<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

The study aimed to interpret the results of cone penetration tests with pore pressure measurement (CPTU). Tests were performed on a section of the designed road about 200 m long. The subsoil under consideration was characterized by organic soils deposited to a depth of approximately 8 m. Due to the problematic soil and water conditions, improvement with geosynthetic encased columns (GEC) was performed. According to the Recommendations for Design and Analysis of Earth Structures using Geosynthetic Reinforcements – EBGEO, the constrained modulus <italic>Eoed</italic> and effective friction angle <italic>φ’</italic> of soil below the GEC column base should be higher than 5 MPa (<italic>Eoed</italic> > 5 MPa) and 30° (<italic>φ’</italic> > 30°), respectively. In this study, the <italic>Eoed</italic> and <italic>φ’</italic> parameters were determined based on CPTU tests conducted in 12 locations. Analysis of the CPTU data showed that the constrained modulus and effective friction angle of the soil deposited below the GEC column base did not meet EBGEO requirements in most locations. It was also concluded that the minimum value of the constrained modulus required by EBGEO is too low compared with the requested value of the effective friction angle.
</abstract>

The study aimed to interpret the results of cone penetration tests with pore pressure measurement (CPTU). Tests were performed on a section of the designed road about 200 m long. The subsoil under consideration was characterized by organic soils deposited to a depth of approximately 8 m. Due to the problematic soil and water conditions, improvement with geosynthetic encased columns (GEC) was performed. According to the Recommendations for Design and Analysis of Earth Structures using Geosynthetic Reinforcements – EBGEO, the constrained modulus Eoed and effective friction angle φ’ of soil below the GEC column base should be higher than 5 MPa (Eoed > 5 MPa) and 30° (φ’ > 30°), respectively. In this study, the Eoed and φ’ parameters were determined based on CPTU tests conducted in 12 locations. Analysis of the CPTU data showed that the constrained modulus and effective friction angle of the soil deposited below the GEC column base did not meet EBGEO requirements in most locations. It was also concluded that the minimum value of the constrained modulus required by EBGEO is too low compared with the requested value of the effective friction angle.

Determination of Mechanical Properties of Soils Based on CPTU Data

Faculty of Civil Engineering and Environmental Sciences

Architecture, Civil Engineering, Environment

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

{"article-title":"Determination of Mechanical Properties of Soils Based on CPTU Data"}

The study aimed to interpret the results of cone penetration tests with pore pressure measurement (CPTU). Tests were performed on a section of the designed...

Determination of Mechanical Properties of Soils Based on CPTU Data

Published Online: Oct 20, 2023

Page range: 55 - 64

Received: Feb 19, 2023

Accepted: Apr 11, 2023

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/acee-2023-0033

Keywords
Field tests, Geosynthetic encased columns, Soft soils, Soil improvement

© 2023 Iwona Chmielewska, published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Figure 7.

Determination of Mechanical Properties of Soils Based on CPTU Data

Published Online: Oct 20, 2023

Page range: 55 - 64

Received: Feb 19, 2023

Accepted: Apr 11, 2023

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/acee-2023-0033

KeywordsField tests, Geosynthetic encased columns, Soft soils, Soil improvement

© 2023 Iwona Chmielewska, published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Figure 7.

Keywords
Field tests, Geosynthetic encased columns, Soft soils, Soil improvement