CPTu Formulas

Parameter
Description Formula Unit Reference Literature

Symbol
Basic parameters
Lunne, Robertson and

= + (1 ) 2
Powell, (1997);
qt Corrected tip resistance a is the Net Area Ratio for the MPa
Robertson and Robertson,
cone (typically 0.80)
(2015);

Powell, (1997);
qe Effective tip resistance = 2 MPa
(2015);

Powell, (1997);
qn Nett cone resistance = MPa
(2015);

Powell, (1997);

Rf Friction Ratio = 100% %

(2015);

Powell, (1997);

Fr Normalised Friction Ratio = 100% %

(2015);

Interpolated from dissipation Powell, (1997);
u0 Equilibrium pore pressure kPa
testing Robertson and Robertson,
(2015);
Normalized qt for Soil Robertson, (1990);

Behaviour Type using a
Qt = Robertson and Robertson,

linear stress
normalization. (2015);
Robertson, (1990);
2 0
Bq Pore pressure parameter = Robertson and Robertson,

(2015);
v Total Vertical Stress = kPa

v Effective Vertical Stress = 0 kPa
Powell, (1997);
0.5
1 = ( )

Where: Pa is atmospheric Powell, (1997);
pressure. Robertson and Robertson,
(2015);
qc1 Normalised tip resistance MPa
OR
1.8
1 =

0.8+

Olson and Stark, (2002);
Empirical correlations
Robertson, (1990);
SBT Soil behaviour Type Robertson and Robertson,
(2015);
The state parameter index

is defined as the
difference between
the current void ratio, e,
and the critical void ratio, Jefferies and Been, (2016);
ec. See references
Positive - contractive Robertson and Robertson,
soil (2015);
Negative - dilative soil
Kulhawy and Mayne,

' Internal friction angle =
(1990);
Modified from Kulhawy and

p Peak friction angle = 17.6 + 11log( )
Mayne, (1990);
Soils with 1.0 Ic 3.27:
= 1 100.9523.04
kh Permeability m/s
(2015);
Soils with 3.27 < Ic 4.0:
= 1 104.521.37

= Powell, (1997);

Su (Nkt) (or cu) Undrained shear strength kPa
Nkt between 8 and 30, (15) Robertson and Robertson,
(2015);
Undrained shear strength

ratio with respect to
Sr(Nkt) vertical effective =

overburden stress using
the Su (Nkt) method
Yield/peak undrained
Sr(yield/peak),O&S () = 0.205 + 0.01431 Olson & Stark, (2003)
shear strength ratio
Yield/peak undrained
Sr(yield/peak),Sad () = 0.219 + 0.0081 Sadrekarimi, (2014)
shear strength ratio
Liquefied/residual
Sr(Liq),O&S undrained shear strength () = 0.03 + 0.01431 Olson & Stark, (2003)
ratio
Liquefied/residual
Sr(Liq),Sad undrained shear strength () = 0.019 + 0.0161 Sadrekarimi, (2014)
ratio
Liquefied/residual () =
Sr(Liq),Rob undrained shear strength 0.021990.0003124, Robertson, (2010)
2
10.02676, +0.0001783,
ratio
Soil Behaviour Type Index, = Robertson, (2009);

based on a variable stress (3.47 )2 + (1.22 + )2
Ic(Rob) Robertson and Robertson,
ratio exponent n, which
too is based on Ic (2015);
Robertson, (2009);
Clean sand equivalent = 5.581( )3 0.403( )4
Kc Robertson and Robertson,
factor (to derive Qtn,cs) 21.63( )2 + 33.75( ) 17.88
(2015);
Robertson, (2009);

n Stress ratio exponent = 0.381 + 0.05 ( ) 0.15
(2015);
Normalized tip resistance

Robertson, (2009);
using a variable stress

Qtn ratio exponent = ( ) ( ) Robertson and Robertson,

based on Ic (PKR 2009) (2015);
Clean sand equivalent for

Qtn (normalized tip Robertson, (2009);
Qtn,cs resistance based on a , = Robertson and Robertson,
variable stress exponent (2015);
n)
Jefferies, M. and Been, K. 2016. Soil liquefaction. 2nd ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press/Taylor & Francis
Group.
Kulhawy, F.H. and Mayne, P.W., 1990, Manual on Estimating Soil Properties for Foundation Design,
Report No. EL-6800, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, August 1990, 306 p.
Lee, J., Eun, J., Lee, K., Park, Y., Kim, N. 2008. In-situ evaluation of strength and dilatancy of sands
based on CPT results. Soils and foundations, 48(2), 255-265.
Lunne, T., Robertson, P.K. and Powell, J. J. M., 1997, Cone Penetration Testing in Geotechnical
Practice, Blackie Academic and Professional.
Olson, Scott M. and Stark, Timothy D., 2003, Yield Strength Ratio and Liquefaction Analysis of
Slopes and Embankments, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE,
August 2003.
Robertson, P.K., 1990, Soil Classification Using the Cone Penetration Test, Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, Volume 27.
Robertson, P.K., 2009, Interpretation of cone penetration tests a unified approach, Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 46: 1337-1355.
Robertson, P.K. 2010. Estimating in-situ state parameter and friction angle in sandy soils from CPT.
Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing (CPT10),
Huntington Beach, California, 2: 471-478.
Robertson, P.K. and Robertson, K.L. 2015. Guide to cone penetration testing and its application to
geotechnical engineering. 6th ed. Signal Hill, CA: Gregg Drilling and Testing Inc.

CPTu Formulas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CPTu Formulas

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CPTu Formulas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What are the different parameters used in CPT testing?

What are the different parameters used in CPT testing?

What are some empirical correlations used with CPT data?

What are some empirical correlations used with CPT data?

Parameter

Description Formula Unit Reference Literature

Lunne, Robertson and

Lunne, Robertson and

Lunne, Robertson and

Lunne, Robertson and

Lunne, Robertson and

Lunne, Robertson and

Normalized qt for Soil Robertson, (1990);

v Total Vertical Stress = kPa

Lunne, Robertson and

The state parameter index

Kulhawy and Mayne,

Modified from Kulhawy and

Soils with 1.0 Ic 3.27:

Lunne, Robertson and

Undrained shear strength

Soil Behaviour Type Index, = Robertson, (2009);

Normalized tip resistance

Clean sand equivalent for

You might also like