Cone Penetrometer Data Interpretation

CPT data can be used as a qualitative measure of soil consistency and density. However, it is not a means to be considered alone, and has only been tested and evaluated extensively for certain regions in the US. One such region, the Piedmont Alluvium, has soil described as silty micaceous sands and sandy micaceous silts, which is most like the areas in Bolivia we are considering. Unfortunately, for this region CPT data is considered least reliable. Because we have no way to quantitatively use the collected CPT data (at least, not in a way that would be accurate or helpful) we are considering the data as a qualitative measure and comparing the data for the top three picks for where to build the bridge. These three locations are Iruma, Obrajes 1, and Obrajes 2. Based on the observations and CPT data, Obrajes 2 seems a likely place for a bridge. Not much data was actually taken, but the observation was that the entire riverbed is sheet rock with a mud covering. Sheet rock is generally considered a (relatively) stable foundation, and could possibly support heavy concrete structures, as well as serve as a permanent foundation. This means we may have to pour less concrete as a foundation for our bridge, considering something hard already exists. Comparing the last two options, Obrajes 1 and Iruma, Obrajes 1 appears to be a better location. The total depths reached for Obrajes 1 at comparative locations (such as bank, riverbed, middle of the river) are all less than (or equal to) the same locations in Iruma. Also, for N18 (the max depth attempted) most of the Obrajes 1 locations are listed as NA which we believe means that depth was not reached with a reasonable number of blows. For N12, the middle of the river of Obrajes 1 required many more blows than the middle of the river in Iruma. For N6 and Sink, the data was not different enough to merit consideration. Conclusively, Obrajes 2 seems to have an existing foundation of sheet rock which could potentially support the bridge weight and hold the rebar without laying much more of a concrete foundation. Obrajes 1 seems to have a consistent soil hardness which may not be a rock foundation but is comparatively better than the Iruma location. Obrajes 1 would be more likely, based purely on this data, to support the weight of the bridge than Iruma. However, note that Obrajes 1 will have water in the soil more so than Iruma based on the descriptions given.