Cone Penetration Testing 2022 – Gottardi & Tonni (eds)

© 2022 Copyright the Author(s), ISBN 978-1-032-31259-0

Open Access: www.taylorfrancis.com, CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license

Soil unit weight prediction from CPTs for soils and mining tailings

T. Menegaz & E. Odebrecht

University of Santa Catarina State, Joinville, Santa Catarina, Brazil

H.P. Nierwinski
Federal University of Santa Catarina, Joinville, Santa Catarina, Brazil

F. Schnaid
Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

ABSTRACT: An accurate estimation of the total unit weight (γt) of soils and mining tailings is
a requirement for several geotechnical engineering applications. In the interpretation of CPT testing data, the
value of γt is needed for the evaluation of both the total and effective stresses, as well as in the accurate deter­
mination of subsequent parameters. Current methods for determining γt based CPT data have been developed
for a wide range of natural soils where the specific gravity of solids (G) generally ranges from 2.5 to 2.7.
However, a large gap exists for soils or mining tailings where G is often higher, such as in the case of bauxite
and zinc. This paper presents a compilation of results of CPT tests, and laboratory measurements of specific
gravity of solids and total unit weight on bauxite and zinc mine tailings. The application of the literature
methodologies was evaluated for this database and the statistical coefficient of determination (r) was pre­
sented, which is determined between the measured value and the value estimated by the correlations

1 INTRODUCTION
An adequate geotechnical investigation is necessary
for the understanding of soil behavior. Laboratory and
field data are generated, which allow the designer to
predict the behavior of the studied soil, offering more
security for project development. According to
Lunne, Robertson & Powell (1997), field and labora­
tory tests complement each other; however, field tests
have some attractions. One of these is the cone pene­
tration test (CPT) or piezocone test (CPTu), which is
conducted by driving a set of steel rods and a conical
point into the ground with the aid of a reaction
system mounted on the ground surface. The following
quantities are continuously measured in this test: tip
resistance (qc), lateral friction (fs), and generated pore
pressure (u). Combining these values also makes it
possible to determine two parameters used to evaluate
the soil behavior, namely the friction ratio (Rf) and
the pore pressure parameter (Bq). The literature pre­
sents several correlations for obtaining geotechnical
parameters from CPTu test results (Kulhawy &
Mayne (1990); Schmertmann (1978); Teh & Houlsby
(1991); Larsson & Mulabdic (1991)). However, one
of the essential information in the interpretation of
the test is the value of the natural soil unit weight.
The methods presented in the literature for deter­
mining γt from the results of the cone test use the tip
resistance (qt), the lateral friction (fs), and also the
value of the shear wave velocity (vs) through the soil.
These methods consist of empirical formulations
developed from natural soil databases, encompassing
a range of specific gravity of solids (G) values, usually
ranging from 2.5 to 2.7 (MAYNE, 2007). Some spe­
cific proposals seek to address organic soils, for
G values ranging from 1.45 to 2.33 (LENGKEEK et al
2018). However, considering the extensive applicabil­
ity of cone tests, encompassing both soft soil deposits
and mining tailings, there is a need to evaluate correl­
ations for estimating soil unit weight for wider ranges
of specific gravity of solids values, for which the cor­
relations available in the literature may present
limitations.
In this context, the present study compiles and
organizes a database of cone tests and laboratory
tests, encompassing bauxite and zinc mining tail­
ings soils with a specific gravity of solids values
above the average of natural soils. The aim is to
verify the applicability of existing specific weight
estimation relationships and verify which method
best adapts to these data. The study will be based
on statistical analysis with the help of the statis­
tical software R Studio®, where the value of
Pearson correlation coefficient (r), determined
between the measured value and the estimated
value of specific weight, will be evaluated. The

DOI: 10.1201/9781003308829-81

566
Pearson correlation coefficient (r) represents the identified a relationship between the plasticity index
linear association between two random variables. and the ratio between the tip resistance and the
Usually, the analysis is made by graphical repre­ depth, denominated mq (mq= qt/z). Analyses were
sentation of the relation of data, using a scatter performed and two equations were obtained (Equa­
diagram. This coefficient varies from -1 to +1 and tions 3 and 4).
indicate the tendency of one variable to increase
or decrease with the other variable, respectively
(PATTEN & NEWHART, 2017; ZHOU et al
2016). In this paper, the Pearson correlation coef­
ficient (r) is used to verify the relation between
the measured soil unit weight and the estimated
value by literature correlations.
A differentiated methodology is proposed by Mayne
(2014) to estimate the soil unit weight through CPTu
1.1 Methods for estimating the natural soil unit test results, relying only on the relationship of spe­
weight cific weight with the lateral cone friction ðfsÞ meas­
There are several proposals in the literature for deter­ urements. The proposed equation is presented by
mining the natural soil unit weight (γt); among them, Equations 5 and 6.
we can mention Robertson & Cabal (2010), Mayne
& Peuchen (2012) and Mayne (2014). To develop
the correlation proposed by Robertson & Cabal
(2010), as can be seen in Equation 1, experiments
and correlations between wave velocity and soil unit
weight were combined (MAYNE, 2007), along with
relationships between unit weight and DMT test
results (MARCHETTI, 1980). Thus, Robertson &
Cabal (2010) developed approximate contours of
unit weight values as a function of dimensionless 2 DATABASE
parameters of resistance (qt /σatm ) and lateral fric­
tion (Rf ¼ fs=σatm ). In order to achieve the research objective,
a database of geotechnical investigation results was
analyzed. The database is formed by 197 observa­
tions resulting from investigations in 4 different
Brazilian bauxite and zinc deposits. The items sur­
veyed in the database were based on the definition
of the main parameters to be used in the statistical
analysis to apply existing correlations, thus making
where Rf = friction ratio x 100%; qt = corrected tip it possible to verify their performance with the
resistance; γw = water unit weight (kPa); and σatm = compiled data. The data for bauxite and zinc
atmospheric pressure (kPa). mining tailings are presented, by depth range, in
Robertson & Cabal (2010) also point out that the Tables 1 and 2, respectively.
vast majority of soils present a specific gravity of
solids (G) in the range of 2.5 to 2.7. For soils with
G outside this range, some interference may occur in
the proposed correlation given by the previous equa­
Table 1. Bauxite mining tailings database – parameters
tion, so they proposed Equation 2, where the value variation.
of G is introduced.
Depth γt qt
(m) (kN/m³) (MPa) fs (kPa) G Rf

1 – 4.75 13.48 – 0.03 – 0.5 – 2.39 – 0.26 –

20.43 0.99 13.36 3.36 14.48

5 – 10 14.48 – 0.03– 0.79 – 2.85 – 0.48 –

As for Mayne & Peuchen (2012), the authors’ first 21.45 2.0 17.49 3.22 3.58
evaluation consisted of relating the unit weight of
the materials with the respective plasticity index, 11 – 15 16.44 – 0.39 – 4.48 2.88 – 0.68 –
20.44 0.95 -23.29 3.14 3.63
verifying a tendency of reduction of the specific
weight with the increase of the plasticity of the 16 – 20 15.58 – 0.73 – 6.82 – 2.98 – 0.93 –
material. As the plasticity index is not obtained 20.26 1.95 19.11 3.14 2.74
using the cone test, the authors investigated and

567
Table 2. Zinc mining tailings database – parameters The use of Pearson correlation coefficient (r) was
variation. chosen to evaluate if those two variables, the meas­
ured specific weight and, the estimated specific
Depth γt qt weight, are related to each other. Furthermore, it is
(m) (kN/m³) (MPa) fs (kPa) G Rf intended to analyze which method demonstrates to
have more compatibility with each soil type evalu­
1–5 11.27 – 0.03 – 0.14 – 3.28 – 0.28 – ated. For each type of studied soil and correlations
13.58 0.22 2.57 3.35 1.56
graphs were generated. The results of the analyses
6 – 12 12.6 – 0.22 – 1.77 – 3.29 – 0.5 – are presented by soil type in Tables 3 and 4, being
14.3 1.10 16.99 3.37 1.62 bauxite tailings and zinc, respectively.
The bauxite mining tailings were the first to be
analyzed, bringing the strongest correlation value,
the method of Robertson & Cabal (2010), in Equa­
tion 2, with an r = 0.42. This equation presents in its
3 VERIFICATION OF EXISTING METHODS IN
formulation the coefficient of specific gravity of
LITERATURE
solids (G). And the weakest correlation occurred in
two equations of different methods, the first by
In this step of the study, the methods present in the
Robertson & Cabal, Equation 1, and the second by
literature for natural soils as presented in step 1.1
Mayne & Peuchen (2012), Equation 4, presenting an
were used to estimate the soil unit weight, comparing
r = 0.2. The graphs with the strongest and weakest
the result obtained by applying the formulations with
correlations are illustrated in Figures 1 and 2.
the values defined in the results of geotechnical tests.
For zinc mining tailings, the results were more
Together with the database formed with the param­
positive when compared to bauxite mining tail­
eters for the analysis of correlations between CPT and
ings. For the Mayne (2014) method, the strongest
CPTu tests, the equations were entered into the Excel
correlation was obtained, being r = 0.85. How­
software spreadsheet. Each of the correlations was
ever, not all results were above r = 0.7. Mayne
entered in a column, sorted by author and year of
development, starting from the oldest to the most
recent.
In order to make an evaluation between the values
calculated by the correlations of the methods and the
unit weight values present in the results of the geo­
technical tests, the software R Studio® was used as
a statistical tool.

Table 3. Verification of methods with bauxite mining

tailings.

Method Equation r value

Robertson & Cabal (2010) Equation 1 0.2 Figure 1. The strongest correlation in bauxite mining
Robertson & Cabal (2010) Equation 2 0.42 tailings.
Mayne & Peuchen (2012) Equation 3 0.2
Mayne & Peuchen (2012) Equation 4 0.22
Mayne (2014) Equation 6 0.3

Table 4. Verification of methods with zinc mining

tailings.

Method Equation r value

Robertson & Cabal (2010) Equation 1 0.79

Robertson & Cabal (2010) Equation 2 0.78
Mayne & Peuchen (2012) Equation 3 0.43
Mayne & Peuchen (2012) Equation 4 0.64
Mayne (2014) Equation 6 0.85 Figure 2. The weakest correlation in bauxite mining
tailings.

568
and Peuchen (2012), in Equation 4, presents the
weakest result among all, where r = 0.43. The
graphs with the strongest and weakest correl­
ations are presented in Figures 3 and 4.
Figure 3. The strongest correlation in bauxite mining
tailings.
Figure 4. The weakest correlation in bauxite mining
tailings.
4 CONCLUSIONS
This paper sought to assemble a database of Brazil­
ian mining tailings soils for verification of methods
present in the literature for natural soils.
569
Through this study, it was possible to define
which method in the literature for natural soils best
suited the mining tailings data in the database.
The Pearson correlation coefficient (r) values
between the measured data and the data calculated
by the methods indicated that some of the methods
offered a positive result when using the database, but
in most cases the results showed that there is a need
to generate a new equation that encompasses a range
of soils with actual specific gravity of solids values
varying more than just the range for normal soils
(2.5 to 2.7).
REFERENCES
Lengkeek, H. J.; De Greef, J.; Joosten, S. (ed) 2018. CPT
based unit weight estimation extended to soft organic
soils and peat. Cone Penetration Testing 2018:
389–394.
Lunne, T; Robertson P. K.; Powell, J.J.M. (ed) 1997. Cone
Penetration Testing. London: Blackie Academic &
Professional.
Mayne, P. W. (ed) 2007. Cone Penetration Testing. Wash­
ington, DC: The Nacional Academies Press.
Mayne, P. W.; Peuchen, J.; Bowmeester, D. (ed) 2010. Unit
weight trends with cone resistance in soft to firm clays.
Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterization:
Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Site
Characterization ISC-4: 903–910.
Mayne, P.W. (ed) 2014. Interpretation of geotechnical
parameters from seismic piezocone tests. Proceedings,
3rd International Symposium on Cone Penetration Test­
ing: 47–73.
Robertson, P. K.; Cabal, K.L. (ed) 2010. Estimating soil
unit weight from CPT. 2nd International Symposium on
Cone Penetration Testing: 2 – 40.
Robertson, P. K.; Cabal, K.L. (ed) 2014. Guide to Cone
Penetration Testing for Geotechnical Engineering. Cali­
fornia: Gregg Drilling & Tests Inc.
Patten, M.L.; Newhart, M. (eds) 2017. Understanding
Research Methods. London: Routledge.
Zhou, H.; Zhihong, D.; Xia, Y.; Fu, M. (ed) 2016. A new
sampling method in particle filter based on Pearson
correlation coefficient. Neurocomputing 216: 208–
215.