Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • State-of-the-Art Paper
  • Published:
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  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, Hawaii

  2. Al Hamoud AS, Wehr W (2006) Experience of vibrocompaction in calcareous sand of UAE. J Geotech Geol Eng 24:757–774

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 41–53

  4. Asaoka A (1978) Observational procedure of settlement prediction. Soil Found Jpn Soc Soil Mech Found Eng 18(4):87–101

    Google Scholar 

  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 31–45

  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 32:1389–1395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. ASTM (2007) D 4719-07 standard methods for prebored pressuremeter testing in soils. ASTM International, West Conshohocken

    Google Scholar 

  8. ASTM (2011) D1586, standard test method for standard penetration test (SPT) and split-barrel sampling of soils. ASTM International, West Conshohocken

    Google Scholar 

  9. ASTM (2011) D6066, standard practice for determining the normalized penetration resistance of sands for evaluation of liquefaction potential. ASTM International, West Conshohocken

    Google Scholar 

  10. ASTM (2012) D5778, standard test method for electronic friction cone and piezocone penetration testing of soils. ASTM International, West Conshohocken

    Google Scholar 

  11. ASTM (2015) D6635, standard test method for performing the flat plate dilatometer. ASTM International, West Conshohocken

    Google Scholar 

  12. ASTM (2015) D2573/D2573 M standard test method for field vane shear test in saturated fine-grained soils. ASTM International, West Conshohocken

    Google Scholar 

  13. ASTM (2016) D6066, standard test method for mechanical cone penetration testing of soils. ASTM International, West Conshohocken

    Google Scholar 

  14. ASTM (2017) D2487, standard practice for classification of soils for engineering purposes (unified soil classification system). ASTM International, West Conshohocken

    Google Scholar 

  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 1–16

  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, Boston

  17. Barksdale RD, Bachus RC (1983) Design and construction of stone columns, Volume 1, FHWA/RD-83/026. 194

  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 487–490

  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 17–20

  20. Better Ground (2010) History of equipment development, Viewed 8 December 2010, http://www.betterground.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=59:history&catid=37:home&Itemid=65

  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 107–126

  22. Briaud JL, Miran J (1992) The flat dilatometer test, FHWA-SA-91–044, Federal Highway Administration

  23. Bowles JE (1996) Foundation analysis and design, 5th edn. McGraw Hill, New York, p 1175

    Google Scholar 

  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 359–372

  25. Choa V, Karunaratne GP, Lee SL (1987) Reclamation and soil improvement works related to airport construction, pp 115–128

  26. Chu J, Bo MW, Chao V (2006) Improvement of ultra-soft soil using prefabricated vertical drains. Geotext Geomembr 24:339–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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, Egypt

  28. Cognon J (1991) Vacuum consolidation. Revue Française Géotechnique 57:37–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 1237–1248

  30. Croce P, Flora A, Modoni G (2014) Jet grouting technology, design and control. CRC Press, Boca Raton, p 298

    Book  Google Scholar 

  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, Paris

  32. Douglas BJ, Olsen RS (1981) Soil classification using electric cone penetrometer. In: ASCE national convention: cone penetration testing and experience, St Louis, pp 209–277

  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 8–17

  34. Fletcher GFA (1965) Standard penetration test: its uses and abuses. J Soil Mech Found Div ASCE 91(SM4):67–75

    Google Scholar 

  35. Gambin MP (1983) the menard dynamic consolidation at nice airport. In: 8th European conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, Helsinki, pp 231–239

  36. Goughnour RR, Pestana JM (1998) Mechanical behaviour of stone columns under seismic loading. In: 2nd international conference on ground improvement techniques, Singapore, pp 157–162

  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 18–22

  38. Greenwood DA (1975) Vibroflotation: rationale for design and practice, methods of treatment of unstable ground. Newness-Buttersworth, London, pp 189–209

    Google Scholar 

  39. Hamidi B (2014) Distinguished ground improvement projects by dynamic compaction or dynamic replacement. Curtin University, Perth, p 675

    Google Scholar 

  40. Hamidi B, Nikraz H, Varaksin S (2009) A review on impact oriented ground improvement techniques. Aust Geomech J 44(2):17–24

    Google Scholar 

  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 129–138

  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. 404

  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 1075–1081

  44. Hamidi B, Varaksin S, Nikraz H (2013) Relative density concept is not a reliable criterion. Ground Improv 166(GI2):78–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Hamidi B, Varaksin S, Nikraz H (2013) Relative density correlations are not reliable criteria. Ground Improv 166(GI4):196–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Hamidi B, Debats JM, Nikraz H, Varaksin S (2013) Offshore ground improvement records. Aust Geomech J 48(4):111–122

    Google Scholar 

  47. Hewlett WJ, Randolph M (1988) Analysis of piled embankments. Ground Eng 21(3):12–18

    Google Scholar 

  48. Ichese Y, Yamakoda A, Takano S (1971) High pressure jet-grouting method. United States Patent and Trademark Office, 7

  49. IREX (2012) ASIRI National project: recommendations for the design, construction and control of rigid inclusion ground improvements, Presses des Ponts

  50. ISO (2005) ISO 22476-3 Geotechnical investigation and testing—field testing—part 3: standard penetration test Switzerland, 22

  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 279–284

  52. Kjellman W (1952) Consolidation of clay soil by means of atmospheric pressure. In: Conference on soil stabilization, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp 258–263

  53. Kovacs WD, Salomone A (1982) SPT hammer energy measurement. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE 108(4):599–620

    Google Scholar 

  54. Lee KM (2001) Influence of placement method on the cone penetration resistance of hydraulically placed sand fills. Can Geotech J 38(9):592–607

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Lee J, Salgado R (2002) Estimation of footing settlement in sand. Int J Geomec, ASCE 2(1):1–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):832–846

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):943–944

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Lunne T, Powell JJM, Robertson PK (1997) Cone penetration testing in geotechnical practice. Spon Press, USA, p 312

    Google Scholar 

  59. Marchetti S (1980) In situ tests by flat dilatometer. J Geotech Eng ASCE 106(GT3):299–321

    Google Scholar 

  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 255–259

  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, 41

  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 292–311

  63. Meigh AC (1987) Cone penetration testing: methods and interpretation. Butterworths, Great Britain

    Google Scholar 

  64. Menard L (1975) The menard pressuremeter: interpretation and application of pressuremeter test results to foundation design, D.60.An. Sols Soils 26:5–43

    Google Scholar 

  65. Menard L, Broise Y (1975) Theoretical and practical aspects of dynamic compaction. Geotechnique 25(1):3–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Menard L, Rousseau J (1962) L’évaluation des tassements - tendances nouvelles. Sols Soils 1(1):13–29

    Google Scholar 

  67. Meyerhof GG (1974) General report: outside Europe, 1st ESOPT, Stockholm, vol 1, pp 40–48

  68. Meyerhof GG (1956) Penetration tests and bearing capacity of cohesionless soils. J Soil Mech Found Div ASCE 82(1):1–19

    Google Scholar 

  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 509–565

  70. Mohr HA (1966) Discussion of standard penetration test: its uses and abuses, by GFA Fletcher. J Soil Mech Found Div ASCE 92(SM1):196–199

    Google Scholar 

  71. Na YM, Choa V, Teh CI, Chang MF (2005) Geotechnical parameters of reclaimed sandfill from cone penetration test. Can Geotech J 42:91–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. National Cooperative Highway Research Program (2007) Cone penetration testing. National Academies Press, Washington, p 125

    Book  Google Scholar 

  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 1–7

  74. Prandtl L (1920) Uber Die Härte Plastischer Körper Nachrichten Von Der Königlichen Gesellschaft Der Wissenschaften, Gottingen, Math.- Phys. Klasse, pp 74–85

  75. Priebe HJ (1995) The design of vibro replacement. Ground Eng 28:31–46

    Google Scholar 

  76. Priebe HJ (2004) Le dimensionnement des colonnes ballastées. In: International symposium, ASEP-GI, Paris, 9–10 September, 2, (in French)

  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 2635–2638

  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 607–613

  79. Robertson PK (1990) Soil classification using the cone penetration test. Can Geotech J 27(1):151–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Robertson PK (2009) Interpretation of cone penetration tests—a unified approach. Can Geotech J 46(11):1337–1355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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, MD

  82. Rogers JD (2006) Subsurface exploration using the standard penetration test and the cone penetrometer test. Environ Geoeng Sci 12(2):161–179

    Google Scholar 

  83. Schnaid F (2009) In situ testing in geomechanics. Taylor and Francis, England, p 353

    Google Scholar 

  84. Seed HB, Idriss IM (1971) Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential. J Soil Mech Found Div ASCE 97(SM9):1249–1273

    Google Scholar 

  85. Seed HB, Idriss IM, Arango I (1983) Evaluation of liquefaction potential using field performance data. J Geotech Eng ASCE 109(3):458–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Sanglerat G (1972) The penetrometer and soil exploration: interpretation of penetration diagrams—theory and practice. Elsevier, New York, p 464

    Google Scholar 

  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 337–344

  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. Schmertmann JH (1978) Guidelines for cone penetration test, performance and design, report FHWA-TS-78-209. Federal Highway Administration, 145

  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+84-24

  91. Schmertmann JH, Hartman JP, Brown PR (1978) Improved strain influence factor diagrams. J Geotech Eng ASCE 104(GT8):1131–1135

    Google Scholar 

  92. Sladen JA, Hewitt KJ (1989) Influence of placement method on the in situ density of hydraulic sand fills. Can Geotech J 26(3):453–466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):101–113

    Google Scholar 

  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):31–42

    Google Scholar 

  95. Terzaghi K (1943) Theoretical soil mechanics. Wiley, New York, p 510

    Book  Google Scholar 

  96. Terzaghi K, Peck RB (1948) Soil mechanics in engineering practice. Wiley, New York, p 566

    Google Scholar 

  97. Terzaghi K, Peck RB (1967) Soil mechanics in engineering practice, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  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, 59

  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 763–764

  100. Woodward J (2005) An introduction to geotechnical processes. Taylor & Francis, London, 123

  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):817–833

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Zhu SL, Miao ZH (2002) Recent development and improvement of vacuum preloading method for improving soft soil. Ground Improv 6(2):79–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Apageo, ISSMGE TC-211, Paris, France

    Serge Varaksin

  2. Menard Oceania, ISSMGE TC-211, Sydney, Australia

    Babak Hamidi

Authors
  1. Serge Varaksin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Babak Hamidi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Serge Varaksin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Varaksin, S., Hamidi, B. The state of practice of in situ tests for design, quality control and quality assurance of ground improvement works. Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. 3, 74 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-018-0178-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-018-0178-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation