Geotechnical Site Characterization, Robertson and Mayne (eds) © 1998 Balkema, Rotterdam, ISBN 90 5410 939 4

Advanced interpretation of field tests

G.T. Houlsby
Department of Engineering Science, Oxford University, U.K.

ABSTRACT: A selective review is made of some of the advanced techniques that are available for the
interpretation of in situ tests. Soil classification from CPT tests has in the past been based principally on use
of charts, and the use of Neural Network classification systems offers a powerful and general alternative. An
important feature of the interpretation of cone or pressuremeter tests is that the strength, stiffness and
horizontal stress combine to give a particular test result. Advanced interpretation methods must take into
account this interaction, so that factors used to derive one parameter may depend on the value of another. In
the analysis of pressuremeter tests two developments are highlighted: the analysis of the unloading phase of
the tests, and the realisation that the finite length of the pressuremeter has a substantial effect on strength
measurements. Interpretation of the cone pressuremeter requires use of some advanced techniques (and in
particular requires use of large strain analysis), but this is repaid by the benefit that it combines many of the
advantages of both the CPT and the pressuremeter.

1 INTRODUCTION on computational techniques,

The purpose of this paper is to conduct a rather
general review of the circumstances in which
advanced interpretation of field tests is justified, and
of some of the techniques that can then be used.
Many of those involved in research on field testing
are already using or developing advanced
interpretation methods. Practising engineers are
often, however, more sceptical about the merits of
some of the more advanced methods. This paper is
therefore primarily aimed at practising engineers,
with the intent of encouraging them to adopt new
methods when they are appropriate.
What constitutes “advanced” interpretation of
field tests? This question has no simple answer, and
can only be interpreted within the context of the
currently accepted state-of-the-art. What is at present
regarded as an advanced technique may in the future
be regarded as commonplace. For the purpose of this
paper “advanced” methods will be taken as any that
fall into one or more of the following categories:
• methods which involve corrections to current
approaches, based on improved understanding of
the mechanics of the test.
• methods which are intrinsically complex (by
present standards), e.g. those which rely heavily
99
• new methods which have not yet gained current
acceptance in practice, yet potentially offer
improvements over conventional approaches.
1.1 Field testing or laboratory testing?
A discussion of the advanced interpretation of field
tests must first address the long-standing debate on
the relative merits and applications of laboratory and
field testing. The interpretation of tests must also be
set in the context of the design methods that will be
used in connection with the test results.
The way in which in situ test results have been
used has depended very much on the history of the
development of geotechnical engineering in different
countries. For instance, in the United Kingdom since
about the mid-1950’s, geotechnical engineers have
relied heavily on the triaxial test as the primary
means of measuring the strength and deformation
properties of soils. In, for example, slope stability
analysis, the method described by Bishop (1955)
would usually be used. The choice of a safety factor
would be based on the combination of use of triaxial
testing and Bishop’s method. If either of these were
to be changed, then new experience on appropriate
safety factors would need to be obtained.
 The above position meant that, as in situ testing
has become established in the U.K., much effort has
been put into use of field tests to measure the same
engineering parameters as are measured by the
triaxial test. During this process it has been
recognised that, for instance, the mode of shearing
affects the undrained shear strength, so that
experience has been obtained in converting
measurements made with field tests back to
equivalent values from triaxial tests.
The development of field testing in the U.K. can
be contrasted with, say, the history of the
pressuremeter test in France. At the time that the
Ménard pressuremeter was developed, the use of
laboratory testing as the primary tool for measuring
soil properties was less well established in France.
As a result, design methods were developed in
which the results of the pressuremeter tests were
used directly in, for instance, foundation design.
Although correlations were later established between
the parameters measured by the Ménard
pressuremeter and more fundamental engineering
parameters, it is not necessary to know the latter to
use the pressuremeter “design rules”.
The “direct method” of use of in situ test results
(exemplified by the French application of the
pressuremeter) and the “indirect method”
(exemplified by the approach commoner in the
U.K.) are illustrated in Figure 1.
The direct approach has advantages, principally
in that it is straightforward to apply, since it tends to
rely on a series of rather well-defined procedures.
Provided that these have been well thought out, the
method can be quick and economical. It has,
however, a number of disadvantages in that:
• it relies heavily on the collection of large
numbers of case records for calibration,
• it does not provide the engineer with a sense of
the importance of particular features of the soil
Direct Approach Indirect Approach
In Situ Test In Situ Test
or
Laboratory Test
Results Results Results
A
Engineering Properties,e.g. G, s u etc.
B geo-environmental area.
Engineering Engineering
Design Design
Figure 1: Direct and indirect methods of
interpretation of in situ tests.
100
behaviour on the design,
• it is not readily generalised to new soils, new
types of construction or new tests.
As a result of these constraints, the direct
approach does not lend itself to rapid change, and so
there are few developments of “advanced”
interpretation in this area. The examples given
below will therefore be within the context of the
indirect approach.
When in situ tests are employed using the direct
approach, then the relative merits of in situ and
laboratory tests for a particular engineering
application may need to be discussed. However,
when using the indirect method, such a debate is
perhaps less important, since a combination of
laboratory and in situ tests can be used. In the
second phase of the design (B in Figure 1) the
engineer will need to select the most important
parameters needed. The decision then becomes one
of a choice of the most appropriate method to
measure these parameters. The issues in choosing a
method will usually include:
• the relative simplicity and accuracy of laboratory
and field methods,
• problems of sample disturbance,
• how well the field test may reproduce the design
conditions,
• possible benefits of measuring a quantity by more
than one means,
• cost.
1.2 Chemical and environmental testing
Many sophisticated new testing methods are being
introduced in the area of environmental testing. A
prime example is the use of laser-fluorescence
techniques to identify hydrocarbon contamination at
polluted sites (Lambson and Jacobs, 1995). The
development of such tests has involved a major
investment both in equipment, and in the
interpretation techniques for the tests. The author
has no direct experience of use of in situ tests for
environmental purposes, so these applications are
not covered here. They are, however, addressed
elsewhere at the ISC’98 conference. The author
acknowledges that many of the “advanced”
techniques currently under development are in the
1.3 Geophysical testing
Another area where rapid advances are being made
is that of geophysical testing. In particular the
development of tomography and other imaging
techniques certainly involves “advanced”
interpretation of the data. Geophysical tests are
treated elsewhere in ISC’98 and are not therefore
addressed here.
1.4 Examples
The examples given below all involve the use of
advanced techniques to determine the physical
characteristics of soils. They are drawn principally
from the use of the cone penetrometer (CPT) and the
pressuremeter, since these are probably the
commonest in situ devices for measuring the
mechanical properties of soil. The two tests are
complementary, in that the principal application of
the CPT is as a profiling tool, with a supplementary
use for estimating soil property values, while the
pressuremeter is less appropriate for profiling, but is
used primarily for property measurement.
The examples are drawn principally from the
Author’s own experience, but there are many others
who are also working on the development of
advanced interpretation methods.
2 PREREQUISITES
There are certain prerequisites that have to be
satisfied for any interpretation of in situ tests, and
these are of course even more important if the
interpretation is to be of a sophisticated nature. In
the following it will be assumed that the following
minimal criteria will be satisfied as a matter of good
practice:
• All tests will be carried out using equipment that
is in good working order, properly maintained
and calibrated, and suitable for testing the
particular soil encountered.
• Test procedures will adhere to accepted standards
(where these are published), including proper
record-keeping of all relevant data.
• All necessary corrections will be applied to raw
data so that the results properly represent the soil
response (examples of corrections are those for
the membrane stiffness in a pressuremeter test, or
of the correction from q c to qt in the CPT).
• Data should be presented in an appropriate way,
where possible making use of properly defined
dimensionless groups. For example, use of
(qt − σvo ) s u is acceptable, but use of q t σvo
is not, since, in an undrained CPT test σ vo
simply results in an additive term on qt .
101
3 SOIL CLASSIFICATION
Soil classification is here taken as the qualitative
description of the soil (e.g. sand/silt/clay), together
with qualifying comments (loose/dense, normally
consolidated/overconsolidated, soft/stiff etc.), but
not involving quantitative measurement of
parameters.
The two primary in situ devices for soil
classification are the CPT (and especially the
piezocone) and the Marchetti dilatometer. One
advantage of the CPT is that it gives a continuous
profile, and the dilatometer too gives quite a detailed
profile (with data usually at 100mm intervals). The
interpretation as far as soil classification and
stratigraphy is concerned is almost entirely
empirical, and has principally been expressed in the
form of charts. Those published by Robertson et al.
(1986) for the interpretation of the piezocone are a
typical example.
This approach is undoubtedly valuable,
principally because it allows practitioners to gain a
quick estimate of the sorts of soil present, without
the need for any sophisticated calculation. It does,
however, have drawbacks. CPT classification charts
were originally presented in terms of two variables,
usually cone resistance qt and friction ratio f r (see
e.g. Douglas and Olsen, 1981). In this case the
classification can be represented in a simple way on
a two-dimensional chart. There is inevitably some
overlap of the zones, but this can be reduced by
normalising the parameters in a suitable way. Wroth,
q − σvo
(1984, 1988) suggested use of Qt = t and
σ′vo
fs
Fr = , both of which can easily be
q t − σ vo
determined provided that estimates of in situ vertical
stress and pore water pressure can be made.
Robertson (1990) adopted this normalised form.
Houlsby and Hitchman (1988) showed that the
cone resistance is more closely related to the
horizontal stress than the vertical stress, so that the
q − σho
use of modified factors such as Qh = t
σ′ho
would result in charts with less overlap of different
regions. The problem is that, to use such a chart, an
estimate of K o must be made. Since this is often not
possible with any accuracy, authors have preferred
the normalisation with respect to vertical stress. This
practice is, however, misleading, since the
dependence on K o is effectively hidden in the
inaccuracies in the chart rather than being explicitly
apparent to the engineer. The charts therefore work Qt Fr Bq
well for soils with typical K o values, and not so
well for other soils. It would be better to use
normalisation with respect to horizontal stress, and
provide engineers with guidance on the estimation of
Ko . Hidden
The major problem with the use of charts for Layer
classification arises when they are extended from
two variables to three or more. Robertson (1990)
presents charts involving Qt against Fr and Qt
against Bq . The charts represent projections of
Type 1 Type 2 Type 3
classification zones in the three-dimensional
( )
Qt , Fr , Bq space onto two-dimensional planes. The Figure 2: Neural network soil classification system

problem lies not with the choice of variables, but the

limitations inherent in presenting three-dimensional
information in two-dimensional form. If the zones to
be represented have anything other than the simplest
of shapes, this approach rapidly becomes
unsatisfactory.
A variety of additional sensors (further pore
pressure measurements, acoustic sensors etc.) have
been added to the CPT, and if these are to be
exploited for classification, the problem becomes
one of combining data from four, five or even more
sensors. Such a task is daunting, and it is unlikely
that simple two-dimensional charts will offer a
solution. It is possible that ingenious correlations
could be devised (either empirically or with some
theoretical input), but this process becomes
increasingly difficult the more variables are
involved.
An alternative approach, in which the Author has
been involved, is the use of techniques developed in
the IT area to assist in classification. Specifically,
neural networks have been used to classify soils. The
procedure is as follows, and is illustrated in Figure 2.
A number of input quantities are chosen for the
Neural Network, in the case illustrated these are the
normalised cone resistance, friction ratio and pore
pressure measurement. The values of the “hidden
layer” units are each a weighted sum of the values of
the input units, and the values of the output units are
in turn weighted sums of the values of the hidden
layer units. Most importantly, nonlinearities are
introduced in both these summation processes
(usually in the form of a function that effectively
saturates at a particular value). The values of the
output units can represent either numerical values of
quantities such as density, horizontal stress or
undrained strength, or particular values can be
assigned to mean for instance “clay” or “silt” or
“sand”. Neural Networks are therefore suitable both
for determining numerical values of engineering
parameters, or for classification of soils into
categories. When used to determine numerical
values the method fulfils a similar role to multiple
regression analysis, but has the advantage that the
form of the function fitted to the data does not have
to be chosen in advance.
The Neural Network is first “trained” on a large
set of data for which both the input and output
values are known (in the same way that
classification charts are based on databases of tests
from known sites). During this phase the weighting
factors are found by an optimisation process which
minimises the errors in the prediction of the output
variables.
Once the network has been “trained”, i.e. the
weighting factors are known, it is then tested by
applying it to a second set of data for which both
input and output are known. The accuracy of the
predictions of the output quantities is measured, and
provided that this is acceptable, the trained network
is then of use for application to data where the
output is unknown.
Houlsby and Ruck (1998) give an example of the
use of such a system for the identification of both
soil type (in this case distinguishing between three
types of sand) and engineering properties of sands.
Both conventional CPT data, and the data from an
acoustic sensor were used. The method proved to be
particularly effective for identifying soil type, but
was less effective as far as quantitative estimation of
soil properties is concerned.
The Neural Network approach clearly has certain
disadvantages when compared to the use of charts:
• it requires use of computer software rather than a
sheet of paper,
• the classification process is not as obvious to the
engineer, since it is hidden within the weighting
factors of the network, rather than being
transparently obvious as lines drawn on a chart.

102
The first of the drawbacks is rapidly becoming less
important. The second can be offset by the fact that,
in a properly designed system, an indication of the
confidence with which a network is able to make a
classification is available as well as the classification
itself. (This is equivalent to the answer to the
question “How close is the point to the boundary
between two classifications?”). What are the direct
advantages of the new approach? The most
important are:
• The method can be extended simply to any
number of inputs, and so gets away entirely from
the limitations of two-dimensional charts,
• The classification process can be carried out in a
rigorous mathematical way, and is not biased by
subjective judgement. (Some may of course
regard this as a disadvantage, since it leaves little
room for engineering judgement).
The use of modern IT techniques certainly has a role
to play in the identification of soil types from in situ
data, especially where several measured variables
may affect the classification. Engineers’ quite
justifiable suspicion that such methods represent
“black boxes” over which they have little control
should be allayed by clear presentation of the
principles on which any method is based.
4 MEASUREMENT OF THE ENGINEERING
PROPERTIES OF SOILS
A key feature of developments in the understanding
of the interpretation of in situ tests has been the
realisation that the results of the tests are affected by
a multiplicity of factors. The strength, stiffness and
in situ stresses interact to produce a particular
measurement in a test. There are exceptions, such as
the vane test, which provides a direct measurement
of the undrained strength, and it is accepted that the
vane strength is relatively unaffected by other
factors such as the soil stiffness. The general rule is,
however, that the results obtained represent the
combined effect of several factors.
The following discussion is therefore organised in
terms of different tests, rather than in terms of
different measured quantities.
5 THE CONE PENETROMETER
5.1 The CPT in clay
The undrained strength of a clay is derived from the
CPT results from a formula of the well-known form:
103
q t = N k t s u + σ vo (1)
A significant advance was the recognition that the
total cone resistance qt (which is corrected for the
pore pressure acting in the groove behind the cone
tip) should be used, not simply the measured cone
resistance q c . This practice has now, fortunately,
become almost universal, but it means that some
early databases that use q c are no longer of value.
“Advanced” interpretation of the cone here
relates entirely to the determination of the factor
N k t . The main variables that affect N k t are:
• the soil stiffness,
• the horizontal stresses in the ground.
This reveals immediately one of the key features of
in situ tests: that the engineering parameters for the
soil cannot be measured separately, but that strength,
stiffness and horizontal stresses all combine to affect
the results of the tests.
Despite the apparent simplicity of the cone test, it
is not straightforward to analyse. Houlsby and Teh
(1988) analysed the CPT test in clay using a
combination of the strain path method and finite
element methods, and arrived at the following
empirical expression which fitted their calculated
N k t values:
 1 G σ − σvo
N k t = N s 1 +  + 2.2 + 1.8 ho (2)
 2000 s u  2s u
where N s is the spherical cavity expansion pressure
4   G 
1 + ln    , and the above expression is a

3  su  
simplification of Houlsby and Teh’s expression in
which an intermediate value of cone roughness has
been assumed.
The advantage of an expression such as the above
is that it explicitly recognises the role of the
horizontal stress and the stiffness in affecting the
cone resistance. The engineer can assess the impact
of different assumptions about (for instance) the
horizontal stress on the calculated undrained
strength.
Equation (2) was derived theoretically, and
because of the shortcomings of the analysis (which,
for instance, did not take into account pre-failure
changes of stiffness, or the possibility of any
sensitivity) it probably will not agree with field data
at a given site. Locally established correlations
would usually provide superior estimates of N k t ,
but equation (2) could nevertheless be used to
estimate the sorts of variation of N k t that might be
expected at locations with different horizontal stress
and stiffness values.
Although the measurement of the strength with
the CPT is affected by the stiffness and horizontal
stress, the CPT provides no independent
measurement that can provide values of these
quantities: they must be estimated by other means.
This means that, as far as measuring soil properties
is concerned, the CPT is best used in conjunction
with other devices.
5.2 The CPT in sand
Interpretation of the CPT in sand is a more
challenging task than interpretation in clay. Analysis
of the cone penetration process is much more
difficult in a frictional, dilating material than it is in
undrained clay. Some analyses have been made, but
even the most successful of these (see for example
Durgunoglu and Mitchell, 1975, and Last, 1982)
must only be regarded as approximate.
As a result, the interpretation of cone data in
sands is based more on empirical evidence. The
difficulty of obtaining site data where the properties
of sands can be well established by independent
means has in turn led to the development of
calibration chamber testing. Most of the “advanced”
interpretation of the CPT in sand is based on results
from calibration chamber tests. Note that this is in
contrast with clays, for which calibration chamber
tests are time-taking and expensive, and calibration
of analytical procedures at well-documented test
sites is a more favourable option.
Large calibration chambers for sand are widely
available. Lunne et al (1997) provide a useful
compendium of work completed at NGI, ENEL
CRIS, ISMES and Southampton University. Much
other work has been carried out at Oxford University
and at Monash University.
The main disadvantage of calibration chamber
tests is that even if the chamber is very large, there is
still some measurable influence of the boundaries in
dense sands (Schnaid and Houlsby, 1991).
Appropriate corrections can, however, be made, so
that correlations established in chambers can be used
with some confidence in the field. Another problem
is that there is evidence that the properties of
naturally aged sands differ significantly from those
of sand prepared in the laboratory.
Nevertheless, data from well-planned series of
calibration chamber tests can be used to establish
correlations for field interpretation. The correlations
104
B
q (kPa)
50
A
C D G
50 100 150 p' (kPa)
E
-50
F
Figure 3: Stress states used in calibration chamber
tests
are principally empirical, although some include
some physical insight to the problem.
It is difficult to control the stiffness of a sand
separately from the values of other variables. This
means that, although the influence of the stiffness
on the measured cone resistance is recognised, the
precise effect cannot be quantified in calibration
chamber tests. The principal quantities which can be
controlled are:
• sand type,
• horizontal and vertical stresses,
• density,
• stress history (typically expressed as
overconsolidation ratio).
In most of the work collected by Lunne et al (1997)
the lateral strain was kept as zero during sample
preparation, and so the horizontal stress is largely
controlled by the value of the overconsolidation
ratio. Furthermore a very high proportion of the tests
are at an OCR of 1.0. This aspect of the tests mean
that they do not provide a means of separating out
the influence of OCR and of horizontal stress.
In the field the OCR and K o values are of course
also correlated for many deposits in which the K o
value has arisen as a result of a simple deposition
and erosion process. The tests from Italy/NGI/
Southampton will be relevant to these sites, and
represent an impressive database of considerable
value. They will not, however, be so relevant to sites
with more unusual stress histories, which have
resulted in an unusual combination of OCR and
horizontal stress. Using the results for such sites
would therefore be misleading. With this problem in
mind, the focus of calibration chamber work at
Oxford University has been on tests in which the
stresses are controlled independently of the
overconsolidation ratio.
 1000.0
(qt - σho)/σ'h
100.0
10.0
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0
Relative Density
Figure 4: Correlation between cone resistance and horizontal stress from calibration chamber tests
The tests are carried out in sands that have been
stressed to one of seven standard stress values, as
shown on Figure 3. By comparing different
combinations of tests the influence of horizontal
stress, vertical stress and overconsolidation ratio can
be examined separately. Early work by Houlsby and
Hitchman examining the behaviour of the Marchetti
dilatometer in sand (see Smith, 1993) led to the
conclusion that the influence of the horizontal stress
was much more important than the influence of
overconsolidation. The conjecture is therefore that
the differences observed in the data reported by
Lunne et al (1997) for tests at different OCR values,
are in fact principally due to the differences in
horizontal stress, and not in the OCR itself.
A correlation which has been found to fit a large
body of calibration chamber data reasonably well is:
 q − σ ho 
log 10  t  = 1.51 + 1.23DR (3)
 σ′ho 
where DR is the Relative Density (as a ratio). It is
assumed that Relative Density can be readily
converted to an indication of the friction angle by,
for instance, the correlation published by Bolton
1986). The correlation is shown in Figure 4, where it
can be seen that even well-controlled calibration
chamber tests lead to quite a considerable scatter for
105
Hokksund NC
Hokksund OC
Ticino NC
Ticino OC
LBS Yellow
LBS White
Dogs Bay
Equation 3
80.0 100.0
different soils and conditions. Even more scatter can
of course be expected for field tests. Correlations
such as equation 3 (and the many others that have
been published in the literature on interpretation of
in situ tests) should be used with caution, and as
approximate indicators only of soil properties.
6 THE SELF-BORING PRESSUREMETER
6.1 Approaches to interpretation of the
pressuremeter test
The pressure-expansion curve from self-boring
pressuremeter test can be derived using simplified
theories for either clay (Gibson and Anderson, 1961)
or sand (Hughes, Wroth, and Windle, 1977). In each
case the shape of the curve explicitly depends on the
strength parameters (undrained strength for clay,
angles of friction and dilation for sand) the shear
modulus and the in situ horizontal stress.
The commonest way of interpreting
experimental data is to plot it in ways that single
parameters can be extracted from the experimental
curves. Different practitioners use slightly different
methods, but a common approach would be:
1. obtain the horizontal stress from an estimate of
the “lift-off” pressure at which straining of the
soil begins.
2. obtain the undrained strength by measuring the
 slope of a replotted pressure-expansion curve as
ψ against ln (ε ) (Gibson and Anderson, 1961).
There is an analogous procedure for sands, which
requires also an estimate of the angle of friction
at constant volume (Hughes, Wroth and Windle,
1977).
3. estimate the shear modulus from the slopes of
unload-reload loops.
Whilst the above approach is well established, it has
some drawbacks. The estimation of in situ horizontal
stress from lift off pressures is, for instance,
notoriously dependent on (a) any tendency to over-
drill or under-drill the hole and (b) the engineer’s
judgement.
An obvious alternative is to construct the
theoretical curve for a pressuremeter test, and then
tune the parameters used to define the curve so that
the best fit is obtained. The curve can be obtained
either from a simple formula, or perhaps from a
numerical analysis. Shuttle and Jefferies (1995) term
this process “Iterative Forward Modelling”, and
have used it with some success to fit pressuremeter
test results. As theories for analysing pressuremeter
tests become more sophisticated this approach
becomes increasingly attractive. The danger is that,
if the model used involves a large number of
parameters, then equally good fits to the data (in
practical terms) may be achieved by different
combinations of parameter values. Some additional
“intelligence” needs to provided during the fitting
process so that unlikely values of parameters are
avoided.
6.2 Unloading curves
An important development in the understanding of
pressuremeter tests was the realisation that useful
information could be extracted from the unloading
curve as well as the loading curve. An analysis of
the unloading sections of pressuremeter curves in
sand was published by Houlsby, Clarke and Wroth
(1986), and an equivalent analysis for tests in clay
by Jefferies (1988). The importance of these
analyses is that the unloading curves are insensitive
to any imperfections in the drilling process, which
affect the shape of the loading curve but not the
unloading. The analyses are certainly “advanced” in
that they involve quite complex mathematics. A
careful track has to be kept of the stress history of
elements of soil around the pressuremeter as they are
(a) loaded elastically, (b) loaded plastically, (c)
unloaded elastically and finally (d) unloaded
plastically.
In spite of the complexity of the analyses, the
106
final results are relatively straightforward. Given the
expense of conducting a pressuremeter tests, it
should be routine practice always to obtain data
from the unloading curve as this can provide useful
additional data for interpretation.
6.3 Effect of length to diameter ratio
The pressuremeter is usually analysed on the
assumption of plane strain conditions in the axial
direction. this is equivalent to the assumption that
the pressuremeter is infinitely long. This assumption
is clearly questionable, since a typical self-boring
pressuremeter has a length-to-diameter ratio of only
about 6. The common assumption that the
simplification of infinite length introduces only a
small error is probably rooted in some early work in
which elastic analyses of the pressuremeter were
carried out. It is true that the stiffness measured by a
short pressuremeter is only marginally higher than
for an infinitely long pressuremeter (the difference is
about 1.5% for L / D = 6 ). The same is not true,
however, once plastic deformation begins.
Yeung and Carter (1990) reported a study using
finite element analysis in which the effects of
pressuremeter length were taken into account. This
study was extended by Houlsby and Carter (1994).
Further work has been carried out on the effects of
finite length by Yu (1990), Yao (1996) and Shuttle
and Jefferies (1995).
The principal conclusions from the above studies
are that in clay the measured strength from the
pressuremeter test needs to be reduced by a factor
which depends on (a) the stiffness of the clay and (b)
the strain range over which the strength is measured
(if the slope of the Gibson and Anderson (1961) plot
is used). In sand the picture is slightly more
complex, since the simplifications inherent in the
Hughes, Wroth and Windle (1977) analysis tend to
counteract the effects of the finite length. Yu (1990)
gives details of corrections which can be applied,
and these again depend on the soil stiffness.
6.4 Stiffness measurement with the pressuremeter
test
The single most important issue in the measurement
of the stiffness of soils that has become recognised
in recent years in the strong dependence of stiffness
of the amplitude of the strain. The characteristic “S-
shaped” curve in the plot of G / p ′ against ln( ∆γ) is
by now well known to geotechnical engineers. It
should be recognised that the existence of this curve
is itself proof that soil is not “elastic” except at

Figure 5, Typical variation of shear modulus with
strain (data for Todi Clay, after Georgiannou et al.,
1991)
extremely low strain amplitudes (less than say
∆γ = 10 −5 ). The use of the terminology of an
“elastic modulus” G is therefore strictly incorrect,
but has become common in practice.
In a triaxial test the shear strain amplitude is easy
to calculate, using the usual simplifying assumption
that the soil deforms as a right cylinder. Even if
barrelling of the specimen is taken into account it is
found that the shear strain throughout most of the
specimen corresponds quite closely to the nominal
calculated value. The stress conditions are also well
defined in the triaxial test, so that the mean stress
will be known. Thus it is possible to plot the whole
of the G / p ′ against ln( ∆γ) curve with considerable
confidence about each data point (although the
resolution of stiffness at small strain amplitudes
requires rather sophisticated instrumentation).
Consider now the measurement of the stiffness of
a soil from unload-reload loops from a
pressuremeter test. In principle this is an excellent
method of measuring stiffness since it avoids all the
problems of sample disturbance that usually reduce
the measured stiffness in the laboratory. An estimate
of the mean effective stress during the cycle must be
made so that the G value can be reduced to a
normalised value G / p ′ . The problem is twofold:
• The radial stress at the pressuremeter surface is
known, but the hoop and axial stresses are not
measured, and can only be estimated,
• All three stresses are varying with distance from
the surface of the pressuremeter, so that (even if
the full stress system could be estimated) a
representative value of p′ has to be chosen from
a range of possible values.
Of more importance is the fact that the strains
undergone by elements of soil at different distances
107
G0
G1
a r1
Figure 6, Pressuremeter in soil with stiffness varying
with radius
from the pressuremeter vary strongly with the
radius. In an undrained test the strains are inversely
proportional to the square of the radius (from the
centreline of the pressuremeter). This means that for
a typical SBPM test, with a pressuremeter diameter
of 80mm, the strains in the soil about 85mm from
the surface of the pressuremeter are only 1/10 of the
value at the pressuremeter surface.
Figure 5 shows the results of some laboratory
measurements of stiffness of clays, and shows that a
tenfold change in the strain can have an enormous
effect on the stiffness, especially in the range of
strain from about 0.01% to 1%, which is typical of
the strains used in pressuremeter testing. Unless
proper account is taken of the variation of strain,
then it is impossible to put measurements of stiffness
in context with other results. Two approaches are
considered here.
In the first approach we simply try to identify a
representative strain for a pressuremeter test, in
terms of the strain applied at the pressuremeter
surface. There will be no unique solution, but the
following analysis helps to resolve whether the
measured stiffness is dominated by the material
close to the pressuremeter or distant from it.
Consider the problem shown in Figure 6, which
represents a highly idealised test. A pressuremeter of
radius a is surrounded by elastic soil with stiffness
G1 out to radius r1 , and outside that the soil has
modulus G0 . It is straightforward to show that the
measured shear modulus (for an undrained test in
which ν = 0.5 ) will be given by:
a2
Gm = G1 + (G0 − G1 ) (4)
r12
Taking the change of stiffness at the radius at which
the shear strain will have dropped to only 1/10 of
that at the pressuremeter surface, the factor a 2 r12
at this radius is also 1/10. The measured shear
modulus would therefore be Gm = 0.9G1 + 0.1G0 .
This demonstrates that the measured modulus is very
much dominated by the stiffness of the material
close to the pressuremeter. The shear strain at the
pressuremeter surface is therefore a reasonable
estimate of an appropriate shear strain for
interpretation of the modulus values.
The second approach is to investigate the way
that moduli defined in different ways can be
transformed. In a laboratory test we can define a
secant modulus Gs = τ γ , and a tangent modulus
Gt = dτ dγ . Similarly in a pressuremeter test in
which pressure ψ is plotted against cavity strain ε ,
one could define a secant modulus
G ps = (ψ − σ ho ) 2 ε and a tangent modulus
G pt = 1 dψ dε . The definitions of the moduli can
2
be used to show that:
dGs
Gt = Gs + γ
dγ
dG ps
G pt = G ps + 2ε
2dε
Muir Wood (1990) showed that, for an undrained
pressuremeter test, the Palmer (1972) “subtangent”
analysis leads to the result:
dG ps
Gs = G pt = G ps + 2ε
2dε
Thus the tangent modulus measured from the
pressuremeter curve is equal to the secant modulus
from a conventional laboratory test.
Muir Wood (1990) pursues the implications of
the above relationships when particular forms of
variation of shear modulus with strain are assumed.
Here we explore the more general relationships. It is
common to plot modulus against logarithm of strain
(as in Figure 5), and it is useful to see how the
moduli are related in this plot. Define x = ln γ for a
laboratory test and x = ln (2ε ) for a pressuremeter
test (it is straightforward to show that the maximum
shear strain in the soil in a pressuremeter test is 2ε ).
It can then be shown that:
dGs
Gt = Gs +
dx
dG ps
Gs = G pt = G ps +
dx
G G ps
Gpt = Gs
-dGps /dx Gt
-dGs /dx
x = ln(γ)
or x = ln(2ε)
Figure 7: Links between definitions of the shear
modulus
So that the relationships between the moduli are as
shown on Figure 7 (note that the horizontal scale
uses natural logarithms, not logarithms to base 10 as
is commonly used). The different definitions of the
modulus give rise to different curves on this plot.
The values only coincide if the shear modulus is
(5) constant, in which case all the definitions reduce to
the same value. This will only be the case at very
(6) low strains (typically γ < 10 − 5 ).
For a substantial range of intermediate strains, the
shear modulus (whatever the definition) falls
approximately linearly with ln ( γ) , so that each of
the dG dx terms is approximately constant, and the
(approximately) straight sections of the three curves
shown in Figure 7 will be parallel and equally
(7) spaced.
The importance of the above observations is that,
while it must be recognised that the different
definitions of the modulus give rise to different
G − ln (γ ) relationships, these can be interrelated in a
rational way. The results of pressuremeter tests can
therefore be properly related to those of other tests.
7 THE CONE-PRESSUREMETER
The great advantage of the CPT is that it provides a
detailed profile of properties with depth. The
pressuremeter is better suited to accurate
measurement of properties at spot locations. These
complementary functions naturally led to the
development of the cone-pressuremeter, which
combines all the features of a CPT with some of
(8) those of a pressuremeter. The cone-pressuremeter
simply consists of a pressuremeter mounted behind a
standard 15cm2 cone.
(9) The main obstacle to the understanding of the
cone-pressuremeter test is that the pressuremeter test
108
is carried out not in undisturbed ground, but in soil
which has been displaced by the cone. This means
that an understanding of the cone penetration
process is needed, so that the analysis of the
pressuremeter phase of the test is started at the
appropriate initial conditions. This exercise is not
trivial, and has been one of the catalysts for the
development of advanced interpretation methods.
7.1 Clays
The interpretation of the Cone Pressuremeter in
clays needs to take into account the installation of
the cone, and requires the use of large strain
analysis. The analysis was made by Houlsby and
Withers (1988), and concentrates principally on the
interpretation of the unloading section of the test.
This is in contrast with self-boring pressuremeter
tests, where most information is obtained from the
loading section.
The analysis gives rise to a simple geometric
construction to determine the undrained shear
strength, the shear modulus and the in situ horizontal
stress. Studies of this procedure (Houlsby and
Withers, 1988, Houlsby and Nutt, 1990, Powell and
Shields, 1995) indicate that (a) the strength
measurements correspond quite closely to those
measured by other means, (b) the stiffness values are
broadly comparable to those measured from unload-
reload loops (although uncertainty about the
appropriate strain range makes interpretation
difficult), but (c) the implied horizontal stresses bear
little resemblance to site values. Even when the
effects of length-to-diameter ratio are taken into
account (Yao, 1996) there is little improvement in
the estimation of horizontal stress. One conclusion
has to be that a full understanding of the mechanical
processes involved in the test has yet to be achieved.
7.2 Sands
The analysis of the cone pressuremeter in sands is
significantly more complex than the equivalent
analysis in clay. This is principally because of the
difficulties of large strain analysis in frictional,
dilative materials. The study of this problem was,
however, the catalyst for the solution obtained by Yu
(1990) for the complete expansion and contraction
of a cylindrical or spherical cavity in a
cohesive/frictional material with dilation (see also
Yu and Houlsby, 1991, 1995). The analysis suggests
that again the unloading section of the test will yield
most information, but comparisons between the
analysis and test results are not entirely satisfactory.
Work by Yu (1994) using models based on the state
109
parameter approach is proving to be a more
promising avenue, and the more advanced analysis
in which changes of the angle of friction with stress
level and density are taken into account appears to
be amply justified.
At present the interpretation of the cone
pressuremeter in sand is, like the interpretation of
the CPT, largely empirically based. Schnaid (1990)
and Nutt (1993) studied the cone pressuremeter in
sand. They derived empirical correlations which
allow the relative density and the horizontal stress to
be estimated from the cone tip resistance qt and the
limit pressure ψ L from the pressuremeter test. The
basis of the correlations is that both the cone
resistance and the limit pressure depend on two
variables: the horizontal stress and the relative
density. Approximate empirical expressions for
relationships are (Nutt, 1993):
ψ L − σ ho
= A + BD R = 1.98 + 19.1DR (10)
σ′ho
qt − σ ho
= C + DDR = 3.39 + 10.4 DR (11)
ψ L − σ ho
The above equations can be solved simultaneously
to give a quadratic in the horizontal stress:
D(ψ L − σ ho )((ψ L − σ ho ) − A(σ ho − uo )) =
(12)
B(σ ho − uo )((qt − σ ho ) − C (ψ L − σ ho ))
which can be solved for σ ho . A simple back
substitution then gives the value of DR .
Figure 8 shows a comparison between the
measured horizontal stress in calibration chamber
tests, with the horizontal stress deduced from the
cone pressuremeter results using the above method.
This figure shows that a reasonable estimate of the
horizontal stress can be made with the cone
pressuremeter. This position should be contrasted
with the interpretation of the CPT, where one of the
obstacles to interpretation was the fact that the
horizontal stress was unknown.
Figure 9 shows the comparison of measured
relative density with the estimate from the above
procedure, and demonstrates that reasonable
estimates of the relative density can also be
obtained.
Manassero (1991) used a procedure similar to the
above (although differing in detail) to combine the
results of the CPT and the conventional self-boring
pressuremeter to obtain estimates of horizontal stress
in the field, and reported some success.

Figure 8: Estimations of horizontal stress using cone
pressuremeter
Figure 9: Esimates of relative density from cone
pressuremeter tests
7.3 Length-to-diameter ratio
In spite of the fact that cone pressuremeters typically
have a length-to-diameter ratio of 10, the effects of
finite length are still significant. Schnaid (1993) and
Yao (1996) carried out tests on pressuremeters with
L D ratios of 5, 10 and 20. Figure 10 shows three
of Schnaid’s results, all under the same soil
conditions. It can be seen that the limit pressure
depends strongly on the L D ratio (in fact a limit
pressure was not reached for the test with L D = 5 ).
Any correlations established are only appropriate for
a pressuremeter of one particular geometry.
Yao (1996) also studied the effects of finite
length on the analysis of the cone pressuremeter in
clay, and found that it had a relatively minor effect
on the deduced value of the undrained strength.
8 CONCLUSIONS
• Field tests fulfil an essential role in geotechnical
110
engineering, allowing some engineering
properties of soils to be measured that either
cannot be determined from laboratory tests, or are
less well determined by laboratory tests.
• Whilst some field tests can be interpreted by
simple methods, others require more advanced
methods for proper interpretation. Although
simplicity has many merits, advanced methods
(where necessary) should not be avoided.
• Soil classification from in situ tests has in the past
been based primarily on the use of charts. Whilst
this method is useful when only two quantities
are measured, it becomes cumbersome when
three or more measurements are mad. Use of
Neural Networks is a promising technique in
which classification can be carried out using
several input quantities. It has already been
proven as a useful technique for distinguishing
between different sands.
• Interpretation of the CPT in clay to determine
undrained strength should take into account the
value of the stiffness and the horizontal stress.
• Interpretation of the CPT in sand is based
principally on the results of calibration chamber
tests rather than analysis. Again the value of the
horizontal stress should be taken into account.
• The unloading curve from a pressuremeter test
provides useful information and is amenable to
analysis.
• Pressuremeter test results should be corrected to
take into account the finite length of the
pressuremeter if overestimates of strength
parameters are to be avoided.
• Stiffness measurements from the pressuremeter
can be related to those of other tests, but
appropriate transformations between different
stiffness measurements must be used.
• The cone pressuremeter can be used to give good
estimates of the undrained strength of a clay
(based on a theoretical analysis) and for the
density and horizontal stress of a sand (based on
calibration chamber test results).
• The effects of length-to-diameter ratio are
significant for the limit pressure measured with
the cone pressuremeter.
9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The content of this paper is based to a large extent
on the work of many research students and assistants
at Oxford University, in particular that of Teh Cee
Ing, Fernando Schnaid, Hai-Sui Yu, Nigel Nutt,
Brendan Ruck and Mitsuhiro Yao.
 (MPa)

Figure 10: Results of cone-pressuremeter tests with different length-to-diameter ration (after Schnaid,1990)

10 NOTATION Bolton, M.D. 1986 The strength and dilatancy of

sands, Géotechnique, Vol. 36, No. 1, 65-78
DR Relative Density Douglas, B.J. and Olsen, R.S. 1981 Soil
fr friction ratio Classification using electric cone penetrometer,
Cone penetration testing and experience, Proc
fs friction sleeve measurement ASCE National Convention, St. Louis, 209-227
G shear modulus Durgunoglu, H.T. and Mitchell, J.K. 1975 Static
p′ mean normal stress (σ1′ + σ′2 + σ′3 ) 3 penetration resistance of soils, Proc. ASCE
qc uncorrected cone resistance Speciality Conf. on In Situ Measurements of Soil
Properties, Rayleigh, Vol. 1, 151-189
qt total cone resistance
Georgiannou, V.N., Rampello, S. and Silvestri, F.
Qt (qt − σ vo ) σ′vo 1991 Static and dynamic measurements of
Qh (qt − σ ho ) σ′ho undrained stiffness on natural overconsolidated
clays, Proc 10th ECSMFE, Florence, Vol. 1, 91-
su undrained strength
96
γ shear strain Gibson, R.E and Anderson, W.F. 1961, In situ
ε pressuremeter strain (tensile hoop strain at the measurement of soil properties with the
pressuremeter surface) pressuremeter, Civ. Eng. Pub. Works Review,
ν Poisson’s ratio Vol. 56, 615-618
ψ pressuremeter pressure Houlsby, G.T. and Carter, J.P. 1993 The Effects of
ψ L Cone pressuremeter limit pressure Pressuremeter Geometry on the Results of Tests in
Clay, Géotechnique, Vol. 43, No. 4, 567-576
Houlsby, G.T., Clarke, B.G. and Wroth, C.P. 1986
11 REFERENCES Analysis of the Unloading of a Pressuremeter in
Sand, Proc. 2nd Int. Symp. on the Pressuremeter
Bishop, A.W. 1955 The use of the slip circle in the and Its Marine Applications, Texas, May, 245-264
stability analysis of slopes, Géotechnique, Vol. 5, Houlsby, G.T. and Hitchman, R.C. 1988 Calibration
No. 1, 7-17 tests of a cone penetrometer in sand,
Géotechnique, Vol. 38, No. 1, 39-44

111
Houlsby, G.T. and Nutt, N.R.F. 1992 Development of
the Cone Pressuremeter, Proc. Wroth Memorial
Symposium, Predictive Soil Mechanics, Oxford,
359-377
Houlsby, G.T. and Ruck, B.M. 1998 Interpretation
of Signals from an Acoustic Cone Penetrometer,
Proc. ISC ’98
Houlsby, G.T. and Teh, C.I. 1988 Analysis of the
piezocone in clay, Proc Int. Symp. of Penetration
Testing, ISOPT-1, Orlando, Vol. 2, 777-782
Houlsby, G.T. and Withers, N.J. 1988 Analysis of the
Cone Pressuremeter Test in Clay, Géotechnique,
Vol. 38, No. 4, 575-587
Hughes, J.M.O., Wroth, C.P. and Windle, D. 1977
Pressuremeter tests in sand, Géotechnique, Vol.
27, No. 4, 455-477
Jefferies, M.G. 1988 Determination of Horizontal
Geostatic Stress in Clay with Self -Bored
Pressuremeter, Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
Vol. 25, No. 3, 559-573
Lambson, M. and Jacobs, P. 1995 The use of the
laser induced fluorescence cone for
environmental investigations, CPT’95, Proc. Int.
Symp. on penetration testing, Linköping, Vol. 2,
29-34
Last, N.C. 1982 The Cone Penetration test in
Granular Soils, PhD Thesis, King’s College,
London University
Lunne, T. Robertson, P.K., and Powell, J.J.M. 1997
Cone Penetration Testing in Geotechnical
Practice, Blackie, London
Manassero, M 1991 Calibration chamber
correlations for horizontal in situ stress
assessment using self-boring pressuremeter and
cone penetration tests, Proc. Int. Symp on
Calibration Chamber Testing, Potsdam, New
York, Elsevier, 237-248
Muir Wood, D. 1990 Strain-dependent moduli and
pressuremeter tests, Géotechnique, Vol. 40, No.
3, 509-512
Nutt, N.R.F (1993) Development of the Cone
Pressuremeter, DPhil Thesis, Oxford University
Palmer, A.C. 1972 Undrained plane-strain
expansion of a cylindrical cavity in clay,
Géotechnique, Vol. 22, No. 3, 451-457
Powell, J.J.M. and Shields, C.H. 1995 Field studies
of the full displacement pressuremeter in clays,
Proc. 4th Int. Symp. on Pressuremeters,
Sherbrooke, 239-248
Robertson, P.K. 1990 Soil classification using the
cone penetration test, Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, Vol. 27, No. 1
Robertson, P.K., Campanella, R.G., Gillespie, D and
Greig, J. 1986 Use of piezometer cone data, Proc.
ASCE Speciality Conf. InSitu ’86, Use of In Situ
112
Tests in Geotechnical Engineering, Blacksberg,
1263-1280
Schnaid, F 1990 A study of the cone-pressuremeter
test in sand, DPhil Thesis, Oxford University
Schnaid, F. and Houlsby, G.T. 1991 An Assessment of
Chamber Size Effects in the Calibration of In Situ
Tests in Sand, Géotechnique, Vol. 41, No. 3,
437-445
Shuttle, D.A. and Jefferies, M.G. 1995 A practical
geometry correction for interpreting
pressuremeter tests in clay, Géotechnique, Vol. 45,
No. 3, 549-553
Smith, M.G. 1993 A laboratory study of the
Marchetti dilatometer, DPhil Thesis, Oxford
University
Wroth C.P. 1984 The interpretation of in situ soil
tests, 24th Rankine Lecture, Géotechnique, Vol.
34, No. 4, 449-489
Wroth C.P. 1988 Penetration testing - a more
rigorous approach to interpretation, Proc Int.
Symp. of Penetration Testing, ISOPT-1, Orlando,
Vol. 1, 303-311
Yao, M 1996 A study of the effect of length to
diameter ratio on the results of pressuremeter
tests, MSc Thesis, Oxford University
Yeung, S.K and Carter, J.P. 1990 Interpretation of
the pressuremeter test in clay allowing for
membrane effects and material non-homogeneity,
ISP3, Proc. 3rd Int. Symp. on Pressuremeter Tests,
Oxford, 199-208
Yu, H.S. 1990 Cavity expansion theory and its
application to the analysis of pressuremeters,
DPhil Thesis, Oxford University
Yu, H.S. 1994 Interpretation of pressuremeter
unloading tests in sands, Report 100.07.1994,
Dept. of Civil Eng. and Surveying, The
University of Newcastle, NSW
Yu, H.S. and Houlsby, G.T. 1991 Finite Cavity
Expansion in Dilatant Soils: Loading Analysis,
Géotechnique, Vol. 41, No. 2, 173-183
Yu, H.S. and Houlsby, G.T. 1995 A Large Strain
Analytical Solution for Cavity Contraction in
Dilatant Soils, International Journal for Numerical
and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, Vol.
19, 793-811