ISP7-PRESSIO 2015. Frikha, Varaksin & Gambin(Eds.

) © 2015

THE USE OF CLUSTER ANALYSIS FOR IDENTIFICATION OF SOIL LAYER –

THE GRAYS HARBOR PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

UTILISATION DE LA METHODE DES CLUSTERS POUR L’IDENTIFICATION DES

COUCHES DE SOL – APPLICATION AU PROJET DE PONTON DE GRAYS HARBOR
1 2 3
Jacques MONNET , John HUGHES , Jake DAFNI
1
Gaiatech, 38170, Seyssinet, France
2
The University of British Columbia, 2329 West Mall Vancouver, BC Canada V6T
3
University of Washington, Civil & Environmental Engineering, 201 More Hall, Seattle , USA

ABSTRACT - The cluster analysis is a statistical method used for grouping data which have
similar mathematical characteristics. We present here an analysis of pressuremeter tests using
the Cluster method, which uses as the statistical variables: p LM ; Ee ; Ee/pLM. The results relate
the relevance of these variables to identify the soil horizons, and to characterize the various
geological layers of the site of the Grays Harbor.

RÉSUMÉ - L'analyse par cluster est une méthode statistique utilisée pour regrouper les
données qui ont des caractéristiques mathématiques similaires. Nous présentons ici une
analyse des essais pressiométriques selon la méthode de cluster, qui utilise comme variables
statistiques: pLM; Ee; Ee / pLM. Les résultats indiquent la pertinence de ces variables pour
identifier les horizons du sol, et caractériser les différentes couches du site de Grays Harbor.

1. Introduction

The study of soil stratification is a necessary step in geotechnical site characterization involving
the mapping of horizontal boundaries and the identification of soil layers. It is assumed that in
each layer the mechanical characteristics of the soil are homogenous. Therefore if it is
determined that a material has similar by pressuremeter mechanical characteristics, it follows
that said material can be grouped into different soil types allowing for the identification of
different soil layers. This hypothesis is not new and is currently used by Robertson and Wride
(1998) to determine soil stratigraphy using cone penetrometer resistance qc and the friction
ratio Rf.
The cluster analysis (Everitt, 1974) is a statistical method used for grouping data which
have similar mathematical characteristics in subsets with common or homogeneous values,
which can then be used for the stratification analysis. This method can be implemented on
various fields of data for which no division is a priori known and can be useful in the case of the
identification of the soil horizons, for site characterization. Cluster analyses for in-situ
applications are composed of the following six steps: selection of variables; standardization of
the data; resemblance distance matrix; choice of clustering technique; determination of the
number of clusters; interpretation of cluster results.
The grouping of the data in clusters, can be carried out, along a vertical profile (Saboya and
Balbi, 2003), but also in given planes (Mlynarek and Lunne, 1997). In both cases, the method
of calculation is identical and the only difference consists in an axial or plane treatment of the
problem. Using this method it’s possible to : objectively define similar groups in the soil profile;
delineate different layer boundaries; allocate the lenses within a sub-layer; determine the mean
mechanical values of each layer.
Various types of in-situ tests can be treated in this manner, such as the penetrometer (CPT),
or piezocone CPTU (Hegazy and Mayne, 2002). Recent applications relate mainly to the
piezocone but some relate to pressuremeter measurements (Baud, 2005; Baud and Gambin,
2008; Monnet et al., 2003; Monnet et al., 2006; Monnet and Allagnat, 2006, Monnet and

249
 ISP7-PRESSIO 2015. Frikha, Varaksin & Gambin(Eds.) © 2015

Broucke, 2012). We present here a pressuremeter analysis by cluster, which uses the
variables pLM , Ee , Ee /pLM. The results relate to the relevance of these various variables to the
identification of soil horizons, and to the best possible combination of data needed to
characterize the various geological layers of the site of Grays Harbor, Washington State USA.

2. Cluster analysis of the pressuremeter results

2.1. Standardization of the data

Data standardization is a way to use and represent data in a no dimensional space, so that the
effects of the different units on each variable are reduced. From a theoretical point of view
standardization is not essential to the use of the cluster method, but it is a logical step to use
data with mean value equal to zero and a standard deviation equal to one. At a depth i, a series
of measurements x of j variables (varying from 1 to p) can be noted x ij. The standardized
variable zij corresponding to xij is determined by the relation:

xij  x j
zij 
S x j 
(1)

where x j and S(xj) are respectively the mean value and the standard deviation of the variable j
of xij with i varying from 1 to n.

2.2. Similarity between data and concept of distance between data series

The similarity between two different data series can be evaluated at least by 7 different
methods: Pearson; Manhattan; Minkowski; Power; Euclidean; Chebychev; Cosine (Norusis,
1988). There is no specific rule to classify and measure the similarity between data. According
to Hegazy and Mayne (2002) and Mlynarek et al. (2005), the best method to estimate the
deviations between data points is the Cosine method (2) rather than the a priori more simple
Euclidean method (3):
p

 z .z ik jk
dij  k 1
(2)
z  .z 
p p
2 2
ik jk
k 1 k 1

z  z jk 
p
2
dij  ik (3)
k 1

It can be easily seen that the Euclidean relation gives a null result for two identical data
points in the same cluster, and produces a large deviation for two different points in two
different clusters. The Cosine method was chosen to determine the measurement of data
deviation because of the methods correlation related to measurement. The result produced by
the Cosine method of relation (2) lie between -1 and +1, with 1 corresponding to identical data,
-1 to data with anti-correlation and 0 to data with no correlation, whereas with relation (3) there
is no boundary to determine an uncorrelated series of data.

250
 ISP7-PRESSIO 2015. Frikha, Varaksin & Gambin(Eds.) © 2015

Figure 1. Organization of calculation

2.3 Concept of cluster and organization of the calculation

Hegazy (1998) used various methods of regrouping data and finally recommended to use the
method of nearest neighbor which satisfies the mathematical conditions of continuity and
minimum distortion. It is this method which is used here for the analysis of the pressuremeter
tests.
The method is organized as shown in Figure 1. At the first step, for as set of n given data,
the values which are closest are determined (dij minimum for the Euclidean distance or dij
nearest to 1 for the Cosine distance). If the deviation is above the threshold (Cosine method) or
below the threshold (Euclidean method) the second point joins the cluster of the first point. In
the following step, two points being analyzed are either not in an existing cluster and form a
new cluster, or one of the points is an element of an existing cluster and thus the second point
joins the cluster of the first point. The program controls the condition of keenness, by checking
the distance between the mean value of two different clusters to ensure that it is under (Cosine
method) or above (Euclidean method) so that these two clusters are related to different soil

251
 ISP7-PRESSIO 2015. Frikha, Varaksin & Gambin(Eds.) © 2015

layers. Finally the program controls the condition of homogeneity, by checking the distance
between each point of a cluster and the mean value of this cluster to ensure that it is above
(Cosine method) or below (Euclidean method) the threshold.

2.4 Choice of variables

The various variables used are classified from z1 to z3. We use no dimensional variable to
ensure there is no influence of the units. z1 corresponds to pLM which is usually used to
identify the shearing resistance of the soil, z2 correspond to Ee and yields a measurement of
the Young’s modulus of the soil (Young’s modulus measured on the unloading-reloading cycle)
and z3 corresponds to the Ee /pLM used by Baguelin et al. (1978) to classify the soil.

2.5 Statistical independence of the variables

The chosen variables should be independent from each other. To check this condition the
correlation coefficient was calculated with relation (4) where Cov(xi, xj) is the covariance of the
variables xi and xj :

Cov(xi , x j )
ij  (4)
S(xi ).S(x j )

Theoretically the correlation between independent variables is zero, and the correlation
between linked variables is either 1 or –1. Practically a threshold of 0.65 for our 142 variables is
chosen to be acceptable.

3. Description of the Grays Harbor pontoon construction Project

3.1 Some History

The Grays Harbor site investigation (Figure 2) was performed in Washington State USA in
order to construct a facility capable of building floating pontoons for the Highway 520 Bridge in
Seattle, Washington. From the technical and economic points of view, the project must be
conceived and dimensioned with an adaptation to the sub-soil constrains which must be
recognized and known. The usual method of investigation is to take undisturbed samples and
test them in a laboratory. Unfortunately the soils tested on the Grays Harbor site, which
generally are sandy, silty and clayey are located under the water table and are difficult to
sample. The pressuremeter analysis is useful because it allows for the characterization of the
soil with respect to their natural structure at the depth the test was performed. This
measurement technique was used for the study of the site.

3.2 Description of the sub-soil

The description of the site investigation and the characteristics of the main geological
formations are shown in Figure 3. The scope of work consisted of 15 Boreholes for sampling
(to depths of 49m max), 23 cone penetrometer tests with qc and Rf measurements (to depths
of 49m), 4 pressuremeter boreholes with Ee and pl measurements (to depth of 45m max).

3.2.1 General geological framework

The project in Grays Harbor encounters geological formations consisting of sand, and silts from
marine deposits. The site location is in a marshy area on the coast of Washington State with
an elevation very near to sea level.

252
 ISP7-PRESSIO 2015. Frikha, Varaksin & Gambin(Eds.) © 2015

3.2.2 Geotechnical description of the soils

The determination of the geology and the visual identification of the soil are only possible with
precision when samples are available. Unfortunately, the main section of the project is below
the water table and it is not possible to extract intact samples for the soils which have no
cohesion. The soils with cohesion on this site are weak and soft enough that sample recovery,
especially in an undisturbed state, is nearly impossible. The only way to identify the soil is to
use cuttings which can lead to large inaccuracy in determining the position of the different soil
layers. In contrast, the pressuremeter test is an in-situ test which can be performed at any
chosen place with success.
The cluster analysis applied to the pressuremeter data should be more relevant for the
determination of the position of the soil layers because of the precisely known position of the
test. The reported site investigation is composed of pressuremeter measurements in 40m to
45m deep boreholes. The data collected could be classified (Figure 3) as four families,
according to their deposit origin, their visual localization and their characteristics: unit 1 family:
Silt locally 1 to 6 m; unit 2A family: Silty sand subjacent, 6 to 21m; unit 2B family: Sandy Silt
subjacent, 6 to 21m; unit 3 family: Silt, 21 to 36 m thickness Unit 4 family: Sands and Gravels
subjacent with the unit3 family

Figure 2. Map of the section profile and location of the boreholes of the Grays Harbor site

3.2.3 The site investigation

The site investigation was carried out in several phases with the following measurements:
- Pressuremeter tests
- Cone penetrometer tests,

253
 ISP7-PRESSIO 2015. Frikha, Varaksin & Gambin(Eds.) © 2015

Results of the pressuremeter tests do not show any organization (Figure 4 to 7) and the
laboratory tests are used for the classification of the soil.

Figure 3. Vertical cross sections BB’ of the site

3.3 Results of the cluster analysis

3.3.1 Independence of variables

The coefficient of correlation between variables has been calculated in Table 1 and uses all
families of soil. For the 142 tests the coefficient of correlation between 142 different values of
Ee/pLM and 142 different values of Ee is 0.9432, hence these two variables are considered to be
linked to. The variable Ee/pLM should be suppressed of the analysis. For a practical point of
view, the relation between EM and plM is well known, as shown in Baguelin et al. (1978), where
the ratio EM/pLM is linked to the type of soil using a structural coefficient . Furthermore, the
relation between Ménard modulus and Eodometer modulus (5) and the relation between
Eodometer modulus and Young modulus (6) allow using practical correlation rules between
Young modulus Ee , limit pressure pLM and the soil classification.

EM
Eoed  (5)


Eoed .1   .(1  2. )

Ee  (6)
1   
As a consequence it seems to be usefull to use these two parameters Ee and pLM to find the
different soil layers, and to consider Ee and pLM as two pertinent variables for the statistical
analysis, even if the correlation between these variables is 0.64. The data in Table I are used in
genuine form, not standardized.

254
 ISP7-PRESSIO 2015. Frikha, Varaksin & Gambin(Eds.) © 2015

Log(pl), Log(Ee) Log(pl), Log(Ee)

1000000
1000000

100000
100000

10000
10000

1000
1000

100
100
0 0

5 Pl 5 Pl
10 Ee 10 Ee
15 15
Depth (m)

Depth (m)
20 20
25 25
30 30
35 35
40 40
45
45

Figure 4. Evolution of the pressuremeter Figure 5. Evolution of the pressuremeter

characteristics for borehole TH28 characteristics for borehole TH29

Log(pl), Log(Ee)
Log(pl), Log(Ee)

1000000
100000
10000
1000
100
0
Pl
5 Ee 0
Pl
10 5
Ee
10
15
15
Depth (m)

Depth (m)

20
20
25
25
30 30
35 35
40 40
45 45

Figure 6. Evolution of the pressuremeter Figure 7. Evolution of the pressuremeter

characteristics for borehole TH30 characteristics for borehole TH31

Table I. Correlation between the chosen variables

pLM Ee Ee/pLM
pLM 1 0,6389 0,4330
Ee 0,6389 1 0,9432
Ee/pLM 0,4330 0,9432 1

3.3.2 Advantages of the cluster analysis

The geological and geotechnical analysis identifies 4 families of soils and 6 in-situ layers or
cluster. It should be noted that the number attached to a specific layer is a result of the cluster
method hence number 1 is attached to the first cluster identified, number 2 is attached to the
second cluster found, and so on. Thus the number of a specific cluster is independent of the
number of the soil Unit. These two numbers should not be identical, but the same geological
Unit of soil, should belong to one cluster (Figures 8 to 14).
The cluster analysis determines the mean mechanical characteristics of each layer. It also
determines localization and an identification of the thickness of each layer with the precision of
the deviation between two different tests (Tables 4 and 5).

255
 ISP7-PRESSIO 2015. Frikha, Varaksin & Gambin(Eds.) © 2015

3.3.3 Selection of the precision of the calculation

The precision of the cluster calculation is shown in Table II for the Cosine deviation. The
minimum correlation required for the homogeneity of each cluster is taken as 0.5. In Table 4
the Euclidean deviation is used and the maximum deviation allowed in a cluster is taken as 3,
which is a common value of the tolerance applied to the Gauss distribution. For both tables, it
can be seen that the number of clusters decreases as the precision of the calculation
decreases and the number of unclassified data decreases also. Furthermore, the number of
clusters increases as the number of variable increases. For both tables, the clusters are
grouped with the single consideration of the mechanical characteristics, so that the possibility of
a pocket of a different soil lens existing in a homogeneous layer is allowed.
Table II shows the evolution of the number of clusters as a function of the correlation
coefficient. A usual value of the correlation coefficient is often taken to equal 0.9 to identify
correlated variables. The cluster analysis performed using Cosine distance proves that the use
of the variables z1 (pLM ), z2 (Ee) and z3 (Ee/pLM ) is sufficient to identify the various soil
horizons.

Table II. Number of clusters determined by Cosine deviation

z1 to z2 z1 to z3
Number of Number of
Minimum Cosine Part of Part of
clusters clusters
dij unclassified data unclassified data
0.999 13 10% 23 43%
0.995 12 3% 13 21%
0.97 8 7% 10 13%
0.95 7 4% 11 2%
0.9 5 3% 7 6%
0.85 5 3% 7 2%
0.8 5 2% 5 2%
0.7 4 1% 5 0%
0.5 3 0% 4 2%

Table III. Number of clusters determined by Euclidean deviation

z1 to z2 z1 to z3
Number of Number of
Maximum Part of Part of
clusters clusters
Euclidean dij unclassified data unclassified data
0.1 11 83% 9 86%
0.25 4 78% 14 78%
0.5 6 17% 7 27%
0.67 5 6% 5 27%
1 4 2% 5 6%
2 3 2% 3 4%
3 2 2% 2 2%

Table II shows that with these three variables the algorithm detects the 4 layers of the site.
The Cosine distance measurement identifies 4 different layers once the threshold value of 0.7
is reached with a reasonable low number of unclassified data (1%). As the difference between
family Unit 2 and Unit 3 is small when considering the mean value of pressuremeter modulus
and the net limit pressure, it was decided to increase the threshold value of the correlation to
0.95.
In Table III, the analysis in Euclidean deviation is presented. The analysis performed using
the Euclidean distance tends to be the most sensible one and it is difficult to reduce the level of
unclassified data, while the number of clusters remains high. . If we consider a standard

256
 ISP7-PRESSIO 2015. Frikha, Varaksin & Gambin(Eds.) © 2015

distribution for these results, a common value of the deviation from the mean is 0.67 of the
standard deviation, where 50% of the data lie. This deviation is required to identify 4 layers.
For these two values the number of unclassified data remains larger (6%) than the unclassified
data of the Cosine method (4%).

Table IV : Results of the geotechnical inverse analysis for Cosine method; dij minimum 0.95; 2
variables
Family Description Cluster Number of Ee p.l
values (kPa)
(kPa)
Unit 1 Silts 1 17 478 9915
Unit 2 Silty Sands 1 21 478 9915
2 9 1233 34885
3 3 1530 103421
4 2 1187 20402
Unit 3 Silts 2 24 1233 34885
3 7 1530 103421
4 20 1187 20402
5 19 1006 13397
6 3 1096 16317
Unit 4 Sand and Gravel 2 3 1233 34885
4 2 1187 20402
5 2 1006 13397

Table V : Results of the geotechnical inverse analysis for Euclidean method; dij maximum 0.67;
2 variables
Number of Ee p.l
Family Description Cluster
values (kPa) (kPa)
Unit 1 Silts 1 3 623 13576
3 14 225 3401
Unit 2 Silty Sands 1 18 623 13576
2 17 1068 20995
4 3 1364 42701
Unit 3 Silts 2 56 1068 20995
4 9 1364 42701
5 4 1368 17236
Sand and
Unit 4 2 4 1068 20995
Gravel
4 3 1364 42701

3.3.4 Identification of the layers

In Table IV, the number of values by cluster with the Cosine method is presented and a
minimum number of 3 values is considered to reveal a tendency of mechanical characteristics.
It appears that if Unit 1 is found to be composed of only one cluster (cluster 1 of low
mechanical characteristics), Unit 2 is made of two very different clusters (clusters 1 and 2),
which have very different pressuremeter modulus and limit pressure, where closer values are
expected. An interpretation of this discrepancy is that the interface between Unit 1 and Unit 2 is
lower than assumed, so that a part of the soil of Unit 1 (identified by cluster 1) is included into
Unit 2. Unit 3 is found to be mainly composed of 3 different clusters (2, 4 and 5) with the same
pressuremeter modulus, but with different limit pressure.
In Table V, the number of values by cluster with the Euclidean method is presented and a
minimum number of 3 values is considered to reveal a tendency of mechanical characteristics.
It appears that if Unit 1 is found to be composed of only one cluster (cluster 3 of low

257
 ISP7-PRESSIO 2015. Frikha, Varaksin & Gambin(Eds.) © 2015

mechanical characteristics), Unit 2 is made of two very different clusters (clusters 1 and 2),
which have rather different pressuremeter modulus and limit pressure, where closer values are
expected. One more time, the interpretation can be used of an interface between Unit 1 and 2
lower than assumed by driller. Unit 3 is found to be mainly composed of 2 different clusters (2,
4) with the same pressuremeter modulus, but with different limit pressure.
On borehole TH28 (Figure 8) with the Cosine method. the results show a correspondence
between Unit 2 (Silty Sands) with clusters 2 and 1 for the upper 25m. The fact that Unit 3 is
divided into 3 different clusters (clusters 2, 4 and 5) shows its heterogeneity, which is seen in
Table 4. The interface between Unit 2 and 3 appears at 25m.
On borehole TH28 (Figure 9) with the Euclidean method the results shows a
correspondence between Unit 2 (Silty Sands) with clusters 2 for upper than 25m. The interface
between Unit 2 and 3 is not detected. The fact that Unit 3 is divided into 3 different clusters
(clusters 2, 4 and 5) shows its heterogeneity, which is seen in Table V.

Cluster Cluster
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0 0
TH-28
5 TH-28
5
Driller's
10 description 10 Driller's
description
15 15
Depth (m)

Depth (m)
20 20
25 25
30 30
35 35
40 40
45 45

Figure 8. Comparison between the cluster Figure 9. Comparison between the cluster
classification and the driller; borehole TH28; classification and the driller ; borehole TH28;
Cosine method. dij minimum 0.95; 2 variables Euclidean method; dij maximum 0.67; 2
variables
Cluster
Cluster
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0 2 4 6 8 10
0
0
5 TH-29
5
10 Driller's 10
description
15 TH-29
15
Depth (Feet)
Depth (m)

20 Driller's
20
description
25 25
30 30
35 35
40 40
45 45

Figure 10. Comparison between the cluster Figure 11. Comparison between the cluster
classification and the driller ; borehole classification and the driller ; borehole
TH29; Cosine method; dij minimum 0.95 ; TH29; Euclidean method; dij maximum
2 variables 0.67 ; 2 variables

258
 ISP7-PRESSIO 2015. Frikha, Varaksin & Gambin(Eds.) © 2015

Cluster Cluster
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
0 0

5 TH-30
5

10 Driller's 10
description TH-30
15 15
Driller's

Depth (m)
Depth (m)

20 20 description

25 25

30
30
35
35
40
40
45
45

Figure 12. Comparison between the cluster Figure 13. Comparison between the cluster
classification and the driller ; borehole TH30; classification and the driller ; borehole TH30;
Cosine method; dij minimum 0.95; 2 variables Euclidean method; dij maximum 0.67; 2
variables

On borehole TH29, the Cosine method (Figure 10) shows a correspondence between Unit 1
(Silt) with cluster 1 for the upper 9m. The interface between Unit 1 and 2 is found at 18m where
the driller founds it at 9m. Unit 2 (Silty sand) is divided into 2 different clusters (clusters 1 and 3)
and Unit 3 shows its heterogeneity by is division into 3 different clusters (2, 4 and 5) which is
seen in Table IV.
On borehole TH29, the Euclidean method (Figure 11) finds the same interface between Unit
1 and 2 as the driller at 9m depth. It finds a correspondence between Unit 1 and cluster 3
above 9m. It also finds a correspondence between Unit 2 (Silty Sands) and 2 clusters 1 and 2).
For the lower part of the borehole, below 25m Unit 3 (Silts) appears in correspondence with
cluster 2 but the interface between Unit 2 and Unit 3 is not detected at 25m depth
On borehole TH30, the Cosine method (Figure 12) shows a correspondence between Unit 1
(Silt) with cluster 1 for the upper 12m. The interface between Unit 1 and 2 is not found. Unit 2
(Silty sand) shows a correspondence with clusters 1. The fact that Unit 3 is divided into 3
different clusters (clusters 2, 4 and 5) shows its heterogeneity as seen in Table 4. The pocket
of cluster 4 is found in correspondence with cluster 2.
On borehole TH30 the Euclidean method (Figure 13) is successful to identify an interface
between Unit 1 and Unit 2 at 9m depth where the driller finds the interface.
at 12m depth. It finds a correspondence between Unit 2 (Silty Sands) with cluster 1. For the
lower part of the borehole, below 25m Unit 3 (Silts) appears in correspondence with cluster 2
and 4. The pocket of cluster 4 is found in correspondence with cluster 4.

4. Conclusions

The analysis of the pressuremeter tests of the pontoon construction project in Grays Harbor,
Washington was carried out by the cluster method. This study shows that the use of the 2
variables pl, Ee, allows for the identification of the different soil layers. The measurement of the
deviation between the data by the Euclidean method appears sometimes uncompleted, but the
use of the Cosine deviation seems simpler to use and able to point out the differences between
the geological layers of the soil. It allows the determination of the mean value of the mechanical
characteristics of each layer, the position of the interface and the thickness of the different
layers of the site.

259
 ISP7-PRESSIO 2015. Frikha, Varaksin & Gambin(Eds.) © 2015

List of symbol

dij Statistical distance between measurements carried out at point i and j

Cov(xi, xj ) Covariance of variables xi and xj
Ee The unload reload elastic modulus (assuming a Poisons ration of 0.3)
k Rank in the set of measurement carried out at one level of a borehole
n Total number of set of measurements
p Number of variables measured at one level of the borehole
pLM Limit Pressure
p*l Net Limit Pressure, pLM - p0
p0 Horizontal pressure at rest
ij Statistical correlation between two set of variables i and j
S(xj) Standard deviation of the jth variable measured
xj Mean value of the jth variable measured
xik kth variable measured at level i of a borehole
zik kth standard variable measured at level i of a borehole

5. References

Baguelin F., Jezequel J.F., Shields D.H. (1978) The pressuremeter and foundation engineering, Trans. Tech.
Publications, Aedermannsdorf, Switzerland.
Baud J.P.(2005) A [Log (pl), Log (EM / pl ] diagram for spectral analysis of Menard PMT results and its application
to geotechnical site survey, ISP5, Presses des Ponts et Chaussées, Paris, 167-186.
Baud J.-P., Gambin M.(2008) Homogenizing MPM tests curves by using a Hyperbolic model, ISC'3, A.-B., Taylor
and Francis, London.
Everitt B.(1974) Cluster analysis, Halsted-Wiley, N.Y..
Hegazy Y.A. (1998), Delineating geostratigraphy by cluster analysis of piezocone data, Ph.D thesis, School of Civil
and Environmental Engineering dept, Georgia Inst. of Tech., Atlanta,.
Hegazy Y.A., Mayne P.W. (2002) Objective site characterization using clustering of piezocone data, Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 128 (12), 986-996.
Mlynarek Z., Lunne T. (1997) Statistical estimation of the homogeneity of North Sea overconsolidated clay, Proc. Of
Int. Conf. On Statistical and Application Probability, Vancouver, Canada,
Mlynarek Z., Wierzbicki J., Wolynski W. (2005) Use of cluster method for in situ tests, Studia Geotechnica et
Mechanica, Vol. XXVII, (3–4) 15-27.
Monnet J., Chapeau C., Godard G. (2003) Caractérisation des sols pour le tunnel de la Rocade Nord de Grenoble,
Revue Française de Géotechnique (101) 57-70
Monnet J., Allagnat D., Teston J., Billet P., Baguelin F.(2006) Foundation design for a large arch bridge on alluvial
soils, Proceeding of the Institution of the Civil Engineers - Geotechnical Engineering , London, vol.159,n°1,
p.19-28
Monnet J., Allagnat D.(2006) Interpretation of pressuremeter results for the design of diaphragm wall, Geotechnical
Testing Journal, American Soc. Testing Materials, Boston, V.29, n°2, 126-132;
Monnet J., Broucke M. (2012) The use of a cluster analysis in a Ménard pressuremeter survey, ICE - Geotechnical
Engineering ,London, Volume 165, Issue 6, 367-377.
Norusis M.J. (1988) The SPSS guide to data analysis for SPSS. SPSS Inc. , Chicago, 402.
Robertson P.K., Wride C.E. 1998, Evaluating cyclic liquefaction potential using the cone penetration test, Canadian
Geotechnical Journal,(35) 442–459
Saboya F., Balbi D.J.G (2003) Soil profile interpretation based on similarity concept for CPTU data, Proc. ISC-2 on
Geot. And Geophys. Site Charact, Porto, Ed. V.de Fonseca, P.Mayne

260