soa 1: geomaterialbehaviour and testinggeosystems.ce.gatech.edu/faculty/mayne/papers/soa1 icsmge...

10/21/2009

1

SOA‐1: Geomaterial Behaviourand Testing

Mayne Coop Springman HuangMayne, Coop, Springman, Huang, and Zornberg (2009)

SOA‐1: 17th ICSMGE 2009 ‐ Alexandria

SOA‐1: Geomaterial Behaviour & Testing

Paul W. Mayne• Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA, USAMatthew Coop• Imperial College, London, UKSarah Springman• ETH Swiss Federal Institute Tech, ZurichAn‐Bin Huang

ISSMGEPres. PedroSêco e PintoAn Bin Huang

• National Chiao Tung University, TaiwanJorge Zornberg• University of Texas at Austin, USA


Sêco e Pintoand

MasterOrchestrator

Copyright - Mayne (2009) SOA-1 Geomaterial Behaviour & Testing 17th ICSMGE, Alexandria, Egypt

10/21/2009

2


Jorge G. Zornberg• 20 years in geotechnical engineering• Associate Professor – The University of Texas at Austin, USA

• Expertise: geosynthetics, soil reinforcement, environmental geotechnics, unsaturated soils

• Vice‐President of the International Geosynthetics Society (IGS)

• Chair of the International Activities Council (IAC) of Geo‐Institute, ASCE



An‐Bin Huang• 30 years in geotechnical engineering

• Professor – National Chiao Tung University, Taiwan

• Expertise: site characterization, in‐situ testing, physical modeling, field instrumentation, liquefaction

• Core Committee Member of TC16• Core Committee Member of TC16 ‐Ground property characterization by in‐situ tests

• Member: ISSMGE, TGS, SEAGS, ASCE, TRB



10/21/2009

3


Sarah M. Springman• Active in geotechnical engineering

i 1974since 1974• Professor – EidgenössischeTechnische Hochschule, Zürich, Switzerland

• Expertise: Soil Structure Interaction, G h d M d lliGeohazards, Modelling

• Chair of TC2 – Physical Modelling in Geotechnics

• FREng, FICE, CEng, MInstRE, SIA SOA‐1: 17th ICSMGE 2009 ‐ Alexandria

SOA‐1: Geomaterial Behaviour & TestingMatthew Coop• 28 years in geotechnical engineering• Professor Imperial College UK• Professor, Imperial College, UK• Expertise: experimental soil mechanics, mechanics of sands, structured soils, weak rocks and transitional soils

• 2003 Géotechnique lecture. B iti h G t h i l S i t P i 1999• British Geotechnical Society Prize 1999

• ICE Geotechnical Research Medal 1990• Telford Prize 2002 • George Stephenson Medal 2005.



10/21/2009

4


Paul W. Mayne• 33 years in geotechnical engineering• Professor ‐ Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, USA

• Expertise: site characterization, soil property evaluation, in‐situ testing, foundation systems

• Chair of TC16 ‐ Ground property characterization by in‐situ tests

• Member: ISSMGE, ASCE, ADSC, ASTM, CGS, DFI, MAEC, TRB, USUCGER



SOA‐1 is 100 pages

Total 76,776 words

749 references + 43 equations

5 tables + 228 figures, photos, and graphs

SOA Record - Singapore 2003225 pages + 110 p.

= 335 pages

Define 145 different parameters and symbols


Need 8+ hours for this presentation


10/21/2009

5


Six Sections:

• Introduction

• Soil Behaviour

• Physical Modelling

• In‐Situ Testing

Geosynthetic-reinforced soil in a centrifuge. (Zornberg 1998)

g

• Cyclic Response and Liquefaction

• Soil‐Geosynthetic InterfacesSOA‐1: 17th ICSMGE 2009 ‐ Alexandria

SOA‐1 TOPICS: Geomaterial Behaviour & TestingExperimentation sites

Methods of testing

Interpretative framework

Test modes

Sample disturbance

Local strain measurements

Small‐strain stiffness

Critical‐state soil mechanics

Laboratory testing methods

Yield surfaces

Soil behaviour

Particle behaviour

Influence of fabric

Intermediate grading

Transitional geomaterials

Rate effects


Shaft friction data for field pile tests(Coop, 2005 ‐ IS‐Lyon)


10/21/2009

6

SOA‐1 TOPICS: Geomaterial Behaviour & Testing

Constitutive Modeling

Physical Testing

Numerical simulation

1‐g tests

Small scale model testing

Shake tables

Dimensional analysis

Large scale testing

Centrifuge modeling

Mechatronics and robotics

Installation devices


Serviceability limit states

Chamber boundary effects

Beams and drums

Environmental chambers

Imaging

Contact stress measurements under an axisymmetric footing(Springman et al. 2002).


Cyclic soil behaviour

Liquefaction potential

Undisturbed sampling of sands

Stress‐based proceduresStress‐based procedures

Cyclic resistance ratios (CRR)

Evaluations from in‐situ results: SPT (N1)60, CPT qt1, DMT KD, and stress‐normalized shear wave velocity, Vs1Critical state lines for sands

Effects of fines contents

CSR

or C

RR


Porewater pressure influences

Susceptibility to liquefaction

State parameter approach

Probabilistic liquefaction boundary

Soil Liquefaction Potential of sands withfines from CPT (Huang & Huang, 2007)

qt1N


10/21/2009

7

SOA‐1 TOPICS: Geomaterial Behaviour & TestingIn‐situ testing

Direct‐push site characterization

Interpretation of soil parameters

Soil behavioural type

Identification of cemented soils

Geostatic stress state

Intracorrelative trends

Preconsolidation stresses

Effective stress friction angle

Stiffness of geomaterials

Initial tangent shear modulus

Modulus reduction curves

New and advanced methods

Twitch testing

Full flow penetrometers

Continuous Vs profiling


Schnaid (2009)


Geosynthetic materials

Behaviour of interfaces

Soil‐geosynthetic interaction

Geogrids and geotextiles350

400

450

500

a)

χw=0. 4%

g g

Geonets

Geomembranes

Geocomposites

Geopipes

Geocells

Fiber reinforcements

Clay liner interfaces

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 5 10 15 20 25

Devi

ator

stre

ss (

kP

Axial strain (%)

χw=0%

χw=0. 2%


y

Roughness

Shear displacement rate effects

Resistance mechanisms

Stress‐strain‐strength behaviour

Axial strain (%)

Stress‐strain behavior of fiber‐reinforced sand(Zornberg and Li, 2003)


10/21/2009

8

1 km

1 mm

3 cm

1 μm

1 m

“...when you can measure what you are

speaking about and express it in

b k thi b t itnumbers, you know something about it;

but when you cannot express it in

numbers, your knowledge is of a meager

and unsatisfactory kind"


and unsatisfactory kind

Lord Kelvin (1883)


10/21/2009

9

Evolution of Geotechnical Site CharacterizationModified after Lacasse (1985)


INDICESOriginGeologic Age, AGGrain Sizes, D50

STATEVoid Ratio, e0 Unit Weight, γTRelative Density, DR

Zw

Initial Conditions

MineralogyPlasticity, PIShape (fractals)Sphericity, SphRoundness, RnAngularity, AngPacking limits: emax and eminG i P ti t th

y RVertical Stress, σvoHydrostatic, uoSaturation, S (%)Geostatic K0 = σho’/σvo’Stiffness, G0 = GmaxState Parameter, ψCementationFabric void index I

Z

Soil Element A

Grain Properties: strength, stiffness, roughness

Geosynthetics: o resin typeo carbon black

Fabric, void index IvoIntact or FissuredGeosynthetics:

o thicknesso mass per unit areao melt index


10/21/2009

10

CONDUCTIVITYHydraulic: kv, khThermal: keElectrical: Ω, ζChemical: Df

STIFFNESSStiffness: G0 = GmaxShear Modulus, G' and GuElastic Modulus, E' and EuBulk Modulus, K’

Geomaterial Parameters and Properties

Transmissivity, TmPermittivity, Pm

Constrained Modulus, D’Tensile Stiffness, KTPoisson’s Ratio, νEffects of Anisotropy (Gvh/Ghh)Nonlinearity (G/Gmax vs γs)

COMPRESSIBILITYRecompression index, CrYield Stress, σy' (and YSR)Preconsolidation, σp’ (and OCR)Coefficient of Consolidation, cvVirgin Compression index, Cc

STRENGTHDrained and Undrained, τmaxPeak (s c’ φ’)g p , c

Swelling index, CsPeak (su, c , φ )Post-peak, τ'Remolded/Softened/CS, su (rem)Residual (cr’, φr’)Cyclic Behavior (τcyc/σvo')Geosynthetics: tensile strength,

pullout resistance, interface shear strength.

RHEOLOGICALCoef. secondary comp, CαεStrain rate, δε/δtAge (T)Creep rate, αRTime to creep rupture, tcr

SievesHyd Cup

Oed

FallCone DSB

DSS

Consolidometers

UC TTx PSC PSEHC RCT

CIUC CKoUC CKoUE CIUE

BE

Tv

Grain size analysesHydrometerWater content by oven

Mechanical oedometerConsolidometerConstant rate of shear (CRS)

Triaxial apparatus (iso-consols, CIUC, CKoUC, CAUC, CIUE, CAUE, CKoUE stress path CIDC CKoDC

Ppwn

Vst

RSPermeameters

DSC

Iso Consol

CIUCCIDC

CKoUCCKoDC

CKoUECKoDE

CIUECIDE

Pan

yLiquid limit cupPlastic limit threadFall cone devicePocket penetrometerTorvaneUnconfined compressionMiniature vaneDigital image analysis

( )Falling-head permeameterConstant-head permeameterFlow permeameterDirect shear boxRing shearUnconsolidated undrained TxSimple shearDirectional shear cell

CKoUE, stress path, CIDC, CKoDC, CIDE, CKoDE, constant P’)Plane strain apparatus (PSC, PSE)True triaxial (cuboidal)Hollow cylinderTorsional ShearResonant Column Test deviceNon-resonant columnBender elements


10/21/2009

11

Methods to Interpret Ground Behavior from Testing

Empirical MethodsCorrelationR i

In-Situ

Full-ScaleStructuralResponse

Interpretative Scheme Simulation Model

RegressionNeural Network

Analytical ModelsStatics/DynamicsElasticity/PlasticityCavity Expansion

Numerical MethodsFinite Differencesi i l

Testing

Empiricale.g., t‐z curves

Analyticale.g., Elastic Pileqt

fsub

Finite ElementsDiscrete Elements

Experimental TestsSmall Lab SpecimensCalibration ChamberCentrifugal ModelsFull‐Scale Load Tests

NumericalFLAC, PLAXIS, ABAQUS, CRISP

State‐of‐the‐Art State‐of‐the‐PracticeThis SOA presentation versus SOA Technical Paper

What can be implemented to improve issues of forecasting, risk economy reliability by geotech community ?

Soil Art: Sand Sculptures

risk, economy, reliability by geotech community ?

How can our professional image be upgraded ?

Directed at 18,000 members of ISSMGE who are not here


Soil Art: Sand Sculptures


10/21/2009

12

SOA‐1: Selected Topics for Presentation

Bad News Undrained Shear Strength

Sample Disturbance

Good NewsReconstituted vs Undisturbed

Effective Friction Angle, φ'

Critical State Soil Mechanics


ffective Friction Angle, φ

Preconsolidation Stress, σp'

International Geotechnical Test Sites

Comedian defines "redneck" as "a person who gloriously lacks of

Parody on "You might just be a redneck"

Geotech profession not using Critical State Soil Mechanics

If you come home from the garbage dump with more than you went in with.......

Y i ht j t b d k

a person who gloriously lacks of sophistication"


....You might just be a redneck

Parody: Geotech Counterpart - - - - -You might just need critical-state soil mechanics


10/21/2009

13

If you think it is okay to run 3 lab shear tests and fit a straight line to get your strength parametersτ

shearstress .....then you might just need

φ' = 11°

c' = 188 kPa

Critical State Soil Mechanics


effective stress, σ'

Strength Representationτ

shearstress

Infinite number of paired sets of c' and φ'

φ' = 30°

Yield Surface

φ' = 49°c' = 22

φ' = 33c' = 99

φ' = 13c' = 333



Pc'


10/21/2009

14

If you think phi = 0 and force a horizontal line to get your undrained strength values....τ

shearstress .....then you might just need

" φ = 0 "c = 69 kPa

y g jCritical State Soil Mechanics



You say "undrained"

I say clay

www.StrangeCosmos.com

I say sand

You say "drained" Sand Art at the Beach

. . . . . . . . then you just might needCritical‐State Soil Mechanics



10/21/2009

15

If you are using any of the following software

PLAXISFLACTNO Diana

WANFEGEO5

then you just might need CSSMTNO Diana

ABAQUSCRISPADINAGEOSLOPEFLEA

OASYSSIGMA/WSETTLEGFASOpenSees

need CSSM

Numerical Simulations

Finite Elements

Finite Differences

FLEASoilvision3dGeoFEASZSOILSeep3d

Rat

io, e

VCL

CC

Rat

io, e

VCLCSL

Simplified Critical State Soil Mechanics (CSSM)

C

CSSM = Link betweenConsolidation, Swelling,

and Shear

ess

τ

Void

tanφ'CSL

Effective stress σv'

Void

Critical State

CSL

Log σv'

swellingCs

σmax' σmax'

CONSOL


She

ar s

tre

CSLCritical State Soil Mechanics for Dummies

φ′ = effective friction anglec′= 0www.webforum.com/tc16

SHEARING


10/21/2009

16

Critical State Soil Mechanicsd

Rat

io, e

d R

atio

, e NCCC

CSOC

eOC

dilative

-Δu

www.ce.gatech.edu/~geosys

Log σv' Effective stress σv'

ess

τ

Voi d

Void

σp'

OC

Four Basic Stress Paths:1 Drained NC (decrease ΔV/V )

φ'

eNCcontractive

+Δu

τmax = su NC

NC: τmax = σ′tanφ′


Shea

r str

e

σp'

1. Drained NC (decrease ΔV/Vo)2. Undrained NC (positive Δu)3. Undrained OC (negative Δu)4. Drained OC (increase ΔV/Vo)

12

3

4

YieldSurface

σCS′≈½σp′

τmax su NC

su OC

OC: τmax = c′+σ′tanφ′ c'

Preconsolidation and Yield SurfacesLeroueil & Hight (2003): IS‐Singapore

Anisotropic Yield SurfaceMc = 6 sinφ’/(3-sinφ’)

CSL

q =

(σ 1

-σ3) fctn(K0NC)

Y3 = Limit State

Yield Surface

e0

σvo’

Y2

C

σp’

Y1

OCOCNCNC


Four‐dimensional yield surface (x, y, z, t)

P’ = (σ1’ + σ2’ + σ3’)/3

K0

G0


10/21/2009

17

• Undrained Shear Strength of Clays = c = cu = su = τmax

• Classical interpretation of CPT and VST in clays:

T6

Which su ?μvane decreases with PINkCPT ≈15±5

kt

votuCPT N

qs σ−=

3vMobilizedud7T6s

π⋅μ=−

HC CIUC PSC CK0UC DSC DSS DS PSE CK0UE CIUE UU UC

Test Method/Mode su/σvo'NC

Self-boring pressuremeter (SBPMT) 0.42

Undrained Shear Strengths for Boston Blue Clay

S =

Plane strain compression (PSC) 0.34Triaxial compression (CK0UC) 0.33Unconsolidated Undrained (UU) 0.275Field vane shear test (FV) 0.21Direct simple shear (DSS) 0.20

Factorof 3

Plane strain extension (PSE) 0.19Triaxial extension (CK0UE) 0.16Unconfined compression (UC) 0.14

Ref: MIT Reports; Ladd (1991); Ladd, et al. (1980), Whittle (1993)


10/21/2009

18

Undrained Strength Profiles - Troll, North Sea

0

5

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

Undrained Shear Strength, su (kPa)

CPTLab Triaxial CompressionLab Direct Simple ShearLab Triaxial Extension

Upper TrollClay5

10

15

20

pth

(met

ers)

Lab Triaxial ExtensionField Vane (Borehole)Field Vane (Halibut)Fall ConePocket PenetrometerTorvaneRemoulded Lab StrengthPush-in PressuremeterLab Vanelower boundMean TrendUpper Bound

y

Factor25

30

35

40

Dep

Lower TrollClay

Factorof 3.5

00 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80


FV (peak)

National Geotechnical Test Site – Bothkennar, UK

5

10

15pth

(met

ers)

CKoUCDSSCKoUEFV remoulded suSBPMT

20

25

De

Bothkennar Clay, Scotland (Hight, et al. 1992)

Factorof 6


10/21/2009

19

0

2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80


CPTu Profiles of su in Bothkennar Clay, UK

2

4

6

8

10

12th (m

eter

s)

CKoUC

DSS

CKoUE

TC - CPTu

DSS - CPTu

TE - CPTu12

14

16

18

20

Dep

t

Family of Undrained Shear Strengths

Undrained Shear Strength of Clays1. Critical-state soil mechanics for intact clays (Cambridge and Oxford Universities):

/ ‘ ½ i φ'OCRΛ W th (1984)

where Λ ≈ 1 - Cs/Cc

2. Experimental lab work by MIT:

su/σvo‘DSS = ½ sinφ'OCRΛ

su/σvo‘DSS = 0.23 OCR0.8

Wroth (1984)

Ladd (1991)

3. Vane Shear Tests calibrated with failure case studies of embankments, footings, & excavations:

su Mobilized ≈ 0.22 σp' Mesri (1975)


10/21/2009

20

Sampling Disturbance

Hvorslev(1949)

Sampler A Sampler B

Issue of Sample Disturbance

I say "Undisturbed Sampling"

You say "Shelby Tube"

SOA-1: 17th ICSMGE 2009


10/21/2009

21

Sample Disturbance Effects(after Tanaka, 2000)

Sampler O.D.(mm)

I.D.(mm)

Length (mm)

Wall t (mm) Piston

JPN 78 75 1000 1.5 YesJ 8 5 000 5 es

Laval 216 208 660 4.0 No

Shelby 75.3 72 610 1.65 No

NGI-54 80 54 768 13 Yes

ELE100 104.4 101 500 1.7 Yes

Sherbrooke N/A 350 250 N/A No

NGI 95 105 6 95 1000 5 3 Y

SOA-1 (2009)

NGI-95 105.6 95 1000 5.3 Yes

Split-Barrel 51.1 34.9 600 8.1 No

Gel Sampler (Huang 2007) NGI Block SamplerMazier Tube Gus SamplerDames & Moore Osterberg Sampler

Sample Disturbance Effects on su(after Tanaka, 2000)

UC Tests on Ariake Clay (Tanaka 2000)40

kPa)

Shelby (2.8 inch = 72 mm)

10

20

30

Stre

ss, s

= 1

/2( σ

1- σ3)

(k

British ELE (4.0 inch = 100 mm)

su = 18 kPa

su = 15.5 kPa


0

10

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Axial Strain, εa (%)

Shea

r S


10/21/2009

22

Sample Disturbance Effects on su(after Tanaka, 2000)

UC Tests on Ariake Clay (Tanaka 2000)40

kPa)

Sherbrooke (14 in = 350 mm)

Canadian Laval (8 in = 204 mm)

su = 38 kPa

su = 33 kPa

10

20

30

Stre

ss, s

= 1

/2( σ

1- σ3)

(k Japanese JPN (3 inch = 75 mm)

Norwegian NGI (2.1 in = 54 mm)

Shelby (2.8 inch = 72 mm)

British ELE (4.0 inch = 100 mm)

usu = 32 kPa

su = 28 kPa

su = 18 kPa

su = 15.5 kPa


0

10

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14


Shea

r S

Bad News

Sampling Disturbance EffectsLunne et al. (2006, CGJ): Lierstranda Clay 6.1 m

4040

Good News

20

30

40

Block75 mm tube54 mm tube(q/p')f

20

30

40

ess,

q =

( σ1-

σ 3)/2

(kP

a) Depth z = 6.1 metersσvo' = 54 kPa φ’ = 34.4o

0

10

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

p' = (σ1' + σ3')/2 (kPa)

0

10

0 5 10 15


Shea

r Str

e Block

75 mm tube

54 mm tube


10/21/2009

23

Quantification of Lab Sample Disturbance

RATE SPECIMEN QUALITY: Ratio of Δe/e0 to attain σvo'

Lunne, et al. (2006, Canadian Geot. Journal)

OCR

Excellent to Very Good

Good to Fair Poor Very Poor

1 to 2 < 0.04 0.04 to 0.07

0.07 to 0.14

> 0.14

2 to 4 < 0.03 0.03 to 0.05

0.05 to 0.10

> 0.10

Friction Angle of Sands CIDC Triaxial Tests

5

6

1)'/'(1)'/'('sin

31

31

+−

=σσσσφ

41.5º

φP' = peak friction angle

2

3

4

Stre

ss R

atio

, σ1'/

σ 3'

DR = 82.6 %DR = 74.5 %DR = 59.3 %

41.0º

38.8º

36.7º35.2º

33.7º φcv'

Data on SaturatedQuartz Sand

Georgia Tech

1

2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35


DR = 38.5 %DR = 22.3 %

(Koerner, 1970)


10/21/2009

24

UndisturbedFrozen

YoungArtificial

Triaxial Testing

Interpreted Friction Angle: φ′or ψ′, c ′, E′, ν ′, G0, Ψs, λ, κ, Γ, K0, OCR

Preparation MethodsAirPluviation

MoistTamped

Water

CLASS A METHOD METHOD B•freshwater•salt water

SPT SCPTu

SpecimensArtificialSpecimens

In-Situ e0In-place DRFabricOCAnisotropyStructureAge

EstimatedNC e0DRγdwn

Sedimentation

Slurry

Vibration

CompactionCoolantSystem

N60

Vs

fsub

qt

Estimated ?Relative

Density, DR

1-dGroundFreezing

LiquidNitrogen(-20º)Coring

Disturbed SoilAugeringRotary DrillTube SampleDrive Sample

Silty Sand (Høeg, Dyvik, & Sandbækken, 2000)

500

600

σ 3)

Undrained Behaviour: Undisturbed vs. Reconstituted Sands

Undisturbed

200

300

400

500

r Str

ess,

τ =

0.5

(σ1 -

σ

Undisturbed

Pl i t d

e0 (consolidated) = 0.71 σvc' = 500 kPa; σhc' = 250 kPa

Reconstituted

SOA-1: 17 ICSMGE - Egypt 2009

0

100

0 5 10 15 20 25


Shea

r Pluviated

Slurried


10/21/2009

25

Silty Sand (Høeg, Dyvik, & Sandbækken, 2000)


200

kPa) CAUC Triaxial Tests

-100

0

100

ter P

ress

ure,

Δu

(

Undisturbed

Pluviated

Bad News


-200

-100

0 5 10 15 20 25


Pore

wa Slurried

Silty Sand (Høeg, Dyvik, & Sandækken, 2000)


1000

Undisturbed φ' = 36 5oGood News

400

600

800

r Str

ess,

τ =

0.5

( σ1 -

σ3)

Pluviated

Slurried

(q/p')f

φ 36.5c' = 0 kPa


0

200

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Average Stress, s' = 0.5(σ1' + σ3')

Shea

r


10/21/2009

26

Undisturbed vs Reconstituted SandDrained Triaxial Compression Tests (Mimura 2003)

400a

Edo River Sand (Mimura 2003)

D 50 = 0.29 mm UC = 2 2

100

200

300

ator

Str

ess

= ( σ

1 - σ

3) k

Pa

Reconstituted (air pluviation)

(Mimura, 2003)CIDC Triaxial TestsDepth = 3.7 to 4.0 mσ c ' = 49 kPa

UC = 2.2e 0 = 1.04 G s = 2.68e max = 1.227 e min = 0.812D R = 45%


0

100

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16


Dev

ia Reconstituted (air pluviation)

Undisturbed (1-d freezing)

Undisturbed vs Reconstituted SandDrained Triaxial Compression Tests (Mimura 2003)

150

Pa) Edo River Sand

50

100

tres

s, s

= 0

.5( σ

1 - σ

3) (k

P

Undisturbed

Pluviated

(q/p')f

φ' = 41 4o

sinφ' = 0.661

Good News


00 50 100 150 200

Ave Stress, p' = 0.5(σ1' + σ3') (kPa)

Shea

r St φ' = 41.4

c' = 0 kPa


10/21/2009

27

Friction Angle of Undisturbed Sands

45

50

φ' (d

eg.)

⎟⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜⎜

⎝

⎛

σσ

σ⋅+=φ

)/'()/q(

log116.17(deg)'atmvo

atmt

Sands with mica smectite illite

35

40

axia

l Fric

tion

Ang

le,

Yodo River Natori RiverTone River Edo RiverMildred Lake MasseyKidd J-Pit

Sands with mica, smectite, illite, and other minerals

Duncan

Hibernia

SOA-1 (2009) ICSMGE

300 50 100 150 200 250 300

Normalized Tip Resistance, qt1 = (qt/σatm)/(σvo'/σatm)0.5

Tria LL-Dam Highmont

Holmen W. KowloonGioia Tauro K&M'90

DDam

Geomaterial φ' from CPTU by NTNU Method

100 Bq

Bq = 0 Notes for NTNU Method:

1. Define Cone Resistance

Robertson & Campanella (1983) for Sands

Senneset, Sandven, & Janbu (1989) TRR 1235

10

ance

Num

ber,

Nm

q

0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Number: Nm = (qt-σvo)/(σvo'+a')

2. Attraction: a' = c'cotφ' where φ' = effective friction angle andc' = effective cohesion intercept.

3. For case where a' = c' = 0: NM = Q = (qt-σvo)/σvo'

4. Define Porewater Pressure

Qt

120 25 30 35 40 45

φ' (degrees)

Res

ista 4. Define Porewater Pressure

Parameter: Bq = Δu2/(qt-σvo)

5. Approximate Expression Given for Ranges: 0.1<Bq < 1.0and 20º < φ' < 45º

Approx: φ' ≈ 29.5º Bq0.121[0.256 + 0.336·Bq + logQ ]

6. Plastification angle, βp = 0


10/21/2009

28

Profiling Pc' in Clays by Cone Penetrometer10000

Pa)

Fissured

Calcareous

22 Additional Clays by Demers & Leroueil (2002)

Pisa clay by Jamiolkowski and Pepe (2001)

100

1000

Yiel

d St

ress

, σ p

' (k

P Calcareous

Intact

and Pepe (2001)


10100 1000 10000

Net Cone Resistance, qt - σvo (kPa)

Y

Intact Clays: σp' = 0.33 (qt - σvo) qt

Generalized Pc' Profiling by CPT

10000

' (k

Pa)

Intact clays: m = 1.00 Organic clays: m = 0.90Silts: m = 0 85

for clays, silts, sands, and mixtures

100

1000

nt Y

ield

Str

ess, σ

p' Silts: m 0.85 Silty Sands: m = 0.80Clean Sands: m = 0.72


10

10 100 1000 10000 100000

Net Cone Resistance, qt - σvo (kPa)

App

aren

General Trend:σp' = 0.33(qt-σvo)m


10/21/2009

29

Generalized Pc' Profiling by CPTpp m1

atmm

votp )100/()q(33.0' −σ⋅σ−⋅=σ

Sands Sandy Silty Clays Organic Mix Mix

1 1

0 6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

P c' E

xpon

ent,

mp

Hibernia SandPentre SiltEuripides SandHolmen SandUpper Troll ClayLower Troll ClayBurswood ClayPiedmont SMBothkennar Clay1650m +=


0.5

0.6

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

CPT Material Index, Ic

Piedmont MLTrend5.210800

65.0mCIp

+⋅+=

−

22qtc }Flog3.15.1{]}1)B1(Qlog[3{I ⋅+++−⋅−=

DR = relative densityγT = unit weightLI = liquefaction index

cu = undrained strengthγT = unit weightIR = rigidity indexφ' f i ti l

Is One Number Enough???

LI liquefaction indexφ' = friction anglec' = cohesion intercepteo = void ratioqa = bearing capacityσp' = preconsolidationVs = shear wave

φ' = friction angleOCR = overconsolidationK0 = lateral stress stateeo = void ratioVs = shear waveE' = Young's modulusC i i d

N

Vs shear waveE' = Young's modulusΨ = dilatancy angleqb = pile end bearingfs = pile skin friction

SAND

Cc = compression indexqb = pile end bearingfs = pile skin frictionk = permeabilityqa = bearing stress CLAY

qc


10/21/2009

30

Geotechnical Site Characterization

Every Soil Parameter from SPT N-value ?

What is Our Image to the Public ?

from SPT N-value ?

European Foundations - Most Recent 2009 Issue

What the Public Sees and OurImage to Structural Engineers & Architects

View of Geotech Site Investigation View of Construction Operations


10/21/2009

31

Geotechnical Site Characterization

Need a Variety of Different Methods and Technologies to Ascertain Soil Parameters

Holmen Island in Drammen River (Lunne, et al. 2003)

NGI testing: 1956 to 2009= 53 years


10/21/2009

32

Geotechnical Experimentation SitesTodate: 65 International Test Sites


(2000) (2002) (2006)

Texas A&M Sand SiteUS National Geotechnical Test Site(Briaud & Gibbens, 1999; Briaud, 2007, ASCE JGGE)

0 10 20

Tip Resistance, qt (MPa)

0 500 1000 1500

Limit Pressure, PL (kPa)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

SPT‐N value, N60 (bpf)

0 10 20 30 40 50

DMT Pressures (bars)

0 100 200 300 400

Velocity, Vs (m/s)

UpperPleistocene Clean Sands (SP)

silty Sands (SP‐SM)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

pth (m

eters)

CHTDMT

CPT


Silty to Clayey Sands (SC ‐ SM)

Hard Eocene Clay Shale

7

8

9

10

11

12

Dep

p0

p1 Crosshole 2‐1

SPT

PMT


10/21/2009

33

International Geotechnical Test Sites

Each site required decades of study

Years worth of laboratory testsMany types of field testingConsiderable amount of funds neededBackfigured soil engineering parameters

from full scale load tests


from full-scale load testsNot have enough time !Conclusion: Need multiple measurements

UDtube

Cased

CONVENTIONAL DRILLING & SAMPLING

DIRECT-PUSHTECHNOLOGY

Drop Hammer

SCPTù

Oscilloscope

Lab

CasedBoreholes

SPT: N60

CHT:Vs, Vp

FIRMSAND

SCPTùqt fs u2t50Vs

SDMTSPT: N60

VST: su, St

SOFTCLAY

SDMTp0p1P2tflexVs

PMT: E’Packer: kvh old new


10/21/2009

34

SCPTU in Burswood Clay, Perth(data from Schneider, 2007, Univ. Western Australia)

00.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

Cone Resistance, qt (MPa)0 10 20 30

Sleeve Friction, fs (kPa)

0 200 400 600Porewater, ub (kPa)

0 100 200 300 400

Shear Wave, VS (m/s)

2

4

6

8

10

Dep

th (met

ers)

u2

uo

Fctn (qt, fs)

Meas DHT

Vs

fs

u2

12

14

16

18

20

D

qt

SCPTU at Golden Ears BridgeConeTec, Vancouver, BC

0

10

0 5 10 15 20 25

Tip qt (MPa)0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3

Sleeve fs (MPa)0 1 2 3 4

Porewater u2 (MPa)0 100 200 300 400 500

Shear Wave Vs (m/s)

10

20

30

40

50

Dep

th (m

)

60

70

80

90

100


10/21/2009

35

SCPTù at Atlanta Airport Runway 5

qT (MPa) fs (kPa) ub (kPa) Vs (m/s)t50 (seconds)

Five Independent Readings of Soil Behavior: qt, fs, ub, t50, and Vs.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0 5 10 15 20

Dep

th (m

)

0 200 400 600 -100 0 100 200 300 0 100 200 300 4001 10 100 1000

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

D

SDMTà near Venice, ItalyTreporti Test Embankment

Shear Wave Velocity

0 100 200 300 400 500

Vs (m/s)Contact Pressure

0 1 2

P0 (kPa)Expansion Pressure

0 1 2 3 4

P1 (kPa)Closing Pressure

0 1 2

P2 (kPa)Dissipation

0 1 10 100

TFlex (min)

0

5

10

15

20

pth

(m)

SDMT Pseudo Interval

SDMT True interval

SCPT Pseudo Interval

25

30

35

40

45

Dep


10/21/2009

36

Missouri Piezocone SoundingTip Resistance

00 10 20 30 40

qT (MPa)Sleeve Friction

0 200 400 600fs (kPa)

Porewater Pressure

-500 0 500 1000u2 (kPa)

→ ?5

10

15

Dep

th (m

) fs

u2

→ ?

15

20

25

qT

u2

→ Pc'and OCR

Qt + Bq → φ'

Estimation of Unit Weight by CPTu

24

26

/m3 )

Clay Till

Soft Clays

Stiff Cl

Multiple Regression[without Diatomaceous Soils]

(Mayne, Peuchen, & Bouwmeester, 2010a)

14

16

18

20

22

l Uni

t Wei

ght,

γ T (k

N Stiff Clays

Boulder clay

Fissured Clays

Silts

Stratified Deposits

Sands

Regressiony = 1.004 x2

44 OnshoreSites


10

12

10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

Tota Calcareous Soil

Mexico City

Diatom Mudstone

Estimated γt = 1.81 γw (σvo'/σatm)0.05 (qtnet/σatm)0.017 (fs/σatm)0.073(Bq+1)0.16

r2 = 0.718n = 207S.E.Y. = 1.08


10/21/2009

37

Estimation of Unit Weight by CPTu(Mayne, Peuchen, & Bouwmeester, 2010a)

24

26N

/m3 )

Clay Till

Soft Clays

Stiff Clays

Multiple Regression[without Diatomaceous Soils]

14

16

18

20

22

l Uni

t Wei

ght,

γ T (k

N Stiff Clays

Boulder clay

Fissured Clays

Silts

Stratified Deposits

Sands

Regressiony = 1.002 xr2 = 0 737

44 Test Sites


10

12

10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

Tota Calcareous Soil

Mexico City

Diatom Mudstone

Estimated γt = 1.95 γw (σvo'/σatm)0.06 (fs/σatm)0.06

r = 0.737n = 207

S.E.Y. = 1.08

Estimation of Unit Weight by CPTu(Mayne, Peuchen, & Bouwmeester, 2010a)

24

26

m3 )

Onshore SoilsOffshore AustraliaOffshore Africa

44 Onshore Soils12 Offshore Desposits

44 Onshore Soils12 Offshore Deposits

14

16

18

20

22

ured

Uni

t Wt,

γ t (k

N/m Offshore North America

Offshore MediterraneanOffshore South AmericaOffshore South AmericaOffshore North AmericaOffshore North SeaOffshore North AmericaOffshore Persian GulfOffshore Indian Ocean

O s o e espos ts

PI = 10%

O s o e epos ts


10

12

10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

Est γt = 1.95 γw (fs /σatm)0.06(σvo'/σatm)0.06

Mea

su Offshore Indian OceanOffshore AustraliaOffshore Baltic1:1 Line

PI = 100%


10/21/2009

38

Seismic Piezocone Tests (SCPTu)

Fast fs

VsγtGmaxE’

Economical

Continuous

Immediate results

Multiple readings

qt

u2 ν’φ’OCRPc'k

suK0

}

t50

Multiple readings

Digital data logged to computer

Post‐process information in real‐time

kvh

SCPTU in Burswood Clay, Perth(Chung, 2005; Schneider, 2007, Univ. Western Australia)

010 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

Unit Weight γT (kN/m3)

0 10 20 30 40 50DSS su (kPa)

0 100 200 300

Preconsolidation, σp' (kPa) 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Effective φ' (degree)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Dep

th (m

eter

s)

fctn(fs, svo')

fctn(Vs, z)

Meas Lab

LaboratoryCAU SS

Tests

Lab CRSC

0.33 qtnet

svo'

CPTu

CAUC

CPTU

12

14

16

18

20


10/21/2009

39

SCPTU in Burswood Clay, Perth(Chung, 2005 UWA; Langdon, 2007 UMass‐Amherst)

30

35

CAU SS: 12.7 m

10

15

20

25

30

Shear Stress, τ

xy (kPa

) CAU SS: 14.9 m

CAU SS: 10.5 m

CAU SS: 9.4 m

CAU SS: 4.8 m

Mod Hyp: 12.7 m

Mod Hyp: 14.9 m

Mod Hyp: 10 5 m

τ = G · γsG/Gmax = 1 ‐ (τ/τmax)

0.25

0

5

10

0 5 10 15 20 25Shear Strain, γ (%)

S Mod Hyp: 10.5 m

Mod Hyp: 9.4 m

Mod Hyp: 4.8 m

τmax = su = ½sinφ'OCRΛσvo'OCR = 0.33(qt‐σvo)/σvo'

Gmax = ρt Vs2

SPT

TxPT LPT

VST

PMT

CPMT

DMT

SPLT

K0SB

SWS

HF

BST

TSC

FTS

CPTCPTu

RCPTu

SCPTu

SDMT

T-barBall

PlatePenetrometer

SASWMASWCSW

SuspensionLogging

SPTT

SCPMTùPLTPPT

AutoSeis ShakerHPT

CHT

DHTSL

Standard Penetration TestTexas Penetration TestVane Shear TestPressuremeter TestCone PressuremeterDilatometer TestScrew Plate TestK0 Stepped BladeSwedish Weight SoundingHydraulic FractureBorehole Shear Test

Total Stress CellFreestand Torsional ShearCone Penetration TestPiezocone PenetrationResistivity PiezoconeSeismic ConeSeismic Flat DilatometerT-Bar PenetrometerBall PenetrometerPlate PenetrometerPlate Load Test

Suspension LoggerCrosshole Geophysical TestDownhole TestSpectral Analysis of Surface WavesModal Analysis (Rayleigh Waves)Continuous Surface WavesStandard Penetration Test with TorqueLarge Penetration TestPiezoProbe TestSeismic Piezocone PressuremeterHelix Probe Test


10/21/2009

40

Offshore Continuous Rotating Vane

01

0 5 10 15 20


12345678B

elow

Mud

line

(m)

Helical Vane

T-Bar

House, Randolph, and Watson (ISOPE 2004)

910111213

Dep

th

New Developments: Twitch TestingChung, Randolph & Schneider (2006, JGGE)

3.5

4.0

q/ q

ref

T-barBall

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

aliz

ed R

esis

tanc

e, q Ball

PlateConeWatson & Suemasa

0.0

0.5

1.0

0.1 1 10 100 1000

Normalized Velocity: V = vd/cv

Nor

ma

UndrainedPartially-drained

Drained


10/21/2009

41

Frequent-interval andContinuous Vs profiling Charleston, South Carolina

0

GT AutoSeis

5

10

15

Dep

th (m

)

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

20

25

30

Time (sec)

Seismic Resistivity DynamicPenetrometer Test (SRDPT)

for hard ground, saprolites, and cemented geomaterials

Hydraulic Rig

Dynamic Driver Module

SquareRods

Lateral Stress, σL

Shear WaveVelocity, VS

Dynamic Driver Module (Impact, Sonic)

Enlargement

Square Wedge Penetrometer

Tip Stress, qd

Resistivity, Ω

SRDPT designwill provide

4 continuousreadings with

depth


10/21/2009

42

Fully Integrated Ground Behavior

Drilling & Sampling

Geophysics

In-SituTesting

eo, γT, σvo’, DR, σp’, OCR, Go, D, Ko, ν, φ’, Ψ, Λ, Γ,

c’, k, cv, K’, M’, G’, E’, Cc, Cr, Cs, Cα, su, Eu

Soil Parameters Evaluation

LaboratoryTesting

NumericalSimulationAnalytical

Modeling

r, s, α, u, u

Summary: SOA‐1 ‐ Geomaterial Behaviour

Geomaterial characterization is challenging

Need multiple measurements - One number is insufficient for evaluation of soil parameters

Let us teach critical-state soil mechanics in our colleges and use it in practice.

Adopt seismic piezocone as the minimum level f ff t f ti it i ti ti


of effort for routine site investigation

Continue to develop international geotechnical experimentation sites for calibration & reference


10/21/2009

43

2nd International Symposium onCone Penetration Testing

Huntington Beach, California

Host: Peter K. Robertson

CPT 2010: www.cpt10.org

4th International Conference on

Site Characterization ‐ 2012

Recife, Brazil (ISC‐4)

• Professor Roberto Quental Coutinho

• Federal University of Pernambuco

• Brazilian Soc. Soil Mechanics & Geotechnical Engrg.

www.geoforum.com/tc16

ISC3


soa 1: geomaterialbehaviour and testinggeosystems.ce.gatech.edu/faculty/mayne/papers/soa1 icsmge...

Documents