Interpretation of Lab and Field Test Results

by Ir. Dr. Gue See Sew & Ir.
Chow Chee Meng

http://www.gnpgroup.com.my
G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd
Quality Services - Our Commitment
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
OBJECTIVES
SCOPE
INTERPRETATION
- JKR PROBE
- SPT
DESIGN PARAMETERS
LABORATORY TESTS
INTRODUCTION
NEED
- Neglected topic; only briefly covered in universities
- Danger of using results directly without interpretation
- Decision on choice of values for soil parameters
SCOPE
- Common tests only
PROCESSES
- Specifications, Supervision, Presentation & Interpretation
Proton Iswara
Ferrari
OBJECTIVES
Illustrate the importance of

interpretation
Show methods of compiling
results and recognising errors
SCOPE
- Common field and laboratory tests
FIELD TESTS
- JKR/ Mackintosh probe
- SPT (Standard Penetration Test)
LABORATORY TESTS
- Unconfined compression
- Triaxial Test (CIU with pore pressure measurement & CD)
JKR PROBE
- Primitive tool
- Limited use
Shallow bedrock profile (limestone with slump zone)
Weak zone at shallow depth
Shallow foundation
No recent fill and future settlement
Structure of low risk
If in doubt use borehole
Apparatus
Cased hardened steel pointer of
25mm dia. and 60o cone.
22mm outer
dia. coupling
Prevent buckling during driving
28
12mm dia. HY
55C steel rod
5kg drop
hammer
CONE PENETROMETER
For practical application:

- Results of JKR Probe = Mackintosh Probe
- Patented in the early days
Termination criteria
Blows/300mm
(maximum 400 blows/300mm)
Max 15m depth
Precautionary measures
Free fall and consistent drop height
Components and apparatus properly
washed and oiled
Typical test results
Applications
Identifying localised soft/weak or slip plane.

Applications
Identifying localised soft/weak or slip plane.

T
T
T = compaction lift
Identifying nonnon-compliance fill.

Comparison between JKR probe and SPT
100
JKR Blows
200
300
400
0
12
12
Dep
epth (m)
JKR Plot
SPT'N' Plot
0
10
20
30
40
50
SPT'N'
100
JKR Blows
200
300
400
De
epth (m)
10
10
12
12
JKR Plot
14
14
SPT'N' Plot
16
16
0
10
20
30
40
SPT'N'
Depth From Ground Surface In Meter (m)
Number of Blows per 300 mm
Limitations
Shallow depth
Not for gravelly ground
Human errors (e.g. wrong counting, nonnon-consistent
drop height, exerting force to the drop hammer
Misleading results at greater depth

AW Rod
63.5kg Hammer
760mm
Free Fall
450mm
Split-Spoon Sampler
Split-Spoon Sampler
Driving Shoe
Split Barrel
OD = 50mm
ID = 35mm
Length ~ 650mm
SPT
SPT--N Value
Seating
drive
Test
drive
5 - 10 - 30 - 20/30cm
Seating
drive
Test
drive
(30 + 20)
SPTSPT-N =
x 300 = 143
(75 + 30)
Soil
Soft rock
Maximum blows to be applied

In seating drive
In test drive
25
50
25
100
MS 1056 : Part 9
?
?
LABORATORY TESTS
- Why?
- Types of Tests!
- How?
- Specifications?
(Load, Pressure, Time)
SPECIFICATIONS
a) Triaxial test
1) For triaxial tests
- Strain rate
- Back pressure
Special Attention
Triaxial Compression Test
-
No/Minimum Trimming
No Side Drains
No Multistage
G&P-Form6 (Rev3)
G&P GEOTECHNICS SDN. BHD.

(Geotechnical Consultants)
LABORATORY TEST SCHEDULE
Project No : ..
Lab. Schedule No. ..
Project : ..
BOREHOLE
SAMPLE
NO.
TOT AL
Requested
DEPTH
m
M/C
A.L.
B.D.
S.G.
Direct
Shear
Box
SIEVE ANALYSIS
Mech.
Hydro.
Requested by :
Date : ..
Reviewed by : ...
Date :
CONSOLIDATION
Std.
Rapid
S.S.
TRIAXIAL
CIU
UU
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
UCT
OR GANIC
CONTENT
PH
SULPH ATE
CO NTENT
CHLO RIDE
CONT ENT
Performed
Note :
1) CIU
Isotropic Consolidated Undrained Triaxial Test with pore pressure measurements

Use 70mm diameter sample (i.e. untrimmed Mazier sample)
Sample should not have side filter during consolidation
Shearing strain should be calculated using Cv values calculated during consolidation
stage.
Multi-stage testing not allowed
P-Q Stress Path Plotting shall be submitted.
2) For CIU Tests, stress path and other relevant data shall be submitted in Hard Copy (Plots and Tabulated
Data) and Soft Copy (Computer files data). Cell confining pressure of 0.5 v , 1.0v , 2.0v shall be adopted
for the CIU test, where v is the total vertical in-situ stress.
3) UU
Unconsolidated Undrained Test (at total overburden pressure of the sample)
4) UCT Unconfined Compression Test (untrimmed sample)
5) To determine Cv from Consolidation Tests :Use Square-Root Time Method to determine d0.
Then use Log-Time Method to determine d100
6) Direct shear box test - Three (3) reconstituted specimens (60mm x 60mm x 20mm thick) shall be used.
- Applied normal stress pressure of 0.5 v, 1.0v , 2.0v shall be adopted for the
shear box test, where v is the total vertical in-situ stress.
7) All specimens for triaxial or consolidation tests shall be obtained from center of the recovered samples in
UD sampler.
8) 2 moisture content tests shall be carried out on soil immediately besides the specimens retained for
triaxial or consolidation tests.
9) Bulk density, particle size distribution and Atterberg Limit tests shall be carried out on every specimen
after the triaxial or consolidation tests.
Interpretation of Laboratory Tests
Strength Parameters :
- Stability Analyses of Slopes & Embankment.
-
Bearing Capacity Analyses for Foundation.
Strength Parameters
(A) Effective Stress :

-
For Long Term & Permanent Conditions.
Fully Drained Conditions.
Typical Set-up of Triaxial Test
a)Base
b
d
b)Removable cylinder and

top cap
c)Loading ram
d)Rubber membrane
Effective Stress Strength

Parameters c &
(i)
(ii)
Interpretation from
Isotropic Consolidated Undrained Triaxial Test,
CIU + U
Isotropic Consolidated Drained Triaxial Test,
CID
(iii) Laboratory Shear Box Test (at v. slow

rate)
MohrCoulomb
STRESS PATH INTERPRETATION

Two types of Plot
(i)
MIT Stress Path Plot
The vertical axis :
t = (
1 - 3)/2
(T.W. Lambe of MIT, 1967)
= (
1 - 3)/2
The horizontal axis :
s = (
1 + 3)/2
s = (
1 + 3)/2
&
(ii) Cambridge Stress Path Plot
(Roscoe, Schofield and Wroth (1958) at the Cambridge, England)

The vertical axis :
q = 1 - 3
= 1 - 3
The horizontal axis :
p = (
1 + 2 + 3)/3
&
p = (
1+ 2+
3)/3
Terminology & Interpretation

MIT & Cambridge Stress Path Plot

Tan = t / s
Tan = Sin
K
= c Cos
K
C =
Cos
Tan = q / p
Sin = (3 ) / ( 6 + )
r
= c (6 Cos ) / (3 Sin )
C
r (3 Sin )
6 Cos
Scattered CIU Results

0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
500
500
450
400
350
t' = (
1' - 3')/2
= sin-1 m
BH1 UD2
BH2 UD1
BH2 M1
BH3 UD2
BH4 UD1
BH5 M1
BH6 M1
BH6 M2
BH9 M1
BH10 UD1
BH10 UD3
300
c = a / (cos )
400
350
Proposed Design Line
Upper Bound
c = 5 kPa,
= 39
150
300
c = 3.5 kPa,
= 32
250
200
450
250
200
1
150
Lower Bound
c = 0 kPa,
= 29
100
50
100
50
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
s' = (1'+3')/2
Correlations for
Preliminary Assessment of
Values vs Clay Content (Skempton, 1964)
vs % of Fines
35
30
25
Figure 3 : peak versus Percentage of Fines in Residual Soils
c vs % of Fines
Figure 4 : c versus Percentage of Fines in Residual Soils

Ring Shear test on sand-bentonite mixtures

(after Lupini, Skinner & Vaughan, 1981)
YOU PAY FOR SOIL

INVESTIGATION
WHETHER YOU
CARRY OUT OR
NOT
REFERENCES
ASTM, (1986)
Standard Test Method for Deep Quasi-static, Cone and Friction Cone
Penetration Tests of Soil, D3441-86, ASTM Committee D-18 on Soil and
Rock, USA
Dobie, M.J.D., & Wong, J.T.F. (1990)

Piezocone testing; Interpretation in Malaysia Alluvial Clays Geotechnical
Aspects of the North-South Expressway, PLUS & PL, Kuala Lumpur
Fleming, W.G.K. et al (1985)

Piling Engineering Survey University Press, Glasgow
Head, K. H (1984)
Manual of Soil Laboratory Testing
International Society for Soil Mechanics and Foundation (1988)

International Reference Test Procedure, ISSMFE Technical Committee on
Penetration Testing, Proposal to ISSMFE, Orlando, USA
REFERENCES
Meigh, A.C. (1987)
Cone Penetration Testing: Methods and Interpretation, Construction
Industry Research and Information Association, CIRIA Ground
Engineering Report: In-site Testing, London
Proceedings of 1st International

Symposium on Penetration Testing/ ISOPT I/Florida, USA, 1988
Proceedings of 2nd European

Symposium on Penetration Testing/ ESOPT II/ Amsterdam/ May 1982
Robertson, P.K. and Campanella, R.G. (1988)

Guidelines for using the CPT, CPTU and Marchetti DMT for Geotechnical
Design, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration, Office of Research and Special Studies, Report No. FHWAPA-87-023+84-24
Sanglerat, G, (1972)
The Penetrometer and Soil Exploration, Elsevier Publishing Company,
Amsterdam, Netherlands
Teh, C.I. and Houlsby, G.T. (1991)

An Analytical Study of the Cone Penetration Test in Clay, Geotechnique,
Vol. 41, No. 1, pp: 17-34
Gue, S.S. & Tan, Y.C. (2003)

Current Status & Future Development of Geotechnical Engineering
Practice in Malaysia, 12th ARC on Soil Mechanics & Geotechnical
Engineering, Singapore
Gue, S.S. & Tan, Y.C. (2006)
Landslides: Abuses of the Prescriptive Method, International
Conference on Slopes, Malaysia

Interpretation of Lab and Field Test Results

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Interpretation of Lab and Field Test Results

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

by Ir. Dr. Gue See Sew & Ir.

Chow Chee Meng

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

Quality Services - Our Commitment

Quality Services - Our Commitment

Quality Services - Our Commitment

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

Quality Services - Our Commitment

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

Quality Services - Our Commitment

Quality Services - Our Commitment

Illustrate the importance of

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

Quality Services - Our Commitment

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

Quality Services - Our Commitment

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

Quality Services - Our Commitment

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

Quality Services - Our Commitment

Prevent buckling during driving

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

Quality Services - Our Commitment

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

Quality Services - Our Commitment

For practical application:

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

Quality Services - Our Commitment

Max 15m depth

Quality Services - Our Commitment

Typical test results

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

Quality Services - Our Commitment

Identifying localised soft/weak or slip plane.

Quality Services - Our Commitment

Identifying localised soft/weak or slip plane.

Quality Services - Our Commitment

Identifying nonnon-compliance fill.

Quality Services - Our Commitment

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

Quality Services - Our Commitment

Comparison between JKR probe and SPT

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

Quality Services - Our Commitment

Quality Services - Our Commitment

Quality Services - Our Commitment

Depth From Ground Surface In Meter (m)

Number of Blows per 300 mm

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

Quality Services - Our Commitment

Misleading results at greater depth

Quality Services - Our Commitment

Quality Services - Our Commitment

Quality Services - Our Commitment

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

Quality Services - Our Commitment

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

Quality Services - Our Commitment

Maximum blows to be applied

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

Quality Services - Our Commitment

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

Quality Services - Our Commitment

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd