3rd International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA - 2014

Using piezocone dissipation test to estimate the undrained shear

strength in cohesive soil
F.M. Mantaras
Geoforma Engenhaira Ltda, Joinville, Brazil

E. Odebrecht
Geoforma Engeharia Ltda- State Univ. of Santa Catarina UDESC, Joinville, Brazil

F. Schnaid
Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul UFRGS, Porto Alegre, Brazil

ABSTRACT: A method is developed to link the measured piezocone dissipation excess pore-water
pressure (u) to the soil undrained shear strength (Su). In cohesive soils both u and Su are dependent
on the same variables (stress state, stress history, soil stiffness), which allows them to be related by
the theoretical cavity expansion-critical state framework. A mathematical derivation is presented to
demonstrate that the ratio of normalized maximum excess pore pressure measured during a dissipation test and the normalized undrained shear strength fluctuates around a mean value, being affected
by soil stiffness and independent on stress history and soil friction angle. The predicted Su values obtained from the proposed approach are calibrated against field vane shear strength in both normally
consolidated (monotonic dissipation tests) and overconsolidated soils (dilatory dissipation tests). Reported results are consistent and encourage the use of the method in engineering practice.

1 INTRODUCTION
Prediction of soil properties from piezocone test (CPTU) data in cohesive soils is routinely carried out in
geotechnical design. This is possible because there is a general recognition that analytical and numerical
analysis techniques and constitutive models of soil behaviour are now sufficiently developed to produce
good agreement between cone parameters and independently measured soil properties (e.g. Lunne et al,
1997; Yu, 2004; Schnaid, 2009). A theoretical frame is essential, because the CPTU cannot measure the
undrained shear strength directly and therefore CPTU assessment of Su rely on a combination of theory
and empirical correlations.
Since penetration tests in clay are generally undrained, and therefore excess pore pressures are generated, the cone tip resistance qc can be related to Su as follows:
! = !" ! + !

(1)

where Nkt is a theoretical cone factor and o is the in situ total stress. The cone factor may be determined using simple bearing capacity formulations, cavity expansion or strain path method (e.g. Terzaghi,
323

1943; Meyerhof, 1956; Caquot & Kerisel, 1953; Baligh, 1985; Teh & Houlsby, 1991; Yu & Whittle,
1999; Abu-Farsakh et al, 2003). Yu (2004) pointed out that while each theory may be used alone for cone
penetration analysis, better predictions of cone penetration mechanisms may be achieved if some of the
methods are used in combination. A combination of strain path analysis and finite element calculations
was used by Teh & Houlsby (1991) to model cone penetration in a Von Mises soil. Yu & Whittle (1999)
proposed a cone factor estimated from both strain path analysis and cavity expansion methods. In this
approach, the strain path solution developed by Baligh (1986) was used to estimate the size of the plastic
zone produced by penetration. Once the plastic zone is established, spherical cavity expansion was used to
determine the stress distribution and therefore cone resistance. Burns & Mayne (1998) use cavity expansion-critical state framework to model monotonic and dilatory response with regard to time.
Whereas theoretical solutions have been contributing in the understanding of the fundamental mechanics of cone penetration, empirical correlations are still widely used in practice to estimate Su from cone resistance. Values of cone factor (Nkt) often fall in the range from 10 to 20 and are influenced by soil plasticity, overconsolidation ratio, sample disturbance, strain rate and scale effects, as well as the reference test
from which Su has been established (e.g. Aas et al, 1986; Mesri, 1975; 2001; Lunne et al, 1997). However
in overconsolidated clays the values of Nkt often fall outside the predicted range and there are no constitutive modes to support empirical evidences.
A potential alternative to overcome the existing uncertainty related to Nkt is to use the excess pore pressure to estimate Su. Several relationships have been proposed based on theoretical or semi-theoretical approaches using cavity expansion theory (Battaglio et al. 1986; Campanella et al. 1985; Massarsch and
Broms 1981; Randolph and Wroth 1979; Vesic 1972):
! =

! !
!

(2)

where N u is shown from cavity expansion to vary in the range of 2 to 20. Lunne et al. (1997) recommend using a value of Nu of between 7 and 10. It has been advocated that these methods have the advantage of increased accuracy in the measurement of u, mainly in soft clays where u can be very large
(e.g. Campanella et al, 1985).

The rationality in using equation (2) is that cone resistance and excess pore pressures generated during
cone penetration into fine grained soils will be dependent on the same parameters - stress state, stress history, soil stiffness - and can therefore be associated in CPTU predictions. Proposed semi-empirical solutions (Massarch & Broms, 1981; Campanella et al., 1985) attempt to capture the reduction in excess pore
pressures with increasing overconsolidation ratio. We recall that by definition N u = Bq Nkt, but no global
correlation has been identified between these quantities given opposite trend between Bq and Su in respect
to the increase in OCR.

The present analysis advocates a different approach using dissipation tests linking the measured piezocone maximum excess pore-water pressure measured during dissipation test (umax) to the undrained shear
strength (Su). The mathematical solution proposed by Burns & Mayne (1998) is used as reference given
the fact that excess pore water pressures are computed through a combination of the octahedral and the
shear-induced components, allowing both normally and overconsolidated clays to be modeled from pore
pressures measured immediately behind the cone shoulder (u2).

324

The magnitude of the generated pore water pressure during penetration and subsequent dissipation is
influenced by pore pressure filter location and rate of penetration. The method discussed here is valid
strictly for filter elements positioned at the cone shoulder (u2 measurements) for tests carried out at the
standardized penetration of 20 mm/s.

MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION

The mathematical solution proposed by Burns & Mayne (1998) is based on the cavity expansion-critical
state framework for the monotonic and dilatory response with regard to time. The excess pore water pressures, u, at any time can be compared with the initial values during penetration, ui =u2 - u0, represented
as:
ui = (uoc)i + (u )i

where: (uoc)i =(2/3)Mvo(OCR/2) ln(Ir) is the octahedral component during penetration and (u )I =
vo[1-(OCR/2)] is the shear-induced component during penetration, with OCR the overconsolidation ratio, the effective friction angle, M=(6sin)/(3-sin) and the compressibility ratio (1-CC/CR). This
concept has been used by Burns & Mayne (1998) to derive the following equation for the normalized excess pore pressure:

2
3 !
2
=
!!
1 + 50

!
2
+
1 + 5000
1

(3)

where; Ir is the rigidity index and T* the modified time factor T*=[ch t /(r2 Ir0.5)] a dimensionless time factor. For monotonic dissipation, umax is the same as u2, where u2 is the difference between the measured pore pressure and equilibrium pore pressure during the cone penetration. For non-monotonic dissipation tests (e.g. overconsolidated clays) umax is the difference between the maximum value of pore
pressure measured during dissipation test and the equilibrium pore pressure.
By taking the first derivative of equation (3) in respect to T* and setting the gradient of the objective
function equal to zero, it is possible to determine the maximum value of the normalized excess pore pressure. Figure 1 shows values of u/vo versus T* and typical values T*max form Burns & Maynes (1998)
for =0.75; = 25o ; Ir = 100 and 1< OCR < 15.

325

Figure 1 u/vo versus T* derived from Burns & Maynes (1998).

The maximum value of T* combined to umax and related to the normalized undrained shear strength
from DSS undrained test (Wroth, 1984) yields the maximum undrained pore pressure ratio (umax/Su) defined as the ratio of the maximum excess pore pressure measured during dissipation test and the undrained
shear strength:

!"#
!

2
!
!
ln (! ) 2
1 2
3
1 + 50 !"# + 1 + 5000 !"#
=
1
!
2

(4)

To narrowing the band of predicted data, a log(Ir) term was introduced in equation 4 and, for simplicity
2/3Mln(Ir) was defined as .

!"#
! log !

!
!
2
1 2
1 + 50 !"# + 1 + 5000 !"#
=
1
!
2 !

(5)

Because the procedure of using the derivate of Burns & Mayne (1998) model to find T*max exhibits a
nonphysical meaning for OCR < 2, in present work it has been assumed that T*max must be set as equal to
zero for OCR = 1 (e.g. monotonic decay of pore pressure readings in a pore-pressure dissipation test).
Within this hypothesis, the calculated (umax/Sulog(Ir)) values range from 5.39 (for =0,75; =24o; Ir =
326

50) to 4.98 (for =0,75; =30o; Ir = 500). For OCRs greater than 2 the procedure is rigorously consistent
with Burns & Mayne (1998) model.
Based on equation 5 the derived formulation shows some sensitivity to variations on OCR and , and
for typical soil parameters can be reduced to a relatively simple expression (as illustrated on Figure 2).
Advantages of interpreting pore pressures measurements compared to the more conventional piezocone
penetration data are: (a) maximum undrained pore pressure ratio (umax/Su) is less affected by soil rigidity
and stress history because measurements result from pore pressure flow around the probe rather than of
complete soil displacement caused by the cone penetration test and (b) well-defined failure mechanisms of
flow around the probe allow for sound theoretical analysis of pore pressure dissipation and shear strength.
From the mathematical viewpoint the above expression is rigorously consistent, expressing the ratio between a value of pore pressure measured during piezocone dissipation and the undrained shear strength in
DSS conditions.

Figure 2 (umax/Sulog(Ir)) against OCR.

3 CASE STUDIES
Two case studies are reported to exemplify the possibilities offered by the new approach. The first example illustrated in Figure 2 is from the Barra da Tijuca soft clay deposit in Rio de Janeiro (Teixeira, 2012;
Teixeira et al, 2012). Undrained shear strength values predicted from umax ( = 26o and Ir = 50) are approximately the same as those obtained from qt (Nkt = 11) and are consistent with the geological history of
the site.
It interesting to note that piezocone predictions are useful for non-textbook materials such as bauxite
tailings (Bedin, 2010; Nierwinski, 2013; Klahold, 2013). Monotonic dissipation test results shown in Fig327

ure 4 yielded Su values of the same order of magnitude as those calculated from other methods
((umax/Sulog(Ir)) 5, with Ir equal to 100).

a)Geotechnical profile.

b) Dissipation tests.

Figure 3 Barra da Tijuca soft clay deposit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

a)Geotechnical profile.
Figure 4 Bauxite tailings in Northern Brazil

328

b) Dissipation tests.

4 CLOSING REMARKS
The paper describes a new method that is easily applicable to estimate the undrained shear strength from
piezocone dissipation tests. Stress history, shear strength and compressibility are the critical factors affecting the accuracy of predictions and are properly taken into account. The core of the method is a mathematical expression derived from the principles of cavity expansion and critical state framework that can be
simplified to the following equation:
! =

!"#
4.2(0.2) log (! )

(6)

For low OCR (<2) values the maximum undrained pore pressure ratio ranges from about 4.0log(Ir) to
5.0log(Ir), but with a slight increasese in OCR the ratio approaches a constant value about 4.2log(Ir) (8.4
4.2log(100)) which is within the range of early recommended values (e.g. Massarch & Broms, 1981).
Reported case studies encourage the use of the method in engineering practice.

REFERENCE

Abu-Farsakh, M., Tumay, M., & Voyiadjis, G. 2003. Numerical parametric study of piezocone penetration test in
clays. International Journal of Geomechanics, 3(2): 170-181.
Aas, G., Lacasse, S., Lunne, T. & Hoeg, K. 1986. Use of in situ test for foundation design on clay. Proc. ASCE Specialty Conf. In Situ86: Use of In Situ Tests in Geotech. Engng, Blacksburg, 1-30.
Baligh, M.M.1985. Strain path method. J. Soil Mech. Found. Engng. Div., ASCE. 11(7):1108-1136.
Battaglio M., Bruzzi, D., Jamiolkowski, M., & Lancellotta, R. 1986. Interpretation of CPTs and CPTUs. Proc. 4th
INt. Geotech. Seminar, Singapore, 129-143.
Bedin, J. 2010. Study of the geomechanical behavior of tailings. Post-Graduate thesis in Civil Engineering. Department of Civil Engineering, UFRGS, Porto Alegre, in Portuguese.
Burns, S.E. & Mayne, P.W. 1998. Monotonic and dilatory pore-pressure decay during piezocone tests in clay. Can.
Geotech. J., 35(6): 1063-1073.
Caquot, A., and Krisel, J. 1953. Sur le Terme de Surface dans Le Calcul de Fondations en Milieu Purulent.
Proc., 3rd. Int. Conf. On Soil Mec., and Found. Eng., Vol. 1.
Campanella, R.G., Robertson, P.K., Gillespie, D. & Greig, J. 1985. Recent developments in situ testing of soils.
Proceedings of XI ICSMFG. San Francisco, Vol.2, pp. 849-854.
Klahold, P. A. 2013. Interpretation of field test in soils with intermediary permeability. Post-Graduate thesis in Civil
Engineering. Department of Civil Engineering, UFRGS, Porto Alegre, in Portuguese.
Lunne, T.; Robertson, P.K. & Powell, J.J.M. 1997. Cone penetration testing in geotechnical practice, Blackie Academic & Professional, 312p.
Massarch, K.R., & Broms, B.B. 1981. Pile Driving in Clay Sloples. Proceedings International Conference Soil Mechanics and Foundation, Stockholm. Vol. 3 pp 469-474.
Mesri, G. 1975. Discussion on New design procedure for stability of soft clays ASCE, J. of GED, Vol. 101, pp.
409-412.
Meyerhof, G.G. 1956. Penetration tests and bearing capacity of cohesionless soils. Journal of the Soil Mechanics
and Foundations Division, ASCE, 82(SM1): 1-19.
Nierwinski, H. P. 2013. Liquefaction potential of mining tailings estimated by field tests. Post-Graduate thesis in
Civil Engineering. Department of Civil Engineering, UFRGS, Porto Alegre, in Portuguese
Randolph, M.F., & Wroth, C.P. 1979. An analytical solution for the consolidation around a driven pile. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 3: 217- 229
Schnaid, F. 2009. In situ testing in geomechanics. 1 ed, v. 1. 329 p. Oxon: Taylor & Francis.
Teh, C.I. & Houlsby, G.T. 1991. An analytical study of the cone penetration test in clay. Gotechnique, 41(1): 1734.
329

Terzaghi, R. 1943 Theoretical Soil Mechanics, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 510p.
Teixeira, C.F. 2012. Settlement analyses of a landfill on Barra da Tijuca soft soil. Ph.D Theses, pp 322, PUC, Rio
de Janeiro, in Portuguses.
Teixeira, C.F.; Sayo, A.S.F.J.; Sandroni, S.S. 2012 Avaliao da qualidade de corpos de prova de solos muito moles da Barra da Tijuca, Rio de Janeiro, XVI Brazilein Soil Mechanic and Fundation Engenieering Conference,
Porto de Galinhas, Pernambuco.
Vesic, A.S. (1972) Expansion of cavities in infinite soil mass. Journal of Geotch. Engeng. Div., ASCE, 98 (3): 265290.
Wroth, C.P. 1984. The interpretation of in situ soil test. 24th Rankine Lecture. Gotechnique, 34 (4): 449-489.
Yu, H. S. 2004. In situ soil testing: from mechanics to interpretation, James K. Mitchell Lecture, Proceedings on
Geotechnical and Geophysical Characterization, Millpress, Porto , Portugal, (1) 3-38
Yu, H. S. & Whittle, A. J. 1999. Combining strain path analysis and cavity expansion theory to estimate cone resistance in clay. Unpublished Notes.

330