12 Jtno

Abu-Farsakh, Pant, Gautreau, Yu, and Zhang
1
2
A Case Study on Estimating the Embankment Settlement from

Piezocone Penetration Test Data
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Murad Y. Abu-Farsakh, Ph.D., P.E. (Corresponding Author)

Research Associate Professor
Louisiana Transportation Research Center
Louisiana State University
4101 Gourrier Avenue
Baton Rouge, LA 70808
Rohit Pant
Former MS Graduate Student
Geotechnical Engineering, HNTB
Gavin Gautreau, P.E.
Geotechnical Engineering, LTRC
Xinbao Yu, Ph.D.
Research Associate
And
Zhongjie Zhang, Ph.D., P.E.
Geotechnical and Pavement Administrator
Submitted to:
90th Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting
January 23-27, 2011
Washington, D.C.
0
TRB 2011 Annual Meeting
Paper revised from original submittal.

1
2
A Case Study on Estimating the Embankment Settlement from

Piezocone Penetration Test Data
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ABSTRACT
The in-situ piezocone penetration test (PCPT) has been widely used by the geotechnical
engineering community for subsurface soil identification and classification, and for the
evaluation of many engineering soil properties, such as the consolidation parameters. The
PCPT-derived consolidation properties can be used to estimate the magnitude and time
rate of consolidation settlement of loaded soils. This paper presents a case study on
implementing the PCPT technology to evaluate the embankment settlement at the Juban
Road I12 Interchange Bridge in Louisiana. The soil underneath each embankment site
of the bridge was instrumented with a horizontal inclinometer and vertical magnet
extensometers. In each embankment site, PCPT tests were performed and the soundings
of cone tip resistance (qc) were used to estimate the constrained modulus (M) profiles
using Abu-Farsakh et al. interpretation methods. Dissipation tests were also conducted at
specified penetration depths and used to estimate the vertical coefficient of consolidation
(cv) using Teh and Houlsby interpretation method. Shelby tube soil samples were
collected and used to carry out a laboratory testing program to evaluate the consolidation
properties. The embankments consolidation settlements were monitored with time and
the field-measured values were compared with the magnitude and rate of settlements
estimated using parameters derived from PCPT data and laboratory consolidation tests.
The results of this study showed that the piezocone penetration and dissipation data
reasonably estimated the magnitude and rate of consolidation settlement of both
embankment sites. The back-calculated M and cv parameters from field measurements are
in good agreement with PCPT-derived values.
26
27
28
29
KEY WORDS: Piezocone Penetration Test (PCPT), Piezocone dissipation Test,

Horizontal inclinometer, Vertical magnet extensometer, Embankment settlement,
Constrained modulus, Coefficient of consolidation, Back-calculation.
30
1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
INTRODUCTION
Saturated fine-grained soils, when loaded, can undergo large consolidation settlements
over a long period of time, which can pose potential damage to overlaying
infrastructures. The presence of this type of soil deposit is very common in southern
Louisiana. Therefore, the construction of embankments, bridge abutments, and other
structures on soft Louisiana soils requires a reasonable estimate of the magnitude and
time rate of consolidation settlement of the natural soil deposits in order to conduct a
rational and safe analysis and design of these structures. This requires better and more
accurate evaluation of the consolidation parameters of the subsurface soils.
The consolidation settlement of the soft soil underneath the embankment can cause
excessive differential settlement between the approach slab and bridge deck, creating
bump problems, faulting at the approach slab-pavement connection, and/or sudden
change in slope of the slab at the bridge deck. This can cause unsafe rideability, damage
to bridge decks, and costly frequent maintenance. In an attempt to solve this problem,
state Departments of Transportation (DOTs) usually preload the embankment site for a
certain period of time prior to the construction of approach slab and pavement. Additional
surcharge load and/or installation of vertical drains are sometimes used to accelerate the
settlement. The real challenge facing DOTs is to be able to reasonably estimate the
magnitude and time rate of consolidation settlement caused by embankment loading.
The consolidation properties of cohesive soils can be estimated from either
laboratory or in-situ tests. Laboratory tests, such as the one-dimensional Oedometer
consolidation tests, are conducted on small samples recovered from the site at different
depths. However, almost all recovered samples are subjected to certain degrees of
disturbance, which makes the laboratory-derived parameters not truly representative of
the actual in-situ conditions. Moreover, laboratory testing on small samples for
interbedded or fissured soils can be misleading. Profiling the consolidation characteristics
from laboratory tests on small samples taken from different depths can easily miss
significant thin drainage layers (1).
In-situ tests, such as the piezocone penetration tests (PCPT), can provide more
accurate and reliable results than laboratory tests in evaluating the actual strength and
consolidation properties of the soil under in-situ stress and drainage conditions. The
PCPT is a fast and economical in-situ test that can provide continuous soundings of
subsurface soil with depth. The piezocone penetrometer is capable of measuring the cone
tip resistance, qc, sleeve friction, fs, and pore pressures at different locations. These
measurements can be effectively used for soil identification and evaluation of different
soil properties such as the consolidation characteristics of soils.
The magnitude of consolidation settlement of cohesive soils can be estimated using
the deformation or constrained modulus (M), while the time rate of settlement is
estimated using the coefficients of consolidation (cv or ch). Different interpretation
methods have been proposed in the literature to estimate M from PCPT data (2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
and 7), derived based on direct correlation with the laboratory measured constrained
modulus. Many interpretation methods have also been developed to estimate the
horizontal coefficient of consolidation (ch) of cohesive soils from analyzing the
piezocone dissipation curves (e.g., 8 through 13). Some of these methods were based on
estimating the time for 50% dissipation (t50) (e.g., 8, 10, 12, and 13), some based on the
gradient of initial linear dissipation (e.g., 12), and others based on the rate of dissipation
2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
at a given dissipation level (e.g., 10). The rigidity of the soil (Ir) was included in some
methods (12, 13). The vertical coefficient of consolidation (cv) can then be calculated
from ch using the relationship suggested by Levadoux and Baligh (11), which is based on
the ratio of vertical to horizontal coefficients of hydraulic conductivity (kv/kh) of the soils.
Several case studies were reported in the literature to estimate the consolidation
settlement of subsurface soils using parameters derived from the PCPT data (e.g., 6, 13,
14, and 15). Oakley (14) used the PCPT data to calculate the settlement of a chemically
stabilized landfill. He reported reasonable comparison between the calculated settlement
from PCPT data and the measured settlement, while the time rates of settlement were
within 50% of the actual field measurements. Crawford and Campanella (15) compared
the measured settlements of earth embankment with settlements calculated from the
laboratory consolidation test, PCPT test, and dilatometer test. Their findings showed
good agreement among the three methods, but the actual settlement was about 60%
greater than the average calculated value. The calculated rates of settlement were also
compared with the observed values. Kuo-Hsia et al. (16) compared the PCPT predicted
settlement with the measured settlement of an instrumented test embankment. They
reported that the PCPT was the most valuable basis for evaluating the constrained moduli
and hence calculating the total settlement of soft soils. Abu-Farsakh et al. (7) compared
the magnitude and time rate of consolidation settlements estimated using PCPT data and
laboratory consolidation parameters with the field measurements at three different sites.
They demonstrated that the PCPT can be used to reasonably predict the consolidation
settlement better than the laboratory calculated settlements.
This paper presents a case study on evaluating the embankment settlements at the
Juban RoadI12 Interchange Bridge in Louisiana. The soils underneath the embankments
on both sides of the bridge were instrumented with horizontal inclinometer and vertical
extensometers. The embankments settlements were monitored with time, and the field
measurements were compared with the magnitude and rate of settlements estimated using
parameters derived using the PCPT data and laboratory consolidation test parameters.
29
ESTIMATING CONSOLIDATION SETTLEMENT FROM PCPT
30
31
32
The total magnitude of consolidation settlement (Sc) of cohesive soils can be estimated
utilizing the PCPT data through evaluating the constrained modulus (M) using the
following equation (3):
i
Sc = Hi
(1)
M av i
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
where Hi is the thickness of soil layer i, i is the induced stress in mid of layer i, Mavi is
to voi
+ i estimated using
the average constrained modulus for stress range from voi
equation 2 as suggested by Senneset et al. (3):
M avi = M i
+ i / 2
voi
voi
(2)
The time rate of consolidation can be estimated using the coefficients of

consolidation (cv or ch) that can be evaluated from analysis of the piezocone dissipation
test curves with time, as will be discussed in the following sections.
3

1
Interpretation of Constrained Modulus
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
The compressibility of the soils can be expressed by the constrained modulus (M) that
can be evaluated from PCPT. Several correlations have been proposed to estimate the
constrained modulus (M) from either the cone tip resistance (qc) or the corrected cone tip
resistance (qt). The corrected cone tip resistance (qt) is given by:
qt = qc + u2 (1- a)
(3)
where u2 is the pore water pressure measured behind the base, and a is the cone area ratio,
equal to 0.59 for both the 10 and 15 cm2 piezocones used in this study. The general
relationship between (qc or qt) and M can be expressed as follows:
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
M = . qc or M = . qt
(4)
Sanglerat (2) proposed a correlation between qc and M. He presented a
comprehensive array of values for different soil types with different qc values. Jones
and Rust (5) found that for South African alluvial clay, a value of = 2.75 0.55 can
provide good correlation between M and qc. Senneset et al. (3) conducted correlation
between M and qt. For clayey soils, they related the M modulus by a linear interpretation
of the net cone tip resistance (qn = qt - vo). They proposed the following relation:
17
M = . qn = . (qt - vo)
(5)
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
where = 105 for the pre-consolidation range and = 62 for the normally consolidated
range, and vo is the total overburden stress. Kulhawy and Mayne (4) also studied the
relationship between M and qn and found a good correlation with = 8.25.
Even though these relations might correlate well in some cases, local experience is
still essential to develop a better correlation between qt and M that can reflect the local
soil types and variations. To examine the possibility for obtaining better correlations, a
comprehensive study (6) was conducted on data collected from seven sites to reasonably
estimate the M values needed to calculate the consolidation settlement of cohesive soils
in Louisiana. In this study, the correlations were developed based on comparison between
the PCPT data and the reference M values obtained from the laboratory consolidation
tests. The following linear correlation was obtained between M and qt:
M = 3.15 qt (R2 = 0.91)
(6)
and the following linear correlation was also obtained between M and (qn):
31
32
33
M = 3.58 qn = 3.58 (qt vo) (R2 = 0.88)

(7)
The latest two correlations (equations 6 and 7) will be used in this study to calculate
the consolidation settlement of Juban Road embankments from PCPT data.
34
Interpretation of Coefficients of Consolidation
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
The coefficients of consolidation (cv or ch) that is used to evaluate the rate of
consolidation settlement for cohesive soils can be estimated from the piezocone
dissipation test curves. The PCPT dissipation test consists of stopping the cone
penetration at pre-specified depths and recording the dissipation of excess pore pressure
(u) with time.
Several interpretation methods were developed to evaluate the horizontal coefficient
of consolidation (ch) of cohesive soils from analyzing the piezocone dissipation test data
4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
curves, based on cavity expansion theories (e.g., 8, 9, 10), strain path method (11), and
the combination of the strain path method with the finite element technique (13). These
interpretation methods can be found in the corresponding references.
The most well-known interpretation method for estimating ch utilizing the piezocone
dissipation test was developed by Teh and Houlsby (13). They proposed the following
equation to estimate ch(piezo):
c h ( piezo) = (T50* ro2 I r ) / t 50
(8)
where T50* is a modified time factor at 50% dissipation ( T50* = 0.118 for the u1 piezocone
and 0.245 for the u2 piezocone), Ir = G/su is the rigidity index, G is the shear modulus,
and su is the undrained shear strength.. The shear modulus at 50% of yield stress (G50) is
usually used, which represents an average value of stress levels.
Since the dissipation of pore pressure occurs during the recompression range rather
than in the normal consolidation range, Levadoux and Baligh (11) suggested that the
predicted ch(piezo) = ch(overconsolidated) and they proposed the following relation to
transfer ch(piezo) to the normally consolidated condition ch(NC):
c h(NC) = ( RR / CR ) c h (piezo)
(9)
where RR and CR are the recompression and compression ratios, respectively. The
vertical coefficient of consolidation (cv) can then be calculated using the ratio of vertical
to horizontal coefficients of hydraulic conductivity (kv/kh) using the following expression
suggested by Levadoux and Baligh (11):
c v(NC) = (k v / k h )c h(NC)
(10)
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
In this study, Teh and Houlsby (11) method was used to evaluate the ch values of the
soil layers. In this method, the proper estimation of ch depends on the selection of an
appropriate value of the Ir= G/su index, and hence the G and su values. In this study, the su
values were estimated from the PCPT- qt data. The ko-anisotropic consolidated undrained
(CkoU) triaxial tests were conducted on selected Shelby tube samples obtained from soil
borings to estimate the G values for the soil layers. The average su value corresponding to
the same depth the sample was taken for triaxial test was used to calculate the Ir value
that represents each soil layer.
30
LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Boreholes were drilled in each embankment site and high quality 7.6 cm (3 in) standard
Shelby tube samples were recovered at different depths for comprehensive laboratory
testing. The laboratory testing program included basic soil characterization tests such as
water content, unit weight, Atterberg limits, grain size distribution, and specific gravity.
Computerized automatic one-dimensional consolidation tests were also conducted to
evaluate the constrained modulus (M), the coefficients of consolidation (cv and ch), the
OCR ratio, and the compression indices (cc and cr). Unconfined compression tests and koconsolidated undrained triaxial tests (CkoU) were also performed to estimate the
undrained shear strength (su) and the shear modulus (G) of the soils.
40
5

1
IN-SITU TESTING PROGRAM
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
The in-situ testing program included performing both piezocone penetration tests (PCPT)
and piezocone dissipation tests. The PCPT tests were performed in each embankment
using the 10 and 15 cm2, 60o piezocone penetrometers. All PCPT tests were conducted at
a penetration rate of 2 cm/sec. The 10 cm2 piezocone provided measurements of the cone
tip resistance (qc), sleeve friction (fs), and porewater pressure behind the base (u2). While
the 15 cm2 piezocone provided measurements of qc, fs, and porewater pressure at the cone
tip (u1). The profile of the PCPT tests was used to classify the soil using the probabilistic
region estimation method (17), evaluate the undrained shear strength (su), and evaluate
the constrained modulus (M) using Abu-Farsakh et al. (6, 7) interpretation methods.
The penetration of the piezocone was stopped at specified penetration depths to
perform dissipation tests with respect to time. The dissipation test curves were then used
to estimate the horizontal and vertical coefficients of consolidation (ch and cv) based on
the Teh and Houlsby (11) interpretation method.
15
DESCRIPTION OF EMBANKMENT SITES AND MONITORING PROGRAM
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
The site includes both ramp embankments constructed for the Juban Road Interchange
Bridge at Interstate I-12, located east of Baton Rouge in Livingston Parish. This includes
the construction of two embankment approaches to the bridge, the north embankment,
and the south embankment. Figure 1 presents a typical roadway cross section of the
Juban Road embankments, which has a top width of 30.5 m (100 ft) and a varied bottom
width depending on the location from bridge end. The embankments on both sides of
bridge were instrumented with horizontal inclinometers and vertical extensometers to
monitor the consolidation settlement with time.
30.5 m (100 ft)
1:
1
Horizontal Inclinometer
:1
Geotextile Fabric
(Class C)
Soil Surcharge
1 of
its
m
Li icks
w
L
wi imit
ck s o
s
f
Finish Grade
61 cm (2') Nonpastic
Drainage Layer
10 cm (4") PVC
Drain Pipe
Wicks
Vertical
Extensometer
24
25
Figure 1. Typical roadway embankment section at Juban Road I-12 Interchange
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
The north embankment has a top width of 30.5 m (100 ft), an average bottom width
of 96.3 m (316 ft), and an average height of 8.96 m (29.4 ft). The south embankment has
a top width of 30.5 m (100 ft), an average bottom width of 83.52 m (274 ft) and an
average height of 8.08 m (26.5 ft). A surcharge height of 0.91 m (3 ft) and wick drains
with a 1.83-m (6-ft) triangular spacing and 12.5 m (41 ft) depth were used to accelerate
the consolidation settlement. The construction of embankments fill including surcharge
was completed after 180 and 140 days for the north and south embankments,
respectively. The surcharge on both embankments was maintained for six months. It
6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
should be noted here that the instrumentations used for measuring the embankments
settlement were installed at around the average dimensions of the embankments.
Two boreholes were drilled on each embankment site and high Shelby tube samples
were recovered for laboratory testing. The subsurface soil stratigraphy, as revealed from
the soil borings, showed that the site consists of a top soil layer of grey to brown lean
clay down to about 11 to 12 m with occasional traces of organics and/or sand. The Soil
below that consists mainly of silty and clayey sand interbedded with silty-clay layers
down to about 17 m at the south embankment site and 20 m at the north embankment site.
A layer of brown to grey stiff clay and silty clay down to 20 m exists at the south
embankment site. The groundwater level was about 2 m below the ground surface.
The results of laboratory tests on samples taken from the soil borings showed that the
natural water content was close to the plastic limit with a mean value of 25%. The
undrained shear strength, su, varied from 17 kPa to 177.5 kPa for the north embankment
site and from 40 kPa to 137 kPa for the south embankment site. The vertical coefficient
of consolidation (cv) was in the range of 1.36 x 10-4 cm2/sec to 9.6 x 10-3 cm2/sec. High
OCR (20 to 22) was observed in the top layer down to the depth of 2 m. The description
of the soil profile for the north embankment showing soil log, Atterberg limits, undrained
shear strengths, constrained modulus, coefficient of consolidation, and OCR are
presented in Figure 2. The soil profile and properties at the south embankment are close.
Four PCPT tests were conducted on the north embankment site and three PCPT tests
were conducted on the south embankment site, prior to the construction, down to 20 m
using either u1 or u2 measurements. The profiles of PCPT test results and the
corresponding CPT soil classification (17) for the north embankments are presented in
Figure 3. The PCPT data at the south embankment site are close. The CPT soil
classification indicates that the soil profile consists of silty clay soils down to about 10.5
m interbeded with thin sand layers. Two PCPT tests (with u1 measurement) were selected
to conduct dissipation tests on each embankment site. The depths of dissipation tests
were: 2.13, 4.02, 6.04, 7.80, 7.91, 9.83, 10.81, and 11.01 m below the ground surface for
the north embankment; and 2.13, 4.05, 6.03, 8.09, and 10.01 m for the south
embankment. Figure 4 depicts the results of dissipation tests.
One horizontal inclinometer was installed in each embankment at a selected location
to monitor the profile of consolidation settlement with time of the soil deposit underneath
each embankment. In this study, a digital horizontal inclinometer system manufactured
by RST Instruments Ltd. was used, which consists of inclinometer casing, a horizontal
probe, control cable, pull cable, and a readout unit. A 0.61 m wide 0.61 m deep trench
was first excavated across each embankments width prior to the placement of any
embankment fill. The inclinometer casing of 85 mm (3.34 in) diameter and the return
pipe were then installed along the trench (Figure 5). The trench was then filled with sand
and compacted by the contractor. Each end of the inclinometer casing was attached to
two wooden posts to secure its position. The settlement survey was conducted by drawing
the probe from one end of the casing to the other, halted in its travel at 2 ft intervals for
inclination measurements. The elevations of posts relative to a reference fixed point were
measured every time using a survey level device. The first survey was conducted after
sand compaction to establish the initial profile of the casing (as baseline survey). The
subsequent surveys revealed the changes in the profile due to embankment settlement.
7
Abu-Farssakh, Pant, Gautreau,

G
Yuu, and Zhangg
mc, LL and PL
Soil Type
0 20 40 60 80 100 0
Su (kPa)
Cv (c
cm2/sec)
Modulus M (MPa)
50 100 15
50 200 0
2
4
6
81E-004 1E
E-003 1E-002 0
0
1
Brown Gray Lean Clay
Gray Clay w/ IROX

ORG = 9%
Brown and Gray Clay

w/ Conc.
12
Gray and Brown

Lean Clay ORG 11 %
16
6
7
8
Depth (m)
9
10
11
24
Brown and Gray Clay
28
Brown Clay
Brown and Gray Clay
w/ TR ORG
32
36
Gray Silt and Sand
12
13
20
Gray and Brown Clay

w/ lens of Sand
Gray Lean Clay w/Sand
PL
LL
mc
Depth (ft)
OCR
5 10 15 20 25
40
44
14
Gray Clay
48
15
16
17
18
19
3
4
4
5
10
11
12
13
14
52
Gray Clay w/ Sand
Silty
56
Brown and Gray Clay

w/ sand
60
w/ TR Conc
64
w/TR ORG
20
Figure 2. Soiil boring proofile for norrth embank

kment site
P
profilles and soil classificatioon for north
h embankmeent site
Figure 3. PCPT
O set of vertical magnnet extensom
One
meter was installed at eaach embankm
ment site neaar
the loocation of th
he horizontaal inclinometer to measuure the settlement in eaach soil layer.
s
consiists of one datum
d
magneet fixed at thhe bottom off the boreholle, seven rinng
The system
(spider) magnets that slide onn a 2.54 cm diameter veertical pvc pipe and one plate magneet
at thee ground surrface. The magnets
m
werre installed in
i a boreholle at pre-speecified depthhs
8
Abu-Farssakh, Pant, Gautreau,

G
Yuu, and Zhangg
prior to the placeement of anny embankm
ment fills. Thhe intended depths weree: the bottom
m
datum
m magnet at 12.19 m (400 ft) below surface,
s
the spider
s
magneets were placced at 1.52 m
(5 ft)) interval, an
nd the plate magnet at the
t surface. However, thhe first survey conducteed
immeediately afteer installationn showed magnets
m
slighhtly deviatedd from intended locationns
on. The pvc pipe was exxtended abovve the embaankment andd continued to
t
durinng installatio
rise with
w rise in embankmennt fills. Unfoortunately, thhe north exttensometer was
wClayey
damageed
durinng the consttruction of embankment
e
t. The settleement measurements were
w
taken by
b
lowerring a probe through thee pvc pipe to detect the depths
d
of the magnet sensors.
1..7
1..6
1..5
1..4
1..3
1..2
1..1
1..0
0..9
0..8
0..7
0..6
0..5
0..4
0..3
0..2
0..1
0..0
6.0
2.13 m
4.02 m
7.80 m
10.81 m
7.91 m
9.83 m
6.04 m
Normalized excess pore pressure (u/ ui)
Normalized excess pore pressure (u/ ui)
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
5.0
4.0
2.13 m
3.0
2.0
1.0
11.01 m
10.01 m
8.09 m
6.03m
6
4.05 m
0.0
10
11
12
13
14
15
10
100
1000
0
Time (sec)
10000
100000
10
1
100
1000
10000
10000
00
Time (sec)
(a)
( North siite
b) South site
(b
Figure 4. Dissipatiion tests at Juban
J
Road
d I-12 emb
bankment sites
Figure 5. Horizzontal inclin

nometer (lefft) and verttical magnett extensomeeters (right)
16
9

1
RESULTFS AND ANALYSIS
Comparison between PCPT and Laboratory Derived Parameters
3
4
5
The profiles of PCPT soundings with depth and the results of piezocone dissipation tests
were used to calculate the consolidation parameters: constrained modulus (M) and
coefficients of consolidation (ch and cv) of subsurface soils for each embankment site.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Constrained Modulus
The profiles of constrained modulus (M) was calculated from PCPT using Abu-Farsakh
et al. (6, 7) methods based on corrected qt or net qn cone tip resistance (equations 6 and
7). The average values of total overburden pressure (vo) needed for each soil layer to
compute the qn were estimated from the soil borings. The comparison of predicted M
values from PCPT versus the laboratory measured M are presented in Figure 6 for both
north and south embankment sites. It is evident from the figure that the PCPT-M values
for both sites are greater than the laboratory estimated M values. Comparison with backcalculated values from field measurements for the south embankment site will be
presented later.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Coefficient of Consolidation
The horizontal coefficients of consolidation (ch) for the subsurface soils were calculated
from the piezocone dissipation tests presented in Figure 4 using the Teh and Houlsby (13)
interpretation method (equations 8 and 9). This method requires the evaluation of t50 from
the dissipation test curves. The vertical coefficients of consolidation (cv) can then be
calculated from ch using the relationship proposed by Levadoux and Baligh (11) in
equation 10, which is based on the kv/kh ratio. However, in this study the cv /ch ratio was
estimated to be about 0.56 from the results of one-dimensional consolidation tests
conducted on samples oriented both vertically and horizontally. By investigating the
figures, the reader can distinguish two different types of dissipation curves: Monotonic
dissipation curves (A Type I) and dilatory dissipation curves (Type III) (18, 19). Type I
curve shows a gradual decrease of excess pore pressure with time, and is usually obtained
in normally and lightly over-consolidated soils (19). The Type III curve is usually
obtained for pore pressure measurements behind the tip (u2 and u3) in overconsolidated
soils. This is mainly due to the dilatory behavior of overconsolidated soils (18), and
partially due to the redistribution of excess pore pressure around the cone at early stages
of dissipation before it dissipates to the surrounding media. Sully et al. (19) evaluated the
Type III dissipation curve and suggested applying certain correction by evaluating the
time tp at peak as the new zero time and the corresponding pore pressure is taken as the
peak initial excess pore pressure for the dissipation curve. This approach was used in this
study. To calculate the rigidity index (Ir = G/su), the undrained shear strength was
estimated from the cone tip resistance data using the cone tip factor, Nk = 15, and the
shear modulus (G) was determined from CkoU triaxial tests.
The plots of piezocone estimated versus laboratory calculated cv values are presented
in Figure 7 for the Juban road embankments. Although the figure do not show good
correlation between the PCPT and laboratory cv values, it is obvious that the subsurface
cohesive soil at Juban road site has a cv value ranges from 210-2 to 410-3 cm2/sec, with
an average of 110-3 cm2/sec.
10

Constrained Modulus (TSF)
50
100
150
200
250
300

350
400
0
0
Constraints Modulus (M)
M = 3.58 (qt- vo)
50
100
150
300
350
400

M = 3.15 qt
Measured
20
250
10
200
0
2
Measured
Depth (m)
10
20
30
10
30
10
SANDY LAYER
12
40
SANDY LAYER
14
12
SANDY LAYER
14
SANDY LAYER
40
50
16
50
16
18
60
20
18
60
20
1
2
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Constrained Modulus (MPa)
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Figure 6a: PCPT versus laboratory measured profiles of M (Juban North)

50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400

M = 3.58 (qt-vo)
50
100
150
300
350
400

M = 3.15qt
Measured
4
20
250
10
200
0
2
Measured
Depth (m)
0
0
10
20
8
30
10
30
10
SANDY LAYER
SANDY LAYER
12
40
14
40
SANDY LAYER
14
SANDY LAYER
50
SANDY LAYER
16
12
60
20
50
SANDY LAYER
16
18
Depth (ft)
18
60
20
0
3
4
Depth (ft)
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Figure 6b: PCPT versus laboratory measured profiles of M (Juban South)
11
PCPT cv (cm2/sec)
10-2
Eq
ui
ty
North Embankment
South Embankment
Li
ne
10-1
10-3
10-4
10
-5
10-5
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10-3
10-2
10-1
Laboratory cv (cm2/sec)
1
2
3
10-4
Figure 7. Measured versus predicted cv for Juban Road Site

Comparison with Horizontal Inclinometer Measurements
The first horizontal inclinometer survey was conducted after compaction of the sand layer
inside the trench, before placing any embankment lift, to establish the initial baseline
profile. The subsequent survey measurements taken at different times were used to
calculate the settlement profiles of the soil underneath the embankment. The settlement
profiles were also calculated using the PCPT interpretation method (equation 1), as well
as using the laboratory-derived consolidation parameters. The subsurface soil properties
and the results of in-situ PCPT and dissipation tests were presented earlier. The applied
stress () used to calculate the magnitude of settlement is due to embankment loading
plus surcharge, which increased with construction time until it reached maximum height.
Due to the installation of wick drains, the excess pore water pressure drained both
vertically and radially, with the radial consolidation governs most of the settlement. In
this case, the average degree of consolidation (U) is given as follows:
U = 1 - (1 Uv)(1 Ur)
(11)
where, Uv, Ur are the average degree of consolidation due to vertical and radial (or
horizontal) drainage, respectively. In this study, the radial consolidation was estimated to
contribute to about 85%-88% of the total consolidation settlement of the embankments.
The settlement profiles along the width of the embankment calculated using the
PCPT interpretation method, laboratory-estimated parameters, and the settlement
measured using the horizontal inclinometer are presented in Figures 8a and 8b for north
and south embankments, respectively. The comparison in the figures was made at a time
corresponds to about 95% of the estimated consolidation. For the north embankment site,
the PCPT over-estimated the measured (actual) settlement by about 12% and the
laboratory parameters under-estimated the measured settlement by about 13%. However,
for the south embankment site, the PCPT and the laboratory parameters over-estimated
the field measurements by about 50% and 20%, respectively. This is in agreement with
12

1
2
3
4
5
findings from previous studies (7, 13, 14, and 15), which demonstrated the difficulty of
predicting the actual field settlements using either PCPT or laboratory derived
parameters. However, being able to estimate the magnitude of settlement using the PCPT
data within the same range as the laboratory estimate will have a potential benefit in
speeding up the construction and avoiding delays.
0
10
20
30
40
Distance (m)
50
60
70
80
90
100
2
4
10
14
HI Measurements
6
7
Lab Estimate
16
PCPT Estimate
18
20
360
8
0
6
7
12
Settlements at 340 days
40
80
120
160
200
Distance (ft)
240
280
Settlement (cm)
Settlement (Inches)
H = 32.4 ft
320
(a) North Embankment

0
10
20
30
Distance (m)
40
50
60
70
80
90
Settlement (Inches)
1
2
3
4
5
Settlements at 260 days
HI Measurement
Lab Estimate
PCPTEstimate
9
0
40
80
120
160
200
Distance (ft)
240
280
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
Settlement (cm)
H = 29.5 ft
320
8
9
(b) South Embankment
10
11
12
13
14
15
Figure 8. Comparison of predicted settlement profiles with field measurements

The consolidation settlements with time predicted from the laboratory parameters
and PCPT dissipation tests using the Teh and Houlsby (1988) interpretation method are
presented in Figures 9a and 9b for the north and south embankments, respectively. Figure
9a demonstrates that, for the north embankment site, both the PCPT and laboratory
estimated rates of consolidation (slope of the curve) match fairly well with the field
13

monitoring. However, for the south embankment site, the rate of consolidation estimated
from the PCPT is lower than field monitoring, but a little better than the laboratory
estimated rate of consolidation. It is worth mentioning that geotechnical engineers are
generally more interested in estimating the rate of embankment settlement than the
magnitude of settlement for better planning the extent of the preloading period needed to
overcome the majority of settlement.
0
0
Settlement with Time
Settlement (inches)
HI Measurements
Laboratory
PCPT
10
Settlement (cm)
1
2
3
4
5
6
12
14
6
0
30
60
90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360
7
8
Days
North Embankment
0
0
Settlement with Time
HI Measurement
Laboratory
PCPT
10
Settlement (cm)
Settlement (inches)
12
14
6
0
9
10
11
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
240
270
Days
(b) South Embankment

Figure 9. Rate of consolidation settlement
12
Back-calculation of Consolidation Parameters from Vertical Extensometer
13
14
15
16
17
Measurements from the vertical magnet extensometer were used to back-calculate the
consolidation parameters (M and cv) of the subsurface soil layers for the south
embankment site. As mentioned earlier, the vertical extensometer for the north site was
damaged during construction. By recording the relative movement of spider magnets, the
corresponding vertical settlement of each layer was calculated for each incremental stress
14

(i). The end of primary consolidation was estimated using the rectangular hyperbola
curve fitting method (RHM) as proposed by Sridharan et al. (20). The total consolidation
settlement for each layer was used to back-calculate its constrained modulus (M) and the
results are presented in Figure 10a. The figure also compares the PCPT, laboratory, and
back-calculated M values with depth, which shows the PCPT estimated M values are in
good agreement with back-calculated values. Statistical analysis performed on the
collected data showed that values [M= 1 qt, and M= 2 (qt vo)] for the south
embankment site has means of 3.01 (compared to 3.15 in equation 6) and 3.16 (compared
to 3.58 in equation 7) and standard deviations of 0.59 and 0.65. Figure 10b presents the
comparison of back-calculated cv with PCPT predicted cv using Teh and Houlsby (1999)
and laboratory measured cv values. As seen in figure, there is scattering but most of the
values fall within a narrow band of order of magnitude of one log cycle. Most
importantly, the parameters predicted using the PCPT measurements are fairly well
within the range of the average measured coefficient of consolidation.
Coefficient of consolidation Cv (in2/sec)

0
20
40
60
80
100
1.0E-004
0
1.0E-003
1.0E-002
1.0E-001
4
2
8
12
Depth (m)
2
8
12
16
6
20
16
20
Depth (ft)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
24
24
28
28
Back-calculated
Lab Measured
10
32
M = 3.58(qt-vo)
12
2
10
32
Back-Calculated
Lab Measured
Teh and Houlsby
36
M = 3.15 qt
Cv (cm2/sec)
10
12
1E-004
1E-003
1E-002
1E-001
Coefficient of consolidation Cv
36
1E+000
(cm2/sec)
15
16
17
18
(a) Constrained modulus

(b) Coefficient of consolidation
Figure 10. Comparison between PCPT, laboratory and back-calculated constrained
modulus and coefficient of consolidation values
19
CONCLUSIONS
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
This paper presents a case study on evaluating the embankment settlement at the Juban
Road I-12 Interchange Bridge in Louisiana. The soil underneath each embankment was
instrumented with a horizontal inclinometer and vertical magnet extensometers to
monitor the settlement with time. Piezocone penetration and dissipation tests were used
to calculate the consolidation parameters (M and cv), which were then used to evaluate
the magnitude and time rate of embankment settlements. Laboratory tests were also
conducted to estimate the consolidation properties of soils from borings. Settlement
15

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
calculated using PCPT and laboratory derived consolidation parameters were compared
with actual field measurements. Based on this study, the following conclusions can be
drawn:
Actual field measurements from horizontal inclinometers were compared with the
consolidation settlements estimated using the PCPT and laboratory derived
parameters. The results, in general, showed that the piezocone penetration and
dissipation data can be used to estimate the magnitude and time rate of consolidation
settlement of embankments within the same range as of the laboratory calculations.
The settlement predictions based on PCPT derived constrained modulus (M) using the
Abu-farsakh et al. (6, 7) method reasonably estimated the magnitude of consolidation
settlement of Juban Road embankments within the same range as of the laboratory
calculations. Performing the PCPT tests is much faster compared to the timeconsuming of sampling and subsequent laboratory testing of soil samples, thus the
use of PCPT will help in speeding up the field construction.
The PCPT estimation of rate of consolidation with time from dissipation tests using
the Teh and Houlsby (13) interpretation method matched fairly well the field
monitoring of the north embankment site, while it under-estimated the rate of
consolidation of the south embankment site. However, the PCPT gave a little better
estimate of the rate of consolidation than the laboratory estimations.
Back-calculated constrained modulus from vertical magnet extensometers were
compared with PCPT and laboratory derived M. The results showed that the PCPT
estimated M values are in good agreement with back-calculated values. The
laboratory estimated M values are lower.
Comparison of the cv values estimated from dissipation tests using the Teh and
Houlsby (13) method with the back-calculated and laboratory measured cv values
showed reasonable agreement among all and that most cv values fall within a narrow
range of an order of magnitude of one log cycle.
28
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This research project is funded by the Louisiana Department of Transportation and
Development (State Project No. 736-00-0781) and the Louisiana Transportation Research
Center (LTRC Project No. 00-3GT). The comments and suggestions of Mark Morvant,
Associate Director of Research at LTRC, are gratefully acknowledged.
29
REFERENCES
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
1.
2.
3.
4.
Baligh, M. M., and Levadoux, J. N. Consolidation after Undrained Piezocone

Penetration. II: Interpretation, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol.
112(7), 1986, pp. 727-745.
Sanglerat, G. The Penetration and Soil exploration. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1972, 464
pp.
Senneset, K., Sandven, R., and Janbu, N. The Evaluation of Soil Parameters from
Piezocone Tests, Transportation Research Record, No. 1235, 1989, pp. 24-37.
Kulhawy, F. H. and Mayne, P. H. Manual on Estimating Soil Properties for
Foundation Design, Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI. 1990.
16

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
5.
Jones, G. A., and Rust, E. Piezocone Settlement Prediction Parameters for

Embankments on Alluvium, Proceedings of the International Symposium on
Penetration Testing, CPT 95, Linkoping, Sweden, Vol. 2, 1995, pp. 501-508.
6. Abu-Farsakh M. Y., Evaluation of Consolidation Characteristics of Cohesive Soils
from Piezocone Penetration Tests, Report No. FHWA/LA.04/386, Louisiana
Transportation Research Center, Baton Rouge, LA, 2004, 106 p.
7. Abu-Farsakh, M. Y., Zhange, Z., and Gautreau, G., Evaluating the Deformation
Modulus of Cohesive Soils from PCPT for Consolidation Settlement Estimation,
Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2004, Soil Mechanics, 2007, pp.
49 - 59.
8. Vesic, A. S. Expansion of Cavities in Infinite Soil Mass, Journal of Soil
Mechanics, ASCE, Vol. 98, No. 3, 1972, pp. 265-290.
9. Torstensson, B. A. The Pore Pressure Probe, Paper 34, Geotechnical Meeting,
Norwegian Geotechnical Society, Oslo, Norway, 1977, pp. 34.1-34.15.
10. Senneset, K., Janbu, K. and Svano, G. Strength and Deformation Parameters from
Cone Penetration Tests, Proc. 2nd European Symp. on Penetration Testing, ESOPT
II, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Vol. 2, 1982, pp. 863-870.
11. Levadoux J. N, and Baligh, M. M. Consolidation after Undrained Piezocone
Penetration. II: Prediction. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol.
112(7), 1986, pp. 707-726.
12. Teh, C. I. An analytical Study of the Cone Penetration Test, D.Phil. Thesis, Oxford
University, 1987.
13. Teh, C. I. and Houlsby, G. T. An Analytical Study of the Cone Penetration Test in
Clay, Geotechnique, Vol. 41, No. 1, 1991, pp. 17-34.
14. Oakley, III, Richard E. Case History: Use of the Cone Penetrometer to Calculate the
Settlement of a Chemically Stabilized Landfill, Geotechnics of Waste Fills-Theory
and Practice, ASTM STP 1070, American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, 1990, pp. 345 357.
15. Crawford C. B. and Campanella R. G. Comparison of Field Consolidation with
Laboratory and In situ Tests, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 28, 1991, pp.
103-112.
16. Kuo-Hsia C., William D. K., and Ming-Jiun W. Comparison of Predicted and
Measured Settlement of a Test Embankment over Soft Soil, ASCE Geotechnical
Special Publication No. 40. Vertical and Horizontal Deformations of Foundations
and Embankments, Proceedings of Settlement '94, College Station, Texas, 1994.
17. Zhang, Z. and Tumay, M. T. Statistical to Fuzzy Approach Toward CPT Soil
Classification, Journal of Geotechnical and Environmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol.
125, No. 3, 1999, pp. 179-186.
18. Burns, S. E., and Mayne, P. W., Monotonic and Dilatory Pore Pressure Decay
during Piezocone Tests in Clay, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 35, No. 6,
1998, pp. 1063 1073.
19. Sully, J. P., Robertson, P. K., Campanella, R. G., and Woeller, D. J. An Approach to
Evaluation of Field CPTU Dissipation Data in Overconsolidated Fine-grained Soils,
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 36, No. 2, 1999, pp. 369-381.
20. Sridharan, A. and Sreepada Rao, A. Rectangular hyperbola fitting method for onedimensional consolidation, Geotechnical Testing Journal, 4(4), 1981, pp. 161168.
17

12 Jtno

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

12 Jtno

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Abu-Farsakh, Pant, Gautreau, Yu, and Zhang

A Case Study on Estimating the Embankment Settlement from

Murad Y. Abu-Farsakh, Ph.D., P.E. (Corresponding Author)

Paper revised from original submittal.

Abu-Farsakh, Pant, Gautreau, Yu, and Zhang

A Case Study on Estimating the Embankment Settlement from

KEY WORDS: Piezocone Penetration Test (PCPT), Piezocone dissipation Test,

Paper revised from original submittal.

Abu-Farsakh, Pant, Gautreau, Yu, and Zhang

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

Abu-Farsakh, Pant, Gautreau, Yu, and Zhang

ESTIMATING CONSOLIDATION SETTLEMENT FROM PCPT

The time rate of consolidation can be estimated using the coefficients of

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

Abu-Farsakh, Pant, Gautreau, Yu, and Zhang

Interpretation of Constrained Modulus

M = 3.58 qn = 3.58 (qt vo) (R2 = 0.88)

Interpretation of Coefficients of Consolidation

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

Abu-Farsakh, Pant, Gautreau, Yu, and Zhang

c h ( piezo) = (T50* ro2 I r ) / t 50

LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM

Paper revised from original submittal.

Abu-Farsakh, Pant, Gautreau, Yu, and Zhang

IN-SITU TESTING PROGRAM

DESCRIPTION OF EMBANKMENT SITES AND MONITORING PROGRAM

Figure 1. Typical roadway embankment section at Juban Road I-12 Interchange

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

Abu-Farsakh, Pant, Gautreau, Yu, and Zhang

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

Abu-Farssakh, Pant, Gautreau,

Brown Gray Lean Clay

Gray Clay w/ IROX

Brown and Gray Clay

Gray and Brown

Gray Silt and Sand

Gray and Brown Clay

Gray Lean Clay w/Sand

Gray Clay w/ Sand

Brown and Gray Clay

Figure 2. Soiil boring proofile for norrth embank

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

Abu-Farssakh, Pant, Gautreau,

Normalized excess pore pressure (u/ ui)

Normalized excess pore pressure (u/ ui)

Figure 5. Horizzontal inclin

Paper revised from original submittal.

Abu-Farsakh, Pant, Gautreau, Yu, and Zhang

RESULTFS AND ANALYSIS

Comparison between PCPT and Laboratory Derived Parameters

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

Abu-Farsakh, Pant, Gautreau, Yu, and Zhang

Constrained Modulus (TSF)

Constraints Modulus (M)

Constrained Modulus (MPa)

Constrained Modulus (MPa)