Schnaid, F. & Yu, H. S. (2007). Géotechnique 57, No.
3, 265–272
Interpretation of the seismic cone test in granular soils
F. S C H NA I D * a n d H . S . Y U †
This paper presents a simple theoretical approach to the
interpretation of the seismic cone test in granular soils.
In particular it is demonstrated that there is a theoretical
justification for using the ratio of elastic stiffness (esti-
mated from the measured shear wave velocity) to the
cone resistance to derive fundamental mechanical soil
properties. Using the cavity expansion-based correlation
for cone resistance and a well-established correlation
between the elastic stiffness and soil void ratio and stress
level, theoretical correlations are established between the
ratio of elastic stiffness to cone resistance and in situ
state parameter and soil friction angle. Application to
data obtained from field, calibration chamber and centri-
fuge tests in various granular soils generally confirms the
validity of the proposed theoretical approach. Scatter in
predicted values is significant, and further validation is
required.
KEYWORDS: in situ testing; shear strength; stiffness
INTRODUCTION
Interpretation of in situ penetration tests in granular soils
still has recognised limitations owing to difficulties in cap-
turing the dilatant response of sands in shear. Although the
mechanics of the penetration process is gradually being
understood, rigorous analytical and numerical solutions have
not yet been fully developed (Yu, 2000, 2004). Therefore
many current methods of interpretation still rely on calibra-
tion against laboratory or field data (Yu & Mitchell, 1998).
Since interpretation of in situ tests in granular soils is
complex, recommendations have recently been made to place
emphasis on correlations with mechanical properties that are
based on the combination of measurements from indepen-
dent tests such as the ratio of the elastic stiffness to cone
resistance (G0 /qc ), the ratio of cone resistance to pressure-
meter limit pressure (qc /Pl ), and the association of strength
and energy measurements (N60 and energy), following proce-
dures developed by Yu et al. (1996), Schnaid (1997),
Odebrecht et al. (2004) and Schnaid et al. (2004).
Among existing penetration tools available for commercial
applications in engineering practice, capable of producing
more than one independent reliable in situ measurement in a
single sounding, the seismic cone is the most widely used.
With a seismic cone, the capability of the CPTU is enhanced
by the inclusion of accelerometers or geophones in a module
mounted above the cone (e.g. Campanella et al., 1986;
Lunne et al., 1997). These can be used as receivers during
downhole seismic tests to measure the propagating shear
wave velocity Vs, from which the small-strain stiffness G0
can be calculated.
Manuscript received 31 January 2005; revised manuscript accepted
4 December 2006.
Discussion on this paper closes on 1 September 2007, for further
details see p. ii.


Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.
y
Nottingham Centre for Geomechanics, University of Nottingham,
UK.
265
Cet article présente une approche théorique simple de
l’interprétation de l’essai au cône sismique des sols
granulaires. En particulier, il montre qu’il y a une
justification théorique pour utiliser le rapport de la
fermeté élastique (estimée grâce à la vitesse de l’onde
transversale mesurée) à la résistance du cône pour déri-
ver les propriétés mécaniques fondamentales du sol. En
utilisant la corrélation de la résistance du cône à l’expan-
sion de la cavité et une corrélation bien établie entre la
fermeté élastique et l’indice des vides du sol et le niveau
de contrainte, l’article établit des corrélations théoriques
entre le rapport de la fermeté élastique à la résistance du
cône et le paramètre d’état in situ et l’angle de frotte-
ment du sol. L’application aux données obtenues sur le
terrain, en chambre de calibration et lors d’essais de
centrifuge pour divers sols granulaires a permis de con-
firmer la validité de l’approche théorique proposée, de
manière générale. La dispersion des valeurs prévues est
significative et il faudra procéder à une validation supplé-
mentaire.
Despite the great potential of a device that produces
measurement of both elastic stiffness and cone resistance,
relatively few attempts have been made to combine these
two measurements for estimating soil properties and/or to
infer soil characteristics. For sands, many researchers, such
as Bellotti et al. (1989), Rix & Stokes (1992), Eslaamizaad
& Robertson (1997), Lunne et al. (1997) and Fahey et al.
(2003), have suggested comparing data on a G0 /qc –qc1
space, with qc1 being defined as

rffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
qc pa
qc1 ¼ (1)
pa
v90
where
v90 is the vertical effective stress and pa is the
atmospheric pressure (note that the parameter qc1 is dimen-
sionless). Fresh uncemented sands are characteristic of a
region in the G0 /qc space, and profiles of qc and G0 that fall
outside and above this region suggest possible effects of
stress history, degree of cementation and ageing, following
the scheme proposed by Eslaamizaad & Robertson (1997)
represented in Fig. 1. The lower and upper bounds of
uncemented sands is expressed as (Schnaid et al., 2004)
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
G0 ¼ Æ 3 qc
v9 pa (2)
where Æ is a parameter that ranges from 110 to 280.
Further evidence on the applicability of the G0 /qc –qc1
space has been given by in situ data obtained in a variety of
sand types in Perth, Australia, shown in Fig. 2 (Schnaid et
al., 2004). The stratigraphy in the Perth area includes a
recent deposited siliceous sand fill placed hydraulically for
reclamation works, and a dune sand from Spearwood that
was laid down in the late Pleistocene as a limestone, but
was subsequently leached of virtually all its calcium carbo-
nate content: both of these show no traces of a defined
structure. In contrast, Safety Bay Sand, which was deposited
under littoral and aeolian conditions in the mid-Holocene,
contains many shells and has a calcium carbonate content in
266 SCHNAID AND YU
60
q
strain stiffness that form the basis of the present analytical
High compressibility qc1 ⫽  c  pa
 pa  σ⬘v  study.
√
The magnitude of G0 is measured in the laboratory using
Increasing
cementation bender elements or resonant column tests (e.g. Jardine et al.,
and/or 1985; Tatsuoka et al., 1995; Ishihara, 1996; Clayton &
ageing Heymann, 2001; Lo Presti et al., 2001) and in the field by
seismic techniques (e.g. Stokoe et al., 1994; Sharma, 1997;
G0/qc

10 Santamarina et al., 2001). Comprehensive reviews of this

topic have been reported both at the International Confer-
ences on Pre-Failure Deformation Behaviour of Geomaterials
0% A.C. Monteray in 1995, 1997, 1999 and 2003, and by several individual
1% A.C. Monteray
2% A.C. Monteray
papers (e.g. Hardin, 1978; Jamiolkowski et al., 1995; Lo
Alabama residual soil Presti et al., 1999; Tatsuoka et al., 1997; Rampello &
Utah tailings
Quiou Viggiani, 2001). The stiffness of sand has long been recog-
Kidd
Massey
Low compressibility nised to be controlled by the confining stress and void ratio
Alaska
Ticino A.C. ⫽ Artificially cemented
(e.g. Hardin, 1978; Lo Presti et al., 2001), which has led to
Toyoura
(% by weight) the establishment of many useful correlations for predicting
1 G0 adopting slightly different F (e) functions (e.g. Lo Presti
10 100 1000 et al., 1997; Shybuya et al., 2004). Lo Presti et al. (1997)
qc1 suggest the expression

n
Fig. 1. Characterisation of uncemented, unaged sands (after G0 x p9
Eslaamizaad & Robertson, 1997) ¼ Ce (3)
pa pa

1000
Hydraulic sand fill
Spearwood dune sand
Safety bay (calcareous)
Upper bound cemented sand
Upper Guildford sand
(Schnaid et al., 2004) Lower Guildford sand
100
G0/qc
where p9 is the mean effective stress, and C, n and x are
material parameters.
For solutions of cone penetration in sand, the significant
volume change occurring in shear has to be captured. Given
its complexity, the existing methods of interpretation of the
penetration mechanism in sand can only be regarded as
approximations, and solutions have to be calibrated against
experimental data from calibration chamber tests (Yu, 2004).

Using a state-parameter-based, critical state soil model,

10
Upper bound
uncemented
(Schnaid
et al., 2004)
Lower bound uncemented
(Schnaid et al., 2004)
1 and C4 have been calibrated against laboratory chamber
10 100 1000
qc1
Fig. 2. Characterisation of Perth sands, Australia (from Schnaid
et al., 2004)
excess of 50%; and Lower Guildford siliceous sand, which
was laid down by streams during the early Pleistocene, is
shaped by ageing effects. As indicated by Schnaid et al.
(2004), G0 /qc ratios in the lower Guildford sand are typically
about five times higher than those recorded in the hydraulic
fill, and results of these cemented aged sands fall above the
region defined for uncemented materials.
This paper departs from these empirical observations to
develop a new method for the interpretation of the seismic cone
test in granular soils. By combining cavity expansion theory
and critical state concepts to the variables that control the
small-strain stiffness of sand, possible structural effects of a
sand deposit can be clearly identified. In addition, the state
parameter can be expressed as a function of the ratio of the
elastic stiffness to cone resistance, G0 /qc . The correlations
proposed in this paper are validated by an experimental data-
base comprising both large laboratory calibration chamber tests
and centrifuge tests, as well as by results from field testing.
METHOD OF ANALYSIS
It is instructive to summarise here the theoretical solution
for cone penetration and the background research of small-
Collins et al. (1992) presented a solution for the expansion
of a spherical cavity that can be conveniently expressed as
p9ls ¼ C1 ð p9Þ C2 þC3 ð1þe0 Þ exp ½ C4 ð1 þ e0 Þ (4)
where p9ls is the effective spherical cavity limit pressure.
Critical state parameters ˆ and º and constants C1 , C2 , C3
testing data in six reference sands, as listed in Table 1. The
cone resistance qc may be estimated directly from the
spherical cavity limit pressure (Ladanyi & Johnston, 1974;
Yu & Mitchell, 1998):
 pffiffiffi 
qc ¼ p9ls 1 þ 3 tan 9ps (5)
where 9ps is the plane strain peak friction angle of the soil,
as deep cone penetration may be assumed to occur under
plane strain conditions in the penetration direction. In deriv-
ing equation (5) a rough soil/cone interface was assumed to
be valid. This semi-analytical approach has already been
successfully adopted by Yu et al. (1996) for the interpreta-
tion of cone-pressuremeter test data in sand.
Theoretical values of qc calculated from equation (5) can
be related to the magnitude of G0 calculated from equation
(3), provided the initial void ratio and in situ stress state are
known or estimated. From this correlation it is possible to
express both G0 /qc and qc1 from the set of given parameters
listed in Tables 1 and 2. The theoretical correlation between
G0 /qc and qc1 is shown in Fig. 3, and results are used to
define a region representative of unaged uncemented soils in
a plot of G0 /qc against qc1 . Results were calculated in a
stress range between 50 kPa and 500 kPa, which should
cover the range of applications encountered in geotechnical
engineering practice. The computed values are shown to be
insensitive to both the initial stress state and soil compressi-
bility, which fully justifies its use for soil characterisation.
 INTERPRETATION OF THE SEISMIC CONE TEST IN GRANULAR SOILS 267
Table 1. Material constants (after Collins et al., 1992)

Sand Monterey Hokksund Kogyuk Ottawa Reid Belford Ticino

emax 0.82 0.91 0.83 0.79 0.87 0.89

emin 0.55 0.55 0.47 0.49 0.55 0.60
A: rad 0.83 0.80 0.75 0.95 0.63 0.60
ˆ 0.878 0.934 0.849 0.754 1.014 0.986
º 0.013 0.024 0.029 0.012 0.028 0.024
cv 32 32 31 28.5 32 31
C1 9.382 3 107 4.297 3 107 2.247 3 107 2.663 3 108 1.539 3 107 2.012 3 107
C2 0.938 0.918 0.929 1.012 0.871 0.875
C3 0.374 0.349 0.374 0.450 0.314 0.326
C4 7.426 6.915 6.945 8.658 6.207 6.481

Table 2. Characteristic stiffness parameters

Sand C N X Reference

Monterey 523 0.48 1.10 Saxeda & Reddy (1989)

Hokksund 720 0.46 1.30 Lo Presti et al. (1992)
Kogyuk 720 0.50 1.30 Lo Presti et al. (1997)*
Ottawa 547 0.44 1.05 Salgado et al. (2000)
Reid Belford 620 0.50 1.40 Skoglund et al. (1976)
Ticino 710 0.43 1.00 Lo Presti et al. (1993)

*Average values for clean sand.

100 polarised (Svh ), and horizontally propagating, horizontally

polarised (Shh ) shear waves respectively.
Upper bound uncemented Monterey The scatter in Figs 1 and 2 may also be partially
Hokksund
unaged (Schnaid et al., 2004) attributed to the influence of the horizontal stress on both
Kogyuk
Ottawa
initial stiffness and cone resistance. Calibration chamber data
Reid in sand have clearly shown that, for a given density, cone
Ticino resistance depends primarily on the in situ horizontal stress,
50 kPa 500 kPa
and therefore
h90 must be accounted for in a rational
interpretation of field tests (Schnaid & Houlsby, 1992).
G0/qc

10 Equation (1) should ideally be referred to horizontal stress

Lower bound uncemented
unaged (Schnaid et al., 2004)
1
10 100
qc1
Fig. 3. Ratio of elastic stiffness to cone resistance predicted
from critical state approach
For comparison with natural sands, the upper and lower
boundaries established by Schnaid et al. (2004) from the
database shown in Fig. 1 are presented together with the
theoretically derived database. The boundaries have roughly
the same slope as produced by the analytical solution. A
significant scatter in natural data is not only a function of
soil compressibility, as suggested in early studies, but prob-
ably also a result of fabric anisotropy, as well as some
degree of cementation and ageing. Because of anisotropy, G0
is not independent of the direction of propagation, and
polarisation of shear waves and correlations with penetration
resistance should preferably be expressed as a function of
Gvh , Ghv or Ghh for velocities of horizontally propagating,
vertically polarised (Shv ), vertically propagating, horizontally
or mean in situ stress rather than to vertical stress. The
preference for
v90 is justified by the huge difficulties of
determining with reasonable accuracy the value of the
horizontal stress in most natural deposits, because they have
undergone complex stress history, cementation and ageing
effects that are difficult to reconstruct.
The validity of this theoretical approach is confirmed by
centrifuge tests carried out on Fontainebleau sand (Gaudin et
al., 2005), where both G0 and qc have been measured. By
1000
taking account of chamber size effects, following a simpli-
fied procedure described in the original paper, the measured
data plotted in Fig. 4 confirm the theoretically defined
correlation and demonstrate that the G0 /qc ratio is relatively
insensitive to stress level and relative density. The ratio of
G0 /qc observed in the centrifuge falls right inside the space
characterised by the upper and lower boundaries established
from field data, and is shown to be generally higher for
loose sand than for dense specimens, primarily because the
latter exhibit higher qc1 values.
Further evidence can be obtained from field testing using
the database reported for the Canadian liquefaction experi-
mental site, Canlex (e.g. Robertson et al., 2000; Wride et
al., 2000). A detailed investigation of three major locations
containing hydraulic placed loose sand deposits has been
carried out in the Canlex project, comprising both field and
laboratory tests where undisturbed samples have been re-
trieved from ground freezing techniques. Two locations are
particularly useful for the present discussion and will be
extensively analysed throughout this paper: the Mildred Lake
deposit, 12 years old and placed 27–37 m deep; and the
268
100
Upper bound uncemented
unaged (Schnaid et al., 2004)
G0/qc
10
Lower bound uncemented
unaged (Schnaid et al., 2004)
1
10 100
qc1
Fig. 4. Ratio of elastic stiffness to cone resistance from
centrifuge tests on Fontainebleau sand
J-pit deposit, 2 months aged at time of test, and 3–7 m
deep. Reported cone resistance and small-strain stiffness
have been plotted in Fig. 5 and appear to indicate no
cementation in either site and no ageing effects at the
Mildred Lake 12 years old deposit. It is not clear why the
Mildred Lake data fall below the lower-bound line defined
for other sands, but this may be attributed to the inherent
disturbance on retrieving samples from granular materials.
The theoretical correlation defined here agrees reasonably
well with the experimental data presented in Figs 1, 2, 4 and
5, and is therefore considered representative of the trends of
G0 /qc against qc1 expected for natural sands. The G0 /qc ratio
is useful for soil characterisation, because it provides a
measure of the ratio of the elastic stiffness to ultimate
strength that may be expected to increase with sand age and
cementation, primarily because the effect of these on G0 is
stronger than on qc . The ratio is not sensitive to changes in
mean stress, relative density or sand compressibility.
STATE PARAMETER
Been et al. (1987) presented relationships between nor-
malised cone resistance and state parameter and peak fric-
100
50 kPa
G0/qc
10
J-pit
Mildred Lake
1 increasing relative density). Although the correlation is not
10 100
qc1
Fig. 5. Ratio of elastic stiffness to cone resistance from field
tests at Canlex site (after Wride et al., 2000)
SCHNAID AND YU
tion angle, based on a set of real test results. Although this
Dense
approach proved to be useful, a detailed analysis of the cone
test data on normally consolidated sand by Sladen (1989)
Medium shows that there is no unique correlation between the
Loose normalised cone resistance and the state parameter. The
experimental data suggest that this correlation varies system-
atically with the mean stress level. This experimental finding
is consistent with the theoretical study of Yu & Mitchell
(1998) using cavity expansion theory. As G0 and qc are
controlled by void ratio, mean stress, compressibility and
structure, and are therefore different functions of the same
variables, it is possible to anticipate that, as a ratio, these
two measurements can be useful in prediction of soil proper-
ties. In the preceding discussion, a set of critical state
parameters combined with initial state conditions have been
used to calculate both G0 and qc . Acknowledging that
critical state parameters and initial soil state are in the root
1000 of the so-called ‘state parameter’ ł, an obvious approach is
to correlate the G0 /qc ratio with ł.
A concept first introduced by Wroth & Bassett (1965) and
later further developed by Been & Jefferies (1985) is the
state parameter ł, which is defined as the difference be-
tween current void ratio and critical state void ratio at the
same mean stress. The state parameter can be conveniently
expressed as


p9
ł ¼ e þ ºln ˆ (6)
p91
where e is the void ratio and p91 is the reference mean
effective stress, taken as 1 kPa. Further development of
complete critical state soil models using the state parameter
concept can be found in Yu (1998).
It has long been recognised that the key parameters
controlling cone penetration are relative density, effective
stress level, and soil compressibility. Soil compressibility
can be related to grain crushability, and, as a result, the
critical state line on sands is non-linear in e–lnp9 space (e.g.
Konrad, 1998), exhibiting a steeper slope at high stresses
owing to changes in gradation and grain shape induced by
grain crushing. The amount of particle crushing that occurs
in an element of soil under stress depends on particle size
distribution, particle shape, mineralogy, mean effective
stress, effective stress path, void ratio and particle bonding
(e.g. Hardin, 1978). Despite the importance of grain crush-
ability, this effect is not incorporated in the present analysis.
It is important to recall that the state parameter has been
successfully correlated with triaxial friction angles 9tc using
Monterey
Hokksund the empirical exponential-type relationship (Been & Jeff-
Kogyuk eries; 1985Þ
Ottawa
Reid
Ticino
9tc  9cv ¼ A½ exp ðłÞ  1 (7)
500 kPa
where 9cv is the critical state friction angle and A is a
curve-fitting parameter ranging from 0.6 to 0.95 depending
on the type of sand. A theoretical relationship between
G0 /qc and ł can then be obtained from equations (3), (5),
(6) and (7), with the constitutive parameters listed in Table
1. Results are plotted in Fig. 6 for the six reference sands
considered in this paper, and for a stress range between 50
and 500 kPa. For a given mean stress, the ratio G0 /qc
decreases with decreasing ł (that is, G0 /qc decreases with
1000
very sensitive to variations in sand strength and stiffness, for
a given ł the G0 /qc ratio reduces with increasing mean
stress. The theoretical database generated by this approach
can be represented by the expression
 INTERPRETATION OF THE SEISMIC CONE TEST IN GRANULAR SOILS 269
100
100 kPa. Experimental data clearly show that G0 /qc de-
Monterey
Hokksund
creases with decreasing ł and increasing mean stress,
Kogyuk as indicated from equation (8). Predicted trends for
Ottawa p9 ¼ 30 kPa and 100 kPa are also shown in the figure, and
Reid
Ticino
appear to produce a reasonable approximation to measured
50 kPa 500 kPa data.
Penetration and seismic testing data from the Canlex site
G0/qc

10
P ⫽ 50 kPa
P ⫽ 500 kPa
1 authors. The two sets of measured data fall in rather distinct
0·1 1 ⫺0·1 ⫺0·2 ⫺0·3
State parameter ψ
Fig. 6. Theoretical prediction of state parameter from G0 /qc
ratio



p9 G0
ł¼Æ þ ln
pa qc
where Æ ¼ 0.520;  ¼ 0.07 and  ¼ 0.180 are average
coefficients obtained from calibration chamber data (e.g.
Collins et al., 1992). These mean value of the coefficients
obtained by combining the best-fit values of equations (3),
(5), (6), (7) and (9) represents an average response for the
six different sands evaluated in the present work. In this case
the uncertainty in each equation is not computed in the
theoretical approach, and the estimated state parameter re-
presents not more that a mean value representative of
granular soils. In practice it is recommended to obtain these
coefficients from site-specific correlations for a more accu-
rate prediction of soil properties from the seismic cone.
Validation of the proposed method from a number of case
studies is therefore necessary before this approach is used
with confidence. The database from both Fontainebleau
centrifuge tests and the Canlex site can provide preliminary
assessment of the usefulness of equation (8). The measured
centrifuge data for relative densities corresponding to 45.1%,
68.8% and 84.2% are shown in Fig. 7, in which G0 /qc is
plotted against ł for mean stresses of ranging from 30 to
100·0
P ⫽ 30 kPa
G0/qc
(e.g. Wride et al., 2000) are very useful for evaluating the
proposed correlation, because there is no other area in which
the freezing technique has been adopted so extensively to
retrieve undisturbed samples in sand from which the state
parameter was assessed. Results are presented in Fig. 8, in
which data from both the Mildred Lake and J-pit sites are
summarised. Substantial scatter is observed in this plot,
which reflects the actual scattered data reported by the
⫺0·4 ⫺0·5 regions in the G0 /qc –ł space, with the J-pit data falling
consistently above the data reported at Mildred Lake as a
result of the different mean in situ stresses at the two
locations. The J-pit data follow a line with a slope similar to
that predicted from equation (8), and the state parameter can
be predicted with reasonable accuracy. Data from Mildred
Lake are much more scattered and do not show any trend of
(8) reducing G0 /qc with decreasing ł. The low measured values
of G0 /qc have already been noticed in Fig. 4, which helps
explain why the data fall below the theoretical 500 kPa
bound line defined in Fig. 8.
The possibility of assessing ł from G0 /qc appears to be
promising. Predictions of the state parameter from the meas-
ured G0 /qc ratio would, however, require an independent
assessment of the in situ horizontal stress, for calculating
mean stresses in equation (8), which for a normally con-
solidated sand can rely on Jaky’s equation (Jaky, 1944) for a
first approximation,
K 0 ¼ 1  sin 9ps (9)
A general interpretation procedure for estimating both ł
and 9 can be summarised as follows.
(a) Record the cone penetration resistance and estimate
pore pressures to calculate the effective cone resistance
(qc 
v0 ).
(b) Estimate the small-strain stiffness G0 from the meas-
ured shear wave velocity Vs and soil mass density r
using the equation G0 ¼ r(Vs )2 .
100
Monterey
Dense Hokksund
Medium Kogyuk
Loose J-pit Ottawa
Reid
Ticino
50 kPa 500 kPa
G0/qc

10
10·0

P ⫽ 100 kPa P ⫽ 50 kPa

Mildred Lake

Increasing P ⫽ 500 kPa

mean stress
1·0 1
0 ⫺0·10 ⫺0·20 ⫺0·30 ⫺0·40 0·1 1 ⫺0·1 ⫺0·2 ⫺0·3 ⫺0·4 ⫺0·5

State parameter ψ State parameter ψ

Fig. 7. Predictions of state parameter for centrifuge tests Fig. 8. Prediction of state parameter for Canlex site
270 SCHNAID AND YU
(c) Assume a value of friction angle to calculate K0 from
equation (9).
State parameter
(d ) Estimate the mean stress from K0 and
v90 .
(e) Predict ł from equation (8). ⫺0·4 ⫺0·3 ⫺0·2 ⫺0·1 0 0·1
0
( f ) Estimate 9tc from ł (equation (7)), and convert the
triaxial friction angle into a plane-strain friction angle
(e.g. Bishop, 1966).
5
(g) Repeat steps (c) and (e), with the friction angle
estimated from (e) until the friction angle obtained
remains largely unchanged.
10

This step-by-step process has been applied to the J-pit site

Canlex data, and results are summarised in Fig. 9. The 15
calculation starts by assuming a triaxial friction angle of

Depth: m
308, which is used to estimate K0 and p9 from (c) and (d ),
and later to calculate the state parameter from equation (8) 20
and the friction angle from equation (7). The calculated
values of 9tc converted into 9ps are used as input parameters
to repeat steps (c) and (e) in four interactive stages for a 25
final estimation of the friction angle.
A summary of predicted parameters for the Canlex sites is
presented in Fig. 10. At the J-pit site a fairly good agree- 30
ment is observed between measured and predicted values of
the state parameter, for a K0 of approximately 0.40 (slightly
lower than the reported value of 0.49 by Wride et al., 2000). 35
Minor variations in K0 (from 0.3 to 0.5) would not signifi-
cantly affect the predicted values. The proposed approach
largely underpredicts the values of the state parameter at 40
Mildred Lake, even for K0 values as high as unity (consid-
ered highly unrealistic for a reported K0 value of 0.5 after State parameter (measured)
Robertson et al., 2000). Prediction of the state parameter at State parameter (predicted)
the Canlex site has already been reported by Wride et al.
(a)
(2000). Application of the correlation between cone resis-
tance and state parameter proposed by Been et al. (1987, Internal friction angle
1991) was in poor agreement with measured data. The 30 32 34 36 38 40
0

Internal friction angle

28 32 36 40
0 5

1 10

2
15
Depth: m

3
20
Depth: m

4
25

30
6

35
7

40
8
Input angle Mildred Lake (SCPTU) J-pit (SCPTU)
Interaction step 1
Interaction step 2 Mildred Lake (CPTU) J-pit (CPTU)
Interaction step 3
Interaction step 4 (b)

Fig. 9. Interaction steps for predicting triaxial friction angle Fig. 10. (a) State parameter, predicted against measured values;
from state parameter for Canlex J-pit site (b) predicted triaxial internal friction angle for Canlex site
 INTERPRETATION OF THE SEISMIC CONE TEST IN GRANULAR SOILS
correlation based on the ratio of cone resistance to limit
pressure proposed by Yu et al. (1996) for cone pressuremeter
tests showed a much better agreement, which on average
slightly underpredicts the state of the sand (Wride et al.,
2000).
Unfortunately, the scatter observed in ł values measured
in the laboratory (ranging from 0.22 to 0) is significant,
and yields values of friction angles within a range from 308
to more than 358. This is not necessarily viewed as a
limitation of the proposed approach, but as a strong indica-
tion of uncertainties associated with predictions of the state
parameter from both field and laboratory data, which prompt
the need for continuous research in this field.
Finally, it is interesting to note that a comparison of the
friction angle based on the proposed method and based on
cone penetration alone is also presented in Fig. 10. The two
approaches render a fairly similar variation of 9 with depth.
At the J-pit site the friction angle is about 358 at 3 m depth,
dropping to 308 at 4 m and increasing steadily to its maxi-
mum value of 358 at a depth of about 7 m. At the Mildred
Lake site both the cone and the seismic cone yielded a large
scatter, which may reflect both the stratified and layered
nature of the deposit and the variability in particle size
produced by the method of placement.
CONCLUSIONS
This paper introduces a new procedure to characterise the
effects of bonding and ageing on sand deposits from the
ratio of the elastic stiffness to cone resistance, G0 /qc . An
additional interrelationship couples a state-parameter-based
critical state soil model to the variables that control the
small-strain stiffness on sand, from which it is possible to
express the state parameter as a direct function of G0 /qc .
Applicability of the proposed approach has been demon-
strated by centrifuge and field tests, which justifies the
recommendation to use correlations with mechanical proper-
ties that are based on the combination of measurements from
independent tests, and in particular from the seismic cone.
Scatter in predicted values is significant, and further valida-
tion is required before this method is used in engineering
practice.
NOTATION
A material parameter
C material parameter
e void ratio
Go small strain shear modulus
Ko coefficient of earth pressure at rest
M slope of critical state line
pa atmospheric pressure
p9 mean effective stress
p9l pressuremeter limit pressure
p9ls effective spherical cavity limit pressure
p91 reference mean effective stress
qc cone resistance
q c1 normalised cone resistance
Vs shear wave velocity
x material parameter
Æ material parameter
 material parameter
ˆ specific volume of soil at critical state
º slope of normal consolidation line
r mass density

v9 o vertical effective stress
9cv critical state friction angle
9ps plane strain peak friction angle
9tc triaxial peak friction angle
 material parameter
ł state parameter
271
REFERENCES
Baldi, G., Ghionna, V. N., Jamiolkowski, M. & Lo Presti, D. C. F.
(1989). Modulus of sand from CPTs and DMTs. Proc. 12th Int.
Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Engng, Rio de Janeiro 1, 165–170.
Been, K. & Jefferies, M. G. (1985). A state parameter for sands.
Géotechnique 35, No. 2, 99–112.
Been, K., Jefferies, M. G., Crooks, J. H. A. & Rothenburg, L.
(1987). The cone penetration test in sands: Part II, general
influence of state. Géotechnique 37, No. 3, 287–300.
Been, K., Jefferies, M. G. & Hachey, J. (1991). The critical state of
sands. Géotechnique 41, No. 3, 365–381.
Bellotti, R., Ghionna, V. N., Jamiolkowski, M., Robertson, P. K.
& Peterson, R. W. (1989). Interpretation of moduli from self-
boring pressuremeter tests in sand. Géotechnique 39, No. 2,
269–292.
Bishop, A. W. (1966). The strength of soils as engineering materi-
als. Géotechnique 16, No. 2, 91–128.
Campanella, R. G., Robertson, P. K. & Gillespie, D. (1986). A
seismic cone penetrometer for offshore applications. Proceedings
of the international conference on advances in underwater
technology, ocean science and offshore engineering, Brighton,
Vol. 6, Chapter 51.
Clayton, C. R. I. & Heymann, C. (2001). The stiffness of geomater-
ials at very small strains. Géotechnique 51, No. 3, 245–256.
Collins, I. F., Pender, M. J. & Wang, Y. (1992). Cavity expansion in
sands under drained loading conditions. Int. J. Numer. Anal.
Methods Geomech. 16, No. 1, 3–23.
Eslaamizaad, S. & Robertson, P. K. (1997). A framework for in-situ
determination of sand compressibility. Proc. 49th Canadian
Geotech. Conf., St John’s, Newfoundland.
Fahey, M., Lehane, B. & Stewart, D. P. (2003). Soil stiffness for
shallow foundation design in the Perth CBD. Aust. Geomech.
38, No. 3, 61–89.
Gaudin, C., Schnaid, F. & Garnier, J. (2005). Sand characterisation
by combined centrifuge and laboratory tests. Int. J. Phys. Model-
ling Geomech. 5, No. 2, 98–112.
Hardin, B. O. (1978). The nature of stress–strain behavior for soils.
Proceedings of the ASCE Geotechnical Division specialty con-
ference on earthquake engineering and soil dynamics, Pasadena,
Vol. 1, pp. 3–90.
Ishihara, K. (1996). Soil behavior in earthquake geotechnics.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Jaky, J. (1944). The coefficient of earth pressure at rest. J. Soc.
Hungarian Arch. Engrs 78, No. 22, 355–358.
Jamiolkowski, M., Lancellotta, R., Lo Presti, D. C. F. & Pallara, O.
(1995). Stiffness of Toyoura sand at small and intermediate
strains. Proc. 13th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Engng, Ham-
burg 1, 169–172.
Jardine, R. J., Fourie, A. B., Maswoswse, J. & Burland, J. B.
(1985). Field and laboratory measurements of soil stiffness.
Proc. 11th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Engng, San Francisco
2, 511–514.
Konrad, J. M. (1998). Sand state from cone penetrometer tests: a
framework considering grain crushing stress. Géotechnique 48,
No. 2, 201–215.
Ladanyi, B. & Johnston, G. H. (1974). Behaviour of circular
footings and plate anchors embedded in permafrost. Can. Geo-
tech. J. 11, No. 4, 531–553.
Lo Presti, D. C. F., Pedroni, D. C. F. & Crippa, V. (1992). Maxi-
mum dry density in cohesionless soil by pluviation and by
ASTM D 4253–83: a comparative study. Geotech. Test. J. 15,
No. 2, 180–189.
Lo Presti, D. C. F., Pallara, O., Lancellotta, R., Armando, M. &
Maniscalco, R. (1993). Monotonic and cyclic behaviour of two
sand at small strains. Geotech. Test. J. 16, No. 4, 409–424.
Lo Presti, D. C. F., Jamiolkowski, M., Pallara, O., Cavallaro, A. &
Pedroni, S. (1997). Shear modulus and damping of soils. Géo-
technique 47, No. 3, 603–617.
Lo Presti, D. C. F., Pallara, O., Jamiolkowski, M. & Cavallaro, A.
(1999). Anisotropy of small strain stiffness of undisturbed and
reconstituted clays. Proc. 2nd Int. Symp. on Pre-Failure Defor-
mation Characteristics of Geomaterials, Torino 1, 11–18.
Lo Presti, D. C. F., Shibuya, S. & Rix, G. J. (2001). Innovation in
soil testing. Proc. 2nd Int. Symp. on Pre-failure Characteristics
of Geomaterials, Torino 2, 1027–1076.
Lunne, T., Robertson, P. K. & Powell, J. J. M. (1997). Cone
272 SCHNAID AND YU
penetration testing in geotechnical practice. London: Blackie
Academic & Professional.
Odebrecht, E., Schnaid, F., Rocha, M. M. & Bernardes, G. P.
(2004). Energy measurements for standard penetration tests and
the effects of the length of rods. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on
Geotech. Geophys. Site Characterisation, Porto, 1, 351–358.
Rampello, S. & Viggiani, G. M. B. (2001). Pre-failure deformation
characteristics of geomaterials. Proc. 2nd Symp. on Pre-failure
Characteristics of Geomaterials, Torino 2, 1279–1289.
Rix, G. J. & Stokes, K. H. (1992). Correlation of initial tangent
modulus and cone resistance. Proceedings of the international
symposium on calibration chamber testing, Potsdam, pp. 351–362.
Robertson, P. K. et al. (2000). The Canadian Liquefaction Experi-
ment: an overview. Can. Geotech. J. 37, 499–504.
Salgado, R., Bandini, P. & Karin, A. (2000). Shear strength and
stiffness of silty sand. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Engng 126, No.
5, 451–462.
Santamarina, J. C, Klein, K. A. & Fam, M. A. (2001). Soils and
waves. Ontario: John Wiley & Sons.
Saxeda, S. K. & Reddy, K. R. (1989). Dynamic moduli and
damping ratio for Monterey No 0 sand by resonant column tests.
Soils Found. 29, No. 2, 37–51
Schnaid, F. (1997). Ground property characterization by means of
in situ testing. Panel Discussion: Aspects of interpretation of in
situ tests in cohesive-frictional soils. Proc. 14th Int. Conf. Soil
Mech. Found. Engng, Hamburg 5, 320–322.
Schnaid, F. & Houlsby, G. T. (1992). Measurement of the properties
of sand in a calibration chamber by cone pressuremeter test.
Géotechnique 42, No. 4, 578–601.
Schnaid, F., Lehane, B. M. & Fahey, M. (2004). In situ test
characterisation of unusual soils. Keynote Lecture. Proc. 2nd Int.
Conf. Geotech. Geophys. Site Characterisation, Porto 1, 49–74
Sharma, P. V. (1997). Environmental and engineering geophysics.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shybuya, S., Yamashita, S., Watabe, Y. & Lo Presti, D. C. F. (2004).
In situ seismic survey in characterising engineering properties of
natural ground. Keynote Lecture. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. Geotech.
Geophys. Site Characterisation, Porto 1, 167–185.
Skoglund, G. R., Marcuson, W. L. & Cunny, R. W. (1976). Evalua-
tion of resonant column test devices. J. Geotech. Engng Div.
ASCE 102, No. 11, 1147–1158.
Sladen, J. A. (1989). Problems with interpretation of sand state
from cone penetration test. Géotechnique 39, No. 2, 323–332.
Stokoe, K. H. II, Hwang, S. K. & Lee, K. J. N. (1994). Effects of
various parameters on the stiffness and damping of soils at small
to medium strains. Proc. 1st Int. Conf. on Pre-failure Deforma-
tion Characteristics of Geomaterials, Sapporo 2, 785–816.
Tatsuoka, F., Lo Presti, D. C. F. & Kohata, Y. (1995). Deformation
characteristics of soils and soft rocks under monotonic and
cyclic loads and their relationships. Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. on
Recent Advances in Geomechanical Earthquake Engineering
and Soil Dynamics, St Louis 2, 851–879.
Tatsuoka, F., Jardine, R. J., Lo Presti, D., Di Benedetto, H. &
Kodaka, T. (1997). Theme Lecture: Characterising the pre-
failure deformation properties of geomaterials. Proc. 14th Int.
Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Engng, Hamburg 4, 2129–2164.
Wride, C. E., Robertson, P. K., Biggar, K. W., Campanella, R. G.,
Hofmann, B. A., Hughes, J. M. O., Küpper, A. & Woeller, D. J.
(2000). Interpretation of in situ test results for the Canlex sites.
Can. Geotech. J. 37, No. 3, 505–529.
Wroth, C. P. & Bassett, N. (1965). A stress–strain relationship for the
shearing behaviour of a sand. Géotechnique 15, No. 1, 32–56.
Yu, H. S. (1998). CASM: a unified state parameter model for clay
and sand. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 22, No. 8,
621–653.
Yu, H. S. (2000). Cavity expansion methods in geomechanics.
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Yu, H. S. (2004). In situ soil testing: from mechanics to interpreta-
tion. The First J. K. Mitchell Lecture. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf.
Geotech. Geophys. Site Characterisation, Porto 1, 3–39.
Yu, H. S. & Mitchell, J. K. (1998). Analysis of cone resistance:
review of methods. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Engng ASCE 124,
No. 2, 140–149.
Yu, H. S., Schnaid, F. & Collins, I. F. (1996). Analysis of cone
pressuremeter tests in sands. J. Geotech. Engng ASCE 122,
No. 8, 623–632.