Introduction

The purpose of this experiment is to examine how CPT tests can be used for in-situ testing of
ground conditions and parameters. Tests will not be physically carried out but instead, given
information will allow for the analysis of the presented results and interpretation of the data
given.

Methodology
Though there is no practical work required in this lab it is still important to come to grips
with the equipment used. This knowledge helps us to better understand how the experiment is
carried out and know the equipment that helps us perform such tests.
For this lab, a visit to the CPT
cone truck itself is a sure way to
get familiar with the equipment
and understand the mass of the
truck itself.

To perform CPT tests, a 60 cone is pushed into

the ground at a rate of 20mm/s, pausing to allow
for a series of hollow rods to be connected as
the depth is increased. Cables running through
the centre of these allow for continuous
measurement of the resistance to penetration of
the cone along with the friction force on the
cone. With this sort of measurements it is
possible to determine the characteristics of the
soil and so make further decisions regarding
future developments of the investigated sites.

Graphs
CPT

Figure 1

Figure 2

CPTu

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Formulae

v0 = wz = 20kN/m3(depth)
v0 = (w-w)z = (20-9.81)kN/m3(depth)
Where v0 is the overburden pressure and v0 is the effective overburden pressure.
CPT
Resistance to penetration (qc) and side friction (fs) are read from the graphs provided in
Figure 1. The ratio of these (fs/qc) is then used in order to find the friction ratio, Rf.
CPTu
qc, fs and pore pressure between the cone and friction sleeve (u2) are read from the graphs
provided in Figure 3.
The corrected cone pressure is calculated in order to account for the unequal end area effects
across the cone. This prevents any negative resistances from arising, which is impossible.
qt = qc + (/Ac) u2
Where (/Ac) = 0.2 for this cone.
The pore pressure, Bf = (u2 u0)/(qt - v0)
Where u0 is the equilibrium pore pressure and v0 is the total overburden pressure.
The normalised con resistance, Qt = (qt - v0)/v0
Where v0 is the effective overburden pressure.
The normalised friction ratio, Fr = fs/(qt - v0)
The undrained shear strength, Su = (qt - v0)/Nk
Where Nk = 18 for our soil.

Results
As extensive surveys have been carried out in the Dublin area it is possible to use these
results and graphs in order to help with understanding the methods through which one can
calculate and come to understand the shear strength parameters and nature of the ground.
These graphs allow for the use of the calculated soil stresses and characteristics at specified
depths to show the characteristics of the soil itself.
CPT Results
Depth
(m)

qc
(MPa)

0.5
2
5.7
9

22
6.2
3.3
9.2

qc
(kN/m2)
22000
6200
3300
9200

fs
(MPa)
0.1
0.05
0.04
0.09

fs
(kN/m2)

Rf = fs/qc
(%)

v0
(kN/m2)

v0'
(kN/m2)

100
50
40
90

0.4
0.9
1.2
1

20
40
114
180

20
30.19
67.893
101.52

From the above results it is possible to compare qc against Rf and v' in order to classify the
soil type and determine the friction angle, peak. Using these results and the graphs in
Figure 2 this we can find the following results:
1.
2.
3.
4.

At a depth of 0.5m, the soil is sand and the friction angle is 48.
At a depth of 2m, the soil is sand and the friction angle is 42.
At a depth of 5.7m, the soil is silty sand and the friction angle is 34.
At a depth of 9m, the soil is sand and the friction angle is 38.5.

From looking at the above results it is clear to see that there is a steady increase in the
effective stress within the soils as depth increases. This makes sense as the confining and
hydrostatic pressures increase with depth.
The ground is primarily sand with some silty sand present. This is to be expected in port
areas, where being close to the ocean leads to sandy soils being present.
The CPT test is useful for determining the basic characteristics of the soil. This allows for
later calculations regarding the load capacity of the soil being investigated and its suitability
as regarding construction suitability.

CPTu Results
Depth
0.5
2
5.7
9

qc
(Mpa)
21.7
6.4
3
12.7

fs
(MPa)
0.21
0.05
0.02
0.065

fs/qc
(%)
0.5
0.8
0.5
0.075

v
(MPa)

v'
(MPa)

0.01
0.01
0.04 0.03019
0.114 0.067893
0.18 0.10152

u2
(MPa)
0
0.001
0.065
0.05

qt
(MPa)

u0
(MPa)

21.7
0
6.4002 0.00981
3.013 0.046107
12.71 0.07848

Bf

Qt

0.0000 2169.0000
-0.0014 210.6724
0.0065
42.6995
-0.0023 123.4240

Fr
0.0097
0.0079
0.0069
0.0052

Su
(kN/m2)
1.2050
0.3533
0.1611
0.6961

In the above table, u2 is the pore pressure between the cone and the friction sleeve, u0 is the hydrostatic pressure, qt is the corrected cone
resistance, Bf is the pore pressure ratio, Qt is the normalised cone resistance, Fr is the normalised friction ratio and Su is the undrained shear
strength.
From comparing the Normalised Cone resitance Qt to both Bf and the friction ratio, Fr, on the graphs in Figure 4 as well as comparing cone
resistance qt to both Bf and Fr as seen in Figure 5, it is clear to see that the following results can be found:
1. At a depth of 0.5m, the soil is gravely sand to sand.
2. At a depth of 2m, the soil is silty sand to sandy silt.
3. At a depth of 5.7m, the soil is silty sand to sandy silt.
4. At a depth of 9m, the soil is sand.
Looking at the above results, it is clear they show that the undrained shear strength varies from layer to layer, with no strict linear progression in
relation to depth. However, the evidence shows that the non-uniform pressure on the cone head needs to be accounted for. The corrected cone
pressure is different to the original pressure. This might not be by much in this test, but it is a situational factor and if unaccounted for can lead to
inaccuracies in recorded results where the impact of neglecting u2 is higher, thus creating complications later when addressing the values for
analysis.
Once again, the soil is clearly a variation between sand qualities, containing sand, gravely sand and silty sand. This is what would be expected in
a port area.

Discussion
From looking at the results obtained from both CPT and CPTu tests, it is possible to see that
there is a high concentration of sand types in the area. This makes sense as the test which has
been calculated for was conducted in Dublin port where it would be expected that a high
quantity of sand would be contained within the soil.
The CPT on its own can fail to account for the pore pressure behind the cone. This can
potentially cause problems later on as it is possible that negative cone pressures can be
recorded due to unequal end area effects on the cone. The CPT tests are fine for areas where
these effects are lessened but it is more advisable to use a CPTu test as it is then possible to
use the corrected cone resistance which takes into account the pore pressure behind the cone
and corrects for errors arising from non-uniform areas.
Regardless of whether CPT or CPTu tests are used, it is clear to see that the in-situ tests
performed with them allow for determination of the soil types and shear strength parameters.
They can also allow samples to be collected to be sent to labs for further testing. This means
that the CPT tests are very useful when performing site investigations as the soil shear
strength, nature of the ground and the classification of the soil are easily determined from the
results obtained. When performing these tests, it is clearly more recommended to run a CPTu
test as it gives a more in-depth analysis.

Conclusion
Both CPT and CPTu tests can be used in order to perform effective in-situ testing of soil
samples to allow for assessment of the ground nature and the strength conditions of the soil.
Detailed analysis can be produced and informed decisions can be made as regarding the
quality and suitability of the tested soil for further construction or development.