In my view, stay with the GeoIcons but they haven't. Most of what is seen - makes little real differnce. He applies the EN codes to stiff to get an idea of the undrained shear strength yet at the time, stiff represented something, at times, quite a bit different. He picks up the borehole log and sees stiff. Think of the young engineer, say post year 2010, who has been given an assignment to review geotechnical reports and foundation design of a building constructed in 1975. Just glancing though EN, the definition of boulders have been changed it has gotten to a point that one, in order to appreciate and understand the "history" of projects will be utterly confused. Since, with the advent of the love of codes, these established terms have been changed and for what purpose. In the dawn of soil mechanics, fairly well set out standards of terms were established by the Geotechnical Icons (GeoLegends). What has "ticked me off" over the years is how things keep changing - and for what purpose. Very dense > 50 42 - 58 What happens after 58, I DNK Medium 10 - 30 8 - 25 (compact in Canada practice) Also N is uncorrected for Overburden pressure.Īlso be aware that in British Standards - BS 5930 uses:Īnd to continue - for cohesionless soils: Importannt when reading Canadian Geotechnical Journal. SPT N qu Su (where qu is unconfined compressive strength and Su is undrained shear strength)īe aware that in Canada, many firms (including Golder) uses the term "firm" instead of stiff or very stiff. Matich, Lec Brezenski) and Golder (who via Vic Milligan, John Seychuk, Finn Heffernan, and others broke off of Geocon) However, I have seen other sources citing T&P and the standards of using Geocon (established 1954 in Canada (M.A.J. I've read T&P (1967) many times and don't remember these SPT values (sadly I do not have my book witth me.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |