1/18/2013

Gregg Drilling & Testing, Inc.

Site Investigation Experts

Cone Penetration Testing

Interpretation of Soil
Parameters -
Fine-grained soils
Dr. Peter K. Robertson
Webinar #3
Jan. 2013

Robertson, 2012

Basic Cone Parameters

Sleeve Friction
fs = load/2rh

Pore Pressure
u2

Tip Resistance
qc = load/ r 2

Robertson, 2012

1
 1/18/2013

Soil Parameters
What you can get from the CPT in
fine-grained soils
such as: clay, silty clay, clayey silt,
silt?

Robertson, 2012

Perceived applicability of CPT for

Deriving Soil Parameters

Initial state Strength Deformation Flow

parameter Parameters Characteristics* Charact.

Soil γ ψ Ko OCR St su Φ’ E,G M Go k ch

Type

Fine- 2-3 2-3 1 2-3 1-2 4 2-3 2-3 2-3 2-3 2-3
grained
Coarse- 2-3 2 4-5 4-5 2-3 2-3 2-3 2-3 3 3-4
grained

Applicability rating: 1 high reliability, 2 high to moderate, 3 moderate, 4 moderate to low,

5 low reliability.
* Improved when using SCPT

Robertson, 2012

2
 1/18/2013

Soil Behaviour Type (SBT)

Fine-grained soils
Coarse - essentially plot in
grained
Qt = (qt-svo)/s’vo

soils
SBT zones 1, 2, 3, 4
and 9 on the
normalized SBT chart
Fine- by Robertson (1990)
grained
soils
Approx. Ic > 2.60

Fr = 100[fs/(qt-svo)]
Robertson (1990) Robertson, 2012

Generalized CPT Soil Behaviour Type

CPT Soil Behaviour

A: Drained-dilative
A
B: Drained-contractive
B C
C: Undrained-dilative
D
D: Undrained-contractive

Robertson, 2012

3
 1/18/2013

Theoretical solutions for CPT

• Most widely used theories:
– Bearing capacity methods (BCM)
– Cavity expansion methods (CEM)
– Strain path methods (SPM)
– Finite element methods (FEM)
– Discrete element methods (DEM)
• Combinations:
– SPM-FEM (Teh & Houslby, 1991)
– CEM-SPM (Yu & Whittle, 1999)
– CEM-FEM (Abu-Farsakh et al., 2003)
– CEM-BCM (Salgado et al., 1997)
Robertson, 2012

Theory for CPT

• Challenges:
– Major assumptions needed for:
• Geometry & boundary conditions
• Soil behavior
• Drainage conditions
• Real soil behavior very complex
• Semi-empirical correlations still dominate, but
supported by theory

Robertson, 2012

4
 1/18/2013

Factors affecting CPT interpretation

• Geology & geologic history
– In-situ stresses (importance of horizontal stresses)
– Soil compressibility (mineralogy)
– Cementation
– Particle size (e.g. gravel size)
– Stratigraphy/layering
CPT should be interpreted within a
geologic context

Geologic Context
• Most semi-empirical correlations are based on
case histories in ‘well behaved’ soils
– Mostly normally to lightly overconsolidated
– Relatively young (Holocene to Pleistocene-age)
– Silica based (quartz)
– Sedimentary soils

5
 1/18/2013

Schematic of soil loading around cone

Generalized stress-strain relationship

Tip resistance, qt,

controlled more by
peak strength

Sleeve friction, fs,

controlled more by
remolded strength

Robertson, 2012

Stress History: OCR

• Wroth (1984), Mayne (1991) and others
proposed theoretical solutions (based on cavity
expansion & critical state soil mechanics):

σ’p = f(qt - σvo)* OCR = f [(qt - σvo)/ σ’vo]*

σ’p = f(Du) OCR = f [Du/(qt - σvo)]
σ’p = f(qt –u2) OCR = f [(qt –u2)/ σ’vo]

* Most Common Robertson, 2012

6
 1/18/2013

Theoretical solution for OCR

Hybrid SCE-CSSM theory (Mayne, 1991)
OCR = σ’p/σ’vo

OCR = 2[ (2/M Qt)/(4/3(lnIr +1) +2.57)]1/L

Assume: L = 0.8, Ir ~ 100 to 300, M = 1.1

OCR = 0.25 (Qt)1.25
Where: Qt = (qt – svo)/s’vo

For OCR < 4 & St < 15: OCR ~ 0.33 Qt

Robertson, 2012

OCR = 0.25 (Qt)1.25

OCR = 1/3 Qt1

Data from
Mayne, 2006

7
 1/18/2013

Importance of
Sample Quality
High quality samples tend to
produce higher OCR, strength
and sensitivity values

Lunne et al, 2006

Robertson, 2012

Updated OCR Correlation

0.26(Qt)1.2

0.46(Qt)1.1

Robertson, 2012

8
 1/18/2013

Strength Parameters - Clay

Undrained strength ratio as a

function of direction of loading
Normally consolidated

Jamiolkowski et al., 1985 & Ladd, 1991

Robertson, 2012

Undrained Shear Strength, su (cu)

su = qt – σvo
Nkt 10 < Nkt < 20

Nkt With sensitivity

Nkt With PI & OCR

For soft clays (based on excess pore pressure, Δu):

su = Δu = u – uo 7 < NΔu < 10
NΔu NΔu
Robertson, 2012

9
 1/18/2013

Undrained Shear Strength - CPT

su = qt – σvo
Nkt
Nkt ~ 10 to 18

su based on FVT

After The & Houslby, 1987

Robertson, 2012

Undrained shear strength, su

CSSM & Empirical observations (Ladd, 1991):

(su/s’vo)ave = 0.22 (OCR)0.8

OCR = 0.25 (Qt)1.25

Combined: (su/s’vo)ave = Qt/14

Hence, Nkt ~ 14
Robertson, 2012

10
 1/18/2013

Undrained Shear Strength - CPT

Recent experience from high quality samples show:
(Low, 2009)
Cone Factor, Nkt

Average undrained shear strength 11.5 to 15.5

su,ave = 1/3 (suTC + suTE + suSS)

Mean 14

Values will vary somewhat with plasticity & sensitivity of clay

Swedish experience suggests:
Nkt = (13.4 + 6.65 wL)
Robertson, 2012

Soil Sensitivity from CPT

su(peak) = qt – σvo
Nkt

fs su(remolded)

Sensitivity, St

St = su (peak) ~ 7/ Fr
su(remolded)

su(r) /s’vo = fs/s’vo = Fr*Qt /100

Robertson, 2012

11
 1/18/2013

Examples of su(r) from CPT fs

Scoggins Dam
Farrar et al , 2008

Burswood, Perth
Low, 2009 New Orleans
Mayne, 2008

Contours of OCR & Sensitivity (St)

Qtn controlled by OCR

(peak shear strength)

OCR
Fr controlled by St
OCR = 25 (remolded shear
strength)
OCR = 10
OCR = 5

OCR = 2
su(r) /s’vo = fs/s’vo
OCR = 1
St su(r) /s’vo = Fr*Qt /100

Robertson, 2012

12
 1/18/2013

Schneider et al (2008) chart

Variation of OCR
and Bq on Schneider
et al (2008) chart

Qt = (qt-svo)/s’vo
Bq = Du2/ (qt-svo)
Du2/s’vo = Qt Bq

Normalized pore
pressure (either Bq
or Du2/s’vo ) not
effective to estimate
OCR

Example – Bothkennar, UK
Hight et al., 2003
Holocene-age, estuarine clayey silt
(NC to LOC)

13
 1/18/2013

Example – Onsoy, Norway

Lunne et al., 2003
Holocene-age, marine clay
(NC to LOC)

Example – Cowden, UK
Powell & Butcher, 2003
Pleistocene-age, glacial stony clay till
(HOC)

Ko = 0.5(OCR)0.5

Su(PLT)

14
 1/18/2013

Estimation of 1-D Constrained

Modulus, (M)

M = 1/ mv = dsv / de (in units of stress)

Cc = 2.3 (1+e0) s'vo / M

Where mv = equivalent oedometer coefficient of compressibility.

dsv = change in vertical stress
de = change in vertical strain
e0 = initial void ratio
Cc = Compression index

Robertson, 2012

M Constrained
M = 20 Modulus, M
(Mayne, 2006)
M

M = aM (qt – sv)

1 < aM < 20
M=1

Depending on soil
type and stress
history (OCR)

Robertson, 2012

15
 1/18/2013

1-D Constrained modulus, M

M = aM (qt - svo)

when Ic > 2.2 use:

aM = Qtn when Qtn < 14

aM = 14 when Qtn > 14

when Ic < 2.2 use:

aM = 0.02 [10 (0.55Ic + 1.68)]

Note: when Ic > 2.2 (clays)

Cc = 2.3(1+eo)/Km

after Robertson, 2009

Robertson, 2012

Comparison between Lab and CPT M

M = aM (qt - svo)
aM = Qtn when Qtn < 14
aM = 14 when Qtn > 14

16
 1/18/2013

Venice lagoon Load Test

Most vol.
strain in
softer silty
units

Circular tank
106 kPa load
~60 months

SBT Method for Permeability

Estimated permeability based on SBT

SBTn SBT Permeability (m/sec) SBT Ic

1 Sensitive fine-grained 3x10-10 to 3x 10-8 NA

2 Organic soils - clay 1x10-10 to 1x 10-8 Ic > 3.60
3 Clay 1x10-10 to 1x 10-9 2.95 < Ic < 3.60
4 Silt mixtures 3x10-9 to 1x 10-7 2.60 < Ic < 2.95
5 Sand mixtures 1x10-7 to 1x 10-5 2.05 < Ic < 2.60
6 Sand 1x10-5 to 1x 10-3 1.31 < Ic < 2.05
7 Sand to gravelly sand 1x 10-3 to 1 Ic < 1.31
8 Very dense/stiff soil* 1x 10-8 to 1x10-3 NA
9 Very stiff fine-grained 1x 10-9 to 1x10-7 NA

After Lunne et al, 1997

Robertson, 2012

17
 1/18/2013

Update on k from CPT via SBT Ic

k, m/s
Range suggested by
Lunne et al, 1997

SBT Ic

Robertson, 2012

CPTu Dissipation Tests

Test depth, Dcone = 90.22 feet

uo = Hwater = 62.37 feet

Depth to piezometric surface, Dwater = 27.9 feet

Robertson, 2012

18
 1/18/2013

Equilibrium Piezometric Pressure

1 psi = 2.306 ft of water

u0 u0

t100 ~ 10 mins t100 ~ 13 mins

u0 u0

t100 ~ 4 mins t100 ~ 33 mins

Flow Characteristics from CPTU

Theory:
• Simple uncoupled solutions provide accurate
predictions
• Dissipation controlled by horizontal ch
• Initial distribution of excess pore pressures have
major influence on process
• Consolidation predominantly in recompression mode
especially for times less than 50%
• Rigidity index (IR = G/su) important

Robertson, 2012

19
 1/18/2013

Example pore pressure dissipation

Piezo-Dissipations at Evergreen, North Carolina
1000
u2 during CPTu
900
Dissipation Record at 4.2 m
ch = T50 · r2
800
t50
Measured u 2 (kPa)

700

600 Where:
at 50% consolidation:
500
u = ½(829 + 37) = 433 kPa T50 is the
400
Extrapolation theoretical time
300
Groundwater Table at 0.4 m
factor, t50 is the
200
u0 = (4.2 - 0.4m)*9.8 kN/m 3 = 37 kPa measure time,
100

0
and r is the
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 radius of the
Time (minutes) t50 = 7 minutes
probe
After Mayne, 2010

Robertson, 2012

Average laboratory ch values and CPTu results

undrained
penetration

After Robertson et al., 1992

20
 1/18/2013

Rate effects - drainage

Undrained

Dimensionless Velocity, V = v D / cv
(v = penetration rate; D = cone diameter; cv = coefficient of consolidation)

Undrained when V > 1 [i.e. cv < 7x10-4 m2/s (7 cm2/min); t50 > 1 min]
Robertson, 2012

Flow Characteristics from CPTU

• Uncertainties
– Initial distribution of u (OCR > 4)
– Soil non-homogeneity (stratigraphy)
– Soil macrofabric
– Influence of cv
– Filter element clogging/smearing
• Very useful to evaluate approximate flow
characteristics for fine grained soils

Robertson, 2012

21
 1/18/2013

Permeability from CPT

Parez & Fauriel, 1988
Based on theory
via dissipation
50 kPa test, t50
100 kPa

kh = (ch gw)/M

where:
M is the 1-D constrained
Undrained
modulus
gw is the unit weight of
Increasing M water, in compatible units.
M can be estimated from
Qtn

Robertson, 2012

Summary
• CPT interpretation should be done within a
geology framework (i.e. understand the
geology)
• CPT can provide good estimate of a wide
range of geotechnical parameters in most fine-
grained soils
• Best to view parameters as a profile (i.e.
maintain the stratigraphy and variability)

22
 1/18/2013

Example Interpretation

Soft NC clay overlying very stiff OC silty clay

Located in 5-star Mandarin Oriental Hotel

23