EVALUATION OF CONE PENETRATION TEST (CPT)

CLASSIFICATION METHODS FOR SOME LOCAL SOILS

Mohammed A. Osman*
El Fatih O. Ahmed**
*Associate Professor, BRRI, University of Khartoum, Sudan.
** Research Engineer & Master Student, BRRI, University of Khartoum, Sudan

ABSTRACT: The paper presents a comparison between soil classification based on the Cone Penetration Test
(CPT) charts reported in the literature and the actual soil classification obtained by direct boring and laboratory test
results. Three sites in Khartoum state, resembling 3 different soil types, were chosen . Boreholes were drilled using
conventional soil mechanics rigs. CPT Soundings were performed at each site very near to the positions of the
boreholes. The soil classification predicted by the theoretical approaches was compared with the observed soil
borehole logs obtained by direct boring and laboratory tests. It is concluded that non of the theoretical approaches
gave satisfactory results for the three soil stratification observed in the actual bore holes at the three locations in
Khartoum state. Hence further research is recommended for correlating CPT results and soil stratification in
different types of soils in Khartoum State.

1. INTROD-UCTION 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

CPT was introduced in the Netherlands in 1965. The use of Static Cone Penetration Test (CPT)
Since that time the use of CPT of soil classification for soil investigation started in the Netherlands
and strength correlations was adopted in many during the sixties. Since then the use of CPT for
parts of the world. Approaches for the soil soil investigations and foundation design gained
classification based on CPT data were advanced by wide acceptance in Sudan and many other
author’s working in Sudan and other countries. countries. The increased use of CPT in soil
Each method claims reliability for classification of investigation was attributed to its precise
soils. In this paper it is attempted to review most of measurements, allowing deep penetration even in
the known methods advanced for the classification dense deposits, the simplicity of the equipment,
of soil using CPT data and compare the results and the reliability of the results. Also the CPT can
with the actual Soil Classification obtained by be used to provide additional information on pore
direct boring and laboratory testing. water pressure measurements (De Ruiter). Main
Three sites in Khartoum State, each site advantages of using CPT data for geotechnical
characterized by different geological formation, purposes are, continuous or near continuous
were chosen. In each site the boreholes were readings with depth, repeatable and reliable
drilled by a percussion soil mechanics drilling rig. penetration data, and cost effectiveness.(Jakasa (2))
Soil samples were taken for visual inspection and The use of CPT data for the classification of
laboratory testing. CPT soundings were made soils; was studied by different researchers. De
adjacent to the boreholes. The theoretical and Ruiter (1), De Vos (3), Baligh et al (4), Jakasa (2),
empirical approaches for the classification of CPT Fellenius and Eslami (5), Elhag and Elseed (6),
data were reviewed and were used to predict the Elhag and Elseed (7) and Zein (8).
soil stratification in the drilled boreholes. The De Ruiter (1) reviewed numerous types of
results of the theoretical approaches were penetration rigs, types of penetrometers, and cone
compared with the actual soil stratification. The geometry. He discussed the accuracy of
study indicated that the theoretical approaches measurements by the CPT in various types of soils
didn’t give satisfactory results for the stratification J. De Vos (3), Baligh et al (4) used the CPT data to
of the soils in the three localities in Khartoum predict some geotechnical and soil properties such
state. as undrained shear strength of soil. Baligh et al (4),

August 2003 BRRJ Vol. 5 37

performed CPT and Piezometer probe test in two effective overburden pressure, Fig. (6). He denoted
sedimentary clay deposits. He stated that the ratio zones in his chart, indicating the soil type.
of pore water pressure (uw ) to cone resistance In 1996 Eslami and Fellenius proposed a pore
(qc) offer a promising method for soil pressure ratio (ratio of effective pore water
classification. Balight et al (4) related the ratio pressure to the initial pore water pressure) versus
qc/uw to the over consolidation ratio of clays. They corrected cone resistance. After a year Eslami and
did not give general correlation between these Fellenius again developed a soil profiling method
parameters due to the limited data used in their based on cone penetrometer compared with results
analysis. from direct borings, sampling and laboratory
Jakasa et al (2) stated that the depth discrepancy testing. (Fig. 7).
between the cone resistance and the mantle friction It is worth noting that, Elhag and Elseed (6), El
does not allow accurate interpretation of the results Hag and Elseed (7), and Zein (8) working in Sudan,
of the CPT results. They studied the sleeve friction advanced CPT soil profiling method for some
(fs), and cone resistance (qc) and suggested a Sudanese soils. Zein (8) developed a method of soil
mathematical approach for the correction of the classification based on CPT data, analyzed
shift distance between cone tip and sleeve. mathematically with a technique known as
Begemann developed a first rational soil profiling “discriminate analysis”. His work is limited to
method based on CPT data in 1965. His method is alluvial deposits. The present paper is a trend to
shown in Fig. (1) and Table (1). In 1974 Sanglerat continue researchers on CPT field in Sudan.
et al, proposed a chart shown in Fig. (2), Sanglerat
method has the advantage that it shows the cone 3. FIELD INVESTIGATIONS
resistance as a direct function of the friction ratio. The field investigations were carried out during
Fellenius and Eslami (5) commented that Sanglerat year 2001, by Engineering Services and Design
approach implies falsely, that the friction ratio (Rf) (ESD) geotechnical Company, at three different
and the cone resistance (qc) are independent of locations in Khartoum state. The sites were chosen
each other. In 1978 Schmertmann proposed a soil such that the soil formations resemble the broad
Profiling chart shown in Fig. (3). The chart based range of soil types, which are predominant in this
on penetration tests in the United States. The chart geographical region. Two sites lie in Khartoum
incorporates Begemann’s data and indicates zones city. The first site lies in south of Algerief West.
with boundaries of common soil type. The soil at this site consists of heavy clays,
Schmertmann’s chart plots sleeve friction (fs) containing numerous concretions and calcium
against cone resistance (qc). He stated that carbonate nodules. The second site lies within
correlations given in Fig. (3) may be significantly Khartoum center. The soil at this site consists of
different in areas of dissimilar geology. Two years alluvial deposits. The third site is located in
later, in 1981 Douglas and Olsen, proposed a soil Omdurman town market. The soil at this site is
profiling chart based on tests with the electrical reddish brown, containing a lot of pebbles.
cone penetrometer (Fig. 4). In 1982 Vos, A soil mechanics percussion drilling rig was
suggested ranges for soil classification based on used to drill the bore holes. A twenty ton cone
friction ratio as shown in Table (2). In the same penetration machine belonging to the Building and
year Jones and Rust developed a soil profile chart, Road Research Institute( BRRI) was used in this
based on piezocone penetrometers and shown in investigation for measuring the cone resistance(qc)
Fig. (5). The chart was thought to be interesting and the sleeve friction(fs). Two bore holes of
since it identifies the density and consistency of about 10 to 20 m depth and two CPT soundings of
fine grained soils. Four years later, in 1986 the same depth range were made at each site. The
Robertson et al and Campanella and Robertson, CPT soundings were positioned about 2 to 3
presented a chart based on the piezocone with the meters from the locations of the boreholes. This
cone resistance corrected for pore water pressure. distance is chosen to decrease disturbance of the
In 1989 Seneset et al, produced a soil classification soil adjacent to the boreholes.
chart based on plotting corrected cone resistance, The results obtained from representative deep
against pore pressure ratio. This chart has the sounding for the three sites are shown in Fig (8),
limitation that the chart is limited to the area where Fig (9), and Fig (10), soil types and the bore hole
corrected cone resistance is smaller than 16 Mpa. logs of the three soil types are illustrated in Table
In 1990 Robertson refined his previous method by (3).
plotting a normalized cone resistance ratio of cone
resistance minus overburden pressure to the

August 2003 BRRJ Vol. 5 38

 Bege- Vos Doug Zein Felle Robert-
4.COMPARISON BETWEEN DIFFERENT mann (1982) lss (1980) nius Son
Method (1965) (3) (1981) & (1990)
CLASSIFICATIONS (9) Eslami (5)
The soil samples obtained from the field were (1997)
(5)
tested in the laboratory. The unified soil Degree 66 33 –50 50 – 83 66 -86 33 -75 33-100
of
classification system was used to classify the soils success
%
encountered at different depths. The soil profiles
for bore holes drilled at the three different sites,
5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
are presented in Table (3 ). The soil classification
This paper presented comparison between the
predicted by the different methods reviewed in the
actual soil profiles obtained by direct boring and
literature is obtained for each site. A comparison
testing, and the soil profiles predicted from CPT
was made between the actual soil profile obtained
data using various methods advanced by
by direct boring and testing and the profiles
researchers working in Sudan and other parts of
predicted by the proposed procedures. The degree
the world. Three sites were chosen in Khartoum
of success for each method is established;
state resembling soils of different geological
expressed as percentage by comparing the number
origin. Bore holes were realized at these sites and
of matching predicted layers to the total number of
CPT soundings were made very near to the
actual layers determined by direct boring. It is
positions of the Boreholes. The actual soil profiles
clear that all the methods predictions deviated
were established according to the unified soil
from the actual soil profile by varying degrees.
classification system (USCS), using the laboratory
The following sections outline the results of the
tests conducted on representative soil samples. The
analyses of the results of comparison made in this
CPT data was used to predict the soil profile based
study.
on the charts and graphs advanced by various
a) For Omdurman site (lateritic soils)
investigators. The results of the comparison
The CPT data interpreted according to different
revealed that, none of the theoretical procedures
procedures is shown below. Begemann was able
were able to predict the actual profiles encountered
to give better predictions than the other methods.
at the three sites. Begemann, Schemertmann and
Robertson method failed to predict any soil layer.
Zein methods succeeded partially in predicting the
Bege- Vos Doug- Schemer- Zein Fellenius Robert actual soil profiles. The deviation of the theoretical
Method Mann (1982) les Tmann (1980) & Eslami -
(1965) (3) (1981) (1974) (8) (1997) son procedures can be attributed to various factors.
(9) (5) (5) (5) (1990)
(5)
The theoretical methods use the cone resistance
Degree 66-100 50-66 20-50 23-33 20 0-20 0
(qc) and the sleeve friction (fs) as the main
of parameters for predicting the soil type. It is clear
Success
% that these two parameters are not sufficient for the
prediction of the soil type. There are various
b) For Heavy Clays factors such as stress history, moisture content,
The comparison is made between the actual soil density, local inclusions such as pebbles,
profiles and the predicted profiles , shown below. concretions and lenses, which affect the final
In this case Begemann was rated as the first , values of qc and fs and alter the values of these
followed by Vos, Schmertmann, Robertson, parameters even for the same soil present at the
Douglas, and Zein.While Fellenius and Eslami same locality. Some researchers noted that there is
failed to predict any layer for this type of soil. a discrepancy in distance between the cone and
sleeve friction .The cone penetrates the soil before
Bege- Vos Douglss Sche Zein Felle- Robert-
mann (1982) (1981) mert- (1980) Nius son the sleeve and changes the soil properties. Hence
Method (1965) (3) (5) mann (8) & (1990)
(9) (1974) Eslam (5)
affecting the measured values of the friction.
(5) (1997) The friction and the cone resistance are related
(5)
Degree 100 50-100 33 – 40 60-66 20–33 0 33-100 by a friction ratio. Both parameters are taken as
of success
% average values from the results of the almost
continuous curves. The curves usually have a lot of
c) For Alluvial Deposits peaks and drops. These depends on the local
In this soil type the results of the comparison is variation encountered in the soil mass. Probably a
shown below. Schmertman was rated the first, more refined method for averaging the parameters
followed by Robertson, Zein, Douglas, Fellenius will result in better predictions.
and Eslami, Begemann and Vos.

August 2003 BRRJ Vol. 5 39

 The use of the cone penetration data for soil [4] Baligh M.M., “Cone Penetration in Soil
classification of soils needs further research. The Profiling”, Journal of Geological Engineering
methods advanced by the different investigators Division, Proc. Of ASCE, Vol. 106, No GT 4,
probably work satisfactorily in the geographical April 1980, P447-461, (1980).
regions where these methods were developed. An [5] Fellenius, B.H., and Eslami, A., “Soil Profile
internationally accepted method for soil Interpreted from CPTu Data”, Geotechnical
classification based on the CPT data, probably can Eng. Conference , Asian Institute of
be achieved by taking into account all the Technology, Nov. 27-30,2000, (2000).
parameters affecting the cone resistance and the [6] H.A. El Hag, & K.M. Gasm Elseed, “Use of
sleeve friction. Due to the shortcomings of the Static Cone Penetration Machine in Sudanese
CPT in the prediction of the soil profile, we Expansive Soils: Identification of the Swell
suggest that the cone penetration test should Potential”, Proc. Of the 1st National
always be supplemented by direct borings. Conference on the Science and Technology of
Building, 8-14 Dec, 1984, Khartoum, (1984).
6. REFERENCES [7] H.A. El Hag & K.M. Gasm Elseed, “Cost of
Site Investigation Techniques a comparative
[1] J.D. Ruiter), “The Static Cone Penetration Test, Study Between Drilling, Sampling and
State of the Art Report”, Proceedings of the 2nd Laboratory Testing, Static Penetrometer Test”,
European Symposium on Penetration Testing BRRI Current Paper 1986 No. 1, (1986).
Amsterdam 24-27 May 1982. P389-405, [8] A. Karim M. Zein, “Correlation between
(1982. Static Cone Penetration & Recognized
[2] M.B. Jakasa, W.S. Kaggwa and P.I. Brooker Standard Test Results of Some Local Soil
“An Improved Technique for Evaluating the types”, M.Sc. Thesis, Department of Civil
CPT Friction Ratio”, Department of Civil and Engineering, Faculty of Engineering,
Environmental Engineering University of University of Khartoum, September 1980,
Adelaide, Research Report No. R. 166, (1980).
January 2000, (2000). [9] H.K.S. Begemann, “Cone Penetration Tests,
[3] Vos, J.D., “The Practical Use of CPT in Soil Pile Bearing Capacity and the thesis of
Profiling”, Proceedings of the Second Eurpean Rollberg”, Proceedings of the 2nd European
Symposium on Penetration Testing. ESOPT-2, Symposium on Penetration Testing
Amsterdam, May 24-27, Vol 2,pp, 933-939, Amsterdam 24-27 May 1982. P 433-438,
(1982). (1982).

August 2003 BRRJ Vol. 5 40

 Table (1) : Soil Type as a Function of Friction Ratio (Begemann,
1965)
(After Fellenius , B. H. , and Eslami, A. (2000) )
Type of Soil
Friction Ratio Range
Coarse sand with gravel through fine sand 1.2% 1.6%
Silty Sand 1.6% 2.2%
Silty Sandy Clayey Soils 2.2% 3.2%
Clay and Loam and Loam Soils 3.2% 4.1%
Clay 4.1% 7.0%
Peat >7%

Table ( 2) : Soil Type as a Function of Friction Ratio (Vos, 1982)

(After Fellenius , B. H. , and Eslami, A. (2000) )
Type of Soil Friction Ratio Range

Coarse Sand and Gravel <0.5%

Fine Sand 1.0% 1.5%
Silt 1.5% 3.0%
Clay 3.0% 5.0%
Peat >5%

Table (3) : Actual Soil Profiles, for the Three Types of Soils

Depth Lateratic soil Heavy Clays Alluvial Deposits

(m) B.H. 1 B.H. 2 B.H. 1 B.H.2 B.H.1 B.H.2
0.0 Silty sandy Silty sandy Stiff Stiff Sandy silty Sandy silty
clay clay sandy sandy clay clay
1.0 Sandy silty silty clay silty clay
2.0 Sandy silty Clay Sandy
3.0 clay clay
4.0 Sandy Silty clay
5.0 silty clay Silty Silty clay
6.0 sandy
7.0 clay
8.0 Clayey silty Silty sand
9.0 Sandy sand
10.0 silty clay
11.0 End of End of
B.H. 1 B.H. 2
12.0 End of
13.0 End of B.H.1 B.H. 2 Silty sand
14.0
15.0
16.0
17.0
18.0
19.0
20.0 End of End of
B.H. 1 B.H.2

41
August 2003 BRRJ Vol. 5
Fig. (1): The Begemann original profiling chart
( After Fellenius , B. H. , and Eslami, A. (2000) )

42
August 2003 BRRJ Vol. 5
Fig. (2): Plot of data from research penetrometer (Sanglerat et al., 1974)
(After Fellenius , B. H. , and Eslami, A. (2000))

Fig. (3) : The Schmertmann profiling chart (Schmertmann, 1978)

(After Fellenius , B. H. , and Eslami, A. (2000))

43
August 2003 BRRJ Vol. 5
Fig. (4) : Profiling chart per Douglas and Olsen (1981)
(After Fellenius , B. H. , and Eslami, A. (2000))

Fig. (5) : Profiling chart per Jones and Rust (1982)

(After Fellenius , B. H. , and Eslami, A. (2000))

44
August 2003 BRRJ Vol. 5
 NORMALIZED AS MEASURED -- 10 m DEPTH
1000
Normalized Corrected Cone Resistance 100

Corrected Cone Resistance (MPa)

7
8 7
8

100 9 10 9
6 6

5
5

10 1 4
4 3
3 2
1 2
1

1 0.1
1 10 100 1000 1 10 100 1000
Normalized Sleeve Friction Sleeve Friction (KPa)
(a) Left : Normalized corrected cone resistance Vs (b) Right: Corrected cone resistance
Vs
Normalized sleeve friction sleeve friction.

Fig (6): The Robertson (1990) profiling chart converted to Begemenn type charts
( After Fellenius, B.H. and Eslami, A. (2000))

100
"Effective" Cone Resistance (MPa)

S a nd y G R A V E L

S A N D
1 0
ty
S il N D
ey
SA C la y
y S IL T
nd S ilt y Y
S a IL T CLA
S

1
C LA Y S IL T
S E N S ITIV E - C O L L A P S IB L E

C LA Y S IL T

0 .1
1 1 0 10 0 100 0
S le e v e F r i c t i o n (K P a )

Fig (7) : The Eslami –Fellenius profiling chart (1997)

( After Fellenius , B. H. , and Eslami, A. (2000))

45
August 2003 BRRJ Vol. 5
 46
August 2003 BRRJ Vol. 5