Seismic cone penetration tests provide an economical and expedient means of assessing small-strain properties (low-amplitude shear modulus, GMAX) and large-strain behavior (shear strength, τmax) of soil deposits from a single sounding. That measurements are taken at complete opposite ends of the strain spectrum permits development of the entire stress-strain-strength representation of soil layers with depth. A modified hyperbola is shown to be appropriate in a modulus degradation scheme for application to static monotonic loading of soils. Also, a global correlation of mass density (ρ) with shear wave velocity (Vs) for all types of geomaterials is presented, which facilitates the calculation of GMAX = ρVs2.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BurlandJ. B.Small is Beautiful: the Stiffness of Soils at Small Strains. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 26, No. 4, 1989, pp. 499–516.
2.
TatsuokaF., and ShibuyaS.. Deformation Characteristics of Soils and Rocks from Field and Laboratory Tests.Institute of Industrial Science, University of Tokyo, Japan, 1991.
3.
FaheyM., RobertsonP. K., and SolimanA. A.. Towards a Rational Method of Predicting Settlements of Spread Footings on Sand. In Vertical and Horizontal Deformations of Foundations and Embankments (GSP40), Volume 1, ASCE, New York, N.Y., 1994, pp. 598–611.
4.
RobertsonP. K., and CampanellaR. G.. Interpretations of Cone Penetration Tests, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 20, No. 4, 1983, pp. 718–745.
5.
KulhawyF. H., and MayneP. W.. Soil Properties Manual. Report EL-6800. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, Calif, 1990.
6.
LunneT., LacasseS., and RadN. S.. General Report: Recent Developments in In-Situ Testing. Proc., 12th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 4, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 1992, pp. 2339–2403.
7.
MayneP. W., and RixG. J.. Gmax–qc Relationships for Clays. ASTM Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 16, No. 1, 1993, pp. 54–60.
8.
CampanellaR. G., and RobertsonP. K.. Current Status of the Piezocone Test. In Penetration Testing 1988, Volume 1, Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 1988, pp. 93–116.
9.
CampanellaR. G.Field Methods for Dynamic Geotechnical Testing. Dynamic Geotechnical Testing II (STP 1213), ASTM, Philadelphia, Pa., 1994, pp. 3–23.
10.
BaldiG., BellottiR., GhionnaV., JamiolkowskiM., and LoPrestiD. C.. Modulus of Sands from CPTs and DMTs. Proc., 12th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Vol. 1, 1989, pp. 165–170.
11.
SullyJ. P., and CampanellaR. G.. Evaluation of In-Situ Anisotropy from Crosshole and Downhole Shear Wave Velocity Measurements. Geotechnique, Vol. 45, No. 2, 1995, pp. 267–282.
12.
BurghignoliA., CavaleraL., and ChieppaV.. Geotechnical Characterization of Fucino Clay. Proc., 10th European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Florence, Italy, Vol. 1, 1991, pp. 27–40.
13.
OlsenR. S.Normalization and Prediction of Geotechnical Properties Using the CPT. Report GL-94-29. U.S. Army Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mass., 1994.
14.
RobertsonP. K.Soil Classification Using the Cone Penetration Test. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 27, No. 1, 1990, pp. 151–158.
15.
LunneT., EidsmoenT., GillespieD., and HowlandJ.. Lab and Field Evaluation of Cone Penetrometers. Use of In-situ Tests in Geotechnical Engineering (GSP 6), ASCE, New York, N.Y., 1986, pp. 714–729.
16.
ChenB. S., and MayneP. W.. Type 1 and 2 Piezocone Evaluations of Overconsolidation Ratio in Clays. Proc., CPT 95, Vol. 2, Linköping, Sweden, 1995, pp. 143–148.
17.
GazetasG.Formulas and Charts for Impedances of Surface and Embedded Foundations. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 117, No. 9, 1991, pp. 1363–1381.
18.
NovakM.State of the Art in Analysis and Design of Machine Foundations. Soil Structure Interactions, Elsevier, New York, N.Y., 1987, pp. 171–192.
19.
MayneP. W., and RixG. J.. Correlations Between Shear Wave Velocity and Cone Tip Resistance in Natural Clays. Soils and Foundations, Vol. 35, No. 2, 1995, pp. 107–110.
20.
LefebvreG., LeboeufD., RahhalM., LacroixA., and WardeJ.. Laboratory and Field Determination of Small-Strain Shear Modulus for a Structured Champlain Clay. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 31, No. 1, 1994, pp. 61–70.
21.
BurnsS. E., and MayneP. W.. Seismic Cone Penetration Tests, Hutchinson Island, Georgia, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, 1995.
22.
HegazyY. A., and MayneP. W.. Statistical Correlations Between Vs and Cone Penetration Data for Different Soil Types. Proc., International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing, Vol. 2, Linköping, Sweden, Swedish Geotechnical Society, Report 3:95, 1995, pp. 173–178.
23.
LoPrestiD. C. F., PallaraO., and PuciI.. A Modified Commercial Tri-axial Testing System for Small Strain Measurements: Preliminary Results on Pisa Clay. Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 18, No. 1, 1995, pp. 15–31.
24.
LacasseS., and LunneT.. Dilatometer Tests in Two Soft Marine Clays, Report 146. Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, Oslo, Norway, 1983.
25.
CampanellaR. G., RobertsonP. K., and GillespieD.. Seismic Cone Penetration Test. Use of In-Situ Tests in Geotechnical Engineering (GSP6), ASCE, New York, N.Y., 1986, pp. 116–130.
26.
LarssonR., and MulabdicM.. Shear Moduli in Scandinavian Clays: Measurement of Initial Shear Modulus with Seismic Cones. Report 40. Swedish Geotechnical Institute, Linköping, Sweden, 1991.
27.
HilbertL. B., HwongT. K., CookN. G. W., NiheiK. T., and MyerL. R.. Effects of Strain Amplitude on the Static and Dynamic Nonlinear Deformation of Berea Sandstone. Rock Mechanics: Models and Measurements (NelsonP. P., and LaubachS. E., eds.) Balkema Publishers, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 1994, pp. 497–504.
28.
YaleD. P., and JamiesonW. H.. Static and Dynamic Mechanical Properties of Carbonates. Rock Mechanics: Models and Measurements (NelsonP. P., and LaubachS. E., eds.) Balkema Publishers, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 1994, pp. 463–471.
29.
BrattonW. L., TimianS. M., and FiskB. E.. Piezoseismic-Cone Penetration Tests at the In-Tank Precipitation Facility, Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina.Applied Research Associates, Inc., South Royalton, Vt., 1993.
30.
McLamoreV. R., AndersonD. G., and EspanaC.. Crosshole Testing Using Explosive and Mechanical Energy Sources. Dynamic Geotechnical Testing, STP 654, ASTM, Philadelphia, Pa., 1978, pp. 30–55.
31.
PriceR. H., BoydP. J., NoelJ. S., and MartinR. J.. Relationship Between Static and Dynamic Rock Properties in Welded and Non-welded Tuff. Rock Mechanics: Models and Measurements (NelsonP. P., and LaubachS. E., eds.) Balkema Publishers, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 1994, pp. 505–512.
32.
AndersonK. H., PoolJ. H., BrownS. F., and RosenbrandW. F.. Cyclic and Static Laboratory Tests on Drammen Clay. ASCE Journal of Geot-echnical Engineering, Vol. 106, No. GT5, 1980, pp. 499–529.
