Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 7

Determination of rigidity index for a shallow

foundation on a carbonate clay till

Jesus Gonzalez-Hurtado, Tim Newson
Geotechnical Research Centre, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.
Michelle Tyldesley
Golder Associates Ltd., Mississauga & London, Ontario, Canada.

Detailed investigation of the links between operational strain levels and site investigation techniques for foundations of
wind turbines have not been previously described in the literature. This paper reports on a study of an operating wind
turbine in Southern Ontario. It describes laboratory and field methods used to characterize the strength, stiffness and
rigidity index (ratio of shear modulus to undrained shear strength) of the carbonate clay till deposit underlying the large
shallow foundation. Various correlations between in-situ tests (geophysics, CPT and SPT) and laboratory results for the
stiffness and strength properties are compared. In particular, the operational strain levels for this specific geotechnical
problem are investigated and appropriate methods of determining rigidity index and stiffness parameters are discussed.

Enquête sur les liens entre les niveaux de souche opérationnelles et techniques d'investigation de site pour les
fondations de l'éolienne éoliennes n'ont pas été précédemment décrits dans la littérature en détail. Cet article présente
une étude d'une éolienne en fonctionnement dans le sud de l'Ontario. Il décrit des méthodes de laboratoire et de terrain
utilisés pour caractériser l'indice de résistance, de rigidité et de rigidité (rapport de module de cisaillement à la résistance
au cisaillement non drainé) de l'argile de carbonate jusqu'au dépôt qui sous-tendent la grande fondation superficielle.
Différentes corrélations entre essais in-situ (géophysique, CPT et SPT) et on a comparé les résultats de laboratoire pour
les propriétés de rigidité et résistance. En particulier, les niveaux de contrainte opérationnelle pour ce problème
spécifique géotechniques sont étudiés et on discute des méthodes appropriées pour déterminer les paramètres index et
rigidité de rigidité.

1 INTRODUCTION for surface founded shallow foundations (Meyerhof,

1953). For clay soils, analyses require accurate and
Wind is a major source of renewable energy and is appropriate estimates of strength (su, undrained shear
projected to capture 11% of the energy generation strength) and elastic parameters (shear modulus, G and
capacity for Ontario by 2018. Recent research output for Poisson’s ratio, ). These can be determined from site
the foundations of offshore wind turbines has been investigation in a number of ways: empirical correlations,
significant. In contrast, the literature for onshore laboratory tests, in-situ tests and geophysical tests. The
foundation systems is still relatively sparse. Consequently, stress-strain response of soils is known to be complex
despite there being similar design issues for turbine and non-linear, and is dependent on the mode of loading,
foundations across the industry, there is often a diverse fabric anisotropy, rate and time effects, over-consolidation
interpretation of design codes and understanding of the ratio, stress state and strain history. Therefore
behavior of these foundations. This can lead to quite determining the appropriate test type (or group of
different foundation designs on similar wind farms, with complementary tests) that will provide the relevant
the same turbines and comparable geotechnical profiles. stiffness and strength properties for specific geotechnical
This issue is exacerbated in Canada, since there is problems can be difficult and is also dependent on the
currently no regional regulatory guidance for site funding available for the site investigation.
investigation and design specifically for wind turbine. Researchers have previously developed calibrated
Faced with this situation, it is not surprising that varied correlations of strength and stiffness between certain in-
approaches to site investigation have developed across situ and laboratory tests, and data from monitoring of full-
the industry. In some cases, despite there being a range scale geotechnical structures (e.g. Mair, 1983). The
of excellent techniques available, generic and relatively operational stiffness moduli for structures have been of
crude site investigations can occur, leading to quite particular interest and these are usually plotted on shear
conservative designs. degradation curves (see Figure 1). The small-strain
Design approaches for serviceability and ultimate modulus (Go) is typically determined using shear wave
limit states for shallow wind turbine foundations are velocity methods and gives a limiting upper value; this is
typically based on European codes (e.g. DNV, 2010; IEC the maximum soil stiffness for a specific void ratio and
61400-1, 2005). These involve the use of isotropic elastic stress state. Shear modulus (G) is found to decrease non-
analyses of half-spaces (Borrowicka, 1943) and empirical linearly with shear strain () and this ‘shear degradation
modifications of the standard bearing capacity equation curve’ is often shown in a normalized form, with G divided
by the maximum Gmax (or Go). The strain levels on this piles, etc. It is also a very useful parameter if only shear
curve have been divided previously into three zones strength data is available and/or disturbed samples
(Atkinson, 2000): very small strain, where stiffness is preclude accurate determination of stiffness moduli.
constant and elastic, small strain, where stiffness varies Although a range of different tests have been
non-linearly with strain and large strain, where the soil proposed to determine rigidity index, the most commonly
approaches failure and the stiffness is relatively low. The reported benchmark results use standard triaxial
majority of geotechnical structures operate within compression test data (e.g. Teh and Houlsby, 1991; Low
intermediate strain levels from 10-5 to 10-2. Different et al., 2011), with secant shear modulus at 50% (G50) of
methods of determining the stiffness also provide a wide the peak undrained shear strength (su). Values of rigidity
range of applicable strain levels and hence stiffness index have been found to range from 25 to 600 (Teh and
estimates, from very small strains to large strains, as Houlsby, 1991; Schnaid et al. 1997). More common usage
shown in Figure 1. of geophysical tests in the laboratory and in-situ test have
expanded the range of rigidity index measured and very
small strain rigidity index values (Go/su) for different soils
are now available in the literature and may span the range
200 to 3000 [e.g. Low et. al, 2011].
Many researchers have developed empirical
correlations to estimated Ir. As described by Mayne
(2001), a Cam-clay model was proposed by Kulhawy and
Mayne (1990), where Ir is dependent on the
overconsolidation ratio (OCR) and can be calculated from:

2 1 + eo [1 + ln(OCR)]eo Λ
Ir = ( ) M ( ) ln(10)
3 Cc Λ(1 − Λ)OCRΛ

where M is the slope of the critical state line = (6sinφ')/(3-

sinφ'), Λ is the plastic volumetric strain ratio = 1 – Cs/Cc
(usually assumed to be 0.8); data compiled by Mayne and
Mitchell (1988) suggested that this value of Λ is
appropriate for many natural clays, and eo is the initial
void ratio.
Figure 1. Stiffness degradation curve and strain range of Another empirical approach between Ir, OCR and
different structures and testing methods (After Atkinson, plastic index (PI) was proposed by Keaveny and Mitchell
2000 and Mayne, 2001) (1986) on the basis of anisotropically consolidated
compression (CAUC) triaxial test data. Ir can be
approximated using:
Detailed investigation of the link between operational
strain levels and site investigation techniques for shallow
foundations of wind turbine foundations has not been e[0.0435(137−PI)]
previously described in the literature. This paper reports Ir =
on a study of an operating wind turbine in Southern [1 + ln{1 + 0.385(OCR − 1)3.2 }]0.8
Ontario (e.g. Tyldesley et al., 2013). Laboratory and site [2]
investigation results for this site are discussed, and the
derivation of appropriate stiffness, strength and rigidity
index values are described. In particular, the applicable Mayne (2001) presented a further empirical solution to
strain levels for this specific geotechnical problem are estimate Ir using parameters measured in the CPT test:
addressed and appropriate methods of determining
rigidity index and stiffness are discussed. 1.5 q − σvo
[( + 2.925)( t ) − 2.925]
Ir = e M qt − u2

The rigidity index (Ir =G/su) was originally defined by Vesic where M is the slope of the critical state line, q t is the tip
(1972), as the ratio of the shear modulus to the shear resistance, σvo is the initial vertical stress and u2 is the
strength. This provides a description of the compressibility pore pressure measured at the depth of interest. As this is
of the soil and was used by Vesic (1972) to distinguish an exponential function, the derived values are particularly
between different modes of failure for shallow sensitive to accurate CPT measurements and therefore
foundations. It has been shown to influence a large require proper saturations for the filter and cone assembly
number of geotechnical problems, from in-situ testing, to obtain u2 readings and correction of measured qc to
cavity expansion, tunneling, shallow foundations and total qt (cone tip resistance).
Lu et al. (2004) obtained a relationship for use in in- 40 m. The upper crust has very intense fissures and the
situ penetration testing, which can also be used for Ir: deposit becomes nearly unfissured below 4.5 m. The
upper crust zone of this deposit is weathered, mottled
N −3.4+1.9∆−1.3αc brown-grey or brown-green with a stiff to very stiff
( kt ) consistency. This weathered zone generally has higher
Ir = e 1.6
moisture contents due to the infiltration of surface water
[4] into the fissures of the clay. The underlying lower crust is
prevalently brown in colour and has a very stiff
Again this relationship is dependent on parameters consistency and relatively lower natural moisture content.
measured from the CPT test, Nkt is the cone factor = At several locations, this layer has clayey silt, sandy clay
qnet/su, Δ is the normalized in-situ deviator stress = σ’vo(1 – and silt seams. A soil colour change occurs from brown to
Ko)/(2su). Ko is the earth pressure coefficient, which can grey between 3 and 4 m below the ground surface. Below
be estimated (Mayne and Kulhawy 1982) as Ko = (1 – sin the crust, the unweathered till extends beyond the
ϕ’) OCRsinϕ’. αc is the cone face roughness which varies maximum depth of sampling. This zone is characterized
from 0 to 1 for perfectly smooth and rough interfaces. by a uniform grey appearance, a stiff to very stiff
Since stiffness parameters can be approximated consistency and relatively uniform moisture contents.
using different correlations, SPT data can be also used to Overconsolidation throughout the whole stratum was
estimate Ir values, the following correlations were applied identified by field and laboratory tests and is considered to
to approximate the small strain shear modulus (Go) after be result from past lowering of the ground water level,
Ohsaki & Iwasaki (1973) and the undrained shear possible cementation from carbonates and other minerals
strength (su) after Sivrikaya & Togrol (2002): from weathering processes, and wetting and drying cycles
(Quigley and Ogunbadejo, 1976). Further geotechnical
Go = a. N1 b [tsf] , a = 143 and b = 0.71 [5] parameter values for each layer are found in Table 1.

su = 4.85. N1 [kPa] [6] Table 1. Representative geotechnical properties for the till
Upper Lower Unweathered
where N1 is the SPT blow count corrected for overburden Crust Crust Till
pressure. Natural Water
22-32 16-20 16-24
Content, (%)
Unit Weight,
20.3 21 21.6
Liquid Limit (%) 46 34 30
3.1 Wind farm site and foundation details Plastic Limit (%) 21 19 17
Clay (%) 40 29 31
The octagonal shallow foundation that is the focus of this Silt (%) 45 49 45
study has a diameter of 19 m at 3 m depth. This serves as Sand (%) 15 20 21
a base for a 2.3 MW wind turbine with an 80 m hub height OCR 2-5 2-3 1-1.5
and triple bladed rotors with a 93 m diameter. The site is Go (MPa) 100-120 60-200 60-80
Undrained Shear
located in a simple geographical and environmental area 100-150 150-250 100-130
Strength (kPa)
in the Great Lakes region of Southern Ontario. The area is
underlain by carbonate-rich clayey silt tills and is located
at the convergence of four major geological deposits. 3.3 Overview of site investigation
These consist of the Port Stanley and Tavistock tills,
glaciolacustrine sand and gravel, and glaciolacustrine A number of boreholes were drilled adjacent to the turbine
clayey silt. These materials were laid down in the Port foundation to depths of twice the foundation diameter to
Bruce Stade (c. 14,800 years bp.) during the re-advance evaluate the soil profile, perform in situ tests and collect
of the Laurentide Ice Sheet of the Late Wisconsin. These high-quality samples for laboratory testing spaced at 3 m
subglacial lodgement tills are calcareous and fine-grained, to allow for later cross-hole geophysical testing. A track-
suggesting that the ice overrode and incorporated fine- mounted drill was used for the drilling activities. In situ
grained glaciolacustrine sediments deposited during the testing adjacent to the boreholes consisted of SPT, field
previous Erie Interstade. This has created approximately shear vane, cross-hole geophysics and seismic SCPTu,
40 to 45 m thickness of clayey silt tills with interbedded and was conducted to depths of 30 m. Piezocone
glaciolacustrine sediments. The bedrock is shale with dissipation tests [with a u2 (type 2 piezocone) filter
limestone-dolostone-shale interlayers. location] were also conducted by stopping the cone
penetration at certain depths and monitoring the decay of
3.2 Soil description and basic properties excess pore pressures, typically until at least 50%
dissipation of the initial excess pore pressure. To
The till deposit can be divided into three zones: a heavily complement the in situ test results, a full suite of
weathered oxidized upper crust from 0 to 1.5 m, a partially laboratory tests were also conducted for soil classification
weathered lower crust that transitions from an oxidized to and geotechnical properties.
an unoxidized state between 1.5 and 4.5 m and an
unweathered clay till from 4.5 m to a depth greater than
3.4 Typical field and laboratory data the till deposit indicating a stiff consistency. Only a single
N1 value for the weathered till of 43 per 0.3 m of
A representative CPT profile of the till deposit from one of penetration was recorded indicating a hard consistency.
the test locations is presented in Figure 2, showing total The N1 values range from 11 to 20 per 0.3m of
cone tip resistance (qt), sleeve friction (qs), and friction penetration for the unweathered till indicating a firm to stiff
ratio (fr). Tip resistance readings clearly show fluctuations consistency.
between 1 MPa to 3 MPa for the first 1.5 m depth
Corrected SPT Blow Count (N1)
reaching a peak value of 4.5 MPa at 0.5 m (upper crust).
Between 1.5 m and 2.5 m depth there is a steady 0 10 20 30 40 50
increase of qt from 2 MPa to 6 MPa and then a decrease
from 6 MPa to 2 MPa for the subsequent 1.5 m (lower
crust). For depths below 4.5 m, the tip resistance remains
around 2 MPa (unweathered till). The variations along the
first 4.5 m depth are likely related to localized weathering 10
and the presence of cracks and fissures. Sleeve friction
varies from 0 to 300 kPa for the first 3 m, decreasing for 15

Depth (m)
the subsequent 7m to 25 kPa, where it remains constant
for the rest of the profile. Based on the fr and qt values it is 20
possible to characterize the soil deposit as a heavily over
consolidated silty clay (stiff to very stiff) between 0 to 1.5 25
m, heavily overconsolidated silty clay “crust” (hard)
between 1.5 to 4.5 m, and an overconsolidated silty clay 30
(stiff to very stiff) below 4.5 m depth.
Cone Tip Resistance Sleeve Friction Friction Ratio
(MPa) (kPa) (%) 40

Figure 3. Typical SPT profile of the till deposit

Figure 4 shows the stiffness degradation curve

normalized by the undrained shear strength (s u) for the
material at 1D below the foundation (20 m). The blue line
is the stiffness degradation of the glacial till for the large
strain range from a cyclic triaxial test (Kiss et al., 2014).
The red dashed line is an empirical approximation of the
stiffness degradation curve of the till deposit, developed
with a method proposed by Vardanega and Bolton (2011).
The reference strain (γref) is used to normalize shear
strain values (γ) in relation to modulus reduction (G/Go).
The following empirical formulations were used for the
Depth (m)

derivation of the curve:

G 1
= 0.74 [8]
Go γ
1+( )

γref = [9]

The maximum shear modulus (Go) at 20 m depth is

equal to 294 MPa (found from bender elements), the
undrained shear strength (su) is equal to 125 kPa (found
from triaxial compression), and the plasticity index (PI) is
equal to 15%. Taking these values it was possible to
approximate γref and hence G/Go, to produce the curve in
Figure 4.
Figure 2. Typical CPT profile of the till deposit

A representative SPT profile of the till deposit from

one of the test locations is shown in Figure 3. The N1
values range from 14 to 15 per 0.3 m of penetration for
Figure 6 shows a typical excess pore water pressure
fitting of a dissipation test (at 19.7 m) from the CPT is
shown. The horizontal coefficient of consolidation (c h) was
2000 estimated from oedometer tests. Nine CPTU tests through
the soil profile were used to determine this curve.

1500 Rigidity Index, Ir


1 10 100 1000 10000

1000 0
Vardanega &
Bolton, 2011
500 Kiss et al., 2014

0.000001 0.0001 0.01 1
Shear Strain (%)

Figure 4. Normalized stiffness degradation curve for soil

at 20 m 15

1D Below

Depth (m)
To investigate the applicability of the various methods of
determining rigidity index for the chosen problem, different
approaches were used to derive the rigidity index (I r) with
depth. The majority of the methods are described in 25
Section 2 and they depend on parameters from in-situ
tests such as CPT and SPT (equations 3, 4, 5 and 6) and
laboratory classification and stress-strain tests (equations
1 and 2). These results are shown in Figure 5 along with
two other methods of deriving rigidity index. Small strain Equation 1
Go values found from a seismic cone (SCPT) have been Equation 2
normalized by dividing by undrained shear strength (s u) Equation 3
35 Equation 4
from the CPT using equation [10] (Teh and Houlsby,
1991) and Nkt was taken between 11.8 to 12.1 Equation 5 & 6
Equation 11 & 12
qt −σvo 40
su = [10]
Nkt Figure 5. Summary of Ir values using different methods.

The last method uses a back analysis of a cylindrical 1000

cavity expansion due to the insertion of the CPT. Burns
and Mayne (1998) developed a method to account for the 900
dilatory response of overconsolidated soils and equations 800
[11] and [12] were used to find Ir:
Porewater u2 (kPa)


∆ui = (∆uoct )i + (∆ushear )i [11] 600

Measured Response
500 at 19.7 m
where (∆uoct )i = σ′vo (2M/3)(OCR/2)^ ln(Ir ) = the
octahedral component during the penetration and 400 Approx. CE-CSSM
(∆ushear )i = σ′vo [1 − (OCR/2)Λ ] = is the shear induced
300 Hydrostatic Pore
component. The pore water pressures at any time (t) are Water Pressure
obtained in terms of the modified time factor T* from: 200
(∆uoct )i (∆u
shear i )
∆u = + 1+5000T [12] 0
1+50T∗ ∗
0.01 1 100 10000
where 𝑇 ∗ = (𝑐ℎ . 𝑡)/(𝑎2 . 𝐼𝑟 0.75 ) and a = probe radius. Log Time (min)

Figure 6. Typical measured and fitted dilatory response in

the hard overconsolidated clay (Depth: 19.70 m)
5 INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS typically associated with methods or responses for the
small strain stiffness (Go). The methods in box 2 are more
The results of the comparison of rigidity index (I r) with applicable to strain ranges associated with states
depth show a wide range of estimates that are generally approaching the ultimate limit state.
uniform with depth. The majority of the results lie between According to DNV (2010), an appropriate stiffness
190 and 1000, and are representative of the errors in estimate can be made by determining Go from tests
measurement with different techniques, sample applicable empirical methods, and then determining G/G o
disturbance, loading direction/shear mode, applicability of ratio for the operating strain levels (10-3 according to the
the original database (in case of empirical relationships) code). This would correspond with a G/s u value of
and the strain level of the tests. These values also span approximately 600 and G/Go of 0.25, lying in the upper
the range from G50 to Go, with regard to the stiffness range of values. Note that the strains below the
component of the ratio and partly reflect the initial foundation will attenuate relatively quickly with distance
intention of the originators of the methods. The biggest away from the foundation and that the strains represent
difference between the estimates of Ir and the general the extreme values in the soil profile.
range is from equation 3 and this may be due to the
quality of the pore pressure measurement and the type of 6 CONCLUSIONS
cone used, or possibly some inherent issue with the
equation. The links between operational strain levels and site
Given the wide range of estimates, it is informative to investigation techniques for a shallow foundation of an
compare these with the equivalent strain levels of the operating wind turbine supported by a carbonate clay till
material and the operating strains of the shallow deposit in Southern Ontario were analyzed. Methods of
foundation subject to the soil-structure interaction due to determining rigidity index and stiffness parameters for this
the wind loading on the turbine tower. Figure 7 shows a specific geotechnical problem were investigated and the
portion of the normalized stiffness degradation curve (G/s u findings suggest that it is possible to correlate the
vs. γ) along with estimates of rigidity index from the operating strains of the soil and different methods to
different approaches. approximate the stiffness parameters (e.g. Go), which are
applicable across the range of normal operations to close
1000 to the ultimate state conditions. By completing these types
of analyses it can lead engineering practice towards an
improved estimation of strain levels, resulting in a better
understanding of soil-structure interaction. This will help
with validation and calibration of state of design
approaches, leading to more efficient and economical
2 designs, and potentially extending the life-cycles and
Operating investments made by wind turbine owners and operators.


The authors would like to acknowledge the help and

SCPT support of J.J. Davis, Paul Dawson and Golder
Equation 1 Associates. The financial support of NSERC for the first
Equation 2 and third authors is also acknowledged.
Equation 3
Equation 5 & 6
Equation 11 & 12
10 Atkinson, J. H. 2000. Non-linear soil stiffness in routine
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 design, Géotechnique 50, 5: 487-508.
Shear Strain (%) Borowicka, H. 1943. Eccentrically loaded rigid plates on
an elastic isotropic foundation. Ingenieur Archiv. 14, 1-
Figure 7. Ir values over the stiffness degradation curve 8 [in German].
Burns, S.E. and Mayne, P.W. 1998. Monotonic and
Also shown on the figure are the operating strains dilatory pore-pressure decay during piezocone tests.
from the base of the edge of the foundation found using Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 35, 6, 1063-1073.
biaxial tiltmeters (Kiss et al., 2014). The range of strains
falls between 10-4 and 10-3 for the typical operating Chai, J., Sheng, D., Carter, J.P. and Zhu, H. 2012.
conditions and would be in the vicinity of 10-2 close to the Coefficient of consolidation from non-standard
ultimate limit state conditions. This would give an piezocone dissipation curves. Computers and
applicable range of G/su of 100-1500, with the typical Geotechnics, 41:13-22.
operating values occurring towards the end of this range.
DNV-OS-J101. 2010, Design of Offshore Wind Turbine
The methods more applicable to the operating range of
the foundation are shown in box 1 (in Figure 7) and are
IEC 61400-1: 2005, Wind turbines-Design Requirements. Tyldesley, M., Newson, T., Boone, S., and Carriveau, R.
2013. Characterization of the geotechnical properties
Keaveny, J.M. and Mitchell, J.K. 1986. Strength of fine of a carbonate clayey silt till for a shallow wind turbine
grained soils using the piezocone, Use of In-Situ Tests foundation, 18th International Conference on Soil
in Geotechnical Engineering (GSP 6), ASCE, Reston, Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, CFMS,
Va.: 668–699. Paris, France, 1: 2407-2410.
Kiss, J., Newson, T., Miller, C. and Carriveau, R. 2014. Vardanega, P. J. and Bolton, M. D. 2011. Practical
The effect of wind-structure Interaction on the methods to estimate the non-linear shear stiffness of
behaviour of a shallow wind turbine foundation. Geo- fine grained soils, Internationtal symposium on
Regina Conference, Canada. Submitted for deformation of geomaterials, Seoul, Korea, 372-379.
Vesic, A.C., 1972. Expansion of cavities in infinite soil
Kulhawy, F.H. and Mayne, P.W. 1990. Manual on mass. Journal Soil Mechanics and Foundation
estimating soil properties for foundation design. Division, ASCE, 98 SM3:265–290.
Report EL-6800. Electric Power Research Institute,
Palo Alto, 306 p.
Low H. E., Randolph M. F., Lunne T., Andersen K. H., and
Sjursen M. A. 2011. Effect of soil characteristics on
relative values of piezocone, T-bar and ball
penetration resistances, Géotechnique 61, 8: 651-664.
Lu, Q., Randolph, M. F., Hu, Y. & Bugarski, I. C. 2004. A
numerical study of cone penetration in clay.
Géotechnique 54, No. 4, 257–267.
Mair, R. J. 1993. Developments in geotechnical
engineering research: applications to tunnels and
deep excavations. Unwin Memorial Lecture 1992.
Proc. Instn Civ. Engrs Civ. Engng, 3, 27-41.
Mayne, P.W. 2001. Stress-strain-strength-flow parameters
from enhanced in-situ tests, In-Situ 2001, Bali,
Indonesia: 27-48.
Mayne, P.W. and Mitchell, J.K. 1988. Profiling of OCR in
clays by field vane. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 25
1, 150-157.
Meyerhof, G. G. 1953. The bearing capacity of
foundations under eccentric and inclined loads. Proc.
3rd Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Eng, 1: 440-445.
Ohasaki, Y. and Iwasaki, R. 1973. On dynamic shear
moduli and Poisson’s ratio of soil deposits. Soils and
foundations. Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics
and Foundations Engineering. v.14, N. 4, Dec. p. 59-
Quigley R. M. and Ogunbadejo T. A. 1974. Soil
weathering, soil structure and engineering properties.
Soil Microscopy, 165-178.
Schnaid, F., Sills, G.C., Soares, J.M. and Nyirenda, Z.
1997. Predictions of the coefficient of consolidation
from piezocone tests, Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
34: 315 – 327.
Sivrikaya, O. and Toğrol, E. 2002. Relations between
SPT-N and qu. 5th International Congress on
Advances in Civil Engineering, Istanbul, Turkey, pp.
Teh, C.I. and Houlsby, G.T. 1991. An analytical study of
the cone penetration test in clay, Geotechnique, 41

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi