Computers and Geotechnics 124 (2020) 103634

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers and Geotechnics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compgeo

Probabilistic soil classification and stratification in a vertical cross-section T

from limited cone penetration tests using random field and Monte Carlo
simulation
Yue Hu, Yu Wang
⁎

Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering, City University of Hong Kong, Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon, Hong Kong

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Classification and stratification (or zonation) of subsurface soils are important tasks in geotechnical site in-
Site investigation vestigation. Due to the limit of time, budget, or access to subsurface soils, subsurface soil information obtained
Soil stratification from investigation points (e.g., boreholes, cone penetration tests (CPTs)) in a specific site is often limited (e.g., a
Bayesian compressive sampling few boreholes or CPT soundings), resulting in great challenge in interpretation of the site investigation data
Compressive sensing
obtained and significant uncertainty in the inferred subsurface soil classification and stratification. A novel
Karhunen-Loève expansion
probabilistic method is developed in this paper for properly accounting for the uncertainty associated with CPT-
based subsurface soil classification and stratification. The method properly classifies and stratifies subsurface
soils in a 2D vertical cross-section from limited CPT soundings. A limited number of 1D CPT sounding data is
firstly interpolated to produce a 2D vertical cross-section, and the associated interpolation uncertainty is
modelled explicitly using random field theory. Probabilistic soil classification model is also developed to account
for the uncertainty associated with the empirical soil behavior type classification model. Then, the interpolation
uncertainty and soil classification model uncertainty are considered simultaneously in a Monte Carlo simulation
framework. Both simulated and real data examples are used to illustrate the proposed method. The results
indicate that the proposed method well predicts subsurface soil classification and stratification in a 2D vertical
cross-section from limited CPT soundings, and properly quantifies the associated uncertainty. In addition, sen-
sitivity studies on interpolation uncertainty and soil classification model uncertainty are performed.

1. Introduction classification uncertainty, particularly for probability-based geo-

Classification and stratification (or zonation) of subsurface soils are
important tasks in geotechnical site investigation for designs and con-
structions of geotechnical structures [1,2]. Due to the limit of time,
budget, or access to subsurface soils, the subsurface soil information
obtained from site investigation points (e.g., boreholes, CPT soundings)
is often limited (e.g., only a few boreholes or CPTs), resulting in great
challenge in interpretation of the site investigation data obtained and
significant uncertainty in the inferred soil stratification and classifica-
tion at the site of interest. This stratification and classification un-
certainty may lead to unexpected site conditions during construction
[2–5]. This uncertainty also affects performances of the intended geo-
technical structures [6,7]. A survey on 28 construction projects in UK
conducted by Clayton [8] has reported that 22% of geotechnical pro-
blems are associated with stratification uncertainty. It is, therefore,
necessary to rationally evaluate and quantify the stratification and
technical analysis [9–13].
CPT is an in-situ test commonly-used in geotechnical engineering
[14]. It consists of pushing a cone penetrometer into subsurface soils
and measuring the resistance of soil to the cone and the local friction on
the sleeve. CPT has been used to classify subsurface soils [15,16],
identify soil stratification [17,18], and quantify associated uncertainty
[19–23]. Most of these previous studies focused on one-dimensional
(1D) CPT data profile, although a two-dimensional (2D) vertical cross-
section is often needed in geotechnical practice. For instance, slope
stability analyses and foundation designs are often carried out using a
2D vertical cross-section. Recently, Wang et al. [24] developed a
method for providing a 2D continuous soil classification and stratifi-
cation profile from limited CPT soundings. However, only a determi-
nistic 2D cross-section (i.e., the so-called best estimate of soil classifi-
cation and stratification) was provided by their method without
consideration of various uncertainties inevitably involved, such as the

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: yuehu47-c@my.cityu.edu.hk (Y. Hu), yuwang@cityu.edu.hk (Y. Wang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2020.103634
Received 17 January 2020; Received in revised form 21 March 2020; Accepted 29 April 2020
0266-352X/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y. Hu and Y. Wang Computers and Geotechnics 124 (2020) 103634

uncertainty associated with the 2D interpolation from a limited number

of 1D CPT soundings, and the uncertainty associated with soil behavior
type (SBT) classification charts commonly used for CPT data.
It is well-recognized that spatial interpolation from sparse data (e.g.,
limited 1D CPT soundings) might contain significant statistical un-
certainty [21,25–28]. In addition, SBT classification charts or SBT index
Ic [15,29,30] are often used in CPT-based soil classification and strati-
fication. Although these SBT charts or index Ic conveniently link the
CPT data with soil behavioral characteristics, they were developed
empirically based on a database complied from many CPT data col-
lected globally. It is well-recognized that the SBT chart or Ic might not
provide consistent classifications and contain significant uncertainty
when used in a specific site [31,32]. For example, one specific CPT data
value might be obtained from different types of soil, rather than cor-
responding to a unique and deterministic type of soil.
To properly account for the uncertainty associated with the inter-
polation of limited CPT data and SBT index Ic, a 2D probabilistic soil
classification and stratification method is proposed in this study using
random field theory [33] and Monte Carlo simulation (MCS). A 2D
random field generator, called Bayesian compressive sampling-Kar-
hunen-Loève (2D BCS-KL) random field generator [34], is used to
quantify the interpolation uncertainty through generation of a large
number of random field samples (RFSs) of the complete 2D vertical
cross-section of CPT data directly from limited 1D CPT soundings. The
model uncertainty associated with the Ic – based SBT classification is
also incorporated explicitly in MCS, which uses the 2D RFSs and
random samples of SBT classification boundaries as input. After this
Introduction, the proposed method is introduced step by step in Section
2. Then, a simulated example is used to illustrate the proposed method
in Section 3. In Section 4, effects of the 1D CPT sounding number and
SBT index Ic model uncertainty are explored. Real CPT data example is
also provided in Section 5.

2. 2D probabilistic soil classification and stratification from

limited CPT
Fig. 1. Flowchart for the proposed 2D probabilistic soil classification and
An MCS-based method is proposed in this study. MCS has been stratification method.
widely used in probabilistic geotechnical analysis and design
[25,35–39,62]. It can quantitatively evaluate the performance of an Table 1
uncertain system of interest based on a large number of repeated cal- Boundaries of soil behavior type (SBT) index Ic (after [29]).
culations with randomized inputs. As shown in Fig. 1, the MCS-based
Range of SBT index Ic SBT ID SBT description
method proposed in this study consists of five steps: (1) collect the 1D
CPT available in a 2D vertical cross-section and calculate the corre- Ic < 1.31 7 Gravelly sand to dense sand
sponding SBT index Ic values; (2) generate a large number (e.g., NB) of 1.31 < Ic < 2.05 6 Sands: clean sand to silty sand
RFSs for the 2D Ic vertical cross-section directly from limited 1D Ic data 2.05 < Ic < 2.60 5 Sand mixtures: silty sand to sandy silt
2.60 < Ic < 2.95 4 Silt mixtures: clayey silt to silty clay
profiles using the 2D BCS-KL random field generator; (3) generate a
2.95 < Ic < 3.60 3 Clays: silty clay to clay
large number (e.g., NB) of random samples of the Ic boundaries for Ic > 3.60 2 Organic soil: peats
different soil types using a probabilistic Ic - based classification
boundary model developed in this study; (4) for each 2D Ic RFS and SBT
Ic boundary random sample, determine the soil behavior type at each soils [17,21,23,29,41,42]. It is defined as a function of the cone re-
point in the 2D vertical cross-section, leading to a 2D SBT vertical cross- sistance and sleeve friction ratio [29]:
section. Repeat this process NB times with different 2D Ic RFS and SBT Ic
boundary random sample as input in each repetition, and generate NB Ic = (3.47 logQt )2 + (logFR + 1.22) 2 (1)
number of 2D SBT vertical cross-sections; and (5) perform statistical
analysis on the NB number of 2D SBT vertical cross-sections generated, where Qt is the normalized cone penetration resistance and FR is the
n
and provide spatial distribution of the probability of various SBTs in the
2D vertical cross-section and the most likely 2D SBT vertical cross-
normalized friction ratio in percent; Qt = ( qt
Pa
v0
) Pa
'
v0
and
fs
section. Details of these five steps are elaborated in the following sub- FR = q × 100%; qt is the corrected cone tip resistance and fs is sleeve
t v0
sections. friction; σvo and σ'vo are vertical total stress and vertical effective stress,
respectively; Pa is atmospheric pressure; n is the stress exponent and
2.1. Soil behavior type index Ic n = 0.381 Ic + 0.05 (σ'vo/Pa) − 0.15 [29].
Six soil types, i.e., SBT2 to SBT7 can be classified according to the Ic
Several CPT-based soil classification systems have been developed values, as summarized in Table 1. The boundaries that divide these six
in literatures [15,29,30,40], such as the SBT classification based on Ic SBT zones are approximately a series of concentric arcs in a Qt–FR plot
boundaries summarized in Table 1 [29]. The SBT index Ic is calculated [29]. SBT for a given Ic value can be determined readily by checking
from CPT measurements and used as an index to classify subsurface which zone the Ic value falls in. Due to complex geological formation

2
Y. Hu and Y. Wang
processes, the SBT index Ic may vary spatially at a site, even within the
same soil unit or layer. The SBT index Ic is adopted in this study for
classification and stratification of subsurface soils, and 2D RFSs of Ic are
generated from the limited number of 1D Ic data, as described in the
next subsection.
2.2. Quantification of interpolation uncertainty using BCS-KL
A random field generator, called Bayesian compressive sampling-
Karhunen-Loève (BCS-KL) generator [34,43], is used to generate 2D
RFSs of Ic directly from the limited number of 1D Ic data. The BCS-KL
random field generator not only explicitly quantifies the interpolation
uncertainty directly from limited measurements, but also bypasses the
difficulty in estimating a parametric function for autocorrelation
structures of the 2D target data and automatically preserves the iso-
tropic/anisotropic properties in the generated 2D RFSs [34], even if the
target data exhibits non-stationary characteristics along different di-
rections [24,60,61]. The 2D BCS-KL random field generator is based on
2D Bayesian compressive sampling (2D BCS) [24,28], which is a
Bayesian extension of compressive sampling/sensing (CS) [27,44–47].
CS is a novel sampling theory in signal processing, which asserts that a
certain signal or image (e.g., spatial variability of Ic data in a 2D vertical
cross-section) can be reconstructed from sparse measurements (e.g.,
limited 1D Ic data calculated from CPT soundings) on that signal or
image. CS has broad applications in data/signal compression and
transmission [48,49]. The reconstruction takes advantage of the fact
that many natural signals are “compressible”, which means that a signal
can be approximated by a limited number of weight coefficients mul-
tiplied by respective basis functions (e.g., wavelet functions, cosine
functions).
In the context of 2D BCS, a 2D signal F (e.g., Ic data in a 2D vertical
cross-section), which is spatially varying along coordinates x1 and x2
(e.g., depth direction and horizontal direction), is represented by a
matrix of Nx1 × Nx2 . Mathematically, F is expressed as a weighted
summation of a series of orthonormal 2D basis functions [28,50]:
N x 1× N x 2
F= Bt2D t
2D
t=1 (2)
in which is the t-th 2D basis function, while
Bt2D t is the weight
2D
coefficients corresponding to Bt2D . Bt2D can be readily constructed using,
e.g., discrete wavelet transform (DWT) or discrete cosine transform
(DCT). Note that for many natural signals (e.g., spatially autocorrelated
soil properties), most t2D have negligibly small values except for a
limited number of non-trivial ones with significantly large magnitudes.
Therefore, the F may be reconstructed approximately if those non-tri-
vial weight coefficients are identified and properly estimated using
sparse measurements Y, which is a sub-matrix of F with a dimension of
Mx1 × M x2 (Mx1 ≪ Nx1, Mx2 ≪ Nx2 ). The relation between Y and t2D is
expressed as [28,50]:
N x 1× N x 2
Y= x1 F x2 = At2D t2D
(3)
t=1
where x1 and x2 are problem-specific measurement matrices with
dimensions of Mx1 × Nx1 and Nx2 × M x2 , respectively. x1 and x2 are
adapted from identity matrix and reflect the locations of measured rows
and measured columns, respectively. Those non-trivial t2D in Eq. (3)
can be solved through maximum likelihood estimation under a Baye-
sian framework [27,28,50,52]. The estimated weight coefficient vector
2D
is denoted as ^ , i.e., ^ = [ 12D , 22D , 32D , … , ^ Nx1× Nx 2 ]T. It is found
2D 2D
2D
that the posterior distribution of ^ given measurement data follows a
multivariate Student’s t distribution, with the mean and covariance
matrix respectively expressed as [28]:
3
Computers and Geotechnics 124 (2020) 103634
µ ^ 2D = HVtr = (J + D) 1Vtr
dn H dn (J + D) 1
COV ^ 2D = = (4)
cn 1 cn 1
where J is a matrix with element Jt , s = s ) ],
tr [At2D (A2D T (t, s = 1, 2, …,
Nx1 × Nx2 ). “tr” represents trace operation in linear algebra. D is a di-
agonal matrix with diagonal elements Dt,t = αt (t = 1, 2, …,
Nx1 × Nx2 ) in which αt are non-negative parameters to be determined by
a maximum likelihood algorithm [51,52]. Vtr =
{tr [Y (A12D )T], tr [Y (A22D )T], , tr [Y (A 2NDx1× Nx 2 )T]}T is a column vector with
a length of Nx1 × Nx2 . cn = Mx 1 × M x2 2 + c ;
dn = d + 2 ( Y 22 µ ^T2D H 1µ ^ 2D) . c and d are non-negative small con-
1
stants to achieve an uninformative prior in the Bayesian formulation. It
is worth noting that due to the compressibility of F, only those Na
(Na ≪ Nx1 × Nx2 ) non-trivial coefficients contribute significantly
whereas the remaining are trivial and negligible. Therefore, only those
Na non-trivial coefficients need to be estimated in Eq. (3), and the other
trivial ones are taken to be zeros [34]. Therefore, in Eq. (4), the µ ^ 2D is
reduced to an Na × 1 vector and COV ^ 2D is reduced to an Na × Na
matrix for simplicity.
The interpolation uncertainty and spatial autocorrelation of the
reconstructed 2D signal (e.g., F ) are incorporated in the COV ^ 2D [34].
Generating RFS of F (a matrix with dimension of Nx1 × Nx2 ) is hence
2D
equivalent to generating random sample of ^ , a vector with a much
reduced length of Na. In this way, the computational efforts required for
high dimension simulation are significantly reduced. Given the results
in Eq. (4), random vector 2D can be generated through Karhunen-
Loève (KL) expansion [34,53,54]:
Na
^ 2D = µ 2D +
^ Ui ^i2D Zi
i=1 (5)
where Ui is the i-th eigen-vector of the covariance matrix COV ^ 2D ; ^ 2D
i
is the i-th eigenvalue of COV ^ 2D ; Zi is a set of independently and
identically distributed standard Gaussian random variables. According
2D
to Eq. (5), random vectors ^ can be generated readily through rea-
lization of Zi . Thereafter, the 2D RFS of F is obtained by substituting the
2D
random weight coefficients ^ into an approximated version of Eq. (2)
as below:
Na
F= Bt2D 2D
t=1
t
(6)
According to Eqs. (5) and (6), a large number of 2D RFS of F can be
generated by repeated realizations of standard Gaussian random vari-
ables Zi . In this study, Ic data calculated from limited 1D CPT soundings
in a vertical cross-section are used for constructing the matrix Y, and 2D
RFSs of Ic in the vertical cross-section are generated using the method
described above for modelling the interpolation uncertainty.
2.3. Model uncertainty in Ic-based SBT classification boundaries
The SBT classification summarized in Table 1 was developed from a
global soil database and the data were obtained predominately within
limited depths [15,29]. It has been recognized that the SBT classifica-
tion might not provide consistent classification results at a specific
project site and that those Ic boundaries (e.g., see Table 1) may involve
uncertainty [15,31,32,55]. This suggests that some overlap between
different SBT zones are expected and one specific Ic value might cor-
respond to different soil types.
To consider the uncertainty in the Ic classification boundaries
mentioned above, a probabilistic Ic -based SBT classification boundary
model is developed in this study. The five SBT classification boundaries
(i.e., 1.31, 2.05, 2.6, 2.95, 3.6) listed in Table 1 are denoted as B1 to B5
and modelled as five Gaussian random variables, respectively. The
mean values of B1 to B5 are taken as their respective values of the
original deterministic boundaries, as summarized in the second row of
Y. Hu and Y. Wang Computers and Geotechnics 124 (2020) 103634

Table 2
Probabilistic model of the Ic - based SBT classification boundaries.
Statistics B1 B2 B3 B4 B5

Mean 1.31 2.05 2.6 2.95 3.6

SD 0.1 0.1 0.05 0.05 0.1
Range [1.01, 1.61] [1.75, 2.35] [2.45, 2.75] [2.8, 3.1] [3.3, 3.9]

Note: B1 to B5 all follow Gaussian distribution.

Fig. 2. Probability distributions of SBT boundaries for modelling the soil clas-
sification uncertainty.

Table 2. A literature review was performed for gauging the Ic data

variability and boundary uncertainty [19,31,32,56,57]. Based on the Fig. 3. Simulated geological model of soil stratification and zonation (a) and Ic
literature review results, standard deviations (SD) of B1, B2 and B5 are data (b) in a 2D vertical cross-section.
taken as 0.1, while the SD of B3 and B4 are taken as 0.05, as sum-
marized in the third row of Table 2. The SD values are set for avoiding
relatively large values (i.e., large uncertainty) appear at points with
significant overlaps among probabilistic distributions of B1 to B5. The
different SBTs obtained from different SBT cross-section samples. In
mean and standard deviation shown in Table 2 are for illustration
contrast, zero or near-zero values (i.e., small uncertainty) appear at
purpose, and they might be site-specific (i.e., they might be different at
points with nearly constant SBT obtained from different SBT cross-
different sites). These parameters of the proposed probabilistic SBT
section samples. The SD cross-section can be used to directly assess the
classification boundary model may be changed for different sites. A
reliability of soil stratification and classification results. In the next
sensitivity study on the SD values adopted will be reported later. An
Section, the proposed method is illustrated using a simulated data ex-
illustration of the above probabilistic model is shown in Fig. 2. A de-
ample.
terministic SBT classification chart [29] is shown as a stacked bar and
horizontal axis. Six soil types are represented by six colored zones with
boundary values marked. The proposed probabilistic soil classification 3. Simulated data example
model is shown above the bar. The vertical axis represents PDF values.
PDF of SBT classification boundaries B1-B5 are shown by five bell- A geological model of soil classification and stratification in a 2D
shaped curves respectively. vertical cross-section with a depth of 12.7 m and a width of 25.6 m is
After development of the probabilistic model of Ic classification simulated, as shown in Fig. 3(a). Four soil types are involved, i.e., clay,
boundaries, NB random samples of the SBT classification boundaries are silt mixtures, sand mixtures and sand, with SBT values of 3–6, respec-
generated by randomly sampling B1 to B5 repeatedly. tively. Note that the stratifications of clay, sand mixtures and sand
present throughout the horizon, whereas silt mixtures only present as
local zonation. Within each layer of Fig. 3(a), Ic data are simulated
2.4. Statistical analysis of SBT classification results in a 2D cross-section
using random field theory [58] for modelling the spatial variability of
heterogeneous soils. The random field parameters used (e.g., mean µIc,
For each 2D Ic RFS and SBT Ic boundary random sample, SBT at each
standard deviation σIc, correlation lengths along horizontal direction λh
point in the 2D vertical cross-section can be determined, leading to a 2D
and vertical direction λv) are summarized in Table 3. An exponential
SBT vertical cross-section. After repeating NB times the above process
correlation structure is used in this simulation:
with different 2D Ic RFS and SBT Ic boundary random sample, NB
number of 2D SBT vertical cross-sections are generated.
( x v )2 ( xh ) 2
Using the NB SBT vertical cross-sections, statistical analysis is per- ( x v , xh ) = exp 2 2
+ 2
formed. Probability of the soil at a given point (x1, x2) being classified v h (8)
as a specific SBT, e.g., SBT = t (t = 2, 3, …, 7), can be calculated as:
in which ρ is correlation coefficient between two points; x v and xh
Nxt 1, x2 respectively represent the vertical and horizontal distances between
p (SBTx1, x2=t ) = × 100% two points. The simulated 2D Ic data are stored in a 128 × 256 matrix
NB (7)
with resolution of 0.1 m for both directions, as shown by colormap in
in which SBTx1, x2 is the SBT at point (x1, x2); is the number of SBT
Nxt 1, x2 Fig. 3(b). The simulated 2D Ic data cross-section are regarded as a
values that equal to t at point (x1, x2). Eq. (7) provides a quantitative
measure on how likely the soil at a point (x1, x2) is classified as one of Table 3
the six SBT. The SBT with the greatest probability is taken as the most Random field parameters for the simulated 2D Ic vertical cross-section.
likely SBT at the point (x1, x2). Eq. (7) is applied to every point in the Layer Layer1 Layer2 Layer3 Layer4
2D vertical cross-section, leading to spatial distribution of the prob-
ability of various SBTs in the 2D vertical cross-section. The most likely µIc 3.2 2.8 2.3 1.5
σIc 0.1 0.07 0.1 0.1
SBTs at all points form the most likely SBT vertical cross-section. In
λh (m) 15 30 20 25
addition, standard deviation (SD) of SBT values at every point is cal- λv (m) 1 2 1.5 1.8
culated, leading to an SD cross-section. In the SD cross-section,

4
Y. Hu and Y. Wang
Ic Ic Ic
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
0
4
Depth (m)
12
(a) M1 (b) M2 (c) M3
Fig. 4. Ic profiles of six CPT soundings.
geological profile from a specific site. Note that the subsurface soil
stratification and soil property variability are often unknown in en-
gineering practice, and the simulated soil classification and stratifica-
tion and the Ic data cross-section are used for validation purpose only.
Suppose that six (i.e., M = 6) CPT soundings are conducted within the
vertical cross-section and locations of these six CPT (e.g., M1-M6) are
denoted by black dash lines in Fig. 3. 1D Ic data profiles of M1-M6 are
shown in Fig. 4. These six 1D profiles are used as input to the proposed
method to implement 2D probabilistic soil classification and stratifi-
cation in the vertical cross-section. A large number of 2D Ic RFSs and the
same number of random samples of Ic – based soil classification
boundary model are firstly generated to account for the interpolation
uncertainty and model uncertainty in the SBT classification boundaries.
Then, 2D SBT cross-sections are generated, followed by statistical
analysis under an MCS framework.
3.1. Generation of 2D RFSs of Ic data and random samples of Ic – based
classification boundaries
In this example, the target dimension (e.g., Nx1 × Nx2 ) of the 2D
vertical cross-section is 128 × 256, and 2D basis functions B2t D are
constructed using DWT [44]. The Ic data at M1-M6 are then in-
corporated in measurement data matrix Y, and Y is therefore a matrix
with dimension of 128 × 6. In vertical direction, the CPT profiles at
M1-M6 have all data points along depth and have a length of 128, the
x 1 is therefore taken as a 128 × 128 identity matrix. In horizontal
direction, the M1-M6 profiles are respectively 1st, 52nd, 103rd, 154th,
205th and 256th columns of the simulated 2D Ic data cross-section,
therefore the x2 is a 256 × 6 matrix with columns being the 1st, 52nd,
103rd, 154th, 205th and 256th column of a 256 × 256 identity matrix.
After inputting the above information, NB = 500 2D RFSs of Ic data
are generated using Eqs. (5) and (6). Four examples are shown by
colormap in Fig. 5. Note that each plot in Fig. 5 is a probable inter-
polation of Ic variability in this 2D vertical cross-section from only six
CPTs and that no parametric autocorrelation structure is needed for
interpolation of the anisotropic patterns [34]. Statistics of 500 Ic data
RFSs are provided in Fig. 6. The average of 500 Ic data RFSs are shown
in Fig. 6(b) and the original Ic cross-section is shown in Fig. 6(a) for
comparison. Fig. 6(b) is very similar to Fig. 6(a) in general, although
some local details seem vague. This is due to the interpolation un-
certainty arising from limited number of CPT soundings. The inter-
polation uncertainty can be quantified by calculating the standard de-
viation of 500 RFSs of Ic cross-section, as shown by grey scale map in
Fig. 6(c). The absolute residuals between Fig. 6(a) and (b) is shown in
Fig. 6(d). Most residuals in Fig. 6(d) are comparable to one standard
deviation at the corresponding locations. This suggests that the inter-
polation uncertainty of Ic data are properly quantified. Note that
5
Computers and Geotechnics 124 (2020) 103634
Ic Ic Ic
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
(d) M4 (e) M5 (f) M6
residuals at points near to soil layer boundaries are apparently larger
than those located far away from the layer boundaries. This observation
will be further evaluated by Monte Carlo samples of 2D SBT cross-
section later. To clearly show the performance of Ic interpolation,
profiles at three unsampled locations, i.e., U1-U3 (e.g., dot lines in
Fig. 6) are provided respectively in Fig. 7. As shown in the Fig. 6, the
U1-U3 are located at the midpoint between two CPT soundings, which
implies interpolated profiles at U1-U3 represent the worst situation.
Fig. 7 shows the original Ic profiles by black solid lines and the average
of BCS-KL samples from the proposed method by red dash lines. It is
shown clearly that the red dash lines and the black solid lines have
consistent trends, although some local variations and abrupt jumps are
not characterized accurately in the interpolated profiles. A 95% con-
fidence interval is depicted by two blue dot lines. Most local variations
fall within the 95% confidence interval. The results manifest that un-
certainty of the interpolated Ic cross-section can be quantified explicitly
by 2D BCS-KL RFSs.
The next step is to generate NB = 500 random samples of Ic – based
SBT classification boundaries using the probabilistic model developed
in the previous Section. NB = 500 SBT classification charts are gener-
ated with boundaries values sampled from respective distributions.
Note that a Gaussian random variable ranges from negative infinity to
positive infinity. Therefore, overlapping of B1-B5 (e.g., B2 is smaller
than B1) might occur for some random samples. To mitigate the over-
lapping problem, the Gaussian probability density functions (PDF) for
B1-B5 are truncated respectively to a range of mean ± three standard
deviation, as summarized in the fourth row of Table 2.
3.2. Generation of SBT cross-sections and statistical analysis
Using one 2D Ic RFS and one random sample of Ic – based SBT
classification boundaries, SBT at every point in the vertical cross-sec-
tion is determined, leading to a Monte Carlo sample of 2D SBT cross-
section. By repeating this step 500 times for 500 different 2D Ic RFSs
and 500 different set of Ic – based SBT classification boundaries, 500
SBT cross-sections are generated. Four examples of SBT cross-sections
are shown in Fig. 8(a)–(d). These four 2D SBT cross-sections correspond
respectively to the four RFSs of Ic cross-section shown in Fig. 5 using
random SBT charts shown in each subplot of Fig. 8. Note that each of
these SBT cross-section gives different soil classification results (e.g.,
different soil stratification). These 500 SBT cross-sections directly and
simultaneously incorporate the interpolation uncertainty of sparse CPT
data and model uncertainty in the Ic – based soil classification bound-
aries.
Using NB = 500 Monte Carlo samples of 2D SBT cross-section,
statistical analysis is performed using Eq. (7) for a given point. Dis-
tributions of SBT at eight specific points are illustrated. The locations of
Y. Hu and Y. Wang Computers and Geotechnics 124 (2020) 103634

Fig. 5. Four examples of BCS-KL RFSs of Ic in the 2D vertical cross-section.

these eight selected points are marked in Fig. 3(a) by crosses. Points 1–4
are located far away from the boundaries of different soil layers (i.e.,
SBT3-SBT6 respectively). Points 5–8 are just at the boundaries of dif-
ferent soil layers. Among those four points at boundary locations, point
6 is located at boundary of SBT3 layer, and points 5, 7, 8 are located at
boundary of SBT 5 layer. All these eight points are distanced from CPT
soundings and correspond to the worst situations. Fig. 9 demonstrates
distributions of SBT samples at points 1–8 by colored stacked bars.
Original Ic values and SBT of these eight points are also labeled in Fig. 9.
Note that for points 1–4, majority of SBT samples (e.g., at least 94%) are
correctly identified, and particularly for point 1, all samples give cor-
rect results. For points 5–8, it is observed that at least two SBT are
involved among NB SBT samples. For points 5 and 7, the original SBT
are correctly identified by the most likely SBT (e.g., 90.2% and 66.6%
of SBT5 for point 5 and 7 respectively). However, for points 6 and 8, the
majority of SBT samples provide results different from the original SBT.
The results suggest that for locations far away from the boundaries of
different soil layers, the SBTs are properly identified with high accu-
racy. For points in the vicinity of soil layer boundaries, a majority of
SBT samples might not accurately reflect the underlying ones. This is
because there exist abrupt jumps for Ic data values around the soil layer
boundary and the boundary may not be accurately predicted in the
presence of significant interpolation uncertainty and model uncertainty
in soil classification boundaries. The uncertainty in soil layer bound-
aries can be evaluated quantitatively by statistical analysis on the 2D
SBT cross-sections.
Spatial distributions of SBTs at all points can be calculated using Eq.
(7). The most likely SBT cross-section is then obtained by showing the

Fig. 6. 2D Ic cross-section generated from six CPT soundings: (a) original Ic; (b) average of 500 BCS-KL RFSs of Ic; (c) standard deviation of 500 BCS-KL RFSs of Ic; (d)
absolute residuals between (a) and (b).

6
Y. Hu and Y. Wang
Fig. 7. Profiles of Ic samples at unmeasured U1, U2 and U3 locations.
most likely SBT at all points, as Fig. 10(a). In Fig. 10(a), four SBT (i.e.,
SBT3-6) are presented, which is consistent with the underlying geolo-
gical model (see Fig. 3(a)). The original soil layer boundaries are
plotted by black solid lines for comparison. Note that the most likely
SBT cross-section is generally comparable to the underlying true one,
although the soil layer boundaries in the most likely SBT cross-section
are not perfectly accurate due to interpolation uncertainty and model
uncertainty in soil classification boundaries. The uncertainties can be
evaluated through standard deviation of NB = 500 SBT cross-sections,
as shown in Fig. 10(b). The standard deviation at each point is calcu-
lated using SBT values (e.g., 2–7) of NB = 500 SBT samples. Note that
most area within a soil layer are shown as dark blue or blue, indicating
small standard deviation or small uncertainty of SBT within a soil layer.
In contrast, the color around soil layer boundaries are yellow, in-
dicating relatively large standard deviation or high uncertainty around
soil layer boundaries. It is found that the locations of high uncertainty
Fig. 8. SBT cross-sections for the four Ic samples shown in Fig. 5.
7
Computers and Geotechnics 124 (2020) 103634
are generally consistent with the underlying true soil layer boundaries
(i.e., the black solid lines). The results in Fig. 10 manifest that the
underlying true soil layer boundaries can be identified based on the
standard deviation of NB SBT cross-sections. In the following Section,
sensitivity study on number (M) of CPT soundings and variation of Ic –
based SBT classification boundaries are provided.
4. Sensitivity study
In the proposed approach, both the interpolation uncertainty and
model uncertainty in soil classification boundaries are incorporated in
the MCS framework. Note that the interpolation uncertainty is closely
related to the number of CPT soundings. The more the CPT soundings
are available, the less the interpolation uncertainty should be. In ad-
dition, the variances of the probabilistic SBT classification model can
also affect the SBT classification results. The effect of number (M) of
CPT sounding and the effect of soil classification model uncertainty are
discussed in the following two subsections.
4.1. Effect of number (M) of CPT soundings
To investigate the effect of number (M) of CPT soundings, three
more CPT sounding scenarios, i.e., M = 4, M = 10 and M = 50 are
explored in this subsection. In each added M scenario, CPT soundings
are performed with equal spacing in the underlying 2D vertical cross-
section. Then following the same steps as those in the previous Section,
NB = 500 2D RFSs of Ic data are generated directly from 1D Ic data. The
averages of generated Ic data RFSs for M = 6 scenario and that of the
added scenarios are shown in the Fig. 11. It is shown that when M = 4,
the patterns appear to be vaguer than those for M = 6. As the number
of CPT sounding increases to 10 and 50, more and more detailed pat-
terns are reflected in the average of the generated 2D Ic RFSs, and the
soil layer boundaries also becomes more distinct. The evolution of
standard deviation is shown in Fig. 12. Note that the global magnitude
of standard deviation generally decreases as the number of CPT
sounding increases. Fig. 13 further shows performances at unsampled
locations U1-U3 (see Fig. 6(b)). Subplots (a)–(d) correspond to M = 4,
M = 6, M = 10 and M = 50 scenarios. All lines are plotted using the
same format as those in Fig. 7. When CPT soundings are extremely
Y. Hu and Y. Wang
Fig. 9. Distributions of SBT samples at points 1–8.
Fig. 10. Statistics of obtained SBT cross-sections: (a) the most likely SBT cross-
section; (b) standard deviation of 500 SBT cross-sections.
sparse, such as M = 4, the increasing trends of Ic data versus depth are
well characterized while the abrupt jumps between layers appear to be
fuzzy. It shows that as M increases to 10 and 50, the average profiles
gradually converge to the original profiles and the 95% confidence
interval shrinks quickly to almost zeros. The above results suggest that
when more CPT soundings are available, the generated 2D Ic RFSs be-
come more accurate and the interpolation uncertainty reduces quickly.
For each M scenario, NB = 500 random samples of SBT classifica-
tion boundaries are generated for NB = 500 2D Ic RFSs, leading to
NB = 500 Monte Carlo samples of SBT cross-section. Then distribution
of SBT results at any given point can be calculated using Eq. (7). SBT
distributions at points 1–8 (see Fig. 3(a)) are further discussed for the
added three M scenarios, as shown in Fig. 14. Fig. 14(a)–(d) correspond
to M = 4, M = 6, M = 10 and M = 50 scenarios, respectively. The
stacked bars follow the same formats as those in Fig. 9. For points lo-
cated far away from soil layer boundaries (i.e., points 1–4), it can be
observed that as M increases, the proportions of correctly identified SBT
results are consistently high (e.g., greater than 94.8%). Among points
around soil layer boundaries (i.e., points 5–8), the effect varies with
locations. For points 5 and 7, as M increases, the proportions of cor-
rectly identified SBT samples generally increase and the most likely SBT
are always consistent to the underlying true ones. For points 6 and 8,
8
Computers and Geotechnics 124 (2020) 103634
the distributions evolve drastically. As M increases from 4 to 50, the
most likely SBT changes three times for point 6 and changes twice for
point 8. The underlying SBT can be correctly identified by the most
likely SBT when M = 50. The observations above indicate that inter-
polation uncertainty of Ic data has great influence on the soil classifi-
cation. Locations around soil layer boundaries are more sensitive than
those far away from boundaries of different soil layers.
The most likely SBT cross-sections under the above four M scenarios
are presented in Fig. 15. In the worst case, such as M = 4, four types of
soil are rationally identified. However, the local zones of silt mixtures
and the varying boundary between sand mixtures and sands have not
been characterized accurately. As M increases, soil layer boundaries in
the most likely SBT cross-section become more and more accurate. The
soil layer boundaries almost overlap with the underlying true bound-
aries when M increases to 50. The evolution of standard deviation of
NB = 500 SBT cross-sections are shown in Fig. 16. As M increases, the
zones of high uncertainty (i.e., yellow zones) become thin, indicating
that the interpreted soil layer boundaries become more and more cer-
tain. The results suggest that when the interpolation uncertainty de-
creases, both the accuracy and reliability of soil stratification and
classification improve significantly. In addition, note that considerable
uncertainty is still found in some locations, even though the inter-
polation uncertainty is almost eliminated (i.e., when M = 50). This
might be due to the model uncertainty in the probabilistic soil classi-
fication boundaries. The effect of soil classification model uncertainty is
explored in the next subsection.
4.2. Effect of soil classification model uncertainty
The proposed method includes a probabilistic Ic – based soil clas-
sification system. The probability distribution parameters in the system
(see Table 2) is expected to have effect on the performances of the
proposed method. To investigate the effect of the model uncertainty in
the Ic – based soil classification system on the performance of the
proposed method, an additional set of studies is performed by setting
the standard deviations of the Gaussian distributions for B1-B5 as zeros,
i.e., no model uncertainty in SBT chart or using the deterministic SBT
chart as summarized in Table 1. The procedures in the previous Section
are repeated using the deterministic SBT classification boundaries for
four M scenarios.
The most likely SBT cross-sections under four M scenarios are pre-
sented in Fig. 17. It is found that subplots (a)–(d) in Fig. 17 are almost
identical to those in Fig. 15, which means the uncertainty in the clas-
sification boundaries has relatively minor effect on the most likely SBT
cross-sections. The evolution of standard deviation under four M sce-
narios are shown in Fig. 18. Similar to Fig. 16, as M increases, the
Y. Hu and Y. Wang
Fig. 11. Effect of CPT soundings number (M) on average of the generated Ic RFSs: (a) M = 4; (b) M = 6; (c) M = 10; (d) M = 50.
yellow or white zones become more distinct. In addition, the subplots of
Fig. 18 are very similar to those of Fig. 16, although the yellow or white
zones in Fig. 18 are slightly thinner than those in the corresponding
subplots of Fig. 16. This implies that the model uncertainty in soil
classification system only has relatively minor effect on soil classifica-
tion and stratification in this example. This observation is consistent
with engineering practice that the Ic – based SBT classification bound-
aries summarized in Table 1 are often used deterministically without
consideration of the model uncertainty in the classification boundaries,
although such model uncertainty is well-recognized in literature
[15,31,32,55].
5. Real data example
The proposed method is applied to a set of real CPT data in this
Section. The 2D vertical cross-section to be studied is at an experi-
mental site in the South Parklands of the city of Adelaide [59]. A plan
view of the study site is shown in Fig. 19. The 2D vertical cross-section
Fig. 12. Effect of CPT soundings number (M) on standard deviation (SD) of the generated Ic RFSs: (a) M = 4; (b) M = 6; (c) M = 10; (d) M = 50.
9
Computers and Geotechnics 124 (2020) 103634
starts at location of CPT sounding A5 and ends at location of CPT
sounding K5. Ten CPT soundings (see CPT1-CPT10 in Fig. 19) are se-
lected as measurement data and input to the proposed method for
probabilistic soil stratification and classification in this 2D vertical
cross-section. 1D Ic data profiles of 10 CPT soundings are shown in the
subplots (a)–(j) respectively in Fig. 20. In vertical direction, each CPT
sounding covers a depth of 2.56 m and has 256 data points. Therefore, a
256 × 10 measurement data matrix Y can be constructed. x1 is a
256 × 256 identity matrix. In horizontal direction, 512 data points is
used to discretize the width (i.e., 50 m) of the 2D vertical cross-section.
Therefore the x2 is constructed as a 512 × 10 matrix according to the
location (see Fig. 19) of CPT soundings. NB is set to be 500 to implement
the proposed method.
After inputting the above information, NB = 500 Monte Carlo
samples of 2D SBT cross-section are obtained. The most likely SBT
cross-section is shown in the Fig. 21(a). Majority of the most likely SBT
in the 2D vertical cross-section is sand mixtures (SBT5). Seams of sand
(SBT6) are predicted in the shallow part of the cross-section. Several
Y. Hu and Y. Wang Computers and Geotechnics 124 (2020) 103634

Fig. 13. Effect of CPT soundings number (M) on the generated Ic profiles at unsampled locations U1-U3: (a) M = 4; (b) M = 6; (c) M = 10; (d) M = 50.

zones of silt mixtures (SBT4) are identified at around horizontal co- light blue zones indicate relatively small uncertainty. It is observed that
ordinate = 10 m, 27 m and 40 m. The standard deviation of NB = 500 most yellow zones correspond to the soil layer boundaries in the most
Monte Carlo samples of SBT cross-section are shown in the Fig. 21(b). likely SBT cross-section.
Yellow or orange zones indicate relatively large uncertainty. Blue or To further evaluate the results from the proposed method, soil

Fig. 14. Effects of CPT soundings number (M) on the obtained SBT distributions at points 1–8.

10
Y. Hu and Y. Wang
Fig. 15. Effect of CPT soundings number (M) on the most likely SBT cross-sections: (a) M = 4; (b) M = 6; (c) M = 10; (d) M = 50.
logging from borehole F5 (see Fig. 19) within the 2D vertical cross-
section are compared with results of the proposed method at corre-
sponding location. The location of borehole F5 is also denoted in
Fig. 21(a). Borehole logging of F5 are provided in Fig. 22(a). It shows
that core samples from the borehole are all described as clay. However,
the clay can be subdivided into four strata, namely Sandy clay/Clayey
sand, silty sandy clay (medium plasticity), silty sandy clay (high plas-
ticity) and silty sand (high plasticity). The depths of boundaries for
these four strata are 0.3 m, 0.9 m and 1.6 m, respectively. In general,
the logging can be simplified as two strata, i.e., sandy soils from 0 to
1.6 m and silty soils from 1.6 m to 2.56 m. Using Eq. (7), SBT dis-
tributions along depth at the location of borehole F5 can be calculated.
The most likely SBT classification result at the borehole location is
shown in Fig. 22(b). Soils above around 1.6 m depth are largely iden-
tified as sand mixtures; and soils below around 1.6 m depth are mainly
classified as silt mixtures. SBT results can also be interpreted prob-
abilistically. For example, occurrence probabilities of silt mixtures
Fig. 16. Effect of CPT soundings number (M) on standard deviation (SD) of obtained SBT cross-sections: (a) M = 4; (b) M = 6; (c) M = 10; (d) M = 50.
11
Computers and Geotechnics 124 (2020) 103634
(SBT4) and sand mixtures (SBT5) versus depth at the location of
borehole F5 are respectively shown by grey scale columns in Fig. 22(c)
and (d). The darker the grey scale bar is, the higher the corresponding
probability be. It is observed in Fig. 22(c) that area below 1.6 m are
apparently darker than area above. In contrast, in Fig. 22(d), area
below 1.6 m are apparently lighter than area above, which implies the
soils above 1.6 m are likely to be sand mixtures, and soils below 1.6 m
are likely to be silt mixtures. The results from the proposed method
using limited CPT soundings provides results generally consistent with
the borehole logging in the 2D vertical cross-section. The proposed
method performs well for both simulated and real data.
6. Summary and conclusions
A novel probabilistic method was developed in this paper for clas-
sification and stratification of subsurface soils in a 2D vertical cross-
section using random field theory and Monte Carlo simulation (MCS).
Y. Hu and Y. Wang Computers and Geotechnics 124 (2020) 103634

Fig. 17. Effect of CPT soundings number (M) on the most likely SBT cross-sections: (a) M = 4; (b) M = 6; (c) M = 10; (d) M = 50 with zero model uncertainty in SBT
classification.

Random field samples (RFSs) of CPT data in a vertical cross-section are
generated using 2D Bayesian compressive sampling-Karhunen-Loève
(2D BCS-KL) generator from limited 1D CPT soundings to explicitly
account for the interpolation uncertainty. A probabilistic soil behavior
type (SBT) classification boundary model is developed for the empirical
SBT chart. The uncertainty in classification boundaries is modelled by
Gaussian random variables. Monte Carlo simulation is then im-
plemented with RFSs of the interpolated CPT data and random samples
of SBT classification boundaries, leading to Monte Carlo samples of 2D
SBT cross-section. Statistical analysis is then performed using generated
SBT cross-sections. The proposed method provides spatial distribution
of the probability of various SBTs, the most likely 2D SBT vertical cross-
section, and the quantified uncertainty associated with 2D SBT cross-
sections.
Key equations of the proposed method are derived in the paper, and
the implementation procedures are summarized in a flowchart. A si-
mulated data example is used to illustrate the proposed method. It was
shown that the underlying soil classification and stratification are
properly obtained from the proposed method, and the associated un-
certainty is reasonably quantified. In addition, effect of interpolation
uncertainty and effect of soil classification boundaries uncertainty on
the performance of the proposed method are further investigated in
sensitivity study. The effect of model uncertainty in the soil classifica-
tion boundaries was found to be relatively minor in the numerical

Fig. 18. Effect of CPT soundings number (M) on standard deviation (SD) of the obtained SBT cross-sections with zero model uncertainty in SBT classification: (a)
M = 4; (b) M = 6; (c) M = 10; (d) M = 50.

12
Y. Hu and Y. Wang Computers and Geotechnics 124 (2020) 103634

CPT-1
CPT-2
CPT-3
CPT-4
CPT-5
CPT-6
CPT-7

CPT-8
CPT-9

CPT-10

Fig. 21. Statistics of the obtained SBT cross-sections at the South Parklands site:
(a) the most likely SBT cross-section; (b) standard deviation of 500 SBT cross-
sections.

corresponding location. Results from the proposed method are gen-

Fig. 19. Layout of 10 CPTs at the South Parklands site in Australia (after [59]).
example. The proposed method was also illustrated using a set of real
CPT data in Australia. Soils in a 2D vertical cross-section are properly
classified and stratified using ten CPT soundings in a probabilistic
manner. Soil logging from a borehole within the same vertical cross-
section is compared with the results from the proposed method at the
erally consistent with the borehole logging. The results of both the si-
mulated example and real data example suggest the proposed method is
effective for probabilistic soil classification and stratification in a 2D
vertical cross-section from a limited number of CPT soundings. Note
that the method proposed in this study requires the CPT data to be
“compressible”, which means that the CPT data shall exhibit some
spatial trends, which are of great interest in analyses and designs. If the
CPT data is incompressible or behaves like white noise, the proposed
method might not be effective. The proposed method can also be gen-
eralized to 3D analysis.

Fig. 20. Ic profiles of 10 CPT soundings at the South Parklands site.

13
Y. Hu and Y. Wang
Fig. 22. Comparisons between soil logging from borehole F5, most likely SBT results and probability distributions of SBTs 4&5 along borehole F5.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Yue Hu: Methodology, Software, Validation, Formal analysis,
Investigation, Data curation, Writing - original draft. Yu Wang:
Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Writing - original draft,
Supervision, Project administration, Funding acquisition.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
The work described in this paper was supported by grants from the
Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative
Region, China (Project Nos. CityU 11213117 and CityU 11213119). The
financial supports are gratefully acknowledged. The authors would also
like to thank the members of the TC304 Committee on Engineering
Practice of Risk Assessment & Management of the International Society
of Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering for developing the
database 304 dB used in this study and making it available for scientific
inquiry. We also wish to thank Mark Jaksa for contributing this data-
base to the TC304 compendium of databases.
References
[1] Clayton CR, Matthews MC, Simons NE. Site investigation: a handbook for engineers.
Blackwell Science; 1995.
[2] Mayne PW, Christopher BR, Berg R, DeJong J. Subsurface in-
vestigations—geotechnical site characterization Publication Number FHWA-NHI-
01-031 Washington, DC: National Highway Institute, Federal Highway
Administration; 2002.
[3] Engineer manual 1110-1-1804 geotechnical investigations. US Army Corps of
Engineers; 2001.
[4] Eurocode7. Eurocode 7 Geotechnical design. Part 2: Ground investigation and
testing. BS EN 1997-2:2007.
[5] BSI. Code of practice for ground investigations. BS 5930:2015.
[6] Padrón L, Aznárez J, Maeso O. Dynamic analysis of piled foundations in stratified
soils by a BEM–FEM model. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 2008;28(5):333–46.
[7] Zhang Z, Huang M, Zhang M. Deformation analysis of tunnel excavation below
existing pipelines in multi-layered soils based on displacement controlled coupling
numerical method. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 2012;36(11):1440–60.
[8] Clayton CR. Managing geotechnical risk: improving productivity in UK building and
14
Computers and Geotechnics 124 (2020) 103634
construction. London (UK): Thomas Telford Publishing; 2001.
[9] Suchomel R, Mašín D. Probabilistic analyses of a strip footing on horizontally
stratified sandy deposit using advanced constitutive model. Comput Geotech
2011;38(3):363–74.
[10] Ji J, Low BK. Stratified response surfaces for system probabilistic evaluation of
slopes. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2012;138(11):1398–406.
[11] Liu LL, Cheng YM, Pan QJ, Dias D. Incorporating stratigraphic boundary un-
certainty into reliability analysis of slopes in spatially variable soils using one-di-
mensional conditional Markov chain model. Comput Geotech 2020;118:103321.
[12] Crisp MP, Jaksa MB, Kuo YL, Fenton GA, Griffiths DV. A method for generating
virtual soil profiles with complex, multi-layer stratigraphy. Georisk
2019;13(2):154–63.
[13] Abdulla MB, Sousa RL, Einstein H, Awadalla S. Optimised multivariate Gaussians
for probabilistic subsurface characterization. Georisk 2019;13(4):303–12.
[14] Mayne PW. Cone penetration testing. Transp Res Board 2007.
[15] Robertson P. Soil classification using the cone penetration test. Can Geotech J
1990;27(1):151–8.
[16] Schneider JA, Randolph MF, Mayne PW, Ramsey NR. Analysis of factors influencing
soil classification using normalized piezocone tip resistance and pore pressure
parameters. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2008;134(11):1569–86.
[17] Ching J, Wang J-S, Juang CH, Ku C-S. Cone penetration test (CPT)-based strati-
graphic profiling using the wavelet transform modulus maxima method. Can
Geotech J 2015;52(12):1993–2007.
[18] Wang X, Wang H, Liang RY, Liu Y. A semi-supervised clustering-based approach for
stratification identification using borehole and cone penetration test data. Eng Geol
2019;248:102–16.
[19] Zhang Z, Tumay MT. Statistical to fuzzy approach toward CPT soil classification. J
Geotech Geoenviron Eng 1999;125(3):179–86.
[20] Wang Y, Huang K, Cao Z. Probabilistic identification of underground soil stratifi-
cation using cone penetration tests. Can Geotech J 2013;50(7):766–76.
[21] Li J, Cassidy M, Huang J, Zhang L, Kelly R. Probabilistic identification of soil
stratification. Géotechnique 2016;66(1):16–26.
[22] Wang X, Li Z, Wang H, Rong Q, Liang RY. Probabilistic analysis of shield-driven
tunnel in multiple strata considering stratigraphic uncertainty. Struct Saf
2016;62:88–100.
[23] Cao Z, Zheng S, Li D, Phoon K-K. Bayesian identification of soil stratigraphy based
on soil behaviour type index. Can Geotech J 2018;56(4):570–86.
[24] Wang Y, Hu Y, Zhao T. CPT-based subsurface soil classification and zonation in a 2D
vertical cross-section using Bayesian compressive sampling. Can Geotech J 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2019-0131.
[25] Baecher GB, Christian JT. Reliability and statistics in geotechnical engineering. New
Jersey (NJ, USA): Wiley; 2003.
[26] Ching J, Phoon KK, Wu SH. Impact of statistical uncertainty on geotechnical re-
liability estimation. J Eng Mech 2016;142(6):04016027.
[27] Wang Y, Zhao T. Statistical interpretation of soil property profiles from sparse data
using Bayesian compressive sampling. Géotechnique 2017;67(6):523–36.
[28] Zhao T, Hu Y, Wang Y. Statistical interpretation of spatially varying 2D geo-data
from sparse measurements using Bayesian compressive sampling. Eng Geol
2018;246:162–75.
[29] Robertson P, Wride C. Evaluating cyclic liquefaction potential using the cone pe-
netration test. Can Geotech J 1998;35(3):442–59.
[30] Robertson P. Interpretation of cone penetration tests—a unified approach. Can
Geotech J 2009;46(11):1337–55.
[31] Boulanger R, Idriss I. CPT and SPT based liquefaction triggering procedures. Report
Y. Hu and Y. Wang
No. UCD/CGM.-14, vol. 1; 2014.
[32] Maurer B, Green R, van Ballegooy S, Wotherspoon L. Development of region-spe-
cific soil behavior type index correlations for evaluating liquefaction hazard in
Christchurch. N Zeal Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 2019;117:96–105.
[33] Vanmarcke E. Random fields: analysis and synthesis. World Scientific; 2010.
[34] Hu Y, Zhao T, Wang Y, Choi C, Ng CWW. Direct simulation of two dimensional
isotropic or anisotropic random field from sparse measurement using Bayesian
compressive sampling. Stochastic Environ Res Risk Assess 2019;33(8–9):1477–96.
[35] Griffiths D, Fenton G. Risk assessment in geotechnical engineering. Hoboken (New
Jersey): John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 2008.
[36] Wang Y, Cao Z, Au SK. Efficient Monte Carlo simulation of parameter sensitivity in
probabilistic slope stability analysis. Comput Geotech 2010;37(7–8):1015–22.
[37] Wang Y. Reliability-based design of spread foundations by Monte Carlo simulations.
Géotechnique 2011;61(8):677–85.
[38] Zhang J, Tang WH, Zhang L, Huang H. Characterising geotechnical model un-
certainty by hybrid Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulation. Comput Geotech
2012;43:26–36.
[39] Wang Y, Qin Z, Liu X, Li L. Probabilistic analysis of post-failure behavior of soil
slopes using random smoothed particle hydrodynamics. Eng Geol
2019;261:105266.
[40] Douglas B, Olsen RS. Soil classificaion using electric cone penetrometer. In: Proc
symp on cone penetration testing and experience. Geotech Eng Div, ASCE 1981;
209–227.
[41] Jefferies MG, Davies MP. Use of CPTU to estimate equivalent SPT N 60. Geotech
Test J 1993;16(4):458–68.
[42] Ku C, Juang C, Ou C. Reliability of CPT Ic as an index for mechanical behaviour
classification of soils. Géotechnique 2010;60(11):861.
[43] Wang Y, Zhao T, Phoon KK. Direct simulation of random field samples from sparsely
measured geotechnical data with consideration of uncertainty in interpretation. Can
Geotech J 2018;55(6):862–80.
[44] Donoho DL. Compressed sensing. IEEE Trans Inf Theory 2006;52(4):1289–306.
[45] Candès EJ, Wakin MB. An introduction to compressive sampling. IEEE Signal
Process Mag 2008;25(2):21–30.
[46] Ji S, Xue Y, Carin L. Bayesian compressive sensing. IEEE Trans Signal Process
2008;56(6):2346–56.
[47] Wang Y, Zhao T. Interpretation of soil property profile from limited measurement
15
Computers and Geotechnics 124 (2020) 103634
data: a compressive sampling perspective. Can Geotech J 2016;53(9):1547–59.
[48] Duarte MF, Davenport MA, Takhar D, Laska JN, Sun T, Kelly KF, et al. Single-pixel
imaging via compressive sampling. IEEE Signal Process Mag 2008;25(2):83–91.
[49] Romberg J. Imaging via compressive sampling. IEEE Signal Process Mag
2008;25(2):14–20.
[50] Fang Y, Wu J, Huang B. 2D sparse signal recovery via 2D orthogonal matching
pursuit. Sci China Inf Sci 2012;55(4):889–97.
[51] Tipping ME. Sparse Bayesian learning and the relevance vector machine. Journal of
machine learning research 2001; 1(Jun): 211–44.
[52] Sivia D, Skilling J. Data analysis: a Bayesian tutorial. OUP Oxford; 2006.
[53] Huang S, Quek S, Phoon K. Convergence study of the truncated Karhunen-Loeve
expansion for simulation of stochastic processes. Int J Numer Methods Eng
2001;52(9):1029–43.
[54] Phoon K, Huang S, Quek S. Simulation of second-order processes using Karhunen-
Loeve expansion. Comput Struct 2002;80(12):1049–60.
[55] Cetin KO, Ozan C. CPT-based probabilistic soil characterization and classification. J
Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2009;135(1):84–107.
[56] Facciorusso J, Uzielli M. Stratigraphic profiling by cluster analysis and fuzzy soil
classification from mechanical cone penetration tests. Proceedings ISC-2 on geo-
technical and geophysical site characterization. Rotterdam: Millpress; 2004. p.
905–12.
[57] Salgado R, Prezzi M, Ganju E. Assessment of site variability from analysis of cone
penetration test data (Joint Transportation Research Program Publication No.
FHWA/IN/JTRP-2015/04); 2015.
[58] Dietrich C, Newsam G. A fast and exact method for multidimensional Gaussian
stochastic simulations. Water Resour Res 1993;29(8):2861–9.
[59] Jaksa MB. The influence of spatial variability on the geotechnical design properties
of a stiff, overconsolidated clay. PhD dissertation; 1995.
[60] Montoya-Noguera S, Zhao T, Hu Y, Wang Y, Phoon KK. Simulation of non-stationary
non-Gaussian random fields from sparse measurements using Bayesian compressive
sampling and Karhunen-Loève expansion. Struct Saf 2019;79:66–79.
[61] Wang Y, Zhao T, Hu Y, Phoon KK. Simulation of random fields with trend from
sparse measurements without detrending. J Eng Mech 2019;145(2):04018130.
[62] Liu X, Wang Y, Li D. Investigation of slope failure mode evolution during large
deformation in spatially variable soils by random limit equilibrium and material
point methods. Comput Geotech 2019;111:301–12.