<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p> Currently, can be seen a new trend in engineering geological survey, where laboratory analysis are replaced by in situ testing methods, which are more efficient and cost effective, and time saving too. A regular engineering geological survey cannot be provided by simple core drillings, macroscopic description (sometimes very subjective), and then geotechnical parameters are established based on indicative standardized values or archive values from previous geotechnical standards. The engineering geological survey is trustworthy if is composed of laboratory and in-situ testing supplemented by indirect methods of testing, [1]. The prevalence of rotary core drilling for obtaining laboratory soil samples from various depths (every 1 to 3 m), cannot be a more enhanced as continues evaluation of strata and properties e.g. by CPT Piezocone (every 1 cm). Core drillings survey generally uses small amounts of soil samples, but this is resulting to a lower representation of the subsoil and underestimation of parameters. Higher amounts of soil samples make laboratory testing time-consuming and results from this testing can be influenced by the storage and processing of the soil samples. Preference for geotechnical surveys with in situ testing is therefore a more suitable option. In situ testing using static and dynamic penetration tests can be used as a supplement or as a replacement for the (traditional) methods of surveying.</p></abstract>

Currently, can be seen a new trend in engineering geological survey, where laboratory analysis are replaced by in situ testing methods, which are more efficient and cost effective, and time saving too. A regular engineering geological survey cannot be provided by simple core drillings, macroscopic description (sometimes very subjective), and then geotechnical parameters are established based on indicative standardized values or archive values from previous geotechnical standards. The engineering geological survey is trustworthy if is composed of laboratory and in-situ testing supplemented by indirect methods of testing, [1]. The prevalence of rotary core drilling for obtaining laboratory soil samples from various depths (every 1 to 3 m), cannot be a more enhanced as continues evaluation of strata and properties e.g. by CPT Piezocone (every 1 cm). Core drillings survey generally uses small amounts of soil samples, but this is resulting to a lower representation of the subsoil and underestimation of parameters. Higher amounts of soil samples make laboratory testing time-consuming and results from this testing can be influenced by the storage and processing of the soil samples. Preference for geotechnical surveys with in situ testing is therefore a more suitable option. In situ testing using static and dynamic penetration tests can be used as a supplement or as a replacement for the (traditional) methods of surveying.

CPT Profiling and Laboratory Data Correlations for Deriving of Selected Geotechnical Parameter

Department of Geotechnics, Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Žilina, Univerzitná 8215/1, 010 26 Žilina

Department of Railway Engineering and Track Management, Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Žilina, Univerzitná 8215/1, 010 26 Žilina

Civil and Environmental Engineering

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Currently, can be seen a new trend in engineering geological survey, where laboratory analysis are replaced by in situ testing methods, which are more...

CPT Profiling and Laboratory Data Correlations for Deriving of Selected Geotechnical Parameter

Published Online: Dec 12, 2015

Page range: 152 - 157

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cee-2015-0020

Keywords
CPT profiling, In situ data correlations, Consistency of soil, Penetration resistance, Sleeve friction

© 2015

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

CPT Profiling and Laboratory Data Correlations for Deriving of Selected Geotechnical Parameter

Published Online: Dec 12, 2015

Page range: 152 - 157

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cee-2015-0020

KeywordsCPT profiling, In situ data correlations, Consistency of soil, Penetration resistance, Sleeve friction

© 2015

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Keywords
CPT profiling, In situ data correlations, Consistency of soil, Penetration resistance, Sleeve friction