The Use of CPTU and DMT Methods to Determine Soil Deformation Moduli—Perspectives and Limitations

Z. Młynarek; J. Wierzbicki; T. Lunne

Otwarty dostęp

The Use of CPTU and DMT Methods to Determine Soil Deformation Moduli—Perspectives and Limitations

Z. Młynarek

J. Wierzbicki

oraz

T. Lunne

| 28 paź 2023

Studia Geotechnica et Mechanica

Tom 45 (2023): Zeszyt s1 (December 2023)

Special Issue 19th KKMGiIG

O artykule

Poprzedni artykuł

Następny artykuł

Zacytuj

Udostępnij

Article Category: Special Issue 19th KKMGiIG

Data publikacji: 28 paź 2023

Zakres stron: 304 - 332

Otrzymano: 27 lut 2023

Przyjęty: 18 sie 2023

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/sgem-2023-0021

Słowa kluczowe
CPTU, DMT, deformation moduli

© 2023 Z. Młynarek et al., published by Sciendo

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

Photographs of deformation grids caused by the penetration in the soil of cone-shaped and wedge-shaped penetrometers (after Baligh and Scott, 1975).

Reduction of shear modulus with level of strain (after Mayne, 2001).

Sensitivity to σh of measured parameters in CPTU and DMT tests (after Marchetti, 1998).

Grouping of the penetrometers after Ward’s method (dendrograms for qt and fs) (after Gauer et al. 2002).

Grouping of the penetrometers after Ward’s method (dendrograms for u2) (after Gauer et al. 2002).

Total variation sum of precision and mean noise level for qt, u and fs for different penetrometers (after Gauer et al. 2002).

Prediction of undrained shear strength of Onsoy clay by different penetrometers (after Młynarek et al. 2007).

Penetration resistance vs. penetration depth (after Yu, 2004).

Classification and CPTU data; (a) Soil units, (b) natural water content and Atterberg limits, (c) total unit weight, (d) clay particle and fines content, (e) corrected cone resistance, qt, (f) pore pressure, u2, and (g) sleeve friction, fs (after Paniagua et al. 2021).

e-log p relationship for different sample quality for Ariake clay (after Tanaka 2007).

Normalized IV compression curves—Athlone grey organic clay (after Long, 2002).

Static penetration diagram for horizontal (a) and diagonal (b) lamination of clay (after Młynarek et al. 1988), where: z—depth of penetration, D—cone diameter, gd—soil dry unit weight.

Relationship between mean value of coefficients of cone resistance and direction of lamination (after Młynarek et al. 1988).

Calcium carbonate cementation of silts (after Stefaniak 2014).

Figure 15:

Sample results of CPTU and DMT tests in the analyzed soils against the lithological profile (after Młynarek et al. 2016).

Results of oedometer tests of glacial tills of Posnanian phase and the values of preconsolidation stress, determined via Casagrande (left) and Janbu’s (right) methods (after Wierzbicki 2010).

Figure 17:

Changes in OCR in the glacial till profile (after Młynarek et al. 2016).

Nomogram for calculating the OCR values of cohesive soils with plasticity index IP<30%, based on the Qt parameter and the IP value (after Wierzbicki 2010).

MCPTU and M moduli variation in comparison to σ′v0 (after Młynarek et al. 2016).

Figure 20:

Typical soil profile based on CPTU and DMT test results (Poznań test site), DR – relative density LI – liquidity index (Młynarek et al. 2012).

Location of the investigated soils on SBT (left) and normalized SBTn (right) classification charts (Młynarek et al. 2012), where Qtn = (qn/σatm)( σatm/σ′v0)n, n = 0.381Ic+0.05(σ′v0 /σatm)−0.15 (Robertson 1990).

Changes in OCR with depth for the Poznań test site (Młynarek et al. 2012).

Relationship between constrained modulus M0 and overconsolidation ratio OCR for the Poznań test site (Młynarek et al. 2012).

Relationship between constrained modulus M0 and liquidity index LI (Młynarek et al. 2012).

Figure 25:

CPTU i DMT results in relation to geotechnical profile at example testing point (after Młynarek et al. 2015).

Position of tested loess soils in the CPTU classification system by Robertson (1990) (a) and the DMT classification system by Marchetti-Craps (1981) (b) (after Młynarek et al. 2015).

A relationship between constrained moduli from CPTU and DMT for the upper zone of the loess subsoil (after Młynarek et al. 2015).

A relationship between constrained moduli from CPTU and DMT for the lower zone of the loess subsoil (after Młynarek et al. 2015).

Comparison of MCPTU and MDMT values with Moed modulus (after Młynarek et al. 2016).

Position of tested soils in the classification diagram by Rabarijoely (2013) (after Młynarek et al. 2015).

Changes in constrained modulus along with depth, determined using different methods (after Młynarek et al. 2006).

A comparison of moduli of compressibility determined on the basis of oedometer test with that of CPTU and DMT (after Młynarek et al. 2006).

Correlation between constrained moduli M0 from DMT and qn value from CPTU Młynarek et al. 2015.

Shear stress vs. shear strain for soils and definition of tmax, G, gs and IR (after Mayne 2006).

Figure 36:

Typical CPTU/SDMT profile from the Poznań test site: qt - corrected cone resistance, Rf - friction ratio, Ic – soil behavior type index, u2 – pore pressure behind the cone, G0 – initial shear modulus (after Młynarek et al. 2013), where LI – liquidity index, DR – relative density.

Trend of changes in shear modulus G0 with depth for SCPTU and SDMT performed in normally consolidated medium sands (after Młynarek et al. 2021).

Correlation between shear modulus G0 and cone resistance qc for the entire data population (after Młynarek et al. 2021).

The correlation between modulus G0 and cone resistance qc taking into account the division into normally consolidated (blue dots) and preconsolidated (red dots) soils (after Młynarek et al. 2021).

The correlation between modulus G0 and cone resistance qc for normally consolidated soils taking into account the type of soil (after Młynarek et al. 2021).

Relationship between the ratio G0/MDMT and KD according to Marchetti et al. (2008) (from Monaco et al. 2009).

Relationship between the ratio G0(m)/MDMT and KD in different soil types from all investigated sites (after Młynarek et al. 2022).

(a) Relationship between G0(m)/MDMT and KD in clay. (b) Comparison between G0(m) obtained from measured VS and G0(c) calculated according to Marchetti et al. (2008) for clay (after Młynarek et al. 2022).

(a) Relationship between G0(m)/MDMT and KD in sandy loam. (b) Comparison between G0(m) obtained from measured VS and G0(c) calculated according to Marchetti et al. (2008) for clay (after Młynarek et al. 2022).

Relationship between G0(m)/σ′p and KD for sandy loam, loam, clay, and silt (after Młynarek et al. 2022).

Rigidity index (IR) vs. liquidity index (LI) (after Młynarek et al. 2018).

Rigidity index (IR) vs. preconsolidation stress (σ′p) (after Młynarek et al. 2018).

Comparison of rigidity index IR determined with different formulas and obtained from investigations (after Młynarek et al. 2018).

Scheme of quasi 3D model and 3D model for interpretation of CPTU data (after Młynarek et al. 2007).

Figure 50:

Deformation profile of the subsoil constructed in the 1st step and 2nd step of clustering (after Młynarek et al. 2007).

The model of subsoil stiffness calculated on the basis of G0 values from CPTU results (a) and SDMT results (b) (after Młynarek et al. 2012).

Guidance for assessment of Poisson ratio.

Soil type	Poisson ratio
Dense sands	0.25 – 0.30
Loose sands, stiff clays	0.35 – 0.45
Satisfied clays	~ 0.50

Parameter values for equation (45) and coefficients of determination according to different soil types.

Soil type	Parameters values of equation (45)		Coefficient of determination

	A [−]	B [−]	R²
Clay	342.75	−1.861	0.6102
Sandy loam	48.785	−1.294	0.7341
Loam	50.096	−1.114	0.6603
Silt	22.608	−0.998	0.7083
Sand	8.7499	−1.283	0.7684
Fine/silty sand	16.716	−1.184	0.6582

Criteria of the Norwegian Geotechnical Institute for the evaluation of sample quality

OCR	Δe/e₀

	Very good	Good	Average	Poor
1–2	<0.04	0.04–0.07	0.07–0.14	<0.04
2–4	<0.03	0.03–0.05	0.05–0.10	<0.04

eISSN:: 2083-831X
Język:: Angielski

Częstotliwość wydawania:: 4 razy w roku
Dziedziny czasopisma:: Geosciences, other, Materials Sciences, Composites, Porous Materials, Physics, Mechanics and Fluid Dynamics

Kanał RSS czasopisma

The Use of CPTU and DMT Methods to Determine Soil Deformation Moduli—Perspectives and Limitations

Article Category: Special Issue 19th KKMGiIG

Data publikacji: 28 paź 2023

Zakres stron: 304 - 332

Otrzymano: 27 lut 2023

Przyjęty: 18 sie 2023

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/sgem-2023-0021

Słowa kluczoweCPTU, DMT, deformation moduli

© 2023 Z. Młynarek et al., published by Sciendo

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

Figure 1:

Figure 2:

Figure 3:

Figure 4:

Figure 5:

Figure 6:

Figure 7.

Figure 8:

Figure 9:

Figure 10:

Figure 11:

Figure 12:

Figure 13:

Figure 14:

Figure 15:

Figure 16:

Figure 17:

Figure 18:

Figure 19:

Figure 20:

Figure 21:

Figure 22:

Figure 23:

Figure 24:

Figure 25:

Figure 26:

Figure 27:

Figure 28:

Figure 29:

Figure 30:

Figure 31:

Figure 32:

Figure 33:

Figure 34:

Figure 35:

Figure 36:

Figure 37:

Figure 38:

Figure 39:

Figure 40:

Figure 41:

Figure 42:

Figure 43:

Figure 44:

Figure 45:

Figure 46:

Figure 47:

Figure 48:

Figure 49:

Figure 50:

Figure 51:

Guidance for assessment of Poisson ratio.

Parameter values for equation (45) and coefficients of determination according to different soil types.

Criteria of the Norwegian Geotechnical Institute for the evaluation of sample quality

Słowa kluczowe
CPTU, DMT, deformation moduli