1- I

A simple guide to in-situ ground testing

Part 1: What is it and and why do it ?

The maln advantages of Csitu testing over the more
badlonal ways of sampling and laboratory testing are:
0 Speed Driiling and sampling, protecting samples hom
d e b h d o n during transportation to the laboratory, and'
Iabor.tory testing can all be iirne-consurning and can
introduce many sources of difference hom the undisturbed
ground. By contrast, many in-situ tests are quite quick and
glve mal-tlme intormation on the ground properties which
Ir generally more reprezentahre of reality.
I3 Qu6nülyIn-riiu testing generally delivers more
intwmrtion about a proñie of the ground, often with near-
contlnuow Informaüon down the profile.
Cl Quai& ündertaken comctiy, in-situ testing can offer
much more consistent and repeatable information than
mutlne sampling and laboratory testing.
There is still reluctance amongst many practitioners to
utilise the full potential of in-situ testing. This guide
discusses the background and argues for the increased
use of in-situ tesbing. It introduces a series of guides that
outline the potential of various in-situ testing techniques.
We don't all have to be experts but a sound understanding
of in-sku test methods and equipment, coupled with
improved speciiications and better guidance, will ensure
that the engineer is able to realise the full potential of
these tests.

Ground investigation (GI)
Successful geotechnical design and
construction require a good
knowledge of the mechanical
behaviour of the ground including its
spatial variability. The requisite
information is gathered as part of a
ground investigation programme.
are available to meet the objectives of
a ground investigation and these
include both field and laboratory
testing. Laboratory tests include those
that test elements of the ground, such
as triaxial tests, and those that test
prototype models, such as centrifuge
tests. Field tests include drilling,
sampling, in-situ testing, full-scale
testing and geophysical tests. In-situ
tests are those that are undertaken 'in
place'; they are inserted into the
ground either via access holes or by
penetration and then apply loading to
the ground whilst measurements are
made. Figure 1 shows typical devices.

The objective of any subsurface

exploration programme is to
determine:
O nature and sequence of the
subsurface strata (geological regime);
O groundwater conditions
íhydrogeological regime);
O physical and mechanical properties
of the subsurface strata (engineering
regime).

For geoenvironmental site

investigations of ground
contamination, there is the additional
requirement to determine:
O the distribution and composition of
contaminants (geoenvironmental
regime).

These requirements vary in volumetric

extent depending on the nature of the Figure 1Some in-situ testing techniques
proposed project and the perceived Left to right: Standard penetration; cone penetration: flat plate dilatometer;
groundrelated risks. Many techniques pre-bored pressuremeter, vane shear
In=s¡tuground testing: a simple guide
An ideal ground investigation should
include a combination of laboratory
tests, primarily to classify the ground,
and field tests, primarily to determine
engineering parameters.
Field and laboratory techniques should
be viewed as complementary rather
than competitive. In-situ tests can,
however, often offer significant
advantages over laboratory tests:
O they can be quicker, easier and
cheaper than sampling and laboratory
testing;
O the soil can be assessed in its
natural environment without the
potential problems of sample
disturbance (Figure 2);
O the spatial variability of the deposit
can be more fully investigated.
~
what is available?
It appears that many practitioners
have felt that too often the capabilities
of in-situ tests have been over-sold or
inappropriately applied. This has
resulted in dissatisfaction when the
tests failed to deliver what was
promised.
The results from the various tests can there must always be a way of
be used not only to generate checking the quality of the data
information on ground properties for determined),
use in design (indirect design method), fl They should also consider whether
but also directly in empirical or semi- additional information might be
empirical foundation design required later, for example as a result
procedures (direct design method). of design changes. (It may well cost
These two approaches to design are very little extra to gather that data at
included in Eurocode 7 (Parts 1 and 2) the same time, so avoiding having to
and this may well stimulate further the make the best of the original data or
use of in-situ tests. incurring remobilisation costs later.)
Realisingthe full potential The ultimate decision on which tests
should be selected depends on many
So how can we improve the situation? factors including:
íJ Firstly, whoever is specifying a
ground investigation programme O level of information required;
should always consider in-situ testing. O parameters to be determined;
n They should at least have a basic 0 ground conditions;
understanding of the various tests: O accessibility, compactness or
their strengths (and weaknesses or otherwise of the equipment;
limitations). o cost;
17 They should be able to select the I7 value for money;
right test for the situation and to O future requirements;
specify the correct equipment and O area and depth to be covered;
procedures for achieving the desired O range of possible designs;
results. (For confidence in the results, O stage of GI, preliminary, main.

Table 1 is an updated version of a

table originally devised in the early
1980s; it lists some of the major irk
situ tests and their applicability for use
in different ground condtions.
Comparing it with the earlier versions
shows that the ratings of some tests
have improved as the database of
experience has built up, but others
have declined as the initial predictions
of their capability have been found
wanting. There is little doubt that the
levels of applicability given in Table 1
can now be attained or exceeded
provided the tests are selected and
used correctly. This applies to all
levels of in-situ testing from the
simplest basic tests, such as dynamic
probing and the SPT, through tests
such as the CPT and piezocone
(CPTU),to the more complex devices
such as the self-boring pressuremeter
(SBP). Table 1 shows that a wide
range of parameters can be reliably
obtained from in-situ testing.

Figure 2 Boring and sampling -tradition

 c;mir> DWk8 upilramasrt
SdlRdik Y <p cu lo q c, Ir Go ah OCR M MsdtGnvrtsnd sm ci.ypeit
tvpe mck mck
Peneimmeters Dynamic C E E C C C C Z C C X C Z Z C E A E E B
Mechanical E M ü x C C E C Z E C C C C z C C A A A A
Electnc (CFT B A x c B A / B C Z E B B / C B C Z C C A A A A
Piezocone ICPNI A A A B B W B N B B E B/C B C E C C A A A A
SeiSmICSCPTWSCPTUl A A A B W 8 4 1 s B N B B A B B B Z C E A A A A
Flat Dilatometer tDMI B A C B B C B Z E E B B C C C Z A A A A
SPT A E E C C E Z C X C Z C Z c c B A A A A
Resistivity probe E E Z E C A C C Z Z C C Z E C E A A A A
I
Pressuremeters Prebored iW) B B Z C B C B C C B C C C A A B B B A B
self b i n g ISBPI B B Al B B B E A ' B A Z A / B B A / B 2 Z B E B B A B
Full displacement Wf'l B 8 X C B C C C Z A2 C C C Z C X B B A A

Others Vane E C Z Z A Z C C C Z C E ~ E X x E Z E A E
Plate load C Z , X C E E E C C A C E E E A E E A A A
m
Screw plate C C . X C E E E C C A C E X Z E E A A A A
Borehdeprmeability C x A E E x z E A E z E Z A A A A A A E
o'C
Hydraulicfracture z E E x z x Z C C x E x c E E E E C A C a
Q
Crosshole/downhole/
surface seismic C C E E E E E C Z A C E C A A A A A A A

Applkabiliry: A = high <p Depends on soil type Sdl paramenir dbflnitions: u in situ static pore pressure
=
E = moderate ' Only when pore pressure sensor fitted 'p = effective internal friction angle
c = low
E = not
2 Only when displacement sensor fitted c, = undrained shear strength
m, = constrained modulus
a
5
cy = coefficient of consolidation o!
-.
k = coefficient of permeabili
v>
Go = shear modulus at small strain s
oh = horizontal stress ;*
OCR = overconsolidation raho w
o+ = stress-strain relationship
a
Q
a
5
Eased on current experience. grades have been assigned to represent qualitative evaluations of the tests are applicable to soils with an average grain size finer than gravel size. Only a Small number of Y
confidence levels assessed for each method. The assigned applicabilies are approximate and given tests can be carried out in hard ground conditions. such as gravel, glacial till. soft and hard rock. P
only as a guide. Details of soil type and equipment type can influence the applicability. The ground type These methods generally require a prebored hole or nondestructive seismic techniques. However, O
provides a guide to the range of ground conditions applicable for the test. Most of the main insitu high capacity CPT equipment has increased the range of applicable ground.
In-situ ground testing: a simple guide
Cost and value for money are difficult
to quantify in general terms, as they
will vary not only with the test type but
also with the ground conditions under
investigation.
This is not intended to be an
exhaustive list but more a guide to the
thought processes that must be
undertaken when specifying in-situ
tests in order to ensure the desired
information is obtained. Addressing
these considerations is good practice
and as such should become the norm.
We are seeing increasingly in some
countries, and in CEN and IS0
standards currently in preparation,
that specifications for test procedures
are now trying to help guide the
specifier, for example having various
specified classes of accuracy for CPT
based on soil type and data use
(profiling or soil parameters).
Furthermore, we should be
encouraging accreditation procedures
for in-situ testing. If current practice
has resulted in cost-cutting and bad
practice, this should be firmly
discouraged even if some small
additional costs are incurred.
More information
Cone penetration testing in geotechnical practice.
Lunne T, Robertson PK, and Powell JJM.
SponPress, London, 1997.
Go for in-situ testing
With in-situ testing we have at our
disposal very powerful tools that can
yield a great deal of valuable
information as part of a well planned
GI, provided they are specified and
used correctly. We should not be
specifying them without due thought
to the end result and the reliability we
can put on the data gathered. The
lessons learnt from the past must be
used to ensure that as other in-situ
tests are developed they are validated
with reliable databases and that
specifications and procedures allow
their full potential to be developed.
We do not all have to be experts but a
sound understanding of insitu test
methods and equipment, coupled with
improved specifications and better
guidance, will ensure that the engineer
is able to realice the full potential of
these tests.
It is to this end that this series of
leaflets has been planned to present
brief outlines of the ability of some
commonly available in-situ tests.
By selecting the right configuration of
tests, in-situ testing will give four main
advantages over the traditional
combination of borings, sampling and
other testing:
n continuous or near continuous data;
O repeatable and reliable data;
n speed of operation (potential for
shorter GI timescales);
O cost savings.
It should also be remembered that the
power of in-situ tests is not restricted
to soil parameter determination; there
are also many examples of their use in
indirect design applications where
parameters unique to a particular test
type can be used in specialist design
procedures.
Your comments
We would welcome any comments that you
may have on this set of guides;
for example, how useful do you find them?
Please ernail your comments to:
powellj@bre.co.uk