Cone Penetration Testing in Geotechnical Practice

Cone Penetration Testing in Geotechnical Practice

Tom Lunne
Peter K. Robertson
John J.M. Powell

Spon Press
Taylor & Francis Group

LONDON AND NEW YORK

First published 1997
by E & FN Spon
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN

Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada

by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY10017

Spon Press is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

© 1997 T. Lunne, P.K. Robertson, John J.J.M. Powell

Typeset in 10/12 Times

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any
form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented,
including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system,
without permission in writing from the publishers,

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available form the British Library

ISBN 10: 0419 23750 X

ISBN 13:978041923750 1

Printed and bound in Great Britain by TJI Digital, Padstow, Cornwall

 LIST OF CONTENTS

LIST OF CONTENTS V 2.3.2 Vertically 16

2.3.3 Reference measurements 17
PREFACE ix 2.3.4 Rate of penetration 17
2.3.5 Interval of readings 17
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS xi 2.3.6 Depth measurements 18
2.3.7 Saturation of piezocones 18
SYMBOL LIST xii
2.3.8 Dissipation test 19
CONVERSION FACTORS xvi 2.4 Data acquisition 20
2.5 Calibration of sensors 20
GLOSSARY xxii 2.6 Maintenance 22
2.7 Choice of capacity of load cells 22
1. INTRODUCTION 1 2.8 Precision and accuracy 23
1 2.9 Summary of performance checks and
1.1 Purpose and scope
maintenance requirements 24
1.2 General description of CPT and CPTU 1
1.3 Role of CPT in site investigation 2
4 3. CHECKS, CORRECTIONS AND
1.4 Historical background
PRESENTATION OF DATA 25
1.4.1 Mechanical cone penetrometers 4
1.4.2 Electric cone penetrometers 6 3.1 Factors affecting measurements and
1.4.3 Thepiezocone 7 corrections 25
3.1.1 Pore water pressure effects on qc and
2. EQUIPMENT AND PROCEDURES 8 fs 25
3.1.2 Filter location 28
2.1 Cone penetrometer and piezocone
3.1.3 Effect of axial load on pore water
2.2 Pushing equipment 10
pressure readings 31
2.2.1 On land 10
L \J
3.1.4 Temperature effects 31
2.2.2 Over water 13
A *J
3.1.5 Inclination 32
2.2.3 Depth of penetration 14
3.1.6 Calibration and resolution of errors 32
2.3 Test procedures 16
3.1.7 Effect of wear 33
2.3.1 Pre-drilling, on land testing 16
vi LIST OF CONTENTS

3.1.8 Correction for CPTU zeroed at the 5.5 Interpretation in coarse-grained soils 81
bottom of a borehole 33 5.5.1 State characteristics 81
3.2 Presentation of results 34 5.5.1.1 Relative density (density
3.2.1 Measured parameters 34 index) 81
3.2.2 Derived parameters 36 5.5.1.2 State parameter 85
3.2.3 Additional information 38 5.5.1.3 Overconsolidation ratio 88
3.3 Checks on data quality 38 5.5.1.4 In situ horizontal stress 88
5.5.2 Strength characteristics 89
4. STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS 39 5.5.2.1 Effective stress strength
parameters 89
4.1 ISSMFE International Reference Test
5.5.3 Deformation characteristics 93
Procedure for Cone Penetration Test (CPT) 39
5.5.3.1 Young's modulus 93
4.2 Swedish Geotechnical Society (SGF):
5.5.3.2 Constrained modulus 93
Recommended Standard for Cone Penetration
5.5.3.3 Small strain shear modulus 94
Tests (1993) 39
5.6 Available experience and interpretation in
4.3 Norwegian Geotechnical Society (NGF):
other material 94
Guidelines for Cone Penetration Tests (1994) 43
5.6.1 Intermediate soils (clayey sands to
4.4 ASTM: Standard Test Method for Performing
silts) 95
Electronic Friction Cone and Piezocone
5.6.1.1 Penetration behaviour 95
Penetration Testing of Soils (1995) 43
5.6.1.2 Typical results and
4.5 Dutch Standard: Determination of the Cone
classification 95
Resistance and Sleeve Friction of Soil.
5.6.1.3 Undrained shear strength 96
NEN5140 (1996) 43
5.6.1.4 Effective stress strength
4.6 Recommendations 44
parameters 96
5.6.1.5 Constrained modulus 96
5. INTERPRETATION OF CPT/PIEZOCONE
5.6.1.6 Small strain shear modulus 97
DATA 45
5.6.1.7 Coefficient of consolidation 98
5.1 General factors affecting interpretation 45 5.6.1.8 General experience 98
5.1.1 Equipment design 46 5.6.2 Peat/organic silt 98
5.1.2 In situ stresses 46 5.6.3 Underconsolidated clay 100
5.1.3 Compressibility, cementation and 5.6.4 Chalk 100
particle size 46 5.6.5 Calcareous soils 101
5.1.4 Stratigraphy 46 5.6.5.1 Soil classification 102
5.1.5 Rate of penetration 47 5.6.5.2 Undrained shear strength 102
5.1.6 Pore pressure element location 48 5.6.5.3 Relative density 103
5.2 Soil stratigraphy 50 5.6.5.4 Effective stress strength
5.3 Soil classification 51 parameters 103
5.4 Interpretation in fine-grained soils 55 5.6.5.5 Pile side friction 103
5.4.1 State characteristics 56 5.6.6 Cemented sands 103
5.4.1.1 Soil unit weight 56 5.6.7 Snow 107
5.4.1.2 Overconsolidation ratio 56 5.6.8 Permafrost and ice 107
5.4.1.3 In situ horizontal stress 61 5.6.8.1 Identification of permafrost/
5.4.2 Strength characteristics 63 ice layers 107
5.4.2.1 Undrained shear strength 63 5.6.8.2 Special procedures for
5.4.2.2 Sensitivity 68 penetration tests in frozen
5.4.2.3 Effective stress strength soil 108
parameters 69 5.6.8.3 Determination of creep
5.4.3 Deformation characteristics 71 parameters 108
5.4.3.1 Constrained modulus 71 5.6.8.4 General comment 111
5.4.3.2 Undrained Young's modulus 73 5.6.9 Gas hydrates 111
5.4.3.3 Small strain shear modulus 74 5.6.10 Residual soils 111
5.4.4 Flow and consolidation characteristics 74 5.6.11 Mine tailings 112
5.4.4.1 Coefficient of consolidation 75 5.6.12 Sawdust and wood choppings 114
5.4.4.2 Coefficient of permeability 5.6.13 Dutch cheese 116
(hydraulic conductivity) 80 5.6.14 Slurry walls 116
 LIST OF CONTENTS VII

5.6.15 Volcanic soils 117 6.5.2.3 Minimum undrained shear

5.6.16 Fuel ash 117 strength 171
5.6.17 Loess soil 119 6.5.3 Recommendations for liquefaction
5.6.18 Lunar soil 120 evaluation 171
5.7 Examples of unusual behaviour 120
5.7.1 Limiting negative pore pressures due 7. ADDITIONAL SENSORS THAT CAN BE
to cavitation 120 INCORPORATED 172
5.7.2 Negative pore pressure measurement
7.1 Lateral stress measurements 172
with filter on the cone 121
7.1.1 Equipment 172
5.7.3 Effect of the weight of rig on shallow
7.1.2 Typical results 173
test results 122
7.1.3 Interpretation 174
5.8 The use of non-standard equipment or
7.2 Cone pressuremeter 175
procedures 123
7.2.1 Equipment 175
5.8.1 Cone size and scale effects 123
7.2.2 Testing procedure 177
5.8.2 Cone penetrometer geometry 125
7.2.3 Interpretation 178
5.8.2.1 Length of the cylindrical
7.3 Seismic measurements 179
portion behind the cone
7.3.1 Equipment and procedures 180
included in qc 125
7.3.2 Typical results and interpretation 181
5.8.2.2 Reduced area behind the cone 125
7.4 Electrical resistivity measurements 182
5.8.2.3 Non-standard position and
7.4.1 Principles for measurement 182
area of friction sleeve 126
7.4.2 Equipment and procedures 183
5.8.2.4 Cone apex angle 127
7.4.3 Typical results and interpretation 184
5.8.3 Rate of penetration 127
7.5 Heat flow measurements 186
5.8.4 Set-up tests 128
7.6 Radioisotope measurements 186
5.8.5 Applying water during penetration 132
7.6.1 Equipment, measurement principles
5.8.6 Vibratory cone penetrometer 132
and procedures 186
5.9 Statistical treatment of data 132
7.6.2 Typical results 189
5.9.1 Definitions 133
7.6.3 Discussion on soil density measured
5.9.2 Sources of uncertainty and variability
by NOT 189
of soil properties 134
7.7 Acoustic noise 190
5.9.3 Statistical treatment 135
5.9.4 Site investigation strategy and
8. GEO-ENVIRONMENTAL APPLICATIONS
Bayesian updating techniques 143
OF PENETRATION TESTING 192
5.9.5 Recommendation 144
5.10 Software application 145 8.1 Objectives of a geo-environmental site
investigation 192
6. DIRECT APPLICATION OF CPT/CPTU 8.2 CPT technology for site characterization 193
RESULTS 149 8.3 Geo-environmental penetrometer logging
devices 193
6.1 Correlations with SPT 149
8.3.1 Temperature 193
6.2 Deep foundations 151
8.3.2 Electrical resistivity and conductivity 193
6.2.1 Axial capacity 151
8.3.3 Dielectric measurements 194
6.2.2 Factor of safey 155
8.3.4 pH sensors 195
6.2.3 Settlement 155
8.3.5 Redox potential 196
6.2.4 Skirt penetration resistance 156
8.3.6 Gamma and neutron sensors 196
6.3 Shallow foundations 157
8.3.7 Laser induced fluorescence 196
6.3.1 Bearing capacity 157
8.4 Geo-environmental penetrometer sampling
6.3.2 Settlement 158
devices 199
6.4 Ground improvement - quality control 159
8.4.1 Liquid samplers 199
6.5 Liquefaction 164
8.4.2 Vapour samplers 201
6.5.1 Liquefaction definitions 164
8.4.3 Solid samplers 201
6.5.2 Application of CPT for liquefaction
8.5 Sealing and decontamination procedures 201
assessment 166
8.6 Future trends 202
6.5.2.1 Cyclic softening 166
8.7 Summary 203
6.5.2.2 Flow liquefaction 169
viii LIST OF CONTENTS

9. EXAMPLES 204 9.2.4 Normally consolidated soft alluvial

clay, Bothkennar, UK 218
9.1 Example profiles 204
9.1.1 Marine, lightly overconsolidated clay,
Ons0y, Norway 204
9.1.2 Organic clay, lightly overconsolidated, 10. FUTURE TRENDS 223
Lilla Mellosa, Sweden 205
9.1.3 Overconsolidated Yoldia (Aalborg) 10.1 Recent developments 223
clay, Aalborg, Denmark 207 10.2 Future developments 223
9.1.4 Overconsolidated clay till, Cowden,
UK 208
REFERENCES 225
9.1.5Sand over silty clay, McDonald's
Farm, Vancouver, BC 209
9.1.6 Overconsolidated dense sand, APPENDICES 249
Dunkirk, France 210 ApPENDIXA: ISSMFE REFERENCE TEST
9.1.7 Normally consolidated very silty clay, PROCEDURE 249
Pentre,UK 211
9.2 Worked examples 213 APPENDIX B: SWEDISH STANDARD FOR CONE
9.2.1 Loose to medium dense sand, Massey TESTING 261
Tunnel site, Canada 213 APPENDIXC: CALIBRATION CHAMBER
9.2.2 Very dense overconsolidated sand, TESTING OF SANDY SOILS 291
Sleipner, North Sea 216
9.2.3 Stiff overconsolidated Gault clay,
Madingley,UK 217 INDEX 305
 PREFACE
The design and construction of foundations and earth struc-
tures require a good knowledge of the mechanical behaviour
of soils and of their spatial variability. Such information can
be best obtained from a properly planned programme of both
laboratory and in situ tests.
The two methodologies are very much complementary
rather than competitive. However, in situ tests can often be
preferable to laboratory tests because of important advan-
tages such as cost - time effectiveness, the ability to assess
the soil in its natural environment and the possibility to
estimate the spatial variability of the deposit.
Among the vast number of in situ devices, the static cone
penetrometer (CPT) and the piezocone (CPTU) represent
the most versatile tools currently available for soil explora-
tion. The cone penetration and piezocone tests provide
continuous sounding capability and good repeatability. They
can also be run very cost-effectively. However, until now,
there was a need to pull together the vast knowledge that has
been accumulating in the geotechnical community.
This book, CPT in Geotechnical Practice, comes timely.
In the nearly 30 years since the publication of Sanglerat's
book on the cone penetrometer, interest in the device has
spread all over the world, finding applications both on-land
and offshore. This development is reflected in the impres-
sive growth of the theoretical and experimental knowledge
on the cone penetrometer and piezocone as well as in the
several applications of the test to highly specialized meas-
urements, such as seismic, environmental and electrical
resistivity measurements.
The book is written by three prominent researchers in this
specific field whose respective countries have devoted con-
siderable efforts in developing both the database of experi-
mental results and the framework for a rational
interpretation of the results. The many chapters and exam-
ples present the knowledge and experience that have been
acquired on the cone penetrometer and piezocone and the
application of their results for design of geotechnical engi-
neered constructions.
Two design approaches, the first a direct approach in
which the response of a given foundation system is directly
correlated to the test results and the second an indirect one in
which the test results are interpreted to obtain the mechan-
ical properties of the ground, are critically reviewed. Sour-
ces of error, non-typical behaviour and especially how to
obtain the relevant soil parameters in an optimum manner
are also considered.
As typical for geotechnics, engineering judgement com-
bined with experience are the key to safe and economical
design. It is therefore important to know the merits and
limitations of the measuring methods.
This book tells us how much confidence we can have in
the derived engineering parameters. In particular, the chap-
ter on the interpretation of the cone penetration data as a
function of the soil type, including the factors influencing
the test results and problem soils, is noteworthy.
The book presents independent treatment of the inter-
pretation for all important aspects of cone penetration and
piezocone testing: equipment and test procedures, test
 PREFACE
specifications, checklists for evaluation of data, interpreta-
tion methods and examples, empirical design approaches,
and newer applications. The avid reader will find in this
definitive book comprehensive treatment of all of these,
each with ample references to earlier work.
The authors have rendered a valuable service by sharing
with the rest of the geotechnical community their vast
knowledge and experience accumulated over many years of
hard work. We warmly recommend this book to students,
teachers, professors, practising engineers and researchers.
Michele Jamiolkowski
President
International Society of
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering
Suzanne Lacasse
Director
Norwegian Geotechnical Institute
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The work on this book has extended over several years and
the authors are grateful for the support and help of numerous
individuals and organizations.
Firstly we thank our employers, the Norwegian Geotech-
nical Institute (NGI), the University of Alberta (UoA) and
the Building Research Establishment (BRE) for moral sup-
port and for permission to publish work we have done as
employees of these organizations. We thank Dr Su/anne
Lacasse for reviewing the whole manuscript and giving
valuable advice, as well as her substantial help in preparing
section 5.9. We gratefully acknowledge the valuable com-
ments on various sections of the manuscript from Dr David
Might, Professor Branko Ladanyi, Dr Zbigniew Mlynarek,
Dr Rolf Sandven and Hermann Zuidberg. We also thank Dr
Stan Boyle, Dr Fernando Danziger, Dr Bernadete Danziger,
Dr Jonathan Fannin, Dr Don Gillespie, the late Dr Joe
Keaveny, Dr Nigel Nutt, Robin Quarterman, Hilary Shields
and Hilary Skinner for their assistance with various sub
sections and proof-reading. In addition, we thank the many
colleagues and friends who have helped in various ways.
Many thanks are given to Lillian Nore, Gre Jordan, Irene
Sugg and Denise who willingly typed parts of the manu-
script; and to Kari Helene Bergersen and Gro Bothn who
computerized most of the figures. Others have helped with
the references, review of examples, etc., and we thank Arild
Andresen, Wenche Enersen and Helena Comoulos.
The authors also thank the many authors and publishers
who gave permission for us to reproduce material, as well as
the following organizations for their support: Alluvial
Mining, UK; AP van den Berg, Holland; Cambridge Insitu,
UK; Cone Tech Investigations, Canada; Delft Geotechnics,
Holland; Envi, Sweden; Fugro, world-wide; Geocean,
France; Geotech, Sweden; Hebo, Poland; Hogentogler,
USA; ISMES, Italy; Key Systems, UK; Statoil, Norway;
Soil and Rock Engineering, Japan; TL Geotechnics, Singa-
pore; Vertek, USA and Unicone, Latvia.
Many of the recommendations presented in this book
have been developed during research and consulting pro-
jects that the authors and their organizations have been
involved in. The authors would therefore like to especially
acknowledge Statoil, Norsk Hydro, Saga Petroleum, Shell,
Norwegian Research Council, Department of the Environ-
ment UK and ConeTec Investigations Ltd.
Finally the authors would like to express their apprecia-
tion to their wives (Mai Liss, Linda and Denise) and children
(Rasmus, Kelly, Simon and Rebecca) for patiently putting
up with us during the years we have been working on this
book.
 SYMBOL LIST

Whilst every effort has been made throughout the book to avoid duplication in the use of symbols, this has not always been
possible when the same symbol is used to mean different things in common usage.
ENGLISH c, stress normalization factor
a = attraction (= c'cot^', in terms of effective D diameter
stress). D damping ratio
a = area ratio of the cone (= AnIAc) D dilatancy parameter
«max = maximum horizontal acceleration of ground Dr relative density \Dr = • 100%)
surface, due to earthquake \ '
A = pore pressure parameter Ao
the size such that 10, 50, 60 or 90% (by weight)
A — area £>50
of the sample consists of particles having a
Ac = projected area of the cone £>60
smaller nominal diameter.
An = cross-sectional area of load cell or shaft
Ap = pile end area void ratio
As = pile shaft area initial void ratio
As = area of friction sleeve maximum void ratio
Ash = bottom end area of friction sleeve minimum void ratio
Ast = top end area of friction sleeve E Young's modulus
Aw = skirt wall area Er secant Young's modulus in strain softening
b = area ratio of friction sleeve material
B = Skempton'spore pressure parameter ERf rod energy ratio in standard penetration test (SPT)
B = width of footing Es secant modulus at 50% of maximum stress
Bc = cone diameter Et initial tangent Young's modulus
Bq = pore pressure parameter ( = (u2 — u0)l(q, — <juo)) Eu undrained Young's modulus
c' = cohesion (in terms of effective stress) f unit skin friction resistance
c = coefficient of consolidation / degree of mobilization
c/, = horizontal coefficient of consolidation fP pile unit side friction
ca = vertical coefficient of consolidation f, unit sleeve friction resistance
Cc = compression index ft sleeve friction corrected for pore pressure effects
 SYMBOL LIST XIII

F = formation factor maximum porosity

Fs = total force acting on friction sleeve minimum porosity
Fs = factor of safety no. of blows in the SPT
Fr = normalized friction ratio ( =fj(qt — GOO)) number of cycles
FC = fines content bearing capacity factor
g = acceleration due to gravity
G = shear modulus
cone factors
G = specific weight
G0 = initial or maximum shear modulus, shear
stiffness N g - l

Gur = shear modulus during unload-reload of Nm = cone resistance number I =

+ NU-B,_
pressuremetre test N, = constant = St • R/
H = layer thickness Nu = pore pressure factor
/ = electrical current Nu = bearing capacity factor — 6 tan <j>' (1 - tan </>')
Ic = soil behaviour type index pore pressure factor
ID = density index Nw = SPT energy ratio
Ir = rigidity index = G/su Pa reference stress =100 kPa
IP = plasticity index effective preconsolidation pressure
Iz = strain influence factor change in effective vertical stress
k = coefficient of permeability, hydraulic conductivity AP = net foundation pressure
kc = bearing capacity factor PL = pressuremeter limit pressure
kh = coefficient of permeability in horizontal direction P'r = reference pressure for modulus number concept
k0 = coefficient of permeability in vertical direction p-y = curves representing lateral soil reaction versus
K = constant; calibration factor relative displacement between pile and soil
K = correction factor; ratio of the pore pressure PPD = normalized pore pressure difference = (u\ — u2)lu0
measured immediately behind the cone and the measured cone resistance
measured pore pressure on the cone average cone resistance
Kc = correction factor, as function of layer thickness qca equivalent average cone resistance
horizontal stress index from dilatometer dynamic cone resistance measured with vibratory
empirical coefficient relating skirt side friction cone
qcn = equivalent average cone resistance
K0 = coefficient of earth pressure at rest ( = a'hJa'vo) cone resistance in vibratory cone
K, = empirical coefficient relating skirt tip resistance to normalized cone resistance
9c cone resistance at depth z
L = length qe effective cone resistance = (qt — u2)
L/D = pile length/pile diameter qn net cone resistance = (q, — crvo)
LI = liquidity index = (w — wp)/(wL — wp) reference cone resistance in Ladanyi's creep
m = dimensionless deformation modulus number equation
m = measured gradient of initial linear dissipation pile unit end resistance
mu = coefficient of volume change corrected cone resistance = qc + (1 - d)u2
6 sin <]>' uniaxial compression strength
M = Camclay constant = -V , slope of the
* 3 - sin <t>' tip bearing capacity of piles
critical state line q,(D) = unit skirt tip resistance at depth D
M = earthquake magnitude unit skirt skin friction at depth D
M = constrained deformation modulus unit wall friction
M = pore pressure gradient corresponding to Q estimated pile bearing capacity
theoretical curve for given probe geometry Sail allowable pile axial load
Mt = compression modulus - over consolidated clays Qb pile end bearing capacity
Mn = compression modulus - normally consolidated total force acting on the cone
clays pile shaft friction capacity
M0 = reference constrained modulus corresponding to Qt = normalized cone resistance = (q, - oDO)la'DO
the in situ vertical effective stress, a'00 Quit = ultimate pile axial capacity
n = creep exponent r = radial distance
n = porosity rn = radius of cavity
XIV SYMBOL LIST

rp = radius of plastic zone an = factor for finding Mn — «„ • qc

rs = resistance number ft = angle of plastification
R = electrical resistance ft = "constant"
RDS ~ static ratio of cone penetration = qcd/qc /? = correction factor
Rf = friction ratio (=fjq t ' 100% or alternatively y' = effective unit weight
/,/?,• 100%) yd = dry unit weight
Ri = initial radius of spherical cavity ys = unit weight of solid particles
Rk = footing shape factor yw = unit weight of water
Rp = radius of plastic zone around spherical cavity yav = average soil unit weight
Ru = ultimate radius of spherical cavity y = shear strain
RR = recompression ratio 6 = settlement
su = undrained shear strength 6 = displacement
sur = remoulded undrained shear strength 6 = rate of settlement
scu = su from triaxial compression test A = change, e.g. ACT
=
su su from direct simple shear test AM = excess pore pressure = u — u0
=
su su from triaxial extension test s = strain
S = settlement ec = reference strain rate in Ladanyi's creep
Sr = degree of saturation equation
5, = sensitivity if = strain rate (see def. of <re/)
t = time £„ = vertical strain
t = vertical pile displacement ez = settlement of loess due to wetting
t$o = time for 50% dissipation of excess pore water K = constants for state parameter
pressure Ac = rate factor
T = time factor Ain = slope of ultimate steady state line in
T = reference time e-lnp' state
r50 = time factor at U = 50% !„ = slope of steady state line
r* = modified time factor H = Poisson's ratio
M = pore water pressure fi = coefficient of variation
u0 = in situ pore pressure o = penetration rate
MI = pore pressure measured on the cone Dg = reference penetration rate in Ladanyi's creep
M2 = pore pressure measured behind cone equation
MS = pore pressure measured behind friction sleeve p = specific resistivity
M, = pore pressure at time t = 0 p = density
u, = pore pressure at time = t pb = bulk resistivity of soil
AM = excess pore water pressure Pf = resistivity of pore fluid
U = normalized excess pore pressure ps = density of solid particles
u = rate of flow y = state parameter
V = voltage a'om = maximum vertical stress
Vs = shear wave velocity a'uc = vertical consolidation stress
w = water content CT,CT' = normal stress (total, effective)
wp = plastic limit a\,a[ = major principal stress (total, effective)
=
WL liquid limit CT2, CT2 = intermediate principal stress (total, effective)
Y = normalizing parameter for shear wave velocity <73,03 = minor principal stress (total, effective)
z = depth <jh, a'h = horizontal stress (total, effective)
=
Az = thickness of sublayer 0A<»Ofco initial horizontal stress (total, effective)
ahc = lateral stress on friction sleeve
"'mean, ^mean = octahedral stress (total, effective)
GREEK
am a'a = vertical stress (total, effective)
ex = angle describing curvature of failure line GOO, GOO ~ overburden stress (total, effective)
a = "constant" OCQ = reference stress in Ladanyi's creep equation
a = cone roughness Oef = stress where "e" denotes the von Mises
a = coefficient converting undrained shear equivalent stress and/denotes failure in
strength to wall friction, qw, or unit skin Ladanyi's creep equation
friction,/ 2 = sum
a,- = factor for finding Mt = ex, • qc T = shear stress
 SYMBOL LIST xv

= average cyclic shear stress INCR = Incremental Loading

cy = cyclic shear stress IRTP = International Reference Test Procedure
= total friction angle ISSMFE = International Society of Soil Mechanics and
= effective friction angle Foundation Engineering
Pmob = mobilized effective friction angle JGED = Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering
Pd = drained friction angle Division
= peak friction angle LCPC = Laboratoire Central des Fonts et Chaussees
<t>u = undrained friction angle LIF = Laser Induced Fluorescence
NAPL = non-aqueous-phase-liquid
NC = Normally Consolidated
ABBREVIATIONS ND = Nuclear Density (Probe)
ASCE = American Society of Civil Engineers NDT = Nuclear Density Test
ASTM = American Society for Testing and Materials NGI = Norwegian Geotechnical Institute
BRE = Building Research Establishment NM = Neutron Moisture (Probe)
CAD = Consolidated Anisotropic Drained OC = Overconsolidated
CAUC = Anisotropic Consolidated Undrained Triaxial OCR = Overconsolidation Ratio
Test Sheared in Compression OED = Oedometer Test
CID = Consolidated Isotropic Drained PPD = Normalized pore pressure
CIU = Consolidated Isotropic Undrained difference = (u\ - M2)/«o
CPM = Cone Pressuremeter PL = Limit pressure
CPT = Cone Penetration Test RCPTU = Piezocone with Resistivity Module
CPTU = Cone Penetration Test with Pore Pressure SBP = Self Boring Pressuremeter
Measurement (Piezocone Test) SCAPS = Site Characterization and Analysis
CRR = Cyclic Resistance Ratio Penetrometer System
CRSC = Constant Rate of Strain Consolidation SCPTU = Seismic CPTU
CSR = Cyclic Stress Ratio SH = strain hardening
DC = Dynamic Compaction SPT = Standard Penetration Test
DSS = Direct Simple Shear SS = strain softening
ECSMFE = European Conference on Soil Mechanics and SSL = Steady State Line
Foundation Engineering TC = Triaxial Compression
ERT = Electrical Resistivity Test TE = Triaxial Extension
ESOPT = European Symposium on Penetration Testing UBC = University of British Columbia
FC = Fines Content UCB = University of California - Berkeley
GSD = Grain Size Distribution UCT = Unconfmed Compression Test
GWT = Ground Water Table USSL = Ultimate Steady (critical) State Line
HIM = High Frequency Impedance Measuring UU = Unconsolidated Undrained
ICSMFE = International Conference of Soil Mechanics UV = Ultra Violet
and Foundation Engineering USSL = ultimate stready (vertical) state line
 CONVERSION FACTORS

The following units have been used in this book:

LENGTH

To convert from To Multiply by

Inches (in) feet 0.083333
microns 25400
millimetres 25.4
centimetres 2.54
metres 0.0254
Feet (ft) inches 12.0
angstrom units 3.048 X 109
microns 304800
millimetres 304.80
centimetres 30.48
metres 0.3048
Metres (m) inches 39.370079
feet 3.2808399
angstrom units 1 X 1010
microns 1 X 106
millimetres 1 X 103
centimetres 1 X 102
 CONVERSION FACTORS xvii

AREA

To convert from To Multiply by

Square metres (m ) square feet 10.76387
square centimetres 1 X 104
square inches 1550.0031
-2
Square feet (ft2) square metres 9.290304 X 10
square centimetres 929.0304
square inches 144
Square centimetres (cm2) square metres 1 X 10~4
square feet 1.076387X10"
square inches 0.1550031
Square inches (in ) square metres 6.4516 X 10~ 4
square feet 6.9444 X 10~ 3
square centimetres 6.4516

VOLUME

To convert from To Multiply by

Cubic centimetres (cm ) cubic metres 1 X 10~ 6
cubic feet 3.53 14667 X KT5
cubic inches 0.061023744
Cubic metres (m ) cubic feet 35.314667
cubic centimetres 1 X 106
cubic inches 61023.74
Cubic inches (in ) cubic metres 1. 6387064 X KT 5
4
cubic feet 5.7870370 X io-
cubic centimetres 16.387064
Cubic feet (ft3) cubic metres 0.028316847
cubic centimetres 28316.847
cubic inches 1728
xviii CONVERSION FACTORS

FORCE

To convert from To Multiply by

Pounds (avdp) (Ib) grams 453.59243
kilograms 0.45359243
tons (long) 4.464286 X 10~4
tons (short) 5 X 10~ 4
kips 1 X 10~ 3
tons (metric) 4.5359243 X 10~ 4
newtons 4.44822
Kips pounds 1000
tons (short) 0.500
kilograms 453.59243
tons (metric) 0.45359243
Tons (short) (T) kilograms 907.18474
pounds 2000
kips 2
tons (metric) 0.907185
Kilograms (kg) grams 1000
pounds 2.2046223
tons (long) 9.8420653 X 10~4
tons (short) 11.023113 X 1 0 ~ 4
kips 2.2046223 X 10~ 3
tons (metric) 0.001
newtons 9.806650
Tons (metric) (t) grams 1 X 106
kilograms 1000
pounds 2204.6223
kips 2.2046223
tons (short) 1.1023112
kilonewtons 9.806650
Kilonewtons (kN) pounds 224.81
tons (short) 0.1124
kips 0.22481
tons (metric) 0.102
kilograms 101.97
 CONVERSION FACTORS XIX

STRESS AND PRESSURE

To convert from To Multiply by

Pounds/square foot (lb/ft2) pounds/square inch 0.0069445
kips/square foot 1 X10~3
kilograms/square centimetre 0.000488243
tons/square metre 0.004882
-4
atmospheres 4.72541 X 10
kilonewtons/square metre (kilopascals) 0.04788
Pounds/square inch (lb/in2) pounds/square foot 144
kips/square foot 0.144
kilograms/square centimetre 0.070307
tons/square metre 0.70307
atmospheres 0.068046
kilonewtons/square metre 6.895
Tons (short)/square foot (T/ft ) atmospheres 0.945082
kilograms/square metre 9764.86
tons (metric)/square metre 9.76487
pounds/square inch 13.8888
pounds/square foot 2000
kips/square foot 2.0
kilonewtons/square metre 95.76
Kips/square foot (ksf) pounds/square inch 6.94445
pounds/square foot 1000
tons (short)/square foot 0.5000
kilograms/square centimetre 0.488244
tons (metric)/square metre 4.88244
kilonewtons/square metre 47.88
Kilograms/square centimetre (kg/cm ) pounds/square inch 14.223
pounds/square foot 2048.1614
feet of water (4°C) 32.8093
kips/square foot 2.0481614
tons/square metre 10
atmospheres 0.96784
kilonewtons/square metre 98.067
Tons (metric)/square metre (t/m2) kilograms/square centimetre 0.10
pounds/square foot 204.81614
kips/square foot 0.20481614
tons (short)/square foot 0.102408
kilonewtons/square metre 9.806650
Atmospheres bars 1.0133
kilograms/square centimetre 1.03323
grams/square centimetre 1033.23
kilograms/square metre 10332.3
tons (metric)/square metre 10.3323
pounds/square foot 2116.22
pounds/square inch 14.696
tons (short) square foot 1.0581
kilonewtons/square metre 101.325
XX CONVERSION FACTORS

Kilonewtons/square metre (kPa) pounds/square foot 20.886

pounds/square inch 0.145
tons (short)/square foot 0.01044
metres of water 0.1020
kips/square foot 0.02089
kilograms/square centimetre 0.01020
tons (Metric)/square metre 0.1020
atmospheres 0.00987

UNIT WEIGHT

To convert from To Multiply by

Grams/cubic centimetre (g/cm ) tons (metric)/cubic metre 1.00
kilograms/cubic metre 1000.00
pounds/cubic inch 0.036127292
pounds/cubic foot 62.427961
kilonewtons/cubic metre 9.8039
Tons (metric)/cubic metre (t/m3) grams/cubic centimetre 1.00
kilograms/cubic metre 1000.00
pounds/cubic inch 0.036127292
pounds/cubic foot 62.427961
kilonewtons/cubic metre 9.8039
Kilograms/cubic metre (kg/m3) grams/cubic centimetre 0.001
tons (metric)/cubic metre 0.001
-5
pounds/cubic inch 3.6127292 X 10
pounds/cubic foot 0.062427961
kilonewtons/cubic metre 9.80584 X 101-3
Pounds/cubic inch (Ib/in ) grams/cubic centimetre 27.679905
tons (metric)/cubic metre 27.679905
kilograms/cubic metre 27679.905
pounds/cubic foot 1728
kilonewtons/cubic metre 271.37
Pounds/cubic foot (Ib/ft) grams/cubic centimetre 0.016018463
tons (metric)/cubic metre 0.016018463
kilograms/cubic metre 16.018463
pounds/cubic inch 5.78703704 X 10
kilonewtons/cubic metre 0.157099
Kilonewtons/cubic metre (kN/m3) grams/cubic centimetre 0.1020
tons (metric)/cubic metre 0.1020
kilograms/cubic metre 101.98
pounds/cubic inch 0.003685
pounds/cubic foot 6.3654
 CONVERSION FACTORS xxi

VELOCITY

To convert from To Multiply by

Centimetres/second microns/second 10,000
metres/minute 0.600
feet/minute 1,9685
miles/hour 0.022369
feet/year 1034643.6
kilometre/hour 0.036
Microns/second centimetres/second 0.0001
metres/minute 0.000060
feet/minute 0.00019685
miles/hour 0.0000022369
feet/year 103.46436
Feet/minute centimetres/second 0.508001
microns/second 5080.01
metres/minute 0.3048
miles/hour 0.01136363
feet/year 525600
Feet/year microns/second 0.009665164
centimetres/second 0.0000009665164
metres/minute 5.79882 X 10~ 7
feet/minute 1.9025 X 10~ 6
miles/hour 2.16203 X 10~ 8

COEFFICIENT OF CONSOLIDATION

To convert from To Multiply by

1. Square centimetres/second square centimetres/month 2.6280 X 106
square centimetres/year 3.1536 X 107
square metres/month 2.6280 X 102
square metres/year 3.1536 X 103
square inches/second 0.155
square inches/month 4.1516 X 105
square inches/year 4.8881 X 106
square feet/month 2.882998 X 103
square feet/year 3.39447 x 104
2. Square inches/second square inches/month 2.6280 X 106
square inches/year 3.1536X10 7
square feet/month 1.8250X10 4
square feet/year 2.1900 X 105
square centimetres/second 6.4516
square centimetres/month 1.6955 X 107
square centimetres/year 2.0346 X 108
square metres/month 1.6955 X 103
square metres/year 2.0346 X 104
 GLOSSARY

This glossary contains the most frequently used terms Corrected cone resistance, qt
related to CPT/CPTU. They are presented in alphabetical The cone resistance qc corrected for pore water pressure
order. The exact definitions of these and a large number of effects.
other terms are given in the list of symbols. Each term is also
defined in full the first time it appears in the text.
Corrected sleeve friction, ft
The sleeve friction corrected for pore water pressure effects
CRT
on the ends of the friction sleeve.
Cone Penetration Test.
Data acquisition system
CPTU The system used to measure and record the measurements
Cone Penetration Test with pore water pressure measure- made by the cone penetrometer.
ment - apiezocone test.
Dissipation test
Cone A test when the decay of the pore water pressure is mon-
itored during a pause in penetration.
The part of the Cone penetrometer on which the end bearing
is developed.
Filter element
Cone penetrometer The porous element inserted into the cone penetrometer to
allow transmission of the pore water pressure to the pore
The assembly containing the cone, friction sleeve, any other pressure sensor, while maintaining the correct profile of the
sensors and measuring systems, as well as the connections to cone penetrometer.
tbepush rods.
Friction ratio, R,
Cone resistance, qc The ratio, expressed as a percentage, of the sleeve friction,
The total force acting on the cone, Qc, divided by the fs, to the cone resistance, qc, both measured at the same
projected area of the cone, Ac\ (qc = QJAC). depth; [Rf=(f,/qc)-lW\.
 GLOSSARY xxiii

Friction reducer Piezocone

A local enlargement on the push-rod surface, placed at a
distance above the cone penetrometer, and provided to
reduce the friction on the push rods.
Friction sleeve
The section of the cone penetrometer upon which the sleeve
friction is measured.
Normalized cone resistance, Q c , or Qt
The cone resistance expressed in a non dimensional form
and taking account of stress changes in situ, Qc = (qc - aDO)l
a'vo, or when the corrected cone resistance is used
Q, = (q, - OoJ/a'ao . Where aao and a'ao are the total and
effective vertical stress respectively.
Net cone resistance qn
The corrected cone resistance minus the vertical total stress.
Net pore pressure, Au
The measured pore pressure less the equilibrium pore
pressure. Aw = u — u0 .
Normalized friction ratio, Fr
The sleeve friction normalized by the net cone resistance.
A cone penetrometer containing a pore pressure sensor.
Pore pressure, u
The pore pressure generated during penetration and meas-
ured by a pore pressure sensor. u\ when measured on the
cone, u2 when measured just behind the cone and M3 when
measured just behind the friction sleeve.
Pore pressure ratio, Bq
The net pore pressure normalized with respect to the net
cone resistance.
Push rods
The thick-walled rubes or rods used for advancing the cone
penetrometer.
Thrust machine (rig)
The equipment which pushes the cone penetrometer and
rods into the ground.
Sleeve friction, fs
The total frictional force acting on the friction sleeve, Fs,
divided by its surface area, As.fs = F,/AS.
 NTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The purpose of this book is to provide guidance on the
specification, performance, use and interpretation of the
Electric Cone Penetration Test (CPT), and in particular the
Cone Penetration Test with pore pressure measurement
(CPTU) commonly referred to as the "piezocone test". The
authors provide their recommended guidelines to interpret a
full range of geotechnical parameters from cone penetration
data. The use of these data in geotechnical design is complex
and often project specific. However, some design guidelines
have been given (Chapter 6) to assist in their use. Some
relevant examples and case histories are given throughout
the text.
This book is applicable primarily to standard electronic
cones with a 60 degree apex angle and a diameter of
35.7 mm (10 cm2 cross-sectional area). Details are given in
Chapter 2. Details of pushing equipment are also given in
Chapter 2, while details on specification and performance
are given in Chapters 3 and 4.
Recommendations on mapping and stratigraphy, material
identification and evaluation of geotechnical parameters are
given in Chapter 5, and information on direct applications
for geotechnical design are given in Chapter 6.
Information on additional sensors that have been added to
CPT systems is included in Chapter 7, while environmental
applications of cone penetrometer technology are briefly
described in Chapter 8.
Summaries are provided at the end of some of the sections
in Chapter 5 on interpretation. These are intended to guide
the user, and should be used in conjunction with the main
text.
To the conscientious reader the book will appear to have
some areas of repetition. This has been done purposely to
ensure that readers who only read certain sections are made
aware of the important points.
1.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF CPT AND CPTU
In the Cone Penetration Test (CPT), a cone on the end of a
series of rods is pushed into the ground at a constant rate and
continuous or intermittent measurements are made of the
resistance to penetration of the cone. Measurements are also
made of either the combined resistance to penetration of the
cone and outer surface of a sleeve or the resistance of a
surface sleeve. Figure 1.1 illustrates the main terminology
regarding cone penetrometers.
The total force acting on the cone, Qc, divided by
the projected area of the cone, Ac, produces the cone
resistance, qc. The total force acting on the friction sleeve,
Fs, divided by the surface area of the friction sleeve As,
produces the sleeve friction, f s . In the piezocone
penetrometer, pore pressure is measured typically at one,
two or three locations as shown in Figure 1.1. These pore
pressures are known as: on the cone (MI), behind the cone
(u-i) and behind the friction sleeve (u^). Figure 2.1 includes
more detailed terminology for the piezocone penetrometer.
Probing with rods through weak ground to locate a firmer
 INTRODUCTION
Pore pressure
filter location
Friction Cone
sleeve penetrometer
Cone
Figure 1.1 Terminology for cone penetrometers.
stratum has been practised since about 1917. It was in the
Netherlands in about 1932 that the CPT was introduced in a
form recognizable today. The method has earlier been
referred to as the static penetration test, quasi-static penetra-
tion test and Dutch sounding test.
Existing CPT systems can be divided into three main
groups: mechanical cone penetrometers, electric cone
penetrometers and piezocone penetrometers. A cone
penetrometer with a 10 cm base area cone with an apex
angle of 60 degrees is accepted as the reference and has been
specified in the International Reference Test Procedure
(ISSMFE, 1989), a copy of which is given in Appendix A.
1.3 ROLE OF CPT IN SITE INVESTIGATION
The objective of any subsurface exploration programme is to
determine the following:
• nature and sequence of the subsurface strata (geological
regime)
• groundwater conditions (hydrogeological regime)
• physical and mechanical properties of the subsurface
strata.
For geo-environmental site investigations where contami-
nants are possible, the above objectives have the additional
requirement to determine:
• distribution and composition of contaminants.
The above requirements are a function of the proposed
project and the associated risks. The variety in geological
conditions and range in project requirements make the
subject complex. There are many techniques available to
meet the objectives of a site investigation and these include
both field and laboratory testing. Laboratory tests include
those that test elements of the ground, such as triaxial tests
and those that test prototype models, such as centrifuge tests.
Field tests include drilling, sampling, in situ testing, full-
scale testing and geophysical tests. An ideal site investiga-
tion programme should include a mix of field and laboratory
tests.
Table 1.1 presents a partial list of the major in situ tests
and their perceived applicability for use in different ground
conditions. Based on current experience, grades have been
assigned which represent qualitative evaluations of the con-
fidence levels assessed for each method. The perceived
applicabilities are approximate and given only as a guide.
Details of soil type and equipment type can influence the
perceived applicability. The ground type provides a guide to
the range of ground conditions applicable for the test. Most
of the main in situ tests are applicable to soils with an
average grain size finer than gravel size. Only a small
number of tests can be carried out in hard ground conditions,
such as gravel, glacial till, soft and hard rock. These methods
generally require a pre-bored hole or non-destructive seis-
mic techniques. However, high capacity CPT equipment has
increased the range of applicable ground conditions.
It is clear from Table 1.1 that the CPT, piezocone (CPTU)
and seismic CPTU (SCPTU - see section 7.3 for a descrip-
tion) have the highest applicability for soils. The pressure-
meter also has good applicability and the reader is
encouraged to refer to B.G. Clark's book, Pressuremeters in
Geotechnical Design. However, the CPTU/SCPTU provide
a near continuous profile and are much more cost-effective.
The CPT has three main applications in the site investiga-
tion process:
1. to determine sub-surface stratigraphy and identify mate-
rials present,
2. to estimate geotechnical parameters, and,
3. to provide results for direct geotechnical design.
For the above applications the CPT may be supplemented by
borings or other tests, either in situ or in the laboratory. The
CPT can provide guidance on the nature of such additional
tests and helps to determine critical areas or strata in which
in situ testing or sampling should be undertaken.
Where the geology is uniform and well understood and
where predictions based on CPT results have been locally
verified and correlated with structure performance, the CPT
can be used alone for design. However, even in these
circumstances the CPT should be accompanied by bore-
holes, sampling and testing for one or more of the following
reasons:
• to clarify identification of soil type
• to verify local correlations
• to provide complementary information where interpreta-
tion of CPT data is difficult due to partial drainage
conditions or problem soils
• to evaluate the effects of (future) changes in soil loading
which are not recorded by the CPT.
In soft soils, cone penetration from ground level to depths in
excess of 100 metres may be achieved provided verticality is
maintained. Gravel layers and boulders, heavily cemented
Table 1.1 The applicability and usefulness of in situ tests

Soil Parameters Ground Type

Soil Hard Soft

Group Device type Profile u *<!>' Su ID mv c. k G0 a* OCR a-s rock rock Gravel Sand Silt Clay Peat

Penetrometers Dynamic C B - C C C c C C B A B B B
Mechanical B A/B - C C B C c C C C C A A A A
Electric (CPT) B A - C B A/B C B B/C B C C A A A A
Piezocone (CPTU) A A A B B A/B B A/B B B B/C B C c A A A A
Seismic (SCPT/SCPTU) A A A B A/B A/B B A/B B A B B B c A A A A
Flat dilatometer (DMT) B A C B B C B B B B C C c A A A A
Standard penetration test (SPT) A B - C C B C C C B A A A A
Resistivity probe B B - B C A C - - - - - - - C A A A A
Pressuremeters Pre-bored (PBP) B B - C B C B C — B C C C A A B B B A B
Self boring (SBP) B B A1 B B B B A1 B A2 A/B B A/B2 - B B B A B
Full displacement (FDP) B B - C B C C C - A2 C C C - C B B A A
Others Vane B C - - A - - _ - - - B/C B - - - - - A B
Plate load C - - C B B B C C A C B B B A B B A A A
Screw plate C c
v^ p
\_< B B B c C A c B - - - A A A A
Borehole permeability C — A — - - - B A - - - - A A A A A A B
Hydraulic fracture - B - - - - C C - B - - B B - C A C
Crosshole/downhole/ C C - - - - - - A - B - A A A A A A A
surface seismic

Applicability: A = high; B = moderate; C = low; - = none.

*^' = Will depend on soil type; ' = Only when pore pressure sensor fitted; = Only when displacement sensor fitted.
Soil parameter definitions: u = in situ static pore pressure; </>' = effective internal friction angle; su = undrained shear strength; mv = constrained modulus; cr = coefficient of consolidation; k = coefficient
of permeability; G0 = shear modulus at small strains; <jh = horizontal stress; OCR = overconsolidation ratio; <j-s = stress-strain relationship; ID = density index.
 INTRODUCTION

zones and dense sand layers can restrict the penetration along the inner rod. The cone was first pushed down 150 mm
severely and deflect and damage cones and rods, especially (maximum stroke) and then the outer pipe was pushed down
if the overlying soils are very soft and allow rod buckling. until it reached the cone tip. Then the "casing" and the inner
Testing from the bottom of a borehole can overcome these rods were pushed down together until the next level was
problems, provided support is given to the push rods. In this reached and cone resistance could be measured again.
manner CPT/CPTU data can be obtained to greater depths. Several Dutch and Belgian engineers used the early
The CPT/CPTU has three main advantages over the version of the cone penetration test for evaluating pile
traditional combination of borings, sampling and other test- bearing capacity (e.g. Buisman, 1935; Huizinga, 1942; de
ing. It provides: Beer, 1945; Plantema, 1948).
1. continuous or near continuous data Vermeiden (1948) and Plantema (1948) improved the
2. repeatable and reliable penetration data original Dutch cone test by adding a conical part just above
3. cost savings. the cone. The geometry proposed by Vermeiden and which
has been used since is shown in Figure 1.4. The purpose of
In environmental applications, cone penetration technology this new geometry was to prevent soil from entering the gap
also prevents direct human contact with potentially contami- between the casing and the rods.
nated material. Begemann (1953,1969) significantly improved the Dutch
static cone penetration test by adding an "adhesion jacket"
1.4 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND behind the cone (Figure 1.5). Using this new device the local
skin friction could be measured in addition to the cone
Comprehensive reviews of the history of penetration testing resistance. Measurements were made every 0.2 m and for
in general have been given by Sanglerat (1972) and Broms special purposes the interval could be decreased to 0.1 m.
and Flodin (1988). The method was patented in 1953. Begemann (1965) was
also the first to propose that the friction ratio (sleeve friction/
1.4.1 Mechanical cone penetrometers cone resistance) could be used to classify soil layers in terms
of soil type (Figure 1.6).
The first Dutch cone penetrometer tests were made in 1932
by P. Barentsen, an engineer at the Rijkwaterstaat (Depart-
ment of Public Works) in Holland. A gas pipe of 19 mm
inner diameter was used; inside this a 15 mm steel rod could
move freely up and down. A cone tip was attached to the
steel rod. Both the outer pipe and the inner rod with the
10 cm2 cone with a 60° apex angle (Figure 1.2), were pushed
down by hand (Barentsen, 1936). Barentsen corrected the
measured cone resistance by subtracting the weight of the
inner rod. The maximum penetration depth was 10-12
metres and the penetration resistance was read on a
manometer.
The first director of Delft Soil Mechanics Laboratory,
T.K. Huizinga designed the first manually operated 10 tonne
cone penetration rig with which the first tests were carried
out in 1935 (de Graaf and Vermeiden, 1988). A photograph
of this system is shown in Figure 1.3. This device also used
an outer 19 mm "casing" which eliminated the skin friction
T
35
^
N \
\
\
\
^s

60U

_ 35
Figure 1.3 Dutch cone penetrometer system used in the 1940s
Figure 1.2 Old type Dutch cone (from Sanglerat, 1972). (courtesy of Delft Geotechnics).
 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

In 50
Q_
*5 Percentage of

r o 40 fines <16|i Sand and gravel

O" o
g 30 Silty sand
c O
15
25
35 .
465 ^Clay
95
100,

0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

Skin friction, f_(MPa)
Figure 1.6 Soil classification from cone resistance and sleeve
friction readings (from Begemann, 1965).

As outlined by Broms and Flodin (1988) and Sanglerat

(1972), several other mechanical cone penetrometers with
B B
somewhat different features were developed in other
Figure 1.4 Dutch cone with conical mantle (from Sanglerat, countries such as Belgium, Sweden, Germany, France,
1972). Russia and so on.

1 2
Figure 1.5 Begemann type cone with friction sleeve (from Sanglerat, 1972).
 INTRODUCTION
Most mechanical cone penetrometers measure the force
needed to press down the inner rod with a manometer at
ground level.
Sanglerat (1972) also reported the development by Parez
of a cone penetrometer which consisted of a conical point
connected to the piston of a small hydraulic jack at the base
of the rod. An oil pressure line transmitted the pressure to
manometers located at the ground surface allowing con-
tinuous readings of cone resistance. The Parez cone pen-
etrometers were available in three sizes: diameters of 45, 75
and 110 mm respectively.
The Centre Experimental du Batiment et des Travaux
Publics (CEBTP) in France also built hydraulic penet-
rometers in 1966 (Sanglerat, 1972). The cone resistance was
measured hydraulically with manometers at the ground
surface. The diameter of these penetrometers varied from
100 mm to 320 mm. According to Sanglerat, CEBTP also
developed a static-dynamic penetrometer.
Mechanical cone penetrometers are still widely used
because of their low cost, simplicity and robustness. In
rather homogeneous competent soils, without sharp varia-
tions in cone resistance, mechanical cone data can be
adequate, provided the equipment is properly maintained
and the operator has the required experience. Nevertheless,
the quality of the data remains somewhat operator depend-
ent. In soft soils, the accuracy of the results can sometimes
be inadequate for a quantitative analysis of the soil proper-
ties. In highly stratified materials even a satisfactory qual-
itative interpretation may be impossible.
1.4.2 Electric cone penetrometers
According to Broms and Flodin (1988) the very first electric
cone penetrometer was probably developed at the Deutsche
Forschungsgesellschaft fur Bodenmechanik (Degebo) in
Berlin during the Second World War.
The signals were transmitted to the ground surface
through a cable inside the hollow penetrometer rods. Muhs
(1978) reviewed the main improvements of the new pen-
1 Conical point (10 cm2)
2 Load cell
3 Strain gauges
4 Friction sleeve
Figure 1.7 The Fugro electrical friction cone (after de Ruiter, 1971).
etrometer relative to mechanical cone penetrometers,
namely:
1. The elimination of possible erroneous interpretation of
test results due to friction between inner rods and the
outer tubes.
2. A continuous testing with a continuous rate of penetra-
tion without the need for alternative movements of
different parts of the penetrometer tip and no possibility
for undesirable soil movements influencing the cone
resistance.
3. The simpler and more reliable electrical measurement of
the cone resistance with the possibility for continuous
readings and easy recording of the results.
Another reason for using electrical measurement systems is
that very sensitive load cells can be used and thereby much
more accurate readings can be obtained in very soft soils.
The first electrical cone penetrometer in Holland, called
the Rotterdam cone, was developed and patented, in 1948 by
the municipal engineer Bakker.
Delft Soil Mechanics Laboratory (DSML) had worked
with electric cone penetrometers since 1949 and in 1957
produced the first electrical cone penetrometer where the
local side friction could also be measured separately (Vlas-
blom, 1985).
To exploit all the experience accumulated with the
mechanical cone, DSML carried out a series of comparative
studies. They also experimented with the geometry of the
electrical cone attempting to get the same results as from the
mechanical cone (Heijnen, 1973; Vlasblom, 1985).
In 1965 an electric cone was developed by Fugro in
co-operation with the Dutch State Research Institute (TNO),
(see de Ruiter, 1971). Figure 1.7 shows a diagram of the
early Fugro electric friction cone penetrometer. The shape
and dimensions of this cone formed the basis for the
International Reference Test Procedure (ISSMFE, 1977,
1989).
De Ruiter (1971) also reported the use of an electrical
inclinometer which enabled deviations from vertical during
a test to be monitored.
5 Adjustment ring
6 Waterproof bushing
7 Cable
8 Connection with rods
 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

A large number of different electric cone penetrometers Protective

have now been developed in many countries all over the polyethylene
world. However, the mechanical cone penetrometer is still tubing
used in some countries. Square
Chapter 2 describes some of the different electrical load A-rod Weld
thread
cell systems that are being used for recording cone resist-
ance and side friction.
Ferrule
1.4.3 The piezocone
Two important papers at the first European Conference on Transducer
Penetration Testing (ESOPT-1) in Stockholm in 1974 pre- electrical
sented examples of pore pressures measured during penetra- cable
tion. A conventional electrical piezometer, developed by the
Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI), was used by Janbu Pressure
and Senneset (1974) to measure pore pressures during transducer
penetration adjacent to CPT profiles. Schmertmann (1974) Transducer
also pushed in a piezometer probe and measured penetration locknut
O-ring seals
pore pressures.
Schmertmann recognized the importance of pore water
pressure measurement for the interpretation of CPT data.
Both Janbu and Senneset and Schmertmann showed the
results of the changes in pore pressures during a pause in the
penetration.
Almost simultaneously Torstensson (1975) in Sweden
and Wissa et al. (1975) in the USA developed electric
piezometer probes with the special purpose of measuring Stainless steel O-ring seals
pore water pressures during penetration and pauses in pene- porous tip
tration. The two probes were of similar geometry. The probe
used by Wissa et al. is reproduced in Figure 1.8. Results
from these probes showed the potential for detecting thin Figure 1.8 The Wissa piezometer probe (from Wissa et al. 1975).
permeable layers embedded in clay.
Schmertmann (1978) used the Wissa type piezometer probe al., 1981; Tumay et al., 1981; Campanella and Robertson,
and a 60° cone with filter at the tip in a study of the evaluation 1981).
of liquefaction potential of sands. Baligh etal. (1980) also did Of the piezocones referred to above, some had filters on
tests with the Wissa probe in addition to tests with 60° cones the very tip or midway on the cone face and some on the
with various filter locations. However, each cone recorded cylindrical part just behind the cone tip. In practice most
only pore water pressure and from only one sensing filter tests were done with the filter on the cone face. Gradually the
element. Parallel tests were performed with the electric cone practice has changed so that the recommended position is
penetrometers. Baligh et al. suggested that the pore water close behind the cone at location u2 (ISSMFE, 1989;
pressure data, when combined with the CPT data, could Figure 1.1).
provide a promising method for soil identification and an A large number of piezocones have been developed in
estimate of overconsolidation in a clay deposit. The first recent years. For practical projects pore pressures are nor-
publication of combined measurement of cone resistance and mally measured at one location; most frequently behind the
pore pressure in the same probe was given by Roy et al. cone. For research and special projects, piezocones with two
(1980). They did tests in sensitive Canadian clays, to study the or three filter positions have been developed. Bayne and
pattern of pore water pressure at or above the cone tip using Tjelta (1987) and Zuidberg et al. (1987) reported the devel-
detachable tips to vary the position of the filter element. opment of the triple element piezocones.
At the 1981 ASCE National Convention in St. Louis, With the measurements of pore water pressures it became
Missouri, a session was organized on Cone Penetration apparent that it was necessary to correct cone resistance for
Testing and Experience. Several authors presented results of pore water pressure effects, details of which are given in
piezocone tests that could measure penetration pore pressure Chapter3.
simultaneously with cone resistance and sleeve friction (de A trend is also to include other sensors in the piezocone;
Ruiter, 1981; Muromachi, 1981; Baligh et al., 1981; Jones et details are given in Chapter 7.
 EQUIPMENT AND
PROCEDURES
The CPT equipment consists of a cone penetrometer, push-
ing equipment and data acquisition systems. The following
sections describe each of these. Details on test procedure,
calibrations and maintenance are also included in this chap-
ter. It is recommended that whenever possible equipment,
procedures and terminology should follow, as a minimum
requirement, the International Reference Test Procedure
(IRTP) issued by the International Society of Soil Mechan-
ics and Foundation Engineering (ISSMFE, 1989). A copy is
included in Appendix A. However, it may be appropriate,
under certain circumstances (such as in soft clays or for
accurate determination of soil parameters) to set stricter
requirements than those in the IRTP, and an example of a
specification of this type is given in Appendix B.
2.1 CONE PENETROMETER AND PIEZOCONE
The reference test equipment consists of a 60° cone, with
10 cm2 base area and a 150 cm2 friction sleeve located above
the cone. However, 15 cm2 cone penetrometers are increas-
ingly being used, especially when additional sensors are
incorporated. Miniature cone penetrometers are also now
being used both for research and consulting projects. Com-
ments on possible scale effects are given in section 5.8.1.
The position of the filter for measurement of pore pressure
is not standardized but the International Reference Test
Procedure suggests behind the cone (MI) as the preferred
location (Figure 1.1). Other locations are on the cone (MI) or
behind the friction sleeve (M3). Piezocones which measure
pore water pressure at two or three locations are denoted
dual element or triple element piezocones, respectively. The
measurement of reliable pore water pressure is not easy and
requires greater care in instrument preparation than that for
standard friction cone CPT testing.
Cone resistance, qc, and sleeve friction, fs, are usually
derived from measurements on electrical strain gauge load
cells. Different arrangements are used by different
manufacturers and Figure 2.1 illustrates the three main
design types. In Figure 2.la cone resistance and sleeve
friction are measured by two independent load cells both in
compression. In Figure 2.1b the sleeve friction compressive
load cell of Figure 2.la is replaced by one in tension. In
Figure 2.1c the sleeve friction load cell, in compression,
records the summation of the loads from both the cone
resistance and sleeve friction, the sleeve friction being
obtained from the difference in load between the friction and
cone resistance load cells; this cone is often referred to as the
"Subtraction Cone". The main advantage of this design is
the overall robustness of the penetrometer (Schaap and
Zuidberg, 1982). In early subtraction cones, problems were
encountered in the accuracy of the friction sleeve measure-
ment with this arrangement. However, recent designs and
improvements in manufacturing details have led to
improved accuracy in the measurement of the sleeve fric-
tion. Dual load cell cones have been designed to cover two
ranges of cone resistance to achieve improved sensitivity
and accuracy (section 2.7).
 CONE PENETROMETER AND PIEZOCONE
Sleeve load cell
Point load cell
overload
protection device
Cone load cell
a
Figure 2.1 Designs of cone penetrometers. (a) Cone resistance and sleeve friction load cells in compression, (b) Cone resistance load cell
in compression and sleeve friction load cell in tension, (c) Subtraction type cone penetrometer.
All current CPT/CPTU devices include seals and/or
O-rings in order to stop the ingress of both soil and water
into the body of the device during testing. Great care must be
given to the design of these so that they work effectively
without hindering the ease of movement of the mechanical
parts with resultant detrimental effects on the calibration
performance of the CPT/CPTU. Figure 2.2 shows an exam-
ple of the position of soil and water seals for a piezocone
penetrometer. Also included in the figure is the detailed
terminology for a piezocone.
Measuring pore pressures during cone penetration
requires careful consideration of probe design, choice and
location of the porous element and probe saturation. For a
high frequency response (that is, a fast response time), the
pore pressure measurement system must have a small fluid-
filled cavity, low compressibility and viscosity of the fluid, a
high permeability of the porous filter, a large area to wall
thickness ratio of the filter (Smits, 1982) and a rigid or low
compliance pressure transducer. To measure penetration
pore water pressures rather than filter compression effects,
the filter should be rigid. However, to maintain saturation,
the filter should have a high air entry resistance, which
requires a finely graded filter and/or high viscosity of the
fluid. A balance is required between a high permeability of
the porous filter to maintain a fast response time and a low
permeability to have a high air entry resistance to maintain
saturation. Clearly, not all these requirements can be
combined.
An example of a piezocone design with pore water pressure
measurement on the cone is shown in Figure 2.2. In Figure 2.3
two possible locations for the u2 filter are shown, namely:
Sleeve load cell
Cone + sleeve
load cell
Cone load cell
Thread
Cone load cell
Soil seal
(1) in the extension above the base of the cone and forming
part of the cone, that is, friction on the filter is included
as part of the measured cone resistance;
(2) in the gap between the cone and the sleeve.
For correction of the cone resistance for pore water pressure
effects (section 3.1.1) the position (2) above would be the
most appropriate. However, there are potential problems
with this location, since it is difficult to saturate this part
fully and to ensure a stiff system. Also with this position, the
filter must be loose in its housing to allow straining of the
two load cells, although it must be realized that straining of
the load cells will cause a variation in the volume of
saturation fluid. In a cone design with the (2) position of the
filter (in the gap) the user should be aware that the potential
for a sluggish pore water pressure response is greater than if
the (1) position were used. The requirements for using a stiff
cone (that is, minimizing movement between cone and
friction sleeve) and very careful saturation should always be
emphasized if using the (2) filter location.
The filter can be made from the following materials;
porous plastic, ceramic, or sintered stainless steel. Its func-
tion is to allow rapid movements of the extremely small
volumes of water needed to activate the pressure sensor
while preventing soil ingress or blockage. Machining during
manufacture and abrasion during penetration through dense
sand tends to close off the openings in a stainless filter. A
ceramic filter does not usually survive penetration through
dense sands. Porous polypropylene, a tough hard plastic,
usually survives in dense sands and gravelly soils, showing
only minor wear.
 10 EQUIPMENT AND PROCEDURES

Cone penetrometers with other sensors have been 2.2 PUSHING EQUIPMENT
designed and details are given in Chapter 7. The most
commonly included additional sensor is an inclinometer to The pushing equipment consists of push rods, a thrust
measure the deviation of the probe from the vertical. For mechanism and a reaction system.
deep tests, a small inclination may cause significant errors in
the depth measurements (section 2.3.2). 2.2.1 On land

s—•
NX
V.
\ The rigs used for pushing the penetrometer normally consist
of hydraulic jacking and reaction systems. They are usually
•
specially built for this purpose, but sometimes the push-
Shaft down of an anchored drill rig is used. The thrust capacity
needed for cone testing generally varies between 10 and 20
tonnes (100 and 200 kN), although five- and two-tonne
capacities (50 kN and 20 kN) are also common for use in

E
Push rod soft soils. The maximum allowable thrust on the standard
Gap between friction -/ 1
sleeve and shaft
— connector 35.7 mm diameter high-tensile steel push rods is 20 tonnes
: «- Soil seal (200 kN). Exceeding that load can result in damage and/or
Electric cable for buckling of the test rods, either in the rig or in the soft upper
signal transmission layers of the soil.
Water seal Land-based rigs are often mounted in heavy duty trucks

I
- </ ^
^

^~
— Friction sleeve
sensor
that are ballasted to a total deadweight of around 15 tonnes
(150kN) or more. Screw anchors can be used to develop
extra reaction. The power for the hydraulic jacking system is

X?
Friction sleeve
— inclinometer

I /
/
/
X/V
/
/
^
7 s
— Friction sleeve

— Cone sensor
/ y" s
Gap between friction
sleeve and cone
— Water seal
Cylindrical extension!
above base of cone ^
1
^
$f/ ^ *- Soil seal
/tx^
X
XT/
/K\\
— Pressure sensor

Y^ — Cone
\erat^_ A
&•- — Filter
Face of cone

Apex of cone If
F gUre 2 Typical CPT lruck (c Urtesy of Fu ro Ltd
Figure 2.2 Detailed terminology and design features for a piezo- ' ° 8 >'
cone penetrometer (after Zuidberg, 1988).

(1) (2)
Filter

y////77/

Filter as part of cylindrical Filter in gap between

part included in q c sleeve and cone
Figure 2.3 Two different positions of u2 filter. Figure 2.4(b) Typical CPT truck (courtesy of Cone Tec Ltd).