1

Liquefaction potential of silts from CPTu

Dawn A. Shuttle and John Cunning

Abstract: Silt tailings (slimes) are difficult materials to test in that, like sands, it is extremely difficult to obtain undis-
turbed samples and subsequently re-establish them in a triaxial cell for element testing in a laboratory in anything ap-
proaching their in situ condition. Evaluation of silt tailing behaviour has to depend on in situ tests, and the piezocone
(CPTu) in particular. However, CPTs in silt generate substantial excess pore pressure and there is no established meth-
odology to evaluate the measured responses in terms of soil properties, as drained sand-based CPT interpretation is in-
applicable. A case history of particularly loose silt tailings is reported in which the National Center for Earthquake
Engineering Research (NCEER) liquefaction assessment method would lead to uncertainty in the liquefaction potential.
However, the extremely high CPTu excess pore pressure ratio, Bq, and low dimensionless CPT resistance, Qp, at this
site indicates liquefaction is likely occurring during pushing of the CPT. Detailed finite element simulations of the CPT
using a critical state model provided an effective stress framework to evaluate the in situ state parameter of the silt
from the measured CPT data. This framework shows that the group of dimensionless CPT variables Q(1 – Bq) + 1 is
fundamental for the evaluation of undrained response during CPT sounding. And, despite the high silt content, the in-
terpretation indicates that the tailings are indeed liquefiable.
Key words: liquefaction, CPT, silt, finite element, critical state.
Résumé : Les stériles de silt (limons) sont des matériaux difficiles à tester en ce que, comme les sables, il est extrê-
mement difficile d’obtenir des échantillons non remaniés et de les reconstituer subséquemment dans une cellule
triaxiale pour tester les éléments en laboratoire de la manière qui s’approche de leurs conditions in situ. L’évaluation
du comportement du stérile de silt doit dépendre des essais in situ, et en particulier du piézocône « CPTu ». Cepen-
dant, les essais de CPT exécutés dans le silt génèrent de substantiels excédents de pressions interstitielles, et il n’y a
pas de méthodologies reconnues pour évaluer les réactions mesurées en fonction des propriétés des sols, puisque
l’interprétation du CPT sur le sable n’est pas applicable. On fait état d’une histoire de cas de stériles de silt particuliè-
rement lâches dans lesquels la méthode d’évaluation de la liquéfaction « National Center for Earthquake Engineering
Research (NCEER) » conduirait à une incertitude dans le potentiel de liquéfaction. Cependant, le rapport de l’excédent
de pression interstitielle extrêmement élevé dans le CPTu, Bq, et la faible résistance CPT sans dimension, Qp, sur ce
site indiquent que la liquéfaction se produit semblablement au cours du fonçage du CPT. Des simulations détaillées en
éléments finis du CPT au moyen d’un modèle d’état critique a fourni un cadre de référence de contrainte effective pour
évaluer le paramètre d’état in situ du silt en partant des données mesurées de CPT. Ce cadre de référence montre que
le groupe de variables CPT sans dimension Q(1 – Bq) + 1 est fondamental pour évaluer la réponse non drainée durant
le sondage au CPT. Et, en dépit de la teneur élevée en silt, l’interprétation indique que les stériles sont en effet liqué-
fiables.
Mots-clés : liquéfaction, CPT, silt, éléments finis, état critique.

[Traduit par la Rédaction] Shuttle and Cunning 19

Introduction mine, thereby creating additional storage for the tailings. In

In the mining industry a byproduct of the ore milling pro-
cess is large quantities of sand- and silt-sized particles called
tailings. Typically tailings are hydraulically transported and
deposited into an impoundment. This impoundment is usu-
ally formed using engineered dam structures (not always
around the perimeter), constructed throughout the life of the
Received 6 January 2005. Accepted 19 June 2006. Published
on the NRC Research Press Web site at http://cgj.nrc.ca on
16 February 2007.
D.A. Shuttle.1 Department of Civil Engineering, The
University of British Columbia, 6250 Applied Science Lane,
Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada.
J. Cunning. Golder Associates Ltd., 500 – 4260 Still Creek
Drive, Burnaby, BC V5C 6C6, Canada.
1
Corresponding author (e-mail: dshuttle@civil.ubc.ca).
Can. Geotech. J. 44: 1–19 (2007)
some cases, the tailings can be used as a material for the
dam raise construction, or the raises can be constructed on a
foundation of the deposited tailings. Today tailings im-
poundments are designed and built to high engineering stan-
dards and require safe containment of the tailings during,
and after, the mine operating life. However, designing for
closure was not necessarily the case in the past. Closure de-
sign of older tailings impoundments requires applying up-
dated design criteria under which the behaviour of the silt
tailings (colloquially called slimes) can become an issue, es-
pecially with regard to liquefaction.
Assessing the liquefaction potential of silt tailings using
standard methods is problematic. The National Center for
Earthquake Engineering Research (NCEER) summary report
(Youd et al. 2001) presents a liquefaction evaluation ap-
proach based on a review of case histories. The correlations
presented focus on “clean sand” (i.e., sand with less than 5%
doi:10.1139/T06-086 © 2007 NRC Canada
2 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 44, 2007
fines), with higher fines contents soil behaviour being “cor-
rected” relative to a “clean sand” reference. The highest
fines content explicitly considered is 35%, but tailings
slimes often have a far higher silt-sized fraction and have
liquefied, for example at Merriespruit (Fourie et al. 2001).
A feature of silts is that their behaviour is partially like
sand and partially like clay. Similar to sands, loose silts are
essentially impossible to sample and test undisturbed. Even
using freezing and setting-up at the in situ stress in the labo-
ratory before thawing (e.g., Sego et al. 1994), the problems
are that the in situ stress must be known, and further, it is
unclear whether the samples can truly be preserved with in-
tact grain contact arrangements using freezing. Silts also ex-
ist over a range of densities, with loose silt behaving very
differently from dense silt. These factors lead to the modern
electronic piezocone penetration test (CPTu) becoming a ba-
sic reference test for assessing tailings. However, this test is
no panacea as there is no accepted methodology for evaluat-
ing silt properties from the CPT data.
CPT data in silt present two fundamental issues that must
be addressed for data evaluation. First, CPT soundings in
silts have substantial excess pore pressure so that standard
sand-like evaluations of the data, which assume drained pen-
etration, are inapplicable. Second, silt density substantially
affects its behaviour so evaluation of CPT data using total
stress methods to indicate an su value leaves open questions
about what such strengths mean in terms of liquefaction or
other behaviours (su from the CPT is a concept associated
with Tresca-like constitutive behaviour, which is far re-
moved from the undrained behaviour of a liquefiable soil).
Use of the CPT in siltier soils to interpret soil type is not
uncommon in the literature (e.g., East et al. 1988;
Dasenbrock 2005; Yafrate and DeJong 2005), but such work
has concentrated on silty sands (typically less than 20% silt).
Even at 0%–15% silt, problems have been noted with the
standard liquefaction assessment approach (e.g., Carraro et
al. 2005). Quantitative evaluation of CPT data in true silt is
rarer, typically relying on the use of site specific correlations
(e.g., East et al. 1988; Lou et al. 1991), and an appropriate
framework for such correlations is unclear. Moreover, to
date, CPT chamber calibration tests have not been under-
taken using silt, and correspondingly, there are no directly
measured empirical behaviour trends to underpin a method-
ology.
Some initial steps for evaluating the CPT in silt using an
effective stress approach have been presented by Been et al.
(1988), Plewes et al. (1992), and Been and Jefferies (1992),
but these methods are very much first approximations and
indeed might be argued as speculative. On a theoretical
level, effective stress solutions for undrained CPT soundings
have been provided by Cao et al. (2001) and Chang et al.
(2001) using the Modified Cam Clay model. However, Mod-
ified Cam Clay is not an appropriate model for silt as it can-
not dilate properly with dense soils nor display liquefaction
behaviour in loose soils.
This paper presents numerical simulations of undrained
CPT penetration from a variable density silt tailings deposit
to develop a mechanics-based methodology for determining
the in situ state parameter of the deposit. The silt’s state is
characterized by the state parameter ψ in an identical man-
ner to use of this state measure in sand (Been and Jefferies
1985, 1986). The NorSand model (which is based on ψ) is
then shown to be a good representation of general silt behav-
iour by being fitted to measured triaxial data. This constitu-
tive model is then used in large strain finite element
simulations of spherical cavity expansion, which is a usual
analogue for the CPT. The non critical state soil parameters
are varied parametrically, and the computed results are pre-
sented in a dimensionless framework for evaluation of the
state parameter in situ and are used to infer ψ from the CPT
data.
Parameters and variables are described as they are intro-
duced, and are listed in a “List of symbols” at the end of the
paper.
Example of silt tailings behaviour
In situ state
By way of background, data are presented from the Rose
Creek Tailings Impoundment, which is located at the Anvil
Range Mining complex near Faro, Yukon. Between about
1969 and 1992 tailings produced from the adjacent lead and
zinc mine processes were deposited in the Rose Creek tail-
ings impoundment. Figure 1 presents an aerial view photo of
the impoundment taken in 1997. Mining operations ended at
the site in 1998 following bankruptcy of the owner. The site
is now in the care of a Receiver, under whose direction final
closure is being carried out. This closure involves detailed
engineering assessments of the tailings impoundment to al-
low for the final closure design and the possible remediation
of the Rose Creek tailings impoundment.
The Rose Creek tailings impoundment lies, as its name
suggests, in a section of the now infilled Rose Creek Valley.
The flow of Rose Creek has been diverted upstream of the
impoundment area into a diversion canal that runs along the
south side of the impoundment. The impoundment is about
3700 m in length by 700 m in width, with a maximum tail-
ings thickness of about 30 m. However, the natural ground
slope is somewhat reflected in the slope of the tailings, and
there is an elevation change of about 20 m in the tailings
surface from the highest upstream end to the crest of the
downstream retention dam.
Tailings deposition patterns evolved over the life of the
mine’s operation and as the tailings impoundment was ex-
panded. Hydraulic tailings deposition resulted in separation
of the tailings to a range of gradations distributed through
the impoundment. The coarser tailings fraction was gener-
ally deposited close to the spigot discharge points, with the
very fine (and soft) tailings (slimes) fraction generally trav-
elling to backwater pond areas furthest from the discharge
points. Meandering of the tailings stream on the surface pro-
duces an interlayering of coarser and finer soils.
The site is in a seismically active zone. A site specific
seismic hazards assessment was carried out to assess various
closeout measures for the tailings impoundment. The analy-
sis determined that a maximum credible earthquake (MCE)
event of Magnitude 7, corresponding to a 10–4 per annum
probability of occurrence, would result in a median peak
ground acceleration of 0.3g and a mean peak ground accel-
eration of 0.5g. One of the concerns is whether the silt tail-
© 2007 NRC Canada
Shuttle and Cunning
Fig. 1. Rose Creek tailings impoundment at the Anvil Range Mining Complex near Faro, Yukon.
ings (slimes) might liquefy and flowslide over the retention
dams because of the elevation of these slimes in their pres-
ent location. The soil of interest in the present context is the
very fine deposits found in the backwater areas.
An example of a CPT sounding in the backwater area is
shown in Fig. 2 (SCPT03–21). The basic measured CPT data
are plotted as well as the two dimensionless standard ratios for
soil type identification; the friction ratio, F(= fs /(qt − σv0)) and
excess pore pressure ratio, Bq (= (uc − u0)/(qt − σv0)). The silt
of particular interest lies between 4 and 12 m below the sur-
face, and it can be readily identified by the extremely high
Bq values induced during CPT sounding. The tip resistance
during sounding was very low, less than 1 MPa, for the en-
tire silt layer. The friction ratio was typical of silt and fluctu-
ated quite tightly around F = 2%.
Close inspection of Fig. 2 indicates Bq values above unity,
which would suggest an increase in pore pressure greater
than the increase in tip stress. Even allowing that uc and qt
are measured at different locations, values of Bq much above
1.0 are unlikely. It can be seen that Bq is certainly close to
1.0, but the numeric value is susceptible to transducer accu-
racy and digital discretization.
The silt has a downward seepage regime, being drained by
the underlying tailings sands and alluvial foundation. In situ
pore pressures were established through a review of pore
pressure dissipation tests during the CPT sounding and from
a number of multilevel standpipe monitoring wells in the im-
poundment installed to investigate water quality. The silts re-
main saturated as the surface water resupply rate exceeds the
underdrainage. This is further confirmed by the extremely
high Bq, which could only occur with a saturated soil.
The CPT data were processed to give the soil type index,
Ic(= f(Q, Bq, F); Been and Jefferies 1992), and this index is
plotted against depth in Fig. 3. Note that the Ic used here in-
cludes a “+1” in the log term and hence differs slightly from
that defined in Jefferies and Davies (1993). As might be an-
ticipated from the very high Bq, the silt classifies on a soil
behaviour type basis as very soft clay to organic soil. Rob-
ertson and Wride (1998) adopted an alternate definition of
Ic, which neglects the pore pressure. It is this simplified Ic,
3
referred to subsequently as Ic,RW, that is used in the NCEER
method for liquefaction resistance of soils. The Ic,RW classi-
fies this silt on the boundary between soft clay and organic
soil. Both versions of Ic are compared in Fig. 4.
The CPT used at the site was a seismic cone, and the
shear wave velocity was measured at 1 m depth intervals.
These data, converted to shear modulus, are also shown in
Fig. 3. The shear modulus is surprisingly high for such a
soft soil, ranging from about 55 MPa at the top of the silt to
some 130 MPa at the base of the unit. The increase in shear
modulus with depth is close to linear and corresponds to a
constant dimensionless rigidity Ir ≈ 550 for the estimated in
situ geostatic stress ratio K0 = 0.7. This value of rigidity, and
its lack of depth dependence, is not atypical of the finer
grained tailings at the site, as shown in Fig. 5.
The investigation of the site also included a limited num-
ber of borings. One boring was put down close to the CPT,
and the water contents of the retrieved samples were care-
fully logged. These have been converted to void ratio, as-
suming full saturation, and are also plotted in Fig. 3. The
void ratio averages about e = 1.1, and any trend for decrease
with depth is obscured by local variability in the data. It
should be noted that the samples were disturbed and may
have increased or decreased in water content because of this
disturbance. Correspondingly, these estimates of void ratio
are somewhat approximate (which is one of the reasons why
the CPT was required).
The silt soils were nonplastic. A particle size distribution
representative of the finer tailings is shown in Fig. 6, and it
can be seen that the soil is about 66% silt-sized particles
with the remaining being fine sand.
Triaxial compression behaviour
It is well known that the stress–strain response of sands
and silts is fabric dependent prior to critical state (e.g.,
Vaid et al. 1999; Høeg et al. 2000). However, this does not
preclude the use of critical state models to represent sand
and silt behaviour. The effect of fabric may be represented
in a plasticity based constitutive model by changing the
plastic hardening modulus (e.g., Been et al. 1991). This is
© 2007 NRC Canada
4 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 44, 2007

Fig. 2. Example of CPT data in silt tailings deposit (silt layer of interest lies between 4 and 12 m depth).

Fig. 3. Soil type index from CPT, in situ void ratio from borehole sample water contents, and in situ shear modulus.

© 2007 NRC Canada

Shuttle and Cunning
Fig. 4. Comparison of the Soil Classification Index, Ic, from Been and Jefferies (1992), and Ic,RW from Robertson and Wride (1998).
Fig. 5. In situ shear rigidity versus mean effective stress.
illustrated in Fig. 7 for Erksak sand. In this example, the
critical state (CS) parameters, Γ, λ10, and Mtc are obtained
from the moist tamped sample. The water pluviated triaxial
sample is then fitted keeping all three critical state parame-
ters constant (i.e., with a unique critical state locus, CSL).
Typically both plastic hardening and shear modulus could be
expected to vary with fabric, but this was not necessary for
5
Fig. 6. Particle size distribution data for tailings slimes in
4–12 m depth zone of Fig. 1.
the fits in Fig. 7, with the effect of fabric on the stress–strain
response being well captured by plastic hardening only.
In the following analyses laboratory testing was carried
out to determine the critical state parameters Γ, λ10, and Mtc
of the fine tailings. The tested soil was prepared from a mix-
ture of several samples that were estimated to be representa-
tive of the in situ slimes. The use of representative samples
to obtain tailings material properties is not uncommon; tail-
ings are typically highly stratified, making it difficult to ob-
tain homogeneous samples that are large enough for testing.
© 2007 NRC Canada
6 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 44, 2007
Fig. 7. Example of soil fabric represented by hardening modulus, H.
The samples were dried and then combined to create a bulk
sample for the testing program.
The specific gravity (Gs) was determined using proce-
dures following ASTM Standard D854 (ASTM 2006a), to
give Gs = 3.97. This rather high value (relative to the more
usual experience of natural soils) is explained by the heavy
nature of lead–zinc ore tailings. Minimum and maximum
void ratios of 0.837 and 2.017 were determined following
ASTM Standards D4254 (Method A; 2006c) and D4253
(Method 2A; 2006b), respectively. However, the high fines
contents of the silt tailings are greater than the 15% by dry
mass limit recommended in these standards. Hence, these
limit values have only been determined as an estimate of the
expected range in void ratio and could not be expected to be
used in a relative density approach for these silts.
A total of four isotropically consolidated triaxial tests were
undertaken on reconstituted samples prepared by the moist
tamping method; two being undrained and two drained.
Moist tamping was required to produce contractive samples
that will reach a clear critical state within the strain limits of
the triaxial equipment. Although the homogeneity of moist
tamped samples has been questioned (e.g., Vaid et al. 1999;
Frost and Park 2003), Been et al. (1991, 1992) have shown
that the CSL obtained using average sample void ratios from
more uniform wet pluviation and moist tamping is indistin-
guishable within experimental resolution. Moist tamped
samples are unavoidable primarily because laboratory
pluviation procedures do not produce samples as loose as
those found from pluviation at field scale, and at least some
very loose samples are needed to fully define the CSL.
Samples were prepared very loose and were saturated, fol-
lowing assembly of the triaxial cell, while maintaining a
positive effective confining stress of at least 20 kPa.
Changes in sample volume during this saturation phase were
tracked by monitoring the change in volume of fluid confin-
ing the sample in the triaxial cell. The procedure to saturate
the sample included carbon dioxide (CO2) treatment, initial
saturation with de-aired water, and final back pressure satu-
ration. The CO2, which is many times more soluble in water
than air, is first percolated under low pressure through the
voids in the moist sample. This is followed by an initial sat-
uration stage in which de-aired water under very low pres-
© 2007 NRC Canada
Shuttle and Cunning
sure head is allowed to flow into the base of the sample and
continued until the flow returns through the top of the sam-
ple and pore pressure lines. The last step is back pressure
saturation and B value testing, carried out with cell pressure
increments of between 30 and 35 kPa. During each cell pres-
sure increase the pore pressure response is monitored to cal-
culate the B value. Samples were considered saturated with a
B value greater than 0.96. Following this saturation stage the
samples were then isotropically consolidated (in several
steps) to the desired test consolidation stress. During consol-
idation volume changes were recorded to continue to track
void ratio.
In determining the critical state line, the main concern for
specimen preparation is that the void ratio of the samples be
known. Following displacement controlled shearing to reach
the critical state, the final sample void ratio was determined
using the total sample freezing method. This method allows
for accurate final void ratio determination at the critical state.
Determining the final void ratio by freezing allows for a
check on the void ratio calculated by monitoring the sample
volume change from preparation, saturation, consolidation,
and shearing. Even though there were large volume changes
during the initial water saturation stage on these tests, there
was good agreement with the void ratio determined by accu-
rate tracking of sample volume and that determined by the
sample freezing method (Sladen and Handford 1987).
No membrane penetration corrections have been applied
to the calculated void ratio data. These procedures complied
in all respects with the methodology presented by Been et al.
(1991) for accurate determination of a CSL.
Figure 8 presents a summary of the test program, showing
the stress and state paths followed for all four samples, to-
gether with the stress–strain behaviour measured during
shear. The CSL has been estimated by fitting a semi-
logarithmic trend line through the end points of the void ra-
tio versus mean effective stress and on the mean effective
stress versus deviator stress as shown in Figs. 8 and 9. The
CSL is well defined, suggesting that any nonuniformity of
the moist tamped samples had little effect on the final, criti-
cal state, void ratios. Based on this fitting, the critical state
parameters determined were Γ = 1.076 (at 1 kPa), λ10 =
0.159, and Mtc = 1.25.
The layer of principal interest, 4–12 m depth, has an in
situ mean effective stress range of approximately 70 kPa <
p′ < 210 kPa. The mean stress for critical conditions deter-
mined in the laboratory triaxial tests lie within the range
100 kPa < p′ < 1350 kPa. Hence, the semilogarithmic ideal-
ization for the CSL shown in Fig. 9 was assumed reasonable
for modelling the in situ tailings behaviour.
Liquefaction potential
It is noteworthy that it was not possible to test these re-
constituted silt samples at anywhere near their in situ void
ratio as estimated from in situ water contents. There was
substantial contraction of the samples during sample satura-
tion, with additional contraction occurring during consolida-
tion as shown in Fig. 9. The samples were therefore tested in
shear starting from void ratios in the range 0.7 < e < 0.8.
These void ratios can be compared with in situ void ratios
shown in Fig. 3, which lie in the range 0.9 < e < 1.3.
Broadly, using the CSL determined on the blended reconsti-
7
tuted samples, the in situ critical void ratio for the depth
range of 5–11 m would be between about 0.76 and 0.71.
Thus the in situ state parameter is about +0.3 (depending on
stress). Such very positive states are normally catastrophi-
cally liquefiable under minor static triggering, and they are
certainly exceedingly liquefiable in any credible design
earthquake scenario.
A different conclusion about liquefaction follows from the
NCEER method, based on Robertson and Wride’s (1998)
CPT-specific liquefaction methodology. This prescribes the
soil as likely nonliquefiable if Ic,RW > 2.6 and F > 1%. As
can be seen from Fig. 4, the CPT results indicate that the
Robertson and Wride based inference of liquefaction is
“likely no liquefaction potential”.
Which one of these conclusions is correct? Clearly it must
be the conclusion that the soil is highly liquefiable. The
denser samples in the laboratory show very contractive be-
haviour even though they only exhibit a small post-peak re-
duction in undrained strength. Also Bq > 1 is consistent with
an essentially complete loss of strength from shearing
around the CPT tip (i.e., local static liquefaction induced by
CPT penetration alone). There is no need for recourse to the
“Chinese criteria” (Seed and Idriss 1982), this conclusion
can be developed from mechanics.
Numerical modelling of CPT
Framework
Although it may seem appealing to model the actual geom-
etry of a CPT in finite element simulations, and a few work-
ers have attempted this (e.g., van den Berg 1994; Yu et al.
2000; Lu et al. 2004), there are still difficulties with large dis-
placement formulations. To date most of these simulations
have focused on very simple soil constitutive models with un-
realistic dilatancies. Understanding is therefore based on the
classical spherical cavity analogue. This analogue reduces a
3D analysis to one space dimension and allows elegant and
simple large displacement analysis within fast numerical
codes. There is also no difficulty with using advanced soil
models in large strain spherical cavity expansion, and un-
drained liquefaction induced by cavity expansion is readily
modelled.
The extent to which spherical cavity expansion is an ana-
logue for CPT penetration was tested experimentally by
Ladanyi and Roy (1987). Their key result is presented in
Fig. 10, wherein the resistance of a blunt penetrator (i.e.,
pile or CPT) is compared to the limiting cavity expansion
pressure across a range of sand strengths. Penetrometer re-
sistance and cavity pressure are similar functions of friction
angle, but the two are not equal; there is approximately a
factor of two between the two situations. Similarly, in the
case of a total stress approach using the Tresca model, it is
widely appreciated that the theoretical Nk ≈ 9 (the actual
value depends on Ir) derived from spherical cavity expansion
is rarely found in practice relating undrained strength to
CPT penetration resistance. A common range is 10 < Nk <
25, which is about the same divergence between cavity ex-
pansion theory and reality as found with the drained experi-
ments of Ladanyi and Roy (1987). In summary, cavity
expansion is only an analogue for the CPT; calibration is re-
quired to obtain the appropriate parameter values. Neverthe-
© 2007 NRC Canada
8 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 44, 2007
Fig. 8. Summary of triaxial compression tests on silt tailings.
Fig. 9. Summary of consolidation curves and CSL determination
from triaxial compression tests on silt tailing.
less, cavity expansion is an excellent basis to investigate the
effects of parameters and to develop the framework in which
CPT data should be evaluated and normalized.
The reduction of the problem from a true 3D to spherical
symmetry necessarily removes any role for geostatic stress
ratio K0 in the computed results. This may not be a defi-
ciency however, as the data obtained with sands in calibra-
tion chamber studies show that there is negligible influence
of K0 in itself, provided that mean stress rather than vertical
stress is used in normalizing the data (Clayton et al. 1985;
Been et al. 1986). It is assumed that this experimental result
continues to be true in the undrained situation.
Semiclosed form large strain spherical cavity solutions
have been developed for drained cavity expansion in non-
Fig. 10. Comparison of experimental spherical cavity limit pres-
sure with penetration resistance of blunt indenter (after Ladanyi
and Roy 1987).
associated Mohr Coulomb materials (Carter et al. 1986;
Houlsby and Yu 1991). Drained spherical cavity expansion
solutions in realistic soil models have been provided by Col-
lins et al. (1992) and Shuttle and Jefferies (1998). The latter
work provided substantial support to the trend inferred by
Been et al. (1986, 1987a, 1987b) from chamber testing of
sands. The chamber data of the CPT penetration of sand in-
dicates that dimensionless CPT resistance Qp(= (qt − p0)/ p0′)
is related to the soil’s in situ state parameter ψ 0 by the sim-
ple equation
[1] Qp = k exp (− m ψ 0)
in which k and m are soil-specific coefficients. Equation [1]
only applies to drained soundings. Although this equation
© 2007 NRC Canada
Shuttle and Cunning
relating CPT resistance and ψ0 is simple and consistent, and
has a proper dimensionless approach, it has been criticized
on the grounds that the reference chamber test data indicate
significant bias with stress level. At least k, and possibly m,
are functions of stress level (Sladen 1989a, 1989b). Detailed
numerical simulations by Shuttle and Jefferies (1998)
showed that eq. [1] provides an accurate representation of
the relationship between drained CPT penetration resistance
and state. The observed stress level bias was caused by treat-
ing k and m as constants. These parameters should be func-
tions of G/p′; this was neglected in the work of Been et al.
(1986, 1987a, 1987b).
The question of how to estimate ψ in undrained CPT
soundings was addressed independently by Been et al.
(1988) and Houlsby (1988). Houlsby2 (1988) noted that the
group of dimensionless CPT variables Q(1 – Bq) + 1, where
Q = (qt − σv0)/ σv0
′ , corresponded to a simplification of the
methodology for measuring overconsolidation of clay devel-
oped by Konrad and Law (1987), and that it is equivalent to
normalizing CPT resistance by the vertical effective stress
established during CPT penetration as a consequence of
CPT-induced excess pore pressure. Been et al. (1988) sug-
gested that Q(1 – Bq) + 1 was related to the soils state pa-
rameter analogously to eq. [1] as
[2] Qp(1 − Bq ) + 1 = k exp (− m ψ)
It is noted here that the soil type index Ic introduced ear-
lier is also based on the same Q(1 – Bq) + 1 grouping.
NorSand
In choosing a constitutive model to represent sands and
silts, the goal is to predict the spectrum of behaviours caused
by changes in the soil’s void ratio and confining stress level.
There are now several such models in the literature, all
of which are based on the state parameter, ψ. NorSand
(Jefferies 1993; Jefferies and Shuttle 2002, 2005) was the
first of such models and is used here.
NorSand is a critical state model and is based on some
simple idealizations about the dissipation of plastic work;
the widely known Cam Clay model (Schofield and Wroth
1968) is a special case of the more general NorSand model.
Perhaps the most striking feature of NorSand is its recogni-
tion of an infinity of normal compression loci (NCLs). An
infinity of NCL forces two parameters to characterize the
state of a soil: ψ and R. The state parameter, ψ, is a measure
of the location of an individual NCL in e–p state space. The
overconsolidation ratio R represents the proximity of a state
point to its yield surface. The difference between ψ and R is
illustrated in Fig. 11.
NorSand is a plasticity model for soil. As such, and in
common with other plasticity models, it consists of: (i) a
yield surface; (ii) a flow rule; and (iii) a hardening law.
Yield surfaces in NorSand have the familiar bullet-like shape
of the classical Cam Clay model, and examples for both
loose and dense soils are illustrated in Fig. 12. There are two
aspects where NorSand differs from standard critical state
models. First, there is an internal cap, which is how
NorSand gives realistic dilatancy despite being an associated
model. The position of the internal cap evolves with the
2
The paper gave Q(1 – Bq) – 1; this is apparently a typographical error as the derivation given leads to the “+1” term.
9
Fig. 11. Definition of state parameter ψ and overconsolidation
ratio R (after Jefferies and Shuttle 2002).
changing state parameter. Second, the critical state does not
usually intersect the yield surface. This divergence of yield
surface from critical state is used as the basis of the harden-
ing law, and the hardening law acts to move the yield sur-
face towards the critical state under the action of plastic
shear strain, which directly captures the essence of critical
state principles. Whether the yield surface hardens or softens
depends on two things: the current state parameter and the
direction of loading. Loading past the internal cap always
softens the yield surface, as does principal stress rotation.
NorSand is a sparse model with just seven soil model pa-
rameters, all of which are dimensionless. Three parameters
(Mtc, Γ, λ10) are used to define the critical state. Two param-
eters are associated with plastic hardening, χ determining
the influence of ψ on maximum dilatancy and H being the
plastic hardening modulus. Finally, two properties, Ir and ν,
define elasticity.
The version of NorSand used in the present work corre-
sponds to the modified version given in Jefferies and Shuttle
(2002). Further details, including procedures used to deter-
mine the properties and validation examples over a range of
stress paths, can be found in Jefferies and Shuttle (2005).
Finite element formulation
The CPT is idealized as a cavity in an infinite uniform
medium under an isotropic stress state, p0, with the internal
effective pressure of the cavity, p0, initially equal to the iso-
tropic stress. The cavity is expanded by a monotonically
increasing radius until a limiting (constant) pressure is ob-
tained, this being the pressure of interest. This idealization
greatly simplifies the analysis because the spherical symme-
try allows only radial displacements and in turn this permits
a 1D description of the problem. The corresponding stresses
are a radial and two equal hoop stresses.
The 1D problem was analyzed using 140 elements, with a
single stress sampling location at the centre of each element.
The problem has no intrinsic measure of scale and so, for con-
© 2007 NRC Canada
10
Fig. 12. Illustration of NorSand yield surfaces and limiting stress ratios (after Jefferies and Shuttle 2005). (a) very loose soil; (b) very
dense soil.
venience, the original cavity radius was set equal to unity. The
outer boundary was set as a zero displacement node at a dis-
tance of 550, chosen to avoid artefacts of boundary conditions.
To capture the rapid variation of stress close to the CPT,
the element spacing was set to logarithmically increase with
distance from the cavity. Similarly, a second order numerical
difference was used to extrapolate the element stresses to the
cavity wall to accurately capture the high stress gradients
present at low strains.
The spherical analyses were carried out using a large strain
viscoplastic finite element research code (Shuttle and Jefferies
1998). The viscoplastic algorithm was originally developed to
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 44, 2007
model time-dependent material behaviour and was then
adapted to represent plasticity. In this context viscoplasticity
refers to a numerical technique and does not involve any time
dependence in the strength properties of the soils. The visco-
plastic solution technique involves a conventional elastic
analysis with material nonlinearity (i.e., plasticity) introduced
by iteratively modifying the loading vector. The loads vector
at each load step consists of the externally applied loads and a
set of self-equilibrating body loads. Body loads are used to
redistribute stresses within the system, without altering the
external loading. In the finite element code developed for
cavity expansion analysis, the incremental viscoplastic formu-
© 2007 NRC Canada
Shuttle and Cunning 11

lation (Zienkiewicz and Cormeau 1974) was implemented us- Fig. 13. Comparison of NorSand simulation with drained triaxial
ing the general approach described in Smith and Griffiths tests on silt (H = 25, Ir = 150, ν = 0.15, ψ 0 = +0.055).
(1998). The accuracy and stability of this viscoplastic for-
mulation for critical state models is excellent with verifica-
tion examples showing deviations of less than 0.1% between
the finite element solution and the reference case (Shuttle
2004). Undrained behaviour was obtained in the effective
stress analysis using the standard numerical approach of as-
signing no volume change through the relationship ε vp = − ε ve
(which follows from setting ε v = 0 within an elastic–plastic
strain decomposition).

Numerical results for cavity expansion

Calibration of NorSand to tested silt
The purpose of the triaxial testing of the silt tailings was
twofold: (i) to obtain critical state parameters (Mtc, Γ, and
λ10 ), which are independent of state and fabric; and (ii) to
validate NorSand’s ability to represent general silt behav-
iour; it is not a calibration to perceived field conditions. It is
well known that non critical state parameters can be fabric
dependent, and hence the laboratory derived values are
likely not applicable to in situ conditions. This parameter
uncertainty is addressed later through parametric variation of
soil properties.
Calibration of NorSand to laboratory test data starts with
determination of the CSL. The relevant data were discussed
earlier and are presented in Fig. 9, giving the properties Γ =
1.076, λ10 = 0.159 from the best-fit trend through the end
points of state paths in triaxial compression tests on very
loose samples. Similarly, the critical friction ratio is obtained
from the end points of the stress paths in the same tests, giv-
ing Mtc = 1.25 (see Fig. 8).
The dilatancy property χ is ideally determined from one
or more very dense triaxial tests and is done by calculating
the ratio of maximum dilatancy to the test’s state parameter
(i.e., χ = Dmin / ψ). Two or more tests are used to provide re-
dundancy in the parameter estimate. However, no tests were
available on dense drained silt samples. Therefore, χ was de-
termined as part of the procedure to determine H, using iter-
ative modelling.
The value of H is determined from modelling drained
triaxial tests. The calibration procedure used is to guess H,
compute the entire stress–strain behaviour, and compare the
computed behaviour to that measured. The value of H is
then revised and the process repeated until a best fit is ob-
tained. The χ parameter was also varied; the best fit was ob-
tained with a typical value for sands of χ = 4.0.
The laboratory tests did not include measurements of
shear modulus using bender elements, and so shear modulus
was determined from fitting the stress path for undrained
tests and assuming a Poisson’s ratio ν = 0.15 (an uncontro-
versial choice for an effective stress model). For the CPT in
situ, the shear modulus was measured during the soundings.
The modulus measured in situ should not be used for cali-
bration to laboratory samples because these samples are
unaged, as well as likely having a different fabric because of
the differing deposition conditions.
The fit of NorSand to the tested silt is shown in Fig. 13
for a drained test and in Fig. 14 for an undrained test. The
initial state parameter values were determined from the sam-
ple’s void ratio prior to the shearing stage of the test and the
idealized CSL. An excellent fit is obtained in both cases; the
parameters for these fits being shown in the figures. Hence,
NorSand is an appropriate constitutive model for represent-
ing silt. Note that the rigidity values for both tests are lower
than those measured in situ. As discussed previously, this is
to be expected because of aging and fabric effects.
Cavity expansion of tested silt
Simulations were carried out for a range of soil properties
to both model the anticipated in situ conditions as well as to
step out from these conditions to more clearly define the
trends. These simulations then provide a relationship be-
tween the dimensionless CPT parameters Q, Bq and the ini-
tial state (which is of course the parameter of interest in
liquefaction assessment). Seismic velocity was measured at
1 m depth intervals during the CPT sounding to give Ir, us-
ing the mean effective stress estimated from the bulk unit
weight of the soil (22 kN/m3) and the depth.
In these simulations five soil properties in the NorSand
model were kept constant: Γ = 1.076, λ10 = 0.159, Mtc = 1.25
(equivalent to ϕcv ≈ 31° in triaxial compression), χ = 4.0,
and ν = 0.15. Three of the five parameters (Γ, λ10, and Mtc)
are critical state properties that are independent of fabric ef-
fects, and therefore can be inferred from the triaxial testing
on reconstituted samples. Both χ and ν vary over a very nar-
row range and therefore were neglected in the sensitivity
analysis. Two properties were varied, Ir and H; Ir was varied
because the in situ rigidity from the seismic measurements
differed from the value needed to model the laboratory tests
on reconstituted samples. Such variance is not surprising,

© 2007 NRC Canada

12
Fig. 14. Comparison of NorSand simulation with undrained triaxial tests on silt (H = 25, Ir = 110, ν = 0.15, ψ 0 = +0.075).
but does require consideration. In the case of the plastic
hardening modulus, H, it is clearly speculative to assume
that the soil structure in the reconstituted samples (which is
what a plastic hardening modulus characterizes in any plas-
ticity model) is the same structure as found in situ. There-
fore, H was taken as a parameter to be varied. Finally,
different stress levels were simulated to verify that there was
no stress-level bias.
Spherical cavity expansion needs to continue to about
double the initial cavity radius before the total and effective
cavity expansion pressures stabilize at their limiting value
for the parameter–property choice being simulated. In devel-
oping the relationship between soil state, soil properties, and
CPT resistance it is this large displacement limiting value
during cavity expansion that corresponds to the CPT data.
Thus, although a large numerical effort is needed, only two
results are relevant from each simulation.
Table 1 summarizes the property–parameter cases simu-
lated and the computed soil response to cavity expansion.
The initial state parameter was stepped over six nominal val-
ues but with slight variations in each case so that the result-
ing data points would never plot on top of each other when
comparing trends against ψ 0.
Figure 15 shows the trend in Qp values with ψ 0. The ef-
fect of Ir at constant H is highlighted in Fig. 15a, while
Fig. 15b presents the opposite effect of variable H at con-
stant Ir. Figures 16a and 16b show the same trends but now
for the computed Bq values. In the case of Ir variation, there
are unique trends in Qp and Bq for each value of Ir, regard-
less of stress level. Similarly, there are unique trends in Qp
and Bq for any choice of H at constant Ir.
The numerical results can be normalized using the
dimensionless form of eq. [2]. Figure 17 plots all of the results
of the numerical simulations as Qp(1 – Bq) + 1 versus ψ 0. This
plot brings results with differing Ir and H values onto a single
trendline. Further, this trendline has the anticipated
semiexponential form within a rather small tolerance, the
trendline drawn in Fig. 17 being that from eq. [2] and using
k = 1.86 and m = 14.6. This figure indicates that the change in
elastic and plastic properties, which affect the excess pore pres-
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 44, 2007
sure during undrained shear, can be accounted for by simply
using the measured pore pressure itself. This plot provides a
basis to evaluate the in situ test data from the site.
As noted earlier, Houlsby (1988) suggested that Qp(1 –
Bq) + 1 was fundamental to the evaluation of undrained CPT
data using an effective stress framework. Houlsby’s sugges-
tion was based on arguments for appropriate combinations
for dimensionless groups, and the results reported here are
believed to be the first complete numerical substantiation us-
ing a realistic constitutive model. Figure 17, anticipated by
Houlsby, is a remarkable result. Of course, k and m in
eq. [2] will vary with soil specific coefficients such as Mtc
and λ10. But Fig. 17 provides a practical, mechanics-based
methodology with which to determine soil state from the
CPT in silts.
In situ tailings state and liquefaction potential
Before Fig. 17 can be used to estimate ψ 0 in situ from
CPT data, allowance must be made for the limitation of the
spherical cavity idealization and the effect of nonisotropic
conditions in situ.
As discussed previously, there is evidence that the spheri-
cal cavity idealization underestimates CPT resistance by a
factor of about 2. As a first estimate, it would not be unrea-
sonable to double the normalized k, giving k = 3.7, but leave
m unchanged. The inferred trend between ψ 0 and eq. [2], in-
cluding the factor of two correction, is also shown in
Fig. 17. A tacit assumption here is that the excess pore pres-
sure ratio computed by the spherical cavity is the same as
the Bq ratio measured with the CPT for a “shoulder”
mounted piezometric element.
Calibration chamber data in sands, also discussed previ-
ously, shows that K0 has no effect on the CPT resistance pro-
vided that the CPT data is normalized by the mean rather
than the vertical effective stress. That is Qp = 3Q/(1 + 2K0).
Figure 18 shows the measured CPTu data previously pre-
sented in Fig. 2 and now transformed to the normalized
dimensionless variable Qp(1 – Bq) + 1. The scales have been
expanded on the plot so as to window in to the silt stratum
of interest. As can be seen, the normalized resistance is
© 2007 NRC Canada
Shuttle and Cunning 13

Table 1. Summary of simulation parameters and computed spherical cavity results.

ψ0 p′ (MPa) H Ir qt (MPa) uc (MPa) Qp Bq Qp(1 – Bq) + 1

0.079 0.050 25.0 100 0.164 0.135 2.285 1.180 0.589
0.052 0.050 25.0 100 0.195 0.151 2.898 1.045 0.870
0.026 0.050 25.0 100 0.211 0.147 3.213 0.917 1.267
0.001 0.050 25.0 100 0.227 0.137 3.545 0.774 1.802
–0.020 0.050 25.0 100 0.246 0.123 3.926 0.626 2.468
–0.050 0.050 25.0 100 0.269 0.080 4.386 0.365 3.784
0.076 0.050 25.0 250 0.173 0.142 2.456 1.160 0.608
0.054 0.050 25.0 250 0.195 0.153 2.902 1.057 0.834
0.029 0.050 25.0 250 0.209 0.149 3.181 0.936 1.204
0.004 0.050 25.0 250 0.226 0.139 3.517 0.789 1.741
–0.025 0.050 25.0 250 0.259 0.127 4.176 0.610 2.627
–0.047 0.050 25.0 250 0.279 0.098 4.573 0.428 3.616
0.076 0.050 62.5 250 0.178 0.148 2.568 1.153 0.606
0.051 0.050 62.5 250 0.214 0.170 3.281 1.037 0.878
0.025 0.050 62.5 250 0.243 0.179 3.853 0.929 1.273
0.003 0.050 62.5 250 0.274 0.186 4.479 0.831 1.757
–0.022 0.050 62.5 250 0.321 0.195 5.422 0.720 2.519
–0.045 0.050 62.5 250 0.373 0.196 6.468 0.605 3.557
0.080 0.500 25.0 100 1.642 1.345 2.284 1.178 0.593
0.050 0.500 25.0 100 1.963 1.505 2.926 1.029 0.916
0.026 0.500 25.0 100 2.109 1.461 3.218 0.908 1.297
0.003 0.500 25.0 100 2.267 1.361 3.535 0.770 1.812
–0.020 0.500 25.0 100 2.447 1.186 3.893 0.609 2.521
–0.048 0.500 25.0 100 2.681 0.814 4.361 0.373 3.732
0.079 0.500 25.0 250 1.755 1.478 2.510 1.178 0.554
0.054 0.500 25.0 250 1.975 1.556 2.950 1.055 0.838
0.028 0.500 25.0 250 2.113 1.485 3.225 0.921 1.255
0.003 0.500 25.0 250 2.278 1.372 3.557 0.771 1.813
–0.024 0.500 25.0 250 2.548 1.211 4.096 0.591 2.673
–0.046 0.500 25.0 250 2.761 0.932 4.522 0.412 3.658
0.079 0.500 62.5 250 1.813 1.530 2.626 1.165 0.567
0.052 0.500 62.5 250 2.155 1.720 3.311 1.039 0.870
0.025 0.500 62.5 250 2.462 1.807 3.925 0.921 1.310
0.003 0.500 62.5 250 2.783 1.868 4.565 0.819 1.828
–0.024 0.500 62.5 250 3.283 1.923 5.565 0.691 2.720
–0.048 0.500 62.5 250 3.828 1.909 6.657 0.574 3.838
0.077 0.500 137.5 550 1.981 1.695 2.961 1.145 0.571
0.050 0.500 137.5 550 2.358 1.912 3.717 1.029 0.892
0.023 0.500 137.5 550 2.794 2.116 4.587 0.923 1.355
0.001 0.500 137.5 550 3.271 2.321 5.542 0.838 1.900
–0.026 0.500 137.5 550 4.051 2.627 7.101 0.740 2.847
–0.050 0.500 137.5 550 4.937 2.914 8.875 0.657 4.047
0.080 0.050 137.5 550 0.184 0.155 2.677 1.160 0.571
0.050 0.050 137.5 550 0.231 0.187 3.627 1.031 0.888
0.020 0.050 137.5 550 0.279 0.210 4.585 0.918 1.377
0.000 0.050 137.5 550 0.322 0.230 5.435 0.845 1.843
–0.020 0.050 137.5 550 0.379 0.256 6.589 0.778 2.465
–0.055 0.050 137.5 550 0.507 0.302 9.139 0.661 4.100
Note: ψ0, initial state parameter; p′, mean effective stress; H, dimensionless plastic hardening modulus for loading; Ir,
dimensionless elastic shear rigidity; qt, total tip resistance; uc, spherical limit pore pressure assumed proportional to the pore
pressure measured by CPT during sounding (at shoulder location); Qp, dimensionless CPT resistance based on mean stress as
required by mechanics; Bq, CPTu excess pore pressure ratio.

close to unity over much of the weak silt zone. Application
of the inverted form of eq. [2], and using the estimated coef-
ficients m and k, gives the profile of in situ state parameter
also shown in Fig. 18. Broadly, the in situ state of the weak
silt is estimated to lie in the region +0.08 < ψ < +0.12.
The in situ void ratio of the silt was estimated from log-
ging the water content of samples in the adjacent boring and
then converting this water content to void ratio assuming full
saturation. These void ratios can be combined with esti-
mated critical void ratios from the laboratory testing of re-

© 2007 NRC Canada

14
Fig. 15. Results of numerical simulations for normalized CPT resistance. (a) effect of soil rigidity; (b) effect of plastic hardening.
constituted samples to give alternative estimates of ψ in situ.
Values calculated in this way are also shown in Fig. 18 and
they indicate that +0.15 < ψ < +0.38.
The state estimated from the CPT is not quite as loose as
that inferred from water content measurements, although
both methods indicate a soil markedly looser than its critical
state. In looking to resolve this ambiguity, it can be noted
that the Bq measured with the CPTu (about unity for the ho-
rizon in question) is actually a little less than the Bq ex-
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 44, 2007
pected for ψ ≈ +0.1 based on Fig. 16. There is consistency
in the ψ estimated from the spherical cavity analogue. On
the other hand it is possible that the spherical cavity ana-
logue has underestimated the CPT resistance by more than
the estimated CPT:spherical factor (which could arise while
still preserving consistency in the computed behaviour).
However, the large strain formulation used in the present
work is conventional and widely used by others working on
cavity expansion idealizations. The undrained implementa-
© 2007 NRC Canada
Shuttle and Cunning
Fig. 16. Results of numerical simulations for normalized CPT pore pressure. (a) effect of soil rigidity; (b) effect of plastic hardening.
tion of NorSand was also verified by comparing NorSand
parameters chosen to mimic the Tresca soil model (ψ = 0,
R = 2.7), with the analytical Tresca solution. The solutions
limiting cavity expansion pressure differed by approximately
20%; this difference being caused by drift in the NorSand
pore pressures. The difference between solutions is small
and does not sufficiently account for the difference in in-
ferred ψ.
15
Another potential error could be in the cavity expansion
idealization itself. Ladanyi and Foriero (1998) suggest that
there are inconsistent aspects with such formulations in that
large strain measures (ψ, M, H) are combined with Ir, which
is a ratio based on small strains (rigidity). Certainly using a
spherical:CPT factor of three rather than two would bring
the value of ψ estimated from CPT much closer to that esti-
mated from water contents.
© 2007 NRC Canada
16 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 44, 2007

Fig. 17. Normalized results of numerical simulations (all 48 simulation results plotted).

Fig. 18. Comparison of ψ inferred from CPTu with ψ inferred from water content of disturbed samples combined with CSL of recon-
stituted silt.

© 2007 NRC Canada

Shuttle and Cunning
Fig. 19. Example of undrained triaxial behaviour that is representative of the inferred in situ conditions from CPTu (ψ 0 = +0.1,
Γ = 1.076, λ 10 = 0.159, Mtc = 1.25, χ = 4.0, Ir = 550, ν = 0.15).
A more likely reason for a mismatch, as discussed above,
is that in calculating Bq it is tacitly assumed that the excess
pore pressure ratio computed by the spherical cavity is the
same as the Bq ratio measured with the CPT for a “uc” or
“shoulder” mounted piezometric element. This is unproven,
and adding a factor to Bq to account for geometry effects on
the pore pressure would change the inferred CPT trend line
in Fig. 17.
Finally, the water-content based ψ estimates are not neces-
sarily correct. A maximum inferred ψ > +0.4 is on the outer
bounds of credulity. Samples this loose could not be pre-
pared in the laboratory even using moist tamping methods.
And it is unclear whether the low strengths corresponding to
such a loose state could support the current impoundment
geometry.
Regardless of the actual ψ, either approach indicates the silt
is liquefiable. Figure 19 shows the computed undrained triaxial
behaviour of a typical in situ silt having Ir = 550 and ψ = +0.1
for three values of hardening parameter, H. The lower value of
H = 25 corresponds to that interpreted from the laboratory tests
and would be appropriate if H was independent of Ir. An alter-
native approach would be to assume that the H to Ir ratio stays
approximately constant, giving H ≈ 100. Of course, there is no
reason to assume that the value of H in situ is related to that
from the moist tamped samples. Therefore one additional
value of H = 300 is also shown, to span the likely range of
hardening values. All of the simulations indicate that the silt
is indeed liquefiable. The chosen value of ψ = +0.1 is the best
estimate of the range of state values in Fig. 18; higher ψ
would give more collapsible behaviour.
The residual or postliquefaction strength for soils with stress
paths such as those computed would usually localize at the
minimum post-peak strength. This strength ranges between
about 37% and 60% of the peak (depending on H). It may
seem surprising that such high in situ ψ values lead to only
moderate post-peak strength drops, but this is an effect caused
by the rather large slope of the CSL. In effect, the soils are
weak, compressible, and somewhat liquefiable, rather than cat-
17
astrophically brittle. Interestingly, this is exactly the soil
behaviour type indicated from the classification index Ic
(Fig. 3).
Conclusion
A framework for the evaluation of in situ state for silt tail-
ings has been presented that combines in situ CPT measure-
ments, laboratory testing of the silt tailings, and numerical
modelling.
A case history of silt tailings has been considered in
which there are adjacent data for a CPTu sounding and sam-
ples from a borehole. The NCEER approach (Youd et al.
2001), which is based on Robertson and Wride (1998), indi-
cates that the soil is likely not liquefiable. However, compar-
ison of the logged water contents from the borehole to the
critical state determined from tests on reconstituted samples
indicates that the soil was catastrophically liquefiable. This
conclusion is corroborated by the high Bq values measured
during CPT testing; the near equivalence of qt and uc indi-
cate a soil strength approaching zero.
Finite element simulations of undrained cavity expansion
were undertaken using NorSand. This soil model closely cal-
ibrates to the measured silt behaviour of reconstituted sam-
ples in the laboratory. These finite element simulations were
found to closely support evaluation of undrained CPT data
using the dimensionless framework suggested by Houlsby
(1988). This approach provides a mechanics-based method-
ology with which to determine soil state from the CPT.
The numerical simulations further confirmed that the soil
was liquefiable. However, the extent to which the silt might
exhibit brittle strength reduction was much less than that in-
ferred from the in situ water contents.
Simulation of the expected in situ behaviour based on the
CPT inferred in situ state showed that the soil was predomi-
nantly very contractive and soft, rather than brittle. Interest-
ingly this is the same behaviour identified from the CPT soil
type behaviour chart.
© 2007 NRC Canada
18
References
ASTM. 2006a. Standard Test Methods for Specific Gravity of Soil
Solids by Water Pycnometer, ASTM D 854-06. Philadelphia,
PA. American Society for Testing and Materials.
ASTM. 2006b. Standard test methods for maximum index density
and unit weight of soils using a vibratory table ASTM D 4253-
00 (2006). Philadelphia, PA. American Society for Testing and
Materials.
ASTM. 2006c. Standard test method for minimum index density
and unit weight of soils and calculation of relative density, D
4254-00 (2006). Philadelphia, PA. American Society for Testing
and Materials.
Been, K., and Jefferies, M.G. 1985. A state parameter for sands.
Géotechnique, 35: 99–112.
Been, K., and Jefferies, M.G. 1986. Reply to discussion. Géotechnique,
36: 123–132.
Been, K., and Jefferies, M.G. 1992. Towards systematic CPT inter-
pretation. In Proceedings of the Wroth Memorial Symposium,
Thomas Telford, London. pp. 121–134.
Been, K., Crooks, J.H.A., Becker, D.E., and Jefferies, M.G. 1986.
The cone penetration test in sands: Part I, state parameter inter-
pretation. Géotechnique, 36: 239–249.
Been, K., Jefferies, M.G., Crooks, J.H.A., and Rothenberg, L.
1987a. The cone penetration test in sands: Part II, general infer-
ence of state. Géotechnique, 37: 285–299.
Been, K., Lingnau, B.E., Crooks, J.H.A., and Leach, B. 1987b.
Cone penetration test calibration for Erksak (Beaufort Sea) sand.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 24: 601–610.
Been, K., Crooks, J.H.A., and Jefferies, M.G. 1988. Interpretation
of material state from the CPT in sands and clays. In Penetration
testing in the UK. Thomas Telford, London. pp. 215–218.
Been, K., Jefferies, M.G., and Hachey, J. 1991. The critical state of
sand. Géotechnique, 41: 365–381.
Been, K., Jefferies, M.G., and Hachey, J. 1992. Reply to discus-
sion. Géotechnique, 42: 660–663.
Cao, L.F., Teh, C.I., and Chang, M.F. 2001. Undrained cavity ex-
pansion in modified Cam clay I: Theoretical analysis. Géo-
technique, 51: 323–334.
Carraro, J.A.H., Bandini, P., and Salgado, R. 2005. Liquefaction
resistance of clean and non-plastic silty sands from cone pene-
tration resistance. In Proceedings of Geo-Frontiers 2005, ASCE
Geotechnical Special Publication No. 133 [available on CD-
ROM].
Carter, J.P., Booker, J.R., and Yeung, S.K. 1986. Cavity expansion
in cohesive frictional soils. Géotechnique, 36: 349–358.
Chang, M.F., Teh, C.I., and Cao, L.F. 2001. Undrained cavity ex-
pansion in modified Cam clay II: Application to the interpreta-
tion of the piezocone test. Géotechnique, 51: 335–350.
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. Géotechnique, 35:
19–31.
Collins, I.F., Pender, M.J., and Yan, W. 1992. Cavity expansion in
sands under drained loading conditions. International Journal for
Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 16: 3–23.
Dasenbrock, D. 2005. Improved site stratigraphy and layer charac-
terization using cone penetration testing methods on Minnesota
DOT projects. In Proceedings of Geo-Frontiers 2005, Site Char-
acterization and Modeling. ASCE Geotechnical Special Publica-
tion No. 133 [available on CD-ROM].
East, D.R., Cincilla, W.A., Hughes, J.M.O., and Benoit, J. 1988.
The use of the electric piezocone for mine tailings deposits.
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 44, 2007
Penetration Testing 1988 – ISOPT-1, Edited by Jacob de Ruiter.
A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. pp. 745–750.
Fourie, A.B., Blight, G.E., and Papageorgiou, G. 2001. Static liq-
uefaction as a possible explanation for the Merriespruit tailings
dam failure. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 38: 707–719.
Frost, J.D., and Park, J.-Y. 2003. A critical assessment of the moist
tamping technique. Geotechnical Testing Journal, 26(1): 1–14.
Høeg, K., Dyvik, R., and Sandbækken, G. 2000. Strength of undis-
turbed versus reconstituted silt and silty sand specimens. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 126: 606–617.
Houlsby, G.T. 1988. Introduction to papers 14–19. Penetration test-
ing in the UK, Thomas Telford, London. pp. 141–146.
Houlsby, G.T., and Yu, H.S. 1991. Finite cavity expansion in
dilatant soils: loading analysis. Géotechnique, 41: 173–183.
Jefferies, M.G. 1993. NorSand: a simple critical state model for
sand, Géotechnique, 43: 91–103.
Jefferies, M.G., and Davies, M.P. 1993. Use of the CPTu to esti-
mate equivalent SPT N60. Geotechnical Testing Journal, 16:
458–468.
Jefferies, M.G., and Shuttle, D.A. 2002. Dilatancy in general
Cambridge-type models. Géotechnique, 52: 625–638.
Jefferies, M.G., and Shuttle, D.A. 2005. NorSand: Features, cali-
bration and use. Geotechnical Special Publication No. 128, Soil
Constitutive Models: Evaluation, Selection, and Calibration.
Edited by J.A. Yamamuro and V.N. Kaliakin. ASCE, Reston, Va.
pp. 204–236.
Konrad, J.-M., and Law, K.T. 1987. Preconsolidation pressure from
piezocone tests in marine clays. Géotechnique, 37: 177–190.
Ladanyi, B., and Roy, M. 1987. Point resistance of piles in sand. In
Proceedings of the 9th Southeast-Asian Geotechnical Confer-
ence, Bangkok. Southeast Asian Geotechnical Society, Asian In-
stitute of Technology, and Engineering Institute of Thailand.
pp. 6-29–6-42.
Ladanyi, B., and Foriero, A. 1998. A numerical solution of cavity
expansion problem in sand based directly on experimental stress–
strain curves. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 35: 541–559.
Lou, J.K., Byrne, P.M., Garner, S.J., and Marcuson, W.F. 1991. As-
sessment of seismic stability of Dolphin Pool Slope of John
Hart Dam. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference
on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering
and Soil Dynamics, St. Louis, Missouri, 11–15 March 1991.
Edited by Shamsher Prakash. University of Missouri-Rolla,
Rolla, Mo. Paper no. 7.11, pp. 1013–1020.
Lu, Q., Randolph, M.F., Hu, Y., and Bugarski, I.C. 2004. A numeri-
cal study of cone penetration in clay. Géotechnique, 54: 257–267.
Plewes, H.D., Davies, M.P., and Jefferies, M.G. 1992. CPT based
screening procedure for evaluating liquefaction susceptibility. In
Proceedings of the 45th Canadian Geotechnical Conference, To-
ronto, 26–28 October 1992. Canadian Geotechnical Society.
pp. 4-1–4-9.
Robertson, P.K., and Wride (Fear), C.E. 1998. Evaluating cyclic
liquefaction potential using the cone penetration test. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 35: 442–459.
Schofield, A., and Wroth, C.P. 1968. Critical state soil mechanics.
McGraw-Hill, London.
Seed, H.B., and Idriss, I.M. 1982. Ground motions and soil lique-
faction during earthquakes. In Earthquake Engineering Research
Institute Monograph, Oakland, Calif.
Sego, D.C., Robertson, P.K., Sasitharan, S., Kilpatrick, B.L., and
Pillai, V.S. 1994. Ground freezing and sampling of foundation
soils at Duncan Dam. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 31: 927–
938.
Shuttle, D.A. 2004. Implementation of a viscoplastic algorithm for
critical state soil models. In Proceedings of the 9th International
© 2007 NRC Canada
Shuttle and Cunning 19

Symposium on Numerical Models in Geomechanics (NUMOG Ic,RW soil classification index from Robertson and Wride (1998),
IX), Ottawa, Ont., 25–27 August 2004. Edited by G.N. Pande I c, RW = [ 3.47 − log (Q)]2 + [(1.22 + ( log F )]2
and S. Pietruszczak. A.A. Balkema Publishers, London.
pp. 243–247. Ir dimensionless elastic shear rigidity (= G/p′)
Shuttle, D.A., and Jefferies, M.G. 1998. Dimensionless and unbi- k drained soil-specific coefficient in eq. [1]
ased CPT interpretation in sand. International Journal for Nu- k undrained soil-specific coefficient in eq. [2]
merical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 22: 351–391. K0 in situ lateral effective stress ratio, σh′ / σv′
Sladen, J.A. 1989a. Cone penetration test calibration for Erksak m drained soil-specific coefficient in eq. [1]
(Beaufort Sea) sand: Discussion. Canadian Geotechnical Jour- m undrained soil-specific coefficient in eq. [2]
nal, 26: 173–177. M Value of ratio η at the critical state (varies with Lode angle)
Sladen, J.A. 1989b. Problems with interpretation of sand state from Mi value of M used in the flow rule (Mi – η), Mi = M – |ψ|
cone penetration test. Géotechnique, 39: 323–332. Mtc value of ratio η at the critical state under triaxial com-
Sladen, J.A., and Handford, G. 1987. A potential systematic error pression conditions
in laboratory testing of very loose sands. Canadian Geotechnical Nk cone strength factor, N k = ( qt − σv0 )/ s u
Journal, 24: 462–466. p mean total stress, p = (σ1 + σ2 + σ3 )/3
Smith, I.M., and Griffiths, D.V. 1998. Programming the finite ele- p′ mean effective stress, p′ = ( σ1′ + σ2′ + σ3′ )/ 3
ment method. 3rd ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York. p i′ mean effective stress at the image state
Vaid, Y.P., Sivathayalan, S., and Stedman, D. 1999. Influence of p 0′ in situ mean effective stress, p 0′ = ( σx0 ′ + σy0
′ + σz0′ )/3
specimen-reconstituting method on the undrained response of p0 in situ mean total stress, p0 = ( σx0 + σy0 + σz0 ) / 3
sand. Geotechnical Testing Journal, 22: 187–195. q deviatoric stress invariant, q = (1/ 2( σ1 − σ2 )2 + 1/ 2( σ2 −
van den Berg, P. 1994. Analysis of soil penetration. Ph.D. thesis, σ3 )2 + 1/ 2( σ3 − σ1 )2 )1 / 2
Technische Universiteit Delft, Delft, The Netherlands. qt total tip resistance
Yafrate, N., and DeJong, J.T. 2005. Detection of stratigraphic inter- Q dimensionless CPT resistance based on vertical stress
faces and thin layering using a miniature piezoprobe. In Proceed- corresponding to standard usage within the in situ test-
ings of Geo-Frontiers 2005, Site Characterization and Modeling. ing community, Q = ( qt − σv0 )/ σv0 ′
ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 133 [available on
Qp dimensionless CPT resistance based on mean stress re-
CD-ROM].
quired by mechanics, Qp = ( qt − p0 )/ p 0′
Youd, T.L., Idriss, I.M., Andrus, R., Arango, I., Castro, G., Chris-
R overconsolidation ratio, R = pmax ′ / p current
′ (see Fig. 11)
tian, J., et al. 2001. Liquefaction resistance of soils: summary re-
port from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops su undrained shear strength
on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils. ASCE Journal of u current pore pressure
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 127: 817–833. uc pore pressure measured by CPT during sounding (at
Yu, H.S., Herrmann, L.R., and Boulanger, R.W. 2000. Analysis of shoulder location)
steady cone penetration in clay. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical u0 in situ pore pressure
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 126: 594–605. χ proportionality coefficient, relating dilation at peak
Zienkiewicz, O.C., and Cormeau, I.C. 1974. Viscoplasticity, plas- stress ratio, Dmin, to state parameter, ψ
ticity and creep in elastic solids. A unified numerical approach. Γ “altitude” of CSL, defined at 1 kPa
International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 8: εv total volumetric strain, εv = ε ev + ε vp
821–845. ε ev volumetric strain, ε ev = ε1e + ε 2e + ε 3e , e superscript indi-
cates elastic
ε vp volumetric strain, ε vp = ε1p + ε 2p + ε 3p , p superscript in-
List of symbols dicates plastic
B Skempton’s pore pressure parameter, B = ∆u/ ∆σ3 ε& q shear strain measure work conjugate with σ& q , dot
Bq CPTu excess pore pressure ratio, Bq = ( uc − u0 )/( qt − σv0 ) superscript denotes rate ε& q = 1/ 3 [(sin θ + 3 cos θ) ε& 1 −
Dmin maximum dilatancy; equal to the dilation at peak stress 2 sin θ ε& 2 + (sin θ − 3 cos θ) ε& 3 ]
ratio (the minimum arising due to the compression posi- η dimensionless shear measure as ratio of stress
tive sign convention) invariants, η = q/p′
e void ratio ηL limiting stress ratio, corresponding to the location of the
ec void ratio at the critical state for the current mean stress inner cap yield surface
F stress normalized CPTu friction ratio, F = fs /( qt − σv0 ) θ lode angle, sin ( 3 θ) = −13.5σ1′ σ 2′ σ 3′ / q 3
fs friction sleeve stress measurement λ 10 slope of CSL, defined on base 10
G elastic shear modulus ν Poisson’s ratio
Gs specific gravity σv0 in situ vertical total stress
′
σv0 in situ vertical effective stress
H dimensionless plastic hardening modulus for loading
Ic soil classification index from Been and Jefferies (1992), φ′ effective friction angle
ψ state parameter, e – ec
I c = 3 − log [Q (1 − Bq ) + 1]2 + [1.5 + 1.3 (log F )]2
ψ0 in situ (or initial) state parameter

© 2007 NRC Canada