The Penetrometer and Soil Exploration

PrefaceIntroductionNotationsChapter 1. History of the Penetrometer 1.1 Origin and Characteristics 1.2 The Dutch Static Penetrometers (Goudsche Machinefabriek) 1.3 The Frankipfahl Static Penetrometer (Germany) 1.4 American Pocket Penetrometers 1.4.1 Measurement of Soil Trafficability Factors by Cone Penetrometer 1.4.2 Solltest Pocket Penetrometer 1.5 The Sol-Essais (Parez) Static Penetrometer (France) 1.6 The Degebo Static Penetrometer (Germany) 1.7 The G.C. Static Penetrometer (Belgium) 1.8 The Recording Static Penetrometer (U.S.A.) 1.9 The Franki Static Penetrometer (Belgium) 1.10 The Soletanche Static Penetrometer (France) 1.11 The Fugro Electric-Static Penetrometer (The Netherlands) 1.12 The Penetrometers of C.E.B.T.P. (France) 1.12.1 Static Penetrometers 1.12.2 Light-Duty Dynamic Penetrometer 1.12.3 Heavy-Duty C.E.B.T.P. Dynamic Penetrometer 1.12.4 Borro Dynamic Penetrometer 1.12.5 Multi-Purpose Penetrometer 1.12.6 Static-Dynamic Penetrometer 1.13 The Electric Static Penetrometer of the Ponts et Chaussées Laboratory at Saint Brieuc (France) 1.14 The B.M.E.E. Light Penetrometer (Great Britain) 1.15 The American Static Penetrometer 1.16 The N.B.R.I. Static Penetrometer (South Africa) 1.17 The Australian Static Penetrometers 1.18 The Russian Penetrometers 1.18.1 Soviet Lunar Penetrometer 1.18.2 Dynamic Russian Penetrometers 1.18.3 Static Sounding Rigs 1.18.4 Static Russian Penetrometers S-979 and S-832 1.19 The Bulgarian Static Penetrometer 1.20 Remarks on the Static Penetrometer 1.21 The Fondasol Dynamic Penetrometer (France) 1.22 The Sermes Dynamic Penetrometer (France) 1.23 The Dynatest (France) 1.24 The Swedish Penetrometers 1.24.1 The Swedish Weight-Sounding Method 1.24.2 Rapid Sounding Method 1.24.3 The Swedish Ram-Sounding Method 1.24.4 The Electrical-Recording Borro Penetrometer 1.24.5 The S.G.I, Sounding Machine 1.24.6 The Jonell and Nilsson Static Penetrometer 1.24.7 The Asond Electric Penetrometer 1.24.8 Investigations with Different Rod Types 1.24.9 Investigations with Different Sounding Points 1.24.10 Swedish Standards Sounding Tests 1.25 The Danish Penetrometer 1.26 Critical Considerations on the Dynamic Penetrometer 1.27 The Swiss Penetrometers 1.27.1 The Haefeli-Fehlmann Static-Dynamic Penetrometer 1.27.2 The Manual and Semi-Automatic Bevac Dynamic Penetrometers 1.28 The Jangot-Bonneton Static-Dynamic Penetrometer (France) 1.29 The Meurisse Static-Dynamic Penetrometer (France) 1.30 The Andina Static-Dynamic Penetrometer (Switzerland and France) 1.31 Graphical Representation of Penetrometer Tests 1.31.1 Static Penetrometers 1.31.2 Dynamic Penetrometers 1.31.3 Static-Dynamic Penetrometers 1.32 Recommendations of the International Commission 1.32.1 Recommended Procedures for the Static and Dynamic Penetration Test 1.32.2 Recommendations for the Method of the Standard Penetration Test (S.P.T.)Chapter 2. General Theory 2.1 Preliminary Evaluation of the Diagrams and Soil Classification 2.1.1 Homogeneous Soils 2.1.2 Heterogeneous Soils 2.2 Deep Foundations 2.2.1 Case of an Incompressible Layer 2.2.2 Case of an Instantaneously Compressible Layer 2.3 Shallow Footings 2.4 Dynamic-Penetrometer Tests 2.5 Settlement ForecastChapter 3. The De Beer Theory for the Interpretation of Penetrometer Test Data 3.1 Shallow Foundations 3.2 Incipient Failure Conditions Under Shallow Footings 3.3 Cohesionless Soils 3.4 Cohesive Soils 3.5 Interpretation of the Penetrometer Diagrams 3.5.1 Shallow Foundations 3.5.2 Deep Foundations 3.6 Comparison Between the Belgian and the Early French Theories 3.6.1 Practical Applications: Sand and Gravel of Rennes (France) 3.6.2 Practical Applications: Ghent-Bruges Sands (Belgium) 3.7 Notes Pertaining to Deep FoundationsChapter 4. KeriseVs Theory 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Dense Granular Soils 4.3 Loose and Medium Dense Granular Soils 4.4 Cohesive Soils 4.5 ConclusionsChapter 5. Dutch Theories Developed at the Delft Laboratory 5.1 Pile Foundation Design Based on Penetrometer Test Data 5.2 Experimental Research in Delft 5.3 Practical Applications of the Delft Laboratory Method 5.4 Research on the Skin Friction as Determined From Static-Penetrometer Tests 5.5 Tests Performed in The Netherlands 5.6 Effects of Vertical Heterogeneity of Soils - Geuze's LawChapter 6. Static Penetrometers in the U.S.A. and Canada 6.1 Research by A.S. Vesic (U.S. A.) 6.2 Tests of C.L. Crowther (U.S.A.) 6.3 Research by J.H. Schmertmann (U.S.A.) 6.4 Tests of Y.Lacroix (U.S.A.) 6.4.1 Compacted Fills 6.4.2 In situ Soil 6.5 Canadian TestsChapter 7. Side Friction and Skin Friction 7.1 Measurements of Side Friction 7.1.1 Accumulated Side Friction 7.1.2 Local Side Friction ƒs Measured on a Sleeve 7.2 Cohesionless Soils 7.3 Cohesive Soils 7.3.1 General 7.3.2 Cohesion 7.3.3 Determination of Cohesion with the Static Penetrometer 7.3.4 Experiments of Liems (Columbia) 7.3.5 Experimental Verification of Cohesion Values 7.3.6 Sol-Essais Tests (France) 7.4 Soil Classification by Determination of Side Friction ƒs and Point Resistance qc with Static Penetrometers 7.4.1 Evaluation of Local Side Friction ƒs from Point Resistance qc 7.4.2 Comparison of ƒs'qc and the Ratio F (= fs/qc)Chapter 8. The Dynamic Penetrometer 8.1 Tests with Dynamic Penetrometers Fitted with a Cone 8.1.1 Dynamic Penetrometer where Shaft and Point have the Same Diameter 8.1.2 Dynamic Penetrometer where Shaft Diameter is Smaller than Cone Diameter 8.1.3 Dynamic Penetrometer whose Shaft Diameter is Smaller than that of the Cone but Whose Outer Moveable Shaft Diameter is the Same as that of the Cone 8.1.4 Remarks on Dynamic Penetration 8.2 Interpretation of Dynamic-Penetration Tests for Shallow Foundations 8.2.1 Cohesionless Soils (φ ≠ 0 and c = 0) 8.2.2 Cohesive Soils (φ ≠ 0 and c ≠ 0) 8.2.3 Soils Having both φ ≠ 0 and c ≠ 0 8.2.4 Conclusion 8.3 Theories for the Interpretation of Dynamic-Penetrometer Diagrams for Deep Foundations 8.3.1 Fundamental Equation 8.3.2 First Approximation 8.3.3 Second Approximation 8.4 Experiences in the Lyons Area with Sand and Gravel Mixtures 8.5 Heavy- and Light-Duty Dynamic Penetrometers 8.6 The Dynamic Penetrometer and the Driving of Sheet Piles 8.7 Particular Dynamic-Penetrometer Method for Determining Soil Parameters 8.7.1 Aircraft-Launched Penetrometer 8.7.2 The Penevane (Grenoble, France) 8.8 Precautions to be Observed During Dynamic Penetration of Cohesive Soils 8.8.1 Difficulties Encountered 8.8.2 Studies of the "Ecole Centrale Lyonnaise" and the "Institut National des Sciences Appliquées", Lyons (France) 8.8.3 ConclusionsChapter 9. The Standard Penetration Test and the Static Penetrometer 9.1 Standard Penetration Test (S.P.T.) 9.1.1 Cohesionless Soils 9.1.2 Footings on Clay Soils 9.2 Limitations on the Use of the S.P.T. 9.3 The Various Types of Standard Penetration Test 9.4 Experience of the Bureau of Reclamation (Denver, Colo.) 9.5 Thesis of Bazaraa 9.5.1 Effect of Submergence 9.5.2 Effect of Overburden Pressure on Standard Penetration Values in Sands 9.6 Comparison Between the S.P.T. and the Static-Penetrometer Test 9.6.1 Meyerhof's Estimates for Fine or Silty Sand 9.6.2 Brazilian Experiences 9.6.3 Tests Performed in Portugal 9.6.4 Tests Performed in Mozambique 9.6.5 Spanish Experiences 9.6.6 Tests Performed in India 9.6.7 Conclusions 9.7 Meyerhof's Theory 9.7.1 Bearing Capacity and Settlement of Shallow Footings 9.7.2 Bearing Capacity of Pile Foundations 9.7.3 Conclusions 9.8 Israeli Experiences 9.8.1 Experiences of Alpan 9.8.2 Experiences of Zolkov and Wiseman 9.9 Notes on the Use of S.P.T. in South America and Spain 9.9.1 Argentina 9.9.2 Venezuela 9.9.3 SpainChapter 10. Discussions 10.1 Introduction 10.2 Raedschelders' Comments on Intermittent or Continuous Static Penetration (Belgium) 10.3 L'Herminier's and Tcheng's Experiences (France) 10.4 Static Penetrometer Tests in Chalk Deposits 10.4.1 Paris Area 10.4.2 Mons Area (Belgium) 10.4.3 Portsmouth Area (Great Britain) 10.5 Tests Performed in Turkey 10.6 Brasilian Tests 10.7 Tests Performed in Yugoslavia 10.8 German Experiences 10.8.1 Bremen 10.8.2 Aachen 10.8.3 Statistical Research of Menzenbach 10.8.4 Research of Muhs in Berlin 10.9 Bulgarian Tests 10.10 Australian Experiences 10.11 Experiences in Venezuela 10.12 Investigations Performed for Belawan Harbor (Sumatra) 10.13 British Experiences 10.13.1 Tests of Golder 10.13.2 Research by Thomas 10.13.3 Experience of Meigh and Corbett 10.14 Italian Tests 10.15 Penetration Tests in the U.S.S.R 10.16 Swedish Method of Interpretation of Penetration Diagrams 10.17 In situ Measurements of Sand Porosity 10.18 South African Tests 10.19 Correlations Between Static Penetrometer and Pressuremeter 10.19.1 Tests of Van Wambeke (Belgium) 10.19.2 Laboratory Tests of Ponts-et-Chaussées (France) 10.19.3 Israeli Research 10.19.4 Tests of Fondasol (France) 10.19.5 Research Performed by the "Ecole Centrale Lyonnaise" (France) 10.20 Jimenez Salas' Experiences (Spain) 10.21 Compaction Control with the Static Penetrometer 10.21.1 Tests Performed in Congo 10.21.2 Experience in the Lyons Area (France) 10.21.3 Control of the Vibroflotation Effects (South-Africa) 10.22 Driven Pile Length Determination from Static Penetrometer Diagrams 10.23 Required Depth of Soundings 10.24 Influence of Rate of Penetration and Point Diameter on the Point Resistance Value of the Static Penetrometer 10.24.1 Soft Clays 10.24.2 Stiff Clays 10.24.3 Saturated Silts 10.24.4 Loose Sands 10.24.5 Calcareous Loam 10.24.6 Conclusions 10.25 Penetration Tests in JapanChapter 11. The Static Penetrometer and the Prediction of Settlements 11.1 General Comments 11.1.1 Theory of Settlement Calculations 11.1.2 Settlements in Undisturbed, Normally Consolidated Clays 11.1.3 Undisturbed Overconsolidated Clays 11.2 Determining the Constant of Compressibility by Static Penetrometer 11.2.1 Sandy Soils: Buisman's Formula 11.2.2 Case of Cohesive Soils 11.3 Method of Determining the Correlation Between qc and Soil Compressibility (Research of E.C.L. and I.N.S.A., Lyons) 11.3.1 Basic Principle 11.3.2 Normally or Underconsolidated Soils 11.3.3 Overconsolidated Soils 11.3.4 Experimental Data 11.3.5 Soil Classification of Samples 11.4 Results of the Research Made at the "Ecole Centrale de Lyon" and the I.N.S.A. of Lyons (France) 11.4.1 Values of the α Coefficient 11.4.2 Correlations of qc,Cc and w 11.5 Practical Examples for Sands 11.6 Practical Examples for Clays 11.6.1 Preliminary Remarks 11.6.2 Problem no. 1 11.6.3 Problem no. 2 11.7 Experiences of Parez and Bachelier (France) 11.8 Delft Laboratory's Results 11.9 Comparison Between Reinforced Concrete Design and Soil Mechanics 11.9.1 French Specifications for Reinforced Concrete 11.9.2 British Specifications for Pre-Stressed Concrete 11.9.3 American Specifications for Reinforced Concrete 11.9.4 Spanish Specifications 11.9.5 Conclusion 11.10 Estimates of Settlements from S.P.T. Data 11.10.1 German Experiences 11.10.2 Israeli Tests 11.10.3 American Experiments 11.11 Research in Africa 11.11.1 South African Tests 11.11.2 Portugese Tests in Angola 11.12 Haefeli's Experiences (Switzerland) 11.13 English Experiences 11.13.1 Tests of Skempton and Meyerhof 11.13.2 Tests of Thomas 11.13.3 Research of Meigh and Corbett 11.14 Australian Tests 11.15 Theory of Schmertmann (U.S.A.) 11.15.1 Corrections of the Basic Assumptions of Strain Distribution 11.15.2 Correlation Between Static-Cone Bearing Capacity qc and Es Values to Use in Settlement Computations 11.15.3 Settlement EstimatesChapter 12. Conclusions 12.1 Interpretation of Static-Penetration Diagrams 12.1.1 Soil Classification 12.1.2 Shallow Footings 12.1.3 Settlement Prediction for Shallow Footings 12.1.4 Deep Foundations 12.2 Interpretation of Dynamic Penetration Diagrams 12.2.1 Cohesionless Soils 12.2.2 Cohesive Soils 12.2.3 Static-Dynamic Penetrometer 12.2.4 Standard Penetration Test 12.3 Elementary Precautions to be Observed 12.3.1 Cost and Security 12.3.2 Equipment 12.3.3 ConclusionsAppendices A. A.S.T.M. Tentative Standard Method for Deep Quasi-Static-Cone Penetration Test B. L'Herminier's Theory for the Interpretation of Penetration Test Data C. Bearing-Capacity Factors D. Curves of Equal Vertical Stresses Under a Continuous Footing and a Square FootingBibliography