6.

PIEZECONE (CPTU) TESTS

The piezecone test (CPTU) includes the measurement of tip resistance, side
friction and excess dynamic pore water pressure. These pore water pressures are
developed during the steady, slow penetration of the cone into the soil. Measurement of
these pressures was first developed in Sweden in the early 1970s. The CPTU is a very
convenient test method which allows for rapid, continuous soil stratigraphy and
economical estimation of soil properties. Meigh (1987) has summarized the uses of cone
penetration testing (CPT) and piezecone testing (CPTU):
1. to determine the soil profile and identify the soil
2. to interpolate ground conditions between control boreholes
3. to evaluate the engineering properties of the soil and to assess bearing capacity and
settlement
4. to assist in the interpretation of cone resistance and skin friction in terms of shear
strength and deformation characteristics
5. to assess of in-situ permeability and consolidation characteristics
6. to assist in the assessment of stress history and OCR of cohesive soils
7. to measure of static porewater pressure
Meigh (1987) also stated the two main advantages of piezecone testing are:
1. providing a continuous, or virtually continuous, record of ground conditions
2. avoiding the disturbance of the ground associated with boring and sampling,
particularly when compared with that occurs with SPT sampling.
6-1

6.1. CPTU Test Apparatus and Procedure

The position of the pore pressure transducer on a piezecone has not been
standardized. As seen in Figure 6.1, it can be placed at the cone point, or behind the cone
tip, or on the shaft between the cone and sleeve. For this research, ConeTechs electrical
CPTU was used, which has pore pressure probe behind the cone tip ( u 2 in Figure 6.1).
There are mechanical cones in use, but the geotechnical literature suggests that they
suffer from inaccuracies. ConeTechs cone has an apex angle of 60 degrees and a 15cm2
base area of the tip. The cone rig and a typical detail of the electrical cone are given in
Figures 6.2 and 6.3, respectively. More details about the CPT and CPTU procedures can
be seen in ASTM D3441.

fs
u bt
qc
Figure 6.1 Cone Penetrometer

6-2

Figure 6.2 ConeTechs Cone Rig

The standard CPTU test measures qc (uncorrected tip stress), f s (sleeve friction),
and u (dynamic porewater pressure). Position of these stress measurements is also
schematically shown in Figure 6.1. Values of qc , f s and u were recorded at 5-cm
(0.05m) intervals during penetration to provide a nearly continuous log.
The corrected tip resistance:

qt = q c + (1 a )u bt

(6.1)

where a equals An / At and is called net area ratio (which is 0.85 for the cone that used in
this project) and u bt = u 2 is the pore pressure measured behind the tip (Figure 6.1). The
CPTU profile for the research sites can be seen in Figures 6.4, 6.5 and 6.6 which are qc ,

f s and u profiles plotted against elevation, respectively.

6-3

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

5
1

Load cell
Friction sleeve
Waterproof bushing
Cable
Strain gages
Connection with rods
Inclinometer
O-ring water seal
Soil seal

35.6 mm

Figure 6.3 Typical Electric Cone (Bowles, 1996)

6-4

South Temple
Site CPTU Test
Tip Resistance
vs. Elevation

CPTU-9

CPTU-1

CPTU 11

CPTU-10

1290

1290

1285

1285

1285

1280

1280

1280

1275

Elevation (meters)

1290

Elevation (meters)

Elevation (meters)

South Temple
Embankment
Site CPTU Tests
Tip Stress vs.
Elevation

North Temple
Site CPTU Tests
Tip Resistance
vs. Elevation

1275

1270

1270

5000

qc (kPa)

10000

Upper Lake
Bonneville
Clay

Interglacial
Deposits Sand
with Clay
Layers

1275

Lower Lake
Bonneville
Clay
Interglacial
Deposits Sand
with Clay
Layers

1265

1260

1260

Recent
Alluvium
Sand, Silts
and Clays

1270

1265

1265

CPTU 12

1260

5000

qc (kPa)

10000

10000 20000 30000

qc (kPa)

Figure 6.4 Tip Resistance vs. Elevation

6-5

South Temple
Site CPTU Test
Sleeve
Resistance vs.
Elevation

North Temple
Site CPTU Tests
Sleeve
Resistance vs.
Elevation
CPTU-1

CPTU-9
1290

1290

1285

1285

South Temple
Embankment
Site CPTU Tests
Sleeve Stress
vs. Elevation

CPTU-10

CPTU 11

CPTU 12

1290

1285

1280

1280

1280

1275

1270

Elevation (meters)

Elevation (meters)

Elevation (meters)

1275

1275

1270

1270

1265

1265

1260

1260

1265

1255

1260

1255

100 200 300 400

fs (kPa)

100

200 300

fs (kPa)

400

100

Figure 6.5 Sleeve Resistance vs. Elevation

6-6

200

300

fs (kPa)

400

South Temple
Site CPTU Test
Pore Pressure
vs. Elevation

North Temple
Site CPTU Tests
Pore Pressure
vs. Elevation

CPTU-1

CPTU-9
1290

1290

1285

1285

South Temple
Embankment
Site CPTU Tests
Pore Pressure
vs. Elevation

CPTU-10

CPTU 11

CPTU 12

1290

1285

1280

1280

1280

Elevation (meters)

Elevation (meters)

Elevation (meters)

1275

1275

1275

1270

1270

1270

1265

1265

1260

1260

1265

1255
-200

1260

1255
200

600 1000 1400

u (kPa)

-200

200

600 1000 1400

u (kPa)

-200

200

600 1000 1400

u (kPa)

Figure 6.6 Pore Pressure vs. Elevation

6-7

6.2 OCR and 'p Correlations

A regression model has been proposed by Bartlett and Alcorn (2004) for the
Bonneville Clays to predict the preconsolidation stress. Bartlett and Alcorn (2004)
focused on reducing and interpreting the field, laboratory and construction monitoring
data in the northern part of the I-15 alignment into four geographic areas: 600 South,
1300 South, 2400 South, and 3300 South. They reduced field and laboratory data,
including borehole, CPT logs and laboratory oedometer tests. The construction
monitoring data were interpreted from settlement plate, magnetic extensometer and fill
height versus elapsed time surveys. The proposed model is:

'p = o (qt vo )

(6.2)

or linear form of this model using multi linear regression;

log 'p = log o + 1 log(qt vo )

(6.3)

where: qt = the corrected tip resistance (Equation 6.1), 'p = effective preconsolidation
stress and vo = total overburden stress.
The final equation for 'p given as;

'p
q
= 0.311955 t
vo
vo

0.6818076

(6.4)

Comparison between the laboratory test results gathered by this study and the Bartlett and
Alcorn (2004) model can be seen in Figure 6.7. For South Temple embankment site total
overburden stresses calculated for 1-D condition. For comparison with Equation 6.4, vo'
with surcharge (which is 'p without surcharge) also plotted in Figure 6.7.

6-8

S. Temple Site
Comparison of
CPTU with CRS
Consolidation
Tests p' vs.
Elevation
CRS Tests

CPTU 1
CPTU 10

S. Temp
Embankment
Site Comparison
of CPTU with
CRS
Consolidation
Tests p' vs.
Elevation

CRS Tests
IL Tests

CPTU 12
CPTU 11

1284

1284

1282

1282

1282

1280

1280

1280

1278

1278

1278

1276

Elevation (meters)

1284

Elevation (meters)

Elevation (meters)

CPTU 9
IL Tests

N. Temple Site
Comparison of
CPTU with CRS
Consolidation
Tests p' vs.
Elevation

1276

1276

1274

1274

1274

1272

1272

1272

1270

1270

1270

1268

1268

1268
0

100 200 300 400 500 600

p' (kPa)

CRS Tests
svo'

100 200 300 400 500 600

p' (kPa)

100 200 300 400 500 600

p' (kPa)

Figure 6.7 Comparison Between Laboratory Tests Results and Eq. 6.4

6-9

In Figure 6.7, the dashed and solid lines are representing calculated 'p values
from Equation 6.4 and the dots are the laboratory consolidation test results. As seen from
Figure 6.7, the Bartlett and Alcorn (2004) model slightly underestimates 'p for the
upper part of Lake Bonneville Clay and gives reasonable predictions for the lower Lake
Bonneville clay zone. Residual plot of this model can be seen in Figure 6.8. As shown in
Figure 5.8.c, residual plots which have a linear trend suggest that the residuals are not
independent and another variable is needed in the model.

e= p' CRS -

p' CPT

150.00

Upper
Bonneville

100.00
50.00

0.00
1268.0 1270.0 1272.0 1274.0 1276.0 1278.0 1280.0 1282.0 1284.0
-50.00
-100.00

Lower
Bonneville
Elevation (meters)

Figure 6.8 Residual Plot of Equation 6.4

Bartlett and Alcorn (2004) model used data from location which include 600
South, 1300 South, 2400 South, and 3300 South, thus, their model was derived from a
larger dataset than the current study. The area for this project is relatively small. Thus, the
differences in the laboratory determined values and those calculated values by Bartlett
and Alcorn are probably to that reason. In the following sections an improved model for
determining 'p will be developed for data in this study.

6-10

The cone penetration test (CPT) tip resistance, qc , has been used to estimate the
consolidation stress. Tavenas and Leroueil (1979) proposed an equation for determining

'p for Canadian clays, which includes the tip resistance, qc .

'p =

qc
3

(6.5)

or general expression of Equation (6.5) is given as:

'p =

qc
c

(6.6)

where c is between 2 and 6 for electrical cones and 3 and 10 for mechanical cones.
Mayne (1986) proposed an equation which also depends on qc for 49 different
clays as:

'p = 0.29qc

(6.7)

Later Mayne and Kemper (1988), using a large CPT data base from 50 research sites,
correlated OCR with the net cone resistance q c vo :
q
OCR = 0.37 c ' vo
vo

(6.8)

The CPTU provides additional data which is the pore water pressure caused by
the penetration. Tavenas and Leroueil (1987) showed that preconsolidation stress was
correlated with the net corrected tip resistance, qt vo , for eleven Canadian Clays.
These authors proposed the following equation as:

'p = 0.33(qt vo )

(6.9)

6-11

Sugawara (1988) developed a relation between OCR and the net corrected tip
resistance, qt vo , for Japanese clays:
OCR =

qt vo
k vo'

2 .5 < k < 5

(6.10)

A relationship between 'p and penetration pore water pressure u was proposed
by Mayne and Bachus (1988). Mayne and Bachus (1988) developed a relation between
OCR and penetration pore water pressure, u , as:
u

OCR = 0.38 ' 1

vo

1.33

(6.11)

and in their later research (Mayne and Bachus, 1989) proposed a relation between 'p
and penetration pore water pressure u as;

p'
= 0.47u t
Pa

(6.12)

'p
= 0.54u bt
Pa

(6.13)

where Pa =atmospheric pressure, 1 atm, u t = penetration pore water pressure at the cone
tip ( u1 reading from Figure 6.1) and u bt = penetration pore water pressure behind the
cone tip ( u 2 reading from Figure 6.1).

6-12

6.2.1 Development of Linear Regression Model for Preconsolidation Stress

The Bonneville Clay has interbedded fine sand layers, which mush be filtered out
of the CPTU data before the averaging and statistical analysis. The filtering was carried
by using the soil behavior type index, I c (NCEER, 1997). I c is calculated as follows:

Ic =

[(3.47 log Q )

+ (1.22 + log F )

(6.14)

where;
n
(q c vo ) Pa
Q=
'
Pa

vo

(6.15)

fs
F (%) =
x100
(q c vo )

(6.16)

Pa =atmospheric pressure, 1 atm = 101.325 kPa and the exponent n varies from 0.25 to
1, depending on the grain size characteristic of the soil. For Bonneville clay a value of 1
was used which is more appropriate for clayey soils. Data with I c values less than 2.6
was considered to be granular material and was eliminated from the regression analyses.
After filtering out granular layers, the CPTU readings were paired with the
laboratory pre-consolidation results. For the analysis, the pairing of the CPT data with the
laboratory test data was accomplished by using a 1 meter average of the CPTU readings
starting 0.5 meter above each consolidation test elevation. The averaged CPTU
measurements used in the regression analysis included qc , f s and u . Also average vo
values were used in the regression analyses.

6-13

To determine the independent variables for the model, factors that are correlated
with the dependent variable, 'p , were researched. As seen in the following figures, the
laboratory determined 'p are correlated with the tip resistance, qc , net tip resistance,

(qc vo ) , sleeve stress, f s , corrected tip resistance,

qt , net corrected tip

resistance, (qt vo ) , total overburden stress, vo , and pore pressure, u .

600

0.8438

y = 0.6635x
2
R = 0.8736

p' lab (kPa)

500
400
300
200
100
0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

qc (kPa)

(a)

600

0.7566

y = 1.552x
2
R = 0.8028

p' lab (kPa)

500
400
300
200
100
0
0

500

1000

(b)

1500
qc-
vo (kPa)

6-14

2000

2500

3000

800
y = 131.54e0.0328x
R2 = 0.5434

700

p' lab (kPa)

600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0

10

20

30

40

(c)

fs (kPa)

50

60

600
y = 0.5439x 0.8635
R2 = 0.884

p' lab (kPa)

500
400
300
200
100
0
0

500

1000

1500

(d)

600

2500

3000

3500

qt (kPa)

y = 1.0923x 0.7977
R2 = 0.8314

500

p' lab (kPa)

2000

400
300
200
100
0
0

500

1000

1500
qt- vo (kPa)

(e)

6-15

2000

2500

3000

y = 88.149e0.0031x
R2 = 0.8999

700

p' lab (kPa)

600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0

100

200

300

(f)

400

500

600

700

vo (kPa)

600

p' lab (kPa)

500

y = 1.5473x 0.8064
R2 = 0.7285

400
300
200
100
0
0

200

400

(g)

600

800

1000

1200

1400

u(kPa)

Figure 6.9 Independent variables for 'p (a) qc vs. 'p (b) (q c vo ) vs. 'p

(c) f s vs. 'p (d) qt vs. 'p (e) (qt vo ) vs. 'p (f) vo vs. 'p (g) u vs. 'p

Because qt is calculated from qc and u (Equation 6.1) and is also used widely in the
literature, it was chosen over qc and u as the primary independent variable to correlate
with 'p . As we can see from Figure 6.9.d, f s has the lowest correlation ( R 2 =54.34%)
with 'p when compared with the other independent variables. Values of f s were also
eliminated because of the lower correlation from the main regression model. For the

6-16

multi linear regression model, the same procedure explained Chapter 5.3.1.a was applied
to the CPTU correlations. The independent variables for the model were qt , (qt vo ) ,
and vo . These variables were used to predict 'p by dividing them into seven different
models as presented in Table 6.1. From an application standpoint, the regression models
should not be dependent on the stress units, so all variables were divided by Pa (1 Pa =
101.325 kPa = 1.01325 Bar), which is atmospheric pressure, to make the regression
variables dimensionless.
Table 6.1 Data variables sets for preconsolidation pressure
Data Set
Variables in Equation
R2

= f vo
Pa

R 2 = 87.45%

q
= f t
Pa

R 2 = 88.13%

q vo

= f t
Pa

R 2 = 82.87%

q
= f vo , t
Pa
Pa Pa

R 2 = 90.80%

'p

q vo

= f vo , t
Pa
Pa
Pa

R 2 = 90.86%

'p

q q vo

= f t , t
Pa
Pa
Pa

R 2 = 90.39%

q q vo

= f vo , t , t
Pa
Pa
Pa Pa

R 2 = 90.67%

'p

y=

y=

y=

y=

y=

y=

y=

'p

Pa

'p
Pa

'p
Pa

'p

6-17

All regression analyses were carried out by Microsoft EXCEL. Model E, which
has x1 =

vo
q vo
, x2 = t
as independent variables, gave the highest R 2 value. This
Pa
Pa

model has the general form:

y = o x11 x 2 2

(6.17)

This can be expressed in a linear form for multiple regression using:

log y = log o + 1 log x1 + 2 log x 2

(6.18)

Table 6.2 gives the regression summary of the Equation 6.19, which includes the

'p vo
q vo
,
and t
.
logarithmic transformation of
Pa Pa
Pa
p

q vo
Table 6.2 Linear regression output using log of vo as x1 and t
as x 2 ; y = log of
Pa
Pa
Pa
'

Regression Statistics
Multiple R
0.955384049
R Square
0.91275868
Adjusted R Square 0.908604332
Standard Error
0.064458439
Observations
45
ANOVA
df
Regression
Residual
Total

Intercept
X Variable 1
X Variable 2

2
42
44

SS
1.825755423
0.174505393
2.000260816

MS
0.912878
0.004155

F
219.7116274

Significance
F
5.69071E-23

Coefficients

Standard
Error

t Stat

P-value

Lower 95%

- 0.19909468
0.565048715
0.342220133

0.045819794
0.090283113
0.082976734

-4.34517
6.258631
4.12429

8.63721E-05
1.68576E-07
0.000171764

0.291562805
0.382849959
0.174766252

6-18

From the above model and regression output, the linear regression can be back
transformed to:

'p

= 0.6323 vo
Pa
Pa

0.565

q t vo

Pa

0.3422

(6.19)

A Regression model similar to that of Bartlett and Alcorn (2004) was attempted to
compare with Equation 6.19. The Bartlett and Alcorn (2004) model has the form:
p'
= log o + 1 log qt
log

vo
vo

(6.20)

The R 2 value of Equation 6.20 was 26.71%, which is considerably lower than
90.80% for Equation 6.19. Thus, Equation 6.20 is not recommended due to its poorer
predictive performance. As seen Figures 6.10.a, b and c, laboratory OCR values are
plotted against vo , qt , and (qt vo ) . Models with OCR gave lower R 2 values than
models with the preconsolidation stress, as we can see in Figure 6.9. Therefore the model
given in Equation 6.19, is recommended as the final model for determination of the
preconsolidation pressure from CPTU results for the Bonneville Clay.

2.50
y = 2.0957e-0.0013x
R2 = 0.6935

OCR (lab)

2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0

100

200

(a)

300

400

vo (kPa)

6-19

500

600

700

2.50

OCR (Lab)

2.00
1.50
y = 13.984x-0.3288
R2 = 0.5541

1.00
0.50
0.00
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

qt (kPa)

(b)

2.50

OCR (Lab)

2.00

y = 9.7811x -0.2899
R2 = 0.475

1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0

500

1000

(c)

1500

2000

2500

3000

qt- vo (kPa)

Figure 6.10 (a) vo vs. OCR (b) qt vs. OCR (c) qt vo vs. OCR
Residual plot of Equation 6.19 can be seen in Figure 6.11. This figure gives
overall impression of horizontal box centered on zero line, thus Equation 6.19 is a
satisfactory model.
Comparison of the preconsolidation pressure predicted from Equation 6.19 with
laboratory results can be seen in Figure 6.12. The solid lines represent the results of
Equation 6.19 and the dots represent laboratory test results. Equation 6.19 shows a close
prediction of the laboratory results for Bonneville Clay.

6-20

 p' (CRS)- p' (DMT) (kPa)

e=

60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
-10.001268
-20.00
-30.00
-40.00
-50.00
-60.00

1270

1272

1274

1276

1278

1280

1282

1284

Elevation (meters)

Figure 6.11 Residual plot of Equation 6.20

6.3 Compression Ratio (CR) and Constrained Modulus (M) Correlations

As seen in Figure 6.13.a, b and c, laboratory determined CR values are plotted

against vo , qt , and (qt vo ) , respectively. The R 2 values from those regressions are
between 13.53% and 25.32%. These R 2 values are relatively low.
In an attempt to improve the models predictive performance, CR values were
converted to the constrained modulus, M at the preconsolidation stress level. As given in
Equation 5.10, M can be back-calculate from CR values. Because CR correlations gave
low R 2 values, it was decided to look for any correlations between CPTU and laboratory
determined constrained modulus values in the geotechnical literature. As seen in Figure
6.14.a and b and c, laboratory determined M values plotted against independent
variables vo , qt , and (qt vo ) , respectively, significantly improved.

6-21

N. Temple Site
Comparison of
CPTU with CRS
Consolidation
Tests p' vs.
Elevation

CPTU 9
IL Tests

CRS Tests
IL Tests

S. Temp
Embankment
Site Comparison
of CPTU with
CRS
Consolidation
Tests p' vs.
Elevation

CRS Tests

CPTU 12
CPTU 11

1284

1284

1282

1282

1282

1280

1280

1280

1278

1278

1278

1276

Elevation (meters)

1284

Elevation (meters)

Elevation (meters)

CPTU 1
CPTU 10

S. Temple Site
Comparison of
CPTU with CRS
Consolidation
Tests p' vs.
Elevation

1276

1276

1274

1274

1274

1272

1272

1272

1270

1270

1270

1268

1268
0

100 200 300 400 500 600

p' (kPa)

CRS Tests
CRS Tests

1268
0

100 200 300 400 500 600

p' (kPa)

100 200 300 400 500 600

p' (kPa)

Figure 6.12 Comparison of Preconsolidation Stress Values with Eq. 6.19

6-22

0.7
y = 0.6244x -0.1533
R2 = 0.1353

0.6

CR

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

vo (kPa)

0.7
0.6

y = 1.7793x -0.2615
R2 = 0.2532

CR

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

qt (kPa)

0.7
y = 1.4929x-0.2469
R 2 = 0.2488

0.6

CR

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

qt- vo (kPa)

Figure 6.13 (a) vo vs. CR (b) qt vs. CR (c) (qt vo ) vs. CR

6-23

6000.0

Mlab (kPa)

5000.0

y = 22.353x 0.8653
R2 = 0.8104

4000.0
3000.0
2000.0
1000.0
0.0
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

vo (kPa)

6000.0

1.125

y = 0.703x
2
R = 0.8812

Mlab (kPa)

5000.0
4000.0
3000.0
2000.0
1000.0
0.0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

qt (kPa)

7000.0
1.0445

6000.0

y = 1.6828x
2

R = 0.8373

Mlab (kPa)

5000.0
4000.0
3000.0
2000.0
1000.0
0.0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

qt- vo (kPa)

Figure 6.14 (a) vo vs. M (b) qt vs. M (c) (qt vo ) vs. M

6-24

3000

Details of the linear regression model are explained in Chapter 5.3.1.a. Using this
same procedure, multiple linear regression models were applied to predict M values
based on the CPTUs qt , (qt vo ) and total vertical overburden stress, vo . As was
done for evaluating the preconsolidation stress in the previous chapter, independent
variables were divided into seven different models and regression analyses were carried
out. Models for the constrained modulus are given in Table 6.3.
Table 6.3 Data variables sets for constrained modulus
Data Set
Variables in Equation
R2
A

y=M

y=M

Pa

Pa

= f vo
Pa

R 2 = 85.076%

q
= f t
Pa

R 2 = 87.839%

y=M

q vo

= f t
Pa
Pa

R 2 = 83.347%

y=M

q
= f vo , t
Pa
Pa Pa

R 2 = 89.529%

y=M

q vo

= f vo , t
Pa
Pa
Pa

R 2 = 89.676%

y=M

q q vo

= f t , t
Pa
Pa
Pa

R 2 = 89.058%

q q vo

= f vo , t , t
Pa
Pa
Pa Pa

R 2 = 89.625%

y=M

6-25

It was observed that model E has the highest R 2 value. The data set E which has

x1 =

vo
q vo
, x2 = t
as independent variables has the general form:
Pa
Pa
y = o x11 x 2 2

(6.21)

This can be expressed in a linear form for multiple regression using:

log y = log o + 1 log x1 + 2 log x 2

(6.22)

Table 6.4 give the regression summaries of the Equation 6.22 for the data set E.
Table 6.4 Linear regression output using log of

vo
q vo
M
as x1 and t
as x 2 ; y = log of
Pa
Pa
Pa

SUMMARY
OUTPUT
Regression Statistics
Multiple R
0.949446726
R Square
0.901449086
Adjusted R Square
0.896756185
Standard Error
0.089399055
Observations
45
ANOVA
df
2
42
44

SS
3.070405233
0.335672027
3.40607726

Coefficients
0.510575798
0.654937703
0.516652945

Standard
Error
0.063548644
0.125215956
0.115082552

Regression
Residual
Total

Intercept
X Variable 1
X Variable 2

MS
1.535202617
0.007992191

F
192.0878259

Significance
F
7.35993E-22

t Stat
8.034409046
5.230465227
4.489411605

P-value
5.00969E-10
5.02243E-06
5.48151E-05

Lower 95%
0.382329402
0.402241594
0.284406879

From above model and regression output of model E can be back transformed to;

M
= 3.24023 vo
Pa
Pa

0.65494

q t vo

Pa

0.51665

6-26

(6.23)

Also, regression models were attempted that use total overburden stress instead of 1 atm
in the denominator of Equation (6.23). The model has the form:
M
q vo
= log o + 1 log t

log
vo
vo

(6.24)

The R 2 value of the regression analysis of Equation 6.24 was 1.85%, which is
considerably lower than the 89.68% for the Equation 6.23. Thus, this model is not
recommended because of its very poor predictive performance. Therefore, the model
given in Equation 6.23 is recommended as the final model for estimating the constrained
modulus, M, from CPTU results for the Bonneville Clay.
A residual plot of the equation 6.23 can be seen in Figure 6.15. This plot gives an
overall impression of horizontal box centered on zero line, thus we can consider that the

e= M lab-M CPTU (kPa)

model in Equation 6.23 is performing satisfactorily.

700.00
600.00
500.00
400.00
300.00
200.00
100.00
0.00
-100.001268
-200.00
-300.00
-400.00
-500.00
-600.00
-700.00

1270

1272

1274

1276

1278

1280

1282

1284

Elevation (meters)

Figure 6.15 Residual Plot of Equation 6.23

Values of CR can be back-calculated from M. Using the definition of M given in
Equation 5.10:

6-27

CRCPTU =

2.3 'p

(6.25)

M ( fromEq.6.23)

Comparison of M from Equation 6.23 and back calculated CR from Equation 6.25 with
the laboratory results can be seen in Figures 6.17 and 6.18, respectively.
As seen in these figures, calculated values of M from Equation 6.23 and backcalculated values of CR from Equation 6.25 are reasonably close to the laboratory values.
A residual plot for CR (Figure 6.16) also shows a horizontal box centered about the zero
line, so Equations 6.23 and 6.25 can be used to determine the compressibility of

e= CRlab-CRCPTU (kPa)

Bonneville Clay from CPTU results.

0.12
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
-0.021268
-0.04
-0.06
-0.08
-0.10
-0.12

1270

1272

1274

1276

1278

1280

1282

Elevation (meters)

Figure 6.16 Residual Plot of Equation 6.25

6-28

1284

S. Temple Site
Comparison of
M from Eq. 6.23
vs. Elevation
CRS Tests
CRS Tests

CPTU 1
CPTU 10

CRS Tests
IL Tests

CPTU 12
CPTU 11

1284

1284

1282

1282

1282

1280

1280

1280

1278

1278

1278

1276

Elevation (meters)

1284

Elevation (meters)

Elevation (meters)

CPTU 9
IL Tests

S. Temp
Embankment
Site Comparison
of M vs.
Elevation

N. Temple Site
Comparison of
M from Eq. 6.23
vs. Elevation

1276

1276

1274

1274

1274

1272

1272

1272

1270

1270

1270

1268

1268
0

1000

2000

M (kPa)

3000

CRS Tests

1268
0

2000

M (kPa)

4000

2000 4000 6000 8000

M (kPa)

Figure 6.17 Comparison of the Constrained Modulus

6-29

S. Temple Site
Comparison of
CR from Eq. 6.25
vs. Elevation
CRS Tests
CPTU 9

CPTU 1
CPTU 10

CPTU 12
CPTU 11

CRS Tests
IL Tests

1284

1284

1282

1282

1282

1280

1280

1280

1278

1278

1278

1276

Elevation (meters)

1284

Elevation (meters)

Elevation (meters)

CPTU 9
IL Tests

S. Temp
Embankment
Site Comparison
CR from Eq. 6.25
vs. Elevation

N. Temple Site
Comparison CR
from Eq. 6.25 vs.
Elevation

1276

1276

1274

1274

1274

1272

1272

1272

1270

1270

1270

1268

1268
0

0.2

0.4

CR

0.6

CRS Tests

1268
0

0.2

0.4

CR

0.6

0.2

0.4

0.6

CR

Figure 6.18 Comparison of the Compression Ratio

6-30

6-1