Evaluation of undrained shear strength of soft soils using CPT and VST

technologies
valuation de la rsistance au cisaillement non drain des sols mous en utilisant les technologies
CPT et VST

Mehmet T. Tumay, Ph.D., P.E., D.GE

Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Louisiana State University, LA, USA, mtumay@eng.lsu.edu

Yilmaz Hatipkarasulu, Ph.D.

Department of Construction Science, The University of Texas at San Antonio, TX, USA, yilmaz.karasulu@utsa.edu

Recep Yilmaz
Fugro Consultants, Inc, TX, USA, ryilmaz@fugro.com

ABSTRACT: A geotechnical investigation program consisting of over two thousand borings, over a thousand CPTs, several hundred
VSTs and several thousand unconsolidated-undrained triaxial compression and unconfined compression tests has been recently
carried out in soft Louisiana soils. Several hundred miles of levees were investigated, and undisturbed 5-inch diameter soil borings,
CPTs and VSTs were performed. At several locations, borings, CPTs and VSTs were located next to each other for developing site-
specific correlations. A comparative analysis of the application of six commonly used CPT-based classification systems for the
assessment of subsoil stratigraphy and lithology was also conducted. This paper describes the correlations which have been developed
between a selected group of laboratory tests and CPT data, as well as between CPT and VST data. High level of correlations have
been observed between VST and CPT derived shear strength data. This study reinforces the need to perform greater in-situ testing to
obtain continuous soil stratigraphy and accurate soil shear strength data, especially for very soft to soft clay soils.

RSUM : Un programme d'investigation gotechnique comprenant plus de deux mille sondages, plus d'un millier de CPT, plusieurs
centaines de VST et plusieurs milliers de compactages triaxiaux non consolids et non consolids, a t rcemment ralis dans des sols
doux de la Louisiane. Plusieurs centaines de milles de digues ont t tudies et des forages de sol de 5 pouces de diamtre non perturbs,
des CPT et des VST ont t effectus. plusieurs endroits, les forages, les CPT et les VST taient situs les uns ct des autres pour
dvelopper des corrlations spcifiques au site. Une analyse comparative de l'application de six systmes de classification base de CPT
couramment utiliss pour l'valuation de la stratigraphie du sous-sol et de la lithologie a galement t mene. Cet article dcrit les
corrlations qui ont t dveloppes entre un groupe slectionn de tests de laboratoire et les donnes CPT, ainsi qu'entre les donnes CPT
et VST. Des corrlations leves ont t observes entre les donnes de rsistance au cisaillement de VST et de CPT. Cette tude renforce
la ncessit d'effectuer de plus grands essais in situ pour obtenir une stratigraphie continue du sol et des donnes prcises sur la rsistance
au cisaillement du sol, en particulier pour les sols argileux trs doux moelleux.

KEYWORDS: Cone Penetration Test, Vane Shear Test, CPT Modeling, Soft Soils, Shear Strength.
1 INTRODUCTION.
Evaluation of undrained shear strength of clays is a critical
property used in assessing the stability of levees, dams, and
flood control structures and in computing bearing capacity of
shallow and deep foundations. Traditionally, undrained shear
strength has been determined in the laboratory using unconfined
compression and unconsolidated-undrained triaxial
compression tests on relatively undisturbed soil samples.
This paper describes the correlations which have been
developed between a selected group of laboratory tests and CPT
data, as well as between CPT and VST data. Correlations have
been obtained for the lightly consolidated, very soft to soft clays
which are predominantly present to a depth of 12 to 18 meters.
High level of correlation was also obtained between VST and
CPT derived shear strength data
1 .1 CPT and VST Technologies
The Cone Penetration Test (CPT) based computer-integrated
analysis and modeling is a popular and handy tool for
geotechnical engineers for subsurface investigations and soil
characterization. The CPT test is conducted by advancing a
cylindrical rod with a cone tip down into the soil (ASTM
D5778-12). During penetration, the cone penetrometer
simultaneously measures the cone tip resistance, qc, sleeve
friction, fs and in certain tests, also the generated pore pressure
u2 (for Piezocone Penetration Test, PCPT). The CPT/PCPT
measurements can be effectively used in many geotechnical
engineering applications, such as soil stratification and
identification, and to evaluate different soil properties such as
the strength and consolidation characteristics of the geomedia.
Several CPT-based analyses and modeling methods have been
developed over the years for these purposes (Zhang and Tumay,
1999; Hatipkarasulu and Tumay, 2011; Tumay et al., 2011;
Tumay et al., 2012).
The Vane Shear Test (VST) provides an indication of in-situ
undrained shear strength of saturated fine-grained soils (ASTM
D2573/D2573M-15). The test is applicable to soils with
undrained strengths of less than 200 kPa. The VST is used
extensively in a variety of geotechnical explorations to evaluate
rapid loading strength for total stress analysis of saturated fine-
grained clays and silts. Since vane shear strength values are
most always higher than field strengths for analyses they often
are checked or compared with other methods of measuring
undrained shear strength.

- 665 -
 Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Seoul 2017

2 DATA ANALYSIS Robertson et al. (1986), and Zhang and Tumay (1999) statistical
and fuzzy models. Figure 1 presents the multi-model analysis of
The data sets used in this paper includes six standard CPT representative data set 1 as an example. In this analysis, clayey
soundings with over 5000 data points (2 cm frequency) in East material was observed in the first 8 meters followed by silt
Orleans Parish, Louisiana and their corresponding VST and mixtures. Sand and sandy silt mixture layers were observed
laboratory test results. Each CPT sounding was analyzed using between 16 and 20 meters. All six models were in agreement
a multi model approach and KT Color System (Hatipkarasulu with this classification.
and Tumay, 2011). The analyses included Begemann (1965),
Douglas and Olsen (1981), modified Schmertmann (1978),

TIP RES (qc) SLEEVE FRIC (fs) FRIC RATIO (Rf) ZT99 Prob ZT99 Fuzzy Begemann 65 DouglasOlsen 81 Mod.Schmert. 85 Robertson et al. 86
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0

8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0

DEPTH (m)

10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0

12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0

14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0

16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0

18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0

20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 0.00 0.04 0.08 0.00 10.00 20.00 %0 %50 %100 0.0 1.0 2.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
MPa MPa %

Z&T Probabilistic (1999) Z&T Fuzzy (1999) Begemann (1965) Douglas & Olsen (1981) Mod. Schmertmann (1985) Robertson (1986)

% Clay HPC 1-Peat 1-Clay 1- Organic Clay 1. Sensitive fine grained

% Silt HPM 2-Clay 2-Silt Mixtures 2- V. Soft Inorganic Clay 2. Organic material
% Sand HPS 3-Clay and Loaom and Loam Soils 3-Sand Mixtures 3- Soft Inorganic Clay 3. Clay
4-Silty Sand, Clayey Soils 4-Sand 4- Med. Inorganic Clay 4. Silty clay to clay
5-Silty Sand 5- Stiff Clay 5. Clayey silt to silty clay
6-Coarse Sand w/ Gravel to Fine Sand 6- V. Siff Clay 6. Sandy silt to clayey silt
7-Off the Chart Sand 7- Silty Clay 7. Silty sand to sandy silt
8- Sandy Clay 8. Sand to silty sand
9- Clayey Sand 9. Sand
10- Clayey Sand and Silt 10. Gravelly sand to sand
11- Clayey Silt 11. Very stiff fine grained
12- Loose Sand 12. Sand to clayey sand
13- Silty Sand
14- Sand
15- Dense/Cemented Sand
16- Shell Sand/Lime Rock

Figure 1. Multi-Model Analysis for Data Set 1

An undrained shear strength value (Su) was calculated for each

CPT sounding using (Meigh, 1987): where, a mid-range default value of =0.8 was used in the
correction accounting for an approximate Plastic Index (PI)
CPT Su = qc / NC (1) value of 50. Although a simplified mid-range was used in this
paper, as noted by Bjerrum, this correction is very sensitive to
where, NC=20. It is important to note here that the overburden PI, where typical range of 0.6 to 1.0 can be used as and
pressure was not considered in this calculation. should be based on site specific observations as much as
The CPT Su values were then matched with corresponding possible.
strength values measured from VST, unconfined compression Figure 2 shows the matching CPT Su, VST Su, VST Su corr,
test (UC), and unconsolidated undrained triaxial test (UU) UC and UU values for representative data set 1 as an example.
results. The field VST strength measurements were corrected For all six data sets, CPT Su values show a similar trend with
with the Bjerrum (1972) factor using: corresponding VST Su and UC/UU strength values; however,
VST Su corr. = VST Su * (2) the spatial proximity of the CPT, VST, and boring tests is

- 666 -
 Technical Committee 102 / Comit technique 102

expected to have some impact on the calculated and measured 60

values. 50 y = 0.90x

CPT Su TIP (kPa)

0 40
R = 0.86
CPT Su
2 30
VST Su
VST Su corr
4 20
UC
UU
y = 0.72x + 4.82
6 10
R = 0.93
8 0
DEPTH (m)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60
10
60

CPT Su Mid Point (kPa)

12
50 y = 0.90x
14
40
R = 0.85
16 30

18 20
10
y = 0.74x + 4.56
20
0 20 40 60 R = 0.90
0
Shear Strength (kPa)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Figure 2. Shear Strength Profile for Data Set 1

Corrected VST Su (kPa)
Figure 4. Relationship between CPT Su and Corrected VST Su

Calculated CPT Su values for all six data sets were also
compared to the VST Su and UC/UU results. To account for As shown in Figures 3 and 4, there is a high level of
variances due to the instrument dimensions and test location correlation between CPT Su and VST Su results. Least squares
proximity, CPT Su comparison was performed using two fit for all data sets results in R2 > 0.90 for raw and corrected
different average windows. The first window assumes the strength values for both average windows. When a linear fit is
corresponding depth of the VST and UC/UU values as the tip of performed without intercept, CPT Su values are approximately
the instrument and averages a 20 cm window above this depth 72% of the raw VST Su values and 90% of the corrected VST
(10 points above the tip) marked as CPT Su TIP. The second Su values. In other words, the relationship between the CPT Su
window assumes the VST and UC/UU depth as the mid-point and VST Su measurements were:
of the instrument and assumes 10-cm above and below this
depth (5 points above and 5 points below). The effects of this CPT Su = 0.72 * VST Su (3)
window approach, which reduces the original 2-cm CPT
resolution and smooths the data, was discussed earlier by CPT Su = 0.90 * VST Su corr. (4)
Tumay and Hatipkarasulu (2012).
Figures 3 and 4 present the relationship between CPT Su and In Figure 5, the relationships between CPT Su and UC/UU
VST Su values for all six data sets using the two different values are shown. Trendlines were added individually to show
window averages. Trendlines were added to the analysis the comparison between CPT Su/UC and CPT Su/UU values.
showing a linear least squares fit with and without an intercept.
60
UU
60 50 y = 0.89x + 7.71
y = 0.72x
CPT Su TIP (kPa)

50 R = 0.75
R = 0.86 40
CPT Su TIP (kPa)

40
30
30
20
20 UC
y = 0.58x + 4.82 10 y = 0.66x + 6.97
10
R = 0.93 0
R = 0.72
0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
60
60 UC
CPT Su Mid Point (kPa)
CPT Su Mid Point (kPa)

y = 0.72x 50 y = 0.63x + 8.11

50
R = 0.85 40 R = 0.70
40
30 30

20 20
y = 0.59x + 4.56 UU
10 10
R = 0.90 y = 0.53x + 5.53
0
0 R = 0.47
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
VST Su (kPa)
UC and UU Shear Strength (kPa) UC UU
Figure 3. Relationship between CPT Su and VST Su Figure 5. Relationship between CPT Su and UU/UC

- 667 -
 Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Seoul 2017

Although following a visible trend, the relationship between Situ: Use of In Situ Tests in Geotechnical Engineering, Blacksburg,
CPT Su and UC/UU values show a larger variance. This Virginia, pp. 1263-1280.
variance can be attributed to the spatial proximity of the CPT Schmertmann, J.H. 1978. Guidelines for Cone Penetration Test,
and boring test locations which may result in depth and Performance and Design. Report No. FHWA-TS-78-209, U.S.
Tmay, M. T., HatipKarasulu, Y, Mlynarek, Z. and Wierzbicki, J. 2011.
thickness variability of the underground lithology. Effectiveness of CPT-based classification methods for
identification of subsoil stratigraphy. 15th European Conference on
Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Athens, Greece,
3 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS pp.91-98.
Tmay, M. T. and HatipKarasulu, Y. 2012. Effects of Data Smoothing
The cone penetration test is a robust, simple, fast, reliable, and and Reduction on CPT-Based Probabilistic Soil Classification.
economical test that provides continuous sounding of ISC4: Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterization, Porto
subsurface sediments. Over the years, several soil classification de GalingasPernambuko, Brazil. pp. 843-850.
models were developed to analyze the stratigraphy of subsoil Tmay, M.T., Hatipkarasulu, Y., Marx, E.R and Cotton, B. 2012. Multi
based on CPT data. This paper focuses on the relationships Model Subsurface Evaluation for Louisiana I-10 Bridge
between strength values calculated from the CPT data and VST Replacement Using Electronic CPT. ISC4: Geotechnical and
measurements. The calculated strength values from the CPT Geophysical Site Characterization, Porto de GalingasPernambuko,
data were also compared to corresponding unconfined Brazil. pp. 1281-1288
Zhang, Z., and Tumay, M.T. 1999. Statistical to Fuzzy Approach
compression and unconsolidated undrained triaxial tests. toward CPT Soil Classification. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and
A high level of correlation was observed between CPT and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 125, No. 3, pp. 179 186.
VST results where the CPT Su values were approximately 72%
of the raw VST Su values and 90% of the corrected VST Su
values. It is important to note that the overburden pressure was
not considered in CPT Su calculations and a simplified Nc value
of 20 was used in the analysis. The VST Su measurements were
corrected using a factor of 0.80 which represents a mid-range
value corresponding to an approximate plastic limit of 50. Site
specific adjustments to these values are expected to increase the
accuracy of analysis however; even with the simplified
assumptions there is a clear relationship between CPT and VST
trends. CPT Su and UC/UU measurements also show a visible
trend.
This study reinforces the need to perform greater in-situ
testing such as CPTs and VSTs, in order to obtain continuous
soil stratigraphy and accurate soil shear strength data, especially
for very soft to soft clay soils.

4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study rests on the interpretations of the field and laboratory
investigations conducted for the United States Army Corp of
Engineers (USACE). The contents of this paper reflect the
views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the
accuracy of the data presented herein, and do not necessarily
indicate official assessments of the agencies, firms and
institutions with which the authors are affiliated.

5 REFERENCES
ASTM D5778-12, Standard Test Method for Electronic Friction Cone
and Piezocone Penetration Testing of Soils, ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA, 2012, www.astm.org.
ASTM D2573 / D2573M-15, Standard Test Method for Field Vane
Shear Test in Saturated Fine-Grained Soils, ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA, 2015, www.astm.org.
Begemann, H. K. S., 1965. The Friction Jacket Cone as an Aid in
Determining the Soil Profile. 6th International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Montreal, Quebec, Canada,
Vol I, pp.17-20.
Bjerrum, L., 1972. Embankments on Soft Ground, ASCE Specialty
Conference on Performance of Earth and Earth-Supported
Structures, Vol. 2, pp.1-54.
Douglas, J. B., and Olsen, R. S. 1981. Soil Classification using Electric
Cone Penetrometer. Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing and
Experience, ASCE, St. Louis, MO, USA, pp. 209-227.
HatipKarasulu, Y. and Tumay, M.T. 2011. Practical Visual Presentation
Approach for CPT-Based Soil Characterization and Modelling.
Geotechnical Special Publication 211, ASCE, pp. 2387-2396.
Meigh, A.C., 1987. Cone Penetration Testing - Methods and
Interpretation, CIRIA, Butterworths, London.
Robertson, P. K., Campanella, R. G., Gillespie, D., and Greig, J. 1986.
Use of Piezometer Cone Data. ASCE Specialty Conference on In

- 668 -