Not logged in
PANGAEA.
Data Publisher for Earth & Environmental Science

Al-Sammarraie, Dina; Kreiter, Stefan; Kluger, Max Oke; Mörz, Tobias (2020): CPT datasets showing the effect of horizontal spacing on cone resistance for sand deposit in Bremen, Germany [dataset bundled publication]. PANGAEA, https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.916127

Always quote citation above when using data! You can download the citation in several formats below.

Published: 2020-05-11 • DOI registered: 2021-03-10

RIS CitationBibTeX Citation ShareShow MapGoogle Earth

Abstract:
Geotechnical methods, such as cone penetration tests (CPT), standard penetration tests (SPT), and seismic cone penetration tests (sCPT), are widely used to characterize the in-situ properties of soil. In studies where more than one in situ method in close spacing is used, it is important for geotechnical engineers to balance between soil heterogeneity and the artefacts of disturbed testing zones. The same applies if a detailed information about the subsoil is required and one in situ method is used in close spacing. There is no consensus on how to define the minimum spacing between testing zones and no study on the effect of disturbance caused by in situ tests. In this study, 33 CPTs were performed in natural sediments in Northern Germany and spacing threshold was defined at which cone resistance is affected by soil disturbance from previously performed CPTs. The CPTs were performed sequentially by successively refining the grid spacing, starting with a spacing of 119 cone diameters between CPTs, to a fine grid spacing of 7 cone diameters. The cone resistance is affected by previous CPT measurements below a spacing threshold of 24 cone diameters in medium-dense sands. Silt and clay layers showed no reduction in the cone resistance for the minimum grid spacing of 7 cone diameters.
Keyword(s):
Cone penetration test; In-situ; Soil testing
Supplement to:
Al-Sammarraie, Dina; Kreiter, Stefan; Kluger, Max Oke; Mörz, Tobias (2020): Reliability of CPT measurements in sand – influence of spacing. Géotechnique, 1-13, https://doi.org/10.1680/jgeot.19.P.247
Coverage:
Latitude: 53.139746 * Longitude: 8.727844
License:
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC-BY-4.0)
Size:
15 datasets

Download Data

Download ZIP file containing all datasets as tab-delimited text — use the following character encoding:

Datasets listed in this bundled publication

  1. Al-Sammarraie, D; Kreiter, S; Kluger, MO et al. (2020): Acceleration data of cone penetration tests from Bremen, Northern Germany. https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.916168
  2. Al-Sammarraie, D; Kreiter, S; Kluger, MO et al. (2020): Cone resistance of cone penetration tests from Bremen, Northern Germany. https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.916205
  3. Al-Sammarraie, D; Kreiter, S; Kluger, MO et al. (2020): Selected tie point of cone penetration tests from Bremen, Northern Germany. https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.916192
  4. Al-Sammarraie, D; Kreiter, S; Kluger, MO et al. (2020): Fig. 3. Stratigraphy and soil properties of test field. https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.921256
  5. Al-Sammarraie, D; Kreiter, S; Kluger, MO et al. (2020): Fig. 3. Stratigraphy and soil properties of test field (G). https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.921238
  6. Al-Sammarraie, D; Kreiter, S; Kluger, MO et al. (2020): Fig. 4. Penetration path projections. https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.921239
  7. Al-Sammarraie, D; Kreiter, S; Kluger, MO et al. (2020): Fig.7. Representative cone resistance. https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.921556
  8. Al-Sammarraie, D; Kreiter, S; Kluger, MO et al. (2020): Fig. 8. Absolute and relative spacing influence. https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.921587
  9. Al-Sammarraie, D; Kreiter, S; Kluger, MO et al. (2020): Fig.9. Average absolute spacing influence. https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.921596
  10. Al-Sammarraie, D; Kreiter, S; Kluger, MO et al. (2020): Fig.10. Average relative spacing. https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.921607
  11. Al-Sammarraie, D; Kreiter, S; Kluger, MO et al. (2020): Fig. 11. Confidence interval of each mean cone resistance. https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.916206
  12. Al-Sammarraie, D; Kreiter, S; Kluger, MO et al. (2020): Fig. 12. The average confidence interval. https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.916125
  13. Al-Sammarraie, D; Kreiter, S; Kluger, MO et al. (2020): Fig.13. The average confidence interval. https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.921568
  14. Al-Sammarraie, D; Kreiter, S; Kluger, MO et al. (2020): Pore Pressure data of cone penetration tests from Bremen, Northern Germany. https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.921690
  15. Al-Sammarraie, D; Kreiter, S; Kluger, MO et al. (2020): Sleeve friction data of cone penetration tests from Bremen, Northern Germany. https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.921691