Advertisement

A New Subtraction-Type Miniature Cone Penetrometer

  • Ashish JunejaEmail author
  • Rajendra Singh Bisht
Original Paper

Abstract

This paper presents the development and use of a new 10-mm-diameter miniature cone penetrometer which can measure separately the tip and sleeve resistance in laboratory-prepared soil beds. This cone penetrometer is relatively easy to make and costs significantly less than few other commercial penetrometers, which otherwise are usually large and yield inaccurate results due to boundary effects. Application of this cone penetrometer was examined by performing tests on clay and sand beds. A good agreement was obtained between the theoretical and back-calculated cone factor in clay. The tip resistance was equally sensitive to the relative density in the case of sand and could be well correlated with the mobilised friction angle. The advancing cone was enabled to detect from a distance, the upcoming interface between layers of two different relative densities.

Keywords

Cone tip resistance Laboratory testing Layered soil Miniature cone penetrometer Sleeve friction Transition zone 

List of Symbols

dc

Cone diameter

Dr

Relative density of sand

fs

Sleeve friction

G

Shear modulus

k0

Gauge factor

K

Dimensionless factor

Nk

Cone factor

Nq

Dimensionless bearing capacity factor

PI

Plasticity index

qc

Cone tip resistance

R0

Resistance of the strain gauge

su

Undrained shear strength

Vin

Input voltage

Vout

Output voltage

z

Penetration depth

σv0

Vertical effective stress

ΔR

Change in resistance

ε

Strain in strain gauges

ϕ′

Effective angle of internal friction

γ

Unit weight of soil

Notes

Acknowledgements

The second author gratefully acknowledges Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD), Government of India, and Industrial Research and Consultancy Centre (IRCC), Indian Institute Technology Bombay, for his doctoral fellowship. The clay samples were prepared by Anurag S. Chafale.

References

  1. 1.
    Kurup PU, Voyiadjis GZ, Tumay MT (1994) Calibration chamber studies of piezocone test in cohesive soil. J Geotech Eng 120(1):81–107Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Robertson PK (2009) Interpretation of cone penetration tests—a unified approach. Can Geotech J 46(11):1337–1355Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tumay MT, Kurup PU (2001) Development of continuous intrusion miniature cone penetration test system for subsurface exploration. Soils Found 41(6):129–138Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hird CC, Springman SM (2006) Comparative performance of 5 cm2 and 10 cm2 piezocone in lacustrine clays. Geotechnique 56(6):427–438Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yoon HK, Jung SH, Lee JS (2011) Characterisation of subsurface spatial variability using a cone resistivity penetrometer. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 31(7):1064–1071Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Almeida MSS, Parry RHG (1985) Small cone penetrometer test and piezocone tests in laboratory consolidated clays. Geotech Test J 8(1):14–24Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rad SN, Tumay TM (1986) Effect of cementation on cone penetration resistance of sand: a model study. Geotech Test J 9(3):117–125Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Silvestri V, Dakroup H, Fahmy Y (1997) Analysis of cone penetration and indentation tests in clayey soil. Can Geotech J 34(2):254–263Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bolton MD, Gui MW, Garnier J, Corte JF, Bagge G, Laue J, Renzi R (1999) Centrifuge cone penetration test in sand. Geotechnique 49(4):543–552Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Titi HH, Mohammad LN, Tumay MT (2000) Miniature cone penetration test in soft and stiff clays. Geotech Test J 23(4):432–443Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kumar J, Raju KVSB (2007) Correlation between miniature cone tip resistance and shear strength parameters of clean and silty sand using a conventional triaxial setup. Geotech Test J 31(3):1–11Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lee W, Shin DH, Yoon HK, Lee JS (2009) Microcone penetrometer for more concise subsurface layer detection. Geotech Test J ASTM 32(4):1–7Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yoon HK, Lee JS (2012) Microcones configured with full bridge circuits. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 41:119–127Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kim HJ, Choo YW, Kim DJ, Kim SK (2016) Miniature tip resistance on sand in centrifuge. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 142(3):1–14Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lunne T, Robertson PK, Powell JM (1997) Cone penetration testing in geotechnical practice. Blackie Academic & Professional, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    ASTM D 5778-12 (2012) Standard test for electronic friction cone and piezocone penetration testing of soil. Annual book of ASTM standardsGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hoffmann K (1989) An introduction to measurements using strain gages. Hottinger Baldwin Messtechnik GmbH, DarmstadtGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schofield AN, Wroth CP (1968) Critical state soil mechanics. McGraw-Hill, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yu HS (1993) Discussion on: singular plastic fields in steady penetration of a rigid cone. J Appl Mech 60(4):1061–1062Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rad NS, Lunne T (1988) Direct correlations between piezocone test results and undrained shear strength of clay. In: Proceeding of 1st international symposium on penetration testing, Orlando, pp 911–917Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Karlsrud K, Lunne T, Brattlien K (1996) Improved CPTU correlations based on block samples. Proc Nord Geotech Conf Reyk 1:195–201Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Meyerhof E (1961) The ultimate bearing capacity of wedge-shaped foundations. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on soil mechanical and foundation engineering, vol 2, pp 105–109Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ladanyi B, Johnston GH (1974) Behavior of circular footings and plate anchors embedded in permafrost. Can Geotech J 11(4):531–553Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Durgunoglu HT, Mitchell JK (1975) Static penetration resistance of soils: I. analysis. Proc Conf In situ Meas Soil Prop ASCE N Y 1:151–171Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Vesic AS (1977) Design of pile foundations. National cooperative highway research program report No. 42. Transportation Research Board, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Baligh MM (1985) Strain path method. J Geotech Eng ASCE 111(9):1108–1136Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Teh CI, Houlsby GT (1991) An analytical study of cone penetration test in clay. Geotechnique 41(1):17–34Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lu Q, Randolph MF, Hu Y, Bugarski IC (2004) A numerical study of cone penetration in clay. Geotechnique 54(4):257–267Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Shin YJ, Kim D (2011) Assessment of undrained shear strength based on cone penetration test (CPT) for clayey soils. KSCE J Civ Eng 15:1161–1166Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sheng D, Cui L, Ansari Y (2013) Interpretation of cone factor in undrained soils via full-penetration finite-element analysis. Int J Geomech 13(6):745–753Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ma H, Zhou M, Hu Y, Hossain MS (2015) Interpretation of layer boundaries and shear strengths for soft-stiff-soft clays using CPT data: LDFE analyses. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 142(1):1–12Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Juneja A, Mir BA, Roshan NS (2013) Effect of the smear zone around SCP improved composite samples tested in the laboratory. Int J Geomech 13(1):16–25Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gui MW, Bolton MD (1998) Geometry and scale effects in CPT and pile design. In: Proceedings of the international conference geotechnical site characterization, Rotterdam, pp 1063–1068Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Jamiolkowski M, Presti LFCD, Manassero M (1985) New developments in field and laboratory testing of soils. In: Theme lecture, 11th international conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Meyerhof GG (1976) Bearing capacity and settlement of pile foundations. The eleventh Terzaghi lecture. J Geotech Eng Div 102(3):195–228Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Puech A, Foray P (2002) Refined model for interpreting shallow penetration CPTs in sands. In: Offshore technology conference, OTC 14275Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bowles JE (1996) Foundation analysis and design. McGraw Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ahmadi MM, Robertson PK (2005) Thin layer effects on the CPT qc measurement. Can Geotech J 42(5):302–1317Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Geotechnical Society 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringIndian Institute of Technology BombayMumbaiIndia

Personalised recommendations