Towards an Advanced New Emerging Method of Determination of Mohr–Coulomb Parameters of Soils from at the Oedometric Test: Case Study-Lateritic Soils of Cameroon

Ambassa, Zoa; Amba, Jean Chills

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/4222654

Mathematical Problems in Engineering

On this page

Abstract Introduction Conclusion Notation Data Availability Conflicts of Interest Acknowledgments References Copyright Related Articles

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2022 | Article ID 4222654 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/4222654

Towards an Advanced New Emerging Method of Determination of Mohr–Coulomb Parameters of Soils from at the Oedometric Test: Case Study-Lateritic Soils of Cameroon

Zoa Ambassa^1,2and Jean Chills Amba^1,2

Academic Editor: Binghan Xue

Received01 Sept 2022

Revised13 Nov 2022

Accepted14 Nov 2022

Published15 Dec 2022

Abstract

In this paper, we present a newly emerging approach for the use of the oedometer test for the determination of some important mechanical properties of an elastic-plastic soil using the Mohr–Coulomb yield criterion and an associated flow rule. Analysis of the oedometer test is performed in low strains. The identification of constitutive parameters is carried out by means of the Newton optimization procedure used to solve inverse problems. The consolidation test problem is solved using new equations proposed in this paper. The solution of the problem according to the equations developed in this paper was validated by the numerical modeling of an oedometric test by following the requirements and the experimental protocol from the Plaxis Finite Element code. The method has been validated through Plaxis’ software, making it reliable. The sensitivity study of the model with respect to its parameters was carried out. Laboratory results analysis over nine samples of the southern Cameroon soils are compared to those computed analytically. The major parameters are Young’s modulus, Poisson’s ratio, the internal friction angle, the cohesion, and the dilatancy angle. The mechanical properties of those soils obtained from the proposed model are very close to, or almost identical in some cases with values obtained in the laboratory. The practical validation and the application of our method have been successfully applied on the lateritic soils of Cameroon. The compressibility curves reconstituted from the proposed theoretical solution are superimposed on those resulting from laboratory tests with low dispersions.

1. Introduction

The soils behavior law are built from laboratory tests. The basis tests for these laws are the oedometric and the triaxial test [1]. Given the complexity of the behavior of soils, the difficulties encountered to determine their properties and the technical and professional requirements (deadlines, appropriate equipment, costs, etc.), engineers often use a perfectly plastic elastic model based on the Mohr–Coulomb criterion for the analysis of geotechnical structures [2].

The consolidation test makes it possible to simulate the stress that the ground has undergone in its history and that it will undergo under the loading of the work to be carried. The principle of this test is to measure the settlement W of a cylindrical soil test and subjected to a uniaxial compression σ_z increasing by preventing any lateral deformation ε_x = ε_y = 0. The two lower and upper faces of the sample are drained. Generally, the test is performed on saturated samples. During the test, we measured for each bearing the stress σ_z and the settlement as a function of time. For the whole of the test, we plot the oedometric curve, volume variation, or more specifically variation of the voids ratio index e as a function of the decimal logarithm of the stress. By simplifying, one obtains a first straight line of low slope and a second right of much higher slope. The intersection of the two lines is the maximum preconsolidation stress that the soil has known in its history. This test allows to know the initial state of the soil. The slopes of the two straight lines and C_c account for the compressibility of the soil, respectively, in the overconsolidated domain and in the normally consolidated domain [3–5]. The entire test protocol is described in French Standard Institution XP 94-090-1 of December 1997.

The Mohr–Coulomb model is characterized by five parameters: E, , Φ, Ψ, and c. These parameters are usually obtained on a triaxial test in Consolidation Isotropic Drained (CID) or undrained (CIU) on a soil sample by exploiting the experimented curves obtained as a result of this test. Young’s modulus E is extracted from the graph (q, ); (i.e: q = σ_zz − σ_yy: deviatoric stress of triaxial test). It adjusts the slope of the elastic part of the curve. For Finite Element Software applications, E₅₀ is generally considered. Poisson’s ratio is determined from the CID or CIU tests, by calculating the initial slope in the graph (, ). Indeed, . The value of dilatancy is determined from these tests, by calculating the slope of the ascending curve in the graph (, ). Indeed, [2]. The internal friction angle Φ and shear strength c are deduced from the graph (, q).

In this paper, we develop a method for determining these same parameters from an oedometric test on a various soil (mixture of sand and clay or lateritic soil) sample meeting the Mohr–Coulomb criterion, with associated flow rule (Φ = Ψ). Such a method has not been developed anywhere in the world. The motivations for this approach come from the fact that in most developing countries, Geotechnicals laboratories and Engineering’s offices often do not have triaxial equipment for laboratory testing under real stress condition; they are generally limited to performing direct shear tests. Knowing the value of a triaxial test in a drained or undrained condition and information on a test specimen of soil subjected to this test, we have initiated research in this area. That of exploiting the oedometric test (all geotechnical laboratories have an oedometric cell) to quickly determine by the inverse method the parameters of the Mohr–Coulomb model of a soil sample under drained conditions. The approach leading to this method is developed as follows.

2. Empirical Relations between Current Geotechnical Parameter

Different analytical and empirical relations have been proposed in the literature in order to link the geotechnical characteristics of soils. Authors have shown that these relations depend both on nature and stress state of the soil, although this last point is less considered in the proposed relations. In the following, different approaches proposed in the literature are presented in order to obtain Young’s Modulus of the soil as a function of the dynamic cone resistance. One drawback of such relations is that it is not always defined at which deformation level Young’s Modulus is obtained. Chua and Fernandes [6, 7] proposed an analytical solution to calculate the elastic modulus of a medium from a 1-D model for penetration analysis of a rigid projectile into an ideally locking material. A relation between the penetration index and the elastic modulus is therefore obtained for different soil natures. The results from Chua and Fernandes [6, 7] are transposed to the Panda dynamic cone penetrometer by Haddani et al. [7, 8], which are presented in Table 1. Bellotti et al. [6, 9] presented relations for the secant Young Modulus obtained from a calibration chamber for an average axial strain of 0.1.

Correlations between the dynamic cone resistance (q_d) and the California Bearing Ratio (CBR) have been extensively proposed in the literature. Some of these correlations are presented in Table 2. According to Heukelom [7, 18], the CBR and Young’s Modulus can be related by the following simple linear relation:where A is obtained experimentally and depends on both soil nature and the mean effective stress. Mohammed et al. [7, 19] evaluated both in situ static cone resistance of different cohesive soils and Young’s Modulus by laboratory tests. The following relation has been proposed:where E is Young’s Modulus, q_c is the static cone resistance, f_c is the frictional resistance, ω_n is the natural water content, ρ_d is the dry volumetric mass density, n is an integer (1, 2, 3), and a, b, c, d, and e are regression constants. Simpler direct relations have also been proposed by [7, 20, 21], as reported by [7, 22, 23], according to the following expression:

Cassan [7, 23] proposed to link the static cone resistance (q_c) and the dynamic cone resistance (q_d) for different soils by a linear relation (equation (5)) Values of C for different materials are summarized in Table 3.

Empirical relations have also been proposed between the oedometric deformation modulus (E_eod) and the static cone resistance (q_c). Buisman [7, 24] was the first to propose a linear relation (equation (6)) between E_eod and q_c. The value of α (also called Buisman coefficient) for different soil natures was largely studied by authors. The recommended values are summarized in Table 4.

The oedometric deformation modulus E_oed and Young’s Modulus E are well defined on a linear elastic material by the following relation:

In order different direct relations that vary according to the sites proposed in the literature (Table 5) between compressibility index C_c and liquid limit of the soil [25]. The unit weight of soil γ is determined by the following formula from the correlation between cone resistance q_t and the unit weight of soil [27–30]:where unit weight of water (10 kN/m³), atmospheric pressure (100 kPa); , where R_f friction ratio between skin friction and cone resistance.

For granular soils, the angle of friction, φ drops with the cone resistance, q_c value [29], and the Standard Penetration Test N₆₀ value [31]. Several correlations can be identified, among corresponding to sand [29, 31]:

For a given clay, the angle of friction, φ drops with the plasticity index, I_p value. Several correlations can be identified, among which let us cite Fahri’s [31] corresponding to French clays:

Based on the plasticity Index, for normally consolidated clays: on any given sites following correlation can be identified [31]:

Based on Menard’s Pressuremeter test, the main correlations between the Standard net limit pressure corrected from the total horizontal stress acting in the soil at test elevation () and the undrained shear strength c_u are given as follows [32]:

The main correlations between Young’s modulus E and Normalized Menard pressuremeter modulus E_M are given (Figure 1) as follows [33]:

The complete methodology adopted in this article is presented in the following section.

3. Methodology

The method consists in determining the analytical solution of a soil sample subjected to an oedometric test (with a soil satisfying the Mohr–Coulomb criterion, with associated flow rule). For a given soil sample, the game settings from Mohr–Coulomb (E, , Φ, Ψ, c) is injected into the solution to obtain a compressibility curve (volume variation curve or more specifically, variation of the void ratio index e as a function of the logarithm of the stress) theoretic equivalent to the compressibility curve obtained following an oedometric test. The two curves are superimposed by minimizing at maximum the gap between the points of curve experimental and theoretical proposed. Such an approach is commonly used in Civil Engineering. This is the case of bituminous materials [34–36], the case of determination of the shear wave velocity in saturated soft clay using measurements of the liquid limit, plastic limit, and natural water content [37], the case of the solution of the cone penetration test using triaxial parameters [38–40], the case of the solution of the expansion of a cylindrical cavity such as on a pressure meter test [41–50], and the case of analytical solution for estimation of undrained shear strength of soft soil obtained by cylinder vertical penetration [51–54].

3.1. Resolution of the Inverse Problem

The determination of the parameter of the soil behavior model from the oedometric test consists in the resolution of the inverse problem following: find a parameter set (s) that minimizes the difference between the measurements of a real test and the results obtained by integrating the behavior model expressed by the following formula (14) [42, 55–57]:

δ _mi et δ_ci,, respectively, denote the laboratory measurements and the integration result of the model for the number n stress level Δσ_i. The search for the minimum requires the use of an optimization technique. Newton’s method is used in this paper. The implementation of the said method requires solving the problem of a soil sample governed by the Mohr–Coulomb criterion, under the loading of an oedometer test. In this paper, the associated flow rule is used. The complete resolution of this problem is developed in the following section.

3.2. Problem Description

A cylindrical specimen of a material which follows the Mohr–Coulomb model is subjected to one-dimensional compression. This cylindrical specimen is pressed on one surface while all the other surfaces are confined such that they have free-slip boundary conditions (Figure 2). This oedometer test provides a direct test in this regard because the postyielding stress state resides on one of the edges of the Mohr–Coulomb yield surface.

(a)

(b)

All of the processes involved in loading and unloading a natural soil deposit can be simulated in the laboratory. An oedometer test subjects a cylindrical sample of soil to conditions similar to the deposit of silt. Basically, the oedometer consists of a very stiff steel ring enclosing the soil sample as depicted in Figure 2. The sample is loaded vertically through the loading cap by the applied load.

The applied load is increased in increments and then decreased again to simulate the processes of overburden accumulation and removal that occurred in the natural soil deposit. In most oedometer tests we would not attempt to measure the horizontal stress applied to the sample by the rigid ring, but it would be possible to do so if we wished and we could determine K₀ (coefficient of earth pressure at rest) directly. Results from oedometer tests are usually presented in terms of the vertical stress and the void ratio index of the soil. In most geomechanics texts the void ratio index is denoted by e, but we have used e earlier to represent volumetric strain. Typical data from an oedometer test are illustrated in Figure 3. The graph shows how the void ratio changes as the applied load increases. The load is represented by the logarithm of the vertical effective stress. It is usually assumed that uniform vertical stress is applied to the sample, although this may not be exactly true. A more correct assessment of the problem would suggest that we should use a mixed boundary condition on all the sample surfaces.

The uniform stress approximation will be sufficiently accurate in an average sense. There are three segments of more or less linear response in Figure 3. In the early stages of loading, the graph is linear and this portion may be interpreted as primarily an elastic response (region A). In this region, the soil particle structure is basically unchanged from its original state and little if any fragmentation and rearrangement have occurred [58]. The void ratio is decreasing, but this is primarily because of the elastic deformation of the particles themselves. The first important particle fracture corresponds to the point at which the graph becomes nonlinear (region B). The graph begins to steepen smoothly at this point as more fractures and particle rearrangement occurs. The void ratio decreases more quickly as these irreversible processes take place. A second region of linear response then appears (region C). In this region, the soil structure continues to evolve in the sense that fracture and fragmentation lead to further particle rearrangement. The distribution of particle sizes is changing as more and more particles are broken.

Finally, the applied load is reduced and unloading commences. Once again we find an approximately linear response, which we now identify as the elastic rebound of the compressed soil skeleton (region D). If the applied load is reduced to zero the void ratio index is permanently reduced and some degree of volumetric strain is permanently locked into the particle structure.

We can clearly see the region of inelastic response in Figure 3. It begins when the first particle fractures occur and the loading curve begins to bend downward and it ends when unloading commences. One of the main challenges geomechanics poses to the theory of plasticity is how to model this type of inelastic behaviour. An interesting point about the oedometer test response or the response of natural soil deposits described earlier, is that while there are significant shear stresses developed in the soil during loading, the inelastic behaviour we observe is not directly related to shearing. In fact, we could produce a similar inelastic response in a test where the soil is subjected to a purely isotropic stress. The classical theories of plasticity relate solely to inelastic response caused by shear [59]. Some important changes are required to develop a theory that encompasses behavior similar to that shown in Figure 3.

3.3. Analytics Solutions-Loading and Unloading Phase

3.3.1. Elastic Solution

The vertical elastic deformation of a soil column of height H, a function of the time and the loading speed in an oedometric mold is developed as follows:

3.3.2. Plastic Solution

Yield criteria Mohr-Coulomb plasticity are defined as follows:

During plastic flow, the strain increments are composed of elastic and plastic parts and we have the following equation:

Using the boundary conditions, we may write:

The flow rule for plastic flow along the edge of the Mohr–Coulomb criterion corresponding to has the form:where and are the potential functions corresponding to F¹ and F²:

After substitution,where and , (choice of drained or undrained parameters; using Φ′ = φ′, for drained condition or Φ = φ, for undrained condition).

By symmetry, we know :

The stress increments are given as follows:

During plastic flow, the consistency condition that should be satisfied, which takes the following form:

Solving for , we get the following equation:

3.4. Direct Oedometer Test Solution from the Applied Vertical Stress

In most soil laboratories, the oedometer test is carried out by vertical load bearing (loading-unloading reloading). In this case, the vertical deformation of the soil in the elastic zone is equivalent to the following expression [60]:

In the plastic zone, the vertical deformation of the specimen soil test which follows Mohr–Coulomb model has expressed:

The limit of elasticity of the soil body in compression corresponds to the following expression:

According to the formula (26) and (28); the equation (29), makes finding the going their maximum elastic deformation in compression in the ground. This maximum deformation in the elastic domain is described as follows:

The slopes of the straight lines of the vertical stress curve versus vertical deformation of the soil in the elastic and plastic areas are expressed by the respective following expressions: and

Using the formula (15), (18), (22), (26), (27), and (29), the settlement (elastic and plastic domain) of soil body at z = H, is obtained by applying the following expression:

For the unloading phase, the residual settlement of soil body is expressed by the relationships (31).where E: Young’s modulus (MPa); G: Shear modulus (MPa); K: Bulk modulus (MPa); : Poisson’s ratio; c′: shear strength in terms of effective stress (MPa); ′: Effective angle of shearing resistance (°); Ψ′: Effective dilatance angle (°); : Passive Earth pressure coefficient; : Passive Earth pressure coefficient depending of dilatance angle; Δt: incremental time (s); t: Time of loading/unloading/reloading (s); : Loading speed (cm/s); H: initial height of specimen or thickness of soil (cm); : settlement of the soil body for the unloading stress i: σ_i − u.

4. Verification and Validation of Elastic-Plastic Solution of Oedometer Test

We compare the approximate solutions from the PLAXIS Finite Elements code [61] with analytic solutions to a simple problem of the oedometer test at loading, including plasticity. The following parameters are used for the oedometer test for this verification: Young’s modulus of soil sample: 500 MPa; Poisson’s ratio: 0.25; friction angle: 10°; dilatance angle: 10°; shear strength (cohesion): 0.1 MPa; Δt: 10 s; time: 1920 s; loading speed: 10⁻⁵ m/s; initial height of soil sample: 1 m.

The 2-D axisymmetry model of Plaxis at 252 elements (15-node triangle) mesh size of the model is presented in Figure 4. This model was carried out according to the Mestat recommendations [2, 62]. The stress is plotted against the strain in Figure 5 for the solution of PLAXIS code and the analytical solution. Those two solutions show a good agreement.

4.1. Analysis of the Sensitivity

The analysis of the sensitivity of the method with respect to its parameters makes it possible to determine the parameters to be favored in the optimization process and the influence domain of each of them. Figures 6(a)–6(d), illustrate the sensitivity of the simulation of the oedometric test compared to Mohr–Coulomb parameters.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

It is found through Figure 6(a), that disruption of Young’s modulus strongly affects the behavior of the soil (curve σ_z, ε_z). Vertical deformations increase as Young’s modulus decreases; on the other hand, the soil enters plasticity rapidly when Young’s modulus increases while keeping the other parameters. There is also a high degree of sensitivity in the simulations with respect to Poisson’s ratio, friction angle, and soil dilatancy angle (Figures 6(b) and 6(c)). Whatever the behavior domain (elastic or plastic), the deformations increase rapidly with the increase of the values of these parameters (φ, Ψ, ν). Figure 6(d) shows that the curve is insensitive to the disruption of cohesion. In this Figure 6(d), the three curves representing the cohesion effect of the model for respective values of 50, 100, and 150 kPa are superimposed. It is also observed that the compressive yield strength is reached quickly for low values of the cohesion and the slope of the curves in the elastic range is almost the same.

5. Application of the Method on the Lateritic Soil of Cameroon

The methodology outliner is used to determine the mechanical properties of Cameroonian lateritic clays and sandy clay (Figures 7 and 8). The theoretical solution developed in the previous section is used, the curves of compressibility of soil are thus superimposed by comparing theoretical Mohr–Coulomb parameters and those from triaxial and oedometer tests on several nine samples of soil. The load applied theoretical on soil samples is the same as that which was applied in the laboratory when performing these oedometric tests. The theoretical curve of the behavior of each soil specimen (curve σ_z, ε_z) is then transformed into a compressibility curve by calculating the void ratio in the specimen under each stress. The voids ratio e_i under each stress σz_i is obtained by applying the following formula:where H is the initial height of specimen, s is the inner area of the cylindrical mold (specimen area), γ_s is the gravity specific, and is the weight of the dry soil slice constituting the test specimen.

In a conventional triaxial test, the following expressions are used to determine the parameters of Mohr–Coulomb: = (ε_xx + ε_yy + ε_zz): volumetric strain of triaxial test; ε_zz: axial strain of triaxial test; q = σ_zz − σ_yy: deviatoric stress of triaxial test (MPa) and = ( + + )/3: effective mean stress of triaxial test (MPa). Figure 9 clarifies the verification process for our method step by step.

Table 6 illustrates the laboratory results on nine soil samples (engineering properties of lateritic soil tested). The geotechnical properties of these nine application samples are derived from the South of Cameroon. The geological substratum of the plateau of South Cameroon consists essentially of metamorphic and plutonic rocks of the Precambrian age, dominated by calc-alkaline granites (Figure 7). The values of some geotechnical properties (determined according to the French Standard Institution) of this soil are gathered in Table 6. It is a reddish lateritic soil, classified as a fine grained soil (A-7-5 and A-2-7) in the AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) soil classification system [63], and sandy clay or silt (A2 to B6) in the GTR (French “Guide des Terrassements Routiers”) soil classification [64]. Table 7 and Figures 10 and 11, illustrate the laboratory results on soil samples (triaxial in Consolidation Isotropic Drained (CID) and oedometer) compared to those theoretically obtained from the method developed in this paper. Nine soils body (lateritic clay and sandy clay) are tested in a conventional laboratory tests (oedometer and triaxial) and the integrating the soil behavior model, the difference between the parameter of the laboratory test and the results obtained by integrating the behavior model expressed by formula (14) using optimization technique is small (s < 0.2 for all nine case).

(a)

(b)

This study shows that the optimization methodology operates correctly to determine the four remaining parameters of the Mohr–Coulomb model (because here Φ′ = Ψ′ for the associated flow rule). Figures 10 and 11 show the laboratory and theoretical compressibility curves of the different samples tested. The theoretical solution is very close to the experimental solution, and the differences between these different curves are relatively small. Analysis of the results of Table 7 and Figure 11 shows the essential parameters of the Mohr–Coulomb model derived from the theoretical solution of the oedometer test are almost identical to those obtained triaxial. The values of internal friction angle given by the laboratory test for the samples A5, A6, and A7, are small different from the values obtained for the other samples, giving the impression that these laboratory results (A5, A6, and A7) are erroneous.

The analysis of the parameters summarized in Table 7 also shows that the shear strength values obtained by our method are identical to those resulting from the triaxial test. The friction angle obtained by our method is slightly higher than the friction angle resulting from the triaxial for the majority of the samples. The error related to the method developed in this paper, supposed to describe all the phenomena observed in the laboratory, depends on the mathematical equations of the model and the uncertainties of experimental measurements. This error is obtained from the expression (33) and its values for the cases studied are summarized in Table 7.with or : theoretical or experimental parameter.

In the samples tested, the difference between the laboratory values and the values obtained by our method in terms of a single parameter is less than 19%.

6. Conclusion

The method developed in this paper does not replace conventional shear tests of soil. She is complementary insofar as incertain projets, the number of shear tests carried out is insufficient to really characterize the sequence according to its spacial variability. In addition to determining settlement and consolidation parameters, it will also be possible to determine shear parameters on the same samples, reducing coats and waiting times for obtaining laboratory test results. It will be possible to obtain direct correlations between the shear and deformability parameters on each soil sample tested. We have proposed in this paper, the theoretical solution for obtaining the oedometric curve compressibility of soil. Triaxial tests and oedometric tests were conducted to compare the experimental compressibility responses of soil with the theoretical solutions, which is considered to be the verification of the theory. The study for the determination of the mechanical properties of soils whose behavior can be described by an elastic model, perfectly plastic, using the Mohr–Coulomb model with an associated flow rule was carried out. The method developed showed its reliability by comparing the solution obtained on a soil sample to the solution of Plaxis Finite Element software [60]. The inverse problem for this determination was solved by the optimization method works correctly for determining the necessary parameters:(i)The study of the sensitivity of the method to its parameters has shown that the parameters of major influences are respectively Young’s modulus, Poisson’s ratio, the friction angle, and the dilatance angle of the soils;(ii)The influence of cohesion is relatively weak in the conditioning of the method. In the last phase, the method was applied to nine soils samples and its results were compared to those obtained experimentally in the laboratory;(iii)The difference between the laboratory values and the values obtained by our method is less than 19%;(iv)The results obtained in this paper are in accordance with the recent previous studies notably those of Zoa et al., [56] and Zoa and Amba [55, 57], concerning the influence of all Mohr–Coulomb parameters;(v)Our method is a good approximation of conventional laboratory tests and will probably be used by practitioners, students, and civil and Geotechnical Engineering researchers to calculate (numerical and analytical) geotechnical structures [65].

Notation

c′:	Shear strength in terms of effective stress
c:	Cohesion
c_u:	Undrained shear strength
CBR:	California bearing ratio
Cc:	Compressibility index
:	Recompression index
e:	Voids ratio index
E:	Young’s modulus
E50:	Young’s modulus estimated at 50% of deviatoric stress of triaxial test
EM:	Normalized menard pressuremeter modulus
fs:	Skin friction
G:	Shear modulus (MPa)
G_s:	Gravity specific
H:	Initial height of specimen or thickness of soil
I_p:	Plasticity index
K:	Bulk modulus
LL:	Liquid limit
N60:	Corrected standard penetration resistance
NΦ:	Passive earth pressure coefficient
NΨ:	Passive earth pressure coefficient depending of dilatance angle
p_a:	Atmospheric pressure (100 kPa)
:	Standard net limit pressure corrected from the total horizontal stress acting in the soil at test elevation
′ = (σ′_zz + σ′_xx + σ′_yy)/3:	Effective mean stress of triaxial test
:	Theoretical parameter
:	Experimental parameter
PI:	Plasticity index
PL:	Plasticity limit
q = σ_zz − σ_yy:	Deviatoric stress of triaxial test
q_d:	Dynamic cone resistance
q_c:	Cone penetration resistance
q_t:	Total cone resistance
R_f:	Friction ratio between skin friction and cone resistance
S:	Inner area of the cylindrical mold (specimen area)
T:	Time of loading/unloading/reloading
V:	Loading speed (cm/s)
:	Settlement
:	Weight of the dry soil slice constituting the test specimen
:	Settlement of the soil body for the unloading stress
(%):	Natural water content
:	Poisson’s ratio
Ψ:	Dilantance angle
Ψ′:	Effective dilatance angle
Φ:	Fiction angle
Φ′:	Effective angle of shearing resistance
:	Unit weight of soil
:	Unit weight of water (10 kN/m³)
:	Gravity specific
= (ε_xx + ε_yy + εzz):	Volumetric strain of triaxial test
ε_x = ε_y:	Lateral deformation for oedometric test
ε_zz:	Axial strain of triaxial test
Δt:	Incremental time
σ_z:	Uniaxial compression
:	Maximum preconsolidation stress.

Data Availability

The data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgments

Several people were involved in obtaining the results from this paper; there are very many of them and we cannot name them. Find our warm thanks. The authors acknowledge particularly the GéoMécanique team of the Laboratoire 3SR at Grenoble, France, and Geotechnical’s Laboratories and Engineering’s Offices of Cameroon for the facilities and support to perform the experiments.

References

S. Chanaton, L. Suched, W. Dariusz, B. Arumugam, O. Erwin, and G. Hong, “Stiffness and strength parameters for hardening soil model of soft and stiff Bangkok clays,” Soils and Foundations, vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 682–697, 2012.
View at: Google Scholar
P. Mestat and P. Humbert, “Référentiel de tests pour la vérification de la programmation des lois de comportement dans les logiciels d’éléments finis,” Bulletin des Laboratoires des Ponts et Chaussees, vol. 230, pp. 23–38, 2001.
View at: Google Scholar
M. Y. Fattah, A. A. Al-Saidi, and M. M. Jaber, “Consolidation properties of compacted soft soil stabilized with lime-silica fume mix,” Internatonal Journal of Scientific & Engineering Reasearch, vol. 5, no. 7, pp. 1675–1682, 2014.
View at: Google Scholar
H. Mekkiyah, M. Y. Fattah, and I. A. Abed, “Suction effect on shear strength of an overconsolidated unsaturated soil,” Journal of Engineering Science & Technology, vol. 16, no. 4, School of Engineering. Taylor’s University, 2021.
View at: Google Scholar
K. W. Abd Al-Kaream, M. Y. Fattah, and M. k. Hameedi, “Compressibility and strength development of soft soil by polypropylene fiber,” InternationalJournal of GEOMATE, vol. 22, no. 93, pp. 91–97, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. M. Chua, “Determination of CBR and elastic modulus of soils using a portable pavement dynamic cone penetrometer,” in 1^st International Symposium on Penetration Testing, ISOPT-1, D. Ruiter, Ed., pp. 407–414, Orlando, 1988.
View at: Google Scholar
V. A. Fernandes, “Numerical analysis of nonlinear soil behavior and heterogeneity effects on railway track response,” Ecole Centrale de Paris, France, 2014, Thèse de Doctorat en Génie civil.
View at: Google Scholar
Y. Haddani, G. Saussine, P. Breul, M. B. Navarrete, and R. Gourvès, “Estimation de la portance et de la raideur des plateformes ferroviaires par couplage d’essai Panda et géondoscope,” in Symposium International GEORAIL, Paris, France, 2011.
View at: Google Scholar
R. Bellotti, V. Ghionna, M. Jamiolkowski, and P. K. Robertson, “Shear strength of sand from CPT,” in Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, vol. 1, pp. 179–184, Rio de Janeiro, 1989.
View at: Google Scholar
E. G. Kleyn, The Use of Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP),” Technical Report, Transvl Roads Departement, Pretoria, South Africa, 1975.
M. Livneh, “Validation of correlations between a number of penetration tests and in situ California Bearing Ratio Tests,” Transportation Research Record, vol. 1219, pp. 56–67, 1987.
View at: Google Scholar
J. A. Harison, “Correlation between California bearing ratio and dynamic cone penetrometer strength measurement of soils,” Proceedings - Institution of Civil Engineers, vol. 83, no. 4, pp. 833–844, 1987.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Livneh, I. Ishai, and N. A. Livneh, “Automated DCP Device versus manual DCP device,” Road and Transport Reseach, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 48–61, 1992.
View at: Google Scholar
S. L. Webster, R. H. Grau, and T. P. Williams, “Description and application of dual mass dynamic cone penetrometer,” Tech. Rep., Department of Army, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, 1992, Technical report.
View at: Google Scholar
D. Ese, J. MyreP, M. Noss, and E. Vaernea, “The use of dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) for road strengthening design in Norway,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Bearing Capacity of Roads and Airfield, pp. 3–22, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 1994.
View at: Google Scholar
Ncdot, “Pavement conditions survey manual,” Tech. Rep., North Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh, N.C, USA, 1998, Technical report.
View at: Google Scholar
J. W. Coonse, “Estimating California Bearing Ratio of cohesive Piedmont residual soil using the Scala dynamic cone penetrometer,” The North Carolina State University, Carolina, CA, USA, 1999, Msc. thesis.
View at: Google Scholar
W. Heukelom and A. J. G. Klomp, “Dynamic testing as a means of controlling pavements during and after construction,” in Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Structural Design of Asphalt Pavements, pp. 667–697, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1962.
View at: Google Scholar
L. N. Mohammed, H. H. Titi, and A. Herath, “Evaluation of resilient modulus of subgrade soil by cone penetration test,” Transportation Research Record, vol. 1652, pp. 236–245, 2000.
View at: Google Scholar
J. H. Schmertmann, “Static cone to compute static settlement over sand,” Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, vol. 96, no. 3, pp. 1011–1043, 1970.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. G. Trofimenkov, “Penetration testing in URSS - state of art report,” in European Symposium on Penetration Testing, Routledge, Stockholm, 1974.
View at: Google Scholar
F. Amini, “Potential applications of dynamic and static cone penetrometers in MDOT pavement design and construction,” Tech. Rep., Jackson State University, USA, 2003, Technical Report.
View at: Google Scholar
M. Cassan, “Réalisations et interprétations,” in Les essais in situ en mécanique des sols. 1 - Réalisation et Interprétation, pp. 509–573, Eyrolles, Paris, 1988.
View at: Google Scholar
A. S. K. Buisman, Groundmechanica, Waltman, Delft, 1940.
Geo 5 software, “Material model and soil,” User guide, 2019.
View at: Google Scholar
M. Bachelier and L. Parez, “Contribution à l’étude de la compressibilité des sols à l’aide du pénétromètre à cône,” in 6ème Congrès International de Mécanique des Sols et des Travaux de Fondations, pp. 3–7, University of Toronto Press, Montreal, 1965.
View at: Google Scholar
En Iso 22476-1, “Geotechnical investigation and testing - field testing,” Part 1: Electrical cone and piezocone penetration test, 2013.
View at: Google Scholar
En Iso 22476-12, “Geotechnical investigation and testing - field testing,” Part 12: Mechanical cone penetration test (CPTM), 2009.
View at: Google Scholar
P. K. Robertson, “Interpretation of cone penetration tests – a unified approach,” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, vol. 46, no. 11, pp. 1337–1355, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. K. Robertson and K. L. Cabal, Guide to Cone Penetration Testing for Geotechnical Engineering, Gregg Drilling & Testing, Inc, California, CA, USA, 2014.
Asiri, Recommendations for the Design, Construction and Control of Rigid Inclusion Ground Improvements, France, 2013.
F. Baguelin, J. F. Jézéquel, and D. H. Shields, The Pressuremeter and Foundation Engineering, Trans Tech Publications, Clausthal, 1978.
Arscop, Developper les lois de comportement permettant à partir du pressiomètre d’alimenter les calculs numériques, Paris, France, 2018.
Z. Ambassa, Méthodes Avancées de Dimensionnement des Chaussées Bitumineuses Routières sous Chargements Complexes, Editions Universitaires Européennes, 2013.
Z. Ambassa, F. Allou, C. Petit, and R. M. Eko, “Fatigue life prediction of an asphalt pavement subjected to multiple axle loadings with viscoelastic FEM,” Construction and Building Materials, vol. 43, pp. 443–452, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. Ambassa, R. Medjo Eko, F. Allou, and C. Petit, “Identification des paramètres de Kelvin Voigt Généralisé des matériaux bitumineux et leur intégration dans le code Cast3M pour la modélisation réaliste des chaussées bitumineuses,” Actes des 8e Journées Africaines de la Géotechnique, Douala, Cameroun, 2016.
View at: Google Scholar
S. M. Ahmed, “Assessment of clay stiffness and strength parameters using index properties,” Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 579–593, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Alonso, N. Pinyol, and A. Gens, “Compacted soil behaviour: initial state, structure and constitutive modelling,” Géotechnique, vol. 63, no. 6, pp. 463–478, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Ali, “Caractérisation améliorée des sols par l’essai de chargement de pointe au piézocone. Application au calcul des fondations profondes,” Université Blaise Pascal-Clermont-Ferrand, France, 2010, Thèse de Doctorat en Génie civil.
View at: Google Scholar
S. Zhou, “Caractérisation des sols de surfaces à l’aide du pénétromètre dynamique léger à énergie variable type PANDA,” Université Blaise Pascal-Clermont-Ferrand, France, 1997, Thèse de Doctorat en Génie civil.
View at: Google Scholar
R. Salgado and M. Prezzi, “Computation of cavity expansion pressure and penetration resistance in sands,” International Journal of Geomechanics, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 251–265, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. Shahrour, A. Kasdi, and N. Abriak, “Utilisation de l'essai pressiométrique pour la détermination des propriétés mécaniques des sables obéissant au critère de Mohr-Coulomb avec une règle d'écoulement non associée,” Revue Française de Geotechnique, vol. 73, pp. 27–33, 1995.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. S. Vesic, “Expansion of cavities in infinite soil mass,” Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, vol. 98, no. 3, pp. 265–290, 1972.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
O. Combarieu, “Estimation rapide de l’angle de frottement d’un sol granulaire au pressiomètre,” Bulletin des Laboratoires des Ponts et Chaussees, vol. 203, pp. 121–123, 1995.
View at: Google Scholar
O. Combarieu, “Capacité portante des fondations superficielles: pressiomètre et essais de laboratoire,” Bulletin des Laboratoires des Ponts et Chaussees, vol. 211, pp. 53–72, 1997.
View at: Google Scholar
W. Frikha, M. Bouassida et al., “Identification des caractéristiques mécaniques d’un sol purement frottant à partir de l’essai pressiométrique,” in Proceedings of the International Conference 50 ans de pressiomètre, vol. 1, Presse de l’ENPC, August 2005.
View at: Google Scholar
J. Monnet and J. Khlif, “Étude théorique de l'équilibre élasto-plastique d'un sol pulvérulent autour du pressiomètre,” Revue Française de Geotechnique, vol. 67, pp. 3–12, 1994.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Mo, A. M. Marshall, and H. Yu, “Elastic-plastic solutions for expanding cavities embedded in two different cohesive-frictional materials,” International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, vol. 38, no. 9, pp. 961–977, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Salançon, “Expansion quasi statique d’une cavité sphérique ou cylindrique dans un milieu élastoplastique,” Annales des Ponts et Chaussees, vol. 3, pp. 175–187, 1966.
View at: Google Scholar
H. S. Yu and G. T. Houlsby, “Finite cavity expansion in dilatant soils: loading analysis,” Géotechnique, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 173–183, 1991.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. D. Murff, D. A. Wagner, and M. F. Randolph, “Pipe penetration in cohesive soil,” Géotechnique, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 213–229, 1989.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. P. Aubeny, H. Shi, and J. D. Murff, “Collapse loads for a cylinder embedded in trench in cohesive soil,” International Journal of Geomechanics, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 320–325, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. N. Equihua-Angiano, M. Orozco-Calderon, and P. Foray, “Estimation of undrained shear strength of soft soil obtained by cylinder vertical penetration,” in Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, pp. 2933–2936, Paris, 2013.
View at: Google Scholar
C. Eun-seo, “Computational approaches to localized deformation within the lithosphere and for crust-mantle interactions,” California Institute of Technology, California, CL, USA, 2008, Ph.D. thesis.
View at: Google Scholar
Z. Ambassa and J. C. Amba, “Assessment of stiffness and strength parameters for the soft soil Model of clays of Cameroon,” Advances in Civil Engineering, vol. 2020, pp. 1–16, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. Ambassa, A. J. Chills, and M. A. R. A. Francois, “Monitoring and numerical modeling of the full scale experimental embankment on soft Douala clays of Cameroon,” International Journal of Civil Engineering & Technology, vol. 11, no. 7, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. Ambassa and J. C. Amba, “A new calculation method for the bearing capacity of shallow foundations from the shear waves velocity,” International Journal of Civil Engineering & Technology, vol. 9, no. 5, 2018.
View at: Google Scholar
R. O. Davis and A. P. S. Selvadurai, Plasticity and Geomechanics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002.
R. Hill, The Mathematical Theory of Plasticity, Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom, 1998.
Plaxis©, “Finite element code for soil and rock analysis,” Material Models Manual, vol. 8, p. 256, 2018.
View at: Google Scholar
P. Mestat, “Maillage d’éléments finis pour les ouvrages géotechniques. Conseils et recommandations,” Bulletin des Laboratoires des Ponts et Chaussees, vol. 212, pp. 39–64, 1997.
View at: Google Scholar
P. Mestat, P. Humbert, and A. Dubouchet, “Recommandations pour la vérification des modèles d’éléments finis en géotechnique,” Bulletin des Laboratoires des Ponts et Chaussees, vol. 229, pp. 33–51, 2000.
View at: Google Scholar
B. M. Das, Principles of Geotechnical Engineering, Cengage Learning, USA, 2014.
Gtr, “Guide des Terrassements Routiers, realization de remblais et des couches de forme, fascicules I et II,” SETRA-LCPC, p. 211, 2000.
View at: Google Scholar
G. Sanglerat, Le pénétromètre et la reconnaissance des sols: interpretation des diagrammes de pénétration, théorie et pratique, Dunod, 1965.

Copyright

Copyright © 2022 Zoa Ambassa and Jean Chills Amba. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies