597
Technical Committee 102 /
Comité technique 102
Proceedings of the 18
th
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Paris 2013
0
50
100
150
200
250
0
1000
2000
3000
q
T
- σ
vo
(kPa)
4000
Su (kPa)
pacted clays was found to be
applicable, based on comparable UU and CPT test results
n of modulus of vertical deformation was
made for relevant results for oedometer and CPT test.
Lunne et al (199
ession for
modulus of vertical deformation from CPT test when
Figure 4. Nk=15 Nk = 15 for com
2.3. Modulus of vertical deformation
Compariso
7) critically analyse expr
determined as
)
(25,8
0
v
T
q
M
In this case it seems that this value should be de
factor of two (Fig. 5). This might be due to the
this gener
(2
vided y
fact t
al expression has limitations, and becou
oedometer tests were performed on submerged specime
while CPT and DMT tests were performed on clay fill
the embankment that was not submerged. Values of Mv
from DMT test were the highest of these three (Fig. 6)
(Fig. 6).
)
b
hat
se
ns
in
would be respected, then big
Figure 5. Relationship between laboratory determined modulus
of vertical deformation and corrected tip resistance for CPT test,
around B5 borehole
Based on a limited number of available test results, the
expression Mv=4, 3 (q
t
-σ
vo
) seems to better fit test results
than the equation (2). Modulus seems to be half of the
value suggested by that commonly used equation. If
relationship between DMT-M
v
and LAB M
v
from Fig 6
ger portion of the
then required
compared to situation illustrated in Fig 3 (M proj) .
embankment would show lower values
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0
40
80
120
160
200
Mv DMTM3
Mv CPT C2
9
10
Mv lab
(m)
Mv (MPa)
from oedometer (on
r than from CPT
if compared to DMT
(performed on clay layers that
were not submerged)
Fig. 7 presents the sets of CPT and DMT tests with a
view to illustrate soil resistance in relation to depth. It
seems that the results of tests from different locations are
very similar throughout the depth of testing.
d
Figure 6. Modulus of vertical deformation
submerged specimens) was much smalle
interpretation (equation (2)) or even lower
standard interpretation values
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0
100
200
M3
M2
M1
Mv (MPa)
d (m)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0
10
2
q
c
[MPa]
0
C1
C2
d (m)
Figure 7. CPT and DMT tests in cumulative presentation
