Interpretation of Laboratory and Field Test Results For Design

INTERPRETATION OF LABORATORY AND FIELD TEST RESULTS FOR DESIGN
by Ir. Dr. Gue See Sew & Ir. Chow Chee Meng
http://www.gnpgroup.com.my
G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION 2. OBJECTIVES 3. SCOPE 4. INTERPRETATION
JKR PROBE SPT
5. DESIGN PARAMETERS 6. LABORATORY TESTS

INTRODUCTION
NEED
Neglected topic; only briefly covered in universities Danger of using results directly without interpretation Decision on choice of values for soil parameters
SCOPE
Common tests only
PROCESSES
Specifications, Supervision, Presentation & Interpretation
Proton Iswara
Ferrari
OBJECTIVES
1) Illustrate the importance of interpretation 2) Show methods of compiling results and recognising errors
SCOPE
Common field and laboratory tests
FIELD TESTS
JKR/ Mackintosh probe SPT (Standard Penetration Test) Piezocone Field Vane Shear Geonor vane
LABORATORY TESTS
Unconfined compression Triaxial Test (UU, CIU with pore pressure measurement & CD) Consolidation
JKR Probes
Primitive tool Limited use
Shallow bedrock profile (limestone with slump zone) Weak zone at shallow depth Shallow foundation
No recent fill and future settlement Structure of low risk If in doubt use borehole
Apparatus
Cased hardened steel pointer of 25mm dia. and 60o cone. 22mm outer dia. coupling
Prevent buckling during driving
28
12mm dia. HY 55C steel rod
5kg drop hammer
CONE PENETROMETER
For practical application: - Results of JKR Probe and Mackintosh Probe can be taken as equivalent - JKR Probe created as equivalent to Mackintosh Probe as Mackintosh Probe is patented in the early days
Termination criteria
Blows/300mm
(maximum 400 blows/300mm)
Max 15m depth
Precautionary measures
Free fall and consistent drop height Components and apparatus properly washed and oiled
Typical test results
Applications
Identifying localised soft/weak or slip plane.

Applications
Identifying localised soft/weak or slip plane.

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

Allowable Bearing Capacity V.S. J.K.R. Dynamic Cone Penetration Resistance (After Ooi & Ting, 1975) ** Conditions applied
Comparison between JKR probe and SPT
0 0
100
JKR Blows
200
300
400 0
Depth (m)
12
12
JKR Plot SPT'N' Plot

0 10 20 30 40 50
SPT'N'
0 0
100
JKR Blows
200
300
400 0
Depth (m)
10
10
12
12
14
JKR Plot SPT'N' Plot
14
16 0 10 20 30 40
16
SPT'N'
Number of Blows per 300 mm
Depth From Ground Surface In Meter (m)
Shear Strength In kPa
Depth From Ground Surface In Meter
Limitations
Shallow depth Not for gravelly ground
drop height, exerting force to the drop hammer
Human errors (e.g. wrong counting, non-consistent
Misleading results at greater depth
Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

A popular test
useful for pile foundation design
Common errors
AW Rod
63.5kg Hammer
760mm Free Fall
450mm
Split-Spoon Sampler
Split-Spoon Sampler
Driving Shoe
Split Barrel
OD = 50mm ID = 35mm Length ~ 650mm
SPT-N Value
Seating drive
Test drive
5 - 10 - 30 - 20/30cm
Seating drive Test drive
(30 + 20) SPT-N = x 300 = 143 (75 + 30)
Soil Soft rock
Maximum blows to be applied In seating drive In test drive 25 50 25 100
BS1377: Part 9
Formation Level
CLAY
SAND
SILTY CLAY
Reduced Level (ft)
New Technology
automatic
Piezocone (CPTu)
1)To obtain soil profile and stiffness (strength) profile of the subsoil 2) To determine coefficient of consolidation of soil 3) Results can also be used directly for design (e.g. pile design)
Piezocone Results
Piezocone Results
Nk = 11-19 Lunne & Kleven (1981)
Nkt = 15 Gue & Tan (2000)

Cone factors related to plasticity index of the clays (After Dobie & Wong, 1990)
Soil Behaviour Type Classification Charts for CPT

(after Robertson, 1990)
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
Sensitive, fine grained Organic soils peats Clays clay to silty clay Silt mixtures clayey silt to silty clay Sand mixtures silty sand to sandy silt Sands clean sand to silty sand Gravelly sand to sand Very stiff sand to clayey sand (heavily overconsolidated or cemented) Very stiff fine grained (heavily overconsolidated or cemented)
Vane Shear Test

1)Vane test in borehole 2) Geonor vane 3) Lab vane Use - To determine in-situ undrained shear strength (Suv) of soft clayey soils
Most common errors - Computation spring factor - Clay with organic materials Recognise errors
Summarise results with Su from unconfined compression, UU and lab vane superimposed Plot Suv against PI Po Or Suv against Po then find Suv Po
Depth (ft)
Shear Strength (lb/ft2)

Design Parameters
Foundation Design
Stability / Bearing Capacity Settlement Prediction
Bearing Capacity
Su C and
Settlement Prediction
e vs Log10 p (mv, Cc) cv (k)
LABORATORY TESTS - Why? - Types of Tests! - How? - Specifications?

(Load, Pressure, Time)
SPECIFICATIONS
A) Consolidation Test
1) Which samples are appropriate and suitable for the test? 2) For consolidation test - Load increment } 0.5P 8P o o } or to - Pressure } e ~ 0.42eo ~
B) Triaxial test
1) For triaxial tests - Strain rate - Back pressure
Ref: Head, K. H (1984) - Manual of soil Laboratory testing
Special Attention
Triaxial Compression Test No/Minimum Trimming No Side Drains No Multistage
G&P-Form6 (Rev3)
G&P GEOTECHNICS SDN. BHD. (Geotechnical Consultants) LABORATORY TEST SCHEDULE

Project No : .. Lab. Schedule No. .. Requested by : Reviewed by : ...
CONSOLIDATION Std. Rapid S.S. TRIAXIAL CIU UU UCT
OR GANIC CONTENT
Date : .. Date :
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS PH
SULPH ATE CONTENT CHLORIDE CONT ENT
Project : ..
Direct Shear Box SIEVE ANALYSIS Mech. Hydro.
BOREHOLE
SAMPLE NO.
DEPTH m
M/C
A.L.
B.D.
S.G.
TOT AL Note : 1) CIU
Requested Performed
Isotropic Consolidated Undrained Triaxial Test with pore pressure measurements Use 70mm diameter sample (i.e. untrimmed Mazier sample) Sample should not have side filter during consolidation Shearing strain should be calculated using Cv values calculated during consolidation stage. Multi-stage testing not allowed P-Q Stress Path Plotting shall be submitted. 2) For CIU Tests, stress path and other relevant data shall be submitted in Hard Copy (Plots and Tabulated Data) and Soft Copy (Computer files data). Cell confining pressure of 0.5 v , 1.0 v , 2.0v shall be adopted for the CIU test, where v is the total vertical in-situ stress. 3) UU Unconsolidated Undrained Test (at total overburden pressure of the sample) 4) UCT Unconfined Compression Test (untrimmed sample)
5) To determine Cv from Consolidation Tests :Use Square-Root Time Method to determine d0. Then use Log-Time Method to determine d100 6) Direct shear box test - Three (3) reconstituted specimens (60mm x 60mm x 20mm thick) shall be used. - Applied normal stress pressure of 0.5 v, 1.0 v , 2.0v shall be adopted for the shear box test, where v is the total vertical in-situ stress. 7) All specimens for triaxial or consolidation tests shall be obtained from center of the recovered samples in UD sampler. 8) 2 moisture content tests shall be carried out on soil immediately besides the specimens retained for triaxial or consolidation tests. 9) Bulk density, particle size distribution and Atterberg Limit tests shall be carried out on every specimen after the triaxial or consolidation tests.
Consolidation Settlement
CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
Void Ratio
Cv m/year
Coefficient of Volume Change Mv X 10 m / KN
Depth (m)
Compression Index
Coefficient of Consolidation, Ch m/yr
Depth (m)
NAVFA C DM7.1
Root time method Log time method
Compression index, Cc and Recompression index, Cr

a) Cc = 0.009 (LL 10%)
For inorganic soils, with sensitivity less than 4 For normally consolidated clay For organic soils, peat For all clays For varved clays For OC clays
b) Cc = 0.007 (LL 10%) c) Cc = 0.0115 Wn d) Cc = 1.15 (eo 0.35) e) Cc = (1 + eo) [0.1 + (Wn 25)0.006] f) Cc = 0.5*PI*Gs
Compression index, Cc and Recompression index, Cr

For inorganic normally -consolidated Klang Clay (Tan et
al., 2004): Cc = 0.02LL 0.87 Cc = 0.61eo 0.17 Cc = 0.02 Wn 0.37
Cr (0.1 to 0.2)*Cc
Coefficient of secondary compression, C

C / Cc = 0.04 0.01 C / Cc = 0.02 0.01 C / Cc = 0.03 0.01 C / Cc = 0.05 0.01 C / Cc = 0.06 0.01
For inorganic soft clays For granular soils including rockfill For shale and mudstone For organic clays and silts For peat and muskeg
Interpretation of Laboratory Tests TWO Major Categories : (1) Strength Parameters :

- Stability Analyses of Slopes & Embankment.
Bearing Capacity Analyses for Foundation.
(2) Stiffness & Deformation Parameters :

Prediction & evaluation of :Settlement, Heave, Lateral deformation, Volume Change.
Conventional Foundation for Low Rise Buildings
Conventional Foundation for Low Rise Buildings (Soil Settlement)
Settling Platform Detached from Building
Settlement
Exposed Pile
Strength Parameters TWO Conditions : (A) Total Stress :

- For Short Term Conditions in Cohesive Soils.
Little of no drainage.
(B) Effective Stress :

For Long Term & Permanent Conditions. Fully Drained Conditions.
Simple Check
qallow = (Nc.su / FOS)

qallow = = Nc e.g. : When = allowable bearing pressure (fill.H + 10) ( in kPa) 5
Hfailure = (5 x Su) / fill

Su = 10 kPa ; fill = 18 kN/m3 Hfailure = (5 x 10)/ 18 = 2.8 m
Excavation: Check Depth of Excavation
Clough et al. (1989)
Total Stress Strength, su

Undrained Shear Strength, su from :
(i) (ii)
Unconfined Compression Test, UCT Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial Test, UU
(iii) Laboratory Vane Shear Test
Typical Set-up of Triaxial Test
a)Base b)Removable cylinder and top cap c)Loading ram
Equipment for Triaxial Test
Effective Stress Strength

Parameters c &
Interpretation from
(i) (ii)
CIU + U CID
rate)
Isotropic Consolidated Undrained Triaxial Test, Isotropic Consolidated Drained Triaxial Test,
(iii) Laboratory Shear Box Test (at v. slow
Note : Advantage to use Stress Path

MohrCoulomb
Two types of Plot
Stress Path Interpretation

(T.W. Lambe of MIT, 1967)
(i)
t = (1 - 3)/2
The vertical axis :
MIT Stress Path Plot
= (1 - 3)/2 & s = (1 + 3)/2
The horizontal axis :
(ii) Cambridge Stress Path Plot

q = 1 - 3 = 1 - 3
s = (1 + 3)/2
(Roscoe, Schofield and Wroth (1958) at the Cambridge, England) The vertical axis : The horizontal axis :
p = (1 + 2 + 3)/3
&
p = (1+ 2+3)/3
Terminology & Interpretation
MIT & Cambridge Stress Path Plot
MIT & Cambridge Stress Path Plot

Tan = t / s Tan = Sin K = c Cos K C = Cos Tan = q / p Sin = (3 ) / ( 6 + ) r = c (6 Cos ) / (3 Sin ) C = r (3 Sin ) 6 Cos
For Slopes & Walls Analyses Parameter c and shall be Interpreted from
i) Isotropically Consolidated Undrained

Triaxial Test, CIU + u ii)Isotropically Consolidated Drained Triaxial Test, CID iii)Laboratory Shear Box Test (at very slow rate) Note: Advantage to use Stress Path
Large Strain
Scattered CIU Results

0 500 BH1 UD2 BH2 UD1 BH2 M1 BH3 UD2 BH4 UD1 BH5 M1 BH6 M1 BH6 M2 BH9 M1 BH10 UD1 BH10 UD3 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 500 450
= sin-1 m c = a / (cos )
450
400
400
350
350
Proposed Design Line
t' = (1' - 3')/2
300
250
c = 3.5 kPa, = 32
m 1
300
250
200
Upper Bound c = 5 kPa, = 39
200
150
150
100
50
Lower Bound c = 0 kPa, = 29
100
50
a
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
s' = (1'+3')/2
Correlations for Preliminary Assessment of
Values vs Plasticity Index (after Terzaghi)
Typical PI = 30% to 70% (Malaysia Soft Clay) G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd
Values vs Clay Content (Skempton, 1964)
vs % of Fines
35 30 25
Figure 3 : peak versus Percentage of Fines in Residual Soils
c vs % of Fines
Figure 4 : c versus Percentage of Fines in Residual Soils
Correct Interpretation
Undrained Shear Strength

Limitations of UU Tests:
Sample disturbance Negative pore pressures generated during removal of sample from tube
Undrained shear strength is best
obtained from in-situ testing such as field vane, piezocone, etc.
YOU PAY FOR SOIL INVESTIGATION WHETHER YOU CARRY OUT OR NOT
REFERENCES
ASTM, (1986)
Standard Test Method for Deep Quasi-static, Cone and Friction Cone Penetration Tests of Soil, D3441-86, ASTM Committee D-18 on Soil and Rock, USA
Dobie, M.J.D., & Wong, J.T.F. (1990)

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

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

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

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

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

Guidelines for using the CPT, CPTU and Marchetti DMT for Geotechnical Design, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Research and Special Studies, Report No. FHWAPA-87-023+84-24
REFERENCES
Sanglerat, G, (1972)
The Penetrometer and Soil Exploration, Elsevier Publishing Company, Amsterdam, Netherlands
Teh, C.I. and Houlsby, G.T. (1991)

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

Current Status & Future Development of Geotechnical Engineering Practice in Malaysia, 12th ARC on Soil Mechanics & Geotechnical Engineering, Singapore Gue, S.S. & Tan, Y.C. (2006) Landslides: Abuses of the Prescriptive Method, International Conference on Slopes, Malaysia

Interpretation of Laboratory and Field Test Results For Design

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Interpretation of Laboratory and Field Test Results For Design

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INTERPRETATION OF LABORATORY AND FIELD TEST RESULTS FOR DESIGN

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

5. DESIGN PARAMETERS 6. LABORATORY TESTS

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

12mm dia. HY 55C steel rod

5kg drop hammer

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

Max 15m depth

Typical test results

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

Identifying localised soft/weak or slip plane.

Identifying localised soft/weak or slip plane.

Identifying non-compliance fill.

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

Comparison between JKR probe and SPT

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

JKR Plot SPT'N' Plot

JKR Plot SPT'N' Plot

Number of Blows per 300 mm

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

Depth From Ground Surface In Meter (m)

Shear Strength In kPa

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

Depth From Ground Surface In Meter

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

Misleading results at greater depth

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

760mm Free Fall

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

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

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

Soil Soft rock

Maximum blows to be applied In seating drive In test drive 25 50 25 100

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

Reduced Level (ft)

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

Nk = 11-19 Lunne & Kleven (1981)

Nkt = 15 Gue & Tan (2000)

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

Soil Behaviour Type Classification Charts for CPT

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

Vane Shear Test

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd