9 TC211 HK Hamidi PDF

14 ARC ISSMGE Technical Committee Ground Improvement 26 May 2011
In Validity
of Relative Density for
Quality Control of Cohesionless
Soils
Babak Hamidi
Serge Varaksin
Hamid Nikraz
1
Outline
History & development of Relative Density

How reliable is the concept?
How reliable are the correlations?
Standard Penetration Test
Cone Penetration Test
2
History
1925: Realization of concept

TERZAGHI, K. (1925) Erdbaumechanik auf Bodenphysikalisher Grundlage, Vienna, Deuticke
1948: Aim
to bring the behaviour characteristics of soils
together on a common basis in consistent and
practically useful relations and to provide a tool for
communications between engineers
BURMISTER, D. M. (1948) The Importance and Practical Uses of Relative Density in Soil Mechanics. American
Society for Testing and Materials, 48, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1249-1268.
3
History
An appropriate means to define the looseness

and denseness of sand or sand-gravel soils in a
meaningful way because important properties
were assumed to correlate quite well by this
means
4
History
1954: Formation of ASTM Committee D-18,

Subcommittee 3, Section D for determining
the minimum and maximum densities of sand
and gravel soils
1964: Approval of standard by D-18
1969: ASTM standard for Relative Density
ASTM (1969) Test Method for Relative Density of Cohesionless Soils. D2049-69.
1984: Withdrawal of ASTM D2049-69
5
History
2011
ASTM D4253-00 (Reapproved 2006) Standard
Test Methods for Maximum Index Density and
Unit Weight of Soils Using a Vibratory Table.
ASTM D4254-00 (Reapproved 2006) Standard
Test Methods for Minimum Index Density and
Unit Weight of Soils and Calculation of Relative
Density.
6
Definition: includes three parameters
emax= maximum index void ratio or the reference void

ratio of a soil at the minimum index density/unit weight.
emin= minimum index void ratio or the reference void
ratio of a soil at the maximum index density/unit
weight.
e= the in situ or stated void ratio of a soil deposit or fill.
7
Alternative definitions
d or d = dry density/unit weight of a soil deposit or fill

at the given void ratio.
8
ASTM Limits of Application
Soil can contain up to 15%, by dry mass, of

soil particles passing a 75-m sieve, provided
they still have cohesionless, free-draining
characteristics.
For determination of dmin, dmin, d or d
3accepted methods are applicable to soil in which
100% of soil particles pass respectively a 75, 19 &
9.5 mm sieves.
9
ASTM Limits of Application
10
ASTM words of caution
For many types of free-draining, cohesionless

soils, these test methods cause a moderate
amount of degradation (particle breakdown) of
the soil. When degradation occurs, typically
there is an increase in the maximum index
density/ unit weight obtained, and comparable
test results may not be obtained when different
size molds are used to test a given soil.
11
ASTM words of caution
The engineering properties, such as strength,

compressibility, and permeability of a given
soil, compacted by various methods to a given
state of compactness can vary considerably.
Therefore, considerable engineering judgment
must be used in relating the engineering
properties of soil to the state of compactness.
Note: In addition, there are published data to
indicate that these test methods have a high degree
of variability.
12
Errors
Systematic error is a measure of accuracy and

the difference between correct value and the
measured average of a set of repeated tests.
Random error is the precision of a quantity
and is measured by the scatter in the results of
a group of repeated tests
Mistake
SELIG, E. T. & LADD, R. S. (1973) Evaluation of Relative Density Measurements and Applications. Evaluation of
Relative Density and its Role in Geotechnical Projects Involving Cohesionless Soils: ASTM STP523-EB.7744-1., Los
Angeles, 25-30 June 1972, 487-504.
13
Errors
SELIG, E. T. & LADD, R. S. (1973)
14
Yoshimi & Tohno (1973)

YOSHIMI, Y. & TOHNO, I. (1973) Statistical Significance of the Relative Density. Evaluation of Relative Density
and its Role in Geotechnical Projects Involving Cohesionless Soils: ASTM STP523-EB.7744-1, Los Angeles, 25-30
June 1972, 74-84.
Dd is proportional to (d - dmin)/ d
even a small variation in d or dmin considerable
variation in Dd when d - dmin is small; i.e. when Dd is
low.
E.g.: dmin= 13.5 kN/m3, dmax= 16.37 kN/m3, & d=
14.25 kN/m3, Dd = 30%. If dmin is increased by 1% to
13.635 kN/m3, Dd reduces to 25.8% which is 14% less
than the initial value. In other words, the relative
deviation in relative density is 14 times that of dmin.
15
Yoshimi & Tohno: random errors
The terms in the parentheses are coefficients of

variation. SDd, Sdmax , Sdmin and Sd are respectively
the standard deviations for Dd, dmax, dmin and d,
and Cdmax, Cdmin and Cd are error propagation
factors.
Random errors can be reduced to any desired degree
by repeating the test and averaging the results.
16
Yoshimi & Tohno: random errors
Cdmax=4.7 (typical clean sand)
17
Yoshimi & Tohno: systematic errors
Dd/Dd = relative deviation

18
Yoshimi & Tohno: systematic errors
Influence of systematic errors in limiting densities on relative density
19
Tavenas et al. (1973)
Due to the very large variability of the relative density

between laboratories, the comparison of relative densities
measured by different laboratories were totally non-
significant. There were important practical implications of
this fact: all established correlations between relative density
and various properties of cohesionless soils such as standard
penetration index, point resistance in a static penetration
test, friction angle, modulus of compressibility, shear wave
velocity, etc., are useless to anyone but the operator who has
established them, since that person is the only one who can
reproduce the relative density of the considered soil with
sufficient accuracy.
20
Tavenas et al. (1973)

It appeared that due not so much to
the variability of the minimum and
maximum unit weights but
essentially to the formulation of
relative density itself, the resulting
accuracy of this parameter was so
poor that its use was related to
major uncertainties (the best case
was of ideal material such as the
tested fine sand, and was deemed to
be practically meaningless in most
of the other cases.
TAVENAS, F. A., LADD, R. S. & LA ROCHELLE, P. (1973) Accuracy of Relative Density Measurements: Results of a
Comparative Test Program. Evaluation of Relative Density and its Role in Geotechnical Projects Involving Cohesionless Soils:
ASTM STP523-EB.7744-1, Los Angeles, 25-30 June 1972, 18-60.
21
Practical problems of relative density
Difficult & costly to implement at depth

Difficult & costly to implement below
groundwater level
Costly to repeat sufficient number of times to
reduce random errors
Correlations: a statistical relation between two or more
variables such that systematic changes in the value of one variable
are accompanied by systematic changes in the other. Correlations
are not physical laws or theorems, they are simply statistical
relations and only meaningful once their scatters, deviations and
variances are known.
22
Soil properties are not based only on Dd

Fines content
Grain size & shape
Grading & grading curve shape
Effective vertical or horizontal stresses
Mineralogy
Compressibility & crushability
Cementation
Over consolidation
Age
23
Grain shape
YOUD, T. L. (1973) Factors Controlling
Maximum and Minimum Densities of Sands.
Evaluation of Relative Density and its Role in
Geotechnical Projects Involving Cohesionless
Soils: ASTM STP523-EB.7744-1, Los Angeles,
25-30 June 1972, 98-112.
emax & emin as a function of grain with Cu=1.4
24
Grain shape
HOLUBEC, I. & D'APPOLONIA, E. (1973)
Effect of Particle Shape on the Engineering
Properties of Granular Soils. Evaluation of
Relative Density and its Role in Geotechnical
Projects Involving Cohesionless Soils: ASTM
STP523-EB.7744-1, Los Angeles, 25-30 June
1972, 304-318.
Effect of particle shape on emax and emin from gradational and particle shape
characteristics
25
Grain shape & gradation

YOUD, T. L. (1973) Factors Controlling
Maximum and Minimum Densities of Sands.
Evaluation of Relative Density and its Role in
Geotechnical Projects Involving Cohesionless
Soils: ASTM STP523-EB.7744-1, Los Angeles,
25-30 June 1972, 98-112.
emax and emin from gradational and particle shape characteristics
26
Particle size
LACROIX, Y. & HORN, H. M. (1973) Direct Determination and Indirect Evaluation of Relative Density and its Use on Earthwork
Construction Projects. Evaluation of Relative Density and its Role in Geotechnical Projects Involving Cohesionless Soils: ASTM
STP523-EB.7744-1, Los Angeles, 25-30 June 1972, 251-280.
27
Fines content
LACROIX, Y. & HORN, H. M. (1973) Direct
Determination and Indirect Evaluation of Relative
Density and its Use on Earthwork Construction
Projects. Evaluation of Relative Density and its
Role in Geotechnical Projects Involving
Cohesionless Soils: ASTM STP523-EB.7744-1,
Los Angeles, 25-30 June 1972, 251-280.
Correlation between limiting dry unit weights and fines content
28
SPT & relative density
How reliable are samples extracted from the SPT split spoon?
29
Gibbs & Holtz - Meyerhof (1957) & USBR
GIBBS, K. J. & HOLTZ, W. G. (1957) Research on BUREAU OF RECLAMATION (1960) Earth Manual, Denver, US
Determining the Density of Sands by Spoon Penetration Department of the Interior.
Testing. 4th International Conference on Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, 1, London, 35-39.
MEYERHOF, G. G. (1957) Discussion on Research on Determining

the Density of Sands by Spoon Penetration Testing. 4th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 1,
London, 110.
30
Different correlations yield very different results
Lacroix & Horn (1973)
31
How good is the SPT for determining Dd?

Holtz (1973): First, I think that everyone should recognize that the
Standard Spoon Penetration Test is a relatively crude test and no one
should expect to determine the relative density of sands to the nearest
one percent or anything like that. When Mr. Gibbs and I developed a
set of correlations to take into account the effect of overburden
pressures, we never indicated that the sets of curves developed at that
time were necessarily applicable to all cohesionless soils under all
conditions. Second, we always stressed the relative density trends
indicated by the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) values rather than the
specific individual values. Third, I wanted to point out that Mr. Gibbs
and I are not particular "promoters" of the SPT, although we think it is
useful for certain types of foundation investigations, and at certain
stages of investigation.
HOLTZ, R. D. (1973) Discussion on Determination of Relative Density of Sand Below Groundwater Table. Evaluation of Relative
Density and its Role in Geotechnical Projects Involving Cohesionless Soils: ASTM STP523-EB.7744-1, Los Angeles, 25-30 June 1972,
376-377.
32
Skempton (1986)
SKEMPTON, A. W. (1986) Standard Penetration Test Procedure and the Effects in Sands of Overburden
Pressure, Relative Density, Particle Size, Ageing and Overconsolidation. Geotechnique, 36, 3, 425-447.
33
Grain size, age & consolidation

At a given relative density and overburden
pressure, N values are higher for sands with
larger grain sizes (D50)
Ageing of sand will increase the SPT blow
counts
Over Consolidation
SKEMPTON, A. W. (1986) Standard Penetration Test Procedure and the Effects in Sands of Overburden
Pressure, Relative Density, Particle Size, Ageing and Overconsolidation. Geotechnique, 36, 3, 425-447.
34
Tokimatsu & Yoshimi (1983): fines content

Fines content (%) Nf
0-5 0
5-10 interpolate
10- 0.1Fc+4
Tokimatsu and Yoshimi themselves have not

demonstrated confidence in their proposed
equation and note that its application is yet to
be proven
TOKIMATSU, K. & YOSHIMI, Y. (1983) Empirical Correlation of Soil Liquefaction Based on SPT-N Value and Fines
Content. Soils and Foundations, Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 23, 4, 56-74.
35
Scatter of data
HALDAR, A. & TANG, W. H. (1979) Uncertainty HATANAKA, M. & FENG, L. (2006) Estimating
Analysis of Relative Density. Journal of Geotechnical Relative Density of Sandy Soils. Soils and Foundations,
Engineering, ASCE, 107, 7 (July), 899-904. Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, 46, 3, 299-313.
36
What is Schmertmann (1976)?

SCHMERTMANN, J. H. (1976) An Updated
Correlation Between Relative Density and Fugro-type
Electric Cone Bearing qc. Contract report, DACW 38-
76-M 6646. Vicksburg, Miss, Waterways Experiment
Station, 145.
who has actually read the paper
37
Comparison of correlations
SCHMERTMANN, J. H. (1975) State of the Art
Paper: Measure of In situ Strength. ASCE Conference
on In situ Measurements of Soil Properties, 2,
Raleigh, North Carolina, 57-138.
SCHMERTMANN, J. H. (1978) Guidelines for Cone

Penetration Test, Performance and Design, Report
FHWA-TS-78-209. Washington DC, Federal
Highway Administration, 145.
VILLET, W. C. B. & MITCHELL, J. K. (1981) Cone

Resistance, Relative Density and Friction Angle.
Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing and
Experience, ASCE National Convention, St Louis,
October, 178-208.
v (kPa) qc Villet-Mitchell /Schmertmann (1978)
20% 40% 60% 80%
100 1.7 1.9 1.5 1.2
200 2.0 2.1 1.7 1.3
300 2.4 2.2 1.8 1.3
38
Most famous correlation: Baldi et al. (1986)
Tests carried out

in calibration chambers
on Ticino and Hukksund sands
on normally consolidated and over consolidated
sands
= effective vertical stress if the sand is normally consolidated or as the
effective horizontal stress or effective mean stress if the soil is over
consolidated
BALDI, G., BELLOTTI, V. N., GHIONNA, N., JAMIOLKOWSKI, M. & PASQUALINI, E. (1986) Interpretation of CPT's
and CPTU's - 2nd Part: Drained Penetration of Sands. 4th International Geotechnical Seminar Field Instrumentation and In-
Situ Measurements, Nanyang Technological Institute, Singapore, 25-27 November 1986, 143- 156.
39
Most famous correlation: Baldi et al. (1986)

Normally consolidated Ticino sand
Normally consolidated Hukksund sand
40
Jamiolkowski et al. (2001)

Ticino sand, Hukksund sand and Toyoura sand
Jamiolkowski & Pasqualini: a quality control program based only on

the evaluation of relative density can be inadequate; a better estimation
of the densification of sands is possible if the effects of the stress and
strain history induced on the improved soil by compaction are
considered.
JAMIOLKOWSKI, M., LO PRESTI, D. C. F. & MANASSERO, M. (2001) Evaluation of Relative Density and Shear Strength of Sands
from CPT and DMT. Soil Behavior and Soft Ground Construction: Geotechnical Special Publication No. 119, 201-238.
JAMIOLKOWSKI, M. & PASQUALINI, E. (1992) Compaction of Granular Soils - Remarks on Quality Control. Grouting, Soil
Improvement and Geosynthetics: ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 30, 2, New Orleans, 25-28 February, 902-914.
41
Effect of carbonate sand
Comparison of qc of calcareous QS and silica TS at equal Dd

ALMEIDA, M. S. S., JAMIOLKOWSKI, M. & PETERSON, R. W. (1992 ) Preliminary Result of CPT Tests in Calcareous Quiou
Sand. Calibration Chamber Testing: First International Symposium on Calibration Chamber Testing (ISCCT1), Potsdam, NY, 28-
29 June 1991, 41-53.
42
Conclusion: Do not rely on relative density as a criterion

Due to its formulation relative density is prone to
large errors
The relationships between relative density and field
tests are not unique and are strongly influenced by
other parameters such as:
fines content
grain size & grain shape
grading & grading curve shape
effective vertical or horizontal stresses
mineralogy
compressibility & crushability
cementation, over consolidation & age
43
Thank You
44

9 TC211 HK Hamidi PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

9 TC211 HK Hamidi PDF

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

9 TC211 HK Hamidi PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

14 ARC ISSMGE Technical Committee Ground Improvement 26 May 2011

History & development of Relative Density

1925: Realization of concept

An appropriate means to define the looseness

1954: Formation of ASTM Committee D-18,

1984: Withdrawal of ASTM D2049-69

Definition: includes three parameters

emax= maximum index void ratio or the reference void

d or d = dry density/unit weight of a soil deposit or fill

ASTM Limits of Application

Soil can contain up to 15%, by dry mass, of

ASTM Limits of Application

ASTM words of caution

For many types of free-draining, cohesionless

ASTM words of caution

The engineering properties, such as strength,

Systematic error is a measure of accuracy and

SELIG, E. T. & LADD, R. S. (1973)

Yoshimi & Tohno (1973)

Yoshimi & Tohno: random errors

The terms in the parentheses are coefficients of

Yoshimi & Tohno: random errors

Cdmax=4.7 (typical clean sand)

Yoshimi & Tohno: systematic errors

Dd/Dd = relative deviation

Yoshimi & Tohno: systematic errors

Influence of systematic errors in limiting densities on relative density

Tavenas et al. (1973)

Due to the very large variability of the relative density

Tavenas et al. (1973)

Practical problems of relative density

Difficult & costly to implement at depth

Soil properties are not based only on Dd

emax & emin as a function of grain with Cu=1.4

Grain shape & gradation

emax and emin from gradational and particle shape characteristics

Correlation between limiting dry unit weights and fines content

SPT & relative density

Gibbs & Holtz - Meyerhof (1957) & USBR

MEYERHOF, G. G. (1957) Discussion on Research on Determining

Different correlations yield very different results

Lacroix & Horn (1973)

How good is the SPT for determining Dd?

Grain size, age & consolidation

Tokimatsu & Yoshimi (1983): fines content

Tokimatsu and Yoshimi themselves have not

What is Schmertmann (1976)?

who has actually read the paper

SCHMERTMANN, J. H. (1978) Guidelines for Cone

VILLET, W. C. B. & MITCHELL, J. K. (1981) Cone

v (kPa) qc Villet-Mitchell /Schmertmann (1978)

20% 40% 60% 80%

100 1.7 1.9 1.5 1.2

200 2.0 2.1 1.7 1.3

300 2.4 2.2 1.8 1.3

Most famous correlation: Baldi et al. (1986)

Tests carried out

Most famous correlation: Baldi et al. (1986)

Normally consolidated Hukksund sand