Evaluation of the Undrained Shear Strength in Preconsolidated Cohesive Soils Based on the Seismic Dilatometer Test

The undrained shear strength in cohesive soils can be evaluated based on measurements obtained from the standard dilatometer test (DMT) using single- and multi-factor empirical relationships. However, the empirical relationships presented in the literature may sometimes show relatively high values o...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Paweł Galas, Zbigniew Lechowicz, Maria Jolanta Sulewska
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: MDPI AG 2019-04-01
Series:Applied Sciences
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/9/8/1660
Description
Summary:The undrained shear strength in cohesive soils can be evaluated based on measurements obtained from the standard dilatometer test (DMT) using single- and multi-factor empirical relationships. However, the empirical relationships presented in the literature may sometimes show relatively high values of the maximum relative error. The add-on seismic module to the seismic dilatometer test (SDMT) extends parameters measurable in a standard dilatometer test by the shear wave velocity <i>V<sub>s</sub></i> as an independent variable. Therefore, a method for evaluating the undrained shear strength in cohesive soils based on data obtained from the seismic dilatometer test is presented in this study. In the method proposed, the two-factor empirical relationship for evaluating the normalized undrained shear strength <i>&#964;<sub>fu</sub>/&#963;&#8217;<sub>v</sub></i> is used based on independent variables: The normalized difference between the corrected second pressure reading and the corrected first pressure reading (<i>p</i><sub>1</sub> &#8722; <i>p<sub>o</sub></i>)/<i>&#963;</i>&#8217;<i><sub>v</sub></i> and the normalized shear wave velocity <i>V<sub>s</sub></i>/100. The proposed two-factor empirical relationship provides a more reliable evaluation of the undrained shear strength in the tested Pleistocene and Pliocene clays in comparison to the empirical relationships presented in the literature, with a maximum relative error max <i>RE</i> at about &#177;20% and the mean relative error <i>RE</i> at about 8%.
ISSN:2076-3417