1 / 40

A Perspective on Geotechnical Testing: The Details Matter

A Perspective on Geotechnical Testing: The Details Matter. John T. Germaine Massachusetts Institute of Technology Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. The Question. How well are we doing as a profession with regards to the characterization of soils?. Outline.

ryder
Télécharger la présentation

A Perspective on Geotechnical Testing: The Details Matter

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. A Perspective on Geotechnical Testing: The Details Matter John T. Germaine Massachusetts Institute of Technology Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

  2. The Question How well are we doing as a profession with regards to the characterization of soils?

  3. Outline • Overview of soil testing industry • Establishing quality control • Some example industry data • Specific gravity • Shrinkage limit • Compaction • Hydraulic conductivity • Conclusions and recommendations

  4. Laboratory Testing Goals • Diversity in test type • Broad range of materials • Accurate results • Timely delivery • Profitability

  5. Testing Considerations • Test methods • Index Tests • Engineering Tests • No correct answer • Extreme variability of natural materials • Huge range in results • Quality control concerns

  6. Testing Organizations • Commercial companies • About 1200 • Commercial laboratories • In-house engineering consultants • Small independent laboratories • Government organizations • About 110 • Academic research laboratories • About 180

  7. Distribution of Tests • Very informal poll • Three large commercial • One in-house engineering • Test numbers, not revenue

  8. Distribution Minus Index • Significantly different distributions • Large number of strength tests • In-house QC type testing

  9. Quality Control Tools • ISO Certification • Management, documentation and training • ASTM D3740 • Guidance for technical, documentation and training requirements • NICET • Certifies technician capabilties • AMRL laboratory assessment • Certifies conformance to standard • AMRL proficiency sample testing • Sends out uniform subsamples • Evaluates collective test results

  10. Documented Protocols • Facilitate communication • Product uniformity • Solidify professional practice • Expand domain of expertise • Improve product quality • Formal Standards • ASTM • AASHTO • BS • In-house procedures

  11. Quality of a Test Method • Precision and Bias • Bias: deviation relative to true value • Precision: variation for given test method • D18 standards have no Bias! • Quantities generally do not have a “correct” result • Use standard caveat statement in all standards

  12. Quantifying Precision • ASTM Standard E691 • Round Robin or Interlaboratory • Ruggedness testing • Impact of allowable variables • > 6 laboratories • Triplicate testing in each lab • Acceptable range • 2.8 x standard deviation • Repeatability for single operator • Reproducibility for between labs • Limited to independent observations

  13. l: Classification and Index • Simple equipment • Considerable labor • Technical skill and finesse • Difficult to check results • Rely on consistency and correlations

  14. Example: Specific Gravity Test • AMRL proficiency program • Method: ASTM D854 • 542 Laboratories • Samples 157 and 158 • Distributed uniform dry powder • One test on each sample

  15. Sample 157 <200 67 % < 2m 29 % Gs 2.644 LL 29 PI 13 USCS CL AMRL Sample Specifics • Sample 158 • <200 62 % • < 2m 27 % • Gs 2.645 • LL 28 • PI 13 • USCS CL 2008 Proficiency Testing Program

  16. Specific Gravity Results • Huge range in results • Within laboratory correlation • Systematic error in procedure • 1995 study same variability Specific Gravity of Sample 157, (gm/cm3) Specific Gravity of Sample 158, (gm/cm3)

  17. Specific Gravity Results • Eliminate outliers • Wide distribution • Bias towards low values Number of Observations • Useful range 0.01 • ASTM • Repeatability • 0.02 • Reproducibility • 0.06 Specific Gravity, (gm/cm3)

  18. Example: Shrinkage Limit Test • Comparison of Wax and Hg Method • AMRL proficiency program • Method: ASTM D4943 & D427 (old) • About 50 Laboratories • Samples 159 & 160 and 161 & 162 • Distributed uniform dry powder • One test on each sample

  19. Sample 159 / 160 <200 89 / 83 % < 2m 39 / 37 % Gs 2.704 / 2.699 LL 43.0 / 43.2 PI 20.8 / 20.9 USCS CL AMRL Sample Specifics • Sample 161 / 162 • <200 65 / 46 % • < 2m 24 / 20 % • Gs 2.733 /2.694 • LL 24.8 / 23.7 • PI 10.2 / 10.1 • USCS CL 2009 & 2010 Proficiency Testing Program

  20. Shrinkage Limit: Wax Method • Huge range in results • Within laboratory correlation • Systematic error in procedure

  21. Shrinkage Limit: Wax Method • Wide distribution • Second year improvement • Distribution skewed to higher values

  22. Shrinkage Limit: Hg Method • About the same range as Wax method • Within laboratory correlation • Systematic error in procedure

  23. Shrinkage Limit: Hg Method • Clear difference between each year • Most labs in narrow range • Serious outliers

  24. Shrinkage Limit: Summary • Wax gives lower values • Wax method has more scatter • Average values capture subtle differences

  25. ll: Laboratory Compaction • Simple equipment • Calibration of automatic hammers • Energy transfer • Material processing very important • Technical skill • Interpretation of results

  26. Example: Standard Proctor • AMRL proficiency program • Method: ASTM D698 • Samples 157 and 158 • 963 Laboratories • Report only wopt and gmax

  27. Compaction Results • Water Content • Weak correlation • Processing issues • 157 higher • Serious outliers • Unit Weight • Better correlation • Technique differences • 157 lower 158 Opt. Water Content, % 157 Opt. Water Content, % 158 Max. Dry Unit Weight, lbf/ft3 157 Max. Dry Unit Weight, lbf/ft3

  28. Compaction Results • Outliers Removed • Water Content • Broad distribution • Subtle difference • Unit Weight • Narrow center band • Clear shift in average • Symmetrical tails Number of Observations Opt. Water Content, % Number of Observations Max. Dry Unit Weight, lbf/ft3

  29. Compaction Results • Considerable scatter • Clear outliers • No trend Dry Unit Weight, lbf/ft3 • Unlikely results • Impossible results Water Content, %

  30. Compaction Results • wopt =10.7 % • gmax =122.6 lbf/ft3 • Field specification • +/- 2 % wc • 92 % R.C. Dry Unit Weight, lbf/ft3 • Field specification • Including 2 Std. Dev. Water Content, % AMRL Proficiency Sample 158

  31. lll: Hydraulic Conductivity • Widest range of any parameter • Extreme equipment demands • Little automation • Expertise more than finesse • Attention to detail • QC equipment

  32. Example: Establishing Precision • ASTM D5080 • Craig Benson conducted study • ISR ML, CL, and CH material • Provided compacted test specimens • 12 laboratories • 3 tests per laboratory

  33. ISR Sample Specifics • ML Sample • <200 99 % • < 2m 8 % • LL 27 • PI 4 • USCS ML • Vicksburg silt • CL Sample • <200 89 % • < 2m 31 % • LL 33 • PI 14 • USCS CL • Annapolis clay • CH Sample • <200 96 % • < 2m 46 % • LL 60 • PI 39 • USCS CH • Vicksburg clay ASTM ISR managed 15,000 lbs of each soil NSF, FHWA, and private sponsorship Started 1993 7 Precision statements

  34. Hydraulic Conductivity Results • Variable Scatter with in labs • Two outlier labs • Some labs very consistent • Log std. dev. fairly good Hydraulic Conductivity, (cm/s) (10-6) Laboratory Number

  35. Hydraulic Conductivity Results • ML (x10-6) • naturallog • 1.21.1 • 0.8-1.60.8-1.5 • CL (x10-8) • 3.83.7 • 3.2-4.43.2-4.4 • CH (x10-9) • 3.62.6 • <0-8.21.3-5.2 Avg. S. D. Hydraulic Conductivity, cm/s Laboratory Number

  36. Hydraulic Conductivity Results • Log provides better representation • Equip. tuned to 10-7 • < one sign. digit • Real problems for low permeability Hydraulic Conductivity, (cm/s) Laboratory Number

  37. lV: Consolidation and Shear • Significant advances in equipment • Extensive automation • Technical expertise • Sample quality and handling • Testing decisions based on soil behavior • Essentially no precision data

  38. Conclusions • QC tools are available • Equipment adequate • Too much scatter • Causes of scatter are not obvious • No data for consolidation or strength • Substantial room for improvement

  39. Recommendations • Formal protocols for every test • Technician training • Consistency evaluation of results • Reference material testing • In-house databases • Participation in ASTM

  40. Acknowledgements • Friends associated with ASTM • Ron Holsinger; AMRL • Craig Benson; U of Wisconsin

More Related