Sills, G. C. & Hird, C. C. (2005). Géotechnique 55, No.
8, 597–602
Coefficient of consolidation from piezocone measurements
G. C. SILLS* and C. C. HIRD†
Pore pressure dissipation tests were carried out employ-
ing two miniature piezocones, with areas of 1 cm2 and
5 cm2 , in a bed of reconstituted kaolin. By using indepen-
dently determined values of the coefficient of consolida-
tion, the results were interpreted to derive appropriate
values of rigidity index for use with the theory of Teh &
Houlsby. In accordance with the theory, different filter
positions on a piezocone (tip, face and shoulder) were not
found to require different values of rigidity index. How-
ever, the importance of allowing for initial load relaxation
at the commencement of the dissipation test was demon-
strated, and there appeared to be a systematic effect of
piezocone size.
KEYWORDS: clays; consolidation; in situ testing; site investi-
gation
INTRODUCTION
The piezocone has developed into the most widely used and,
arguably, the most useful probing tool for ground investiga-
tion. Not only does it provide information about soil type
and stratification, but it can also be used to determine a
range of in situ soil properties (Lunne et al., 1997). For
clays, this includes the determination of the coefficient of
consolidation for horizontal water flow, ch , obtained from
analysis of the dissipation of transient pore pressures set up
during the driving of the piezocone. It is the interpretation
of piezocone dissipation test data that forms the subject of
this paper.
The driving of a piezocone causes increases of total stress
and large shear strains in the surrounding soil. In most clays,
except heavily overconsolidated ones, the resulting excess
pore pressures all around the piezocone are positive, and, as
they subsequently dissipate, consolidation occurs. In order to
describe this soil behaviour, a model is needed, and a widely
recognised model is that of an elastic-plastic continuum, in
which pore pressures dissipate according to the Terzaghi–
Rendulic theory of consolidation.
The pore pressure dissipation rate depends partly on the
initial distribution of pore pressure set up during driving.
This can be determined, for example, by applying the strain
path method (Baligh, 1985) with an assumed stress–strain
behaviour. Teh & Houlsby (1991) presented a numerical
solution to the subsequent consolidation problem in terms of
the rigidity index Ir ¼ G/su , where G is the shear modulus
and su is the undrained shear strength of the soil, as well as
ch . In order to estimate ch from a piezocone test, it is
therefore necessary to use a value for Ir . Fig. 1 shows the
dissipation curves predicted for different locations on a
piezocone in terms of the time factor T
¼ ch t=I r0 5 R2,
:
where R is the radius of the piezocone and t is time. Baligh
& Levadoux (1986) presented results of similar analysis that
Manuscript received 12 August 2004; revised manuscript accepted
5 August 2005.
Discussion on this paper closes on 1 April 2006, for further details
see p. ii.
* Oxford University.
† University of Sheffield.
597
On a effectué des essais de dissipation de la pression des
pores en employant deux piézocônes miniatures, avec une
surface comprise entre 1 cm2 et 5 cm2 , dans une couche
de kaolin reconstitué. En employant des valeurs, établies
indépendamment, du coefficient de consolidation, on a
interprété les résultats pour en dériver des valeurs ap-
proximatives de l’indice de rigidité pouvant être utilisées
avec la théorie de Teh et Houlsby. D’après cette théorie,
différentes positions du filtre, sur un piézocône (bout,
face et épaulement) ne nécessiteraient pas des valeurs
diverses de l’indice de rigidité. Toutefois, on a démontré
l’importance de la prévision de la relaxation initiale de la
charge au début de l’essai de dissipation, et il semble
qu’il existe un effet systématique de la taille du piézo-
cône.
1·2
Shoulder
Normalised excess pore pressure, U
1·0 Shaft 5R from
shoulder
0·8
Shaft 10R
0·6
from shoulder
0·4 Cone face
0·2 Cone tip
0
0·0001 0·001 0·01 0·1 1 10 100
Time factor, T *
Fig. 1. Normalised excess pore pressure dissipation (after Teh &
Houlsby, 1991)
used the strength and stiffness parameters for Boston Blue
clay, effectively giving Ir a value of around 550. However,
with Teh & Houlsby’s theory, lower values of Ir are generally
appropriate (Robertson et al., 1992).
Despite its widespread use, there is a significant problem
with the model of an elastic-plastic continuum, in that the
shear modulus of real soil is strain level dependent. Near the
piezocone, and particularly around the tip, where shear strain
levels are high, the modulus will be very much lower than
further away, where strain levels are lower, so it is difficult
to know what single value should be taken for use in the
model. In practice, this has been resolved empirically by
using a triaxial test to provide the value of su , and taking
the secant modulus at 50% of the undrained strength as the
corresponding value of G. Danziger et al. (1997) and
Schnaid et al. (1996) showed that, when this approach was
employed with Teh & Houlsby’s theory to interpret various
piezocone test results, the calculated values of ch were of
the same order of magnitude as those measured indepen-
dently in oedometer tests in the laboratory.
Making the same assumption that the Teh & Houlsby
model is a suitable one, the present paper reports experience
of determining the Ir value that is needed to give the same
598 SILLS AND HIRD
coefficient of consolidation from a piezocone dissipation test 950 1500
Shoulder pore pressure
as from an oedometer test. Results are taken from laboratory
850
deployments of piezocones with various pore pressure meas- 1300

Tip resistance, qt: kPa

urement positions, as described by Hird et al. (2003). The
principal aim is to explore the validity of using a common Ir
value for different measurement positions in homogeneous
clay.
LABORATORY TESTS
The piezocone tests currently considered were carried out
in a reconstituted soil model enclosed in a 400 mm diameter
test chamber (Model 11 of Hird et al., 2003). Layers of
kaolin were preconsolidated from a slurry under a vertical
stress of 200 kPa and placed in the chamber. A peripheral
drain was provided around the model, through which a back-
pressure could be applied. The soil in the chamber was
subjected to a vertical stress of 650 kPa and a back-pressure
of 400 kPa, and a horizontal stress was applied on a flexible
lateral boundary to maintain K0 conditions. At the end of
consolidation the vertical effective stress was 250 kPa and
the horizontal effective stress was 172 kPa. Saturation checks
on the model, with the back-pressure applied, gave accepta-
ble results (Skempton’s B value . 0.97).
Two piezocones were used, one of 1 cm2 area with pore
pressure measured either on the tip or on the shoulder, and
one of 5 cm2 area, with four pore pressure measurement
positions. Both piezocones are shown in Fig. 2. Prior to the
dissipation tests, the piezocones were driven at the standard
rate (20 mm/s) at the centre of the chamber and at four
points equally spaced at a radius of 100 mm, as shown in
plan on Fig. 1(b) of Hird et al. (2003). The 5 cm2 probe was
used at two locations, one in the middle and one at a radius
of 100 mm, and the 1 cm2 probe was driven at each of the
other three points. The ratio of chamber diameter to probe
diameter was respectively 16 and 35. Further details of the
piezocones, including saturation procedures, are given by
Hird et al. (2003).
Through the conduct of tests with the two instruments,
results are available for pore pressure measurement at five
locations on a piezocone: the tip, the face, the shoulder,
midway up the friction sleeve, and at the top of the friction
sleeve. Fig. 3 shows typical pore pressure dissipations for
the tip and the shoulder of the 1 cm2 piezocone (tests
m11d3a and m11d2a respectively). The cone tip resistance,
qt , during pore pressure dissipation has also been plotted in
Fig. 3, using the right-hand vertical axis. Values of qt have
been corrected for the effect of water pressure in the groove
at the base of the friction sleeve, as described by Hird et al.
Pore pressure: kPa
m11d2a,qt
750
1100
650
900
550
m11d3a, qt
700
450
Tip pore pressure
350 500
0·01 0·1 1 10 100 1000 10 000
Time: s
Fig. 3. Pore pressure dissipation results at tip and shoulder of
1 cm2 piezocone, respectively tests m11d3a and m11d2a, with
corresponding qt values
(2003). In the case of the 1 cm2 tip dissipation, the corrected
value has been obtained by assuming that the water pressure
in the groove was equal to the pore pressure measured at the
cone shoulder after a similar elapsed time during the sepa-
rate dissipation test. Fig. 4 shows the corresponding set of
results for the cone resistance, and for dissipation at the
face, the shoulder and the two sleeve positions for the 5 cm2
piezocone.
Figures 3 and 4 show that, initially, the highest pore
pressures occurred about equally at the tip and face posi-
tions, and that these were followed in magnitude by those at
the shoulder, the lower sleeve and the upper sleeve. How-
ever, with the 5 cm2 piezocone it can be seen (Fig. 4) that,
on cessation of driving, there was a very rapid reduction in
the pore pressure at the face in sympathy with a release of
cone load. The release of cone load may be attributed to a
mechanical backlash in the driving system that normally
occurred with the 5 cm2 piezocone, although not with the
1 cm2 piezocone. At the sleeve positions (Fig. 4) there was a
tendency for pore pressures to rise before dissipating, behav-
iour that has been reported previously (e.g. Danziger et al.,
1997). The pore pressures dissipated at various rates to the
back-pressure level of 400 kPa.
In order to make comparisons with the Teh & Houlsby
(1991) solution, it is necessary to convert the results to
excess pore pressure by subtracting the back-pressure of
400 kPa and then dividing by the initial value. This immedi-
ately raises the question of what initial value is appropriate
for the face position of the 5 cm2 piezocone, as there is a
significant difference between the pore pressure recorded at
the end of the driving stage and the pore pressure recorded

900 1400
850 Shoulder m11d4a
Face 1200
800
Tip resistance, qt: kPa

Tip resistance, qt
Pore pressure: kPa

750 1000
700 800
650
600 Sleeve mid-point 600

550 400
500 Sleeve top
200
450
400 0
0·01 0·1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Time: s

Fig. 4. Pore pressure dissipation results at tip, shoulder and two

sleeve positions of 5 cm2 piezocone, test m11d4a, with corre-
Fig. 2. 1 cm2 piezocone with two tips and 5 cm2 piezocone sponding qt value
 COEFFICIENT OF CONSOLIDATION FROM PIEZOCONE MEASUREMENTS
0.1 s later, when the value has dropped along with the
driving pressure. The initial approach was to ignore the very
high early values and use the value at 0.1 s as the normal-
ising value. This gave an excess pore pressure dissipation
curve of the correct general shape, which could be analysed
in exactly the same way as the excess pore pressure curves
at the other locations. However, as will be described later,
the results for the face position thus obtained were not
consistent with the other results. It was then decided to
normalise by the pore pressure value at the end of the
driving stage, before the reduction in value associated with
the reduction in driving pressure. For the other locations
also, including those on the 1 cm2 piezocone, the pore
pressure value at the end of the driving stage was then used
to normalise the data so that a consistent approach was
adopted.
The normalised results are grouped together in Figs 5 and
6. Fig. 5 shows the tip and shoulder dissipations for the
1 cm2 piezocone, where the dissipation at the tip clearly
occurs faster than at the shoulder, as would be expected
from the Teh & Houlsby (1991) solution (Fig. 1). For some
of the tip measurements, it can be seen that the pressure
unexpectedly rose again at the end of the test. This is hard
to explain, although it may be associated with the construc-
tion or materials of the tip filter (Hird et al., 2003).
Fortunately, these curious results occurred sufficiently late in
the dissipation process that the analysis is unaffected. Fig. 6
shows dissipations at the face, shoulder, and two sleeve
positions on the 5 cm2 piezocone. There is a clear difference
between the face curves and the others, particularly in the
early stages. It appears that the reduction in cone resistance
that occurred at the end of driving has depressed the initial
values of the pore pressure ratio, but that the shape predicted
599
by Teh & Houlsby (1991) has been established later. The
shoulder dissipation is very similar to the expected shape,
while both sleeve positions show an initial increase, the
upper value markedly so. This is not consistent with the
theoretical predictions, which show very little difference
between pore pressures at these two positions. Fig. 7 com-
pares the shoulder dissipations for the 1 cm2 and 5 cm2
piezocones, and it can be seen that there is very close
agreement between the results for each instrument and a
clear difference between the two sets of results due to the
different diameters of the instruments.
INTERPRETATION OF DISSIPATION CURVES
The timescales of the measured results and the numerical
:
solution differ by the factor ch =I 0r 5 R2, which can therefore
be obtained by finding the multiplier of the test results’
timescale that gives the best correlation between theory and
measurement. The correlation was achieved using the least
squares sum of the difference between the two curves in the
range U ¼ 0.8 to 0.2, except for the data from the face of
the 5 cm2 piezocone, where the range was typically 0.6 to
0.2. In almost all cases, the theoretical and the adjusted
experimental curves were a very close match over the
chosen region. The radius R was known1 for each probe, so a
value was obtained for the ratio ch =(I r )2 .
Most interpretations of piezocone results assume a value
of Ir in order to estimate ch , but in the present case an
inverse approach was applied: ch was measured in the
laboratory in order to estimate the value of Ir . Fig. 8 shows
plots of the void ratio against effective vertical stress from
two independent tests in 150 mm diameter Rowe consolida-

1·2 1·2
Normalised excess pore pressure
Normalised excess pore pressure

1·0 1·0 5 cm2 shoulder

1 cm2 shoulder

0·8 0·8

0·6 0·6

0·4 1 cm2 tip 0·4 1 cm2 shoulder

0·2 0·2

0 0
0·01 0·1 1 10 100 1000 10000 0·01 0·1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Time: s Time: s

Fig. 5. Summary of 1 cm2 excess pore pressure dissipations Fig. 7. Shoulder dissipation for 1cm2 and 5 cm2 piezocones

2·5 1·55
2
5 cm sleeve 2 1·50
Normalised excess pore pressure

2·0 1·45
5 cm2 sleeve 1
1·40
Void ratio, e

1·5 5 cm2 shoulder

1·35
1·30
1·0
1·25

0·5 1·20

5 cm2 face 1·15

0 1·10
0·01 0·1 1 10 100 1000 10000 10 100 1000
Time: s Vertical effective stress: kPa

Fig. 6. Summary of 5 cm2 excess pore pressure dissipations Fig. 8. Results from two Rowe cell tests with radial drainage
600
tion cells with horizontal drainage. The clay for these tests
was prepared with the same history of loading and drainage
as the clay in the soil model. After being consolidated in the
Rowe cell under a stress of 250 kPa, it was subjected to two
unloading and reloading cycles between 250 kPa and
125 kPa before being loaded to 500 kPa and finally un-
loaded. It can be seen that the curves are similar, but not
identical, presumably as a consequence of small differences
in sample preparation. The values of ch calculated at each
stage are shown in Table 1.
For most soils, the net increase in pore pressure during
piezocone driving is larger than the mean increase in total
stress, so that the soil undergoes a reduction in effective
stress and, in effect, becomes more overconsolidated. This is
followed by re-consolidation as the pore water drains. It is
therefore the unloading from 250 kPa in the Rowe cell and
the subsequent reloading that provides the most relevant data
for comparison with the soil behaviour around the piezo-
cone. Table 1 shows good repeatability in each Rowe cell
test for ch values under these conditions, with average values
of 0.031 and 0.046 cm2 /s from the two tests. In order to
have a single value for comparison with the piezocone
results, the average from the two tests, ch ¼ 0.038 cm2 /s,
was taken for the subsequent calculations.
1
Having obtained the ratio ch /(Ir )2 by matching the theor-
etical and measured pore pressure dissipations, the above
value of ch was used to calculate Ir for each experiment.
The results are presented in Table 2. The theoretical solution
does not predict the increased excess pore pressures that
were observed in the sleeve measurements, and it was there-
fore decided to exclude the data collected at both sleeve
locations.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
In Table 2 it can be seen that there is variation, not only
within each set of data, but also between the average values
of each data set. The variation within the data sets is1
expressed by the coefficient of variation, V, which for ch /(Ir )2
ranges between 11.8% and 23.1%. Because values
1 sion and extension tests on anisotropically and normally
obtained after squaring the test result (i.e. c h /(Ir )2 ), values of
1 consolidated kaolin, albeit consolidated under different ver-
V are larger for Ir than for ch /(Ir )2 .
The significance of the variation between the data sets can
be analysed statistically by testing the hypothesis that all the
results are drawn from a common ‘population’: that is, the
piezocone size and/or the filter position had no influence on
1 derived values of Ir , based on secant moduli, are shown in
the measured value of ch /(Ir )2 . Application of the Kruskal–
Wallis H test (e.g. Miller & Freund, 1977) yields the statistic
H ¼ 9.99, a value that would occur with a probability of
Table 1. Horizontal coefficient of consolidation from Rowe cell
tests
Vertical effective stress: kPa ch : cm2 /s
From To First test Second test
10 125 0.011
125 250 0.006
250 125 0.029*
125 250 0.029*
250 125 – 0.049†
125 250 0.035*
250 500 0.007
500 250 0.032
250 125 0.012
125 10 0.002
* Values averaged to give ch ¼ 0.031 cm2 /s.
† Values averaged to give ch ¼ 0.046 cm2 /s.
SILLS AND HIRD
less than 2.5% if the hypothesis were true. Therefore the
hypothesis must be rejected: that is, the variation is statisti-
cally significant.
Inspection of Table 2 suggests that the instrument size
may have been responsible for at least some of this varia-
tion. Again, this can be checked statistically by comparing
the two data sets obtained with a filter at the piezocone
shoulder using the Mann–Whitney U test (e.g. Miller &
Freund, 1977). The computed statistic, U ¼ 20, leads to a
conclusion that the piezocone size probably had a significant
influence. Otherwise, this value would only have occurred
with a probability of between 5% and 10% (Owen, 1962).
For either the 5 cm2 or the 1 cm2 piezocone, the effect of
filter location can similarly be examined using the Mann–1
Whitney test, but although average values of ch /(Ir )2 are
higher for the shoulder location than for either the face or
tip location respectively, the test fails to demonstrate any
statistically significant differences.
DISCUSSION
It can reasonably be expected that the kaolin tested was
uniform, and the closely controlled nature of the experiments
and the favourable testing environment in the laboratory
should have led to highly repeatable results and interpreta-
tions. Nevertheless, some variation is inevitable, and this can
be seen in the Rowe cell tests to find the coefficient of
consolidation, where two sets of data were compared di-
rectly. Such variation must also be expected in the dissipa-
tion results, as was observed in the spread of Ir values for a
given piezocone and filter position in Table 2. The advan-
tage of analysing the data in statistical terms is that systema-
tic differences can be identified, irrespective of random
variations.
Although not the primary objective of this paper, it is of
interest to compare the back-calculated Ir values with values
that can be obtained from triaxial tests. While no triaxial
tests were conducted as part of the current investigation,
some Ir values can be derived from other research. For
example, Hajj (1990) conducted undrained triaxial compres-
of Ir are
tical stresses from that used for the piezocone tests. Some of
these test data were reported by Hird & Hajj (1995). Parry
& Nadarajah (1974) presented data from similar tests as well
as from tests on isotropically consolidated specimens. The
Table 3. As already indicated, the strain dependence of such
values poses a difficulty in selecting appropriate values to
use in the interpretation of piezocone measurements. At an
axial strain level of 1%, the values in Table 3 are clearly
lower than the back-calculated values in Table 2, while at
0.1% axial strain they appear comparable. However, it
should be noted that the back-calculated Ir values gave a
correct determination of ch in overconsolidated soil whereas
the triaxial tests were conducted on normally consolidated
soil. As seen in Table 1, the values of ch for the normally
0.075 consolidated soil in the stress ranges 125–250 kPa and 250–
0.013 500 kPa are around four to five times smaller than those for
0.043† the overconsolidated soil on which the Ir values in Table 2
0.043† have been based. Therefore, if the normally consolidated
values of ch had been used to calculate Ir , the values would
0.049† have been roughly half of those listed in Table 2.
0.012
0.043
One of the most striking findings of the present work was
0.020 the influence of the initial pore pressure on the interpretation
0.007 of measurements made on the face of the 5 cm2 piezocone.
Fig. 9 shows a typical best fit between the theoretical and
measured values when the latter were normalised by the
measurement at 0.01 s, and it can be seen that there is a
 COEFFICIENT OF CONSOLIDATION FROM PIEZOCONE MEASUREMENTS 601
Table 2. Calculated values of I r for kaolin with ch 0:038cm2 =s

1 cm2 piezocone shoulder 1 cm2 piezocone tip

: :
Test number ch /Ir 0 5 : cm2 /s Ir Test number ch /Ir 0 5 : cm2 /s Ir

m11d2a 0.002 83 180 m11d3a 0.002 27 280

m11d2b 0.003 51 117 m11d3b 0.002 89 173
m11d2c 0.002 63 209 m11d3c 0.002 65 206
m11d2d 0.003 39 126 m11d3d 0.001 64 537
Mean 0.003 09 158 Mean 0.002 36 299
Standard deviation 0.000 43 44 Standard deviation 0.000 55 165
Coefficient of variation: % 13.8 27.8 Coefficient of variation: % 23.1 55.2

5 cm2 piezocone shoulder 5 cm2 piezocone face

: :
Test number ch /Ir 0 5 : cm2 /s Ir Test number ch /Ir 0 5 : cm2 /s Ir

m11d4a 0.003 21 140 m11d4a 0.003 21 140

m11d4b 0.003 99 91 m11d4b 0.003 97 92
m11d4c 0.004 60 68 m11d4c 0.003 97 92
m11d5a 0.004 45 73
m11d5b 0.003 24 138
m11d5c 0.003 98 91
Mean 0.003 91 100 Mean 0.003 72 108
Standard deviation 0.000 59 31 Standard deviation 0.000 44 28
Coefficient of variation: % 15.0 31.4 Coefficient of variation: % 11.8 26.0

Table 3. Rigidity indices from consolidated undrained triaxial tests on normally consolidated kaolin

Consolidation mode Initial effective Shearing mode Ir Axial ˜q/˜qu :* Data source
vertical stress: strain: % %
kPa

Anisotropic (zero lateral strain) 350 Compression 105 0.1 51 Hajj (1990)
347 Extension 389 0.1 32
350 Compression 18 1.0 86
347 Extension 76 1.0 62
545 Compression 8 1.0 81 Parry & Nadarajah (1974)
540 Extension 60 1.0 45
Isotropic 550 Compression 41 1.0 63
550 Extension 43 1.0 64

* ˜q ¼ change of deviator stress; ˜qu ¼ change of deviator stress at failure.

1·2 other locations; the alternative Ir values would have been

about six times larger than those given in Table 2.
Normalised excess pore pressure

1·0 Teh & Houlsby

As already indicated, and evident in Figs 3 and 4, whereas
the 5 cm2 piezocone suffered a significant release of load
0·8 prior to pore pressure dissipation, the 1 cm2 cone did not. It
is thought that mechanical backlash in the driving system
0·6 would have been less likely to affect the smaller cone. In
practice, the release of cone load will also vary, depending
0·4 on the operation of the driving rig and on the friction
Face, m11d4a
exerted by the soil on the driving rods. When interpreting
0·2 the results of dissipation tests with tip or face filters, it is
therefore important to be aware of the extent of load release
0 and, where necessary, to account for its influence. If there
0·00001 0·0001 0·001 0·01 0·1 1 10 100 has been a release of cone load and very early measure-
Time factor (face), T*
ments of dissipation pore pressures are not available, then
Fig. 9. Best fit between Teh & Houlsby solution and 5 cm2 face the last values recorded during driving should be used
dissipation normalised by measurement at 0.01 s instead.
For both piezocones there was a gradual reduction of cone
load as the surrounding soil consolidated. The theory of Teh
good match between the two after an initial period when the & Houlsby (1991) was based on uncoupled consolidation
measurements were affected by the reduction in driving analysis to predict the dissipation of the excess pore pres-
pressure, once the probe was no longer moving. The alter- sures generated by penetration of the piezocone and thus
native approach in which the initial pore pressure was taken does not model the change of total stress on the cone.
to be the value at 0.1 s led to significantly higher values of Levadoux & Baligh (1986) attempted to gain some insight
Ir , which were not consistent with those calculated from the into its effect by conducting a coupled consolidation analysis
602 SILLS AND HIRD
and predicted faster consolidation, especially near the piezo-
cone tip. Unfortunately, their analysis was for an 188 cone
rather than a standard 608 one and suffered from numerical
problems at the cone tip, preventing definite conclusions.
Notwithstanding the simplified nature of the Teh & Houlsby
theory, the present results suggest that, for a given piezo-
cone, it would be reasonable to adopt a common value of Ir
in conjunction with the theory for tip, face and shoulder
filter positions.
The present results also suggest that, in measuring ch ,
there may be a scale effect. In the absence of a larger
number of data this must be a tentative conclusion, and there
are other possible reasons for a systematic difference be-
tween the results from the two piezocones, which have been
ignored in the statistical analysis. These include differences
in saturation fluid and procedure, transducer compliance and
the properties of the kaolin at different driving locations in
the model. On the other hand, the profiling results of both
piezocones, between dissipation tests (see Hird et al., 2003),
did not indicate that any of these factors was significant.
CONCLUSIONS
Piezocone dissipation data from closely controlled tests in
a laboratory chamber have been interpreted to determine the
Ir values necessary to match independent laboratory tests for
ch when using the theory of Teh & Houlsby (1991). The
results suggest that a common value of Ir may be used to
interpret data from the tip, face and shoulder of a given
piezocone, provided any sudden reduction of pore pressure
on cessation of driving is allowed for. Where such a reduc-
tion occurs, the initial pore pressure should be taken as the
value immediately prior to the reduction.
Dissipation measurements made with two piezocones of
different size (1 cm2 and 5 cm2 ) showed a significant dis-
agreement when interpreted using Teh & Houlsby’s theory.
Further research is required to explore whether this is
evidence of a fundamental scale effect on pore pressure
dissipation around a piezocone.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The research was sponsored by the Engineering and
Physical Sciences Research Council (UK). The authors are
grateful to Mr P. Johnson for conducting the tests and to
Fugro Engineers for support through the provision or main-
tenance of the piezocones. The expertise and assistance of
the technical staff at the University of Sheffield are also
gratefully acknowledged.
REFERENCES
Baligh, M. M. (1985). Strain path method. J. Geotech. Engng 111,
No. 9, 1108–1136.
Baligh, M. M. & Levadoux, J. N. (1986). Consolidation after
undrained piezocone penetration. II: Interpretation. J. Geotech.
Engng, ASCE 112, No. 7, 727–745.
Danziger, F. A. B., Almeida, M. S. S. & Sills, G. C. (1997). The
significance of the strain path analysis in the interpretation of
piezocone dissipation data. Géotechnique 47, No. 5, 901–914.
Hajj, A. R. (1990). The simulation of sampling disturbance and its
effects on the deformation behaviour of clays. PhD thesis,
University of Sheffield.
Hird, C. C. & Hajj, A.R. (1995). A simulation of tube sampling
effects on the stiffness of clays. Geotech. Test. J. 18, No. 1,
3–14.
Hird, C. C., Johnson, P. & Sills, G. C. (2003). Performance of
miniature piezocones in thinly layered soils. Géotechnique 53,
No. 10, 885–900.
Levadoux, J. N. & Baligh, M. M. (1986). Consolidation after
undrained piezocone penetration. I: Prediction. J. Geotech.
Engng, ASCE 112, No. 7, 707–726.
Lunne, T., Robertson, P. K. & Powell, J. J. M. (1997). Cone
penetration testing. London: Blackie Academic and Professional.
Miller, I. & Freund, J. E. (1977). Probability and statistics for
engineers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Owen, D. B. (1962). Handbook of statistical tables. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Parry, R. G. H. & Nadarajah, V. (1974). Observations on laboratory
prepared, lightly overconsolidated specimens of kaolin. Géotech-
nique 24, No. 3, 345–358.
Robertson, P. K., Sully, J. P., Woeller, D. J., Lunne, T., Powell,
J. J. M. & Gillespie, D. G. (1992). Estimating coefficient of con-
solidation from piezocone tests. Can. Geotech. J. 29, No. 4,
539–550.
Schnaid, F., Sills, G. C., Soares, J. M. & Nyirenda, Z. (1996).
Predictions of the coefficient of consolidation from piezocone
tests. Can. Geotech. J. 34, No. 2, 315–327.
Teh, C. I. & Houlsby, G. T. (1991). An analytical study of the cone
penetration test in clay. Géotechnique 41, No. 1, 17–34.