An automated system for determining soil parameters from in situ tests: Application to a sand site

Islam Marzouk; Andreas Erdian Wijaya; Helmut F Schweiger; Franz Tschuchnigg; Islam Marzouk; Andreas Erdian Wijaya; Helmut F Schweiger; Franz Tschuchnigg

doi:10.3934/geosci.2025020

AIMS Geosciences

2025, Volume 11, Issue 2: 489-516. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2025020

Previous Article Next Article

Research article Special Issues

An automated system for determining soil parameters from in situ tests: Application to a sand site

Institute of Soil Mechanics, Foundation Engineering and Computational Geotechnics, Graz University of Technology, 8010, Graz, Austria

Received: 25 February 2025 Revised: 05 May 2025 Accepted: 26 May 2025 Published: 11 June 2025

In situ testing plays a crucial role in geotechnical engineering, both in identifying soil stratification and in determining soil parameters. This paper presents an automated framework for determining constitutive model parameters from in situ test data. The framework was built on a graph-based approach, ensuring both transparency and adaptability. Transparency was achieved by explicitly tracing how each parameter is computed, while adaptability allows users to incorporate their expertise. This study applied the framework to cone penetration test (CPT) measurements at the sand site of the Norwegian GeoTest Sites. Furthermore, it established a link between the parameter determination system and finite element analysis, where parameters for the Clay and Sand model were derived and used to numerically simulate CPT at the site employing the finite element code G-PFEM. The material model parameters were evaluated by comparing the simulated sounding with the measured CPT data. The framework is particularly beneficial in the early stages of projects, offering detailed soil characterization when site data is scarce. Future work focuses on evaluating the accuracy of the derived parameters and expanding the framework to integrate additional in situ tests.
- CPT,
- DMT,
- $ V_s $,
- In situ testing,
- Graph theory,
- Soil parameters,
- G-PFEM
Citation: Islam Marzouk, Andreas Erdian Wijaya, Helmut F Schweiger, Franz Tschuchnigg. An automated system for determining soil parameters from in situ tests: Application to a sand site[J]. AIMS Geosciences, 2025, 11(2): 489-516. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2025020

Related Papers:

Abstract

In situ testing plays a crucial role in geotechnical engineering, both in identifying soil stratification and in determining soil parameters. This paper presents an automated framework for determining constitutive model parameters from in situ test data. The framework was built on a graph-based approach, ensuring both transparency and adaptability. Transparency was achieved by explicitly tracing how each parameter is computed, while adaptability allows users to incorporate their expertise. This study applied the framework to cone penetration test (CPT) measurements at the sand site of the Norwegian GeoTest Sites. Furthermore, it established a link between the parameter determination system and finite element analysis, where parameters for the Clay and Sand model were derived and used to numerically simulate CPT at the site employing the finite element code G-PFEM. The material model parameters were evaluated by comparing the simulated sounding with the measured CPT data. The framework is particularly beneficial in the early stages of projects, offering detailed soil characterization when site data is scarce. Future work focuses on evaluating the accuracy of the derived parameters and expanding the framework to integrate additional in situ tests.

References

[1]	Brinkgreve RBJ (2019) Automated Model And Parameter Selection: Incorporating Expert Input into Geotechnical Analyses. GEOSTRATA Mag 23: 38–45. https://doi.org/10.1061/geosek.0000115. doi: 10.1061/geosek.0000115
[2]	Van Berkom IE, Brinkgreve RBJ, Lengkeek HJ, et al. (2022) An automated system to determine constitutive model parameters from in situ tests. Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering.
[3]	Marzouk I, Brinkgreve RBJ, Lengkeek HJ, et al. (2024) APD: An automated parameter determination system based on in-situ tests. Comput Geotech 176: 106799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2024.106799. doi: 10.1016/j.compgeo.2024.106799
[4]	Gansner ER (2011) Drawing graph with Graphviz. AT&T Bell Laboratories.
[5]	Marzouk I, Granitzer AN, Rauter S, et al. (2024) A Case Study on Advanced CPT Data Interpretation: From Stratification to Soil Parameters. Geotech Geol Eng 42: 4087–4113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-024-02774-9. doi: 10.1007/s10706-024-02774-9
[6]	Lunne T, Christoffersen HP (1983) Interpretation of Cone Penetrometer Data for Offshore Sands. Offshore Technology Conference. https://doi.org/10.4043/4464-MS. doi: 10.4043/4464-MS
[7]	Robertson PK (2010a) Soil Behaviour Type from the CPT: An Update. 2nd International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing, Huntington Beach: Cone Penetration Testing Organizing Committee, 575–583.
[8]	Marzouk I, Oberhollenzer S, Tschuchnigg F (2023) An automated system for determining soil parameters: Case study. Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Deformation Characteristics of Geomaterials. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202454404002.
[9]	Marzouk I, Tschuchnigg F, Brinkgreve RBJ (2023) Expansion of an automated system for determining soil parameters using in-situ tests. Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Numerical Methods in Geotechnical Engineering (NUMGE 2023), London. https://doi.org/10.53243/NUMGE2023-70.
[10]	Marzouk I, Tschuchnigg F (2024) A combined approach to Automated Parameter Determination (APD). Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterization, Barcelona. https://doi.org/10.23967/isc.2024.071.
[11]	L'Heureux JS, Lunne T (2020) Characterization and Engineering properties of Natural Soils used for Geotesting. AIMS Geosci 6: 35–53. https://doi.org/10.3934/geosci.2020004. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2020004
[12]	Doherty JP, Gourvenec S, Gaone FM, et al. (2018) A novel web based application for storing, managing and sharing geotechnical data, illustrated using the national soft soil field testing facility in Ballina, Australia. Comput Geotech 93: 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2017.05.007. doi: 10.1016/j.compgeo.2017.05.007
[13]	Quinteros VS, Gundersen A, L'Heureux JS, et al. (2019) Øysand research site: Geotechnical characterisation of deltaic sandy-silty. AIMS Geosci 5: 750–783. https://doi.org/10.3934/geosci.2019.4.750. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2019.4.750
[14]	Quinteros VS (2022) On the initial fabric and triaxial behaviour of an undisturbed and reconstituted fluvial sand. Ph.D. Thesis. UK: Imperial College London.
[15]	Robertson PK, Cabal KL (2010) Estimating soil unit weight from CPT. Proceedings, 2nd International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing, Huntington Beach, California, USA.
[16]	Lengkeek HJ, Brinkgreve RBJ (2022) CPT-based unit weight estimation extended to soft organic clays and peat: An update. Cone Penetration Testing 2022,503–508. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003308829-71. doi: 10.1201/9781003308829-71
[17]	Mayne PW (2014) Interpretation of geotechnical parameters from seismic piezocone tests.
[18]	Mayne PW, Cargil E, Greig J (2023) A CPT Design Parameter Manual. ConeTec Group.
[19]	Kulhawy FH, Mayne PW (1990) Manual on Estimating Soil Properties for Foundation Design. New York: Electric Power Research Institute.
[20]	Jamiolkowski M, Lo Presti DCF, Manassero M (2001) Evaluation of Relative Density and Shear Strength of Sands from CPT and DMT. American Society of Civil Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1061/40659(2003)7.
[21]	Jamiolkowski M, Ladd CC, Germaine JT, et al. (1985) New developments in field and laboratory testing of soils. Proceedings of 11th Interational Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering 1: 57–153.
[22]	Baldi G, Bellotti R, Ghionna V, et al. (1986) Interpretation of CPTs and CPTUs–2nd part: Drained penetration of sands. Proceedings of the 4th International Geotechnical Seminar Field Instrumentation and In-Situ Measurements, 143–156.
[23]	Tanaka H, Tanaka M (1998) Characterization of Sandy Soils Using CPT and DMT. Soils Found 38:3, 55–65. https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf.38.3_55. doi: 10.3208/sandf.38.3_55
[24]	Robertson PK, Cabal KL (2014) Guide to cone penetration testing for geotechnical engineering. 3rd International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing (CPT14, Las Vegas).
[25]	Robertson PK, Campanella RG (1983) Interpretation of cone penetration tests. Part Ⅰ: Sand. Can Geotech J 20:4,718–733. https://doi.org/10.1139/t83-078. doi: 10.1139/t83-078
[26]	Uzielli M, Mayne PW, Cassidy MJ (2013) Probabilistic assignment of design strength for sands from in-situ testing data. In: Modern Geotechnical Design Codes of Practice. IOS Press, 214–227. https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-163-2-214.
[27]	Niazi F (2021) CPT-Based Geotechnical Design Manual, Volume 1: CPT Interpretation— Estimation of Soil Properties. https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284317346.
[28]	Mayne PW (2006) In-situ test calibrations for evaluating soil parameters. In: Characterisation and Engineering Properties of Natural Soils. CRC Press.
[29]	Baldi G, Bellotti R, Ghionna VN, et al. (1989) Modulus of sands from CPT's and DMT's. Proceedings of the 12th international conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering.
[30]	Hegazy YA, Mayne PW (1995) Statistical correlations between Vs and CPT data for different soil types.
[31]	Andrus RD, Mohanan NP, Piratheepan P, et al. (2007) Predicting shear-wave velocity from cone penetration resistance. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering.
[32]	Tonni L, Simonini P (2013) Shear wave velocity as function of cone penetration test measurements in sand and silt mixtures. Eng Geol 163: 55–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2013.06.005. doi: 10.1016/j.enggeo.2013.06.005
[33]	Hegazy YA, Mayne PW (2006) A Global Statistical Correlation between Shear Wave Velocity and Cone Penetration Data. American Society of Civil Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1061/40861(193)31.
[34]	McGann CR, Bradley BA, Taylor ML, et al. (2015) Development of an empirical correlation for predicting shear wave velocity of Christchurch soils from cone penetration test data. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 75: 66–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2015.03.023. doi: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2015.03.023
[35]	Fear CE, Robertson PK (1995) Estimating the undrained strength of sand: a theoretical framework. Can Geotech J 32: 859–870. https://doi.org/10.1139/t95-082. doi: 10.1139/t95-082
[36]	Plewes HD, Davies MP, Jefferies MG (1992) CPT based screening procedure for evaluating liquefaction susceptibility. Proceedings of the 45th Canadian Geotechnical Conference, 1–9.
[37]	Robertson PK (2022) Evaluation of flow liquefaction and liquefied strength using the cone penetration test: an update. Can Geotech J 59: 620–624. https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2020-0657. doi: 10.1139/cgj-2020-0657
[38]	Robertson PK (2010b) Estimating in-situ soil permeability from CPT and CPTu. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing.
[39]	Jefferies M, Been K (2006) Soil Liquefaction. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203301968.
[40]	Mayne PW, Coop M, Springman S, et al. (2009) State-of-the-art paper (SOA-1): geomaterial behavior and testing.
[41]	Mayne PW, Kulhawy FH (1982) Ko - OCR Relationships in Soil. J Geotech Eng Div 108: 851–872. https://doi.org/10.1061/AJGEB6.0001306. doi: 10.1061/AJGEB6.0001306
[42]	Mayne PW (2017) Stress History of Soils from Cone Penetration Tests. Soils Rocks 40: 203–218.
[43]	Yu HS (1998) CASM: a unified state parameter model for clay and sand. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 22: 621–653. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-9853(199808)22:8<621::AID-NAG937>3.0.CO;2-8. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1096-9853(199808)22:8<621::AID-NAG937>3.0.CO;2-8
[44]	Monforte L (2018) Insertion problems in geomechanics with the particle finite element method. PhD thesis. Universitat Politecnica De Catalunya.
[45]	Teh CI, Houlsby GT (1991) An analytical study of the cone penetration test in clay. Géotechnique 41: 17–34. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1991.41.1.17. doi: 10.1680/geot.1991.41.1.17
[46]	Rowe PW (1962) The stress-dilatancy relation for static equilibrium of an assembly of particles in contact. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1962.0193.
[47]	Mánica MA, Arroyo M, Gens A, et al. (2022) Application of a critical state model to the Merriespruit tailings dam failure. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Geotechnical Engineering 175: 151–165. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgeen.21.00001. doi: 10.1680/jgeen.21.00001
[48]	Bentley System Inc. (2024a) PLAXIS 2D (24.2).
[49]	Bentley System Inc. (2024b) PLAXIS CASM UDSM.
[50]	Wang J (2005) The Stress-Strain and Strength Characteristics of Portaway Sand. Ph.D. Thesis. UK: University of Nottingham.
[51]	Monforte L, Arroyo M, Carbonell JM, et al. (2017) Numerical simulation of undrained insertion problems in geotechnical engineering with the Particle Finite Element Method (PFEM). Comput Geotech 82: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2016.08.013. doi: 10.1016/j.compgeo.2016.08.013
[52]	Dadvand P, Rossi R, Oñate E (2010) An Object-oriented Environment for Developing Finite Element Codes for Multi-disciplinary Applications. Arch Computat Methods Eng 17: 253–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11831-010-9045-2. doi: 10.1007/s11831-010-9045-2
[53]	Monforte L, Carbonell JM, Arroyo M, et al. (2017) Performance of mixed formulations for the particle finite element method in soil mechanics problems. Comp Part Mech 4: 269–284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40571-016-0145-0. doi: 10.1007/s40571-016-0145-0
[54]	Duran D, Monforte L, Arroyo M, et al. (2024) Numerical analysis of cone penetration testing in anisotropic clayey materials. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterization, 1955–1959.
[55]	Halleux A, Boschi K, Flessati L, et al. (2024) G-PFEM-aided derivation of undrained shear strength of organic clays from CPT data. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterization, 1896–1902.
[56]	Hauser L, Oberhollenzer S, Gharehaghajlou A, et al. (2022) Recalculation of in-situ CPTu in intermediate soils using G-PFEM. Cone Penetration Testing 2022, 445–451. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003308829-62. doi: 10.1201/9781003308829-62
[57]	Monforte L, Gens A, Arroyo M, et al. (2021) Analysis of cone penetration in brittle liquefiable soils. Comput Geotech 134: 104123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2021.104123. doi: 10.1016/j.compgeo.2021.104123
[58]	Boschi K, Monforte L, Arroyo M, et al. (2023) Effects of drainage conditions on state parameter inversion from CPTu. Proceedings of 10th European Conference on Numerical Methods in Geotechnical Engineering.
[59]	Bernando K, Tasso N, Sottile M, et al. (2024) A method to estimate the state parameter from CPTu soundings using Pocket G-PFEM. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterization, 1625–1632.
[60]	Hauser L, Schweiger HF (2021) Numerical study on undrained cone penetration in structured soil using G-PFEM. Comput Geotech 133: 104061. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2021.104061. doi: 10.1016/j.compgeo.2021.104061
[61]	Hauser L (2022) Numerical analysis of cone penetration in silty deposits using the Particle Finite Element Method. PhD thesis. Graz University of Techlogy.
[62]	International Organization for Standardization (2012) Geotechnical investigation and testing - Field testing: Electrical cone and piezocone penetration test.
[63]	Subba Rao KS, Allam MM, Robinson RG (2000) Drained shear strength of fine-grained soil-solid surface interfaces. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Geotechnical Engineering 143: 75-81. https://doi.org/10.1680/geng.2000.143.2.75. doi: 10.1680/geng.2000.143.2.75

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2025 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)