Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
30 PSH
= u.Su 1.uu
SP1
with a suggested value of 0.6 (Cestari). Therefore it seems clear that the empirical correlation of the
DPSH Meardi AGI the various authors agree among themselves.
The correlations between a heavy German penetrometer SRS and the SPT in accordance with DIN are
related by this equation:
SP1
= 1.4
10
(fig. 7) (5)
Vol. 13, Bund. C 9
While for clayey soils the following correlation is applied:
SP1
= 1.u
10
+ S (fig. 8) (6)
Figure 8: Comparison between the number of blows of a DPH and a SPT
in slightly plastic clay over the groundwater (DIN, 2002).
According to Card and Roche (1988), and based on simple pile driving formula, the ultimate
penetration resistance,
u
, can be related to the penetrations of a driven cone as follows:
=
H
E
A
v
(7)
Where
L
= hammer energy per blow;
= energy lost, per blow (due to heat, elastic deformations, whipping of rods, etc.);
V = volume of soil displaced by the cone per blow.
From Equation 7, assuming
u
remains constant for both sets of apparatus, the energy required to
drive each cone can be equated as follows:
(
30
H
E1
v
1
=
SP1
H
E2
v
2
) 2 + 1 (8)
Where
1 =
30
A
1
v
1
(9)
2 =
30
A
2
v
2
(10)
Represent the energy losses in each apparatus:
30
=
SP1
(
H
E2
v
1
H
E1
v
2
) (11)
Vol. 13, Bund. C 10
Simplifying, one obtains:
30
= 1.S
SP1
(12)
And for data obtained each 10 cm, the relationship changes:
10
= u.S
SP1
(13)
Alternatively, this relationship can be expressed as a NSPT value corresponding directly with twice
the DPH value for a test length of 10 cm
SP1
= 2 (14)
The correlation of dynamic penetration test DPH with the SPT is obtained from soundings conducted
by Card and Roche, and an example of the obtained data is shown in fig. 9 even if it is observed in a
dispersion degree. This dispersion could be attributed to various factors: as an example in loose
deposits, the collapse of the borehole and the increase of the skin friction on the rods could be
previewed.
From this size of data it is possible to obtain an approximate correlation between the blows number of
the DPSH AGI and DPH SRS 15:
10
() =
30
() (15)
Naturally the formula is empiric and based on the correlation at first with the SPT and therefore is not
a formula that reports the two penetrometers in a direct way.
Figure 9: Plot of NSPT and DPH values for non-cohesive deposits (Card and Roche, 1988)
Vol. 13, Bund. C 11
CONCLUSIONS
The obtained relationship is an empirical relationship and it must be applied carefully. The dynamic
penetration testing could be a valid method for geotechnical characterization but some further steps
should be done. The main purpose of the test is to provide an indication of the relative density of
granular deposits, from which it is virtually impossible to obtain undisturbed samples. The soil
strength parameters, which can be inferred, are approximate, but may give a useful guide in ground
conditions.
According to Cestari it is important, for valuation purposes, to know the performance of the blow
counting system in order to normalize the results.
According to Waschkowski nowadays with current equipment, only one parameter can be computed,
qd (the dynamic cone resistance using the Dutch Formula), which does not allow characterizing the
soil nature. A second limit concerns the probing depth according to the real result reporting. Indeed,
the author thinks that beyond a depth of 25/30 m, it is necessary to take into account the effect of the
extension rods on the transmission of the impact energy and on the point behaviour.
REFERENCES
1. AGI Associazione Geotecnica Italiana (1977). Raccomandazioni sulla Programmazione ed
esecuzione delle indagini geotecniche.
2. Albers et al. (2002). Technik Projekt Rammsonde. Technischen Gymnasium Hamburg.
3. Beckfeld P., Meseck H., Krause T. (1986). Verwendung der Ergebnisse in Erdstastischen
Berechnungsverfahren. Technische Universitt Braunschweig.
4. Card G.B. & Roche D.P. (1988). The Use of Continuous Dynamic Probing in Ground
Investigation.
Penetration Testing in the UK. Thomas Telford, London.
5. Cestari F. (1996). Prove Geotecniche in Sito. Ed. GEO-GRAPH, Segrate.
6. DIN Deutsches Institut fr Normung (2002). Erkundung und Untersuchung des Baugrunds.
DIN 4094-2, 4094-3.
7. Krcher K. (1973). Reibungswinkel Rollinger Bden in Abhngigkeit von
Sondiererergebnissen nach DIN.
8. Lenzi M., Gambi A., Camprini M.(2005). Vibroflottazione di riempimenti a mare realizzati
con materiale proveniente da attivit di demolizione La Spezia. AIOM-Bollettino n.33
novembre 2005.
9. Spagnoli G. (2006). Comparazione delle Prove Penetrometriche Dinamiche in Europa con
Correlazioni Geotecniche. Master thesis. Universit degli Studi di Milano Bicocca.
10. Tissoni A. (1987). La prova SPT e SPTC a confronto nei terreni fluvioglaciali della pianura
torinese. Geologia Tecnica, N4.
11. Terzaghi K., Peck R. (1967). Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice. New York; J. Wiley and
Sons.
12. Waschkowski E. (1982-a). Dynamic Probing and Site Investigation. Proc. ESOPT 2,
Amsterdam.
13. Waschkowski E. (1982-b). Dynamic Probing and Practice. Proc. ESOPT 2, Amsterdam.
2008 ejge