You are on page 1of 57

DMT y SDMT:

Ejemplos de Aplicacines en proyectos

Bogot 8 de Mayo 2015 Eng. Diego Marchetti


Colombia www.marchetti-dmt.it
SDMT main results
grain size compressibility strength stress history Vs and G0

GO= Vs2

DMT Seismic DMT


SDMT repeatability

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

Calibration chamber tests with prestraining cycles


CC TEST N. 216 IN TICINO SAND

Kd increased 7 times the increase


of penetration resistance

Jamiolkowski & Lo Presti ISC'98 Atlanta


Stress History: effects on CPT and DMT
Effect of SH on Effect of SH
normalized Qc (CPT) on KD (DMT)

Lee 2011, Eng. Geology CC in sand

Kd more reactive than Qc to Stress History


KD leads to a more economical design
Two sites: same Qc , different OCR. Site 2 much stronger

Stress History may have a very strong impact


on settlement and liquefaction huge cost
savings, especially in medium-big projects
Main SDMT applications
Settlements of shallow foundations
In situ G- decay curves
Compaction control
OCR in sands
Liquefaction risk analysis
Slip surface detection in OC clay
Seismic design (Eurocode 8)
Laterally loaded piles (P-y curves)
Diaphragm walls (springs model)
FEM input parameters (es. Plaxis)
DMT for Settlements
Main DMT Application: Settlement prediction

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 Settlement prediction: 77 cm


Measured Settlement: 63 cm
DMT +22%
D. Berisavijevic, 2013
Observed vs. predicted by DMT
Dormitory Building 13 storeys (Atlanta - USA)
Settlements profile: Measured vs DMT predicted
(Piedmont residual soil)

DMT
observed

Mayne, 2005

SPT Settlement prediction: 460 mm


DMT Settlement prediction: 250 mm
Observed Settlement: 250 mm
SPT large error conservative expensive !!!
M at Sunshine Skyway Bridge
Tampa Bay Florida
(Schmertmann Asce Civil Engineering March 1988)
World record span for cable
stayed post-tensioned concrete
box girder concrete construction

M from DMT 200 MPa ( 1000 DMT data points)


M from laboratory: M 50 MPa
M from observed settlements: M 240 MPa
DMT good estimate of M
Possible reasons DMT good settlement predictions
1. Wedges deform soil less than cones

measure
zone
measure zone

Baligh & Scott (1975)

2. Modulus by mini load test relates better


to modulus than penetration resistance

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)

SDMT G0 - small strain modulus


two points MDMT - working strain modulus ( = 0.05 0.1 %)

Preliminary work: G0 / MDMT to estimate in situ G- curve


- Amoroso et al (2014, 2012)
- Marchetti et al (2008) in Schmertmann Volume
- Lehane & Fahey (2004) Porto ISC-2 non linear settlement analysis from in situ tests
G - decay curve: experimental results
1.2
1.2

normalized shear modulus, G/G0


Sands (Darendeli 2001)
G0 (Vs) from SDMT Silts and clays with PI=0-50%
(Darendeli 2001)
1 Silts and clays with PI=50-100%
Darendeli (2001)
Sands (experimental data)
Silts and clays (experimental data)
0.8

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 (%)

"typical shape" G/G0- range of values of GDMT/G0 and


curves in different soil types corresponding shear strain DMT determined
by the "intersection" procedure in different
(Amoroso et al. 2012, 2014) soil types
1.2 1.2
1.2
1.2
SHENTON PARK
(a) SHENTON PARK
Silica sand Silica sand
Summary of results

normalized shear modulus, G/G0

normalized shear modulus, G/G0


11 11

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

normalized shear modulus, G/G 0


DSDSS - Park
Roio Piano S3 C2
ROIO PIANO
(b)
G/G0
G/G0 Shenton
Shenton Park BH2A,
BH1A, z =z1.3
= 1.3
mm
SHENTON
Silica PARK
sand shear
G/G0
strain, g (%)
GDMT/G0 Roio Piano S3 C2
Shenton Park BH2B,
z =z1.3
= 2.3
mm
0 Clayey silt G/G0 Shenton Park BH2A,

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

hyperbolic and "measured"


0.6
shear
GDMT/G0
GDMT/G0 Shenton
Shenton Park
Park BH2B,
BH2A, z =z1.3
= 2.3
mm
0.6
0.6 GDMT/G0
GDMT/G0 Shenton
Shenton Park
Park BH3A,
BH2B, z =z2.3
= 2.3
mm
GDMT/G0 Shenton Park BH2C,
z =z 2.3
= 3.3
mm
normalized

GDMT/G0 Shenton Park BH3A,

stiffness decay curves 0.4


0.4 GDMT/G0
GDMT/G0 Shenton
Shenton Park
Park BH3B,
BH2C, z =z3.3
= 3.3
mm
normalized

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

(Amoroso et al. 2014)


0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
0.0001 0.001 0.01
shear strain, g0.1(%) 1 10
shearstrain,
shear gg
strain, (%)(%)
Compaction Control
DMT for Compaction Control
The high sensitivity to changes of stresses and density make the DMT particularly
suitable for detecting benefits of SOIL IMPROVEMENT

Compaction of a loose sandfill


Resonant vibrocompaction technique
Depth (m)

Van Impe, De Cock, Massarsch, Meng


New Delhi (1994)
DMT vs CPT sensitivity to Compaction
Schmertmann (1986) DYNAMIC COMPACTION of sand site.
MDMT % increase twice % increase in Qc

Jendeby (1992) monitored DEEP COMPACTION in a sand fill


by VIBROWING. MDMT increase twice increase in Qc.

Pasqualini & Rosi (1993) VIBROFLOTATION job :


"DMT clearly detected improvement even in layers where
benefits were undetected by CPT".

Ghent group (1993) before-after CPTs DMTs to evaluate


effects (h , Dr) by PILE (Atlas) INSTALLATION
"DMTs before-after installation demonstrate more clearly
[than CPT] beneficial effects of Atlas installation".
Compaction Control DMT vs CPT
Jendeby 92: Qc & Mdmt before & after compaction of a loose sandfill

Before compaction

After compaction
Suggestion for Compaction Specs
(Schmertmann 1988)

Aim of compaction is to reduce settlements

More logic to define compaction


specifications in terms of M instead of Dr:
Dr wrong target
Dr correlations very uncertain
25
Subgrade Compaction Control
Bangladesh Subgrade Compaction Case History
90 km Road Rehabilitation Project

MDMT acceptance profile


(max always found at 25-26 cm)

Acceptance MDMT profile fixed and used as


alternative/fast acceptance tool for quality control of
subgrade compaction, with only occasional verifications
by originally specified methods (Proctor, CBR, plate),
(Marchetti, 1994)
OCR estimation in sands
Often in compaction jobs the ratio
MDMT/ qc is plotted before-after OCR

Typically the ratio increases from


5-8 (NC) to 20-25 (OC).

The fact that MDMT /Qc increases


with compaction, indicates that
MDMT increases at a faster rate
than Qc, confirming higher
sensitivity of DMT to SH.

The MDMT / Qc profiles also permit an evaluation of the achieved


OCR increase, using e.g. Monaco et al. Eqn. (2014)
To estimate OCR, both Qcn and Kd needed.
Only Qcn, or only Kd, insufficient.
If only KD is known, and is entered in Fig., KD could be due :
low Dr + high OCR high Dr + low OCR.
To evaluate OCR, Qc must also be available : provides an
indication of Dr in the horizontal axis Separate OCR, Dr.

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 ..

Latest Research 2014


NO LABORATORY TESTS ARE SUITABLE
FOR LIQUEFACTION ESTIMATION.
Only suitable FIELD TESTS MUST be used.

2014 Panel Discussion at Geo-Congress, ASCE


Panelists: Prof. Idriss, Prof. Boulanger, Prof. Robertson,
Prof. Cetin, Prof. Finn, Prof. Green, Prof. Stokoe, Prof. Mayne
Liquefaction risk assessment
VERY CAUTIOUS RECOMMENDATIONS USING SPT AND CPT

Robertson & Wride (1998) CRR by CPT adequate for low-


risk projects. For high-risk: estimate CRR by more than one
method
Youd & Idriss (NCEER Workshops 2001) use 2 or more
tests for a more reliable evaluation of CRR
Idriss & Boulanger (2004) the allure of relying on a single
approach (e.g. CPT-only) should be avoided
Jamiolkowski (1985, 11 ICSMFE) reliable predictions of
CRR require the development of some new in situ device
[other than CPT or SPT] much more sensitive to the effects of
past stress and strain histories
Basis of the correlation CRR-KD
Horizontal Stress Index KD = ( p0 - u0 ) /'v0
Research has pointed out:
KD sensitive to stress history (including aging),
cementation, structure
KD correlated with relative density and in situ
state parameter
all factors known to influence liquefaction resistance

KD Stress History Index "cumulative" index
parameter of liquefaction resistance
Summary of CRR-KD correlations
(Seed & Idriss 1971 simplified procedure)

MAGNITUDE M = 7.5 CLEAN SAND


Preliminary validation of recent
CRR-KD correlations
All 4 recent CRR-KD
curves having their origin
in CPT curve are in broad
agreement with available
data points from real
liquefaction case histories
All curves predict CRR in
a relatively narrow range
Further refinements
require additional field
data points
MAGNITUDE M = 7.5 CLEAN SAND
Marchetti 2013 (data from Tsai et al. 2009) 35
SDMT for LIQUEFACTION
SDMT provides 2 independent evaluations of CRR
CRR from KD CRR from Vs

Marchetti ASCE 2013 Andrus & Stokoe (2000)


Andrus et al. (2004)

... good to have more than one method for CRR


SDMT for LIQUEFACTION
Vittorito LAquila (April 2009)
Moment magnitude MW: 6.3
Distance from the epicentre: 45 km
Peak ground acceleration PGA: 0.065 g

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%

Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR


Cyclic Stress Ratio, CSR or
Fc >= 35%
0.4
0.3
0.3
LIQUEFACTION
0.2
0.2
NO LIQUEFACTION
LIQUEFACTION
0.1 0.1
NO
LIQUEFACTION
0
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
0 2 4 6 8 KD 10
Normalized shear wave velocity, Vs1 (m/s)

Monaco et al. (2009, 2010)

Both Kd and Vs indicated Liquefaction (red points)


Liquefaction case history in Costarica

cofferdam

Design Earthquake (M Richter = 7,5 and PGA = 0,25 g)

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

Get CRR = f(Qc, KD )


(unpublished J. Asce 2015)

CRR in two Steps (1) Estimate CRR from Qcn


using everyday CPT correlations. (2) Then, if Kd
is high, increase CRR, if Kd is low, reduce CRR40
When Fine content, Cementation : adding
KD to Qcn , for CRR, may not be sufficient

E.g. cementation can be ductile (toothpaste-like) or fragile


(glasslike).
Fine Content : possibly effects as ductile cementation.
Clearly too many unknowns. It may be not sufficient to add
the KD information to Qcn.
Go could possibly help : high G0 / Qc and/or high G0 / MDMT
also indicators of cementation.
Even modulus ED from DMT could possibly help.
A lot additional study necessary multi-parameter
Liquefaction Resistance CRR :
Towards a multi-parameter approach

CRR from CPT CRR from DMT CRR from Vs

Combine information of independant measurements


CRR = f (Qc, KD , Vs)
Slip surface detection in OC clay slopes
DMT-KD method Verify if an OC clay slope
contains active (or old quiescent) slip surfaces

(Totani et al. 1997)


Validation of DMT-KD method
LANDSLIDE "FILIPPONE" (Chieti)

DOCUMENTED
SLIP SURFACE

LANDSLIDE "CAVE VECCHIE" (S. Barbara)

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

infected clay (KD 2 due to active/quiescent slip surfaces)


healthy clay healthy clay
Quantify 'h relaxation behind a landslide
Horizontal Stress h
Case History: (kPa)
Landslide in Milazzo, Sicily
1

Z (m) above sea level


2

2 1
3
clay
RAILWAY
3

h obtained using K0 from DMT


Seismic Design
Seismic Design: simplified use of Vs

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

Three different methods using DMT


results for evaluating P-y curves for
laterally loaded piles:
Gabr & Borden (1988)
Robertson
Robertson etet al.
al. (1989)
(1989) recommended
methods
Marchetti
Marchetti et
et al.
al. (1991)
(1991)
Observed vs. DMT predicted pile deflections

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)

single pile, 1st time monotonic loading In clay.


L=57m, D=0.50m
Design of Diaphragm Walls
DMT for DESIGN of DIAPHRAGM WALLS
Monaco & Marchetti (2004 ISC'2 Porto)

g.l. Tentative correlation for


deriving the Winkler model
springs for design of multi-
propped diaphragm walls
s
H from MDMT
Indications on input moduli
for FEM analyses (PLAXIS
Hardening Soil model) based
L on MDMT
DMT for FEM input parameters
PLAXIS Hardening Soil constitutive model
E50 is the Modulus for primary loading

E50ref is a reference stiffness


modulus corresponding to the
reference confining pressure
pref (pref =1 bar)

E50ref correlated to MDMT and Eoedref


(Schanz & Vermeer, 1997)
literature: E50ref = 15 to 75 MPa, like
MDMT by DMT (quartz sand, loose
to very dense sand)

E50ref = Eoedref = MDMT

Eurref =4Eoedref = 4MDMT


(Vermeer, 2001)