766

ARTICLE
Probabilistic identication of underground soil stratication using
cone penetration tests
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV LIBRARY OF HONG KONG UNIV OF on 04/03/16

Yu Wang, Kai Huang, and Zijun Cao

Abstract: This paper develops Bayesian approaches for underground soil stratum identication and soil classication using
cone penetration tests (CPTs). The uncertainty in the CPT-based soil classication using the Robertson chart is modeled
explicitly in the Bayesian approaches, and the probability that the soil belongs to one of the nine soil types in the Robertson
chart based on a set of CPT data is formulated using the maximum entropy principle. The proposed Bayesian approaches
contain two major components: a Bayesian model class selection approach to identify the most probable number of
underground soil layers and a Bayesian system identication approach to simultaneously estimate the most probable layer
thicknesses and classify the soil types. Equations are derived for the Bayesian approaches, and the proposed approaches are
illustrated using a real-life CPT performed at the National Geotechnical Experimentation Site (NGES) at Texas A&M
University, USA. It has been shown that the proposed approaches properly identify the underground soil stratication and
classify the soil type of each layer. In addition, as the number of model classes increases, the Bayesian model class selection
approach identies the soil layers progressively, starting from the statistically most signicant boundary and gradually
zooming into less signicant ones with improved resolution. Furthermore, it is found that the evolution of the identied
soil strata as the model class increases provides additional valuable information for assisting in the interpretation of CPT
data in a rational and transparent manner.

Key words: Bayesian system identication, Bayesian model class selection, soil stratigraphy, cone penetration test (CPT), maxi-
For personal use only.

mum entropy principle.

Rsum : Cet article prsente le dveloppement dapproches baysiennes pour lidentication des couches de sol souterrain
et pour la classication des sols a laide dessais de pntration du cne (EPC). Lincertitude lie a la classication base sur
les EPC selon la charte de Robertson est modlise explicitement dans les approches baysiennes, et la probabilit quun sol
appartienne a un des neuf types de sols de la charte de Robertson bas sur une srie de donnes dEPC est formule en
utilisant le principe de lentropie maximale. Les approches baysiennes proposes comprennent deux composantes ma-
jeures : une approche baysienne de slection de classes de modle an didentier le nombre le plus probable de couches
souterraines de sol, et un systme didentication baysien pour estimer les paisseurs les plus probables des couches de
sols et pour classier les types de sols simultanment. Des quations sont drives pour les approches baysiennes, et les
approches proposes sont illustre par un essai rel de pntration du cne ralis au site national dexprimentation
gotechnique (NGES) a luniversit A&M au Texas, tats-Unis. Il a t dmontr que les approches proposes identient
adquatement la stratication du sol et classient le type de sol pour chaque couche. De plus, au fur et a mesure que le
nombre de classes de modle augmente, lapproche baysienne de slection de classes de modle identie les couches de
sol progressivement, en commenant par la frontire la plus signicative statistiquement et dnissant graduellement les
frontires moins signicatives avec une rsolution amliore. Il est aussi dmontr que lvolution des couches de sol
identies quand la classe de modle augmente permet dobtenir de linformation importante pour aider a interprter les
donnes dEPC de faon rationnelle et transparente. [Traduit par la Rdaction]

Mots-cls : systme didentication baysien, slection baysienne de classe de modle, stratigraphie du sol, essais de pntration
du cne (EPC), principe de lentropie maximale.

Introduction addition, it is convenient, repeatable, and economical (e.g., Rob-

Determining the underground soil stratigraphy (i.e., the num-
ber of soil typeslayers and their thicknessesboundaries under-
ground) is one key aspect in geotechnical site characterization,
during which cone penetration tests (CPTs) are widely used
around the world. CPT consists of pushing a cylindrical steel
probe into the ground and measuring both the tip resistance and
side friction to the penetration. It provides nearly continuous test
data and improves substantially the resolution along the depth in
the characterization of underground soil stratigraphy. CPT also
enjoys many other advantages. It is less disruptive than drilling
operations and has a strong theoretical basis (e.g., Mayne 2007). In
ertson 2009). However, no soil sample is retrieved during CPT for
visual inspection to assist in soil classication or identication of
underground soil strata.
When classifying soil types based on CPT data, the CPT reading
(e.g., tip resistance and friction ratio) is linked directly to the soil
types, and the so-called soil behavior type (SBT) classication is
determined using soil classication charts (e.g., Schmertmann 1978;
Douglas and Olsen 1981; Robertson and Campanella 1983a,
1983b; Robertson 1990; Jefferies and Davies 1993; Olsen and Mitchell
1995; Eslami and Fellenius 1997; Moss et al. 2006; Cetin and Isik
2007). Consider, for example, the soil classication chart that is

Received 4 January 2013. Accepted 24 April 2013.

Y. Wang, K. Huang, and Z. Cao. Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering, Shenzhen Research Institute, City University of Hong Kong, Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon, Hong Kong.
Corresponding author: Yu Wang (e-mail: yuwang@cityu.edu.hk).

Can. Geotech. J. 50: 766776 (2013) dx.doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2013-0004 Published at www.nrcresearchpress.com/cgj on 9 May 2013.
 Wang et al. 767

shown in Fig. 1 and frequently referred to as the Robertson chart Fig. 1. Robertson soil classication chart based on CPT data (after
(Robertson 1990). The soil is classied based on two parameters Robertson 1990).
(i.e., two axes in Fig. 1): the normalized friction ratio, FR = 100fs/
(q t v0), and the normalized tip resistance, Q t (qt v0)/
v0, ob- 1000
tained from CPT testing data, where fs, q t, v0, and
v0 are the
sleeve friction, corrected tip resistance, vertical total stress, and 7 8
vertical effective stress, respectively. The chart is divided into nine
areas corresponding to nine different soil types, as described in
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV LIBRARY OF HONG KONG UNIV OF on 04/03/16

9
Table 1. Based on which area the measured (FR, Q t) combination is
located in, the corresponding soil type is determined accordingly.
6

Normalized Qt = qt v 0
Note that the Robertson chart was developed based on past obser- 100

'v 0
vations and engineering experience, and it inevitably contains
various uncertainties, such as observation scatterness, measure-
ment error, and transformation uncertainty. Such uncertainties
can be properly taken into consideration by integrating the 5

cone resistanc e
Robertson chart with probabilistic approaches.
Several probabilistic soil classication approaches have been
developed in geotechnical literature (e.g., Zhang and Tumay 1999; 10 4
Kurup and Grifn 2006; Jung et al. 2008; Cetin and Ozan 2009).
However, it should be pointed out that these previous approaches, 3
both deterministic (e.g., the Robertson chart) and probabilistic, 1
focused mainly on determining the soil type from a particular data
point (i.e., at a specic depth during CPT). An important question
of how to stratify the underground soil prole and identify differ- 2
ent soil strata from a large number of nearly continuous CPT data
1
points remains open. Consider, for example, measurement data
of a real-life CPT shown in Fig. 2 and performed at the National 0.1 1 10
Geotechnical Experimentation Site (NGES) at Texas A&M Univer- Normalized F = fs
sity (Zhang and Tumay 1999; Briaud 2000). The variation of the R 100
qt v 0
For personal use only.

logarithm of the normalized friction ratio ln(FR) and tip resistance
ln(Q t) with depth are shown in the rst and second column, re-
spectively, in Fig. 2, and the soil types are determined using the
Robertson chart and shown in the third column of Fig. 2. If the
variation of soil types over depth shown in Fig. 2 is used to identify
the soil strata, this about 15 m deep soil prole is divided into
about 14 soil layers. This is obviously not practical in engineering
applications, and the so-called sound engineering judgment is
frequently exercised in a vague and unquantiable manner to
reduce the number of soil layers. As different engineers might
have different engineering judgment, the identied soil strata can
be quite different for each of them. The key issue to this problem
is that the uncertainty in the CPT-based soil classication and the
spatial distribution of the CPT data (e.g., Fenton 1999a, 1999b;
Phoon et al. 2003; Wang et al. 2010) is not considered explicitly,
but treated implicitly and vaguely under the name of engineering
judgement.
This paper integrates the Robertson chart with Bayesian ap-
proaches to explicitly and properly consider the uncertainty in
the CPT-based soil classication and spatial distribution of the
CPT data. Bayesian system identication and model class selection
approaches are developed to integrate engineering judgment as
the so-called prior information with project-specic test data in a
transparent and quantitative manner and to identify the most
probable thicknessesboundaries and number of soil layers in a
systematic and rational manner. The paper starts with the pro-
posed probabilistic framework for soil stratum identication and
probabilistic characterization of soil types based on the Robertson
chart, followed by the Bayesian system identication and model
class selection approaches. Then, the implementation procedure
for the Bayesian approaches is described. The proposed ap-
proaches are illustrated using a real-life CPT test performed at the
NGES at Texas A&M University, USA.
Probabilistic framework for soil stratum
identification
friction ratio
Table 1. Description of soil types in the Robertson's soil
classication chart (after Robertson 1990).
Area Soil description
1 Sensitive, ne-grained
2 Organic soils (peats)
3 Clays (clay to silty clay)
4 Silt mixtures (clayey silt to silty clay)
5 Sand mixtures (silty sand to sandy silt)
6 Sands (clean sand to silty sand)
7 Gravelly sand to sand
8 Very stiff sand to clayey sand
9 Very stiff, ne-grained
_h [h1,h2,...,hn,...hN] in a soil prole containing N soil layers, where
hn is the thickness of the nth layer. The number N in the rst part
of this paper (i.e., before the section titled Most probable number
of soil strata) is considered deterministic, but unknown. It is then
determined by a Bayesian model class selection approach devel-
oped in that section of the paper. Let _ [_1,_2,...,_N] be a set of
ln(FR) and ln(Q t) data obtained from a CPT test in a soil prole
with N soil layers, in which _n [_n1(d1),_n2(d2),...,_nkn(dkn)], n
1,2,...,N, is a set of ln(FR) and ln(Q t) measured at the kn depths of
d1,d2,...,dkn within the nth soil layer. As the Robertson chart is
plotted in a loglog scale (see Fig. 1), ln(FR) and ln(Q t) are used
herein for mathematical convenience.
For a given number N of soil layers, the probability P(_nN) that all
data points in the nth layer belong to the same soil type (i.e., any
one of the nine soil types specied in the Robertson chart, see
Fig. 1 and Table 1) can be expressed as the sum of the probabilities
that all data points belong to each of the nine soil types specied
in the Robertson chart
9

As illustrated in Fig. 3, identifying the underground soil

strata based on CPT data is to determine the layer thickness
(1) P(_n |N) P J1
n |N)
STJ(_ n 1, 2, ..., N

Published by NRC Research Press

 768 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 50, 2013

Fig. 2. A set of real CPT results at NGES, Texas A&M University (after Zhang and Tumay 1999).

Logarithm of normalized friction Logarithm of normalized tip

ratio, ln(FR) resistance, ln(Qt) Soil type
-2.3 -0.3 1.7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
0
Sandy Clay
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV LIBRARY OF HONG KONG UNIV OF on 04/03/16

2
Clay
4

Silty Clay
6
Depth (m)

GWT

10 Clay with Silty Seams

12

14
For personal use only.

Fig. 3. Illustration of the underground soil stratigraphy. , standard kn

deviation. (2) PSTJ(_n |N) P

i1
n,i |N)
STJ(_ for J 1, 2, ..., 9
Normalized Tip Resistance
where kn is the total number of CPT data points in the nth layer;
Layer 1 : 1 = [ FR,1 , Qt ,1 ] h1 PSTJ(_n,iN) is the probability that data point i in the nth layer be-
longs to soil type J. The value of PSTJ(_nN) is calculated repeatedly
for J varying from 1 to 9. Then, the probability P(_nN) is calculated
Layer 2 : 2 = [ FR, 2 , Qt , 2 ] h2
Tip Resistance using eq. (1), and the soil type J with the maximum value of
PSTJ(_nN) among the nine soil types is taken as the soil type for the
Friction Ratio
nth soil layer. The probability PSTJ(_n,iN) for data point i in the nth
. . .

layer belonging to the soil type J is the key input variable in eqs. (1)
and (2), and a probabilistic model is developed in the next section
to estimate the PSTJ(_n,iN) value.
Layer n : n = [ FR,n , Qt ,n ] hn Probabilistic soil classification based on the
Robertson chart
As the Robertson chart was developed based on past observa-
tions and engineering experience, it inevitably contains various
. . .

uncertainties, such as observation scatterness, measurement er-

Layer N : N = [ FR, N , Qt , N ]
hN
Normalized Friction Ratio
where PSTJ(_nN) is the probability that all data points in the nth
layer belong to the same given soil type J, in which the integer J
varies from 1 to 9 corresponding to the nine soil types in Fig. 1 and
Table 1. PSTJ(_nN) can be expressed as
ror, and transformation uncertainty. Consider, for example, a CPT
data point i with a combination [ln(F Ri ),ln(Q it)] value measured at a
given depth during the test. Using the [ln(F Ri ),ln(Q it)] combination
and Fig. 1, a soil type can be determined and classied accordingly.
However, because the Robertson chart and [ln(F Ri ),ln(Q it)] are not
perfect knowledge or information, there exists a plausibility (or
occurrence probability) that the soil at this given depth, in fact,
should be classied as any of the other eight types of soil. Such a
probability can be quantied through a probability density func-
tion (PDF) that spreads over the Robertson chart, as illustrated in
Fig. 4. In this study, the PDF is taken as the commonly used Gauss-
ian distribution, which is consistent with the results obtained by
using the principle of maximum entropy, a theoretical basis of the
Bayesian School to quantify uncertainty and assign a PDF for a
given set of information (Jaynes 2003; Sivia and Skilling 2006). The

Published by NRC Research Press

 Wang et al. 769

Fig. 4. Illustration of the probability density contour and two- Fig. 5. Best-tting of the Robertson soil classication chart by
dimensional joint PDF for soil classication based on a given CPT quadratic functions.
data point.
6.9 Q O N S R
6.9 i i
[ln( F ), ln( Q )] 8
R t

Logarithm of normalized tip resistance, ln(Qt)

6 8 6 7 VI
VII
Logarithm of normalized tip resistance, ln(Qt)

6 7 VIII
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV LIBRARY OF HONG KONG UNIV OF on 04/03/16

P L
5 9
9 J
5 6
V H
4
4 G
M 5 IV
5 3
3 III
C K 4
4 2
I E
2 1 T 3
1 3 1 II
Robertson (1990)
1 2
A Best-fitted curves F
2 B
0 D
-2.3 -1.3 -0.3 0.7 1.7 2.3
0
Logarithm of normalized friction
For personal use only.

-2.3 -1.3 -0.3 0.7 1.7 2.3

ratio, ln(FR)
Logarithm of normalized friction
ratio, ln(FR)
_n [_n1(d1),_n2(d2),...,_nkn(dkn)], n 1,2,..., N, which contains a
maximum entropy principle states that the proper PDF for a given large number of [ln(F Ri ),ln(Q it)] data points, eq. (4) is used repeat-
set of information is the one with the maximum entropy while edly for each data point to obtain the PSTJ(_n,iN) in the right
satisfying all the constraints given by the information (Jaynes hand side of eq. (2).
2003; Sivia and Skilling 2006). In the context of CPT-based proba- To facilitate the two-dimensional integration in eq. (4), the eight
bilistic soil classication, the information available from the CPT boundaries that divide the Robertson chart in Fig. 1 into nine
test is the measured values of [ln(F Ri ), ln(Q it)], and such values can different areas are approximated by eight quadratic functions,
be reasoned as the center or expected values of the PDF that respectively (see the labels I, II, III, , VIII in Fig. 5). The best-tted
spreads over the Robertson chart. The proper PDF based on the parameters for the eight quadratic functions are summarized in
maximum entropy principle is, therefore, a Gaussian PDF cen- Table 2. Figure 5 shows the eight quadratic functions and the
tered at [ln(F Ri ), ln(Q it)] (Jaynes 2003), and it is expressed as original boundaries of the Robertson chart by a series of solid
lines and discrete data points with open squares, respectively. It is

(3) P[ln(FR), ln(Qt)|_]

1
2FRQt
exp

[ln(FR) ln(F Ri )]2
22 FR
obvious that the quadratic functions approximate the original
boundaries in the Robertson chart reasonably well. Table 3 fur-
ther summarizes coordinates of the 19 intersection points among

[ln(Qt) ln(Q it)]2
2
2Qt all boundaries (see the labels A, B, C, , T in Fig. 5). These coordi-
nates, together with the quadratic functions, form the boundaries
for the integration, which can be performed numerically and con-
veniently using computer software, such as Matlab (Mathworks,
where _ [FR,Qt], FR and Qt are the standard deviation of the Inc. 2010).
joint Gaussian distribution along the ln(FR) and ln(Q t) axes, respec- Note that in this study, _ [FR,Qt] are the so-called nuisance
tively, and they reect the uncertainties in both the Robertson parameters in the Bayesian analysis, which are quantities neces-
chart and measurement data. Ideally, the values of FR and Qt sarily included in the formulation and analysis, but of no intrinsic
can be estimated based on experimentation and past knowl- interest (Sivia and Skilling 2006). In addition, as illustrated in
edge or experience with CPT measurements, if available. Then, Fig. 3, for a soil prole containing N soil layers, a set of _
the probability PSTJ that the data point i with the measured [FR,Qt] is needed for each soil layer, resulting in N sets of
[ln(F Ri ), ln(Q it)] values belongs to the soil type J is expressed as _ [FR,Qt]. These N sets of model parameters are dened as

_ N [_1,_2,...,_N], in which
_ n [FR,n,Qt,n], n 1,2,...,N, is the
(4) PSTJ P[ln(FR), ln(Qt)|_]d ln(FR)d ln(Qt) standard deviation of the joint Gaussian distribution for the nth
J
layer.
for J 1, 2, ..., 9 The parameters of real interest in the identication of un-
derground soil stratication are the thickness vector h _
The two-dimensional integration in eq. (4) is performed [h1,h2,...,hn,...hN] and its dimension N (i.e., the total number of soil
repeatedly for each soil type (i.e., for [ln(FR), ln(Q t)] soil layers). It is worthwhile to point out that dividing the CPT data _ into
type J when J varies from 1 to 9). For a set of CPT data different soil layers (i.e., dividing _ into _n, n = 1,2,, N) requires

Published by NRC Research Press

 770 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 50, 2013

Table 2. Best-tted parameters for the quadratic func- joint posterior distribution (e.g., Ang and Tang 2007; Cao and
tion ln(Q t) = a ln(FR)2 + b ln(FR) + c. Wang 2013)
Function
(5) P(
_ N | _, N) KNP(_ |
_ N, N)P(
_ N |N)
ID a b c
I 0.3707 1.3625 1.0549
II 0.5586 0.5399 0.3049 where KN 1/P(_N) is a normalizing constant; P(_
_ N,N) is the
III 0.5405 0.2739 1.6959 likelihood function that reects the model t with the site obser-
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV LIBRARY OF HONG KONG UNIV OF on 04/03/16

IV 0.3833 0.7805 2.5718

V 0.2827 0.967 4.1612 _ NN) is the prior distribution of model parame-
vation data _; P(
ters that reects the knowledge about _ N in the absence of data.
VI 0.3477 1.4933 6.6507
VII 0.8095 3.6795 8.1444
The Bayesian framework allows explicit consideration of engi-
VIII 64.909 187.07 139.2901 neering judgment as quantitative prior knowledge. This is one of
the intrinsic advantages of the Bayesian framework over the clas-
sical probabilistic approaches, which rely only on the project-
Table 3. Coordinates for the intersection points. specic test data (i.e., CPT data in this study). Note that the
Intersection Coordinate Coordinate likelihood function P(_n_ n,N) for the nth soil layer is independent
point ln(FR) ln(Q t) of that for the other soil layers. P(_
_ N,N) for a soil prole contain-
A 2.3026 0 ing N layers is therefore expressed as
B 0.6569 0
N

P(_ |_ , N)
C 2.3026 2.2268
D 2.3026 0 (6) P(_|
_ N, N) n n
E 2.3026 2.0234 n1

F 0.5589 0.1776
P (_n_n,N) is calculated using eqs. (1)(4). Note that, following
G 2.3026 3.9639
H 1.8687 4.0953
J 1.4505 4.5104 the conventional notation of Bayesian framework, P(_nN) in eq. (1)
K 1.3334 2.2126 is re-written as P(_n_n,N) in eq. (6) with the parameters _n for
L 0.9622 5.3534 the given Gaussian PDF in eq. (3). In addition, as the boundaries
M 2.3026 3.4335 of soil layers (layer thicknesses) change, the division of CPT
For personal use only.

N 0.3655 6.9078 data also changes. In other words, _n is a function of layer

O 0.1658 6.9078
P 2.3026 5.0557 thicknesses and P(_n_n,N) is also a function of layer thick-
Q 2.3026 6.9078 nesses. Therefore, although the parameter of layer thickness
R 2.3026 6.9078 does not explicitly appear in eq. (6), the likelihood function is a
S 1.6334 6.9078 function of the layer thickness vector _h [h1,h2,...,hn,...hN] and
T 0.5773 1.7179 the soil layer number N.
Similar to the likelihood function, the prior distribution
_ NN) in eq. (5) is expressed as
P(
information on the boundaries that separate the various soil layers
N
with different soil types. Such information is unknown and needs to
be determined in site characterization. In the next section, a Bayes- (7) P(
_ N |N) P(_ |N)
n1
n
ian system identication approach is developed to determine the
thicknessesboundaries of various soil layers for a given layer num-
ber N and to determine the soil type of each layer using the CPT data where P(_nN) is the prior distribution of the model parameters _n
_ and the Robertson chart. for the nth soil layer. As _n is the nuisance parameters in the
Bayesian framework and there is no prevailing information avail-
Bayesian system identification of the thicknesses
able in this study as the prior knowledge, an uninformative prior
boundaries of soil strata distribution, i.e., uniform distribution, is considered appropriate
Within the Bayesian framework, the updated knowledge about for _n [FR,n,Qt,n],n 1,2,...,N. The prior distribution for the
the model parameters _ N for the N layers is represented by their model parameters _n is, therefore, expressed as

1 1
for FR [FR,min , FR,max ], Qt [Qt,min , Qt,max ]
(8) P(_n |N) FR,max FR,min Qt,max Qt,min
0 for others

where FR,min, FR,max; Qt,min, Qt,max are the lower and upper
bound values of FR and Qt, respectively. Note that the uniform
prior distribution only requires relatively uninformative prior in-
formation (i.e., the possible ranges of the model parameters,
_ min
and _max ). However, it is worthwhile to note that if high-quality
prior information is available (e.g., via experimentation and past
knowledge or experience with CPT measurements), more sophis-
ticated types of prior distributions may be used. The Bayesian
approach proposed in this paper is general and equally applicable
for other types of prior distributions.
If there is no uncertainty associated with the Robertson chart or
measurement data, and the soil type can be classied, with full
certainty, by the measured values of ln(FR) and ln(Q t), the PDF in
Fig. 4 that quanties the occurrence probability of different soil
types should be reduced to a single point at [ln(F Ri ),ln(Qit)]. This
leads to the lower bound FR and Qt values of FR,min = 0 and
Qt,min = 0 for eq. (8). On the other hand, the upper bound values
FR,max and Qt,max are considered to occur in an extreme case
where the Robertson chart provides no valuable information

Published by NRC Research Press

 Wang et al.
for soil classication. In such an extreme case, although
[ln(F Ri ),ln(Qit)] is obtained from the CPT tests, the occurrence prob-
ability of different soil types are still similar, and the PDF in Fig. 4
can be approximated as a uniform distribution that spreads over
the whole Robertson chart. FR and Qt for such a uniform distri-
bution is taken as the upper bound values FR,max and Qt,max, and
they are expressed as
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV LIBRARY OF HONG KONG UNIV OF on 04/03/16
(9)
FR,max [ln(FR,max ) ln(FR,min )]2 /12
Qt,max [ln(Qt,max ) ln(Qt,min )]2 /12
where FR,max = 10, FR,min = 0.1, Qt,max = 1000, Qt,min = 1 are the
maximum and minimum value of FR and Q t in the Robertson
chart, respectively (see Fig. 1).
Combining eq. (9) with eq. (8), together with FR,max = 10, FR,min =
0.1, Qt,max = 1000, Qt,min = 1, FR,min = 0, and Qt,min = 0, leads to the
prior distribution for the model parameters _n as
(10) P(_n |N) ( 1.331 )( 1.991 ) for FR [0, 1.33], Qt [0, 1.99]
0 for others
Then, the most probable thicknessesboundaries of the soil layers
are identied by using an asymptotic technique to approximate the
posterior PDF of the model parameters in eq. (5). The asymptotic
technique involves approximating the posterior PDF as a Gaussian
PDF (Bleistein and Handelsman 1986). The posterior PDF for the
For personal use only.
model parameters is a joint Gaussian PDF with a mean value equal to
the most probable value (MPV) of the posterior PDF. The MPV,
denoted by
_ N, maximizes the posterior PDF. Under this approx-
imation, maximizing P( _ N _,N), or for numerical convenience,
minimizing an objective function fobj ln[P( _ N _,N)], leads to the
posterior mean for the model parameters. The asymptotic tech-
nique has been used in the probabilistic characterization of the
effective friction angle of sand and identication of statistically
homogenous sand layers based on the effective friction angle (Cao
and Wang 2013), and the asymptotic technique has been shown to
provide good approximation of the posterior PDF (Wang et al.
2010) and proper identication of statistically homogenous sand
layers (Cao and Wang 2013).
Note that, because the likelihood function in eq. (6) is a function
of the thicknesses of soil layers, both the posterior PDF and the
objective function are functions of soil layer thicknesses. Maxi-
mizing the posterior distribution, i.e., minimizing the objective
function, provides not only the MPV of _ N, but also the MPV of the
layer thicknesses, which are the parameters of primary interest in
the identication of the underground soil stratication.
Most probable number of soil strata
The number N of soil layers is considered deterministic, but
unknown in the previous sections. Starting from this section, the
number of soil layers is considered as a variable k, and a Bayesian
model class selection approach (Beck and Yuen 2004; Yuen 2010;
Cao and Wang 2013) is utilized to determine the most probable
value k* among a pool of candidate model classes. A model class
herein is dened as a series of stratication models that share the
same number of soil layers, but different model parameters (e.g.,
_ N, h
_N). Let Nmax denote the maximum possible number of soil
layers within the depth of which CPT is performed. Then, the
model class number k is a positive integer varying from 1 to Nmax.
Subsequently, there are Nmax candidate model classes Mk, k =
1,2,, Nmax, and the kth model class Mk has k soil layers. The most
probable model class Mk is the model class with the maximum
occurrence probability among all candidate model classes, given
that a set of CPT data _ is observed. The most probable layer
771
number k*, therefore, can be determined by comparing the con-
ditional probabilities P(Mk_) for all candidate model classes and
selecting the one with the maximum value of P(Mk_).
According to Bayes' theorem (Beck and Yuen 2004; Yuen 2010;
Cao and Wang 2013), P(Mk_) is written as
(11) P(Mk | _) P(_ |Mk)P(Mk)/P(_), k 1, 2, ..., Nmax
where P(_) is the PDF of _ and it is constant and independent of Mk;
P(_Mk) is the conditional probability of _ given the model class Mk;
P(Mk) is the prior probability of the model class Mk, which reects
the prior knowledge on the number of the underground soil lay-
ers. P(_Mk) is frequently referred to as the evidence for the
model class Mk provided by the CPT data _, and it increases as the
plausibility of _ conditional on Mk increases. If no prevailing prior
knowledge on the number of soil layers is available, the prior
probability for each of the Nmax candidate model classes is the
same and therefore, P(Mk) can be taken as 1/Nmax. Then, according
to eq. (11), P(Mk_) is proportional to P(_Mk), and the most probable
number of soil layer can be selected by comparing the value of
P(_Mk) among the Nmax candidate model classes. The model class
with the maximum value of P(_Mk) is taken as the most probable
model class.
Using conditional probability and the theorem of total proba-
bility, the evidence P(_Mk) can be expressed as
P(_|_ , M )P(_ |M )d_
1
(12) P(_|Mk) P(_ |Mk, _hk)P(_hk) N k N k N
Htk1
k 1, 2, ..., Nmax
where P(_Mk,_hk) is the conditional probability of _ given the
model class Mk and _hk, and it is further expressed as the integra-
tion term P(_
_ NMk)d
_ N,Mk)P( _ N evaluated at the most probable
thicknesses _hk; P(_hk) is the occurrence probability of _hk; Ht = h1 +
h2 + + hk is the total thickness for the underground soil strata.
The 1/Hk1
t term in eq. (12) reects P(_hk) approximately. Note that,
for the model class Mk, there are k soil layers and the soil thickness
vector is _hk [h1,h2,...,hk]. Because the summation of all entries in
_hk [h1,h2,...,hk] must equal the total thickness Ht of the soil prole,
there are at most k 1 independent variables among all the layer
thicknesses. Each of the independent layer thicknesses can vary
from 0 to Ht. Under the condition of no prevailing prior knowl-
edge, a uniform distribution with a constant probability density
of 1/Ht is adopted herein for each independent layer thickness. The
occurrence probability of the most probable thicknesses _hk is
therefore approximated as 1/Hk1 t , as given in eq. (12). The 1/Ht
k1
value reduces as the number k increases and the model becomes
more sophisticated (i.e., more soil layers) and therefore, the 1/Hk1 t
term represents a penalty against overparameterization in the
Bayesian model class selection (e.g., Gull 1988; Mackay 1992; Beck
and Yuen 2004; Yan et al. 2009; Cao and Wang 2013).
Using eq. (12), the evidence P(_Mk) is calculated repeatedly for
each model class, i.e., k = 1,2,, Nmax. In each repeated calculation,
the value of k or the number of soil layers is constant. The Bayes-
ian system identication approach developed in the previous sec-
tion for a soil prole with given N layers of soil is applied directly
by setting N = k, and the most probable thicknesses _hk for the
model class Mk is determined accordingly. Subsequently, the most
probable thicknesses _hk are used in eq. (12) to calculate the evi-
dence for each model class. The integration term in eq. (12) can be
performed numerically using computer software, such as Matlab
(Mathworks, Inc. 2010). By comparing the P(_Mk) values for differ-
Published by NRC Research Press
 772 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 50, 2013

Fig. 6. Flowchart for the proposed process.

Obtain Qt and FR , choose N max

Compute prior information P( N N )

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV LIBRARY OF HONG KONG UNIV OF on 04/03/16

Compute the likelihood function and the objective

function

Minimize the objective function and determine the

soil layer thicknesses and soil types

Calculate the conditional probability P( M k ) for

the k-th model class
For personal use only.

Complete N max times of

No
repetitive calculations for
N max model classes in total?

Yes

Compare P( M k ) and determine the soil layer

number, the layer thicknesses and soil types

ent model classes, the most probable model class Mk and the proba-
ble number k* of soil layers are determined. Note that the most
probable thicknesses _hk for each model class have been determined
in the Bayesian system identication approach and are used as input
in the Bayesian model class selection. Therefore, the determination
of the most probable number k* of soil layers simultaneously leads to
the determination of the most probable layer thicknesses _hk.
Implementation procedure
Figure 6 shows a owchart of the proposed approach, which
involves eight steps in the implementation. Details of each step
and their associated equations are summarized as follows:
1. Obtain a set of CPT data and convert them to the logarithm of the
normalized friction ratio ln(FR) and cone tip resistance ln(Q t).
2. Choose an appropriate maximum number Nmax of soil layers
for the CPT data _, resulting in Nmax candidate model classes
and the k value varying from 1 to Nmax.
3. Dene the prior distribution for model parameters
_ N [_1,_2,...,_N] using eqs. (7) and (10).
4. Compute the likelihood function:
Compute the PDF (i.e., eq. (3)) for a CPT data point (i.e., a
combination of [ln(FR), ln(Q t)]) measured at a given depth
during CPT tests
Compute the probability that all the data points in the nth
layer belong to a certain soil type J by eqs. (2) and (4).
Compute the probability that all the data points in the nth
layer belong to the same type of soil by eq. (1).
Compute the likelihood function by eq. (6).
_ N_,N)].
5. Construct the objective function fobj ln[P(
6. Minimize the objective function (e.g., by a MATLAB function
fminsearch) and determine the most probable thicknesses h_k for
the kth model class. Compare PSTJ(_n_n,N), J 1,2...,9 for the nth
layer and determine the soil type for the nth soil layer.
7. Calculate the conditional probability P(_Mk) of _ given the kth
model class using eq. (12).

Published by NRC Research Press

 Wang et al. 773

8. Repeat steps 37 Nmax times to calculate _hk and P(_Mk) for in Fig. 7. Distribution of the CPT data of the illustrative example on
total Nmax candidate model classes. The model class with the the Robertson chart.
maximum value of P(_Mk) is selected as the most probable 6.9
model class Mk and the corresponding _hk values are the most
probable layer thicknessesboundaries.
Although the proposed Bayesian approach involves quite a
6 7 8
number of equations and seems mathematically complicated, it is
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV LIBRARY OF HONG KONG UNIV OF on 04/03/16

Logarithm of normalized tip resistance, ln(Q t)

rather straightforward to program it as a user function or toolbox
in computer software, such as MATLAB (Mathworks, Inc. 2010).
9
Interested readers may contact the corresponding author for such
a user function in MATLAB. It is also worthwhile to point out that, 5
although a thorough understanding of the Bayesian algorithm
and formulation is always advantageous, it is not a prerequisite
6
for engineers to use the proposed approach or the user function.
The user function or toolbox can be treated as a black box. 4
Geotechnical practitioners only need to provide prior knowledge,
if any, and project-specic CPT test data as input, and the user
function or toolbox will return the underground soil classication
and stratication. This allows engineers to use the proposed 3 5
Bayesian approach without being compromised by the compli-
cated mathematics and therefore, signicantly improves the practi-
cality of the proposed approach. The Bayesian system identication
and model class selection approaches are illustrated in the next sec- 2 0-1.4m 4
tion using a real-life CPT example.
1.4-6.8m
Illustrative example
6.8-8.2m 3
Figure 2 shows a real-life CPT test example that was performed 1
at the NGES site at Texas A&M University, USA (Zhang and Tumay 1
For personal use only.

8.2-11m
1999; Briaud 2000). The site comprises a sequence of sandy clay, 2
clay, silty clay, and clay with silt seams extending from the ground 11-15m
surface to a depth of about 15 m. The groundwater table is at about 0
6 m below the ground surface. The distribution of the measured -2.3 -1.3 -0.3 0.7 1.7 2.3
ln(FR) and ln(Q t) data and the soil type of all the CPT data points
Logarithm of normalized friction ratio, ln(FR)
based on the Robertson chart are shown in Fig. 2. As shown in this
gure, the soil prole mainly comprises soil types 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and
9 (see Table 1 for the description of each soil type). Figure 7 plots
the ln(FR) and ln(Q t) data pairs in the Robertson chart, and the data Table 4. Results of the Bayesian model class selection approach for
points are mainly located within areas 3, 4, and 5, with some the illustrative example.
scattered data points in areas 6, 8, and 9. As a reference, the soil Most probable
stratication based on the boring log at the same site (Zhang and thicknesses, hk (m)
Tumay 1999; Briaud 2000) is also illustrated in Fig. 2. The soil
prole includes a sandy clay layer from about 0 to 1.1 m, a clay Model
layer from about 1.1 to 4.9 m, a silty clay layer from about 4.9 to class Mk
ln[P(_ Mk)] h1 h2 h3 h4 h5 h6
7.1 m, and a clay with silt seams layer from about 7.1 to 15 m. M1 210.4 15
Consider, for example, six candidate model classes (i.e., the M2 147.2 6.9 8.1
maximum number of soil layers Nmax = 6). The possible numbers M3 111.2 1.4 5.4 8.2
(i.e., k) of soil layers are therefore 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. For all model M4 98.2 1.0 5.8 4.2 4.0
classes, the prior distributions of the model parameters M5 86.2 1.4 5.3 1.5 2.8 4.0
_ N are all
estimated using eqs. (7) and (10). Using the prior knowledge and M6 93.3 1.5 3.8 1.5 1.5 2.9 3.8
the CPT data shown in Fig. 2, the proposed Bayesian system iden-
tication and model class selection approaches are used to pro-
vide the most probable number of soil layers and the most
addition, the soil types in these ve soil layers are classied and
probable boundaries (or thicknesses) of the layers. The results
listed in order from the ground surface as soil type 8 (i.e., very
obtained from the Bayesian approaches are discussed and com-
stiff sand to clayey sand), soil type 3 (clays (clay to silty clay)),
pared with those from other approaches, as described in the fol-
soil type 5 (sand mixtures (silty sand to sandy silt)), soil type 4
lowing subsections.
(silt mixtures (clayey silt to silty clay)), and soil type 5 (sand
Most probable number of soil strata mixtures (silty sand to sandy silt)).
Table 4 summarizes the logarithm of evidence in the second
Most probable thicknesses or boundaries
column for the six candidate model classes. The value of
Table 4 also summarizes the most probable thicknesses (i.e., hk)
ln[P(_Mk)] increases from 210.4 to 86.2 as k increases from 1 to of the soil layers for the six candidate model classes. Using
5, and it then decreases from 86.2 to 93.3 as k further in- hk, k 1, 2, ..., 6 the most probable boundaries of soil layers are
creases from 5 to 6. The model class with ve soil layers has the delineated accordingly for the six model classes, as shown in Fig. 8
maximum value of ln[P(_Mk)] among all the six model classes. by short dashed lines. For the most probable model class M5 , the
Therefore, the most probable number of soil layers is 5. In most probable thicknesses of these ve layers are 1.4, 5.3, 1.5, 2.8,

Published by NRC Research Press

 774
Fig. 8. Most probable boundaries of soil layers for different model classes in the illustrative example.
Model Class
M1 M2 M3
0
2
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV LIBRARY OF HONG KONG UNIV OF on 04/03/16
4 Soil type
6
Depth (m)
8 5
10
12
14
Note: 3: Clays (clay to silty clay), 4: Silt mixtures (clayey silt to silty clay)
5: Sand mixtures (silty sand to sandy silt), 8: Very stiff sand to clayey sand
For personal use only.
and 4.0 m. The most probable boundaries for M5 are thus at a
depth of 1.4, 6.7, 8.2, and 11.0 m, respectively.
Figure 8 further shows the evolution of the identied soil strata
by the Bayesian approaches as the model class varies from M1 to
M6 (i.e., the number of layers increases from 1 to 6). Model class M1
only has one layer, and therefore it does not have any internal
boundary. The number of internal boundaries increases from 1 for
M2 to 5 for M6. All model classes M2 to M6 share a common internal
boundary at a depth of about 6.7 m. In addition, model classes M3
to M6 share one more internal boundary at a depth of about 1.4 m,
model classes M4 to M6 share one more internal boundary at a
depth of about 11.0 m, and model classes M5 to M6 share one more
common internal boundary at a depth of about 8.2 m.
The rst layer in M2 is further divided into two new layers in
M3; the third layer in M3 is further divided into two new layers in
M4; the third layer in M4 is further divided into two new layers
in M5; and the second layer in M5 is further divided into two new
layers in M6. Apart from those identied in the previous model
class Mk 1, the most probable boundaries in the model class Mk
include one additional internal boundary that divides one layer in
Mk 1 into two new layers in Mk. As the value of k increases, the
Bayesian system identication approach applied in this study
identies the soil layers progressively, starting from the statisti-
cally most signicant boundary and gradually zooming into less
signicant ones with improved resolution. It is worthwhile to
point out that, although the most probable model class (the most
probable number of soil layers) and its corresponding most prob-
able layer thicknesses are of the primary interest in the identi-
cation of the underground soil stratication, the evolution of the
identied soil strata as the model class increases (see Fig. 8) also
provides valuable information for assisting in the interpretation
of CPT data in a rational and transparent manner.
Result comparisons
Figure 9 compares the results from the proposed Bayesian ap-
proaches with those from other approaches, such as the probabi-
listic fuzzy subset approach developed by Zhang and Tumay
(1999). As reported by Zhang and Tumay (1999), the fuzzy soil type
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 50, 2013
Soil Type
M4 M *
M6 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
5
Soil type
8
3
Soil type
Soil type
4
Soil type
5
index prole using the same set of CPT data is included as the
third column in Fig. 9. The prole shows the vertical variation
of the fuzzy soil type indices of the highly probable clayey soil (HPC),
the highly probable mixed soil (HPM), and the highly probable
sandy soil (HPS). However, the probabilistic fuzzy subset approach
can not directly stratify the soil prole, and sound engineering
judgment has to be exercised to identify the underground soil
stratication. The fourth column in Fig. 9 includes an example of
a reasonable soil classication and stratication that can be in-
ferred from the fuzzy soil type index prole in the third column
with such sound engineering judgment. The soil prole is divided
into ve layers, and the boundaries are located at a depth of about
1.0, 7.0, 8.0, and 11.0 m. The number of soil layers and their bound-
aries obtained from the probabilistic fuzzy subset approach and
further interpreted with engineering judgment are in good agree-
ment with those from the Bayesian approaches developed in the
paper. In addition, the soil types in these ve soil layers are clas-
sied by the probabilistic fuzzy subset approach and listed in
order from the ground surface as HPM, HPC, HPM with HPS inclu-
sions, HPM, and HPS with HPM inclusions. Such classications are
also consistent with those obtained from the Bayesian approaches,
as shown under the column of M5 in Fig. 9. When compared with
other probabilistic approaches, the Bayesian approaches developed
in the paper directly stratify the soil prole. This bypasses the
vague and unquantiable exercise of the engineering judgment
and allows transparent and quantitative consideration of the en-
gineering judgment as prior knowledge in the Bayesian frame-
work in the CPT-based soil classication and identication of the
underground soil stratication.
Figure 9 also includes, in the second column, the soil classica-
tion and stratication results based on the boring log obtained at
the same site. The soil prole is divided into four layers, and the
soil types in these four soil layers are classied in according to the
Unied Soil Classication System (USCS (ASTM 2006)) and listed in
order from the ground surface as: sandy clay, clay, silty clay, and
clay with silt seams. There are obviously some inconsistencies
between the results from the boring log with USCS and those from
Published by NRC Research Press
 Wang et al. 775

Fig. 9. Comparison among the results of the boundaries of soil layers determined by different approaches in the illustrative example.
The Bayesian approach
of this study
Soil type inferred
Cone Tip Resistance (MPa) Fuzzy Soil Type Index Model Class Soil Type
from Zhang and
0 5 10 15 Boring log 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Tumay 1999 M1 M2 M3 M4 M 5* M6 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
0
Sandy Clay HPM Soil type
8
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV LIBRARY OF HONG KONG UNIV OF on 04/03/16

Tip HPS
Resistance
2 HPM
Friction
Ratio HPC
Clay HPC

4 Soil type
3

Silty Clay
6
GWT
Depth (m)

HPM with HPS Soil type

inclusions 5
8

HPM Soil type

10 Clay with 4
Silt Seams

12
HPS with HPM
inclusions Soil type
5
Zhang and Tumay
14 1999
For personal use only.

0 2 4 6 Note: 3: Clays (clay to silty clay), 4: Silt mixtures (clayey silt to silty clay)
5: Sand mixtures (silty sand to sandy silt), 8: Very stiff sand to clayey sand
Sleeve Friction Ratio (%)

the CPT-based approaches, either deterministic (i.e., the Robertson
chart) or probabilistic (e.g., the probabilistic fuzzy subset ap-
proach or the Bayesian approaches in this paper) ones. Such in-
consistencies have been reported in the literature (e.g., Zhang and
Tumay 1999; Robertson 2009), and they can be attributed to the
different soil classication systems used. Note that the USCS clas-
sies the soil based on the grain size distribution and the Atter-
berg limits test results, and it mainly reects the compositional
types of soil. In contrast, the CPT-based system classies the soil
based on the mechanical responses of soil during CPT tests, and it
mainly reects the soil behavior types. Robertson (2009) has
pointed out that the classication results from the USCS and CPT-
based system may not agree with each other, particularly for the
mixed soils region (e.g., the soil type 5 sand mixtures and soil type
4 silt mixtures) in the Robertson chart. Because a large portion of
the CPT data points in this illustrative example are located within
the areas of soil types 4 and 5 (see the last column in Fig. 9), it is not
surprising to observe such inconsistencies.
A closed examination on the evolution of the identied soil
strata as the model class increases in the proposed Bayesian ap-
proaches (see the fth column in Fig. 9), however, shows that all
layer boundaries identied by the USCS with a boring log are all
included in the results obtained from the proposed Bayesian ap-
proaches. There are three internal boundaries for the four layers
identied by the USCS with a boring log. The third and rst
boundaries are consistent with the internal boundaries identied
in model classes M2 and M3, and the second boundary is consistent
with the new internal boundary identied in model class M6
(see Fig. 9). This further illustrates the value of the evolution of the
identied soil strata as the model class increases for assisting in
the interpretation of CPT data.
Summary and concluding remarks
This paper integrated the Robertson chart with Bayesian ap-
proaches to explicitly and properly consider the uncertainty in
CPT-based soil classication and spatial distribution of the CPT
data. A Bayesian framework for soil stratum identication and
soil classication based on CPT data has been developed. The
probability that the soil belongs to one of the nine soil types in the
Robertson chart for a given set of CPT data has been formulated
using the maximum entropy principle. The Bayesian framework
contains two major components: a Bayesian model class selection
approach to identify the most probable number of underground
soil layers and a Bayesian system identication approach to simul-
taneously estimate the most probable layer thicknesses and clas-
sify the soil types.
Equations were derived for the Bayesian approaches, and the
proposed approaches were illustrated using a real-life CPT test
example performed at the NGES site of Texas A&M University,
USA. It has been shown that the proposed approaches properly
identify the underground soil stratication and classify the soil
type of each layer. In addition, as the number of model classes
increases, the Bayesian model class selection approach identies
the soil layers progressively, starting from the statistically most
signicant boundary and gradually zooming into less signicant
ones with improved resolution. It is also found that, although the
most probable model class (the most probable number of soil
layers) and its corresponding most probable layer thicknesses are
of primary interest in the identication of the underground soil
stratication, the evolution of the identied soil strata as the
model class increases also provides valuable information for as-
sisting in the interpretation of CPT data in a rational and trans-
parent manner. The proposed Bayesian approach has been shown
to perform well at the NGES site of Texas A&M University, and

Published by NRC Research Press

 776
further development and testing at other sites and case studies
will be carried out in future.
Acknowledgements
The work described in this paper was supported by a Strategic
Research Grant from City University of Hong Kong (Project Num-
ber 7002838) and a grant from the National Natural Science Foun-
dation of China (Project Number 51208446). This nancial support
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV LIBRARY OF HONG KONG UNIV OF on 04/03/16
is gratefully acknowledged. The authors would like to thank the
anonymous reviewers, Associate Editor, and Editor for their con-
structive and valuable comments, which helped improve the qual-
ity of this paper.
References
Ang, A.H.-S., and Tang, W.H. 2007. Probability concepts in engineering: empha-
sis on applications to civil and environmental engineering. John Wiley and
Sons, New York.
ASTM. 2006. Standard practice for classication of soils for engineering pur-
poses (Unied Soil Classication System). ASTM standard D2487. ASTM Inter-
national, West Conshohocken, Pa.
Beck, J.L., and Yuen, K.V. 2004. Model selection using response measurements:
Bayesian probabilistic approach. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 130(2):
192203. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2004)130:2(192).
Bleistein, N., and Handelsman, R. 1986. Asymptotic expansions of integrals.
Dover, New York.
Briaud, J.L. 2000. The National Geotechnical Experimentation Sites at Texas
A&M University: clay and sand. A summary. In National Geotechnical Exper-
imentation Sites. Geotechnical Special Publication No. 93. ASCE. pp. 2651.
Cao, Z., and Wang, Y. 2013. Bayesian approach for probabilistic site character-
ization using cone penetration tests. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvi-
ronmental Engineering, 139(2): 267276. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.
0000765.
Cetin, K.O., and Isik, N.S. 2007. Probabilistic assessment of stress normalization
For personal use only.
for CPT Data. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
133(7): 887897. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2007)133:7(887).
Cetin, K.O., and Ozan, C. 2009. CPT-based probabilistic soil characterization and
classication. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
135(1): 84107. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2009)135:1(84).
Douglas, B.J., and Olsen, R.S. 1981. Soil classication using electric cone pene-
trometer. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing and
Experience, St. Louis, Mo., 2630 October 1981. Edited by G.M. Norris and R.D.
Holtz. Geotechnical Engineering Division, American Society of Civil Engi-
neers, New York. pp. 209227.
Eslami, A., and Fellenius, B.H. 1997. Pile capacity by direct CPT and CPTu meth-
ods applied to 102 case histories. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 34(6): 886
904. doi:10.1139/t97-056.
Fenton, G. 1999a. Estimation for stochastic soil models. Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 125(6): 470485. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-
0241(1999)125:6(470).
Fenton, G. 1999b. Random eld modeling of CPT data. Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 125(6): 486498. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-
0241(1999)125:6(486).
Gull, S.F. 1988. Bayesian inductive inference and maximum entropy. In Maxi-
mum entropy and Bayesian methods. Edited by J. Skilling. Kluwer Academic,
Boston, Mass. pp. 5374.
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 50, 2013
Jaynes, E.T. 2003. Probability theory: the logic of science. Cambridge University
Press, New York.
Jefferies, M.G., and Davies, M.P. 1993. Use of CPTU to estimate equivalent SPT
N60. Geotechnical Testing Journal, 16(4): 458468. doi:10.1520/GTJ10286J.
Jung, B.-C., Gardoni, P., and Biscontin, G. 2008. Probabilistic soil identication
based on cone penetration tests. Gotechnique, 58(7): 591603. doi:10.1680/
geot.2008.58.7.591.
Kurup, P.U., and Grifn, E.P. 2006. Prediction of soil composition from CPT data
using general regression neural network. Journal of Computing in Civil En-
gineering, 20(4): 281289. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3801(2006)20:4(281).
MacKay, D.J.C. 1992. Bayesian interpolation. Neural Computation, 4(3): 415447.
doi:10.1162/neco.1992.4.3.415.
Mathworks, Inc. 2010. MATLAB the language of technical computing. Available
from http://www.mathworks.com/products/matlab/ [accessed 9 March 2009].
Mayne, P.W. 2007. Cone penetration testing: a synthesis of highway practice.
Project 20-5. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. NCHRP syn-
thesis 368.
Moss, R.E.S., Seed, R.B., and Olsen, R.S. 2006. Normalizing the CPT for overbur-
den stress. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
132(3): 378387. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2006)132:3(378).
Olsen, R.S., and Mitchell, J.K. 1995. CPT stress normalization and prediction of
soil classication. In Proceedings of International Symposium on Cone Pen-
etration Testing, CPT95, Linkping, Sweden. SGI Report 3:95. Vol. 2, pp.
257262.
Phoon, K.K., Quek, S.T., and An, P. 2003. Identication of statistically homoge-
neous soil layers using modied Bartlett statistics. Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenviornmental Engineering, 129(7): 649659. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-
0241(2003)129:7(649).
Robertson, P.K. 1990. Soil classication using the cone penetration test. Cana-
dian Geotechnical Journal, 27(1): 151158. doi:10.1139/t90-014.
Robertson, P.K. 2009. Interpretation of cone penetration tests - a unied ap-
proach. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 46(11): 13371355. doi:10.1139/T09-
065.
Robertson, P.K., and Campanella, R.G. 1983a. Interpretation of cone penetration
tests. Part I: Sand. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 20(4): 718733. doi:10.1130/
t83-078.
Robertson, P.K., and Campanella, R.G. 1983b. Interpretation of cone penetration
tests. Part II: Clay. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 20(4): 734745. doi:10.1130/
t83-079.
Schmertmann, J.H. 1978. Guidelines for cone test, performance, and design.
Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C. Report FHWA-TS-78209.
Sivia, D.S. and Skilling, J. 2006. Data analysis: a Bayesian tutorial. Oxford Uni-
versity Press, New York.
Wang, Y., Au, S.K., and Cao, Z. 2010. Bayesian approach for probabilistic charac-
terization of sand friction angles. Engineering Geology, 114(3-4): 354363.
doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2010.05.013.
Yan, W.M., Yuen, K.-V., and Yoon, G.L. 2009. Bayesian probabilistic approach for
the correlations of compression index for marine clays. Journal of Geotech-
nical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 135(12): 19321940. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000157.
Yuen, K.V. 2010. Recent developments of Bayesian model class selection and
applications in civil engineering. Structural Safety, 32(5): 338346. doi:10.
1016/j.strusafe.2010.03.011.
Zhang, Z., and Tumay, M.T. 1999. Statistical to fuzzy approach toward CPT soil
classication. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
125(3): 179186. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1999)125:3(179).
Published by NRC Research Press