Lu, Q., Randolph, M. F., Hu, Y. & Bugarski, I. C. (2004). Géotechnique 54, No.
4, 257–267
A numerical study of cone penetration in clay
Q. L U, * M . F. R A N D O L P H , * Y. H U † a n d I . C . B U G A R S K I ‡
This paper presents results from large-displacement
finite-element analysis of cone penetration into clay. The
soil is idealised as a homogeneous elastic-perfectly plastic
material obeying a Tresca yield criterion, and the analysis
is carried out using an ‘arbitrary Lagrangian–Eulerian’
technique, with periodic remeshing and interpolation of
all field values. This allows the cone to be advanced by
several diameters, thus achieving steady-state conditions.
A full parametric study has been undertaken, quantifying
the influences of the rigidity index, in situ stress anisotro-
py and the cone roughness. A theoretical correlation for
the cone factor, Nkt , is developed from this study, and
compared with previous correlations developed using the
strain path method. Characteristics of the stress distribu-
tion around the cone, the extent of the plastic zone and
apparent incremental movements are discussed, allowing
new insights into this problem.
KEYWORDS: clays; plasticity
INTRODUCTION
The cone penetration test is one of the most widely used in
situ tests for assessing the strength profile in soils. In
saturated clays and other fine-grained soils, the test is carried
out at a penetration rate that does not permit drainage, and
the cone resistance may then be interpreted directly as a
measure of the undrained shear strength of the clay. Conven-
tionally, the shear strength is derived by dividing the (net)
cone resistance by a cone factor and, ideally, it would be
helpful to have a sound theoretical basis for this cone factor.
Real soils render this task difficult because of complex
rheological characteristics, where the shear strength is a
function of the rate of strain, the particular stress (or strain)
path imposed, and other factors such as the physical struc-
ture of the deposit. The same limitations apply to any type
of bearing capacity calculation, and yet much of geotechni-
cal engineering design is based on theoretical plasticity
solutions that are derived from idealised models of the soil
response. Logically, therefore, a starting-point for interpreta-
tion of cone resistance is to establish theoretical cone factors
for similarly idealised soil models.
In practical applications, it may still be appropriate to
establish an empirical cone factor, for example by correlat-
ing the cone resistance with shear strengths determined in
the laboratory or with an alternative in situ device. Typical
ranges of cone factor, Nkt (see later, equation (3)) may be
found in the literature (Lunne et al., 1997), and can range
from as low as 6 to over 20, but more commonly are in the
Manuscript received 23 July 2002; revised manuscript accepted 2
February 2004.
Discussion on this paper closes 1 November 2004, for further
details see p. ii.
* Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems, The University of
Western Australia.
† School of Engineering, Curtin University of Technology, Aus-
tralia.
‡ Department of Civil Engineering and Surveying, Darmstadt
University of Technology, Germany.
257
Downloaded by [ Universidad de Concepcion] on [02/01/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Cet exposé présente les résultats d’une analyse d’éléments
finis à grand déplacement lors de la pénétration d’un cône
dans de l’argile. Le sol est idéalisé en tant que matière
élastique homogène parfaitement plastique obéissant au
critère de fluage de Tresca, et l’analyse est faite en utilisant
une technique ‘arbitraire Langrangienne-Eulerienne’, avec
reconnexion et interpolation périodiques de toutes les
valeurs de terrain. Ceci permet d’avancer le cône de
plusieurs diamètres, obtenant ainsi des conditions d’état
stable. Nous avons effectué une étude paramétrique com-
plète, quantifiant les influences de l’indice de rigidité, de
l’anisotropie de contrainte in situ et de la rugosité du cône.
Nous développons une corrélation théorique pour le fac-
teur cône, N kt , à partir de cette étude et nous la comparons
avec les corrélations précédentes développées en utilisant
la méthode de cheminement de déformation. Nous discu-
tons des caractéristiques de la distribution de contrainte
autour du cône, de l’étendue de la zone plastique et des
mouvements incrémentiels apparents, ce qui donne une
nouvelle façon d’envisager ce problème.
range 9–17, with the shear strength measured in triaxial
compression generally used to normalise the cone resistance.
In principle, comparison of the empirically derived cone
factor with the theoretical values for idealised soil provides
additional information on the soil characteristics. Indeed, it
may also be appropriate to adjust theoretical geotechnical
design equations in a manner that is consistent with any
difference between empirical and theoretical cone factors.
The current theoretical basis for cone factors is discussed
later, but arguably the most rigorous approach to date is
based on the strain path method (Baligh, 1985), with small-
displacement finite-element analysis used to establish final
equilibrium stress fields (Teh & Houlsby, 1991). Conven-
tional small-strain finite-element analysis alone is not suita-
ble for determining cone factors, as large displacements are
necessary to establish a steady-state (residual) stress field.
Although a Eulerian finite-element approach to cone penetra-
tion problems was outlined by van den Berg (1994), it does
not appear to have been pursued, perhaps because of pre-
vious limitations in computing power.
This paper presents results of a parametric study under-
taken using large-displacement finite-element analysis, in
order to evaluate steady-state cone penetration resistance. The
large-displacement approach follows the RITSS (Remeshing
and Interpolation Technique combined with Small Strain)
finite-element approach (Hu & Randolph, 1998a). Conven-
tional small-strain finite-element analysis is combined with
frequent remeshing and interpolation of all field values, such
as stresses and material properties. The cone is advanced by
several diameters until steady-state conditions are achieved.
The soil is modelled as a homogeneous elastic-perfectly
plastic material obeying the Tresca yield criterion, and with
low compressibility. The influences of cone roughness, Æc ,
soil rigidity index, Ir , and initial stress anisotropy, ˜, on the
cone resistance have been quantified, leading to an expression
for the cone factor that allows for these effects. The extent of
the plasticity zone, stress distributions around the cone and
apparent incremental movements are also explored.
 258 LU, RANDOLPH, HU AND BUGARSKI
PREVIOUS STUDIES AND RESULTS
Teh & Houlsby (1991) have reviewed previous semi-
analytical approaches that have been used to estimate cone
resistance. They comment that conventional approaches for
the bearing capacity of shallow objects are inappropriate for G/su ; and p0 is the initial mean stress. Expressing the cone
deep penetration. The transition from shallow failure, where
the mechanism extends to the free surface, to deep failure,
where the volume of the penetrometer is accommodated by
elastic deformation of the soil, occurs at penetrations as low
as 1–2 diameters in homogeneous soil (Hu et al., 1999) and
within 3–4 diameters for soil where the strength increases
proportionally with depth.
Cavity expansion
The analogy between deep penetration and cavity expan-
sion draws on the similarities of an inner plastic region with
outward motion of the soil accommodated by elastic defor-
mations in the far field. While the eventual displacement
field surrounding the shaft of a penetrometer is closely
analogous to cylindrical cavity expansion (Steenfelt et al.,
1981), the soil displacements in front of the advancing
penetrometer tip may be considered closer to those for
spherical cavity expansion. The limiting pressure for spheri-
cal cavity expansion has formed the basis for estimating pile
tip resistance at deep penetrations, a similar problem to cone
resistance (Vesic, 1972).
A full review of cavity expansion theory and its various
applications has been provided by Yu (2000). The high
symmetry of cavity expansion allows relatively simple analy-
tical solutions to be obtained, which is the principal attrac-
tion of its use for deep penetration problems in spite of their
evident asymmetry. The relationship between the spherical
cavity expansion limit pressure and cone resistance is gen-
erally based on an approach such as that shown in Fig. 1
(Ladanyi & Johnson, 1974). The cone tip is replaced by a
hemispherical surface with the same diameter as the cone,
within which the cavity expansion limit pressure, łs , is
assumed to act. Additionally, shear stress, ı, taken as Æc su
(where Æc represents a friction ratio for the cone–soil inter-
face, and su is the soil shear strength) is assumed to act on
the face of the cone. Thus for a 608 cone the penetration
resistance is expressed as
pffiffiffi
qc ¼ łs þ 3Æc su
If the soil obeys a Tresca yield criterion, łs is given by
(Vesic, 1972)
D
q
τ τ
ψs ψs
Fig. 1. Transformation of cavity expansion results to cone
penetration
Downloaded by [ Universidad de Concepcion] on [02/01/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 
4 G 4
ł s ¼ su 1 þ ln þ p0 ¼ su ð1 þ ln I r Þ þ p0 (2)
3 su 3
where G is the soil shear modulus; Ir is the rigidity index,
resistance in terms of the conventional cone factor, Nkt ,
relating the net cone resistance to the shear strength (Lunne
et al., 1997):
qc ¼ Nkt su þ
v0 (3)
where
v0 is the in situ vertical stress (taken as equivalent to
p0 in the cavity expansion analogy), the cone factor is then
given by
pffiffiffi
Nkt ¼ 1:33 þ 1:33 ln I r þ 3Æc (4)
For typical clays with rigidity index, Ir , in the range 50–
500, this expression gives a range for Nkt from 6.55 to
11.35. As will be shown later, this range is somewhat lower
than that obtained from more rigorous numerical analysis
that takes proper account of the actual soil deformation
during steady-state cone penetration.
Strain path method
The strain path method first proposed by Baligh (1985)
has been used extensively as a basis for estimating the cone
resistance. The soil is treated as a viscous fluid, and a flow
field is established from a potential function, in order to
satisfy incompressibility. The strain rates may then be
derived for each soil element by differentiating the velocity
field. Corresponding deviatoric stresses are derived by inte-
grating the relevant constitutive model along the streamlines,
and the mean stress is determined from either one of the
equilibrium equations (radial or axial). However, in general
the deduced stresses will not satisfy the other equilibrium
equation, with the discrepancy reflecting the error in the
initial flow field.
Teh & Houlsby (1991) have discussed a number of meth-
ods to establish equilibrium following the initial estimate of
stresses using the strain path method. They concluded that
the most effective approach was to take the estimated stress
field as initial stresses in a small-strain finite-element analy-
sis, and establish equilibrium during further advance of the
cone (typically by 20% of the cone radius). This approach
will not necessarily establish the correct residual stress field
behind the advancing cone.
(1) A further limitation, intrinsic to the strain path method, is
that the cone–soil interface is assumed to be smooth. Teh &
Houlsby (1991) addressed this in two ways. First, using the
(uncorrected) strain path method and estimating the effect of
cone tip roughness using the quasi-analytical approach dis-
cussed in relation to Fig. 1, they arrived at
Nkt ¼ 1:25 þ 1:84 ln I r þ 2Æc
2˜ (5)
where ˜ is the in situ deviator stress normalised by the
shear strength, ˜ ¼ (
v0

h0 )/2su . The coefficient 2 for the
cone tip roughness, rather than ˇ3 in equation (4), is due to
the adoption of a von Mises failure criterion for the soil,
with su being the strength in triaxial compression.
Their second method was a full strain path and finite-
element analysis, with the effect of cone tip and shaft
roughness (friction ratios, Æc and Æs ) estimated from finite-
element analysis conducted on pre-installed cones. The
resulting expression for the cone factor was
 
: Ir
Nkt ¼ 1 67 þ ð1 þ ln I r Þ þ 2:4Æc
0:2Æs
1:8˜
1500
(6)
Comparing equations (5) and (6), the latter equation gives
 A NUMERICAL STUDY OF CONE PENETRATION IN CLAY
higher values of Nkt for values of rigidity index greater than
100, and both expressions give higher values than from the
spherical cavity analogue.
LARGE-DISPLACEMENT FINITE-ELEMENT ANALYSIS
As pointed out by Houlsby et al. (1985), conventional
small-strain finite-element analyses (e.g. Griffiths, 1982; De
Borst & Vermeer, 1984) are unable to generate the necessary
residual stress field around the cone, and thus to achieve an
appropriate ultimate cone resistance. In order to simulate
sufficient displacement, a large-deformation model is essen-
tial. An updated Lagrangian approach, as used by Kiousis et
al. (1988), couples the element nodes in the mesh to the
material points, with the mesh being updated after every
increment. However, as concluded by van den Berg &
Vermeer (1988), during continuous deformation the elements
become severely distorted in shape, leading to numerical
problems in the solution. An alternative approach for large-
deformation analysis is a Eulerian scheme, where the ele-
ment mesh is fixed and the material flows through the
elements (van den Berg, 1994). In this approach, extra terms
are included in the governing equations to account for the
rotation of the material and convection of the stress field,
which can lead to mathematical difficulties when complex
constitutive models are adopted.
An alternative ‘steady-state’ finite-element approach has
been presented by Yu et al. (2000), in which the stress–
strain history of elements flowing past a fixed cone is
essentially integrated along the flow path. The analysis
includes some approximations, such as setting zero nodal
force at the very tip of the cone, and also integrating the
strain history along vertical columns of elements, which
appears not to take full account of the effects of radial
motion. Their expression for the cone factor was
 perfectly plastic soil model, with a Tresca failure criterion.
Nkt ¼ 0:33 þ 2 ln I r þ 2:37
1:83˜
cs
where  and cs are the interface friction angle (over cone
tip and shaft) and critical state friction angle for the soil
respectively.
Combined remeshing and small-strain analysis
The form of analysis undertaken here is referred to as
arbitrary Lagrangian–Eulerian (ALE), whereby a series of
small-strain analysis increments are followed by complete
remeshing, and then interpolation of the field quantities
(stress and material properties) between the Gauss points in
the new mesh and those in the old mesh. The coordinate
positions of the Gauss point in the old mesh are first
updated, according to the cumulative displacements in the
preceding increments of analysis. This process was proposed
259
Analysis details
A standard cone with tip angle of 608 has been consid-
ered. Although the analysis could, in principle, be carried
out with penetration of the cone from the free surface, as
the main objective is to evaluate the cone resistance at
depth, the cone was pre-embedded to a depth of 5 cone
diameters (D). This is below the depth at which the free
surface is likely to affect the penetration resistance. All
distances and penetrations of the cone have been normalised
by the cone radius (R) or diameter (D), and the results are
independent of the absolute size of the cone. Fig. 2 shows
an example of an initial mesh and boundary conditions used
in the analysis. Note that the interface between cone and soil
was modelled in such a way as to prevent any soil move-
ment normal to the interface, but allowing sliding motion at
a predetermined limiting shear stress.
The size of the finite-element domain was chosen to
ensure that the boundaries were well outside the plastic
zone. In order to optimise computation times, the radial
extent of the domain was varied with the rigidity index, Ir ,
noting that solutions for cavity expansion from zero initial
radius show that the ratio of plasticpffiffiffiffi radius to the current
cavity radius remains
p ffiffiffiffi constant at I r for cylindrical cavity
expansion and 3 I r for spherical cavity expansion (Vesic,
1972). The radial extent
pffiffiffiffi of the domain, AB, was therefore
taken as about 1:5 I r R (where R is the cone radius), and
the overall depth of the domain, AH, was fixed at 45R
(22.5D) except for the check analysis for cone penetration
of 25 diameters discussed later. No attempt was made to
optimise the domain further, by reducing either dimension,
but Fig. 3 indicates that increasing the radial extent of the
domain gave no difference in the penetration response. The
two analyses shown are for Ir ¼ 150, so that the criterion
above would give a domain radius of 20R ¼ 10D (where
R is the radius of the cone).
All analyses reported here are based on a simple elastic,
(7)
This model gives identical shear strength, su , irrespective of
the strain path; in contrast, a von Mises model, such as that
adopted in the work of Teh & Houlsby (1991), gives a shear
strength in triaxial compression, which is 15% smaller than
for plane strain conditions (simple shear). Plasticity analyses
of axisymmetric or three-dimensional problems reported in
the literature generally show that similar normalised capa-
cities are obtained from the two different models (within a
few per cent), depending on which shear strength is used as
the normalising quantity (e.g. Murff & Hamilton, 1993).
Poisson’s ratio was taken as 0.49, and the rigidity index was
varied between 50 and 500. Nodal force interface elements
R (D/2)
5D

by Hu & Randolph (1998a) and referred to as RITSS

(Remeshing and Interpolation Technique combined with A
Small Strain).
The sequence of small-strain increments, remeshing and
interpolation is repeated until sufficient penetration of the
AH

cone has been achieved, which may be several diameters. As

the remeshing and interpolation aspects are essentially in-
dependent of the incremental analysis, the procedure may be
linked with virtually any finite-element code, and complex
constitutive models present no particular difficulty. Detailed
discussion of strategies for the size of increments and A
frequency of remeshing may be found in Hu & Randolph
(1998a, b), Hu et al. (1999) and Lu et al. (2000, 2001), AB
where the robustness of the method has also been demon-
strated. Fig. 2. Initial mesh for analysis

Downloaded by [ Universidad de Concepcion] on [02/01/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 260 LU, RANDOLPH, HU AND BUGARSKI
14 14
1
12 2 12
11·3
10 10

9·3
8 8

q/su
AH ⫽ 22·5D
q/su

6 1: AB ⫽ 20D 6 Small strain

2: AB ⫽ 10D
4 Large displacement
4

2
0 0
0 2 4 6
Normalised penetration: diameters
Fig. 3. Effect of domain width (Ir 150, rough cone, smooth
shaft)
(e.g. Herrmann, 1978; Lu et al., 2000) were used between
the cone and the soil, with the nodal forces representing the
integrated shear and normal stresses acting on the interface
area represented by each node. The interface elements
allowed the limiting interfacial shear stress to be varied from
zero to 100% of the soil shear strength.
Except where otherwise stated, all results presented are
for an additional cone penetration of 6–7 diameters (a total
of 11–12 diameters below the soil surface), in order to
achieve steady-state conditions. A check analysis was also
carried out where the cone was penetrated 25 diameters
from its initial position. This gave a very slight increase in
cone resistance (some 3% higher) compared with a penetra-
tion of 6 diameters.
As discussed later, the cone resistance reported here is the
force on the cone tip itself, divided by the projected cross-
sectional area of the cone. In practice, field cones include a
small part of the shaft (7–10 mm in a standard 36 mm
diameter cone) in the load cell measurement (ISSMGE,
1999). For typical friction ratios of 3–4%, this would
amount to an increase in the cone factor by a similar amount
(3–4%).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Identification of steady state
As pointed out previously, conventional small-strain finite-
element analysis has difficulty in identifying the ultimate
bearing capacity for deep penetration problems. A common
2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 Normalised penetration: diameters
Fig. 4. Identification of steady state (Ir 150, smooth cone,
smooth shaft)
approach is to take the point at which the incremental
stiffness has reduced by a certain factor compared with the
initial stiffness. Although this is sufficient from a practical
point of view for certain applications, the definition is at
best arbitrary, and would lead to significant underestimation
of cone resistance.
Figure 4 shows a comparison of conventional small-strain
and large-displacement (RITSS) analysis of cone penetration.
This analysis is for a smooth cone tip (compared with a
rough cone tip in Fig. 3), rigidity index, Ir ¼ 150, and
isotropic initial stresses. The small-strain analysis has been
continued until a displacement of 1 cone diameter. However,
the accuracy of the small-strain analyses becomes doubtful
for displacements beyond 0.5D, owing to gross distortion of
the mesh, as indicated by the divergence of the two curves.
The large-displacement analysis indicates that the limiting
resistance is not achieved until a penetration of approxi-
mately 5–6D, beyond which the normalised penetration
resistance is reasonably constant at 11.35. This is 22%
greater than the resistance of 9.3 at a displacement of 0.5D,
the practical limit for conventional small-strain analysis. An
analysis was also undertaken for a rough cone, using a more
extensive but slightly coarser mesh, where the cone was
pushed 25 diameters beyond its pre-embedment position.
That analysis gave a 3% increase in penetration resistance
beyond 6 diameters.
Stress contours (with
r ,
v representing radial and verti-
cal stress respectively) from the conventional small-strain
analysis are compared with those from the large displace-
ment analysis in Fig. 5 for a smooth cone (as analysed in

O O
1 7 7 7
3 5 5 1 1 7
3 5 5
3 1
3

Small strain Large displacement Small strain Large displacement

(a) (b)

Fig. 5. Stress distributions at penetration of 0.5D (Ir 150, smooth cone, smooth shaft):
(a) contours of
r /su ; (b) contours of
v /su

Downloaded by [ Universidad de Concepcion] on [02/01/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 A NUMERICAL STUDY OF CONE PENETRATION IN CLAY 261
Fig. 4), for a cone displacement of 0.5D. The two sets of residual stress field created behind the advancing cone,
contours are very similar, confirming that the RITSS ap- which is similar to that obtained by Teh (1987), and Teh &
proach does not distort the stress contours, although the Houlsby (1991).
interpolation procedure has led to a smoothing of the However, the stress contours revealed here show more
contours compared with those from the small-strain analysis. gradual reduction in stresses below the cone. The stress
contours in Figs 5 and 6 indicate a centre, O, about one
radius of the cone below the shoulder. At the level of this
centre, the radial stress changes are larger than the vertical
Stress distributions around cone
stress, whereas ahead of the cone the vertical stress changes
The evolution of the stress distributions around a rough
. are larger. Note that the slight concavity seen in the two
cone as the displacement increases from 0 5D to 6D and
lowest vertical stress contours corresponds to a transition
beyond is shown in Fig. 6, for the same soil properties as
from downward vertical displacement below the cone to
for Fig. 3. Although the patterns of stress contours at the
upward vertical displacement, as indicated later in Fig. 18.
different displacements are generally similar, the stress levels
The analogy between cone penetration and spherical cav-
increase significantly with displacement. The increase in
ity expansion is illustrated well in Fig. 7(a), where the plot
radial and vertical stresses adjacent to the cone between
shows the direction of the major principal stress changes,
1
penetrations of 0.5–6D may be estimated approximately
and
3 , and the plot in Fig. 7(b) shows magnitudes of
1 /su
from the closest contours (7 7su to 9 5su for
r , 9su to 11su
. .
along different lines radiating (approximately) from a no-
for
z as the cone displacement increases from 0.5D to 6D);
tional expansion centre, O, midway between cone tip and
the increase is 22–23%, which is broadly consistent with the
. . shoulder. The values of
1 /su vary with the angle, Ł, near
change in the cone resistance from 10 7 to 12 7 (19%)
the cone but then converge with increasing distance. Inter-
between these two displacements (Fig. 3).
estingly, however, the rate of decay is much more gradual
For comparison, stress contours for a displacement of 25D
than the theoretical curve from spherical cavity expansion
are also shown in the right-hand half of each diagram, with
(Vesic, 1972).
successive contours always lying just outside the correspond-
ing contours for a displacement of 6D. It is interesting to
note that, although the cone resistance increased by only 3%
between penetrations of 6D and 25D, significant changes Extent of plastic zone
occurred in the stress contours, particularly at some distance During deep penetration, the plastic zone is confined by
from the cone. The most notable difference in the stress elastically deforming soil. The extent of the plastic zone will
contours for displacements of 6D and 25D is for the lowest- depend on various factors, such as cone roughness, soil
level contours (
r /su and
v /su equal to 1), where the analy- rigidity and initial stress anisotropy. These effects are exam-
sis to 25D displacement gives a more realistic picture of the ined in this section.

1 1

1
1

9·5 11
7·7 3
1 3 9
1
3 3 3
3
5 7 9
7 5 5
5 7 9
7

0·5D 6D
0·5D 6D

25D
25D

(a) (b)

Fig. 6. Stress distributions at different penetrations (Ir 150, rough cone, smooth shaft): (a)
contours of
r /su ; (b) contours of
v /su

Downloaded by [ Universidad de Concepcion] on [02/01/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 262 LU, RANDOLPH, HU AND BUGARSKI

R O

Zp
(a) Rp

12

α ⫽ 0° (a) (b)
10
α ⫽ 45°
Fig. 8. Current plastic zones during steady state for different
8 α ⫽ 90°
soil rigidity indices: (a) Ir 150, rough cone, smooth shaft; (b)
Spherical cavity O
d Ir 300, rough cone, smooth shaft
expansion
σ1/su

6
α
20
4

2 Cylindrical cavity
15
Zp /R (RITSS)
0
Zp /R, Rp /R

0 2 4 6 8 10 12
d/R 10 Rp /R (RITSS)
(b)

Fig. 7. Principal stresses around a penetrating cone (Ir 150,

5 Spherical cavity
smooth cone, smooth shaft): (a) orientation of principal stresses;
(b) major principal stress variation with radial distance from O

0
0 200 400 600
Figure 8 shows the plastic zones for rough cones (Æc ¼ 1) Soil rigidity index, Ir
with smooth shafts (Æs ¼ 0) penetrating into homogeneous
soils with isotropic initial stresses. The results are for cone Fig. 9. Variation of plastic zone with soil rigidity index
displacements of 6D, although the size was found not to
change significantly for the analysis taken to 25D. The size
of the plastic zone in the vicinity of the cone tip may be
characterised approximately by radius Rp and depth Zp, as
indicated in Fig. 8, and the evident dependence of the size
on the soil rigidity index is quantified in Fig. 9. The plastic
radii for cylindrical and spherical cavity expansion solutions
(Vesic, 1972) are plotted for comparison. It may be seen that
the general trend of the variation obtained from the finite-
element analyses agrees well with the solution from spheri-
cal cavity theory, especially in terms of the radial extents,
which are only marginally above the spherical cavity solu-
tion.
In the studies by Teh & Houlsby (1991) and Yu et al.
(2000), the plastic zone was found to extend back along the
shaft, with the boundary of the plastic zone above the cone
shoulder being almost parallel to the shaft. The horizontal
extent of the plastic zone in that region was found to
correlate well with the plastic radius from cylindrical cavity
expansion. Although, in the current study, the plastic zone
does not appear to extend as far radially, as noted in Fig. 9,
this is due to slight unloading behind the cone, limiting the (a) (b)
extent of soil that is currently plastic.
Figure 10 indicates little influence of roughness of the Fig. 10. Effect of roughness on the extent of current plastic
cone tip and shaft on the development of the plastic zone. zone (Ir 150): (a) smooth cone, smooth shaft; (b) rough cone,
Fig. 11 together with Fig. 8(a) shows that anisotropic initial rough shaft

Downloaded by [ Universidad de Concepcion] on [02/01/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 A NUMERICAL STUDY OF CONE PENETRATION IN CLAY 263
area of the embedded shaft of the cone. As given in equa-
tion (3), the cone factor is then derived as the ratio of the
ultimate net cone resistance to the shear strength of the soil:
qc

v0
Nkt ¼ (9)
su
As noted previously, the cone factor defined in this way will
be a slight underestimate (for Æs . 0) for the standard cone
geometry defined in ISSMGE (1999), as the short length of
shaft above the conical tip has been ignored. Analyses
undertaken with different (isotropic) initial stress levels gave
identical cone factors, regardless of the level of initial stress.
It was also found that the cone tip resistance was indepen-
dent of the amount of shaft friction, once corrected accord-
ing to equation (8), as indicated in Fig. 13.

Effect of soil rigidity index. It has been widely recognised

(a)
Fig. 11. Effect of stress anisotropy on the extent of current
plastic zone (Ir 150, rough cone, smooth shaft): (a) ˜ 0.5;
(b) ˜
0.5
stresses, quantified by ˜ ¼ (
vo

ho )/2su , seems to result
in a slight change in the plastic domain. For a more
complete picture, the sizes of plastic zone for different
combinations of soil rigidity and stress anisotropy are com-
pared in Fig. 12. It is interesting to note that, for higher soil
rigidity indices, the case of isotropic initial stresses tends to
produce the largest vertical extent of the plastic zone and
the smallest radial extent.
that the cone factor must vary with soil rigidity, owing to the
accommodation of the cone volume by ‘elastic’ strains in the
(b) soil outside the plastic zone. To quantify the effect of soil
rigidity on the cone factor, two steps have been taken. First,
calculations have been carried out for five different soil
rigidity indices assuming isotropic initial stresses and a fully
rough cone tip (but smooth shaft). Results from these
analyses are summarised in Fig. 14. Second, analyses have
been carried out for a range of initial stress ratios and values
of cone tip roughness to validate the trends from the first set
of analyses.
Figure 14 shows that the trend derived here using the
RITSS finite-element approach agrees well with the solution
60
Rough cone, rough
shaft (F/Asu)
50

Cone factor
(F–f )/A/su or F/A/su

40
The cone resistance is computed from the displacement-
controlled finite-element analyses by taking the total force
30
on the cone, F, which is the sum of the vertical components
of all nodal forces along the interface, subtracting any shaft
friction, f, and dividing by the cross-sectional area of the 20
cone, A, to give Rough cone, smooth shaft F/A/su

F
f 10 Rough cone, rough shaft (F–f )/A/su

qc ¼ (8)
A
For most of the results presented here, the cone shaft has 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
been modelled as a smooth interface, so that f is zero. In
Normalised penetration: diameters
other cases, a limiting shaft friction of Æs su has been
modelled, so that f is the product of Æs su times the surface Fig. 13. Effect of shaft roughness, Æs

14
18
∆ Zp /R Rp /R
12 16
0·5 SPFE
RITSS
14
0·0
Zp /R, Rp /R

10 ⫺0·5 12
10 SP
Nkt

8 8
6
6 4
2
4 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Soil rigidity index, Ir Soil rigidity index, Ir

Fig. 12. Variation of plastic zone with soil rigidity index and Fig. 14. Variation of Nkt with soil rigidity index (isotropic initial
stress anisotropy (rough cone, smooth shaft) stresses)

Downloaded by [ Universidad de Concepcion] on [02/01/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 264
obtained by Teh & Houlsby (1991), using a pure strain path
(SP) method. The discrepancy in magnitude between these
two solutions may be attributed mainly to the effect of cone
roughness, although the gradient of Nkt against ln Ir from the
current analyses is slightly lower than that from the strain
path method (1.59 instead of 1.84, a reduction of 14%). The
difference between the current results and those from Teh &
Houlsby (1991) for a rough cone, after using small-strain
finite-element analyses to correct equilibrium errors (see
equation (6), plotted as SPFE in Fig. 14), is significant,
especially for high values of rigidity index. For the case of a
fully rough cone (Æc ¼ 1) in initially isotropic soil, the
relationship shown in Fig. 14 is
Nkt ¼ 4:62 þ 1:59 ln I r (10)
Results from the additional analyses to check the effect of
cone roughness and initial stress ratio on the dependence of
Nkt on rigidity index are presented in Fig. 15. The variation
of the gradient of the best-fitting lines shown is very slight,
less than 5%, and so for simplicity the average gradient of
1.6 is recommended for all combinations.
Effect of in situ stress. A similar strategy as in the last
section has been followed to investigate the effect of in situ
stress anisotropy. First, a fixed soil rigidity index of 150 and
fully rough cone surface were adopted, while the initial stress
anisotropy parameter, ˜ ¼ (
vo

ho )/2su , was varied be-
tween
0.5 and 0.5. Then, the variation of Nkt with stress
anisotropy was examined for various combinations of soil
rigidity index and cone roughness. All results are plotted in
Fig. 16, including two additional analyses where the range of
˜ was extended to 0.75, confirming a linear trend.
16
14
Nkt
LU, RANDOLPH, HU AND BUGARSKI
Values of Nkt from the first set of analyses fall approxi-
mately on a straight line with a gradient of
1.82, as shown
by line 2 in Fig. 16. This gradient is almost exactly the
same as that obtained by Teh & Houlsby (1991) from their
finite-element adjusted strain path analyses (necessarily for a
rough cone), although it differs by 10% from the coefficient
of
2.0 obtained directly from the strain path method
(necessarily for a smooth cone). The latter coefficient may
be argued theoretically for the particular boundary condi-
tions assumed in the strain path method (uniform vertical
soil velocity relative to the cone at large z), but seems not to
hold once small elastic deformations are allowed for at
depth. As pointed out by Teh & Houlsby (1991), though, the
net effect is that the total cone resistance is much more
strongly associated with the in situ horizontal stress than the
vertical stress.
The dependence of the cone factor on the initial stress
state can also be explained by the induced stress distribu-
tions shown in Fig. 17 (at displacements of 6D). It can be
seen that higher initial horizontal stress (lower ˜) results in
slightly lower horizontal stress changes and much higher
vertical stress changes, which in turn result in a higher cone
factor. There are also discernible differences in the incre-
mental movements. These have been obtained using software
from fluid mechanics, where flow-lines are fitted through
current directions of incremental movement. As shown in
Fig. 18, the soil appears to flow more horizontally for high
values of ˜.
Figure 16 demonstrates that the gradient of Nkt with ˜ is
hardly affected by soil rigidity or cone roughness. The
maximum error that might be attributed to any difference in
gradient is about 0.13 for the extreme values of ˜ ¼ 1,
which is less than 1.3% of the cone factor. The gradient
may therefore be taken as the average value,
1.9.
Effect of cone roughness. In many of the previous studies,
it was impossible to control the shearing boundary condition
on the cone face or on the surface of the shaft. In the current
analyses, nodal joint elements have been adopted at the
interface to achieve this control. The formulation of this type

12 1
1: ∆ ⫽ ⫺0·5, αc ⫽ 1·0 of interface element follows that proposed by Herrmann
4
2 2: ∆ ⫽ 0, αc ⫽ 1·0
(1978), and the efficacy has been examined by Lu et al.
10 3
(2000) for penetration of cylindrical and spherical penet-
3: ∆ ⫽ 0·5, αc ⫽ 1·0 rometers. The roughness factors Æc (on the cone face) and Æs
4: ∆ ⫽ ⫺0·5, αc ⫽ 0·5 (on the shaft) have been varied between 0 and 1. As
8 discussed previously, the roughness of the cone shaft makes
10 100 1000 no difference to the actual tip resistance, although it clearly
Soil rigidity index, Ir affects the total cone resistance (see Fig. 13). Therefore
attention here is focused on the roughness of the cone tip.
Fig. 15. Variation of Nkt with soil rigidity index Note that, by analogy with typical values of Æ deduced
during continuous penetration of piles and measured on cone
friction sleeves, field values of Æ are likely to lie in the range
1: Ir ⫽ 500, αc ⫽ 1·0
0.2–0.6.
20 2: Ir ⫽ 150, αc ⫽ 1·0 Figure 19 suggests that it is sufficient to adopt a linear
3: Ir ⫽ 50, αc ⫽ 1·0 variation in the cone factor with cone roughness, even
18
though there is a slight curvature in the results for Æc ¼ 0,
4: Ir ⫽ 150, αc ⫽ 0·5
0.5 and 1. The best-fitting lines for different initial stress
16
1 5: Ir ⫽ 150, αc ⫽ 0·0 anisotropy are almost parallel, with a gradient of about 1.3.
Nkt

14 2
4
Summary cone factor relationship. The final relationship
12
5 for the cone factor may be obtained by combining the results
3
discussed in the previous sections, to arrive at
10 Nkt  3:4 þ 1:6 ln I r
1:9˜ þ 1:3Æc (11)
The accuracy of this expression has been assessed against
8
⫺1 ⫺0·5 0 0·5 1 each case of calculation involved in this study by comparing
∆ the back-calculated undrained shear strength according to
equation (9) with the value assumed. The maximum error is
Fig. 16. Variation of Nkt with stress anisotropy 1.7% (for 95% of the cases, the error is between plus and

Downloaded by [ Universidad de Concepcion] on [02/01/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 A NUMERICAL STUDY OF CONE PENETRATION IN CLAY 265

7 5 7 5 3 1 7 5 3 1
3
1

∆ ⫽ ⫺0·5 ∆⫽0 ∆ ⫽ 0·5

(a)

7
7
7
5
5 5
3
3
3
1
1 1

∆ ⫽ ⫺0·5 ∆⫽0 ∆ ⫽ 0·5

(b)

Fig. 17. Effect of stress anisotropy on stress changes due to penetration: (a) contours of radial stress
change, (
r 2
h0 )/su ; (b) contours of vertical stress change, (
v 2
v0 )/su

Table 1. Comparison of cone factors derived using different methods

Ir Cavity expansion Strain path Strain path and Large strain/displacement finite
finite element element.
Ladanyi & Baligh Yu Teh & Houlsby Van den Berg RITSS (this paper)
Johnson
S R S R S R S R S R S R S R
50 6.5 8.5 — 15.9 8.5 13.8 8.5 (10.5) (8.4) 10.8 9.5 13.8 9.6 10.9
150 8.0 10.0 — 17.0 9.8 15.0 10.5 (12.5) (10.6) 13.0 — — 11.3 12.7
300 8.9 10.9 — 17.7 10.6 15.8 11.7 (13.7) (12.5) 14.9 — — 12.4 13.8
500 9.6 11.6 — 18.2 11.2 16.4 12.7 (14.7) (14.4) 16.8 12.0 17.5 13.2 14.5

Downloaded by [ Universidad de Concepcion] on [02/01/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 266 LU, RANDOLPH, HU AND BUGARSKI
is with the solutions for a rough cone expressed in equation
(5) obtained by Teh & Houlsby (1991), using a pure strain
path method but including a quasi-analytical term for the
cone roughness.

CONCLUDING REMARKS
An extensive parametric study has been carried out for
cone penetration in soft clay, using large-displacement finite-
element analysis, with the cone penetrometer being advanced
several diameters in order to achieve a steady state. A
simple elastic perfectly plastic soil model has been adopted
deliberately, with the main aim being to establish a robust
theoretical framework for cone factors, using a soil model
that is consistent with typical geotechnical design. The
∆ ⫽ 0·5 ∆ ⫽ ⫺0·5
large-displacement finite-element scheme is based on the
Fig. 18. Effect of stress anisotropy on incremental movements RITSS approach of Hu & Randolph (1998a), with frequent
remeshing and interpolation of all field values.
The main variables that have been investigated are the
effects of (a) soil rigidity index, (b) in situ stress anisotropy,
and (c) roughness of the cone tip and shaft. Based on the
∆⫽0
results of the analyses, an updated expression for the cone
14 factor in terms of these parameters has been proposed (see
∆ ⫽ 0·5
equation (11)). Detailed stress distributions and incremental
∆ ⫽ ⫺0·5 movements have been investigated, and the findings have
13
been compared with solutions from other approaches, includ-
ing cavity expansion and the strain path method. The cone
factor was found to vary linearly with the logarithm of the
Nkt

12
soil rigidity index, but with a gradient of 1.6, which is
intermediate between the values of 1.33 from spherical
cavity expansion and 1.84 from the strain path approach of
11
Teh & Houlsby (1991).
The analogy of spherical cavity expansion for the cone
penetration resistance is partly supported by the resulting
10
0 0·5 1 stress distributions and the size of the plastic zone around
Cone roughness, αc the cone. In this respect, it is interesting that the radial
extent of the plastic zone appears significantly less than
Fig. 19. Effect of cone roughness, Æc , on cone factor predicted by cylindrical cavity expansion, even where the
cone was advanced 25 diameters through the soil.
minus 1.0%), and the standard error is about 0.6%. There-
fore the approximation in the selections of coefficients ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
accounting for different factors is practically reasonable. The work described in this paper forms part of the
Equation (11) is applicable to any combination of soil activities of the Special Research Centre for Offshore Foun-
rigidity index, Ir , from 50 to 500, soil anisotropy parameter, dation Systems, established and supported under the Austra-
˜, between
0.5 and 0.5, and cone roughness, Æc , between lia Research Council’s Research Centres programme.
0 and 1. It should be noted that these coefficients are based
on the Tresca soil model adopted in the present analyses,
and would vary slightly if alternative soil models were
NOTATION
adopted. A cross-section area of the cone
Following the parametric study presented above, it is D cone diameter
helpful to compare the resulting values of Nkt with results d distance away from cone
presented from previous studies. Table 1 presents this com- F total force driving the cone
parison, all for isotropic initial stress conditions, denoting f shaft friction
smooth and rough cone tip by S and R respectively. The G soil shear modulus
bracketed solutions are obtained by correcting the basic Ir soil rigidity index, ¼ G=su
solution for the roughness of the cone tip, according to the N kt cone factor
suggestions by the original authors. p0 initial mean stress
q cone resistance
It may be seen that the factors derived from the present
qc limiting cone tip resistance
work are generally higher than the spherical cavity solutions R cone radius
given by equation (4), and are lower than the cavity expan- Rp horizontal extent of the plastic zone
sion solution by Baligh (1975), which is referred to by Yu su soil shear strength
& Mitchell (1998). The values are comparable to the other Zp vertical extent of the plastic zone
solutions listed in Table 1, although there are some outlying Æ angle from vertical at cone tip
results, such as the values for a rough cone from van den Æc cone roughness
Berg (1994). With both cone roughness and soil rigidity Æs shaft roughness
taken into consideration, the range from the present work is  interface friction angle
slightly narrower than the solutions by Yu (1993), Teh & ˜ initial stress anisotropy, ¼ (
v0

h0 )=2su
cs critical state friction angle for the soil
Houlsby (1991) and van den Berg (1994). Closest agreement
1 major principal stress

Downloaded by [ Universidad de Concepcion] on [02/01/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 A NUMERICAL STUDY OF CONE PENETRATION IN CLAY

3 minor principal stress

v0 initial vertical stress

h0 initial horizontal stress

r radial stress

v vertical stress
łs cavity expansion limit pressure
REFERENCES
Baligh, M. M. (1985). Strain path method. J. Soil Mech. Found.
Div., ASCE 111, 9, 1180–1186.
De Borst, R. & Vermeer, P. A. (1984). Possibilities and limitations
of finite elements for limit analysis. Géotechnique 34, 2, 199–
210.
Griffiths, D. V. (1982). Elasto-plastic analysis of deep foundations
in cohesive soil. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 6,
211–218.
Herrmann, L. R. (1978). Finite element analysis of contact pro-
blems. J. Engng Mech., ASCE 104, 1043–1059.
Houlsby, G. T., Wheeler, A. A. & Norbury, J. (1985). Analysis of
undrained cone penetration as a steady flow problem. Proc. 5th
Int. Conf. on Numerical Methods in Geomechanics, Nagoya, 4,
1767–1773.
Hu, Y. & Randolph, M. F. (1998a). A practical numerical approach
for large deformation problem in soil. Int. J. Numer Anal.
Methods Geomech. 22, 5, 327–350.
Hu, Y. & Randolph, M. F. (1998b). Deep penetration of shallow
foundations on non-homogeneous soil. Soils Found. 38, 1, 241–
246.
Hu, Y., Randolph, M. F. & Watson, P. G. (1999). Bearing response
of skirted foundations on non-homogeneous soil with large
deformation. J. Geotech. Engng, ASCE 125, No. 17, 924–935.
ISSMGE (1999). International reference test procedure for the cone
penetration test. Report of the ISSMGE Technical Committee 16
in Proc. 12th Eur. Conf. on Soil Mech. Found. Engng., Amster-
dam 3, 2195–2222.
Kiousis, P. D., Voyiadjis, G. Z. & Tumay, M. T. (1988). A large
strain theory and its application in the cone penetration mechan-
ism. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 12, 45–60.
Ladanyi, B. & Johnson, G. H. (1974). Behaviour of circular
Downloaded by [ Universidad de Concepcion] on [02/01/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
267
footings and plate anchors embedded in permafrost. Can. Geo-
tech. J. 11, 531–553.
Lu, Q., Hu, Y. & Randolph, M. F. (2000). FE analysis for T-bar and
ball penetration in cohesive soil. Proc. 10th Int. Offshore and
Polar Engineering Conf. ISOPE 2000, Seattle 2, 617–623.
Lu, Q., Hu, Y. & Randolph, M. F. (2001). Deep penetration in soft
clay with strength increasing with depth. Proc. 11th Int. Off-
shore and Polar Engineering Conf. ISOPE 2001, Stavanger 2,
453–458.
Lunne, T., Robertson, P. K. & Powell, J. J. M. (1997). Cone
penetration testing in geotechnical practice. London: Blackie
Academic and Professional.
Murff, J. D. & Hamilton, J. M. (1993). Pultimate for undrained
analysis of laterally loaded piles. J. Geotech. Engng, ASCE 119,
No. 1, 91–107.
Steenfelt, J. S., Randolph, M. F. & Wroth, C. P. (1981). Model tests
on instrumented piles jacked into clay. Proc. 10th Int. Conf. Soil
Mech. Found. Engng, Stockholm 2, 857–864.
Teh, C. (1987). An analytical study of the cone penetration test.
DPhil thesis, University of Oxford.
Teh, C. I. & Houlsby, G. T. (1991). An analytical study of the cone
penetration test in clay. Géotechnique 41, No. 1, 17–34.
van den Berg, P. (1994). Analysis of soil penetration. Delft: Delft
University Press.
van den Berg, P. & Vermeer, P. A. (1988). Undrained strength from
CPT and finite element computations. Proceedings of a Confer-
ence on Numerical Methods in Geomechanics, Innsbruck, 1095–
1100. Balkema: Rotterdam: Balkema.
Vesic, A. S. (1972). Expansion of cavities in infinite soil mass. J.
Soil Mech. Found. Div., ASCE 98, No. 3, 265–290.
Yu, H. S. (1993). Discussion on: Singular plastic fields in steady
penetration of a rigid cone. J. Appl. Mech. 60, 1061–1062.
Yu, H. S. (2000). Cavity expansion methods in geomechanics.
Rotterdam: Balkema.
Yu, H. S. & Mitchell, J. K. (1998). Analysis of cone resistance:
review of methods. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Engng, ASCE 124,
No. 2, 140–149.
Yu, H. S., Herrmann, L. R. & Boulanger, R. W. (2000). Analysis of
steady cone penetration in clay. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Engng,
ASCE 126, No. 7, 594–605.