Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 7

Feng, T. W. (2000). GeÂotechnique 50, No.

2, 181±187

Fall-cone penetration and water content relationship of clays


TAO - W E I F E N G 

Results of previous studies on using the fall-cone test to Les reÂsultats des eÂtudes preÂceÂdentes sur l'utilisation du test
determine the plastic limit of soils show that further re- du coÃte de chute pour deÂterminer la limite plastique des sols
search is warranted. The present investigation devotes itself indiquent de des travaux de recherche additionnels sont
to modi®cation of the specimen preparation technique, ex- neÂcessaires. Les recherches actuelles sont consacreÂes aÁ la
amination of the relationship between depth of cone penetra- modi®cation de la technique de preÂparation des speÂcimens, aÁ
tion and water content, and estimation of the plastic limit l'examen des rapports entre profondeur de peÂneÂtration du
using the penetration depth against water content relation- coÃne et teneur en eau, et l'estimation de la limite plastique
ship. Specimen rings are made and used to replace the en utilisant le rapport profondeur de peÂneÂtration du coÃne/
specimen cup so as to facilitate the preparation of speci- teneur en eau. On a produit des bagues speÂcimen que l'on a
mens. Data of 26 soils, covering a wide range of liquid limits utiliseÂes pour remplacer le gobelet speÂcimen, a®n de faciliter
from 30% to 526%, show that the logarithm of depth of la preÂparation des speÂcimens. Des donneÂes sur vingt-six sols,
cone penetration against logarithm of water content relation- portant sur une large plage de limites liquides de 30% aÁ
ship is linear. Therefore, a linear equation with two soil- 526%, indiquent que le rapport entre l'algorithme de la
dependent parameters is developed for estimation of the profondeur de peÂneÂtration du coÃne et celui de la teneur en
plastic limit. For a soil, the value of the soil-dependent eau est lineÂaire. En conseÂquence, on produit une eÂquation
parameters can be determined from as little as four fall- lineÂaire avex deux parameÁtres fonction du sol pour l'estima-
cone tests and substituted into the equation to estimate the tion de la limite plastique. Pour un certain sol, on est en
plastic limit. The computed plastic limits of the soils ana- mesure de deÂterminer la valeur de parameÁtres tributaires du
lysed are within 0´8±1´2, with an average value of 1, times sol avec un nombre d'essais au coÃne pouvant eÃtre infeÂrieur aÁ
the measured plastic limits. The effects of strain rate and quatre, que l'on peut substituer ensuite dans l'eÂquation pour
undrained strength ratio on the estimation of the plastic eÂvaluer la limite plastique. Les limites plastiques calculeÂes
limit are evaluated and found to be limited. pour les sols analyseÂs sont comprises entre 0´8 at 1´2, avec
une valeur moyenne de 1, multiplieÂes par les limites plas-
tiques mesureÂes. On a eÂvalue les effets de la vitesse de
deÂformation et du rapport de reÂsistance non draine sur
l'evaluation de la limite plastique et ils se sont aveÂreÂs
KEYWORDS: clays; laboratory tests; plasticity; shear strength. limiteÂs.

INTRODUCTION contents near the plastic limit, the relationship between logarith-
The use of laboratory cone penetrometers to determine the mic depth of fall-cone penetration and water content has been
liquid limit of soils has been studied in detail (e.g. Terzaghi, used to estimate the value of the plastic limit. Based on the
1927; Sowers et al., 1959; Karlsson, 1961; Sherwood & Riley, critical state theory, Wood & Wroth (1978) and Belviso et al.
1970; Littleton & Farmilo, 1977; Garneau & Le Bihan, 1977; (1985) suggest that the logarithmic depth of penetration against
Wroth & Wood, 1978; Houlsby, 1982; Wood, 1982; Whyte, water content relationship is linear between the liquid limit and
1983; Wood, 1985; Wasti & Bezirci, 1986; Leroueil & Le the plastic limit, and the slope of this relationship is equal to
Bihan, 1996; Farrell et al., 1997). The British Standard (BS one half of the plasticity index. Then, the plastic limit can be
1377:pt2: 1990), the Swedish Standard (SS 027120:1990) and computed by subtracting the plasticity index from the liquid
the Canadian Standard (CAN/BNQ 2501-092-M-86) have in- limit. However, the relationship has been found to be highly
cluded the determination of the liquid limit by using fall-cones. non-linear for a number of soils (e.g. Karlsson, 1961; Wood,
On the other hand, only a few studies (e.g. Wood & Wroth, 1985; Wasti & Bezirci, 1986; Harison, 1988).
1978; Belviso et al., 1985; Harison, 1988) have focused on the The penetration depth corresponding to the liquid limit is
determination of the plastic limit by the fall-cone test. 20 mm for the 308 British cone. Hansbo (1957) proposes the
It was generally recognized that fall-cone tests were dif®cult following equation:
to perform at water contents near the plastic limit, since soil W
samples were stiff and dif®cult to mix (Wood & Wroth, 1978; su ˆ k (1)
Whyte, 1983; Wasti & Bezirci, 1986; Harison, 1988; Stone & d2
Phan, 1996). Furthermore, in BS 1377 (1990), Test 2(A) where su is undrained shear strength, k is a constant, W is the
(British Standards Institution, 1990), the test procedure for weight of cone, and d is depth of penetration. It can be seen
determination of liquid limit includes the following: `The re- from equation (1) that undrained shear strength is inversely
mixed soil shall be pushed into the cup with a palette knife, proportional to the square of the depth of penetration. The data
taking care not to trap air.' The process of placing the soil into of Skempton & Northey (1953) show that the undrained shear
the specimen cup is in¯uenced by individual judgement and is strength at the plastic limit is about 100 times the undrained
probably the most dif®cult step in the fall-cone test. In fact, shear strength at the liquid limit. Thus, it can be computed from
pushing soil into the cup may not be good practice, since the equation (1) that the depth of cone penetration at the plastic
soil is repeatedly loaded, although this effect is dif®cult to limit is about 2 mm for the 308 cone. Harison (1988) suggests a
evaluate. This problem becomes more serious as the water bilinear model indicating that the relationship is linear for
content of the soil sample decreases. depths of penetration either greater or smaller than 14 mm.
Since it is dif®cult to carry out the fall-cone test at water Therefore, the plastic limit can be estimated by extrapolating a
linear relationship obtained from two to three fall-cone tests
Manuscript received 7 July 1999; revised manuscript accepted 4 with depth of penetration smaller than 14 mm. However, with
October 1999. the general lack of suf®cient published information on the
Discussion on this paper closes 4 August 2000; for further details see p. ii. logarithmic depth of cone penetration against water content
 Chung Yuan Christian University. relationship in between depths of penetration of 14 cm and
181
182 FENG
2 mm, a question as to whether the bilinear model is appro- sharpened end facing downwards, as shown in Fig. 1(c). Initial
priate still remains. levelling of the ring can be done with a hand level and a small
In summary, it appears that further studies are warranted in glass plate placed at the top of the ring. After the initial
the following areas: levelling, the ring was pushed downwards by hand until it
reached the glass plate, as shown in Fig. 1(d). A wire-saw and a
(a) modi®cation on the specimen preparation technique
straight edge were then used to remove excess soil from the top
(b) examination of the shape of the relationship between
of the ring, so as to obtain a ¯at surface, as shown in Fig. 1(e).
logarithm depth of cone penetration and water content,
Lastly, the soil specimen together with the small glass plate was
especially for depths of penetration less than 14 mm
transferred to the base stand below the fall-cone for the penetra-
(c) estimation of the plastic limit by using the depth of
tion test.
penetration and water content relationship.
Samples of kaolin, bentonite and three natural soils were
This paper presents the results of a study focused on the above- prepared at water contents slightly higher than the liquid limits
mentioned areas. and then stored overnight before testing. For each soil, the fall-
cone tests were carried out starting from water contents slightly
higher than the liquid limit to water contents as near the plastic
TEST PROGRAMME limit as possible. After each fall-cone test, the water content of
A set of fall-cone apparatus (made by Wykeham Farrance, the soil specimen was measured. The remaining soil sample
Inc.), with a 308 cone (weight 80 g) was used during this was spread over the large glass plate for air-drying for the next
investigation. As dif®culties in specimen preparation are primar- fall-cone test. The time required for proper air-drying of the
ily associated with placing soil samples into the specimen cup, soil sample depends on a number of factors, such as the contact
the cup was modi®ed during this investigation by removing the areas between the soil and the air, the plasticity of the soil, etc.
bottom of the cup, keeping the diameter and the height of the In order to de®ne better the penetration depth against water
cup unchanged. As a result, the specimen cup became a speci- content relationship, the fall-cone tests were carried out at as
men ring. Furthermore, one end of the ring was sharpened, as many water contents as possible.
shown in Fig. 1(a), to facilitate penetration into soil samples. In
fact, a stainless steel ring 55 mm in diameter, 40 mm in height
and 2 mm in thickness was used for depths of cone penetration RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DEPTH OF CONE PENETRATION AND
in between 25 mm and 10 mm. For depths of cone penetration WATER CONTENT
less than 10 mm, a shallower stainless steel ring (20 mm in Relationships between logarithmic depth of cone penetration
height) was used so that smaller amounts of soil were needed and water content for the soils tested during the present in-
for the tests. vestigation are shown in Figs 2±6. It can be seen from these
The specimen preparation procedure started with mixing the ®gures that these relationships are all non-linear in nature and
soil sample thoroughly on a large square glass plate (30 3 the minimum depths of penetration are as low as 3´1 mm.
30 cm) at water contents slightly higher than the liquid limit. A Incidentially, these data can be used to check Harison's (1988)
single batch of the mixed soil sample was then transferred to a bilinear model. In order to quantify the non-linearity of the
small square glass plate (10 3 10 cm) to make a soil mound, as curves, secant slopes of the curves between 14 mm penetration
shown in Fig. 1(b), with lateral and vertical dimensions greater and 5 mm penetration for Sinjun clay, Taipei clay, Panama clay,
than the dimensions of the specimen ring used. Two spatulas kaolin and bentonite are ®rst determined as 19%, 22%, 73%,
were used to mix the soil samples and to make the soil mound, 23% and 360%, respectively. In contrast, the tangent slopes of
to reduce the possibility of trapping air within the specimen. the curves at 5 mm penetration for Sinjun clay, Taipei clay,
Furthermore, only small pressures are exerted on the soil, so Panama clay, kaolin and bentonite are 12%, 9%, 55%, 13% and
that their effect on the test result may be ignored. The specimen 225%, respectively. It is thus apparent from these data that the
ring was then placed on top of the soil mound with the use of the bilinear model to estimate the value of the plastic
limit will result in an underestimation.

Specimen ring
ESTIMATION OF THE PLASTIC LIMIT
D In order to estimate the plastic limits, the non-linear regres-
H
sion curves shown in Figs 2±6 may be manually extended with

(a) 60

Sinjun clay
50
PL(conventional) = 19%

Soil Soil
Water content: %

40

10 cm Glass plate
(b) (c)
30

20
Soil Soil

(d) (e) 10
30 20 10 7 5 3 2 1
Fig. 1. Side views of (a) the specimen ring, (b) the soil mound and Penetration depth: mm
the glass plate, (c) the specimen ring placed on top of the soil
mound, (d) the specimen ring fully penetrating the soil mound, and Fig. 2. Logarithm of penetration depth against water content rela-
(e) excess soil removed from the top of the specimen ring tionship for Sinjun clay
FALL-CONE PENETRATION AND WATER CONTENT RELATIONSHIP OF CLAYS 183
60 500

Taipei clay Bentonite


50 400
PL(conventional) = 24% PL(conventional) = 37%

Water content: %
Water content: %

40 300

30 200

20 100

10 0
30 20 10 7 5 3 2 1 30 20 10 7 5 3 2 1
Penetration depth: mm Penetration depth: mm

Fig. 3. Logarithm of penetration depth plotted against water content Fig. 6. Logarithm of penetration depth plotted against water content
rela-tionship for Taipei clay rela-tionship for bentonite

150 the help of a French curve to the depth of cone penetration of


2 mm. Results of the estimations show that the plastic limits of
Sinjun clay, Taipei clay, Panama clay, kaolin and bentonite are
Panama clay 20%, 25%, 61%, 26% and 38%, respectively, which agree well
120
PL(conventional) = 59% with the plastic limit values obtained from conventional tests,
given in Figs 2±6. It may be noted from Figs 2±6 that 8±14
data points are shown for each soil. The large number of data
Water content: %

points ensures that the curves are well de®ned. It is impractical


in engineering practice to carry out such a large amount of tests
90
for estimation of the plastic limit.
On the other hand, the data shown in Figs 2±6 can be re-
plotted on log±log scales, as shown in Fig. 7. Similar plots can
be made using the data of Skempton & Northey (1953),
60 Karlsson (1961), Wood, (1985), Wasti & Bezirci (1986) and
Harison (1988), as shown in Figs 8±12, respectively. Based on
the data shown in Figs 7±12, a linear model is proposed for the
log±log relationship and is expressed by the following equation:
30
30 20 10 7 5 3 2 1 log w ˆ log c ‡ m log d (2)
Penetration depth: mm
where w is water content, c is water content at d ˆ 1 mm, m is
Fig. 4. Logarithm of penetration depth plotted against water content
rela-tionship for Panama clay the slope of the linear relationship, and d is the depth of cone
penetration. Values of c and m obtained from linear regression
analyses of the data presented in Figs 7±12 are listed in Table 1.

1000
60

Kaolin
50
PL(conventional) = 25%
Bentonite
Water content: %

Water content: %

40
100
Panama clay
30
Kaolin

20 Taipei clay
Sinjun clay

10 10
30 20 10 7 5 3 2 1 30 20 10 7 5 3 2 1
Penetration depth: mm Penetration depth: mm

Fig. 5. Logarithm of penetration depth plotted against water content Fig. 7. Log±log plot of penetration depth plotted against water
rela-tionship for kaolin content rela-tionships for the ®ve soils tested
184 FENG
It may be noted from Table 1 that the bentonite samples have
liquid limits of about 423% and 526%, the kaolin samples have
liquid limits of 50% and 59%, and the other 22 natural soils
show a wide range of liquid limits ranging from 30% to 125%.
Both of the bentonite specimens gave the same m value of 1,
which is much larger than the m values from 0´216 to 0´569 for
the natural soils. A large value of m indicates a higher rate of
decrease in water content with decreasing depth of penetration.
A large value of c implies a large value of the plastic limit. The
Panama clay specimen tested has an organic content of 12%,
which is probably responsible for its large c value of 47%. The c
values of the Bandung clays are rather high, that is 30±39%;
probably these soils are organic to some degree, but information
on the composition of these soils is absent.
The existence of the linear relationship as expressed by
equation (2) is useful for estimation of the plastic limit. For a
soil, c and m can be determined from results of as few as four
fall-cone tests with depths of penetration evenly distributed
between 25 mm and 3 mm. Equation (3) can then be used to
compute the plastic limit:
Fig. 8. Log±log plot of penetration depth plotted against water PL ˆ c(2) m (3)
content rela-tionships according to the data of Skempton & Northey
(1953) For example, the c and m values as listed in Table 1 and
equation (3) are used to compute the plastic limit values of the
26 soils. The computed plastic limits are compared with the
plastic limits determined by the conventional method, as shown
in Fig. 13. The dashed lines in Fig. 13 show that the computed
plastic limits are within 0´8±1´2 times the measured plastic
limits, with an average value of 1´0. The discrepancies between
the measured and the computed plastic limits may result from
several reasons, such as the undrained strength ratio of 100
adopted and problems associated with the conventional plastic
limit test.
The empirical ratio of undrained strength at the plastic limit
to undrained strength at the liquid limit is estimated from the
data of Skempton & Northey (1953) as 100. However, Whyte
(1982, 1983) suggests that the strength ratio derived from the
data of Skempton & Northey (1953) should be about 70.
Furthermore, the data of Karlsson (1961) indicate a range of the
strength ratio from 50 to 100 for some Swedish clay and a
strength ratio of about 200 for both a quick clay and a varved
clay. Now as equation (2) is developed, it is possible to examine
the effect of the strength ratio on the estimated plastic limit.
According to equation (1), strength ratios of 50, 100 and 200
correspond to depths of penetration of 2´8, 2 and 1´4 mm,
respectively. For the soils listed in Table 1, the corresponding
Fig. 9. Log±log plot of penetration depth plotted against water water contents are computed using both equation (2) and values
content rela-tionships according to the data of Karlsson (1961) of c and m, and the results are also shown in Table 1. It may
be concluded from Table 1 that, except for the bentonite, the
estimated plastic limits are affected by the strength ratio
assumption around 10±20%, which is consistent with the data
shown in Fig. 13. The bentonite probably has a strength ratio
slightly lower than 100, as the computed water content of 34%,
corresponding to depth of penetration of 2 mm, is slightly
smaller than the measured plastic limit of 37%.
The measured plastic limits shown in Fig. 13 were deter-
mined by the conventional plastic limit test, in which a soil
thread was rolled to 3 mm diameter before it crumbled on
rolling. The water content of the crumbled soil thread has been
de®ned as the plastic limit. However, the stress system applied
to the soil thread during rolling is highly complicated and is not
controlled. Whyte (1982) reported that the plastic limit of a clay
determined in different laboratories ranged from 19% to 39%,
with an average plastic limit of 23%. He further concluded that
the rolling thread test does not provide reliable and consistent
results for the plastic limit. Since the data shown in Fig. 13
come from at least four different groups of people and four
different laboratories, it is expected that some uncontrolled
factors during the conventional plastic limit test have played a
role in the discrepancies between the measured and the com-
puted plastic limits.
Fig. 10. Log±log plot of penetration depth plotted against water The fall-cone test is much more reliable than the conven-
content relationships according to the data of Wood (1985) tional plastic limit test. As can be seen in both Fig. 14 and
FALL-CONE PENETRATION AND WATER CONTENT RELATIONSHIP OF CLAYS 185

Fig. 11. Log±log plot of penetration depth plotted against water


content relationships according to the data of Wasti & Bezirci Fig. 12. Log±log plot of penetration depth plotted against water
(1986) content relationships according to the data of Harison (1988)

Table 1. Values of c and m parameters of clays and water contents computed from strength ratios of 50, 100 and 200
Soil LLCasagrande : % c: % m w1:4 : % w2 : % w2:8 : % w1:4 =w2 : w2:8 =w2 Reference
Sinjun clay 36 14 0´322 16 18 20 0´89 1´11 Present investigation
Taipei clay 43 17 0´322 19 21 24 0´90 1´14 Present investigation
Panama clay 125 47 0´321 52 59 66 0´88 1´12 Present investigation
Kaolin 50 20 0´301 22 25 27 0´88 1´08 Present investigation
Bentonite 423 17 1 24 34 48 0´71 1´41 Present investigation
Shellhaven clay 97 26 0´436 30 35 41 0´86 1´17 Skempton & Northey (1953)
London clay 73 21 0´410 24 28 32 0´86 1´14 Skempton & Northey (1953)
Horten clay 30 13 0´266 14 16 17 0´88 1´06 Skempton & Northey (1953)
Gosport clay 80 28 0´352 32 36 40 0´89 1´11 Skempton & Northey (1953)
Swedish clay 83 26 0´425 30 35 40 0´86 1´14 Karlsson (1961)
Swedish clay 70 25 0´360 28 32 36 0´88 1´13 Karlsson (1961)
Swedish clay 63 22 0´360 25 28 32 0´89 1´14 Karlsson (1961)
Swedish clay 54 21 0´308 23 26 29 0´88 1´12 Karlsson (1961)
Drammen clay 35 12 0´350 14 15 17 0´93 1´13 Wood (1985)
Kaolin 59 21 0´343 24 27 30 0´89 1´11 Wood (1985)
Gault clay 65 23 0´345 26 29 33 0´90 1´14 Wood (1985)
Bentonite 526 16 1 22 32 45 0´69 1´41 Wasti & Bezirci (1986)
Turkey soil 110 20 0´569 24 30 36 0´80 1´20 Wasti & Bezirci (1986)
Turkey soil 52 21 0´335 24 26 30 0´92 1´15 Wasti & Bezirci (1986)
Bandung clay 100 39 0´312 43 48 54 0´90 1´13 Harison (1988)
Bandung clay 86 31 0´341 35 39 44 0´90 1´13 Harison (1988)
Bandung clay 78 30 0´318 33 37 42 0´89 1´14 Harison (1988)
Bandung clay 72 30 0´292 33 37 41 0´89 1´11 Harison (1988)
Bandung clay 65 32 0´237 35 38 41 0´92 1´08 Harison (1988)
Bandung clay 63 30 0´239 33 35 38 0´94 1´09 Harison (1988)
Bandung clay 59 31 0´216 33 36 39 0´92 1´08 Harison (1988)

Table 2, both the logarithm of penetration depth against loga- be evaluated as follows. The volume of the portion of the 308
rithm of water content relationships and the (c, m) data of cone penetrating into the specimen can be computed using
kaolin obtained by ®ve persons demonstrate excellent repeat- equation (4):
ability of the fall-cone test. It is worthy of note that four of the
®ve persons had no previous experience with the fall-cone test V ˆ 0:075h3 (4)
and were taught only once how to run the test. It is clear from
the present investigation that mixing the soil specimen thor- where h is depth of penetration. A zone of in¯uence of the
oughly during preparation is one of the most important steps in cone penetration must be de®ned so that induced volumetric
the fall-cone test. strain can be determined. The in¯uence zone may be assumed
to have a conical shape having a height equal to the depth of
penetration and a diameter of three times the cone diameter
STRAIN RATE EFFECT (Houlsby, 1982). Then the volumetric strain induced by cone
It is generally known that the undrained shear strength of penetration is 11% and is independent of the depth of penetra-
saturated clays is a function of strain rate. Since the fall-cone tion. On the other hand, experience obtained during the present
test is in fact a strength test, the effect of strain rate, if any, on investigation showed that a penetration of 20 mm takes about
the test results must be evaluated. ®ve times as long as a penetration of 4 mm. Therefore, a ratio
In the absence of data on the time rate of cone penetration, of average strain rates between 20 mm and 4 mm of penetra-
an average strain rate for 20 mm and 4 mm of penetration may tions can be computed using equation (5):
186 FENG
on undrained shear strength is computed using equation (6) to
be 7% between 20 mm and 4 mm penetrations.

CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions are based on data and analyses
presented in the previous paragraphs:
(a) The specimen preparation technique has been improved by
using specimen rings to hold the specimens. The process of
specimen preparation with the specimen ring is faster and
easier than that with a specimen cup, and it reduces the
chances of trapping air in the specimen. Furthermore, the
specimen ring is pushed into the soil, instead of pushing
soil into the specimen cup. For liquid limit determinations,
the specimen ring retained the dimensions of the specimen
cup. For depths of penetration less than 10 mm, a specimen
ring of 20 mm in height can be used so that less soil is
needed for the fall-cone test.
(b) The relationship between logarithmic depth of penetration
Fig. 13. Computed plastic limits plotted against measured plastic and water content in the range from the liquid limit to the
limits plastic limit is generally non-linear. The minimum depth of
penetration attainable with the specimen ring is about
100 3 mm. For the ®ve soils tested during the present investi-
gation, an attempt to extend the non-linear regression
curves from around 3 mm to 2 mm penetration gives a close
estimate of the plastic limits, though these non-linear curves
are de®ned by 8±14 data points. On the other hand, the
Kaolin
relationship between logarithmic depth of penetration and
logarithmic water content is linear. This relationship can be
Water content: %

de®ned by as few as four data points with depths of


penetration evenly distributed between 25 mm and 3 mm.
This makes the fall-cone test easier to perform to determine
the plastic limit.
(c) Based on the linear model of the relationship between
logarithmic depth of penetration and logarithmic water
content and an undrained strength ratio of 100, an equation
is derived for estimation of the plastic limit. This equation
includes two soil-dependent parameters which can be
determined from at least four fall-cone tests and substituted
10 into the equation to estimate the plastic limit. For the 26
30 20 10 7 5 3 2 1 soils analysed, the computed plastic limits are within 0´8±
Penetration depth: mm 1´2, with an average value of 1´0, times the measured plastic
limits. Factors such as the assumption of strength ratio of
Fig. 14. Log±log plot of penetration depth versus water content
relationships determined by ®ve persons for the repeatability study. 100 and problems associated with the conventional plastic
One person determines one relationship as represented by a limit test could have contributed to the discrepancies
regression line passing through points of the same symbol. between the computed and the measured plastic limits.
The plastic limits computed using the undrained strength
ratios of 50 and 200 are affected by 10±20% of the plastic
Table 2. Values of c and m for kaolin determined for the limits estimated using the undrained strength ratio of 100
repeatability study
for most of the soils analysed. The strain rate effect in the
Test PL (measured): c: % m PL (computed): % fall-cone test is small. For a variation in depth of
no. % penetration from 20 mm to 4 mm, the strain rate effect on
1 25 20 0´301 25 undrained strength is estimated as 7% for inorganic clays.
2 25 19 0´295 23
3 25 19 0´316 24
4 25 20 0´281 24
5 25 21 0´281 26 REFERENCES
Belviso, R., Ciampoli, S., Cotecchia, V. & Federico, A. (1985). Use of
the cone penetrometer to determine consistency limits. Ground
Engng 18, No. 5, 21±22.
å_ 4 t20 British Standards Institution (1990). Methods of test for soils for civil
ˆ ˆ5 (5)
å_ 20 t4 engineering purposes. British Standards Institution BS 1377. London.
Canadian Standards Association and Bureau de normalisation du Quebec
The effect of strain rate on undrained shear strength can then (1986). Soils-Determination of liquid limit by the Swedish fall cone
be computed by using equation (6): penetrometer method and determination of plastic limit. CAN=BNQ
2501-092-M-86.
  Cá =Cc Farrell, E., Schuppener, B. & Wassing, B. (1997). ETC 5 fall-cone
su(4) ÿ su(20) å_ 4
ˆ (6) study. Ground Engng 30, No. 1, 33±36.
su(20) å_ 20 Garneau, R. & Le Bihan, J. P. (1977). Estimation of some properties of
Champlain clays with the Swedish fall-cone. Can. Geotech. J. 14,
where su is undrained shear strength, å_ is strain rate, cá is the No. 3, 571±581.
secondary compression index, and cc is the compression index Hansbo, S. (1957). A new approach to the determination of the shear
(Terzaghi et al., 1996). For example, the value of Cá =Cc can be strength of clay by the fall-cone test. R. Swedish Geotech. Inst.
taken as 0´04 for inorganic clays, and the effect of strain rate Proc. No. 14, 7±47.
FALL-CONE PENETRATION AND WATER CONTENT RELATIONSHIP OF CLAYS 187
Harison, J. A. (1988). Using the BS cone penetrometer for the deter- Swedish Standards Commission (1990). Geotechnical tests ± cone liquid
mination of the plastic limits of soils. GeÂotechnique 38, No. 3, limit. Swedish Standards Commission, Stockholm, SS 027120.
433±438. Terzaghi, K. (1927). Determination of consistency of soils by means of
Houlsby, G. T. (1982). Theoretical analysis of the fall-cone test. GeÂo- penetration tests. Public Roads 7, No. 12, 240±247.
technique 32, No. 2, 111±118. Terzaghi, K., Peck, R. B. & Mesri, G. (1996). Soil mechanics in
Karlsson, R. (1961). Suggested improvements in the liquid limit test, engineering practice, 3rd edn. New York: Wiley.
with reference to ¯ow properties of remoulded clays. Proc. 5th Wasti, Y. & Bezirci, M. H. (1986). Determination of the consistency limits
ICSMFE 1, 171±184. of soils by the fall-cone test. Can. Geotech. J. 23, No. 2, 241±246.
Leroueil, S. & Le Bihan, J. P. (1996). Liquid limits and fall cones. Can. Whyte, I. L. (1982). Soil plasticity and strengthÐa new approach using
Geotech. J. 33, No. 5, 793±798. extrusion. Ground Engng 15, No. 1, 16±24.
Littleton, I. & Farmilo, M. (1977). Some observations on liquid limit Whyte, I. L. (1983). Cone penetrometer and liquid limit. GeÂotechnique
values. Ground Engng 10, No. 4, 39±40. 33, No. 1, 76±77.
Sherwood, P. T. & Riley, M. D. (1970). An investigation of a cone- Wood, D. M. (1982). Cone penetrometer and liquid limit. GeÂotechnique
penetrometer method for the determination of the liquid limit. 32, No. 2, 152±157.
GeÂotechnique 20, No. 2, 203±208. Wood, D. M. (1985). Some fall-cone tests. GeÂotechnique 35, No. 1,
Skempton, A. W. & Northey, R. D. (1953). The sensitivity of clays. 64±68.
GeÂotechnique 3, No. 1, 30±53. Wood, D. M. & Wroth, C. P. (1978). The use of the cone penetrometer
Sowers, G. F., Vesic, A. & Grandol®, M. (1959). Penetration tests for to determine the plastic limit of soils. Ground Engng 11, No. 3, 37.
liquid limit. Philadelphia ASTM, STP No. 254, 216±224. Wroth, C. P. & Wood, D. M. (1978). The correlation of index properties
Stone, K. J. L. & Phan, K. D. (1996). Cone penetration tests near the with some basic engineering properties of soils. Can. Geotech. J. 15,
plastic limit. GeÂotechnique 45, No. 1, 155±158. No. 2, 137±145.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi