Evaluation of Remolded Shear Strength and Sensitivity

of Soft Clay Using Full-Flow Penetrometers

Nicholas Yafrate, S.M.ASCE1; Jason DeJong, M.ASCE2; Don DeGroot, M.ASCE3; and Mark Randolph4

Abstract: The undrained remolded shear strength of soft clays is of importance in geosystem design, particularly for offshore structures.
Common methods to estimate remolded shear strength, such as correlations with cone penetration data, direct measurement with an in situ
field vane shear device, and laboratory measurements, produce varied results and can be particularly costly and time consuming. Full-flow
penetrometers 共T-bar and Ball兲 provide an alternative rapid method to estimate remolded shear strength and soil sensitivity through
remolding soil by repeated cycling of the penetrometer up and down over a given depth interval. The cyclic penetration resistance
degradation curve inherently contains information regarding remolded strength and sensitivity. The objective of this paper is to assess the
ability of full-flow penetrometers to predict remolded strength and soil sensitivity, and to develop a suite of predictive correlations in
which these properties can be estimated in the absence of complementary laboratory or in situ test data. To accomplish this, full-flow
penetration profiles and cyclic tests were performed at five well characterized soft clay sites, which together represent the broad range of
soils in which the penetrometers will be often used. A previously developed model for the reduction in penetration resistance with cycling
is modified to predict the entire degradation curve, including the remolded penetration resistance using only measurements obtained
during initial penetrometer penetration and extraction. Using field vane shear strength as the reference measurement, correlations are
developed to predict soil sensitivity and remolded shear strength based solely on full-flow penetrometer data, which is particularly useful
in site investigation programs where site specific data are not yet available or are sparse. Finally, the usefulness of these relationships is
demonstrated by implementing them for two additional soft clay sites.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲GT.1943-5606.0000037
CE Database subject headings: In situ tests; Drainage soft soils; Clays; Sediments.

Introduction flows around the “full-flow” penetrometer with soil occupying

The use of full-flow penetrometers, such as the Ball and T-bar
共Fig. 1兲, in soft clay has increased significantly due to advantages
they hold over the more conventional piezocone 共CPTu兲 and field
vane shear test 共FVT兲. These advantages include improved accu-
racy in soft soils due to a larger penetrometer projected area 共typi-
cally 100 cm2兲, minimal correction for overburden stress, well
defined failure mechanisms that have been captured in analytical
and numerical studies 共Randolph 2004; Einav and Randolph
2005; Randolph and Andersen 2006兲, and the ability to evaluate
remolded strength characteristics through cyclic degradation test-
ing 共Randolph 2004; Yafrate and DeJong 2006; DeGroot et al.
2007; Boylan et al. 2007兲. Soil remolding is possible because soil
1
Senior Staff Engineer, Geosyntec Consultants, 289 Great Rd. Suite
105, Acton, MA 01720. E-mail: nyafrate@members.asce.org
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Univ. of California Davis, One Shields Ave., Davis, CA 95616 共corre-
sponding author兲. E-mail: jdejong@ucdavis.edu
3
Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of
Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA 01003. E-mail: degroot@ecs.
umass.edu
4
Professor, Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems, The Univ. of
Western Australia, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia. E-mail: Randolph@
civil.uwa.edu.au
Note. This manuscript was submitted on February 27, 2008; approved
on January 17, 2009; published online on August 14, 2009. Discussion
period open until February 1, 2010; separate discussions must be submit-
ted for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Geotech-
nical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 135, No. 9, September 1,
2009. ©ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241/2009/9-1179–1189/$25.00.
much of the same volume it did initially. This contrasts the cone
penetrometer, where all soil is permanently displaced. Full-flow
penetrometers are therefore applicable only in soft sediments such
as clay and at depths with sufficient overburden stress where the
full-flow mechanism can be established.
The conventional in situ method for estimating undrained re-
molded shear strength is the remolded 共or residual兲 FVT 关ASTM
D 2573-01 共2003b兲兴. The FVT method provides a measure of
undrained residual shear strength along a known failure surface
but is time consuming when performed according to standard test
methods 共ASTM D 2573-01兲. Recently it has been proposed that
the FVT can be performed at a faster rate provided that appropri-
ate corrections to the measurements are made for strain rate ef-
fects 共Peuchen and Mayne 2007兲. In the absence of FVT data the
CPTu sleeve friction measurement has been taken as equal to the
remolded shear strength 共Lunne et al. 1997兲. However, this ap-
proach can be unreliable due to device design limitations and
limited accuracy, especially in sensitive soft soils.
Cyclic full-flow penetrometer testing provides a rapid, cost-
effective alternative for assessing remolded shear strength. Cy-
cling the penetrometer repeatedly over a desired depth interval
steadily degrades the soil penetration resistance. Each pass of the
penetrometer creates turbulent large strain shearing and fabric de-
structuring within the zone of soil engaged in flow. The flow
mechanism includes shearing conditions near the base of the pen-
etrometer similar to that observed in triaxial compression, simple
shear at the midheight of the penetrometer, and triaxial extension
near the top of the penetrometer 共Randolph and Andersen 2006兲.
Einav and Randolph 共2005兲 estimated the average cumulative

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2009 / 1179

Downloaded 11 Jun 2012 to 180.211.192.67. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org

Fig. 1. T-bar, ball, and cone penetrometers
shear strain induced by a penetrometer passing a given depth is
about 200% for the Ball penetrometer and nearly 400% for the
T-bar penetrometer using an upper bound strain path solution.
More recent finite element modeling suggests more similar values
of 330% 共Ball兲 and 370% 共T-bar兲 共Zhou and Randolph 2009兲.
This destructuring continues with penetrometer cycling until the
soil is fully remolded, as is indicated through stabilization of the
measured penetration resistance 共i.e., the measured penetration
resistance is constant with further cycling兲. A full-flow penetrom-
eter test to 20 m with cycling at two or three depths 共Fig. 2兲 can
be performed in about 2 h. This provides an efficient alternative to
accurately estimate the intact and remolded undrained shear
strength profile at a given site compared to the FVT.
Although the T-bar test has been more common to date, the
Ball is increasingly being used because its axisymmetric shape
reduces the likelihood of load cell bending and the smaller size
increases the ease with which it can be deployed 共Kelleher and
Randolph 2005; Peuchen et al. 2005; Long 2008; DeJong et al.
2008兲. Both the T-bar and ball are discussed throughout the paper,
but for this reason, examples rely more heavily on data from Ball
penetration testing.
This paper presents methods for estimation of remolded pen-
etration resistance, sensitivity, and remolded shear strength using
Fig. 2. Ball penetrometer profile from Onsøy test site
1180 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2009
Downloaded 11 Jun 2012 to 180.211.192.67. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
only full-flow penetration data. Examples are presented using
full-flow measurements from sites included in the present study as
well as measurements obtained from other sites where full-flow
penetration testing has been performed.
Penetration Resistance
The penetration resistance measured during a sounding, qm, is
primarily the result of soil flowing around the penetrometer. A
secondary factor influencing penetration resistance is the differ-
ence in overburden stress acting above and below the penetrom-
eter. This difference depends on the area ratio 共AR兲, or ratio of the
projected cross-sectional area of the full-flow penetrometer 共A p兲
to the cross-sectional area of the push rods 共As兲. In practice As is
typically 10 cm2 and A p is 100 cm2, resulting in an area ratio
共AR兲 of 10:1. While published theoretical models do not include
the effects of the push rod, experimental results with penetrom-
eters of different area ratios indicate that an area ratio of 5:1 or
larger is adequate to minimize the influence of the push rod on the
soil flow mechanism and measured penetration resistance 共Yafrate
et al. 2007兲.
To account for the differential overburden stress due to the
push rod above the penetrometer, Randolph 共2004兲 recommended
the computation of net penetration resistance 共qnet兲 using the fol-
lowing correction:
As
qnet = qm − 关␴vo − u共1 − a兲兴 共1兲
Ap
where ␴vo = total stress; u = pore water pressure; and a = load cell
area ratio 关Lunne et al. 共1997兲 and 0.71 in this study兴. The pore
pressure value should be that directly acting at the connection
between the penetrometer and the push rods. The conventional u2
measurement can be used 共Lunne et al. 1997兲 when a CPTu pen-
etrometer is used to perform full-flow penetrometer testing 共by
simply replacing the cone tip with a full-flow tip兲. If the u2 mea-
surement is not available then Randolph 共2004兲 recommends the
use of hydrostatic pressure. Eq. 共1兲 has been applied to all data
presented herein.
As the area ratio 共A p / As兲 of the penetrometer decreases the
correction for overburden stress increases. At the limit, when
A p / As is equal to 1.0 and full displacement conditions exist, Eq.
共1兲 is identical to the conventional qnet equation used for CPTu
data analysis 共Lunne et al. 1997兲. For the conventional full-flow
penetrometer configuration 共AR = 10: 1兲 the adjustment from mea-
sured to net penetration is therefore approximately 10% of that
for the piezocone. Eq. 共1兲 is used for both penetration and extrac-
tion resistance because overburden stress influences not only
stresses on the projected area of the penetrometer in the direction
of movement, but flow around the entire penetrometer 共Randolph
2004兲. The net penetration resistance profile for the Onsøy test
site is shown in Fig. 2.
Remolded penetration resistance, qrem, is measured by cycling
the penetrometer about the desired depth until the penetration
resistance stabilizes 共Figs. 2 and 3兲. Conventional practice has
been to perform ten 1.0 m interval cycles at each depth where the
remolded shear strength is sought. Research has shown ten cycles
to be conservatively acceptable and many soils are completely
remolded prior to the tenth cycle. Theoretical solutions indicate
three penetrometer diameters of displacement are required for a
soil element to pass completely through the full-flow failure
mechanism 共H. Zhou and M. F. Randolph, “Numerical investiga-
tions into cycling of full-flow penetrometers in soft clay,” Géo-
techique, unpublished, 2009兲. Cyclic tests across a range of depth

Fig. 3. Cyclic ball penetrometer degradation curves from Onsøy and
Gloucester test sites
intervals indicate that similar degradation in penetration resis-
tance can be obtained with a depth interval of about 0.1 m for the
Ball penetrometer and 0.05 m for the T-bar penetrometer 共Yafrate
and DeJong 2005兲. However, small depth intervals may be more
difficult for the operator or penetration equipment to achieve. The
use of a minimum depth interval for cyclic testing of 0.3 m is
therefore recommended.
Cyclic testing should be performed during penetration, rather
than extraction, to avoid an increase in extraction resistance re-
sulting from partial reconsolidation and/or thixotropic hardening
of soil while the penetrometer is advanced to greater depths to
complete the sounding. During cyclic testing at 20 mm/s, soil
within the cycling depth range is continuously remolded for ap-
proximately 17 min for a 1-m cyclic test 共⬃5.3 min for a 0.3-m
range兲 with ten cycles, resulting in minimal time for drainage to
occur in clayey soils.
Shear Strength and Soil Sensitivity
Full-flow penetration resistance can be used to estimate shear
strength as through a strength factor, N, similar to estimations
based on piezocone test results. For a given site, N must be either
assumed based on previous numerical and experimental work or
back-calculated against site specific strength data. Regardless, ap-
propriate selection of the reference strength is critical and must be
well documented. Conventional testing methods including triaxial
compression, triaxial extension, direct simple shear and FVT
often provide different values for undrained shear strength 共Ladd
1991兲 and as a result the back-calculated strength factor 共N兲 will
vary accordingly.
Undrained Shear Strength
The relationship used to estimate undrained strength 共su兲 is as
follows:
qBall qT-bar
su = = 共2兲
NBall NT-bar
where su = undrained shear strength obtained from a reference test
共e.g., FVT兲, qBall and qT-bar = initial net penetration resistances for
the Ball and T-bar; and NBall and NT-bar = undrained shear strength
factors for the Ball and T-bar.
Initial experimental evidence, supported by theoretical solu-
tions, suggested that NT-bar may be taken as 10.5 共Stewart and
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2009 / 1181
Downloaded 11 Jun 2012 to 180.211.192.67. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
Randolph 1991; Watson et al. 1998兲. More recently, empirically
observed 共Lunne et al. 2005; Yafrate and DeJong 2006; Boylan et
al. 2007兲 and numerically generated 共Randolph 2004; Einav and
Randolph 2005; Randolph and Andersen 2006; Zhou and Ran-
dolph, unpublished, 2008兲 strength factors indicate a broader
range that is dependent on the strain rate and soil sensitivity,
where sensitivity is defined as the ratio of peak to remolded shear
strength. Empirical estimates of NBall and NT-bar factors range
from 11.6–13.2 共Yafrate and DeJong 2006兲 and 10.9–12.7 共Ran-
dolph 2004; Yafrate and DeJong 2006兲, respectively, for soils of
low to moderate sensitivity when the FVT is used as the reference
strength. Penetration resistance 共and therefore strength factor兲
was shown to be independent of rigidity index and initial stress
ratio 共Lu et al. 2000兲 and slightly dependent on strength aniso-
tropy 关by up to 5%, Randolph and Andersen 共2006兲兴.
Remolded Shear Strength
The remolded shear strength is considered the undrained shear
strength following significant shearing wherein the fabric has
been largely destroyed without a change in water content 共Mitch-
ell and Soga 2005; ASTM D 2573兲. The flow mechanism induced
around full-flow penetrometers primarily consists of turbulent
shearing consistent with soil remolding 共Randolph 2004; Einav
and Randolph 2005; Randolph and Andersen 2006兲.
Remolded shear strength from full-flow penetrometers is cal-
culated in the same manner as peak undrained shear strength
qrem, Ball qrem, T-bar
sur = = 共3兲
Nrem, Ball Nrem, T-bar
where sur = remolded shear strength corresponding to a reference
test 共e.g., FVT兲; qrem, Ball and qrem, T-bar = remolded net penetration
resistance for the Ball and T-bar, respectively; and Nrem, Ball and
Nrem, T-bar = remolded shear strength factors for the Ball and T-bar,
respectively.
The reference remolded strength used in back-calculation of
the associated strength factor can be based on laboratory 共e.g., fall
cone, miniature vane shear, and triaxial testing兲 or field 共e.g.,
FVT, CPTu兲 test data. The FVT test is the most common measure
of in situ remolded shear strength 关ASTM D 4648-03 共2003a兲兴 as
it is obtained in the same test with an undrained strength. The
sensitivity 共ST兲, or ratio of the remolded shear strength to und-
rained shear strength, is often used to relate the two strength
measurements.
Testing Program
The testing program was designed to identify the primary factors
influencing assessment of remolded soil strength and to determine
whether data trends from cyclic tests contain sufficient informa-
tion to estimate the remolded strength and soil sensitivity when
site specific reference strength data are not available.
Test Site Descriptions
The suite of test sites selected represents the range of soil condi-
tions that are most applicable for full-flow penetrometers. All
sites selected were well characterized in previous research
projects 共with extensive laboratory test data from high quality
block samples and field data兲, have been used in prior studies
pertaining to offshore site characterization, and are primarily
clays originally deposited in marine environments.
Table 1. Summary of Test Site Stress, Strength, Penetration Resistance, and Evaluated Parameters
Test sites
Property Test method Units Amherst, United States Burswood, Australia Gloucester, Canada Louiseville, Canada Onsøy, Norway
Depth — m 7.1 12.1 8.8 13.7 4.4 8.3 7.8 11.6 5.4 15.2
⬘
␴vo — kPa 125 206 125 207 71 134 120 179 83 233
u0 — kPa 67 116 72 120 35 74 73 112 48 144
su FVT kPa 34 33 18 23 20 34 40 50 15 28
sur FVT kPa 4.0 3.5 4.5 7.2 0.6 0.5 —b —b 2.0 6.0
ST FVT — 9 9 4 3 33 68 22c 22c 8 5
qin a T-bar kPa 310 279 241 342 114 204 294 391 153 312
Ball 362 327 246 366 119 197 349 413 176 345
a
qext T-bar kPa 180 162 142 201 49 64 160 215 90 204
Ball 203 181 152 216 56 64 173 210 102 213
a
qrem T-bar kPa 61 56 59 75 10 9 47 63 32 91
Ball 63 62 61 79 12 11 55 66 36 94
qin / qext T-bar — 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 2.3 3.2 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.5
Ball 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.7 2.1 3.1 2.0 2.0 1.7 1.6
qin / qrem T-bar — 5.0 5.0 4.1 4.6 11.3 23.4 6.3 6.2 4.7 3.4
Ball 5.7 5.3 4.0 4.6 10.0 18.2 6.3 6.2 4.9 3.7
N95 T-bar — 5.1 5.2 3.1 5.4 5.4 4.6 5.8 5.5 5.1 5.3
Ball 5.1 5.2 6.2 5.8 2.8 4.4 5.3 5.2 5.7 5.9
N T-bar — 9.1 8.5 13.3 14.9 5.7 6.0 7.4 7.8 10.0 11.4
Ball 11.0 9.6 13.6 15.9 6.0 5.8 8.7 8.3 11.4 12.5
Nrem T-bar — 15.3 16.0 13.1 10.4 16.9 17.4 —b —b 16.0 15.3
b
Ball 15.8 17.6 13.6 11.0 19.8 21.7 — —b 17.9 15.8
a
qin, qext, and qrem are
the full-flow penetration resistances for cycle n = 0.5, 1.0, and the average of n = 10 and 10.5. They are adjusted for net resistance
and cyclic bias.
b
Remolded undrained shear strength was not available for Louiseville as indicated by the “—” symbol.
c
Sensitivity values from Louiseville are computed with the fall cone.

Soil conditions vary among sites 共exemplified herein using
FVT strength measurement兲, including soft to medium stiff clays
with undrained shear strength ranging from 10 to 60 kPa and
sensitivities between 4 and 100 共Table 1; Yafrate and DeJong
2006; Yafrate et al. 2007兲. The test sites include Amherst, Mas-
sachusetts; Burswood, Western Australia, Australia; Gloucester,
Ontario, Canada; Louiseville, Québec, Canada; and Onsøy, Nor-
way. The Amherst test site has a lightly overconsolidated layer of
Connecticut Valley Varved Clay with undrained shear strength
between 30 and 40 kPa and sensitivity values ranging from 5 to
25 共DeGroot and Lutenegger 2003兲. The Burswood test site con-
tains a high plasticity and low overconsolidation ratio 共OCR兲 silt
layer with strengths from 30 to 40 kPa and sensitivity from 4 to 9
共Chung 2005兲. The Gloucester site has three distinct layers of soft
extremely sensitive clay with undrained shear strength between
10 and 60 kPa and sensitivity between 20 and 100 共Lo et al.
1976兲. The Louiseville test site has a high plasticity sensitive clay
deposit with undrained shear strength between 15 and 60 kPa and
sensitivity of approximately 22 共Leroueil et al. 2003兲. The Onsøy
test site has a thick deposit of low OCR clay with undrained shear
strength between 10 and 25 kPa and sensitivity between 4 and 8
共Lunne et al. 2003兲. Throughout the paper data from Onsøy and
Gloucester test sites are used to exemplify trends observed as they
capture a broad range of soil sensitivities.
Equipment Descriptions
The full-flow Ball and T-bar penetrometers used in this study
have a 100-cm2 projected area that, in combination with a 10-cm2
projected area of the load cell 共and push rod兲, results in a 10:1
area ratio 共Fig. 1兲. The T-bar is 250 mm long and 40 mm in
diameter. The Ball is 113 mm in diameter. The surfaces are lightly
sandblasted to ensure a rough interface. The load cell was de-
signed to compensate for bending and temperature change and
has a resolution of 3 kPa. A commercially available 10-cm2 seis-
mic piezocone was used to obtain a profile of all sites. Depth
measurements for all soundings were obtained with a wire-line
potentiometer.
Testing Procedures
The standard test procedure was to equilibrate the load cell to the
in situ temperature prior to each sounding 关Lunne et al. 2007;
ASTM D 5778-00 共2000兲; ISSMGE 1999兴. All electronics were
connected and powered throughout the equilibration process.
Baseline measurements 共load cell voltages under zero load兲 were
taken immediately before and after each sounding. A penetration
rate of 20 mm/s was adopted to ensure undrained penetration at
all sites and to conform with standard piezocone penetration prac-
tice 共International Society for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical
Engineering 共ISSMGE兲 1999; ASTM D 5778-00兲. For cyclic test-
ing, the penetrometer was cycled ten times over a 1-m depth
interval during initial penetration 共rather than on extraction兲. Cy-
cling was performed at two or more depths in the low OCR clay
layers of each site 共as shown for Onsøy in Fig. 2兲. Full-flow
penetrometer resistance was recorded continuously during pen-
etration, extraction, and cycling at depth intervals of approxi-
mately 2 mm.
The FVT data were used herein as the reference strength data
for peak and remolded conditions. The peak FVT undrained

1182 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2009

Downloaded 11 Jun 2012 to 180.211.192.67. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org

Fig. 4. Cyclic degradation curves measured with the Ball penetrom-
eter at test sites representing a broad range of soil sensitivities
strength is often similar to the average undrained shear strength
共average of triaxial compression, direct simple shear, and triaxial
extension modes of shearing兲. The observations and general
trends of this paper would be arrived at using alternative strength
measurement references.
Full-Flow Penetrometer Cycling Response
The results of soil remolding by full-flow penetrometers were
examined through cyclic testing at all test sites. The soil is as-
sumed to be fully remolded once the penetration resistance re-
mains constant with continued cycling. This stabilization to a
remolded condition can be evaluated with a degradation curve by
plotting the absolute penetration and extraction resistance at each
cycle mid-depth 共averaged over 10 cm herein兲 versus cycle num-
ber 共n兲. Examples of observed behavior are provided in Fig. 3 for
the Ball penetrometer at the Onsøy and Gloucester test sites with
critical data from each cyclic test at every site summarized in
Table 1. Conventional practice is to present the initial penetration
resistance 共qin兲 as cycle 0.5 and initial extraction resistance 共qext兲
as cycle 1.0. Full strength degradation typically occurs within five
to ten cycles. The average of the final penetration and extraction
is commonly reported as the remolded penetration resistance
共qrem兲. To compare tests from different depths and locations, pen-
etration resistance, q共n兲, can be normalized by the initial penetra-
tion resistance, qin 共Fig. 4兲.
During cyclic testing the magnitude of penetration and extrac-
tion resistance is not generally equal under remolded conditions
共qm and qnet in Fig. 3兲. To create a smooth degradation curve
one-half of the difference between penetration and extraction re-
sistance in the remolded condition 共termed the cyclic offset兲 is
commonly added to 共or subtracted from兲 each value of net pen-
etration resistance, resulting in the qcyc trend in Fig. 3. The offset
is generally less than 10% of the initial net penetration resistance
and consistent between multiple cycles in a single sounding; if
this is not the case for a given site, equipment problems may
exist. The source of this offset is not entirely clear, but several
factors may influence it including overburden stress, the presence
of the push rod, the difference in projected areas in the direction
of movement during penetration and extraction, and the differ-
ence in boundary conditions above and below the testing depth
共i.e., partially remolded conditions exist above the testing zone
while intact conditions exist below兲. It is evident from Fig. 3 that
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2009 / 1183
Downloaded 11 Jun 2012 to 180.211.192.67. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
the offset magnitude is reduced when using qnet instead of qm.
This indicates that the overburden stress 共and therefore the area
ratio兲 does influence the offset magnitude value. Unless noted, all
subsequent cyclic data are presented as qcyc.
The normalized cyclic degradation curve inherently contains
information regarding the soil sensitivity and the rate at which the
soil strength reduces 共strain softening兲. The soil sensitivity and
rate of softening are related to the ratio of qrem to qin, and qext to
qin. In Fig. 4 it is evident that the penetration resistance degrades
more rapidly at the Gloucester test site 共⬃3 cycles to qrem兲 than at
the Onsøy test site 共⬃8 to 10 cycles to qrem兲 due to the higher
sensitivity at Gloucester 共Table 1兲. This trend is generally ob-
served at all sites and indicates that the rate at which the normal-
ized penetration resistance initially decreases with cycling is
related to soil sensitivity. Numerical modeling has confirmed this,
and also shown how the full-flow mechanism evolves during
cycles, with the width of the mechanism initially contracting to
take advantage of the remolded soil close to the penetrometer
共Zhou and Randolph, unpublished, 2009兲.
Predictive Cyclic Penetration Resistance
Degradation Model
Estimating the remolded shear strength and soil sensitivity re-
quires a complete cyclic test. However, since the rate of strength
degradation 共strain softening兲 is related to the soil sensitivity, a
predictive model for the cyclic degradation curve based only on
the initial penetration and extraction resistance was explored.
An exponential decay model developed by Einav and Ran-
dolph 共2005兲 to capture strength loss due to strain softening dur-
ing cyclic penetration testing, recast with the symbol convention
used herein, is
q共n兲 qrem
qin
=
qin
+ 1− 冉
qrem −3共n−0.5兲/N
qin
e 冊
95 共4兲
where q共n兲 = penetration resistance at cycle number n and N95
= number of cycles required to achieve 95% strength degradation.
Ninety-five percent strength degradation is defined based on the
measured initial and remolded penetration resistance.
The model in this form cannot be used in the absence of com-
plete field data since both N95 and qrem must be obtained from an
entire cyclic degradation test. It is noted that expanded versions of
this degradation model 关to account for rate effects, Zhou and Ran-
dolph 共2009兲兴 while more comprehensive, maintain the same re-
striction. The strength degradation model applied to cyclic data
from the Gloucester and Onsøy sites is presented using normal-
ized penetration resistance in Fig. 5. The parameters N95 and
qrem / qin were evaluated from the cyclic degradation curves 共Fig.
4兲. The fitted model generally predicts slower initial degradation,
but matches well with later cycles at all tests sites for both Ball
and T-bar data.
Prediction Using Initial Penetration and Extraction
Resistance
Applying measured values of N95 and qrem / qin in the degradation
model 关Eq. 共4兲兴 limits the usefulness of the relationship unless
these parameters can be estimated without cycling the penetrom-
eter to obtain completely remolded soil conditions 共at which point
the degradation curve has been directly measured兲. Fig. 6共a兲 pre-
sents a relationship between normalized remolded and extraction

Fig. 5. Normalized ball cyclic degradation from in situ measure-
ments, predicted by the Einav and Randolph 共2005兲 method 关Eq. 共4兲兴,
Eq. 共4兲 with Eq. 共5兲 for qrem and Eq. 共6兲 for N95, and the modified
model presented in Eq. 共8兲 for the 共a兲 Onsøy; 共b兲 Gloucester test sites.
关Note: Eq. 共4兲, with Eqs. 共5兲 and 共6兲, is not visible at some points
because it plots directly behind the standard Eq. 共4兲 method.兴
resistance, which allows the remolded resistance 共and therefore
qrem / qin兲 to be estimated 关with Eq. 共5兲兴 from the extraction ratio
共qext / qin兲
qrem
qin
= 冉 冊
qext
qin
2.8
共5兲
Eq. 共5兲 was developed from 20 Ball and T-bar measurements from
all five test sites and has a coefficient of determination 共R2兲 equal
to 0.93. Note that Eq. 共5兲 indicates qrem / qin converges to unity for
an extraction ratio equal to unity, as would be expected for a soil
with sensitivity of 1. Since the trend was developed based on soft
clay soils with a wide range of properties believed to encompass
most common in situ conditions in which full-flow penetrometers
will be used, the regression is suitable for initial estimates of
remolded penetration resistance in soft clay. Most values of ex-
traction ratio used to define Eq. 共5兲 are greater than 0.5, which is
due primarily to the small number of data points for very high
sensitivity clays, as discussed in the subsequent section on sensi-
tivity. Eq. 共5兲 and all subsequent relationships were developed
based on penetration at 20 mm/s. Measurements taken at alterna-
tive penetration rates should be scaled appropriately 共e.g., Yafrate
et al. 2007兲 before being used with these equations.
A similar relationship for N95 and extraction ratio 关Fig. 6共b兲兴
was determined
1184 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2009
Downloaded 11 Jun 2012 to 180.211.192.67. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
Fig. 6. Relationships between extraction ratio 共qext / qin兲 and 共a兲 nor-
malized remolded resistance 共qrem / qin兲; 共b兲 N95
N95 = 9.6 冉 冊
qext
qin
共6兲
Eq. 共6兲 was developed from 20 Ball and T-bar measurements from
all five test sites and has an R2 equal to 0.87 关Fig. 6共b兲兴. Although
cycles are numbered in increments of 0.5, it is not necessary to
restrict N95 to a multiple of 0.5 for use in Eq. 共4兲.
When the regression relationships presented in Eqs. 共5兲 and 共6兲
are substituted into Eq. 共4兲, the predicted degradation curve is in
excellent agreement with the initial degradation model 关Eq. 共4兲兴
trend that utilizes an entire cyclic data set 共Fig. 5兲. This indicates
that the cyclic degradation trend proposed by Einav and Randolph
共2005兲 can be replicated using only the initial penetration 共qin兲
and extraction 共qext兲 resistance values.
Adaptation of Model to account for Initial Rate of
Softening
The degradation model proposed by Einav and Randolph 共2005兲,
whether implemented using an entire cyclic data set or using the
abbreviated approach proposed above, accurately predicts re-
molded strength at larger cycle numbers but underpredicts the rate
of degradation observed experimentally during the initial cycles.
The following presents a modification to the degradation model to
account for this difference.
The extraction ratio—ratio of the extraction resistance, q共1.0兲,
to the initial penetration q共0.5兲, or qext / qin—provides the initial
rate of penetration resistance degradation. The primary use of the
degradation model, extrapolation to the penetration resistance at
larger cycle numbers, can be accomplished effectively by assign-
ing the normalized resistance at cycle 0.5 to be equal to 1.0 共as it
is conventionally defined兲 and using the following modified form
of Eq. 共4兲 to predict normalized penetration resistance at cycles
1.0 and larger

q共n兲 qrem
qin
=
qin
+
qin
− 冉
qext qrem −3共n−1兲/N
qin
e 95 冊 共7兲

Further substitution of the relationships presented for qrem / qin

关Eq. 共5兲兴 and N95 关Eq. 共6兲兴 provides an excellent fit for data from
all sites, as shown in Fig. 5 for Onsøy and Gloucester test site
data

q共n兲
qin
= 冉 冊 冉 冉 冊冊
qext
qin
2.8
+
qext
qin
−
qext
qin
2.8
e−3共n−1兲/9.6共qext/qin兲 共8兲

This final form of the degradation model enables prediction of the

entire penetration resistance degradation with only initial penetra-
tion and extraction resistances. This model provides the potential
to correlate the cyclic degradation curve with typical loading con-
ditions 共e.g., driving of a pile or penetration of suction anchor兲 to
estimate strength loss.

Estimation of Remolded Penetration Resistance

Of particular interest is the remolded penetration resistance. Eq.

共5兲 can be used to estimate the remolded penetration resistance
for a full-flow profile after only penetration and extraction. Pre-
dicted and measured remolded penetration resistance are shown
in Fig. 7 for cyclic tests performed at the Onsøy and Gloucester
Fig. 7. Remolded ball penetration resistance measured in situ and
test sites where remolded penetration resistance was directly mea-
estimated with Eq. 共5兲 at the 共a兲 Onsøy; 共b兲 Gloucester test sites
sured. The regression prediction of qrem provides a reasonable
initial estimate of remolded penetration resistance, with an error

冉 冊
generally less than 10%. In practice, it is recommended that cy-
3.7
clic testing be performed at one or two depths to ensure the soil qin
ST = 共10兲
fits the proposed trends in Fig. 6. qext
This approach enables a profile of soil sensitivity to be directly
estimated for an entire sounding 共not just at cyclic test depths兲,
Estimation of Soil Sensitivity
albeit with a minor reduction in prediction confidence 共R2
= 0.83兲.
Soil sensitivity is inherently related to the change in penetration
resistance that occurs between the initial and remolded penetra-
tion resistances 共as assessed after ten cycles兲. However, the sen-
sitivity is not directly equal to the ratio of initial to remolded Estimation of Remolded Shear Strength Factor
penetration resistance 共qin / qrem兲, but rather can be estimated as
follows 关Fig. 8共a兲兴 A primary objective of full-flow penetrometer testing is to obtain
undrained and remolded shear strength estimates. The strength

冉 冊 1.4
qin
ST =
qrem
Eq. 共9兲 was developed from 16 samples from measurements at
four sites and has an R2 equal to 0.94. The Eq. 共9兲 regression will
be forced to provide a sensitivity of 1.0, if qin and qrem are equal.
It is noted that these and all subsequent regressions are based on
a data set with a large range of sensitivities, but with limited data
at very high sensitivity values 共ST ⬎ 10兲.
It is also possible to directly estimate the soil sensitivity from
the ratio of qin / qext 关Fig. 8共b兲兴. This is due to the interrelationship
factors to estimate intact and remolded shear strength are not
equal for a given site 共Randolph and Andersen 2006; Yafrate and
共9兲
DeJong 2006; Boylan et al. 2007兲. A primary soil factor influenc-
ing both peak and remolded strength factors is sensitivity. In-
creasing sensitivity results in a decrease in peak strength factor
and an increase in remolded strength factor 共Yafrate and DeJong
2006兲.
The increase in remolded strength factor, Nrem, with increasing
sensitivity can be estimated with trends presented in Eqs. 共11兲 and
共12兲 共Fig. 9兲
7.5

冉 冊
between the rate of initial strain softening 共reflected in the extrac- Nrem, Ball = 13.2 + −3 共11兲
tion ratio, qext / qin兲 and the soil sensitivity 共reflected in the re- ST
1+
molded ratio, qrem / qin兲 8

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2009 / 1185

Downloaded 11 Jun 2012 to 180.211.192.67. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
 Fig. 10. Relationship between the remolded strength factor, Nrem,
and qin / qext

proximately 1.1 because the Ball measures approximately 10%

greater penetration resistance than the T-bar. Eqs. 共9兲 and 共10兲
were therefore defined with minimum Nrem values of 13.2 and
12.0 for the Ball and T-bar at a sensitivity value of unity. In high
sensitivity soils, Nrem asymptotically approaches a maximum
value of 20.7 and 17.5 for the Ball and T-bar, respectively.
If the sensitivity is not directly measured, the remolded
strength factor can also be estimated using the extraction ratio due
to the relationship between soil sensitivity and the extraction ratio
关e.g., Eq. 共10兲兴. Eqs. 共13兲 and 共14兲 enable prediction of the re-
molded strength factor throughout an entire sounding 共not only at
cycling depths兲 to be made 共Fig. 10兲
Fig. 8. Relationships between sensitivity 共ST兲: 共a兲 normalized re-
molded resistance, qin / qrem; 共b兲 qin / qext 7.5

冉 冊
Nrem, Ball = 13.2 + 共13兲
qin/qext −20
1+
1.8
5.5

冉 冊
Nrem, T-bar = 12 + −3 共12兲
ST
1+ 5.5

冉 冊
6 Nrem, Ball = 12 + 共14兲
qin/qext −20

Eqs. 共11兲 and 共12兲 were each developed from eight samples at
four test sites and have R2 values of 0.84 and 0.78. In soils with
sensitivity equal to unity the peak and remolded strength factors
should be equal and Nrem, Ball / Nrem, T-bar is expected to equal ap-
1+
1.8
Eqs. 共13兲 and 共14兲 were each developed from eight samples at
four test sites and have R2 values equal to 0.66 and 0.33, respec-
tively. One test elevation at the Burswood site significantly re-
duced the R2 value. As demonstrated subsequently, the
relationships provide reasonable estimates of Nrem.

Alternatives for Estimating Remolded Shear

Strength

The methods for estimating remolded penetration resistance

共qrem兲, soil sensitivity 共ST兲, and remolded strength factors
共Nrem, Ball , Nrem, T-bar兲 presented above provide a variety of ap-
proaches to estimate the remolded strength given different
amounts of known soil properties 共reference data兲 and full-flow
measurements. If a reference undrained strength measurement is
available 关either from an alternate test 共e.g., FVT兲 or from full-
flow data 共e.g., qin and an undrained strength factor, NBall or
NT-bar兲, per Eq. 共2兲兴 then the remolded strength can simply be
estimated by predicting soil sensitivity 关Eqs. 共9兲 and 共10兲兴. For all
Fig. 9. Prediction of the remolded strength factor, Nrem, from soil other approaches it is necessary to either predict or have mea-
sensitivity 共ST兲 sured qrem and Nrem 关per Eq. 共3兲兴. If qrem is directly measured from

1186 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2009

Downloaded 11 Jun 2012 to 180.211.192.67. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
Fig. 11. 共a兲 and 共b兲 cyclic degradation predictions using the Ball penetrometer data and Eq. 共8兲; 共c兲 and 共d兲 predicted remolded penetration
resistance for the Novato and Bothkennar test sites using Eq. 共5兲
cycling and ST is known from other site specific data, Eqs. 共11兲
and 共12兲 can be used to predict the remolded strength factors. If
only qrem is directly measured from cycling, then ST can be esti-
mated with Eq. 共9兲 and the remolded strength factors can be pre-
dicted using Eqs. 共11兲 and 共12兲. Finally, and most efficient, if only
the penetration and extraction resistance is known then the re-
molded penetration resistance can be estimated with Eq. 共5兲 and
the remolded strength factor can be estimated with Eqs. 共13兲 and
共14兲. This final approach enables estimation of the remolded und-
rained strength based solely on the initial penetration and extrac-
tion resistances.
The accuracy of the remolded shear strength values provided
by these approaches will generally decrease as the amount of
information directly measured decreases, the number of correla-
tions used increases, and the quality 共R2 value兲 of the correlations
decreases. However, these equations provide the ability to esti-
mate remolded strength from only full-flow penetrometer data in
the early stages of a site investigation when FVT or laboratory
strength reference data may not be available. It is strongly recom-
mended that these strength factors be verified with site specific
data when possible.
Example Application
The predictive cyclic degradation model 关Eq. 共8兲兴 as well as the
correlations to estimate the remolded penetration resistance 关Eq.
共5兲兴, the soil sensitivity 关Eqs. 共9兲 and 共10兲兴, the remolded strength
factor 关Eq. 共11兲 and 共13兲兴, and ultimately the remolded undrained
strength are further demonstrated through application to Ball full-
flow and FVT data from well characterized soft clay sites in No-
vato, California and Bothkennar, U.K.
The Novato site consists of a thick soft silty clay deposit of
San Francisco Bay Mud to about 20 m 共Bonaparte and Mitchell
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2009 / 1187
Downloaded 11 Jun 2012 to 180.211.192.67. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
1979兲 with FVT undrained shear strengths of 15 to 30 kPa and
sensitivities of between 6 and 8. The Bothkennar site consists of a
high plasticity silty clay deposit with FVT undrained shear
strengths between 20 and 60 kPa and an average sensitivity of 5
共Boylan et al. 2007; Nash et al. 1992兲.
The cyclic degradation predictive model 关Eq. 共8兲兴 provides a
nearly perfect match to the measured Ball cyclic degradation
curves measured at Novato 共5.5 m兲 and Bothkennar 共3.5 m兲 as
shown in Figs. 11共a and c兲. Predicted remolded penetration resis-
tance 关Eq. 共5兲兴 at midcycle depth is approximately 2.3% 共1.1 kPa兲
larger and 8.3% 共5.4 kPa兲 smaller than the measured remolded
penetration resistance at Novato and Bothkennar 关Figs. 11共b and
d兲兴. Predictions of sensitivity based on 共qin / qrem兲 关Eq. 共9兲兴 provide
more accurate estimates than those based on 共qin / qext兲 关Eq. 共10兲兴
although both are reasonable as first order predictions 共Table 2兲.
Remolded strength factors are underpredicted at both sites using
Eq. 共11兲 共2 and 11% at Novato and Bothkennar兲 and Eq. 共12兲 共6
and 8% at Novato and Bothkennar兲 共Table 2兲.
A series of different approaches to estimate the remolded shear
strength based on measured and predicted values of qrem, ST, and
Nrem are possible as described previously. All methods offer rea-
sonable accuracy with differences between estimates of remolded
strength and measured values in the range of 0.5 to ⫺0.4 kPa and
2.6 to ⫺0.2 kPa at the Novato and Bothkennar sites. The results
from five different approaches 共varying by which data are as-
sumed to be known and which data are predicted兲 are presented in
Table 2.
Conclusions
This paper has evaluated the potential of cyclic full-flow penetra-
tion testing to accurately estimate remolded shear strength and
soil sensitivity with full-flow penetrometer test results from five
Table 2. Summary of Empirical Prediction Methods Applied to Ball Full-Flow Penetration Data from the Novato and Bothkennar Test Sites
Test site
Novato Bothkennar Reference
Parameter 共5.5 m兲 共3.5 m兲 共predicted variable兲
Direct measurement
su 共kPa兲 18.8 21.8 FVT
sur 共kPa兲 2.9 4.3 FVT
qin 202.3 287.8 Ball
qext 121.3 145.5 Ball
qrem 共kPa兲 47.2 65.6 Ball

Direct calculation
ST 6.5 5.1 FVT
Nrem共Ball兲 16.3 15.4 FVT

Empirical prediction
qrem 共kPa兲 48.3 60.2 Eq. 共5兲
ST 7.7 6.1 Eq. 共9兲 using qin / qrem
ST 6.6 12.5 Eq. 共10兲 using qin / qext
Nrem共Ball兲 15.9 14.5 Eq. 共11兲 using ST
Nrem共Ball兲 14.5 14.1 Eq. 共13兲 using qin / qext
sur 共kPa兲 2.4 3.6 Eq. 共9兲 共ST兲w / su and qin / qrem known
sur 共kPa兲 2.8 1.7 Eq. 共10兲 共ST兲w / su and qin / qext known
sur 共kPa兲 3.0 4.5 Eqs. 共3兲 and 共11兲 共Nrem兲 with qrem and ST known
sur 共kPa兲 2.8 4.2 Eqs. 共3兲, 共9兲, and 共11兲 共Nrem , ST兲 with qin / qrem known
sur 共kPa兲 3.3 4.3 Eqs. 共3兲, 共5兲, and 共13兲 共Nrem , qrem兲 with qin / qext known

well characterized soft clay sites. The soil sensitivity at these sites
ranged from 3 to 68, with much of the site data being at lower
sensitivities. This high quality data set has enabled the following
recommendations and conclusions:
• Adjusting cyclic data for the cyclic offset is recommended to
provide a realistic degradation plot for idealized full-flow con-
ditions. The offset should be applied to net penetration resis-
tance. If the offset is greater than 10% of initial net penetration
resistance or is not consistent between cyclic tests performed
at different depths within the same profile then equipment
problems may exist.
• Modification to the degradation model presented by Einav and
Randolph 共2005兲 enables accurate estimation of the entire cy-
clic degradation curve with only the use of initial penetration
and extraction resistance 共data from only the first cycle兲. It is
recommended that at least one cyclic test of ten cycles be
performed at new sites to ensure the relationships can be ap-
plied.
• Remolded penetration resistance can be predicted with the re-
lationship between extraction ratio 共qext / qin兲 and qrem / qin 关Eq.
共5兲兴. This provides a predictive capability with a difference of
generally less than 10% from measured remolded penetration
resistance. Once it is verified that data from a site follows the
proposed trend a full cyclic test is no longer required at each
depth that remolded penetration resistance is desired.
• Soil sensitivity is inherently predicted by the change in pen-
etration resistance that occurs between the initial and remolded
penetration resistance 共measured after ten cycles兲. As a result,
an estimate of sensitivity can be obtained using either the re-
molded penetration ratio 共qin / qrem兲 from cyclic degradation
testing 关Eq. 共9兲兴 or the extraction penetration ratio 共qin / qext兲
from only the initial penetration and extraction resistances 关Eq.
共10兲兴.
• The remolded strength factor is generally achieved after ten
cycles. While the undrained and remolded strength factors
must be equal for a sensitivity of unity, the factors diverge as
the sensitivity increases. Field test results show that the re-
molded strength factor is relatively constant up to a sensitivity
of about 4 after which it gradually increases until beginning to
stabilize at sensitivities above 20. This trend can be approxi-
mated as a function of sensitivity with Eqs. 共11兲 and 共12兲 for
the T-bar and Ball penetrometers. Alternatively, the remolded
strength factor can be estimated based on the extraction ratio
关Eqs. 共13兲 and 共14兲兴, which inherently reflects both soil sensi-
tivity and the initial rate of strain softening.
• The methods for estimating remolded penetration resistance
共qrem兲, soil sensitivity 共ST兲, and remolded strength factors
共Nrem, Ball , Nrem, T-bar兲 provide a variety of approaches to esti-
mate the remolded strength given different amounts of known
soil properties 共reference data兲 and full-flow measurements.
The utility of these approaches has been demonstrated through
the analysis of two additional soft clay test sites. These rela-
tionships may be useful in the early phases of a site investiga-
tion program when site specific strength data are sparse.
However, it is recommended that site specific strength data be
used when available to verify the applicability of the trends
proposed. If they do not, the functional form of the relation-
ship may still prove useful on a site or regional specific basis.
Acknowledgments
Funding from the National Science Foundation 共Grant Nos. CMS
0301448 and OISE 0530151兲 is appreciated. Data from the Both-
kennar site were provided by Professor Michael Long 共University

1188 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2009

Downloaded 11 Jun 2012 to 180.211.192.67. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
College Dublin兲 and his colleague Noel Boylan and is much ap-
preciated.
References
ASTM. 共2000兲. “Standard test method for performing electronic friction
cone and piezocone penetration testing of soils.” ASTM D 5778-95,
West Conshohoken, Pa.
ASTM. 共2003a兲. “Standard test method for laboratory miniature vane
shear test for saturated fine-grained clayey soil.” ASTM D 4648-00,
West Conshohoken, Pa.
ASTM. 共2003b兲. “Standard test method for field vane shear test in cohe-
sive soil.” ASTM D2573-01, West Conshohoken, Pa.
Bonaparte, R., and Mitchell, J. K. 共1979兲. “The properties of San Fran-
cisco Bay mud at Hamilton Air Force Base.” Rep. Prepared for the
Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of California, Berkeley, Berkeley,
Calif.
Boylan, N., Long, M., Ward, D., Barwise, A., and Georgious, B. 共2007兲.
“Full-flow penetrometer testing in Bothkennar clay.” Proc., 6th Int.
Offshore Site Investigation and Geotechnics Conf., Society for Under-
water Technology, London, 177–186.
Chung, S. F. 共2005兲. “Characterisation of soft soils for deep water devel-
opments.” Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Civil and Resource Engineering, The
Univ. of Western Australia, Nedlands, Western Australia, Australia.
DeGroot, D. J., DeJong, J. T., Yafrate, N. J., Landon, M. L., and Sheahan,
T. C. 共2007兲. “Application of recent developments in terrestrial soft
sediment characterization methods to offshore environments.” Proc.,
OTC-07: Offshore Technology Conf., Curran Associates, Red Hook,
N.J.
DeGroot, D. J., and Lutenegger, A. J. 共2003兲. “Geology and engineering
properties of Connecticut Valley carved clay.” Characterization and
engineering properties of natural soils, T. S. Tan, K. K. Phoon, D. W.
Hight, and S. Lerouell, eds., Vol. 1, Balkema, Rotterdam, The Neth-
erlands, 695–724.
DeJong, J. T., Yafrate, N. J., and Randolph, M. F. 共2008兲. “Use of pore
pressure measurements in a ball full-flow penetrometer.” Geotechni-
cal and geophysical site characterization (ISC-3), Taylor and Francis,
Taipei, Taiwan, 1269–1275.
Einav, I., and Randolph, M. F. 共2005兲. “Combining upper bound and
strain path method for evaluating penetration resistance.” Int. J.
Numer. Methods Eng., 63共14兲, 1991–2016.
International Society for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering
共ISSMGE兲. 共1999兲. “International reference test procedure for the
cone penetration test 共CPT兲 and the cone penetration test with pore
pressure 共CPTU兲.” Rep.
Kelleher, P. J., and Randolph, M. F. 共2005兲. “Seabed geotechnical char-
acterisation with the portable remotely operated drill.” Proc. Int.
Symp. on Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics (ISFOG), Taylor and
Francis, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 365–371.
Ladd, C. C. 共1991兲. “22nd Karl Terzaghi lecture: Stability evaluation
during staged construction.” J. Geotech. Engrg., 117共4兲, 540–615.
Leroueil, S., Hamouche, K., Ravenasi, F., Boudali, M., Locat, J., and
Virely, D. 共2003兲. “Geotechnical characterization and properties of a
sensitive clay from Quebec.” Characterization and engineering prop-
erties of natural soils, T. S. Tan, K. K. Phoon, D. W. Hight, and S.
Lerouell, eds., Vol. 1, Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 363–
394.
Lo, K. Y., Bozozuk, M., and Law, K. T. 共1976兲. “Settlement analysis of
the Gloucester test fill.” Can. Geotech. J., 13共4兲, 339–354.
Long, M. 共2008兲. “Design parameters from in situ tests in soft ground-
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2009 / 1189
Downloaded 11 Jun 2012 to 180.211.192.67. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
recent developments.” Proc., ISC-3: 3rd Int. Conf. on Site Character-
ization, H. Mayne, ed., Taylor and Francis, Taipei, Taiwan.
Lu, Q., Hu, Y., and Randolph, M. F. 共2000兲. “FE analysis for T-bar and
spherical penetrometers in cohesive soil.” 10th Int. Offshore and
Polar Engineering Conf., 617–623.
Lunne, T., Long, M., and Forsber, C. F. 共2003兲. “Characterization and
engineering properties of Onsøy clay.” Characterization and engi-
neering properties of natural soils, T. S. Tan, K. K. Phoon, D. W.
Hight, and S. Lerouell, eds., Vol. 1, Balkema, Rotterdam, The Neth-
erlands, 395–427.
Lunne, T., Randolph, M. F., Chung, S. F., Andersen, K. H., and Sjursen,
M. 共2005兲. “Comparison of cone and T-bar factors in two onshore and
one offshore clay sediments.” Proc., Int. Symp. on Frontiers in Off-
shore Geotechnics (ISFOG), S. Gourvenec and M. Cassidy, eds., Tay-
lor & Francis, Rotterdam, 981–989.
Lunne, T., Robertson, P. K., and Powell, J. J. M. 共1997兲. Cone penetration
testing in geotechnical practice, Chapman & Hall, London.
Mitchell, J. K., and Soga, K. 共2005兲. Fundamentals of soil behavior, 3rd
Ed., Wiley, New York.
Nash, D. F. T., Powell, J. J. M., and Lloyd, I. M. 共1992兲. “Initial inves-
tigations of the soft clay test site at Bothkennar.” Geotechnique,
42共2兲, 163–181.
Peuchen, J., Adrichem, J., and Hefer, P. A. 共2005兲. “Practice notes on
push-in penetrometers for offshore geotechnical investigation,” Proc.,
Int. Symp. on Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics (ISFOG), Taylor and
Francis, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 973–979.
Peuchen, J., and Mayne, P. 共2007兲. “Rate effects in vane shear testing.”
Proc., 6th Int. Offshore Site Investigation and Geotechnics Conf., So-
ciety for Underwater Technology, London, 187–193.
Randolph, M. F. 共2004兲. “Characterisation of soft sediments for offshore
applications.” Proc., ISC-2: 2nd Int. Conf. on Site Characterization,
A. Viana da Fonseca and P. W. Mayne, eds., Mill Press, The Nether-
lands, 209–232.
Randolph, M. F., and Andersen, K. H. 共2006兲. “Numerical analysis of
T-bar penetration in soft clay.” Int. J. Geomech., 6共6兲, 411–420.
Stewart, D. P., and Randolph, M. F. 共1991兲. “A new site investigation tool
for the centrifuge.” Proc. Int. Conf. on Centrifuge Modelling—
Centrifuge 91, H. Y. Ko and F. G. McLean, eds., 91, 531–538.
Watson, P. G., Newson, T. A., and Randolph, M. F. 共1998兲. “Strength
profiling in soft offshore soils.” Proc., 1st Int. Conf. on Site
Characterization—ISC ’98, Vol. 2, A.-B. Huang and P. W. Mayne,
eds., Mill Press, The Netherlands, 1389–1394.
Yafrate, N. J., and DeJong, J. T. 共2005兲. “Considerations in evaluating the
remoulded undrained shear strength from full-flow penetrometer cy-
cling.” Proc., Int. Symp. on Frontiers in Offshore Geotecnics
(ISFOG), S. Gourvenec and M. Cassidy, eds., Taylor & Francis, Rot-
terdam, 991–997.
Yafrate, N. J., and DeJong, J. T. 共2006兲. “Interpretation of sensitivity and
remolded shear strength with full-flow penetrometers.” Proc., ISOPE-
06: Int. Society for Offshore and Polar Engineering, J. S. Chung, S.
W. Hong, P. W. Marshall, T. Komai, and W. Koterayama, eds., ISOPE,
Cupertino, Calif., 572–577.
Yafrate, N. J., DeJong, J. T., and DeGroot, D. J. 共2007兲. “The influence of
full-flow penetrometer area ratio on undrained strength measure-
ments.” Proc., 6th Int. Conf. on Offshore Site Investigation and Geo-
technics, Society for Underwater Technology 共SUT兲, London, 461–
468.
Zhou, H., and Randolph, M. F. 共2009兲. “Resistance of full-flow penetrom-
eters in rate-dependent and strain-softening clay.” Geotechnique,
59共2兲, 79–86.