See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/281629021

Interpretation of piezoball dissipation testing in clay

Article in Géotechnique · October 2015

DOI: 10.1680/geot.14.P.213

CITATIONS READS

21 1,479

3 authors, including:

Dong Wang Mark Randolph

Ocean University of China University of Western Australia
129 PUBLICATIONS 3,007 CITATIONS 398 PUBLICATIONS 18,852 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Dong Wang on 10 September 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Mahmoodzadeh, H. et al. (2015). Géotechnique 65, No. 10, 831–842 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1680=geot.14.P.213]

Interpretation of piezoball dissipation testing in clay

H. MAHMOODZADEH
, D. WANG
and M. F. RANDOLPH

Full-flow penetrometers such as the cylindrical T-bar and spherical ball are now being used widely
in soft seabed sediments due to their advantages of larger projected area and minimal correction for
overburden pressure. A ball penetrometer fitted with one or more pore pressure transducers (piezoball)
is of special interest as it can provide information on the soil consolidation properties by means of
dissipation tests. Although analytical and numerical solutions have been developed to evaluate the
undrained resistance factor for the ball, the absence of a similar theoretical basis has limited the use
of piezoball dissipation testing. This paper provides the results of numerical analyses undertaken to
model the excess pore pressure field generated during penetration of a piezoball, including its shaft,
and the decay of pore pressure during a subsequent dissipation test. The analyses used a coupled
large deformation finite-element (LDFE) method incorporating the modified Cam-Clay model. The
robustness and validity of the LDFE analyses were verified by comparison with analytical and
alternative numerical solutions of ball penetration and with experimental data from centrifuge model
dissipation tests. The effects of soil properties and shaft–ball geometry on the dissipation response at
two locations on the ball were studied. A normalised time factor for excess pore pressure dissipation,
together with benchmark dissipation curves, are proposed for generic interpretation of the dissipation
response around a piezoball.

KEYWORDS: clays; consolidation; finite-element modelling; in situ testing; penetrometers; pore pressure

INTRODUCTION required to adjust the measured cone resistance because

Penetrometers are used widely for both onshore and offshore
in situ site investigations, especially when high-quality soil
samples are difficult to obtain for laboratory tests. Cone
penetrometers, especially piezocones, provide separate meas-
urements of tip resistance, pore pressure and sleeve friction,
from which correlations have been developed for different soil
types (Robertson, 1990, 2009; Schneider et al., 2008, 2012).
Additionally, for fine-grained soils, monitoring of the dissi-
pation of excess pore pressure allows quantitative estimates to
be made of the consolidation characteristics of the soil.
In recent years, new ‘full-flow’ penetrometers, such as
the cylindrical T-bar (Stewart & Randolph, 1991, 1994;
Randolph et al., 1998), or spherical ball (Kelleher &
Randolph, 2005; Peuchen et al., 2005), were introduced to im-
prove the accuracy of strength measurement in soft sediments
due to the larger projected area and minimal correction for
overburden and pore pressure. These are being used increas-
ingly in offshore site investigations (Low et al., 2010; Kelleher
et al., 2010). For in situ applications, the ball penetrometer has
advantages over the T-bar: (a) it is less susceptible to eccentric
loading, leading to errors in load cell measurements, especially
for penetration in variable soil conditions; (b) the ball
penetrometer has more suitable geometry for deployment
down a borehole (Chung & Randolph, 2004; Kelleher &
Randolph, 2005; Yafrate & DeJong, 2005); and (c) it lends
itself more readily to useful measurement of pore pressures.
The filter on the piezocone is usually placed just behind the
cone shoulder (u2 position), which is widely recognised as
optimal (a) to minimise the chance of filter blockage, which
is less for this position than on the cone face and at the tip,
and (b) to provide a direct measurement of the pore pressure
Manuscript received 21 October 2014; revised manuscript accepted
5 May 2015. Published online ahead of print 27 July 2015.
Discussion on this paper closes on 1 March 2016, for further details
see p. ii.

Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems, the University of
Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia.
of the area ratio of inner load cell to external shaft (Lunne
et al., 1997). The optimal filter position on the piezoball is
still not clear, with the positions explored varying including:
the mid-face of the leading half of the sphere (Peuchen et al.,
2005), one-third of the way up from the tip to the equator
(Boylan et al., 2007), the equator of the sphere (Kelleher &
Randolph, 2005; Low & Randolph, 2007; DeJong et al.,
2008) and on the shaft just above the sphere (Peuchen et al.,
2005). Recently, Mahmoodzadeh & Randolph (2014) have
argued the benefits of dual pore pressure measurements, at
the mid-face and the equator positions.
To facilitate determination of the undrained strength of
fine-grained soils, the capacity factor (ratio of net resistance,
qball to undrained shear strength averaged over triaxial com-
pression, simple shear and triaxial extension) for the ball
penetrometer has been investigated thoroughly using in situ
and centrifuge tests (Yafrate & DeJong, 2005; Low et al.,
2010), plasticity limit analysis (Randolph et al., 2000) and
large deformation finite-element (LDFE) analysis (Zhou &
Randolph, 2007, 2009, 2011). The capacity factor depends
primarily on the shaft-to-ball diameter (or area) ratio, the
roughness of the penetrometer, soil rigidity index and sen-
sitivity. Low et al. (2010) compared the undrained strengths
measured by cone, T-bar, ball, vane and triaxial tests,
suggesting a range of capacity factor from 9·53 to 12·12 for
individual tests but only 10·8 to 11·5 for averages at any given
site, for a ball penetrometer with shaft-to-ball diameter ratio
of about 0·3.
In contrast to the relatively confident assessment of
undrained capacity factor, the absence of a predictive ap-
proach for interpreting dissipation tests conducted with a
piezoball has limited its potential to provide consolidation
parameters. For piezocones, analytical and numerical sol-
utions based on cavity expansion (Torstensson, 1977;
Randolph & Wroth, 1979; Burns & Mayne, 2002) or strain
path theory (Levadoux & Baligh, 1986; Teh & Houlsby,
1991) have been presented to interpret dissipation tests in
fine-grained soils. The solution by Teh & Houlsby (1991) is

831
832 MAHMOODZADEH, WANG AND RANDOLPH
probably the most commonly used method, with the normal-
ised excess pore pressure, Δu(t)=Δu0 (where Δu0 is the initial
value) expressed as a function of a normalised time factor
which takes into account the size of the cone (here using the
diameter rather than the radius) and the rigidity index of the
soil according to
ch t
T
¼ pffiffiffiffi ð1Þ
D2c Ir
where ch is the deduced coefficient of consolidation, t is the
dissipation time, Dc is the diameter of the cone and Ir ¼ G=su
is the rigidity index (with G the elastic shear modulus and su
the undrained shear strength of the soil). The subscript ‘h’
for the coefficient of consolidation is to distinguish it from
the consolidation coefficient, cv, obtained from conventional
oedometer tests, reflecting the primary direction of pore
water flow (horizontal, rather than vertical) and also the fact
that much of the soil follows unloading in shear prior to
virgin consolidation during pore pressure dissipation around
a piezocone (Randolph & Wroth, 1979; Fahey & Lee Goh,
1995; Mahmoodzadeh et al., 2014).
For the piezoball, the soil flow mechanism and distri-
bution of excess pore pressures during the penetration are
different from those of the piezocone. Consequently, the dis-
sipation graphs of both penetrometers during the dissipation
stage are not necessarily expected to be close to each other.
Indeed experimental evidence suggests that normalised times
(cht=D 2, where D represents the cone or ball diameter) for,
say, 50% dissipation are a factor 1·5 to 2·5 shorter for the ball
equator position, compared with the piezocone, and between
4 and 5 times shorter for the mid-face position (Low &
Randolph, 2007; Mahmoodzadeh & Randolph, 2014). No
numerical or analytical solutions for ball dissipation appear
to be available in the literature.
In this paper, the dissipation process of piezoballs in
normally consolidated kaolin clay is explored using a LDFE
approach for coupled analysis. The dissipation responses
at different locations are compared with those from piezo-
cones. Results from LDFE analyses are compared with
corresponding curves from centrifuge model tests reported by
Mahmoodzadeh & Randolph (2014). The LDFE analyses
were fully coupled, and based on the modified Cam-Clay
(MCC) model with values of soil permeability chosen
to provide consistency with data from laboratory Rowe cell
tests and critical state soil mechanics. The coupled LDFE
approach was first verified by comparing penetration
resistances with those from total stress numerical analysis
and plasticity limit analysis. The dissipation responses for
the piezoball were obtained focusing on two locations,
mid-face and equator, and shown to match reasonably well
those obtained experimentally. Results of a parametric study
covering various MCC parameters and a range of relative
shaft and ball diameters for the piezoball are presented. A
normalised time factor is then proposed, which includes the
effects of the coefficient of consolidation and shaft and ball
diameters. Finally, a full procedure to estimate the coefficient
of consolidation from a ball dissipation test is suggested for
practical applications.
CENTRIFUGE MODEL TESTS
The model tests were performed in the beam centrifuge at
the University of Western Australia. A detailed description
of the tests was given by Mahmoodzadeh & Randolph
(2014), so only the key details are summarised here. A model
piezocone and two model piezoballs were fabricated from
steel (Fig. 1). The diameter of the model piezocone was Dc ¼
10 mm, with a 60° tip angle. A 1·5 mm thick high-density
10 mm Filter element
Fig. 1. Model piezocone and piezoballs used in centrifuge tests
polypropylene filter element was inserted at 1 mm behind the
cone shoulder to measure pore pressure u2. Both model
piezoballs had a ball diameter of Db ¼ 15 mm and shaft
diameter of d ¼ 5 mm, with a load cell located just above the
sphere to minimise any possible error in penetration resis-
tance due to shaft friction. The filter element was fitted at
either the mid-face or the equator position, in two different
models. The mid-face position was half the radius vertically
from the tip of the ball.
Tests were conducted in a normally consolidated recon-
stituted kaolin soil sample under an acceleration level of 110g
at mid-height of the soil sample. For all the tests, the piezo-
cone or piezoball was penetrated from the soil surface to
a final depth of 160 mm at a penetration rate of 1 mm=s.
Penetration was sufficiently fast to generate undrained
conditions (Mahmoodzadeh & Randolph, 2014). The penet-
rometer was then halted at final depth to record the
dissipation of the pore pressure. The vertical effective stress
at the position of the dissipation test was estimated as σv′ ¼
109 kPa, based on a measured water content profile, hence
saturated unit weight and effective stress distributions.
LDFE STRATEGY
A piezocone and (shafted) piezoball must undergo large
displacements in the soil in order to reach the steady pene-
tration state necessary for the subsequent dissipation stage.
The large displacement results in entanglement of adjacent
soil elements in a conventional finite-element analysis with a
Lagrangian mesh, which is therefore unable to replicate the
centrifuge tests or typical field test. A boundary modified
small strain finite-element method was used to study the
penetration of cones (Mahutka et al., 2006; Yi et al., 2012;
Mahmoodzadeh et al., 2014). However, the approach does
not work for penetrating a blunt-nosed object such as a
piezoball, where numerical instabilities resulting from severe
mesh distortion occur for displacements exceeding Db. Here,
a LDFE approach based on frequent mesh regeneration,
remeshing and interpolation technique with small strain
(RITSS), as proposed by Hu & Randolph (1998), was
extended from total stress analysis to coupled analysis, with
the MCC model incorporated to describe the effective stress–
strain relationship of soil under undrained or partially
drained conditions.
RITSS procedure
Continuous penetration, over a minimum distance of 6d
for shafted ball or 2Db for perfect ball without shaft, is
 INTERPRETATION OF PIEZOBALL DISSIPATION TESTING IN CLAY 833
divided into typically 100 incremental steps in the RITSS Table 1. Characteristics of the kaolin clay
analysis. The penetrometer displacement in each step
must be sufficiently small to avoid mesh distortion. In each Property Value
step, the effective stress calculation based on an updated
Lagrangian formulation is performed, followed by extracting Angle of internal friction, φ′ 23°
Void ratio at p′ ¼ 1 kPa on virgin 2·252
and remeshing the deformed geometry. The field variables, consolidation line (VCL), eN
including effective stresses and material properties such as Slope of normal consolidation line, λ 0·205
void ratio at integration points and excess pore pressures Slope of swelling line, κ 0·044
at element nodes, are mapped from the old mesh to the Poisson ratio, ν 0·3
new mesh. The above procedure is repeated until the penetro- Submerged density 630 kg=m3
meter has achieved the required penetration and then the
Deduced MCC values at dissipation depth of 17·6 m
dissipation stage is simulated, maintaining the penetro- Vertical effective stress, σv′ 108·7 kPa
meter stationary. The commercial finite-element package, Undrained shear strength, su, at OCR ¼ 1 26·4 kPa
Abaqus=Standard (Dassault Systèmes, 2011), was used in Rigidity index, G=su, at OCR ¼ 1 73
each step to generate the mesh and conduct the Lagrangian
calculation.
Two techniques for mapping field variables between OCR ¼ 1. For the relevant parameters and conditions at the
meshes, termed the superconvergent patch recovery (SPR, level of the dissipation testing, the shear strength is
Zienkiewicz & Zhu, 1993) and modified unique-element
method (MUEM, Hu & Randolph, 1998), were explored. su ¼ 024σ v′ ð2Þ
Both techniques have been implemented successfully in pre-
vious total stress analyses and the mapping accuracies were The elastic shear modulus may be expressed in terms of
similar (Randolph et al., 2008; Wang et al., 2013b). However, Poisson ratio, ν, and the elastic bulk modulus as
the MUEM demonstrated moderately higher accuracy in 3ð1  2νÞ p′ð1 þ eÞ
current trial coupled calculations, which at least partially G¼ ð3Þ
2ð 1 þ ν Þ κ
improves the numerical stability of the entire LDFE pro-
cedure. The MUEM was therefore adopted to map effective where e is the void ratio.
stresses, void ratio and excess pore pressure. The disadvan- The soil permeability is the most crucial factor governing
tage of the MUEM is that it becomes more complex than the the redistribution and dissipation of excess pore pressure if
SPR when expanded to a three-dimensional mesh (Wang the penetrometer geometry is given. For the reconstituted
et al., 2010). NC clay samples in the centrifuge, the ratio of horizontal to
The overall scheme of the Abaqus-based RITSS is vertical hydraulic conductivity is expected to be very close to
described in Wang et al. (2010, 2013c). It is worth noting unity (Vessia et al., 2012). Therefore, isotropic permeability
again that the calculation in each step is based on the updated was assumed in all simulations. The permeability is a
Lagrangian formulation (e.g. the deformed configuration is function of the void ratio, which suggests that (a) the initial
taken as the reference configuration), therefore, the defi- value of permeability reduces with increasing depth prior to
nitions of deformations, strain measures and effective stresses the penetration; and (b) the permeability at a specified
are within the framework of finite strain rather than tradi- position is not constant, especially when the soil compresses
tional small strain theory. This ensures that even small or swells significantly during the consolidation process.
components of pure rotation within a single Lagrangian step, In this study, an appropriate relationship between the per-
for example in the soil around the sphere of the piezoball, will meability and void ratio was deduced by matching measured
not result in any spurious strains. The responses obtained, in variations of consolidation coefficient with vertical effective
terms of stress and pore pressure changes as the penetrometer stress from Rowe cell tests, using
is advanced, are much smoother than from previous studies
such as Zhou & Randolph (2011), which used different k ¼ γw mv cv ð4Þ
finite-element software. where γw is the unit weight of water, mv the compressibility
during one-dimensional consolidation and cv the coefficient
of consolidation in the vertical direction. The loading com-
Incorporation of MCC model pressibility in the Rowe cell test may be related to λ as
The MCC model was incorporated in the coupled LDFE
analysis. Although elastic–perfectly plastic models with λ
mv ¼ ð5Þ
Drucker–Prager or Tresca yield criteria were used in a ð1 þ eÞσ 0v
number of coupled analyses of piezocones (Teh & Houlsby,
1991; Yi et al., 2012), the MCC model is more appropriate to The coefficient of consolidation measured by Richardson
quantify the coupled response of normally consolidated (2007) for kaolin clay may be approximated as (Fig. 2)
(NC) clays with overconsolidation ratio OCR ¼ 1. For the pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
kaolin clay used in the centrifuge tests, the MCC parameters cv ¼ 0032 1 þ 14σ 0v = pa mm2 =s ð6Þ
are listed in Table 1 (Stewart & Randolph, 1991). The where pa is atmospheric pressure (100 kPa). Substituting
coefficient of earth pressure at rest was taken empirically equations (5) and (6) into equation (4), the permeability may
as 1  sinφ′ (so K0 ¼ 0·61) and the slope of the critical state be expressed as a function of void ratio
line in q (deviator stress)  p′ (mean effective stress) space is
M ¼ 0·90. γw λð1 þ 2K0 Þ
If the penetrometer is penetrated with sufficiently k ¼ 106  108
ð1 þ eÞ exp½ðeN  C  eÞ=λ
high velocity, such as vD=cv . 30 suggested empirically by sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð7Þ
Finnie & Randolph (1994) and Randolph & Hope (2004), 042 exp½ðeN  C  eÞ=λ
 1þ m=s
conditions can be regarded as essentially undrained. In 1 þ 2K0
normalising the penetration resistance, presented later, the
undrained shear strength has been taken as the value in where C is the distance between the isotropic virgin
triaxial compression deduced from the MCC model for consolidation line (VCL) and one-dimensional normal
834 MAHMOODZADEH, WANG AND RANDOLPH
Coefficient of consolidation, cv: m2/year The penetrometers in the LDFE analyses were pre-
0 2 4 6 8 10 embedded at a depth Hi (the depth of the centre of the
0 0 ball), rather than penetrated from the soil surface as in the
centrifuge tests. This avoided complex penetrometer–soil
Vertical effective stress, σ v' : kPa

100 interaction as the soil surface changes dramatically, helping

20
to ensure numerical stability of the coupled LDFE analysis.
200

cv
300
k penetrometer undergoes sufficient displacement from the
400
500
600
0 1 2 3
Permeability, k: 10–9 m/s
Fig. 2. Variation of coefficient of consolidation with vertical stress
consolidation line; C ¼ 0·048 based on the parameters listed
in Table 1.
Assumptions adopted in LDFE simulations
All large deformation analyses were conducted in terms
of the models in the centrifuge, with an applied body force
equivalent to an acceleration of 110g, rather than the
equivalent prototype, in order to facilitate straightforward
comparisons with the tests reported by Mahmoodzadeh &
Randolph (2014). The soil extensions were taken as, at least,
50Db radially and 70Db vertically, which were checked to
be sufficiently large to avoid boundary effects during the
dissipation stage. Roller constraints were specified on the
soil bottom and side surfaces. The excess pore pressure was
allowed to dissipate at the soil surface, whereas the soil
bottom and side surfaces were impermeable. The typical soil
element size along the penetrometer was 0·05Db.
The axisymmetric soil regime was discretised with quad-
ratic quadrilateral elements with reduced integration
(CAX8RP in Abaqus). The pore pressure in these elements
is calculated only at the four corner nodes. The penetrometer
was idealised as an impermeable rigid body since it has much
higher stiffness than the soil. The interaction between the
penetrometer and soil was modelled with smooth or
frictional contact, with an effective stress Coulomb friction
law specified in the frictional cases. Since the tangential
sliding along the contact interface may be arbitrarily large in
magnitude once the frictional resistance (zero for smooth
penetrometers) is reached, a ‘finite sliding’ rather than ‘small
sliding’ algorithm was adopted, although the computational
cost was increased. The small sliding algorithm is only
suitable for sliding distances less than a typical element size.
Most simulations discussed later are in terms of a smooth
penetrometer, while a fully frictional penetrometer is studied
only for the purpose of comparison.
Soil depth: m
The penetration and dissipation responses at depth are
40
essentially independent of the soil surface, provided the
60 initial embedment depth. Table 2 shows the sizes and initial
embedment depth of all penetrometers investigated numeri-
80 cally in the paper, in which the cases mimicking the cen-
trifuge tests are also involved. The initial depth was selected
100 in a way that, after a penetration distance of 6d or 2Db,
4 the dissipation stage happens at a depth of 160 mm. Trial
calculations showed that when the initial depth (Hi) was
reduced, the magnitudes of the excess pore pressures at the
beginning of dissipation were increased by no more than 20%
but the normalised dissipation graphs discussed later were
nearly independent of the initial depth.
The penetrometers were displaced at a rate of 1 mm=s, as in
the centrifuge tests, to ensure essentially undrained con-
ditions (see figure 7 in the paper by Mahmoodzadeh &
Randolph (2014)). Therefore, the calculated penetration resis-
tances can also be compared with analytical and numerical
solutions based on total stress formulations such as using a
Tresca yield criterion. The undrained strength in the total
stress analysis was estimated through equation (2) to match
the MCC properties adopted in coupled analyses. When
reporting the numerical results, the penetration resistance
was normalised in terms of the local undrained strength at
the sphere centre of the ball penetrometer and the projected
area of the penetrometer, A (¼ πD2b=4).
The excess pore pressure during the dissipation stage was
normalised with the idealised excess pore pressure at the
commencement of dissipation, Δuext. For consistency with
the approach used for the centrifuge model tests, the value of
Δuext was estimated using a back-extrapolation technique
based on the square root of time suggested by Sully et al.
(1999). In that technique, the excess pore pressure is plotted
against the square root of time, similar to the Taylor method
used for interpreting t50 values from one-dimensional con-
solidation tests. The dissipation graph following initial
localised redistribution of pore pressure is expected to be a
straight line for the first stages of consolidation, so the initial
excess pore pressure may be defined by back-extrapolation of
the line to t ¼ 0.
PENETRATION AND DISSIPATION OF PIEZOBALLS
Penetration of perfect ball
In contrast with a cone penetrometer, the penetration
resistance of perfect ball (i.e. without a shaft) in deep soil
is not affected by the rigidity index (Lu et al., 2004).

Table 2. Probe dimensions, initial and final penetration depths in numerical simulations

Penetrometer Probe Shaft Initial Normalised Normalised Normalised

diameter, diameter, penetration final depth in penetration in penetration in
Db or Dc: mm d: mm depth, Hi: mm terms of d terms of Db terms of d

Piezoball 15 5 130 32 2 6
0 130 — 2 —
10 100 16 4 6
15 70 10·67 6 6
10 5 130 32 3 6
20 5 130 32 1·5 6
Piezocone 10 10 100 16 6 6
 INTERPRETATION OF PIEZOBALL DISSIPATION TESTING IN CLAY 835
The normalised resistance–displacement curve for a fully 14
smooth ball is shown in Fig. 3: the normalised net capacity
reaches 11·8 at a displacement of w=Db ¼ 0·3, increasing 12
slowly to an ultimate value of 12·1 at w=D ¼ 1·1. If the
penetration rate is increased to v ¼ 100 mm=s, the capacity is 10
slightly lower than for v ¼ 1 mm=s, with the capacity factor of

Nc= F/suA
8
11·8. The difference caused by the penetration rate is due to
the fact that undrained conditions are only satisfied approxi- Coupled LDFE
6
mately in the coupled analysis. However, the difference is Zhou & Randolph (2011)
sufficiently small that the response with v ¼ 1 mm=s can be 4
idealised as representing undrained conditions. Db/d = 3
The total stress LDFE curve with K0 ¼ 1 is also plotted in 2
Fig. 3, the soil strength increasing linearly with depth as for
the MCC analyses. The capacity factor is 10·8, close to the 0
lower bound solution (10·98) suggested by Randolph et al. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
(2000). The upper bound solution suggested by Einav & w/d
Randolph (2005) is 11·36, which is 5·2% higher than the total
Fig. 4. Capacity factor of shafted ball (diameter ratio of 3)
stress LDFE result. Randolph et al. (2000) also noted that,
for the ball, the close agreement between finite-element and
lower bound solution is ‘perhaps a little surprising’, since the
180
ultimate capacities predicted by the finite-element method
are usually marginally higher than upper solutions, such as 150
for a deeply embedded T-bar penetrometer or circular plate

Excess pore pressure: kPa

(Wang et al., 2010, 2013a). 120
The capacity factor predicted by the coupled RITSS is
12% (v ¼ 1 mm=s) or 9·3% (v ¼ 100 mm=s) higher than from 90
the total stress RITSS. This may be attributed to the fact that
void ratios and corresponding undrained strengths immedi- 60 Test, ball mid-face
ately around the ball are not exactly equal to the original LDFE, smooth ball
values due to unavoidable local redistribution of pore 30 LDFE, frictional ball
pressures, while the penetration resistances in Fig. 3 are
normalised in terms of the original strength at the current 0
depth. 0·1 1 10 100 1000
Time, t: s
(a)
100
Penetration and dissipation of shafted ball
The centrifuge test for a shafted ball (diameter ratio Db=d 90
Normalised excess pore pressure

of 3) in NC clay was replicated using the coupled RITSS. The 80

Test of cone and LDFE
penetration and dissipation for a smooth piezoball was 70 for smooth cone
studied first. In Fig. 4, the capacity factor is predicted as 11·3, 60
agreeing well with the result reported by Zhou & Randolph 50
(2011). The numerical and experimental dissipation 40
Test of ball, LDFE for
responses are compared in Fig. 5 for the mid-face position smooth and frictional ball
30
and Fig. 6 for the equator position, respectively. Both the
numerical dissipation curves for smooth and frictional 20
piezoball are provided in Fig. 5 and Fig. 6, with the friction 10
coefficient for the frictional penetrometer taken as 0·4tanφ′. 0
In the normalised plots, the time has been normalised, 0·001 0·01 0·1 1 10
provisionally, as T ¼cht=D2b, with ch taken as 0·65 mm2=s. Normalised time, T = cht/Db2 or cht/Dc2
This is justified later, along with an improved approach for (b)
normalisation of dissipation curves for shafted piezoballs,
Fig. 5. Dissipation graphs at mid-face position of piezoball:
(a) dimensional; (b) normalised in terms of T
14

12
but is close to the value of 0·6 mm2=s deduced experimentally
10 from the piezocone tests (Mahmoodzadeh & Randolph,
2014). The excess pore pressure is normalised by the nominal
N = F/su A

Total stress, K0 = 1
8 Lower bound solution
initial excess pore pressure Δuext obtained from the back-
6 extrapolation technique. For the purpose of comparison,
the experimental and LDFE dissipation responses for a
4 Coupled, v = 1 mm/s piezocone at the u2 position (Mahmoodzadeh et al., 2014)
Coupled, v = 100 mm/s are also added in the figures, with the model cone diameter
2
Dc ¼ 10 mm.
0 The excess pore pressure at the equator position is mainly
0 0·5 1·0 1·5 2·0 induced by shearing, which makes it extremely sensitive to
w/Db compaction or dilation characteristics of the soil; as such, the
measurement during penetration is useful for stratigraphic
Fig. 3. Capacity factor of perfect ball purposes (Kelleher & Randolph, 2005). However, the excess
836 MAHMOODZADEH, WANG AND RANDOLPH
120

100
∆u/∆umax
Excess pore pressure: kPa

80
0·0 0·0
60

40
Test, ball equator
20 LDFE, smooth ball
LDFE, frictional ball
0
0·1 1 10 100 1000 0·9 0·9
Time, t: s
0·1 0·2 0·4 0·8 0·8 0·4 0·2 0·1
(a)
0·6 0·7 0·7 0·6
100
90 0·3 0·5 0·5 0·3
Normalised excess pore pressure

80
70
60
50
40
30
Test of ball, LDFE for
20
frictional and smooth ball
10
0 Fig. 7. Distribution of excess pore pressures at beginning of
0·001 0·01 0·1
Normalised time, T = cht/Db2 or cht/Dc2
(b)
Fig. 6. Dissipation graphs at equator position of piezoball:
(a) dimensional; (b) normalised in terms of T
pore pressures in the vicinity of the equator change
significantly with location around the sphere. As shown in
Fig. 7, discussed in detail later, the pore pressure field in the
lower part of the ball shows largely spherical symmetry, but
that breaks down in the upper half. The equator position
is close to a transition point between positive and negative
excess pore pressures distribution. This results in greater
sensitivity of the excess pore pressures to the exact location,
particularly during the early stages of dissipation when
redistribution of excess pore pressures occurs around the
circumference of the ball. This perhaps accounts for the
rather different forms of the dissipation responses observed
numerically and experimentally. The latter all show a delayed
rise in pore pressure at the equator position (Mahmoodzadeh
& Randolph, 2014). In contrast, the excess pore pressure at
the mid-face position is dominated more by compression
(increase in total stress), and the measurements at this
position appear less sensitive to any local redistribution.
Certainly, the forms of dissipation response at the mid-face
are smoother and show good agreement between experimen-
tal and numerical curves. Another drawback of the dissipa-
tion response at the equator position is that the initial excess
pore pressures are smaller than that at the mid-face, so
corrections in terms of subtracting the hydrostatic water
pressure and uncertainties in respect of data measurement
have a relatively larger influence on the dissipation graph.
Although the dissipation response depends on the rough-
ness of the penetrometer, the normalised graphs of smooth
and frictional piezoballs, at mid-face position, are close to
each other, as shown in Fig. 5(b). The numerical dissipation
graphs show qualified accordance with the test data, which
validates the reliability of the coupled LDFE approach. For
the piezocone, the normalised numerical and experimental
dissipation graphs also demonstrate good agreement.
Test of cone and LDFE
for smooth cone
Ir = 34 Ir = 145
1 10 dissipation
The dissipation at the u2 position of the cone is much
slower than at the mid-face of the piezoball.
At the equator position, the LDFE analyses, with either
smooth or frictional surfaces of shafted ball, do not capture
the delayed rise in pore pressure (see Fig. 6(a)); reasonable
agreement between the numerical analyses and the centrifuge
tests is achieved, for dissipation times larger than 20 s
(T ¼cht=D2b~0·06), as shown in Fig. 6(b). This is due to the
back-extrapolation technique reflecting the overall dissipa-
tion of pore pressure around the probe rather than localised
redistribution. Overall, however, the mid-face is viewed as a
better position than the equator for the purpose of dissipa-
tion tests. The localised effects at the equator position affect
the initial shape of the dissipation graph and may introduce
unacceptable errors in the interpretation of test results, es-
pecially during the early stages of dissipation.
In the following parametric studies, unless otherwise
stated, attention is focused on the pore pressure response at
the mid-face position of a smooth piezoball, which is viewed
as a more robust position for the dissipation response.
COEFFICIENT OF CONSOLIDATION DETERMINED
BY PIEZOBALL
A large number of LDFE analyses were performed
covering various diameter ratios of shafted balls and MCC
parameters for the soil, with a view to identifying an appro-
priate non-dimensional time Tb that provided an essentially
unique dissipation response. Details of the parametric study
are presented in the following sections, but it is convenient to
present the main outcome first.
Through a trial-and-error procedure it was found that the
normalised dissipation graphs for piezoballs become almost
unique if the dissipation time is normalised as
ch t
Tb ¼ ð8Þ
Db dIr025
assuming isotropic permeability. The power of 0·25 for the
rigidity index is consistent with the power of 0·5 for a
 INTERPRETATION OF PIEZOBALL DISSIPATION TESTING IN CLAY
piezocone (Teh & Houlsby, 1991), given that the shaft
diameter d, which reflects the contribution to excess pore
pressure from ‘cavity expansion’ (as opposed to flow around
the protruding ball), occurs to a power of unity, rather than
two for a piezocone.
In this equation, ch represents an operative coefficient of
consolidation expressed as (Mahmoodzadeh et al., 2014)
 
3ð1  νÞ λ α 3ð1  νÞ ð1 þ eÞp′ k
ch ¼ cv ¼ ð9Þ
ð1 þ νÞ κ ð1 þ νÞ κα λ1α γw
where α is a weighting factor, with recommended value of
0·75, between zones where the soil is unloading in shear or
consolidating plastically. (Note that in the original published
version of the paper by Mahmoodzadeh et al. (2014) a value
of α ¼ 0·5 was proposed, but unfortunately this was based on
errors arising from an oversight in not allowing for the
variation in initial void ratio as κ=λ was varied. A corrected
optimal value of α to 0·75 was documented in a corrigendum
to the paper.) In the following sections, it will be shown that
the resulting normalised dissipation graphs are essentially
independent of rigidity index (Ir), slope of VCL (λ), slope of
swelling line (κ), coefficient of earth pressure (K0) and ball
geometry. Results of the sensitivity study are presented
mainly for the mid-face position, although the responses at
the equator position show very similar outcomes.
The effect of rigidity index
The penetration resistance of a piezocone, and conse-
quently the distribution of excess pore pressure prior to a
dissipation test, is affected by the rigidity index. In contrast,
the rigidity index has a very minor effect on the penetration
837
resistance of ball penetrometers, since even with a shaft the
contribution to the resistance from the shaft is relatively small
(Zhou & Randolph, 2011). In this section, the dependency of
a shafted piezoball dissipation response to the rigidity index
is presented. In the MCC model, the rigidity index of soil
may be changed by adjusting Poisson ratio. Poisson ratio was
changed from 0·15 to 0·4, covering a range of the MCC
rigidity index prior to penetration of the piezoball from 145
to 34 (see equation (3)).
Figure 7 compares the distribution of excess pore pressure
at the beginning of the dissipation phase for Ir ¼ 34 and 145,
for a shafted ball with diameter ratio Db=d ¼ 3. The contour
for an excess pore pressure of 10% of the maximum excess
pore pressure is considered as representative of the size of the
pore pressure zone. In contrast with the case of a piezocone
(Mahmoodzadeh et al., 2014), the variation of rigidity index
does not affect the size of the pore pressure zone significantly.
Figure 8 shows the dissipation graphs for the shafted ball,
with rigidity index ranging from 34 to 145. The initial excess
pore pressures cover a range of approximately ±5% relative to
the mean for Ir ¼ 73 (ν ¼ 0·3). The normalised graphs at
mid-face position come to a unique curve, validating the
effectiveness of normalised time defined in equation (8). The
influence of the rigidity index in the normalisation of time is
reduced compared with corresponding piezocone dissipation
responses. The average Tb50 value is ~0·12 for the mid-face
position and ~0·18 for the equator position.
Effect of λ and κ
For the cone penetrometer, it has been shown that the
operative coefficient of consolidation depends on both λ and

160 100
90
140
Normalised excess pore pressure

80
Excess pore pressure: kPa

120
70
100 Ir = 34,73, 119 and 145 60
80 50
40
60 Ir = 34,73, 145 and 119
30
40
20
20 10
0 0
0·1 1 10 100 1000 0·001 0·01 0·1 1 10
Time, t: s Normalised time, T b
(a) (b)

80 100
90
70
Normalised excess pore pressure

80
Excess pore pressure: kPa

60
70
Ir = 73, 34, 119 and 145
50 60 Ir = 145, 119, 73 and 34
40 50
40
30
30
20
20
10 10
0 0
0·1 1 10 100 1000 0·001 0·01 0·1 1 10
Time, t: s Normalised time, T b
(c) (d)

Fig. 8. Dissipation graphs of piezoball at different rigidity indices: (a) dimensional, mid-face; (b) normalised, mid-face; (c) dimensional, equator;
(d) normalised, equator
838 MAHMOODZADEH, WANG AND RANDOLPH
κ (Mahmoodzadeh et al., 2014). To evaluate the effect of λ 160
and κ on the dissipation curve, either κ or λ was kept constant 140
and the other parameter was changed, with OCR ¼ 1.

Excess pore pressure: kPa

Although the permeability deduced from an oedometer test 120
varies with soil compressibility and hence λ, for this para- 100
metric study a constant permeability equal to the value
estimated at the dissipation depth, k ¼ 1·02  109 m=s 80
(equivalent prototype conditions), was assumed within the 60
whole soil region to avoid combined effects of permeability
and λ. Note, however, that varying κ or λ lead to changes in 40
κ = 0·044, 0·068 and 0·103
the initial void ratio e (and hence cv and ch) within the MCC 20
model.
Figure 9(a) shows the dissipation responses at the mid-face 0
position when κ ¼ 0·044 with λ varied from 0·088 to 0·440 0·1 1 10 100 1000
Time, t: s
(κ=λ ranging from 0·5 to 0·1). Although the variation of λ also
(a)
changes the rigidity index through changing the initial void 100
ratio (equation (3)), this is taken into account in the
90
normalisation of time (equation (8)). The resulting normal-

Normalised excess pore pressure

80
ised dissipation graphs are presented in Fig. 9(b).
Similar analyses were performed with λ ¼ 0·205 and κ 70
varying from 0·044 to 0·103 (κ=λ ranging from 0·21 to 0·5). 60
The dissipation graphs in Fig. 10(a) are normalised to a 50
unique curve in Fig. 10(b). 40
30
20
Effect of the initial stress anisotropy κ = 0·103, 0·068 and 0·044
10
The initial stress anisotropy affects the cone penetration
0
resistance and initial distribution of excess pore pressure
0·001 0·01 0·1 1 10
around the ball. Although the initial void ratio is a function
Normalised time, T b
of K0, the permeability of the soil was fixed at k ¼ 1·02 
109 m=s (prototype) in order to focus just on the effect of
(b)

K0. Fig. 11(a) shows the increase of the initial excess pore Fig. 10. Variation of dissipation response with slope of swelling line:
(a) dimensional; (b) normalised

160
200
140
Excess pore pressure: kPa

120
Excess pore pressure: kPa

160
100

80 120

60
80
40
K0= 0·5, 0·61, 0·8 and 1
λ = 0·088, 0·132, 0·205,
20 40
0·264, 0·352 and 0·440
0
0·1 1 10 100 1000 0
Time, t: s 0·1 1 10 100 1000
Time, t: s
(a)
(a)
100 100
90
Normalised excess pore pressure

90
Normalised excess pore pressure

80 80
70 70
60 60
λ = 0·088, 0·132, 0·205,
50 0·264, 0·352 and 0·440 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
K0= 0·5, 0·61, 1 and 0·8
10 10
0 0
0·001 0·01 0·1 1 10 0·001 0·01 0·1 1 10

Normalised time, T b Normalised time, T b

(b) (b)

Fig. 9. Variation of dissipation response with slope of virgin Fig. 11. Effect of initial stress anisotropy: (a) dimensional; (b)
consolidation line: (a) dimensional; (b) normalised normalised
 INTERPRETATION OF PIEZOBALL DISSIPATION TESTING IN CLAY
pressure at the mid-face position when K0 is increased from
0·5 to 1·0. The increase of K0 results in increase of the mean
effective stress which consequently increases the penetration
resistance and excess pore pressure induced during pen-
etration. Except for the case of K0 ¼ 0·5 (which results in an
in situ stress ratio close to failure), the normalised dissipation
curves match well (Fig. 11(b)). Since most normally
consolidated clays will have K0 . 0·5, the value of K0 may
be deemed to have minimal influence on the normalised
dissipation response.
839
Qualitatively, some insight into the effect of the shaft
diameter (relative to ball diameter) may be obtained by
comparing the excess pore pressure fields at the end of
penetration. These are shown in Fig. 14 for d=Db ¼ 0·25 and
0·5. Comparing the contours with those in Fig. 7, the extent
of the pore pressure field increases significantly with
increasing d=Db. This helps to explain the relatively high
weighting of d in the expression for normalised time, Tb
(equation (8)).

Fitted dissipation curves

Geometry effect
Geometrically, two groups of shafted balls were specified:
in one group, the ball diameter was maintained as 15 mm
while the shaft diameter was taken as 5, 10 or 15 mm, respec-
tively; the other group kept the shaft diameter at 5 mm, with
ball diameters of 10, 15 and 20 mm, as listed in Table 2. The
time histories of excess pore pressures of two groups at the
A procedure to estimate the coefficient of consolidation
from piezoball dissipation tests is summarised here,
together with simple hyperbolic approximations for the
100
90

Normalised excess pore pressure

mid-face position are demonstrated in Fig. 12. In Fig. 12(a), 80
the whole dissipation graph is affected strongly by the shaft 70
diameter. In contrast, when the shaft diameter is maintained 60
constant the variation of ball diameter only affects the initial
stages of dissipation significantly (Fig. 12(b)). The effect of 50
ball diameter fades gradually with the elapse of dissipation 40 d = 5 mm, Db = 15 mm
time. The variation of shaft or ball diameter changes the 30 d = 5 mm, Db = 10 mm
gradient of the dissipation graph as well as shifting the graph. d = 5 mm, Db = 20 mm
20
However, all dissipation graphs in Fig. 12 are reduced to a d = 10 mm, Db = 15 mm
narrow range in Fig. 13 when the time factor is defined as 10 d = 15 mm, Db = 15 mm
equation (8). The normalisation in Fig. 13 covers a range of 0
shaft-to-ball area ratio from 0·063 to 1, while the area ratio 0·001 0·01 0·1 1 10
adopted in most ball penetrometers is 0·1–0·2. Normalised time, T b

250 Fig. 13. Normalised dissipation graphs in terms of different shaft and
d/Db = 1 Db = 15 mm ball diameters
Excess pore pressure: kPa

200
d/Db = 2/3
150 ∆u/∆umax

d/Db = 1/3
100

50
0·0
0·0
0
0·1 1 10 100 1000
Time, t: s
(a)

180
d = 5 mm 0·9
150 0·6
Excess pore pressure: kPa

0·7
0·7
0·8
120
d/Db = 1/4, 1/3 and 1/2 0·4 0·5 0·5 0·4 0·3
0·3 0·2
90 0·2 0·1
0·1

60

30

0
0·1 1 10 100 1000
Time, t: s
(b)
d/Db = 0·5 d/Db = 0·25
Fig. 12. Effect of piezoball sizes on dissipation graphs: (a) mid-face
positions of piezoballs with ball diameter 15 mm; (b) mid-face Fig. 14. Distributions of excess pore pressures at beginning of
positions of piezoballs with shaft diameter 5 mm dissipation for different piezoball geometries (Ir = 73)
840 MAHMOODZADEH, WANG AND RANDOLPH
dissipation responses at mid-face and equator. 100
Experimental data for excess pore pressure as a function 90 LDFE

Normalised excess pore pressure

of time are reduced to a normalised plot using the following 80 Fitted
two steps.
70
60
(a) The initial excess pore pressure, Δuext, at the com- Mid-face
50
mencement of dissipation is defined using the root
time back-extrapolation technique of Sully et al. 40
(1999). 30
Piezocone Equator
(b) The dissipation time is then normalised using equa- 20
tion (8) with an assumed coefficient of consolidation 10
ch, adjusting the value of ch until the experimental
0
normalised dissipation graph matches the numerical 0·001 0·01 0·1 1 10
curves, such as those in Fig. 9(b) or Fig. 10(b). Normalised time,T b (piezoball) or T* (piezocone)

Table 3 summarises the normalised times at different stages
of dissipation for both the mid-face and equator positions
for the ‘base case’ LDFE curves (i.e. parameters as given
in Table 1). The normalised dissipation response may be
fitted reasonably, at least for times greater than Tb30, by the
hyperbolic relationship
Δu 1 Δu
 for  07
Δuext 1 þ Tb =Tb50 Δuext
with Tb50 taken as 0·12 for mid-face and 0·18 for equator
positions. This relationship is compared with the (average)
LDFE responses in Fig. 15 and the time factors are sum-
marised in Table 3.
The corresponding dissipation response in respect of
T* for the piezocone, from the numerical analyses of
Mahmoodzadeh et al. (2014) following correction in
respect of the error noted previously, and a fitted dissipation
response is also shown in Fig. 15, with key values of T*
provided in Table 3. The fitted curve is given by
Δu 1 Δu
   for  07
Δuext 1 þ T
=T
09 Δuext
50
with T*50 ¼ 0·08. Absolute t50 dissipation times for piezocone
and piezoball may be compared through equation (1) and
equation (8). Assuming a rigidity index of Ir ~ 75 and a
typical field piezoball geometry, with a ball of 60 mm
diameter attached to a section of 20 mm diameter shaft
(Kelleher & Randolph, 2005; Kelleher et al., 2010), absolute
t50 dissipation times at the mid-face position will be ap-
proximately 50% of those for a 36 mm diameter piezocone,
while at the equator will be approximately 70%. The latter is
at the lower edge for field data reported by Low & Randolph
(2007) for the equator position, which gave ratios of t50 for
piezoball and cone that ranged between 0·7 and 1·9 with an
average of 1·1. Corresponding ratios of t50 from centrifuge
model tests in kaolin (Mahmoodzadeh & Randolph, 2014)
were 0·5 for mid-face (agreeing well with the theoretical ratio)
but 1·2 for the equator position. This again suggests lower
reliability of dissipation tests, and in particular numerical
Fig. 15. Fitted normalised dissipation curves for mid-face and equator
positions
simulation of them, based on the equator position, compared
with the mid-face position.
ð10Þ CONCLUSIONS
The penetration and subsequent dissipation test for a
piezoball penetrometer was investigated using a coupled
LDFE approach, in which the soil was modelled as modified
Cam-Clay (MCC) material. The accuracy of the model was
verified by comparing (a) the penetration resistance to
existing analytical and numerical studies; and (b) the
dissipation response to that measured in centrifuge tests for
kaolin clay. A series of parametric studies was then presented
to investigate the normalised response curves for dissipation
of excess pore pressure at two positions: the mid-face and
equator of the piezoball. The centrifuge and numerical
modelling results showed good agreement at the mid-face
position, whereas this was not achieved at the equator
ð11Þ
position. In general, the mid-face position is considered to
provide more reliable dissipation test results from which to
obtain the coefficient of consolidation.
Just as for a piezocone, the operative coefficient of con-
solidation ch deduced from a dissipation test is different from
the value of cv measured in an oedometer test, even assuming
isotropic permeability in the soil, due to the significant
amount of unloading in shear that occurs in the soil
surrounding the penetrometer during the dissipation phase.
The relative effects of ‘elastic’ volumetric strains within the
MCC yield envelope, and ‘plastic’ strains during expansion
of the yield envelope, were explored by varying the gradients
of the virgin consolidation and swelling lines. The ratio of
operative coefficient of consolidation ch to cv was found to be
proportional to (λ=κ)0·75.
The effect of rigidity index Ir was studied by varying
Poisson ratio. Compared with a piezocone, the rigidity index
has a much smaller effect on the ball dissipation response,
since the projected area of the shaft is a small proportion

Table 3. Time factors at different stages of dissipation

Degree of consolidation 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Time factors Tb ( piezoball)

Mid-face, LDFE 0·04 0·08 0·12 0·18 0·27 0·44 0·95
Fitted 0·05 0·08 0·12 0·18 0·28 0·48 1·08
Equator, LDFE 0·07 0·12 0·18 0·27 0·43 0·77 1·83
Fitted 0·08 0·12 0·18 0·27 0·42 0·72 1·62
T* ( piezocone)
LDFE 0·03 0·05 0·08 0·13 0·22 0·38 0·82
Fitted 0·03 0·05 0·08 0·13 0·21 0·37 0·92
 INTERPRETATION OF PIEZOBALL DISSIPATION TESTING IN CLAY 841
of that for the ball. Normalised dissipation times for REFERENCES
the piezoball were found to vary in proportion to I0·25 r , Boylan, N., Long, M., Ward, D., Barwise, A. & Geogious, B.
rather than I0·5
r for the piezocone. Although the initial stress (2007). Full-flow penetrometer testing in Bothkennar clay.
anisotropy, arising from K0, changes the magnitude of the Proceedings of the 6th international conference of SUT,
initial excess pore pressure, values of K0 within a practical offshore site investigation and geotechnics, London, UK,
range for soft clays were found to have a negligible effect on pp. 177–186.
Burns, S. E. & Mayne, P. W. (2002). Analytical cavity expansion –
the normalised dissipation graphs.
critical state model for piezocone dissipation in fine-grained
The effect of ball geometry was studied by varying the soils. Soils Found. 42, No. 2, 131–137.
shaft=ball area ratio from 1=16 to 1, which covers the prac- Chung, S. F. & Randolph, M. F. (2004). Penetration resistance in
tical range for field ball penetrometers. Although the soft clay for different shaped penetrometers. Proceedings of the
dissipation responses were affected by the relative shaft and 2nd international conference on geotechnical and geophysical
ball diameters, they could be unified by normalising time by site characterisation, Porto, Portugal, vol. 1, pp. 671–677.
the product of the shaft and ball diameters. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Millpress.
Finally, a procedure for estimating the coefficient of Dassault Systèmes (2011). Abaqus analysis user’s manual.
consolidation from a piezoball dissipation test was detailed. Providence, RI, USA: Simulia.
For times exceeding 30% dissipation of excess pore pressure DeJong, J. T., Yafrate, N. J. & Randolph, M. F. (2008). Use of pore
pressure measurements in a ball full-flow penetrometer.
the dissipation curves followed a well-ordered pattern Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on geotechnical
that could be fitted by a simple hyperbolic relationship, and geophysical site characterization, Taipei, Taiwan,
with normalised times for 50% dissipation given by Tb50 ¼ pp. 1269–1275.
cht50=(DbdI0·25
r ) ¼ 0·12 and 0·18 at mid-face and equator Einav, I. & Randolph, M. F. (2005). Combining upper bound and
positions, respectively. strain path methods for evaluating penetration resistance.
Int. J. Numer. Methods Engng 63, No. 14, 1991–2016.
Fahey, M. & Lee Goh, A. (1995). A comparison of pressuremeter
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS and piezocone methods of determining the coefficient of
consolidation. Proceedings of 4th international symposium
The study forms part of the activities of the Centre for
on pressuremeter and its new avenues, Sherbrook, Canada,
Offshore Foundation Systems, currently supported as a node pp. 153–160. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: A. A. Balkema.
of the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence Finnie, M. S. & Randolph, M. F. (1994). Punch-through and
for Geotechnical Science and Engineering. Sponsorship of liquefaction induced failure of shallow foundations on calcar-
this work by the Australia China Natural Gas Technology eous sediments. Proceedings of the international conference
Partnership Fund and The Lloyd’s Register Educational on behaviour of offshore structures, BOSS ’94, Boston, USA,
Trust is gratefully acknowledged. The first author is grateful pp. 217–230.
for support from an International Postgraduate Research Hu, Y. & Randolph, M. F. (1998). A practical numerical approach
Scholarship and University Postgraduate Award from the for large deformation problems in soil. Int. J. Numer. Analyt.
University of Western Australia and PhD scholarship from Methods Geomech. 22, No. 5, 327–350.
Kelleher, P. J. & Randolph, M. F. (2005). Seabed geotechnical
Benthic Geotech Pty Ltd. characterisation with the portable remotely operated drill.
Proceedings of the 1st international symposium on frontiers
in offshore geotechnics, Perth, Australia, pp. 365–371. London,
NOTATION UK: Taylor and Francis.
A projected area of penetrometer Kelleher, P. J., Low, H. E., Jones, C., Lunne, T., Strandvik, S. &
C distance between virgin consolidation line and normal Tjelta, T. I. (2010). Strength measurement in very soft upper
consolidation line seabed sediments. Proceedings of the 2nd international sym-
ch operative coefficient of consolidation posium on frontiers in offshore geotechnics, Perth, Australia,
cv coefficient of consolidation pp. 283–288. London, UK: Taylor and Francis.
Db probe diameter of piezoball Levadoux, J.-N. & Baligh, M. M. (1986). Consolidation after
Dc cone diameter undrained piezocone penetration. I: Prediction. J. Geotech.
d shaft diameter of piezoball Engng, ASCE 112, No. 7, 707–726.
e void ratio Low, H. E. & Randolph, M. F. (2007). Comparison of pore pressure
eN void ratio at p′ ¼ 1 kPa on virgin consolidation line generation and dissipation rates from cone and ball penetrom-
G elastic shear modulus eters. Proceedings of the 6th international conference on offshore
Ir rigidity index site investigation and geotechnics, London, UK, pp. 409–418.
K0 coefficient of earth pressure at rest Low, H. E., Lunne, T., Anderson, K. H., Sjursen, M., Li, X. &
k soil permeability Randolph, M. F. (2010). Estimation of intact and remoulded
M slope of the critical state line in the q–p′ space undrained shear strengths from penetration tests in soft
mv one-dimensional compressibility clays. Géotechnique 60, No. 11, 843–859, http:==dx.doi.
p′ mean effective stress org=10.1680=geot.9.P.017.
pa atmospheric pressure Lu, Q., Randolph, M. F., Hu, Y. & Bugarski, I. C. (2004). A
q deviatoric stress numerical study of cone penetration in clay. Géotechnique 54,
su undrained shear strength No. 4, 257–267, http:==dx.doi.org=10.1680=geot.2004.54.4.257.
Tb normalised dissipation time of ball Lunne, T., Robertson, P. K. & Powell, J. J. M. (1997). Cone
T* normalised dissipation time of cone penetration testing in geotechnical practice. London, UK:
t consolidation time Blackie Academic and Professional.
v penetration velocity of penetrometer Mahmoodzadeh, H. & Randolph, M. F. (2014). Penetrometer
w penetration displacement testing - the effect of partial consolidation on subsequent
α weighting factor dissipation response. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Engng, ASCE
γw unit weight of water 140, No. 6, 04014022.
Δu excess pore pressure Mahmoodzadeh, H., Randolph, M. F. & Wang, D. (2014).
Δuext idealised (backward extrapolated) initial excess pore pressure Numerical simulation of piezocone dissipation test in clays.
κ slope of swelling line Géotechnique 64, No. 8, 657–666, 680, http:==dx.doi.
λ slope of normal consolidation line org=10.1680=geot.14.P.011.
ν Poisson ratio Mahutka, K. P., Konig, F. & Grabee, J. (2006). Numerical modeling
σv′ vertical effective stress of pile jacking, driving and vibratory driving. Proceedings of the
φ′ internal friction angle international conference on numerical modelling of construction
 842 MAHMOODZADEH, WANG AND RANDOLPH
processes in geotechnical engineering for urban environment,
pp. 235–246. London, UK: Taylor and Francis.
Peuchen, J., Adrichem, J. & Hefer, P. A. (2005). Practice notes on
push-in penetrometers for offshore geotechnical investigation.
Proceedings of the 1st international symposium on frontiers in
offshore geotechnics, Perth, Australia, pp. 973–979. London,
UK: Taylor and Francis.
Randolph, M. F. & Wroth, C. P. (1979). An analytical solution for
the consolidation around a driven pile. Int. J. Numer. Analyt.
Methods Geomech. 3, No. 3, 217–229.
Randolph, M. F. & Hope, S. (2004). Effect of cone velocity on cone
resistance and excess pore pressures. Proceedings of the inter-
national symposium on engineering practice and performance of
soft deposits, Osaka, Japan, pp. 147–152.
Randolph, M. F., Hefer, P. A., Geise, J. M. & Watson, P. G. (1998).
Improved seabed strength profiling using T-bar penetrometer.
Proceedings of the international conference on offshore site
investigation and foundation behaviour – ‘new frontiers’,
pp. 221–235. London, UK: Society for Underwater Technology.
Randolph, M. F., Martin, C. M. & Hu, Y. (2000) Limiting resistance
of a spherical penetrometer in cohesive material. Géotechnique
50, No. 5, 573–582, http:==dx.doi.org=10.1680=geot.2000.50.5.
573.
Randolph, M. F., Wang, D., Zhou, H., Hossain, M. S. & Hu, Y.
(2008). Large deformation finite element analysis for offshore
applications. Keynote lecture. Proceedings of the 12th inter-
national conference of IACMAG, Goa, India, pp. 3307–3318.
Richardson, M. (2007) Rowe cell test on kaolin clay, COFS internal
report. Crawley, Western Australia: Centre for Offshore
Foundation Systems, University of Western Australia.
Robertson, P. K. (1990). Soil classification using the cone pen-
etration test. Can. Geotech. J. 27, No. 1, 151–158.
Robertson, P. K. (2009). Interpretation of cone penetration tests – a
unified approach, Can. Geotech. J. 46, No. 11, 1337–1355.
Schneider, J. A., Randolph, M. F., Mayne, P. W. & Ramsey, N. R.
(2008). Analysis of factors influencing soil classification using
normalized piezocone tip resistance and pore pressure par-
ameters. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Engng, ASCE 134, No. 11,
1569–1586.
Schneider, J. A., Hotstream, J. N., Mayne, P. W. & Randolph, M. F.
(2012). Comparing CPTU Q–F and Q–Δu2=σ′v0 soil classifi-
cation charts. Géotechnique Lett. 2, No. 4, 209–215.
Stewart, D. P. & Randolph, M. F. (1991). A new site investigation
tool for the centrifuge. Proceedings of the international con-
ference on centrifuge modelling centrifuge 91, Boulder, USA, pp.
531–538.
Stewart, D. P. & Randolph, M. F. (1994). T-Bar penetration testing
in soft clay. J. Geotech. Engng, ASCE 120, No. 12, 2230–2235.
View publication stats
Sully, J. P., Robertson, P. K., Campanella, R. G. & Woeller, D. J.
(1999). An approach to evaluation of field CPTU dissipation
data in overconsolidated fine-grained soils. Can. Geotech. J. 36,
No. 2, 369–381.
Teh, C. I. & Houlsby, G. T. (1991). An analytical study of the cone
penetration test in clay. Géotechnique 41, No. 1, 17–34, http:==
dx.doi.org=10.1680=geot.1991.41.1.17.
Torstensson, B. A. (1977) The pore pressure probe. Proceedings of
Nordiske geoteknisk mote, Oslo, paper no. 34.
Vessia, G., Casini, F. & Springman, S. M. (2012). Discussion
on ‘Estimating hydraulic conductivity from piezocone
soundings. Géotechnique 62, No. 10, 955–956, http:==dx.doi.
org=10.1680=geot.12.D.001.
Wang, D., Hu, Y. & Randolph, M. F. (2010). Three-dimensional
large deformation analysis of plate anchors in uniform clay.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Engng, ASCE 136, No. 2, 355–365.
Wang, D., Gaudin, C. & Randolph, M. F. (2013a). Large
deformation finite element analysis investigating the perform-
ance of anchor keying flap. Ocean Engng 59, 107–116.
Wang, D., Merifield, R. S. & Gaudin, C. (2013b). Uplift behaviour
of helical anchors in clay. Can. Geotech. J. 50, No. 6, 575–584.
Wang, D., Randolph, M. F. & White, D. J. (2013c). A dynamic large
deformation finite element method based on mesh regeneration.
Comput. Geotech. 54, 192–201.
Yafrate, N. J. & DeJong, J. T. (2005). Considerations in evaluating
the remoulded undrained shear strength from full flow penet-
rometer cycling. Proceedings of the 1st international symposium
on frontiers in offshore geotechnics, Perth, Australia,
pp. 991–997. London, UK: Taylor and Francis.
Yi, J. T., Goh, S. H., Lee, F. H. & Randolph, M. F. (2012).
A numerical study of cone penetratio in fine-grained soils
allowing for consolidation efects. Géotechnique 62, No. 8,
707–719, http:==dx.doi.org=10.1680=geot.8.P.155.
Zhou, H. & Randolph, M. F. (2007). Computational techniques
and shear band development for cylindrical and spherical
penetrometers in strain-softening Clay. Int. J. Geomech. 7,
No. 4, 287–295.
Zhou, H. & Randolph, M. F. (2009). Resistance of full-flow
penetrometers in rate-dependent and strain-softening clay.
Géotechnique 59, No. 2, 79–86, http:==dx.doi.org=10.
1680=geot.2007.00164.
Zhou, H. & Randolph, M. F. (2011). Effect of shaft on resistance of
a ball penetrometer. Géotechnique 61, No. 11, 973–981, http:==
dx.doi.org=10.1680=geot.9.P.062.
Zienkiewicz, O. C. & Zhu, J. Z. (1993). The superconvergent
patch recovery and a posterior error estimates. Part 1: The
recovery technique. Int. J. Numer. Methods Engng 33, No. 7,
1331–1364.