Profiling and Soil Identification

John J M Powell, Geolabs

Kuala Lumpar, April 2019

CPT/CPTU Interpretation of Stratigraphy: Soil
Layering and Soil Classification

1. Stratigraphy – Key signatures of soil

layering from CPT/CPTU data at all
levels

2. Soil Classification - development and

application of soil classification charts
Measured Data and Calculated Variables

1. Measured Data
• most common = qc, fs, and u2

2. Calculated Variables (for u2 measurement):

• Corrected tip resistance: qt = qc + u2(1-a)
• Excess pore pressure Du = u2 – u0
• Friction Ratio: Rf = fs/qt
• Normalized Corrected Tip Resistance: Qt = (qt – vo)/'vo
• Normalized sleeve resistance: Fr = fs/(qt – vo)
• Pore Pressure Parameter: Bq = (u2 – uo)/(qt – vo)
• Normalized Excess Pore Pressure: U = (u2 –uo)/'vo
Stratagraphic Profiling
Excellent application for the CPT and especially
the CPTU

Approach:

1.Rely on fundamentals of soil behavior, i.e., stiffness (e.g.,

dense sand vs. soft clay) and drainage (drained behaviour
during shear in sand vs. undrained behaviour during shear in
clay).

2.Use all information available – qc or qt, fs, u, Qt, Rf, Bq (+

other sensors when available).
Stratagraphic Profiling

Key Signatures to look for in measured data, e.g.:

1. Shape and magnitude of qt profile – e.g. high in dense

sand, low in soft clay

2. Shape of u profile and magnitude, especially relative

to equilibrium pore pressure profile – e.g., high in soft
clay, Du = 0 in medium density sand

3. Magnitude of Rf relative to that of qt – e.g., if high and

coupled with low qt = soft clay.
 20 tonne truck

Soil Layers

End Resistance Value

Rods

Side Friction Value

Cone Tip
 Cone Resistance, qc (MPa) Friction Ratio Estimated Soil Type
0 5 10 15 20 Rf (%)
0.000 0.125 0.250 0.375 0.500
Sleeve Friction, fs (MPa) 0 5 10
0

5
Depth (m)

10

15

20
 Cone Resistance, qc (MPa) Friction Ratio Estimated Soil Type
0 5 10 15 20 Rf (%)
0.000 0.125 0.250 0.375 0.500
Sleeve Friction, fs (MPa) 0 5 10
0

5
Depth (m)

10

15

20
 Cone Resistance, qc (MPa) Friction Ratio Estimated Soil Type
0 5 10 15 20 Rf (%)
0.000 0.125 0.250 0.375 0.500
Sleeve Friction, fs (MPa) 0 5 10
0

5
Depth (m)

10

15

20
 Cone Resistance, qc (MPa) Friction Ratio Estimated Soil Type
0 5 10 15 20 Rf (%)
0.000 0.125 0.250 0.375 0.500
Sleeve Friction, fs (MPa) 0 5 10
0

5
Depth (m)

10

15

20
Example CPT sand overlying clay
Example CPT in Western Massachusetts
Inspect relative
values of qc, fs
and Rf
Loose
Sand

Med. UNITS:
Dense 1 kgsc
≈ 100 kPa
Sand ≈ 0.1 MPa
≈ 2000 psf
Clay ≈ 1 tsf
(CVVC)
Example CPT in Eastern Massachusetts

Boston Blue Clay

Stiff
Clay
Crust

SPT N = 0

Linear increase
Uniform in qt and u2 with
Soft depth
Clay
High u2 relative
to u0
Example CPTU in NE Massachusetts

Boston Blue Clay

- Newbury, MA
Significant variations
in qt, fs and u2 with
depth
Stiff, high OCR
CLAY Crust

Sensitive, soft CLAY

Dissipation Test

Increasing silt content

Interbedded Layers,
Silt, Clay, Sand
Example CPTU profiles in Venetian soils
u 2, MPa q t, MPa u 2, MPa qt, MPa u2, MPa qt, MPa
2 0 10 20 30 2 0 10 20 30 2 0 10 20
10
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.4
fs, MPa fs, MPa fs, MPa
Significant
interbedding
CPTU8
20 CPTU19 CPTU9 of soils from
x=134.2m
x=0.0m x=66.3m sands to
silty clays
Depth below MWL (m)

30 Detail!!

40
qt
u2
fs
50
Mapping
Subtle changes – look at what is there
Piedmont
Use of PWP for
stratigraphy - Pentre
Mini Cone

2 cm2 cone with pore

pressure sensor and
friction sleeve
Effect of cone size in layered soils
Example CPTU in Connecticut
Valley Varved Clay (CVVC),
Western MA

X-ray of fixed piston

= 10 inches
sample of Connecticut Silt
Valley Varved Clay (CVVC)
Clay
– Amherst, MA

Silt = "summer" deposit

Clay = "winter" deposit
Example CPTU in CVVC, Amherst, MA

Stiff desiccated
CVVC crust

Lightly overconsolidated
CVVC = soft, moderately
sensitive "clay"

Increasing silt
content and
thickness of silt
layers
Miniature Piezoprobe for high resolution
profiling of thin soil layers

u1 - button u1 - Wissa
u2

Piezoprobe picture

Projected tip area u1(face), u2, u1(tip)

= 1.25 cm2
Example Miniature Piezoprobe – CVVC Amherst, MA
10.40
Clay-Silt
Interface =
10.38 spring thaw

10.36
10 cm Increasing clay
Depth (m)

content (going
upwards) = deposit
of finer grained
10.34
particles in calm
waters of ice
covered lake
10.32 Wissa u1

u1 (tip) at 0.5 cm/s

10.30
300 350 400 450 500 550
Pore Pressure (kPa)
Stratigraphy

• Signatures

• Repeatable variations
Soil Classification from CPT/CPTU data
Soil Classification from CPT/CPTU data

Methodology:

1. Quantify observations used to identify soil

stratigraphy.

2. Empirically based, i.e. measured CPT/CPTU data are

correlated with know soil profiles.

3. Early charts relied on direct use of reduced data, e.g.

qc or qt and fs or Rf.

4. Later charts make use of normalized parameters to

account for increasing overburden stress with depth,
e.g. Qt, Bq.
First CPT ‘classification’ chart

(Begemann, 1965)
CPT Soil Classification/Behaviour Chart

Based on qc and fs
from CPT

[Figure 5.6
Douglas and Olsen 1981]
CPTU an extra parameter!
Measured CPTU pore pressure by location and soil type

u1 > u2 ≈>u3

[Robertson et al.
1986]
Pore Pressure (via Bq) for soil Classification

Note: measured u is
function of location –
chart is for u2
position. Hence,
negative pore
pressures can occur.

[Janbu and Senneset 1984]

 Cone Resistance, qc (MPa) Friction Ratio Estimated Soil Type
0 5 10 15 20 Rf (%)
0.000 0.125 0.250 0.375 0.500
Sleeve Friction, fs (MPa) 0 5 10
0

5
Depth (m)

10

15

20
 Cone Resistance, qc (MPa) Friction Ratio Estimated Soil Type
0 5 10 15 20 Rf (%)
0.000 0.125 0.250 0.375 0.500
Sleeve Friction, fs (MPa) 0 5 10
0
0.7 Soft CLAY
Loose SAND
1.5

Very Soft
Organic CLAY
5

7.2
Medium Dense
Depth (m)

to dense
10
SAND and GRAVEL
11.2
Dense to very Dense

13.1 SAND and GRAVEL

Stiff to very stiff
15 sandy CLAY
15.4
Very stiff to hard
sandy CLAY
17.9

20
Soil Behaviour Type Classification Chart
Chart
making use
of qt

[Robertson et al. 1986]

Soil Behaviour Type Classification Chart
Based on normalized CPTU data

[Robertson 1990]
Example CPTU Soil Classification – Boston Blue clay

= "crust" = Soft, moderately sensitive Clay = "Interbeddd silt, clay, sand

Soft Clay
Glacial till
London clay 1
London Clay2
Software
Gault Clay
 Definition of soil behaviour type index, Ic

Robertson, 1990 defined Ic based on normalized parameters

 2
I c  3.47  logQt   log Fr  1.22 
2 0.5

qt   v0 fs
Q t  ,F r 
 v0 ' qt   v0

Can be used for a first computerized soil indentification in field or in

office
 How Ic fits in
SBT diagram

+ later
variations

From Robertson, 1990

 Frequency of use and reliability of charts
• Review of major conferences confirms most use is
made of the Robertson et al. (1986) or Robertson
(1990) charts

• Mollé (2005) reviewed 9 charts using sites where

CPT and index data available. He found Robertson
charts yield “reasonable to very good” results

• Increasing confidence in use of charts but which soil

types applicable?

• Signatures
 Os (West Norway) silt
Percentage of constituent (%)
0 20 40 60 80 100
0

Clay
Silt
2

4
Depth (m)

10 St increases

12
 Robertson (1990) chart for Os (West Norway)
silt (Long 2008) A Problem? Consistent, local!
1000 1000

` 7 Increasing 8 7
3 m to 6 m
OCR, age
cementation 6 m to 9 m

9
100 100 6
6
NC 5
Qt Qt
4 Increasing
5 OCR
Increasing
10 OCR, age 10 3
4
Increasing Increasing
sensitivity sensitivity
3
1 1
2 2
1 1
0.1 1 10 -0.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2
Fr (%) Bq
Zones / Soil behaviour type (From Robertson, 1990)

1. Sensitive fine grained 5. Sand mixtures silty sand to sandy silt 9. Very stiff fine grained
2. Organic soils-peats 6. Sands clean sands to silty sandsilt to clayey silt
3. Clays - clay to silty clay 7. Gravelly sand to sand
4. Silt mixtures clayey silt to silty clay 8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand
Developing New Charts

• Many other charts available

• They are not perfect

• You need confidence what you use and the signatures for
your commonly encountered soil types

• Very powerful in identifying changes in soil Behaviour

Types
Measured pore pressure distributions in clay

Measurement of u1 and u2 can give information on

type of clay,
After Robertson et al.(1986)
Peuchen et al
2010

K = u2 / u1
Example from Robertson, 2010
McDonald’s farm
McDonald’s farm
McDonald’s farm
Additional Measurements for better
definition of soil type/behaviour
Options include:
[Note: additional sensors covered in later topic]

• Short dissipation tests with CPTU

• Dual or Triple element (pore pressure) CPTU

• Seismic CPTU to get Shear Wave Velocity (Vs)

• Electrical conductivity (or resistivity) = relate to soil

porosity, degree of saturation, relative density, leaching
of quick clays

• Nuclear density/Gamma Cone = density of soil units

Soil Classification/Behaviour Chart using G0

- G0 = Gmax
- Vs direct measure from
seismic CPTU
- rt must be estimated

[Robertson et al. 1995]

Natural Gamma Cone

Where is the Chalk ?

Natural Gamma Cone

Where is the Chalk ?

Upper bound
for Chalk
Recommendations: CPT/CPTU based Soil
Identification/Classification

•Use all information available, e.g., qc or qt, fs, u, Fr, Bq

•Shape and magnitude of qt profile gives indication on whether
you are in uniform clay layer, sand layer, etc.
•Pore pressure profile readily indicates a drained condition
(e.g., sand with Du = 0) or undrained (e.g., clay with Du > 0)
•Use qt - Rf - Bq and/or Qt-Fr-Bq diagrams to identify soil type.
•Accumulate local experience to create/modify diagrams.
Recommendations: CPT/CPTU based Soil
Identification/Classification

•Correlate ‘signatures’ with sampled borehole logs for ‘local’

classification
•Short dissipation tests can help in identifying soil type
•Dual or Triple element (pore pressure) CPTU or u1 rather then u2
•Measurements using other sensors can enhance soil
identification (see later lecture also)

Seismic cone to get Vs

Electrical conductivity (or resistivity)
Nuclear density/Gamma con
Video cone
Soil identification from CPTU

A powerful tool for soil identification but not an

‘automatic’ process, engineering input is always
required
Thank you for your attention

jpowell@geolabs.co.uk