| Abstract [eng] |
SUMMARY Relevance of the topic. The most popular method of the determination of soil resistance is the static probing test. Meanwhile, the dynamic probing test is applied very rarely, mainly in places where the static probing test may not be used. Such situation has occurred because of the lack of methodology base for calculations according to qd (dynamic probing) values in Lithuania, while the designers do not perceive the advantages of dynamic probing. In the present situation, most of the engineering geology testing companies translate qd values into static probing values qc, though coefficients of conversion from qd to qc are not given in any engineering survey or construction regulations or references. Therefore, experts of engineering geology mostly use their own derived coefficients. Thus, through performed tests, the most optimal coefficients of conversion from qd to qc shall be applied in this paper. In order to determine these coefficients, problems of conversion from dynamic probing results to static probing results were analysed. The goal of the paper is to provide information for engineers geologists on the efficiency of two methods of engineering geologic field tests. Tasks: - Testing of static and dynamic probing in a specific territory; - Comparison of received results; - Finding of coefficients of conversion from qd to qc. The first part of the paper describes the engineering geologic conditions of the testing object. The second part analyses the results of the static and dynamic probing of soils. Meanwhile, the third part discusses the received results. With the results of the survey analysed, conclusions were made that dynamical probing should not be applied for determining and calculation of physical and mechanical features in weak soil as the received results are not completely evident and valid. |
