Engineering Geology 115 (2010) 28–35

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Geology
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / e n g g e o

Evaluation of deformation modulus of cemented sand using CPT and DMT

Moon-Joo Lee a,b, Sung-Jin Hong b, Young-Min Choi b, Woojin Lee b,⁎
a
Hanwha Engineering and Construction, Seoul, 100-797, Korea
b
School of Civil, Environmental and Architectural Engineering, Korea Univ., Seoul, 136-713, Korea

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A series of penetration tests (CPTs and DMTs) and 1-dimensional compression tests are performed on
Received 31 August 2009 artificially cemented sands to investigate the cementation effect on the deformation characteristics of sand.
Received in revised form 10 June 2010 The constrained modulus (M) is observed to be more sensitive to the cementation than the measurements
Accepted 25 June 2010
by CPT and DMT because the cementation effect is not fully reflected in the CPT and DMT results due to the
Available online 3 July 2010
damage of cementation induced during the penetration. As the cementation causes similar effects on the
Keywords:
horizontal stress index (KD) and cone resistance (qc), the KD–qc/σv′ relation is observed to be similar for both
Cementation uncemented and cemented sands, regardless of the cementation degree. It is also shown that the dilatometer
Deformation modulus modulus (ED) of cemented sand is larger than that of uncemented sand at the same qc and the difference
Cone penetration test increases with the cementation degree. The M/qc and M/ED of cemented sand are significantly larger than
Dilatometer test those of uncemented sand. The M/qc and M/ED of cemented sand decrease with increasing qc, while those of
uncemented sand are almost constant. It is also found that the M/ED–qc/pa relationship of cemented sand is
independent of the cementation degree.
© 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Cementation involves the formation of contact bonding between
particles by the precipitation of bonding materials from the solution
(Joshi et al., 1995). Cementation has been known to cause an increase
in the peak strength and stiffness of soil. The effect of cementation on
shear behavior becomes more significant as the cementation level
increases and the confining stress decreases (Clough et al., 1981;
Huang and Airey, 1993; Schnaid et al., 2001; Ismail et al., 2002; Lee et
al., 2007). The increase of penetration resistance due to cementation
results in the overestimation of the relative density and friction angle
(Puppala et al., 1995). In addition, since the horizontal stress index
(KD) is more sensitive to the cementation than to the relative density
(DR), the KD–DR correlation suggested for uncemented sand over-
predicts the relative density of cemented sand (Marchetti et al., 2001).
Therefore, the evaluation of the geotechnical properties of cemented
sediments using the correlations proposed for uncemented clean sand
is invalid.
There have been few cases in which in-situ penetration tests have
been performed on naturally cemented deposits. Beringen et al.
(1982) and Schnaid et al. (1998) conducted cone penetration tests
(CPTs) on naturally cemented sediments. Cruz and Fonseca (2006)
showed from a few dilatometer tests (DMTs) on naturally cemented
(structured) sediment that the KD of residual soil increases with
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: + 82 2 3290 3310; fax: + 82 2 928 7656.
E-mail address: woojin@korea.ac.kr (W. Lee).
increasing cohesion intercept. Cruz and Fonseca (2006) also pre-
sented that the ratio of a dilatometer constrained modulus and the
cone resistance (MD/qc) of residual soil increases with the increase of
the cohesion intercept. Kaggwa et al. (1996) showed that qc provides
a smaller constrained modulus of cemented calcareous sediments
than the dilatometer modulus does. More recently, Fonseca et al.
(2010) suggested that the KD of residual soil is larger than that of
uncemented sand at the same qc/σv′ .
However, the evaluation of the cementation effect using in-situ
penetration tests is difficult due to non-homogeneity and an unknown
cementation level of natural sediments. In addition, various influenc-
ing factors on cementation cannot be considered adequately in the
process of interpreting in-situ test results. Therefore, it has been
necessary to carry out the calibration chamber test by preparing an
artificially cemented specimen under strictly controlled states.
Cementation effects on CPT results have been studied using laboratory
calibration chambers (Rad and Tumay, 1986; Akili and Al-Joulani,
1988; Puppala et al., 1995). From these results, it has been known that
the cone resistance and sleeve friction increase with increasing
cementing agent content and relative density. Puppala et al. (1995)
suggested that cementation has a larger effect on the cone resistance
at a low confining stress level, where the cohesion intercept of
cemented sand plays a more significant role than the frictional
component to mobilize the shear strength of cemented sand.
However, because Puppala et al. (1995) performed the CPTs at
confining stress of 50–300 kPa after cementation of specimens under
curing stress, the effect of a confining stress level during cementation
is unlikely to be reflected in the test results.

0013-7952/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2010.06.016
 M.-J. Lee et al. / Engineering Geology 115 (2010) 28–35
Fig. 1. Particle size distribution.
In this study, CPTs and DMTs are carried out together on an
artificially cemented specimen prepared using a large calibration
chamber in order to investigate the effect of cementation on in-situ
test results. A series of 1-dimensional tests is also performed to
evaluate the deformation characteristics of cemented sand. Uniform
cemented specimens, which have various relative densities and
cementation levels, are prepared by air-pluviating the pre-wetted
particles using a rainer system. By analyzing the experimental results,
the effects of cementation on the cone resistance and DMT indices are
investigated. A method to evaluate the constrained modulus of
cemented sand from the cone resistance and dilatometer modulus is
also suggested.
2. Experimental program
2.1. Materials
Sand (K-7) that is artificially crushed from a parent rock is used in
this study. Its particle size distribution and basic properties are
presented in Fig. 1 and Table 1. K-7 sand is classified as SP according to
the unified soil classification system (USCS) and the mean particle size
(D50) is 0.17 mm. From X-ray fluorescence analysis, SiO2 is identified
as a dominant particle mineral. From the scanning electron micros-
copy analysis, the shape of the particle is identified as sub-angular.
Gypsum, generally used for manufacturing ceramics, is used as a
cementing agent in this study because the behavior of gypsum-
cemented sand is similar to that of naturally cemented sand (Ismail
et al., 2002). The compressive strength of gypsum cured at a water
content of 40% is about 20 MPa. The expansion rate of gypsum during
the curing is about 0.03%, which is relatively small compared to
ordinary gypsums.
2.2. In-situ tests in calibration chamber
For the cone penetration and dilatometer tests, large cemented
specimens are prepared to have various densities and gypsum
contents in a calibration chamber, which consists of a 1.0 m high
chamber cell with a diameter of 1.2 m as illustrated in Fig. 2. The
hydraulic pressures in the inner and outer chamber cells control the
Table 1
Engineering properties of K-7 sand.
Gs D10 (mm) D50 (mm) Cu Cc emax
2.647 0.09 0.17 2.111 0.988 1.054
29
Fig. 2. Schematic view of calibration chamber system for CPT and DMT.
horizontal boundary or stress condition of the specimen. The vertical
stress is applied by a piston assembly located below the specimen. The
penetration tests can be carried out in the calibration chamber
through the adaptors located on the top plate. To fabricate a
homogeneous sand specimen in the chamber, a rainer system
modified from that of Puppala et al. (1995) is used. The 1.0-meter
high split mold is used to hold the deposited specimen. The 1.0-meter
high extension tube, which is located between the sand storage and
split mold, provides sufficient height for the air-pluviation of sand
particles. For continuous pluviation, the sand storage is manufactured
with the height of 1.2 m. During pluviation, a constant drop height is
maintained using four strings connecting the diffuser system to the
cover plate on the sands in the sand storage. Details of the specimen
preparation are given in Choi et al. (2010).
To minimize the potential of segregation between the gypsum and
sand particles during air-pluviation, the pre-wetting method proposed
by Rad and Tumay (1986) and Puppala et al. (1995) is adopted in this
study. An amount of water equivalent to 0.5% water content is manually
mixed with dry sand. 5%, 7%, and 10% weight of gypsum to dry sand are
then added to the pre-wetted sand and they are re-mixed. The pre-
wetting process moistens the surface of the sand particles and allows
the grains to be uniformly coated with gypsum particles (Puppala et al.,
1995). After pluviating the sands or sand–gypsum mixtures, the
chamber system is assembled and then de-aired water is filled into
the inner and outer cell spaces of the calibration chamber. The vertical
stress and the corresponding K0 horizontal stress are applied to the
specimen under the boundary condition 1 (σv′ = constant, σh′ = con-
stant). After the application of 50–200 kPa vertical stress, the distilled
water is injected through the specimen bottom with 30 kPa pressure to
induce the cementation of sand–gypsum mixtures and the specimen is
cured for 24h. Table 2 shows the details of uncemented and cemented
specimens prepared.
The cone resistance measured in a calibration chamber is
influenced by the chamber size and the boundary condition (Parkin
and Lunne, 1982; Luune and Christophersen, 1983; Been et al., 1986;
Table 2
Test program for calibration chamber study.
Content of gypsum Relative densitya Vertical confining stress No. of
(Cg, %) (Dr, %) (σ′,v kPa) specimen
0 (uncemented) 33–76 50, 100, 200, 400 28
5 36, 57, 74 50, 100, 200 9
7 36, 51, 63 50, 100, 200 9
emin USCS
10 21, 39, 52 50, 100, 200 9
0.719 SP a
Relative density of soil skeleton after applying confining stress.
30 M.-J. Lee et al. / Engineering Geology 115 (2010) 28–35
Jamiolkowski et al., 2003). Ghionna and Jamiolkowski (1992)
suggested four boundary conditions of calibration chamber, as
shown in Table 3. Among four boundary conditions, BC 1 and BC 3
are most frequently used in calibration chamber. BC 1, which
corresponds to constant horizontal and vertical stresses during
penetration, causes a lower cone resistance of the chamber specimen
than the in-situ value, whereas BC 3, with a rigid lateral wall, causes a
higher cone resistance than the field. The cone resistance difference
between the chamber and field tests decreases as the ratio of chamber
to cone diameter (diameter ratio) increases. For loose sand, the
diameter ratio of 20 is sufficient to avoid the effect of the boundary
condition. However, due to higher dilation during penetration, it
should be secured at a minimum of 50 in diameter ratio for a dense
specimen. Because the cemented sand also shows a dilation tendency
even at a loose state, a miniature cone, which has a 2 cm2 cross-
sectional area and a 40 cm2 sleeve area, is used in this study. Because
the diameter ratio is 75 when the miniature cone is penetrated in the
chamber used in this study, the chamber size and boundary condition
are expected to have negligible effects on the cone resistance of the
cemented specimen.
The dilatometer, which was introduced by Marchetti (1980), is a
14 mm thick, 95 mm wide and 220 mm long flat plate with a 20° apex.
A flexible stainless steel membrane of 60 mm diameter is located on
one face of the blade. P0 and P1 pressures are obtained by correcting A
and B values. “A” value is a pressure required to begin to move the
DMT membrane against the soil and “B” value is a pressure required to
move the center of the membrane 1.1 mm against the soil. From these
values, the horizontal stress index, KD = (P0 − u0)/σv0 ′ , the material
index, I D = (P1 − P0 ) / (P 0 − u 0 ), and the dilatometer modulus,
ED = 34.6(P1 − P0), are evaluated. Here, u0 is the in-situ hydrostatic
water pressure and σv0´ is the in-situ vertical effective stress.
After the completion of curing, the miniature CPT and DMT are
performed without changing the initial sitting pressure. The minia-
ture cone is penetrated through the center of the specimen with a
penetration rate of 2 cm/s. A dilatometer is then penetrated 31 cm off
from the center of the specimen with a 2 cm/s penetration rate and
the P0 and P1 pressures are measured at every 10 cm penetrations
from 30 to 70 cm. Fig. 3 represents typical profiles of the cone
resistance and the corrected DMT readings (P0, P1) for uncemented
and cemented K-7 sands. As the gypsum content increases, qc, P0 and
P1 are observed to increase. The cone resistance at the top and bottom
of the specimen is higher than that of the middle of the specimen due
to rigid boundary effects. The influence of the rigid top plate increases
with increasing gypsum content due to the higher dilation tendency
of cemented sand. Test results, which show relatively constant values
of qc, P0 and P1 from 30 to 70 cm in depth, indirectly guarantee the
uniformity of the prepared specimen.
2.3. Laboratory compression test
Since the constrained modulus (M) is a simple and effective
property with which to evaluate the deformation characteristics,
several studies have tried to estimate the constrained modulus using
various in-situ penetration tests. Luune and Christophersen (1983)
Table 3
Boundary conditions (BC) in calibration chamber.
BC Vertical Lateral
Stress Strain Stress
1 Constant – Constant
2 – 0 –
3 Constant – –
4 – 0 Constant
Fig. 3. Typical profiles of cone resistance and DMT readings in chamber test (Dr ≈ 40%,
σ′v= 100 kPa). Numbers in plot are gypsum content.
and Robertson and Campanella (1983) suggested the relation
between the cone resistance and constrained modulus by analyzing
various calibration chamber test results. Marchetti (1980) provided
the ratio of constrained modulus to dilatometer modulus (ED) for
various soils, based on the calibration chamber and in-situ test results.
From chamber test results, Baldi et al. (1986) suggested the relation
between the constrained modulus and dilatometer constrained
modulus (MD) for granular soil.
In this study, the constrained modulus of cemented sand is
determined from 1-dimensional compression tests. The specimens for
compression tests are prepared in a cylindrical cell that has a diameter
of 74 mm and a height of 45 mm. After reconstitution of the
uncemented specimen by air-pluviation in a cell, the vertical pressure
is applied incrementally up to 500 kPa to obtain the stress–strain
relation, from which the constrained modulus is determined. In order
to fabricate the cemented specimen, vertical pressure (50, 100, or
200 kPa) is applied on the air-pluviated sand–gypsum mixtures and
the specimen is cured for 24 h after the injection of de-aired water.
The stress–strain relation of the cemented specimen is then obtained
by increasing the vertical pressure at 25 kPa increments.
Fig. 4 shows typical stress–strain relations obtained from 1-
dimensional compression tests for the uncemented and cemented K-7
sands. It is noted that distinctive yielding occurs for cemented sand
due to the damage of cementation bondage, while only a monotonic
increase in the deformation without yielding occurs for uncemented
sand. Although the cementation induces a considerable increase in the
stiffness up to yield stress, the damage of cementation bondage near
yield stress causes a significant reduction in the stiffness. Once the
cementation bondage is completely broken, the stiffness of the
cemented sands become similar, regardless of the degree of
cementation. Therefore, it can be concluded that the deformation
modulus of cemented sand depends on the cementation bondage as
well as on the degree of cementation damage induced due to the
stress level increase.
As shown in Fig. 4(a) and (b), the magnitude of yield stress
increases as the gypsum content and relative density increase. This
observation is similar to that of Huang and Airey (1998), who showed
the effects of gypsum content and relative density on the pre-
Strain consolidation stress determined from the isotropic compression tests.
– While the yield stress increases significantly with the increment of
0 gypsum content, the effect of relative density on the yield stress is
0 reduced with the increase in relative density. As shown in Fig. 4(c),
–
the increase in sitting pressure (σsit′) causes some increase in the
 M.-J. Lee et al. / Engineering Geology 115 (2010) 28–35 31

3. Analysis and discussion

3.1. Sensitivity of test results to cementation

The cementation effect can be evaluated by the ratio of measured

value for cemented sand to that for uncemented sand under the same
state variables (Puppala et al., 1995). Fig. 5 shows the cementation
effect on various measurements with varying degrees of gypsum
content. Although the penetration of the cone probe or dilatometer
blade in the ground causes the destruction of cementation bonds
around the penetrometer, all of the measurements increase with
increasing gypsum content, but to different degrees. As the cemen-
tation level increases from 5% to 10% gypsum content, the constrained
modulus increases from 9.9 to 15.3 times, but other measurements of
penetration tests show increases from 1.2 to 6.3 times. This
observation indicates that the constrained modulus evaluated at a
small stress level, where no damage to cementation occurs, is
sensitive to the cementation, while the measurements by CPT and
DMT do not fully reflect the cementation effect due to the damage
induced during the penetration. Although Davidson and Boghrat
(1983) suggested that there is less penetration disturbance of the
nearby ground with a dilatometer than with a cone penetrometer, a
similar effect of cementation seems to occur for qc and KD.
It is observed in this study that, with 5–10% gypsum content, the
magnitude of P0 increases 1.7–4.9 times compared to that of
uncemented sand, while the P1 value increases 1.9–7.6 times. This
indicates that there is some degree of influence on the in-situ
measurements by the properties of the undamaged zone, which is
located outside the damaged zone. Because the expansion of the steel
membrane to 1.1 mm widens the influenced area to contain more of
the undamaged zone, P1 pressure is believed to be more sensitive to
the cementation. The fact that ED is more sensitive to the cementation
than KD or qc suggests a better reflection of undamaged cemented
properties on P1 pressure than on P0 pressure.

3.2. Effect of cementation on the relations between qc and DMT indices

Since the cone resistance and dilatometer indices of granular soil are
affected by the same state variables, direct relationships between them
are likely to exist. Campanella and Robertson (1991) suggested a linear
relation between the horizontal stress index (KD) and the cone
resistance normalized with respect to effective vertical stress (qc/σv′).
Fonseca et al. also confirmed a linear KD–qc/σv′ relation for structured
residual soil and observed a 50% larger KD value than that of Campanella
and Robertson (1991) at the same qc/σv′. Fig. 6 shows the KD–qc/σv′

Fig. 4. Results of one dimensional compression test: (a) effect of gypsum content, Cg
(initial DR ≈ 40%, σsit′ = 100 kPa); (b) effect of relative density, DR (Cg = 7%, σsit′ = 100 kPa);
(c) effect of sitting pressure, σsit′ (initial DR ≈ 40%, Cg= 7%).

stiffness and yielding stress of cemented sand but its effect is smaller
than that of relative density or gypsum content. In this study, the
constrained modulus of cemented sand is determined from the Fig. 5. Effect of gypsum content on the increase in constrained modulus, cone resistance
stress–strain relation at a stress level smaller than the yield stress. and DMT indices (Dr ≈ 40%, σ′v= 100 kPa).
32 M.-J. Lee et al. / Engineering Geology 115 (2010) 28–35
Fig. 6. Relation of qc and KD of uncemented and cemented K-7 sands.
relations for both uncemented and cemented K-7 sands. Although KD
and qc of cemented K-7 sand are found to be significantly larger than
those of uncemented sand at the same density and stress state, the KD–
qc/σv′ relation of K-7 sand is not affected by the gypsum content. This is
because the cementation with 5–10% gypsum induces the similar
increases in both KD and qc. It is also observed that the KD–qc/σv′ relation
of K-7 sand is observed to be located between that suggested by
Campanella and Robertson (1991) and Fonseca et al. (2010).
Fig. 7 shows the ED–qc relations for uncemented and cemented K-7
sands. While uncemented K-7 sand shows a linear ED–qc relation, its
ED value is slightly larger than that of Campanella and Robertson
(1991) at the same qc values. It is also observed that there is a linear
ED–qc relationship for cemented K-7 sand. The slope of the ED–qc
relation for both uncemented and cemented sands appears to be
similar, while the ED of cemented sand increases as the gypsum
content increases. Therefore, the ED–qc relation of K-7 sand is
expressed as Eq. (1). The α value for K-7 sand is 3.13, regardless of
the cementation degree. The ΔED, which is the difference between the
dilatometer moduli of cemented and uncemented sands, is related to
the cementation degree and can be evaluated from the cohesion of
cemented sand. Since the cementation bondage disappears gradually
as the stress level increases, the cohesion of cemented sand can be
determined by a drained shear test at a low confining stress level
(Schnaid et al., 2001; Lee et al., 2007). In this study, the cohesion is
evaluated from the drained triaxial tests on cylindrical specimens,
which are reconstituted to have the same density and gypsum content
Fig. 7. Relation of qc and ED of uncemented and cemented K-7 sands.
as those of the calibration chamber specimens. From the regression
analysis on the test results, ΔED of K-7 sand is given in terms of
cohesion as Eq. (2).
ED = αqc + ΔED ð1Þ
ΔED = 0:24 × c ′ : ð2Þ
3.3. Evaluation of constrained modulus of cemented sand
3.3.1. Applicability of empirical correlations to constrained modulus of
cemented sand
Generally, the constrained modulus of uncemented soil has been
estimated by using MD = EDRM of Marchetti (1980). The RM is a
correction factor related to the horizontal stress index (KD) and
material index (ID). Bellotti et al. (1997) and Jamiolkowski et al.
(1988) showed from the calibration chamber test results that the
dilatometer constrained modulus (MD) is slightly smaller than the
measured constrained modulus (M). However, Marchetti et al. (2001)
suggested that MD is relatively well matched to M. In this study, the
MD value is estimated using Marchetti (1980) and is compared with M
determined from a 1-dimensional compression test. It is shown in
Fig. 8 that, while MD of uncemented K-7 sand is slightly under-
estimated, that of cemented K-7 sand is underestimated by 21–73%.
This is because the cementation effect reflected on KD is not enough to
provide an adequate RM value for cemented sand although the
cementation causes some increase in KD. In addition, the cementation
damage induced during the DMT blade penetration prevents the
undamaged deformation characteristics from being reflected ade-
quately on ED of cemented sand.
Luune and Christophersen (1983) analyzed the results of CPTs on
normally consolidated unaged uncemented silica sand and proposed a
linear relation between constrained modulus and cone resistance. In
this study, a linear M–qc relation is obtained for uncemented K-7 sand
as Eq. (3):
M = 2:93qc + 4:66: ð3Þ
Also shown in Fig. 8 is the comparison of M measured by a 1-D
compression test on cemented sand with M estimated using Eq. (3),
which is believed to be adequate for uncemented sand. It is observed
that Eq. (3) underestimates the M values of cemented sands by 68–
87% and provides smaller values than those predicted by Marchetti
(1980). From these observations, it can be concluded that penetration
Fig. 8. Comparison of constrained modulus values from consolidation in oedometer cell
and from DMT and CPT in calibration chamber.
 M.-J. Lee et al. / Engineering Geology 115 (2010) 28–35
tests such as CPT and DMT cannot adequately evaluate the
deformation characteristics of cemented sands even though the
cementation effect is reflected in the penetration test results to a
certain degree. Therefore, when the constrained modulus is estimated
by in-situ penetration tests without considering the cementation of
granular soils, it is likely to significantly underestimate the deforma-
tion modulus of in-situ ground. Since P1 pressure reflects the
deformation characteristics of undamaged cementation relatively
well, a slightly better prediction of M value for cemented sand is
achieved by using ED rather than qc.
3.3.2. M–qc relation of cemented sand
In general, the factors affecting the behavior of granular soil show
different degrees of influence on in-situ test results. Baldi et al. (1988)
and Jamiolkowski et al. (1988) showed that, as the relative density and
effective vertical stress increase, the ratio M/qc of uncemented sand
decreases because the modulus increases more or less linearly while the
cone resistance increases exponentially. In addition, the ratio of
modulus to cone resistance (M/qc or E/qc) of OC sand is significantly
larger than that of NC sand, due to the more significant effect of stress
history on the deformation modulus than cone resistance (Jamiolkowski
et al., 1988). The ratio M/qc is plotted in Fig. 9 to investigate the effects of
relative density, stress level, and gypsum content on the deformation
characteristics and cone resistance. It is observed in Fig. 9(a) that M/qc
Fig. 9. Analysis of influencing factors on the relation between constrained modulus and
cone resistance of cemented sand: (a) effect of relative density and vertical confining
stress (Cg = 5%); (b) effect of gypsum content (Dr ≈ 40%).
33
decreases as the relative density and effective stress increase. Similarly
to the uncemented sand, the relative density and stress level seem to
have a larger influence on the cone resistance than the deformation
modulus of cemented sand. This is because the cone resistance, which is
measured while destroying the cementation bonds, is more sensitive to
the density and effective stress, while the constrained modulus is more
significantly affected by the cementation bondage. It is also shown in
Fig. 9(b) that the M/qc value decreases as the gypsum content increases.
Although the cementation causes a significantly larger increase in the
deformation modulus than cone resistance, the increasing ratio of cone
resistance is somewhat larger than that of the deformation modulus.
This was shown in Fig. 5, in which the increment of gypsum content
from 5% to 10% produces a 1.5 times increase in the constrained modulus
and a 2.2 times increase in the cone resistance.
Fig. 10 is a plot of the M/qc–qc relation for uncemented and
cemented K-7 sands. It is shown that the ratio M/qc of uncemented K-
7 sand ranges within 3.0–5.4, which agrees with Baldi et al. (1988)
and Jamiolkowski et al. (1988). As the deformation modulus of
uncemented sand appears to be approximately proportional to the
cone resistance, the ratio M/qc of uncemented sand is expected to be
almost constant regardless of cone resistance. It is also noted that the
ratio of M/qc of cemented sand is 3–14 times larger than that of
uncemented sand at the same cone resistance. This is because the
cementation causes a larger increase in the constrained modulus than
the cone resistance. It is also observed in Fig. 10 that the M/qc ratio of
cemented sand gradually decreases as the cone resistance increases.
The gradual decrease in the M/qc value with qc is due to the different
degrees of influences of the density and stress level on the penetration
resistance and deformation modulus. In other words, the increase in
density and effective stress induces a larger increase in cone
resistance than the constrained modulus. When using the M/qc–qc
relation for cemented sand given in Fig. 10, an error of up to 22% is
expected because the magnitude of the M/qc value seems to be
slightly dependent on the cementation degree.
3.3.3. Evaluation of constrained modulus of cemented sand using qc
and ED
It has been shown in previous studies (Marchetti et al., 2001;
Luune and Christophersen, 1983) that the constrained modulus of
uncemented sand can be estimated from the dilatometer modulus
and cone resistance with reasonable accuracy. However, it is difficult
to provide a reasonable prediction of constrained modulus of
cemented sand since the in-situ penetration test destroys the
cementation bonds and the degree of damage cannot be quantified.
It is shown in this study that the usage of empirical M–qc and M–ED
Fig. 10. Relationship between cone resistance and constrained modulus of cemented
sand.
34 M.-J. Lee et al. / Engineering Geology 115 (2010) 28–35
Fig. 11. Evaluation of constrained modulus of cemented sand using cone resistance and
dilatometer modulus.
correlations suggested for uncemented sand significantly under-
estimates the constrained modulus of cemented sand. In order to
obtain a better evaluation of constrained modulus of cemented sand,
an empirical correlation is suggested by combining the CPT and DMT
results.
Fig. 11 shows a plot of the M/ED–qc/pa relations for uncemented and
cemented K-7 sands, with the data of Ticino and Hokksund sands from
Baldi et al. (1986). It can be seen that the M/ED values of uncemented
sands are almost independent of the cone resistance. The M/ED value of
uncemented K-7 sand ranges within 1.0–1.3 and its average value is 1.2.
However, the M/ED value of Ticino and Hokksund sands from Baldi et al.
(1986) ranges within 1.3–2.4, with an average value of 1.8, which is
somewhat larger than that of uncemented K-7 sand. It is also observed
that the M/ED value of cemented K-7 sand is significantly larger than
that of uncemented sands and it decreases as the cone resistance
increases. A larger M/ED value for cemented sand occurs because the
cementation has a more significant effect on the constrained modulus
than the dilatometer modulus. Although the cementation induces a
significant increase in the constrained modulus, the increase in the
density and effective stress, which contributes to the increase in cone
resistance, causes a more significant effect on the dilatometer modulus
than on the constrained modulus of cemented sand. This results in a
decrease in M/ED with the increase in cone resistance. It should also be
noted that the qc/pa–M/ED relations of cemented sands are similar,
regardless of the degree of cementation.
The constrained moduli for uncemented and cemented sands are
suggested as Eqs. (4) and (5). Here, pa is the reference pressure
(98.1 kPa). The usage of both qc and ED to predict the constrained
modulus of cemented sand is expected to provide an error less than
15%, which is relatively smaller than that of a prediction by using the
M/qc–qc relation in Fig. 10.
 0:064
qc
MUS = 1:52ED ≈1:2ED ð4Þ
pa
 0:42
qc
MCS = 24:4ED : ð5Þ
pa
4. Conclusions
A series of CPTs and DMTs are performed on artificially cemented
K-7 sand specimens to investigate the cementation effect on the
deformation characteristics of cemented sand. The conclusions drawn
are summarized as follows.
The constrained modulus evaluated at a small stress level, where
no damage to cementation occurs, is sensitive to the cementation
while the measurements by CPT and DMT do not fully reflect the
cementation effect due to the damage induced during the penetration.
All of the CPT and DMT measurements increase with increasing
gypsum content, but to different degrees. As the cementation level
increases from 5% to 10% gypsum content, the constrained modulus
increases from 9.9 to 15.3 times, but other measurements of
penetration tests show increases from 1.2 to 6.3 times.
As the cementation with 5–10% gypsum induces similar increases
in both KD and qc, the KD–qc/σv′ relation of K-7 sand is not affected by
the cementation. The KD–qc/σv′ relation of K-7 sand is observed to be
located between that suggested by Campanella and Robertson (1991)
and by Fonseca et al. (2010). The slope of the linear ED–qc relation for
both uncemented and cemented sands appears to be similar, while
the ED value of cemented sand is observed to be larger than that of
uncemented sand at the same qc and their difference in ED increases
with the cementation degree.
The deformation modulus of cemented sands is underestimated
when using the empirical relations previously suggested for unce-
mented sands. The ratios M/qc and M/ED of uncemented K-7 sand are
almost independent of qc and their ranges are 3.0–5.4 and 1.0–1.3,
respectively. The M/qc and M/ED values of cemented sand are
significantly larger than those of uncemented sand as the cementation
causes a larger increase in the deformation modulus than the cone
resistance. Both of these ratios of cemented sand are gradually
reduced with the increase in qc. The M/ED–qc/pa relation suggested in
this study seems to be independent of the cementation degree, while
the M/qc–qc relation is dependent on the cementation degree.
As this study is conducted only for the artificially cemented sand,
further studies are required to investigate if conclusions of this study
are applicable to naturally cemented sediments. It is also necessary to
look at the possibility of other in-situ tests for the evaluation of
deformation modulus of cemented sediments.
Acknowledgement
This paper is supported by the Construction Core Technology
Program (C104A1000009-06A0200-00800) under the KICTEP grant.
References
Akili, W., Al-Joulani, N.M.A., 1988. Cone penetration tests on artificially cemented sands.
In: De Ruiter, J. (Ed.), Proc. of 1st ISOPT. Balkema Pub., Rotterdam, pp. 607–614.
Baldi, G., Bellotti, R., Ghionna, V., Jamiolkowski, M., Pasqualini, E., 1986. Interpretation
of CPTs and CPTUs; Second part: Drained penetration of sands. Proc. of 4th Int'l.
Geotech. Seminar on Field Instrumentation and in situ Measurements, Nanyang
Technological Institute, Singapore, pp. 143–156.
Baldi, G., Bellotti, R., Ghionna, V., Jamiolkowski, M., 1988. Stiffness of sands from CPT,
SPT and DMT. Penetration Testing in the UK. Thomas Telford, London, pp. 299–305.
Been, K., Crooks, J.H.A., Becker, D.E., Jefferies, M.G., 1986. The cone penetration test in
sands: part I. State parameter interpretation. Geotechnique 36 (2), 239–249.
Bellotti, R., Benoit, J., Fretti, C., Jamiolkowski, M., 1997. Stiffness of Toyoura sand from
dilatometer tests. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 123 (9), 836–846.
Beringen, F.L., Kolk, H.J., Windle, D., 1982. Cone penetration and laboratory testing in marine
calcareous sediments. In: Demars, K.R., Chaney, R.C. (Eds.), Geotechnical Properties,
Behavior, and Performance of Calcareous Soils, ASTM STP 777, pp. 179–209.
Campanella, R.G., Robertson, P.K., 1991. Use and interpretation of a research dilatometer.
Can. Geotech. J. 28 (1), 113–126.
Choi, S.K., Lee, M.J., Choo, H., Tumay, M.T., Lee, W., 2010. Preparation of a large size
granular specimen using a rainer system with a porous plate. Geotech. Testing J. 33
(1), 1–10.
Clough, W.G., Sitar, N., Bachus, R., 1981. Cemented sands under static loading. J. Geotech.
Eng. 107 (6), 799–817.
Cruz, N., Fonseca, A.V., 2006. Portuguese experience in residual soil characterization by
DMT tests. In: Failmezger, R.A., Anderson, J.B. (Eds.), Proc. of 2nd Int'l. Conf. on Flat
Dilatometer, Washington, D.C, pp. 359–364.
Davidson, J., Boghrat, A., 1983. Displacements and strains around probes in sand. In:
Wright, S.G. (Ed.), Proc. of Conf. on Geotech. Practice in Offshore Eng. Austin, Texas,
pp. 181–203.
Fonseca, A.V., Silva, S.R., Cruz, N., 2010. Geotechnical characterization by in situ and lab
tests to the back-analysis of a supported excavation in Metro do Porto. J. Geotech.
Geological. Eng. 28 (3), 251–264.
 M.-J. Lee et al. / Engineering Geology 115 (2010) 28–35
Ghionna, V.N., Jamiolkowski, M., 1992. A critical appraisal of calibration chamber
testing of sands. Proc. of Int. Symp. Calibration Chamber Testing. Balkema Pub.,
Rotterdam, pp. 13–40.
Huang, J.T., Airey, D.W., 1993. Effects of cement and density on an artificially cemented
sand. In: Anagnostopoulos, A., Schlosser, F., Kalteziotis, N., Frank, R. (Eds.), Geotechnical
engineering of hard soils–soft rocks. Balkema Pub., Rotterdam, pp. 553–560.
Huang, J.T., Airey, D.W., 1998. Properties of artificially cemented carbonate sand. J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng. 124 (6), 492–499.
Ismail, M.A., Joer, H.A., Sim, W.H., Randolph, M.F., 2002. Effect of cement type on shear
behavior of cemented calcareous soil. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 128 (6),
520–529.
Jamiolkowski, M., Ghionna, V.N., Lancellotta, R., Pasqualini, E., 1988. New correlation of
penetration tests for design practice. In: De Ruiter, J. (Ed.), Proc. of 1st ISOPT.
Balkema Pub., Rotterdam, pp. 263–296.
Jamiolkowski, M., Lo Presti, D.C.F., Manassero, M., 2003. Evaluation of relative density
and shear strength of sands from CPT and DMT. In: Germaine, J.T., Sheahan, T.C.,
Whitman, R.V. (Eds.), Soil Behavior and Soft Ground Construction, ASCE GSP 119,
pp. 201–238.
Joshi, R.C., Achari, G., Kaniraj, S.R., Wijeweera, H., 1995. Effect of aging on the
penetration resistance of sands. Can. Geotech. J. 32 (5), 767–782.
Kaggwa, W.S., Jha, R.K., Jaksa, M.B., 1996. Use of dilatometer and cone penetration tests
to estimate settlement of footings on calcareous sand. 7th Australia New Zealand
Conf on Geomechanics: Geomechanics in a Changing World. Adelaide, South
Australia, pp. 909–914.
35
Lee, M.J., Choi, S.K., Lee, W., 2007. Shear strength of artificially cemented sands. Mar.
Georesour. Geotechnol. 27 (3), 201–217.
Luune, T., Christophersen, H.P., 1983. Interpretation of cone penetrometer data for
offshore sands. Proc. of Offshore Technol. Conf., Richardson, Texas, Paper No. 4464,
pp. 1–12.
Marchetti, S., 1980. In situ tests by flat dilatometer. J. Geotech. Eng. 106 (3), 299–321.
Marchetti, S., Monaco, P., Totani, G., Calabrese, M., 2001. The flat dilatometer test (DMT)
in soil investigations. Proc. of Int'l. Conf. on In situ Measurement of Soil Properties,
A Report by the ISSMGE Committee TC 16. Bali, Indonesia.
Parkin, A.K., Lunne, T., 1982. Boundary effects in the laboratory calibration of a cone
penetrometer in sand. In: Verruijt, A., Beringen, F.L., de Leeuw, E.H. (Eds.), Proc. of
2nd ESOPT. Balkema Pub., Rotterdam, pp. 221–243.
Puppala, A.J., Acar, Y.B., Tumay, M.T., 1995. Cone penetration in very weakly cemented
sand. J. Geotech. Eng. 121 (8), 589–600.
Rad, N.S., Tumay, M.T., 1986. Effect of cementation on the cone penetration resistance of
sand. In: Clemence, S.P. (Ed.), Use of In Situ Tests in Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE
GSP 6, pp. 926–948.
Robertson, P.K., Campanella, R.G., 1983. Interpretation of cone penetration tests part I:
Sand. Can. Geotech. J. 20 (4), 718–733.
Schnaid, F., Consoli, N.C., Averbeck, J.H., 1998. Aspects of cone penetration in natural
weakly-cemented deposits. In: Robertson, P.K., Mayne, P.W. (Eds.), Proc. of 1st Int'l.
Conf. on Site Characterization. Balkema Pub., Rotterdam, pp. 1159–1163.
Schnaid, F., Prietto, P.D.M., Consoli, N.C., 2001. Characterization of cemented sand in
triaxial compression. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 127 (10), 857–868.