Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
GEOTECMINEX Consultants
19 September 2010
The Purpose
1. To fully understand the tasks we are carrying out
Standard Penetration Test: it is a very boring job; it is so simple
any one can do it.
SPT should be carried out properly so that the result will
approximately reflect the undrained shear strength of soil and
soft-rocks.
2. To be aware of derived parameters used as engineering design
parameters
SPT N needs to be corrected (N60 , N1(60)) to obtain derived
geotechnical design parameters
19/9/2010
MGSS/workshop
Dr Win Naing
ASD vs LRFD
Allowable Stress Design (ASD)
ASD: Rn/FS Qi
Resistance Effects of Loads
Limitations
Does not adequately account for the variability of loads and
resistance
Does not embody a reasonable measure of strength
Subjective selection of factor of safety
MGSS/workshop
Dr Win Naing
Explanation
Where
Rn = nominal strength (e. g., ultimate bearing capacity)
Qi = nominal load effect
FS = factor of safety
Rn = nominal resistance
= statistically-based resistance factor
i = load modifier to account for ductility, redundancy and
operational importance
i = statistically-based load factor
Qi = load effect.
19/9/2010
MGSS/workshop
Dr Win Naing
MGSS/workshop
Dr Win Naing
19/9/2010
MGSS/workshop
Dr Win Naing
19/9/2010
MGSS/workshop
Dr Win Naing
19/9/2010
MGSS/workshop
Dr Win Naing
19/9/2010
MGSS/workshop
Dr Win Naing
19/9/2010
MGSS/workshop
Dr Win Naing
10
Note:
= friction angle
N = SPT value
fine sand
medium sand
coarse sand
where,
f = friction angle
N = SPT value
f = 53.881-27.6034. e-0.0147N
Where,
N = average SPT value of strata (soil layer)
Peck, R. et al., 1974. Foundation Engineering. John Wiley & Sons, New York
19/9/2010
MGSS/workshop
Dr Win Naing
14
SPT-N
10
k (kN/m3)
2.67E-6
4.08E-6
15
7.38E-6
20
9.74E-6
30
1.45E-5
19/9/2010
MGSS/workshop
Dr Win Naing
15
All these empirical formulas for the allowable end bearing capacity
were proposed by different researchers and practitioners
assuming a factor of safety of 2.5.
All uncertainty is embedded in the factor of safety (FS).
These formula gears towards ASD, for it predicts the allowable soil
and rock resistances using the SPT blow count (N) alone.
Allowable stress design (ASD) treats each load on a structure with
equal statistical variability.
19/9/2010
MGSS/workshop
Dr Win Naing
16
Allowable
bearing pressure
for footing of
settlement
limited to 25
mm
(Bowles, 1982)
19/9/2010
MGSS/workshop
Dr Win Naing
17
19/9/2010
MGSS/workshop
Dr Win Naing
18
Procedure
Step 1. Find the average SPT-N value below the bottom of footing to
a depth equal to width of the footing.
Step 2. If the soil within this range is medium to coarse sand, the
above rule of thumb can be used.
Note: if the average SPT-N value is < 10, soil should be compacted.
19/9/2010
MGSS/workshop
Dr Win Naing
19
SPT-N corrections
19/9/2010
MGSS/workshop
Dr Win Naing
20
N60 = Nm x CE x CS x CB x CR
N1(60) = CN x N60
Where,
Nm = SPT measured in field
CN = overburden correlation factor = (Pa/s)0.5
Pa = 100 kPa
s = effective stress of soil at point of measurement
CE = energy correlation factor for SPT hammer, safety hammer(0.6 0.85);
donut hammer (0.3-0.6); automatic hammer (0.8-1.0)
CR = rod length correlation, <3m (0.75); 3 4m, 0.8, 4-6m, 0.85; 6-10m, 0.95;
10-30m, 1.0)(i.e., adjustment for weight of rods)
MGSS/workshop
Dr Win Naing
21
BF4
B>F4
where
Kd=1+Df/(3B)1.33,
F1 to F4 defined as SI units:
F1=0.05 , F2=0.08 , F3=0.30, F4=1.20
N60 = average SPT blow counts from 0.5B above to 2B below
the foundation level.
19/9/2010
MGSS/workshop
Dr Win Naing
22
19/9/2010
MGSS/workshop
Dr Win Naing
23
qult= (qNq)+(0.5gBNg)
where:
q = the overburden stress at foundation level (Df).
Nq = e [p.tan(f)] [tan(p/4+f/2)]2
Ng = 1.5(Nq-1).tan(f)
Bowles 1996
Brinch & Hansen 1970
19/9/2010
MGSS/workshop
Dr Win Naing
24
N1(60)
Peck, 1974
Allowable bearing capacity using N1(60)
qa =10.6N1(60)
N1(60)=Cn.N60
19/9/2010
MGSS/workshop
Dr Win Naing
25
Soil parameters
f (Hatanaka & Uchida, 1996) = 32.1
Nq (Bowles, 1996) = 23.45
Ng (Brinch & Hansen, 1970) = 21.12
N60 = 7; N1(60) = 8
Effective stress at Df (kPa) = 76.91
19/9/2010
MGSS/workshop
Dr Win Naing
26
Equation
Burland and
Burbidge, 1985
B=1m B=1.5m
B=2m
B=2.5m
B=3m
228
168
216
182
159
259
195
201
200
208
728
754
(25mm settlement)
Bowles/Meyerhof,
1976
(25mm settlement)
Parry, 1977
Df>B
(25mm settlement)
Terzaghi
(Ultimate)
19/9/2010
652
MGSS/workshop
677
703
Dr Win Naing
27
q = c x N (MN/m 2)
q = 20.88 x c x N (ksf)
q = end bearing capacity of the pile
Total end bearing = q x area (p d2/4)
N = SPT-N value (per 30.48cm)
c = 0.45 for pure sand
c =0.35 for silty sand
MGSS/workshop
Dr Win Naing
28
q = C . N MN/m2
C = 0.20
19/9/2010
MGSS/workshop
Dr Win Naing
29
q = C . N MN/m2
q = end bearing capacity
C = 0.15
N = SPT value at pile tip
19/9/2010
MGSS/workshop
Dr Win Naing
30
Unit Ultimate
Bearing Capacity
of piles
Example using
NovoSPT
19/9/2010
MGSS/workshop
Dr Win Naing
31
Liquefaction
Sandy and silty soils have tendency to lose strength
and turn into a liquid-like state during earthquakes.
This is due to increase in pore pressure in the soil
caused by seismic waves.
19/9/2010
MGSS/workshop
Dr Win Naing
32
33
Yangon west
Unconsolidated
Sediments
34
35
36
37
A general rule is that any soil that has an SPT value higher
than 30 will not liquefy.
For clean sand with less than 5% fines,
CRR7.5= 1/[34-(N1)60]+(N1)60/135+50/[10x(N1)60+45]2 2/200
CRR7.5 = soil resistance to liquefaction for an earthquake with a
magnitude of 7.5 Richter
Note: correlation factor is needed for other magnitudes
19/9/2010
MGSS/workshop
Dr Win Naing
38
N1,60cs
39
Hledan
Kamayut site
SPTN1(60)
Dr, %
HLD BH-02
HLD BH-06
Vs
Vs (30)
Thickness,
m
LQF zone*
< 50
189
160
(138)
13.0
10.0 23.0 m
< 45
178
150
(132)
17.0
8.0 25.0 m
SPTN1(60)
Dr, %
Vs
Vs (30)
Thickness,
m
LQF zone*
BSP BH-04
11
>50
230
185
(160)
20
8-28
BSP BH-08
10
> 55
213
220
(157)
8.5-13.5
(average)
m/sec
(Vs1sc)
(site category E)
(average)
m/sec
(Vs1sc)
(0.3g, M7.5)
(0.3g, M7.5)
40
Thickness of penetrated surface layer is about 6.0m (after Obermeier et al., 2005) at
both sites at 0.3g.
41
19/9/2010
MGSS/workshop
Dr Win Naing
42
19/9/2010
MGSS/workshop
Dr Win Naing
43
piezocones
19/9/2010
MGSS/workshop
Dr Win Naing
44
GEOTECH AB
19/9/2010
MGSS/workshop
Dr Win Naing
45
Details of a
piezocone
19/9/2010
MGSS/workshop
Dr Win Naing
46
19/9/2010
MGSS/workshop
Dr Win Naing
47
19/9/2010
MGSS/workshop
Dr Win Naing
48
19/9/2010
MGSS/workshop
Dr Win Naing
49
19/9/2010
MGSS/workshop
Dr Win Naing
50
19/9/2010
MGSS/workshop
Dr Win Naing
51
CPT Profiles
19/9/2010
MGSS/workshop
Dr Win Naing
52
19/9/2010
MGSS/workshop
Dr Win Naing
53
Detail interpretation
19/9/2010
MGSS/workshop
Dr Win Naing
54
Soil Behavior Type (Robertson et al., 1986; Robertson & Campanella, 1988)
1 Sensitive fine grained
5 Clayey silt to silty clay
9 sand
2 Organic material
6 Sandy silt to silty sand
10 Gravelly sand to sand
3 Clay
7 Silty sand to sandy silt
11 Very stiff fine grained*
4 Silty clay to clay
8 Sand to silty sand
12 Sand to clayey sand*
19/9/2010
MGSS/workshop
Dr Win Naing
55
19/9/2010
MGSS/workshop
Dr Win Naing
56
SBT
at Marina
South
19/9/2010
MGSS/workshop
Dr Win Naing
57
SBT Marina
south
19/9/2010
MGSS/workshop
Dr Win Naing
58
Marina south
soil profile
19/9/2010
MGSS/workshop
Dr Win Naing
59
Changi
East
19/9/2010
MGSS/workshop
Dr Win Naing
60
Changi east
19/9/2010
MGSS/workshop
Dr Win Naing
61
Changi East
soil profile
19/9/2010
MGSS/workshop
Dr Win Naing
62
19/9/2010
MGSS/workshop
Dr Win Naing
63
19/9/2010
MGSS/workshop
Dr Win Naing
64
Shear strength , Su / Cu
Overconsolidation ratio OCR:
Powel et al. 1998
Lunne et al. 1989
Mayne 2005
Clay undrained Young's modulus Es:
Duncan and Buchihmami 1976
Clay at-rest earth pressure Ko:
Kulhawy and Mayne 1990
Sand relative density Dr:
Jamiolkowski et al. 1985
Baldi et al. 1986
Tatsuoka 1990
19/9/2010
MGSS/workshop
Dr Win Naing
65
N60 = (qt/pa)/[8.5(1-Ic/4.6)]
19/9/2010
MGSS/workshop
Dr Win Naing
66
19/9/2010
MGSS/workshop
Dr Win Naing
67
19/9/2010
MGSS/workshop
Dr Win Naing
68
SPT-CPT Correlations
Soil type
Qc /N
Clay
0.001
1.0
Silty Clay
0.005
1.7
Clayey Silt
0.01
2.1
Sandy Clay
0.05
3.0
Silty Sand
0.01
4.0
0.5
1.0
5.7
7.0
Sand
19/9/2010
MGSS/workshop
Dr Win Naing
69
Important references
Meyerhof, G. G. 1976. Bearing Capacity and settlement of pile foundations,
ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering GT3: 195-228.
Robertson, P. K., Campanella, R. G., Gillespie, D. and Grieg, J. (1986), Use
of piezometers cone data. Proceedings of the ASCE Specialty Conference In
Situ 86: Use of In Situ Tests in Geotechnical Engineering, Blacksburg, VA
Kulhawy, F. H., and Mayne, P. W., (1990), Manual for estimating soil
properties for foundation design., Report EL -6800, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA.
Lunne, T., Robertson, P. K. and Powell, J. J. M. 1996. Cone Penetration
Testing In Geotechnical Practice
Mayne, Paul W. 2005. Engineering Design Using the Cone Penetration Test
19/9/2010
MGSS/workshop
Dr Win Naing
70
MGSS/workshop
Dr Win Naing
71