03/04/2012

WORKSHOP CPT AND ITS USE FOR THE GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS New Delhi, 4th April 2012

THE USE OF CPT AND CPTU FOR SOIL CHARACTERIZATION

Claudia MEISINA Department of Earth and Environment Sciences University of Pavia , claudia.meisina@unipv.it

OUTLINE
1.

Introduction Application of CPT and CPTu General factors affecting interpretation of CPT and CPTu data Stratigraphic profiling Soil classification methods Lithotype and stratigraphic boundaries identification examples in some italian soil types Conclusions

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

1.

03/04/2012

1. INTRODUCTION
The geological models provide an understanding of the geological processes which made the site (geological materials, geological structure and the ancient and active geological processes in the area)

The engineering geological model can be used in

the characterization of a site for engineering purposes. The engineering geological model can be achieved through the identification of the stratigraphic units and the spatial reconstruction of the lithological variability; generally this can be done through geognostic surveys (boreholes,

trench pits, etc).

1. INTRODUCTION

Continuous measurements of soil parameters (qc, fs, u) Measurement repeatibility Possibility of investigating a soil volume greater than that of laboratory samples

complementary tools for stratigraphic investigations

Lithotype identification Identification of stratigraphic boundaries Lithological variations reconstruction of the stratigraphic profile stratigraphic correlations CPT/CPTU measurements provided a high-resolution data set suitable for 3D modeling of subsoil.

03/04/2012

Amorosi & Marchi, 1999

Contrasting response of four different alluvial facies associations (fluvial channel, crevasse splay, levee and floodplain deposits) to cone penetration. A palaeosol, marking the transgressive surface (TS) is indicated by anomalous fs and u values.

Interpreted geological crosssection, showing how CPTU profiles can be used for recognition of major stratigraphic discontinuities and mapping of sedimentary bodies.

Lafuerza et al., 2005

NWSE stratigraphic cross-section showing the six stratigraphic units identified in the study area (from base to
top, Grv: Pleistocene lowstand gravels, Snd: transgressive sands, U1, U2, U3 and U4 Holocene sediment bodies).

Correlation between boreholes and CPT/CPTU profiles is shown.

03/04/2012

2. APPLICATION OF CPT AND CPTu

(ISO 22476-1)
The selection of the type of CPT/CPTu is related to the type of soil and to the accuracy which is a function of the intended use of the data. TYPE OF SOIL A: homogeneously bedded soils with very soft to stiff clays and silts (typically qc<3MPa) B: mixed bedded soils with soft to stiff clays (tipically qc<=3Mpa) and medium dense sands (tipically 5MPa<=qc<10 MPa) C: mixed bedded soils with stiff clays (tipically 1.5 MPa<=qc<=3Mpa) and very dense sands (tipically qc>20 Mpa D: very stiff to hard clays (tipically qc>=3Mpa) and very dense coarse soils (qc>=20 MPa) USE OF CPT AND CPTu G: profiling and material identification with low associated uncertainty level G*: indicative profiling and material identification with high associated uncertainty level H: interpretation in terms of design with low associated uncertainty level H*: indicative interpretation in terms of design with high associated uncertainty level

APPLICATION CLASSES

PENETRATION TEST TYPE

MEASURED PARAMETERS

Allowable minimum accuracy

SOIL

INTERPRETATION

CPTu

CPTu CPT

Cone resistance Sleeve friction Pore pressure Inclination Penetration length Cone resistance Sleeve friction Pore pressure Inclination Penetration length

35 kPa or 5% 5 kPa or 10% 10 kPa or 2% 2 0.1 m or 1% 100 kPa or 5% 15 kPa or 15% 25 kPa or 3% 2 0.1 m or 1%

A A B C D

G, H G, H* G, H G, H G, H

1: soft to very soft soil deposits. Tests can only be performed with use of the CPTu. 2: precise evaluation for mixed bedded soil profiles with soft to dense layers, in terms of profiling and material identification. Interpretation in terms of engineering properties: restriction use for the soft layers. Penetrometer type depends on project requirements.

03/04/2012

APPLICATION CLASSES

PENETRATION TEST TYPE

MEASURED PARAMETERS

Allowable minimum accuracy (a)

SOIL

INTERPRETATION

CPTu CPT

Cone resistance Sleeve friction Pore pressure Inclination Penetration length

200 kPa or 5% 25 kPa or 15% 50 kPa or 5% 5 0.2 m or 2%

CPT

Cone resistance Sleeve friction Penetration length

500 kPa or 5% 50 kPa or 5% 0.2 m or 1%

A B C D A B C D

G G, H* G, H G, H G* G* G* G*

3: evaluation of mixed bedded soil profiles with to soft to dense soils, in terms of profiling and material identification. Interpretation in terms of engineering properties for very stiff to hard and dense to very dense layers. For stiff clays or silts and loose sands only an indicative interpretation can be given. Penetrometer type depends on project requirements. 4: indicative profiling and material identification for mixed bedded soil profiles with soft to very stiff or loose to dense layers. No appreciation in terms of engineering parameters can be given. Tests are to be performed with CPTe

3. GENERAL FACTORS AFFECTING INTERPRETATION OF CPT AND CPTu

Before analysing any CPT/CPTu data, it is important to realize and account for the potential errors that each element of data may contain

Equipment design In situ stresses Compressibility, cementation and particle size Stratigraphy

03/04/2012

Equipment design

The three major areas of cone design that influence interpretation are: 1. 2. 3. Unequal area effects. Piezometer location, size and saturation. Accuracy of measurements.

most significant in soft, normally consolidated, finegrained soils. sand are little influenced

In situ stresses

stress (geologic) history of the deposit is of great importance in CPT/ CPTu interpretation

Compressibility, cementation and particle size

The compressibility of soils can significantly influence qc and fs. Highly compressible sands low cone resistance and high friction ratio values. Cementation between particles reduces compressibility and thereby increases the cone resistance.

03/04/2012

Stratigraphy

The transition from one layer to another will not necessarily be registered as a sharp change. The cone resistance is influenced by the material ahead and behind the penetrating cone. Hence the cone will start to sense a change in material type before it reaches the new material and will continue to sense a material even when it has entered a new material. Therefore, the CPT/CPTu will not always identify the correct transition in thinly interbedded materials. The distance over which the cone senses an interface increases with material stiffness.

soft materials diameter of the sphere of influence <2-3 cone diameters Soft layers thinner than 100 mm can be fully detected by the cone resistance stiff materials diameter of sphere of influence up to l0 or 20 cone diameters stiff layers may need to be as thick as 750 mm or more for the cone resistance to reach its full value.

4. STRATIGRAPHIC PROFILING

Shape and magnitude of qc, qt, fs, Rf Identification of the interfaces between soil layers
* * * soft to medium stiff clays very high pore pressures very stiff overconsolidated clays very low or negative pore pressures very dense fine or silty sands very low or negative pore pressures
qc (MPa)
0 0 5 10 15 20 0 -50 50

u (kPa)
150 250 350 0 0 2 4 6

Rf (%)
8 10 12 14 16 18 0 0

granulometrie (%)
20 Clay Silt 40 Sand 60 Gravel 2 80 0 0

Limiti di Atterberg
20 40

sabbie
2 2
u2 (kPa) u0 (kPa)

sabbie limose
profondit (m)

terreni organici

alternanze di sabbie limose e limi argillosi

10

10

10

10

10

livello falda
IP Wp Wl

12

12

12

12

12

03/04/2012

5. SOIL CLASSIFICATION
A soil classification system provides a means of grouping soils according to their engineering behavior. The conventional method for determining a soil type is by laboratory classification of samples retrieved from a borehole (e.g. USCS). If a continuous, or nearly continuous, subsurface profile is desired, the cone penetration test (CPT(CPTu) provides time and cost savings over traditional methods of sampling and testing. A number of classification methods are reported to predict soil type from either CPT or/both CPTu data Charts that link cone parameters to soil type

Begemann (1965) Schmertmann (1978) Searle (1979)

Douglas & Olsen (1981)

Robertson et al. (1986) Robertson (1990, 2009, 2010) Eslami & Fellenius (1997)

5.1 SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHARTS

Begemann (1965)

the classification chart for mechanical cone penetration tests is based on 250 different data, relating to Dutch soils. The qc is on the y-axis and the sleeve friction fs on the x-axis. The lines (passing through the origin), which subdivide the map in fields, allowing us to identify the soil, were obtained on the basis of the weight percentage of particles with a diameter less than 16 mm

03/04/2012

5.1. SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHARTS

Schmertmann (1978)

the graph uses the Begemann database and a series of mechanical cone penetration tests carried out in Florida. On the y-axis qc is plotted on a logarithmic scale, whereas the friction ratio Rf = (fs/qc)*100 is plotted on the xaxis on a linear scale. Qualitative indications about density of sands (increasing with qc) and stiffness of clays (increasing with fs) are also given. the method is not so accurate for low qc values

5.1. SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHARTS

Searle (1979)

the classification chart represents the cone resistance qc (MPa) on the yaxis in logarithmic scale, and on the x-axis Rf in the same scale. The Searle method, like the Schmertmann method, provides additional indications, such as the density of sands and stiffness of fine soils.

03/04/2012

5.1. SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHARTS

Robertson et al. (1986)

qt = qc + u2*(1-An/Ac)

The chart could be used in real-time to evaluate soil type during and immediately after the CPTU, since it only requires the basic CPTU measurements.

the use of both charts can lead to different indications qt=1MPa; Rf = 4%; Bq = 0.1

10

03/04/2012

5.1. SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHARTS

Robertson (2010) provides an update of the chart in terms of dimensionless cone resistance, (qc/pa), where pa = atmospheric pressure (pa = 1 bar = 100 kPa = 0.1 MPa) and Rf (in percent), both on log scales to expand the portion where Rf < 1%. The number of soil behaviour types has also been reduced to 9 to match the Robertson (1990) chart.

Zone Soil Behaviour Type (SBT) 1 Sensitive fine-grained 2 Clay - organic soil 3 Clays: clay to silty clay 4 Silt mixtures: clayey silt & silty clay 5 Sand mixtures: silty sand to sandy silt 6 Sands: clean sands to silty sands 7 Dense sand to gravelly sand 8 Stiff sand to clayey sand* 9 Stiff fine-grained* * Overconsolidated or cemented

5.1. SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHARTS

The author proposed using normalized cone parameters qt, Rf and Bq, to take into account the influence that the lithostatic pressure may exert at great depths The chart can be used for depths of more than 30 m from ground level. The normalization of the parameters requires also some input of soil unit weight and groundwater conditions (use of the chart during postprocessing).
Robertson (1990)

11

03/04/2012

5.1. SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHARTS

Eslami & Fellenius (1997, 2000)

the classification chart is based on a database containing soils taken from 20 sites from various parts of the world. The database does not include cases of cemented soils or very stiff clays. qE (effective cone resistance) = (qt u2). In dense sandy soils qE only differs marginally from qt; whereas in the case of fine grained soils qt and qE could assume very different values. The authors split the classification chart into a series of fields, corresponding to the various lithotypes the Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual (Canadian Geotechnical Society, 1985).

5.3. SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHARTS -limitations

the correlations were established on soils coming from geological contexts that might be different than the examined soils.

The geologicalgeotechnical conditions (lithotype, degree of alteration, cementation, consolidation, etc) of soil used to find the correlations should be carefully analyzed to verify their applicability to the studied soil;

The soil classification boundaries, defining soil classification zones, were largely subjectively determined (Cai et al., 2011)

12

03/04/2012

The classifications methods have some limits: the application of Begemann (1965) classification chart is difficult for values where qc< 5 MPa and fs <50 kPa, in that the lines that distinguish one class from another end up very close; the Schmertmann method (1978) is not so accurate for low qc values; with the Robertson (1990) method the normalisation of cone resistance and the sleeve friction subject to the overburden stress tends, at shallow depths, to overestimate the grain size of the soil.

The type of penetrometer (mechanical or electrical tip or piezocone) used is also an important factor (Cestari, 1990).
0

Qc (MPa) 0 5 10 0 2 4 0

fs (kPa) 100 200 300 0 2 4 0

Rf (% ) 10 20

Depth (m)

Depth (m)

6 8 10 12 14 CPTu CPT

6 8 10 12 14 CPTu CPT

Depth (m)

Reduction of the diameter of the tip above the cone, in the mechanical penetrometer, gives (especially relevant in very dense sands) lower qc measurements than ones obtained with an electrical bit. On the contrary, the soil friction along the protective sleeve above the cone is responsible for a greater qc than the one measured with the electrical bit (especially relevant in loose sand and soft clay). In the case of Begemann cone with sleeve not only do we measure the friction but, because of the union at the lower end of the sleeve, also a part of resistance at the base (return flow material after the cone has passed). For this reason fs measured with the mechanical bit is always greater than the one measured with the electrical bit (the difference is practically negligible for clay).

2 4

6 8 10 12 14 CPTu CPT

13

03/04/2012

the CPT and CPTU-based charts were predictive of soil behaviour type (SBT), since the cone responds to the in-situ mechanical behaviour of the soil and not directly to soil classification criteria based on grain-size distribution and soil plasticity (e.g. Unified Soil Classification System, USCS*).
stress history,
macro fabric void ratio water content

CPT/CPTU response SBT

good agreement between USCS-based classification and CPTUbased SBT, except for mixed soils (i.e. sand mixtures and silt mixtures);

* The USCS classification system is also based on remolded soil conditions

rather than in situ conditions

USCS 60% sand 40% fines silty sand (sand-silt mixtures) or clayey sand (sand-clay mixtures)
the soil behaviour may be more controlled by the clay and the CPTubased SBT will reflect this behaviour and will predict a more clay-like behaviour, such as clayey silt to silty clay

high plasticity

low plasticity

soil behaviour will be controlled more by the sand and the CPTu-based SBT would predict a more sand-like soil type, such as silty sand to sandy silt

14

03/04/2012

5.4. INNOVATIVE METHODS

fuzzy logic (Zhang and Tumay, 1999), the artificial neural networks (Kurup and Griffin, 2006) probabilistic approaches (Jung et al., 2008)

Approach based on statistics and probability. It estimates the probability of sand, silt, and clay in investigated soils.

Kurup et al, 2010

6 Lithotype and stratigraphic boundaries identification examples in some italian soil types
DATABASE
CPT, CPTu data, approximately 6-23 m deep, from 11 different Italian sites, belonging to different geological contexts were collected from published reports or obtained from tests A - peaty deposits; B - alluvial - lacustrine deposits, extremely heterogeneous in terms of depth and area; C- terraced alluvial deposits; D - terraced alluvial deposits in the Po Valley, mainly sandy; E - recent alluvial deposits of the River Po; F - alluvial fan deposits; G H - ancient terraced alluvial deposits south of the River Po; I - estuarine - marine deposits

15

03/04/2012

6.1. Lithotype and stratigraphic boundaries identification - method

TEST EQUIPMENT

Tests were carried out with a Pagani penetrometer (TG 63-100, TG 63-200, TG 73-200) (Pagani, 2009). The test equipment consists of 60 cone, with a 10 cm2 base area and a 150 cm2 friction sleeve located above the cone. The filter position for pore pressure measurements is behind the cone tip (u2). CPTu were carried out at constant speed of 2 cm/s. The pushing equipment consists of hydraulic jacking and reaction system mounted on a heavy lorry with screw anchors. The thrust capacity is of 100 to 200 kN. The field data acquisition system includes analogue to digital converters. The piezocone provides values of cone resistance, sleeve friction and pore pressure every 1 cm.

6.1. Lithotype and stratigraphic boundaries identification - method

Borehole-logs Soil profiles

Classification tests Oedometer tests Triaxial tests Direct shear tests Dry Different periods of the year Penetration tests Different fluids for filter saturation Silicon oils Glycerine CPTU classification charts Wet CPT-CPTu classification charts Comparison between CPT/CPTU and borehole logs

% of success N of intervals correctly classified in a lithological class/ total n of intervals of that lithological class

Laboratory investigation

16

03/04/2012

6.2. Lithotype and stratigraphic boundaries identification results CPT

Begemann chart (1965) Schmertmann chart (1978)
Organic clays and mixed soils (1)

Searle chart (1979)

Silts and clayey sands (4)

Silty and sandy clays (3)

Clay, silt and sand (4)

Silt-sand mixtures (5)

Clayey sandy silt (6)

Sand/ gravelly sand (6)

Site

Clayey silty sand (7)

Clayey silt (5)

Silty sand (5)

Silty sand (8)

A B E

78 67 -

0 0 -

0 -

0 0

12 6

78 78 -

45 0 -

0 -

14 8

12 6

0 0 -

9 -

17 0

28 13

14 -

0 0

0 -

Percentage of success for CPT (A = organic soils, B = lacustrine soils, E = alluvial soils) CPT interpretation charts usually identify organic soils (78% of rate of success) but they show unsatisfying results for mixed silty soils (0-28%)

6.2. Lithotype and stratigraphic boundaries identification results CPT

Begemann, 1965 SBT
0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Schmertmann, 1978 SBT 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0

Searle, 1978 SBT

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

4
Depth (m) Depth (m)

10

10

10

12
CPT borehole

12
CPT borehole

12
CPT borehole

1 - Peat 2 - Clay 3 - Clay/Loam 4 - Silt, Clay, Sand 5 - Silty sand 6 - Sand/Gravelly sand

1 - Organic clays and mixed soils 2- Inorganic clays 3 - Sandy and silty clays 4 - Clayey sands and silts 5 - Sandy silt 6 - Sand

1 - Peat 2 - Peaty clay 3 - Clay 4 - Silty clay 5 - Clayey silt 6 - Clayey sandy silt 7 - Clayey silty sand 8 - Silty sand 9 - Sand 10 - Gravell sand 11 - Sandy gravel 12 - Gravel

while the peats and organic clays have a high success rate of correct identification, the other classes (mainly silts) are hardly ever identified correctly

Depth (m)

Sand (10)

Sand (6)

Sand (9)

Clay/ loam (3)

Peat (1)

Peat (1)

17

03/04/2012

6.2. Lithotype and stratigraphic boundaries identification results CPT

the Begemann method and in particular the Schmertmann method gave good success rates in the case of soft clays, organic clays or sands.

the Searle method has lower success rate. However, the lithotypes are in general classified as adjacent or similar and so the misinterpretation observed for such a method are, in practice, acceptable. The interesting aspect of the Searle method is that it is based on a significantly greater number of classes

6.2. Lithotype and stratigraphic boundaries identification results CPTU

SBT 2- Organic soil 3- Clay B 100 100 100 0 21 52 0 0 11 46 0 85 10 100 51 100 10 12 C F-w F-d G H-s H-g I L

Robertson et al. chart (1986)

3 e 4 - Clay and Silty clay 5- Clayey silt to silty clay 5& 6 6- Sandy silt to clayey silt

7- Silty sand to sandy silt

8- Sand to silty sand 9- Sand 2-Organic soils and peat 3-Clays (clay to silty clay)

0
0

16
0

10
10 100

Robertson chart (1990)

60 51 0 44 9 0 100 0 0 100 68 0 0 9 100 85 100 100

Robertson et al. (1986) chart correctly identify 100% of organic soils, clays and sands, whereas most of intermediate soils (such as clayey silt and sandy silt) are not recognized, with percentages of success that range from 50% to 0%; Robertson chart (1990) shows results comparable to the previous chart

4-Silt mixtures (silty clay to clayey silt) 4& 5 10 5-Sand mixtures (sandy silt to silty sand) 0 6-Sand (silty sand to clean sand) 9-Very stiff, fine-grained soil 0

CPTU percentage of success (C, G, H, L = alluvial soils, F = alluvial fan soils, I = marine, littoral soils; w = wet period; d = dry period; s = silicon oil; g = glycerin).

18

03/04/2012

6.2. Lithotype and stratigraphic boundaries identification results

All classification methods allow to detect stratigraphical boundaries
qc (MPa)
0 5 10 15
0

u (kPa)
-50 150 350 550 0 0 2 4

Rf (%)
6 8 10 12 14 16 0 0

Grain size (%)

20 40 60 80 0 0

Atterberg limits
50 100

Silt with clay and peat

Silt and clay, clayey 2 silt with peat Silt and sand Clayey silt with sand Clayey silt
4

u2 (kPa) u0 (kPa)

depth (m)

Alternating sandy silt and clayey silt

10

10

10

10

10

Sand water table

12
12

12

12

clay

silt

sand

gravel

12

IP

Wp

Wl

Olocenic superficial deposits of the plain between Altopascio and Bientina. Soil profile and geotechnical characteristics. qc: cone resistance; u0: in-situ pore pressure; u2: pore pressure measured at cone base; fs: sleeve friction; Rf: friction ratio (fs/qc*100) IP: plastic index; Wp: plastic limit; Wl: liquid limit
extreme granulometric and lithological heterogeneity

Robertson et al. (1986)

Robertson et al. (1986) Filtered data (A=1; D=0,5) SBT

BOREHOLE
0

SBT
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
0

9 10 11 12

Silt with clay and peat

Silt and clay, clayey silt with peat

Silt and sand

Clayey silt with sand

Clayey silt

Alternating sandy silt and clayey silt

10

10

CPTU tests revealed decimetric levels of sandy silt/silty sands intercalation

Sand
12
12

water table
Robertson et al. (1986) 1- Sensitive fine-grained soil 2- Organic soil 3- Clay 4- Silty clay to clay 5- Clayey silt to silty clay 6- Sandy silt to clayey silt 7- Silty sand to sandy silt 8- Sand to silty sand 9- Sand 10- Sand to gravelly sand 11- Very stiff fine-grained soil 12- Overconsolidated or cemented sand to clayey sand

Filtering methodologies can be applied to qc, u and fs values

Depth (m)

19

03/04/2012

7. Factors that influence CPT and CPTU interpretation

The use of CPT and CPTU for the identification of lithotypes and stratigraphical boundaries is sometimes complicated by several constraints:
1.

the minimum layer thickness that can be detected by penetration resistance the presence of soils made up of different grain size (e.g. gravelly clay), the presence of partially saturated soils

2.

3. 4. 5.

the presence of mixed soils (i.e. sand mixtures, silt mixtures)

the repeatability of the tests in different climatic conditions.

1. the minimum layer thickness that can be detected by penetration resistance

The detected thickness depends on the relative stiffness of two contiguous layers (Vreugdenhil et al. (1994), Ahmadi and Robertson (2005))

the penetration resistance of a soft layer (clay) below a rigid layer (dense sand) is fully mobilized even for thicknesses of 1-2 diameters, a thickness of 10-20 diameters is needed to fully mobilize the resistance of a rigid layer underneath a soft one.
Robertson et al., 1986 SBT
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
0

Robertson, 1990

SBT
0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

landfill
0,5

0,5

silty clay
1,5 1,5

clayey silt sandy silt sandy clay water table

2,5
2,5

20

03/04/2012

2.the presence of soils made up of different grain size (e.g. gravelly clay),

the classes of soils proposed by the various authors indicate a gradual transition from fine to coarse - grained soils. Soil made up of very different grain size (e.g. gravelly clay) can not be interpreted correctly

the inclusions can distort the soil interpretation by causing sharp reductions in porewater pressure (pwp) that temporarily impair the performance of the cone sensor, when the cone sensor is located on the cone shoulder. These rapid reductions in pwp are caused by the inclusion being pushed aside by the cone, thus creating local suctions adjacent to the pwp sensor (Ramsey, 2010).

3. the presence of partially saturated soils

increase of qc is not correlated to a lithologic change
qc (Mpa)
0 0 5 10 0 -50

u (kPa)
150 350 0 0 5

Rf (%)
10 15 20 0 0

grain size (%)

20 40 60 80 0 0

Atterberg limits (%)

20 40

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

clayey silt
1 1
CPTu1 (grease) CPTu 2 (silicon oil)

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

depth (m)

sandy silt clayey silt sandy silt clayey silt sandy silt

2
CPTu1 (grease) CPTu 2 (silicon oil)

2.5

2.5

2.5
CPTu1 (grease) CPTu 2 (silicon oil)

2.5

2.5

3.5

3.5

3.5

3.5

3.5

silty sand
4 4 4 4 clay silt sand gravel 4
IP Wp Wl Wn

4.5

4.5

4.5

4.5

4.5

water table (9.5 m)

Olocenic deposits of the River Po in Calendasco (Piacenza, Northern Italy). Clayey silts and sandy silts (CL) with sandy intercalations down to a variable depth of between 8.6 and 6.6 m. At greater depths there is a gravelly layer. The water table is 9.5 meters below ground surface. Two CPTU tests were performed by saturating the tip with grease (CPTU1) and silicon oil (CPTU2).

21

03/04/2012

Calendasco. Comparison between stratigraphical profile of the borehole and those obtained through CPTu tests. SBT: soil behavior (in black: CPTU1, in red: CPTU2)
Robertson et al., 1986 Robertson, 1990 SBTn
0 0,0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

The clayey silts between 0.6 m and 2.1 m are distributed in numerous fields.
The superficial silty clay layer is identified as sandy silt/silty sand by Robertson et al. (1986) and as sand by Robertson (1990). The variability in the interpretation of the layer from 0 cm to 2.10 m and the overestimation of soil grain size can be explained by the presence of a partially saturated layer, which leads to an increase of the resistances, particularly evident in the classification obtained with the Robertson method (1990). The CPTU tests carried out using different saturation fluids do not show any significant variations in stratigraphic interpretation

SBT
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

0,0

Clayey silt

1,0

1,0

sandy silt clayey silt

sandy silt

Depth (m)

2,0

2,0

clayey silt
sandy silt
3,0 3,0

sand
4,0
4,0

1- Sensitive fine-grained soil 2- Organic soil 3- Clay 4- Silty clay to clay 5- Clayey silt to silty clay 6- Sandy silt to clayey silt 7- Silty sand to sandy silt 8- Sand to silty sand 9- Sand 10- Sand to gravelly sand 11- Very stiff fine-grained soil 12- Overconsolidated or cemented sand to clayey sand

1- Sensitive fine-grained soil 2-Organic soils and peat 3-Clays (clay to silty clay) 4-Silt mixtures (silty clay to clayey silt) 5-Sand mixtures (sandy silt to sil.sand) 6-Sand (silty sand to clean sand) 7-Sand to gravelly sand 8-Sand - Clayey sand to very stiff sand 9-Very stiff, fine-grained, overconsolidated or cemented soil

4. the presence of mixed soils (i.e. sand mixtures, silt mixtures)

The CPT and CPTU test typically shear fine-grained materials in an undrained manner and coarse-grained materials in a drained manner.
Robertson et al. 1986 SBT
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
0 0 1 2 3 4

Robertson 1990 SBT

5 6 7 8 9 10

Eslami e Fellenius 1997 SBT

Clayey silt silty sand/sandy silt Clay

2.5

7.5

10

10

12.5

15

15

Sand

17.5

20

20

22.5

25

25

The success rates are good for saturated homogeneous soils, particularly for soft clay or organic soils.

Depth (m)

27.5

30

30

1- Sensitive fine-grained soil 2- Organic soil 3- Clay 4- Silty clay to clay 5- Clayey silt to silty clay 6- Sandy silt to clayey silt 7- Silty sand to sandy silt 8- Sand to silty sand 9- Sand 10- Sand to gravelly sand 11- Very stiff fine-grained soil 12- Overconsolidated or cemented sand to clayey sand

1- Sensitive fine-grained soil 2-Organic soils and peat 3-Clays (clay to silty clay) 4-Silt mixtures (silty clay to clayey silt) 5-Sand mixtures (sandy silt to sil.sand) 6-Sand (silty sand to clean sand) 7-Sand to gravelly sand 8-Sand - Clayey sand to very stiff sand 9-Very stiff, fine-grained, overconsolidated or cemented soil

1-Sensitive - collapsible clay and silt 2-Clay and silt 3-Silty clay and clayey silt 4-Sandy silt and silty sand 5-Sand and sandy gravel

22

03/04/2012

SITE 2: LIVORNO COASTAL PLAIN Borehole-log n2 Groundwater table Landfill Clays and silts with algae Sand with clay, silt, gravel Silt and sand Silt with gravel , sand, clay Silt and clay Sand with gravel Gravel and rounded pebbles Fine sand and silt
22 0 0 2 4 6

qc (MPa)
10 20 30 40 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 -50

u2 (kPa)
450 950 0 2 0

fs (kPa)
100 200 300

Interpretation with Robertson chart (1990)

Landfill
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

Depth (m)

"Panchina"

10 12 14 16 18 20

Alternances of clay, clay mixtures and sand mixtures Clay mix. and sand mix. Sand Sand/Sand mixtures Clay mixtures Sand Clay

Sand

The response to conventional CPT/CPTU of intermediate soils in partially drained conditions (Jaeger et al, 2010). For silty clays or soft silty sands the classification charts mis-classify the soil type. Intermediate soils tend to be much more difficult to differentiate (Ramsey, 2010; Lo Presti et al., 2010).

5. the repeatability of the tests in different climatic conditions

Qc and fs depend on the in situ conditions, which are related to the climatic conditions of the period when the tests are carried out
qc (Mpa)
-50 0

u (kPa)
50 150 250 0

Rf (%)

grain size (%)

0 0

Atterberg limits (%)

20 40 60

0 0

10

15 0

20

40

60

man-made deposits

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

silty clay
1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

depth (m)

clayey silt sandy silt silty clay

2
CPTu 1 (wet period) CPTu 2 (dry period)

2.5
CPTu 1 (wet period) CPTu 2 (dry period)

2.5
CPTu 1 (wet period)

2.5

2.5

2.5

CPTu 2 (dry period) u0 (kPa)

3.5

3.5

3.5

3.5

3.5

water table

4 clay silt sand gravel

4
IP Wp Wl Wn

4.5

4.5

4.5

4.5

4.5

alluvial fan of the Scuropasso Stream (an Apennine right tributary of the River Po), in the province of Pavia (Northern Italy)
The higher penetrometric resistance values in the dry period down to a depth of almost 3.0 m, are o be attributed to higher values of the effective stresses as an effect of the partial saturation in the dry period. The different trend of qc in the two periods, also confirmed by the Rf friction ratio, seems to show the thickness of the soil, which is sensitive to the variations of moisture content as a result of the climate (active zone).

23

03/04/2012

Robertson et al., 1986 SBT

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
0

Robertson, 1990

SBT
0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

landfill
0,5

0,5

silty clay
1,5 1,5

clayey silt sandy silt sandy clay water table

2,5
2,5

Scuropasso Stream alluvial fan. Comparison between stratigraphical profile of the borehole and those obtained through CPTU tests. SBT: soil behavior; in red: CPTU1; in black: CPTU2. oman-made deposits (0-0.75 m) are distributed in numerous fields in relation to the heterogeneity of the material. oIn the Robertson (1990) classification the soils that go down to a depth of 1.60 m fall into fields with very stiff soil (fields 8 and 9). oWith respect to the test carried out in June we can note a variation in the classification between 0.75 and 2.30 m due to an increase in the resistances, connected to de-saturation.

8. CONCLUSIONS

CPT and CPTU parameters can be used to provide an estimate of soil behavior type (SBT) that may not always agree with traditional soil classifications based on grain size distribution and soil plasticity. The considered classification charts correctly identify the lithotypes in the case of homogeneous saturated deposits. The success rate is predominantly good for soft or organic clays and for sands, while it drops quite notably for the intermediate soils (silts, clayey and sandy silts and fine sands with silt) and for soils made up of very different grain size (e.g. gravelly clay). For the CPTs, the Begemann method and in particular the Schmertmann method gave good success rates in the case of soft clays, organic clays or sands. The Searle method has lower success rate. However, the lithotypes are in general classified as adjacent or similar and so the misinterpretation observed for such a method are, in practice, acceptable. The interesting aspect of the Searle method is that it is based on a significantly greater number of classes. All the considered methods correctly identified the stratigraphic boundaries. CPTU gave a better estimation of the soil profile with respect to CPT. For some interpretation methods, data filtering greatly enhanced the ability to accurately predict soil profile. In some case it seems that there are problems with detecting thin layers even when using CPTU. All the considered methods correctly identify the stratigraphic boundaries.

24

03/04/2012

The presence of a shallow partially saturated crust (especially in the case of fine - grained soils) led to over estimation of the soil grain size. Such misinterpretation is emphasized when using the Robertson (1990) method. The results underline that the considered interpretation methodologies depend very closely on the geological conditions of the soils, on which these classifications were established, and hence cannot be regarded as totally reliable. Moreover penetration tests always need a calibration by means of stratigraphic logs from boreholes. The stratigraphic logging and classification based on CPT and CPTU data requires knowledge about the geological history and soil genesis to allow for a proper interpretation. Nevertheless, the CPT and CPTU can be used with confidence when supported by all the other tests and information at our disposal from the site investigation. CPT/CPTU tests can be used for subsurface stratigraphic correlations and they can significantly help in the identification of engineering geological units and in the construction of the engineering geological model of a site. They can define local situations which require detailed studies.

25