CPT Guide - 2014 Cone Penetration Test (CPT)

CPT Interpretation
Numerous semi-empirical correlations have been developed to estimate
geotechnical parameters from the CPT for a wide range of soils. These
correlations vary in their reliability and applicability. Because the CPT has
additional sensors (e.g. pore pressure, CPTu and seismic, SCPT), the
applicability to estimate soil parameters varies. Since CPT with pore pressure
measurements (CPTu) is commonly available, Table 4 shows an estimate of the
perceived applicability of the CPTu to estimate soil parameters. If seismic is
added, the ability to estimate soil stiffness (E, G & Go) improves further.

Soil Type Dr Ko OCR St su ' E, G* M G0* k ch

Coarse- 2-3 2-3 5 5 2-3 2-3 2-3 2-3 3-4 3-4

gained
(sand)

Fine- 2 1 2 1-2 4 2-4 2-3 2-4 2-3 2-3

grained
(clay)

Table 4 Perceived applicability of CPTu for deriving soil parameters

1=high, 2=high to moderate, 3=moderate, 4=moderate to low, 5=low reliability, Blank=no applicability, *
improved with SCPT

Where:
Dr Relative density ' Peak friction angle
State Parameter K0 In-situ stress ratio
E, G Young’s and Shear moduli G0 Small strain shear moduli
OCR Over consolidation ratio M 1-D Compressibility
su Undrained shear strength St Sensitivity
ch Coefficient of consolidation k Permeability

Most semi-empirical correlations apply primarily to relatively young,

uncemented, silica-based soils.

24
CPT Guide - 2014 Cone Penetration Test (CPT)

Soil Profiling and Soil Type

One of the major applications of the CPT is for soil profiling and soil type.
Typically, the cone resistance, (qt) is high in sands and low in clays, and the
friction ratio (Rf = fs/qt) is low in sands and high in clays. The CPT cannot be
expected to provide accurate predictions of soil type based on physical
characteristics, such as, grain size distribution but provide a guide to the
mechanical characteristics (strength, stiffness, compressibility) of the soil, or
the soil behavior type (SBT). CPT data provides a repeatable index of the
aggregate behavior of the in-situ soil in the immediate area of the probe. Hence,
prediction of soil type based on CPT is referred to as Soil Behavior Type (SBT).

Non-Normalized SBT Charts

The most commonly used CPT soil behavior type (SBT) chart was suggested by
Robertson et al. (1986), the updated, dimensionless version (Robertson, 2010) is
shown in Figure 21. This chart uses the basic CPT parameters of cone
resistance, qt and friction ratio, Rf. The chart is global in nature and can provide
reasonable predictions of soil behavior type for CPT soundings up to about 20m
(60ft) in depth. Overlap in some zones should be expected and the zones can be
modified somewhat based on local experience.

Normalized SBTn Charts

Since both the penetration resistance and sleeve resistance increase with depth
due to the increase in effective overburden stress, the CPT data requires
normalization for overburden stress for very shallow and/or very deep
soundings.

A popular CPT soil behavior chart based on normalized CPT data is that first
proposed by Robertson (1990) and shown in Figure 22. A zone has been
identified in which the CPT results for most young, un-cemented, insensitive,
normally consolidated soils will plot. The chart identifies general trends in
ground response, such as, increasing soil density, OCR, age and cementation for
sandy soils, increasing stress history (OCR) and soil sensitivity (St) for cohesive
soils. Again the chart is global in nature and provides only a guide to soil
behavior type (SBT). Overlap in some zones should be expected and the zones
can be modified somewhat based on local experience.

25
CPT Guide - 2014 Cone Penetration Test (CPT)

Zone Soil Behavior Type

1 Sensitive, fine grained
2 Organic soils - clay
3 Clay – silty clay to clay
4 Silt mixtures – clayey silt to silty clay
5 Sand mixtures – silty sand to sandy silt
6 Sands – clean sand to silty sand
7 Gravelly sand to dense sand
8 Very stiff sand to clayey sand*
9 Very stiff fine grained*

* Heavily overconsolidated or cemented

Pa = atmospheric pressure = 100 kPa = 1 tsf

Figure 21 Non-normalized CPT Soil Behavior Type (SBT) chart

(Robertson et al., 1986, updated by Robertson, 2010).

26
CPT Guide - 2014 Cone Penetration Test (CPT)

Zone Soil Behavior Type Ic

1 Sensitive, fine grained N/A
2 Organic soils – clay > 3.6
3 Clays – silty clay to clay 2.95 – 3.6
4 Silt mixtures – clayey silt to silty clay 2.60 – 2.95
5 Sand mixtures – silty sand to sandy silt 2.05 – 2.6
6 Sands – clean sand to silty sand 1.31 – 2.05
7 Gravelly sand to dense sand < 1.31
8 Very stiff sand to clayey sand* N/A
9 Very stiff, fine grained* N/A

* Heavily overconsolidated or cemented

Figure 22 Normalized CPT Soil Behavior Type (SBTn) chart, Qt - F

(Robertson, 1990, updated by Robertson, 2010).

27
CPT Guide - 2014 Cone Penetration Test (CPT)

The full normalized SBTn charts suggested by Robertson (1990) also included an
additional chart based on normalized pore pressure parameter, Bq, as shown on
Figure 23, where;

Bq = u / qn

and; excess pore pressure, u = u2 – u0

net cone resistance, qn = qt – vo

The Qt – Bq chart can aid in the identification of soft, saturated fine-grained soils
where excess CPT penetration pore pressures can be large. In general, the Qt -
Bq chart is not commonly used for onshore CPT due to the lack of repeatability
of the pore pressure results (e.g. poor saturation or loss of saturation of the filter
element, etc.).

Figure 23 Normalized CPT Soil Behavior Type (SBTn) charts

Qt – Fr and Qt - Bq (after Robertson, 1990).

28
CPT Guide - 2014 Cone Penetration Test (CPT)

If no prior CPT experience exists in a given geologic environment it is advisable

to obtain samples from appropriate locations to verify the soil type. If
significant CPT experience is available and the charts have been evaluated based
on this experience, samples may not always be required.

Soil behavior type can be improved if pore pressure measurements are also
collected, as shown on Figure 23. In soft clays and silts the penetration pore
pressures can be very large, whereas, in stiff heavily over-consolidated clays or
dense silts and silty sands the penetration pore pressures (u2) can be small and
sometimes negative relative to the equilibrium pore pressures (u0). The rate of
pore pressure dissipation during a pause in penetration can also guide in the soil
type. In sandy soils any excess pore pressures will dissipate very quickly,
whereas, in clays the rate of dissipation can be very slow.

To simplify the application of the CPT SBTn chart shown in Figure 22, the
normalized cone parameters Qt and Fr can be combined into one Soil Behavior
Type index, Ic, where Ic is the radius of the essentially concentric circles that
represent the boundaries between each SBTn zone. Ic can be defined as follows;

Ic = ((3.47 - log Qt)2 + (log Fr + 1.22)2)0.5

where:
Qt = normalized cone penetration resistance (dimensionless)
= (qt – vo)/ 'vo
Fr = normalized friction ratio, in %
= (fs/(qt – vo)) x 100%

The term Qt represents the simple normalization with a stress exponent (n) of
1.0, which applies well to clay-like soils. Robertson (2009) suggested that the
normalized SBTn charts shown in Figures 22 and 23 should be used with the
normalized cone resistance (Qtn) calculated using a stress exponent that varies
with soil type via Ic (i.e. Qtn, see Figure 46 for details).

The approximate boundaries of soil behavior types are then given in terms of the
SBTn index, Ic, as shown in Figure 22. The soil behavior type index does not
apply to zones 1, 8 and 9. Profiles of Ic provide a simple guide to the continuous
variation of soil behavior type in a given soil profile based on CPT results.
Independent studies have shown that the normalized SBTn chart shown in Figure
22 typically has greater than 80% reliability when compared with samples.

29
CPT Guide - 2014 Cone Penetration Test (CPT)

Schneider et al (2008) proposed a CPT-based soil type chart based on

normalized cone resistance (Qt) and normalized excess pore pressure ( u2/ 'vo),
as shown on Figure 24. Superimposed on the Schneider et al chart are contours
of Bq to illustrate the link with u2/ 'vo. Also shown on the Schneider et al chart
are approximate contours of OCR (dashed lines). Application of the Schneider
et al chart can be problematic for some onshore projects where the CPTu pore
pressure results may not be reliable, due to loss of saturation. However, for
offshore projects, where CPTu sensor saturation is more reliable, and onshore
projects in soft fine-grained soils with high groundwater, the chart can be very
helpful. The Schneider et al chart is focused primarily on fine-grained soils were
excess pore pressures are recorded and Qt is small.

Figure 24 CPT classification chart from Schneider et al (2008) based on

( u2/ vo) with contours of Bq and OCR

In recent years, the SBT charts have been color coded to aid in the visual
presentation of SBT on a CPT profile. An example CPTu profile is shown in
Figure 25.

30
CPT Guide - 2014 Cone Penetration Test (CPT)

Figure 25 Examples of (a) CPTu and (b) SCPTu

(1 tsf ~ 0.1 MPa, 14.5 psi = 100kPa, 1ft = 0.3048m)

31
CPT Guide - 2014 Cone Penetration Test (CPT)

A more general normalized CPT SBT chart, using large strain ‘soil behavior’
descriptions, is shown in Figure 26.

Figure 26 Normalized CPT Soil Behavior Type (SBTn) chart, Qt - F

using general large strain ‘soil behavior’ descriptors
(Modified from Robertson, 2012)

CD Coarse-grained Dilative soil – predominately drained CPT

CC Coarse-grained Contractive soil – predominately drained CPT
FD Fine-grained Dilative soil – predominately undrained CPT
FC Fine-grained Contractive – predominately undrained CPT

32
CPT Guide - 2014 Cone Penetration Test (CPT)

Equivalent SPT N60 Profiles

The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) is one of the most commonly used in-situ
tests in many parts of the world, especially North and South America. Despite
continued efforts to standardize the SPT procedure and equipment there are still
problems associated with its repeatability and reliability. However, many
geotechnical engineers have developed considerable experience with design
methods based on local SPT correlations. When these engineers are first
introduced to the CPT they initially prefer to see CPT results in the form of
equivalent SPT N-values. Hence, there is a need for reliable CPT/SPT
correlations so that CPT data can be used in existing SPT-based design
approaches.

There are many factors affecting the SPT results, such as borehole preparation
and size, sampler details, rod length and energy efficiency of the hammer-anvil-
operator system. One of the most significant factors is the energy efficiency of
the SPT system. This is normally expressed in terms of the rod energy ratio
(ERr). An energy ratio of about 60% has generally been accepted as the
reference value that represents the approximate historical average SPT energy.

A number of studies have been presented over the years to relate the SPT N
value to the CPT cone penetration resistance, qc. Robertson et al. (1983)
reviewed these correlations and presented the relationship shown in Figure 26
relating the ratio (qc/pa)/N60 with mean grain size, D50 (varying between
0.001mm to 1mm). Values of qc are made dimensionless when dividing by the
atmospheric pressure (pa) in the same units as qc. It is observed that the ratio
increases with increasing grain size.

The values of N used by Robertson et al. correspond to an average energy ratio

of about 60%. Hence, the ratio applies to N60, as shown on Figure 27. Other
studies have linked the ratio between the CPT and SPT with fines content for
sandy soils.

33
CPT Guide - 2014 Cone Penetration Test (CPT)

Figure 27 CPT-SPT correlations with mean grain size

(Robertson et al., 1983)

The above correlations require the soil grain size information to determine the
mean grain size (or fines content). Grain characteristics can be estimated
directly from CPT results using soil behavior type (SBT) charts. The CPT SBT
charts show a clear trend of increasing friction ratio with increasing fines
content and decreasing grain size. Robertson et al. (1986) suggested (qc/pa)/N60
ratios for each soil behavior type zone using the non-normalized CPT chart.

The suggested (qc/pa)/N60 ratio for each soil behavior type is given in Table 5.

These values provide a reasonable estimate of SPT N60 values from CPT data.
For simplicity the above correlations are given in terms of qc. For fine grained
soft soils the correlations should be applied to total cone resistance, qt. Note that
in sandy soils qc = qt.
One disadvantage of this simplified approach is the somewhat discontinuous
nature of the conversion. Often a soil will have CPT data that cover different
SBT zones and hence produces discontinuous changes in predicted SPT N60
values.

34
CPT Guide - 2014 Cone Penetration Test (CPT)

(q c /p a )
Zone Soil Behavior Type (SBT) N 60
1 Sensitive fine grained 2.0
2 Organic soils – clay 1.0
3 Clays: clay to silty clay 1.5
4 Silt mixtures: clayey silt & silty clay 2.0
5 Sand mixtures: silty sand to sandy silt 3.0
6 Sands: clean sands to silty sands 5.0
7 Dense sand to gravelly sand 6.0
8 Very stiff sand to clayey sand* 5.0
9 Very stiff fine-grained* 1.0

Table 5 Suggested (qc/pa)/N60 ratios

Jefferies and Davies (1993) suggested the application of the soil behavior type
index, Ic to link with the CPT-SPT correlation. The soil behavior type index, Ic,
can be combined with the CPT-SPT ratios to give the following simple
relationship:
(q t /p a ) Ic
= 8.5 1
N 60 4.6

Robertson (2012) suggested an update of the above relationship that provides

improved estimates of N60 for insensitive clays:

(q t /p a ) (1.1268 – 0.2817Ic)
= 10
N 60

Jefferies and Davies (1993) suggested that the above approach can provide
better estimates of the SPT N60-values than the actual SPT test due to the poor
repeatability of the SPT. In fine-grained soils with high sensitivity, the above
relationship may overestimate the equivalent N60.

In very loose soils with (N1)60 < 10, the weight of the rods and hammer can
dominate the SPT penetration resistance and produce very low N-values, which
can result in high (qt/pa)/N60 ratios due to the low SPT N-values measured.

35
CPT Guide - 2014 Cone Penetration Test (CPT)

Soil Unit Weight ( )

Soil total unit weights ( are best obtained by obtaining relatively undisturbed
samples (e.g., thin-walled Shelby tubes; piston samples) and weighing a known
volume of soil. When this is not feasible, the total unit weight can be estimated
from CPT results, such as Figure 28 and the following relationship (Robertson,
2010):

w = 0.27 [log Rf] + 0.36 [log(qt/pa)] +1.236

where Rf = friction ratio = (fs/qt)100 %

w = unit weight of water in same units as
pa = atmospheric pressure in same units as qt

Figure 28 Dimensionless soil unit weight, / w based on CPT

36
CPT Guide - 2014 Cone Penetration Test (CPT)

Undrained Shear Strength (su)

No single value of undrained shear strength, su, exists, since the undrained
response of soil depends on the direction of loading, soil anisotropy, strain rate,
and stress history. Typically the undrained strength in tri-axial compression is
larger than in simple shear that is larger than tri-axial extension (suTC > suSS >
suTE). The value of su to be used in analysis therefore depends on the design
problem. In general, the simple shear direction of loading often represents the
average undrained strength (suSS ~ su(ave)).

Since anisotropy and strain rate will inevitably influence the results of all in-situ
tests, their interpretation will necessarily require some empirical content to
account for these factors, as well as possible effects of sample disturbance.

Theoretical solutions have provided valuable insight into the form of the
relationship between cone resistance and su. All theories result in a relationship
between corrected cone resistance, qt, and su of the form:

qt v
su =
N kt

Typically Nkt varies from 10 to 18, with 14 as an average for su(ave). Nkt tends to
increase with increasing plasticity and decrease with increasing soil sensitivity.
Lunne et al., 1997 showed that Nkt decreases as Bq increases. In very sensitive
fine-grained soil, where Bq ~ 1.0, Nkt can be as low as 6.

For deposits where little experience is available, estimate su using the corrected
cone resistance (qt) and preliminary cone factor values (Nkt) from 14 to 16. For
a more conservative estimate, select a value close to the upper limit.

In very soft clays, where there may be some uncertainty with the accuracy in qt,
estimates of su can be made from the excess pore pressure ( u) measured behind
the cone (u2) using the following:

u
su =
N u

37
CPT Guide - 2014 Cone Penetration Test (CPT)

Where N u varies from 4 to 10. For a more conservative estimate, select a value
close to the upper limit. Note that N u is linked to Nkt, via Bq, where:

N u = Bq Nkt

If previous experience is available in the same deposit, the values suggested

above should be adjusted to reflect this experience.

For larger, moderate to high risk projects, where high quality field and
laboratory data may be available, site-specific correlations should be developed
based on appropriate and reliable values of su.

Soil Sensitivity

The sensitivity (St) of clay is defined as the ratio of undisturbed peak undrained
shear strength to totally remolded undrained shear strength.

The remolded undrained shear strength, su(Rem), can be assumed equal to the
sleeve resistance, fs. Therefore, the sensitivity of a clay can be estimated by
calculating the peak su from either site specific or general correlations with qt or
u and su(Rem) from fs, and can be approximated using the following:

su qt
St = = v
(1 / fs) = 7 / Fr
su (Rem) N kt

For relatively sensitive clays (St > 10), the value of fs can be very low with
inherent difficulties in accuracy. Hence, the estimate of sensitivity (and
remolded strength) should be used as a guide only.

38
CPT Guide - 2014 Cone Penetration Test (CPT)

Undrained Shear Strength Ratio (su/ 'vo)

It is often useful to estimate the undrained shear strength ratio from the CPT,
since this relates directly to overconsolidation ratio (OCR). Critical State Soil
Mechanics presents a relationship between the undrained shear strength ratio for
normally consolidated clays under different directions of loading and the
effective stress friction angle, '. Hence, a better estimate of undrained shear
strength ratio can be obtained with knowledge of the friction angle [(su / 'vo)NC
increases with increasing ']. For normally consolidated clays:

(su / 'vo)NC ~ 0.22 in direct simple shear ( ' = 26o)

From the CPT:

qt
(su / 'vo) = vo
(1/Nkt) = Qt / Nkt
'vo

Since Nkt ~ 14 (su / 'vo) ~ 0.071 Qt

For a normally consolidated clay where (su / 'vo)NC ~ 0.22;

Qt = 3 to 4 for NC insensitive clay

Based on the assumption that the sleeve resistance, fs, is a direct measure of the
remolded shear strength, su(Rem) = fs

Therefore:

su(Rem) / 'vo = fs / 'vo = (F . Qt) / 100

Hence, it is possible to represent (su(Rem)/ 'vo) contours on the normalized SBTn

chart (Robertson, 2009). These contours also represent OCR for insensitive
clays with high values of (su / 'vo) and sensitivity for low values of (su / 'vo).

39
CPT Guide - 2014 Cone Penetration Test (CPT)

Stress History - Overconsolidation Ratio (OCR)

Overconsolidation ratio (OCR) is defined as the ratio of the maximum past

effective consolidation stress and the present effective overburden stress:

'p
OCR =
'vo

For mechanically overconsolidated soils where the only change has been the
removal of overburden stress, this definition is appropriate. However, for
cemented and/or aged soils the OCR may represent the ratio of the yield stress
and the present effective overburden stress. The yield stress ratio (YSR) will
also depend on the direction and type of loading. For overconsolidated clays:

(su / 'vo)OC = (su / 'vo)NC (OCR)0.8

Based on this, Robertson (2009) suggested:

OCR = 0.25 (Qt) 1.25

Kulhawy and Mayne (1990) suggested a simpler method:

qt
OCR = k vo
= k Qt or 'p = k (qt – vo)
'vo

An average value of k = 0.33 can be assumed, with an expected range of 0.2 to

0.5. Higher values of k are recommended in aged, heavily overconsolidated
clays. If previous experience is available in the same deposit, the values of k
should be adjusted to reflect this experience and to provide a more reliable
profile of OCR. The simpler Kulhawy and Mayne approach is valid for Qt < 20.
For larger, moderate to high-risk projects, where additional high quality field
and laboratory data may be available, site-specific correlations should be
developed based on consistent and relevant values of OCR.

Mayne (2012) suggested an extension of this approach that can be applied to all
soils based on the following: 'p = 0.33(qt – vo)m (pa/100)1-m

where m is a function of SBT Ic (m ~ 0.72 in young, uncemented silica

sand and m ~ 1.0 in intact clay).

40
CPT Guide - 2014 Cone Penetration Test (CPT)

In-Situ Stress Ratio (Ko)

There is no reliable method to determine Ko from CPT. However, an estimate

can be made in fine-grained soils based on an estimate of OCR, as shown in
Figure 29.

Kulhawy and Mayne (1990) suggested a simpler approach, using:

sin
Ko = (1 – sin ) (OCR)

That can be approximated (for low plastic fine-grained soils) to:

Ko ~ 0.5 (OCR) 0.5

These approaches are generally limited to mechanically overconsolidated, fine-

grained soils. Considerable scatter exists in the database used for these
correlations and therefore they must be considered only as a guide.

Figure 29 OCR and Ko from su/ 'vo and Plasticity Index, Ip

(after Andresen et al., 1979)

41
CPT Guide - 2014 Cone Penetration Test (CPT)

Relative Density (Dr)

For coarse-grained soils, the density, or more commonly, the relative density or
density index, is often used as an intermediate soil parameter. Relative density,
Dr, or density index, ID, is defined as:

e max e
ID = Dr =
e max e min
where:

emax and emin are the maximum and minimum void ratios and e is the in-
situ void ratio.

The problems associated with the determination of emax and emin are well known.
Also, research has shown that the stress strain and strength behavior of coarse-
grained soils is too complicated to be represented by only the relative density of
the soil. However, for many years relative density has been used by engineers
as a parameter to describe sand deposits.

Research using large calibration chambers has provided numerous correlations

between CPT penetration resistance and relative density for clean,
predominantly quartz sands. The calibration chamber studies have shown that
the CPT resistance is controlled by sand density, in-situ vertical and horizontal
effective stress and sand compressibility. Sand compressibility is controlled by
grain characteristics, such as grain size, shape and mineralogy. Angular sands
tend to be more compressible than rounded sands as do sands with high mica
and/or carbonate compared with clean quartz sands. More compressible sands
give a lower penetration resistance for a given relative density then less
compressible sands.

Based on extensive calibration chamber testing on Ticino sand, Baldi et al.

(1986) recommended a formula to estimate relative density from qc. A modified
version of this formula, to obtain Dr from qc1 is as follows:

1 Q cn
Dr = ln
C2 C0

42
CPT Guide - 2014 Cone Penetration Test (CPT)

where:
C0 and C2 are soil constants
'vo = effective vertical stress
Qcn = (qc / pa) / ( 'vo/pa)0.5
= normalized CPT resistance, corrected for overburden
pressure (more recently defined as Qtn, using net cone
resistance, qn )
pa = reference pressure of 1 tsf (100kPa), in same units as qc and
'vo
qc = cone penetration resistance (more correctly, qt)

For moderately compressible, normally consolidated, unaged and uncemented,

predominantly quartz sands the constants are: Co = 15.7 and C2 = 2.41.

Kulhawy and Mayne (1990) suggested a simpler relationship for estimating

relative density:

2
Q cn
Dr =
305 Q C QOCR Q A

where:
Qcn and pa are as defined above
QC = Compressibility factor ranges from 0.90 (low compress.) to 1.10
(high compress.)
QOCR = Overconsolidation factor = OCR0.18
QA = Aging factor = 1.2 + 0.05 log(t/100)

A constant of 350 is more reasonable for medium, clean, uncemented, unaged

quartz sands that are about 1,000 years old. The constant can be closer to 300
for fine sands and closer to 400 for coarse sands. The constant increases with
age and increases significantly when age exceeds 10,000 years. The relationship
can then be simplified for most young, uncemented silica-based sands to:

Dr2 = Qtn / 350

43
CPT Guide - 2014 Cone Penetration Test (CPT)

State Parameter ( )
The state parameter ( ) is defined as the difference between the current void
ratio, e and the void ratio at critical state ecs, at the same mean effective stress for
coarse-grained (sandy) soils. Based on critical state concepts, Jefferies and
Been (2006) provide a detailed description of the evaluation of soil state using
the CPT. They describe in detail that the problem of evaluating state from CPT
response is complex and depends on several soil parameters. The main
parameters are essentially the shear stiffness, shear strength, compressibility and
plastic hardening. Jefferies and Been (2006) provide a description of how state
can be evaluated using a combination of laboratory and in-situ tests. They stress
the importance of determining the in-situ horizontal effective stress and shear
modulus using in-situ tests and determining the shear strength, compressibility
and plastic hardening parameters from laboratory testing on reconstituted
samples. They also show how the problem can be assisted using numerical
modeling. For high-risk projects a detailed interpretation of CPT results using
laboratory results and numerical modeling can be appropriate (e.g. Shuttle and
Cunning, 2007), although soil variability can complicate the interpretation
procedure. Some unresolved concerns with the Jefferies and Been (2006)
approach relate to the stress normalization using n = 1.0 for all soils, and the
influence of soil fabric in sands with high fines content.
For low risk projects and in the initial screening for high-risk projects there is
a need for a simple estimate of soil state. Plewes et al (1992) provided a means
to estimate soil state using the normalized soil behavior type (SBTn) chart
suggested by Jefferies and Davies (1991). Jefferies and Been (2006) updated
this approach using the normalized SBTn chart based on the parameter Qt (1-Bq)
+1. Robertson (2009) expressed concerns about the accuracy and precision of
the Jefferies and Been (2006) normalized parameter in soft soils. In sands,
where Bq = 0, the normalization suggested by Jefferies and Been (2006) is the
same as Robertson (1990).

Based on the data presented by Jefferies and Been (2006) and Shuttle and
Cunning (2007) as well the measurements from the CANLEX project (Wride et
al, 2000) for predominantly, coarse-grained uncemented young soils, combined
with the link between OCR and state parameter in fine-grained soil, Robertson
(2009) developed contours of state parameter ( ) on the updated SBTn Qtn – F
chart for uncemented, Holocene-age soils. The contours of , that are shown on
Figure 30, are approximate since stress state and plastic hardening will also

44
CPT Guide - 2014 Cone Penetration Test (CPT)

influence the estimate of in-situ soil state in the coarse-grained region of the
chart (i.e. when Ic < 2.60) and soil sensitivity for fine-grained soils. Jefferies and
Been (2006) suggested that soils with a state parameter less than -0.05 (i.e. <
-0.05) are dilative at large strains.

Figure 30 Contours of estimated state parameter, (thick lines), on

normalized SBTn Qtn – Fr chart for uncemented Holocene-age soils
(after Robertson, 2009)

Robertson (2010) suggested a simplified and approximate relationship

between and the clean sand equivalent normalized cone resistance, Qtn,cs, as
follows:

= 0.56 – 0.33 log Qtn,cs

The clean sand equivalent normalized cone resistance, Qtn,cs evolved from the
study of liquefaction case histories and details are provided in a later section on
“Seismic Design – Liquefaction” (see Figure 46).

45
CPT Guide - 2014 Cone Penetration Test (CPT)

Friction Angle ( )
The shear strength of uncemented, coarse-grained soils is usually expressed in
terms of a peak secant friction angle, '.

Significant advances have been made in the development of theories to model

the cone penetration process in sands (Yu and Mitchell, 1998). Cavity expansion
models show the most promise since they are relatively simple and can
incorporate many of the important features of soil response. However, empirical
correlations based on calibration chamber test results and field results are still
the most commonly used.

Robertson and Campanella (1983) suggested a correlation to estimate the peak

friction angle ( ') for uncemented, unaged, moderately compressible,
predominately quartz sands based on calibration chamber test results. For sands
of higher compressibility (i.e. carbonate sands or sands with high mica content),
the method will tend to predict low friction angles.

1 qc
tan ' = log 0.29
2.68 ' vo

Kulhawy and Mayne (1990) suggested an alternate relationship for clean,

rounded, uncemented quartz sands, and evaluated the relationship using high
quality field data:

' = 17.6 + 11 log (Qtn)

Jefferies and Been (2006) showed a strong link between state parameter ( and
the peak friction angle ( ) for a wide range of sands. Using this link, it is
possible to link Qtn,cs with , using:

= cv - 48

Where cv = constant volume (or critical state) friction angle depending on

mineralogy (Bolton, 1986), typically about 33 degrees for quartz sands but can
be as high as 40 degrees for felspathic and carbonate sands.

46
CPT Guide - 2014 Cone Penetration Test (CPT)

Hence, the relationship between normalized clean sand equivalent cone

resistance, Qtn,cs and becomes:

= cv + 15.84 [log Qtn,cs] – 26.88

The above relationship produces estimates of peak friction angle for clean quartz
sands that are similar to those by Kulhawy and Mayne (1990). However, the
above relationship based on state parameter has the advantage that it includes
the importance of grain characteristics and mineralogy that are reflected in both
cv as well as soil type through Qtn,cs. The above relationship tends to predict
values closer to measured values in calcareous sands where the CPT tip
resistance can be low for high values of .

For fine-grained soils, the best means for defining the effective stress peak
friction angle is from consolidated triaxial tests on high quality undisturbed
samples. An assumed value of ' = 28° for clays and 32° for silts is often
sufficient for many low-risk projects. Alternatively, an effective stress limit
plasticity solution for undrained cone penetration developed at the Norwegian
Institute of Technology (NTH: Senneset et al., 1989) allows the approximate
evaluation of effective stress parameters (c' and ') from piezocone (u2)
measurements. In a simplified approach for normally- to lightly-
overconsolidated clays and silts (c' = 0), the NTH solution can be approximated
q
(Mayne 2006):

0.121
q q + log Qt]

For heavily overconsolidated soils, fissured geomaterials, and highly cemented

or structured clays, the above will not provide reliable results and should be
determined by laboratory testing on high quality undisturbed samples. The
above approach is only valid when positive (u2) pore pressures are recorded (i.e.
Bq > 0.1).

47
CPT Guide - 2014 Cone Penetration Test (CPT)

Stiffness and Modulus

CPT data can be used to estimate modulus in soils for subsequent use in elastic
or semi-empirical settlement prediction methods. However, correlations
between qc and Young’s moduli (E) are sensitive to stress and strain history,
aging and soil mineralogy.

A useful guide for estimating Young's moduli for young, uncemented

predominantly silica sands is given in Figure 31. The modulus has been defined
as that mobilized at about 0.1% strain. For more heavily loaded conditions (i.e.
larger strain) the modulus would decrease (see “Applications” section).

Figure 31 Evaluation of drained Young's modulus (at ~ 0.1% strain) from CPT
for young, uncemented silica sands, E = E (qt - vo)
where: E = 0.015 [10 (0.55Ic + 1.68)]

48
CPT Guide - 2014 Cone Penetration Test (CPT)

Modulus from Shear Wave Velocity

A major advantage of the seismic CPT (SCPT) is the additional measurement of
the shear wave velocity, Vs. The shear wave velocity is measured using a
downhole technique during pauses in the CPT resulting in a continuous profile
of Vs. Elastic theory states that the small strain shear modulus, Go can be
determined from:

Go = Vs2

Where: is the mass density of the soil ( = /g) and Go is the small strain shear
modulus (shear strain, < 10-4 %).

Hence, the addition of shear wave velocity during the CPT provides a direct
measure of small strain soil stiffness.

The small strain shear modulus represents the elastic stiffness of the soil at shear
strains ( less than 10-4 percent. Elastic theory also states that the small strain
Young’s modulus, Eo is linked to Go, as follows;

Eo = 2(1 + )Go

where: is Poisson’s ratio, which ranges from 0.1 to 0.3 for most soils.

Application to engineering problems requires that the small strain modulus be

softened to the appropriate strain level. For most well designed structures the
degree of softening is often close to a factor of about 2.5. Hence, for many
applications the equivalent Young’s modulus (E’) can be estimated from:

E’ ~ Go = Vs2

Further details regarding appropriate use of soil modulus for design is given in
the section on Applications of CPT Results.

The shear wave velocity can also be used directly for the evaluation of
liquefaction potential. Hence, the SCPT provides two independent methods to
evaluate liquefaction potential.

49
CPT Guide - 2014 Cone Penetration Test (CPT)

Estimating Shear Wave Velocity from CPT

Shear wave velocity can be correlated to CPT cone resistance as a function of

soil type and SBT Ic. Shear wave velocity is sensitive to age and cementation,
where older deposits of the same soil have higher shear wave velocity (i.e.
higher stiffness) than younger deposits. Based on SCPT data, Figure 32 shows a
relationship between normalized CPT data (Qtn and Fr) and normalized shear
wave velocity, Vs1, for uncemented Holocene to Pleistocene age soils, where:

Vs1 = Vs (pa / 'vo)0.25

Vs1 is in the same units as Vs (e.g. either m/s or ft/s). Younger Holocene age
soils tend to plot toward the center and lower left of the SBTn chart whereas
older Pleistocene age soil tend to plot toward the upper right part of the chart.

Figure 32 Evaluation of normalized shear wave velocity, Vs1, from CPT for
uncemented Holocene and Pleistocene age soils (1m/s = 3.28 ft/sec)
0.5
Vs = [ vs (qt – v)/pa] (m/s); where vs = 10(0.55 Ic + 1.68)

50
CPT Guide - 2014 Cone Penetration Test (CPT)

Identification of soils with unusual characteristics using

the SCPT

Almost all available empirical correlations to interpret in-situ tests assume that
the soil is ‘well behaved’ with no microstructure, i.e. similar to soils in which
the correlation was based. Most existing correlations apply to silica-based soils
that are young and uncemented. Application of existing empirical correlations
in soils that are not young and uncemented can produce incorrect interpretations.
Hence, it is important to be able to identify soils with ’unusual’ characteristics
(i.e. microstructure). The cone resistance (qt) is a measure of large strain soil
strength and the shear wave velocity (Vs) is a measure of small strain soil
stiffness (Go). Research has shown that young uncemented sands have data that
fall within a narrow range of combined qt and Go, as shown in Figure 33. Most
young (Holocene-age), uncemented, coarse-grained soils (Schneider and Moss,
2011) have a modulus number, KG < 330, where:

KG = [Go/qt] Qtn0.75

Figure 33 Characterization of uncemented, unaged sands

(modified from Eslaamizaad and Robertson, 1997)

51
CPT Guide - 2014 Cone Penetration Test (CPT)

Hydraulic Conductivity (k)

An approximate estimate of soil hydraulic conductivity or coefficient of

permeability, k, can be made from an estimate of soil behavior type using the
CPT SBT charts. Table 6 provides estimates based on the CPT-based SBT
charts shown in Figures 21 and 22. These estimates are approximate at best, but
can provide a guide to variations of possible permeability.

SBT SBT Range of k SBTn Ic

Zone (m/s)
1 Sensitive fine-grained 3x10 to 3x10-8
-10
NA
2 Organic soils - clay 1x10-10 to 1x10-8 Ic > 3.60
3 Clay 1x10-10 to 1x10-9 2.95 < Ic < 3.60
4 Silt mixture 3x10-9 to 1x10-7 2.60 < Ic < 2.95
5 Sand mixture 1x10-7 to 1x10-5 2.05 < Ic < 2.60
6 Sand 1x10-5 to 1x10-3 1.31 < Ic < 2.05
7 Dense sand to gravelly sand 1x10-3 to 1 Ic < 1.31
8 *Very dense/ stiff soil 1x10-8 to 1x10-3 NA
9 *Very stiff fine-grained soil 1x10-9 to 1x10-7 NA
*Overconsolidated and/or cemented

Table 6 Estimated soil permeability (k) based on the CPT SBT chart by
Robertson (2010) shown in Figures 21 and 22

The average relationship between soil permeability (k) and SBTn Ic, shown in
Table 6, can be represented by:

When 1.0 < Ic k = 10(0.952 – 3.04 Ic) m/s

When 3.27 < Ic < 4.0 k = 10(-4.52 – 1.37 Ic) m/s

The above relationships can be used to provide an approximate estimate of soil

permeability (k) and to show the likely variation of soil permeability with depth
from a CPT sounding. Since the normalized CPT parameters (Qtn and Fr)
respond to the mechanical behavior of the soil and depend on many soil
variables, the suggested relationship between k and Ic is approximate and should
only be used as a guide.

52
CPT Guide - 2014 Cone Penetration Test (CPT)

Robertson et al. (1992) presented a summary of available data to estimate the

horizontal coefficient of permeability (kh) from dissipation tests. Since the
relationship is also a function of the soil stiffness, Robertson (2010) updated the
relationship as shown in Figure 34.

Jamiolkowski et al. (1985) suggested a range of possible values of kh/kv for soft
clays as shown in Table 7.

Nature of clay kh/kv

No macrofabric, or only slightly developed 1 to 1.5

macrofabric, essentially homogeneous deposits

From fairly well- to well-developed macrofabric, 2 to 4

e.g. sedimentary clays with discontinuous lenses
and layers of more permeable material

Varved clays and other deposits containing 3 to 10

embedded and more or less continuous
permeable layers

Table 7 Range of possible field values of kh/kv for soft clays

(modified from Jamiolkowski et al., 1985)

53
CPT Guide - 2014 Cone Penetration Test (CPT)

Figure 34 Relationship between CPTu t50 (in minutes), based on u2 pore

pressure sensor location and 10cm2 cone, and soil permeability (kh) as a function
of normalized cone resistance, Qtn (after Robertson 2010)

54
CPT Guide - 2014 Cone Penetration Test (CPT)

Consolidation Characteristics

Flow and consolidation characteristics of a soil are normally expressed in terms

of the coefficient of consolidation, c, and hydraulic conductivity, k. They are
inter-linked through the formula:

kM
c=
w

Where: M is the 1-D constrained modulus relevant to the problem (i.e.

unloading, reloading, virgin loading).

The parameters c and k vary over many orders of magnitude and are some of the
most difficult parameters to measure in geotechnical engineering. It is often
considered that accuracy within one order of magnitude is acceptable. Due to
soil anisotropy, both c and k have different values in the horizontal (ch, kh) and
vertical (cv, kv) direction. The relevant design values depend on drainage and
loading direction.

Details on how to estimate k from CPT soil behavior type charts are given in the
previous section.

The coefficient of consolidation can be estimated by measuring the dissipation

or rate of decay of pore pressure with time after a stop in CPT penetration.
Many theoretical solutions have been developed for deriving the coefficient of
consolidation from CPT pore pressure dissipation data. The coefficient of
consolidation should be interpreted at 50% dissipation, using the following
formula:

T50
c= ro 2
t 50
where:

T50 = theoretical time factor

t50 = measured time for 50% dissipation
ro = penetrometer radius

55
CPT Guide - 2014 Cone Penetration Test (CPT)

It is clear from this formula that the dissipation time is inversely proportional to
the radius of the probe. Hence, in soils of very low permeability, the time for
dissipation can be decreased by using smaller diameter probes. Robertson et al.
(1992) reviewed dissipation data from around the world and compared the
results with the leading theoretical solution by Teh and Houlsby (1991), as
shown in Figure 35.

Figure 35 Average laboratory ch values and CPTU results

(after Robertson et al., 1992, Teh and Houlsby theory shown as solid lines for Ir = 50 and 500).

The review showed that the theoretical solution provided reasonable estimates of
ch. The solution and data shown in Figure 35 apply to a pore pressure sensor
located just behind the cone tip (i.e. u2).

56
CPT Guide - 2014 Cone Penetration Test (CPT)

The ability to estimate ch from CPT dissipation results is controlled by soil stress
history, sensitivity, anisotropy, rigidity index (relative stiffness), fabric and
structure. In overconsolidated soils, the pore pressure behind the cone tip can be
low or negative, resulting in dissipation data that can initially rise before
decreasing to the equilibrium value. Care is required to ensure that the
dissipation is continued to the correct equilibrium and not stopped prematurely
after the initial rise. In these cases, the pore pressure sensor can be moved to
the face of the cone or the t50 time can be estimated using the maximum pore
pressure as the initial value.

Based on available experience, the CPT dissipation method should provide

estimates of ch to within + or – half an order of magnitude. However, the
technique is repeatable and provides an accurate measure of changes in
consolidation characteristics within a given soil profile.

An approximate estimate of the coefficient of consolidation in the vertical

direction can be obtained using the ratios of permeability in the horizontal and
vertical direction given in the section on hydraulic conductivity, since:

kv
cv = c h
kh

Table 7 can be used to provide an estimate of the ratio of hydraulic

conductivities.

For relatively short dissipations, the dissipation results can be plotted on a

square-root time scale. The gradient of the initial straight line is m, where;

ch = (m/MT)2 r2 (Ir)0.5

MT = 1.15 for u2 position and 10cm2 cone (i.e. r = 1.78 cm).

57
CPT Guide - 2014 Cone Penetration Test (CPT)

Constrained Modulus
Consolidation settlements can be estimated using the 1-D Constrained Modulus,
M, where;

M = 1/ mv = v/ e 'vo Cc

Where mv = equivalent oedometer coefficient of compressibility.

Constrained modulus can be estimated from CPT results using the following
empirical relationship;

M= M (qt - vo)

Sangrelat (1970) suggested that M varies with soil plasticity and natural water
content for a wide range of fine-grained soils and organic soils, although the
data were based on qc. Meigh (1987) suggested that M lies in the range 2 – 8,
whereas Mayne (2001) suggested a general value of 5. Robertson (2009)
suggested that M varies with Qt, such that;

When Ic > 2.2 (fine-grained soils) use:

M = Qt when Qt < 14

M= 14 when Qt > 14

When Ic < 2.2 (coarse-grained soils) use:

M = 0.0188 [10 (0.55Ic + 1.68)]

Estimates of drained 1-D constrained modulus from undrained cone penetration

will be approximate. Estimates can be improved with additional information
about the soil, such as plasticity index and natural water content, where M can
be lower in organic soils and soils with high water content.

58