In Situ Testing Methods in

Geotechnical Engineering
In Situ Testing Methods in
Geotechnical Engineering

Alan J. Lutenegger
First edition published 2021
by CRC Press
6000 Broken Sound Parkway NW, Suite 300, Boca Raton, FL 33487-2742

and by CRC Press

2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN

© 2021 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

CRC Press is an imprint of Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

The right of Alan J. Lutenegger to be identified as an author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with
sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

Reasonable efforts have been made to publish reliable data and information, but the author and publisher cannot
assume responsibility for the validity of all materials or the consequences of their use. The authors and p ­ ublishers
have attempted to trace the copyright holders of all material reproduced in this publication and apologize to
­copyright ­holders if permission to publish in this form has not been obtained. If any copyright material has not been
­acknowledged, please write, and let us know so we may rectify in any future reprint.

Except as permitted under U.S. Copyright Law, no part of this book may be reprinted, reproduced, transmitted, or
utilized in any form by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, ­including
­photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without written
­permission from the publishers.

For permission to photocopy or use material electronically from this work, access www.copyright.com or contact the
Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. (CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, 978-750-8400. For works that are
not available on CCC, please contact mpkbookspermissions@tandf.co.uk

Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks and are used only for
identification and explanation without intent to infringe.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Lutenegger, A. J., author.
Title: In situ testing methods in geotechnical engineering / Alan
Lutenegger.
Description: First edition. | Boca Raton, FL : CRC Press, 2021. |
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2020050402 (print) | LCCN 2020050403 (ebook) |
ISBN 9780367432416 (hardback) | ISBN 9781003002017 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: Soils—Testing. | Engineering geology. | Building
sites—Evaluation. | Soil penetration test. | Geotechnical engineering.
Classification: LCC TA710.5 .L88 2021 (print) | LCC TA710.5 (ebook) |
DDC 624.1/51—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020050402
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020050403

ISBN: 978-0-367-43241-6 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-0-367-75874-5 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-003-00201-7 (ebk)

Typeset in Sabon
by codeMantra
Contents

Author xv

1 Introduction to In Situ Testing 1

1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Role of In Situ Testing In Site Investigations 1
1.3 Advantages and Limitations of In Situ Tests 1
1.3.1 Advantages of In Situ Tests 2
1.3.1.1 Testing Soils that are Diffcult to Sample 2
1.3.1.2 Determining Soil Properties that are Diffcult
to Measure by Laboratory Methods 3
1.3.1.3 Testing a Larger Volume of Soil 3
1.3.1.4 Avoiding Diffculties with Sampling
and Laboratory Testing 3
1.3.1.5 Obtaining Near Continuous Profling 3
1.3.1.6 Reduced Testing Time 3
1.3.1.7 Rapid Data Reduction 3
1.3.1.8 Assessing the Infuence of Scale or
Macro-Fabric on Soil Behavior 4
1.3.1.9 Conducting Tests in a Field Environment 4
1.3.1.10 Cost Savings 4
1.3.2 Limitations of In Situ Tests 4
1.3.2.1 Unknown Boundary Conditions 5
1.3.2.2 Unknown Drainage Conditions 5
1.3.2.3 Unknown Disturbance 5
1.3.2.4 Modes of Deformation and Failure May be Unique 5
1.3.2.5 Strain Rates or Loading Rates are Higher
than Laboratory and Full-Scale 5
1.3.2.6 Nature of the Soil Being Tested is Unknown 5
1.3.2.7 Effects of Environment Change on Soil
Behavior are Diffcult to Assess 6
1.3.2.8 Typical Diffculties with Field Work 6
1.4 Applications of In Situ Tests 6
1.4.1 Stratigraphic Profling 6
1.4.2 Specifc Property Measurement 7
1.4.3 Prototype Modeling 9
v
vi Contents

1.5 Interpretation of In Situ Test Results 9

1.6 Using In Situ Tests in Design 11
1.6.1 Indirect Design 11
1.6.2 Direct Design 11
References 12

2 Standard Penetration Test (SPT) 13

2.1 Introduction 13
2.2 Background 13
2.3 Mechanics of the Test 15
2.4 Equipment 16
2.4.1 Hammer 16
2.4.2 Drill Rods 18
2.4.3 Split Barrel Sampler 18
2.5 Test Procedures 19
2.6 Factors Affecting Test Results 19
2.6.1 Energy Delivered to the Sampler 19
2.6.2 SPT Hammer Energy Calibration 20
2.6.3 Other Factors Affecting SPT Results 22
2.6.3.1 Diameter of Drill Rods 22
2.6.3.2 Drill Rod Length 22
2.6.3.3 Sampler Dimensions 24
2.6.3.4 Diameter of Borehole 25
2.6.3.5 Method of Drilling/Drilling Fluid 25
2.6.3.6 Cleanout of the Borehole 26
2.6.3.7 Rate of Testing 26
2.6.3.8 Seating of the Spoon 26
2.6.3.9 Condition of the Drive Shoe 27
2.6.3.10 Summary 27
2.7 Corrections to SPT Blow Counts 27
2.7.1 Corrections for Hammer Energy,
Equipment, and Drilling: N to N60 28
2.7.2 Correction for Overburden Stress in Sands: N60 to (N1)60 28
2.8 Interpretation of Soil Properties 30
2.8.1 SPT in Coarse-Grained Soils 30
2.8.1.1 Relative Density 30
2.8.1.2 Friction Angle 32
2.8.1.3 Soil Elastic Modulus 33
2.8.1.4 Constrained Modulus 34
2.8.1.5 Small-Strain Shear Modulus 34
2.8.1.7 Liquefaction Potential 35
2.8.2 SPT in Fine-Grained Soils 39
2.8.2.1 Undrained Shear Strength 39
2.8.2.2 Stress History 42
2.8.2.3 In Situ Lateral Stress 43
 Contents vii

2.8.2.4 Soil Elastic Modulus 44

2.8.2.5 Small-Strain Shear Modulus 45
2.8.3 SPT in Soft/Weak Rock 45
2.9 Improvements to SPT Practice 51
2.9.1 SPT-T Test 51
2.9.2 Seismic SPT 53
2.9.3 Measurement of Penetration Record 54
2.9.4 Incremental Penetration Ratio 54
2.9.5 Differential Penetration Record 56
2.10 Large Penetration Test 56
2.11 Becker Penetration Test 58
2.12 SPT in Geotechnical Design 58
2.12.1 Shallow Foundations 59
2.12.2 Deep Foundations 60
2.13 Summary of SPT 60
References 61

3 Dynamic Cone Penetration Test (DCP) 73

3.1 Introduction 73
3.2 Mechanics 73
3.3 Equipment 75
3.4 Test Procedures 77
3.4.1 Light DCP 77
3.4.1.1 Sowers Cone 77
3.4.1.2 ASTM Light “Pavement” DCP 78
3.4.1.3 Mackintosh & JKR Probe 80
3.4.1.4 Lutenegger Drive Cone 81
3.4.2 Medium DCP 81
3.4.3 Heavy DCP 82
3.4.4 Super Heavy DCP 83
3.5 Texas Cone Penetrometer 84
3.6 Swedish Ram Sounding Test 85
3.7 Factors Affecting Test Results 85
3.8 Presentation of Tests Results 86
3.8.1 Incremental Penetration Resistance 86
3.8.2 Cumulative Penetration Resistance 87
3.8.3 Penetration Distance per Hammer Blow 87
3.8.4 Dynamic Penetration Resistance 88
3.9 Interpretation of Test Results 88
3.9.1 Correlations to SPT 88
3.9.2 Correlations to CPT 90
3.9.3 Direct Correlations to Soil Properties 90
3.9.3.1 Relative Density of Sands 90
3.9.3.2 Undrained Shear Strength of Clays 90
3.9.3.3 California Bearing Ratio 91
viii Contents

3.9.3.4 Resilient Modulus 92

3.9.3.5 Compaction Control 92
3.10 Summary OF DCP 93
References 95

4 Cone Penetration (CPT) and Piezocone (CPTU) Tests 103

4.1 Introduction 103
4.2 Mechanics of the Test – CPT/CPTU 103
4.2.1 Mechanical Cones 104
4.2.2 Electric Cones 106
4.2.3 Electric Piezocone 108
4.3 Deploying Cone Penetrometers 110
4.3.1 Self-Contained Truck 111
4.3.2 Drill Rig 111
4.3.3 Light-Duty Trailer 111
4.3.4 Portable Reaction Frame 111
4.4 Test Procedures 111
4.5 Factors Affecting Test Results 112
4.5.1 Cone Design 112
4.5.2 Cone Diameter 112
4.5.3 Rate of Penetration 113
4.5.4 Surface Roughness of Friction Sleeve 113
4.6 Data Reduction and Presentation of Results 113
4.7 Interpretation of Results for Stratigraphy 118
4.7.1 Soil Identifcation from qc , fs, and Rf 119
4.7.2 Soil Identifcation from qt, Bq, and Rf 120
4.7.3 Soil Identifcation from Qt, Bq, and Fr 121
4.7.4 Soil Behavioral Type from CPTU, IC , and ICRW 122
4.8 Interpretation of Test Results in Coarse-Grained Soils 124
4.8.1 Relative Density 124
4.8.2 State Parameter 125
4.8.3 Shear Strength (Drained Friction Angle) 128
4.8.3.1 φʹ from Deep Bearing Capacity Theory 129
4.8.3.2 φʹ from State Parameter 129
4.8.4 Stress History and In Situ Stress 130
4.8.5 Elastic Modulus 130
4.8.6 Constrained Modulus 132
4.8.7 Shear Wave Velocity and Small-Strain Shear Modulus 132
4.8.7.1 Shear Wave Velocity and Shear Modulus from qc 134
4.8.8 Liquefaction Potential 134
4.9 Interpretation of CPT Results in Fine-Grained Soils 136
4.9.1 Undrained Shear Strength 137
4.9.1.1 su from qc 137
4.9.1.2 su from qT 138
4.9.1.3 su from u 138
 Contents ix

4.9.1.4 su from qT and u 139

4.9.1.5 su from Q 139
4.9.1.6 su from fs 139
4.9.1.7 su from σʹP 140
4.9.2 Sensitivity 140
4.9.3 Stress history – Preconsolidation Stress, σʹP 141
4.9.3.1 σʹP from qc 141
4.9.3.2 σʹP from qt 142
4.9.3.3 σʹP from Δu 142
4.9.3.4 σʹP from qt and u 145
4.9.4 Stress History – OCR 145
4.9.4.1 OCR from qc 145
4.9.4.2 OCR from qt and u 145
4.9.4.3 OCR from Pore Pressure Difference 146
4.9.5 In Situ Lateral Stress 146
4.9.5.1 K0 from OCR 146
4.9.5.2 Empirical Correlations to qt and Δu 146
4.9.6 Shear Wave Velocity and Small-Strain Shear Modulus 146
4.9.6.1 Shear Wave Velocity from qc and qt 146
4.9.6.2 Shear Wave Velocity from fs 148
4.9.6.3 Shear Modulus from qc and qt 148
4.9.7 Constrained Modulus 148
4.9.8 Coeffcient of Consolidation 149
4.9.9 Hydraulic Conductivity 152
4.10 Advantages and Limitations of CPT/CPTU 153
4.11 CPT-SPT Correlations 153
4.12 CPT/CPTU in Foundation Design 156
4.12.1 Shallow Foundations 156
4.12.2 Deep Foundations 157
4.13 Summary of CPT/CPTU 159
References 159

5 Field Vane Test (FVT) 167

5.1 Introduction 167
5.2 Mechanics 167
5.3 Equipment 168
5.3.1 Unprotected Vane Through Casing 168
5.3.2 Protected Rods and Unprotected Vane 169
5.3.3 Protected Rods and Protected Vane 169
5.3.4 Unprotected Rods and Unprotected Vane with Slip Coupling 170
5.3.5 Vanes 170
5.4 Test Procedures 172
5.5 Factors Affecting Test Results 173
5.5.1 Installation Effects 173
5.5.1.1 Disturbance 173
x Contents

5.5.1.2 Insertion Pore Water Pressures 175

5.5.2 Delay (Consolidation) Time 176
5.5.3 Rate of Shearing 177
5.5.4 Progressive Failure 178
5.5.5 Vane Size 180
5.5.6 Vane Shape 180
5.6 Interpretation of Undrained Strength from FVT 181
5.7 Anisotropic Analysis 182
5.8 Measuring Postpeak Strength 183
5.9 Field Vane Correction Factors 184
5.10 Interpretation of Stress History from FVT 188
5.11 Summary of FVT 190
References 190

6 Dilatometer Test (DMT) 195

6.1 Introduction 195
6.2 Mechanics 195
6.3 Equipment 195
6.4 Test Procedure 196
6.4.1 Lift-off Pressure 197
6.4.2 1 mm Expansion Pressure 200
6.4.3 Recontact Pressure 201
6.5 Data Reduction 201
6.5.1 Lift-off and Penetration Pore Pressures 202
6.5.2 1 mm Expansion Pressure 204
6.5.3 Recontact Pressure 207
6.6 Presentation of Test Results 208
6.7 Interpretation of Test Results 211
6.7.1 Evaluating Stratigraphy 211
6.7.2 Interpretation of DMT Results in Fine-Grained Soils 213
6.7.2.1 Undrained Shear Strength 213
6.7.2.2 Stress History – OCR 218
6.7.2.3 Preconsolidation Stress 222
6.7.2.4 Lateral Stresses 223
6.7.2.5 Constrained Modulus 226
6.7.2.6 Elastic Modulus 228
6.7.2.7 Small-Strain Shear Modulus 229
6.7.2.8 Liquidity Index 230
6.7.2.9 California Bearing Ratio 230
6.7.2.10 Coeffcient of Consolidation 230
6.7.3 Interpretation of DMT Results in Coarse-Grained Soils 234
6.7.3.1 Relative Density (Dr) 235
6.7.3.2 State Parameter 236
6.7.3.3 Drained Friction Angle 236
6.7.3.4 In Situ Stresses 237
 Contents xi

6.7.3.5 Stress History 238

6.7.3.6 Constrained Modulus 238
6.7.3.7 Elastic Modulus 239
6.7.3.8 Small-Strain Shear Modulus 240
6.7.3.9 Coeffcient of Subgrade Reaction 241
6.7.3.10 Liquefaction Potential 241
6.8 Seismic Dilatometer 242
6.9 Design Applications 244
6.10 Summary of DMT 245
References 245

7 Pressuremeter Test (PMT) 255

7.1 Introduction 255
7.2 Mechanics of the Test 256
7.3 Pressuremeter Equipment 256
7.3.1 Prebored Pressuremeters 257
7.3.1.1 Tri-Cell Probe 258
7.3.1.2 Mono-Cell Probe 259
7.3.2 Self-Boring Pressuremeters 262
7.3.3 Full-Displacement (Cone) Pressuremeters 263
7.3.4 Push-in Pressuremeter 264
7.4 Creating a Borehole for the PMT 264
7.5 Test Procedures 266
7.5.1 Test Procedure A – Equal-Pressure Increment Method 266
7.5.2 Test Procedure B – Equal-Volume Increment Method 267
7.5.3 Continuous Loading Tests 267
7.5.4 Holding Tests 267
7.6 Data Reduction 267
7.6.1 Corrected Pressure-Volume Curve 267
7.6.1.1 Initial Pressure, PO 268
7.6.1.2 Creep Pressure, Pf 268
7.6.1.3 Limit Pressure, PL 269
7.6.1.4 Net Limit Pressure, PL* 270
7.6.1.5 Pressuremeter Modulus, Em 270
7.6.1.6 Unload-Reload Modulus, EUR 271
7.6.2 Creep Curve 271
7.6.3 Relationships Between PMT Parameters 272
7.7 Factors Affecting Test Results 273
7.7.1 Method of Installation 274
7.7.2 Calibration of Membrane 275
7.7.3 Volume Losses 276
7.7.4 Geometry of Cutter (SBPMT) 276
7.7.5 Rate of Installation (SBPMT) 276
7.8 Interpretation of Tests Results in Fine-Grained Soils 276
7.8.1 In Situ Horizontal Stress 277
xii Contents

7.8.2 Undrained Shear Strength 277

7.8.2.1 Theoretical Evaluation 277
7.8.2.2 Empirical Approach 278
7.8.3 Preconsolidation Stress 280
7.8.4 Small-Strain Shear Modulus 280
7.9 Interpretation of Test Results in Coarse-Grained Soils 280
7.10 Pressuremeter Testing in Rock 280
7.11 Correlations with Other In Situ Tests 281
7.12 Applications to Design 281
7.12.1 Design of Shallow Foundations 282
7.12.1.1 Bearing Capacity 282
7.12.1.2 Settlement 282
7.12.2 Deep Foundations 284
7.12.2.1 Ultimate Axial Load of Deep Foundations 284
7.12.2.2 Laterally Loaded Shafts and Piles 284
7.13 Summary of PMT 284
References 285

8 Borehole Shear Test (BST) 291

8.1 Introduction 291
8.2 Mechanics 291
8.3 Equipment 291
8.3.1 Shear Head 293
8.3.2 Control Console 293
8.3.3 Shear Force Reaction Base Plate 293
8.4 Test Procedures 294
8.4.1 Multistage Testing 294
8.4.2 Single-Stage “Fresh” Testing 296
8.5 Borehole Preparation 297
8.6 Interpretation of Test Results 298
8.7 Range of Soil Applicability 298
8.8 Factors Affecting Test Results 299
8.9 Interface Shear Tests 299
8.10 Comparison with Laboratory Tests 301
8.11 Equipment Modifcations 301
8.12 Applications of BST for Design 302
8.13 Advantages and Limitations 302
8.13.1 Advantages 302
8.13.2 Limitations 303
8.14 Summary of BST 303
References 304

9 Plate Load Test (PLT) and Screw Plate Load Test (SPLT) 307
9.1 Introduction 307
9.2 Plate Load Test 308
 Contents xiii

9.2.1Equipment 308
9.2.2Test Procedures 308
9.2.2.1 Tests on the Ground Surface 311
9.2.2.2 Tests in an Excavation/Test Pit 311
9.2.2.3 Tests in Lined Borings 311
9.2.2.4 Horizontal Plate Load Tests 312
9.3 Screw Plate Tests 313
9.3.1 Equipment 313
9.3.2 Test Procedures 314
9.4 Presentation of Test Results 315
9.5 Interpretation of Results 315
9.5.1 Subgrade Reaction Modulus 317
9.5.2 Elastic Modulus 319
9.5.2.1 Plate Load Test 319
9.5.2.2 Screw Plate Test 320
9.5.3 Shear Modulus 322
9.5.4 Undrained Shear Strength of Clays 322
9.5.5 Coeffcient of Consolidation 324
9.6 Plate Load as a Prototype Footing 326
9.7 Summary of PLT and SPLT 328
References 328

10 Other In Situ Tests 333

10.1 Introduction 333
10.2 Large-Scale In-Place Shear Box Tests 333
10.2.1 Background 333
10.2.2 Test Equipment 334
10.2.3 Test Procedures 336
10.2.4 Results and Interpretation 336
10.3 Hydraulic Fracture Tests (HFTs) 336
10.3.1 Background 336
10.3.2 Test Equipment 337
10.3.2.1 Tests with Push-in Piezometer 337
10.3.2.2 Tests in an Open Borehole 338
10.3.3 Test Procedures 338
10.3.4 Results and Interpretation 339
10.4 Push-in Earth Pressure Cells 343
10.4.1 Background 343
10.4.2 Test Equipment 344
10.4.3 Test Procedures 346
10.4.4 Results and Interpretation 346
References 349
Index 353
Author

Alan J. Lutenegger has more than forty years of experience in geotechnical engineering and
the use of in situ tests in soils. He is Emeritus Professor of Geotechnical Engineering at the
University of Massachusetts-Amherst, where he has taught for over thirty years. His exten-
sive research and publications in the use of in situ tests in soils include feld investigations
using nearly all the tests described in this book. He is a registered professional engineer and
a Fellow of the American Society of Civil Engineers and has been involved in many consult-
ing projects using in situ tests.

xv
Chapter 1

Introduction to In Situ Testing

1.1 INTRODUCTION

Over 40 years ago, Mitchell et al. (1978) gave a number of reasons for the growing interest
in the use of in situ testing techniques:

1. Ability to determine properties of soils such as sands and offshore deposits that cannot
easily be sampled in the undisturbed state;
2. Ability to test a larger volume of soil than can conveniently be tested in the laboratory;
3. Ability to avoid some of the diffculties of laboratory testing, such as sample distur-
bance, the proper simulation of in situ stresses, temperature, and chemical and biologi-
cal environment; and
4. Increased cost effectiveness of an exploration and testing program using in situ
methods.

Engineers should not expect a single in situ test to provide the answer to all geotechnical
problems. Just as different laboratory tests are used to obtain specifc soil properties, differ-
ent in situ tests have been developed for the same purpose.

1.2 ROLE OF IN SITU TESTING IN SITE INVESTIGATIONS

Like all soil tests, in situ tests provide a way of obtaining additional information about sub-
surface conditions at a site. They are used to give a more complete picture of site conditions
and soil behavior and reduce uncertainties inherent in most projects. Geotechnical engineer-
ing often requires the use of many tools, and Figure 1.1 shows the various tools available for
geotechnical design. In situ tests are rarely used as a complete replacement for test borings and
laboratory tests for a site investigation but are typically used to compliment a traditional sub-
surface exploration program in order to enhance the information regarding site conditions.

1.3 ADVANTAGES AND LIMITATIONS OF IN SITU TESTS

In situ tests can provide a number of advantages over the traditional drilling, sampling, and
laboratory testing approach used in many geotechnical projects. However, like all tests, in
situ tests also have a number of limitations. It is important that engineers understand both
the advantages and the limitations of in situ tests.

1
2 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Figure 1.1 Tools used in the practice of geotechnical engineering.

1.3.1 Advantages of In Situ Tests

Advantages of in situ tests include the following:

1. Tests may be conducted in soil deposits that are diffcult or impossible to sample or test;
2. Soil properties that cannot be easily determined by conventional laboratory tests can
be determined from in situ tests;
3. A larger total volume of soil that may infuence the design can be tested;
4. In situ tests avoid some of the diffculties inherent in a conventional lab testing
program;
5. Some tests provide a near continuous record of vertical variations in soil conditions;
6. There is often a reduction in the time of the site investigation;
7. Some tests allow for real time or rapid data reduction;
8. In situ tests may be used to assess the infuence of scale and macrofabric on soil behavior;
9. Tests are performed in a feld environment; and
10. There is almost often substantial cost savings to a project.

1.3.1.1 Testing Soils that are Difficult to Sample

Often times, subsurface explorations encounter soils that are diffcult or impossible to sam-
ple using conventional drilling and sampling methods. Typical examples include loose sands
and silts below the water table, very soft or highly sensitive clays, and highly weathered or
structured materials, such as surfcial crusts or residual soils. In some cases, artesian or
other unusual groundwater conditions may also create drilling and sampling diffculties.
In these cases, the use of Cone Penetration Test (CPT)/Piezocone (CPTU) or Dilatometer
Test (DMT) may provide results that are more reliable than laboratory tests conducted on
samples of poor quality.
 Introduction to In Situ Testing 3

1.3.1.2 Determining Soil Properties that are Difficult

to Measure by Laboratory Methods
Using common laboratory testing techniques, it is sometimes diffcult to obtain accurate
measurements of certain key soil properties that may be essential in a geotechnical engineer-
ing design. For example, the small-strain shear modulus or horizontal stress can be extremely
diffcult to measure in the laboratory and require special equipment and high-quality undis-
turbed samples. In these cases, an alternative may be to select an appropriate in situ test that
can provide these measurements.

1.3.1.3 Testing a Larger Volume of Soil

For most typical geotechnical problems, a traditional subsurface exploration is usually set
up to obtain samples at some preselected depth interval (often 5 ft (1.5 m)) or whenever a
stratigraphic change occurs. For routine projects, the number of test borings and the num-
ber of samples are relatively small, which gives a limited view of the engineering behavior
of the soil. A stratigraphic profling test, such as the CPT, CPTU, or DMT, can increase
the amount of soil investigated by two to three orders of magnitude. Important strata that
might otherwise be missed during conventional drilling and sampling may be identifed.

1.3.1.4 Avoiding Difficulties with Sampling and Laboratory Testing

One of the limitations of obtaining soil samples from the feld, transporting them to the
laboratory, and performing tests is that there are always some unavoidable changes in the
environment relative to feld conditions. Changes in pore water pressure, stress feld, com-
position of the pore fuid, temperature, and sample disturbance may have differing degrees
of infuence on the behavior of different soils. In situ tests avoid many of these issues. In
addition, laboratory tests are not without their own set of problems, related to differences
in test equipment, test procedures, sample sizes, and rate of loading.

1.3.1.5 Obtaining Near Continuous Profiling

It is possible to obtain a near-continuous record of the vertical variations in soil conditions
using penetration tests such as the CPT/CPTU and DMT. Data acquisition systems used
with the CPT/CPTU can provide detailed information about changes in stratigraphy that
occur with depth. The use of stratigraphic profling tools is one of the main areas where in
situ tests can enhance site investigations for geotechnical engineers.

1.3.1.6 Reduced Testing Time

The use of in situ tests often provides a substantial reduction in the time necessary to complete
the site investigation in comparison to conventional site investigation practice. Rapid deter-
mination of specifc soil properties during feld exploration also allows the engineer to make
a preliminary assessment of the subsurface conditions. There is also the opportunity to evalu-
ate any problematic areas, e.g., unstable or soft ground conditions, excavation problems, etc.

1.3.1.7 Rapid Data Reduction

Some in situ tests provide rapid and automatic data acquisition and reduction in the feld,
often as the test proceeds. This means that the technician or engineer can track the progress
of the test and troubleshoot any diffculties that may arise during the test. Judgement may
then be used to decide whether more tests need to be conducted at the site.
4 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

1.3.1.8 Assessing the Influence of Scale or Macro-Fabric on Soil Behavior

In some soils, such as highly fssured or fractured clays or highly weathered residual depos-
its, the macrofabric can exert a signifcant infuence on soil behavior. These soils present
a problem to the engineer in obtaining high-quality undisturbed samples for laboratory
testing and in evaluating how the laboratory response refects the behavior of the soil in the
feld. In these materials, it is important to test a suffciently large volume of soil in order to
obtain a reasonably accurate indication of soil behavior.

1.3.1.9 Conducting Tests in a Field Environment

In situ tests are performed in the feld under conditions that are closer to “undisturbed”
than laboratory tests. That is, the vertical and horizontal stress conditions, pore water pres-
sure, temperature, and pore fuid chemistry are more representative than conditions that are
typically used in laboratory tests.

1.3.1.10 Cost Savings

The reduction in testing time and increase in information provided by many in situ tests usu-
ally result in substantial economic beneft to many projects. The conventional approach to
geotechnical design involves a high degree of uncertainty that evolves as a result of the highly
variable nature of geologic deposits and the small level of investigation generally possible.
This in turn leads to a design approach that is often more conservative than if more detailed
information could be obtained. A reduction in the level of uncertainty that can be achieved by
incorporating in situ tests into the subsurface exploration program may result in cost savings.

1.3.2 Limitations of In Situ Tests

There are limitations inherent in most in situ tests. In order to correctly use the results
obtained from in situ tests, the understanding of these limitations is important. Limitations
of in situ tests include the following:

1. Boundary conditions of the test in terms of stresses and/or strains are often poorly
defned;
2. Drainage conditions are generally unknown and cannot be controlled;
3. The level of soil disturbance is generally unknown;
4. Stress paths, modes of deformation, and/or modes of failure imposed on surrounding
soil by the test may be different than full-scale structures;
5. Strain rates are usually higher than either laboratory tests or anticipated in full-scale
structures;
6. The specifc nature of soil being tested is often unknown;
7. Effects of environmental changes on soil behavior are diffcult to assess; and
8. Typical diffculties associated with performing feld work.

The overall effect of these limitations is that the interpretation of results from in situ tests
often requires an empirical approach. While it is important to be cautious of empirical
procedures, it should also be remembered that the quality of an empirical approach is most
often a function of the quality of the reference parameters, i.e., how good are the labora-
tory or feld measurements being used for reference values and for the development of the
empirical correlations?
 Introduction to In Situ Testing 5

1.3.2.1 Unknown Boundary Conditions

The installation of most in situ tests usually requires either (1) full displacement of the soil,
i.e., the soil is forced apart to make room for the probe or (2) a prebored hole, i.e., a borehole
is prepared, and a probe is lowered into the cavity. As a result of either method of installa-
tion, the soil stresses and pore water pressures acting on the surface of the instruments are
often unknown. The level of strain imposed on the surrounding soil is usually unknown, as
often times only deformations are measured.

1.3.2.2 Unknown Drainage Conditions

In some cases, pore water pressures may dominate some measurements in a test. Unlike
most laboratory tests in which the exact location of drainage boundaries are known and
can be controlled, the drainage boundaries are usually unknown during the performance of
most in situ tests. Tests in freely draining materials such as sands and silty sands are usually
interpreted as drained tests even if the test is performed rapidly. On the other hand, tests
performed rapidly in saturated clays are usually interpreted as undrained tests.

1.3.2.3 Unknown Disturbance

Soil disturbance should not be confused with soil displacement. Most penetration tests pro-
duce a repeatable level of displacement when inserted into the soil, but because the stress-
strain-relaxation behavior of soils is different, different levels of soil disturbance will result
in different soils using the same instrument. Full-displacement techniques produce a zone of
disturbed and possibly remolded soil immediately around the probe.

1.3.2.4 Modes of Deformation and Failure May be Unique

In most geotechnical testing, it is often diffcult to perform a test that represents the actual
mode of deformation or failure that is anticipated in the feld. Estimating soil properties
from tests that impose deformations or failure that are unrealistic in terms of full-scale
problems usually requires assumptions in order to interpret the test. An example is deter-
mining undrained shear strength in clays from the feld vane test (FVT). Few real problems
involve a cylindrical failure surface as is obtained with the FVT.

1.3.2.5 Strain Rates or Loading Rates are Higher

than Laboratory and Full-Scale
Most soils are strain-rate sensitive; i.e., the stress-strain-strength behavior depends to some
degree on the rate of strain. For practical reasons, the strain rates or loading rates used in
most in situ tests are higher than laboratory testing or full-scale loading. In view of the
potential problems that might arise because of differences in test procedures, attempts have
been made to standardize the procedures used in most in situ tests so that constant rates are
used to conduct the test.

1.3.2.6 Nature of the Soil Being Tested is Unknown

With the exception of the SPT, no other in situ test provides a sample for visual identifcation
or laboratory index or classifcation testing. This is often considered by some engineers as
a drawback to the use of in situ tests, since many engineers still want a sample. Procedures
6 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

for soil identifcation or classifcation have been developed for the CPT/CPTU and DMT by
using combinations of measured values from the test.

1.3.2.7 Effects of Environment Change on Soil

Behavior are Difficult to Assess
Occasionally, it is of interest to determine how environmental changes affect soil properties.
These variables can be systematically controlled in the laboratory. Field tests are not well
suited to allowing environmental changes to be introduced into the testing sequence.

1.3.2.8 Typical Difficulties with Field Work

The nature of feld work often involves the need for robust equipment, not prone to breakage
or other damage. Field work involves a certain amount of fnesse and creativity to complete
the work. Usually the problems encountered with performing feld tests are not present in
the lab, and therefore, many engineers see this as a drawback to using in situ tests.

1.4 APPLICATIONS OF IN SITU TESTS

Wroth (1984) suggested the following main applications for using in situ tests:

1. Site investigations;
2. Measurement of a specifc property of the ground;
3. Control of construction; and
4. Monitoring of performance and back analysis.

Given the possible range of geologic conditions and the specifc requirements of a particu-
lar project, the application of particular tests may be different for different projects and
different ground conditions. In situ tests in geotechnical practice generally fall into one of
the following categories:

1. Tests that provide information about changes in subsurface materials (stratigraphic

profling tests);
2. Tests that provide soil behavior at a specifc point in the subsurface (specifc property
tests);
3. Tests that provide direct information relative to full-scale foundation behavior (proto-
type tests).

1.4.1 Stratigraphic Profiling

Stratigraphic profling tests are used primarily to determine the stratigraphic profle. They
are most often penetration tests that are simple and fast. With only minimal interpreta-
tion, the results can be used qualitatively to provide an indication of material changes,
e.g., decrease or increase in penetration resistance with depth. Table 1.1 summarizes the
most common stratigraphic profling tests. Since these are penetration tests, they are
generally economical to perform and are best integrated into the early stage of a site
investigation.
 Introduction to In Situ Testing 7

Table 1.1 Common in situ stratigraphic profling tests

Test Comments
Cone penetrometer (CPT) Tip resistance and sleeve friction used with various classifcation charts
Piezocone (CPTU) Tip resistance, sleeve friction, and pore pressure used with various soil
classifcation charts. Usually more detailed than CPT
Drive cone penetrometer Relative changes in driving resistance usually obtained over an interval of
(DCP) 100–150 mm. Less continuous than CPT/CPTU but very simple
Dilatometer (DMT) Testing interval typically 250–300 mm. Relative changes in pressure readings
or soil classifcation chart.Thrust measurement enhances profling
Resistivity cone (RCPT) Changes in electrical resistivity need to be suffcient to indicate stratigraphic
changes. Pore water chemistry can signifcantly infuence results

1.4.2 Specific Property Measurement

Specifc property tests are used to provide a measurement of a desired soil property identi-
fed as being important for design. These are usually tests performed at a specifc point and
are therefore more specialized tests. They can also be part of the stratigraphic profling test
in which the results obtained during profling are interpreted for a specifc property. Specifc
property tests tend to be slower and more expensive to perform than stratigraphic profl-
ing tests. They usually provide a limited amount of data as a result of time and budgetary
constraints and the reduced frequency of testing. Specifc property tests are often used in
critical zones defned by stratigraphic profling methods to provide estimates of important
soil properties such as shear strength, stress history, compressibility, stress-strain behavior,
state of stress, or fow characteristics. There are usually several tests that may be used to
provide an estimate of the same soil property. Tables 1.2–1.6 provide summaries of the
most common in situ tests used to estimate specifc soil properties and their applicability to
different soils.

Table 1.2 Common in situ tests for estimating undrained shear strength in fne-grained soils
Soil type FVT CPT CPTU DMT PMT SBPMT SPT PLT
V. soft X X X X – X – –
Soft X X X X – X X –
Medium X X X X X X X X
Stiff – X X X X X X X
V. stiff – X X X X X X X
FVT – generally considered the most direct and reliable estimate of undrained strength in medium to very soft clays;
diffcult to advance in stiffer clays; drainage may be a question in stiff clays.
CPT/CPTU – in very soft clays, the reliability of tip resistance is questionable; in very stiff clays, the penetration resistance
may be too high for conventional pushing rigs; CPTU best suited in medium to very soft clays; most reliable estimates
of undrained strength are obtained from pore water pressure measurements; requires special attention of deairing
piezoelement.
DMT – applicable to a wide range of soil; requires about twice the pushing thrust as a CPT/CPTU.
PMT – borehole needs to remain open; best suited to medium to very stiff clays.
SBPMT – specialized equipment; may be diffcult to deploy.
SPT – not suited to very soft clay; empirical approach in other clays; hammer energy measurements needed.
PLT – plate tests at shallow depth or excavation required.
8 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Table 1.3 Common in situ tests for estimating stress history in fne-grained soils
Soil type FVT CPT CPTU DMT PMT SPT
V. soft X – X X – –
Soft X X X X – –
Medium X X X X X X
Stiff – X X X X X
V. stiff – X X X X X
FVT – use of normalized strength provides an estimate of stress history.
CPT – tip resistance correlation to stress history widely applicable.
CPTU – redundancy in estimates of stress history from both pore water pressure and tip resistance.
DMT – wide range of application; in very stiff clays, penetration may be diffcult.
PMT – relationship to PMT creep pressure or limit pressure.
SPT – empirical approach.

Table 1.4 Common in situ tests for estimating lateral stress in soils
Soil type PMT SBPMT DMT
Stiff clay X – X
Medium stiff clay X X X
Soft clay – X X
Silt X X X
Dense sand X X X
Loose sand X X X
PMT – graphical interpretation of pressure/volume or pressure/strain curve.
SBPMT – graphical interpretation of pressure/strain curve.
DMT – empirical correlation between OCR and Ko may be site-specifc.

Table 1.5 Common in situ tests for estimating shear strength of coarse-grained soils
Soil CPT DMT PMT SPT BST
Loose sand X X X X X
Medium dense sand X X X X X
Dense sand X X X X X
Loose gravel X – – X –
Medium dense gravel – – – X –
Dense gravel – – – – –
CPT – penetration may be diffcult in gravelly materials.
DMT – gravel may damage the membrane.
PMT – need good borehole for testing.
SPT – spoon may become plugged in gravelly material.
BST – borehole stability may be diffcult.
 Introduction to In Situ Testing 9

Table 1.6 Common in situ tests for estimating soil modulus in soils
Soil type CPT/CPTU DMT PMT SBPMT SPT PLT
Soft clay – X – X – –
Medium stiff clay X X X X X X
Stiff clay X X X X X X
silt X X X X X X
Loose sand X X X X X X
Dense sand X X X X X X
CPT/CPTU – empirical correlations to tip resistance; seismic cone (SCPT/SCPTU) for shear wave velocity.
DMT – empirical correlation to DMT modulus; seismic DMT (SDMT) for shear wave velocity.
PMT – direct stress-strain curve; empirical correlations between PMT modulus and settlement; unload-reload curve
provides an estimate of shear modulus.
SBPMT – direct stress-strain curve; unload-reload curve provides an estimate of shear modulus.
SPT – empirical relationships for fne-grained soils; good database for modulus for use in shallow foundation settlements
in granular soils. Seismic SPT (SSPT) newly developed for shear wave velocity.
PLT – direct load-deformation curve for determining subgrade reaction modulus.

Table 1.7 Summary of prototype in situ tests

Test Design application
CPT End bearing and side resistance of driven piles
PMT Lateral load behavior of drilled shafts
BST Side resistance of drilled shafts/grouted anchors in axial compression or tension
PLT Load/settlement of shallow foundations
DMT Lateral load behavior of driven piles
SPT-T Side resistance of driven piles

1.4.3 Prototype Modeling

Tests that fall into this category are used for a direct design approach. This approach gives
the opportunity to move directly from the in situ measurements to the performance of foun-
dations without the need to evaluate intermediate soil parameters. An example is the use of
the CPT/CPTU to predict axial capacity of driven or jacked piles. A summary of different
prototype tests used for direct design applications is given in Table 1.7.

1.5 INTERPRETATION OF IN SITU TEST RESULTS

The correct application of in situ tests to solve geotechnical problems requires correct inter-
pretations of the test results. For the most part, the interpretation of in situ tests can gener-
ally be divided into three classes (Jamiolkowski et al. 1988):

1. Soil elements follow very similar effective stress paths. Therefore, with appropriate
assumptions on drainage conditions and stress-strain relationships, the solution of a
more or less complex boundary value problem can lead to the determination of stress-
strain and strength characteristics. This category of tests includes the PMT, especially
the SBPT, and seismic tests.
10 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

2. Soil elements follow different effective stress paths depending on the geometry of the
problem and on the magnitude of the applied load. In this case, a rational interpreta-
tion is often very diffcult. Even with appropriate assumptions concerning the drainage
conditions and soil model, the solution of a complex boundary value problem leads to
more or less “average” soil characteristics. Comparisons between these average values
and the behavior of a typical soil element tested in the laboratory or their use in the
specifc design calculation are far from straightforward. A typical example is using the
CPT for estimating soil shear strength.
3. Soil elements follow different effective stress paths, and the in situ test results are
empirically correlated to selected soil properties. Typical examples are the widely used
correlations between penetration resistance measured in the SPT and deformation
modulus. Because of the purely empirical nature of these correlations, they are subject
to many limitations, which are not always fully recognized by potential users. In addi-
tion, it is important to recognize that the empirical correlations are usually formulated
for either fully drained or fully undrained conditions.

The major sources of uncertainty in the interpretation of many in situ tests are related to
the following issues:

1. Complex boundary value problems;

2. Complex and often unknown drainage conditions;
3. Complex variations in stress and strain levels;
4. Complex infuence of stress path-dependent soil behavior, i.e., anisotropy and
plasticity.

As a result of these uncertainties, interpretation of most penetration tests is based on

empirical correlations to selected soil properties. Because of the purely empirical nature
of these correlations, it is important to be aware of their many limitations. Often, the
correlations are only partly able to account for soil nonlinearity and plasticity, as well as
other complexities in natural soils, such as mineralogy, in situ stress state, stress-strain
history, cementation, sensitivity, ageing, anisotropy, and structure (fabric). At the pres-
ent time, only a few of these factors are accounted for in even the simplest methods of
interpretation.
Wroth (1984) suggested that any empirical correlation developed for in situ tests that can
be used with confdence outside the immediate context in which it was established should
ideally be as follows:

1. Based on a physical appreciation of why the properties can be expected to be related;

2. Set against a background of theory, however idealized this may be;
3. Expressed in terms of dimensionless variables so that advantages can be taken of the
scaling laws of continuum mechanics.
Jamiolkowski et al. (1988) suggested that the following additional criteria could be
included:
4. Validation of the correlation using large calibration chambers or feld performance
observations.

Wroth (1988) suggested that empirical correlations should be thought of in terms of a hier-
archy such that “primary” and “secondary” correlations are possible. For example, the tip
 Introduction to In Situ Testing 11

resistance measured in the CPT is some measure of the strength – but not the stiffness –
of the soil being tested. Therefore, the primary correlation in the test must be between
qc and su. Additionally, the single observed quantity qc can only lead to one independent
interpretation of soil properties; any additional interpretation, if truly independent, must
depend on some other information obtained from the test or based on a relationship with
the primary soil property. For example, any correlation that is suggested between qc and the
undrained Young’s modulus of the soil, E, should be considered a secondary relationship
that is dependent on some other relationship between su and E. This implicit dependence on
another correlation means that the secondary relationship is a weaker one, with more scat-
ter in the data and on which less reliance can be placed.

1.6 USING IN SITU TESTS IN DESIGN

There are two approaches for using results from in situ tests in geotechnical design: (1) indi-
rect design and (2) direct design.

1.6.1 Indirect Design

The indirect design approach relies on the interpretation of in situ tests to obtain con-
ventional design parameters of soils and subsequent application of these parameters in
more traditional design methodology. An example would be to use the feld vane to esti-
mate the undrained shear strength of a clay from the torque measurement, which would
then be used in a bearing capacity equation to predict the undrained side resistance of
a driven pile.
A drawback to this approach is that a transformation must be made between the mea-
surement obtained in the test and the property needed for the design. In the example of the
feld vane, the torque measured in the test is used to obtain the undrained shear strength
by making a series of assumptions relative to the behavior of the soil, drainage conditions,
failure surface, shear stress distribution, strain rate, etc., all of which can infuence the
resulting estimate of undrained strength. Additionally, experience has shown that often
times, the results of the test do not accurately predict performance, and an “adjustment”
factor is needed to match test results and feld performance, e.g., the correction factor
introduced by Bjerrum (1972) for the application of feld vane results for stability analysis
of embankments on soft clay.

1.6.2 Direct Design

The direct design approach gives the engineer the opportunity to go directly from the in
situ measurement to the performance of foundation without the need to evaluate interme-
diate soil parameters if the test procedure closely approximates the construction and load/
deformation sequence of the full-scale member. An example would be to use the CPT/
CPTU to design driven piles. The direct design approach eliminates most of the assump-
tions involved in the indirect approach since the results of the test are being used directly
in the design. Usually, the direct design approach needs to be verifed substantially with
full-scale performance. The difference between these two design approaches is illustrated
in Figure 1.2.
12 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Figure 1.2 Comparison between indirect and direct design approaches using in situ tests.

REFERENCES

Bjerrum, L. 1972. Embankments of Soft Clay. Performance of Earth and Earth-Supported Structures,
ASCE, Vol. 2, pp. 1–54.
Jamiolkowski, M., Ghionna, V.N., Lancellotta, R. and Pasqualini, E., 1988. New Correlations of
Penetration Tests for Design Practice. Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on
Penetration Testing, Vol. 1, pp. 263–296.
Mitchell, J.K., Guzilkowski, F. and Villet, W., 1978. The Measurement of Soil Properties In-Situ.
1978. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratories Report LBL-6363, University of California, Berkeley,
67 pp.
Wroth, C.P., 1984. Interpretation of In Situ Tests. Geotechnique, Vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 449–489.
Chapter 2

Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

2.1 INTRODUCTION

Penetration tests are the oldest and most common form of in situ tests and involve push-
ing or driving a rod, point, or sampler into the ground to delineate soft zones from frm
zones. In Chapter 3, dynamic cone penetration tests (DCPs) are covered, and in Chapter
4, the Cone Penetrometer (CPT) and Piezocone (CPTU) are described. In this chapter, the
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) will be examined. Other tests that are similar to the SPT
are also briefy described at the end of this chapter and include the Large Penetration Test
(LPT) and the Becker Hammer Test (BHT). Despite its perceived shortcomings, the SPT is
still the most commonly used in situ test in North America and probably throughout the
world. Engineers need the SPT to do two things: (1) provide a soil sample for feld identifca-
tion or laboratory index classifcation tests and (2) provide an indication of soil behavior.

2.2 BACKGROUND

The SPT is a Dynamic Penetration Test in which the resistance to the driving and installa-
tion of a thick-walled tube is measured. At the same time, the test is a sampling technique
in which a sample of the soil through which the penetration takes place is obtained. It is
the only in situ test that provides a sample for soil classifcation and other index testing, an
attribute that many engineers feel is a distinct advantage of the test and one that sets the test
apart from all others.
Fletcher (1965), Broms & Flodin (1988), and Rogers (2006) present histories of the SPT
beginning with its introduction in about 1902 by Col. Charles R. Gow who used a 25 mm
(1 in.) open pipe driven into the ground to collect a soil sample. Up to this time, soil inves-
tigation in the U.S. had primarily been conducted using wash boring techniques based on
portable tripod equipment erected at the site. The open pipe was driven into the ground with
a 50 kg (110 lbs) weight to recover soil samples. In 1922, the Gow Co. became a subsidiary
of the Raymond Concrete Pile Co. and further development and modifcations to the sam-
pling procedure apparently took place over the next several years by Gow and H.A. Mohr.
The 50 mm (2 in.) split spoon sampler was designed around 1927, and about the same
time, the 63.5 kg (140 lbs) weight and 0.76 m (30 in.) drop were more or less standardized by
the company and others. The number of blows required to drive the sampler a distance of
0.3 m (12 in.) constituted the record of the test. The sampler was only driven a total of 0.3 m
(12 in.) using a 25 mm (1 in.) drive pipe until about 1945 when standard “A” size drill rods
were introduced in the industry. Around this time period, a ball check valve was added to
the top of the sampler in an attempt to help prevent sample loss.

13
14 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

One of the most signifcant modifcations to the test in these early days was made by
J.D. Parsons in 1954 when the blows required for each of three consecutive 0.15 m (6 in.)
increments were noted and the sum of the two increments giving the lowest total for a pen-
etration distance of 0.3 m (12 in.) was taken. This technique is no longer used, and the frst
0.15 m (6 in.) increment is still taken; it is considered by many as a “seating” increment. The
blows from the second and third 0.15 m (6 in.) drive increments are added to give the mea-
surement from the test, known as the “N-value”.
According to Fletcher (1965), the original purpose of the SPT was to measure the density
of soil formations by a standard procedure in order to give a correlation with experience
in the design and installation of caisson foundations. The equipment described by Fletcher
(1965) showed some clear differences from modern SPT equipment; (1) the inside diameter
of the sample barrel was the same as the inside diameter of the shoe with both having a
constant diameter of 34.9 mm (1.375 in.); i.e., there is no internal relief inside the barrel; (2)
a 24 in. long spoon was used; (3) a pin weight hammer was shown as standard equipment;
and (4) a hardwood cushion block was used between the hammer and drive rods.
Modifcations to the equipment and procedure to bring the test to the present day (2020)
confguration will be discussed subsequently and should be obvious to the reader in com-
parison to the 1950s and 1960s arrangement of the test. The equipment and procedure used
to conduct the SPT was standardized by ASTM in 1958 in test procedure D1586 and is also
an international reference test.
Some geotechnical engineers feel that the SPT has outlived its usefulness for site inves-
tigations and geotechnical design and perhaps should be retired given that there are other
options available. Some reasons given for this are that the test is outdated, the test results
are too variable, and there are more advanced in situ techniques available such as the
CPT/CPTU or DMT. For many years, a number of issues plagued the SPT:

1. The test was considered highly variable (i.e., equipment and procedures varied too
much);
2. Test results were historically too dependent on the operator; and
3. Control of the test has generally been taken away from engineers and given to drillers.

However, the SPT has some advantageous attributes that make it useful for many routine
site investigations:

1. The test concept, arrangement, and equipment are relatively simple, robust, and
inexpensive;
2. The equipment is readily available from most drillers around the world and is easily
adaptable to most drill rigs;
3. The procedure is relatively easy to carry out, and testing may be performed at reason-
ably frequent intervals, often being performed continuously in the upper layers of soil
or the primary zone of infuence for foundations;
4. A soil sample is usually obtained for visual/manual identifcation and index property
evaluation;
5. The test has a wide range of applicability, from weathered rock and gravelly sands to
soft insensitive clay;
6. The test data are simple to collect and the test results are reduced rapidly in the feld.

There is also an argument by some engineers that the SPT is a “one-number test”, that is,
the SPT only gives a single number to use in assessing soil behavior.
 Standard Penetration Test 15

2.3 MECHANICS OF THE TEST

The test procedure calls for the input of specifed impact energy to drive a split tube soil
sampling barrel of specifed dimensions a required distance. A schematic of the current
test is shown in Figure 2.1. The test consists of a falling weight or hammer of mass 63.5 kg
(140  lbs) that is allowed to drop (free-fall) a distance of 0.76 m (30 in.) to strike an anvil.
The anvil is connected to a set of drill rods that extend to the depth of testing/sampling. A
sampling barrel, usually called a split spoon, is attached to the end of the drill rods and is
advanced into the soil with each impact of the hammer.
In typical practice, chalk marks are made on the drill string to mark off three 0.15 m (6 in.)
increments; the hammer is raised and dropped; the number of hammer blows to advance
the spoon each 0.15 m (6 in.) increment are recorded as N0–6; N6–12; and N12–18. The initial
0.15 m (6 in.) penetration is considered by ASTM as a “seating” penetration and the sum
of the hammer blows for the second two 0.15 m (6 in.) increments is called the SPT N value
(with units of blows per 0.3 m or blows per ft) and is the reference measurement obtained
from the test. It is important that the incremental blow count values for each 0.15 m (6 in.)
be recorded and reported, which is actually required by ASTM D1586.
In the event the full 0.46 m (18 in.) of penetration cannot be achieved, ASTM D1586
allows the test to be terminated if

Figure 2.1 Schematic of SPT.

16 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

1. A total of 50 hammer blows have been applied during any one of the three 0.15 m
(6 in.) increments;
2. A total of 100 hammer blows have been applied; or
3. There is no observed advance of the sampler during the application of ten successive
hammer blows.

If only partial penetration occurs, the penetration resistance is recorded as the number of
hammer blows for the penetration increment achieved, for example, “50 for 2 in.”. In very
soft clays, the spoon and drill rods may advance on their own without driving. This is often
referred to as “Weight of Rod” (WOR). If the spoon and rods advance after the hammer
has been attached, this is referred to as “Weight of Hammer” (WOH). When this occurs,
it is important that the water level onside the boring be noted on the boring logs and the
size of drill rods being used are recorded. The total mass of the spoon and rods may include
partially buoyant weight for that length below the water level.
After driving, the spoon is brought to the surface and opened, and the amount of soil
retrieved for that drive is recorded. This is known as recovery. The recovery ratio, R, is
defned as

R = L s L D × 100% (2.1)

where:
Ls = length of recovered soil in the spoon
LD = length of spoon drive

Recording the recovery is considered a part of the ASTM procedure and should be recorded
on the boring logs. The recovery ratio may be used qualitatively to help interpret the SPT
results. For example, if the recovery ratio is consistently low in coarse-grained deposits, this
may suggest that abundant gravel or cobbles may be present with particles too large to enter
the spoon. After recording the Recovery, the soil is usually placed into water-tight contain-
ers such as glass jars or bags or is wrapped in plastic and aluminum foil for preservation and
then transported back to the offce or laboratory.

2.4 EQUIPMENT

The mechanics of the SPT described in the previous section represent a relatively simple
concept; however, because the test is perceived as being so simple, the execution of the test
may vary widely. This is a result of the variations in test equipment that have been available
and are currently being used in the feld to conduct the test. As indicated in Figure 2.1, the
test equipment consists of four basic components: the drop weight or hammer with an anvil,
a string of drill rods connecting the sampler to the hammer, and a barrel sampler.

2.4.1 Hammer
The purpose of the hammer system is to provide the specifed amount of energy to the rods
in order to advance the sampler. Because this energy may be created in a number of ways,
SPT hammer systems typically represent the largest equipment variation observed in the
test. Historically, different styles of drop hammers have been used to perform the SPT.
In fact, this has caused considerable consternation among users and represents the largest
 Standard Penetration Test 17

source of variability to test results. Up to about 1970 pin weight hammers were used, but in
the past 40 years, three primary hammer types have been used in North America. Figure 2.2
shows the schematics of (1) donut hammer; (2) safety hammer; and (3) automatic hammer.
At present, most hand-operated drop hammer systems have largely been retired and are
no longer used in routine practice. The automatic hammer is the single most important
improvement to the SPT in the past 50 years and now considered the preferred and in many
cases, the required drop hammer system for use in performing the SPT.
In other parts of the world, similar “free-fall” hammers are used. In European countries,
these include the Pilcon trip monkey and the Borros AB drop-hammer. In Japan and other
parts of Southeast Asia, the Tombi method (e.g., Shi-Ming 1982) is used.
A typical automatic hammer is a self-contained, totally enclosed device that operates
using a hydraulically powered chain lift mechanism. The drive weight-lifting and dropping
sequence is actuated by the operator using a hydraulic valve switch. This makes the ham-
mer fully automatic, and the test is essentially operator-independent. This type of ham-
mer appears to give the most reproducible results and avoids problems associated with the
friction losses of the rope, cathead, pulley, etc. and the variations of hammer drop height.
The author recommends that, when possible, only automatic hammers be used to conduct
the SPT.

Figure 2.2 SPT drop hammers.

18 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

2.4.2 Drill Rods

Rods used to conduct the SPT are usually standard drill rods used for routine test borings.
ASTM D1586 requires that fush joint drill rods having a stiffness (moment of inertia) greater
than that of A rods be used. Drill rods are available in a wide variety of lengths, diameters,
and thread designs. Drillers have traditionally used square thread drill rods that have been
in use for many years. However, in more recent years, tapered thread drill rods have become
increasingly popular since they can be assembled and disassembled more quickly.

2.4.3 Split Barrel Sampler

The split barrel or spoon used for the SPT is an open-ended thick-walled drive sampler. The
barrel is designed in two halves and split along its longitudinal axis, hence the name split
spoon. The two halves are held together by a hardened drive shoe threaded onto the lower
end and a drill rod adapter head threaded onto the upper end. A ball check valve and ports
are contained in the head of the spoon so that if the spoon is lowered into a borehole flled
with water or drilling fuid, the fuid will exit out the top end. This allows the soil to enter
the spoon during driving and prevents fuid from becoming trapped in the spoon.
Most split spoons are available from suppliers in lengths varying from 0.46 to 0.61 m (18
to 24 in.). A longer spoon allows some room for loose soil cuttings that may be at the bottom
of the borehole to enter the spoon and not affect the penetration resistance. The  confgu-
ration of the split-spoon is shown in Figure 2.3. Typically, the sample is held in the spoon
with a small metal or plastic catcher that is equipped with spring action “fngers” and
positioned just inside the shoe. To remove the sample from the spoon, the drive head and
shoe are removed (usually with a pair of pipe wrenches), and the two halves of the spoon
are separated.
The standard size split spoon sampler recommended for use with the SPT in the U.S.
has an outside barrel diameter of 50.8 mm (2 in.) and an inside barrel diameter of 38.1 mm
(1.5 in.). In the U.S., the drive shoe has an inside diameter of 34.9 mm (1.375 in.). This I.D.
is smaller than the I.D. of the barrel for a standard 50.8 mm (2 in.) spoon and creates a
slight relief inside the barrel. This relief of the barrel is thought to have originated sometime

Figure 2.3 Schematic of the SPT split spoon sampler. (After ASTM D1586.)
 Standard Penetration Test 19

around the latter 1960s to allow the use of a series of brass liners to be added to the spoon.
(Note that Fletcher (1965) indicated that the inside diameter of the barrel was the same as
the inside diameter of the shoe as shown in Figure 2.1.) Ireland et al. (1970) also described
the “standard” barrel sampler as having a constant internal diameter of 34.9 mm (1.375 in.),
i.e., the same I.D. as the shoe. This appears to be a routine practice in the U.K.
It is important to know whether the spoon is manufactured with this relief or if liners are
being used during the SPT since this can affect the N-value by changing the frictional forces
as the soil enters the spoon. The international reference test procedure for the SPT shows the
I.D. of the sampler barrel to be the same as that of the shoe, i.e., 34.9 mm (1.375 in.). In the
UK, Japan, and other parts of the world, it appears that samplers with a constant I.D. equal
to that of the drive shoe are more common.

2.5 TEST PROCEDURES

As previously noted, the test procedures and equipment for conducting the SPT are described
in detail in ASTM D1586 Standard Test Method for Penetration Test and Split-Barrel
Sampling of Soils and in ASTM D6066 Standard Practice for Determining the Normalized
Penetration Resistance of Sands for Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential. The SPT is also an
international reference test and described in ISO 22476-3:2005 Geotechnical Investigation
and Testing–Field Testing–Part 3: Standard Penetration Test.

2.6 FACTORS AFFECTING TEST RESULTS

The goal of the SPT is to have the response from the test refect differences in soil behavior,
not differences in the test procedure. There are a number of factors that can affect the results
of the SPT. Because of the historical variability in drilling equipment, techniques, personnel,
etc., and the more or less crude fashion in which the test was performed, the results tended
to show a high degree of variability. Drop hammer systems using a rope and cathead tend to
give erratic results simply because the energy is largely uncontrolled and varies widely from
drop to drop. However, many of these issues have been eliminated by using a calibrated
automatic hammer. There are three reasons that only calibrated hammers should be used to
conduct the SPT:

1. Automatic hammers provide a repeatable operator-independent known energy level;

2. A fully enclosed automatic hammer is much safer for the drill crew;
3. Automatic hammers provide increased productivity in the drilling operation.

2.6.1 Energy Delivered to the Sampler

A number of early investigations (e.g., Schmertmann 1979; Schmertmann & Palacios 1979;
Kovacs & Salomone 1982) showed that the most signifcant factor affecting the N-value
from the SPT as the amount of energy delivered to the sampler. The energy delivered by
the hammer to the drill rods and reaching the sampler as an initial compression wave was
defned by Schmertmann & Palacios (1979) using the term ENTHRU, Ei. The theoretical
energy of the SPT hammer (474 J) is termed E* and thus the ratio Ei /E* equals the ENTHRU
effciency delivered by the SPT system to the sampler. Therefore, ENTHRU effciency may
be dependent on the combined effect of the hammer/drop system, the drill rod size and
length, the mass of the anvil, etc.
20 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Table 2.1 Reported historic SPT hammer system energy effciencies

Hammer Release Effciency (%) References
Donut Rope and cathead 31 Schmertmann & Palacios (1979)
45 Kovacs et al. (1981)
43 Robertson et al. (1983)
Tombi 80 Kovacs & Salomone (1982)
80–90 Tokimatsu & Yoshimi (1983)
Safety Rope and cathead 52 Schmertmann & Palacios (1979)
55 Schmertmann & Palacios (1979)
61 Kovacs et al. (1981)
52 Kovacs & Salomone (1982)
62 Robertson et al. (1983)
55–115 Riggs et al. (1983)
71–91 Riggs et al. (1984)
Automatic – 56–115 Riggs et al. (1983)
90 Riggs et al. (1983)
86–91 Schmertmann (1984)
84–106 Frost (1992)
68.5–81.4 Batchelor et al. (1994)
76–94 Lamb (1997)
83.2 Davidson et al. (1999)

Because of the variation in drill rigs hammer designs, drop mechanisms, and opera-
tor variables, it should be recognized that a wide range in operating effciencies might be
observed in SPT practice. Additionally, the type of soil may also have a signifcant infu-
ence on the SPT energy with hard soils producing more energy than soft soils (Bosscher &
Showers 1987). A summary of some reported measurements of hammer effciencies is given
in Table 2.1.

2.6.2 SPT Hammer Energy Calibration

ASTM D4633 provides a recommended procedure for performing the energy calibration
of the SPT. An example of an energy calibration is described by Schmertmann (1978).
Hall (1982) and Robertson et al. (1992) also described the use of equipment for perform-
ing the energy calibration using a load cell in the drill string and different recording
equipment. A downhole calibration device has also been described by Van der Graaf &
Van den Heuvel (1992). Matsumoto et al. (1992) also describe a SPT energy measurement
system using strain gages attached to the drill rods at two points. Figure 2.4 shows a ham-
mer calibration in progress using strain gauges and accelerometers attached to the top of
the drill string.
A side-by-side comparison of SPT N-values obtained between a safety hammer with
a rope and cathead and an automatic hammer using the same drill rig, driller, drilling
method, and drill rods is shown in Figure 2.5. The measured energy for each hammer drop
is shown. As expected, the mean N-value from the automatic hammer is lower than that
from the safety hammer because of the higher energy level provided by the automatic ham-
mer (E Auto = 79.1%; E Safety = 60.8%). More obvious is that the energy delivered by the safety
hammer is more variable than from the Automatic Hammer (COVSafety = 8.7%; COVAuto =
4.0%) for these measurements.
Since about 2005, it has become increasingly easy to perform energy calibrations on
SPT hammers. The equipment has become more readily available and easier to operate.
 Standard Penetration Test 21

Figure 2.4 Energy calibration of SPT automatic hammer in progress.

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75
Depth (ft.)

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75 Automatic Hammer N = 14

Safety Hammer N = 19

2.00
40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
Hammer Energy Ratio (%)

Figure 2.5 Comparison of measured energy from each hammer drop between automatic hammer and
safety hammer with rope and cathead.

Most state highway agencies require or strongly recommend the use of automatic hammers
for performing SPT work. A large number of measurements using various drill rigs and
automatic hammers in a range of soils have been summarized by Biringen & Davie (2008)
and Honeycutt et al. (2014). Table 2.2 gives a summary of some reported energy calibrations
on automatic hammers since 2005.
22 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Table 2.2 Some reported automatic hammer energy since 2005

Location Hammer/rig Effciency (%) References
California CME 84.5 Liebich (2005)
S. Carolina, Tennessee, Various CME, Failing, 68.5–80.0 Biringen & Davie (2008)
Georgia, Texas, Maryland Mobil, Diedrich
New York CME 73.0–88.0 Akbas & Kulhawy (2008)
Vermont CME 75 85.6 Kelley & Lens (2010)
CME 55 87.5–90.5
CME 45c 79.6–84.2
North Carolina N/A 78.6 Valiquette et al. (2010)
Illinois CME-75 91.3–96.4 Stark et al. (2017)
CME-55 97.5
CME-45c 85.8
CME-550x 80.4

2.6.3 Other Factors Affecting SPT Results

A number of investigations have summarized factors other than energy that can affect the
SPT N-value (Fletcher 1965; Schmertmann 1978; Decourt 1989; Kulhawy & Trautmann
1996). Nearly all of these factors can be placed in two categories: (1) equipment variations
and (2) operator or procedural variations. If a calibrated automatic hammer is used, the
remaining factors are summarized in Table 2.3.

2.6.3.1 Diameter of Drill Rods

ASTM D1586 specifes that the rods must have a stiffness equal to or greater than that of
parallel wall “A” size rods. In the U.S. and elsewhere in the world, the SPT is most often
performed using either “A” size rods or “N” size rods. Different styles of rod threads (square
and tapered) may be used, but typically, a single rod size will be used in the string. Most
reported comparisons between SPTs conducted with both A and N rods at the same site do
not show signifcant difference in N values (Gibbs & Holtz 1957; Palmer & Stuart 1957;
Brown 1977; DeGodoy 1971; Yokel 1982; Matsumoto & Matsubara 1982). It appears that
up to depths of about 30 m (100 ft), the use of drill rod sizes in the range most often used
in the feld and recommended by ASTM D1586 produces a negligible effect on N-values.
ASTM D6066 suggests that for depths greater than 15 m (50 ft), BW and NW rods are pre-
ferred to avoid whipping or buckling. Figure 2.6 show a side-by-side comparison of N-values
obtained using AWJ and NWJ rods in sand.

2.6.3.2 Drill Rod Length

The total length of drill rods may infuence the energy reaching the spoon from the hammer
drop (e.g., Schmertmann & Palacois 1979; Yokel 1982; Decourt 1989; Morgano & Liang
1992; Odebrecht et al. 2004). A secondary effect of longer rods is the tenancy for increased
rod whip and loss of energy from multiple rod connections, both of which tend to reduce
the energy reaching the sampler. A correction factor is often used to adjust N-values for the
total length of rods used, i.e., depth (e.g., Skempton 1986).
 Standard Penetration Test 23

Table 2.3 Factors other than hammer energy that may infuence SPT results
Equipment Sampler dimensions Variations in exact sampler dimensions vary around
variations the world. Sampler should conform to the latest
ASTM standard and should be measured before use
Liners/no liners Use of liners vs. no liner but spoon with internal
relief increases blow counts
Use of damaged or deformed tip Damaged shoe may change blow counts
on sample spoon
Using damaged drill rods Drill rods that are slightly bent or otherwise
damaged tend to reduce energy transfer giving
artifcially high N-values
Procedural Inadequate cleaning of the SPT is only partially made in original soil. Sludge may
variations borehole be trapped in the sampler and compressed as the
sampler is driven, increasing the blow count
Failure to maintain suffcient The water table in the borehole must be at least
hydrostatic head in the boring equal to the piezometric level in the sand,
otherwise the sand at the bottom of the borehole
may be transformed into a loose state
Using a too large pump Too high a pump capacity will loosen the soil at the
base of the hole causing a decrease in blow count
Over-washing ahead of casing Low blow count may result in dense sand since sand
may be loosened by over-washing
Drilling method Drilling technique (e.g., cased holes vs. mud stabilized
holes) may result in different N-values for the same
soil.The SPT was originally developed from wash
boring techniques. Drilling procedures which
seriously disturbs the soil will affect the N-value,
e.g., drilling with cable tool equipment
Rate of testing In saturated soils, a fast rate of testing may increase
pore water pressures.
Plugged casing High N-values may be recorded for loose sand when
sampling below groundwater table. Hydrostatic
pressure causes sand to rise and plug casing
Loose drill rod connections Energy losses can occur from loose rod connection
giving artifcially high N-values
Marking drive increments Drive marks should be made after the spoon and
drill string have been just set on the bottom of the
borehole but before the hammer is attached or
rods are released
“Seating” the spoon before There is no such thing as “seating” of the spoon
marking the rods before marking the three 0.15 m (6 in.) incremental
drive lengths
Sampler plugged by gravel Artifcially high blow counts result when gravel plugs
sampler; resistance of loose sand could be highly
overestimated
Carelessness in counting the Poor observations of incremental blow counts may
blows and measuring penetration produce errors in N-values.
Using drill holes that are too large Holes greater than 100 mm (4 in.) in diameter are
not recommended. Use of larger diameters may
result in decreases in the blow count from stress
relief at bottom of hole
Attitude of operators Blow counts for the same soil using the same rig can
vary, depending on who is operating the rig, and
perhaps the mood of operator and time of day
24 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

10

15

20

25
Depth (ft.)
30

35

40

45

50

55 AWJ Rods
NWJ Rods
60
0 5 10 15 20 25
SPT N-Value (blows/ft.)

Figure 2.6 Comparison of N-values from AWJ and NWJ drill rods.

2.6.3.3 Sampler Dimensions

The dimensions of the standard split spoon sampler are defned in ASTM D1586 as previ-
ously shown in Figure 2.5. In the U.S., the inside diameter of the barrel is slightly larger
than the inside diameter of the shoe i.e., 38.1 mm (1.5 in.) vs. 34.9 mm (1.375 in.) to accept
liners. Schmertmann (1979) showed that the use of liners or split spoons with an inside
diameter equal to that of the shoe can have a signifcant infuence on the recorded N value
as a result of the additional friction that can build up as the sample moves along the inside
of the barrel. For internal relief samplers used without liners, the only internal resistance
on the sample comes from a short segment of the shoe. The result is a higher N value (from
increased resistance to driving), and the overall effect is a false impression that the soil is
denser or stiffer than it actually is.
Seed et al. (1985) summarized data comparing N-values using a spoon with liners and a
spoon with no liner. As shown in Figure 2.7, there appears to be no difference in loose sands
up to about N = 10; however, for N = 10–50, the results suggest approximately Nunlined =
0.8 Nlined. Data collected at a stiff clay site in Missouri by the author gave a mean ratio of
Nunlined = 0.72 Nlined from six side-by side comparison tests using a CME automatic hammer.
Early SPT practice routinely used a split spoon sampler with a constant inside diameter
of 34.9 mm (1.375 in.), i.e., no internal relief in the barrel and is shown in most period text-
books (e.g. Terzaghi & Peck 1948; Peck et al. 1953, 1974; Spangler 1960; Sowers & Sowers
1961) and manuals (e.g., Bureau of Reclamation Earth Manual 1974; AASHTO Standard
Specifcations 1981). In some cases, a note is provided that indicates that the barrel may
have an inside diameter of 38.1 mm (1.5 in.) provided it contains a liner. Even as late as
1996, some texts (e.g. (Terzaghi et al. 1996) still showed no internal relief. The current edi-
tion of ASTM D1586 shows a split spoon with an internal relief between the shoe and the
barrel. It appears that a barrel with a constant diameter of 34.9 mm (1.375 in.) is currently
routinely used in Japan (Matsumoto et al. 2015).
 Standard Penetration Test 25

Figure 2.7 Comparison between N-values from a split spoon with and without liners. (After Seed at al.
1985.)

The consequence of using modern practice which uses a split spoon with an internal relief
as compared to using a split spoon with no relief (circa 1948–1973) is that current SPT blow
counts would be lower since there is no internal side resistance to overcome. Correlations
between SPT N-values and different sol properties developed before about 1980 were most
likely based on using a spoon with no internal relief and therefore need to be adjusted.

2.6.3.4 Diameter of Borehole

The size of the borehole may infuence the test results since larger diameter holes tend to
produce stress relief at the base of the hole. The infuence of borehole diameter is likely to
be less signifcant in stiff fne-grained soils than in granular soils and probably most impor-
tant in loose fne sands below the water table. Most studies (e.g., Lake 1974; Jain & Handa
1979; Sanglerat & Sanglerat 1982) have indicated that there appears to be no signifcant
effect on N values provided the borehole diameter is less than about 150 mm (6 in.).

2.6.3.5 Method of Drilling/Drilling Fluid

Parsons (1966) found that in coarse sand, N-values obtained in mudded holes were about
2.5 times higher than those obtained in holes only partially flled with water. Seed et al.
(1988) found no difference in N-values at several sites for water-flled vs. drilling mud-flled
boreholes with N-values ranging from about 15 to 40. Whited & Edil (1986) found no
effect on SPT results in fne-grained soils using 57.1 mm (2.25 in.) I.D. hollow stem augers,
drilling  mud with an open borehole, or 63.5 mm (2.5 in.) casing. However, simply using
26 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

hollow-stem augers without drilling mud in sands below the water table can produce lower
blow counts in sands.
In coarse-grained soils below the water table, the SPT is typically performed in con-
junction with either mud rotary wash boring techniques or with hollow stem augers. It is
important to maintain an equivalent head of fuid in the borehole to counteract the tendency
for the upward fow of water at the base of the borehole. This is especially important when
drilling with hollow stem augers or casing. In loose sands, the upward gradient of fow can
exceed the critical gradient of the soil so that a “quick” condition develops, and the soil
tends to “boil”. This condition can be accentuated by a close-ftting drill bit and drill rods
that are pulled too quickly, producing a slight suction at the base of the hole. In order to
reduce the potential for sands entering the bottom of the borehole, it is important to main-
tain a head of drilling fuid inside casing or hollow-stem augers. Even while the drill rods
are being removed, the fuid level should be adjusted to prevent blow-in at the bottom of
the hole.
In addition to maintaining a suffcient equilibrium head of drilling fuid inside the bore-
hole, the method of drilling can infuence SPT results especially in loose granular deposits if
a bottom discharge bit is used and high fuid pressures are used. This may result in loosening
of soil at the bottom of the borehole. In fne-grained soils, there is not suffcient evidence to
indicate that the drilling method signifcantly infuences the test results.

2.6.3.6 Cleanout of the Borehole

Drill cuttings left at the bottom of a borehole because of inadequate cleaning may affect the
test results in three ways: (1) the cuttings may cause the spoon to get hung up at the base
of the hole and not rest on virgin material for the frst 0.15 m (6 in.) penetration increment;
(2) excess cuttings may enter the spoon and then restrict the free movement of the actual
soil sample into the spoon; and (3) the cuttings may create additional internal and external
side frictional resistance on the spoon. The frst of these conditions would tend to produce
lower N values, while the latter two conditions would tend to produce higher N values. The
borehole should always be cleaned out as much as possible before inserting the spoon which
will reduce these effects.

2.6.3.7 Rate of Testing

The rate at which hammer blows are applied to the drill rods may infuence the test results.
A standard rate of 30–40 blows per minute is recommended by ASTM D1586. If the test is
performed very rapidly, there may be a progressive buildup of excess pore water pressures
with each hammer blow resulting in weaker conditions. Whereas if the test is performed
very slowly, or if a waiting period is allowed midway in the test, pore water pressures may
dissipate, resulting in an increase in effective stress. In order to reduce these effects, the rate
of testing should be held as close as possible to the recommended rate.

2.6.3.8 Seating of the Spoon

The SPT was initially conducted by driving the spoon sampler a distance of 0.3 m (12 in.).
After about 1954, the practice of frst driving a “seating” distance of 0.15 m (6 in.) at the
bottom of the borehole before driving 0.3 m (12 in.) became common. This practice prob-
ably developed because of problems with disturbed soil or soil cuttings at the base of the
borehole and the general feeling that blow counts obtained over the frst 0.15 m (6 in.) incre-
ment in a 0.3 m (12 in.) drive were often not representative of the in-place density of the soil.
 Standard Penetration Test 27

Technically, there is no “seating” of the spoon. The spoon and rods are simply set on the
bottom of the borehole while still being held, and three 0.15 m (6 in.) increments are marked
on the rods. The test then begins after the spoon and rods have been released but before the
hammer is attached to the top of the rods. Any “seating” practice used by drillers as local
practice should not be allowed.

2.6.3.9 Condition of the Drive Shoe

ASTM D1586 gives specifc dimensions of the drive shoe used on the end of the split spoon.
Shoes often become worn or damaged through excessive use or driving on hard materials
such as gravel or rocks, for example, as shown in Figure 2.8. A damaged shoe may introduce
unknown errors in the SPT N-values (e.g. Das 2014) and therefore should not be used. New
shoes are relatively expensive, and so, it is always best to use a shoe that is not damaged.

2.6.3.10 Summary
The practice for performing the SPT should be as consistent as possible from one project to
the next. Engineers need to make careful observations and records of the procedures and
equipment used for all tests. This helps eliminate most perceived problems with the test.

2.7 CORRECTIONS TO SPT BLOW COUNTS

Because the SPT blow count is directly related to the hammer system energy, it is neces-
sary to adjust the results of the test to a standard energy level. This will allow a proper
comparison of test results so that different hammer systems can be compared, and proper

Figure 2.8 Photo of damaged split spoon drive shoe.

28 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

interpretation of the test data can be made. Corrections to the feld SPT N-value are made to
account for hammer energy, rod length, borehole diameter, and sampler geometry.

2.7.1 Corrections for Hammer Energy,

Equipment, and Drilling: N to N 60
Based on several suggestions, a reference value of 60% of the theoretical free-fall energy is
used to adjust N-values to a common reference point. The use of a 60% energy level also
represents a likely average level of energy that has been in use since the 1960s using tradi-
tional SPT equipment and therefore was the basis for a number of correlations for different
soil properties. A number of correction factors have been introduced to adjust the feld-
measured N-values to a reference energy level of 60% and taking into account the sampler
geometry, drill rod length, and borehole diameter. In this way, we can defne the energy-
corrected blow count as follows:

N60 = N × ER × CB × CS × CR (2.2)

where
N60 = energy and procedure-corrected blow count
N = feld-measured blow count
ER = energy ratio = ES/E60
ES = energy of the system
CB = correction factor for borehole diameter
C S = correction factor for sampler geometry
CR = correction factor for rod length

Table 2.4 presents recommended values for these correction factors. Field measured SPT
N-values should always be corrected according to Equation 2.2 and reported as corrected
blow counts, N60.
Figure 2.9 shows a side-by-side comparison between uncorrected and corrected N-values
in sand.

2.7.2 Correction for Overburden Stress in Sands: N 60 to (N1) 60

In a uniform sand deposit with a constant void ratio or relative density, the SPT N-value will
increase with depth as the mean effective stress increases with depth. Therefore, the N-value
must be corrected for the infuence of this changing stress level to give a single characteristic
value that describes a single relative density. To account for this, a correction factor is usu-
ally incorporated to provide a consistent effective stress reference. A number of overburden
correction factors have been suggested as summarized in Table 2.5. The application of a
correction factor has the general form:

( N1 )60 = CN × N60 (2.3)

where
N60 = energy-corrected blow count
(N1)60 = corrected blow count to a standard vertical effective stress level
C N = vertical effective stress correction factor
 Standard Penetration Test 29

Table 2.4 Recommended average SPT correction factors: N to N60

Borehole diameter CB
65–115 mm (2.5–4.5 in.) 1.00
150 mm (6 in.) 1.05
200 mm (8 in.) 1.15

Sampler CS
Sampler without liner 1.00
Sampler with liner or barrel diameter same as shoe diameter 0.83

Drill rod length CR

< 3 m (10 ft) 0.75
3–4 m (10–13 ft) 0.80
4–6 m (13–20 ft) 0.85
6–10 m (20–30 ft) 0.95
>10 m (>30 ft) 1.0

Hammer and drop mechanism ER

North America Automatic – 1.40
Safety Rope and cathead 1.00
Donut Rope and cathead 0.75
Japan Donut Trip 1.3
Donut Rope and cathead 1.1
China Donut Trip 1.0
Donut Rope and cathead 0.9
United Kingdom Safety Trip 1.0
Safety Rope and cathead 0.8

0 0
Automatic E = 77.4%
5 Automatic
Safety E = 66.3% 5
Safety
10 10

15 15

20 20

25 25
Depth (ft.)

Depth (ft.)

30 30

35 35

40 40

45 45

50 50

55 55

60 60
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

SPT N-Values (bpf) SPT N60 (bpf)

Figure 2.9 Comparison of uncorrected and corrected N-values.

As noted in Table 2.5, Skempton’s suggested correction factors are the only ones to take into
account gradation. The correction factor suggested by Liao & Whitman (1986) appears to
be the most popular in use. It is simple and generally falls in the middle of the rest of the
suggested correction factors. The correction factor is equal to 1 for a vertical effective stress
of 1 kg/cm 2 (1 tsf), hence the term (N1)60.
30 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Table 2.5 Suggested SPT overburden correction factors for sands: N60 to (N1)60
CN Units of °ṽo References
CN = 50 (10 + ˆv̇o ) psi Gibbs & Holtz (1959)
CN = 4 (1 + 2ˆv̇o ) ksf Bazaraa (1967)
ksf
( ˝ ˛vo ˙ 1.5)
CN = 4 (3.25 + 0.5ˆv̇o )
( ˝ ˛vo > 1.5)
CN = 0.77 log10 20 ˙v̋o ( ) kg/cm2; tsf Peck et al. (1974)
CN = 1 − 1.25log10 ˝˛vo kg/cm ; tsf
2 Seed (1976)
CN = 1.7 ( 0.7 + ˆv̇o ) kg/cm2; tsf Tokimatsu & Yoshimi (1983)

( ) kg/cm2; tsf Liao & Whitman (1986)

0.5
CN = 1 ˙v̋o
CN = 2 (1+ ˆv̇o ) kg/cm ; tsf Skempton (1986)
2

(NC medium loose fne sands) kg/cm2; tsf

kg/cm2; tsf
CN = 3 ( 2 + ˆv̇o )
(NC dense coarse sand)
CN = 1.7 ( 0.7 + ˆv̇o )
(OC fne sands)

There is no substantial evidence to suggest the use of overburden correction factors when
using the SPT in fne-grained soils. However, Oskorouchi & Mehdibeigi (1988) suggested
that an overburden correction factor be applied to SPT N-values in medium to stiff clays
(N > 10) for estimating undrained shear strength.

2.8 INTERPRETATION OF SOIL PROPERTIES

A number of suggestions have been made for using SPT results to predict individual soil
properties. The SPT has applications in a wide range of soils; however, correlations between
the test results and soil properties can be divided into either coarse-grained or fne-grained
soils. In the following sections, methods to predict soil properties are presented. Because of
unknown SPT practices and differences in SPT energies used up to the 1980s when many
original SPT correlations were developed and the present day (2020) energies, there is the
potential for considerable error in many of the empirical correlations. In general, because
current energy levels are typically higher than those of the 1950s, the results generally lead
to conservative estimates of soil properties using older correlations. The best correlations
are generally those that use N60 in fne-grained soils and (N1)60 in coarse-grained soils.

2.8.1 SPT in Coarse-Grained Soils

2.8.1.1 Relative Density
A number of early correlations of SPT N-values and relative density, Dr, of coarse-grained
soils were presented at a time when either donut or safety hammer were used to perform the
SPT. Differences in these correlations are related to variations in the composition, geologic
origin, stress history, and moisture conditions of coarse-grained soils and the procedures
and equipment used. For example, the correlation given by Gibbs & Holtz (1957) used a
 Standard Penetration Test 31

spoon with a constant internal diameter and no relief. Therefore, the blow counts may be
higher than those obtained if a spoon with an internal relief had been used. A number of
correlations developed after 1975 are summarized in Table 2.6.
It is clear that no single expression can be used to describe the relationship between SPT
blow counts and relative density for all sands considering differences in grain-size distribu-
tion, age, stress history, geologic origin, etc., and differences in feld practices used to obtain
N-values. Cubrinovski & Ishihara (2001) suggested an approach for estimating relative den-
sity from N-values accounting for gradation as characterized by the void ratio difference
(emax − emin). A compilation of several correlations using energy and stress-corrected blow
counts, (N1)60, is presented in Figure 2.10.

Table 2.6 Some reported correlations between N and relative density, Dr

Correlation Notes References

( ) Fine sand Marcuson &

0.5
Dr = 8.6 + 0.83 (N + 10.4 − 3.2 OCR − 0.24 ˇv̂o ) 0.0045
σ’vo in psi Beiganousky
OCR = over-consolidation ratio (1977a)

( ) Coarse sand Marcuson &

0.5
Dr = 12.2 + 0.75 222N + 2311– 711 OCR − 53 ˇ v̂o − 50 Cu2
σ’vo in psi Beiganousky
OCR = over-consolidation ratio (1977b)
Cu = uniformity coeffcient

( ) NC Marcuson (1978)
0.5
Dr = 11.7 + 0.76 222N +1600 – 53 ˆ ˙vo − 50 Cu2
σ’vo in psi
Dr = 0.118 + 0.441log N Borowczyk &
Frankowski
(1981)
Dr 100 = (N)
0.5
( 4.188 + 0.639 ˆv̇o
0.606
) σ’vo in metric tons/m2
Dr = 16 (N1 )
0.5 Clean sands Tokimatsu &
σ’vo in kg/cm2 or tsf Yoshimi (1983)
Cn =1.7 ( ˙ v̋o + 0.7 ) Sands with fnes
Dr = 16 (N1 + ˙Nf )
0.5

Fines content (FC) ˜Nf

0 – 5% 0
5 –10% Interpolate
>10% 0.1FC + 4
(N1 )60 Dr2 = 60 Dr > 0.35 Skempton (1986)
N D = 17 + 22 ˝˛vo
2
r σ’vo = 0.5 to 1.5 kg/cm 2 Skempton (1986)
Dr = 0.4 to 0.9
Dr = 22 (N)
0.57
˙ ˝vo−0.14 Fine sand Yoshida et al.
Gravel content 25% (1988)
Dr = 18 (N)
0.57 −0.14
˙v̋o
Gravel content 50%
Dr = 25 (N)
0.44
˙ ˝vo−0.13 All soils
σ’vo in kPa
Dr = 25 (N)
0.46 −0.12
˙v̋o
0.5 Normally consolidated, Kulhawy &
Dr = 100 ˝˙(N1 )60 60 ˆˇ
unaged sands Mayne (1990)
Dr = 1.55N1 + 40.0 0 ≤ N1 ≤ 25 Hatanaka & Feng
Dr = 0.84N1 + 57.8 25 ≤ N1 < 50 (2006)

( )
0.5
N1 = N 98 ˙v̋

( ˝˛ in kPa )
v
32 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Figure 2.10 Correlation between SPT (N1)60 and relative density. (From NHI 2002.)

2.8.1.2 Friction Angle

The results of the SPT may be useful in estimating the shear strength of granular soils by
providing an estimate of the drained friction angle, φʹ. It should be recognized that the value
of φʹ is not unique but depends on stress level, stress path, loading conditions, etc., and
therefore, any estimate does not take these factors into account. A number of suggestions
have been proposed by various researchers for evaluating φʹ from SPT N-values. Direct cor-
relations between N and φʹ have been presented and are summarized in Table 2.7. In most
cases, the reference values for φʹ have not been given.

Table 2.7 Reported correlations between N and φʹ for coarse-grained soils

Correlation References
˝˛ = (10N) 35 + 27 0
Meyerhof (1956)
˝˛ = ( 20N)
0.5
+150 Kishida (1967)
˝˛ = 3.5 (N)
0.5
+ 20 0
Muromachi et al. (1974)

( )
0.5
˝˛ = N ˆ˛vo + 26.9 0
Parry (1977)
( ˝˛
vo in MN/m 2
)
˝˛ = (15N)
0.5
+150 Shioi & Fukui (1982)
0.5
˝˛ = ˇˆ15.4 (N1 )60 ˘ + 20 0
Kulhawy & Mayne (1990)
˝˛ = (12N)
0.5
+ 23.7 0
Bergado et al. (1993)
˝˛ = ( 20N1 )
0.5
+ 20 0
Hatanaka & Uchida (1996)
( )
0.5
˛1 = N ˆv̇o 98
( ˝˛
vo in kPa )
 Standard Penetration Test 33

Figure 2.11 Correlation between (N1)60 and φʹ. (From NHI 2002.)

Figure 2.11 shows a comparison between SPT (N1)60 values and φʹ values obtained from
triaxial compression tests. This correlation appears to be in popular use and is given in a
number of FHWA manuals.
Engineers should use caution when estimating the friction angle in sands from N val-
ues. Local experience with foundation performance should be used to corroborate any
correlations.

2.8.1.3 Soil Elastic Modulus

The stiffness of granular soils, represented by the drained elastic Young’s Modulus, E, or
constrained modulus, M, is also a function of the mean effective stress level for a constant
void ratio such that the variation in modulus with depth will be similar to the increase
in N; i.e., in a uniform deposit at constant void ratio, soil modulus increases with depth.
Therefore, with stiffness, we should look for a relationship with uncorrected N60 values. In
this way, the increase in N with depth in the uniform relative density deposit will refect an
increase in stiffness with depth.
Numerous suggestions have been made to use the SPT for estimating the elastic modulus,
E S , of granular soils. Although a number of different equations have been used, most of
these correlations have the general form of

ES = a ( N + b) (2.4)

where
E S = soil modulus
N = SPT blow counts
a and b = constants (empirical factors)

Suggested correlations between N and E S are presented in Table 2.8.

34 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Table 2.8 Some reported expressions for soil modulus from N.

Correlation Soil type References
ES (tsf) = 5 (N + 15) Sand Webb (1969)
ES (tsf) = 10/3 (N + 5) Clayey sand
ES (MPa) = 7 (N)0.5 Sand Denver (1982)
ES (MPa) = 3.5N to 40N Sand Clayton et al. (1985)
ES (MPa) = 2.22N0.888 Partially saturated gravels Wrench & Nowatzki (1986)
ES (kPa) = 1200 (N + 6) Gravelly sand and gravel Bowles (1988)
ES (kPa) = 600 (N + 6)
N < 15
ES (kPa) = 600 (N + 6) + 2000
N > 15
ES (kPa) = 320 (N + 15) Clayey sand Bowles (1988)
ES (kPa)= 300 (N + 6) Silty sand Bowles (1988)
ES (MPa) = 1.6N Residual Jones & Rust (1989)
ES (MPa) = 7.5 + 0.8N Sand Papadopoulos (1992)
ES (MPA) = 2.5N60 Saprolite Decourt (1994)

2.8.1.4 Constrained Modulus

Other attempts have been made to correlate the results of the SPT to the constrained
modulus of the soil (M) as a function of overburden stress (e.g., Schultze & Melzer 1965;
D’Appolonia et al. 1970). Since the constrained modulus, M, is related to the elastic Young’s
modulus, E S , as

M = ˆˇ E S (1 − µ ) ˘ ˆˇ(1 + µ )(1 – 2µ ) ˘,
 (2.5)

an estimate of Poisson’s ratio is required to estimate ES from M. For most granular soils in drained
loading conditions, the constrained modulus generally varies in the range of 1.2ES –1.5ES.
There is considerable scatter in suggested correlations between soil stiffness or modulus
and SPT blow counts. Wroth (1984) considered correlations between N and soil compress-
ibility as “secondary” and dependent on the relationship between strength and stiffness of
granular soils. Since soil modulus is strain level-dependent, the correlations include com-
parisons at a range of strain levels.

2.8.1.5 Small-Strain Shear Modulus

The shear modulus of soils is also strain level-dependent and reaches a maximum value at
strain levels in the order of 10 −4%. The value at small strains is often referred to as Go or
Gmax and in recent years, it has become customary to use this value as a reference point. The
value of Gmax is often obtained from dynamic measurements, which produce small dynamic
strains, by measuring the dynamic shear wave velocity, VS. The shear modulus, Gmax, may
then be obtained as

G max = VS2° (2.6)

where
Gmax = shear modulus (MPa)
VS = shear wave velocity (m/s)
 Standard Penetration Test 35

ρ = total soil unit weight (kg/m3)

g = acceleration of gravity (9.8 m/s2)

Correlations between SPT blow counts and both shear wave velocity, VS , and Gmax have
been suggested by a number of investigators (e.g., Sykora & Koester 1988; Lee 1992;
Fabbrocino et al. 2015) and are summarized in Tables 2.9 and 2.10. Most empirical correla-
tions between VS and N are in the form of

VS = aNb (2.7)

2.8.1.7 Liquefaction Potential

The SPT has a long history of use for evaluating the liquefaction potential of sites com-
posed predominantly of sands, sands and gravel, and silty sand. A detailed test procedure
for performing the test is given in ASTM D6066 Standard Practice for Determining the
Normalized Penetration Resistance of Sands for Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential. Seed
et al. (1985) had recommended the following SPT procedure for use in liquefaction correla-
tions of coarse-grained soils:

1. Borehole 10–15 cm (4–5 in.) diameter; rotary hole with bentonite drilling mud for
stability;
2. Drill bit – upward defection of drilling mud (tricone or baffed drag bit);
3. Sampler O.D. = 50.8 mm (2.0 in.) I.D. = 34.9 mm (1.375 in.) constant, i.e., no room for
liners;
4. Drill rod A or AW rods for depths less than 15.2 m (50 ft); N or NW rods for depths
greater than 15.2 m (50 ft);
5. Energy delivered to sampler 60% theoretical;
6. Blow count rate = 30–40 blows/min;
7. Penetration resistance Count 0.15–0.46 m (6–18 in.).

While there has been a signifcant shift in this area of work from the use of the SPT to the
use of the CPT, there is still considerable routine work being performed with the SPT.
Based on feld performance, Seed et al. (1985), Seed and De Alba (1986) had presented
charts representing the relationship between the cyclic stress ratio (CCR) causing liquefac-
tion and (N1)60 values for clean sands and sand with varying amounts of fnes for M = 7.5
earthquakes. Based on feld performance, three approximate ranges of liquefaction damage
potential could be established as follows:

(N1)60 Potential damage

0–20 High
20–30 Intermediate
>30 No signifcant damage

Figures 2.12 and 2.13 show typical charts for both clean sands and silty sands for earth-
quake magnitude M = 7.5. Note that the presence of fnes increases the CSR needed to
cause liquefaction for the same SPT (N1)60 value. Adjustments to CSR have been suggested
to account for factors such as high confning stress and nonlevel ground conditions and are
available elsewhere (e.g., Kraemer 1996).
36 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Table 2.9 Reported correlations between N and VS for coarse-grained soils

Correlationa Soil References
VS = 80.6 (N) 0.331 Alluvial sand Imai (1977)
VS = 97.2 (N)0.323 Dilluvial sand
VS = 91.0 (N)0.337 All
VS =15 (N) Fine sands above water table Schmertmann (1978)
VS = 85 (N)0.341 All Ohta & Goto (1978)
VS = 88 (N)0.340 Sands
VS = 75.3 (N)0.351 Gravels
VS = 87 (N)0.333 Clays
VS = 97 (N)0.314 All Imai & Tonouchi (1982)
VS = 56 (N)0.5 Sands Seed et al. (1983)
VS = 107 (N)0.29 Granular Sykora & Stokoe (1983)
VS = 61 (N1)0.5 Sands & silty sands Seed et al. (1985)
VS = 80 (N)0.33 Alluvial sand Towhata & Ronteix (1988)
VS = 53.5(N60)0.17 z0.193 fa fG Sands Jamiolkowski et al. (1988)
(z = depth (m))
(fa = age factor)
Holocene = 1.0
Pleistocene =1.3
(fG = grading factor)
Fine sand =1.09
Medium sand =1.07
Coarse sand = 1.14
Sand and gravel =1.45
Gravel = 1.45
VS = 49 (N1 ) ˙ ˝vo−0.14
0.25 Fine sand Yoshida et al. (1988)
Gravel content 25%
VS = 56 (N1 ) ˙ ˝vo−0.14
0.25
Gravel content 25%
VS = 60 (N1 ) ˙ ˝vo−0.14
0.25
All
VS = 55 (N1 ) ˙ v̋o−0.14
0.25

(˝˛vo in kPa)
VS = 104.7 (N)0.296 Sandy soils Lee (1992)
VS = 93.1 (N + 1)0.329 Silts
VS = 76.2 (N)0.076 (D)0.313
VS = 86.1 (N)0.075 (D + 1)0.340
(D = depth in meters)
VS = 49.1 (N)0.502 Noncohesive Greece Kalteziotis et al. (1992)
VS = 90 (N)0.34 Misc. soils from Singapore Veijayaratnam et al. (1993)
VS = 123 (N60)0.286 Loose sands and silts Raptakis et al. (1994)
VS = 100 (N60)0.237 Medium and dense Sands
VS = 192 (N60)0.131 Gravelly soil mixtures
VS = 85.3 (N)0.42 Gravelly soils Athanasopoulos (1994)
VS = 55.6 (N)0.5 Sand and rock Akino & Sahara (1994)
VS = 145 (N60)0.178 Silts and sands Pitilakis et al. (1998)
VS = 63 (N60)0.43 Holocene gravels Rollins et al. (1998)
VS = 132 (N60)0.32 Pleistocene gravels
VS = 53 (N60 ) ( ˙v̋o )
0.19 0.18 Holocene gravels
Pleistocene gravels
VS = 115 (N60 )
0.17
( ˙v̋o )0.12
(˝˛vo in kN/m2 )
(Continued)
 Standard Penetration Test  37

Table 2.9 (Continued)  Reported correlations between N and VS for coarse-grained soils
Correlationa Soil References
VS = 145 (N) 0.178 Silts Pitilakis et al. (1999)
VS = 132 (N)0.271 Clays
VS = 22 (N)0.770 Silts Jafari et al. (2002)
VS = 27 (N)0.730 Clays
VS = 131 (N60)0.205 Sands Hasancebi & Ulusay (2007)
VS = 107.6 (N60)0.237 Clays
VS = 73 (N)0.330 Sands Dikmen (2009)
VS = 44 (N)0.480 Clay
VS = 60 (N)0.360 Silt
VS = 100.5 (N)0.265 Sands Uma Maheswari et al. (2010)
VS = 79.7 (N60)0.365 Cands Tsiambaos & Sabatakakis (2011)
VS = 112.2 (N60)0.324 Clay
VS = 88.8 (N60)0.370 Silt
VS = 107.2 (N)0.34 Sands Esfehanizadeh et al. (2015)
VS = 77.1 (N)0.355 Sands Fatehnia et al. (2015)
VS = 100.3 (N)0.338 Sandy Kirar et al. (2016)
VS = 78.7 (N)0.352 Sand Gautam (2017)
a VS in m/s.

Table 2.10  Reported correlations between N and Gmax for coarse-grained soils
Correlationa Soil References
Gmax = 11.5 (N)0.78 All Ohsaki & Iwasaki (1973)
Gmax = 6.1 (N)0.94 Cohesionless
Gmax = 5000 (N)0.3 Data from Stokoe & Kovacs (1975)
(Gmax in psf) Woods (1972)
Gmax = 94 (N)0.715 Alluvial sand Imai (1977)
Gmax = 170 (N)0.650 Diluvial sand
Gmax = 120 (N)0.737 All
Gmax = 14 (N)0.68 All Imai & Tonouchi (1982)
Gmax = 6.2 (N) Sands Seed et al. (1983)
Gmax = 20, 000 (N1 ) 0.33 ( σ ′vo )
0.5
(G
max and σ ′vo in psf ) Gravels Seed et al. (1985)
Gmax =7 (N) Data from Imai & Stroud (1989)
Tonouchi (1982)
Gmax = 47.5 (N)0.72 Lateritic soils Decourt (1994)
Gmax = 5 (N) Misc. soils Hirayama (1994)
Gmax = 62.8 (N)0.30 Gneissic residual soil Pinto & Abramento (1997)
Gmax = 55.2 (N)0.665 Lateritic soils Barros & Pinto (1997)
Gmax = 56 + 20.3 (N) Saprolitic soils
Gmax = 43.8 (N)0.419
Gmax = 94 + 2.3 (N)
Gmax = 98 + 0.42 N60 Granitic saprolite Viana da Fonseca et al.
Gmax = 57 (N)0.2 (1998)
Gmax (MN/m2) = 24.3 (N)055 Mixed soils Anbazhagan & Sitharam
( )
Gmax MN/m2 = 29.2 (N1 )60
0.57 (2010)

Gmax = 15.1(N1 )60

0.74 All soils Anbazhagan et al. (2012)
a Gmax in MPa except as noted.
38 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Figure 2.12 Liquefaction potential based on SPT results for clean sands. (From Seed et al. 1985.)

Figure 2.13 Liquefaction potential based on SPT in silty sands. (From Seed et al. 1985.)
 Standard Penetration Test 39

2.8.2 SPT in Fine-Grained Soils

The SPT is used in fne-grained soils ranging from very soft clays and silty clays to very
dense over-consolidated clays or glacial tills. The use of the SPT in these materials has often
been to give an estimate of the undrained strength or the undrained elastic properties of the
soil. More recently, it has been shown that the SPT may also be used to indicate the stress
history of fne-grained soils. Clearly, the SPT is not the most preferred technique for evaluat-
ing engineering properties of fne-grained soils, especially soft to very soft clays. Other tests,
such as the CPT, CPTU, or DMT are preferred, however, the SPT may be helpful in certain
situations for providing preliminary estimates of a number of pertinent parameters.
As previously noted, in soft clays, the spoon may advance after the drill string is lowered
into the borehole, or after the hammer is placed on top of the drill string, referred to as
“weight of hammer” (WOH). However, not all hammer assemblies have the same mass,
which means that the term “weight of hammer” is not equal in all cases. Engineers should
be careful to record the style, model, serial number, and manufacturer of the hammer in use.

2.8.2.1 Undrained Shear Strength

One of the practical uses of the SPT in fne-grained soils is to use N to make an estimate of
the undrained shear strength. In soft to very soft normally consolidated clays, it might be
expected that the results of the SPT would show a more or less linear increase in N values
with increasing depth. This would be consistent with increasing effective stress and und-
rained strength. Calculation of the normalized N value, by dividing by the vertical effective
stress, °ṽo, would produce a constant value of N °ṽo , indicative of a constant normalized
undrained shear strength.
Such an observed trend in SPT results would be fne, except for the fact that in most soft
clays, SPT values are typically very low and often result in Weight of Rod (WOR) or Weight
of Hammer (WOH) penetration. Most correlations established between undrained shear
strength and blow counts are for stiff over consolidated clays. Reference values of undrained
strength are typically obtained from unconfned compression tests or unconsolidated-
undrained triaxial compression tests. In general, local correlations are required to estab-
lish any reasonable degree of confdence. As DeMello (1971) and others have suggested, it
appears that correlations between N and su should take into account the sensitivity of the
clay to have any signifcant meaning.
Most soil mechanics or foundation engineering texts provide a simple chart correlating
SPT N-values to the consistency (unconfned compressive strength) of fne-grained soils.
Figure 2.14 shows a compilation of a number of correlations. Several correlations between
SPT N and undrained shear strength are given in Table 2.11. The problem with many of
these correlations is that they give no indication as to the type of SPT Hammer that was used
to perform the test. Since many of them are from the 1970s and 1980s, it is reasonably safe
to assume that they were not conducted using an automatic hammer which was not used
until about 1995. Therefore, one may expect considerable scatter in the correlations.
An alternative is to use the SPT N-value to estimate the unconfned compressive strength
(UCS) as noted in Table 2.12. Note that most of these correlations use the “uncorrected”
SPT N-values and therefore are subject to some variability, depending on the system used in
developing the correlation. Only limited work has been performed to correlate strength of
clays from the energy-corrected SPT N-value; N60.
The undrained strength of stiff intact clays can be related to N-values as proposed by
Stroud (1974) using the relationship:

su = f1N (2.8)
40 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Figure 2.14 Comparison of historic reported correlations between SPT N-value and undrained shear
strength. (After Kulhawy & Mayne 1990.)

Table 2.11 Reported correlations between SPT N and undrained shear strength
Correlation Units of su Soil type References
su = 29N 0.72 kPa Japanese cohesive soils Hara et al. (1974)
su/N60 = f(P.I.) kPa Stiff UK soils Stroud (1974)
su = N/15 Tsf Stiff clays in Houston Reese et al. (1976)
su = 8N N < 10 kPa Guabirotuba Tavares (1988)
su = 7N 10 < N < 20 Clay
su = 6N 20 < N < 30
su = 5N 30 < N < 40
su =1.39N + 74.2 kN/m2 Tropical soil Ajayi & Balogun (1988)
su = 12.5N kPa Sao Paulo Decourt (1989)
su = 15N60 Over-consolidated clay
su = 0.059N + 0.2 tsf Clay and soft shale Nevels & Laguros (1993)
su = 7.8N60 (CH) kPa Claysi – Turkey Sivrikaya & Togrol (2006)
su = 5.35N60 (CL)
su/pa = 0.17N0.58 – Ankara (Turkey) clay Akbas & Kulhawy (2010)
su = 2.1N60 + 17.6 kPa Iran clay Nassaji & Kalantari (2011)
su/N = 14.7 – 0.35w -2.4 log (PI) kPa 2 clays in Greece Plytas et al. (2011)
(w = water content in %)
(PI = Plasticity Index in %)
su = 6.932N70 kN/m2 Silty clays – Turkey Cangir & Dipova (2017)
su = 8.32N60 kPa Stiff glacial till in Canada Balachandran et al. (2017)
Su = 5.7N kN/m2 London Clay White et al. (2019)
 Standard Penetration Test 41

Table 2.12 Reported correlations between SPT N and unconfned compressive strength
Correlation Units of qu Soil type References
qu = 12.5N kPa Fine-grained Terzaghi & Peck (1967)
qu = N/8 tsf Clay Golder (1961)
qu = 25N kPa Clay Sanglerat (1972)
qu = 20N kPa Silty clay
qu = 25N kPa Highly plastic clay Sowers (1979)
qu = 15N Medium plastic clay
qu = 7.5N Low plasticity clay
qu = 24N kPa Clay Nixon (1982)
qu = 62.5 (N − 3.4) kPa Sarac & Popovic (1982)
qu = 1.37N t/m2 CH Bangkok clay Sambhandharaksa & Pitupakorn (1985)
qu = 1.04N CL Bangkok clay
qu = 15N kPa CL and CL-ML Behpoor & Ghahramani (1989)
qu = 58N0.72 kPa Fine-grained Kulhawy & Mayne (1990)
qu = 14.3N (LL ≤ 35) kPa Bangladesh clays Serajuddin & Chowdhury (1996)
qu = 16.9N (LL
36–50)
qu = 17.8N (LL > 50)
qu = 13.6 N60 kPa CH Sivrikaya & Togrol (2002)
qu = 9.8N60 CL
qu = 8.6N60 Fine-grained
qu = (0.19P.I. + 6.2)N60 Fine-grained

where
f1 = an empirical factor

The SPT results from which the N-values were derived were based on the modern UK prac-
tice so that the parameter f1 is more properly defned as:

f1 = su N60 (2.9)

In the U.K., the SPT split spoon sampler is not recessed for liners and therefore has a con-
stant diameter of 34.9 mm (1.375 in.). In order to make use of Equation 2.8, an appropriate
correction factor must be applied (to decrease N) if a standard U.S. split spoon sampler is
used without liners. The value of f1 with soil plasticity (P.I. 15–60) only varies from about 4
to 6. An average value of about f1 = 5 (for su in KN/m 2) appears reasonable for most insensi-
tive materials.
An interesting approach to estimating the unconfned compressive strength of soft and
very soft clays was presented by Saiki (1983) for situations in which the split spoon may pen-
etrate by either the weight of the hammer, or the blow counts may be very low (i.e., N < 5).
Two situations are considered: self-penetration and blow-penetration, and a corrected N
value, Nʹ, is defned.
Spoon self-penetration

N˜ = 1 − ˝ (S/W) + ˘ (2.10)
42 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

where
Nʹ = corrected blow count
α = coeffcient = ratio of a static weight to a standard amount of self-penetration (kN/m)
S = total amount of self-penetration measured in the feld (m)
W = total static weight applied to the test (kN)
β = modifcation factor

The value of the modifcation factor β was taken as 0 for °ṽo < 50 kPa and ˛ = (ˆv̇o 50) − 1
for °ṽo > 50 kPa. The value of α was taken for cases in which the weight was taken from the
known mass of a standard hammer, standard spoon, and 40.5 mm (1.6 in.) drill rods for
various test depths giving a value of α = 3.
Spoon blow penetration

N˛ = N (˙˛vo ˙˛vs ) + ˇ (2.11)

where
Nʹ = corrected blow count
N = measured blow count
°ṽo = effective vertical stress (kPa)
°ṽs = reference value of effective stress (kPa)
β = modifcation factor

In this case, the value of β = 0.406 was obtained and ° ṽs = 91.4 kPa was determined.
Using both Equations 2.10 and 2.11, Saiki (1983) obtained excellent results compared
with laboratory unconfned compression tests using the expression

qu = 52 + 23N˛ (2.12)

where
qu = unconfned compressive strength (kPa)
Nʹ = corrected blow count (Equations 2.10 or 2.11)

More recently, there have been some attempts to develop theoretical models for estimating
undrained shear strength in clays based on energy balance (Hettiarachchi & Brown 2009)
and energy transfer (Schnaid et al. 2009). These methods as based on separating the end
bearing and side resistance acting on the spoon and then using the energy to predict the
undrained shear strength. These approaches are fundamentally more sound than simple
empirical correlations based on site-specifc observations.

2.8.2.2 Stress History

Mayne & Kemper (1988) suggested that the results of the SPT could be used to provide a
rough estimate of stress history in fne-grained soils by correlating the normalized blow
count to over-consolidation ratio (OCR). The results of tests collected from a number of
sources are shown in Figure 2.15 and indicated that OCR could be related to normalized
N-value as follows:

OCR = Ks ( N ˙v̋o ) pa (2.13)

 Standard Penetration Test 43

Figure 2.15 Correlation between OCR and N. (After Mayne & Kemper 1988.)

where
°ṽo= in situ vertical effective stress (kPa)
Ks = an empirical factor (varies from 0.2 to 1.0)
pa = atmospheric pressure (100 kPa)

Since these data show a wide range in values of OCR for a single normalized N-value, cau-
tion should be exercised in the use of Equation 2.13. The SPT is intended to only provide
an indication of the range in OCR and probably can do no better to obtain design values,
except where SPT practice is carefully controlled and local correlations for specifc soil
deposits have been developed. For example, Decourt (1989) found a correlation between °p̃
and N60 for over-consolidated Sao Paulo clays as follows:

° p̃ = 27.8 N60 (kPa) (2.14)

Mayne (1995) suggested a statistical relationship between N60 and the preconsolidation
stress for a number of intact clays as follows:

° p̃ = 0.47 N60 pa (2.15)

These data are shown in Figure 2.16. Note that fssured clays do not ft well in this correlation.

2.8.2.3 In Situ Lateral Stress

Estimates of the in situ state of stress in soils from the results of in situ tests are usually
indirect; i.e., some estimate of the at-rest lateral stress ratio, Ko, is frst made, and then the
horizontal effective stress, °h̃o, is calculated using local estimates of the unit weight of the
soil and water table or pore pressure measurements. Another approach may be to frst make
an estimate of the stress history (OCR) and then rely on correlations established between Ko
and OCR for the appropriate type (e.g., Brooker & Ireland 1965; Mayne & Kulhawy 1982).
44 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Figure 2.16 Correlation between N60 and preconsolidation stress for clays. (After Mayne 1995)

This approach may suffer from too many uncertainties; frst associated with the accuracy
of the estimate of OCR from the SPT and second associated with the assumed relation-
ship between OCR and Ko. This approach may also be limited to those soils in which Ko
has developed from simple mechanical unloading and is not related to other more complex
factors.
Kulhawy et al. (1989) compiled a set of data for clays and suggested a simple correlation
between Ko and SPT N-values in clays:

Ko = 0.423 + ( Npa ) (16.95vo ) (2.16)

Kulhawy & Mayne (1990) presented the data as shown in Figure 2.17 where Ko values have
been obtained by a variety of methods. This correlation is given as follows:

Ko = 0.073 ( Npa ) ˙v̋o (2.17)

2.8.2.4 Soil Elastic Modulus

Stroud & Butler (1975) suggested a relationship between N and the drained deformation
modulus determined from one-dimensional odometer tests, mv, in fne-grained glacial mate-
rials. Using values of mv for a pressure increment of 100 KN/m 2 in excess of the vertical
effective overburden stress, they proposed the simple expression

f2 = (1 m v ) N (2.18)

where
f2 = an empirical factor
 Standard Penetration Test 45

Figure 2.17 Correlation between N-values and Ko in clays. (From Kulhawy & Mayne 1990.)

Values of f2 range from about 440 to 600 KN/m 2 with a slight decrease in f2 with increasing
P.I. and approximately

f2 = 100 f1 (2.19)

Behpoor & Ghahramani (1989) suggested that for clayey and silty clays soils with N < 25,
the modulus of elasticity could be obtained as follows:

E S (MPa) = (0.17) N (2.20)

A number of studies have been made correlating the results of the SPT to the elastic modu-
lus, Ep, obtained from the initial loading curve of the pressuremeter test. Table 2.13 presents
a summary of some reported correlations in different materials. Most comparisons between
N and Ep show a linear correlation when plotted as log N vs. log Ep (e.g., Martin 1977; Toh
et al. 1987). However, in some cases, e.g., Ohya et al. (1982), there is considerable scatter
in the data.

2.8.2.5 Small-Strain Shear Modulus

As with granular soils, it may be desirable to make some initial estimate of the small-strain
shear modulus of fne-grained soils from SPT results. Several correlations between either
Gmax or VS and N have been suggested and are summarized in Table 2.14. In fne-grained
soils, a relationship between N and Gmax was suggested by Wroth et al. (1979) and was given
in a dimensionless form by Kulhawy & Mayne (1990) as shown in Figure 2.18.

2.8.3 SPT in Soft/Weak Rock

In competent rock, the SPT usually will not develop full penetration, or in some cases, the
spoon and rods will simply bounce during driving. In these cases, the N-value may have
little or no signifcance beyond identifying refusal. In the U.S., most drillers stop the test if
46 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Table 2.13 Correlations between N and pressuremeter modulusa

Correlation Soil References
Ep = log [0.65180 log N + 1.33355]
−1 Piedmont residual soil Martin (1977)
(Ep in tsf)
Ep = 7.7 N Clay Nayak (1979)
Ep = 15N Clayey soil Ohya et al. (1982)
Ep = 4N Sandy soil
Ep = 6.84N0.986 Misc. soil typesb Tsuchiya & Toyooka (1982)
(Ep in bar)
Ep = 22N + 160 Gneissic saprolite Rocha Filho et al. (1985)
Ep = 26N + 120 (20 < N < 30)
Gneissic saprolite
(30 < N < 60)
ln Ep = 3.509 + 0.712 ln N Residual soil Barksdale et al. (1986)
(Ep in ksf)
Ep = 15N + 240 Lateritic or mature Toledo (1986)
Gneissic residual soil (7 < N < 15)
Ep = log−1 [0.70437 log N + 1.17627] Piedmont residual soil Martin (1987)
(Ep in tsf)
Ep =1.6 N Residual soil Jones & Rust (1989)
(Ep in MPa)
log Ep = 1.0156 log N + 1.1129 Clay and clay shale Nevels & Laguros (1993)
(Ep in tsf)
Ep (kPa) = 388.7N60 + 4554 Sandy silty clay Yagiz et al. (2008)
Ep (MPa) = 1.33 (N60)0.77 Sandy soils – Istanbul Bozbey & Togrol (2010)
Ep (MPa) = 1.61 (N60)0.71 Clayey soils – Istanbul
Ep = 0.285 (N60)1.4 Clayey soils – Turkey Kayabasi (2012)
Ep in MPa)
Ep (MPa) = 2.22 + 0.0029(N60)2.5 Clayey soils – Turkey Agan & Algin (2014)
a Ep in Kg/cm2 unless noted.
b Individual equations given by authors for eight different soils types ranging from very soft organic soil to mudstone.

the penetration has not progressed beyond the initial 0.15 m (6 in.) after 100 blows. In other
cases, where the bedrock may be soft or highly weathered, such as in the case of weathered
shale or other fne-grained sedimentary deposits, the test may be carried out to completion,
and the results may provide meaningful results for estimating the strength or deformation
characteristics. For example, in the U.K., the SPT is used extensively in chalk and marl
deposits.
Stroud (1989) summarized the use of the SPT to estimate the compressive strength of
insensitive weak rock, as indicated in Figure 2.19. Stroud (1989) also demonstrated that the
vertical compression elastic modulus, E S , could also be correlated to N60 for similar materi-
als as shown in Figure 2.20. Again, this approach, taken principally from settlement obser-
vations of foundations, is similar to that previously shown for granular materials. It can be
seen that the variation is strongly related to the relative degree of loading.
In situations where SPT refusal is encountered, such as weathered or soft rock, it may
be more useful to express the results of the SPT in terms of the penetrability, as suggested
by Stamatopoulos & Kotzias (1974, 1993). Extrapolation of the blow counts when the
penetration is less than 0.3 m (1 ft) is more or less arbitrary and essentially meaningless.
Penetrability is defned as the penetration of the SPT spoon, in millimeters, produced by
 Standard Penetration Test 47

Table 2.14 Reported correlations between VS and Gmax and N-values for Fine-grained soils
Correlation Soil References
VS = 121 (N +.027) 0.22 Shanghai Jinan (1985)
VS = 84.5N0.118 (D + 1)0.246 Taipei basin Lee (1992)
(D = depth in meters)
VS = 76.5 (N)0.445 Cohesive Greece Kalteziotis et al. (1992)
VS = 145 (N)0.178 Silts Pitilakis et al. (1999)
VS = 132 (N)0.271 Clays
VS = 22 (N)0.770 Silts Jafari et al. (2002)
VS = 27 (N)0.730 Clays
VS = 107.6 (N60)0.237 Clays Hasancebi & Ulusay (2007)
VS = 44 (N)0.480 Clay Dikmen (2009)
VS = 60 (N)0.360 Silt
VS = 89.3 (N)0.358 Clay Uma Maheswari et al. (2010)
VS = 112.2 (N60)0.324 Clay Tsiambaos & Sabatakakis (2011)
VS = 88.8 (N60)0.370 Silt
VS = 77.1 (N)0.355 Clay Fatehnia et al. (2015)
VS = 94.4 (N)0.379 Clayey Kirar et al. (2016)
Gmax = 14.0 N0.722 Clay Ohsaki & Iwasaki (1973)
Gmax (MPa) = 15.8N0.668 Clay Hara et al. (1974)
VS in m/s; Gmax in MPa.

Figure 2.18 Correlation between Gmax and SPT N-values. (From Kulhawy & Mayne 1990.)

60 standard blows. The general trend in uniaxial compressive strength with both N values
and 1/N values suggested by Stamatopoulos and Kotzias (1993) is shown in Figure 2.21.
A similar approach has been suggested by Bosio (1992) for interpreting the results of
the SPT in soft rock where full penetration of the spoon does not occur. After cleaning the
borehole, a series of 50 hammer blows is applied, with the penetration obtained for each ten
blows measured. The data are then plotted on a semi-log plot as penetration versus number
48 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Figure 2.19 Correlation between compressive strength of weak rock and SPT N-values. (After Stroud
1989.)

Figure 2.20 Correlation between modulus of weak rock and SPT N-values. (From Stroud 1989.)
 Standard Penetration Test 49

Figure 2.21 Correlation between SPT results and strength of rock. (After Stamatopoulos & Kotzias 1993.)

of blows as shown in Figure 2.22. The Penetration Index (Np) is the slope of the straight part
of the curve after the initial penetration as follows:

N p = ( P50 − P30 ) ( log 50 − log 30) (2.21)

or approximately

N p = 4.51( P50 − P30 ) (2.22)

This method has been found to be useful for determining the compressive strength of rock,
as indicated in Figure 2.23.
Stark et al. (2013, 2017) described the use of a modifed SPT (MSPT) procedure for use
in the design of drilled shafts in weak rock. Like others, they recognized that the spoon will
likely not penetrate the full 477 cm (18 in.) into rock. They suggested measuring the spoon
50 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Figure 2.22 Determination of Penetration Index, Np, in soft rock. (After Bosio 1992.)

Figure 2.23 Correlation between Penetration Index and compressive strength of rock. (After Bosio 1992.)

penetration for each 10 drops of the hammer until 100 drops have been applied. A plot of
penetration (in.) vs. number of hammer drops usually shows a straight line after some driv-
ing distance, as shown in Figure 2.24. The slope of the straight-line portion of the curve is
defned as penetration rate, N˜ and is obtained as follows:
 Standard Penetration Test 51

Spoon Penetration (in.)

6

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
MSPT Blowcounts

Figure 2.24 Determining penetration rate in rock using the modifed SPT procedure. (Data from Stark et al.
2013.)

N = 1 ˙ˆ( ˝ Penetration Distance ) ( ˝ MSPT Blowcount ) ˇ˘ (2.23)

Stark et al. (2017) showed a correlation between the penetration rate adjusted for 90% ham-
mer effciency, N˜90, and unconfned compressive strength (UCS) of rock. In the range of UCS
between 5 and 120 ksf

UCS ( ksf ) = 0.092 N˝90 (r 2

= 0.94 ) (2.24)

2.9 IMPROVEMENTS TO SPT PRACTICE

It may be possible to gain additional information from the SPT without substantially alter-
ing the tests and still complying with the ASTM procedure.

2.9.1 SPT-T Test

According to Decourt (1989), Ranzine (1988) was the frst to suggest a simple modifcation
to the SPT in which a traditional SPT is complemented by torque measurements. That is,
after driving the spoon, torque is applied to the drill rod of the SPT sampler to measure the
friction between the sampler and the soil as shown in Figure 2.25. Decourt & Quaresma
(1994) have shown that the ratio of torque to N value (T/N with T measured in kgf-m) has
proved useful in practice. It can be argued that an advantage of the torque measurement is to
add a static testing component to a test which results initially from a dynamic phase. While
most of the soil structure may be destroyed during installation of the spoon, the torque
measurement may act in a region where the soil retains much of its original fabric and is
only partially remolded.
The ratio T/N appears to be useful in identifying highly structured soils and may also
prove useful for design of driven piles (Decourt & Quaresma 1994; Peixoto et al. 2004;
Winter et al. 2005). The torque measurement is a simple addition to the SPT, which does
not detract from the standard test procedure and requires only minimal additional effort. In
fact, the test only takes about another minute to perform. A small rod adapter is fabricated
52 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Figure 2.25 Schematic of SPT-T test.

to thread onto the ends of the drill string and a direct read mechanical or electronic torque
wrench can be used.
It seems logical that while the actual N value obtained from the SPT may be subject to
wide variations for all of the reasons previously discussed, the torque measurement should
be less variable. In the sense, the soil may not really care how the spoon is advanced into
the ground; the torque measurement depends on lateral stress acting on the outside of the
spoon. This means that the T/N ratio would be dependent on the method used to obtain N
and would be different in the same soil if different hammer systems are used. The torque
would be affected if the spoon or rods wobble and contact between the spoon and soil is
lost. Figure 2.26 shows typical results of SPT-T tests conducted at both a sand and clay site
(Kelley & Lutenegger 2004).
The torque measurement may also have direct application for estimating skin friction on
driven piles as described by Lutenegger & Kelley (1998) and pile setup. Using the moment
arm as the distance from the center of the spoon (where torque is applied) to the outside
diameter and neglecting any contribution from the soil at the end of the spoon, the unit side
resistance, fs, may be obtained as follows:

(
fs = ( 2T ) ˝d2L ) (2.25)

where
T = measured torque
d = diameter of spoon
L = length of the spoon driven
 Standard Penetration Test 53

Figure 2.26 SPT-T results obtained in sand and clay.

A comparison of side resistance measurements using Equation 2.25 and tension tests on pipe
piles in sand showed similar results (Lutenegger & Kelley 1998). Recent results also suggest
that this side resistance may be similar in magnitude to the quasi-static penetration local
friction required to advance the spoon and local skin friction from a CPT (e.g.,  Takesue
et  al. 1996). The test is gaining popularity around the world (e.g., Peixoto et al. 2004;
Winter et al. 2005; Heydarzadeh et al. 2013). It has recently been suggested that the test may
also be useful at estimating the undrained shear strength in clays (Ruge et al. 2018). The
author now routinely performs torque measurement as a part of every SPT conducted and
recommends that engineers include this in all routine site investigations.

2.9.2 Seismic SPT

An addition to the SPT to allow for the measurement of shear wave velocity was presented
by Kim et al. (2004) and Bang & Kim (2007). The seismic SPT (S-SPT) is an “uphole” test
that uses receivers on the surface and a source at depth; essentially the reverse confguration
of the seismic CPT and seismic DMT. Vertical driving of the SPT split spoon generates a
shear wave, which can be picked up by the surface sensors as shown in Figure 2.27.
Bang & Kim (2007) used the SPT drop hammer (140 lbs), while Pedrini & Giacheti
(2013) suggest using a 2 kg sledgehammer to generate the waves after the traditional SPT
54 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Figure 2.27 Schematic of the seismic-SPT. (From Bang & Kim 2007.)

is completed. Results obtained between S-SPT and SCPT at a number of sites have shown
excellent agreement of shear wave velocity (e.g., Pedrini & Giacheti 2011; Giacheti et al.
2013; Rocha et al. 2015; Pedrini et al. 2018).

2.9.3 Measurement of Penetration Record

Measurement of the spoon penetration record was previously described in Section 2.8.3
related to soft rock and appears to have been frst recommended by Granger (1963). The
measurement of spoon advance is performed over the full 0.46 m (18 in.) of penetration and
with a little practice can be accomplished without interrupting the test. A tape measure is
held alongside the drill rod string, and the operator calls out the displacement to a recorder
after each hammer blow. This gives the cumulative penetration of the spoon after each blow
of the hammer. The conventional N value is still obtained by adding the number of blows to
advance the last 0.30 m (12 in.), after the initial 0.15 m (6 in.) as is required by ASTM. The
author has used this practice for a number of projects when recording SPT data in new area.
Vallee & Skryness (1979) suggested that the penetration record could be used to estimate
the N-value in cases where the spoon becomes plugged after driving some distance. The
artifcially high N-values can be adjusted by using the initial straight-line portion of the
penetration record as shown in Figure 2.28. A more recent analysis performed by Dung &
Chung (2013) showed that this approach is valid in sands.
Obtained in this manner, the test results take on the form similar to that of a pile driv-
ing record and may be displayed as either incremental penetration or cumulative penetra-
tion resistance. Typical penetration records obtained in a soft clay and sand are shown in
Figure 2.29.

2.9.4 Incremental Penetration Ratio

Incremental penetration ratios were suggested by Schmertmann (1979) as a way of extract-
ing more information about the soil from the SPT. As required by the test, the resistance
over three consecutive 0.15 m (6 in.) distances is recorded, the sum of the last two being N.
 Standard Penetration Test 55

Figure 2.28 Suggested method of estimating SPT N-value from penetration record. (After Vallee & Skryness
1979.)

2 Sand N = 15
Clay N = 7
4
Spoon Penetration (in.)

10

12

14

16

18

20
0 5 10 15 20 25
Cumulative No. of Hammer Drops

Figure 2.29 Spoon penetration record in clay and sand.

These data are rarely used for direct design applications but may offer a possible improve-
ment to the test interpretation.
The ratio of individual 0.15 m (6 in.) resistance to the next consecutive value may help pro-
vide some insight into liquefaction resistance. Taking into account the changing geometry
as the spoon advances and increases contact with the soil, it may be possible to quantify
liquefaction or apparent strength loss by simply calculating the change in resistance as the
56 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

spoon moves from 0 to 0.15 m (6 in.), 0.15m (6 in.) to 0.31 (12 in.), and 0.31 (12 in.) to 0.46 m
(18 in.) of penetration.

2.9.5 Differential Penetration Record

One possibility that has not previously been explored is to evaluate the difference in incre-
mental blow count values for each of the three 0.15 (6 in.) advances of the spoon. In this
case, Δ N1 = N6–12 − N0–6 and Δ N2 = N12–18 − N6–12 . The penetration difference may be useful
in evaluating the infuence of skin friction on the spoon (Lutenegger 2008).

2.10 LARGE PENETRATION TEST

Larger diameter spoons are allowed by ASTM D1586 but are not considered acceptable for
determining N-values. Several drill rig manufacturers provide spoons with an outside diam-
eter of 76 mm (3 in.) and an inside barrel diameter of 63.5 mm (2.5 in.). The inside diameter
of the shoe is 44.5 mm (1.75 in.). A larger spoon is useful if a larger volume of soil is desired
or if gravelly material is present at the site. Because of the difference in spoon sizes, the
blow count values obtained with a larger spoon will be different than those obtained with
a standard 50.8 mm (2 in.) spoon.
In soil deposits that contain signifcant amounts of gravel, the penetration resistance of
the SPT may be artifcially high since gravel particles may not enter the spoon or may get
jammed in the shoe. Gravel is usually indicated by poor sample recovery for each SPT. In
order to overcome this problem, the use of LPT was introduced. The LPT should not be
confused with simply using a larger size spoon and the same SPT hammer. Various confgu-
rations of the LPT have been used in Japan (Kaito et al. 1971), Italy (Crova et al. 1993), and
Canada (Koester et al. 2000; Daniel et al. 2003). Harrison et al. (2017) also described an
LPT used in Canada with a 109 kg (240 lbs) hammer with a drop height of 450 mm (18 in.)
and a spoon with an inside diameter of 102 mm (4 in.).
The LPT was apparently introduced by Kaito et al. (1971) for evaluating the liquefaction
potential of granular soils with some gravel size particles. The test is performed much in the
same way as the SPT but adopts a larger hammer and sampler and a larger fall height. In
the Japanese LPT, a 100 kg (220 lbs) hammer is used with a fall height of 1.5 m (5 ft). The
sampler has an inside diameter of 50 m (2 in.) and an outside diameter of 73 mm (2.9 in.)
and is driven a distance of 30 cm (1 ft) to obtain the LPT blow count value, N LPT. A varia-
tion of this test has been described by Crova et al. (1993). Table 2.15 presents a comparison
between various components of the SPT and different LPTs.

Table 2.15 Comparison between SPT and large penetration tests

LPT LPT LPT
SPT (Japan) (Italy) (Canada)
Drop
Drive method Drop hammer Drop hammer Drop hammer hammer
Hammer mass (kg) 63.5 100 560 134
Drop height (m) 0.76 1.50 0.50 0.76
Sampler OD (mm) 51 73 140 76
Sampler ID (mm) 35 50 100 61
Most common casing size.
 Standard Penetration Test 57

Since there is signifcant similarity between the SPT and LPT, it should be possible to
establish a correlation between the two tests. Tokimatsu (1988) has suggested that provided
the energies delivered to the unit surface of the two samplers are the same, the correlation
between the two tests should be as follows:

N SPT N LPT = 1.5 (2.26)

For soils without gravel, this correlation appears to be satisfactory since soil can be ingested
into both samplers. However, the ratio tends to become greater than 1.5 for gravelly soils.
Tokimatsu (1988) presented a comparison between N values obtained from the SPT
and LPT for different soils. The results shown in Figure 2.30 indicate that the actual ratio
NSPT/N LPT varies from about 1.5 to 2.5. Similar results were presented by Yoshida et al.
(1988). The use of the LPT was also described by Suzuki et al. (1993) for the investigation of
gravelly soil at several sites in Japan. Measured ratios of NSPT/N LPT ranged from 1.0 to 3.5.
The ratio NSPT/N LPT appears to be related to the mean grain size, at least for well-graded
soils (e.g., Daniel et al. 2004). The tendency for the ratio to increase with increasing D50
probably refects the higher SPT blow counts that occur as a result of gravel particles that
are too large to enter the split spoon. This might also be refected in low recovery ratios for
the SPT. On the other hand, Crova et al. (1993) showed that on average, the ratio (N1(60))
SPT/(N1(60))LPT obtained using an Italian-style LPT was about 1.0 for several sites and also
indicated that there appeared to be little or no relationship with D50.
Engineers should consider using a 76 mm (3 in.) O.D. split spoon sampler with conventional
SPT equipment when gravelly sands are encountered. It will be necessary to develop local
correlations to convert the blow counts obtained to equivalent SPT N-values. Comparisons
made by the author using a standard 50.8 mm (2 in.) barrel sampler without liners and a
76 mm (3 in.) sampler (I.D. = 63.5 mm (2.5 in.)) without liners at several sites are presented in
Figure 2.31. At each of the sites, the same driller and SPT equipment were used to perform
both tests. As can be seen for most of the sites, the ratio of N(3)/N(2) varies from about 1 to 3.
Based on the differences in end and side areas, the ratio N(3)/N(2) should be on the order of
1.5. The difference is probably related to the relative contribution of end bearing and side
resistance to N for each sampler and each soil.

Figure 2.30 Comparison between N-values obtained from SPT and LPT. (After Tokimatsu 1988.)
58  In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

60

Clay (12 Sites)

50 Sand (8 Sites)
N3 = N2
N3 = 1.5 N2
40 N3 = 2 N2

SPT N3
30

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
SPT N2

Figure 2.31  Comparison of N-values between 2 and 3 in. spoons.

2.11 BECKER PENETRATION TEST

In coarse-grained gravelly sands and gravels and cobbly soils, a large-scale Dynamic
Penetration Test known as the Becker Hammer Test or Becker Penetration Test (BPT)
has been used. The BPT resembles a closed end pipe pile and simulates the driving of a
­displacement pile. A double-acting diesel pile hammer is used to drive a closed-end casing.
The number of blow counts for a penetration distance of 0.3 m (1 ft) is recorded. Casing
lengths of 2.4 or 3.0 m (8 or 10 ft) and diameters of 140, 170, and 230 mm O.D. (5.5, 6.7
and 9.1 in.) are available depending on the coarseness of the materials or the hole to be
drilled. Details of the BPT have been presented by Harder & Seed (1986), Sy & Campanella
(1993, 1994), and Wightman et al. (1993). The test is highly specialized and requires spe-
cific equipment. The application of the BPT is restricted to large projects involving difficult
soil materials.
An early correlation between the BPT and SPT in a variety of materials suggested an
approximate 1:1 relationship although there was considerable scatter. Using a correction
scheme to account for differences in diesel hammer energy, Harder & Seed (1986) developed
a correlation between the BPT and SPT in which N60 has been related to the corrected BPT
N values, Nbc.

2.12 SPT IN GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN

The SPT has a wide variety of applications in geotechnical design above the typical applica-
tion for site investigation work and the evaluation of individual soil properties. Extensive
use of SPT results have been reported for estimating the bearing capacity and settlement
of shallow and deep foundations based on empirical correlations. The number of proposed
approaches for using SPT results to estimate the behavior of foundations is too extensive for
this volume; however, it may be appropriate to consider the typical approaches suggested
and then consider more recent analyses.
 Standard Penetration Test  59

2.12.1 Shallow Foundations
There are at least 15 different methods for estimating the bearing capacity of shallow foun-
dations from SPT results and over 20 methods for estimating settlements. Most of these are
applicable to sands. Early charts were developed giving the allowable foundation stress to
produce a fixed settlement (e.g., Terzaghi & Peck 1967; Peck et al. 1974; Parry 1977; etc.).
Settlement estimates of shallow foundations on sands typically rely on an indirect elastic
approach by converting N-values to an elastic modulus and then calculating settlement using
an elastic equation (e.g., Berardi et al. 1991; Stroud 1989; Anagnostopoulos et al. 1991).
Burland & Burbidge (1985) presented a method for using SPT results to estimate settlement
of footings taking into account load intensity, shape of the footing, and depth of influence
below the footing. The method also considers whether the sand is normally consolidated or
over-consolidated and is based on nearly 200 published case histories of observed settlement
of various size footings. Settlements are calculated as follows:

s = 0.14CSC I IC ( B BR ) ( q′ σ ′R ) BR
0.7
for NC soils (2.27a)

s = 0.047CSC I IC ( B BR ) ( q′ σ ′R ) BR
0.7
for OC soils & q′ ≤ σ ′C (2.27b)

s = 0.14CSC I IC ( B BR ) (q′ − 0.67 σ C′ ) ( σ R ) BR

0.7
for OC soils & q′ > σ ′C (2.27c)

where
s = settlement (mm)
((L B ) + 0.25)
2
C S = footing shape factor = (1.25L B )
L = footing length (m)
B = footing width (m)
CI = depth factor = ( H Z I ) 2 − ( H Z I )  ≤ 1
H = depth from bottom of footing to bottom of compressible layer
ZI = depth of influence below footing = 1.4 ( B BR ) BR
0.75

BR = reference width = 0.3m

qʹ = net footing stress (kPa)
σ ′R = reference stress (100 kPa)
σ C′ = preconsolidation stress (kPa)
IC = soil compressibility index = 1.71(N60)1.4 (NC soils) or 0.57/(N60)1.4 (OC soils)

If the N-values decrease with depth, use Z I = 2B or the depth to the bottom of the loose
layer, whichever is less. The average N-values between the base of the footing and Z I
are used. For very fine and silty sand below the water table, use adjusted N-values as
Nʹ = 15 + 0.5(N − 15). For gravel or gravelly sand, use adjusted N-values as Nʹ = 1.25N.
Viswanath & Mayne (2013) showed that the relative settlement of shallow footings on
sands could be expressed in terms of SPT-normalized applied stress. For a number of case
histories of loading tests of shallow footings on sands, they found

q N representative = 0.3 ( s B ) (2.28)

0.5

where
q = applied stress (MPa)
s = settlement
60 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

B = footing width
Nrepresentative = average N-value between the bottom of the footing and a depth of 1.5B

This means that the settlement for any applied stress may be estimated directly from SPT
results. If the ultimate capacity is defned as the stress producing a settlement of 10% of the
footing width (Lutenegger & Adams 1998, 2003), then by substituting into Equation 2.28,
the ratio of bearing capacity to N-value (qult /N) is approximately 0.10.

2.12.2 Deep Foundations

Estimates of the bearing capacity of deep foundations using SPT results have typically been
based on local empirical correlations between N-values and unit side resistance and unit
end bearing. Correlations for both driven piles and bored piles in both sands and clays have
been reported. Poulos (1989) summarized a number of reported correlations between side
resistance and N-values and suggested that many of these correlations could be expressed
using the general equation

fs = ° + ˝˙ (2.29)

where
fs = unit pile side resistance

Lutenegger (2009) summarized many of the reported values for side resistance and found
that the majority of the reported observations could be simplifed to

fs = °˛ (2.30)

Values of α ranged from about 2.0 to 10 for both driven and bored piles with fs in units of
kPa, as shown in Table 2.16.

2.13 SUMMARY OF SPT

The SPT can be a useful in situ test, provided that engineers carefully control the test. The
test results can be reliable if the equipment and procedures are controlled. The following
procedure for performing the SPT is suggested:

1. Use a calibrated automatic hammer set to a test rate of 30–40 blows/min;

2. Use NW or AW (square or tapered thread) drill rods in lengths of 3.0 m (10 ft);
3. Use a 0.61 (24 in.)-long split spoon without liners with an internal shoe diameter of
34.9 mm (1.375 in.) and an internal barrel diameter of 38.1 mm (1.5 in.);
4. With the rods touching the bottom of the borehole but still being held, carefully mark
three 0.15 m (6 in.) drive increments;
5. Drive the spoon a total of 0.46 m (18 in.) and record incremental blow counts for each
0.15 m (6 in.) increment;
6. Use only solid-stem or hollow-stem augers with an internal diameter not greater than
107.9 mm (4.25 in.) or 100 mm (4 in.) rotary wash boring to advance the borehole;
7. In coarse-grained soils below the water table, use drilling mud full depth inside the
hollow stem augers or casing;
8. Always record the sample recovery;
 Standard Penetration Test 61

Table 2.16 Summary of some reported correlations between SPT N-value and deep foundation side
resistance
Pile type Soil β α References
Driven Granular 0 2.0 Meyerhof (1976)
Miscellaneous soils 10 3.3 Decourt (1982)
(fs < 170 kPa)
Cohesive 0 10 Shioi & Fukui (1982)
Cohesive 0 3 Bazaraa & Kurkur (1986)
Cohesionless 0 1.8
Sandy 29 2.0 Kanai & Yubuuchi (1989)
Clayey 34 4.0
Misc 0 1.9 Robert (1997)
Bored Granular 0 1.0 Meyerhof (1976)
Cohesive 0 5.0 Shioi & Fukui (1982)
Cohesive 0 1.8 Bazaraa & Kurkur (1986)
Cohesionless 0 0.6
Residual soil and weathered rock 0 2.0 Broms & Flodin (1988)
Clay 0 1.3 Koike et al. (1988)
Sand 0 0.3
Sandy soil cohesive 35 3.9 Kanai & Yubuuchi (1989)
24 4.9
Residual soil 0 4.5 Winter et al. (1989)
Residual soils 0 2.0 Chang & Broms (1991)
Clayey soil 0 10.0 Matsui (1993)
Sandy soil 0 3.0
Misc. 0 1.9 Robert (1997)
Sand 0 5.05 Kuwabara & Tanaka (1998)
Weathered rock 0 4 Wada (2003)
Cohesionless 0 5.0 Shioi & Fukui (1982)
Cohesive 0 10.0
Note: fs = β + αN (fs in units of kPa).

9. Field SPT blow counts should always be corrected for test procedures and the energy
level of the hammer system. Blow count values should be reported as N60.
10. Perform a torque test after completing the drive.

REFERENCES

AASHTO, 1981. Standard Specifcations for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and
Testing.
Agan, C. and Algin, H., 2014. Determination of Relationships between Menard Pressuremeter Test
and Standard Penetration Test Data by Using ANN Model: A Case Study on the Clayey Soil in
Sivas, Turkey. Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM, Vol. 37, No. 3, pp. 1–12.
Ajayi, L.A. and Balogun, L.A., 1988. Penetration Testing in Tropical Lateritic and Residual Soils –
Nigerian Experience. Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Penetration Testing,
Vol. 1, pp. 315–328.
Akbas, S. and Kulhawy, F., 2008. Case History of SPT Energy Ratio for an Automatic Hammer in
Northeastern U.S. Practice. Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Geotechnical
and Geophysical Site Characterization, Vol. 2, pp. 1241–1245.
62 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Akbas, S.O. and Kulhawy, F.H., 2010. Characterization and Estimation of Geotechnical Variability in
Ankara Clay: A Case History. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, Vol. 28, pp. 619–631.
Akino, N. and Sahara, M., 1994. Strain-Dependency of Ground Stiffness Based on Measured
Ground Settlement. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Pre-Failure Deformation
of Geomaterials, Vol. 1, pp. 181–187.
Anagnostopoulos, A.G., Papadopoulos, B.P., and Kavvadas, M.J., 1991. Direct Estimation of
Settlements on Sand, Based on SPT Results. Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 2, pp. 293–296.
Anbazhagan, P., and Sitharam, T., 2010. Relationship between Low Strain Shear Modulus and
Standard Penetration N Values. Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 1–15.
Anbazhagan, P., Parihar, A, and Rashmi, H., 2012. Review of Correlations between SPT N and
Shear Modulus: A New Correlation Applicable to any Region. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering, Vol. 36, pp. 52–69.
Athanasopoulos, G., 1994. An Empirical Correlation VS-NSPT and an Evaluation of Its Reliability.
Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Earthquake Resistant Construction and
Design, pp. 219–226.
Balachandran, K., Liu, K., Cao, L. and Peaker. Statistical Correlations between undtained shear
strength (Cu) and both SPT N-value and net limit pressure (PL) for cohesive glacial tlls.
Proceedings GoeOttawa, Canadian Geotechncial Society, 8 pp.
Bang, E.-S. and Kim, D.-S., 2007. Evaluation of Shear Wave Velocity Using SPT Based Uphole
Method. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 27, pp. 741–758.
Barksdale, R.D., Ferry, C.T., and Lawrence, J.D., 1986. Residual Soil Settlement from Pressuremeter
Moduli. Use of In Situ Tests in Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, pp. 447–461.
Barros, J. and Pinto, C., 1997. Estimation of Maximum Shear Moduli of Brazilian Tropical Soils from
Standard Penetration Test. Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 29–30.
Batchelor, C., Goble, G., Berger, J., and Miner, R., 1995. Standard Penetration Test Energy
Measurements on the Seattle ASCE Field Testing Program. Seattle Section of the American
Society of Civil Engineers.
Bazaraa, A.R., 1967. Use of the Standard Penetration Test for Estimating Settlements of Shallow
Foundations on Sand. Thesis presented to University of Illinois at Urbana, Illinois in partial
fulfllment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Bazaraa, A.R. and Kurkur, M.M., 1986. N-Values Used to Predict Settlement of Piles in Egypt. Use
of In Situ Tests in Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, pp. 462–474.
Behpoor, L. and Ghahramani, A., 1989. Correlation of SPT to Strength and Modulus of Elasticity
of Cohesive Soils. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 175–177.
Berardi, R., Jamiolkowski, M., and Lancellotta, R., 1991. Settlement of Shallow Foundations in
Sands-Selection of Stiffness on the Basis of Penetration Resistance. Geotechnical Engineering
Congress, ASCE, Vol. 1, pp. 185–200.
Bergado, D.T., Alfaro, M., Bersabe, N., and Leong, K., 1993. Model Test Results of Sand Compaction
Pile (SCP) Using Locally-Available and Low-Quality Backfll Soils. Proceedings of the 11th
Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conference, pp. 313–318.
Biringen, E. and Davie, J., 2008. SPT Automatic Hammer Effciency Revisited. Proceedings of the
6th International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering, Paper No. 4.06,
8 pp.
Borowczyk, M. and Frankowski, Z.B., 1981. Dynamic and Static Sounding Results Interpretation.
Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Vol. 2, pp. 451–454.
Bosio, J.J., 1992. A New Way of Measuring the Soundness of Very Soft Rocks Using the “SPT” Test
Equipment. Proceedings of the US/Brazil Geotechnical Workshop on Applicability of Classical
Soil Mechanics Principles to Structured Soil, pp. 91–96.
Bosscher, P.J. and Showers, D.R., 1987. Effects of Soil Type on Standard Penetration Test Input
Energy. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 113, No. 4, pp. 385–389.
 Standard Penetration Test 63

Bowles, J.E., 1988. Foundation Analysis and Design. McGraw-Hill, Inc., 4th Edition, New York.
Bozbey, I. and Togrol, E., 2010. Correlation of Standard Penetration Test and Pressuremeter Data:
A Case Study from Turkey. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and Environment, Vol. 69, pp.
505–515.
Broms, B.B. and Flodin, N., 1988. History of Soil Penetration Testing. Proceedings of the 1st
International Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 1, pp. 157–220.
Brooker, E. and Ireland, H., 1965. Earth Pressure at Rest Related to Stress History. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 1–15.
Brown, R.E., 1977. Drill Rod Infuence on Standard Penetration Test. Journal of the Geotechnical
Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 103, No. GT11, pp. 1332–1336.
Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of Interior, 1974. Earth Manual.
Burland, J.B. and Burbidge, M.C., 1985. Settlement of Foundations on Sand and Gravel. Proceedings
of the Institute of Civil Engineers, Part 1, Vol. 78, pp. 1325–1381.
Cangir, B. and Dipova, N., 2017. Estimation of Undrained Shear Strength of Konyaalti Silty Clays.
Indian Journal of Geo Marine Sciences, Vol. 46, No. 3, pp. 513–520.
Chang, M.F. and Broms, B.B., 1991. Design of Bored Piles in Residual Soils Based on Field Performance
Data. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 28, pp. 200–209.
Clayton, C.R.I., Hababa, M.B., and Simons, N.E., 1985. Dynamic Penetration Resistance and the
Prediction of the Compressibility of a Fine-Grained Sand – A Laboratory Study. Geotechnique,
Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 19–31.
Crova, R., Jamiolkowski, M., Lanellotta, R., and Presti, D.C.F., 1993. Geotechnical Characterization
of Gravelly Soils at Massena Site: Selected Topics. Predictive Soil Mechanics, pp. 199–218.
Cubrinovski, M. and Ishihara, K., 2001. Correlation Between Penetration Resistance and Relative
Density of Sandy Soils. Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Soil Mechanics
and Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 393–396.
Daniel, C., Howie, J., and Sy, A., 2003. A Method for Correlating Large Penetration Test (LPT) to
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Blow Counts. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 40, No. 1,
pp. 66–77.
Daniel, C., Howie, J., Campanella, R., and Sy, A., 2004. Characterization of SPT Grain Size Effects
in Gravels. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Geotechnical and Geophysical
Site Characterization, Vol. 1, pp. 299–303.
D’Appolonia, D.J., D’Appolonia, E., and Brissette, R.F., 1970. Closure of Settlement of Spread
Footings on Sand. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE, Vol. 96,
No. SM2, pp. 754–761.
Das, U., 2014. A Study on the Effect of Distorted Sampler Shoe on Standard Penetration Test Result
in Cohesionless Soil. International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and
Technology, Vol. 3, No. 10, pp. 16654–16558.
Davidson, J., Maultsby, J., and Spoor, K., 1999. Standard Penetration Test Energy Calibrations.
Final Report Florida DOT Contract No. BB261, Department of Civil Engineering, University
of Florida.
Decourt, L., 1982. Prediction of the Bearing Capacity of Piles Based Exclusively on N Values of the
SPT. Proceedings of the 2nd European Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 1, pp. 292–234.
Decourt, L., 1989. The Standard Penetration Test – State of the Art Report. Proceedings of the
12th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. Vol. 4,
pp. 2405–2416.
Decourt, L., 1994. The Behavior of a Building with Shallow Foundations on a Stiff Lateritic Clay.
Vertical and Horizontal Deformations of Foundations and Embankments, ASCE, Vol. 2,
pp. 1505–1515.
Decourt, L. and Quarsma, A.R, 1994. Practical Applications of thje Standard Penetration Test
Complemented by Torque Measurements, SPT-T; Present Stage and Future Trends. Proceedings
of the 13th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering,
pp. 143–146.
DeGodoy, N.S., 1971. Discussion of the Standard Penetration Test. Proceedings of the 4th Pan
American Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 3, pp. 100–103.
64 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

DeMello, V., 1971. The Standard Penetration Test. Proceedings of the 4th Panamerican Conference
on Soil Mechanics, Vol. 1, pp. 1–86.
Denver, H., 1982. Modulus of Elasticity for Sand Determined by SPT and CPT. Proceedings of the
2nd European Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 1, pp. 35–40.
Dikmen, U., 2009. Statistical Correlations of Shear Wave Velocity and Penetration Resistance for
Soils. Journal of Geophysical Engineering, Vol. 6, pp. 61–72.
Dung, N. and Chung, G., 2013. Behavior of the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) in Sandy Deposits.
Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Geotechnical and Geophysical Site
Characterization, Vol. 1, pp. 365–373.
Esfehanizadeh, M., Nabizadeh, F., and Yazarloo, R., 2015. Correlation between Standard Penetration
(NSPT) and Shear Wave Velocity (VS) for Young Coastal Sands of the Caspian Sea. Arab Journal
of Geoscience, Vol. 8, pp. 7333–7341.
Fabbrocino, S., Lanzano, G., Forte, G., de Magistris, F., and Fabbrocino, G., 2015. SPT Blow Count
vs. Shear Wave Velocity Relationship in the Structurally Complex Formations of the Molise
Region (Italy). Engineering Geology, Vol. 187, pp. 94–97.
Fatehnia, M., Hayden, M., and Landschoot, M., 2015. Correlation between Shear Wave Velocity and
SPT-N Values for North Florida Soil. Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 20,
pp. 12421–12430.
Fletcher, G.F.A., 1965. Standard Penetration Test: It’s Uses and Abuses. Journal of the Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Division, ASCE, Vol. 91, No. SM4, pp. 67–75.
Frost, D.J., 1992. Evaluation of the Repeatability and Effciency of Energy Delivered with a Diedrich
Automatic SPT Hammer System. Report prepared for Diedrich Drill Inc., La Porte, IN.
Gautam, D., 2017. Empirical Correlation between Uncorrected Standard Penetration Resistance (N)
and Shear Wave Velocity (VS) for Kathmandu Valley, Nepal. Geomatics, Natural Hazards and
Risk, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 496–508.
Giacheti, H.L., Pedrini, R., and Rocha, B., 2013. The Seismic SPT Test in a Tropical Soil and the G o/N
Ratio. Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical
Engineering, 4 pp.
Gibbs, H.J. and Holtz, W.G., 1957. Research on Determining the Density of Sands by Spoon
Penetration Testing. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 35–39.
Golder, H.Q., 1961. Discussion to Session IV. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. Vol. 3, p. 163.
Granger, V.L., 1963. The Standard Penetration Test in Central Africa. Proceedings of the 3rd Regional
Conference for Africa on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 153–156.
Hall, J.R., 1982. Drill Rod Energy as a Basis for Correlation of SPT Data. Proceedings of the 2nd
European Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 1, pp. 57–60.
Hara, A., Ohta, T., Niwa, M., Tanaka, S., and Banno, T., 1974. Shear Modulus and Shear Strength
of Cohesive Soils. Soils and Foundations, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 1–12.
Harder, L.F. and Seed, H.B., 1986. Determination of Penetration Resistance for Coarse-Grained Soils
Using the Becker Hammer Drill. Report UCB/EERC-86/06, Earthquake Engineering Research
Center, University of California, Berkeley.
Harrison, C., Bonin, G., and Esford, F., 2017. Summary of Drilling and Large Penetration Test
Program to Confrm the Density of Soils Subjected to Dynamic Compaction for the Bay-Goose
Dike at the Meadowbank Gold Projects in Nunavut, Canada. Proceedings of GeoOttawa 2017,
9 pp.
Hasancebi, N and Ulusay, R., 2007. Empirical Correlations between Shear Wave Velocity and
Penetration Resistance for Ground Shaking Assessments. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and
the Environmnet, Vol. 66, pp. 203–213.
Hatanaka, M. and Feng, L., 2006. Estimating Relative Density of Sandy Soils. Soils and Foundations,
Vol. 46, No. 3, pp. 299–313.
Hatanaka, M. and Uchida, A., 1996. Empirical Correlation Between Cone Resistance and Internal
Friction Angle of Sandy Soils. Soils and Foundations, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 1–10.
 Standard Penetration Test 65

Hettiarachchi, H. and Brown, T., 2009. Use of SPT Blow Counts to Estimate Shear Strength
Properties of Soils: Energy Balance Approach. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 135, No. 6, pp. 830–834.
Heydarzadeh, A., Fahker, A., and Moradi, M., 2013. A Feasibility Study of Standard Penetration Test
with Torque Measurement (SPT-T) in Iran. Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on
Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterization, Vol. 1, pp. 553–559.
Hirayama, H., 1994. Secant Young’s Modulus from N-Value or cu Considering Strain Levels.
Proceedings of the International Symposium on Pre-Failure Deformation of Geomaterials,
Vol. 1, pp. 247–252.
Honeycutt, J., Kiser, S., and Anderson, J., 2014. Database Evaluation of Energy Transfer for Central
Mine Equipment Automatic Hammer Standard Penetration Tests. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 140, No. 1, pp. 194–200.
Imai, T., 1977. P- and S-Wave Velocities of the Ground in Japan. Proceedings of the 9th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 2, pp. 257–260.
Imai, T. and Tonouchi, K., 1982. Correlations of N Value with S-wave Velocity and Shear Modulus.
Proceedings of the 2nd European Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 1, pp. 67–72.
Ireland, H.O., Moretto, O., and Vargas, M., 1970. The Dynamic Penetration Test: A Standard That
Is Not Standardized. Geotechnique, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 185–192.
Jafari, M., Shafee, A., and Razmkhan, A., 2002. Dynamic Properties in Fine-Grained Soils in the
South Tehran. Journal of Seismology and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 4, pp. 25–35.
Jain, P.K. and Handa, S.C., 1979. In-Situ Penetration Resistance of Cohesionless Soils. Proceedings
of the International Symposium on In Situ Testing of Soils and Rocks and Performance of
Structures, pp. 203–206.
Jamiolkowski, M., Ghionna, V.N., Lancellotta, R., and Pasqualini, E., 1988. New Correlations
of Penetration Tests for Design Practice. Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on
Penetration Testing, Vol.1, pp. 263–296.
Jinan, Z., 1985. Correlation between Seismic Wave Velocity and the Number of Blow of SPT and
Depths. Selected Papers from the Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE,
pp. 92–100.
Jones, G.A. and Rust, E., 1989. Foundations on Residual Soil Using Pressuremeter Moduli. Proceedings
of the 12th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundations Engineering, Vol. 1,
pp. 519–523.
Kaito, T., Sakaguchi, S., Nishigaki, Y., Miki, K., and Yukami, H., 1971. Large Penetration Test.
Tsuchi-to-Kiso, Vol. 629, pp. 15–21.
Kalteziotis, N., Sabatakakis, N., and Vasiliou, I., 1992. Evaluation of Dynamic Characteristics
of Greek Soil Formations. Proceedings of the 2nd Hellenic Conference on Geotechnical
Engineering, Vol. 2, pp. 239–246.
Kanai, S. and Yabuuchi, S., 1989. Bearing Capacity of Nodular Piles. Proceedings of the International
Conference on Piling and Deep Foundations, Vol. 1, pp. 73–79.
Kayabasi, A., 2012. Prediction of Pressuremeter Modulus and Limit Pressure of Clayey Soils by
Simple and Non-Linear Multiple Regression Techniques: A Case Study from Mersin, Turkey.
Environmental Earth Sciences, Vol. 66, pp. 2171–2183.
Kelley, S.P. and Lens, J., 2010. Evaluation of SPT Hammer Energy Variability. Report to Vermont
Department of Transportation, Geodesign.
Kelley, S.P. and Lutenegger, A.J., 2004. Unit Skin Friction from the Standard Penetration Test
Supplemented with the Measurement of Torque. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 130, No. 4, pp. 540–543.
Kim, D.-S., Bang, E.-S., and Seo, W.-S., 2004. Evaluation of Shear Wave Velocity Profle Using SPT
Based Uphole Test. Proceedings of the 2nd International Site Characterization Conference,
Vol. 1, pp. 707–712.
Kirar, B., Maheshawri, B., and Muley, P., 2016. Correlation between Shear Wave Velocity (VS) and
SPT Resistance (N) for Roorkee Region. International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground
Engineering, Vol. 2, No. 1, p. 9.
66 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Kishida, H., 1967. Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Piles Driven into Loose Sand. Soils and Foundations,
Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 20–29.
Koester, J., Daniel, C., and Anderson, M., 2000. In Situ Investigation of Liquefable Gravels.
Transportation Research Record No. 1714, pp. 75–82.
Koike, M., Matsui, T., and Matsui, K., 1988. Vertical Loading Tests of Large Bored Piles and Their
Estimation. Proceedings of the 1st International Geotechnical Seminar on Bored and Augered
Piles, pp. 531–536.
Kovacs, W.D., 1975. On Dynamic Shear Moduli and Poisson’s Ratios of Soil Deposits. Soils and
Foundations, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 93–96.
Kovacs, W.D. and Salomone, L.A., 1982. SPT Hammer Energy Measurement. Journal of the
Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 108, No. GT4, pp. 599–621.
Kovacs, W.D., Salomone, L.A., and Yokel, F.Y., 1981. Energy Measurement in the Standard
Penetration Test. National Bureau of Standards Building Science Series 135, 99 pp.
Kraemer, S., 1996. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering. Prentice Hall.
Kulhawy, F.H. and Mayne, P., 1990. Manual on Estimating Soil Properties for Foundation Design.
EPPRI.
Kulhawy, F.H. and Trautmann, C.H., 1996. Estimation of In Situ Test Uncertainty. Uncertainty in
the Geologic Environment: From Theory to Practice, ASCE, Vol. 1, pp. 269–286.
Kulhawy, F.H., Jackson, C., and Mayne, P.W., 1989. First-Order Estimation of Ko in Sands and Clays.
Foundation Engineering: Current Principles and Practices, ASCE, pp. 121–134.
Kuwambara, F. and Tanaka, M., 1998. Statistical Analysis of Shaft Friction of Vertically Loaded
Bored Piles. Proceedings of the 3rd International Geotechnical Seminar on Bored and Augered
Piles, pp. 293–297.
Lake, L.M., 1974. Discussion on Session 1, Settlement of Structures, BGS, p. 663.
Lamb, R., 1997. SPT Energy Measurements with the PDA. Proceedings of the 45th Annual
Geotechnical Engineering Conference, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN.
Lee, S.H.H., 1992. Analysis of the Multicollinearity of Regression Equations of Shear Wave Velocity.
Soils and Foundations, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 205–214.
Liao, S.S.C. and Whitman, R.V., 1986. Overburden Correction Factors of SPT in Sand. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 112, No. 3, pp. 373–377.
Liebich, B., 2005. Standard Penetration Test Energy Testing and Hammer Effciency Measurements.
California Department of Transportation Geotechnical Manual.
Lutenegger, A.J., 2008. The Standard Penetration Test – More Than Just a One Number Test.
Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Site Characterization, pp. 481–485.
Lutenegger, A.J., 2009. Estimating Shaft Resistance of Driven Piles from SPT-Torque Tests.
Contemporary Topics in In Situ Testing, Analysis, and Reliability of Foundations, ASCE GSP
186, pp. 9–17.
Lutenegger, A.J. and Adams, M.T., 1998. Bearing Capacity of Footings on Compacted Sand.
Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering,
pp. 1216–1224.
Lutenegger, A.J. and Adams, M.T., 2003. Characteristic Load-Displacement Curves of Shallow
Foundations. Proceedings of the International Conference on Shallow Foundations, Paris,
France, Vol. 2, pp. 381–393.
Lutenegger, A.J. and Kelley, S.P., 1998. Standard Penetration Tests with Torque Measurement.
Proceedings of the International Symposium on Site Characterization, Vol. 2, pp. 939–945.
Marcuson, W.F., 1978. Determination of In Situ Density of Sands. ASTM Special Technical
Publication 654, pp. 318–340.
Marcuson, W.F. and Bieganousky, W.A., 1977a. Laboratory Standard Penetration Tests on Fine Sands.
Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 103, No. GT6, pp. 565–588.
Marcuson, W.F. and Bieganousky, W.A., 1977b. SPT and Relative Density in Coarse Sands. Journal
of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 103, No. GT11, pp. 1295–1309.
Martin, R.E., 1977. Estimating Foundation Settlements in Residual Soils. Journal of the Geotechnical
Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 103, No. GT3, pp. 197–212.
 Standard Penetration Test 67

Martin, R.E., 1987. Settlement of Residual Soils. Foundations and Excavation in Decomposed
Rocks of the Piedmont Province, ASCE, pp. 1–14.
Matsui, T., 1993. Case Studies on Cast-In-Place Bored Piles and Some Considerations for Design.
Proceedings of the 2nd International Geotechnical Seminar on Bored and Augered Piles,
pp. 77–101.
Matsumoto, K. and Matsubara, M., 1982. Effects of Rod Diameter in the Standard Penetration Test.
Proceedings of the 2nd European Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 1, pp. 107–112.
Matsumoto, T., Sekiguchi, H., Yoshida, H., and Kita, K., 1992. Signifcance of Two-Point Strain
Measurement in SPT. Soils and Foundations, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 67–82.
Matsumoto, T., Phan, L., Oshima, A., and Shimono, S., 2015. Measurements of Driving Energy
in SPT and Various Dynamic Cone Penetration Tests. Soils and Foundations, Vol. 55, No. 1,
pp. 201–212.
Mayne, P.W., 1995. Profling Yield Stress in Clays by In Situ Tests. Transportation Research Record
No. 1479, pp. 43–50.
Mayne, P.W. and Kemper, J.B., 1988. Profling OCR in Stiff Clays by CPT and SPT. Geotechnical
Testing Journal, ASTM, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 139–147.
Mayne, P.W. and Kulhawy, F.H., 1982. Ko – OCR Relationships in Soil. Journal of the Geotechnical
Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 108, No. GT6, pp. 851–872.
Meyerhof, G.G., 1956. Penetration Tests and Bearing Capacity of Cohesionless Soils. Journal of the
Soil Mechanics Division, ASCE, Vol. 82, SM1, pp. 1–12.
Meyerhof, G.G., 1976. Bearing Capacity and Settlement of Pile Foundations. Journal of the
Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 102, No. GT3, pp. 197–228.
Morgano, C.M. and Liang, R., 1992. Energy Transfer in SPT – Rod Length Effect. Application of
Stress-Wave Theory to Piles, pp. 121–127.
Muromachi, T., Aguro I., and Miyashita, T., 1974. Penetration Testing in Japan. Proceedings of the
European Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 1, pp. 193–200.
Nassaji, F. and Kalantari, B., 2011. SPT Capability to Estimate Undrained Shear Strength of Fine-
Grained Soils of Tehran, Iran. Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 16,
pp. 1229–1238.
National Highway Institute (NHI), 2002. Course 132031 Subsurface Investigations – Geotechnical
Site Characterization Reference Manual; Publication No. FHWA NHI-01-031.
Nayak, N.V., 1979. Use of the Pressuremeter in Geotechnical Design Practice. Proceedings of the
International Symposium on In Situ Testing of Soils and Rocks and Performance of Structures,
Roorkee pp. 432–436.
Nevels, J. and Laguros, J., 1993. Correlation of Engineering Properties of the Hennessey Formation
Clays and Shales. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Geotechnical Properties of
Hard Soils and Soft Rock, Vol. 1, pp. 215–221.
Nixon, I.K., 1982. Standard Penetration Test: State of Art Report. Proceedings of the 2nd European
Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 1, pp. 3–24.
Odebrecht, E., Schnaid, F., Rocha, M., and Bernardes, G., 2004. Energy Measurements for
Standard Penetration Tests and the Effects of the Length of Rods. Proceedings of the 2nd
International Symposium on Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterization, Vol. 1,
pp. 351–358.
Ohsaki, Y. and Iwasaki, R., 1973. On the Dynamic Shear Moduli and Poisson’s Ratio of Soil Deposits.
Soils and Foundations, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 61–73.
Ohta, Y. and Goto, N., 1978. Empirical Shear Wave Velocity Equations in Terms of Characteristic
Soil Indexes. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 6, pp. 167–187.
Ohya, S., Imai, T., and Nagura, M., 1982. Relationships between N-Value by SPT and LLT
Measurement Results. Proceedings of the 2nd European Symposium on Penetration Testing,
Vol. 1, pp. 125–130.
Oskorouchi, A.M. and Mehdibeigi, A., 1988. Effect of Overburden Pressure on SPT N-Values in
Cohesive Soils of North Iran. Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Penetration
Testing, Vol. 1, pp. 363–367.
68  In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Palmer, D.J. and Stuart, J.G., 1957. Some Observations on the Standard Penetration Test and
a Correlation of the Test with a New Penetrometer. Proceedings of the 4th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 231–236.
Papadopoulos, B.P., 1992. Settlement of Shallow Foundations on Cohesionless Soils. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 118, No. 3, pp. 377–393.
Parsons, J.D., 1966. discussion of Standard Penetration Test: Its Uses an Abuses. Journal of the Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE, Vol. 92, No. SM3, pp. 103–105.
Parry, R.H.G., 1977. Estimating Bearing Capacity in Sand from SPT Values. Journal of the
Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 103, No. GT9, pp. 1112–1116.
Peck, R.B., Hanson, W.E., and Thornburn, T.H., 1953. Foundation Engineering. John Wiley & Sons
Inc., New York.
Peck, R.B., Hansen, W.E., and Thornburn, T.H., 1974. Foundation Engineering. John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., New York.
Pedrini, R.A.A. and Giacheti, H.L., 2013. The Seismic SPT to Determine the Maximum Shear Modulus.
Proceedings of the 4th International Geophysical and Geotechnical Site Characterization
Conference, ISC-4, pp. 337–342.
Pedrini, R.A.A., Rocha, B., and Giacheti, H.L., 2018. The Up-Hole Seismic Test Together with
the SPT: Description of the System and Method. Soils and Rocks, Sao Paulo, Vol. 41, No. 2,
pp. 133–148.
Peixoto, A., Carvalho, D., and Giacheti, H., 2004. SPT-T: Test Procedure and Applications.
Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Geotechnical and Geophysical Site
Characterization, Vol. 1, pp. 359–366.
Pinto, C. and Abramento, M., 1997. Pressuremeter Tests on Gneissic Residual Soil in Sao Paulo,
Brazil. Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 175–176.
Pitilakis, K., Lontzetidid, K., Raptakis, D., and Tika, T., 1998. Geotechnical and Seismic Survey for
Site Characterization. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Site Characterization,
Vol. 2, pp. 1339–1344.
Pitilakis, K., Raptakis, D., Lontzetidis, K., Tika-Vassilikou, T., and Jongmans, D. 1999. Geotechnical
and Geophysical Descriptions of Euro-Seistests Using Field and Laboratory Tests and Moderate
Strong Ground Motions. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 381–409.
Plytas, C., Baltzoglou, A., Chlimintzas, G., Anagnostopoulos, G., Kozompolis, A. and Koutalia, C.,
2011. Empirical determination of the undrained shear strength of very stiff to (very) hard cohe-
sive soils from SPT tests. Proceedings of the 15the European Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, pp. 61–66.
Poulos, H., 1989. Pile Behaviour – Theory and Applications. Geotechnique, Vol. 39, No. 3,
pp. 365–415.
Ranzine, S., 1988. SPTF Technical Note. Solos e Rochas, Vol. 11, pp. 29–30.
Raptakis, D., Anastasiadis, A., Pitilakis, K., and Lontzetidis, K., 1994. Shear Wave Velocity and
Damping of Greek Natural Soils. Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Earthquake
Engineering.
Reese, L.C., Touma, F.T., and O’Neill, M., 1976. Behavior of Drilled Piers under Axial Loading.
Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 102, No. GT5, pp. 493–510.
Riggs, C.O., Schmidt, N.O., and Rassieur, C.L., 1983. Reproducible SPT Hammer Impact Force with
an Automatic Free Fall SPT Hammer System. Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM, Vol.  6,
No. 4, pp. 165–172.
Riggs, C.O., Mathes, G.M., and Rassieur, C.L., 1984. A Field Study of an Automatic SPT Hammer
System. Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 158–163.
Rocha, B., Pedrini, R., and Giachetti, H., 2015. GO/N Ratio in Tropical Soils from Brazil. Electronic
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 20, No. 7, pp. 1915–1933.
Robert, Y., 1997. A Few Comments on Pile Design. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 34,
pp. 560–567.
Robertson, P.K., Campanella, R.G., and Wightman, A., 1983. SPT-CPT Correlations. Journal of the
Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 109, No. 11, pp. 1454–1459.
 Standard Penetration Test 69

Robertson, P.K., Woeller, D.J., and Addo, K.O., 1992. Standard Penetration Test Energy Measurements
Using a System Based on the Personal Computer. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 29,
No. 4, pp. 551–557.
Rocha Filho, P., Antunes, F., and Falcao, M.F.Q., 1985. Qualitative Infuence of the Weathering
Degree upon the Mechanical Properties of Young Gneiss Residual Soil. Proceedings of the 1st
International Conference on Geomechanics in Tropical Lateritic and Saprolitic Soils, Vol. 1,
pp. 281–294.
Rogers, J., 2006. Subsurface Exploration Using the Standard Penetration Test and the Cone
Penetration Test. Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 161–179.
Rollins, K.M., Evans, M.D., Diehl, N.B., and Daily, W.D. III, 1998. Shear Modulus and Damping
Relationships for Gravels. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE,
Vol. 124, No. 5, pp. 396–405.
Ruge, J., Mendoza, C., Colmenares, J., Cunha, R., and Otalvaro, I., 2018. Analysis of the Undrained
Shear Strength through the Standard Penetration Test with Torque (SPT-T). International
Journal of GEOMATE, Vol. 14, No. 41, pp. 102–110.
Saiki, K., 1983. Methods of Analysis for Correcting the Standard Penetration Resistance Measured
in Normally Consolidated Clays. Recent Developments in Laboratory and Field Tests and
Analysis of Geotechnical Problems, pp. 375–380.
Sambhandharaksa, S. and Pitupakorn, W., 1985. Predictions of Prestressed Concrete Pile Capacity
in Bangkok Stiff Clay and Clayey Sand. Proceedings of the 8th Southeast Asian Geotechnical
Conference, pp. 3.58–3.65.
Sanglerat, G., 1972. The Penetrometer and Soil Exploration. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 464 pp.
Sanglerat, G. and Sanglerat, T.R., 1982. Pitfalls of the SPT. Proceedings of the 2nd European
Symposium Penetration Testing, Vol. 1, pp. 143–145.
Sarac, D. and Popovic, M., 1982. Penetration Tests for Determination of Characteristics of Flood
Dike Materials. Proceedings of the 2nd European Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 1,
pp. 147–152.
Schmertmann, J.H., 1978. Use of the SPT to Measure Dynamic Soil Properties? – Yes, But...! ASTM
Special Technical Publication 654, pp. 341–355.
Schmertmann, J.H., 1979. Statics of SPT. Journal of the Geotechnical Division, ASCE, Vol. 105,
No. GT5, pp. 655–670.
Schmertmann, J.H., 1984. Discussion of Reproducible SPT Hammer Force with an Automatic
Free  Fall SPT Hammer System. Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM, Vol. 7, No. 3,
pp. 167–168.
Schmertmann, J.H. and Palacios, A., 1979. Energy Dynamics of SPT. Journal of the Geotechnical
Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 105, No. GT8, pp. 909–926.
Schnaid, F., Odebrecht, E., Rocha, M, and Bernardes, G., 2009. Prediction of Soil Properties from
the Concepts of Energy Transfer in Dynamic Penetration Tests. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 135, No. 8, pp. 1092–1100.
Schultze, E. and Melzer, K.J., 1965. The Determination of the Density of Modulus of Compressibility
of Non-Cohesive Soils by Soundings. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 354–358.
Seed, H.B., 1976. Evaluation of Soil Liquefaction Effects on Level Ground during Earthquakes.
ASCE Specialty Session, Liquefaction Problems in Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE.
Seed, H.B. and De Alba, P., 1986. Use of SPT and CPT Tests for Evaluating the Liquefaction Resistance
of Sands. Use of In Situ Tests in Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, pp. 281–302.
Seed, H.B., Idriss, I.M., and Arango, I., 1983. Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential Using Field
Performance Data. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 109.
No. GT3, pp. 458–482.
Seed, H.B., Tokimatsu, K., Hardner, L.F., and Chung, R.M., 1985. Infuence of SPT Procedures
in Soil Liquefaction Resistance Evaluations. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE,
Vol. 111, No. GT12, pp. 1425–1445.
Seed, R.B., Harder, L.F. Jr., and Youd, T.L., 1988. Effects of Borehole Fluid on Standard Penetration
Test Results. Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 248–256.
70 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Serajuddin, M. and Chowdhury, M., 1996. Correlation between Standard Penetration Resistance
and Unconfned Compression Strength of Bangladesh Cohesive Deposits. Journal of Civil
Engineering, The Institution of Engineers, Bangladesh, Vol. CE24, No. 1, pp. 69–83.
Shi-Ming, H., 1982. Experience on a Standard Penetration Test. Proceedings of the 2nd European
Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 1, pp. 61–66.
Shioi, Y. and Fukui, J., 1982. Application of N-Value to Design of Foundations in Japan. Proceedings
of the 2nd European Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 1, pp. 159–164.
Sivrikaya, O. and Togrol. E., 2002. Relations between SPT-N and qu. Proceedings of the 5th
International Congress on Advances in Civil Engineering, Istanbul, pp. 943–952.
Sivrikaya, O. and Togrol. E., 2006. Determination of Undrained Strength of Fine-Grained Soils by
Means of SPT and Its Application in Turkey. Engineering Geology, Vol. 86, pp. 52–69.
Skempton, A.W., 1986. Standard Penetration Test Procedures and the Effects in Sands of Overburden
Pressure, Relative Density, Particle Size, Aging Overconsolidation. Geotechnique, Vol. 36,
No. 3, pp. 425–447.
Sowers, G., 1979. Introductory Soil Mechanics and Foundations. Macmillan, New York, 621 pp.
Sowers, G.B. and Sowers, G.F., 1961. Introductory Soil Mechanics and Foundations. The Macmillan
Co., 2nd Edition, New York, 386 pp.
Spangler, M.G., 1960. Soil Engineering. International Textbook Co., 2nd Edition, Scranton, PA,
483 pp.
Stamatopoulos, A.C. and Kotzias, P.C., 1974. The Use of the Standard Penetration Test in Classifying
Rocks. Proceedings of the 3rd International Congress of the International Society for Rock
Mechanics, p. 85.
Stamatopoulos, A.C. and Kotzias, P.C., 1993. Refusal to the SPT and Penetrability. Geotechnical
Engineering of Hard Soils – Soft Rock, Vol. 1, pp. 301–306.
Stark, T., Long, J., and Assem, P., 2013. Improvement for Determining the Axial Capacity of Drilled
Shafts in Illinois. Research Report No. FHWA-ICT-13-017, Illinois Center for Transportation.
Stark, T., Long, J., Baghdady, A., and Osouli, A., 2017. Modifed Standard Penetration Test-Based
Drilled Shaft Design Method for Weak Rocks. Research Report No. FHWA-ICT-17-018,
Illinois Center for Transportation.
Stroud, M.A., 1974. The Standard Penetration Test in Insensitive Clays and Soft Rocks. Proceedings
of the 2nd European Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 2, pp. 367–375.
Stroud, M.A., 1989. The Standard Penetration Test – Its Application and Interpretation. Proceedings
of the Conference on Penetration Testing in the U.K., pp. 29–46.
Stroud, M.A. and Butler, F.G., 1975. The Standard Penetration Test and the Engineering Properties
of Glacial Materials. Proceedings of the Symposium on Engineering Behavior of Glacial
Materials, pp. 117–128.
Suzuki, Y., Goto, S., Hatanaka, M., and Tokimatsu, K., 1993. Correlation between Strengths and
Penetration Resistances in Gravelly Soils. Soils and Foundations, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 92–101.
Sy, A. and Campanella, R.G., 1993. Dynamic Performance of the Becker Hammer Drill and
Penetration Test. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 607–619.
Sy, A. and Campanella, R.G., 1994. Becker and Standard Penetration Tests (BPT-SPT) Correlations
with Consideration of Casing Friction. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 31, No. 3,
pp. 343–356.
Sykora, D.W. and Stokoe, K.H., 1983. Correlations of In Situ Measurements in Sands with Shear
Wave Velocity. Geotechnical Engineering Report GR83-33. University of Texas at Austin,
Austin, TX.
Sykora, D. and Koester, J., 1988. Correlations between Dynamic Shear Resistance and Standard
Penetration Resistance in Soils. Earthquake Engineering and Soil Mechanics II, ASCE,
pp. 389–404.
Takesue, K., Sasao, H., and Makihara, Y., 1996. Cone Penetration Testing in Volcanic Soil Deposits.
Advances in Site Investigation Practice, Institution of Civil Engineers, Thomas Telford,
London, England, pp. 452–463
Tavares, A.X., 1988. Bearing Capacity of Footings on Guabirotuba Clay Based on SPT N-Values.
Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 1, pp. 375–379.
 Standard Penetration Test 71

Terzagi, K. and Peck, R.B., 1948. Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice. John Wiley.
Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R., 1967. Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice. 2nd Edition. John Wiley &
Sons, New York, 729 pp.
Terzaghi, K., Peck, R.B., and Mezri, G., 1996. Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice. John Wiley
& Sons, New York.
Toh, C.t., Ting, W.H., and Ooi, T.A., 1987. Allowable Bearing Pressure of the Kenney Hill Formation.
Proceedings of the 9th Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conference, pp. 6/55–6/66.
Tokimatsu, K., 1988. Penetration Tests for Dynamic Problems. Proceedings of the International
Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 1, pp. 117–136.
Tokimatsu, K. and Yoshimi, Y., 1983. Empirical Correlation of Soil Liquefaction Based on SPT
N-Value and Fines Content. Soils and Foundations, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 56–74.
Toledo, R.D., 1986. Field Study of the Stiffness of a Gneissic Residual Soil Using Pressuremeter and
Instrumented Pile Load Test. MS Thesis, Civil Engineering Department, Pontifcal Catholic
University, Rio de Janeiro.
Towhata, I. and Ronteix, S., 1988. Probabilistic Prediction of Shear Wave Velocity from SPT
Blowcounts and Its Application to Seismic Microzonation. Proceedings of the Symposium on
Geotechnical Aspects of Restoration and Maintenance of Infra-Structures and Historical
Monuments, pp. 423–439.
Tsiambaos, G. and Sabtakakis, N., 2011. Empirical Estimation of Shear Wave Velocity from In Situ
Tests on Soil Formations in Greece. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment,
Vol. 70, pp. 291–297.
Tsuchiya, H. and Toyooka, Y. 1982. Comparison between N-Value and Pressuremeter Parameters.
Proceedings of the 2nd European Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 1, pp. 169–174.
Uma Maheswari, R., Boominathan, A., and Dodagoudar, G., 2010. Use of Surface Waves in Statistical
Correlations of Shear Wave Velocity and Penetration Resistance of Chennai Soils. Geotechnical
and Geological Engineering, Vol. 28, pp. 119–137.
Valiquette, M., Robinson, B., and Borden, R., 2010. Energy Effciency and Rod Length Effects in
SPT Hammers. Proceedings of the 89th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board,
Washington, DC.
Vallee, R.P. and Skryness, R.S., 1979. Sampling and In-Situ Density of a Saturated Gravel Deposit.
Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 136–142.
Van der Graaf, H.J. and Van den Heuvel, M.H.J.P., 1992. Determination of the Penetration Energy in
the Standard Penetration Test. Application of Stress-Wave Theory to Piles, pp. 253–257.
Veijayaratnam, M., Poh, K., and Tan, S., 1993. Seismic Velocities in Singapore Soils and Some
Geotechnical Applications. Proceedings of the 11th Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conference,
pp. 813–818.
Viana da Fonseca, A., Fernandes, M., and Cardoso, A., 1998. Characterization of a Saprolitic Soil
from Porto Granite Using In Situ Testing. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on
Site Characterization, Vol. 2, pp. 1381–1387.
Viswanath, M. and Mayne, P., 2013. Direct SPT Method for Footing Response in Sands Using a
Database Approach. Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Geotechnical and
Geophysical Site Characterization, Vol. 2, pp. 1131–1136.
Wada, A., 2003. Development Mechanism of Pile Skin Friction. Proceedings of the BGA International
Conference on Foundations, pp. 921–929.
Webb, D.L., 1969. Settlement of Structures on Deep Alluvial Sandy Sediments in Durban, South Africa.
Proceedings of the Conference on In Situ Investigations in Soils and Rocks, BGS, pp. 181–187.
White, F., Ingram, P., Nicholson, D., Stroud, M. and Betru, M., 2019. An update of the SPT-cu rela-
tionship proposed by M. Stroud in 1974. Proceedings of the 17th European Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 8 pp.
Whited, G.C. and Edil, T.B., 1986. Infuence of Borehole Stabilization Techniques on Standard
Penetration Test Results. Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM, Vol. 9, No. 5, pp. 180–188.
Wightman, A., Yan, L., and Diggle, D.A., 1993. Improvements to the Becker Penetration Test for
Estimate of SPT Resistance in Gravelly Soils. Proceedings of the 46th Canadian Geotechnical
Conference, pp. 379–388.
72 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Winter, E., Nordmark, T.S., and Burns, T., 1989. Skin Friction Load Tests for Caissons in Residual
Soils. Foundation Engineering: Current Principles and Practices, ASCE, Vol. 2, pp. 1070–1075.
Winter, C., Wagner, A., and Komurka, V., 2005. Investigation of Standard Penetration Torque Testing
(SPT-T) to Predict Pile Performance. Report No. 0092-04-09, Wisconsin Highway Research
Program.
Wrench, B.P. and Nowatzki, E.A., 1986. A Relationship between Deformation Modulus and SPT N
for Gravels. Use of In Situ Tests in Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, pp. 1163–1177.
Wroth, C.P., 1984. The Interpretation of In Situ Tests. Geotechnique, Vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 449–489.
Wroth, C.P., Randolph, M.F., Houslby, G. and Fahey, M., 1979. A Review of Engineering Properties
of Soils, with Particular Reference to the Shear Modulus. CUED/D Soils TR75, Cambridge
University Engineering Department.
Yagiz, S., Akyol, E., and Sen, G., 2008. Relationship between the Standard Penetration Test and the
Pressuremeter Test on Sandy Silty Clays: A Case Study from Denizli. Bulletin of Engineering
Geology and Environment, Vol. 67, pp. 405–410.
Yokel, F.Y., 1982. Energy Transfer in Standard Penetration Test. Journal of the Geotechnical
Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 108, No. GT9, pp. 1197–1202.
Yoshida, Y., Ikemi, M., and Kokusho, T., 1988. Empirical Formulas of SPT Blow-Counts for
Gravelly Soils. Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 1,
pp. 381–387.
Chapter 3

Dynamic Cone Penetration Test (DCP)

3.1 INTRODUCTION

As discussed in Chapter 2, the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) is typically performed

at depth intervals of about 1.5 m (5 ft). A rapid and inexpensive alternative for obtaining
more continuous data is to use a Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Test (DCP). These tests
are also often referred to as drive cones, dynamic probing, or dynamic sounding Tests.
Reviews of the DCP are given by Melzer & Smoltczyk (1982) and Stefanoff et al. (1988).
Broms & Flodin (1988) presented an historical review of the development of DCP tests
and reported that there are records tracing this type of test to Germany as early as 1699.
The use of DCPs in the U.S. was described at least as early as 1948 by Terzaghi & Peck
(1948).
DCPs may be performed using a drill rig, using essentially the same equipment used to
conduct the SPT; they may be performed using portable automatic rigs, or they may be per-
formed by hand using simple light weight equipment. In addition to their use in routine site
investigation work and for estimating individual soil properties, DCPs are often used for
shallow site work to evaluate footing subgrade characteristics, as a quality control tool for
backfll around buried pipes or compacted fll for shallow foundations or retaining walls,
to locate depth to shallow bedrock, and for a variety of other applications. Test results
have been presented in clays (e.g., Butcher et al 1995; Lawson et al. 2018), sands (e.g.,
Palmer & Stuart 1957; Mohan et al. 1970; Singh & Sharma 1973; Coyle & Bartoskewitz
1980; Muromachi & Kobayashi 1982), and residual soils (Chang & Wong 1986; Kelley &
Lutenegger 1999) as well as in gravelly materials (e.g., Rao et al. 1982; Hanna et al. 1986;
Talbot 2017).
The DCP may be used to supplement other in situ tests, or it may be used in situations
where site accessibility is very limited or mobilization costs for a drill rig or other equipment
may be very high. They may also be used for shallow investigations where the use of a drill
rig is not practical.

3.2 MECHANICS

DCPs are conducted by attaching a cone on the bottom of a set of drive rods and attach-
ing an anvil on the top of the rods. The drive rods are marked off in the specifed driving
intervals and then driven with a simple drop hammer system. The cone may be sacrifcial or
may be threaded or pinned onto the end of the rods. Figure 3.1 illustrates the principle of the
DCP and shows the different components of the test. All that is needed to perform the test

73
74 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Figure 3.1 Principle of Drive Cone Penetration Tests.

are a drop hammer, an anvil, a set of drive rods, and a conical tip. DCPs have some potential
advantages over other types of penetration tests:

1. They are simple to perform;

2. Most drilling companies have the necessary equipment to perform the test (e.g., SPT
hammer and drill rods) and can obtain a suitable cone tip;
3. They may be used in a wide range of soil types;
4. They provide more continuous test results than the SPT;
5. They are rapid and inexpensive;
6. They may be used to provide a good indication of relative differences in density or
stiffness of the soil being penetrated;
 Dynamic Cone Penetration Test 75

7. The tests do not require a large static reaction that is needed for the CPT/CPTU and
DMT;
8. They generally do not require a borehole; therefore, there are no cuttings to dispose of;
9. There are essentially no moving parts to the equipment; and
10. The test does not require power or any electronic components.

However, this type of test also has some limitations, which include the following:

1. All forms of the test are not currently standardized;

2. There can be problems with unknown and nonuniform energy input during the test;
3. No soil sample is obtained;
4. Rod friction may cause errors in the test results; and
5. Interpretation of results is almost entirely empirical.

Even with these limitations, DCPs may be used in many site investigations to supplement
test borings and other in situ tests. They provide a large amount of data quickly at very low
cost. Compared to a CPT/CPTU deployed off the back of a drill rig, DCPs are much faster
and easier to perform since no reaction is needed. Three or four DCP profles can easily be
conducted to a depth of 6.1 m (20 ft) in about an hour using a drill rig with an automatic
SPT hammer.
An early attempt to standardize the DCP was presented by ASTM D18 Subcommittee 2
(ASTM 1970) in which the use of a 57.2 mm (2.25 in.) diameter 60° cone with fush joint
rods having an outside diameter of 44.4 mm (1.75 in.) was recommended. The cone was to
be driven with a 63.5 kg (140 lbs) SPT hammer having a drop height of 76.2 cm (30 in.).
The number of blows for each 30.5 cm (12 in.) were to be recorded. There is no record that
this suggested method was ever adopted by ASTM as a standard; however, a light duty
DCP procedure is described in ASTM D6951. The DCP is also covered by the International
Organization for Standardization (ISO) under Dynamic Probing ISO 22476-2, which
describes four classes of DCP.

3.3 EQUIPMENT

The DCP is generally classifed according to the mass of the hammer as light, medium,
heavy, or super heavy, as indicated in Table 3.1. There are several variables that can be
altered for the different confgurations and categories of the DCPs including: (1) the hammer
mass, (2) the hammer drop height, (3) the cone diameter, (4) the cone apex angle, (5) the
drive rod diameter, and (6) the driving distance.
In a survey of about 50 countries taken in 1988 by Stefanoff et al. (1988), the overwhelm-
ing responses indicated that the most common types of drive cones in use were the light and
super heavy; the light probably because it is simple, inexpensive, and portable and the super

Table 3.1 Classifcation of DCP by Hammer Mass.

Classifcation Hammer mass (kg) Abbr.
Light ≤ 10 DPL
Medium >10<40 DPM
Heavy ≥40<60 DPH
Super heavy >60 DPSH
76 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

heavy probably because it uses the same driving equipment as the SPT. The results of the
survey presented by Stefanoff et al. (1988) clearly showed that there was extensive use of the
DCP throughout the world at the time, a trend which has likely continued.
Test equipment and procedures for different classes of DCP have been presented as part
of the International Reference Test Procedures. Table 3.2 gives a summary of the proposed
characteristics of the different categories of the DCP (Stefanoff et al.1988). Note that all of
the cones for these proposed international standards have an apex angle of 90°. In the past,
some countries have made use of the DIN 4094 specifcations developed in Germany for
DCP, given in Table 3.3.

Table 3.2 Proposed international DCP reference test specifcations

Reference test procedure
Factor DPL DPM DPH DPSH
Hammer mass, kg 10 ± 0.1 30 ± 0.3 50 ± 0.5 63.5 ± 0.5
Height of fall, m 0.5 ± 0.01 0. 5 ± 0.01 0.5 ± 0.01 0.75 ± 0.02
Mass of anvil and guide rod 6 18 18 30
Rebound (max), % 50 50 50 50
Length to diameter (D) ratio >1<2 >1<2 >1<2 >1<2
(hammer) 100 < d < 0.5D 100 < d < 0.5D 100 < d < 0.5D 100 < d < 0.5D
Diameter of anvil (d), mm
Rod length, m 1 ± 0.1% 1–2 ± 0.1% 1–2 ± 0.1% 1–2 ± 0.1%
Maximum mass of rod, kg/m 3 6 6 8
Rod deviation (max), frst 5 m, % 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Rod deviation (max), mm 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Below 5 m, % 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Rod eccentricity (max), mm 22 ± 0.2 32±0.3 32±0.3 32±0.3
Rod OD, mm 6 ± 0.2 9±0.2 9±0.2 9±0.2
Rod ID, mm
Apex angle, deg. 90 90 90 90
Nominal area of cone, cm2 10 10 15 20
Cone diameter, new, mm 35.7 ± 0.3 35.7 ± 0.3 43.7 ± 0.3 50.5 ± 0.5
Cone diam. (min), worn, mm 34 34 42 49
Mantle length of cone, mm 35.7 ± 1 35.7 ± 1 43.7 ± 1 50.5 ± 2
Cone taper angle, upper, deg. 11 11 11 11
Length of cone tip, mm 17.9±0.1 17.9 ± 0.1 21.9 ± 0.1 25.3 ± 0.4
Max wear of cone tip length, mm 3 3 4 5
Number of blows per x cm 10 cm; N10 10 cm; N10 10 cm; N10 20 cm; N20
penetration 3–50 3–50 3–50 5–100
Standard range of blows
Kinetic energy, kJ 0.050 0.150 0.250 0.4734
Energy per blow: (Mgh/A), kJ/m2 50 150 167 238

Table 3.3 Outline of DIN 4094 dynamic penetrometers

Class Name Hammer mass (kg) Drop height (cm) Cone diameter (mm) Cone area (cm2)
Light LR 5 10 50 25.2 5
LR 10 10 50 35.6 10
Medium MRSA 30 20 35.6 10
MRSB 30 50 35.6 10
Heavy SRS 10 50 50 35.6 10
SRS 15 50 50 43.7 15
 Dynamic Cone Penetration Test 77

3.4 TEST PROCEDURES

3.4.1 Light DCP

Light DCPs (DPL) have a hammer mass in the range of 4.5–10 kg (10–22 lbs) and are often
used for rapid, low-cost investigation of shallow soil conditions. In most cases, light DCPs
are performed by hand using portable equipment. This makes the test easy for a one or
two-person crew to conduct. In this confguration, however, the test is labor intensive and
is typically only applicable for depths of 3.0–6.0 m (10–20 ft) depending on site conditions.
A wide range of combinations of hammer mass, fall height, cone size, cone apex angle, and
drive distance have been used to conduct the DPL as given in Table 3.4.

3.4.1.1 Sowers Cone

Sowers & Hedges (1966) described the use of a light DCP for footing inspection and light
feld exploration. The test is shown in Figure 3.2 and is performed in conjunction with a
small diameter hand auger hole. A 38.1 mm (1.5 in.) diameter cone with an apex angle of
45° is driven with a hammer having a mass of 6.8 kg (15 lbs) and a drop height of 508 mm
(20 in.). Sowers & Hedges (1966) recommended that the cone point frst be seated (50.8 mm)
2 in. into the bottom of the borehole. The number of hammer blows required to then drive

Table 3.4 Summary of light DCP equipment

Hammer Drop Cone diameter Apex Drive distance
mass (kg) height (cm) (mm) angle (°) (mm) References
2.5 30.5 12/18 45 pen./blow DeGaridele-Thoron & Javor (1983)
4.5 45.7 15.9 - 25.4 Rostron et al. (1969)
4.5 30 29 20 300 Chan & Chin (1972)
Ooi & Ting (1975)
5 28 25 60 300 Ooi & Ting (1975)
5 50 25 60 100 Sugiyama et al. (1998)
5/10 33 20/50 60 50 Acar et al. (1991)
6.8 50.8 38.1 45 44.5 Sowers & Hedges (1966)
Robinson (1988)
Elton (1989)
8 57.5 20 60 pen./blow Kleyn et al. (1982)
Kleyn & Van Zyl (1988)
Chua (1988)
Ayers & Thompson (1989)
Chua & Lytton (1992)
Ford & Eliason (1993)
Ampadu & Arthur (2006)
8 57.5 20 90 pen./blow Livneh (1987a)
9 60 16 0 150 Fityus (1998)
9.1 50.8 10 30 25 Scala (1956)
Smith (1988)
10 50 35 60 N/A Singh & Sharma (1973)
10 50 36 90 100 Borowczyk & Frankowski (1981)
10 50 25.2 60 pen./blow DeHenau (1982)
10 50 35.7 90 100 Paunescu & Gruia (1982)
10 50 44.5 60 100 Author
78 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Figure 3.2 Sowers Cone.

the cone a further distance of 44.5 mm (1.75 in.) is recorded as NS. The current supplier of
the equipment actually recommends that the initial seating distance be 44.5 mm (1.75 in.).
This confguration of the DCP is often referred to as the “Sowers Cone Penetrometer” (e.g.,
Robinson 1988; Elton 1989) and appears to be used in the U.S. for footing inspection work
and other shallow investigations, especially in the southeastern part of the U.S. Sowers &
Hedges (1966) suggested some general correlations between NS and SPT N values for dif-
ferent soil types; however, there were no details on the SPT equipment used. Hajduk et al.
(2007) evaluated correlations between the Sowers Cone and CPT and DMT results for soils
in the Charleston, S.C. area. Figure 3.3 shows some typical results obtained by the author
at two sites using the Sowers Cone.

3.4.1.2 ASTM Light “Pavement” DCP

Kleyn et al. (1982) described a light DCP for subgrade investigations in South Africa. As
shown in Figure 3.4, the penetrometer consists of a sliding hammer with a mass of 8 kg
(17.6 lbs) with a drop height of 575 mm (22.6 in.). The cone has a diameter of 20 mm (0.8 in.)
and an apex angle of 60°. Rods with a diameter of 16 mm (0.625 in.) are used. The device
is essentially the same as the US Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station
(WES) Light DCP. In this arrangement, the rods are marked off so that the penetration dis-
tance achieved with each hammer drop (mm/blow) can be recorded. This confguration of
the test has been used extensively for very shallow work and appears to be gaining popular-
ity for pavement design.
 Dynamic Cone Penetration Test 79

0 0
1 1 S. Deerfield, Ma.
(Silty Sand)
2 Hadley, Ma.
(Stiff Clay) 2
3 3
4 4
5
Depth (ft.)

Depth (ft.)
6 6
7 7
8 8
9 9
10 10
11 11
12 12
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Sowers Cone NS Sowers Cone NS

Figure 3.3 Typical results from Sowers Cone.

Figure 3.4 ASTM Light DCP.

80 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

This confguration of light DCP is available commercially and was adopted by ASTM,
which developed a standard test method for a Light DCP (ASTM D6951 Standard Test
Method for Use of the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer in Shallow Pavement Applications),
which also allows for a lighter 4.6 kg (10.1 lbs) hammer if the penetration achieved using the
8 kg (17.6 lbs) hammer is too large.

3.4.1.3 Mackintosh & JKR Probe

According to Nixon (1989), one of the earliest forms of a light DCP was developed by F.H.
Mackintosh in 1922 for “shallow testing” by “detecting changes in the hardness of strata
from the speed of driving”. The “Mackintosh Probe” consists of a 27.4 mm (1.1 in.) diameter
probe with an apex angle of 30° connected to 12.7 mm (0.5 in.) diameter rods as shown in
Figure 3.5. Some diagrams of the probe (e.g., Fakher & Khodaparasat 2004) actually show
the probe as “torpedo”-shaped rather than cylindrical. The probe is driven at the bottom of
a borehole using a 4.5 kg (10 lbs) hammer with a drop height of 0.30 m (1 ft).
Some authors defne the results obtained from the Mackintosh Probe as the number of
blows (M) for 100 mm (4 in.) penetration (e.g., Fakher et al. 2006), while others have defned
M as the number of blows for 30 cm (1 ft) penetration (e.g., Fatt & Kee 1972; Chan & Chin
1972; Kong 1983; Hossain & Ali 1990). The Mackintosh Probe has been used extensively
in Southeast Asia and parts of the Middle East for relatively shallow (< 8 m (26 ft)) investiga-
tions (e.g., Chan & Chin 1972; Fatt & Kee 1972; Ooi & Ting 1975; Kong 1983). Several
correlations between Mackintosh Probe results and SPT results have been presented (e.g.,
Chan & Chin 1972; Fatt & Kee 1972; Sabtan & Sherbata 1994; Fakher et al. 2006) and
suggest that the value of M (blows/ft) is nearly the same as N from the SPT.

Figure 3.5 Schematic of Mackintosh Probe. (From Sabtan & Sherbata 1994.)
 Dynamic Cone Penetration Test 81

Ooi & Ting (1975) described the use of a Light DCP used in Malaysia similar to the
Mackintosh Probe for evaluating the allowable bearing capacity of spread footings. The
“JKR” probe consists of a 60 0 cone with a diameter of 25 mm (1 in.) connected to drive rods
of 12 mm (0.5 in.) diameter. The cone is driven with a 5 kg (11 lbs) hammer using a drop
height of 280 mm (11 in.). The number of hammer blows required for a penetration distance
of 0.30 m (1 ft) is recorded.

3.4.1.4 Lutenegger Drive Cone

For several years, the author has used a light DCP that is a variation of the DPL given in
Table 3.2. As shown in Figure 3.6, the test uses a 10 kg (22 lbs) hammer with a drop height
of 500 mm (19.7 in.). Standard EW drill rods (34.9 mm (1.37 in.) diameter) are used, and a
60° cone tip with a diameter of 44.5 mm (1.75 in.) giving an area of 15.5 cm 2 is used. This
gives a cone/rod diameter ratio of 1.28. EW rods in lengths of 0.9 m (3 ft) are readily avail-
able and are easy to transport and handle. The system is meant for continuous driving and
uses either disposable cones that ft into the end of the rods or cones that are pinned in the
lead rod to allow retrieval and reuse. The number of hammer blows for a penetration of
10 cm (4 in.) are recorded. Tests have typically been used for shallow site characterization,
footing inspection and evaluation of backfll compaction. The larger diameter cone gives
more sensitivity than the small diameter cone and rods used in the ASTM D6951. Figure 3.7
shows typical results obtained at four sites.

3.4.2 Medium DCP

The medium DCP (DPM) has a hammer mass that is too large to be comfortably operated
by hand for effcient use but too small for use with a drill rig and a conventional SPT ham-
mer. Several confgurations of this test have been reported as summarized in Table 3.5.
Figure 3.8 shows a schematic of a portable DCP rig mounted on a trailer.

Figure 3.6 LDCP used by the author.

82 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

0
8 DOE
AF-GT
16 Frank Tech
Taylor
24
32
40
Depth (in.) 48
56
64
72
80
88
96
104
112
120
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Incremental Blowcounts (blows/4 in.)

Figure 3.7 Typical results obtained at four sites using LDCP.

Table 3.5 Summary of Different Medium DCP Equipment.

Hammer Drop Cone diameter Apex Drive distance
mass (kg) height (cm) (mm) angle (°) (mm) References
15.5 61 33.3 60 102 Lacroix & Horn (1973)
30 25 35.7 30 200 Schmid (1975)
30 20 35.7 60 100 Triggs & Liang (1988)

Triggs & Liang (1988) presented results using a small commercially available penetration
rig with a 30 kg (66 lbs) hammer that can be transported in components and assembled at a
site by a two-person crew. The equipment is manufactured in Italy and can be used for both
static and dynamic penetration. In the dynamic mode, the hammer is operated by a small
gasoline engine and an automatic lift/drop mechanism. The cone may be either fxed to the
rods or may be expendable.
In the UK, a medium DCP (DPM15) with a cone diameter of 43.7 mm (1.72 in.) (giving a
cone area of 15 cm 2) is sometimes used (Butcher et al. 1995). Because of the larger area of
the cone, the DPM15 has a specifc work per blow twice that of the DPL.

3.4.3 Heavy DCP

A heavy DCP (DPH) with a hammer mass of 50 kg (110 lbs) was described by Card & Roche
(1989) and Scarff (1989). The equipment was developed in the UK and is mounted on a
small self-contained trailer pulled by a vehicle to the site. Table 3.6 gives a summary of some
different heavy DCP equipment used.
In most cases, the hammer is raised by a chain drive mechanism operated by a small gaso-
line engine and released automatically to give a drop height of 50 cm (19.7 in.) with a driving
rate typically between 25 and 30 blows/min. This is similar in design to the mechanism used
with some automatic SPT hammers. The rods are guided between rollers at the base of the
 Dynamic Cone Penetration Test 83

Figure 3.8 Trailer-mounted automatic medium DCP.

Table 3.6 Summary of heavy DCP equipment

Hammer Drop Cone diameter Apex Drive distance
mass (kg) height (cm) (mm) angle (°) (mm) References
50 50 43.7 60 200 Teferra (1983)
Kayalar (1988)
50 50 43.7 90 100 Paunescu & Gruia (1982)
Card & Roche (1989)
Scarff (1989)
Tonks & Whyte (1989)
Butcher et al. (1995)
50 50 43.7 90 200 Kayalar (1988)

mast and at the drive head to resist bending. This equipment also conforms to the German
Standard DIN 4094 Part I (Card & Roche 1989) and has been used in Eastern Europe (e.g.,
Paunescu & Gruia 1982).

3.4.4 Super Heavy DCP

For routine site investigation work in which a drill rig will be on site, the use of the super
heavy DCP (DPSH) appears to be the most practical and useful confguration of the test.
The most common technique for conducting super heavy DCPs is to use the 63.5 kg (140 lbs)
84 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Table 3.7 Reported use of hammers larger than 63.5 kg (140 lbs) to conduct super heavy DCPs
Hammer Drop Cone diameter Apex Drive distance
mass (kg) height (cm) (mm) angle (°) (mm) References
75.6 61 76.2 60 305 Coyle & Bartoskewitz (1980)
155 30 70 60 300 Chan & Chin (1972)
159 60 63.5 60 150 Rodin (1961)
Ergun (1982)
470 100 92 30 N/A Hanna et al. (1986)
120 100 74 60 100 Talbot (2017)

SPT hammer although other hammer masses have also been used. AW rods are used for
driving, and normally a cone with a 60° apex and a diameter of 63.5 mm (2.5 in) is used,
although in some cases, a 76.2 mm cone (3.0 in.) may also be used. The number of hammer
blows to advance the cone 150 mm (6 in.) is typically recorded, and the results are reported
as NC blows/30 cm (1 ft).
Borros produces a small portable rig that provides equipment in the “SPT” confguration,
i.e., 63.5 kg (140 lbs) hammer, 76 cm (30 in.) drop height, for driving a 50.5 mm (2 in.) diam-
eter cone with an apex angle of 90°. The driving is automatic, being operated by a small
gasoline engine, and is conducted at a rate of about 20 blows/min. The number of blows
required to drive the cone a distance of 10 cm (3.9 in.) is recorded.
In some cases, it may be desirable to use a hammer with a mass larger than 63.5 kg
(140  lbs), especially in very dense or gravelly materials. For example, Hanna et al. (1986)
used a 470 kg (1034 lbs) hammer with a 92 mm (3.6 in.) diameter cone to evaluate ground
improvement in sands and sandy gravel. Table 3.7 presents a summary of reported use of
some heavy hammers for conducting super heavy DCPs.

3.5 TEXAS CONE PENETROMETER

According to Lawson et al. (2018), the Texas Cone Penetrometer (TCP) was used as early as
1949 by the Texas Highway Department. The test uses a 75.6 kg (170 lbs) hammer falling
61 cm (24 in.) to drive a 76 mm (3 in.) diameter cone with a 60° apex angle a distance of 30 cm
(12 in.). The test is typically performed in the bottom of a nominal 100 mm (4 in.) borehole.
The test appears to be more or less routinely used by the Texas Highway Department for site
investigations and has been used to correlate to undrained shear strength in clays (Hamoudi
et al. 1974; Gudavalli et al. 2008) and shear strength in sands (Coyle & Bartoskewitz 1980).
Results from the test were traditionally presented as the number of hammer drops to
drive the cone 30 cm (12 in.) (Touma & Reese 1972); however, in very strong materials, an
alternative is to use the penetration (mm) for 100 hammer drops. More recent use of the
TCP has been described by Gudavalli et al. (2008) and Nam & Vipulanandan (2010). The
test has been used for estimating compressive strength of clay shale (Cavusoglu et al. 2004)
and undrained shear strength of low plasticity clay (Vipulanandan et al. 2008). Early cor-
relation between TCP and SPT showed that SPT N = 0.5 TCP (Coyle & Bartoskewitz 1980).
Updated correlations between the TCP and SPT have recently been presented by Lawson
et al. (2018) for different soils. Maghaddam et al. (2017) have recently presented measure-
ments of hammer effciency and correction factors for interpreting TCP data.
 Dynamic Cone Penetration Test 85

3.6 SWEDISH RAM SOUNDING TEST

In the Scandinavian countries, the Swedish Ram Sounding Test (SRS) is often used (e.g.
Dahlberg & Bergdahl 1974). This test consists of an automatic apparatus with a 63.5 kg
(140 lbs) hammer with a drop height of 50 cm (19.7 in.) and uses a 45 mm (1.8 in.) diameter
cone with a 90° apex angle. The cone has a mantle with a length of 90 mm (3.5 in.) with the
same diameter as the cone. The number of hammer blows to drive the cone a distance of
20 cm (7.9 in.) is designated as N20. As a part of the apparatus, a torque wrench is provided
so that some evaluation of rod friction can be obtained at intervals during probing. This is
often done after each 1 m rod section is attached.
Broms & Flodin (1988) indicate that the ram sounding test can actually have other con-
fgurations depending on the diameter of the cone and rods. In the DPA, a 62 mm (2.4 in.)
diameter cone is used with 40–45 mm (1.6–1.8 in.) rods, while in the DPB, the cone diam-
eter is 51 mm (2.0 in.), and 32 mm (1.3 in.) diameter rods are used. In both cases, the same
hammer mass and drop height as the SRS are used, and the number of blows to drive the
cone a distance of 20 cm is recorded as N20, as previously described.

3.7 FACTORS AFFECTING TEST RESULTS

Many of the factors that can affect the results of the DCP are similar to those that can affect
SPT results. This is especially true for super heavy DCPs that use SPT equipment to perform
the test. While it is true that different hammer masses, drop heights, cone diameter, and
drive distances can be used, in some respects, the DCP may be considered to be less variable
than the SPT and subject to fewer errors, especially associated with issues such as borehole
diameter, use of drilling fuid, spoon geometry, etc. The principal variables of concern for
the DCP are as follows:

1. Hammer mass,
2. Hammer drop height,
3. Cone diameter,
4. Cone apex angle, and
5. Drive distance.

Like the SPT, an important factor infuencing DCP results using the SPT equipment is the
energy of the system. Since different hammers and drop systems produce different test
results, the author recommends that, like the SPT, all super heavy DCPs be performed using
a calibrated automatic SPT hammer, and results standardized to an energy level of 60% in
order to provide a reference level of comparison.
Since side resistance along the rods will affect the test results and is one of the major
concerns about this test, some attempts should be made to reduce skin friction. This may
be accomplished using a variety of techniques; however, the simplest approach is to use
driving rods smaller in diameter than the cone. Experience suggests that if the cone/rod
diameter ratio is on the order of about 1.3, there will be little or no signifcant effect
of rod friction on the measured values of penetration resistance in most granular soils.
A practical upper limit of this ratio of about 1.5 is suggested so that the rod diameter
will be compatible with the driving energy and reduce the potential for bending during
the test.
86 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

3.8 PRESENTATION OF TESTS RESULTS

Results from DCPs are typically presented in one of the following ways:

1. Incremental number of blows for a given driving distance;

2. Cumulative number of blows for the entire depth;
3. Penetration distance achieved with each drop of the hammer; or
4. Dynamic penetration resistance, rd or qd, calculated from different driving formulae.

3.8.1 Incremental Penetration Resistance

Results of DCPs are often simply presented as a plot of incremental penetration resistance
versus depth, as previously shown in Figure 3.7. The penetration resistance is defned over a
specifc penetration interval, typically 10–20 cm (4–12 in.). An example using results from a
super heavy DCP profle conducted at a medium dense fne sand site is shown in Figure 3.9.
These results clearly show changes in driving penetration resistance at several depths, indi-
cating some changes in stratigraphy.
In this case, a 63.5 mm (2.5 in.) diameter 60° cone was used with AW rods in lengths of
1.5 m (5 ft.) and an automatic SPT hammer to perform the tests. Since the tests were per-
formed above the water table, there is little possibility of the sand collapsing back around
the drive rods, and therefore, almost no side resistance builds up on the rods. As a check in
the feld, the engineer checked the rod friction by simply rotating the rods by hand after each
section of rod was driven. Additionally, the penetration record indicates lower blow counts
after penetrating through a stiff layer where blow counts were high, again indicating little
buildup of rod friction.

5 DCP-2 Windsor, Vt.

10

15

20
Depth (ft.)

25

30

35

40

45

50

55
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Incremental Blowcounts (blows/6 in.)

Figure 3.9 Incremental driving resistance from super heavy DCP (blows/6 in.).
 Dynamic Cone Penetration Test 87

5 DCP-2 Windsor, Vt.

10

15

20
Depth (ft.)

25

30

35

40

45

50

55
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Cumulative Blowcounts

Figure 3.10 Cumulative penetration resistance.

3.8.2 Cumulative Penetration Resistance

DCP results can also be presented as cumulative penetration resistance or total driving
record as a function of depth. This is done by numerically adding the results for each con-
secutive driving interval. The incremental results from Figure 3.9 are shown as cumulative
driving resistance in Figure 3.10 as an example. These results are typically interpreted by
identifying changes in the slope of the penetration record. Figure 3.10 indicates changes at
depths of about 15, 23, and 41 ft. In this case, the changes may indicate differences in grain-
size distribution, relative density, or a different stratigraphic unit.

3.8.3 Penetration Distance per Hammer Blow

It may be useful to record the actual penetration distance achieved with each drop of the
hammer. This requires a measurement of the advance of the drive rods after each hammer
blow. This is usually done by measuring the distance between a mark on the rods and some
stationary reference point, usually the top of the ground or casing or using an electronic
system. The record of penetration distance per hammer blow may give a more refned look
at changes in penetration resistance that might be missed using the incremental penetration
resistance, which tends to “average” out the resistance over the interval.
A slight modifcation to this procedure is to choose a specifc number of hammer blows,
say ten, and measure the resulting penetration produced. The average penetration per blow
over the measured interval is obtained by dividing the distance by the number of blows.
Data from the penetration record may be used to calculate the incremental and cumulative
resistance by simply counting the number of hammer blows that were required to produce
the set driving increment.
88 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

3.8.4 Dynamic Penetration Resistance

Bolomey (1974) suggested that it may be useful to express the penetration resistance in terms
of the resistance values, rd or qd, using different pile driving formulae. The unit dynamic
driving resistance is obtained as

rd = (MgH)/(Ae) (3.1)

or

qd = [(MgH)/(Ae)][ M/(M + M˙)] = rd [ M/(M + M˙)] (3.2)

where:
rd and qd = dynamic penetration resistance (Pa)
M = mass of the hammer (kg)
M′ = total mass of the rods, anvil, etc. (kg)
H = hammer drop height (m)
A = cross sectional area of the cone point (m 2)
e = average penetration distance (m/drop) = D/N
N = number of blows/10 cm
D = drive interval (mm)
g = acceleration of gravity (9.81 m/s2)

Dynamic penetration resistance is particularly useful when comparing DCP results obtained
from different equipment, such as of different size cones, hammer mass, or height at the
same site.

3.9 INTERPRETATION OF TEST RESULTS

The interpretation and use of DCPs may be highly varied depending on the application, the
soil, the need, and the experience of the engineer. For example, Stefanoff et al. (1988) found
that the predominant use of DCPs was qualitative, i.e., to distinguish between different soil
layers. However, DCPs have also been used to interpret individual soil properties in both
coarse-grained and fne-grained soils and for the design of deep and shallow foundations.
Because of the wide variation in equipment and defnition of NC obtained from any par-
ticular set of equipment, caution should be used when applying any empirical correlations.

3.9.1 Correlations to SPT

In the past, a common method of using DCP results has been to correlate the test results
to the SPT (e.g., Palmer & Stuart 1957; Rodin 1961; Mohan et al.1970; Solymar 1984;
Robinson 1988; Cearns & McKenzie 1989; Elton 1989; Butcher et al. 1995). In this way,
correlations or design methods available for the SPT could be applied. This is one approach
that may have some merit, especially if the DCP is being used to supplement SPT data in an
investigation.
In some cases, considerable scatter can exist in these correlations and may be related to
variations in both the SPT and DCP equipment and test procedures. Results from the DCP
generally relate to end resistance to driving, while results from the SPT relate to both end
and side resistance along the spoon. As previously discussed in Chapter 2, the distribution
 Dynamic Cone Penetration Test 89

of end and side resistance in the SPT depends on soil type. Therefore, it should not be too
surprising that correlations between the DCP and SPT may be highly variable and probably
should be based on local correlations to specifc geologic deposits.
It is possible to replace the driving shoe of the SPT split spoon with a 60° solid point of
the same diameter as the spoon barrel (i.e., 50.8 mm (2 in.)) and then use the spoon as a drive
probe. Results presented by Palmer & Stuart (1957), Palmer (1957), and Gawad (1976) in
granular soil materials indicated that in this case, the blow counts are essentially the same,
i.e., NSPT = NC . In each of these cases, however, it should be noted that the split spoon used
did not have any internal relief. This suggests that either the spoon plugged during most of
the tests or that the combined internal and external wall friction along the spoon compen-
sated for the increased end area using the conical tip.
Table 3.8 gives a summary of some reported correlations between super heavy DCP and
SPT. Results often show considerable scatter, most likely because of variability in both tests
and natural variability between adjacent boreholes. However, it has generally been shown
that when a casing, sleeve, drilling fuid, or suffcient cone/rod diameter ratio has been used
to eliminate the rod friction, NC = NSPT (e.g., Gadsby 1971; Mohan et al. 1971; Meardi 1971;
Goel 1982) with a range of NC /NSPT from about 0.5 to 2.
Results from light and medium DCPs have also been used to correlate to SPT N values
(e.g., Fatt & Kee 1972; Sabtan & Sherbata 1994; Fakher et al. 2006; Opuni et al 2017).
Lacroix & Horn (1973) had suggested that it would be possible to estimate the SPT N value
from any penetrometer with either an open end or solid conical tip accounting for not just
differences in geometry but also dive energy and drive distance as follows:

N = N1 ( 2 in. D1 ) (12 in. L1 ) ( w1 140 lb ) ( H1 30 in.) = ( 2N1W1H1 ) 175D21L1

2
( ) (3.3)

Table 3.8 Reported correlations between DPSH and SPT

Cone diameter Cone apex Hammer Drop Drive Correlation
(mm) angle (°) Mass (kg) Height (cm) Distance (cm) NC/NSPT References
50.8 60 63.5 76.2 30 2 Meyerhof (1956)
50.8 60 63.5 76.2 30 1 Palmer & Stuart (1957)
50.8 60 63.5 76.2 30 1 Rodin (1961)
63.5 60 63.5 76.2 30 1.5–4 Mohan et al. (1970)
63.5 60 63.5 76.2 30 1
57.1 60 63.5 76.2 30 1.5 (sleeved) Gadsby (1971)
35.6 60 63.5 76.2 30 0.9 Gawad (1976)
51.0 60 63.5 76.2 30 0.6
76.0 60 63.5 76.2 30 0.5
51 60 63.5 76.2 30 1.6 Goel (1982)
63 60 63.5 76.2 30 0.8–3.5
50.8 60 63.5 75 10 1.15 Muromachi &
45 90 63.5 50 20 1 Kobayashi (1982)
62.5 60 63.5 76.2 30 1.6 Rao et al. (1982)
45 90 63.5 50 20 0.5–0.67 Chang & Wong (1986)
45 90 63.5 50 20 0.66 (sandy) McGrath et al. (1989)
0.5 (gravelly)
51 90 63.5 76 20 0.83–1.1 Cabrera & Carcole
(2007)
51 90 63.5 76 30 0.6–2 Macrobert (2017)
90 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

where
N = SPT blow counts
N1 = measured blow counts from another penetrometer
D1 = outside diameter of the nonstandard spoon or conical point (in.)
L1 = depth of penetration (in.)
W1 = weight of hammer (lbs)
H1 = height of hammer drop (in.)

In all cases where the DPC blow count value is converted to SPT N values via some correla-
tion, the resulting N values should be stated as “equivalent” or “comparable” N values so
that there is no confusion as to how they were obtained.

3.9.2 Correlations to CPT

DCP results have also been correlated to CPT tip resistance. For example, Swann (1982)
presented a correlation between light DCPs (DIN 4094) and static cone resistance values as

qc = 0.5 NC (3.4)

where
qc = static cone tip resistance (MN/m 2)
N10 = penetration resistance/10 cm

A comparison between DCP results (converted to static resistance using an energy balance
equation) and CPT results was presented by Triggs & Liang (1988) using the medium DCP
described in Section 3.4.2. They found that for a wide range of soils, results from the two
tests were very similar.
Butcher et al. (1995) showed that the dynamic penetration resistance, qd, can be related to
the static cone penetration resistance in both soft and stiff clays. This is probably the most
desirable approach to correlating DCP results to other in situ tests, since any confguration
of the test should give the same value of qd.

3.9.3 Direct Correlations to Soil Properties

In addition to the use of DCPs as a qualitative indication of changes in stratigraphy, the
test results may also be used to provide estimates of individual soil properties. As with the
SPT, caution should be used since most of the reported correlations are empirical and may
be site-specifc.

3.9.3.1 Relative Density of Sands

A number of correlations have been reported for estimating relative density of coarse-
grained soils from results of different DCPs as summarized in Table 3.9.

3.9.3.2 Undrained Shear Strength of Clays

Tonks & Whyte (1989) showed a correlation between SRS 15 and undrained shear strength
at three different sites as

su (kPa) = ( K1 ) ( N10 ) (3.5)

 Dynamic Cone Penetration Test  91

Table 3.9  Summary of correlations between relative density and DCP

Equation Class of DCP References
Dr = 0.429 log N10 + 0.071 DPL Borowczyk & Frankowski (1981)
Dr = 0.441 log N20 + 0.196 DPSH
(Dr in decimal)
log Dr = 0.554 log N10 + 0.980 DPL Paunescu & Gruia (1982)
Dr = 189.9/(DPI)0.53 DPL Mohammadi et al. (2008)
(DPI in mm/drop)
Dr = 0.71 log N′C − 0.035 DPSH Hanna et al. (1986)
(Dr in %)
(N′C = blow count corrected for overburden using
CPT correction factors of Seed & Idriss 1981)
Dr = 0.385 log N20 − 0.385 log σvo − 0.145 DPH Teferra (1983)
(above limiting depth)
Dr = 0.270 log N′20 + 0.340
(below limiting depth)
(Dr in decimal)
(σvo in kg/cm2)
(N′20 = N20 at limiting depth)
DR(%) = –52log(DPI X D50)0.3 + 150 DPL MacRobert et al. (2019)

Values of K1 ranged from about 5 to 9, typically averaging about 7. A comparison between

the results of light DCPs and the undrained shear strength of silty clays was also reported
by Waschkowski (1982); unfortunately, no details on the DCP equipment were given.
Several correlations have also been suggested to estimate undrained shear strength from
Mackintosh Probe results (Hossain & Ali 1990; Fakher et al. 2006; Khodaparasat 2010;
Khodaparasat et al. 2015). McGrath et al. (1989) suggested a correlation between the results
of the Swedish ram sounding tests and undrained shear strength of clays.
Butcher et al. (1995) suggested a general correlation between results from the DCP and
undrained shear strength of clays and found that the undrained shear strength could be cor-
related directly to driving resistance qd as

su (kPa) = ( qd 22) (for stiff clays) (3.6a)

su (kPa) = ( qd 170) + 20 (for soft clays) (3.6b)

Alshkan et al. (2020) suggested a correlation between the unconfined compressive

strength(qu) of fine-grained soils in Iraq using a ght DCP (8 kg drop weight, 575 mm drop
height, 20 mm cone tip) as:

qu (kPa) = 1033.6(DPI) –0.968 (3.7)

with DPI in mm/blow

3.9.3.3 California Bearing Ratio

A common use of light DCPs has been in the area of subgrade support characteristics.
Because only shallow tests are needed, the equipment is particularly suitable. Results of
DCPs have been used extensively for estimating CBR values for pavements and subgrades
(e.g., Scala 1956; Kleyn et al. 1982; Smith & Pratt 1983; DeGaridele-Thoron & Javor 1983;
92 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Table 3.10 Different DCPs Used for Evaluating CBR.

Hammer Drop Cone apex Cone diameter
mass (kg) height (cm) angle (°) (mm) References
2.5 30.5 45 12 & 18 DeGaridele-Thoron & Javor (1983)
8 57.5 90 20 Livneh (1987b)
8 57.5 60 20 Kleyn (1975)
Harrison (1987)
Chua (1988)
Ayers & Thompson (1989)
Webster et al. (1992)
Karunaprema & Edirisinghe (2002)
Abu-Farsakh et al. (2005)
Misra et al. (2006)
8 57.5 30 20 Kleyn (1975)
Livneh & Ishai (1988)
9.1 50.8 30 20.2 Scala (1956)
Smith (1983)
63 50 90 45 McGrath et al. (1989)

Harrison 1987; Livneh 1987b; Kleyn & Van Zyl 1988; McGrath et al. 1989). A comparison
of different light DCPs used for evaluating the CBR of subgrades is given in Table 3.10.
Correlations between CBR and DCP naturally depend on the DCP used. Several correla-
tions have been suggested between DCP results and CBR, especially for pavement design, as
given in Table 3.11. All of these correlations have the general form

log CBR = a + b log (DCP)c (3.8)

where
DCP = ratio between the penetration and the number of blows (mm/blow)

3.9.3.4 Resilient Modulus

Several correlations have been suggested for estimating the resilient modulus (M R) of sub-
grades for pavement design from results obtained using light duty DCP equipment. Some
reported correlations are given in Table 3.12.

3.9.3.5 Compaction Control

DCPs may also be useful as a quality control tool for evaluating the effects of compaction or
ground improvement (e.g. Acar et al. 1991; Gabr et al. 2001) For example, Acar et al. (1991)
showed that the relative density or relative compaction of granular flls could be evaluated

Table 3.11 Reported correlations between light DCP results and CBR
Correlation References
log CBR = 2.55 − 1.14 log (DCP) Smith (1983)
log CBR = 2.81 − 1.32 (log DCP) Harrison (1987)
log CBR = 2.20 − 0.71 (log DCP)1.5 Livneh & Ishai (1988)
log CBR = 2.46 − 1.12 (log DCP) Webster et al. (1992)
log CBR= 1.97 − 0.67 (log DCP) Karunaprema & Edirisinghe (2002)
 Dynamic Cone Penetration Test 93

Table 3.12 Reported correlations between light DCP results and resilient modulus
Correlation Units References
MR (MPa) = 235 (DCPI) −0.48 mm/blow George & Uddin (2000)
MR (MPa) = 532 (DCPI)−0.492 mm/blow Rahim & George (2004)
(for fne-grained soils)
MR (MPa) = 285 (DCPI)−0.475 mm/blow Rahim & George (2004)
(for coarse-grained soils)
MR (MPa) = 338 (PR)−0.39 mm/blow Abu-Farsakh et al. (2005)
MR (MPa) = 16.25 + 928.2/DCPI mm/blow Herath et al. (2005)
MR (MPa) = 152/(DCPI)1.096 mm/blow Mohammadi et al. (2008)

using a light DCP. Details of the DCP used are given in Table 3.4. The number of blows
for 50 mm drive distance was directly proportional to the relative density. Tests performed
before and after ground improvement work can be used to indicate the depth and relative
degree of improvement and the uniformity of the work.

3.10 SUMMARY OF DCP

DCPs are a simple test for performing site investigations or to supplement other in situ
tests or test borings. Table 3.13 presents a summary of reported application of DCP results.

Table 3.13 Summary of reported applications of DCP results

Application Class of DCP References
Stratigraphy DPL author
DPSH Kelley & Lutenegger (1999)
Liquefaction potential DPSH Ashfeld et al. (2013)
Talbot (2017)
Compaction control DPL Lacroix & Horn (1973)
Hanna et al. (1986)
Acar et al. (1991)
Ford & Eliason (1993)
Gabr et al. (2001)
Karunaprema & Edirisinghe (2002)
Ampadu & Arthur (2006)
Mousavi et al. (2018)
DPM Schmid (1975)
DPH Schmid (1975)
Footing inspection DPL Sowers & Hedges (1966)
Design of shallow foundations DPL Ooi & Ting (1975)
Swann (1982)
Formazin & Hausner (1985)
Ampadu (2005)
DPH Kayalar (1988)
Bohdan & Tomasz (2001)
DPSH Khanna et al. (1953)
Design of deep foundations DPL Engel et al. (1994)
Nilsson & Cunha (2004)
Silva & Miguel (2008)
DPM Van Leijden et al. (1982)
94 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

The author recommends that engineers give consideration to the use of both light DCPs and
super heavy DCPs performed in the following manner:

1. For super heavy DCPs, use a 63.5 kg (140 lbs) automatic hammer, a drop height of
76 cm (30 in.), AW drill rods, a 63.5 mm (2.50 in.) diameter cone ((area = 31.7 cm 2) with
an apex angle of 60°, and a drive interval of 15 cm (6 in.).

0 0
2 2
4 Plattsburgh, N.Y. 4 Windsor, VT.
6 6
8 8
10 10
12 12
14 14
16 16
Depth (ft.)

18 Depth (ft.) 18
20 20
22 22
24 24
26 26
28 28
30 30
32 32
34 34
36 36
38 38
40 40
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
DCP N (blows/6 in.) DCP N (blows/6 in.)

0 0
2 2
4 S. Deerfield, Ma. 4 Omaha, Ne.
6 6
8 8
10 10
12 12
14 14
16 16
Depth (ft.)
Depth (ft.)

18 18
20 20
22 22
24 24
26 26
28 28
30 30
32 32
34 34
36 36
38 38
40 40
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
DCP N (blows/6 in.) DCP N (blows/6 in.)

Figure 3.11 Super heavy DCP results obtained at four sites.

 Dynamic Cone Penetration Test 95

0
DCP-1
DCP-2
5
DCP-3
DCP-4
DCP-5
10
DCP-6
DCP-7
15

20
Depth (ft.)

25

30

35

40

45

50

55
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
DCP N (blows/6 in.)

Figure 3.12 Variability of results from seven super heavy DCP profles at a site.

2. For light DCPs, select a suitable hammer mass and drop height, and a suitable cone
diameter and drive interval to match expected soil conditions. Use a cone with an apex
angle of 60°;
3. Test results should be presented graphically as incremental and cumulative penetration
resistance versus depth and as dynamic penetration resistance, rd or qd, versus depth.

Figure 3.11 shows the results of super heavy DCPs obtained by the author at four sites. Each
profle was completed in about 25 min. To illustrate the reproducibility of results, the results
from seven super heavy DCP profles performed at a site in a medium dense sand by one
operator using an automatic hammer and AW rods are shown in Figure 3.12. The variation
in test results can essentially be attributed to natural soil variability.

REFERENCES

Abu-Farsakh, M.Y., Nazzal, M.D., Alshibli, K., and Seyman, E., 2005. Application of Dynamic
Penetrometer in Pavement Construction Control. Transportation Research Record No. 1913,
pp. 53–61.
Acar, Y.B., Puppala, A.J., and Seals, R.K., 1991. Calibration of a Dynamic Penetrometer for
Compaction Quality Control of Boiler Slag. Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM, Vol. 14,
No. 1, pp. 56–63.
Ampadu, S., 2005. A Correlation Between the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer and Bearing Capacity of
a Local Soil Formation. Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Soil Mechanics
and Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 2, pp. 355–358.
96 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Ampadu, S.I.K and Arthur, T.D., 2006. The Dynamic Cone Penetrometer in Compaction Verifcation
on a Model Road Pavement. Geotechnical Testing Journal, STM, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 70–79.
Ashfeld, D., Ashby, G., Power, P., Fitch, N., Ladley, E., and Smith, T., 2013. Use of the Dynamic Cone
Penetrometer to Assess the Liquefaction Potential of Christchurch Alluvial Soils. Proceedings of
the 19th New Zealand Geotechnical Symposium, 8 pp.
Alshkane, Y.M., Rashed, K.A. and Daoud, H.S., 2020. Unconfned compression strength (UCS)
and  compressibility indices prediction from dynamic cone penetration index (DCP) for
cohesive soils in Kurdistan Region/Iraq. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, Vol. 38,
pp. 3683–3695.
ASTM, 1970. Suggested Method for Dynamic Cone Soil Penetration Test. ASTM STP No. 479,
pp. 62–63.
ASTM Standard D6951-03. Test Method for Use of the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer in Shallow
Pavement Applications. Annual Book of ASTM Standards.
Ayers, M.E. and Thompson, M.R., 1989. Evaluation Techniques for Determining the Strength
Characteristics of Ballast and Subgrade Materials. University of Illinois, Department of Civil
Engineering Report.
Bohdan, Z. and Tomasz, G., 2001. Estimation Method of the Bearing Capacity of Shallow and Pile
Foundations from Dynamic Probings. Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 551–554.Bolomey, H., 1974. Dynamic
Penetration Resistance Formulae. Proceedings of the European Symposium on Penetration
Testing, Vol. 2.2, pp. 35–46.
Borowczyk, M. and Frankowski, Z.B., 1981. Dynamic and Static Sounding Results Interpretation.
Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Vol. 2, pp. 451–454.
Broms, B.B. and Flodin, N., 1988. History of Soil Penetration Testing. Proceedings of the 1st
International Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 1, pp. 157–220.
Butcher, A.P., McElmeel, K., and Powell, J.J.M., 1995. Dynamic Probing and its use in Clay Soils.
Proceedings of the International Conference on Advances in Site Investigation Practice,
pp. 383–395.
Cabrera, M. and Carcole, A., 2007. Relationship Between Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and
Dynamic Penetration Super Heavy Test (DPSH) for Natural Sand Deposits. Proceedings of
the 14th European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 3,
pp. 1691–1695.
Card, G.B. and Roche, D.P., 1989. The Use of Continuous Dynamic Probing in Ground Investigation.
Proceedings of the Conference on Penetration Testing in the U.K., pp. 119–122.
Cavusoglu, E., Nam, M., O’Neill, M., and McClelland, M., 2004. Multi-Method Strength
Characterization for Soft Cretaceous Rocks in Texas. Geo-Support 2004, ASCE, pp. 199–210.
Cearns, P.J. and McKenzie, A., 1989. Application of Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Testing in East
Anglia. Penetration Testing in the U.K., pp. 123–127.
Chan, S. and Chin, F., 1972. Engineering Characteristics of the Soils along the Federal Highway
in Kuala Lumpur. Proceedings of the 3rd Southeast Asian Conference on Soil Engineering,
pp. 41–45.
Chang, M.F. and Wong, I.H., 1986. Penetration Testing in the Residual Soils of Singapore.
Proceedings of the Specialty Geomechanics Symposium on Interpretation of Field Testing for
Design Parameters.
Chua, K.M., 1988. Determination of CBR and Elastic Modulus of Soils Using a Portable Pavement
Dynamic Cone. Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 1,
pp. 407–414.
Chua, K.M. and Lytton, R.L, 1992. Dynamic Analysis Using the Portable Pavement Dynamic Cone
Penetrometer. Transportation Research Record No. 1192, pp. 27–38.
Coyle, H.M. and Bartoskewitz, R.E., 1980. Prediction of Shear Strength of Sand by Use of Dynamic
Penetration Tests. Transportation Research Record No. 749, pp. 46–54.
Dahlberg, R. and Bergdahl, U., 1974. Investigation on the Swedish Ram Sounding Method.
Proceedings of the European Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 2.2, pp. 93–102.
 Dynamic Cone Penetration Test 97

DeGaridele-Thoron, R. and Javor, E., 1983. A Small Dynamic Penetrometer to Estimate CBR Value.
Proceedings of the International Symposium on In Situ Testing of Soil and Rock, Vol. 2,
pp. 43–47.
DeHenau, A., 1982. The Use of a Light Percussion Sounding Apparatus in Road Engineering.
Proceedings of the 2nd European Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 1, pp. 271–276.
Elton, D., 1989. Hand Held Dynamic Cone Correction Factors. Symposium on Engineering Geology
and Geotechnical Engineering, pp. 39–44.
Engel, R., Riaz, M., Dalah, V., Hanhilammi, D., Husein, A.I., and Lang, R.Y., 1994. Dynamic
Probing Test to Determine Driven Pile Capacity. Proceedings of the International Conference
Design and Construction of Deep Foundations, Vol. 3, pp. 1321–1336.
Ergun, M.U., 1982. A Site Investigation Through Penetration Tests. Proceedings of the 2nd European
Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 1, pp. 257–262.
Fakher, A. and Khodaparasat, M., 2004. The Repeatability of the Mackintosh Probe Test. Proceedings
of the 2nd International Symposium on Site Characterization, Vol. 1, pp. 325–330.
Fakher, A., Khodaparasat, M., and Jones, C.J.F.P., 2006. The use of the Mackintosh Probe for site
investigation in soft soils. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology,
Vol. 39, pp. 189–196.
Fatt, C. and Kee, C., 1972. Engineering Characteristics of the Soils Along the Federal Highway
in Kuala Lumpur. Proceedings of the 3rd Southeast Asian Conference on Soil Engineering,
pp. 41–45.
Fityus, S., 1998. Calibration of the Blunt Tipped Dynamic Penetrometer for Silica Sands. Proceedings
of the 1st International Conference on Site Characterization, Vol. 2, pp. 927–932.
Ford, G.R. and Eliason, B.E., 1993. Comparison of Compaction Methods in Narrow Subsurface
Drainage Trenches. Paper Presented at the Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting,
Washington, D.C.
Formazin, J. and Hausner, H., 1985. Correlations Between Soil Parameters and Penetration
Testing. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Vol. 2, pp. 459–463.
Gabr, M.A., Coonse, J. and Lambe, P.C., 2001. A Potential Model for Compaction Evaluation of
Piedmont Soils Using Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP). Geotechnical Testing Journal,
ASTM, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 308–313.
Gadsby, J.W., 1971. Discussion of The Correlation of Cone Size in the Dynamic Cone Penetration
Test with the Standard Penetration Test. Geotechnique, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 188–189.
Gawad, T., 1976. Standard Penetration Resistance in Cohesionless Soils. Soils and Foundations,
Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 47–60.
George, K. and Uddin, W., 2000. Subgrade Characterization for Highway Subgrade Design. Final
Report FHWA/MS-DOT-RD-00-131, Mississippi Deportment of Transportation.
Goel, M.C., 1982. Various Types of Penetrometers, Their Correlations and Field Applicability.
Proceedings of the 2nd European Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 1, pp. 263–270.
Gudavalli, S., Vipulanandan, C., Puppala, A.J., Pala, N., Fang, X., Jao, M., Yin, S., and Wang, M.C.,
2008. Development of Correlation Between TCP Blow Count and Undrained Shear Strength
of Low Plasticity Clay. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Geotechnical and
Geophysical Site Characterization, Vol. 2, pp. 1401–1404.
Hajduk, E., Shiner, B., and Meng, J., 2007. A Comparison of the Sowers Dynamic Cone Penetrometer
Test with Cone Penetration and Flat Blade Dilatometer Testing. Proceedings of GeoDenver,
ASCE.
Hamoudi, M.M., Coyle, H.M., and Bartoskewitz, R.E., 1974. Correlation of the Texas Highway
Department Cone Penetrometer Test with Unconsolidated-Undrained Strength of Cohesive
Soils. Research Report No. 10-1, TTI, Texas A&M University, 133 pp.
Hanna, A.W., Ambrosii, G., and McConnell, A.D., 1986. Investigation of a Coarse Alluvial
Foundation for an Embankment Dam. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 23, pp. 203–215.
Harrison, J.A., 1987. Correlation Between California Bearing Ratio and Dynamic Cone Penetration
Strength Measurement of Soils. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Part 2,
No. 83, Technical Note No. 463.
98 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Herath, A., Mohammed, L., Gaspard, K., Gudishala, R., and Abu-Farsakh, M., 2005. The Use of
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer to Predict Resilient Modulus of Subgrade Soils. Geofrontiers
Congress 2005, ASCE.
Hossain, D. and Ali, K., 1990. Mackintosh vs. Vane Estimation of Undrained Shear Strength
Correlation for a Sabkha Clay of Saudi Arabia. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology,
Vol. 23, pp. 269–272.
Karunaprema, K. and Edirisinghe, A., 2002. A laboratory Study to Establish Some Useful
Relationships for the Use of Dynamic Cone Penetrometer. Electronic Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, paper 2002-0228, 18 pp.
Kayalar, A.S., 1988. Statistical Evaluation of Dynamic Cone Penetration Test Data for Design of
Shallow Foundations in Cohesionless Soils. Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on
Penetration Testing, Vol. 1, pp. 429–434.
Kelley, S.P. and Lutenegger, A.J., 1999. Enhanced Site Characterization in Residual Soils Using
the  SPT-T and Drive Cone Tests. Behavioral Characteristics of Residual Soils. ASCE,
pp. 88–100.
Khanna, P.L., Varghese, P.C., and Hoon, R.C., 1953. Bearing Pressure and Penetration Tests on Typical
Soil Strata in the Region of the Hirakud Dam Project. Proceedings of the 3rd International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 246–252.
Khodaparasat, M., 2010. The Repeatability in Results of Mackintosh Probe Test in Soft
Soils.  Proceedings of the International Conference on Geotechnical Engineering, Lahore,
pp. 237–243.
Khodaparasat, M., Rajabi, A.M., and Mohammadi, M., 2015. The New Empirical Formula Based on
Dynamic Probing Test Results in Fine Cohesive Soils. International Journal of Civil Engineering –
Geotechnique, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 105–113.
Kleyn, E.G., 1975. Use of the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP). Report No. 2/74, Transvaal Road
Department, South Africa.
Kleyn, E.G. and Van Zyl, G.D., 1988. Application of Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) to Light
Pavement Design. Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Penetration Testing,
Vol. 1, pp. 435–444.
Kleyn, E.G., Maree, J.H., and Savage, P.F., 1982. The Application of a Portable Dynamic Cone
Penetrometer to Determine In Situ Bearing Properties of Road Pavement Layers and Subgrades
in South Africa. Proceedings of the 2nd European Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 1,
pp. 277–282.
Kong, T.B., 1983. In Situ Soil Testing at the Bekok Dam Site, Johor, Peninsular Malaysia. Proceedings
of the International Symposium on In Situ Testing, Vol. 2, pp. 403–409.
Lacroix, Y. and Horn, H.M., 1973. Direct Determination and Indirect Evaluation of Relative Density
and It’s Use on Earthwork Construction Projects. ASTM Special Technical Publication 523,
pp. 251–280.
Lawson, W.D., Terrel, E.O., Surles, J.G., Moghaddam, R.B., Seo, H., and Payawickrama, P.W., 2018.
Side-by-Side Correlation of Texas Cone Penetration and Standard Penetration Test Blowcount
Values. Geotechnical & Geological Engineering, Vol. 36, No. 5, pp. 2769–2787.
Livneh, M., 1987a. The Use of Dynamic Cone Penetrometer for Determining the Strength of Existing
Pavements and Subgrades. Proceedings of the 9th Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conference,
pp. 9-1–9-10.
Livneh, M., 1987b. The Correlation Between Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Values (DCP) and CBR
Values. Transportation Research Institute, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Publication
No. 87–303.
Livneh, M. and Ishai, I., 1988. The Relationship Between In-Situ CBR Test and Various Penetration
Tests. Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 1,
pp. 445–452.
MacRobert, C., 2017. Interpreting DPSH Penetration Values in Sand Soil. Journal of the South
African Institute of Civil Engineering, Vol. 59, No. 3, pp. 11–15.
MacRobert, C.J., Bernstein, G.S. and Nchabeleng, M.M., 2019. Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP)
Relative Density Correlations for Sand. Soils and Rocks, Sao Paulo, Vol. 43, No. 2, pp. 201-207.
 Dynamic Cone Penetration Test 99

Maghaddam, R., Lawson, W., Surles, J., Seo, H., and Jayawickrama, P., 2017. Hammer Effciency and
Correction Factors for the TxDOT Texas Cone Penetration Test. Geotechnical and Geological
Engineering, Vol. 35, pp. 2147–2162.
McGrath, P.G., Motherway, F.K., and Quinn, W.J., 1989. Development of Dynamic Cone Penetration
Testing in Ireland. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 271–275.
Meardi, G., 1971. Discussion of The Correlation of Cone Size in the Dynamic Cone Penetration Test
with the Standard Penetration Test. Geotechnique, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 184–188.
Melzer, K.J. and Smoltczyk, U., 1982. Dynamic Penetration Testing: State-of-the-Art Paper.
Proceedings of the 2nd European Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 1, pp. 191–202.
Meyerhof, G.G., 1956. Penetration Tests and Bearing Capacity of Cohesionless Soils. Journal of the
Soil Mechanics Division, ASCE, Vol. 82, No. SM1, pp. 1–12.
Misra, A., Upadhyaya, S., Horn, C., Kondagari, S., and Gustin, F., 2006. CBR and DCP Correlation
for Class C Fly-Ash Stabilized Soil. Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM, Vol. 29, No. 1,
pp. 1–7.
Mohammadi, S., Nikoudel, M., Rahimi, H., and Khamehchiyan, M., 2008. Application of the
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) for Determination of the Engineering Parameters of Sandy
Soils. Engineering Geology, Vol. 101, pp. 195–203.
Mohan, D., Aggarwal, V.S., and Tolia, D.S., 1970. The Correlation of Cone Size in the Dynamic
Cone Penetration Test with the Standard Penetration Test. Geotechnique, Vol. 20, No. 3,
pp. 315–319.
Mohan, D., Aggarwal, V.S., and Tolia, D.S., 1971. Closure to The Correlation of Cone Size in the
Dynamic Cone Penetration Test with The Standard Penetration Test. Geotechnique, Vol. 21,
No. 2, pp. 189–190.
Mousavi, S., Gabr, M., and Borden, R., 2018. Correlation of Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Index
to Proof Roller Test to Assess Subgrade Soils Stabilization Criterion. International Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 284–92.
Muromachi, T. and Kobayashi, S., 1982. Comparative Study of Static and Dynamic Penetration
Tests Currently in Use in Japan. Proceedings of the 2nd European Symposium on Penetration
Testing, Vol. 1, pp. 297–302.
Nam, M.S. and Vipulanandan, C., 2010. Relationship Between Texas Cone Penetrometer Tests
and Axial Resistances of Drilled Shafts Socketed in Clay Shale and Limestone. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 136, No. 8, pp. 1161–1165.
Nilsson, T. and Cunha, R., 2004. Advantages and Equations for Pile Design in Brazil via DPL
Tests. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Site Characterization, Vol. 2,
pp. 1519–123.
Nixon, I.K., 1989. Introduction to Papers 10–13. Proceedings of the Conference on Penetration
Testing in the U.K. pp. 105–110.
Ooi, T.A. and Ting, W.H., 1975. The Use of a Light Dynamic Cone Penetrometer in Malaysia.
Proceedings of the 4th Southeast Asian Conference on Soil Engineering, pp. 3-62–3-79.
Opuni, K., Nyako, S., Ofosu, B., Mensah, F., and Sarpong, K., 2017. Correlations of SPT and
DCPT  Data for Sandy Soils in Ghana. Lowland Technology International, Vol. 19, No. 2,
pp. 145–150.
Palmer, D.J., 1957. Discussion. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 3, p. 125.
Palmer, D.J. and Stuart, J.G., 1957. Some Observations on the Standard Penetration Test and
a Correlation of the Test with a New Penetrometer. Proceedings of the 4th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 231–236.
Paunescu, M. and Gruia, A., 1982. Some Aspects Concerning the Study of Foundation Soils, Using
Cone Penetration Tests. Proceedings of the 2nd European Symposium on Penetration Testing,
Vol. 1, pp. 317–322.
Rahim, A. and George, K., 2004. Dynamic Cone Penetrometer to Estimate Subgrade Resilient
Modulus for Low Volume Roads Design. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on
Site Characterization, Vol. 1, pp. 367–371.
100  In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Rao, B.G., Narahari, D.R., and Balodhi, G.R., 1982. Dynamic Cone Probing Tests in Gravelly Soils.
Proceedings of the 2nd European Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 1, pp. 337–344.
Robinson, L., 1988. Dynamic CPT for Test Pit Field Investigations: Experiences with Sowers’
Cone Penetrometer. Proceedings of the 24th Symposium on Engineering Geology and Soils
Engineering, pp. 31–39.
Rodin, S., 1961. Experiences with Penetrometers with Particular Reference to the Standard Penetration
Test. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 517–521.
Rostron, J.P., Schwartz, A.E., and Gioiosa, T.E., 1969. A Drop Hammer Penetrometer for Determining
the Density of Soils and Granular Materials. Highway Research Record No. 284, pp. 70–73.
Sabtan, A.A. and Sherbata, W.M., 1994. Mackintosh Probe as an Exploration Tool. Bulletin of the
International Association of Engineering Geologists, No. 50, pp. 89–94.
Scala, A.J., 1956. Simple Methods of Flexible Pavement Design Using Cone Penetrometers. New
Zealand Engineer, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 34–44.
Scarff, R.D., 1989. Factors Governing the Use of Continuous Dynamic Probing in U.K. Ground
Investigation. Proceedings of the Conference on Penetration Testing in the U.K., pp. 129–132.
Schmid, W.E., 1975. Evaluation of Vibratory Compaction Field Tests. In Situ Measurement of Soil
Properties, ASCE, Vol. 1, pp. 373–394.
Seed, H.B. and Idriss, I.M., 1981. Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential of Sand Deposits Based on
Observations of Performance in Previous Earthquakes. In Situ Testing to Evaluate Liquefaction
Susceptibility, ASCE Preprint 81–544, 21 pp.
Silva, D. and Miguel, M., 2008. Estimation of Pile Bearing Capacity Using Dynamic Probing
in Tropical Soils. Proceedings of the Symposium on Geotechnical and Geophysical Site
Characterization, Vol. 1, pp. 523–527.
Singh, A. and Sharma D., 1973. Development of a Light Weight Dynamic Penetrometer. Journal of
the Indian Geotechnical Society, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 182–188.
Smith, R.B., 1983. In Situ CBR and Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Testing. Proceedings of the
International Symposium on In Situ Testing of Soil and Rock, Vol. 2, pp. 149–154.
Smith, R.B., 1988. Cone Penetrometer and In Situ CBR Testing of an Active Clay. Proceedings of the
1st International Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 1, pp. 459–465.
Smith, R.B. and Pratt, D.N., 1983. A Field Study of In-Situ California Bearing Ratio and Dynamic
Penetrometer Testing for Road Subgrade Investigation. Australian Road Research Board,
Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 285–294.
Solymar, Z.V., 1984. Compaction of Alluvial Sands by Deep Blasting. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 305–321.
Sowers, G.F. and Hedges, C.S., 1966. Dynamic Cone for Shallow In-Situ Penetration Testing. ASTM
Special Technical Publication 399, pp. 29–37.
Stefanoff, G., Sanglerat, G., Bergdahl, U., and Melzer, K.J., 1988. Dynamic Probing (DP): International
Reference Test Procedure. Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Penetration
Testing, Vol. 1, pp. 53–70.
Sugiyama, T., Muraishi, H., Noguchi, T., Okada, K., and Kakio, T., 1998. Spatial Distribution
Characteristics of Soil Strength in Embankment Estimated by Portable Dynamic Cone Penetration
Test. Proceedings of the International Conference on Geotechnical Site Characterization,
Vol. 2, pp. 953–958.
Swann, L.H., 1982. The Use of Dynamic Soundings on Evaluating Settlements. Proceedings of the
2nd European Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 1, pp. 345–349.
Talbot, M., 2017. Dynamic Cone penetration Tests for Liquefaction Evaluation of Gravelly Soils.
Report ST-2017-7102, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
Teferra, A., 1983. Estimation of the Angle of Internal Friction of Non-Cohesive Soils from Sounding
Tests. Indian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 211–221.
Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R.B., 1948. Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice. John Wiley and Sons,
New York.
Tonks, D.M. and Whyte, I.L., 1989. Dynamic Soundings in Site Investigations: Some Observations and
Correlations. Proceedings of the Conference on Penetration Testing in the U.K., pp. 113–117.
 Dynamic Cone Penetration Test  101

Touma, F. and Reese, L., 1972. The Behavior of Axially Loaded Drilled Shafts in Sand. Report No.
CFHR 3-5-72-176-1. Center for Highway Research, University of Texas.
Triggs, J.K. and Liang, R.Y.K., 1988. Development of and Experiences from a Light-Weight,
Portable Penetrometer Able to Combine Dynamic and Static Cone Tests. Proceedings of the 1st
International Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 1, pp. 467–473.
Van Leijden, W., Pachen, H.M.A., and VadenBerg, J., 1982. Dynamic Probing Research for Pile
Driving Predictions in the Netherlands. Proceedings of the 2nd European Symposium on
Penetration Testing, Vol. 1, pp. 285–290.
Vipulanandan, C., Puppala, A.J., Jao, M., Kim, M.S., Vasundevan, H., Kumar, P., and Mo, Y.L.,
2008. Correlation of Texas Cone Penetrometer Test Values and Shear Strength of Texas Soils.
University of Houston, Houston, TX.
Waschkowski, E., 1982. Dynamic Probing and Practice. Proceedings of the 2nd European Symposium
on Penetration Testing, Vol. 1, pp. 357–362.
Webster, S.L., Grau, R.H., and Williams, T.P., 1992. Description and Application of Dual Mass
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer. Instruction Report GL-92-3, US Army Engineers Waterways
Experiment Station.
Chapter 4

Cone Penetration (CPT) and

Piezocone (CPTU) Tests

4.1 INTRODUCTION

Cone Penetration Tests have been in use in many parts of the world for over 70 years for
determining site stratigraphy, evaluating strength characteristics and other soil properties,
designing foundations, and a wide array of other applications. Cone tests are highly ver-
satile and possess many of the attributes desirable in an in situ test previously described
in Chapter 1. The test represents a simple concept and can be relatively simple to perform.
Cone tests can be used in a wide range of soil types and have a wide range of applications.
In this chapter, the use and various aspects of the cone penetrometer (CPT) and piezocone
(CPTU) are discussed. The focus in this chapter is on electric cones, and mechanical cones
are only briefy addressed.
A large volume of work has been published about CPTs, cone testing, data interpreta-
tion, and cone design applications. Two European cone testing symposia were held in 1974
and 1982. In addition, since 1988, the International Symposia on Penetration Testing (now
Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterization) have been devoted in part to CPT and
CPTU testing. Since 1995, several specialty international symposia on cone penetration test-
ing have been held. Also at least three books have been prepared on cone testing (Sanglerat
1972; Meigh 1987; Lunne et al. 1997). An historical perspective of cone penetration testing
was presented by Massarsch (2014). Since the CPT/CPTU provides a near continuous record
of the stratigraphy, it is useful for rapid and more complete evaluation of detailed soil layer-
ing that can often be missed during conventional test drilling and sampling.
In general, the empirical interpretation of results from the CPT/CPTU has been at an
advanced state of maturity for the last 10–15 years in the author’s opinion. New publica-
tions often provide some additional data sets to an existing correlation between measured
values and soil parameters, but correlations do not change signifcantly.

4.2 MECHANICS OF THE TEST – CPT/CPTU

The CPT is an intrusive, full displacement cylindrical probe, usually machined from stain-
less steel, with a diameter of about 35.7 mm (1.405 in.) that is attached to either conven-
tional drill rods or special CPT rods and pushed from the ground surface, with or without
a borehole. The cone has a tip apex angle of 60° and is advanced at a rate of 2 cm/s (about
15 s/ft) using the static thrust provided by the hydraulics of a conventional drill rig or spe-
cial hydraulic pushing rig. This concept is shown schematically in Figure 4.1. During the
advance, forces ore pressures acting on the cone tip are measured.
The dimensions of the cone and recommended test procedures are described in detail
by ASTM Test Method D3441Standard Test Method for Deep Quasi-Static, Cone and

103
104 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Figure 4.1 Principle of cone penetrometer testing.

Friction-Cone Penetration Tests in Soil, and ASTM D5778 Standard Test Method for
Electronic Friction Cone and Piezocone Testing of Soils. The CPT and CPTU are also stan-
dardized by the International Organization for Standardization in ISO 22476-1 Geotechnical
Investigation and Testing-Field Testing-Part 1: Electrical Cone and Piezocone Penetration Test.

4.2.1 Mechanical Cones

Early static CPTs were developed around simple mechanical systems consisting of a cone,
push rods, and an external load cell. The “Dutch” CPT was apparently frst used around
1930 to determine the thickness and bearing capacity of hydraulic fll in the Netherlands. The
cone had an end area of 10 cm2 and an apex angle of 60° and was pushed by one or two men.
This limited the depth of exploration to a maximum of about 3 m (10 ft). Cone resistance was
measured with a pressure gauge or mechanical load cell at the ground surface. Most early
cones only measured the cone tip resistance and used a double rod system to frst advance the
cone by pushing on outer rods and then pushing on only the cone using a set of inner rods.
A modifcation to mechanical cones was made by Begemann (1953) who introduced
the idea of attaching a sleeve behind the cone tip to evaluate the local friction. Although
Begemann (1953) actually referred to this design as the “adhesion jacket-cone”, the term
“friction cone” is more commonly used. The surface area of Begemann’s sleeve was 150 cm 2 .
 Cone Penetration and Piezocone Tests 105

Again, a double rod system is required, with the cone frst being advanced to the test depth
by pushing on the outer rods. At the test depth, only the inner rod is advanced about 40 mm
(1.5 in.) to measure the tip resistance. After the 40 mm (1.5 in.) push, the inner rod is contin-
ued to be pushed to engage the friction sleeve. An additional push of about 40 mm (1.5 in.)
gives both the tip and sleeve resistance. The sleeve resistance is then obtained by subtraction.
Figure 4.2 shows the sequence of advancing a mechanical cone with a friction sleeve.
Mechanical cones have a number of drawbacks, which makes their use somewhat imprac-
tical. The double rod system is cumbersome and usually must be fabricated as a special
set of rods; i.e., conventional drill rods cannot usually be used. Because of the design and
construction, soil particles may enter or adhere to some of the sliding components, and the
cone may become jammed. There may also be frictional losses in the double rod system.
The mantle cone and friction jacket cone can only be used to provide test results at intervals
of about 0.15 m (6 in.) and therefore provide discontinuous data rather than a continuous
profle. It is sometimes diffcult for the operator to accurately read the load cell, especially
in highly stratifed soils or where the cone travels through alternating soft and stiff layers.
In situations where the load may change dramatically over relatively short distances, some
individual layering may be missed.

Figure 4.2 Sequence of advancing a mechanical cone.

106 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Because of these diffculties and other problems, the results obtained with mechanical
cones tend to be less reliable than those from electric cones. Additionally, there is consider-
able evidence which shows that the results between mechanical and electric cones are not
the same. With available electronics and low cost/simple electric cones, electric cones have
essentially replaced mechanical cones.

4.2.2 Electric Cones

Electric cones have been in more common use since about the 1970s and are designed with
load cells located within the cone body to measure the tip and sleeve force. The load cells
are usually equipped with strain gages. Advanced technology using electronic components
to measure the load and transmit data to the surface have been introduced. Even cones with
a down-hole memory module have been used, eliminating the need for a cable. A section
through a typical electric CPT cone body is shown in Figure 4.3. Most electric cones for
routine work have a tip area of 10 cm 2 , and the friction sleeve area is 150 cm 2 although other
sizes are available.
A computer is used to record the data automatically as the test proceeds. The results are
displayed in real time as the cone is advanced so that the operator has an immediate indi-
cation of soil conditions. Normally, the data are presented in terms of unit tip and sleeve
resistance versus depth. These two measurements may be used to give an indication of site
stratigraphy, to estimate soil properties, and for direct foundation design.
Electric cones have a number of clear advantages over mechanical cones including the
following: the ability to use almost any rod system, since only a single push rod is required;

Figure 4.3 Section through electric cone penetrometer.

 Cone Penetration and Piezocone Tests 107

the data may be automatically recorded for more easier and more rapid reporting; the testing
interval is closer so that there is more enhanced delineation of stratigraphy; and the results
are usually more reliable since the test is essentially operator-independent, i.e., the results
are usually obtained automatically. The design of all electric cones is not the same. For the
most part, electric cones can be divided into two types: (1) those with the tip and sleeve load
cells that are designed to be totally independent and (2) those with the tip and sleeve load
cells more-or-less in series. The latter design is often called a “subtraction” cone.
The friction sleeve must be free to move in order to provide an accurate response. If suf-
fcient clearance is not provided at the ends of the sleeve in the design, there may be an error
in either the tip or sleeve resistance or both. Also, there must be a suffcient gap between the
cone tip and friction sleeve so that tip force transfer is not impeded. Normally, rubber “O”
rings are used to keep water out of the load cells and often some type of soil seal is used at
the ends of the friction sleeve to keep soil from entering the area between the sleeve and tip
or sleeve and body.
Some cones are also equipped with an internal inclinometer to monitor the deviation of
the cone from vertical. This measurement is not necessarily used to provide any correction
to the test data but is used more to provide advance warning of a problem. Van de Graaf &
Jenkel (1982) discussed correcting the CPT depth using results from an internal inclinom-
eter. They illustrated that depth errors of as much as 1.2 m can occur in a CPT sounding
of 30 m. Typically, if the cone deviates more than about 5° from vertical, the probability of
damage or loss of the cones starts to become high. A sharp deviation may mean that the
cone has encountered an obstruction such as a cobble or random uncontrolled fll, while a
gradual deviation may mean that the rods were simply not vertical at the beginning of the
test or the pushing is not vertical.
For several years, the author has used a simple electric cone designed with a single high-
capacity load cell to measure only the tip resistance in very dense and coarse granular soils
and in other situations where the potential for damage to the cone or even cone loss is high.
A photo of the cone is shown in Figure 4.4. The cone body and load cell are fabricated from
a single piece of stainless steel, and a protective sleeve is used to prevent damage to the
strain gages. These cones are very inexpensive to fabricate since there are only three parts:
body, sleeve, and tip. A similar design has been described by Treen et al. (1992). Other cone
designs using different tip and sleeve areas have also been used for special testing.

Figure 4.4 High capacity tip-only electric cone.

108 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

4.2.3 Electric Piezocone

The CPTU (sometimes denoted as PCPT or CPTu) is an electric cone that is built essentially
the same as a standard electric friction cone except that it also has a pressure transducer
mounted inside the cone body to measure soil pore water pressure as the cone advances. The
measurement of pore water pressure provides an additional means to characterize the sub-
surface soil conditions. An alternative design for a CPTU is to eliminate the friction sleeve
and measure only pore water pressure and tip resistance.
According to Vlasblom (1985), the frst piezocone was constructed by the Delft Soil
Mechanics Laboratory in 1962 although the frst measurements of pore water pressure dur-
ing cone penetration were reported by Janbu & Sennesset (1974). A year later, two varia-
tions of a pore pressure probe were introduced simultaneously by Torstenson (1975) and
Wissa et al. (1975). Probes described by both Torstenson (1975) and Wissa et al. (1975) mea-
sured only pore water pressure although the flter element location was different. A standard
test method that describes the equipment and procedures for conducting piezocone tests is
given in ASTM Test Method D5778.
In order to measure pore water pressures, a porous element is mounted on the cone body
and is connected to an internal pressure transducer. In saturated soils, since the cone must
force soil out of the way in order to be advanced, there is usually a tendency to generate pore
water pressures adjacent to the cone. The pressures may be sensed with the transducer. In
order to do this, the porous element must be deaired and saturated with a fuid to commu-
nicate the pressure from the soil to the transducer. Typically, water, silicone oil, or glycerin
are used as the fuid. Piezocone flter elements for measuring pore water pressure are typi-
cally made from porous plastic (HDPE), sintered stainless steel, sintered bronze, or porous
ceramic. In general, it has been shown that the flter material has little or no infuence on the
measured pore water pressure (e.g., Jacobs & Coutts 1992).
There are a number of possible locations for the porous element on a CPTU. As shown
in Figure 4.5, the element may be located at the cone tip (u1), along the cone face (u1),
behind the cone base (u 2), or along the cone shaft (u3). The frst three positions are the most
commonly used. There are both advantages and disadvantages of having the pore pressure
element at different locations.
Tip elements generally provide the most reliable measurements and almost always give
positive pore water pressures. A tip element also appears to give the most detailed strati-
graphic results. However, the element tends to clog more easily than other locations and can

Figure 4.5 Different locations for pore pressure measurement in CPTU.

 Cone Penetration and Piezocone Tests 109

be easily damaged. Elements along the face of the cone also give good results but require
special machining for the cone tip to be made in two parts. The flter element is also some-
times diffcult to fabricate. In order to correct the tip resistance for pore pressure effects, a
flter element is needed at the cone base (u 2 – Type 2). This position is less sensitive to fne
changes in stratigraphy and can give both positive and negative pore water pressure values.
However, the flter is less prone to clogging and is easy to fabricate.
Since a number of useful correlations exist that make use of the pore water pressure mea-
surement, it is essential that the CPTU provide reliable pore water pressures during the test.
This requires careful deairing and calibration as well as careful handling in the feld. The flter
element of the CPTU is usually deaired in a vacuum chamber after the element and cone tip are
assembled onto the cone. The same chamber may be used to calibrate the cone, provided that
some mechanism is available for holding the cone in the chamber while the chamber is pressur-
ized. Saturation fuid (usually water, glycerin, or silicone oil) is kept at a level above the flter
element and a vacuum is applied to remove the air. After deairing, the cone is kept in the cham-
ber or transformed to another container and kept immersed in fuid to maintain saturation. In
some cases, a rubber membrane or fuid flled plastic bag is placed over the cone for handling.
It is imperative that the flter element and the system remain saturated during handling.
In many cases, a pilot hole will be drilled or punched with a dummy cone to the water table
and then backflled with water to the ground surface. The cone is then lowered through the
water column without allowing the flter element to pass through air. In situations where the
CPTU will be advanced through an unsaturated zone, such as near the ground surface, it is
preferable to use a more viscous fuid and one with a higher surface tension, such as glycerin or
silicone oil, to prevent loss of saturation of the pore water pressure system through cavitation.
The CPTU is able to help identify soil stratigraphy in more detail than the CPT through
the use of the measured pore water pressure simply because different soils produce different
pore pressure responses when penetrated by the cone. In addition to providing information on
the stratigraphy to supplement the tip and sleeve measurements, the CPTU can also help with
environmental site investigations in at least two more areas of interests: (1) identifcation of the
depth to the water table and (2) estimation of the saturated hydraulic conductivity of the soil.
There are a number of factors that may infuence the actual pore water pressure measure-
ment. These include the exact location of the flter element, the thickness of the flter element,
the stiffness of the fuid system, the reliability of the pressure transducer, and the deairing of
the system. Figure 4.6 shows a typical deairing chamber used to saturate the porous element.

Figure 4.6 Deairing chamber used to saturate the porous element of CPTU.
110 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

4.3 DEPLOYING CONE PENETROMETERS

The deployment of the cone and other environmental in situ equipment represents a problem
in practicality in that the various instruments must be installed in order to be of any value.
There are a number of different methods for deploying the various instruments described,
and the fnal choice of which system to use will depend on a number of factors, including
depth of testing required, site geology, site mobility, equipment availability, budget, time
constraints, personnel availability, etc. Figure 4.7 illustrates different common methods of
deploying the CPT/CPTU.

Figure 4.7 Different methods of deploying CPT/CPTU.

 Cone Penetration and Piezocone Tests 111

4.3.1 Self-Contained Truck

A number of specialty contracting frms have outftted large trucks equipped with the nec-
essary equipment and tools for deploying cones and other in situ tests. The box is usually
weatherproof and can be heated or air conditioned so that testing can proceed in almost
any weather conditions day or night. Pushing thrust is limited to the full weight of the truck
since pushing usually is through the center. The data acquisition system is also contained in
the truck. Cone rods typically of 1 m (3.28 ft) length are gripped with a hydraulic clamp on
the outside of the rod. This means that as one rod is advanced, another rod may be threaded
on at the top, speeding up the sounding. A thick-walled rod guide tube is usually extended
out the bottom of the truck and provides lateral support to the rods to prevent buckling
when pushing in very stiff materials.

4.3.2 Drill Rig

A conventional drill rig can be used to advance cones by using the hydraulics off the back of the
rig. Because pushing is from the back of the rig, only about half of the rig weight is available,
and therefore, the thrust is severely limited. One way to overcome this problem is to push as far
as possible, pull out the tool, advance a hole to the test depth, using hollow stem or continuous
fight augers, and then reinsert the tool to advance further. Another possibility is to install a
section of auger to act as an anchor and attach a chain to the auger and to the truck. Sometimes,
the unsupported rod length out of the ground allows rod buckling. This can be remedied by
installing a temporary rod guide on the deck of the drill rig, near the base of the mast. Pushing
of the rods must take place from a rigid location, usually on the head of the drill rig.

4.3.3 Light-Duty Trailer

A small light-duty pushing frame mounted on a trailer or self-propelled vehicle can be used
in areas which do not require much thrust. Even then, the rig will most likely require some
type of anchoring to keep the rig stable and provide suffcient thrust. These rigs have the
advantage of low cost, low cost of mobilization, and ease of operation.

4.3.4 Portable Reaction Frame

In special cases, where mobility is limited or where the soil conditions are extremely soft, a
small portable hydraulic frame can be used in conjunction with either a 12V battery pow-
ered hydraulic system or a gasoline engine powered system. Clearly, the reaction and depth
of testing may have limitations for many projects, however, the author has successfully used
this type of set up to advance up to 24 m (80 ft) in soft clay.
The depth of penetration for CPTs and CPTUs can be signifcantly increased if the fric-
tional resistance between the cone rods and the soil above the cone can be eliminated or
reduced. A friction reducer is often used for this purpose and typically consists of an enlarged
section behind the cone such as a ring welded onto the frst push rod.

4.4 TEST PROCEDURES

The CPT and CPTU are standardized by ASTM and ISO. Many of the recommendations in
these standards relate to recording the test data and standardization of the cone geometry
(i.e., apex angle, tip and sleeve area, etc.). The rate of advance is set at 20 mm/s (0.8 in./s),
112 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

and because there are very few external components required to perform the test, the pro-
cedure is relatively simple.
In addition to recording the cone tip resistance and sleeve friction, a measurement of
depth is also needed. There are a number of electro-mechanical systems that may be used
to measure depth, many of which use a rotary potentiometer attached to the cone rods and
some reference point. For advanced systems, such as self-contained cone trucks, an electrical
system is typically used. Whatever technique is used, it is important that a permanent, stable
reference point be used.

4.5 FACTORS AFFECTING TEST RESULTS

Even though the test equipment and procedure are generally specifed, there are a number of
factors that can infuence the test results obtained from the CPT. Unlike the SPT, however,
the CPT does not suffer from as many problems or uncertainties, simply because of the con-
fguration of the test and the manner in which data are collected. In the following sections,
a brief discussion is given on a number of the different variables that may affect CPT/CPTU
results. In some cases, the discussion is intentionally brief since it is assumed that most CPT
work will be conducted using a 10 cm 2 (1.55 in.2) cone with a tip apex angle of 60°.
Errors can also occur in the use of electric cones and primarily relate to either calibra-
tion error or zero load error as pointed out by DeRuiter (1982). The load cells need to be
calibrated frequently to check for errors or calibration changes and readings with zero load
need to be obtained before and after each sounding to check for any mechanical or electri-
cal problems.

4.5.1 Cone Design

Cone design may affect test results simply because of the way that the load is developed and
transferred on the various parts of the cone. As previously indicated, mechanical and electri-
cal cones do not always give the same results at the same site. Even within a given type of
cone (e.g., electric), the test results may not be the same. It would be expected that in sands,
different electrical cones would give similar results but in clays, where excess pore water
pressures generate during penetration may actually reduce the measured tip resistance, the
design of different electric cones may be more important. Additionally, subtraction cones
may not always give the same results as cones with independent load cells.

4.5.2 Cone Diameter

The diameter of the CPT cone tip is specifed to be 35.7 ± 0.4 mm (1.406 ± 0.016 in.) to give
a projected end area of 10 cm 2 (1.55 in 2). However, ASTM D3441 provides a note indicat-
ing that “cone tips with larger end areas may be used to increase measurement sensitivity in
weak soils”. The use of different size cones (in the range of 5–20 cm 2 is allowed by ASTM
“provided the cone tip and friction sleeve (if any) area is noted”. The use of different size
cones in the same soils has been considered by a number of investigators and is sometimes
referred to as the “scale effect”. The bulk of available data in both sands and clays suggests
that there is generally no signifcant difference in cone tip resistance with cone tip areas
ranging from 2.5 to 20 cm 2 . However, DeLima & Tumay (1991) found that using a 1.27 cm 2
cone in comparison with a 10 and 15 cm 2 cone at several sites did produce a scale effect
especially for the measured sleeve resistance and hence friction ratio. It also appeared that
the scale effect increased with an increasing cone resistance.
 Cone Penetration and Piezocone Tests 113

It seems logical to expect a difference in cone tip resistance with different size cones in
sands and perhaps for the difference to be more pronounced as the grain-size increases sim-
ply because of size scaling of the cone relative to the size of the soil grains. Similar observa-
tions have been noted for model/prototype/full-scale piles in sand. At the present time, there
are no real data to support this, however, and it is likely that within the range of cone sizes
typically used, it may be diffcult to distinguish clear trends in most natural sands.

4.5.3 Rate of Penetration

Variations in the rate of cone penetration can also produce variations in both tip resistance
and local friction. Most investigations indicate that lower cone resistance and lower local
friction is obtained at lower penetration rates in both sand and clay (e.g., Kok 1974; Dayal
& Allen 1975; Tekamp 1982; Powell & Quarterman 1988; Chung et al. 2006; Kim et al.
2008; Lehane et al. 2009; Oliveira et al. 2011). However, Campanella & Robertson (1981)
noted that the rate of penetration had only a minor infuence on tip resistance but signif-
cantly affected sleeve friction in a clayey silt. They showed that sleeve friction doubled when
the penetration rate was reduced by one order of magnitude.
ASTM requires a penetration rate of 1–2 cm/s (2–4 ft/min) ± 25%, which actually gives a
wide range of allowable advance rates. It is also noted by ASTM that “Rates of penetration
either slower or faster than the standard rate may be used for special circumstances, such
as pore pressure measurements”. In clays, the rate of penetration may be more important,
too slow a rate producing some dissipation of pore water pressure, while too fast a rate pro-
ducing a noticeable increase resulting from increased shear strength. The two may actually
offset each other, for different reasons, so that provided the test is conducted within the
specifed rate, there appear to be no signifcant effects on the results.

4.5.4 Surface Roughness of Friction Sleeve

The surface roughness of the friction sleeve may infuence the measured sleeve resistance
in some soils as pointed out by Jekel (1988). A new sleeve or tip may not give the same test
results as a worn sleeve or tip.

4.6 DATA REDUCTION AND PRESENTATION OF RESULTS

Data reduction of results obtained from the CPT/CPTU is relatively straightforward.

Unit cone tip resistance is obtained by dividing the measured tip load (force) by the cone tip
projected end area as

qc = FT A T (4.1)

where
qc = tip resistance (end bearing)
F T = tip force
AT = tip area (normally 10 cm 2)

Unit sleeve friction or skin friction is obtained by dividing the measured sleeve force by the
sleeve area as

fs = Fs A s (4.2)
114 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

where
fs = sleeve friction
Fs = sleeve force
As = sleeve area (normally 150 cm 2)

Normal units for qc and fs are either kg/cm 2 or tons/ft2 . An additional parameter that
combines the tip and sleeve measurements is called the friction ratio and is defned as

FR or R f = fs qc × 100% (4.3)

Results are presented as qc, fs, and R f versus depth so that an indication of the vertical varia-
tion in these parameters at the site may be obtained. An example of a typical CPT profle
obtained from an electric cone is shown in Figure 4.8.
It is also useful to have an indication of any changes in relative cone resistance which may
be made by calculating the normalized net tip resistance as

Qc = ( qc − ˙ vo ) ˙v̂o (4.4)

and the normalized sleeve resistance as

Fr = fs ( qc − ˙ vo ) (4.5)

Figure 4.8 Typical CPT data obtained in sand.

 Cone Penetration and Piezocone Tests 115

where
σvo = total vertical stress
°ṽo = effective vertical stress

The additional measurement of pore water pressure in the CPTU allows for alternative inter-
pretation of the test results. Depending on the design of the cone, water pressures can act
on the exposed parts behind the cone tip and on the ends of the friction sleeve. These water
pressures can result in measured tip resistance and sleeve friction values that do not refect
the true resistance of the soil thereby introducing errors in the test results. These errors can be
overcome by correcting the measured values for what are called “unequal end area effects”.
As the cone is advanced, soil must be displaced in order to make room for the cone to
pass. This movement of soil is accompanied by a change in stress conditions next to the soil
and is composed of a combination of changes in the soil normal stress acting on the  cone
and changes in shear stress. The degree of each component is controlled in part by the
composition of the soil, the original stress state, the degree of overconsolidation and other
variables such as rate of advance, cone tip angle, and location along the cone body.
For a standard 60° apex cone, most of the stress changes acting at the cone tip and along
the cone face result from compressional stresses which produce increases in pore water pres-
sure, much like compressing a soil in a consolidation test. At the cone shoulder and along
the friction sleeve, the stress changes are largely produced by shear stresses, since the cone
apex and face have already passed, displacing most of the soil outward. Along these points,
the pore water pressures may be positive or negative, depending on the specifc soil behavior.
This means that it is important to know the exact location of the pore water pressure mea-
suring point, relative to either the cone tip or cone base in order to make correct interpreta-
tions of the test results.
Pore water pressures will not be measured with the CPTU unless the soil is saturated or
near saturated. In fne-grained soils that have low hydraulic conductivity, the excess pore
water pressure does not have time to dissipate in the time while the cone is advancing. In freely
draining coarse-grained soils with high hydraulic conductivity, the generated pore water pres-
sure dissipates about as quickly as it is developed so that the measured pore water pressure
during the test is close to the in situ value. This means that in saturated sands and sand and
gravel deposits, the CPTU can be used to construct the in situ pore water pressure profle.
The measured cone tip resistance, qc, can be corrected for pore pressure effects to give the
corrected tip resistance, qt as

qt = qc + (1 − a ) u2 (4.6)

where
u = pore water pressure generated behind the cone tip
a = net area ratio = A N/AT

The areas A N and AT are defned in Figure 4.9. In order to determine qt, the porous element
must be located at the base of the cone (Type 2).
The value of the net area ratio, a, in Equation 4.6 can be calculated by measuring A n and
AT; however, a more accurate technique is to place the cone in a water pressure chamber and
apply various levels of known fuid pressure and measure the corresponding cone tip resis-
tance. It is desirable to have a cone design with as large a value of a as possible, e.g., on the
order of 0.85–0.95; however, most cone designs probably have a value of a in the range of
0.5–0.7 This correction is especially signifcant in soft saturated clays where the measured
tip resistance is low and the measured pore water pressure is high. Figure 4.10 shows a
116 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Figure 4.9 Pore water pressures acting on cone tip and sleeve.

Figure 4.10 Typical calibration of CPTU to determine net area ratio.

 Cone Penetration and Piezocone Tests 117

Figure 4.11 CPTU profle showing uncorrected and corrected tip resistance.

typical calibration to obtain the net area ratio. Figure 4.11 shows a CPTU profle performed
in soft clay and the difference between qc and qt.
A similar pore pressure correction is necessary to obtain the correct value of sleeve fric-
tion; however, this would require a measurement of the pore water pressure at both ends
of the friction sleeve. Campanella & Robertson (1981) and Konrad (1987) demonstrated
that the distribution of fs along the friction sleeve is nonuniform and increases as the sleeve
is moved further back behind the cone tip. This suggests that pore water pressure is also
nonuniform along the friction sleeve. The friction ratio R f may be redefned in terms of the
corrected tip resistance as

R f = fs qt (4.7)

Some cone designs use equal end area friction sleeves. If it is assumed that the pore pres-
sure distribution along the entire length of the sleeve is equal, the two forces will cancel.
However, this will not be the case in all soils.
The measured pore water pressure obtained from the CPTU is a total pore water pressure,
uT, which is defned as

u T = ue + uo (4.8)

where
ue = excess pore water pressure
uo = in situ pore water pressure at the test depth
118 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

The magnitude of uT depends on the measuring location since the stress conditions acting
along the cone length vary. The value of the in situ pore water pressure uo is primarily a
function of geologic conditions and is generally a positive value.
An additional cone parameter may be defned using the results of the CPTU, incorporat-
ing both the corrected tip resistance and the measured pore water pressure and is denoted as
Bq, the pore pressure parameter, defned as

Bq = ( u T − uo ) ( qt − ˙ vo ) (4.9)

Wroth (1988) and others have suggested that the corrected tip resistance could be expressed
as a normalized (and therefore nondimensional) parameter using the expression:

Q = ( qt − ˙ vo ) ˙v̂o (4.10)

The normalized excess pore water pressure may also be defned as

U = ( u T − uo ) ˆv̇o (4.11)

Since Bq has already been defned by Equation 4.9, the normalized pore water pressure is
given as

U = Q Bq (4.12)

The normalized tip resistance and normalized pore water pressure can be useful for esti-
mating soil properties in clays. The parameter Bq should always be defned in terms of the
corrected tip resistance, qt, and not simply qc.
Wroth (1988) suggested that the friction ratio should also be expressed in nondimensional
form as

F = fs ( qt − ˙ vo ) (4.13)

As with the CPT, the value of cone tip resistance and sleeve friction from a CPTU (i.e, qt and fs)
should be presented versus depth. Additionally, the measured pore water pressure should
also be presented, and an estimate of the in situ pore water pressure, uo, should be shown as
a reference. The calculated values of Q, U, and F may also be shown. Figure 4.12 shows the
typical examples of CPTU results in a soft clay.

4.7 INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS FOR STRATIGRAPHY

The results from the CPT/CPTU may be used to evaluate site stratigraphy as well as provide
estimates of a number of specifc soil properties for both coarse-grained and fne-grained soils.
In the past 10–15 years, the interpretation of individual soil properties from CPT/CPTU has
more or less reached a stage of maturity. Additional observations have added to the existing
database but have not substantially changed many empirical correlations that already exist.
CPT/CPTU results can often provide an indication of subsurface soil conditions by show-
ing differences in penetration resistance. The simplest way to get an initial indication of
changes in stratigraphy is to look at the penetration records of qc or qt and fs versus depth.
The added measurement of pore water pressure also can be used to identify major changes
in soil stratigraphy. The friction ratio may help as an indicator of soil type.
 Cone Penetration and Piezocone Tests 119

Figure 4.12 Typical CPTU data obtained in soft clay.

The results from CPT/CPTU may be used to identify soil conditions as an alternative to
obtaining samples from test borings. This is an indirect approach but is based on many years
of experience and well documented investigations but can sometimes be misleading. There is
no reliable universal soil identifcation scheme that works in all cases. It should also be remem-
bered that the response of a CPT (i.e., qc and fs) is an average response, infuenced by a relatively
large volume of soil. This makes the detection of very thin layers almost impossible. In this dis-
cussion, the term identifcation is used rather than classifcation for evaluating soil conditions
from CPT/CPTU data since the identifcation is based on soil behavior or response to the test.

4.7.1 Soil Identification from q c , f s , and R f

Electric cones provide independent measurements of cone tip resistance, qc, and sleeve
“friction”, fs. These values are uncorrected for pore pressure effects but can be combined to
defne the friction ratio, FR, as

FR = R f = ( fs qc ) × 100% (4.14)

Begemann (1965) suggested that the sleeve friction could be used in conjunction with the cone
tip resistance to develop a soil profle and suggested that values of FR less than about 2.5%
120 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

would indicate sand, greater than 3.5% would indicate clays, and between 2% and 4% as
mixed composition soils.
Some investigations (e.g., Muromachi 1981; Zervogiannis & Kalterziotis 1988) have shown
that the friction ratio, Rf, could be correlated to the mean grain size, D50, and there is also some
evidence indicating that in some deposits, the friction ratio is related to the content of fnes
(e.g., Suzuki et al. 1995). However, other results show very large scatter and an apparent lack
of correlation between friction ratio and content of fnes (e.g., Arango 1997). Several charts
have been suggested for identifying soil type by combining the friction ratio and cone tip resis-
tance obtained from electric cones (e.g., Douglas & Olsen 1981; Douglas 1984; Robertson
et  al. 1986). Most of these charts are of the general form shown in Figure  4.13, where tip
resistance and friction ratio are plotted, and specifc zones of soil behavior are suggested.
Other soil identifcation charts have been suggested using normalized parameters of tip
resistance and sleeve friction:

Q = ( qc − ˙ vo ) ˙ˆvo (4.15)

F = fs ( qc − ˙ vo ) (4.16)

4.7.2 Soil Identification from q t , B q , and R f

The additional measurement of pore water pressure obtained with a CPTU allows for enhanced
interpretation of soil conditions since the measured pore water pressure during penetration is
a function of soil behavior for a fxed porous element location. As a result, a number of soil

Figure 4.13 Soil identifcation chart based on CPT. (After Douglas & Olsen 1981.)
 Cone Penetration and Piezocone Tests 121

Figure 4.14 Soil identifcation from CPTU. (From Robertson et al. 1986.)

identifcation charts have been proposed for use with the CPTU using the combined measure-
ments of corrected tip resistance, qt, corrected sleeve friction, ft, and pore pressure, u2 (e.g., Jones
& Rust 1982; Senneset & Janbu 1985; Robertson et al. 1986; Campanella & Robertson 1988;
Robertson 2009). Figure 4.14 shows typical soil identifcation charts for CPTU.

4.7.3 Soil Identification from Q t , B q , and Fr

Normalized CPTU measurements may also be used for soil identifcation, as shown in
Figure 4.15, in which

Qt = ( qt − ˙ vo ) ˙v̂o (4.17)
122 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Figure 4.15 Soil identifcation from normalized CPTU parameters. (From Robertson 1990.)

Fr = ˆˇ ft ( qt − ˙ vo ) ˘ × 100% (4.18)

Bq = ( u2 − u0 ) ( qt − ˙ vo ) (4.19)

4.7.4 Soil Behavioral Type from CPTU, I C , and I CRW

The tip resistance, sleeve resistance, and pore water pressure obtained from the CPTU may
be combined to obtain a CPTU soil behavioral type. Robertson & Wride (1998) suggested
using normalized parameters of CPTU tip resistance and sleeve friction to give

0.5
{
ICRW = ˇ 3.47 – log (Qt1 ) } + {1.22 + log ( F)} 
2 2
(4.20)
˘

Jefferies & Been (2006) suggested Ic as

{ )} + {1.5 + 1.3 log ( F )} 

0.5

(
IC = ˇ 3 − log Qt ˇ˘1 − Bq  + 1
2 2
r (4.21)
˘

Values of soil behavioral type based on IC and ICRW are given in Table 4.1. Figure 4.16 shows
a chart developed based on CPTU soil behavioral type IC .
It is also possible to estimate the per cent fnes (% < No. 200 sieve) using the CPT index
IC . The content of fnes may be estimated as shown in Table 4.2 (after Mayne et al. 2009).
Eslami & Fellenius (1997) presented a very simplifed chart for identifying soil type
from a Type-2 CPTU based on effective cone resistance (qE = qt − u 2) and sleeve friction
(fs). The  chart is shown in Figure 4.17 and identifes fve basic soil types. Even though this
 Cone Penetration and Piezocone Tests 123

Table 4.1 Soil behavioral type from CPTU.

CPTU IC CPTU ICRW Soil behavioral type zone Soil identifcation
<1.25 <1.31 7 Gravelly sands
1.25–1.80 1.31–2.05 6 Clean to silty sands
1.80–2.40 2.05–2.60 5 Sandy mixtures
2.40–2.76 2.60–2.95 4 Silty mixtures
2.76–3.22 2.95–3.60 3 Clays
>3.22 >3.60 2 Organic soils
N/D N/D 1 Sensitive clays

Figure 4.16 Soil behavioral type chart based on CPTU. (From Mayne 2014; after Robertson 2009.)

approach was developed for use in a method to use the cone to estimate capacity of driven
piles, it also appears to be very useful in general soil identifcation.
It should be remembered that all of the soil identifcation charts presented in this section
are only guides. Local experience, local conditions, and knowledge of the geology and
ground water conditions at a site all should be used with engineering judgement to develop
an understanding of the subsurface conditions from the CPT/CPTU.
124 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Table 4.2 Estimated Fines content from CPT Index IC

IC % Fines
IC < 1.26 0
1.26 < IC < 3.50 %Fines = 1.75I3.25
C − 3.7
IC > 3.50 100

Figure 4.17 Simplifed chart for identifying soil type from CPTU. (After Eslami & Fellenius 1997.)

4.8 INTERPRETATION OF TEST RESULTS

IN COARSE-GRAINED SOILS

In freely draining coarse-grained soils, the advance of the CPT/CPTU represents drained
penetration, and the results are not subject to pore water pressure effects that may be present
in fne-grained soils.

4.8.1 Relative Density

Interpretation of the relative density in granular soils may be made directly using the cone tip
resistance qc and a number of published empirical correlations, as summarized by Robertson &
Campanella (1983a). Most of the early work relating to the CPT was performed in large cali-
bration chambers with different sands and showed that no single relationship exists between
cone tip resistance and relative density for all sands. Soil variables such as stress history, miner-
alogy, grain-size distribution, angularity, compressibility, and aging infuence the correlations.
Schmertmann (1978b) had presented a chart for estimating relative density from tip resis-
tance obtained with an electric cone for normally consolidated, saturated, recent, unce-
mented, fne, SP sands. Relative density was related to the tip resistance, qc, for different
values of vertical effective stress, °ṽo, and was based on Ko calibration chamber tests on six
different sands. Schmertmann (1978b) noted that such a correlation would overestimate the
 Cone Penetration and Piezocone Tests 125

relative density in the case of overconsolidated sands and suggested an approach to estimate
the relative density taking into account the effects of effective lateral stresses higher than for
the normally consolidated case.
Correlations presented by Baldi et al. (1981, 1982, 1986) and Jamiolkowski et al. (1988)
appear to be commonly used in sands, Figures 4.18 and 4.19. Most correlations however are
for relatively uniform, clean sands that often bear little resemblance to natural feld sands that
may originate from a wide range of geologies. Suggested correlations are given in Table 4.3.
Kulhawy & Mayne (1990) suggested correlations between a dimensionless normalized
(
cone  tip resistance parameter QCD = ( qc pa ) ( ˙v̋o pa )
0.5
)
and relative density taking into
account stress history and compressibility, as shown in Figure 4.20; pa = atmospheric pressure.
More recently, Mayne (2014) has reevaluated available data and presented a global corre-
lation between relative density and tip resistance, shown in Figure 4.21. Again, it should be
noted that both stress history and compressibility infuence these correlations, and estimates
of Dr could be off by 15%–30%.

4.8.2 State Parameter

The concept of the state parameter to characterize the behavior of sand was suggested by
Been & Jefferies (1985). The term “state” is used to describe the physical conditions under
which the material exists since the material behavior will be controlled by these condi-
tions. The most important physical conditions that defne the current state of a soil and
would therefore control its behavior are void ratio and stress level. The state parameter
combines the infuence of void ratio and stress level for each sand by reference to an ulti-
mate or steady state.

Figure 4.18 Correlation between tip resistance and relative density for NC sands. (After Baldi et al. 1986.)
126 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Figure 4.19 Correlation between relative density and normalized cone tip resistance in sands.
(After Jamiolkowski et al. 1988.)

Table 4.3 Reported correlations for estimating relative density from CPT
Correlation References

( )
Dr = 1 C2 ln ˆˇ qc ( Co ( ˙v̋o ) C1 ) ˘ Baldi et al. (1986a)
Co = 157
C1 = 0.55
C2 = 2.41
(qc and °ṽo in kPa)

( )
0.5
Dr = −98 + 66log qc ˇv̂o Jamiolkowski et al. (1988)
(qc and °ṽo in t/m2)

(( ))
0.5
DR =100 ˝ q t1 1 305 OCR 0.2 ˆ Mayne (2014)
˙ ˇ
( )( )
0.5
q t1 = q t pa ˙v̋o pa

The steady state line for a particular sand represents a condition of no dilation during
shear and has been discussed in great detail in the literature (Castro 1969; Poulos 1981;
Castro et al. 1985). The position and slope of a steady state line in e-σʹ space is a reference
state that is different for different sands and depends on other material properties such as
grain-size distribution, limiting void ratios, mineralogy, particle shape, compressibility, and
friction angle at constant volume, °c̃v. As illustrated in Figure 4.22, the state parameter is
given by the difference between the current void ratio, and the void ratio at steady state at
a given stress level and is denoted as ψ. Been et al. (1986, 1987) presented a comparison
between the normalized net cone tip resistance (i.e., ( qc − ˝ vo ) ˝v̇o ) and State Parameter, ψ,
for a number of sands, shown in Figure 4.23.
 Cone Penetration and Piezocone Tests 127

Figure 4.20 Correlations between normalized tip resistance and relative density. (After Kulhawy &
Mayne 1990.)

Figure 4.21 Correlation between normalized CPT top resistance and relative density. (From Mayne 2014.)
128 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Figure 4.22 Defnition of state parameter for sands. (After Been & Jeffries 1985.)

Figure 4.23 Steady state lines for a number of sands. (After Been et al. 1986)

4.8.3 Shear Strength (Drained Friction Angle)

Engineers may wish to make an estimate of the drained friction angle of granular soils for
use in the design of foundations, for calculating earth pressures behind retaining structures
or for other applications. Several approaches have been used to estimate φʹ from CPT qc
including theoretical analysis by deep bearing capacity theory, theoretical analysis by cavity
expansion theory, and empirical correlations based on other test results to give φʹ.
 Cone Penetration and Piezocone Tests  129

4.8.3.1  φʹ from Deep Bearing Capacity Theory

Several studies (e.g., Muhs & Weiss 1971; Janbu & Senneset 1974; Chapman & Donald 1981)
have noted a correlation between qc and Nq, Terzaghi’s bearing capacity factor for ­general
shear. φʹ may be estimated using an appropriate chart for Nq found in most ­foundation engi-
neering texts. The bearing capacity approach presented by Durgunoglu & Mitchell (1973)
has been one of the most popular methods for determining friction angle from CPT tip resis-
tance. The method assumes a cone roughness factor and requires k ­ nowledge of the normal
stress around the cone. The method cannot account for soil ­compressibility and tends to
underestimate the secant friction angle, ϕ′s .
Robertson & Campanella (1983a) reviewed a number of calibration chamber studies and
compared correlations between the bearing capacity number, N q = qc σ ′vo , and drained
­friction angle, Figure 4.24. The correlation is somewhat sensitive to soil compressibility as
well as the assumed shape of the failure surface. The correlation proposed by Robertson &
Campanella (1983) is shown by the solid line of Figure 4.24 and can be expressed as

ϕ′ = tan−1 0.1 + 0.38log ( qc σ ′vo )  (4.22)

where qc and σ ′vo are in the same units.

4.8.3.2  φʹ from State Parameter

The relationship between peak drained friction angle and state parameter for a number of
sands is shown in Figure 4.25

Figure 4.24  Correlation between tip resistance and friction angle for sands. (After Robertson &
Campanella 1983.)
130 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Figure 4.25 Relationship between peak drained friction angle and state parameter. (After Been & Jeffries 1985.)

Kulhawy and Mayne (1990) summarized the available friction angle data reported in
the literature for sands compiled based on calibration chamber data that gave a general
correlation between friction angle and normalized tip resistance as

˝˛ = 17.6 + 11.0 log ( qt1 ) (4.23)

An updated chart was presented by Mayne (2014) and included data from Uzielli et al.
(2013) as shown in Figure 4.26. The results of Uzielli et al. (2013) use a power function as

˝˛ = 25.0 ( qt1 )
0.10

4.8.4 Stress History and In Situ Stress

At the present time, there are insuffcient reliable results available to accurately predict the
in situ lateral stress or stress history of coarse-grained soils from CPT results. A number of
calibration chamber tests results available in clean uncemented quartz sands show that there
is a unique relationship between the measured tip resistance and the effective horizontal
stress, °h̃ (e.g., Parkin 1988; Houlsby & Hitchman 1988). While it is well known that the
prepenetration state of stresses largely controls the response obtained from the CPT in sands,
it is not a simple matter to extract the magnitude of in situ lateral stresses from cone data.

4.8.5 Elastic Modulus

The elastic modulus, E S , of soils has also been correlated to the results of tip resistance
measurements (qc) obtained from the CPT. Most early correlations between qc and E S were
of the general form

E S = °qc (4.24)
 Cone Penetration and Piezocone Tests 131

Figure 4.26 Updated correlation between normalized CPT tip resistance and friction angle. (From Mayne 2014.)

where
λ = a constant (empirical factor)

Mitchell & Gardner (1975) compiled a large number of reported correlations, which gener-
ally show very wide scatter. Table 4.4 summarizes a number of suggestions for estimating
soil modulus from CPT.
E S in units of qc for CPT
The use of large calibration chamber tests on reconstituted samples of sands has helped
to evaluate variables that can infuence correlations between soil modulus and CPT results.

Table 4.4 Some reported correlations between ES and qc in sands

Correlation Soil References
ES = 2.9 qc Sand Garga & Quin (1974)
ES = aqc NC and OC sand Dahlberg (1974)
1<a<4
ES = 11 qc Sand Lambrechts & Leonards (1978)
ES = 2.5 qc Axisymmetric loading Schmertmann et al. (1978)
ES = 3.5 qc Plain strain loading
ES = 2.5 qc Sand Roth et al. (1982)
ES = α qc Medium sand Das Neves (1982)
α = 1.7–4.4
Average = 2.5
ES = 8(qc)0.5 Sand Denver (1982)
qc in MPa
ES = 2–4 qc Sand (normally consolidated) Bowles (1988)
( )
ES = 1 + Dr2 qc Sand (overconsolidated)
ES = 6–30 qc
ES = 3–6 qc Clayey sand
ES = 1–2 qc Silty sand
ES in units of qc for CPT.
132 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

For a given sand, the ratio E/qc is related to stress history and current stress level for sands
at different relative densities. Robertson (1991) proposed that the ratio of E S/qc should be
expressed as a function of the relative load intensity.
Because of the wide range in correlation constants that may exist between the results of in situ
penetration tests and a singular value of soil modulus, it is doubtful that any method that relies
on these techniques for the accuracy of settlement estimates will be of much value, other than
those created by local correlations developed from full-scale feld observations of performance.

4.8.6 Constrained Modulus

In one-dimensional compression, the tangent slope of the stress-strain curve is defned as
the constrained modulus:

D = °˝ ˛v °˙ v (4.25)

From elastic theory, the constrained modulus is related to the Young’s modulus and shear
modulus as

M = E ˇ˘(1 − ˙ ) (1 + ˙ )(1 – 2˙ )  = 2G ˇ˘(1 – ˙ ) (1 – 2˙ )  (4.26)

Based on a series of calibration chamber tests on a dry medium to fne quartz sand,
Chapman  & Donald (1981) found that the initial one-dimensional constrained modulus,
M, could be related to qc. For normally consolidated conditions: the expression M = 3qc
provided a lower bound, with most data falling in the range M = 3–4 qc. For overconsoli-
dated specimens (with OCR < 2), the results indicated M = 8–15 qc with an average value
of M = 12 qc.
For a given sand, the ratio M/qc is related to stress history and current stress level for
sands at different relative densities. For both normally consolidated and overconsolidated
sands, the ratio M/qc decreases with increasing relative density, all other factors being equal.
Mayne (2006) presented a compilation of test results showing a correlation between D and
net tip resistance as

D = ˙˝c ( qt – ˆ vo ) (4.27)

The value of °c̃ = 5 for soft to frm clays and normally consolidated sands. The global correla-
tion between M and CPTU net tip resistance for a wide range of soils is shown in Figure 4.27.

4.8.7 Shear Wave Velocity and Small-Strain Shear Modulus

The small-strain shear modulus in soils may be measured using a number of feld crosshole
and downhole methods that are more or less considered standard techniques for dynamic
testing. The shear wave velocity may also be measured directly using a seismic cone or
piezocone (SCPT/SCPTU) as illustrated in Figure 4.28.
Estimates of either VS or Gmax may be obtained indirectly from CPT results through
empirical correlations. Gmax is obtained from Vs as

G max = °VS2 (4.28)

where
ρ = soil density
 Cone Penetration and Piezocone Tests 133

Figure 4.27 Correlation between constrained modulus and net CPTU tip resistance. (From Mayne 2006.)

Figure 4.28 Schematic of seismic CPT/CPTU.

134 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

4.8.7.1 Shear Wave Velocity and Shear Modulus from q c

Estimates of VS and Gmax in different coarse-grained soils have been suggested. Table 4.5
gives a number of reported empirical correlations. Several studies have also shown that the
results of cone tests may be used to make direct estimates of Gmax in coarse-grained soils.
Robertson (1990) suggested a generalized approach relating Gmax to normalized tip resis-
tance that appears to be useful for estimating Gmax for a wide range of soils, as shown in
Figure 4.29. A similar correlation is given in Figure 4.30.

4.8.8 Liquefaction Potential

For over 40 years, the CPT/CPTU has been used to evaluate liquefaction potential of coarse-
grained soils (Robertson & Campanella 1985; Robertson & Wride 1995; Stark & Olson
1995; Idriss & Boulanger 2004; Moss et al. 2006; Juang et al. 2008). The methods generally
are based on cone tip resistance, qc or qt, or on direct or indirect measurement of shear wave
velocity (Kayabali 1996; Andrus et al. 2004). More recently, methods have also been pre-
sented incorporating CPT/CPTU friction ratio (e.g., Mola-Abasi et al. 2018). The methods
are similar to approaches that use SPT N-values discussed in Chapter 2.
In general, the available methods make use of databases of CPT/CPTU results obtained
at sites that experienced liquefaction and separate them from sites that did not experience
liquefaction for the same seismic event. Methods are typically for earthquake with mag-
nitude 7.5 and are based on a plot of cyclic stress ratio (CSR) that causes liquefaction and
normalized cone tip resistance, as shown in Figure 4.31 for clean sands and Figure 4.32 for
silty sands. The normalized tip resistance is obtained as

(
qC1N = ( qc – ˝ vo ) pa ( pa ) ˝v̇o )n (4.29)

Table 4.5 Some reported empirical correlations between VS and qc for coarse-grained soils
Correlation References
VS = 134.1 + 0.0052qc Sykora & Stokoe (1983)
VS = 277 q 0.13
t ˛° 0.27
vo
Baldi et al. (1989)
(qt in MPa)
VS = 13.18 qc0.192 ˛°vo0.179 (4.25a) Hegazy & Mayne (1995)
0.319 −0.0466
VS = 12.02 q c s f
VS = 25.3 q 0.163 0.029
c f D0.155
s
Piratheepan (2002)
VS = 118.8 log (fs) + 18.5 Mayne (2006)
Gmax = 1634 qc0.250 ˛°vo0.375 Rix & Stokoe (1991)
Gmax = 2.26 qc + 59.2 Fiorovante et al. (1991)
(Gmax & qc in MPa)
Gmax = 50 q1.05
c
Anagnostopoulos et al. (2003)
Gmax = 800 q ˛°
0.250
c
0.375
vo
Schnaid et al. (200)
(upper bound: cemented)
Gmax = 280 qc0.250 ˛°vo0.375
(lower bound: cemented)
(upper bound: uncemented)
Gmax =110 qc0.250 ˛°vo0.375
(lower bound: uncemented)
Mayne (2006)
( )
0.6
Gmax = 50 pa ˆˇ q t − ˙ vo pa ˘

VS in m/s; qc, fs, and °ṽo in kPa; D = depth in m; Gmax in MPa.

 Cone Penetration and Piezocone Tests 135

Figure 4.29 Correlation between Gmax and CPT qc. (After Robertson 1990.)

Figure 4.30 Small strain shear modulus related to net CPTU tip resistance. (From Mayne 2006.)

where
pa = atmospheric pressure
n = function of soil behavioral type (IC)

if IC < 1.64 n = 0.5

if IC > 3.30 n = 1.0

if IC 1.64 < IC < 3.30 n = ( IC −1.64 ) 0.3 + 0.5

136 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Figure 4.31 CPT-based liquefaction potential for clean sands.

Figure 4.32 CPT-based liquefaction potential for silty sands.

4.9 INTERPRETATION OF CPT RESULTS IN FINE-GRAINED SOILS

While the mechanics of the CPT advance in granular soils is generally considered to repre-
sent drained penetration, the CPT in fne-grained soils is largely interpreted as undrained
penetration. This is especially the case for soft saturated clays which generally occur in con-
ditions of relatively high water table. In stiff, highly overconsolidated clays, such as a surf-
cial clay crust, there may be some questions as to the exact drainage conditions surrounding
the cone; however, as will be shown, the results generally can be assessed using similar
procedures along with other fne-grained soils.
 Cone Penetration and Piezocone Tests 137

4.9.1 Undrained Shear Strength

Results of the CPT have been used extensively to provide an estimate of the undrained shear
strength of clays using both the tip resistance and sleeve friction. Table 4.6 summarizes
different approaches for estimating undrained shear strength in clays.

4.9.1.1 s u from q c
Most current correlations for determining su from CPT tip resistance qc have the form

su = ( qc – ˝ vo ) N k (4.30)

where
σvo = in situ total vertical stress
N k = empirical factor

The value of N k depends on the reference value of su and can vary from about 10 to 40
but typically averages about 14 in a large number of clays. In soft clays, the reference
has often been the fled vane test, whereas in stiff clays, the reference may be other feld
tests, e.g., plate load or laboratory tests, such as triaxial compression or unconfned com-
pression. N k is related to the rigidity index, I r = G/su , of the clay. Baligh (1975) showed
theoretically that for a 60° cone, the value of N k only varied from about 14 to 18 over a
wide range of I r values.
An average value of N k = 17 was suggested by Lunne et al. (1976) to provide a good
comparison with corrected feld vane results for a number of marine clays in Scandinavia.
Stark  & Delashaw (1990) obtained a value of N k of 12 from unconsolidated-undrained
(UU) triaxial tests. Jamiolkowski et al. (1982) summarized a large number of test sites
correlating qc to corrected feld vane results and showed that Nk decreased with increasing
plasticity with a range from about 5 to 25 for soft to medium clays. If soils with low plasticity
(P.I. < 10) are eliminated, the mean value of N k is approximately 15, which corresponds
closely with that presented by Baligh, as previously mentioned.

Table 4.6 Summary of methods for estimating su from CPT/CPTU

General correlation References
su = (qc − σvo)/Nk Lunne et al. (1976)
Jamiolkowski et al. (1982)
Rad & Lunne (1988)
Stark & Deleshaw (1990)
Anagnostopoulos et al. (2003)
su = (qt − σvo)/Nkt Jamiolkowski et al. (1988)
Larsson & Mulabdic (1991)
su = (u2 − uo)/Nu Robertson & Campanella (1983b)
Campanella et al. (1985)
Larsson & Mulabdic (1991)
su = (qt − u2)/Nkc Senneset et al. (1982)
Campanella et al. (1982)
Mayne & Chen (1993, 1994)
(s u )
˝˛vo = Q t NKT Robertson (2009)
138 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

4.9.1.2 s u from qT
Undrained shear strength may also be estimated from the corrected tip resistance, qt, from
the CPTU, which may be used to provide an estimate of

su = ( qt – ˝ vo ) N KT (4.31)

The value of the cone factor N KT is a function of the rigidity index of the soil, I r, (I r = G/
su). For typical values of I r in clays (i.e., 50–500), theoretical values of N KT only range from
about 9.1 to 12.2. Values of N KT reported in the literature range from about 7 to 30 with
reference values of undrained shear strength coming from a variety of laboratory and in situ
tests. The value of N KT is also somewhat dependent on sensitivity and therefore may need
to be reduced to N KT = 10 (approximately) for sensitive clays. Wroth (1988) showed that for
a given soil, N KT is a constant and generally independent of OCR (with a typical value of
about 12 over the range of 1 < OCR < 8).
Results obtained in soft clays indicated that su from laboratory direct simple shear tests,
the value of N KT can be roughly related to the liquid limit. For the range of LL between
about 30 and 200, their data suggested that

N KT(DDS) = 13.4 + 6.65 LL (4.32)

where
LL = liquid limit (in decimal)

While there was considerable scatter, values of N KT ranged between about 14 and 20 with
an average of about 16. Using results from triaxial compression tests, the test data showed
an average value of N KT of about 11 which was also related to the liquid limit as follows:

N KT(TC) = 3.6 + 13.2 (LL) (4.33)

A typical value of N KT = 15 is often used for preliminary evaluation of su unless local experi-
ence or other local correlations are available. In soft clays, a value of N KT = 15 has been shown
to provide good agreement with feld vane tests (e.g., Cai et al. 2010; Chung et al. 2010).

4.9.1.3 s u from u
Robertson & Campanella (1983b) suggested that based on cavity expansion theory, the
undrained shear strength could be estimated from

4 < ( ˝u1 su ) < 7 (4.34a)

(spherical cavity expansion with u measured at cone tip; u1 position)

or

3 < ( ˝u2 su ) < 5 (4.34b)

(cylindrical cavity expansion with u measured behind cone tip; u 2 position)

where
Δu = excess pore water pressure = uT − uo
 Cone Penetration and Piezocone Tests 139

In general, then, su may be estimated from the empirical expression:

su = °u N u (4.35)

where
Nu = an empirical factor

Observed values of the factor Nu vary over a much narrower range than either N K or N KT
and typically range from about 4 to 10 but are a function of the location of the porous
element. The value of Nu also depends to some degree on the sensitivity, the pore pressure
parameter at failure, A f, and the rigidity index.
In stiff, highly overconsolidated clays, (e.g., OCR > 8) some problems may be encountered
using Equation 4.65 if pore water pressures are measured behind the cone tip (Type 2). Because
of high pore pressure gradients established between the cone tip and cone base, the pore water
pressures measured at the cone base during the cone sounding may be low in highly overcon-
solidated clays. This is usually indicated by a signifcant rise in pore water pressure when the
sounding is stopped, and a dissipation test is performed. This means that pore water pressures
measured during penetration will be low, leading to estimates of su that are too low.

4.9.1.4 s u from qT and u

Senneset et al. (1982) and Campanella et al. (1982) suggested that the undrained shear
strength could be estimated from the “effective” corrected cone tip resistance, i.e., (qt – u 2).
The general expression for su may be given as

su = ( qt − u2 ) N ke (4.36)

Reported values of N ke typically range from about 3 to 12 depending on the reference value
of su.
Mayne & Chen (1993, 1994) presented an effective stress model for estimating su from
CPTU using this approach. In this model, the value of Nqu is related to the effective stress fric-
tion angle, φʹ, the critical state failure, M, the volumetric strain ratio, X, and a modifed Cam-
clay equation factor. For most typical clays, the value of Nqu would vary from about 6.1 to 7.1.

4.9.1.5 s u from Q
Robertson (2009) suggested estimating the normalized undrained shear strength from the
normalized cone tip resistance assuming a value of N KT = 14 as

( su ˝˛vo ) = Qt 14 (4.37)

where

(Qt ) = (qt – ˝ vo ) ˝v̇o

4.9.1.6 s u from f s
Estimates of undrained shear strength using CPT friction sleeve measurements have also
been made, as frst suggested by Begemann (1965); however, it appears that this practice
is currently less common than using the tip resistance. A number of reported correla-
tions between fs and su are summarized in Table 4.7. It has been shown that in some cases,
140 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Table 4.7 Some reported correlations between CPT sleeve friction and undrained shear strength
Soil Correlation Cone type Reference strength References
su = fs M N/A Sanglerat (1972)
CL-ML su = fs/1.24 M CIUC Gorman et al. (1973)
Bangkok clay su = fs/0.47 M Vane Brand et al. (1974)
CL-ML su = fs M CIUC & UU Gorman et al. (1975)
CH-CL su = (k)fs E Vane Marr & Endley (1982)
(k = 0.67–4 depending
on L.I. & su)
CH-CL su = 1.72 fs E N/A Tumay et al. (1982)
ML-CL su = fs/1.28 M N/A Cancelli et al. (1982)
Bangkok clay su = fs/0.61 M (?) PMT Bergado & Khaleque (1986)
(soft marine clay)
su = fs/0.53
(stiff clay)
CL su = fs/1.23 E (?) UU Zervogiannis & Kalteziotis (1988)
CH-CL stiff surem = fs E (?) Remolded UU Quiros & Young (1988)
ML su = 4.2fs E UU Takesue et al. (1995)
su = 2.8fs UC
ML-CL stiff su= fs/1.26 M UU Anagnostopoulos et al. (2003)
su = fs E

the sleeve friction may actually more closely represent remolded strength. For example,
Robertson et  al. (1986) presented data for clays in the Vancouver area, which generally
showed that the sleeve friction values from an electric cone were very close to remolded
strength. This difference may be related to sensitivity.

4.9.1.7 s u from ˜
˜°p
It is also possible to estimate the undrained shear strength from the pre-consolidation
stress, °p̃, discussed in Section 4.8.3. For many clays, there is a unique relationship between
undrained shear strength and stress history, which may be given approximately as

su = 0.23 ˛°p (4.38)

Therefore, using the CPT/CPTU to frst estimate °p̃, one can use Eq. 4.38 to estimate su.

4.9.2 Sensitivity
Schmertmann (1978b) suggested that sensitivity, St, could be estimated from

St (field vane) = N s R f (%) (4.39)

where
St (feld vane) = sensitivity
Ns = an empirical factor
R f = friction ratio

Schmertmann (1978b) suggested a value of Ns = 15 for Rf from a mechanical CPT and St

obtained from Nilcon or Geonor type feld vane. Robertson & Campanella (1983b) suggested
 Cone Penetration and Piezocone Tests 141

Ns = 10 for electric cone data. Greig et al. (1986) and Robertson et al. (1986) suggested Ns = 6
for data collected from clays in the Vancouver area. Robertson (2009) suggested that sensitiv-
ity could be estimated from CPTU results using the normalized friction ratio as

St = 7.1 Fr (4.40)

where

Fr = ˆˇ fs ( qt − ˙ vo ) ˘ 100%

If the sleeve friction can be taken as an estimate of the remolded strength, then sensitiv-
ity may also be obtained by combining sleeve resistance with an estimate of undisturbed
strength from tip resistance or pore pressure.

4.9.3 Stress history – Preconsolidation Stress, ˜

˜°p
The results of the CPT/CPTU may be used to make an estimate of the stress history of clays,
by either estimating the preconsolidation stress, °p̃, or the overconsolidation ratio, OCR.
Both empirical and analytical models have been suggested predicting °p̃ and OCR using the
corrected tip resistance or pore water pressure. More rigorous numerical models have also been
used. Chen & Mayne (1994) presented a review of the various approaches suggested. In some
cases, piezocones with multiple pore water pressure sensor locations are required. Table  4.8
summarizes the different approaches for estimating stress history for CPT/CPTU results.

4.9.3.1 ˜
˜°p from q c
A direct relationship between qc and the preconsolidation stress, °p̃, has been noted for differ-
ent clays. Tavenas & Leroueil (1987) showed that for sensitive Canadian clays
° ˜p = qc 3 (4.41)

Mayne & Kemper (1988) suggested a general correlation between qc and °p̃ as

° p̃ = qc ˝ c (4.42)

Table 4.8 Summary of empirical approaches for estimating stress history from CPT/CPTU
Parameter General correlation References
°p̃ °˜p = qc k c Tavenas & Leroueil (1987)
Mayne & Kemper (1988)
˝˛p = ( qc − ˝ vo ) k k Mayne (1986)
Tavenas & Leroueil (1987)
˝ ˛p = ˆ t ( q t − ˝ vo ) Powell et al. (1989)
˝ ˛p = ˆ u (uT − uo ) Roy et al. (1981)
Powell et al. (1989)
Mayne (1995)
˝ ˛p = ˆ p ( q t − u1 ) ˝˛p = 0.8 ( q t − u1 )
OCR OCR = k ˇ˘( qc − ˙ vo ) 
˙v̂o Mayne & Kemper (1988)
OCR = 0.49 + 1.50 ˆ˙(u1 – u2 ) u0 ˇ˘ Sully et al. (1988)
OCR = ˝ ˘( q t − u1 ) ˇv̂o  Chen & Mayne (1994)
142 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Figure 4.33 Correlation between °p̃ and CPT tip resistance. (After Mayne & Kemper 1988.)

As shown in Figure 4.33, values of kc for both electric cones and for mechanical cones vary
between about 2 and 8. A general trend to these data which may be useful for preliminary
work may be taken as

° ˜p = qc 4 (4.43)

It has also been suggested (e.g., Mayne 1986; Tavenas & Leroueil 1987) that an estimate of
°p̃ may be made using the net tip resistance, qc − σvo.

4.9.3.2 ˜
˜°p from q t
Empirical correlations between the preconsolidation stress, °p̃, and the corrected cone tip
resistance, qt, have been suggested for a number of different clay deposits. These correlations
have the general form

˝ ˛p = ˆ t ( qt − ˝ vo ) (4.44)

The value of αt typically is in the range of 0.20 to 0.40. Table 4.9 presents a summary of
different reported values of αt. The use of Equation 4.73 and αt requires that pore pressure
be measured behind the cone base, i.e., in the u2 position so that qc may be corrected to
qt. Data collected by Mayne (1995) are shown in Figures 4.34 and 4.35.

˜°p from Δu
4.9.3.3 ˜
Based on the results of pile tests, Roy et al. (1981) suggested that °p̃ could be related directly
to the pore pressure difference Δu = uT − uo for sensitive clays in Canada. For Δu measured
at the pile tip, they found that

° p̃ = 0.58 ˝u (4.45a)
 Cone Penetration and Piezocone Tests 143

Table 4.9 Reported values of αt

αt Soil References
0.20 Clay till, UK Powell et al. (1989)
0.30 Soft clay Powell et al. (1989)
0.29 Swedish clays Larsson & Mulabdic (1991)
0.34 Norwegian clays Lunne et al. (1992)
0.28 Eastern Canada clays Leroueil et al. (1995)
0.33 U.S. clays Mayne (1995a)
0.30–0.45 Polish clays Borowczyk & Szymanski (1995)

Figure 4.34 Estimation of °p̃ from CPTU net tip resistance. (After Mayne 1995.)

for Δu measured on the shaft,

° p̃ = 1.08 ˝u (4.45b)

Since the pore water pressure obtained from the CPTU is dependent on the location of the
piezoelement, specifc correlations for predicting °p̃ from Δu would be needed for different
cone designs. Mayne (1995) presented a summary of the available data shown in Figures 4.36
and 4.37, which shows that

˝ ˛p = 0.47 ˆu  ( tip ) (4.46a)

and

˝ ˛p = 0.54 ˆu  (behind tip ) (4.46b)

Note that fssured clays do not follow the trend lines of these data since the measured pore
water pressures are often dependent on other soil behavior. In highly overconsolidated clays,
Equation 4.46b may not provide a realistic estimate of °p̃ since Δu may be zero or negative
during penetration (Figure 4.37).
144 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Figure 4.35 Global estimation of °p̃ from CPTU net tip resistance. (From Mayne 1995.)

Figure 4.36 Estimation of °p̃ from Δu1 (Type 1). (After Mayne 2006.)
 Cone Penetration and Piezocone Tests 145

Figure 4.37 Estimation of °p̃ from Δu2 (Type 2). (After Mayne 2006.)

4.9.3.4 ˜
˜°p from q t and u
Results presented by Mayne & Chen (1994) suggested that OCR may be determined from
using both qt and u. This approach may be used to make a direct estimate of °p̃ as

˝ ˛p = 0.8 ( qt − u1 ) (4.47a)

˝ ˛p = 0.5 ( qt − u2 ) (4.47b)

4.9.4 Stress History – OCR

4.9.4.1 OCR from q c
Mayne & Kemper (1988) suggested that the OCR could be estimated directly from the tip
resistance as

OCR = k ˇ˘( qc − ˙ vo ) ˙v̂o  (4.48)

Values of k ranged from 0.3 to 0.8 for electric cones and 0.12 to 0.5 for mechanical cones.

4.9.4.2 OCR from q t and u

A relatively recent development has been presented suggesting that OCR may be estimated
by combined use of the net tip resistance and pore water pressure. Chen & Mayne (1994)
suggested

OCR = 0.8 ( qt − u1 ) ˆv̇o (4.49a)

OCR = 0.5 ( qt − u2 ) ˆv̇o (4.49b)

146 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

4.9.4.3 OCR from Pore Pressure Difference

Sully et al. (1988) showed that for a dual element piezocone, the pore pressure difference,
PPD, (PPD = (u1 − u 2)/uo) provided an excellent correlation with OCR up to OCR = 10 as

OCR = 0.49 + 1.50 PPD (4.50)

However, for more heavily overconsolidated clays (10 < OCR < 40), the PPD did not work
very well, and considerable scatter was observed.

4.9.5 In Situ Lateral Stress

4.9.5.1 K 0 from OCR
For routine work, an estimation of in situ lateral stresses may be made using an appropriate
empirical correlation between Ko and another parameter, such as OCR, after frst making
an estimate of OCR. Mayne & Kulhawy (1982) had suggested that in an overconsolidated
soil undergoing simple unloading, the value of Ko could be obtained from

( Ko )OC = ( Ko )NC (OCR )sin ˙˝ (4.51)

In normally consolidated soils, (Ko)NC may be estimated from the effective stress friction
angle as

( Ko )NC = 1 − sin ˆ˙ (4.52)

For typical values of φʹ for clay, ranging from 20° to 30°, (Ko)NC ranges from about 0.50 to
0.66. Therefore, an estimate of OCR could frst be estimated and then used to estimate Ko
from Equation 4.51.

4.9.5.2 Empirical Correlations to q t and Δu

Empirical results between Ko obtained from self-boring pressuremeter tests (SBPMT) and
qT or Δu1 have been presented by Kulhawy & Mayne (1990) and are shown in Figures 4.38
and 4.39. These observations suggest that

Ko = 0.10 ( qt − ˙ vo ) ˙v̂o (4.53)

Ko = 0.24 ( ˝u1 ˆv̇o ) (4.54)

4.9.6 Shear Wave Velocity and Small-Strain Shear Modulus

4.9.6.1 Shear Wave Velocity from q c and q t
As noted in Chapter 2, small strain shear modulus may be obtained from the shear wave
velocity as

G max = °Vs2 (4.55)

Even though Gmax is a small-strain property and qc or qt is a large-strain property, a reason-

able relationship between these two parameters should be expected since both parameters
 Cone Penetration and Piezocone Tests 147

Figure 4.38 Correlation between Ko and CPTU tip Resistance in clays. (After Kulhawy & Mayne 1990.)

Figure 4.39 Correlation between Ko and CPTU pore pressure (Type 1) in clays. (From Idriss & Boulanger
2006.)

are a function of the existing stress state and the stress history. However, it has also been
well established that Gmax is dependent on the initial void ratio, eo, of soil. In some cases,
empirical correlations for either VS or Gmax may be improved if the initial voids ration, eo,
is included.
Several empirical correlations have been presented between uncorrected and corrected
cone tip resistance and shear wave velocity for fne-grained soils. A number of these correla-
tions are given in Table 4.10.
148 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Table 4.10 Reported correlations between qc or qt and VS

Correlation Clay References
Misc. Clays Mayne & Rix (1995)
VS = 1.75 qc0.627

VS = 2.94 q0.613 Norwegian soft clay Long & Donohue (2010)

t

VS = 7.95 q0.403
t
Jiangsu clays Cai et al. (2014)
0.101 −0.663
VS = 90 q t e 0

(1 + B q )
0.337
VS = 4.54 q0.487
t

VS in m/s, qc in kPa.

4.9.6.2 Shear Wave Velocity from f s

For a wide range in soils, Mayne (2006) suggested that VS could be estimated from the local
sleeve resistance as

VS = 118.8 log ( fs ) + 18.5 (4.56)

with VS in m/s and fs in kPa.

4.9.6.3 Shear Modulus from q c and q t

A direct estimate of Gmax may also be made from qc or qt for fne-grained soils. Table 4.11
gives some reported correlations.
Figure 4.40 shows a global correlation between tip resistance and VS and CPTU sleeve
resistance for a number of soils, including both clays and sands.

4.9.7 Constrained Modulus

As previously discussed, the one-dimensional constrained modulus, M, is often correlated
to CPT/CPTU tip resistance as

M = 1 m v = ˛°cqc (4.57)

Table 4.11 Some reported correlations between qc or qt and Gmax

Correlation Clay References
G max = 2.8 q1.4
c
Greek clays Bouckovalas et al. (1989)
G max = 2.78 q1.335
c
Norwegian clay Mayne & Rix (1993)
G max = 406 ( qc )
0.695
e01.130
Gmax = 50 (qt − σvo) Japanese clays Tanaka et al. (1994)
Gmax = 65 (qt − σvo) Bangkok clays Shibuya et al. (1998)

(1 + Bq ) Norwegian soft clays Long & Donohue (2010)

1.202
G max = 1.96 q0.579
c

(1 + Bq ) Jiangsu clays Cai et al. (2014)

3.14
G max = 30.1 q0.31
t

VS in m/s, Gmax; qc and qt in kPa.

 Cone Penetration and Piezocone Tests 149

Figure 4.40 Correlation between VS and cone sleeve resistance. (From Mayne 2007)

Kulhawy & Mayne (1990) compiled a piezocone database from a number of different
clays and developed a correlation between constrained modulus and corrected CPTU tip
resistance, qt, as

M = 8.25 ( qt − ˙ vo ) (4.58)

The test results are shown in Figure 4.41.

4.9.8 Coefficient of Consolidation

One of the unique features of the CPTU is that the pore water pressure measurement may
be used to estimate the fuid fow characteristics of the soil. If the sounding is interpreted by
stopping the advance of the cone at some desired test depth, then the pore water pressure may

Figure 4.41 Correlation between constrained modulus and tip resistance in clays. (After Parez & Fauriel 1988.)
150 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Figure 4.42 Typical CPTU pore pressure dissipation curve. (After Kulhawy & Mayne 1990.)

be monitored over time to provide a direct evaluation of the time-rate of pore pressure decay.
An example of this decay is shown in Figure 4.42. This procedure is commonly referred to
as a dissipation test. The results may be used to estimate the coeffcient of consolidation and
hydraulic conductivity. In practice, the advance is stopped, and the cone rods are locked off
with time zero corresponding to the time when advance was halted.
Analytical and numerical solutions have been presented (e.g., Torstenson 1975, 1977;
Baligh & Levadoux 1986; Gupta & Davidson 1986; Elsworth 1993; etc.) to give the coef-
fcient of consolidation in terms of the cone radius, R, and the time factor T for different
levels of consolidation, obtained from the normalized pore water pressure:

(
c h = TR 2 t ) (4.59)

The horizontal coeffcient of consolidation is used in Equation 4.59 since the horizontal fow
characteristics largely control the dissipation rate for all piezoelement locations. Table  4.12
gives a comparison of T values from different theories for 50% consolidation. The value of T
is dependent on the cone apex angle, the rigidity index of the soil (E/su) and the pore pressure
parameter Af and is different for different piezoelement locations and the degree of dissipation.
The time factor presented by Gupta & Davidson (1986) for a 60° cone, with pore pres-
sures measured at the cone base (Type 2) E/su = 200, and A f = 0.9 (t50 = 1.2) corresponding
to 50% dissipation provides values of ch that compare well with average normally consoli-
dated ch values from oedometer tests. For a standard 10 cm 2 cone, Equation 4.59 becomes

( )
c h = 1.53 × 10−3 t 50 (m 2 /s) (4.60)

Table 4.12 Approximate CPTU time factors for 50% consolidation

Element location t50 References
Tip 1.2–3.2 Torstenson (1975, 1977)
Mid face 12.0 Chan (1982)
3.6 Baligh & Levadoux (1986)
Cone base 5.2 Baligh & Levadoux (1986)
1.2 Gupta & Davidson (1986)
0.25 Houlsby & Teh (1988)
 Cone Penetration and Piezocone Tests 151

The time to reach 50% dissipation, t50, is obtained from a plot of normalized excess pore
water pressure, where Un is defned as

U n = ( u t − uo ) ( ui − uo ) (4.61)

where
ut = measured pore water pressure at any time t after stopping the cone advance
uo = in situ (initial) pore water pressure at the test depth
ui = pore water pressure at time zero

An example of such a plot is shown in Figure 4.43 using the test data of Figure 4.42.
One problem that can occur with CPTU dissipation tests is that the results may show
an initial rise in pore water pressure before the dissipation (decrease) actually starts. That
is, there is a time lag to reach the maximum measured pore water pressure. This typically
occurs in very stiff overconsolidated clays with Type 2 cones. For these cases, the author has
taken the time where the observed maximum pore water pressure occurs as time zero and
then adjusted all subsequent times to this value.
Even though different time factors are available for different consolidation levels, the
author routinely carries all CPTU dissipation tests to a minimum of 50% dissipation in
order to use t50 in Equation 4.60. A reasonably reliable estimate of uo is needed to determine
the normalized excess pore water pressure and can usually be obtained from piezometer
data or knowledge of ground water conditions at the site.
Teh & Houlsby (1991) suggested that the theoretical time factor could be normalized by
the rigidity index (I r = G/su) to give a modifed time factor:

(
T˝ = ( c h t ) R 2I0.5
r ) (4.62)

Using 50% dissipation, Robertson et al. (1992) prepared a chart relating ch to t 50 for dif-
ferent values of the rigidity index for both a 10 and 15 cm 2 piezocone given in Figure 4.44.

Figure 4.43 Normalized CPTU pore pressure dissipation curve.

152 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Figure 4.44 Chart for estimating ch from t 50. (After Robertson et al. 1992.)

4.9.9 Hydraulic Conductivity

Using the results above to estimate ch, the hydraulic conductivity may be estimated from
dissipation tests as follows:

kh = c h°w m h (4.63)

where
kh = horizontal hydraulic conductivity, (m/s)
ρw = unit weight of water (kN/m3)
mh = coeffcient of volume change, (m 2 /kN)

The value of mh may be estimated using the relationship with cone tip resistance, qc or qt,
as previously described.
Baligh & Levadoux (1980, 1986) proposed that the horizontal hydraulic conductivity be
evaluated from

kh = ( ˝w RR c h ) ( 2.3 ˆv̇o ) (4.64)

where
ρw = unit weight of water
RR = recompression ratio
ch = coeffcient of consolidation
°ṽo = initial in situ vertical effective stress

The recompression ratio must be evaluated in the laboratory using oedometer tests or by
some other means. This presents a practical drawback to this approach.
It has been suggested that the value of kh may be estimated quickly based on the measured
value of t50, provided that all other variables remain constant. That is, the cone size, pore
pressure element location, etc. are all the same at different sites. Even though soil properties
 Cone Penetration and Piezocone Tests 153

may vary from site to site (e.g., I r, A, OCR, etc.), it appears that from a practical standpoint,
these are minor, especially considering the potential variability in hydraulic conductivity.
Ventura (1983) suggested a simple expression relating hydraulic conductivity k and t50 as

(
k = 10−1 ) ( z )( t 50 ) (cm/s) (4.65)

where
z = depth of test in meters.

Parez & Fauriel (1988) suggested the chart shown in Figure 4.45 for estimating kh based
on t50 measurements obtained with a porous element located behind the cone tip. Results
obtained by the author at a number of sites are shown in Figure 4.46, where the reference
values of kh were obtained from laboratory fexible wall tests on undisturbed samples with
fow in the horizontal direction.

4.10 ADVANTAGES AND LIMITATIONS OF CPT/CPTU

The use of the CPT/CPTU offers some distinct advantages over a more conventional
approach to geotechnical site investigations. Advantages of using the CPT/CPTU are listed
in Table 4.13.
There may also be both real and perceived limitations to using either the CPT or CPTU
for site investigations. A number of limitations are given in Table 4.14.

4.11 CPT-SPT CORRELATIONS

Early comparisons between the CPT and SPT suggested that the ratio qc /N tended to
increase as the soil became coarser. Robertson et al. (1983) presented a chart correlating the
ratio qc /N with mean grain size, D50, in mm. As shown in Figure 4.47, the ratio increases
with mean grain size, consistent with previous observations. The ratio qc /N was origi-
nally proposed as an attempt to convert qc to N so that correlations previously developed

Figure 4.45 General trend between t50 and hydraulic conductivity. (After Parez & Fauriel 1988.)
154 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Figure 4.46 Observed results between t50 (Type 2) and laboratory hydraulic conductivity.

Table 4.13 Advantages of CPT/CPTU

Advantage Notes
Speed Deployment is usually faster than conventional drilling and sampling using
boreholes; more locations can be investigated in the same total time
Continuous profling A near-continuous record of the subsurface conditions is obtained from changes
in tip, sleeve, and pore pressure measurements; clays, sands, and gravelly soils
provide uniquely distinct results; thin soil zones may be identifed, which might
otherwise be missed using regular drilling and sampling methods
Increased productivity Because of the reduced time involved in the completion of a profle, a much
larger number of areal points may be investigated at a lower cost compared to
the more conventional drilling and sampling.This allows for adjustments in the
site investigation to be made without lost time to the overall project
Minimal surface Often, no test boring is required, and therefore, there is minimal cleanup and
disturbance minimal surface restoration required at the end of testing; no drill cuttings are
generated for removal or disposal
Economics Overall cost of the site investigation program may be reduced by reducing the
number of samples and laboratory tests required
Reduced time of Because the test is rapid, the data may provide a large amount of information
investigation about the subsurface conditions quickly and provide the opportunity to review
results in a timely fashion
Large volume of high- The amount of information obtained from profling far exceeds that obtained by
quality data traditional drilling, sampling, and laboratory testing
Testing soils that are Characteristics of soils that are diffcult or impossible to sample may be
diffcult to sample evaluated

between N and soil properties or foundation design could be used. Many comparisons have
been presented between qc and N showing a general trend but with considerable scatter.
Zervogiannis & Kalteziotis (1988) suggested that results be expressed as

qc = 4.66 N D0.25
50 (4.66)
 Cone Penetration and Piezocone Tests 155

Table 4.14 Potential disadvantages of CPT/CPTU

No sample No sample is obtained for using in a visual-manual classifcation or for other
laboratory testing.This is a disadvantage that many engineers are uncomfortable with.
The test results are used to infer soil type
Complexity Cone tests are more complex than either the SPT or DCPT.That is, they generally
require more set-up and more initial attention to small mechanical or electrical
details.The equipment is more complicated and often requires a portable computer
or data acquisition system, which may also require an external power source, etc.
Piezocones may require equipment for deairing and calibration
Availability In many parts of the world, reliable CPT/CPTU equipment is not readily available
Initial cost The initial investment in purchasing CPT/CPTU equipment represents a signifcant
capital expense

Figure 4.47 Early correlation between CPT qc and SPT N. (After Robertson et al. 1983.)

It appears that the relationship between qc /N and D50 by Robertson et al. (1983) may repre-
sent an approximate average for relatively clean coarse-grained soils, generally with content
of fnes less than about 10%. The ratio qc /N also decreases with increasing content of fnes
as shown in Figure 4.48.

Figure 4.48 Infuence of fnes content on qc/N. (After Kulhawy & Mayne 1990.)
156 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

The observed scatter in qc /N relationships may result, in part, from differences in test
procedures and equipment used to perform both the SPT and CPT. Differences in qc values
obtained from either electric or mechanical cones, as well as differences in reported N values
obtained using various SPT equipment may create substantial variations in the qc /N ratio for
a given sand. In order to reduce some of this scatter, it may be more appropriate to evaluate
the ratio qc /N60. At a given site, the ratio may not be constant for the same soil but may also
be infuenced by the mean stress or the overburden stress since qc and N may be affected
differently by the stress feld.
There is strong evidence that suggests that there may be a better correlation between fs
and N (e.g., Kruizinga 1982; Takesue et al. 1996). This may be more intuitive, especially if
we consider that for most soils, the SPT N value is dominated by sampler side friction.

4.12 CPT/CPTU IN FOUNDATION DESIGN

As with the SPT discussed in Chapter 2, there are many applications of the CPT/CPTU in
geotechnical design.

4.12.1 Shallow Foundations

Several methods have been suggested for determining the ultimate bearing capacity and
settlement of shallow foundations through the use of the CPT by direct and indirect or
empirical methods (Meyerhof 1965; Schmertmann 1970, 1978a; Schmertmann et al. 1978;
Goel 1982).
Tand et al. (1995) reviewed load tests from nine footings on lightly cemented medium
dense sand and proposed a relationship between the ultimate bearing capacity and cone tip
resistance as

qult = R kqc + ˛ vo (4.67)

where
qult = stress producing a relative settlement (s/B) equal to 0.05B
R k = is a factor that varies from 0.14 to 0.19 depending on depth and width of the footing
qc = average CPT tip resistance
σvo = total overburden stress at the base of the footing

Equation 4.67 is a similar approach to the method used to estimate the ultimate capacity of
shallow foundations using the pressuremeter, discussed in Chapter 7. A similar method was
presented by Tand et al. (1986) for shallow foundations on clay.
Eslaamizaad & Robertson (1996) presented a simplifed approach for estimating the
ultimate bearing capacity of shallow foundations on sands as

qult = Kqc (4.68)

where
K = empirical correlation factor related to footing shape and embedment

A recommended chart for different shaped footings is shown in Figure 4.49.

A direct design approach for estimating both bearing capacity and settlement of shal-
low foundations on sands, similar to that discussed in Chapter 2, has also been presented
 Cone Penetration and Piezocone Tests 157

Figure 4.49 Correlation between ultimate bearing capacity for footings on sand. (After Eslaamizaad &
Robertson 1996; from Lunne et al. 1997.)

(Mayne & Illingworth 2010; Mayne et al. 2012) using relative footing settlement. Results
collected from a large number of footing load tests on a wide range of sands with different
footing shapes showed that

q qc = 0.585 ( s B )
0.5
(4.69)

where
q = applied stress
qc = average cone tip resistance beneath the footing for a depth of 1.5B
s = settlement
B = footing width

Defning the ultimate bearing capacity as the stress producing a relative settlement of 10%
of the footing with gives

qult = 0.18qc (4.70)

4.12.2 Deep Foundations

The CPT/CPTU has been used extensively to design deep foundations. There are several
reasons for considering the CPT for direct design of deep foundations, especially driven
piles: (1) the test procedure and equipment are standardized, (2) the cone resembles a model
pile, (3) a continuous profle of the soil supporting the pile is usually obtained, and (4) the
test and design procedures are relatively fast. However, because of differences in installa-
tion methods, scale effects, loading rates, soil disturbance, and other effects, it should be
expected that there is a need for some adjustment to the measured cone response to the
design of a pile.
At least 25 different methods have been suggested for estimating the capacity of deep
foundations from CPT/CPTU results. The methods vary in their use of tip resistance and
sleeve friction; however, most rely predominantly on cone tip resistance. Some methods
have been developed using a database of full-scale pile load tests, exclusive to either soil
type or the method of pile installation (e.g., Almeida et al. 1996; Eslami & Fellenius 1997;
VanDijk & Kolk 2011). Niazi & Mayne (2013) presented a review and summary of existing
methods.
158 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

The method of predicting the axial capacity of driven and jacked steel piles in clay pre-
sented by Almeida et al. (1996) is based on the results of 43 pile load tests at eight sites. The
clays at the sites ranged in stiffness from very soft to very stiff, and the piles ranged in diam-
eter from about 0.1 to 0.8 m. The design method is a direct empirical method and is based
on estimating the unit end bearing and side resistance from the net cone tip resistance from

qp = ( qt − ˙ vo ) k2 (4.71)

fp = ( qt − ˙ o ) k1 (4.72)

where
qP = pile unit end bearing
f P = Pile unit side resistance
k1 and k 2 = empirical constants

Almeida et al. (1996) recommended that the value of k 2 be taken as

k2 = N KT 9 (4.73)

where
N KT = cone factor for undrained shear strength

The value of k1 varies with the normalized net corrected tip resistance and shows consider-
able scatter; however, Almeida et al. (1996) suggested that an average value of observed data
would give

k1 = 12.0 + 14.9 log ˘( qt − ˆ vo ) ˆv̌o  (4.74)

Eslami & Fellenius (1997) presented a design method that also uses results from the CPTU.
As opposed to other methods that use the arithmetic average of the cone tip resistance, this
method uses the geometric average. In addition, the corrected cone tip resistance, qt, is con-
verted to “effective” cone tip resistance, qE , by subtracting the measured CPTU pore water
pressure, u 2 , obtained at the cone base:

q E = q t − u2 (4.75)

The unit end bearing and the unit side resistance are obtained from

qp = C tqEg (4.76)

fp = CSqEg (4.77)

where
qEg = the geometric average “effective” tip resistance
Ct = pile toe correlation coeffcient
C S = pile shaft correlation coeffcient

Based on a comparison with pile tests and other studies, the toe correlation coeffcient,
Ct, is taken equal to 1.0. The value of CS is related to soil type and is obtained from the
 Cone Penetration and Piezocone Tests 159

Table 4.15 Shaft correlation coeffcient CS for use in Eslami & Fellenius (1997)
CS
Soil zone Soil type Range (%) Approximation (%)
1 Soft, sensitive soils 7.37–8.64 8.0
2 Clay 4.62–5.56 5.0
3 Stiff clay and mixtures of clay and silt 2.06–2.80 2.5
4 Mixtures of silt and sand 0.87–1.34 1.0
5 Sand 0.34–0.60 0.4

recommended “soil profling chart” previously shown in Figure 4.17. In this procedure,
the soil is “classifed” according to one of fve different soil types. The value of C S is then
obtained from Table 4.15.

4.13 SUMMARY OF CPT/CPTU

The CPT and CPTU have established a solid position in in situ testing. The tests are gener-
ally reliable and can be performed with simple equipment. The cost of both regular cones and
piezocones has come down in recent years as the technology has become more simplifed.
Provided the tests can be reliably deployed, the results are superior to other penetration tests,
especially the SPT and DCP. A large database now exists for both coarse-grained and fne-
grained soils for estimating specifc soil properties and/or behavior. Engineers should work
to incorporate both tests, where appropriate, into routine practice. CPT and CPTUs are no
longer only applicable to large projects but can be used on many projects to enhance the site
investigation.

REFERENCES

Almeida, M., Danziger, F., and Lunne, T., 1996. Use of the Piezocone Test to Predict the Axial
Capacity of Driven and Jacked Piles in Clay. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 33,
pp. 23–41.
Anagnostopoulos, A., Koukis, G., Sabatakakis, N., and Tsiambaos, G., 2003. Empirical Correlations
of Soil Parameters Based on Cone Penetration Tests (CPT) for Greek Soils. Geotechnical and
Geological Engineering, Vol. 21, pp. 377–387.
Andrus, R., Stokoe, K., and Juang, C., 2004. Guide for Shear-Wave-Based Liquefaction Potential
Evaluation. Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 285–308.
Arango, I., 1997. Historical and Continued Role of the Standard Penetration Test Method in
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering. 3rd Seismic Short Course on Evaluation and Mitigation
of Earthquake Induced Liquefaction Hazards, San Fransico, CA.
Baldi, G., Bellotti, R., Ghionna, V., Jamiolkowski, M., and Pasqualini, E., 1982. Design Parameters
for Sands from CPT. Proceedings of the 2nd European Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol.
2, pp. 425–438.
Baldi, G., Bellotti, R., Ghionna, V., Jamiolkowski, M., and Pasqualini, E., 1986. Interpretation
of CPT’s and CPTU’s Part 2, Drained-Penetration of Sands. 4th International Geotechnical
Seminar Field Instrumentations and In Situ Measuarements, Singapore, pp. 143–156.
Baldi, G., Bellotti, R., Ghionna, V., Jamiolkowski, M., and Lo Presti, D.C.F., 1989. Modulus of Sands
from CPT’s and DMT’s. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 165–170.
160 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Baligh, M.M., 1975. Theory of Deep Site Static Cone Penetration Resistance. Report No. R-75-76,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Baligh, M.M. and Levadoux, J.N., 1980. Pore Pressure Dissipation after Cone penetratin. Research
Report No. R80-11. Department of Civil Engineering, MIT, Cambridge, MA, 367 pp.
Baligh, M.M. and Levadoux, J.N., 1986. Consolidation after Undrained Piezocone Penetration
II: Interpretation. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 112, No. 7, pp.
727–745.
Been, K., Crooks, J.H.A., Becker, D.A., and Jefferies, M.G., 1986. The Cone Penetration Test in
Sands: Part I, State Parameter and Interpretation. Geotechnique, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 239–250.
Been, K. and Jefferies, M.G., 1985. A State Parameter for Sands. Geotechnique, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp.
99–112.
Been, K., Jefferies, M.G., Crooks, J.H.A., and Rothenburg, L., 1987. The Cone Penetration in Sands:
Part II, General Inference of State. Geotechnique, Vol. 37, No. 3, pp. 285–299.
Begemann, H.K.S., 1953. Improved Method of Determining Resistance to Adhesion by Sounding
Through a Loose Sleeve Placed Behind the Cone. Proceedings of the 3rd International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 213–217.
Begemann, H.K.S., 1965. The Friction Jacket Cone as an Aid in Determining the Soil Profle.
Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 17–20.
Bergado, D. and Kahaleque, M., 1986. Correlations of LLT Pressuremeter, Vane and Dutch Cone
Tests in Bangkok Marine Clay, Thailand. ASTM STP 950, pp. 339–353.
Borowcszyk, M. and Szymanski, A., 1995. The Use of In Situ Tests for Determination of Stress
History. Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 17–22.
Bowles, J.E., 1988. Foundation Analysis and Design, 4th Edition. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York.
Bouckovalas, G., Kalteziotis, N., Sabatakakis, N., and Zervogiannis, C., 1989. Shear Wave Velocity
in a Very Soft Clay. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 191–194.
Brand, E., Moh, Z., and Wirojanagud, P., 1974. Interpretation of Dutch Cone Tests in Soft Bangkok
Clay. Proceedings of the European Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 2.2, pp. 51–58.
Cai, G., Liu, L., Tong, L., and Du, G., 2010. Field Evaluation of Undrained Shear Strength from
Piezocone Tests in Soft Marine Clay. Marine Georesources and Geotechnology, Vol. 28,
pp. 143–153.
Cai, G., Puppala, A., and Liu, S., 2014. Characterization on the Correlation between Shear Wave
Velocity and Piezocone Tip Resistance of Jiangsu Clays. Engineering Geology, Vol. 171,
pp. 96–130.
Campanella, R.G. and Roberston, P.K., 1981. Applied Cone Research, Cone Penetration Testing and
Experience, ASCE, pp. 343–362.
Campanella, R.G., Robertson, P.K., and Gilllespie, D., 1983. Cone Penetration Testing in Deltaic
Soils. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 23–35.
Campanella R.G., Robertson, P.K., Gillespie, D, and Grieg, J., 1985. Recent Developments in In
Situ Testing of Soils. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Vol. 2, pp. 849–854.
Cancelli, A., Guadagnini, R., and Pellegrini, M., 1982. Friction-Cone Penetration Testing in Alluvial
Clays. Proceedings of the 2nd European Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 1, pp. 513–518.
Castro, G., 1969. Liquefaction of Sand. PhD thesis, Division of Engineering and Applied Physics,
Harvard University.
Castro, G., Poulos, S.J., and Leathers, F.D., 1985. Re-examination of Slide of Lower San Fernando
Dam. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 111, No. 9, pp. 1093–1107.
Chapman, G.A. and Donald, I.B., 1981. Interpretation of Static Penetration Tests in Sand. Proceedings
of the 10th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 2,
pp. 455–458.
Chan, A., 1982. Analysis of Dissipation of Pore Pressures after cone penetration. M.S. Thesis,
Department of Civil Engineering, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, 120 pp.
 Cone Penetration and Piezocone Tests 161

Chen, B.S. and Mayne, P.W., 1994. Profling the Over consolidation Ratio of Clays by Piezocone
Tests. Georgia Institute of Technology Report No. GIT-CEEGEO-94-1.
Chung, S., Randolph, M., and Schneider, J., 2006. Effect of Penetration Rate on Penetrometer
Resistance in Clay. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE,
Vol. 132, No. 9, pp. 1188–1196.
Chung, S., Chung, J., Jang, W., and Lee, J., 2010. Correlations between CPT and FVT Results for
Busan Clay. Marine Georesources and Geotechnology, Vol. 28, pp. 49–63.
Dahlberg, R., 1974. Penetration Pressure and Screw Plate Tests in a Preloaded Natural Sand Deposit.
Proceedings of the 1st European Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 2.2, pp. 69–87.
Das Neves, E.M., 1982. Direct and Indirect Determination of Alluvial Sand Deformability.
Proceedings of the 2nd European Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 1, pp. 95–99.
DeLima, D.C. and Tumay, M.T., 1991. Scale Effects in Cone Penetration Tests. Geotechnical
Engineering Congress, ASCE, Vol. 1, pp. 38–51.
Denver. H., 1982. Modulus of Elasticity for Sand Determined by SPT and CPT. Proceedings of the
2nd European Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 1, pp. 35–40.
DeRuiter, J., 1982. The Static Cone Penetration Test: State-of-the-Art Report. Proceedings of the 2nd
European Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 2, pp. 389–405.
Douglas, B.J., 1984. The Electric Cone Penetrometer Test: A User’s Guide to Contracting for Services,
Quality Assurance, Data Analysis. The Earth Technology Corporation, Long Beach, CA.
Douglas, B.J. and Olsen, R.S., 1981. Soil Classifcation Using Electric Cone Penetrometer. Cone
Penetration Testing and Experience, ASCE, pp. 209–227.
Durgunoglu, H.T. and Mitchell, J.K., 1973. Static Penetration Resistance of Soils. Research Report
Prepared for NASA Headquarters, Department of Civil Engineering, University of California,
Berkeley, CA.
Dayal, U. and Allen, J., 1975. The Effect of Penetration Rate on the Strength of Remolded Clay and
Sand Samples. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 22, pp. 336–348.
Elsworth, D., 1993. Piezometer Cone Penetration Tests in Marine Subsoil Profles. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 119, No. 10, pp. 1601–1623.
Eslaamizaad, S. and Robertson, P., 1996. Cone Penetration Test to Evaluate Baring Capacity of
Foundations in Sands. Proceedings of the 49th Canadian Geotechnical Conference.
Eslami, A. and Fellenius, B., 1997. Pile Capacity by Direct CPT and CPTu Methods Applied to 102
Case Histories. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 34, pp. 886–904.
Garga, V.K., and Quin, J.T., 1974. An Investigation on Settlements of Direct Foundations on Sand.
Settlement of Structures, BGS, pp. 22–36.
Goel, M.C., 1982. Correlation of Static Cone Resistance with Bearing Capacity. Proceedings of the
2nd European Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 1, pp. 575–580.
Greig, J.W., Campanella, R.G. and Robertson, P.K., 1986. Comparison of Field Vane Results with
Other In Situ Tests Results. Soil Mechanics Series No 106, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of British Columbia.
Gorman, C.T., Hopkins, T., and Drnevich, V., 1973. In Situ Shear Strength Parameters
by Dutch  Cone Penetration Tests. Research Report 374, Kentucky Department of
Transportation, 12 pp.
Gupta, R.C. and Davidson, J.L., 1986. Piezoprobe Determined Coeffcient of Consolidation. Soils
and Foundations, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 12–22.
Hegazy, Y. and Mayne, P.W., 1995. Statistical Correlations between VS and Cone Penetration Data
for Different Soil Types. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Cone Penetration
Testing, CPT ’95, pp. 173–178.
Houlsby, G.T. and Hitchman, R., 1988. Calibration Chamber Tests of a Cone Penetrometer in Sand.
Geotechnique, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 39–44.
Houlsby, G.T. and Teh, T.I., 1988. Analysis of the Piezocone in Clay. Proceedings of the 1st
International Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 2, pp. 777–783.
Idriss, I. and Boulanger, R., 2006. Semi Empirical Procedures for Evaluating Liquefaction Potential
during Earthquakes. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 26, Nos. 2–4,
pp. 115–130.
162 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Jacobs, P.A. and Coutts, J.S., 1992. A Comparison of Electric Piezocone Tips at the Bothkennar Test
Site. Geotechnique, Vol. 42, No. 2, pp. 369–375.
Jamiolkowski, M., Lancellotta, R., Tordella, L., and Ballaglio, M., 1982. Undrained Strength for
CPT. Proceedings of the 2nd European Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 2, pp. 599–606.
Jamiolkowski, M., Ghionna, V.N., Lancellotta, R., and Pasqualini, E., 1988. New Correlations
of Penetration Tests for Design Practice. Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on
Penetration Testing, Vol. 1, pp. 263–296.
Janbu, N. and Senneset, K., 1974. Effective Stress Interpretation of In-Situ Static Penetration Tests.
Proceedings of the 1st European Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 181–194.
Jeffries, M.G. and Been, K., 2006. Soil Liquefaction – A Critical State Approach. Taylor & Francis,
London.
Jekel, J.W., 1988. Wear of the Friction Sleeve and its Effect on the Measured Local Friction.
Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 2, pp. 805–808.
Jones, G.A. and Rust, E.A., 1982. Piezometer Penetration Testing, CUPT. Proceedings of the 2nd
European Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 2, pp. 607–613.
Juang, C., Chen, C., and Mayne, P.W., 2008. CPTU Simplifed Stress-Based Model for Evaluating
Soil Liquefaction Potential. Soils and Foundations, Vol. 48, No. 6, pp. 755–770.
Kayabali, K., 1996. Soil Liquefaction Evaluation Using Shear Wave Velocity. Engineering Geology,
Vol. 44, Nos. 1–4, pp. 121–127.
Kim, K., Prezzi, M., Salgado, R., and Lee, W., 2008. Effect of Penetration Rate on Cone Penetration
Resistance in Saturated Clayey Soils. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 134, No. 8, pp. 1142–1153.
Kok, L., 1974. The Effect of the Penetration Speed and the Cone Shape on the Dutch Static Cone
Penetration Test Results. Proceedings of the 1st European Symposium on Penetration Testing,
Vol. 2.2, pp. 215–220.
Konard, J.M., 1987. Piezo-Friction-Cone Penetrometer Testing in Soft Clays. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 645–652.
Kruizinga, J., 1982. SPT-CPT Correlations. Proceedings of the 2nd European Symposium on
Penetration Testing, Vol. 1, pp. 91–96.
Kulhawy, F.H. and Mayne, P.W., 1990. Manual for Estimating Soil Properties for Foundation Design.
Electric Power Research Institute Report 1493-6.
Lambrechts, J.R. and Leonards, G.A., 1978. Effects of Stress History on Deformation of Sand.
Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 104, No. GT11, pp. 1371–1387.
Larsson, R. and Mulabdic, M., 1991. Piezocone Tests in Clay. Swedish Geotechnical Institute Report
No. 42.
Lehane, B., O’Loughlin, C., Gaudin, C., and Randolph, M., 2009. Rate Effects on Penetrometer
Resistance in Kaolin. Geotechnique, Vol. 59, No. 1, pp. 41–52.
Long, M. and Donohue, S., 2010. Characterization of Norwegian Marine Clays with Combined
Shear Wave Velocity and Piezocone Penetration Test (CPTU) Data. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, Vol. 47, No. 7, pp. 709–718.
Lunne, T., Eide, O., and de Ruiter, J., 1976. Correlations Between Cone Resistance and Vane Shear
Strength in Some Scandinavian Soft Medium Stiff Clays. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol.
13, No. 4, pp. 430–441.
Lunne, T., Lacasse, S., and Rad, N.S., 1992. General Report: SPT, CPT, Pressuremeter Testing and
Recent Developments. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Vol. 4, pp. 2339–2403.
Lunne, T., Robertson, P., and Powell, J., 1997. Cone Penetration Testing in Geotechnical Practice.
Blackie Academic and Professional Publishers, New York.
Marr, L.S. and Endley, S., 1982. Offshore Geotechnical Investigation Using Cone Penetrometer.
Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Paper OTC4298-MS.
Massarsch, K., 2014. Cone Penetration Testing – A Historic Perspective. Proceedings of the 3rd
International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing, Vol. 1, pp. 97–134.
Mayne, P.W., 1986. CPT Indexing of In Situ OCR in Clays. Use of In Situ Tests in Geotechnical
Engineering, ASCE, pp. 780–793.
 Cone Penetration and Piezocone Tests 163

Mayne, P.W., 1995. Profling Yield Stress in Clays by In Situ Tests. Transportation Research Record
No. 1479, pp. 43–50.
Mayne, P.W., 1995a. CPT Determination of Overconsolidation Ratio and Lateral Stresses in Clean
Quartz Sands. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing, Vol.
2, pp. 215–220.
Mayne, P.W., 2006. In Situ Test Calibrations for Evaluating Soil Parameters. Proceedings the
Characterization and Engineering Properties of Natural Soils, Vol. 3, pp. 1323–1379.
Mayne, P.W., 2014. Interpretation of Geotechnical Parameters from Seismic Piezocone Tests.
Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing, pp. 47–73.
Mayne, P.W. and Chen, B.S., 1993. Effective Stress Method for Piezocone Evaluation of su. Proceedings
of the 3rd International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 2,
pp. 1305–1311.
Mayne, P.W. and Chen, B.S., 1994. Preliminary Calibration of PCPT - OCR Model for Clays.
Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 283–286.
Mayne, P.W., Cop, M.R., Springman, S., Huang, A.B. and Zornberg, J., 2009. Geomaterial Behavior
and Testing, Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Geotechnical Engineering, pp. 2777–2872.
Mayne, P.W. and Kemper, J.B., 1988. Profling OCR in Stiff Clays by CPT and SPT. Geotechnical
Testing Journal, ASTM, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 139–147.
Mayne, P.W. and Rix, G.J., 1993. Gmax – qc Relationships for Clays. Geotechnical Testing Journal,
ASTM, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 54–60.
Mayne, P.W. and Illingworth, F., 2010. Direct CPT Method for Footing Response in Sands Using a
Database Approach. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Cone Penetration
Testing, 8 pp.
Mayne, P.W., Uzielli, M., and Illingworth, F., 2012. Shallow Footing Response on Sands Using a
Direct Method Based on Cone Penetration Tests. Full-Scale Testing and Foundation Design,
ASCE, pp. 664–674.
Meigh, A.C., 1987. Cone Penetration Testing Methods and Interpretation. Butterworths, London,
141 p.
Meyerhof, G.G., 1965. Shallow Foundations. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division,
ASCE, Vol. 91. No. SM2, pp. 21–31.
Mitchell, J.K. and Gardner, W.S., 1975. In Situ Measurement of Volume Change Characteristics. In
Situ Measurement of Soil Properties, ASCE, Vol. 2, pp. 279–345.
Mola-Abasi, H., Kordtabar, B., and Kordnaeij, A., 2018. Liquefaction Potential Prediction Using CPT
Data by Triangular Chart Identifcation. International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 377–382.
Moss, R., Seed, R., Kayen, R., Stewaet, J., Der Kiureghian, A., and Cetin, K., 2006. CPT-Based
Probabilistic and Deterministic Assessment of In Situ Seismic Sol Liquefaction Potential. Journal
of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 132, No. 8, pp. 1032–1051.
Muhs, H. and Weiss, K., 1971. Investigation of Ultimate Bearing Capacity and Settlement Behavior
of Individual Shallow Footings in Non-Uniform Cohesionless Soil (in German). DEGEBO
(Journal of the German Soil Mechanics Society), University of Berlin, Vol. 26, pp. 1–37.
Muromachi, T., 1981. Cone Penetration Testing in Japan. Cone Penetration Testing and Experience,
ASCE, pp. 49–75.
Niazi, F. and Mayne, P.W., 2013. Cone Penetration Test Based Direct Methods for Evaluating Static
Axial Capacity of Single Piles. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, Vol. 31, pp. 979–1009.
Oliveira, J., Almeida, M.S., Motta, H., and Almeida, M.C., 2011. Infuence of Penetration Rate on
Penetrometer Resistance. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE,
Vol. 1237, No. 7, pp. 695–703.
Parez, L. and Fauriel, R., 1988. Le Piezocone Amerliorations Apportes a la Reconnaissance des Sols.
Review Francais Geotechnology, Vol. 44, pp. 13–27.
Parkin, A.K., 1988. The Calibration of Cone Penetrometers. Proceedings of the 1st International
Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 1, pp. 221–244.
164 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Piratheepan, P., 2002. Estimating Shear Wave Velocity from SPT and CPT Data. MS Thesis, Clemson
University.
Poulos, S.J., 1981. The Steady State of Deformation. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering
Division, ASCE, Vol. 107, No. GT 5, pp. 553–562.
Powell, J.J.M. and Quarterman, R.S.T., 1988. The Interpretation of Cone Penetration Tests in Clays
with Particular Reference to Rate Effects. Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on
Penetration Testing, Vol. 2, pp. 903–909.
Powell, J.J.M., Quarterman, R.S.T., and Lunne, T., 1989. Interpretation and Use of the Piezocone
Test in U.K. Clays. Proceedings of the Symposium on Penetration Testing in the U.K.,
pp. 151–156.
Quiros, G. and Young, A., 1988. Comparison of Filed Vane, CPT and Laboratory Strength Santa at
Santa Barbara Cannel Site, ASTM STP 1014, pp. 307–317.
Rad, N.S. and Lunne, T., 1988. Direct Correlations Between Piezocone Test Results and Undrained
Shear Strength of Clay. Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Penetration Testing,
Vol. 2, pp. 911–917.
Robertson, P., 1990. Soil Classifcation Using the Cone Penetration Test. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 151–158.
Robertson, P., 2009. Interpretation of Cone Penetration Tests – A Unifed Approach. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 46, pp. 1337–1355.
Robertson, P.K. and Campanella, R.G., 1983. Interpretation of Cone Penetration Tests - Part I: Sands.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 718–733.
Robertson, P., and Campanella, R.G., 1983a. Interpretation of Cone Penetration Tests - Part II: Clay.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 20, pp. 734–745.
Robertson, P. and Campanella, R., 1985. Liquefaction Potential of Sand Using the CPT. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 111, No. 3, pp. 384–403.
Robertson, P.K., Campanella, R.G. and Wightman, A., 1983. SPT-CPT Correlations. Journal of the
Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 109, No. 11, pp. 1454–1459.
Robertson, P.K., Sully, J.P., Woeller, D.J., Lunne, T., Powell, J.J.M., and Gillespie, D.G., 1992c.
Estimating Coeffcient of Consolidation from Piezocone Tests. Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 539–550.
Robertson, P. and Wride, C., 1998. Evaluating Cyclic Liquefaction Potential Using the Cone
Penetration Test. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 35, No. 3, pp. 442–459.
Robertson, P., Campanella, R., Gillespie, D., and Greig, J., 1986. Use of Piezometer Cone Data. Use
of In Situ Tests in Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, pp. 1263–1280.
Roth, W.H., Swantko, T.D., Patil, U.K., and Berry, S.W., 1982. Monorail Piers on Shallow Foundations,
Settlement Analysis Based on Dutch Cone Data. Proceedings of the 2nd European Symposium
on Penetration Testing, Vol. 2, pp. 821–826.
Roth, W.H., Swantko, T.D., Patil, U.K., and Berry, S.W., 1982. Monorail Piers on Shallow Foundations,
Settlement Analysis Based on Dutch Cone Data. Proceedings of the 2nd European Symposium
on Penetration Testing, Vol. 2, pp. 821–826.
Roy, M., Blanchet, R., Tavenas, F., and LaRochelle, P., 1981. Behavior of a Sensitive Clay During Pile
Driving. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 67–85.
Sanglerat, G., 1972. The Penetration and Soil Exploration. Elsevier Publishing Co., Amsterdam.
Schmertmann, J.H., 1970. Static Cone to Compute Static Settlement Over Sand. Journal of the Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE, Vol. 96, No. SM3, pp. 1011–1043.
Schmertmann, J.H., 1978a. Use of the SPT to Measure Dynamic Soil Properties? - Yes, But...! ASTM
Special Technical Publication 654, pp. 341–355.
Schmertmann, J.H., 1978b. Guidelines for Cone Penetration Test: Performance and Design, U.S.
D.O.T., FHWA Report TS78-209.
Schmertmann, J.H., Hartman, J.D. and Brown, P.R., 1978. Improved Strain Infuence Factor
Diagrams. Journal of the Geotechnical Division, ASCE, Vol. 104, No. GT8, pp. 1131–1135.
Schnaid, F., Lehane, B., and Fahey, M., 2004. In Situ Test Characterization of Unusual
Geomaterials. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Soil Characterization,
Vol. 1, pp. 49–74.
 Cone Penetration and Piezocone Tests 165

Senneset, K, and Janbu, N., 1985. Shear Strength Parameters Obtained from Static Cone Penetration
Tests. ASTM Special Technical Publication Vol. 883, pp. 41–54.
Senneset, K., Janbu, N., and Svano, G., 1982. Strength and Deformation Parameters from Cone
Penetration Tests. Proceedings of the 2nd European Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol.
2, pp. 863–870.
Shibuya, S., Hanh, L., Wilailak, K., Lohani, T., Tanaka, H., and Hamouche, K., 1998. Characterizing
Stiffness and Strength of Soft Bangkok Clay from In Situ and Laboratory Tests. Proceeding of
the 1st International Conference on Site Characterization, Vol. 2, pp. 1361–1366.
Stark, T.D. and Delashaw, J.E., 1990. Correlations of Unconsolidated - Undrained Triaxial Tests and
Cone Penetration Tests. Transportation Research Record No. 1278, pp. 96–102.
Stark, T. and Olson, S., 1995. Liquefaction Resistance Using CPT and Field Case Histories. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 121, No. GT12, pp. 856–869.
Sully, J.P., Campanella, R.G., and Robertson, P.K., 1988. Overconsolidation Ratio of Clays from
Penetration Pore Water Pressures. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 114, No.
GT 2, pp. 209–215.
Suzuki, Y., Koyamada, K., Tokimatsu, K., Taya, Y., and Kubota, Y., 1995b. Empirical Correlation of
Soil Liquefaction Based on Cone Penetration Test. Proceedings of the International Conference
on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 369–374.
Sykora, D. and Stokoe, K., 1983. Correlations of In Situ Measurements in Sands of Shear Wave
Velocity. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 20, pp. 125–136.
Takesue, K., Sasao, H., and Makihara, Y., 1996. Cone Penetration Testing in Volcanic Soil Deposits.
Proceedings of the International Conference on Advances in Site Investigation Practice,
pp. 452–463.
Tanaka, H., Tanaka, M., Iguchi, H., and Nishida, K., 1994.Shear Modulus of Soft Clays Measured
by Various Kinds of Tests. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Pre-Failure
Deformation of Geomaterials, Vol. 1, pp. 235–240.
Tand, K.E., Funegard, E.G., and Briaud, J.-L., 1986. Bearing Capacity of Footings on Clay – CPT
Method. Use of In Situ Tests in Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, pp. 1017–1033.
Tand, K.E., Warden, P., and Funegard, E., 1995. Predicted-Measured Bearing Capacity of Footings
on Sand. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing, Vol. 2,
pp. 589–594.
Tavenas, F. and Leroueil, S., 1987. Laboratory and In Situ Stress-Strain-Time Behavior of Soft Clays:
A State-of-the-Art. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Geotechnical Engineering
of Soft Clays, Mexico City, pp. 1–146.
Teh, C.I. and Houlsby, G.T., 1991. An Analytical Study of the Cone Penetration Test in Clay.
Geotechnique, Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 17–34.
Tekamp, W.G.B., 1982. The Infuence of the Rate of Penetration on the Cone Resistance “qc” in Sand.
Proceedings of the 2nd European Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 2, pp. 627–633.
Torstensson, B.A., 1975. Pore Pressure Sounding Instrument. In Situ Measurement of Soil Properties,
ASCE, Vol. 2, pp. 48–54.
Torstensson, B.A., 1977. Time-Dependent Effects in the Field Vane Test. Proceedings of the
International Symposium on Soft Clays, Bangkok, pp. 387–397.
Treen, C.R., Robertson, P.K., and Woeller, D.J., 1992. Cone Penetration Testing in Stiff Glacial
Soils Using a Downhole Cone Penetrometer. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 29, No. 3,
pp. 448–455.
Tumay, M.T., Acar, Y., Deseze, E., and Yilmaz, R., 1982. Soil Exploration in Soft Clays with the
Quasi-Static Electric Cone Penetrometer. Proceedings of the 2nd European Symposium on
Penetration Testing, Vol. 2, pp. 915–921.
Uzielli, M., Mayne, P.W. and Cassidy, M.J., 2013. Probabilistic Assessment of Design Strengths for
Sands from In-Situ Testing Data. Modern Geotechnical Design Codes of Practice, Advances in
Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 214–227.
Van de Graaf, H.C. and Jekel, J.W.A., 1982. New Guidelines for the Use of the Inclinometer with the
Cone Penetration Test. Proceedings of the 2nd European Symposium on Penetration Testing,
Vol. 2, pp. 581–584.
166 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

VanDijk, B. and Kolk, H., 2011. CPT Based Method for Axial Capacity of Offshore Piles. Frontiers
in Offshore Geotechnics, Vol. II, pp. 555–559.
Vlasblom, A., 1985. The Electrical Penetrometer; A Historical Account of Its Development. Delft Soil
Mechanics Laboratory Publication No. 92, 51 pp.
Wissa, A.E.Z., Martin, R.T., and Garlanger, J.E., 1975. The Piezometer Probe. In Situ Measurement
of Soil Properties, ASCE, Vol. 1, pp. 536–545.
Wroth, C.P., 1988. Penetration Testing - A More Rigorous Approach to Interpretation. Proceedings
of the 1st International Symposium of Penetration Testing, Vol. 1, pp. 303–311.
Zervogiannis, C. and Kalteziotis, N., 1988. Experiences and Relationships from Penetration Testing
in Greece. Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 2,
pp. 1063–1071.
Chapter 5

Field Vane Test (FVT)

5.1 INTRODUCTION

The feld Vane Test (FVT) was developed for determining the undrained shear strength of
soft clays and was used in Sweden as early as 1919 by Olsson (Kallstenius 1956). The vane
was developed in part to overcome problems with obtaining undisturbed samples, especially
in soft clay, for determining laboratory undrained shear strength. In the early 1950s, obser-
vations often showed that the shear strength from laboratory tests were low compared to
back-calculated strengths from feld cases. In soft clays, early use of the FVT often showed
higher strengths as compared to traditional laboratory tests.
The results of undrained strength measurements obtained with the FVT in soft clays
are often used as the reference value of in situ undrained strength for many engineers.
Correlations developed to estimate undrained strength from other in situ tests, for example,
the CPTU or DMT, often rely on reference values obtained from the FVT.
The most common application of the FVT is in soft to medium stiff saturated clays;
however, there are a number of reported uses of the feld vane in other materials, includ-
ing organic soils and peat (e.g., Helenelund 1967; Northwood & Sangrey 1971; Landva
1980; Faust et al. 1983; Muhuai et al. 1983). FVTs may be diffcult to perform in very
stiff overconsolidated clays or fssured clays. Test results in very stiff clays can be diffcult
to interpret as a result of questions related to drainage conditions, failure conditions, etc.
FVTs conducted in these materials generally do not ft into the framework of normal FVT
interpretation developed for soft clays.

5.2 MECHANICS

The FVT is conducted by inserting a thin four-blade-vane into the ground and then rotating
the vane to create a shear failure in the soil, as shown in Figure 5.1. The usual geometry of
most vanes is rectangular with a height to diameter ratio (H/D) of 2 although special vanes
with different H/D ratios may be used to evaluate anisotropy. Thin blades are normally used
in an attempt to reduce the amount of disturbance to the soil structure and state of stress
prior to shearing. The undrained shear strength of the soil is not measured directly in the
test, but the maximum torque needed to cause rotation and failure of the soil is measured.
To estimate the undrained shear strength from the torque, a number of simplifying assump-
tions need to be made regarding the failure mechanism.

167
168  In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Figure 5.1  Principle of Vane Shear Test.

5.3 EQUIPMENT

There are generally four ways that the vane may be inserted to perform the test: (1) using
an unprotected vane advanced at the base of an open or cased borehole; (2) using an unpro-
tected vane with a double-rod system without a borehole; (3) using a protective housing
in which both the rods and vane are protected without using a borehole; or (4) using both
unprotected rods and an unprotected vane without a borehole with a rod slip coupling
located just above the vane. A schematic of these methods is shown in Figure 5.2. These
methods are primarily related to vane tests performed on land.
The pushing thrust to advance the vane is usually provided by hydraulic pressure from a
drill rig or a small reaction frame operated by either a hand crank mechanism or a portable
hydraulic cylinder. The torque is normally measured using some form of a calibrated torque
head operated by a simple hand crank located at the ground surface. The different tech-
niques for deploying the vane have developed as a result of efforts to make the testing more
efficient while at the same time retaining high quality testing. Each of the methods may be
used in conjunction with a borehole, a condition that may arise out of necessity to advance
through surface materials, such as fill, sand layers, or very stiff crusts. Geise et al. (1988)
described a remote offshore vane that uses the housing as torque reaction down hole. Other
successful uses of field vane offshore have been reported (e.g., Young et al. 1988)

5.3.1 Unprotected Vane Through Casing

When pushed at the bottom of a borehole as shown in Figure 5.2a, the vane is normally
inserted through a casing or hollow-stem augers since an open borehole may collapse or
squeeze, especially in soft clay. The use of rod centralizers inside the casing helps keep the
vane rods vertical and centered at the base of the hole and also helps prevent bending of the
rods during pushing. The casing or hollow stem augers then become the reaction base for
the torque head.
This method of testing can be slow since the vane must be withdrawn after each test and
the casing and borehole must be advanced to a new test depth before performing the next test.
 Field Vane Test  169

Figure 5.2  Methods of inserting field vane. (a) unprotected vane through a cased borehole, (b) unprotected
vane with protected rods, (c) protected vane and rods, and (d) unprotected vane and rods with
slip coupling.

Open hole drilling with just a surface casing may also be used. The measured torque will
include a small unknown component of soil friction on the rods just above the vane, which
is difficult to account for in the data reduction. Additionally, the drilling may produce
unknown disturbance and stress relief effects at the bottom of the hole, both of which may
lead to errors in interpretation. Because of these difficulties, this method of testing is consid-
ered to be the least desirable approach to FVT.

5.3.2 Protected Rods and Unprotected Vane

The use of a double-rod system to advance the rods and vane as shown in Figure 5.2b
increases testing efficiency and eliminates the need for a borehole, provided that the system
can be advanced by pushing from the surface. Some difficulties may be encountered pushing
through fill or a very stiff crust near the surface, and usually an open or cased hole is needed.
The outer protective rods act to prevent the inner vane rods from bending during pushing
and help eliminate friction on the inner rods. Advance of the system is stopped above the
test depth, and then the inner rod is pushed further to force the vane out ahead of the outer
protective rods while the outer rods are held fixed.

5.3.3 Protected Rods and Protected Vane

The use of a protective vane housing was presented by Cadling & Odenstad (1950) as a
means of eliminating rod friction and protecting the vane from bending but still allowing
the vane to be advanced efficiently. The system is shown in Figure 5.2c and allows the vane
and rods to advance while being fully protected. The advantage of using a protective vane
170 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

housing is that the vane itself may be machined with very thin blades in an attempt to reduce
soil disturbance (e.g., Geonor SGI Vane Borer H-10). To perform the test, the system is
pushed to a depth just above the test depth, and then the vane is advanced just ahead of the
protective housing while the inner rods remain free from contact with the soil.

5.3.4 Unprotected Rods and Unprotected Vane with Slip Coupling

In this case, both the vane rods and vane are unprotected as shown in Figure 5.2d and are
pushed from near the surface without a borehole (e.g., Nilcon Vane Borer M-1000). A rotary
slip coupling is located between the rods and vane. The slip coupling allows a rotation of
the rods of about 15° before the vane is engaged. The torque measurement during this initial
rotation represents the friction acting on the rods alone without any torque being applied to
the vane. Once the vane is engaged, the measured torque represents both rod friction and
soil resistance from rotation of the vane. The portion of the measured torque attributed to
just the vane is obtained by subtraction. This method of testing is effcient, especially in
soft and very soft clays where the rods and vane may be inserted with little pushing effort
provided the rods do not bend. Figure 5.3 shows a photo of the torque head of the Nilcon
Vane Borer. A sample recording of the measured torque showing the rod friction, peak
strength, post-peak strength, and remolded strength scribed onto the paper disc is shown
in Figure 5.4.

5.3.5 Vanes
Different manufacturers supply different size vanes to suit different soil conditions. Common
sizes include vanes with nominal diameters of 50 mm (2 in.), 65 mm (2.5 in.), and 80 mm
(3.1 in.). Some vanes have a tapered blade cross section and are tapered at the base and
have rounded corners at the top as shown in Figure 5.5. Rectangular vanes with blades

Figure 5.3 Vane shear test in progress using Nilcon M-1000 Vane Borer Torque Head attached to casing.
 Field Vane Test 171

Figure 5.4 Sample wax chart recording of torque from Nilcon M-1000 Vane Borer.

Figure 5.5 Vane with (a) rectangular and (b) tapered blades.
172 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Table 5.1 ASTM D2573 recommended dimensions of feld vanes

Casing Diameter Height in. Thickness of Diameter of Perimeter
size in. (mm) (mm) blade in. (mm) rod in. (mm) ratio (%)
AX 1.5 (38.1) 3 (76.2) 0.063 (1.6) 0.5 (12.7) 5.3
BX 2 (50.8) 4 (101.6) 0.063 (1.6) 0.5 (12.7) 4.0
NX 2.5 (63.5) 5 (127.0) 0.125 (3.2) 0.5 (12.7) 6.4
101.6 3.6 (92.1) 7.2 (184.1) 0.125 (3.2) 0.5 (12.7) 4.4

of constant cross section are preferred to reduce uncertainties with interpretation of the
results. Table 5.1 gives different sizes of vanes suggested by ASTM D2573. A vane height to
diameter ratio of 2 is specifed in ASTM D2573.
It is noted by ASTM D2573 that “the selection of the vane size is directly related to the
consistency of the soil being tested, that is, the softer the soil, the larger the vane diam-
eter”; however, this may cause some problems with interpretation as will be discussed. Also,
because of the dimensions given in Table 5.1, the level of disturbance created by all of the
vanes is not consistent, since the perimeter ratio (defned in Section 5.6.1) for each vane is
not constant.

5.4 TEST PROCEDURES

A recommended method for performing the FVT is described by ASTM in standard test
method D2573-08 Standard Test Method for Field Vane Shear Test in Cohesive Soil. The
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) also provides a recommended stan-
dard for FVTs ISO/DIS 22476-9. The test is performed by frst inserting the vane to the
desired test depth using one of the procedures described or other suitable technique. In the
case where a borehole or a protective vane housing is used, it is recommended by the ASTM
standard that the hole or housing should be no closer than fve borehole diameters or fve
vane housing diameters from the test location. This provision is given to reduce disturbance
effects from drilling. It is further suggested that the vane should be inserted in a single thrust
without applying torque to the vane rods. No recommendation is given for rate of instal-
lation. It is recommended that tests be performed at intervals of not less than 0.61 m (2 ft)
throughout the soil profle, except when a very small vane is used.
Once the vane is in position, torque is applied to the vane at a rate not to exceed 0.1°/s
(6°/min). ASTM D2573 specifes that the waiting time between inserting the vane and begin-
ning rotation should be no more than 5 min. Normally, the test should be performed within
about 1–2 min after the installation. Using the recommended rate of vane rotation of 0.1°/s
will give a time to reach peak torque ranging from 2 to 5 min except in very soft plastic clays
where the time to failure may be more in the order of 10–15 min. In brittle soils that reach
peak strength at very low strain levels, failure may occur very quickly.
After the maximum torque has been obtained, ASTM D2573 recommends that the
rods be rotated a minimum of ten revolutions to remold the soil. Within about 1 min
after this remolding process, the remolded strength is obtained by rotating the vane in
the same manner as used to obtain the peak strength. Remolded strengths, sur, are used
along with peak strength measurements, su , to provide an indication of soil sensitivity,
St , as follows:

St = su s ur (5.1)
 Field Vane Test 173

5.5 FACTORS AFFECTING TEST RESULTS

Several factors can affect the results obtained with the FVT and therefore can affect the
interpretation of the undrained shear strength value obtained. These factors include both
variations in the equipment used and variations in the test procedure.

5.5.1 Installation Effects

5.5.1.1 Disturbance
Insertion of the vane causes some degree of disturbance in nearly all soils. The degree
of fabric disturbance may depend on the specifc geometry of the vane and other com-
ponents (i.e., blade thickness, diameter, rod size, etc.) and is also related to soil prop-
erties such as stress history, plasticity, and sensitivity. Disturbance occurs because a
fnite amount of soil must be displaced in order to allow the vane to occupy that space.
Disturbance created by inserting the vane may also be expected to be greater for soils
with high sensitivity.
Photographic observations of fabric disturbance by vane insertion and rotation (e.g.,
Arman et al. 1975; Chandler 1988; Roy & Leblanc 1988) indicate that the area of distur-
bance is comparable to that postulated by Cadling & Odenstad (1950). It may be that the
most signifcant consequence of fabric disturbance is that the actual failure surface pro-
duced by the vane is somewhat larger than the vane itself. This is likely to be more signif-
cant in stiff overconsolidated clays and clays of low plasticity. The effective diameter of the
failure surface appears to be about 5% larger than the vane in these soils. This would lead
to a direct decrease in the estimated shear strength of about 16%.
Disturbance produced by inserting a vane should relate to the geometry of the vane for
the same soil. The more soil that must be displaced to allow the vane to be inserted, the
more the amount of disturbed soil. Thicker blades on the vane will produce more distur-
bance for a vane with a constant diameter. Similarly, vanes with the same blade thickness
but different diameters should show less disturbance effects as the diameter increases.
In order to rationally quantify the level of disturbance caused by the vane, Cadling &
Odenstad (1950) suggested using the term “perimeter ratio”, illustrated in Figure 5.6 and
defned as follows:

˜ = 4e/˛D (5.2)

Figure 5.6 Defnition of perimeter ratio for vane.

174 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

where
α = perimeter ratio (usually expressed as %)
e = thickness of vane blade
D = diameter of vane.

If the zone of disturbed soil adjacent to the vane blades is related to the blade thickness,
then for the same diameter vane, a larger amount of undisturbed soil for testing will result
from using a vane with thinner blades. The undrained strength measurement from a thinner
vane should be more representative of undisturbed conditions. Equation 5.2 suggests that
in order to reduce disturbance effects, either the blade thickness should be reduced, or the
vane diameter must be increased, or both. Typical commercial vanes have perimeter ratios
in the range of 4%–8%. The perimeter ratios for the recommended vane dimensions given
in Table 5.1 range from 4.0% to 6.4%
La Rochelle et al. (1973) illustrated the infuence of vane perimeter ratio on the resulting
strength profles obtained in sensitive Champlain Sea clay (St = 12) by using vanes of the
same diameter but different blade thicknesses. The resulting strength profles are shown
in Figure 5.7 and show that for most of the tests, the measured undrained shear strength
increases as the vane blade thickness decreases, i.e., as α decreases.
By assuming that the true in situ undisturbed strength would be represented by a vane
with a blade thickness of 0 (i.e., α = 0), the results presented in Figure 5.7 were used to
extrapolate the measured undrained strength to a blade thickness of zero or “zero distur-
bance”, as shown in Figure 5.8. An increase in the estimated undisturbed strength over the
measured value using a vane with α = 5% of about 15% is indicated. Similar results have
been presented by Roy & Leblanc (1988) for sensitive marine clay in Canada (St = 4–14)
and Cerato & Lutenegger (2004) for varved clay in Massachusetts (St = 4–6) as shown in
Figure 5.9. Results from these studies suggest that the extrapolation to zero disturbance can
result in an increase in estimated shear strength in the order of 10%–15% over a vane with
α = 5%. That is, a conventional vane gives a strength about 10%–15% lower than the true
undisturbed strength simply because of disturbance from insertion.

Figure 5.7 Infuence of perimeter ratio (disturbance) on measured shear strength. (After La Rochelle et al.
1973.)
 Field Vane Test 175

Figure 5.8 Extrapolation of vane data with different values of perimeter ratio to vane of zero blade thick-
ness to estimate undisturbed strength. (After La Rochelle et al. 1973.)

Figure 5.9 Infuence of vane area ratio on measured undrained shear strength.

5.5.1.2 Insertion Pore Water Pressures

In addition to producing soil disturbance in the vicinity of the vane blades, inserting the
vane in saturated clays is assumed to occur under undrained conditions. The insertion of the
vane produces a change in the effective stress feld surrounding the vane. Several laboratory
studies using instrumented vanes have shown that signifcant excess pore water pressures
176 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

can be generated during vane insertion in both natural and reconstituted soft clays (e.g.,
Matsui & Abe 1981; Kimura & Saitoh 1983; Roy & Mercier 1989). The magnitude of
generated pore water pressure is in the order of 0.5–0.75σvo′. These studies have also shown
that there is very little dissipation of excess pore water pressure in the normal waiting time
between insertion of the vane and the start of the vane rotation. It was observed that com-
plete dissipation of the excess pore water pressure required as much as four to fve hours, as
discussed further in Section 5.6.2.

5.5.2 Delay (Consolidation) Time

As previously noted in Section 5.4, the ASTM procedure for conducting the FVT specifes
that the waiting period between the end of insertion and the beginning of rotation should be
no more than 5 min although this time typically is in the order of 1–2 min for routine work.
In order to reduce the effects of installation on the measured strength, especially the effect
of excess pore water pressures, it might be appropriate to allow a suffcient amount of time
to lapse between vane insertion and rotation. During this time, excess pore water pressures
created during installation will dissipate, and the soil will reconsolidate and possibly gain
strength through thixotropic hardening taking place in the disturbed zone surrounding the
vane blades.
Aas (1965) compared FVT results obtained at two sites in Norway between tests where
the vane had been left in the ground for periods between 1 and 3 days before shearing and
tests where the test was performed immediately. For two quick clays (St = 40–70) with
low plasticity (P.I. = 6–8), the reported increase in undrained shear strengths from wait-
ing ranged between 30% and 260% but typically were in the order of 40%. Flaate (1966a;
1966b) also found that the delay time between insertion of the vane and testing could have a
signifcant effect on the measured undrained shear strength. He showed that in Norwegian
marine clays, a delay time of up to 8 h between vane insertion and testing could produce an
increase in undrained shear strength in the order of 20% above the strength that is normally
obtained with a 5 min delay time (Flaate 1966a).
Results obtained in soft clays in Sweden were reported by Torstensson (1977), shown
in Figure 5.10, and for soft marine clays in Canada by Roy & Leblanc (1988), shown in
Figure 5.11. In both cases, the results show a rapid increase in the undrained shear strength
during the frst hour or so after vane insertion, and thereafter, a more gradual increase. Very
little increase appears to have occurred after a 1-day time delay, even up to 7 days. The shape
of the strength increase curves appears very similar to inverted time consolidation curves

Figure 5.10 Infuence of delay time (consolidation) on measured shear strength. (After Torstensson 1977.)
 Field Vane Test 177

Figure 5.11 Infuence of delay time (consolidation) on measured shear strength. (After Roy & Leblanc 1988.)

from oedometer tests and CPTU dissipation tests. This suggests that dissipation of excess
pore water pressures around the vane accounts for the majority of the increase in measured
strength as opposed to “aging”, at least up to about a week.
The results presented in Figures 5.10 and 5.11 indicate that an increase in undrained shear
strength of about 20% occurs above the reference undrained shear strength obtained with-
out delay using the standard vane testing procedure. Results of two vane profles obtained in
soft varved clay by the author for routine tests and a delay of 1 day prior to shearing showed
an average increase in strength of about 15% after 1 day.

5.5.3 Rate of Shearing

The rate of shearing may affect the measured peak torque in the feld vane in a similar man-
ner to undrained laboratory strength tests on clays. Cadling & Odenstad (1950) showed
that vane strengths measured at a rotation rate of 1°/s (60°/min) were about 20% higher that
strengths measured at a rate of 0.1°/s (6°/min) for soft clays in Sweden. A number of labora-
tory and feld studies have been performed to investigate the infuence of rate of shearing
on the resulting undrained shear strength from the vane test (e.g., Aas 1965; Wiesel 1973;
Torstensson 1977; Perlow & Richards 1977; Nathan 1978; Sharifounnasab & Ullrich 1985;
Roy & Leblanc 1988; Hirabayashi et al. 2017). Many of these results have been discussed
by Chandler (1988).
The rate of shearing of the cylinder of assumed failure is really determined in large part
by the angular shear velocity at the outer edges of the vane blades. This angular velocity
is infuenced not only by the rotation rate of the vane but also the vane size and can be
described as follows:

V = r° (5.3)

where
V = angular shear velocity (mm/s)
r = vane blade radius (mm)
Ω = vane rotation rate (°/s).

Equation 5.3 states that if the same rotation rate is used with two vanes of different diam-
eters, a different shear rate results. This may help explain differences observed sometimes in
results obtained using different size vanes at the same site. Vanes of different sizes will give
different results if the same rotation rate is used. Figure 5.12 shows the infuence of angular
velocity on measured strength for two clays with different P.I.
178 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

140

Undraained Shear Strength (kPa)

120

100

IDA (P.I. = 16)

80
Leona (PI = 51)

60

40

20

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Angular Velocity (mm/sec.)

Figure 5.12 Infuence of soil type on strain rate effect.

Since angular shear velocity increases with increasing vane diameter at the same rotation
rate, signifcant differences in the shearing rate at failure exists between large and small
feld vanes and should be considered when comparing the results obtained with laboratory
vanes and feld vanes at similar rotation rates. The suggestion made by ASTM D2573 that
the selection of the vane size is dependent on soil consistency can result in different values
of measured undrained shear strength.
Peuchen & Mayne (2007) compiled results for a wide range of soils and suggested that the
relationship between vane rotation rate and the normalized vane strength could be described
by a power function as follows:

su suo = ( ˝ / ˝o )
˙
(5.4)

where
su = undrained vane strength at any rotation rate
suo = undrained strength at a rate of 6°/min
θ = any rotation rate
θo = reference rotation rate of 6°/min
β = empirical exponent.

For most clays, the value of beta in Equation 5.4 varies from between 0.05 and 0.10, as
shown in Figure 5.13.
Chandler (1988) noted that the shearing rate could affect soil behavior by allowing some
drainage to occur during the testing. Suggestions for the rate of shearing for both high P.I.
and low P.I. soils to maintain undrained conditions are shown in Figure 5.14.

5.5.4 Progressive Failure

Because of the geometry and the mode of failure in the test, the FVT may be subject to errors
in measurement of undrained shear strength associated with progressive failure. When the
maximum torque is recorded in the test, the soil on the top and bottom of the cylinder has
already gone past peak strength and is somewhere in the post-peak region. It is also likely
 Field Vane Test 179

Figure 5.13 Infuence of strain rate on shear strength. (From Peuchen & Mayne 2007.)

Figure 5.14 Time to failure to maintain undrained conditions: (a) high P.I. clays and (b) low P.I. clays. (After
Chandler 1988.)

that in some soils, failure takes place progressively around the perimeter of the vane as the
soil directly in front of the blades reaches failure frst. The soil does not behave in a perfectly
elastoplastic manner.
De Alencar et al. (1988) suggested that the progressive failure mechanism depends on the
rate of post-peak softening and that the maximum rotation to failure and post-peak torque
rotation are infuenced by strain-softening behavior. At the present time, this effect on the
resulting measured strength is not considered signifcant enough to create problems with
interpretation in most soils; however, it may be partly responsible for the observations lead-
ing to the use of vane correction factors.
180 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

5.5.5 Vane Size

It has previously been shown that different diameter vanes, with the same H/D ratio, may
give different results because a smaller vane produces a higher shearing velocity at the same
rotation rate. However, for different vanes with the same blade thickness, a larger diam-
eter vane will have a smaller perimeter ratio (Equation 5.2) and therefore will also tend to
produce less disturbance.

5.5.6 Vane Shape

The shape of the vane may also affect the test results, especially if vanes of nonstandard
geometry, i.e., different than H/D = 2 are used. Some early vane results reported in
the literature were performed with vane having H/D = 1 and therefore may need to be
reevaluated. Additionally, some tests have been conducted with vanes that have one end
tapered.
Table 5.2 summarizes the important factors related to equipment and test procedure that
may infuence FVT results and provides references that the reader may wish to consult for
more specifc details.

Table 5.2 Factors that may affect the results obtained from the FVT
Factor References
Vane shape Cadling & Odenstad (1950)
Osterberg (1956)
Bazett et al. (1961)
Vane size Cadling & Odenstad (1950)
Kietkajornkul & Vasinvarthana (1989)
Ahnberg et al. (2004)
Disturbance Lo (1965)
Lo & Milligan (1967)
La Rochelle et al. (1973)
Loh & Holt (1974)
Andrawes et al. (1975)
Roy & Leblanc (1988)
Cerato & Lutenegger (2004)
Rate of shearing Skempton (1948)
Cadling & Odenstad (1950)
Bazett et al. (1961)
Aas (1965)
Wiesel (1973)
Monney (1974)
Smith & Richards (1975)
Perlow & Richards (1977)
Torstensson (1977)
Schapery & Dunlap (1978)
Sharifounnasab & Ullrich (1985)
Law (1985)
Roy & Leblanc (1988)
Biscotin & Pestana (2001)
Peuchen & Mayne (2007)
Schlue et al. (2010)
Delay time (consolidation) Aas (1965)
Torstensson (1977)
Roy & Leblanc (1988)
 Field Vane Test 181

5.6 INTERPRETATION OF UNDRAINED STRENGTH FROM FVT

The principal measurement obtained from the FVT is the maximum torque required to
rotate the vane. In order to extract an estimate of the undrained shear strength, it is neces-
sary to make a number of assumptions regarding the failure surface, the distribution of
shear stresses on the ends and sides of the vane, etc. In addition to the factors listed in
Table 5.2, a number of factors that may affect the interpretation of vane test results from an
individual test are listed in Table 5.3.
Flaate (1966a) listed the following assumptions traditionally made for computing the
undrained shear strength from the torque measured in the feld vane:

1. The test is completely undrained, and no consolidation takes place during the installa-
tion and throughout completion of the test.
2. No disturbance is caused during advancement of the borehole or vane.
3. The remolded zone around the vane is very small.
4. The shear strength is fully mobilized and uniform over the entire cylindrical failure
surface at peak torque (i.e., there is no progressive failure).
5. The maximum shear strength, su, is isotropic.

The undrained shear strength is calculated from the peak torque and based on the geometry
of the assumed failure surface shown in Figure 5.2 and is obtained as follows:

Table 5.3 Factors that may infuence interpretation of feld vane results
Factor References
Disturbance Osterberg (1956)
Eden & Hamilton (1956)
Flaate (1966a)
Progressive failure Burmister (1957)
Wiesel (1967)
Wiesel (1973)
Donald et al. (1977)
De Alencar et al. (1988)
Strength anisotropy Aas (1965)
Aas (1967)
Wiesel (1967)
Blight (1970)
Donald et al. (1977)
Silvestri & Aubertin (1988)
Pore pressure and drainage Duncan (1967)
Ladd et al. (1977)
Matsui & Abe (1981)
Chandler (1988)
Assumed stress distribution Flaate (1966a)
Donald et al. (1977)
Menzies & Merrifeld (1980)
Wroth (1984)
Assumed geometry of failure surface Skempton (1948)
Arman et al. (1975)
Chandler (1988)
Roy & Leblanc (1988)
Veneman & Edil (1988)
Gylland et al. (2013)
182 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

( )
T = su ( ˝DH )( D/2) + 2su ˝D2 /4 ( D/a ) (5.5)

Solving for su gives

(
su = (2T) ˝D2 (H + D / a) ) (5.6)

where
T = torque
D = diameter of the vane
H= height of the vane
a= a shape factor to account for assumed distribution of shear stress.

Assuming a = 3 for uniformly distributed end shear gives

((
su = T ˝ D2H 2 + D3 6 . )) (5.7)

For a standard vane with H/D = 2, Equation 5.7 reduces to

(
su = 0.86T ˝D3 . ) (5.8)

One of the assumptions used in the calculation of undrained shear strength is that the
strength is isotropic; i.e., the same unit strength is developed along the sides as well as the
top and bottom of the vane. Additionally, it is assumed that the shear stress distribution on
the cylindrical (vertical) surface and on the top and bottom (horizontal) surfaces is uniform,
giving a rectangular distribution. Results of a three-dimensional fnite element analysis pre-
sented by Donald et al. (1977) showed that while there was generally uniform distribution
(rectangular) along the sides or vertical surface of the vanes, the distribution along the
vane top and bottom was not rectangular. Experimental results obtained by Menzies &
Merrifeld (1980) using an instrumented vane showed similar results.
Wroth (1984) considered the effect of this more realistic stress distribution on vane results
assuming that the shear stress distribution on the top and bottom surfaces could be expressed
by a polynomial. As a result of this analysis, Wroth (1984) showed that for H/D = 2,

su = 0.94T ˝D3( ) (5.9)

Equation 5.9 suggests that most of the torque measured in the FVT is a result of the soil
shearing resistance along the vertical surface, which means that the undrained strength
obtained from the conventional interpretation (Equation 5.8) will be underestimated by
about 9%.

5.7 ANISOTROPIC ANALYSIS

As described in Section 5.7, the normal assumption regarding the interpretation of FVT
results is that the undrained strength is isotropic. A number of investigations have been
performed using the FVT to evaluate the directional anisotropy of undrained shear strength
(Table 5.4). In many cases, vanes of different geometries, as shown in Figure 5.15, have been
used to determine the shear strength in different directions.
 Field Vane Test 183

Table 5.4 Investigations of undrained shear strength anisotropy

using feld vane
Soil Type References
Norwegian clays Aas (1965; 1967)
Fill Wiesel (1967; 1973)
Blight (1970; 1982)
Bangkok clay Eide & Holmberg (1972)
Richardson et al. (1975)
Louisiana clays Ahmed (1975)
French clays LeMasson (1976)
Marine clay Menzies & Mailey (1976)
Brazil clays Costa Filho et al. (1977)
Residual soil Josseaume et al. (1977)
Marine clay Hanzawa (1979)
Alluvial clay Toh & Donald (1979)
Alluvial Clay-Thailand Memon (1980)
Champlain clay Silvestri & Aubertin (1983; 1988)
Finland clay Slunga (1983)
Rio de Janeiro clay Garga (1988)
Rio de Janeiro clay Garga & Khan (1992)
Champlain clay Silvestri et al. (1993)

The defciency in the conventional approach to interpretation of FVT results suggests that
vanes with different H/D give different su. This means that test data from early use of the
feld vane or with laboratory vane devices with H/D not equal to 2 (e.g., Skempton 1948;
Bazett et al. 1961) may need to be reevaluated in relation to modern test results and interpre-
tation. Analyses by the approaches suggested by both Aas (1967) and Wiesel (1973) using
vanes of different H/D may be used to determine the undrained strength on the horizontal
plane (suh) and vertical plane (suv). Figure 5.16 shows results obtained in marine clay using
vanes of different geometries.
Several investigations (e.g., Bjerrum 1973; Richardson et al. 1975) have related the strength
anisotropy ratio Ks = suh /suv to soil plasticity. However, other test results (e.g., Silvestri &
Aubertin 1983) show that the anisotropy ratio does not always follow the trend suggested
by Bjerrum (1973). The anisotropy ratio may be related to the P.I. in soft near normally
consolidated nonstructured or brittle soils (e.g., Ladd et al. 1977) where Ko is in the range
of 0.5–0.7; however, there is also considerable evidence demonstrating that Ks is also related
to Ko in overconsolidated soils (e.g., Garga & Khan 1992).

5.8 MEASURING POSTPEAK STRENGTH

In most cases, the torque measurement obtained during the test will show a drop off and sta-
bilize after reaching the peak torque with continued vane rotation, as shown in Figure 5.4.
This postpeak strength generally levels off to a relatively constant value with vane rotation
in the order of 60°–90°. Following complete remolding by rotating the vane through 10–15
complete revolutions, the remolded strength shows considerably lower strength. The post-
peak strength in the vane test has been referred to by others (Tammirinne 1981; Pyles 1984;
184 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Figure 5.15 Different shaped vanes to determine strength anisotropy.

Chaney & Richardson 1988; Johnson et al. 1988) as the “residual” strength or “ultimate”
strength (e.g., Hight et al. 1992); however, it may be preferable to use the term postpeak.
Similar reduction from peak to postpeak strength from FVTs has been noted by Kolk et al.
(1988).
The difference between the peak strength and postpeak strength may be related to the
loss of soil structure and is analogous to the Undrained Brittleness Index (Bishop 1971).
Johnson et al. (1988) noted that for deep water clays in the Gulf of Mexico, the ratio of
peak to “residual” strength decreased with increasing Liquidity Index, L.I. The post-
peak strength may be appropriate for large strain design problems, such as the stiff clay
crusts under embankment or other shallow loadings, or for undrained analysis of driven
displacement piles, where signifcant structure is lost during pile installation (Miller &
Lutenegger 1993). Figure 5.17 shows peak, postpeak, and remolded strengths measured
in a lacustrine clay.

5.9 FIELD VANE CORRECTION FACTORS

In 1972, Bjerrum suggested that for design of embankments on soft clays, the results
obtained from FVTs in clays should be corrected for stability analysis. Bjerrum (1972) com-
piled several existing case histories of embankment failures. Using average vane strength
 Field Vane Test 185

Figure 5.16 Determination of undrained shear strength on different planes: (a) depth = 1 m, depth = 2 m,
depth = 3 m, and depth = 4 m. (after Richardson et al. 1975).

data and assuming that the factor of safety would be equal to 1.0 at failure, Bjerrum plot-
ted the calculated factor of safety obtained using the FVT results as a function of the soil
P.I. as shown in Figure 5.18. A feld vane correction factor was then suggested by Bjerrum
(1972) to force the feld vane results to produce a factor of safety equal to 1.0. Although
other vane correction factors have been suggested (e.g., Pilot 1972; Dascal & Tournier 1975;
Helenelund 1977; Larsson 1980; Larsson et al. 1987), the fgure presenting the proposed
correction factor as originally given by Bjerrum (1972) is shown in Figure 5.19. According
to Bjerrum (1972), the corrected undrained strength is obtained as follows:

(su )corr = µ (su )FV (5.10)

Bjerrum (1973) attributed much of the difference between the back-calculated shear strength
and the measured feld vane strength to effects resulting from strain rate and anisotropy as
well as from progressive failure. Relative to normal full-scale loading, the testing rate used
in the FVT is too fast. These rate effects would be more pronounced in clays of high plastic-
ity. The measured strength would be too high, leading to a correction factor less than 1.0
to reduce the measured strength to operational feld strength. Bjerrum (1973) attempted to
186 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

10
Depth (m)

12

14

16

18

Peak
20 Post-Peak
Remolded

22
0 50 100 150 200 250
Undrained Shear Strength (kPa)

Figure 5.17 Peak, postpeak, and remolded strength profle from FVT in lacustrine clay.

Figure 5.18 Back-calculated factors of safety from embankment cases (After Bjerrum 1972.)
 Field Vane Test 187

Figure 5.19 Bjerrum (1972) vane correction factor.

separate the effects of strain rate and anisotropy suggesting that Equation 5.10 be modifed
as follows:

(su )corr = (su )FV µ A µR (5.11)

where
µ A = correction for anisotropy
µR = correction for strain rate.

Sageseta & Arroyo (1982) and Arroyo & Sagaseta (1988) illustrated that the factors of
safety of a number of individual embankment case histories could be brought nearer in
line with F.S. = 1.0 if a reduction were applied to feld vane strength obtained in the upper
weathered crust. Azzouz et al. (1983) recommended a new correction factor for use in
embankment design as shown in Figure 5.20. The results of analyses included end effects
and increased the plane strain factor of safety by about 10%. Therefore, the proposed new
correction factor is seen to give corrected feld vane strength about 10% lower than rec-
ommended by Bjerrum (1972). As pointed out by Surendra & Mundell (1984), the recom-
mendation of Azzouz et al. (1983) only attempts to account for the method of the stability
analysis used and not to any other factors associated with potential inherent drawbacks of
the FVT.
Chandler (1988) suggested that the strain rate correction factor could be obtained as
follows:

µ R = 1.05 − b(P. I.)0.5 (for P. I. < 5%) (5.12)

where
b = 0.015 − 0.0075 log tf

where
tf = time to failure (between 10 and 10,000 min).
188 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Figure 5.20 Vane correction factor suggested by Azzouz et al. (1983).

The scatter in data points originally presented by Bjerrum (1972) and expanded upon by
others (e.g., Azzouz et al. 1983; Aas et al. 1986; Tang et al. 1992; Tanaka & Tanaka 1993;
Tanaka 1994) is signifcant, suggesting that a more detailed explanation is needed before a
correction be applied to feld vane results. Aas et al. (1986) suggested that much of the scat-
ter and uncertainty may be explained by the fact that Bjerrum did not distinguish between
clays of different types of stress history. No mention was made by Bjerrum (1972; 1973) of
the differences in behavior of either “young” vs. “aged” clays, or normally consolidated vs.
overconsolidated clays. Correction factors recommended by Bjerrum (1972) for the design
of embankments on clay should be viewed with caution and should not be used without
great care for other design problems, e.g., undrained behavior of piles.

5.10 INTERPRETATION OF STRESS HISTORY FROM FVT

Jamiolkowski et al. (1985) presented the results of normalized feld vane undrained shear
strength as a function of laboratory OCR and suggested a reasonable ft to the data as
follows:

suo(FVT) ° ṽo = s1(OCR)m (5.13)

where
s1 = undrained vane strength ratio for OCR = 1.

Data from nine different sites gave mean values of s1 = 0.22 and m = 1 (disregarding one
extreme value of s1 = 0.74; m = 1.51). The value of s1 may be related to P.I. as suggested by
Bjerrum (1973).
 Field Vane Test 189

Mayne & Mitchell (1988) used a database consisting of 262 data points of both feld vane
results and laboratory measured overconsolidation ratio, OCR, and suggested that the pre-
consolidation stress σ′p, could be estimated as follows:

° ˜p = ˝ FV su(FV) (5.14)

The parameter αFV was found to be related to the soil P.I. as follows:

˜ FV = 22(P. I.)−0.48 (5.15)

Champlain Clay Alluvial Clay
Massena, NY Leona, Ks
0 0
Peak
5 Remolded 5
10
10
15
15
20
20
Depth (ft.)
25
Depth (ft.)

25
30
30
35

40 35

45 40
Peak
50 45 Remolded

55 50
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
60
0 500 1000 1500 2000 Undrained Strength (psf)
Undrained Strength (psf)

Connecticut Valley Clay

Boston Blue Clay Amherst, Ma
Cambridge, Ma
10
20

30 20

40
30
50

60
Depth (ft.)

40
Depth (ft.)

70

80
50

90
60
100 Peak
Remolded Peak
Remolded
110 70

120
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 80
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Shear Strength (psf)
Shear Strength (psf)

Figure 5.21 Vane shear test results from four clay sites.
190 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

5.11 SUMMARY OF FVT

The FVT is still a valuable and an important in situ test. In the author’s opinion, it is the
preferred feld method for estimating the undrained shear strength of soft to medium stiff
clays. The results obtained from the vane are infuenced by delay time, vane geometry (espe-
cially blade thickness), and rate of shearing. It is recommended that a rectangular vane with
H/D = 2 and constant blade thickness be used for routine work. A vane with a perimeter
ratio generally less than about 6% should be used, and in all cases, the exact dimensions
of the vane should always be reported to allow the engineer to adjust for disturbance. The
vane should be rotated a suffcient amount in order to obtain the postpeak strength, and a
remolded test should be conducted at each test depth to obtain the sensitivity. Figure 5.21
shows typical FVT results obtained at four different sites.

REFERENCES

Aas, G., 1965. A Study of the Effect of Vane Shape and Rate of Strain in the Measured Values
of In-Situ Shear Strength of Clays. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 141–145.
Aas, G., 1967. Vane Tests for Investigation of Anisotropy of Undrained Shear Strength of Clays.
Proceedings of the Geotechnical Conference Oslo, Vol. 1, pp. 3–8.
Aas, G., Lacasse, S., Lunne, T., and Hoeg, K., 1986. Use of In Situ Tests for Foundation Design on
Clay. Use of In Situ Tests in Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, pp. 1–30.
Ahmed, N., 1975. Evaluation of In Situ Testing Methods in Soils. Dissertation, Department of Civil
Engineering, Louisiana State University.
Ahnberg, R., Larsson, R., and Berglund, C., 2004. Infuence of Vane Size and Equipment on the
Results of Field Vane Tests. Proceedings of the International Conference on Geotechnical and
Geophysical Site Characterization, ISC-2, pp. 271–277.
Andrawes, K.Z., Krishnamurthy, D.N., and Barden, L., 1975. Anisotropy of Strength in Clays
Containing Plates of Increasing Size. Proceedings of the 4th Southeast Asian Conference on
Soil Engineering, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Vol. 1, pp. 6–12.
Arman, A., Poplin, J.K., and Ahmad, N., 1975. Study of the Vane Shear. Proceedings of the Conference
of In Situ Measurement of Soil Properties, ASCE, Vol. 1, pp. 93–120.
Arroyo, R. and Sagaseta, C., 1988. Discussion of Undrained Shear Strength in the Surfcial Weathered
Crust. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 173–174.
Azzouz, A., Baligh, M.M., and Ladd, C.C., 1983. Corrected Field Vane Strength for Embankment
Design. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 109, No. 5, pp. 730–734.
Bazett, D.J., Adams, J.I., and Matyas, E.L., 1961. An Investigation of Studies in a Test Trench
Excavated in Fissured Sensitive Marine Clay. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference
on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Paris, Vol. 1, pp. 431–436.
Biscotin, G. and Pestana, J.M., 2001. Infuence of Peripheral Velocity on Vane Shear Strength of an
Artifcial Clay. Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 423–429.
Bishop, A.W., 1971. Shear Strength for Undisturbed and Remolded Soil Specimens. Proceedings of
the Roscoe Memorial Symposium, pp. 3–58.
Bjerrum, L., 1972. Embankments of Soft Clay. Performance of Earth and Earth-Supported
Structures, ASCE, Vol. 2, pp. 1–54.
Bjerrum, L., 1973. Problems of Soil Mechanics and Construction on Soft Clays. Proceedings of
the 8th  International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 3,
pp. 111–159.
Blight, G.E., 1970. In Situ Strength of Rolled Hydraulic Fill. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Division, ASCE, Vol. 96, No. SM3, pp. 881–899.
Blight, G.E., 1982. Residual Soils in South Africa. Engineering and Construction in Tropical and
Residual Soils, ASCE, pp. 147–171.
 Field Vane Test 191

Burmister, D.M., 1957. General Discussion on Vane Shear Testing. ASTM Special Technical
Publication 193, pp. 65–68.
Cadling, L. and Odenstad, S., 1950. The Vane Borer. Proceedings of the Royal Swedish Geotechnical
Institute, No. 2, pp. 1–87.
Cerato, A. and Lutenegger, A.J., 2004. Disturbance Effects of Field Vane Tests in a Varved
Clay. Proceedings of the International Conference on Geotechnical and Geophysical Site
Characterization, ISC-2, pp. 861–867.
Chandler, R.J., 1988. The In-Situ Measurements of the Undrained Shear Strength of Clays Using the
Field Vane. ASTM Special Technical Publication 1014, pp. 13–44.
Chaney, R.C. and Richardson, G.N., 1988. Measurement of Residual/Remolded Vane Shear Strength
of Marine Sediments. ASTM Special Technical Publication 1014, pp. 166–181.
Costa Filho, L.M., Werneck, M.L.G., and Collet, H.B., 1977. The Undrained Strength of a Very
Soft Clay. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Vol. 1, pp 69–72.
Dascal, O. and Tournier, J.P., 1975. Embankments on Soft and Sensitive Clay Foundations. Journal
of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 101, No. GT3, pp. 297–314.
De Alencar, J., Chan, D., and Morgenstern, N.R., 1988. Progressive Failure in the Vane Test. ASTM
STP 1014, pp. 150–165.
Donald, I.B. Jordan, D.O., Parker, R.J., and Toh, C.T., 1977. The Vane Test - A Critical Appraisal.
Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 81–88.
Duncan, J.M., 1967. Undrained Strength and Pore-water Pressures in Anisotropic Clays. Proceedings
of the 5th Australia-New Zealand Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
pp. 68–71.
Eden, W.J. and Hamilton, J.J., 1956. The Use of Field Vane Apparatus in Sensitive Clays. ASTM Special
Technical Publication 193, pp. 41–53.
Eide, O. and Holmberg, S., 1972. Test Fills to Failure on the Soft Bangkok Clay. Proceedings of the
Specialty Conference on Performance of Earth and Earth-Supported Structures, ASCE, Vol. 1
Part 1, pp. 159–180.
Faust, J., Moritz, K., and Stiefken, H., 1983. Vane Shear Test in Peat. Proceedings of the International
Symposium on In Situ Testing of Soil and Rock, Vol. 2, pp. 283–286.
Flaate, K., 1966a. Factors Infuencing the Results of Vane Tests. Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 18–31.
Flaate, K., 1966b. Field Vane Tests with Delayed Shear. Norwegian Road Research Lab, Med. 29,
9pp.
Garga, V., 1988. Experience with Field Vane Testing at Sepetiba Test Fills. ASTM Special Technical
Publication 1014, pp. 267–276.
Garga, V.K. and Khan, M.A., 1992. Interpretation of Field Vane Strength of an Anisotropic Soil.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 627–637.
Geise, J.M., Hoope, J., and May, R.E., 1988. Design and Offshore Experience with an In Situ Vane.
ASTM STP 1014, pp. 318–338.
Gylland, A.S., Jostad, H.P., Nordal, S., and Emdal, A., 2013. Micro-level Investigation of the In Situ
Shear Vane Failure Geometry in Sensitive Clay. Geotechnique, Vol. 63, No. 14, pp. 1264–1270.
Hanzawa, H., 1979. Undrained Strength Characteristics of an Alluvial Marine Clay in Tokyo Bay.
Soils and Foundations, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 69–84.
Helenelund, K.V., 1967. Vane Tests and Tension Tests on Fibrous Peat. Proceedings of the Geotechnical
Conference Oslo, Vol. 1, pp. 199–203.
Helenelund, K.V., 1977. Methods for Reducing Undrained Shear Strength of Soft Clay. Swedish
Geotechnical Institute Report 3.
Hight, D.W., Bond, A.J., and Legge, J.D., 1992. Characterization of the Bothkennar Clay: An
Overview. Geotechnique, Vol. 42, No. 2, pp. 303–347.
Hirabayashi, H., Tanaka, M., and Tomita, R., 2017. Effect of Rotation Rate on Field Vane Shear
Strength. Proceedings of the 27th International Ocean and Polar Engineering Conference,
pp. 742–747.
192 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Jamiolkowski, M., Ladd, C.C., Germaine, J., and Lancellotta, R., 1985. New Developments in Field
and Lab Testing of Soils. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 57–154.
Johnson, G.W., Hamilton, T.K., Ebelhar, R.J., Mueller, J.L., and Pelletier, J.H., 1988. Comparison of
In Situ Vane, Cone Penetrometer, and Laboratory Test Results for Gulf of Mexico Deep Water
Clays. ASTM Special Technical Publication 1014, pp. 293–305.
Josseaume, H., Blondeau, F., and Pilot, G., 1977. Study of Undrained Behaviour of Three Soft Clays.
Application to Embankment Design. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Soft
Clays, pp. 122–130.
Kallstenius, T., 1956. Swedish Vane Borer Design, ASTM STP 193, pp. 60–62.
Kietkajornkul, C. and Vasinvarthana, V., 1989. Infuence of Different Vane Types on Undrained
Strength of Soft Bangkok Clay. Soils and Foundations, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 146–152.
Kimura, T. and Saitoh, K., 1983. Effects of Disturbance Due to Insertion Vane Shear Strength of
Normally Consolidated Cohesive Soils. Soils and Foundations, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 113–124.
Kolk, H.J., ten Hoope, J., and Ims, B.W., 1988. Evaluation of Offshore In-Situ Vane Test Results.
ASTM Special Technical Publication 1014, pp. 339–353.
Ladd, C.C., Foott, R., Ishihara, K., Schlosser, F., and Poulos, H.G., 1977. Stress-Deformation and
Strength Characteristics. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 2, pp. 421–494.
Landva, A.O., 1980. Vane Testing in Peat. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 17, No. 1,
pp. 1–19.
La Rochelle, P., Roy, M., and Tavenas, F., 1973. Field Measurements of Cohesion in Champlain
Clays. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Vol. 1.1, pp. 229–236.
Larsson, R., 1980. Undrained Shear Strength in Stability Calculation of Embankments and
Foundations on Soft Clays. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 591–602.
Larsson, R., Bergdahl, U., and Erikson, L., 1987. Evaluation of Shear Strength in Cohesive Soils with
Special Reference to Swedish Practice and Experience. Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM,
Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 105–112.
LeMasson, H., 1976. A New Method for In Situ Measurement of Anisotropy of Clays. Bulletin de
Liaison des Laboratoires des Ponts et Chaussees, Vol. 2, pp. 107–116.
Law, K.T., 1985. Use of Field Vane Tests Under Earth Structures. Proceedings of the 11th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 2, pp. 893–898.
Lo, K.Y., 1965. Stability of Slopes in Anisotropic Soils. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Division, ASCE, Vol. 91, No. SM1, pp. 85–106.
Lo, K.Y. and Milligan, V., 1967. Shear Strength Properties of Two Stratifed Clays. Journal of the Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE, Vol. 93, No. SM1, pp. 1–15.
Loh, A.K. and Holt, R.T., 1974. Directional Variation and Fabric of Winnipeg Upper Brown Clay.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 430–437.
Matsui, T. and Abe, N., 1981. Shear Mechanisms of Vane Test in Soft Clays. Soils and Foundations,
Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 69–80.
Mayne, P. and Mitchell, J.K., 1988. Profling of Overconsolidation Ratio in Clays by Field Vane.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 25, pp. 150–157.
Memon, A., 1980. Undrained Shear Strength Anisotropy of Clays. Proceedings of the International
Symposium on Landslides, New Delhi, pp.109–112.
Menzies, B.K. and Mailey, L.K., 1976. Some Measurements of Strength Anisotropy in Soft Clays
Using Diamond Shaped Shear Vanes. Geotechnique, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 535–538.
Menzies, B.K. and Merrifeld, C.M., 1980. Measurements of Shear Stress Distribution on the Edges
of a Shear Vane Blade. Geotechnique, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 451–457.
Miller, G.A. and Lutenegger, A.J., 1993. Analysis of Small Diameter Pipe Piles Using the Field
Vane. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical
Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 154–160.
Monney, N.T., 1974. An analysis of the Vane Shear Test at Varying Rates of Shear. Deep Sea
Sediments: Marine Science, Vol. 2, pp. 151–167.
 Field Vane Test 193

Muhuai, Y., Wulin, W., Changwei, X., and Zhao, L., 1983. Field Shear Rheologic Test of Peaty
Soils. Proceedings of the International Symposium on In Situ Testing on Soil and Rock, Vol. 2,
pp. 431–434.
Nathan, S.V., 1978. Discussion of Infuence of Shear Velocity on Vane Shear Strength. Journal of the
Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 104, No. GT1, pp. 151–153.
Northwood, R.P. and Sangrey, D.A., 1971. The Vane Test in Organic Soils. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, Vol. 8, pp. 68–76.
Osterberg, J.O., 1956. Introduction to Vane Testing of Soil. ASTM Special Technical Publication 193,
pp. 1–7.
Peuchen, J. and Mayne, P., 2007. Rate Effects in Vane Shear Testing. Proceedings of the 6th
International Conference on Offshore Site Investigation and Geotechnics, pp. 259–266.
Perlow, M. and Richards, A.F., 1977. Infuences of Shear Velocity on Vane Shear Strength. Journal of
the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 103, No. GT1, pp. 19–32.
Pilot, G., 1972. Study of Five Embankment Failures on Soft Soils. Performance of Earth and Earth
Supported Structures, ASCE, Vol. 1, Part 1, pp. 81–99.
Pyles, M.R., 1984. Vane Shear Data on Undrained Residual Strength. Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 110, No. 4, pp. 543–547.
Richardson, A.M., Brand, E.W., and Memon, A., 1975. In Situ Determination of Anisotropy of a Soft
Clay. Proceedings of the Conference on In Situ Measurement of Soil Properties, ASCE, Vol. 1,
pp. 337–349.
Roy, M. and Leblanc, A., 1988. Factors Affecting the Measurement and Interpretation of the Vane
Strength in Soft Sensitive Clays. ASTM STP 1014, pp. 117–128.
Roy, M. and Mercier, M., 1989. The Pore Pressures in Vane Test. Proceedings of the 12th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 305–308.
Sageseta, C. and Arroyo, R., 1982. Limit Analysis of Embankments on Soft Clay. Proceedings of the
International Symposium on Numerical Methods in Geomechanics, pp. 618–625.
Schapery, R.A. and Dunlap, W.A., 1978. Prediction of Storm Induced Sea Bottom Movement
and Platform Forces. Proceedings of the 10th Offshore Technology Conference, OTC Paper
No. 3259.
Schlue, B., Moerz, T., and Kreiter, S., 2010. Infuence of Shear Rate on Undrained Vane Shear Strength
of Organic Harbor Mud. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE,
Vol. 136, No. 10, pp. 1437–1447.
Sharifounnasab, M. and Ullrich, R.C., 1985. Rate of Shear Effect on Vane Shear Strength. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 111, No. 1, pp. 135–139.
Silvestri, V. and Aubertin, M., 1983. The In Situ Anisotropy of a Sensitive Canadian Clay. Proceedings
of the International Symposium on In Situ Testing, Paris, France, Vol. 2, pp. 391–395.
Silvestri, V. and Aubertin, M., 1988. Anisotropy and In Situ Vane Tests. ASTM STP 1014, pp. 88–103.
Silvestri, V., Aubertin, M., and Chapuis, R.P., 1993. A Study of Undrained Shear Strength Using
Various Vanes. Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 228–237.
Skempton, A.W., 1948. Vane Test in the Alluvial Plains of River Froth Near Grange Mouth.
Geotechnique, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 111–124.
Slunga, E., 1983. On the Increase in Shear Strength in Soft Clay Under an Old Embankment.
Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Vol. 1, pp. 83–89.
Smith, A.D. and Richards, A.F., 1975. Vane Shear Strength at Two High Rotation Rates. Civil
Engineering in the Oceans III, ASCE, Vol. 1, pp. 421–433.
Surendra, M. and Mundell, J.A., 1984. Discussion of Corrected Field Vane Strength for Embankment
Design. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 110, No. 8, pp. 1150–1152.
Tammirinne, M., 1981. Some Aspects Concerning the Use of Vane Test. Proceedings of the 10th
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 4, pp. 764–766.
Tanaka, H., 1994. Vane Shear Strength of a Japanese Marine Clay and Applicability of Bjerrum’s
Correction Factor. Soils and Foundations, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 39–48.
Tanaka, H. and Tanaka, M., 1993. Vane Shear Strength of Japanese Marine Clay. Proceedings of the
11th Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conference, pp. 231–238.
194 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Tang, W., Mesri, G., and Halim, I., 1992. Uncertainty of Mobilized Undrained Shear Strength. Soils
and Foundations, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 107–116.
Toh, C.T. and Donald, I.B., 1979. Anisotropy of an Alluvial Clay. Proceedings of the 6th Asian
Regional Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 99–106.
Torstensson, B.A., 1977. Time-Dependent Effects in the Field Vane Test. Proceedings of the
International Symposium on Soft Clays, Bangkok, pp. 387–397.
Veneman, P. and Edil, T., 1988. Micromophological Aspects of the Vane Shear Test. ASTM STP
1014, pp. 182–190.
Wiesel, C.E., 1967. Discussion on the Shear Strength of Soft Clays. Proceedings of the Geotechnical
Conference at Oslo, Vol. 2, pp. 130–131.
Wiesel, C.E., 1973. Some Factors Infuencing In Situ Vane Test Results. Proceedings of the
8th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1.2,
pp. 475–479.
Wroth, C.P., 1984. Interpretation of In Situ Tests. Geotechnique, Vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 449–489.
Young, A.G., McClelland, B., and Quiros, G.W., 1988. In-Situ Vane Shear Testing at Sea. ASTM
Special Technical Publication 1014, pp. 46–67.
Chapter 6

Dilatometer Test (DMT)

6.1 INTRODUCTION

The Dilatometer Test (DMT) was introduced by Marchetti (1975; 1980) and is sometimes
described as a fat plate penetrometer. The test is simple, robust, and easy to operate, and the
test is applicable in a wide range of soils. The data may be reduced quickly, and the results
are relatively simple to interpret. The test uses an active test phase to expand a circular mem-
brane laterally against the soil after direct push penetration. The test can be used both as a
stratigraphic logging tool and a specifc property measurement tool, and the test can also be
used as a prototype tool for direct design of axial and laterally loaded driven displacement
piles. It has also been found reliable for estimating bearing capacity and settlement of shal-
low foundations.

6.2 MECHANICS

The DMT consists of a rectangular blade with a width of 94 mm (3.7 in.) and a thickness
of 14 mm (0.55 in.) that has a sharpened (20°) leading point as shown in Figure 6.1. The
blade is made of hardened stainless steel, and therefore, it can be used to penetrate a wide
range of soils, from very soft clay to dense sand and till. The blade is pushed into the ground
much in the same way as advancing the CPT or CPTU. There is a thin circular stainless
steel membrane or diaphragm mounted on one face of the plate as shown in Figure 6.1. This
membrane is the only moving part of the instrument in contact with the soil. Once penetra-
tion of the blade has reached the test depth, the membrane is expanded outward against the
soil using controlled gas pressure from a console at the ground surface.

6.3 EQUIPMENT

In addition to the blade, the test equipment includes a simple control console that is used to
perform the test and a gas supply, usually nitrogen. The console consists of a pressure gage
and a needle valve to control the gas fow to the blade. The blade and the control console are
connected by a small diameter coaxial electrical/pneumatic line that provides communica-
tion between the two. Figure 6.2 shows a complete arrangement of the test set-up showing
all of the main components.
Tests are normally performed at depth intervals of 12 in. (0.30 m), and therefore, the
test provides a semi-continuous profle of soil response. Since its introduction, the test has
been used around the world in a wide range of soils, from very soft fne-grained deposits to
very stiff granular deposits. Table 6.1 gives a representative collection of the reported use

195
196  In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Figure 6.1  Schematic and photo of a dilatometer blade.

of the DMT in different soils and shows that the DMT has applications in a broad range of
materials, including cohesive and cohesionless, saturated and partially saturated, normally
consolidated and overconsolidated, “quick” and very stiff, and natural and compacted.
There appear to be only minor limitations in using the DMT in natural geologic materi-
als. In boulderly glacial sediments or gravelly deposits, it may be difficult to advance the
blade, and there may be damage to the blade and/or membrane. Offshore use of the DMT
has been reported by Marchetti (1980), Burgess (1983), Sonnenfeld et al. (1985), and Lunne
et al. (1987). Akbar & Clarke (2001) and Akbar et al. (2005) described a modified DMT
for use in very stiff glacial deposits, substituting the flexible stainless steel membrane with
a rigid steel piston.

6.4 TEST PROCEDURE

The blade is typically advanced to the test depth using quasi-static pushing thrust in the
same way that the CPT/CPTU tests are advanced. A penetration rate of 2 cm/s is recom-
mended for the DMT to be consistent with the CPT/CPTU. The blade can be advanced
 Dilatometer Test  197

Figure 6.2  Test arrangement for DMT.

with a CPT rig or using the hydraulic feed off the back of a drill rig. Similar techniques
previously described in Chapter 4 for advancing the CPT are used. Adapters can be made to
allow the use of either CPT rods or conventional drill rods. The coaxial cable is run through
the center of the push rods. Normally, an enlarged rod section is placed behind the blade to
act as a “friction reducer” to allow the blade to be advanced as far as possible. As a general
rule of thumb, it takes about twice as much pushing thrust to advance the DMT blade as it
takes to advance a 10 cm 2 CPT. Even though the blade is extremely robust and made of high
strength steel, it is not considered appropriate to advance the blade by driving, as with an
SPT hammer.
The active or expansion phase of the test occurs after penetration and usually starts
immediately after stopping penetration and releasing the downward thrust. The expan-
sion phase of the test normally consists of two parts: (1) lift-off and (2) 1 mm expansion.
A detailed description of test procedures has been developed and is given in ASTM D6635
Standard Test Method for Performing the Flat Dilatometer.

6.4.1 Lift-off Pressure
Under atmospheric pressure, i.e., out of the ground, the center of the flexible membrane is
actually not in contact with the blade and is slightly concaved outward (Figure 6.3a). After
penetration into the soil, the soil pressure pushes the membrane flat against the blade as
shown in Figure 6.3b. When this happens, an electrical contact is made inside the blade
between the membrane and the blade, completing a simple electrical circuit. This condition
is identified by an audio signal produced by a buzzer at the control console. The first part of
the expansion phase of the test is performed by slowly increasing the gas pressure inside the
body of the blade (on the back side of the diaphragm) using a flow control needle valve on
the control console. This forces the membrane outward against the soil, until the electrical
198  In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Table 6.1  Some reported use of DMT in different materials

Material References
Sensitive marine clay Lacasse & Lunne (1983)
Fabius (1985)
Bechai et al. (1986)
Hayes (1986)
Lutenegger & Timian (1986)
Benoit et al. (1990)
Masood & Kibria (1991)
Lutenegger (2015)
Soft nonsensitive clays Minkov et al. (1984)
Chang (1986)
Saye & Lutenegger (1988b)
Chang (1991)
Mayne and Frost (1991)
Ortigao et al. (1996)
Kim et al. (1997)
Chu et al. (2002)
Arulrajah et al. (2004)
Lacustrine clay Chan & Morgenstern (1986)
Martin & Mayne (1997)
Lutenegger (2000)
Ozer et al. (2006)
Glacial tills and/or very stiff Davidson & Boghrat (1983)
overconsolidated clays Schmertmann & Crapps (1983)
Boghrat (1987)
Powell & Uglow (1986; 1988)
Lutenegger (1990)
Sand Schmertmann (1982)
Baldi et al. (1986)
Clough & Goeke (1986)
Lacasse & Lunne (1986)
Schmertmann et al. (1986)
Konrad (1991)
Monaco et al. (2005)
Tsai et al. (2009)
Lee et al. (2011)
Amoroso et al. (2015a)
Deltaic silt Campanella & Robertson (1983)
Konrad et al. (1985)
Loess Lutenegger & Donchev (1983)
Hammandshiev & Lutenegger (1985)
Lutenegger (1986)
Mlynarek et al. (2015)
Peat Hayes (1983)
Kaderabek et al. (1986)
Nichols et al. (1989)
Compacted fill Borden et al. (1985)
Borden et al. (1986)
Soft/medium rock Sonnenfeld et al. (1985)
Residual soils Chang (1988)
Borden et al. (1988)
Wang & Borden (1996)
Martin & Mayne (1998)
Brown & Vinson (1998)
Giacheti et al. (2006)
Anderson et al. (2006b)
Cruz & Viana de Fonseca (2006)
 Dilatometer Test 199

Figure 6.3 DMT membrane position during phases of the test. (a) atmospheric, (b) after penetration,
(c) lift-off, and (d) 1 mm expansion.

contact is broken, and the audio buzzer stops, Figure 6.3c. The pressure where this occurs
is noted and designated at the lift-off pressure or “A-Reading.”
In order to actually obtain the A-Reading, the operator watches the pressure gage on the
console and listens for the audio buzzer to go off. The operator can either mentally store
the reading or repeat it aloud to an assistant who records the reading. The pressure gages
should be of suffcient precision for the anticipated range of pressures to be encountered for
a particular soil.
At this point, the center of the membrane has just lifted off the face of the blade. Under
atmospheric pressure, the center of the membrane is concaved outward and must be arti-
fcially pulled in by a vacuum to make contact with the blade. This represents the intrinsic
membrane resistance and must be accounted for in determining the actual pressure exerted
on the soil. Therefore, the A-Reading must be corrected for membrane stiffness, denoted as
ΔA, such that

P0 = A − ˛A. (6.1)

Since ΔA is really negative (i.e., a vacuum behind the membrane is required to bring it
against the blade), ΔA must be numerically added to the A-Reading to give the corrected
pressure, P0. The value of P0 is referred to as the “lift-off” pressure.
200 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

6.4.2 1 mm Expansion Pressure

After obtaining the A-Reading and without stopping the gas fow, gas pressure is increased
until the center of the membrane has moved 1-mm into the soil away from the plane of the
blade, as noted in Figure 6.3d. At this point, an additional electrical contact is made inside
the blade and the audio buzzer signal of the control console again sounds, signifying that the
electrical circuit had once again been completed. The pressure where this occurs is noted as
the “B-Reading.” As with the A-Reading, since the membrane has some intrinsic stiffness, a
correction must be applied to the B-Reading to give a corrected soil pressure. The correction
for the 1 mm expansion (ΔB) is obtained by expanding the membrane under atmospheric
pressure until 1 mm expansion is obtained. This represents the inertial membrane stiffness.
The 1 mm expansion pressure, corrected for membrane stiffness, is designated as P1 and is
obtained as follows:

P1 = B − ˛B. (6.2)

As with the A-Reading, in order to determine the B-Reading, the operator listens for the
audio buzzer to sound while watching the pressure gage. At this point, usually both the
A-Reading and B-Reading are recorded. Figure 6.4 shows a cross section through the blade
showing an internal moving plunger that follows the membrane during expansion and is
used to make the electrical contact at lift-off and the 1 mm expansion.
Both pressures, P0 and P1, were used by Marchetti (1980) to establish correlations for
pertinent engineering properties, which will be discussed later in this chapter. After the
B-Reading is obtained, the gas pressure is immediately released by a vent valve on the con-
trol console so that no further expansion of the membrane occurs. Continued expansion
of the membrane can cause yielding of the metal and a change in the calibration constants,
ΔA and ΔB. The gas fow is regulated with the needle valve on the console so that it takes
about 15–30 s to obtain the A-Reading and another 15–30 s to obtain the B-Reading. After
venting, the blade is ready to be advanced to the next test location with the vent open or is
removed.
The corrections to the A- and B-Readings to obtain the corrected pressures are slightly
more complex than indicated by Equations 6.1 and 6.2. To account for the specifc internal
mechanics of the blade, the corrected readings P0 and P1 are actually obtained from

Figure 6.4 Internal mechanics of a dilatometer blade.

 Dilatometer Test 201

P0 = 1.05 ( A − Z m + ˆA ) − 0.05 ( B − Z m − ˆB ) (6.3)

P1 = B − Z m − ˛B (6.4)

where
Zm = the initial pressure gauge reading

6.4.3 Recontact Pressure

An additional development in conducting the DMT was suggested in the mid-1980s to
obtain a third pressure reading, designated as the “C-Reading.” Following the B-Reading,
instead of rapidly venting the gas pressure inside the blade, the pressure is slowly decreased
by controlled defation using another in-line fow control needle valve on the control con-
sole. If there is still external pressure pushing on the outside of the membrane, this pressure
will be identifed when the membrane recontacts the plane of the blade and takes the same
position as in the beginning of the test, i.e., Figure 6.3b, and again the audio buzzer signal
will sound. The C-Reading is corrected for membrane stiffness to give the “recontact” pres-
sure, P2 , determined as

P2 = C − ˛A − Z m (6.5)

Even though the C-Reading was not a part of the initial work presented by Marchetti
(1980), the author is a strong proponent of obtaining the C-Reading and recommends that
this measurement be included as a routine part of every DMT test.
The operation of the DMT consists of a simple sequence of pressure measurements. The
control console is relatively simple to operate, and most technicians master the controls
quickly. This means that the test results at a given site are more likely to represent natural
variations in soil conditions rather than variations in test procedures. The test results are
generally very reproducible and essentially operator-independent.

6.5 DATA REDUCTION

As described in the previous section, the DMT allows the measurements of three separate
pressure values. In the original form of the test, Marchetti (1980) had only the frst two
pressure readings, P0 and P1, which he used to develop empirical correlations for various soil
properties. Based on these two readings, Marchetti established three dilatometer “indices”
that were defned as follows:

ID – Material Index

ID = ( P1 − P0 ) ( P0 − uo ) (6.6)

K D – Lateral Stress Index

KD = ( P0 − uo ) ( ˙ vo − uo ) (6.7)

E D – Dilatometer Modulus

E D = ( P1 − P0 ) D (6.8)
202 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

where
σvo = in situ total vertical stress
uo = in situ pore water pressure
D = a constant.

These three parameters were used by Marchetti (1980) to establish correlations to pertinent
soil properties using other feld and laboratory data.

U D – Dilatometer Pore Pressure Index

Lutenegger & Kabir (1988) suggested that the recontact pressure, P2 , could be used to
identify site stratigraphy by making a comparison between P2 and P0; the rationale being
that in a very soft saturated fne-grained soil, the two values would be nearly identical.
They suggested an additional DMT index, referred to as the Pore Pressure Index defned as
follows:

U D = ( P2 − uo ) ( P0 − uo ). (6.9)

Theoretically, values of U D could range from 0 to 1, but because of the difference in time
required to obtain the two readings P0 and P2 , the actual values range from 0 to about 0.8.
Variations in U D for a given soil refect the tendency for generating positive pore water pres-
sures and the rate of pore water pressure dissipation, both of which can be expected to vary
with both stress history and soil type.

Ki – Initial Lateral Stress Index

Lutenegger (2006b; 2015) suggested that another useful parameter could be defned by
considering the values of P0 and P2 together. The initial lateral stress ratio, Ki, is defned as:

Ki = ( P0 – P2 ) ˙v̋o (6.10)

Correlations between the various DMT indexes and soil properties and results of more
recent work with the DMT will be discussed in more detail in subsequent sections. Initially,
however, it would be useful to examine the fundamental mechanics of the penetration phase
of the test and the infuence of ground stress and soil behavior on the measured values of
P0, P1, and P2 .

6.5.1 Lift-off and Penetration Pore Pressures

In a uniform soil deposit, the in situ vertical and horizontal effective stresses increase lin-
early with depth. As a result, the in situ mean or octahedral stress increases with depth.
Accordingly, the DMT lift-off pressure should likewise increase with depth. The compo-
nents of P0 in any soil include the initial total stress and the change in stress as a result of the
penetration of the blade such that

P0 = ˛ °hO + uo + ˙˛ °h + ˙u (6.11)

where
σ′hO = initial in situ horizontal effective stress
uo = initial in situ pore water pressure
Δσ′h = change in horizontal effective stress
Δu = change in pore pressure.
 Dilatometer Test 203

The magnitude and sign of each of the components of Equation 6.11 will be a function of the
existing stress conditions of the soil and the soil behavior, including stress history (OCR),
stiffness, void ratio, etc. Roque et al. (1988) included an additional term in Equation 6.11 to
account for “attraction”.
Two methods have been used to study the infuence of pore pressures on the DMT: (1) by
modifying the blade to accept a porous element and pore pressure system along with the
expandable diaphragm (Campanella et al. 1985; Robertson et al. 1988) and (2) by using a
separate identical blade (piezoblade) that has only a porous element and pore pressure system
as a replacement for the expandable diaphragm (Davidson & Boghrat 1983; Lutenegger &
Kabir 1988) as shown in Figure 6.5. Both methods use a pressure transducer to measure the
pore pressure during and after penetration.
In order to determine what portion of the measured value of P0 is pore water pressure in
cohesive soils (uo + Δu), we can examine the results of piezoblade and instrumented DMT
results. Davidson & Boghrat (1983) demonstrated that the amount of pore water pressure
dissipated on the face of the blade within the time the test is performed was a function of
soil type as related to the DMT Material Index, I D. The amount of pore pressure dissipated
in the frst minute following penetration decreases with increasing fneness of the soil. That
is, in granular soils with high coeffcients of hydraulic conductivity, nearly all of the excess
pore pressure was gone.
By contrast, in soft fne-grained soils, in which the coeffcient of hydraulic conductivity
can be several orders of magnitude lower than sands, there was only a very small amount of
excess pore pressure dissipation after the frst minute. As shown in Figure 6.6, this behavior
can be related to the DMT Material Index, I D. Note that these tests were performed in stiff
overconsolidated soils, and the pore pressures measured were predominantly negative.
The results of Figure 6.6 show that for practical interpretation, the DMT should be con-
sidered an undrained test in clays, and P0 may contain a large component of Δu. In sands,
the test is almost completely drained, and P0 will generally refect a condition where Δu = 0.

Figure 6.5 Piezoblade.

204 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Figure 6.6 Per cent dissipation of pore water pressure on piezoblade 1 min after insertion. (After Davidson &
Boghrat 1983.)

For soils in between, or of mixed composition, the amount of pore pressure present during
the test will depend on the stress history and drainage characteristics of the soil. The mag-
nitude of penetration (excess) pore water pressure (Δu) on the face of the DMT blade should
be related to soil properties such as stress history, strength, and stiffness, much in the same
way as was described for pore pressure measurements obtained with the CPTU.
The magnitude of the lift-off pressure is clearly affected by the amount of excess pore
water pressure at the time P0 is obtained. Mayne (1987) demonstrated that the value of P0
was nearly identical to the pore water pressure measured with a CPTU for clays with over-
consolidation ratio (OCR) < 3. In normally consolidated and lightly overconsolidated clays,
the dominant component of P0 is Δu + uo. In overconsolidated soils, a signifcant component
of P0 is composed of an increase in horizontal effective stress, Δσ′h and less of an infuence
of excess pore pressure. As the absolute value of P0 increases, the effect of excess pore water
pressure decreases. That is, as the soil becomes stronger and stiffer, the infuence of excess
pore water pressure on the DMT results becomes less. The infuence of excess pore water
pressures is roughly related to the DMT Material Index, I D, as previously noted, with the
magnitude of excess pore water pressure decreasing as I D increases.

6.5.2 1 mm Expansion Pressure

The expansion of the membrane out to 1 mm provides for a loading phase of the test after
obtaining the lift-off pressure. In this way, an attempt is made in the test to obtain soil
behavior under loading after the penetration phase of the test. Since the half thickness of
the blade is about 7 mm, the 1 mm expansion actually constitutes a fairly large deforma-
tion condition. In a uniform deposit, the difference between P1 and P0 should increase with
increasing depth, as the confning stress increases, which refects the increase in soil stiffness
with depth.
 Dilatometer Test 205

Campanella & Robertson (1991) presented results of tests obtained using a carefully
instrumented DMT blade that could measure the full pressure-displacement behavior of
the membrane. In soft clays, the shape of the diaphragm expansion curve is relatively fat
as indicated in Figure 6.7. The major component of expansion is indicated to be additional
pore water pressure. This suggests that the penetration phase of the test has already created
a failure condition in the soil and that P1 will be close to P0. This also means that I D, defned
by Equation 6.6, will be very small since the difference between P0 and P1 is small. Also, ED
will be small, again because the pressure difference, P1 − P0, is small.
Therefore, in soft clays, one should be able to predict the undrained strength from either
P0 or P1 or from the combination of the two. An example of the penetration phase of the
test in clays was modeled by Yu et al. (1993), which illustrates the shape of the curve dur-
ing penetration and 1 mm expansion, generally following the measured shape as shown in
Figure 6.7. Any further expansion from the initial 7 mm (½ the blade thickness) penetration,
e.g., an additional 1mm to obtain P1, produces only a minor increase in pressure.
By contrast, typical results obtained in a stiff overconsolidated clay, shown in Figure 6.8,
indicate that negative pore water pressures can be generated during penetration, and that
there can be a substantial difference in P0 and P1. This suggests that the penetration phase
of the test may not create a limit pressure condition, i.e., the soil is not at failure during
penetration, but may approach a limiting or failure condition during the 1 mm expansion to
P1. The difference between P1 and P0 will be larger than in soft clays, and therefore, both I D
and ED will be larger, indicating a stiffer material.
In sands, although expansion from P0 to P1 still shows an essentially linear behavior, the
test results show a quite different behavior, as shown in Figure 6.9. P1 is much larger than
P0; no limiting condition is achieved in either loose or dense sand, and essentially no excess
pore water pressures are generated, either during penetration or expansion. This means that
both I D and ED will be large, and the test may be considered drained. Additional expansion
curves obtained using an instrumented DMT diaphragm on sand in a calibration chamber
have been presented by Bellotti et al. (1997). Expansion of the diaphragm from P0 to P1 is
essentially linear, the slope is related to OCR (for constant relative density), and the unload-
reload slope is much stiffer than the initial loading slope. Similar observations of the full

Figure 6.7 DMT membrane expansion in soft clay.

206 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Figure 6.8 DMT membrane expansion in stiff clay.

Figure 6.9 DMT membrane expansion in loose sand.

pressure expansion curve have been made using instrumented DMT blades (Kay & Chiu
1993; Kaggwa et al. 1995; Stetson et al. 2003).
Lutenegger (1988) had shown that for a limited number of tests in clays, the lift-off pres-
sure from the DMT was close to the limit pressure, PL , from the PMT. Tests for a wider
range of clays, summarized by Lutenegger & Blanchard (1993), indicated that in soft clays,
P0 is close to PL , but in stiff clays, the 1 mm expansion pressure P1 is close to the PMT limit
pressure PL . In soft clays, the correlation between either P0 or P1 and PL should be about the
same, since P0 and PL are close (Figure 6.10).
 Dilatometer Test 207

Figure 6.10 DMT membrane expansion in dense sand.

Similar observations have been made using results obtained from prebored and self-
boring PMTs (e.g., Powell & Uglow 1986; Chang 1988; Kalteziotis et al. 1991; Wong et al.
1993; Hamouche et al. 1995; Ortigao et al. 1996), as shown in Figure 6.11. Figure 6.12 gives
a compilation of data from tests performed by the author at a number of test sites, which
shows similar results.

6.5.3 Recontact Pressure

The recontact pressure, P2 , is obtained after frst obtaining the A and B readings. Therefore,
on defation since the soil had already been deformed 1 mm away from the face of the blade,
the pressure pushing in on the membrane will be composed predominantly of pore pres-
sure and a small amount of soil effective relaxation stress. This behavior was suggested
by Campanella et al. (1985). In a uniform deposit, it would be expected that the recontact

Figure 6.11 Comparison between DMT P 0 and P1 and PMT PL in soft and stiff clay.
208 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Figure 6.12 Comparison between DMT P1 and PMT PL in medium and stiff clay. (After Kalteziotis et al. 1991.)

pressure would increase linearly with depth, following the hydrostatic pore water pressure
line in sands but refecting excess pore water pressure in clays.
Results obtained at several research sites (e.g., Robertson et al. 1988; Lutenegger & Kabir
1988) show that the recontact pressure was closely related to the excess pore pressure in
clays and close to the in situ equilibrium pressure in sands. Based on these and other obser-
vations, it can be assumed that the close-up pressure, P2 , is a reasonable measure of the pore
water pressure acting on the face of the DMT blade during the test.

6.6 PRESENTATION OF TEST RESULTS

Presentation of DMT results should always show plots of the corrected pressure read-
ings, P0, P1, and P 2 versus depth. Plots of P0 and P1 vs. depth should also include a plot
of the in situ vertical effective stress as a reference. Similarly, the plot of P 2 vs. depth
should include a plot on in situ pore water pressure as a reference. Examples are shown in
Figures 6.13–6.16.
Figure 6.13 shows DMT results obtained at a site in Keene, NH, which consists of alluvial
sands overlying a soft lake clay deposit. A casing was set through some random fll before
the DMT was started. The transition between the two layers can easily be seen at a depth
of about 14 m. Comparison of the P2 reading with the in situ pore water pressure shows
hydrostatic conditions in the sand but elevated (excess) pore water pressures in the clay. The
DMT Indices, shown in Figure 6.14, indicate the transition from the coarse-grained to fne-
grained materials by the Material Index, I D, and the DMT Modulus, ED.
Figures 6.15 and 6.16 show results obtained at a site in Massena, NY, which consists of
very soft sensitive marine clay. The soils are uniform throughout the profle.
 Dilatometer Test 209

2 2

P2
4 4
U0

6 6

8 8

10 10
Depth (m)

12 12

14 14

16 P0 16
P1
18 ˜ 'V0 18

20 20

22 22
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 0 100 200 300 400 500
Pressure (kPa) Pressure (kPa)

Figure 6.13 Presentation of DMT pressures P 0, P1, and P2 – Keene, N.H.

0 0 0

2 2 2

4 4 4

6 6 6

8 8 8

10 10 10
Depth (m)

12 12 12

14 14 14

16 16 16

18 18 18

20 20 20

22 22 22

24 24 24
0.1 1 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 10000 20000 30000 40000
ID KD ED (kPa)

Figure 6.14 DMT indices for data of Figure 6.13 – Keene, N.H.
210 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

2 2
P0
4 P1 4 P2
S'V UO
6 6

8 8

10 10
Depth (m)

12 12

14 14

16 16

18 18

20 20

22 22
0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Pressure (kPa) Pressure (kPa)

Figure 6.15 Presentation of DMT pressures P 0, P1, and P2 – Massena, N.Y.

2 2 2

4 4 4

6 6 6

8 8 8

10 10 10
Depth (m)

12 12 12

14 14 14

16 16 16

18 18 18

20 20 20

22 22 22
0.01 0.1 1 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
ID KD ED (kPa)

Figure 6.16 DMT indices for data of Figure 6.15 – Massena, N.Y.
 Dilatometer Test 211

6.7 INTERPRETATION OF TEST RESULTS

6.7.1 Evaluating Stratigraphy

A specifc application of the results of a DMT profle is in determining changes in subsurface
stratigraphy. This can be done primarily from the soil’s point of view since the test results
will be dependent on the behavior of the soil during and after penetration by the blade.
This part of the test should not be considered as a detailed primary use of the instrument
in contrast to a CPT and CPTU profle in which the results are nearly continuous and thus
more detailed. As such, the DMT is not meant to be competitive with the CPT or CPTU but
more complimentary in terms of the overall scope of an in situ testing program, since the
DMT can provide additional soil data to help in the delineation of the subsurface profle and
specifc property evaluation.
Soil identifcation or “classifcation” using the DMT should be thought of in terms of soil
behavior as opposed to specifc composition, such as is done with laboratory or visual-based
soil classifcation systems. This is essentially the same as the systems used to provide soil
identifcation from CPT/CPTU results, wherein the results of the test are used in a rational
way to help determine the nature of the material which is being tested. As described in
Chapter 4, soil identifcation systems most commonly used with the CPT/CPTU make use of
tip resistance, sleeve resistance, and pore water pressure to identify the soil type. Similarly,
with the DMT, the lift-off pressure, 1 mm expansion, and recontact pressure can be used to
identify the soil.
One way to evaluate changes in site stratigraphy is to examine the plot of the pressure
readings P0, P1, and P2 vs. depth as shown in Figure 6.13 and look for changes in test results.
Changes in stratigraphy are indicated by abrupt changes in the trends of all three values. The
variation in the recontact pressure, P2 , vs. depth appears to be one of the easiest ways of not-
ing changes in stratigraphy much in the same way that pore pressure from a CPTU is used,
especially while the test is being performed. A comparison with the in situ pore water pres-
sure profle gives a rapid indication of fne-grained vs. granular soil layers, since the P2 profle
in a saturated granular soil will essentially follow the in situ pore water pressure profle.
Marchetti (1975) had proposed a simple system based on the DMT Material Index, I D,
that could be used to establish the soil type as shown in Table 6.2. As I D increases, the
soil type changes from very soft cohesive to very stiff granular, with several intergrades.
From Equation 6.6, I D defnes the relative change in pressure from P0 to P1 normalized with
respect to P0 and accounting for the in situ pore water pressure. The variation in K D and ED
can also be used to show changes in soil behavior.
The Pore Pressure Index, U D, defned by Equation 6.9 has also been shown to be a use-
ful parameter in determining site stratigraphy (Lutenegger & Kabir 1988). Variations in
U D indicate changes in soil drainage conditions and the tendency for the soil to generate
excess positive pore water pressures during blade penetration. This means that a plot of U D
vs. depth helps indicate changes in soil stratigraphy. U D can be used to distinguish “perme-
able” layers (U D < 0.2) from “impermeable” layers (U D > 0.6). Intermediate materials will
typically fall in between, (i.e., 0.2 < U D < 0.6). Figure 6.17 shows U D profles from the data of
Figures 6.13 and 6.15.

Table 6.2 Soil identifcation using material index, ID

Clay Silt Sand
Peat or
Soil type sensitive clay Silty Clayey Sandy Silty
ID < 0.10 0.10 0.35 0.60 0.90 1.2 1.8 3.3
212 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

0 2

2
4
4
6
6
8
8
10
Depth (m)

Depth (m)
10
12
12

14
14

16 16

18 18

20 20

22 22
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
UD
UD

Figure 6.17 Variation in UD from data of Figures 6.13 (left) and 6.15 (right).

Robertson (2009) identifed an approximate relationship between the CPT Soil Behavioral
Type Index, IC , previously described in Chapter 4, and the DMT Material Index, I D, which
is shown in Figure 6.18 and which can be expressed as follows:

IC = 2.5 – 1.5log ( ID ) (6.12)

There is also some evidence that the DMT Material Index, I D, is related to the friction ratio,
obtained from the CPT.

Figure 6.18 Approximate relationship between CPT IC and DMT ID. (From Robertson 1990.)
 Dilatometer Test 213

6.7.2 Interpretation of DMT Results in Fine-Grained Soils

The DMT has also been used extensively in fne-grained soils as previously summarized in
Table 6.1. In some respects, using a DMT has some advantages over using a CPTU in that
deairing of a porous element is not needed. Table 6.3 presents a summary of a number of
reported correlations between soil properties and DMT results for fne-grained soils. The
following sections discuss interpretation of DMT results in fne-grained soils.

6.7.2.1 Undrained Shear Strength

A number of methods have been suggested for estimating the undrained shear strength of
saturated fne-grained soils from the results of the DMT.

Table 6.3 Reported correlations between soil properties and DMT in

fne-grained soils
Soil parameter DMT index References
su or su/σ′vo ID, KD, P0, P1, P2, ED Marchetti (1980)
Lacasse & Lunne (1988)
Roque et al. (1988)
Su et al. (1993)
Kamei & Iwasaki (1995)
Lutenegger (2006a)
Lechowicz et al. (2017)
Ko ID, KD Marchetti (1980)
Powell & Uglow (1988)
Lacasse & Lunne (1988)
Mayne & Kulhawy (1990)
σ′p P0 Mayne (1987; 1995)
Ozer et al. (2006)
OCR ID, KD, Ki Marchetti (1980)
Davidson & Boghrat (1983)
Powell & Uglow (1988)
Lacasse & Lunne (1988)
Su et al. (1993)
Lutenegger (2015)
M ID, ED, KD Marchetti (1980)
Ozer et al. (2006)
Lechowicz et al. (2017)
E ED Marchetti (1980)
Davidson & Boghrat (1983)
Borden et al. (1985)
Lutenegger (1988)
Su et al. (1993)
Gmax ED, P0, P1 Kalteziotis et al. (1991)
Tanaka et al. (1994)
Shibuya et al. (1998)
ch P0, P2 Robertson et al. (1988)
Schmertmann (1989)
Marchetti & Totani (1989)
kh (subgrade P0, KD Robertson et al. (1988)
reaction Gabr & Borden (1988)
modulus) Schmertmann (1989)
CBR ED Borden et al. (1986)
214 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

6.7.2.1.1 Marchetti Method (1980)

Marchetti (1980) had suggested that a simple empirical relationship could be used to predict
the normalized undrained strength of cohesive soils from the DMT lift-off pressure, P0,
according to

su ˝ ˛vo = 0.22 (0.5 KD )

1.25
(6.13)

where
σ′vo = vertical effective stress
K D = (P0 − uo)/σ′vo
uo = in situ pore water pressure

A comparison between Equation 6.13 and the results of laboratory unconfned compression
and triaxial compression and in situ feld vane tests obtained by Marchetti (1980) provided
reasonable accuracy as shown in Figure 6.19. This initial technique has been used by a
number of investigators; however, it appears to need site-specifc verifcation and does not
provide suffcient accuracy in all soils.
For example, test results presented by Powell & Uglow (1988) indicated that this method
could underpredict or overpredict the normalized undrained shear strength. Similar results
were presented by Lacasse & Lunne (1988) presenting correlations between predicted and
measured undrained shear strength in Norwegian clays, using different reference values of
strength.

6.7.2.1.2 Roque et al. Method (1988)

An alternative approach to estimating the undrained shear strength was presented by Roque
et al. (1988) using a simple bearing capacity approach assuming that the blade is rectangular
footing loaded in the soil horizontally. In this case, the undrained shear strength is given as
follows:

su = ( P1 − ˙ ho ) NC (6.14)

Figure 6.19 Correlation of su from Marchetti (1980).

 Dilatometer Test 215

where
P1 = DMT 1 mm expansion pressure
σho = in situ total horizontal stress = Koσ′vo + uo
NC = bearing capacity factor.

Values of NC varying from 5 to 9 were suggested by Roque et al. (1988) as given in Table 6.4.
This procedure resembles the semi-empirical technique used to predict the undrained
shear strength from Menard pressuremeter using the limit pressure, PL , as will be previously
described in Chapter 7 where

su = ( PL − ˙ ho ) N (6.15)

In both Equations 6.14 and 6.15, it is assumed that a yield or limit pressure is obtained dur-
ing the expansion phase of the test such that P1 = PL . For the pressuremeter, values of N from
the literature are often in the range of 5–7, which compares well with values suggested by
Roque et al. (1988). This technique requires an evaluation of the original (prepenetration)
at rest in situ horizontal stress and some assumption of the soil type to estimate the bearing
capacity factor, NC .

6.7.2.1.3 Schmertmann Method (1989)

Schmertmann (1989a) presented further theoretical explanations for an expected trend
between K D and the undrained strength based on the limit pressure from cylindrical cavity
expansion and suggested that a good approximation for predicting the normalized und-
rained strength would be as follows:

su ° ṽo = KD 8 (6.16)

6.7.2.1.4 “Effective” Lift-Off Pressure Method

Since both the normalized shear strength and K D are normalized by σ′vo, it is possible to esti-
mate the undrained shear strength directly from P0 − uo. This eliminates the need to estimate
soil unit weight to estimate σvo but still requires an estimate of uo at the test location. In this
case, the undrained shear strength would be given as follows:

su = ( P0 − uo ) ˙ (6.17)

where
β = an empirical constant.

Values of β should be in the range of 6 to 10.

Table 6.4 Bearing capacity factors suggested

by Roque et al. (1988)
Soil NC
Brittle clay and silt 5
Medium clay 7
Nonsensitive plastic clay 9
216 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

6.7.2.1.5 Larsson & Eskilson (1989) “effective” 1 mm Expansion Pressure Method

A method for estimating the undrained shear strength in clays using the value of P1 was
suggested by Larsson & Eskilson (1989) as follows:

su = ( P1 − uo ) F (6.18)

This is similar to the method previously described using P0. For both organic and inorganic
clays in Sweden, Larsson & Eskilson (1989) found that F typically is in the order of 10.

6.7.2.1.6 Yu et al. (1993)

Yu et al. (1993) performed a numerical study of the undrained penetration mechanics of the
DMT by modeling the blade as the expansion of a fat cavity. An elastoplastic soil model
was used, and a plane strain condition was assumed so that no strain was permitted in the
vertical direction. The results of this study indicated that the lift-off pressure, P0, is a func-
tion of the initial horizontal stress, the undrained shear strength, and the rigidity index,
G/su, of the soil. It was found that the normalized lift-off pressure, defned as

N po = ( P0 − ˙ ho ) su (6.19)

was not a constant but increases with the rigidity index of the soil as follows:

N po = −1.75 + 1.57 ln (G su ). (6.20)

For typical values of rigidity index for clays, the normalized lift-off pressure ranges from
about 3.6 to 8.3, which is similar to the range in values of NC suggested by Roque et al.
(1988). Rearranging Equation 6.18 gives

su = ( P0 − ˙ ho ) N po (6.21)

The diffculty in using Equation 6.19 is that an estimate of the in situ horizontal stress is
needed. An initial estimate of σho could be made using the estimated Ko from the DMT
results.
Finno (1993) presented results of a three-dimensional numerical study of the penetration
of the DMT through saturated cohesive soils. In particular, the study evaluated the effects of
DMT penetration on the lift-off, P0, reading. It was found that DMT K D values (and hence
P0) are sensitive to variations in Ko and OCR, which is consistent with results presented by
Yu et al. (1993) but that strength and compressibility parameters do not signifcantly affect
P0. Since DMT-derived su values depend primarily on P0 (using the Marchetti method), it
was suggested that these values of strength are only as good as the empirical correlations
based on OCR, and therefore, site-specifc correlations are needed.

6.7.2.1.7 Kamei and Iwasaki Method (1995)

Kamei & Iwasaki (1995) suggested that for very soft clays and peat, a correlation could be
established between the undrained shear strength obtained from laboratory UU triaxial
compression tests and unconfned compression tests and the DMT elastic modulus, ED, as

su = 0.018 E D. (6.22)
 Dilatometer Test 217

Figure 6.20 Correlation between su and ED. (After Kamei & Iwasaki 1995.)

The results of tests compared on Holocene deposits are shown in Figure 6.20, all of which
have undrained strengths less than 100 kPa.
It may be reasonable to expect such a correlation in very soft soils since the value of P1
is only slightly higher than P0, giving very low values of ED. Therefore, since ED refects the
difference in going from P0 to P1, it is reasonable to expect that as the strength increases,
ED increases. A simpler, more direct approach may be to simply take the pressure differ-
ence, i.e., P1 − P0, as an estimate of undrained strength, as was suggested by Lutenegger &
Blanchard (1993).

6.7.2.1.8 Lutenegger Cavity Expansion “effective stress” Method (2006)

Lutenegger (2006a) suggested that undrained strength could be estimated by simple cavity
expansion theory. From cylindrical cavity expansion theory, the installation radial effective
stress of a driven cylindrical probe into a soft clay can be given as follows:

° r̃ = ˙ˆ1 + (3/M)0.5 ˇ˘ s u (6.23)

where
su = initial (in situ) undrained shear strength
M = critical state line gradient.

This prediction of σ′r assumes that the soil adjacent to the penetrating probe (shaft of a pile,
cone, DMT, etc.) is at a critical state under plane strain conditions with a radial major prin-
cipal stress. The plane strain value of the critical state line gradient, M, may be obtained
from

M = 3sin ˛°ps (6.24)

where
φ′ps = plane strain effective friction angle.
218 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

In terms of undrained strength, Equation 6.23 may be rewritten as

su = ˛ °r ˝ (6.25)

where

˜ = ˝˙1 + (3/M)0.5 ˆˇ. (6.26)

For most clays, reasonable values of φ′ps range from 20° to 30°, and from Equation 6.26, it
follows that the value of α has a narrow range and only varies from 2.56 to 2.72. Therefore,
a reasonable estimate of the undrained strength may be obtained as

su = ˛°r 2.65. (6.27a)

As previously noted, it has been shown by several investigators that the DMT P0 value is
nearly identical to the initial penetration stress acting on the face of a cylindrical probe (e.g.,
full-displacement pressuremeter or lateral stress cone), and P2 (from a C-Reading) is nearly
identical to the penetration pore pressure (e.g., from piezoblade tests), which also closely
match the penetration pore pressure from a CPTU. Therefore, the total and effective stress
conditions acting around a cylindrical probe and the DMT do not differ that much. In terms
of the data obtained from the DMT, then, Equation 6.27a may be rewritten as

su = ( P0 − P2 ) 2.65. (6.27b)

A comparison of the results from the feld vane and DMT tests from two sites is shown
in Figure 6.21. Even though there is some scatter in the data, the results do not appear
to be site-specifc and appear to be grouped between α = 2.0 to 3.0, which fts well with
Equation 6.27b. Recently, Failmezger et al. (2015) found that this method worked well for
soft clays offshore.
Table 6.5 gives a summary of the reported correlations between su and K D. A compari-
son of several of these empirical equations is shown in Figure 6.22. Other expressions for
estimating undrained shear strength from the DMT, but not using K D, are summarized in
Table 6.6.

6.7.2.2 Stress History – OCR

The DMT results may also be used to estimate the stress history of fne-grained soils, either
directly through estimating the OCR or by estimating the preconsolidation stress, σ′p. A
number of comparisons have been made illustrating the usefulness of the DMT for this.
It should be fairly intuitive that if the DMT can be used successfully to estimate the und-
rained shear strength, then because of the interrelationship between stress history and shear
strength, the test can also be used successfully to estimate the stress history.

6.7.2.2.1 Marchetti Method

Based on the results of laboratory oedometer tests, Marchetti (1980) suggested a simple
empirical expression to predict the OCR from DMT results as follows:

OCR = (0.5 KD )
1.56
(6.28)
 Dilatometer Test 219

su (kPa)
su (kPa)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0
Field Vane Tests
2 DMT - (Po - P2)/2.65
2

4 Field Vane Tests

DMT - (P0 - P2)/2.65

4
6

6
8
Depth (m)

Depth (m)
10 8

12
10

14
12

16

14
18

16
20
(a) (b)

Figure 6.21 Comparison between (P 0 − P2)/2.65 and su at two sites: (a) Amherst, Ma.; (b) Bothkennar,
Scotland.

The data presented by Marchetti (1980) are shown in Figure 6.23. Again, as with estimates
of the undrained shear strength, a number of investigators have shown that the use of this
expression does not always lead to a reliable estimate of the stress history and that site-
specifc correlations using the form of Equation 6.28 are needed. A number of reported
correlations between OCR and K D are summarized in Table 6.7. A comparison of these cor-
relations is shown in Figure 6.24.

6.7.2.2.2 Cavity Expansion Method

Chang et al. (1997) also suggested that the OCR in clays could be estimated from a cavity
expansion model as follows:

OCR = 2 ˇ˘( P0 − ˙ vo ) ( 4.13 ˙v̂o ) 

1.18
. (6.29)
220 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Table 6.5 Correlations for estimating undrained shear strength in clays from DMT KD
Correlation Soil References
su/σ′vo = 0.22 (0.5KD) 1.25 Misc. Clays Marchetti (1980)
su/σ′vo = (0.17 to 0.21) (0.5KD)1.25 Norwegian sensitive clays Lacasse & Lunne (1988)
(feld vane)
su/σ′vo = 0.14 (0.5KD)1.25
(triaxial compression)
su/σ′vo = 0.20 (0.5KD)1.25
(simple shear)
su/σ′vo = KD/8 Misc. Clays Schmertmann (1989a)
su/σ′vo = 0.175 (0.5KD)1.25 Singapore marine clay Chang (1991)
su/σ′vo = 0.32 (0.5KD)1.07 Taiwan marine clay Su et al. (1993)
su/σ′vo = 0.35 (0.47KD)1.25 Japan clay Kamei & Iwasaki (1995)
su/σ′vo = (0.14KD)1.55 Leda clay Tanaka & Bauer (1998)
su/σ′vo = (0.17KD)0.96 Venice lagoon Ricceri et al. (2002)
su/σ′vo = 0.274KD Pakistan Aziz & Akbar (2017)
su/σ′vo = 0.22(0.5KD)1.12 Stiff clay – Poland Lechowicz et al. (2017)

Figure 6.22 Comparison of empirical correlations between KD and su.

A similar correlation was suggested by Cai et al. (2015) as follows:

OCR = 2 ˇ˘( P1 − ˙ vo ) ( 4.77 ˙v̂o ) 

1.18

6.7.2.2.3 Initial Lateral Stress Ratio Method

Lutenegger (2015) suggested an empirical correlation relating OCR to the initial lateral
stress ratio, K i. Results obtained at several clay sites in northern New York and Ontario,
Canada are shown in Figure 6.25. The data ft a good trend except for results obtained in
 Dilatometer Test 221

Table 6.6 Other correlations for estimating undrained shear strength in clays from DMT
Correlation Soil References
su = (P1 − uo)/9 Organic clays – Sweden Larsson & Eskilson (1989)
su = 0.018ED Soft clay – Japan Kamei & Iwasaki (1995)
su = (P2 − P0)/2.65 Soft clays Lutenegger (2006a)
su = 0.12(P0 − σvo) Soft to stiff clays Cai et al. (2015)
su = 0.09(P1 − σvo)
su = 0.1e 0.28 (P0 − uo ) Stiff clay – Poland Lechowicz et al. (2017)
su = 0.1e 0.21(P1 − uo )

Figure 6.23 Correlation between KD and OCR presented by Marchetti (1980).

Table 6.7 Reported correlations for estimating OCR from KD in clays from DMT
Expression Soil References
OCR = (0.5 KD) 1.56 Misc. Clays Marchetti (1980)
OCR = (0.372 KD)1.40 Florida clays Davidson & Boghrat (1983)
OCR = 0.24 (KD)1.32 Stiff clays of UK Powell & Uglow (1988)
OCR = 0.225 (KD)n Norwegian sensitive clays Lacasse & Lunne (1988)
(n varies from 1.35 to 1.67)
OCR = 10[0.16K − 2.5)] Swedish clays Larsson & Eskilson (1989)
OCR = (0.5 KD)0.84 Singapore marine clay Chang (1991)
OCR = 1.65 (0.5 KD)1.13 Taiwan marine clay Su et al. (1993)
OCR = 0.34 KD1.43 Japan soft clay Kamei & Iwasaki (1995)
OCR = (0.3 KD)1.36 Leda clay Tanaka & Bauer (1998)
222 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Figure 6.24 Comparison of reported empirical correlations between KD and OCR.

10 MHS
RRC
SLS
IDA
OGB
St. Albans
Berthierville
OCR

Louiseville

1
0.1 1 10 100

Ki

Figure 6.25 Correlation between Ki and OCR.

fssured clay near the ground surface and above the water table. The correlation may be
more robust since it makes use of two of the DMT pressure measurements.

6.7.2.3 Preconsolidation Stress

The correlation proposed by Marchetti (1980) between K D and OCR is essentially a correla-
tion between σ′p and P0 − uo if the effect of the vertical effective stress is removed.
 Dilatometer Test 223

6.7.2.3.1 Mayne Method (1987)

Mayne (1987) suggested that a direct approach to estimating the stress history in clays
would be to compare the DMT lift-off pressure P0 to the preconsolidation stress σ′p. It was
suggested that the preconsolidation stress could be obtained as follows:

˝ ˛p = ( P0 − uo ) ˇ (6.30)

where:
η = an empirical factor

Based on a simple elastic-plastic model of the expansion of a cylindrical cavity, the value
of η in Equation 6.30 would have a range from between 0.8 and 2.5 for a typical range
of rigidity index for clays. Using a database from a number of test sites, Mayne (1987)
found that the observed value of η ranged from about 1 to 3 but showed considerable
scatter. This correlation was updated by Mayne (1995) for 24 intact natural clays as
follows:

˝ ˛p = ( P0 − uo ) 2. (6.31)

While these results tend to substantiate the trend suggested between K D and OCR by
Marchetti, they still appear to be site-specifc. This may in part be related to the fact that
an implicit assumption involved with this technique is that the value of P0 − uo represents
excess pore water pressure. The author has previously shown that this assumption is very
close in soft and very soft clays with OCR less than about 2.5, but in more heavily overcon-
solidated clays, this assumption would not be valid (Lutenegger 1988). Even in soft clay, P0
still contains a small component of effective stress, and therefore, one should expect scat-
ter in results using this approach. In light of more recent data in soft clays, it may be more
appropriate to substitute P2 for P0 in Equation 6.31; however, this approach has limitations
in highly overconsolidated soils.

6.7.2.3.2 Cavity Expansion “effective stress” Method

The author performed tests at eight marine clay sites to determine the relationship between
stress history and DMT results. In connection with this work, DMT P2 readings were also
obtained. All oedometer tests were performed on samples obtained from thin-walled Shelby
tubes or a piston sampler, and incremental loading oedometer tests were performed. The
data from all sites shown in Figure 6.26 indicate a simple correlation between (P0 − P2) and
the preconsolidation stress and indicate (approximately)

° p̃ = P0 − P2. (6.32)

6.7.2.4 Lateral Stresses

Because of its geometry, the DMT largely records the horizontal response to penetra-
tion when placed vertically. Thus, a measure of horizontal total stress is obtained, which
Marchetti used to defne the horizontal stress index, K D. We should expect that if K D can be
used to reasonably predict OCR, then it can also be used to predict Ko for many soils, since
Ko and OCR are often related. In recent years, engineers have become increasingly aware of
the infuence that lateral stresses have on engineering behavior.
224 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

500

400

'P (kPa) 300

MHS
200 RRC
SLS
IDA
OGB
100 St. Albans
Berthierville
Louiseville
0
0 100 200 300 400 500

P0 - P2 (kPa)

Figure 6.26 Correlation between preconsolidation stress and (P2 − P 0).

The value of K D was directly related to Ko by Marchetti (1980) primarily using the empiri-
cal relation to OCR presented by Brooker & Ireland (1965):

Ko = ( KD 1.5)
0.47
− 0.6 (6.33)

The initial correlation shown in Figure 6.27 appeared to be independent of soil type (exclud-
ing sands) and stress history and therefore has been used by a number of investigators. The
correlation suggested by Marchetti (1980) was based on a limited number of soil types
and tests and was stated to be applicable to “uncemented deposits, free of attraction, etc.
Additionally, Marchetti used the observations relating OCR to Ko presented by Brooker &
Ireland (1965) that were based on tests performed on reconstituted samples, not natural clay
deposits.
One of the diffculties in establishing a direct relationship between K D and Ko is that a
reference value of Ko is diffcult to obtain. Unlike other soil parameters such as undrained
strength or compressibility, that may be reasonably determined by acceptable methods,

Figure 6.27 Correlation between KD and Ko presented by Marchetti (1980).

 Dilatometer Test 225

there is no specifc technique which is agreed upon by the profession as the preferred method
for determining Ko. Several recent investigations have made use of other feld or laboratory
tests to compare the Ko value obtained using the DMT: e.g., push-in spade cells (Chan &
Morgenstern 1986), Ko-Stepped Blade (Lutenegger & Timian 1986), and prebored pres-
suremeter (Powell & Uglow 1988). These and other studies indicate that Ko values derived
from the DMT Ko correlation given by Equation 6.37 are nearly all within a factor of about
1.5 for a wide range of geologic materials.
Powell & Uglow (1988) compared estimated values of Ko using the DMT at fve sites in
the U.K., where previous laboratory and feld work had provided a reliable database of Ko
values. As shown in Figure 6.28, at several of the sites, the values of Ko predicted by the
DMT were lower than previously measured values, especially for very stiff clays.
Lunne et al. (1990) suggested that it might be possible to separate clay behavior and
empirical correlations between K D and Ko by considering the difference between “young”
clays and “old” clays. “Young” clays were distinguished as having normalized undrained
strength, (su /σ′vo), less than 0.7. They suggested that on the basis of previous work (e.g.,
Lacasse & Lunne 1983; Powell & Uglow 1988; 1989), a correlation of the following form
could be used:

Ko = a KDm (6.34)

For “young” clays, at least up to Ko of about 1.5, they suggested the following expression:

Ko = a KD0.54 (6.35)

where “a” is on average 0.34 but was observed to vary from 0.28 to 0.38.
For “old” clays on average:

Ko = 0.68 KD0.54 (6.36)

Masood & Kibria (1991) suggested that the exponent “m” in Equation 6.34 may be related
to P.I. of the soil.

Figure 6.28 Correlation between KD and Ko in UK stiff clays. (after Powell & Uglow 1988).
226 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

A comparison between Ko values obtained from self-boring pressuremeter tests (SBPMTs)

and K D values for a number of clays was presented by Mayne & Kulhawy (1990) as

Ko = 0.27 KD (6.37)

The data are shown in Figure 6.29 and show surprisingly little scatter. It might be argued
that the SBPMT gives the best estimate of in situ Ko, and therefore, Equation 6.37 is very
appealing for use in practice, especially since it is derived from a database developed using
a single type of reference test.
A summary of different correlations reported between K D and Ko for a variety of clay
deposits is given in Table 6.8. These correlations are compared in Figure 6.30.

6.7.2.5 Constrained Modulus

Since the DMT expansion pressure is used to provide an indication of the deformation
behavior of the soil after an initial penetration phase, it is expected that the DMT modu-
lus may be useful at predicting “elastic” soil response. Expansion of the DMT diaphragm
from P0 to P1 produces a known displacement that was used by Marchetti to defne the
Dilatometer Modulus, ED. Marchetti (1975) had previously suggested that the DMT expan-
sion could be used to defne a lateral subgrade reaction modulus value; however, engineers
are more often in need of a deformation parameter for settlement estimates.
As previously noted, Marchetti (1980) had suggested a correlation between ED and the
one-dimensional constrained modulus, M, as

M = RM Ed (6.38)

Figure 6.29 Correlation between KD and Ko from self-boring PMT. (After Mayne & Kulhawy 1990.)

Table 6.8 Reported correlations for estimating Ko from KD in clays

Expression Soil References
Ko = (KD/1.5) − 0.6
0.47 Misc. Clays Marchetti (1980)
Ko = KD/8.27 Leda clay Tanaka & Bauer (1998)
Ko = 0.34 KD0.54 “Young clays” Lunne et al. (1990)
Ko = 0.68 KD0.54 “Old clays” Lunne et al. (1990)
Ko = 0.27 KD Clays Mayne & Kulhawy (1990)
 Dilatometer Test 227

Figure 6.30 Comparison of reported correlations between KD and Ko.

where
R M = “modulus ratio” = f (I D, K D).

For clays (I D < 0.6), Marchetti suggested

R M = 0.14 + 2.36 log KD (6.39)

Marchetti thus proposed a correlation between ED, K D, and M and the local oedometric
constrained modulus at the effective in situ overburden stress, σ′vo. More specifcally, the
correlation is for the local reload modulus. Therefore, in normally consolidated soil, the
DMT should not be expected to provide information about the reload modulus, and in over-
consolidated soil, the DMT will provide no direct measurement of the virgin compression
modulus.
Iwasaki et al. (1991) showed good agreement between constrained modulus values esti-
mated by the Marchetti correlation (Equation 6.39) and the constrained modulus obtained
from laboratory oedometer tests on high quality samples for a soft alluvial deposit in Japan.
Chang (1991) suggested a simple correlation between R m and K D for Singapore marine
clays as

R m = 0.02 ( KD ) .
3.5
(6.40)

Su et al. (1993) found that for Taiwan marine clays

R m = 0.50 + log KD. (6.41)

228 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Ozer et al. (2006) found direct correlations between P0 and P1 and M for Lake Bonneville
clay:

M = 0.89 ( P0 – u0 )
1.25
(6.42a)

M = 0.54 ( P1 – u0 )
1.27
(6.42b)

There is a distinct advantage in estimating M, which is particularly appealing to practitio-

ners, since the Janbu (1963; 1967) technique for estimating settlement may be used. The
relative accuracy of the estimate of M was clearly demonstrated by Schmertmann (1986)
who compared DMT settlement estimates with measured settlements over a wide range in
magnitude.
Constrained modulus values for comparison with the DMT should be obtained from back
calculated settlement records on projects wherein an exact determination of footing or other
loading stress may be made. Based on the results of measured feld performance in clays,
Saye & Lutenegger (1988) showed results in which approximately M meausred /M DMT  =  2.5. It
should also be kept in mind that the accuracy of predictions with respect to feld perfor-
mance is also dependent upon the variability associated with the use of the mathematical
model involved. This applies to any test.

6.7.2.6 Elastic Modulus

In many design situations, the engineer may need an estimate of elastic modulus, E S , e.g.,
for use in drilled shaft design or immediate settlement estimates. Depending on the design
problem, a different value of E S may be required, i.e., Ei, E 25, etc.
Davidson & Boghrat (1983) suggested that in highly overconsolidated clays, the value
of Ei, obtained from unconsolidated undrained triaxial compression tests could be related
directly to ED, using a factor of about 1.4. Robertson et al. (1988) suggested a factor of 10
for clays, for use in laterally loaded pile design. Chang (1991) found that Eu obtained as
a secant at 50% yield in UU triaxial compression tests was approximately equal to ED in
marine clays.
Borden et al. (1985) suggested a relationship between the initial tangent modulus from
unconfned compression tests on partially saturated compacted A-6 soil and ED which had
the form:

E i = 0.142 E D1.298 (6.43)

Su et al. (1993) showed data from UU triaxial compression tests in which the initial tangent
modulus, Ei, was approximately correlated to ED as

E i = 1.13 + 0.14 E D . (6.44)

where
Ei and ED are in MPa

The majority of these results suggest a simple correction factor of the form

ES = RE ED (6.45)
 Dilatometer Test 229

where R E varies from about 0.4 to 10 for clays. The large range in R E is mostly related to the
reference value and defnition of E S , which ranges from the initial tangent “Young’s modu-
lus” to a secant modulus at 25%–50% of failure. The variation in R E may be related to I D if
I D relates to soil stiffness.

6.7.2.7 Small-Strain Shear Modulus

Kalteziotis et al. (1991) demonstrated that the results of the DMT may be useful in esti-
mating the small-strain shear modulus of fne-grained soils. They presented correlations
between shear wave velocity measurements obtained using cross-hole dynamic tests and
both P0 and P1 pressures from six sites in Greece as

VS = 3.7 ( P0 )
0.63
(6.46a)

VS = 3.0 ( P1 )
0.63
(6.46b)

where
VS = shear wave velocity (m/s).

These results are shown in Figure 6.31.

The shear modulus, Gmax, may be obtained using the shear wave velocity and unit weight
of the soil from

G max = VS2°. (6.47)

Tanaka et al. (1994) suggested that for soft marine clays in Japan

G max = 7.5E D. (6.48)

For soft Bangkok clay, Shibuya et al. (1998) obtained

G max = (5.5 to 11.3)E D. (6.49)

Figure 6.31 Comparison between P 0 and VS (a) and P1 and VS (b) in clays. (After Kalteziotis et al. 1991.)
230 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Table 6.9 Reported values of RG for clays

RG Soil References
4–25 Greek clays Kalteziotis et al. (1991)
7.5 Japan marine clay Tanaka et al. (1994)
5.5–11.3 Bangkok clay Shibuya et al. (1998)
7.5 Marine clays Shiwakoti et al. (2001)

These results suggest that Rg ranges from about 5 to 12 for clays, which is consistent with
results previously shown. On the other hand, Kalteziotis et al. (1991) found that RG ranged
from 4 to 25 for clays although a large amount of data fell close to RG = 10. Table 6.9 sum-
marizes reported values of RG for clays.
Howie et al. (2007) found that the value of RG is dependent on I D and varies from about
40 for I D = 0.1 to 8 for I D = 1.

6.7.2.8 Liquidity Index

The author (Lutenegger 1988) had suggested that the DMT modulus, ED, should relate to
the liquidity index of clays, since for a pure liquid, the difference between P1 and P0 should
be zero. Redel et al. (1997) found a good correlation between liquidity index (L.I.) and ED
for a clay site in Israel for I D < 0.6:

L.I. = −0.02 E D + 1.17 (6.50)

6.7.2.9 California Bearing Ratio

Borden et al. (1985) presented results of a combined laboratory and feld investigation to
determine the usefulness of the DMT in evaluating pavement support characteristics. For
three different soil types, they found a linear correlation between corrected unsoaked CBR
and DMT modulus, ED, as

CBR = 0.041 E D (Soil Type: A-5) (6.51a)

CBR = 0.052 E D (Soil Type: A-6) (6.51b)

CBR = 0.031 E D (Soil Type: A-2-4) (6.51c)

where
CBR = %
ED = tsf.

6.7.2.10 Coefficient of Consolidation

As previously discussed in Chapter 4, the CPTU can be used to provide information about
the fow characteristics of soil, specifcally, the coeffcient of consolidation and the hydraulic
conductivity. The DMT is another test that can provide this information, through the use of
time-pressure dissipation tests.
 Dilatometer Test 231

6.7.2.10.1 DMTC (P2) Dissipation

Since it has already been established that the recontact pressure, P2 , may be used to give an
indication of the excess pore water pressure, a procedure in which sequential pressures are
obtained over time should give an indication of the change or dissipation of pore water pres-
sure following penetration of the blade. This procedure is informally referred to as a DMTC
test or a C-Reading dissipation test. The test is conducted as follows:

1. Following the penetration and release of the pushing thrust, a stopwatch is started to
log the elapsed time after penetration. This then becomes time zero for the test.
2. The normal sequence of obtaining an A-, B-, and C-Reading is frst performed as a
routine part of the test. The elapsed time to obtain the C-Reading is noted.
3. At various time intervals, the sequence of obtaining the A-, B-, and C-Reading is
repeated, but only the C-Reading and the elapsed time are recorded.
4. A suffcient number of data points are obtained over time until a minimum of 50% of
the excess pore water pressure has dissipated. (This may require a test to run for a few
minutes to several hours, depending on the drainage characteristics.)

Typical results obtained from a DMTC dissipation test (corrected to P2) are shown in
Figure 6.32. As can be seen, these results show the characteristic shape of time-rate of con-
solidation tests. How then is the coeffcient of consolidation obtained?
In a manner similar to that described in Chapter 4 for the CPTU, the dissipation test can
be used to obtain ch according to

c h = TH 2 t (6.52)

where
ch = coeffcient of consolidation in the horizontal direction
T = theoretical time factor for a given % dissipation
H = length of drainage path
t = elapsed time to achieve a given % of dissipation.

Figure 6.32 Typical DMTC dissipation test.

232 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

In the theory developed for the CPTU, H is taken as the radius of the cone (for cylindrical
cavity expansion) and T is a function of the rigidity index of the soil (or E/su), the pore pres-
sure parameter at failure, A f, the cone tip geometry and the location of the porous element
with respect to the cone tip. For example, Gupta & Davidson (1986) suggested that for
A f = 0.9, E/su = 200 that T = 0.97 for a 60° cone with the pore water pressure measured at
the cone base.
Robertson et al. (1988) proposed that as an initial means of estimating ch, an “equivalent
radius” procedure could be used, i.e., back calculating the equivalent radius of a cylindri-
cal cone given by the projected end area of the DMT blade and then using theory for a
cylindrical probe. This gives a radius about 22 mm. Schmertmann (1988) suggested that an
equivalent radius of 24 mm would produce approximately the same results for ch for both
CPTU dissipation and DMTC dissipation tests in the same cohesive soil. While the “equiva-
lent radius” technique may be used to provide an initial estimate of ch, Kabir & Lutenegger
(1990) found that when compared to results from horizontal fow oedometer tests, the back
calculated value of the equivalent radius ranged from 5 to 40 mm for different clays. This
suggests that an alternative technique might be more appropriate.
There are several potential sources of error that may occur using this technique:

1. The apex angle of the DMT blade is only about 10°–20° in comparison to the 60°
apex of most cones. This means that the initial excess pore pressure distribution will
be different.
2. The point of measurement of the pore water pressure in the DMT is about 7.6 blade
thicknesses behind the base of the leading wedge and about 12.7 blade thicknesses
behind the wedge tip. This is considerably different than the base of the wedge where
most CPTUs measure pore pressure. This may affect the rate of pore pressure dissipa-
tion observed.
3. The geometry between the two instruments is different. In some soils, e.g., soft clays,
this has little or no effect and the DMT blade approximates a cylindrical cavity expan-
sion, while in other soils, the aspect ratio of the blade may have a signifcant infuence
on the results.

An alternative procedure is to treat the DMT blade as a cone with a radius equal to the
half-thickness (7.5 mm) and use the theoretical time factor for an 18° cone with pore water
pressure measured 10 radii behind the tip. For 50% dissipation, Gupta & Davidson (1986)
gave T50 = 25. Schmertmann (1988) suggested using the time for 50% dissipation of pore
water pressure in which case Equation 6.52 may be simplifed to

( )
c h cm 2 s = 150 t 50 . (6.53)

The excess pore water pressure at any time can be obtained from

ue = P2 − uo (6.54)

The initial excess pore water pressure would be

ue,i = P2i − uo. (6.55)

Since the value of P2i is actually not measured in the test, because it takes about 1 min
after penetration to obtain the frst P2 reading, P2i must be obtained by back extrapolation.
 Dilatometer Test 233

Schmertmann (1988) suggested to simply plot the values of P2 on a square-root-of-time plot

and extrapolate the initial few data points as a straight line back to t = 0.
Once P2i is obtained, the normalized excess pore water pressure may be determined for
each P2
reading as

U = ue uei = ( P2 − uo ) ( P2i − uo ). (6.56)

The value of t50 can be taken as the value corresponding to U = 0.5. The value of uo must
either be measured from piezometers, estimated from ground water conditions, or measured
from the test if suffcient time is given in the test to allow P2 to reach a constant value, indi-
cating complete dissipation and uo conditions.

6.7.2.10.2 DMTA Dissipation

A procedure using only the A-Reading dissipation to estimate the horizontal coeffcient of
consolidation, ch, was presented by Marchetti & Totani (1989) and is referred to as a DMTA
dissipation test. In this method, only the A-Reading is obtained from the test at selected time
intervals following the penetration to the test depth. Like P2 dissipation tests, a plot of A vs.
log time shows a characteristic “S” shape as shown in Figure 6.33. Unlike the DMTC dissi-
pation, no B-Reading or C-Reading are obtained in this procedure. Using the A-Reading vs.
log time curve, the point of contrafexure is defned as Tfex. The coeffcient of consolidation
is obtained from

( )
c h = 5 to 10 cm 2 Tflex (6.57)

The value of ch estimated by Equation 6.61 is the overconsolidated value and would need
to be appropriately adjusted (for example, using local experience) to give an estimate of the
normally consolidated value. Table 6.10 gives a qualitative rating of the rate of consolidation
based on Tfex suggested by Marchetti & Totani (1989).

Figure 6.33 Typical DMTA dissipation test.

234 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Table 6.10 Rating of consolidation

speed based on Tfex
Tfex (min) Rating
<10 Very fast
10–30 Fast
30–80 Medium
80–200 Slow
>200 Very slow

6.7.3 Interpretation of DMT Results in Coarse-Grained Soils

The DMT is well suited for use in granular soils such as sands because of its robust construc-
tion. While there is some uncertainty as to the appropriate interpretation, there are currently
a number of available correlations for use in granular soils. Table 6.11 presents a summary
of some of the reported correlations suggested between various soil properties and DMT
results for granular soils.

Table 6.11 Reported correlations between soil properties and DMT in coarse-grained soils
Soil parameter DMT index References
Dr KD Robertson & Campanella (1986)
Konrad (1991)
State parameter (P1 − P0), KD Konrad (1988; 1989)
φ′ (sands) ID, KD, thrust or Schmertmann (1982)
adjacent qc Marchetti (1985; 1997)
Campanella & Robertson 1991)
Ko KD, thrust Schmertmann (1982)
Jamiolkowski et al. (1988)
Lawter & Borden (1990)
OCR KD, thrust Schmertmann & Crapps (1983)
M ID, ED, KD Marchetti (1980)
Baldi et al. (1986)
Robertson et al. (1988)
Bellotti et al. (1994; 1997)
E ED Marchetti (1980)
Campanella & Robertson (1983)
Baldi et al. (1986)
Gmax ED Baldi et al. (1986; 1989)
Hryciw & Woods (1988)
Hryciw (1990)
Liquefaction potential KD Marchetti (1982)
Robertson & Campanella (1986)
Reyna & Chameau (1991)
Marchetti (2016)
kh (subgrade reaction P0, KD Robertson et al. (1988)
modulus) Gabr & Borden (1988)
Schmertmann (1989b)
CBR ED Borden et al. (1985)
 Dilatometer Test 235

6.7.3.1 Relative Density (D r)

Engineers may wish to use the results of the DMT to estimate the in-place relative density
of sands, for example, to make an initial assessment of liquefaction potential or to evaluate
effects of ground improvement. Even though the interpretation of DMT results in sand is
still very complex, some suggestions have been made to estimate Dr from the DMT lift-off
pressure via K D.
Robertson & Campanella (1986) suggested a simple correlation between K D and Dr in
normally consolidated, uncemented sand as shown in Figure 6.34. Unfortunately, it appears
that the penetration mechanics and value of P0 in sands are highly complex and, in addi-
tion to Dr, depend on a number of other variables, including stress history, initial in situ
stresses, compressibility, aging, and cementation. Konrad (1991) presented data from a dune
sand that illustrated this complexity and the importance of stress history on the correlation
between K D and Dr. The test results indicate that in comparison to normally consolidated
sands, overconsolidated sands show considerable scatter, making such a correlation diffcult
and perhaps unreliable.
A correlation for estimating DR of sands using K D and stress history and normalized DMT
modulus (ED/σ′vo) was presented by Lee et al. (2011) as shown in Figure 6.35.

Figure 6.34 Correlation between KD and DR in NC uncemented sands. (After Robertson & Campanella 1986.)

Figure 6.35 Correlation between KD and DR in NC and OC sands. (From Lee et al. 2011.)
236 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

6.7.3.2 State Parameter

The use of the state parameter to describe the behavior of sands was discussed in Chapter 4
as a rational approach combining the effects of void ratio and stress level (Been & Jefferies
1985). Konrad (1988; 1989) has suggested that the state parameter should also be consid-
ered to evaluate the results of DMTs in sand.
Results presented by Konrad (1989) demonstrated that for dry Ottawa sand the normal-
ized state parameter (i.e., the state parameter divided by the value emax − emin) is related to
the pressure difference P1 − P0 normalized with respect to the mean or octahedral effective
stress. Konrad (1989) suggested that the value of K D obtained from the DMT should be
related to both the mean effective stress and the normalized state parameter. Engineering
properties of the undisturbed sand may then be obtained from existing correlations related
to the state parameter.

6.7.3.3 Drained Friction Angle

It has been suggested that the penetration of the DMT blade in sands and other freely
draining soils represents a drained bearing capacity failure approximating a plane-strain
condition. The projected end of the DMT blade represents a long, narrow punch. Since the
failure condition is controlled in part by the in situ state of stress in granular materials, it is
reasonable to expect that the results from the DMT may be used to determine φ′.

6.7.3.3.1 Schmertmann Method

A procedure for obtaining the effective axisymmetric friction angle in sands was presented
by Schmertmann (1982) using the wedge penetration theory and is attractive since it incor-
porates the horizontal effective stress that may be estimated from the DMT results. The
method is iterative and requires measurement of the pushing thrust to advance the DMT,
such that an estimate of the blade tip resistance may be obtained. This measurement may be
made using a load cell located immediately behind the blade as previously described.

6.7.3.3.2 Campanella and Robertson Method

Campanella and Robertson (1991) observed that the DMT parameter K D was directly related
to both the normalized blade end bearing (qd /σ′vo), obtained from the measurement of thrust,
which in turn could be related to parallel CPT-normalized tip resistance, i.e., qc /σ′vo. Based
on the fact that reasonably good estimates of φ′ could be obtained in sands from qc /σ′vo, they
reasoned that it should be expected that a direct correlation should also exist between φ′ and
K D. A chart for predicting peak friction angle was proposed by Campanella & Robertson
(1991) but requires an estimate of Ko from DMT results.

6.7.3.3.3 Marchetti Method

Marchetti (1997) suggested that the method given by Campanella & Robertson (1991)
could give φ′ directly in terms of K D after frst assuming some values of Ko for different
conditions: KONC = 1 – sin φ′; Ko = 1; and Ko = K P0.5. The resulting correlations between φ′
and K D are shown in Figure 6.36. The three curves shown in Figure 6.36 represent three
different estimates of Ko, and it can be seen that for practical purposes, the correlation is
only mildly sensitive to the value of Ko for any given value of K D (typically ± 1.5° from the
Ko = 1 curve).
 Dilatometer Test 237

˝˛ = 28.2° + ( KD – 0.5) ˘0.074 + 0.063 ( KD – 0.5) 

0.92
(6.58a)
 

˝˛ = 27.5° + ( KD – 0.5) ˘0.080 + 0.063 ( KD – 0.5) 

0.94
(6.58b)
 

˝˛ = 26.8° + ( KD – 0.5) ˘0.10 + 0.062 ( KD – 0.5) 

0.95
(6.58c)
 

To provide some conservatism, Marchetti (1997) suggested that an initial estimate of φ’,
which is somewhat lower than all three curves of Figure 6.36, could be obtained from

°˜ = 28° + 14.6 log KD − 2.1log 2 KD. (6.59)

This is shown by the lower solid line in Figure 6.36. This approach has been shown to be
very reasonable based on triaxial compression tests on undisturbed sands (Mayne 2015).

6.7.3.4 In Situ Stresses

The DMT may be used to provide an estimate of the in situ horizontal stress at the location
where the test is performed. Provided that the blade is advanced vertically into the ground,
the membrane faces horizontally and provides a response, at least partially controlled by the
initial, i.e, preinsertion, horizontal stress. This has been confrmed by the calibration tests
previously shown. Marchetti (1980) proposed a correlation between the DMT horizontal
stress index K D and the at-rest earth pressure coeffcient, Ko, as

Ko = ( KD 1.5)
0.47
− 0.6. (6.33)

The basis for this correlation was related in part to a correlation proposed linking K D frst
to OCR and then using an assumed relationship between Ko and OCR. Most of the test
data presented by Marchetti were for fne-grained soils, and only a limited amount of data
represented sands or other granular soils.

45
Effective Friction Angle (deg.)

40

35

Ko NC
Ko = 1
30
Ko from KP
Marchetti (1997)

25
1 10
Horizontal Stress Index, KD

Figure 6.36 Estimates of φ′ from KD. (After Marchetti 1997.)

238 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

On the basis of some carefully controlled calibration chamber tests on two sands and on
some feld experience, Baldi et al. (1986) and Jamiolkowski et al. (1988) suggested that val-
ues of Ko obtained by the empirical correlation given by Equation 6.37 tended to be too high
in the case of dense and very dense sands and somewhat too low in loose sands. As previ-
ously indicated, the penetration of the DMT blade into sands represents a complex deforma-
tion mechanism involving both in situ stress conditions and stiffness properties of the sands.
Jamiolkowski et al. (1988) suggested that the correlation of K D/Ko, referred to as the
amplifcation factor, could be made to the state parameter as a rational approach to inter-
preting test results. They suggested that the amplifcation factor could be related to the state
parameter as

KD Ko = aem (6.60)

where
a and m are empirical coeffcients.

Values of a =1.35 and m = −8.08 were given by Jamiolkowski et al. (1988) for Hokksund and
Ticino sands. Carriglio et al. (1990) later gave values of a = 1.65 and m = −7.60. Lawter &
Borden (1990) confrmed this approach using test results from Cape Fear sand and sug-
gested that a = 1.73 and m = −6.07. For NC sands, the ratio KoDMT/Ko has a limiting value
of about 0.6 at low relative density and increases as Dr increases. Results from more recent
calibration chamber tests (Lee et al. 2011) show that the ratio Ko/K D is dependent on the
normalized value of ED and stress history (OCR) as shown in Figure 6.37a. However, as seen
in Figure 6.37b, if the mean effective stress is taken into account, the data follow as single
trend.

6.7.3.5 Stress History

Marchetti (1980) recommended an empirical correlation between stress history and K D as

OCR = (0.5 KD )
1.56
(6.28)

6.7.3.6 Constrained Modulus

Marchetti (1980) had suggested a relationship between the tangent drained constrained
modulus, M, and the Dilatometer Modulus, Ed, as

M = RM Ed (6.38)

or

RM = M Ed . (6.61)

Values of R M were suggested by Marchetti (1980) as being related to both the Material
Index, I D and the Lateral Stress Index, K D. For coarse-grained soils, i.e., predominantly
sands and gravels with I D > 3.0, the values of R M for use in Equation 6.61 were given as

R M = 0.50 + 2.00 log KD ( for KD < 10) (6.62a)

R M = 0.32 + 2.18log KD ( for KD > 10). (6.62b)

 Dilatometer Test 239

Figure 6.37 (a and b) Relationship between KD and Ko in sands. (From Lee et al. 2011.)

6.7.3.7 Elastic Modulus

For different sands, the correlation between E S and ED varies with stress history and the
reference value of E S. In general,

E = ED RE (6.63)

or

R E = E 25 E D . (6.64)

Suggested values of R E for different granular soils are summarized in Table 6.12.
Viana de Fonseca et al. (1998) found that the soil modulus was related to P0 as

E S E D = 2.35 − 2.21log P0 ( P0 in MPa ) (6.65)

where
E S = soil modulus at 10% axial strain.
240 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Table 6.12 Suggested values of RE for granular soils

RE Reference E References
NC sand 1 E25 Campanella et al. (1985)
NC Ticino sand 0.88 ± 0.27 E25 Baldi et al. (1986)
NC Ticino sand 1.05 ± 0.25 E0.1 Jamiolkowski et al. (1988)
OC Ticino sand 4.29 ± 0.62 E25 Baldi et al. (1986)
OC Hokksund sand 2.49 ± 0.74 E25 Baldi et al. (1986)
OC Ticino sand 3.66 ± 0.80 E0.1 Jamiolkowski et al. (1988)
Sand 2 Ei Robertson et al. (1989)

6.7.3.8 Small-Strain Shear Modulus

Baldi et al. (1986) had noted a correlation between the maximum shear modulus, Gmax,
obtained from resonant column tests on normally consolidated Ticino sand and the DMT
modulus, ED, as

RG = G max E D = 2.72 ± 0.59 (6.66)

Bellotti et al. (1986) found similar results for P0 river sand, with Gmax obtained from cross-
hole tests:

RG = G max E D = 2.2 ± 0.7. (6.67)

This compares well with more recent results presented by Bellotti et al. (1994) who showed
that for both NC and OC Toyoura sand,

RG = G max E D = 2.96 − (0.02 Dr ) ( Dr in %). (6.68)

Viana de Fonseca et al. (1998) suggested that RG was related to the lift-off pressure as

RG = 16.7 – 16.3log P0 ( P0 in MPa ) (6.69)

A comparison between small-strain shear modulus, Gmax, and DMT modulus, ED, was pre-
sented by Hryciw & Woods (1988) for a series of tests performed in an overconsolidated
silty sand. They found that the value of RG ranged from about 1.5 to 6.0. Data for a wide
range of relative densities for different sands presented by Sully & Campanella (1989) indi-
cate that the ratio of Gmax /ED varies from about 1 to 4.5.
A global correlation for RG was presented by Cruz et al. (2013), which shows that the
value of RG (= Gmax /ED) is dependent on ID for sedimentary and residual coarse-grained soils
as shown in Figure 6.38. The upper bound global correlation was

RG = 7.0 ( ID )
−1.1
. (6.70)

Rivera-Cruz et al. (2013) also showed that the value of RG was dependent on U D, with RG
decreasing as U D increases.
 Dilatometer Test 241

Figure 6.38 Correlation between ID and RG for sedimentary and residual coarse-grained soils. (From Cruz
et al. 2013.)

6.7.3.9 Coefficient of Subgrade Reaction

Schmertmann (1981; 1989b) suggested that a prediction of the vertical coeffcient of sub-
grade reaction could be obtained from the DMT as

ks = (0.5 Ko )((B + 1) (2B))

2
(( K D )
− Ko ) 0.5 t ( P0 − uo ) (6.71)

where
B = width of the foundation (ft)
t = blade thickness.

According to Schmertmann (1989b), Equation 6.71 expresses the average pressure increase
required to wedge apart the soil one half of the blade thickness plus a size and direction
correction.
Gabr & Borden (1988) suggested that a more direct method of determining the coeffcient
of horizontal subgrade reaction for predicting the load defection behavior of drilled piers in
cohesionless could be taken as

ks = ( P0 − ˙ ho ) (0.5 t) (6.72)

where
σho = initial total horizontal stress.

6.7.3.10 Liquefaction Potential

The DMT may have application for evaluating the liquefaction potential of granular soils,
especially those most susceptible to liquefaction, which predominantly include uncemented
loose saturated sands and silty sands. These materials typically exist in a low horizontal
stress environment, which the DMT may detect and also typically have little signifcant
stress history (Marchetti 1982). The estimation of liquefaction potential using the DMT is
essentially based on the detection of low relative density layers using the Horizontal Stress
Index, K D (Marchetti 1982; Robertson & Campanella 1986; Reyna & Chameau 1991;
242 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Figure 6.39 Liquefaction potential from DMT KD. (Modifed after Monaco et al. 2005.)

Tsai  et al. 2009; Marchetti 2016). Marchetti (1997) suggested the following tentative cat-
egories for uncemented saturated sands:

1. K D > 1.7: liquefaction is not a problem.

2. K D < 1.3: liquefaction is a problem.
3. 1.3 < K D < 1.7: additional study is necessary.

Correlations have also been suggested between the cyclic stress ratio to cause liquefaction
and either ED or K D as shown in Figure 6.39.

6.8 SEISMIC DILATOMETER

The seismic dilatometer (SDMT) may represent the fastest growing in situ test being used in
site characterization worldwide. The SDMT combines the standard DMT equipment with
a seismic module attached behind the DMT blade for measuring the shear wave velocity,
VS (Martin & Mayne 1997; Marchetti et al 2008; Amoroso et al. 2013). The SDMT was
initially used in the feld in the late 1990s (Martin & Mayne 1997; 1998) but has quickly
gained wide popularity as a simple and rapid method for obtaining VS as a result of further
development of the equipment.
The seismic module is placed in a drill rod immediately behind the blade and is equipped
with two receivers spaced 0.5 m apart. VS is obtained as a true interval as the ratio between
the difference in distance between the source and the receivers (s2 − s1) and the delay of the
arrival of the impulse from the frst to the second receiver, Δt. The pulse is created at the
surface in the same way that shear waves are generated for measuring shear wave velocity
with the seismic cone or piezocone (SCPT/SCPTU) using a hammer to strike against a fxed
plate on the ground surface.
 Dilatometer Test 243

Marchetti et al. (2008) found that the shear modulus, Gmax, obtained from the SDMT
VS values were related to the DMT Modulus, ED, and Lateral Stress Index, K D, but that the
relationship was dependent on the soil type, which could be expressed by the DMT Material
Index, I D, Figure 6.40. Calculated values of the DMT Constrained Modulus, M DMT, from
ED, were then used to correlate GO/M DMT for different soils. Figure 6.41 shows ratios of
GO/M DMT as a function of K D for different soils identifed from the DMT Material Index, I D.
The following correlations were presented by Marchetti et al. (2008):

Clay ( ID < 0.6) : GO M DMT = 26.18KD−1.0066 (6.73a)

Silt (0.6 < ID < 1.8) : GO M DMT = 15.686KD−0.921 (6.73b)

Sand ( ID > 1.8) : GO M DMT = 4.5613KD−0.7967 . (6.73c)

The correlations may be used to estimate GO from standard DMT results when shear wave
velocity measurements are not available.

Figure 6.40 Dependence of Gmax /ED on KD and ID. (From Marchetti et al. 2008.)

Figure 6.41 Correlations between Gmax /MDMT and KD for different soils. (From Marchetti et al. 2008.)
244 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

6.9 DESIGN APPLICATIONS

The DMT has a wide range of applicability in different geologic materials as previously
noted in Table 6.1. Most of the current applications of the DMT to engineering design
problems make use of conventional soil parameters predicted by the DMT. Therefore, the
accuracy of the predictions generally indicates the ability of the DMT to accurately predict
properties. The real value of any soil tests is in their ability to accurately predict feld per-
formance. In addition to obvious uses as a site-profling tool and in obtaining predictions of

Table 6.13 Some reported design applications of DMT for design

Application References
Settlement prediction Schmertmann et al. (1986)
Hayes (1986)
Saye & Lutenegger (1988b)
Skiles & Townsend (1994)
Steiner (1994)
Monaco et al. (2006)
Failmezger et al. (2015)
Bearing capacity of shallow foundations Lutenegger (2006c)
Laterally loaded drilled shafts and driven piles Gabr & Borden (1988)
Robertson et al. (1989)
Marchetti et al. (1991)
Lutenegger & Miller (1993)
Gabr et al. (1994)
Ruesta & Townsend (1997)
Anderson et al. (2006b)
Axially loaded piles Marchetti et al. (1986)
Gabr et al. (1994)
Lutenegger & Miller (1993)
Togliani & Reuter (2015)
Liquefaction potential of sands Marchetti (1982)
Robertson & Campanella (1986)
Reyna & Chameau (1991)
Totani et al. (1997)
Passos et al. (2004)
Grasso & Maugeri (2006)
Maugeri & Monaco (2006)
Marchetti (2016)
Ground improvement Schmertmann (1982)
Verifcation and compaction control Schmertmann et al. (1986)
Lutenegger (1986)
Lacasse & Lunne (1986)
Sawada & Sugawara (1995)
Miller et al. (2006)
Amoroso et al. (2015b)
Kurek & Balachowski (2015)
Uplift of anchor foundations Lutenegger et al. (1988)
Slope stability Rankka (1990)
Totani et al. (1997)
Peiffer (2015)
Retaining structures Anderson et al. (2006a)
Cunha & Reyes (2015)
Deb & Konai (2015)
Changes in lateral stress Peiffer et al. (1994)
 Dilatometer Test 245

conventional soil properties, several more direct applications of the DMT to specifc engi-
neering problems have been reported. Table 6.13 presents a summary. The list is no doubt
larger since the application of the DMT is rapidly expanding, and new uses are continually
being investigated.
The success of the DMT to accurately predict performance has generally been linked to
a design approach based on an accepted engineering practice. Thus, at the current time,
conventional design procedures using DMT-derived conventional soil engineering proper-
ties are generally being used. This is in contrast to a hybrid design approach, which in often
used with other in situ tests; for example, the pressuremeter approach to foundation design
based on Em and PL .

6.10 SUMMARY OF DMT

The DMT has quickly earned a place in the geotechnical profession as a cost-effective tool
for conducting routine site investigations. The device has developed to a point where there
is now substantial theoretical justifcation for many of the empirical correlations. The DMT
is a simple and effcient test for estimating a number of soil engineering properties in a wide
range of earth materials and may also be used as an extremely useful logging device since
it allows closely spaced vertical test points. In specifc applications, the test may be even
more effcient if the engineer chooses to test at a few preselected depths. The recontact pres-
sure, P2 , has shown to be a valuable component of the test and should be a routine part of
every test.

REFERENCES

Akbar, A. and Clarke, B., 2001. A Flat Dilatometer to Operate in Glacial Till. Geotechnical Testing
Journal, ASTM, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 51–60.
Akbar, A., Kibria, S., and Clarke, B., 2005. The Newcastle Dilatometer Testing in Lahore Cohesive
Soils. Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Vol. 2, pp. 651–654.
Amoroso, S., Monaco, P., and Marchetti, D., 2013. Use of the Seismic Dilatometer to Estimate In Situ
G-Gmax Decay Curves in Various Soil Types. Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium
on Geotechnical and Geotechnical Site Characterization, pp. 489–497.
Amoroso, S., Rodrigues, C., Viana de Fonseca, A., and Cruz, N., 2015a. Liquefaction Evaluation of
Aveiro Sands from SCPTU and SDMT. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on the
Flat Dilatometer, pp. 293–300.
Amoroso, S., Rollins, K., Monaco, P., and Thorp, A., 2015b. Use of SDMT Testing for Measuring Sol
Densifcation by Ground Improvement in Christchurch, New Zealand. Proceedings of the 3rd
International Conference on the Flat Dilatometer, pp. 177–184.
Anderson, J., Townsend, F., and Grajales, B., 2006a. Prediction of P-y Curves from Dilatometer
Tests Case Histories and Results. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on the Flat
Dilatometer, pp. 50–61.
Anderson, J., Ogunro, V., Detwiler, J., and Starnes, J., 2006b. DMT Testing for the Estimation
of Lateral Earth Pressures in Piedmont Residual Sols. . Proceedings of the 2nd International
Conference on the Flat Dilatometer, pp. 5184-189.
Arulrajah, A., Nikraz, H., and Bo, M.W., 2004. Characterization of Soft Marine Clay Using the
Flat Dilatometer. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Geotechnical and
Geophysical Site Characterization, Vol. 1, pp. 287–292.
Aziz, M. and Akbar, A., 2017. Interrelationships of Flat Rigid Dilatometer Parameters with Unconfned
Compression Test Results. Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM, Vol. 40, No. 2, pp. 258–268.
246 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Baldi, G., Bellotti, R., Ghionna, V., Jamiolkowski, M., Marchetti, S., and Pasqualini, E., 1986. Flat
Dilatometer Tests in Calibration Chambers. Use of In Situ Tests in Geotechnical Engineering,
ASCE, pp. 431–446.
Baldi, G., Bellotti, R., Ghionna, V., Jamiolkowski, M., and Lo Presti, D.C.F., 1989. Modulus of Sands
from CPT’s and DMT’s. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 165–170.
Bechai, M., Law, K.T., Cragg, C.B.H., and Konard, J.M., 1986. In Situ Testing of Marine Clay
for Towerline Foundations. Proceedings of the 39th Canadian Geotechnical Conference,
pp. 115–119.
Been, K. and Jefferies, M.G., 1985. A State Parameter for Sands. Geotechnique, Vol. 35, No. 2,
pp. 99–112.
Bellotti, R., Ghionna, V., Jamiolkowski, M., Lancellota, R., Manfredini, G., 1986. Deformation
Characteristics of Cohesionless Soils from In Situ Tests. Use of In Situ Tests in Geotechnical
Engineering, ASCE, pp. 47–73.
Bellotti, R., Fretti, C., Jamiolkowski, M., and Tanizawa, F., 1994. Flat Dilatometer Tests in Toyoura
Sand. Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Vol. 4, pp. 1779–1782.
Bellotti, R., Benoit, J., Fetti, C., and Jamiolkowski, M., 1997. Stiffness of Toyoura Sand from
Dilatometer Tests. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 123,
No. 9, pp. 836–846.
Benoit, J., NeJame, L, Atwood, M., and Findlay, R.C., 1990. Dilatometer Lateral Stress Measurements
in Soft Sensitive Clays. Transportation Research Record No. 1278, pp. 150–155.
Boghrat, A., 1987. Dilatometer Testing in Highly Overconsolidated Soils. Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 113, No. 5, pp. 516–519.
Borden, R.H., Aziz, C.N., Lowder, W.M., and Khosla, N.P., 1985. Evaluation of Pavement Subgrade
Support Characteristics by Dilatometer Test. Transportation Research Record No. 1022,
pp. 120–127.
Borden, R.H., Saliba, R.E., and Lowder, W.M., 1986. Compressibility of Compacted Fills Evaluated
by the Dilatometer. Transportation Research Record No. 1089, pp. 1–10.
Borden, R.H., Sullivan, W.J., and Lien, W., 1988. Settlement Predictions in Residual Soils by
Dilatometer, Pressuremeter, and One-Dimensional Compression Tests. Comparison With
Measured Field Response. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Case Histories
in Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 2, pp. 1149–1154.
Brooker, E. and Ireland, H., 1965. Earth Pressure at Rest Related to Stress History. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 1–15.
Brown, D.A. and Vinson, J., 1998. Comparison of Strength and Stiffness Parameters for a Piedmont
Residual Soil. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Site Characterization, Vol. 2,
pp. 1229–1234.
Burgess, N., 1983. Use of the Flat Dilatometer in the Beaufort Sea. Proceedings of the 1st International
Conference on the Flat Dilatometer, Edmonton, Mobile Augers and Research Ltd.
Cai, L., Chang, M., and The, C., 2015. Analysis of Dilatometer Test in Clay. Proceedings of the
3rd International Conference on the Flat Dilatometer, pp. 385–392.
Campanella, R.G. and Robertson, P.K., 1983. Flat Plate DMT: Research at UBC. Proceedings of the
1st International Conference on Flat Dilatometer, Edmonton, Mobile Augers and Research
Ltd.
Campanella, R.G. and Robertson, P.K., 1991. Use and Interpretation of a Research Dilatometer.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 113–126.
Campanella, R.G., Robertson, P.K., Gillespie, D, and Grieg, J., 1985. Recent Developments in In
Situ Testing of Soils. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Vol. 2, pp. 849–854.
Carriglio, F., Ghionna, V.N., Jamiolkowski, M., and Lancellotta, R., 1990. Stiffness and Penetration
Resistance of Sands Versus State Parameter. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE,
Vol. 116, No. 8, pp. 1015–1020.
 Dilatometer Test  247

Chan, A.C.Y. and Morgenstern, N.R., 1986. Measurement of Lateral Stresses in a Lacustrine Clay
Deposit. Proceedings of the 39th Canadian Geotechnical Conference, pp. 285–290.
Chang, M.F., 1986. The Flat Dilatometer Test and Its Application to Two Singapore Clays.
Proceedings of the 4th International Geotechnical Seminar on Field Instrumentations and In
Situ Measurements, Singapore, pp. 85–101.
Chang, M.F., 1988. In-Situ Testing on Residual Soils in Singapore. Proceedings of the 2nd
International Conference Geomechanics in Tropical Soils, Vol. 1, pp. 97–107.
Chang, M.F., 1991. Interpretation of Overconsolidation Ratio from In Situ Tests in Recent Clay
Deposits in Singapore and Malaysia. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 28, No. 1,
pp. 210–225.
Chang, M.F., Choa, V., Cao, L.F., and Myintwin, B., 1997. Overconsolidation Ratio of a Seabed Clay
from In Situ Tests. Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 453–456.
Chu, J., Bo, M., Chang, M., and Choa, V., 2002. Consolidation and Permeability Properties of
Singapore Marine Clay. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE,
Vol. 128, No. 9, pp. 724–732.
Clough, G.W. and Goeke, P.M., 1986. In Situ Testing for Lock and Dam 26 Cellular Cofferdam.
Use of In Situ Tests in Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, pp. 131–145.
Cruz, N. and Viana de Fonseca, A., 2006. Portuguese Experience in Residual Soil Characteristics
by DMT Tests. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on the Flat Dilatometer,
pp. 359–364.
Cruz, N., Rodrigues, C., and Viana de Fonseca, A., 2013. Detecting the Presence of
Cementation  Structures in Soils Based on DMT Interpreted Charts. Proceedings of the 4th
International Conference on Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterization, Vol. 2,
pp. 1723–1728.
Cunha, R. and Reyes, A., 2015. Design of Retaining structures in a Tropical Soil with the Use
of the Marchetti Dilatometer. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on the Flat
Dilatometer, pp. 77–82.
Davidson, J.L. and Boghrat, A., 1983. Flat Dilatometer Testing in Florida. Proceedings of the
International Symposium on In Situ Testing of Soil and Rock, Paris, Vol. 2, pp. 251–255.
Deb, K. and Konai, S., 2015. Estimation of Lateral Earth Pressure on Cantilever Sheet Pile Using
Flat Dilatometer Test (DMT) Data: Numerical Study. Proceedings of the 3rd International
Conference on the Flat Dilatometer, pp. 401–408.
Fabius, M., 1985. Experience with the Dilatometer in Routine Geotechnical Design. Proceedings of
the 38th Canadian Geotechnical Conference pp. 163–170.
Failmezger, R., Till, P., Frizzell, J., and Kight, S., 2015. Redesign of Shallow Foundations Using
Dilatometer Tests – More Case Studies After DMT ’06 Conference. Proceedings of the 3rd
International Conference on the Flat Dilatometer, pp. 83–91.
Finno, R.J., 1993. Analytical Interpretation of Dilatometer Penetration Through Saturated Cohesive
Soils. Geotechnique, Vol. 43, No. 2, pp. 241–254.
Gabr, M.A. and Borden, R.H., 1988. Analysis of Load Deflection Response of Laterally Loaded Piers
Using DMT. Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 2,
pp. 513–520.
Gabr, M.A., Lunne, T., and Powell, J.J.M., 1994. P-y Analysis of Laterally Loaded Piles in Clay Using
DMT. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 120, No. 5, pp. 816–837.
Giacheti, H., Piexoto, A., De Mio, G., and de Carvalho, D., 2006. Flat Dilatometer Testing in Brazilian
Tropical Soils. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on the Flat Dilatometer,
pp. 103–110.
Grasso, S. and Maugeri, M., 2006. Using K D and VS from Seismic Dilatometer (DSDMT) for
Evaluating Soil Liquefaction. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on the Flat
Dilatometer, pp. 281–288.
Gupta, R.C. and Davidson, J.L., 1986. Piezoprobe Determined Coefficient of Consolidation. Soils
and Foundations, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 12–22.
248  In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Hammandshiev, K.B. and Lutenegger, A.J., 1985. Study of OCR of Loess by Flat Dilatometer.
Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Vol. 4, pp. 2409–2414.
Hamouche, K.K., Leroueil, S., Roy, M., and Lutenegger, A.J., 1995. In Situ Evaluation of Ko in
Eastern Canada Clays. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 677–688.
Hayes, J.A., 1983. Case Histories Involving the Flat Dilatometer. Proceedings of the 1st International
Conference on Flat Dilatometer, Edmonton, Mobile Augers and Research Ltd.
Hayes, J.A., 1986. Comparison of Dilatometer Test Results with Observed Settlement of Structures
and Earthwork. Proceedings of the 39th Canadian Geotechnical Conference, pp. 311–316.
Howie, J., Rivera, I., Weemes, I., and lbanna, M., 2007. Seismic Dilatometer Testing for Deformation
and Strength Parameters. Proceedings of the 6th Canadian Geotechnical Conference,
pp. 1794–1801.
Hryciw, R.D., 1990. Small Strain Shear Modulus of Soil by Dilatometer. Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 116, No. 11, pp. 1700–1716.
Hryciw, R.D. and Woods, R.D., 1988. DMT-Cross Hole Shear Correlations. Proceedings of the
1st International Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 1, pp. 527–532.
Iwasaki, K., Tsuchiya, H., Sakai, Y., and Yamamoto, Y., 1991. Applicability of the Marchetti
Dilatometer Test to Soft Ground in Japan. Proceedings of Geo-Coast ‘91, pp. 29–32.
Jamiolkowski, M., Ghionna, V.N., Lancellotta, R., and Pasqualini, E., 1988. New Correlations
of Penetration Tests for Design Practice. Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on
Penetration Testing, Vol. 1, pp. 263–296.
Janbu, N., 1963. Soil Compressibility as Determined by Oedometer and Triaxial Tests. Proceedings
of the 3rd European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, pp. 19–25.
Janbu, N., 1967. Settlement and Calculations Based on the Tangent Modulus Concept. Three guest
lectures at Moscow State University, Bulletine No. 2, Soil Mechanics, Norwegian Institute of
Technology, pp. 1–57.
Kabir, M.G. and Lutenegger, A.J., 1990. In Situ Estimation of the Coefficient of Consolidation in
Clays. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 27, No.1, pp. 58–67.
Kaderabek, T.J., Barreiro, D., and Call, M.A., 1986. In Situ Tests on a Florida Peat. Use of In Situ
Tests in Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, pp. 649–667.
Kaggwa, W.S., Jaksa, M.B., and Jha, R.K., 1995. Development of Automated Dilatometer and
Comparison with Cone Penetration Tests at University of Adelaide, Australia. Proceedings of
the International Conference on Advances in Site Investigation Practice, pp. 372–382.
Kalteziotis, N.A., Pachakis, M.D., and Zervogiannis, H.S., 1991. Applications of the Flat Dilatometer
Test (DMT) in Cohesive Soils. Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 125–128.
Kamei, T. and Iwasaki, K., 1995. Evaluation of Undrained Shear Strength of Cohesive Soils Using a
Flat Dilatometer. Soils and Foundation, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 111–116.
Kay, J. and Chiu, C., 1993. A Modified Dilatometer for Small Strain Stiffness Characterization.
Proceedings of the 11the Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conference, pp. 125–128.la
Kim, S., Jeong, S., Lee, S., Kim, D., and Kim, Y., 1997. Characterization of In Situ Properties of
Korean Marine Clays Using CPTU and DMT. Proceedings of the 14th International Conference
on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 519–522.
Konrad, J.M., 1988. The Interpretation of Flat Plate Dilatometer Tests in Sands in Terms of the State
Parameter. Geotechnique, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 263–277.
Konrad, J.M., 1989. The Dilatometer Test in Sands: Use and Limitation. Proceedings of the
12th  International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1,
pp. 247–250.
Konrad, J.M., 1991. In Situ Tests in a Dune Sand. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 28, No. 2,
pp. 304–309.
Konrad, J.M., Bozozuk, M., and Law, K.T., 1985. Study of In-Situ Test Methods in Deltaic Silt.
Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Vol. 2, pp. 879–886.
 Dilatometer Test  249

Kurek, N. and Balachowski, L., 2015. CPTU/DMT Control of Heavy Tamping Compaction of Sands.
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on the Flat Dilatometer, pp. 191–196.
Lacasse, S. and Lunne, T., 1983. Dilatometer Test in Two Soft Marine Clays. Norwegian Geotechnical
Institute Publication No. 146, pp. 1–8.
Lacasse, S. and Lunne, T., 1986. Dilatometer Tests in Sand. Use of In Situ Tests in Geotechnical
Engineering, ASCE, pp. 686–699.
Lacasse, S. and Lunne, T., 1988. Calibration of Dilatometer Correlations. Proceedings of the
1st International Symposium Penetration Testing, Vol. 1, pp. 539–548.
Larsson, R. and Eskilson, S., 1989. Dilatometerforsok i Organisk Jord. Swedish Geotechnical Institute
Report No. 258, 78pp.
Lawter, R.S. and Borden, R.H., 1990. Determination of Horizontal Stress in Normally Consolidated
Sands by Using the Dilatometer Test: A Calibration Chamber Study. Transportation Research
Record No. 1278, pp. 135–140.
Lechowicz, Z., Rabarijoely, S., and Kutia, T., 2017. Determination of Undrained Shear Strength
and Constrained Modulus from DMT for Stiff Overconsolidated Clays. Annals of Warsaw
University of Lif Sciences, Vol. 49, No. 2, pp. 107–116.
Lee, M., Choi, S., Kim, M., and Lee, W., 2011. Effects of Stress History on CPT and DMT results in
Sand. Engineering Geology, Vol. 117, Nos. 3–4, pp. 259–265.
Lunne, T., Eidsmoen, T., Gillespie, D., and Howland, J.D., 1987. The Offshore Dilatometer.
Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium of Offshore Engineering.
Lunne, T., Powell, J.J.M., Hauge, E.A., Mokkelbost, K.H., and Uglow, I.M., 1990. Correlation of
Dilatometer Readings with Lateral Stress in Clays. Transportation Research Record No. 1278,
pp. 183–193.
Lutenegger, A.J., 1986. Application of Dynamic Compaction in Friable Loess. Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 112, No. 6, pp. 663–667.
Lutenegger, A.J., 1988. Current Status of the Marchetti Dilatometer Test. Proceedings of the
1st International Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 1, pp. 137–155.
Lutenegger, A., 1990. Determination of In Situ Lateral Stresses in a Dense Glacial Till. Transportation
Research Record No. 1278, pp. 190–203.
Lutenegger, A., 2000. National Geotechnical Experimentation Site - University of Massachusetts.
National Geotechnical Experimentation Sites, ASCE, pp. 102–129.
Lutenegger, A.J., 2006a. Cavity Expansion Model to Estimate Undrained Shear Strength in Clay
from Dilatometer. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on the Flat Dilatometer,
pp. 319–326.
Lutenegger, A.J., 2006b. Consolidation Lateral Stress Ratios in Clay from Flat Dilatometer.
Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on the Flat Dilatometer, pp. 327–333.
Lutenegger, A.J., 2006c. Flat Dilatometer Method for Estimating Bearing Capacity of Shallow
Foundations on Sand. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on the Flat Dilatometer,
pp. 334–340.
Lutenegger, A., 2015. Dilatometer Tests in Sensitive Champlain Sea Clay: Stress History and
Shear  Strength. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on the Dilatometer,
pp. 473–480.
Lutenegger, A.J. and Blanchard, J.D., 1993. A Comparison Between Full Displacement Pressuremeter
Tests and Dilatometer Tests in Clay. Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on
Pressuremeters, pp. 309–320.
Lutenegger, A.J. and Donchev, P., 1983. Flat Dilatometer Testing in Some Metastable Loess Soils.
Proceedings of the International Symposium on In Situ Testing of Soil and Rock, Paris, Vol. 2,
pp. 337–340.
Lutenegger, A.J., and Kabir, M., 1988. Use of Dilatometer C-Reading for Site Stratigraphy. Proceedings
of the 1st International Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 1, pp. 549–554.
Lutenegger, A. and Miller, G., 1993. Behavior of Laterally Loaded Drilled Shafts in Stiff Soil.
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering,
pp. 147–152.
250  In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Lutenegger, A. and Timian, D.A., 1986. Flat-Plate Penetrometer Tests in Marine Clays. Proceedings
of the 39th Canadian Geotechnical Conference, pp. 301–309.
Lutenegger, A.J., Smith, B.L., and Kabir, M., 1988. Use of In Situ Tests to Predict Uplift Performance
of Multihelix Anchors. Special Topics in Foundations, ASCE, pp. 93–109.
Marchetti, S., 1975. An In Situ Test for the Measurement of Horizontal Soil Deformability. In Situ
Measurement of Soil Properties, ASCE, Vol. 2, pp. 255–259.
Marchetti, S., 1980. In Situ Test by Flat Dilatometer. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering
Division, ASCE, Vol. 106, No. GT3, pp. 299–321.
Marchetti, S., 1982. Detection of Liquefiable Sand Layers by Means of Quasi-Static Penetration
Tests. Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on Penetration Testing, pp. 689–695.
Marchetti, S., 1985. On the Field Determination of Ko in Sand. Panel Presentation Session: In Situ
Testing Techniques. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering.
Marchetti, S., 1997. The Flat Dilatometer Design Applications. Proceedings of the 3rd Geotechnical
Engineering Conference Cairo University.
Marchetti, S., 2016. Incorporating the Stress History Parameter KD of DMT into Liquefaction
Correlations in Clean Uncemented Sands. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 142, No. 2, 4 pp.
Marchetti, S. and Totani, G., 1989. ch Evaluations from DMTA Dissipation Curves. Proceedings of
the 12th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1,
pp. 281–286.
Marchetti, S., Monaco, P., Totani, G., and Marchetti, D., 2008. In Situ Tests by Seismic Dilatometer
(SDMT). From Research to Practice in Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, pp. 292–311.
Marchetti, S., Totani, G., Campanella, R.G., Robertson, P.K. and Taddei, B., 1986. The DMT-σHC
Method for Piles Driven in Clay. Use of In Situ Tests in Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE,
pp. 765–779.
Marchetti, S., Totani, G., Calabrese, M., and Monaco, P., 1991. P-y Curves from DMT Data for
Piles Driven in Clay. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Piling and Deep
Foundations, Vol. 1, pp. 263–272.
Martin, G.K. and Mayne, P.W., 1997. Seismic Flat Dilatometer Tests in Connecticut Valley Varved
Clay. Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 357–361.
Martin, G.K. and Mayne, P.W., 1998. Seismic Flat Dilatometer Tests in Piedmont Residual Soils.
Proceeding of the 1st International Conference on Site Characterization, Vol. 2, pp. 837–843.
Masood, T. and Kibria, S., 1991. Experience with Dilatometer Testing in Cohesive Soils. Proceedings
of the 9th Asian Regional Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1,
pp. 51–54.
Maugeri, M. and Monaco, P., 2006. Liquefaction Potential evaluated by SDMT. Proceedings of the
3rd International Conference on the Flat Dilatometer, pp. 295–305.
Mayne, P.W., 1987. Determining Preconsolidation Stress and Penetration Pore Pressures from DMT
Contact Pressures. Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM, Vol. 10, pp. 146–150.
Mayne, P.W., 1995. Profiling Yield Stress in Clays by In Situ Tests. Transportation Research Record
No. 1479, pp. 43–50.
Mayne, P.W., 2015. Peak Friction Angle of Undisturbed Sands Using DMT. Proceedings of the
3rd International Conference on the Flat Dilkatometer, pp. 237–242.
Mayne, P.W. and Frost, D.D., 1991. Dilatometer Experience in Washington, D.C., and Vicinity.
Transportation Research Record No. 1169, pp. 16–23.
Mayne, P.W. and Kulhawy, F.H., 1990. Direct and Indirect Determinations of In Situ Ko in Clays.
Transportation Research Record No. 1278, pp. 141–149.
Miller, H., Stetson, K., Benoit, J., and Connors, P., 2006. Comparison of DMT and CPTU Testing
on a Deep Dynamic Compaction Project. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on
the Flat Dilatometer, pp. 140–147.
Minkov, M., Karachorov, P, Donchev, P., and Genov, R., 1984. Field Tests of Soft Saturated Soils.
Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Budapest,
pp. 205–212.
 Dilatometer Test  251

Mlynarek, Z., Wierzbicki, J., and Manka, M., 2015. Geotechnical Parameters of Loess Soils from
CPTU and SDMT. Proceedings of the 3rdd International Conference on the Flat Dilatometer,
pp. 481–488.
Monaco, P., Marchetti, S., Totani, G., and Calabrese, M., 2005. Sand Liquefiability Assessment
by Flat Dilatometer Tests (DMT). Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 4, pp. 2693–2697.
Monaco, P., Totani, G., and Calabreses, M., 2006. DMT-Predicted vs. Observed Settlement:
A Review of the Available Experience. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on the
Flat Dilatometer, pp. 244–252.
Nichols, N.J., Benoit, J., and Prior, F.E., 1989. In Situ Testing of Peaty Organic Soils: A Case History.
Transportation Research Record No. 1235, pp. 10–16.
Ortigao, J.A.R., Cunha, R.P., and Alves, L.S., 1996. In Situ Tests in Brasilia Porous Clay. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 189–198.
Ozer, A., Bartlett, S., and Lawton, E., 2006. DMT Testing for Consolidation Properties of the Lake
Bonneville Clay. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on the Flat Dilatometer,
pp. 154–161.
Passos, P., Farias, M., and Comha, R., 2004. Use of the DMT and DPL Tests to Evaluate Ground
Improvement in Sand Deposits. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on
Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterization, Vol. 2, pp. 1709–1716.
Peiffer, H., 2015. The Use of the DMT to Monitor the Stability of the Slopes of a Clay Exploitation
Pit in the Boom Clay in Belgium. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on the Flat
Dilatometer, pp. 127–133.
Peiffer, H., Van Impe, W., Cortvrindt, G., and Bottiau, M., 1994. DMT-Measurements Around PCS-
Piles in Belgium. Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Vol. 2, pp. 469–472.
Powell, J.J.M. and Uglow, I.M., 1986. Dilatometer Testing in Stiff Overconsolidated Clays.
Proceedings of the 39th Canadian Geotechnical Conference, pp. 317–326.
Powell, J.J.M. and Uglow, I.M., 1988. Marchetti Dilatometer Testing in UK Soils. Proceedings of the
International Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 1, pp. 555–562.
Powell, J.J.M. and Uglow, I.M., 1989. The Interpretation of the Marchetti Dilatometer Test in UK
Clays. Proceedings of the Conference on Penetration Testing in the U.K., pp. 269–273.
Rankka, K., 1990. Measuring and Predicting Lateral Earth Pressures in Slopes in Soft Clays in
Sweden. Transportation Research Record, No. 1278, pp. 172–182.
Redel, C., Blechman, D., and Feferbaum, S., 1997. Flat Dilatometer Testing in Israel. Proceedings
of the 14th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1,
pp. 581–584.
Reyna, F. and Chameau, J.L., 1991. Dilatometer Based Liquefaction Potential of Sites in the Imperial
Valley. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical
Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics.
Ricceri, G., Simonini, P., and Cola, S., 2002. Applicability of Piezocone and Dilatometer to Characterize
the Soils of the Venice Lagoon. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, Vol. 20, pp. 89–91.
Rivera-Cruz, I., Howie, J., Vargas-Herrera, Cuto-Loria, M., and Luna-Gonzalez, O., 2013. A
New Approach for Identification of Soil Behaviour Type from Seismic Dilatometer (SDMT)
Data. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Geotechnical and Geophysical Site
Characterization, Vol. 2, pp. 947–954.
Robertson, P.K., 1990. Soil Classification Using the Cone Penetration Test. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 151–158.
Robertson, P., 2009. CPT-DMT Correlations. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 135, No. 11, pp. 1762–1771.
Robertson, P. and Campanella, R.G., 1986. Estimating Liquefaction Potential of Sands Using the Flat
Plate Dilatometer. Geotechnical Testing Journal ASTM, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 38–40.
Robertson, P.K., Campanella, R.G., Gillespie, D., and By, T., 1988. Excess Pore Pressures and the Flat
Dilatometer. Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 1,
pp. 567–576.
252  In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Robertson, P.K., Davies, M.P. and Campanella, R.G., 1989. Design of Laterally Loaded Driven
Piles Using the Flat Plate Dilatometer. Geotechnical Testing Journal ASTM, Vol. 12, No. 1,
pp. 30–38.
Roque, R., Janbu, N., and Senneset, K., 1988. Basic Interpretation Procedures of Flat Dilatometer
Tests. Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 1,
pp. 577–587.
Ruesta, P.F. and Townsend, F.C., 1997. Prediction of Lateral Load Response for a Pile Group.
Transportation Research Record No. 1569, pp. 36–46.
Sawada, S. and Sugawara, N., 1995. Evaluation of Densification of Loose Sand by SBP and DMT.
Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Pressuremeters, pp. 101–107.
Saye, S.R. and Lutenegger, A. J., 1988a. Performance of Two Metal Grain Bins on Compressible
Alluvium in Western Iowa. Measured Performance of Shallow Foundations, ASCE, p. 27–45.
Saye, S.R. and Lutenegger, A.J., 1988b. Site Assessment and Stress History of Stiff Alluvium with
the Marchetti Dilatometer. Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Penetration
Testing, Vol. 1, pp. 589–593.
Schmertmann, J.H., 1981. Discussion of In Situ Tests by Flat Dilatometer. Journal of the Geotechnical
Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 107, No. GT6, pp. 831–832.
Schmertmann, J.H., 1982. A Method for Determining the Friction Angle in Sands from the Marchetti
Dilatometer Test. Proceedings of the 2nd European Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 2,
pp. 853–861.
Schmertmann, J.H., 1988. Dilatometer Digest No. 10, GPE Inc, 22 pp.
Schmertmann, J.H., 1989a. Dilatometer Digest No. 11, GPE Inc., 18 pp.
Schmertmann, J.H., 1989b. Discussion of Performance of a Raft Foundation Supporting a Multistory
Structure. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 185–186.
Schmertmann, J.H. and Crapps, D.K., 1983. Use of In Situ Penetration Tests to Aid Pile Design and
Installation. Geopile ‘83, pp. 27–47.
Schmertmann, J.H., Baker, W., Gupta, R., and Kessler, K., 1986. CPT/DMT QC of Ground
Modification at a Power Plant. Use of In Situ Tests in Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE,
pp. 985–1001.
Shibuya, S., Hanh, L., Wilailak, K., Lohani, T., Tanaka, H., and Hamouche, K., 1998. Characterizing
Stiffness and Strength of Soft Bangkok Clay from In Situ and Laboratory Tests. Proceeding of
the 1st International Conference on Site Characterization, Vol. 2, pp. 1361–1366.
Shiwakoti, D., Tanaka, H., and Tanaka, M., 2001. A Study of Small Strain Shear Modulus of
Undisturbed Soft Marine Clays and its Correlations to Other Soil Parameters. Proceedings of
the 15th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 3,
pp. 2247–2252.
Skiles, D.L. and Townsend, F.C., 1994. Predicting Shallow Foundation Settlement in Sands from
DMT. Vertical and Horizontal Deformations of Foundations and Embankments, ASCE,
Vol. 1, pp. 132–142.
Sonnenfeld, S., Schmertmann, J., and Williams, R., 1985. A Bridge Site Investigation Using SPT’s,
MPMT’s and DMT’s from Barges. ASTM Special Technical Publication 883, pp. 515–535.
Steiner, W., 1994. Settlement Behavior of an Avalanche Protection Gallery Founded on Loose Sandy
Silt. Vertical and Horizontal Deformations of Foundations and Embankments, ASCE, Vol. 1,
pp. 207–221.
Stetson, K., Benoit, J., and Carter, M., 2003. Design of an Instrumented Flat Dilatometer. Geotechnical
Testing Journal, ASTM, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 302–309.
Su, P.C., Chen, Y.C., Sun, C.Y., and Wang, G.S., 1993. The Flat Dilatometer Tests in Clay. Proceedings
of the 11th Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conference, pp. 205–210.
Sully, J.P. and Campanella, R.G., 1989. Correlation of Maximum Shear Modulus with DMT Test
Results in Sand. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 339–343.
Tanaka, A. and Bauer, G.E., 1998. Dilatometer Tests in a Leda Clay Crust. Proceedings of the
1st International Conference on Site Characterization, Vol. 1, pp. 877–882.
 Dilatometer Test  253

Tanaka, H., Tanaka, M., Iguchi, H., and Nishida, K., 1994. Shear Modulus of Soft Clays Measured
by Various Kinds of Tests. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Pre-Failure
Deformation of Geomaterials, Vol. 1, pp. 235–240.
Togliani, G. and Reuter, G., 2015. Pile Capacity Prediction (Class C): DMT vs. CPTU. Proceedings
of the 3rd International Conference on the Flat Dilatometer, pp. 271–281.
Totani, G., Calabreses, M., Marchetti, S., and Monaco, P., 1997. Use of In-Situ Flat Dilatometer
(DMT) for Ground Characterization in the Stability Analysis of Slopes. Proceedings of the
4th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 1,
pp. 607–610.
Tsai, P., Lee, D., Kung, G., and Juang, C., 2009. Simplified DMT-Based Methods for Evaluating
Liquefaction Resistance of Soils. Engineering Geology, Vol. 103, pp. 13–22.
Viana de Fonseca, A., Fernandes, M., and Cardoso, A., 1998. Characterization of a Saprolitic Soil
from Porto Granite Using In Situ Testing. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on
Site Characterization, Vol. 2, pp. 1381–1387.
Wang, C. and Borden, R., 1996. Deformation Characteristics of Piedmont Residual Soils. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 122, No. 10, pp. 822–830.
Wong, J., Wong, M., and Kassim, K., 1993. Comparison Between Dilatometer and Other In Situ
and Laboratory Tests in Malaysian Alluvial Clay. Proceedings of the 11th Southeast Asian
Geotechnical Conference, pp. 275–3279.
Yu, H.S., Carter, J.P., and Booker, J.R., 1993. Analysis of the Dilatometer Test in Undrained Clay.
Predictive Soil Mechanics: Proceedings of the Wroth Memorial Symposium, pp. 782–795.
Chapter 7

Pressuremeter Test (PMT)

7.1 INTRODUCTION

The Pressuremeter Test (PMT) falls into the class of in situ tests, which are generally
intended for specifc property measurement. Tests are performed at a known location in the
subsurface in order to provide a direct determination of soil properties. However, results
from the test may be used to provide a direct input for design, as is generally the case with
the Menard Pressuremeter Test (MPMT), wherein a set of empirical design rules are used
for foundation design. The basic principle of the PMT is to install a cylindrical probe into
the ground; expand the probe laterally against the surrounding soil or rock using water or
gas; and obtain measurements of the applied pressure and probe volume or deformation.
The equipment and test procedures for prebored pressuremeters are standardized by ASTM
D4719 Standard Test Method for Pressuremeter Testing in Soil and ISO 22476-4:2009E
Geotechnical Investigation and Testing – Filed Testing-Part 4: Menard Pressuremeter Test.
Pressuremeters are used to determine in situ stress conditions, elastic soil properties, limit
equilibrium conditions, and consolidation behavior. Test results are used as input param-
eters for the bearing capacity and settlement design of shallow and deep foundations in
compression as well as the behavior of deep foundations under the lateral load. The test is
attractive because in theory the boundary conditions are controlled and well defned as are
the stress and strain conditions. The test provides a direct measurement of the pressure-
displacement behavior of soil and soft rock in situ. Results from the prebored pressuremeter
can be used to determine a number of soil properties, such as undrained shear strength and
preconsolidation stress in fne-grained soils, and the pressuremeter may also be used in
geotechnical design, using specifc rules based on parameters interpreted from the pressure-
expansion curve.
Credit for the development of the prebored pressuremeter is generally given to Louis
Menard who began work in the 1950s. Several complete books have been written that are
devoted entirely to the pressuremeter: Baguelin et al (1978), Mair & Wood (1987), Briaud
(1992), and Clarke (1995). In addition, proceedings have been published from several inter-
national symposia organized and dedicated solely to the pressuremeter: Paris, France, 1982;
College Station, Texas, 1986; Oxford, UK, 1990; Sherbrooke, Canada, 1995; Paris, France,
2005; Paris, France, 2013; and Tunis, Tunisia, 2015. Interested readers may fnd a detailed
and specifc information regarding various aspects of the pressuremeter in these publica-
tions. The focus of this chapter is primarily on prebored PMTs since it is considered the
most common test available to the profession. Other types of pressuremeters are only briefy
discussed.

255
256 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

7.2 MECHANICS OF THE TEST

There are a number of different confgurations of the PMT and a variety of installation or
deployment methods available, but the basic principle of all pressuremeters is to perform a cylin-
drical cavity expansion test in soil or rock in order to obtain a measure of the mechanical behav-
ior. The primary variables measured during the test are the cavity size (through either radial or
diametric changes or cavity volume changes) and the internal cavity pressure (which is usually
input at the ground surface and is required to cause the expansion of the cavity). The basic
principle of the pressuremeter, as originally developed by Menard, is illustrated in Figure 7.1.
In operation, once the probe is installed to the test depth, the membrane is pressured by
a fuid and the change in cavity size is measured as a function of cavity pressure. In simple
fuid systems, compressed gas is used to force a liquid into the probe, and the liquid volume
is measured for each increment of pressure. In more complex systems, compressed gas is
used to infate the membrane and the change in cavity size is detected using some form of
displacement-measuring system, usually strain-gaged feeler arms.

7.3 PRESSUREMETER EQUIPMENT

Pressuremeters can generically be defned as cylindrical probes that apply a uniform pres-
sure to a soil or rock cavity through the use of a fexible membrane. The devices currently
available to geotechnical engineers vary from simple to highly sophisticated instruments.
Probes are available from diameters of 32 to 102 mm. Depending on the method of installa-
tion, pressuremeters can be classifed into four categories, as shown in Figure 7.2:

Figure 7.1 Basic principle of the Pressuremeter Test.

 Pressuremeter Test 257

Figure 7.2 Schematic of different types of pressuremeters: (a) Prebored, (b) self-boring, (c) full displace-
ment, and (d) push-in.

1. Prebored pressuremeter (PPMT/PMT);

2. Self-boring pressuremeter (SBPMT);
3. Full-displacement (cone) pressuremeter (FDPMT);
4. Push-in pressuremeter (PIPMT).

A brief summary of these different types of pressuremeters is presented in Table 7.1.

7.3.1 Prebored Pressuremeters

A PPMT or simply PMT is any type of pressuremeter designed to be used in a preformed
borehole in the ground. Much of the current practice in the use and interpretation of PPMT
data relies on the work by Menard who developed the frst commercial PPMT while work-
ing at the University of Illinois in the early 1950s. Menard suggested a design in which the
probe consists of a central measurement cell flled with water or other appropriate fuid
which is pressurized by applying gas pressure through a console at the surface.
258 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Table 7.1 Comparison of different types of pressuremeters

Type Comments
Prebored “Menard” Installed into a predrilled borehole. May be of three-cell or single (mono)-cell design.
Test equipment (mono-cell) is simple, and tests are easy to perform.
Self-boring Drills its own testing cavity by fushing soils upward using drilling fuid.Test is the most
complex and requires a specialized expertise.
Full displacement Installed by pushing without predrilling. Usually mounted behind the body of a CPT or
CPTU. Displaces soil completely during installation.Test is very simple to perform.
Push-in Installed at the bottom of a drilled hole.A thin-walled cutting shoe is attached at the
front, and soil is partially displaced inside the body of the instrument.

The change in borehole size is indirectly determined by measuring the total volume
displacement of the cell throughout the test. Surrounding the central cell are two “guard”
cells, which are also infated and which were designed to prevent end expansion of the
central cell, thereby keeping all of the expansion radial. This type of instrument is some-
times referred to as a “three-cell” or “tri-cell probe”. The probe is assumed to expand as a
right cylinder so that the soil is subject to plane strain loading. The purpose of the guard
cells in a tri-cell probe is to maintain this condition. For a mono-cell probe, if the length/
diameter ratio is greater than about 6, this condition is close to the plane strain (Laier et al.
1975; Borsetto et al. 1983; Houlsby & Carter 1993).

7.3.1.1 Tri-Cell Probe

A tri-cell probe is historically the conventional device used to conduct tests in prebored
holes. As indicated in Figure 7.1, guard cells are located on either side of a central cell. The
purpose of the guard cells is to retain the expansion of the central cell so that most of the
cavity expansion remains cylindrical in shape. This means that the pressure-expansion curve
is obtained only from the central cell, which becomes the measuring cell. In order to perform
the test, the pressure in the guard cells is kept slightly higher than the pressure in the cen-
tral measuring cell. Normally, air has been used for maintaining the pressure in the guard
cells, whereas liquid is used in the central measuring cell. The two pressures (i.e.,  pressure
in the guard and measuring cells) may be independently controlled using two different pres-
sure regulators, or a differential pressure regulator, preset to maintain a constant pressure
difference, may be used.
Ideally, the pressure in the guard cells should be equal to that in the central measuring
cell, and therefore, two separate pressure lines are needed with the instrument. Usually, a
coaxial tubing is used so that a single line runs down the borehole. Because of the design, the
actual mechanics of the instrument are somewhat complex and can present some diffcul-
ties. While the original tri-cell probe was actually fabricated with three separate infatable
membranes, the design was modifed to allow a single membrane to encapsulate the central
measuring cell. A schematic of this design is shown in Figure 7.3.
For example, replacing membranes may be diffcult since the system must be free of leaks
to insure correct volume measurements. The central cell fuid line must be de-aired again to
insure correct volume measurements. Often, these measurements are diffcult to check with-
out actually performing a test. The manufacturer of the Menard pressuremeter makes other
models of pressuremeters, but most of them are similar in concept to the tri-cell confgura-
tion shown in Figure 7.3. The standardized testing procedure adapted by ASTM (D4719)
allows the use of a tri-cell probe.
 Pressuremeter Test 259

Figure 7.3 Schematic of tri-cell PMT with single outer membrane over central measuring cell.

7.3.1.2 Mono-Cell Probe

An alternative approach, which is more simple, is to use a single-cell or mono-cell probe in
lieu of the tri-cell design. This type of device offers two distinct advantages: (1) the probe
design is less complex and therefore easier to repair or maintain, and (2) since only one cell
is down the hole, the control console and the measuring system are much simpler. Different
styles of mono-cell probes and expansion equipment are available but they all essentially
operate in the same manner. A liquid may still be used to measure the volume change by
using a graduated voltmeter to determine the cavity expansion, or compressed gas may be
used directly and the change in the borehole diameter may be directly measured electrically.
Figure 7.4 shows a schematic of a gas-operated mono-cell PMT that uses spring-loaded
internal feeler arms to measure the change in diameter of the probe as expansion occurs.
The control console consists of a simple gas regulator and an analog pressure gauge to con-
trol and determine the pressure for each increment of loading, and a simple electronic digital

Figure 7.4 Schematic of electronic gas-operated mono-cell PMT.

260  In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

readout to measure the diameter of the probe. Feeler arms are located around the center of
the probe at 120° in order to measure the change in diameter in different directions. This
may be advantageous if the pressure-diameter response is desired in a specific direction, say
perpendicular to a retaining wall. Figure 7.5 shows a diagram of the probe with and without
the outer membrane.
The devices that have been discussed so far and shown in Figures 7.4 and 7.5 are gener-
ally performed as pressure-controlled tests in which the probe pressure is increased in steps.
An alternative is to use a mono-cell liquid system with a simple volume screw pump to
­perform a volume-controlled test. One such device is called the TEXAM probe, as shown in
Figure 7.6. As with other liquid-filled devices, the probe and the entire system must be prop-
erly de-aired in order to obtain accurate volume change and pressure readings. This system
uses a fluid-filled cylinder that is operated using a hand crank. Each rotation of the crank
injects a constant amount of volume into the probe. The pressure is then applied using the
inline pressure gauge. Figure 7.6 shows that an alternative is to use an optional gas pressure
to perform the test. A photograph of the equipment is shown in Figure 7.7.
Even though they are more complex and more expensive, mono-cell devices that are oper-
ated by compressed gas alone offer at least two distinct advantages over liquid-filled devices.
Since gas is used entirely, there is no need to de-air the system, saving a potentially large
operation. More importantly, unlike liquid-filled probes that can only provide an indirect
and average measurement of the ground response, gas-operated devices can be equipped
to provide diametric change measurements at 120° around the probe. Therefore, any dif-
ferences in directional response in a particular direction, e.g., perpendicular to a retaining
structure. Prebored gas-operated devices with electrical strain-gaged feeler arms are manu-
factured by Roctest and OYO Inc.
Pressuremeters that use liquid to determine the volume change also have another disad-
vantage over gas-operated probes. The head of fluid in the tubing increases as the probe is
lowered into the borehole and tends to expand the rubber membrane. A partial vacuum may
be used to minimize this expansion, but at test depths greater than about 30 ft, it becomes
difficult to hold this pressure head.
Results presented by Faugeras et al. (1983) and Briaud (1986; 1992) indicate that there is very
little difference in the interpreted test results between a tri-cell probe and a mono-cell probe,

Figure 7.5  Schematic of gas-operated feeler arm mono-cell PMT probe: (a) Sheath removed and (b) fully
assembled.
 Pressuremeter Test   261

Figure 7.6  Schematic of TEXAM manual PMT.

Figure 7.7  TEXAM pressuremeter. (Courtesy Dr. J.-L. Briaud.)

provided the length/diameter ratio of the mono-cell probe is greater than about 6.
The pressure-expansion curves and the interpreted results are nearly identical. Based on these
observations, it appears that even though the tri-cell style of PMT has great historical back-
ground, it presents an unnecessary complication in the test. The author initially started using
262 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

a tri-cell probe to perform tests in the early 1980s but quickly converted to a mono-cell probe
in the late1980s and has since only used this type of equipment.

7.3.2 Self-Boring Pressuremeters

The SBPMT was designed as a method of inserting the instrument into the ground with the
intention of creating a “zero-disturbance” condition. In effect, the SBPMT was specifcally
designed to allow the determination of the in situ horizontal stress and strength and stiff-
ness characteristics. The SBPMT was developed in the early 1970s almost simultaneously
in England (Wroth & Hughes 1974; Windle & Wroth 1977) and in France (Baguelin et al.
1974). SBPMTs have been used in a wide range of materials, including clays (e.g., Canou &
Tumay 1986; Jefferies 1988; Finno et al. 1990; Benoit et al. 1990) and sands (e.g., Robertson
& Hughes 1985; Bruzzi et al. 1986; Fahey 1991).
As originally developed, the SBPMT was designed with an internal cutting mechanism
that is used to drill a cavity in the ground. The probe is advanced with a hydraulic push
while the cutter rotates. Drilling fuid is used to wash soil cuttings upward through the
center of the probe body and outward through the drill string. The cutter is operated by a
hydraulic motor attached to the cutter rods at the surface. A schematic of the probe is shown
in Figure 7.8.

Figure 7.8 Schematic of self-boring pressuremeter probe. (From Hughes et al. 1977.)
 Pressuremeter Test 263

The SBPMT is designed as a mono-cell probe and measures the expansion of the membrane
using strain-gaged feeler arms at the center of the probe body. Typically, three independent
strain arms are located at 120° around the probe body. A pore pressure cell is often located
on the face of the membrane. A typical length/diameter ratio of 6 is used in the SBPMT. The
membrane is typically protected by a segmental metallic sheath or “Chinese lantern”. Most
SBPMTs use an automatic data acquisition system to collect the data. A pressure transducer
placed inside the probe is used to measure the expansion pressure. Nitrogen gas is typically
used to produce the expansion, and the tests are usually performed as continuous loading tests.
The lower end of the probe is equipped with a sharp inward beveled cutting shoe as shown
in Figure 7.8. The position of the rotating cutting is adjustable relative to the end of the
cutting shoe. Drilling fuid exits through one or two holes on the cutter bit.
It is important that the proper setup is established for proper insertion of the probe to
minimize disturbance. The rate of advance, the pushing force on the probe, the position of
the cutter bit, the rate of rotary drilling, and the fuid pressure may all infuence the quality
of the test results since they may affect the insertion of the probe. The parameters may be
different for different soils.
The use of the mechanical cutting system and the drilling fuid presents a rather formi-
dable and cumbersome method of inserting the probe. In addition to requiring a consider-
able amount of extraneous equipment, the technique requires a large mud mixing tank and
a circulating system which produces a considerable cleanup chore. The major drawback to
the self-boring insertion is that the rate of testing is often very slow and can be delayed by
small stones encountered by the cutter bit, which may create jamming.
An alternative insertion technique that uses a jetting system has been developed for pro-
duction testing (Benoit et al. 1990). In this system, the cutter mechanism is replaced with
a central jetting nozzle. The nozzle is attached to a small rod that runs through the probe
body to the top of a perforated pipe attached to the top of the probe. The pipe is smaller
in diameter than the probe and has discharge ports to allow the cutting slurry to escape.
Standard drill rods are used to lower the probe into the ground.
The insertion procedure consists of simultaneously pushing the probe into the ground
while pumping water or drilling mud down to the jetting tip. As drilling advances, the soil
cuttings are fushed up inside the probe and fushed out through the discharge ports of the
perforated pipe.

7.3.3 Full-Displacement (Cone) Pressuremeters

Unlike an MPMT that requires a prebored hole or an SBPMT that drills its own hole,
a FDPMT does neither, but is instead advanced to the test depth by pushing the probe
quasi-statically, much in the same manner as a CPT or CPTU. The FDPMT is usually ftted
with a conical tip to displace the soil. A special FDPMT that has a 15-cm 2 CPT attached
to the front combines the attributes of the CPT to obtain tip and sleeve resistance (and
occasionally pore water or pressure) during penetration with the ability to obtain the cavity
pressure-expansion behavior of the soil at the test location.
This combined tool is often referred to as a “cone pressuremeter” (CPMT). In either case,
the FDPMT is used much in the same way as other PMTs in that it provides a pressure-
expansion test, which may also include unload-reload loops, to obtain estimates of in situ
stress conditions, soil strength, and soil stiffness.
It appears that the frst suggestion of combining a CPT with a PMT cell was made by
Baguelin & Jezequel (1983). Almost any PMT could be converted to a FDPMT by the simple
addition of a conical tip to the front of the probe. The majority of advances in FDPMT work
have occurred in the U.K. through the development of a 15-cm2 probe, which is attached behind
264 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Figure 7.9 Schematic of Pencel FDPMT.

a 15-cm2 CPTU (e.g., Withers et al. 1986; Houlsby & Withers 1988). The length of the probe is
around 705mm, which gives an L/D ratio of about 16. Cone pressuremeters can be used in both
clays (e.g., Houlsby & Withers 1988; Lutenegger & Blanchard 1990; Powell 1990; Campenella
et al. 1990; Rehman et al. 2011) and sands (e.g., Ghionna et al. 1995; Withers et al. 1990).
One advantage of the FDPMT is that like a CPT or DMT, the device creates a repeat-
able disruption to the soil each time. A simple version of the FDPMT is also available and
is marketed under the name “Pencel pressuremeter”, shown in Figure 7.9. This device is a
modifcation of the “Pavement pressuremeter” introduced by Briaud & Shields (1979), and
has a diameter of 33 mm with a probe length of about 250 mm, giving an L/D ratio of about
7.5. The test may be operated by either a hand crank or motor-driven mechanism to force
fuid into the probe from a screw pump. Pressure and volume are recorded at the ground sur-
face. The probe can be inserted very quickly, and the tests can be performed to develop soil
properties throughout a subsurface profle without drilling a borehole.

7.3.4 Push-in Pressuremeter

PIPMT is a very special type of pressuremeter and is somewhat a hybrid in between a prebored
pressuremeter and a full-displacement pressuremeter. The probe resembles a thick-walled sam-
pling tube. The test is performed at the bottom of a borehole by pushing the probe ahead of the
borehole. The probe is hollow, and the leading edge of the probe has an internally sharpened
cutting shoe that cuts the soil which then enters the hollow probe. The test was initially devel-
oped for use offshore (Fyffe et al. 1986) but has also been used on land (Huang & Haefele 1988).

7.4 CREATING A BOREHOLE FOR THE PMT

The prebored PMT must be performed in a hole or cavity created by some form of test
drilling. The test drilling for a prebored PMT is an important step in the process. The bore-
hole needs to be sized correctly for the probe size in order to obtain a complete pressure-
expansion curve from the test. Table 7.2 gives some typical PMT probe sizes and nominal
tolerances for the test cavity.
 Pressuremeter Test 265

Table 7.2 Typical PMT probe diameters and borehole sizes (after ASTM D4719)
Borehole diameters
Probe Probe diameter (mm) Nominal (mm) Maximum (mm)
EX 33 34 40
AX 44 45 53
BX 58 60 70
NX 74 76 89

According to Briaud (2013), making a quality borehole is the most important step in
obtaining a high-quality test. ASTM D4719 provides some guidelines for different methods
of creating a borehole in different soils, which are summarized in Table 7.3.
Briaud (2013) summarized the basic differences in drilling a borehole for a PMT and
Drilling a borehole for sampling. These are summarized in Table 7.4. Recommended drill-
ing practices for creating a quality PMT borehole by the rotary drilling are presented in
Table 7.5.

Table 7.3 Recommended Method of Creating Borehole for Prebored PMT (after ASTM D4719)
Borehole Method
Pilot
hole Driven,
Rotary Pushed Pilot hole drilling Hand Driven or pushed, or
drilling with thin- drilling & & auger vibrated vibrated
bottom walled pushed shaved Flight above sample Core Rotary slotted
Soil Type discharge bit tube sampler hole auger GWT tube barrel percussion tube
Clayey Soft 2 2 2 2 NR NR NR NR NR NR
Firm to 1 1 2 2 1 1 NR NR NR NR
stiff
Stiff to 1 2 1 1 1 NA NA 1 2 NR
hard
Silty Above 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 NR NR NR
GWL
Below 1 NR NR 2 NR NR NR NR NR NR
GWL
Sandy Loose 1 NR NR 2 2 2 2 NA NR NR
above
GWL
Loose 2 NR NR 2 NR NR NR NA NR NR
below
GWL
Medium NR NR NR 2 1 1 2 NR 2 NR
to dense
Gravelly Loose 2 NA NA NA NA NA NR NA 2 2
Dense NR NA NA NA NR NA NR NA 2 1
Soft rock 1 NA 2 NA 1 NA 1 2 2 NR
Note: 1 is the frst choice; 2 is the second choice; NR = not recommended; NA = not applicable
266 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Table 7.4 Differences between drilling for PMT testing and drilling for soil sampling (after Briaud 2013)
Drilling for PMT testing Drilling for sampling
Slow rotation to minimize an enlargement of borehole diameter Fast rotation to get to the sampling depth
faster
Care about undisturbed borehole walls left behind the bit Don’t care about borehole walls left
behind the bit
Don’t care about soil in front of the bit Care about undisturbed soil in front of
the bit
Advance borehole beyond testing depth for soil cuttings to Stop drilling at sampling depth
settle in
Do not clean the borehole by running the bit up and down in Clean borehole by running bit fast with
the open hole; this will increase the hole diameter fast mud fow up and down in open hole;
avoid unwanted cuttings in sampling tube
Care about the borehole diameter Don’t care about the borehole diameter

Table 7.5 Recommended practices for creating a quality PMT borehole using rotary drilling (after Briaud 2013)
Diameter of the drilling bit should be equal to the diameter of the probe
Three-wing bit for silts and clays (carving); roller bit for sands and gravels (chopping and washing)
Diameter of rods should be small enough to allow fush cuttings to go by
Slow drilling mud circulation to minimize erosion of the borehole
Slow rotation of the drill bit (< 60 rpm)
Drill 1 m past the testing depth for cuttings to settle
One drilling pass down and one withdrawal; no fushing or cleaning of the borehole
One test at a timew

7.5 TEST PROCEDURES

A detailed test method is described in ASTM D4719 Standard Test Method for Pressuremeter
Testing in Soil. ASTM D4719 allows for two types of test procedures. Whether a tri-cell or
mono-cell probe is used, the test procedure is essentially the same. There are two common
methods for performing a prebored PMT: (1) incremental stress-controlled test and (2) incre-
mental volume-controlled test. Other procedures, such as a constant rate of stress increase
or a constant rate of strain increase, are also possible but more complex and may require the
use of automatic data acquisition systems.

7.5.1 Test Procedure A – Equal-Pressure Increment Method

In a stress-controlled test, the pressure in the probe is increased incrementally after the
probe is set into the borehole to the desired test depth. After an initial volume or strain-arm
displacement reading is obtained, the pressure is set with the regulator on the console and
a stop watch is started. Volume or strain-arm readings are then obtained after an elapsed
time of 15 s, 30 s, and 1 min. After the 1-min. reading, the pressure is increased to the next
level and another set of volume or displacement readings are obtained. The stepwise loading
sequence is continued until the end of the test.
This procedure is the most common and the easiest test method to perform since the pres-
sure is increased in a stepwise manner using a pressure regulator on the control console and
the response of the soil to that pressure in terms of volume change or diameter/radius change
is obtained. It is very common that one or more unload-reload cycles are performed in the
pseudo-elastic portion of the curve to obtain the unload-reload modulus, EUR. There is no
set rule on where this should be done.
 Pressuremeter Test   267

7.5.2 Test Procedure B – Equal-Volume Increment Method

In the equal-volume method, the pressure at the control; console is adjusted so that the
injected fluid volume is the same for each increment. The pressure required to maintain this
volume is then recorded along with the total volume to that increment. This test procedure is
much more difficult to perform if a gas regulator is used to control the test since the pressure
must be continuously adjusted to keep the volume increment constant. An alternative used
in the TEXAM pressuremeter is to use a hand crank fluid piston system that injects a fixed
volume of fluid with each rotation of the crank.

7.5.3 Continuous Loading Tests

It is also possible to perform the test under continuous loading. In continuous loading tests,
the test pressure is applied to the probe in a continuously increasing manner. In this way,
more data points are obtained, the test usually takes less time to complete, and the test
equipment may be automated.
If compressed gas is being used to expand the membrane (either directly or using a gas/liquid
interface), the gas regulator is controlled by a small motor that increases the gas pressure at
a preset rate. As the gas pressure increases, measurements are taken of the probe volume or
radial arm displacement. In continuous loading tests, there is no measurement of the creep as
in an incremental loading test since there is no waiting period for successive load increments.
The results of continuous loading tests provide a much smoother and continuous test curve
in comparison with that of an incremental test. Continuous loading tests are most often used
with self-boring and full-displacement tests, while incremental loading is more common for
prebored tests.
An alternative method for performing continuous loading tests may be used if a liquid-filled
probe is used. Instead of using a gas/liquid interface and compressed gas to perform the test,
a small-liquid screw pump mechanism may be attached to the probe. A small electric motor is
then attached to a screw drive to advance the pump and force liquid into the probe at a preset
rate. A pressure gage or transducer placed in line provides a measure of the probe pressure,
while a simple counter or linear distance transformer (LVDT) or digital dial gage provides a
measure of the pump travel which can be converted to volume through a simple calibration.

7.5.4 Holding Tests
A special type of PMT test procedure may be used to measure creep effects by maintaining a
constant pressure over a long period of time and monitoring the change in volume/diameter.
This is typically referred to as “a holding test” since the pressure is held constant. The time
for a holding test can be as short as 10 min or over an hour depending on the creep charac-
teristics of the soil. Holding tests may be performed at different pressure levels to determine
differences in creep behavior relative to the limit pressure.

7.6 DATA REDUCTION

7.6.1 Corrected Pressure-Volume Curve

The reduction of prebored PMT data involves the manipulation of the field data 1-min pressure
and volume/diameter data to obtain a corrected cavity pressure vs. cavity volume or diameter/
radius curve by using the membrane and system calibrations as previously ­discussed. Use of the
Menard rules for the design of foundation requires that specific parameters be obtained from
268 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

1200

1000

Pressure (kPa)
800

600

400

200

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Volume (cm3)

Figure 7.10 Idealized corrected PMT pressure-volume expansion curve.

the results of the test. Primarily, these parameters include: PO, Pf, PL, EUR, and Em, as defned
in Figure 7.10. As can be seen, the PMT curve has three distinct zones: Zone 1 – pressure to
infate the membrane against the sides of the borehole and reinstate lateral stress from unload-
ing by drilling; Zone 2 – pseudo-elastic straight-line pressure-volume response; and Zone 3 –
plastic response after the pseudo-elastic response as the soil approaches a failure condition.

7.6.1.1 Initial Pressure, P O

The pressure PO is designated as the pressure that identifes the beginning of the elastic por-
tion of the pressuremeter curve. Effectively, it is the point of tangency at the end of Zone 1.
In many soils, this stress corresponds to the fnal point along the curve at which the ground
stresses have been reinstated in the cavity and therefore closely represents the in situ total
horizontal stress. Stresses up to this point represent reloading to account for borehole stress
relief, and deformations represent recompression to account for disturbance and relaxations.
Since the value of PO coincides with the beginning of elastic behavior, it may be determined
from the point of tangency with the elastic portion of the curve as shown in Figure 7.11. Note
that it may be necessary to enhance or enlarge the initial portion of the curve to obtain an
accurate determination of PO. Note also that a suffcient number of data points are required
both at the beginning of the test, i.e., expanding against the borehole and reloading, and in
the pseudo-elastic portion (Zone 2), in order to allow a suffcient accuracy in evaluating PO.
The initial pressure may also be interpreted from the creep curve as will bediscussed..

7.6.1.2 Creep Pressure, P f

At the end of the elastic portion of the test (Zone 2), the soil has reached an initial yielding
point, which signifes the beginning of plastic failure. The pressure at which this change in
behavior occurs is called the creep pressure, Pf. It is effectively the point of tangency of the
pressuremeter curve where the linear pseudo-elastic behavior ends. The value of Pf may also
be estimated from the creep curve as will be shown in Figure 7.14. Both methods should be
used to provide some redundancy in the estimate of Pf. Figure 7.12 shows PMT data on an
expanded scale used to determine the creep pressure.
 Pressuremeter Test 269

500
450
400
350
Pressure (kPa) 300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Volume (cm3)

Figure 7.11 Identifcation of POT for initial pressure, PO = 200 kPa, using expanded scale.

1000

900

800
Pressure (kPa)

700

600

500

400

300

200
100 150 200 250 300 350 400
3
Volume (cm )

Figure 7.12 Identifcation of POT for creep pressure, P f = 550 kPa, using expanded scale.

7.6.1.3 Limit Pressure, P L

As pressure is increased above the initial yield point, an expanding annulus of plastic soil
develops around the cylindrical cavity. When a cylindrical cavity is expanded in an elastic-
perfectly plastic soil, the limit pressure PL is theoretically reached when the infnite expan-
sion of the cavity occurs, i.e., ΔV/V = 1. That is, the change in cavity volume is equal to the
current cavity volume. Because of mechanical limitations, pressuremeters are not capable
of expanding suffciently to reach the limit pressure, and therefore, the estimation of PL
requires the extrapolation of data from lower values of ΔV/V.
In a prebored pressuremeter, the limit pressure is defned as the pressure where the probe
volume reaches twice the original soil cavity, defned from volume measurements as Vo + Vi.
Vi is the corrected volume reading at the pressure where PO is obtained, i.e., where the probe
membrane made contact with the borehole wall. Therefore, the limit pressure, PL , would be
270 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

0.007

0.006

1/V 0.005

0.004

0.003 PL

0.002

0.001
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200
Pressure (kPa)

Figure 7.13 ASTM method of extrapolating to obtain PL .

obtained as the pressure where the volume is equal to 2 (Vo + Vi). ASTM D4719 suggests
that the limit pressure may be obtained by extrapolation to this volume by making a plot of
1/V vs. P, as shown in Figure 7.13. Only the data points obtained after the linear portion of
the pressuremeter curve, i.e., after Pf, should be used in this extrapolation.

7.6.1.4 Net Limit Pressure, P L*

The net limit pressure P*L combines the extrapolated value of PL and the interpreted value
of PO as:

P*L = PL − PO (7.1)

The net limit pressure is often used in design calculations for bearing capacity.

7.6.1.5 Pressuremeter Modulus, E m

The pressuremeter modulus may be determined using the slope of the pressure-volume curve
in the pseudo-elastic (linear) portion of the corrected PMT curve. According to ASTM
D4719, the pressuremeter modulus is determined from:

E m = 2(1 + ˙) ( VO + VM ) (ˆP/ˆV) (7.2)

where
υ = Poisson’s ratio
Vo = volume of the measuring portion of the uninfated (at rest) probe at 0 volume read-
ing at the ground surface (cm3)
V = corrected volume reading of the measuring portion of the probe
ΔP = corrected pressure increase in the center part of the straight-line portion of the
pressure-volume curve
 Pressuremeter Test 271

ΔV = corrected volume increase in the center part of the straight-line portion of the
pressure-volume curve corresponding to ΔP pressure increase
V M = corrected volume reading in the center portion of the ΔV volume increase
Vo + V = current volume of infated probe

If the diameter of the probe is measured during the test, the pressuremeter modulus may be
determined from:

E m = 2(1 + ˙) ( R P + ˆR M ) (ˆP/dˆR) (7.3)

where
R P = radius of probe in uninfated condition (mm)
ΔR M = increase in radius of probe up to the point corresponding to the pressure where
Em is measured (mm)
dΔR = increase in radius of the probe corresponding to ΔP pressure increase (mm)
ΔR = increase in probe radius (mm)
RP + ΔR = current radius of infated probe (mm)

7.6.1.6 Unload-Reload Modulus, E UR

If an unload-reload loop is performed (recommended on most tests), Equations 7.2 or 7.3
may be used to determine the unload-reload modulus, EUR. Briaud (2013) noted that the
problem with the unload-reload modulus is that it is not necessarily a unique value for a
given test. It depends on the amplitude of the unload-reload loop and also on the stress level
where the unload-reload is performed. As a result, the value of EUR may vary from operator
to operator depending on the specifc test procedures. Briaud (2013) recommended that the
unload-reload loop be performed at the end of the pseudo-elastic part of the curve and that
unload be taken to about ½ of the estimated pressure at this point.

7.6.2 Creep Curve

During the test, volume or diameter readings are taken at 30 s and 1 min. after apply-
ing each pressure increment. The difference between these values is called the creep. In
addition to plotting the full corrected pressure vs. volume/diameter curve, as shown in
Figure 7.10, the creep curve is also plotted, as shown in Figure 7.14. Ideally, the creep
volume will decrease as the pressure P O is approached, and then the pseudo-elastic por-
tion of the curve will be very small and more or less constant up to the creep pressure,
P f, provided equal-pressure increments have been used in the test. After P f, the creep
volume will increase with each pressure increment as the limit pressure PL is approached.
The intersection of straight lines drawn through each section of the creep curve can also
be used to interpret the initial horizontal stress, P O, and the creep pressure, P f, as shown
in Figure 7.14.
Figure 7.15 shows the results obtained using an NX-sized mono-cell PMT in medium stiff
clay in Leona, Kansas. Even though the ASTM standard suggests obtaining the PMT curve
in 7–10 pressure increments, the author has found that more data points, especially at the
beginning of the test, are very useful in interpreting the value of PO, and it is essential to
have at least 4–5 data points after the creep pressure Pf to accurately extrapolate the limit
pressure PL .
272 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

50

40

Creep Volume (cm3) 30

20

10

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Pressure (kPa)

Figure 7.14 Idealized pressuremeter creep curve.

700

600

500
Pressure (kPa)

400

300

200

100

0
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000

Volume (cm3)

Figure 7.15 Test results obtained using a mono-cell PMT curve in Leona, Kansas.

7.6.3 Relationships Between PMT Parameters

Typical ranges in values of P*L and Em are given in Table 7.6 for both clay and sand.
Even though the ranges are high in each category, it can easily be seen that clay values will
generally be lower than sand values.
Results of the PMT may be used to give an indication of soil type based on the relation-
ships between PMT parameters interpreted from the corrected PMT pressure-expansion
curve. For example, Briaud (1992) suggested that clays show Em /P*L > 12 and sands show
7 < Em /P*L <12.
Similarly, according to Briaud (1992; 2013), in clays the Pf /PL ratio is typically around 0.5,
while for sands, it is around 0.33. Walker (1979) had shown that Pf /PL = 0.59 for the weath-
ered rock at several sites in Canada and Australia. Bahar (1998) found that Pf /PL = 0.56 for
 Pressuremeter Test 273

Table 7.6 Typical range of expected values of P*L and EM

Clay
Soft Medium Stiff Very Stiff Hard
P*L (kPa) 0–200 200–400 400–800 800–1600 >1600
Em (MPa) 0–2.5 2.5–5.0 5.0–12 12–25 >25
Sand
Loose Compact Dense Very Dense
P*L (kPa) 0–500 500–1500 1500–2500 >2500
Em (MPa) 0–3.5 3.5–12 12–22.5 >22.5

10000

8000
PMT Limit Pressure, PL (kPa)

6000
Dixon (1970)
Lukas & de Bussy (1976)
Pardian & Raju (1977)
4000 Pearse & Brassow (1979)
Pavlakis (1980)
Briaud et al. (1989)
Finn (1989)
2000 Baker et al. (1989a)
Baker et al. (1989b)
Author's (8 SItes)
PL = 2 Pf

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
PMT Creep Pressure, Pf (kPa)

Figure 7.16 Observed relationship between P f and PL .

three stiff clay sites in Algiers. These interrelationships may be useful to check the quality of
the test results but may also be used to make an approximate estimate of PL in cases where
the test does not give suffcient data points beyond the initial yield pressure.
Test results collected by the author from several published sources representing a large
number of tests in a wide range of fne-grained soils are shown in Figure 7.16. Without
any accounting for differences in test equipment or procedures and only considering the
interpreted (or cited) values of Pf and PL shows a very strong linear relationship over a wide
range of stress. Results obtained by the author at eight test sites consisting of mostly fne-
grained soils are also shown. Figure 7.17 shows the same data as that of Figure 7.16 but on
an expanded scale for lower values in softer materials. All of the data fall reasonably close
to the trend line of PL = 2 Pf.

7.7 FACTORS AFFECTING TEST RESULTS

Even though the basic PMT is a relatively simple device, other types of pressuremeters are more
complex and there are a number of factors that can infuence the results obtained from the test.
274 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

4000

3500
PMT Limit Pressure, PL (kPa)
3000

2500

2000 Dixon (1970)

Lukas & de Bussy (1976)
Pardian & Raju (1977)
1500 Pearse & Brassow (1979)
Pavlakis (1980)
Briaud et al. (1989)
1000 Finn (1989)
Baker et al. (1989a)
Baker et al. (1989b)
500 Author's (8 SItes)
PL = 2 Pf

0
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000
PMT Creep Pressure, Pf (kPa)

Figure 7.17 Observed relationship between P f and PL on an expanded scale.

7.7.1 Method of Installation

As previously noted, an important factor infuencing the test results is the method used to
create the cavity for testing. Some drilling methods will disturb the soil more than others. In
moisture-sensitive soils, e.g., unsaturated soils above the water table, dry drilling methods
are preferred. If the cavity is too small, some initial pressure may develop while inserting
the probe, as shown in Figure 7.18, and it will not be able to interpret PO. If the cavity is too
large, the probe may expand to its full capacity before the creep pressure or limit pressure is
reached, as shown in Figure 7.19.

700

600

500
Pressure (kPa)

400

300

200

100

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

Volume (cm3)

Figure 7.18 PMT curve – borehole too small.

 Pressuremeter Test 275

700

600

500

Pressure (kPa) 400

300

200

100

0
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000

Volume (cm3)

Figure 7.19 PMT curve – borehole too large.

7.7.2 Calibration of Membrane

Different membranes are available for different soils. A thick rubber membrane may be used in
fne-grained soils where there are no gravel particles that could puncture the membrane dur-
ing expansion. Membranes are also available with an outer metallic sheath made of individual
overlapping strips of thin stainless steel, as shown in Figure 7.20. During expansion, the metal
strips expand with the underlying rubber membrane and protect the membrane from damage.
Calibration of the membranes should be done carefully so that pressure losses from the
stiffness of the membrane can be subtracted from feld expansion pressures to give the cor-
rect soil pressures. Membranes are usually “exercised” a number of times, i.e., expanded

Figure 7.20 NX-sized rubber membrane with stainless steel metallic strips.
276 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

and defated repeatedly in air before being used in a test. Some experience is required for
membrane calibration, and small increments of pressure should be used to develop the mem-
brane pressure calibration curve.

7.7.3 Volume Losses

Volume losses can occur in a liquid PMT system because of expansion of the tubing inside
the control console and in the line between the console and the probe. Typically, pres-
sure losses are calibrated by placing the probe in a thick-walled steel pipe with an inside
diameter close to the outside diameter of the probe and incrementally expanding the probe
while taking volume measurements. The calibration for volume loss is especially impor-
tant when testing stiff soils. If a gas system is used and the change in probe diameter is
measured using instrumented electronic arms inside the probe, there is no need for volume
loss calibration.

7.7.4 Geometry of Cutter (SBPMT)

The geometry of the cutter blade inside the body of the SBPMT may infuence the test results
by disturbing the soil surrounding the probe as the probe advances into the ground. Most
confgurations of cutters have now been standardized by users of the SBPMT for different
ground conditions.

7.7.5 Rate of Installation (SBPMT)

The rate of advance of the SBPMT probe, the fuid pressure, and the cutter speed are
all factors that can infuence the quality of the installation and the test results obtained.
The force applied to the drilling rods and the pumping pressure to remove cuttings from the
cutting face and drill rods may also affect the test results.

7.8 INTERPRETATION OF TESTS RESULTS IN FINE-GRAINED SOILS

The interpretation of prebored PMTs to obtain estimates of specifc soil properties in fne-
grained soils is largely empirical. However, like most other in situ tests, considerable experi-
ence has been gained in the past 25 years, and a large database exists in a wide variety of
soils. Primarily, PMTs in clays may be used to estimate in situ horizontal stress, undrained
shear strength, deformation modulus, and coeffcient of consolidation.
At the present time, it can be considered that there are two distinctly different approaches
to the interpretation and application of PMT results. In general terms, these can be consid-
ered as (1) empirical approach and (2) theoretical approach.
The empirical approach is largely associated with prebored PMTs and essentially origi-
nated by Louis Menard, and the expanded use of the PMT in France. This approach makes
use of the different PMT parameters obtained from the test, i.e., PO, Pf, PL , and Em, to
estimate conventional soil parameters. Additionally, empirical design rules have been devel-
oped, largely from practical experience, to use the PMT results directly in foundation design.
The theoretical approach originated largely with the development of the self-boring pres-
suremeter in the U.K. The premise with this approach is that the PMT directly provides a
measure of the stress-strain characteristics of the soil under known loading conditions, i.e.,
cylindrical cavity expansion. This approach uses the test results to directly determine soil
properties through analysis of the PMT curve.
 Pressuremeter Test 277

7.8.1 In Situ Horizontal Stress

At the beginning of the test, as pressure is applied to the probe, the membrane moves more or
less freely out to engage the borehole walls. During the initial loading, any disturbed soil is
easily compressed, and even up to the beginning of the elastic portion, the soil compresses eas-
ily. During these processes, the creep measurements will generally show a progressive decrease
as soil resistance to deformation builds. As soon as the elastic portion of the test is reached,
the creep measurements become very small and are generally uniform throughout this phase.
Using the creep curve, it is possible to identify the beginning of the elastic response by
determining the intersection of these two portions of the curve and therefore identify PO,
as previously shown in Figure 7.16. This procedure should be checked against the previous
point-of-tangency procedure as an independent estimation of PO.
Marsland & Randolph (1977) proposed a technique to estimate PO, primarily applicable
to tests performed in stiff clays, but in principle applicable to other soils. They proposed
that, in the proximity of σho, the pressure-cavity strain relationship should be linear (i.e.,
the surrounding soil behaves elastically). For tests performed in a borehole, where the soil is
completely unloaded before the cavity is expanded, the reference cavity pressure, PO, should
lie within, but not necessarily at, the start of the approximately linear section of the pres-
suremeter curve. The elastic response of the soil should cease (and hence the curve should
cease to the linear) when the undrained strength of the soil is reached the wall of the cavity.
Marsland & Randolph (1977) suggested that an iterative procedure to estimate PO should
provide a similar response in the borehole strain. Therefore, PO should lie in the linear por-
tion of the curve but closer to the middle rather than at the beginning, since an increase in
cavity pressure above PO causes plastic yield and would be equal to the shear strength, i.e.,

PO + s u = Pf (7.4)

It should be possible to then estimate PO by trial and error.

The procedure is as follows: (1) make an initial estimate of PO based on other information,
say stress history or assumed Ko; (2) using PO, determine Vo or Ro and plot R vs. ln ΔV/V to
establish su; (3) compare PO + su with Pf; and (4) perform additional iteration until the solu-
tion converges.

7.8.2 Undrained Shear Strength

In saturated clays, the PMT is essentially an undrained test and a measure of the undrained
shear strength from PMT results. There are essentially two approaches to evaluate the und-
rained shear strength from PMT results. In the frst approach, a theoretical evaluation is made
from the PMT curve, using the test results in the plastic range, after yielding, i.e., after Pf.
An additional estimate may be made based on the limit pressure, PL . In the second approach,
which is used primarily with prebored PMT results, the limit pressure, PL , is empirically cor-
related with su. Most methods use the PMT limit pressure PL , which must frst be obtained
by a graphical solution, and require data points beyond the pseudo-elastic portion of the test.

7.8.2.1 Theoretical Evaluation

su from PL
Based on the theoretical undrained cylindrical cavity expansion theory and the assump-
tion of ideal elastic-plastic behavior presented by Gibson & Anderson (1961), the undrained
shear strength may be obtained as:
278 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

P = ˝ HO + s u ˇ˘1 + ln (G su ) + ln ( ˆV/V )  (7.5)

where
P = pressure
σHO = in situ total horizontal stress (obtained from the initial portion of the PMT curve
or estimated by other means)
G = shear modulus
ΔV = increase in cavity volume
V = current cavity volume

A plot of P vs. ln (ΔV/V) in the plastic pressure range, i.e., for points after the yield stress,
Pf, gives a straight line, the slope of which is su.
For an infnite cavity expansion, Equation 7.5 may be rewritten in terms of the limit pres-
sure, PL , as:

PL = ˝ HO + su [1 + ln G su ] (7.6)

Equation 7.6 may be reduced to:

PL − ° HO = su N P (7.7)

or

su = ( PL − ˙ HO ) N P (7.8)

where
N P = [1 + ln E 3 su ]

Equation 7.6 assumes that Poisson’s ratio of the soil is equal to 0.5 for undrained loading.
The value of N P varies from about 3.2 to 8.0 for I r = G/su values ranging from 10 to 1000.
The value of PL in Equation 7.8 must frst be obtained by graphical means using the points
past the initial yield pressure, Pf, to obtain the limiting cavity stress at infnite expansion.
For many clays and reasonable values of G/su, the value of N P only varies from about 5.5 to
6.8. Marsland & Randolph (1977) suggested that based on simple bearing capacity theory,
a reasonable value of N P would be about 6.2. Borsetto et al. (1983) have shown that using a
pressuremeter of fnite length leads to an overprediction of Su when the theory for an infnite
cavity expansion is used.

7.8.2.2 Empirical Approach

Alternatively, a simple empirical relationship has been used to relate su to the net limit pressure,
P*L , making use of the interpreted initial pressure, PO, instead of the horizontal stress, σHO:

su = P*L N Pm (7.9)

Table 7.7 indicates the value of N Pm that has been reported by a number of investigators.
The comparisons in Table 7.7 are primarily for stiff clays where the reference su has been
obtained from unconfned compression tests, triaxial compressions tests, plate load tests, or
other techniques.
 Pressuremeter Test 279

Table 7.7 Reported values of NPm for different clays

NPm Soil Type References
4.6 London Clay Gibson & Anderson (1961)
5.5 Stiff clay Centres d’Etudes Menard (1967)
5.1 Stiff till and hardpan Lukas & LeClerc de Bussy (1976)
6.2 Stiff glacial clays Marsland & Randolph (1977)
4.5 Medium clay Nayak (1979)

4.5 Soft marine clay Bechai et al. (1986)

5.2–7.0 Very stiff to stiff clays Davidson & Bodine (1986)
10 Stiff clay Martin & Drahos (1986)
8.3 Greek clays Kalteziotis et al. (1990)
5.2 Stiff clay – Algiers Bahar (1998)
8 Clayey soils –Turkey Bozbey & Togrol (2010)
4.1 Clays – Algeria Ramdane et al. (2013)

An alternative form of Equation 7.8 has been suggested in which the total vertical stress
at the test location is substituted in place of the in situ horizontal stress. This is convenient
since the vertical stress is usually easier to estimate than the horizontal stress. Equation 7.9
then becomes:

su = ( PL − ˙ vO ) N*P (7.10)

The values of N*P have been reported as 4 for medium to stiff clay (Komornik et al. 1970)
to as high as 12.5 for marine and lacustrine clays of Canada (Leroueil 1983).
The undrained shear strength has also been directly correlated with the value of Pf. For
example, Bergado et al. (1986) found that for undrained shear strength determined by feld
vane tests in Bangkok marine clay:

suv = Pf 3.15 (7.11)

A number of other empirical correlations have been suggested for estimating the undrained
shear strength from either the limit pressure, PL , or the net limit pressure, P*L . Several of the
correlations are presented in Table 7.8.

Table 7.8 Other Empirical Correlations for Estimating Undrained Shear Strength
Correlation Soil Type References
su = P*L/10 + 25 kPa Clays Amar & Jezequel (1972)
su = PL/7.5 Clays Briaud et al. (1986)
su = PL/5.9 Bangkok clay Bergado et al. (1986)
(su in kPa)
su/pa = 0.21 (P*L/pa)0.75 Clays Briaud (1992)
(su in tsf)
(pa = atmospheric pressure)
su = (PL − 10)/3.57 Gault Clay Pound & Varley (1993)
(su in MPa)
280 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

7.8.3 Preconsolidation Stress

A number of investigations have shown that there is an approximate linear relationship
between the pressuremeter creep stress, Pf, and the vertical one-dimensional consolidation
yield or preconsolidation stress, σ′P, over a stress range of 20–2000 kPa (e.g., Mori, 1965;
Lukas & LeClerc de Bussy, 1976; Ohya et al. 1983; Davidson & Bodine, 1986; Bergado
et al. 1986). Similar results were presented by Martin & Drahos (1986) for clay in the
Richmond, Virginia area. Although considerable scatter was presented in these data, most
of the points fell within the range σ′p = Pf to σ′p = 0.6 Pf.

7.8.4 Small-Strain Shear Modulus

A correlation between the small-strain shear modulus and PL was suggested by Kalteziotis
et al. (1990) for clays in Greece as:

G max = 138 PL1.42 (7.12)

Gmax and PL are expressed in MPa.

Additionally, the value of Gmax was also strongly correlated with the value of Gm according
to the simple expression:

G max = 45 G m , (7.13)

where the value of Gm was defned by the authors as:

G m = V(°P/°V)

where
V = volume of the cavity at the midpoint of the linear portion of a PMT curve
ΔV = volume increase for a pressure increment ΔP in this region

7.9 INTERPRETATION OF TEST RESULTS

IN COARSE-GRAINED SOILS

PMT results obtained in coarse-grained soils are similar to those obtained in fne-grained
soils, by employing PMT parameters, PO, Pf, PL , etc. and then applying rules for design.
PMT modulus values may be used for settlement estimates for shallow foundations. Several
methods have been suggested for estimating some properties of coarse-grained soils from the
PMT curve, e.g., drained friction angle (Hughes et al. 1977; Baguelin et al. 1978; Manaserro
1989); however, they are not particularly reliable and require a detailed interpretation of the
PMT curve. The author suggests that results from PMT tests in sands be used along with the
recommended design rules developed specifcally for the prebored PMT.

7.10 PRESSUREMETER TESTING IN ROCK

In weak or soft rocks, there is a practical problem of obtaining high-quality samples for
laboratory testing or for that matter performing most in situ tests. The PMT presents a solu-
tion to this problem provided that a high-quality borehole cavity can be obtained. Stiffness
 Pressuremeter Test 281

and limit pressures can be usually obtained but a high-pressure apparatus is used in order
to fully defne the rock mass behavior. Several cases have reported the successful applica-
tion of PMT in weaker rocks (shales and mudstones) for the design of drilled shaft rock
sockets (Freeman et al., 1972; Jubenville & Hepworth, 1981; Briaud 1985). Table 7.9 gives
a summary of some reported uses of the PMT in rock.

7.11 CORRELATIONS WITH OTHER IN SITU TESTS

Correlations between various PMT parameters and other in situ tests, especially the SPT,
have been noted by a number of investigators (e.g., Chiang & Ho 1980; Tsuchiya &
Toyooka 1982; Bozbey & Togrol 2010). Tables 7.10 and 7.11 present the reported correla-
tions between SPT N-values and Pf and P*LM. Table 2.13 gives some reported correlations
between N and the PMT modulus, Em, also listed in Table 7.12.

7.12 APPLICATIONS TO DESIGN

Most of the design applications of the PMT follow the rules established based on the values
of limit pressure or modulus to estimate bearing capacity or settlement of both shallow
and deep foundations (Baguelin et al. 1978; 1986; Briaud 1986; 1992; Gambin & Frank

Table 7.9 Some reported uses of PMT in rock

Location Rock type Range of PL (kPa) References
California Siltstone 1450–4300 Dixon (1970)
Sandstone
Shale
Illinois Shale Hendron et al. (1970)
India Weathered granite 150–950 Pandian & Raju (1977)
South Africa Weathered siltstone 5100–7050 Pavlakis (1980)
Australia Siltstone 8000–8700 Pells & Turner (1980)
South Dakota Shale NR Nichols et al (1986)
United Arab Emirates Siltstone NR Mahmoud et al. (1990)
Oklahoma Shale 2000–20,000 Miller & Smith (2004)
Sandstone
Canada Shale NR Cao et al. (2013)
Turkey Sandstone 2500–4000 Tezel et al. (2013)
Siltstone
India Weathered basalt and tuff 2000–10,000 Birid (2015)
Iran Claystone 1000–6000 Asghari-Kaljahi et al. (2016)
Marlstone
NR = not reported

Table 7.10 Reported correlations between P f and SPT N-value

Correlation Soil References
Pf = 0.669N0.792 Miscellaneous soils Tsuchiya & Toyooka (1982)
(Pf in bar)
Pf = 0.33 to 0.50N Clayey and sandy soils Ohya et al. (1983)
Pf = N/6.86 Stiff clay Bergado et al. (1986)
Pf in kg/cm2 unless noted
282 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Table 7.11 Reported correlations between PL and P*L and SPT N-value
Correlation Soil References
P*L = N/1.37 Stiff clay Bergado et al. (1986)
P*L = N/1.03 Dense to very dense sand
(P*L in kg/cm2)
PL = 75N Residual soils of Singapore Chang (1988)
(PL in kPa)
log P*L = 0.0073N + 1.1194 Clay and shale Nevels & Laguros (1993)
(P*L in tsf)
PL = 29.45(N60) + 219.7 Sandy silty clay – Turkey Yagiz et al. (2008)
(PL in kPa)
PL = 0.33(N60)0.51 Clayey soils – Turkey Bozbey & Togrol (2010)
PL = 0.26(N60)0.57 Sandy soils – Turkey
(PL in MPa)
PL = 0.425(N60)1.2 Clayey soils – Turkey Kayabasi (2012)
(PL in MPa)
PL = −0.872 + 0.067(N60) Clayey soils – Istanbul Agan & Algin (2014)
(PL in MPA)

1995; Frank 2009). One of the most direct applications of the PMT is the estimation of the
behavior of laterally loaded drilled shafts or driven piles using the pressure-expansion curve.
Methods for evaluating the lateral behavior of drilled shafts using the prebored PMT and
driven piles using the FDMPT have been developed. Cyclic PMT procedures and results
have been given by Briaud et al. (1983a) and Failmezger & Sedran (2013). Table 7.13 gives
some typical applications of the PMT in design.

7.12.1 Design of Shallow Foundations

7.12.1.1 Bearing Capacity
The bearing capacity of shallow foundations may be determined from:

qult = KP *L +˛ Df (7.14)

where
qult = ultimate unit bearing capacity
K = bearing capacity factor
P*L = equivalent net limit pressure within the zone of infuence of the footing
γ = total unit weight of soil
Df = depth of embedment of footing

The bearing capacity factor K is a function of the footing depth/width ratio and soil type, i.e.,
clay, silt, and sand. Typical values of K range from about 0.8 for a surface footing to about 2.0
for Df/B = 3 for sand and about 1.2 for clay. Briaud (1992) presented a summary of the accu-
racy of this approach using a database of published cases and found it to be suffciently reliable.

7.12.1.2 Settlement
The settlement of shallow foundations may be estimated using the calculated PMT modulus as:

s = [( 2 9E d )( qBo )( ˝ dB Bo ) + ( ˆqB˝ c 9E c )]
ˆ
(7.15)
 Pressuremeter Test 283

Table 7.12 Reported correlations between SPT N-value and pressuremeter modulusa (reference provided
in Chapter 2)
Correlation Soil References
Em =Log−1 [0.65180 Log N + 1.33355] Piedmont residual soil Martin (1977)
(Em in tsf)
Em = 7.7N Clay Nayak (1979)
Em = 15N Clayey soil Ohya et al. (1983)
Em = 4N Sandy soil
Em = 6.84 N0.986 Miscellaneous soil typesb Tsuchiya & Toyooka (1982)
(Ep in bar)
Em, = 22N + 160 Gneissic saprolite Rocha Filho et al. (1985)
Em = 26N + 120 (20 < N < 30)
Gneissic saprolite
(30 < N < 60)
ln Em =3.509 + 0.712 ln N Residual soil Barksdale et al. (1986)
(Ep in ksf)
Em = 15N + 240 Lateritic or mature Toledo (1986)
Gneissic residual soil (7 < N < 15)
Em =Log−1 [0.70437 Log N + 1.17627] Piedmont residual soil Martin (1987)
(Em in tsf)
Em =1.6 N Residual soil Jones & Rust (1989)
(Em in MPa)
log Em = 1.0156 log N + 1.1129 Clay and clay shale Nevels & Laguros (1993)
(Ep in tsf)
Em (kPa) = 388.7N60 + 4554 Sandy silty clay Yagiz et al. (2008)
Em (MPa) = 1.33(N60)0.77 Sandy soils – Istanbul Bozbey & Togrol (2010)
Em (MPa) = 1.61(N60)0.71 Clayey soils – Istanbul
Em = 0.285(N60)1.4 Clayey soils – Turkey Kayabasi (2012)
(Em in MPa)
Em (MPa) = 2.22 + 0.0029(N60)2.5 Clayey soils – Turkey Agan & Algin (2014)
a Ep in kg/cm unless noted.
2
b Individual equations given by authors for eight different soil types ranging from very soft organic soil to mudstone.

where
s = settlement
Ed = average PMT modulus within the zone of signifcant infuence below the footing
q = footing net bearing stress
Bo = reference footing width (60 cm or 2 ft)
λd = deviatoric shape factor
B = footing width
α = soil rheological factor
E c = average PMT modulus just below the footing
λc = spherical shape factor

Values of shape factors and rheological factors depend on the length/width ratio of the
footing and soil type and stiffness, and may be obtained from Briaud (1992) or other
sources.
284 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Table 7.13 Design applications of PMT

Application References
Shallow foundation bearing capacity Briaud et al. (1986)
Shallow foundation settlement Briaud et al. (1986)
Barksdale et al. (1986)
Lukas (1986)
Briaud (2007)
Baguelin et al. (2009)
Ouabel et al. (2020)
Axially loaded deep foundations Briaud (1985)
Gambi & Frank (2009)
Laterally loaded deep foundations Briaud et al. (1983b)
Briaud (1985)
Robertson et al. (1986)
Meyerhof & Sastry (1987)
Huang et al. (1989)
Briaud (1997)
Anderson et al. (2003)
Failmezger et al. (2005)
Bouafa (2013)
Farid et al. (2013)
Earth retaining structures Grant & Hughes (1986)
Finno et al. (1990)
Aoyagi et al. (1995)

7.12.2 Deep Foundations

7.12.2.1 Ultimate Axial Load of Deep Foundations
Design rules for estimating the end bearing and side resistance of deep foundations under
axial loading are also available and primarily make use of the limit pressure or net limit
pressure. The approach is similar to that used for the bearing capacity of shallow founda-
tions and takes into account geometry and soil characteristics to give design coeffcients to
obtain unit end bearing and unit side resistance (Baguelin et al. 1978; 1986; Briaud 1986;
1992; Gambin & Frank 1995; Frank 2009).

7.12.2.2 Laterally Loaded Shafts and Piles

Results from the PMT have been extensively used to predict the lateral load behavior of deep
foundations. The methods are predominantly based on developing pile p-y curves deter-
mined from the pressure-expansion curves from the PMT. The primary difference is in the
deployment of the PMT to simulate pile installation, i.e., predrilled or displacement.

7.13 SUMMARY OF PMT

The prebored pressuremeter is a very useful test for determining specifc soil properties, such
as shear strength and stiffness. It can also be used to design foundations using a set of well-
established rules for both shallow and deep foundations. The test is not complicated, and the
equipment is reasonably economical. Test results can be evaluated quickly. The test is especially
useful for estimating the settlement of shallow foundations and the lateral load behavior of
 Pressuremeter Test 285

drilled deep foundations. Other types of pressuremeters, especially the SBPMT, may be expen-
sive and require expert experience in order to perform the test and interpret results. The Pencel
PMT can be deployed quickly and may be used where other types of PMT are not available.

REFERENCES

Agan, C. and Algin, H., 2014. Determination of Relationships Between Menard Pressuremeter Test
and Standard Penetration Test Data by Using ANN Model: A Case Study on the Clayey Soil in
Sivas, Turkey. Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM, Vol. 37, No. 3, pp. 1–12.
Amar, S. and Jezequel, J., 1972. Essais en Place et an Laboratoire sul Sols Coherents: Comparison des
Results. Bulettin de Liaison des Ponts et Chausses, No. 58, pp. 97–108.
Anderson, J., Townsend, F., and Grajales, B., 2003. Case History Evaluation of Laterally Loaded
Piles. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 129, No. 3,
pp. 187–196.
Aoyagi, T., Honda, T., Morita, Y., and Fukagawa, R., 1995. Deformation of Diaphragm Walls
Estimated from Pressuremeter. The Pressuremeter and its New Avenues, pp. 405–410.
Asghari-Kaljahi, E., Khalili, Z., and Yasrobi, S., 2016. Pressuremeter Tests in the Hard Soils and Soft
Rocks of Arak Aluminum Plant Site, Iran. Proceedings of the 5th Symposium on Geotechnical
and Geophysical Site Characterization, pp. 743–747.
Baguelin, F.J., Bustamante, M. and Frank, R., 1986. The Pressuremeter for Foundations: French
Experience. Use of In Situ Tests in Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, pp. 31–46.
Baguelin, F., Bustamante, M., and Frank, R., 1974. The Pressuremeter for Foundations: French
Experience. Use of In Situ Tests in Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, pp. 48–73.
Baguelin, F.J. and Jezequel, J.-F., 1983. The LPC Pressiopenetrometer. Geotechnical Practice in
Offshore Engineering, ASCE, pp. 203–219.
Baguelin, F., Jezequel, J., and Shield, D., 1978. The Pressuremeter and Foundation Design. Trans
Tech Publications, 617 pp.
Baguelin, F., Lay, L., Ung, S., and Sanfratello, J., 2009. Pressuremeter, Consolidation State and
Settlement in Fine-Grained Soils. Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 2, pp. 961–964.
Bahar, R., 1998. Interpretation of Pressuremeter Tests Carried Out in Stiff Clays. Proceedings of the 2nd
International Symposium on the Geotechnics of Hard Soils – Soft Rocks, Vol. 1, pp. 413–422.
Barksdale, R., Ferry, C., and Lawrence, J., 1986. Residual Soil Settlement from Pressuremeter Moduli.
Use of In Situ Tests in Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, pp. 447–461.
Bechai, M., Law, K.T., Cragg, C.B.H., and Konard, J.M., 1986. In Situ Testing of Marine Clay
for Towerline Foundations. Proceedings of the 39th Canadian Geotechnical Conference,
pp. 115–119.
Benoit, J., Oweis, I., and Leung, A., 1990. Self-Boring Pressuremeter Testing of the Hackensack
Meadows Varved Clays. Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on the Pressuremeter,
pp. 95–94.
Bergado, D., Khaleqoe, M., Neeyapan, R., and Chang, C., 1986. Correlations of In Situ Tests in
Bangkok Subsoils. Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 17, pp. 1–37.
Birid, K., 2015. Interpretation of Pressuremeter Tests in Rock. Proceedings of the 7th International
Conference on the Pressuremeter, pp. 289–299.
Borsetto, M., Imperato, L., Nova, R., and Peano, A., 1983. Effects of Pressuremeters of Finite
Length in Soft Clay. Proceedings of the International Symposium on In Situ Testing, Vol. 2,
pp. 211–215.
Bouafa, A., 2013. P-Y Curves from the Prebored Pressuremeter Test for Laterally Loaded Single
Piles. Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, pp. 2695–2698.
Bozbey, I. and Togrol, E., 2010. Correlation of Standard Penetration Teat and Pressuremeter Data:
A Case Study from Istanbul, Turkey. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment,
Vol. 69, pp. 505–515.
286 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Briaud, J., 1985. Pressuremeter and Deep Foundation Design. ASTM STP 950, pp. 376–405.
Briaud, J. 1986. Pressuremeter and Foundation Design. Use of In Situ Tests in Geotechnical
Engineering, ASCE, pp. 74–115.
Briaud, J., 1992. The Pressuremeter. A.A. Balkema Publishers, Rotterdam, 322 pp.
Briaud, J., 1997. SALLOP: Simple Approach for Lateral Loads on Piles. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 123, No. 10, pp. 958–964.
Briaud, J., 2007. Spread Footings in Sand: Load Settlement Curve Approach. Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 133, No. 8, pp. 905–920.
Briaud, J., 2013. The Pressuremeter Test: Expanding its Use. Proceedings of the 18th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 107–126.
Briaud, J. and Shields, D., 1979. A Special Pressuremeter and Pressuremeter Tests for Pavement
Evaluation and Design. ASTM Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 143–151.
Briaud, J., Lytton, R., and Hung, J., 1983a. Obtaining Moduli from Cyclic Pressuremeter Tests.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 109, No. 5, pp. 657–665.
Briaud, J., Smith, T., and Meyer, B., 1983b. Laterally Loaded Piles and the Pressuremeter: Comparison
of Existing Methods. ASTM STP 835, pp. 97–111.
Briaud, J., Tand, K., and Funegard, E., 1986. Pressuremeter and Shallow Foundations on Clay.
Transportation Research Record No. 1105, pp. 1–14.
Bruzzi, D., Ghionna, V., Jamiolkowski, M., Lancellotta, R., and Manfredini, G., 1986. Sel-Boring
Pressuremeter Tests in Po River Sand. ASTM STP 950, pp. 57–74.
Cao, L., Peaker, S., and Sirati, A., 2013. Rock Modulus from In Situ Pressuremeter and Laboratory
Tests. Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, 4 pp.
Campenella, R., Howie, J., Sully, J., Hers, I., and Robertson, P., 1990. Evaluation of Cone
Presssuremeter Tests in Soft Cohesive Soils. Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium
on the Pressuremeter, pp. 125–136.
Canou, J. and Tumay, M., 1986. Field Evaluation of French Self-Boring Pressuremeter PAF 76 in a
Soft Deltaic Louisiana Clay. ASTM STP 950, pp. 97–118.
Centre d’Etudes Menard, 1967. Interpretation d’un Essai Pressiometrique, Publication D 31/67.
Chang, M.F., 1988. In-Situ Testing on Residual Soils in Singapore. Proceedings of the 2nd
International Conference Geomechanics in Tropical Soils, Vol. 1, pp. 97–107.
Chiang, Y. and Ho, Y., 1980. Pressuremeter Method for Foundation Design in Hong Kong.
Proceedings of the 6th S.E. Asian Conference on Soil Mechanics, pp. 32–42.
Clarke, B., 1995. Pressuremeters in Geotechnical Design. Taylor & Francis Publishers, 363 pp.
Davidson, R.R. and Bodine, D.G., 1986. Analysis and Verifcation of Louisiana Pile Foundation
Designed Based on Pressuremeter Results, ASTM Special Technical Publication 950,
pp. 423–439.
Dixon, S., 1970. Pressure Meter Testing of Soft Bedrock. ASTM STP 477, pp. 126–136.
Fahey, M., 1991. Measuring Shear Mdulus in sand with the Self-Boring Pressuremeter. ASTM
Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 187–194.
Failmezger, R. and Sedran, G., 2013. New Method to Compute Reload and Unload Pressuremeter
Moduli. Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, 4pp.
Failmezger, R., Zdinak, A., Darden, J., and Fahs, R., 2005. Use of Rock Pressuremeter for Deep
Foundation Design. Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Pressuremeter, 10 pp.
Farid, M., Slah, N., and Cosentino, P., 2013. Pencel Pressuremeter Testing for Determining P-Y
Curves for Laterally Loaded Deep Foundations. Procedia Engineering, Vol. 54, pp. 491–504.
Faugeras, J.C., Gourves, R., Meunier, P., Nagura, M., Matsubara, L. and Saguawara, N., 1983.
On the Various Factors Affecting Pressuremeter Test Results. Proceedings of the International
Symposium on In Situ Testing in Soil and Rock, Vol. 2, pp. 275–281.
Finno, R., Benot, J., and Chumg, C., 1990. Filed and Laboratory Measurement of KO in Chicago
Clay. Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on the Pressuremeter, pp. 331–340.
Frank, R., 2009. Design of Foundations in France with the use of Menard Pressuremeter Tests (MPM).
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 46, pp. 219–231.
 Pressuremeter Test 287

Freeman, C.F., Klanjnerman, D. and Prasad, G.D., 1972. Design of Deep Socketed Caissons into
Shale Bedrock. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 9, pp. 105–118.
Fyffe, S., Reid, W., and Summers, J., 1986. The Push-In Pressuremeter: 5 Years Offshore Experience.
ASTM STP 950, pp. 22–37.
Gambin, M. and Frank, R., 1995. The Present Design Rules for Foundations Based on Menard
PMT Results. Proceedings of the 4the International Symposium on the Pressuremeter,
pp. 425–432.
Ghionna, V., Jamiolkowski, M., Pedroni, S., and Piccoli, S., 1995. Cone Pressuremeter Tests
in Po River Sand. Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on the Pressuremeter,
pp. 471–480.
Gibson, R and Anderson, W., 1961. Measurement of Soil Properties with the Pressuremeter. Civil
Engineering and Public Works Review, Vol. 3, No. 6, pp. 615–618.
Grant, W. and Hughes, J., 1986. Pressuremeter Tess and Shoring Wall Design. Use of In Situ Tests in
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, pp. 588–601.
Hendron, A., Mesri, G., and Way, G., 1970. Compressibility Characteristics of Shales Measured by
Laboratory and In situ Tests. ASTM STP 477, pp. 137–153.
Houlsby, G. and Carter, J., 1993. The Effects of Pressuremeter Geometry on the Results of Tests in
Clay. Geotechnique, Vol. 43, No. 4, pp. 567–576.
Houlsby, G. and Withers, N., 1988. Analysis of the Cone Pressuremeter Test in Clay. Geotechnicque,
Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 575–587.
Huang, A. and Haefele, K., 1988. A Push-In Pressuremeter/Sampler. Proceedings of the 1st
International Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 1, pp. 533–538.
Huang, A., Lutenegger, A., Islam, M., and Miller, G., 1989. Analyses of Laterally Loaded Drilled
Shafts Using In Situ Tests. Transportation Research Record No. 1235, pp. 60–67.
Hughes, J., Wroth, C., and Windle, D., 1977. Pressuremeter Tests in Sands. Geotechnique, Vol. 27,
No. 4, pp. 455–477.
Jefferies, M., 1988. Determination of Horizontal In Situ Stress in Clay with Self-Bored Pressuremeter.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 559–573.
Jones, G.A. and Rust, E., 1989. Foundations on Residual Soil Using Pressuremeter Moduli. Proceedings
of the 12th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundations Engineering, Vol. 1,
pp. 519–523.
Jubenville, D.M. and Hepworth, R.C., 1981. Drilled Pier Foundations in Shale, Denver, Colorado
Area. Drilled Piers and Caissons, ASCE, pp. 66–81.
Kalteziotis, N., Tsiambaos, G., Sabatakakis, N., and Zerogiannis, H., 1990. Prediction of Soil
Dynamic Parameters from Pressuremeter and Other In Situ Tests. Proceedings of the 3rd
International Symposium on Pressuremeters, pp. 391–400.
Kayabasi, A., 2012. Prediction of Pressuremeter Modulus and Limit Pressure of Clayey Soils by
Simple and Non-Linear Multiple Regression Techniques: A Case Study from Mersin, Turkey.
Environmental Earth Sciences, Vol. 66, pp. 2171–2183.
Komornik, A., Wiseman, G., and Frydman, S., 1970. A Study of In Situ Testing with the Pressuremeter.
Proceedings of the Conference on In Situ Investigations of Soil and Rock, London, pp. 145–153.
Laier, J., Schmertmann, J., and Schaub, J., 1975. Effect of Finite Pressuremeter Length in Dry Sand.
In Situ Measurement of Soil Properties, ASCE, Vol. 1, pp. 241–259.
Leroueil, S., Tavenas, F., and LeBitian, J.-P., 1983. Properties Caracteristiques des Argiles de l’est du
Canada. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 681–705.
Lukas, R., 1986. Settlement Prediction Using the Pressuremeter. AST STP 950, pp. 406–422.
Lukas, R. and LeClerc de Bussy, B., 1976. Pressuremeter and Laboratory Test Correlations for Clays.
Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 102, No. GT9, pp. 945–962.
Lutenegger, A. and Blanchard, J., 1990. A Comparison Between Full Displacement Pressuremeter
Tests and Dilatometer Tests in Clay. Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on the
Pressuremeter, pp. 309–320.
Mahmoud, M., Evans, J., and Trenter, N., 1990. The Use of the Pressuremeter Test in Weak Rocks
at the Port of Jebel Ali. Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on the Pressuremeter,
pp. 341–350.
288 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Mair, R. and Wood, D., 1987. Pressuremeter Testing: Methods and Interpretation. Butterworth
Publishers.
Manaserro, F., 1989. Stress-Strain Relationships from Self-Boring Pressuremeter Tests in Sand.
Geotechnicque, Vol. 39, No. 2, pp. 293–308.
Marsland, A. and Randolph, M., 1977. Comparisons of the Results from Pressuremeter Tests and
Large In Situ Plate Tests in London Clay. Geotechnicque, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 217–243.
Martin, R.E., 1987. Settlement of Residual Soils. Foundations and Excavation in Decomposed
Rocks of the Piedmont Province, ASCE, pp. 1–14.
Martin, R. and Drahos, E., 1986. Pressuremeter Correlations for Preconsolidated Clay. Use of In Situ
Tests in Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, pp. 206–220.
Meyerhof, G. and Sastry, V., 1987. Full-Displacement Pressuremeter Method for Rigid Piles Under
Lateral Loads and Moments. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 24, NO. 4, pp. 471–478.
Miller, G. and Smith, J., 2004. Texas Cone Penetrometer-Pressuremeter Correlations for Soft Rock.
GeoSupport 2004 – SCE, pp. 441–449.
Mori, H., 1965. Discussion, Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Vol. 3, pp. 502–504.
Nayak, N.V., 1979. Use of the Pressuremeter in Geotechnical Design Practice. Proceedings of the
International Symposium on In Situ Testing of Soils and Rocks and Performance of Structures,
Roorkee pp. 432–436.
Nevels, J.B. and Laguros, J.G., 1993. Correlation of Engineering Properties of the Hennessey
Formation Clays and Shales. Geotechnical Engineering of Hard Soils - Soft Rocks, Vol. 1,
pp. 215–220.
Nichols, T., Collins, D., and Davidson, R., 1986. In Situ and Laboratory Geotechnical Tests of the
Pierre Shale near Hays, South Dakota – A Characterization of Engineering Behavior. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 181–194.
Ohya, S., Imai, T., and Nagura, M., 1983. Recent Developments in Pressuremeter Testing, In Situ
Measurement and S-Wave Velocity Measurement. Recent Developments in Laboratory and
Field Tests and Analysis of Geotechnical Problems, pp. 189–209.
Ouabel, H., Bendiouis, A., and Zadjaoui, A., 2020. Numerical Estimation of Settlement Under
Shallow Foundation by the Pressuremeter Method. Civil Engineering Journal, Vol. 6, No. 1,
pp. 156–163.
Pandian, N. and Raju, A., 1977. In Situ Testing of Soft Rocks with Pressuremeter. Indian Geotechnical
Journal, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 305–314.
Pavlakis, M., 1980. Pressuremeter Testing of Weathered Karroo Siltstone. Proceedings of the 7th
Regional Conference for Africa on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, pp. 147–155.
Pells, P.J. and Turner, R.M., 1980. End Bearing on Rock with Particular Reference to Sandstone.
Proceedings of the International Conference on Structural Foundations on Rock, Sydney, 12 pp.
Pound, C. and Varley, P., 1993. The Application of the High Pressure Dilatometer on the Channel
Tunnel Project. The Engineering Geology of Weak Rock, pp. 251–258.
Powell, J., 1990. A Comparison of Four Different Pressuremeters and Their Methods of Interpretation
in a Stiff Heavily Overconsolidated Clay. Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on
the Pressuremeter, pp. 287–298.
Ramdane, B., Nassima, A. and Ouarda, B., 2013. Interpretation of a Pressuremeter Test in Cohesive
Soils. Proceedings of the International Conference on Geotechnical Engineering, Tunisia, 10 pp.
Rehman, Z., Akbar, A., and Clarke, B., 2011. Characterization of a Cohesive Soil Bed Using Cone
Pressuremeter. Soils and Foundations, Vol. 51, No. 5, pp. 823–833.
Robertson, P. and Hughes, J., 1985. Determination of Properties of Sand from Self-Boring
Pressuremeter Tests. ASTM STP 950, pp. 283–302.
Robertson, P., Hughes, J., Campanella, R., Brown, P., and McKeown, S., 1986. Design of Laterally
Loaded Piles Using the Pressuremeter. ASTM STP 950, pp. 443–457.
Rocha Filho, P., Antunes, F., and Falcao, M.F.Q., 1985. Qualitative Infuence of the Weathering
Degree Upon the Mechanical Properties of Young Gneiss Residual Soil. Proceedings of the 1st
International Conference on Geomechanics in Tropical Lateritic and Saprolitic Soils, Vol. 1,
pp. 281–294.
 Pressuremeter Test 289

Tezel, G., Hacialioglu, E., Onal, F., and Ozmen, G., 2013. Comparison of High Pressure Pressuremeter
(HyperPac) and Pre-Bored Pressuremeter Tests – A Case Study. Proceedings of the 18th
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 5 pp.
Toledo, R.D., 1986. Field Study of the Stiffness of a Gneissic Residual Soil Using Pressuremeter and
Instrumented Pile Load Test. MS Thesis, Civil Engineering Department, Pontifcal Catholic
University, Rio de Janeiro.
Tsuchiya, H. and Toyooka, Y., 1982. Comparison Between N-Values and Pressuremeter Parameters.
Proceedings of the 2nd European Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 1, pp. 169–174.
Walker, L., 1979. The Selection of Design Parameters in Weathered Rocks. Proceedings of the 7th
European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 2, pp. 287–294.
Windle, D. and Wroth, C.P., 1977. In Situ Measurement of the Properties of Stiff Clays. Proceedings
of the 9th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1,
pp. 347–352.
Withers, N., Schaap, L., and Dalton, C., 1986. The Development of the Full Displacement
Pressuremeter. ASTM STP 950, pp. 38–56.
Withers, N., Howie, J., Hughes, J., and Robertson, P., 1989. Performance and analysis of Cone
Pressuremeter Tests in Sands. Geotechnique, Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 433–454.
Wroth, C.P. and Hughes, J., 1974. The Development of a Special Instrument for the In Situ
Measurement of Strength and Stiffness of Soils. Proceedings of the Conference on Subsurface
Exploration for Underground Excavation and Heavy Construction, ASCE, pp. 295–311.
Yagiz, S., Akyol, E., and Sem, G., 2008. Relationship Between the Standard Penetration Test and the
Pressuremeter Test on Sandy Silty Clays: A Case Study from Denizli. Bulletin of Engineering
Geology and the Environment, Vol. 67, pp. 405–410
Chapter 8

Borehole Shear Test (BST)

8.1 INTRODUCTION

The Borehole Shear Test (BST) was developed as a method of measuring the drained in situ
shear strength of soils by performing a series of direct shear tests on the sides of a borehole
(Handy & Fox 1967). The test is intended to provide independent measurements of the
drained friction angle, φ′, and cohesion, c′, of soils. It is the only in situ test to give a direct
measurement of these parameters in situ.
The test represents a simple concept and gives results that can be directly used in geotech-
nical design. The mode of testing may be suited to evaluating side friction resistance of axi-
ally loaded piles and drilled shafts or grouted anchors. The equipment is relatively rugged
and portable; the test is easy to conduct and essentially operator independent, and can be
used in a wide range of soils.

8.2 MECHANICS

The BST is conducted by frst advancing a borehole into the soil to a desired test depth and
then lowering an expandable shear head into the borehole to engage soil along the sides of
the hole. The shear head is equipped with shear plates that have a sharp “teeth” that grip the
soil along the sides of the hole. Once the shear head has been expanded and suffcient time
for consolidation is given, the shear head is pulled upward slowly to induce a shear failure
in the soil. This concept is illustrated in Figure 8.1.
This procedure gives a single measurement of the normal stress and shear stress acting
on the soil at failure. In this way, the BST simulates, at least in part, the procedure used in
laboratory direct shear box tests where normal stress is applied to a sample and then failure
is produced by shearing the soil. In the BST, like in the laboratory shear box, this procedure
is repeated a number of times using different values of normal stress until suffcient pairs of
data points (normal and shear stress) are obtained to defne the failure envelope of the soil
as shown in Figure 8.2.

8.3 EQUIPMENT

The current confguration of the BST apparatus is shown schematically in Figure 8.3, and
apparatus consists of three basic components: (1) the shear head, (2) the control console, and
(3) the shear force reaction base plate.

291
292 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Figure 8.1 Concept of Borehole Shear Test (BST).

Figure 8.2 Idealized test results from BST.

 Borehole Shear Test 293

Figure 8.3 Schematic of BST equipment.

8.3.1 Shear Head

The shear head consists of a double-acting pneumatic cylinder that is used to expand the shear
plates outward, to apply a normal force to the side of the borehole, and to engage the soil for
shearing. Serrated shear plates mounted on opposite sides of the shear head are used to “bite”
into the soil, helping insure that failure will occur within the soil and not just at the surface
of the borehole. The shear head is lowered into the hole using a series of small-diameter rods
attached to the top of the shear head. The rods also act to transfer shear stress from the shear
head to the reaction base during the test. The shear head is double-acting so that while it is
being lowered into the hole, the plates can be in the fully retracted position. At the end of the
test, the plates can be retracted for ease in removing the shear head from the hole.

8.3.2 Control Console

The normal stress against the sides of the borehole is held constant during the test by pres-
surizing the pneumatic shear head cylinder using a regulated compressed gas applied to the
shear head through the control console. Gas pressure is usually supplied by a small tank of
carbon dioxide or nitrogen. The actual gas pressure applied to the shear head is registered
on a pressure gage mounted in the console and is held constant using a pressure regulator.
During the test, constant pressure on the shear head is maintained in order to keep the nor-
mal stress constant, like in a direct shear box test.

8.3.3 Shear Force Reaction Base Plate

Once the normal stress has been applied and suffcient consolidation time has been allowed,
the soil is failed by slowly pulling the shear head upward. This is accomplished using the
shear force reaction base plate located at the ground surface and centered over the borehole.
294 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Figure 8.4 BST in progress.

The rods extending from the shear head pass through the center of the base plate. A simple
worm-gear mechanism attached to the pulling rods by a rod clamp is used to pull the shear
head upward by means of a hand crank. A closed hydraulic system on the base plate is used
to measure the pulling force, as shown in Figure 8.3. The apparatus is self-contained and
can be operated by hand. The equipment is fully portable and can be used in remote or lim-
ited access locations. Figure 8.4 shows a photograph of a test in progress.

8.4 TEST PROCEDURES

As noted, the BST is performed in two separate phases: (1) a consolidation phase, during
which some time is allowed to elapse between the application of normal stress and that of
shearing stress, and (2) a shearing phase, during which the shear head is pulled to create the
soil shear failure. This procedure is directly analogous to performing a laboratory direct
shear box test. A detailed testing procedure that gives a complete description of the test
practice has been presented by Lutenegger (1987a). The test is also described in ISO/WD
22476-16. Lutenegger & Timian (1987) demonstrated that the test results obtained by dif-
ferent operators were not statistically different.

8.4.1 Multistage Testing

The normal test procedure used to perform the BST is called multistage testing in that shear-
ing is performed repeatedly in the same soil mass, at successively higher normal stresses.
This is similar to laboratory multistage testing. This procedure improves test precision,
saves time, and encourages the dissipation of pore water pressures. This procedure is appli-
cable to most soils if the consolidated strength of the soil close to the shear plates exceeds
that of the adjacent undisturbed soil; i.e., the previously sheared soil consolidates and builds
up a cake of soil that rides with the shear plates during successive shearing. In this way,
successive shear surfaces move outward to engage fresh soil with each higher increment
of normal stress. This procedure is repeated until 5 or 6 pairs of data points are obtained
(normal stress and shear stress), and the shear strength envelope is defned. The result shows
 Borehole Shear Test 295

Figure 8.5 Geometry of standard BST shear plates and progressive shear planes in multistage testing.

an exceptionally linear failure envelope in sands, silts, and soft to medium consistency clays.
Figure 8.5 shows a schematic of the standard BST shear plates and the formation of succes-
sive shear planes.
The use of multistage testing provides for a very rapid testing since the shear head does
not have to be removed and cleaned after each test point. Using a typical consolidation time
of 10 min for each normal stress increment, a complete test yielding a full failure envelope
can be performed in about an hour. Figure 8.6 shows soil adhered to the shear plates after
removing the shear head following multistage testing.
As previously noted, multistage testing is intended for use in most soils wherein the failure
plane is driven progressively outward into the fresh unsheared soil with each increment of
normal stress. In some soils, this doesn’t occur simply because the soil is too strong to allow
standard shear plates to bite into the soil and grip the material suffciently to shear a soil-soil
shearing surface. Handy & Fox (1967) justifed the use of multistage testing by showing a
close agreement between tests in soils in which both multistage and single-stage tests had
been performed. These soils primarily included insensitive softer silty clays, clays, and sand.

Figure 8.6 Soil buildup on shear plates.

296 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Handy (1975) further rationalized the multistage testing by stating “one possibility is that
during or after shearing, the major principal stress causes suffcient compression to ‘seal’
the shear plane and causes it to move outward to a lower stress region. From the typical test
behavior, we infer that, after shear failure, the thin layer of soil grains participating in the
failure is compacted and added to the cake adhering to the pressure plates. If this is correct,
subsequent shearing should occur at the outer surface of the shear cake, in a zone of nor-
mally consolidated but otherwise unaltered soil”.

8.4.2 Single-Stage “Fresh” Testing

Schmertmann (1975) pointed out that the multistage testing procedure may not be appli-
cable to all soils. In sensitive or structured soils, the failure envelope may become tipped
downward at progressively higher values of normal stress as a result of the accumulation of
shear stresses on the same surface. In the single-stage testing, the test is conducted in exactly
the same manner as the initial data point for a multistage test. However, at the end of the
shearing phase, after a peak value of shear stress has been obtained, the normal stress is
released by decreasing the gas regulator on the control console and venting the pneumatic
pressure. The shear plates are retracted and the shear head is then removed from the bore-
hole. Once the shear plates have been cleaned, the shear head is lowered back down into the
borehole to a new adjacent test location (either just above or just below the initial point) to
obtain another test point using a different normal stress.
Several studies have shown that in softer soils, the geometry of the shear plates does not
infuence the test results substantially (e.g., Lutenegger et al. 1978; Demartinecourt & Bauer
1983). In stiff highly overconsolidated clays and some very dense glacial clay tills, the stan-
dard shear plates may not penetrate the soil and the shear teeth will tend to slide over the
soil surface and only scrape deeper with each successive pull until the teeth are flled. As a
result, no soil cake builds up and the test measures some components of sliding friction of
soil on steel or disturbed soil on undisturbed soil. The resulting failure envelope is the result
of the successive deepening of the “bite” brought about by higher normal stresses, and flling
of the teeth with soil. In hard soils and soft rocks, high-pressure shear plates, as shown in
Figure 8.7, should be used.
Lutenegger & Timian (1987) presented the results of single-stage tests conducted in a
marine clay and found that there was no statistical difference between the mean friction
angle and cohesion obtained with this procedure when compared to adjacent multistage
tests in the same material. The linearity of all the tests was also excellent, although the
single-stage tests gave slightly lower regression coeffcients.
The initial normal stress and subsequent increments of normal stress should be chosen
prior to testing so that a suffcient number of data points will be obtained throughout
the test to defne the failure envelope. In other words, if too high of an initial normal
stress increment is chosen, the soil may experience a “bearing capacity” failure from a
rapid punching of the shear plates and the test will be meaningless. This can especially
be a problem in soft normally consolidated clays. On the other hand, if too low of an
initial normal stress increment is chosen, the teeth on the shear plates won’t bite into the
soil and the plates will just drag along walls of the soil, and no soil failure will occur.
Table 8.1 presents the recommended values of the initial normal stress and normal stress
increments for use in different soils.
Table 8.2 gives the suggested consolidation times for various soil conditions. Regardless of
the soil and groundwater conditions, the author recommends that a minimum consolidation
time of 5 min should be used in all cases to “seat” the shear plates even in those situations
where pore water pressures are not expected.
 Borehole Shear Test 297

Figure 8.7 BST high-pressure shear plates for hard soils/soft rocks.

Table 8.1 Recommended values of initial normal stress and normal stress increments
Soil type Initial normal stress, psi (kPa) Normal stress increment, psi (kPa)
Very soft clays 2–4 2–4
(14–28) (14–28)
Soft clays 2–4 3–5
(14–28) (21–34)
Medium stiff clays 3–5 5–10
Loose sand (21–34) (34–69)
Stiff/dense 5–10 10–15
(34–69) (69–103)
Very stiff/hard heavily Overconsolidated clays 15–20 15
Cemented sands (103–138) (103)
Clay shales

Table 8.2 Recommended consolidation times for different soils

Soil type/condition Consolidation time
Moist sands and silts 5 min
Medium stiff to stiff clays compacted fll 5 min
Soft clays of low plasticity 10 min
Soft to very soft high-plasticity clays below the water table 20 min

8.5 BOREHOLE PREPARATION

In order to conduct the BST, it is necessary to place the shear head into an open borehole with
a diameter between 3.0 and 3.125in. (76 and 79mm). The equipment used to prepare the bore-
hole should minimize the amount of disturbance to the wall of the borehole. The test should be
performed as soon as possible after the test cavity is formed. Table 8.3 gives some guidelines for
selecting methods for the borehole preparation in different materials based on previous success.
298 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Table 8.3 Recommended method of borehole preparation for BST

Borehole preparation
Pushed 3 in. 2 7/8 in. 2 7/8 in. 2 7/8 in. 3 in.
3 in. (76 mm) (73 mm) Pilot hole (73 mm) (73 mm) (76 mm)
Soil type (76 mm) Shelby tube Hand auger and trimming Rotary drilling Core drilling Flight auger
Clayey soils
Soft X X X X NA NA
Medium X X X X NA NA
Stiff X X X X NA X
Silty soils
Above GWL X X X NA NA X
Below GWL X NA X X NA NA
Sandy soils
Above GWL NA X NA X NA X
Below GWL NA NA NA X NA NA
Soft or X NA NA X X X
weathered rock

8.6 INTERPRETATION OF TEST RESULTS

Test results from the BST are usually plotted in the feld as the test proceeds, i.e., after
each pair of normal and shear stress data points is obtained. This is usually done while
waiting during the consolidation phase of the next increment of normal stress and allows
the operator to troubleshoot any mechanical malfunctions in the equipment or problems
with the test setup as well as keep track of the test. Adjustments to the test procedures
in terms of consolidation times, normal stress increments, etc. can then be made during
the test.
Provided that the test proceeds in a normal fashion, the data should approximate a linear
relationship. It is recommended that a least-squares linear regression analysis be used to
reduce the data to obtain individual values of φ′ and c′ after frst discarding any obvious
erroneous test points. The use of a linear regression analysis eliminates the subjective data
interpretation by simply ftting a line to the data by eye.
The BST may be used to estimate the postpeak or residual strength envelope by observ-
ing the behavior of the shear stress gage located on the base plate after it reaches a peak
value. With additional movement of the shear plates, the measured shear stress will nor-
mally drop off at each normal stress increment until a steady value is obtained at large
shear deformation. These postpeak values of shear stress may be combined to give a resid-
ual failure envelope.

8.7 RANGE OF SOIL APPLICABILITY

The BST has a wide range of applicability and can be used in any soil formations that will
maintain a nominal 76-mm (3 in.)-diameter borehole. This means that the easiest materials to
test are medium stiff fne-grained soils and moist sands and silts. Table 8.4 gives a summary
of the reported soil materials in which the BST has been successfully used.
 Borehole Shear Test 299

Table 8.4 Reported use of the BST in different soils

Soil type References
Sand, loam, clay, loess Fox et al. (1966)
Handy & Fox (1967)
Loess Lohnes & Handy (1968a)
Lutenegger et al. (1978)
Donchev & Lutenegger (1984)
Lutenegger (1987b)
Glacial till Lutenegger et al. (1978)
Sand (SP-SM), silt (ML), clay (CL) Singh & Bhargava (1979)
Clay, silty clay, silty sand Johns (1980)
Alluvial silt and clay Little et al. (1982)
Clay shale Ruenkrairergsa & Pimsarn (1982)
Yang et al. (2006)
Sensitive marine clay Bauer & Demartinecourt (1985)
Lutenegger & Timian (1987)
Marine clay, lime rock, shell Handy et al. (1985)
Glacial till, shale, compacted clay Handy (1986)
Volcanic soil Millan & Escobar (1987)
Lacustrine clay Lutenegger & Miller (1994)
Very stiff unsaturated clay Miller et al. (1998)
Irigoyen & Coduto (2015)
Very stiff London and Gault Clay Lutenegger & Powell (2008)
Residual soil Lohnes & Handy (1968b)
Lutenegger & Adams (1999)
Chang & Zhu (2004)
Ogunro, et al. (2008)
Expansive clay Kong et al. (2017)
Coal Handy et al. (1976)
Haramy & Demarco (1983)

8.8 FACTORS AFFECTING TEST RESULTS

A number of factors can affect the results obtained with the BST, and as with other tests,
care should be taken to perform the test using the recommended standard procedure to
eliminate these variables. There have been several studies to investigate variables related to
both variations in the equipment, such as shear plate dimensions and shear teeth geometry,
and variations in test procedures, including consolidation time, multistage vs. single-stage
testing, shearing rate, and pore water pressure infuences. Table 8.5 gives a summary of
several important factors that may infuence the test results.

8.9 INTERFACE SHEAR TESTS

A practical use of the BST is in the determination of shearing characteristics between soil at
the borehole wall and a smooth interface like steel. This can be accomplished by substitut-
ing the standard serrated plates with smooth mild steel plates having no shear teeth. This is
done to promote a shear failure at the interface between the smooth plate and the soil rather
than at a soil-soil interface. Measurement of this interface characteristic may be useful in
some soils for designing temporary steel casing using an effective stress analysis.
300 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Table 8.5 Factors affecting BST results

Factor Comments
Consolidation time Longer consolidation time promotes more drainage in saturated clays. No
effect in soils above the water table.Allow more time if results are in question.
Shearing rate Slower shearing rate is better to reduce shear-induced pore water pressures in
saturated clays. In all other soils, the normal recommended shearing rates
have a minor effect on results.
Borehole disturbance Borehole should be prepared with as much care as possible. Severe disturbance
at the borehole wall will be reduced by allowing consolidation. Disturbed soils
will give lower strength envelope than undisturbed soils.
Shear plate geometry Standard shear plates are recommended for most soils except hard clay and
soft rock. High-pressure shear plates may be required in these materials to
prevent plates from sliding and not shearing the soil.
Multistage testing Multistage testing is preferred in most materials except for highly sensitive
clays. Single-stage testing is used with high-pressure shear plates in hard soils
and soft rock.

Handy et al. (1985) reported the results of interface friction tests obtained using smooth
steel plates during a site investigation for a bridge in Florida. In all cases, the friction angle
obtained using the smooth plates was lower than the friction angle obtained from adjacent
tests using the standard shear plates with teeth. For three comparative tests in hard clay,
they found that the ratio of soil-steel adhesion to soil cohesion, c′s/c′, varied from 0.06 to
0.17, averaging 0.11, whereas the comparable soil-steel sliding vs. soil internal friction ratio,
φ′s/φ′, varied from 0.5 to 0.9, averaging 0.66.
The results from the smooth shear plate tests also demonstrate how the BST with regular
serrated shear plates works to measure the shear strength of the soil. A smooth plate cannot
engage the soil but only slides along the interface between the plate and the soil. Apparently,
increases in normal stress do not push a failure surface outward into the soil; otherwise, the
strength envelope would approach that obtained using serrated plates; i.e., repeated shear
still takes place at the interface. This means that in order to actually fail the soil and obtain
a soil-to-soil failure envelope, it is necessary to have shear plates with some forms of protru-
sion or teeth to engage the soil. Figure 8.8 shows the results of regular tests and adjacent
smooth steel interface tests in silty sand.

60

50 Regular Plates
phi' = 34.20
Shear Stress (kPa)

Smooth Plates
40 delta' = 25.10

30

20

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Normal Stress (kPa)

Figure 8.8 Results of regular and smooth steel interface tests in silty sand.
 Borehole Shear Test 301

8.10 COMPARISON WITH LABORATORY TESTS

In the past, comparisons have been made between the BST results and either laboratory
direct shear box test or triaxial compression test. This clearly can present some problems
since even the results of different laboratory tests do not give the same result because of dif-
ferences in stress conditions, stress paths, testing rates etc.
Early experience with the BST gave comparisons between BST results and direct shear box
test or triaxial compression test (e.g., Handy & Fox 1967). Typically, the results obtained
with the BST fell in between envelopes obtained from the laboratory tests. Other com-
parisons between BST and laboratory triaxial and shear box tests (e.g., Wineland 1975;
Singh & Bhargava 1979; Lambrechts & Rixner 1981; Lutenegger & Hallberg 1981) have
shown a close agreement, usually with φ′ within 2°–3°, which is reasonable, considering
differences in test procedures and soil variability.

8.11 EQUIPMENT MODIFICATIONS

Several modifcations have been made to the BST equipment in order to expand the use of the
test for particular applications. Modifcations have included provisions for measuring pore
water pressure at the shear plates (Demartinecourt & Bauer 1983; Lutenegger & Tierney
1986), measuring the shear deformation (Demartinecourt & Bauer 1983; Lutenegger 1983),
measuring the shear head expansion (Johns 1980; Demartinecourt & Bauer 1983), and
measuring the soil creep (Lohnes et al. 1972). Figure 8.9 shows the modifcation to the shear
head for measuring pore water pressure, and Figure 8.10 shows a simple arrangement for
measuring the shear deformation.
Demartinecourt & Bauer (1983) replaced the hand crank of the base plate with a small
variable speed electric motor to provide a constant rate of shear deformation throughout the
test. Ashlock & Lu (2012) described a new generation of BST equipment that consists of
fully automated equipment.

Figure 8.9 Modifcation to the shear head for measuring pore water pressure.
302 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Figure 8.10 Arrangement for measuring shear deformation.

8.12 APPLICATIONS OF BST FOR DESIGN

The BST can be used in geotechnical design situations that require the use of the effective
stress Mohr-Coulomb failure envelope. Limit-equilibrium problems involving input of φ′
and c′ represent the best application of the BST results. Problems in which soil deformation
is not the controlling criteria in design may be approached using BST results provided that
the test data are obtained properly and are representative of the soil involved, etc. Typical
design problems include natural slope stability problems; cut slope stability; designed con-
structed slopes of embankment; foundation loading in which settlement is not an important
factor, such as light pole or power pole structures; transmission tower foundations; and
deep foundation side resistance. Chang & Zhu (2004) made a comparison of BST tests
conducted in fresh boreholes and in boreholes with added water to determine the infuence
of dry and wet drilling on side resistance of bored piles. Results from unsaturated residual
soils in Singapore showed that the shear strength decreased substantially when water was
added. Table 8.6 summarizes a number of reported uses of the BST in geotechnical practice.

8.13 ADVANTAGES AND LIMITATIONS

As with all tests, the BST has a number of potential advantages; however, like all tests, it
also has potential limitations and is not applicable in all soils and situations.

8.13.1 Advantages
The potential advantages of the BST include the following:

1. It is the most rapid and only method available for in situ evaluation of φ′ and c′, and a
complete test usually requires on the order of 60 min. A large number of tests may be
performed in a relatively short period of time;
2. Data from the test are reduced and plotted while the test is being conducted, enabling
an immediate value judgment to be made and retesting if necessary;
3. The test may be used in a wide range of soils;
 Borehole Shear Test 303

Table 8.6 Reported design applications of BST

Application References
Slope stability Handy & Williams (1967)
Lohnes & Handy (1968a)
Tice & Sams (1974)
Little et al. (1982)
Ruenkrairergsa & Pimsarn (1982)
Handy (1986)
Yang et al. (2006)
Farouz et al (2007)
Sakamoto et al. (2018)
Deep foundations Wineland (1975)
Lambrechts & Rixner (1981)
Handy et al. (1985)
Bechai et al. (1986)
Lutenegger & Adams (1999)
Chang & Zhu (2004)
Xiao & Suleiman (2015)
Anchors Lutenegger et al. (1988)
Lutenegger & Miller (1994)
Miller et al. (1998)
Asoudeh & Oh (2014)
Streambank & Riverbank Stability Thorne (1981)
Casagli et al. (1999)
Darby et al. (2000)
Borg et al. (2014)

4. The test is not particularly sensitive to borehole disturbance;

5. The test is easy to perform, and the equipment can be transported by hand to test
remote locations;
6. The equipment requires no external power;
7. Testing takes place in a small zone of soil, which reduces soil variability;
8. The test results require a minimal interpretation.

8.13.2 Limitations
The potential limitations of the BST are as follows:

1. A borehole is required;
2. If gravel content exceeds about 10%, it may be impossible to secure an adequate hole
for testing or the test may give erratic results;
3. Cohesion exceeding about 70 kPa will keep the plate teeth from seating. In this case,
φ′ will generally be too high and c′ too low. Special shear plates may be required;
4. Drainage conditions are inferred from the data and by retesting with different consoli-
dation times. The alternative is to use a pore pressure-measuring device, which can be
expensive;
5. Special testing procedures may be needed in sensitive soils.

8.14 SUMMARY OF BST

The BST is the only in situ test that is available for rapidly obtaining a direct measure-
ment of the Mohr-Coulomb failure envelope of soils and soft rocks. The equipment is
304 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

120
AF-GT Sand 2.1m
100 phi' = 330
c = 0 kPa

Shear Stress (kPa)

80

60

40

20

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Normal Stress (kPa)

120
DOE Clay 2.1 m
100 phi' = 22.40
c = 11.6 kPa
Shear Stress (kPa)

80

60

40

20

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Normal Stress (kPa)

Figure 8.11 Typical BST results in sand and clay.

reliable, the  test is quick and easy to conduct, and the results are usually very repeatable.
Applications of the test results have demonstrated that the data are useful for a number of
common geotechnical design situations. Figure 8.11 presents the results of BSTs obtained by
the author in sand and clay.

REFERENCES

Ashlock, J. and Lu, N., 2012. Interpretation of Borehole Shear Strength Tests of Unsaturated Loess
by Suction Stress Characteristic Curves. GeoCongress 2012, ASCE, pp. 2562–2571.
Asoudeh, A. and Oh, E., 2014. Strength Parameter Selection in Stability Analysis of Residual Soil
Nailed Walls. International Journal of Geomaterials, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 950–954.
Bauer, G.E. and Demartinecourt, J.P., 1985. The Application of the Modifed Borehole Shear Device
to a Sensitive Clay. Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 16, pp. 167–189.
Bechai, M., Law, K.T., Cragg, C.B.H., and Konard, J.M., 1986. In Situ Testing of Marine Clay
for Towerline Foundations. Proceedings of the 39th Canadian Geotechnical Conference,
pp. 115–119.
Borg, J., Dewoolkar, M.M. and Bierman, 2014. Assessment of Streambank Stability. GeoCongress
2014, ASCE.
 Borehole Shear Test 305

Casagli, N., Rinaldi, M., Gargini, A. and Curini, A., Pore Water Pressure and Streambank Stability:
Results from a Monitoring Site on the Sieve River, Italy. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms,
Vol. 24, pp. 1095–1114.
Chang, M.F. and Zhu, H., 2004. Construction Effect on Load Transfer along Bored Piles. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 130, No. 4, pp. 426–437.
Darby, S.E., Gessler, D. and Thorne, C.R., 2000. Computer Program for Stability Analysis of Steep
Cohesive Riverbanks. Earth Surface Processes, Vol. 25, pp. 175–190.
Demartinecourt, J.P. and Bauer, G.E., 1983. The Modifed Borehole Shear Device. Geotechnical
Testing Journal, ASTM, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 24–29.
Donchev, P. and Lutenegger, A.J., 1984. In Situ Shear Strength of North-Bulgaria Loess by Borehole
Shear Test. Proceedings of the 6th Budapest Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, pp. 45–50.
Farouz, E., Karnik, B., and Stanley, R., 2007. Case Study: Optimization and Monitoring of Slope
Design in Highly Weathered Shale. Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Field
Measurements in Geomechanics, pp. 1–12.
Fox, N.S., Lohnes, R.A., and Handy, R.L., 1966. Depth Studies of Wisconsin Loess in Southwestern
Iowa: IV, Shear Strength. Proceedings of the Iowa Academy of Sciences, Vol. 73, pp. 198–204.
Handy, R.L., 1975. Discussion: Measurement of In-situ Shear Strength. Proceedings of the Conference
on In-Situ Measurement of Soil Properties, ASCE, Vol. 2, pp. 143–149.
Handy, R.L., 1986. Borehole Shear Test and Slope Stability. Use of In Situ Tests in Geotechnical
Engineering, ASCE, pp. 161–175.
Handy, R.L. and Fox, N.S., 1967. A Soil Borehole Direct Shear Test Device. Highway Research
News, No. 27, pp. 42–51.
Handy, R.L. and Williams, W.W., 1967. Chemical Stabilization of an Active Landslide. Civil
Engineering, Vol. 37, No. 8, pp. 62–65.
Handy, R.L., Pitt, J.M., Engle, L.E., and Klochow, D.E., 1976. Rock Borehole Shear Test. Proceedings
of the 17th Symposium on Rock Mechanics, pp. 4B6-1 to B6–11.
Handy, R.L., Schmertmann, J.H., and Lutenegger, A.J., 1985. Borehole Shear Tests in a Shallow
Marine Environment. ASTM Special Technical Publication 883, pp. 140–153.
Haramy, K.Y. and Demarco, M.J., 1983. Use of the Borehole Shear Tester in Pillar Design. Proceedings
of the 20th U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics, pp. 639–644.
Irigoyen, A. and Coduto, D., 2015. Shear Strength of Unsaturated Soils Using the Borehole Shear
Test. Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical
Engineering, pp. 2933–2938.
Johns, S.B.P., 1980. In-Situ Measurement of Soil Properties, Final Rept. No. FHWA-CA-TL-80-13.
Kong, L., Li, J., Guo, A., and Zhou, Z., 2017. Infuence of Loading Mode and Flooding on In Situ
Strength of Expansive Soils by Borehole Shear Tests. Proceedings of the 19th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, pp. 1197–1200.
Lambrechts, J.R. and Rixner, J.J., 1981. Comparison of Shear Strength Values Derived from
Laboratory Triaxial, Borehole Shear and Cone Penetration Tests, ASTM Special Technical
Publication 740, pp. 551–565.
Little, W.C., Thorne, C.R., and Murphy, J.B., 1982. Mass Bank Failure Analysis of Selected Basin
Streams. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers, Vol. 25, No. 5,
pp. 1321–1328.
Lohnes, R.A. and Handy, R.L., 1968a. Slope Angles in Friable Loess. Journal of Geology, Vol. 76,
pp. 247–258.
Lohnes, R.A. and Handy, R.L., 1968b. Shear Strength of Some Hawaiian Latosols. Proceedings of
the 6th Annual Engineering Geology and Soils Engineering Symposium, pp. 64–79.
Lohnes, R.A., Millan, A., Demirel, T., and Handy, R.L., 1972. Tests for Soil Creep. Highway
Research Record No. 405, pp. 24–33.
Lutenegger, A.J., 1983. Discussion of The Modifed Borehole Shear Device. Geotechnical Testing
Journal, ASTM, Vol. 6, No. 3, p. 161.
Lutenegger, A.J., 1987a. Suggested Method for Performing the Borehole Shear Test. Geotechnical
Testing Journal, ASTM, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 19–25.
306 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Lutenegger, A.J., 1987b. In Situ Shear Strength of Friable Loess, CATENA Supplement No. 9,
pp. 27–34.
Lutenegger, A.J. and Adams, M.T., 1999. Tension Tests on Bored Piles in Residual Soil. Deep
Foundations in Residual Soils, ASCE, pp. 43–53.
Lutenegger, A.J. and Hallberg, G.R., 1981. Borehole Shear Test in Geotechnical Investigations.
ASTM Special Technical Publication 740, pp. 566–578.
Lutenegger, A.J. and Miller, G.A., 1994. Uplift Capacity of Small Diameter Drilled Shafts in Stiff
Clay. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 120, No. 8, pp. 1362–1380.
Lutenegger, A.J. and Powell, J.J.M., 2008. Borehole Shear Tests in Stiff London and Gault Clay.
Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Site Characterization, pp. 714–723.
Lutenegger, A.J. and Tierney, K.F., 1986. Pore Pressure Effects in Borehole Shear Testing. Use of In
Situ Tests in Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, pp. 752–764.
Lutenegger, A.J. and Timian, D.A., 1987. Reproducibility of Borehole Shear Test Results in Marine
Clay. Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM, Vol. 113, No. 1, pp. 13–18.
Lutenegger, A.J., Remmes, B.D., and Handy, R.L., 1978. Borehole Shear Test for Stiff Soils. Journal
of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 104, No. GT11, pp. 1403–1407.
Lutenegger, A.J., Smith, B.L., and Kabir, M., 1988. Use of In Situ Tests to Predict Uplift Performance
of Multihelix Anchors. Special Topics in Foundations, ASCE, pp. 93–109.
Millan, A.A. and Escobar, L.E., 1987. Use of the B.S.T. in Volcanic Soils. Proceedings of the 8th Pan
American Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, pp. 101–113.
Miller, G.A., Azad, S., and Hassell, C.E., 1998. Iowa Borehole Shear Testing in Unsaturated Soils.
Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Site Characterization, Vol. 2, pp. 1321–1326.
Ogunro, V., Anderson, B., Starnes, J., and Burrage, R., 2008. Characterization and Geotechnical
Properties of Piedmont Residual Soils. GeoCongress 2008, ASCE, pp. 44–51.
Ruenkrairergsa, T. and Pimsarn, T., 1982. Deep Hole Lime Stabilization for Unstable Clay Shale
Embankment. Proceedings of the 7th Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conference, pp. 631–645.
Sakamoto, M.Y., Guesser, L.H., Contessi, R.J., Higashi, R.A., Muller, V.S. and Sbrolglia, R.M.,
2018. Use of the Borehole Shear Test Method for Geotechnical Mapping of Landslide Risk
Areas. Landslides and Engineered Slopes: Experience, Theory and Practice. Proceedings of the
International Symposium on Landslides, Naples, Italy, 9 pp.
Schmertmann, J.H., 1975. Measurement of In Situ Shear Strength. Proceedings of the Conference on
In Situ Measurement of Soil Properties, ASCE, Vol. 2, pp. 57–138.
Singh, A. and Bhargava, S.N., 1979. Shear Test in a Bore Hole. Proceedings of the International
Symposium on In Situ Testing of Soil and Rocks and Performance of Structures, Roorkee,
pp. 417–421.
Thorne, C.R., 1981. Field Measurements of Rates of Bank Erosion and Bank Material Strength.
Erosion and Sediment Transport Measurement, pp. 503–512.
Tice, J.A. and Sams, C.E., 1974. Experiences with Landslide Instrumentation in the Southeast.
Transportation Research Record, No. 482, pp. 18–29.
Wineland, J.D., 1975. Borehole Shear Device. Proceedings of the Conference on In Situ Measurement
of Soil Properties, ASCE, Vol. I, pp. 511–522.
Xiao, S. and Suleiman, M., 2015. Investigation of Thermo-Mechanical Load Transfer (t-z curves)
Behavior of Soil-Energy Pile Interface Using Modifed Borehole Shear Tests. Proceedings
IFCEEE 2015, pp. 1658–1667.
Yang, H., White, D.J., and Schaefer, V., 2006. In-Situ Borehole Shear Test and Rock Borehole Shear
Test for Slope Investigations. Site and Geomaterial Characterization, ASCE, pp. 293–298.
Chapter 9

Plate Load Test (PLT) and Screw

Plate Load Test (SPLT)

9.1 INTRODUCTION

Plate Load Tests (PLTs) are one of the simplest of all in situ tests to perform and to
interpret, and yet they are perhaps one of the most underutilized tests by the profession.
Historically, a rigid circular plate has been used near the surface to apply a vertical load
to the soil, as shown in Figure 9.1. Prior to the development of “modern” techniques for
investigating soils and determining soil properties, PLTs were used to make a direct assess-
ment of the load-bearing characteristics of soils for shallow foundations. Reports of load
tests are available beginning at the turn of the century and continuing up to the present day
(e.g., ENR 1922, 1932).

Figure 9.1 Concept of plate load test (PLT).

307
308 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

PLTs are considered both a specifc property measurement test and a prototype test in
which the load vs. deformation performance of a rigid plate is determined for use in the
design of shallow foundations or end bearing of deep foundations. Screw plate load tests
(SPLTs) have generally been used for specifc property measurement because of their smaller
size.
One advantage of PLTs is the ability to evaluate the mass soil behavior since a large vol-
ume of soil is involved in the plate response. Although PLTs may be used in virtually any
soil type, the test is particularly useful for evaluating the behavior of structurally dependent
soils and soils that may not allow undisturbed sampling or where scale effects may signif-
cantly infuence the interpretation of strength and stiffness.

9.2 PLATE LOAD TEST

The PLT is highly versatile; the plates may be either round or square; they may vary in
dimension to suit the soil and the project; they may be constructed of steel or concrete. Tests
may be conducted at the ground surface or below grade. Typical sizes of plates for most
routine testing range from 0.15 m (6 in.) to 0.91 m (36 in.). The equipment and procedure
for conducting the PLT is described by ASTM Method D1194 Standard Test Method for
Bearing Capacity of Soil for Static Load and Spread Footings. Table 9.1 gives a summary of
some reported uses of PLTs in different soil materials.

9.2.1 Equipment
The equipment used to conduct a PLT is simple, and consists of a rigid loading plate, a reac-
tion system, a loading jack (usually hydraulic), a load cell, and a reference beam and settle-
ment measuring system. Steel plates may be used provided that they are suffciently stiff to
represent a rigid loading. ASTM D1194 requires that steel plates must be at least 25.4 mm
thick. Rigid loading may be accomplished by using a series of stacked plates or by using
plates with stiffening ribs, as shown in Figure 9.2.
Reaction can be provided by a number of different systems, as shown in Figure 9.3. In
most cases, the reaction is provided by dead load (Figure 9.3a); anchor piles or grouted
anchors (Figure 9.3b); and helical anchors (Figure 9.3c). In the case of large plate tests, in
which a prototype-scale or full-scale concrete footing is used, the reaction may be provided
by a central internal anchor, as shown in Figure 9.3d.
The applied load is measured using an independent calibrated load cell. The pressure
being applied to the hydraulic jack may also be monitored using a pressure gauge; however,
this should be considered a backup measurement of load and not the primary measure-
ment of load. Settlement of the plate is usually measured by analog or digital dial gauges
or by LVDTs. A reference beam or some other form of independent reference is needed to
measure the plate deformation during the test. The use of electronic load and settlement
equipment also allows for an automated data acquisition; however, the test can be kept
very simple.

9.2.2 Test Procedures

The procedure used to conduct the PLTs is relatively simple; prepare the soil surface so that
the plate rests uniformly on the soil; arrange a loading system to provide a suffcient reac-
tion; and provide a means for measuring plate deformation. Normally, the test is conducted
 Plate Load and Screw Plate Tests 309

Table 9.1 Summary of some reported uses of plate load tests

in different materials
Soil type References
Residual soils Chin (1983)
Filho & Celso (1983)
Ferreir & Teixeira (1989)
Consoli et al. (1998)
Gravels Wrench (1984)
Wrench & Nowatzki (1986)
Sand Ismael (1987)
Ismael (1996)
Kesharwani et al. (2015)
Dense glacial till Klohn (1965)
Soderman et al. (1968)
Radhakrishna & Klym (1974)
McKinlay et al. (1974)
Fisher (1983)
Soft clay Housel (1929)
Bergado & Chang (1986)
Stiff clay Burland et al. (1966)
Ertel (1967)
Lo et al. (1969)
Marsland 1971)
Marsland (1977)
Bauer et al. (1973)
Marsland & Randolph (1977)
Tand et al. (1986)
Lefebvre et al. (1987)
Bauer & Tanaka (1988)
Marsland & Powell (1991)
Peat Landva (1986)
Nichols et al. (1989)
Waste fll Eliassen (1942)
Landva & Clark (1990)
Watts & Charles (1990)
Van Impe (1998)
Bedrock Ward et al. (1968)
Seychuk (1970)
Rozsypal (1983)
Marsland & Butcher (1983)
Lo & Cooke (1989)

in a load-controlled manner with loads being applied incrementally and the deformation
monitored over time under each load increment. ASTM D1194 suggests that equal load
increments of no more than 95 kPa (1.0 tsf) should be used or alternatively, loads of not
more than 10% of the estimated ultimate bearing capacity may be used. The load is to be
maintained for a minimum of 15 min.
ASTM recommends that the test is typically continued until “a peak load is reached or
until the ratio of load increment to settlement increment reaches a minimum, steady magni-
tude”. Unless a distinct, well-defned failure occurs, the test should be conducted to a point
where a minimum settlement of 10% of the plate diameter or width has occurred.
310 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Figure 9.2 Typical geometry of steel plates for PLT.

Figure 9.3 Different arrangements for load reaction for PLT.

An alternative deformation-controlled loading procedure is also allowed by ASTM as fol-

lows: apply the load increments corresponding to approximately 0.5% of the plate diameter;
after applying each settlement increment, measure the load at some fxed time intervals, e.g.,
30 s, 1, 2, 4, 8, 15 min, until the variation of the load stops or until the rate of the variation
of the load on a load vs. log-time scale becomes linear.
 Plate Load and Screw Plate Tests 311

9.2.2.1 Tests on the Ground Surface

Tests performed on the ground surface are the easiest to arrange since all of the equipment is
readily accessible. Most surface tests are used to evaluate the deformation characteristics of
flls and for the support of structural slabs. In some cases, the dead weight reaction may be
supplied by heavy equipment, such as a fully loaded dump truck, provided that the vehicle
does not interfere with the plate and infuence results.

9.2.2.2 Tests in an Excavation/Test Pit

Occasionally, PLTs may be performed in excavations, as shown in Figure 9.4b. ASTM D
1194 states that “the distance between test locations shall not be less than fve times the
diameter of the largest plate used in the tests”. In general, the test equipment and procedure
is the same as used for surface tests. The primary purpose of performing tests in an excava-
tion is to be able to evaluate the soil behavior in specifc strata or at specifc elevations that
may correspond to the anticipated foundation locations.

9.2.2.3 Tests in Lined Borings

A special type of PLT may be performed in lined borings, and used to determine soil
properties at various depths, as shown in Figure 9.4c. Marsland (1975) described the deep
large-diameter plate tests performed using special test equipment, shown in Figure 9.5.
A  large-diameter steel casing would typically be used as the liner. Using this equipment,
tests may be performed at any depth as the drilling proceeds to evaluate specifc soil behav-
ior in different strata.

Figure 9.4 PLTs performed (a) on ground surface; (b) in excavations, or (c) in lined borings.
312 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Figure 9.5 Equipment for PLTs in deep boreholes. (After Marsland 1971.)

9.2.2.4 Horizontal Plate Load Tests

In some cases, it may be desirable to conduct PLTs in the horizontal direction, either in
an open trench, along the walls of a bored hole, or in tunnels to obtain a measure of soil
deformation characteristics in the horizontal direction, as shown in Figure 9.6. In this case,
the test is performed by jacking against opposite sides of the excavation walls. The use of
lateral PLTs to evaluate lateral soil stiffness has been reported by a number of investigators

Figure 9.6 Typical arrangement for performing horizontal PLTs.

 Plate Load and Screw Plate Tests 313

(e.g., Slack & Walker 1970; Sherif & Strazer 1973; Radhakrishna & Klym 1974; Reddy
et al. 1979; Wrench & Nowatzki 1986).

9.3 SCREW PLATE TESTS

One potential problem with traditional plate tests is that in some soils, the depth of inves-
tigation may be limited, simply because an excavation may be diffcult. A variation of the
PLT, the SPLT, has been used to overcome this problem and evaluate engineering properties
in a wide range of soils. The SPLT allows loading to be performed without an excavation or
a borehole, although sometimes the test is performed below an open borehole. In this test,
the plate is constructed of a single helical fight with a shallow pitch that is screwed into the
ground. According to Strout & Senneset (1998), the SPLT originated in Norway in 1953
where it is known as the “feld compressometer test”.
Normally, the SPLT is controlled at the ground surface, and the load and displacement
are measured just as in the conventional PLT. Schmertmann (1970b) presented a suggested
method for the SPLT; however, it appears that this test was never adopted by ASTM as a
standard. Table 9.2 gives a summary of different soils in which SPLTs have been reported.
SPLTs may be particularly suited to soils where undisturbed sampling is diffcult. Tests in
clays may require long testing times to obtain a drained behavior because of the slow rate
of consolidation. Rapid loading tests may be performed in clays for evaluating undrained
shear strength.

9.3.1 Equipment
Figure 9.7 shows a typical arrangement of the SPLT. The equipment usually consists of some
types of surface reaction frame and a helical screw plate of one revolution of helix attached
to a load rod. Usually, either a hydraulic jack or a mechanical screw jack is used to apply
the load. The load is measured with a load cell or a proving ring and deformation is mea-
sured using an independent reference beam. The test setup is similar in many respects to the
conventional PLT.

Table 9.2 Summary of some reported uses of screw plate tests

Soil type References
Very soft sensitive clay Janbu & Senneset 1973
Schwab & Broms (1977) Selvadurai et al. (1980)
Selvadurai & Nicholas (1981)
Soft clay Bergado et al. (1986)
Bergado & Huan (1987)
Bergado et al. (1990)
Stiff clay Kay & Mitchell (1980)
Kay & Avalle (1982)
Kay & Parry (1982)
Powell & Quarterman (1986)
Bauer & Tanaka (1988)
Noor et al. (2019)
Sand Kummeneje & Eide (1961)
Webb (1969)
Schmertmann (1970a)
Janbu & Senneset (1973)
Dahlberg (1974)
314 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Figure 9.7 Schematic of typical screw plate load test.

Different diameter plates with different thickness and pitch have been used, generally
depending on the anticipated stiffness of the material being tested. The thickness of the plate
must be suffcient to provide for a rigid loading. Plate diameters range from 60 mm (2.36 in.)
to 350 mm (13.75 in.), although screw plates on the order of 150 mm (6 in.) appear to be the
most common. Table 9.3 summarizes some reported sizes of different screw plates used in
different soils.
Kay & Avalle (1982) and Bergado et al. (1986) described test equipment that included a
screw mechanism with the same pitch as the helical plate, as shown in Figure 9.8. Advance
of the plate using this “pitch-matched” arrangement helps reduce disturbance of the soil.
The diameter of the plate must be large enough so that the test results accurately deter-
mine the soil behavior but small enough to be applicable over a wide range of soil conditions
and still be installed with reasonable ease. Experience suggests that a plate with a projected
horizontal area on the order of 0.093 m 2 (1 ft2) (diameter = 172 mm (0.56 ft)) will meet this
criteria and provide a suffcient rigidity.

9.3.2 Test Procedures

SPLTs are usually conducted as incremental loading tests, where a constant load is applied
and the deformation is recorded at various time intervals. The test can include one or more
unload-reload cycles in order to more accurately estimate elastic modulus. The test may also
be performed as a continuous loading test. Schmertmann (1970b) recommended that to
avoid disturbance, the advance of the screw plate should be controlled such that the down-
ward movement of the plate for each complete revolution should be equal to the pitch. It was
also recommended that a vertical testing interval of at least three plate diameters be used.
 Plate Load and Screw Plate Tests 315

Table 9.3 Different-sized screw plates used

Soil Plate diameter (mm) Plate thickness (mm) Pitch References
Soft clay 160 & 300 N/A N/A Schwab & Broms (1977)
150 & 180 N/A Berg & Olsson (1978)
350 N/A Selvadurai et al. (1980)
295 N/A Selvadurai & Nichols
(1981)
254 6 0.12D Bergado et al. (1986)
Bergado & Huan (1987)
Bergado et al. (1990)
150 & 300 N/A N/A Mital & Bauer (1989)
Stiff clay 88 N/A N/A Kay & Mitchell (1980)
100 N/A 0.2D Kay & Parry (1982)
Kay & Avalle (1982)
100 N/A 0.2D Powell & Quarterman
(1986)
100 N/A 0.2D Epps (1986)
100 0.2D Marsland & Powell (1991)
200 N/A N/A Noor et al. (2019)
Sand 252 N/A 0.02D Kummeneje & Eide (1961)
152, 229 & 381 N/A N/A Webb (1969)
172 4.3 0.2D Schmertmann (1970a)
160 N/A 0.28D Janbu & Senesset (1973)
Clay & sand 75 1 0.24D Lee et al. (2009)
Kim et al. (2014)

9.4 PRESENTATION OF TEST RESULTS

The results of PLTs and SPLTs are typically presented as settlement vs. applied plate stress.
Figure 9.9 shows the results of four PLTs performed on a compacted sand using plates of
different diameter. It can be seen from these results that the response of the plates is differ-
ent and that both the stiffness and the ultimate bearing capacity appear to be dependent on
the size of the plate. The absolute settlement at a given level of applied stress is different for
each plate.
It may also be useful to present results in a normalized form where the plate settlement is
normalized by the plate diameter, also shown in Figure 9.10. This approach allows a com-
parison of tests made using plates of different diameter.

9.5 INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS

As previously indicated, the results of PLTs may be used as a prototype-scale shallow foun-
dation or they may be used to provide estimates of specifc soil properties, such as stiffness
and strength. The use of PLTs as prototype foundation tests will be discussed in Section 9.6.
In this section, the evaluation of specifc properties will be described.
316 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Figure 9.8 Screw mechanism for advancing screw plate. (From Kay & Avalle 1982.)

0.00

0.25
Plate Displacement (in.)

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

2.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Plate Stress (psi)

Figure 9.9 Typical PLT in compacted sand.

 Plate Load and Screw Plate Tests 317

Normalized Displacement (s/B) %

2

10

12

14
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Plate Stress (psi)

Figure 9.10 Normalized results from PLT.

9.5.1 Subgrade Reaction Modulus

The modulus of subgrade reaction, ks, may be determined directly from the results of PLTs.
This value may be useful for the design of mat foundations and pavements, and has been
extensively used by structural engineers. The modulus of subgrade reaction is defned as the
slope of the stress vs. settlement curve as:

ks = q ° (9.1)

where

q = applied plate stress

δ = plate settlement

Units of ks are in force/length3.

Subgrade Reaction Modulus is not really a constant but depends on the defnition. Several
methods have been used for calculating ks based on the results of PLTs. It appears that there
is no standard procedure. For example, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has defned the
value of ks at a fxed applied plate stress of 68.9 kPa (10 psi), while the Portland Cement
Association has defned the value of ks at a fxed plate defection of 1.27 mm (0.05 in.).
Neither of these approaches truly gives the elastic response of the plate for all soil condi-
tions, and therefore, neither may be desirable.
In some cases, the value of the subgrade reaction modulus has been defned as a secant
slope at plate stresses corresponding to ½ to 1/3 the ultimate stress, but this obviously
requires that the ultimate stress be evaluated and therefore may be sensitive to the defnition
of ultimate bearing stress. Alternatively, the initial straight-line portion of the load curve
may be used. However, this requires a number of small load increments at the beginning
of the test. In any case, the defnition of ks appears at this time to be more or less arbitrary.
Using the results from the 0.30-m (1 ft)-diameter plate shown in Figure 9.9, the calculated
values of ks are 142 lbs/in.3 for PCA and 111 lbs/in.3 for USACE.
318 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

There are two problems with the application of Equation 9.1: (1) the load-displacement
curve of the most PLTs is nonlinear, and therefore, the value of ks will be dependent on the
settlement or stress level where it is defned; (2) test results show that the value of ks, as
defned by Equation 9.1, is dependent on the absolute size of the plate and that ks decreases
as the plate width increases.
To account for the decrease in subgrade reaction modulus with increasing plate size,
Terzaghi (1955) suggested that the subgrade reaction modulus of full-scale foundations with
width B, kB , could be obtained from the results of a PLT conducted on a plate with a width
of 0.3 m (1ft). This means that a value of ks for any size foundation could be estimated on
the basis of test results obtained with a 0.3-m (1 ft)-wide plate. For foundations on sandy
soils, it was suggested that:

kB = k0.3 ˙ˆ( B + 0.3) 2Bˇ˘

2
(9.2)

where

k0.3 = modulus of subgrade reaction determined using a 0.3-m (1 ft) plate

B = footing width (m)

For foundations on clays, Terzaghi (1955) suggested:

kB = k0.3 (0.3 B ) (9.3)

A comparison of some actual test data with the recommendation of Terzaghi (1955) for a
series of PLTs conducted by the author on compacted sand using the UASCE defnition for
ks is shown in Figure 9.11. Figure 9.12 shows a comparison of the normalized values of ks for
these tests compared to Terzaghi’s suggestion (Equation 9.2). Except for the smallest plate,
the ft appears reasonable.
According to elastic theory and the Boussinesq equation, the settlement of a plate may be
related to the average applied stress as:

( )
˛ = ˇ˘qB 1 − ˆ2  E S (9.4)

600

500

400
ks (lbs./in.3)

300

200

100

0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Plate Diameter (ft.)

Figure 9.11 Values of k s from PLTs conducted on compacted sand using different-sized plates.
 Plate Load and Screw Plate Tests 319

Measured
4 Terzaghi (Eq. 9.2)

ks/ks1
2

0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Plate Diameter (ft.)

Figure 9.12 Normalized subgrade reaction modulus measured and predicted by Terzaghi (1955).

Since the coeffcient of the subgrade reaction is defned from Equation 9.1 as:

ks = q ° (9.5)

the subgrade reaction may be written in terms of the elastic modulus as:

(
ks = E ˘ˇ˝B 1 − ˆ2  ) (9.6)

Equation 9.6 shows that the coeffcient of the subgrade reaction depends on both the elastic
properties of the soil and the size of the plate.
The approximation of Terzaghi (1955) assumes a constant value of elastic modulus,
which is a simplifcation to the condition where the elastic modulus varies with depth. This
nonhomogeneity has been addressed by a number of studies, including those of Carrier &
Christian (1973), Rowe (1982), and Horvath (1983).

9.5.2 Elastic Modulus

9.5.2.1 Plate Load Test
The settlement of a rigid circular or square plate resting on the surface of an isotropic elastic
material may be reasonably obtained from:

( )
˛ = ˇ˘qB 1 − ˆ2  E S (9.4)

where
E S = modulus of elasticity
δ = settlement
q = applied plate stress = load/area
B = diameter of plate
υ = Poisson’s ratio
320 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

or

( )
E S = ˆˇ( qB ) 1 − ˙2 ˘  (9.7)

For tests performed rapidly in saturated clays, the value of υ = 0.5 and Equation 9.7 gives:

E S = 0.75 ( qB ) ˝ (9.8)

Typically, the results of PLTs and footing load tests show that at bearing stresses up to about
one-third of the ultimate capacity, the load-displacement behavior is approximately lin-
ear. Therefore, the elastic modulus should be obtained within this region of applied stress.
Additionally, it may be advantageous to perform at least one unload-reload cycle in this
region in order to more accurately obtain the reload modulus.
In sands, the value of Poisson’s ratio may typically vary from about 0.1 to 0.33. For a
value of υ = 0.3 and for surface tests, Equation 9.8 gives:

E S = 0.91( qB ) ˝ (9.9)

Equations 9.7–9.9 are applicable to PLTs performed on the surface. If the plate is embedded
below the surface, then the surface equations must be modifed by a depth reduction factor,
µ0. For a rigid plate, Equation 9.9 becomes:

( (
E = µ0 qB 1 − ˆ2 )) ES (9.10)

where
µ0 = depth reduction factor

Different values of µ0 have been suggested by Burland (1970), Pells & Turner (1979), Donald
et al. (1980), and Pells (1983). For surface tests, µ0 = 1.0. For PLTs performed at depths greater
than about four times the plate diameter, the value of µ0 may be taken as 0.87 (Burland 1970).
The values of µ0 as shown in Figure 9.13 are for PLTs performed in excavations that are the
same size as the plate. If the excavation is larger than the plate, the reduction is less. Pells
(1983) has suggested one solution for such a reduction as shown in Figure 9.14.

9.5.2.2 Screw Plate Test

Selvadurai et al. (1980) summarized a variety of numerical results derived from various
theoretical models of the SPLT. In clays, the test is usually performed rapidly enough that
full drainage does not occur. In this case, the in situ undrained elastic modulus, Eu, may be
obtained from:

E u = Kqr ° (9.11)

where
q = applied plate stress
r = radius of the screw plate
δ = plate settlement
K = undrained modulus factor
 Plate Load and Screw Plate Tests 321

Figure 9.13 Modulus reduction factor for embedded plate having the same diameter as the shaft. (After
Pells 1983.)

Figure 9.14 Modulus reduction factor for the embedded plate having larger diameter as the shaft. (After
Pells 1983.)

Theoretical values of K range from 0.525 to 0.750 (Bergado & Huan 1987); however, a
more realistic range, which is more applicable to the conditions of the SPLT, is K = 0.60 to
0.75.
Selvadurai & Nicholas (1979) recommended that the undrained elastic modulus from the
SPLTs be defned as a secant modulus and taken at the point where a secant slope passes
322 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

through a point on the bearing stress vs. settlement curve corresponding to one-half of the
ultimate bearing stress. Using a value of K = 0.66 gives:

E u = 0.66qr ° = 0.33qB ° (9.12)

For the drained loading of clays, a drained value of Poisson’s ratio = 0.20 may be more
reasonable, which gives an expression for the drained elastic modulus as:

E u = 0.42qB S100 (9.13)

The value of S100 is the settlement taken at the end of the test corresponding to 100%
consolidation.

9.5.3 Shear Modulus

Marsland & Powell (1990, 1991) suggested that the shear modulus be calculated from the
PLTs as:

G = 0.85 ( ˝q ˝˙ )( ˆ 8) ( B )(1 – ˇ ) (9.14)

where
G = secant shear modulus
Δδ = change in displacement for a given change in stress, Δq
B = plate diameter
υ = Poisson’s ratio

Since the results of PLTs are nonlinear, the modulus decreases with increasing applied stress.
Therefore, it is necessary to defne the stress range over which the moduli are determined.

9.5.4 Undrained Shear Strength of Clays

The interpretation of PLT and SPLT results for estimating the undrained shear strength of
clays requires the interpretation of the load vs. settlement curve to give the ultimate bearing
stress, qult. In the absence of an obvious plunging failure condition, several methods have
been suggested to evaluate the ultimate bearing stress from PLTs.
One method of interpreting the ultimate stress is to take the bearing pressure at some
fxed relative plate displacement as the ultimate bearing pressure. For example, Skempton
(1951) showed that for remolded clay, the ultimate bearing capacity of shallow founda-
tions in clays is achieved at a displacement on the order of 3%–5% of the plate diameter.
Powell & Quaterman (1986) used a bearing stress producing a settlement of 15% of
the plate diameter for SPLTs. Most footing tests that are taken to large displacements
indicate that the bearing capacity may be conveniently defned as the bearing stress pro-
ducing a settlement of 10% of the footing width. The author suggests that this be applied
to PLTs as well. Results from a 0.3-m (1 ft)-diameter PLT conducted in a stiff clay are
shown in Figure 9.15. The 10% criterion indicates an ultimate load of about 19,750 lbs
(qult = 25,950 lbs/ft 2).
An alternative approach is to use a model that reasonably describes the pressure-
settlement results and predicts an ultimate bearing pressure. This is a form of curve ftting,
most commonly done using a transformed hyperbolic model. If the plate settlement/plate
 Plate Load and Screw Plate Tests 323

0.00
0.25 1 ft. Dia. Plate @ 4 ft.
0.50

Displacement (in.)
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
2.25
2.50
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000
Plate Load (lbs.)

Figure 9.15 Results of PLTs in stiff clay.

stress is plotted as a function of settlement, the inverse slope of the linear portion of the
curve gives the ultimate bearing stress. This model has previously been used to describe
the load-displacement behavior of PLTs and footing tests (e.g., Chin 1983; Wrench &
Nowatzki 1986; Wiseman & Zeitlan 1994; Thomas 1994). Figure 9.16 shows the PLT data
from Figure 9.15 using this transformed model, indicating an ultimate load of 41,800 lbs.
(qult = 52,900 lbs/ft2).
Kay & Parry (1982) used the hyperbolic model to extrapolating the load-displacement
curve to obtain the ultimate plate capacity without actually plotting the data. By measuring
the plate displacement at two points on the stress-displacement curve, they estimated the
ultimate plate capacity as:

qult = 2.054 q2 – 1.54 q1.5 (9.15)

qult = ultimate stress

q1.5 = plate stress at a displacement of 1.5% of the plate diameter
q2 = plate stress at a displacement of 2% of the plate diameter

0.00010
1 ft. Dia. Plate @ 4 ft.
Displacement/Plate Stress

0.00008

0.00006

0.00004

0.00002

0.00000
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50
Displacment (in.)

Figure 9.16 Transformed axes for hyperbolic estimation of ultimate plate bearing stress.
324 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Using the interpreted ultimate bearing stress, the undrained shear strength may be estimated
from a traditional bearing capacity equation, e.g., Skempton (1951). For PLTs performed on
the surface:

su = ( qult ) NC (9.16)

where
su = undrained shear strength
qult = interpreted ultimate bearing stress
NC = shallow bearing capacity factor

The bearing capacity factor, NC , for a surface footing is approximately 6.0 for a square or
round plate.
For embedded plate tests or SPLTs beyond a relative embedment of about fve times the
plate width (diameter), the undrained shear strength is obtained from:

su = ( qult − ˙ v ) NC (9.17)

where
su = undrained shear strength
qult = interpreted ultimate bearing stress
σv = total overburden stress at the depth of the test
NC = deep bearing capacity factor

Equation 9.16 is also sometimes given as Equation 9.17 for SPLTs.

The bearing capacity factor for deep plate tests has traditionally been taken as NC = 9,
from the work of Skempton (1951); however, more rigorous analyses suggest that NC varies
from about 5.69 to 11.35 (e.g., Selvadurai et al. 1980; Bergado & Huan 1987). Several
studies have shown that the undrained shear strength obtained from the SPLT or PLT is
compared well with results from laboratory or other in situ tests.

9.5.5 Coefficient of Consolidation

Janbu & Senneset (1973) suggested that the results of SPLTs could be used to estimate
the in situ coeffcient of consolidation by using the time-settlement measurements. It was
suggested that since the drainage is predominantly radial, the results provide an estimate
of the horizontal coeffcient of consolidation, ch. In this procedure, the settlement is plot-
ted vs. the square root of time for each load increment, as shown in Figure 9.17; a straight
line is ftted to the initial portion of the curve and is projected back to the axis to give the
corrected theoretical zero point. From this point, a second straight-line offset from the frst
line and having a slope 1.3:1 is constructed. This line intersects the curve at a point that
approximately represents 90% primary consolidation, with the time corresponding to t90.
The value of ch is obtained from:

(
c h = T90 R 2 ) (
t 90 = 0.335 R 2 t 90 ) (9.18)

where
ch = coeffcient of radial consolidation
T90 = theoretical time factor for 90% consolidation
 Plate Load and Screw Plate Tests 325

Figure 9.17 Graphical estimation of coeffcient of consolidation from screw plate.

R = plate radius
t90 = interpreted time for 90% consolidation

Kay & Avalle (1982) observed that in many cases, the test data show a more S-shaped
curve. They felt that the radial drainage model was not appropriate and suggested that
interpretations of the coeffcient of consolidation be made using three-dimensional isotropic
consolidation. The suggested construction procedure presented by Kay & Avalle (1982)
using the settlement vs. square root of time plot is as follows:

1. Ignore the initial data points and extrapolate the reverse curve portion of the plot to
zero on the time axis. This represents the point of zero percent drained settlement, t0.
2. Draw a straight line from t0 tangent to the settlement vs. square root of time plot.
3. Construct a line from t0 with a slope of 1.28:1 fatter to the frst line. This line intersects
the curve at a point representing 70% consolidation, t70, and gives t70.

The coeffcient of consolidation is given as:

( )
c v = 1.24R 2 t 70 (9.19)

This procedure is illustrated in Figure 9.17. Since the test results may be evaluated for
each loading increment, the results give an interpretation of the coeffcient of consolida-
tion over a range of applied stresses. This means that the results may be plotted as a
coeffcient of consolidation vs. stress and may be used to estimate values for any stress
level (Figure 9.18).
326 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Figure 9.18 Graphical estimation of coeffcient of consolidation from screw plate.

9.6 PLATE LOAD AS A PROTOTYPE FOOTING

In the past, the results of PLTs have occasionally been used to estimate the response of foot-
ings by the use of the subgrade reaction modulus, as previously described. The use of the
PLT might seem attractive for predicting the behavior of shallow foundations, particularly
on granular soils, since the plate more or less acts as a prototype foundation and load is
applied in the same direction as anticipated by the foundation. In general, the settlements
measured in the PLT are extrapolated to larger footings, and depending on any assumptions
made, there may be errors associated with the extrapolation. The zone of infuence under a
small loaded plate is shallow as compared to a full-sized footing, and therefore, the results
from a small plate may not include any infuence of soil nonuniformity.
A direct method of applying PLTs to foundation design may be obtained by applying
the concepts of subgrade reaction presented by Terzaghi (1955) and was suggested by
Terzaghi & Peck (1967), who proposed a relationship between the settlement of a footing
of width B and the settlement of a 0.3-m (1ft)-wide plate under the same applied stress as:

(
˛ B ˛0.3 = 2B ( B + 0.3) )
2
(9.20)

where
B = footing width (meters)
δB = settlement of a footing of width B
δ0.3 = settlement of a plate with width = 0.30 m (1 ft)

Equation 9.20 indicates that for very large footings, on the order of B > 8 m, the settlement
ratio tends to a maximum value of about 4.
Extrapolation of the behavior from a small plate to a large footing using Equation 9.20
uses the settlement ratio of different size footings or plates obtained at the same stress level.
However, it should be expected that the same stress level will represent different conditions
 Plate Load and Screw Plate Tests 327

depending on the plate size. Similarly, the absolute settlement observed by different size
footings has a different meaning depending on the plate size, especially for granular soils.
This suggests that the use of normalized behavior may be a better approach to estimating
the full-sized production footing performance from the small-sized plate.
Figure 9.19 (upper) shows the results of two of different-sized PLTs conducted on a
uniform compacted sand. Figure 9.19 (lower) shows the same tests with settlement normal-
ized by the plate diameter and applied stress normalized by the failure stress (taken as the
stress producing a settlement of 10% of the plate diameter). The test results from different
plate sizes show a more general behavior when represented in this manner. This means that
the load-settlement behavior of any size plate could be obtained from a test conducted on
any other size. A discussion of this approach has been presented by Lutenegger & Adams
(2003).

Figure 9.19 Stress-displacement behavior of two PLTs on compacted sand (upper), and normalized behavior
(lower).
328 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

9.7 SUMMARY OF PLT AND SPLT

PLTs and SPLTs offer the potential for evaluating load-deformation behavior for use in both
specifc property evaluation and prototype shallow foundations. The test equipment and
procedures are relatively simple and can be applied to a wide range of site and soil condi-
tions. The interpretation of the test results is straightforward. Engineers may fnd the tests
very useful in situations where deformation is the primary design issue.

REFERENCES

Bauer, G.E. and Tanaka, A., 1988. Penetration Testing of a Desiccated Clay Crust. Proceedings of the
1st International Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 1, pp. 477–488.
Bauer, G.E., Scott, J.D., and Shields, D.H., 1973. The Deformation Properties of a Clay Crust.
Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 31–38.
Berg, G. and Olsson, O., 1978. Screw Plate Loading Tests on Gothenburg Clay – Deformation and
Strength Properties Under Static and Repeated Loading. Swedish Geotechnical Institute Internal
Report.
Bergado, D. and Chang, C., 1986. Correlation of Soil Parameters from Pressuremeter, Plate Load
Test, and Screw Plate Tests Including Index Properties and Compressibility Characteristics of
Soft Bangkok Clay. Specialty Geomechanics Symposium, Adelaide, pp. 10–16.
Bergado, D. and Huan, N., 1987. Undrained Deformability and Strength Characteristics of Soft
Bangkok Clay by the Screw Plate Test. Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM, Vol. 10, No. 3,
pp. 113–122.
Bergado, D., Khaleque, M., Neeyapan, R., and Chang, C., 1986. Correlations of In Situ Tests in
Bangkok Subsoils. Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 17, pp. 1–37.
Bergado, D.T., Chong, K.C., Daria, P.A.M., and Alfaro, M.C., 1990. Deformability and Consolidation
Characteristics of Soft Bangkok Clay Using Screw Plate Tests. Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
Vol. 27, pp. 531–545.
Burland, J.B., 1970. Contribution to Discussion. Proceedings of the Conference on In Situ
Investigations in Soils and Rocks, pp. 61–62.
Burland, J., Butler, F., and Dunican, P., 1966. The Behaviour and Design of Large Diameter Bored
Piles in Stiff Clay. Proceedings of the Symposium on Large Bored Piles, ICE, pp. 51–71.
Carrier, W.D. and Christian, J.T., 1973. Rigid Circular Plate Resting on a Non-Homogeneous Elastic
Half-Space. Geotechnique, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 67–84.
Chin, F.K., 1983. Bilateral Plate Bearing Tests. Proceedings of the International Symposium on In
Situ Testing of Soil and Rock, Paris, Vol. 2, pp. 39–41.
Consoli, N.C., Schnaid, F., and Milititsky, J., 1998. Interpretation of Plate Load Tests on Residual
Soil Site. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 124,
No. 9, pp. 857–867.
Dahlberg, R., 1974. Penetration Pressure and Screw Plate Tests in a Preloaded Natural Sand Deposit.
Proceedings of the 1st European Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 2.2, pp. 69–87.
Donald, I.B., Sloan, S.W., and Chiu, H.K., 1980. Theoretical Analysis of Rock Socketed Piles.
Proceedings of the Symposium on Structural Foundations on Rock, pp. 303–316.
Eliassen, R., 1942. Load-Bearing Characteristics of Landflls. Engineering News Record, Vol. 108,
pp. 103–105.
Engineering News Record, 1922. Foundation Tests for Nebraska State Capitol. ENR, Vol. 89,
No. 15, pp. 606–609.
Engineering News Record, 1932. Load Tests on Hardpan. ENR, Vol. 108, p. 330.
Epps, R., 1986. A Comparison of Methods of Testing at a Site in London Clay. Geological Survey,
Engineering Special Publication No. 2, pp. 207–212.
 Plate Load and Screw Plate Tests 329

Ertel, W., 1967. Determination of the Initial Strength of Still Tertiary Frankfort Clay. Proceedings of
the Geotechnical Conference Oslo on Shear Strength Properties of Natural Soils and Rocks.
Vol. 1, pp. 109–111.
Filho, P.R. and Celso, R., 1983. Residual Soil Elastic Properties from In Situ Tests. Proceedings of the
International Symposium on In Situ Testing of Soil and Rock, Paris, Vol. 2, pp. 27–34.
Fisher, W.R., 1983. Modulus of Elasticity of a Very Dense Glacial Till Determined by Plate Load
Tests. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 20, pp. 186–191.
Ferreira, S.R.M. and Teixeira, D.C.L., 1989. Collapsible Soil – A Practical Case in Construction
(Pernambuco Brazil). Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 603–606.
Horvath, J.S., 1983. Modulus of Subgrade Reaction: New Perspective. Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 109, No. 12, pp. 1591–1596.
Housel, W., 1929. A Practical Method for the Selection of Foundations Based on Fundamental
Research in Soil Mechanics. Engineering Research Bulletin No. 13, University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor.
Ismael, N., 1987. Coeffcient of Subgrade Reaction for Footings on Desert Sands. Transportation
Research Record 1137, pp. 82–91.
Ismael, N., 1996. Loading Tests on Circular and Ring Plates on Very Dense Cemented Sands. Journal
of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 122, No. 4, pp. 281–287.
Janbu, N. and Senneset, K., 1973. Field Compressometer – Principles and Applications. Proceedings
of the 8th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1.1,
pp. 191–198.
Kay, J.N. and Avalle, D., 1982. Application of Screw-Plate to Stiff Clays. Journal of the Geotechnical
Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 108, No. GT1, pp. 145–154.
Kay, J.N. and Mitchell, P., 1980. A Down Hole Plate Load Tests for In Situ Properties of Stiff Clays.
Proceedings of the Australia-New Zealand Conference on Geomechanics, Vol. 1, pp. 255–259.
Kay, J.N. and Parry, R.H.G., 1982. Screw Plate Tests in a Stiff Clay. Ground Engineering, Vol. 15,
No. 6, pp.22–27.
Kesharwani, R., Sahu, A., and Khan, N., 2015. Load Settlement Behaviour of Sandy Soil Blended
with Coarse Aggregate. Journal of Asian Scientifc Research, Vol. 5, No. 11, pp. 499–512.
Kim, T., Kang, G., and Hwang, W., 2014. Developing a Small Size Screw Plate Load Test. Marine
Georesources and Geotechnology, Vol. 32, pp. 222–238.
Klohn, E.J., 1965. The Elastic Properties of a Dense Glacial Till Deposit. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 116–140.
Kummeneje, O. and Eide, E., 1961. Investigation of Loose Sand Deposits by Blasting. Proceedings of
the 5th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1, p. 491.
Landva, A.O., 1986. In Situ Testing of Peat. Use of In Situ Tests in Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE,
pp. 191–205.
Landva, A.O. and Clark, J.I., 1990. Geotechnics of Waste Fill. ASTM Special Technical Publication
1070, pp. 86–103.
Lee, Y., Hwang, W., Choi, Y., and Kim, T., 2009. Development and Calibration of Screw Plate Load
Tests. Proceedings of the 19th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference,
pp. 236–241.
Lefebvre, G., Pare, J.-J., and Dascal, O., 1987. Undrained Shear Strength in a Surfcial Weathered
Crust. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 23–34.
Lo, K.Y. and Cooke, B., 1989. Foundation Design for the Skydome Stadium, Toronto. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 22–33.
Lo, K.Y., Adams, J., and Seychuk, J., 1969. The Shear Behavior of a Stiff Fissured Clay. Proceedings
of the 7th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1,
pp. 249–255.
Lutenegger, A and Adams, M.T., 2003. Characteristic Load-Displacement Curves of Shallow
Foundations. Proceedings of the International Conference on Shallow Foundations, Paris,
France, Vol. 2, pp. 381–393.
330 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Marsland, A., 1971. The Use of In Situ Tests in a study of the Effects of Fissures on the Properties
of Stiff Clays. Proceedings of the 1st Australia-New Zealand Conference on Geomechanics,
Vol. 1, pp. 180–189.
Marsland, A., 1975. In Situ and Laboratory Tests on Glacial Clays at Redcar. Proceedings of the
Symposium on Behavior of Glacial Materials, Midland Soil Mechanics and Foundations
Society, pp. 164–180.
Marsland, A., 1977. The Evaluation of the Engineering Design Parameters for Glacial Clays.
Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology. Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 1–26.
Marsland, A. and Randolph, M.F., 1977. Comparison of the Results from Pressuremeter Tests and
Large In Situ Plate Tests in London Clay. Geotechnique, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 217–243.
Marsland, A. and Butcher, A., 1983. In Situ Tests on Highly Weathered Chalk Near Luton, England.
Proceedings of the International Symposium on In Situ Testing, Vol. 2, pp. 84–88.
Marsland, A. and Powell, J., 1990. Pressuremeter Tests on Stiff Clays and Soft Rocks: Factors
Affecting Measurements and Their Interpretation. Field Testing in Engineering Geology.
Geological Society Engineering Geology Special Publication No. 6, pp. 91–110.
Marsland, A. and Powell, J., 1991. Field and Laboratory Investigation of the Clay Tills at the Test Bed
Site at the Building Research Establishment, Gartson, Hertfordshire. Quaternary Engineering
Geology. Geological Society Engineering Geology Special Publication No. 7, pp. 229–238.
McKinlay, D., Tomlinson, M., and Anderson, W., 1974. Observations on the Undrained Strength of
a Glacial Till. Geotechnique, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 503–516.
Mital, S. and Bauer, G., 1989. Screw Plate Test for Drained and Undrained Soil Parameters.
Foundation Engineering: Current Principles and Practices, ASCE, Vol. 1, pp. 67–79.
Nichols, N., Benoit, J., and Prior, F., 1989. In Situ Testing of Peaty Organic Soils: A Case History.
Transportation Research Record 1235, pp. 10–23.
Noor, S., Haider, S., and Islam, S., 2019. Screw Plate Load Test in the Estimation of Allowable
Bearing Capacity in Cohesive Soil Deposit. Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering, Vol. 9, Springer
Nature, Singapore, pp. 1247–1256.
Pells, P.J.N., 1983. Plate Loading Tests on Soil and Rock. In Situ Testing for Geotechnical
Investigations, pp. 73–86.
Pells, P.J.N. and Turner, R.M., 1979. Elastic Solutions for the Design and Analysis of Rock Socketed
Piles. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 16, pp. 481–487.
Powell, J.J.M. and Quarterman, R.S.T., 1986. Evaluating the Screw Plate Test in Stiff Clay Soils in the
U.K. Proceedings of the Special Geomechanics Symposium, Adelaide, pp. 128–133.
Radhakrishna, H.S. and Klym, T.W., 1974. Geotechnical properties of a Very Dense Glacial Till.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 11, pp. 396–408.
Reddy, A.S., Pao, K.N., and Srunivasan, R.J., 1979. Horizontal Plate Load Test in Anisotropic and
Nonhomogeneous Clays. Proceedings of the International Symposium on In Situ Testing of
Soils and Rocks and Performance of Structures, Roorkee, pp. 178–183.
Rowe, R.K., 1982. The Determination of Rock Mass Modulus Variation with Depth for Weathered
or Jointed Rock. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 29–43.
Rozsypal, A., 1983. Instrumented Large Scale Plate Loading Test on Limestones. Proceedings of the
International Symposium on In Situ Testing, Vol. 2, pp. 133–137.
Schmertmann, J.H., 1970a. Static Cone to Compute Static Settlement over Sand. Journal of the Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE, Vol. 96, No. SM3, pp. 1011–1043.
Schmertmann, J.H., 1970b. Suggested Method for Screw-Plate Load Test. ASTM Special Technical
Publication 479, pp. 81–85.
Schwab, E. and Broms, B., 1977. Pressure-Settlement-Time Relationship by Screw Plate Tests In
Situ. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 281–288.
Selvadurai, A. and Nichols, T., 1979. Theoretical Assessment of the Screw Plate Test. Proceedings of the
3rd International Conference on Numerical Methods in Geomechanics, Vol. 3, pp. 1245–1252.
Selvadurai, A. and Nichols, T., 1981. Evaluation of Soft Clay Properties by the Screw Plate Test.
Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Vol. 2, pp. 567–572.
 Plate Load and Screw Plate Tests 331

Selvadurai, A., Bauer, G., and Nichols, J., 1980. Screw Plate Testing of a Soft Clay. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 465–472.
Seychuk, J., 1970. Load Tests on Bedrock. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 7, No. 4,
pp. 464–470.
Sherif, M. and Strazer, R., 1973. Soil Parameters for Design of Mt. Baker Ridge Tunnel in Seattle.
Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol. 99, No. SM1, pp. 111–122.
Skempton, A., 1951. The Bearing Capacity of Clays. Proceedings of the Building Research Congress,
London. pp. 180–189.
Slack, D.C. and Walker, J.N., 1970. Defections of Shallow Pier Foundations. Journal of the Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE, Vol. 96, No. SM4, pp. 1143–1157.
Soderman, L., Kim, Y., and Milligan, V., 1968. Field and Laboratory Studies of Modulus of Elasticity
of a Clay Till. Highway Research Board Publication No. 243.
Strout, J. and Senneset, K., 1998. The Field Compressometer Test in Norway. Proceedings of the 1st
International Conference on Site Characterization, Vol. 1, p. 863–868.
Tand, K.E., Funegard, E.G., and Briaud, J.-L., 1986. Bearing Capacity of Footings on Clay – CPT
Method. Use of In Situ Tests in Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, pp. 1017–1033.
Terzaghi, K., 1955. Evaluation of Coeffcient of Subgrade Reaction. Geotechnique, Vol. 5, No. 4,
pp. 297–326.
Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R.B., 1967. Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice. John Wiley and Sons,
New York.
Thomas, D., 1994. Spread Footing Prediction Event at the National Geotechnical Experimentation
Site on the Texas A&M University Riverside Campus. Predicted and Measured Behavior of Five
Footings on Sand, ASCE, pp. 149–152.
Van Impe, W.F., 1998. Dynamic Compaction to Improve Geotechnical Properties of MSW in
Landflling. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Piling and Deep Foundations,
pp. 3.2.1–3.2.21.
Ward, W., Burland, J., and Gallois, R., 1968. Geotechnical Assessment of a Site at Munford, Norfolk
for a Large Proton Accelerator. Geotechnique, Vol. 18, pp. 399–431.
Watts, K.S. and Charles, J.A., 1990. Settlement of Recently Placed Domestic Refuse Landfll.
Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineers, Part 1, Vol. 88, pp. 971–993.
Webb, D.L., 1969. Settlement of Structures on Deep Alluvial Sandy Sediments in Durban, South
Africa. Proceedings of the Conference on In Situ Investigations in Soils and Rocks, BGS,
pp. 181–187.
Wiseman, G. and Zeitlen, J.G., 1994. Predicting the Settlement of the Texas A&M Spread Footings on
Sand. Predicted and Measured Behavior of Five Spread Footings on Sand, ASCE, pp. 129–132.
Wrench, B.P., 1984. Plate Tests for the Measurement of Modulus and Bearing Capacity of Gravels.
The Civil Engineer in South Africa, Vol. 26, No. 9, pp. 429–437.
Wrench, B.P. and Nowatzki, E.A., 1986. A Relationship between Deformation Modulus and SPT N
for Gravels. Use of In Situ Tests in Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, pp. 1163–1177.
Chapter 10

Other In Situ Tests

10.1 INTRODUCTION

There are a number of other in situ tests that may be useful for evaluating specifc soil
properties, but are perhaps less common than those described in previous chapters. In this
chapter, a brief description is given for several of these tests. Interested readers will wish to
consult specifc references given for details on the different tests. The purpose here is to only
acquaint engineers with other potentially valuable tests that may be used for different proj-
ects. Tests described in this chapter include Large-Scale Shear Box Tests, Hydraulic Fracture
Tests (HFTs), and Push-in Earth Pressure Cell Tests.

10.2 LARGE-SCALE IN-PLACE SHEAR BOX TESTS

10.2.1 Background
In highly structured soils, weathered rock, or gravelly soils that are diffcult to sample with-
out signifcant disturbance to the structure, the in-place Shear Box Tests may be valuable for
determining in situ shear strength parameters. These tests resemble smaller-scale laboratory
direct shear box tests, but are of a much larger size in order to reduce scaling effects that can
signifcantly infuence the strength response of such geomaterials. This type of test has been
used for about the past 60 years and had been extensively reported in the literature (e.g.,
Schultze 1957; Serafm & Lopes 1961; Wallace & Olsen 1966; Jain & Gupta 1974; Gifford
et al. 1986; Chu et al. 1988).
The use of Large-Scale In Situ Shear Box Tests has been reported in a wide range of materials.
Hutchinson & Rolfsen (1963) reported on the use of both a 50 × 50 cm (19.7 × 19.7 in.) and
a 20×20 cm (7.9 × 7.9 in.) feld shear box to determine the strength of quick clay in Norway.
Bishop (1966) described the use of a 60 by 60 cm (23.6 × 23.6 in.) shear box to measure the
strength of weathered London Clay. A portable in-place shear box was used by Brand et al.
(1983) for determining in situ shear strength of residual soils in Hong Kong. Lefebvre et al.
(1987) used Large-Scale In-Place Shear Box Tests to measure the undrained strength of a
surfcial clay crust. Large-scale Shear Box tests have also been reported for use in bedrock
(e.g., Zeigler 1972; Franklin et al. 1974; Nicholson 1983). Table 10.1 gives a summary of some
of the reported uses of large-Scale Shear Box Tests in situ.
Tests may also be performed to determine the interface strength between two materi-
als (e.g., Schultze 1957) or between concrete and soil or rock by casting a concrete block
directly on the surface and then conducting the test to force shearing at the interface.

333
334 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Table 10.1 Summary of some reported uses of In Situ Large-Scale Shear Box Tests
Soil Box dimensions References
Soft clay 50 × 50 cm (19.7 ×19.7 in.) Hutchinson & Rolfsen (1963)
20 × 20 cm (7.9 × 7.9 in.)
Stiff clay 61 by 61 cm (24 × 24 in.) Bishop (1966)
61 × 61 cm (24 × 24 in.) Marsland & Butler (1967)
61 × 61 cm (24 × 24 in.) Marsland (1971)
61 by 61 cm (24 × 24 in.) Bishop & Little (1967)
61 by 61 cm (24 × 24 in.) Lo et al. (1969)
61 by 61 cm (24 × 24 in.) Radhakrishna & Klym (1974)
61 by 61 cm (24 × 24 in.) Lefebvre et al. (1987)
Residual soil 30 × 30 cm (12 × 12 in.) Brand et al. (1983)
30 × 30 cm (12 × 12 in.) Cross (2010)
50 × 50 cm (19.5 × 19.5 in.) Li et al. (2014)
Gravel 1.5 × 1.5 m (59 × 59 in.) Nichiporovitch & Rasskazov (1967)
90 × 90 cm (35 × 35 in.) Matsuoka et al. (2001)
1.2 x 1.2 m (47 x 47 in.)
Bedrock 70 × 70 cm (27.5 × 27.5 in.) Serafm & Lopes (1961)
60 × 60 cm (24 × 24 in.) Sharma & Joshi (1983)
70 × 70 cm (27.5 × 27.5 in.) Baba (1983)
Rockfll 122.5 × 122.5 cm (48 × 48 in.) Liu (2009)
Interface 1 × 1 m (39.4 × 39.4 in.) Schultze (1957)
71 × 71 mm (28 × 28 in.) Dvorak (1957)
70 × 70 cm (27.5 × 27.5 in.) Serafm & Lopes (1961)
60 × 60 cm (24 × 24 in.) Sharma & Joshi (1983)
Soil roots N/A Wu et al. (1988)

10.2.2 Test Equipment

As is typically done in a laboratory direct Shear Box Test, it is necessary to have a system for
applying a constant normal force on a test specimen and a system for applying a shear force
perpendicular to the normal force to initiate a shear failure along a predesignated plane.
Typically, the shear displacement and the contraction or dilation are also determined by mea-
suring the displacement in the direction of the application of the normal and shear stresses.
Several different schemes for testing have been reported, all of which are similar in con-
cept, but vary somewhat in the arrangement of the load application. In all cases, it is frst
necessary to isolate a block of material for testing. A typical arrangement of the test is
shown in Figure 10.1.
The normal force is applied by a hydraulic jack that can be adjusted to maintain a con-
stant force. The reaction can be provided by the dead load as indicated in Figure 10.1 or by
anchor rods/piles. A rigid test box usually of steel channel is installed over the test block,
which has been carefully trimmed to just ft inside the box. Any gap between the block and
inside of the box can be flled with plaster of Paris, capping compound, or Portland cement
mortar (neat cement).
In a tunnel, the normal force can be generated by jacking against the roof, as shown in
Figure 10.2. The shear force is also applied by a hydraulic system. The reaction in this case
is provided by the walls of the excavation. Load cells are used on both hydraulic systems to
accurately measure the normal and the shear force. A roller-bearing system is inserted at the
top of the test block to allow a free movement during shearing. The size of the test block
 Other In Situ Tests 335

Figure 10.1 Typical arrangement for performing In Situ Large-Scale Shear Box Tests.

Figure 10.2 Typical arrangement for In Situ Shear Box Tests in a tunnel.

can vary between 0.3 and 1.5 m (1 and 5 ft), depending on the project. Displacements are
measured with dial gages, LVDTs, or other appropriate devices. Since the test destroys the
test surface, a series of tests on different blocks, at different normal stresses, is needed to
defne the failure envelope.
The author performed a series of in-place Shear Box Tests on the shale rock foundation at
the base of Snell Lock on the St. Lawrence Seaway. The lock had been covered and heated for
routine winter maintenance and dewatering of the lock chamber left the base rock exposed.
336 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Normal force was provided by drilling and installing expandable rock bolts into the foor
rock with a reaction beam and hydraulic system placed over the test block. Tests blocks were
isolated by using a concrete saw to carve the material away from an individual block. A section
was then cut out to allow the shear force reaction system to be placed horizontally again using
the foor rock as the reaction. The setup is shown in Figure 10.3 and was successful in defning
the strength envelope for use in a lock wall base sliding stability analysis.

10.2.3 Test Procedures

A procedure for conducting in situ Shear Box Tests in rock was recommended by
Dodds (1980), and a standard test method has been suggested by ASTM as test method
D4554 “Standard Test Method for In Situ Determination of Direct Shear Strength of
Rock Discontinuities”, which is essentially the same as suggested by the International
Society of Rock Mechanics. Excellent summaries of in-place rock testing have been
presented by the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station by Zeigler (1972)
and Nicholson (1983). The test procedures are given in ASTM D4554 and can generally
be used for most materials.

10.2.4 Results and Interpretation

Tests are normally interpreted in a manner similar to laboratory direct Shear Box Tests with
the normal and shear stress plotted to defne the failure envelope. In many cases, both a peak
shear strength envelope and a residual envelope may be defned if the shear displacement
goes far enough or if reversal of the shear direction after peak is performed.

10.3 HYDRAULIC FRACTURE TESTS (HFTs)

10.3.1 Background
HFTs were suggested for determining lateral stresses in clays by Bjerrum and Andersen
(1972). The propagation of fractures in soils requires an increase in fuid pressure within
the fracture or a decrease in the external stresses in the neighboring soil. The analysis of
hydraulic fracture in clay has considered the compressibility of the soil to account for its
plastic nature (Bjerrum et al. 1972). The test is limited to fne-grained soils of relatively

Figure 10.3 Large-Scale Shear Box Tests using rock bolts as reaction.
 Other In Situ Tests 337

low permeability because soils with high permeability, e.g., sands and gravels, do not allow
for a pressure head to be developed between the pressure source and the surrounding soil
(Jaworski et al. 1981). The HFT is a simple inexpensive means for estimating limiting values
of Ko in many cohesive soils.

10.3.2 Test Equipment

HFTs are generally conducted in two ways using different pieces of test equipment. In one
case, the test is performed after frst installing a push-in piezometer or slotted screen tip.
In  the other case, tests are performed in a drilled borehole by inserting a packer with a
central pressure pipe.

10.3.2.1 Tests with Push-in Piezometer

For use in most soft to moderately overconsolidated clays, the most common test proce-
dure for performing HFTs involves using a push-in piezometer tip. This is the procedure
described by Bjerrum & Anderson (1972), and Bozozuk (1974). For the most part, at least
up to about 1990, most HFTs conducted in this manner used a simple probe with a short
flter element on or near the tip attached to a string of drill rods. In some cases, a Geonor
M-206 piezometer tip, attached to E rods, has been used. This piezometer tip consists of a
sintered bronze flter element with a nominal length of 30 cm (1 ft) mounted directly behind
a conical tip, as shown in Figure 10.4.
Several investigations have shown that test results can be affected by both the length/
diameter ratio of the flter element and the position of element behind the cone tip. In order
to insure vertical fractures in the soil and the measurement of horizontal stresses, the flter

Figure 10.4 Push-in piezometer tip used to perform early Hydraulic Fracture Tests.
338 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Figure 10.5 Infuence of piezometer length on interpreted values of Ko in clay.

element should be located a minimum of about 5–6 diameters behind the tip and the L/D ratio
of the element should be no less than about 6. The infuence of piezometer tip length (really
L/D) on the value of Ko is illustrated in Figure 10.5 using data from Lefebvre et al. (1981).
Again, for a very short tip, the soil is fractured on horizontal planes giving essentially a mea-
surement of the total vertical overburden stress tending toward a Ko value of 1.0. As the length
of the flter element increases, and L/D increases, the results tend toward a constant value of Ko.
A control console at the ground surface is needed to force fuid into the piezometer tip at a
controlled rate. Normally, a small hand-operated or electric screw pump is used. Tubing is used
to connect the control console to the piezometer tip. A complete test arrangement is shown in
Figure 10.6. The tubing and the entire system must be de-aired before testing. In some cases,
twin tubing is used so that air can be fushed from the line. In other cases, a single line is
used but is carefully de-aired prior to starting the test and the system is left connected for the
duration of the test. Using a push-in piezometer probe, the test can be used as a profling tool,
i.e., by conducting tests at various depths at a single test location. Rad et al. (1988) have shown
that HFTs may be performed in clays using a push-in Bengt A. Torstensson (BAT) probe.

10.3.2.2 Tests in an Open Borehole

Tests may also be conducted in stiff clays such as clay till or overconsolidated clay using an
open borehole as the hole is advanced or after the entire length of the hole has been drilled. As a
borehole is advanced, a single packer with a central fuid pipe is lowered into the borehole and
held off the bottom of the hole as the packer is infated. The packer seals off the lower part of the
borehole. A typical test arrangement is shown in Figure 10.7. An alternative technique is to use a
double packer system to isolate a test zone, as shown in Figure 10.8. In the case of either a single
or a double packer, the central fuid pipe is often used to lower the device into the borehole.

10.3.3 Test Procedures

The procedure developed by Bjerrum & Andersen (1972), or modifcations of the original
procedure, is most often followed when conducting the HFT. The procedure was developed
from in situ permeability tests using hydraulic piezometers that were pushed or driven into
the ground. Tests are essentially conducted in the following sequence. The piezometer is
installed to the test depth, and the excess pore water pressures generated during installa-
tion are allowed to dissipate to hydrostatic conditions. Once excess pore water pressure has
 Other In Situ Tests 339

Figure 10.6 Test equipment for performing Hydraulic Fracture Tests.

dissipated, a screw pump is used to generate a constant head high enough to cause the soil
to fracture. Pressure readings are taken during pumping to detect when the fracture has
formed. Once fracture has occurred, the fow is stopped, and the dissipation of pore water
pressure is monitored over time to determine when the fracture closes.
Using this procedure, it was postulated by Bjerrum & Andersen (1972) that the minor
principal total stress at that depth could be determined by monitoring the fow of fuid
into the soil, which was assumed to be the horizontal principal stress across a vertical
fracture. Modifcations to the apparatus and procedure were made by Bozozuk (1974) by
replacing the mercury manometer with a pore water pressure transducer and taking read-
ings automatically with a chart recorder.

10.3.4 Results and Interpretation

To perform the test, the pressure is incrementally increased and the volume of fuid pumped
is recorded, as shown in Figure 10.9. Fracture is noted by a dramatic drop in the pressure
or by leveling off in the pressure as the fracture allows the fuid to enter. Pumping is usually
stopped at this point, and the change in pressure is recorded. The dissipation of pore water
pressure after fracture is analyzed by plotting the fow of fuid into the soil as a function of
the decreasing pressure.
It is assumed that the fracture closes when a signifcant decrease in the fow into the soil
is observed. The pressure at this point is usually taken as the total stress acting across the
fracture or close-up stress, UC . Bjerrum & Andersen (1972) concluded that UC was equal
340 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Figure 10.7 Use of a single packer to perform Hydraulic Fracture Tests.

to the minor principal total stress in the ground at the test depth, i.e., the horizontal total
stress if a vertical fracture was formed. Bozozuk (1974) found that drawing two tangents
through points prior to and following the break in the close-up curve gave good estimates
of the minor principal stress, as illustrated in Figure 10.10.
After obtaining the close-up pressure following the initial fracture, it is often common
practice to perform another fracture phase of the test. As shown in Figure 10.9, the pressure
needed to reopen the fracture is also often obtained, typically indicated by the end of the lin-
ear pressure vs. volume curve. A second close-up curve is also sometimes obtained following
the reopen part of the test. The complete sequence is shown in Figure 10.11.
Limitations to the HFT for determining lateral stresses in clays had been presented by
Massarch et al. (1975), and Massarch & Broms (1976), as follows:

1. The uncertainty of the failure mode: varves, silt seams, fssures, and other nonunifor-
mities may infuence the failure mode;
2. The tensile strength of the clay is neglected in the interpretation of results;
3. The HFT is limited to normally consolidated clays;
4. The shape of the piezometer (i.e., cylindrical) produces signifcant disturbance and
may create arching during reconsolidation after installation. This may affect the mea-
sured valve in the test, giving preference to fracture at the piezometer tip rather than
producing a vertical fracture.
 Other In Situ Tests 341

Figure 10.8 Use of a double packer to perform Hydraulic Fracture Tests.

Based on the work performed since these limitations were considered, the author would
offer the following comments:

1. The use of longer flter elements on the piezometer and L/D ratio greater than about 5
appears to produce a failure mode generating a vertical fracture. Discontinuities such
as fssures are typically present in the most fne-grained deposits to some degree but
are more predominant in surfcial clay crusts, and therefore, some diffculty may still
be encountered in these deposits.
2. Since the normal test interpretation is to use either the close-up or reopen pressure,
neglecting the soil tensile strength appears to be justifed.
3. The HFT is not limited to normally consolidated clays (Ko < 1.0). Using longer flter
tips positioned away from the piezometer tip has produced the reported Ko values of
at least 3.0. Additionally, the author has experienced no diffculties installing push-in
piezometers in very stiff overconsolidated clays and clay tills.
4. After complete reconsolidation, the value of horizontal stress measured by the HFT
(when pushed) may be larger than that of in situ (before pushing) horizontal stress in
342 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Figure 10.9 Typical results from Hydraulic Fracture Tests.

all but very soft normally consolidated clays. This is to be expected much in the way
that piles driven into clays and allowed to reconsolidate will change the resulting stress
feld near the pile face. Therefore, the horizontal stress measured using HFTs with
push-in piezometers should be referred to as the “effective hydraulic fracture pressure
°h̃c ” and not °h̃o .

HFTs are reasonably simple and inexpensive to perform, and the interpretation is relatively
straightforward. Results obtained indicated that Ko values in the range of 0.5–3 may be
determined. Table 10.2 gives a summary of some reported uses of HFTs.

Figure 10.10 Determination of close-up pressure by tangent intersection.

 Other In Situ Tests 343

Figure 10.11 Sequence of Hydraulic Fracture Testing.

Table 10.2 Some reported results from Hydraulic Fracture Tests

Soil Equipment Range of Ko References
Quick clay & soft clay Push-in piezometer 0.4–0.6 Bjerrum & Andersen (1972)
Sensitive clay Push-in piezometer 0.2–0.7 Bozozuk (1974)
Clay Push-in piezometer 0.9–1.1 Palmer & Lo (1974)
Sensitive clay Push-in piezometer 0.7–1.1 Tavenas et al. (1975)
Sensitive clay Push-in piezometer 0.5–1.9 Massarch et al. (1975)
Sensitive clay Push-in piezometer 0.6–4.0 Lefebvre et al. (1981)
Sensitive clay Double packer on self-boring 0.5–1.6 Lafeur et al. (1987)
permeameter
Very stiff compacted clay backfll Packer in open borehole 1.7–2.0 Diviney (1990)
Sensitive clay Push-in piezometer 0.7–3.3 Hamouche et al. (1995)

10.4 PUSH-IN EARTH PRESSURE CELLS

10.4.1 Background
Push-in earth pressure cells, sometimes referred to as “spade cells”, are often considered as
a tool for instrumentation, i.e., to monitor changes in lateral earth pressure, rather than as
an in situ test. The author, however, considers spade cells as a bonafde in situ test that can
be useful in helping to evaluate that current state of lateral stress in soils, whether at rest or
as a result of some construction or change in stress. The frst reported use of spade cells was
in soft clays by Massarch (1975), Massarch et al. (1975), and Tavenas et al. (1975).
While push-in spade cells were initially used for soft clays, a number of applications
described in the literature have been for stiff clays (e.g., Tedd & Charles 1981, 1983; Tedd et al.
1984; Lutenegger 1990; Ryley & Carder 1995). Spade cells have been used on several projects
involving cut and cover tunneling or behind retailing structures to monitor the changes in
lateral stress associated with construction (e.g., Tedd et al. 1985; Carder & Symons 1989;
Symons & Carder 1992) and to measure lateral stresses in slopes in Sweden (Rankka 1990).
344 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

10.4.2 Test Equipment

The equipment used to conduct push-in spade cell tests is relatively simple and typically con-
sists of a thin fat rectangular blade flled with hydraulic oil and a pressure transducer mounted
at the top of the plate. The leading edge of the blade is usually either pointed or simply rect-
angular with an angled wedge. An adapter is attached to the back end of the blade to attach
drill rods or pipe for installation. The blade and transducer are de-aired and sealed so that the
system response to the applied stress will be very rapid and more direct. In some cases, a small
amount of internal pressure is built into the system to insure good response. This means that in
atmospheric pressure, the transducer will have some initial positive pressure or zero offset. It’s
important to know this offset prior to testing so that all subsequent readings can be corrected.
In addition to the spade and transducer, the only other equipment needed to conduct the
test is a readout or control console to read the transducer. In some cases, twin tube pneu-
matic transducers are used and the control console is a simple gas control panel to apply
pressure in order to read the transducer. In most cases, a small bottle of nitrogen gas is used
to supply the control console. Vibrating wire transducers have also been used, in which case
a vibrating wire readout is needed. Electrical resistance pressure transducers have also been
used and require a simple bridge readout device or a constant power voltage supply and pre-
cision voltmeter. A schematic of a typical spade cell is shown in Figure 10.12, and a photo of
a spade cell used at a number of sites by the author is shown in Figure 10.13.
Since the use of spade cells is not currently controlled by any regulating agency such as
ASTM, there is no standard that defnes the geometry of the spade cell or the exact test
procedures. The test procedures are relatively straightforward; however, the geometry of the
spade can vary, depending on the manufacturer and the user. Table 10.3 gives a summary
of the different geometries of spade cells that have been reported in the literature. There is a
noticeable difference in the thickness of spades used, ranging from 2 to 12 mm (0.1 to 0.5 in.).
The basic concept of the spade cell is to introduce a thin pressure cell into the ground
with a minimal disruption and then monitor the change in stress with time until an equi-
librium value is obtained. The spade should be as thin as possible, but still be able to be
installed without bending or other damage. This suggests some practical lower bound on

Figure 10.12 Geometry of typical push-in earth pressure cell.

 Other In Situ Tests 345

Figure 10.13 Photo of push-in earth pressure cell.

Table 10.3 Summary of some reported push-in earth pressure cell geometry
References W (mm) L (mm) T (mm)
Massarch (1975) 100 200 4
Massarch et al. (1975) 100 200 4
Tavenas et al. (1975) 300 450 12
Massarch & Broms (1976) N/A N/A 3
Ladd et al. (1979) 114.5 565 9
Penman & Charles (1981) 100 200 2
Tedd & Charles (1981) 100 200 5
Fukuoka & Imamura (1983) 120 220 5
Ohya et al. (1983) 90 210 7
Chan & Morgenstern (1986) 200 200 6
Sully & Campanella (1990) 100 200 6.4
Lutenegger (1990, 2012) 100 200 6.4
Lutenegger (2013) 102 250 12.5

the thickness of the blade, probably in the range of 4–5 mm (0.16–0.20 in.) in order to have
an application over a wide range of soil stiffness. The width and thickness should be small
enough to be manageable and to ft into normal size boreholes, yet large enough to provide
a reliable soil response over a suffciently large area. The length should not be too long since
a fat plate tends to drift from vertical when pushed into the ground. It appears that a width
of 100 mm (3.9 in.) and a length on the order of 200–300 mm (7.9–11.8 in.) provide the
necessary stiffness and area for use in most soils.
Because of the differences in plate geometry, it is likely that not all spades will give the
same response in all soils. It appears that the most important factor in the soil response may
be the aspect ratio or width/thickness ratio of the blade. That is, as the width becomes very
large in relation to the thickness, the blade begins to look like a wide plate or sheet. As the
width approaches the thickness, i.e., W/T = 1, this is the geometry of a circular probe.
Push-in earth pressure cells are total stress cells; i.e., when pushed vertically into the
ground, they provide a response of the total horizontal stress. In some cases, spades have been
equipped with a porous element and a pore water pressure transducer; however, the reported
346 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

responses have not always been that good, and in most cases, the test is restricted to only
giving total stress response. This means that an accurate estimate of the in  situ pore water
pressure must be obtained at each test location, preferably with piezometers, so that the fnal
equilibrium effective stress may be determined. Considerable work has been conducted using
push-in spade cells by the Geotechnical Section of the Building Research Establishment in
the U.K. Much of this work has been summarized by Tedd et al. (1989).

10.4.3 Test Procedures

Unlike the DMT, which is pushed into the ground in a continuous manner without drilling
a borehole, spade cells are typically installed at the bottom of a drilled hole. The reason
for this is mostly practical as experience has shown that if the spade is pushed more than
1–1.5 m (3–5 ft) ahead of hole, there is a high probability of damage to the blade from bend-
ing. This means that in order to use the blade as a profling tool, the testing will need to be
planned out over several days or weeks, with the spade removed and borehole advanced only
after the test has been completed by achieving an equilibrium stress. The fnal response var-
ies with soil stiffness and is fastest for very stiff clays, on the order of several hours to one
day, and slowest for very soft clays, on the order of several weeks.
In normal operation, the spade is pushed hydraulically into the ground at the base of the
borehole and is never driven. Immediately after insertion, the test clock begins so that time
zero for the test is the time that pushing stops and the load is removed. The pressure in the
transducer is recorded at relatively close intervals at the beginning of the test and at progres-
sively increasing intervals as the test proceeds. In the case of tests performed in soft clays,
where it may take several weeks to obtain the fnal response, pressure readings every day
or every other day are typical after obtaining the initial response throughout the frst day.
After removing the spade from the test zone at the completion of the test, the blade is
cleaned off and a zero reading obtained so that each test will have a before and after test
zero reading. This will alert the operator of any potential problems with the cell. Cells are
normally calibrated in a pressure chamber by the manufacturer.

10.4.4 Results and Interpretation

Since the test data obtained are total soil stress over time, the results of individual tests
are normally presented graphically as shown in Figure 10.14. The test data shown in
Figure  10.14 were obtained by the author at a clay site with OCR decreasing with depth.
The curves all show a similar response and are generally “S” shaped when presented on a
semi-log plot. These curves are similar to DMT “A” dissipation tests described in Chapter 6.
The response for equilibrium is much faster in the overconsolidated zone than in the nor-
mally consolidated zone, which is to be expected. In this case, since the soil is a varved clay
deposit with silt lenses and a relatively high horizontal hydraulic conductivity (10 −6 cm/s),
the fnal response in the soft clay occurs relatively fast, i.e., on the order of one week.
The equilibrium or fnal value of total horizontal stress is denoted as σhf and is used to
defne the horizontal stress ratio as:

KC = ( ˛ hf − uo ) ˛v̇o (10.1)

where
KC = consolidated lateral earth pressure coeffcient
uo = in situ pore water pressure at the test depth
°ṽo = in situ vertical effective stress at the test depth
 Other In Situ Tests 347

Figure 10.14 Typical push-in earth pressure cell test results.

The term KC is used in Equation 10.1 and not Ko, the at-rest coeffcient of earth pressure
since the test measures the total lateral stress after insertion of a fat blade. The two terms
should not be considered the same. Tedd & Charles (1981) suggested that a simple empirical
correction factor could be applied to σhf to obtain σho. Based on a series of tests where spades
were used under known stress conditions, it was suggested that a stress equal to one-half
of the undrained shear strength (0.5 su) should be subtracted from the measured fnal total
stress to account for the overstress created by inserting the blade. These data are shown in
Figure 10.15. An updated summary of the available test data presented by Tedd et al. (1989)
shows more scatter, which may be partly related to the selection of su and partly related to
the reference test used for the true reading.
Ryley & Carder (1995) showed that for clays with undrained shear strength in the range of
70–150 kPa (1500–3000 psf), a more reasonable correction for the overstress would be 0.8 su.
The use of a correction factor of 0.5 su would be conservative for retaining walls as it would
give higher stresses than may actually be present. On the other hand, this would be unconserva-
tive for the design of driven piles, suggesting lateral stresses that are higher than actual values.
A more direct approach to evaluating the results of spade cell tests may be to develop a
functional relationship between KC and Ko. Results taken from the literature for a number of
different test sites and tests conducted by the author are shown in Figure 10.16 and demon-
strate that KC is related to the stress history through OCR. The scatter in the reported results
is probably related to differences in blade geometry as previously discussed. Even for OCR = 1,
there is scatter in the test results. For a given clay, under simple unloading, there is a relation-
ship between Ko and OCR (e.g., Mayne & Kulhawy 1982). Therefore, it is a relatively simple
matter to establish a relationship between KC and Ko since both appear to be related to OCR.
Spade cells should be considered as an adjunct testing program to provide additional
test data for determining horizontal stresses in fne-grained soils. The tests are relatively
inexpensive, easy to perform, and generally provide the reliable test data. On large projects
348 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Figure 10.15 Overstress from push-in earth pressure cells as a function of undrained shear strength.
(After Ryley & Carder 1995.)

Figure 10.16 Results of push-in earth pressure cells as a function of soil OCR.
 Other In Situ Tests 349

where the at-rest horizontal stress or Ko is of signifcant importance to the project, several
approaches using both in situ and laboratory tests will likely be used. In conjunction
with Dilatometer Tests, Pressuremeter Tests, or HFTs, the use of push-in spade cells is an
attractive alternative.

REFERENCES

Baba, K., 1983. In Situ Tests of Dam Foundations. Proceedings of the International Symposium on
In Situ Testing of Soil and Rock, Vol. 2, pp. 438–441.
Bishop, A.W., 1966. The Strength of Soils as Engineering Materials. Geotechnique, Vol. 16, No. 2,
pp. 89–130.
Bishop, A. and Little, A., 1967. The Infuence of the Size and Orientation of the Sample on the
Apparent Strength of the London Clay at Malden, Essex. Proceedings of the Geotechnical
Conference Oslo on the Shear Strength Properties of Natural Soils and Rocks, Vol. 1,
pp. 89–96.
Bjerrum, L. and Andersen, K.H., 1972. In-Situ Measurement of Lateral Pressures in Clay. Proceedings
of the 5th European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1,
pp. 11–20.
Bjerrum, L., Nash, J.K.T.L., Kennard, R.M., and Gibson, R.E., 1972. Hydraulic Fracturing in Field
Permeability Testing. Geotechnique, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 319–332.
Bozozuk, M., 1974. Minor Principal Stress Measurement in Marine Clay with Hydraulic Fracture
Tests. Proceedings of the Conference on Subsurface Exploration for Underground Excavation
and Heavy Construction, ASCE, pp. 333–349.
Brand, E.W., Phillipson, H.B., Borrie, G.W., and Clover, A.W., 1983. In Situ Shear Tests on Hong
Kong Residual Soils. Proceedings of the International Symposium on In Situ Testing of Soil and
Rock, Vol. 2, pp. 13–18.
Carder, D.R. and Symons, I.F., 1989. Long-Term Performance of an Embedded Cantilever Retaining
Wall in Stiff Clay. Geotechnique, Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 55–75.
Chan, A.C.Y. and Morgenstern, N.R., 1986. Measurement of Lateral Stresses in a Lacustrine Clay
Deposit. Proceedings of the 39th Canadian Geotechnical Conference, pp. 285–290.
Chu, B.L., Hsu, T.W., and Lai, T.C., 1988. In Situ Direct Shear Tests for Lateritic Gravels in Taiwan.
Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Geomechanics in Tropical Soils, Vol. 1,
pp. 119–125.
Cross, M., 2010. The Use of a Field Open-Sided Direct Shear Box for the Determination of the
Shear Strength of Shallow Residual and Colluvial Soils on Hillslopes in the South Pennines,
Derbyshire. North West Geography, Vol. 10, pp. 8–18.
Diviney, J.G., 1990. Performance of Large Gravity Walls at Eisenhower and Snell Locks. Design and
Performance of Earth Retaining Structures, ASCE, pp. 278–291.
Dodds, R.K., 1980. Suggested Method of Test for In Situ Shear Strength of Rock. ASTM Special
Technical Publication 479, pp. 618–628.
Dvorak, A., 1957. Field Tests of Rocks on Dam Sites. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference
on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 2, pp. 221–224.
Franklin, J.A., Manailoglou, J., and Sherwod, D., 1974. Field Determination of Direct Shear Strength.
Proceedings of the 3rd Congress of the International Society of Rock Mechanics, Vol. 2A,
pp. 233–240.
Fukuoka, M. and Imamura, Y., 1983. Earth Pressure Measurement in Retaining Wall Backfll.
Proceedings of the International Symposium on In Situ Testing of Soil and Rock, Vol. 2,
pp. 49–53.
Gifford, A.B., Green, G.E., Buechel, G.J., and Feldman, A.I., 1986. In Situ Tests Aid Design of a
Cylinder Pile Wall. Use of In Situ Tests in Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, pp. 569–587.
Hamouche, K., Leroueil, S., Roy, M., and Lutenegger, A., 1995. In Situ Evaluation of Ko in Eastern
Canada Clays. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 32, pp. 677–688.
350 In Situ Testing Methods in Geotechnical Engineering

Hutchinson, J.N. and Rolfsen, E.N., 1963. Large Scale Field Shear Box Tests on Quick Clay.
Norwegian Geotechnical Institute Publication No. 51, pp. 1–11.
Jain, S.P. and Gupta, R.C., 1974. In-Situ Shear Tests for Rock Fills. Journal of the Geotechnical
Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 100, No. GT9, pp. 1031–1050.
Jaworski, G., Duncan, J., and Seed, H.B., 1981. Laboratory Study of Hydraulic Fracturing. Journal
of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 107, No. GT6, pp. 713–732.
Ladd, C.C., Germaine, J.T., Baligh, M.M., and Lacasse, S.M., 1979. Evaluation of Self-Boring
Pressuremeter Tests in Boston Blue Clay. Report No. R79-4 to the Federal Highway
Administration.
Lafeur, J., Giroux, F., and Huot, M., 1987. Field Permeability of the Weathered Champlain Crust.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 581–589.
Lefebvre, G., Philibert, A., Bozozuk, M., and Pare, J.-J., 1981. Fissuring from Hydraulic Fracture of
Clays Soil. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Vol. 2, pp. 513–518.
Lefebvre, G., Pare, J.-J., and Dascal, O., 1987. Undrained Shear Strength in a Surfcial Weathered
Crust. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 23–34.
Li, X., Li, J. and Deng, H., 2014. In Situ Direct Shear Test Research of Rock and Soil of Typical Bank
Slope in Three Gorges Reservoir Area. Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol.
19, pp. 2523–2534.
Liu, S., 2009. Application of New In Situ Direct Shear Device to Shear Strength Measurements of
Rockfll. Water Science and Engineering, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 48–57.
Lo, K., Adams, J., and Seychuk, J., 1969. The Shear Behavior of a Stiff Fissured Clay. Proceedings of the
7th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 249–255.
Lutenegger, A.J., 1990. Determination of In Situ Lateral Stresses in a Dense Glacial Till. Transportation
Research Record No. 1278, pp. 194–203.
Lutenegger, A.J., 2012. A Push-In Earth Pressure Cell for Estimating Soil Properties. Proceedings
of the 4th International Symposium on Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterization,
pp. 561–564.
Lutenegger, A.J., 2013. Field Response of Push-In Earth Pressure Cells for Instrumentation and
Site Characterization of Soils. Geotechnical Engineering Journal of the Southeast Asian
Geotechnical Society, Vol. 43, No. 4, pp. 24–33.
Marsland, A., 1971. The Use of In Situ Tests in a study of the Effects of Fissures on the Properties
of Stiff Clays. Proceedings of the 1st Australia-New Zealand Conference on Geomechanics,
Vol. 1, pp. 180–189.
Marsland, A. and Butler, M., 1967. Strength Measurements on Stiff Barton Clay from Fawley
(Hampshire). Proceedings of the Geotechnical Conference Oslo on the Shear Strength Properties
of Natural Soils and Rocks, Vol. 1, pp. 139–145.
Massarch, K.R., 1975. New Method for Measurement of Lateral Earth Pressure in Cohesive Soils.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 142–146.
Massarch, K.R. and Broms, G., 1976. Lateral Earth Pressure at Rest in Soft Clay. Journal of the
Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 102, No. GT10, pp. 1041–1047.
Massarch, K.R., Holtz, R.D., Holm, B.G., and Fredriksson, A., 1975. Measurements of Horizontal
In Situ Stresses. Proceedings of the Conference on In Situ Measurement of Soil Properties,
ASCE, Vol. 1, pp. 266–286.
Matsuoka, H., Liu, S., Sun, D., and Nishikata, U., 2001. Development of a New In-Situ Direct Shear
Test. Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 92–102.
Mayne, P.W. and Kulhawy, F.H., 1982. Ko – OCR Relationships in Soil. Journal of the Geotechnical
Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 108, No. GT6, pp. 851–872.
Nichiporovitch, A. and Rasskazov, L., 1967. Shear Strength of Coarse Fragmental Materials.
Proceedings of the Geotechnical Conference Oslo on the Shear Strength Properties of Natural
Soils and Rocks, Vol. 1, pp. 225–229.
Nicholson, G.A., 1983. In Situ and Laboratory Shear Devices for Rock: A Comparison. U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Technical Report GL-83-14.
 Other In Situ Tests 351

Ohya, S., Imai, T., and Nagura, M., 1983. Recent Developments in Pressuremeter Testing, In-Situ
Stress Measurement and S-Wave Velocity Measurement. Recent Development in Laboratory
and Field Tests and Analysis of Geotechnical Problems, Bangkok, pp. 189–209.
Palmer, J. and Lo, K., 1974. In Situ Measurement of Lateral Pressures Using Hydraulic Fracturing
Technique. Research Report SM-2-74, Faculty of Engineering Science, University of Western
Ontario, 27 pp.
Penman, A.D.M. and Charles, J.A., 1981. Assessing the Risk of Hydraulic Fracture in Dam
Cores. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 457–461.
Rad, N.S., Sullie, S., Lunne, T., and Torstensson, B.A., 1988. A New Offshore Soil Investigation
Tool for Measuring the In Situ Coeffcient of Permeability and Sampling Pore Water and Gas.
Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on the Behavior of Offshore Structures, Vol. 1,
pp. 409–417.
Radhakrishna, H. and Klym, T., 1974. Geotechnical Properties of a Very Dense Till. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 11, pp. 396–408.
Rankka, K., 1990. Measuring and Predicting Lateral Earth Pressures in Slopes in Soft Clays in
Sweden. Transportation Research Record No. 1278, pp. 172–182.
Ryley, M.D. and Carder, D.R., 1995. The Performance of Push-In Spade Cells Installed in Stiff Clay.
Geotechnique, Vol. 45, No. 3, pp. 533–539.
Schultze, E., 1957. Large Scale Shear Tests. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 193–199.
Serafm, J.L. and Lopes, J.J.B., 1961. “In Situ” Shear Tests and Triaxial Tests of Foundation Rocks
of Concrete Dams. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 533–539.
Sharma, V. and Joshi, A., 1983. Field Tests for the Feasibility of a Concrete Dam. Proceedings of the
International Symposium on In Situ Testing, Vol. 2, pp. 143–14148.
Sully, J.P. and Campanella, R.G., 1990. Measurement of Lateral Stress in Cohesive Soils by Full-
Displacement In Situ Test Methods. Transportation Research Record No. 1278, pp. 164–171.
Symons, I.F. and Carder, D.R., 1992. Field Measurements on Embedded Retaining Walls.
Geotechnique, Vol. 42, No. 1, pp. 117–126.
Tavenas, F.A., Blanchete, G., Leroueil, S., Roy, M., and LaRochelle, P., 1975. Diffculties in the In
Situ Determination of Ko in Soft Sensitive Clays. Proceedings of the Conference on In Situ
Measurements of Soil Properties, ASCE, Vol. 1, pp. 450–476.
Tedd, P. and Charles, J.A., 1981. In Situ Measurement of Horizontal Stress in Overconsolidated Clay
Using Push-in Spade-Shaped Pressure Cells. Geotechnique, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 554–558.
Tedd, P. and Charles, J.A., 1983. Evaluation of Push-In Pressure Cell Results in Stiff Clay. Proceedings
of the International Symposium on Soil and Rock Investigation by In Situ Testing, Vol. 2,
pp. 579–584.
Tedd, P., Chard, B.M., Charles, J.A., and Symons, I.F., 1984. Behavior of Propped Embedded Retaining
Wall in Stiff Clay at Bell Common Tunnel. Geotechnique, Vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 513–532.
Tedd, P., Charles, J.A., and Clarke, B.G., 1985. The Measurement of Horizontal Stress Changes in
Stiff Clay Using Push-In Spade-Shaped Pressure Cells and a Self-Boring Pressuremeter. Ground
Engineering, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 28–31.
Tedd, P., Powell, J.J.M., Charles, J.A., and Uglow, I.M., 1989. In Situ Measurements of Earth
Pressures Using Push-In Spade-Shaped Pressure Cells; 10 Years Experience. Proceedings of the
Conference Geotechnical Instrumentation in Civil Engineering Projects, pp. 701–716.
Wallace, G.B. and Olsen, O.J., 1966. Foundation Testing Techniques for Arch Dams and Underground
Powerplants. ASTM Special Technical Publication 402, pp. 272–289.
Wu, T., Beal, P., and Lan, C., 1988. In Situ Shear Test of Soil-Root Systems. Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 114, No. 12, pp. 1376–1394.
Zeigler, T.W., 1972. In Situ Tests for the Determination of Rock Mass Shear Strength. U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Technical Report S-72-12.
Index

anisotropy 182, 185 preconsolidation stress 44, 141–145, 189, 222,

automatic hammer 17, 22 223, 280

CBR 92, 230 rate 113, 177, 179

coeffcient of consolidation 150, 152, 230, 234 relative density 31, 32, 91, 125–127, 235
constrained modulus 132, 133, 149, resilient modulus 93
226, 238 rock testing 48–50, 280

deep foundations 60, 157, 284 seismic cone 133

dissipation tests 150, 151, 231–233 seismic dilatometer 242
seismic SPT 53
elastic modulus 34, 46, 131, 228, 239, sensitivity 140, 172
283, 319 shallow foundations 59, 156, 282
shear modulus 37, 134, 135, 148, 229, 240, 280
friction angle 32, 33, 129, 131, 236, 237, 292, shear wave velocity 36, 37, 47, 134, 148, 229
304, 333 soil identifcation 119, 124, 211
SPT corrections 28–30
hydraulic conductivity 152–154 state parameter 128, 130, 236
stratigraphy 87, 118, 211
interface shear strength 300 stress history 44, 189, 218
subgrade reaction 241, 317
lateral earth pressure 45, 147, 223–226, 237,
277, 338, 346 torque 51, 52
liquefaction 35, 38, 136, 241
undrained shear strength 40, 91, 137–141, 182,
overconsolidation ratio, OCR 43, 145, 218–222 213–218, 277–279, 322

353
 Taylor & Francis eBooks
www.taylorfrancis.com

A single destination for eBooks from Taylor & Francis

with increased functionality and an improved user
experience to meet the needs of our customers.

90,000+ eBooks of award-winning academic content in

Humanities, Social Science, Science, Technology, Engineering,
and Medical written by a global network of editors and authors.

TAYLOR & FRANCIS EBOOKS OFFERS:

Improved
A streamlined A single point search and
experience for of discovery discovery of
our library for all of our content at both
customers eBook content book and
chapter level

REQUEST A FREE TRIAL

support@taylorfrancis.com