10/1/2012

Gregg Drilling & Testing, Inc.

Site Investigation Experts

Introduction to
Cone Penetration Testing
Peter K. Robertson

Webinar
2012
Robertson, 2012

History of CPT
• First developed in 1930’s as mechanical cone
• Electric cones developed in 1960’s
• Primary device for off-shore investigations since
1970’s
• Major advancements since 1970:
– Pore pressure measurements
– More reliable load cells & electronics
– Addition of seismic for shear wave velocity
– Additional sensors for environmental applications
– Significant increase in documented case histories
Robertson, 2012

1
 10/1/2012

Basic Cone Parameters

Sleeve Friction
fs = load/2rh

Pore Pressure
u2

Tip Resistance
qc = load/ r 2

Robertson, 2012

Role of CPT
CPT has three main applications:
• Determine sub-surface stratigraphy and identify
materials present,
• Estimate soil parameters
• Provide results for direct geotechnical design

Primary role is soil profiling and can be supplemented

by samples, other in-situ tests and laboratory testing

Robertson, 2012

2
 10/1/2012

What level of sophistication is

appropriate for site investigation
& analyses?
GOOD Precedent & local experience POOR
SIMPLE Design objectives COMPLEX
LOW Level of geotechnical risk HIGH
LOW Potential for cost savings HIGH

Traditional Methods Advanced Methods

Simplified Complex
Robertson, 2012

Robertson, 2012

3
 10/1/2012

Advantages of CPT
Advantages over traditional combination of
boring, sampling and other testing
• Fast (2 cm/sec = 1.2m/min ~4 ft/min)
• Continuous or near continuous data
• Repeatable and reliable data
• Cost savings

Robertson, 2012

CONVENTIONAL DRILLING DIRECT-PUSH

& SAMPLING TECHNOLOGY
Lab

Oscilloscope
UD Drop
tube Hammer

Cased SCPTù
Boreholes
qt
FIRM
CHT: fs
u2
Vs, Vp
SAND t50
Vs
SPT: N60
SOFT
VST: su, St CLAY
PMT: E’
Packer: kvh old After Mayne, 2010
new

4
 10/1/2012

Discrete CPT Soil Sampling

CPT (Piston-Type) Sampler

• Single-Tube System

• 30cm (12”) long by 25mm (1 ”) diameter

Robertson, 2012

Mayne, 2010
Example CPT Trucks/track

5
 10/1/2012

After Mayne, 2010

Special CPT Vehicles

CPT with a Drill Rig

Robertson, 2012

6
 10/1/2012

Portable CPT
Ramset Limited Access

Remote Locations

Robertson, 2012

Safety
• Improved safety using push-in methods
– No hammer or rotating parts
– Similar safety precautions compared to direct push
equipment (pinch points, clamps)
• No cuttings for disposal
– Significant cost savings
– Reduced contact with possible contamination
• Lower visibility and public exposure with
enclosed trucks
Robertson, 2012

7
 10/1/2012

40 cm2
15 cm2

10 cm2
Cone
2 cm2 Penetrometer
Sizes

ASTM Standard
Robertson, 2012

CPT Sensors
Since development of electric cones - many new sensors
added:
• Pore pressure (u)
• Inclination (i)
• Seismic (Vs, Vp)
• Vision (camera)
• Geo-environmental sensors
– ph, electrical, fluorescence (LIF & UVIF), many
others……...

Robertson, 2012

8
 10/1/2012

Unequal End Area Effects on qc

qt = qc + u2(1-a)

a = 0.60 to 0.85

a = tip net area ratio

~ An/Ac

In sands: qt = qc

In very soft clays:

correction to qt is important

Cones should have high net area ratio

a > 0.8
Robertson, 2012

CPTu Interpretation
Soil Type
– Soil behavior type (SBT)
In-situ State
– Relative density (Dr) or State Parameter (y) and OCR
Strength
– Peak friction angle (f’) and undrained strength (su)
Stiffness/compressibility
– Shear (Go), Young’s (E’) and 1-D constrained (M)
Consolidation/permeability
– Coeff of consolidation (cv) and permeability (k)

Robertson, 2012

9
 10/1/2012

CPT - Soil Behavior Type (SBT)

Non-Normalized Classification Chart
1000

10
CPT SBT based
12

11
on in-situ soil
SANDS
9 behavior - not the
100 8
same as
7
classification
Cone Resistance (bar) qt

6
5 based on
MIXED SOILS
4
10
Atterberg Limits
3
CLAYS and grain size
1 carried out on
2 disturbed
1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 samples
Friction Ratio (%), Rf

After Robertson & Campanella, 1986 Robertson, 2012

CPT Data Presentation

Example CPTu Plot Robertson, 2012

10
 10/1/2012

CPT- Normalized SBT Chart

Normalized Classification Chart
1000

7 8

Zone Normailzed Soil Behavior Type

qt - svo

j' 9
s 'v o

1 sensitive fine grained

100
SANDS 2 organic material
Drained
6
3 clay to silty clay
4 clayey silt to silty clay
Normalized Cone Resistance

5 silty sand to sandy silt

MIXED SOILS
5 Partially drained 6 clean sands to silty sands
7 gravelly sand to sand
10
4
8 very stiff sand to clayey sand
9 very stiff fine grained
CLAYS
1 Undrained
3
2
1
0.1 1 10
fs
Normalized Friction Ratio q-t s x 100%
vo

After Robertson, 1990 Robertson, 2012

CPT SBT Index, Ic

Soil Behavior Type

Index, Ic
SANDS Ic = [(3.47 – log Q)2 + (log F+1.22)2]0.5

Function primarily of
Soil Compressibility
Increasing compressibility

CLAYS Compressibility linked to

soil plasticity &
amount/type of fines

Robertson, 2012

11
 10/1/2012

Robertson, 2012

Repeatability

Theoretical solutions for CPT

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

12
 10/1/2012

Theory for CPT

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

Robertson, 2012

Schematic of soil loading around cone

Generalized stress-strain relationship

Robertson, 2012

13
 10/1/2012

Robertson, 2012

Transition zone
CPT data in
‘transition’ when cone
is moving from one soil
type to another when
there is significant
difference in soil
stiffness/strength

CPT data within

transition zone will be
misinterpreted

In interlayered deposits
this can result in
Ahmadi & Robertson, 2005 excessive conservatism

Perceived applicability of CPT for

Deriving Soil Parameters

Initial state Strength Deformation Flow

parameter Parameters Characteristics* Charact.

Soil γ/Dr ψ Ko OCR St su Φ’ E M Go k ch

Type

Clay 3-4 2 1-2 2-3 1-2 4 2-3 2-3 2-3 2-3 2-3

Sand 2-3 2-3 5 4-5 2-3 2-3 2-3 2-3 3 3-4

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

5 low reliability.
* Improved when using SCPT

Robertson, 2012

14
 10/1/2012

Stress History: OCR

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

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

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

* Most Common
Robertson, 2012

Correlation between Qt and OCR

(Kulhawy & Mayne, 1990)

OCR = 0.33 Qt
(When OCR < 4)

Qt = (qt - σvo)/ σ’vo

Alternate based on
high quality block
samples:
(OCR < 10 & St < 15)

OCR = 0.25 (Qt)1.25

Robertson, 2012

15
 10/1/2012

Strength Parameters - Clay

Undrained strength ratio as a

function of direction of loading

Jamiolkowski et al., 1985 & Ladd, 1991

Robertson, 2012

Undrained Shear Strength, su

su = qt – σvo
Nkt 10 < Nkt < 16

Nkt With sensitivity

Nkt With PI & OCR

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

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

16
 10/1/2012

Undrained shear strength, su

CSSM & Empirical observations (Ladd, 1991):

(su/s’vo)ave = 0.22 (OCR)0.8

OCR = 0.25 (Qt)1.25

Combined: (su/s’vo)ave = Qt/14

Hence, Nkt ~ 14

Robertson, 2012

Undrained Shear Strength - CPT

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

Average undrained shear strength 11.5 to 15.5

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

Mean 14

Values will vary somewhat with plasticity & sensitivity of clay

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

Robertson, 2012

17
 10/1/2012

Estimation of
Ground Water
Table from CPT
Dissipation Tests

Robertson, 2012

Example pore pressure dissipation

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

700

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

0
measure time,
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
and r is the
Time (minutes) t50 = 7 minutes
radius of the
After Mayne, 2010 probe
Robertson, 2012

18
 10/1/2012

Pore pressure dissipation in stiff clay

Depth = 8.47 m
150
Measured u2
Measured u2 (kPa)

Hydrostatic u0
Pred CE-MCC

100
Fitted
Analytical
Dilatory Field Data Solution

50
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Time (minutes)

After Cruz & Mayne 2006)

Robertson, 2012

Laboratory ch values and CPTu results

Theoretical solutions

10 Amherst Crust
cvh = coefficient of consolidation Brent Cross
M easured Lab c v (cm / 2 /m in)

Cowden
Madingley
1 Raquette River
St. Lawrence Seaway
Strong Pit
Taranto
0.1 Bothkennar Soft Clay
Canon's Park
Drammen soft clay
McDonald's Farm soft clay
0.01 Onsoy soft clay
Porto Tolle soft clay
Rio de Janeiro soft clay
Saint Alban soft clay
0.001 1:1 Line

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

ch from Piezocone Dissipation (cm2/min)

After Robertson et al., 1992 Robertson, 2012

19
 10/1/2012

Permeability from CPT

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

kh = (ch gw)/M

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

Robertson, 2012

Flow Characteristics from CPTU

• Uncertainties
– Initial distribution of u (OCR > 4)
– Soil non-homogeneity (stratigraphy)
– Soil macrofabric
– Influence of cv
– Filter element clogging/smearing
• Very useful to evaluate
Approximate flow characteristics for fine
grained soils
Robertson, 2012

20
 10/1/2012

Seismic CPT
• >25 years experience (1983)
• Simple, reliable, and inexpensive
• Direct measure of soil stiffness
– Small strain value, Go = ρ·Vs2
• Typically 1 meter intervals
• Combines qc and Vs profile in same soil

Robertson, 2012

SCPT Equipment and Procedures

Cone Penetrometer Shear Wave Traces

DT DD

DD
Vs=
DT
Robertson, 2012 After Rice, 1985

21
 10/1/2012

Robertson, 2012

Seismic CPT

SCPT

• Shear wave velocity a useful fundamental

parameter
• SCPT very useful since it provides both CPT data
and Vs in one profile
• Potential to evaluate ‘unusual’ soils
• Settlement calculations based on Vs

Robertson, 2012

22
 10/1/2012

In-situ Testing and Geotechnical

Design
DIRECT METHODS INDIRECT METHODS

In-situ Test Results In-situ Test Results

Previous Performance

Of Construction

Soil Model

Solution of Complex BVP

Design Parameters

Geotechnical Design Geotechnical Design

Robertson, 2012

Perceived Applicability
Pile Bearing Settlement* Compaction Lique-
Design Capacity Control faction
Sand 1-2 1-2 2-3 1-2 1-2

Clay 1-2 1-2 3-4 3-4 2-3

Intermediate 1-2 2-3 3-4 2-3 2-3

Soils

Reliability rating: 1 = High, 2 = High to Moderate, 3 = Moderate,

4 = Moderate to Low, 5 = Low
* Higher when using SCPT
Robertson, 2012

23
 10/1/2012

Summary
• CPT can be a fast, reliable and cost effective
means to evaluate soil profile, geotechnical
parameters, groundwater conditions and
preliminary geotechnical design.

• Suitable for a wide range of soils, except for

dense gravels and hard rock.

Robertson, 2012

Software Development
• PC based data acquisition systems
• Digital data
• Real-time interpretation
• Cell-phone for data transmission
• Color presentation
– Soil profile
– Interpretation parameters
• Interpretation software (e.g. CPeT-IT)
Robertson, 2012

24
 10/1/2012

Example CPT
Interpretation
Software

CPeT-IT
http://www.geologismiki.gr/

Robertson, 2012

Example Plots

Robertson, 2012

25
 10/1/2012

Normalized plots

Robertson, 2012

SBT charts

Non-normalized Normalized

Updated Robertson 2010

Robertson, 2012

26
 10/1/2012

Estimated parameters (1)

Robertson, 2012

Estimated parameters (2)

Robertson, 2012

27
 10/1/2012

Questions?

Robertson, 2012

28