Segundo estudo de 2015 da FAO, 33% da área agricultável mundial estão degradados. Um dos principais problemas é a compactação do solo, causada pelo tráfego de máquinas ou animais em solo acima da capacidade de suporte de carga ou fora da condição de trafegabilidade. A compactação do solo desencadeia problemas ambientais e agronômicos como erosão, lixiviação e baixa produtividade. Sua reversão é um processo lento, caro, violento e ineficiente, por isso a melhor saída é previni-la. Para tanto, uma recomendação é mapeá-la regularmente. Um indicador indireto da compactação é a resistência (ou impedância) mecânica do solo à penenetração. O penetrômetro é o instrumento que mede a resistência da introdução de uma haste de ponta cônica no solo; teoricamente, solos mais compactados oferecem maior resistência. Há uma variedade de modelos de penetrômetro no mercado e literatura: bancada ou campo, manual ou automático, estático (penetrógrafo) ou dinâmico (de impacto), com ou sem registro eletrônico de dados etc. Naturalmente, surge a dúvida se é possível comparar dados de penetrômetros diferentes. Alguns trabalhos debruçaram-se sobre essa hipótese, mas a literatura ainda é escassa. Nos poucos artigos publicados, não hão há consenso a respeito da comparabilidade entre penetrômetros diferentes, que ora concordam, ora divergem. No presente trabalho, compararam-se os penetrômetros de campo Sondaterra PI-60 (impacto), Falker PLG1020 (manual) e Falker Solotrack (automático). O experimento observacional foi realizado em um latossolo vermelho eutroférrico de texturas argilosa, argiloarenosa e franco-argiloarenosa em Pirassununga-SP. A resistência mecânica foi avaliada simultaneamente pelos três penetrômetros em oito camadas entre 0,00-0,40 m, abaixo, dentro e acima do intervalo friável do local (10,2-35,1%(v/v)). Sob a mesma condição de umidade do solo, os três penetrômetros concordaram (não houve diferença estatística a 5%) em 58% das observações. Acordaram mais entre si os penetrômetros manual-automático (76%) e impacto-automático (70% das observações). Mesmo onde divergiram, as diferenças mínima, média e máxima de resistência foram respectivamente de 0,61; 0,91 e 1,23 MPa (excluindo-se a camada superficial 0,00-0,05 m), não interferindo no diagnóstico prático da compactação do solo. Em geral, PI-60 > Soltorack > PLG1020 (2,31; 2,14 e 1,91 MPa respectivamente). A compatibilidade entre penetrômetros abaixo, dentro e acima do intervalo friável foi a mesma: 31%, 36% e 33% das observações na mesma ordem. Não houve convergência em apenas três observações (de 120), todas na camada superficial. A resistência variou inversamente com a umidade do solo nos três penetrômetros, concordando com resultados semelhantes na literatura. Em média, a resistência diminuiu de 0,0596 MPa a cada acréscimo de 1% na umidade volumétrica (R2 = 0,44). Concluiu-se que é seguro comparar valores de resistência de penetrômetros diferentes desde que tenham sido coletados sob a mesma condição de umidade do solo. / According to a 2015 FAO study, 33% of the world\'s arable land is degraded. One of the main problems is soil compaction, caused by the traffic of machines or animals on soil over the load bearing capacity or outside of the trafficable condition. Soil compaction triggers environmental and agronomic problems such as erosion, leaching and low productivity. Its reversal is a slow, expensive, violent and inefficient process, so the best way out is to prevent it. To do so, a recommendation is to map it regularly. An indirect indicator of compaction is the mechanical resistance (or impedance) of the soil to penetration. The penetrometer is the instrument that measures the resistance of the introduction of a conical tipped rod into the ground; theoretically, more compacted soils offer greater resistance. There are a variety of penetrometer models in the market and literature: bench or field, manual or automatic, static (penetrograph) or dynamic (impact), with or without electronic data record etc. Of course, the question arises whether it is possible to compare data from different penetrometers. Some papers have dealt with this hypothesis, but the literature is still scarce. In the few articles published, there is no consensus about the comparability between different penetrometers, which now agree, or differ. In the present work, we compared the field sensors Sondaterra PI-60 (manual dynamic), Falker PLG1020 (manual static) and Falker Solotrack (automatic static). The observational experiment was carried out in a red eutroferric latosol (USDA oxisol) of clay, sandy clay and sandy clay loam textures in Pirassununga-SP, Brazil. The mechanical strength was evaluated simultaneously by the three penetrometers in eight layers between 0,00-0,40 m, below, within and above the friable interval of the site (10.2-35.1%(v/v)). Under the same soil moisture condition, the three penetrometers agreed (there was no statistical difference at 5%) in 58% of the observations. Best agreed among themselves the automatic-manual static (76%) and automatic-dynamic (70% of observations) penetrometers. Even where they diverged, the minimum, mean and maximum resistance differences were respectively 0.61; 0.91 and 1.23 MPa (excluding the superficial layer 0.00-0.05 m), values that do not interfere with the practical diagnosis of soil compaction. In general, PI-60 > Solotrack > PLG1020 (2.31, 2.14 and 1.91 MPa respectively). The compatibility between penetrometers below, within and above the friable interval was the same: 31%, 36% and 33% of observations in the same order. There was no convergence in only three observations (of 120), all in the superficial layer. The resistance varied inversely with soil moisture in the three penetrometers, agreeing with similar results in the literature. On average, the resistance decreased by 0.0596 MPa for each increment of 1% in the volumetric humidity (R2 = 0.44). It was concluded that it is safe to compare resistance values from different penetrometers provided they have been collected under the same soil moisture condition.

Segundo estudo de 2015 da FAO, 33% da área agricultável mundial estão degradados. Um dos principais problemas é a compactação do solo, causada pelo tráfego de máquinas ou animais em solo acima da capacidade de suporte de carga ou fora da condição de trafegabilidade. A compactação do solo desencadeia problemas ambientais e agronômicos como erosão, lixiviação e baixa produtividade. Sua reversão é um processo lento, caro, violento e ineficiente, por isso a melhor saída é previni-la. Para tanto, uma recomendação é mapeá-la regularmente. Um indicador indireto da compactação é a resistência (ou impedância) mecânica do solo à penenetração. O penetrômetro é o instrumento que mede a resistência da introdução de uma haste de ponta cônica no solo; teoricamente, solos mais compactados oferecem maior resistência. Há uma variedade de modelos de penetrômetro no mercado e literatura: bancada ou campo, manual ou automático, estático (penetrógrafo) ou dinâmico (de impacto), com ou sem registro eletrônico de dados etc. Naturalmente, surge a dúvida se é possível comparar dados de penetrômetros diferentes. Alguns trabalhos debruçaram-se sobre essa hipótese, mas a literatura ainda é escassa. Nos poucos artigos publicados, não hão há consenso a respeito da comparabilidade entre penetrômetros diferentes, que ora concordam, ora divergem. No presente trabalho, compararam-se os penetrômetros de campo Sondaterra PI-60 (impacto), Falker PLG1020 (manual) e Falker Solotrack (automático). O experimento observacional foi realizado em um latossolo vermelho eutroférrico de texturas argilosa, argiloarenosa e franco-argiloarenosa em Pirassununga-SP. A resistência mecânica foi avaliada simultaneamente pelos três penetrômetros em oito camadas entre 0,00-0,40 m, abaixo, dentro e acima do intervalo friável do local (10,2-35,1%(v/v)). Sob a mesma condição de umidade do solo, os três penetrômetros concordaram (não houve diferença estatística a 5%) em 58% das observações. Acordaram mais entre si os penetrômetros manual-automático (76%) e impacto-automático (70% das observações). Mesmo onde divergiram, as diferenças mínima, média e máxima de resistência foram respectivamente de 0,61; 0,91 e 1,23 MPa (excluindo-se a camada superficial 0,00-0,05 m), não interferindo no diagnóstico prático da compactação do solo. Em geral, PI-60 > Soltorack > PLG1020 (2,31; 2,14 e 1,91 MPa respectivamente). A compatibilidade entre penetrômetros abaixo, dentro e acima do intervalo friável foi a mesma: 31%, 36% e 33% das observações na mesma ordem. Não houve convergência em apenas três observações (de 120), todas na camada superficial. A resistência variou inversamente com a umidade do solo nos três penetrômetros, concordando com resultados semelhantes na literatura. Em média, a resistência diminuiu de 0,0596 MPa a cada acréscimo de 1% na umidade volumétrica (R2 = 0,44). Concluiu-se que é seguro comparar valores de resistência de penetrômetros diferentes desde que tenham sido coletados sob a mesma condição de umidade do solo. / According to a 2015 FAO study, 33% of the world\'s arable land is degraded. One of the main problems is soil compaction, caused by the traffic of machines or animals on soil over the load bearing capacity or outside of the trafficable condition. Soil compaction triggers environmental and agronomic problems such as erosion, leaching and low productivity. Its reversal is a slow, expensive, violent and inefficient process, so the best way out is to prevent it. To do so, a recommendation is to map it regularly. An indirect indicator of compaction is the mechanical resistance (or impedance) of the soil to penetration. The penetrometer is the instrument that measures the resistance of the introduction of a conical tipped rod into the ground; theoretically, more compacted soils offer greater resistance. There are a variety of penetrometer models in the market and literature: bench or field, manual or automatic, static (penetrograph) or dynamic (impact), with or without electronic data record etc. Of course, the question arises whether it is possible to compare data from different penetrometers. Some papers have dealt with this hypothesis, but the literature is still scarce. In the few articles published, there is no consensus about the comparability between different penetrometers, which now agree, or differ. In the present work, we compared the field sensors Sondaterra PI-60 (manual dynamic), Falker PLG1020 (manual static) and Falker Solotrack (automatic static). The observational experiment was carried out in a red eutroferric latosol (USDA oxisol) of clay, sandy clay and sandy clay loam textures in Pirassununga-SP, Brazil. The mechanical strength was evaluated simultaneously by the three penetrometers in eight layers between 0,00-0,40 m, below, within and above the friable interval of the site (10.2-35.1%(v/v)). Under the same soil moisture condition, the three penetrometers agreed (there was no statistical difference at 5%) in 58% of the observations. Best agreed among themselves the automatic-manual static (76%) and automatic-dynamic (70% of observations) penetrometers. Even where they diverged, the minimum, mean and maximum resistance differences were respectively 0.61; 0.91 and 1.23 MPa (excluding the superficial layer 0.00-0.05 m), values that do not interfere with the practical diagnosis of soil compaction. In general, PI-60 > Solotrack > PLG1020 (2.31, 2.14 and 1.91 MPa respectively). The compatibility between penetrometers below, within and above the friable interval was the same: 31%, 36% and 33% of observations in the same order. There was no convergence in only three observations (of 120), all in the superficial layer. The resistance varied inversely with soil moisture in the three penetrometers, agreeing with similar results in the literature. On average, the resistance decreased by 0.0596 MPa for each increment of 1% in the volumetric humidity (R2 = 0.44). It was concluded that it is safe to compare resistance values from different penetrometers provided they have been collected under the same soil moisture condition.

Ce travail porte sur la reconnaissance de sols à faible profondeur grâce aux données de résistance de pointe recueillies à l'aide de l'essai de pénétration dynamique à énergie variable, Panda®. L'objectif principal est d'étudier et de proposer un ensemble d'approches dans le cadre d'une méthode globale permettant d'exploiter les mesures issues d'une campagne de sondages Panda afin de bâtir un modèle géotechnique du terrain.Ce manuscrit est structuré en quatre parties, chacune abordant un objectif spécifique :dans un premier temps, on rappelle les principaux moyens de reconnaissance des sols, notamment l'essai de pénétration dynamique Panda. Ensuite on réalise un bref aperçu sur le modèle géotechnique et les techniques mathématiques pour décrire l'incertitude dans la caractérisation des propriétés du sol;la deuxième partie porte sur l'identification automatique des unités homogènes du terrain, à partir du signal pénétrométrique Panda. Suite à l'étude réalisée sur l'identification "experte" des couches à partir du signal Panda, des approches statistiques basées sur une fenêtre glissante ont été proposées. Ces techniques ont été étudiées et validées sur la base d'un protocole d'essais en laboratoire et sur des essais effectués en sites naturels et en conditions réelles;la troisième partie porte sur l'identification automatique des matériaux composant les unités homogènes détectées dans le signal Panda à partir des méthodes proposées en partie II. Une méthode de classification automatique basée sur des réseaux de neurones artificiels a été proposée et appliquée aux deux cas d'étude : la caractérisation de sols naturels et la classification d'un matériau granulaire argileux industrialisé (bentonite) ; enfin, la dernière partie est consacrée à la production d'un modèle de terrain basé sur la modélisation et la simulation de la résistance de pointe dynamique au moyen de fonctions aléatoires de l'espace. Cette modélisation est basée sur une approche par champs aléatoires conditionnés par les sondages Panda du terrain. Sa mise en œuvre a été étudiée pour un terrain expérimental situé dans la plaine deltaïque méditerranéenne en Espagne. Des études complémentaires en vue de raffiner cette démarche ont été réalisées pour un deuxième site expérimental dans la plaine de la Limagne en France. / This research focuses on the site characterization of shallow soils using the dynamic cone penetrometer Panda® which uses variable energy. The main purpose is to study and propose several techniques as part of an overall method in order to obtain a ground model through a geotechnical campaign based on the Panda test.This work is divided into four parts, each of them it is focused on a specific topic :first of all, we introduce the main site characterization techniques, including the dynamic penetrometer Panda. Then, we present a brief overview of the geotechnical model and the mathematical methods for the characterization of uncertainties in soil properties;the second part deals with the automatic identification of physical homogeneous soil units based on penetration's mechanical response of the soil using the Panda test. Following a study about the soil layers identification based only on expert's judgment, we have proposed statistical moving window procedures for an objective assessment. The application of these statistical methods have been studied for the laboratory and in situ Panda test;the third part focuses on the automatic classification of the penetrations curves in the homogeneous soil units identified using the statistical techniques proposed in part II. An automatic methodology to predict the soil grading from the dynamic cone resistance using artificial neural networks has been proposed. The framework has been studied for two different research problems: the classification of natural soils and the classification of several crushed aggregate-bentonite mixtures;finally, the last chapter was devoted to model the spatial variability of the dynamic cone resistance qd based on random field theory and geostatistics. In order to reduce uncertainty in the field where Panda measurements are carried out, we have proposed the use of conditional simulation in a three dimensional space. This approach has been applied and studied to a real site investigation carried out in an alluvial mediterranean deltaic environment in Spain. Complementary studies in order to improve the proposed framework have been explored based on another geotechnical campaign conducted on a second experimental site in France.

Ce travail présente les développements récents réalisés sur le pénétromètre PANDA 3. Il s'agit d'un pénétromètre dynamique instrumenté qui permet à partir de la mesure puis du découplage des ondes créées par l’impact sur l’appareil, d’obtenir pour chaque coup une courbe charge-enfoncement σp-sp du sol ausculté. L’exploitation de cette courbe permet de déterminer des paramètres de résistance (résistance de pointe qd), de déformation (module dynamique Ed P3), des caractéristiques d’amortissement Js et de célérité d'ondes (CsP3 et CpP3) des sols auscultés en fonction de la profondeur tout au long du sondage. Cependant, et bien que la méthode soit très intéressante, celle-ci est restée au stade d’un prototype de laboratoire. Il est donc nécessaire de réaliser une étude plus approfondie sur l'essai lui-même et sur l’information contenue dans la courbe σp-sp en vue de fiabiliser la mesure et d’améliorer son exploitation. Dans un premier temps, nous présentons un bref aperçu sur les techniques de reconnaissance géotechnique et plus particulièrement celle des essais de pénétration dynamique. Le principe général du PANDA 3 est également présenté. La deuxième partie est consacrée au développement d'un nouveau prototype de pénétromètre PANDA 3. Ce développement s’appuie sur plusieurs études visant à valider la qualité des informations recueillies, leur bonne reproductibilité et le traitement des signaux d’acquisition. De même, un modèle numérique discret du battage pénétrométrique développé à l’aide du logiciel Particle Flow Code (Itasca) est présenté permettant de valider la technique de mesure. La troisième partie traite d'une étude comparative des résultats obtenus avec le PANDA 3 et d’autres techniques d'auscultation in situ afin de valider les résultats obtenus et l’utilisation de l’appareil dans des conditions réelles. Par ailleurs l’extension de cette technique de mesure au cas des pénétromètres lourds est appliquée dans le but de mesurer l'énergie transmise et d’étalonner le système de battage. Enfin, la dernière partie est consacrée à l'interprétation et l'exploitation des signaux en pointe afin d'affiner le modèle d'interprétation de la courbe charge-enfoncement. L'analyse de l'ensemble des signaux enregistrés au laboratoire a permis d’approcher une méthodologie d'exploitation de la courbe. L'application de la méthode proposée a été réalisée pour différents sols aussi bien au laboratoire que sur le terrain. Les résultats obtenus ont été confrontés avec d'autres types d’essais. / This work presents the recent developments made on the penetrometer PANDA®3. The instrumented dynamic penetrometer allowing, from the measurement and the decoupling of waves created by the impact, to obtain the load-penetration curve σp-sp of the soil. The exploitation of this curve allows determining the failure parameter (tip resistance qd), deformation (dynamic modulus EdP3), damping characteristics (Js) and wave speed (CsP3 and CpP3) of the investigated soil according to depth all along the sounding. However, although the proposed method is very interesting, it has remained at the stage of a laboratory prototype. It is therefore necessary to conduct a more thorough study of the test itself and the information provided from the σp-sp curve in order to obtain reliable measurement and improve their exploitation. First of all, we are presenting a brief overview of the geotechnical in-situ testing particularly that of the dynamic penetration tests as well as the general principle of PANDA 3 is presented. The second part is devoted to the development of a new prototype of the PANDA 3 penetrometer. This development is based on several studies aiming at validating the quality of the information, good reproducibility and treatment of the acquisition signals. Similarly, a discrete numerical model of the penetrometer developed using the Particle Flow Code software (Itasca) is presented to validate the measurement technique. The third part deals with a comparative study of the results obtained with the PANDA 3 and other in situ investigation techniques to validate the obtained results and the use of the device in real conditions. Moreover, the extension of this measurement technique in the case of heavy penetrometer is applied in order to measure the transmitted energy and to calibrate the driving system. The last part is devoted to refining the interpretation and exploitation of the load-penetration curve. The analysis of all the signals recorded in the laboratory allowed to approach a methodology of curve exploitation. The application of the proposed method was carried out for different soils both in the laboratory and on field. The results were confronted with other types of tests.