4
853
TABLE 1  COMPARISONS BETWEENMEASUREDTRIAKIAL AND DMI THEORY BACKFIGURED
VALUES OF dax FROM CHAMBERTEST DATA 10
Uodel
Dr
i0 u;f 4 @ 7 a f
855
856
4 COMPARINGTHE CPT qc AND THE DMT q0 between dps and da, that might apply be
tween wedge and cone behavior.
4.1 Theorectically: The writer used their theory to solve
for NYq and C and obtained the results
The plane strain D&M theory also permits shown In TABLE42. The reader will see
the calculation of qc by means of a D6M that the ratio qD/qc does not vary signi
shape factor correction and thus allows ficantly with Ko and D/B. For the pur
the engineer to compare qD and qc over any Poses herein it seems reasonable to assume
desired range of the key variables involved that the ratio varies with only d.
 namely. d. D/B. and K. D6M used the FIGURE 4 shows this variation and suggests
same equation (1) a simple linear equation (2) to express
the variation.
q = yBNyq Cyq . . . . . . . . . . . . .(I)
TABLE 2  PARAMETRIC STUDY, USING THE D6M THEORY FOR THE qD/qc RATIO
5 50 6: 1,077
833 l2
800 6: 17,395 1 . 30
13,370
3o 0.5 50 6: 1,080
845 1:28 1.237
2 50 ;: 1,200
1.510 1.26
200 60
16 6.100
4,800 127
40 0.5 50 16 4,370 L.12 1.549
60 3,910
200 16 18.220 L . L5
60 15,900
2 16
50 7,350 *08 0.73
60 6,815
200 16 ;;*;;; 1.15
60 t
45O 0.707 50 16 LO.960 o *96 2.200
60 11,370
800 :, 204.960 1 o4 0.45
193,285
2 50 ;o 17.915 o . 92
19,445
800 16 ;;;6;; 1.06
60
857
p= penetratmn
force
TABLE 3  CALCULATIONS TO DETERMINETHE
LIKELY BEST RFRACTION OF CPT PUSHROD
FRICTION EFFECTIVE ABOVE THE DMT FRICTION
REDUCER (using Rf  1.0%)
D6H DMT CPT** $./4,7
Depth R dtps qD D6H
Imj (b) iEf? Dnr theory
= weight rods
+ dila tometer 3.6 4 33.9 54 68 0.79 4 0.94
0.1 33.4 47 0.69 0.96
0.2 32.7 41 0.60 0.99
Fr= friction
of soil along 7.8 Jo 38.9 137 185 0.74 J 0.74
0.1 38.2 112 0.61 0.77
0.2 36.9 89 0.49 0.82
= bearing along
rod C reducer 9.2 JO 29.0 18.4 39 0.47 J 1.14
_ 1 II
s,j
thrust data also involved determining the
elate fricrion force, Fp (see FIG. 3).
This force also depends on 6' = dips/2.
rhus, the present method produces two &_3m * 30*
, ;
N
evaluations of qD, which one then equates. 2 i
This produces only one unknown d , on :
both sides of an equation. By us!zg trial .z
values of 6 in suitable increments (the
writer uses 5, and a linear interpolat
ins: over that increment for when the value i
_1 _ ____
_ _  __;_.
o.f :hr calculated d,, = the assumed ~5 s,
on= oh:ains !he value of 8,,. This va Pue
of dips produces added conservatism because
i>f a linear interpolation (up Co 0.2O for
;L lo increment).
_ a_m_______
2+* 40'T
6 ESAMJ'LESOF LOGS OF dips DETERMINED USING @&
from parallel D&
THE PROPOSED ?lETHOD 7
859
6
FIGURE 6  EXA.WLE OF DMT RESULTS BEFWE (2) AND AFTER (0) DYNAMIC COMPACTION
FHI,M A SITE IN NEk .IEXICO. ShCIWING CO.MBINED EFFECTS OF STRESS
AND STRENGTH lNQ?EAiE:
7 ESTI.?iATED 8,, VS. d,, VS. STRESS LEVEL for the TABLE 1 comparisons and they pro
duced the reasonable, conservative pre
The propused method of calculations 8 dictions shown.
from the DMT results obtains essentially
the plane strain d,, because the D&M
8 CONCLUSIONS
theory analyses the plane strain case and
the width/thickness ratio of the dilato
The writer has used a bearing capacity
meter blade = 7.
theory made and verified by others to
Sometimes engineers want d,, values.
evaulate 6,, in coarse to silty sands.
as for conventional 2D slope stability
The application of this theory allows the
analyses or for the bearing capacity of
prediction of the plane strain Q,, vaIue
long footings. Sometimes they want the
from a Marchetti dilatometer test when the
axisyntmetric dtax values, as for the
dilatometer penetrates cohesionless soils
bearing capacity of circular or square
with the penetration force measured or
footings. Laboratory triaxial tests mea
estimated. The method involves the appli
sure d,,. 8pS I dax because of the
cation of complex formulas and therefore
plane strain constraint in the 3rd dimen
requires programming into modern handheld
sion. References E12.131. among others,
calculators or larger computers.
discuss the relationship between the two
The writer believes the proposed DMTd
angles. The writer suggests the following
method capable of insitu evaluations of
eqn. (3) for an approximate comparison
peak d,, and d,, with acceptable, usually
het;_ren peak 4 values:
conservative, accuracy for many engineer
D %
4*a)( = 8s  L (IO) . . . . . . .(4) ing purposes. But, he has used the method
100 for less than two years, and only in the
USA and Canada. It has produced apparently
Engineers now commonly recognize the
good, but usually unchecked results. The
BohrCoulomb failure envelope for soils,
reader should consider it suitable for
including sands, has a distinct curvature
trial applications.
and that when c = 0 the secant d values
xi11 decrease with increasing stress.
Each d,, result from DMT data as deter
mined by the proposed method assumes c =
9 REFERENCES
0 and represents a secant value associated
with a particular average normal stress
111 Marchetti, S., A new Insitu Test for
level on the D6M theory failure planes
the Measurement of Horizontal Soil
around the penetrating wedge. Durgunoglu
Deformability, ASCE . of Conf.
and lMitchell did not determine such an
on In Situ Measurement of Soil Pro
average stress. The writer has assumed
pert ies, Raleigh, NC, June 1975, Vol.
this stress on the average failure plane
II. pp. 255259.
as the Rankine passive stress, which =
[21 Marchetti, S.. Determination of Design
(vertical overburden effective stress) x
Parameters of Sands by Means of Quast
(I + sin d,,). The writer assumed this Statically Pushed Probes, Proc. VII
860
ECSME, Brighton, 1979. Vol. 4. PP. c = MohrCoulomb effective cohesion
237242. intercept
Marchetti,
s., In Situ Tests by Flat D = depth of embedment of bearing
Dilatometer", ASCE Journal of the capacity surface, from ground
Ceotechnical Engineering Division, surface or diameter
paper 15290, March, 1980, pp. 299321 = relative density, void ratio basis
Dr
[4J DisCuSsion of 3 by J.H. Schmertmann K,K, = lateral effective stress coeffi
and Closure by S. Marchetti, ASCE, cient
J. GED. Vol. 107. No. GT6, pp. 831 = bearing capacity factor used in
Nyq
837. D6M theory
I51 Durgunoglu, H.T. and Mitchell, J.K.. qc = static cone penetration (CPT)
"STATIC PENETRATION RESISTANCE OF bearing capacity
SOILS", Research report prepared for 4D = dilatometer blade (DMT) bearing
NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C., capacity
April 1973, Univ. of California, 2 = depth below ground surface
Berkeley. R = angle in D6M theory associated
[6] Durgunoglu. H.T. and Mitchell, J.K.. with depth of embedment
"STATIC PENETRATION RESISTANCE OF Y = soil unit weight
SOILS", IANALYSES, IIEVALUATION OF 6' = effective friction angle between
THEORY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE", sand and penetrometer surface
ASCE Spec. Conf. on In Situ Neasure = cone shape factor used in D&M
i,q
ment of Soil Properties, Raleigh NC, Theory
Vol I, 1975. pp. 151189. o'ff = average normal effective stress on
[71 Mitchell, J. K. and Durgunoglu, H.T., the failure plane generated by
"IN SITU STRENGTH BY STATIC CONE the advancing DMT blade producing
PENETRATION TEST", Proc. 8th Int. a continuous bearing capacity
Conf. SMLFE, Moscow, Vol. 1.2, l/42, failure.
pp. 279286. 6'lo = initial vertical effective stress
[81 Mitchell, J. K. and Lunne. T.A., "CONE at depth = D
RESISTANCE AS A ?lEASURE OF SAND d' = effective soil friction angle
STRENGTH", ASCE Journal of the CED, *'ax
= effective soil friction angle,
Vol. 104, GT7, July 1978, pp. 995 axisymmetric case
1012. d'ps = effective soil friction angle,
[9] Villet, W.C., and Mitchell, J.K. "CONE plane strain case
RESISTANCE, RELATIVE DENSITY Ah? (L = halfangle of penetrometer cutting
FRICTION ANGLE", ASCE Cone Penetra edge
tion Testing and Experience, OCC.
1981. pp. 178208.
[lOI Baldi, G., Bellotti, R., Chionna, V.,
Jamiolkowski, M., and Pasqualini, E., .ABBREVIATIONS:
"CONE RESISTANCE IN DRY N.C. AND O.C.
SA..DS", ASCE Cone Penetration Test CIti = consolidated istropically, un
ing and Experience, Oct. 1981, pp. Jrained compression triaxial test
145177. CPT = static cone penetration test
!I1 1 ',hmerrnann, John H., "Statics Jf DC = ,iynamis compaction or dynamic
S!'T", hSCE  .l,,urnalof the Geotechni consolidation
&.n1 Engineering Division. paper i)&> = Durgunoglu and Xitchell
16573, ?lay, 1979, pp. 655670. :P!T = Yarchetti flat plate dilatometer
.! _7 (Iorniorth, D.K., "SO?lE EXPERIMENTS
OS Lest
THE ISFLUENCE OF STKAI9 CONDITIOS'; ~: SPT hammer energy
<:;TliKI' passing thru
>:i THE STRE:;(;THOF S<LvLuI)",
c;eotr<h delivery system and reaching
:ris, Vol. XI\, 517. 2, iune, 196b. sampler
n. 1:3.
.!3! Lee, K.L., "COWARISON OF PLANE STRAIS
LVD TRIUIAL TESTS ON S,U4D", ASCE
Journal SMSFD. May 1970. pp. 902904.
10 ?IOTATII)N USED:
861
Reference from PennDOT CPT/DMT Manual
4.25
where:
e& = Drained friction angle of the soil  plane strain
TRRUST = Insertion thrust (kg)
4.27
For this method, the analysis developed by Durgunoglu and Mitchell (1975)
as part of the Apollo Lunar Exploration Program is used to estimate the
bearing capacity contribution. This theory was developed from model testing
at shallow depths but has been proven accurate for deep foundation problems
also. The choice of the Durgunoglu and Mitchell approach was based in part on
its unique inclusion of the lateral stress coefficient, K. This parameter is
not widely used in bearing capacity theories but the effect of lateral stress
can be significant. Unfortunately, the shape of the assumed failure surface
L: is not altered by the value of K and, hence, the solution is not "coupled"
with the lateral stress coefficient. The results obtained using this theory,
J however, have been found acceptable (Schmertmann, 1982 and Bellotti et al.,
1983). Its use is recommended until a better analysis becomes available.
L
L: calculated bearing capacity and produce a conservative estimate for 66,. This
is especially true of loose sands. Conversely, due to the increased
i penetration resistance, cemented and strongly dilatent sands usually yield
Li friction angles in excess of the actual value. The thrust measured in these
soils includes an additional contribution to the bearing capacity due to
cementation and/or negative pore pressures that is improperly interpreted as
additional 8.
L
J
4
I
a
4.28.
Ilr
9f = (4.6)
m= D/B ( 4.8)
m'= Dg/B = sinf3 cos(y0) ,(e,tanQ
(4;9)
2cosJI co.54
where:
9f = D and M bearing capacity (kg/cm2)
Y6VC = Average effective unit weight for the soil above
the dilatometer blade (t/m31
Thickness of dilatometer blade = 0.0137 or 0.015 m *
Bearing capacity factor
Shape factor = 1 for wedge penetration
Penetrometer angle (deg)
Half of dilatometer base angle = approx. 8 deg
Angle to vertical tangency of failure surface,
assumed = 66, (deg)
L Angle of plane shear zone, originally an iterative
solution but simplified by assumption for 6 (deg)
s,.
Dilatometer to soil friction angle, = 66, /2 (&g)
6= Drained soil friction angle, planestrain = 66, (deg)
m= Ratio of dilatometer depth (D) to blade thickness
m' = Ratio of distance between blade tip and vertical tangency
of failure surface ("critical depth") to blade thickness
80 = Defines logarithmic failure surface angle (deg)
K= Coefficient of lateral earth pressure, assumed = K,
In some cases, the solution may provide an angle greater than 50. The
validity of the K. relationship in Sec. 4.5 does not extend to planestrain
values greater than 54.1. This problem may occur in cemented and
nearsurface sand deposits to which the method is not generally applicable.
Surface deposits are often heavily overconsolidated and may contain cementing
leachates. In addition, the assumption that the critical depth to width ratio
has been exceeded is not true at very shallow (< 0.3 m) depths.
1
d 6,;
The above method produces a lower (sometimes much lower) K, and higher
(and hence lower OCR) than the currently used method described in
Sec. 4.4.2. Baldi et al. (1986) currently suggest eqn. 4.14 only for use in
1,
... natural, predominantly quartz, uncemented sand deposit(s)". Since sand
deposits normally have a high variability, the use of even closely spaced
soundings involves an inherent error in obtaining "matching" qc and KD values
for this method. The requirement for both types of testing is also a economic
I drawback. Eowever, this method is computationally simple, allows the user to
visually inspect the graphs for sensitivity to parametric changes and provides
i
a viable alternate calculation for 6,;;. Marchetti reports (personal
communication) adopting it as his routine method for uncemented sands. Since
it is still under evaluation though, the engineer is cautioned to compare its
results for accuracy before use in design.
Before the user can modify 6' to another stress level, the stress
existing at the time of its measurement must first be determined.
Unfortunately, the state of stress around the dilatometer blade is not well
defined and no attempt was made to do so by Durgunoglu and Mitchell.
Schmertmann (DMT DIGEST) suggested equation 4.15 as an estimate for the value
of the average normal effective stress on the failure plane (cif) during
penetration. Other investigators (Bellotti et al., 1983) have arrived at the
same or a similar magnitude for this "average" stress.
where:
Reference secant friction angle associated with a
16; =
reference failure stress of 2.72 bars (deg)
0 = Secant friction angle determined from analysis of the
DMT data, either planestrain or axisymmetric (deg)
oif = Normal stress on the failure plane during the
penetration of the blade  from eqn. 4.15 (bars)
Having found the reference angle and retaining the same reference normal
stress and value of d, it is possible to to estimate a new secant 0: at any
failure stress, rgfi (in bars) , along the curve using eqn. 4.20:
Alternatively, the engineer may also use Figure 4.25 to find 8' at a
stress level other than the reference failure stress of 2.72 bars. Baligh's
procedure provides an accepted method by which to compensate for the observed

m
4.34a
3
l
6
v=o
Note that the tangent (0') and secant ($A) friction angle for a given
stress level may be foun8 as follows:
5f
tan 4' = tan 9'  tan CL loglO 7 (4.17)
t 0
0
5f
tan 41:= tan a(:+ tan a ( &  10 1 (4.18)
r I 0 <
Bien plus que des documents.
Découvrez tout ce que Scribd a à offrir, dont les livres et les livres audio des principaux éditeurs.
Annulez à tout moment.