3rd International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA - 2014

Cavity expansion analysis for interpretation of CPT data in layered

soils
P.Q. Mo, A.M. Marshall & H.S. Yu
Nottingham Centre for Geomechanics, University of Nottingham, UK

ABSTRACT: The application of analytical cavity expansion solutions to the interpretation of CPT results
in layered soils is provided in this paper. An analytical prediction of tip resistance in two-layered soils is
provided, with an accompanying parametric study to highlight the effect of respective soil properties
(strength, stiffness) on CPT measurements within the influence zones adjacent to the soil interfaces. A
method for prediction of penetration response in multi-layered soils is also presented by superposition of
layered effects, followed by a discussion of thin-layer effects. The results of this approach are compared
against experimental data and numerical simulations.

1 INTRODUCTION

The cone penetration test (CPT) has been widely used in geotechnical engineering practice to obtain soil
profiles and measure in-situ soil properties because of the reliability and repeatability of the CPT meas-
urements. Many correlations between CPT data and soil properties have been proposed for interpretation
of measurements and application to geotechnical problems (i.e. foundation design). Although most of the
interpretation still relies very heavily on empirical or semi-empirical correlations with inherent limitations
(e.g. Robertson 1990), some theoretical and analytical solutions have been developed for analysis of cone
resistance, as reviewed by Yu & Mitchell (1998).
Natural soil deposits consist of layers with varying thickness and mechanical properties. An objective
of CPT data interpretation is the delineation of interfaces between soil layers in order to produce an accu-
rate profile of subsurface soil features. The interpretation of CPT data in layered soils is complicated by
the fact that readings are influenced not only by the soil at the location of the cone tip but also by layers
of soil at some distance beneath and above it.
There has been relatively little research done on the effect of soil layering on CPT measurements. A
small number of experiments (e.g. Treadwell 1976, Silva & Bolton 2004, Mo et al. 2013) have been car-
ried out that provide observations of the transition through soil layers. Numerical simulations (van den
Berg et al. 1996, Ahmadi & Robertson 2005, Xu & Lehane 2008, Walker & Yu 2010) have been con-
ducted for the analysis of layered effects and influence zones around soil interfaces. The first analytical
solution for penetration in layered soils was proposed by Vreugdenhil et al. (1994), which is an approxi-
mate solution for simple linear-elastic media.
In this paper, analytical cavity expansion solutions in two concentric zones are applied for the interpre-
tation of CPT data in layered soils. The transition of cone tip resistance in layered soils is estimated using
a proposed method for combining the cavity pressures in the two-layer soil system. The analysis of cone
tip resistance transition is provided to investigate the effects of respective soil properties. The penetration
in multi-layered soils is also presented by the superposition of layered effects in a two-layer system.

331
2 CAVITY EXPANSION SOLUTIONS IN TWO LAYERED SOILS

2.1 Cavity expansion method and its application to geotechnical engineering

The cavity expansion theory, as reviewed by Yu (2000), is concerned with the stress and displacement
fields around cavities and has been extensively developed and used for the study of a wide range of engi-
neering problems. Many analytical cavity expansion solutions have been proposed using various constitu-
tive soil models (Vesic 1972, Carter et al. 1986, Yu & Houlsby 1991, Salgado et al. 1997). The applica-
tion to geotechnical engineering is mainly in the areas of in-situ soil testing, deep foundation, tunnels and
underground excavations (e.g. Randolph et al. 1994, Yu & Rowe 1999, Salgado & Prezzi 2007, Marshall
2012, Mo et al. 2014).
Since the analogy between cavity expansion and cone penetration was suggested by Bishop et al.
(1945), many correlations have been proposed to relate the cone resistance (qc) to cavity pressure (Pa)
(Vesic 1972, Ladanyi & Johnston 1974, Yu 1993, Yasufuku & Hyde 1995, Salgado et al. 1997). The cor-
relations used in this paper were proposed by Yasufuku & Hyde (1995) and Ladanyi & Johnston (1974)
for cohesionless and cohesive soils, respectively, as shown in Equation 1.
( ) ( )
{ (1)
( )
where is the friction angle and su is the undrained shear strength.
The cavity expansion analysis was used by Bernard & Hanagud (1975) for the study of projectile
penetration in layered media and later applied to the field of geomechanics by Sayed & Hamed (1987) for
purely elastic conditions. Mo et al. (2014) were the first to provide a complete large-strain expansion
analysis for non-associated Mohr-Coulomb materials in layered media.

2.2 Solutions in two layered soils

Mo et al. (2014) developed analytical solutions (based on Yu & Houlsby, 1991) to consider a profile of
two concentrically layered soils. The soil was treated as an isotropic dilatant elastic-perfectly plastic ma-
terial with a Mohr-Coulomb yield criterion and a non-associated flow rule. Large-strain quasi-static ex-
pansion of both spherical and cylindrical cavities was considered. Figure 1 shows the model of cavity ex-
pansion in two concentrically layered soils. Mo et al. (2014) presented the complete large strain
expansion solutions, with expressions for stresses, strains, and displacements within the elastic and plastic
regions. The analytical results were validated against numerical solutions and a simple approach for ap-
plying the method to the interpretation of CPT data in two-layered soils was provided.

Elastic-B
Soil B
Plastic-B

Elastic-A
Soil A
Plastic-A
0

0 a

0
A

(a) (b)
Figure 1. Illustration of cavity expansion in two concentrically layered soils: (a) prior to expansion, (b) at specific stage of ex-
pansion.

332
3 INTERPRETATION OF CPT DATA IN LAYERED SOILS

3.1 Analysis for two-layered soils

The cone penetration process at a given depth is modeled as a spherical cavity which is expanded slowly
from an initial diameter close in size to the average grain size of the soil to a final size corresponding to
the diameter of the penetrometer (B). The cone tip resistance is then related to the corresponding cavity
pressure that is calculated. For penetration in two layered soils, the analogy between the cone penetration
test and cavity expansion is shown in Figure 2a. The distance from the penetrometer to soil interface (H)
corresponds to the radius of the Soil A/B interface in the analytical solution. The cavity pressures at all
locations within both soil layers can be calculated, as shown by the dashed lines in Figure 2b. Figure 2b
also illustrates the simple approach to obtain the interpolated cavity pressure curve (Pa,int) based on the re-
sistance ratio at a distance of probe diameter B above and beneath the interface. The situation of penetra-
tion from a weaker soil into a stronger soil is considered in this paper.

Cone penetration Cavity expansion Pa

Pa,s
1

B Pa,interface
a = B/2

b0 = H interpolated calculated from cavity

transition line: Pa,int expansion analysis
2
H
Upper soil Soil A
Pa,w
H H

weak soil B B strong soil

Lower soil Soil B
(a) (b)
Figure 2. (a) Schematic of cone penetration and cavity expansion in two layered soils and (b) the combination approach.

The cavity pressure ratio (0) (Figure 3a), defined in Equation 2, gives the trend of interpolated cavity
pressure (Pa,int) from the analytical solution in a two-layered system. This curve is also used to smooth the
transition of soil properties applied to estimate cone tip resistance based on the employed correlations
(Equation 1). The cone tip resistance ratio () (Figure 3b), defined in Equation 3, represents the transi-
tion of tip resistance (qc) from the weak to the strong soil (varies from 0 to 1). The influence zones in the
weak and strong soils, referred as Zw and Zs, respectively, are defined as areas where 0.05 < < 0.95 (Xu
& Lehane 2008). Some unpublished work by the authors showed that this method for determining re-
sistance ratio compares well against results from numerical simulations presented in Ahmadi & Robert-
son (2005) and Xu & Lehane (2008).
( ) ( ) (2)
( ) ( ) (3)

3.2 Analysis for multi-layered soils

For cone penetration in multi-layered soils in which a soil layer is very thin, the cone tip resistance within
the sandwich layer will be affected by both the preceding and subsequent soil layers. As a result, inter-
pretation of CPT data in thin layers may over-predict or under-predict soil properties. To investigate thin
layer effects on CPT measurements using the developed analytical method, a superposition technique is
adopted in which the transition behavior from the two-layered system is used to estimate the resistance ra-
tio in multi-layered soils, as shown in Figure 4. The superposition approach is a simple multiplication of

333
resistance ratios () from the two-layered systems. The situation of a strong soil sandwiched by weak
soils is considered here. The strong soil layer has a thickness of h, and the maximum cone tip resistance
(qc,max) is reached when the cone tip is near the centerline of the thin layer. Figure 4b illustrates the curve
of resistance ratio, with the maximum value of resistance ratio (max) determined based on qc,max. The
value of max ranges from 0 to 1 and indicates the magnitude of the soil layering effect; a low value of
max indicates a stronger layering effect.

'0 = (Pa - Pa,w ) / (Pa,s - Pa,w ) ' = (qc - qc,w ) / (qc,s - qc,w )

1 1
0.95

Zw Zs
H 0.05 H
0 0
weak soil strong soil weak soil strong soil

(a) (b)
Figure 3. Definitions of (a) cavity pressure ratio and (b) cone tip resistance ratio.

Cone penetration ' = (qc - qc,w ) / (qc,s - qc,w )

qc,w

B 1
weak soil
qc
H=0
'max
h2

h strong soil qc,max qc,s

h1

H=h
h
H
weak soil H qc,w 0
weak soil strong soil weak soil

(a) (b)
Figure 4. (a) Schematic of cone penetration in multi-layered soils with strong soil sandwiched by weak soils; (b) calculation of
max.

4 RESULTS

4.1 Results of CPT in two-layered soils

The properties of soils adopted in this paper were determined using the method suggested by Ahmadi &
Robertson (2005) using the Mohr-Coulomb soil model for both sand and clay. The elastic-plastic parame-
ters of sand with different relative densities (DR) are provide in Table 1, along with estimated values of
cone resistance in a uniform soil (confining stress P0 = 46.7 kPa) for a penetrometer with a diameter of
35.7 mm. For clay, the Mohr-Coulomb model is reduced to a Tresca model by using friction/dilation an-
gles equal to 0, a Poissons ratio of 0.5, and a yield surface defined by the undrained shear strength (su).

334
Table 1. Soil model parameters and estimated cone resistance in uniform soil layer.
Soil parameters Cone tip resistance
DR (%)
G (MPa) C (kPa) () () qc (MPa)
10 6.794 0.25 0 34.2 0.0 2.026
30 9.911 0.25 0 36.5 1.4 3.147
50 12.799 0.25 0 38.7 3.1 4.648
70 15.390 0.25 0 40.9 4.8 6.638
90 18.845 0.25 0 43.6 6.8 10.304
Note: G - shear modulus; - Poissons ratio; C - cohesion; - friction angle; - dilation angle.

Figure 5 shows analytical results of the CPT in two-layered sands with varying values of relative den-
sity for a weaker soil (DR = 10% to 70%) overlying a stronger soil (DR = 90%). The curves of cone tip re-
sistance (Figure 5a) represent the transitions from the weak soil to the strong soil. Figure 5b shows the
curves of calculated resistance ratio and illustrates the effect of the weak soil relative density on the size
of the influence zones. Figure 5b shows that Zw varies from 2B to 4B and increases with an increase in
relative density of the weak soil; Zs varies from 5B to 8B and increases when the relative density of the
weak soil is decreased. The effect varying the relative density of the strong soil was also considered (but
not shown here) and it was found that with increasing the DR of the strong soil, the influence zone in the
strong soil increases and the influence zone in weak soil decreases. The sizes and trends of the influence
zones agree well with experimental observations and numerical simulations from Xu & Lehane (2008). In
general, the influence zone in the weak soil is smaller than that in the strong soil, and both Zw and Zs are
related to the properties of the two soil layers and relative cone tip resistance.

12 1
0.95
Zs
10 0.8
DR=90%
Zs increases with
8
decrease of DR in
qc (MPa)

DR=70% 0.6
weak soil
6
'

DR=50% Zw increases with

0.4 increase of DR in
4 DR=30% weak soil
2 0.2
DR=10% Zw
0.05
0 0
-20 -10 0 10 20 -20 -10 0 10 20
Distance to interface (H/B) Distance to interface (H/B)
(a) (b)
Figure 5. (a) Cone tip resistance and (b) resistance ratio in two-layered soils.

4.2 Results of CPT in multi-layered soils

A series of analyses of CPTs in multi-layered soils was carried out in order to study thin layer effects. The
situation of a stronger sand layer sandwiched within weaker clay is studied. The effect of varying the
properties and thickness of the sandwiched sand layer is considered; a constant undrained shear strength
of 20 kPa is assumed for the weaker clay. Figure 6 shows the results of penetration ratio in a three-layer
system. The effect of the thickness of the thin layer (varied from 10B to 40B) is shown in Figure 6a for a
dense sand (DR = 90%) within clay. As the thickness of the sandwiched sand layer increases from 10B to
40B, the maximum value of resistance ratio increases from 0.19 to 1 (note that max = 1 means no layer
effect). Figure 6a shows that for the soil considered in this analysis, when the thin layer thickness is
smaller than about 40B, the thin layer effects occur and can be significant.
The properties of the thin layer also influences the thin-layer effects, as shown in Figure 6b, in which
the relative density of the thin sand layer is varied from 30% to 90% and the layer thickness is kept con-
stant (20B). The maximum resistance ratio decreases with an increase in relative density of the thin layer.
For stronger soil with higher relative resistance, the influence zone in the strong soil (Zs) is larger, and the

335
thin-layer effects are more obvious. The strength and stiffness of the weak soil can also influence the thin-
layer effects (not shown here), but this was found to have a lesser effect than the strong soil.

2-layered soil
1 1
DR=30%
0.8 0.8 DR=50%
DR=70%
0.6 0.6
DR=90%
Clay: Sand: increasing
0.4 0.4
'

'
su=20kPa DR=90% DR

0.2 0.2
20B
0 0
10B 20B 30B 40B clay sand clay
-0.2 -0.2
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
Distance to interface (H/B) Distance to interface (H/B)
(a) (b)
Figure 6. Thin-layer effects of strong soil within weak soils: (a) varying thickness of strong soil; (b) varying DR of strong soil.

To evaluate the thin layer effects, a correction factor KH was defined by Robertson & Fear (1995) in
order to modify the measured cone tip resistance for interpretation. The definition, as shown in Equation
4, presents the ratio of measured maximum resistance (qc,max) and the true resistance of the strong soil
(qc,s).
(4)
Figure 7 presents results obtained using the thin-layer correction factor. The value of KH decreases to 1
when the layer thickness is increased (i.e. KH = 1 implies no thin-layer effects). Field data provided by
Gonzalo Castro and Peter Robertson for a stronger soil layer sandwiched between weaker zones in the
NCEER workshop are shown as the shaded area in Figure 7. Comparing with the field data, the analytical
results show similar trends of KH, and illustrate the effect of the relative soil properties. The results from
this analysis indicate that for a given thin layer thickness, a stronger thin layer soil has a larger correction
factor KH. Unfortunately, details of the soil from the field data are not available so it isnt possible to
make a direct quantitative comparison. The analytical results also agree reasonably well with results of
numerical simulations from Ahmadi & Robertson (2005) (also shown in Figure 7), for the same assumed
ground conditions.

2 Field data based on Castro &

1.9 Robertson for the NCEER workshop
1.8
1.7 DR=30%
Data from Ahmadi
DR=50%
1.6 & Robertson (2005)
DR=90%
KH

1.5
1.4 DR=30%
1.3 DR=50%
1.2 DR=70%
1.1 DR=90%
1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Layer thickness (h/B)
Figure 7. Thin-layer correction factor, KH .

It should be noted that the values of influence zones and thin-layer correction factors in this paper were
calculated for specific situations and should not be taken as generally applicable. The influence zones de-
pend not only on the soil properties and profiles, but also on the stress state and probe diameter, which are
336
included in the analytical calculations. The magnitude of in situ confining stress has an impact on the size
of the influence zones. A higher stress condition is found to result in smaller values of Zs and Zw, though
the impact was found to be relatively small. In figures 5 and 6, the distance to the interface (H) has been
normalized by the probe diameter. The size of influence zones are proportional to the probe diameter, and
thus a smaller penetrometer has a less significant layer effect and is more effective at detecting thin lay-
ers, as mentioned in Ahmadi & Robertson (2005) and Xu and Lehane (2008). Similarly, the thin-layer ef-
fects are also influenced by stress condition and probe diameter. The analytical solutions presented here
used the mean stress as the in-situ hydrostatic stress. The effect of the coefficient of at-rest earth pressure
(K0) was not considered. The effects related to the cone surface friction and shaft friction on the influence
zones were also not included in this study.

5 CONCLUSIONS

Analytical cavity expansion solutions in two concentrically layered soils were applied to the interpreta-
tion of CPT results, with specific focus on layered effects during penetration. The analogy between the
CPT and cavity expansion in two layered soils was described, and the combination approach for predict-
ing tip resistance in two-layered soils was applied. The analyses of CPT in two layered soils highlighted
the effect of respective soil properties (strength, stiffness) on CPT measurements within the influence
zones around the two-soil interface. The resistance ratios and influence zones in the weak and strong soils
were found to be affected by the soil properties of both layers. A simple superposition method of the two-
layered analytical results was applied for the analysis of penetration in multi-layered soils. The thin-layer
effects were investigated by analyzing a strong thin layer of soil sandwiched within a weak soil. The cor-
rection factor calculated from analytical results showed a good comparison with field data and numerical
results.

REFERENCES

Ahmadi, M.M. & Robertson, P.K. 2005. Thin-layer effects on the CPT q(c) measurement, Canadian Geotechnical Journal
42(5), 13021317.
van den Berg, P., Davis, R. & Huetink, H. 1996. An Eulerean finite element model for penetration in layered soil, Internation-
al Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geotechnics 18, 585599.
Bernard, R.S. & Hanagud, S.V. 1975. Development of a projectile penetration theory. report 1:penetration theory for shallow
to moderate depths, Technical report, U.S. Army Engineering Waterways Experiment Station.
Bishop, R.F., Hill, R. & Mott, N.F. 1945. The theory of indentation and hardness tests. Proceedings of Physics Society 57,
147159.
Carter, J.P., Booker, J.R. & Yeung, S.K. 1986. Cavity expansion in cohesive frictional soils, Geotechnique 36(3), 349358.
Ladanyi, B. & Johnston, G.H. 1974, Behaviour of circular footings and plate anchors embedded in permafrost, Canadian Ge-
otechnical Journal 11, 531553.
Marshall, A.M. 2012. Tunnel-pile interaction analysis using cavity expansion methods, ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering 138(10), 12371246.
Mo, P.Q., Marshall, A.M., and Yu, H.S. 2013. Centrifuge modelling of CPT in layered soils. 4th International Conference on
Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterization (ISC'4), Brazil, Sep 18-21, 2012. Vol 1: 219225.
Mo, P.Q., Marshall, A.M. & Yu, H.S. 2014. Analytical solutions for cavity expansion in two concentrically layered soils, In-
ternational Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geotechnics, under review.
Randolph, M.F., Dolwin, J. & Beck, R. 1994. Design of driven piles in sand, Geotechnique 44(3), 427448.
Robertson, P.K. 1990. Soil classification using the Cone Penetration Test, Canadian Geotechnical Journal 27(1), 151158.
Robertson, P.K. & Fear, C.E. 1995. Liquefaction of sands and its evaluation. In IS-Tokyo 95, Proceedings of the 1st Interna-
tional Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, Tokyo. Edited by K. Ishihara. A.A. Balkerma, Rotterdam,
The Netherlands vol. 3,12531289.
Salgado, R., Mitchell, J.K. & Jamiolkowski, M. 1997. Cavity expansion and penetration resistance in sand, Journal of Ge-
otechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 123(4), 344354.
Salgado, R. & Prezzi, M. 2007. Computation of cavity expansion pressure and penetration resistance in sands, International
Journal of Geomechanics 7(4), 251265.
Sayed, S.M. & Hamed, M.A. 1987. Expansion of cavities in layered elastic system, International Journal for Numerical and
Analytical Methods in Geomechanics 11(2), 203 541.
337
Silva, M.F. & Bolton, M.D. 2004. Centrifuge penetration tests in saturated layered sands, Geotechnical and Geophisical Site
Characterization, 377384.
Treadwell, D.D. 1976. The influence of gravity, prestress, compressibility, and layering on soil resistance to static penetration,
PhD thesis, University of California at Berkeley, Calif.
Vesic, A. S. 1972. Expansion of cavities in innite soil mass, ASCE Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division
98(SM3), 265290.
Vreugdenhil, R., Davis, R. & Berrill, J. 1994. Interpretation of cone penetration results in multilayered soils, International
Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics 18(9), 585599.
Walker, J. & Yu, H.S. 2010. Analysis of the cone penetration test in layered clay, Geotechnique 60(12), 939948.
Xu, X. & Lehane, B.M. 2008. Pile and penetrometer end bearing resistance in two-layered soil proles, Geotechnique 58(3),
187197.
Yasufuku, N. & Hyde, A.F.L. 1995. Pile end-bearing capacity in crushable sands, Geotechnique 45(4), 663676.
Yu, H.S. 1993. Discussion on: singular plastic fields in steady penetration of a rigid cone, J. Appl. Mech. 60, 10611062.
Yu, H.S. 2000. Cavity expansion methods in geomechanics, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Yu, H.S. & Houlsby, G.T. 1991. Finite cavity expansion in dilatant soils: loading analysis, Geotechnique 41(2), 173183.
Yu, H.S. & Mitchell, J.K. 1998. Analysis of cone resistance: Review of methods, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenviron-
mental Engineering 124(2), 140149.
Yu, H.S. & Rowe, R.K. 1999. Plasticity solutions for soil behaviour around contracting cavities and tunnels, International
Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics 23(12), 12451279.

338