CPT - Interpretation

1337
Interpretation of cone penetration tests — a

unified approach
P.K. Robertson
Abstract: The electric cone penetration test (CPT) has been in use for over 40 years and is growing in popularity in North
America. This paper provides some recent updates on the interpretation of some key geotechnical parameters in an effort
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Laval on 03/12/19
to develop a more unified approach. Extensive use is made of the normalized soil behaviour type (SBTn) chart based on
normalized cone resistance (Qt) and normalized friction ratio (Fr). Updates are provided regarding the normalization proc-
ess and its application to the identification of soil type. The seismic CPT has provided extensive data linking CPT net
cone resistance to shear-wave velocity and soil modulus. New correlations are presented in the form of contours of key pa-
rameters on the SBTn chart. These new relationships enable a more unified interpretation of CPT results over a wide range
of soils. Updates are also provided in terms of in situ state parameter, peak friction angle, and soil sensitivity. The correla-
tions are evaluated using available laboratory and full-scale field test results. Many of the recommendations contained in
this paper are focused on low to moderate risk projects where empirical interpretation tends to dominate. For projects
where more advanced methods are more appropriate, the recommendations provided in this paper can be used as a screen-
ing to evaluate critical regions–zones where selective additional in situ testing and sampling maybe appropriate.
Key words: cone penetration test (CPT), interpretation, soil type, soil modulus, state parameter, peak friction angle, over-
consolidation ratio (OCR), sensitivity.
Résumé : L’essai électrique de pénétration au cône (« CPT ») est utilisé depuis plus de 40 ans et sa popularité continue
d’augmenter en Amérique du Nord. Cet article présente des mises à jour récentes effectuées pour l’interprétation de quel-
For personal use only.
ques paramètres géotechniques clés, ceci dans le but de développer une approche plus unifiée. Les tables des types de
comportement de sol normalisées (« SBTn ») sont fréquemment utilisées, ces tables étant basées sur la résistance au cône
normalisée (Qt) et le ratio de friction normalisé (Fr). Des mises à jour sont fournies en lien avec le processus de normalisa-
tion et son application à l’identification des types de sols. Le CPT sismique a fourni une grande quantité de données qui
ont servi à relier la résistance nette au cône du CPT avec la vitesse des ondes de cisaillement et le module du sol. Les
nouvelles corrélations sont représentées sous forme de contours pour les paramètres clés sur les tables de SBTn. Ces nou-
velles corrélations permettent d’obtenir une interprétation plus unifiée des résultats des CPT pour un éventail plus complet
de types de sols. Les mises à jour sont aussi données en termes de l’état in situ des paramètres, de l’angle de friction
maximal et de la sensibilité du sol. Les corrélations sont évaluées à l’aide de résultats d’essais en laboratoire et sur le ter-
rain à grande échelle. Plusieurs recommandations présentées dans cet article visent les projets à risque faible à modéré
dans lesquels les interprétations sont surtout empiriques. Pour les projets qui nécessitent des méthodes d’analyse plus avan-
cées, les recommandations présentées dans l’article peuvent servir d’ébauche pour établir les régions ou zones critiques
qui auraient avantage à être échantillonnées in situ et investiguées de façon plus poussée.
Mots-clés : essai de pénétration au cône (« CPT »), interprétation, type de sol, module du sol, paramètre d’état, angle de
friction maximal, rapport de surconsolidation (« OCR »), sensibilité.
[Traduit par la Rédaction]
Introduction and sampling, because it is fast, repeatable, and economical.

In addition, it provides near-continuous data and has a
The electric cone penetration test (CPT) has been in use
strong theoretical background. These advantages have led to
for over 40 years. The CPT has major advantages over tradi-
a steady increase in the use and application of the CPT in
tional methods of field site investigation, such as drilling
North America and many other places around the world. In
1983, Robertson and Campanella published two major pa-
Received 17 June 2008. Accepted 27 May 2009. Published on pers on the interpretation of the CPT (Robertson and Cam-
the NRC Research Press Web site at cgj.nrc.ca on 10 November panella 1983a, 1983b). Since 1983, there have been several
2009. major publications on the interpretation of the CPT (Lunne
P.K. Robertson.1 University of Alberta Geotechnical Centre, et al. 1997; Mayne 2007). Because of the growing use and
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University experience with the CPT, the author felt that it was appro-
of Alberta, 3-133 Markin/CNRL Natural Resources Engineering priate to provide an update on certain aspects of CPT inter-
Facility, Edmonton, AB T6G 2W2, Canada. pretation. This paper will not provide a complete
1Present address: Gregg Drilling & Testing Inc., California, background on the use and interpretation of the CPT, as
2726 Walnut Ave., Signal Hill, CA 90755, USA (e-mail: this has been covered by others (e.g., Lunne et al. 1997;
probertson@greggdrilling.com). Mayne 2007). The main objective of this paper is to focus
Can. Geotech. J. 46: 1337–1355 (2009) doi:10.1139/T09-065 Published by NRC Research Press
1338 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 46, 2009
on certain aspects that link CPT interpretation to soil type in pler to obtain discrete selective soil samples in critical
a more unified manner. In an effort to present this unified layers–zones that were identified by the CPT. The push rate
interpretation approach, most of the suggested empirical cor- to obtain the soil sample can be significantly faster than the
relations will be presented as contours on the normalized 2 cm/s required for the CPT and sampling can be rapid and
soil behaviour type (SBT) chart, first suggested by Robert- cost effective for a small number of discrete samples.
son (1990). Many of the recommendations contained in this paper are
Significant developments have occurred in both the theo- focused on low- to moderate-risk projects where traditional
retical and experimental understanding of the CPT penetra- methods are appropriate and where empirical interpretation
tion process and the influence of various soil parameters. tends to dominate. For projects where more advanced meth-
These developments have illustrated that real soil behaviour ods are more appropriate, the recommendations provided in
is often complex and difficult to accurately capture in a sim- this paper can be used as a screening to evaluate critical
ple soil model. Hence, semi-empirical correlations still tend regions–zones where selective additional in situ testing and
to dominate in CPT practice although most are well sup- sampling may be appropriate.
ported by theory.
The original Robertson and Campanella (1983a, 1983b) Equipment and procedures
publications and also the book by Lunne et al. (1997) div-
ided the interpretations of the CPT into those that relate to Lunne et al. (1997) provided a detailed description on de-
either drained cone penetration (i.e., coarse-grained soils) or velopments in CPT equipment, procedures, checks, correc-
undrained cone penetration (i.e., fine-grained soils). This ap- tions, and standards, which will not be repeated here. Most
proach will be continued in this paper, although the goal CPT systems today include pore-pressure measurements
will be to integrate the two into a more complete system. (i.e., CPTu) and provide CPT results in digital form. The ad-
dition of shear-wave velocity (Robertson et al. 1986b) is
Role of CPT in geotechnical practice also becoming increasingly popular (i.e., SCPTu). Hence, it
is now more common to see the combination of cone resist-
Hight and Leroueil (2003) suggested that the appropriate ance (qc), sleeve friction ( fs), penetration pore pressure (u).
level of sophistication for a site characterization program and sometimes, shear-wave velocity (Vs) measured in one
should be based on the following criteria: profile. The addition of shear-wave velocity has provided
Precedent and local experience. valuable insight into correlations between cone resistance
Design objectives. and soil modulus that will be discussed in a later section.
Level of geotechnical risk. There are several major issues related to equipment de-
Potential cost savings. sign and procedure that are worth repeating and updating. It
The evaluation of geotechnical risk was described by is now common that cone pore pressures are measured be-
Robertson (1998) and is dependent on the hazards (what hind the cone in what is referred to as the u2 position
can go wrong), probability of occurrence (how likely is it to (ISSMFE 1999; ASTM 2000). In this paper, it will be as-
go wrong), and consequences (what are the outcomes). sumed that the cone pore pressures are measured in the u2
For low-risk projects, in situ logging tests (e.g., CPT) and position. Due to the inner geometry of the cone, the ambient
index testing on disturbed samples combined with conserva- pore water pressure acts on the shoulder behind the cone
tive design criteria are often appropriate. For moderate-risk and on the ends of the friction sleeve. This effect is often
projects, the above can be supplemented with additional spe- referred to as the unequal end-area effect (Campanella et al.
cific in situ testing, such as seismic cone penetration tests 1982). Many commercial cones now have equal end-area
with pore-pressure measurements (SCPTu) and field vane friction sleeves that essentially remove the need for any cor-
shear tests (VST) combined with selective sampling and ba- rection to fs and hence, provide more reliable sleeve friction
sic laboratory testing to develop site-specific correlations. values. However, the unequal end-area effect is always
For high-risk projects, the above can be used for screening present for the cone resistance qc and there is a need to cor-
to identify potentially critical regions–zones appropriate to rect qc to the corrected total cone resistance, qt.
the design objectives. This should be followed by selective This correction is insignificant in sands, as qc is large rela-
high-quality sampling and advanced laboratory testing. The tive to the water pressure u2 and hence, qt * qc in coarse-
results of the laboratory testing should be correlated to the grained soils (i.e., sands). It is still common to see CPT results
in situ test results to apply the results to other regions of in terms of qc in coarse-grained soils. However, the unequal
the project. end-area correction can be significant in soft fine-grained soil
A common complaint about the CPT is that it does not where qc is low relative to the high water pressure around the
provide a soil sample. Although it is correct that a soil sam- cone due to the undrained penetration process. It is now com-
ple is not normally obtained during the CPT, most commer- mon to see CPT results corrected for unequal end-area effects
cial CPT operators also carry simple push-in soil samplers and presented in the form of qt, fs, and u2, especially in softer
that can be pushed using the CPT installation equipment to soils. The correlations presented in this paper will be in terms
obtain a small (typically 25 mm diameter) disturbed soil of the corrected cone resistance, qt, although in sands qc can
sample of similar size to that obtained from the standard be used as a replacement.
penetration test. The preferred approach and often more Although pore-pressure measurements are becoming more
cost-effective solution is to obtain a detailed continuous common with the CPT (i.e., CPTu), the accuracy and preci-
stratigraphic profile using the CPT, then to move over a sion of the cone pore-pressure measurements for onshore
short distance (<1 m) and push a small diameter soil sam- testing are not always reliable and repeatable due to loss of
Published by NRC Research Press

Robertson 1339
saturation of the pore-pressure element. At the start of each slower response for the next few metres, after which the re-
CPTu sounding, the porous element and sensor are saturated sponse of the two soundings are again similar. At a depth of
with a viscous liquid, such as silicon oil or glycerin (Campa- 8.5 m, the measured pore pressure in CPT-03 is only 33% of
nella et al. 1982). However, for an onshore CPTu, the cone the more accurate pore pressure from CPT-04. If only CPT-
is often required to penetrate several metres through unsatu- 03 was carried out, it would be difficult to recognize the er-
rated soil before reaching saturated soil. If the unsaturated ror in the u2 measurement. This profile illustrates that
soil is either clay or dense silty sand, the suction in the un- although qt and fs can be repeatable, the penetration pore
saturated soil can be sufficient to desaturate the cone pore- pressures may not always be repeatable throughout the full
pressure sensor. The use of viscous liquids, such as silicon CPT sounding.
oil, has minimized the loss of saturation, but has not com- Although Fig. 1 shows excellent repeatability for the
pletely removed the problem. Although it is possible to pre- sleeve friction measurement, it has been documented (e.g.,
punch or pre-drill the sounding and fill the hole with water, Lunne et al. 1986) that the CPT sleeve friction is generally
few commercial CPT operators carry out this procedure if less accurate than the cone tip resistance. The lack of accu-
the water table is more than a few metres below the ground racy in fs measurements is primarily due to the following
surface. A further complication is that when a cone is factors (Lunne and Andersen 2007):
pushed through saturated dense silty sand or very stiff over- Pore pressure effects on the ends of the sleeve.
consolidated clay, the pore pressure measured in the u2 posi-
Tolerance in dimensions between the cone and sleeve.
tion can become negative due to the dilatancy of the soil in
shear, resulting in small air bubbles coming out of solution Surface roughness of the sleeve.
in the cone sensor pore fluid and loss of saturation in the Load cell design and calibration.
sensor. If the cone is then pushed through a softer fine- ASTM standard D5778 (ASTM 2000) specifies the use
grained soil where the penetration pore pressures are high, of an equal end-area friction sleeve to minimize the pore-
these air bubbles can go back into solution and the cone be- pressure effects. All standards have strict limits on dimen-
comes saturated again. However, it takes time for these air sional tolerances. The ‘‘International reference test
bubbles to go into solution, which can result in a somewhat procedure for CPT’’ (IRTP) (ISSMFE 1999) has clear spec-
sluggish pore-pressure response for several metres of pene- ifications on surface roughness. This author prefers a cone
tration. Hence, it is possible for a cone pore-pressure sensor design with an independent sleeve friction load cell in com-
to alternate from saturated to unsaturated several times in pression for improved accuracy. ASTM standard D5778
one sounding. Although this appears to be a major problem (ASTM 2000) and the IRTP (ISSMFE 1999) specify zero-
with the measurement of pore pressure during a CPTu, it is load readings before and after each sounding for improved
possible to obtain good pore-pressure measurements in suit- accuracy. With good quality control it is possible to obtain
able ground conditions where the ground water level is close repeatable sleeve friction measurements, as shown in Fig. 1.
to the surface and the ground is predominately soft. CPTu However, fs measurements, in general, will be less accurate
pore-pressure measurements are almost always reliable in than tip resistance in most soft fine-grained soils.
offshore testing due to the high ambient water pressure that Throughout this paper, use will be made of the normal-
ensures full saturation. It is interesting to note that when the ized soil behaviour type (SBTn) chart using normalized
cone is stopped and a pore-pressure dissipation test per- CPT parameters. Hence, accuracy in both qt and fs are im-
formed below the ground water level, any small air bubbles portant, particularly in soft fine-grained soil. Accuracy in fs
in the cone sensor tend to go back into solution (during the measurements requires that the CPT be carried out accord-
dissipation test) and the resulting equilibrium pore pressure ing to the standard (e.g., ASTM D5778) with particular at-
can be accurate, even when the cone may not have been tention to details on tolerances, zero-load readings, and the
fully saturated during penetration before the dissipation test. use of equal end-area friction sleeves.
Although pore-pressure measurements can be less reliable
than the cone resistance for onshore testing, it is still recom- Soil type
mended that pore-pressure measurements be made for the One of the major applications of the CPT has been the de-
following reasons: any correction to qt for unequal end-area termination of soil stratigraphy and the identification of soil
effects is better than no correction in soft fine-grained soils, type. This has been accomplished using charts that link cone
dissipation test results provide valuable information regard- parameters to soil type. Early charts using qc and friction ra-
ing the equilibrium piezometric profile, and penetration tio (Rf) were proposed by Douglas and Olsen (1981), but the
pore pressures provide a qualitative evaluation of drainage charts proposed by Robertson et al. (1986a) and Robertson
conditions during the CPT and also assist in evaluating soil (1990) have become very popular (e.g., Long 2008). Robert-
behaviour type. son et al. (1986a) and Robertson (1990) stressed that the
Figure 1 shows a comparison between two CPTus carried CPT-based charts were predictive of soil behaviour type
out only 1 m apart, and illustrates excellent repeatability in (SBT), because the cone responds to the in situ mechanical
terms of both cone resistance and friction ratio (Rf = fs/ behaviour of the soil and not directly to soil classification
qc %). CPT-04 was carried out using silicon oil and CPT-03 criteria based on grain-size distribution and soil plasticity
used glycerin as the saturating fluid. The groundwater level (e.g., Unified Soil Classification System, USCS (ASTM
was at a depth of about 1.8 m. Both soundings provided 2006)). Grain-size distribution and Atterberg limits are
similar penetration pore pressures down to about 7 m. After measured on disturbed soil samples. Fortunately, soil classi-
penetration through dense sand at a depth of 6.5 m, CPT-03 fication criteria based on grain-size distribution and plasti-
recorded negative pore pressures that resulted in a somewhat city often relate reasonably well to in situ soil behaviour

Fig. 1. Comparison between two adjacent CPTu soundings. (Note: CPT-03 glycerin; CPT-04, silicon oil.)
and hence, there is often good agreement between USCS- carried out on disturbed samples, although knowledge of
based classification and CPT-based SBT (e.g., Molle 2005). both is helpful.
However, several examples can be given when differences Robertson (1990) proposed using normalized (and dimen-
can arise between USCS-based soil types and CPT-based sionless) cone parameters, Qt1, Fr, and Bq, where
SBT. For example, a soil with 60% sand and 40% fines
0
may be classified as ‘‘silty sand’’ (sand–silt mixtures) or ½1 Qtl ¼ ðqt s vo Þ=s vo
‘‘clayey sand’’ (sand–clay mixtures) using the USCS. If the
fines have high clay content with high plasticity, the soil be-
½2 Fr ¼ fs =ðqt s vo Þ 100%
haviour may be more controlled by the clay and the CPT-
based SBT will reflect this behaviour and will predict a
more clay-like behaviour, such as ‘‘silt mixtures – clayey ½3 Bq ¼ ðu2 u0 Þ=ðqt s vo Þ ¼ Du=ðqt s vo Þ
silt to silty clay’’ (Robertson 1990, SBT zone 4). If the fines 0
are nonplastic, soil behaviour will be controlled more by the where svo is the in situ total vertical stress, s vo is the in situ
sand and the CPT-based SBT would predict a more sand- effective vertical stress, u0 is the in situ equilibrium water
like soil type, such as ‘‘sand mixtures – silty sand to sandy pressure, and Du is the excess penetration pore pressure.
silt’’ (SBT zone 5). Very stiff, heavily overconsolidated In the original paper by Robertson (1990) the normalized
fine-grained soils tend to behave more like a coarse-grained cone resistance was defined using the term Qt. The term Qt1
soil in that they tend to dilate under shear and can have high is used here to show that the cone resistance is the corrected
undrained shear strength compared with their drained cone resistance, qt, and the stress exponent for stress nor-
strength and can have a CPT-based SBT in either zone 4 or malization is 1.0 (further details are provide in a later sec-
5. Soft, saturated low-plastic silts tend to behave more like tion).
clays in that they have low undrained shear strength and In general, the normalized charts provide more reliable
can have a CPT-based SBT in zone 3 (clays – clay to silty identification of SBT than the non-normalized charts,
clay). These few examples illustrate that the CPT-based although when the in situ vertical effective stress is between
SBT may not always agree with traditional USCS-based 50 to 150 kPa there is often little difference between normal-
soil types based on samples and that the biggest difference ized SBT (referred to as SBTn in this paper) and non-normal-
is likely to occur in the mixed soils region (i.e., sand mix- ized SBT. The above normalization was based on theoretical
tures and silt mixtures). Geotechnical engineers are often work by Wroth (1984). Robertson (1990) suggested two
more interested in the in situ soil behaviour than a classifi- charts based on either Qt1–Fr and Qt1–Bq, but recommended
cation based only on grain-size distribution and plasticity that the Qt1–Fr chart was generally more reliable.

Robertson 1341
Since 1990 there have been other CPT soil behaviour– (1990) Qt1–Fr SBTn chart. The contours of Ic can be used
type charts developed (e.g., Jefferies and Davies 1991; Ol- to approximate the SBT boundaries. Jefferies and Davies
sen and Mitchell 1995; Eslami and Fellenius 1997). The (1993) suggested that the SBT index Ic could also be used
chart by Eslami and Fellenius (1997) is based on non- to modify empirical correlations that vary with soil type.
normalized parameters using effective cone resistance, qe (= This is a powerful concept and has been used where appro-
qt – u2), and fs. The effective cone resistance, qe, suffers priate in this paper.
from lack of accuracy in soft fine-grained soils, as will be The form of eq. [5] and the shape of the contours of Ic in
discussed in a later section. Zhang and Tumay (1999) devel- Fig. 2 illustrate that Ic is not overly sensitive to the potential
oped a CPT-based soil classification system based on fuzzy lack of accuracy of the sleeve friction, fs, but is more con-
logic where the results are presented in the form of percent- trolled by the more accurate tip stress, qt. Research (e.g.,
age soil type (e.g., percentage; clay, silt, and sand size). Be- Long 2008) has sometimes questioned the reliability of the
cause the CPT responds to soil behaviour, it would appear SBT based on sleeve friction values (e.g., Qt1–Fr charts).
more logical to predict soil behaviour type (SBT) rather However, numerous studies (e.g., Molle 2005) have shown
than grain-size distribution, although for many soils the two that the normalized charts based on Qt1–Fr provide the best
will be similar. overall success rate for SBT compared with samples. It can
Conceptually, any normalization to account for increasing be shown, using eq. [5], that if fs varies by as much
stress should also account for the important influence of hor- as ±50%, the resulting variation in Ic is generally less
izontal effective stresses, as penetration resistance is strongly than ±10%. For soft soils, that falls within the lower part of
influenced by the horizontal effective stresses (Jamiolkowski the Qt1–Fr chart (e.g., Qt1 < 20); Ic is insensitive to fs.
and Robertson 1988). However, this continues to have little Robertson and Wride (1998) and the update by Zhang et
practical benefit for most projects without a prior knowledge al. (2002) suggested a normalized cone parameter with a
of in situ horizontal stresses. Even normalization using only variable stress exponent, n, where
vertical effective stress requires some input of soil unit ½6 0 n
Qtn ¼ ½ðqt s vo Þ=pa ðpa =s vo Þ
weight and groundwater conditions. Fortunately, commercial
software packages have increasingly made this easier and where (qt – svo)/pa is the dimensionless net cone resistance,
unit weights estimated from the non-normalized SBT charts 0 n
ðpa =s vo Þ is the stress normalization factor, pa is atmospheric
(Robertson et al. 1986a) appear to be reasonably effective pressure in the same units as qt and svo, and n is the stress
for many applications (Lunne et al. 1997). exponent that varies with SBTn. Note that when n = 1,
Jefferies and Davies (1991) proposed a modified SBTn Qtn = Qt1. Zhang et al. (2002) suggested that the stress ex-
chart that incorporates the pore pressure directly into a ponent, n, could be estimated using the SBTn index, Ic, and
modified normalized cone resistance using Qt1(1 – Bq). Re- that Ic should be defined using Qtn.
cently, Jefferies and Been (2006) updated their modified In recent years there have been several publications re-
chart using the parameter Qt1(1 – Bq) + 1, to overcome the garding the appropriate stress normalization (Olsen and Ma-
problem in soft sensitive soils where Bq > 1. lone 1988; Boulanger and Idriss 2004; Moss et al. 2006;
Jefferies and Been (2006) noted that Cetin and Isik 2007). The contours of the stress exponent
suggested by Cetin and Isik (2007) are very similar to those
0
½4 Qtl ð1 Bq Þ þ 1 ¼ ðqt u2 Þ=s vo by Zhang et al. (2002). Idriss and Boulanger (2004) sug-
gested that the stress exponent should vary with relative
Hence, the parameter Qt1(1 – Bq) + 1 is simply the effec- density, where the exponent is close to 1.0 in loose sands
tive cone resistance, (qt – u2), normalized by the vertical ef- and less than 0.5 in dense sands. The contours by Moss et
fective stress. Although incorporating pore pressure into the al. (2006) are similar to those first suggested by Olsen and
normalized cone resistance is conceptually attractive, it has Malone (1988). All the above methods agree that in the
practical problems. Accuracy is a major concern in soft clean sand region of the SBTn chart, the stress exponent is
fine-grained soils where qt is small compared with u2. typically close to 0.5 and in the clay region, the stress expo-
Hence, the difference (qt – u2) is very small and lacks accu- nent in close to 1.0. Only the SBTn chart suggested by Jeff-
racy and reliability in most soft soils. For most commercial eries and Davies (1991) uses a stress normalization of n =
cones, the precision of Qt1 in soft fine-grained soils is 1.0 throughout. As this is a key point for the interpretation
about ±20%; whereas, the precision for Qt1(1 – Bq) + 1 is of the CPT results over a wide range of soil types, a more
about ±40%, due to the combined lack of precision in (qt – detailed discussion will be provided.
u2). Loss of saturation further complicates this parameter, as The cone penetration resistance (qt) is a measure of the
illustrated in Fig. 1. shear strength of the soil. In normally consolidated clay, the
Jefferies and Davies (1993) identified that a soil behav- undrained shear strength increases linearly with increasing
iour type index, Ic, could represent the SBTn zones in the vertical effective stress. Hence, the cone resistance (qt) also
Qt1–Fr chart, where Ic is essentially the radius of concentric increases linearly with increasing vertical effective stress
circles that define the boundaries of soil type. Robertson and and Wroth (1984) showed that in fine-grained soils the ap-
Wride (1998) modified the definition of Ic to apply to the propriate stress exponent is n = 1.0. In coarse-grained soils,
Robertson (1990) Qt1–Fr chart, as defined by it is well established that the shear strength envelope in
0:5 terms of shear stress versus effective stress for all but very
½5 Ic ¼ ð3:47 logQtl Þ2 þ ðlogFr þ 1:22Þ2 loose soils is curved over a wide stress range. This curvature
was described by Vesic and Clough (1968) and Bolton
Contours of Ic are shown in Fig. 2 on the Robertson (1986). Large calibration chamber studies, and more re-

Fig. 2. Contours of soil behaviour type index, Ic (thick lines), on tionship. The generalized CSL presented by Boulanger
normalized SBTn Qt1–Fr chart. (SBT zones based on Robertson (2003) clearly shows that the CSL (in void ratio – log effec-
(1990).) tive stress space) is almost flat at low mean effective confin-
ing stresses (less than 2 atmospheres (200 kPa)) and
Ic =
eventually becomes steep (and similar to that for clays) at
very high stresses. A similar curved CSL was confirmed by
Jefferies and Been (2006). When the slope of the CSL is
Normalized cone resistance, Qtn
very small, there is a strong link between relative density

and state parameter. Wroth (1984) showed that a stress nor-
malization for cone resistance using n = 1 is appropriate
when the normally consolidated line is essentially parallel
with the CSL. However, in sands, the CSL is clearly nonlin-
ear over a wide stress range and the consolidation lines vary
relative to the CSL. Hence, it would appear that critical-state
soil mechanics would support the concept of a variable
stress exponent to normalize penetration resistance and that
the stress exponent can be around 0.5 at low stresses and
tending toward 1.0 at high stresses when the CSL line be-
comes straight and the consolidation line for sands becomes
parallel to the CSL.
Normalized friction ratio, Fr Jefferies and Been (2006) showed that the slope of the
CSL was a measure of the compressibility of the soil and
that there is a link between the slope of the CSL and the
cently centrifuge tests with sands at a constant relative den- SBTn index, Ic. It is therefore possible to estimate soil com-
sity, have also shown that the cone resistance in coarse- pressibility and hence, the stress level at which the stress ex-
grained soils increases nonlinearly with increasing vertical ponent tends toward a value of 1.0 using the CPT SBTn
effective stress. The average stress exponent to capture this index, Ic.
change with vertical stress is typically close to n = 0.5 Based on the previous discussion, the following is recom-
(Baldi et al. 1989). The nonlinearity is more pronounced in mended to allow for a variation of the stress exponent with
dense sands than in loose sands (i.e., the stress exponent n is both SBTn Ic and effective overburden stress using
larger in loose sands).
0
Bolton (1986) represented the curvature of the strength en- ½7 n ¼ 0:381ðIc Þ þ 0:05ðs vo =pa Þ 0:15
velope by showing that the secant peak friction angle de- where n £ 1.0.
creases with increasing effective stress, and that the friction 0
The proposed updated contours of n (for s vo =pa ¼ 1:0) are
angle is essentially constant for very loose sands and is often
shown in Fig. 3. Figure 3 shows that for most fine-grained
referred to as the constant volume friction angle (fcv ) or crit-
soils, the stress exponent will be 1.0. The stress exponent
ical state friction angle (fcs ). Hence, Bolton implied that the
will range from 0.5 to 0.9 for most coarse-grained soils
stress exponent should be close to 1.0 in very loose sands and
when in situ vertical stresses are not high. The region where
in dense sands at very high stresses where dilatancy is sup-
n = 1.0 moves up the chart with increasing confining stress.
pressed and grain crushing occurs. Therefore, the stress expo-
When the in situ vertical effective stress is greater than
nent (n) for cone resistance should tend toward 1.0 as sand 1MPa, the stress exponent will be essentially 1.0 for most
behaviour becomes more contractive (i.e., dilatancy becomes soils.
suppressed) and grain crushing becomes more pronounced.
The above recommended normalization is not an arbitrary
The stress level at which grain crushing is predominate and
approach, but is based on experimental observations de-
the peak friction angle becomes constant is a function of
signed to improve correlations with various geotechnical pa-
grain characteristics. Rounded uniform silica sands do not
rameters.
experience significant grain crushing until a mean effective
stress at failure of around 2 MPa (Bolton 1986); whereas, an- Caution should be used when comparing CPT-based SBT
gular silica sands and silty sands can reach this level at mean to samples with traditional classification systems based only
effective stresses less than 1 MPa. Crushable sands, such as on grain-size distribution and plasticity. Factors such as
carbonate sands, can reach this level at a mean effective changes in stress history, in situ stresses, macro fabric, void
stress closer to 0.1 MPa. Hence, the stress level at which ratio, and water content will also influence the CPT re-
crushing becomes significant is a function of soil compressi- sponse and resulting SBT. The manner in which the excess
bility. The stresses close to the cone during penetration in pore pressures dissipate during a pause in the cone penetra-
dense sands can be close to these high values and grain tion can significantly aid in identifying the soil type.
crushing is occurring close to the cone. However, within the
sphere of influence around the cone, the average effective Stratigraphy — transition zones
stress to fail the sand is not as high as the cone resistance Robertson and Campanella (1983a) discussed how the
and grain crushing is not occurring everywhere. cone tip resistance is influenced by the soil ahead and be-
Boulanger (2003) showed that a generalized critical state hind the cone tip. Ahmadi and Robertson (2005) illustrated
line (CSL) can be developed based on Bolton’s (1986) rela- this using numerical analyses and confirmed that the cone

Robertson 1343
Fig. 3. Contours of stress exponent, n (thick lines), (for Stiffness (modulus)

0
s vo =pa ¼ 1:0) on normalized SBTn Qtn–Fr chart. Eslaamizaad and Robertson (1997) and Mayne (2000)
have shown that the load settlement response for both shal-
low and deep foundations can be accurately predicted using
n= the measured shear-wave velocity, Vs. Although direct meas-
urement of Vs is preferred over estimates, relationships with
cone resistance are useful for smaller low-risk projects,

where Vs measurements are not always taken. Schneider et
al. (2004) showed that Vs in sands is controlled by the num-
ber and area of grain-to-grain contacts, which in turn depend
on relative density, effective stress state, rearrangement of
particles with age, and cementation. Penetration resistance
in sands is also controlled by relative density, effective

stress state, and to a lesser degree by age and cementation.
n = 1.0 Thus, although strong relationships between Vs and penetra-
tion resistance exist, some variability should be expected.
There are many existing relationships between cone resist-
ance and Vs (or small strain shear modulus, G0), but most
were developed for either sands or clays and generally rela-
tively young deposits. The accumulated 20 years of experi-
Normalized friction ratio, Fr
ence with SCPT results enables updated relationships
between cone resistance and Vs to be developed for a wide
can sense a soil interface up to 15 cone diameters ahead and range of soils, using the CPT SBTn chart (Qtn–F) as a base.
behind, depending on the strength–stiffness of the soil and As Vs is a direct measure of the small strain shear modulus,
the in situ effective stresses. In strong–stiff soils, the zone G0, there can also be improved linkages between CPT re-
of influence is large (up to 15 cone diameters), whereas in sults and soil modulus.
soft soils the zone of influence is rather small (as small as Based on over 100 SCPT profiles from 22 sites in Califor-
one cone diameter). Ahmadi and Robertson (2005) showed nia combined with published data, a set of contours of nor-
that the size of the zone of influence decreased with increas- malized shear-wave velocity, Vs1, (Robertson et al. 1992)
ing stress (e.g., dense sands behave more like loose sand at was developed on the normalized SBT Qtn–Fr chart, as
high values of effective stress). shown in Fig. 4, where
The zone of influence ahead and behind a cone during
0 0:25
penetration will influence the cone resistance at any inter- ½8 Vsl ¼ Vs ðpa =s vo Þ ðin m=sÞ
face (boundary) between two soil types of significantly dif-
ferent strength and stiffness. Hence, it is often important to
identify transitions between different soils types to avoid As the CPT measurements are normalized in terms of Qtn
possible misinterpretation. This issue has become increas- and Fr, the resulting shear-wave velocity values are also nor-
ingly important with software that provides interpretation of malized. The characteristics of the more than 1000 CPT–Vs
every data point from the CPT. When CPT data are col- data pairs are summarized in Table 1. The deposits ranged
lected at close intervals (typically every 20 to 50 mm) sev- predominately from the Holocene to Pleistocene age and
eral data points are ‘‘in transition’’ when the cone passes an were mostly uncemented, although cementation was possible
interface between two different soil types (e.g., from sand to in some soils. Andrus et al. (2007) showed that most
clay and vice versa). It is possible to identify the transition Holocene-age deposits have Vs1 values less than 250 m/s. In
from one soil type to another using the rate of change of Ic. general, the Holocene-age data tends to plot in the center-
When the CPT is in transition from sand to clay, the SBTn left portion of the SBTn chart, whereas the Pleistocene-age
Ic will move from low values in the sand to higher values in data tends to plot in the center-right portion of the chart.
the clay. Robertson and Wride (1998) suggested that the ap- There was significant scatter in the data pairs, due in part to
proximate boundary between sand-like and clay-like behav- the variation in depth interval over which the readings were
iour is around Ic = 2.60. Hence, when the rate of change of taken. Typically, CPT measurements are taken every 5 cm,
Ic is rapid and is crossing the boundary defined by Ic = 2.60, whereas Vs measurements are taken every 1 to 1.5 m. Part
the cone is likely in transition from a sand-like to clay-like of the scatter may also be due to uncertainty with respect to
soil or vice versa. Profiles of Ic can provide a simple means age and cementation for these natural deposits.
to identify and remove these transition zones. The contours of Vs1 in Fig. 4 can be approximated using
the following equations (both in m/s):
Drained CPT penetration — coarse-grained
½9 Vsl ¼ ðavs Qtn Þ0:5
soils (cohesionless)
The following section is focused on coarse-grained soils or
where the penetration process is essentially drained and ½10 Vs ¼ ½avs ðqt s v Þ=pa 0:5
where most of the geotechnical parameters are based on
drained behaviour. where avs is the shear-wave velocity cone factor.

Fig. 4. Contours of normalized shear-wave velocity, Vs1 (thick ½12 G0 ¼ rVs2

lines), on normalized SBTn Qtn–Fr chart for uncemented Holocene-
0 0:25
and Pleistocene-age soils. Vs1 ¼ Vs ðpa =s vo Þ (m/s). where r is the mass density (or total unit weight divided by
the acceleration of gravity) of the soil.
Using the Vs contours, Fig. 5 shows the associated con-
Vs1 = tours of the small strain shear modulus number, KG, where
0
½13 G0 ¼ KG pa ðs vo =pa Þn
where n is a stress exponent that has a value of about 0.5
for most coarse-grained soils.
Previous research (Seed and Idriss 1970; Hardin and
Drnevich 1972) showed that the modulus number, KG, can
vary from 400 to 1600 in young, uncemented, loose to dense

sand. These values agree well with the range shown in
Fig. 5.
Relationships between soil modulus and cone resistance
can have the general form
½14 G0 ¼ aG ðqt s vo Þ
where aG is the shear modulus factor for estimating the small
Normalized friction ratio, Fr strain shear modulus (G0) from net cone resistance (qt – svo).
As the stress exponent is similar for the normalization of
both Qtn and G0 in the sand region, it follows that
Table 1. Characteristic values of CPT–Vs database.
½15 aG ¼ KG =Qtn
0
Qtn Fr (%) Vs1 (m/s) (kPa)
s vo
Maximum 577 13.13 906 580 Hence, it is possible to develop contours of aG that are
Minimum 0.67 0.15 72 19 also shown in Fig. 5. Although the stress normalization for
Average 59 3.13 260 190 Qtn varies from the sand to clay region, the error in extend-
ing the contours of aG into the clay region is small. Eslaami-
Note: Total number of data pairs = 1035.
zaad and Robertson (1997) showed that for young,
uncemented sands, the ratio of G0/qt (i.e., aG) varied with
As the contour shapes for avs are similar to those for Ic, normalized cone resistance. Table 2 shows the approximate
avs can be estimated using range of values from Eslaamizaad and Robertson (1997).
These values compare well with the values shown in Fig. 5,
½11 avs ¼ 10ð0:55Ic þ1:68Þ in ðm=sÞ2 because in sands qt * (qt – svo) and 0.1% < Fr < 3%.
Robertson and Campanella (1989) showed that the ratio
The contours shown in Fig. 4 were further evaluated and G0/qt varied from 20 to 125 for variations in the overconso-
verified using additional published data from other regions lidation ratio (OCR) and soil plasticity for clays. These val-
of the world (e.g., Schnaid 2005; Andrus et al. 2007). ues are also consistent with the range shown in Fig. 5.
Hegazy and Mayne (1995) proposed a relationship be- Robertson (1995) showed that the value of G0/qt varied
tween shear-wave velocity and cone resistance as a function from 2 to 100 as Qtn changed from 1000 to 1, which is also
of friction ratio. Andrus et al. (2007) suggested a similar re- consistent with Fig. 5.
lationship for combined Holocene- and Pleistocene-age de- Eslaamizaad and Robertson (1996a) and Schnaid (2005)
posits based on 229 data pairs from California, South showed that it is possible to identify cemented soils using
Carolina, and Japan. Andrus et al. (2007) suggested a cor- the ratio of G0/qt. Hence, if the measured G0/(qt – svo) (i.e.,
rection factor based on age of the deposit to improve the aG) is significantly larger than estimated using Fig. 5, the
correlation. Typically, Pleistocene-age soils had Vs1 values soils are likely cemented.
25% higher than Holocene-age soils. Knowledge of soil age
would improve the correlations, but often the age of the de- It is also possible to estimate the appropriate value of aG
posit is not always known in advance for most small low- from Ic based on the link with avs using
risk projects. Hence, the general relationship shown in ½16 aG ¼ ðr=pa Þavs
Fig. 4 and eq. [9] is recommended for most Holocene- to
Pleistocene-age deposits. The predicted shear-wave velocity where (r/pa) is in units of (s/m)2.
using eq. [10] in Pleistocene-age deposits may be somewhat For an average unit weight g = 18 kN/m3 (r = 1.84), it
underestimated. The effectiveness of the proposed relation- follows that
ship will be evaluated further in a later section.
At low shear strain levels (less than about 10–4%), the ½17 aG ¼ 0:0188 10ð0:55Ic þ1:68Þ
shear modulus in soils is constant and has a maximum
value, G0. This small strain shear modulus is determined Hence, the small strain shear modulus, G0, for young, un-
from the shear-wave velocity using the equation cemented soils can be estimated using

Robertson 1345
Fig. 5. Contours of small strain shear modulus number, KG, and foundations), qult is the ultimate or failure load (e.g., ulti-
modulus factor, aG, on normalized SBTn Qtn–Fr chart for unce- mate bearing capacity for foundations), q/qult is the degree
mented Holocene- and Pleistocene-age soils. of loading, and f and g are constants depending on soil type
0
G0 ¼ KG Pa ðs vo =pa Þ0:50 ; G0 ¼ aG ðqt s vo Þ. and stress history.
Fahey and Carter (1993) and Mayne (2005) suggested that
αG = 5 values of f = 1 and g = 0.3 are appropriate for uncemented
soils that are not highly structured. For a degree of loading
α G = 10
from 0.2 to 0.3, the ratio G/G0 ranges from 0.30 to 0.38.
α G = 20 Hence, for many design applications the appropriate
KG
αG Young’s modulus for application in simplified elastic solu-
tions is approximately
E 0 0:8G0
½21
α G = 50
Using this ratio, it is possible to create contours of

Young’s modulus number, KE, on the CPT SBTn chart as
α G = 100 shown in Fig. 6, where
½22 E 0 ¼ KE pa ðs vo
0
=pa Þn
where n is a stress exponent that has a value of about 0.5
for most coarse-grained soils.
Normalized friction ratio, Fr As the application of Young’s modulus, E’, is generally
only applicable to drained soils, the contours on Fig. 6 are
Table 2. Typical G0/qt values for sands sug- therefore limited to the region defined by Ic < 2.60.
gested by Eslaamizaad and Robertson (1997). Some existing relationships between soil modulus and
cone resistance have the form
Normalized cone resistance, Qtn Ratio G0/qt

500 2 to 4 ½23 E 0 ¼ aE ðqt s vo Þ
100 5 to 10
where aE is the modulus factor for estimating Young’s mod-
20 15 to 30
ulus (E’) from net cone resistance (qt – svo). Most existing
relationships use qc, whereas they should be using (qt –
svo), although the error is generally small in sands, where
½18 G0 ¼ 0:0188 10ð0:55Ic þ1:68Þ ðqt s vo Þ
qt >> svo and qc * (qt – svo).
Figure 5 and eq. [18] provide a simplified means to esti- As the stress exponent is similar for the normalization of
mate the small strain shear modulus over a wide range of both Qtn and E’ in the sand region, it follows that
soils using CPT data. The relationships shown in Figs. 4
½24 aE ¼ KE =Qtn
and 5 are less reliable in the region for fine-grained soils
(i.e., when Ic > 2.60), as the sleeve friction fs and hence Fr, Hence, it is possible to develop contours of aE that are
are strongly influenced by soil sensitivity. The relationships also shown in Fig. 6.
are generally better in the coarse-grained region (i.e., when Combining eqs. [18] and [21], it is possible to estimate
Ic < 2.60) and are primarily for uncemented, predominately the appropriate value of aE from Ic using the following
silica-based soils of Holocene and Pleistocene age. equation:
For some applications, engineers require an estimate of
the Young’s modulus, E’, which is linked to the shear mod- ½25 aE ¼ 0:015 10ð0:55Ic þ1:68Þ
ulus via
From this, the Young’s modulus, E’, for uncemented, pre-
½19 E 0 ¼ 2ð1 þ yÞG dominately silica-based soils of either Holocene or Pleisto-
where y is Poisson’s ratio, which ranges from 0.1 to 0.3 for cene age (when Ic < 2.60) can be estimated using
most soils under drained conditions, and G is shear modu-
½26 E 0 ¼ 0:015 10ð0:55Ic þ1:68Þ ðqt s vo Þ
lus. Hence, for most coarse-grained soils, E’ * 2.5G.
As the small strain shear modulus, G0, applies only at Bellotti et al. (1989) showed that the ratio E’/qc varied be-
very small strains, there is a need to soften G0 to a strain tween 3 and 12 for aged, normally consolidated sands and
level appropriate for design purposes. Eslaamizaad and Rob- between 5 and 20 for overconsolidated sands and was a
ertson (1997) showed that the amount of softening required function of normalized cone resistance. The relationship
for design was a function of the degree of loading. Fahey shown in Fig. 6 indicates that a more appropriate ratio
and Carter (1993) suggested a simple approach to estimate should be E’/(qt – svo) and that the range shown in Fig. 6 is
the amount of softening using consistent with previous work.
½20 G=G0 ¼ 1 f ðq=qult Þg Figure 6 and eq. [26] provide a simplified means to esti-
mate the equivalent Young’s modulus using CPT data for a
where q is the applied load (e.g., net bearing pressure for wide range of coarse-grained soils. As the appropriate value

Fig. 6. Contours of Young’s modulus number, KE, and modulus (2000) showed that the load settlement response was well
factor, aE, on normalized SBTn Qtn–Fr chart for uncemented Holo- predicted using the measured shear-wave velocity profile at
cene- and Pleistocene-age soils. E 0 ¼ KE Pa ðs vo
0
=pa Þ0:50 ; the test site. As the predicted shear-wave velocity is close to
0
E ¼ aE ðqt s vo Þ. the measured value, the suggested approach would also give
αE = 2 a good but slightly conservative prediction of the measured
load settlement.
αE = 5
Anderson et al. (2007) describe a full-scale test on a
1.8 m diameter, 0.6 m thick concrete footing embedded
α E = 10
0.6 m below ground surface over a deposit of silty sand in
Florida. Groundwater was 1.7 m below ground surface and
the footing was loaded statically to a footing pressure of
KE 222 kPa. The CPT correctly identified that the soil down to
αE a depth of about 5.7 m is composed of sand to silty sand be-

coming finer with depth. At a depth of 2.5 m there is a thin
layer of soft sandy silt. The average normalized cone resist-
ance, Qtn, in the silty sand was 225 in the upper 1.5 m, de-
creasing to 25 at a depth of 2.5 m then increasing to about
150 at a depth of 3.7 m, then decreasing to 50 from 4.3 to
5.0 m. The average normalized friction ratio, Fr, varied
from 0.4% to 0.8% to a depth of about 5.0 m. From a depth
of about 1.5 to 5.0 m, the SBT index Ic varied from 1.3 to
2.0. The estimated average normalized shear-wave velocity
to a depth of 5.0 m was about 200 m/s. Based on the meas-
Normalized friction ratio, Fr ured normalized CPT parameters and the suggested correla-
tion for E’, the predicted settlement under a footing pressure
of 222 kPa is 5.5 mm compared with the measured settle-
for E’ is a function of the degree of loading, it is also possi-
ment of 2.5 mm. Anderson et al. (2007) applied a total of

ble to vary aE as a function of degree of loading. The values 22 different methods to predict the settlement, of which the
of aE shown in Fig. 6 are for an average degree of loading best one gave a prediction of 5.59 mm with an average
of about 0.25 (i.e., factor of safety around 4). As the degree value of 14.4 mm. The proposed CPT-based correlation pre-
of loading increases, the associated value of aE will de- dicts a settlement closer to the measured value, but slightly
crease. To incorporate degree of loading into the estimate conservative. The evaluation of settlement may have been
of E’, the final form would be further improved if shear-wave velocity measurements were
included in the field tests.
½27 E 0 ¼ 0:047 1 ðq=qult Þ0:3 10ð0:55Ic þ1:68Þ ðqt s vo Þ
For low-risk projects, the simpler form shown in eq. [26] In situ state
would generally be adequate. Robertson and Campanella (1983a) showed that the eval-
Recent full-scale footing tests (Briaud and Gibbens 1999; uation of the in situ state in terms of relative density is not
Anderson et al. 2007) provide an opportunity to evaluate the very reliable due to variations in compressibility for sands.
above correlation for E’ in sandy soils. Briaud and Gibbens Sands with high compressibility produce lower cone resist-
(1999) describe several full-scale tests carried out on 3 m by ance for the same relative density compared with sands
3 m footings tested at the Texas A & M University test site. with low compressibility. The compressibility of sands is
The site is composed of about 11 m of sand over clay shale controlled by grain characteristics, such as grain mineralogy
with groundwater at about 5 m. The sands are of the Eocene and angularity (e.g., carbonate sands are more compressible
age and are lightly cemented and overconsolidated. The than silica sands and angular silica sands are more compres-
average net cone resistance, (qt – svo), below the footing to sible than rounded silica sands). The evaluation of relative
a depth of about 7 m was 7.5 MPa and the average SBT in- density is also influenced by the age and stress history of
dex, Ic was 1.7 (Qtn = 120, Fr = 0.7%). Based on Fig. 4 and the sand (Kulhawy and Mayne 1990).
eq. [9], the estimated normalized shear-wave velocity is Based on critical-state concepts, Jefferies and Been (2006)
220 m/s. The measured shear-wave velocity in the upper provide a detailed description of the evaluation of the soil
7 m was about 210 m/s, which at an average vertical effec- state using the CPT. They describe in detail that the inverse
tive stress of about 50 kPa is a normalized shear-wave ve- problem of evaluating the state from CPT response is com-
locity of 250 m/s. The predicted normalized shear-wave plex and depends on several soil parameters. The main pa-
velocity based on the CPT is slightly smaller than the meas- rameters are essentially the shear stiffness, shear strength,
ured value, which is consistent with the age and cementation compressibility, and plastic hardening. Jefferies and Been
of this deposit. The measured ultimate failure load for the 3 (2006) provide a description of how the state can be eval-
m square footing was about 10 MN (i.e., qult = 1.1 MPa). uated using a combination of laboratory and in situ tests.
The predicted ultimate bearing stress based on the CPT and They stress the importance of determining the in situ hori-
the average cone resistance beneath the footing (qt(av)) using zontal effective stress and shear modulus using in situ tests
qult = 0.16qt(av) (Eslaamizaad and Robertson 1996b) is and determining the shear strength, compressibility, and
1.2 MPa. Eslaamizaad and Robertson (1997) and Mayne plastic hardening parameters from laboratory testing on re-

Robertson 1347
constituted samples. They also show how the inverse prob- Fig. 7. Contours of estimated state parameter, j (thick lines), on
lem can be assisted using numerical modeling. For high-risk the normalized Qtn–Fr chart for uncemented Holocene-age soils.
projects, a detailed interpretation of CPT results using labo-
ratory results and numerical modeling can be appropriate
(e.g., Shuttle and Cunning 2007), although soil variability ψ=
can complicate the interpretation procedure. For low-risk

projects and in the initial screening for high-risk projects,
there is a need for a simple estimate of the soil state. Plewes
et al. (1992) provided a means to estimate the soil state us-
ing the normalized SBT chart suggested by Jefferies and Da-
vies (1991). Jefferies and Been (2006) updated this approach
using the normalized SBT chart based on the parameter
Qt1(1– Bq) + 1. As this author has concerns about the accu-

racy and precision of the Jefferies and Been (2006) normal-
ized parameter in soft soils, a similar approach can be
developed using the normalized SBTn Qtn–Fr chart. The
contours of state parameter j suggested by Plewes et al.
(1992) and Jefferies and Been (2006) were based primarily
on calibration chamber results for sands. When the state pa-
rameter approach is applied to clays, there is a link between
the state parameter and the OCR. Normalized friction ratio, Fr
Based on the data presented by Jefferies and Been (2006)
and Shuttle and Cunning (2007) as well the measurements
by either Robertson and Campanella (1983a) or Kulhawy
from the CANLEX project (Wride et al. 2000) for predomi-
and Mayne (1990). Note that as the friction ratio (Fr) in-
nately coarse-grained uncemented young soils, combined creases (and hence, soil compressibility increases) the nor-
with the link between the OCR and state parameter in fine-
malized cone resistance (Qtn) decreases for a constant peak
grained soil, Fig. 7 shows estimated contours of state param- friction angle. This is consistent with observations of high
eter j on the updated SBTn Qtn–F chart for uncemented values of fp0 in compressible sands with relatively low val-
Holocene-age soils. The contours shown in Fig. 7 are ap-
proximate, as the stress state and plastic hardening will also ues of cone resistance, as found, for example, in carbonate
influence the estimate of the in situ soil state in the coarse- sands. The contours of fp0 will likely move up slightly at
grained region of the chart (i.e., when Ic < 2.60) and soil high values of Fr due to aging and (or) cementation effects.
sensitivity for fine-grained soils. An area of uncertainty in
the approach used by Jefferies and Been (2006) is the use Undrained CPT penetration — fine-grained
of Qt1 rather than Qtn. Figure 7 uses Qtn as it is believed soils
that this form of normalized parameter has a wider applica-
tion, although this issue may not be fully resolved for some The following section focuses on fine-grained soils where
time. the penetration process is essentially undrained and where
most of the geotechnical parameters are based on undrained
Shear strength behaviour. In fine-grained soils, it is common to use the nor-
malized cone resistance, Qt1. However, based on the earlier
Based on calibration chamber results, Robertson and
discussion, when Ic > 2.60, Qt1 = Qtn; hence, the more gen-
Campanella (1983a) showed that the peak friction angle
eral term Qtn will be used in this section.
(fp0 ) for clean, uncemented silica sands could be estimated
from the normalized cone resistance. Kulhawy and Mayne In situ state
(1990) updated the relationship based on a larger database. For fine-grained soils, the in situ state is usually defined
Jefferies and Been (2006) showed that the state parameter in terms of OCR, where the OCR is defined as the ratio of
is strongly linked to the peak friction angle through soil di- the maximum past effective consolidation stress and the
latancy. Using the average relationship between the state pa- present effective overburden stress
rameter and peak friction angle suggested by Jefferies and
Been (2006) and the contours of the state parameter shown s p0
½28 OCR ¼ 0
in Fig. 7, it is possible to generate approximate contours of s vo
the peak friction angle on the SBTn Qtn–Fr chart, as shown
in Fig. 8. For comparison, the values of Qtn for various val- For mechanically overconsolidated soils where the only
ues of the peak friction angle based on Kulhawy and Mayne change has been the removal of the overburden stress, this
(1990) are also shown in Fig. 8. The values of the peak fric- definition is appropriate. However, for cemented and (or)
tion angle based on the state parameter are similar to those aged soils, the OCR may represent the ratio of the yield
suggested by Kulhawy and Mayne (1990) in the region stress and the present effective overburden stress. The yield
1.8 < Ic < 2.2. However, the shape of the contours may par- stress will depend on the direction and type of loading.
tially explain why some published comparisons (e.g. Mayne The most common method to estimate the OCR and yield
2007) between CPT results and laboratory-derived friction stress in fine-grained soils was suggested by Kulhawy and
angles may not always agree with the empirical correlations Mayne (1990)


Fig. 8. Contours of peak friction angle, fp0 (thick lines), on normal- 0 qt s vo
ized Qtn–Fr chart for uncemented Holocene-age sandy soils.
½32 ðsu =s vo Þ¼ 0
ð1=Nkt Þ ¼ Qtn =Nkt
s vo
where Nkt is a cone factor that varies from about 10 to 20,
φ 'p with an average of 14.
φ 'p = 42
Hence, for the general value of Nkt = 14
0
½33 ðsu =s vo Þ ¼ Qtn =14
For a normally consolidated fine-grained soil where

0
ðsu =s vo ÞNC ¼ 0:22 and Nkt = 14, (Qtn)NC = 3.08 with a range
from 2 to 6.
Lunne et al. (1997) and others have shown that the sleeve
Kulhawy friction values are often similar to the remolded undrained

and Mayne
(1990) shear strength of fine-grained soils. Figure 9 shows an ex-
ample of a comparison between the remolded undrained
shear strength measured using the field vane test and the
measured CPT sleeve friction at Scoggins Dam (Farrar et
al. 2008). Good agreement was obtained between the sleeve
friction measurements and the remolded undrained shear
strength. Lunne et al. (1997) correctly caution that in very
Normalized friction ratio, Fr sensitive soft clays, the small remolded strength can result
in very low sleeve friction values with an inherent loss of
accuracy. Based on the assumption that the sleeve friction
( fs) measures the remolded shear strength of the soil (i.e.,
qt s vo
½29 OCR ¼ k ¼ kQtn su(r) = fs), the remolded undrained shear strength ratio is
0
s vo given by
0 0
or ½34 suðrÞ =s vo ¼ fs =s vo ¼ ðFr Qtn Þ=100
½30 s p0 ¼ kðqt s vo Þ By combining eqs. [33] and [34], soil sensitivity, St, can
also be estimated using
where k is the preconsolidation cone factor and s p0 is the ½35 St ¼ su =suðrÞ ¼ 7:1=Fr
preconsolidation or yield stress.
An average value of k = 0.33 can be assumed, with an ex- where the constant (7.1 in eq. [35]) varies from about 5 to
pected range of 0.2 to 0.5. The higher values of k are recom- 10 with an average of about 7.1. This is similar to the value
mended in aged, heavily overconsolidated clays. If previous of 7.5 suggested by Rad and Lunne (1986) using the non-
experience is available in the same deposit, the values of k normalized friction ratio (Rf) and the value of 7.3 suggested
should be adjusted to reflect this experience and to provide by Mayne (2007).
a more reliable profile of the OCR. Estimates of the OCR Based on eq. [34], it is possible to represent approximate
0
using eq. [29] are not strongly influenced by soil sensitivity, contours of (suðrÞ =s vo ) on the normalized SBTn chart, as
as the range of values for k does not vary greatly. This topic shown in Fig. 10. Note that as sensitivity increases, the con-
will be discussed further in a later section. tours move toward region 1, which is identified as ‘‘sensitive
0
fine-grained soils’’. The contours of (suðrÞ =s vo ) are presented
Undrained shear strength ratio (su =s vo 0
) as a guide, as any lack of accuracy in sleeve friction meas-
0
Application of the undrained strength ratio (su =s vo ) can be urements will influence the result.
useful since this relates directly to the OCR. Critical-state As shown in eq. [32], the normalized cone resistance for
soil mechanics presents a relationship between the undrained normally consolidated clay (Qtn)NC is in the range 2 to 6
shear strength ratio for normally consolidated fine-grained with an average of 3.08. Hence, for insensitive normally
soil under different directions of loading and the effective consolidated fine-grained soil the normalized cone value
stress friction angle, f0 (Ohta et al. 1985). (Qtn) ranges between 2 and 6 and falls on or close to the
0
contour for (suðrÞ =s vo ) = 0.22, as shown in Fig. 10. As sensi-
For normally consolidated fine-grained soil, the undrained
tivity increases, the cone factor (Nkt) decreases slightly
shear strength ratio ranges from 0.2 to 0.3 (Jamiolkowski et
(Lunne et al. 1997). Hence, values of Qtn also decrease
al. 1985) with an average value of 0.22 in direct simple
slightly as sensitivity increases. This variation is illustrated
shear; hence, it is often reasonable to assume
by the arrow in Fig. 10 that shows how normalized cone
0 values Qtn and Fr vary with sensitivity for a normally con-
½31 ðsu =s vo ÞNC ¼ 0:22
solidated fine-grained soil. Values of sensitivity (for nor-
in direct simple shear, where the subscript NC represents mally consolidated soils, OCR = 1.0) are also shown on the
normally consolidated. contours in Fig. 10.
The peak undrained shear strength ratio can be estimated For insensitive (St = 1.0) fine-grained soils, it is also pos-
using sible to identify contours of the OCR using eq. [29] and as-

Robertson 1349
Fig. 9. Comparison between CPT sleeve friction and field vane remolded undrained shear strengths, Scoggins Dam (adapted from Farrar et
al. 2008).
BERM TOE
65 65
Elevation (m)
Elevation (m)
60
60
55 55
0 100 200 300 0 100 200 300

Remolded shear strength (kPa) Remolded shear strength (kPa)
CPT sleeve friction CPT sleeve friction

VST remolded VST remolded
Fig. 10. Contours of remolded undrained shear strength ratio strongly influenced by soil sensitivity, which explains why
0
(suðrÞ =s vo ) plus trends in the OCR and soil sensitivity on normalized estimates of the undrained shear strength ratio and the OCR
Qtn–Fr chart. from Qtn are generally quite reliable. Likewise, Fr is not
strongly influenced by the OCR, but is more controlled by
soil sensitivity. Based on these observations and the fact
that Nkt is close to 14 for many insensitive fine-grained
soils, the following simplified approach to estimate sensitiv-
ity and peak undrained strength ratio in direct simple shear

is recommended:
½36 St ¼ 7:1=Fr
r 0
½37 ðsu =s vo Þ ¼ Qtn =Nkt ðwhere initial Nkt ¼ 14Þ
If the estimated sensitivity is high, the undrained strength

ratio should be modified using smaller values for Nkt. If
Normally CPT pore-pressure measurements are made, the normalized
consolidated parameter Bq can also be used to estimate Nkt, as suggested
by Lunne et al. (1997). For sensitive clays (St > 10), the
value of fs (and hence Fr) can be very low with an inherent
Normalized friction ratio, Fr loss in accuracy. Hence, the estimate of sensitivity should be
used only as a guide. The field vane shear test (VST) can be
suming su(r) = su, as shown in Fig. 10. It is possible to in- used to verify soil sensitivity, where appropriate. An alter-
clude an arrow that shows how normalized cone values nate but similar approach is to first estimate the OCR via
vary with OCR for insensitive fine-grained soil. Figure 10 Qtn (eq. [29]), then estimate the undrained strength ratio via
clearly shows that the normalized cone values, Qtn and Fr, the OCR using relationships based on critical-state soil me-
in most natural soils, are functions of both the OCR and chanics to account for direction of loading (Mayne 2008).
soil sensitivity (St). For larger, moderate- to high-risk projects, where addi-
The challenge for engineers is to separate the influence of tional high quality field and laboratory data may be avail-
sensitivity and the OCR from the measured values of nor- able, site-specific correlations should be developed based on
malized cone resistance. Figure 10 shows that Qtn is not consistent and relevant values of both su and the OCR.

Constrained modulus, M Fig. 11. Contours of 1-D constrained modulus number, KM, on nor-
0
Consolidation settlements (at the end of primary consoli- malized Qtn–Fr chart. M ¼ KM Pa ðs vo =pa Þa .
dation) can be estimated using the one-dimensional (1-D)
constrained tangent modulus, M, (Lunne et al. 1997) where
0
½38 M ¼ 1=mv ¼ ds v =d3 ¼ 2:3ð1 þ e0 Þs vo =Cc=r

where mv is the equivalent oedometer coefficient of com-
pressibility, dsv is the change in vertical stress, d3 is the
change in vertical strain, e0 is the initial void ratio, and Cc/r
0
is the compression index, either Cc or Cr, depending on s vo .
Mayne (2007) has shown that the ratio of M/G0 varies
from 0.02 to 2 for soft clays to sands. Using the link be-
tween normalized cone values and G0 as a starting point, it

is possible to develop contours of the constrained modulus
number, KM, on the normalized soil behaviour type (SBTn)
chart, Qtn–Fr, as shown in Fig. 11, where
0
½39 M ¼ KM pa ðs vo =pa Þa
where a is a stress exponent.
Janbu (1963) showed that the stress exponent (a) was
Normalized friction ratio, Fr
equal to 1.0 for stresses above the preconsolidation stress
and zero below the preconsolidation stress (i.e., M is ap-
proximately constant below the preconsolidation stress).
Hence, at stresses less than the preconsolidation stress To evaluate the suggested correlation for M for relatively
soft, fine-grained soils (clays), where Qtn £ 14, results from
½40 M ¼ KM pa
an unpublished database (courtesy of P. Mayne, Georgia In-

stitute of Technology (Georgia Tech), Atlanta, Ga., 2008) of
The flat dilatometer test (DMT) has often been shown to
CPT and laboratory results from 13 major clays sites around
provide excellent estimates of settlement using predicted
the world were used and the results presented in Fig. 12.
values of the 1-D constrained modulus (Monaco et al.
Figure 12 shows the comparisons between the measured val-
2006). The shape and location of the contours of KM were
ues for the 1-D constrained modulus based on samples and
guided by recent correlations between normalized DMT and
CPT parameters (Robertson 2009). The shape of the con- the predicted values based on eq. [42] using aM = Qtn. The
tours was also guided by existing relationships between M predicted values are in good agreement, but on average
and net cone resistance (qt – svo). slightly larger than the measured values. However, sample
disturbance may have made the measured values somewhat
Existing correlations between constrained modulus and low. The largest error was for the Bothkennar site in the
cone resistance typically have the form UK, which is a structured clay.
½41 M ¼ aM ðqt s vo Þ The number of published test sites with stiff fine-grained
soils, where Qtn > 14, are few (Cowden, UK; Madingley,
where aM is the constrained modulus cone factor. UK; Piedmont, USA). The results from these three sites in-
Sanglerat (1972) suggested that aM varies with soil plasti- dicate a range for aM from 4.5 to 6.5, compared with the
city and natural water content for a wide range of fine- suggested value of 14. In stiff clay sites, problems with sam-
grained and organic soils, although the data were based on ple disturbance become significant and laboratory values are
qc. Mayne (2007) showed that aM varied with soil type and almost certainly low. Mayne (2005) has shown that the
net cone resistance with values from 1 to 10, where the low short-term settlement of footings and piles can be accurately
values apply to soft clays. predicted using measured shear-wave velocity in a wide
Based on the contours shown in Fig. 11 and eq. [41], the range of clays. As suggested in Fig. 11, as soils become
following simplified correlation is suggested. stiffer, settlements are controlled more by shear stiffness
When Ic > 2.2 use than consolidation.
Although a reasonable correlation exists between pre-
aM ¼ Qtn when Qtn 14
½42 dicted and measured values of the constrained modulus
aM ¼ 14 when Qtn > 14 based on samples and laboratory testing, it is better to eval-
When Ic < 2.2 use uate the proposed correlations using full-scale field tests.
To evaluate the proposed correlations further, the results
½43 aM ¼ 0:03 10ð0:55Ic þ1:68Þ from a full-scale instrumented test embankment (40 m diam-
eter, 6.7 m height, applied load 104 kPa) constructed at a
Equation [42] shows that when Qtn £ 14, aM varies from site in Treporti, Italy, were reviewed (Simonini 2004; Mar-
about 2 to 14, which is similar to that observed by Mayne chetti et al. 2006). The test embankment was constructed
(2007), but there is a clearer link on how to select the appro- over a complex system of interbedded sands, silts, and silty
priate value for aM. clays with inclusions of peat that represent the Venice la-

Robertson 1351
Fig. 12. Predicted 1-D constrained modulus, M, based on cone penetration testing using aM = Qtn (where Qtn £ 14), compared with mea-
sured values based on samples and laboratory testing for soft clay sites.
100.0
Bangkok
Bothkennar
Dramen
Laboratory measured (MPa)

Onsoy
Brent Cross
10.0 Pentre
Montalto
Lilla Mellosa
Ska Edeby
Fucino
Pisa Pancone
1.0 Amherst
Evanston
0.1
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
CPT predicted (MPa)
goon. Instrumentation installed and monitored during load- from the CPT (measured every 20 mm) shows more varia-
ing of the embankment made it possible to back-calculate bility. The calculated end of primary 1-D settlement using
the mobilized 1-D constrained modulus in the various soil the CPT estimated values for M is 400 mm compared with
layers beneath the embankment. Details on the site condi- the measured 360 mm. The results from this instrumented
tions, embankment, and instrumentation are provided by Si- case history provide a better evaluation of the proposed
monini (2004). method than the 13 test sites (shown in Fig. 12) because the
Marchetti et al. (2006) presented a summary of the back- instrumented case history avoids problems associated with
calculated moduli from the embankment performance. Val- sample disturbance and laboratory test accuracy.
ues of back-calculated constrained moduli (M) vary from The full-scale instrumented test embankment shows that
5 MPa in soft clay to 150 MPa in some sand layers. The the proposed correlations between CPT and 1-D constrained
high silt content of the deposits produced rapid consolida- moduli appear to provide good estimates, at least in nor-
tion. Piezometer readings from the instrumentation indicated mally consolidated soils.
no detectable excess pore pressure due to consolidation in In general, estimates of the 1-D constrained modulus, M,
any layer during embankment construction. The total settle- from undrained cone penetration will be approximate. Esti-
ment under the center of the embankment at the end of con- mates can be improved with additional information about
struction (i.e., after 180 days) was 360 mm. After 540 days, the soil, such as plasticity index and natural moisture con-
the total settlement was 480 mm. Hence, secondary settle- tent, where aM is lower for organic soils.
ment was about 25% of the total settlement at 540 days.
The measurement of local vertical strains at 1 m depth inter- Summary and conclusions
vals, down to 57 m, were obtained using high accuracy mul-
tiple extensometers. Figure 13a shows the distribution with The CPT has major advantages over traditional methods
depth of local vertical strain, 3v, measured at the center of because it is fast, repeatable, and economical. In addition, it
the embankment at the end of construction (i.e., 180 days) provides near-continuous data and has a strong theoretical
and clearly shows that vertical strains and settlements are background. These advantages have led to a steady increase
mostly concentrated in the shallow soft clay layer at 1.5 to in the use and application of the CPT in North America and
2 m depth and in the silt layer between 8 and 17 m. A com- many other places around the world. An update on the stress
parison between the vertical and horizontal displacements normalization for normalized cone resistance, Qtn, has been
measured by inclinometers indicated that the total vertical provided in an effort to improve the application of the CPT
displacements were one order of magnitude greater than the for identifying soil behaviour type and various soil parame-
maximum horizontal displacements, i.e., soil compression ters over a wide stress range. CPT parameters can be used to
occurred mostly in the vertical direction. Figure 13b shows provide an estimate of soil behaviour type (SBT) that may
a comparison between the back-calculated values of the 1-D not always agree with traditional soil classifications based
constrained moduli and those predicted from the CPT using on grain-size distribution and soil plasticity. Hence, caution
the proposed relationships. The comparison is very good, es- should be used in general when comparing CPT-based SBT
pecially over the depth interval from 8 to 17 m where much to classifications based on samples.
of the vertical strain occurred. Since the back-calculated val- As CPT data are essentially collected continuously, there
ues were obtained over 1 m intervals, the predicted values can be misinterpretation when the cone is in transition at or

Fig. 13. (a) Measured distribution of vertical strains beneath full-scale instrumented test embankment at Treporti test site. (b) Comparison
between measured and CPT-based predicted 1-D constrained modulus.
ε v (%) M (MPa)
(a) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 (b) 0 10 20 30 40 50
Depth (m) 10 10
20 20
30 30
40 40
Measured
Calculated from the CPT
near an interface between soils of significantly different methods can also be used to quantify the natural variability
strength and stiffness. Recommendations are provided to of CPT results (Lunne et al. 1997).
identify these transitions zones using the rate of change of Many of the recommendations contained in this paper are
the SBTn index, Ic, near the boundary value of 2.60.
focused on low- to moderate-risk projects where traditional

A number of new empirical correlations have been pro- methods are appropriate and where empirical interpretation
vided to estimate various key geotechnical parameters from tends to dominate. For projects where more advanced meth-
CPT results. Most correlations have been presented in the ods are more appropriate, the recommendations provided in
form of contours on the normalized soil behaviour type chart this paper can be used as a screening to evaluate critical
(SBTn) in terms of normalized parameters Qtn–Fr. The cor- regions–zones where selective additional in situ testing and
relations for soil modulus (E’ and G0) are for predominately sampling maybe appropriate.
uncemented Holocene- and Pleistocene-age soils. New cor-
relations have also been presented to predict the 1-D con- Acknowledgments
strained modulus (M) from normalized CPT parameters.
This research could not have been carried out without the
The new correlations have the advantage that they apply
support, encouragement, and input from John Gregg, Kelly
over a wide range of soil types and compare favorably with
Cabal, and other staff at Gregg Drilling and Testing Inc. Ad-
existing correlations and with full-scale instrumented field
ditional input and assistance was provided by John Ioan-
tests. Additional full-scale field tests will aid in further eval-
nides and Konstantinos Lontzetidis. The comments provided
uation and possible adjustment of the proposed correlations.
by Professor P. Mayne are greatly appreciated. The sharing
Trends in the variation of Qtn–Fr have been identified for of data by Paul Mayne, James Schneider, Paulo Simonini,
changes in the OCR and soil sensitivity for fine-grained and Silvano Marchetti is also appreciated. The author is
soils that can aid in the separation of these factors from also grateful for the teaching, guidance, and encouragement
CPT results. provided by Professor Dick Campanella since their first col-
Throughout this paper, use has be made of the normalized laboration over 28 years ago.
soil behaviour type (SBTn) chart using normalized CPT pa-
rameters Qtn–Fr. Hence, accuracy in both qt and fs are im- References
portant, particularly in soft fine-grained soil. Accuracy in
Ahmadi, M.M., and Robertson, P.K. 2005. Thin layer effects on the
both qt and fs measurements requires attention to details on
CPT qc measurement. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 42(5):
unequal end-area effects, tolerance requirements, and zero- 1302–1317. doi:10.1139/t05-036.
load readings. Although sleeve friction, fs, measurements Anderson, J.B., Townsend, F.C., and Rahelison, L. 2007. Load test-
are not always as accurate as cone resistance, qt, the pro- ing and settlement prediction of shallow foundation. Journal of
posed correlations are not overly sensitive to variations in Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 133(12):
fs. For example, in the central region of the SBTn chart 1494–1502. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2007)133:12(1494).
where most soils plot (see Fig. 2), a variation in fs of ±50% Andrus, R.D., Mohanan, N.P., Piratheepan, P., Ellis, B.S., and Hol-
results in a variation in Ic of less than ±10%. Most natural zer, T.L. 2007. Predicting shear-wave velocity from cone pene-
soil deposits are not perfectly homogeneous and there is al- tration resistance. In Proceedings of 4th International
ways some variation in measured CPT parameters. It is Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, Thessalo-
often useful to see the measured CPT results plotted on the niki, Greece, 25–28 June 2007. Springer, New York. Paper No.
SBTn charts to evaluate the natural variation. Statistical 1454.

Robertson 1353
ASTM. 2000. Standard test method for performing electronic fric- and CPTu methods applied to 102 case histories. Canadian Geo-
tion cone and piezocone penetration testing of soils. ASTM technical Journal, 34(6): 886–898. doi:10.1139/cgj-34-6-886.
standard D5778–95. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, Fahey, M., and Carter, J.P. 1993. A finite element study of the
Pa. pressuremeter in sand using a nonlinear elastic plastic model.
ASTM. 2006. Standard practice for classification of soils for engi- Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 30(2): 348–362.
neering purposes (Unified Soil Classification System). ASTM Farrar, J.A., Torres, R., and Crutchfiedl, L.G. 2008. Cone penet-
standard D2487. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, Pa. rometer testing, Scoggins Dam, Tualatin Project, Oregon. Engi-
Baldi, G., Bellotti, R., Ghionna, V.N., Jamiolkowski, M., and Lo neering Geology Group Bureau of Reclamation, Technical
Presti, D.F.C. 1989. Modulus of sands from CPTs and DMTs. Services Center, Denver, Colo. Report No. 86–68320.
In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Soil Me- Hardin, B.O., and Drnevich, V.P. 1972. Shear modulus and damp-
chanics and Foundation Engineering, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 13– ing in soils: Design equations and curves. Journal of the Soil
18 August 1989. Balkema, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Vol. 1, Mechanics and Foundations Division. ASCE, 98(7): 667–692.
pp. 165–170. Hegazy, Y.A., and Mayne, P.W. 1995. Statistical correlations be-
Bellotti, R., Ghionna, V.N., Jamiolkowski, M., and Robertson, P.K. tween VS and cone penetration data for different soil types. In
1989. Design parameters of cohesionless soils from in situ tests. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Cone Penetra-
Transportation Research Record, 1235: 45–54. tion Testing, CPT ’95, Linköping, Sweden, 4–5 October 1995.
Bolton, M.D. 1986. The strength and dilatancy of sands. Géotech- Swedish Geotechnical Society, Linköping, Sweden. Vol. 2,
nique, 36(1): 65–78. pp. 173–178.
Boulanger, R.W. 2003. High overburden stress effects in liquefac- Hight, D., and Leroueil, S. 2003. Characterization of soils for engi-
tion analyses. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental neering purposes. In Characterization and engineering properties
Engineering, 129(12): 1071–1082. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090- of natural soils, Vol. 1. Swets and Sitlinger, Lisse, the Nether-
0241(2003)129:12(1071). lands. pp. 255–360.
Boulanger, R.W., and Idriss, I.M. 2004. State normalization of pe- Idriss, I.M., and Boulanger, R.W. 2004. Semi-empirical procedures
netration resistance and the effect of overburden stress on lique- for evaluating liquefaction potential during earthquakes. In Pro-
faction resistance. In Proceedings of the 11th International ceedings of the 11th International Conference on Soil Dynamics
Conference on Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Ber- and Earthquake Engineering, Berkeley, Calif., 7–9 January
keley, Calif., 7–9 January 2004. American Society of Civil En- 2004. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Va. pp. 32–
gineers, Reston, Va. pp. 484–491. 56.

Briaud, J.L., and Gibbens, R. 1999. Behavior of five large spread ISSMFE. 1999. International reference test procedure for cone pe-
footings in sand. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental netration test (CPT). Report of the International Society for Soil
Engineering, 125(9): 787–796. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090- Mechanics and Foundation Engineering (ISSMFE) Technical
0241(1999)125:9(787). Committee on Penetration Testing of Soils, TC 16. Swedish
Campanella, R.G., Gillespie, D., and Robertson, P.K. 1982. Pore Geotechnical Institute, Linköping, Sweden. Information 7,
pressures during cone penetration testing. In Proceedings of the pp. 6–16.
2nd European Symposium on Penetration Testing, ESPOT II, Jamiolkowski, M., and Robertson, P.K. 1988. Future trends for pe-
Amsterdam, 24–27 May 1982. Edited by A. Verruijt, F.L. Berin- netration testing. In Penetration testing in the UK. Thomas Tel-
gen, and E.H. de Leeuw. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, the Nether- ford, London. pp. 321–342.
lands. pp. 507–512. Jamiolkowski, M., Ladd, C.C., Germaine, J.T., and Lancellotta, R.
Cetin, K.O., and Isik, N.S. 2007. Probabilistic assessment of stress 1985. New developments in field and laboratory testing of soils.
normalization for CPT data. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoen- In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Soil Me-
vironmental Engineering, 133(7): 887–897. doi:10.1061/(ASCE) chanics and Foundation Engineering, San Francisco, Calif., 12–
1090-0241(2007)133:7(887). 16 August 1985. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Douglas, B.J., and Olsen, R.S. 1981. Soil classification using elec- Vol. 1, pp. 57–153.
tric cone penetrometer. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Janbu, N. 1963. Soil compressibility as determined by oedometer
Cone Penetration Testing and Experience, St. Louis, Mo., 26– and triaxial tests. In Proceedings of the 2nd European Confer-
30 October 1981. Edited by G.M. Norris and R.D. Holtz. Geo- ence on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Wiesba-
technical Engineering Division, American Society of Civil Engi- den, Germany, 15–18 October 1963. Deutsche Gesellschaft für
neers, New York. pp. 209–227. Erd- und Grundbau, Essen, Germany. Vol. 1, pp. 19–25.
Eslaamizaad, S., and Robertson, P.K. 1996a. Seismic cone penetra- Jefferies, M.G., and Been, K. 2006. Soil liquefaction – A critical
tion test to identify cemented sands. In Proceedings of the 49th state approach. Taylor & Francis Group, London and New
Canadian Geotechnical Conference, St. John’s, N.L., 23–25 Sep- York. ISBN 0-419-16170-8.
tember 1996. Edited by J.I. Clark. Canadian Geotechnical So- Jefferies, M.G., and Davies, M.O. 1991. Soil classification by the
ciety, Richmond, B.C. pp. 352–360. cone penetration test: Discussion. Canadian Geotechnical Jour-
Eslaamizaad, S., and Robertson, P.K. 1996b. Cone penetration test nal, 28(1): 173–176. doi:10.1139/t91-023.
to evaluate bearing capacity of foundation in sands. In Proceed- Jefferies, M.G., and Davies, M.P. 1993. Use of CPTU to estimate
ings of the 49th Canadian Geotechnical Conference, St. John’s, equivalent SPT N60. Geotechnical Testing Journal, 16(4): 458–
N.L., 23–25 September 1996. Edited by J.I. Clark. Canadian 468. doi:10.1520/GTJ10286J.
Geotechnical Society, Richmond, B.C. pp. 429–438. Kulhawy, F.H., and Mayne, P.H. 1990. Manual on estimating soil
Eslaamizaad, S., and Robertson, P.K. 1997. Evaluation of settle- properties for foundation design. Electric Power Research Insti-
ment of footings on sand from seismic in-sity tests. In Proceed- tute (EPRI), Palo Alto, Calif. Report EL-6800.
ings of the 50th Canadian Geotechnical Conference, Ottawa, Long, M. 2008. Design parameters from in situ tests in soft
Ont., 20–22 October 1997. BiTech Publishers, Richmond, B.C. ground — recent developments. In Geotechnical and Geophysi-
Vol. 2, pp. 755–764. cal Site Characterization, Proceedings of the Third International
Eslami, A., and Fellenius, B.H. 1997. Pile Capacity by direct CPT Conference on Site Characterization, Taipei, Taiwan, 1–4 April

2008. Edited by A.-B. Huang and P.W. Mayne. Taylor & Fran- Ruiter. Balkema, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Vol. 2, pp. 887–
cis Group, London. pp. 89–116 893.
Lunne, T., and Andersen, K.H. 2007. Soft clay shear strength para- Olsen, R.S., and Mitchell, J.K. 1995. CPT stress normalization and
meters for deepwater geotechnical design. In Proceedings of the prediction of soil classification. In Proceedings of the Interna-
6th International Conference on Offshore Site Investigation and tional Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing, Linköping,
Geotechnics, London, 11–13 September 2007. Society for Un- Sweden, 4–5 October 1995. Vol. 2. Swedish Geotechnical So-
derwater Technology, London. pp. 151–176. ciety, Linköping, Sweden. pp. 257–262.
Lunne, T., Eidsmoen, T., Gillespie, D., and Howland, J.D. 1986. Plewes, H.D., Davies, M.P., and Jefferies, M.G. 1992. CPT based
Laboratory and field evaluation on cone penetrometers. In Pro- screening procedure for evaluating liquefaction susceptibility. In
ceedings of ASCE Specialty Conference In Situ’86: Use of In Proceedings of the 45th Canadian Geotechnical Conference,
Situ Tests in Geotechnical Engineering, Blacksburg, Va., 23– Toronto, Ont., 26–28 October 1992. BiTech Publishers Ltd.,
25 June 1986. Geotechnical Special Publication No. 6. Edited Richmond, B.C. pp. 41–49.
by S.P. Clemence. American Society of Civil Engineers Rad, N.S., and Lunne, T. 1986. Correlations between piezocone re-
(ASCE), New York. pp. 714–729. sults and laboratory soil properties. Norwegian Geotechnical In-
Lunne, T., Robertson, P.K., and Powell, J.J.M. 1997. Cone penetra- stitute, Oslo, Norway. pp. 306–317. Report 52155.
tion testing in geotechnical practice. Blackie Academic, EF Robertson, P.K. 1990. Soil classification using the cone penetration
Spon/Routledge, New York. test. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 27(1): 151–158. doi:10.
Marchetti, S., Monaco, P., Calabrese, M., and Totani, G. 2006. 1139/t90-014.
Comparison of moduli determined by DMT and backfigured Robertson, P.K. 1995. Penetrometer testing – Session IV: Modera-
from local strain measurements under a 40 m diameter circular tors report. In Proceedings of the Conference on Advances in
test load in the Venice Area. In Proceedings of the 2nd Interna- Site Investigation Practice, London, 30–31 March 1995. Thomas
tional Flat Dilatometer Conference, Washington, D.C., 2–5 April Telford, London.
2006. pp. 220–230. Insitu, Va. Robertson, P.K. 1998. Risk-based site investigation. Geotechnical
Mayne, P.W. 2000. Enhanced geotechnical site characterization by News, 16(3): 45–47.
seismic piezocone penetration tests. In Proceedings of the 4th Robertson, P.K. 2009. CPT–DMT correlations. Journal of Geotech-
International Geotechnical Conference, Invited Lecture, Cairo, nical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 135(11): 1762–1771.
Egypt. Edited by M.M. Abdel-Rahman, S.W. Agaiby, and M.A. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000119.
Fam. Soil Mechanics and Foundation Research Laboratory, Fa- Robertson, P.K., and Campanella, R.G. 1983a. Interpretation of
culty of Engineering, Cairo University, Egypt. pp. 95–120. cone penetration tests. Part I: sand. Canadian Geotechnical Jour-
Mayne, P.W. 2005. Integrated ground behavior: In-situ and lab nal, 20(4): 718–733. doi:10.1139/t83-078.
tests. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Defor- Robertson, P.K., and Campanella, R.G. 1983b. Interpretation of
mation Characteristics of Geomaterials, Lyon, France, 22– cone penetration tests. Part II: clay. Canadian Geotechnical Jour-
24 September 2005. Taylor & Francis Group, London. Vol. 2, nal, 20(4): 734–745. doi:10.1139/t83-079.
pp. 155–177. Robertson, P.K., and Campanella, R.G. 1989. Design manual for
Mayne, P.W. 2007.Cone penetration testing: A synthesis of high- use of CPT and CPTU. The University of British Columbia,
way practice. Project 20-5. Transportation Research Board, Wa- Vancouver, B.C.
shington, D.C. NCHRP synthesis 368. Robertson, P.K., and Wride, C.E. 1998. Evaluating cyclic liquefac-
Mayne, P.W. 2008. Piezocone profiling of clays for maritime site tion potential using the cone penetration test. Canadian Geotech-
investigations. In Proceedings of the 11th Baltic Sea Geotechni- nical Journal, 35(3): 442–459. doi:10.1139/cgj-35-3-442.
cal Conference, Gdansk, Poland, 15–18 September 2008. Inter- Robertson, P.K., Campanella, R.G., Gillespie, D., and Greig, J.
national Society for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical 1986a. Use of piezometer cone data. In Proceedings of ASCE
Engineering, London. pp. 151–178. Specialty Conference In Situ’86: Use of In Situ Tests in Geo-
Molle, J. 2005. The accuracy of the interpretation of CPT-based technical Engineering, Blacksburg, Va., 23–25 June 1986. Geo-
soil classification methods in soft soils. M.Sc. thesis, Section technical Special Publication No. 6. Edited by S.P. Clemence.
for Engineering Geology, Department of Applied Earth American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), New York. pp.
Sciences, Delf University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands. 1263–1280.
Report No. 242, Report AES/IG/05–25. Robertson, P.K., Campanella, R.G., Gillespie, D., and Rice, A.
Monaco, P., Totani, G., and Calabrese, M. 2006. DMT-predicted 1986b. Seismic CPT to measure in-situ shear wave velocity.
vs. observed settlements: A review of the available experience. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE,
In Proceedings of the 2nd International Flat Dilatometer Confer- 112(8): 791–803. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1986)
ence, Washington D.C., April 2006. pp. 244–252. 112:8(791).
Moss, R.E.S., Seed, R.B., and Olsen, R.S. 2006. Normalizing the Robertson, P.K., Woeller, D.J., and Finn, W.D.L. 1992. Seismic
CPT for overburden stress. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoen- cone penetration test for evaluating liquefaction potential. Cana-
vironmental Engineering, 132(3): 378–387. doi:10.1061/(ASCE) dian Geotechnical Journal, 29(4): 686–695. doi:10.1139/t92-075.
1090-0241(2006)132:3(378). Sanglerat, G. 1972. The penetrometer and soil exploration. Elsevier
Ohta, H., Nishihara, A., and Morita, Y. 1985. Undrained stability Science Ltd., Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
of Ko-consolidated clays. In Proceedings of 11th International Schnaid, F. 2005. Geocharacterization and Engineering properties
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering of natural soils by in-situ tests. In Proceedings of the 16th Inter-
(ICSMFE), San Francisco, Calif., 12–16 August 1985 A.A. national Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engi-
Balkema, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Vol. 2, pp. 613–661. neering, Osaka, Japan, 12–16 September 2005. Millpress,
Olsen, R.S., and Malone, P.G. 1988. Soil classification and site Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Vol. 1, pp. 3–45.
characterization using the cone penetrometer test. In Proceedings Schneider, J.A., McGillivray, A.V., and Mayne, P.W. 2004. Eva-
of the First International Symposium on Penetration Testing, luation of SCPTU intra-correlations at sand sites in the Lower
ISOPT-1, Orlando, Fla., 20–24 March 1988. Edited by J.A. De Mississippi River valley, USA. In Proceedings of the 2nd Inter-

Robertson 1355
national Conference on Site Characterization, ISC’2, Geotechni- als under high stresses. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foun-
cal and Geophysical Site Characterization, Porto, Portugal, 19– dations Division, ASCE, 94(SM3): 313–326.
22 September 2004. Millpress, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Wride, C.E., Robertson, P.K., Biggar, K.W., Campanella, R.G.,
pp. 1003–1010. Hofmann, B.A., Hughes, J.M.O., Küpper, A., and Woeller, D.J.
Seed, H.B., and Idriss, I.M. 1970. Soil moduli and damping factors 2000. Interpretation of in situ test results from the CANLEX
for dynamics response analysis. University of California, Berke- sites. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 37(3): 505–529. doi:10.
ley, Calif. Report No. EERC 70–10. 1139/T00-044.
Shuttle, D.A., and Cunning, J. 2007. Liquefaction potential of silts Wroth, C.P. 1984. The interpretation of in-situ soil tests: Rankine
from CPTu. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 44(1): 1–19. doi:10. Lecture. Géotechnique, 34(4): 449–489.
1139/T06-086. Zhang, Z., and Tumay, M.T. 1999. Statistical to fuzzy approach to-
Simonini, P. 2004. Characterization of Venice lagoon silts from in- ward CPT soil classification. Journal of Geotechnical and
situ tests and performance of a test embankment. In Proceedings Geoenvironmental Engineering, 125(3): 179–186. doi:10.1061/
of the 2nd International Conference on Site Characterization, (ASCE)1090-0241(1999)125:3(179).
ISC’2, Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterization, Zhang, G., Robertson, P.K., and Brachman, R.W.I. 2002. Estimat-
Porto, Portugal, 19–22 September 2004. Millpress, Rotterdam, ing liquefaction-induced ground settlements from CPT for level
the Netherlands. Vol. 1, pp. 187–207. ground. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 39(5): 1168–1180.
Vesic, A.S., and Clough, G.W. 1968. Behaviour of granular materi- doi:10.1139/t02-047.

This article has been cited by:
1. Michael Ghali, Mohamed Chekired, Mourad Karray. 2020. Laboratory Simulator for Geotechnical Penetration Tests. Geotechnical
Testing Journal 43:1, 20170413. [Crossref]
2. Bashar Tarawneh, Wassel AL Bodour, Anis Shatnawi, Khaled Al Ajmi. 2019. Field evaluation and behavior of the soil improved
using dynamic replacement. Case Studies in Construction Materials 10, e00214. [Crossref]
3. Yi Zhang, António Topa Gomes, Michael Beer, Ingo Neumann, Udo Nackenhorst, Chul-Woo Kim. 2019. Reliability analysis with
consideration of asymmetrically dependent variables: Discussion and application to geotechnical examples. Reliability Engineering
& System Safety 185, 261-277. [Crossref]
4. Lea Obrocki, Andreas Vött, Dennis Wilken, Peter Fischer, Timo Willershäuser, Benjamin Koster, Franziska Lang, Ioannis
Papanikolaou, Wolfgang Rabbel, Klaus Reicherter. 2019. Tracing tsunami signatures of the ad 551 and ad 1303 tsunamis at
the Gulf of Kyparissia (Peloponnese, Greece) using direct push in situ sensing techniques combined with geophysical studies.
Sedimentology 14. . [Crossref]
5. Boris Kavur, Filip Dodigovic, Jasmin Jug, Stjepan Strelec. 2019. The Interpretation of CPTu, PMT, SPT and Cross-Hole Tests
in Stiff Clay. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 221, 012009. [Crossref]
6. Rui Yang, Jinsong Huang, D.V. Griffiths, Jinhui Li, Daichao Sheng. 2019. Importance of soil property sampling location in slope
stability assessment. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 56:3, 335-346. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
7. Shiva Prashanth Kumar Kodicherla, Darga Kumar Nandyala. 2019. Revisiting the CPT-based characterizations of a highway
subgrade. Geomechanics and Geoengineering 105, 1-11. [Crossref]
8. Hongjiang Li, Songyu Liu, Liyuan Tong. 2019. Evaluation of lateral response of single piles to adjacent excavation using data
from cone penetration tests. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 56:2, 236-248. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
9. B.W. Maurer, R.A. Green, S. van Ballegooy, L. Wotherspoon. 2019. Development of region-specific soil behavior type index
correlations for evaluating liquefaction hazard in Christchurch, New Zealand. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 117,
96-105. [Crossref]
10. Hamid Oladunjoye, Kayode Oyedele, Omolara Adenuga, Sofiat Adekoya. Evaluation of Some Part of Lagos (Nigeria) Wetland for
Liquefaction Vulnerability Using Integrated Approach 217-221. [Crossref]
11. Xiangrong Wang, Hui Wang, Robert Y. Liang, Yang Liu. 2019. A semi-supervised clustering-based approach for stratification
identification using borehole and cone penetration test data. Engineering Geology 248, 102-116. [Crossref]
12. Zhijun Jiang, Shengcai Li, Lei Zhang, Tuo Song, Lingkun Chen. 2019. Estimation of Time-Averaged Shear Wave Velocity
(SWV) to 30 m considering Site SWV Structural Characteristic. Advances in Civil Engineering 2019, 1. [Crossref]
13. John Thornley, Utpal Dutta, Peter Fahringer, Zhaohui (Joey) Yang. 2019. In Situ Shear‐Wave Velocity Measurements at the
Delaney Park Downhole Array, Anchorage, Alaska. Seismological Research Letters 90:1, 395-400. [Crossref]
14. Ressol R. Shakir. 2018. Spatial Correlation of Cone Tip Resistance for Soil in Nasiriyah. The Open Civil Engineering Journal
12:1, 413-429. [Crossref]
15. Shehab S. Agaiby, Paul W. Mayne. 2018. Interpretation of piezocone penetration and dissipation tests in sensitive Leda clay at
Gloucester test site. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 55:12, 1781-1794. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
16. G.L. Hebeler, A. Martinez, J.D. Frost. 2018. Interface response-based soil classification framework. Canadian Geotechnical Journal
55:12, 1795-1811. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
17. Serge Varaksin, Babak Hamidi. 2018. The state of practice of in situ tests for design, quality control and quality assurance of
ground improvement works. Innovative Infrastructure Solutions 3:1. . [Crossref]
18. Hongjiang Li, Liyuan Tong, Songyu Liu. 2018. Effect of excavation unloading on p-y curves for laterally loaded piles. Computers
and Geotechnics 104, 131-139. [Crossref]
19. Monica Giona Bucci, Peter C. Almond, Pilar Villamor, Martitia P. Tuttle, Mark Stringer, Carol M.S. Smith, William Ries,
Joanne Bourgeois, Remedy Loame, Jamie Howarth, Matt Watson. 2018. Controls on patterns of liquefaction in a coastal dune
environment, Christchurch, New Zealand. Sedimentary Geology 377, 17-33. [Crossref]
20. Gerald A. Miller, Norman K. Tan, Rodney W. Collins, Kanthasamy K. Muraleetharan. 2018. Cone penetration testing in
unsaturated soils. Transportation Geotechnics 17, 85-99. [Crossref]
21. Hui Wang. 2018. Finding patterns in subsurface using Bayesian machine learning approach. Underground Space . [Crossref]
22. Kay Koster, Jan Stafleu, Esther Stouthamer. 2018. Differential subsidence in the urbanised coastal-deltaic plain of the Netherlands.
Netherlands Journal of Geosciences 97:4, 215-227. [Crossref]
23. Akira Kato, Yoshihiro Konno, Jun Yoneda, Masato Kida, Motoi Oshima, Yusuke Jin, Jiro Nagao, Norio Tenma. 2018. Evaluation
of failure modes and undrained shear strength by cone penetrometer for Natural Gas hydrate-bearing pressure-core sediment
samples recovered from the Krishna–Godavari Basin, offshore India. Marine and Petroleum Geology . [Crossref]
24. F. Taleb, S. Garziglia, N. Sultan. 2018. Hydromechanical Properties of Gas Hydrate-Bearing Fine Sediments From In Situ Testing.
Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 123:11, 9615-9634. [Crossref]
25. Ressol R. Shakir. 2018. Selecting the Probability Distribution of Cone Tip Resistance Using Moment Ratio Diagram for Soil
in Nasiriyah. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering 4. . [Crossref]
26. Haider S. Al-Jubair, Sarmad A. Abbas, Ali A. Al-Mutar. 2018. Finite element analysis of a soft cohesive soil improved by column-
like elements. International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 1-15. [Crossref]
27. Zb. Młynarek, J. Wierzbicki, W. Wołyński. 2018. Use of functional cluster analysis of CPTU data for assessment of a subsoil
rigidity. Studia Geotechnica et Mechanica 40:2, 117-124. [Crossref]
28. Reza Jamshidi Chenari, Hassan Kamyab Farahbakhsh, Sara Heidarie Golafzani, Abolfazl Eslami. 2018. Non-stationary realisation
of CPT data: considering lithological and inherent heterogeneity. Georisk: Assessment and Management of Risk for Engineered
Systems and Geohazards 12:4, 265-278. [Crossref]
29. Jinung Do, Ong Heo, Yeo-Won Yoon, Ilhan Chang. 2018. Geotechnical design parameter evaluation using the alluvial plain
characteristics in southeastern Iraq. Arabian Journal of Geosciences 11:20. . [Crossref]
30. Wei Duan, Guojun Cai, Songyu Liu, Yu Du, Liuwen Zhu, Anand J. Puppala. 2018. SPT–CPTU Correlations and Liquefaction
Evaluation for the Island and Tunnel Project of the Hong Kong–Zhuhai–Macao Bridge. International Journal of Civil Engineering
16:10, 1423-1434. [Crossref]
31. Haifeng Zou, Songyu Liu, Guojun Cai, Anand J. Puppala. 2018. Probabilistic identification of contaminated soils using resistivity
piezocone penetration tests. Acta Geotechnica 122. . [Crossref]
32. S. S. Gómez, A. V. Metrikine. 2018. The Energy Flow Analysis as a Tool for Identification of Damping in Tall Buildings Subjected
to Wind: Contributions of the Foundation and the Building Structure. Journal of Vibration and Acoustics 141:1, 011013. [Crossref]
33. Zhongkun Ouyang, Paul W. Mayne. 2018. Effective friction angle of clays and silts from piezocone penetration tests. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal 55:9, 1230-1247. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
34. Ressol R. Shakir. 2018. Probabilistic-based analysis of a shallow square footing using Monte Carlo simulation. Engineering Science
and Technology, an International Journal . [Crossref]
35. Christopher R. McGann, Brendon A. Bradley, Seokho Jeong. 2018. Empirical Correlation for Estimating Shear-Wave Velocity
from Cone Penetration Test Data for Banks Peninsula Loess Soils in Canterbury, New Zealand. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering 144:9, 04018054. [Crossref]
36. Zbigniew Młynarek, Jędrzej Wierzbicki, Katarzyna Stefaniak. 2018. Interrelationship between Undrained Shear Strength from
DMT and CPTU Tests for Soils of Different Origin. Geotechnical Testing Journal 41:5, 20170365. [Crossref]
37. Jinsong Huang, Dong Zheng, Dian-Qing Li, Richard Kelly, Scott William Sloan. 2018. Probabilistic characterization of two-
dimensional soil profile by integrating cone penetration test (CPT) with multi-channel analysis of surface wave (MASW) data.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal 55:8, 1168-1181. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
38. Zi-Jun Cao, Shuo Zheng, Dian-Qing Li, Kok-Kwang Phoon. Bayesian identification of soil stratigraphy based on soil behaviour
type index. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, ahead of print1-17. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
39. Mourad Karray, Mahmoud N. Hussien. 2018. Why is there a discrepancy in shear wave velocity – cone tip resistance (Vs–qc)
correlations’ trends with respect to grain size?. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 55:7, 1041-1047. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
[PDF Plus]
40. Christine Z. Beyzaei, Jonathan D. Bray, Misko Cubrinovski, Michael Riemer, Mark Stringer. 2018. Laboratory-based
characterization of shallow silty soils in southwest Christchurch. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 110, 93-109. [Crossref]
41. Zhongkun Ouyang, Paul W. Mayne. 2018. Effective Stress Strength Parameters of Clays from DMT. Geotechnical Testing Journal
41:5, 20170379. [Crossref]
42. Breno Padovezi Rocha, Heraldo Luiz Giacheti. 2018. Site Characterization of a Tropical Soil by In Situ Tests. DYNA 85:206,
211-219. [Crossref]
43. . Bibliography 177-203. [Crossref]
44. Xia Zhang, Chun-Ming Lin, Robert W. Dalrymple, Shu Gao, Daniel T. Canas. 2018. Use of the Cone Penetration Testing (CPT)
method to interpret late Quaternary tide-dominated successions: A case study from the eastern China coastal plain. Continental
Shelf Research 161, 49-57. [Crossref]
45. Nurhan Ecemis. 2018. Effect of Soil-Type and Fines Content on Liquefaction Resistance—Shear-Wave Velocity Correlation.
Journal of Earthquake Engineering 1, 1-25. [Crossref]
46. Matej Maček, Jasna Smolar, Ana Petkovšek. 2018. The reliability of CPTu and DMT for the mechanical characterisation of soft
tailings. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment 144. . [Crossref]
47. Te Xiao, Dian-Qing Li, Zi-Jun Cao, Li-Min Zhang. 2018. CPT-Based Probabilistic Characterization of Three-Dimensional
Spatial Variability Using MLE. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 144:5, 04018023. [Crossref]
48. Liyuan Tong, Hongbo Che, Mingfei Zhang, Hongjiang Li. 2018. Review of shear-wave velocity prediction equations based on
piezocone penetration test data: example from Yangtze River floodplain deposits at Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, China. Quarterly
Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology 51:2, 229-246. [Crossref]
49. Kay Koster, Ger De Lange, Ronald Harting, Eppie de Heer, Hans Middelkoop. 2018. Characterizing void ratio and compressibility
of Holocene peat with CPT for assessing coastal–deltaic subsidence. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology
51:2, 210-218. [Crossref]

50. Hyunwook Choo, Sung-Jin Hong, Woojin Lee, Changho Lee. 2018. Use of the dilatometer test to estimate the maximum shear
modulus of normally consolidated Busan clay. Marine Georesources & Geotechnology 177, 1-11. [Crossref]
51. Cormac Reale, Kenneth Gavin, Lovorka Librić, Danijela Jurić-Kaćunić. 2018. Automatic classification of fine-grained soils using
CPT measurements and Artificial Neural Networks. Advanced Engineering Informatics 36, 207-215. [Crossref]
52. Bashar Tarawneh, Andrey Sbitnev, Yasser Hakam. 2018. Estimation of pressuremeter modulus and limit pressure from Cone
Penetration Test for desert sands. Construction and Building Materials 169, 299-305. [Crossref]
53. M. Giona Bucci, P. Villamor, P. Almond, M. Tuttle, M. Stringer, W. Ries, C. Smith, M. Hodge, M. Watson. 2018. Associations
between sediment architecture and liquefaction susceptibility in fluvial settings: The 2010–2011 Canterbury Earthquake Sequence,
New Zealand. Engineering Geology 237, 181-197. [Crossref]
54. Christine Z. Beyzaei, Jonathan D. Bray, Sjoerd van Ballegooy, Misko Cubrinovski, Sarah Bastin. 2018. Depositional environment
effects on observed liquefaction performance in silt swamps during the Canterbury earthquake sequence. Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering 107, 303-321. [Crossref]

55. Tejo V Bheemasetti, Anand J Puppala, Louie Verreault, Aravind Pedarla, Yvette P Weatherton. 2018. Optimising geotechnical data
for analysis of levee resilience. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Engineering Sustainability 171:2, 90-101. [Crossref]
56. Tien D. Nguyen, Sung G. Chung. 2018. Ball penetration test for characterisation of soft clays. Proceedings of the Institution of
Civil Engineers - Geotechnical Engineering 171:2, 133-146. [Crossref]
57. L.Y. Tong, H.B. Che, M.F. Zhang, H.S. Pan. 2018. Determination of shear wave velocity of Yangtze Delta sediments using
seismic piezocone tests. Transportation Geotechnics 14, 29-40. [Crossref]
58. Pegah Jarast, Majid Ghayoomi. 2018. Numerical Modeling of Cone Penetration Test in Unsaturated Sand inside a Calibration
Chamber. International Journal of Geomechanics 18:2, 04017148. [Crossref]
59. Bashar Tarawneh, Jamal Nusairat, Yasser Hakam. 2018. Load testing and settlement of shallow foundation on desert sands.
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Geotechnical Engineering 171:1, 52-63. [Crossref]
60. Thomas Foulon, Ali Saeidi, Romain Chesnaux, Miroslav Nastev, Alain Rouleau. 2018. Spatial distribution of soil shear-wave
velocity and the fundamental period of vibration – a case study of the Saguenay region, Canada. Georisk: Assessment and Management
of Risk for Engineered Systems and Geohazards 12:1, 74-86. [Crossref]
61. Dušan BERISAVLJEVIĆ, Vladimir FILIPOVIĆ, Nenad STANISAVLJEVIĆ, Zoran BERISAVLJEVIĆ. 2018. Experimental
analysis of bi-directional pile static load test. ce/papers 2:2-3, 415. [Crossref]
62. Sharif Emad. Early Applications of DMT in Arabian Gulf Area – Three Case Studies 104-124. [Crossref]
63. Sara Rios, António Viana da Fonseca, Nuno Cristelo, Claver Pinheiro. Geotechnical Properties of Sediments by In Situ Tests
59-68. [Crossref]
64. Wei Duan, Guojun Cai, Jun Yuan, Songyu Liu. 689. [Crossref]
65. Kuikui Li, Wencheng Liang, Guojun Cai, Songyu Liu, Yu Du, Liuwen Zhu. 699. [Crossref]
66. Wei Duan, Guojun Cai, Haifeng Zou, Songyu Liu. Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential of Saturated Sands Based on Resistivity
Piezocone Penetration Testing?A Case Study 509-514. [Crossref]
67. Guojun Cai, Haifeng Zou, Yan Yang, Songyu Liu, Anand J. Puppala. Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential of Saturated Sands
Based on Resistivity Piezocone Penetration Testing 355-363. [Crossref]
68. Haifeng Zou, Songyu Liu, Guojun Cai, Anand J. Puppala. Multivariate Correlations Among SCPTU Parameters of Jiangsu
Cohesionless Soils 364-372. [Crossref]
69. Wei Duan, Guojun Cai, Songyu Liu, Jun Yuan, Anand J. Puppala. 2018. Assessment of Ground Improvement by Vibro-
compaction Method for Liquefiable Deposits from In-Situ Testing Data. International Journal of Civil Engineering . [Crossref]
70. J.P. Doherty, S. Gourvenec, F.M. Gaone. 2018. Insights from a shallow foundation load-settlement prediction exercise. Computers
and Geotechnics 93, 269-279. [Crossref]
71. Hendrik Paasche. 2018. About probabilistic integration of ill-posed geophysical tomography and logging data: A knowledge
discovery approach versus petrophysical transfer function concepts illustrated using cross-borehole radar-, P- and S-wave traveltime
tomography in combination with cone penetration and dielectric logging data. Journal of Applied Geophysics 148, 175-188.
[Crossref]
72. Xiangrong Wang, Hui Wang, Robert Y. Liang, Hehua Zhu, Honggui Di. 2018. A hidden Markov random field model based
approach for probabilistic site characterization using multiple cone penetration test data. Structural Safety 70, 128-138. [Crossref]
73. Hongjiang Li, Songyu Liu, Liyuan Tong, Kangda Wang, Si Ha. 2018. Estimating p - y Curves for Clays by CPTU Method:
Framework and Empirical Study. International Journal of Geomechanics 18:12, 04018165. [Crossref]
74. P.K. Robertson, A. Viana da Fonseca, B. Ulrich, J. Coffin. 2017. Characterization of unsaturated mine waste: a case history.
75. Yusuf Erzin, Nurhan Ecemis. 2017. The use of neural networks for the prediction of cone penetration resistance of silty sands.
Neural Computing and Applications 28:S1, 727-736. [Crossref]
76. Sayed M. Ahmed. 2017. Enhancing the CPT correlation with the small strain shear stiffness of sands. Ain Shams Engineering
Journal 8:4, 539-548. [Crossref]
77. Jianye Ching, Kok-Kwang Phoon, James L. Beck, Yong Huang. 2017. Identifiability of Geotechnical Site-Specific Trend Functions.
ASCE-ASME Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems, Part A: Civil Engineering 3:4, 04017021. [Crossref]
78. N. A. Teanby, J. Stevanović, J. Wookey, N. Murdoch, J. Hurley, R. Myhill, N. E. Bowles, S. B. Calcutt, W. T. Pike. 2017. Seismic
Coupling of Short-Period Wind Noise Through Mars’ Regolith for NASA’s InSight Lander. Space Science Reviews 211:1-4,
485-500. [Crossref]
79. Mourad Karray, Mahmoud N. Hussien. 2017. Shear wave velocity as function of cone penetration resistance and grain size for
Holocene-age uncemented soils: a new perspective. Acta Geotechnica 12:5, 1129-1158. [Crossref]
80. Eshan Ganju, Monica Prezzi, Rodrigo Salgado. 2017. Algorithm for generation of stratigraphic profiles using cone penetration
test data. Computers and Geotechnics 90, 73-84. [Crossref]
81. Hongliang Ma, Mi Zhou, Yuxia Hu, Muhammad Shazzad Hossain. 2017. Interpretation of Layer Boundaries and Shear Strengths
for Stiff-Soft-Stiff Clays Using Cone Penetration Test: LDFE Analyses. International Journal of Geomechanics 17:9, 06017011.
[Crossref]
82. Steven R. Saye, Jorge Santos, Scott M. Olson, Ryan D. Leigh. 2017. Linear Trendlines to Assess Soil Classification from Cone
Penetration Test Data. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 143:9, 04017060. [Crossref]
83. Mingfei Zhang, Liyuan Tong. 2017. New statistical and graphical assessment of CPT-based empirical correlations for the shear
wave velocity of soils. Engineering Geology 226, 184-191. [Crossref]
84. Jared Harnish, M. Hesham El Naggar. 2017. Large-diameter helical pile capacity – torque correlations. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal 54:7, 968-986. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
85. Llu?s Monforte, Josep Maria Carbonell, Marcos Arroyo, Antonio Gens. 2017. Performance of mixed formulations for the particle
finite element method in soil mechanics problems. Computational Particle Mechanics 4:3, 269-284. [Crossref]
86. Jianye Ching, Kok-Kwang Phoon. 2017. Characterizing Uncertain Site-Specific Trend Function by Sparse Bayesian Learning.
Journal of Engineering Mechanics 143:7, 04017028. [Crossref]
87. A. Sadrekarimi. 2017. Evaluation of Stress Normalization Methods for Cone-Penetration Testing in Quartz Sands. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 143:6, 06017003. [Crossref]
88. Klaus-Jürgen Melzer, Edwin Fecker, Tilman Westhaus. Baugrunduntersuchungen im Feld 45-137. [Crossref]
89. Christos Vrettos. Bodendynamik 573-631. [Crossref]
90. Changhong Wang, Carlos Andres Osorio-Murillo, Hehua Zhu, Yoram Rubin. 2017. Bayesian approach for calibrating
transformation model from spatially varied CPT data to regular geotechnical parameter. Computers and Geotechnics 85, 262-273.
[Crossref]
91. Dario Peduto, Maximilian Huber, Gianluca Speranza, Joris van Ruijven, Leonardo Cascini. 2017. DInSAR data assimilation for
settlement prediction: case study of a railway embankment in the Netherlands. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 54:4, 502-517.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
92. Pietro Vittorio Curzi, Laura Tonni, Guido Gottardi, Emanuele Mandanici. 2017. High resolution sedimentological and
geotechnical characterization of the Late Quaternary deposits in the Italian central Adriatic coast (Tronto River mouth).
Engineering Geology 220, 219-233. [Crossref]
93. Fei Han, Monica Prezzi, Rodrigo Salgado, Mir Zaheer. 2017. Axial Resistance of Closed-Ended Steel-Pipe Piles Driven in
Multilayered Soil. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 143:3, 04016102. [Crossref]
94. Zijun Cao, Yu Wang, Dianqing Li. Literature Review 11-51. [Crossref]
95. Anirban De. Site Characterization of Landfills Through In Situ Testing 99-106. [Crossref]
96. Guojun Cai, Haifeng Zou, Songyu Liu, Anand J. Puppala. 2017. Random field characterization of CPTU soil behavior type index
of Jiangsu quaternary soil deposits. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment 76:1, 353. [Crossref]
97. Bashar Tarawneh. 2017. Predicting standard penetration test N-value from cone penetration test data using artificial neural
networks. Geoscience Frontiers 8:1, 199-204. [Crossref]
98. Djamila Bouayad. 2017. Assessment of Sandy Soil Variability Based on CPT Data. Procedia Engineering 175, 310-315. [Crossref]
99. Wei Duan, Songyu Liu, Guojun Cai. 2017. Evaluation of Engineering Characteristics of Lian-Yan Railway Soft Soil Based on
CPTU Data-A Case Study. Procedia Engineering 189, 33-39. [Crossref]
100. Jae-Hyun Kim, Yun Wook Choo, Dong-Soo Kim. 2017. Correlation between the Shear-Wave Velocity and Tip Resistance of
Quartz Sand in a Centrifuge. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 143:11, 04017083. [Crossref]
101. Mehmet Ozcelik. 2017. The Effects of Vertical Stress on the Liquefaction Potential Originated from Buildings in The Urban
Areas. International Journal of Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering 8:1, 38-57. [Crossref]
102. P.K. Robertson. 2016. Cone penetration test (CPT)-based soil behaviour type (SBT) classification system — an update. Canadian
103. William F. Van Impe. 2016. Some Fundamental Issues and Examples of Geo-Engineering Challenges Caused by Crushable Sands.
Indian Geotechnical Journal 46:4, 335-353. [Crossref]
104. Abbas Abbaszadeh Shahri, Shima Naderi. 2016. Modified correlations to predict the shear wave velocity using piezocone
penetration test data and geotechnical parameters: a case study in the southwest of Sweden. Innovative Infrastructure Solutions
1:1. . [Crossref]
105. S. Uhlemann, S. Hagedorn, B. Dashwood, H. Maurer, D. Gunn, T. Dijkstra, J. Chambers. 2016. Landslide characterization
using P- and S-wave seismic refraction tomography — The importance of elastic moduli. Journal of Applied Geophysics 134, 64-76.
[Crossref]
106. C. P. Krage, J. T. DeJong. 2016. Influence of Drainage Conditions during Cone Penetration on the Estimation of Engineering
Properties and Liquefaction Potential of Silty and Sandy Soils. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 142:11,
04016059. [Crossref]
107. Kay Koster, Gilles Erkens, Cor Zwanenburg. 2016. A new soil mechanics approach to quantify and predict land subsidence by
peat compression. Geophysical Research Letters 43:20, 10,792-10,799. [Crossref]
108. Kok-Kwang Phoon, Widjojo A. Prakoso, Yu Wang, Jianye Ching. Chapter 3 Uncertainty representation of geotechnical design
parameters 49-88. [Crossref]
109. F. Guo, B.M. Lehane. 2016. Lateral response of piles in weak calcareous sandstone. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 53:9,
1424-1434. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
110. Amr F. Elhakim. 2016. Estimation of soil permeability. Alexandria Engineering Journal 55:3, 2631-2638. [Crossref]
111. Fawad S. Niazi, Paul W. Mayne. 2016. CPTu-based enhanced UniCone method for pile capacity. Engineering Geology 212, 21-34.
[Crossref]
112. H. Zou, G. Cai, T. V. Bheemasetti, S. Liu, A. J. Puppala. 2016. Assessment of Measurement Errors of Piezocone Penetration
Test in Soft Clay. Geotechnical Testing Journal 39:5, 20150074. [Crossref]
113. Taeseo Ku, Sung-Woo Moon, Brent J. Gutierrez. 2016. Advanced application of seismic cone penetration test at complex ground
conditions. Engineering Geology 210, 140-147. [Crossref]
114. Ehsan Pegah, Huabei Liu. 2016. Application of near-surface seismic refraction tomography and multichannel analysis of surface
waves for geotechnical site characterizations: A case study. Engineering Geology 208, 100-113. [Crossref]
115. Abouzar Sadrekarimi. 2016. Evaluation of CPT-based characterization methods for loose to medium-dense sands. Soils and
Foundations 56:3, 460-472. [Crossref]
116. Jianye Ching, Kok Kwang Phoon, Shih Hsuan Wu. 2016. Impact of Statistical Uncertainty on Geotechnical Reliability Estimation.
Journal of Engineering Mechanics 142:6, 04016027. [Crossref]
117. Will McQueen, Bruce Miller, Paul W. Mayne, Shehab Agaiby. 2016. Piezocone dissipation tests at the Canadian Test Site No. 1,
Gloucester, Ontario. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 53:5, 884-888. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
118. Laura Tonni, María Fernanda García Martínez, Paolo Simonini, Guido Gottardi. 2016. Piezocone-based prediction of secondary
compression settlements of coastal defence structures on natural silt mixtures. Ocean Engineering 116, 101-116. [Crossref]
119. Atsushi Takai, Toru Inui, Takeshi Katsumi. 2016. Evaluating the hydraulic barrier performance of soil-bentonite cutoff walls
using the piezocone penetration test. Soils and Foundations 56:2, 277-290. [Crossref]
120. Hongwei Yang, Adrian R. Russell. 2016. Cone penetration tests in unsaturated silty sands. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 53:3,
431-444. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
121. Matteo Oryem Ciantia, Marcos Arroyo, Joanna Butlanska, Antonio Gens. 2016. DEM modelling of cone penetration tests in a
double-porosity crushable granular material. Computers and Geotechnics 73, 109-127. [Crossref]
122. Jianye Ching, Jiun-Shiang Wang. 2016. Application of the transitional Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithm to probabilistic site
characterization. Engineering Geology 203, 151-167. [Crossref]

123. Wenping Gong, Yong Ming Tien, C. Hsein Juang, James R. Martin, Jie Zhang. 2016. Calibration of empirical models considering
model fidelity and model robustness — Focusing on predictions of liquefaction-induced settlements. Engineering Geology 203,
168-177. [Crossref]
124. Jae Hyun Kim, Yun Wook Choo, Dong Joon Kim, Dong Soo Kim. 2016. Miniature Cone Tip Resistance on Sand in a Centrifuge.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 142:3, 04015090. [Crossref]
125. Mahmoud N. Hussien, Mourad Karray. 2016. Shear wave velocity as a geotechnical parameter: an overview. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal 53:2, 252-272. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
126. Jianye Ching, Shih-Shuan Wu, Kok-Kwang Phoon. 2016. Statistical characterization of random field parameters using frequentist
and Bayesian approaches. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 53:2, 285-298. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
127. Guojun Cai, Ya Chu, Songyu Liu, Anand J. Puppala. 2016. Evaluation of subsurface spatial variability in site characterization
based on RCPTU data. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment 75:1, 401-412. [Crossref]
128. Jay Ameratunga, Nagaratnam Sivakugan, Braja M. Das. Cone Penetrometer Test 115-157. [Crossref]
129. Laura Tonni, Irene Rocchi, Nadia Pia Cruciano, María F. García Martínez, Luca Martelli, Lorenzo Calabrese. 2016. A
Multidisciplinary Tool for the Development of a Regional-scale Geotechnical Model: A Case Study in the North-Western Adriatic
Coastal Area. Procedia Engineering 158, 546-551. [Crossref]
130. Guido Gottardi, Carmine Gerardo Gragnano. 2016. On the role of partially saturated soil strength in the stability analysis of a
river embankment under steady-state and transient seepage conditions. E3S Web of Conferences 9, 19002. [Crossref]
131. Jianye Ching, Jiun-Shiang Wang, C. Hsein Juang, Chih-Sheng Ku. 2015. Cone penetration test (CPT)-based stratigraphic
profiling using the wavelet transform modulus maxima method. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 52:12, 1993-2007. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
132. P.O. Van Impe, W.F. Van Impe, A. Manzotti, P. Mengé, M. Van den Broeck, K. Vinck. 2015. Compaction control and related
stress–strain behaviour of off-shore land reclamations with calcareous sands. Soils and Foundations 55:6, 1474-1486. [Crossref]
133. Yusuke Suzuki, Barry M. Lehane. 2015. Cone penetration at variable rates in kaolin–sand mixtures. International Journal of
Physical Modelling in Geotechnics 15:4, 209-219. [Crossref]
134. Jan Bumberger, Hendrik Paasche, Peter Dietrich. 2015. Systematic description of direct push sensor systems: A conceptual
framework for system decomposition as a basis for the optimal sensor system design. Journal of Applied Geophysics 122, 210-217.
[Crossref]
135. Alois Steiner, Achim J. Kopf, Pierre Henry, Sylvia Stegmann, Ronan Apprioual, Pascal Pelleau. 2015. Cone penetration testing
to assess slope stability in the 1979 Nice landslide area (Ligurian Margin, SE France). Marine Geology 369, 162-181. [Crossref]
136. Mwajuma Ibrahim Lingwanda, Stefan Larsson, Dalmas L. Nyaoro. 2015. Correlations of SPT, CPT and DPL Data for Sandy
Soil in Tanzania. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering 33:5, 1221-1233. [Crossref]
137. Fei Han, Rodrigo Salgado, Monica Prezzi. 2015. Nonlinear analyses of laterally loaded piles – A semi-analytical approach.
Computers and Geotechnics 70, 116-129. [Crossref]
138. Silvia Castellaro, Riccardo Panzeri, Flaminia Mesiti, Lara Bertello. 2015. A surface seismic approach to liquefaction. Soil Dynamics
and Earthquake Engineering 77, 35-46. [Crossref]
139. H. Mahmoodzadeh, D. Wang, M. F. Randolph. 2015. Interpretation of piezoball dissipation testing in clay. Géotechnique 65:10,
831-842. [Crossref]
140. Etienne Hudon-Gagnon, Romain Chesnaux, Pierre A. Cousineau, Alain Rouleau. 2015. A hydrostratigraphic simplification
approach to build 3D groundwater flow numerical models: example of a Quaternary deltaic deposit aquifer. Environmental Earth
Sciences 74:6, 4671-4683. [Crossref]
141. P. K. Robertson. 2015. Comparing CPT and Vs Liquefaction Triggering Methods. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering 141:9, 04015037. [Crossref]
142. Christopher M. Chini, Jeff F. Wallace, Cassandra J. Rutherford, Joshua M. Peschel. 2015. Shearing Failure Visualization via
Particle Tracking in Soft Clay Using a Transparent Soil. Geotechnical Testing Journal 38:5, 20140210. [Crossref]
143. Christopher R. McGann, Brendon A. Bradley, Merrick L. Taylor, Liam M. Wotherspoon, Misko Cubrinovski. 2015. Applicability
of existing empirical shear wave velocity correlations to seismic cone penetration test data in Christchurch New Zealand. Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 75, 76-86. [Crossref]
144. Christopher R. McGann, Brendon A. Bradley, Merrick L. Taylor, Liam M. Wotherspoon, Misko Cubrinovski. 2015. Development
of an empirical correlation for predicting shear wave velocity of Christchurch soils from cone penetration test data. Soil Dynamics
and Earthquake Engineering 75, 66-75. [Crossref]
145. Chonglei Zhang, Guanlu Jiang, Xianfeng Liu, Zhimeng Wang. 2015. Deformation performance of cement-fly ash-gravel pile-
supported embankments over silty clay of medium compressibility: a case study. Arabian Journal of Geosciences 8:7, 4495-4507.
[Crossref]
146. Nurhan Ecemis, Hasan Emre Demirci, Mustafa Karaman. 2015. Influence of consolidation properties on the cyclic re-liquefaction
potential of sands. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 13:6, 1655-1673. [Crossref]
147. Guojun Cai, Songyu Liu, Anand J. Puppala, Liyuan Tong. 2015. Identification of Soil Strata Based on General Regression Neural
Network Model From CPTU Data. Marine Georesources & Geotechnology 33:3, 229-238. [Crossref]
148. Chong-lei Zhang, Guan-lu Jiang, Xian-feng Liu, Zhi-meng Wang. 2015. Lateral displacement of silty clay under cement-fly
ash-gravel pile-supported embankments: Analytical consideration and field evidence. Journal of Central South University 22:4,
1477-1489. [Crossref]
149. Lech Bałachowski, Norbert Kurek. 2015. Deep Compaction Control of Sandy Soils. Studia Geotechnica et Mechanica 36:2. .
[Crossref]
150. Reid David. 2015. Estimating slope of critical state line from cone penetration test — an update. Canadian Geotechnical Journal
52:1, 46-57. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
151. David Saftner, Roman Hryciw. Dynamic Soil Properties: In Situ Characterization Using Penetration Tests 598-619. [Crossref]
152. Agnieszka Smaga. 2015. Analysis of Prognosis of Lowland River Bed Erosion Based on Geotechnical Parameters. Studia
Geotechnica et Mechanica 37:4. . [Crossref]
153. Haifeng Zou, Guojun Cai, Songyu Liu, Anand J. Puppala. 2015. Postsurcharge Secondary Compression Characteristics of Marine
Clay from Piezocone Penetration Tests on a Low-Volume Road. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board 2473:1, 172-180. [Crossref]
154. Yousef Ansari, Richard Merifield, Daichao Sheng. 2014. A piezocone dissipation test interpretation method for hydraulic
conductivity of soft clays. Soils and Foundations 54:6, 1104-1116. [Crossref]
155. Maria Teresa Perri, Jacopo Boaga, Silvia Bersan, Giorgio Cassiani, Simonetta Cola, Rita Deiana, Paolo Simonini, Salvatore Patti.
2014. River embankment characterization: The joint use of geophysical and geotechnical techniques. Journal of Applied Geophysics
110, 5-22. [Crossref]
156. . Ground investigations, piling contracts and pile testing 515-559. [Crossref]
157. Nurhan Ecemis, Mustafa Karaman. 2014. Influence of non-/low plastic fines on cone penetration and liquefaction resistance.
Engineering Geology 181, 48-57. [Crossref]
158. Paul W. Mayne. 2014. Discussion of “Assessing Overconsolidation Ratios in Soil with Piezocone: Referencing Soil Index
Properties” by Steven R. Saye, Alan J. Lutenegger, Jorge Santos, and Bryan P. Kumm. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering 07014016. [Crossref]
159. Steiner Alois, Kopf Achim J., L’Heureux Jean-Sebastien, Kreiter Stefan, Stegmann Sylvia, Haflidason Haflidi, Moerz Tobias.
2014. In situ dynamic piezocone penetrometer tests in natural clayey soils — a reappraisal of strain-rate corrections. Canadian
160. George P. Kouretzis, Daichao Sheng, Dong Wang. 2014. Numerical simulation of cone penetration testing using a new critical
state constitutive model for sand. Computers and Geotechnics 56, 50-60. [Crossref]
161. Guojun Cai, Anand J. Puppala, Songyu Liu. 2014. Characterization on the correlation between shear wave velocity and piezocone
tip resistance of Jiangsu clays. Engineering Geology 171, 96-103. [Crossref]
162. G. D’Amato Avanzi, Y. Galanti, R. Giannecchini, D. Lo Presti, A. Puccinelli. 2013. Estimation of soil properties of shallow
landslide source areas by dynamic penetration tests: first outcomes from Northern Tuscany (Italy). Bulletin of Engineering Geology
and the Environment 72:3-4, 609-624. [Crossref]
163. Minsu Cha, J. Carlos Santamarina. 2013. Predissolution and Postdissolution Penetration Resistance. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering 139:12, 2193-2200. [Crossref]
164. Michael Styllas. 2013. A simple approach to define Holocene sequence stratigraphy using borehole and cone penetration test
data. Sedimentology n/a-n/a. [Crossref]
165. Fawad S. Niazi, Paul W. Mayne. 2013. A Review of the Design Formulations for Static Axial Response of Deep Foundations
from CPT Data (DFI 2013 Student Paper Competition Runner-Up). DFI Journal - The Journal of the Deep Foundations Institute
7:2, 58-78. [Crossref]
166. Juang C. Hsein, Ching Jianye, Wang Lei, Khoshnevisan Sara, Ku Chih-Sheng. 2013. Simplified procedure for estimation of
liquefaction-induced settlement and site-specific probabilistic settlement exceedance curve using cone penetration test (CPT).
167. Laura Tonni, Paolo Simonini. 2013. Evaluation of secondary compression of sands and silts from CPTU. Geomechanics and
Geoengineering 8:3, 141-154. [Crossref]
168. Fathi M.O. Mohamed, Sai K. Vanapalli, Murat Saatcioglu. 2013. Generalized Schmertmann Equation for settlement estimation
of shallow footings in saturated and unsaturated sands. Geomechanics and Engineering 5:4, 343-362. [Crossref]
169. Ian P. Maki, Ross W. Boulanger, Jason T. DeJong, Robert A. Jaeger. 2013. State-Based Overburden Normalization of Cone
Penetration Resistance in Clean Sand. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 04013006. [Crossref]
170. Laura Tonni, Paolo Simonini. 2013. Shear wave velocity as function of cone penetration test measurements in sand and silt
mixtures. Engineering Geology 163, 55-67. [Crossref]
171. Wang Yu, Huang Kai, Cao Zijun. 2013. Probabilistic identification of underground soil stratification using cone penetration tests.
172. V. K. Singh, S. G. Chung. 2013. Determination of Deformation Modulus for Lower Sands in Nakdong River Delta. Marine
Georesources & Geotechnology 31:3, 290-307. [Crossref]
173. Diego Barletta, Massimo Poletto. 2013. A device for the measurement of the horizontal to vertical stress ratio in powders. Granular
Matter . [Crossref]
174. Louise Hansen, Jean-Sébastien L'Heureux, Guillaume Sauvin, Ulrich Polom, Isabelle Lecomte, Maarten Vanneste, Oddvar
Longva, Charlotte M. Krawczyk. 2013. Effects of mass-wasting on the stratigraphic architecture of a fjord-valley fill: Correlation
of onshore, shear-wave seismic and marine seismic data at Trondheim, Norway. Sedimentary Geology 289, 1-18. [Crossref]
175. P. Harutoonian, C.J. Leo, K. Tokeshi, T. Doanh, S. Castellaro, J.J. Zou, D.S. Liyanapathirana, H. Wong. 2013. Investigation of
dynamically compacted ground by HVSR-based approach. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 46, 20-29. [Crossref]
176. . References 627-642. [Crossref]
177. J. A. Schneider, J. N. Hotstream, P. W. Mayne, M. F. Randolph. 2012. Comparing CPTU Q – F and Q – Δ u 2 /σ v0 ′soil
classification charts. Géotechnique Letters 2:4, 209-215. [Crossref]
178. C.H. JUANG, J. CHING, C.-S. KU, Y.-H. HSIEH. 2012. Unified CPTu-based probabilistic model for assessing probability of
liquefaction of sand and clay. Géotechnique 62:10, 877-892. [Crossref]
179. R. Fortier, Y. Wu. Penetration Rate-Controlled Electrical Resistivity and Temperature Piezocone Penetration Tests in Warm Ice-
Rich Permafrost in Northern Quebec, Canada 757-767. [Crossref]
180. Mark A. Barry, Bruce D. Johnson, Bernard P. Boudreau. 2012. A new instrument for high-resolution in situ assessment of Young’s
modulus in shallow cohesive sediments. Geo-Marine Letters 32:4, 349-357. [Crossref]
181. Min-Woo Seo, Scott M. Olson, Chang-Guk Sun, Myoung-Hak Oh. 2012. Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential Index Along
Western Coast of South Korea Using SPT and CPT. Marine Georesources & Geotechnology 30:3, 234-260. [Crossref]
182. Tom Lunne. 2012. The Fourth James K. Mitchell Lecture: The CPT in offshore soil investigations - a historic perspective.
Geomechanics and Geoengineering 7:2, 75-101. [Crossref]
183. Paul W. Mayne. Geotechnical Site Characterization in the Year 2012 and Beyond 157-186. [Crossref]
184. Jun Hai Li. 2012. Application of Neural Network in Identifying Soil Strata by CPT or CPTU Data. Applied Mechanics and
Materials 170-173, 945-949. [Crossref]
185. F. M. O. Mohamed, S. K. Vanapalli, M. Saatcioglu. Settlement Estimation of Shallow Footings of Saturated and Unsaturated
Sands 2552-2561. [Crossref]
186. Atsushi Takai, Toru Inui, Takeshi Katsumi, Masashi Kamon, Susumu Araki. Experimental Studies on Hydraulic Barrier
Performance and Quality Control of SBM Cut-Off Wall 2659-2668. [Crossref]
187. Khaled H. Charif, Shadi Najjar. Comparative Study of Shear Modulus in Calcareous Sand and Sabkha Soils 2697-2706. [Crossref]
188. VienkenThomas, LevenCarsten, DietrichPeter. 2012. Use of CPT and other direct push methods for (hydro-) stratigraphic
aquifer characterization — a field study. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 49:2, 197-206. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
189. RobertsonPeter K.. 2012. Discussion of “Influence of particle size on the correlation between shear wave velocity and cone tip
resistance”1Appears in the Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 48(4): 599–615 [doi: 10.1139/t10-092].. Canadian Geotechnical Journal
49:1, 121-123. [Citation] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
190. KarrayMourad, EthierYannic. 2012. Reply to the discussion by P.K. Robertson on “Influence of particle size on the correlation
between shear wave velocity and cone tip resistance”1Appears in the Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 49(1): 121–123 [doi: 10.1139/
t11-100].. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 49:1, 124-128. [Citation] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
191. Zbigniew Młynarek, Katarzyna Stefaniak, Jedrzej Wierzbicki. 2012. Geotechnical Parameters of Alluvial Soils from in-situ Tests.
Archives of Hydro-Engineering and Environmental Mechanics 59:1-2. . [Crossref]
192. Carsten Leven, Hansjörg Weiß, Thomas Vienken, Peter Dietrich. 2011. Direct-Push-Technologien – Effiziente
Untersuchungsmethoden für die Untergrunderkundung. Grundwasser 16:4, 221-234. [Crossref]
193. Guojun Cai, Songyu Liu, Anand J. Puppala. 2011. Comparison of CPT charts for soil classification using PCPT data: Example
from clay deposits in Jiangsu Province, China. Engineering Geology 121:1-2, 89-96. [Crossref]
194. Marco Uzielli, Paul W. Mayne. 2011. Serviceability limit state CPT-based design for vertically loaded shallow footings on sand.
Geomechanics and Geoengineering 6:2, 91-107. [Crossref]
195. TonniLaura, GottardiGuido. 2011. Analysis and interpretation of piezocone data on the silty soils of the Venetian lagoon (Treporti
test site). Canadian Geotechnical Journal 48:4, 616-633. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
196. P. K. Robertson. 2011. Closure to “CPT-DMT Correlations” by P. K. Robertson. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering 137:4, 443-447. [Crossref]
197. Jianye Ching, C. Hsein Juang. 2011. Selection among CPTU-Based Liquefaction Models. Procedia Engineering 14, 2576-2584.
[Crossref]
198. Robert Radaszewski, Jędrzej Wierzbicki. 2011. On the applicability of in situ soil probings to geological analyses. Geologos 17:1. .
[Crossref]
199. C.S. KU, C.H. JUANG, C.Y. OU. 2010. Reliability of CPT I c as an index for mechanical behaviour classification of soils.
Géotechnique 60:11, 861-875. [Crossref]
200. P. K. Robertson. 2010. Evaluation of Flow Liquefaction and Liquefied Strength Using the Cone Penetration Test. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 136:6, 842-853. [Crossref]
201. P. K. Robertson. 2010. Discussion of “CPT-Based Probabilistic Soil Characterization and Classification” by K. Onder Cetin and
Cem Ozan. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 136:3, 542-543. [Crossref]
202. P. K. Robertson. 2009. CPT-DMT Correlations. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 135:11, 1762-1771.
[Crossref]

CPT - Interpretation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

CPT - Interpretation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

CPT - Interpretation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1337

Interpretation of cone penetration tests — a

Introduction and sampling, because it is fast, repeatable, and economical.

Published by NRC Research Press

Published by NRC Research Press

Published by NRC Research Press

Published by NRC Research Press

very small, there is a strong link between relative density

Published by NRC Research Press

Fig. 3. Contours of stress exponent, n (thick lines), (for Stiffness (modulus)

cone resistance are useful for smaller low-risk projects,

in sands is also controlled by relative density, effective

Published by NRC Research Press

Fig. 4. Contours of normalized shear-wave velocity, Vs1 (thick ½12 G0 ¼ rVs2

vary from 400 to 1600 in young, uncemented, loose to dense

Published by NRC Research Press

Using this ratio, it is possible to create contours of

Normalized cone resistance, Qtn Ratio G0/qt

Published by NRC Research Press

αE a depth of about 5.7 m is composed of sand to silty sand be-

ment of 2.5 mm. Anderson et al. (2007) applied a total of

Published by NRC Research Press

Normalized cone resistance, Qtn

Qt1(1– Bq) + 1. As this author has concerns about the accu-

Published by NRC Research Press

For a normally consolidated fine-grained soil where

Kulhawy friction values are often similar to the remolded undrained

Published by NRC Research Press

0 100 200 300 0 100 200 300

CPT sleeve friction CPT sleeve friction

VST remolded VST remolded

ity and peak undrained strength ratio in direct simple shear

If the estimated sensitivity is high, the undrained strength

Published by NRC Research Press

Normalized cone resistance, Qtn

tween normalized cone values and G0 as a starting point, it

an unpublished database (courtesy of P. Mayne, Georgia In-

Published by NRC Research Press

Laboratory measured (MPa)

CPT predicted (MPa)

Published by NRC Research Press

focused on low- to moderate-risk projects where traditional

Published by NRC Research Press

gineers, Reston, Va. pp. 484–491. 56.

Published by NRC Research Press

Published by NRC Research Press

Published by NRC Research Press

51:2, 210-218. [Crossref]

Earthquake Engineering 107, 303-321. [Crossref]

characterization. Engineering Geology 203, 151-167. [Crossref]

You might also like