The JapaneseGeotechnical

The
Japanese Geotechnical Society
Society

48, No. 2, 255-265, Apr. 2008

SOILS AND FOUNDATIONS
JapaneseGeoLechnical
SocietyVol.

IN-SITUEVALUATION
SANDS
JuNHwAN LEEi),JoNGwAN

OF STRENGTH
BASED

AND DILATANCY

OF

ON CPT RESULTS

EuNiD,KyuNGsuK LEEM),YOUNGHwAN

PARKi")and MINKI KIMiV)

ABSTRACT

ln-situ
testshave beenincreasingly
used to estimate the

shear strength of soils. In thispaper, we propose methods

to
based on cone penetration test (CPT)results. Ittakes into account
the silt content, relative densityand stress state of the sand. A series of laboratory
test results from fundamental
for in-situ
evaluation of strength and dilatancy
for
property testsand triaxialtests are analyzed to developmethods
sands, Based on testresults, modified and simplified dilatancy
equations, interms of the cone penetration
resistance q,
and intrinsic
soil variables, are proposed. Resultsfrom proposed and original dilatancy
indexesshow close agreements
forvarious soil conditions, Values of intrinsic
variables for the proposed dilatancy
relationships were proposed as a
functionof silt content. Based on TX testresults, a directCPT-based correlation, applicable to both clean and silty
sands, isproposed as well. In order to verify the proposed methods,
calibration chamber
CPT results obtained in this
study and collected from the literature
are adopted.
Itisobserved that the results from the proposed methods
show
agreement
with
the
measured
results.
good
evaluate

in-situstrength

Key words:
D6/E2)

and

calibration

dilatancy of

chamber,

sandy

soils

CPT, dilatancy,
friction
test,sands, shear
angle, in-situ

alternative

INTRODUCTION
The shear strength
of soils is the key design property
that governs the stability of geotechnical structures and
thus safety of overall
structures,
For clays, the undrained
shear
strength
is
commonly
in design,while
adopted
(s.)
')
the friction
angle
is
sole
the
(
property that represents
the shear strength of sands, Estimation of these properties is still a challenging
task for geotechnical engineers,
soil constitutions,
nonprimarily due to complex
homogeneity, and non-linearity
of soil behavior. For
sandy soils, the challenge
is even greater,as strength is

highlystate-dependent

undisturbed
soil sampling
is
feasible
option,
As a
practically
result,
various
empirical correlations based on in-situ
test
results, such as SPT blow count IVsipT
from the standard
or cone resistance
penetration test(SPT)
q, from the cone
have been proposed (Dunham,
penetrationtest (CPT),
1954; Durgunoglu and Mitchell,1975; Robertson and
Campanella, 1983; Chen and Juang, 1996),
Application of IVkpTto the estimation of has been
popular in practice. Resultsfrom itare however subjected to various
uncertainties
due to crude correlations
between O' and IVsipT
and experimental
procedure of SPT.
In this context, the CPT-based approach
may
be a better
not

an

economically

and

and

'

the cone

since

state-dependent

strength

strength,

resistance

triaxial
test(IGC:

represents
q, itself

characteristics

of

soils

and

con-

tinuous depth profilesef q, can be obtained. Less exdata

perimental uncertainties of CPT due to automated
acquisition system and quasi-static
penetration mechanism is another important advantage, There have been
several methods
for the estimation
of the shear
strength

in sands using CPT results, definingdirectcorrelations

between q. and the peak friction angle ipS.
While these
have provideduseful tools forthe interpretation
of CPT
measurements,
furtherinvestigation
is still necessary as
no specific consideration
of the state-dependent
dilatancy
and
soil constitution
were
addressed
in detail.
The peak
components:

friction
angle
the

of

granular soils consists ef two

frictionangle and the

critical-state

dilatancyangle (Bolton,
1986).The critical-state friction
angle isan intrillsic
soil variable, independent of stressstate,
history, and density,The dilatancyangle, on the
other hand, isa state soil variable that varies with relative
densityDR and confining stress. In order to quantify the
dilatancy angle

of

sandy

soils, several

stress-dilatancy

have been proposed (DeJosselin

de Jong, 1976;
Bolton, 1986),While these models
have been validated
experimentally
and analytically for known soil and stress
states, directapplication
to field conditions
is not yet
models

/)ibm)i")

Associate Professor, School of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Yonsei Ulliversity,

Korea "unlee@yonsei.ac.kr).
Post-Master Research Assistant, ditto.
Geotechnical Engjneer, Division of Geoteehnical Design, Hyundai Construction, Co. Ltd., Korea.
GraduaLe Research Assistant, School ef Civil & EnvironmentalEngineering,
Yonsei University,Korea.
The manuscript for thispaper was received for review on July 20, 2007; approved on November 22, 2007.
Writtcn discussions
oii this paper should
be submitted
before Novernber 1, 20e8 te tbe Japanese Geotech]ical Society, 4-38-2, Sengoku,
Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 112-OOI1, Japan. Upon rcquest the closing
date may be extended
onc month.

255
NII-Electronic
NII-Electionic

Library Service

The JapaneseGeotechnical
The
Japanese Geotechnical Society
Society

256

ET AL.

LEE

fully possible as soil and stress states in the fieldare not,

in general, known unless extensive soil exploration isperformed.
In the present study, we propose methodology
to estimate
the in-situ
strength and dilatancy
characteristics of
sandy soils based on the CPT cone resistance
q.. The vaTiables evaluated in this study includethe silt content ofthe
sand, relative densityand confining
stress.
A series of
laboratorytest results obtained
for various
soil conditions are used in the analysis and investigation.
For each
soil and
stress condition,
cone
analysis
isperpenetration
formed and used to developthe CPT-based methodology
for in-situevaluation of dilatancy.In order to verify the
results frorncalibration chamber
tests
proposed methods,
are adopted
and used in the comparison.

SHEAR

STRENGTH

OF SANDY

Perkins and

For example,
simple

empirical

relationship

baseresistance

unit

qbL of

(3)

B=length

and

Madson (2000)
proposed a
between al., and the limit
footings:

i)
(o.s2-o.o4

a,'i"f-t

where

As an approximation,
empiradopted
to estimate oih,.

strength.

are sornetimes

and

width

history,

state,

footing,respec-

of

tively.It can be seen that Eq, (3)

still requires

isunknown,

qbL,which

of

givenby

evaluation

mobilized

Estimationof Shear StrengthBased

strength.

CPT

on

Cone Re-

slstance

There have been several CPT-based

of the friction
angle
ipSfor

State-DupendentShear Strengthand Dilatancy

Itiswell known that the peak friction
angle O6 of sands
isa stress- and density-dependent
variable
1986).
(Bolton,
The critical-state friction
angle
is
on
the
other
hand
an
OE
stress

of

icalrelationships

estimation

SOILS

intrinsicsoil variable,
independent of
and
density, and thus can be uniquely

(1)and (2)have not been fullyapplied for

Eqs.
fieldevaluation
reason,

methods
sands

forthe
(Janbuand

Sunneset, 1974; Durgunoglu and Mitchell, 1975; Robertson and Campanella,

1983; Chen and Junag, 1996;
Schnaid and Yu, 2007). Methods frequently used in practice include those proposed by Durgunoglu
and Michell
These
(1975)and Robertson and Campanella (1983).
were
developed based on the bearingcapacity theory and

obtained
even by
empirical correlation between q, and Oe,respectively. DeIt followsthat the
sign application
of these methods
is often made through
dilatancy angle (OS-OE)
varies
with
both relative density charts that give graphical correlations between q, and ip".
and confining stTess. As a result, the peak-strength
enveAccording to Chen and Jung (1996),
the correlations belope is not linear.In order to quantify the dilatancyof tween q, and fiforboth methods can be closely approxisandy
soils, Bolton (1986)
by the followingequation:
proposed the following mated
relationship based on experimental
testresults:
tan dis=a ln
(4)
using

disturbedsamples.

completely

=g5t+RDIk

RD

where

plane-strain conditions,
Ilis given by:

Ib

where

relative

respectively.

5 for triaxial and

The dilatancyindex

where
cone

effective

a(,o=vertical

tip; Ci

gunoglu
panella

density

as

between O

a number

and

1;

stress=100kPa;
a:,,=mean
efiective
pA=reference
stress at peak strength (inthe same units as pA); and 9
According to Bolton
and
R=intrinsic soil variables.
values of e and R are equal to 10 and 1 for clean
(1986),

quartz sands, respectively. As Bolton's dilatancyrelationship

of Eqs. (1)
and (2)
reflects effects of both relative densityand confining stress, ithas been widely used
and
adopted
for strength evaluation of sands experimen-

stress

Michell (1975)
and

and

at

the depth of the

Q=correlationparameters. For Dur-

and

(10;.a""P)]-R
[e-ln
(2)

lt=Ib
==

and

ratio=3

=dilatancy

(qcZgCo)

(1)

ipfi

Ci
(1983),

and

=7.629

Robertson

6.820

and

Cam-

and

C2=O.194

and

O.266,respectively.
It is known that Robertson

and
Campanella's correlation is suitable
for medium-compressible
sands,
while
Dungunoglu
and
Mitchell's correlation
is effective for
low-compressiblesands. Schnaid and Yu (20e7),
on the
other
hand, proposed a methodology
for the estimation
definesdilatancyof sands,
of the state parameter, which
however, reusing the cone resistance q,, This method,
Go that can
quiresknowledge of the initialshear modulus
be obtained from the down-hole seismic cone penetration
test,

tally and analytically.

that control
the
As indicatedby Eq, (2),
state variables
dilatancyof sands are DR and ofu. DR is a state soil varia-

ble that is uniquely

alnp represents

the

defined for given

soil

conditions.

As

peak,
factors,
includjnginitialverti-

mobilized

mean

effective

stress

at

itdepends on a number
of
cal and horizontal
effective stress (oC-o
and afio), DR, and
For laboratory test
other state and intrinsic
soil variables.
where
soil conditions
are known
conditions,
stress and
for

mined.

to

given confining
Field evaluation

unknown

stress
of

aC,
afi,,,

stress states mobilized

afi.

can

be

easily

deter-

however, isdiMcultdue
upon loading.
For this

EXPERIMENTS
FOR
SHEAR
STRENGTH

CHARACTERIZATION

OF

Tiriaxiat
Zests
In this
al.

(2000)

and

(TX)test results from Salgado et

forcharac(2004)were adopted

triaxial

study,

Lee

et al.

terizingthe shear strength

of sands
at various
conditions.
Test soils in both Saigado et al, (2000)
and Lee et al.

(2004)were
non-plastic
mum

Ottawa

sand

containing

different
amount

of

silts in O

silt content

to 20% range by weight. The maxiof 20% was considered,

as the be(s..)

NII-Electronic
NII-Electionic

Library Service

The JapaneseGeotechnical
The
Japanese Geotechnical Society
Society

IN-SITU EVALUATION

257

OF STRENGTH

havior of sandy soils at s.. up to about this limitis be discussedin Iatersections. Relativedensjties
in range
et al.,
of 45-90% and confining stresses in range of 50-400 kPa
governed by the largersand particles(Salgado
2000).For finescontents above thlslimit,
the behaviorof
were
considered
in triaxialtests to characterize
statethe soil isdominated by the fines(silt
in this case) rather
dependentshear strength of Jumunjin sand. Figure 1 and
than by the sand. Other detailedtest procedures and
Table 1 show the grain size distributions
and
basicsoil
properties of Ottawa sand can be found in Salgadoet al.
properties of Ottawa and Jumunjin sands.
and
(2000)

Lee et al.

(2004).

Additional triaxial and fundamental property tests

were
using
Jumunjin sand,
a
performed in this study
standard sand in Korea. Test results obtained for Jumunjinsand will be used for the method verification that will

Cltlibratii
n enamber Cone Penetration71ists
As the goal of this study is to develop CPT-based
methodology
for in-situ
shear
strength
and
dilatancy estimation,

1OO

*-

80Y2

adopted

were

and

bottom

verification.

two

chamber,

6oi=

20

Basic

TsYP.fid"f

O.1

10

-.

(mm)

Partic[e
size

Fig,i, Grain size distributioncurves for Ottawa

and

Jumulljin

"coeficjent

sands

G,

..-. .

0ttawa
Jumynjin

mernbranes

pressure

air

Table 1.

o
O.Ol

rubber

were

lateralsides, Through

and

compressed

40sa

in the

CPTs

chamber

calibration

Calibrationchamber testsadopted herein include those performed in thisstudy and selected from the literature.
The calibration chamber used in
this study was made
of steel and had a diameter and
heightequal to 77,5 and 125 cm, respectively. Insidethe
used

soil

e...

2.62
2.61

O.782
O.878

ofun"iforml'ty,

propertiesof Ottawa
e.,.

for

supplied

was

attached

these

on

achieving

Jumunjin

and

sands

c.e ipE(o)b
i)
(kS17w'fi
(kgl:}"fi,])

O.482

17.34

14.//2"L48

O.631

IS.69

13.63

bcrl'tical

the

membranes,

state

ti9

1.47

-'

'-'31 ''

fricti6nanEie

Oilpressure
cylinder

Connectionrod
Guideframe

Guiderod

Coneprobe

Lateral
membrane

[lilllil
l
llli
llilll
llill
llililll
/

//

Compressedair

membrane

iil
llll

:1,1././.../.
illi

'

f!l?.Sime'l/
llll
i
iil
iifilllllll
]ll
llii
liliiiii
' '

Bottom

(b)

lll/l/iil//li'iII
liII/
ii il

{.s.ertdiitt

1 cm
125

ttt/t'

1111/-//1111,ilil

Compressedair
77.5cm

(a)
Fig. 2, Calibration chamber
colle penetration test:(a)
schematic
p"netra"en test in pTogress

(c)
of

cnlibration

chamber

tesiag equipment,

(b)calibration

ehamber

and

NII-Electronic
NII-Electionic

(c)cone

Library Service

The JapaneseGeotechnical
The
Japanese Geotechnical Society
Society

258

LEE

ET AL.

desiredstress state of the calibration chamber specimen.

Figure2 shows detailsof the calibration
chamber
and
cone penetrorneter used in this study.
Calibrationchamber
specimens
were
prepared with
Jumunjin sand by the raining
rnethod
using
a sand
diffuser.
The sand diffuser
consisted of a sand cQntainer
and two
was

screen

sieves

(seeFig. 2(b)). The

the process

to simulate

effective

of

homogeneous

raining

natural

method

depo-

soil

The
densityDK of the specimen was controlled by the
fallheightand hole size of the sand diffuser,
which
were
at
a
desired
DR
through
several
predetermined
preliminary tests.Two relative densities
of DR
55 and 86% were
adopted
in tests at different
stress
states.
The cone penetrometer used in the calibration
chamber
testsin thjs study consists of the cone probe with extento achieve

sition, and

(a)

soil condition.

(b)

relative

,ve l

l$ee"g'l.

==

sion

rods,

pushing device, depth

The cone probe

sition system.

encoder,
was

of a

and

data

miniature

ee
'f

acqui-

va

type

diameter of 1.6cm (cross-sectional

area of 2.0
by AP van der Berge. The miniature

with

cm2),

manufactured

(c)

(d)

type of the cone was used to reduce

the chamber
size
effect that has significant effect on results of calibration
charnber tests due to limitedsize of the chamber.
As the
cone resistance isgiven as a unit of pressure, the size of
the cone does not significantly
affect
values
of the cone
resistance.
In order to fitthe cone penetrometerintothe
calibration
chamber,
the pushing deice, which
consisted
of the hydraulic jaek
of 25-kN capacity,
four steel bars,
and
rod
connection,
was
specifically
designed and
manufactured.
For data acquisition,
a 24-channel data
logger manufactured
by Tokyo SokkiKenkyujo Co.,
Ltd, was used. Figure 2(c) shows detailsof the cone and

Fig. 3.

pushing device.

unknown

SEM

CPT cone resistance

the
based dilatancyrelationship,
dilatancyrelationship proposed

order

to investigate
effects of soil fabrics
on mechan-

icalproperties
scope
sand,

of

silty

(SEM) tests were

Figure3
silt,

Jumunjin

shows

sands,

silty

sand

scanning

performed

microphotographs

and

obtained

electron

micro-

for Jumunjin sands,

of clean Jumunjin
from SEM tests, The

to sub-round
while
particles are rounded
In the case of silty sand
the siltparticlesare very angular.
to the
mixtures,
siltparticlestend to separate and adhere
largersand particles and to fi11
voids.
and
Lee et al.
According to Salgado et al. (2000)
sand

were
found to
and stiffness of sands
deereaseand increaserespectively with increasing fines
content.
This observation may be explained, at least in intuitive point of view,
from the particle arrangements
Go, as an
shown
in Fig, 3. For the initial
shear modulus

strength
(2004),

of stifThess,
the presence of silt would
reduce
friction between the larger sand
causing
a
particles,
decreasein the overall magnitude
of Go with increasing
finescontent, The presenceof non-plastic fines,however,
would
have the opposite effect on the shear strength and
and
dilatancy,due to the higher degree of interlocking
wedging
of the fines with
the sand
resulting
in
particles,
example

highervalues

of

SEM pictures of
50), (b)non-plastic

nification

Tatio

of

50)

CPT-BASED
DILATANCY
IN.SITU EVALUATION

friction
angle

(Salgado

et al.,

2000).

RELATIONSHIP
FOR
OF SHEAR STRENGTH

Modiped Ditatanqy Relationship

As discussed previously, Bolton's dilatancyrelationship given by Eqs.
into field evaluation
variable

(1)and (2)cannot

of

the fieldapplication

7lests

In

ratio
(a)clenn Jumunjin sand (magnification
silt (magnrncntion
rntio of 50), (c)
no"-plnstic silt (magpification
ratio of 2000}and (d)siJt)'sand mixturc (magof

be directly
applied
due to the
afu,. In this study,
rnethodology
for
the
dilatancy
equation
based
on
of
is
investigated.
For
the
CPTq,
of

shear

strength

same

by

framework of the
Bolton (1986)is

Ottawa sands (Salgado

et
used
in
the
analysis.
Figure
al,, 2000; Lee et al., 2004) are
from triaxialtests and
4 shows the values of Smeasured
equation,
It is seen that values
estimated
using Bolton's
in
with
of ip
fifrom Bolton'sequation are good agreement
the values of ipSmeasured
from triaxialtests.
The confining
stress
(oOin TX tests is routinely determined
from in-situvertical (o;o)
and horizontal (aAe)
stresses
at a certain
target depth.As illustrated
in Fig.5,
for TX test of a soil at a certain depth z, aE is typically
+ 2aAo)f
effective
stress ahn equal to (aCo
given as the mean
in-situ
stresses
3. Based on this procedure, a series of
to
oE
values
adopted
in TX
aC-o and
ofio), equivalent
(i.e.,
were
obtained
at
three
Kb
values
of
O.45,
O.7,
and
tests,
For
in-situ
stress
state
and
DR,
values
of
were
1.0. each
qc
using
the
obtained
from the cone penetration analysis
has
widely
examined
CONPOINT,
which
been
program
and yalidated
(Salgadoet al,, 1998; Salgado and Ranis
dolph,2001),The cone resistance q, from CONPOINT
adopted.

TX

test results

with

cavity
expansion
theory.
determinedusing the cylindrical
it
is
For uncemented
soils,
granular
generallypossibleto
'wrlte:

NII-Electronic
NII-Electionic

Library Service

The JapaneseGeotechnicalSociety
The
Japanese Geotechnical

Society

EVALUATION

IN-SITU

1,5

50-ev=
1
1

1
1

t/
/
1
45,9ts=crdi --1------+---

1
1

11.:-!-

..1......

1'"

i
1

ii,

'

/-1Lt!
tvi/////

...!...
'
1

Sco
X Sco

25

30

35

(Otawa)

40

45

ff

i
-----[?t:

O.4

1,5

O.3

1.2

d O.2

O,9

o.ri

'lllll

eeof

O.6

oO,2O,4O,6Ko

/ta;,+2a;,

<In-situstate>

<

Fig.5. Stress states for in-siin,CPT,

TX

nnd

Triaxial
test>

tcst

O,3

O.8

q,<CPT>

relationships:
Fig.6. Modified dilatancl,
versus cone resistmice bothnormalized

conditions

relative

q.=function

intrinsic
variables;
beforepenetration;
and

sand

DR=
a<,e and

lateral

effectiye
stress nt differentKh
fullctioll
of Kh for IR,cpT

by Eq, (5)are
Salgado

and

available

Randolph

(2001),

Figure6(a)

between the mean

from TX tests for
peak
Ottawa sands, and the cone resistance q, obtained from
CONPOINT
with equivalent in-situ
stresses a(,oand a{o at
Kb=O.4S, O.7,and 1.0.Both al., and q, were normalized
with the in-situ horizontaleffective stress cAo. As can be
seen in Fig. 6(a),the correlation
between afu,fage and
appear
to
be
fairly
unique
for
all the soil condiq,/afio
tions considered in this study. It should be noticed that
test data points plotted in Fig. 6(a)includeresults for
both clean and silty Ottawa sands at s,.=O, 2, 5, 10, 15
and
20%, This result indicates that afi, and q, represent
similar
dependency on DR and initial
confining
stress.
Correlationsin Fig. 6(a) can be given by;
shows

efiective stress at

where

af.,=mean

resistance;

and

or and

relationships

as

function

ac,Ml,'

= cM

effective

(ln
fi

aqfC,)

stress

at

with

yalues

nlld

peak
respect

effective

to the

(b)values

of

strcsg

horizon-

fias

or and

peak observed

(6)
from

q, cone
parameters, As can
cr and fi
were found to vary

rs=

stress;

==

correlation

of

Ko, For Ko

of

O.45, yalues

of

fiwere

cr and

O,263 and O,848,respectively.

Based on the results in Fig.6 and Eq. (6),
the dilatancy
index lk givenby Eq. (2)and the peak friction
angle fi
can be rewritten as:

aF.p, measured

ln

(a}moan

TX tests;afio= in-situ
horizontaleffective

de- be seen in Fig, 6(b),values

aAo=initial vertical and

effective stresses. The
tails of the theoretical development, evaluation,
and
vali-

dationof the functionrepresented

in Salgado et al. (1998)and

1.2

(5)

a(o, aAo)

containing

densityof

(b)

tal

where

1D

I/I/sl//

g'ho

q,=:q.(DR,

7.0

(a)

triaxialtests

and

rff-'

fi'v/J

5.0ln(qctu'ho)
6.0

50

(e}

thSbetween Bo]ton's equation

4.0

(Jumunjin)

O%

of

o,o3.0

(Ottawa)

= 2o% (ottawa)

p from triaxialtest
Comparison

O.3

(Ottawa)

25

(Ottawa)

(Ottawa)

Soo e%
Sco=2%
Sco 5%
Sco=1O%
Sco 15%

.erk

3o'e"

O.6E'

35mE2'
-

O.9s2'b

ei

eloO
o.

t t

1ttltttttt

40.e=o--o

1,2T.=b

----

ol

Qa

Fig, 4.

259

OF STRENGTH

ik,cpT=h

::/;.)fi-in
(in
(iO;.aAo
Ie-a
(7)

(8)
q.; e

q5S=q5E+RD'Jk,cpT

Ik,cpT= modified
dilatancyindexin terrns of
R=intrinsic soil variables
as adopted
in original
dilatancyequation of Eq. (2);(aAo=in-situ
horizontal
where

and

efiective

stress;

p,x

reference

stress=

1OO kPa;

and

RD=

dilatancyratio
3 and 5 for triaxial and plane-strain conditions,respectively. The modified dilatancyequation of
Eq, (7)may be more efibctive and straightforward in that
itisbased on a quantity that can be measured from the
=

fieldCi.e.,
q,),instead of

relying

on

empirical

correlations

fieldafi, values. Figure 7 shows

IR versus Ik,cpT.In Fig. 7, values of Ii{were
from Eq, (2)by Bolton (1986),
while lk,cpi
were
to estimate

the

NII-Electronic
NII-Electionic

values

of

obtained
calculat-

Library Service

The JapaneseGeotechnical
The
Japanese Geotechnical Society
Society

260

LEE ET AL.

as

e 129ts.V98{6I

R4Ycr-3Eoe2to.gl

i3
oo

oo.o

from Eq. (7)using q, from CONPOINT.

seen
in the figure, both methods
produce
irrespectiveof Kb

results,

Fig. 8. Rcgressio"

Comparison between lh and Jlt,cpT

can

be

virtually

the

As

ed

sarne

O.41.O,6

for

analysis

18

ri
5F8 t t

1.0

...... tll.
12av9=N6cr3
1

qcll-Rc,.

=!N--

RcpT determination

1....

....

1.......

SimpICfied
DilatanqyRelationship
Both q, and atsp are primarilygoverned by DR and the
confining
stress, Based on the assumption
of similar deof
and
aAip
on
DR
and
af,o,
the Botton's
pendency
qc
dilatancyindex and diSequations of Eqs. (2)and (1)
may
furtherbe modified as a sole functionof q. as follows:

[ecpr-in
(iOO
XPA I]
L

acpTalld

/
1
tt/tttt ttt/ tt ttttt

tttltttttt
1

values.

ik,cpr*=ib

O.8

{2)

IRfrom Eq.
Fig. 7.

O.2

'XKilLL:IL

T----

tttttttltttttttt tltttttt ttrtttt tttt

!
:
---Q
1

.Qcpt

(g)

la

"5

20

SiltContent (% )

diS==
E+R.Ik,.,,*

(1O)

Iii,cpT.=simplifieddilatancy index in terms of q,;

and
9cpT RcpT intrinsicsoil variables that are analogous
to e andR
in Eq, (2).
In Eq. (9),
values of ecpT
and RcpT
are different
from those of e and R in Eq, (2),
due to numerical difrerences
between q, and ain,. While Eq. (7)was

(a)

where

1
1
1

tttttttltttttt ttttttttt
:////

Hltrvorvo:or

in a fairly
rigorous fashionbased on experimental results, the semi-empirical
formulationof Eq. (9)is
based on simple replacement
of afl, with q,, Detailed
comparison
between two approaches
with reference
to
the Bolton's dilatancy relationship
wM
be further
presentedin the latersection,
ln oTder to obtain values of QcpTand RcpT,a regression
analysis was performed using TX test results and values
q, from CONPOINT

shows

for Ottawa
frornthe regression

results

s,.=O

10%. For

and

sands

at

sand

sarnples,

analysis

other

also observed.
In Fig, 8, the slope of regresthe y-intercept represent
values
of the in-

lines and

trinsic
shows

gcpTand RcpT, respectively. Figure9

Q, R, 9cm and Rcpb as a function of silt

parameters
values

of

-a

ttttttt ttttttttt ttt

----1

---R

1
1

+Rcpt
1

-2

10

15

SiltConte

nt

20

(% }

(b)

R2 greater than

O.98,were

at

tight correlations,

sion

nttN

silt contents,

surnciently

showing

/
/

Figure

for sands

/
/
/

obtained

of

////L

Fig, 9.

Iptrinsic

(a)e

and

soil

yariab]es

QcpTa"d (b)R

R and
Q, Qc?J,
and

Rcvr

versus

silt conte"t:

Rcpi

obtained
frornthe regression analysis. Values of
20% cases were found to be 14,O, 15.4,14,O,14.3,11,8
results
ofRcpT
were
1.0, -O,12, -O.l2,
R in Fig.9 were from previously reported
and 12.1, while values
-O.Ol,
O.Ol and O.12 respectively. It isseen that values of
obtained
by Salgado et al, (2000)and Lee et al. (2004),
From Fig. 9, yalues of ecpr
im case s..=O, 2, 5, 10, 15 and
9cpTvary in 12-15 range. The differencebetween 9cpT
content,

and

NII-Electronic
NII-Electionic

Library Service

The JapaneseGeotechnicalSociety
The
Japanese Geotechnical

Society

IN-SITU

EVALUATION

261

OF STRENGTH

15

'p

-e'. from

O
Aov

12ps-."

test (O)
triaxial
10

15

20

9E9`'-.

100

6-eLbe3

o.=bs.

orr

o
3

from triaxial
test(O}

'p-thIC

300
400

15

f2

200

500

(a)

(a)

50

O'p-
O

45

',

from triaxialtest
8

12

(O)

ri620

Aevp8g"

40

1OO

E9-"'e
35

200

o.=bny..-

30

ov

25
25

30

35
'p

40

45o}

400

50

from triaxialtest (

500

(b)
Fig. 10.

Comparison

glesmeasurcd

and

of

(b)

(a)dilatanc},angles

estimated

"s;ng

300

and

(b)peak frictionan-

IR,cpr'

Fig. 11. Correlations between dilatamcy

resistallcc
for (a)snilds of differentsilt

angle
contents

and

normalized
and

co"e

(b)different.Kli

vallles

and

is approximately

constant

regardless

of

the silt

3 to 4. The difference
be- degrees,
tween RcpT and R appears
to be, on the other hand,
negligible, showing
both RcpT and R values ranging from DirectCorrelationbetween Cone Resistance andDiiatan-1 to 1. For clean sand, 9cpTand RcpT were around 14 qy Angie forSancts
and
1, respectively.
Severaldirectcorrelations
between q, and OS have been
Figure 1O(a) shows values of the dilatancyangle (di
to
estimate
the
shear
strength
of sands
3-ip:)proposed
(Durcalculated
from Eq. (1O)using Ik,cpT.of Eq. (9)and those gunoglu and Mitchell, 1975; Robertson and Campanella,
measured
from triaxialtestresults with Ottawa sand sarn1983; Chen and Juang, 1996; Lee et al,, 2004), While
As
shown
in
Fig.
10(a),
difference
between
measthese
correlations have been frequently
used
for analysis
ples,
ured and calculated (ipSvalues
is
no
more
than
20.
and
interpretation
of
CPT
results,
further
investigation
is
S)
Figure 1O(b) shows
calculated and measured
values of the
necessary
for soils at different
finescontents
and
1(bconCalculated di6values
were
ditions. Since diCcan be uniquely identified
obeven using
peak frietionangle thS.
tained from Eq. (10)
forgiven values of diC.
Similarto the
completely
disturbed sand samples,
a focus for the correresults
in Fig.1O(a),both measured
and calculated values
lationinvestigated
in this study is on the estimation of
of " show
with difference
less than 2 dilatancyangle (ipS-ipE)
directlyfrom cone resistance.
good match
content,

and

equals

to around

NII-Electronic
NII-Electionic

Library Service

The Japanese Geotechnical Society

TheJapaneseGeotechnical
Society

262

LEE

Figure 1 1(a)shows

ialtests

versus

Ottawa

sands

q.

va]ues

of

normalized

obtained
fi-thE

with

from triax-

for clean

oto

ET AL,

and

silty

Ko=O.45, Values of q, in Fig. 11(a)

from CONPOINT
at the same
mean
effectivestress as adopted in each triaxialtest with Ottawa
sand
samples.
As can be seen in Fig. 11(a), a quite unique
correlation, applicable to both clean and silty sands, ap.
pears to exlst.
Correlations between q./aAoand ( S-thS)
for other 1<b
were

under

obtained

from CPT
angles directly
peak friction
clean and

silty sands with siltcontents

results

for both

up to approximate-

In Eq. (11),
as the normalized
cone resistance
q./aAoisadopted, values of q, mainly reflect the effect of
the relative densityon ipS-g6E
correlation, while q, in Eq,
(9)was considered as a component forrefiecting the efiect
ly 15-20%,

of the confining

stress.

COMPARISON
AND VERIFICATION
USING
plottedin Fig, 11(b).From
CALIBRATION
CHAMBER
TESTS
the trends of the regression linesin Fig.11(b),it isobserved that slight increaseof dilatancyoccurs
with
in- CalibrationChamber 7lestResultswith fumunjin Sand
creasing Ko for a givennormalized
cone resistance
The methods
for in-situ evaluation
of shear
strength
q./aAo.
Correlationsobtained
from Fig, 11(b)can be given as:
and dilatancy
using CPT proposed inthis study can be
summarized
intothe followingthree cases: (1)Method
1-Modified
dilatancy
equation
of Eq, (7);
dis-dia--ln
(11)
(2)Method
2-Simplifieddilatancyequation ef Eq. (9);and (3)
where
aAo=in-situ
horizontaleffective stress; a and b=
Method 3-Directcorrelation equation of Eq. (11).
Decorrelations parameters that depend on Kb values, For Kb
tailed descriptions
and procedure for each method
are
=O.45,
a and b were found to be O,148and 73,6,respecgiven in Table 2 and Fig. 12,From Fig. 12,itisnoticed
tjvely.For other Kb values, based on resuits in Fig, 11(b), that soil characteristic
such as stress state, DR
properties,
values of a and b were found to be approximated
as:
and ipE,
other than q, are still required,
Thisisa common
situation since strength isnot given as a sole functionof
a=o,13sK,iOii5
a2) q,,but typically represents infiuenceof various mechanib=64,ogKo'Oii
(13) cal soil properties,
As collection of undisturbed
soil samEquations (11)-(13)
can
be used to estimate
dilatancyand
is
not
available
in
sands,
determination
pling
practically
values

were

also obtained

and

(qc/bafio)

Table

2. Summary

Method

Equation

Modified dilatancy equation

(Methed 1)

iR tpT=in

SimpLifieddilatancyequation
(Method2)
Direct

CPT-based strength

or

dilatancy
estimation

dilatancy

Model parameters

IR3Fiigg6g

Equation

of

ip5

"= {+3Jk,cpL

g
[g...-ln
(10pO.q')]-R.,.
Zi
e"fbak")
Re.C:.T
FFIgg

EEqql((1:))

in
aba=!
ths-ip:!-l;-

(Method3)

methods

E/:,)fi-in
ll:
(ln
(iO;.aiCO)]-R
[e-or

Ik,,..-=I.

correlation

of

alld

thr, ip:.+ 3IR,

c,..
=

s=di:+ipg

Characterizebasicsoiistate/DR,abc,GAo,qc

Method1/Modifieddilatancy
equationof{R,cpT[Eq,(7)]

Determinemodelparameters/

Method2/Simplifieddilatancy Method3/Directcorrelation

QcpT,RcpT(Fig.9)

a,b[Eqs.C12)and(13)]

Estimatethedilatancy/

Estimatethedilatancy/
[R,cpT[Eq.(9)]

Estimatethedilatancy/
IR,cpT{Eq,(7)]

O'd[Eq.(M)l
Estimate-'p/

EstimateO'p/

'p/

-Fp=O'.+31R,cpT'

O'p=Oc+3[R,cpT
Fig. 11.Procedure

Determinemodelparameters/

Determinemodelparameters/

(x,P,Q,R(Figs.6and9)

Estimate

Q',[Eq.(rt1)]

equationIR,cpT+[Eq.(9)]

for pToposcd

CPT-based

strength

and

O'p=tpFc+a)'d

dilatancy estimation

mcthods

NII-Electronic
NII-Electionic

Library Service

The JapaneseGeotechnical
The
Japanese Geotechnical Society
Society

IN.SITU

EVALUATION

OF

STRENGTH

263

/
Tabte3.

T&
(kPa)

afo
ffr,o

Soil cortditiolls

adapted

calibration

DR=5S%
O,27100

(kPa)

O,27150

O,40100

tests

chamber

T
O,705740O.705.36
O,70100

27O.713.39 40O.755.32 40'O.735.39

D.;86%

1.00100100O.788.42
O.27150

O.70

O,40100

70O.776.92

aCFk,,:

(MPa)/i

correction

O.7222.64

15.40

factor for chamber

size

effect

q. {Mpa)

DR is commonly
based on in-situ
testresults. Various
for the determination of DR using CPT can be
found from Salgado (2006).
In order to evaluate
the proposed methods,
calibration
chamber
cone
tests
using
Jumunjin
sand
were
penetration

o.o

conducted

O.2

of

methods

and

1.00too100

70O.7019.65

O.63

ecFkizcqc,

fit]a

O.70100

100
40
40O.698.6840O.6518.69

in comparison

used

total of 11 calibration

and

CPTs

verification.

o5

perforrned at
relative
and
stress states.
Table 3 shovvs
different
densities
relative densities
and stress states considered
in the tests.
It has been well recognized that size effect exists in
calibration chamber
testsdue to the limitedsize ef chamchamber

qcc

cTL,kail.ier

20

25

30

O.4
AEvs-aoo

e.6

O,8

a.o

obtained
by Salgado et al, (1998)
were
adopted.
(CLi.,)
Using CEi.., the cone resistance
for fieldconditions
(i.e.,
can
be obtained
from the calibration
chamber
qr,f{eid)
cone
resistance
as follows:
(i,e.,
qe.chambcr)
==

ri5

were

ber (Schnaid
and Houlsby, 1991; Kurup and Voyiadjis,
1994;Salgadoet al., 1998,2001; Lee and Salgado,2000),
Due to the size effect, values of q,measured from calibration chambers
are smaller than those measured
inthe field
for the same stress states and soil conditions. As soils are
more dilatant,
in general,degreeof underestimation
of q.
in chambers increases.
In order to obtain values of q, corrected
for the size
effect, correction
factorsfor the chamber
size
effect

q,,,,,,d

rie

rt.2
Fig, 13. J)epth profilesof q, for calibration

(14)
Eqs,

According to Salgado et al. (1998),

size effect correction
factorsvary as a function of DR, stress states, and cham-

otheT

chamber

tests

and (11)
were
(7),(9),
existing

<1975)and

used. For comparison,

two
by Durgunoglu and Mitchell

methods

Robertson

and

Campanella

which
(1983),

can

directapproach similar to Eq, (11),

were
also includedin Fig.14.
Figure 14(a)shows values of diSobtained
from TX tests
chamber-to-cone
diameter ratio was 48 considering di- and proposed methods of Eqs. (7),
and (11).
It isob(9),
ameters of cone and chamber
equal to O.Ol6 and O.77m,
served
that predicted ipbvalues
from Eqs. (7)and (9)show
respectively.
reasonable
agreement
with
those from TX tests.Some
Figure 13 shows typical examples
of q, profiles
obcases obtained
from the direct correlation
of Eq. (11)
tained from calibration chamber
tests.Values of q, in show overestimated
values
compared
to those from
difi
Fig. 13 are those corrected with the chamber
size effect.
TX tests for dense sand cases, This overestimation
was
As shown
in Fig. 13, due to the boundary effect of the
alsoobseived from other similar types of correlations by
chamber,
down to a certain depth below Durgunoglu and Mitchell (1975)
q, increases
and
Robertson and
which
the profilebecomes stabilized. Accordingly,values
Campanella (1983)
in Fig. 14(b).
of q, adopted
forthe estimation of ipS
were selected at this
range
of middle
depths of the specimen. Values of q. obCalibrationChamber Tk7stResultsfi'om
Literature
tained from each calibration
chamber
test were
summaHoulsby and Hitchman (l988)
conducted
calibration
rized in Table 3,
chamber
cone penetrationtests using Leighton Buzzard
Figure 14 shows measured
and predicted values
of ipS sand. The critical state friction
angel Olof LeightonBuzfor each calibration
chamber
test case. Measured values
zard
sand
is equal to 33O. Calibration chamber
samples
of ip
fiwere obtained from the triaxialtestsusing Jumunjin were prepared at three relative density levelsof DR =
sand samples.
For pTedictedipS,
of
20-26%, 47-61%, and 82-90% under 1(h=O.5, 1.0, and
proposed methods

ber-to-eone diameter Tatios. For each calibration chamber test in Table 3, values of CIFLi,,
were obtained
based
on
stress
states
and
DR actually adopted in the test.The

be

classified as

NII-Electronic
NII-Electionic

Library Service

The JapaneseGeotechnical
The
Japanese Geotechnical Society
Society

264

LEE ET AL.

50

Table 4.
1988)Calibrationchamber

45Aevv

eEb'

Da

{%)o:o (kPa)

of,e

testres-lts(Hou]sby

a"dHltchma",

fiLizeq.,fi.ld(MPa)
(kPu) &qc,chamber(MPa)C

106.2149.749.063.0IS5Ji51.2151,663.3103.143,1151.066.750.3113.316
644761S9S723202024269086878588
96.975.840.532.214S.8149.076.931.0101,I39.77
O.913O.506O.826O.512O.936O.98SO.508O.
16.0713.469.4607.97019.79
O.62O.65O.58O.58O.73O
25.9220.7116.3

40

9idi'e35

5.650
3.990
1.9904.240

30

1.97020.8212,eo12.8722.4330.28

25

25

30

35

40

45

50

(Tx)(O)

'P,

Measured

(a)

50

50
45

45{i8

-ov

ve

40

,g
v

4og,

e
q.ae35

35i-e-

30

30
25

25

2530

25

30

35

40

35

50

(Tx)(e}

'p,

{b

45

measured

40

4550

'p,LrcBoiton}(e)

(a)

(b)
50
Fig.14. Measured versus predictcd dil,
yalues forjum"lljin

(a)proposed

methods

(b)existing

and

sand

with

methods

45
Aov

as the upper
2.0.As Ko equals to 1,O may be regarded
sands,
calibratjon
limit for highly overconsolidated
chamber
test results for Kb=O.5 and 1.0 were used in the

included.
was of heightand diameterequal to 1.0 and

comparison

and

results

Kb

with

were

==2.0

not

The chamber
O.9m, respectively, whereas CPTs were conducted using
the standard 36-mm cone. More detailedtest eonditions
A
can
be found from Houlsby and Hitchman <1988).
total of 15 calibration
chamber
CPT results were adopted
Table 4 shows
soil conditions
and
in this comparison.
with
the size effect for each
cone resistances corrected
in Table 4
calibration chamber
test, Values of q, shown
are

those

measured

depth of
calibration

calibration
chamber

at

depth

chamber

of

O.5
sample)

rn

at the
(i.e.,

vs

a.ae35

30
25
2530

35

4550

{O)

(P

(b)

middle

from the top

40

'P,tr(Betton)

of
Fig. 15.

samples.

40

.!
-

Comparison

of

ipava]ues

ror Leighton Bnzzard

sand

(Houl-

sby
and
Hitchman, 19SS) with
(a) Bolten's versus
proposed
peak friction angle fi
methods
and (b)Bo]ton's and existing mcthods
test with different
obtained for each calibration chamber
rnethods.
As Houlsby and Hitchman
suggested
(1988)
relationship
As in the
Bolton'sdilatancy
and no TX test results were available, reference values of
given by Eq.
two
other
methods
by(2),
Durgunoglu
in the cornparison
were
those obtained from
previous examples,
ipSadopted

Figure 15 shows

values

of the

NII-Electronic Library Service

The Japanese Geotechnical

TheJapanese
Geotechnical Society
Society

IN-SITU

EVAI.UATION

OF

265

STRENGTH

from the literature.

Various soil conditions were used in
both tests, It was observed
that modified
dilatancy
obtained
from
Bolton
and
methods
of
relationships
based
on
Jk,cpT
results
reasonably
produces
thB
(1986) proposed
Eqs, (7),
and
It is observed that the modified
close
to those measured
from triaxialtests and estimated
(9),
(11).
based on Ik,cpT of Eq. (7)(i,e.,
from Bolton'soriginal dilatancyrelationship, while simdilatancyequation
Method 1) produces virtually
the same results as those
plifiedrelationship of Ik,cpTstends to show underestifrom Bolton's relationship.
The simplified
dilatancyequmated
results
at higherrange
of Svalues, Directq.-based
hand,
on
other
hand,
were found to result in
ation of Eq. (9)(i,e,,
Method 2), on the other
correlations,
the
Mitchell (1975)
and
Robertson and Campanella
included.
Figure
15(a)shows values of
(1983)were also

and

tends to

underestimate

values

of

Sas

soil

becomes

dilatant.
This result indicates
that the modified
equation

with

more

overestimated

dilatancydilatancy

values
ipfi

compared

to those from Bolton's

relationship,

give more acof shear strength, while the simpli-

consideration

of afle would

fieldevaluation
REFERENCES
fieddilatancyequation using Ift,cpT.
may still be applica1) Bolton, M, D. <19S6):
The strength and dilatancyef sands,
blefor practica]purpose.
Geotechnique,
36(1),
65-7S,
The directq,-basedcorrelation of Eq. (11)
shown
in
2) Chen, J. W. and Juang, C. H. (1996):DezeTmjnation of drained
Fig. 15(a), on the other hand, results in overestimated
OS
frietionangle of sands
from CPT, Journai of Geotechnicat Envalues
compared
to those from Bolton's dilatancy
gineering,ASCE, 122(5), 374-380.
relationship.
For results from Durgunoglu and Mitchell
3) De Josselin
de Jong, G. (1976):
Rowe"s stress-dilatancy re]ation
curate

(1975)and

Robertson and Campanella

(1983)in Fig.
15(b), while both methods
show overestimated
thSvalues,
degree of overestimation
for Robertson and Campanella
(1983)was slightly higher than for Durgunoglu and
Mitchell(1975),
From Fig, 15, itcan be concluded that
the modified
dilatancyequation based on q, can be effectivelyused forfield
evaluation of shear strength without a
need for laboratorytesting to obtain a;,,. For directcor-

between q, and dilatancyor peak friction

angle,
estimation
of 03 may result in.

relation

unconservative

Summar;y and Conctusions

Bolton'sdilatancyrelationship has been widely adopted in various
strength
analyses,
Itcannot be,however, directly
applied intofield
evaluation
of shear strength due
the unknown
variable
of the mean
efiective stress at
forthe fieldappiication
peak. In this study, methodology
of the dilatancy
equation based on CPT cone resistance q.
is investigated for sandy soils containing
fines,Results
from a series of laboratorytests and cone penetration
analysis were used for the development of CPT-based
to

methods

of

strength

and

dilatancyevaluation

forsands,

Based on empirical correlations between q. and ath, 'for

a given TX and equivalent
fieldstress state, a modified
dilatancy index lk,cpT in terms of q, was proposed and investigated for different
Kh conditions. Results from both
modified
and original dilatancyindexes (i,e,,
IR, and
Ik,cpT)showed close agreements for soils at all the silt
contents and Kb values considered,
As both q, and oin, are
primarily governed by DR and the confining
stress with
similar dependency, further simplified dilatancy index
Ik,cpT# in terms of q, was proposed, Values of intrinsic
vaTiables 9cpTand
Rcprfor Ii{,cprFwere proposed as a
functionof silt content. Based on TX testresults, a direct
correlationbetween
and q,laAo,applicable
to both
( S-ipO
clean and

In

order

silty sands, was

to verify
the

for in-situ
evaluation
sands,

and

calibration

of shear strength
chamber

and

dilatancyfor

CPT

results were adopted

calibration chamber
test

for comparison.
The
includethose obtained in this study

used

results

proposed as well,
proposed CPT-based methods

and

based on friction,
Geotechnique,
London, 26{3), 527-534.
4) Dunhanm, J. W, (19S4):
PilefoundaLionforbuildings,
Journat of
the SoilMechanics and foundationDivision, ASCE, 80(1),1-21,
5) Durgunoglu, H. T. and Mitchell, J. K. (1975):
Statiepenetration
resistancc of soils I:analysis, Proc. ASCE
Cotijbrenceon ln
SpeciaJ
Situ Measuretnent of Soit Rroperties. ASCE,
New York, 1,
151-171.
6) Heulsby, G. T, and Hizchman, R. (t988)/
Calibration chamber
tests of a cone
in sand, Geotechnique, 38(1), 39-44.
penetremeter
7) Janbu, N. and Senneset, K. (1974):
Eil'ectiveness
stress
interpretatien of insitustatic cone
penctration tests, Proc. Ist Eur. Symp.on
Penetration Tlesting,2(1), 181-193.
8) Kurup,P. U. and Voyiadjis,
G. Z. (1994):
Calibration
chambeT
studiesof piezocone testincohesive soils, JournalofGeotechnicat Engineering, ASCE, 120(1), 81-107.
9) Lec, J. and Salgado,R. (2000):
Analysis of calibration chamber

plate load tests,Canadian Geoteehnical Journa4 37(1), 14-2S.

10) Lee, J., Salgado. R. and CarTuro, A. (X)04):
Stiffriess
degradation
and shear strength of silty sands, Canadian Geotechnical Jburnal,
41C5),831.843.
") Perkins, S. and Madson, C, (2000):
Bearing capacity
of shallow
foundations on sand: A re]ative density approach,
JournalofGeotechnicai
and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE,
126(6),
521-530.
12) Robertson, P. K. and Campane!la,R. G, (1983):
Interpretationof
cone
penetration tests 1: sand, Canadian Geotechnicai lo"rnal,
109(11), 1449-14S9.
13) Salgado, R., Mitchell, J. K, and Jamiolkowski, M. (1998):
Calibration chamber
size effects on penetration resistance
measured
in
calibration
ehambers,
JOurnai of Geotechnicai and Geoenvironmentat Engineering, ASCE,
124(9),878-S88,
l4) Salgado,R., Bandini, P. and Karirn, A. (2000):
Stiffnessand
stremgth of silty sand,
Journal of Ceoiechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE,
126(5),451-462.
15) Salgado, R, and Randolph, M. F, (2001):
Analysis of cavity expansion in sands,
international ,fournal
of Geomeehanics, 1(2),
175-192.
16) Salgado, R,, Mitchelr, J.K. and Jamiolkowski,
M. (2001):
Closure
to calibration
chamber
size effects on penetration resistance measured jn calibration
chambers,
Jburnaloj'Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmentai
Engineering, ASCE, L27(7),629-630.
17) Salgado,R. {2006):Tke Engineering of Foundations, McGrawHM.18)
Schnaid,F. and HouLsby, G. T. (1991):An assessment
of chamber
size effects intltecalibration
of in situ tests in sand. Geotechnique,
41 C3),
437-44S.
19) Schnaid, F. and Yu, H. S.(2007):
Interpretation
or tbe seisrnic cone
test in granular
seiLs,
Ceotechnique, 57(3),
265-272.

collected

NII-Electronic
NII-Electionic

Library Service