Cone Penetration Testing with pore-pressure measurements (CPTu) is the main site characterization test because of its ability to provide stratigraphy, as well as mechanical and hydraulic properties. Malfunctioning of the piezocone equipment, as well as poor calibration and/or maintenance, can lead to poor data quality, and therefore, there are clear procedures in place to avoid such instances, which can be considered quite rare. However, saturation of the piezocone pore-pressure measuring system, which is a key to reliable results, is a significantly more common source of erroneous measurements. The great variety of saturation methods and media encountered in engineering practice is symptomatic of the empirical approaches applied to solve this type of uncertainty. We performed a systematic analysis of open-source data available from the UK, Germany, the Netherlands, and Belgium and analyzed the data to identify measurement repeatability and calculate the frequency of occurrence of inaccurate measurements in the pore pressure response based on site conditions. The analysis of pore-pressure measurements in clean sands, which was primarily based on the IJmuiden Ver wind farm in the Netherlands, showed that approximately 34% of the tests that appeared to follow a hydrostatic profile may nonetheless diverge significantly.
Citation: Efthymios Panagiotis, Alena Zhelezova, Irene Rocchi. Analysis of CPTu data from the North Sea region to estimate the frequency of inaccurate pore pressure measurements[J]. AIMS Geosciences, 2025, 11(2): 517-527. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2025021
Cone Penetration Testing with pore-pressure measurements (CPTu) is the main site characterization test because of its ability to provide stratigraphy, as well as mechanical and hydraulic properties. Malfunctioning of the piezocone equipment, as well as poor calibration and/or maintenance, can lead to poor data quality, and therefore, there are clear procedures in place to avoid such instances, which can be considered quite rare. However, saturation of the piezocone pore-pressure measuring system, which is a key to reliable results, is a significantly more common source of erroneous measurements. The great variety of saturation methods and media encountered in engineering practice is symptomatic of the empirical approaches applied to solve this type of uncertainty. We performed a systematic analysis of open-source data available from the UK, Germany, the Netherlands, and Belgium and analyzed the data to identify measurement repeatability and calculate the frequency of occurrence of inaccurate measurements in the pore pressure response based on site conditions. The analysis of pore-pressure measurements in clean sands, which was primarily based on the IJmuiden Ver wind farm in the Netherlands, showed that approximately 34% of the tests that appeared to follow a hydrostatic profile may nonetheless diverge significantly.
| [1] | Santos RS, Meyer EG, Peuchen J, et al. (2022) Calibration of cone penetrometers according to International Organization for Standardization requirements. Cone penetration testing 2022, USA: CRC Press, 121–126. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003308829-26 |
| [2] | McConnell A, Chapman M (2024) Does CPT reference value drift really inform CPT correctness? 7th International Conference on Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterization (ISC 24), Barcelona, Spain. |
| [3] | Parasie N, Sinjorgo G, Virelink L, et al. (2024) The importance of calibration laboratories in in-situ test methods. 7th International Conference on Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterization (ISC 24), Barcelona, Spain. |
| [4] | Scholey G (2024) Technical Note on Calibration for Cone Penetration Testing in Soft Soils. 7th International Conference on Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterization (ISC 24), Barcelona, Spain. |
| [5] | Paniagua P, Lunne T, Gundersen A, et al. (2018) CPTU results at a silt test site in Norway: effect of cone penetrometer type. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 710: 012010.https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/710/1/012010 |
| [6] |
Schneider JA, Randolph MF, Mayne PW, et al. (2008) Analysis of factors influencing soil classification using normalized piezocone tip resistance and pore pressure parameters. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 134: 1569–1586. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2008)134:11(1569) doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2008)134:11(1569)
|
| [7] | Ramsey N (2010) Some issues related to applications of the CPT. 2nd International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing, CPT'10, Huntington Beach, CA, USA, 47–69. |
| [8] | Sandven R (2010) Influence of test equipment and procedures on obtained accuracy in CPTU. 2nd International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing, CPT'10, Huntington Beach, CA, USA, 1–26. |
| [9] | Peuchen J, Terwindt J (2014) Introduction to CPT accuracy. 3rd international symposium on cone penetration testing CPT'14, USA, CRC Press, 1–45. |
| [10] | Peuchen J, Terwindt J (2015) Measurement uncertainty of offshore cone penetration tests. Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics Ⅲ: Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics (ISFOG 2015), Taylor & Francis Books Ltd., 1209–1214. https://doi.org/10.1201/b18442-182 |
| [11] | Kardan C, Viking K, Nik L, et al. (2016) Influence of operator performance on quality of CPTu results. Proceedings of the 17th Nordic geotechnical meeting. Challenges in Nordic geotechnics, Reykjavik, Iceland: Icelandic Geotechnical Society, 153–158. |
| [12] | Santos RS (2022) Uncertainties associated with COT data acquisition. Cone Penetration Testing 2022, CRC Press, USA, 121–126. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003308829-4 |
| [13] | DeJong JT, Yafrate NJ, DeGroot DJ (2007) Design of a Miniature Piezoprobe for High Resolution Stratigraphic Profiling. Geotech Test J 30: 292–302.https://doi.org/10.1520/GTJ100592 |
| [14] | De Backer G, Verastegui-Flores RD, Vervaele W, et al. (2022) Evaluation of parameters inducing desaturation of a piezocone: saturation liquid viscosity and exposure to dry sand. Cone Penetration Testing 2022, CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003308829-10 |
| [15] | Rocchi I, Zhelezova A (2024) Survey study of the engineering practice of piezocone devices with regards to saturation conditions. Nordic Geotechnical Meeting. |
| [16] | Lunne T, Ghanekar RK, Tucker GW, et al. (2022) The revival of multiple pore pressure measurements in the cone penetration test. Cone penetration testing 2022, CRC Press, USA, https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003308829-20 |
| [17] | Di Buò B, d'Ignazio M, Lånsivaara T, et al. (2022) Issues related to piezocone sleeve friction measurement accuracy in soft sensitive clays. Cone Penetration Testing 2022, CRC Press, USA, https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003308829-12 |
| [18] | McConnell AJ, Wassenaar EJC (2022) An innovative new 3MPa CPT—to detect and measure very small fs values. Cone Penetration Testing 2022, CRC Press, USA. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003308829-22 |
| [19] | Rocchi I, Tonni L, Gottardi G (2024) Quantitative Assessment of Tip Saturation for High Quality Piezocone Testing, Conference Proceedings Edited by CIMNE. https://dx.doi.org/10.23967/isc.2024.207 |
| [20] | International Organization for Standardization, ISO/DIS 19901-8: 2023: Petroleum and natural gas industries—specific requirements for offshore structures—part 8: marine soil investigations. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization, 2023. Available from: www.iso.org |
| [21] | Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology, Evaluation of measurement data—Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement, International Bureau of Weights and Measures (Sèvres, France), 2008. |
Figures(5) / Tables(2)
Efthymios Panagiotis, Alena Zhelezova, Irene Rocchi. Analysis of CPTu data from the North Sea region to estimate the frequency of inaccurate pore pressure measurements[J]. AIMS Geosciences, 2025, 11(2): 517-527. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2025021
DownLoad: