1 / 27

Session 1.2 Soil Property Characterization by In-Situ Tests

Session 1.2 Soil Property Characterization by In-Situ Tests. ISSMGE August 28, 2001. Session 1.2 - Soil Property Characterization by In-Situ Tests. Chair: Max Ervin (Australia) Discussion Leader- Paul W. Mayne (USA) Panel Members: Martin Fahey (Western Australia)

Jimmy
Télécharger la présentation

Session 1.2 Soil Property Characterization by In-Situ Tests

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Session 1.2 Soil Property Characterization by In-Situ Tests ISSMGE August 28, 2001 Georgia Tech

  2. Session 1.2 - Soil Property Characterization by In-Situ Tests • Chair: Max Ervin (Australia) • Discussion Leader- Paul W. Mayne (USA) • Panel Members: • Martin Fahey (Western Australia) • Ranier Massarsch (Sweden) • An-Bin Huang (Taiwan) Georgia Tech

  3. Session 1.2 - Soil Property Characterization by In-Situ Tests • Use of Enhanced In-Situ Tests, notably hybrid devices. • Importance of small-strain measurements in geotechnical deformation analyses • Reliability and Variability Issues • Repeability of soundings • Class ratings for equipment. Georgia Tech

  4. Session 1.2 - In-Situ TestsQuestion from Topic 1 Is it time to retire the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) ? To consider this prospect Let us go back - back in time Georgia Tech

  5. Cell phone 2001 Session 1.2 - In-Situ TestsQuestion 1 Telephone 1909 Georgia Tech

  6. Boeing 717 2001 Session 1.2 - In-Situ TestsQuestion 1 Wright Plane 1903 Georgia Tech

  7. BMW 2001 Session 1.2 - In-Situ TestsQuestion 1 Oldfield Auto 1903 Georgia Tech

  8. Geotech Test 2002 ? Session 1.2 - In-Situ TestsQuestion 1 Geotech Test 1902 1902 - Colonial Charles Gow of Raymond Pile Company Georgia Tech

  9. cu = undrained strength gT = unit weight IR = rigidity index ' = friction angle OCR = overconsolidation K0 = lateral stress state eo = void ratio Vs = shear wave E' = Young's modulus Cc = compression index qb = pile end bearing fs = pile skin friction k = permeability qa = bearing stress DR = relative density gT = unit weight LI = liquefaction index ' = friction angle c' = cohesion intercept eo = void ratio qa = bearing capacity p' = preconsolidation Vs = shear wave E' = Young's modulus  = dilatancy angle qb = pile end bearing fs = pile skin friction SAND CLAY Is One Number Enough??? N Georgia Tech

  10. Use of In-Situ Tests Numerical Simulations • Finite Elements • Strain Path • Finite Differences • Discrete Elements PLAXIS, FLAK, SEEP3d, ABAQUS, CRISP, ADINA, GEOSLOPE Georgia Tech

  11. Enhanced In-Situ Tests • Cone Pressuremeter • Seismic Piezocone • Dilatocone • Seismic Dilatometer • Resisitivity Cone Georgia Tech

  12. Sand Clay Crust SCPTu Sounding, Memphis, Tennessee Real-Time readings in computer screen Penetration at 2 cm/s Georgia Tech

  13. Shear Wave Velocity, Vs • Fundamental Measurement in all Solids (steel, concrete, wood, soils, rocks) • Initial small-strain stiffness represented by shear modulus: G0 = r Vs2(alias Gdyn = Gmax = G0) • Applies to all static & dynamic problems at small strains (gs < 10-6) • Applied to undrained & drained cases • Need Reduction Factor for Relevant Strain Levels. Georgia Tech

  14. Kondner (1963) Ramberg-Osgood Duncan & Chang (1970) Seed & Idriss (1971) Hardin & Drnevich (1972) Jardine, et al. (1986) Prevost & Keane (1990) Vucetic & Dobry (1991) Tatsuoka & Shibuya (1992) Fahey & Carter (1993) Whittle & Kavvadas (1994) Puzrin & Burland (1996, 1998) Tatsuoka, et al. (2001) Modulus Degradation Schemes Georgia Tech

  15. PreFailure Deformation Characteristics of Geomaterials SPECIALTY CONFERENCES • Sapporo (1995):Edited by Shibuya, Mitachi, & Miura. • London (1997):Edited by Jardine, Davies, Hight, Smith, & Stallebrass. • Torino (1999):Edited by Jamiolkowski, Lancellotta, & LoPresti. • Lyon (Sept. 22-24, 2003) Georgia Tech

  16. Enhanced In-Situ TestsSCPTu with Dissipation at Amherst Test Site Georgia Tech

  17. Enhanced In-Situ TestsSCPTu Prediction for DSS at Amherst Site Georgia Tech

  18. SCPTu at Opelika Test Site, Alabama Georgia Tech

  19. Axial Load Test at Opelika, Alabama Q (total) Drilled Shaft 01 (cased) d = 0.91 m L = 11.0 m Q shaft Q base Georgia Tech

  20. Topic 3: Reliability, Repeatability, Calibration, & Interpretation Issues • Prior Comparative Studies: • Lunne, et al. (In-Situ'86) • Tanaka (CPT'95) • Electric vs. Electronic Penetrometers • Subtraction vs. Tension Cones for fs • Smooth vs. Rough Steel - Interface affecting fs measurements. • Lunne, Robertson, & Powell (1997): Recommend different Class I to Class IV penetrometers for CPT work. Georgia Tech

  21. Effective Strength Parameters • Bearing Capacity Theories • Durgunoglu & Mitchell (1975); Vesic (1977); Robertson & Campanella (1983); Salgado et al. (1994); Jamiolkowski & LoPresti (2000) • CSSM Dilatancy Approach using DR from CPT (Bolton, 1986) • Effective Stress Method (Senneset, Janbu & Sandven, 1989) y-f’ (psi-phi) “Sci-Fi” Georgia Tech

  22. Session 1.2 - Summary • Geotechnical Investigations need to Employ Modern Technologies: Seismic Piezocone, Flat Dilatometer, Cone Pressuremeter, Geophysical Methods • Small-Strain Stiffness (G0) is Relevant to Monotonic (Static) and Dynamic Geotechnical Problems • Address issues of Calibration,Equipment, Reliability, and Interpretation. Georgia Tech

  23. Georgia Tech

  24. Enhanced In-Situ Testing Recommendations for Geotechnical Research • Need more consistent methods for interpretation of in-situ tests: • Vane - Limit Equilbrium • Pressuremeter - Cavity Expansion • Piezocone - Strain Path • Pile Foundations - Limit Plasticity Georgia Tech

  25. Enhanced In-Situ Testing Recommendations for Geotechnical Research • Need additional numerical & analytical simulations of multiple tests using • Finite Elements • Strain Path Method • Discrete Elements • Finite Differences Georgia Tech

  26. Enhanced In-Situ Testing Recommendations for Geotechnical Research • Develop additional sensors + channels • New digital cone systems • Seismic Piezocone Pressuremeter • Dielectric-Resistitivity Seismic Piezocone • Gamma-EM-Dilatocone • Better use of statistical methods Georgia Tech

  27. Georgia Tech

More Related