DMT-simulation to calibrate a structured-clay model at the Onsøy Geo-Test site, Norway

Lluis Monforte; Laurin Hauser; Paola Monaco; Anna Chiaradonna; Sara Amoroso; Marcos Arroyo; Diego Marchetti; Lluis Monforte; Laurin Hauser; Paola Monaco; Anna Chiaradonna; Sara Amoroso; Marcos Arroyo; Diego Marchetti

doi:10.3934/geosci.2025028

AIMS Geosciences

2025, Volume 11, Issue 3: 651-685. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2025028

Previous Article Next Article

Research article Special Issues

DMT-simulation to calibrate a structured-clay model at the Onsøy Geo-Test site, Norway

1.
Centre Internacional de Mètodes Numèrics en Enginyeria, CIMNE, Barcelona, Spain
2.
Department of Civil, Construction-Architectural and Environmental Engineering, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy
3.
University of Chieti-Pescara, Pescara; Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, L'Aquila, Italy
4.
Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, UPC-BarcelonaTech, Barcelona, Spain
5.
Studio Prof. Marchetti, Rome, Italy

Received: 10 April 2025 Revised: 30 May 2025 Accepted: 25 June 2025 Published: 01 August 2025

The Onsøy clay deposit is representative of soft structured natural clays. These are materials with brittle mechanical responses that are important to represent correctly in design. For this purpose, numerical models are employed, but calibration of the appropriate constitutive models is difficult. Calibration based on laboratory tests alone is problematic because the natural structure is damaged during sampling to an extent that is difficult to identify. In this work, we explored a calibration strategy for structured clay models based on the joint interpretation of laboratory and field tests through simulation. For this purpose, we made use of a large strain simulation of two mechanical in-situ test results where probes were pushed into the ground: The cone penetration test (CPTu) and the Marchetti dilatometer (DMT). The results obtained for the Onsøy clay showed that the DMT is advantageous in this respect, because it has lower measurement uncertainty and because the initial membrane contact pressure measured in the test is less sensitive to confounding factors.
- soft clay,
- dilatometer,
- site characterization,
- numerical modelling,
- structured soil
Citation: Lluis Monforte, Laurin Hauser, Paola Monaco, Anna Chiaradonna, Sara Amoroso, Marcos Arroyo, Diego Marchetti. DMT-simulation to calibrate a structured-clay model at the Onsøy Geo-Test site, Norway[J]. AIMS Geosciences, 2025, 11(3): 651-685. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2025028

Related Papers:

Abstract

The Onsøy clay deposit is representative of soft structured natural clays. These are materials with brittle mechanical responses that are important to represent correctly in design. For this purpose, numerical models are employed, but calibration of the appropriate constitutive models is difficult. Calibration based on laboratory tests alone is problematic because the natural structure is damaged during sampling to an extent that is difficult to identify. In this work, we explored a calibration strategy for structured clay models based on the joint interpretation of laboratory and field tests through simulation. For this purpose, we made use of a large strain simulation of two mechanical in-situ test results where probes were pushed into the ground: The cone penetration test (CPTu) and the Marchetti dilatometer (DMT). The results obtained for the Onsøy clay showed that the DMT is advantageous in this respect, because it has lower measurement uncertainty and because the initial membrane contact pressure measured in the test is less sensitive to confounding factors.

References

[1]	Tan TS (2003) Characterisation and engineering properties of natural soils, CRC press
[2]	Tan TS, Phoon KK, Hight DW, et al. (2006) Characterisation and Engineering Properties of Natural Soils, Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Characterisation and Engineering Properties of Natural Soils, Singapore. CRC Press.
[3]	Gens A (1993) Conceptual bases for a constitutive model for bonded soils and weak rocks. Geotech Eng Hard Soils-Soft Rocks, 485–494.
[4]	Karstunen M, Krenn H, Wheeler SJ, et al. (2005) Effect of anisotropy and destructuration on the behavior of Murro test embankment. Int J Geomech 5: 87–97. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1532-3641(2005)5:2(87) doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)1532-3641(2005)5:2(87)
[5]	Rouainia M, Muir Wood D (2000) A kinematic hardening constitutive model for natural clays with loss of structure. Géotechnique 50: 153–164. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.2000.50.2.153 doi: 10.1680/geot.2000.50.2.153
[6]	Di Mariano A, Amoroso S, Arroyo M, et al. (2019) SDMT-based numerical analyses of deep excavation in soft soil. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 145: 4018102. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001993 doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001993
[7]	González NA, Arroyo M, Gens A (2009) Identification of bonded clay parameters in SBPM tests: a numerical study. Soils Found 49: 329–340. https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf.49.329 doi: 10.3208/sandf.49.329
[8]	Rouainia M, Panayides S, Arroyo M, et al. (2020) A pressuremeter-based evaluation of structure in London Clay using a kinematic hardening constitutive model. Acta Geotech 15: 2089–2101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-020-00940-w doi: 10.1007/s11440-020-00940-w
[9]	Monforte L, Gens A, Arroyo M, et al. (2021) Analysis of cone penetration in brittle liquefiable soils. Comput Geotech 134: 104123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2021.104123 doi: 10.1016/j.compgeo.2021.104123
[10]	Fetrati M, Galavi V, Goodarzi M, et al. (2024) Simulation of cone penetrometer tests in sand using three advanced constitutive models: A comparative study. Comput Geotech 176: 106683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2024.106683 doi: 10.1016/j.compgeo.2024.106683
[11]	Monforte L, Hauser L, Arroyo M (2025) Numerical studies of DMT insertion in fine grained soils. CIMNE Report to Marchetti S.P.A. Available from: https://www.marchetti-dmt.it.
[12]	Hauser L, Oberhollenzer S, Marte R, et al. (2025) Characterization of Microstructure of a Postglacial Deposit Based on In Situ Testing, Laboratory Testing, and Numerical Analysis. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 151: 4025029. https://doi.org/10.1061/JGGEFK.GTENG-11985 doi: 10.1061/JGGEFK.GTENG-11985
[13]	Gundersen A, Hansen R, Lunne T, et al. (2019) Characterization and engineering properties of the NGTS Onsøy soft clay site.
[14]	Gundersen AS, Hansen RC, Bazin S, et al. (2019) Field and Laboratory Test Results from NGTS soft clay site—Onsøy. Norges Geotekniske Institutt (NGI).
[15]	Gundersen AS, Lindgård A, Lunne T (2020) Impact of cone penetrometer type on measured CPTU parameters at 4 NGTS sites. Silt, soft clay, sand and quick clay. Norges Geotekniske Institutt (NGI).
[16]	Doherty JP, Gourvenec S, Gaone FM, et al. (2018). A novel web based application for storing, managing and sharing geotechnical data, illustrated using the national soft soil field testing facility in Ballina, Australia. Comput Geotech 93: 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2017.05.007
[17]	Monaco P, Chiaradonna A, Marchetti D, et al. (2024) GEOLAB—Transnational Access project JELLYFISh—Field testing of Medusa DMT (Versione 1)[Data set]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7695739
[18]	Oberhollenzer S, Lande E, Ritter S (2024) The influence of soil structure on CPTu and SDMT results. 7th International Conference on Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterization. https://www.scipedia.com/public/Oberhollenzer*_et_al_2024a.
[19]	Monaco P, Chiaradonna A, Marchetti D, et al. (2024) Medusa SDMT testing at the Onsøy geo-test site, Norway. E3S Web of Conferences, 544: 02002. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202454402002 doi: 10.1051/e3sconf/202454402002
[20]	Monaco P, Chiaradonna A, Marchetti D, et al. (2024) The JELLYFISh Project: Medusa SDMT testing at the NGTS Geo-Test sites, Norway. 7th International Conference on Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterization, 18: 21. https://doi.org/10.23967/isc.2024.205
[21]	Lunne T, Berre T, Strandvik S (1998) Sample disturbance effects in deepwater soil investigations. SUT Offshore Site Investigation and Foundation Behaviour New Frontiers: Proceedings of an International Conference, 199–220.
[22]	Hight DW (2003) Sampling effects in soft clay: An update on Ladd and Lambe (1963). Soil Behav Soft Ground Constr, 86–121. https://doi.org/10.1061/40659(2003)4
[23]	Lunne T, Strandvik S, Kasin K, et al. (2018) Effect of cone penetrometer type on CPTU results at a soft clay test site in Norway, Cone Penetration Testing 2018, CRC Press.
[24]	Ching J, Phoon KK (2015) Constructing multivariate distributions for soil parameters, Risk and Reliability in Geotechnical Engineering, CRC Press. 3–76.
[25]	Monforte L, Arroyo M, Carbonell JM, et al. (2017) Numerical simulation of undrained insertion problems in geotechnical engineering with the Particle Finite Element Method (PFEM). Comput Geotech. 82: 144–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2016.08.013 doi: 10.1016/j.compgeo.2016.08.013
[26]	Monforte L, Arroyo M, Carbonell JM, et al. (2018) Coupled effective stress analysis of insertion problems in geotechnics with the Particle Finite Element Method. Comput Geotech 101: 114–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2018.04.002 doi: 10.1016/j.compgeo.2018.04.002
[27]	Dadvand P, Rossi R, Oñate E (2010) An object-oriented environment for developing finite element codes for multi-disciplinary applications. Arch Comput Methods Eng 17: 253–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11831-010-9045-2 doi: 10.1007/s11831-010-9045-2
[28]	Oñate E, Idehsohn SR, del Pin F, et al. (2004) The particle finite element method—an overview. Int J Comp Meth 1: 267–307. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219876204000204 doi: 10.1142/S0219876204000204
[29]	Monforte L, Carbonell JM, Arroyo M, et al. (2017) Performance of mixed formulations for the particle finite element method in soil mechanics problems. Comp Part Mech 4: 269–284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40571-016-0145-0 doi: 10.1007/s40571-016-0145-0
[30]	Oliver J, Huespe AE, Cante JC (2008) An implicit/explicit integration scheme to increase computability of non-linear materials and contact/friction problems. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 197: 1865–1889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2007.11.027 doi: 10.1016/j.cma.2007.11.027
[31]	Monforte L, Ciantia MO, Carbonell JM, et al. (2019) A stable mesh-independent approach for numerical modelling of structured soils at large strains. Comput Geotech 116: 103215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2019.103215 doi: 10.1016/j.compgeo.2019.103215
[32]	Carbonell JM, Oñate E, Suárez B (2010) Modeling of ground excavation with the particle finite-element method. J Eng Mech 136: 455–463. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0000086 doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0000086
[33]	Carbonell JM, Monforte L, Ciantia MO, et al. (2022) Geotechnical particle finite element method for modeling of soil-structure interaction under large deformation conditions. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 14: 967–983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2021.12.006 doi: 10.1016/j.jrmge.2021.12.006
[34]	Yu HS (1998) CASM: a unified state parameter model for clay and sand. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 22: 621–653. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-9853(199808)22:8<621::AID-NAG937>3.0.CO;2-8 doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1096-9853(199808)22:8<621::AID-NAG937>3.0.CO;2-8
[35]	Gonzalez NA (2011) Development of a family of constitutive models for geotechnical applications. PhD thesis. Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya.
[36]	Arroyo M, Ciantia M, Castellanza R, et al. (2012) Simulation of cement-improved clay structures with a bonded elasto-plastic model: A practical approach. Comput Geotech 45: 140–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2012.05.008 doi: 10.1016/j.compgeo.2012.05.008
[37]	Abbo AJ, Lyamin AV, Sloan SW, et al. (2011) A C2 continuous approximation to the Mohr-Coulomb yield surface. Int J Solids Struct 48: 3001–3010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2011.06.021 doi: 10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2011.06.021
[38]	Mánica MA, Arroyo M, Gens A, et al. (2022) Application of a critical state model to the Merriespruit tailings dam failure. Proc Inst Civ Eng Geotech Eng 175: 151–165. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgeen.21.00001 doi: 10.1680/jgeen.21.00001
[39]	Marchetti S, Monaco P, Totani G, et al. (2001) The Flat Dilatometer Test (DMT) in Soil Investigations—A Report by the ISSMGE Committee TC16. Proc. Int. Conf. Insitu Measurement of Soil Properties and Case Histories, Bali, 95–131. Official version approved by ISSMGE TC16 reprinted in Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. Flat Dilatometer, Washington, 2006, 7–48. Available from: https://www.marchetti-dmt.it/.
[40]	Butlanska J, Arroyo M, Amoroso S, et al. (2018) Marchetti flat dilatometer tests in a virtual calibration chamber. Geotech Test J 41: 930–945. https://doi.org/10.1520/GTJ20170370 doi: 10.1520/GTJ20170370
[41]	Kouretzis GP, Ansari Y, Pineda J, et al. (2015) Numerical evaluation of clay disturbance during blade penetration in the flat dilatometer test. Geotech Lett 5: 91–95. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgele.15.00026 doi: 10.1680/jgele.15.00026
[42]	Yu HS, Carter JP, Booker JR (1993) Analysis of the dilatometer test in undrained clay. Predictive soil mechanics: Proceedings of the Wroth Memorial Symposium held at St Catherine's College, Oxford, Thomas Telford Publishing. 783–795.
[43]	Colcott R, Lehane BM (2012) The design, development and application of a new DMT. Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterization: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Site Characterization ISC-4, Taylor & Francis Books Ltd, 565–570.
[44]	Robertson PK (2009) Interpretation of cone penetration tests—a unified approach. Can Geotech J 46: 1337–1355. https://doi.org/10.1139/T09-065 doi: 10.1139/T09-065
[45]	Monforte L, Arroyo M, Gens A (2022) Undrained strength from CPTu in brittle soils: a numerical perspective, Cone Penetration Testing 2022, CRC Press.
[46]	Plewes HD, Davies MP, Jefferies MG (1992) CPT based screening procedure for evaluating liquefaction susceptibility. Proceedings of the 45th Canadian Geotechnical Conference, Toronto, Canada, 4: 1–9.
[47]	Jefferies M, Been K (2015) Soil liquefaction: a critical state approach, second edition, London, United Kingdom. CRC Press.
[48]	Robertson PK (1990) Soil classification using the cone penetration test Can Geotech J 27: 151–158.
[49]	Schneider J, Randolph MF, Mayne PW, et al. (2008) Analysis of factors influencing soil classification using normalized piezocone tip resistance and pore pressure parameters. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 134: 1569–1586. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2008)134:11(1569) doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2008)134:11(1569)
[50]	Lunne T, Long M, Forsberg CF (2003) Characterisation and engineering properties of Onsøy clay. Charact Eng Prop Nat Soils 1: 395–428.
[51]	Lacasse S, Lunne T (1982) Penetration tests in two Norwegian clays. Norwegian Geotechnical Institute Publication, 138.
[52]	Hauser L, Durán Caballero DE, Monforte Vila L, et al. (2024) Numerical study of viscous effects during CPTu. ISC'7: 7th International Conference on Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterization, International Centre for Numerical Methods in Engineering (CIMNE), 1741–1745. https://doi.org/10.23967/isc.2024.261
[53]	Grimstad G, Degago SA, Nordal S, et al. (2010) Modeling creep and rate effects in structured anisotropic soft clays. Acta Geotech 5: 69–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-010-0119-y doi: 10.1007/s11440-010-0119-y

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2025 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)