University of Central Florida Penetration Testing Lab Report Write introduction, background and discussion for lab report. Three files are uploaded, one is

University of Central Florida Penetration Testing Lab Report Write introduction, background and discussion for lab report. Three files are uploaded, one is the lab report that you will edit and write on it. The second file has the requirement and instructions you have to follow when wiring. The third file is an example that the final paper should look like it. The information you will write in the introduction, background and testing method have to be from reliable sources and then reference those sources at the end of the report. The discussion part will be based on the data provided on the file will be edited, the instruction shows what you have to write in that part and also you can see the example to have an idea. Introduction
Cone Penetration Testing (CPT) is an in-situ testing method used to determine geotechnical
engineering properties of soils and precisely describing soil layers and it is currently one of the
most widely used methods. The CPT begins on the ground surface and determines the tip
resistance during penetration. The mechanics of the test begins with the cone tip penetrating the
soil at a constant rate of 20 mm/s. Readings are continuously obtained and usually recorded
every 20 mm and as the cone penetrates through the soil, the cone has a sleeve load cell that
measures sleeve friction and a tip load cell that measures the tip stress (Gouda-Geo). All the data
and measurements are recorded on the computer that is connected to the rig.
Cone Penetration Testing has different methods and variations based on the CPT rig. Rigs can
vary in size from portable sizes to large truck-mounted ones and the large truck-mounted rig was
used to conduct the experiment of this lab. Each rig has its own purpose and many factors
contribute to the size chosen to carry out the test. The most important factor is the surface
conditions as the type of condition in a particular location will determine the size of the rig. CPT
is not only effective for delineating soil stratigraphy but is also used to determine the
liquefaction-triggering resistance of each soil layer. This helps to determine if layers are
predicted to liquefy for different levels of earthquake shaking (VertekCPT).
Moreover, the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) is an alternative method for determining the
mechanical properties of soil. SPT differs to CPT such that, the tool used for the SPT is
hammered into the soil and not pushed like that of the CPT rig. Additionally, according to Lewis,
SPT uses manual data collection, whilst CPT uses electronic data collection.
In-situ tests and lab tests are different such that in-situ tests are done at the existing location of
the soil to be tested whilst for a lab test, a soil sample is taken and tested away from the source.
One advantage of in-situ testing is that it is done without any disturbance caused by sampling.
Disturbances caused by sampling can potentially alter the particle arrangement and stresses or
strains. In comparison to lab testing, in-situ testing generates more practical results as larger
volumes are tested. Also, in-situ tests are fast and cost effective. One disadvantage of in-situ
testing is that the behavior and drainage conditions of the soil being tested will not be known.
One big advantage the CPT as an in-situ test is that you don’t have to wait for your sample results
to get back from a lab. This is very beneficial when you are pressed for time. The disadvantage
of this test method would be that a disturbance caused will lead to the sample having a boundary
layer between two soil types and become mixed, making the soils more difficult to identify.
Geotechnical Boring and CPT provide great options for obtaining useful information, therefore
there are more benefits to using CPT over drilling. CPT is not only a cost-effective option but it
1
also provides immediate data review. On the other hand, SPT tests are simpler to conduct but is a
harsh method, causing samples to be disturbed. The results obtained are usually variable and
uncertain.
Background
The CPT test by itself has roots that date back to the 1930’s, Records indicate on a roadway in
close proximity to Gouda in the Netherlands, A civil servant by the name of Pieter Barentsen
perform the first test on record by pushing a 10 cm3 cone manually, by only using his own body
weight to do so. This method invented a way to accurately measure the soil resistance on a
conical tip. By using this CPT test he could measure the “hydraulic pressure gauge.” However,
the CPT test today is no longer done manually but is digitally recorded.
Testing Method
The Cone Penetration Test was done at the University of South Florida’s Geo park. Data from
the CPT investigation was gathered using the College of Engineering’s CPT testing rig. As the
cone advanced through the soil, tip stress and sleeve stress were relayed to an excel file through a
MegaDaq data acquisition system. The test ended when the force of the soil pushing against the
cone was enough to overcome the weight of the truck to which the CPT rig was attached.
Although hand augers was not used for this experiment, it is a manual procedure and approach to
obtain soil sample. Hand augers method differs from the CPT procedure since the hand augers
are filled with soil during the drilling process and must be periodically lifted to the surface and
emptied.
Figure 1: CPT Apparatus (left) & Penetrating Cone (right)
2
Data Analysis and Results
Tip Stress vs. Depth
Sleeve Stress vs. Depth
Tip Stress (ksf)
50
100
150
200
250
Tip Stress (ksf)
300
350
400
0
6600
0
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
11
11
12
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
0
6800
6900
7000
7100
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
20
21
21
22
22
23
23
24
24
Figure 1 – Tip Stress v Depth
6700
Figure 2- Sleeve Stress v Depth
3
Friction Ratio vs. Depth
Equivalent SPT-N vs. Depth
Friction Ratio (%)
1
2
3
4
SPT-N
5
6
7
0
0
0
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
11
11
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
0
12
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
20
21
21
22
22
23
23
24
24
Figure 3 – Friction Ratio v Depth
10
Figure 4 – SPT – N v Depth
4
Soil Profile
Depth (ft)
0.000
0.683
0.701
0.755
0.768
0.825
0.843
Legend
Sandy Silt
Silty Sand
Very Stiff
Fine Grained
8.717
8.737
9.176
9.190
10.541
10.559
11.535
11.553
18.027
18.042
18.511
18.526
21.733
21.749
21.785
21.800
21.928
Figure 5 – Soil Profile
5
Table 1. Showing the onsite testing Sand Type,Soil description and Average phi (deg)
Depth (ft)
Soil Type
Soil Description
Average ? (deg)
0-0.22
Sand
Silty Sand
29.6
0.24
Clay
Sandy Silty
0.00
0.25-0.68
Sand
Silty Sand
29.76
0.69-0.75
Sand
Very Stiff Fine Grained
34.0
0.76-0.83
Sand
Sandy Silt
0.00
0.84-3.00
Sand
Silty Sand
31.2
3.02-6.87
Sand
Silty Sand
30.7
6.88-6.90
Clay
Sandy Silty
0.00
6.92-6.96
Sand
Silty Sand
32.0
6.97
Clay
Sandy Silt
0.0
6.99
Sand
Silty Sand
32.0
7.00
Clay
Sandy Silt
0.00
7.02-8.70
Sand
Silty Sand
32.0
8.74-9.17
Clay
Sandy Silt
0.00
9.18-10.54
Sand
Silty Sand
31.6
10.55-11.54
Clay
Sandy Silt
0.00
11.55-13.32
Clay
Silty Sand
30.8
13.34-13.35
Clay
Sandy Silt
0.00
13.37-17.25
Sand
Silty Sand
30.5
17.26-17.33
Clay
Sandy Silt
0.00
17.40-18.02
Sand
Silty Sand
31.7
6
18.03-18.48
Clay
Sandy Silt
0.00
18.498
Sand
Silty Sand
32.0
18.511
Clay
Sandy Silt
0.00
18.52-21.73
Sand
Silty Sand
31.2
21.74-21.78
Clay
Sandy Silt
0.00
21.8-21.928
Sand
Very Stiff Fine Grained
34.0
Table 2. Showing the laboratory testing soil description and soil type at depth 1-3ft
Depth (ft)
Soil Type
Soil Description
1.00-3.00
Sand
Poorly Graded Sand with Clay
Conclusion
Based on the soil samples taken from USF’S GeoTech Park, it was concluded that soil taken
mostly consisted of sand. Silty sand dominates the soil profile with some occasional smaller
layers of sandy silt. The largest layer of silty sand stretched from .84’ to 8.7’ and another large
layer was between 11.5’ to 18’. Layers of sandy silt tended to be about 1 to 1.5’ thick between
the layers of silty sand. Very stiff fine grained soils were encountered at the end of test about 22
below ground level which the cone only penetrated about 1.5”. Therefore, when looking at the
total depth , the soil was classified as sand with miniscule layers of silt/clay. This information is
presented graphically in the soil profile above (Figure 5).
The results for the onsite testing data and the Soil Classification laboratory experiment data at
depths 1-3 ft were very similar and both classified the majority of soil as Sand. However, the
onsite testing data had a majority soil description of Silty Sand while the laboratory testing data
had a soil description of Poorly Graded Sand . As for the friction angle, the comparison between
the onsite data and Direct Shear laboratory experiment data can not be done since the soil sample
tested for Direct Shear experiment was not the same soil sample that was collected from the CPT
site.
It can be concluded that the soil consisted mostly of sand since both the CPT data and laboratory
tested samples resulted in a soil classification of Sand. The friction angle would be based only on
7
the CPT data since the Direct Shear laboratory experiment sample used was different. The
friction angle of the sample resulted in an average friction angle of 0 ° for Clay and an average
friction angle range of 29.6 ° – 34 ° for Sand as shown on table 1 above.
On any site, an engineer should always know what they are working with or on before
committing to any site before getting started. Knowing the soil samples are detrimental in
understanding the scope of the project, in order to carefully plan for future project mishaps.
There is a significant amount of information available from different methods that can be
performed prior to drilling, to assist in boring the soil sample locations. Every site will vary and
every soil bore site location depth can change. Hence, different soil testing methods may vary for
each site test location based on topography, moisture content, and even usage of the site.
8
References
Applied Research Associates, I. (2018). ?The Advantages and Disadvantages of Geotechnical
Boring; Why CPT May be Your Better Option?. [online] Vertekcpt.com. Available at:
http://www.vertekcpt.com/blog/advantages-disadvantages-geotechincal-boring#.W7pVymhKhP
Y [Accessed 7 Oct. 2018].
Gouda-Geo. “History of Cone Penetration Testing (CPT).” ?History of Cone Penetration Testing
(CPT) – Gouda Geo-Equipment BV?,
www.gouda-geo.com/products/cpt-equipment/background-information/history-of-cone-penetrati
on-testing-cpt
“History of Cone Penetration Testing (CPT).” ?History of Cone Penetration Testing (CPT) Gouda Geo-Equipment BV,?
www.gouda-geo.com/products/cpt-equipment/background-information/history-of-cone-penetrati
on-testing-cpt.
Ruwhenua, Komihana. “?What Is a Cone Penetration Test (CPT)?” ?EQC Earthquake
Commission,
www.eqc.govt.nz/sites/public_files/images/What%20is%20a%20cone%20penetration%20test.pd
f
VertekCPT. “Why Are There So Many Kinds of CPT Rigs?” In-Situ Soil Testing 101: The
Different Types of Tests, Applied Research Associates, Inc., 25 Feb. 2014,
www.vertekcpt.com/blog/cpt-rigs-variations
9
Cover page
? Introduction:
? Background:
? Testing and Analysis Method:
? Data Analysis:
Tip Stress vs. Depth
Tip Stress (Ksf)
0
50
100
150
200
0
1
2
Depth (ft)
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Figure 1: Tip Stress verse Depth graph
250
Sleeve Stress vs. Depth
Sleeve (bar)
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
Depth (ft)
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Figure 2: Sleeve Stress verse Depth graph
5
6
Friction Ratio vs. Depth
Friction Ratio (%)
0
1
2
3
4
5
0
1
2
Depth (ft)
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Figure 3: Friction Ratio verse Depth graph
6
7
SPT-N vs. Depth
SPT-N
0
10
20
30
0
1
2
Depth (ft)
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Figure 4: SPT-N verse Depth graph
40
50
Depth (ft)
Clay
Silty Clay
Clayey Slit
Sandy Silt
Silty Sand
Sandy Silt
Sand
Gravelly Sand
Clayey Sand
Very Stiff Fine Grained
0
Organic
Soil Type
Sensitive Fine
Soil Type vs. Depth
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Figure 5: Soil Type verse Depth graph
Depth (ft)
Soil Type
Soil
Description
Friction Angle
(average)
Cohesion
(average)
0 – 0.04
Sand
Silty Sand
30
0
0.06 – 0.39
Clay
Sandy Silt
0
2.46
0.41
Sand
Silty Sand
30
0
0.43-0.80
Clay
Sandy Silt
0
2.78
0.82-1.14
Clay
Clayey Slit
0
2.46
1.16-1.37
Clay
Sandy Silt
0
2.24
1.39
Clay
Clayey Slit
0
2.72
1.41-1.44
Clay
Sandy Silt
0
2.16
1.46-1.78
Clay
Clayey Slit
0
2.35
1.80-1.93
Clay
Silty Clay
0
2.57
1.95-2.73
Clay
Clay
0
2.72
2.75-2.77
Clay
Silty Clay
0
2.08
2.80
Clay
Clay
0
3.19
2.82-2.96
Clay
Silty Clay
0
2.34
2.99-3.06
Clay
Clayey Slit
0
1.98
3.09
Clay
Silty Clay
0
2.59
3.12-4.01
Clay
Clay
0
3.21
4.03-4.08
Clay
Silty Clay
0
2.29
4.10-4.58
Clay
Clay
0
3.10
4.61-4.72
Clay
Silty Clay
0
2.35
4.75-5.53
Clay
Clayey Slit
0
2.28
5.56-5.58
Clay
Silty Clay
0
2.95
5.61-6.04
Clay
Clayey Slit
0
2.39
6.07-6.22
Clay
Silty Clay
0
3.35
6.24-6.43
Clay
Clayey Slit
0
2.77
6.45-6.48
Clay
Sandy Slit
0
2.52
6.50-6.53
Clay
Clayey Slit
0
3.51
6.56-6.92
Clay
Sandy Silt
0
3.07
6.95-7.00
Sand
Silty Sand
32
0
7.02-7.19
Clay
Sandy Slit
0
3.34
7.21-7.36
Sand
Silty Sand
32
0
7.38
Clay
Sandy Silt
0
4.15
7.41-8.12
Sand
Silty Sand
32.83
0
8.15-8.24
Clay
Sandy Slit
0
4.04
8.26-8.29
Clay
Clayey Silt
0
3.69
8.30
Clay
Silty Clay
0
4.0
8.30-8.31
Clay
Clay
0
4.80
Table 1: Soil type, Friction angle and cohesion
? Discussion:
? Reference:
FORMAL REPORT CHECKLIST:
EVERYTHING MUST BE COMPUTER GENERATED!
o Introduction (15 pts)
• What is CPT?
• How does it work?
• What are some different methods/variations of CPT?
• How does it differ from SPT?
• Advantages/disadvantages of in-situ testing vs. laboratory testing
• Advantages/disadvantages of CPT vs. SPT
o Background (10 pts)
• Provide a brief history of CPT and how it is used today
o Testing and Analysis Method (10 pts)
• Describe the methods and procedures used during a CPT investigation and our
analysis method
o Data & Analysis (35 pts)
• You are given depth, tip stress, and sleeve stress as your raw data
• Calculate friction ratio for all depths
• Provide plots for:
1) Tip Stress vs. Depth
2) Sleeve Stress vs. Depth
3) Friction Ratio vs. Depth
• Use Excel to determine soil classifications for the entire subsurface (every point
on the data set) according to the CPT-Classification Diagram. Also determine
equivalent SPT N-values according to the diagram.
• Provide plots for:
1) Equivalent SPT N-Values vs. Depth
2) Soil Type vs. Depth
• After determining SPT N-values, use Excel to determine friction angle and
cohesion for the entire data set. Use the correlations from Table 2.3 (from
PowerPoint).
o Discussion (20 pts)
• Comment on the soil profile. What kinds of soil layers are present? Where (depth)
and how big are they?
• Comment on the field data correlations. Which laboratory experiments would
need to be performed to obtain similar data? Which is more accurate?
• As an engineer, it is important to be aware of the benefits and shortcomings of insitu and laboratory testing as they pertain each individual application or project.
There is no ‘one size fits all’ in geotechnical investigation. Discuss the factors of
a project (i.e. size, type, importance, location, etc.) and how they would influence
your choice of testing. When would one be preferred over the other? When should
a combination be used?
o References (10 pts)
• Cite your sources! Use a consistent format (e.g. MLA, APA, etc.)

Purchase answer to see full
attachment