You are on page 1of 25

Proceedings ISC-2 on Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterization, Viana da Fonseca & Mayne (eds.

)
2004 Millpress, Rotterdam, ISBN 90 5966 009 9

In situ test characterisation of unusual geomaterials


F. Schnaid
Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil
B.M. Lehane & M. Fahey
School of Civil and Resource Engineering, The University of Western Australia, Australia

Keywords: in situ tests, soil structure, small strain stiffness, stiffness non-linearity, shear strength, partial
drainage, unsaturated soil conditions

ABSTRACT: This paper presents a review and discussion of recent and current developments in the interpre-
tation of in situ tests conducted in unusual geomaterials. Insights are provided into the assessment of stress-
strain-time and strength characteristics of a number of soils that are still relatively poorly understood. Soil
characterization and classification, the role of hydraulic conductivity and partial drainage effects, the strength
and stiffness of both natural and man-made deposits, the influence of structural effects, and the significance of
unsaturated soil mechanics are topics selected for discussion. Advantages and limitations of currently adopted
interpretative techniques and analyses are highlighted. Since the in situ behaviour of unusual soils is complex,
emphasis has been placed on correlations with mechanical properties that are based on the combination of
measurements from independent tests such as the ratio of the elastic stiffness to ultimate strength (Go/qc,
Go/N60), the ratio of cone resistance and pressuremeter limit pressure (qc/<) and the association of strength
and energy measurements (N60 and energy).

al., 1989; Baldi et al., 1996); appreciation of the im-


1 INTRODUCTION.
portance of geophysical methods (e.g. Stoke et al.,
In situ testing is a vital component of a site investi- 1995) and the recent achievements on the under-
gation programme, and one in which the complexity standing of the role of small strain stiffness (Bur-
of nature starts to be revealed. Such importance can land, 1989).
These new developments set the standards for in-
be measured by the variety of available in situ test
equipment, techniques and procedures, as well as by terpretation, using in situ tests, of the stress-strain-
the diversity of interpretative methods designed to strength behaviour of both sand and clay to assist in
characterize soils and assess their mechanical prop- the solution of a variety of geotechnical problems.
erties. International conferences, some of which They also provided the background necessary for the
have been devoted specifically to in situ testing, assessment of other aspects of soil behaviour in
have provided the forum for publication of major more complex environments, including the effects of
pioneering developments. These started with the de- microstructure (fabric and bonding), small strain
velopment of the SPT, which arose from the need to stiffness, anisotropy, weathering and destructuration,
supplement geological information with quantitative partial saturation, large scale volume changes and
data. Since then, notable contributions include: the viscosity. These important features of natural soil
standardisation of SPT results by a reference energy (and man-made) ground behaviour are now recog-
value (Schmertmann & Palacious, 1979); growth in nized and are addressed on the basis of a framework
understanding of the basis and applicability of cone that has been established from a comprehensive
penetration tests (e.g. Lunne et al., 1997), framed by characterization of laboratory tests on reconstituted
theoretical solutions such as the strain path method soils and a number of well known natural clays and
sands.
(Baligh, 1985); recognition of the importance of
cavity expansion theory and its application to pene- The considerable body of knowledge accumu-
tration tests (e.g. Ladanyi, 1963; Vesic, 1972); de- lated from laboratory tests now has to be extended to
the field of in situ testing, and a necessary step in
velopment of correlations between test results and
soil properties from large laboratory calibration this direction is to develop a new generation of in-
terpretation methods and constitutive models that
chamber tests in sand (Schmertann, 1975; Bellotti et

49
capitalizes on our existing experience. Models can tion that the high hydraulic conductivity of these
either attempt to capture the full nature of the ob- soils does not necessarily prevent pore pressure ac-
served mechanical behaviour of geomaterials or cumulation under dynamic loading. Although de-
simply aim at only reproducing the essential features parting from this well established background is not
related to a given soil or soil condition. The chal- a simple task, the efforts of many researchers, over
lenge is therefore threefold: to evaluate the applica- the past twenty years, has resulted in remarkable
bility of existing theoretical and empirical ap- progress in the integration of many geomaterials into
proaches in order to extend the experience of a consistent and unified framework. This link has
standard clays and sands to other geomaterials, to been realized by the recognition that soil structure is
develop interpretative methods that incorporate new a common feature of all geomaterials (e.g. Vaughan,
constitutive models whenever required, and to gather 1985; Burland, 1989; Tatsuoka et al., 1997; Leroueil
experimental data that justifies the applicability of and Hight, 2003). A widespread approach has been
proposed interpretation methods to engineering ap- to compare the response of the natural soil with that
plications. of the corresponding reconstituted material (e.g.
This paper begins by reviewing key aspects of the Burland 1990) to identify features of behaviour
behaviour of unusual geomaterials, and then exam- emerging from structure from those related to
ines if given in situ test interpretation methods can changes in state.
lead to a rational selection of soil parameters and A fundamental understanding of soil behaviour is
hence economical designs in such materials. Only a developed in the laboratory in tests carried out under
selection of aspects are discussed here as the topic is strictly controlled boundary conditions. A prelimi-
clearly too extensive to be covered in a single paper. nary requirement is to retrieve good quality samples
with minimal disturbance. Unfortunately, our ability
to achieve such samples is limited due to a variety of
2 UNUSUAL GEOMATERIALS factors including the sensitivity of soil structure to
stress relief (e.g. Hight, 1998). In hard bonded soils,
For the purpose of this paper, an unusual geomate- Shelby tubes can only be used if the soil is suffi-
rial will be defined as one that satisfies any one or ciently soft to permit driving, and even in this case
more of the following criteria: rock fragments can obstruct driving or result in a
classical constitutive models do not offer a close sample that experiences considerable disturbance (de
approximation of its true nature; Mello, 1972; Sandroni, 1988). Even block samples,
it is difficult to sample or to be reproduced in which do not suffer from the relatively severe dis-
the laboratory (interpretation is therefore solely turbances effects inherent in tube sampling, can ex-
based on in situ test data); perience considerable destructuration due to stress
very little systematic experience has been gath- relief and exhibit stiffness characteristics that con-
ered and reported; trast with observed field behaviour. In granular ma-
values of parameters are outside the range that terials, tube sampling takes place under drained con-
would be expected for more commonly encoun- ditions and the volumetric and shear strains
tered soils such as sand and clay; produced during sampling are sufficient to com-
the soil state is variable due to complex geo- pletely destructure the sand. The only viable option
logical conditions. for these soils is to freeze the ground prior to sam-
The term unusual employed in this paper can pling. Natural silt and silt sandy soils are also sub-
therefore only be interpreted within the context of jected to unavoidable disturbance. These and other
the currently accepted state-of-the-art; when more geomaterials listed in Table 1 offer great challenge
experience and data are gathered, materials that are to engineering characterization as design is based
now seen as unusual may be in the future regarded primarily on interpretation of in situ test results.
as ordinary. Within this very broad subject area, some specific
The need to focus research efforts on unusual themes have been selected for discussion:
soils and unusual soil conditions is justified by the evaluation of the mechanical properties of natu-
fact that soil mechanics has largely evolved from re- ral soils and some man-made geomaterials from
search on the drained and undrained mechanical be- in situ tests;
haviour of sedimentary clays and the drained re- delineation of soil profiles from in situ meas-
sponse of reconstituted sands. This research has led urements, with emphasis on geophysics and
to the development of a family of complete mathe- penetration tools; the role of hydraulic conduc-
matical models based on the critical state concept tivity in unusual geomaterials;
(Schofield & Wroth, 1968, Bolton, 1986). The evaluation of partial drainage and uncertainties
undrained response of sands has also been the focus introduced to in situ test interpretation;
of much research in recent years, after the recogni-

50 2004 Millpress, Rotterdam, ISBN 90 5966 009 9


Table 1: Unusual soils and their general characteristics.

Geomaterials Features of behaviour


Bonded soils (hard soils, soft Bonding and structure are important components of shear strength
rocks, residual soils) Cohesive-frictional nature (characterized by I and c)
N Anisotropy derived from relic structures of the parent rock
a Structure and fabric may be developed in situ by weathering process
t Very variable fabric and mineralogy
u Destructuration in shear
r Stress-history relatively unimportant
a
l Calcareous sand Primarily a product of biological activities and therefore more suscepti-
ble to post-depositional physical and chemical alterations
s Poorly graded, wide range of particle shapes and sizes
o Carbonate content, crushability, interparticle cementation, index proper-
i ties, stress history, geological processes affect engineering behaviour
l Fairly compressible, their compressibility results from grain-crushing
s and the collapse of grain-structure

Intermediate soils Conditions of drainage are difficult to determine for given loading con-
ditions
Lenses of both finer and coarser materials often encountered
In situ test interpretation methods are related to either sand (drained) or
clay (undrained)

Coarse-grained cemented aged Soils with sufficient high permeability to ensure drained conditions
materials Strength and stiffness higher than fine grained soils
Less likely to be strongly time dependent
Important influence of aging and cementation
Susceptible to erosion and liquefaction

Volcanic soils Characterized by low specific gravity and angular crushable grains
Often high compressibility

Difficult soft soil conditions Peat layers impart considerable spatial variations in water content and
index properties
Organic content has a strong impact on soil fabric and mechanical
properties
Extremely soft and compressible

M Earth-fills and improved Void ratio and structure controlled by the mode of placement and/or by
a ground compaction
n Anisotropy and stress history determined from compaction
- Evaluation of consolidation and settlement in cohesive soils
m Assessment of changes in density in cohesionless soils
a
d Tailings Very stratified and layered, the particle size ranging from coarse rock to
e clay size
Mechanical properties vary with ore type, method of placement, loca-
tion, exposure to evaporation, ageing, among other effects

Waste repositories Rheological effects due to physical and chemical alterations

S Partial saturation Effects of partial consolidation in the soil ahead of an advancing probe
t
a Unsaturated soils Frame of reference is described by four variables net mean stress (p
t ua), deviator stress q, suction s (ua uw)
e Suction measurements and their practical significance on controlling
soil collapsibility and hydraulic conductivity

Proceedings ISC2 on Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterization, Viana da Fonseca & Mayne (eds.) 51
interpretation of in situ tests in coarse grain the ratio of cone resistance and pressuremeter
geomaterials incorporating acknowledged ef- limit pressure (qc/\L);
fects of age and cementation; the association of strength and energy meas-
analysis of the response of cemented materials urements (N60 and energy).
where the threshold yield stress controls soil re- Thereafter, the field investigation methods are
sponse; briefly addressed, together with a critical appraisal
the practical significance of suction measure- on how results can be compiled to obtain a ground
ments in partially saturated soils and their in- model and appropriate geotechnical parameters. The
fluence on testing interpretation and prediction discussion focuses on data from the four most popu-
of soil collapsibility. lar in situ testing techniques: geophysics (for general
To cover these topics, the paper examines data from ground characterization and measurement of the
coarse-grained materials, intermediate soils (includ- small strain stiffness), penetration tools (SPT and
ing natural silty deposits and tailings) and bonded CPT for soil profiling and property assessment) and
geomaterials (including residual soils and carbon- pressuremeter tests (for rational prediction of soil
ated sands), under both saturated and unsaturated properties).
conditions. Space constraints impose a number of
restrictions on this report: the continuum mechanics
approach is assumed as valid in all calculations, 4 GROUND CHARACTERIZATION
rheological effects produced by both physical and
chemical alterations will not be considered, and A ground investigation programme aims to deter-
problematic soils (e.g. peats) that are now covered in mine the ground and groundwater conditions rele-
specific publications (under TC36) will not be ad- vant to a given construction site, profiling and classi-
dressed. Soil improvement techniques are also out- fication of soils being a primary step. Profile
side the scope of the present review. description and geotechnical classification can be
rather complex, difficult to understand and general-
ize and demand a considerable number of trial pits
3 TESTING TECHNIQUES and boreholes to facilitate detailed geological log-
ging (e.g. Clayton et al., 1995). The Unified Soil
Some of the most common in situ tests available for Classification System can only be used provided that
routine investigation are listed in Table 2. Changes shortcomings in relation to unusual geomaterials are
or developments to in situ testing equipment and recognised. For example, drainage conditions during
testing procedures have not been significant in re- penetrometer installation are difficult to establish in
cent years and, for geotechnical applications, engi- intermediate and partially saturated soils.
neers can rely on a variety of commercial tools, In- A geophysical survey is regarded as a powerful
ternational Reference Test Procedures and well technique for subsurface exploration. Despite due
established national codes of practice. Although de- recognition of its risks and limitations, there has
velopment has slowed, some recent exciting trends been a steady increase in the perceived value of geo-
include (a) the combination of different sensors in a physics in representing complicated subsurface con-
single test device (e.g. Mayne, 2001), (b) adaptation ditions involving large spatial variability, stratified
of additional sensors to penetration tools to enhance soils, weathered profiles, among others. In papers
and expand their capabilities for geo-environmental presented to this conference, these complexities are
purposes (e.g. Robertson et al., 1998), (d) use of T- reported many times, as for example, in the paper by
bar and ball penetrometers because of the more pre- Marques et al* (2004) which discusses the strong
dictable nature of the strain paths that they induce to inhomogeneities and erratic weathering grades of the
the soil (e.g. Randolph*, 2004) and (d) changes in Porto Granite weathered profiles.
execution procedures and testing for advanced off- To enhance its consistency, a site investigation
shore engineering (e.g. Van Impe & Van der Broeck, campaign should encompass a combination of geo-
2001; Randolph*, 2004). physical surveys with a mesh of boreholes and/or
This paper attempts to identify the applicability of penetration tests. Among the many forms of in situ
existing techniques for characterisation of unusual penetration tests used worldwide, the two most
soils, a task that necessarily has to cover a critical common penetration tools designed for soil profiling
revision of available empirical and theoretical meth- are the SPT and CPT. Whereas the CPT has proved
ods. In particular, correlations with mechanical to be a very efficient technique in a wide variety of
properties that are based on the combination of materials, the SPT remains one of the few viable op-
measurements from independent tests are explored. tions where very stiff soils and the presence of very
These combinations are: coarse-grained and rocky materials may limit the
the ratio of the small strain elastic stiffness to penetration of hydraulic tools.
ultimate strength (Go/qc, Go/N60);

52 2004 Millpress, Rotterdam, ISBN 90 5966 009 9


Table 2: Commercial in situ testing techniques

Test Designation Measurements Common Applications


Geophysical Tests:
Seismic Refraction SR P-waves from surface Ground characterization
Surface Waves SASW R-waves from surface Small strain stiffness, Go
Crosshole Test
CHT P & S waves in boreholes
Downhole Test
DHT P & S waves with depth

Standard Penetration Test SPT Penetration (N value) Soil profiling


Internal friction angle, I

Cone penetration Test Soil profiling


Electric CPT qc, fs Undrained shear strength, su
Piezocone CPTU qc, fs, u Relative density/internal friction angle, I
Seismic qc, fs, Vp, Vs, (+u)
SCPT Consolidation properties
Resistivity qc, fs, U
RCPT Stiffness (seismic cone)

Pressuremeter Test
Pre-bored PMT G, (\ x H) curve Shear modulus, G
Self-boring SBPMT G, (\ x H) curve Undrained shear strength, su
Push-in PIPPMT G, (\ x H) curve Internal friction angle, I
Full-displacement FDPMT G, (\ x H) curve In situ horizontal stress
Consolidation properties

Flat Dilatometer Test


Pneumatic DMT po, p1 Stiffness
Seismic SDMT po, p1, Vp, Vs Shear strength

Vane Shear Test VST Torque Undrained shear strength, su

Plate loading test PLT (L x G) curve Stiffness and strength

Combined Test Shear modulus, G


Cone pressuremeter CPMT qc, fs, (+u), G, (\ x H) Shear strength

4.1 Cone Penetration Test (CPT) enhances the profiling capability of the CPTU, al-
lowing thin lenses of material to be detected. Addi-
The CPT, with the possible inclusion of pore water tionally, geotechnical site characterization is en-
pressure, shear wave velocity and resistivity meas- hanced by independent seismic measurements,
urements is now recognized worldwide as an estab- adding the downhole shear wave velocity (Vs) to the
lished, routine and cost-effective tool for site charac- measured tip cone resistance (qt), sleeve friction (fs)
terization and stratigraphic profiling, and a means by and pore water pressure (u). The combination of dif-
which the mechanical properties of the subsurface ferent measurements into a single sounding provides
strata may by assessed. CPTs were particularly a particular powerful means of assessing the charac-
popular in sands and in marine and lacustrine sedi- teristics of unusual materials.
ments in costal regions, but are now also commonly Profiling and soil classification are fairly well-
used in peats, silt, residual soils, a variety of hard established practices, but there is still a need for
materials (chalk, cemented sands) and reclaimed careful planning to ensure that the required informa-
land formed by hydraulic fills, dredgings and mine tion is obtained. Two examples are presented here as
tailings. For a general review on the subject the a reminder of the different aspects of site characteri-
reader is encouraged to refer to Lunne et al. (1997) zation that are achieved by pore pressure measure-
CPT in Geotechnical Practice, and the Proceedings ment.
of the International Symposia on Penetration Testing The first case study, extracted from a paper sub-
(1988; 1998). mitted to the present conference by Costa Filho* et
Routine penetrometers have employed either one al. (2004), in collaboration with the first author, re-
midface element for pore water pressure measure- lates to a gold tailing deposit. Figure 1 shows a typi-
ment (designated as u1) or an element positioned just cal CPT profile representative of the deposit ob-
behind the cone tip (shoulder, u2). The ability to tained for underflow conditions. The differences in
measure pore pressure during penetration greatly the waste characteristics (ore type, mine processing,

Proceedings ISC2 on Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterization, Viana da Fonseca & Mayne (eds.) 53
qt (kPa)
qc [kPa] qtqt,, U,u,uou[kPa]
o
(kPa) fs (kPa)
fs [kPa] Bq Bq RRff(%)
[%] qt (MPa) fs (kPa) u2 (kPa) Vs (m/s)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 100 200 300 5 10 15 20 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 2 4 6 8 0 100 200 300 -100 0 100 200 0 200 400
0 0 0 0 0

-1
2 2 2 2
-2

-3
4 4 4 4

Depth BGS (m)


-4

-5
6 6 6 6
Depth (m)

-6
Profundidade [m]

-7
8 8 8 8
-8

-9
10 10 10 uo 10
-10

-11
12 12 12 12
-12
SCPTu
-13 SDMT
Crosshole
-14 SASW
-15
+ dissipation tests
-16 Figure 3. Piezocone penetration in a residual soil at the Opelika
Test Site, USA (Schneider et al, 1999)
Figure 1. CPT probes obtained for underflow gold tailings
of pore pressure, in this case, reveal a particular un-
mineralogy) as well as the placement process during usual characateristic of the in situ material. Accord-
disposal tend to affect the geomechanical behaviour ing to Sowers (1994) the Piedmont residuum has
of tailings and produce a highly stratified and lay- relic features and qualities of the parent rock, includ-
ered profile. Classification charts presented in Figure ing remnant bonding of the intact rock itself, as well
2 illustrate the considerable dispersion in material as discontinuities and fissures of the rock mass. It is
type indicated by pore pressure measurements. As likely that the shoulder u2 reading is negative (and
later discussed in section 6, pore pressure measure- limited to 100 kPa because of cavitation of the sen-
ments are paramount for the evaluation of partial sor fluid) as it primarily reflects shear induced pore
drainage during penetration in intermediate soils and pressures related to the remnant discontinuities
therefore for the assessment of representative soil within the deposit.
parameters. The result is that for silts, pore water Bearing in mind that soil classification using
pressure measurements do not reflect undrained CPTU data is indirect and relies entirely on empiri-
conditions at a standard penetration rate and soil cal charts developed for interpretation of strata, u2
classification from qt versus u (or Bq) charts may be- measurements cannot always be considered useful to
come unreliable. ensure a proper soil classification in unusual geoma-
The second case is reported by Schneider et al. terials. Since classification charts should rely on at
(1999) in a residual deposit. This Piedmont test site least two independent measurements, in the absence
in the USA is composed of silty to sandy residual of pore pressure measurements, it is suggested that
soils grading eventually to partially-weathered schist qc should be compared with the small strain stiffness
and gneiss. The water table lies 3 m below ground Go. The Go/qc ratio provides a measure of the ratio of
level under an unsaturated crust that is thought to re- the elastic stiffness to ultimate strength and may
sult from groundwater fluctuations. A representative therefore be expected to increase with sand age and
piezocone profile is represented in Figure 3, which cementation, primarily because the effect of these on
indicates a profile with increasing tip resistance and Go is stronger than on qc. For sands, work reported
relatively constant sleeve friction and shear wave ve- by Bellotti et al. (1989), Rix & Stokes (1992),
locity with depth. Of particular interest are the nega- Lunne et al. (1997) and Fahey et al. (2003) provides
tive pore water pressure measurements at the shoul- some new insights by correlating Go/qc versus qc1,
der filter exhibiting a value of u2 | 100 kPa where qc1 is defined as:
recorded throughout the 15m depth. Measurements q p
qc1 = c a (1)
100
100
10
1. Sensitive fine grained
2.21 Fino sensitivo
Organic
Org nico
3.3 Argila
soils - peats
Clays - clay to silty clay
1000
1000 2 Solo org nico - turfa
3 Argila - argila ou argila siltosa
pa Vcv
4 Silte argiloso - argila siltosa
4.4 Argila
Silt mixtures: clayey silt-silty clay
- argila siltosa
5 Areia siltosa - silte arenoso
9
5.5 Argila
Sand siltosa - siltesilty
mixtures: argiloso
6 Silte arenoso - silte argiloso
6.7 Silte
Sands
sand-sandy silt
- clean sand to silty sand
arenoso - areia siltosa
6 Areia limpa - areia siltosa
6
and where pa is the atmospheric pressure (note that
8 7.8 Areia
Gravelly sand to sand 6
10
10
7
8.9 Areia
9.10Very
- areia

Areiastiff
siltosa
Very stiff sand to clayey sand
c/cascalho - areia
fine grained
100
100 55
the normalized parameter qc1 is dimensionless).
11 Finos muito rijos (cimentados)
6
6
12 Areia - areia argilosa (cimentados) Re
NC
g Once profiles of qc and Go are determined, these
q t [MPa]

i o
qt(MPa)

55 4
NA 4
Qt (1-Bq)
Q*

4
4
3
values can be used directly to evaluate the possible
33

11 0.00 a 6.00 m
6.00 a 8.00 m
10 effects of stress history, degree of cementation and
8.00 a 14.00 m
ageing for a given profile, as already recognised by
1 Solos colaps veis

1
1
1
(sensitivos)
2
Eslaamizaad & Robertson (1997). Data points are
0
22 1
1
10.0
shown in Figure 4 for CPT tests carried out in resid-
0.10 1.0
1.00 10.00
-0.20 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40
F [%] ual soils (artificially cemented Monterey soils also
BBq F(%)
q
included). Since residual soils always exhibit some
Figure 2. Soil classification chart (Robertson, 1990) bond structure, the data fall outside and above the

54 2004 Millpress, Rotterdam, ISBN 90 5966 009 9


Monterey: 1% cemented Monterey: 2% cemented 1000
Hydraulic sand fill
Porto Alegre, Brazil Sao Paulo, Brazil
Upper bound
Spring Villa, USA Opelika, USA Spearwood dune sand
Guarda, Portugal Porto, Portugal (cemented geomaterials)
Safety bay (calcareous)
1000 Lower bound sand

Ratio Go/qc
100 (cemented geomaterials) Upper Guildford Sand
Upper bound (cemented geomaterials )
Lower Guildford sand

Lower bound (cemented geomaterials)

100
Ratio Go/qc

10
Unaged
uncemented sands

1
10 10 100 1000
Unaged
uncemented sands Normalized qc1

Figure 5. Relationship between Go and qc for Perth sands, Aus-


1 tralia

10 100 1000 sand but prior to the deposition of Guildford


Normalized qc1 clay which underlies the upper sand.
Figure 4 Relationship between Go and qc for residual soils
The Go/qc ratios for these Perth sands are plotted
against corresponding qc1 values on Figure 5, where
band proposed by Eslaamizaad & Robertson as indi- qc1 may be considered approximately proportional to
cated in the figure. the sand relative density. A relatively clear trend for
The variation of Go with qc observed in the range Go/qc ratios at a given qc1 value to increase with age
of sand deposits by Robertson (1997) was expressed is evident. For example, Go/qc ratios in the lower
by upper and lower bounds. The upper bound for Guildford sand are typically about five times higher
uncemented material can be assumed as a lower than those recorded in the hydraulic fill. It is also
bound for cemented soils and a tentative new upper apparent that the relatively young calcareous sand in
bound for cemented materials can be expressed as: this database indicates Go/qc ratios which are as high
as those of the much older Guildford siliceous sands.
G0 = 800 3 qc Vcv pa upper bound : cemented This is presumably because of the likelihood of
stronger cementation effects in calcareous sands.
G0 = 280 3 qc Vcv pa lower bound : cemented The scatter in Figures 4 and 5 is thought to be
(2)
upper bound : uncemented principally a result of the influence of the horizontal
stress on both initial stiffness and tip cone resistance.
G0 = 110 3 qc Vcv pa lower bound uncemented Calibration chamber data in sand have clearly shown
that, for a given density, cone resistance depends
An examination of the potential of employing a
primarily on the in situ horizontal stress and there-
Go/qc ratio to assess such structural effects is made
fore Vho must be accounted for in a rational inter-
in the following using in-situ data obtained in a vari-
pretation of field tests (Schnaid & Houlsby, 1992).
ety of sand types in Perth, Australia. The stratigra-
Equation 2 should ideally be referred to horizontal
phy in the Perth area includes the following sand de-
stress or mean in situ stress rather than to vertical
posits, which are listed in order of increasing age:
stress. The preference for Vvo is justified by the im-
Siliceous sand fill placed hydraulically for rec- possibility of determining with reasonable accuracy
lamation works in the 1950s and 1960s; the value of the horizontal stress in most natural de-
Safety Bay Sand, which was deposited under posits, because they have undergone complex stress
littoral and aeolian conditions in the mid- history, cementation and aging effects that are diffi-
Holocene; this sand contains many shells and cult to reconstruct.
has a calcium carbonate content in excess of
50%; 4.2 Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
Spearwood dune sand which was laid down in
the late Pleistocene as a limestone but was sub- The SPT is the most widely used in situ testing tech-
sequently leached of virtually all its calcium nique, primarily because of its simplicity, robustness
carbonate content; and its ability to cope with difficult ground condi-
Alluvial Upper Guildford (siliceous) sand, tions in addition to providing disturbed soil samples.
which was laid down by streams flowing from A comprehensive review of procedures and applica-
the pre-Cambrian Darling Ranges to the east of tions of the SPT is given by Decourt et al. (1988)
Perth during the early Pleistocene; and Clayton (1993). There is a range of types of SPT
Lower Guildford (siliceous) sand, which was apparatus in use around the world (e.g. those em-
formed in the same way as the Upper Guildford ploying manual and automatic trip hammers) and,

Proceedings ISC2 on Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterization, Viana da Fonseca & Mayne (eds.) 55
consequently, variable energy losses cannot be Moema, SP, Brazil" Bela Vista, SP, Brazil Vila madalena, SP, Brazil
Paraizo, SP, Brazil Bauru, Brazil Sao Carlos, Brazil
avoided. Variability due to unknown values of en- Campinas, Brazil
Sao Carlos, Brazil
Caximbu, SP, Brazil
Campinas, Brzail
Brookling, SP, Brazil
Porto Alegre, Brazil
ergy delivered to the SPT rod system can now be 1000
Guarda, Portugal Porto, Portugal

properly accounted for by standardizing the meas- Upper bound

Ratio (Go/pa)/N60
ured N value to a reference value of 60% of the po- (cemented geomaterials )
tential energy of the SPT hammer (N60), as sug-
gested by Skempton (1986). In many countries, 100
however, this recommendation has not been incorpo- Unaged
uncemented sands
rated into engineering practice. Moreover, even an Lower bound
SPT N value normalized to a given reference energy (cemented geomaterials)
is not standard because of the presently contentious 10
issue of the influence of the length of the rod string; 1 10 100
this effect is discussed later in this paper. Normalized (N1)60
As for the CPT, SPT N values can also be com-
bined with seismic measurements of Go to assist in Figure 6. Correlation between Go and N60 for residual soils
the assessment of the presence of a deposits bond- (Schnaid, 1997).
ing structure and its variation with depth. Such a
combination is provided on Figure 6, which plots This gives to the soil a peculiar relic structure where
Go/N60 vs (N1)60 in residual soils (Barros, 1997; the soil grains are well arranged and orientated (e.g.
Schnaid, 1997), where (N1)60 = N60 (pa/vo)0.5 and is Novais & Ferreira, 1985; Vaughan, 1985). The small
analogous to qc1 on Figures 4 and 5. The bond struc- strain stiffness to strength ratio embodied within the
ture is seen to have a marked effect on the behaviour Go/N60 term is seen on Figure 6, at a given (N1)60 (or
of residual soils, producing values of normalised relative density), to be generally appreciably higher
stiffness (Go/N60) that are considerably higher than for lateritic soils than that of the saprolites, primarily
those observed in fresh cohesionless materials. A because the latter generally exhibit higher N60 (or
guideline formulation to compute Go from SPT tests strength) values.
is given by the following equations: It follows from the foregoing that a bonded/
cemented structure produces Go/qc and Go/N60 ratios
(G0 pa )
= DN 60
pa
or
(G0 pa )
= D( N1 )60 (3)
that are systematically higher than those measured in
N 60 Vcvo N 60 cohesionless soils. These ratios therefore provide a
useful means of assisting site characterization.
where D is a dimensionless number that depends on
the level of cementation and age as well as the soil
compressibility and suction. The variation of Go with 5 SOIL STIFFNESS
N can also be expressed by upper and lower bounda-
ries, similarly to the cone penetration data: Soil stiffness depends upon complex interactions of
state (bonding, fabric, degree of cementation, stress
G0 = 1200 3 N 60Vcv p upper bound : cemented
2
a level), strain level (and effects of destructuration),

stress history and stress path, time dependent effects
G0 = 450 3 N 60Vcv pa2 lower bound : cemented (aging and creep) and type of loading (monotonic or
(4)
upper bound : uncemented dynamic). Whereas the initial shear modulus Go is
considered to be a fundamental soil property, a
G0 = 200 3 N 60Vcv pa2 lower bound uncemented knowledge of the non-linear and inelastic stress-
strain response of geomaterials is now fully recog-
The process of in situ weathering of parent rocks nized as being critical to the prediction of ground
(which creates residual soils) gives rise to a profile movements. Comprehensive reviews of this topic are
containing material ranging from intact rocks to reported at the International Conferences of Pre-
completely weathered soils. Rock degradation gen- failure Deformation Behaviour of Geomaterials in
erally progresses from the surface and therefore 1995, 1997, 1999 and 2003 and only a short descrip-
there is normally a gradation of properties with no tion of the main features relevant to in situ testing
sharp boundaries within the profile. Lateritic and interpretation is provided in the following:
saprolitic residual soils are distinguished on Figure 6 Soils display non-linear stress strain behaviour
because of their different geological history. Lat- that can be broadly characterized by the linear
eritic soils are formed under hot and humid condi- threshold strain, HY1, the strain marking the limit
tions involving a high permeability profile which of- to recoverable behaviour HY2 and the strain de-
ten results in a bond structure with high contents of noting the onset of large scale yielding, HY3 (Jar-
oxides and hydroxides of iron and aluminium. In dine, 1985; Tatsuoka et al., 1997).
saprolitic profiles the original disposition of the de- At very small strains, within the limit state
composed crystals of the parent rock is retained. curve defined by HY1, soils are believed to be-

56 2004 Millpress, Rotterdam, ISBN 90 5966 009 9


have as elastic materials represented by the ini- In the preceding section, the variation of Go with
tial elastic stiffness Go. The magnitude of Go is qc and Go with N60 observed for residual soils and
preferably measured using seismic field tests, or natural sands was summarised in Figures 4 and 5.
alternatively using laboratory bender elements Equations 2 and 4 can match the range of recorded
or resonant column tests. Go values and despite the fact that these equations
For clean sands, the effects on initial stiffness of have originally been proposed to distinguish ce-
strain rate and stress history have been found to mented and uncemented soils, it is likely that practi-
be insignificant. For carbonate and crushable tioners may be tempted to employ them to estimate
sands, the effects of over-consolidation are more Go. In the absence of direct measurements of shear
pronounced (Tatsuoka et al., 1997). In clays, Go wave velocities, the proposed lower bounds are
depends on mean effective stress, void ratio and recommended for a preliminary evaluation of the
OCR (e.g. Hardin & Drnevich, 1972; Jami- small strain stiffness from qc or N60:
olkowski et al., 1995a).
Whilst in reconstituted soils the shear behaviour G0 = 2803 qc Vcv pa
is controlled solely by a combination of deviator lower bound, cemented
G0 = 4503 N 60Vcv pa2 2, 4
stress, mean effective stress and specific volume
(and as a consequence the shear stiffness at any
strain is expressed as a function of their current G0 = 110 qc Vv pa
3 c (bis)
lower bound, uncemented
state), natural soils exhibit a structural behav- G0 = 200 3 N 60Vcv pa2
iour that does not conform with the framework
developed for reconstituted materials (Burland,
1990; Leroueil & Vaughan, 1990). These equations predict values of Go that are not far
In strongly bonded materials, the zone of elastic from previously published relationships developed
behaviour is also enlarged (e.g. Tatsuoka et al., for sands (Baldi et al., 1996; Rix & Stoke, 1992;
1997; Matthews et al., 2000; Cuccovillo & Jamiolkowski et al., 1995b). However the effect of
Coop, 1999) and the value of Go becomes par-
natural cementation and ageing is quantified here
ticularly important as a bench-mark for engi-
neering applications. and is shown to produce a marked increase in both
Stiffness anisotropy (inherent and stress in- Go/qc and Go/N60 ratios. Given the considerable scat-
duced) is a common feature of geomaterials, ter observed for different soils, correlations such as
over a wide range of strains (e.g. Tatsuoka & given in equations (2) and (4) are only approximate
Shibuya, 1991; Belloti et al., 1996; Hight et al., indicators of Go and do not replace the need for in
1997; Jardine et al., 1995). However, stiffness situ shear wave velocity measurements.
anisotropy of residual soils and other unusual Whereas Go represents the small-strain stiffness,
geomaterials is not presently well understood. the non-linear stiffness characteristics of both
Small-strain shear stiffness is determined in situ usual and non-usual soils have a major influence
from the shear wave velocity measured in conven- on the performance of geotechnical structures. How-
tional cased boreholes using crosshole (CHT) and ever, as it is rarely possible to obtain good quality
downhole (DHT) techniques, or with surface tech- intact samples of unusual soils to study these char-
niques such as spectral analysis of surface waves acteristics in the laboratory, in situ testing should of-
(SASW), seismic refraction (SR) and reflection sur- fer a means for their evaluation. Most of our com-
veys. Particularly attractive are the downhole meth- mon in situ test profiling devices, such as the CPT
ods of SCPT and SDMT obtained from the piezo- and SPT, cannot fulfil this requirement and conse-
cone and dilatometer, respectively, as well as the quently practitioners continue to employ single
combination of velocity measurements with the SPT. site/soil specific operational stiffness values that are
Propagation velocity should preferably be computed derived from linear elastic backanalyses of full scale
from the measured difference in travel times be- foundation performance in local soil conditions.
tween two geophones mounted in the penetration The ever-increasing popularity of the shear wave
tools, to avoid problems with trigger delays and un- velocity and hence Go measurement is encouraging,
certainties on travelling paths. The CHT and DHT but, in its own right, is of limited value because gov-
techniques enable the velocity of horizontally erning strain levels in the vicinity of geotechnical
propagating, vertically polarized (Shv), vertically structures are small-intermediate and far greater
propagating, horizontally polarized (Svh) and hori- than the very small strain pertaining to seismic
zontally propagating, horizontally polarized (Shh) measurements. The pressuremeter and plate load
shear waves to be measured. Information of the ani- tests are currently the only in situ tests that can pro-
sotropy of small strain stiffness from these seismic vide a measure of the in situ non-linear stiffness of
measurements is becoming more readily available. soils. These tests do not, however, measure an ele-
An example of Svh records in an SCPT carried out in ment stiffness and reliable interpretation of (non-
a residual soil has been previously given in Figure 4.

Proceedings ISC2 on Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterization, Viana da Fonseca & Mayne (eds.) 57
1000 comparable to that of the uncemented sand at axial
strains in excess of 0.4%.
The data on Figure 7 and the simplified non-
linear settlement prediction method proposed by Le-
hane & Fahey (2002) were employed to predict the
applied stress (qapp)-settlement (s) response of a
E o (MPa)

300mm diameter (D) plate on the Perth sands. This


method incorporates the strain and stress level de-
Trend for un- pendence of stiffness in a computer program, and al-
cemented sand though it does not model plastic flow and assumes a
Boussinesq stress distribution, it has been shown to
V'v y for
be a reliable predictive tool at typical working set-
tlements (i.e. s/D <2%). Parameters to match the
cemented sand
stiffness characteristics shown on Figure 7 were de-
rived using the procedures described in Lehane &
100
10 100 1000
Fahey (2002). The predictions assumed that the
stiffness of the cemented and uncemented sands
Vertical effective stress, V' v (kPa) were identical at initial effective stress levels in ex-
(a)
cess of vy (=100 kPa).
400
Yield strain = The qapp-s/D predictions are shown on Figure 8. It
350 (V' vy -V'vi)/Eo is apparent that, despite the significant differences in
stiffness seen on Figure 7b, the curves are almost
300 linear and not dissimilar. It appears that the increase
in Eo with stress level in the un-cemented sand al-
250
Esec (MPa)

most compensates for its much lower Eo value at the


200 beginning of loading. Significant softening that may
be expected on inspection of Figure 7b when the ap-
150 plied stresses exceeded vy is also not apparent for
the same reason. This latter observation is consistent
100
V'vi = 20 kPa with that observed by Viana da Fonseca et al. (1997)
50 V'hi =10 kPa
in a footing test on a cemented saprolitic soil, and it
would appear that backanalysis of PLTs under
0 drained conditions can lead to the inference of a
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
range of markedly different non-linear stiffness
Axial strain (%) characteristics. Clearly, PLT interpretation would
(b)
benefit from unload-reload loops.
Figure 7. Typical variations on the small strain Youngs The non-linear behaviour of soils can be also es-
modulus
timated from the measured pressure-expansion curve
linear) elemental stiffness characteristics relies on an
appropriate numerical backanalysis method coupled 1400
with a realistic soil constitutive model incorporating
Cemented
representative parameters. 1200
sand
The Plate Load Test (PLT) can provide a good es-
Applied stress (kPa)

timate of an average operational stiffness for use in 1000


shallow foundation design. However, as shown by
the following example, interpretation of non-linear 800
stiffness soil properties from a drained PLT is more Uncemented
problematic. Typical (simplified) variations of the 600 sand
very small strain Youngs modulus, Eo (inferred
from shear wave velocities with a Poissons ratio of 400
0.1) of uncemented and cemented Perth sand are
Plate load test (300mm plate)
shown on Figure 7a, while Figure 7b shows the ex- 200
V'vi=20 kPa, V'hi =10 kPa
pected variation in triaxial compression of the secant
Youngs modulus (Esec) with initial vertical and hori- 0
zontal effective stresses (vi and hi) of 20 kPa and 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
10 kPa respectively. The Esec value of the cemented
sand is seen to reduce from a high initial value (Eo) s/D (%)
of 350 MPa, which prevails until a presumed yield Figure 8. Calculated stress (qapp)-settlement (s) response of a
stress (vy) of 100 kPa is exceeded, to a stiffness 300mm diameter (D) plate on the Perth sands

58 2004 Millpress, Rotterdam, ISBN 90 5966 009 9


and particularly from the information extracted from 1

small unload-reload cycles (Fahey, 1998; Whittle, 0.9


g=0.2
1999). Regardless of the method adopted for model- g=2
ling the non-linear response of the pressuremeter, 0.8

Cavity pressure (MPa)


there is always an uncertainty that cannot be solved. 0.7
The strains undergone by soil elements at different
0.6
distances from the pressuremeter probe vary
strongly with radius and therefore an arbitrary 0.5
choice of a representative value of shear strain (J)
0.4
has to be chosen from a range of representative val-
ues. 0.3
A finite element analysis of the pressuremeter
0.2
tests in sand using the non-linear elastic model pro-
posed by Fahey and Carter (1993) was adopted to 0.1
produce a set of results similar to those of the PLT.
0
The analysis employed a modified hyperbolic-type 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
expression for shear stiffness: Cavity strain (%)
g 0.01
G W
= 1 f

Change in cavity pressure (MPa)


(5)
G0 W max -0.01

where f controls the strain to peak strength (Wmax) and -0.03

g determines the shape of the degradation curve as a


-0.05
function of mobilised stress level (W). Two soils were
examined: an uncemented sand represented by -0.07
f=0.85 and g=0.2, and a cemented sand with the
same f value but with g =2.0; a Go value of 150 MPa -0.09
at an initial mean effective stress of 100 kPa was as- g=0.2
g=2
sumed for both materials. The resulting G/Go versus -0.11

shear strain (J) curves shown in Figure 9 demon-


-0.13
strates that g=2 gives high Go values until just after
0.01% strain. These two values of g yielded different -0.15
SBP curves and unloadreload cycles, as illustrated -0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1

in Figure 10. The expansion curve up to a cavity Change in cavity strain (%)
strain of 0.6% gives a direct comparison with the
Figure 10. Calculated pressure-expansion curves from non-
plate test. A 35% difference in stiffness was meas- linear model and unload-reload cycles.
ured by the pressuremeter, which is a little higher
than the difference predicted for the PLT. Soil ele- It appears that unload-reload loops are good indica-
ments in the vicinity of the pressuremeter are subject tors of in situ small strain stiffness and are therefore
to shear and experience some minor increase in an essential component of SBPTs to improve the ac-
mean stress due to non-linearity, which may explain curacy of inverse modelling to derive soil stiffness
its slightly higher sensitivity to variations in stiff- parameters. Indeed, Fahey (1998) has suggested that
ness. As for the PLT, there is no clear sign of yield. combining seismic Go measurements and SBP tests
1.2 incorporating multiple unload-reload loops is cur-
rently the only accurate method of obtaining non-
1 linear stiffness parameters from in situ tests.
Comparisons between field and laboratory non-
0.8 linear characteristics of some unusual soils have
been extensively reported in recent publications (e.g.
G/Go

0.6 Schneider et al., 1999; Schnaid, 1997; Ng and


f = 0.85; g = 0.2 Wang, 2001). Despite its limitations, the pressure-
0.4 f = 0.85; g = 1 meter has been able to describe trends of behaviour
f = 0.85; g = 0.6
f = 0.85; g = 1.5
of Go/G versus J curves. Discrepancies between field
0.2
f = 0.85; g = 2 and laboratory results are attributed to differences in
loading and boundary conditions, anisotropy and
0 sampling disturbance. However, it is clear from the
1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00
foregoing analyses that great care should be exer-
Shear strain J (%) cised in back-figuring in situ stiffness non-linearity.
Figure 9. Typical variations on the small strain shear modulus

Proceedings ISC2 on Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterization, Viana da Fonseca & Mayne (eds.) 59
5.1 Combining data from various in-situ tests backfigured from footings in Perth sand and Lehane
& Fahey* (2004) show that a refinement of the
Fahey et al. (2003) and Lehane & Fahey* (2004) de-
method describes the non-linear response to load of
scribe an approximate means of assessing stiffness the Texas experimental footings on sand reported by
non-linearity by combining Go measurements with Briaud & Gibbens (1994), even if only Vs and DMT
trends indicated in SBPTs and DMTs. The approach, data are available.
which was developed for Perth sands using a rela-
tively large database of in situ test results in Perth,
had the following features: 6 PARTIAL DRAINAGE AND UNDRAINED
Correlations such as those given in equation (2) SHEAR STREGTH
and (4) were derived for sands of various ages
and converted to equivalent Eo values assuming The assessment of the flow and consolidation char-
a Poissons ratio of 0.1. acteristics of unusual materials is a crucial first step
Dilatometer ED data were found to vary in a in design. Many of the unusual soils referred to in
similar way with qc and Vv to the Go data but Table 1 exhibit a complex macro and micro structure
indicated a relatively low sensitivity to sand age and may have very scattered grain/aggregate size
and stress history. Best-fit correlations indicated distribution, and variations in mineralogy and clay
Eo/ED ratios of 11 3 and 7 2 for overconsoli- content. These features have a dominant effect on
dated and normally consolidated sands respec- soil permeability and hence on in situ behaviour at
tively. Lehane & Fahey (2004) indicate that, as given loading rates.
a consequence of a number of compensatory First consider the hydraulic conductivity of resid-
factors, ED values approximate to about 70% of ual soils, where excellent reviews have been pub-
the in situ vertical operational stiffness at s/D lished by Deere & Patton (1971), Costa Filho &
=1.8%. Vargas (1985), Garga & Blight (1997). The perme-
Gur values measured using the procedure sug- ability of residual soils is controlled to a large extent
gested by Fahey & Carter (1993) were found to by the relic structure of the parent rock. Typical val-
be typically 0.40 0.05 of Go at cavity strains of ues of permeability measured both in the laboratory
0.1%. and in the field are given in Figure 12, but generali-
Correlations proposed by Baldi et al. (1989) for zation for various types of residual soils can be mis-
the Youngs modulus of a sand measured in tri- leading and must therefore be avoided. Clearly,
axial compression at an axial strain of 0.1% many residual soils are of medium to high perme-
were converted to a format similar to that of ability, particularly young saprolite strata due to the
equation (2); these correlations were shown to presence of sandy and silty grains aggregated in
predict average ratios of Eo to operational stiff- large pore sizes and the highly fractured structure
ness of 5 for both normally and overconsoli- inherited from the matrix rock.
dated sand. In residual soils, relationships between hydraulic
These features are then combined in Figure 11, with conductivity (k) and void ratio (or porosity) should
due acknowledgement to the strain levels induced in be treated with great caution because of the well
each test, to provide the practitioner with an ap- known effects of scale effects on permeability meas-
proximate means of deriving a strain dependent urement e.g. see Garga & Blight (1997).
Youngs modulus (Eeq) operational at a vertical Assessed values of k in other unusual soils also
stress level of v. Fahey et al. (2003) show that this often show enormous variability. Calcareous materi-
approach provides a good estimate of stiffnesses als encompass a wide range of soil and rock types
1400
and may vary from well-cemented limestone to
Estimated from Vs Overconsolidated aged sand moderately cemented and lightly cemented sands
1200 Normally consolidated aged sand and silts to completely uncemented calcareous muds
(Fahey, 1997). Natural silty deposits or tailing mate-
)0.333

1000
rials are often of intermediate permeability with k
.V .p 0.333
cc V'v pvatm )a

800
Estimated from
pressuremeter
values within the range in which partial drainage is
Estimated from
DMT likely to occur during CPTs and SPTs. For soils with
600
k in the range of 10-5 to 10-8 m/s, the simplest ac-
eq/(q
EeqE/(q

Estimated from
Baldi et al.
400
1989 cepted approach of a broad distinction between
drained (gravel and sand) and undrained (clay) con-
200 ditions cannot be applied to the interpretation of in
situ tests without a great deal of uncertainty.
0
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 Assessment of the possible effects of partial
Movement/foundation width, s/B (%)
Movement/foundation width, s/D (%) drainage is essential and, at present, it seems far
from being satisfactorily solved. There are a number
Figure 11. Proposed degradation curve for Eeq

60 2004 Millpress, Rotterdam, ISBN 90 5966 009 9


Figure 12. Tentative values of saturated permeability for residual soils (database from Costa Filho & Vargas Jr, 1985; Garga &
Blight, 1997; Leong et al, 2003; Viana da Fonseca, 2003; Schnaid et al, 2004)

of important questions to be addressed before deriv- fully undrained conditions. Their analyses ap-
ing the undrained strength for soils, such as: pear to suggest that penetration is fully undrain-
how is partial drainage avoided during penetra- ed for values of Bq greater than 0.5.
tion? If it happens, how is it recognized and House et al. (2001) showed that the degree of
what are the possible consequences on the de- partial consolidation can be expressed as a func-
rived su values? tion of the rate of penetration v, probe diameter,
how are in situ test results normalised in a sen- d, and coefficient of consolidation cv, expressed
sible way for engineering applications? in non-dimensional form as V= vd/cv. Penetra-
Field vane tests provide a direct measure of the su in tion tests conducted using kaolin in a centrifuge
clay for the particular mode of shearing imposed. have suggested a rather sharper transition be-
However, in practice, the following criteria need to tween drained and undrained conditions. Ap-
be satisfied: (a) the soil must be weak enough to fa- proximate limits of V < 0.2 for drained condi-
cilitate insertion and rotation of the vane blades tions and V > 20 for undrained conditions are
without damage, (b) the standard rate of rotation suggested as qualitative boundaries.
should be fast enough to avoid the possibility of par- Despite the fact that Hight's approach is expressed in
tial drainage and (c) the effects of disturbance, test- terms of the normalized parameter (qt-Vvo)/ Vvo, a
ing rate, progressive failure and stress history can be small adaptation to the original method is recom-
accounted for. These criteria cannot be satisfied, mended here by examining trends of Bq with the ra-
even approximately, for soils containing a signifi- tio of undrained strength (or directly to OCR) and to
cant quantity of silt, sands, shell, intact organic mat- couple this analysis to the non-dimensionalised ve-
ter and sulphides (Bergdahl et al., 2003). Vane tests locity V. This adjustment facilitates engineering
are, nonetheless, frequently performed in materials judgment when analyzing CPTU penetration data
other than clay. and is in line with the view that the identification of
Difficulties in the interpretation of in situ test complex patterns of behaviour may be assisted by
measurements when the penetration mode changes combining sets of independent measurements.
from drained to partially drained to undrained re- Ladd et al. (1977) proposed the following empiri-
quires continuous monitoring of pore pressures cal equations based on the concepts of critical state
throughout the test. The CPTU thus becomes a natu- soil mechanics:
ral choice to assess the likely drainage conditions. It
( su / Vcvo ) oc
is largely accepted that under a standard rate of = (OCR ) 0.8 (6)
penetration (20mm/s), undrained response will occur ( su / Vcvo ) nc
if the permeability of the soil is less than about 10-7
m/s. Two approaches offer guidelines for evaluating and
drained conditions during penetration in intermedi- su
ate soils having permeabilities between 10-6 to 10-3 = 0.2 to 0.3 (7)
Vcvy
m/s:
Hight et al. (1994) found that a relationship be- A normally consolidated Cam Clay type of soil
tween Bq, (qt-Vvo)/Vvo and clay content could be should yield a ratio su/Vvy = su/Vvo of between 0.25
a useful approach for interpreting results under to 0.30 depending on shearing mode. Deviation from

Proceedings ISC2 on Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterization, Viana da Fonseca & Mayne (eds.) 61
this pattern is related to (a) overconsolidation, (b) Normalized undrained Normalized cone
partial drainage or (c) a characteristic behaviour of strength, Su/Vvo resitance, Qt
silty soils that does not fully comply with Cam Clay 3 40

models. Separating out these effects is not a straight- 2.5 Mainly


Undrained:
35

Partial drainage Undrained:


forward task, though. 2 Silty soils
Clay soils
30

Stiffness and strength characteristics of materials 20<V< 50 V> 200


25

containing fine and coarse particles have been inves- 1.5 20

tigated by Hight et al. (1994), Lehane & Faulkner 1


Su/Vvo= 0.3 to 0.4
Su/Vvo= 0.25 to 0.3
15

(1998), Zdravkovic & Jardine (2000), among others. 0.5


10

The response in undrained triaxial compression of 5

0 0
low OCR silts shows a reduction in mean effective -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

stress (p), typical of a lightly overconsolidated clay, Pore pressure parameter, Bq


followed by a significant increase in p as failure ap- Figure 13: Drainage conditions on a normally consolidated
proaches. This tendency for dilation at large strains silty deposit.
leads to the mobilisation of large undrained shear
strength ratios. For example, Lehane & Faulkner Normalized undrained Normalized cone
strength, Su/Vvo resitance,QtQt
(1998) measured su/Vvy ratios of 0.45 0.05 for re- Su/Vvo
3.000 40.00

constituted glacial till. Partial Mainly


Mainly Undrained:
Undrained: 35.00
Partial drainage Undrained:
Undrained:
CPTU data for a natural silty deposit and a tail- 2.500
drainage
Silty soils
Silty soils
Clay soils
Clay soils
30.00

ings deposit from a gold mine are presented on Fig- 2.000


20<V< 50
20<V< 50 V> 200
V> 200
25.00

ures 13 and 14 in terms of the variation of the


Su/Sig v

1.500 20.00

undrained strength ratio and the normalized cone re- Su/VSvo


/V== 0.3 to 0.4
0.3 to 0.4
u vo
15.00

sistance with the pore pressure parameter, Bq. Both 1.000


Su/VvoS=/V 0.25
u = 0.25 toto
vo 0.30.3

deposits are essentially normally consolidated1 with


10.00

0.500

a cv value in the range 0.01 to 0.2 cm2/s, a cone fac-


5.00

0.000 0.00
tor, Nkt, of 15 was assumed to convert the CPT end -0.10 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30
Bq
0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80

resistance to undrained strength (e.g. Lunne et al., Pore pressureBparameter,


q Bq
1997). Figure 14: Drainage conditions on a silt gold tailing (data from
It is evident that, for both deposits considered, the Costa Filho et al*, 2004).
su/Vvo ratio reduces significantly with increasing Bq
value, and at a Bq value of approximately 0.5 the consider that partial drainage prevails and that the
undrained strength ratio reaches a plateau at a con- derived values of undrained shear strength are
stant value of about 0.25; this value is coincidentally overestimated.
of the same order as that given by equation (7). The observed patterns enable the following con-
Since variations in Bq do not follow any pattern with clusions to be made:
respect to depth, the observed changes are not re- Normalization of undrained strength is useful in
lated to overconsolidation. For values of Bq ranging interpreting CPT results in silty soils.
between 0.3 to 0.5, su/Vvo ratios vary within the The combination of Bq, V, (qt-Vvo)/Vvo and
range of 0.3 to 0.4 with a tendency to increase su/Vvo provides general guidance for evaluating
slightly with reducing Bq. The calculated values of soil stratification and associated drainage condi-
su/Vvo are consistent with the measured range of I tions during cone penetration. For a standard
values, suggesting that these investigated layers are rate of penetration, Bq > 0.5 and V > 200 are
predominantly silty soils and that partial drainage is representative of a more clayey type of material
not dominant. These data are in close agreement tested under undrained conditions, whereas Bq
with observations made in the centrifuge (House et from 0.3 to 0.5 and V from 20 to 50 are charac-
al. 2001): values of Bq greater than 0.5 are associ- teristic of silty soils also tested under predomi-
ated with non-dimensionalised velocities (V) greater nantly undrained conditions.
than 200, whereas for Bq within the range of 0.3 to Partial drainage is likely to prevail for Bq values
0.5, V lies between 20 and 50. A Bq value of 0.3 lower than 0.3 in normally consolidated silty
seems to give a lower boundary below which the soils tested at a standard rate of penetration of
undrained strength ratio exhibits considerable scatter 20mm/s. Partial drainage should be detected if
and a marked increase to unrealistic values in a nor- an accurate assessment of the undrained shear
mally consolidated deposit. It is then reasonable to strength is to be made from CPTU test data.
Non-recognition of this effect can result in a
1
It is worth mentioning that despite the fact that chemical ce- gross overestimation of su values, which can
mentation can occur and variations in water table can produce lead to unsafe design.
some overconsolidation, tailing disposal produce relatively Assessment of strain rate effects and the influence
young deposits that are in general consolidated under their own
on partial drainage in intermediate soils is an area in
overburden pressure, except when successive layers are ex-
posed to evaporative drying.
which further research is necessary before attempt-

62 2004 Millpress, Rotterdam, ISBN 90 5966 009 9


ing to generalize the above experimental observa- gidity index and plastic strain in the failure zone and
tions. are sensitive to soil crushability and cementation.
Although heavily criticized, the SPT remains as a
7 DRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH prominent tool in geotechnical engineering practice.
There are, however, many unanswered aspects in the
7.1 Cohesionless soils basic interpretation that have not been studied criti-
cally. Wave equation studies (Schmertmann &
Bishop (1971) defined cohesionless soils as geoma- Palacios, 1979) suggest that the theoretical energy
terials in which intrinsic interparticle forces or bonds reaching the sampler decreases with decreasing rod
make a negligible contribution to their mechanical length. This is a controversial statement supported
behaviour. In cohesionless soils, the strength pa- by some researchers (e.g. Skempton, 1986) and con-
rameter of major interest is the internal friction angle tested by others (e.g. Aoki & Cintra, 2000).
I. Whereas the strength-dilation theory and critical The energy transferred to the composition of SPT
state concepts apply, uncertainty arises from the rods and sampler was recently investigated in a cali-
shear strength envelope non-linearity (which in- bration chamber testing programme (Odebrecht,
creases with increasing relative density and grain 2003; Odebrecht et al., 2004). A building under con-
crushability) and the complicated strain field pro- struction was used to house a calibration chamber at
duced during CPT/SPT penetration in frictional dila- ground level over which SPT rods and the SPT
tive soils. In situ penetration tests remain the only hammer were located. The hammer was positioned
viable option to characterize granular soils and such at elevations corresponding to several different
characterization is based primarily on empirical evi- floors to allow rod lengths varying from 5.8m up to
dence. In major engineering projects, additional field 35.8m to be employed; a casing prevented the rods
geophysics, pressuremeter and dilatometer tests, as from buckling. Instrumentation was located immedi-
well as laboratory tests on reconstituted samples, ately below the anvil, at the mid-height of the total
may be available to assist development of site- rod length and immediately above the SPT sampler.
specific correlations. A typical record of the force measured by the
There are two possible approaches for interpreta- load cell and the force calculated from the acceler-
tion of the CPT in sand: (a) analysis based on bear- ometer readings, measured in the calibration cham-
ing capacity theories which, given the complexities ber, is presented in Figure 15. The maximum energy
of modelling penetration in sand, can only be re- transmitted to the rod stem is also shown, calculated
garded as approximate (Vesic, 1972; Durgunoglu &
by the F-V method and known as the Enthru energy:
Mitchell, 1975; Salgado et al., 1997) and (b) meth-
ods based on results from large laboratory calibra- f

tion chamber tests (e.g. Bellotti et al., 1996, Jami- E = F (t ) V (t ) dt (8)


olkowski et al., 1985). A recent trend has been to 0

interpret cone penetration results in terms of the Take the example of signals recorded at the top of
state parameter, although this approach detracts from a 35.8m long rod. This long length is selected here
the simplicity of estimating properties from field as, in theory, all energy is transmitted by the first
data only. compression wave. The concepts postulated by
A widespread approach in engineering practice is Schmertmann and Palacios (1979) can therefore be
to estimate relative density Dr from cone tip resis- fully applied to the interpretation of the test data.
tance (e.g. Jamiolkowski et al., 1985; Houlsby, The figure illustrates the penetration in very loose
1998). Values of Dr can later be combined with op- sand (N 3). Although the energy was expected to
erational stress levels to produce an estimate of peak be fully transmitted to the rods during a time interval
friction angles (e.g. Bolton, 1986). Limitations to
this approach are that (a) the database is predomi- 450 70 First impact

nantly based on tests carried out on un-aged, clean 400 60


Energy 430.5J
350 400.0J
fine to medium, uniform silica sands and (b) most 50
F = V.Zh 'U = 10 cm ? N spt # 3
300
Force (kN)
Energy (J)

available correlations are referred to effective over- 250


40

burden stress instead of mean stress and are there- 200


30 Second impact

fore applicable only in normally consolidated depos- 150


20

its. 100
10

50 0 2l /c
Force
7.1.1 Application of the SPT to I measurement 0 -10

Alternatively, numerous methods have been pro- 0.000 0.030 0.060 0.090 0.120 0.150 0.180 0.210 0.24
Time (sec)
posed to estimate friction angle from the SPT adopt-
ing inverse application of bearing capacity theories. o 2 l /c 4 l /c 6 l /c 8 l /c 10 l /c 12 l /c 14 l /c 16 l /c

Assuming an elastic-perfectly plastic medium, solu- Figure 15 - Typical measured force-time relationships for a
tions are known to be dependent on shape factor, ri- 35.80m long rod steam measured below anvil (Odebrecht el
al*, 2004)

Proceedings ISC2 on Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterization, Viana da Fonseca & Mayne (eds.) 63
of 2/c, it is evident that for the large penetration in- 1.20
Nspt = 2
duced by the hammer a second and late impact ('t > Nspt = 3 1.06
Nspt = 5
100 ms >> 2/c) produces a further increase in en- 1.10
Nspt = 10
Nspt = 30
ergy that eventually contributes to the penetration.
1.00
The energy effectively transmitted to the rod stem

PE h+r / E*
therefore appears to be affected by the permanent 0.90
penetration of the sampler and is not only a function
of the so called nominal potential energy E* (474 J). 0.80
In a short string of rods, the second and third im-
pacts also produce a significant increase in the 0.70

transmitted energy that cannot be disregarded when 0.60


0.69
interpreting the measured data. In conclusion, the
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
energy transferred to the soil is a function of the Rod Lenght (m)
nominal potential energy E*, the permanent penetra-
tion of the sampler, the rod length and rod weight. A Figure 16. The ratio between the energy delivered to the soil
and the ENTHRU energy (Odebrecht el al*, 2004).
rational method of interpreting the SPT should take
into account the combined effect of these four vari- the energy losses observed during propagation along
ables. The maximum potential energy, PEh+r, deliv- the drilling rods; however for low resistance soils
ered to the soil should therefore be expressed as a (low N-values), the gain in energy from the weight
function of the nominal potential energy E* (= 474 J of the rods can sometimes be greater that the energy
- ASTM, 1986), permanent sampler penetration and losses resulting from wave propagation. The combi-
weight of both hammer and rods (Odebrecht et al., nation of a very long rod and a significant sampler
2004); penetration can result in an energy ratio (PEh+r/E*)
PEh + r = K3[K1 (0.76 + 'U) M h g + K2 'U M r g ] (9) greater than unity.
It follows from the foregoing that normalization
where: to a reference value of N60 is no longer sufficient to
Mh = hammer weight; fully explain the mechanism of energy transfer to the
Mr = rod weight; soil and it is proposed that the system energy should
g = gravity acceleration; be calculated using equation (9). Furthermore, it in-
'U = Sample penetration under one blow; teresting to recall that the maximum potential energy
E* = nominal potential energy can be transformed into work by the non- conserva-
= 0.76m x 63.5kg x9.8m2/s = 474 J tive forces (Wnc) acting on the sampler during pene-
f
tration, and since the work is proportional to the
measured permanent penetration of the sampler, it is
F (t ) V (t ) dt
possible to calculate the dynamic force transmitted
K1 = hammer efficiency = 0
to the soil during driving:
(0.76 + 'U) M h g
K2 = E 2 + D 2 l PEh + r = Wnc = Fd 'U or Fd = PEh + r / 'U (10)
K3 = E 3 + D 3 l The dynamic force Fd can be considered as a fun-
The estimation of K2 and K3 , as well as of the damental measurement for the prediction of soil pa-
corresponding D and E coefficients, is not a trivial rameters from SPT results. One example to illustrate
task and requires some additional simplifying hy- possible applications is given in Figure 17, in which
potheses. After several attempts, the experimental the Fd is directly related to the friction angle by
data were adjusted by keeping K2 = 1 and allowing combining equations (9) and (10) to bearing capacity
K3 to be expressed as a function of the length of the theory assuming a rigid-plastic stress-strain relation-
rods: ship and Vesics bearing capacity factors (Vesic,
K3 = energy efficiency = 1  0.0042l 1972). The correlation results in a simple set of rela-
tionships where the combined values of N60 and Vvo
The effect of the rod length on measured values are directly related to I values. The proposed ap-
of penetration may be examined using Equation (9) proach depicts the trends obtained from the database
and is summarised on Figure 16, which plots the ra- of the United States Bureau of Reclamation (Gibbs
tio of the energy effectively delivered to the soil, & Holtz, 1957), reproduces the correlation proposed
PEh+r, and the ENTHRU energy, E*, against the rod by de Mello (1971) and incorporates into the analy-
length. As indicated, a greater amount of energy is sis the effect of the rigidity index.
delivered to soil with a lower shear resistance (i.e.
SPT N values). The influence of the length of the
rod is twofold: the longer the rod length the greater

64 2004 Millpress, Rotterdam, ISBN 90 5966 009 9


70
1 qc  V h 0
de Mello (1971)
Dr = + 10 (12)
o
3 V h0
60 45
I=
The basis of these correlations is that both the
50 cone resistance and the limit pressure depend on the
combined effects of horizontal stress and relative
Nspt = 0,30 / 'U

80
=
density. The combination of equation (11) and (12)

Ir
o
45
40 o
40 give Vho as a function of qc and <L, expressed as the

=
I=

I
0
=6

=
40 40
o
Ir
root of a quadratic equation.
Ir I=
30
45
o A theoretically sound correlation based on CPTM
I=
5o data has been proposed by Yu et al. (1996). In the
20
I=3
20 o I
r=
o Ir
= 60 theoretical development, the authors have assumed
40 35 0
I=
I=
o Ir =
20
o Ir = 4
I = 3 0 o Ir = 10
I = 30
o that both the cone resistance qt and the pressureme-
5 I = 30

10
I=3
o Ir = 40
ter limit pressure \L are strongly related to the limit
I = 25 I = 25o
o Ir = 10
pressure of spherical and cylindrical cavities respec-
I = 25
tively. Solutions for cavity expansion in an elastic
0
perfectly plastic Mohr-Coulomb soil have been used
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 to correlate the ratio of qc/\L to the peak friction an-
Verticalvertical
Tenso effective
efetiva - VV'vvo(kPa)
stress, (kPa) gle of the soil. In addition, the limit pressure solu-
Figure 17. Prediction of friction angle from SPT energy meas- tions for cavity expansion in a strain harden-
urements. ing/softening soil using a state-parameter-based soil
model are used to correlate qc/\L to the in situ sand
state parameter. This recognizes the idea that prior to
7.1.2 Application of the cone pressuremeter to I the achievement of the critical state, the behaviour of
determination granular materials is largely controlled by the state
The CPMT is an in situ testing device that combines parameter \ and that \ can be directly correlated
the 15 cm2 cone with pressuremeter module with triaxial friction angles (Been & Jefferies, 1985).
mounted behind the cone tip. Since the pressureme- From this background, Yu et al. (1996) demon-
ter test is not carried out in undisturbed ground, the strated that the ratio of qc/\L is found to be mainly
effects of installation have to be accounted for and dependent on the initial state parameter of the soil
large strain analysis is required. This technique is and that it can be conveniently expressed as:
perceived as having a great potential that has not yet
been fully recognized in practice. Analysis of the qc
test in clay is achieved by a simple geometric con- \ = 0.4575  0.2966 ln (13)
\L
struction of the curve to determine the undrained
shear strength, the shear modulus and the in situ and the (plane strain) friction angle (in degrees) as
horizontal stress (Houlsby and Withers, 1988). (Yu & Houlsby, 1991):
Analysis in sand is, however, significantly more
14.7 qc
complex and interpretation is largely empirical Icps = + 22.7 (14)
based (Schnaid & Houlsby, 1992; Nutt & Houlsby, ln I s \ L
1992).
Experimental results of calibration chamber test- where the stiffness index Is = G/po; and G and po =
ing of the Fugro cone pressuremeter revealed that operational shear modulus and initial effective mean
the ratio of cone tip resistance (qt) and to the pres- pressure, respectively. Further verification of the
suremeter limit pressure (L) correlates well with proposed interpretation method from field tests is
many soil properties such as relative density and still needed to enhance the confidence of these cor-
friction angle. It is worth noting that both cone resis- relations in engineering practice.
tance and pressuremeter limit pressure are dependent Both the pressuremeter and the dilatometer can
on the size of the calibration chamber used (Schnaid also be useful in deriving strength in saturated
& Houlsby, 1991), but the ratio of these two quanti- drained cohesionless soils. These techniques will be
ties is relatively unaffected by chamber size, and addressed in more detail in the following section,
therefore correlations established in the laboratory devoted to the prediction of properties in cohesive-
may be applied directly to field conditions. Ap- frictional soil, where penetration tests offer less reli-
proximate empirical expressions for relative density, able information.
Dr (Schnaid and Houlsby, 1992; Nutt & Houlsby,
1992), expressed as a percentage, are: 7.2 Cohesive-frictional materials
Although most geomaterials are recognized as being
qc  V h 0
D r = 9 .6  30.5 (11) structured, the natural structure of bonded soils has
\ L  V h0 a dominant effect on their mechanical response

Proceedings ISC2 on Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterization, Viana da Fonseca & Mayne (eds.) 65
(Vaughan, 1985; 1999). Soil improvement, espe- where D=1-(dHv/dH1), dv and d1 are plastic volu-
cially with the addition of other materials such as fi- metric and principal strain increments and VT the ef-
bres, cement or lime, can also produce marked struc- fective circumferential stress. For a purely frictional
tural changes and a cohesion/cementation material, equation (15) is simply expressed as:
component that dominates the resultant materials
shear strength. Geotechnical problems involving V1 S I dH
slope stability, excavations, road pavements and = tan 2 + cv .1  v (16)
V3 4 2 dH1
other applications involving low stress levels in
over-consolidated and weathered soils cannot be ad- Equation (16) is often expressed as R=K.D,
dressed without accounting for a cohe- where R is the ratio of the principal stresses, K is a
sion/cementation component in the maintenance of constant and D is a function of the ratio of the plastic
long-term shear strength. strain increments. It is usual to represent the dilation
The debate on an appropriate level of site investi- response of the soil through the parameter D, so that
gation for any particular project continues. A limited when D is unity, a soil is at the critical state and
ground investigation based on penetration tests shearing occurs at constant volume.
(CPT, CPTU or SPT) will not produce the necessary Recent studies have shown that dilation of the in-
database for any rational assessment of soil proper- tact soil is inhibited by the presence of the cement
ties, for the simple reason that two strength parame- component (e.g. Cuccovillo and Coop, 1999) To il-
ters cannot be derived (I, c) from a single meas- lustrate this aspect, Schnaid et al. (2001) carried out
urement (qc or N60). Limited investigations are, a programme of triaxial compression tests on artifi-
however, often the preferred option. In such cases cially cemented soil samples derived from weath-
involving cohesive frictional soil, engineers tend to ered sandstone. Typical results are plotted in Figure
(conservatively) ignore the c component of strength 18, in which the stress ratio R is plotted against the
and correlate the in situ test parameters with the in- dilation component D, and the ratio R/D is plotted
ternal friction angle I. Average c values may be against axial strain Ha. It is evident that, prior to
later assessed from previous experience and peak, the dilatancy experienced by the cemented
backanalyses of field performance. samples at a given stress ratio is smaller than that
The pressuremeter offers the possibility of char- typical of a reconstituted sample (for which
acterizing the mechanical properties of a cohesive- K3.39). The rate of dilation increases with increas-
frictional material, although the analysis is compli- ing shear strain amplitude in a continuous pattern
cated by a number of factors such as the influence of that goes up to peak stresses. Peak states are accom-
bonding on the stress-dilatancy response of soils and panied by dilation and plastic strains that developed
the effects of destructuration. Ideally, the c and I after the soil had yielded and the bonds started to
should be coupled to stiffness, dilatancy and mean degrade. This process starts at very small strains.
stress level. Strain measurements after peak are very unreliable
due to strain localisation, but it appears that an ulti-
7.2.1 Stress-dilatancy mate state has been reached when the experimental
Various stress-dilatancy relationships have been data curves down towards the reconstituted line and
proposed in the literature. In the most commonly reach a value of dilatancy D approximately equal to
used approach for sands, Rowe (1962) postulated 1 in all tests.
that dilatancy is related only to the effective stress In Figure 18, Rowes stress-dilatancy relationship
ratio and internal friction angle. Rowes theory has has been drawn for comparison considering a soil
been inappropriately considered as general and ex- characterised by an angle of friction and a true cohe-
tended to other geomaterials. Experimental research sion (equation 15). Note that Rowe assumes that the
has shown that dilation is also a function of voids ra- cohesion between the particles is constant while the
tio and degree of cementation, as well as the magni- value of K is directly proportional to friction and co-
tude of suction (Cubrinovski & Ishihara, 1999; Li & hesion and inversely proportional to the stress level.
Dafalias, 2000; Mantaras & Schnaid, 2002). Despite the fact that Rowes equation does not de-
For cohesive-frictional materials, Rowe (1962, pict trends from structure degradation, the average
1963) showed that equilibrium of the shear and lines drawn from equation (15) represent the soil
normal forces applied to a contact of a sliding plane flow rule with a greater accuracy than lines obtained
is obtained from: from equation (16) for describing the pre-peak be-
V1c Vc3 haviour of structured soils. It is therefore concluded
D= 2
(15) that, from both the theoretical and experimental
S Iccv 2.cc S Iccv points of view, there is little justification in adopting
tan 4 + 2 + Vc tan 4 + 2 a flow rule in a cohesive frictional material that does
T
not incorporate the effect of cohesion on the dila-
tancy response of the soil.

66 2004 Millpress, Rotterdam, ISBN 90 5966 009 9


20 20
18 K peak 3 = 20 kPa
expansion relation is derived without any restriction
16
K peak
3 = 20 kPa
3 = 60 kPa
3 = 60 kPa
imposed on the magnitude of deformations. For ma-
15
14 3 = 100 kPa terials with no cohesion, the given equations sim-
12
plify to the equations adopted for describing a fric-

R/D
R

10 10
8
tional material and the proposed solution approaches
6
K peak
Yu and Housbys (1991) pressure-expansion rela-
5
4 3 = 100 kPa tion. For undrained expansion the solution converges
2 K = 3,39 K = 3,39
0 0
to that proposed by Jefferies (1988).
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06
It is now fully recognized that strength, stiffness
D a and in situ stresses interact to produce a particular
pressuremeter expansion curve. Parameters that pro-
Figure 18. Stress dilatancy relationship for silty sand mixed
with Portland cement (Mantaras & Schnaid, 2002). duce an analytical curve fitting the experimental re-
sults satisfactorily are, in theory, representative of
the soil behaviour. This approach is mainly used for
7.2.2 Destructuration cohesive-frictional soils where the strength parame-
Degradation of structured materials has been a much ters cannot be extracted directly from the experimen-
researched topic in recent years (e.g Aversa et al., tal curve. Input parameters are always kept within
1993; Ishihara et al., 1989). The variation of shear the limits defined by independent test data, but engi-
strength employing a Mohr-Coulomb criterion can neering judgment is required to avoid the selection
only be modelled by a reduction in the cohesion in- of a set of doubtful parameters values that may pro-
tercept during the shear process. A simple strength duce a good fit to the data.
reduction idealization during softening has already A case study summarised in a paper submitted to
been proposed (Carter et al., 1986) in which the the present conference by Schnaid & Mantaras*
post-peak softening is described as linear and even- (2004) can illustrate the applicability of the proposed
tually reaches residual strength behaviour. It is here approach. An extensive site investigation pro-
recommended that variation in cohesion should be gramme comprising laboratory triaxial tests, SPT
expressed as a function of plastic shear strains (p). and a large number of high quality pressuremeter
Experimental results suggest that, as a first approxi- tests in a residual gneiss soil profile has been re-
mation, the reduction in interparticle cohesion could ported by Pinto & Abramento (1997). A typical ex-
be expressed as the following simple hyperbolic ample of the fit provided by the analytical solution is
function of p, with c tending to zero at large shown on Figure 19 and a summary of the shear
strains: strength data obtained from the interpretation of 15
such tests is presented in Figure 20, which also plots
cf = f [(1+Jp)-n] (17) SPT N60 and the pressuremeter limit pressures(\L).
A new cavity expansion model that incorporates The SBPM yielded Ips from 27o to 31o with consid-
the effects of structure degradation into cylindrical erable data scatter but within the range measured
cavity expansion theory, as well as the influence of from laboratory testing data. The curve fitting ap-
cohesion on the stress-dilatancy relationships of plied to the loading portion of the SBPM tests gave
soils, was introduced by Mantaras & Schnaid (2002) results which are rather consistent, being slightly
and Schnaid & Mantaras (2003). The Euler Method above the assumed critical state values and compati-
is applied to solve simultaneously two differential ble with laboratory data. The presence of mica at
equations that lead to the continuous variations of given locations has yielded a lower boundary for
strains, stresses and volume changes produced by predicted Ips values, compatible with evidence pro-
cavity expansion. Despite the mathematical com- vided by N values.
plexity, an explicit expression for the pressure-
N P cohesion intercept
250 N60 SPT \L (kPa)L I(o[)o] cohesion intercept (kPa)
[kPa]
[kPa]
0 10 20 30 40 1000 2000 25 30 35 40 10 20 30 40
Effective cavity pressure (kPa)

200 arm 1
0
Effective pressure [kPa]

[kPa](kPa)

70 arm 2
arm 3
2 Borehole
Borehole B6
60
pressure

150 Borehole
Borehole B
4
Laboratory test results

50 Borehole B8
Borehole
pressure

arm 1
40 6 (mica)
[mica]
VP
(m)

arm 2
cavity

100
Depth[m]

ho o
arm 3
30 8
Effective

20
depth

average 10
Effective

analytic simulation 10
50 12
0
14
-1.0E-3 0.0E+0 1.0E-3
0 Cavity
Cavitystrain
strain 16
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 18
cavity
Cavity strain
strain
20
Figure 19. Typical example of a pressuremeter test carried out Figure 20. Prediction of soil properties for the Sao Paulo gneiss
in the saprolite gneiss residual soil of Sao Paulo. residual soil (Schnaid & Mantaras*, 2004).

Proceedings ISC2 on Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterization, Viana da Fonseca & Mayne (eds.) 67
8 UNSATURATED SOIL CONDITIONS

q/pa
q
K> M M

In the interpretation of in situ tests, it is also neces- K<M


sary to recognise that various geomaterials, such as q1
hard soils and soft rocks, may not be saturated. In
this case, the role of matrix suction and its effect on
soil permeability has to be acknowledged and ac- pressuremeter elastic path s/pa
ps p1 po p
counted for. The constitutive relationship to describe
flow in unsaturated soils is Darcys Law, as it is for p/pa
saturated soil conditions. However, whereas the ve-
locity and hydraulic gradient are directly propor- Figure 21: Three dimensional yield surface in unsaturated soils
tional in saturated soils (with the constant of propor- (after Alonso et al, 1990).
tionality equal to the saturated permeability, ks), a
non-linear permeability needs to be employed for a constant suction s is described by an ellipse, in
flow predictions in unsaturated soil. Numerous which the isotropic preconsolidation stress is given
analyses have been proposed to express this perme- by the previously defined p0 value that lies on the
ability function (e.g. Huang et al., 1998; Fredlund, loading-collapse yield curve. The critical state line
2000), which for practical purposes is taken as a (CSL) for non-zero suction is assumed to result from
function of ks and the matric suction, ua-uw (ua being an increase in (apparent) cohesion, maintaining the
the pore air pressure and uw the pore water pressure). slope M of the CSL for saturated conditions, as illus-
Common to all methods is the existence of a mathe- trated in Figure 21.
matical relationship between the coefficient of per- These concepts have to be incorporated into the
meability at a given suction value k(<) and the soil analysis of in situ tests in unsaturated soil conditions
water characteristic curve, which suggests that k(<) and, for that purpose, the first necessary step is to
remains relatively constant until the air-entry value measure the in situ matric suction. The negative pore
of the soil is reached and decreases rapidly with in- water pressure, uw, or matric suction (ua uw), when
creasing matric suction beyond this point. referenced to the pore air pressure, ua, has been
The influence of partial saturation imparts a very found to play a significant role in the behaviour of
distinct behaviour to a soil and, for this reason, un- residual soils. Geotechnical engineering problems in
saturated soils are treated here as unusual. The dis- tropical and subtropical regions are therefore often
cussion presented here describes how the recent associated with variations of suction due to the un-
body of research conducted in this area may be used saturated nature of these soils. Several techniques
to assist interpretation of in situ tests in unsaturated have been developed recently to measure the matric
soil conditions. Given space restrictions, two aspects suction, such as the non-flushable vacuum tensiome-
of significance are briefly addressed: (a) suction ter, the flushable piezometer and the miniature non-
measurement and its practical significance and (b) flushable tensiometer (e.g. Ridley and Burland,
suction control in field tests and soil collapsibility. 1995). However, these techniques are normally used
An important contribution in the analysis of un- in the laboratory in compacted soils or in the field in
saturated soils has been the extension of the elastic- sedimentary clay deposits.
plastic critical state concepts to unsaturated soil con- Suction measurements in a granular granite resid-
ditions by Alonso et al. (1990). In this method, the ual soil site in southern Brazil, in which experience
frame of reference is described by four variables of such measurements is scarce, have been presented
net mean stress (p ua), deviator stress q, suction s by Kratz de Oliveira et al. (1999). At this site, the
(ua uw) and specific volume Q, where ua is the air measured suction ranged from 25 to 70 kPa with a
pressure and uw the pore water pressure. Several trend of increasing suction during any dry period,
constitutive models have subsequently been pro- which can be attributed to evaporation processes. A
posed following these same concepts (Josa et al. typical result is illustrated in Figure 22 for meas-
1992; Wheeler and Sivakumar 1995). These consti- urements of up to 50 kPa. There is no marked differ-
tutive models allow derivation of the yield locus in ence between the readings recorded from the differ-
the (p, q, s) space, an analysis that requires nine soil ent instruments, which implies that any of the three
parameters. Model parameters are assessed from techniques can be used with some confidence in en-
laboratory suction controlled testing such as iso- gineering practice for suctions less than 100 kPa in
tropic compression tests and drained shear strength coarse grained soils. The relationship between ma-
tests. For isotropic conditions, the model is charac- tric suction and gravimetric water content for in situ
terized by the loading-collapse (LC) yield curve and laboratory specimens is shown in Figure 23,
whose hardening laws are controlled by the total over the range of suctions being considered. In gen-
plastic volumetric deformation. A third state pa- eral, the data agree well with the general equation
rameter has to be incorporated to include the effect proposed by Fredlund and Xing (1994). This rela-
of the shear stress q. The yield curve for a sample at tionship is the so-called soil water characteristic

68 2004 Millpress, Rotterdam, ISBN 90 5966 009 9


0 1400 5
constant w.c. (tensiometer at 30 cm)
pore water pressure (kPa)

-10 4
1200
-20 4
constant w.c. (tensiometer at 60 cm)
37 kPa (1m) 1000

cavity pressure (kPa)


3
-30
3
-40 800
42 kPa (2m) constant water 2
-50 content curve
600
2
50 kPa (3m)
-60 saturated
400 curve 1
0 25 50 75 100 125 1
time (min) 200 saturated
Figure 22. Typical suction measurements using a tensiometer (tensiometer at 30 cm) 5
for the granite residual soil (Kratz de Oliveira et al, 1999).
0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
40 injected volume (cm)
gravimetric water content (%)

best-fit (RG) laboratory (RG)


35
Figure 24. Typical suction monitored pressuremeter tests..
best-fit (YG) field (RG)
30 laboratory (YG) figure. Suction measurements remained approxi-
25 field (YG) mately constant throughout the expansion phase in
the tests carried out both in soaked and unsaturated
20
soil conditions.
15 Similar patters are observed during wetting-
induced collapse investigated using both conven-
10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 tional suction controlled oedometer tests and plate
matric suction (kPa) loading tests. Data suggest that shear strains induced
Figure 23. Suction-water characteristic curve (Schnaid et al,
2004).
by loading do not produce significant changes in
matric suction and this enables cavity expansion
curve and provides vital information concerning the theory to be extended to accommodate the frame-
hydraulic and mechanical behaviour of partially work of unsaturated soil behaviour in the interpreta-
saturated soils. tion of pressuremeter tests. As a consequence, it is
The recognition that matric suction produces an possible to demonstrate that the pressuremeter sys-
additional component of effective stress suggests the tem is not only suitable for estimating the potential
need to link the magnitude of in situ suction to the collapse of soils but also for assessing the constitu-
observed response of field tests. This led to the de- tive parameters that are necessary to describe the
velopment of monitored suction pressuremeter tests, 3D-yield surfaces in a (p, q, s) space in unsaturated
SMPMT, in which the in situ suction is monitored soils (Schnaid et al., 2004). The same cavity expan-
throughout the test by tensiometers positioned close sion theoretical background discussed in the previ-
to the pressuremeter probe. First it is necessary to ous sessions for saturated drained materials remains
recognize that the standard self-boring technique valid (Schnaid et al., 2004; Gallipoli et al., 2000).
cannot be applied to unsaturated soil conditions. The
drilling technique using either a flushing fluid or
compressed air would produce changes in the pore 9 CONCLUSIONS
water pressure uw or in the pore air pressure ua, af-
fecting the in situ soil suction ua uw in the vicinity Although we believe we are making steady progress
of the pressuremeter probe. The pre-bored technique in our ability to measure properties in a wide range
appears to be a viable option despite its well known of geomaterials, interpretation of in situ tests is still
limitations. very problematic. However, in the light of recent
Typical pressuremeter curves in a granite residual recognition of aspects such as structural effects, soil
soil are illustrated in Figure 24 (Schnaid et al., non-linearity and unsaturated soil conditions, there is
2004). The first test was performed at an in situ suc- a new opportunity to make significant improvement
tion of 40 kPa. After soaking the area, another test in methods for predicting behaviour from in situ
was carried out, producing a marked reduction in tests. This is of fundamental importance in soils
both pressuremeter initial stiffness response and cav- where constitutive parameters cannot be measured
ity limit pressure. A straightforward conjecture is from laboratory tests in routine site investigation
that stiffness degradation with shear strain is likely practice.
to be shaped by changes in matric suction. The re- Despite the multiplicity of factors controlling the
sponse of tensiometers installed at the same depth of interpretation of in situ tests in complex soil condi-
the pressuremeter tests at 30 and 60 cm from the tions, some concluding remarks can be drawn from
centre of the SMPMT borehole are also shown in the the topics discussed in this paper:

Proceedings ISC2 on Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterization, Viana da Fonseca & Mayne (eds.) 69
Soil classification from in situ test results should to the energy generated by the non-conservative
rely on at least two independent measurements. forces produced during penetration.
Combinations of Go/qc, Go/N60, qc/\L can pro- Interpretation of in situ tests in cohesive-
vide additional insights to current interpretation frictional geomaterials is a function of the angle
methods. In particular, a measure of the ratio of of internal friction, cohesion intercept, soil stiff-
the elastic stiffness to ultimate strength, ex- ness, dilation and mean effective stress. There
pressed as Go/qc and Go/ N60, has shown to be are also specific features to be accounted for,
fairly sensitive to cementation and ageing and is such as the influence of bonding on the stress-
therefore useful for identifying unusual geoma- dilatancy response and the effects of destructu-
terials. ration. The pressuremeter is the only in situ test-
At a qualitative level, the variation of the small- ing technique that may take account of all these
strain stiffness Go with both qc and N60 was effects in everyday engineering projects.
shown to be particularly sensitive to soil struc- Unsaturated soil conditions impose a further de-
ture. A set of equations expressed as lower and gree of complexity in testing interpretation. The
upper bounds have been proposed to derive Go influence of suction measurements and its prac-
values in both residual soils and sands. These tical significance to assess soil parameters and
equations cover the range of experimental data soil collapsibility from pressuremeter tests has
of CPT and SPT tests summarized in Figures 4, been demonstrated.
5 and 6.
The reduction in the ratio of G/Go with shear
stress and shear strain is known to be sensitive ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
to degradation of cementation and structure,
among several other factors (Tatsuoka et al., The Brazilian Research Council CNPq has funded a
1997). Research is still necessary to envisage part of the research projects described in this paper.
forms of expressing the degradation curve from This paper was written while the first author was a
in situ tests. visitor to the University of Western Australia,
A reliable evaluation of the mass permeability is funded by a Gledden Senior Visiting Fellowship
a preliminary requirement for interpretation of from the University. This support is gratefully ac-
in situ tests, assumed to be undertaken under knowledged.
fully drained or fully undrained conditions.
Very frequently, unusual materials exhibit coef-
ficients of hydraulic conductivity in the range of REFERENCES
transitional soils, a range over which partial
drainage is often observed for currently adopted Alonso, E.E., Gens, A. & Josa, A. 1990. A constitutive model
rates of loading in various tests. Implications are for partially saturated soils. Gotechnique, 36(3), 405-430.
Aoki, N. & Cintra, J.C.A. 2000. The application of energy con-
that the undrained shear strength derived from servation Hamiltons principle to the determination of en-
penetration tests can be grossly overestimated. ergy efficiency in SPT test. Proceedings of the VI Interna-
Specific recommendations have been made to tional Conference on the Application of Stress-Wave
evaluate partial drainage from CPTU data. Theory to Piles, So Paulo, pp 457 460.
Whereas engineering judgment is guided by a Aversa, S.; Evangelista, A.; Leroueil, S. & Picarelli, L. 1993.
combined evaluation of the undrained strength Some aspects of the mechanical behaviour of structured
soils and soft rocks. Geotechnical engineering of hard soils
ratio, normalized cone resistance and non- soft rocks. Anagnostopulos et al. (eds). 359-366
dimensional velocity, efforts should be made to Baldi, G.; Ghionna, V.N.; Jamiolkowski, M., & Lo Presti 1989.
test silty soils both in the laboratory (centrifuge Modulus of sand from CPTs and DMTs. 12th Int. Conf.
or calibration chamber) and in situ to supple- Soil Mech. Found. Engng, Rio de Janerio, 1: 165-170.
ment data in unusual soil conditions. Baligh, M.M 1985. Strain path method. J. Soil Mech. Fdn.
Engng. Div., ASCE. 11(7), 1108-1136.
Sands and gravels cannot be regarded as un- Baligh, M.M & Levadoux, J.N 1986. Consolidation after
usual soils. However the recognition of the in- undrained piezocone penetration. II: Interepretation. J. Soil
fluence of light cementation and ageing in Mech. Fdn. Engng. Div., ASCE. 11(7), 112(7), 727-745.
coarse-grained materials is relatively recent and Barros, J.M.C. 1997. Dinamic shear modulus in tropical soils,
the assessment of these effects in both labora- PhD Thesis, So Paulo University, In portuguese.
tory and in situ tests is still controversial. In situ Been, K. & Jefferies, M.G. 1985. A state parameter for sands.
Gotechnique, 35(2), 99-112.
penetration testing remains as the most viable Bellotti, R.; Ghionna, V.N.; Jamiolkowski, M., Robertson, P.K.
option for assessing soil parameters in sand. & Peterson, R.W. 1989. Interpretation of moduli from self-
CPT and CPMT correlations from calibration boring pressuremeter tests in sand, Geotechnique, 39(2):
chamber tests are recognized as useful in nor- 269-292.
mally consolidated deposits. A new method is Bellotti, R.; Jamiolkowski, M., Lo Presti, D.C.F. & ONeill,
D.A. 1996. Anisotropy of small strain stiffness in Ticino
proposed to estimate the angle of internal fric- sand. Geotechnique, 46 (1): 155-131.
tion that combines the SPT blow count number

70 2004 Millpress, Rotterdam, ISBN 90 5966 009 9


Bergdahl U., Larsson R. and Viberg L. (2003). Ground Investi- Gallipoli, D.; Wheller, S.J. & Karstunen, M. 2000. Importance
gations and parameter assessment for different geological of modelling degree of saturation variation: the pressureme-
deposits in Sweden. In situ characterisation of soils., 119- ter test. Proc. 8th Int. Symp. Numer. Models Geomech.,
170, Ed. Saxena K.R. and Sharma V.M., Balkema. Rome, 627-633.
Bishop, A.W. 1971 Shear strength parameters for undisturbed Garga, V.K. & Blight, G.E. 1997. Permeability. Mechanics of
and remolded soil specimens. Proc. of the Roscoe Memo- Residual Soils. Balkema. Chapter 6, 79-94.
rial Symp., Cambridge, UK, 3-58. Gibbs, H. J. & Holtz, W.G. 1957. Research on determining the
Bolton, M.D. 1986. The strength and dilatancy of sands. Go- density of sands by spoon penetration testing, 4th Int. Conf.
technique 36 (1), 65-78. Soil Mech. Found. Engng, London, 1: 35-39.
Briaud, J.-L. and Gibbens, R.M. (Eds.) (1994). Predicted and Hardin, B.O. & Drnevich, J.H. 1972. Shear modulus and damp-
Measured Behaviour of Five Spread Footings on Sand. ing in soils: design equations and curves. J. Soil Mech. Fdn.
Proc. ASCE Prediction Symposium, Texas A&M Univer- Engng. Div. Am. Soc. Civ. Engrs. 98, No. 7, 667-692.
sity, June, ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 41. Hight, D.W. 1998. Soil characterization: the importance of
Burland, J.B. 1989. Small is beautiful: the stiffness of soils at structure and anisotropy. 38th Rankine Lecture.
small strains, Can. Geotch. J., 26: 499-516. Hight, D.W.; Georgiannou, V.N. & Ford, C.J. 1994. Charac-
Burland, J.B. 1990. On the compressibility and shear strength terization of clayey sand. Proc. 7th Int. Conf. of Offshore
of natural clays, Gotechnique 40 ( 3), 329-378. Structures, USA, 1, 321-340.
Carter, J.P.; Booker, J.R. & Yeung, S.K. 1986. Cavity expan- Hight, D.W.; Bennell, J.B.; Chana, B.; Davis, P.D. Jardine, R.J.
sion in cohesive frictional soils, Gotechnique 36 ( 4), 349- and Porovic, E. (1997) Wave velocity and stiffness meas-
358. urements on the Crag and Lower London Tercearies and
Clayton, C.R.I 1993. SPT Energy Transmission: Theory Meas- Sizewell. Geotechnique, 47 (3): 451-474.
urement and Significance, Ground Engineering, 23 (10), pp. Houlsby, G.T. 1998. Advanced interpretation of field tests, ,
35-43 Geotech. Site Charact., ISC98, Balkema, 1, 99-112 Geo-
Clayton, C.R.I.; Matthews, M.C. & Simons, N.E. 1995. Site tech. Site Charact., ISC98, Balkema, 1: 99-109.
Investigation. Blackwell Science, 584pp. Houlsby, G.T. & Withers, N.J. 1988. Analysis of the cone
Costa Filho, L.M. & Vargas, Jr. E. 1985. Hydraulic properties. pressuremeter test in clays. Geotechnique, 38 (4): 575-587
Peculiarities of geotechnical behaviour of tropical lateritic House, A.R.; Oliveira, J.R.M.S. & Randolph, M.F. (2001)
and saprolitic soils. Progress Report (1982-1985). Brazilian Evaluating the coefficient of consolidation using penetra-
Society of Soil Mechnics. 67-84. tion tests. Int. J. of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics.
Cubrinovski, M. & Ishihara, K. 1999. Modelling of sand be- 1(3): 17- 26.
haviour based on the state concept. Soils and Foundations. Huang, S.Y.; Barbour, S.L. & Fredlund, D.G. 1998. Develop-
38 (3), 115-127. ment and verification of a coefficient of permeability func-
Cuccovillo, T. & Coop, M. 1999. On the mechanics of struc- tion for a deformable, unsaturated structure. Canadian Geo-
tured sands. Gotechnique 49, No. 4, 349-358. tech. J., 35(4), 411-425.
de Mello, V.F.B. 1971. The standard penetration test. 4th Ishihara, K.; Kokusho, T. & Silver, M.L. 1989. Earthquakes:
Panamerican Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Engng, Porto Rico, Influence of local conditions on seismic response, State-of-
1: 1-87. the-Art Report. 11th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Engng,
de Mello, V.F.B. 1972. Thoughts of soil engineering applicable San Francisco, 4: 2719-2734.
to residual soils. Proc. 3rd Symposium Southeast Asian Jamiolkowski, M.; Ladd, C.C.; Germaine, J.T. & Lancellotta,
Conf., 1 ,15-34, Hong Kong. R. 1985. New developments in field and laboratory testing
Decourt, L; Muromachi, T; Nixon, I.K.; Schmertmann, J.H.; of soils. State-of-the-Art Report. 11th Int. Conf. Soil Mech.
Thorbum, C.S. & Zolkov, E. 1998. Standard Penetration Found. Engng, San Francisco, 4: 57-153.
test (SPT): International reference test procedure Proc. Int. Jamiolkowski, M.; Lancellotta, R.; Lo Presti, D.C.F. & Pallara,
Symp. on Penetration Testing, ISOPT-1, USA, 1: 37-40. O. 1995a. Stiffness of Toyoura sand at small and intermedi-
Deere, D.V. & Patton, F.D. 1971. Slope stability in residual ate strains, 13th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Engng, Ham-
soils. Proc. 4th Pan American Conf. Soil Mech. and Found. burg, 1: 169-172.
Engng., Puerto Rico, 1, 87-170. Jamiolkowski, M.; Lancellotta, R. & Lo Presti. 1995b. Re-
Durgunoglu, H.T. & Mitchell, J.K. 1975. Static penetration re- marks on the stiffness at small strains os six Italian clays,
sistance of soils. I Proc. of the ASCE Specialty Conf. on In Keynote Lecture- IS Hokkaido, 2: 817-836.
Situ Measurement of Soil Properties. Raleigh, 1, 151-189. Jardine, R.J.; Fourie, A.B.; Maswoswse, J. & Burland, J.B.
Eslaamizaad, S. and Robertson, P.K. (1996) A Framework for 1985. Field and laboratory measurements of soil stiffness.
In-situ determination of Sand Compressibility" 49th Cana- 11th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Engng, San Francisco, 2:
dian Geotechnical Conference; St John's Newfoundland. 511-514.
Fahey, M. (1997) Some unusual calcareous soils. 14th Int. Jardine, R.J. Kuwano, R.; Zdravkovic, L. & Thornton, C. 2001.
Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Engng, Hamburg, 4: 2197-2198. Some fundamental aspects of pre-failure behaviour of
Fahey, M. 1998. Deformation and in situ stress measurement, granular soils. 2nd Int. Conf. on Pre-failure Behaviour of
Geotech. Site Charact., ISC98, Balkema, 1: 49-68. Geomaterials. Torino, 2: 1077-1111.
Fahey, M. & Carter, J.P. 1993. A finite element study of the Jefferies, M. G. 1988. Determination of horizontal geostatic
pressuremeter test in sand using a non-linear elastic plastic stress in clay with self-bored pressuremeter. Canadian Geo-
model, Can. Geotch. J., 30: 348-362. technical Journal, 25, pp. 559-573.
Fahey, M., Lehane, B. and Stewart, D.P. (2003). Soil stiffness Josa, A., Balmaceda, A., Gens, A. & Alonso, E. E. 1992. An
for shallow foundation design in the Perth CBD. Australian elastoplastic model for partially saturated soils exhibiting a
Geomechanics, Vol. 38, No. 3, 6189. maximum of collapse. Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. Comput. Plastic-
Fredlund, 2000. The implementation of unsaturated soil me- ity, Barcelona 1, 815-826.
chanics into geotechnical enginenering. The 1999 R.M. Kratz de Oliveira, L.A.; Ridley, A.M.; Schnaid, F.; Gehling,
Hardy Lecture. Canadian Geotechnical J., 37: 963-986. W.Y.Y. & Bressani, L.A. 1999. Rainfall and evaporation
Fredlund, D.G. and Xing, A. (1994). Equations for the soil- effects on matric suctions in a granite residual soil, XI
water characteristic curve. Canadian Geotech. J., 31(4), Panamerican Conf. Soil Mech. Geotech. Engng., 2: 985-
521-532. 990.

Proceedings ISC2 on Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterization, Viana da Fonseca & Mayne (eds.) 71
Ladanyi, B. 1963. Evaluation of pressuremeter tests in granular Robertson, P.K. 1990. Soil classification using the cone pene-
soils. Proc. 2nd Pan American Conference on Soil Mechan- tration test. Can. Geotch. J., 27(1): 151-158.
ics and Foundation Engineering, So Paulo, 1, 3-20. Robertson, P.K.; Lunne, T. & Powell, J.J.M. 1998. Geo-
Ladd, C.C.; Foott. R.; Ishihara, K.; Schlosser, F. & Poulos, environmental applications of penetration testing. Proc. Int.
H.G. 1997. Stress-deformation and strength characteristics. Conf. Site Characterization, ISC2, Atlanta, USA, 1, 35-48.
State-of-the-Art Report. 9th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Rowe, P.W. 1962 The stress-dilatancy relation for static equi-
Engng, Tokyo, 2: 42-494. librium of an assembly of particles in contact. Proc. Royal
Lehane B.M. and Faulkner A. Stiffness and strength Soc. London, A269, 500-527.
characteristics of a hard lodgement till. Proc. 2nd Int. Symp. on Rowe, P.W. 1963. Stress-dilatancy, earth pressure and slopes.
the Geotechnics of hard soils and soft rocks, Naples, 1998, 2, J. Soil Mech. Fdns. Div. ASCE 89, SM3, 37-61.
637-646. Rowe, P.W. 1971. Theoretical meaning and observed values of
Leong, E.C.; Rahardjo, H. & Tang, S.K. 2003. Characterisation deformation parameters for soil. Stress-strain behaviour of
and engineering properties of Singapore residual soils. soils, Proc. Roscoe Memorial Symposium, Cambridge Uni-
Characterization and Engineering Properties of Natural versity, 143-195.
Soils, Balkema, 2, 1279-1304. Salgado, R.; Mitchell, J.K. & Jamiolkowski, M. 1997. Cavity
Leroueil, S. & Vaughan, P.R. 1990. The general and congruent expansion and penetration resistance in sand. J. Geotch. and
effects of structure in natural soils and weak rocks. Go- Geoenvironmental Engng., 123 (4), 344-354.
technique 40, No. 3, 467-488. Sandroni, S.S.. 1988. Sampling and testing of residual soils in
Leroueil, S. & Hight, D.W. 1990. Behaviour and properties of Brazil. In sampling and Testing of Residual Soils. A Re-
natural and soft rocks. Characterization and Engineering view of Int. Practice.31-48, E.W. Brand & H.B. Phillipson,
Properties of Natural Soils, Balkema, 1, 29-254. Scorpion Press, Hong Kong.
Li, S.S. & Dafalias, Y.F. 2000. Dilantancy for cohesionless Schmertmann, J.H 1975. Measurement of in situ shear strength.
soils. Geotechnique, 52 (3): 449-460. Proc. Specialty Conf. In Situ Measur. of Soil Properties,
Lunne, T.; Robertson, P.K. & Powell, J.J.M. 1997. Cone pene- ASCE, 2, 57-138.
tration testing in geotechnical practice, Blackie Academic Schmertmann, J.H. and Palacios, A. 1979. Energy dynamics of
& Professional, 312p. SPT. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation Divi-
Mantaras, F.M. & Schnaid, F. 2002. Cavity expansion in dila- sion, ASCE, 105 (8), 909-926.
tant cohesive-frictional soils. Geotechnique, 52 (5), 337- Schnaid, F. 1997. Panel Discussion: Evaluation of in situ tests
348. in cohesive frictional materials, 14th Int. Conf. Soil Mech.
Manassero, M. 1989. Stress-strain relationships from drained Found. Engng, Hamburg, 4: 2189-2190.
self-boring pressuremeter test in sand. Gotechnique 39 (2), Schnaid, F. & Houlsby, G.T. 1991. An assessment of chamber
293-308. size effects in the calibration of in situ tests in sand; Geo-
Mayne, P.W. 2001. Stress-strain strength flow characteristics technique, 41 (4), 437-445.
of enhanced in situ testing. Int. Conference of In Situ Schnaid, F.; Houlsby, G. T. 1992. Measurement of the proprie-
Measurement of Soil Properties and Case Histories, Indo- ties of sand in a calibration chamber by cone pressuremeter
nesia, 29-48. test, Geotechnique, 42 (4), 578-601.
Matthews, M.C.; Clayton, C.R.I. & Own, Y. 2000. The use of Schnaid, F. & Houlsby, G.T. 1994. Interpretation of shear
field geophysical techniques to determine geotechnical moduli from cone-pressuremeter tests in sand; Geotech-
stiffness Parameters, Geotechn. Engng, 143(1) 31-42. nique, 44 (1), 147-164.
Ng, C.W.W. & Wang, Y. 2001. Filed and laboratory measure- Schnaid, F.; Prietto, P.D.M.; & Consoli, N.C. 2001. Charac-
ments of small strain stiffness of decomposed granites. terization of cemented sand in triaxial compression. J. Geo-
Soils and Foundations, 41 (3), 57-71. tech. and Geoenvironmental Engng, ASCE, 127 (10), 857-
Novais Ferreira, H. 1985. Characterisation, identification and 868.
classification, of tropical lateritic and saprolitic soils for Schnaid, F.; Kratz de Oliveira, L.A. and Gehling, W.Y.Y.
geotechnical purposes. General Report, Int. Conf. Geome- 2004. Unsaturated constitutive surfaces from pressuremeter
chanics in Tropical Lateritic and Saprolitic Soils, Brasilia, tests. J. Geotech. and Geoenvironmental Engng, ASCE,
3: 139-170. 130 (2), 174-185.
Nutt, N.R.F. & Houlsby, G.T. 1992. Calibration tests on the Schnaid, F. & Mantaras, F.M. 2003 Cavity expansion in ce-
cone pessuremeter in carbonate sand. Int. Symp. Calib. mented materials: structure degradation effects. Geotech-
Chamber Testing. Potsdam, New York, 265-276. nique, 53 (9): 797-807.
Odebrecht, E. 2003. Energy Measurements in SPT Test, PhD Schneider, J.A.; Hoyos, L.Jr.; Mayne, P.W.; Macari, E.J. and
Thesis, Porto Alegre Federal University of Rio Grande do Rix, G.J. 1999. Field and laboratory measurements of dy-
Sul, In portuguese. pp203. namic shear modulus of Piedmont soils. Behavioral Charac-
Odebrecht, E.; Schnaid, F.; Rocha, M.M. & Bernardes, G.P. teristics of Residual Soils, ASCE, Reston, USA, 12-25.
2004. Energy efficiency for Standard Penetration Tests. J. Schofield, A. and Wroth, P. 1968. Critical State Soil Mechan-
Geotech. and Geoenvironmental Engng, ASCE, Submitted ics. Mc Graw-Hill, London, 310pp.
for publication. Skempton, A.W. 1986. Standard penetration test procedures
Pinto, C.S. & Abramento, M. 1997. Pressuremeter tests on and effects in sands of overburden pressure, relative den-
gneissic residual soil in So Paulo, Brazil. Proc. of the 14th. sity, particle size, aging and over consolidation. Gotech-
Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. and Found. Engng, Hamburg, 1, nique, 36 (3), 425-447.
175-176. Stoke, K.H.II, Hwang, S.K.; Lee, J.N.K. & Andrus, R.D. 1995.
Ridley, A. M. & Burland, J. B. 1995. A pore water pressure Effects of various parameters on the stiffness and damping
probe for the in situ measurement of a wide range of soil of soils at small to medium strains. Proc. Int. Conf. on Pre-
suctions. Proc. 1st Int. Conf. on Advances In Site Investi- failure Deformation Characteristics of Geomaterials. Vol. 2,
gation Practice, London. 510-520. 785-816.
Rix, G.J. & Stokes, K.H. 1992. Correlation of initial tangent Tatsuoka, F. and Shibuya, S. 1991. Deformation characteristics
modulus and cone resistance. Int. Symp. Calibration Cham- of soils and rocks from field and laboratory tests. 9th Asian
ber Testing, Potsdam, USA: 351-362. Reg. Conf. on Soil Mech. and Found. Engng., Bangkok, 2:
101-170.

72 2004 Millpress, Rotterdam, ISBN 90 5966 009 9


Tatsuoka, F.; Jardine, R.J.; Lo Presti, D.; Di Benedetto, H. & Porto. Characterization and Engineering Properties of Natu-
Kodaka, T. 1997. Theme Lecture: Characterising the pre- ral Soils, Balkema, 2, 1341-1378.
failure deformation properties of geomaterials. 14th Int. Wheeler, S. J. and Sivakumar, V. 1995. An elasto-plastic criti-
Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Engng, Hamburg, 4: 2129-2164. cal state framework for unsaturated soil. Gotechnique,
Vaughan, P.R. 1985. Mechanical and hydraulic properties of 45(1), 35-53.
tropical lateritic and saprolitic soil, General Report, Int. Whittle, R.W. 1999. Using non-linear elasticity to obtain the
Conf. Geomechanics in Tropical Lateritic and Saprolitic engineering properties of clay a new solution for the self-
Soils, Brasilia, 3: 231-263. boring pressuremeter test. Ground Engineering: 30-34.
Vaughan, P.R. 1999. Problematic soils or problematic soil me- Wroth, C.P. 1984. The interpretation of in situ soil test. 24th
chanics. Proc. Int. Symp. on Problematic Soils, Sendai, Ja- Rankine Lecture. Gotechnique 34 (4): 449-489.
pan, 2: 803-814. Yu, H.S. & Houlsby, G. 1991. Finite cavity expansion in dila-
Van Impe, W.F. & Van den Broeck, M. (2001) Geotechnical tant soils: loading analysis. Gotechnique 41 (2): 173-183.
characterisation in offshore conditions. Conferenze di Geo- Yu, H.S. & Houlsby, G.T. 1995. A large strain analytical solu-
tecnica di Torino. Italy, 1-15. tion for cavity contraction in dilatant soils. Int. J. Numer.
Vesic, A.S. 1972. Expansion of cavities in infinite soil mass. J. Anal. Methods Geomech. 19, 793-811
of Geotch. Eng. Div., ASCE, 98 (3): 265-290. Yu, H.S.; Schnaid, F. & Collins (1996) Analysis of cone pres-
Viana da Fonseca, A.; Matos Fernandes, M. & Cardoso, A.S. suremeter tests in sands. J. Geotech. Engng. 122 (8): 623-
1997. Interpertation of a footing load test on a saprolitic soil 632.
from granite. Gotechnique, 47(3), 633-651. Zdravkovic, L. & Jardine R.J. 2000. Some anisotropy stiffness
Viana da Fonseca, A. 2003. Characterization and deriving en- characteristics of a silt under general stress conditions. Geo-
gineering properties of a saprolitic soil from granite in technique, 47-3, 407-437.

Proceedings ISC2 on Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterization, Viana da Fonseca & Mayne (eds.) 73

You might also like