Proceedings of the 6th International Offshore Site Investigation and Geotechnics Conference:

Confronting New Challenges and Sharing Knowledge, 11–13 September 2007, London, UK

USE OF STATISTICAL METHODS FOR SELECTING

DESIGN SOIL PARAMETERS
Suzanne Lacasse
International Centre for Geohazards, Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, Norway
Tom Guttormsen
Norsk Hydro Production, Norway
Farrokh Nadim
International Centre for Geohazards, Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, Norway
Amir Rahim
NGI Inc, Houston, USA
Tom Lunne
International Centre for Geohazards, Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, Norway

Abstract
The mechanical properties of soils can never be established with complete certainty. The uncertainty
is due to natural variability of soils, imperfect interpretation models, measurement errors, insufficient
data, etc. The selection of soil properties for geotechnical design is often based on subjective judgment
and experience, and the uncertainties in soil properties are only indirectly accounted for when the
characteristic design values are selected. Although statistical methods can quantify uncertainties and
account for them in a rational manner, they are rarely used in establishing the design soil parameters.
The profession also uses imprecise definitions of ‘characteristic’, ‘best estimate’, ‘upper bound’ and
‘lower bound’ values for design. The profession needs to make a recommendation of which values to
use in design. The paper demonstrates how characteristic values of soil parameters can be extracted
from available data with statistical methods. Examples of characteristic (design) soil parameters over
the past 25 years were re-analysed using statistical methods. Recommendations for choosing charac-
teristic values and expressing variability are given.

1. Introduction Perhaps it has become a habit that no one questions, or the

Soils are naturally variable because of the way they are
formed and the continuous processes of the environment
that alter them. The uncertainty in the mechanical proper-
ties of offshore soils is due to the natural variability from
point to point within a soil volume, insufficient data and
imperfect interpretation models, measurement errors and
other sources.
The selection of soil parameters for geotechnical assessment
is often based on subjective judgment and accumulated ex-
perience. The uncertainties in the soil properties are only
indirectly accounted for when the characteristic (design)
value(s) are chosen.
Statistics and probability are useful tools for the quantifica-
tion of the mean (most probable, expected) value and the
possible range of values of a parameter. Statistical and prob-
abilistic methods can quantify the uncertainties and make
it possible to account for them in a rational and consistent
manner. They are, however, rarely used in practice to estab-
lish the design soil parameters. The reason for this is unclear.
restricted use of statistical methods may be a reflection of
the fact that often not enough data are available to actually
implement statistical methods with confidence. Det Norske
Veritas (DNV) and Norsk Hydro1 prepared a guidance note
on the statistical representation of soil data.
When describing the design soil profile, expressions such
as ‘characteristic’, ‘best estimate’, ‘upper bound’ and ‘lower
bound’ values are used in practice. A common understand-
ing or a standard criterion does not exist for the selection
of ‘best estimate’, ‘upper bound’ and ‘lower bound’ values,
and there is an uncertainty on what is covered by these
expressions. The profession now needs to make a recom-
mendation of which values to use in design. The paper
attempts to quantify some of these concepts through the
reanalysis of case studies in the North Sea and elsewhere,
where characteristic (design) values have been selected by
experienced engineers. Examples of design soil parameters
recommended by the Norwegian Geotechnical Institute
(NGI) for offshore sites over the past two decades were
re-evaluated using statistical methods, and comparisons of

449

OSIG final.indb 449 09/08/2007 00:08:00

 Lacasse, Guttormsen, Nadim, Rahim and Lunne. Use of Statistical Methods for Selecting Design Soil Parameters
characteristic value with best estimates and variance were
made. To ensure neutrality for the statistical analysis, the
cases were analysed by engineers not having had any prior
involvement in the original selection of the characteristic
parameters. The characteristic values were then compared
with the results of unbiased statistical analyses.
The paper discusses ‘characteristic value’, ‘best estimate’,
‘upper bound’ and ‘lower bound’, as they are used to de-
scribe a design soil profile. Characteristic (design) values of
undrained shear strength were compared with the results
of unbiased statistical analyses. The paper suggests that the
profession adopts a univocal definition for the term ‘best
estimate’ and for parameter variability. This suggestion is
proposed as a subject for debate in the coming months so
that agreement can be established for use in practice.
2. Uncertainties in Soil Shear Strength
Soil design parameters for offshore geotechnical design are
usually obtained from laboratory tests on obtained samples
and from in situ tests, mainly the piezocone penetration
test (CPTU). The paper focuses on the undrained shear
strength of the soil, which is the most important parameter
needed for the evaluation of the capacity of offshore foun-
dations (both skirt penetration and load resistance). The
characteristic (design) undrained shear strength in the case
studies was based on laboratory tests under different stress
conditions, the interpretation of in situ CPTU or correla-
tions for normalised undrained shear strength as a function
of over-consolidation ratio (OCR). Lacasse et al.2 presented
six case studies, three of which were for foundation design
for offshore installations, and three related to geohazards as-
sessment at the site. The paper presents the statistical analy-
ses for three recent case studies of geohazards assessment
studies in the North Sea and combines these results with
the case studies reported earlier.
In the engineering literature, the terms variability and un-
certainty are often employed interchangeably. While the two
terms refer to concepts that are closely related, there are some
important differences. Variability, which represents the natu-
ral randomness of the property, is also referred to as aleatory
(or inherent) uncertainty. It is defined as the observable man-
ifestation of one or more physical processes. In principle, a
variable property could be described if a sufficient number of
measurements are available and if the quality of the measure-
ments themselves is sufficient to ensure a confident evalua-
tion of the observations. Hence, the observation of variability
implicitly provides a more or less detailed assessment of the
level of knowledge on a phenomenon of interest and the ca-
pability to measure and model the phenomenon itself3.
Uncertainty can also be epistemic. Epistemic uncertainty
refers to the lack of knowledge for a given soil property4, 2.
The quantification of epistemic uncertainty always requires
some degree of expert judgement.
2.1 Sources of uncertainty
The selection of characteristic values of soil properties for
use in geotechnical design is often based on subjective judg-
450
OSIG final.indb 450
ment and accumulated experience. The uncertainties which
are involved with the soil properties are only, to a limited
extent, brought into the picture when the characteristic val-
ues are chosen and reported to the client. The main sources
of uncertainty in estimated shear of strength soil within a
nominally uniform layer are
• Limited geo-exploration
• Measurement errors
• Limited parameter evaluation
• Spatial variability of mechanical properties
• Sample disturbance
• Bias in test method.
These sources, except for the inherent spatial variability, are
epistemic uncertainties. This type of uncertainty can be re-
duced by, for example, increasing the number of tests or
improving the measurement methods.
2.2 Uncertainties due to sample disturbance
When evaluating the uncertainty of a soil property, it is im-
portant to consider the factors that can influence the qual-
ity of the soil properties derived from the laboratory or in
situ tests, and to take the uncertainties associated with the
assessed soil parameters into account. The main cause of
uncertainty in results of laboratory testing is sample distur-
bance. Sample disturbance can be due to
1. The drilling process for borehole preparation for down-
hole mode sampling
2. Sampling by pressing the sample tube into the soil, ei-
ther at the bottom of a borehole for downhole mode
sampling, or into the seabed for sea bed mode sampling
3. Stress relief when bringing the sample up to deck; this
is particularly important if gas is present in situ, in dis-
solved or free form
4. Handling, storing and transportation of sample to on-
shore laboratory
5. Storage, testing, equipment and procedures in the labo-
ratory.
It is outside the scope of this paper to discuss all these fac-
tors in detail. In most cases the tube sampling disturbance
is the most severe factor. A comprehensive study by Lunne
et al.5 confirmed the effects of tube sampling disturbance on
shear strength parameters, as measured in constant rate of
strain consolidation (CRSC), anisotropically consolidated
undrained triaxial compression (CAUC), anisotropically
consolidated undrained triaxial extension (CAUE) and di-
rect simple shear (DSS) tests. Parallel laboratory tests were
carried out on high quality block samples and on different
types of piston tube samples from 12 soft Norwegian marine
clays.
With reference to offshore applications, block samples rep-
resent the best possible samples that can be recovered today.
The measured soil parameters are believed to be as close
to the in situ conditions as feasible with today’s technol-
ogy. The 75-mm piston thin wall samples can be considered
to be the best piston samples obtainable offshore today. The
09/08/2007 00:08:01
 Proceedings of the 6th International Offshore Site Investigation and Geotechnics Conference:
Confronting New Challenges and Sharing Knowledge, 11–13 September 2007, London, UK

Figure 1: Normalised stress-strain curves and stress paths from CAUC tests on Lierstranda clay5

composite 54-mm piston tube samples are considered to have
characteristics (in terms of geometry of cutting shoe and area
ratio) similar to those of a gravity or Kullenberg sampler used
for seabed sampling offshore. Figure 1 compares the results
of CAUC tests on specimens from three types of samples
of Lierstranda clay. Large differences in the undrained shear
strength are measured on the three types of samples.
Table 1 summarises the ratios of undrained shear strength
as measured on 54-mm tube sample to that measured on a
block sample on the 12 types of clay included in the NGI
study5. In most cases, the undrained shear strength ratios
(ratio block sampler to 54-mm sampler) vary between 1.2
and 1.9. Two clays, however, came out with ratios less than
unity: these unusually lower shear strength of the block
samples are owing to the fact that the clay, when disturbed,
changed from a contractant to a dilatant behaviour, as a
large volume change, ∆e/e0 (see Table 1), occurred when the
clay was re-consolidated to the in situ conditions.
The study by Lunne et al.5 indicated that the undrained
shear strength measured on gravity core samples may, in
the worst case, underestimate the in situ value by a factor of
almost 2. It is possible to classify the degree of sample dis-
turbance by considering the volume change, ∆e/e0. For the
evaluation of the most reliable undrained shear strength,
one places more emphasis on the samples that have the
lowest degree of disturbance. The results of laboratory tests
may also not be representative of the in situ conditions if
erroneous consolidation stresses are used in the laboratory.

Table 1: Effects of sample disturbance for 12 clays in NGI’s block sample database5
Clay Depth Water Plasticity Ave. Volume Change, Sample Shear Strength
(m) Content, w Index, Ip ∆e/e0 Quality Ratio, CAUC
(%) (%) Block 54mm Index* su,block/ su,54-mm

Lierstranda 6 40–42 20 0.025 0.053 1/2 1.35

12.3–16.4 34–38 16–18 0.032 0.080 1/3 1.22
Daneviksgt., 5–10 51–54 27–29 0.021 0.080 1/3 1.19
Drammen 14–19 21–36 10–20 0.042 0.118 1–2/3–4 0.79
Onsøy 7–15 61–65 34–41 0.026 0.071 1/2–3 1.28
Elveplassen 10.1–10.4 34–36 14–16 0.027 0.103 1/3 1.19
Leirsund 7–16 31–39 12–18 0.036 0.061 1/2 1.25***
Eidsvold 6–15 25–33 13–19 0.038 0.090 1/3 0.96
Glava** 5.7–6.1 33 17–18 0.013 0.026 1/2 1.47
Emmerstad 4.1–5.9 37–44 6–11 0.003 0.017 1/1 1.23***
Ellingsrud 7–13 35–39 6–7 0.022 0.079 1/2–3 1.43***
Nykirke 6–10 25–36 4–9 0.018 0.129 1/3–4 1.91
Kvenild 7–8.5 31–37 10–14 0.032 0.071 1/2–3 1.43
5,
* According to sample disturbance criteria in Lunne et al. block sample compared to 54mm sample
** OCR = 4.5–6
*** su,block sample/su,95-mm sample

451

OSIG final.indb 451 09/08/2007 00:08:03

 Lacasse, Guttormsen, Nadim, Rahim and Lunne. Use of Statistical Methods for Selecting Design Soil Parameters

Cases have been seen where the undrained shear strength

results are unreliable for excellent samples, because the
wrong in situ stresses have been used for the consolidation
in the laboratory.
2.3 Uncertainties in shear strength estimates from
in situ tests
The most used offshore in situ test nowadays is the piezocone
test (CPTU). The sources of error for soil shear strength pa-
rameters derived from CPTU tests include measurement er-
ror, assumptions used in interpreting the results and choice
of the so-called N-factors for estimating the undrained shear
strength on the basis of the CPTU results. Just as for the
laboratory data, Lunne et al.5, NGI6, Karlsrud et al.7 and
Lunne et al.8 showed that the derived soil parameters may Figure 2: Variability about mean of depth-dependent soil
vary by a factor of as much as 2, depending on the effects of parameter
sample disturbance, measurement error and interpretation.
In summary, there can be significant sources of error in the 3.2 Parameter estimation for dependent soil variables
results of both laboratory and in situ tests. Before doing a Let Y be a soil variable, e.g. the shear strength, whose varia-
statistical study on soil data from laboratory and/or in situ tion with depth, z, can be reasonably well modelled as a linear
tests, the quality of the data should be carefully assessed. function: Y is then a so-called dependent variable, whereas z
When differences in quality are documented, the relative is independent. Assuming that n observations of pairs, zi, yi,
importance to the data of variable quality should be con- where i = 1, 2, 3, ... n are available from a soil investigation,
sidered given. Only data from the same geological layer the variation of Y with depth can be expressed as
should be used in the statistical analysis. Y = a0 + a1z + ε (2)

3. Statistical Description of Soil Properties where the term a0 + a1z represents the linear mean variation
with depth, the term ε is the natural variability of Y about
A quantitative geotechnical variability investigation relies on
the mean and z is the depth below the soil surface. The vari-
sets (samples in statistical terms) of measured data which are
able Y versus z is shown in Figure 2. The coefficients a0 and
limited in size and quality. Hence, it is necessary to refer to
a1 represent the surface intercept and the depth gradient,
sample statistics. Sample statistics are imperfect estimators of
respectively, of the mean of Y. The variability term, ε, has
the ‘real’ population parameters and may be biased. ‘Sample
zero mean and standard deviation, σ. The standard devia-
statistics’ refers to any mathematical function for a sample.
tion, σ, is assumed to be constant, i.e. it is assumed to be
An infinite number of sample statistics may be calculated
independent of depth, z. The coefficients, a0 and a1, in the
from any given data set. For most geotechnical engineering
linear expression can be estimated from the n observed data
applications, however, it is usually sufficient to calculate the
pairs, z and y, as
first two statistical moments of a sample, i.e. the mean and
standard deviation. Higher moments can be unreliable when
estimated from the usual sample sizes available for offshore (3)
sites.
3.1 Parameter estimation for independent soil variables and
Let X be a soil parameter, for example the unit weight, for (4)
which n observations, X1 ... Xn, exist. The mean value of X in which
is µ and the standard deviation is σ. Any dependency on
depth or any other conditioning quantity is disregarded in (5)
this example, i.e. x is a so-called independent variable.
and
The mean value, µ, is estimated by the sample mean denoted (6)
, and the standard deviation, σ, is estimated by the sample
standard deviation, where n is the number of data points: The standard deviation, σ, of the natural variability term is
estimated by the sample standard deviation

(1)
The sample estimates and s are central estimates of µ and
σ. The coefficient of variation (CoV) is the ratio of the
standard deviation to the mean, CoV = σ/µ.
(7)
When the standard deviation or variance of ε is not con-
stant with depth, the derivation above is no longer valid
(Figure 3). The guidance note by DNV and Norsk Hydro1
provided the equations for a0 and a1 for the situation where

452

OSIG final.indb 452 09/08/2007 00:08:05

 Proceedings of the 6th International Offshore Site Investigation and Geotechnics Conference:
Confronting New Challenges and Sharing Knowledge, 11–13 September 2007, London, UK
Figure 3: Depth-dependent soil parameter with constant and non-constant variance
with depth
the standard deviation of ε increases with depth, and the
increase is proportional with depth, z.
4. Undrained Shear Strength
The three new sets of data analysed are from an offshore site
in the North Sea, where a geohazards assessment was carried
out in 2006. Shear strength profiles were needed for the cal-
culation of both skirt penetration resistance (Characteristic,
High) and the load capacity (Characteristic, Low) of the off-
shore installation. Eleven CPTUs were analysed. As the pro-
filing varied at the different locations at this site (denoted G),
the CPTUs were clustered in groups of three and four at the
three locations. The locations are denoted G1, G2 and G3.
The earlier sites reported in Lacasse et al. were three geo-
2
hazards assessment sites, designated Sites A, B and C, and
three soil profiles established for stability analysis of offshore
installations, denoted Sites D, E and F. The characteristic un-
drained shear strength was based on CAUE, DSS laboratory
tests and/or CPTUs. At times, alternative methods of inter-
pretation were used to derive the undrained shear strength.
Although the geotechnical specialists who established the
characteristic (design) undrained shear strength profiles
were aware of the variability of the measurements at these
three sites, as well as the uncertainty in the estimation of the
undrained shear strength, no attempt was made at the time
to quantify the variability or uncertainties.
The characteristic low estimate of undrained shear strength
for G2 recommended for the soil layer down to 6m depth
(see Figure 4a in Section 5.1) appears to be conservative.
However, at this location, the recommendation of the de-
sign engineer was influenced by the large variability in the
interpreted undrained shear strength below 6m. Figure 4b
(see Section 5.1) shows the results of the four CPTUs at
this location down to 20m depth, and the interpreted un-
drained shear strength down to 12m depth (a separate soil
layer was considered below 6m depth). It could be argued
that the design engineer should not have let the large vari-
ability in the CPTU results below 6m influence his recom-
mendations for the top 6m the soil profile.
4.1 Undrained shear strength from laboratory measurements
When undrained shear strength is measured in the labo-
ratory, the shear strength profile versus depth consists of
discrete measurements, and the characteristic (design) un-
OSIG final.indb 453
drained shear strength is often selected as
a conservative estimate representative of
the available data. For the statistical study,
the mean and standard deviations were
obtained from the parameter estimation
method for dependent variables, as de-
scribed previously. Only the triaxial com-
pression data were used, as they represent
the most reliable test results.
4.2 Undrained shear strength interpreted
from CPTU results
When the characteristic undrained shear
strength profile is established on the basis
of CPTUs, the results can be interpreted from theoretical
or empirical correlations. The empirical approach was used
in this study. To interpret undrained shear strength from
CPTU test results, three main categories can be used
1. ‘Total’ cone resistance
2. ‘Effective’ cone resistance
3. Excess pore pressure.
In most of the cases presented in this paper, the estimation
of undrained shear stregth, su, from CPTU tests used the
corrected total cone resistance. The interpretation was done
with the following equation
(8)
where qt is the corrected cone resistance (measured cone re-
sistance plus measured pore pressure behind the cone), σvo
is the total overburden stress and Nkt is the cone factor.
There are two main sources of uncertainty in the evaluation
of su from equation 8: the corrected cone resistance, qt, and
the cone factor, Nkt. The uncertainty in the total overbur-
den stress is considered as small, as σvo is calculated from
the unit weight of the clay times the depth. Data in the
literature show little variability in the unit weight of clay
within a layer. Therefore, in the following derivation, the
uncertainty in the overburden stress is ignored.
The mean and standard deviation of the undrained shear
strength, su, were evaluated using the first order, second
moment (FOSM) approach9. The FOSM approach pro-
vides an effective means of investigating the propagation of
second moment uncertainties. It provides an approximate
estimate of the central tendency parameter (e.g. mean) and
the dispersion parameter (e.g. standard deviation) of a ran-
dom variable which is a function of other random variable.
The statistical parameters for the undrained shear strength
were evaluated as follows
(9)
with mean at any depth as
(10)
Ignoring the uncertainty which may be present in the es-
timation of the overburden stress, the variance of the un-
drained shear strength, su, accounting for the uncertainties
453
09/08/2007 00:08:07
 Lacasse, Guttormsen, Nadim, Rahim and Lunne. Use of Statistical Methods for Selecting Design Soil Parameters
for both qt and Nkt, becomes
(11)
where the mean and standard deviation of the cone resist-
ance are given by
(12)
The soil design parameter reports that were used in this
study often provided upper bound and lower bound esti-
mates of the cone factor. If the average cone factor was not
given, the statistical analyses assumed that the cone factor
had a normal probability distribution and that the mean
and standard deviation of Nkt were
(13)
The above equations for the mean and standard deviation
of Nkt are based on judgement, not statistics. The equation
for the mean value is valid if one assumes a symmetric prob-
ability distribution for Nkt. If one assumes a uniform distri-
bution for Nkt between its upper bound and lower bound
values, then the standard deviation would be 0.289 times
the difference between the bounds. On the other hand, if
one assumes a symmetric triangular distribution, then the
standard deviation would be 0.204 times the difference be-
tween the bounds. The real distribution is believed to be
somewhere between uniform and triangular, so the stand-
ard deviation was assumed to be 0.25 times the difference
between the upper bound and lower bound values.
If one should interpret the undrained shear strength from
CPTU with either the effective cone resistance or excess
pore pressure, the derivation of the mean and standard devi-
ation of su using either of those two interpretation methods
can be done in a manner similar to the procedure outlined
previously. For Site E, the estimation of su from CPTU tests
used two alternative approaches: (1) correlation between
corrected cone resistance, Nkt, and the pore pressure fac-
tor, Bq10; and (2) site-specific correlation between the pore
pressure factor, Bq, and the OCR, followed by calculation
of the su from the OCR using the SHANSEP approach11.
The pore pressure factor, Bq, is defined as
(14)
where qt is the corrected cone resistance, σvo is the total over-
burden stress and ∆u the measured excess pore pressure.
5. Characteristic Soil Profiles versus Statistical
Soil Parameters
The statistical results are shown as the mean of the und-
rained shear strength, µsu, based on the laboratory and/or
in situ test results used, and the standard deviation rep-
454
OSIG final.indb 454
resented by the µsu ± σsu. The dispersion, σsu, represents
both the spatial variability of the undrained shear strength
in the soil layer in question (aleatory uncertainty) and the
uncertainty in the estimation of the in situ values (epistemic
uncertainty).
5.1 Three locations at Site G
Figure 4 presents the results of the CPTU and of the statis-
tical analysis done for three locations at Site G. At Location
G1, the three CPTU results are rather homogeneous; at
Site G2, the four CPTUs give results not too different from
those at Location G1, whereas at Site G3, the four cone
resistance values show two separate trends.
The statistical interpretation done is shown on the right-
hand side graphs in Figure 4a. Two characteristic undrained
shear strength profiles were established by the designing en-
gineer: a ‘low’ characteristic undrained shear strength for
the calculation of bearing capacity and stability, and a ‘high’
characteristic undrained shear strength for the calculation of
the soil resistance to skirt penetration. The graphs present
the ‘low and high’ characteristic (design) values, and the
mean ± 1 standard deviation based on the statistical analysis
of the corrected cone resistance, qt, from the CPTU. The
CoV (ratio of standard deviation to mean) at Locations G1,
G2 and G3 were about 50–60% near the seabed, reducing
to about 15–25% at a depth of 6m. The high CoV near the
seabed is due to the low mean value of the undrained shear
strength.
5.1.1 su for bearing capacity calculations
If one considers the clay below a depth of 1m, the statistical
analyses suggest the following:
• At Location G1, the characteristic su for stability calcula-
tions was 1 to 2 times the standard deviation below the
mean value.
• At Location G2, the characteristic su for stability calcula-
tions was between 1 and 3 times the standard deviation
below the mean value. If one considers the su to follow
a normal distribution, it is difficult to imagine an su less
than three times the standard deviation from the mean.
• At Location G3, the characteristic su for stability calculations
was typically 1 standard deviation below the mean value.
5.1.2 su for skirt penetration calculations
Again excepting the top 1m of the clay, the following can
be observed at all three locations, the characteristic su for
skirt penetration calculations was close to approximately
the mean plus 1 standard deviation.
5.1.3 Comment
With respect to the results of unbiased statistical analy-
ses, the characteristic values selected seemed to fit well the
range of ±1 standard deviation, which is close to the range
of uncertainty wanted to account for when choosing ‘con-
servative’ values for bearing capacity design. The exception
was Location G2, where the ‘low’ characteristic value was
much lower than the mean –1 standard deviation at 6m.
This was due to the fact that the interpretation was being
carried out at shallow depths and that the undrained shear
09/08/2007 00:08:08
 Proceedings of the 6th International Offshore Site Investigation and Geotechnics Conference:
Confronting New Challenges and Sharing Knowledge, 11–13 September 2007, London, UK

Figure 4a: Results at three

locations at Site G (2006)

Left: CPTU tests

(G1, three CTPUs; G2, four
CPTUs; G3, four CPTUs)

Right: Characteristic
undrained shear strength com-
pared with statistical results

Figure 4b: Results below

6m depth at
location G2 at Site G (2006)

Left: Four CPTUs

(down to 20m)

Right: Undrained shear

strength
(down to 12m)

455

OSIG final.indb 455 09/08/2007 00:08:13

 Lacasse, Guttormsen, Nadim, Rahim and Lunne. Use of Statistical Methods for Selecting Design Soil Parameters
Figure 5: Characteristic undrained shear strength in triaxial
compression at Site A (1984) compared with result of
statistical analysis
strength values were low (between 3 and 25kPa in the top
6m). In addition, especially at Location G2, the selection of
the characteristic undrained shear strength was influenced
by the results of the CPTUs below 6m. Statistical analyses
are presently underway for the clay layers below the top 6m
of the deposit, and will help establish whether the trends
observed at Site G and the six other sites reported in Lacasse
et al.2 (Section 5.2) are consistent.
5.2 Other sites
5.2.1 Site A
At Site A, CAUC tests were used to establish the charac-
teristic undrained shear strength under triaxial conditions.
Twenty-two tests were available between depths of 45 and
95m. Figure 5 presents the results for Site A. The statis-
tical analysis is shown as the means and ±1 standard de-
viation (±1 std. dev.). The characteristic (design) undrained
shear strength profile was taken at the lower bound of the
Figure 6: Results of six CPTU tests at Site B (2003)
456
OSIG final.indb 456
Figure 7: Characteristic triaxial compression undrained
shear strength compared with result of statistical
analysis at Site B
measured CAUC values. The characteristic undrained shear
strength in triaxial compression, suC, selected was even low-
er than the mean –1 standard deviation below depth 65m.
5.2.2 Site B
At Site B, six fairly uniform CPTU profiles were analysed
statistically. Figures 6 and 7 present the available CPTU
data and the results of the statistical analysis at Site B com-
pared with the characteristic values. The undrained shear
strength was interpreted from the CPTUs to correspond
to loading under triaxial compression conditions, suC. The
statistical mean and the recommended characteristic value
compare quite well and are in agreement at 1 to 2m depth
and at about 8m depth. Otherwise, the statistical mean is
only a few percentage points (up to 5%) below the charac-
teristic value. The CoV was higher, approximately 16%.
5.2.3 Site C
At Site C (Figure 8), strength index tests (torvane, pocket
penetrometer, lab vane), in situ vane tests and unconsoli-
dated undrained (UU) tests were available. More recent
anisotropically and isotropically undrained triaxial com-
pression tests (CIUC and CAUC) were run at depths of
Figure 8: Undrained shear strength tests at Site C (2003)
09/08/2007 00:08:16
 Proceedings of the 6th International Offshore Site Investigation and Geotechnics Conference:
Confronting New Challenges and Sharing Knowledge, 11–13 September 2007, London, UK
Figure 9: Characteristic triaxial compression undrained shear
strength at Site C compared with result of statistical analysis
28 and 69m. These are the most reliable results. The char-
acteristic undrained shear strength in triaxial compression,
suC, was obtained from a correlation with in situ overburden
stress, p’o, and OCR, where the undrained shear strength
was taken as 0.31*p’o. Figure 9 presents the statistical analy-
sis. Using the method described above, the CoV about the
means was between 10 and 15%. Since there were only four
data points available, the standard deviation was verified us-
ing the Snedecor and Cochran12 approximation, where the
range of values at a given depth is multiplied by a weighting
factor4. This led to a CoV between 6 and 14%. For a more
complete study, one should also include the statistics for
the field vane tests. The field vane showed a shear strength
profile close to the triaxial compression results, and is con-
sidered to be reliable.
The strength index and UU tests show linearly increasing
shear strength with depth down to a depth of 70m, and a
decrease in strength down to 90m. The data below 70m are
probably affected by sampling disturbance. The triaxial data
Figure 10: Results of four CPTUs at Site D (2001)
OSIG final.indb 457
at a depth of 70m may also have been affected by sample
disturbance, though probably to a smaller degree than the
strength index tests.
Figure 9 compares the characteristic undrained shear
strength with the statistical analysis results. The mean is
10–15% higher than the characteristic undrained shear
strength. The characteristic shear strength is close to the
mean –1 standard deviation. The characteristic shear
strength below a depth of 50m tends to be higher than the
mean –1 standard deviation. The relative position of the
characteristic profile and triaxial data at 69m can confirm
that the triaxial data may have also been affected by sample
disturbance at 70m, if there is no change in the layering at
that depth.
5.2.4 Site D
At Site D, four highly variable CPTU profiles were avail-
able. Figure 10 reproduces the corrected cone resistance,
and Figure 11 presents the characteristic lower and upper
bound interpreted suC (corresponding to triaxial compres-
sion) in the design report. The strength recommendations
were made for calculations associated with skirt penetra-
tion. Figure 11 also shows the statistical mean ±1 standard
deviation based on the four CPTU results. The character-
istic upper bound agrees well the mean +1 standard devia-
tion in the top 3m, but is much higher than that below
3m. On the other hand, the characteristic lower bound is
about 2 standard deviations lower than the mean in the
top 3m, and 1 standard deviation below the mean between
3 and 6m.
5.2.5 Site E
At Site E, two CPTU profiles were available in two loca-
tions that had very different soil profiles. Figures 12 and
13 present the results of the analyses (sites E1 and E2).
For this site, the effect of using two different methods of
interpretation for the CPTU results was studied, and the
undrained shear strength profiles from the two methods
was compared. The two interpretations were used to obtain
Figure 11: Characteristic upper and lower bound undrained
shear strength from CPTUs at Site D compared with result of
statistical analysis
457
09/08/2007 00:08:18
 Lacasse, Guttormsen, Nadim, Rahim and Lunne. Use of Statistical Methods for Selecting Design Soil Parameters
Figure 12: Characteristic DSS undrained shear strength from
CPTUs interpreted with two methods at Site E1 (2003)
the undrained shear strength for a direct simple shear state
of stress, suDSS. The results illustrate the uncertainty in the
interpretation method. For Site E1, the two interpretations
gave very different results. The characteristic profile was se-
lected as close to the lower of the two interpretations. For
Site E2, the two interpretation methods gave similar results.
The characteristic strength was again selected close to the
lower of the two interpretations.
6. Observed Trends
In a deterministic framework, the safety margin of a geo-
technical design, e.g foundation bearing capacity or the
stability situation for a slope, is expressed by the factor of
safety (FoS). The FoS is defined as the ratio of the char-
acteristic resisting force to the characteristic driving force.
The approach does not address the uncertainty in load and
resistance in a consistent manner. The ambiguous defini-
tion of ‘characteristic’ value requires that the engineer
implicitly account for uncertainties by choosing conserva-
tive values of load (high) and resistance parameters (low).
The choice does not reflect a consistent safety margin and,
because of this, appears to be somewhat arbitrary, while
remaining conservative. Foundations with nominally the
same FoS could have significantly different safety margins
because of the uncertainties and the way in which they
are dealt.
The characteristic shear strength profile for seafloor stabil-
ity and bearing capacity evaluations recommended by the
experienced engineer seems to fit well with the statistically
determined mean value –1/2 to –1 standard deviation. At
shallow depths, however, the engineer seems to be more
conservative, with values equal to the mean –1 standard de-
viation or more being used. This is associated with the low
values of undrained shear strength close to the seafloor, and
the possible larger uncertainties associated with the field
operation of in situ testing devices and sampling at very
shallow depths.
The case studies suggest that in the early 1980s, the char-
458
OSIG final.indb 458
Figure 13: Characteristic DSS undrained shear strength from
CPTUs interpreted with two methods at Site E2 (2003)
acteristic undrained shear strength was selected close to
the mean value –1 standard deviation. Characteristic un-
drained shear strengths from more recent case studies lie
close to the mean value –1/2 standard deviation, although
there are exceptions.
When the engineer is faced with two sets of data for the
shear strength profile, the engineer tends to choose the
lowest value of the two as the characteristic profile. It may
be more logical to combine the two sets of data through a
Bayesian model, for example.
7. Recommendations
7.1 Summary
The study aimed at setting the stage for a discussion in the
profession on the consistency in the selection of design pa-
rameters. The profession should aim at providing consistent
safety margins in design, as was the intention with load and
resistance factored design (LRFD) codes. The study shows
that there can be large and highly variable uncertainties in
the soil parameters. Probability approaches or some simpli-
fied version of them are probably the only rigorous ways
to approach a consistent safety margin. Ideally, character-
istic parameters should be estimated to be above or below
a threshold within a distribution in which the user has a
reasonable level of confidence (threshold recommendations
are made in the following section). Such an approach would
also give recognition to the necessity and cost-effectiveness
of high quality and reliable soil sampling and testing.
From the case studies, it would seem that when one relies
on laboratory test results to establish the characteristic (de-
sign) strength, the experienced engineers tend to lie much
lower than the mean, perhaps at about 1 standard deviation
below the mean. On the other hand, when one relies on the
results of in situ piezocone tests, the characteristic strength
can be much closer to the mean of the interpreted measure-
ments in situ, except at shallow depths. This may be due
to the fact that one feels that for CPTU tests in clays, the
selection of the cone resistance values is already based on
09/08/2007 00:08:19
 Proceedings of the 6th International Offshore Site Investigation and Geotechnics Conference:
Confronting New Challenges and Sharing Knowledge, 11–13 September 2007, London, UK
the data that lie towards the lower bound of the measured
data. A study of the case study databank suggests that the
experienced engineer was more conservative in the early to
mid-1980s than in the past 10–15 years.
7.2 Confidence in statistical estimates of soil properties
An important issue is the confidence level in the statisti-
cal estimates of soil properties. The equations in Sections
3.1 and 3.2 give the sample mean and standard deviation,
which are only estimates of the true mean and standard de-
viation of a given property. The uncertainty in the estimates
of the true mean and standard deviation can be quantified
based on the theory for one-sided confidence intervals13.
For example, if X is a soil parameter for which n observa-
tions exist, then the mean value of X, can be estimated with
a confidence of 1 – α from the following equation
(15)
where and s are, respectively, the sample mean sample and
the standard deviation of X based on n observations, and
tn-1(α) is a factor tabulated in statistical textbooks. DNV13
gives an example where n = 22 observations of the undrained
shear strength, su, in a soil deposit are available. The mean
value is estimated to be µsu = 60.2kPa, and the standard de-
viation is estimated to be s = 10.2kPa. In the DNV example,
the mean value of the undrained shear strength is to be esti-
mated with 90% confidence. For n = 22 and (1 – α) = 90%,
the value of tn-1(α) is 1.33. Thus one obtains
(16)
If the characteristic estimate of a soil parameter, X, is de-
fined as some quantile in the distribution of X, then the
following expression for the estimate of the characteristic
value with confidence of 1 – α applies13
(17)
where and s are, respectively, the sample mean sample and
standard deviation of X based on n observations, and c1-α(n)
is a factor that is obtained from the theory for tolerance
bounds. DNV13 provides the values of c1-α(n) for XC defined
as the 5% quantile of X, as well as the equations for param-
eter estimation with confidence for dependent variables.
A problem often encountered in practice in the offshore
environment is scarcity of data coverage in the lateral
direction(s). In most situations, the number of geotechnical
boreholes or CPTUs within a soil layer is too few to perform
any sort of meaningful analysis of confidence intervals. The
high confidence of the geotechnical engineer in the recom-
mended characteristic values, despite the insufficient spatial
data coverage, is often justified by judgement, experience
and understanding of the geological setting. This is a classical
problem in the Bayesian approach to estimation, which is an
alternative to estimation by the classical statistical approach.
The Bayesian approach allows for inclusion of information
other than sample data and for updating of prior informa-
tion when new additional information becomes available.
Further details are provided in e.g. Ang and Tang9.
OSIG final.indb 459
7.3 Recommendations
Which definition of the characteristic value applies usually
depends on the design code and on the actual application.
For problems that are governed by a local soil strength value,
a low quantile in the strength distribution is a logical choice
for the characteristic value. For problems that involve large
soil volumes where local strength variations from point to
point can be assumed to average out (such as in stability
calculations for large gravity-based foundations), the mean
value of the soil strength would be a more logical choice for
the characteristic value. In principle, the characteristic value
should be chosen in the same way in which it was chosen
for the reliability analyses used to calibrate the design codes
against a given probability of failure.
The profession needs to clarify and unify the vocabulary
used in the description of soil parameters used for design.
Characteristic strength is probably fairly well understood
by most practitioners to be the recommended value for de-
sign. The authors recommend that best estimate be used to
designate the statistical mean obtained by methods similar
to those described herein. The use of the expressions lower
bound and upper bound should be discouraged, but one
should express the uncertainties (or the variability) as the
standard deviation or the CoV.
There should be a series of characteristic profiles for differ-
ent design cases, e.g. skirt penetration, stability of skirted
gravity foundations, seismic response, etc. The characteris-
tic profile could include a range or a standard deviation to
account for uncertainty and specific modifications to ac-
count for shape or depth effects. The standard deviation
considered should represent the total uncertainty, and not
only the statistical uncertainty represented by the standard
deviation of the data about the mean trend. This means that
the uncertainty both in the measurements and due to the
limited number of measurements should also be evaluated
and represented in the standard deviation.
When determining the characteristic undrained shear
strength, using ±0.5 or ±1 standard deviations in the analy-
ses will depend on what the parameters will be used for
(e.g. stability analysis versus skirt penetration analysis). A
wider bound would be logical if one is mainly concerned
with the punctual values of the undrained shear strength. If
the undrained shear strength is averaged over a larger depth
and/or volume of soil, the wide range is, however, probably
too conservative because of spatial averaging effects.
When the parameters are based on high quality laboratory
or reliable in situ tests, the following are suggested
• Design over large volumes of soil: the characteristic un-
drained shear strength should be set equal to the mean
–0.5 standard deviation
• Design of installations over smaller areas or volumes
(e.g. penetration of short skirts): one should use a char-
acteristic value equal to the mean –1 standard deviation
• Design based on less reliable test data: the range should
be 1 to 2 standard deviations, depending on the volume
of interest
459
09/08/2007 00:08:20
 Lacasse, Guttormsen, Nadim, Rahim and Lunne. Use of Statistical Methods for Selecting Design Soil Parameters
• The stability assessment of natural submarine slopes: the
mean undrained shear strength should be used.
These definitions and suggestions are set forth as a subject
for debate in the coming months so that the issue can be
discussed and agreement can be reached for use in practice.
The authors believe that the geotechnical profession should
use statistical analysis of the parameters more extensively
and more routinely. Patterns emerge on the relationship be-
tween characteristic soil parameters and statistically derived
ones. The authors recommend, however, that the profession
should look beyond simple statistical analyses and address
the variability and uncertainty in soil parameters explicitly
by implementing probability theory and reliability analy-
ses. These analyses provide a rational framework for dealing
with uncertainties and decision-making under uncertainty.
Depending on the level of sophistication, the analyses pro-
vide the following output: probability of failure or unsat-
isfactory performance, reliability index, the most probable
combination of parameters leading to failure and sensitivity
of result to any change in parameters.
Acknowledgment
The authors wish to acknowledge the help from Katherine
Feeley, on leave at NGI from Northeastern University, with
the statistical analyses.
References
1. Det Norske Veritas (DNV) and Norsk Hydro. (2006). Technical
Report No. 2006-1437: Guidance Note Statistical Representation
of Soil Data, 30 August.
2. Lacasse S, Nadim F, Rahim A and Guttormsen TR. (2007).
Statistical description of characteristic soil properties. Offshore
Tech. Conf., Houston, USA, OTC 19117.
460
OSIG final.indb 460
3. Uzielli M, Lacasse S, Nadim F and Phoon KK. (2006). Soil
variability analysis for geotechnical practice. In Tan TS, Phoon
KK, Hight DW and Leroueil S. (eds.), Characterization and
Engineering Properties of Natural Soils, Vol. 3. London: Taylor and
Francis, 1653–1752.
4. Lacasse S and Nadim F. (1996). Uncertainty in characterizing
soil properties, In Shackleford CD, Nelson PP and Roth MJS
(eds.), Uncertainty in the Geologic Environment: From Theory and
Practice, SSP 58. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers,
49–75.
5. Lunne T, Berre T, Andersen KH, Strandvik S and Sjursen M.
(2006). Effects of sample disturbance and consolidation proce-
dures on measured shear strength of soft marine Norwegian clays.
Canadian Geotech. J. 43, 726–750.
6. Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI). (2002). Quality of
CPTU. Statistical analyses of CPTU data from Onsøy. NGI
Report No. 20011099-2, 5 September.
7. Karlsrud K, Lunne T, Kort DA and Strandvik S. (2005). CPTU
correlations for clays. Proc. Int. Conf. Soil Mech. and Geotech.
Engng, Osaka, Vol. 2, 693–702.
8. Lunne T, Randolph MF, Chung SF, Andersen KH and Sjursen
MA. (2005). Comparison of cone and T-bar factors in two onshore
and one offshore clay sediments. In Gourvenec S and Cassidy M
(eds.), Proc. Int. Symp. on Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics: ISFOG
2005. London: Taylor and Francis, 981–989.
9. Ang AHS and Tang WH. (1975). Probability Concepts in Engineering
Planning and Design. New York: Wiley and Sons, 409p.
10. Lunne T, Robertson PK and Powell JJM. (1997). Cone Penetration
Testing in Geotechnical Practice. London: Spon Press, 312p.
11. Ladd CC, Foott R, Ishihara K, Schlosser F and Poulos HG.
(1977). Stress deformation and strength characteristics, SOA
Report. Proc. ICSMFE Tokyo, Vol. 2, 421–494.
12. Snedecor GW and Cochran WG. (1964). Statistical methods.
Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press, 140 p.
13. DNV. (2007). Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C207: Statistical
Representation of Soil Data, April.
09/08/2007 00:08:20