150706-Engage - SPT N Vs PMT - Final

See
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281109498
Statistical Correlations between SPT N-Values

and Soil Parameters: Part I: SPT N vs EPMT in
Victoria Street Station
Technical Report June 2015
CITATIONS READS
0 920
3 authors:
Jinyuan Liu Yankun Liang

Ryerson University China University of Mining Technology
94 PUBLICATIONS 690 CITATIONS 1 PUBLICATION 0 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Laifa Cao
Ryerson University
27 PUBLICATIONS 181 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Improve Pile Design in Ontario Soils View project
LRFD approach for soil nail walls View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Jinyuan Liu on 07 April 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Statistical Correlations between
SPT N-Values and Soil Parameters
Part I: Standard Penetration Tests and Pressuremeter Tests

at Victoria Park Station Site
A Project Funded by Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada

and Supported by SPL Consultants Ltd.
Department of Civil Engineering, Ryerson University
Yankun Liang
Laifa Cao
Jinyuan Liu
June 2015
Statistical Correlations between SPT N-Values and Soil Parameters: Part I_SPT and PMT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
An intensive site exploration program was conducted for the Eglinton Crosstown
Light Rail Transit (LRT) Project in Toronto, which involved various in-situ testing
methods. This offers an excellent opportunity to conduct statistical correlations
between the blow count of standard penetration tests (SPT N-value) and other soil
parameters. Due to the great number of sites, only the Victoria Park Station site is
thoroughly analyzed at this stage. This report focuses on the correlation between SPTs
and pressuremeter tests (PMTs). Some basic relationships are established between
SPT N-value and PMT data in this report.
DISCLAIMER
The contents of this report reflect the views of the author who is responsible for the
facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect
the views or policies of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of
Canada (NSERC). The author and the NSERC do not endorse products or
manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers names appear herein solely because they are
considered essential to the objective of this report.
II
Statistical Correlations between SPT N-Values and Soil Parameters: Part I_SPT and PMT elations
between SPT N-Values and Soil Parameters: Part I_SPT and PMT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 1

1.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
1.2 RESEARCH NEEDS ....................................................................................... 1
1.3 ENGINEERING BACKGROUND ................................................................. 2
1.4 ORGANIZATION OF REPORT ..................................................................... 2
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT SITE CONDITIONS AND GEOLOGY ................................ 4
2.1 PROJECT SITE CONDITIONS ...................................................................... 4
2.2 GEOLOGY CONDITIONS ............................................................................. 4
3.1 STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ............................................................. 7
3.1.1 General Information .............................................................................. 7
3.1.2 Procedures ............................................................................................. 7
3.1.3 Parameters Measured ............................................................................ 9
3.2 PRESSUREMETER TEST ............................................................................ 11
3.2.1 General Information ............................................................................ 11
3.2.2 Procedures ........................................................................................... 12
3.2.2 Parameter Measurements .................................................................... 14
CHAPTER 4 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN SPT N-VALUES AND SOIL
PARAMETERS OF VICTORIA PARK STATION ..................................................... 17
4.1 EGLINTON LRT - VICTORIA PARK STATION ........................................ 17
4.2 METHODS OF INVESTIGATION............................................................... 17
4.2 SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS............................................................................ 18
4.3 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PARAMETERS ............................................ 24
4.3.1 Soil Profiles of the Boreholes ............................................................. 24
4.3.6 Relationship between SPT N-value and Sensitivity ........................... 32
CHARPTER 5 CORRELATION BETWEEN SPT AND PMT .................................. 33
5.1 EXISTING CORRELATIONS BETWEEN SPT N-VALUES AND PMT
DATA ................................................................................................................... 33
5.2 CORRELATION BETWEEN SPT N-VALUES AND PMT DATA FOR
GLACIAL TILLS ................................................................................................ 35
5.2.1 Correlation between SPT N-value and EPMT....................................... 35
5.2.2 Correlation between SPT N-values and PL ......................................... 37
5.2.3 Correlation between SPT N-values and Ratio of EPMT/PL .................. 39
CHAPTER 6 MAIN FINDINGS AND FUTURE RESEARCH ................................. 41
III
6.1 MAIN FINDINGS ......................................................................................... 41

6.2 FUTURE RESEARCH .................................................................................. 41
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................... 43
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 44
APPENDIX A ........................................................................................................... 46
APPENDIX B ........................................................................................................... 52
APPENDIX C ........................................................................................................... 56
APPENDIX D ........................................................................................................... 65
IV
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
Table 3-1 Corrections for SPT N-value (Skempton, 1986) ........................................... 9
Table 3-2 SPT N-value versus friction angle and relative density (Meyerhoff, 1956) 11
Table 4-1 Grain size distributions of various soils....................................................... 24
Table 4-2 Sensitivity of clays (Skempton and Northey, 1952) .................................... 32
Table 5-1 Corrections between SPT N-value and parameters of PMT (Bozbey and
Togrol, 2010)................................................................................................................ 34
Table 5-2 Typical Menard pressuremeter values (CFEM, 2006) ................................. 35
V
LIST OF FIGURE
Figure Page
Figure 1-1 Particle size effect on blow count for sands (Kulhawy and Mayne 1990).
........................................................................................................................................ 2
Figure 2-1 Crosstown route map (http://www.thecrosstown.ca/the-project) ............ 4
Figure 3-1 Equipment used to perform the SPT (Kovacs et al. 1983) ........................ 8
Figure 3-2 Standard split-spoon sampler (ASTM 1984) .......................................... 8
Figure 3-3 TEXAM PMT equipment (http://geotechpedia.com/Equipment/
Show/1255/TEXAM-Pressuremeter) ......................................................................... 12
Figure 3-4 Plot of pressure versus total cavity volume (Braja, 1990) .................... 13
Figure 3-5 Typical pressure-strain curves of soils at Victoria Park Station site (SPL,
2013) ............................................................................................................................ 14
Figure 3-6 Cylindrical cavity expansion ................................................................... 14
Figure 4-1 Borehole location at Victoria Park Station site ....................................... 17
Figure 4-2 Grain size distribution of silty clay till .................................................... 19
Figure 4-3 Grain size distribution of clayey silt till .................................................. 19
Figure 4-4 Grain size distribution of silty clay ....................................................... 20
Figure 4-5 Grain size distribution of clayey silt ....................................................... 21
Figure 4-6 Grain size distribution of sandy silt ........................................................ 21
Figure 4-7 Grain size distribution of silty sand ........................................................ 22
Figure 4-8 Grain size distribution of silt ................................................................... 22
Figure 4-9 Grain size distribution of sand and gravity sand ..................................... 23
Figure 4-10 Grain size distribution of silty sand till ................................................. 24
Figure 4-11 SPT, PMT and soil file at borehole VP01 ............................................. 25
Figure 4-12 SPT and soil file at borehole VP04 ....................................................... 26
Figure 4-13 SPT and soil file at borehole VP07 ....................................................... 26
Figure 4-14 Relationship between SPT N-value and EPMT ....................................... 27
Figure 4-15 Relationship between SPT N-value and EPMT/PL .................................. 28
Figure 4-16 Relationship between SPT N-value and PL ........................................... 28
Figure 4-17 Relationship between SPT N-value and D50 ......................................... 29
Figure 4-18 Relationship between SPT N-value and water content ......................... 30
Figure 4-19 Relationship between SPT N-value and liquid limit ............................. 31
Figure 4-20 Relationship between SPT N-value and plasticity index ...................... 31
Figure 4-21 Relationship between SPT N-value and liquidity index ....................... 32
Figure 4-22 Relationship between SPT N-value and St ........................................... 32
VI
Figure 5-1 Correlation of N60 and EPMT values in sandy soils (Bozbey and Togrol,
2010) ............................................................................................................................ 34
Figure 5-2 Relationship between SPT N-value and EPMT in silt clay ....................... 36
Figure 5-3 Relationship between SPT N-value and EPMT in silty clay till................ 36
Figure 5-4 Relationship between SPT N-value and EPMT in sand ............................ 37
Figure 5-5 Relationship between SPT N-value and PL in silt clay ........................... 38
Figure 5-6 Relationship between SPT N-value and PL in silty clay till .................... 38
Figure 5-7 Relationship between SPT N-value and PL in sand ................................ 38
Figure 5-8 Relationship between SPT N-value and EPMT/PL in silt clay .................. 39
Figure 5-9 Relationship between SPT N-value and EPMT/PL in silty clay till ........... 39
Figure 5-10 Relationship between SPT N-value and EPMT/PL in sand ..................... 40
VII
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 INTRODUCTION
This report is to fundamentally conduct statistical correlations between the standard

penetration test (SPT) blow count (N-value) and the geotechnical parameters of
glacial tills in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). The SPT is an in-situ dynamic
penetration test designed to provide information of the geotechnical engineering
properties of soils. The SPT has been successfully applied in different ground
conditions where it may not be possible to obtain undisturbed soil samples such as
gravels, sands, and silts. Due to distribution of cobbles or boulders within the glacial
tills, SPT is widely adopted to assess the properties of glacial tills in Ontario, Canada.
The main goal of this research is to study possible correlations between SPT N-values
and pressuremeter data for glacial tills. The research findings will be valuable to the
local geotechnical community and applicable for infrastructure development in the
GTA.
1.2 RESEARCH NEEDS
In geotechnical engineering, the SPT is one of the most commonly used in-situ tests.
The SPT is a dynamic in-situ test, where a sample tube is driven into the ground at the
bottom of a borehole by blows from a slide hammer with a mass of 63.5 kg falling
through a distance of 760 mm. The sample tube is driven 152 mm (6 in) into the
ground and the number of blows is recorded for the tube penetrating each 152 mm (6
in) up to a depth of 457 mm (18 in). The sum of the number of blows required for the
second and third 152 mm (6 in) of penetration is termed as the "standard penetration
resistance" or the "SPT N-value". There are many parameters of soils which can be
correlated with SPT N-value, such as density, undrained shear strength, friction angle,
modulus, etc. SPT N-value is accepted as an important indicator and is most widely
used to describe soil characteristics. Once the corrections between SPT N-value and
soil parameters are established, it is easy to determine soil characteristics through the
SPT.
There have been some researches to establish the correlation between SPT N-value
and shear wave velocity (Vs), and nearly all of the empirical relationships use a
power-law relationship (Dikmen, 2009; Akin et al., 2011). A correction has also been
established between SPT N-value and relative density, Dr, which included overburden
pressure, v, (Meyerhof, 1957; Skempton, 1986), grain size (Kulhawy and Mayne,
1
1990) or both (Cubrinovski and Ishihara, 2001). Figure 1-1 shows particle size effect
on SPT N-value for sands established by Kulhawy and Mayne (1990), where D50 is
the particle diameter for 50% finer by weight and (N1)60 is the SPT N-value corrected
for field procedures and overburden effects.
Figure 1-1 Particle size effect on blow count for sands (Kulhawy and Mayne, 1990)
Most correlations were established between SPT N-values and various soil parameters
based on in-situ tests data for general soil conditions. Currently, there is only very
limited information available for glacial tills and more efforts are still being
investigated in this area.
1.3 ENGINEERING BACKGROUND
Recently, SPL Consultants Limited (SPL) was retained by Metrolinx/TTC for

geotechnical investigation for the detailed design and construction of several stations
for the proposed Eglinton Crosstown Light Rail Transit (LRT) in Toronto, Canada.
There are tremendous amounts of geotechnical data resulting from this intensive
investigation program, including grain size analyses, Atterberg limits, groundwater
tests, standard penetration tests, pressuremeter tests, shear strength tests, etc. A great
amount of useful information can be derived from these tests, which offers an
excellent opportunity to conduct statistical correlations between SPT N-values and
geotechnical parameters for glacial tills in the GTA.
1.4 ORGANIZATION OF REPORT
This report has been organized into six chapters with main contents listed as below:
2
Chapter 1 provides a general introduction and research background.
Chapter 2 briefly describes the project site conditions and geology.
Chapter 3 summaries the procedures and analyses of different in-situ tests,

particularly for the SPT and pressuremeter test (PMT).
Chapter 4 provides background information of the Eglinton Crosstown LRT

project and correlations between SPT N-value with soil index parameters
in the Victoria Park Station site, such as Atterberg Limits and D50.
Chapter 5 reviews the current research on the relationship between SPT N-value
and PMT data and describes the correlations between SPT N-value and
PMT of glacial tills in GTA.
Chapter 6 summarizes the main findings from this study and the needs for future
research.
3
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT SITE CONDITIONS AND GEOLOGY
2.1 PROJECT SITE CONDITIONS
The proposed Eglinton Crosstown LRT Project is a 33 km long corridor that would
link the Pearson International Airport in the west and the existing Kennedy subway
station in the east upon completion. Due to the surfacial congestion in the middle
section of the existing Eglinton Avenue, the proposed LRT route will include an
underground section with twin tunnels that start from a portal in the west near the
Black Creek Drive, cross a well developed urban area, and end at a portal near
Brentcliffe Drive in the east. The total alignment length of the twin tunnels is about 10
km. The underground section of the Eglinton Crosstown LRT would consist of
constructing proposed twin tunnels with an internal diameter about 5.75 m and a total
of twelve underground stations along the tunnel alignment. This project includes 24
stations, in which Victoria Park Station is situated in the area of the intersection of
Eglinton Avenue East and Victoria Park Avenue in Toronto, Ontario, as shown in
Figure 2-1.
Victorica Park Station
Figure 2-1 Crosstown route map (http://www.thecrosstown.ca/the-project)
2.2 GEOLOGY CONDITIONS
The existing grade of Eglinton Avenue along the tunnelled section, from west to east,
4
varies from about EL. 110 m near Black Creek to EL. 185 m at the hilltop near Old
Forest Hill Road and from this point descends to about EL. 105 m near the West Don
River. The existing grade of Victoria Park Station area generally varies between about
EL. 159.4 m and EL. 151.1 m, sloping westward.
Based on Karrow (1967) and Sharpe (1980), the Toronto area experienced at least
three glacial and two interglacial periods, during which time a sequence of glacial and
interglacial depositions took place. Towards the end of the last ice age, when
Wisconsinan glacier withdrew from the Lake Ontario Basin to the north and to the
east, Lake Iroquois, the forerunner of the present Lake Ontario, was established.
However, the entire sequence of these glacial, interglacial and lacustrine deposits is
seldom found intact and usually at any one location, one or more of these units are
absent.
The oldest Quaternary deposits are the Illinoian Age represented by the York Till
which is overlain by Sangamonian-aged interglacial deposits (sands, silts, and clays)
of the Don Formation. The Wisconsinan Age is represented by deposits formed during
several glacier advances and retreats. Scarborough, Pottery Road, and Thorncliffe
Formations were formed during the glacial retreats, whereas the Sunnybrook Till from
the Early Wisconsinan time and Leaside Till (Newmarket Till and Halton Till) from
the Late Wisconsinan period were formed during ice advances. Numerous small
pockets of lake or pond deposits are found scattered throughout the till plain in
depressions at the till surface. These deposits tend to be concentrated along the edges
of the major stream valleys.
The LRT Project is located within the physiographic region knows as the Peel Plain.
Most of the tableland area consists of till partly modified by the former presence of
shallow glacial lakes or post-glacial erosion features.
The till in the project site is mapped as Halton Till which is generally considered as a
fine grained diamicton with minor fine-grained lacustrine sediments incorporated
within the body of the unit, likely to form glacial reworking of underlying lacustrine
sediments. This till is typically stiff to hard in consistency, though near the ground
surface, weathering can result in it being degraded to consistencies ranging from soft
to firm. The till consists of a heterogeneous mixture of gravel, sand, silt and clay size
particles in varying proportions. Cobbles and boulders are common in the deposits.
The bedrock underlying the project site is considered to be the Ordovician Age
bedrock of the Georgian Bay Formation which consists of typically highly weathered
to fresh, grey, very fine to fine grained fissile, weak to medium strong shale with
widely spaced jointing and sub-horizontal bedding planes, interbedded with slightly
5
weathered to fresh grey, fine grained strong to extremely strong calcareous siltstone
and limestone layers (hard layers). The shaly bedrock formations are subjected to high
in-situ horizontal stresses which can impose significant loads on tunnel liner or
excavation wall in a time-dependent manner.
The shale bedrock surface is recorded at elevations ranging from EL. 99 m to EL. 105
m between Yarrow Road and Richardson Avenue near the western limit of the
proposed tunnel alignment. The bedrock levels are falling steeply to the west into the
Humber River valley. The interpreted bedrock contours rise to approximately El. 110
m beneath Dufferin Street and gradually fall to El.60 m near Brentcliffe Road at the
eastern limit of the proposed tunnel alignment (Cao et al., 2015).
6
CHAPTER 3 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING METHODS
One of the first steps in any geotechnical design problem is to develop an

understanding and knowledge of the soil materials at the site. The physical and
mechanical properties of soils are determined either by in-situ tests or laboratory tests
or a combination of both.
Most geotechnical engineering textbooks provide information related to how to

conduct in-situ tests and laboratory tests, from which the soil parameters can be
obtained. In addition, the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
standards provide guidance on specific procedures for performing the in-situ and
laboratory tests. This chapter mainly focuses on the two in-situ test methods: 1)
standard penetration test (SPT); and 2) pressuremeter test (PMT).
3.1 STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
3.1.1 General Information
The SPT method is a rapid, simple and economical test, which is widely adopted to
assess the properties of most soil types, and is usually performed using a conventional
geotechnical drill rig, as shown in Figure 3-1. The test does provide a rough index of
the relative strength and compressibility of the soil in the vicinity of the test.
3.1.2 Procedures
The overall equipment and setup for the SPT are shown in Figure 3-1. To perform the
test, the drilling crew, after advancing the test and boring to the desired depth, first
removes the string of drill rods slowly and cleans out the hole to the desired depth of
testing. After the drilling tools are removed, a standard thick-walled split-spoon
sampler, as show in Figure 3-2, is attached to the drill rods and is lowered carefully to
the bottom of the hole. With the sampler resting at the bottom of the hole, a slide
hammer with a standard weight of 63.6 kg (140 lb) is allowed to fall freely 762 mm
(30 in) onto a collar that is attached to the top of the drill string until 457 mm (18 in)
of penetration has been achieved. The number of blows is recorded for each of three
152 mm (6 in) intervals, the first generally is considered a seating drive, and the
number of blows for the final 305 mm (12 in) is reported as the SPT blow count (N)
value. After the sampler has been brought back to the surface, the samples are
removed and classified, before being placed into jars, labeled, and sealed with wax for
transport.
7
Figure 3-2 Equipment used to perform SPT (Kovacs et al., 1983)
Figure 3-3 Standard split-spoon sampler (ASTM, 1984)
Since the SPT is highly dependent on the equipment and operator performing the test,
it is often difficult to obtain repeatable results. In addition, the SPT should not be
relied on soils containing coarse gravel, cobbles, or boulders, because the sampler can
become obstructed, resulting in high and unconservative N values. The test should not
be relied on for cohesionless silts because dynamic effects at the sampler tip can lead
to erroneous strength and compressibility evaluations. The test also has little meaning
8
in soft and sensitive clays (Kulhawy and Mayne, 1990).
3.1.3 Parameters Measured
The SPT N-value can be obtained directly in the record of borehole. Due to complex
influence from many reasons, it usually needs to be corrected. In the field, the energy
delivered to the rods during an SPT expressed as a ratio of the theoretical free-fall
potential energy, can vary from about 30 % to 90 %, namely that the energy ratio (ER)
can range from 30% to 90%. The practice now in the United States is to express the
SPT N-value measured to an average energy ratio of 60% (ER = 60%).
The SPT N-values corresponding to 60% efficiency are termed N60. Numerous
correction factors to the measured N-value are necessary because of energy
inefficiencies and procedural variation in practice. When all factors are applied to the
field recorded N-value, the corrected value N60 is calculated using Eq.3-1, as
recommended by Skempton (1986).
N 60 NC E C B Cs C R (3-1)
Where:
CE - effects of energy
CB - borehole diameter correction
CS - sampling method correction
CR - rod length correction
The correction factors are presented in Table 3-1. As can be noted from Table 3-1,
values of the correction term for energy CE vary over a relatively wide range.
Table 3-1 Corrections for SPT N-value (Skempton, 1986)
SPT N-value is affected by the effective overburden pressure, o. Consequently, the
9
corrected value of N60 obtained under different effective overburden pressures should
be changed to correspond to a standard value. That is,
(N1)60= CN N60 (3-2)
Where:
(N1) 60 value of N60 corrected to a standard value
CN - correction factor
N60 standard penetration number, corrected for field conditions.
A number of empirical relations were proposed for CN .The most commonly cited
relationships are those of Liao and Whitman (1986) and Skempton (1986).
Liao and Whitmans relationship (1986):
(3-3)
Skemptons relationship (1986):
(3-4)
Where:
o - effective overburden pressure
Pa atmospheric pressure (or about 100 kPa)
Due to many unknown factors used in the field, the correction of the SPT N-value is
ignored in this stage and the field SPT N-value is used in this report.
Sometimes the distance driven into the ground by hammer is less than 305 mm, when
the number of blows are higher than 50. In this case, the SPT N-value (blows/0.3 m)
is corrected using Eq. 3-5 in the current study.
305N
Nc (3-5)
s
10
Where:
N c - corrected SPT N-value
s - driven depth actually, mm

N - actual number of blows
For example, when the sample tube is driven 150 mm into the ground and the number
of blows is 50, then the corrected SPT N-value is 102. If it is more than 200, the
corrected SPT N-value will be taken as 200.
SPT N-value in exploratory borings gives a qualitative guide to the in-situ engineering
properties and provides an indication of the relative density and friction angle of the
soil as proposed by Meyerhoff (1956) (see Table 3-2).
Table 3-2 SPT N-value versus friction angle and relative density (Meyerhoff, 1956)
SPT N Relative Density Friction angle

Soil packing
[Blows/0.3 m] [%] []
<4 Very loose < 20 < 30
4 -10 Loose 20 - 40 30 - 35
10 - 30 Compact 40 - 60 35 - 40
30 - 50 Dense 60 - 80 40 - 45
> 50 Very Dense > 80 > 45
3.2 PRESSUREMETER TEST
3.2.1 General Information
The PMT is a load test carried out in-situ in a borehole. An inflatable probe is set at
testing depth in a pre-drilled borehole within a soil or rock mass or by direct driving
into the mass. The method depends on the materials characteristics. The PMT is used
to test hard clays, dense sands and weathered rock which cannot be tested with push
equipment. There are three different types of pressuremeter tests: Menard-type
pressuremeter, Self-boring pressuremeter, and Cone pressuremeter. In this project,
TEXAM PMT testing, one of Menard-type PMT, was carried out. The TEXAM PMT
is a reliable instrument for the evaluation of most ground engineering problems.
The TEXAM PMT utilizes a monocellular hydraulically inflated probe. A mechanical

actuator is used to displace a piston which travels within a cylinder filled with the
inflation fluid. The pressuremeter has two major components. The first component is
the control unit that remains above ground. The second component of the pressure
meter is a probe that is inserted into the borehole (ground) to read the pressure, as
11
shown in Figure 3-4.
Figure 3-4 TEXAM PMT equipment

(http://geotechpedia.com/Equipment/Show/1255/TEXAM-Pressuremeter)
3.2.2 Procedures
The probe of the PMT is inserted into the borehole and supported at test depth. The
probe is an inflatable flexible membrane which applies even pressure to the walls of
the borehole as it expands. As the pressure increases and the membrane expand, the
walls of the borehole begin to deform.
The PMT proceeds by incrementally increasing the inflation pressure while

monitoring the radial deformation or volume. Pressure increment should be selected
to yield accurate results without producing an excessively long test. A total of seven to
ten pressure increments of 25 to 200 kPa are typically used, depending upon the
anticipated soil conditions. Pressure increments are generally applied at typically one
to three minute intervals. Operator judgment and experience are typically used in
deciding when it is appropriate to increase or decrease the pressure. In general, the
pressure versus deformation response is monitored and when the response stabilizes
under a given pressure, the next pressure increment is applied. PMT results are
presented generally as a plot of pressure versus volume, as shown in Figure 3-4.
12
Figure 3-5 Typical plot of pressure versus total cavity volume (Braja, 1990)
It is good practice to perform the PMT using a phase of cycle loading, a phase
including a drained creep test, and at least one unload-reload cycle. The purpose of
the creep test is to assess the time-dependent deformation behavior of the material. In
a creep test, the pressure is maintained constant for each step for the same period of
time, such as 60 seconds. The volumetric expansion of the probe is measured at 15, 30,
and 60 seconds after each pressure step to determine a creep curve. The test ends
when the probe has been expanded to twice its deflated volume or when the pressure
limit of the device has been reached. Once the test has been completed, the probe is
deflated, and the device is either advanced to a new depth or returned to the surface.
A typical test results expressed in terms of applied pressure versus radial strain is
shown in Figure 3-5 for the soil in the Victoria Park Ave Station.
To use the expand theory of an infinitely thick cylinder, as shown in Figure 3-6. Then
translate volume V/V to radical strain R/R0 using the following calculation
process:
V V (r r ) 2 L R 2
(1 ) (3-6)
V r L
2
R0
R V
1 1 (3-7)
R0 V
13
Figure 3-6 Typical pressure-strain curves of soils at Victoria Park Station site (SPL
2013)
Figure 3-7 Cylindrical cavity expansion
3.2.2 Parameter Measurements
The typical pressure versus radial strain curve (Figure3-5) features up to five
distinctive portions which characterize the stress-strain behavior of the soil, namely:
The initial stretching of the membrane prior to contacting the borehole wall;
The linear pseudo-elastic stress-strain portion of the deformation curve;
The departure from linear elastic conditions starting at the yield pressure py;
The unload-reload portion of the test;
The development of soil failure, which is represented by the limit pressure pL.
Based on these test features the following soil parameters are determined or
estimated:
Total Horizontal Stress ho or po:
14
An estimate of the total horizontal stress ho can be obtained at the intersection of the
near horizontal portion of the curve (membrane stretching) with the linear
pseudo-elastic line. Actual curves typically exhibit curved transitions, with the most
likely value of ho located at the point of maximum curvature. It should be noted that
there may be a big error in the estimate of ho if the soil is significantly disturbed
during pre-drilling.
Pressuremeter modulus EPMT:
The EPMT is represented by the slope of the pressure versus radial strain curve along
its linear portion, and may be calculated as follows:
2 2
R R
1 1
R0 R0
2 1
E PMT (1 )( p2 p1 ) 2 2
(3-8)
R R
1 1
R0 R0
2 1
Where:
p1 the beginning pressure of the linear portion of the curve
p2 the end pressure of the linear portion of the curve
Poisson ratio
R/R0 radical strain
Where, the sub-indices 1 and 2 indicate the beginning and the end of the linear portion
of the curve, respectively. These two points are shown in pressuremeter curves with
two oversized circles.
In this determination a value of the Poisson ratio, typically = 0.33 for most soils,
must be assumed. For saturated clays a value of = 0.45 is suggested.
Yield Pressure py
The yield pressure indicates the end of the linear pseudo-elastic deformations and the
onset of plasticity. This yield pressure is useful in indicating beyond which pressure
significant creep deformations may occur.
Unload-Reload Modulus ER:
The reload modulus is represented by the slope of the unload-reload loop, and may be
used to determine elastic soil deformations upon unloading conditions such as those
typically encountered during excavations.
It includes the unload modulus Eu based on the unloading branch of the curve and the
15
reload modulus ER based on a weighted average of volume corresponding to the same

unloading pressure (pressure at beginning of unloading stage).
Limit Pressure PL
The limit pressure is a measure of the strength of the soil (either under undrained
conditions for cohesive soils, or drained conditions for non-cohesive soils). This
parameter is defined as the pressure reached when the soil cavity has been extended to
twice its original soil cavity volume Vc (minus the initial total contact pressure po).
The limit pressure is not always attained during testing. In such cases, the value of PL
is inferred by plotting pressure versus 1/V for the plastic phase of the deformations.
16
CHAPTER 4 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN SPT N-VALUES AND SOIL

PARAMETERS OF VICTORIA PARK STATION
4.1 EGLINTON LRT - VICTORIA PARK STATION
This section is to conduct statistic correlation between SPT N-values and geotechnical
parameters for Eglinton Crosstown LRT Project the Victoria Park Station site. The
Victoria Park Station site is situated in the area of the intersection of Eglinton Avenue
East and Victoria Park Avenue in Toronto, Ontario. There are existing residential
buildings at the northwest quadrant of the intersection, detached houses and
townhouses at the southwest quadrant, a landscaped area at the southeast quadrant,
and a large parking lot at the northeast quadrant. The field investigation consisted of
advancing eight (8) boreholes at the locations shown in Figure 4-1 (SPL 2013).
Figure 4-1 Borehole location at Victoria Park Station site
4.2 METHODS OF INVESTIGATION
The boreholes were advanced using truck and all-terrain buggy mounted power drill
rigs to depths ranging between 40.0 m and 55.4 m below grade level. The type of
drilling method used to advance the boreholes is identified in the respective borehole
logs (record of borehole sheets) in report, using hollow-stem augers for the boreholes.
The soil stratigraphy was recorded by observing the quality and changes of augered
materials which were withdrawn from the boreholes, and by sampling the soils at 0.75
17
m to 1.5 m intervals using a 50 mm O.D. split spoon sampler and an automatic SPT
hammer, in accordance with the SPT. SPT tests were carried out in all these eight (8)
boreholes.
Borehole VP01-PMT for pressuremeter testing was drilled at about 2.5 m east of
borehole VP01, the borehole logs sheets attached in Appendix A. Texam
pressuremeter testing was carried out by In-Depth Geotechnical Inc. Within the
borehole, a total of 11 pressuremeter tests were conducted at depths ranging from 4.37
m to 35.00 m.
Soil samples collected during the investigation were visually classified in the field,
placed in appropriate containers, labeled and transferred to our laboratory where the
samples were re-evaluated by a senior engineer based on the current version of TTC
Geotechnical Standards.
Representative samples were selected for geotechnical index testing. The testing
program consisted of the measurement of the natural moisture content of all samples,
the measurement of bulk density of eighty-nine (89) selected samples, grain size and
hydrometer analyses of one hundred and three (103) selected samples and consistency
(Atterberg) limits for sixty-five (65) plastic soil samples. The grain size analysis
curves and results of the consistency (Atterberg) limits tests are shown in Appendix B.
Laboratory vane shear tests were conducted in the Shelby tube samples, consolidated
undrained triaxial shear tests were carried out on nine (9) samples in Golder
Associates laboratory. The test results and the effective angle of internal friction
interpreted from the triaxial tests are provided in Appendix D.
All the test results are provided in SPL report (2013).
4.2 SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS
According to the description of report and borehole logs, the following are the soil
encountered in the boreholes:
Topsoil, Pavement Structure and Fill Materials
Silty Clay Till and Clayey Silt Till
Silty Clay and Clayey Silt
Silt, Sandy Silt and Silty Sand
Sand and Gravelly Sand
Silty Sand Till
18
Figure 4-2 Grain size distribution of silty clay till
Figure 4-3 Grain size distribution of clayey silt till
19
Silty Clay Till and Clayey Silt Till: The cohesive tills (silty clay till and clayey silt
till) encountered in all boreholes were generally firm to hard, with measured SPT
N-values ranging from 5 to more than 50 blows per 300 mm of penetration. A major
portion of the cohesive tills were sandy, typically containing 27 to 44% sand. silty
clay till samples contain up to 7% gravel, 27 to 38% sand, 37 to 49% silt and 18 to
29% clay size particles. clayey silt till samples contain 1 to 7% gravel, 27 to 44% sand,
37 to 47% silt and 14 to 22% clay size particles. The grain size distribution curves for
the samples are shown in Figure 4-2 and Figure 4-3.
Figure 4-4 Grain size distribution of silty clay
Silty Clay and Clayey Silt: The silty clay to clayey silt deposits were generally very
stiff to hard in consistency, with measured SPT N-values ranging from 16 to more
than 50 blows per 300 mm of penetration.
The tested silty clay samples contain up to 6% sand, 46 to 76% silt and 18 to 53%
clay size particles, with little gravel particles found. The tested clayey silt samples
contain 1 to 9% sand, 68 to 79% silt and 20 to 23% clay size particles, with little
gravel particles found in the samples. The grain size distribution curves for the
samples are shown in Figure 4-4 and Figure 4-5.
20
Figure 4-5 Grain size distribution of clayey silt
Figure 4-6 Grain size distribution of sandy silt
21
Figure 4-7 Grain size distribution of silty sand
Figure 4-8 Grain size distribution of silt
Silt, Sandy Silt and Silty Sand: The relative density of the non-plastic silt, sandy silt
22
to silty sand deposits can be generally described as compact to very dense as attested
by the SPT N-values of 15 to more than 50 blows per 300 mm of penetration. The
tested silt, sandy silt and silty sand samples typically contain 3 to 66% sand, 26 to
86% silt and 4 to 14% clay size particles, with little gravel particles found in the
samples. The grain size distribution curves for the samples are shown in Figure 4-7
and Figure 4-8.
Figure 4-9 Grain size distribution of sand to gravel sand
Sand and Gravelly Sand: The relative density of the coarse grained deposits can be
described as very loose to very dense as attested by the SPT N-values ranging from 1
to greater than 50 blows per 300 mm of penetration. The tested sand and gravelly sand
samples contain up to 34% gravel, 57 to 89% sand, 4 to 18% silt and 3 to 8% clay size
particles. The grain size distribution curves for the samples are shown in Figure 4-9.
Silty Sand Till: The relative density of the non-plastic tills can be described as
compact to very dense as attested by the SPT N-values of 22 to more than 50 blows
per 300 mm of penetration. The tested samples contain 2 to 6% gravel, 43 to 58%
sand, 25 to 38% silt and 8 to 18% clay size particles. The content of sand is less than
silty clay till. The grain size distribution curves for the samples are shown in Figure
4-10.
23
Figure 4-10 Grain size distribution of silty sand till
Table 4-1 summarizes the grain size distributions of various soils.
Table 4-1 Grain size distributions of various soils

Soil Classification Gravel Sand Silt Clay
Silty clay till up to 7% 27- 38% 37- 49% 18 - 29%

Silty Clay Till and
Clayey Silt Till Clayey silt till 1- 7% 27- 44% 37- 47% 14 - 22%
Silty Clay and Silty clay up to 6% 46 - 76% 18- 53%
Clayey Silt Clayey silt 1 - 9% 68 - 79% 20- 23%
Silt, Sandy Silt and Silty Sand 3- 66% 26- 86% 4 -14%
Sand and Gravelly Sand up to 34% 57 - 89% 4- 18% 3- 8%
Silty Sand Till 2 - 6% 43 - 58% 25- 38% 8 - 18%
4.3 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PARAMETERS
4.3.1 Soil Profiles of the Boreholes
Figure 4-11 shows the profile of SPT N-values and EPMT values with depth at or close
to the location of borehole VP01 at this site. SPT N-values ranged from 5 to 50, and
24
the EPMT values ranged from 15 MPa to 35 MPa in the clayey silt to silty clay till. SPT
N-values ranged from 60 to 130, and the EPMT values ranged from 60 MPa to 130
MPa in the silt to silty sand. The SPT N-values are generally greater than 50,
especially in the silt to silty sand. It means the silt to silty sand contains coarse gravel,
cobbles, or boulders, because the sampler can become obstructed, resulting in high
SPT N-values. It is still noted that the EPMT values generally increase as the SPT
N-value increased with depth.
Silty clay till/

Clayey silt till
Sand / gravelly sand
Silt /
Sandy silt/
Silty sand
Figure 4-11 SPT, PMT and soil file at/near borehole VP01
Figure 4-12 shows the profile of SPT N-values with depth in borehole VP04. SPT
N-values ranged from 20 to 80 in the silty clay to clayey silt till and from 50 to 200 in
the silt to silty sand.
Figure 4-13 shows the profile of SPT N-values with depth in borehole VP07, where
SPT N-values ranged from 5 to 100 in the silty clay to clayey silt till, from 50 to 150
in the silt to silty sand, and from 40 to 60 in the silty clay to clayey silt.
Figure 4-12 and 4-13 show that SPT N-values are generally greater than 50 except at
the shallow depths. It should be noted that the higher SPT N-values in the glacial till
may be due to the sampler hitting cobbles or boulders. This indicates that SPT is not a
good test method for the glacial deposits.
25
Silty clay till/

clayey silt till
Silt/sandy silt/silty sand

Sand / Gravel sand
Silt /sandy silt/
silty sand
Silty clay/ clayey silt
Figure 4-12 SPT and soil file at borehole VP04
Silty clay till/

clayey silt till
Silt/ sand silt/

silty sand
Silt clay/ clayey
silt
Figure 4-13 SPT and soil file at borehole VP07
The SPT method often reaches refusal (i.e. N-value greater than 50 for 152 mm
increment) when the SPT sampler hits a cobble or boulder within the glacial tills. As
the distribution of cobbles or boulders within the glacial tills is random, locally high
26
SPT N-values may not be indicative of the relative density or consistency of glacial
tills. The apparent soil parameters estimated from such SPT N-value may be
overestimated when the sampler hits cobbles/boulders or underestimated when the
sampler penetrates the soil matrix between cobbles/boulders.
4.3.2 Relationship between SPT and PMT data
The EPMT is compared with the SPT N-value, as shown in Figure 4-14. It is found that
EPMT generally increases with the SPT N-value; However, there is only very limited
correlation available between EPMT and SPT N-value. For the silt to silty sand at
borehole VP01, EPMT ranges from 60 to 120 MPa with an average value of 90 MPa.
Correspondingly, most SPT N-value of the silt to silty sand are higher than 50.
Figure 4-14 Relationship between SPT N-value and EPMT
EPMT/PL can be used as a general guideline for soil identification. For the silt to silty
sand of borehole VP01, EPMT/PL ranges from 5 to 15 with an average value of 12. For
the silty clay to clayey silt till, EPMT/PL ranges from 5 to 12 with an average value of 8.
Due to influence of cobble or boulder within the soils, the range of EPMT/PL is wide, as
shown in Figure 4-15.
Similarly to relationship between SPT N-value and EPMT and the ratio of EPMT/PL,
there is no good relationship between SPT N-value and PL, as shown in Figure 4-16.
Due to the influence of cobble or boulder within the soils and a limited number of
borehole data, there is only very limited information available about EPMT and no
correlation available between EPMT and SPT N-value. Therefore, more data is needed
to find the correction between EPMT and SPT N-value.
27
Figure 4-15 Relationship between SPT N-value and EPMT/PL
Figure 4-16 Relationship between SPT N-value and PL
4.3.3 Relationship between SPT and Particle Size
Figure 4-17 shows the relationship between SPT N-value and D50, where D50 is the
grain diameter corresponding to 50% passing by weight. It is found that there is no
good relationship between SPT N-value and D50. For the silty clay to clayey silt till,
the average value of D50 is 0.03 mm. For sand to gravelly sand, D50 ranges from 0.12
to 0.2 mm with an average value of 0.15mm.
Because the value of Dr is unavailable, the relationship between SPT N-value and D50
and Dr cannot be established.
28
Figure 4-17 Relationship between SPT N-value and D50
4.3.4 Relationship between SPT N-value and Water Content
Figure 4-18 shows the relationship between SPT N-value and water content. It is
founded that the change in the water content for the same soil is narrow, whereas the
SPT N-value varies considerably. For the silty clay to clayey silt till, the water content
ranges from 5% to 25% with an average value of 12% for SPT N-value less than 50.
For the silty clay to clayey silt, the water content ranges from 15% to 25% with an
average value of 20%. There is no good relationship between SPT N-value and the
water content.
29
Figure 4-18 Relationship between SPT N-value and water content
4.3.5 Relationship between SPT N-value and Atterberg Limits
Figure 4-19 shows the relationship between SPT N-value and the liquid limit. It is
founded that the variation of the liquid limit for same soil is small, whereas SPT
N-value varies considerably. For the silty clay to clayey silt till, the liquid limit ranges
from 15 to 25with an average value of 18 for SPT N-value less than 50.
Figure 4-20 shows the relationship between SPT N-value and the plasticity index. It is
founded that the plasticity index has a small range for the same soil, whereas SPT
N-value varies considerably. For the silty clay to clayey silt till, the plasticity index is
very low, ranging from 5 to 10 with an average value of 18.
There is no strong relationship among SPT N-value, liquid limit and plasticity index.
30
Figure 4-19 Relationship between SPT N-value and liquid limit
Figure 4-20 Relationship between SPT N-value and plasticity index
Figure 4-21 shows the relationship between SPT N-value and liquidity index. It is
founded that liquidity index of the silty clay to clayey silt till is generally less than
zero, which means the soil is semi-solid to plastic solid.
31
Figure 4-21 Relationship between SPT N-value and liquidity index
4.3.6 Relationship between SPT N-value and Sensitivity
Figure 4-22 shows the relationship between SPT N-value and sensitivity. Sensitivity,
St, is defined as the ratio of the strength of the soil in the undisturbed state to that of
the soil in the remolded state. Classes of sensitivity may be defined in Table 4-2 as
recommended by Skempton and Northey (1952).
Table 4-2 Sensitivity of clays (Skempton and Northey, 1952)

Classification Strength Ratio
Insensitive <1
Low sensitivity 1-2
Medium sensitivity 2-4
Sensitive 4-8
Extra sensitive 8 - 16
Quick > 16
It is found that there is no good relationship between SPT N-value and St. For silty
clay to clayey silt till, the sensitivity ranges from 1 to 5 with an average value of 3,
generally corresponding to medium sensitivity.
Figure 4-22 Relationship between SPT N-value and St
Through the analysis uses data only from the Victoria Park Station site, there is no
good relationship between SPT N-value and other soil parameters, including water
content, St, EPMT and Atterberg limits. Therefore, more data is needed to establish the
relationships.
32
CHARPTER 5 CORRELATION BETWEEN SPT AND PMT
5.1 EXISTING CORRELATIONS BETWEEN SPT N-VALUES AND PMT

DATA
Correlations between the PMT and SPT results for various soils have been reported by
Hughes et al. (1977) and Baguelin et al. (1978). According to Ohya et al. (1982), the
relationships between pressuremeter modulus EPMT and corrected SPT N-value (N60)
for sand to gravelly sand and clay are as follows:
Clay: E PMT (kPa) 1930 N 600.63 (5-1)
Sand to gravelly sand: E PMT (kPa) 908 N 600.66 (5-2)
Yagiz et al. (2008) investigated the relationship between the corrected SPT N-value
(Ncor) and both pressuremeter modulus, Em, and limit pressure, PL, in Gumusler
County, 10 km north of the city of Denizli, Turkey. The statistical program found the
best-fit regression between the parameters in a linear combination with a 95%
confidence level. The empirical equations expressed by Eq.5-3 and Eq.5-4.
Em 388.67Ncor 4554 r 0.91 (5-3)
pL 29.45Ncor 219.7 r 0.97 (5-4)
where Em and PL are in kPa. However, the SPT and PMT were carried out at depths of
1.5-2 m below ground surface. This paper did not show how to correct the SPT
N-values.
33
Table 5-1 Corrections between SPT N-value and parameters of PMT (Bozbey and
Togrol, 2010)
Bozbey and Togrol (2010) obtained the correlations between SPT and pressuremeter
data measured during an extensive geotechnical investigation conducted in Istanbul,
Turkey. Empirical equations were proposed to estimate PL from EPMT Table 5-1
presents Bozbey and Togrols results (2010). Figure 5-1 shows the correlation of N60
and EPMT values in sandy soils as recommended by Bozbey and Togrol (2010).
Figure 5-1 Correlation of N60 and EPMT values in sandy soils (Bozbey and Togrol,
2010)
Usually, EPMT/PL ratio recommended in the Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual

(CFEM) (2006), can be used as a general guideline for soil identification, as follows :
For sands 7 < EPMT /PL <12
For clays 12 < EPMT /PL
A detailed guideline for soil classification is shown in Table 5-2.
34
Table 5-2 Typical Menard pressuremeter values (CFEM, 2006)
Type of Soil Limit Pressure (kPa) EPMT/PL
Soft clay 50 -300 10

Firm clay 300 - 800 10
Stiff clay 600 - 2500 15
Loose silty sand 100-500 5
Silt 200-1500 8
Sand and gravel 1200-5000 7
Till 1000 - 5000 8
Old fill 400 - 1000 12
Recent fill 50-300 12
5.2 CORRELATION BETWEEN SPT N-VALUES AND PMT DATA FOR

GLACIAL TILLS
There is only very limited information available about PMT data in Victoria Park
Station and no correlation available between PMT parameters and SPT N-value.
Therefore, in order to find the correction between SPT N-value and PMT parameters,
PMT and SPT data from other stations of Eglinton Crosstown LRT Porject including
Victoria Park Station, West Portal Station, Bathurst Station, Dufferin Station,
Caledonia Station, Keele Station, Allen (Eglinton West) Station were collected to
analysis.
5.2.1 Correlation between SPT N-value and EPMT
Attempts have been made to correlate EPMT with the SPT N-value, as shown in
Figures 5-2 to 5-4. The correlations developed between SPT N-value and EPMT are
presented in log-log plot. For SPT N-values less than 50, the measured EPMT values
range from 10 to 100 MPa for the silt clay to clayey silt, and the measured EPMT
values range from 2 to 110 MPa for the silty clay to clayey silt till. For the sand to
gravelly sand, the SPT N-values are generally greater than 50. An increase can be
easily observed in the measured EPMT values with SPT N-values.
The measured EPMT can be estimated from the SPT N-value using the following
relationship:
For silt clay to clayey silt:
E PMTMPa N 0.28 R 2 0.6 (5-5)
For silty clay to clayey silt till:

E PMTMPa 0.83 N 0.24 R 2 0.38 (5-6)
35
For sand to gravelly sand:

E PMTMPa 2.43 N 1.97 R 2 0.84 (5-7)
It should be noted that equations are only for the very rough estimation of EPMT from
the SPT N-values, since the best-fit equations have the low regression coefficients,
especially for the silty clay to clayey silt till.
Figure 5-2 Relationship between SPT N-value and EPMT for silt clay to clayey silt
Figure 5-3 Relationship between SPT N-value and EPMT for silty clay to clayey silt till
36
Figure 5-4 Relationship between SPT N-value and EPMT for sand to gravelly sand
5.2.2 Correlation between SPT N-values and PL
Similar to Figure 5-2, 5-3, 5-4, attempts have been made to correlate PL with the SPT
N-values, as shown in Figures 5-5, 5-6 and 5-7. The correlations developed between
SPT N-value and PL are presented in log-log plot. It can be easily observed that there
is an increasing trend of PL with SPT N-values and most of the data were gathered
within certain realms.
The PL can be estimated from the SPT N-value using the following relationship:
PL kPa 0.86 N 2.21 R 2 0.55 (5-8)
For silty clay to clayey silt till:
PL kPa 0.92 N 1.97 R 2 0.60 (5-9)
PL kPa 2.28 N 0.27 R 2 0.91 (5-10)
It can be easily noted that equations are only for the very rough estimation of PL from
the SPT N-values, also because the best-fit equations have the low regression
coefficient. But the value of regression coefficient is higher, compared with the
best-fit equations established between SPT N-value with EPMT.
37
Figure 5-5 Relationship between SPT N-value and PL for silt clay to clayey silt
Figure 5-6 Relationship between SPT N-value and PL for silty clay to clayey silt till
Figure 5-7 Relationship between SPT N-value and PL for sand to gravelly sand
38
5.2.3 Correlation between SPT N-values and Ratio of EPMT/PL
The correlations developed between SPT N-value and ratio of EPMT/PL presented in
log-log plot, as shown in Figures 5-8, 5-9 and 5-10.
The EPMT/PL can be estimated from the SPT N-value using the following relationship:
E PMT / PL N 0.09 R 2 0.60 (5-11)
For the silty clay to clayey silt till, it is noted that EPMT/PL ranges from 8 to 50 MPa
with an average value of 20. There is no good relationship between EPMT/PL and SPT
N-values.
E PMT / PL 2.43N 2.78 R 2 0.84 (5-12)
Figure 5-8 Relationship between SPT N-value and EPMT/PL for silt clay to clayey silt
Figure 5-9 Relationship between SPT N-value and EPMT/PL for silty clay to clayey silt
39
till
Figure 5-10 Relationship between SPT N-value and EPMT/PL for sand to gravelly sand
40
CHAPTER 6 MAIN FINDINGS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
6.1 MAIN FINDINGS
This report mainly focuses on the statistical correlations between SPT N-value and
PMT parameters through the analyses of data obtained from the Victoria Park Station
site. Based on the limited data available, the following conclusions can be developed:
There are no strong relationships between SPT N-value and soil index
parameters, including water content, sensitivity, and Atterberg limits.
Due to the influence of gravel, cobble, or boulder within glacial till deposits,
lots of SPT tests stopped recording when the blow count reached at a value
of 50, especially for the cohesionless deposits of silt to gravelly sand. This
makes SPT N-values larger than 50 unreliable.
The linear relationships were established by best-fitting the data between
SPT N-value and EPMT, PL or EPMT/PL. These equations can roughly estimate
the relationships between SPT N-value and PMT parameters.
There is an increasing trend of EPMT, PL and EPMT/PL with SPT N-values and
most of the data were gathered within certain realms. For the cohesionless
deposits of silt to gravelly sand, the value of regression coefficient is bigger
than the cohesive desposits of silt clay to clayey silt and silty clay to clayey
silt till.
6.2 FUTURE RESEARCH
Since there are still many limitations and issues in the analysis, the following aspects
need to be considered in the future research:
SPT N-value used in report should be corrected to N60 other than uncorrected
SPT N- value from the field recording. Without this correction, there is no
comparison between the findings here with published relationships in
literature.
This report is based on limited data from the Victoria Park Station site only.
Related data from more station sites should be added to the database to
establish stronger relationships between SPT N-value and soil parameters.
The linear extrapolation of SPT N-value beyond 50 may be overestimated
soil strengths when the sampler hits cobbles or boulders. More detailed
investigation shall be done to get better estimation when SPT N-values are
greater than 50.
41
This report is mainly on SPT N-value and PMT results. More correlations
between SPT N-values and findings from other testing methods should be
studied in the future.
Theoretical studies, including numerical modelling, should be conducted to
validate the findings from this report.
There is no spatial correlation work done in this report. Such local variations
in soil properties should be investigated also in the future.
42
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to acknowledge the financial support from Natural Sciences and
Engineering Research Council of Canada and the sponsorship of SPL Consultants
Limited.
43
REFERENCES
Akin, M. K., Kramer, S. L., and Topal, T. (2011). Empirical correlations of shear wave
velocity (Vs) and penetration resistance (SPT-N) for different soils in an
earthquake-prone area (Erbaa-Turkey). Engineering Geology, 119(1), 1-17.
ASTM. (1984). Standard Test Method for Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling
of Soils. D 1586-84, West Conshohocken, PA.
Braja, M. D. (1990). Principles of foundation engineering. Cole Engineering
Division.
Baguelin F., Jezequel J. F., and Shields D. H. (1978). The Pressuremeter and
Foundation Engineering. Trans Tech Publications, Clausthal-Zellerfeld,
Germany
Bozbey, I., and Togrol, E. (2010). Correlation of standard penetration test and
pressuremeter data: a case study from Istanbul, Turkey. Bulletin of
engineering geology and the environment, 69(4), 505-515.
Cubrinovski, M., and Ishihara, K. (2001). Correlation between penetration resistance
and relative density of sandy soils. Istanbul, 15th International Conference
on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Turkey.
Canadian Geotechnical Society, (2006). Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual.
4rd ed., the Canadian Geotechnical Society Co & Bi Tech, Publishers Ltd.
Canada.
Cao, L. F., Peaker, S. and Ahmad, S. (2015). Pressureneter tests in glacial tills in
Toronto. Symposium International ISP7/PRESSIO, Tunisia.
Dikmen, . (2009). Statistical correlations of shear wave velocity and penetration
resistance for soils. Journal of Geophysics and Engineering, 6(1), 61.
Hughes, J. M. O., Wroth, C. P., and Windle, D. (1977). Pressuremeter tests in
sands. Geotechnique, 27(4), 455-477.
Kulhawy, F. H., and Mayne, P. W. (1990). Manual on estimating soil properties for
foundation design (No. EPRI-EL-6800). Electric Power Research Inst., Palo
Alto, CA (USA); Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY (USA). Geotechnical
Engineering Group.
Karrow, P. F. (1967) Pleistocene geology of the Scarborough area. Ontario
Department of Mines, Geological Report 46.
Kovacs, W. D., Salomone, L. A., and Yokel, F. Y. (1983). Comparison of energy
measurements in the standard penetration test using the cathead and rope
method. National Bureau of Standards Report to the US Nuclear Regulatory
44
Commision.
Liao, S. S., and Whitman, R. V. (1986). Overburden correction factors for SPT in sand.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 112(3), 373-377.
Meyerhof, G. G. (1956). Penetration tests and bearing capacity of cohesionless
soils. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, 82(1), 1-19.
Meyerhof, G. G. (1957). Discussion on soil properties and their measurement.
Discussion 2. London: International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, 3, 110.
Ohya, H., Kazama, E., and Negishi, Y. (1982). Reverse osmotic concentration of
aqueous ethyl-alcohol solutions:Analysis of data obtained with composite
membranes (PEC).Kagaku Kogaku Ronbunshu, 8(2), 144-149.
Robert, N., Tom Xue, Charles W. and David C. (2013). The Eglinton Crosstown Light
Rail Transit. Toronto: 2011 Pan-Am CGS Geotechnical ConferenceI.
Szchy, K., Varga, L., and Sc, C. (1978). Foundation engineering: soil exploration
and spread foundations. Akadmiai Kiad.
Skempton, A. W. (1986). Standard penetration test procedures and the effects in sands
of overburden pressure, relative density, particle size, ageing and
overconsolidation. Geotechnique, 36(3), 425-447.
Skemption, A. W., and Northey, R. D. (1952). The sensitivity of clays.
Geotechnique, 3(1), 30-53.
Sharpe, D. R. (1980). Quaternary geology of Toronto and surrounding area. Ontario
Geological Survey, Geological Series Preliminary Map P. 2204.
SPL Consultants Limited (2013). Geo-Engineering Factual Data Report,
Preliminary Design, Victoria Park Station, Transit Expansion, Eglinton Cross
Town LRT, Toronto, Ontario.
Yagiz, S., Akyol, E., and Sen, G. (2008). Relationship between the standard
penetration test and the pressuremeter test on sandy silty clays: a case study
from Denizli. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment, 67(3),
405-410.
45
View publication stats

150706-Engage - SPT N Vs PMT - Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

150706-Engage - SPT N Vs PMT - Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See

Statistical Correlations between SPT N-Values

Technical Report June 2015

Jinyuan Liu Yankun Liang

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Improve Pile Design in Ontario Soils View project

LRFD approach for soil nail walls View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Part I: Standard Penetration Tests and Pressuremeter Tests

A Project Funded by Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada

Department of Civil Engineering, Ryerson University

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 1

6.1 MAIN FINDINGS ......................................................................................... 41

This report is to fundamentally conduct statistical correlations between the standard

1.2 RESEARCH NEEDS

1.3 ENGINEERING BACKGROUND

Recently, SPL Consultants Limited (SPL) was retained by Metrolinx/TTC for

1.4 ORGANIZATION OF REPORT

Chapter 1 provides a general introduction and research background.

Chapter 2 briefly describes the project site conditions and geology.

Chapter 3 summaries the procedures and analyses of different in-situ tests,

Chapter 4 provides background information of the Eglinton Crosstown LRT

CHAPTER 2 PROJECT SITE CONDITIONS AND GEOLOGY

2.1 PROJECT SITE CONDITIONS

Victorica Park Station

Figure 2-1 Crosstown route map (http://www.thecrosstown.ca/the-project)

2.2 GEOLOGY CONDITIONS

CHAPTER 3 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING METHODS

One of the first steps in any geotechnical design problem is to develop an

Most geotechnical engineering textbooks provide information related to how to

3.1 STANDARD PENETRATION TEST

3.1.1 General Information

Figure 3-2 Equipment used to perform SPT (Kovacs et al., 1983)

Figure 3-3 Standard split-spoon sampler (ASTM, 1984)

in soft and sensitive clays (Kulhawy and Mayne, 1990).

3.1.3 Parameters Measured

Table 3-1 Corrections for SPT N-value (Skempton, 1986)

SPT N-value is affected by the effective overburden pressure, o. Consequently, the

(N1)60= CN N60 (3-2)

Liao and Whitmans relationship (1986):

Skemptons relationship (1986):

s - driven depth actually, mm

SPT N Relative Density Friction angle

3.2 PRESSUREMETER TEST

3.2.1 General Information

The TEXAM PMT utilizes a monocellular hydraulically inflated probe. A mechanical

shown in Figure 3-4.

Figure 3-4 TEXAM PMT equipment

The PMT proceeds by incrementally increasing the inflation pressure while

Figure 3-7 Cylindrical cavity expansion

3.2.2 Parameter Measurements

Total Horizontal Stress ho or po:

Pressuremeter modulus EPMT:

Unload-Reload Modulus ER:

reload modulus ER based on a weighted average of volume corresponding to the same

CHAPTER 4 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN SPT N-VALUES AND SOIL

4.1 EGLINTON LRT - VICTORIA PARK STATION

Figure 4-1 Borehole location at Victoria Park Station site

4.2 METHODS OF INVESTIGATION

All the test results are provided in SPL report (2013).

4.2 SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS

Figure 4-2 Grain size distribution of silty clay till

Figure 4-3 Grain size distribution of clayey silt till