See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/356428790

A generalised CPTu state parameter inversion method based on the NorSand

Widget

Conference Paper · December 2021

CITATIONS READS

0 1,057

3 authors:

Kyle Smith David Reid

WSP University of Western Australia
15 PUBLICATIONS 24 CITATIONS 99 PUBLICATIONS 470 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Riccardo Fanni
WSP Australia
42 PUBLICATIONS 219 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Kyle Smith on 22 November 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 A generalised CPTu state parameter inversion method based on the
NorSand Widget

Kyle Smith, Golder

David Reid, The University of Western Australia
Riccardo Fanni, Golder

The estimation of in situ state parameter, Ψ, is a critical part of the characterisation of tailings storage
facilities (TSFs) for the purpose of liquefaction screening and stability assessments. The cone penetration
test with pore pressure measurement (CPTu) supplemented by laboratory testing form the current state of
practice tools to assess in situ Ψ. Recently, cavity expansion-based CPTu inversion methods, in particular
the NorSand Widget, have achieved routine adoption for many engineering applications including TSFs.
However, application of cavity expansion-based methods is not without limitations; most notably, cavity
expansion-based methods rely upon extensive material-specific calibrations, therefore, the results of such
methods are limited to the specific soil stratum to which they are calibrated. Additionally, partially drained
conditions developed during CPTu are not explicitly considered in currently available methods.
In order to overcome these limitations, this paper presents a generalised method to interpret Ψ from either
drained or undrained CPTu, based upon material-specific CPTu calibrations obtained from the NorSand
Widget. Guidance on interpretation of drainage conditions developed during CPTu is provided to assist in
application of the method. As the method is based upon the NorSand Widget, the influence of elastic soil
rigidity is explicitly considered; therefore, the method does not suffer from stress level bias common in
screening level methods for estimation of Ψ.
Keywords: CPT, CSSM, liquefaction

Introduction
Catastrophic flow liquefaction failures of TSFs is presently of great concern to the mining industry and associated
stakeholders. Estimation of in situ Ψ (Been & Jefferies 1985) is a critical part of the characterisation of TSFs for the
purpose of liquefaction screening and stability assessment. Such assessments require reliable input data and an
understanding of the uncertainty in the data. CPTu supplemented by laboratory testing form the current state of practice
tools to assess in situ Ψ. There currently exist a number of methods to estimate in situ Ψ from CPTu data, ranging from
widely adopted screening level methods e.g. Plewes et al. (1992), to more sophisticated methods based upon the cavity
expansion idealisation of CPTu (e.g. the NorSand Widget provided by Shuttle & Jefferies (2016), henceforth referred to as
the Widget), and ultimately physical calibration chamber studies, with each level of rigour capable of providing improved
accuracy in estimation of in situ Ψ. Physical calibration chamber studies are seldom undertaken outside of research studies
owing to the large sample requirements and large number of tests required. As such, cavity expansion-based CPTu
inversion methods, in particular the Widget, presently represents the state-of-practice for many engineering applications,
including TSFs, as evidenced by its use in recent failure investigations of TSFs (Jefferies et al. 2019, Robertson et al. 2019).
Application of cavity expansion-based techniques is not without limitations. Partially drained conditions, as often
developed during standard rate (20 mm/s) CPTu through tailings and other loose silts using a standard diameter CPTu cone
(35.7 mm, 10 cm2 face area), are not explicitly considered by presently available cavity expansion-based methods.
Additionally, as cavity expansion methods rely upon calibration of material-specific parameters, the results of such analyses
are limited to the specific soil stratum to which they are calibrated. This issue is well demonstrated in TSFs, which often
contain interbedded lenses of finer and coarser tailings within a single CPTu sounding location, as well as varying tailings
particle size gradations across a TSF impoundment due to segregation. This represents a challenge to application of such
methods without extensive material calibrations. A common approach used in industry is to test both a coarser and finer
tailings fraction, with the aim to bound the soil response at the critical state, with coarser soils generally exhibiting lower
slope of the critical state line (CSL) λ and finer soils showing greater λ (Smith et al. 2019, Marcedo & Vergaray 2021)
although there is no guarantee that intermediate gradations will exhibit properties bounded by the two extremes (Torres-
Cruz 2021). Material-specific calibrations may then be developed for each material using the Widget and are applied to
the varying strata encountered in a CPTu sounding based on an index of soil behaviour such as soil behaviour-type index,
Ic (Sottile et al. 2019) or pore pressure ratio Bq. Selection of which drainage condition (drained or undrained) is applicable
to each soil strata is more nuanced (Reid & Smith 2021), with partially drained conditions often predominating in many
TSFs.
It should also be noted that the screening level methods of Plewes et al. (1992) and Been & Jefferies (1992) suffer from
stress level bias (see Sladen (1989)), which can result in overestimation of Ψ with increasing depth. Such bias can be
removed through normalisation by the elastic soil rigidity index Ir,e, as is included in the Widget.

1
This paper presents a generalised method to estimate Ψ from either drained or undrained CPTu, based upon material-
specific CPTu calibrations modelled using the Widget for a wide range of NorSand calibrated soils presented in the
literature, as presented by Smith et al. (2021). As the method is based upon the Widget, the influence of elastic soil rigidity
is explicitly considered, and as such the method does not suffer from stress level bias common in other screening level Ψ
inversion methods. Guidance on interpretation of drainage conditions developed during CPTu is provided to assist in
application of the method. Whilst the inherent inaccuracy of screening level Ψ inversion methods should be recognised, it
is hoped that application of the proposed method will result in improved estimation of Ψ and therefore improved assessment
of the potential for flow liquefaction of TSFs as well as other large dams that may be founded on loose, liquefiable soils.
Background
Interpretation of drainage during CPTu
A large amount of research has been carried out to study the effects of penetration rate, and as a consequence, the effect of
partial drainage on CPTu. Finnie & Randolph (1994) proposed a normalised cone velocity, V, as presented in Equation 1,
in order to provide a rational framework to compare penetration rates in different materials with different consolidation
characteristics.
.
𝑉= (1)
D is the CPTu cone diameter, v is the CPTu penetration rate, and cv is the coefficient of consolidation of the soil in the
vertical direction, with the vertical direction selected due to convenience of estimation from laboratory-derived
consolidation data (House et al. 2001). V is a useful index of drainage conditions with undrained penetration generally
occurring when V is greater than 30 to 100 and fully drained penetration occurring when V is less than 0.03 (DeJong et al.
2013).
During CPTu, dissipation of excess pore pressure around the cone is predominantly in the horizontal direction (Baligh &
Levadoux 1986); therefore, it is more appropriate to use ch for estimation of V than cv (DeJong et al. 2013). Teh & Houlsby
(1991) propose Equation 2 for estimation of ch from CPTu dissipation testing, were T* is a dimensionless consolidation
time factor (equal to 0.245 for dissipation measured at the u2 sensor location), r is the cone radius, Ir,ls is the large-strain
rigidity index of the soil (Ir,ls = G50/su, where G50 is the secant shear modulus at 50% mobilised strength, and su the peak
undrained shear strength of the soil), and t50 is the time for dissipation of 50% of excess pore pressure generated during
penetration.
∗. .
. ,
𝑐 = (2)

Ir,ls is often approximated to be 100 in practice owing to the difficulty in accurately estimating its value (although empirical
methods do exist for clays, see Krage et al. (2014)), and its limited influence on estimation of ch, which is only accurate to
half an order of magnitude (Lunne et al. 1997). As such, V ≈ 0.9(t50) assuming Ir,ls = 100 for standard rate CPTu using a
standard diameter cone. DeJong and Randolph (2012) demonstrated that Equation 2 is unreliable due to partial drainage
during penetration when t50 < 50 s, and is somewhat influenced by partial drainage when t50 < 100 s. Therefore, t50 = 60 s
(approximately V = 55) as measured in dissipation tests, provides a simple distinction between undrained and partially
drained CPTu.
During fully drained CPTu no excess pore pressures should be recorded at the u 2 sensor location due to the high ch of the
soil, i.e. the dynamic pore pressure measured during penetration should be equal to the equilibrium in situ pore pressure
and no change in pore pressure should be observed in a dissipation test. However, due to the measurement uncertainty of
pore pressure transducers, some tolerance in excess pore pressure should be allowed for. Jefferies & Been (2015) propose
that an absolute value of Bq of less than 0.02 can be used to distinguish drained penetration; however, this distinction is not
strict enough in many situations and an additional criterion that the absolute excess pore pressure be almost negligible (e.g.
less than 20 kPa, with this tolerance to allow for inaccuracy in both the measured dynamic pore pressure and estimation of
equilibrium pore pressure) can provide a more reliable, yet still practical distinction.
Lastly, it should also be noted that in the case of the characterisation of tailings using CPTu, dissipation tests are far more
practical to assess partial drainage conditions than laboratory testing on retrieved soil samples. Dissipation tests can be
carried out directly in the material of greatest relevance to the drainage assessment, without issues such as sample
disturbance, reconstitution of samples in the laboratory, or macro-fabric effects that cannot be captured in laboratory
element tests.
CPTu inversion parameter framework
Estimation of in situ Ψ from CPTu data is predicated upon the findings of Been et al. (1987), who showed that an
exponential trend line provided a straightforward relationship between normalised tip resistance and Ψ. Presently, an
equation in the form of Equation 3, as proposed by Shuttle & Cunning (2007), is utilised for inversion of Ψ.
𝑄 1−𝐵 + 1 = 𝑘 . 𝑒𝑥𝑝(−𝑚 . 𝜓) (3)
The CPTu inversion parameters k’ and m’ represent the normalised penetration resistance at Ψ = 0 and how sensitive the
penetration resistance is to changes in Ψ, respectively, whilst Qp is the normalised penetration resistance. Presently
available CPTu Ψ inversion methods including Been & Jefferies (1992) and Plewes et al. (1992) utilise Equation 4 and
Equation 5 to estimate k’ and m’ from λ10, respectively.
.
= 3+ (4)

𝑚 = 11.9 − 13.3(𝜆 ) (5)

Cavity expansion-based techniques such as the Widget do not rely upon Equation 4 or Equation 5; instead, material-specific
values of k’ and m’ are estimated based on the results of the cavity expansion modelling.
NorSand calibration
NorSand is a generalised critical state model for soil based on the state parameter (Shuttle & Jefferies, 2005). NorSand
calibration of a soil for the purposes of running the Widget requires knowledge of the critical state line of the soil, dilatancy
and plastic hardening properties in triaxial compression, and elastic properties. The specific parameters required are
presented in Table 1.
Estimation of the material-specific parameters for a soil is achieved through triaxial compression testing of loose (Ψ > 0)
soil specimens to estimate both the CSL and plastic hardening parameters, as well as triaxial compression testing of dense
(Ψ < 0) soil specimens to estimate dilatancy parameters (see Shuttle & Jefferies (2016)).
Table 1 - NorSand parameters required to run the Widget
Material Specific Parameter Function Description
Γ Intercept of CSL (at p’ = 1 kPa)
λe CSL Slope of CSL (base e)
Mtc Critical friction ratio (in triaxial compression)
N Volumetric coupling parameter
Dilatancy
χtc State dilatancy parameter (in triaxial compression)
H0 Intercept of plastic hardening modulus function (at Ψ = 0)
Plastic hardening
Hy Slope of plastic hardening modulus function (H = H0 – Ψ.Hy)
Gpower Exponent of elastic shear rigidity function (Gmax = Gref(p’/100 kPa)Gpower)
Elasticity
ν Poisson’s ratio

It should be noted that a modulus reduction factor of approximately 0.25 is generally applied to geophysical estimated
values of the small strain shear modulus Gmax for use in the NorSand constitutive model (Shuttle & Jefferies 2016). This
convention has been adopted in this paper.
Method
NorSand Widget
The NorSand Widget v2.5 (Shuttle, 2019) utilises 1D cavity expansion as an analogue of CPTu. The Widget is capable of
modelling both drained and undrained CPTu. In order to obtain a material-specific calibration of the CPTu inversion
parameters k’ and m’ for a soil, a series of cavity expansion simulations are modelled for a range of input triples of; mean
effective stress, p’, Ψ, and elastic soil rigidity index (Ir,e = Gmax/p’). The results of the simulations are generally used to
obtain functions for k’ and m’ that are dependent on Ir,e, as per Equation 6 and Equation 7.
𝑘 = 𝑘 + 𝑘 . 𝑙𝑛 𝐼 , (6)
𝑚 = 𝑚 + 𝑚 . 𝑙𝑛 𝐼 , (7)
Smith et al. (2021) presented material-specific NorSand calibrations of 29 materials from the literature, as well as the
results of Widget modelling for those materials. Modelling was undertaken for both drained and undrained CPTu
penetration at a mean effective stress of p’ = 100 kPa, and Ir,e of 100, 200, 400, and 800, a reasonable range of Ir,e for loose
soils, equivalent to soils with shear wave velocities, vs, of approximately 140 to 400 m/s.
Smith et al. (2021) stated that for undrained penetration, the inversion parameters k’ and m’ were not found to be
significantly influenced by stress level bias (i.e. Ir,e at p’ = 100 kPa), consistent with data presented by Shuttle and Jefferies
(2016). However, for this study, additional undrained Widget modelling has been undertaken for p’ = 50, 100, 200, 400,
800 kPa (at Ir,e between 100 and 800) in order to investigate the minor influence of stress level on undrained CPTu
penetration, due to measurement of pore pressure at the u 2 sensor location, as suggested by Shuttle (2019). The range of
conditions modelled correspond to soils with elastic shear modulus (Gmax) of 10 to 320 MPa, which correspond to soils
with vs of approximately 140 to 800 m/s.

3
Results
Widget results
Model results from Smith et al. (2021) for drained penetration are presented in Figure 1 and Figure 2, which present
inversion parameters k’ and m’, respectively. Results from the additional Widget modelling undertaken for undrained
penetration are presented in Figure 3 and Figure 4. Data for drained penetration is presented for a range of Ir,e, to
demonstrate the influence of stress level bias. For undrained penetration, m’ was found to be fairly insensitive to the
modelled stress level or stiffness, however, the inversion parameter k’ was seen to vary slightly with Gmax (rather than p’
or Ir,e) as a result of u2 increasing with increasing Gmax. As such, the apparent influence of stress level on undrained CPTu
penetration due to measurement of pore pressure at the u2 sensor location was found to be best normalised by Gmax rather
than p’ or Ir,e.
The relationships proposed by Been & Jefferies (1992) and Been et al. (1988) to estimate k’ and m’, respectively, as used
in the screening level Ψ inversion methods proposed by Been & Jefferies (1992) and Plewes et al. (1992), are also shown
on Figures 1 to 4. It is apparent from the data presented on Figures 1 to 4 that functions can be fit through the Widget data
that better represent the data than the relationships proposed by Been & Jefferies (1992) and Been et al. (1988). Smith et
al. (2021) demonstrated that this was also the case for CPTu calibration chamber data (Jefferies & Been, 2015) and in situ
calibration data presented in the literature (Been & Jefferies, 1992). Smith et al. (2021) attributed this limitation of the
presently available screening level Ψ inversion methods to their use of single functions to model both drained and undrained
penetration, where λ10 is used as both a important material parameter as well as an implicit proxy for CPTu drainage. To
overcome this limitation, drainage condition-specific functions are proposed, as presented in Figures 1 to 4, with k’ and m’
calculated as per Equations 8 to 11 (drained penetration) and Equations 12 to 15 (undrained penetration, GPa).
Drained penetration

= 𝑎 + 𝑏. 𝑙𝑛 (8)

𝑎 = 13.58 − 0.52 𝑙𝑛 𝐼 , (9)

𝑏 = 0.87 𝑙𝑛 𝐼 , − 0.19 (10)
.
𝑚 = 3.83(𝜆 ) (11)
Undrained penetration

=𝑐+ (12)

𝑐 = 7.36 − 4.61(𝐺 ) (13)

𝑑 = 0.06 + 0.02(𝐺 ) (14)
( )
𝑚 = (15)

Smith et al. (2021) demonstrated that the material-specific calibrations for ‘Feijao, Fine Tailings’, ‘Fundao, Sandy
Tailings’, and ‘Cadia TC1’ tailings were calibrated with atypically high values of χtc, whilst ‘Bothkennar Clay’, ‘Feijao,
Fine Tailings’, and to a lesser extent ‘Fundao, Sandy Tailings’ and ‘Silt E’ were calibrated with atypically high values of
H0. The results of Widget modelling on these materials were markedly different to those for the other soils modelled by
Smith et al. (2021). This can be seen on Figures 1 to 3, with the Widget results for these materials sitting outside the typical
variation from the average trend; the typical variation in Widget results is a result of typical variation in material-specific
calibrations. Jefferies (1993) states that χtc is a fabric-specific parameter, whilst Jefferies and Shuttle (2011) state that H is
inversely proportional to λe, with proportionality depending on soil fabric. As both χtc and H depend on soil fabric and a
general Ψ inversion method is sought, the aforementioned materials that were atypically calibrated have not been utilised
for the development of the inversion functions. It should be noted that this may preclude the application of the proposed
method to soils that possess atypical soil fabric and/or bonding.
Figure 1 – k’/Mtc vs 1/λ10 for drained penetration

Figure 2 – m’ vs λ10 for drained penetration

5
Figure 3 – k’/Mtc vs 1/λ10 for undrained penetration

Figure 4 – m’ vs λ10 for undrained penetration

Proposed method
The following generalised method to estimate Ψ from either drained or undrained CPTu is proposed by the authors based
on the aforementioned results and considerations. The method represents an improvement on other screening level methods
to estimate Ψ as it explicitly considers drainage conditions and accounts for stress level bias. The method is applicable to
standard rate CPTu through saturated soil (or unsaturated soils without matric suctions) using a standard diameter cone
with pore pressure measurement at the u2 location.
The method is similar to other screening level Ψ inversion methods in that the parameter Mtc is a required input. The method
also relies upon input of elastic soil properties (Gmax, Ir,e), therefore measurement of vs in the same location as the CPTu
sounding is recommended. Furthermore, dissipation tests are likely required to assess drainage conditions, these should
also be undertaken in the same location as the CPTu sounding. The dissipation tests and downhole seismic tests (to obtain
vs) may be undertaken in a separate, nearby CPTu sounding in order to reduce the influence of stoppages in penetration on
the measured response of the soil.
The method relies upon the empirical correlation proposed by Plewes et al. (1992) (Equation 16) to estimate λ 10 from the
stress normalised friction ratio (F). The soil behaviour-type index (Ic,BJ) based correlation proposed by Been and Jefferies
(1992) has not been utilised owing to the limitation of the correlation to differentiate λ 10 for soils displaying Ic,BJ < 2.3 (Reid
2015).
𝜆 = × 100% (16)
The proposed method is as follows:
1. Check for atypical soil fabric or bonding at depth in question (e.g. check using methods proposed by Robertson (2016)).
If atypical soil fabric or bonding is inferred, consider use of material-specific CPTu calibration.
2. Check drainage conditions at depth in question: if |Bq| < 0.02 and |Δu| < 20 kPa use drained inversion equations, if
dissipation test t50 > 60 s adopt undrained inversion equations, else use alternative screening level method (e.g. Plewes
et al. (1992)) with caution.
3. Estimate Gmax, and Ir,e from downhole seismic data (vs), applying a modulus reduction factor of 0.25. If seismic data is
unavailable, infer values from relevant soundings nearby.
4. Estimate λ10 from F using Equation 16 or using a similar site-specific calibration based on laboratory testing.
5. For drained penetration: obtain k’ from Equation 8 with Equation 9, Equation 10, and Mtc as inputs. Obtain m’ from
Equation 11.
6. For undrained penetration: obtain k’ from Equation 12 with Equation 13, Equation 14, and Mtc as inputs. Obtain m’
from Equation 15.
7. For partially drained penetration: obtain k’ from Equation 4 and obtain m’ from Equation 5.
8. Estimate Ψ from k’, m’, Qp, and Bq using Equation 3.

Contours of Ψ obtained using the proposed method are presented on a soil-type behaviour chart in Figure 5, for p’ = 100,
Ir,e = 200, and Mtc = 1.4.

Figure 5: Contours of Ψ from proposed method plotted on soil classification chart for p’ = 100, I r,e = 200, and Mtc =
1.4

7
On Figure 5, contours of Ψ derived from the drained inversion equations have been shown for values of Ic,BJ less than 2,
which represents clean to silty sands and gravelly sands that usually exhibit drained conditions during CPTu. Contours
derived from the undrained inversion equations have been shown for values of Ic,BJ greater than 2.76, which represents
clays and organic soils that usually exhibit undrained conditions. An exception has been made for soils with Ic,BJ less than
2.76 but F greater than 4% to allow for application of the undrained inversion equations to a broader range of
overconsolidated fine grained soils. For intermediate values of Ic,BJ, where partially drained conditions are probable,
contours of Ψ = 0 and -0.05 have been presented using the method proposed by Plewes et al. (1992) with Mtc = 1.4.
Contours of Ψ for drained penetration are generally consistent with those obtained from the method proposed by Plewes et
al. (1992), although they show less dependence on F (i.e. less dependence on λ10). Contours of Ψ for undrained penetration
are markedly different to those obtained from other screening level methods in loose soils, which produce contours of Ψ
that are convex to higher values of Ic,BJ. Owing to the relationships between m’, λ, and F, contours of Ψ for the proposed
method are concave towards higher values of Ic,BJ, with Ψ increasing with F for constant normalised penetration resistance.
Although on first impression this may appear to be counterintuitive, it is supported by critical state soil mechanics principles
(Smith et al. 2021). Ψ increases with F and therefore λ (based on the Plewes et al. (1992) empirical correlation) for constant
normalised penetration resistance, which results in contours of Ψ/λ that are approximately horizontal, as evidenced by the
contour of Ψ = 0 on Figure 5. The parameter coupling Ψ/λ controls undrained strength at the critical state (Jefferies &
Been 2015) and provides normalisation of soil brittleness (Hird & Hassona 1990).
Contours of Ψ for partially drained penetration provide a reasonable interpolation between the drained and undrained
contours, which may indicate why the use of the method proposed by Plewes et al. (1992) has proved somewhat reliable
for partially drained CPTu.
Limitations of proposed method
The limitations of the proposed method include the following:
▪ The proposed method does not provide inversion equations for partially drained CPTu. At depths where partially
drained CPTu is inferred, use of an alternative screening level method that does not explicitly consider CPTu drainage
conditions (e.g. Plewes et al. (1992)) is suggested. However, when using such methods, one should be aware that they
have not been explicitly calibrated to partially drained CPTu, and therefore their accuracy may be limited.
▪ The proposed method does not surpass the NorSand Widget in accuracy, as parameters important to drained penetration
including χtc and H are not explicitly accounted for. Furthermore, uncertainties in scaling of cavity expansion limit
pressure to CPTu tip resistance should be recognised, in particular at Ψ > 0 where limited data is available to validate
the scaling factor Cq currently adopted in the NorSand Widget.
▪ The proposed method is not applicable to soils with atypical soil fabric or bonding, as evidenced by the NorSand Widget
results for ‘Feijao, Fine Tailings’.
▪ The proposed method relies upon the accuracy of the F-λ correlation proposed by Plewes et al. (1992) (see Reid (2015)
and Torres-Cruz (2021)), and therefore also relies upon accurate measurement of fs. Sleeve friction (fs) is generally
regarded as the least accurate of all CPTu measurements, owing to issues relating to transducer accuracy, pore pressure
and effective stress gradients along the length of the friction sleeve, and unequal end-area effects with some cone
designs. Sleeve friction measurements can vary significantly with penetration rate, even when other CPTu
measurements remain largely unaffected; therefore, the proposed method is only applicable to standard rate penetration
with a standard diameter cone.
▪ Difficulty may be encountered in selecting appropriate values of Ir,e and Gmax in thinly layered deposits, owing to the
coarse sampling interval often adopted during downhole seismic testing (Robertson 2016).
▪ Difficulty may be encountered in identification of depths with undrained penetration, owing to the coarse interval of
dissipation testing. A site-specific t50-Bq correlation may assist in identification of depths with undrained penetration.
▪ The Ic,BJ contours presented in Figure 5 only provide a rough guide to CPTu drainage conditions, which should be
assessed as outlined in this paper. Furthermore, the contours of Ψ presented in Figure 5 vary with Mtc, Ir,e and Gmax.
Conclusions
This paper has presented a generalised method to estimate Ψ in situ from CPTu data, based upon the NorSand Widget
provided by Shuttle & Jefferies (2016), and the F-λ correlation proposed by Plewes et al. (1992). The method represents
an improvement on other screening level Ψ inversion methods as it explicitly considers drainage conditions and stress level
bias. As the method provides estimates of Ψ for drained and undrained penetration, guidance has been provided for the
estimation of drainage conditions to assist in application of the method.
The method is subject to several limitations, which are acknowledged by the authors and that users of the method should
be cognisant of. These limitations are the result of both simplifications made to provide a generalised inversion method, as
well as the limitations of commercially available CPTu equipment. Although the method has been shown to provide
estimates that are generally consistent with calibration chamber testing studies (see Smith et al. (2021)), field verifications
are yet to be undertaken, which the authors would welcome.
References
Baligh, M. M.; Levadoux, J-N. 1986. Consolidation after undrained piezocone penetration. II: Interpretation. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, 112(7): 727-745.
Been, K.; Jefferies, M. G. 1985. A state parameter for sands, Géotechnique, 35(2): 99-112.
Been, K.; Jefferies, M.G.; Crooks, J.H.A.; Rothenburg, L. 1987. The cone penetration test in sands: part II, general
inference of state. Géotechnique, 37(3): 285-299.
Been, K.; Crooks, J.H.A.; Jefferies, M.G. 1988. Interpretation of material state from the CPT in sands and clays. In
Proceedings of the Conference on Penetration Testing in the U.K., The Institution of Civil Engineers: Birmingham, 89-92.
Been, K.; Jefferies, M.G. 1992. Towards systematic CPT interpretation. In Proceedings of the Wroth Memorial Symposium,
University of Oxford: Oxford, 121-134.
DeJong, J.T.; Randolph, M. 2012. Influence of Partial Consolidation during Cone Penetration on Estimated Soil Behavior
Type and Pore Pressure Dissipation Measurements. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 138:
777–788.
DeJong, J.T.; Jaeger, R.A.; Boulanger, R.W.; Randolph, M.F.; Wahl, D.AJ. 2013. Variable penetration rate cone testing
for characterization of intermediate soils. Geotechnical and geophysical Characterization 4. Taylor and Francis, London.
Finnie, I.M.S.; Randolph, M.F. 1994. Punch-through and liquefaction induced failure of shallow foundations on calcareous
sediments. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Behavior of Offshore Structures (BOSS ’94), 217–230.
Hird, C. C.; Hassona, F. A. K. 1990. Some factors affecting the liquefaction and flow of saturated sands in laboratory tests.
Engineering Geology. 28: 149-170.
House, A.R.; Oliveira, J.R.M.S; Randolph, M.F. 2001. Evaluating the coefficient of consolidation using penetration tests.
International Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics, 1: 17–26.
Jefferies, M.G. 1993. Nor-Sand: a simple critical state model for sand. Géotechnique, 43(1): 91-103.
Jefferies, M.G.; Been, K. 2015. Soil liquefaction - a critical state approach, 2nd edn, CRC Press, Boca Raton.
Jefferies, M.G; Morgenstern, N.R.; Van Zyl, D.; Wates, J. 2019. Report on NTSF embankment failure, Cadia Valley
Operations for Ashurst Australia, viewed 30 April 2019, <https://www.newcrest.com/sites/default/files/2019-
10/190417_Report on NTSF Embankment Failure at Cadia for Ashurst.pdf>.
Jefferies, M.G.; Shuttle, D.A. 2011. Understanding liquefaction through applied mechanics, in Proceedings of the 5th
International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering (5ICEGE), Santiago, Chile.
Krage, C.P.; Broussard, N.S.; DeJong, J.T. 2014. Estimating rigidity index (IR) based on CPT measurements. In
Proceedings of The 3rd International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing (CPT’14), Las Vegas, Nevada, USA.
Lunne, T.; Robertson, P.K.; Powell, J.J.M. 1997. Cone Penetration Testing in Geotechnical Practice, SPON Press, Taylor
and Francis.
Marcedo, J.; Vergaray, L. 2021. Properties of mine tailings for static liquefaction assessment. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, in press.
Plewes, H.D.; Davies, M.P.; Jefferies, M.G. 1992. CPT based screening procedure for evaluating liquefaction
susceptibility, in Proceedings of the 45th Canadian Geotechnical Conference, The Canadian Geotechnical Society:
Toronto.
Reid, D. 2015. Estimating slope of critical state line from cone penetration test – an update. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 52: 46-57.

9
View publication stats

Reid, D.; Smith, K. 2021. Interpretation of state parameter in partially drained tailings – a case history examination.
Géotechnique Letters, 11(4): 1-20..
Robertson, P.K. 2016. Cone Penetration test (CPT)-based soil behaviour type (SBT) classification system – an update.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 53(12): 1910-1927.
Robertson, P K, de Melo, L, Williams, D J and Wilson, G W, 2019. Report of the Expert Panel on the Technical Causes
of the Failure of the Feijão Dam I, viewed 13 December 2019, <http://www.b1technicalinvestigation.com/>.
Shuttle, D.A.; Cunning, J. 2007. Liquefaction potential of silts from CPTu. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 44: 1-19.
Shuttle, D A and Jefferies, M G, 2016. Determining silt state from CPTu, Geotechnical Research, 3(3):90-118.
Shuttle, D. 2019. CPTwidget: a finite element program for soil-specific calibration of the CPT.
Sladen, J.A. 1989. Problems with interpretation of sand state from cone penetration test. Géotechnique, 39(2): 323-332.
Smith, K.; Fanni, R.; Chapman, P.; Reid, D. 2019. Critical State Testing of Tailings: Comparison between Various Tailings
and Implications for Design, in Proceedings of Tailings and Mine Waste 2019, The University of British Columbia,
Vancouver.
Smith, K.; Reid, D.; Fanni, R. 2021. Comparison of CPTu inversion parameters estimated using the NorSand Widget, in
Proceedings of The 7th International Conference on Tailings Management (Tailings 2021), Santiago, Chile.
Sottile, M.; Kerguelen, A.; Sfriso, A. 2019. A comparison of procedures for determining the state parameter of silt-like
tailings. In Proceedings of the 7th African Regional Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Cape
Town, South Africa.
Teh, C.I.; Houlsby, G.T. 1991. An analytical study of the cone penetration test in clay. Géotechnique, 41: 17–34.
Torrez-Cruz, L.A. 2021. The Plewes Method: a Word of Caution. Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration, 38: 1329-1338.