Use of Norwegian National Test Sites to evaluate CPTU correlations embedded in software

Tom Lunne; Luisa Dhimitri; John Powell; Santiago Quinteros; Tom Lunne; Luisa Dhimitri; John Powell; Santiago Quinteros

doi:10.3934/geosci.2025032

AIMS Geosciences

2025, Volume 11, Issue 3: 753-789. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2025032

Previous Article Next Article

Research article Special Issues

Use of Norwegian National Test Sites to evaluate CPTU correlations embedded in software

1.
Offshore Geotechnics, Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, P.O. Box 3930, Oslo N-0806, Norway
2.
Geotech Engineer, UK
3.
Geolabs Limited, Bucknalls Lane, Garston, Watford, WD25 9XX, UK

Received: 28 February 2025 Revised: 14 July 2025 Accepted: 28 July 2025 Published: 04 September 2025

Commercial software packages that utilise published CPTU correlations are frequently used for quick presentation of soil parameters such as soil unit weight, over consolidation ratio, undrained shear strength, lateral stress ratio, and peak friction angle. It is a well-known fact that such correlations are not globally valid, but many practitioners use the parameters obtained this way even in foundation design. At the Norwegian soft clay, quick clay, silt, and sand sites, high quality sampling and laboratory testing have resulted in a consistent representative database of reliable soil parameters. Moreover, high quality results of CPTU, seismic cones, self-boring pressuremeter and a novel flow cone tool are also available at the sites. Using these high-quality benchmark parameters gives an excellent opportunity to evaluate the validity of the soil parameters derived from 18 published CPTU correlations used in commercial software packages. For transparency, the correlations are described in some detail with full reference to the source. A comparison of correlation derived parameters and reliable laboratory-based benchmark soil parameters showed that the use of global correlations can be too conservative and, in some cases, dangerous. Local correlations are not only recommended but are essential for design. In this study, we did not cover highly overconsolidated clays and very dense sands, though similar conclusions on those soils may be expected.
- CPT correlations,
- clay,
- quick clay,
- silt,
- sand,
- high-quality samples,
- unit weight
Citation: Tom Lunne, Luisa Dhimitri, John Powell, Santiago Quinteros. Use of Norwegian National Test Sites to evaluate CPTU correlations embedded in software[J]. AIMS Geosciences, 2025, 11(3): 753-789. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2025032

Related Papers:

Abstract

Commercial software packages that utilise published CPTU correlations are frequently used for quick presentation of soil parameters such as soil unit weight, over consolidation ratio, undrained shear strength, lateral stress ratio, and peak friction angle. It is a well-known fact that such correlations are not globally valid, but many practitioners use the parameters obtained this way even in foundation design. At the Norwegian soft clay, quick clay, silt, and sand sites, high quality sampling and laboratory testing have resulted in a consistent representative database of reliable soil parameters. Moreover, high quality results of CPTU, seismic cones, self-boring pressuremeter and a novel flow cone tool are also available at the sites. Using these high-quality benchmark parameters gives an excellent opportunity to evaluate the validity of the soil parameters derived from 18 published CPTU correlations used in commercial software packages. For transparency, the correlations are described in some detail with full reference to the source. A comparison of correlation derived parameters and reliable laboratory-based benchmark soil parameters showed that the use of global correlations can be too conservative and, in some cases, dangerous. Local correlations are not only recommended but are essential for design. In this study, we did not cover highly overconsolidated clays and very dense sands, though similar conclusions on those soils may be expected.

References

[1]	L'Heureux J-S, Lunne T (2019) 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
[2]	L'Heureux JS, Lunne T, Lacasse S, et al. (2017) Norway's National GeoTest Site Research Infrastructure (NGTS), Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Seoul.
[3]	Gundersen AS, Hansen RC, Lunne T, et al. (2019) Characterization and engineering properties of the NGTS Onsøy soft clay site. AIMS Geosci 5: 665–703. https://doi.org/10.3934/geosci.2019.3.665 doi: 10.3934/geosci.2019.3.665
[4]	L'Heureux JS, Lindgård A, Emdal A (2019) The Tiller-Flotten research site: Geotechnical characterization of a very sensitive clay deposit. AMIS Geosci 5: 831–867. https://doi.org/10.3934/geosci.2019.4.831 doi: 10.3934/geosci.2019.4.831
[5]	Blaker Ø, Carroll R, Paniagua P, et al. (2019) Halden research site: geotechnical characterization of a post glacial silt. AIMS Geosci 5: 184–234. https://doi.org/10.3934/geosci.2019.2.184 doi: 10.3934/geosci.2019.2.184
[6]	Quinteros S, Gundersen A, L'Heureux JS, et al. (2019) Øysand research site: Geotechnical characterisation of deltaic sandy-silty soils. AIMS Geosci 5: 750–783. https://doi.org/10.3934/geosci.2019.4.750 doi: 10.3934/geosci.2019.4.750
[7]	Long M, Lunne T, Forsberg CF (2003) Characterisation and engineering properties of Onsøy clay, In: Tan TS, Phoon KK, Hight DW, et al. Eds., Characterisation and engineering properties of natural soils, Singapore, Balkema, 395–427.
[8]	ISO 22476-1, Geotechnical investigation and testing—Field testing—Part 1: Electrical cone and piezocone penetration test, Standards from ISO are available both individually, directly through the ANSI webstore, and as part of a Standards Subscription.
[9]	Lunne T, Strandvik S, Kåsin K, et al. (2018) Effect of cone penetrometer type on CPTU results at a soft clay site in Norway, Cone Penetration Testing 2018, Delft, The Netherlands, Taylor & Francis, 417–422.
[10]	Paniagua P, Lunne T, Gundersen A, et al. (2021) CPTU results at a silt test site in Norway: Effect of cone penetrometer type, IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, IOP Publishing Ltd.
[11]	Lindgård A, Gundersen A, Lunne T, et al. (2018) Effect of cone type on measured CPTU results from Tiller-Flotten quick clay site. Proceedings Geoteknikkdagen 2018 Oslo, 38: 1–15.
[12]	Quinteros VS (2022) On the initial fabric and triaxial behaviour of an undisturbed and reconstituted fluvial sand, Imperial College London.
[13]	Lunne T, Powell JJM, Robertson PK (1997) Cone Penetration Testing in Geotechnical Practice, New York. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781482295047
[14]	Robertson PK, Campanella RG, Gillespie D, et al. (1986) Use of Piezometer Cone Data, Use of In-Situ Tests in Geotechnical Engineering, In-Situ 86, (GSP 6), 1263–1280. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285689813_Use_of_Piezometer_Cone_Data.
[15]	Robertson PK, Cabal KL (2010) Estimating soil unit weight from CPT, 2nd International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing, CPT 10, California, USA, 447–454.
[16]	Mayne PW, Peuchen J (2013) Unit weight trends with cone resistance in soft to firm clays, Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterization: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Site Characterization ISC-4, Boca Raton, 1: 903–910.
[17]	Mayne PW (2014) Interpretation of geotechnical parameters from seismic piezocone tests, In: Robertson PK, Cabal KI, Eds., 3rd International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, ISSMGE Technical Committee TC, 102: 47–73.
[18]	Mayne PW (2007) NCHRP Synthesis: Cone Penetration Testing State-of-Practice, Transportation Research Board, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 118. Available from: www.trb.org.
[19]	Mayne PW (2001) Stress-strain-strength-flow parameters from enhanced in-situ tests, On In Situ Measurement of Soil Properties and Case Histories, Bali, Indonesia, 27–48.
[20]	Mayne PW (2005) Keynote: integrated Ground Behavior: In Situ and Lab Tests, In: Di Benedetto H, Doanh T, Geoffroy H, et al. Eds., Deformation Characteristics of Geomaterials, Lyon, 154–176.
[21]	Been K, Quiñonez A, Sancio RB (2010) Interpretation of the CPT in engineering practice, In: Robertson PK, Mayne PW, Eds., 2nd International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing, Huntington Beach, CA, USA, 1–18.
[22]	Robertson PK, Cabal KL (2010) Guide to Cone Penetration Testing for Geotechnical Engineering, Signal Hill, California, Gregg Drilling & Testing Inc.
[23]	Ladd CC, Foott R (1974) New design procedure for stability of soft clays. J Geotech Eng Div 100: 763–786. https://doi.org/10.1061/AJGEB6.0000066 doi: 10.1061/AJGEB6.0000066
[24]	Kulhawy FH, Mayne PW (1990) Manual on estimating soil properties for foundation design, United States.
[25]	Tavenas F, Leroueil S (1987) State-of-the art, laboratory and in situ stress strain-time, International Symposium on Geotechnical Engineering of Soft Soils, 1–146.
[26]	Mayne PW, Peuchen J (2022) Undrained shear strength of clays from piezocone tests: A database approach, In: Gottardi G, Tonni L, Eds., Cone Penetration Testing 2022, Bologna, CRC Press, 546–551.
[27]	Mayne PW, Ethan C, James G (2023) The cone penetration test: A CPT Design Parameter Manual. Available from: ConeTec Group, Canada.
[28]	Jefferies M, Been K (2015) Soil liquefaction: a critical state approach, CRC Press.
[29]	Uzielli M, Mayne P, Cassidy M (2013) Probabilistic assignment of design strength for sands from in-situ testing data, Advances in Soil Mechanics & Geotechnical Engineering (series), Amsterdam, IOS-Millpress, 214–227. https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-163-2-214
[30]	Baldi G, Bellotti R, Ghionna V, et al. (1986) Interpretation of CPTs and CPTUs; 2nd part: drained penetration of sands, Proceedings of the Fourth International Geotechnical Seminar, Singapore, 143–156.
[31]	Mayne PW, Rix GJ (1995) Correlations between shear wave velocity and cone resistance in natural clays. Soils Found 35: 107–110. https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf1972.35.2_107 doi: 10.3208/sandf1972.35.2_107
[32]	Robertson PK (2009) Interpretation of cone penetration tests—A unified approach. Can Geotech J 46: 1337–1355. https://doi.org/10.1139/T09-065 doi: 10.1139/T09-065
[33]	Robertson PK (2010) Estimating in-situ soil permeability from CPT & CPTu, 2nd International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing, California, USA. 2: 535–542.
[34]	Powell JJM, Dhimitri L (2022) Watch out for the use of global correlations and "black box" interpretation of CPTU data, Cone Penetration Testing 2022, Bologna, CRC Press/Balkema, 651–656.
[35]	Quinteros VS, Carraro JAH, L'Heureux J-S, et al. (2024) Disturbance of sand samples obtained by piston samplers and ground freezing, Proceedings of the 8^th international Symposium on Deformation Characteeristics of Geomaterial (IS-Porto 2023). 544. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202454403001
[36]	Powell JJM, Dhimitri L, Ward D, et al. (2016) Small Strain Stiffness assessments from in situ tests—revisited, Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterisation 5, Sydne, Australia, Australian Geomechanics Society, 1253–1258.
[37]	Long M (2022) Practical use of shear wave velocity measurements from SCPTU in clays, Cone Penetration Testing 2022, CRC Press/Balkema, 28–52.
[38]	Powell JJM, Butcher AP (2004) Small Strain Stiffness assessments from in situ tests, ISC2 Porto, Porto, 1717–1722.
[39]	Gundersen AS, Carotenuto P, Lunne T, et al. (2019) Field verification tests of the newly developed flow cone tool—In-situ measurements of hydraulic soil properties. AIMS Geosci 5: 784–803. https://doi.org/10.3934/geosci.2019.4.784 doi: 10.3934/geosci.2019.4.784
[40]	Jamiolkowski M, Ladd CC, Germaine JT, et al. (1985) New developments in field and laboratory testing of soils, 11th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, San Francisco, California, 57–153.
[41]	Dhimitri L, Powell JJM, (2023) Constrained modulus of fine-grained soils from in situbased correlations and comparison with laboratory tests, Proceedings of the 8^th international Symposium on Deformation Characteristics of Geomaterial. Available from: https://www.issmge.org/uploads/publications/121/122/isdcg2023-165-1-c.pdf.

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)