Estimating Embankment Settlement from Piezocone Penetration Test Data

Abstract

The in situ piezocone penetration test (PCPT) has been widely used by the geotechnical engineering community for subsurface soil identification and classification and for the evaluation of many engineering soil properties, such as consolidation parameters. PCPT-derived consolidation properties can be used to estimate the magnitude and time rate of the consolidation settlement of loaded soils. This paper presents a case study on implementing PCPT technology to evaluate the embankment settlement at the Juban Road-I-12 Interchange Bridge in Louisiana. The soil underneath each embankment site of the bridge was instrumented with a horizontal inclinometer and vertical magnet extensometers. In each embankment site, PCPT tests were performed, and the soundings of cone tip resistance were used to estimate the constrained modulus (M) profiles. Dissipation tests were conducted at specified penetration depths and used to estimate the vertical coefficient of consolidation (c_v). Shelby tube soil samples were collected and tested in the laboratory to evaluate the consolidation properties. The embankments’ consolidation settlements were monitored with time, and the field-measured values were compared with the magnitude and rate of settlements estimated with parameters derived from PCPT data and laboratory consolidation tests. The piezocone penetration and dissipation data reasonably estimated the magnitude and rate of consolidation settlement of both embankment sites. The backcalculated M and c_v parameters from field measurements were in good agreement with PCPT-derived values.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Baligh

M. M.

, and Levadoux

J. N.

Consolidation After Undrained Piezocone Penetration. II: Interpretation. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 112, No. 7, 1986, pp. 727–745.

Sanglerat

The Penetration and Soil Exploration. Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 1972.

Senneset

, Sandven

, and Janbu

The Evaluation of Soil Parameters from Piezocone Tests. In Transportation Research Record 1235, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1989, pp. 24–37.

Kulhawy

F. H.

, and Mayne

P. H.

Manual on Estimating Soil Properties for Foundation Design. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, Calif., 1990.

Jones

G. A.

, and Rust

Piezocone Settlement Prediction Parameters for Embankments on Alluvium. Proc. International Symposium on Penetration Testing, CPT 95, Linkoping, Sweden, Vol. 2, Swedish Geotechnic Society, Linkoping, Sweden, 1995, pp. 501–508.

Abu-Farsakh

M. Y.

Evaluation of Consolidation Characteristics of Cohesive Soils from Piezocone Penetration Tests. Report No. FHWA/LA.04/386. Louisiana Transportation Research Center, Baton Rouge, 2004.

Abu-Farsakh

M. Y.

, Zhang

, and Gautreau

G. P.

Evaluating the Deformation Modulus of Cohesive Soils from Piezocone Penetration Test for Consolidation Settlement. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2004, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2007, pp. 49–59.

Vesic

A. S.

Expansion of Cavities in Infinite Soil Mass. Journal of Soil Mechanics, Vol. 98, No. 3, 1972, pp. 265–290.

Torstensson

B. A.

The Pore Pressure Probe. Paper 34. Geotechnical Meeting, Norwegian Geotechnical Society, Oslo, Norway, 1977, pp. 34.1–34.15.

10.

Senneset

, Janbu

, and Svano

Strength and Deformation Parameters from Cone Penetration Tests. Proc. 2nd European Symposium on Penetration Testing, ESOPT II, Amsterdam, Netherlands, Vol. 2, 1982, pp. 863–870.

11.

Levadoux

J. N.

, and Baligh

M. M.

Consolidation After Undrained Piezocone Penetration. II: Prediction. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 112, No. 7, 1986, pp. 707–726.

12.

Teh

C. I.

An Analytical Study of the Cone Penetration Test. DPhil thesis. Oxford University, Oxford, United Kingdom, 1987.

13.

Teh

C. I.

, and Houlsby

G. T.

An Analytical Study of the Cone Penetration Test in Clay. Geotechnique, Vol. 41, No. 1, 1991, pp. 17–34.

14.

Oakley

Richard E.

III . Case History: Use of the Cone Penetrometer to Calculate the Settlement of a Chemically Stabilized Landfill. ASTM STP 1070. Geotechnics of Waste Fills: Theory and Practice. ASTM, Philadelphia, Pa., 1990, pp. 345–357.

15.

Crawford

C. B.

, and Campanella

R. G.

Comparison of Field Consolidation with Laboratory and In situ Tests. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 28, No. 1, 1991, pp. 103–112.

16.

Kuo-Hsia

, William

D. K.

, and Ming-Jiun

Comparison of Predicted and Measured Settlement of a Test Embankment over Soft Soil. Proc. Vertical and Horizontal Deformations of Foundations and Embankments, Settlement ‘94, College Station, Tex., Geotechnical Special Publication No. 40. ASCE, New York, 1994.

17.

Zhang

, and Tumay

M. T.

Statistical to Fuzzy Approach Toward CPT Soil Classification. Journal of Geotechnical and Environmental Engineering, Vol. 125, No. 3, 1999, pp. 179–186.

18.

Burns

S. E.

, and Mayne

P. W.

Monotonic and Dilatory Pore Pressure Decay During Piezocone Tests in Clay. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 35, No. 6, 1998, pp. 1063–1073.

19.

Sully

J. P.

, Robertson

P. K.

, Campanella

R. G.

, and Woeller

D. J.

An Approach to Evaluation of Field CPTU Dissipation Data in Overconsolidated Fine-Grained Soils. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 36, No. 2, 1999, pp. 369–381.

20.

Sridharan

, and Sreepada Rao

Rectangular Hyperbola Fitting Method for One-Dimensional Consolidation. Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 4, No. 4, 1981, pp. 161–168.