The state of practice of in situ tests for design, quality control and quality assurance of ground improvement works

  • Serge VaraksinEmail author
  • Babak Hamidi
State-of-the-Art Paper


In the state-of-the-art report that was published on ground improvement processes at the 17th ISSMGE conference, ground improvement was defined in five categories. This paper has focused on the ground improvement techniques that either mechanically stabilize the soil or incorporate admixtures or inclusions and the most common in situ geotechnical tests that are used during the geotechnical investigation, quality control and quality assurance phases of these techniques. In addition to the suitability and feasibility of the technique itself, the level of success of any ground improvement program is also related to the applicability and suitability of the criteria that is to be satisfied and the testing campaign that is to be undertaken to verify the works. Experience of the authors indicates that the optimal approach is when acceptance is based on the project’s actual geotechnical requirements rather than on minimum test results. At the same time, ground improvement design parameters can only be properly determined when the ground conditions are correctly comprehended, which is possible through meaningful geotechnical investigation. Similarly, applied treatment can only be confidently verified when testing is able to well relate to acceptance criteria. Hence, tests that are able to predict the acceptance criteria without reliance on experimental correlations and published work from other sites will result in the best engineering practice and confidence in results.


Testing Quality control Ground improvement 


  1. 1.
    Adalier K, Elgamal A (2011) Stone column remediation of liquefiable silty marine foundation deposits. In: 21st international offshore and polar engineering conference, 2, Maui, HawaiiGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Al Hamoud AS, Wehr W (2006) Experience of vibrocompaction in calcareous sand of UAE. J Geotech Geol Eng 24:757–774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Almeida MSS, Jamiolkowski M, Peterson RW (1992) Preliminary result of CPT tests in calcareous Quiou sand. In: Calibration chamber testing: first international symposium on calibration chamber testing (ISCCT1), Potsdam, NY, 28–29 June 1991, pp 41–53Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Asaoka A (1978) Observational procedure of settlement prediction. Soil Found Jpn Soc Soil Mech Found Eng 18(4):87–101Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Arsonnet G, Baud JP, Gambin MP (2005) Pressuremeter tests inside a self-bored slotted tube (STAF). In: International symposium 50 years of pressuremeters (ISP5–Pressio 2005), Marne-la-Vallee, France, 22–24 August, pp 31–45Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Arsonnet G, Baud JP, Gambin M, Heintz R (2013) 25 MPa hyperpac fills the gap between the menard pressuremeter and the flexible dilatometer. Geotech Geol Eng 32:1389–1395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    ASTM (2007) D 4719-07 standard methods for prebored pressuremeter testing in soils. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    ASTM (2011) D1586, standard test method for standard penetration test (SPT) and split-barrel sampling of soils. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    ASTM (2011) D6066, standard practice for determining the normalized penetration resistance of sands for evaluation of liquefaction potential. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    ASTM (2012) D5778, standard test method for electronic friction cone and piezocone penetration testing of soils. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    ASTM (2015) D6635, standard test method for performing the flat plate dilatometer. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    ASTM (2015) D2573/D2573 M standard test method for field vane shear test in saturated fine-grained soils. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    ASTM (2016) D6066, standard test method for mechanical cone penetration testing of soils. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    ASTM (2017) D2487, standard practice for classification of soils for engineering purposes (unified soil classification system). ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Baez JI, Martin G (1994) Advances in the design of vibro systems for the improvement of liquefaction resistance. In: 7th annual symposium on ground improvement, vancouver geotechnical society, Vancouver, pp 1–16Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Barensten P (1936) Short description of a field testing method with a cone shaped sounding apparatus. In: 1st international conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, BostonGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Barksdale RD, Bachus RC (1983) Design and construction of stone columns, Volume 1, FHWA/RD-83/026. 194Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Baud JP, Gambin M (2013) Détermination du coefficient rhéologique de ménard dans le diagramme pressiorama. In:18th international conference on soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering, Paris, 2–6 September, pp 487–490Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Begemann HK (1965) the friction jacket cone as an aid in determining the soil profile. In: 6th international conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, vol 1, pp 17–20Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Better Ground (2010) History of equipment development, Viewed 8 December 2010,
  21. 21.
    Briaud JL (2013) Menard lecture—the pressuremeter test: expanding its use. In: 18th international conference on soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering, 2–6 September, pp 107–126Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Briaud JL, Miran J (1992) The flat dilatometer test, FHWA-SA-91–044, Federal Highway AdministrationGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bowles JE (1996) Foundation analysis and design, 5th edn. McGraw Hill, New York, p 1175Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Buschmeier B, Masse F, Swift S, Walker M (2012) Full scale instrumented load test for support of oil tanks on deep soft clay deposits in louisiana using controlled modulus columns. In: International symposium on ground improvement (IS-GI) Brussels 2012, 3, Brussels, 31 May–1 June, pp 359–372Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Choa V, Karunaratne GP, Lee SL (1987) Reclamation and soil improvement works related to airport construction, pp 115–128Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chu J, Bo MW, Chao V (2006) Improvement of ultra-soft soil using prefabricated vertical drains. Geotext Geomembr 24:339–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chu J, Varaksin S, Klotz U, Mengé P (2009) State of the art report: construction processes. In: 17th international conference on soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering: TC17 meeting ground improvement, Alexandria, EgyptGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cognon J (1991) Vacuum consolidation. Revue Française Géotechnique 57:37–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cognon JM, Juran I, Thevanayagam S (1994) Vacuum consolidation technology—principles and field experience. vertical and horizontal deformations of foundations and embankments: ASCE GSP No. 40, 2, College Station, Texas, pp 1237–1248Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Croce P, Flora A, Modoni G (2014) Jet grouting technology, design and control. CRC Press, Boca Raton, p 298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Debats JM, Pardessus N (2013) use of the menard pressuremeter in the quality control of stone columns for an LNG tank in South-East Asia. In: 18th international conference on soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering—parallel session ISP 6, ParisGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Douglas BJ, Olsen RS (1981) Soil classification using electric cone penetrometer. In: ASCE national convention: cone penetration testing and experience, St Louis, pp 209–277Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Eden WJ (1965) An evaluation of the field vane test in sensitive clay. Vane Shear and cone penetration resistance testing of in situ soils—ASTM special technical publication no 399, Seattle, USA, 31 October–5 November, pp 8–17Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Fletcher GFA (1965) Standard penetration test: its uses and abuses. J Soil Mech Found Div ASCE 91(SM4):67–75Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gambin MP (1983) the menard dynamic consolidation at nice airport. In: 8th European conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, Helsinki, pp 231–239Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Goughnour RR, Pestana JM (1998) Mechanical behaviour of stone columns under seismic loading. In: 2nd international conference on ground improvement techniques, Singapore, pp 157–162Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Green RA, Olgun CG, Wissman KJ (2008) Shear stress redistribution as a mechanism to mitigate the risk of liquefaction. Geotechnical earthquake engineering and soil dynamics IV, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 181, Sacramento, California, May 18–22Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Greenwood DA (1975) Vibroflotation: rationale for design and practice, methods of treatment of unstable ground. Newness-Buttersworth, London, pp 189–209Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hamidi B (2014) Distinguished ground improvement projects by dynamic compaction or dynamic replacement. Curtin University, Perth, p 675Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hamidi B, Nikraz H, Varaksin S (2009) A review on impact oriented ground improvement techniques. Aust Geomech J 44(2):17–24Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hamidi B, Nikraz H, Varaksin S (2010) Soil improvement of a very thick and large fill by dynamic compaction. In: Third international conference on problematic soils (PS10), Adelaide, 7–9 April, pp 129–138Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Hamidi B, Nikraz H, Varaksin S (2011) Ground improvement acceptance criteria. In: 14th Asian regional conference on soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering Hong Kong, 23–27 May, Paper No. 404Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Hamidi B, Varaksin S, Nikraz H (2012) Application of dynamic compaction in a project with smart acceptance criteria. In: International conference on ground improvement and ground control—transport infrastructure development and natural hazards mitigation (ICGI2012), 2, Wollongong, NSW, Australia, 30 October–2 November, pp 1075–1081Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Hamidi B, Varaksin S, Nikraz H (2013) Relative density concept is not a reliable criterion. Ground Improv 166(GI2):78–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Hamidi B, Varaksin S, Nikraz H (2013) Relative density correlations are not reliable criteria. Ground Improv 166(GI4):196–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Hamidi B, Debats JM, Nikraz H, Varaksin S (2013) Offshore ground improvement records. Aust Geomech J 48(4):111–122Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Hewlett WJ, Randolph M (1988) Analysis of piled embankments. Ground Eng 21(3):12–18Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Ichese Y, Yamakoda A, Takano S (1971) High pressure jet-grouting method. United States Patent and Trademark Office, 7Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    IREX (2012) ASIRI National project: recommendations for the design, construction and control of rigid inclusion ground improvements, Presses des PontsGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    ISO (2005) ISO 22476-3 Geotechnical investigation and testing—field testing—part 3: standard penetration test Switzerland, 22Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Kempfert HG, Gobel C, Alexiew D, Heitz C (2004) German recommendations for reinforced embankments on pile similar elements. In: EuroGeo3: 3rd European geosynthetics conference, geotechnical engineering with geosynthetics, Munich, pp 279–284Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Kjellman W (1952) Consolidation of clay soil by means of atmospheric pressure. In: Conference on soil stabilization, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp 258–263Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Kovacs WD, Salomone A (1982) SPT hammer energy measurement. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE 108(4):599–620Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Lee KM (2001) Influence of placement method on the cone penetration resistance of hydraulically placed sand fills. Can Geotech J 38(9):592–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Lee J, Salgado R (2002) Estimation of footing settlement in sand. Int J Geomec, ASCE 2(1):1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Lee KM, Shen CK, Leung DHK, Mitchell JK (1999) Effects of placement method on geotechnical behavior of hydraulic fill sands. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 125(10):832–846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Lee KM, Shen CK, Leung DHK, Mitchell JK (2000) Closure: effects of placement method on geotechnical behavior of hydraulic fill sands. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 126(10):943–944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Lunne T, Powell JJM, Robertson PK (1997) Cone penetration testing in geotechnical practice. Spon Press, USA, p 312Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Marchetti S (1980) In situ tests by flat dilatometer. J Geotech Eng ASCE 106(GT3):299–321Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Marchetti S (1975) A new in situ test for the measurement of horizontal soil deformability. In: Specialty conference of the geotechnical division ASCE: conference on in situ measurement of soil properties, 2, Raleigh, NC, USA, 1–4 June, pp 255–259Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Marchetti S, Monaco P, Totani G, Calabrese M (2001) The flat dilatometer test (DMT) in soil investigations. In: IN SITU 2001, international conference on in situ measurement of soil properties, Bali, Indonesia, May, 41Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Marchetti S, Monaco P, Totani G, Marchetti D (2008) in situ tests by seismic dilatometer (SDMT), research to practice in geotechnical engineering, ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 180, pp 292–311Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Meigh AC (1987) Cone penetration testing: methods and interpretation. Butterworths, Great BritainGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Menard L (1975) The menard pressuremeter: interpretation and application of pressuremeter test results to foundation design, D.60.An. Sols Soils 26:5–43Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Menard L, Broise Y (1975) Theoretical and practical aspects of dynamic compaction. Geotechnique 25(1):3–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Menard L, Rousseau J (1962) L’évaluation des tassements - tendances nouvelles. Sols Soils 1(1):13–29Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Meyerhof GG (1974) General report: outside Europe, 1st ESOPT, Stockholm, vol 1, pp 40–48Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Meyerhof GG (1956) Penetration tests and bearing capacity of cohesionless soils. J Soil Mech Found Div ASCE 82(1):1–19Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Mitchell JK (1981) Soil improvement state-of-the-art report. In: 10th international conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, vol 4, Stockholm, pp 509–565Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Mohr HA (1966) Discussion of standard penetration test: its uses and abuses, by GFA Fletcher. J Soil Mech Found Div ASCE 92(SM1):196–199Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Na YM, Choa V, Teh CI, Chang MF (2005) Geotechnical parameters of reclaimed sandfill from cone penetration test. Can Geotech J 42:91–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    National Cooperative Highway Research Program (2007) Cone penetration testing. National Academies Press, Washington, p 125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Osterberg JO (1957) Introduction. symposium on in place shear testing of soil by the vane method, ASTM Special Technical Publication No 193, Atlantic City, 22 June 1956, pp 1–7Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Prandtl L (1920) Uber Die Härte Plastischer Körper Nachrichten Von Der Königlichen Gesellschaft Der Wissenschaften, Gottingen, Math.- Phys. Klasse, pp 74–85Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Priebe HJ (1995) The design of vibro replacement. Ground Eng 28:31–46Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Priebe HJ (2004) Le dimensionnement des colonnes ballastées. In: International symposium, ASEP-GI, Paris, 9–10 September, 2, (in French) Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Racinais J, Maucotel F, Hamidi B, Varaksin S (2017) Beneficial use of pressuremeter tests for accurate modelling of a rigid inclusion ground improvement solution. In: 19th international conference on soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering, Seoul 17–22 September, pp 2635–2638Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Rayamajhi D, Ashford SA, Nguyen TV, Boulanger R, Lu J, Elgamal A, Shao L (2012) Shear stress reduction due to circular reinforcement columns in liquefiable soils. In: 9th international conference on urban earthquake engineering/4th Asia conference on earthquake engineering, Tokyo, 6–8 March, pp 607–613Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Robertson PK (1990) Soil classification using the cone penetration test. Can Geotech J 27(1):151–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Robertson PK (2009) Interpretation of cone penetration tests—a unified approach. Can Geotech J 46(11):1337–1355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Robertson PK, Campanella RG (1989) Guidelines for geotechnical design using the cone penetrometer test and Cpt with pore pressure measurement, 4th Ed., Hogentogler & Co., Columbia, MDGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Rogers JD (2006) Subsurface exploration using the standard penetration test and the cone penetrometer test. Environ Geoeng Sci 12(2):161–179Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Schnaid F (2009) In situ testing in geomechanics. Taylor and Francis, England, p 353Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Seed HB, Idriss IM (1971) Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential. J Soil Mech Found Div ASCE 97(SM9):1249–1273Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Seed HB, Idriss IM, Arango I (1983) Evaluation of liquefaction potential using field performance data. J Geotech Eng ASCE 109(3):458–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Sanglerat G (1972) The penetrometer and soil exploration: interpretation of penetration diagrams—theory and practice. Elsevier, New York, p 464Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Sanglerat G, Nhiem TV, Sejourne M, Andina R (1974) Direct soil classification by static penetrometer with special friction sleeve. In: European symposium on penetration testing, 2.2, Stockholm, June, pp 337–344Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Schmertmann JH (1970) Static cone to compute static settlement over sand. J Geotech Eng ASCE 96(SM3):1101–1143 (Interpretation of Cone Penetration Tests. Part I: Sand) Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Schmertmann JH (1978) Guidelines for cone penetration test, performance and design, report FHWA-TS-78-209. Federal Highway Administration, 145Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Schmertmann JH (1988) Guidelines for using the CPT, CPTU and Marchetti DMT for geotechnical design, vol 3. U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Report No. FHWA-PA-024+84-24Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Schmertmann JH, Hartman JP, Brown PR (1978) Improved strain influence factor diagrams. J Geotech Eng ASCE 104(GT8):1131–1135Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Sladen JA, Hewitt KJ (1989) Influence of placement method on the in situ density of hydraulic sand fills. Can Geotech J 26(3):453–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Tan SA (1995) Validation of hyperbolic method for settlement in clays with vertical drains. Soil Found Jpn Soc Soil Mech Found Eng 35(1):101–113Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Tan SA, Chew SH (1996) Comparison of the hyperbolic and Asaoka observational method of monitoring consolidation with vertical drains. Soil Found Jpn Soc Soil Mech Found Eng 36(3):31–42Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Terzaghi K (1943) Theoretical soil mechanics. Wiley, New York, p 510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Terzaghi K, Peck RB (1948) Soil mechanics in engineering practice. Wiley, New York, p 566Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Terzaghi K, Peck RB (1967) Soil mechanics in engineering practice, 2nd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Varaksin S (2016) The menard pressuremeter: history, equipment, new developments, installation procedures, design rules and methods. In: One day workshop of TC 211 within the framework of the 3rd international conference on transportation geotechnics, Guimarães, Portugal, 59Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Varaksin S, Liausu P (1989) Coefficient d’autoportance des remblais grossiers recents. In: 12th international conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, Rio de Janeiro, 13–18 August, pp 763–764Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Woodward J (2005) An introduction to geotechnical processes. Taylor & Francis, London, 123Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Youd TL, Idriss IM, Andrus RD, Arango I, Castro G, Christian JT, Dobry R, Finn WDL, Harder LF, Hynes ME, Ishihara K, Koester JP, Liao SSC, Marcuson WF III, Martin GR, Mitchell JA, Moriwaki Y, Power MS, Robertson PK, Seed RB, Stokoe KH (2001) Liquefaction resistance of soils: summary report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 127(10):817–833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Zhu SL, Miao ZH (2002) Recent development and improvement of vacuum preloading method for improving soft soil. Ground Improv 6(2):79–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Apageo, ISSMGE TC-211ParisFrance
  2. 2.Menard Oceania, ISSMGE TC-211SydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations