Interpretation of Cone Penetration Testing in Silty Soils Conducted under Partially Drained Conditions
Publication: Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering
Volume 142, Issue 1
Abstract
The standard penetration rate used in cone penetration tests (CPTs) is , regardless of soil type, which yields fully drained penetration in sand and fully undrained penetration in clay. However, for silty soils that represent an intermediate grain size composition and unique characteristics compared with sand and clay, the standard rate of penetration results in partially drained penetration, often leading to misinterpretation of this soil type. In this study, 15 CPTs, with penetration rates varying from 0.5 to , were performed at a test site in northern Denmark, where the subsoil consisted primarily of sandy silt with clay bands. The results illustrated that when the penetration rate is reduced, the cone resistance increases, but the pore pressure decreases. The transition between undrained and fully drained penetration was determined by converting the results into a normalized penetration rate. Also evaluated and presented in this paper is how cone resistance obtained under partially drained conditions underestimates the interpreted relative density and friction angle . Triaxial test results on undisturbed silt samples were applied for this analysis.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge funding sources for this project, including DONG Energy and the Danish energy sector under the Energy Technology Development and Demonstration Program (EUDP) “Monopile cost reduction and demonstration by joint applied research.”
References
Baldi, G., Bellotti, R., Ghionna, V., Jamiolkowski, M., and Pasqualini, E. (1986). “Interpretation of CPTs and CPTUs. Part 2: Drained penetration of sands.” Proc., 4th Int. Geotechnical Seminar: Field Instrumentation and In Situ Measurements, Nanyang Technological Univ., Singapore, 143–156.
Bolton, M. D. (1986). “The strength and dilatancy of sand.” Géotechnique, 36(1), 65–78.
Chung, S. F., Randolph, M. F., and Schneider, J. A. (2006). “Effect of penetration rate on penetrometer resistance in clay.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 1188–1196.
Finnie, I. M. S., and Randolph, M. F. (1994). “Punch-through and liquefaction induced failure of shallow foundations on calcareous sediments.” Proc., Behaviour of Offshore Structures, Vol. 1, Boston, 217–230.
Houlsby, G. T., and Hitchman, R. (1988). “Calibration chamber tests of a cone penetrometer in sand.” Géotechnique, 38(1), 39–44.
Houlsby, G. T., and Teh, C. I. (1988). “Analysis of the piezocone in clay.” Proc., 1st Int. Symp. on Penetration Testing, ISOPT-1, Vol. 2, Orlando, FL, 777–783.
House, A. R., Oliveira, J. R. M., and Randolph, M. F. (2001). “Evaluating the coefficient of consolidation using penetration tests.” Int. J. Phys. Modell. Geotech., 1(3), 17–26.
Jaeger, R. A., DeJong, J. T., and Boulanger, R. W. (2010). “Variable penetration rate CPT in an intermediate soil.” Proc., 2nd Int. Symp. on Cone Penetration Testing, Huntington Beach, CA.
Kim, K., Prezzi, M., Salgado, R., and Lee, W. (2008). “Effect of penetration pate on cone penetration resistance in saturated clayey soils.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 1142–1153.
Lehane, B. M., O’Loughlin, C. D., Gaudin, C., and Randolph, M. F. (2009). “Rate effects on penetrometer resistance in kaolin.” Géotechnique, 59(1), 41–52.
Lunne, T. (2012). “The CPT in offshore soil investigations—A historic perspective.” Geomech. Geoeng. Int. J., 7(2), 75–101.
Lunne, T., Robertson, P. K., and Powell, J. J. M. (1997). Cone penetration testing in geotechnical practice, Spon, New York.
Mahmoodzadeh, H., and Randolph, M. F. (2014). “Penetrometer testing: Effect of partial consolidation on subsequent dissipation response.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 04014022.
McNeilan, T. W., and Bugno, W. T. (1985). “Cone penetration test results in offshore California silts.” Strength testing of marine sediments: Laboratory and in situ measurements, R. C. Chaney, and K. R. Demars, eds., ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA, 55–71.
Mortensen, M. K. (2014). “Silts egenskaber og styrkeparametre undersøgt ved konsoliderede drænede triaxialforsøg og CPT.” Master’s thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Aalborg Univ., Aalborg, Denmark (in Danish).
Poulsen, R., Ibsen, L. B., and Nielsen, B. N. (2012a). “Difficulties regarding determination of plasticity index of silty soils by use of Casagrande and fall cone methods.” Proc., 16th Nordic Geotechnical Meeting, Copenhagen, Denmark, 1, 199–206.
Poulsen, R., Nielsen, B. N., and Ibsen, L. B. (2011). “Effect of drainage conditions on cone penetration testing in silty soils.” Proc., 64th Canadian Geotechnical Conf. and 14th Pan-American Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Engineering, Toronto.
Poulsen, R., Nielsen, B. N., and Ibsen, L. B. (2012b). “Field test evaluation of effect on cone resistance caused by change in penetration rate.” Proc., 16th Nordic Geotechnical Meeting, Vol. 1, Copenhagen, Denmark, 191–198.
Randolph, M. F., and Hope, S. (2004). “Effect of cone velocity on cone resistance and excess pore pressures.” Proc., Int. Symp. on Engineering Practice and Performance of Soft Deposits, Osaka, Japan, 147–152.
Robertson, P. K., and Campanella, R. G. (1983). “Interpretation of cone penetration tests. Part II: Clay.” Can. Geotech. J., 20(4), 734–745.
Robertson, P. K., Campanella, R. G., Gillespie, D., and Grieg, J. (1986). “Use of piezometer cone data.” Use of in situ tests in geotechnical engineering, Geotechnical special publication No. 6, S. P. Clemence, ed., ASCE, Reston, VA, 1263–1280.
Robertson, P. K., Sully, J. P., Woeller, D. J., Lunne, T., Powell, J. J. M., and Gillespie, D. G. (1992). “Estimating coefficient of consolidation from piezocone tests.” Can. Geotech. J., 29(4), 539–550.
Salgado, R., Boulanger, R. W., and Mitchell, J. K. (1997). “Lateral stress effects on CPT liquefaction resistance correlations.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 726–735.
Salgado, R., and Prezzi, M. (2007). “Computation of cavity expansion pressure and penetration resistance in sands.” Int. J. Geomech., 251–265.
Schmertmann, J. H. (1978). “Guidelines for cone penetration test, performance and design.”, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.
Schneider, J. A., Randolph, M. F., Mayne, P. W., and Ramsey, N. R. (2008). “Analysis of factors influencing soil classification using normalized piezocone tip resistance and pore pressure parameters.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 1569–1586.
Senneset, K., Janbu, N., and Svanø, G. (1982). “Strength and deformation parameters from cone penetration tests.” Proc., 2nd European Symp. on Penetration Testing, Vol. 2, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 863–870.
Silva, M. F., and Bolton, M. D. (2005). “Interpretation of centrifuge piezocone tests in dilatants, low plasticity silts.” Proc., Int. Conf. on Problematic Soils, Eastern Mediterranean Univ., Famagusta, Northern Cyprus, 1277–1284.
Suzuki, Y., Lehane, B. M., and Fourie, A. (2013). “Effect of penetration rate on piezocone parameters in two silty deposits.” Proc., Int. Conf. on Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterization, Pernambuco, Brazil, 809–815.
Taylor, R. N. (1995). Geotechnical centrifuge technology, 1st Ed., Blackie Academic and Professional, Glasgow, U.K.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering
Volume 142 • Issue 1 • January 2016
Copyright
© 2015 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Jun 12, 2014
Accepted: Jun 15, 2015
Published online: Jul 22, 2015
Discussion open until: Dec 22, 2015
Published in print: Jan 1, 2016
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.