Professional Documents
Culture Documents
GO= Vs2
repeatability 1-2%
Other SDMT results
OCR (clay)
K0 (clay)
Soil description
Unit weight (kN/m3)
Friction angle (sand)
Pore water pressure (sand)
Ch and Kh (clay & silt)
Vp (compression wave)
KD indicator of Stress History
KD indicator of stress history
LOAD SOIL
Boussinesq DMT
v M
v
S= M
z
1-D approach (classic Terzaghi)
Many publications & case histories of
good agreement between measured and
DMT-predicted settlements / moduli:
Vargas (2009) Iwasaki et al. (1991)
Bullock (2008) Hayes (1990)
Monaco (2006) Mayne & Frost (1988)
Lehane & Fahey (2004) Schmertmann 1986,1988)
Mayne (2001, 2004) Steiner (1994)
Failmezger (1999, 2000, 2001) Leonards (1988)
Crapps & Law Engineering (2001) Lacasse (1986)
Tice & Knott (2000)
Woodward (1993)
Observed vs. predicted by DMT
Silos on Danube Bank (Belgrade )
DMT
observed
Mayne, 2005
measure
zone
measure zone
Stiffness Strength
Possible reasons DMT predicts well settlement
Soil is loaded at strain level for deformation analysis
Mayne
(2001)
Go and MDMT on the G - decay curve
Maugeri (1995) low GO/M
HARA (1973)
YOKOTA et al. (1981)
TATSUOKA (1977)
SEED & IDRISS (1970) high GO/M
ATHANASOPOULOS (1995)
CARRUBBA & MAUGERI (1988)
0.05 0.1
0.05to 0.1%%
Mayne (2001)
Ishihara (2001)
0.6
0.4
GDMT /G0 sand:
g DMT 0.015 - 0.30 %
0.2
GDMT /G0 silt and clay:
g DMT 0.23 - 1.75 %
0
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
shear strain,
g (%)
50 0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
45 SDMT experimental data used
to assist the construction of a
0.6
0.6
40
0.6
0.6
35
0.4
0.4 hyperbolic equation
30
0.4
0.4
G 1
G0/GDMT
25 0.2
0.2
G
SANDY SITES
G
1 0 1
20 SILTY AND CLAYEY SITES 0.2
0.20
0.1
00
DMT 0.1
0.01 G
DMT
15
0.0001 0.001 1 10
0.0001 0.001 0.01 1 10
10
1.2
00 shear strain, g (%)
1.2
1.2 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1
5 1.2
1.2 0.0001SHENTON 0.001
PARK 0.01 0.1
G/G0 Shenton Park BH1A, z = 1.3 m
0
11 Silica sand G/G0 Shenton
Hyperbolic
G/G0 Shenton Park
Park BH3A,
curve
BH2B, z =z2.3
= 2.3
mm
G/G
0.01 0.1 1 10
111
0
G/G0
G/G0 Shenton
Shenton Park
Park BH2C,
BH3A, z =z 2.3
= 3.3
mm
G/G
DMT (%) G/G0
G/G0 Shenton
Shenton Park
Park BH3B,
BH2C, z =z3.3
= 3.3
mm
modulus,
G/G0
G/G0 Shenton
Shenton Park
Park BH1B,
BH3B, z =z3.3
= 3.3
mm
modulus,
0.8 G/G0
G/G0 Shenton
Shenton Park
Park BH2D,
BH1B, z =z3.3
= 3.9
mm
0.8
0.8
0.8 G/G0
G/G0 Shenton
Shenton Park
Park BH1C,
BH2D, z =z 3.9
= 4.3
mm
0.8
Comparison between
G/G0
G/G0 Shenton
Shenton Park
Park BH3C,
BH1C, z =z 4.3
= 4.6
mm
GDMT/G0
G/G0 ShentonShenton ParkzBH1A,
Park BH3C, z = 1.3 m
= 4.6 m
shear 0.6
0.6
GDMT/G0
GDMT/G0 Shenton
Shenton Park
Park BH2A,
BH1A, z =z1.3
= 1.3
mm
0.4
0.4
0.4 GDMT/G0
GDMT/G0 Shenton
Shenton Park
Park BH1B,
BH3B, z =z3.3
= 3.3
mm
GDMT/G0
GDMT/G0 Shenton
Shenton Park
Park BH2D,
BH1B, z =z3.3
= 3.9
mm
GDMT/G0
GDMT/G0 Shenton
Shenton Park
Park BH1C,
BH2D, z =z 3.9
= 4.3
mm
0.2
0.2 GDMT/G0
GDMT/G0 Shenton
Shenton Park
Park BH3C,
BH1C, z =z 4.3
= 4.6
mm
0.2
Additional validation required
Hyperbolic curve Park BH3C, z = 4.6 m
0.2
0.2 GDMT/G0 Shenton
Hyperbolic curve
00
00.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
00 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 11 10
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1010
Before compaction
After compaction
Suggestion for Compaction Specs
(Schmertmann 1988)
Monaco et al.
DMT J. Asce 2014
Example of
necessity
? multi
parameter
approach
CPT+DMT
DMT for Liquefaction Risk Assessment
.. difficult situation considering (for LAB) the
conclusion of ..
CSR
Vs
Kd
SDMT for LIQUEFACTION
Liquefaction depth from KD: 2-6 m Liquefaction depth from Vs: 1-2.5 m
0.5 0.6
Cyclic Resistance Ratio CRR
Fc <=5%
Cyclic Stress Ra tio CSR or
0.5
0.4 Fc= 15%
cofferdam
LIQUEFACTION LIQUEFACTION
NO LIQUEFACTION NO LIQUEFACTION
Just a few weeks after the SDMT execution, the cyclic wave action due
to a storm induced liquefaction of the soil deposit.. (Vargas & Coto 2012)
Better to estimate CRR based at the
same time on Qc and KD
2015
DOCUMENTED
SLIP SURFACE
DOCUMENTED
SLIP SURFACE
(inclinometers)
Slip surface detection in clay slopes
Mine of lignite S. Barbara
(San Giovanni Valdarno)
SS. N. 83 Marsicana
Gioia dei Marsi (2006)
blocked
Reconstruction of multiple slip surfaces
active: Kd=2
qualitative reconstruction
2 1
3
clay
RAILWAY
3
Vs profile
Vs 30
Soil
category
(NTC08,
Eurocode 8)
Vs for Seismic Design
EERA, ProShake soil surface
Go profile (Vs) (or similar software) behaviour
auxiliary input
Output
Input motion
motion
Period, T
Bedrock
Soil
Soil
Bedrock
AGI (2005)
Design of Laterally Loaded Piles
Design of laterally loaded piles (Winkler)
Linear P-y curve Non Linear P-y curve
Soil reaction, p
Soil reaction, p
Es = constant Es = f (y)
Deflection y Deflection y
Validation:
2 independent methods
using DMT resuts
(Robertson 1989 &
Mortaiolo (Italy) Marchetti 1991) provide
NC soft clay similar predictions, in
very good agreement
with measured full-scale
pile behaviour
(1989)