GeoPrediction2017 ZMGM rapor · 2017-04-05 · standard penetration test data, cone penetration test data, laboratory index test results, laboratory test results, fill installation

GeoPrediction 2017

2017 Geotechnical Frontiers Conference, Orlando, FL, USA

Hazırlayan: Celal Emre Üyetürk

İnşaat Mühendisliği 4ncü sınıf öğrencisi

[email protected]

Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, ODTÜ

Ankara

2

İçerik

1. Giriş...........................................................................................................................3

2. GeoPrediction 2017 ile ilgili kısa bilgi ve yarışma aşamaları....................................3

3. Sonuç.........................................................................................................................4

4. Teşekkür....................................................................................................................55.Ek-1.Yarışmakurallarıdökümanı……………………………………………………………………………...66.Ek-2.ODTÜtakımınınyarışmayagönderdiğirapor…………………………………………………….7

3

1. Giriş Bu raporda GeoFrontiers 2017 konferansı kapsamında yapılan GeoPrediction öğrenci

yarışması ile ilgili kısa bilgi ve yarışma aşamaları yer almaktadır. GeoPrediction, 2017 yılında sekizincisi yapılmış olan geleneksel öğrenci yarışmasıdır. Bu yarışma GeoFrontiers konferansının bir parçası olup Amerikan İnşaat Mühendisleri Odası, ASCE GeoInstitute tarafından organize edilmektedir. GeoFrontiers 2017 Orlando, FL, A.B.D de yapılmıştır. Bu yarışmaya katılan okul-takım sayısı açıklanmamakla birlikte ikinci aşama olarak sunum yapmak üzere GeoFrontiers konferansına davet edilen okul sayısı sekizdir.Bu okullardan biri ön değerlendirme aşamasını geçerek yarışmaya davet edilmiş olan ODTÜ'dür.. ODTÜ GeoPrediction takımında lisans öğrencisi olarak Celal Emre Üyetürk ve yüksek lisans öğrencisi olarak Emir Ahmet Oğuz bulunmaktadır. Takımın akademik danışmanı ise Yard.Doç.Dr. Nejan Huvaj Sarıhan’dır. Bu yarışmada ODTÜ takımı ODTÜ’yü ve ülkesini başarıyla temsil etmiş olup yarışmayı üçüncü olarak tamamlamıştır.

2. GeoPrediction 2017 ile ilgili kısa bilgi ve yarışma aşamaları

GeoPrediction 2017 yarışması için katılımcılardan üzerinde sürşarj bulunan yol dolgusu altındaki bir noktadaki zaman-oturma grafiği ve yanal deplasman tahmini istenmiştir. Oturma hesabı SP-4 te, yanal deplasman hesabı ise IN-3 te istenmiştir (şekil1). Dolgu altında prefabrike düşey dren sistemi ve geosentetik de kullanılmıştır.

Şekil 1: IN-3 ve SP-4 yerleri Problem çözümü için verilenler arasında problemin tanımı, sondaj logları, standart penetrasyon, SPT ve konik penetrasyon, CPT test sonuçları, laboratuvar test sonuçları ve prefabrike düşey dren sisteminin özellikleri vardır. Yarışma için verilen bilgilerde zemin profili belli değildir. ODTÜ takımı öncelikle verilen arazi ve laboratuvar deney verilerini değerlendirerek idealize zemin profili oluşturarak çalışmalarına başlamıştır (Şekil 2).

Yoldolgusu

4

Şekil 2: İdealize zemin profili

İdealize zemin profili oluşturulduktan sonra verilenlerin yanında literatürdeki empirik korelasyonlar da kullanılarak zemin parametreleri kararlaştırılmıştır. İdealize zemin profili ve zemin parametrelerine karar verildikten sonra ODTÜ takımı problemi iki farklı yaklaşımla ele almıştır. Bu yaklaşımlar, sonlu elemanlar yöntemi, PLAXIS 2D ve analitik çözüm yöntemi ROCSCIENCE Settle 3D dir. Prefabrike düşey dren sistemi, 2-boyutlu sonlu elemanlar analizi yapılabilmesi için, eşdeğer permeabilite koşuluna göre 3-boyuttan 2-boyut (düzlem deformasyon) durumuna getirilerek analiz edilmiştir. Sonuçlara ise iki farklı metottan gelen çıktılar değerlendirilerek karar verilmiştir.

İlk değerlendirme için rapor 13 Ocak 2017 tarihinde jüriye gönderilmiştir. 6 Şubat 2017 tarihinde cevap olarak ODTÜ takımının ilk aşamayı geçtiği, ikinci aşama olan sunum kısmı için 12-15 Mart 2017 tarihleri arasında yapılacak GeoFrontiers konferansına davet edildiği belirtilmiştir. Bunun üzerine ODTÜ takımı 13 Mart 2017 de ikinci aşama olarak GeoFrontiers konferansında ( Orlando, FL, A.B.D) sunum yapmıştır (yarismada birinci olan takim Oregon State University, ikinci olan takim ise University of Texas at Arlington’dır.)

5

3. Sonuç ODTÜ takımı yarışmayı üçüncü olarak tamamlayıp 14 Mart 2017 tarihinde yapılan ödül

töreninde üçüncülük ödülünü almıştır.

4. Teşekkür Takım üyeleri yarışmanın başından sonuna öğrencilere destek olan akademik danışmanları

Yard.Doç.Dr. Nejan Huvaj Sarıhan’a ve Amerika seyahati için öğrencilerin yanında olup onları destekleyen Zemin Mekaniği ve Geoteknik Mühendisliği Derneği, ZMGM ye teşekkür eder.

6

Ek-1 Yarışma kuralları dökümanı

The Geo-Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers

Presents

The Competition Rules for the 8th Annual National

GeoPREDICTION at 2017 Geotechnical Frontiers Conference, Orlando, FL, USA

Important Dates

GeoPrediction Reports Due ..................................................... 6 pm (C.S.T.), January 13, 2017 Invitation to GeoPrediction Finale ................................................................... February 6, 2017 2017 GeoFrontiers ............................................................................................ March 12-15, 2017 GeoPrediction Presentations ................................................................................ March 13, 2017 Awards (Tentative) ............................................................................................... March 19, 2017 Geotechnical Frontiers 2017 Info: .......................................... http://geotechnicalfrontiers.com/ GeoChallenge Info and Data:...............................http://www.mygeoworld.info/groups/profile/61033/geochallenge

http://www.mygeoworld.info/groups/profile/61033/geochallenge

http://content.geoinstitute.org/

2017 – Geotechnical Frontiers GeoPrediction Rules

Page 2 of 5

8th Annual National GeoPrediction Rules – 2017 Geotechnical Frontiers 1. Objective: The objective of the GeoPrediction competition is to develop an accurate

prediction of geotechnical behavior given detailed information regarding subsurface, boundary, and initial conditions, as well as the geotechnical/ structural/hydraulic loading. The GeoPrediction competition may involve using available geotechnical software, empirical correlations, or developing a simple but accurate computer code for making this prediction.

For the 2017 GeoPrediction, the competing teams will develop the time-

settlement plot and estimate the lateral displacement of a road embankment fill with surcharge loading. The embankment includes a drainage system to decrease settlement time and includes Geosynthetics for stability.

2. Geotech data: Input data for the problem including problem description, boring logs,

standard penetration test data, cone penetration test data, laboratory index test results, laboratory test results, fill installation profile, and details of the drainage system are provided in the problem statement and associated data sheets.

3. Eligibility: A GeoPrediction team will consist of one or two students. Each team MUST

include at least one undergraduate student. Graduate students can not submit a prediction without mentoring an undergraduate student. However, a team may consist of two undergraduate students. Students must be enrolled during the Spring 2017 Semester or Quarter. Up to two teams per school may compete.

4. Submittal: Each GeoPrediction team will submit a GeoPrediction Report that will, at a

minimum, contain the following information. (Please read this section carefully, as it will change from year to year as the problem for the GeoPrediction changes.)

a. The Report shall be no more than three (3) pages long (not including any

references and title page). One inch margins, single spacing, and 12 point Times New Roman font are required.

b. The Report must include the time-settlement plot for the area of settlement plate SP4 at 30 days after the fill placement begins, as a response to the embankment fill placement which includes an additional surcharge load. The report must also include the horizontal displacement (in inches) profile of Inclinometer #3 (IN-3) 30 days after the beginning of the fill placement to at least 50 feet below the original ground surface. The prediction scoring will be calculated by the accuracy of the settlement (at SP-4) at 10 days, 20 days, and 30 days; as well as the lateral displacement (at IN-3) at 10, 20, 30, and



Page 3 of 5

40 feet below the original ground surface. However the entire time-settlement plot and depth versus lateral displacement profile are required.

c. The Report shall contain the methods (assumptions, correlations, analytical procedures, numerical procedures, computer software, etc.) that the team employed to develop their GeoPrediction. Methods must be properly referenced.

d. The cover page must include the name of the institution; names, email addresses, and status (i.e., graduate or undergraduate) of each team member; as well as the name and contact information of the faculty that advised the team in developing their prediction.

e. Submit your report electronically in PDF format to Dr. Eric Steward ([email protected]) by 6pm Central Standard Time on January 13, 2017 with the subject line “2017-GeoFrontiers GeoPrediction Submittal – School Name”. Sender will receive confirmation of receipt by email. Late submissions are NOT accepted.

5. Judging: The submitted GeoPrediction reports will be judged and ranked by an

anonymous panel of geotechnical engineers. Initial judging will be based on criteria (a) through (d) below.

a. Format, length, grammar, English usage 10% b. Clarity of technical presentation 10% c. Logical and concise use of appropriate geotechnical methods

and principles in developing GeoPrediction 15% d. Accuracy of the GeoPrediction 40% e. Process and results presentation at the 2017 GeoFrontiers 25%

6. Selection: The winning team will receive the prestigious Mohr’s Circle Award. Up to

fifteen (15) teams may be invited to the GeoPrediction Presentation based on the ranking of their GeoPrediction reports. The selected teams will be notified by February 6, 2017. The top 7 teams (based total score of items a-d listed in section #5) will receive complementary student registration for up to two team members. The top 3 teams will receive $1000 travel stipend per team and teams ranked 4-6 will receive a $500 travel stipend per team.

7. Presentations: Teams invited to present their GeoPrediction Results will prepare a 10 minute

presentation that describes their methods and GeoPrediction for viewing by judges and the public. The order and location of the presentations will be determined at the conference site. It is expected that a room with a projector and computer will be used for these presentations. Each team will also be provided with space for a summary poster no larger than 3 feet high by 4 feet wide. The layout and design of the poster are up to the individual teams. As noted in Item 5, the Presentation and Poster will constitute the final 25% of each invited team’s final GeoPrediction score.



Page 4 of 5

8. Poster event: The GeoPrediction Presentations will (tentatively) take place on March 13, 2017 in parallel with the other Geo-Institute GeoChallenge competitions. The GeoPrediction awards will be presented at an event during the GeoFrontiers conference to be scheduled at a later time. Remember, scores of potential employers attend the GeoChallenge every year. This provides all GeoPrediction team members with an excellent opportunity to interact with other geoprofessionals.

9. Questions: Questions should be posted via the Geo-Challenge discussion page in the

MyGeoWorld site at: http://www.mygeoworld.info/discussion/owner/61033

Project Details and Information

Background Information: A roadway embankment is to be constructed on either side of a river crossing as bridge approaches. The subsurface conditions indicate the embankment fill will generate settlement over a period of time longer than desired. The Geotechnical Engineer designs a wick drainage system to be installed within the existing soils prior to the embankment fill placement. Additional surcharge loading will also be installed to expedite settlement. Instrumented settlement platforms monitoring the vertical deformation of the existing grade are installed prior to fill placement. Inclinometer casings are installed from the original ground surface down to 70 feet below the existing surface, located just outside the footprint of the base of the embankment. The details of the drainage system, embankment fill, and subsurface conditions are presented on the attached documents.

GeoPrediction Statement: Given that approximately 14 feet of fill was placed at the location of

Settlement platform #4 (SP-4) relatively evenly over a period of 9 days, generate a time versus settlement plot (in inches) from the first day to 30 days after the BEGINNING of the fill placement. Additionally, estimate the horizontal displacement (in inches) profile of Inclinometer #3 (IN-3) 30 days after the beginning of the fill placement to at least 50 feet below the original ground surface. The scoring for the prediction will be based on the accuracy of the settlement at 10, 20, and 30 days; as well as the accuracy of the lateral displacement (in the direction perpendicular to the river) at depths 10, 20, 30, and 40 feet. Assume the embankment fill and surcharge material are the same.


http://www.mygeoworld.info/discussion/owner/61033


Page 5 of 5

Settlement Platform #4 (SP-4) Inclinometer #3 (IN-3)


Operator: Sounding: SWC 211Cone Used:

Maximum Depth = 59.22 feet Depth Increment = 0.164 feet

Location of test was 5 ft west of staked position. Seismic Testing performed on this test

*Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983

Tip Resistance

Qc TSF2000

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Depth(ft)

Pore Pressure

Pw PSI100-20

Friction Ratio

Fs/Qc (%) 60

Soil Behavior Type*

Zone: UBC-1983

1 sensitive fine grained 2 organic material 3 clay

4 silty clay to clay 5 clayey silt to silty clay 6 sandy silt to clayey silt

7 silty sand to sandy silt 8 sand to silty sand 9 sand

10 gravelly sand to sand 11 very stiff fine grained (*) 12 sand to clayey sand (*)

120

SPT N*

60% Hammer0

Operator: Sounding: SWC 220Cone Used:

Maximum Depth = 52.00 feet Depth Increment = 0.197 feet

*Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983

Tip Resistance

Qc TSF2000

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Depth(ft)

Pore Pressure

Pw PSI100-20

Friction Ratio

Fs/Qc (%) 60

Soil Behavior Type*

Zone: UBC-1983

1 sensitive fine grained 2 organic material 3 clay

4 silty clay to clay 5 clayey silt to silty clay 6 sandy silt to clayey silt

7 silty sand to sandy silt 8 sand to silty sand 9 sand

10 gravelly sand to sand 11 very stiff fine grained (*) 12 sand to clayey sand (*)

120

SPT N*

60% Hammer0

0 250 500 7500

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

qt (tsf)

Dep

th (f

eet)

0 5 10

fs (tsf)

0 200 4000

u (ft)

0.0 2.5 5.0

Rf (%)

0 6 12

SBT

Sounding: CPT-02

Max Depth: 18.250 m / 59.87 ftDepth Inc: 0.050 m / 0.164 ftAvg Int: 0.150 m

File: 340CP02.CORUnit Wt: SBT Chart Soil Zones

SBT: Lunne, Robertson and Powell, 1997Page No: 1 of 2

Clayey Silt

ClaySilty ClaySandy SiltClayey SiltSandy SiltSandy Silt

Clay

Sensitive Fines

Silty Sand/Sand

Sensitive Fines

Silt

Clayey Silt

Sensitive Fines

Sensitive Fines

Silt

Silt

Sensitive FinesSandy SiltSiltSandy Silt

Clayey SiltSandy SiltSand

Silt

Clayey SiltSilty Sand/SandSandy SiltSiltClayey Silt

Silty Sand/SandSandSilty Sand/SandSandSilty ClayClayey Silt

Silt

Refusal Refusal Refusal Refusal

Ueq=44.2'

Equilibrium Pore Pressure from Dissipation

0 250 500 75050

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

qt (tsf)

Dep

th (f

eet)

0 5 10

fs (tsf)

0 200 4000

u (ft)

0.0 2.5 5.0

Rf (%)

0 6 12

SBT

Sounding: CPT-02


File: Zones


SiltSilty Clay

SandSilty Sand/SandGravelly SandSilty Sand/SandClayey Silt

Silt

Clayey SiltSilt



0 250 500 7500

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

qt (tsf)

Dep

th (f

eet)

0 5 10

fs (tsf)

0 200 4000

u (ft)

0 1000 2000

Vs (ft/s)

0 6 12

SBT

Sounding: CPT-02


Unit Wt: SBT Chart Soil ZonesSBT: Lunne, Robertson and Powell, 1997Page No: 1 of 2

Clayey Silt

ClaySilty ClaySandy SiltClayey SiltSandy SiltSandy Silt

Clay

Sensitive Fines

Silty Sand/Sand

Sensitive Fines

Silt

Clayey Silt

Sensitive Fines

Sensitive Fines

Silt

Silt

Sensitive FinesSandy SiltSiltSandy Silt

Clayey SiltSandy SiltSand

Silt

Clayey SiltSilty Sand/SandSandy SiltSiltClayey Silt

Silty Sand/SandSandSilty Sand/SandSandSilty ClayClayey Silt

Silt


Ueq=44.2'


0 250 500 75050

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

qt (tsf)

Dep

th (f

eet)

0 5 10

fs (tsf)

0 200 4000

u (ft)

0 1000 2000

Vs (ft/s)

0 6 12

SBT

Sounding: CPT-02


File: Unit Wt: SBT Chart Soil Zones


SiltSilty Clay

SandSilty Sand/SandGravelly SandSilty Sand/SandClayey Silt

Silt

Clayey SiltSilt



Pressure(psi)

Time: (seconds)

Sounding: SWC 211

Maximum Pressure = 26.328 psi.

1 10 100 1000 10000 5

10

15

20

25

30

Selected Depth(s) (feet)

20.341

Pressure(psi)

Time: (seconds)

Sounding: SWC 211


1 10 100 1000 10

15

20

25

30

35

40


25.591

Pressure(psi)

Time: (seconds)

Sounding: SWC 220


1 10 100 1000 10000 4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15


8.858

Pressure(psi)

Time: (seconds)

Sounding: SWC 220


1 10 100 1000 10000 20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38


24.278

7

Ek-2 ODTÜ takımının yarışmaya gönderdiği rapor

8th Annual Geo-Prediction at

2017 Geotechnical Frontiers Conference

Orlando, FL, USA

Team Members:

Emir Ahmet OGUZ

Graduate student, research assistant

e-mail: [email protected]

Celal Emre UYETURK

Undergraduate student,

e-mail: e193146@ metu.edu.tr

Advisor:

Nejan HUVAJ

Assistant Professor

e-mail: [email protected]

1|P a g e

1- INTRODUCTION The following report is prepared to present results obtained for the given problem statement of GeoPrediction 2017 competition which is organized by the ASCE Geo-Institute and will be held on March 12-15, 2017 in Orlando, FL, USA. The report includes idealization of soil profile and estimation of soil parameters, numerical modelling (Plaxis 2D and Rocscience Settle 3D), estimation of vertical settlement at settlement platform (SP-4) and lateral displacement of the inclinometer (IN-3).

2- IDEALIZED SOIL PROFILE AND ESTIMATION OF SOIL PARAMETERS In order to select the design parameters, all of the given boreholes, SPT, CPT results and laboratory test results are considered. However, while determining the final parameters, more emphasis is given to data closest to the investigated area.

(a)

(b)

Figure 1. (a) Top view of the study area and location of SP-4 and IN-3, (b) Idealized soil profile

Unit weight of the soil layers are estimated by using the SPT-N numbers (Bowles, 1996). For friction angle, various approaches are used which are Terzaghi et al. (1996), Das (1985), Gibson (1953), US Navy (1982). Furthermore, all of the approaches gave similar results. Thus, an average value is chosen by using engineering judgment. For Young’s modulus Bowles (1996), Butler (1975), FHWA guideline documents are used. Final results are determined in accordance with the laboratory results. Also, for determining mv Stroud (1974) is used. Furthermore, to determine Cr, Cc, eo, cv, k parameters laboratory 1-D consolidation test data are used. The ground water table is assumed to be at the ground surface and water height in the river is assumed to be 8 ft.

Table 1: Soil parameters Depth (ft) Layers !",$% &'()

lb/ft3 &*+, lb/ft3 E ksf Cc

cv ft2/s

∅. °

k ft/s

0-5 Clayey Sand (SC) 7 115 105 93.98 - - 33 1.64E-2 5-25 Sandy Silty Clay (CL) 6 112 102 292.4 0.28 1.82E-5 30 1.41E-8

25-40 Silty Clay (CL-CH) 10 122 112 417.71 0.28 8.74E-6 30 5.12E-9 40-43 Sandy Clay (CL) 26 127 117 1461.98 0.23 5.27E-5 30 1.95E-8 43-51 Clayey Silt 9 124 114 313.28 0.14 5.27E-5 30 1.95E-8 51-80 Sand-Gravel R 130 140 3132.81 - - 42 1.64E-1

A

A’SP-4 IN-3

2|P a g e

3-NUMERICAL MODELLING

The stated problem has been analyzed by using two different approaches, finite element modeling with Plaxis 2D and analytical solution with Settle 3D. The soil profile has been modelled and analysis have been performed to estimate the vertical settlement at the settlement plate (SP-4) and lateral displacement of the inclinometer (IN-3).

3.1-FINITE ELEMENT MODEL (PLAXIS 2D)

The Plaxis 2D (plane strain) model including the embankment with surcharge (between station 621+00 and 624+00), the prefabricated vertical drains and geogrid have been analyzed. For the boundary conditions, standard fixities was utilized. That is, the bottom is fixed and the sides are roller boundaries. The ground water table is assumed to be at the ground surface and water height in the river is assumed to be 8 ft. Silty-clayey layers and sand-gravel layers are modeled with “soft soil” and “Mohr-Coulomb” constitutive models, respectively. The software is 2D and therefore the 3D problem is converted into 2D problem by permeability equivalency. That is, the model is plane strain and prefabricated vertical drains (PVD) continues into the page. In order to include the spacing of the PVD, the equivalent plane strain permeability values have been calculated by utilizing rigorous solution for parallel drain wall of Indraratna and Redana (1997). Smear zone has been ignored in these analyses. The soil parameters used in Plaxis 2D analysis are given in table 1. In addition, the dilation angle of the soil layers were used as 1 = 3 − 30°. The drains were located with a 5.5 ft spacing. The geogrid is modelled as elastic material with a EA=3.4E+05 lb/ft and placed according to the field plans (figure 1). The initial stresses were generated with K0 condition with silty-clayey layers with a OCR=3.5. Then, installation of PVD and geogrid, fill installation (in even heights in 9 days), and consolidation until 30 days after beginning of the embankment placement have been defined as calculation phases and consolidation analyses were performed.

Figure 2: Cross section A-A’ of Figure 1, modeled in PLAXIS 2D

3.2-ANALYTICAL SOLUTION (SETTLE 3D) In Settle 3D analysis, since geotextile description is not possible, a sand layer with thickness of 2 ft, having a high elastic modulus is used in order to account for geotextile effect. In the calculations, settlement is defined as the sum of immediate and primary consolidation settlement values. No secondary settlement is assumed. In calculations of effective vertical stress Boussinesq’s method is used. For PVD’s, kh/kh', the ratio of undisturbed to smear zone permeability, is assumed as 2, and the ratio of diameter of smear zone to diameter of drain is assumed as 2.5.

SURCHARGEANDEMBANKMENTgeogrid

PVD’s

3|P a g e

ch/cv 6 Width (ft) 0.33 Thickness (ft) 0.023 Spacing (ft) 5.5 Length (ft) 53

(a)

(b)

Figure 3: (a) Properties of the PVD’s in Settle 3D, (b) oblique view of the Settle3D model

4-RESULTS Graphs of settlement at SP-4 location with time and lateral displacement at IN-3 location are given in Figure 4. It is discovered that OCR value significantly influences the settlement results. The settlement prediction presented in Figure 4(b) is based on the average of finite element and analytical solution.

(a)

(b)

Figure 4: (a) Lateral displacement at IN-3 (at 30 days), (b) Settlement at SP-4 location with time (day zero starts at the beginning of the fill placement)

Table 2. Results

Days 10 20 30 Settlement at SP-4 (in) 12.9 14.6 15.4

Depth (ft) 10 20 30 40 Lateral displacement at IN-3 (in) 20.2 13.6 6.1 4.1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 10 20 30

Dep

th (f

t)

Ux (in)

02468

101214161820

0 10 20 30

Uy

(in)

Time (Day)

Plaxis 2D

Settle 3D

Average

PVDzone

4|P a g e

5- REFERENCES

Bowles, J.E.(1996) Foundation Analysis and Design, McGraw-Hill, 5th edition.

Indraratna, B., & Redana, I. W. (1997). Plane Strain Modelling of Smear Effects Associated with Vertical Drains. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 123(5), 474-478.

Kulhawy, F.H. and Mayne, P.W. (1990) Manual on Estimating Soil Properties for Foundation Design, Electric Power Research Institute Report, EPRI EL-6800

Stroud, M.A. (1974) The Standard Penetration Test: Introduction Part 2, Penetration Testing in the U.K., Thomas Telford, London, p.29-50.

Stroud, M.A., (1989). “The Standard Penetration Test-Its Application and Interpretation.” Penetration Testing in the U.K., pp.29-46

Terzaghi, K., Peck, R.B., and Mesri, G. (1996). Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, 3rd

Edition, John Wiley and Sons.

Documents

GeoPrediction2017 ZMGM rapor · 2017-04-05 · standard penetration test data, cone penetration test data, laboratory index test results, laboratory test results, fill installation