شارک

عنوان URL للمقالة


رقم المقالة : IJES-1704-1097 (R3) زيارة : 68 الصفحة: 52 - 67

نوع المخطوط: ابحاث

Using the Results of CPTu to Identify the Subsurface Sediment Layers in Urmia Lake Bridge Site, NW Iran

الموضوعات :

Mohammad Reza Baghban Golpasand 1 (Department of Engineering Geology, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran)
Mohammad Reza Nikudel 2 (Department of Engineering Geology, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran)
Ebrahim Asghari-Kaljahi 3 (گروه علوم زمین، Department of Earth Sciences, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iranتبریز، تبریز)

تاريخ الإرسال : 26 الأحد , رجب, 1438 تاريخ التأكيد : 04 الأربعاء , ربيع الأول, 1439 تاريخ الإصدار : 15 الأحد , رجب, 1439

الکلمات المفتاحية: Laboratory tests, Urmia Lake, Soil classification, Borehole Logging, CPTu test,

ملخص المقالة :

Specifying the soil types and profiling the subsurface soil layers are the excellent examples of CPTu test potentials. In this research, the capability of CPTu test for specifying subsurface soil layers and classification of the sediments in Urmia Lake is investigated. According to previous studies, the sediments of Urmia Lake are commonly fine grained and soft deposits with organic materials. To evaluate the geotechnical parameters of these sediments in Urmia Lake Bridge site, CPTu test was performed and soils were classified applying the results of this test. The results showed that the sediments are mostly composed of clay and silt. To verify the results of CPTu tests for soil classification, the outcomes were compared with the logs of the boreholes and the results of laboratory tests. Comparisons and analysis of findings showed high consistency between the three groups of results; CPTu, boreholes logs, and laboratory tests. Thus, CPTu test can be used, with sufficient confidence and accuracy, to specify and classify the soft soil in lacustrine environments.

المصادر:


  1. Akca N (2003) Correlation of SPT-CPT data from the United Arab Emirates, Engineering Geology 67: 219-231.
    2.
  2. ASTM (2000) Annual Book of ASTM Standard, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia.
    3.
  3. Begemann HKS (1965) The friction jacket cone as an aid in determining the soil profile. 6th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 1: 17–20.
    4.
  4. Berberian M, Arshadi S (1975) On the evidence of the youngest activity of the North Tabriz Fault and seismicity of Tabriz City, Geological Survey of Iran, Report 39: 397–414.
    5.
  5. Cai GJ, Liu SY, Puppala AJ (2011) Comparison of CPT charts for soil classification using PCPT data: Example from clay deposits in Jiangsu Province, China, Engineering Geology 121 (1): 89–96.
    6.
  6. Campanella RG, Howie JA (2008) Guidelines for the use, interpretation and application of seismic piezocone test data, Geotechnical Research Group, Department of Civil Engineering, The University of British Columbia, pp 190.
    7.
  7. Cetin KO, Ozan C (2009) CPT-based probabilistic soil characterization and classification, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 135(1): 84–107.
    8.
  8. Douglas BJ, Olsen RS (1981) Soil classification using electric cone penetrometer, cone penetration testing and experience. Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing and Experience, Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE. St. Louis, Missouri,  209–227. 
    9.
  9. Eslami A, Fellenius B H (2004) CPT and CPTu data for soil profile interpretation: Review of methods and proposed new approach, Iranian Journal of Science and Technology (IJST) 28: 69-86.
    10.
  10. Eslami A, Hosseini B, Eslami M (2010) Soil profiling by CPTu in soft, sensitive soils of Orumiyeh Lake in Iran, Second International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing, Huntington Beach, CA, USA.
    11.
  11. Fugro, (Consulting Engineers) (2004) Geophysical survey and profiling in Urmia Lake, Iran.
    12.
  12. GEAS (Global Environmental Alert Service) and UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) (2012) The drying of Iran’s Lake Orumieh and its environmental consequences, Environmental Development 2: 128–137.
    13.
  13. Golpasand MRB (2004) Investigation on the engineering properties of soft soils in the Urmia Lake and comparison with Cone Penetration Test (CPTu) results, M.Sc. thesis, University of Tarbiat Modares.
    14.
  14. Golpasand MRB, Nikudel MR, Asghari E, Yasrebi S (2006) Comparison of CPTu test and laboratory test results in determination of shear strength of Urmia Lake Bridge site soils, Journal of Geosciences 15 (60): 12-21 (In Persian with English Abstract).
    15.
  15. Jalali H, Nikudel MR, Nabavi M (2000) The characteristics of the engineering geology of Urmia Lake’s soft sediments, Journal of Geosciences 9: (35-36), 28-43 (In Persian with English Abstract).
    16.
  16. Jamali M, Beaulieu JL, Shah-Hosseinei M, Anderieu-Ponel V, Ponel P, Amini A, Akhani H, Leory SAG, Stevens L, Lahijani H (2008) A late Pleistocene long pollen record from Lake Urmia, NW Iran, Quaternary Research 69: 413–420.
    17.
  17. Jefferies M, Davies M (1991) Soil classification using the cone penetration test (discussion), Canadian Geotechnical Journal 28 (1): 173–176.
    18.
  18. Jones G, Rust E (1982) Piezometer penetration testing CPTu. 2nd European Symposium on Penetration Testing, ESOPTII, 607–613.
    19.
  19. Jung B, Gardoni P, Biscontin G (2008) Probabilistic soil identification based on cone penetration tests, Geotechnique 58 (7): 591–603.
    20.
  20. Kelts K, Shahrabi M (1986) Holocene sedimentology of hyper saline Lake Urmia, Northwestern Iran, Paleogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 54: 105-130.
    21.
  21. Lune T, Robertson P, Powell J (1997) Cone Penetration Testing in Geotechnical Practice, First edition, Blackie & Professional, London UK. pp 352.
    22.
  22. Mohajjel M, Taghipour K (2014) Quaternary travertine ridges in the Lake Urmia area: active extension in NW Iran, Turkish Journal of Earth Science 23: 602-614.
    23.
  23. Olsen R, Farr J (1986) Site characterization using the cone penetration test. ASCE Specialty Conference In-Situ ΄86: Use of In-Situ Tests in Geotechnical Engineering, Blacksburg: 854-868.
    24.
  24. Olsen R, Koester J (1995) Prediction of liquefaction resistance using the CPT. International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing, CPT 95, Linkoping, Sweden, 251–256.
    25.
  25. Olsen R, Malone P (1988) Soil classification and site characterization using the cone penetrometer test. 1st International Symposium on Penetration Testing ISOPT-1. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands,  887–893.
    26.
  26. Olsen R, Mitchell J (1995) CPT stress normalization and prediction of soil classification. International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing, CPT95, Linkoping, Sweden, 257–262.
    27.
  27. Powell J, Lunne T (2005) Use of CPTu data in clays/fine grained soils, Studia Geotechnica et Mechanica  XXVII (3–4).
    28.
  28. Robertson P (1990) Soil classification using the cone penetration test, Canadian Geotechnical Journal 27 (1): 151-158.
    29.
  29. Robertson P (2009) Interpretation of cone penetration tests - a unified approach, Canadian Geotechnical Journal 46(11): 1337-1355
    30.
  30. Robertson P (2010) Soil behavior type from the CPT: an update. International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing, Huntington Beach, CA, USA.
    31.
  31. Robertson P, Campanella R (1988) Guidelines for use, interpretation, and application of the CPT and PCPT, UBC Soil Mechanics Series No. 105 Civil Engineering Department, Vancouver, B.C., Canada.
    32.
  32. Robertson P, Campanella R, Gillespie D, Greige J (1986) Use of piezometer cone data. ASCE Specialty Conference In-Situ ΄86: Use of In-Situ Tests in Geotechnical Engineering, Geotechnical Special Publication GSP No. 6. Blacksburg, 1263-1280.
    33.
  33. Robertson P, Wride CE (1997) Cyclic liquefaction and its evaluation based on SPT and CPT. NCEER Workshop of Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, Technical Report NCEER-97-0022, the State University of New York at Buffalo, 41-87.
    34.
  34. Schmertman J (1978) Guidelines for cone penetration test, performance and design, US Federal Highway Administration, Washington DC, Report, FHWA TS-78-209, 145.
    35.
  35. Schneider J, Randolph M, Mayne P, Ramsey N (2008) Analysis of factors influencing soil classification using normalized piezocone tip resistance and pore pressure parameters, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 134 (11), 1569–1586.
    36.
  36. Senneset K, Janbu N (1985) Shear strength parameters obtained from static cone penetration tests, Strength Testing of Marine Sediments; Laboratory and In-Situ Measurement. ASTM Special Technical Publication, STP, 883: 41–54.
    37.
  37. Shahrabi M, Alavinaini M, Saidi A, Haghipour A(1985) Geological map of the Urmia in Scale 1:250000, Map No. B3. Tehran, Iran: Geological Survey of Iran.
    38.
  38. Treadwell D (1976) The influence of gravity, prestress, compressibility and layering on soil resistance to static penetration, Ph.D. dissertation University of California, Berkeley.
    39.

سند

Sanad is a platform for managing Azad University publications

الروابط

المراكز ذات الصلة

دعامة

الصفحات الرسمية

حقوق هذا الموقع الإلكتروني مملوكة لنظام SANAD Press Management. © 1442-1445

الصفحة الرئيسية| دخول| معلومات عنا| اتصل بنا|
[English] [فارسی] [en] [fa]