CHAPTER 4

In-Situ Geotechnical
Exploration and
Sampling Methods

In-situ geotechnical tests are used to measure the response of subsurface

soil layers to some mechanical disturbance, based on which physical engi-
neering properties such as strength or stiffness of the soil can be estimated.
All such tests are considered destructive since they apply medium to large
deformations on the soil during testing.
In-situ geotechnical tests can be conducted at different depths below
ground surface. Some tests require a borehole to be drilled, through which
the test device is lowered. The borehole installation itself is an exploratory
process, during which samples can be taken and soil strata be identified.
Other tests are considered “direct-push” technologies since the test
probe can be pushed into the virgin soil, without the need to first drill a
hole. While such tests have the distinct advantage of being fast, relatively
clean, and comparatively inexpensive, they do not provide the opportunity
to collect physical samples and, instead, rely solely on data measured by
Copyright © 2015. Momentum Press. All rights reserved.

the probes.

4.1 STANDARD PENETRATION TEST

4.1.1 INTRODUCTION

The standard penetration test (SPT) is the most widely known in-situ geo-
technical test, having been in use for over 100 years and currently being
used around the globe. The test measures the resistance of soil to dynamic
penetration by a thick-walled steel sampling tube. The measured data is in

De, Anirban. Geotechnical Site Characterization, Momentum Press, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/aalto-ebooks/detail.action?docID=4432250.
Created from aalto-ebooks on 2025-03-04 10:09:31.
 48  •  GEOTECHNICAL SITE CHARACTERIZATION

the form of a blow count that represents the number of blows of a standard
hammer required to drive the sampling tube by a certain fixed distance
into the soil. A stiffer soil will offer higher resistance to penetration and,
therefore, register a larger blow count. Over several decades of its use, the
SPT blow count has been correlated to a wide range of soil properties and
can be used to estimate most engineering parameters, though with varying
levels of confidence.

4.1.2 PROCEDURE

Figure 4.1 shows the setup for the SPT. The guidelines for SPT are pro­vided
in ASTM D1586. The first step in conducting an SPT is to drill a borehole,
which is normally done using a continuous flight auger or mud-rotary drill-
ing. Through this hole, a thick-walled split-spoon sampler is lowered. The
sampler has an outer diameter of 50 mm, inner diameter of 35 mm, and
a length of 760 mm, and is attached to the drill rig by means of a rod. An
Copyright © 2015. Momentum Press. All rights reserved.

Figure 4.1. Schematic diagram of SPT setup and testing (guidelines

provided by ASTM D1586).
Source: National Highway Institute (NHI) (2002).

De, Anirban. Geotechnical Site Characterization, Momentum Press, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/aalto-ebooks/detail.action?docID=4432250.
Created from aalto-ebooks on 2025-03-04 10:09:31.
 IN-SITU GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION • 49

anvil is located on the top of the rod, and a hammer under free-fall strikes
this anvil to provide the impact that drives the sampler into the soil.
The standard hammer weighs 63.5 kg (140 lbs) and it falls through
a height of 76 mm (30 in.). This corresponds to an energy equal to 350
lbs-ft (48 kg-m, or 474.5 N-m), considering a free-fall condition. How-
ever, some of the energy is lost; therefore, it is important to measure the
efficiency of hammers during the SPT process. Standard efficiency is con-
sidered to be 60 percent, that is, the energy that is transferred to the top
of the sampler is 60 percent of the total potential energy of the hammer
before its fall.
There are three types of hammer that are commonly used: donut,
safety, and automatic. The first two types are operated manually by means
of a rope that runs over a pulley at the top of the mast and down to a
cathead where it is wrapped two times before reaching the operator. This
type of manual operation makes the procedure somewhat operator- and
equipment-specific. The automatic hammer has a hydraulic motor-driven
system that lifts the hammer and lets it free-fall through a guided sleeve.
The measurements in this method are more consistent and less dependent
on individual operator or equipment.

4.1.3 MEASUREMENT

Typically, SPT is conducted at vertical intervals of 1 to 1.5 m (3 to

5 ft), each test being conducted in three (sometimes four) increments.
In each increment, the sampler is advanced by 150 mm (6 in.) into
the soil due to blows from the hammer. The operator keeps track of
the number of blows required to advance each 150 mm (6 in.) incre-
ment. The readings for the first increment are considered seating load.
The number of blows for the second and third increments are added
Copyright © 2015. Momentum Press. All rights reserved.

together to provide the blow count (N) that corresponds to a total of

300 mm (1 ft) of penetration by the sampler tube. The fourth increment
(if measured) is not used. All three (or four) blow counts are reported
on a boring log, for example, 4-7-6-7—where the actual blow count
would be the sum of the second and third counts, that is, N = 7 + 6 =
13 blows in this case.
Figure 4.2 presents a sample of a boring log, showing how SPT blow
counts are recorded. This particular one (from Bray et al. 2001, 2003) was
prepared as part of a postearthquake reconnaissance in Turkey, which is
discussed in detail as a case history in Chapter 8.

De, Anirban. Geotechnical Site Characterization, Momentum Press, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/aalto-ebooks/detail.action?docID=4432250.
Created from aalto-ebooks on 2025-03-04 10:09:31.
 50  •  GEOTECHNICAL SITE CHARACTERIZATION

Figure 4.2. Example of a boring log.

Source: Bray et al. (2001, 2003).
Copyright © 2015. Momentum Press. All rights reserved.

De, Anirban. Geotechnical Site Characterization, Momentum Press, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/aalto-ebooks/detail.action?docID=4432250.
Created from aalto-ebooks on 2025-03-04 10:09:31.
 IN-SITU GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION • 51

4.1.4 STIFF MATERIAL—REFUSAL

While conducting SPT in a relatively stiff soil deposit, or when the sam-
pler encounters rock, it is possible to have little or no penetration of the
sampler even with numerous hammer blows. An SPT blow count of more
than 50 is usually indicative of a very stiff material. ASTM 1586 defines
“refusal” when 50 or more blows are required to advance by 25 mm
(1 in.). In such a case, the engineer directing the tests should make a deci-
sion as to whether the boring has reached the depth of bedrock, in which
case the SPT shall stop. In certain situations, the “refusal” encountered is
due to a localized obstruction (such as a piece of buried metal or rock),
beyond which there is soil into which the SPT can continue. In such cases,
the operator can switch drill bits and core through the hard obstructing
­material and resume normal SPT operation on the other side.

4.1.5 SOFT MATERIAL—WEIGHT OF THE ROD OR WEIGHT

OF HAMMER

Sometimes, a very soft deposit of soil does not offer any resistance and
penetration is achieved without any blow, merely under the weight of the
rod (WOR) or the weight of hammer (WOH). In such cases, the appropri-
ate abbreviation is noted on the boring log in lieu of blow count.

4.1.6 APPLICABILITY

SPT has been found to be effective in a wide range of soils; however, it is

not suitable for coarse gravel, and soft and sensitive clays.

4.1.7 CORRECTION FACTORS

Copyright © 2015. Momentum Press. All rights reserved.

The blow count measured during the SPT is sometimes referred to as the
field value (Nfield) or measured value (Nmeasured). It is necessary to apply
several correction factors to this value to obtain a corrected blow count,
which can be used in calculations.
As stated before, the standard efficiency is considered to be 60 per-
cent. It is necessary to measure the efficiency of the equipment during
each SPT measurement. A correction factor (CE) is then used to determine
the adjusted blow count corresponding to an efficiency of 60 percent.
Similarly, there are separate correction factors for borehole diameter
(CB), rod length (CR), and sampling method (CS). Thus, one can calculate

De, Anirban. Geotechnical Site Characterization, Momentum Press, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/aalto-ebooks/detail.action?docID=4432250.
Created from aalto-ebooks on 2025-03-04 10:09:31.
 52  •  GEOTECHNICAL SITE CHARACTERIZATION

the corrected blow count (N60) after applying the correction factors, as
shown in Equation 4.1:

N60 = NmeasuredCECBCSCR(4.1)

Typical values of these correction factors are given in Table 4.1.

When the blow count is used to estimate liquefaction potential, a fur-
ther normalization is necessary to account for overburden stress at the
depth of the sampler. The corrected and normalized blow count is given
in Equation 4.2:

(N1)60 = CN  N60 (4.2)

where CN is given in Equation 4.3:

n
 P 
C N =  a  (4.3)
 s ′ 
vo

• Pa = atmospheric pressure in same units as s′vo (for reference,

Pa = 101 kPa = 14.7 psi = 2,116 psf)
• n = stress exponent = 1 for clay, 0.5 to 0.6 for sands

Table 4.1. Correction factors for SPT

Correction factor Term Equipment variable Correction
Energy ratio CE = Donut Hammer 0.5 to 1.0*
ER/60 Safety Hammer 0.7 to 1.2*
Automatic-Trip 0.8 to 1.5*
Hammer
Borehole diameter CB 65 to 115 mm 1.0
Copyright © 2015. Momentum Press. All rights reserved.

150 mm 1.05
200 mm 1.15
Rod length CR 3 m <Length < 4 m 0.75
4 m <Length < 6 m 0.85
6 m <Length < 10 m 0.95
10 m < Length 1.0
Sampling method CS Standard sampler 1.0
Sampler without liner 1.1 to 1.3
Note: *Values of CE are provided for guidance only. Actual values of ER should be
measured as per ASTM D4633.
Source: FHWA (2002).

De, Anirban. Geotechnical Site Characterization, Momentum Press, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/aalto-ebooks/detail.action?docID=4432250.
Created from aalto-ebooks on 2025-03-04 10:09:31.
 IN-SITU GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION • 53

• Peak value: CN ≤ 1.7 (shown as 2.0 in earlier literature, but later

revised)

4.1.8 SAMPLING METHODS

4.1.8.1 Disturbed Samples in Split-Spoon Sampler

A split-spoon sampler is opened at the end of a test to reveal the sample

of soil collected in the tube. The soil collected in the split-spoon sampler
during SPT can be used for routine index tests such as soil classification
and moisture content. However, this type of sample is not considered
suitable for determining engineering properties such as shear strength or
consolidation because the thick-walled tube causes the soil to be severely
disturbed during the sampling process.

4.1.8.2 Undisturbed Samples

It is important to prevent sample disturbance before and during sampling

in order to ensure that relatively undisturbed samples are collected for
use in laboratory strength and compressibility tests. To keep sample dis-
turbance to a minimum, it is necessary to keep the borehole filled with
drilling mud. The drilling mud applies overburden stress on the bottom of
the borehole and, at least partially, compensates for the overburden stress
due to the soil which is removed. For this purpose, it is important to select
the unit weight of the drilling mud carefully. Ladd and DeGroot (2004)
provide guidance in the form of an equation that relates the unit weight of
the mud to the borehole depth as well as engineering properties of the soil.
A stationary (fixed) piston sampler (as shown in Figure 4.3) is suitable
to collect undisturbed samples from soft clay deposits. Common piston
Copyright © 2015. Momentum Press. All rights reserved.

samplers are Osterberg type (ASTM D6519) or Acker sampler. A piston

sampler allows for a control on the amount of soil that enters the tube
and also helps to better retain the soil sample upon extraction. First, the
sample tube is lowered to the bottom of the borehole and advanced into
the soil to allow it to enter the tube. After pushing the tube into the soil,
some time is allowed for the soil to set in the tube and partially bond to
the sides of the tube. This allows time for soil to consolidate and for the
remolded zone around the inside tube perimeter to gain strength (Ladd and
DeGroot 2004). After this, the sampler is slowly rotated through two full
revolutions to allow the bottom of the soil in the tube to shear off from

De, Anirban. Geotechnical Site Characterization, Momentum Press, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/aalto-ebooks/detail.action?docID=4432250.
Created from aalto-ebooks on 2025-03-04 10:09:31.
 54  •  GEOTECHNICAL SITE CHARACTERIZATION

Figure 4.3. Stationary piston sampler.

Source: FHWA (2002).
Copyright © 2015. Momentum Press. All rights reserved.

the bottom of the hole. Finally, the sampler is slowly lifted to withdraw it
from the borehole.
A Pitcher sampler is suitable for collecting samples in stiff to hard
clays and soft rocks. It may also be used to sample in deposits with alter-
nate hard and soft layers (Federal Highway Administration [FHWA]
1997). As shown in Figure 4.4, this type of sampler has an outer rotating
core barrel with a cutting bit and an inner stationary, spring-loaded, thin-
wall sampling tube. The rotating core barrel is suitable to drill through stiff
and hard clays and soft rocks.
A thin-walled Shelby sampling tube is suitable for softer deposits.
The spring-loading mechanism allows the thin-wall sampling tube to lead

De, Anirban. Geotechnical Site Characterization, Momentum Press, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/aalto-ebooks/detail.action?docID=4432250.
Created from aalto-ebooks on 2025-03-04 10:09:31.
 IN-SITU GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION • 55

Figure 4.4. Pitcher sampler.

Copyright © 2015. Momentum Press. All rights reserved.

De, Anirban. Geotechnical Site Characterization, Momentum Press, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/aalto-ebooks/detail.action?docID=4432250.
Created from aalto-ebooks on 2025-03-04 10:09:31.
 56  •  GEOTECHNICAL SITE CHARACTERIZATION

or train the outer drilling bit, depending on the stiffness of the material in
the deposit. Guidelines for collecting samples in thin-walled tube is pro-
vided in ASTM D1587.
After retrieving the tube sample (by any suitable method), the spoil
from the top and bottom of the tube are removed. It is recommended to run
Torvane tests on the intact soils at the top and bottom of the tube. Follow-
ing this, the tube is sealed as per the recommendations of ASTM D4220
for storage and transportation.

4.1.9 TRANSPORTATION, HANDLING, AND STORAGE

OF SAMPLES

4.1.9.1 Identifying and Labeling Samples

It is necessary to identify field samples when they are collected. A typical

identification contains the following information:

• Project: Name or number which identifies the project

• Location: Borehole or test pit number
• Depth: For samples collected from borings
• Date

The locations where samples are taken are also noted on boring logs.
The same identifying numbers are recorded on the boring log and sample
for the purpose of cross-reference.

4.1.9.2 Transportation and Handling—Undisturbed Samples

Laboratory tests that measure engineering properties (such as consolida-

Copyright © 2015. Momentum Press. All rights reserved.

tion and shear strength) require undisturbed samples; other types of tests
may be done on disturbed or undisturbed samples. It is necessary to pre-
serve an undisturbed sample without imparting any physical disturbance
or environmental change on the sample. Recommendations for preserving
and transporting soil samples is provided in ASTM D4220.
The sample is typically secured in the metal tube in which it was
originally sampled from the ground. Any empty zone of the tube above
and below the soil specimen should be ideally filled with sealing wax in
order to restrain the soil from shifting during transportation. The two ends
of the tube should be closed tightly with plastic caps that come with the
tube. After securing the caps, the ends should be sealed with wax so as to

De, Anirban. Geotechnical Site Characterization, Momentum Press, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/aalto-ebooks/detail.action?docID=4432250.
Created from aalto-ebooks on 2025-03-04 10:09:31.
 IN-SITU GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION • 57

cut off means of moisture migration into the tube, if the samples are to be
stored for any length of time.
It is important to maintain sample tubes in a vertical alignment (with
top and bottom in the correct orientation) during storage and transpor-
tation. Special storage compartments are available, which can easily be
mounted inside a van or truck used during transportation and for storage
in the laboratory, until the sample is tested. Depending on the nature of the
soil, some soil samples (such as those of highly sensitive clays) may need
extreme care during handling and transportation so as not to accidentally
disturb the fabric of the soil.

4.1.9.3 Transportation and Handling—Disturbed Samples

Soil tests to measure index properties typically do not require undisturbed

samples. In these cases, it is possible to collect bulk samples without
­worrying about sample disturbance. It is important to pay careful attention
to the type of test needed in order to determine what level of sample dis-
turbance may be acceptable. For example, samples for soil classification
may be disturbed and do not need to be preserved at the field moisture
content. In these cases, the sample may be collected in buckets or bags,
without concern for sample disturbance or moisture loss. A lid is required
to avoid spill and sample contamination during shipping, but not to main-
tain moisture condition of the sample.
Other tests such as moisture content test will require the sample to
be preserved at the field moisture content, but disturbance of the sample
configuration will not affect the result. In these cases, the sample must be
confined in a glass jar or metal container, where the mouth is sealed care-
fully, so as to prevent migration of moisture in and out of the container.
Copyright © 2015. Momentum Press. All rights reserved.

4.1.9.4 Storage of Samples

Prior to testing, samples must be stored in a manner that ensures that pro­
perties remain unaltered, to the extent possible. Testing should be com-
pleted as soon after sampling as possible. Undisturbed samples must be
stored inside sample tubes, in the same configuration in which the samples
were collected (e.g., maintaining vertical alignment). The temperature and
humidity of the storage room should be maintained at levels that are con-
sistent with those of the samples so as to minimize changes to the ­sample.
Generally, samples are stored in a moisture-controlled environment, where
the relative humidity is set to a high level (e.g., above 90 percent).

De, Anirban. Geotechnical Site Characterization, Momentum Press, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/aalto-ebooks/detail.action?docID=4432250.
Created from aalto-ebooks on 2025-03-04 10:09:31.
 58  •  GEOTECHNICAL SITE CHARACTERIZATION

Further details on preparing the samples for testing after retrieval are
presented in the next chapter.

4.2 CONE PENETRATION TEST

4.2.1 INTRODUCTION

The cone penetration test (CPT), developed by the Dutch in the 1950s,
is a direct-push technique. In this test, a metal probe is pushed into the
ground, usually under hydraulic power, while the penetration resistance of
the soil is measured. Figure 4.5 shows the setup for a typical CPT investi-
gation program. The most commonly used CPT device consists of a steel
cone tip, with a diameter of 35.7 mm (projected area of 10 cm2) and a tip
angle of 60°. Immediately above the cone is a friction sleeve, with an area
of 150 cm2. Both the cone and the sleeve are instrumented to measure
the cone tip resistance, qc, and sleeve friction, fs, respectively. In addi-
tion, most CPT cones, called piezocones, are commonly equipped with
a pore water pressure transducer to measure the pore water pressure, u.
The tests are called CPTu when pore water pressures are measured. Care
must be taken, as will be discussed later, while taking pore water pressure
measurements. Additional instrumentation on a CPT device may include a
shear wave receiver and a vision light and camera unit.
Copyright © 2015. Momentum Press. All rights reserved.

Figure 4.5. Schematic diagram of CPT setup and testing (guidelines provided
by ASTM D5778): (a) showing parts of CPT instrument within soil profile;
(b) showing measurement locations on a typical CPT.
Source: NHI (2002).

De, Anirban. Geotechnical Site Characterization, Momentum Press, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/aalto-ebooks/detail.action?docID=4432250.
Created from aalto-ebooks on 2025-03-04 10:09:31.
 IN-SITU GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION • 59

4.2.2 PROCEDURE

General guidelines for CPT are provided in ASTM D5778. The cone is
advanced at a constant rate (usually 20 mm/s) and readings of qc, fs, and u
are recorded at intervals of 20 to 50 mm. The cone tip resistance and sleeve
friction (qc and fs, respectively) are correlated to soil type (discussed later)
and shear strength of the soil. Modern CPT units are connected to auto-
mated data acquisition systems, whereby readings as well as estimated
soil type are digitally displayed and stored with depth as the test proceeds.
The operator has the option of stopping the test temporarily to allow pore
water pressure to dissipate or to take shear wave velocity measurements.
It is important to note that the pore water pressure, u, measured
during the process of a CPT is not hydrostatic pore water pressure. This is
because the reading of u is taken as the cone moves through the soil below
groundwater table. The penetration of the cone shears the soil, thereby
generating an excess pore water pressure. Hydrostatic pore water pressure
cannot be measured while the cone is in motion. To obtain a hydrostatic
pore water pressure reading at any depth below groundwater table, the test
must be paused temporarily, holding the cone stationary at the depth at
which a pore pressure reading is desired. The excess pore water pressure
is allowed to dissipate following a classic one-dimensional consolidation
curve, until the total pore water pressure reaches a steady state value equal
to the ambient, hydrostatic value. This dissipation process may take a few
minutes to several hours, depending on the hydraulic conductivity and
thickness of the layer.
CPT is an effective tool for characterizing subsurface material to
depths exceeding 100 m. It is useful in most types of soil, except gravel.
CPT is also commonly performed for offshore site characterization. The
advantage of CPT is that it is relatively inexpensive and fast. CPT results
rely on carefully calibrated instruments, but they are not dependent on
Copyright © 2015. Momentum Press. All rights reserved.

variations in operator and equipment. No soil samples are collected in

CPT, which can be an advantage while characterizing soil suspected
to contain hazardous material. However, the lack of samples makes it
impossible to verify soil conditions, without the help of other types of
tests.
Raw readings from CPT (such as cone tip resistance and sleeve
friction) are converted to soil material parameters through empirical
correlations and factors. Therefore, it is important to supplement CPT
investigation with another method (such as SPT) where soil samples are
taken and classified. This way, the data from CPT can be cross-correlated
to obtain confirmation of results.

De, Anirban. Geotechnical Site Characterization, Momentum Press, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/aalto-ebooks/detail.action?docID=4432250.
Created from aalto-ebooks on 2025-03-04 10:09:31.
 60  •  GEOTECHNICAL SITE CHARACTERIZATION

4.2.3 SOIL PROPERTIES

A corrected, total cone tip resistance (qt) can be calculated from the mea-
sured cone tip resistance (qc) using Equation 4.4:

qt = qc + (1 – α)u2 (4.4)

where α is the “area ratio,” which is the ratio of the area at the shoulder of
the cone to the total cross-sectional area of the cone shaft and is usually
evaluated as part of a cone calibration in a pressure chamber. The term u2
represents the pore water pressure measured with a pressure transducer
located at the shoulder of the cone.
The corrected, net cone tip resistance (qnet) is given in Equation 4.5:

qnet = qt – σvo (4.5)

where σvo = total overburden pressure at the point of measurement.

Friction ratio, Rf   , is defined as given in Equation 4.6:

fs
Rf = (4.6)
qnet

Douglas and Olsen (1981) proposed a method to classify soil based

on CPT results, using Equations 4.5 and 4.6. Robertson and Campanella
(1983) modified the classification method after incorporating effects of
pore water pressure on cone penetration resistance.

4.2.4 SOIL CLASSIFICATION

Copyright © 2015. Momentum Press. All rights reserved.

Soil behavior types can be evaluated based on approach proposed by

­Robertson (1990) and further refined by Robertson and Wride (1998).
A normalized cone penetration resistance, Q, is calculated using
Equation 4.7:

 n
 (qc − svo )   Pa  
Q=  ×   (4.7)
 Pa   svo′  
 

De, Anirban. Geotechnical Site Characterization, Momentum Press, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/aalto-ebooks/detail.action?docID=4432250.
Created from aalto-ebooks on 2025-03-04 10:09:31.
 IN-SITU GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION • 61

where qc = measured cone tip resistance, σvo and σ′vo are the total and effec-
tive vertical stresses, respectively, and Pa is reference pressure, equal to
the atmospheric pressure, 100 kPa. It is important to enter all values of
pressure or stress in consistent units. The value of exponent n is generally
taken as 0.5 for clean sand, 1.0 for clayey soils, and between 0.5 and 1.0
for silts.
Thus, using n = 1.0, Equation 4.7 simplifies to Equation 4.8 as follows:

 1.0 
 (qc − svo )   Pa    qc − svo 
Q=  ×   =  (4.8)
 Pa   svo′    svo ′ 
 

Robertson and Wride (1998) propose an iterative method to deter-

mine the value of n for silty soils.
Normalized friction ratio, F, is calculated using Equation 4.9 as
follows:

F=
[ f s (qc − svo )] (4.9)
100

where, fs, is the CPT sleeve friction stress, and qc and σvo are as explained
previously.
The normalized penetration resistance, Q, and normalized friction
ratio, F, are plotted to produce a soil behavior type chart, as shown in
Figure 4.6 (from Robertson and Wride 1998). In this chart, the various
types of soils are identified, based on their respective values of Q and F.
For example, sensitive, fine-grained soils have low values of both Q and
F and are classified as type 1, located on the lower left-hand corner of the
plot. Organic soil such as peat tends to have higher friction ratio, F, and
low Q and is plotted on the lower right-hand corner. Granular soils such as
Copyright © 2015. Momentum Press. All rights reserved.

clean sand and gravel tend to have higher normalized cone tip resistance
(Q) and are represented by types 6 and 7, respectively, located near the
upper left corner of the chart.
Soil behavior type index, Ic, is calculated using Equation 4.10 as
follows:

Ic = [(3.47 – log Q)2 + (log F + 1.22)2]0.5 (4.10)

For the purpose of Equation 4.10, Q is calculated from Equation 4.8

(i.e., with exponent, n = 1).

De, Anirban. Geotechnical Site Characterization, Momentum Press, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/aalto-ebooks/detail.action?docID=4432250.
Created from aalto-ebooks on 2025-03-04 10:09:31.
 62  •  GEOTECHNICAL SITE CHARACTERIZATION

As shown in the soil behavior type chart in Figure 4.6, the value of Ic
is low for granular soils and high for cohesive, organic soils. Robertson
and Wride (1998) have recommended limits of Ic as follows:

• Ic < 1.3 for gravelly sand to dense sand

• 1.3 < Ic < 2.6 for sands and sandy silt
• 2.6 < Ic < 3.6 for silty and clayey soils
• Ic > 3.6 for organic soils and peat
Copyright © 2015. Momentum Press. All rights reserved.

Soil types: 1. sensitive, fine grained; 2. peats; 3. silty clay to clay;

4. clayey silt to silty clay; 5. siltysand to sandy silt; 6. clean sand to
silty sand; 7. gravelly sand todense sand; 8. very stiff sand to clayey
sand (heavilyoverconsolidated or cemented); 9. very stiff, fine
grained (heavilyoverconsolidated or cemented). OCR = overconsoli-
dation ratio; f = friction angle.
Figure 4.6. Normalized CPT soil behavior type chart.
Source: Robertson and Wride (1998), reprinted with permission
from ­Canadian Geotechnical Journal, © 2008 Canadian Science
­Publishing or its licensors.

De, Anirban. Geotechnical Site Characterization, Momentum Press, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/aalto-ebooks/detail.action?docID=4432250.
Created from aalto-ebooks on 2025-03-04 10:09:31.
 IN-SITU GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION • 63

4.2.5 SHEAR STRENGTH

Empirical equations may be used to calculate most soil properties

based on measured values of cone tip resistance and sleeve friction.
­Commonly used correlations include that for shear strength, as shown in
Equation 4.11:
qc − svo
Su = (4.11)
Nk

where qc is the measured cone tip resistance, σvo is total overburden pressure
at the point of measurement, and Nk is a cone factor. The cone factor, Nk, is
a function of soil type and plasticity index. A correlation between plasticity
index and Nk was proposed by Aas et al. (1986). The value of Nk for most
cohesive soils is between 10 and 20, with a higher value of cone factor indi-
cating softer soil (lower Su). For sands, Robertson and ­Campanella (1983)
proposed the correlation given in Figure 4.7. According to FHWA GEC No.
5 (FHWA 2002), this relation is approximated in Equation 4.12:

  q 
ftc′ = tan −1 0.1 + 0.38 × log  t   (4.12)
  s ′  
 vo 

where qt is the corrected cone tip resistance and σ′vo is the effective over-
burden pressure at the point of measurement.

4.2.6 MAXIMUM PAST PRESSURE

The maximum past pressure (also known as preconsolidation stress or

yield stress) can be estimated from CPT test result using Equation 4.13
from Kulhawy and Mayne (1990):
Copyright © 2015. Momentum Press. All rights reserved.

σ′p = 0.33 (qt     – σvo)(4.13)

where σvo is the total vertical stress.

4.2.6.1 Seismic CPT

Shear wave velocity through subsurface deposits can be measured by

means of seismic CPT (SCPT). In this test, the penetrometer is equipped
with a geophone, in addition to the transducers to measure tip resistance,
sleeve friction, and pore water pressure. The setup for SCPT is shown in

De, Anirban. Geotechnical Site Characterization, Momentum Press, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/aalto-ebooks/detail.action?docID=4432250.
Created from aalto-ebooks on 2025-03-04 10:09:31.
 64  •  GEOTECHNICAL SITE CHARACTERIZATION

Figure 4.7. Correlation between friction angle and cone tip resistance.
Source: Robertson and Campanella (1983), reprinted with p­ ermission
from Canadian Geotechnical Journal, © 2008 Canadian Science
­Publishing or its licensors.
Note: 1 bar = 100 kPa.

Figure 4.8. A horizontal steel beam is placed at the ground surface close
Copyright © 2015. Momentum Press. All rights reserved.

(within 1.5 m or 5 ft) to the CPT location. A truck, or a similar vehicle, is

used to apply vertical force on the beam so as to ensure intimate contact
between the beam and the ground. The end of the beam is struck with a
hammer that has an accelerometer mounted on it. Care must be taken to
ensure that blow is applied on the beam along its longitudinal axis. The
vibrations on the beam are transferred to the ground and the energy con-
tinues to travel as a shear wave through the subsurface soil. Eventually,
the wave arrives at the geophone, where the signal is detected. The shear
wave velocity through the subsurface material can be calculated based on
the time elapsed and the distance traveled. The time is recorded between
the hammer strike and the arrival of the shear wave at the geophone. The
wave travels along a diagonal path that can be calculated from the vertical

De, Anirban. Geotechnical Site Characterization, Momentum Press, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/aalto-ebooks/detail.action?docID=4432250.
Created from aalto-ebooks on 2025-03-04 10:09:31.
 IN-SITU GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION • 65

Figure 4.8. Configuration for SCPT.

depth of the geophone below ground surface and the horizontal distance
between the beam and the CPT location.

4.2.6.2 Vision CPT

A vision CPT (VisCPT) consists of the usual CPT piezocone setup, along
with a camera unit, which is able to take a visual image of the subsurface
Copyright © 2015. Momentum Press. All rights reserved.

during penetration. The ability to obtain and record visual images of soil
that is being penetrated helps overcome a major concern regarding the use
of traditional CPT, namely, that it does not allow for visual identification
of soil and instead relies on correlations.
The visual image can either be a still image, which helps identify
the soil type based on grain size, or a video image during the penetra-
tion, which shows the movement of soil particles and pore water. ­VisCPT
was developed by Raschke and Hryciw (1997) and a comprehensive
account of current state of this new technology is provided by Hryciw
et al. (2014). Hryciw and Ohm (2013) reported on the use of VisCPT to
capture still images and video clips, which show the phenomenon of pip-
ing and migration of fine particles, induced by cone penetration through a

De, Anirban. Geotechnical Site Characterization, Momentum Press, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/aalto-ebooks/detail.action?docID=4432250.
Created from aalto-ebooks on 2025-03-04 10:09:31.
 66  •  GEOTECHNICAL SITE CHARACTERIZATION

gap-graded soil. Similarly, the observation of penetration-induced lique-

faction through VisCPT has also been reported.

4.3 VANE SHEAR TEST

In the vane shear test (VST), a metal vane with four blades is inserted into
cohesive soil (soft to stiff clay or silt) and rotated, thus shearing the soil.
The torque required to achieve vane rotation provides a measure of the
undrained shear strength of the soil. Continued torque, beyond the initial
rotation, provides a measure of the remolded shear strength of the soil,
from which a value for sensitivity may be computed. Figure 4.9 shows the
setup for a typical VST.
Copyright © 2015. Momentum Press. All rights reserved.

Figure 4.9. Schematic diagram of VST setup and testing (guidelines provided
by ASTM D2573).
Source: NHI (2002).

De, Anirban. Geotechnical Site Characterization, Momentum Press, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/aalto-ebooks/detail.action?docID=4432250.
Created from aalto-ebooks on 2025-03-04 10:09:31.
 IN-SITU GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION • 67

The VST apparatus comes in various sizes and the most appropri-
ate size is a function of the soil being tested. The typical apparatus has a
height to diameter ratio of 2:1, the most commonly used diameter being
65 mm. The blade may be horizontal or tapered at the ends (either only at
the bottom end or both ends). Tapered ends require less effort while push-
ing the apparatus into a stiff soil.
The standard procedure for conducting VST is outlined in ASTM
D2573. The vane is inserted in the ground at the desired depth and test
must commence within 5 minutes of insertion. The vane should be rotated
at a rate of 6°/minute and torque values may be recorded at 30-second
intervals. The peak shear strength corresponds to a failure condition,
which is reached in stiff to medium clay in about 2 to 5 minutes and may
take up to 15 minutes in very soft clay.
The undrained shear strength of soil can be calculated from
Equation 4.14:

6Tnet
Su ,VST = (4.14)
7p D 3

where Tnet = Tmax − Trod

Tmax = the maximum recorded torque during shearing
Trod = rod friction develops along the length of the rod. It may be
minimized by using protective sheath and must be accounted for in the
calculation.
The remolded strength may be measured in the same manner as the
peak strength, except the torque reading is taken during rotation of the
vane following 10 rapid turns.
VST is suitable for measuring in-situ undrained shear strength (Su)
of most types of clays and cohesive silt. It is not suitable for cohesionless
soil. It is desirable to use a limited number of laboratory strength tests on
Copyright © 2015. Momentum Press. All rights reserved.

relatively undisturbed samples of the same soil to verify the values of Su

measured in VST.

4.4 PRESSUREMETER TEST

In a pressuremeter test (PMT), an inflatable cylinder is placed inside a

borehole and expanded under pressure. The pressure required to achieve
a certain volume expansion is measured and used to calculate the strength
and deformation characteristics of the soil around the borehole.

De, Anirban. Geotechnical Site Characterization, Momentum Press, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/aalto-ebooks/detail.action?docID=4432250.
Created from aalto-ebooks on 2025-03-04 10:09:31.
 68  •  GEOTECHNICAL SITE CHARACTERIZATION

Figure 4.10. Schematic diagram of PMT setup and testing (guidelines p­ rovided
by ASTM D4719).
Source: NHI (2002).

Figure 4.10 shows the setup for a typical PMT. The borehole in
which a PMT is conducted may either be prebored (i.e., bored prior
to inserting the pressuremeter) or self-bored (where the pressureme-
ter instrument itself is used to bore the hole). Pressure is applied using
either a hydraulic or a pneumatic source to inflate an inner rubber mem-
brane. This flexible membrane is located within a slotted metal housing,
Copyright © 2015. Momentum Press. All rights reserved.

which is also capable of expanding. The metal housing is used to protect

the rubber membrane from getting punctured by protruding sharp soil
elements, such as gravel.
The procedure for conducting prebored PMTs is outlined in ASTM
D4719. The borehole is required to be prepared carefully, with a smooth
inside surface and a uniform diameter, which is 3 to 20 percent larger than
the outer diameter of the pressuremeter before it is inflated.
A few phases of loading are usually conducted during one PMT.
A monotonic loading phase is conducted by gradually increasing the infla-
tion pressure of the pressuremeter, while monitoring the change in radial
dimensions. In a typical test, 7 to 10 load increments are used, with each

De, Anirban. Geotechnical Site Characterization, Momentum Press, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/aalto-ebooks/detail.action?docID=4432250.
Created from aalto-ebooks on 2025-03-04 10:09:31.
 IN-SITU GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION • 69

Figure 4.11. Typical pressure versus volume curve and

­characteristic pressures for prebored PMT.
Source: FHWA (2002).

load increment held constant while the deformation attains steady state
before the next increment is applied.
Additional phases of loading may consist of a drained creep test and
an unload-reload cycle. The former provides information regarding the
time-dependent deformation (creep) behavior of the soil, while the latter
provides an accurate measure of the elastic modulus without the effects of
initial disturbance.
Figure 4.11 shows typical plots from a prebored PMT, including a
monotonic loading, an unload-reload cycle, followed by a creep test. An
approximate estimate of the elastic modulus (termed pseudoelastic) may
be calculated from the initial monotonic loading. However, this will
include the initial nonlinear effects of soil disturbance due to boring and
pressuremeter installation. These effects are significantly eliminated if the
modulus is instead calculated based on the slope of the unload-reload cycle.
Copyright © 2015. Momentum Press. All rights reserved.

For more information on pressuremeters and its relevant design

parameters, the reader is referred to Briaud, Tucker, and Makarim (1986).
A method to develop load-settlement curve for shallow foundations on
sand using PMT results is proposed by Briaud (2007).

4.5 DILATOMETER TEST

In a flat-plate dilatometer test (DMT), a membrane attached to the face of

a metal blade is inflated and the pressure required to produce the inflation

De, Anirban. Geotechnical Site Characterization, Momentum Press, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/aalto-ebooks/detail.action?docID=4432250.
Created from aalto-ebooks on 2025-03-04 10:09:31.
 70  •  GEOTECHNICAL SITE CHARACTERIZATION

is used to compute the stiffness of the soil at a particular depth. The DMT
blade is equipped with a sharp base and may be advanced by a direct-push
method (e.g., hydraulic) similar to the CPT. The typical rate of advance is
20 mm/s (same as CPT) and measurements are usually taken at intervals
of 200 mm.
A typical DMT setup is shown in Figure 4.12. A 60-mm diameter
circular membrane on the face of the metal blade is inflated using pressure
from nitrogen gas supplied through the tubes from the ground surface.
Three readings are normally taken during a typical DMT. At the begin-
ning of the test, the blade is advanced into the ground to the desired depth.
During this time, no pressure is applied and the membrane is allowed to
collapse inward into the blade (as shown in Figure 4.12). Once the test
commences, pressure is applied and the membrane begins to “lift-off.”
An A reading is measured when the membrane is flushed with the surface
of the blade (deformation, δ = 0). The membrane starts to bulge outward
Copyright © 2015. Momentum Press. All rights reserved.

Figure 4.12. Schematic diagram of DMT setup and testing (guidelines pro-
vided by ASTM D6635).
Source: NHI (2002).

De, Anirban. Geotechnical Site Characterization, Momentum Press, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/aalto-ebooks/detail.action?docID=4432250.
Created from aalto-ebooks on 2025-03-04 10:09:31.
 IN-SITU GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION • 71

into the soil as the pressure is increased. Next, a B reading is taken when
the outward deformation of the membrane, δ equals 1.1 mm. Subsequently,
pressure is reduced and the membrane is allowed to collapse once again.
At this point, a C reading is taken when the membrane is flushed with the
blade surface during deflation.
It is important to start the test within 15 seconds of reaching a partic-
ular depth and for the A and B readings to be taken in rapid succession to
avoid disturbance of the soil to occur. Guidelines for conducting a flate-
plate DMT are provided by ASTM D6635.
Results of DMTs can be used in design of shallow and deep founda-
tions. Mayne, Martin, and Schneider (1999) describe the use of dilato­
meter modulus in design of drilled shafts. Gabr et al. (1991) present a
method to develop site-specific parameters based on DMT results that
can be used to design pile foundations in clay for axial and lateral loads.
A method to use DMT results to calculate foundation settlements is pre-
sented by Schmertmann (1986).

4.6 FULL-FLOW PENETROMETERS

A full-flow penetrometer (FFP) consists of either a T-bar or a ball mounted

at the end of a rod. The penetration rate can be adjusted, though it occurs
usually at the same rate as a CPT, which is 20 mm/s (DeJong, Yafrate,
and DeGroot 2011). The resistance to penetration is measured with a load
cell, while an optional pore water pressure transducer measures the pore
pressure.
There are two types of FFPs—ball penetrometers and T-bar pene-
trometers, which are shown in Figure 4.13, from DeJong et al. (2010).
The ball penetrometer consists of a 115-mm diameter orb. The T-bar con-
sists of a rod 250-mm long and 40 mm in diameter. The ball penetrometer
Copyright © 2015. Momentum Press. All rights reserved.

is axi-symmetric in nature and induces an axi-symmetric shear flow of

soil around the penetrating orb. On the other hand, the T-bar penetrometer
causes a plane strain shear flow. The surface of an FFP is usually sand-
blasted to produce a rough surface, which prevents a slippage around the
penetrometer, but rather generates shear through the soil.
Area ratio, AR, is defined in Equation 4.15:

AP
AR = (4.15)
AS

where AP is the projected area of the penetrometer and As is the projected

area of the push rod.

De, Anirban. Geotechnical Site Characterization, Momentum Press, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/aalto-ebooks/detail.action?docID=4432250.
Created from aalto-ebooks on 2025-03-04 10:09:31.
 72  •  GEOTECHNICAL SITE CHARACTERIZATION

Figure 4.13. Apparatus for FFP test.

Source: DeJong et al. (2010), reprinted, with permission, from
the Geotechnical Testing Journal, © ASTM International, 100
Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA19428.

Both types of FFP can be attached to the end of a conventional CPT

rod, which usually has a projected area equal to 10 cm2. The projected
Copyright © 2015. Momentum Press. All rights reserved.

area of a FFP is 100 cm2. Thus, an FFP has an area ratio of 10:1. A large
area ratio, AR, induces a better full-flow mechanism in the soil since the
presence of the push rod has a proportionally smaller effect on the flow. In
contrast, the projected area of a conventional CPT cone is 15 cm2.
Because of its relatively large projected area, an FFP can generate
a significant penetration resistance, even in relatively soft soils. This is
in contrast to conventional CPT, where the accuracy of measurement in
soft deposits can be small, owing to relatively small measured resistance
(Stewart and Randolph 1994). This feature has led to increasing use of
FFP in characterizing soft clay deposits, especially in offshore locations
(Randolph and Gourvenec 2011).

De, Anirban. Geotechnical Site Characterization, Momentum Press, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/aalto-ebooks/detail.action?docID=4432250.
Created from aalto-ebooks on 2025-03-04 10:09:31.
 IN-SITU GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION • 73

FFPs can be used to calculate undrained shear strength of soil using

Equation 4.16:

qnet
Su = (4.16)
N FFP

where qnet is the net penetration resistance and NFFP is the strength factor
for the FFP. The reader is referred to DeJong, Yafrate, and DeGroot (2011)
and DeJong et al. (2010) for the equation to calculate qnet and values of
NFFP suitable for different types of FFP and soils.
Penetration of an FFP can induce remolding of soil, especially in
deposits of soft cohesive soils. Repeated back and forth cycling of an FFP
penetration over an interval (usually 1 m) can induce the soil to reach fully
remolded condition. This makes it possible to measure soil sensitivity (St),
which is defined as follows:

Sundisturbed
St = (14.17)
Sremolded

where Sundisturbed is the undrained shear strength of undisturbed soil

­(measured from the first penetration of FFP) and Sremolded is the undrained
shear strength under fully remolded condition (after several cycles of FFP
penetration) (Yafrate and DeJong 2007).

REFERENCES
Aas, G., S. Lacasse, T. Lunne, and K. Hoeg. 1986. “Use of In-Situ Tests for Foun-
dation Design on Clay.” Proceedings of In-Situ 86: Use of In-Situ Tests in
Geotechnical Engineering, pp. 1–30. Blacksburg, VA: American Society of
Copyright © 2015. Momentum Press. All rights reserved.

Civil Engineers.
ASTM D1586. 2011. Standard Test Method for Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils. ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
PA. www.astm.org
ASTM D1587. 2012. Standard Practice for Thin-Walled Tube Sampling of Soils
for Geotechnical Purposes. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
www.astm.org
ASTM D2573. 2015. Standard Test Method for Field Vane Shear Test in Saturated
Fine-Grained Soils. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. www.
astm.org
ASTM D4220. 2014. Standard Practices for Preserving and Transporting Soil
Samples. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. www.astm.org

De, Anirban. Geotechnical Site Characterization, Momentum Press, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/aalto-ebooks/detail.action?docID=4432250.
Created from aalto-ebooks on 2025-03-04 10:09:31.
 74  •  GEOTECHNICAL SITE CHARACTERIZATION

ASTM D4719. 2007. Standard Test Methods for Prebored Pressuremeter Testing
in Soils. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. www.astm.org
ASTM D5778. 2012. Standard Test Method for Electronic Friction Cone
and ­ Piezocone Penetration Testing of Soils. ASTM International, West
­Conshohocken, PA. www.astm.org
ASTM D6519. 2015. Standard Practice for Sampling of Soil Using the Hydra­
ulically Operated Stationary Piston Sampler. ASTM International, West
­Conshohocken, PA. www.astm.org
ASTM D6635. 2007. Standard Test Method for Performing the Flat Plate Dilatom-
eter. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. www.astm.org
Bray, J.D., R.B. Sancio, L.F. Youd, C. Christensen, O. Cetin, A. Onalp,
T. Durgunoglu, J.P.C. Stewart, R.B. Seed, M.B. Baturay, T. Karadayilar, and
C. Oge. 2001. “Documenting Incidents of Ground Failure Resulting from the
August 17, 1999 Kocaeli, Turkey Earthquake.” Pacific Earthquake Engineer-
ing Research Center. http://peer.berkeley.edu/publications/turkey/adapazari/
index.html (accessed June 2, 2015).
Bray, J.D., R.B. Sancio, T.L. Youd, H.T. Durgunoglu, A. Onalp, K.O. Cetin,
R.B. Seed, J.P. Stewart, C. Christensen, M.B. Baturay, T. Karadayilar, and
C. Emrem. 2003. “Documenting Incidents of Ground Failure Resulting from
the August 17, 1999 Kocaeli, Turkey Earthquake. Data Report Character-
izing Subsurface Conditions.” Geoengineering Research Report No. UCB/
GE-03/02. University of California, Berkeley.
Briaud, J.-L., L.M. Tucker, and C.A. Makarim. 1986. “Pressuremeter Standard and
Pressuremeter Parameters.” Pressuremeter and Its Marine Applications: S­ econd
International Symposium, ASTM Special Technical Publication, pp. 303–23.
Briaud, J.-L. 2007. “Spread Footings in Sand: Load Settlement Curve Approach.”
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 133, no. 8,
pp. 905–20. doi:10.1061/(asce)1090-0241(2007)133:8(905)
DeJong, J., N. Yafrate, D. DeGroot, H.E. Low, and M. Randolph. 2010. “Recom-
mended Practice for Full-Flow Penetrometer Testing and Analysis.” ASTM
Geotechnical Testing Journal 33, no. 2, pp. 137–49. doi:10.1520/GTJ102468
DeJong, J.T., N.J. Yafrate, and D.J. DeGroot. 2011. “Evaluation of Undrained
Shear Strength Using Full-Flow Penetrometers.” Journal of Geotechnical
Copyright © 2015. Momentum Press. All rights reserved.

and Geoenvironmental Engineering 137, no. 1, pp. 14–26. doi:10.1061/(asce)

gt.1943-5606.0000393
Douglas, J.B., and R.S. Olsen. 1981. “Soil Classification using Electric Cone
­Penetrometer,” Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing and Experience,
Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, St. Louis, pp. 209–27.
FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 1997. “Training Course in Geotech-
nical and Foundation Engineering: Subsurface Investigations”—Participants
Manual, FHWA-HI-97-021.
FHWA. 2002. “Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 5—Evaluation of Soil and
Rock Properties.” FHWA-IF-02-034.
Gabr, M., T. Lunne, K.H. Mokkelbost, and J.J.M. Powell. 1991. “Dilatome-
ter Soil Parametersfor Analysis of Piles in Clay.” Deformation of Soils and

De, Anirban. Geotechnical Site Characterization, Momentum Press, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/aalto-ebooks/detail.action?docID=4432250.
Created from aalto-ebooks on 2025-03-04 10:09:31.
 IN-SITU GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION • 75

­ isplacements of Structures X ECSMFE: Proceedings of the International

D
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 403–6.
Hryciw, R.D., and H.-S. Ohm. 2013. “Soil Migration and Piping Susceptibility by
the VisCPT.” Proceedings of GeoCongress 2013, GSP No. 231, pp. 192–95.
Hryciw, R.D., J. Zheng, H.-S. Ohm, and J. Li. 2014. “Innovations in Optical Geo-
Characterization.” Proceedings of Geo-Congress 2014, GSP No. 235, pp. 97–116.
Kulhawy, F.H., and P.W. Mayne. 1990. Manual on Estimating Soil Properties for
Foundation Design. Report EL-6800, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo
Alto, CA.
Ladd, C.C., and D.J. DeGroot. 2004. “Recommended Practice for Soft Ground
Site Characterization: Arthur Cassagrande Lecture.” In Proceedings of the
12th Pan American Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engi-
neering. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Mayne, P.W., G.K. Martin, and J.A. Schneider. 1999. “Flat Dilatometer ­Modulus
Applied to Drilled Shaft Foundations in Piedmont Residuum.” Proceedings
of the 1999 ASCE National Convention—Sessions of Geo-Congress 99,
­Geotechnical Special Publication, GSP No. 92, pp. 101–12.
NHI (National Highway Institute). 2002. “Subsurface Investigation—Geotechni-
cal Site Characterization.” Course No. 132031 Reference Manual, Publica-
tion No. FHWA NHI-01-031
Raschke, S.A., and R.D. Hryciw. 1997. “Grain-Size Distribution of Granular
Soils by Computer Vision.” ASTM Geotechnical Testing Journal 20, no. 4,
pp. 433–42. doi:10.1520/GTJ10410J
Randolph, M.F., and S. Gourvenec. 2011. Offshore Geotechnical Engineering.
London: Spon Press.
Robertson, P.K., and R.G. Campanella. 1983. “Interpretation of Cone Penetration
Tests. Part I: Sand.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal 20, no. 4, pp. 718–33.
doi:10.1139/t83-078
Robertson, P.K. 1990. “Soil Classification Using the Cone Penetration Test.”
Canadian Geotechnical Journal 27, no. 1, pp. 151–58. doi:10.1139/t90-014
Robertson, P.K., and C.E. Wride. 1998. “Evaluating Cyclic Liquefaction Potential
Using the Cone Penetration Test.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal 35, no. 3,
pp. 442–59. doi:10.1139/cgj-35-3-442
Copyright © 2015. Momentum Press. All rights reserved.

Schmertmann, J.H. 1986. “Dilatometer to Compute Foundation Settlement.” Pro-

ceedings of In-Situ ’86: Use of In-Situ Tests in Geotechnical Engineering,
Geotechnical Special Publication, GSP No. 6, pp. 303–21.
Stewart, D.P., and M.F. Randolph. 1994. “T-bar Penetration Testing in Soft Clay.”
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 120, no. 12, pp. 2230–35. doi:10.1061/
(asce)0733-9410(1994)120:12(2230)
Yafrate, N.J., and J.T. DeJong. 2007. “Influence of Penetration Rate on Mea-
sured Resistance with Full Flow Penetrometers in Soft Clay.” Proceedings
of Advances in Measurement and Modeling of Soil Behavior, Geotechnical
Special Publication, GSP No. 173.

De, Anirban. Geotechnical Site Characterization, Momentum Press, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/aalto-ebooks/detail.action?docID=4432250.
Created from aalto-ebooks on 2025-03-04 10:09:31.
Copyright © 2015. Momentum Press. All rights reserved.

De, Anirban. Geotechnical Site Characterization, Momentum Press, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/aalto-ebooks/detail.action?docID=4432250.
Created from aalto-ebooks on 2025-03-04 10:09:31.