Evaluating undrained rigidity index of clays from piezocone data

S.S. Agaiby & P.W. Mayne

Geosystems Group, Civil & Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA

ABSTRACT: A review on the evaluation of undrained rigidity index of clays (IR = G/su) is presented, including
laboratory testing, empirical correlations, and analytical methodologies. Using a hybrid spherical cavity expan-
sion – critical state framework, an expression is derived for obtaining the operational rigidity index (IR) directly
from post-processing of CPTu data, specifically using the cone tip resistance and porewater pressure readings,
or their normalized quantities. The evaluated rigidity indices are in reasonable agreement with reference labor-
atory tests and seismic-based in-situ approaches. The obtained values of IR are used to calculate the yield stress
(p') profiles using three separate expressions obtained from the SCE-CSSM framework, based on: (a) net cone
resistance: qnet = qt - vo; (b) excess porewater pressure: u = u2 - uo; and effective cone resistance: qE = qt - u2.
The acquired value of IR is also input into the cone bearing factor (Nkt) to obtain the undrained shear strength,
where su = qnet/Nkt. Case studies are presented showing that the CPTu profiles of p' and su generally agree with
laboratory testing by one-dimensional consolidation and triaxial compression mode, respectively.

1 INTRODUCTION A more difficult issue lies in the selection of the

The rigidity index (IR) is an important input parameter
for geotechnical applications involving bearing ca-
pacity, pile driving, porewater pressure generation,
and piezodissipations. The value of soil rigidity index
is incorporated in various theories and analytical so-
lutions involving cavity expansion, strain path
method, and finite element analyses. For piezocone
penetration into clays, the magnitude of undrained ri-
gidity index is often needed in the interpretation of
coefficient of consolidation (cvh) and its associated
hydraulic conductivity (k).
Direct evaluation of rigidity index from its defini-
tion as the ratio of shear modulus (G) to shear strength
(IR = G/su) is quite elusive and difficult (Krage et al.
2014). The selection of the appropriate means to
measure G and/or su is challenging and requires care-
ful evaluation. In the simulation of the piezocone ad-
vancement into the ground, it is difficult to assign the
predominant failure mode(s) that exist around the
penetrometer. Hence, the selection of the correct
shearing mode and testing technique is not straight-
forword. Keaveny (1985) and Schnaid et al. (1997)
recommended the usage of CK0UC triaxial compres-
sion test, while Konrad and Law (1987) promoted the
pressuremeter test. Also, Teh and Houlsby (1991) and
Yu and Mitchell (1998) deemed the triaxial compres-
sion mode as the most appropriate.
correct shear modulus as its magnitude depends on
the level of shear strain. The initial shear modulus (G0
= Gmax) represents the tangent modulus at very small
strains, but this applies to the nondestructive region.
A secant modulus (G = s) represents higher strain
levels with G reducing with strains (Mayne, 2007). As
a compromise, Konrad & Law (1987) and Schnaid et
al. (1997) chose to use a shear modulus at 50% mobi-
lized strength (G50) to give an average response.
It is evident that there are difficulties in properly
selecting strength mode and mobilization level of
shear modulus values using laboratory-based tech-
niques. These are affected by issues related to sample
disturbance, stress relief and high costs of obtaining
and testing quality samples. Therefore, it is of great
interest and benefit to develop methods of obtaining
the rigidity index based on direct CPT measurements.
2 EXISTING METHODS FOR ESTIMATING
UNDRAINED RIGIDITY INDEX
Keaveny and Mitchell (1986) proposed an empirical
approach relating the rigidity index to the
overconsolidation ratio (OCR) and clay plasticity in-
dex (PI). The methodology was based on results from
triaxial CAUC test data on various clays where the IR
was defined using G50 = E50/3. The developed corre-
lation can be expressed as:
 3 DIRECT CPTU SOLUTION FOR
 137  PI 
exp  EVALUATING UNDRAINED RIGIDITY INDEX
I R 50   23  [1]
(OCR  1) 3.2 0.8 3.1 Original SCE-CSSM Solution
1  ln[1  ]
26
Another means to estimate the rigidity index is via A hybrid formulation of spherical cavity expansion
original Cam Clay derivation which was obtained by and critical state soil mechanics (SCE-CSSM) ex-
Kulhawy and Mayne (1990) based on routine soil pa- presses the cone tip resistance (qt) and porewater
rameters. An initial modulus was evaluated by differ- pressure (u2) using closed-form equations, given by
entiation as the strain approaches zero, then using this (Mayne 1991; Chen & Mayne 1994; Mayne 2007a):
modulus value in a normalized form to evaluate un-
drained rigidity index as given by the following ex- qt   vo  [(4 3)  (ln I R  1)   2  1]  ( M 2)  (OCR 2)    vo ' [6]
pression:
u2  uo  [(2 3)  (ln I R )  ( M )  (OCR 2)    vo ' ]  [1  (OCR 2)  ]   vo ' [7]
2  1  e0  [1  ln(OCR )] exp(  )
I R     M    ln(10) [2]
 
3  C c   (1   )OCR  The hybrid SCE-CSSM model can be rearranged to
express overconsolidation ratio (OCR) of the clay in
where M = (6 sin')/(3-sin') = slope of the frictional three separate formulations using net cone resistance
envelope for triaxial compression in q-p' space, Λ = (qnet = qt - vo), excess pore pressure (u = u2 - u0),
(1 – Cs / Cc) = plastic volumetric strain potential, Cs = and effective cone resistance (qeff = qt - u2):
swelling index, Cc = virgin compression index, e0 is  ( 2 )  ( qt   vo ) /  vo ' 
(1 /  )

the initial void ratio, and OCR = σp'/σvo'. Typically, OCR  2  M 

[8]
the value of  ≈ 0.8 from load-unload-shear lab test-  ( 4 )  (ln I R  1)   / 2  1
 3 
ing, although  ≈ 1 in many natural clays tested in (1 /  )
 (u /  vo ' )  1  [9]
recompression, especially at low OCRs (Ladd 1991). OCR  2  
 ( 2 / 3)  M  ln( I R )  1
Mayne (2001) developed an expression for esti-
(1 /  )
mating the rigidity index based on CPTu data in clays  1  qt  u 2 
OCR  2   [10]
from the hybrid spherical cavity expansion - critical 1.95  M  1   vo ' 
state framework (SCE-CSSM). The IR expression was
given by:
Combining equations [8] and [9], the value of the
 ( q   vo )  1.5   rigidity index can be obtained in terms of normalized
I R  exp t   2.925   2.925 [3]
 t( q  u 2 )  M   CPTu measurements and friction parameter M:
However, as the values of net cone resistance and
effective cone resistance are close, a line-by-line eval- 1.5  Q  2.925M  U *  1
I R  exp
 Q  M  M  U  1 
*  [11a]
uation of data showed that the assessed IR profile was
highly variable with depth.
A recent empirical approach introduced by Krage   U * 1 
    
Q  
1 . 5 2 .925M
et al. (2014) using the shear wave velocity profile and  
I R  exp
net cone tip resistance from SCPTu has been devel-   U * 1  [11b]
oped to evaluate IR at 50% strain level and can be de-  M  M   Q  
   
termined from:
where Q = normalized tip resistance = (qt - σvo)/σvo';
 1.81 G0  U* = normalized porewater pressure = (u2 - uo)/σvo'.
( I R ) 50   
 qnet   vo  
0.75 ' 0 . 25 [4] Since the expression for IR is an exponential form,
the use of [11] in a line-by-line post-processing of
With consistent units used for G0, qnet, and vo' terms. CPTu data unfortunately results in highly variable
Mayne (2016) developed an expression for rigidity profiles with depth, therefore a moving average is
index of clays from spherical cavity expansion theory necessary for any practical use.
which is dependent on the CPTu normalized porewa- A stable representation for [11] is obtained in the
ter pressure parameter (Bq). The IR expression is following format:
given by:  1.5  2.925  M  aq 
I R  exp  

[12]
 2.93  Bq   M  (1  aq ) 
I R  exp   [5]
 (1  Bq )  where aq = (U* - 1)/Q = (u2 - σvo)/(qt - σvo). Hence, aq
where Bq = (u2 – u0)/(qt – vo). Obtained IR values can can be determined as a single value for any clay de-
be restricted to the narrow range: 0.50 < Bq < 0.70. posit by taking the slope of a plot of the parameter
(U*-1) versus Q, or alternatively taken as the slope of
(u2 - σvo) versus (qt - σvo). Using regression analyses, 4 CASE STUDIES VALIDATING THE IR
slightly different slope values for aq are obtained. EVALUATION

3.2 Effective Friction Angle Evaluation 4.1 Ariake, Japan

Ariake is a normally consolidated soft marine deposit
The derived expression for rigidity index depends on
located in Kyushu Island, Japan with OCR values
the value of the effective friction angle ('). In the
ranging from 1.24 to 1.55 (Tanaka et al., 2001). The
event that laboratory-measured values from triaxial
Ariake deposit is classified as a highly plastic clay
tests are not available, the effective friction angle can
with average water content ranging from 100 to 150%
be evaluated using the NTH method. This is an effec-
and liquid limit between 110 – 120%. Figure 1 pre-
tive stress limit plasticity solution for undrained pen-
sents a representative piezocone sounding conducted
etration developed by Senneset et al. (1989). In this
by Tanaka et al. (2001). Based on the piezocone data,
method, a cone resistance number (Nm) is defined:
an effective friction angle was evaluated using the
Nq 1 qt   v 0 NTH method and the site has a characteristic effective
Nm   [13]
1  N u  Bq  vo '  a ' friction angle ' = 32.2°, or M = 1.2.
Cone Tip Resistance, qt (kPa) Sleeve Friction, fs (kPa) Porewater Pressure, u2 (kPa)

where a' = c'∙cot' = attraction, c' = effective cohesion 0

0 500 1000
0
0 5 10 15
0
0 200 400 600

intercept, Nq = Kp∙exp [(-2)∙tan'] is the end-bear- 2 2 2

u2

uo
ing factor for the cone tip resistance (qt), Kp = 4 4 4

(1+sin')/(1-sin') is the passive stress coefficient,  6 6 6

= angle of plastification (-20º <  < +20º) which de- Depth (m)
8 8 8

10 10 10

fines the size of the failure zone beneath the tip, and 12 12 12

Nu = 6∙tan'∙(1+tan') is the porewater pressure bear- 14 14 14

ing factor. The full solution allows for an interpreta- 16 16 16

tion of a paired set of Mohr-Coulomb strength param- 18 18 18

eters (c' and ') for all soil types. 20 20 20

Figure 1 – Piezocone sounding at Ariake: (a) cone tip resistance;

For soft to firm clays, it can be adopted that c' = 0,
thus the term Nm reduces to the well-known normal-
ized cone resistance, Q = qnet/vo'. Further simplifica-
tion is achieved by taking the angle  = 0 (Terzaghi
equation) for the case of undrained loading at constant
volume and an approximate deterministic expression
given by (Mayne 2007b):
 '  29.5  Bq [0.256  0.336  Bq  log Q]
0.121
[14]
(b) sleeve friction; (c) porewater pressure. (Tanaka et al., 2001)
Figure 2 shows the evaluation of the slope param-
eter aq used in the derived IR solution where (u2-vo)
is plotted versus net cone tip resistance (qnet), giving
a parametric value aq = 0.455. The slope value is used
with the effective friction angle in [12] to give an op-
erational rigidity index IR = 97.

which is valid for the following parameter ranges:

20°≤ ' ≤ 45° and 0.1 ≤ Bq ≤ 1.0.

3.3 Undrained Shear Strength Evaluation

The operational value of rigidity index IR can be used

directly to evaluate the profile of undrained shear
strength of the clay with depth since it gives the cone
bearing factor (Nkt). The strength is obtained from:
qnet
suc  [15]
N kt
where spherical cavity expansion theory expresses
the Nkt in terms of the rigidity index (Vesić 1977):
N kt  [(4 3)  (ln I R  1)   2  1]
Notably, the same input parameters (M and IR) can
be used in [8], [9], and [10] to obtain 3 independent
profiles of OCR in the clay, adopting  = 1.
Figure 2 – Evaluation of slope parameter for proposed I R solu-
tion f [ (u2-vo) / qnet] using CPTu data from Ariake, Japan
The obtained IR value is used to evaluate the cone
bearing factor (Nkt) per equation [16] for evaluating
[16] the undrained shear strength (su). The value IR = 97
gives a corresponding Nkt = 10 which provides an ex-
cellent agreement with the CAUC undrained shear
strength data reported by Lunne et al. (2006) for the
Ariake site, as presented in Figure 3.
 Undrained Shear Strength, su (kPa) of 80 m where the downhole shear wave velocity por-
0 20 40 60 80
0 tion extends to 60 m (Mayne 2005). An average ef-
2
su = qnet / Nkt fective friction angle ' = 32° is evaluated using NTH
Nkt = 4/3 [ ln (IR) +1] + π/2 +1
For IR = 97: Nkt = 10 method that compares well with CIUC triaxial tests
4
(' = 33°) made on undisturbed samples (Mayne
6 2014).
Cone Tip Resistance, qt (kPa) Sleeve Friction, fs (kPa) Porewater Pressure, u2 (kPa) Shear Wave Velocity (m/sec)
Depth (m)

8 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 0 50 100 150 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 0 100 200 300 400
0 0 0 0

u2
10
10 10 10 10
uo

12 20 20 20 20

14

Depth (m)
30 30 30 30

40 40 40 40
16

CPT by NKT 50 50 50 50
18
CAUC 60 60 60 60
20
70 70 70 70

Figure 3 – Undrained shear strength profile for Ariake, Japan 80

using the SCE-CSSM operational rigidity index value for cone
bearing factor Nkt (data from Lunne et al., 2006)
Applying equations [8], [9], and [10] of the hybrid
SCE-CSSM solution to the CPTu results (IR = 97, '
= 32.2°,  = 1), three assessments of stress history
show consistent results, as seen in Figure 4. Overall,
good agreement is observed when compared with la-
boratory measured p' and OCR profiles reported by
Tanaka et al. (2001) and Lunne et al. (2006).
Figure 4 – OCR and preconsolidation stress profiles using the
SCE-CSSM framework for Ariake, Japan (data from Tanaka et
al. 2001; Lunne et al. 2006)
4.2 Sandpoint, Idaho
80 80 80
Figure 5 – Seismic piezocone sounding at Sandpoint, Idaho (a)
cone tip resistance, qt; (b) sleeve friction, fs; (c) porewater pres-
sure, u2; and (d) shear wave velocity, Vs (Mayne, 2005)
The predominant silty clay has a representative
overconsolidation ratio (OCR) = 1.5 and plasticity in-
dex (PI) value of 20%. These values are used as input
in the empirical equation [1] given by Keaveny and
Mitchell (1986) to give an average IR = 170. The same
friction angle (') and OCR values are applied into
equation [2] by Kulhawy and Mayne (1990) in addi-
tion to Cc value of 0.60,  = 0.85 and initial void ratio
of 1.12 to give an average IR = 127.5. The profile of
the shear wave velocity is used to evaluate the small
strain shear modulus (G0) which is used in Krage et al
(2014) seismic procedure presented in equation [4]
along with the cone tip readings to give an average
rigidity index value of IR = 244.
For Sandpoint, the plot of (u2-vo) versus net cone
tip resistance (qnet) determines a slope value aq =
0.507. Together with the characteristic friction pa-
rameter M = 1.2, an operational rigidity index IR =
217 is obtained for Sandpoint.
Figure 6 presents a comparison between the values
of rigidity index obtained using four different expres-
sions: three methods from the literature in addition to
the proposed derived expression based on hybrid
SCE-CSSM framework.
Rigidity Index, IR = G / su
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0

A new bridge and approach embankments were con- 10

IR (AVG) = 170 -
Keaveny &
structed as part of a realignment project for US State 20
Mitchell (1986) IR (AVG) = 241 - Krage
(SCPTu)
Highway 95 near Sandpoint, Idaho. The soils at the
site consist of post-glacial alluvial deposits 30
Depth (m)

IR (AVG) = 127.5 -
includingsoft silty clays with interbedded sand layers 40 Kulhawy &
to depths exceeding 80 m (Altaee and Fellenius, 50
Mayne (1990) IR = 217 -
Proposed Solution
2002). The clay at Sandpoint has the following char- f [(u2-vo)/qnet]
60
acteristics and index values: liquid limit = 45.2 ± 6.3
%, plasticity index = 19.9 ± 4.7 %, and natural water 70

content = 45.2 ± 6.4 %. Figure 5 presents a deep seis- 80

mic piezocone sounding (SCPTu) extending to depths Figure 6 – Comparison between different approaches for esti-
mating rigidity index value for Sandpoint, Idaho test site
 It is clear that the presented new solution gives ri- 4.3 Ballina, Australia
gidity index value that is reasonable, comparable and
within the same order of magnitude of other expres- Ballina is a soft estuarine clay located in northern
sions from the literature. New South Wales in Australia. The clay has high
plasticity with plasticity index value ranging 80% and
The evaluated IR value of 217 gives Nkt = 11.1 that liquid limit value ranging 130% and water content
provides a CPTu profile of su in excellent agreement ranging 100% (Pineda et al. 2016). The clay is char-
with the laboratory measured values from triaxial acterized by its high compressibility and low un-
compression tests at the site, as presented in Figure 7. drained shear strength as measured in triaxial com-
pression tests. Figure 9 presents the readings of a
piezocone sounding conducted by Pineda et al.
(2014). A characteristic effective friction angle ' =
33.7° is evaluated the NTH method and piezocone
data from the site.
Cone Tip Resistance, q t (kPa) Sleeve Friction, fs (kPa) Porewater Pressure, u 2 (kPa)
0 500 1000 1500 0 10 20 30 40 0 100 200 300 400
0 0 0

u2
2 2 2
uo
4 4 4

Depth (m)
6 6 6

8 8 8

10 10 10

12 12 12

14 14 14

Figure 9 – CPTu sounding in soft clay at Ballina, Australia: (a)

Figure 7 – Undrained shear strength profile for Sandpoint, Idaho
using SCE-CSSM solution and cone bearing factor Nkt (data
from Dean Harris, 2004, personal comm.)
Using the hybrid SCE-CSSM equations with de-
rived parameter (IR = 217 and ' = 32°), three evalua-
tions of stress history with depth are presented in Fig-
ure 8. In the clay layers from 10 to 48 m and 66 to 80
m depth ranges, these generally agree well and com-
pare favorably with p' and OCRs obtained from one-
dimensional consolidation testing.
cone tip resistance; (b) sleeve friction; (c) porewater pressure
(data from Pineda et al. 2014)
By plotting (u2-vo) versus net cone tip resistance
(qnet) for Ballina soft clay, a slope value of aq = 0.50
is obtained. This determines an operational rigidity
index IR =168. The obtained IR value corresponds to
a cone bearing factor Nkt = 10.74 that provides nice
agreement with CAUC laboratory-measured su refer-
ence values and field vane su values at the site, as ev-
ident in Figure 10.

Figure 8 – OCR and preconsolidation stress profiles using SCE- Figure 10 – Undrained shear strength profile for Ballina, Aus-
CSSM solution at Sandpoint, Idaho (data from Altaee and Felle- tralia using the SCE-CSSM operational rigidity index value and
nius, 2002) cone bearing factor Nkt (data from Pineda et al. 2016)
 Applying the SCE-CSSM equations with IR = 168
and ' = 33.7° ( = 1), the three CPTu profiles give
good agreement with each other at depths below 2 m,
as presented in Figure 11. Very good agreement is
also observed in comparison with laboratory-meas-
ured p' and corresponding OCR profiles.
Figure 11 – OCR and preconsolidation stress prediction using
hybrid SCE-CSSM framework with proposed IR expression for
Ballina soft clay, Australia (data from Pineda et al. 2016)
5 CONCLUSIONS
Using a hybrid spherical cavity expansion – critical
state framework, it is shown that an operational value
of rigidity index (IR) is obtained from the cone tip re-
sistance and pore water pressure readings, or their
normalized quantities. Three case studies covering
natural clays with different geologies are used to
demonstrate the effectiveness of the methodology.
The assessed IR values are used to evaluate profiles of
undrained shear strength and stress history
6 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors appreciate the support of ConeTec Inves-
tigations of Richmond, BC and Design House Con-
sultancy of Dubai in support of this research.
7 REFERENCES
Altaee, A. and Fellenius, B.H. (2002). Evaluation and Analysis
of Results of Static Loading Test US95 Sandpoint North and
South, Sandpoint, Idaho. Report No. 0005CS193, prepared
for CH2M Hill, Boise, ID by Urkkada, Ottawa, ON: 69p.
Chen, B.Y. and Mayne, P.W. (1994). Profiling the Overconsol-
idation Ratio of Clays by Piezocone Tests, Report No. GIT-
CEE/GEO-94-1 submitted to National Science Foundation
by Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, 280 p.
Keaveny, J. and Mitchell, J.K. (1986). Strength of fine-grained
soils using the piezocone. Use of In-Situ Tests in Geotech-
nical Engrg. (GSP 6), ASCE, Reston/VA, 668-685.
Keaveny, J. (1985). In-situ determination of drained and un-
drained soil strength using the cone penetration test, Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 371p.
Konrad, J.M. and Law, K. (1987). Undrained shear strength
from piezocone. Canadian Geotechnical J. 24: 392-405.
Krage, C.P., Broussard, N.S., & DeJong, J.T. (2014). Estimating
rigidity index (IR) based on CPT measurements. Proceedings
of the 3rd International Symposium on Cone Penetration
Testing, Las Vegas: 727-735. www.cpt14.com
Kulhawy, F.H. and Mayne, P.W. (1990). Manual on Estimating
Soil Properties for Foundation Design, Report No. EL-6800,
Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, August
1990, 306 pages. Download from: www.epri.com
Ladd, C.C. (1991). Stability evaluation during staged construc-
tion. (The 22nd Terzaghi Lecture), Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering 117 (4): 540-615.
Lunne, T., Randolph, M., Sjursen, M.A., Low, H.E. and Gue,
C.S. (2006). Shear strength parameters determined by in-
situ tests for deep water soft soils. NGI-COFS Report
20041618-1: 558 pages.
Mayne, P.W. (1991). Determination of OCR in clays by piezo-
cone tests using cavity expansion and critical state concepts.
Soils and Foundations 31 (2): 65-76.
Mayne, P.W. (2001). Stress-strain-strength-flow parameters
from enhanced in-situ tests. Proceedings International Con-
ference on In-Situ Measurement of Soil Properties & Case
Histories (In-Situ 200), Bali, Indonesia, 47-69.
Mayne, P.W. (2005). Integrated ground behavior: in-situ and lab
tests. Deformation Characteristics of Geomaterials, Vol. 2
(Proc. IS Lyon'03), Taylor & Francis, London: 155-177.
Mayne, P.W. (2007a). In-situ test calibrations for evaluating soil
parameters, Characterization & Engineering Properties of
Natural Soils, Vol. 3, Taylor & Francis, London: 1602-1652.
Mayne, P.W. (2007b). NCHRP Synthesis 368 on Cone Penetra-
tion Test. Transportation Research Board, National Acade-
mies Press, Washington, D.C., 118 pages.
Mayne, P.W. (2014). Interpretation of geotechnical parameters
from seismic piezocone tests. Proceedings, 3rd Intl. Symp.
Cone Penetration Testing, (CPT'14, Las Vegas); edited by
P.K. Robertson and K.L. Cabal): 47-73. www.cpt14.com
Mayne, P.W. (2016). Evaluating effective stress parameters and
undrained shear strengths of soft-firm clays from CPT and
DMT. In Pursuit of Best Practices - Proc. 5th Intl. Conf. on
Geotechnical & Geophysical Site Characterization (ISC-5),
Australian Geomechanics Society, Vol. 1: 19-40
Pineda, J.A., McConnell, A., and Kelly, R.B. (2014). Perfor-
mance of an innovative direct-push piston sampler in soft
clay. Proceedings of the 3rd Symposium on Cone Penetration
Testing. Las Vegas, NV, USA: 279 - 288. www.cpt14.com
Pineda, J.A., Suwal, L.P., Kelly, R.B., Bates, L., and Sloan, S.W.
(2016). Characterization of Ballina clay. Géotechnique, 66
(7): 556-577.
Schnaid, F., Sills, G.C., Soares, J.M., & Nyirenda, Z. (1997).
Predictions of the coefficient of consolidation from
piezocone tests. Canadian Geotechnical J. 34 (2): 315-327.
Senneset, K., Sandven, R., Janbu, N. (1989). Evaluation of soil
parameters from piezocone tests. Transportation Research
Record 1235, National Acad. Press, Washington DC: 24-37.
Tanaka, H., Locat, J., Shibuya, S., Soon, T. T., Shiwakoti, D.R.,
(2001). Characterization of Singapore, Bangkok, Ariake
Clays. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 38(2), 378-400.
Teh, C.I. & Houlsby, G.T. (1991). An analytical study of the
cone penetration test in clay. Geotechnique 41 (1): 17-31.
Vesić, A.S. (1977). Design of Pile Foundations. Synthesis of
Highway Practice 42. Transportation Res. Board, National
Research Council, Washington, DC: 68 p.
Yu, H. S. & Mitchell, J. K. (1998). Analysis of cone resistance:
review of methods. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvi-
ronmental Engineering, 124(2), 140-149.