Advertisement

Evaluation of Soil Parameters by Using Light Cone Penetrometer

  • S. P. Raghu Prasanth
  • A. Arun Perumal
  • K. Ilamparuthi
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering book series (LNCE, volume 16)

Abstract

Conventional investigation methods such as standard penetration test and cone penetration test fail to identify weak deposits like soft clay, and designing the foundation without identifying the presence of such layer and its strength is risky. Under the conditions stated, a simple field testing equipment is required to operate in such deposits and is also to be well suited for projects like road works, simple buildings. One such equipment is a light cone penetrometer (LCPT). Tests are done using LCPT at a few sites, and resistances are recorded over a depth of 6 m at each location. Resistances are also measured by conducting standard penetration test at location wherever LCPT was done. Correlation between LCPT and SPT resistances is developed. Simultaneously soil samples are collected from each location of LCPT and tested in laboratory for index properties and parameters such as shear strength, compressibility and field CBR. These soil parameters are correlated with the LCPT resistance individually.

Keywords

Penetrometer test Light cone penetrometer Soil parameters Correlation 

References

  1. Aroosa, H. (2000). Correlation of static cone penetration test results and dynamic probing test results. Research study for the data of South Limburg (Vol. 1), Netherlands.Google Scholar
  2. Deepika, C., & Chakravarthy, V. K. (2012). Evaluation of properties of soil subgrade using dynamic cone penetration index. International Journal of Engineering Research and Development, 4, 7–15.Google Scholar
  3. Ilamparuthi, K. (1981). Interpretation of SCPT data. M.E. thesis, Anna University, Chennai.Google Scholar
  4. Meyerhof, G. G. (1956). Penetration tests and bearing capacity of cohesionless soils. Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering Division, ASCE, 82(1), 866–876.Google Scholar
  5. Moayed, R. Z., & Naeini S. A. (2006). Evaluation of modulus of subgrade reaction (Ks) in gravely soils based on SPT results. Imam Khomeini International University.Google Scholar
  6. Nwobasi, & Paul, A. (2013). Estimation of undrained shear strength of soil using cone penetration test. International Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research, 4, 409–420.Google Scholar
  7. Ravisharma, M. S., & Ilamparuthi, K. (2009). Interpretation of electropierocone data of Chennai coast. Journal of Ocean Engineering, 36(6–7), 511–520.Google Scholar
  8. Stroud, M. A. (1974). The standard penetration test in insensitive clays and soft rocks. In Proceedings of the 1st European Symposium on Penetration Testing (Vol. 1, pp. 372–373).Google Scholar
  9. Zaki, B. A., Fouad, G. M., & Ahmed, K. M. (1990). Density prediction by static cone penetrometer. JKAU Engineering Sciences, 2, 19–33 (Jeddah).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. P. Raghu Prasanth
    • 1
  • A. Arun Perumal
    • 1
  • K. Ilamparuthi
    • 1
  1. 1.Anna UniversityGuindy, ChennaiIndia

Personalised recommendations