*

V loose Loose Medium Dense V dense

■
60 _ Field data _
■ NC Coarse sands /
♦ ОС
• NC fine sands /
О -Fill /
0 40
Terzaghi & Peck (1948) - \ / *

20

l J / * < ) 0 ' ' - ^ laboratory tests

0 I I I I
С) 20 " "40 " W " Ш" 100

RELATIVE DENSITY, Dr-(%)

Fig. 4.7. Effect o f Relative Density Based on Field

Data ( S k e m p t o n , 19861

I
(Л
(AFTER GIBBS ond HOLTZ. 1957)

1Л
Ш
i* RELATIVE DENSITY 0 „
Ш
ш
>
Ш

Ш
>
О \Q___ 20 ?0 40 50 Б0 70 80

STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE N,bl/ft

Fig. 4.8. Correlation Between Relative Density and

Standard Penetration Resistance According t o
Gibbs and Holtz. 1957.

, In Situ 2001 4-4

 Chapter 4. In Ш feting for Prediction of Density of ioilt and State Parameter

1
Oy.JSOkP* /
10

/
/

/
/
t ^ /
Q.
/
K. / Оу.ЮОк >*
— -•

/ ^

30 1.0 SO 40 70 10 to 100

Dr (%)

Fig. 4.9. The Calculated Limit Pressure as a Function of

The Relative Density /G.-Greeuw & F.P.Smits
and P.van Driel, 1988)

Fig. 4.10. Ratio of Cone Resistance and Limit

Pressure as a Function of The Relative Density
(G.Greeuw & F.P.Smits and P.van Driel, 1988).

In Situ 2001 4-5

 Chapter 4. in Situ Toting For Prediction of Density of Soil and State Parameter*

600 p

200

4c-P %
• •• \ •
p' •V • .
too
- " Ч- •
60
*\ •
■ N. •
\ *
V •
•
^ •
20
- 0 i-З -0-2 -0-1 0

STATE PARAMETER, v

Fig. 4.11. Chamber Test Data -For Normally Consolidated

Ticino Sand (Baldi et at., 1986).

4c -Po
Po'

'-0.3 -.0,2 -OJ" 0

S T A T E PARAMETER, 4/

50.

I OTTAWA
40>
I MONTEREY \0TTAWA
K3AK
30
A KOKKSUNO - m V F
MONTEREYS*HOKKSUHD
V'ERKSAK .RED BTOFORO
20
TICINO « \ ^ HILTON TICINO
MINES* .HILTON
4
REID ■ MINES
BEDFORD

, '.0! 1.0
0.1 0.2

Fig. 4.12. CPT Interpretation For Sands in Terms of w and X**

(K- Been. Micef and 3. H. A. Crooks, Golder
Associates, and M.G. Jefferies, Gulf Resources,
Canada)
ln Situ zoo! 4-6
 Chapter 4. In Sim TotingforPrediction of Baxity of Soih and State Parameter

moo
500

.500
Ф О ±
AVERAGE TREND ГОЯ
TICINO SAND IESTEO
IN ITALIAN
CALIBRATION CHAMBERS

200

100

о MOMTIREV SAND
50 • cRKSAK 5AND
* OTTAWA SAND

Н к 5 и №
. °* 3 SOUTHAMPTON UN.
sAN0
D ) ' ENEL CRIS
^ WLTOH WINES SAND
A TiClNO SAND. GOLDER i ASSOCiATi'l
:0
■ ? .0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2

NORMALIZED STATE PARAMETER

Ц| =
4> V
A " r

-max -e, -e r

Fig. 4.12. Cone Resistance vs State Parameters From CC

Tests (jamiolkowski et a!.. 1988^

In Sim 2001 4-7

 CHAPTER 5

^N^STT&TESTW@^E0R
PREDICTION OF IN SITU
STRESS AND STRESS
HISTORY
 Chapter 5. In SitufetingforPrediction of HI Situ ftrei and Stra Hittoty

CHAPTER 5.
I N SITU TESTING FOR PREDICTION OF I N SITU STRESS AND STRESS HISTORY

5.1 PREDICTION QF
rtj
PRECONSOLIDATION Q. CPT - q c RESISTANCE (kg/cm2) ;
PRESSURE OR YIELD 2
О 2 5 10 20 50 Ю0 200 V)
STRESS
ш
The preconsolidation pressure to
or yield stress may be о
1—1

estimated based on: I-

<
Q
■—•
—i
О
• Tip resistance q c (Mayne, (Л
1986) о
о
ш
• Net tip resistance QT-GVO &.
(Demers, Leroueil and D' Q-.
Astous, 1993)
• Effective cone resistance: б
а:
ш
>
pa
(Chen and Mayne, 1994) ш
и_
U-
ш
™ [!=-.■■

CPT - q c RESISTANCE (MPa)

£

Fig. 5.1. Observed Statistical Trend of Effective

Preconsolidation Pressure with Cone Resistance
(Mayne, 1986).

XX

l4 (r= = 0.90) ,

RJ
Q.
— ' ■
J1*
•o
о
~o

100 -

оv •
"' о j
Л
"l ' "I
100 1000
QT - <rvo (kPa)

Fig. 5.2. (дт - avn) - c'P Relationship fPemers. P..

LeroueiL S. and D7\stousr 1993).

■5-1
 Chapters,toSitu feting for Prediction of In Situ Strai and Strew ttotory

100
: Ave. Trend: a' = 0.75 (qT-Uj)

60 sites
611 points
ffl 10]:
H
• intact
1Л D l.snured
Q
_l
ш

i1
D Type 1 Piezocones
Ш
U_
LL.
Ш
еГ_ с/ . «HI,) I*»
0.1
0.1 1 10 100

Fig.5.3. Effective Yield Stress Predicted by CPT Type 1 Cone

(Chen, B.S.Y and Maynef P.W. 1994).

100
Average Trend: cp' » 0.S0 (qT-uz),. /

a ; All Clays
<V a (q r u 2 ) 1
й Ю
1Л Type 2
О
_J
■ Piezocones
LU

% 1 * 84 sites
884 points
If
Щ
• Intact
° Fissured
0.1
0.1 1 10 100
EFFECTIVE CONE RESISTANCE, <qT-u2)/pa ,

Fig.5.4. Effective Yield Stress Predicted bv CPT Type 2 Cone

(Chen. B.S.Y and Mayne, P.Wf 1994).

In дамп S-г
 Chapters. In Situ Testing lor Prediction of In Situ Stres and Stress History

5.2. PREDICTION OF о
OVERCONSOLIDATION
RATIO (OCR) л—Г
о
I t should be noted t h a t OCR is 100
OCR =
applied to sedimentary soils.
Several methods is available о 50
including: (Л
z 20
о
и
- use of normalised net cone cC
ш 10
resistance >
о
Qc ~ Vvo 5

( C r o o k e s e t a l . , 1988)
QC-IQ

h' а;
и h /i /"л » Ln!
о ю го 50 !00
(Mayne & Kulhawy, 1982)

^ = NORMALIZED NET CONE RESISTANCE

Яд. 5.5. Statistical Trend for Laboratory Determined OCR as

a Function of Net Cone Resistance Normalized to
the Effective Overburden Pressure (Mayne, 1986).

25 г LEGEND
NIPTERK
KAUBVIK
AMAULIGAK
TARS1UT P-45
20 SAUVRAK
ADGO (post-con-
qc-Po TARSIUT N-44 struction)
SPARWOOD, ВС
SPARWOOD (post-constr.)
Po
15 -

10 -

2 3 4 5 6
O C R = Cvy' / CTvo'

Fig. 5.6. CPT Interpretation for Clays in Terms of Log OCR

(Crooks, 3.H.A.. Becker, D.E.r Been, K. and
Jefferies. M.G. 1988V

In Situ 2001 ■5-J

 Chapters. In Situ Toting For Predittion of in Situ torn and Strai Hiitery

25 1 1 r~T—г

RANGE FOR 6 OTHER

BEAUFORT SEA CLAYS
20 BASED ON MEASURED
К о VALUES-

IS

СГ
10

BASED ON MEASURED
Ко VALUES.
J 1 1 i 1 i-L
4 5 6 7 8 9 Ю
©£R

Fig. 5.7. CPT Correlation for Beaufort Sea Clavs (Mavne.

P.W. 1986).

25 T 1 г

BASSO ON MEASURED
Ко VALUES
20

15 -

СГ
10

5 -

J X.
2 4 5 6 7
OCRj

Fig. 5.8. CPT Correlation for Tarsiut Data Based on asured Kn

Values /Mavne, P.W. and Kulhawy, F.H., 1982).

5-4
 Chapter 5. In Situ Toting for Prediction of In Situ Krai and History

6/C

U
О

Ди
= NORMALIZED EXCESS PORE PRESSURE
C7,

fig. 5.9. Observed Trend for OCR with Normalized Excess

Pore Pressure for Piezocones with Porous Elements
Located Just Behind the Tip fMavne. P and R.
Holtz. 1987^.

6/C. / ' / /
' / / /
Ш
150 л / / / /
4-J
С 20-
о 7
ID /V® /
7 /V /
XJ
0
С Ю - Predicted: M « 1.0 4 W
' / f/ //^ M » l . 5
и TC/ / /
E / / / p
У
p / Л>/
4-
5 /Ofi/ / ♦

ж
r—>
/ Jp\/\/
I /ofinf
t>
II
ОС
2
^yo ^a Г - Fitter on
Com Foe*

0
о
1 2 5 10 20 50

(£
V°vo
)
/CPT и
= NORMALIZED EXCESS PORE PRESSURE

Fig. 5.10. Observed Trend for OCR with Normalized Excess

Pore Pressure for Piezocones with Porous Elements
on the Tip/Face. Model Prediction Shown as Solid
and Dashed Line<Mavner P and R. Holtzf 1987).

In Situ 200]
s-s
 Chapters- In Sim Toting for Prediction of In Situ Strai and Strew History

- 30 -
LEGEND

q* • A
x BI
0 82
Л 83
О С у/
20 X
/* *

10

,*_ (Qc-Pa)
q* =
Po'a-Bj
i i t 1 ) i .1
Where:
•° 2 . 3 4 5 6 а ю
R = СР'у/Ро')

fig. S . l l . T a r s i u t P-45 CPT Data Using proposed Approach

(Jefferies, M.G., Crooks. J.H.A.. Becker. D.E. and
Hill. P.R. 1987V

E
и
от I* /
X = 975' ^
>
Э
CL 12
Ук) / -
У s (> /
S »
Ш
vi „
iu a ' r
И' ОЭ
a: jX
a.
"Z. e /
о
< ОвР,

О г
ш ^
>
8 °0 2 4 0 в Ю 12 14 it ta i0
ш
о;
а PRESSUREMETER CREEP PRESSURE, Pf (kg/crn2)

Fig. 5.12. Preconsolidation Pressure Pc b y Consolidation

Test Versus failure Pressure Pf by
Pressuremeter Test (E.Martin, M. ASCE and
Edward G. Drahas f A.M. ASCE^

toftuwi 5-6
 Chapters. In Situ Tetiag for Prediction of In Situ Strest andtowHistory

100 -
90 Breni ^ros
80 ._ Madingley
70 Cowden /
60 Grangemoutr /
50 ks-g uartroru t
к 40
u A
° iU
in W^ TA
/
d
P ^ш /
2 20
/
О 15
P OCR = (0-5KD) 1 ' 5 6 / OCR= 0-24 K D U 2
D
1Л
3 10
£ яa
V)
J.
О R /
/
щ 5 /
>
о 4 /
3 / Ж)
rtl/
Щ\

Ш
1
1 2 3 4 5 "6 7 8 910 15 20 30
HORIZONTAL STRESS INDEX, KD

Fig. * t ^ rwrnnsnlidated Ratio Versus Horizontal Stress

[ n r | a V ) Kn (PnwPll, T I M & UQIQW. T.M., 1988).

5.3 PREDICTION QF
HORIZONTAL STRESS 1000.0 rxr
ANDJCQ

О Hokksund NC
♦ Hokksund ОС
о Ticino NC
* Ticino ОС
■ LBS Yellow '100.0
■
ж
LBS W h i t e
Dogs Bay
I
log 10 = 1.51 + 1.23DC

10,0 4-
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0
RELATIVE DENSITY <%)

f i g . 5.14.Correlation Between Cone Resistance and

Horizontal Stress from Calibration Chamber Test.

№12001 5-7
 Chapter^ In Situ Teting for Prediction of in Sim Strew and Strest HHtory

2.0 1 Г -т—I—гп—Г
Ко
1.5

1.0
0.6

0.6
0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

Кр ^
= 0.0578 { г

Fig. 5.15. Kn from DMTs Performed on Ticino Sand in С

(Data from 3amiolkowski. et al. r 1988)

i ..... , - - . . , | i

0 FOR TS-- — = 1.35 e x p ( - 8 . 0 8 ф)

* 50
--. K
o
О
VtPLIFICATlON FACTOR,

A .
Сл

4
^ д *
A N C A TSt47TESTS)
Л OCJ
< * NC
"VHSCIOTESTS) A A \
V OCJ A
1
1 1 J_ 1 JAXA1
-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0

STATE P A R A M E T E R , ф

Fig. 5.16.Pilatometer Amplification Factor from С test

{3amiolkowski et al„ 1988^

|R Ш 2001 5-i
 CHAPTER 6

MEASUREMEr
SHEAR STRENGTH BY IN
SITU TESTING
 Chapter 6.Measurement of Shear s t r a p By ш Situ Teting

CHAPTER 6. MEASUREMENT OF SHEAR STRENGTH BY I N S I T U T E S T I N G

6 . 1 . DRAINED SHEAR
STRENGTH OF SAND
500
Drained shear strength of sand can
be expressed as peak friction angle
(Ф0- A number of data is available. 400
X
6.1.1. Prediction of ф'by SPT 1-
13
z 300
о Method based on N60 Ш

• De Mello (1971) \-
1Л
о Method based on Ni(6o) 200
• Bolton M. D. (1986) <
ш
• Skempton A. W. (1986) X
• Hatanaka & Uchida (1996) w
Q
• Mayne (1998) ш 100
z.
For siity sand (fines content < Terzaghi and Peck
= 30%) _ _ _ _ _ a
3 10 20 30 40 SO 60
F' = 20 + ^15.4Дл/_(60))
SPT Nva,ue (blows/300mm)
With energy corrected

C:5
<*Vo Fig.6.1. Approximation Correlations Between Undrained Shear
Strength and Standard Penetration Test N-Values
(After Terzaghi and Peck. 1967 and Sowers, 1979).

Fig. 6.2. Method for Estimating Effective friction Angle (ф') from SPT
Blowcount (N){De Mello's. 1971 Analysis, USBR Data).

inSituzooi 4-1
 Chapta- 6. Measuronent of Shear Strength By In Situ Tetings

48

46 |_ = 33'
^cv
p* = 1 5 0 - 6 0 0 k N / m 2

triaxial

Peck, Hanson and

Thornburn (1953)

(a) ( N i ) '60

Peck, Hanson and

Thornburn (1953)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

(b) <Ni) M

Fig. -6.3. Вй1й£[ш15ШРз^ееп1К1Ш^ Ф' f « r Materia

^

»2ВДн 6-1
 Chapter 6. Measurement of Shear Strength By In Situ Tetlflgs

55
ф* =arcton[0.1+0.38 log(qt/tfvo')]

ш
_t
CD
Z
< N" ♦ Fronkston Sand
Z
О i • Tkino Send
A Edgar Sand
Ц.
• ■ HofcksundSand
L. - - . ■ too* Star Sand

1 ~—"ft*C (1963)

10 100 1000
NORMALIZED TIP STRESS, qT/oV0' _
,

Fig.6.6. Peak Friction Anole of Clean Quartz Sands from SPT

Data/Robertson &Campanella f 1983V

6.1.2. Prediction of ф'by CPT

о Method based on q c and effective Q - CPT BEARING CAPACITY - q (kg/cm 2 )

overburden pressure -^
• ESOPT (1974) О 100 200 ЗОО 400
Ш О 1 1 1 1 1 1 ■ 1 1 1
• Durgunoglu & Mitchell (1975) aL
о Method based on Cone Resistance (Л £=44°
number N m
in 0,2 \ \ \ \ >
nо
Hi
• Eggereide(1985) aL ■ 4 2 ° ^ m
\ \ \
A\
Q_
• Sennesset, et al (1989) z 0.4 уЮ ' ^ \ .
о Method based on ratio of qc/cvo'
Jamiolkowski (1998)
LU
a AW N38° x.-

w
m 0-6 ^36°
ct 34°
s
ш
Ш
\

> 0.8
Б
i \i A
I 1.0 \ \ 1\ 1 J

Fig.6.7. Method for Estimating Effective an of Friction 1ф')

from Static Cone Bearing Resistance (дЛ
Reported in USSR f 1974V

In Situ 2001 6-4

 Chapter 6. Measurement of Shear strength By in Situ Toting

Fig.6.8. Relationship Between Angle of Friction and Cone

Resistance (Durgunoglu. H.T and Mitchell. З.Ю

q; - p
%
p' . a p' . a
/i-0>
u
l -uc An,
4j - P
E 200

LLI
Ш 100

Ш 50
4 ,0
f »
W
ft го
ш
a:
ш
5"
~Fig.6.9. Interpretation
Diagram for
Determination of
tan g/, p = 0Q
fEgqereide, K.
0.* 0.6 O.B 1. 19851
FRICTION, tan ф

6-b
 Chapter 6. Measurement of Shear Strength By In SituTestingi

500
о), ■= ellective normal sUcss on
the (oilure plone ol failure
400 / 1
\anip = 1оп(й0 + 1опСМ-^-тг-

a«={{D R -0.2)/0.8]-I(T i
300
f>'« secant peak friction ongle
ot a и
cr 0 200 O0= 98.7 kPo

100
fc>34-
0
30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48

Ф- о

Fig.6.10. Angle of Shearing Resistance <p'n using

Bolton (1986) Stress Dilatancy Theory
•TJamiolkowski e t a l . 19881.

6.1.3. Prediction of Ф' by

Dilatometer

A' = 20° +
0.06
0.04 +

Ш
>

U-
Ш

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10

LATERAL STRESS INDEX, K D I

Active Ш McOoncId farm Sand

•At-Uest (NQ • Pc River Sand
'Passive ♦ Piedmont Silfy Sand

Fig.6.11 .Evaluation of peak Ф' of sands from DMT data

(Marchetti. 19971

№2001 b~1
 Chapter Ь. Meawement of Shear Strength By In Situ Testing

6.2. EFFECTIVE FRICTION

ANGLES OF ALL S O I L S
20
а
4j' *
ac' * а
"qc
u 15
■z.
!-
Z
ш
U 10
Range in
product
ш
О
""'l4 <
и

E ^ - I U V g ^ g S l L f ^ :';:'SAhb:'-V-.
0.3 0Л 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

FRICTION, tan ф'

fig.6.12. Interpretation Diagram, N^Sanven.R,

Sanneset. K., and Janbu N.. 1988T

Bq = 0.1
100

D;
UJ
m

10:-
1:
г:
w*
111)
a;; q = (u2-u0)/(qt-^vo)
1 T T T T X%\ I I I I I I I 11-1 I I I I I I I

20 30 40 50
EFFECTIVE FRICTION ф' C°)

Fia.6.l3.Effective Stress Parameter

Determination for All Soil Types from
CPTU Data (Senneset, e t a l , 1989)

In Situ zooi 6-8

 Chapter 6. П е ш е м * oHhear Strength 8y In Situ letting

6.3. U N D R A I N E D SHEAR
STRENGTH OF CLAYS
6.3.1 Shear Strength of
Clays by SPT

The interpretation of strength of

clays by SPT usually based on
their plasticity either by
о Plasticity Index (Stroud,
1974)
о Soil Classification {Sowers,
1979)
Note:
* Boulder clay
• Laminated clay
A Sunnybrook till
о London Clay
0 Bracklesham beds
V Oxford clay
л Kimmeridge clay
■ Woolwich & Reading clay
« Upper Lias clay
x Keuper m a r l Fig.6.14.Ratio of Undrained Shear Strength
^ Flints
(cu) Determined on 100 mm
dla7neteT~Spbcimens~t6~"SPT=Nl, as a
Function of Plasticity (Stroud. 1974).

6.3.2 Shear Strength of

Clays by CPT
Stiff high OCR Soil type Soft low OCR

Large Cone resistance -Small

<qc)
Large — Face pore pressure Large
(filter compression?) (Ul)

Small Shaft pore pressure Large

(negative?) (u2)
Small __ — Correction q, — Large
(negligible)

I Correlations
I
(eu. OCR)

Fig.6.15.Preferred Measurements For Correlations Using CPTU

(Wroth. С. P., 1988)

(л Situ zooi
м
 Chapter b. Measurement of Shear Strength By In Situ Testing

400

320
/
/
/*
240
re
a.
XL •
160
t, * t.23Cu
•*
correlation co*f.
60 A P < 0-96

/ •
вО 160 240 320 4O0

Fiq,6.16.Corr-elation of С versus fc (Drnevich,

V.P., Gorman, C.T. and Hopkins, T.C.
1974).

6O0O

/
5O00 /
/
.1
4000
.£■
t
a. • •/ /
»u 3000^
cr

2000 / °•
Л о
• • НК=М> = 1 в r = 0 92
J\ »• Cu
• Kalomata site

1O00
• J • о Other similar sites
•ft/ 'Й

0
<Э 1O0 200 300 400

Cu (кРа)

FiQ,6.17.Undrained Cohesion c. (from UU feest)

versus <q r - pn) (Anagnostopoulos, A.Gf
Щ4Д,
 chapter b. Measurement of Shear Strength By in Situ Testings

* i* + _*-.*
<2 •
cu =
_J 1 1 1 L
0.2 О.* о.Б О.Ь КО 1.2 1.4 °-2 0.* 0.6 (U 1.0 1.1 1.4

в„ Bq

(a) (b)

Fig.6.18.Variation of "Effective" Cone Factors with Pore

Pressures {Lunne, Т., Christoffersen. R.P. and Tielta,
T.I, 1985, Hajibakar, I, 1981 f and Coutts, J.S, 1986V

15-1 Yoldia (Aulborg) clay

Cloy tul ( P u r h u s )
'Tertiary cloy (01st)
Holoccns clay (Aalborg)
Ж?ХС1ау till (01st)
lOrgonic mud (Kaas)
10

z 5-

2 4
fFU%)

Fig. 6.19 Ж\ Plotted Against fp Showing the Best

Fitting Line (Luke, K., 1994).

to Situ Ш1
b-n
 Chapter 6. /leamranent ofstrength By in Ш Testing

20

ie -

12

. Legend:
- + - Sg. Dua Upper
-ф- Sg. Dua Lower
-ф- Juru Upper
4- -ф- Ator Pongsu Upper
-ф- Alor Pongsu Lower
-ф- Singapore Upper
-<{>- Singapore Lower

20 40 60 80
PLASTICITY INDEX

Fig.6.20. Cone Factors Related to Plasticity

Index of The Clays (Dobier
M.3.D.. and Wong, J.T.F., 1990)

l
и
qT-o"v
z
Z
(MPa)

0-5

0-3

ALOR PONGSU
• upper ciay
Л lower clay

SUV-VANE SHEAR STRENGTH (кРа) m

Fig.6.21. Relationship of Corrected Cone Resistance

to Vane Shear Strength for All Clay in The
Data Base Dobief M.J.D.r and Wong r
3.T.F., 1990

1
In Situ 2001 6-12
 Chapter 6. Measurement of Shear Strength By In Sift Tetiflp

6.3.3. Shear Strength of

Clays by 70 ■ 1
' «
Dilatometer Test . Ф Cowden Pile Test Area "/'
50
о BRS
4-0 ■ о Grangernouth / "
3-0
л
■ a'
v
Dartford
Gorpley
Canons Park (reworked
V
1
•
»

¥ Canons Park
20- ■ • Brent Cross /
■ Madingley (38mm) /
.2 О r
/ *««
1-0 ' 7
A • ■

0-8 >/ e

£ 0-6 Ф^ ■

БЙ °'0-45 fx
LL \
Д
V
■ I

Ш
^ 0-3
° /
I i us
0-2 *h° ' = 0-22 ?VO (0-5 K D )
/ (Marchetti1980}

/
0-1
2 3 4 5 6 78910 15 20 30

HORIZONTAL STRESS INDEX, KD

Fig. 6.21.Shear Strength/Effective Overburden Pressure

Versus Horizontal Stress Index Kn (Powell,
i.J.M&Uglow, I.M. 1988).

6.3.4. Shear Strength of

Chalk by CPT 100
Г I i 1 Т"I ! 1 1 ! '1
80
60 -
^ 40 -
£
z го. * / "
V_**

b . т
^ 10 z' —
-
T
U 6 f, = 25 kN/m* /
z \ ,/
ё 4 - /
H , * • ,cP/**
1Л в
2
g
(Л
1Л
Ш
M 0.8
1.0 V » >° Hobbs and Healy (1979) J\
й>
a plate tests
g °* - >
О pile tests
U 0.4 - / -Fletcher et al (1984)
■ pile tests
0.2 - Woodland et al (1986) -
▼ laboratory tests
i i " ) i i < i i i i (
0Л
5 8 Ю 20 40 6 0 80100 200 400 600

N60

fig. 6.22.Variation of Mass Compressive S t r e n g t h with

Ngn for Chalk (£ggestad, A. 1963).

InSitmOffl ЫЗ
 CHAPTER 7
;
-"№SI№TffiSTH№rTe -
ESTIMATE SOIL
STIFFNESS AND SHEAR
RIGIDITY
 Chapter у. N t t i toting To btimate Soil W/BLVA Shear Rigidity

CHAPTER 7 . I N S I T U T E S T I N G TO ESTIMATE S O I L STIFFNESS A N D SHEAR R I G I D I T Y

РПОЫ SCnEW PtATE LOADtMG TESTS M

po RIVER SAND
1 1—! I 114 "Г

J I I M M
2000 ЭО00

V^
Fig- 7.1. Ratio of "Working Strain" Stiffness E'e to q .
versus q r /oV °' 5 for Sands with Different Stress
Histories (Baldi et al.,1986. Belloti, R.. Ghionna,
V.H.. Jamiolkowski, M. and Lo Prestir D.C.
19891.

L M = TANGENT CONSTRAINED MODULUS

CTm=MEAN EFFECTIve STRESS
.- - !~ _ 1
t 2 5 10
OVERCONSOUDATION RATIO, OCR

Fig. 7.2. Drained Young's Modulus vs Dilatometer

Modulus From CC Tests (Baldi. G.. Ismes.
Bellotti. R. Enelcris. Ghionna. N &
jamiolkowski. M. 1988У

Iniituzooi ' 7"1

 Chapter ] . in Situ feting To EstimatefoilStiffiBi and Shear Rigidity

25

21
ea=o.i%

17

Qc

13

9h

5
OCR=1<

20 40 60 80 100

RELATIVE DENSITY, DR (%)

Яд. 7.3. Drained Young Modulus of Ticino Sand v s C o n e

Resistance (Baldi. G. f Ismes, Bellotti. R,
Enelcris, Ghionna. N &3amiolkowski. M, 1988).

i г "1—1 1 VT

E,
E,

FORNC TICINO SAND :

(37 Test): —«i.05±o.2S a
ED 11-
FOROC П О Ю SAND: #
I m •
(22 Test): —=3.66+0.80 ' J J < i j i t {
Ее 1.0 10

SAND SYMBOL K,
OCR
Т1СШО 1 • ES' = DRAINED SECANT YOUNG'S MODULUS -FROM TX-CK0D TESTS
1.5 to 8.5 о AT €,=0.1%
HOKKSUND 1 -■
3.0 to 8.3 D
Fig. 7.4. p r a j n e d Young Modulus vs Dilatometer Modulus from CC
Test (Baldi. G., I s m e s . Bellotti. R. Enetcris. Ghionna. N &
Jarnlolkowski. M f 1988).

Iniittiwoi 7-i
 Chapter i liHtw Teting to btimate Soil Sttffhes and Shear Rigidity

1000 y \

£ > лля^^Ш"*
z2 • J 1

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ № ЛЬ A
:
о 100 \Afl ^^^^* »- ~
о
о
-J
О Best fit 1
л^|ЯР
v$<«PP¥.*
/~J¥k ****'
/ ^
#
* '
i
!
о
2 10 .line ^^ / y**K* i

о: s y/ ' ' !
< У У\^
ш / / ^ G 0u= 7 N
r
m / •

t i
1
0 1 10 100 1000
N

:
ig. 7.5. Relationship Between Smsii Strain Shear Modulus Gn
and N-values ( I m a i . T. and Tonouchi f K.. 1982).

<\<>> v'<^ Range loi

)t "cingfcj for piuviaiiy
pluvially aeposueu
deposited
;o\ \ A Ticino sand, G 0 from RC tests,
20 - £&- q C T from CC tests. ' —

16
G 0_
qc 12

Site Soil Go Borehole

Source
Д Viadana Medium Cross 4017 pa » 1 bar
Sand Hole — - OCR = 1
A Viadana Medium Seismic 4017
OCR = 10
Sand Cone
D S.Prospero Medium Seismic 16 G 0 , qCT- °'v0 i n bar

Sand Cone 17
Gioia Sand Cross 209 0
• Tauro with Hole 219 20 30 50 100 200 300
Gravel
0 Pavia Medium Seismic 1
Sand Cone
■ Pavia Medium Cross 3 V°J4
Sand Hole
Depth below G.L. considered: 5.5 to 43.5 m
Fig. 7.6. q,- versus Gn Correlation for Uncemented
Predominantly Quartz Sands (Ohta. Y and Goto.
N, 1978).

№2001 П
 Chapter 7. In Situ feting To Estimate Soil Stfffnai and Shear Rigidity

ID

Fig. 7.7. Plot of Gn/Qr versus q.i for Various

Sands (Robertson, P.K 19971.

20
Ш D c / d c = 60.0
И ^ / ^ = 33.6
□ D,/d„ = 22.1
10

G's5
4c

•-1-10"
c
J o g ^ i . = 2.38 - 0.75 log , os-

i i i i i i <
50 100 ■200
qc
lo'

Fig. 7.8. Secant Shear Modulus vs Cone

Resistance in NC Toyoura Sand.

7-4 7-4
 Chapra'7- In-situ Taring To btimarefoilitiffnai anil Shear Rigidity

^ 1000
0

■z.
о 9 ->°S
о 5 tO О ■>
a о *
tiT soo 4 "

.•: * s . .

* г
25 50

SHEAR MODULUS (MN/m2)

Fig. 7.9. Comparison Between /Pi - Pn) of

Dilatometer Test and Shear
Modulus (Clarke, B.G & Wroth,
C.P, 1988).

In Situ гош 7-5

 CHAPTER 6

TUT CTTTT'IT
Vi il.\ vx i \J
ivt oriu i
ESTIMATE CONSOLIDATION
CHARACTERISTIC
 Chapter 3L In Situ Testing To btimare Consolidation (haracterhtk

CHAPTER 8 . I N SITU TESTING TO ESTIMATE CONSOLIDATION CHARACTERISTIC

(x 1.5 FOR IS cm2 CONE)

10" : "i i i inii'i i rrrm

■ 35.6 mm
(10 cm 1 )
1
10 i

10° i

€
£ Rigidity Index

10 1 <y u
I "
и

ч-2
10 - л :

' £ii\

-3
10
VTLME .Klniiut

„_-4 1 ■ i i ni»> ' I i ' """' ■ ■ ■' ' ■ ' " — i i i nufl
10
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10 000
t M (min)

jmiM ' ' |llHM I 1 [ l i U L L U j l l M I I I I—1ИШ-1

-2
10-1
10 Ю" 3 10"

m 2 (min"1)

Fig. 8 . 1 . Chart for Finding Сь from t™ (Robertson et a l . .

1992)

Ш
r>
R2T Ш
(Л
c f t =- Ш
cc
a.
ш -^ 10R
о i
Ш <
- ui-ut 1Л ij
u= ш 0.4
U 3
ui—uo X
Ш
О 0.2
Uncoupled linear
, consolidation theory
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
I •nME-FACTOR,T==C.t/R2
о

Fig. 8.2. Dissipation Curve For NCClay

in Ш im 8-1
 (tiapter 8 In Situ feting To Btimate Consolidation Characteristic

Elghalib Method :

1. Determine rate of penetration, v

2. Determine degree of consolidation
3. Calculate time to achieve the
degree consolidation in step two
4. Assume Mp (M p may be taken = 1
for undrained condition)
5. Determine time factor
6. Calculate Ch = T.R 2 /t where R is
cone radius
7. Recalculate Mp using figure 8.3
8. Compare Mp in step 7 to the
O.OI 0.1 1 10 103
assumed value in step 4
9. Repeat step 1 to 7 if the diference COEFrlCIEKT OF CONSOLIDATION ( c ) . < V / . «

of Mv is still large

Fig. 8.3. Degree of Partial Drainage and Coefficient of

Consolidation

*T TIME Г
О—STATIC го** и ш и и
U—rf-TTH*TX3> ГО*£ r*C0U*£
*T n u t T-o
' I M Ml
10 100 iOCO
TIME FACTOR . T « i / K2

Fig. 8.4. Normalized excess Pore Pressure vs Time

Factor

In SitU 2001 8-2

 Chapter 8. In Situ Tating lo Btiraate Consolidation Characteristic

p Method (Rahardjo, 1 9 9 8 ) :
! 0.6 :
1. Plot time vs dissipation curve
2. Divide time into At
3. Determine u t and Ut+At
4. PlOt l-(Ut/Ui) vs l-( Ut+M /Uj)
5. Draw straight line
6. Calculate p in radian
7. c r =i^£
7C2At

In Sim 2001 И
 CHAPTER 9

BSE^0F«SITOTES™SF0R
EVALUATION OF
LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
 Chapter <).toeof In Situ Testing for Evaluation Of liquefaction Potential

CHAPTER 9 . I N S I T U T E S T I N G FOR EVALUATION OF L I Q U E F A C T I O N POTENTIAL

4 00
1 1 .1 1 1
SJLMOS ,
200
ч ^ Г ^ ^ / 51 (.TV

100
60
\\\VVVVOVN?V"I SAWOT
^ 60 s,us
$^^^^ / /
)5 4 0 J A V S ^ ^ ^ W V l . AND SiLlS. _

cr ^ZONfXgw / SILTS /
ц? 20
2

ш 10
ш e
Ш
о
Z 6 >0o<w
о / / PC*I
4
5S«f / /
888<r /
2

>WJ i i l i 1
,,.,,,,,:;,^
FRICTION RATIO, FR (%)

Fig. 9.1. Soil Classification System (By Electric Cone)

Showing Proposed Zone of Liquefiable Soils
(Robertson and Carrmaneila. 19831

Fig. 9.2. Determination of the Boundaries Between

Liquefiable Conditions and Nonliouefiable
Conditions for M 5.25. 6.0, 6.75, 7.5, and
8.5 Earthquakes
•l
 Chapter % In Situ Tetlng for Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential

Simplified Procedure :
1. Determine soil properties
and fines content in each PERCENT FIHES-35 I * * Ь
layer i
1
2. Calculate shear stress
1 I
ratio due to earthquake ! 1 I
JJ- o.65-bajL.£sL. r i
=
°V 9 °V / 1
1 / 1
3. Determine corrected N 1 l
values, (NOeo in each 1 / i
£ o.i
layer and liquefaction VV
/ /
resistance from chart / /
(t,/a0') / / /
/
V/
M-7.5
4. Compare the shear stress
FINES CONTENT 5 5 *
ratio and liquefaction
resistance ' ' / /
/ / ,'
/
' /
lava. > J L Liquefaction

I ^ ( ^ L No Liquefaction 10 20
(Ni)«

jSgk-_-9-3. Liquefaction Potential Based on SP

fSeedeta!.. 1984)
Procedure by Tokimatsu &
Yoshimi(19831
1. Determine shear stress
ratio due to
liquefaction
■Is- = o.i-(M-i).B™ Д .4-o.oia)
a0 g a0
2. Corrected N value

AN, = 0 (FC{5%)
AN, = 0.1FC + 4
3. Determine liquefaction
resistance

100

in which:
a = 0.45
Cr = 0.S7
n = 14
Cs = 80 - 90 for
separating and no-
liquefaction conditions
,-Cs = 75for
extensive liquefaction
Determine safety factor
against liquefaction

fK«=°'

InSttuzooi q-2
 Chapter Я- № of In ЙШ Teiting for Evaluation Of Liquefaction Potential

Method based on CPT follows -|—i f-

exactly the procedure using
SPT % lines t 3i = is =io
0.6
О (mm) o.t о.з O.:SO.JSO.< o.e

05

0.4

0.3.-

0.2

0.1
M = 75 earthquakes

i I ■ i ■ I i_

0 40 80 • 120 160 200

qci (tsf)

Fig ,-"- 9 v4v; yptiefactionг-Pote nti a I Based on GPT f Seed :a-nd- de

Alba. 1986)

Method bv Shibata &

D50 г 0.25 mm
Terapaksa
This method allows
comparison of shear stress
ratio and liquefaction
resistance or comparison of
? о о
critical t i p resistance (q c i) C r On o

and corrected measured tip

resistance q c i . <Ъ

SO 100 150 2CO гг.о

U
qc\ = Cvqc= L (<g/cm2) q<a (kg/cm)
Dso < 0.25 m m
— = 0.l(M-l)^L-^(l-0.015z) /
<*o S <V [

C.3
T
О О
an' 0.1
\ t«g.« « - ^
u = 0.1 + 0.2
250-{gcl/C2)
C2=l.O for clean sand with D5o> 0.25 mm о io IGO i50 гоо ?:•<■

C?=—— for sandy soil with DKQ< 0.25 mm i=i- (kg/cm)

Z su "2
0.25 '

Fig. 9.5. Liquefaction Potential Based on CPT (Shibata and

Terapaksa, 1987, 1988)

In Situ 2001 И
 CHAPTER 10

MPAR4S8N BETWEEN THE

RESULTS OF IN SITU
TESTINGS
 (hapterm Companion Between Hie Retiltt Of In Situ Tetings

CHAPTER 1 0 . C O M P A R I S O N BETWEEN THE RESULTS OF I N S I T U TEST

I t is sometimes of interest to '.0

Чу . 4.66«D„|-M ae tb«-*i
relate the results of different in (lbO' ■ ЮОкГи

situ testings to check for correlation coel. r -0.86

t
8
consistency of result or to • Kalamata site
convert the values in other in * / /
eother similar sites f

situ test result for geotechnical 6

assestment ! 1 • / *fl
\
N , *
A *■
•
• .'< *
* о -.fc "
2 "_л^-чг r*~ ^
^
r>
0001 0.002 0.005 Q01 QOa 0.05 0.1 0.2 Q5 1.0 2.0 5.0 10
D 50 (mm)

Fig. 10.1. Variation of a 7 N with Mean Grain Size

(Robertson,P.K. and Campanella.R.G. 1983>

w
£
* w ^
I I l a
P
ш SO A ■ 0 *»

(Л x
' • * *
3

Q
. *~y>
о ••* • a
A
*SR26A
О UAL • о . SR26B
£ 40 - i S f i n » * * a SR26C -
a: A
V7»**4 «US 301
. Я № x о US441
s м "fifT
-
* • SR12

ld оO Д * i
10
i
20
I
30 40
° CONE TIP RESISTANCE, q c (МРа)

Fig. 10.2. Corelation of En with q^(Marchetti f S. f 1980\

In Situ Ш1 10-1
 ttopteno. Companion Between ITK Reults of Jn Situ Tet

a -*
/?\ -PL
2000
•—.
<4

e / / i о
z о / О
^•■—• А

Щ
3
" АЛ'** '*
/ ■ .С * л 1
°
$ 1000 Я ■
1Л УЧ а

о.
■
/Я.*- •
fc * • { .*
E:
•-<
_J / / ■

0 1000 2000 3000

Pi (kN/m 2 )

Fig. 10.3. Comparison Between pi and Limit Pressure

(Clarke.B.G. and Wroth.C.P. 1988)

—т—Г"гттттп 1—Г I I 1 1Ш т~г

W£LU-GRADED SOILS
■a HATANAKA & SUZUKI, 1986
• ДО YOSHIDA^T AL, 1988
V GOTO ET AL, 1987

n i 'MI | I I I ) I'll 1 L
10
0.1 1
MEAN GRAIN SIZE D50 (mm)

Fig. 10.4. N W N i PT for Well Graded Cohesionless Soils

(Tokimatsu f 1988)

10-2 10-1
 CHAPTER 11

COMPREHENSIVE EXAMPLE
 Chapter п . ComprahemivebtampEe

CHAPTER 1 1 . COMPREHENSIVE EXAMPLE

11.1. SPT and CPT Location Subang (West Java, Indonesia)

Interpretation on Clays Ground Water Level 3.75 m

An example of SPT and CPT

interpretation is provided with
SAMPLE
data obtained at Subang (West DEPTH
DEPTH
№ {Ml
Java, Indonesia) project site. The DESCRIPTION

CPT is a mechanical cone and the ■m*v

SPT is of automatic trip hammer
type. Three CPTs were conducted Silty clay, reddish
brown, trace sand,
and plotted which shows medium.
consistency of the results.
JUS.
Э.Л5
A summary of the soil profile
based on engineering drilling
record, laboratory and JkJS.
A-9S
mechanical cone penetration
Clayey silt, light grey,
testing (CPT) is shown in trace sand, medium. ..6,,-pq.
fig.11.1.1. and fig.11.1.2.
Groundwater level
approximately 3.75m below tr.e
exist] h g g ro u n d surface;
is
MH
m 4#
i

According t o engineering drilling

record, the upper 5 m consist of Sandy silt, light brown, if- \
fine grained, stiff to
Silty clay with medium (firm) hard.
consistency. Clayey silt layer 10.53
10-95
from 5m to 8m with a soft to
medium ( f i r m ) consistency. The \
Jg.QD
sandy silt from 8m to 12m was 12-JS

found. This layer has consistency Sand, dark brown,

imcementsi, fine
of stiff to hard layer. The lower grained, dam to very J3.50
>50
part of the drilling is dark brown dense. «■35

sand. The sand has a medium

dense to very dense relative .1,5-09,. >S0
15 л5
density.
End of drilling.

Classification and
Stratigraphy

According to empirical correlation

developed by Begemann (1965), -19

the stratification of the soil in

Subang project site consist of
d a y layer from the existing
ground surface to 9.3m below the
surface and a sand layer at the
Fig. 11.1.1. Engineering Borehole Record in Subang Project
depth 9.3m t o the end of driiling. Site
 Chapter л. Comprdjcreive Example

The cone resistance profile, q c , Location : Subang (West Java, Indonesia)

and friction ratio, FR , clearly Ground Water Level : 3.75 m
identify the insensitive non-
fissured inorganic clay with stiff
consistency according to ижзичиоюр/.}
0 1 2 3 1
empirical correlations developed 20 « to ю in m HI no » n 0 2 « 6 В 1С

by Schmertmann 1978.

The cone resistance profile, q c ,

and friction ratio, FR , also
identify the silt - sand mixtures
to sand deposit from a depth
9.3m to the end of drilling, with a
relative density vary from
medium dense to very dense.

Laboratory investigation on two

undisturbed samples at depth 4m
and 7m indicates high plasticity
clays (CH) and silt (MH).

Table.11.1.1. Index properties

Depth 4m {CH)
Wti = 6 f W wr^3a:w
WL =63 % IP = 25 %
Depth 7m (MH)
W„ = 60 %
WL =-- 61 %
WP = 52 %
IP = 9 % 4
I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Soil
^ir
Parameter

Since the laboratory data

available is at depth 4m and 7 m ,
the interpretation in this example
is limited to this soil layer to
enable discussion. Fig. 11.1.2. Record of Mechanical Cone Penetration Test at
Subang Project Site
Sensitivity
The average value of FR (5%) in
the clayey silt deposit may be
used to estimate the sensitivity of
the soils using an empirical
correlation developed by
Schmertmann :

FR%
This value seems slightly high for
this soil and inconsistent with the
normal soil conditions at the site
and Schmertmann classification.

ft Situ 2ooi 11-2

 Chaptern. Compreshaiinre Example

I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Grain Size I SAND

l Г™
H,«..i.e.-„ GRAVEL
and Fines Content

Comparison of the grainsize and

3o l 1
fines content shows that the 80 4 1
result of CPT at Subang site
follow those suggested by Suzuki
70
/
iti T
T
et at. (1995) (Fig.11.1.4.) and
Muromachi (1981) (Fig.11.1.5.).
60

= 50 _ . 1 1. / .
\ iЩ 1
4
1
1
I
|

II
40
The actual grain size distribution 4ir
1
chart from laboratory testing at
1
30

depth 4.0m and 7.0m are 20 I

presented in Fig.11.1.3. in order
to make a comparison between
to
1
i!
11 1
1 1
Subang clayey silt with those 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
correlations. Graindiametcifir

Table.11.1.2. Interpretation result of

Grainsize and Fines Content
Fig. 11.1.3. Grainsize Distribution at Depth 4 m and 7 m
Depth 4.0m 7.0m
FC (predicted) 100 100
FC (measured) —93^- ,„g&,:„
D 50 (predicted) 0.016 0.016
D 50 (measured) 0.008 0.014

I t is shown in the table 11.1.2.

that the predicted grainsize and
fines content is satisfactory.

I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Undrained
Shear Strength

The shear strength of clayey siit

layer can be estimated from the
following methods :
Fig. 11.1.4. Position of Subang Clayey Silt in The Suzuki
Using N SPT Correlation Chart
1. Based on correlation chart
by Terzaghi & Peck,1967 tor
Sowers,1979.
•2. Using equation develop
R,.1.64-U7togD5o
by Stroud & Butler 1975 :
Corrtiatlon eo»f p.aM
Su=-£—N Ь Kalomolfl tit»
100 9 Other timlkir tit»*
For IP = 2 5 % , the value of
f i = 484.
For IP = 9°/ 0/ the value of
f i = 878.6.
Using CPT
Q0O1 ОДОЗО.0) 0.03 0.050.1 ОЛ OS W 20 ЗОЮ0
1. Empirical correlation Ojo tmm)
<Begeman 1963) :

Fig. 11.1.5. Position of Subang Clavev Silt In The

Muromachi Correlation Chart

In SltU 2001 11-?

 (hapteniConipreliefiilyc&ample

Table 11.1.3. S u Value Resulting from many Correlation

С,. =
14 Depth
2. Empirical correlation : 4m 7m
Method c„,kPa _ cu,kPa Remarks
Cu =
N. Laboratory с = 22 19 Triaxial UU test
Robertson suggested a Laboratory ф = 8.5 1
first estimate of Nk = 15,
and Kjekstad N k = 17. Terzaghi &. Peck 1967 25 25 Fig.11.1.5
3. Using the local friction:
Sowers 1979 42-67 42-67 Fig.11.1.5
с =i
Stroud & Butler 1975 20 35 Ip = 2 5 % (4m)
The result is shown in table Ip = 9 % (7m)
11.1.3. Fig.11.1.6

I t is shown that the strength 4c

interpretation based on the cone 14
с - 95.2 83.3
resistance is too high compared
to laboratory test result.

I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Soil 84.4 70.1 ■N k = 15

Compressibility first estimate

C u = qc-crvo
The compressibility can be 95.2 83.3 N k = 17
estimated from the following (Kjekstad et al.)
method :
Cu=fs/12 58 58
1. Using empirical correlation
developed by
Schmertmann 1970 :

mv = (cm 2 /kg)
7.6-TV J
2. Using equation developed
by Stroud & Butler 1975 :
1
mv = 1.00E-05

f2-N ^ 8.00E-06 -
-For IP = 2 5 % , the value of 1 '"'
f2 = 586.2. N = 4.
For IP = 9 % , the value of
I
M
6.00E-06 i
E
f2 = 9 0 7 . 1 . N = 4. >
3. Using empirical correlation £ 4.00E-06 J
develop by Gielly et al. .»,.
4m ^ "
1969 and Sangierat et al. 2.00E-06 -
1972 :
1
mv =
С 500 1000 1500
For MH and q c < 20 bar, 2
CT'V ( k N / m )
the value of a = 2 or 3.

The -result of the interpretation of Fig. 11.1.6. m» Value from Pedometer Consolidation Testing
soil compressibity and the

In Ши 2001 11-4
 CtaptenUompratewe Example

sured value is shown in table

Table 11.1.4. m v Value Resulting from Many Correlation
11.1.4.

Figure 11.1.6. is data from Depth

laboratory test, where the 4m 7m
coeficient of volume mv mv
compressibility is calculated from Method (m 2 /kN) (m 2 /kN) Remarks
the measured data. The
corresponding value is based on
Oedometer Testing 5.2E-06 1.16E-05 Plotted
the magnitude of the overburden
pressure. (fig.11.1.7)
Schmertmann 3.29E-04 3.29E-04
The Value of q c / N
Stroud & Butler 4.27E-04 2.76E-04
The value of q c / N may be
estimated and calculated from
the laboratory test data. m v = l/a.q c (cm 2 /kg) 3.75E-04 4.28E-04 a = 2

Table 11.1.5.
Depth 4m 7m mv = l/a.qc(cm2/kg) 2.50E-04 2.86E-04 a = 3
qt/N (predicted) 2.25 2.7
q<7N (measured) 3.33 2.9

tors ; N , blows/fool ( I b o r • ЮОкРо

CLAYtYStlTS S»NOt 51 LI
CLAY 6 SILT* CLA4 S SILT S I L T T SAND SAND
A
10 *
9 »,
В It

X 7 / 3

L* t V
4
о 5
u0n
1»
buoang:soil
^ Y*£
IS

3 ;\ 15
-А- -Ж - *^ 6 "
2
щ. ZJ* i . -
jzZ~~n k" 1
1 t
t 1
0 001 0.01 0.1 10
MEAN GRAIN SIZE . DJ0,mm

Fig. 11.1.7. Comparison of q./N for Subang

Soil With The Robertson et al.
Correlation Chart

Jiftuum ii-5
 Chaptern. ComprehemiveExample

11.2. SPT and CPT

Interpretation of Sand SOIL/ROCK SPT

Layer
£.
г"
о
liewbi DESCRIPTION
4
и
S N
20 40 00
0
'xx Silly Sand wilh gravel
An example of SPT and CPT XK
MX
interpretation on sand layer is taken
from data collected in Maumere City Ж;Sand,
Х-Ш
dense
dark grey, medium
\
&й|
(Flores, Indonesia). The CPT is a
mechanical cone and the SPT is of 3 Ш 14
automatic trip hammer type. CPT
were conducted and plotted which XXX Sandy stt with traces оГ /
3
shows consistency of the SPT results. XX
XXX
coral, light grey 1
Sand w№ coral, dark grey i
A summary of the soil profile based ■■Mi

on engineering drilling record (SPT), m■v$ft

and mechanical cone penetration "xx Sandy silt with coral, light
grey
testing (CPT) is shown in fig.11.2.1. 'xx"

and fig.11.2.2. Groundwater level is xix

XX
approximately 1.50m below the .?.*. Silly sand with coral, grey
1 <

existing ground surface. r

X*.

According to engineering drilling и

XX
xx'
XX
. 1\
sx; \
record, the soil layer consist of sand XX

u
XX
rz. silt mixture with coral fragment ^
SsraJ,-.IShf.gss¥..'".-;--~ :■■".■■.-:".■
' *>...;.:.
from the ground surface to the end
*• Sandy Silt with coral, light
of drilling. The first sandy layer-to a XXX grey, medium dense /
depth of 4 m is medium t o dense silty 14
,.
XX

sand. However, the underlying layer

Чхх
XXX
XX 14
J [
{
15 l
are loose sand or sandy silt with a
range of SPT of 1 - 6. This layer is
XX
xix
x'x
К i
16 \
either very loose or loose. From a XX
XXX SI
N■
depth of 10m or lower, the sand has 17
&£i
*
become denser and mixed with coral. /
XX
ia
х
X . 11

Classification and Stratigraphy is

XXX
xx"
xSJs
i
,*K
x'ix
20 A*.
Based on Begeman (1965), the xix
£>anay HIE win corai, itgnt
stratification of the soil layer consists x'x'x grey n V
.XX
of silty sand t o sand and gravel layer 21 \
.XX,
from the ground surface to the end 22
x'ix
xx"
\J\
of drilling. x'xx 49
>
XX

Sand, medium to dense /

consistency
The cone resistance profile, q c / and Щ Sandy silt wilh coral, light /
friction ratio, FR , clearly identify the XX
x'x'x. gray
29
/
sand layer from the ground surface 2$
A*.
to the depth of 3m (correlations XXX • /
develop by Schmertmann, 1978). Silly sand,fightgrey
xx" 19 <
XX
27 A*. \
The cone resistance profile, q c , and XX
XX
'xx* \
friction ratio, FR , also identify the
silt - sand mixtures t o sand deposit
x'xx
Sandy sltt with gravel
>S0
И
from a depth 3m to 9.3m. The tip
resistance is very low ( 2 - 8 kg/cm 2 ).
Fig. 11.2.1. Engineering Borehole Record in
Maumere City Liquefaction Zone

№2001 71-6
 Chapter л. (wprBtoBive Example

And then, from the depth of 9.3m to

the end of drilling, the sand layer is FR[%]

classified as medium dense

qc {kofcm2>
consistency. At the end of U

penetration (21m), the tip resistance

jump up to > 200 kg/cm 2 . This could
be due to the existence of boulder. *ч
I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Soil Parameter r '
To interpret mechanical CPT data in
sand, it is often easier to produce a
plot of q c versus vertical effective .
stress, o'vo- Then the correlations can
be drawn directly over the q c profile.
{V .
чV ■

Interpretation of Soils Relative ;=■

Density
т
According to relative density
correlation for uncemented and" un- ■~~'. _ *

aged quartz sand (Schmertmann <'

■

1978) CFig.il.2.3.), it is obvious that

<,
-the"soil^layer consists-of sand - w i t h
t>
■ ■

relative density about 100% or very 2=»

■

dense compactness from the ground

surface to the depth of 3m.
From the depth of 3m to 21m the
soils consist of loose sand with
relative density in the range of 20 - Fig. 11.2.2. Record of Mechanical Cone Penetration
25 %. Test at Maumere, Floresf Indonesia

Interpretation of Soils Friction

Angle
q=(bara)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Friction angle of the sand layer can
be estimated using empirical
correlations developed by many
researcher like De Mello 1971,
Durgunoglu and Mitchell 1975,
Robertson & Campanella 1983 etc. In
this example, interpretation of
friction angle is made by Robertson &
Campanella method (fig.11.2.4). The
value of friction angle from the
ground surface to the depth of 3m is
about found 43°. Then from the
depth 3m to 21m the vaiue of Ф is
about 31°.

Fig. 11.2.3. Relative Density Interpretation in

Sand According to Develop bv
Schmertmann 1977
 Chapter i b Comprehensire Example

Using the NSPT profile at any depth

and refering to De Mello 1971
correlation chart, we can summarize
that at the depth 0 - 3 m , the value
of the friction angle is about 40°. The
value of the friction angle at the
depth 4 - 11m is about 25°. The
average value of the friction angle at
the depth 11 to the end of drilling is
about 42°.

I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Soils
Compressibility

The compressibility of the sand layer

can be estimated from the following
method :
1. Using empirical correlation
develop by Gielly et al. 1969
and Sanglerat et a!. 1972 :
1
mv =
Fig. 11.2.4. -Friction Angle Interpretation in
The value of a = 2. Sand According to Correlation
Develop By " " Robertson &
correlation : Campanella 1983
Es = 2q c
3. Using many other correlation
that suits the field condition.

The result of the interpretation of

soils relative density, friction angle
and soils compressibity are shown in
table 11.2.1.

Evaluation of Soils Liquefaction

Potential

Since the site liquified during the

Flores earthquake of 1992, it is of
interest to use the SPT and CPT data
to evaluate the liquefaction potential
of the site.

The example uses Seed method

based on SPT data is presented in
table 11.2.2.
Fig. 11.2.5. Friction Angle Interpretation in
The other example of the evaluation Sand According to Correlation
of soils liquefaction potential is Develop Bv de Mello 1971
conducted using Shibata & Terapaksa
method (1988) based on CPT data is
presented in-table 11.2.3.

fn Situ m fl-$
 Chapter и. tompratmive Example

Sample Calculation of Shibata Table 11.2.1. Summary of Soil Correlation on Sand Layer
Method:
Relative Density
Depth 1.0 m Depth
q c = 68kg/cm 2 , D 50 = 0.24 m m . Method 0 -3m 3 -21 m Remarks
2
Oo = а ' 0 = 0.17 kg/cm . Based on
1,7
Schmertmann 100% 20-25% CPT
9d = \qc = 132.9kg / cm2
a'+0.7 Friction Anqle, °
Depth
— = o.i/M - i;^s..-^-.(i - o.oi5z; Method 0 - 3m 3 -29 m Remarks
Robertson & Based on
Campanella 43 31 CPT
— = 0.057
CT
'o
Based on
De Mello 40 25 - 42
C2 = D 5 0 / 0 . 2 5 = 0.94
Soil Compressibility
т » = 0.1
_ +_0.2. I ( q c l / C 2 ) - 5 0 m v , (m 2 /kN)
250-(gcl/C2)
ojL Depth
3-
-3- =0.27 Mehod 0 - 3m 10.6m 10.6 - 21m
Gielly and Sanglerat
elal. 7.14E-05 5.00£-04 2.00E-04
- L ] >^r (Not Liquified) 2
Es, <kN/m )
\?olL
,.;,:,,1G,6,.^,
Depth 5.0 m 0 - 3m 3 - 10.6m 21m
qc = 10kg/cm 2 , DSo = 0.17 mm.
Schmertmann 14000 2000 5000
a 0 = 0.84 kg/cm 2 .
CJ'O = 0.49 kg/cm 2 .
1 7
4c, = \qc = 14,29kg/ cm2
a 'о+ 0 . 7

— = O.lfM - 1)%Ш-.^-.(1 - 0.015z; Cyclic stress ratio

( 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

~ = 0.092 °1
C2 = D 5 0 / 0 . 2 5 = 0.68 5 ^^
xi „ . л . i (<7ci/c2)-50 s\ 1 i q ^ j f i f rl 7 П П Р
= 0.1 + 0.2. \
250-(QC1/C2) .-*•
<r
\
10-
s_^ s
11 = 0.07 ?
£ 15-
* / /
u—

< — f Liquified) Q if
Vuo> If
If iC J ^
The result of liquefaction potential 20- ^* Liquified t o n e
analysis shows that :
1. Based on analysis using Seed it

method, there is a tendency 25-

of a sand layer at the depth 0
т,/ст*
4m - 11m and 19m - 22m
that will liquify as shown in 30-
fig,11.2.6.
Fig. 11.2.6. Presentation of Liquefaction Potential
Analysis Based on Seed Method

Mitrai • И-9
 Clapttrn. (omprelimiYe Example

2. Based on analysis by Shibata Cyclic Stress Ratio

& Terapaksa method, there is
a tendency of a sand layer at 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
the depth 6.7m - 20.4 that
liquify.
Г
«^es
The result is similar to that л
predicted by Seed using SPT
method except that at 13m 5.00 -
Я-п
zfl
ZJ-
below ground level, the SPT 1
value registered was high
which may be
existance of boulder.
due to
— 10.00 -
.с
4-1
izr Liqu fied Zone

a
о
a И *> о
15.00 -
т/ o'f

20.00 -

Fig. 11.2.7. Presentation of Liquefaction Potential

Analysis Based on Shibata &
ТегарШа Methbcj

Table 11.2.2. Evaluation of Liquefaction Potensiai Using Seed Method Based On SPT data
0.1 g
Depth %
<m) NSPT D50 Finer Go c'o N,
Soil description (blows / ft) tfm* Vm" tave/o'o cN efektif T(/O"O Remarks
Silty sand, with gravel
MM,T .z Sand, dark grey, medium dense 8 0.24 5,3 3.4 2.9 0.09 8.5 0.1 NL
\ 3 14 0.23 4.9 5.1 3.6 0.107 14.5 0.165 NL
4
5 Sandy silt with traces of coral, light qrey 3 0.17 16.9 8.5 5 0.127 1.32 5.5 0.06 L
6 Sand, dark grey with coral 1 0.08 49 10.2 5.7 0.133 1.22 5.2 0.055 L
7
8 Sandy silt with coral, light grey 2 0.02 73.1 13.6 7.1 0.139 1.08 7.2 0.08 L
9 1 0.28 32.4 15.3 7.8 0.141 1.03 3.5 0.04 L
10 Silty sand with coral, grey
11 6 0.45 32.1 18.7 9.2 0.14 0.96 8.3 0.095 L
12
13 Sand, light grey 34 0.18 30.1 22.1 10.6 0.135 0.9 33.1 0.46 NL
14 Sandy silt with coral, light grey
15 14 0.28 36.7 25.5 12 0.129 0.82 14.5 0.17 NL
16 Sandy silt with coral, light grey
17 51 0.26 23.6 28.9 13.4 0.121 0.82 43.8
18
19 11 0.32 29.8 32.3 14.8 0.112 0.72 10.4 0.12 NL
20
21 6 . 0.67 19.4 35.7 16.2 0.105 0.68 6.1 0.065 L
22
23 49 0.32 29.1 39.1 17.6 0.099 0.7 36.8
24 Sand, medium to dense
25 Sandy sift, grey, dense 29 1.11 14.4 42.5 19 0.094 0.6 18.4 0.215 NL
26
271 Silty sand, light grey 19 0.19 30.7 45.9 20.4 0.091 0.58 13 0.15 NL
28
29 Sandy silt with gravel >50 1.3
Remarks : L = liquified zone, NL = not liquified гопе

fotuzoci • Ti-w
 Ctiaptem. Compndwnsive Example

11.3. CPTU I n t e r p r e t a t i o n i n S o f t A l l u v i a l Soils

CPTU is conducted in North Jakarta

alluvium where reclaimed fill has Drilling Record
been placed over a period of about MB-1
4 years. Thickness of the fill is
about 2.0 m consisting of reddish CLAY
brown clay. Ground water table reddish brown (fill
was found at - 0 . 5 m. Dissipation material)
test was conducted at - 8 . 0 m for
120 minutes. CLAY
Gray, soft with traces of
This example will be used t o eand, contain eheli
illustrate the conformity of CPT fragments
interpreted profiles and the result
of drilling.

The result of drilling is shown in the

figure where soft clays layer
underlain the fill. The clay contains SANDY CLAY
shell fragments and traces of sand. Ш Gray, eoft, wtih traces
The thickness of this soft clay is 5.0 о of shell fragments
m. The bottom layer consists of
sandy clay of soft consistency to
the end of drilling.

The range of plastic limits is 2 2 % -

64% and the liquid limits is 4 5 % -
120%. The natural water content is
closer to the liquid limits all over
the soft clay layer.

Water Content vs Depth

Water content {%)

го и м ее too 120 140 tw IBU 2w>

1 •
z •
о * о
3
оо •
о о о«о«ю>
* •
5 * •
e оо о •
о оядао
E •*
JZ J
•
4-1 со • о о
01 e
«
о о о
D
«
10
оо о

и -
о о
и

и -
о о
t*

''
о Previous study • Recent Study

Fig. 11.3.1 The Natural Water Content Profile

In Situ 2001 11-11

 Chapter lUomprdweBample

Piezocone Penetrometer Test

The result of CPTU has been

corrected for pore pressures of " - (Чт) _ qTx 10(kg/cmJ) Pore Pressure (кд/ст г )
unequal area ratio of 0.62. The О 3 10 IS 20 2S SO 38 «0 -2 2 * a в 10
pore pressures registered during 0

penetration is generally positive

and a sudden change of the
t
1

negative pore pressure is

2
registered when the cone penetrate
stiff clay at the end of the CPT test.

ft
S

4
The general profile of CPTU test
result is shown on the next page
with q T/ fT, pore pressure, friction
ratio, and pore pressure ratio
s

e
H
plotted with depth.
7
t~
■e

f'
■
4.
__
S
в'
-;
10 v
r ' -
ii
■

'Til..,,.
12
■
|
15

14
\ 1
15

IS

11-12
ln№№
 1
'^гиэтак**«*аь^1>о^>™™я&л'лзг*ч^г^^
!',ЯЧ*1ЧМ^1И!П*рЬ^"иЩ^Я|«Ч№,.

PIEZOCONE PENETROMETERTEST
Project : - Coordinate Depth of Sounding : 14.60 rri Operator : GT.
Location : North Jakarta Date September 19, 1996 Ground Surface Level : 1.36 m Checked by : LM.
Sounding no. .: PI Client •■ Ground Water Level : -0.50 m a : 0.62

— (Чт) — qTxlO(kg/crti2) — От) _ fr x 10 (kg/cm2) Pore Pressure ( k g / c m 2 ) Friction Ratio (%) Pore Pressure Ratio (B q )
0 8 10 15 20 25 SO 35 « О 0Л 1 Л£ a 2.5 3 3.5 4 о 2 л e e 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 0 10 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5

1 — —
>) 1
f
z?-~ i
i A i
[) J
. s - ^
\ Г"——X

I ■ X x" I

\ ;= i

x. ±:
5
■

■
e J: i
i

)
■

Ж-
7

1'
■

I x
|
XT,
—-
r? -c 1 -X >
X
* ■
в
в■ >:
it"
^T"
< I
! !

1= 'И
i
. ■

10 I i
■
l
11 ■\ 1
12
1 ! ■■ I i
i

1
l

|
f
\ 13 i i i
1
u 1
i

S1
3
 (taptoiUomprehercire Example

Interpretation of Soil Profile

Based on Jones & Rust ( 1 9 8 2 )

Jones & Rust (1982) specify soil

type based on q c - a vo and pore
pressures. The interpretation shows
that the upper part is very soft
clays and the bottom part is very
stiff clays.

This stiff clays is recognized by its

high tip resistance and negative
pore pressure.

11-14
fiTSitlROOl
 Chapter!!, tomprdieffiive Example

SOIL TYPE PREDICTION BASED ON PIEZOCONE PENETROMETER TEST

Project Depth of Sounding 14.60 m

Location North Jakarta Ground Surface Level 1.36 m
Sounding No. PI Ground Water Level -0.50 m

— B, Soil Type based on ROBERTSON et a)., 1986

.1.2 -СЛ -0.4 0 0.4 o.e i.2

~"'
1 _ — _.. - 1

! 2

3
rb~, 3

t , 4
•< CLAY
5 S

>
e
6
>
7 ~ f T

t - T
I»
s; -=;
*~*
<
г....
—
..:
0,
Ш
о

10
CLAYtYSILTTG^iLW^LAY
SANDY SILT TO CLAYEY SILT
10
->
11 _ и SAND TO SILTY SAND

.« 12

13 — - 13
SAND
14
_... 14

16 —- 15

I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Soil Profile
Based on Robertson, et al
(1986)

The upper part is--clay soil and the

layer at - 1 0 . 0 m is found t o be
.sand t o silty sand.

l i l t U 2001 11-K
 Chapterл . Comprehensive Example

SOIL TYPE P R E D I C T I O N BASED ON PIEZOCONE PENETROMETER TEST

Project Depth of Sounding 14.60 m

Location North Jakarta Ground Surface Level 1.36 m
Sounding No. PI Ground Water Level -0.50 m

Soil Type based ол ROBERTSON, 1990

CLAYEY SILT TO
SILTY CLAY

CLAY TO SILTY CLAY

I'
SILTY SAND TO
SANDY SILT

CLEAN SAND TO
SILTY SAND

Interpretation of Soil Profile

Based on Robertson (1990)
In this classification the method of
Robertson (1990) make distinction
between the upper clay fill and soft
clay underneath. Compared to the
interpretation fay Robertson, et ai
(1986) clean sand to silty sand is
identified at the bottom layer.

Ill Situ 2001 TI-16

 Chaptern, Comprefiemire Example

SOIL TYPE PREDICTION BASED ON PIEZOCONE PENETROMETER TEST

Project Depth of Sounding 14.60 m

Location North Jakarta Ground Surface Level 1.36 m
Sounding No. PI Ground Water Level -0.50 m

—: Friction Ratio (%) — qT (bar) Soil Type based on ROBERTSON et ai., 1986
3 4 . в 10 100

1 - — {г 1

г
^w
I
1

r ■
ORGANIC SOILS

CLAY
л tT
- -! \
—
I'­
Э
—==~ f- 14 . •

ll fl 1'
4
- -.<
>
r 5
i•
I-L j SENSITIVE FINE GRAINED

11
fl
->
7 T 1
t
i"
■4=
^
% > ~*~ 1 1 г
c
-e:::'~- --._-.-.-- :-.J
- ■ - . - :

-
.:1.— „ ^
fir
о
e Ш - -ijj? к ORGANIC SOILS

1 10
" тг*—
j] 10
CLAY
A III SILTY SAND TO
: ^
1
ii 11
SANDY SILT
■ ч
>-- 4!
1
n 12 12
''i
— 1
1
13 1Э
> SAND TO SILTY SAND
и

iJ
14
■ ■

15 f 15

I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Soil Profile
Based on Robertson, et al
(1986)

I n this method friction ratio is used

instead of t h e pore pressure ratio
(B q ). The upper part is interpreted
as clay or organic soils and the
lower p a r t is sensitive fine grained
soils. Method with friction ratio
shows that t h e friction ratio is
higher for 'fill, which may be the
result of compaction.

In Situ 2001 11-1]

 Chapte-Ti- Comprehemive Example

Interpretation of Soil Profile

Based on Robertson ( 1 9 9 0 )

Another method of interpreting of

soil profile by Robertson {1990) is
to use modified friction ratio and
normalized tip resistance. In this
method it is also shown that the fill
has higher friction.

Ifl Mil 2001 11-18

 Chapter n. (ompretowe Example

D I S S I P A T I O N TEST RECORD

Project : - Depth of Sounding : 14.60 m

Location : North Jakarta Ground Surface Level : 1.36 m
Sounding No. : PI Ground Water Level : -0.50 m
Date : September 19, 1996 Test Depth : 8.00 m

Time Pore Pressure

(minutes) (kg/cm 2 )
0.0 2.39
0.5 2.18
1.0 2.10
1.5 2.07
2.0 2.03
3.0 2.00
4.0 1.95
5.0 1.91 EXCESS PORE PRESSURE VS T I M E
6.0 1.88 Dissipation Test at 8.00 m depth
8.0 1.84
_,-a,SQ 2.4
12.0 1.76 '
2.2
15.0
20.0
1.72
1.66
it
ч i-1 И
25.0 1.61
30.0 1.56
35.0 1.52
40.0 1.49 £ 1.4
45.0 1.46

I'
50.0 1.43
55.0 1.40
60.0
65.0
70.0
1.39
1.36
1.34
°- 0.8
... ... ... ш
Hydro
HaUcPrew
•Г ' — - *
"**.. . . ' -

0.6
75.0 1.32
80.0 1.30 0.4
1 1 10 100 1000
85.0 1.28 0.2
0 Elapsed Time (min)
90.0 ■1.26
95.0 1.25
100.0 1.24
105.0 1.22
110.0 1.21
115.0 1.20

In Situ zooi Т1-1Ч

 Chapter л . О ш ф ( М к Example

Time Pore Pressure H u t / u , ) l-(ut+ut/Ui)

(min) (kg/cm 2 ) (kg/cm 2 ) (kg/cm 2 )
0 2.39 0.000 0.247
10 1.80 0.247 0.305
20 1.66 0.305 0.347
30 1.56 0.347 0.377
40 1.49 0.377 0.402
50 1.43 0.402 0.418
60 1.39 0.418 0.439
70 1.34 0.439 0.456
80 1.30 0.456 0.473
90 1.26 0.473 0.481
100 1.24 0.481 0.494
110 1.21 0.494

Prediction of Coefficient of
Consolidation in Radial
Direction (8 M e t h o d )

Depth of Dissipation = 8.0 m

Ground Water Elevation = -0.5 m

Hydrostatic Pressure = 0.75 kg/cm 2

Initial Pore Pressure = 2.39 kg/cm*

At = 10 minutes

PWP at t = 30 minutes = 1.56 kg/cm 2

Degree of Consolidation
2.39-1.56
x 100%
2.39-0.75
°'83xl00%
1.64
= 50.61%

p angle = 33.5°
= 0.585 rad

Cone Radius = 3.57 cm

Coefficient of Consolidation in Radial

Direction (ch)
4 ■ R2en p
jc2-At

4 x 3 . 5 7 2 x 1/7 0.585
я 2 (Ю x 60)

= 4.62 x 10'3 cm 2 /det

IflSltozom 71-20
 Chapter!!. Comprehensive Example

Prediction of Coefficient of (x1.5fora15-cm cone)

Consolidation in Radial
Direction ( R o b e r t s o n et a l ,
f
1992)

Depth of Dissipation = 8.0 m

Ground Water Elevation - -0.5 m

Hydrostatic Pressure = 0.75 kg/cm 2

Initial Pore Pressure = 2.39 kg/cm 2

Degree of Consolidation = 50%

Pore Water Pressure, u5o%

- 2.39 - (2.39-0.75)*0.5
= 1.57 kg\cm 2

Time at u = 50% = 29 minutes

Coefficient of Consolidation in Radial

Direction <ch)

= 5.0 x 10"3 cm2/sec

10 100 1000 10 000

tso (min)

Prediction of Coefficient of
Consolidation in Radial
Direction ( S e n n e s e t e t a l . )

Depth of Dissipation - 8.0 m

Ground Water Elevation = -0.5 m

Hydrostatic Pressure = 0.75 kg/cm 2

Initial Pore Pressure = 2.39 kg/cm 2

Degree of Consolidation = 50%

Pore Water Pressure, uSo%

= 2.39 - (2.39-0.75)*0.5
= 1.57 kg\cm 2

Time factor = 1.05 minutes

Coefficient of Consolidation in Radial

Direction {c h )

= r*-I
= (1.785J 2 ■
1.05
29x60

= 1.90 x 10"3 cm 2 /det

11-21
 Chapter i i Comprehensive Example

Prediction of Coefficient of T U Mpl T ch Mp2

Consolidation in Radial (min) (kq/cm 2 ) (cm 2 /sec)
Direction (Elghalib, 1989) 10 1.8 35.98 1.00 134 7.13x 10' 1 0.70
0.70 300 1.59x 10° 0.57
0.57 358 1.90x 10° 0.55
Depth of Dissipation = 8.0 m 0.55 360 1.91x10° 0.55
30 1.56 50.61 0.80 90 1.59X10"1 0.85
Ground Water Elevation = -0.5 m
0.85 85 1.50X10' 1 0.84
Hydrostatic Pressure = 0.75 kg/cm2 50 1.43 58.54 1.00 35 3.67X10"2 0.94
0.94 40 4.25X10"2 0.93
Initial Pore Pressure = 2.39 kg/cm 2 0.93 39 4.14ХКГ 2 0.93
70 1.34 64.02 1.00 23 1.78xl0- 2 0.96
Rate of penetration (v) = 2.00 cm/det 0.96 29 2.20xl0" 2 0.95
0.95 30 2.28X10"2 0.95
Radius of the cone = 1.79 cm 90 1.26 68.90 1.00 16 9.46xl0'3 0.98
0.98 18 1.06xl0- 2 0.97
U 0.97 19 1.12X10-2 0.97
(cm 2 /det) 100 1.21 71.95 1.00 13 6.11X10 -3 0.98
1.91 x 10° 35.98 0.98 15 7.13X10"3 0.97
1.50 x 10"1 50.61 0.97 16 7.74xl0' 3 0.97
4.14 x 10"2 58.54
2.28 x 10"2 64.02 Mpi = predicted
MP2 ='Chart
1.12 x Ю -2 68.90
7.74 x 10"3 71.95

Coefficient of Consolidation (<v)

0.20 ' . ■ ;

;0,15 •=

o.io
"
" ■

:flLQ5 ■

■"•&-

■ - 'Щ;
->.,:,^LL^iL
" ': :^":
■ШШ - - - ; ' . - = . ■ ' : ' - : .
ТГТ-т -—■

№№001 11-22
 ChaptenUompratentiYe Example

Interpretation of Undrained
Shear Strength
UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH VS DEPTH

The undrained shear strength is Pantai Indah Kapuk

calculated using proposed equation
by Robertson (1986), Massarch 0,0 0.1 S'« ( k g / c m 2 )
(1981), Baligh (1975), Senneset 0.063 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
(1984), Lunne.
i \ r-"^i^> i i^f
The result is plotted with depth and Mrtson
compared to the result of vane
shear test and laboratory test.
- ! Щ, ] > i Im
estimate by Baligh is too low and If'-JT i L unne
by Massarch is slightly higher than \Jz
the measured shear strength.
Other method seems to fit the
results. The shear strength mm
measured by laboratory test is very - i A<ffl i I
low, most probably to disturbance. i
r—; ШШЦ11

'-Щ V

f. -1. *
1975

■ - - Senneset
1ШН
' ' !-1JP~ i
ЫЩ, t I \ Tf**"-^r I
.;..;..,b„

-— i - ! -lira
^3^==
г^7~| i
-=«, " 1
! =^-
j
i i
i
1
n fi= =77-

-'■=?■-
i ! I
i
i I I !
I I !
i I j ! I

- Baligh - Senneset - Lunrta . Massarch • Robertson

♦ TXUU «VaneSnear BPileonaTest A T X - C U *UCT

In Sitrai Т1-Ч
 Chapter n. Comprehemive Example

Intepretation of Over
Consolidation Ratio O V E R C O N S O L I D A T E D R A T I O VS DEPTH
Pantai Indah Kapuk

In this example, the over

consolidation ratio is calculated 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12
using method proposed by Noriaki
and Lutteneger, et al. The method
proposed by Lutteneger fit much
better compared to the result of
laboratory test.

|П iitU 2001 11-24

 In Situ Teiting and Soil Propertiei Correlation

Almeida, M.S.S., Jamiolkowsky, M. and Peterson, R.W. 1992, "Preliminary result of

CPT test in calcareous Quiou Sand". Proceedings of the International Symposium
On Calibration Chamber Testing,.Potsdam, New York, 1991, 41-53, Elseveir.

Anagnostopoulos, A.G. 1974. Evaluation the Undrained Shear Strength from Static
Cone Penetration Test in a Soft Silty Clay in Patras, Greece, Proc. European
Syrnposiunvon PenetrationJrestirag^Stockholfn>-:V-ol:2v2>i-pp.^l-3-14.

Baldi et al., 1985. "Laboratory Validation of In Situ Tests", Geotecnical Engineering in

Italy, Associazione Geotecnica Italiana, ISSMFE Golden Jubilee.

Baldi, G., Beilotti, R., Ghionna, V., Jamiolkowski, M and Pasqualini, E., 1986.
Interpretation of CPT's and CPTU's, 2nd Part : Drained Penetration of Sands.
Fourth International Geotechnical Seminar, Field Instrumentation and In Situ
Measurements, Nanyang Technological Institute, Singapore, pp. 143-156.

Been, K. and Jefferies, M.G., 1986. Authors reply to Discussers on 'A State Parameter
forSands' ; Geotechnique, Vol. 36,1. pp. 123-132

Been, K., Mice, and Croocks, J.H.A., Golder Associates, and Jefferies, M.G, Gulf
Canada Resources Ltd. Interpretation of Material State from The CPT in Sands and
Clays. Institution of Civil Engineering, Penetration Testing.

Begemann, H.K.S., 1965. "The Friction Jacket Cone as an Aid in Determining The Soil
Profile," Proc. 6th Int. Conf. Soil. Mech. And Found. Eng., Montreal, Vol. 1, pp. 17-
20.

Sjerrum, L. and Simons, N.E., 1960. Comparison of Shear Strength Characteristics of

Normally Consolidated Clays. Proceedings of the ASCE Research Conference on
The Shear Strength of The Cohesive Soils, Boulder : 711-726.

Bjerrum, L. and Simons, N.E., I960. Comparison of Shear Strength Characteristics of

Normally Consolidated Clays. Proceedings of the ASCE Research Conference on
The Shear Strength of The Cohesive Soils, Boulder : 711-726.

Bjerrum, L., 1972,. Embankments of Soft Ground. . Proceedings of the ASCE specialty
conference on perfomance of earth and earth supported structures/ Purdue
University: 1-S4.

inSfonooi
 to Situ Т о й * and Soil Prapertia Correfarion

Brackley, U.A., 1980. Prediction of soil heave from suction measurements.

Proceedings 7th Regional African Conference Soil Mechanics Foundation
Engineering, Accra, 1, pp. 159-66.

Brooker, E. W., and Ireland, H. О.Д965, "Earth Pressures at Rest Related to Stress
History," Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 2, No. 1, Feb., pp. 1-15.

Burland, J.B., Burbridge, M.C., 1985. Settlement of Foundations on Sand and Gravel.
Proc. I.C.E., 78, 1 : 1325.

Carter, M., 1983. Geotechnical Engineering Handbook, Pentech Press, london, pp.226

Chen, B.S-Y. & and Mayne, P.W.,1994. Profiling the OCR of Clays by Piezocone Tests.
Report CCEGEO-94-1, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, 280 p.

Clarke, B.G., University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and C.P. Wroth, University of

Oxford.,1988. Comparison Between Results from Flat Dilatometer and Self-Boring
Pressuremeter Tests. Institution of Civil Engineering, Penetration Testing.

Crook, J.H.A., Becker, D.E., Been,K and Jefferies, M.G., 1988. "CPT Interpretation in
Clays," Proc. Of ISOPT-1, Orlando, Florida.

D'Appo!Qnia,.D.J,;,:,Poulos^-H,G^ Ladd>-G.C., 1971. Initial Settlement of Structures on :

Clay. 3SMFE, ASCE, SM10 : 1354-1377.

Demers, D and Leroueil, S. (1995). Evaluation of the preconsolidation pressure from

the piezocone in eastern Canada clays. Canadian Geotechnical Journal. Submitted
for publication.

DM-7 (1971), Design Manual for Soil mechanics, Foundation and Earth Structures,
Departement'of the Navy, Naval facilities Engineering Command, Washington.
D.C.

Dobie, M.J.D., and Wong, J.T.F., 1990, Piezocone testing : interpretation in Malaysian
alluvial clays. Proceeding of the seminar on Geotechnical Aspects of the North-
South Expressway jointly organised by Project Lebuhraya Utara-Selatan Berhad
(PLUS) and Pengurusan Lebuhraya Berhad (PL) and held in Kuala Lumpur on 5 th
and 6 tb November 1990, edited by Chin, C.H., M.J.D., Dobie and R.A. Nicholls.

Douglas, B.J., and Olsen, R.S. 1981. Soil Classification Using the Electric Cone
Penetrometer. Proc. Cone Penetration Testing and Experience, ASCE, St. Louis, MT
: pp. 209-227.

Drnevich, V.P., Gorman, C.T. and Hopkins, T.C. 1974. Shear Strength of Cohesive
Soils and Friction Sleeve Resistance,- Proc. European Symposium on Penetration
Testing, Stockholm, Vol.2.2., pp. 129-132.

Durgunoglu, H. T. and Mitchell, J. K., 1975 "Static Penetration Resistance of Soils,

I-Analysis, II-Evaluation of Theory and Implications for Practice," Proceedings of
the Conference on In Situ Measurement of Soil Properties, Specialty Conference of
trie Geotechnical Division, ASCE, North Carolina State University,Raleigh, Vol.1,
pp. 51-189.

Eggereide, K. (1985). Program Documentation for DATCPT (in Norwegian).

O. Kummeneje A/S, report no. 0.5024,3

In Шиш
 In Sim [citing and Soil Properties Correlation

Ghionna, V.N., Jamiolkowski, M., 1991. A Critical Appraisal of Calibration Chamber

Testing of Sands. Proc. Calibration Chamber Testing, ISOCCTI, Postdam, A.B.
Huang ed., Elsevier, pp. 13-39.

Gibbs, H. J. and Holtz, W. G., 1957 "Research on Determining the Density of Sands by
Spoon Penetration Testing," Proceeding, 4th Int. Conf. On Soil Mech. And Found.
Engrg., Vol. I, pp. 35-39.

Gibson, R.E. and Anderson, W.F., 1961. "In situ measurement of soil properties with
the pressuremeter", Civil Engineering and Public Works Review, 56 0658), 615-618

Greeuw, G. and Smits, F.P. and Driel, P.V., 1988. "Cone Penetration Tests in Dry
Oosterschelde Sand and The Relation With a Cavity Expansion Model." Penetration
Testing, ISOPT-1, de Ruiter(ed-), Balkema, Rotterdam, ISBN 9061918014.

Hobbs, N.B., 1986. Mire morphology and the properties and behaviour of some British
and foreign peats. Quarterly Journal Engineering Geology, 19, 7-80.

Holtz, R.D. and Gibbs, HJ., 1956. engineering Properties of Expansive Clays.
Transactions ASCE 121 : 641-677

Holtz, R.D. and Kovacs, W.D., 1981. An Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering.

P re nt ice- Ha 11,; New Jersey -,;73 3pp.

Holtz, R.D. and Kovacs, W.D., 1981. An Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering.

Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 733pp.

Imai, T. and tonouchi, K., 1982. Correlation of N Value with S-wave Velocity. Proc. 2nd
ESOPT, Amsterdam. 67-72.

Jamiolkowski, M., Ghionna, V.N., Lancellotta, R., Pasqualini, E., 1988. New
Correlation's of Penetration Tests for Design Practice. Proc. Penetration Testing
1988, ISOPT-1, De Ruitered., Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 263-296.

Jamiolkowski, M., Robertson, P.K., 1988 Future Trends for Penetration Testing. Proc.
Geotechnology Conference on Penetration Testing in U.K., University of
Birmingham, T.Telford.

Jamiolkowski, M., Robertson, P.K., 1988 Future Trends for Penetration Testing. Proc.
Geotechnology Conference on Penetration Testing in U.K., University of
Birmingham, T.Telford.

Jamiolkowski, M., Robertson, P.K., 1988 Future Trends for Penetration Testing. Proc.
Geotechnology Conference on Penetration Testing in U.K., University of
Birmingham, T.Telford.

Jefferies, M.G., and Been, K., 1987. "Use of Critical State Representations of Sands in
The Method of Stress Characteristic." Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 24, 441-
446.

Krebs, R.D. and Walker, E.D., 1971. Highway Materials, McGraw-Hill. Publication 272,
Department of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 107pp.

Ladd, C. C , Foote, R., Ishihara., Schlosser, F. and Poulos, H.G., 1977. Stress-
Deformation. and Strength Characteristics., Proceedings of 9 th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation engineering, Tokyo, 2:421-494.

In Situ 2001
 In Situ Taring and Soil Propertia Correlation

Ladd, C. C , Foote, R., Ishihara., Schlosser, F. and Poulos, H.G., 1977. Stress-
Deformation and Strength Characteristics., Proceedings of 9 t h International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Tokyo, 2 : 4 2 1 - 4 9 4 .

Ladd, C.C., 1971b. "Strength Parameters and Stress-Strain Behavior of Saturated

Clays," Research Report R71-23, Soils Publication 278, Department of Civil
Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 280 pp.

Ladd, R. S. 1965. Use of -Electrical Pressure Tranducers to Measure Soil Pressure.

Research Report R65-48. Soil Publication 180, Department of Civil Engineering,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 79pp.

Luke, K., 1994. The Use of CPT in Danish Soils-with Special Emphasis on Measuring
the Undrained Shear Strength. Ph.D. Thesis, Soil Mechanics Laboratory Aalborg
University.

Lunne, Т., Gillespie, D., & Howland, D J . ( 1 9 8 6 ) . Laboratory and Field Evaluation of
Cone Penetrometers, Use of In Situ Tests in Geotechnical Engineering, GSP 6,
ASCE, pp. 714-729.

Lunne, Т., Robertson, P.K. and Powel, J.J.M., 1997. "Cone Penetration Testing in
Geotechnical Practice". Published by Blackie Academic & Professional.

Lutenegger, A J . and Hallberg, G.R. 1988. Stability of loess. Engineering Geology, 25,
247-61.

Marchetti, S., "A New In Situ Test for The Measurement of Horizontal Soil
Deformability", Proceedings Conferences Conference on In Situ Measurement of
Soil Properties, ASCE Specialty Conference, raleigh, N.C., Vol. 2, June 1975,
pp.255-259.

Marchetti, S., 1980. "In Situ Tests by Flat Dilatometer," Journal of the Geotechnical
Division, ASCE, Vol.107, GT6, pp. 832-837.

Marchetti, S., 1980. " I n Situ Tests by Flat Dilatometer," Journal of the Geotechnical
Division, ASCE, Vol.107, GT6, pp. 832-837.

Martin, G.R., and Douglas, B J . 1980, Evaluation of the Cone Penetrometer for
Liquefaction Hazard Assessment. U.S. Geological Survey File Report pp. 81-234.

Massarsch, K.R., 1979, Lateral Earth Prressure in Normally Consolidated Clay.

Proceedings of 7 t h European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Brighton, 2 : 2 4 5 - 2 5 0 .

Mayne, P and R. Holtz, 1987. Profiling Stress History from Piezocone Soundings.
Submitted to Soils and Foundations for Review and Posible Publication.

Mayne, P. W. and Kulhawy, F. H., 1982. K 0 -OCR Relationship in Soil. Journal of

Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 108, No. GT 6, pp. 8 5 1 - 8 7 2 .

Mayne, P. W., 1986. CPT Indexing In Situ OCR in Clays. Proc. Of ASCE Conference on
Use of I n Situ Test in Geotechnical Engineering, Blacksburg, Virginia, June 1986,
pp. 7 8 0 - 7 9 3 .

1nSitU2O0i
 In Jim Testing and Soil Propcrtfei Correlation

Mayne, P. W., 1986. CPT Indexing In Situ OCR in Clays. Proc. Of ASCE Conference on
Use of I n Situ Test in Geotechnical Engineering, Blacksburg, Virginia, June 1986,
pp. 780-793.

Mayne, P. W., 1986. CPT Indexing In Situ OCR in Clays. Proc. Of ASCE Conference on
Use of I n Situ Test in Geotechnical Engineering, Blacksburg, Virginia, June 1986,
pp. 780-793.

Mayne, P.W., P.G. Swanson, D. frost, and S. Barnhill 1987. Final Geotechnical Report,
CEBAF Phase I I , Newport News, Virginia. Law Engineering Report No. NKS-1187 to
Daniel, Mann, Johnson, Mendehall, Washington, D.C.

-Meigh, A. C , 1987 "Cone penetration testing : methods and interpretation", CIRIA

Ground Engineering Report : In Situ testing, p. 1 4 1 , Construction Industries
Research and Information Association, London.

Mesri, G., 1973. The Coefficient of Secondary Compression. Proceedings ASCE Journal
of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, 99 : 123-137.

Meyerhoff, G.G., 1956. "Penetration Test and Bearing Capacity of Cohesionless Soils."
J. So/7 Mech. Found. Div., ASCE, 28(1).

Miiiigariy V., 1975 "Field Measurement : of^ Permeability irt : Soii=and Rock," State of the
Art Paper, Session I, Proceedings of the Conf. On In Situ Measurement of Soil
Properties, Speciality Conf. Of the Geotecnical Div., ASCE, North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, Vol. I I , pp. 3-36.

Muromachi, Т., 1 9 8 1 . Cone Penetration Testing in Japan, Proc. Symposium on Cone

Penetration Testing and Experience, Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE,
St. Louis, Missouri, pp. 49-75.

Olsen, R.S., 1984. Liquefaction Analysis Using the Cone Penetrometer Test (CPT).
Proc. Eighth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, San Fransisco,
California, Vol. I l l : pp. 247-254.

Ortigao, J.A.R., Werneck, M.L.G., and Lacerda, W.A./'Embankment Failure on Clay

Near Rio de Janeiro," Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Transactions of the
ASCE,Vo\. 109, No. 2, 1983, pp. 1460-1479.

Patrick, J. P, M. ASCE, and Gordon, R. В., 1986. "Permeablity and The Filed Pumping
Test". Use of I n Situ Tests in Geotechnical Engineering, I n Situ'86, Edited by
Samuel P. Ciemente.

Powell, J.J.M., Uglow I.M., ( 1 9 8 8 ) . Marchetti Dilatometer testing in U.K. soils. In ruiter
J. (ed.) Penetration testing 1988-ISOPT 1, Proc. 1st Int. Symp,, Orlando, 1:555-
562. Balkema, Rotterdam.

Powell, J.J.M., Uglow I.M., ( 1 9 8 8 ) . Marchetti Dilatometer testing in U.K. soils. In ruiter
J. (ed.) Penetration testing 1988-ISOPT 1, Proc. 1st Int. Symp., Orlando, 1:555-
562. Balkema, Rotterdam.

R. Sandven, K. Senneset and N. Janbu, "Interpretation of piezocone tests in cohesive

soils" Conference proceeding on Penetration Testing 1988 vol 2, A.A. Balkema, pp.
939-953.

In tool
 In Situ Tatingaud Soil Pnjperrie Correlation

Richard, W. P., 1988. "Laboratory Investigation of The Penetration Resistance of Fine

Cohesionless : Penetration Testing, ISOPT-1, De Ruiter(ed), Balkema, Rottersam,
ISBN 9061918014.

Riggs, C O . , 1986 "North American Standard Penetration Test Practice - an essay",

Proc. ASCE Conf. On use of in situ test in geot eng., Blackburg, VA, pp. 949-965.

Rix, G.3., and Stokoe, K.H. (1991). Correlation of Initial Tangent Modulus and q c ,
Caiibration Chamber Testing, Eisevier, New york, pp. 351-362.

Robert D. Holtz and William D. Kovacs (1981), An Introduction to Geotechnical

Engineering.

Robertson, P.K. et a l . , 1992. Estimating Coefficient of Consolidation from Piezocone

Tests, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 29, pp. 539-550.

Robertson, P.K., and Campanella, R.G., 1983. Interpretation of cone penetration test,
Part I : Sand. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 20:718-733.

Robertson, P.K.,Campanella, R.G., Gillespie, D. and Greig, J., 1986. "Use of

Piezometer Cone Data". Proceedings of The ASCE Specialty Conference I n Situ '86
; Use of Irs Situ Tests in Geotechnicat€ngmeering; Biacksburg,^1263-80, American
Society of Engineers (ASCE).

Schmertmann, J. H., 1975. "In Situ Measurement of Shear Strength," State-of-the-Art

Paper, Session I I I , Proceedings of the Conf. On I n Situ Measurement of Soil
Properties, Specialty Conf. of the Geotechnical Div., ASCE, North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, Vol. I, pp. 57-138.

Schmertmann, J.H., 1978. "Guidelines for Cone Penetration Test Performance and
Design," U.S.Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration,
Report n. FHWA-TS-78-209, Washington, D.C., 145 p.

Seed, H.b. and Idriss, I.M., 1970. "Soil Moduli and Damping Factors for Dynamic
Response Analyses." Report EERC 70-10. Earthquake Engineering Research
Centre, University of California, Berkeley.

Seed, H.B., and de Alba, P., 1986. Use of SPT and CPT Tests for Evaluating the
Liquefaction Resistance of Sands. Use of In Situ Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE,
Geotechnique, Geotechnical Special Publication, No. 6, pp. 281-302.

Seed, H.B,, Tokimatsu, K., and Harder, L., 1984. "The Influence of SPT Procedures in
Evaluating Soil Liquefaction Resistance," Report UCB/EERC-84-15, Earthquake
Engineering Research Centre, University of California, Berkeley.

Senneset, K., Janbu, N., 1984. Shear Strength Parameters Obtained from Static Cone
Penetration Tests, ASTM STP 883, Symposium, San Diego.

Shibata, Т., and Terapaksa, W., 1988. Evaluation of Liquefaction Potentials of Soils
Using Cone Penetration Tests. Soils and Foundations 2 8 ( 2 ) : pp. 4 9 - 6 0 .

Skempton, A.W. 1986. Standard Penetration Test Procedures and Effects in Sand of
Overburden Pressure, Relative Density, Particle Size, Aging and Overconsolidation.
Geotechnique 3 6 : pp. 425-447

In MtU 2001
 In Situ Toting and Soil Propertfe Correlation

Skempton, A.W. 1986. Standard Penetration Test Procedures and Effects in Sand of
Overburden Pressure, Relative Density, Particle Size, Aging and Overconsolidation.
Geotechnique 36:pp. 425-447

Suzuki, Y., Tokumatsu, K., Taye, Y., Kubota, Y., 1995. Correlation Between CPT Data
and Dynamic Properties of In Situ Frozen Samples, Proceedings of The Third
International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake
Engineering and Soil Dynamic, Vol. 1, St. :ouis, U.S.A.

Suzuki, Y., Tokumatsu, K., Taye, Y., Kubota, Y., 1995. Correlation Between CPT Data
and Dynamic Properties of In Situ Frozen Samples, Proceedings of The Third
International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake
Engineering and Soil Dynamic, Vol. 1, St. :ouis, U.S.A.

Tokimatsu, K., 1988. Penetration Tests for Dynamic Problems. Proceedings of

Penetration Testing 1988, ISOPT-I, Orlando, Florida.

U.S. navy, 1971. "Soil Mechanics, Foundations, and Earth Structures/' NAVFACDesign
Manual DM-7, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Navy, 1982. Design manual; So/7 Mechanics, Foundations and Earth Structures,
Navy Facilities Engineering Command, Navfac, U.S. Naval Publication and Forms
Center.

U.S. Navy, 1982. Design manual : Soil Mechanics, Foundations and Earth Structures,
Navy Facilities Engineering Command, Navfac, U.S. Naval Publication and Forms
Center.

Vijayvergiya, V. N. and Sullivan, R. A. (1974) "Simple Teqnique for Identifying Heave

Potential," Bulletin of the Association of Engineering Geologists, Vol. X I , No. 4,
pp. 277-291.

Vijayvergiya, V.N. and Ghazzaley, O.I., 1973. Prediction of Swelling Potential for
Natural Clays. Proceedings of 3 rd International Conference on Expansive Soils,
Haifi, 1:227-236,

Wineland, 3.D., 1975. "Borehole Shear Device/' Proceedings of the ASCE Specialty
Conference on In Situ Measurement of Soil Properties, Raleigh, North Carolina, Vol.
I, pp. 511-522.

Wroth, С. P., 1975. "In Situ Measurement of Initial Stresses and Deformation
Characteristics," State-of-the-Art Paper, Proceedings of the Conference on In Situ
Measurement of Soil Properties, Specialty Conference of the Geotechnical Division,
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, Vol. I I , pp. 181-230.

Youd T.L. (1972). Compaction of Sand by Repeated Shear Straining. ASCE Journal of
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol.98, No SM7.

Youd, T. L. (1973), "Factors Controlling Maximum and Minimum Densities of Sands,"

evaluation of Relative Density & Its Role in Geotechnical Projects Involving pp. 98-
112.

inVituiooi
 SOFOCO
th
[spcS]
961 -2ДО^_

DEWATERING
SITE INVESTIGATION
SOIL & CONCRETE TESTING
GEOTECHNICAL INSTRUMENTATION

HEAD OFFICE & LABORATORY

JL Sultan Iskandar Muda No. 1(Praja Dalam B1/4), Jakarta 12240 INDONESIA
Tel: + 62-21-7238978, + 62-21-7238979. Fax : + 62-21-7246455
email: sofoco@indosat.net.id

BRANCH OFFICE
Bumi Shangrila B-02, Jl. R.E. Martadinata, Pulau Batam 29422 INDONESIA
Tel: + 62-21-778-321662, Fax: «2-21-778-322362
 PT. FRANK!RILE INDONESIA
<*.

Jakarta:
.Haery-1 Building 6 r.d^loor
Ji/H(emang.Seratan Йауа rio;i 51, Jakarta Selatan
Ph v : 7B12353 ШипМТTelefax:: 7812355-P;©:Box.:'7#1:1AKSJIP
Web Site: http//www;fFankipile.JGO.id

Surabaya:
Taman Кап&Р&гайа-^^Ш
JI.Ngagel no,179 r 183, .Surabaya 6Q246
Ph.: (031) 5014943,50.10627/Telefax.: (031) 5014943

PT. BITA E N A R C O N ENGINEERING!

ENGINEERS . АГЧСИГТЕСТВ . CONSULTANTS

Over period ol more В ш 20 years, BITA, an experienced muffidfecip&ie i

practices has established a national class reputation for innovative and el
ciwl engineering. Throughout this period, BITA in-house geoiechnical cap
has been used to review geotechnicaifevestigaSonandtoprepare
assessment and design parameters reports.

*л _* * *T

ISO 9001 Certifiedtotengineering aid Arehiteciure

Naltonal Association ol Indonesian Corsirttants- Membership No. 1947P/34JB

HEAD OFFICE: JAKARTA OFFICE:

JdanPahtawinHo.74 WIsmaAria - 4!h Floof, JSan HOSCokroarninoto No 81
Bandung - 40124, Wesi Java, Indonesia Jakaia-10310, Indonesia
Phone: <62.22720-2748 (Hung, Рас: +6222720-2749 Phon« +62.21.390-5385 & 391-3567, Fac 46221.314-5912 ISO 9001:1994/SNM9-9QQ1
E-mail: bita@melsa.naLa E-mail: №a-ong@hdaiteiid uganizafen No, QSC 00132
 PT. ENGITAMA NUSA GEOTESTINDO *)
ENS Group (Formerly PT. Environment Nusa Geotechnica)

fe Head Office: Branch Office:

г Jl. Tebet Barat IV No.33, Jakarta 12810, Ji. Jend. Sudirman No.135, Sungailiat 33211
Indonesia Province: Bangka-Belitung, Indonesia
Phone: 62-21-8301646 (4 Lines) Phone: 62-717-94086
Fax: 62-21-8290163/8300369 Fax: 62-717-95245
E-mail :ptena<8)indo.net.id E-mail: cv enp(3)DDinana.wasantara.neUd
Services:
<2= G e o t e c h n i c a l Enqineerinq "*• Site Survev & M a p p i n g
• Site Investigation (Soil & Rock Drilling, ♦ Topographic Surveys
CPT, DCPT, Soil Resistivity) ♦ Access Road, Transmission Line Surveys
« Soils & Concrete Laboratory Testing ♦ Hydrographic Survey
" • Supervision & Quality Control Testing ♦ engineering Survey Services
(Sand Cone/Nuclear densometer, Field CBR) ♦ Geographic Informatin System (CIS)
of Earthworks Construction ♦ GPS Survey/Ground Control Survey
• Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering ♦ Aerial Photography
• Surface and groundwater hydrology
• Foundation construction & piling supervision
• PDA & PIT dynamic pile testing

O^ Environmental Services
a Environmental Impact Assessment/ □ Environmental monitoring programs (air, noise)
..groundw3ter1:surf3cer-W3terv-.w3stewaier) i...... ^n~.£nvironment3l-M3R3gement^;.MoRitoring,;.:..,.
AmdalStudy(TOR, ANDAL, RKL & RPL) Effort (UKL&UPL)
Soil contamination assessment/ О Environmental liability site audits
□ Environmental Geotechnics

$ Mcmhomf. IbJUlWna 1UA AfrTM, Asmmo. HWK/P

l M W I I a ^ i ■■ № n ■■ МП I I I M i i l l ■ i A n ■ H J k l u i i ■
GEC

Office:
Universitas Katolik Parahyangan
Laboratorium Geoteknik, Jl. Ciumbuleuit, Bandung-40142
Telp. 022-203655 Ext.440, f a x . 022-2036485, 022-2043649
Email: unpargec(5)home.unpar.ac,id Website: http:ntp.unpar,ac,id/GEC
BOREHOLE SHEARТЕ
BEST (and fastest) method for
measuring c' and i\

BEST for analyzing foundations,

slopes and landslides.

BEST for testing in difficult terrain,

BEST for on-site-evaluations.

NOW EVEN BETTER, for measuring

pc, in a paper in this conference.

HANDY GHOT^CHNIC^tltaSTRUfeTS,
1502 270th St., Madrid, IA, 50156, USA чы»«+зёЫ^

Cone Penetrometer Technology

for Geotechmcal & Environmental Investigations

Specialized Probes
Soil moisture/resistivity Quality products
plI/ORP manufmturedby.
(■впила detector

ns\ м
,;ЙЖЩЩ$1

Hydrocarbons Detector
Video Cone 415 Wmermm&tmd
Seismic CPT

Digital design allows configuration ofnndtiple sensors in а single

profa A fully loaded configuration could include tip, $1тщ pore Web; www.verlekafa.cmn
pressure? soil moisture, resistivity* inclination, and dual
hydrocarbons detector от trimM swsmics,

Visit u* at www.vertelc.ara.cora to see our complete line of CPT equipment.

 DO THE MATH!
Cone THIS (customized pushing platforms)
Perietrometer
Technologyl
Hogentogler & Co., Inc. manufactures a wide range of
cone penetrometers and direct push sampling tools for
the civil and environmental engineering professions.
Hogentogler's electronic cone penetrometers give you
the ability to accurately measure:
•Stratigraphy
•Hydraulic conductivity
•Electrical conductivity
•Shear wave velocity
•Temperature
Data can be automatically collected by a ruggedized field
computer system and plotted from any desktop compute
with ouc powerful;. Coneplot software.-^ -

Hogentogler's direct push sampling tools give you the ability to

sample: THIS (advanced technology)
•Soil
•Soil Gas
•Ground water
Hogentogler also sells a wide range of pushing platforms that can be
customized to fit your application. Capacities range from 40 ton trucks
to 20 ton crawlers to lightweight portable units. With over 200 installa­
tions worldwide, Hogentogler has the experience to meet your needs.

Please call or write us for more information, or visit us on the web at

www.hogentogler.com
THIS (fast and reliable results)
CPTPIot
Shear Wave Plot TIpRnMance lodFliction FrtcclonRaHo Soil BcthHlor Type"
Fcflcgcfcm*!) F M M (*> Zone 1ЯС
.40 1 M 0 «-00 Ml IJM «ЛВ MB 1M0
ПТТТТ
Rf£RTTTT3
tfHtftit

felt
lS11tt?M
Tfcne(mt)
i ■ { 11* i { { { ■ {

HOGENTOGLER & CO., INC. Mixlcnum Depth ■ iS.rje meleis Depth Inclement - O.ftS m d o t i

Post Office Box 2219

Columbia, MD 21045 USA
TEL 1 (410) 381-2390 /. FAX 1 (410) 381-2398
www.hogentogler.com