2.

21 Cone Penetration Test 101

Figure 2.26 (continued) (c) test in progress (Courtesy of Sanjeev Kumar, Southern Illinois
University, Carbondale, Illinois)

Figure 2.27 shows the results of penetrometer test in a soil profile with friction mea-
surement by an electric friction-cone penetrometer.
Several correlations that are useful in estimating the properties of soils encoun-
tered during an exploration program have been developed for the point resistance (qc )
and the friction ratio (Fr ) obtained from the cone penetration tests. The friction ratio is
defined as
frictional resistance fc
Fr 5 5 (2.41)
cone resistance qc
In a more recent study on several soils in Greece, Anagnostopoulos et al. (2003) expressed
Fr as
Fr (%) 5 1.45 2 1.36 logD50 (electric cone) (2.42)

and

Fr (%) 5 0.7811 2 1.611 logD50 (mechanical cone) (2.43)

where D50 5 size through which 50% of soil will pass through (mm).
The D50 for soils based on which Eqs. (2.42) and (2.43) have been developed ranged
from 0.001 mm to about 10 mm.
As in the case of standard penetration tests, several correlations have been developed
between qc and other soil properties. Some of these correlations are presented next.
102 Chapter 2: Natural Soil Deposits and Subsoil Exploration

qc (kN/m2) fc (kN/m2)
0 5,000 10,000 0 200 400
0 0

2 2

4 4
Depth (m)

6 Depth (m) 6

8 8

10 10

12 12

Figure 2.27 Cone penetrometer test with friction measurement

Correlation between Relative Density (Dr ) and qc for Sand

Lancellotta (1983) and Jamiolkowski et al. (1985) showed that the relative density of nor-
mally consolidated sand, Dr, and qc can be correlated according to the formula (Figure 2.28).

qc
Dr (%) 5 A 1 B log 10 ¢ ≤ (2.44)
"sor

The preceding relationship can be rewritten as (Kulhawy and Mayne, 1990)

qc
Dr (%) 5 68Clog £ ≥ 2 1S (2.45)
"pa ? s0r
 2.21 Cone Penetration Test 103

95

Dr = –98 + 66 log10 qc
85
(σ 0 )0.5

75

65

Dr (%)
2σ
55
qc and σ 0 in ton (metric)/m2
2σ
45 Ticino sand
Ottawa sand
35 Edgar sand
Hokksund sand
25 Hilton mine sand

15
100 1000
qc
σ 0 0.5

Figure 2.28 Relationship between Dr and qc (Based on Lancellotta, 1983,

and Jamiolski et al., 1985)

where
pa 5 atmospheric pressure (< 100 kN>m2 )
sor 5 vertical effective stress
Baldi et al. (1982), and Robertson and Campanella (1983) recommended the empirical re-
lationship shown in Figure 2.29 between vertical effective stress (sor ), relative density
(Dr ), and qc for normally consolidated sand.
Kulhawy and Mayne (1990) proposed the following relationship to correlate Dr, qc,
and the vertical effective stress sor :

qc

R≥ ¥
1 pa
Dr 5 B (2.46)
305QcOCR1.8 sor 0.5
ï
¢ ≤
pa

In this equation,
OCR 5 overconsolidation ratio
pa 5 atmospheric pressure
Qc 5 compressibility factor
104 Chapter 2: Natural Soil Deposits and Subsoil Exploration

Cone point resistance, qc (MN/m2)

0 10 20 30 40 50
0

100
Vertical effective stress, σo (kN/m2)

200

300

400
Figure 2.29 Variation of qc, sor , and
Dr for normally consolidated quartz sand
Dr = 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% (Based on Baldi et al., 1982, and
500 Robertson and Campanella, 1983)

The recommended values of Qc are as follows:

Highly compressible sand 5 0.91
Moderately compressible sand 5 1.0
Low compressible sand 5 1.09

Correlation between qc and Drained Friction Angle (f9) for Sand

On the basis of experimental results, Robertson and Campanella (1983) suggested the vari-
ation of Dr, sor , and fr for normally consolidated quartz sand. This relationship can be
expressed as (Kulhawy and Mayne, 1990)
qc
fr 5 tan21 B0.1 1 0.38 log ¢ ≤R (2.47)
sor

Based on the cone penetration tests on the soils in the Venice Lagoon (Italy), Ricceri et
al. (2002) proposed a similar relationship for soil with classifications of ML and SP-SM as
qc
fr 5 tan21 B0.38 1 0.27 log ¢ ≤R (2.48)
sor

In a more recent study, Lee et al. (2004) developed a correlation between fr, qc , and the hor-
izontal effective stress (shr ) in the form
qc 0.1714
fr 5 15.575¢ ≤ (2.49)
shr
 2.21 Cone Penetration Test 105

Clayey silt & Sandy silt

Clay silty clay and silt Silty Sand Sand
1000
900
800
700

qc (kN/m2)
600
N60
Range of results of
500 Robertson & Campanella (1983)

400
Ratio,

300
200
Average of Robertson &
100 Campanella (1983)
0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1.0
Mean grain size, D50 (mm)

Figure 2.30 General range of variation of qc>N60 for various

types of soil

Correlation between qc and N60

Figure 2.30 shows a plot of qc (kN> m2)> N60 (N60 5 standard penetration resistance)
against the mean grain size (D50 in mm) for various types of soil. This was developed from
field test results by Robertson and Campanella (1983).
Anagnostopoulos et al. (2003) provided a similar relationship correlating qc, N60 ,
and D50. Or

qc
¢ ≤
pa
5 7.6429D0.26
50 (2.50)
N60

where pa 5 atmospheric pressure (same unit as qc).

Correlations of Soil Types

Robertson and Campanella (1983) provided the correlations shown in Figure 2.31 between
qc and the friction ratio [Eq. (2.41)] to identify various types of soil encountered in the field.

Correlations for Undrained Shear Strength (cu), Preconsolidation

Pressure (scr ), and Overconsolidation Ratio (OCR) for Clays
The undrained shear strength, cu, can be expressed as

qc 2 so
cu 5 (2.51)
NK
106 Chapter 2: Natural Soil Deposits and Subsoil Exploration

40
Sands
20

Cone point resistance, qc (MN/m2)

Silty
10 sands
8 Sandy
6 Clayey
silts
4 silts
and
2 silts and
silty
1 clays Clays
0.8
0.6
0.4 Peat

0.2

0.1 Figure 2.31 Robertson and Campanella’s

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 correlation (1983) between qc, Fr, and the
Friction ratio, Fr (%) type of soil (Robertson and Campanella, 1983)

where
so 5 total vertical stress
NK 5 bearing capacity factor
The bearing capacity factor, NK, may vary from 11 to 19 for normally consolidated clays and
may approach 25 for overconsolidated clay. According to Mayne and Kemper (1988)
NK 5 15 (for electric cone)
and
NK 5 20 (for mechanical cone)
Based on tests in Greece, Anagnostopoulos et al. (2003) determined
NK 5 17.2 (for electric cone)
and
NK 5 18.9 (for mechanical cone)
These field tests also showed that
fc
cu 5 (for mechanical cones) (2.52)
1.26
and
cu 5 fc (for electrical cones) (2.53)
Mayne and Kemper (1988) provided correlations for preconsolidation pressure (scr)
and overconsolidation ratio (OCR) as

scr 5 0.243(qc ) 0.96

c c (2.54)
2
MN>m MN>m2
 2.22 Pressuremeter Test (PMT) 107

and

qc 2 so 1.01
OCR 5 0.37¢ ≤ (2.55)
sor

where so and sor 5 total and effective stress, respectively.

2.22 Pressuremeter Test (PMT)

The pressuremeter test is an in situ test conducted in a borehole. It was originally developed by
Menard (1956) to measure the strength and deformability of soil. It has also been adopted by
ASTM as Test Designation 4719. The Menard-type PMT consists essentially of a probe with
three cells. The top and bottom ones are guard cells and the middle one is the measuring cell, as
shown schematically in Figure 2.32a. The test is conducted in a prebored hole with a diameter
that is between 1.03 and 1.2 times the nominal diameter of the probe. The probe that is most
commonly used has a diameter of 58 mm and a length of 420 mm. The probe cells can be
expanded by either liquid or gas. The guard cells are expanded to reduce the end-condition effect
on the measuring cell, which has a volume (Vo ) of 535 cm3. Following are the dimensions for
the probe diameter and the diameter of the borehole, as recommended by ASTM:

Probe Borehole diameter

diameter
(mm) Nominal (mm) Maximum (mm)

44 45 53
58 60 70
74 76 89

Gas/water Pressure, p pl
line

Zone I Zone II Zone III

pf

Guard
cell
p
Measuring
cell

po
Guard
cell v Total
cavity
volume,
Vo Vo  υo Vo  υm Vo  υf 2(Vo  υo)
V
(a) (b)

Figure 2.32 (a) Pressuremeter; (b) plot of pressure versus total cavity volume
108 Chapter 2: Natural Soil Deposits and Subsoil Exploration

In order to conduct a test, the measuring cell volume, Vo, is measured and the probe
is inserted into the borehole. Pressure is applied in increments and the new volume of the
cell is measured. The process is continued until the soil fails or until the pressure limit of
the device is reached. The soil is considered to have failed when the total volume of the
expanded cavity (V) is about twice the volume of the original cavity. After the completion
of the test, the probe is deflated and advanced for testing at another depth.
The results of the pressuremeter test are expressed in the graphical form of pressure
versus volume, as shown in Figure 2.32b. In the figure, Zone I represents the reloading por-
tion during which the soil around the borehole is pushed back into the initial state (i.e., the
state it was in before drilling). The pressure po represents the in situ total horizontal stress.
Zone II represents a pseudoelastic zone in which the cell volume versus cell pressure is
practically linear. The pressure pf represents the creep, or yield, pressure. The zone marked
III is the plastic zone. The pressure pl represents the limit pressure. Figure 2.33 shows some
photographs for a pressuremeter test in the field.
The pressuremeter modulus, Ep, of the soil is determined with the use of the theory
of expansion of an infinitely thick cylinder. Thus,

Dp
Ep 5 2(1 1 ms ) (Vo 1 vm ) ¢ ≤ (2.56)
Dv

where
vo 1 vf
vm 5
2
Dp 5 pf 2 po
Dv 5 vf 2 vo
ms 5 Poisson’s ratio (which may be assumed to be 0.33)
The limit pressure pl is usually obtained by extrapolation and not by direct measurement.
In order to overcome the difficulty of preparing the borehole to the proper size, self-
boring pressuremeters (SBPMTs) have also been developed. The details concerning
SBPMTs can be found in the work of Baguelin et al. (1978).
Correlations between various soil parameters and the results obtained from the pres-
suremeter tests have been developed by various investigators. Kulhawy and Mayne (1990)
proposed that, for clays,

scr 5 0.45pl (2.57)

where scr 5 preconsolidation pressure.

On the basis of the cavity expansion theory, Baguelin et al. (1978) proposed that

(pl 2 po )
cu 5 (2.58)
Np