Melnikov A.V., Boldyrev G.G.

Penza State University of Architecture and Construction

CORRELATIONS BETWEEN СPT RESISTANCE AND YOUNG

MODULUS OF SOILS

Abstract
The paper presents a procedure for correlating soil physical and mechanical
parameters from CPT data, illustrated by an example of Young modulus E
evaluation from the cone tip and sleeve resistance test values. A statistically valid
technique to group soils by the analogy of their correlations between Young
modulus 𝐸 and CPT resistance is proposed. The correlation equations are
generated. A method for developing a single nonlinear regression model for a wide
range of soils, improving the accuracy of prediction, is presented.
Key words: cone penetration test, correlation equations, deformation
modulus
1. Introduction
Aсcording to ii. 5.3.5 and 5.3.10 СП (Construction Code) 22.13330.2011
[19] it is allowed to determine E, c and φ values for structures of importance class
II from valid regional data, given in regional construction codes, only from CPT
data without comparison with parallel tests of the same soil. The correlation
equations and tables (Appendix И, СП 47.13330 [20]) for such indirect evaluation
of soil strength and stiffness parameters shall be elaborated by means of parallel
comparison with laboratory test data (tri-axial, one-plane shear, compression tests,
etc.) and field tests (plates of different areas, pressure meter), related to their
geological formation history, age and genetic type [4,5].
Major differences of physical and mechanical parameters of clay and sand
soils of different genesis and age have been identified by Ryzhkov and Isaev
(2010) [17], Ignatova (2009, 2014) [10, 11], Ziangirov and Kashirsky (2005) [9],
Sanglerat (1972) [35]; Lunne и Christoffersen (1983) [30]; Senneset et al. (1989)
[36], were also referred to in regulations SP(СП) 47.13330-2012 [20], ТСН 50-
302-2004 [22], ТСН 50-304-2001 [23].
The current State Standard (GOST) ГОСТ 25100-2011 [7] recommends to
identify disperse soils by their types and subtypes, varieties and sub-varieties along
with their genesis and material composition. Varieties of disperse soils are defined
by their quantitative material composition indices, structure, conditions and
properties in accordance with Appendices Б.2 and В.2. Table 2 of this GOST
relates rubble, sand, clay and organic mineral soil to subtypes of disperse soils.
When defining varieties of disperse soils there are used indices of their properties:
grain size, grain size composition, grain size heterogeneity rate, water saturation
rate, porosity of loose soils and plasticity index, liquidity index, etc. of clay soils.
All these indices characterize soil physical properties. ASTM D 2487 [25] and ISO
14688-2 [28] classifications are compiled on similar principles, while Appendix Е
ГОСТ (GOST) 25100 [7] gives tables of correspondence of disperse soils names in
Russian and international standards.
If it is not possible to directly determine soil physical parameters, their
classification is difficult, and unambiguous determination of their subclass
(cohesive, non-cohesive) and subtype (sand, clay, silt, peat) is only possible by
sampling from borehole. Nevertheless, both abroad (Begemann, 1965 [26]), and
then in Russia (СН-448-72 [18]) in order to classify soils the following parameter
came into use as calculated by equation 𝑅𝑓 = (𝑓𝑠 ⁄𝑞𝑐 ) ∗ 100 %, with 𝑓𝑠 as specific
resistance along the probe side surface and 𝑞𝑐 as unit tip resistance. Later there
appeared diagrams (Cf. Boldyrev, 2013 [3]; Ryzhkov and Isaev, 2010 [17]),

Fig. 1. Classification diagram by Robertson (1990)

plotted on the basis of several rather than one measured and calculated CPT
parameters: Olsen и Douglas (1981) [27], Robertson (1986 и 1990) [33, 34],
Jefferies и Davies (1991) [29], Olsen and Mitchell (1995) [32], et. al. Varieties of
disperse soils are singled out from CPT data as per certain zones on the
classification diagram. The zones boundaries (up to 12) on the diagrams, were
obtained by comparison of CPT data in parallel with in-lab research. Fig.1 shows
the classification diagram, elaborated by Robertson in 1990 [33]), which is broadly
applied for geotechnical investigations worldwide. The numbers of the zones
correspond to soil types, as is shown in Table 1.
Table 1 Compares Russian and ASTM D 2487 classification; therein
parameters 𝑃𝐼 and 𝐿𝐿 (soil plasticity and liquidity indices as per ASTM D 2487 are
recalculated with the help of equations, recommended by GOST 25100, with 𝑃𝐿 =
𝑊𝑃 , 𝐿𝐿 ≈ 1,48 ∗ 𝑊𝐿 − 8,3, and 𝑃𝐼 = 𝐿𝐿 − 𝑃𝐿.
Table.1 Classification of soils by Robertson (1990)

Soil Original name Russian classification ASTM D 2487 classification conditions

type analogue
number
1 Sensitive fine Sensitive fine-grained soil > 50 % of soil mass passes through 0,075 mm sieve
grained
2 Organic soil to Organic and organic Organic content, determined by burning > 5 %
clay mineral soil
3 Clay Clay > 50 % of soil mass passes through 0,075 mm sieve
𝑃𝐼 > 4 or 𝑃𝐼 ≥ 0,73 ∗ (𝐿𝐿 − 20)
4 Silt mixture Clay loam > 50 % of soil mass passes through 0,075 mm sieve
𝐿𝐿 ≥ 50 and 𝑃𝐼 < 0,73 ∗ (𝐿𝐿 − 20)
𝐿𝐿 < 50 and (𝑃𝐼 < 0,73 ∗ (𝐿𝐿 − 20) или 𝑃𝐼 <
4)
5 Sand mixture Sand loam – dusty sand Clay particle content > 12 %
> 50 % of soil mass remains on 0,075 mm sieve
𝑃𝐼 < 4 or 𝑃𝐼 < 0,73 ∗ (𝐿𝐿 − 20)
6 Sand Sand Microsoft® Translator
Table Of Contents.
Clay particles content ≤ 12 %
7 Dense sand to Dense sand – gravely Content of particles from 4,75 to 75 mm ≥
gravelly sand sand – гравелистый grain size 15 % mass
песок or
65 % ≤ 𝐼𝐷 < 85 %
8 Very dense / Very dense / stiff sand 𝐼𝐷 ≥ 85 %
stiff soil * or overconsolidated / cemented
9 Very stiff fine- Very stiff fine-grained soil > 50 % of soil mass passes through 75 nm sieve
grained soil * 𝐿𝐿 < 0 and overconsolidated / cemented
𝑒 −𝑒
𝐼 𝐷 = 𝑒 𝑚𝑎𝑥 −𝑒
is soil density index; 𝑒, 𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑥 , 𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑛 as in-situ, maximum and minimum
𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝑚𝑖𝑛
soil void ratios; * indicates presence of overconsolidation and cementation
 Objectives
The objective of this work is to develop a technique for generating
correlation equations to evaluate soil physical mechanical parameters from CPT
data.
In order to achieve the objective it is necessary to solve problems,
demonstrated by the block-diagram (Fig.2). At first data is collected from
engineering geological (geotechnical) survey. Then during statistical processing of
laboratory data and/or field tests and CPT the correlation equations are generated.
Thereafter, physical mechanical parameters of soil properties can be assessed with
the help of the data from just a single CPT. The respective block diagram is
reviewed in more detail in chapter “Practical example”.

Geotechnical investigation data

Input data

Data pre-processing

Selection of input data from statistical

data

Correlation analysis

Linearization

Factor analysis
Statistical
analysis
Development of correlation equations

 Selection of group parameters

 Selection of the number of regression
equations
 Regression equations generation

Analysis of stability and application

range

Fig.2. Procedure of generating correlation equations

 2. Practical example
We will show how the proposed method is implemented in order to generate
correlation equations to determine Young modulus 𝐸 from CPT data. The method
includes two stages: input data collection and statistical analysis (Fig. 2).

Stage 1. Input data collection

Engineering geological (geotechnical) data has been borrowed from LLC

«Stroytech» [14, 21] reports on engineering geological survey for 4 sites within
Penza city area, including 16 CPT points and soil samples laboratory tests. Due to
insufficient amount of plate test data for statistical processing i.e., there were only
just 14 tests with a 5000 cm2 plate and a 600 cm2 screw plate, the value of plate
test Young modulus 𝐸 was also determined from compression apparatus tests with
𝐸 = 𝐸𝑘 × 𝑚𝑘 , with 𝐸𝑘 as compression deformation modulus, 𝑚𝑘 as calibration
coefficient for transition to a plate modulus. The soils in question are related to
quaternary alluvial deposits QIV. The investigated depth was down to 19,3 m.
The values of soil parameters and those, measured by the probe (Table 2),
were generalized within strata – engineering geological elements (EGE), singled
out with the account of their soils age and genesis, their textural and structural
features, variability of their physical and mechanical parameters, types, subtypes,
varieties as per GOST 25100. In order to reduce the ranges of variables and to
improve statistical reliability of the produced regression equations there was
performed data filtration by maximum relative deviation (GOST 20522-2012 [6]).

Stage 2. Statistical analysis

2.1. Selection of input data for statistical analysis

The parameters for statistical analysis were soil parameters and those,
measured during downward probe movement into soil, and their derived values,
given in Table 2.
Table 2 shows derived CPT parameters, determined by the following
expressions:
𝑓𝑠 𝑓𝑠 𝑞𝑡 −𝜎𝑣0
𝑞𝑛 = 𝑞𝑐 − 𝜎𝑣0 ; 𝑅𝑓 = 100%; 𝐹𝑟 = 100%; 𝑄𝑡 = ;
𝑞𝑐 𝑞𝑛 𝜎′𝑣0

𝐼𝑐 = √(3,47 − 𝑙𝑜𝑔(𝑄𝑡 ))2 + (𝑙𝑜𝑔 𝐹𝑟 + 1,22)2 .

Parameter 𝐼𝑐 is actually the radius of the circle with its center in the upper left
corner of the diagram, proposed by Robertson (1990), it serves for indirect soil
classification by dispersion rate (see Fig. 1).
In addition to processing as per GOST 25100 and GOST 20522 for
computing design values of Young modulus in transition to generalized values of
variables in EGE (engineering geological element) the value of in-element
dispersion was used for Young modulus (PNIIIS, 1981) [16]:

Table 2. Parameters and characteristics of physical mechanical properties in statistical analysis

Parameters of soil resistance to probe penetration and Notation Unit Values range
physical mechanical parameters
min max
Parameters, measured during probe penetration into soil
Specific soil resistance to cone penetration 𝑞𝑐 МPа 0,40 19,30
Soil net specific resistance qn МPа 0,12 19,16
Specific soil resistance on a portion of side soil 𝑓𝑠 kPа 1 170
resistance
Friction ratio 𝑅𝑓 % 0,08 9,50
Normalized cone resistance 𝑄𝑡 – 0,66 402
Normalized friction ratio 𝐹𝑟 % 0,08 12,76
Soil type function 𝐼𝑐 – 1,05 4,27
Soil in-situ pressure 𝜎𝑣0 kPа 18,1 346,2
Physical parameters
Natural humidity 𝑤 % 11,0 26,2
In-situ soil density 𝜌 g/сm 3
1,63 2,91
Dry soil density 𝜌𝑑 g/сm 3
1,47 1,73
Soil particles material density 𝜌𝑠 g/cm 3
2,65 2,74
Void ratio 𝑒 – 0,53 0,85
Water content at liquid limit 𝑊𝐿 % 14,8 42,1
Water content at plastic limit 𝑊𝑃 % 12,8 21,0
Plastic limit 𝐼𝑃 – 9,5 25,1
Liquid limit 𝐼𝐿 – 0,11 0,90
Water saturation ratio 𝑆𝑟 % 0,36 1,00
Deformation parameters
Plate test Young modulus 𝐸 МPа 4,3 41,1

𝑛 𝑛𝑗
2
1 2
𝜎вн = 𝑛 ∑ ∑(𝑦𝑗𝑙 − 𝑦̅𝑗 ) (1)
∑𝑗=1 𝑛𝑗 − 𝑛
𝑗=1 𝑙=1

with 𝑛𝑗 as the number of measurements of the value in j-th EGE; 𝑛 is the number
of EGEs; 𝑦𝑗𝑙 as particular values of the variable within j-th EGE; 𝑦̅𝑗 as average
value of a variable within j-th EGE.
In order to correct the sample representativeness deficit there was introduced
a weight function with values of each EGE equal to the number of measurements
of parameters in the EGE equal to the number of measurements of parameters in
this EGE (Наследов, 2005) [13].
2.2. Correlation analysis
In the analysis there is established the direction and the shape of the link
between variables, its tightness is measured and confidence intervals are assessed
for correlation coefficients and statistical significance of their difference from zero
[12]; multiple collinearity diagnostics is performed [15], and there are excluded
variables, having no statistically significant correlation with Young modulus as
well as those closely correlated between themselves [2].
2.3. Linearization of relationships
In order to linearize final regression equations there are modified the
variables, having non-linear relationship with Young modulus [12].
2.4. Factor analysis
In the course of factor analysis there is performed classification of statistical
analysis variables and reduction of their number along with latent variables
identification [2].
2.5. Determination of correlation relationships
An important element of statistical analysis is soils grouping by the character
of the objective parameter correlation links (as per E) with CPT parameters. At this
stage group elements are selected, which are measured or calculated in CPT (see
Table 2), whose values are the best to delineate soil groups with similar correlation
links behavior.
Then the optimal number of regression equations is selected, which, on one
hand, shall ensure their highest accuracy, “geared” for a particular group of soils,
and, on the other hand, excludes excessive number of regression equations. With
the limited number of statistical data it is necessary to check that for the generation
of each regression equation there should be sufficient amount of experimental data.
Grouping soils as per the character of correlation links is based on the
following assumptions:
1. Each group of soils, having similar type of correlation links between CPT
parameters and the objective function of soil properties, is assigned a separate
correlation equation. Also such grouping may not coincide with GОSТ 25100,
ASTM D 2487, ISO 14688-2 classifications, namely one correlation equation
could be applied to different soil types (clay, clay loam, sand) or different
correlation equations can be used for one soil (Fig. 3).
2. In order to select the type of the correlation equation there are used CPT
parameters rather than physical parameters.
3. The ranges of parameter values for grouping soils in accordance with the
character of correlation links is assigned on the basis of sensitivity of the
correlation links character to variation of these very parameters. In the process of
soil grouping versus their correlation links there could be applied several levels of
the classification tree (groupings).
4. Grouping soils by the character of CPT parameters correlation links with
soil parameters (𝐸, 𝜑, 𝑐 и др.) can differ for various parameters.
 Algorithm of soils grouping by the character of their links

1. Given is a group of CPT parameters (see Table 2) and their

transformations (logarithm, expansion, scalar and triple scalar products, etc.),
among which it is planned to find optimal grouping elements.
2. Given is the maximum expected number of regression equations m and
the minimum expected number of measurements n (with statistical data deficit) for
each selected group of soils.
3. One of the CPT grouping parameters is selected along with the optimal
number of regression equations (groups of soils), as follows. The number of
equations j is sequentially increased, there are considered all possible options of
EGEs grouping (with the conditions of i.2 fulfilled). There are developed
regression models for estimating the objective function (e.g. E) of soil properties
on the basis of CPT data. In order to generate the linear regression model here the
direct step method with Fisher F-criterion was applied [1], in which there have
been calculated the multiple correlation factor, the residual dispersion and Fisher
F-criterion. There have been fulfilled the analysis of significance of the obtained
regression equations as well as that of each variable in the model separately [1],
also autocorrelation presence was checked in the residues [8, 24].
4. There was chosen the version of EGE versus groups of soils, for which
1
statistics 𝑅𝑗2(𝑎𝑑𝑗) = 𝑗 ∑𝑗𝑖=1(∑𝑗𝑖=1 𝑘𝑖 × 𝑅𝑖2(𝑎𝑑𝑗) ) of regression equations assumes
∑𝑖=1 𝑘𝑖
∑𝑢 (𝑦̂ −𝑦̅)2
the maximum value. Here 𝑅𝑖2 = ∑𝑖=1
𝑢 (𝑦
𝑖
̅)2
is determination ratio of the i-th
𝑖=1 𝑖 −𝑦
2 (𝑢−1)
regression equation; 𝑅𝑖(𝑎𝑑𝑗) = 1 − (1 − 𝑅2 ) (𝑢−𝑙 ) ≤ 𝑅𝑖2 , corrected determination
𝑖
ratio that enable comparison of models, having different predicate variables (the
number of predictor variables does not effect statistics 𝑅𝑖2 ), as it imposes a
“penalty” on the additionally included variables [13]; 𝑢 is the number of
measurements of the criterion variable (number of EGEs); 𝑦𝑖 are observed values
of criterion variable; 𝑦̅ is arithmetic mean value of the observed values of the
criterial variable; 𝑦̂𝑖 are values of the criterion value, calculated from the
regression equation; 𝑙𝑖 – the number of predictor variables of the i-th regression
equation; 𝑘𝑖 – number of measurements (number of EGEs), used for compilations
of the i-th regression equation (used as weight function).
In order to prove feasibility of the current increase of regression equations number
per unit, each time statistics of the particular F-Fisher criterion was calculated and
compared with tabulated parameter 𝐹0 (1 − 𝛼; 𝜇; 𝑣), having 1 − 𝛼 = 90%
significance level and degrees of freedom 𝜇 = 1 and 𝑣 = 𝑢 − 𝑝 − 1 with 𝑝 as
number of the regression model variables (without the free term) [1]. Greater
number of regression equations is considered to be correct if the following
condition is valid:
𝐹 > 𝐹0 (1 − 𝛼; 𝜇; 𝑣). (2)
 5. Instead of condition (2) for determining optimal number of regression
equations the graph of relationship 𝑅𝑗2(𝑎𝑑𝑗) of 𝑗 can be used, which prompts the
researcher to visually determine the optimal number of equations.
6. Items 3–5 are satisfied for other CPT parameters and their
transformations.
7. For each of the soil groups, obtained after item 6, ii. 3-7 (number of
grouping tree levels or classificaton 𝑥 = 2) and so on. The number of classification
tree levels grows while 𝑥 ≤ 𝑚 and conditions of i. 2 are met.
8. The result of the fulfilled actions is the set of soil grouping options, in
which the number of soil groups j is from 1 to 𝑚. The grouping options differ from
each other by the number of regression equations, the number of classification tree
levels and the nomenclature of CPT parameters applied, composition of EGEs
related to each group. Selection of the best group option is satisfied as per the
action, described in ii. 6 and 7. If several levels of the grouping have close values
𝑅𝑗2(𝑎𝑑𝑗) with equal number of applied regression equations then the best option of
soil classification can be selected by the researcher with regards of correlation
links type on the basis of geological or other considerations.
Because of considerable volume of computations there was developed an
algorithm in MATLAB (www.mathworks.com/products/matlab/) [31] to
implement the soil grouping procedure The computation results showed that the
2
maximum increase of determination coefficients 𝑅𝑎𝑑𝑗 occurs when new soil types
are singled out by the value of parameters 𝐹𝑟 and 𝐼𝑐 .
It is better to demonstrate the obtained soil groups with similar correlation
links on Robertson’s diagram (1990) (Fig. 3), where zones I, II, …, V show soil
groups, for which similar regression equations were adopted (see Table 3). The
boundaries between zones I, II, …, V are defined by calculated values of optimal
grouping parameters 𝐹𝑟 and 𝐼𝑐 . The external boundaries of the singled out zones I,
II, …, V are determined by the soils, reviewed here (CPT parameters ranges and
physical mechanical parameters of the reviewed soils are given in Table 2).
Comparison of Fig. 3 shows that zones I, II, …,V of regression equations
applicability on Robertson diagram (1990) that estimate soil sub-varieties and
varieties do not coincide. Hence, the accuracy of Young modulus assessment could
be exceeded if general regression equations were applied not to the groups of
soils, selected as per Robertson (1990) classification in this case, but rather for the
groups singled out as per the procedure, described here. Numerical comparison of
Young modulus evaluation accuracy for different regression equations is given in
Table 4.
The practical procedure for this technique application for soil groups
analysis includes the following stages.
1. In accordance with the algorithm, described here, groups with similar
character of links are singled out (Fig. 3).
 2. CPT is carried out on a new site, and the soils are divided into EGEs as
per ГОСТ 25100 recommendations.
3. Depending on the value of the calculated averages of grouping 𝐹𝑟 and 𝐼𝑐
experimental points for EGEs, belonging to a certain zone (I-V), pre-compiled on
the basis of the teaching sample (Fig.3), points are plotted, said points belonging to
a certain zone (I–V), with applied correlation equation for this zone.

Fig. 3. Robertson classification diagram Robertson (1990) and application zones of regression
equations.

A soil parameter value is accepted as the derived (normative) value as per

GOST 20522, determined from the regression equation. Thus the mean parameter
value may be greater or less than the true value with probability confidence level
of 50 % to be greater or lower than the actual true value and is computed from the
regression equation.
In order to calculate the design Young modulus E value, the technique,
proposed by PNIIIS [16] can be applied. A one-side confidence limit (1 − 𝛼)% is
determined from equation:
𝑌 ∗ (𝑋1 , … , 𝑋𝑝 ) = 𝑌̂(𝑋1 , … , 𝑋𝑝 ) − 𝑡𝛼 ∆, (3)

Here ∆ is standard error of the regression equation; 𝑌̂ is deformation

modulus normative (derived) value of Young modulus; 𝑋1 , … , 𝑋𝑝 – values of
predictor variables, averaged over EGE; 𝑡𝛼 is one-side right (1 − 𝛼)% limit of
normal distribution. As ∆ mostly grows versus 𝐸 value, it can be adopted constant
for small intervals of 𝐸. Table 4 contains the mean ∆ value of each type of soils, in
spite of the fact that it would have been more correct to present it as a function of
E. This was done specially for obviousness of results comparison
Table 3. Regressuon equations for assessing derived and design values of Young modulus (МPа)
for the I, II, …, V, singled on Fig.3

Zone on Mean Mean Young уравнение

Fig. 3 value of value of modulus
𝐹𝑟 𝐼𝑐
I Derived 𝐸 = −6,756 + 16,49 ∗ 𝑞𝑐 + 0,061 ∗ 𝑓𝑠
6,65 3,47
Design 𝐸 = −6,756 + 16,49 ∗ 𝑞𝑐 + 0,061 ∗ 𝑓𝑠 − ∆ ∗ 𝑡𝛼
II Derived 𝐸 = −1,645 + 9,251 ∗ 𝑞𝑐 + 0,072 ∗ 𝑓𝑠
3,36 3,14
Design 𝐸 = −1,645 + 9,251 ∗ 𝑞𝑐 + 0,072 ∗ 𝑓𝑠 − ∆ ∗ 𝑡𝛼
III Derived. 𝐸 = 4,645 + 4,996 ∗ 𝑞𝑐 + 0,097 ∗ 𝑓𝑠
1,28 2,78
Design 𝐸 = 4,645 + 4,996 ∗ 𝑞𝑐 + 0,097 ∗ 𝑓𝑠 − ∆ ∗ 𝑡𝛼
IV Derived 𝐸 = 10,33 + 1,129 ∗ 𝑞𝑐 + 0,141 ∗ 𝑓𝑠
0,59 1,91
Design 𝐸 = 10,33 + 1,129 ∗ 𝑞𝑐 + 0,141 ∗ 𝑓𝑠 − ∆ ∗ 𝑡𝛼
V Derived 𝐸 = 14,80 + 0,728 ∗ 𝑞𝑐 + 0,186 ∗ 𝑓𝑠
0,30 1,37
Design 𝐸 = 14,80 + 0,728 ∗ 𝑞𝑐 + 0,186 ∗ 𝑓𝑠 − ∆ ∗ 𝑡𝛼
𝑡𝛼 – one-side right (1 − 𝛼)% normal distribution limit

Zones I, II, …, V (Fig. 3) correspond, in fact, to different soil types from

clays to sands. Identity of soils, as was shown above by the soil grouping technique
as per the character of correlations, could be characterized by the values of
parameters 𝐹𝑟 and 𝐼𝑐 . Each zone I, II, …, V features its own 𝐹𝑟 и 𝐼𝑐 mean values
and regression equations (Table 3) that predict the value of Young modulus in the
best way for soils with mean values of 𝐹𝑟 and 𝐼𝑐 , given in Table 3. As to other
soils, whose parameters differ from the mean values, Young modulus is assessed
with additional error. If values of regression coefficients are fixed by the function
of soil type then this additional error can be avoided.
The equations for evaluation of E in Table 3 are, as follows:
(4)
𝐸 = 𝑎1 + 𝑎2 ∗ 𝑞𝑐 + 𝑎3 ∗ 𝑓𝑠
Below (Fig.4) are given graphs of 𝑎1 , 𝑎2 , 𝑎3 coefficients from the regression
equation in Table 3 as functions of the mean value 𝐼𝑐 .
 Fig. 4 Dependence of equations coefficient on mean 𝐼𝑐 values

Change the regression equation coefficients in Table 3 for functions 𝐹𝑟 и 𝐼𝑐 :

𝑎1 = 𝑓1 (𝐹𝑟 , 𝐼𝑐 ) (5)
𝑎1 = 𝑓2 (𝐹𝑟 , 𝐼𝑐 ) (6)
(7)
𝑎1 = 𝑓3 (𝐹𝑟 , 𝐼𝑐 )
Insert coefficient 𝑎1 , 𝑎2 , 𝑎3 in equation (4):

(8)
𝐸 = 𝑓1 (𝐹𝑟 , 𝐼𝑐 ) + 𝑓3 (𝐹𝑟 , 𝐼𝑐 ) ∗ 𝑞𝑐 + 𝑓3 (𝐹𝑟 , 𝐼𝑐 ) ∗ 𝑓𝑠 .
Coefficients of non-linear regression model (8) were computed with the help
of SPSS Statistics software [15]. There were checked linear, quadratic, cubic and
exponential functions 𝑓𝑖 (𝐹𝑟 , 𝐼𝑐 ). After removing low-significance coefficients
from equation (8) there was obtained the following unified non-linear regression
equation for evaluating Young moduli of cohesive and non-cohesive soils:

𝐸 = 24,60 − 6,005 ∗ 𝐼𝑐 − 0,5811 ∗ 𝐼с 2

(9)
+ (1,084 − 1,511 ∗ 𝐼𝑐 + 1,090 ∗ 𝐼с 2 ) ∗ 𝑞𝑐 .

Variables 𝑓𝑠 and 𝐹𝑟 have not been included in equation (9). It can be

explained by the fact that influence 𝑓𝑠 has already been included in the models by
𝐼𝑐 while significance of 𝐼𝑐 was higher than Fr significance.
Table 4 gives comparison of accuracy of all linear and non-linear regression
equations. In the first case the soils were classified as per GOST 25100 technique
with physical parameters applied. Thereby, regression equations were considered
with different nomenclature of variables and without them: only 𝑞𝑐 ; 𝑞𝑐 and 𝑓𝑠 ; 𝑞𝑐
and 𝐼𝐿 ; 𝑞𝑐 , 𝑓𝑠 and 𝑄𝑡 (the variables, used in Table 4 are ticked off). The
Robertson’s technique (1990) was used for soil classification without information
on physical parameters with CPT data alone. Respectively, the regression
equations included CPT parameters 𝑞𝑐 and 𝑓𝑠 alone while physical soil parameters
were considered unknown. Each soil type, singled out as per Robertson’s
classification (1990), had a separate regression equation (see Table 4). In the
second case there were singled out soil groups with similar correlation links (see
zones I, II, …, V on Fig. 3), for each of which there was used a separate regression
equation (see Table 3). In the third case there was applied the general non-linear
regression equation, whose form was obtained on the basis of soil grouping data by
the character of their correlation links.
Table 4. Accuracy of Young modulus E evaluation, depending on the regression equations
development and the nomenclature of predictor variables.

2 E evaluation
Δ, МПа 𝑅𝑎𝑑𝑗
Name of
Soil type 𝑞𝑐 𝑓𝑠 𝐼𝐿 𝑄𝑡 𝐼𝑐 accuracy
classification
✓ 4,53 0,714 E
Cohesive ✓ ✓ 4,23 0,734 ↓ evaluation
accuracy
✓ ✓ 4,01 0,749 growth
GOST 25100
✓ 2,53 0,817 E
Non-cohesive ✓ ✓ 1,86 0,840 ↓ evaluation
accuracy
✓ ✓ ✓ 1,76 0,849 growth
тип 3 ✓ ✓ 4,84 0,704 E
Robertson тип 4
↑
Clay and
dust fractions
✓ ✓ 5,37 0,656 ↓ evaluation
(1990) тип 5 content ✓ ✓ 1,84 0,843 accuracy
тип 6 ✓ ✓ 1,62 0,851 growth
зона I ✓ ✓ 4,43 0,719
зона II ✓ ✓ 3,12 0,795
Grouping by E
the character зона ↓
Clay and
✓ ✓
of correlation III ↑ dust fractions 2,45 0,821 evaluation
accuracy
зона content
links ✓ ✓ 1,40 0,864 growth
IV
зона V ✓ ✓ 1,13 0,883
Non-linear Cohesive and non-
cohesive ✓ ✓ 1,67 0,872
regression
Table 4 shows that inclusion of parameter 𝑓𝑠 in regression equation in
addition to 𝑞𝑐 reduces error ∆ by 6,6 % for cohesive soils and by 26,5 % for non-
cohesive soils. As to cohesive soils, the inclusion of parameter 𝐼𝐿 in the regression
equation in addition to 𝑞𝑐 reduces error ∆ by 11,5 % as compared to the equation
that includes 𝑞𝑐 alone. As to cohesive soils, there may be included an additional
variable Qt in the regression equation if the lateral soil pressure 𝜎𝑣0 , at rest is
known that reduces error ∆ by 5,4 % as compared to equation that included only 𝑞𝑐
and 𝑓𝑠 .
 Рис. 5 Young modulus, calculated with the help of two different linear equations for
cohesive and non-cohesive soils (10) and (11) (diagram 2), general non-linеar equation (diagram
1) and the average test-plate Young modulus for the GEG ( )
 The increase of clay and dust fractions content in soil lowers the accuracy of
Young modulus evaluation as per CPT data: the regression equation error ∆ is
79,1 % greater than that for non-cohesive soils (GOST 25100 classification); as to
Robertson classification (1990) for clays (type 3), the error is 198,8 % greater than
for sands (type 6). The increase of ∆ results in reduced value of the design Young
modulus, as compared to the derived one.
In order to determine the design value of Young modulus from CPT data
(the regression equation includes 𝑞𝑐 , 𝑓𝑠 and the constant term) application of the
proposed technique for grouping soils in this paper reduces error ∆ for cohesive
soils by 27,0 % on the average for GOST 25100 classification and by 53.5% for
Robertson classification. As for non-cohesive soils the error ∆ reduction is 46,5 %
GOST 25100-2011 classification and 36,2 % for Robertson classification.
Application of the non-linear regression model with parameter 𝐼𝑐 inclusive
enabled reduction of ∆ error for non-cohesive soils by 10,2 %, for cohesive soils
and by 60,5 % as compared to the conventional method of linear regression with
one parameter 𝑞𝑐 .
2
Generation of a high-quality (𝑅𝑎𝑑𝑗 = 0,872) regression equation is an
attractive option for a broad range of soils. It enables Young modulus assessment
both for “perfect” clays and sands with mean values from a training sample of
physical mechanical parameters and for many transition soil types (e.g. sand
loams) that results in prediction improvement. An example, comparing Young
modulus assessment with application of linear regression equation for non-
cohesive soils
𝐸 = 14,429 + 1,254 ∗ 𝑞𝑐 (10)
and cohesive
(11)
𝐸 = −3,652 + 9,687 ∗ 𝑞𝑐
soils and the general non-linear regression equation (9) is shown on Fig. 5.

In conclusion it should be stressed that the obtained numerical values, reducing or

increasing the reviewed regression equations precision, should be considered as
received for the specific example without extrapolation to soils from other sites.

Conclusions
1. Incorporation of parameter fs in addition to qc in the regression equation
for evaluation of Young modulus of soils reduces the error ∆ by 6,6 % for the
subclass of cohesive soils and by 26,5 % for non-cohesive soils.
 2. If soil physical parameters are known then it is possible to include
parameter 𝐼𝐿 in addition to 𝑞𝑐 that gives reduction of error ∆ by 11,5 % for
cohesive soils; inclusion of parameter 𝑄𝑡 in addition to 𝑞𝑐 and 𝑓𝑠 reduces error ∆
by 5,4 % for non-cohesive soils.
3. If the content of dust and clay fractions grows in soils then lowers the
accuracy of Young modulus evaluation from СPT data, the error ∆ for the subclass
of cohesive soils is by 79,1 % greater than that for non-cohesive soils (GOST
25100); as for Robertson classification (1990) for clays the error ∆ is 198,8 %
greater than that for sands..
4. Classification of soils by the character of correlation dependences
between Young modulus and CPT parameters (regression equations includes 𝑞𝑐 , 𝑓𝑠
and the intercept term) enables higher precision in evaluation of the design value of
Young modulus for cohesive soil i.e., 27,0 % as per GOST 25100 classification
and 53,5 % as per Robetrson classification, for non-cohesive soils by 46,5 % and
36,2 % respectively.
5. Non-linear regression model application, with parameter 𝐼𝑐 included,
enables compilation of general regression equations for a broader range of soils,
with Young modulus assessment both for “pefect” clays and sands and for soils
and for a multitude of intermediate soil types, e.g. sand loams. In this very example
it was possible to reduce error ∆ for non-cohesive soil by 10,2 % and for cohesive
soils by 60,5 % as compared to the classical method of linear parameter q
regression.

REFEREnCES
1. Айвазян, С.А. Прикладная статистика. Исследование зависимостей:
справочное издание / С.А. Айвазян, И.С. Енюков, Л.Д. Мешалкин; под ред.
С.А. Айвазяна. – М.: Финансы и статистика, 1985. – 487 с.
2. Айвазян С.А. Прикладная статистика: Классификация и снижение
размерности: Справочное издание / С.А. Айвазян, В.М. Бухштабер, И.С.
Енюков, Л.Д. Мешалкин; под ред. С.А. Айвазяна. – М.: Финансы и
статистика, 1989. – С. 607.
3. Болдырев, Г.Г. Полевые методы испытаний грунтов (в вопросах и
ответах) / Г.Г. Болдырев – Саратов: Издательский центр «РАТА», 2013. – 356
с.
4. Болдырев Г.Г., Мельников А.В., Новичков Г.А. Интерпретация
результатов полевых и лабораторных испытаний с целью определения
прочностных и деформационных характеристик грунтов. Часть I.
Интерпретация результатов полевых испытаний с целью определения
прочностных характеристик грунтов. Инженерные изыскания, №5-6, 2014. –
С. 68-77.
5. Болдырев Г.Г., Мельников А.В., Новичков Г.А. Интерпретация
результатов полевых и лабораторных испытаний с целью определения
прочностных и деформационных характеристик грунтов. Часть III.
Интерпретация результатов полевых испытаний с целью определения
деформационных характеристик грунтов // Инженерные изыскания. – 2014. –
№5-6. – С. 86-97.
6. ГОСТ (GOST) 20522-2012. Грунты. Методы статистической
обработки результатов испытаний. – 2013. – 19 с.
7. ГОСТ (GOST) 25100-2011. Грунты. Классификация. – 2011. – 63 с.
8. Елисеева, И.И. Эконометрика: учебник / И. И. Елисеева; под ред. И.
И. Елисеевой. – М.: Финансы и статистика, 2004. – 344 с.
9. Зиангиров Р.С., Каширский В.И. Оценка деформационных свойств
дисперсных грунтов по данным статического зондирования // Основания,
фундаменты и механика грунтов. – 2005. – № 1. – С. 12-16.
10. Игнатова О.И. Деформационные характеристики юрских глинистых
грунтов Москвы // Основания, фундаменты и механика грунтов. – 2009. – №
5. – С. 24-28.
11. Игнатова О.И. Исследование корреляционных связей модуля
деформации четвертичных глинистых грунтов разного генезиса с удельным
сопротивлением при статическом зондировании // Основания, фундаменты и
механика грунтов. – 2014. – № 2. – С.15-19.
12. Львовский, Е.Н. Статистические методы построения эмпирических
формул: учебное пособ. для вузов / Е.Н. Львовский. – 2-е изд. – М.: Высш.
школа, 1988. – 239 с.
13. Наследов А.Д. SPSS 19. Профессиональный статистический анализ
данных – СПб.: Питер, 2011. – 400 с.
14. ООО «Строй-тех: [Электронный ресурс]. – URL: www.s-teh.com/
(дата обращения: 18.08.2014).
15. Программное обеспечение SPSS [Электронный ресурс]. – URL:
www.ibm.com/software/ru/analytics/spss/ (дата обращения: 18.08.2014).
16. Руководство по составлению региональных таблиц нормативных и
расчетных показателей свойств грунтов / ПНИИИС Госстроя СССР. – М:
Стройиздат, 1981. – 55 с.
17. Рыжков, И.Б Статическое зондирование грунтов: монография / И.Б.
Рыжков, О.Н. Исаев. – М.: Издательство Ассоциации строительных вузов,
2010. – 496 с.
18. СН-448-72 Указания по зондированию грунтов для строительства. –
1972. – 32 с.
19. СП 22.13330.2011 Основания зданий и сооружений. – 2011. – 162 с.
20. СП 47.13330-2012 Инженерные изыскания для строительства.
Основные положения. – 2012 – 110 с.
21. Технический отчет об инженерно-геологических изысканиях по
объекту «Жилой комплекс с торгово-административными помещениями» /
ООО «Строй-тех». – Том I, Шифр 01-01и/2-2013. – Пенза, 2013. – 32 с.
22. ТСН 50-302-2004 Проектирование фундаментов зданий и
сооружений в Санкт-Петербурге. – 2004. – 63 с.
 23. ТСН 50-304-2001 Основания, фундаменты и подземные
сооружения. г. Москва. – 2003. – 56 с.
24. Anatolyev S. Durbin–Watson statistic and random individual effects //
Econometric Theory (Problems and Solutions) // Econometric Theory. – 2003. –
Vol. 19. – No. 5. – P. 882–883.
25. ASTM D2487-2006 Standard practice for classification of soils for
engineering purposes (Unified soil classification system). – 2006. – 12 p.
26. Begemann H.K.S. The friction jacket cone as an aid in determining the
soil profile // Proc. of the 6-th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. and Found. – Montreal, 1965.
– Vol. 1. – P. 17-20.
27. Douglas B. J., Olsen R. S. Soil classification using electric cone
penetrometer. Cone penetration testing and experience // In Proceedings of the
ASCE National Convention. – New York, NY, USA, 1981. – P. 209–227.
28. ISO 14688-2:2004 Geotechnical investigation and testing –
Identification and classification of soil – Part 2: Principles for a classification. –
2013. – 13 p.
29. Jefferies M. G., Davies M. P. Soil classification by the cone penetration
test: Discussion // Canadian Geotechnical Journal. – 1991. – 28(1). – P. 173-176.
30. Lunne, T., Christoffersen H.P. Interpretation of cone penetrometer data
for offshore sands // 15-th Annual OTC in Houston. – TX, 1983. – P. 181-192.
31. MATLAB [Электронный ресурс]. URL:
www.mathworks.com/products/matlab/ (Дата обращения: 18.08.2014).
32. Olsen R. S., Mitchell J. K. CPT stress normalization and prediction of
soil classification // Proceedings of the International Symposium on Cone
Penetration Testing, CPT’95. – Linköping, Sweden, 1995. – Vol. 2 – P. 257-262.
33. Robertson P.K. Soil classification using the cone penetration test //
Canadian Geotechnical Journal. – 1990. – No. 27 (1). – P. 151-158.
34. Robertson P.K., Campanella R.G., Gillespie D., Greig J. Use of
piezometer cone data // In-Situ’86 Use of In-situ testing in Geotechnical
Engineering, GSP 6 , ASCE, Specialty Publication. – Reston, VA, 1986. – P.
1263-1280.
35. Sanglerat, G. The penetrometer and soil exploration / G. Sanglerat. –
Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing Company, 1972. – 488 p.
36. Senneset, K., Sandven, R., Janbu, N. The Evaluation of soil parameters
from piezocone tests // Transportation Research Record. – 1989. – Vol. 1. – P. 24-
37.