Engineering of Foundations Chapter7 Salgado Solution
Engineering of Foundations Chapter7 Salgado Solution
Engineering of Foundations Chapter7 Salgado Solution
Conceptual Problems
Problem 7-1 Define all the terms in bold contained in the chapter summary.
SOLUTION:
No solution provided.
End
property. The subsurface is typical of barrier island geology in this area: a very loose
sand layer on top of sandstone. Foundations usually consist of piles or piled rafts with
the piles bearing on the sandstone. Develop a site investigation plan for this site.
SOLUTION:
60m
30m
20m
40m
S-Figure 7-1
The site investigation can be started with eight borings as shown in S-Figure 7-1,
six of which would be near the corners of the area. The borings are located schematically,
and corner borings should more properly be enar the corners of the loaded area of the
property. All the borings should extend into the sandstone layer. The termination criteria
should be decided based on the local standard (or based on the RQD and recovery ratio).
Rock cores should be collected and preserved properly for future reference. SPTs and
CPTs are suggested for the sand layer. Some CPTs can be performed next to the borings,
others in between. If large scatter or unexepected variations are found between any two
borings, additional borings should be done to reduce the uncertainty for that part of the
property.
End
geology of the area is residual soil of gneiss extending to depths ranging from 10-20 m
(this depth can vary significantly across short distances because of the nature of the
banding in gneiss). Sound rock (gneiss) is located at that depth. There are occasionally
large boulders found at shallow depths. For large buildings, piles to rock are usually used.
SOLUTION:
20m 20m
15m
15m
S-Figure 7-2
The site investigation can be started with nine borings as shown in the S-Figure
7-2. The borings are located schematically, and corner borings should more properly be
enar the corners of the loaded area of the property. All the borings should extend into the
sound rock (gneiss) layer. Rock cores should be collected to ensure soundness of the rock
if any doubts exist and preserved properly for reference during the pile design stage.
SPTs and CPTs are suggested. The locations of the CPTs should be selected to minimize
the chances of encountering large boulders. If large scatter or unexepected variations are
found between any two borings, additional borings should be done to reduce the
End
Quantitative Problems
Problem 7-4 A vane shear test was performed at a point within a clay layer. The
maximum moment required to rotate the vane, which had a diameter of 60 mm and a
height of 120 mm, was measured as 70N·m. The vane was fully inserted in the soil.
SOLUTION:
The undrained shear strength su of the clay from a vane shear test (when H = 2B)
is given by
12T
su = ; n =2, for fully inserted vane
πB (12 + n )
3
12 × 70 ×10−3
su = kPa = 88.5 ≈ 88 kPa answer
3.14 × (0.06)3 × (12 + 2 )
End
Problem 7-5 If a cone penetration test were performed next to the vane shear test of
Problem 7-4, which was performed at a depth of 5 m, what value of cone resistance
would you expect? The water table is at the surface and the clay has a unit weight of 17
SOLUTION:
qc = N ksu + σv
σ v = 17 × 5 = 85kPa
Using Nk=12 for clay layer and su=88.5kPa from Problem 7-4, we can estimate
End
Problem 7-6 A CPT was performed in a deposit of soft clay with the water table at a
depth of 1 m. The cone resistance at a depth of 10 m was equal to 0.6 MPa. What is the
minimum and maximum value of su of the clay at what depth would expect based on the
range of values possible for Nk? The unit weight of this clay is 17 kN/m3.
SOLUTION:
We will consider the clay layer to be fully saturated due to capillary rise.
σ v = γ sat z = 17 × 10 = 170kPa
Nk values range from 10 to no more than 15. We can calculate su from Eq. (7.22):
qc = N k su + σv
q − σv
su = c
Nk
Problem 7-7 The results of SPT tests performed with an automatic trip hammer using the
standard ASTM split spoon sampler with a liner are shown in the following table. The
borehole diameter was within the recommended range. The soil profile consists of a
normally consolidated sand with unit weight equal to 20 kN/m3. The water table is
located at 4.5 m below the ground surface. Estimate the relative density DR and the peak
friction angle φp at depths where SPT measurements are available. Use Eq. (7.6) with Eq.
(7.8) to estimate DR, and use Fig. 7-14 to estimate φp. You may use the following table to
4 25
5 30
6 35
SOLUTION:
ER hammer 80
Thus, C h = = = 1.33
ER safety 60
Following Eq. (7.3), for 4m ≤ rod length < 6m, Cr = 0.85; and for rod length = 6m,
Cr = 0.95.
Standard ASTM split spoon sampler with a liner was used and the borehole
diameter was within the recommended range, so Cd = 1 and Cs = 1. Now N60 can be
N 60 = Ch Cd Cr Cs NSPT
DR N 60
=
100% σ' v
A + BC
pA
K0
C= ; and so for a normally consolidated sand C = 1.
K 0,NC
Unit weight of the sand = 20kN/m3. Water table is at a depth of 4.5m from the
ground surface. Now, the effective vertical stresses at different depths will be
From the above mentioned equation, relative densities of the sand deposit at
different depths are calculated as 69.8% (at 4m), 73.8% (at 5m), and 82.5% (at 6m).answer
The peak friction angles at those depths are 45.5◦, 46◦, and 47.5◦ answer
(read from
S-Table 7-1
Depth
NSPT Ch Cr N60 σ′v (kPa) DR (%) φp (deg)
(m)
End
Problem 7-8 Table 7-8 has SPT blow counts obtained at intervals of 1 m at a sandy site.
A donut hammer and a liner sampler without the liner were used. Every care was taken to
connect the rod segments firmly and to follow standard procedure. The water table is at a
of unit weight approximately equal to 17 kN/m3 were removed before the SPT was
performed. The K0 of this soil in a normally consolidated state would be 0.48. Calculate
1 15
2 18
3 22
4 23
5 25
6 28
SOLUTION:
ER hammer 45
Thus, C h = = = 0.75
ER safety 60
Following Eq. (7.3), for rod length < 4m, Cr = 0.75; for 4m ≤ rod length < 6m, Cr
A liner sampler without a liner was used and the borehole diameter was within the
recommended range, so Cd = 1 and Cs = 1.2. Now N60 can be calculated using Eq. (7.1)
as
N 60 = Ch Cd Cr Cs NSPT
p A K 0,NC
( N1 )60 = N 60
σ'v K 0
For us to do that, we need the K0 value, from which we obtain (4.35):
K 0 = K 0,NC OCR
σ'v0 92.2
OCR = = = 1.58
σ'v 58.2
100 0.48
( N1 )60 = 17.6 = 20.6
58.2 0.60
Depth (m) NSPT N60 σ'v (kPa) σ'v0 (kPa) OCR K0 (N1)60
End
Problem 7-9 The cone resistance for a clean sand at 6 m has been measured at 11 MPa.
The average total unit weight of the soil column above 6 m is 21 kN/m3. The water table
is 3 m below the surface. The soil is normally consolidated, with K0 = 0.45. The soil has
SOLUTION:
⎛q ⎞ ⎛ σ' ⎞
ln ⎜ c ⎟ − 0.4947 − 0.1041φc − 0.841ln ⎜ h ⎟
p ⎝ pA ⎠
DR = ⎝ A ⎠
⎛σ ⎞
'
0.0264 − 0.0002φc − 0.0047 ln ⎜ h ⎟
⎝ pA ⎠
⎛ 11 ⎞ ⎛ 43.5 ⎞
ln ⎜ ⎟ − 0.4947 − 0.1041× 30 − 0.841ln ⎜ ⎟
0.1 ⎠ ⎝ 100 ⎠ = 73% answer
DR = ⎝
⎛ 43.5 ⎞
0.0264 − 0.0002 × 30 − 0.0047 ln ⎜ ⎟
⎝ 100 ⎠
End
Problem 7-10 For the sand deposit and conditions of Problem 5-12 and Problem 5-13,
estimate and plot the cone resistance qc as a function of depth for the depth range 0-10 m.
SOLUTION:
From the solution of Problem 5-12, we know the variation of relative density
along depth. Now cone resistance values can be related to relative densit according to
0.841− 0.0047D R
qc ⎛ σ' ⎞
= 1.64 exp ⎡⎣ 0.1041φc + ( 0.0264 − 0.0002φc ) DR ⎤⎦ ⎜ h ⎟
pA ⎝ pA ⎠
σ'v = 1× 22 = 22kPa . Given that K0 = 0.45 for this deposit, the horizontal stress at 1m
σ'h = 0.45 × 22 = 9.9kPa . The reference stress is pA = 100kPa. So the cone resistance
G 0 40971
40970.8kPa. So = = 11.2 .
qc 3645
The same procedure is repeated for all other depths, and the result is tabulated in
S-Table 7-3.
S-Table 7-3
4
Depth (m)
10
6 8 10 12 14
G0/qc
S-Figure 7-3
End
Problem 7-11 For the sand deposit and conditions of Problem 5-14 and Problem 5-15,
estimate and plot the cone resistance qc as a function of depth for the depth range 0-10 m.
This solution will follow the same procedure as that of Problem 7-10. In this case
due to presence of high water table, the effective stresses at different depths will be less,
For example, at a depth of 1m, the vertical stress σ'v = 1× ( 22 − 9.81) = 12.2kPa .
Given that K0 = 0.45 for this deposit, horizontal stress at 1m σ'h = 0.45 × 12.2 = 5.5kPa .
pA = 100kPa (refernce stress). So the cone resistance value at 1m depth can be calculated
as
⎡ 0.841− 0.0047×61.5 ⎤
⎛ 5.5 ⎞
q c = 100 ⎢1.64 exp ⎣⎡ 0.1041× 30 + ( 0.0264 − 0.0002 × 30 ) 61.5⎤⎦ ⎜ ⎟ ⎥
⎢⎣ ⎝ 100 ⎠ ⎥⎦
= 2634.8kPa
G 0 31407.9
kPa. So = = 11.9 .
qc 2634.8
The same procedure is repeated for all other depths, and the result is tabulated in
4
Depth (m)
10
6 8 10 12 14
G0/qc
S-Figure 7-4
End
Design Problems
Problem 7-12 An SPT log is given in Fig. 7-43. The SPT was performed with a safety
hammer using the standard ASTM split spoon sampler with a liner. The borehole
diameter is within the recommended range. The sand is normally consolidated (with a K0
of approximately 0.45) and the water table is very deep. The critical-state friction angle
of this sand is approximately 32˚. The unit weights of the sandy clay, silty clay and sand
are equal to 17, 15, and 20 kN/m3, respectively. For the sand layer extending from 8.5 to
21 ft:
(a) Estimate the relative density DR and the peak friction angle φp that would be
recovered from the following depths where SPT measurements are available: 9.3, 11.5,
14, 16.5 and 19 ft. Use Eq. (7.6) to estimate DR and Eqs. (5.8) and (5.16) to estimate φp.
Assume that you are estimating the φp that would be obtained in the laboratory under
stress.
SOLUTION:
(a)
Following Eq. (7.3), for rod length < 4m, Cr = 0.75; and for 4m ≤ rod length < 6m,
Cr = 0.85. Standard ASTM split spoon sampler with a liner was used and the borehole
diameter was within the recommended range, so Cd = 1 and Cs = 1. Now N60 can be
N 60 = Ch Cd Cr Cs NSPT
DR N 60
=
100% σ' v
A + BC
pA
K0
C= ; and so for a normally consolidated sand C = 1.
K 0,NC
The unit weights of the sandy clay, silty clay and sand are equal to 17, 15 and 20
kN/m3, respectively. Water table is very deep. Now, the effective vertical stresses at
From the above equation, relative density DR of the sand deposit at 9.3ft can be
calculated as
9 answer to (a)
D R = 100 = 42.7%
47.3
36.5 + 27 ×1×
100
17 answer to (a)
at 16.5ft (= 5.03m), D R = 100 = 52.7%
91.3
36.5 + 27 ×1×
100
⎡ ⎛ 100σ'mp ⎞⎤
I R = I D ⎢Q − ln ⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎥ − R Q
⎜ p
⎣⎢ ⎝ A ⎠ ⎦⎥
where Q = 10 and RQ = 1 for clean silica sand
47.3+2 × 21.3
σ 'm = = 30kPa
3
Assume that we are estimating the φp that would be obtained in the laboratory
effective stress
σ 'm = σ3p
'
= 30kPa
Assume φP = 37 o .
1 + sin37 o
N= = 4.02
1 - sin37 o
'
σ1p = 30 × 4.02 = 120.6kPa
⎡ ⎛ 100 × 60.2 ⎞ ⎤
I R = 0.427 ⎢10 − ln ⎜ ⎟ ⎥ − 1 = 1.52
⎣ ⎝ 100 ⎠ ⎦
friction angle does not match with the calculated value. Hence we need to iterate again
using the obtained value. Finally the value of peak friction angle at this depth converges
Similarly the peak friction angles at depths 11.5, 14, 16.5, and 19ft can be
(b)
As shown below, the peak friction angle at depths 9.3, 11.5, 14, 16.5, and 19ft
can be obtained from Figure 7-14 as 36◦, 44◦, 39◦, 39.5◦, and 35◦ respectively. answer to (b)
0.0
0.5 φ=
50 ο
1.0
φ=
45
ο
φ=
σ'v/pA
40
1.5
ο
φ=3
5
ο
φ=30
2.0
ο
φ=25
ο
2.5
3.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
N60
S-Figure 7-5
End
Problem 7-13 Redo Problem 7-12, part (a), assuming consolidation of the sample to the
SOLUTION:
From the solution of Problem 7-12, relative densities at depth 9.3, 11.5, 14, 16.5,
and 19ft are 42.7, 60.7, 50.3, 52.7 and 41.2 % respectively. In this problem we are
assuming that the sample has been consolidated to the in-situ vertical effective stress in
the triaxial test. Thus the values of peak friction angles will be different from those
calculated in Problem 7-12. A sample calculation is shown below for depth 9.3 ft.
⎡ ⎛ 100σ'mp ⎞⎤
I R = I D ⎢Q − ln ⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎥ − R Q
⎢⎣ ⎜ p
⎝ A ⎠ ⎥⎦
where Q = 10 and RQ = 1 for clean silica sand
Assume that we are estimating the φp that would be obtained in the laboratory
effective stress
σ 'v = σ 3p
'
= 47.3kPa
Assume φP = 37 o .
1 + sin37 o
N= = 4.02
1 - sin37 o
'
σ1p = 47.3 × 4.02 = 190.1kPa
⎡ ⎛ 100 × 94.9 ⎞ ⎤
I R = 0.427 ⎢10 − ln ⎜ ⎟ ⎥ − 1 = 1.326
⎣ ⎝ 100 ⎠ ⎦
φP = φc + 3I R
friction angle does not match with the calculated value. Hence we need to iterate again
using the obtained value. Finally the value of peak friction angle at this depth converges
to φP = 36o answer
Similarly the peak friction angles at depths 11.5, 14, 16.5, and 19ft can be
End
Problem 7-14 Redo Problem 7-12, part (a), assuming consolidation of the sample to the
SOLUTION:
From the solution of Problem 7-12, relative densities at depth 9.3, 11.5, 14, 16.5,
and 19ft are 42.7, 60.7, 50.3, 52.7 and 41.2 % respectively. In this problem we are
assuming that the sample has been consolidated to the in-situ horizontal effective stress in
the triaxial test. Thus the values of peak friction angles will be different from those
calculated in Problems 7-12 and 7-13. A sample calculation is shown below for depth
9.3 ft.
⎡ ⎛ 100σ'mp ⎞⎤
I R = I D ⎢Q − ln ⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎥ − R Q
⎢⎣ ⎜ p
⎝ A ⎠ ⎥⎦
At 9.3ft (=2.83m)
'
σ 3p = 0.45 × 47.3 = 21.3kPa
Assume φP = 37 o .
1 + sin37 o
N= = 4.02
1 - sin37 o
'
σ1p = 21.3 × 4.02 = 85.6kPa
'
σ '1p + 2σ '3p 85.6 + 2 × 21.3
σ mp = = = 42.7kPa
3 3
⎡ ⎛ 100 × 42.7 ⎞ ⎤
I R = 0.427 ⎢10 − ln ⎜ ⎟ ⎥ − 1 = 1.667
⎣ ⎝ 100 ⎠ ⎦
φP = φc + 3I R
Therefore, we need not to iterate any further and at this depth (9.3ft) φP = 37.0o answer
Similarly the peak friction angles at depths 11.5, 14, 16.5, and 19ft are 39.8◦, 37.7◦,
End
Problem 7-15 An SPT log is given in Fig. 7-44 The SPT was performed with a safety
hammer using the standard ASTM split spoon sampler with a liner. The borehole
diameter is within the recommended range. The sand is normally consolidated, and the
water table is very deep. The unit weights of the sandy clay, silty clay, and sand are equal
to 17, 15, and 20 kN/m3, respectively. The sand has φc = 30˚. For the sand layer extending
from 11 to 21 ft:
(a) Estimate the relative density DR and the peak friction angle φp that would be
from the following depths where SPT measurements are available: 11.5, 14, 16.5 and 19
ft. Use Eq. (7.6) to estimate DR, and Eqs. (5.8) and (5.16) to estimate φp. Assume that you
are estimating the φp that would be obtained in the laboratory under triaxial compression
SOLUTION:
ER hammer 60
Thus, C h = = = 1.0
ER safety 60
Following Eq. (7.3), for rod length < 4m, Cr = 0.75; and for 4m ≤ rod length < 6m,
Cr = 0.85. Standard ASTM split spoon sampler with a liner was used and the borehole
diameter was within the recommended range, so Cd = 1 and Cs = 1. Now N60 can be
N 60 = Ch Cd Cr Cs NSPT
at 11.5ft (= 3.5m), N60 = (1)(1)(0.75)(1)30 = 22.5
DR N 60
=
100% σ' v
A + BC
pA
K0
C= ; and so for a normally consolidated sand C = 1.
K 0,NC
The unit weights of the sandy clay, silty clay and sand are equal to 17, 15 and 20
kN/m3, respectively. Water table is very deep. Now, the effective vertical stresses at
From the above mentioned equation, relative density DR of the sand deposit at
22.5 answer to 1
D R = 100 = 64.8%
63
36.5 + 27 ×1×
100
Similarly, at 14, 16.5, and 19 ft, relative densities are 75.8%, 82.9%, and 81.9%
respectively. answer to 1
⎡ ⎛ 100σ'mp ⎞⎤
I R = I D ⎢Q − ln ⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎥ − R Q
⎜ p
⎣⎢ ⎝ A ⎠ ⎦⎥
(1 + 2 × 0.45) × 63
σ' m = = 39.9kPa
3
Say φp = 36◦, so
⎛ φ ⎞
N P = tan 2 ⎜ 45o + P ⎟ = tan 2 ( 45o + 18o ) = 3.85
⎝ 2 ⎠
153.6 + 2 × 39.9
σ'mp = = 77.8kPa
3
⎡ ⎛ 100 × 77.8 ⎞ ⎤
I R ,at11.5ft = 0.648 ⎢10 − ln ⎜ ⎟ ⎥ − 1 = 2.66
⎣ ⎝ 100 ⎠ ⎦
φP = φc + 3I R
For φc = 30◦, φP at11.5 ft = 30o + 3 × 2.66 = 37.98o .
As the calculated value of peak friction angle does not match with the assumed
Iteration 2
Iteration 3
Thus the peak friction angle at depth 11.5ft is 37.9◦. Similarly the peak friction
angles at depths 14, 16.5, and 19ft are 39.1◦, 39.8◦, and 39.3◦ respectively.answer to 1
From the chart of Figure 7-14, the peak friction angle at depths 11.5, 14, 16.5, and
reference to the intrinsic properties of the soil. If the critical-state friction angle of the
soil is low (perhaps because its particles are well rounded and of uniform size), then the
End
Problem 7-16* Two CPTs and one SPT were performed at close proximity. Results are in
(a) For the data given, prepare plots of qc, fs and fs/qc vs. depth.
(b) Estimate the relative density DR and the peak friction angle φp that would be
from depths equal to 6.1, 7.6, and 9.10 m using CPT-based methods. The coefficient of
lateral earth pressure is equal to 0.4 and the critical-state friction angle is equal to 36°.
Use the charts of Fig. 7-26. The sand is normally consolidated and the water table is very
deep.
(c) Estimate the relative density DR and the peak friction angle φp of the sand at
depths equal to 6.1, 7.6, and 9.10 m using an SPT-based method. Use Eq. (7.6) to
estimate DR and Eqs. (5.8) and (5.16) to estimate φp. The SPT test was performed with a
safety hammer using the standard ASTM split spoon sampler with a liner. The borehole
(kN/m3)
5.2-14.3 Sand 19
SOLUTION:
(a) qc vs. depth, fs vs. depth, and qc/fs vs. depth plots are given in S-Figure 7-6.
CPT 1
2 CPT 2
4
depth (m)
10
(i)
sleeve friction, fs (kPa)
0 100 200 300 400
0
CPT 1
2 CPT 2
4
depth (m)
10
(ii)
CPT 1
CPT 2
4
depth (m)
10
(iii)
S-Figure 7-6
(b) In order for us to use Figure 7-26, we need to calculate lateral effective stress
at each depth.
At z = 6.1m
σ’h/pA = 37.3/100=0.373
DR = 80% answer
To estimate peak friction angle, let us use Eq. (5.8) and Eq. (5.16). Assuming
φp = 42° ,
1 + sin42o
N= = 5.04
1 - sin42o
93.2 + 2 × 37.3
σ 'c = σ 'm = = 55.9kPa
3
'
σ1p = 55.9 × 5.04 = 281.7 kPa
φP = φc + 3I R
φP = 45o answer
At z = 7.6m
σ’h/pA = 48.7/100=0.487
DR = 75% answer
To estimate peak friction angle, let us use Eq. (5.8) and Eq. (5.16). Assuming
φp = 42° ,
1 + sin42o
N= = 5.04
1 - sin42o
121.7 + 2 × 48.7
σ 'c = σ 'm = = 73kPa
3
'
σ1p = 73 × 5.04 = 367.9 kPa
σ '1p + 2σ '3p 367.9 + 2 × 73
σ 'mp = = = 171.3kPa
3 3
⎡ ⎛ 100 × 171.3 ⎞ ⎤
I R = 0.75 ⎢10 − ln ⎜ ⎟ ⎥ − 1 = 2.642
⎣ ⎝ 100 ⎠⎦
φP = φc + 3I R
φP = 43.8o answer
At z = 9.1m
qc /pA = 34640/100=346.4
σ’h/pA = 60.1/100=0.601
DR = 95% answer
To estimate peak friction angle, let us use Eq. (5.8) and Eq. (5.16). Assuming
φp = 47° ,
1 + sin47 o
N= = 6.44
1 - sin47 o
150.2 + 2 × 60.1
σ 'c = σ 'm = = 90.1kPa
3
'
σ1p = 90.1× 6.44 = 580.2 kPa
⎡ ⎛ 100 × 253.5 ⎞ ⎤
I R = 0.95 ⎢10 − ln ⎜ ⎟ ⎥ − 1 = 3.241
⎣ ⎝ 100 ⎠⎦
φP = φc + 3I R
φP = 45.9o answer
ER hammer 60
Thus, C h = = = 1.0
ER safety 60
Following Eq. (7.3), for 6m ≤ rod length < 10m, Cr = 0.95. Standard ASTM split
spoon sampler with a liner was used and the borehole diameter was within the
recommended range, so Cd = 1 and Cs = 1. Now N60 can be calculated using Eq. (7.1) as
N 60 = Ch Cd Cr Cs NSPT
DR N 60
=
100% σ' v
A + BC
pA
K0
C= ; and so for a normally consolidated sand C = 1.
K 0,NC
From the above equations, relative density DR of the sand deposit at 6.1m can be
calculated as
25.7 answer
D R = 100 = 64.3%
95.2
36.5 + 27 ×1×
100
Similarly,
23.8 answer
at 7.6m, D R = 100 = 58.6%
121.7
36.5 + 27 × 1×
100
38 answer
at 9.1m, D R = 100 = 70.2%
150.2
36.5 + 27 × 1×
100
To estimate the peak friction angle, let us assume φp = 42° for a sand deposit at a
depth of 6.1m.
At z = 6.1m
1 + sin42o
N= = 5.04
1 - sin42o
93.2 + 2 × 37.3
σ 'c = σ 'm = = 55.9kPa
3
'
σ1p = 55.9 × 5.04 = 281.7 kPa
⎡ ⎛ 100 × 131.2 ⎞ ⎤
I R = 0.643 ⎢10 − ln ⎜ ⎟ ⎥ − 1 = 2.294
⎣ ⎝ 100 ⎠⎦
φP = φc + 3I R
φP = 42.8o answer
At z = 7.6m
Assuming φp = 42° ,
1 + sin42o
N= = 5.04
1 - sin42o
121.7 + 2 × 48.7
σ 'c = σ 'm = = 73kPa
3
'
σ1p = 73 × 5.04 = 367.9 kPa
'
σ '1p + 2σ '3p 367.9 + 2 × 73
σ mp = = = 171.3kPa
3 3
⎡ ⎛ 100 × 171.3 ⎞ ⎤
I R = 0.586 ⎢10 − ln ⎜ ⎟ ⎥ − 1 = 1.846
⎣ ⎝ 100 ⎠⎦
φP = φc + 3I R
φP = 41.6o answer
At z = 9.1m
Assuming φp = 47° ,
1 + sin47 o
N= = 6.44
1 - sin47 o
150.2 + 2 × 60.1
σ 'c = σ 'm = = 90.1kPa
3
'
σ1p = 90.1× 6.44 = 580.2 kPa
⎡ ⎛ 100 × 253.5 ⎞ ⎤
I R = 0.702 ⎢10 − ln ⎜ ⎟ ⎥ − 1 = 2.134
⎣ ⎝ 100 ⎠⎦
φP = φc + 3I R
φP = 42.7o answer
(d) Summarized results obtained from (b) and (c) are given in S-Table 7-7
S-Table 7-7
As seen in S-Table 7-7, values estimated from both CPT and SPT logs follow
similar trends. This trend is in good agreement with cone resistance profile in S-Figure
7-6. However, both relative densities and peak friction angles estimated from CPT logs
are larger than those from the SPT logs. This is part a result of the values selected for the
uncertainty, accounted for to some extent by the use of values that are on the conservative
side.
End
Problem 7-17 To estimate the undrained shear strength of a normally consolidated soft
clay deposit, vane shear tests were performed at four different depths. In these tests, a
rectangular vane with 60 mm diameter and 120 mm height was used. Both ends of the
vane were inserted in the soil. The plasticity index of the clay is equal to 65%. The unit
weight of the clay is 16 kN/m3, and the water table is at the ground surface. The results
3 7
5 11.1
8 18.5
10 22.4
(a) Estimate the undrained shear strength for each depth and develop a plot of the
design undrained shear strength vs. depth (depth on the vertical axis and undrained shear
strength on the horizontal axis). To obtain the design undrained shear strength, use Eq.
(7.26).
(b) Estimate the in-situ undrained shear strength using the correlation of Eq.
(6.52).
SOLUTION:
(a)
The undrained shear strength (su)FV of the clay from a field vane shear test (when
H = 2B) is given by
12T
( s u )FV = ; n =2, for fully inserted vane
πB (12 + n )
3
12 × 11.1×10−3
( s u )FV,at5m = kPa = 14kPa
3.14 × (0.06)3 × (12 + 2 )
12 ×18.5 × 10−3
( s u )FV,at8m = kPa = 23.3kPa
3.14 × (0.06)3 × (12 + 2 )
12 × 22.4 × 10−3
( s u )FV,at10m = kPa = 28.3kPa
3.14 × (0.06)3 × (12 + 2 )
Design shear strength at depths 3, 5, 8, and 10m are 6.2 (≈ 6), 9.8 (≈ 10), 16.3 (≈1
2
Depth (m)
10
S-Figure 7-7
(b)
su
= 0.11 + 0.0037(PI)
σ' v
End