Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
, 2012
ABSTRACT: The use and application of in-situ testing has continued to expand in the past few decades. This
paper focuses on some major in-situ tests (SPT, CPT and DMT) and presents selected insights that the geo-
technical engineering profession may find helpful. Many of the recommendations contained in this paper are
focused on low to moderate risk projects where empirical interpretation tends to dominate. For projects
where more advanced methods are more appropriate, the recommendations provided in this paper can be used
as a screening to evaluate critical regions/zones where selective additional in-situ testing and sampling may
be appropriate.
Table 1 presents a summary of the current per- Precedent and local experience
ceived applicability of the major in-situ tests. It is Design objectives
fitting that this J.K. Mitchell lecture/paper should Level of geotechnical risk
start with this table, since it was first published in Potential cost savings
1978 by Professor Mitchell (Mitchell et al., 1978).
Professor Mitchell carried out research and pub- The evaluation of geotechnical risk was described
lished on a wide range of topics ranging from fun- by Robertson (1998) and is dependent on the ha-
damentals of clay behavior to the use and interpreta- zards (what can go wrong), probability of occur-
tion of in-situ tests, with the Apollo moon landing rence (how likely is it to go wrong) and the conse-
one of his first in-situ test experiments. In-situ test- quences (what are the outcomes).
ing was only a part of his extensive and impressive Traditional site investigation in many countries
research record. typically involves soil borings with intermittent
standard penetration test (SPT) N-values at regular
depth intervals (typically 1.5m) and occasional thin-
1
Mitchell Lecture - ISC'4 Brazil, Sept., 2012
Table 1 Perceived applicability of in-situ tests (updated from Mitchell et al., 1978 and Lunne et al, 1997)
walled tube samples for subsequent laboratory test- ing. The results of the often limited laboratory test-
ing. Additional specific tests, such as field vane tests ing are correlated to the in-situ test results to extend
(FVT) in soft clay layers and/or intermittent pre- and apply the results for other regions/zones within
bored pressuremeter tests (PMT) in harder layers are the project.
added for higher risk, larger projects. Increasingly a A common complaint with most direct-push in-
more efficient and cost effective approach is the uti- situ tests, such as the CPT and DMT, is that they do
lization of direct-push methods using multi- not provide a soil sample. Although it is correct that
measurement in-situ devices, such as the seismic a soil sample is not obtained during either the CPT
cone penetration test with pore pressure measure- or DMT, most commercial operators carry simple
ments (SCPTu) and the seismic flat dilatometer test direct-push samplers that can be pushed using the
(SDMT). Since the CPTu is about 3 to 4 times fast- same direct-push installation equipment to obtain a
er, collects more frequent data and is less expensive small (typically 25 to 50 mm in diameter) disturbed
than the DMT, the CPTu is increasingly the pre- soil sample of similar size to that obtained from the
ferred primary in-situ test. The continuous nature of SPT. The preferred approach, and often more cost
the CPTu results provide valuable information about effective solution, is to obtain a detailed continuous
soil variability that is difficult to match with sam- stratigraphic profile using the CPT, then to move
pling and laboratory testing. Given the above state- over a short distance (< 1m) and push a small diame-
ments, emphasis in this paper will be placed on the ter soil sampler to obtain discrete selective samples
interpretation of the CPTu. in critical layers/zones identified by the CPT. The
For low risk projects direct-push logging tests push rate to obtain samples can be significantly fast-
(e.g. CPT and CPTu) and index testing on disturbed er (up to 20 times) than the 20 mm/s used for the
samples combined with conservative design criteria CPT and sampling can be rapid and cost effective
are often appropriate. For moderate risk projects, for a small number of discrete samples.
the above can be supplemented with additional spe- Many of the recommendations contained in this
cific in-situ testing, such as the SCPTu with pore paper are focused on low to moderate risk projects
pressure dissipations combined with selective sam- where empirical interpretation tends to dominate.
pling and laboratory testing to develop site specific For projects where more advanced methods are more
correlations. For high risk projects, the above can be appropriate, the recommendations provided in this
used for screening to identify potentially critical re- paper can be used as a screening to evaluate critical
gions/zones appropriate to the design objectives, fol- regions/zones where selective additional in-situ test-
lowed by possible additional in-situ tests, selective ing and sampling may be appropriate.
high quality sampling and advanced laboratory test-
2
Mitchell Lecture - ISC'4 Brazil, Sept., 2012
3
Mitchell Lecture - ISC'4 Brazil, Sept., 2012
4
Mitchell Lecture - ISC'4 Brazil, Sept., 2012
tions between cone resistance and soil modulus that through saturated dense silty sand or very stiff over
will be discussed in a later section. consolidated clay the pore pressure measured in the
u2 position can become negative, due to the dilative
There are several major issues related to equip-
ment design and procedure that are worth repeating nature of the soil in shear, resulting in small air bub-
and updating. It is now common that cone pore bles coming out of solution in the cone sensor pore
pressures are measured behind the cone tip in what fluid and loss of saturation in the sensor. If the cone
is referred to as the u2 position (ASTM D5778, is then pushed through a softer fine-grained soil
2007; IRTP, 1999). In this paper, it will be assumed where the penetration pore pressures are high, these
that the cone pore pressures are measured in the u2 air bubbles can go back into solution and the cone
becomes saturated again. However, it takes time for
position. Due to the inner geometry of the cone the
these air bubbles to go into solution that can result in
ambient pore water pressure acts on the shoulder be-
a somewhat sluggish pore pressure response for sev-
hind the cone and on the ends of the friction sleeve.
eral meters of penetration. Hence, it is possible for a
This effect is often referred to as the unequal end
cone pore pressure sensor to alternate from saturated
area effect (Campanella et al, 1982). Many com-
to unsaturated several times in one sounding. It can
mercial cones now have equal-end area friction
be difficult to evaluate when the cone is fully satu-
sleeves that essentially remove the need for any cor-
rated, which adds uncertainty to the pore pressure
rection to fs and, hence, provide more reliable sleeve
measurements. Although this appears to be a major
friction values. However, the unequal end area ef-
problem with the measurement of pore pressure dur-
fect is always present for the cone resistance qc and
ing a CPTu, it is possible to obtain good pore pres-
there is a need to correct qc to the corrected total
sure measurements in suitable ground conditions
cone resistance, qt. This correction is insignificant in
where the ground water level is close to the surface
sands, since qc is large relative to the water pressure
and the ground is predominately soft. In very soft,
u2 and, hence, qt ~ qc in coarse-grained soils (i.e.
fine-grained soils, the CPTu pore pressures (u2) can
sands). It is still common to see CPT results in
terms of qc in coarse-grained soils. However, the be more reliable than qt, due to loss of accuracy in qt
unequal end area correction can be significant (10 - in very soft soils. It is interesting to note that when
30%) in soft fine-grained soil where qc is low rela- the cone is stopped and a pore pressure dissipation
tive to the high water pressure around the cone due test preformed below the ground water level, any
to the undrained CPT penetration process. It is now small air bubbles in the cone sensor tend to go back
common to see CPT results corrected for unequal into solution (during the dissipation test) and the re-
end area effects and presented in the form of qt fs sulting equilibrium pore pressure can be accurate,
even when the cone may not have been fully satu-
and u2, especially in softer soils. The correlations
rated during penetration before the dissipation test.
presented in this paper will be in terms of the cor-
CPTu pore pressure measurements are almost al-
rected cone resistance, qt, although in sands qc can
ways reliable in off-shore testing due to the high
be used as a replacement.
ambient water pressure that ensures full saturation.
Although pore pressure measurements are becom-
Even though pore pressure measurements can be
ing more common with the CPT (i.e. CPTu), the ac-
less reliable than cone resistance for on-shore test-
curacy and precision of the cone pore pressure mea-
ing, it is still recommended that pore pressure mea-
surements for on-shore testing are not always
surements be made for the following reasons: any
reliable and repeatable due to loss of saturation of
correction to qt for unequal end area effects is better
the pore pressure element. At the start of each CPTu
sounding the porous element and sensor are satu- than no correction in soft fine-grained soils, dissipa-
rated with a viscous liquid such as silicon oil or gly- tion test results provide valuable information regard-
cerin (Campanella et al, 1982) and sometimes grease ing equilibrium piezometric profile and penetration
(slot element). However, for on-shore CPTu the pore pressures provide a qualitative evaluation of
cone is often required to penetrate several meters drainage conditions during the CPT as well as assist-
through unsaturated soil before reaching saturated ing in evaluating soil behaviour type.
soil. If the unsaturated soil is either clay or dense It has been documented (e.g. Lunne et al., 1986)
silty sand the suction in the unsaturated soil can be that the CPT sleeve friction is less accurate than the
sufficient to de-saturate the cone pore pressure sen- cone tip resistance. The lack of accuracy in fs mea-
sor. The use of viscous liquids, such as silicon oil surement is primarily due to the following factors
(Lunne and Anderson, 2007);
and grease, has minimized the loss of saturation but
has not completely removed the problem. Although Pore pressure effects on the ends of the sleeve,
it is possible to pre-punch or pre-drill the sounding Tolerance in dimensions between the cone and
and fill the hole with water, few commercial CPT sleeve,
operators carry out this procedure if the water table Surface roughness of the sleeve, and,
is more than a few meters below ground surface. A Load cell design and calibration.
further complication is that when a cone is pushed
5
Mitchell Lecture - ISC'4 Brazil, Sept., 2012
ASTM, D5778 (2007) specifies the use of equal Early charts using qc and friction ratio (Rf = 100 fs/qc)
end-area friction sleeve to minimize the pore pres- were proposed by Douglas and Olsen (1981), but the
sure effects. Boggess and Robertson (2010) showed charts proposed by Robertson et al. (1986) and Ro-
than cones that have unequal end-area friction bertson (1990) have become very popular (e.g.
sleeves can produce significant errors in fs measure- Long, 2008). The non-normalized charts by Ro-
ment in soft fine-grained soils and during offshore bertson et al (1986) defined 12 soil behaviour type
testing. All standards have strict limits on dimen- (SBT) zones, whereas, the normalized charts by Ro-
sional tolerances. Some cones are manufactured to bertson (1990) defined 9 zones. This difference
have sleeves that are slightly larger than the cone tip, caused some confusion that led Robertson (2010a) to
but within standard tolerances, to increase the meas- suggest an update on the charts, as shown in Figure
ured values of fs. The IRTP (1999) has clear specifi- 2. The updated charts, that are dimensionless and
cations on surface roughness. In the early 1980s colour coded for improved presentation, define 9
subtraction cone designs became popular for im- consistent SBT zones.
proved robustness. In a subtraction cone design the Robertson et al (1986) and Robertson (1990)
sleeve friction is obtained by subtracting the cone tip stressed that the CPT-based charts were predictive of
load from the combined cone plus sleeve friction soil behaviour, and suggested the term soil beha-
load. Any zero load instability (shifts) in each load viour type, because the cone responds to the in-situ
cell results in a loss of accuracy in the calculated mechanical behavior of the soil (e.g. strength, stiff-
sleeve friction. Cone designs with separate tip and
ness and compressibility) and not directly to soil
friction load cells are now equally as robust as sub- classification criteria, using geologic descriptors,
traction cones. Hence, it is recommended to use only based on grain-size distribution and soil plasticity
cones with independent load cells that have im- (e.g. Unified Soil Classification System, USCS).
proved accuracy in the measurement of fs. ASTM Grain-size distribution and Atterberg Limits are
D5778 (2007) and the IRTP (1999) specify zero-
measured on disturbed soil samples. Fortunately,
load readings before and after each sounding for im- soil classification criteria based on grain-size distri-
proved accuracy. With good quality control it is bution and plasticity often relate reasonably well to
possible to obtain repeatable and accurate sleeve in-situ soil behavior and hence, there is often good
friction measurements, as illustrated by Robertson agreement between USCS-based classification and
(2009a). However, fs measurements, in general, will CPT-based SBT (e.g. Molle, 2005). However, sev-
be less accurate than tip resistance in most soft fine- eral examples can be given when differences can
grained soils. arise between USCS-based soil types and CPT-
The accuracy for most well designed, strain based SBT. For example, a soil with 60% sand and
gauged load cells is 0.1% of the full scale output 40% fines may be classified as silty sand (sand-silt
(FSO). Most commercial cones are designed to mixtures) or clayey sand (sand-clay mixtures) us-
record a tip stress of around 100 MPa. Hence, they
ing the USCS. If the fines have high clay content
have accuracy for qt of around 0.1 MPa (100 kPa). with high plasticity, the soil behavior may be more
In most sands, this represents an excellent accuracy controlled by the clay and the CPT-based SBT will
of better than 1%. However, in soft, fine-grained reflect this behavior and will generally predict a
soils, this may represent an accuracy of less than more clay-like behavior, such as silt mixtures -
10%. In very soft, fine-grained soils, low capacity clayey silt to silty clay (Fig. 2, SBT zone 4). If the
cones (i.e. max. tip stress < 50 MPa) have better ac- fines were non-plastic, soil behavior will be con-
curacy. trolled more by the sand and the CPT-based SBT
Throughout this paper use will be made of the will generally predict a more sand-like soil type,
normalized soil behaviour type (SBT) chart using such as sand mixtures - silty sand to sandy silt
normalized CPT parameters. Hence, accuracy in (SBT zone 5). Very stiff, heavily overconsolidated
both qt and fs are important, particularly in soft fine- fine-grained soils tend to behave more like a coarse-
grained soil. Accuracy in fs measurements requires grained soil in that they tend to dilate under shear
that the CPT be carried out according to the standard and can have high undrained shear strength com-
(e.g. ASTM D5778) with particular attention to cone pared to their drained strength and can have a CPT-
design (separate load cells and equal-end area fric- based SBT in either zone 4 or 5. Soft saturated low
tion sleeves), tolerances, and zero-load readings. plastic silts tend to behave more like clays in that
they have low undrained shear strength and can have
5.2 Soil Type a CPT-based SBT in zone 3 (clays clay to silty
One of the major applications of the CPT has been clay). These few examples illustrate that the CPT-
the determination of soil stratigraphy and the identi- based SBT may not always agree with traditional
fication of soil type. This has been accomplished USCS-based soil types based on samples and that
using charts that link cone parameters to soil type.
6
Mitchell Lecture - ISC'4 Brazil, Sept., 2012
Figure 2: Updated Soil Behaviour Type (SBT) charts based on either non-normalized or normalized CPT
(after Robertson, 2010a)
7
Mitchell Lecture - ISC'4 Brazil, Sept., 2012
suggested two charts based on either Qt1 Fr or Qt1 - effective cone resistance, qe, suffers from lack of ac-
Bq but recommended that the Qt1 Fr chart was gen- curacy in soft fine-grained soils, as will be discussed
erally more reliable. in a later section. Zhang and Tumay (1999) devel-
Schneider et al (2008) have shown that u/'vo is a oped a CPT based soil classification system based
better form for normalized pore pressure parameter on fuzzy logic where the results are presented in the
than Bq. The chart by Schneider et al (2008) is form of percentage probability (e.g. percentage
shown in Figure 3. Superimposed on the Schneider probability of either clay silt or sand). Although this
et al chart are contours of Bq to illustrate the link approach is conceptually attractive (i.e. provides
with u/'vo. Also shown on the Schneider et al some estimate of uncertainty for each SBT zone) the
chart are approximate contours of OCR (dashed results are often misinterpreted as a grain size distri-
lines). Figure 3 shows that the use of u/'vo is not a bution.
good approach for estimating OCR. Application of Jefferies and Davies (1993) identified that a soil
the Schneider et al chart can be problematic for behaviour type index, Ic,JD, could represent the SBTn
some onshore projects where the CPTu pore pres- zones in the Qt - Fr chart where, Ic,JD is essentially
sure results may not be reliable, due to loss of satu- the radius of concentric circles that define the boun-
ration. However, for offshore projects, where CPTu daries of soil type. Robertson and Wride, (1998)
sensor saturation is more reliable, and onshore modified the definition of Ic to apply to the Robert-
projects in soft fine-grained soils with high ground- son (1990) Qt Fr chart, as defined by:
water, the chart can be very helpful. In near surface
very soft fine-grained soils, where the accuracy of Ic = [(3.47 - log Qt)2 + (log Fr + 1.22)2]0.5 (6)
the cone resistance (qt) may be limited, the Schneid-
er et al chart can become a useful check on the data Contours of Ic are shown in Figure 4 on the Ro-
(e.g. if the cone resistance values are too low, the da- bertson (1990) Qt1 Fr SBTn chart. The contours
ta can plot below the limit of the chart, Bq > 1.0). of Ic can be used to approximate the SBT boundaries
Also the Schneider et al chart is focused primarily and also extent interpretation beyond the chart
on fine-grained soils were excess pore pressures are boundaries (e.g. Fr > 10%). Jefferies and Davies
recorded and Qt1 is small. (1993) suggested that the SBT index Ic could also be
used to modify empirical correlations that vary with
soil type. This is a powerful concept and has been
used where appropriate in this paper. Also shown
on Figure 4 are lines that represent normalized
sleeve friction [(fs/'vo) - dashed lines], to illustrate
the link between fs and Fr.
8
Mitchell Lecture - ISC'4 Brazil, Sept., 2012
The form of equation 6 and the shape of the con- u2). Loss of saturation further complicates this
tours of Ic in Figure 4 illustrate that Ic is not overly parameter.
sensitive to the potential lack of accuracy of the Robertson and Wride (1998), as updated by Zhang
sleeve friction, fs, but is more controlled by the more et al (2002), suggested a more generalized norma-
accurate tip stress, qt. Research (e.g. Long, 2008) lized cone parameter to evaluate soil liquefaction,
has sometimes questioned the reliability of the SBT using normalization with a variable stress exponent,
based on sleeve friction values (e.g. Qt Fr charts). n; where:
However, numerous studies (e.g. Molle, 2005) have
shown that the normalized charts based on Qt Fr Qtn = [(qt vo)/pa] (pa/'vo)n (8)
provide the best overall success rate for SBT com-
pared to samples. It can be shown, using equation 6, Where:
that if fs vary by as much as +/- 50%, the resulting (qt vo)/pa = dimensionless net cone resistance,
variation in Ic is generally less than +/- 10%. For (pa/'vo)n = stress normalization factor
soft soils that fall within the lower part of the Qt Fr n = stress exponent that varies with SBT
chart (e.g. Qt < 20), Ic is relatively insensitive to fs. pa = atmospheric pressure in same units as qt and v
Qt1(1-Bq) +1 = (qt u2)/ 'vo n = 0.381 (Ic) + 0.05 ('vo/pa) 0.15 (9)
(7)
where n 1.0
Hence, the parameter Qt1 (1-Bq) +1 is simply the
effective cone resistance, (qt u2), normalized by the Robertson (2009a) suggested that the above stress
vertical effective stress. Although incorporating exponent would capture the correct in-situ state for
pore pressure into the normalized cone resistance is soils at high stress level and that this would also
conceptually attractive it has practical problems. In avoid any additional stress level correction for lique-
stiff fine-grained soils, the excess pore pressure also faction analyses in silica-based soils.
can be sensitive to the exact location of the porous The approach used by Jefferies and Been (2006)
sensor. Accuracy is a major concern in soft fine- (equation 7) is the only method that uses a stress ex-
ponent n = 1.0 for all soils. This has significant im-
grained soils where qt is small compared to u2.
plications at shallow depth (z < 3m) and great depth
Hence, the difference (qt u2) is very small and
(z > 30m). Recent research (e.g. Boulanger, 2003)
lacks accuracy and reliability in most soft soils. For
shows that the stress exponent is a function of soil
most commercial cones the precision of Qt1 in soft
state. Recent major projects that have applied the de-
fine-grained soils is about +/- 20%, whereas, the
tailed approach suggested by Jefferies and Been
precision for Qt1 (1-Bq) +1 in the same soil is about
(2006) also support the observation that the stress
+/- 40%, due to the combined lack of precision in (qt
exponent is a function of soil state.
9
Mitchell Lecture - ISC'4 Brazil, Sept., 2012
10
Mitchell Lecture - ISC'4 Brazil, Sept., 2012
numerical modeling. For high risk projects a de- to correlate to the cyclic resistance of sandy soils.
tailed interpretation of CPT results using laboratory The approach is empirical based primarily on obser-
results and numerical modeling can be appropriate vations from past earthquakes and supported by la-
(e.g. Shuttle and Cunning, 2007), although soil va- boratory observations.
riability can complicate the interpretation procedure.
Some unresolved concerns with the Jefferies and
Been (2006) approach relate to the stress normaliza-
tion using n = 1.0 for all soils, as discussed above,
and the influence of soil fabric in sands with high
fines content.
For low risk projects and in the initial screening
for high risk projects there is a need for a simple es-
timate of soil state. Plewes et al (1992) provided a
means to estimate soil state using the normalized
soil behavior type (SBT) chart suggested by Jefferies
and Davies (1991). Jefferies and Been (2006) up-
dated this approach using the normalized SBT chart
based on the parameter Qt1(1-Bq) +1. Robertson
(2009) expressed concerns about the accuracy and
precision of the Jefferies and Been (2006) norma-
lized parameter in soft soils. In sands, where Bq = 0,
the normalization suggested by Jefferies and Been
(2006) is the same as Robertson (1990). The con-
tours of state parameter () suggested by Plewes et
al (1992) and Jefferies and Been (2006) were based
primarily on calibration chamber results for sands.
Based on the data presented by Jefferies and Been
(2006) and Shuttle and Cunning (2007) as well the
measurements from the CANLEX project (Wride et Figure 5: Contours of estimated state parameter, (thick
al, 2000) for predominantly coarse-grained unce- lines), on normalized SBTn Qtn Fr chart for uncemented Ho-
mented young soils, combined with the link between locene-age sandy soils (after Robertson, 2009a)
OCR and state parameter in fine-grained soil, Ro-
bertson (2009a) developed contours of state parame- Robertson and Wride (1998), based on a large da-
ter () on the updated SBTn Qtn F chart for unce- tabase of liquefaction case histories, suggested a
mented Holocene age soils. The contours, that are CPT-based correction factor to correct normalized
shown on Figure 5, are approximate since stress cone resistance in silty sands to an equivalent clean
state and plastic hardening will also influence the es- sand value (Qtn,cs) using the following:
timate of in-situ soil state in the coarse-grained re-
gion of the chart (i.e. when Ic < 2.60) and soil sensi- Qtn,cs = Kc Qtn (20)
tivity for fine-grained soils. An area of uncertainty
in the approach used by Jefferies and Been (2006) is Where Kc is a correction factor that is a function of
the use of Qt1 rather than Qtn. Figure 5 uses Qtn since grain characteristics (combined influence of fines
it is believed that this form of normalized parameter content, mineralogy and plasticity) of the soil that
has wider application, although this issue may not be can be estimated using Ic as follows:
fully resolved for some time. The contours of
shown in Figure 5 were developed primarily on la- if Ic 1.64 (21)
boratory test results and validated with well docu- Kc = 1.0
mented sites where undisturbed frozen samples were
obtained (Wride et al., 2000). Jefferies and Been if Ic > 1.64 (22)
(2006) suggested that soils with a state parameter Kc = 5.581Ic3-0.403Ic421.63Ic2+33.75Ic17.88
less than -0.05 (i.e. < -0.05) are dilative at large
strains. Figure 6 shows contours of equivalent clean sand
Over the past 40 years significant research has cone resistance, Qtn,cs, on the updated CPT SBT
been carried out utilizing penetration test results (in- chart. The contours of Qtn,cs were developed based
itially SPT and then CPT) to evaluate to resistance to on liquefaction cased histories.
cyclic loading (e.g. Seed et al., 1983, and Robertson
& Wride, 1998). The most commonly accepted ap-
proach (often referred to as the Berkeley approach)
uses an equivalent clean sand penetration resistance
11
Mitchell Lecture - ISC'4 Brazil, Sept., 2012
Figure 6: Contours of clean sand equivalent normalized Figure 7: Approximate boundaries between dilative-
cone resistance, Qtn,cs, based on Robertson and Wride (1998) contractive behaviour and drained-undrained CPT response on
liquefaction method normalized SBTn Qtn Fr chart
The contours of , shown in Figure 5, are sup- contractive, undrained-dilative and undrained-
ported by CSSM theory, extensive calibration cham- contractive).
ber studies and high quality frozen sampling, The Jefferies and Been (2006) showed a strong link
contours of Qtn,cs, shown in Figure 6, are supported between and the peak friction angle (') for a wide
by an extensive case history database. range of sands. Using this link, it is possible to link
Comparing Figures 5 and 6 shows a strong simi- Qtn,cs with ', using:
larity between the contours of and the contours of
Qtn,cs. The observed similarity in the contours of ' = 'cv - 48
and Qtn,cs, support the concept of a clean sand equiv-
alent as a measure of soil state in sandy soils. Based Where 'cv = constant volume (or critical state) fric-
on Figures 5 and 6, Robertson (2010b) suggested a tion angle depending on mineralogy (Bolton, 1986),
simplified and approximate relationship between typically about 33 degrees for quartz sands but can
and Qtn,cs, as follows: be as high as 40 degrees for felspathic sand. Hence,
the relationship between Qtn,cs and ' becomes:
= 0.56 0.33 log Qtn,cs (23)
' = 'cv + 15.84 [log Qtn,cs] 26.88
Equation 23 provides a simplified and approximate
method to estimate in-situ state parameter for a wide Equation 25 produces estimates of peak fiction angle
range of sandy soils. for clean quartz sands that are similar to those by
Based on Figure 5 and acknowledging that coarse- Kulhawy and Mayne (1990). However, equation 25
grained soils with a state parameter less than -0.05 has the advantage that it includes the importance of
and fine-grained soils with an OCR > 4 are dilative grain characteristics and mineralogy that are reflect-
at large strains, it is possible to define a region based ed in both 'cvas well as soil type through Qtn,cs.
on CPT results that indentifies soils that are either Equation 25 tends to predicts ' values closer to
dilative or contractive, as shown on Figure 7. In- measured values in calcareous sands where the CPT
cluded on Figure 7 is a region (dashed lines) that de- tip resistance can be low for high values of '.
fines the approximate boundary between drained and
undrained response during a CPT. Robertson 5.6 Stiffness and compressibility
(2010c) reviewed case histories of flow (static) li- Eslaamizaad and Robertson (1997) and Mayne
quefaction that confirmed the dilative/contractive (2000) have shown that the load settlement response
boundary shown in Figure 7. Figure 7 represents a for both shallow and deep foundations can be accu-
simplified chart that identifies the four broad groups rately predicted using measured shear wave velocity,
of soil behaviour (i.e. drained-dilative, drained- Vs. Although direct measurement of Vs is preferred
over estimates, relationships with cone resistance are
12
Mitchell Lecture - ISC'4 Brazil, Sept., 2012
13
Mitchell Lecture - ISC'4 Brazil, Sept., 2012
Where:
= Poissons ratio, which ranges from 0.1 to 0.3 for
most soils under drained conditions. Hence, for most
coarse-grained soils, E' ~ 2.5 G.
Since the small strain shear modulus G0 applies
only at very small strains there is a need to soften G0
to a strain level appropriate for design purposes. Es-
laamizaad and Robertson (1997) showed that the
amount of softening required for design was a func-
tion of the degree of loading. Fahey and Carter
(1993) suggested a simple approach to estimate the
amount of softening using:
Figure 9: Contours of small strain modulus number, KG
G/G0 = 1 f (q/qult)g (38)
(thick solid lines) and modulus factor G, on normalized SBTn
Qtn Fr chart for uncemented Holocene- and Pleistocene-age
Where:
sandy soils (After Robertson, 2009a)
q = applied load (e.g. net bearing pressure for foun-
dations); qult = ultimate or failure load (e.g. ultimate
Eslaamizaad and Robertson (1996a) and Schnaid
bearing capacity for foundations); q/qult = degree of
(2005) showed that it is possible to identify ce-
loading; f and g are constants depending on soil type
mented soils using the ratio of G0/qt. Hence, if the
and stress history.
measured G0/(qt - vo) (i.e. G) is significantly larger
than estimated using Figure 9, the soils are likely ei-
Fahey and Carter (1993) and Mayne (2005) sug-
ther cemented and/or aged.
gested that values of f = 1 and g = 0.3 are appropri-
It is also possible to estimate the appropriate value
ate for uncemented soils that are not highly struc-
of G from Ic based on the link withvs using:
tured. For a degree of loading from 0.2 to 0.3, the
ratio G/G0 ranges from 0.30 to 0.38. Hence, for
G = (pavs (34)
many design applications the appropriate Youngs
modulus for application in simplified elastic solu-
Where (pais in units of (s/m)2
tions is approximately;
For an average unit weight, = 18 kN/m3 ( = 1.84),
E' ~ 0.8 G0 (39)
it follows that:
Equation 39 represents an important observation,
G = 0.0188 [10 (0.55Ic + 1.68)] (35)
in that it shows that the Youngs modulus for many
design applications can be either measured or esti-
Hence, the small strain shear modulus, G0 for young,
mated directly from the in-situ shear wave velocity
uncemented soils can be estimated using:
(Vs) to get G0. Using this ratio, it is possible to
create contours of Youngs modulus number, KE, on
G0 = 0.0188 [10 (0.55Ic + 1.68)] (qt - vo) (36)
the CPT SBT chart as shown on Figure 10, where:
Figure 9 and equation 36 provide a simplified
E' = KE pa ('vo /pa)n (40)
means to estimate the small strain shear modulus
over a wide range of soils using CPT data. The rela-
Where n is a stress exponent that has a value of
tionships shown in Figures 8 and 9 are less reliable
about 0.5 for most coarse-grained soils.
in the region for fine-grained soils (i.e. when Ic >
Since the application of Youngs modulus, E' is
2.60) since the sleeve friction fs and hence Fr, are
generally only applicable to drained soils, the con-
strongly influenced by soil sensitivity. The relation-
tours on Figure 10 are therefore limited to the region
ships are generally better in the coarse-grained re-
defined by Ic < 2.60.
gion (i.e. when Ic < 2.60) and are primarily for un-
14
Mitchell Lecture - ISC'4 Brazil, Sept., 2012
E' = 0.015 [10 (0.55Ic + 1.68)] (qt - vo) (44) Where: a = stress exponent.
15
Mitchell Lecture - ISC'4 Brazil, Sept., 2012
16
Mitchell Lecture - ISC'4 Brazil, Sept., 2012
17
Mitchell Lecture - ISC'4 Brazil, Sept., 2012
Where:
u0 = pre-insertion in-situ equilibrium water pressure
'vo = pre-insertion in-situ vertical effective stress
18
Mitchell Lecture - ISC'4 Brazil, Sept., 2012
tance ratio (CRR7.5) for evaluating soil liquefaction A short discussion is provided in an effort to en-
in sandy soils. Using the CPT-based relationship be- courage geotechnical engineers to progressively ab-
tween CRR and Qtn,cs, suggested by Robertson and andon the SPT because it is a crude, unreliable in-
Wride (1998), and equation 61, an updated DMT re- situ test. As suggested by Jefferies and Davies
lationship becomes: (1993), the most reliable way to obtain SPT N val-
ues is to perform a CPT and convert the CPT to an
for 2 < KD < 6 and ID > 1.2 equivalent SPT. An update on the CPT-SPT correla-
tion is presented based on the CPT soil behaviour
CRR7.5 = 93(0.025KD)3 + 0.08 (64) type index, Ic.
A discussion is provided on recent developments
Figure 14 compares the proposed correlation be- with the CPT including some elements on equipment
tween CRR7.5 and KD and those suggested by Mona- and procedures, evaluation of soil type and estima-
co et al (2005) and Tsai et al (2009). The proposed tion of key geotechnical design parameters. Updated
correlation is very similar when KD < 4 and falls be- SBT charts with 9 consistent SBT zones, that are
tween the others when KD > 4. dimensionless and colour coded for improved pres-
entation, are presented. The normalized SBT chart,
based on Qtn-Fr, is used to illustrate correlations for
soil state ( and OCR), stiffness (G0, and E) and
compressibility (M and Cc). A discussion is also
provided to illustrate the usefulness of the clean sand
equivalent cone resistance, Qtn,cs. Although this pa-
rameter evolved out of liquefaction evaluation me-
thods based on case histories, it is shown that the re-
sulting correlations are remarkably similar to those
that have been developed independently using
CSSM concepts and theory.
A brief discussion is also provided regarding a
possible correlation between DMT KD and CPT
Qtn,cs, and its application for possible new correla-
tions between the KD and soil state, peak friction an-
gle and resistance to cyclic loading.
8 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Fig. 14: Proposed correlation between cyclic resistance ra- This research could not have been carried out with-
tio (CRR7.5) and DMT KD for uncemented sandy soils out the support, encouragement and input from John
Gregg, Kelly Cabal and other staff at Gregg Drilling
The intent of presenting a link between CPT and and Testing Inc. The sharing of ideas and data by
DMT results is not to infer that one test is better than Paul Mayne and Silvano Marchetti is also appre-
the other, since each test has advantages and limita- ciated.
tions, but to seek similarities and linkages between This author is grateful for the teaching, guidance
the two in-situ tests so that to these linkages can be and encouragement from Professors Campanella and
used to expand and improve correlations and appli- Mitchell. Professor Dick Campanella was one of the
cations by applying existing experience and databas- first graduate students of Professor J.K. Mitchell at
es from one test and extrapolating to the other test. UC Berkeley and this author was one of the first
graduate students of Professor Campanella at the
University of British Columbia.
7 SUMMARY
19
Mitchell Lecture - ISC'4 Brazil, Sept., 2012
Andrus, R.D., Mohanan, N.P., Piratheepan, P., Ellis, B.S. and Proceedings of the 50th Canadian Geotechnical Confe-
Holzer, T.L., 2007. Predicting shear-wave velocity from rence, Ottawa, Ontario, October 1997, Vol.2, pp. 755-764.
cone penetration resistance. Proceedings of Fourth Inter- Eslami, A., and Fellenius, B.H., 1997. Pile Capacity by direct
national Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engi- CPT and CPTu methods applied to 102 case histories. Ca-
neering, Thessaloniki, Greece. nadian Geotechnical Journal, 34(6): 880-898.
ASTM D5778-95(2007). Standard Test Method for Performing Fahey, M. and Carter, J.P., 1993. A finite element study of the
Electronic Friction Cone and Piezocone Penetration Test- pressuremeter in sand using a nonlinear elastic plastic
ing of Soils, ASTM International. www.astm.org. model. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 30(2): 348-362.
Baldi, G., Bellotti, R., Ghionna, V.N., Jamiolkowski, M., and Farrar, J.A., Torres, R., and Crutchfiedl, L.G., 2008. Cone Pe-
Lo Presti, D.F.C., 1989. Modulus of sands from CPTs and netrometer Testing, Scoggins Dam, Tualatin Project, Ore-
DMTs. In Proceedings of the 12th International Confe- gon. Bureau of Reclamation, Technical Services Center,
rence on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. Rio Denver, Engineering Geology Group, 86-68320.
de Janeiro. Balkema Pub., Rotterdam, Vol.1, pp. 165-170. Finnie, I.M.S. & Randolph, M.F. 1994. Punch-through and li-
Bellotti, R., Ghionna, V.N., Jamiolkowski, M., and Robertson, quefaction induced failure of shallow foundations on cal-
P.K., 1989. Design parameters of cohesionless soils from careous sediments. Proc., 17th Int. Conf. on the Behavior
in-situ tests. In Proceedings of Transportation Research of Offshore Structures, Boston, 1: 217-230.
Board Conference. Washington. January 1989. Hardin, B.O., and Drnevich, V.P., 1972. Shear modulus and
Boggess, R. and Robertson, P.K., 2010. CPT for soft sediments damping in soils: design equations and curves. ASCE,
and deepwater investigations. 2nd International Sympo- Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division,
sium on Cone Penetration Testing, CPT10. Huntington Vol.98, SM7, pp. 667-692.
Beach, CA, USA. www.cpt10.com Hegazy, YA and Mayne, PW. Statistical correlations between
Bolton, M.D., 1986. The strength and dilatancy of sands. Geo- VS and cone penetration data for different soil types,
technique, 36(1): 65-78. Proc., International Symposium on Cone Penetration Test-
Boulanger, R.W. and Idriss, I.M., 2004. State normalization of ing, CPT 95, Linkoping, Sweden, 2, Swedish Geotechnic-
penetration resistance and the effect of overburden stress al Society, 173-178, 1995.
on liquefaction resistance. Proceedings 11th International Hight, D., and Leroueil, S., 2003. Characterization of soils for
Conference on Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineer- engineering purposes. Characterization and Engineering
ing. Berkely, 484-491. Properties of Natural Soils, Vol.1, Swets and Zeitlinger,
Boulanger, R.W., 2003. High overburden stress effects in li- Lisse, pp. 255-360.
quefaction analyses. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoen- Idriss, I.M. and Boulanger, R.W., 2004. Semi-empirical pro-
vironmental Engineering, ASCE, December: 1071-1082. cedures for evaluating liquefaction potential during earth-
Briaud, J.L., and Gibbens, R., 1999. Behavior of five large quakes. Proceedings 11th International Conference on Soil
spread footings in sand. Journal of Geotechnical and Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering. Berkeley, 32-56.
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 125(9): 787-796. IRTP, 1999. International Reference Test Procedure for Cone
Campanella, R.G., and Robertson, P.K., 1982. State of the art Penetration Test (CPT). Report of the ISSMFE Technical
in In-situ testing of soils: developments since 1978. In Committee on Penetration Testing of Soils, TC 16, Swe-
Proceedings of Engineering Foundation Conference on dish Geotechnical Institute, Linkoping, Information, 7, 6-
Updating Subsurface Sampling of Soils and Rocks and 16.
Their In-situ Testing. Santa Barbara, California. January Janbu, N., 1963, Soil Compressibility as determined by oedo-
1982, pp. 245-267. meter and triaxial tests. Proceedings of the European
Campanella, R.G., Gillespie, D., and Robertson, P.K., 1982. Conference on Soil Mechanicxs and Foundation Engineer-
Pore pressures during cone penetration testing. In Proceed- ing, Wiesbaden, pp 19-25.
ings of the 2nd European Symposium on Penetration Test- Jamiolkowski, M., Ladd, C.C., Germaine, J.T., and Lancellotta,
ing, ESPOT II. Amsterdam. A.A. Balkema, pp. 507-512. R., 1985. New developments in field and laboratory testing
Cetin, K.O. and Isik, N.S., 2007. Probabilistic assessment of of soils. In Proceedings of the 11th International Confe-
stress normalization for CPT data. Journal of Geotechnic- rence on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering.
al and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 133, San Francisco, California, August 1985, Vol.1 pp. 57-153.
no.7, 887-897. Jamiolkowski, M., and Robertson, P.K., 1988. Future trends for
Chung, S.F., Randolph, M.F., and Schneider, J. A., 2006. Ef- penetration testing. Penetration testing in the UK, Thomas
fect of penetration rate on penetrometer resistance in clay. Telford, London, pp. 321-342.
J. of Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng, ASCE, 132(9): 1188- Jefferies, M.G., and Davies, M.O, 1991. Soil Classification by
1196. the cone penetration test: discussion. Canadian Geotech-
Douglas, B.J., and Olsen, R.S., 1981. Soil classification using nical Journal, 28(1): 173-176.
electric cone penetrometer. In Proceedings of Symposium Jefferies, M.G., and Davies, M.P., 1993. Use of CPTU to esti-
on Cone Penetration Testing and Experience, Geotechnic- mate equivalent SPT N60. Geotechnical Testing Journal,
al Engineering Division, ASCE. St. Louis, Missouri, Oc- ASTM, 16(4): 458-468.
tober 1981, pp. 209-227. Jefferies, M.G. and Been, K., 2006. Soil Liquefaction A criti-
Eslaamizaad, S., and Robertson, P.K., 1996a. Seismic cone pe- cal state approach. Taylor & Francis, ISBN 0-419-
netration test to identify cemented sands. In Proceedings 16170-8 478 pages.
of the 49th Canadian Geotechnical Conference. St. Johns, Karlsrud, K., Lunne, T., Kort, D.A. & Strandvik, S. 2005.
Newfoundland. September, pp. 352 360. CPTU correlations for Clays. Proc. 16th ICSMGE, Osaka,
Eslaamizaad, S., and Robertson, P.K. 1996b. Cone penetration September 2005
test to evaluate bearing capacity of foundation in sands. In Kim, K., Prezzi, M., Salgado, R., & Lee, W. 2008. Effect of
Proceedings of the 49th Canadian Geotechnical Confe- penetration rate on cone penetration resistance in saturated
rence. St. Johns, Newfoundland. September, pp. 429-438. clayey soils. J. of Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 134(8):
Eslaamizaad, S. and Robertson, P.K., 1997. Evaluation of set- 1142-1153.
tlement of footings on sand from seismic in-sity tests. In
20
Mitchell Lecture - ISC'4 Brazil, Sept., 2012
Kulhawy, F.H., and Mayne, P.H., 1990. Manual on estimating Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, University of California,
soil properties for foundation design, Report EL-6800 Berkeley, CA, 94720.
Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI, August 1990. Monaco, P., Totani, G. and Calabrese, M., 2006. DMT-
Kung, G.T., Lee, D.H. and Tsai, P.H., 2010. Examination of predicted vs observed settlements: a review of the availa-
existing DMT-based Liquefaction Evaluation methods by ble experience. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on the Flat Dilatome-
side-by-side DMT and CPT Tests. 5th International Confe- ter, Washington D.C., 244-252.
rence on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Molle, J., 2005. The accuracy of the interpretation of CPT-
Engineering and Soil Dynamics. San Diego, CA. based soil classification methods in soft soils. MSc Thesis,
Ladd, C.C., and Foott, R. (1974). "New design procedure for Section for Engineering Geology, Department of Applied
stability of soft clays." J. of the Geotech. Eng. Div., Earth Sciences, Delf University of Technology, Report
100(GT7), 763-786. No. 242, Report AES/IG/05-25, December
Ladd, C.C. & DeGroot, D.J. 2003. Recommended practice for Moss, R.E.S., Seed, R.B., and Olsen, R.S. 2006. Normalizing
soft ground site characterization. Soil and Rock America, the CPT for overburden stress. Journal of Geotechnical
Vol. 1 (Proc.12th PanAmerican Conf., MIT), Verlag and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 132(3): 378-387.
Glckauf, Essen: 3-57. Ohta, H. Nishihara, A., and Morita, Y., 1985. Undrained stabil-
Long, M., 2008. Design parameters from in situ tests in soft ity of Ko-consolidated clays. Proceedings of 11th ICSMFE.
ground recent developments. Proceedings of Geotech- Vol 2., San Fransico, pp 613-661.
nical and Geophysical Site Characterization. ISC3, Tay- Olsen, R.S., and Malone, P.G., 1988. Soil classification and
lor & Francis Group, 89-116 site characterization using the cone penetrometer test. Pe-
Lunne, T., Eidsmoen, T., Gillespie, D., and Howland, J.D., netration Testing 1988, ISOPT-1, Edited by De Ruiter,
1986. Laboratory and field evaluation on cone penetrome- Balkema, Rotterdam, Vol.2, pp.887-893.
ters. Proceedings of ASCE Specialty Conference In Si- Olsen, R.S., and Mitchell, J.K., 1995. CPT stress normalization
tu86: Use of In Situ Tests in Geotechnical Engineering. and prediction of soil classification. In Proceedings of the
Blacksburg, ASCE, GSP 6 714-729 International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing,
Lunne, T., Robertson, P.K., and Powell, J.J.M., 1997. Cone pe- Vol.2, Swedish Geotechnical Society, Linkoping, pp. 257-
netration testing in geotechnical practice. Blackie Aca- 262.
demic, EF Spon/Routledge Publ., New York, 1997, 312 Parez, L. and Faureil, R., 1988. Le pizocne. Amliorations
pp. apportes la reconnaissance de sols. Revue Franaise de
Lunne, T., and Andersen, K.H., 2007. Soft clay shear strength Gotech, Vol. 44, 13-27.
parameters for deepwater geotechnical design. Proceed- Plewes, H.D., Davies, M.P., and Jefferies, M.G., 1992. CPT
ings 6th International Conference, Society for Underwater based screening procedure for evaluating liquefaction sus-
Technology, Offshore Site Investigation and Geomechan- ceptibility. In Proceedings of the 45th Canadian Geotech-
ics, London, 151-176. nical Conference, pp. 41-49.
Marchetti, S. _1980_. In-situ tests by flat dilatometer. J. Rad, N.S. and Lunne, T., 1986, Correlations between piezo-
Geotech. Eng., 106_3_, 299321. cone results and laboratory soil properties. Norwegian
Marchetti, S., Monaco, P., Totani, G., and Calabrese, M. Geotechnical Institute, Oslo, Report 52155, 306-17.
2001_. The DMT in soil investigations. A report by the Robertson, P.K., 1990. Soil classification using the cone pene-
ISSMGE TC 16. Proc., Int. Conf. on In Situ Measure- tration test. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 27(1): 151-
ment of Soil Properties and Case Histories, Bali, Indone- 158.
sia, Parahyangan Catholic Univ., Bandung, Indonesia, 95 Robertson, P.K., 1995. Penetrometer Testing - Session IV,
132. Moderators Report. Conference on Advance in Site Inves-
Marchetti, S., Monaco, P., Calabrese, M. and Totani, G., 2007. tigation Practice, London, U.K.
Comparison of moduli determined by DMT and backfi- Robertson, P.K., 1998. Risk-based site investigation. Geotech-
gured from local strain measurements under a 40m diame- nical News: 45-47, September 1998.
ter circular test load in the Venice Area. Proceedings Robertson, P.K., 2009a. Interpretation of cone penetration
Second International Conference on Flat Dilatometer, tests a unified approach. Canadian Geotechnical Jour-
Washington, D.C., 220-230. nal, 46:1337-1355.
Mayne, P.W., 2000. Enhanced Geotechnical Site Characteriza- Robertson, P.K., 2009b. DMT CPT correlations. Journal of
tion by Seismic Piezocone Penetration Test. Invited lec- Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE,
ture, Fourth International Geotechnical Conference, Cairo December: 135:1762-1771.
University. pp 95-120. Robertson, P.K., 2010a. Soil behaviour type from the CPT: an
Mayne, P.W., 2005. Integrated Ground Behavior: In-Situ and update. 2nd International Symposium on Cone Penetration
Lab Tests, Deformation Characteristics of Geomaterials, Testing, CPT10, Huntington Beach, CA, USA.
Vol. 2 (Proc. Lyon), Taylor & Francis, London, pp. 155- www.cpt10.com
177. Robertson, P.K., 2010b. Estimating in-situ state parameter and
Mayne, P.W., 2007. NCHRP Synthesis Cone Penetration friction angle in sandy soils from the CPT. 2nd Interna-
Testing State-of-Practice. Transportation Research Board tional Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing, CPT10,
Report Project 20-05. 118 pages. www.trb.org Huntington Beach, CA, USA. www.cpt10.com
Mayne, P.W., 2008. Piezocone profiling of clays for maritime Robertson, P.K., 2010c. Evaluation of Flow Liquefaction and
site investigations. 11th Baltic Sea Geotechnical Confe- Liquefied strength Using the Cone Penetration Test. Jour-
rence. Gdansk, Poland., 151- 178. nal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
Mayne, P.W., Coop, M.R., Springman, S.M., Huang, A.B, and ASCE, 136(6): 842-853
Zornberg, J.G., 2009. Geomaterail behaviour and testing. Robertson, P.K. and Woeller, D.J. and Finn, W.D.L., 1992,
State of the Art (SOA) paper, 17th ICSMGE Alexandria. Seismic Cone Penetration Test for Evaluating Liquefaction
Mitchell, J.K., Guzikowski, F. and Villet, W.C.B., 1978. The Potential, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 29, No. 4,
Measurement of Soil Properties In-Situ, Report prepared August, pp. 686-695.
for US Department of Energy Contract W-7405-ENG-48,
21
Mitchell Lecture - ISC'4 Brazil, Sept., 2012
Robertson, P.K., and R.G. Campanella, 1989. Design Manual Vesic, A.S, and Clough, G.W., 1968, Behaviour of granular
for Use of CPT and CPTU, University of British Colum- materials under high stresses. Journal of Soil Mechanics
bia, BC, 200p, and Foundations Div., ASCE, SM3, pp 313-326
Robertson. P.K., Campanella, R.G., Gillespie, D., and Greig, J., Wride, C.E., Robertson, P.K., Biggar, K.W., Campanella, R.G.,
1986. Use of Piezometer Cone data. In-Situ86 Use of Hofmann, B.A., Hughes, J.M.O., Kpper, A., and Woeller,
Ins-itu testing in Geotechnical Engineering, GSP 6 , D.J. In-Situ testing program at the CANLEX test sites.
ASCE, Reston, VA, Specialty Publication, SM 92, pp Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 2000, Vol. 37, No. 3,
1263-1280. June, pp. 505-529
Robertson, P.K., Sully, J.P., Woeller, D.J., Lunne, T., Powell, Wroth, C.P., 1984. The interpretation of in-situ soil tests. Ran-
J.J.M. and Gillespie, D., 1992. Estimating coefficient of kine Lecture, Geotechnique(4).
consolidation from piezocone tests. Canadian Geotechnic- Yu, H-S. 2004. James K. Mitchell Lecture: In-situ soil testing:
al Journal, Ottawa, 29(4): 539-550. from mechanics to interpretation. Geotechnical & Geo-
Robertson, P.K., and Campanella, R.G., 1983a. Interpretation physical Site Characterization, Vol. 1 (Proc. ISC-2, Por-
of cone penetration tests Part I (sand). Canadian Geo- to), Millpress, Rotterdam: 338.
technical Journal, 20(4): 718-733. Zhang, Z., and Tumay, M.T., 1999. Statistical to fuzzy ap-
Robertson, P.K., and Campanella, R.G. 1983b. Interpretation proach toward CPT soil classification. Journal of Geo-
of cone penetration tests Part II (clay). Canadian Geo- technical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 125(3):
technical Journal, 20(4): 734-745. 179-186.
Robertson, P.K. and Wride, C.E., 1998. Evaluating cyclic li- Zhang, G., Robertson, P.K. and Brachman, R.W.I., 2002, Esti-
quefaction potential using the cone penetration test. Cana- mating Liquefaction induced Ground Settlements From
dian Geotechnical Journal, Ottawa, 35(3): 442-459. CPT for Level Ground, Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
Robertson, P.K., Campanella, R.G., Gillespie, D., and Rice, A., 39(5): 1168-1180
1986. Seismic CPT to measure in-situ shear wave velocity.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE,
112(8): 791-803.
Sanglerat, G., 1972. The Penetrometer and Soil Exploration.
Elsevier Pub., Amsterdam, 488pp.
Schnaid, F., 2005. Geocharacterization and Engineering prop-
erties of natural soils by in-situ tests. In Proceedings of the
16th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geo-
technical Engineering, Vol.1, Osaka, September, 2005,
Millpress, Rotterdam, pp. 3-45.
Schneider, JA, McGillivray, AV and Mayne, PW. 2004. Eval-
uation of SCPTU intra-correlations at sand sites in the
Lower Mississippi River valley, USA, Geotechnical &
Geophysical Site Characterization, Vol. 1, (Proc. ISC-2,
Porto), Millpress, Rotterdam, 1003-1010.
Schneider, J.A., Randolph, M.F., Mayne, P.W. & Ramsey,
N.R. 2008. Analysis of factors influencing soil classifica-
tion using normalized piezocone tip resistance and pore
pressure parameters. Journal Geotechnical and Geoenvi-
ronmental Engrg. 134 (11): 1569-1586.
Schmertmann, J.H. 1978. Guidelines for cone penetration tests
performance and design. Federal Highways Administra-
tion, Washington, D.C., Report FHWA-TS-78-209.
Shuttle, D.A. and Cunning, J., 2007. Liquefaction potential of
silts from CPTu. Canadian Geotechnical Journal: 44: 1-
19
Seed, H.B., and Idriss, I.M., 1970. Soil moduli and damping
factors for dynamics response analysis, Report No. EERC
70-10, University of California, Berkeley, December 1970.
Simonini, P., 2004, Characterization of Venice lagoon silts
from in-situ tests and performance of a test embankment.
Proceedings 2nd International Conference on Site Charac-
terization, ISC2, Geotechnical & Geophysical Site Cha-
racterization, Porto, Vol. 1, 187-207.
Teh, C.I., and Houlsby, G.T. 1991. An analytical study of the
cone penetration test in clay. Geotechnique, 41 (1): 17-34.
Treen, C. R., Robertson, P.K. and Woeller, D.J., 1992. Cone
penetration testing in stiff glacial soils using a downhole
cone penetrometer. Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
29:448-455.
Tsai, P.H., Lee, D.H., Kung, G.T.C., and Juang, C.H., 2009.
Simplified DMT-based methods for evaluating liquefac-
tion resistance of soils. Engineering Geology, Vol 103,
No 1-2, pp 13-22.
22