 Geotechnical investigations frequently

makes use of Penetration Tests, such as SPT

and CPT, to ascertain soil properties
 Cone Penetration Test was first used in 1932
by a Dutch Engr P. Barentsen to measure tip
resistance along a 4m thick fill deposit
 Initially a mechanical cone comprising two
sets of rods were used
 An outer set of steel rods to minimize soil
friction and protect inner rod
 An inner rod fitted with cone at the end
used to measure the resistance at the tip
 CPT was modified to measure
friction along the shaft by adding a
sleeve behind the cone
 Driven mechanically, in 8inch
(20mm) intervals to measure tip
resistance and total resistance (tip
+ sleeve)
 Step 1:
 Only Cone is advanced (Qt)
 Step 2:
 Both Cone and Sleeve are
advanced (Qt+f)
 Step 3:
 Sleeve is advanced
 Cone Resistance

 = qc = Qt (Ac)
 Sleeve Friction
 =f =
 Electrical cones were developed
during 1948 at Delft Soil
Laborataries and were
commercially available during
early 1960s
 Piezo elements were added
during 1970s to measure
porewater pressure
 Several other devices such as
geophones, stress cells, full
displacement pressure meter
etc
 Equipment: A CPT
system
includes:
An electrical penetrometer
Hydraulic pushing
system
with rods
Cable or
transmission device
Depth recorder

 Penetrometer: A standard cone
penetrometer consists of:
 Probe: A three-channel
instrumented steel probe that
measures cone tip stress (qc),
sleeve friction (fs), and
penetration
porewater pressure (um)
Cone: A 60º apex conical tip
that has a small lip
approximately 5 mm (0.2 in.)
long at the upper portion
 Penetrometer:
Cone Sizes: Comes in a
variety of sizes. Most common
sizes are
○ A 35.7-mm (1.4-in.) diameter
cone with a cross-sectional
area of 10 cm2 and a sleeve
area of 150 cm2
○ A 43.7mm (1.75-in.) diameter
cone with a cross – sectional
2 cm2 10 cm2 15 cm2 40 cm2
area of 15cm2 and a sleeve
CPT Rigs
Track mounted 20 ton
CPT Rig

Truck mounted 20 ton CPT Rig

Quinn Delta ship with Mid size jack up barrage

drill spun

Portable

9
 Operation
 ASTMD-5778
 Pushing a 60o standard cone
penetrometer into the soil with
20mm/s speed using a hydraulic
pushing system
 Add rods at 1-m vertical interval
 Gives
 Continuous soil profiling
 Engineering property estimation
 Direct use for pile design

10
 Measurements
 Cone Penetration Resistance (qc)
 Force Measured at the tip divided by area of the cone
 Sleeve Friction (fs)
 Force measured along as frictional resistance divided by the area of
sleeve
 Porewater Pressure
 u1 and u2 for Piezo cones
 Shear Wave Velocity Guest
2016-10-16 13:06:19
--------------------------------------------
 For Seismic cones Fr = sleeve friction/tip resistance

 Friction Ratio
 fr = fs/qc
11
 Measurements

12
 Measurements - Influences on CPT
 Effective stress level
 Porous element location
 Soil type and properties into which cone is
pushed (particle size, compressibility, cementation,
layering)
 Equipment design
 Rate of penetration

13
 Influences on CPT
 Effective Stress Level

14
 Influences on CPT
 Location of Porous Element

15
 Piezo Cone
 Piezo CPT (CPTu)

Real-Time readings in computer screen

Penetration at 2 cm/s

Sand

Clay
Buried Crust

Clay
 Seismic Piezocone Test

Obtains Four Independent

Measurements with Vs
Depth:
 Cone Tip Stress, qt fs
 Penetration Porewater
Pressure, u u2
 Sleeve Friction, fs u1 60o
 Arrival Time of Downhole Shear
qc
Wave, ts
Downhole Shear Wave Velocity

 Anchoring System
 Automated Source
 Polarized Wave
 Downhole Vs
 SCPTu Sounding
Penetration at 2 cm/s Real-Time readings in computer screen

Sand

Clay
Crust
 Test Results

21
22
CPT Interpretations

Robertson (2006)

23
CPT Applicability

Robertson (2006)

24
CPT – Estimation of soil type
Robertson (1990)

25
why cone resistance is
increasing when Fr is
increasing?

CPT – Estimation of soil type

gravelly sand has low clays have higher Fr
Fr and high qt and low qt

clays have higher

Pore water
pressure.
if u2-u0 is more
then it means Bq
is increasing
with load.
so for clays as qt
increases Bq
also increases
for same type of
soil

26
CPT – Estimation of soil type

27
CPT – Estimation of soil type

In sands the tip resistance is almost

same as Fs and in clays tip resistance is
less than the Fs therefore clays have
high Fr as compared to gravels and
sands.

28
CPT – Correlation to Relative Density

29
 Higher Dr = dense
soil - less

CPT – Correlation to Relative Density

compressible
lower Dr means the
soil is loose ( less
difference btw e
loose and e in situ) -
more compressible

tip resistance is increasing

with the increasing relative
density it means we are going
towards coarser soil.
because clays are highly
compressible so there's huge

different b/w e in loose state

and e in dense state.

30
 CPT Interpretations - Sands
 Relative Density & Friction Angle
 qc = qc (DR,σ'h, intrinsic properties, structure)

qc 0.8410.0047DR
 1.64 exp 0.1041c  0.0264 
  h 
 c D R   
pA Salgado & Prezzi (2006)
𝑝𝐴 - Reference stress – 100 kPa
0.0002  pA 
DR - Relative density (%)
σ’h – Horizontal effective stress
= K0σ’v
ϕc – Critical state friction angle
 Relative Density
( 29-36 degree)  q c   
ln p  0.4947  0.1041c  0.841ln p h 
 A  A
DR     100%
 
0.0264  0.0002c  0.0047 ln p h Salgado & Prezzi (2006)
 A 31
Correlation to Drained Friction Angle

32
 CPT Interpretations - Sands
 Relative Density & Friction Angle
0.0 0.0
0.5 c = 30
o
0.5 o
Initial Lateral Effective Stress, h / pA

c = 33

Initial Lateral Effective Stress, h / pA

1.0 1.0
1.5 1.5
2.0 2.0
2.5 2.5
3.0 3.0
3.5 3.5
4.0 4.0
4.5 4.5
100 % 100 %
DR = 10 DR = 10
5.0 5.0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000
Salgado & Prezzi (2006) 33
 CPT Interpretations - Sands
0.0
 Relative Density & Friction
0.5 c = 36
o

Initial Lateral Effective Stress, h / pA

Angle 1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
DR = 10 100 %
5.0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Salgado & Prezzi (2006) q c /pA 34
CPT Interpretations - Sands
 Relative density (DR)

Baldi (1986) 35
CPT Interpretations - Sands
 Relative density (DR)

Kulhawy & Mayen (1990)

36
CPT Interpretations - Sands
 Friction angle
 Kulhawy & Mayen (1990)- Quartz sands

 Lagoon (2002) for ML & SP-SM

soils

 Lie (2004)

Robertson & Campanella (19833)

Correlation to Preconsolidation Pressure

38
Correlation to Preconsolidation Pressure

39
Correlation to Preconsolidation Pressure

40
Correlation to Undrained Shear
Strength

41
Correlation to Permeability & ch

42
Correlation to Permeability & ch

43
Correlation to Permeability & ch

44
Correlation to Permeability & ch

45
Correlation to Constrained Modulus

46
 Robertson & Campanella (1990)
CPT Interpretations - Sands

𝛾𝑚 2
𝐺0 = 𝑉
𝑔 𝑠

𝐸0 = 2(1 + 𝑢)𝐺0

47
 CPT Interpretations - Sands
 Example :The cone resistance is to be
estimated at a depth of 25 m within a
clean sand deposit with water table at a
depth of 5 m. The sand is assumed to be
normally consolidated with Ko =0.45. The
relative density is 50%. The critical-state
friction angle estimated from triaxial
compression tests is 30°. The average unit
weight of the sand over the 25 m is 20q 0.8410.0047D R
c 
 0.1041c   0.0264  c  D R  
1.64   h
 
kN/m p exp 48
 CPT Interpretations - Sands 0.0
 Example :The cone resistance is to be 0.5 c = 30
o

Initial Lateral Effective Stress, h / pA

1.0
estimated at a depth of 25 m within a
1.5
clean sand deposit with water table at a 2.0
depth of 5 m. The sand is assumed to 2.5

be normally consolidated with Ko 3.0

3.5
=0.45. The relative density is 50%. The
4.0
critical-state friction angle estimated 4.5
100 %
DR = 10
from triaxial compression tests is 30°. 5.0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
The average unit weight of the sand qc / p A

over the 25 m is 20 kN/m 49

CPT Interpretations - Sands
 Example : Given the CPT log, determine the
cone resistance and friction ratio at depths of
3, 5, and 7 m. What type of material is likely to
be present at these depths? What is the
relative density of the soil at these depth,
assume unit weight 20 kN/m3, the soil critical
state friction angle is 330 and Ko = 0.45

 q   
ln  p c  0.4947  0.1041c  0.841ln p h
 A  A
DR     100%
 
0.0264  0.0002c  0.0047 ln p h
 A

50
CPT Interpretations - Clays

 Un-drained Shear Strength

Salgado (2008)
)
 Estimated from qc
𝑞𝑐 = 𝑁𝑘𝑆𝑢 + 𝜎𝑣

𝑁𝑘 = 10 − 12

0.1 10-15

51
CPT Interpretations - Clays Salgado (2008)

 Coefficient of compressibility &

Consolidation(Cv )
 Est from pore pressure
dissipation tests
○ Cone penetration halted at
specified depth
○ The pore pressure dissipation time is noted
till normalized pore pressure is dropped to
0.5 from 𝑢 − 𝑢value
initial 0 of 1.0
𝑈𝑛 =
𝑢 𝑖 − 𝑢0

52
CPT Interpretations - Clays
 Estimation of (Su) profile from qc

53