612

Characterization of geotechnical variability

Kok-Kwang Phoon and Fred H. Kulhawy

Abstract: Geotechnical variability is a complex attribute that results from many disparate sources of uncertainties. The
three primary sources of geotechnical uncertainties are inherent variability, measurement error, and transformation
uncertainty. Inherent soil variability is modeled as a random field, which can be described concisely by the coefficient
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Tennessee on 08/08/13

of variation (COV) and scale of fluctuation. Measurement error is extracted from field measurements using a simple
additive probabilistic model or is determined directly from comparative laboratory testing programs. Based on an
extensive literature review, the COV of inherent variability, scale of fluctuation, and COV of measurement error are
evaluated in detail, along with the general soil type and the approximate range of mean value for which the COVs are
applicable. Transformation uncertainty and overall property uncertainty are quantified in a companion paper.

Key words: inherent soil variability, measurement error, coefficient of variation, scale of fluctuation, geotechnical vari-
ability.
Rsum : La variabilit gotechnique est un caractre complexe qui rsulte de nombreuses sources dincertitudes. Les
trois causes principales dincertitude gotechnique sont la variabilit intrinsque, lerreur de mesure et lincertitude de
transformation. La variabilit intrinsque peut-tre modlise par un champ alatoire pouvant tre dcrit succinctement
par le coefficient de variation (COV) et lchelle de fluctuation. Lerreur de mesure est extraite des relevs en place, en
utilisant un modle probabiliste simple additif. Elle peut aussi tre dtermine directement par des programmes dessais
comparatifs de laboratoire. A partir dun examen fouill de la littrature, le COV de variabilit intrinsque, lchelle de
fluctuation et le COV de lerreur de mesure ont t valus en dtail, de mme que le type gnral de sol et la plage
For personal use only.

approximative des valeurs moyennes sur laquelle on peut appliquer les COV. Lincertitude de transformation et
lincertitude gnrale sur la proprit tudie sont quantifies dans un papier conjoint.
Mots cls : variabilit intrinsque su sol, erreur de mesure, coefficient de variation, chelle de fluctuation, variabilit
gotechnique.
[Traduit par la Rdaction] Phoon and Kulhawy 624

Introduction site. In the absence of site-specific data, or where the soil

Since the early 1980s, an extensive research study to de-
velop a sound reliability-based design (RBD) approach for
foundations has been in progress at Cornell University under
the sponsorship of the Electric Power Research Institute. As
a part of this RBD methodology, it was necessary to estab-
lish realistic statistical estimates of the variability of design
soil properties. A series of five studies on geotechnical
variabilities (Spry et al. 1988; Orchant et al. 1988; Filippas
et al. 1988; Kulhawy et al. 1992; Phoon et al. 1995) was
conducted to quantify realistic best case and worst case
scenarios and provide property guidelines for the calibration
of the RBD equations. These results are useful for all types
of RBD studies. For foundations, extensive calibration stud-
ies by Phoon et al. (1995) indicated that the foundation re-
sistance factors in the RBD equations are functions of the
design soil property coefficient of variation (COV).
Ideally, a designer should select the appropriate resistance
factors based on the variability of the soil data at a specific
data are too limited for meaningful statistical analyses to be
performed, guidelines on the probable range of soil property
COV are useful as first-order approximations. Even when
there is sufficient information for statistical analyses, a more
robust estimate of geotechnical variability can be obtained
by combining the site-specific data with prior information
from these generalized guidelines using Bayesian updating
techniques. Details on the application of Bayesian tech-
niques to site characterization are described elsewhere (e.g.,
Spry et al. 1988; Filippas et al. 1988) and are not repeated
herein. Finally, the establishment of typical soil property
COV values would help design engineers develop an appre-
ciation for the probable range of variability inherent in the
overall estimation of common design soil properties and
therefore identify atypical geotechnical variabilities.
Unfortunately, a number of the soil property statistics re-
ported in the geotechnical literature are not suitable for this
general use, primarily because they were determined from
total variability analyses that implicitly assume a uniform

Received March 11, 1998. Accepted February 16, 1999.

K.-K. Phoon. Department of Civil Engineering, National University of Singapore, 10 Kent Ridge Crescent, Singapore 119260.
F.H. Kulhawy.1 School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Hollister Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca,
NY 14853-3501, U.S.A.
1
Author to whom all correspondence should be addressed.

Can. Geotech. J. 36: 612624 (1999) 1999 NRC Canada

 Phoon and Kulhawy
Fig. 1. Uncertainty in soil property estimates (source: Kulhawy 1992, p. 101).
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Tennessee on 08/08/13
Fig. 2. Inherent soil variability.
For personal use only.
source of uncertainty. However, geotechnical variability is
more complex and results from many disparate sources of
uncertainties, as illustrated in Fig. 1. As shown, the three
primary sources of geotechnical uncertainty are inherent
variability, measurement error, and transformation uncer-
tainty. The first results primarily from the natural geologic
processes that produced and continually modify the soil
mass in situ. The second is caused by equipment, proce-
duraloperator, and random testing effects. Collectively,
these two sources can be described as data scatter. In situ
measurements also are influenced by statistical uncertainty
or sampling error that result from limited amounts of infor-
mation. This uncertainty can be minimized by taking more
samples, but it is commonly included within the measure-
ment error at this time (Kulhawy 1992). The third source of
uncertainty is introduced when field or laboratory measure-
ments are transformed into design soil properties using em-
pirical or other correlation models. The relative contribution
of these three sources to the overall uncertainty in the design
soil property clearly depends on the site conditions, degree
613
of equipment and procedural control, and precision of the
correlation model. Therefore, soil property statistics that are
determined from total variability analyses only can be ap-
plied to the specific set of circumstances (site conditions,
measurement techniques, correlation models) for which the
design soil properties were derived.
In this paper, the inherent soil variability is modeled as a
random field, which can be described concisely by the COV
and the scale of fluctuation. Measurement error is extracted
from field measurements using a simple additive probabilis-
tic model or is determined directly from comparative labora-
tory test results. Based on an extensive literature review, the
COV of inherent variability, the scale of fluctuation, and the
COV of measurement error are evaluated in detail, along
with the general soil type and the approximate range of
mean value for which the COVs are applicable. A compan-
ion paper (Phoon and Kulhawy 1999) discusses the transfor-
mation uncertainty and illustrates how these component
uncertainties can be combined consistently, for a variety of
common soil parameters, to quantify the variability of de-
sign soil properties for general geotechnical use.
Modeling inherent soil variability
Soil is a complex engineering material that has been
formed by a combination of various geologic, environmen-
tal, and physicalchemical processes. Many of these pro-
cesses are continuing and can be modifying the soil in situ.
Because of these natural processes, all soil properties in situ
will vary vertically and horizontally. As shown in Fig. 2, this
spatial variation can be decomposed conveniently into a
smoothly varying trend function [t(z)] and a fluctuating com-
ponent [w(z)] as follows:
[1] (z) = t(z) + w(z)
in which is the in situ soil property, and z is the depth. The
fluctuating component defined in eq. [1] represents the in-
herent soil variability.
A rational means of quantifying inherent variability is to
model w(z) as a homogeneous random function or field
(Vanmarcke 1983). The function w(z) is considered to be
statistically homogeneous if (i) the mean and variance of w
do not change with depth; and (ii) the correlation between
1999 NRC Canada
 614
Fig. 3. Estimation of vertical scale of fluctuation (source: Spry
et al. 1988, p. 2-12).
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Tennessee on 08/08/13
the deviations at two different depths is a function only of
their separation distance, rather than their absolute positions.
Note that this correlation is a measure of linear dependence
between two random quantities and varies between +1 and 1.
A correlation of +1 or 1 implies that a perfect linear rela-
tionship exists between the two random quantities, with the
sign indicating a positive or negative slope. The condition of
constant mean can be satisfied if the data are detrended as
shown in Fig. 2. In fact, the mean of w is a constant value of
For personal use only.
zero, because it is fluctuating equally about the trend line.
Aside from a constant mean, the fluctuations also should be
approximately uniform to satisfy the variance and correla-
tion conditions given above. Fluctuations in the soil property
profile are likely to be uniform if the data are extracted from
a homogeneous soil layer.
For data sets that satisfy the above conditions, the inherent
soil variability can be evaluated in a straightforward manner.
First, the standard deviation of the inherent soil variability
(SDw) is evaluated as
n equipment and procedural controls are likely to be main-
[w(zi)] 2
1
[2] SDw =
n 1 i =1
in which n is the number of data points, and w(zi) is the fluc-
tuation at depth zi. Then a more useful dimensionless repre-
sentation of inherent variability can be obtained by
normalizing SDw with respect to the mean soil property
trend (t) as follows:
SDw
[3] COVw =
t respectively. Therefore, the COV of the soil data is 50%. A
in which COVw is the coefficient of variation of inherent
variability.
Another statistical parameter that is needed to describe in-
herent variability is the correlation distance or scale of fluc-
tuation (Fig. 2), which provides an indication of the distance
within which the property values show relatively strong cor-
relation. A simple but approximate method of determining
the scale of fluctuation is given by Vanmarcke (1977) as
[4] v 0.8 d
in which v is the vertical scale of fluctuation, and d is the
average distance between intersections of the fluctuating
property and its trend function, as shown in Fig. 3. Addi-
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 36, 1999
tional details on modeling inherent soil variability can be
found elsewhere (e.g., Vanmarcke 1977; Baecher 1985; Spry
et al. 1988; Filippas et al. 1988).
Coefficient of variation of inherent soil
variability
An extensive literature review was conducted to estimate
the typical COV values of inherent soil variability. However,
this task was complicated because most COVs reported in
the geotechnical literature are based on total variability anal-
yses, as noted above. Therefore, the reported COVs may be
considerably larger than the actual inherent soil variability
because of four potential problems: (i) soil data from differ-
ent geologic units are mixed, (ii) equipment and procedural
controls generally are insufficient, (iii) deterministic trends
in the soil data are not removed, and (iv) soil data are taken
over a long time period.
The first problem can be minimized by ensuring that the
soil data are classified properly into geologic units before
statistical analyses are performed (Morse 1971). In the ab-
sence of relevant documentation, it is reasonable to assume
that soil data taken over restricted locales and limited depth
intervals are sufficiently homogeneous for the evaluation of
inherent variability.
The second problem is related to measurement errors,
which should be separated from inherent variability if the
statistical results are to be extended for general use (e.g.,
Baecher 1985; Orchant et al. 1988). A detailed discussion on
measurement errors is given later in this paper. Documenta-
tion on equipment and procedural controls during soil test-
ing usually is not detailed sufficiently to permit a
quantitative evaluation of measurement errors. However, it is
reasonable to assume that measurement errors are minimal
for soil data obtained in research programs, where good
tained (Orchant et al. 1988).
The third problem, which concerns the removal of deter-
ministic trends from the soil data, is not well recognized.
Consider a hypothetical soil property that varies linearly
with depth with no random fluctuations about the linear
trend. The soil property takes on the values of 10, 20, and
30, at depths of 1, 2, and 3, respectively. If the obvious lin-
ear trend is not removed, the sample mean and standard de-
viation of the data set would be evaluated as 20 and 10,
properly detrended data set, however, would reveal that the
fluctuations are zero at all three depths, and the inherent
variability clearly is zero. A number of the statistical analy-
ses reported in the geotechnical literature are based on the
original data set, rather than the detrended data set. From a
rigorous statistical point of view, the results from such anal-
yses do not represent inherent soil variability, unless the
original data set contains no obvious trends. This situation is
not likely, because most soil properties exhibit variations
with depth to some degree. However, the depth variation
might not be significant if the sampling interval is suffi-
ciently small. Under this condition, the COV of the data set
would be a valid, albeit approximate, indicator of inherent
variability.
1999 NRC Canada
 Phoon and Kulhawy 615

Table 1. Summary of inherent variability of strength properties (source: Phoon et al. 1995, p. 4-7).

No. of data No. of tests per group Property value Property COV (%)
a
Property Soil type groups Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean
su(UC) (kN/m2) Fine grained 38 2538 101 6412 100 656 33
su(UU) (kN/m2) Clay, silt 13 1482 33 15363 276 1149 22
su(CIUC) (kN/m2) Clay 10 1286 47 130713 405 1842 32
su (kN/m2)b Clay 42 24124 48 8638 112 680 32
() Sand 7 29136 62 3541 37.6 511 9
() Clay, silt 12 551 16 933 15.3 1050 21
() Clay, silt 9 1741 33.3 412 9
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Tennessee on 08/08/13

tan (TC) Clay, silt 4 0.240.69 0.509 646 20

tan (DS) Clay, silt 3 0.615 646 23
tan b Sand 13 6111 45 0.650.92 0.744 514 9
a
su, undrained shear strength; , effective stress friction angle; TC, triaxial compression test; UC, unconfined compression test; UU, unconsolidated
undrained triaxial compression test; CIUC, consolidated isotropic undrained triaxial compression test; DS, direct shear test.
b
Laboratory test type not reported.

Fig. 4. COV of inherent variability of su versus mean su. Laboratory strength properties
Table 1 summarizes the available data on the inherent
variability of the undrained shear strength, effective stress
friction angle, and tangent of the effective stress friction an-
gle. Full details are given elsewhere (Phoon et al. 1995).
Where possible, the test types are reported because the test
boundary conditions can have a considerable effect on the
undrained shear strength and the friction angle (e.g.,
For personal use only.

Kulhawy and Mayne 1990). Unfortunately, not all the data

The fourth problem is associated with the variation of soil
properties with time. If the samples were collected over a
period of 12 weeks, the soil properties may be regarded as
time-invariant (Rthti 1988). However, over longer time pe-
riods, additional variability could be introduced into the data
set because of the changes in the soil mass occurring with
time. This variation with time can be rather significant (e.g.,
McCormack and Wilding 1979; Reyna and Chameau 1991).
Unfortunately, most studies do not report the time frame
over which the soil data are collected. Therefore, it is not
possible to determine if the temporal changes in the soil
mass are significant.
The reported COVs in the geotechnical literature were ex-
amined critically based on the considerations given above. In
general, only the COVs of soil data from similar geologic
origins that were collected over limited spatial extents with
good equipment and procedural controls were considered to
be representative of inherent soil variability. However, the
problems associated with extraneous sources of variability
could not be removed completely because of limited docu-
mentation. Therefore, the COVs should be somewhat higher
than those representing inherent soil variability alone. This
limitation applies to all the inherent variability results pre-
sented later in the paper.
can be classified properly, because the importance of report-
ing test types with the strength properties is only gradually
being recognized. Table 1 also summarizes the general soil
type, the number of data groups and tests per group, and the
mean and COV of the soil property. A description of soil
type is useful because the site-specific COVs tabulated can
be extrapolated to other locations, provided the soil deposits
are of similar geologic formation and environmental history
(Kay and Krizek 1971; Vanmarcke 1978, 1989; Tang 1984).
The number of tests is a useful indicator of the accuracy of
the mean and COV estimates. The number of tests per group
typically is fairly large, which implies that the errors in the
statistical estimates are minimal. The presentation of the
mean in conjunction with the COV also is important to en-
sure that the COV is not misinterpreted as being applicable
to all possible mean values.
Undrained shear strength
The variation of the COV of inherent variability of the un-
drained shear strength (su) is plotted versus the mean su in
Fig. 4. The lower bound of the COV remains relatively con-
stant at about 10% over the range of mean values shown.
However, the upper bound on the COV seems to decrease
with increasing mean. The effect of test type on the COV
also can be seen. The typical ranges of COV for unconfined
compression tests (UC), unconsolidatedundrained triaxial
compression tests (UU), and consolidated isotropic undrained
triaxial compression tests (CIUC) are 2055%, 1030%, and
2040%, respectively. The differences between UU and CIUC
tests are particularly evident because the soil types corre-
sponding to these two tests are primarily London Clays.
Therefore, the differences in COV cannot be attributed to the
differences in the soil types used in the various tests. More

1999 NRC Canada

 616 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 36, 1999

Table 2. Summary of inherent variability of index parameters (source: Phoon et al. 1995, p. 4-16).

No. of data No. of tests per group Property value Property COV (%)
Propertya Soil typeb groups Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean
wn (%) Fine grained 40 17439 252 13105 29 746 18
wL (%) Fine grained 38 15299 129 2789 51 739 18
wP (%) Fine grained 23 32299 201 1427 22 634 16
PI (%) Fine grained 33 15299 120 1244 25 957 29
LI Clay, silt 2 32118 75 0.094 6088 74
(kN/m3) Fine grained 6 53200 564 1420 17.5 320 9
d (kN/m3) Fine grained 8 4315 122 1318 15.7 213 7
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Tennessee on 08/08/13

Dr (%)c Sand 5 3070 50 1136 19

Dr (%)d Sand 5 3070 50 4974 61
a
wn, natural water content; wL, liquid limit; wP, plastic limit; PI, plasticity index; LI, liquidity index; , total unit weight; d, dry unit weight; Dr, relative
density.
b
Fine-grained materials derived from a variety of geologic origins, e.g., glacial deposits, tropical soils, and loess.
c
Total variability for direct method of determination.
d
Total variability for indirect determination using standard penetration test (SPT) values.

Fig. 5. COV of inherent variability of versus mean . Fig. 6. COV of inherent variability of wn versus mean wn.
For personal use only.

data on other soil types are needed to confirm this observa-
tion.
Friction angle
The variation of the COV of inherent variability of the ef-
fective stress friction angle () is plotted versus the mean
in Fig. 5. Both the COV of and tan are plotted. There is
no apparent difference between the COV of these two pa-
rameters. The effect of soil type on the COV also is illus-
trated in Fig. 5, in which the soil type is classified broadly
into sand and clay. The COV for clay generally is higher
than that for sand. A possible reason for this effect can be
found in eq. [3], which states that the COV is inversely pro-
portional to the mean if the standard deviation (SD) is a con-
stant. This relationship is plotted in Fig. 5 for two constant
SD values of 1.5 and 5.0. It is evident that this range of
standard deviation is applicable to both sand and clay.
Therefore, the differences in the COV for sand and clay pri-
marily are caused by the differences in the mean friction an-
gle. Note that the differences in the COV for sand and clay
only are apparent because the mean friction angles of the
clays shown in Fig. 5 are very low. For most soils, the mean
friction angle typically is between 20 and 40. The COV
within this range of mean friction angle essentially is 515%.
Laboratory index parameters
The inherent variability of some common index parame-
ters is summarized in Table 2, along with the soil type, num-
ber of data groups and tests per group, and the mean and
COV of the index parameter. Full details are given elsewhere
(Phoon et al. 1995).
Natural water content
The variation of the COV of inherent variability for the
natural water content (wn) is plotted versus the mean wn in
Fig. 6. No trends in the COV are present as the mean varies
from 13 to 105%. The typical range of COV for wn is be-
tween 8 and 30%.
Liquid and plastic limits
The variations of the COV of inherent variability for the
liquid limit (wL) and plastic limit (wP) are plotted versus the
mean wL and wP in Fig. 7. As with wn, no trends in the COV
are present as the mean wL and wP vary from 27 to 89% and
14 to 27%, respectively. The typical range of COV is be-
tween 6 and 30% for both index parameters, which is com-
parable to that for wn.
Plasticity and liquidity indices
The variations of the COV of inherent variability for the
1999 NRC Canada
 Phoon and Kulhawy
Fig. 7. COV of inherent variability of wL and wP versus mean
wL and wP.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Tennessee on 08/08/13
Fig. 8. COV of inherent variability of PI and LI versus mean PI
and LI.
For personal use only.
plasticity index (PI) and liquidity index (LI) are plotted ver-
sus the mean PI and LI in Fig. 8. As with , the smaller
COVs at larger mean values are primarily the result of divid-
ing a relatively constant standard deviation by larger means.
The larger COVs in Fig. 8 typically are associated with
smaller means for the converse reason. By plotting eq. [3]
onto Fig. 8, it can be seen that a relatively limited range of
standard deviation (312%) can explain the large variations
in the COV. This typical range of standard deviation appears
to be applicable to both PI and LI. However, this observa-
tion only can be considered as tentative, because the statisti-
cal data on LI are too limited.
Total and dry unit weights
The variations of the COV of inherent variability for the
total unit weight () and dry unit weight (d) are plotted ver-
sus the mean and d in Fig. 9. The typical COVs for both
parameters are less than 10%. No trends in the COV can be
observed as the mean varies from about 13 to 20 kN/m3. The
two outliers with COV of 20% are associated with the tidal
swamp and tropical soils of Nigeria (Ejezie and Harrop-
Williams 1984).
Relative density
Statistical information on the inherent variability of rela-
617
Fig. 9. COV of inherent variability of and d versus mean
and d.
Fig. 10. COV of inherent variability of Dr versus mean Dr.
tive density Dr appears to be lacking. A statistical analysis
on the total variability of Dr suggests that the range of COV
is between 11 and 36% for the direct method of determina-
tion (Haldar and Tang 1979). However, the COV varies with
the mean, as shown in Fig. 10. Most of the variation in the
COV can be adequately explained using eq. [3] with a stan-
dard deviation of 8%. Figure 10 also presents the results of a
statistical analysis on the total variability of Dr for an indi-
rect method of determination using standard penetration test
N values (Haldar and Miller 1984). The COVs are much
higher, which is to be expected. The COV decreases almost
linearly from 74% for a mean Dr of 30% to 49% for a mean
Dr of 70%.
Field measurements
The inherent variabilities of some common field measure-
ments are summarized in Table 3. Full details are given else-
where (Phoon et al. 1995). Note that there are important
subdivisions within each field test. For example, cone tip re-
sistance qc can be measured using a mechanical or electric
cone. However, these subdivisions cannot be established at
this time because of inadequacies in the data base. The soil
type, number of data groups and tests per group, and the
mean and COV of the field measurement also are summa-
rized in Table 3.
The COV of inherent variability for these test measure-
1999 NRC Canada
 618 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 36, 1999

Table 3. Summary of inherent variability of field measurements (source: Phoon et al. 1995, p. 4-10).

Test No. of data No. of tests per group Property value Property COV (%)
typea Property b
Soil type groups Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean
CPT qc (MN/m2) Sand 57 102039 115 0.429.2 4.10 1081 38
CPT qc (MN/m2) Silty clay 12 3053 43 0.52.1 1.59 540 27
CPT qT (MN/m2) Clay 9 0.42.6 1.32 217 8
VST su(VST) (kN/m2) Clay 31 431 16 6375 105 444 24
SPT N Sand 22 2300 123 774 35 1962 54
SPT N Clay, loam 2 261 32 763 32 3757 44
DMT A (kN/m2) Sand to clayey sand 15 1225 17 641335 512 2053 33
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Tennessee on 08/08/13

DMT A (kN/m2) Clay 13 1020 17 119455 358 1232 20

DMT B (kN/m2) Sand to clayey sand 15 1225 17 3462435 1337 1359 37
DMT B (kN/m2) Clay 13 1020 17 502876 690 1238 20
DMT ED (MN/m2) Sand to clayey sand 15 1025 15 9.446.1 25.4 992 50
DMT ED (MN/m2) Sand, silt 16 10.453.4 21.6 767 36
DMT ID Sand to clayey sand 15 1025 15 0.88.4 2.85 16130 53
DMT ID Sand, silt 16 2.15.4 3.89 848 30
DMT KD Sand to clayey sand 15 1025 15 1.928.3 15.1 2099 44
DMT KD Sand, silt 16 1.39.3 4.1 1767 38
PMT pL (kN/m2) Sand 4 17 16173566 2284 2350 40
PMT pL (kN/m2) Cohesive 5 1025 4282779 1084 1032 15
PMT EPMT (MN/m2) Sand 4 5.215.6 8.97 2868 42
a
CPT, cone penetration test; VST, vane shear test; SPT, standard penetration test; DMT, dilatometer test; PMT, pressuremeter test.
b
For personal use only.

qc, CPT tip resistance; qT, corrected CPT tip resistance; su(VST), undrained shear strength from VST; N, SPT blow count (number of blows per foot or
per 305 mm); A and B, DMT A and B readings; ED, DMT modulus; ID, DMT material index; KD, DMT horizontal stress index; pL, PMT limit stress;
EPMT, PMT modulus.

ments has been discussed by Phoon and Kulhawy (1996) Table 4. Summary of scale of fluctuation of some geotechnical
and will not be repeated herein. However, since these spe- properties (source: Phoon et al. 1995, p. 4-20).
cialty conference proceedings have rather limited circulation
No. of Scale of fluctuation (m)
internationally, it is wise to repeat key data where pertinent.
a
Therefore, the basic data plots of COV of inherent variabil- Property Soil type studies Range Mean
ity versus the mean in situ tests parameters are given in the Vertical fluctuation
Appendix. These data support the interpretations given in su Clay 5 0.86.1 2.5
Table 3. qc Sand, clay 7 0.12.2 0.9
qT Clay 10 0.20.5 0.3
su(VST) Clay 6 2.06.2 3.8
Scale of fluctuation N Sand 1 2.4
An extensive literature review was conducted to estimate wn Clay, loam 3 1.612.7 5.7
the typical scales of fluctuations for a variety of common wL Clay, loam 2 1.68.7 5.2
geotechnical parameters. The results of this review are sum- Clay 1 1.6
marized in Table 4. Full details are given elsewhere (Phoon Clay, loam 2 2.47.9 5.2
et al. 1995). The scales of fluctuation are generally calcu- Horizontal fluctuation
lated using the method of moments. Information on the soil qc Sand, clay 11 3.080.0 47.9
type and the direction of fluctuation also are included in the qT Clay 2 23.066.0 44.5
table. It is apparent that the amount of information on the su(VST) Clay 3 46.060.0 50.7
scale of fluctuation is relatively limited in comparison to the wn Clay 1 170.0
amount of information on the COV of inherent soil variabil- a
su and su (VST), undrained shear strength from laboratory tests and
ity. Therefore, the observations given below should be vane shear tests, respectively; , effective unit weight.
viewed with caution, because there seldom are enough data
to establish their generality on a firm basis.
The vertical scale of fluctuation (v) for the undrained tween 2 and 6 m. The upper bound of this range appears to
shear strength is on the order of 12 m, although it can be as be somewhat larger than that for the laboratory measurement
large as 6 m. For the cone tip resistance, v typically is less of the undrained shear strength. The single reported value of
than 1 m. The value of v for the corrected cone tip resis- v for the standard penetration test N value falls within the
tance seems to be smaller than the corresponding v value previously noted range of 26 m. For the index parameters,
for the uncorrected cone tip resistance. The typical value of most of the v values are within the range of 210 m.
v for the corrected cone tip resistance is less than 0.5 m. The horizontal scale of fluctuation (h) is more than one
For the vane shear test, the value of v seems to vary be- order of magnitude larger than the vertical scale of fluctua-
1999 NRC Canada
 Phoon and Kulhawy 619

Table 5. Summary of total measurement error of some laboratory tests (source: Phoon et al. 1995, p. 4-22).

No. of data No. of tests per group Property value Property COV (%)
a
Property Soil type groups Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean
su(TC) (kN/m2) Clay, silt 11 13 7407 125 838 19
su(DS) (kN/m2) Clay, silt 2 1317 15 108130 119 1920 20
su(LV) (kN/m2) Clay 15 4123 29 537 13
(TC) () Clay, silt 4 913 10 227 19.1 756 24
(DS) () Clay, silt 5 913 11 2440 33.3 329 13
(DS) () Sand 2 26 26 3035 32.7 1314 14
tan (TC) Sand, silt 6 222 8
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Tennessee on 08/08/13

tan (DS) Clay 2 622 14

wn (%) Fine grained 3 8288 85 1621 18 612 8
wL (%) Fine grained 26 4189 64 17113 36 311 7
wP (%) Fine grained 26 4189 62 1235 21 718 10
PI (%) Fine grained 10 4189 61 444 23 551 24
(kN/m3) Fine grained 3 8288 85 1617 17.0 12 1
a
LV, laboratory vane shear test.

tion, with a typical range of between 4060 m. This result is
not surprising because soil properties tend to be more vari-
able in the vertical direction than in the horizontal direction.
The single reported h value of 170 m for the natural water
content is about three to four times larger than the h values
for the other soil parameters. This result is consistent with
the observation that the v values for index parameters also
For personal use only.
how they are followed. In general, tests that are highly oper-
ator dependent and that have complicated test procedures
will have greater variability than those with simple proce-
dures and little operator dependency. Random testing error
refers to the remaining scatter in the test results that is not
assignable to specific testing parameters and is not caused
by inherent soil variability. A more complete discussion of

are the largest. It would appear that index parameters gener-
ally are less variable in both vertical and horizontal direc-
tions, in comparison with other soil parameters. It is
important to note that the scale of fluctuation is strongly in-
fluenced by the sampling interval (DeGroot and Baecher
1993). Some of the scales of fluctuation reported in Table 4
possibly might be biased because of sampling limitation.
Measurement error
All soil properties have to be measured by some physical
means. This process of measurement introduces additional
variability into the soil data. The total variability of a mea-
sured property (m) can be described by the following simple
model (Lumb 1971; Orchant et al. 1988):
[5] m(z) = (z) + e(z)
in which is the in situ property, and e is the measurement
error. Equation [5] can be expanded by substituting eq. [1]
for as follows:
[6] m(z) = t(z) + w(z) + e(z)
in which t is the deterministic trend, and w is the inherent
variability. The two uncertain components, w and e, gener-
ally are assumed to be uncorrelated because they are derived
from unrelated sources (e.g., Lumb 1971; Baecher 1985;
Filippas et al. 1988; Kulhawy et al. 1992). As mentioned
previously, inherent variability is caused primarily by the
natural geologic processes that are involved in soil forma-
tion. Measurement error, on the other hand, arises from
equipment, proceduraloperator, and random testing effects.
Equipment effects result from inaccuracies in the measuring
devices and variations in equipment geometries and systems
employed for routine testing. Proceduraloperator effects
originate from the limitations in existing test standards and
measurement error is given elsewhere (Orchant et al. 1988).
Laboratory tests
In principle, measurement error can be determined di-
rectly by analyzing the variation of the results obtained by a
representative group of soil testing companies performing
the same test on nominally identical soil samples. Com-
parative testing programs of this type are available (e.g.,
Hammitt 1966; Johnston 1969; Sherwood 1970; Singh and
Lee 1970; Minty et al. 1979), but they are rather limited. A
summary of the total measurement error in terms of the
COV is given in Table 5 for a variety of common laboratory
tests. Full details are given elsewhere (Phoon et al. 1995).
None of the studies reported the contribution from equip-
ment, proceduraloperator, and random testing effects sepa-
rately. Table 5 also summarizes the soil type, the number of
data groups and tests per group, and the mean and COV of
the measurements.
Undrained shear strength
The variation of the COV of measurement error of the un-
drained shear strength (su) is plotted versus the mean su in
Fig. 11. The su tests can be classified broadly into (i) triaxial
compression (TC), (ii) direct shear (DS), and (iii) laboratory
vane (LV). No apparent differences in the COV for the dif-
ferent test types can be observed, and most of the COVs are
less than 20%. Note that the clayey silt specimens shown in
Table 5 were compacted separately by each participant be-
fore testing. Therefore, the water content and dry density of
the soil specimens were different and could contribute to the
larger measurement errors (Singh and Lee 1970). Without
the additional variability introduced by compaction, the
range of measurement error for these su tests probably would
be about 515%.
1999 NRC Canada
 620
Fig. 11. COV of total measurement error of su versus mean su.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Tennessee on 08/08/13
Fig. 12. COV of total measurement error of versus mean .
For personal use only.
Friction angle
The variation of the COV of measurement error of the ef-
fective stress friction angle () is plotted versus the mean
in Fig. 12. The friction angle tests can be classified broadly
into (i) triaxial compression (TC), and (ii) direct shear (DS).
No apparent differences in the COV for the different test
types are evident, and most of the COVs are less than 20%.
As for su, part of the variability was not related to the
strength tests, but to the compaction procedure. In addition,
it was observed that significant differences in the friction an-
gles were caused by the linearization of the curved failure
envelope over different ranges of confining pressure (Singh
and Lee 1970). Based on these considerations, the measure-
ment error for the friction angle tests also is judged to be be-
tween 5 and 15%, as for the su tests.
Natural water content and liquid and plastic limits
The variation of the COV of measurement error of the
natural water content (wn), liquid limit (wL), and plastic limit
(wP) are plotted versus the mean wn, wL, and wP in Fig. 13.
No trends in the COV can be observed as the mean varies
from 12 to 113%. The measurement error for the liquid limit
test appears to be somewhat smaller than that for the plastic
limit test. The probable ranges of measurement error for the
liquid and plastic limit tests are 510% and 1015%, respec-
tively. The limited data for natural water content seem to
suggest that the measurement error is intermediate between
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 36, 1999
Fig. 13. COV of total measurement error of wn, wL, and wP
versus mean wn, wL, and wP.
Fig. 14. COV of total measurement error of PI versus mean PI.
those of the liquid and plastic limit tests.
Plasticity index
The variation of the COV of measurement error of the
plasticity index (PI) is plotted versus the mean PI in Fig. 14.
As in Fig. 8, the association of larger COVs with smaller
means, or vice versa, can be explained adequately using
eq. [3]. Note that the standard deviation for measurement er-
ror, which is about 4%, is considerably smaller than the
standard deviation for inherent variability shown in Fig. 8,
which averages about 8%.
Total unit weight
The COV of measurement error for the total unit weight
also is summarized in Table 5. The measurement error of 1
2% is the smallest among all the tests given in the table.
Field tests
For the field tests, a detailed analysis of the measurement
error already has been conducted (Kulhawy and Trautmann
1996) and is summarized in Table 6. In the study by Kulhawy
and Trautmann (1996), regression analyses were performed
on the results of laboratory calibration studies to determine
the amount of variation assignable to each test parameter.
Where replicate data were available, second-moment statistics
(mean and coefficient of variation) were evaluated to estimate
random testing error. Inherent soil variability was assumed to
1999 NRC Canada
 Phoon and Kulhawy 621

Table 6. Summary of measurement error of common in situ tests (source: Orchant et al. 1988, p. 4-63; Kulhawy and Trautmann 1996,
p. 283).
Coefficient of variation, COV (%)
Test Equipment Procedure Random Totala Rangeb
c c c
Standard penetration test (SPT) 575 575 1215 14100 1545
Mechanical cone penetration test (MCPT) 5 1015d 1015d 1522d 1525
Electric cone penetration test (ECPT) 3 5 510d 712d 515
Vane shear test (VST) 5 8 10 14 1020
Dilatometer test (DMT) 5 5 8 11 515
Pressuremeter test, prebored (PMT) 5 12 10 16 1020e
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Tennessee on 08/08/13

Self-boring pressuremeter test (SBPMT) 8 15 8 19 1525e

a
COV(Total) = [COV(Equipment)2 + COV(Procedure)2 + COV(Random)2]0.5.
b
Because of limited data and judgment involved in estimating COVs, ranges represent probable magnitudes of field test measurement error.
c
Best to worst case scenarios, respectively, for SPT.
d
Tip and side resistances, respectively, for CPT.
e
It is likely that results may differ for po, pf, and pL, but the data are insufficient to clarify this issue.

Table 7. Approximate guidelines for inherent soil variability (source: Phoon et al. 1995, p. 4-49).
Test type Property Soil type Mean COV(%)
2
Lab strength su(UC) Clay 10400 kN/m 2055
su(UU) Clay 10350 kN/m2 1030
su(CIUC) Clay 150700 kN/m2 2040
Clay and sand 2040 515
CPT qT Clay 0.52.5 MN/m2 <20
For personal use only.

qc Clay 0.52.0 MN/m2 2040

qc Sand 0.530.0 MN/m2 2060
VST su(VST) Clay 5400 kN/m2 1040
SPT N Clay and sand 1070 blows/ft 2550
DMT A Clay 100450 kN/m2 1035
A Sand 601300 kN/m2 2050
B Clay 500880 kN/m2 1035
B Sand 3502400 kN/m2 2050
ID Sand 18 2060
KD Sand 230 2060
ED Sand 1050 MN/m2 1565
PMT pL Clay 4002800 kN/m2 1035
pL Sand 16003500 kN/m2 2050
EPMT Sand 515 MN/m2 1565
Lab index wn Clay and silt 13100% 830
wL Clay and silt 3090% 630
wP Clay and silt 1525% 630
PI Clay and silt 1040% a
LI Clay and silt 10% a
, d Clay and silt 1320 kN/m3 <10
Dr Sand 3070% 1040; 5070b
a
COV = (312%)/mean.
b
The first range of values gives the total variability for the direct method of determination, and the second range of
values the total variability for the indirect determination using SPT values.

be small in these laboratory calibration studies, because the
soil deposits generally were prepared under controlled laboratory
conditions. Field data also were analyzed using second-moment
statistical techniques. However, only total variability could be
obtained because of the difficulty in separating the inherent
variability of the soil deposit from the variability of the test
measurements.
As shown in Table 6, the measurement error for the stan-
dard penetration test is the largest, and the measurement er-
rors for the electric cone penetration test and the dilatometer
test are the smallest. Because of the limited data available
and the need to use judgment to estimate these errors, the
last column of Table 6 represents the range of probable test
measurement variability one can expect in typical field in
situ tests. Full details are given elsewhere (Kulhawy and
Trautmann 1996).
Summary and conclusions
Realistic estimates of the variability of soil parameters are
1999 NRC Canada
 622
needed for the development and application of reliability-
based design. The variability of design soil parameters
should be evaluated as a function of inherent soil variability,
measurement error, and transformation uncertainty. The rel-
ative contribution of these components to the overall vari-
ability in the design parameter depends on the site
conditions, degree of equipment and procedural control dur-
ing testing, and quality of the transformation model.
An extensive literature review was conducted to estimate
the statistics of inherent soil variability and measurement er-
ror. A summary of the COV of inherent variability for vari-
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Tennessee on 08/08/13
ous test measurements is given in Table 7. The general soil
type and the approximate range of mean value for which the
COV is applicable also are included in the table. With re-
spect to soil type, the COV of inherent variability for sand is
higher than that for clay. With respect to measurement type,
the COVs of inherent variability for index parameters are the
lowest, with the possible exception of the relative density.
The highest COVs of inherent variability seem to be associ-
ated with measurements in the horizontal direction and mea-
surements of soil modulus.
Another important descriptor of inherent variability is the
scale of fluctuation. However, information on this parameter
is limited. The vertical scale of fluctuation for laboratory
measurement of undrained shear strength is in the range of
12 m. For the cone tip resistance and the corrected cone tip
For personal use only.
resistance, the vertical scale of fluctuation is less than 1 m
and 0.5 m, respectively. The vertical scales of fluctuation for
vane shear and standard penetration test measurements are in
the range of 26 m. The horizontal scale of fluctuation for
these laboratory and field measurements is on the order of
4060 m. The vertical and horizontal scales of fluctuation
for index parameters were the largest.
Statistical information on measurement error is rather lim-
ited. Based on the statistics reported by comparative testing
programs, the COVs of measurement error for most labora-
tory strength tests were estimated to be between 5 and 15%.
The COVs of measurement error for the plastic and liquid
limit tests were in the range of 1015% and 510%, respec-
tively. The COV of measurement error for the natural water
content was intermediate between those of the limit tests.
For the plasticity index, the standard deviation of the measure-
ment error was between 2 and 6%. The unit weight determi-
nation had the lowest COV of measurement error (-1%).
The COVs of measurement error for field tests were given
elsewhere.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported, in part, by the Electric
Power Research Institute (EPRI) under RP1493. The EPRI
project manager was A. Hirany.
References
Arman, A., Poplin, J.K., and Ahmad, N. 1975. Study of the vane
shear. In Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engi-
neers Conference on In-Situ Measurement of Soil Properties,
Raleigh, Vol. 1, pp. 93120.
Baecher, G.B. 1985. Geotechnical error analysis. Special Summer
Course 1.60s, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 36, 1999
Baligh, M.M., Vivatrat, V., and Ladd, C.C. 1979. Exploration and
evaluation of engineering properties for foundation design of
offshore structures. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cam-
bridge, Report MITSG 79-8268.
DeGroot, D.J., and Baecher, G.B. 1993. Estimating autocovariance
of in situ soil properties. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
ASCE, 119(1): 147166.
Ejezie, S.U., and Harrop-Williams, K. 1984. Probabilistic charac-
terization of Nigerian soils. In Probabilistic characterization of
soil properties: bridge between theory and practice. Edited by
D.S. Bowles and H-Y. Ko. American Society of Civil Engineers,
Atlanta, pp. 140156.
Filippas, O.B., Kulhawy, F.H., and Grigoriu, M.D. 1988. Reliability-
based foundation design for transmission line structures: uncer-
tainties in soil property measurement. Electric Power Research
Institute, Palo Alto, Calif., Report EL-5507(3).
Haldar, A., and Miller, F.J. 1984. Statistical estimation of relative
density. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 110(4):
525530.
Haldar, A., and Tang, W.H. 1979. Uncertainty analysis of relative
density. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division,
ASCE, 105(GT7): 899904.
Hammitt, G.M. 1966. Statistical analysis of data from comparative
laboratory test program sponsored by ACIL. U.S. Army Engi-
neer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss., Miscella-
neous Paper 4-785.
Johnston, M.M. 1969. Laboratory comparison tests using com-
pacted fine-grained soils. In Proceedings of the 7th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Mexico City, Vol. 1, pp. 197202.
Joustra, K. 1974. Comparative measurements of the influence of
the cone shape on the results of soundings. In Proceedings of
the 1st European Symposium on Penetration Testing, Stock-
holm, Vol. 2.2, pp. 199204.
Kay, J.N., and Krizek, R.J. 1971. Estimation of mean for soil prop-
erties. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Ap-
plications of Statistics and Probability to Soil and Structural
Engineering, Hong Kong, pp. 279286.
Kulhawy, F.H. 1992. On evaluation of static soil properties. In Sta-
bility and performance of slopes and embankments II (GSP 31).
Edited by R.B. Seed and R.W. Boulanger. American Society of
Civil Engineers, New York, pp. 95115.
Kulhawy, F.H., and Mayne, P.W. 1990. Manual on estimating soil
properties for foundation design. Electric Power Research Insti-
tute, Palo Alto, Calif., Report EL-6800.
Kulhawy, F.H., and Trautmann, C.H. 1996. Estimation of in situ
test uncertainty. In Uncertainty in the geologic environment
(GSP 58). Edited by C.D. Shackelford, P.P. Nelson, and M.J.S.
Roth. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, pp. 269
286.
Kulhawy, F.H., Birgisson, B., and Grigoriu, M.D. 1992. Reliability-
based foundation design for transmission line structures: trans-
formation models for in situ tests. Electric Power Research
Institute, Palo Alto, Calif., Report EL-5507(4).
Lumb, P. 1971. Precision and accuracy of soil tests. In Proceedings
of the 1st International Conference on Applications of Statistics
and Probability in Soil and Structural Engineering, Hong Kong,
pp. 329345.
McCormack, D.E., and Wilding, L.P. 1979. Soil properties influ-
encing strength of Canfield and Geeburg Soils. Soil Science So-
ciety of America Journal, 43(1): 167173.
Minty, E.J., Smith, R.B., and Pratt, D.N. 1979. Interlaboratory test-
ing variability assessed for a wide range of N.S.W. soil types. In
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Applications
1999 NRC Canada
 Phoon and Kulhawy 623

of Statistics and Probability in Soil and Structural Engineering, List of symbols

Sydney, Vol. 1, pp. 221235.
Morse, R.K. 1971. Importance of proper soil units for statistical A: dilatometer A reading
analysis. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on B: dilatometer B reading
Applications of Statistics and Probability to Soil and Structural COV: coefficient of variation
Engineering, Hong Kong, pp. 347355. COVw: coefficient of variation of inherent variability
Orchant, C.J., Kulhawy, F.H., and Trautmann, C.H. 1988. Reliability- Dr: relative density
based foundation design for transmission line structures: critical
ED: dilatometer modulus
evaluation of in situ test methods. Electric Power Research Insti-
tute, Palo Alto, Calif., Report EL-5507(2). EPMT: pressuremeter modulus
Phoon, K.K., and Kulhawy, F.H. 1996. On quantifying inherent ID: dilatometer material index
soil variability. In Uncertainty in the geologic environment (GSP KD: dilatometer horizontal stress index
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Tennessee on 08/08/13

58). Edited by C.D. Shackelford, P.P. Nelson, and M.J.S. Roth. LI: liquidity index
American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, pp. 326340. N: standard penetration test value
Phoon, K.K., and Kulhawy, F.H. 1999. Evaluation of geotechnical PI: plasticity index
property variability. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 36: 625 SD: standard deviation
639. SDw: standard deviation of inherent variability
Phoon, K-K., Kulhawy, F. H., and Grigoriu, M. D. 1995. Reliability- d: average distance between intersections of the fluctuating
based design of foundations for transmission line structures.
property and its trend function
Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, Report TR-105000.
e: measurement error
Rthti, L. 1988. Probabilistic solutions in geotechnics. Elsevier,
Amsterdam. n: number of data points
Reyna, F., and Chameau, J.L. 1991. Statistical evaluation of CPT li, lj, ll: layer depths
and DMT measurements at the Heber Road site. In Geotechnical pf: pressuremeter yield stress
engineering congress (GSP 27). Edited by F.G. McLean, D.A. pL: pressuremeter limit stress
Campbell, and D.W. Harris. American Society of Civil Engi- po: pressuremeter seating stress
neers, Boulder, pp. 1425. qc: cone tip resistance
For personal use only.

Sherwood, P.T. 1970. Reproducibility of results of soil classifica- qT: corrected qc

tion and compaction tests. Road Research Laboratory, su: undrained shear strength
Crowthorne (U.K.), Report LR 339.
t(C): trend function
Singh, A., and Lee, K.L. 1970. Variability in soil parameters. In
t: mean soil property trend
Proceedings of the 8th Annual Engineering Geology and Soils
Engineering Symposium, Idaho, pp. 159185. w(C): inherent soil variability
Spry, M.J., Kulhawy, F.H., and Grigoriu, M.D. 1988. Reliability- wL: liquid limit
based foundation design for transmission line structures: wP: plastic limit
geotechnical site characterization strategy. Electric Power Re- wn: water content
search Institute, Palo Alto, Calif., Report EL-5507(1). z: depth
Tang, W.H. 1984. Principles of probabilistic characterization of zi: ith depth coordinate
soil properties. In Probabilistic characterization of soil proper- : total soil unit weight
ties: bridge between theory and practice. Edited by D.S. Bowles : effective unit weight
and H-Y. Ko. American Society of Civil Engineers, Atlanta,
d: dry unit weight
pp. 7489.
Vanmarcke, E.H. 1977. Probabilistic modeling of soil profiles.
v: vertical scale of fluctuation
Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, h: horizontal scale of fluctuation
103(GT11): 12271246. : in situ soil property
Vanmarcke, E.H. 1978. Probabilistic characterization of soil pro- m: measured soil property
files. In Proceedings of the National Science Foundation Spe- : effective stress friction angle
cialty Workshop on Site Characterization and Exploration,
Evanston, Ill., pp. 199219.
Vanmarcke, E.H. 1983. Random fields: analysis and synthesis. Appendix
MIT Press, Cambridge.
Vanmarcke, E.H. 1989. Reliability in foundation engineering prac- This appendix includes basic data plots (Fig. A1, see fol-
tice. In Foundation engineering: current principles and practices lowing page) of COV of inherent variability versus the mean
(GSP 22). Edited by F.H. Kulhawy. American Society of Civil in situ test parameters that support the interpretations given
Engineers, New York, pp. 16581669. in Table 3.

1999 NRC Canada

 624 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 36, 1999

Fig. A1. COV of inherent variability versus mean in situ test parameters: (a) CPT qc and qT; (b) su(VST); (c) SPT N; (d) DMT A and
B readings; (e) PMT pL; (f) DMT ID; (g) DMT KD; (h) DMT ED and PMT EPMT.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Tennessee on 08/08/13
For personal use only.

1999 NRC Canada

 This article has been cited by:

1. P. Castaldo, M. Calvello, B. Palazzo. 2013. Probabilistic analysis of excavation-induced damages to existing structures. Computers
and Geotechnics 53, 17-30. [CrossRef]
2. Yinghe Wang, Xinyi Zhao, Baotian Wang. 2013. LS-SVM and Monte Carlo methods based reliability analysis for settlement of
soft clayey foundation. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 5:4, 312-317. [CrossRef]
3. Zhifeng Liu, C. Hsein Juang, Sez Atamturktur. 2013. Confidence level-based robust design of cantilever retaining walls in sand.
Computers and Geotechnics 52, 16-27. [CrossRef]
4. Zhu H., Zhang L.M.. 2013. Characterizing geotechnical anisotropic spatial variations using random field theory. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal 50:7, 723-734. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Tennessee on 08/08/13

5. Xing Zheng Wu. 2013. Trivariate analysis of soil ranking-correlated characteristics and its application to probabilistic stability
assessments in geotechnical engineering problems. Soils and Foundations . [CrossRef]
6. Jianye Ching, Kok-Kwang Phoon. 2013. Probability distribution for mobilised shear strengths of spatially variable soils under
uniform stress states. Georisk: Assessment and Management of Risk for Engineered Systems and Geohazards 1-16. [CrossRef]
7. Donghee Kim, Dongwoo Ryu, Changho Lee, Woojin Lee. 2013. Probabilistic evaluation of primary consolidation settlement of
Songdo New City by using kriged estimates of geologic profiles. Acta Geotechnica 8:3, 323-334. [CrossRef]
8. Yu Wang, Zijun Cao. 2013. Probabilistic characterization of Young's modulus of soil using equivalent samples. Engineering Geology
159, 106-118. [CrossRef]
9. Dian-Qing Li, Shui-Hua Jiang, Yi-Feng Chen, Chuang-Bing Zhou. 2013. Reliability analysis of serviceability performance for an
underground cavern using a non-intrusive stochastic method. Environmental Earth Sciences . [CrossRef]
10. Sumanta Haldar, Dipanjan Basu. 2013. Response of EulerBernoulli beam on spatially random elastic soil. Computers and
Geotechnics 50, 110-128. [CrossRef]
11. Huu-Phuoc Dang, Horn-Da Lin, C. Hsein Juang. 2013. Analyses of braced excavation considering parameter uncertainties using
For personal use only.

a finite element code. Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers 1-11. [CrossRef]
12. Hea-Jin Hwang, Hyung-Choon Park. 2013. Development of a New Method to Consider Uncertainty of 1-D Soil Profile for the
Probabilistic Analysis. Journal of the Korean Geotechnical Society 29:3, 41-50. [CrossRef]
13. Yu Wang. 2013. MCS-based probabilistic design of embedded sheet pile walls. Georisk: Assessment and Management of Risk for
Engineered Systems and Geohazards 1-12. [CrossRef]
14. D. Bachmann, N.P. Huber, G. Johann, H. Schttrumpf. 2013. Fragility curves in operational dike reliability assessment. Georisk:
Assessment and Management of Risk for Engineered Systems and Geohazards 7:1, 49-60. [CrossRef]
15. Niclas Bergman, Mohammed Salim Al-Naqshabandy, Stefan Larsson. 2013. Variability of strength and deformation properties
in limecement columns evaluated from CPT and KPS measurements. Georisk: Assessment and Management of Risk for Engineered
Systems and Geohazards 7:1, 21-36. [CrossRef]
16. Michael Beer, Yi Zhang, Ser Tong Quek, Kok Kwang Phoon. 2013. Reliability analysis with scarce information: Comparing
alternative approaches in a geotechnical engineering context. Structural Safety 41, 1-10. [CrossRef]
17. C. Hsein Juang, Lei Wang. 2013. Reliability-based robust geotechnical design of spread foundations using multi-objective genetic
algorithm. Computers and Geotechnics 48, 96-106. [CrossRef]
18. S. Imanzadeh, A. Denis, A. Marache. 2013. Simplified uncertainties analysis of continuous buried steel pipes on an elastic
foundation in the presence of low stiffness zones. Computers and Geotechnics 48, 62-71. [CrossRef]
19. Mohsen Khatibinia, Mohammad Javad Fadaee, Javad Salajegheh, Eysa Salajegheh. 2013. Seismic reliability assessment of RC
structures including soilstructure interaction using wavelet weighted least squares support vector machine. Reliability Engineering
& System Safety 110, 22-33. [CrossRef]
20. Zijun Cao, Yu Wang. 2013. Bayesian Approach for Probabilistic Site Characterization Using Cone Penetration Tests. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 139:2, 267-276. [CrossRef]
21. De-Yi Zhang, Wei-Chau Xie, Mahesh D. Pandey. 2013. A meshfree-Galerkin method in modelling and synthesizing spatially
varying soil properties. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics 31, 52-64. [CrossRef]
22. Donghee Kim, Kyu-Sun Kim, Seongkwon Ko, Youngho Chae, Woojin Lee. 2013. Influence of estimation method of compression
index on spatial distribution of consolidation settlement in Songdo New City. Engineering Geology 152:1, 172-179. [CrossRef]
 23. Han-Saem Kim, Hyun-Ki Kim, Si-Yeol Shin, Choong-Ki Chung. 2012. Application of statistical geo-spatial information
technology to soil stratification in the Seoul metropolitan area. Georisk: Assessment and Management of Risk for Engineered Systems
and Geohazards 6:4, 221-228. [CrossRef]
24. Ana Teixeira, Yusuke Honjo, Antnio Gomes Correia, Antnio Abel Henriques. 2012. Sensitivity analysis of vertically loaded pile
reliability. Soils and Foundations 52:6, 1118-1129. [CrossRef]
25. Armin W. Stuedlein, Steven L. Kramer, Pedro Arduino, Robert D. Holtz. 2012. Reliability of Spread Footing Performance in
Desiccated Clay. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 138:11, 1314-1325. [CrossRef]
26. Amit Srivastava. 2012. Spatial Variability Modelling of Geotechnical Parameters and Stability of Highly Weathered Rock Slope.
Indian Geotechnical Journal 42:3, 179-185. [CrossRef]
27. Xiao-Song Tang, Dian-Qing Li, Yi-Feng Chen, Chuang-Bing Zhou, Li-Min Zhang. 2012. Improved knowledge-based clustered
partitioning approach and its application to slope reliability analysis. Computers and Geotechnics 45, 34-43. [CrossRef]
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Tennessee on 08/08/13

28. Chin Loong Chan, Bak Kong Low. 2012. Practical second-order reliability analysis applied to foundation engineering.
International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics 36:11, 1387-1409. [CrossRef]
29. Kiyonobu Kasama, Andrew J. Whittle, Kouki Zen. 2012. Effect of spatial variability on the bearing capacity of cement-treated
ground. Soils and Foundations 52:4, 600-619. [CrossRef]
30. H. W. Huang, J. Zhang, L. M. Zhang. 2012. Bayesian network for characterizing model uncertainty of liquefaction potential
evaluation models. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 16:5, 714-722. [CrossRef]
31. Qian-qing Zhang, Zhong-miao Zhang. 2012. Complete load transfer behavior of base-grouted bored piles. Journal of Central
South University 19:7, 2037-2046. [CrossRef]
32. Tamara Al-Bittar, Abdul-Hamid Soubra. 2012. Bearing capacity of strip footings on spatially random soils using sparse polynomial
chaos expansion. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
33. Harianto Rahardjo, Alfrendo Satyanaga, Eng-Choon Leong, Yew Song Ng, Henry Tam Cheuk Pang. 2012. Variability of residual
soil properties. Engineering Geology 141-142, 124-140. [CrossRef]
For personal use only.

34. Caterina Melchiorre, Paolo Frattini. 2012. Modelling probability of rainfall-induced shallow landslides in a changing climate,
Otta, Central Norway. Climatic Change 113:2, 413-436. [CrossRef]
35. J. Zhang, Wilson H. Tang, L.M. Zhang, H.W. Huang. 2012. Characterising geotechnical model uncertainty by hybrid Markov
Chain Monte Carlo simulation. Computers and Geotechnics 43, 26-36. [CrossRef]
36. Chin Loong Chan, Bak Kong Low. 2012. Probabilistic analysis of laterally loaded piles using response surface and neural network
approaches. Computers and Geotechnics 43, 101-110. [CrossRef]
37. ZhangLianyang, ChenJin-Jian. 2012. Effect of spatial correlation of standard penetration test (SPT) data on bearing capacity of
driven piles in sand. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 49:4, 394-402. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
38. Donghee Kim, Kyu-Sun Kim, Seongkwon Ko, Youngmin Choi, Woojin Lee. 2012. Assessment of geotechnical variability of
Songdo silty clay. Engineering Geology 133-134, 1-8. [CrossRef]
39. Simon Jones, Hugh Hunt. 2012. Predicting surface vibration from underground railways through inhomogeneous soil. Journal
of Sound and Vibration 331:9, 2055-2069. [CrossRef]
40. Sang-Hyun Han, Geu-Guwen Yea, Hong-Yeon Kim. 2012. A Case Study on Quantifying Uncertainties of Geotechnical Random
Variables. The Journal of Engineering Geology 22:1, 15-25. [CrossRef]
41. Kallol Sett, Kow Eshun, You Chen Chao, Boris JeremiEffect of Uncertain Spatial Variability of Soils on Nonlinear Seismic Site
Response Analysis 2856-2865. [CrossRef]
42. Zhe Luo, Sez Atamturktur, C. Hsein JuangEffect of Spatial Variability on Probability-Based Design of Excavations against Basal-
Heave 2876-2884. [CrossRef]
43. Haijian Fan, Robert LiangApplication of Monte Carlo Simulation to Laterally Loaded Piles 376-384. [CrossRef]
44. Hyun-Ki Kim, Han-Saem Kim, Si-Yeol Shin, Choong-Ki ChungDevelopment of Geospatial Analysis Method to Detect Outlying
Data Points 2904-2911. [CrossRef]
45. Negin Zhalehjoo, Reza Jamshidi Chenari, Kaveh Ranjbar PouyaEvaluation of Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations Using
Random Field Theory in Comparison to Classic Methods 2971-2980. [CrossRef]
46. D. Kim, R. Salgado. 2012. Load and Resistance Factors for External Stability Checks of Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 138:3, 241-251. [CrossRef]
47. J. Ji, H.J. Liao, B.K. Low. 2012. Modeling 2-D spatial variation in slope reliability analysis using interpolated autocorrelations.
Computers and Geotechnics 40, 135-146. [CrossRef]
 48. Ganesh W. Rathod, K. Seshagiri Rao. 2012. Finite Element and Reliability Analyses for Slope Stability of Subansiri Lower
Hydroelectric Project: A Case Study. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering 30:1, 233-252. [CrossRef]
49. Zhe Luo, Sez Atamturktur, Yuanqiang Cai, C. Hsein Juang. 2012. Simplified Approach for Reliability-Based Design against
Basal-Heave Failure in Braced Excavations Considering Spatial Effect. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering
138:4, 441. [CrossRef]
50. Ross W. Boulanger, I. M. Idriss. 2012. Probabilistic Standard Penetration TestBased LiquefactionTriggering Procedure. Journal
of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 138:10, 1185. [CrossRef]
51. Zhe Luo, Sez Atamturktur, Yuanqiang Cai, C. Hsein Juang. 2012. Reliability analysis of basal-heave in a braced excavation in a
2-D random field. Computers and Geotechnics 39, 27-37. [CrossRef]
52. Ya-Fen Lee, Yun-Yao Chi, C. Hsein Juang, Der-Her Lee. 2012. Reliability Analysis of Rock Wedge Stability: Knowledge-Based
Clustered Partitioning Approach. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 138:6, 700. [CrossRef]
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Tennessee on 08/08/13

53. Hyuck Jin Park, Jeong-Gi Um, Ik Woo, Jeong Woo Kim. 2012. The evaluation of the probability of rock wedge failure using
the point estimate method. Environmental Earth Sciences 65:1, 353-361. [CrossRef]
54. Zhe Luo, Sez Atamturktur, C. Hsein Juang, Hongwei Huang, Ping-Sien Lin. 2011. Probability of serviceability failure in a braced
excavation in a spatially random field: Fuzzy finite element approach. Computers and Geotechnics 38:8, 1031-1040. [CrossRef]
55. Seong-Pil Kim, Joon Heo, Tae-Ho Bong. 2011. Probabilistic Analysis of Vertical Drains using Hasofer-Lind Reliability Index.
Journal of The Korean Society of Agricultural Engineers 53:6, 1-6. [CrossRef]
56. Kiyonobu Kasama, Andrew J. Whittle. 2011. Bearing Capacity of Spatially Random Cohesive Soil Using Numerical Limit
Analyses. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 137:11, 989-996. [CrossRef]
57. Dian-Qing Li, Shui-Hua Jiang, Yi-Feng Chen, Chuang-Bing Zhou. 2011. System reliability analysis of rock slope stability
involving correlated failure modes. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 15:8, 1349-1359. [CrossRef]
58. Alain Denis, Sidi Mohammed Elachachi, Halidou Niandou. 2011. Effects of longitudinal variability of soil on a continuous spread
footing. Engineering Geology 122:3-4, 179-190. [CrossRef]
For personal use only.

59. Woojin Lee, Donghee Kim, Youngho Chae, Dongwoo Ryu. 2011. Probabilistic evaluation of spatial distribution of secondary
compression by using kriging estimates of geo-layers. Engineering Geology 122:3-4, 239-248. [CrossRef]
60. M. Khajehzadeh, M. R. Taha, A. El-Shafie. 2011. Reliability analysis of earth slopes using hybrid chaotic particle swarm
optimization. Journal of Central South University of Technology 18:5, 1626-1637. [CrossRef]
61. Amit Srivastava, G.L. Sivakumar Babu. 2011. Deflection and buckling of buried flexible pipe-soil system in a spatially variable
soil profile. Geomechanics and Engineering 3:3, 169-188. [CrossRef]
62. A Li, M Cassidy, A LyaminRock slope risk analysis based on non-linear failure criterion 1943-1946. [CrossRef]
63. Patrick M. Strenk, Joseph Wartman. 2011. Uncertainty in seismic slope deformation model predictions. Engineering Geology
122:1-2, 61-72. [CrossRef]
64. Julien Dubost, Alain Denis, Antoine Marache, Denys Breysse. 2011. Effect of uncertainties in soil data on settlement of soft
columnar inclusions. Engineering Geology 121:3-4, 123-134. [CrossRef]
65. Ki-Il Song, Gye-Chun Cho, Seok-Won Lee. 2011. Effects of spatially variable weathered rock properties on tunnel behavior.
Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics 26:3, 413-426. [CrossRef]
66. Mohamed A. Shahin, Eric M. Cheung. 2011. Stochastic design charts for bearing capacity of strip footings. Geomechanics and
Engineering 3:2, 153-167. [CrossRef]
67. Y. G. Tang, Gordon T. C. KungProbabilistic Analysis of Basal Heave in Deep Excavation 217-224. [CrossRef]
68. Jose A. Alonso, Rafael JimenezReliability Analysis of Stone Columns for Ground Improvement 493-500. [CrossRef]
69. Nishant Dayal, P.E., A. Rafael Prieto, Ph.D., J. Paul Lewis, P.E., R. David Scherer, P.E.Probabilistic Slope Stability Analysis As
a Supplement to a Deterministic Study 240-246. [CrossRef]
70. Armin W. Stuedlein, Ph.D., P.E.Random Field Model Parameters for Columbia River Silt 169-177. [CrossRef]
71. Anastasia M. Santoso, Kok-Kwang Phoon, Ser-Tong QuekEffect of 1D Infiltration Assumption on Stability of Spatially Variable
Slope 704-711. [CrossRef]
72. C. P. Lin, Y. C. HungParameter Estimation and Uncertainty Analysis Incorporating Engineering Judgement by Bayesian Inversion
295-302. [CrossRef]
73. John T. Christian, Gregory B. BaecherUnresolved Problems in Geotechnical Risk and Reliability 50-63. [CrossRef]
74. Tien H. Wu, Stephan M. Gale, Steven Z. Zhou, Eugene C. Geiger. 2011. Reliability of Settlement PredictionCase History.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 137:4, 312-322. [CrossRef]
 75. Dianqing Li, Yifeng Chen, Wenbo Lu, Chuangbing Zhou. 2011. Stochastic response surface method for reliability analysis of
rock slopes involving correlated non-normal variables. Computers and Geotechnics 38:1, 58-68. [CrossRef]
76. L. D. Suits, T. C. Sheahan, Khalid A. Alshibli, Ayman M. Okeil, Bashar Alramahi, Zhongjie Zhang. 2011. Reliability Analysis
of CPT Measurements for Calculating Undrained Shear Strength. Geotechnical Testing Journal 34:6, 103771. [CrossRef]
77. mer Bilgin, P.E., Eman Mansour, Mohamad Gabar 754. [CrossRef]
78. Giorgia F. deWolfe, D. V. Griffiths, Jinsong HuangProbabilistic and Deterministic Slope Stability Analysis by Random Finite
Elements 91-111. [CrossRef]
79. Yu Wang, Siu-Kui Au, Zijun Cao. 2010. Bayesian approach for probabilistic characterization of sand friction angles. Engineering
Geology 114:3-4, 354-363. [CrossRef]
80. G.L. Sivakumar Babu, Vikas Pratap Singh. 2010. Reliability analyses of a prototype soil nail wall using regression models.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Tennessee on 08/08/13

Geomechanics and Engineering 2:2, 71-88. [CrossRef]

81. Ioannis E. Zevgolis, Philippe L. Bourdeau. 2010. Probabilistic analysis of retaining walls. Computers and Geotechnics 37:3, 359-373.
[CrossRef]
82. Chia Nan Liu, Chien-Hsun Chen. 2010. Spatial correlation structures of CPT data in a liquefaction site. Engineering Geology
111:1-4, 43-50. [CrossRef]
83. Paolo Frattini, Giovanni Crosta, Alberto Carrara. 2010. Techniques for evaluating the performance of landslide susceptibility
models. Engineering Geology 111:1-4, 62-72. [CrossRef]
84. R. Suchomel, D. Man. 2010. Comparison of different probabilistic methods for predicting stability of a slope in spatially variable
c soil. Computers and Geotechnics 37:1-2, 132-140. [CrossRef]
85. Amit Srivastava, G.L. Sivakumar Babu. 2009. Effect of soil variability on the bearing capacity of clay and in slope stability problems.
Engineering Geology 108:1-2, 142-152. [CrossRef]
86. A. Marache, D. Breysse, C. Piette, P. Thierry. 2009. Geotechnical modeling at the city scale using statistical and geostatistical
tools: The Pessac case (France). Engineering Geology 107:3-4, 67-76. [CrossRef]
For personal use only.

87. Sanjay K. Jha, Kiichi Suzuki. 2009. Liquefaction potential index considering parameter uncertainties. Engineering Geology 107:1-2,
55-60. [CrossRef]
88. Sanjay K. Jha, Kiichi Suzuki. 2009. Reliability analysis of soil liquefaction based on standard penetration test. Computers and
Geotechnics 36:4, 589-596. [CrossRef]
89. Rafael Jimenez, Nicholas Sitar. 2009. The importance of distribution types on finite element analyses of foundation settlement.
Computers and Geotechnics 36:3, 474-483. [CrossRef]
90. Giuseppe Raspa, Massimiliano Moscatelli, Francesco Stigliano, Antonio Patera, Fabrizio Marconi, Daiane Folle, Roberto Vallone,
Marco Mancini, Gian Paolo Cavinato, Salvatore Milli, Joo Felipe Coimbra Leite Costa. 2008. Geotechnical characterization of
the upper PleistoceneHolocene alluvial deposits of Roma (Italy) by means of multivariate geostatistics: Cross-validation results.
Engineering Geology 101:3-4, 251-268. [CrossRef]
91. Alberto Carrara, Giovanni Crosta, Paolo Frattini. 2008. Comparing models of debris-flow susceptibility in the alpine environment.
Geomorphology 94:3-4, 353-378. [CrossRef]
92. Adrian Rodriguez-Marek, Daniel Ciani. 2008. Probabilistic methodology for the analysis of paleoliquefaction features. Engineering
Geology 96:3-4, 159-172. [CrossRef]
93. G.L. Sivakumar Babu, Amit Srivastava, V. Sahana. 2007. Analysis of stability of earthen dams in kachchh region, Gujarat, India.
Engineering Geology 94:3-4, 123-136. [CrossRef]
94. G.L. Sivakumar Babu, Amit Srivastava. 2007. Reliability analysis of allowable pressure on shallow foundation using response
surface method. Computers and Geotechnics 34:3, 187-194. [CrossRef]
95. Ya-Fen Lee, Yun-Yao Chi, Der-Her Lee, Charng Hsein Juang, Jian-Hong Wu. 2007. Simplified models for assessing annual
liquefaction probability A case study of the Yuanlin area, Taiwan. Engineering Geology 90:1-2, 71-88. [CrossRef]
96. Radu Popescu, George Deodatis, Arash Nobahar. 2005. Effects of random heterogeneity of soil properties on bearing capacity.
Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics 20:4, 324-341. [CrossRef]
97. H.F. Schweiger, G.M. Peschl. 2005. Reliability analysis in geotechnics with the random set finite element method. Computers
and Geotechnics 32:6, 422-435. [CrossRef]
98. Tanit Chalermyanont, Craig H. Benson. 2004. Reliability-Based Design for Internal Stability of Mechanically Stabilized Earth
Walls. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 130:2, 163-173. [CrossRef]
 99. C.I. Giasi, P. Masi, C. Cherubini. 2003. Probabilistic and fuzzy reliability analysis of a sample slope near Aliano. Engineering
Geology 67:3-4, 391-402. [CrossRef]
100. Francesco Cafaro, Claudio Cherubini. 2002. Large Sample Spacing in Evaluation of Vertical Strength Variability of Clayey Soil.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 128:7, 558-568. [CrossRef]
101. Vipman Tandjiria, Cee Ing Teh, Bak Kong Low. 2000. Reliability analysis of laterally loaded piles using response surface methods.
Structural Safety 22:4, 335-355. [CrossRef]
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Tennessee on 08/08/13
For personal use only.