Determination of the presence of microstructure in a soil using a seismic dilatometer

Original Paper


This article shows an approach for investigating the presence of microstructure in a soil based on the results obtained by seismic dilatometer (SDMT). Three main parameters are considered: intermediate dilatometer test (DMT) parameters material index (ID) and horizontal stress index (KD) and small strain stiffness (G0) obtained by shear wave velocity (Vs) measurements. The approach is engineering-oriented since it is simple, fast, inexpensive, and based directly on in situ measurements. We found that with increasing microstructure (cementation and aging) the ratio of measured to estimated G0 increases, which could be used to improve interpretation of empirically determined geotechnical parameters from DMT results. Applications of a DMT-based, CPT-based and Vs-based correlations for determination of effective peak friction angle of sands, with and without presence of microstructure, are evaluated. Finally, we propose an approach to reducing the influence of microstructure on K0–KD correlation in a clay.


Microstructure Dilative Contractive Small strain stiffness 


  1. Alonso EE, Gens A, Josa A (1990) A constitutive model for partially saturated soils. Geotechnique 40(3):405–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amoroso S, Rodrigues C, Viana da Fonseca A, Cruz N (2015) Liquefaction evaluation of Aveiro sands from SCPTU and SDMT Tests. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on the flat dilatometer DMT'15, Roma, pp 293–300Google Scholar
  3. Andrus RD, Hayati H, Mohanan NP (2009) Correcting liquefaction resistance for Aged Sands using measured to estimated velocity ratio. J Geotech Geoenviron 135(6):735–744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Wen B-P, Yan Y-J (2014) Influence of structure on shear characteristics of the unsaturated loess in Lanzhou, China. Eng Geol 168:46–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berisavljevic D, Berisavljevic Z, Čebašek V, Šušić N (2014) Characterisation of collapsing loess by seismic dilatometer. Eng Geol 181:180–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berisavljevic D, Rakic D, Susic N, 2015. SDMT – a tool for in situ identification of collapsible soils. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on the Flat Dilatometer DMT'15, Roma, pp 457–463Google Scholar
  7. Briaud JL, Miran J (1992) The flat dilatometer test. Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC. Publication No. FHWASA-91-044, p 102Google Scholar
  8. Burland JB (1990) On the compressibility and shear strength of natural clays. Geotechnique 40(3):329–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Campanella RG, Robertson PK (1991) Use and interpretation of research dilatometer. Can Geotech J 28:113–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cotecchia F, Chandler RJ (1997) The influence of structure on the pre-failure behaviour of a natural clay. Geotechnique 47(3):523–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cruz N, Rodrigez C, Viana da Fonseca A (2012) Detecting the present of cementation structures in soils, based in DMT interpreted charts. In: Couthino, Mayne (eds) In geotechnical and geophysical site characterization. Taylor and Francis group, London, pp 1723–1728Google Scholar
  12. Cuccovillo T, Coop MR (1997) Yielding and pre-failure deformation of structured sands. Geotechnique 47(3):491–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Devincenzi MJ, Canicio M (2001) Geotechnical characterization by in situ tests of a loess-like deposit in its natural state and after saturation. Proceedings of the International Conference on In-Situ Measurement of Soil Properties and Case Histories, Bali, Indonesia, 159–166Google Scholar
  14. Diaz-Rodriguez JA, Santamarina JC (2001) Mexico City soil behavior at different strains: observations and physical interpretation. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 127(9):783–789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Durgunoglu TH, Mitchell JK (1973) Static penetration resistance of soils. Prepared for NASA Headquarters, Washington, D. C. under NASA Grant NGR 05–003-406, "Lunar Soil Properties and Soil Mechanics"Google Scholar
  16. Fernandez A, Santamarina JC (2001) Effect of cementation on the small strain parameters of sands. Can Geotech J 38(1):191–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gasparre A, Coop MR (2008) Quantification of the effects of structure on the compression of a stiff clay. Can Geotech J 45:1324–1334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Giacheti HL, Peixoto ASP, De Mio G, Carvalho D (2006) Flat dilatometer testing in Brazilian tropical soils. In: Failmezger RA, Anderson JB (eds). Second International Conference on the Flat Dilatometer, Washington. Vol. 1. ASCE, Washington, DC p 103–110Google Scholar
  19. Hayati H, Andrus RD (2009) Updated liquefaction resistance correction factors for Aged Sands. J Geotech Geoenviron 135(11):1683–1692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Heineck KS, Coop MR, Consoli NC (2005) Effect of microreinforcement of soils from very small to large shear strains. J Geotech Geoenviron 131(8):1024–1033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jamiolkowski M, Ghionna V, Lancellotta R, Pasqualini E (1988) New Correlations of Penetration Tests for Design Practice. Proc. ISOPT- 1, Orlando, Florida,z 1:263–296Google Scholar
  22. Jamiolkowski M, Lo Presti DCF, Manassero M (2001) Evaluation of relative density and shear strength of sands from cone penetration test (CPT) and flat dilatometer test (DMT). ASCE Geotechnical Spec Publ 119:201–238Google Scholar
  23. Jiang M, Zhang F, Hu H, Cui Y, Peng J (2014) Structural characterization of natural loess and remolded loess under triaxial tests. Eng Geol 181:249–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jotisankasa A, Ridley A, Coop MR (2007) Collapse behavior of compacted Silty clay in suction-monitored Oedometer apparatus. J Geotech Geoenviron 133(7):867–877CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kulhawy FH, Mayne PW (1990) Estimating soil properties for foundation design. EPRI report EL-6800. Palo Alto, Electric Power Research Institute, p 306Google Scholar
  26. Lacasse S, Lunne T (1988) Calibration of dilatometer correlations. Proceedings of ISOPT-1, Orlando, FL, Vol. 1, 539–548Google Scholar
  27. Lambe TW, Whitman RV (1969) Soil mechanics. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Larsson R (1989) Dilatometerförsök (dilatometer tests) [in Swedish]. Swedish Geotechnical Institute, Information No. 10, LinköpingGoogle Scholar
  29. Leroueil S, Vaughan PR (1990) The general and congruent effects of structure in natural soils and weak rocks. Geotechnique 40(3):467–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lunne T, Powell JJM, Hauge EA, Uglow IM, Mokkelbost KH (1990) Correlation of dilatometer readings to lateral stress. Paper submitted to specialty session on measurement of lateral stress. 69th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  31. Lutenegger AJ, Donchev P (1983) Flat dilatometer testing in some meta-stable loess soils. Proc Int Symp In-Situ Testing Soil Rock Properties 2:337–340Google Scholar
  32. Marchetti S (1980) In situ tests by flat dilatometer. J Geotech Eng 106(3):299–321Google Scholar
  33. Marchetti S (1997) The flat dilatometer: design applications. Proceedings of the Third International Geotechnical Engineering Conference, Cairo University, Soil Mechanics and Foundation Research Laboratory, Egypt: 423–448Google Scholar
  34. Marchetti S (2014) The seismic dilatometer for in situ soil investigations. Proceedings of the Indian Geotechnical Conference IGC-2014, Kakinada, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  35. Marchetti S (2015) Some 2015 updates to the TC16 DMT report 2001. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on the Flat Dilatometer DMT'15, Roma, pp 43–65Google Scholar
  36. Marchetti S, Monaco P, Totani G, Calabrese M (2001) The flat dilatometer (DMT) in soil investigations (ISSMGE TC16). Proceedings of the International Conference on In-Situ Measurement of Soil Properties and Case Histories, Bali, Indonesia, 95–131Google Scholar
  37. Marchetti S, Monaco P, Totani G, Marchetti D (2008) In situ tests by seismic dilatometer (SDMT). In Laier JE, Crapps DK, Hussein MH (eds), From research to practice in geotechnical engineering, ASCE Geotech. Special Publication No. 180 (honoring Dr. John H. Schmertmann), pp 292–311Google Scholar
  38. Mayne PW (2015) Peak friction angle of undisturbed sands using DMT. 3rd International Conference on the Flat Dilatometer DMT'15, Roma, pp 237–242Google Scholar
  39. Mayne PW (2014) Interpretation of geotechnical parameters from seismic piezocone tests. Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing, Las Vegas, Nevada, 47–73Google Scholar
  40. Mlynarek Z, Wierzbicki J, Manka M. (2015) Geotechnical parameters of loess soils from CPTU and SDMT. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on the flat dilatometer DMT'15, Roma, pp 481–488Google Scholar
  41. Monaco P, Marchetti S, Totani G, Marchetti D (2009) Interrelationship between small strain modulus G0 and operative modulus. In: Kokusho T, Tsukamoto Y, Yoshimine M (eds) Performance-based Design in Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering- from case history to practice, proc. IS-Tokyo 2009, Tsukuba, Japan, June 15–17. Taylor & Francis Group, London (CD-Rom), pp 1315–1323Google Scholar
  42. Mulabdic M, Minazek K (2015) Use of dilatometer in unusual difficult soils – a case study. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on the Flat Dilatometer DMT'15, Roma, pp 497–504Google Scholar
  43. Ortigao JAR (1994) Dilatometer tests in Brasilia porous clay. 7th International Congress of the International Association of Engineering Geology, Lisbon, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  44. Ortigao JAR, Cunha RP, Alves LS (1995) In situ tests in Brasilia porous clay. Can Geotech J 33:189–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pestana JM, Salvati LA (2006) Small-strain behavior of granular soils. I: model for cemented and Uncemented Sands and gravels. J Geotech Geoenviron 132(8):1071–1081CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Powell JJM, Uglow IM (1988) The interpretation of the Marchetti Dilatometer Test in UK clays. ICE Proceedings of the Conference on Penetration Testing in the UK, University of Birmingham, Paper No. 34, 269–273Google Scholar
  47. Rinaldi VA, Redolfi ER, Santamarina JC (1998) Characterization of collapsible soils with combined geophysical and penetration testing. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Site Characterization, ISC ‘98, vol. 1, Atlanta (GA)Google Scholar
  48. Rinaldi VA, Santamarina JC (2008) Cemented soils: small strain stiffness. In: Burns, Mayne and Santamarina (eds) IOS-Millpress. Deformational Characteristics of Geomaterials 1:267–274Google Scholar
  49. Rivera-Cruz I, Howie J, Vargas-Herrera LA, Coto-Loria M, Luna-Gonzalez O (2012) A new approach for identification of soil behaviour type from seismic dilatometer (SDMT) data. In: Couthino, Mayne X (eds) In geotechnical and geophysical site characterization. Taylor and Francis group, London, pp 947–954Google Scholar
  50. Robertson PK (2010) Estimating in-situ state parameter and friction angle in sandy soils from CPT. 2nd International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing, CPT’10, Huntington Beach (CA)Google Scholar
  51. Robertson PK (2012) Interpretation of in-situ tests – some insights. J.K. Mitchell Lecture, Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Site Characterization, ISC’4, Porto de Galinhas, Brazil, 3–24Google Scholar
  52. Robertson PK (2015) Soil behavior type using the DMT. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on the Flat Dilatometer DMT'15, Roma, pp 243–250Google Scholar
  53. Robertson PK (2016) Cone penetration test (CPT)-based soil behaviour type (SBT) classification system — an update. Can Geotech J 53:1910–1927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rocha BP, Castro BAC, Giacheti GL (2015) Seismic DMT Test in a non-text book type geomaterial. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on the Flat Dilatometer DMT'15, Roma, pp 505–512Google Scholar
  55. Sally JP (1991) Measurement of in situ lateral stress during full displacement penetration tests [Ph.D. Thesis]. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, pp 485Google Scholar
  56. Schmertmann JH (1978) Guidelines for cone penetration test, performance and design. Report FHWA-TS-78-209, Washington, 145Google Scholar
  57. Schmertmann JH (1988) Guidelines for using the CPT, CPTU and Marchetti DMT for geotechnical design. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Research and Special Studies, Report No. FHWA-PA- 87 023+24, Vol. 3–4Google Scholar
  58. Schnaid F (2005) Geo-characterisation and properties of natural soils by in situ tests. Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, vol. 1, Osaka, Millpress, Rotterdam, pp 3–45Google Scholar
  59. Schnaid F, Odebrech E (2015) Challenges in the interpretation of the DMT in tailings. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on the Flat Dilatometer DMT'15, Roma, pp 13–23Google Scholar
  60. Schneider JA, Moss RES (2011) Linking cyclic stress and cyclic strain based methods for assesment of cyclic liquefaction triggering in sands. Geotechnique Lett 1:31–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Smith MG, Houlsby GT (1995) Interpretation of the Marchetti dilatometer in clay. Proc 11th ECSMFE 1:247–252Google Scholar
  62. Uzielli M, Mayne PW, Cassidy MJ (2013) Probabilistic assessment of design strengths for sands from in-situ testing data, Modern geotechnical design codes of practice, advances in Soil Mechanics & Geotechnical Engineering (series), vol 1. IOS Millpress, Amsterdam, pp 214–227Google Scholar
  63. Viana da Fonseca A, Carvalho J, Ferreira C, Santos JA, Almeida F, Pereira E, Feliciano J, Grade J, Oliveira A (2006) Characterization of a profile of residual soil from granite combining geological, geophysical and mechanical testing techniques. Geotech Geol Eng 24:1307–1348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Yamamuro JA, Wood FM, Lade PV (2008) Effect of depositional method on the microstructure of silty sand. Can Geotech J 45:1538–1555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Yu HS (2004) In situ soil testing: from mechanics to interpretation. 1st J. K. Mitchell Lecture, Proceedings of ISC-2, Porto. 1, 3–38Google Scholar
  66. Yun TS, Santamarina JC (2005) Decementation, softening, and collapse: changes in small-strain shear stiffness in k0 loading. ASCE J Geotech Geoenviro Eng 131(3):350–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Transportation CIP LtdBelgradeRepublic of Serbia
  2. 2.Corridors of Serbia Ltd.BelgradeRepublic of Serbia

Personalised recommendations