Download pdf - DocumentL2

G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd (G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd (www.gnpgroup.com.mywww.gnpgroup.com.my))

By

Ir. Dr. Gue See Sew & Ir. Chow Chee Menghttp://www.gnpgeo.com.my


Quality Services Quality Services -- Our CommitmentOur Commitment©© G&P Geotechnics Sdn BhdG&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

CONTENTSCONTENTS

• INTRODUCTION

• OBJECTIVES

• DESK STUDY

• SITE RECONNAISSANCE

• METHODS OF GROUND INVESTIGATION

• FIELD TEST AND SAMPLING

• PLANNING OF GROUND INVESTIGATION

• SPECIFICATIONS

• SUPERVISION


INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTION

Guidance notes to engineers on the practical aspect of site investigation



OBJECTIVESOBJECTIVES

Provide adequate information for

- Site assessment, safe and economical designs

- Foresee construction difficulties.

- Choice of site and layout

arrangement.

Scar


SITE RECONNAISSANCESITE RECONNAISSANCE

• Confirm and obtain additional information.

• Examine adjacent and nearby

development.

• Compare the surface features and

topography with data obtainable in the desk study.

• Locate and study the outcrops, previous slips.





METHODS OF GROUND METHODS OF GROUND

INVESTIGATIONINVESTIGATION


BOREHOLESBOREHOLES• Refer to MS2038

• Includes boring, sampling, in-situ testing and water table observation.

• Drill through soils and core through

rocks.

• Two commonly used methods:

a) Rotary drilling method

b) Rotary wash boring

• Rock Coring


Care in Boreholes

- Levelsand coordinates

- Samplers in good condition, clean & greased

- Samplers sealed, labelled & stored

Sizes of commonlySizes of commonly--used Core barrels, Casings and Drill used Core barrels, Casings and Drill

Rods UsedRods Used

Typical Rotary Drilling RigTypical Rotary Drilling Rig


Sampling in BoreholesSampling in Boreholes

• Disturbed Samples

- Split spoon samples from SPT

• Undisturbed Samples

- Mazier Sampler

MazierMazier SamplerSampler

- Three-tube core-barrels containing detachable liners within the inner barrel.

- Suitable for stiffer soil stratum.

Care in SamplingCare in Sampling


Groundwater Groundwater

• Water level should be taken daily during SI (particularly in the morning).

• Piezometer should be used for accurate and longer time measurement.

• Good practice :

Allow the ground water drop to original

level

Boreholes with Standpipe

Piezometers Lockable Cap to prevent vandalism

Bright Color (Red + White) to prevent vehicle knocking into it.

Borehole Number Clearly Marked on

Concrete

4m


Standard Penetration Test (SPT)Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

• According to MS 1056

- Hammer weight = 65kg

- Drop height = 760mm

- Total penetration is 450mm and the

number of blows for the last 300mm is

the SPT’ N’ value.

Care

- depth of test vs casing L

*site supervision

Equipment for SPT


PLANNING OF GROUND PLANNING OF GROUND

INVESTIGATIONINVESTIGATION

S.I. In Grid PatternS.I. In Grid Pattern

(Total = 32 nos)

Not Recommended

Proposed SIProposed SI

(Total = 32 nos)

Typical CrossTypical Cross--SectionSection

Ground Level

Bedrock Level

Very Hard Material Level

Hard Material Level

Groundwater Level

EXISTING GROUND

LEVEL

Water Table

C’ 2, ø’ 2

Clayey Layer

C’3, ø’3

C’1, ø’1

BH

BH

BH Perched WT

Seepage

CROSS SECTION


Selection of Ground Investigation Selection of Ground Investigation

MethodsMethods

• Slope and cut areas

- use Boreholes

- SPT and Mazier samples for triaxial tests

- Piezometer

Depth of Investigation

Stability Analysis

Foundation Design


Laboratory Test

a) Classification- Sieve Analysis- Clay/Silt- Atterberg Limits- Moisture Content- Unit Weight- Specific Gravity

b) Shear Strength

- CIU- CID

Effective

d) Chemical- SO4

- CI- Ph- Resistivity- Redox Potential

c) Compaction Fill


G&P-Form6 (Rev3)

G&P GEOTECHNICS SDN. BHD. (Geotechnical Consultants)

LABORATORY TEST SCHEDULE

Project No : ……………………………….. Lab. Schedule No. ……………….. Requested by : …………………………………………… Date : ………………….. Project : ……………………………………………………………………………………..………………… Rev iewed by : …………………………………………... Date : ……………………

BOREHOLE SAM PLE NO.

DEPTH m

M/C A.L. B.D . S.G. Direct She ar Box

SIEVE ANALYSIS CONSOLIDATION TRIAXIAL UCT

CH EMICAL ANALYSIS

Mech. Hydro. Std. Rapid S.S. CIU UU ORGANIC CONTENT PH

SULPH ATE CONTENT

CHLORIDE CONTENT

TOTAL Requested

Performed

Note : 1) C IU - I sotro pic Conso lidat ed Undra ined Tr iaxial Te st with pore pressure measurements

- Use 70mm diameter samp le (i.e. u ntr immed Mazier sample) - Sample should n ot have side filter dur ing consolida tion - Shearing strain sho uld be calculat ed using Cv values ca lculated dur in g consolidatio n stage. - M ulti-stage testing not allowe d - P-Q Stress Pat h Plotting sh all be submitted.

2) For CIU Tests, stress path an d other relevant da ta shall be submitted in Ha rd Copy (Plots and Tabu lated Data) and Soft Copy (Co mpu ter files data). Cell confinin g pressure of 0.5 σv , 1.0σv, 2.0σv shall be ad opted

for t he CIU test, whe re σv is the total vertical in-sit u stress. 3) U U - Unconsolidated U ndrained Test (at tota l overbu rd en p re ssure of the sample) 4) UCT - Unconfined Com pression Test (untrimm ed sam ple)

5) To determin e Cv from Consolidation Tests :-

- Use Square-Root Time Method to determine d0 .

- Then use Log-Time Met hod to dete rmine d100

6) Direct shear box test - Three (3) recon stituted specimens (60mm x 60m m x 20 mm thick) sh all be used. - Applied normal stress pressure of 0.5 σv, 1.0σv , 2.0σv shall be adopte d for th e she ar box test, where σv is the total vertica l in-situ stress. 7) All specimens for tr iaxial or consolidation tests shall be obtained from center of th e recovere d samp les in

UD sam pler. 8) 2 moisture content te sts shall be carried out on soil immediately besides the specimens ret ained for tria xial or co nsolidation tests. 9) Bulk densit y, particle size distribut ion and Atterb erg Limit te sts shall b e carried out o n every specimen afte r the tr iaxial or consolidation tests.


Special AttentionSpecial Attention

Triaxial Compression Test

- No/Minimum Trimming

- No Side Drains

- No Multistage


SITE SUPERVISIONSITE SUPERVISION

• Full time Engineering Geologists, Engineers or experienced Technicians

• Briefing (Supervision Checklist)

• Communication

• Checklist (http://www.gnpgeo.com.my/RnD_spec_checklist_checklist.asp)


CONCLUSIONSCONCLUSIONS1. You pay for soil investigation whether

you carry out or not. In fact you

eventually pay more without a soil investigation.


CONCLUSIONSCONCLUSIONS

Principal conclusions:1. Delay and escalating

construction costs are due

to inadequate site

investigation

2. Consequences of

inadequate SI is not only

severe during design and

construction stage but even more serious for full-

life costing


CONCLUSIONS (CONCLUSIONS (concon’’tt))

2. You must know

- why you wanted them

- where they are to be carried out

- how they should be done


CONCLUSIONS (CONCLUSIONS (concon’’tt))

3. Use proper specifications

4. Full time supervision

5. Ensure QA/QC system.



• INTRODUCTION

• OBJECTIVES

• SCOPE

• INTERPRETATION

• DESIGN PARAMETERS

• LABORATORY TESTS

-- JKR PROBEJKR PROBE-- SPTSPT

CONTENTSCONTENTS


• NEED

- Neglected topic; only briefly covered in universities

- Danger of using results directly without interpretation

- Decision on choice of values for soil parameters

• SCOPE

- Common tests only

• PROCESSES

- Specifications, Supervision, Presentation & Interpr etation

INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTION




Proton Iswara

Ferrari


• Illustrate the importance of interpretation

• Show methods of compiling results and recognising errors

OBJECTIVESOBJECTIVES


•• SCOPESCOPE- Common field and laboratory tests

•• FIELD TESTSFIELD TESTS- JKR/ Mackintosh probe

- SPT (Standard Penetration Test)

•• LABORATORY TESTSLABORATORY TESTS- Unconfined compression

- Triaxial Test (CIU with pore pressure measurement & CD)



- Primitive tool

- Limited use� Shallow bedrock profile (limestone with slump zone)

� Weak zone at shallow depth

� Shallow foundation• No recent fill and future settlement

• Structure of low risk

• If in doubt – use borehole

JKR PROBEJKR PROBE


Cased hardened steel pointer of Cased hardened steel pointer of

25mm 25mm diadia. and 60. and 60oo cone.cone.

12mm 12mm diadia. HY . HY

55C steel rod55C steel rod

Prevent buckling during driving

5kg drop 5kg drop hammerhammer

22mm outer 22mm outer diadia. coupling. coupling

28

•• ApparatusApparatus


CONE PENETROMETER


For practical application:

- Results of JKR Probe = Mackintosh Probe

- Patented in the early days


•• Precautionary measuresPrecautionary measures

��Free fallFree fall and and consistentconsistent drop heightdrop height

��Components and apparatus properly Components and apparatus properly

washed and oiledwashed and oiled

•• Termination criteriaTermination criteria

��Blows/300mmBlows/300mm(maximum 400 blows/300mm)(maximum 400 blows/300mm)

��Max 15m depthMax 15m depth


•• Typical test resultsTypical test results


Identifying Identifying localisedlocalised soft/weak or slip plane.soft/weak or slip plane.

•• ApplicationsApplications


Identifying Identifying localisedlocalised soft/weak or slip plane.soft/weak or slip plane.

•• ApplicationsApplications


Identifying nonIdentifying non--compliance fill.compliance fill.

T

T

T = compaction lift



•• Comparison between JKR probe and SPTComparison between JKR probe and SPT


0 100 200 300 400JKR Blows

12

8

4

0

Dep

th (

m)

JKR Plot

0 10 20 30 40 50SPT'N'

12

8

4

0

SPT'N' Plot


0 10 20 30 40SPT'N'

16

12

8

4

0

14

10

6

2

Dep

th (

m)

SPT'N' Plot

0 100 200 300 400JKR Blows

16

12

8

4

0

14

10

6

2

JKR Plot


Number of Blows per 300 mm

Dep

th F

rom

Gro

und

Sur

face

In M

eter

(m

)


�� Shallow depthShallow depth

�� Not for gravelly groundNot for gravelly ground

�� Human errors Human errors (e.g. wrong counting, non(e.g. wrong counting, non--consistent consistent

drop height, exerting force to the drop hammerdrop height, exerting force to the drop hammer

�� Misleading results at greater depthMisleading results at greater depth

•• LimitationsLimitations


63.5kg Hammer

760mmFree Fall

450mm

Split-Spoon Sampler

AW Rod


Driving Shoe

Split Barrel

•• OD = 50mm OD = 50mm

•• ID = 35mm ID = 35mm

•• Length ~ 650mmLength ~ 650mm

Split-Spoon Sampler


Seating drive

Test drive

SPTSPT--N ValueN Value


SPTSPT--N = x 300 = 143N = x 300 = 143

5 5 -- 10 10 -- 30 30 -- 20/30cm20/30cm

Seating drive

Test drive

(30 + 20)(30 + 20)

(75 + 30)(75 + 30)


Maximum blows to be applied In seating drive In test drive Soil 25 50 ‘Soft rock’ 25 100

MS 1056 : Part 9



?

?





-- Why?Why?

-- Types of Tests!Types of Tests!

-- How?How?

-- Specifications?Specifications?(Load, Pressure, Time)(Load, Pressure, Time)

LABORATORY TESTSLABORATORY TESTS


SPECIFICATIONSSPECIFICATIONS

a) a) TriaxialTriaxial testtest1) For triaxial tests

- Strain rate- Back pressure


Special AttentionSpecial Attention

Triaxial Compression Test

- No/Minimum Trimming

- No Side Drains

- No Multistage


G&P-Form6 (Rev3)

G&P GEOTECHNICS SDN. BHD. (Geotechnical Consultants)

LABORATORY TEST SCHEDULE

Project No : ……………………………….. Lab. Schedule No. ……………….. Requested by : …………………………………………… Date : ………………….. Project : ……………………………………………………………………………………..………………… Rev iewed by : …………………………………………... Date : ……………………

BOREHOLE SAM PLE NO.

DEPTH m

M/C A.L. B.D . S.G. Direct She ar Box

SIEVE ANALYSIS CONSOLIDATION TRIAXIAL UCT

CH EMICAL ANALYSIS

Mech. Hydro. Std. Rapid S.S. CIU UU OR GA NI C C ON TE N T PH

SU LPH ATE C ON TE NT

C H LOR ID E C ON TE NT

TOTAL Requested

Performed

Note : 1) C IU - I sotro pic Conso lidat ed Undra ined Tr iaxial Te st with pore pressure measurements

- Use 70mm diameter samp le (i.e. u ntr immed Mazier sample) - Sample should n ot have side filter dur ing consolida tion - Shearing strain sho uld be calculat ed using Cv values ca lculated dur in g consolidatio n stage. - M ulti-stage testing not allowe d - P-Q Stress Pat h Plotting sh all be submitted.

2) For CIU Tests, stress path an d other relevant da ta shall be submitted in Ha rd Copy (Plots and Tabu lated Data) and Soft Copy (Co mpu ter files data). Cell confinin g pressure of 0.5 σv , 1.0σv, 2.0σv shall be ad opted

for t he CIU test, whe re σv is the total vertical in-sit u stress. 3) U U - Unconsolidated U ndrained Test (at tota l overbu rd en p re ssure of the sample) 4) UCT - Unconfined Com pression Test (untrimm ed sam ple)

5) To determin e Cv from Consolidation Tests :-

- Use Square-Root Time Method to determine d0 .

- Then use Log-Time Met hod to dete rmine d100

6) Direct shear box test - Three (3) recon stituted specimens (60mm x 60m m x 20 mm thick) sh all be used. - Applied normal stress pressure of 0.5 σv, 1.0σv , 2.0σv shall be adopte d for th e she ar box test, where σv is the total vertica l in-situ stress. 7) All specimens for tr iaxial or consolidation tests shall be obtained from center of th e recovere d samp les in

UD sam pler. 8) 2 moisture content te sts shall be carried out on soil immediately besides the specimens ret ained for tria xial or co nsolidation tests. 9) Bulk densit y, particle size distribut ion and Atterb erg Limit te sts shall b e carried out o n every specimen afte r the tr iaxial or consolidation tests.


Strength Parameters :Strength Parameters :Strength Parameters :Strength Parameters :Strength Parameters :Strength Parameters :Strength Parameters :Strength Parameters :

-------- Stability Analyses of Slopes & Embankment.Stability Analyses of Slopes & Embankment.Stability Analyses of Slopes & Embankment.Stability Analyses of Slopes & Embankment.Stability Analyses of Slopes & Embankment.Stability Analyses of Slopes & Embankment.Stability Analyses of Slopes & Embankment.Stability Analyses of Slopes & Embankment.

-------- Bearing Capacity Analyses for Foundation.Bearing Capacity Analyses for Foundation.Bearing Capacity Analyses for Foundation.Bearing Capacity Analyses for Foundation.Bearing Capacity Analyses for Foundation.Bearing Capacity Analyses for Foundation.Bearing Capacity Analyses for Foundation.Bearing Capacity Analyses for Foundation.

Interpretation of Laboratory TestsInterpretation of Laboratory Tests


(A)(A)(A)(A)(A)(A)(A)(A) Effective Stress :Effective Stress :Effective Stress :Effective Stress :Effective Stress :Effective Stress :Effective Stress :Effective Stress :-------- For Long Term & Permanent Conditions.For Long Term & Permanent Conditions.For Long Term & Permanent Conditions.For Long Term & Permanent Conditions.For Long Term & Permanent Conditions.For Long Term & Permanent Conditions.For Long Term & Permanent Conditions.For Long Term & Permanent Conditions.

-------- Fully Fully Fully Fully Fully Fully Fully Fully ““““““““DrainedDrainedDrainedDrainedDrainedDrainedDrainedDrained”””””””” Conditions.Conditions.Conditions.Conditions.Conditions.Conditions.Conditions.Conditions.

Strength ParametersStrength Parameters







Typical Set-up of TriaxialTest

a)Base

b)Removable cylinder and top cap

c)Loading ram

d)Rubber membrane

a

b

c

d



Effective Stress StrengthEffective Stress Strength

Parameters Parameters Parameters Parameters cccc’’’’ & & & & φφφφ’ �� Interpretation fromInterpretation fromInterpretation fromInterpretation from

(i)(i)(i)(i)(i)(i)(i)(i) Isotropic Isotropic Isotropic Isotropic Consolidated Consolidated Consolidated Consolidated UndrainedUndrainedUndrainedUndrained TriaxialTriaxialTriaxialTriaxial Test, Test, Test, Test, CIU + CIU + CIU + CIU + CIU + CIU + CIU + CIU + ∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆UUUUUUUU

(ii)(ii)(ii)(ii)(ii)(ii)(ii)(ii) Isotropic Consolidated Drained Isotropic Consolidated Drained Isotropic Consolidated Drained Isotropic Consolidated Drained TriaxialTriaxialTriaxialTriaxial Test, Test, Test, Test, CIDCIDCIDCIDCIDCIDCIDCID

(iii)(iii)(iii)(iii)(iii)(iii)(iii)(iii) Laboratory Shear Box Test Laboratory Shear Box Test Laboratory Shear Box Test Laboratory Shear Box Test Laboratory Shear Box Test Laboratory Shear Box Test Laboratory Shear Box Test Laboratory Shear Box Test (at v. slow (at v. slow (at v. slow (at v. slow (at v. slow (at v. slow (at v. slow (at v. slow rate)rate)rate)rate)rate)rate)rate)rate)


Mohr-Coulomb


Two types of PlotTwo types of PlotTwo types of PlotTwo types of Plot

(i)(i)(i)(i)(i)(i)(i)(i) MIT MIT MIT MIT MIT MIT MIT MIT Stress Path Plot Stress Path Plot Stress Path Plot Stress Path Plot Stress Path Plot Stress Path Plot Stress Path Plot Stress Path Plot (T.W. Lambe of MIT, 1967)

(ii)(ii)(ii)(ii)(ii)(ii)(ii)(ii) Cambridge Cambridge Cambridge Cambridge Cambridge Cambridge Cambridge Cambridge Stress Path Plot Stress Path Plot Stress Path Plot Stress Path Plot Stress Path Plot Stress Path Plot Stress Path Plot Stress Path Plot

The vertical axis :

t = (σσσσ1 - σσσσ3)/2 = (σσσσ’1 - σσσσ’3)/2The horizontal axis :s = (σσσσ1 + σσσσ3)/2 & s’ = (σσσσ’1 + σσσσ’3)/2

(Roscoe, Schofield and Wroth (1958) at the Cambridge, England)The vertical axis :

q = σσσσ1 - σσσσ3 = σσσσ’1 - σσσσ’3The horizontal axis :p = (σσσσ1 + σσσσ2 + σσσσ3)/3 & p’ = ( σσσσ’1+ σσσσ’2+σσσσ’3)/3

Terminology & Interpretation

STRESS PATH INTERPRETATIONSTRESS PATH INTERPRETATION


MIT & Cambridge Stress Path PlotMIT & Cambridge Stress Path Plot

Tan θθθθ = t’ / sTan θθθθ = Sin φφφφ’K = c’ Cos φφφφ’

C’ = KCos φφφφ’

Tan ηηηη = q / p’Sin φφφφ’ = (3 ηηηη) / ( 6 + ηηηη )r = c’ (6 Cos φφφφ’) / (3 – Sin φφφφ’)

C’ =r (3 – Sin φφφφ‘)

6 Cos φφφφ’



Scattered CIU Results

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500s' = ( σ1'+σ3 ')/2

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

t' =

(σ1'

- σ 3

')/2

BH1 UD2

BH2 UD1BH2 M1BH3 UD2BH4 UD1

BH5 M1BH6 M1BH6 M2

BH9 M1BH10 UD1BH10 UD3

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Upper Boundc’ = 5 kPa, φ’ = 39º

Lower Boundc’ = 0 kPa, φ’ = 29º

Proposed Design Linec’ = 3.5 kPa, φ’ = 32º

φφφφ’ = sin -1 m

c’ = a / (cos φφφφ’)

a

1m


Correlations for Preliminary Assessment of φφφφ’


ΦΦΦΦΦΦΦΦ’’ Values Values vsvs Clay Content Clay Content ((SkemptonSkempton , 1964), 1964)


ΦΦ’’ vsvs % of Fines% of Fines

Figure 3 : φ’peak versus Percentage of Fines in Residual Soils

30

35

25


cc’’ vsvs % of Fines% of Fines

Figure 4 : c’ versus Percentage of Fines in Residual Soils


Ring Shear test on sand-bentonite mixtures(after Lupini, Skinner & Vaughan, 1981)



YOU PAY FOR SOIL YOU PAY FOR SOIL YOU PAY FOR SOIL YOU PAY FOR SOIL YOU PAY FOR SOIL YOU PAY FOR SOIL YOU PAY FOR SOIL YOU PAY FOR SOIL

INVESTIGATION INVESTIGATION INVESTIGATION INVESTIGATION INVESTIGATION INVESTIGATION INVESTIGATION INVESTIGATION

WHETHER YOU WHETHER YOU WHETHER YOU WHETHER YOU WHETHER YOU WHETHER YOU WHETHER YOU WHETHER YOU

CARRY OUT OR CARRY OUT OR CARRY OUT OR CARRY OUT OR CARRY OUT OR CARRY OUT OR CARRY OUT OR CARRY OUT OR

NOTNOTNOTNOTNOTNOTNOTNOT





ASTM, (1986)Standard Test Method for Deep Quasi-static, Cone an d Friction Cone Penetration Tests of Soil, D3441-86, ASTM Committee D-18 on Soil and Rock, USA

Dobie, M.J.D., & Wong, J.T.F. (1990)“Piezocone testing; Interpretation in Malaysia Alluv ial Clays” Geotechnical Aspects of the North-South Expressway, PLUS & PL, K uala Lumpur

Fleming, W.G.K. et al (1985)Piling Engineering Survey University Press, Glasgow

Gue, S.S. & Tan, Y.C. (2003)Current Status & Future Development of Geotechnical Engineering Practice in Malaysia, 12th ARC on Soil Mechanics & Geotechnical Engineering, Singapore

ReferencesReferences


Proceedings of 1 st InternationalSymposium on Penetration Testing/ ISOPT – I/Florida, USA, 1988

Meigh, A.C. (1987)Cone Penetration Testing: Methods and Interpretatio n, Construction Industry Research and Information Association, CIRI A Ground Engineering Report: In-site Testing, London

International Society for Soil Mechanics and Founda tion (1988)International Reference Test Procedure, ISSMFE Tech nical Committee on Penetration Testing, Proposal to ISSMFE, Orlando, U SA

Head, K. H (1984)Manual of Soil Laboratory Testing

Gue, S.S. & Tan, Y.C. (2006)

Landslides: Abuses of the Prescriptive Method, Inte rnational Conference on Slopes, Malaysia



Sanglerat, G, (1972)

The Penetrometer and Soil Exploration, Elsevier Publ ishing Company, Amsterdam, Netherlands

Teh, C.I. and Houlsby, G.T. (1991)An Analytical Study of the Cone Penetration Test in Clay, Geotechnique, Vol. 41, No. 1, pp: 17-34

Proceedings of 2 nd EuropeanSymposium on Penetration Testing/ ESOPT – II/ Amster dam/ May 1982

Robertson, P.K. and Campanella, R.G. (1988)Guidelines for using the CPT, CPTU and Marchetti DMT for Geotechnical Design, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Research and Special Stud ies, Report No. FHWA-PA-87-023+84-24



MS 2038: 2006 – Code of Practice for Site Investigations

MS 1754: 2004 – Code of Practice for Earthworks

MS 1756: 2004 – Code of Practice for Foundation

MS 1056: 2005 – Method of Test for Soils for Civil Engineering Purposes

Clayton, C.R.I. Simons, N.e. & Mathews, M. C. (1982) Site Investigation, A Handbook for Engineers, Grenada London, 424P

European Group Subcommittee (1968)

“Recommended method of Static and Dynamic Penetration Tests 1965”Geotechnique Vol. 1 No. 1

Head, K. H. (1984)

Manual of Soil Laboratory testing

GCO (1984) : Geotechnical Manual for Slopes, Geotechnical Control Office, Hong Kong

GCO (1980) : Geoguide 2 : Guide to Site Investigation, Geotechnical Control Office, Hong Kong

Gue, S. S. (1985)

“Geotechnical Assessment for Hillside Development”Proceedings of the Symposium on Hillside Development; Engineering Practice and Local By-Laws, The Institution of Engineers, Malaysia

Neoh, C. A. (1995)

“Guidelines for Planning Scope of Site Investigation for Road Projects”, Public Works Department, Malaysia

Ooi, T.A. and Ting, W.H. (1975)

“The Use of a Light Dynamic Cone Penetrometer in Malaysia”. Proceeding of 4th Southeast Asian Conference on Soil Engineering, Kuala Lumpur, pp. 3-62, 3-79

Ting, W.H. (1972)

“Subsurface Exploration and Foundation Problems in the Kuala Lumpur Area”, Journal of Institution of Engineers, Malaysia, Vol. 13, pp. 19-25
