Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterization – Huang & Mayne (eds)

© 2008 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-46936-4

Field characterization of problematic earthfills by DMT. A case history

Nuno Cruz
Dep. de Geociências, Universidade de Aveiro; Direcção de Geotecnia da MOTA-ENGIL, Portugal

Isabel Caspurro
EP – Estradas de Portugal, EPE, Portugal

Sofia Guimarães & Cristina Cunha Gomes

COBA, Portugal

António Viana da Fonseca

Faculdade de Engenharia da Universidade do Porto, Portugal

ABSTRACT: The quality control of earthfill works in road construction has been traditionally based in labora-
tory simple testing followed by “in situ” nuclear densimeter gauge and plate load tests. However, only plate load
tests have been recognized with good efficiency for deformability evaluations, but take some time to perform,
which is a significant handicap in line road works. The case history presented herein is related to a situation of
excessive settlement with clear signs of progressive failure occurred in a main road 6 m high earthfill, due to its
own compressibility. To evaluate the situation and design a stabilization solution, DMT tests were selected due to
its ability not only for strength and deformability analysis, but also for the valuable information on stratigraphy,
unit weight and OCR, somehow connected with its mechanical behaviour. The final results of the campaign
highlighted some interesting possibilities of DMT application to this specific field of construction.

Keywords: DMT, earthfill, settlement, compaction control.

1 INTRODUCTION of the ground. The reason for the selection of DMT

The case history reported herein is an application of a
innovative analysis performed in a Portuguese earthfill
compaction control work. The present case is related
to the geotechnical study of an earthfill that exper-
imented excessive settlement with consequences at
the pavement level and slope stability. The site is
located in Oliveira do Bairro at the Centre-North of
Portugal where a road ring surrounding the town was
constructed. The earthfill geometry shows 6,0 m high
on the right side and 4,5 m on the left one, along
150 m. The earthfill intercepts a water line, where
a hydraulic cross ensures its drainage. Some weeks
after its official opening there were signs of move-
ment around the hydraulic cross, settlements on the
platform and sidewalks and tension cracks along the
slopes, showing a general instability of the earthfill. At
the time, the expected causes for the phenomena were
the compressibility either of the foundation ground
and the earthfill. In order to characterize the real sit-
uation, it was decided to perform 5 DMTs across
the earthfill and penetrating in the foundation level,
and some dynamic probing to feel the heterogeneity
tests was related both to its efficiency characterizing
geotechnical parameters and also because of the pre-
vious experience dealing with this type of problems
(Cruz et al., 2006). The test is based in the measure-
ments of two basic pressures (P0 and P1 ) related to well
defined displacements, from where one can deduce
stratigraphy, in situ stresses, stress history, strength and
stiffness.
2 GEOLOGY
The mentioned region is within the context of Western
Meso – Cenozoic bassin, mainly composed by detritic
deposits, under the influence of Alpin Orogeny. The
associated fracturation is very intense showing main
directions of N-S e NW-SE e NE-SW. The geomor-
phology is clearly marked by stepped ground where
the actual drainage pattern fits in.
Within the studied area, the geology is repre-
sented by Cretacic deposits namely sandstones and
conglomerates with fine lenses of silts and clays
interbedded.

321
3 MECHANICAL CHARACTERIZATION Table 1. Results of DMT tests.

The mechanical characterization was based in 8 Depth γ M

DMT (m) Type of soil ID (kN/m3 ) (MPa)
Dynamic Probing Light (DPL) and 5 Dilatometer
(DMT) tests, being the first just a quick form of testing 1 1.0–4.2 Silt-Silt sand* 0.5–1.8 16–18 10–15
the homogeneity of both the earthfill and foundation 4.2–5.5 Silt sand-Sand** 2.0–5.0 17–19 5–15
ground. In that sense, DPL 1,2,3 and 4 and DMT 1,2 >5.5 Silt sand-Sand** 2.0–5.0 19–20 80–110
and 5 were performed across the entire earthfill (whose 2 1.0–3.0 Silt-silt sand* 0.5–2.0 16–18 5–10
thickness varied from 3.0 to 5.2 m) while the others 3.0–4.5 Silt sand* 2.0–5.0 18–20 20–60
were performed directly into the foundation soils. The 4.5–5.2 Sand* 7.0–8.0 18–19 10–30
results of both type of tests match perfectly, as shown >5.2 Silt sand-Sand** 2.0–8.0 18–19 10–30
in the following description. 3 0.0–3.5 Silt sand-Sand** 2.0–6.0 17–19 15–40
Dynamic probing results revealed information that 3.5–4.5 Sand** 3.5–6.5 17 18–22
>4.5 Sand** 4.0–7.0 19–20 60–200
can be synthesized as follows: 5 1.0–3.0 Silt sand* 1.5–2.5 19 60–80
a) The results obtained in the earthfill revealed very 3.0–4.5 Silt-silt sand* 0.7–2 16–17 10–25
loose soils for the unit point resistance (as defined >4.5 Silt-silt sand** 1.5–2.0 18–19 30–40
by CEN, 2004): rd < 2.0 MPa up to 2.5/3.5 m depth, 6 0.0–3.5 Silt sand-Sand** 1.5–6.5 17–19 20–40
>3.5 Sand** 3.0–6.0 17–20 20–200
followed by values ranging 2–4 MPa, for 1 to 3 m
(loose soils); * – Earthfill; ** – Foundation
b) Data from foundation ground showed a loose to
very loose layer over medium to compact strata.
On the other hand, the global information taken
from the compaction control performed during the
earthfill execution was although represented by very
low frequency, presented relative compaction ratios
higher than 97%.
Table 1 summarizes the essential results of DMT
tests.

4 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

4.1 Identifying soils

One significant advantage of DMT data is the possibil-
ity of numerically identifying the stratigraphy through
its mechanical behaviour (Marchetti, 1980). Since the
type of soil is among the criteria often used to select
earth materials, then this opportunity can be a useful
tool in basic control. In a general study performed in
Portuguese earthfills, (Cruz et al., 2006) pointed out
some important trends:
a) Good soils for earthfills (SM-SC, A-1, A-2
according to Unified and AASHTO Classifica- Figure 1. ID profiles across the earthfill.
tions), usually silty to clayey sands, presented,
ID (DMT parameter related to soil classification) As it can be seen, the results reveal an important fine
values between 1.8 and 4.0; content, with ID values generally ranging from 0.5 to
b) ID values greater than 4 represent poorly graded 2.0 (clayey silts to silty sands), and therefore a poor
sandy soils; mechanical behaviour of the earthfill is expected. On
c) Soils with fine content higher than 20% and low the other hand, the first 2–3 m of foundation soils are
plasticity, show ID values within 1.0–1.8; clearly of sandy nature, showing ID results between
d) ID values below 1.0 reveal soils with high fine 2.0 and 8.0.
content and plasticity.
4.2 Unit weight, γ
Figure 1 shows ID profiles of the tests performed
across the earthfill (DMT 1,2 and 5), being the earthfill Although the sensitivity of unit weight (± 1 kN/m3 )
materials situated down to 4,5 m. is not adjusted to be used as a quantitative control

322
Figure 2. Earthfill unit weight profiles.
parameter (Cruz et al., 2006), in the present case it
confirms ID conclusions, as shown in Figure 2. In fact,
the overall results are within 16 and 18 kN/m3 which is
lower than the usually accepted for this type of works.
It should be noted that this parameter is determined by
the combination of material index, ID and dilatome-
ter modulus, ED (Marchetti & Crapps, 1981), and so
it proves to be a good indicator (qualitatively) of the
prospective mechanical behaviour.
4.3 Stiffness of compacted layers
Stiffness of compacted layers can be related, in a first
approach, to the intermediate DMT parameters ED
and KD . The first is the dilatometer modulus and so
reflects the rigidity of soils while the latter reflects the
overconsolidation profile (Marchetti, 1980), which in
sandy soils means the level of compaction. In fact, Bri-
aud & Miran (1992) and Cruz et al. (2006) based in
experimental data from different soil nature observed
a very consistent increment of KD and ED with the
degree of compaction, while ID remained constant
for each type of tested soils. However, the sensitivity
increases greatly when the derived parameters OCR
and M are used (Cruz et al., 2006) instead of the pre-
viously referred. However, for low levels of confining
stresses, OCR reflects also the influence of errors in
effective stress determination (needed for parameter
deduction) and the natural overconsolidation of most
superficial layers (Cruz et al., 2006). Being so, the
323
Figure 3. Profiles of Constrained Modulus, M.
constrained modulus (M) seems to be the best param-
eter to use in stiffness evaluation of compacted layers.
Moreover, M is usually generally referenced as an effi-
cient parameter derived from dilatometer tests, either
in sedimentary or residual soils. This efficiency is
a consequence of using both ID (type of soils) and
KD (stress history), besides the obvious dilatometer
modulus (ED ), in M determination.
The main experience in this type of characteriza-
tion is reported by Marchetti et al. (2001) referring
to the compaction control of a sub-grade layer in
Bangladesh. The author gives emphasis to the follow-
ing issues:
a) Higher execution rates, comparing to the most
common testing procedures (ex. plate load tests);
b) Good adaptability of M as a design modulus,
since pavement engineering rely on a sub-grade
deformability modulus;
c) Typical profiles have shown a peak value 25 to
30 cm below the top of the layer.
Figure 3 illustrate representative results of the
modulus obtained in this study.
The black profiles (DMT 1 and 2) give the general
idea of site correlation, revealing a “peak structure” of
the curve as observed in Marchetti’s studies. In fact,
these peaks reflect the well-known profile of soils after
compaction with rollers. Then, the distance between
peaks is related to the thickness of each compaction
layer. The overall results reveal 0.60 to 0.80 m layer
 Figure 5. Stability analysis of the situation.

Figure 4. ED-CBR and M-CBR ratios (Cruz et al., 2006).

thickness, much higher than prospective design crite-

ria (0.30 m). Nuclear density meter results from the
superficial control in each layer, formerly considered
acceptable, were misleading (as referred in 3), in view
of earthfill failure. This paradox is due to the fact that
the tests are typically performed at the top of the layer
after compaction work, where the density becomes
higher.
Results of a correct compaction in layers of 0.20–
0.30 m can be seen on the upper part (1.5 to 3.0 m) of
DMT 5 (grey line), where the peaks are smooth Val-
ues of the constrained modulus, M, are fairly constant,
around 70 MPa. However, it should be noted that this
magnitude is not as high as expected, since properly
graded soils, well compacted, result in ranges around
150–250 MPa, as reported by Marchetti (2001) and
Cruz et al. (2006).
The global results has revealed M values ranging
from 10 to 30 MPa, both in the earthfill and superfi-
cial foundation ground, which explains the settlements
observed and the general bad behaviour revealed by the
earth structure.
Since CBR is a design parameter often used in
Portugal, as elsewhere, a reference is made to the cor-
relation CBR-M, which values are plotted in Figure 4.
From the work of Cruz et al. (2006) values of 1 to 5%
would be expected, while for upper layers crossed by
DMT 5 the values would be within 10–12%.
5 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Taking the results from this campaign, a re-evaluation
of mechanical parameters was made, resulting in a
safety factor of 1,1 (COBA, 2006), as shown in
Figure 5.
A stabilization solution was then conceived (Fig-
ure 6), with the following premises:
a) Rockfill cover of, at least, 3.5 m width over the main
slope;
b) Indented interface of the rockfill with the main
earthfill;
c) Rockfill embedment of 1.5 m into the foundation
ground;
Figure 6. Proposed solution.
d) Soil substitution of the first layer in one meter, by
more adequate soils, followed by compaction in
0,30 cm layers with tight control.
Soil substitution of the first layer in one meter, by more
adequate soils, followed by compaction in 0,30 cm
layers with tight control.
6 CONCLUSION
The present case history shows the efficiency of DMT
tests in compaction control, supported by the following
considerations:
a) Good alternative to control selected earthfill
materials, after conclusion of compaction;
b) Qualitative control of compaction levels by deriv-
ing unit weight values through depth;
c) Definition of a rigidity modulus of the earth-
fill (layer by layer), very important for design
considerations;
d) Control of thickness of compaction layers.
REFERENCES
Briaud, J.L. and Miran, J. (1992). “The Flat Dilatometer
Test”. Report n◦ FHWA-SA-91-044. Federal Highway
Administration. Washington D.C.
CEN (2004). “Geotechnical investigation and testing – Field
testing – Part 2: Dynamic probing”. CEN European
standard, ISO/FDIS 22476-2:2004, Brussels.
COBA (2006). “EN 235 ring between Oliveira do Bairro and
Sangalhos”. Design report. EP, Estradas de Portugal, EPE.
(in Portuguese).

324
Cruz, N., Viana da Fonseca, A. and Santos, J. (2006).
“Compaction control and stiffness evaluation of earth-
fills, by DMT”. Geotechnical Luso-Brazilian Conference.
Curitiba, Brasil.
Marchetti, S. (1980). “In-situ tests by flat dilatometer.”
J. Geotechnical. Eng. Div. ASCE, 106, GT3, 299–321.
Marchetti, S., Monaco, P., Totani, G. and Calabrese,
M. (2001). “The flat dilatometer test (DMT) in soil
325
investigations”.Technical Committee 16. International
Society for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engeneering
(ISSMGE).
Marchetti, S. and Crapps, D.K. (1981). “Flat Dilatome-
ter Manual.” Internal report of GPE Inc., distributed to
purchasers of DMT equipment.