DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE

GEOTECHNICAL STRUCTURES

Geotechnical structures and technologies

ASSIGNMENT 2: CPT ANALYSIS

CRISTIAN MANUEL CORSO SÁNCHEZ

NEPTUN CODE: W4PILU

Evaluation of CPT test results

March 31th, 2020

CPT RESULTS Page 1 of 9

 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE
GEOTECHNICAL STRUCTURES

TABLE OF CONTENT
Page.

1. INTRODUCTION 5

2. SUBSOIL LAYERS 6

3. ROBERTSON SOIL CLASSIFICATION 7

4. RESULTS AND SOIL PROFILE 8

5. CONCLUSIONS 9

CPT RESULTS Page 2 of 9

 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE
GEOTECHNICAL STRUCTURES

LIST OF TABLES
Page.

TABLE 1 - DISCRETIZATION OF LAYERS ACCORDING TO CONE RESISTANCE ...............................................6

TABLE 2 – FRICTIONAL RATIO FOR THE DIFFERENT LAYERS ..............................................................................7
TABLE 3 – RESULTS FOR SOIL PROFILE ACCORDING TO CPT ..........................................................................8

CPT RESULTS Page 3 of 9

 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE
GEOTECHNICAL STRUCTURES

LIST OF FIGURES
Page.

FIGURE 1 – CPT RESULTS EXPLORATION NUMBER 8 .........................................................................................5

FIGURE 2 – ROBERTSON’S SOIL CLASSIFICATION ............................................................................................7
FIGURE 3 – STRATIGRAPHIC PROFILE ................................................................................................................9

CPT RESULTS Page 4 of 9

 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE
GEOTECHNICAL STRUCTURES

1. INTRODUCTION

This document will consider the result for CPT number 8 as a consequence of an in-situ soil
study. The main objective to conclude from the results is to intuit the soil layers present in the
sector because of their value for cone resistance.
A classification based on graphic visual analysis will be made for the cone resistance and in
addition, to make use of Robertson's soil classification, approximate values will be obtained
for the friction ratio.
Figure 1 – CPT results exploration number 8

CPT RESULTS Page 5 of 9

 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE
GEOTECHNICAL STRUCTURES

2. SUBSOIL LAYERS

To determine the layers that are present in the site, the resistance of the cone is taken, and
an attempt is made to establish homogeneous zones in depth, which will be characterized
by similar values of qc. In the Table 1 is showed the layers obtained from the analysis.

Between 0 and -2.0 m (Average qc=7.5 MPa)

1

2 Between -2.0m and -4.0 m (Average qc=5.00 MPa)

3 Between -4.0m and -7.5 m (Average qc=2.00 MPa)

4 Between -7.5m and -10.0 m (Average qc=25.00 MPa)

5 Between -10.0m and -13.0 m (Average qc=12.00 MPa)

6 Between -13.0m and -17.0 m (Average qc=30.00 MPa)

7 Between -17.0m and -18.5 m (Average qc=15.00 MPa)

8 Between -18.5m and -20.0 m (Average qc=5.00 MPa)

End of the exploration, no data available

Table 1 - Discretization of layers according to cone resistance

CPT RESULTS Page 6 of 9

 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE
GEOTECHNICAL STRUCTURES

3. ROBERTSON SOIL CLASSIFICATION

According to the Robertson classification diagram for CPT tests, it is also necessary to have
a friction ratio value. As showed in the Figure 1, for the 8 proposed layers the friction ratio is
showed as follows:
Layer and Depth (m) Friction ratio Rf (%)
1 (0 and -2.00m) 1.00
2 (-2.00m and -4.00m) 1.00
3 (-4.00m and -7.50m) 4.00
4 (-7.50m and -10.00m) 1.00
5 (-10.00m and -13.00m) 3.00
6 (-13.00m and -17.00m) 1.00
7 (-17.00m and -18.5m) 2.00
8 (-18.5m and -20.00m) 3.00
Table 2 – Frictional ratio for the different layers

With the last two parameters is possible to evaluate the type of soil in the observed site
following the scheme showed in the Figure 2 for each layer of soil.

Figure 2 – Robertson’s soil classification

1 Sensitive fine grained

Soil classification according 2 Organic material

to Robertson 3 clay
qc 4 Silty clay to clay
MPa
5 Clayey silt to silty clay
6 Sandy silt to clayey silt
7 Silty sand to sandy silt
8 Sand to silty sand
9 sand
10 Gravelly sand to sand
11 Very stiff fine grained*
12 Sand to clayey sand*

Dr. = relatíve density

e = void ratio
OCR= overconsolidation ratio
St = sensitivity
* Overconsolidated or cemented
Rf %

CPT RESULTS Page 7 of 9

 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE
GEOTECHNICAL STRUCTURES

4. RESULTS AND SOIL PROFILE

Using the Figure 2 and the values listed in the Table 3 is possible to obtain the descriptive
materials as listed in the same table. In general the soil is composed of a high percentage
of sand with some traces of clay and silt, in the layer 4 and 6 there is a sand mostly
consolidated so the cone resistance is high, it is intuited that in the layer 6 is a good level of
foundation if you want to think about deep foundations as driven piles or built in situ. Special
care should be taken with the water table given the nature of the soil and its susceptibility
to permeability.

Layer qc (MPa) Rf (%) Robertson’s soil Description

1 7.5 1 8 Sandy to silty sand
2 5 1 7 Silty sand to sandy silty
3 2 4 4 Silty clay to clay
4 25 1 9 Sand
5 12 3 6 Sandy silt to clayey silt
6 30 1 9 Sand
7 15 2 7 Silty sand to sandy silty
8 5 3 6 Sandy silt to clayey silt
Table 3 – Results for soil profile according to CPT

CPT RESULTS Page 8 of 9

 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE
GEOTECHNICAL STRUCTURES

5. CONCLUSIONS

Figure 3 shows graphically the geotechnical profile of the site according to the analysis obtained. As
mentioned in the study site sandy soils with different traces of other materials predominate, it is
proposed that in layer six there could be a good level of foundation for different deep foundation
alternatives.
Special care and caution should be taken with water levels because of the low level of permeability
that can be expected from this type of sandy soil.

Figure 3 – Stratigraphic profile

CPT RESULTS Page 9 of 9