Figures & data
Table 1: Some current in situ testing capabilities for measuring soil properties
Figure 1. The Cambridge self-boring pressuremeter.
Figure 2. Ratio of pressuremeter strength to triaxial strength
versus
(after Yu and Collins Citation1998).
Figure 3. Time for 50% pore pressure decay at the cavity wall (after Randolph and Wroth Citation1979).
Figure 4 A self-boring pressuremeter test in London clay with three unloading–reloading loops (after Bolton and Whittle Citation1999).
Figure 5. Deriving the non-linear elastic relationship from unloading–reloading loops (after Bolton and Whittle Citation1999).
Figure 6. Derived stress ratio–shear strain curves from laboratory pressuremeter tests (after Ajalloeian and Yu Citation1998).
Figure 7. A chart for determination of from measured
(after Byrne et al.
Citation1990).
Figure 8. The chamber used by Ajalloeian and Yu (Citation1998).
Figure 9. Laboratory results of finite pressuremeter length effects (after Ajalloeian and Yu Citation1998).
Figure 10. Chart to derive the in situ state parameter by accounting for the effect of finite pressuremeter length.
Figure 11. Anisotropic strength criteria (after Su and Liao Citation2002).
Figure 12. Steady state finite-element analysis of cone penetration (after Yu et al. Citation2000).
Figure 13. Combined cavity expansion and finite-element analysis (after Abu-Farsakh et al. Citation2003).
Figure 14. Deformed finite-element mesh and plastic region due to cone penetration in clay.
Figure 15. Theoretical solutions for consolidation around cones (after Teh and Houlsby Citation1991 and Lunne et al. Citation1997).
Figure 16. Chart for finding from
(after Robertson et al.
Citation1992).
Figure 17. Measured and predicted OCR for sites in (a) Sweden and (b) Ontario (after Mayne Citation1993).
Figure 18. Mechanisms linking cone resistance with cavity limit pressures (after Yu and Mitchell Citation1998).
Figure 19. Mechanisms linking cone resistance with cylindrical cavity limit pressure (after Salgado Citation1993).
Figure 20. Plastic zone around a cone in sand (after Huang et al. Citation2004).
Figure 21. Measured (cross) and predicted (solid circle) cone factor-state parameter relations (after Yu and Mitchell Citation1998).
Figure 22. Cone pressuremeter (after Withers et al. Citation1989).
Figure 23. The interpretation method of Houlsby and Withers Citation(1988).
Table 2: Material constants (Collins et al. 1992)
Figure 24. Measured and theoretical correlations for cone pressuremeter tests in Leighton Buzzard sand (after Yu et al. Citation1996).
Figure 25. Measured in situ horizontal stresses with various methods for tests at Madingley, Cambridge (after Yu Citation1990).
Figure 26. Set-up and procedure for flat dilatometer testing (after Marchetti et al. Citation2001).
Table 3: Clay constants used in CASM
Figure 27. Theoretical correlation between dilatometer index and .
Figure 28. Theoretical correlation between K D and OCR.
Figure 29. Theoretical correlation between K D and K 0.
Figure 30. Theoretical correlation for deriving the friction angle.
Figure 31. Normalized correlation for deriving the friction angle.
Table 4: Sand constants used in CASM
Figure 32. Theoretical correlations for deriving the in situ state parameter.
Figure 33. Average correlation for deriving the in situ state parameter.
Figure 34. Particle size distribution of cohesionless soil.
Figure 35. Initial stress state of cohesionless soil.
Figure 36. Process of deep penetration modelled by DEM.
Figure 37. Penetration resistance versus penetration depth.
Figure 38. Normalized penetration resistance (cone factor) versus penetration depth.
