625

Evaluation of geotechnical property variability

Kok-Kwang Phoon and Fred H. Kulhawy

Abstract: To evaluate geotechnical variability on a general basis that will facilitate the use of reliability-based design
procedures, it is necessary to assess inherent soil variability, measurement error, and transformation uncertainty
separately. The inherent variability and measurement error are addressed in a companion paper, and transformation
uncertainty is addressed herein. A second-moment probabilistic approach is applied to combine these uncertainties
consistently based on the manner in which the design soil property is derived. The design properties considered in this
paper are undrained shear strength, effective stress friction angle, in situ horizontal stress coefficient, and Young’s
modulus. This paper concludes with specific guidelines on the typical coefficients of variation for these common design
soil properties as a function of the test type and the type of correlation used.

Key words: transformation uncertainty, undrained shear strength, friction angle, in situ horizontal stress coefficient,
Young’s modulus, geotechnical variability.
Résumé : Pour évaluer la variabilité géotechnique d’une manière générale permettant d’utiliser des procédures de
calcul basée sur la fiabilité, il est nécessaire de prendre en compte séparément la variabilité intrinsèque du sol,
l’erreur de mesure et l’incertitude de transformation. On a traité de la variabilité intrinsèque et de l’erreur de mesure
dans un article conjoint et l’incertitude de transformation fait l’objet de la présente communication. Puis on applique
une approche probabiliste d’ordre deux pour combiner ces incertitudes, en accord avec la façon dont on acquiert la
propriété du sol en question. Les propriétés étudiées dans cet article sont : (i) la résistance au cisaillement non drainé,
(ii) l’angle de frottement effectif, (iii) le coefficient horizontal de poussée des terres en place et (iv) le module
d’Young. On conclut par des recommandations sur les coefficients de variation typiques à employer pour des
paramètres courants de calcul, en fonction du type d’essai et de corrélation utilisés.
Mots clés : incertitude de transformation, résistance au cisaillement non drainé, angle de frottement, coefficient horizon-
tal de poussée des terres en place, module d’Young, variabilité géotechnique.
[Traduit par la Rédaction] Phoon and Kulhawy 639

Introduction A number of the soil property statistics reported in the

Since the mid-1970s, numerous reliability-based design
(RBD) codes have been put into practice for routine struc-
tural design (e.g., ACI 1983; BSI 1972; CSA 1974; NKB
1978). However, the geotechnical design community has
been slow in assimilating this new design methodology.
Part of the reason lies in the difficulty of assessing the vari-
ability of design soil properties that are needed for these
new RBD procedures. Unlike the variability of manufac-
tured materials used in structures, geotechnical variability
is a complex attribute that results from many disparate
sources of uncertainties. The three primary sources are in-
herent soil variability, measurement error, and transforma-
tion uncertainty. The degree of uncertainty arising from
these sources generally depends on factors such as the vari-
ability of the soil profile at the site, the degree of equip-
ment and procedural control maintained during testing, and
the precision of the correlation model used to transform the
test result measurement into the desired soil property.
geotechnical literature have been determined from total vari-
ability analyses that implicitly assume a uniform source of
uncertainty. Clearly, these lumped statistics are only applica-
ble to the specific set of circumstances (site conditions, mea-
surement techniques, correlation models) for which the
design soil properties were derived. To evaluate geotechnical
variability on a more general basis that will facilitate the use
of RBD procedures, it is necessary to assess the three pri-
mary component uncertainties separately and to develop a
systematic approach that can combine these uncertainties
consistently, based on the manner in which the design soil
property is derived. Statistics on inherent soil variability and
measurement error were reviewed and summarized in the
companion paper of this two-part series (Phoon and
Kulhawy 1999). This paper first describes the evaluation of
transformation uncertainty. Then the uncertainties in the de-
sign soil properties are evaluated rationally by combining
the appropriate component uncertainties using a second-
moment probabilistic approach. The paper concludes with

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: 625–639 (1999) © 1999 NRC Canada

626
Fig. 1. Probabilistic characterization of transformation model.
specific guidelines on the typical coefficients of variation
(COVs) for some common design soil properties as a func-
tion of the type of test and the type of correlation used.
Transformation uncertainty
The direct measurement from a geotechnical test typically
is not directly applicable to design. Instead, a transformation
model is needed to relate the test measurement to an appro-
priate design property. Some degree of uncertainty will be
introduced, because most transformation models are ob-
tained by empirical data fitting. Transformation uncertainty
still would be present even for theoretical relationships be-
cause of idealizations and simplifications in the theory. The
data scatter about the transformation model can be quanti-
fied using probabilistic methods, as illustrated in Fig. 1. In
this approach, the transformation model typically is evalu-
ated using regression analyses. The spread of data about the
regression curve is modeled as a zero-mean random variable
(ε). The standard deviation of ε (SDε) is an indicator of the
magnitude of transformation uncertainty, as shown in Fig. 1.
An example of a probabilistic transformation model is
given below:
su (q − σvo) (q − σvo)
[1] = DK T = (m DK + ε) T
σvo σvo σvo
in which su is the undrained shear strength (design property);
qT is the corrected cone tip resistance (test measurement);
σvo and σvo are the effective and total overburden stresses,
respectively; DK is the uncertain model slope; mDK is the
mean of DK; and ε is the zero-mean random variable repre-
senting transformation uncertainty. The corrected cone tip
resistance, qT, is defined as
[2] qT = qc + (1 – a)ubt
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 36, 1999
Table 1. Second-moment statistics for DK (source: Kulhawy et
al. 1992, p. 5-24).
su test typea Mean DKb COV of DK (%)
CIUC 0.0789 35
UU 0.0512 29
VST 0.0906 40
a
CIUC, consolidated isotropic undrained triaxial compression test; UU,
unconsolidated–undrained triaxial compression test; VST, vane shear test.
b
su/ σ vo = DK(qT – σvo)/ σ vo.
in which qc is the cone tip resistance, a is the net area ratio,
and ubt is the pore-water stress behind the cone tip. Ideally,
the transformation uncertainty should be evaluated so that it
does not include extraneous variabilities, such as inherent
soil variability and measurement error. This result can be
achieved approximately in practice by using high-quality
data that satisfy some basic requirements, such as (i) keep-
ing the distances between corresponding pairs of in situ
property (qT) and soil property (su) measurements at a mini-
mum to reduce inherent soil variability; and (ii) using the
same cone type, method of obtaining qT, and test to measure
su, where possible, to reduce systematic measurement errors.
In a comprehensive study of this type (Kulhawy et al. 1992),
it was found that considerable uncertainty still can be attrib-
uted to the model slope (DK), despite efforts to minimize the
influence of extraneous variabilities, as shown in Table 1.
This study demonstrated that transformation uncertainty is a
significant and independent source of geotechnical variabil-
ity that cannot simply be explained away as being the result
of inherent soil variability and measurement error.
Transformation models for other design properties and
test measurements can be found in the geotechnical litera-
ture, and many have been summarized by Kulhawy and
Mayne (1990). Tables 2 and 3 summarize the availability of
these models in the literature for a range of soil properties
developed from theory, laboratory test measurements, or
© 1999 NRC Canada
Phoon and Kulhawy 627

Table 2. Available correlations for cohesive soils (source: Kulhawy and Mayne 1990, pp. J2–J3).

Laboratory or Field test correlation

Property category Soil property theory correlation SPT CPT CPTU PMT DMT VST
Basic characterization Classification × — × × — × —
Unit weight × — — — — — —
Consistency — × × — — — —
In situ stress Preconsolidation stress × × × × × × ×
Overconsolidation ratio × × — × — × ×
Coefficient of horizontal soil stress × × × × × × —
Strength Effective stress friction angle × — — — — — —
Undrained shear strength × × × × × × ×
Deformability Poisson’s ratio × — — — — — —
Young’s modulus × — — — × — —
Compression indices × — — — — — —
Constrained modulus × × × — — × —
Coefficient of consolidation × — — × — × —
Coefficient of secondary compression × — — — — — —
Permeability Hydraulic conductivity × — — — — — —
Note: CPT, cone penetration test; CPTU, piezocone test; DMT, dilatometer test; PMT, pressuremeter test; SPT, standard penetration test; VST, vane
shear test.

Table 3. Available correlations for cohesionless soils (source: Kulhawy and Mayne 1990, pp. J4–J5).

Laboratory or Field test correlation

Property category Soil property theory correlation SPT CPT CPTU PMT DMT
Basic characterization Classification × — × × — ×
Unit weight × — — — — —
Relative density — × × × — ×
In situ stress Coefficient of horizontal soil stress × — × — × ×
Strength Effective stress friction angle × × × — × ×
Deformability Poisson’s ratio × — — — — —
Young’s modulus × × — — × ×
Compression index × — — — — —
Constrained modulus × — × — — —
Subgrade modulus × — — — — —
Permeability Hydraulic conductivity × — — — — —
Liquefaction resistance Cyclic stress ratio — × × — — ×

field test measurements. However, the transformation uncer-
tainties associated with these models are seldom analyzed
with the same degree of rigor as that shown in eq. [1]. The
majority are empirical and do not contain sufficient informa-
tion for probabilistic evaluation. Although the magnitudes of
uncertainty in these empirical models are unknown, they are
likely to be as large as those indicated in Table 1, particu-
larly for the case of empirical models where two (or more)
items are being linked together that are not directly related.
A good example is the standard penetration test (SPT) N
value noted in Tables 2 and 3. The N value is the dynamic
driving resistance for a particular type of sampler, yet it has
been correlated with the soil consistency, relative density,
vertical and horizontal soil stress state, drained and un-
drained strength, modulus, and liquefaction resistance. Al-
though these characteristics undoubtedly influence N indi-
rectly, it is too much to expect that they all (singly or
collectively) can be predicted reliably without incurring sig-
nificant uncertainties.
Variability of design soil properties
From the above observations, it is clear that the uncer-
tainty in a design soil property is a function of inherent soil
variability, measurement error, and transformation uncer-
tainty. These components can be combined consistently us-
ing the simple second-moment probabilistic approach
described below (Phoon et al. 1995).

© 1999 NRC Canada

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

• Assume that the design property (ξ d) is predicted from a [9a] Γ2(L) = 1 for L = δv
test measurement (ξ m) using the following generic probabil-
istic transformation model: δv
[9b] Γ 2 (L) = for L > δv
L
[3] ξ d = T(ξ m, ε)
in which T(C) is the transformation function, which might be in which δv is the vertical scale of fluctuation. Equation [9]
nonlinear; and ε is the transformation uncertainty. states that the variance reduction function decreases as the
length of the averaging interval increases. Therefore, the ef-
• Introduce inherent soil variability (w) and measurement
fect of averaging is to reduce the uncertainty associated with
error (e) into eq. [3] by substituting ξ m = t + w + e (refer to
inherent soil variability (SD2w ), as shown in eq. [8]. For the
companion paper for details):
case in which t and ∂T/∂w are general functions of depth, no
[4] ξ d = T(t + w + e, ε) simple results are available. However, it can be noted that
the requirements of constant t and ∂T/∂w can be satisfied in
in which t is the deterministic trend function. Note that the most cases because (i) t is approximately constant if the av-
mean of w, e, and ε is zero. eraging interval is not too large, and (ii) ∂T/∂w is a constant
• Linearize eq. [4] about the mean of (w, e, ε) using a first- for linear transformation models, which are commonly as-
order Taylor-series expansion (Benjamin and Cornell 1970): sumed in foundation design.
∂T ∂T ∂T The above general probabilistic approach can be applied
[5] ξ d ≈ T (t,0) + w +e +ε to determine the typical range of variability for some com-
∂w ( t , 0) ∂e ( t , 0) ∂ε ( t, 0) mon design soil properties. The design properties considered
herein are undrained shear strength, effective stress friction
• Estimate the mean and variance of ξ d by applying second- angle, in situ horizontal stress coefficient, and Young’s
moment probabilistic techniques to eq. [5] (Benjamin and modulus. The compilation of statistical data on inherent soil
Cornell 1970): variability and measurement error presented in the compan-
[6a] m ξ d ≈ T(t,0) ion paper serves as realistic inputs for the evaluation of
eqs. [6] and [8]. However, eq. [8] only can be approximately
2 2 2
 ∂T   ∂T   ∂T  evaluated for many cases, because the vertical scale of fluc-
[6b] SDξ2d ≈   SDw2 +   SDe2 +   SD2ε tuation of most test measurements is not available. In addi-
 ∂w   ∂e   ∂ε  tion, rigorous statistics on transformation uncertainty
in which mξd and SD2ξ d are the mean and variance of ξ d, re- generally are not available, as noted previously. However, a
spectively; SD2w is the variance of inherent soil variability; first-order estimate of SDε can be obtained by noting that
SD2e is the variance of measurement error; and SD2ε is the about two thirds of the data typically fall within ± one stan-
variance of transformation uncertainty. dard deviation of the transformation model, because ε is ap-
The approximate mean and variance given in eq. [6] con- proximately normally distributed (Fig. 1). Unless the data
stitute the second-moment statistics of the design property at population has been screened carefully to remove extraneous
a point in the soil mass. For foundation design, it is not un- variabilities as noted above, significant improvement on this
common to evaluate the spatial average of the design prop- first-order estimate is unlikely, even if more sophisticated
erty over some depth interval, rather than use the value of statistical techniques were employed. Even with this simple
the design property at a point. The spatial average of ξ d is technique of evaluating transformation uncertainty, only a
defined as limited number of correlations could be examined because
most are presented without the supporting data, thereby
1 eliminating the possibility of assessing the transformation
L ∫L
[7] ξa= ξ d (z) dz uncertainty.

in which ξ a is the spatial average, L is the averaging length, Undrained shear strength
and z is the depth.
In principle, the mean and variance of ξ a can be computed For direct laboratory measurement of the undrained shear
by substituting eq. [5] into eq. [7] and applying second- strength (su), eq. [4] simplifies to
moment probabilistic techniques to the resulting equation. If
t and ∂T/∂w (or ∂ξ d /∂w) are constants, it can be shown that [10] ξ d = su = t + w + e
the mean of the spatial average is the same as that given in The mean and variance for this design property (su) are de-
eq. [6a], and the variance of the spatial average (SD2ξ a ) is termined from eq. [6] as follows:
given by (Vanmarcke 1983)
2 2 2 [11a] m ξd = t
 ∂T  2  ∂T   ∂T 
[8] SD 2ξ a ≈   Γ ( L) SD 2w +   SD 2e +   SD 2ε
 ∂w   ∂e   ∂ε  [11b] SD2ξ d = SD2w + SD2e

in which Γ2(C) is the variance reduction function, which de- Therefore, the COV of ξ d, which is defined by SDξd/mξd, is
pends on the length of the averaging interval, L. The follow- given by
ing approximate variance reduction function has been
proposed for practical applications (Vanmarcke 1983): [12] COVξ2d = COVw2 + COVe2

© 1999 NRC Canada

Phoon and Kulhawy
in which COVw is the COV of inherent variability = SDw/t,
and COVe is the COV of measurement error = SDe/t. The
COV of the spatial average (ξa) can be obtained from eq. [8]
in a similar manner:
[13] COVξ2a = Γ2(L) COVw2 + COVe2
The COVs of inherent variability (COVw) for the uncon-
fined compression test (UC), unconsolidated–undrained
triaxial compression test (UU), and consolidated isotropic
undrained triaxial compression test (CIUC) were estimated
in the companion paper to be between 20 and 55%, 10 and
30%, and 20 and 40%, respectively. The COV of measure-
ment error (COVe) for undrained strength tests was esti-
mated to be between 5 and 15%. The typical vertical scale
of fluctuation for su was judged to be on the order of 1–2 m.
Using these numerical data, the total COVs (COVξd) for di-
rect measurement of su using UC, UU, and CIUC tests are
21–57%, 11–34%, and 21–43%, respectively (eq. [12]). For
an averaging length of 5 m, the amount of variance reduc-
tion [Γ2(L)] would vary from 0.2 to 0.4 (eq. [9]). By substi-
tuting this variance reduction into eq. [13], the
corresponding COVs for the spatial averages (COVξa) of the
three tests would be 10–38%, 7–24%, and 10–29%.
Correction from vane shear test
An undrained shear strength also can be estimated using
the in situ vane shear test (VST). However, a correction fac-
tor is needed to account for strain-rate effects and soil aniso-
tropy (e.g., Kulhawy and Mayne 1990). For this case, eq. [4]
can be expressed as follows (e.g., Baecher and Ladd 1985):
[14] ξ d = (mµ + ε) (t + w + e)
in which ξd is the design property, which is the corrected su
from the vane shear test; mµ is the mean correction factor; ε
is the uncertainty in the correction factor; and (t + w + e) =
su(VST). The mean and variance for this design property are
determined from eq. [6] as follows:
[15a] m ξd ≈ mµ t
[15b] SD2ξ d ≈ mµ2 (SD2w + SD2e ) + t2SD2ε
The COV of ξd is given by
[16] COVξ2d = COVw2 + COVe2 + COVε2
in which COVε is the COV of transformation uncertainty =
SDε /mµ . The COV of the spatial average can be obtained
from eq. [8] in a similar manner:
[17] COVξ2a = Γ2(L) COVw2 + COVe2 + COVε2
The COV of transformation uncertainty (COVε) for soft
clays was estimated to be between 7.5 and 15% (Baecher
and Ladd 1985). The COV of inherent variability (COVw)
and measurement error (COVe) for the vane shear test were
estimated in the companion paper to be between 10 and 40%
and 10 and 20%, respectively. The vertical scale of fluctua-
tion for su(VST) was judged to vary between 2 and 6 m.
Using these numerical data, the total COV (COVξd) for the
corrected su from the vane shear test is between 16 and 47%
(eq. [16]). For an averaging length of 5 m, the amount of
variance reduction [Γ2(L)] would vary from 0.4 to 1.0
629
(eq. [9]). By substituting this variance reduction into
eq. [17], the corresponding COV for the spatial average
(COVξa) would be between 14 and 47%.
Correlation with corrected cone tip resistance
The correlation between the undrained shear strength and
the corrected cone tip resistance was given in eq. [1]. This
correlation model can be expressed in the form of eq. [4] as
follows:
[18] ξ d = su = (mDK + ε)(t + w + e – σvo)
in which (t + w + e) = qT. The mean and variance for this de-
sign property are determined from eq. [6] as follows:
[19a] mξd ≈ mDK (t – σvo)
[19b] SD2ξ d ≈ m DK
2
(SD2w + SD2e ) + (t – σvo)2 SD2ε
The COV of ξ d is given by
(COVw2 + COVe2 )
[20] COVξ2d ≈ 2
+ COVε2
 σvo 
1 − 
 t 
in which COVε is the COV of transformation uncertainty =
SDε/mDK. The COV of the spatial average can be obtained
from eq. [8] in a similar manner:
[ Γ 2 (L)COVw2 + COVe2 ]
[21] COVξ2a ≈ 2
+ COVε2
 σvm 
1 − 
 t 
in which σvm is the average total overburden stress over L.
The COVs of transformation uncertainty (COVε) for
CIUC and UU reference tests were found to be 35 and 29%,
respectively (Table 1). The COV of inherent variability
(COVw) for the corrected cone tip resistance (qT) in clay was
estimated in the companion paper to be less than 20%. The
measurement error (COVe) for qT likely would be compara-
ble to that produced by the electric cone penetration test,
which was estimated to be between 5 and 15%. The vertical
scale of fluctuation for qT in clay was found to be less than
0.5 m. To evaluate eqs. [20] and [21], it also is necessary to
determine the ratios σvo/t and σvm/t. Note that t is equal to
the mean value of qT, because the mean of w and e is zero.
From Fig. A1a in the companion paper, the mean value of
qT (= t) in clay is on the order of 2 MN/m2. For a typical to-
tal soil unit weight of 20 kN/m3 and a depth of 10 m, the to-
tal overburden stress (σvo or σvm) is 200 kN/m2. Therefore,
the ratios σvo/t and σvm/t are on the order of 0.1. Using these
numerical data, the total COVs (COVξd) for su(CIUC) and
su(UU) predicted from qT would be between 35 and 47%
and 30 and 40%, respectively (eq. [20]). For an averaging
length of 5 m, the amount of variance reduction [Γ2(L)]
would be less than 0.1 (eq. [9]). By substituting this variance
reduction into eq. [21], the corresponding COVs for the spa-
tial averages (COVξa) of the two reference tests would be
between 35 and 39% and 30 and 34%.
Correlation with SPT N value
Reasonable correlation between the undrained shear
strength and the SPT N value can be achieved, provided the
© 1999 NRC Canada
630 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 36, 1999

Fig. 2. Relationship between su and SPT N value (source: Hara et al. 1974, p. 9). OCR, overconsolidation ratio; r, correlation coefficient.

correlation is restricted to one type of geology (Kulhawy
and Mayne 1990). An example of such a local correlation is
illustrated in Fig. 2, which is applicable to alluvial clays in
Japan. The probabilistic equation for this correlation is
[22] log10(su/pa) = log10(0.29) + 0.72 log10(N) + ε
in which su is the undrained shear strength from UU tests,
and pa is the atmospheric pressure. Equation [22] can be re-
written in an equivalent exponential form:
[23] su/pa = 0.29N 0.7210 ε
Equation [23] then is expressed in the form of eq. [4] as fol-
lows:
[24] ξ d = su = 0.29pa(t + w + e)0.7210 ε
in which (t + w + e) = N. The mean and variance for this de-
sign property are determined from eq. [6] as follows:
[25a] mξd ≈ 0.29t 0.72
[25b] SD2ξ d ≈ m ξd
2
[0.722 (COVw2 + COVe2 )
+ (loge10)2 SD2ε ]
The COV of ξ d is given by
[26] COVξ2d ≈ 0.722 (COVw2 + COVe2 ) + (loge10)2 SD2ε
The COV of the spatial average (ξa) can be obtained from
eq. [8] in a similar manner:
[27] COVξ2a ≈ 0.722 [Γ2(L) COVw2 + COVe2 ]
+ (loge10)2 SD2ε
The standard deviation of the transformation uncertainty
(SDε) was not reported, but about two thirds of the data fall
within ±0.15 of the transformation equation shown in Fig. 2.
Therefore, a first-order estimate of SDε is 0.15. The COV of
inherent variability (COVw) and measurement error (COVe)
for N were estimated in the companion paper to be between
25 and 50% and 15 and 45%, respectively. The vertical scale
of fluctuation for N in clays is not available. However, a
comparison between the inherent variability of N in sands
and clays showed that the effect of soil type was not signifi-
cant (Fig. A1c in the companion paper). Therefore, it is pos-
sible that the vertical scale of fluctuation for N is similar for
both soil types. The vertical scale of fluctuation for N in
sandy soils was reported as 2.4 m in one study (Vanmarcke
1977). Using these numerical data, the total COV (COVξa)
for su(UU) predicted from N is between 40 and 60%
(eq. [26]). For an averaging length of 5 m, the amount of
variance reduction [Γ2(L)] would be about 0.5 (eq. [9]). By
substituting this variance reduction into eq. [27], the corre-
sponding COV for the spatial average (COVξa) would be be-
tween 38 and 54%.
Correlation with DMT horizontal stress index
The undrained shear strength also can be correlated to the
dilatometer test (DMT) horizontal stress index, KD. One ex-
ample of such a correlation for Italian clays is illustrated in

© 1999 NRC Canada

Phoon and Kulhawy
Fig. 3. Relationship between su and KD from DMT (source:
Marchetti 1980, p. 317). ID, dilatometer material index.
Fig. 3. The recommended correlation equation is (Marchetti
1980)
 su 
[28]   = 0.22(0.5KD)1.25
σ 
 vo  DMT
Note that the strength data have not been corrected to the
same reference test. Also, the mean line and the standard de-
viation about the mean were not reported by the author. For
subsequent probabilistic analysis, the following model was
determined using linear regression analysis:
 s 
[29] log10  u  = log10 (0.12) + 1.24 log10 KD + ε
 σvo  DMT
The standard deviation of the transformation uncertainty
(SDε ) was found to be 0.11. Equations [29] and [22] are
similar, and therefore the COV for this case can be obtained
by direct comparison with eq. [26]:
[30] COVξ2d ≈ 1.242 (COVw2 + COVe2 ) + (loge10)2 SD2ε
Similarly, the COV of the spatial average (ξa) can be ob-
tained by direct comparison with eq. [27]:
[31] COVξ2a ≈ 1.242 [Γ2(L) COVw2 + COVe2 ]
+ (loge10)2 SD2ε
The COV of inherent variability (COVw) for KD in sands
was found to lie between 20 and 60%. However, a compari-
son between the COVs of dilatometer A and B readings re-
vealed that the effect of soil type is significant (Fig. A1d in
the companion paper). In the absence of relevant statistics,
the COV of inherent variability for KD in clays could be as-
sumed to be comparable to those for the A and B readings in
631
clays, which were estimated to lie between 10 and 35%. The
measurement error (COVe) for KD could be assumed to be
the same as that produced by the dilatometer test, which was
estimated to be between 5 and 15%. Using these numerical
data, the total COV (COVξd) for su determined from the
dilatometer test would be between 29 and 53% (eq. [30]).
The vertical scale of fluctuation for KD is not available, but
it is likely to lie between 2 and 6 m, as discussed in the
companion paper. For an averaging length of 5 m, the
amount of variance reduction [Γ2(L)] would vary from 0.4 to
1.0 (eq. [9]). By substituting this variance reduction into
eq. [31], the corresponding COV for the spatial average
(COVξa) would be between 27 and 53%.
Correlation with plasticity index
The undrained shear strength determined from the vane
shear test can be correlated to the plasticity index (PI) as fol-
lows (e.g., Chandler 1988):
su (VST)
[32] = 0.11 + 0.0037 PI
σp
in which σp is the preconsolidation stress. The transforma-
tion uncertainty was not given, but the author noted that the
accuracy of eq. [32] would be on the order of ±25%. For de-
sign, a correction factor should be applied to su(VST), as
noted previously. The COV of the correction factor also was
noted as lying between 7.5 and 15%. In addition, the
preconsolidation stress is an uncertain parameter. The total
variability of σp was found to lie between 12 and 39% in
one study (Vanmarcke and Fuleihan 1975). A simple proba-
bilistic model for the above correlation is
[33] ξ d = mσp (1 + ε) [0.11 + 0.0037 (t + w + e)]
in which ξ d is the design property, which is the corrected su
from the vane shear test; mσp is the mean preconsolidation
stress; (t + w + e) = PI; and ε is a random variable that ac-
counts for the inaccuracy in eq. [32], uncertainty in the VST
correction factor, and uncertainty in the preconsolidation
stress. The mean and variance for this design property are
determined from eq. [6] as follows:
[34a] mξd ≈ mσp (0.11 + 0.0037t)
[34b] SD2ξ d ≈ m ξ2d 
(
 SD2 + SD2
w e
+
)
SD 2

ε
 (29.73 + t) 2 
 
The COV of ξ d is given by
[35] COVξ2d ≈
(SD 2
w + SDe2 ) + SD 2
ε
(29.73 + t) 2
From eq. [33], it can be seen that ∂ξ d/∂w = 0.0037mσp,
which is not a constant, because the mean preconsolidation
stress (mσp) generally varies with depth. As mentioned pre-
viously, there are no simple solutions for the COV of the
spatial average (COVξa) in such cases.
The standard deviation of inherent variability (SDw) and
measurement error (SDe) of PI were estimated in the com-
panion paper to be between 3 and 12% and 2 and 6%, re-
© 1999 NRC Canada
632 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 36, 1999

spectively. The lower and upper bounds on SDε can be  t/ p 

estimated from the uncertainty in eq. [32] (≈ 0.25), the un-
certainty in the VST correction factor (≈ 0.08–0.15), and the
uncertainty in σp (≈ 0.10–0.40), as follows:
[36a] SDε ≥ 0.25 + 0.08 + 0.10 = 0.28
2 2 2
[36b] SDε ≤ 0.252 + 0.152 + 0.402 = 0.50
Using these numerical data and assuming a typical mean PI
(= t) of 30%, the total COV (COVξd) for the corrected su
from the vane shear test is between 29 and 55% (eq. [35]).
Effective stress friction angle
For direct laboratory measurement of the effective stress
friction angle (φ), eq. [4] simplifies to
[37] ξd = φ = t + w + e
Equation [37] is the same as eq. [10]. Therefore, the mean,
variance, and COV of the design property (φ) can be deter-
mined from eqs. [11a], [11b], and [12], respectively. Simi-
larly, the COV of the spatial average can be determined
using eq. [13].
The COV of inherent variability (COVw) and measure-
ment error (COVe) for typical mean values of φ were both
estimated in the companion paper to be between 5 and 15%.
Using these numerical data, the total COV (COVξd) for di-
rect determination of φ is between 7 and 21% (eq. [12]). The
vertical scale of fluctuation for φ is not available, but it is
likely to lie between 2 and 6 m, as discussed in the compan-
ion paper. For an averaging length of 5 m, the amount of
variance reduction [Γ2(L)] would vary from 0.4 to 1.0
(eq. [9]). By substituting this variance reduction into
eq. [13], the corresponding COV for the spatial average
(COVξa) would be between 6 and 21%.
Correlation with cone tip resistance
A number of correlations between the triaxial compres-
sion effective stress friction angle [φ (TC)] and the cone tip
resistance (qc) have been summarized (Kulhawy and Mayne
1990). The following correlation for sands is selected for
study, because the transformation uncertainty is available for
subsequent probabilistic analysis:
[40a] m ξ d ≈ 17.6 + 11.0 log10  a 
 σvo/ pa 
 
[40b] SD2ξ d ≈ 22.8 (COVw2 + COVe2 ) + SD2ε
The COV of ξd is given by
22.8 (COVw2 + COVe2 ) + SDε2
[41] COVξ2d ≈
m ξ2d
The COV of the spatial average (ξ a) can be obtained from
eq. [8] in a similar manner:
22.8[Γ 2(L)COVw2 + COVe2 ] + SD2ε
[42] COVξ2a ≈
m ξ2d
The COV of inherent variability (COVw) for qc in sand
was estimated in the companion paper to be between 20 and
60%. The measurement error (COVe) for qc can be assumed
to be comparable to that produced by the electric cone pene-
tration test, which was estimated to be between 5 and 15%.
The vertical scale of fluctuation for qc was found to be less
than 1 m. The mean friction angle (mξd) for most soils is be-
tween 20° and 40°. A typical value for mξd is 30°. Using
these numerical data, the total COV (COVξd) of φ (TC) de-
termined from qc is between 10 and 14% (eq. [41]). For an
averaging length of 5 m, the amount of variance reduction
[Γ2(L)] would be less than 0.2 (eq. [9]). By substituting this
variance reduction into eq. [42], the corresponding COV for
the spatial average (COVξa) would be between 9 and 11%.
Correlation with plasticity index
The constant-volume effective stress friction angle (φcv) of
normally consolidated clays can be correlated to the plastic-
ity index (PI) as follows (e.g., Mitchell 1976):
[43] sin φcv = 0.8 – 0.094 logePI
This correlation is illustrated in Fig. 4. A simple probabilis-
tic equation that accounts for the spread of data about this
correlation is as follows:
[44] sin φcv = 0.8 – 0.094 logePI + ε
Equation [44] can be expressed in the form of eq. [4] as fol-
lows:

 q /p  [45] ξ d = φcv = sin–1[0.8 – 0.094 loge(t + w + e) + ε]

[38] φ (TC) = 17.6 + 11.0 log10  c a +ε
 σvo/ pa  (degrees)
 
in which (t + w + e) = PI. The mean and variance for this de-
The standard deviation of ε (SDε) for this correlation is 2.8° sign property (φcv) can be determined from eq. [6] as fol-
(Kulhawy and Mayne 1990). Equation [38] can be expressed lows:
in the form of eq. [4] as follows:
[46a] mξd ≈ sin–1(0.8 – 0.094 loget)
 (t + w + e)/ p 
[39] ξ d = φ (TC) = 17.6 + 11.0 log10  a+ε (degrees)
 σ / p 
 vo a 
 180   0.0942 (COVw2 + COVe2 ) + SDε2 
2
[46b] SDξ2 d ≈    
in which (t + w + e) = qc. The mean and variance for this  π   1 − (0.8 − 0.094 loget) 2 
design property [φ (TC)] can be determined from eq. [6] as
follows: (degrees)2

© 1999 NRC Canada

Phoon and Kulhawy
Fig. 4. Relationship between φcv and PI for normally consolidated clays (source: Mitchell 1976, p. 284).
The COV of ξ d simply is given by SDξ d/m ξ d. The COV of
the spatial average (ξ a) can be obtained from eq. [8] in a
similar manner:
2
180   0.0942 [ Γ 2 ( L )COVw2 + COVe2 ] + SD2ε 
[47] COVξ2a ≈   
 π   m ξ2d [1 − (0.8 − 0.094 log e t)2 ]
The standard deviation of the transformation uncertainty
(SDε) was not reported, but it can be seen that about two
thirds of the data fall within ±0.07 of the transformation
equation shown in Fig. 4. Therefore, a first-order estimate of
SDε is 0.07. The standard deviation of inherent variability
(SDw) and measurement error (SDe) for PI were previously
noted to be between 3 and 12% and 2 and 6%, respectively.
Using these numerical data and assuming a typical mean PI
(= t) of 30%, the total COV (COVξd) for φcv determined
from PI is between 16 and 19% (eq. [46]). The vertical scale
of fluctuation for PI is not available, but it is likely to lie be-
tween 2 and 6 m, as discussed in the companion paper. For
an averaging length of 5 m, the amount of variance reduc-
tion [Γ2(L)] would vary from 0.4 to 1.0 (eq. [9]). By substi-
tuting this variance reduction into eq. [47], the
corresponding COV for the spatial average (COVξa) would
be between 16 and 19%.
In situ horizontal stress coefficient
The self-boring pressuremeter test (SBPMT) provides a
direct measurement of the in situ horizontal stress. No corre-
lation is needed because the stress is measured directly, tak-
ing into account equipment calibrations. The in situ
horizontal stress is expressed commonly in terms of the co-
efficient Ko, which is defined as the ratio of the effective in
situ horizontal stress to the corresponding vertical effective
stress. For this direct field measurement, eq. [4] simplifies to
[48] ξ d = Ko = t + w + e
Equation [48] is the same as eq. [10]. Therefore, the mean,
variance, and COV of the design property (Ko) can be deter-
mined from eqs. [11a], [11b], and [12], respectively. Simi-
633
larly, the COV of the spatial average can be determined us-
ing eq. [13].
The COV of inherent variability (COVw) for the in situ
horizontal stress is not available, but it can be assumed to be
comparable to the corresponding COV for the pressuremeter

 limit stress, which has been estimated in the companion pa-
per to be between 10 and 35% for clay and between 20 and
50% for sand. The measurement error (COVe) for Ko can be
assumed to be comparable to that produced by the self-
boring pressuremeter test, which was estimated to be be-
tween 15 and 25%. Using these numerical data, the total
COVs (COVξd) for direct determination of Ko using the self-
boring pressuremeter in clay and sand are between 18 and
43% and 25 and 56%, respectively (eq. [12]). The vertical
scale of fluctuation for Ko is not available, but it is likely to
lie between 2 and 6 m, as discussed in the companion paper.
For an averaging length of 5 m, the amount of variance re-
duction [Γ2(L)] would vary from 0.4 to 1.0 (eq. [9]). By sub-
stituting this variance reduction into eq. [13], the
corresponding COVs for the spatial average (COVξa) in clay
and sand would be between 16 and 43% and 20 and 56%,
respectively.
Correlation with dilatometer horizontal stress index
The dilatometer test provides an indirect measurement of
Ko because of disturbance caused by the insertion of the
blade into the ground. Correlations between Ko from the
SBPMT and the dilatometer horizontal stress index (KD) are
available for sand and clay. However, only the following cor-
relation for clay is selected for study, because the transfor-
mation uncertainty is available for subsequent probabilistic
analysis (Kulhawy and Mayne 1990):
[49] Ko = 0.27KD + ε
The standard deviation of ε (SDε) for this correlation is 0.48
(Kulhawy and Mayne 1990). Equation [49] can be expressed
in the form of eq. [4] as follows:
[50] ξ d = Ko = 0.27 (t + w + e) + ε
© 1999 NRC Canada
634 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 36, 1999

in which (t + w + e) = KD. The mean and variance for this The COV of ξd is given by
design property (Ko) can be determined from eq. [6] as fol- 2
lows:  SD 
[57] COVξ2d ≈ COVw2 + COVe2 + ε
[51a] mξd ≈ 0.27t  m ξd 
 
[51b] SD2ξ d ≈ 0.272(SD2w + SD2e ) + SD2ε From eq. [55], it can be seen that ∂ξd/∂w = 0.073pa/ σvo,
which is not a constant, because the effective overburden
The COV of ξd is given by stress ( σvo) varies linearly with depth. As mentioned previ-
2 ously, there are no simple solutions for the COV of the spa-
 SD 
[52] COVξ2d ≈ COVw2 + COVe2 + ε tial average (COVξa) in such cases.
 m ξd  The COVs of inherent variability (COVw) and measure-
 
ment error (COVe) for N were estimated previously to be be-
The COV of the spatial average (ξa) can be obtained from tween 25 and 50% and 15 and 45%, respectively. Using
eq. [8] in a similar manner: these numerical data and assuming a typical mean Ko (mξd)
of 1.5, the total COV (COVξd) predicted from N is between
2
 SD  41 and 73% (eq. [57]).
[53] COVξ2a ≈Γ 2
(L)COVw2 + COVe2 + ε
 m ξd 
  Young’s modulus
The COV of inherent variability (COVw) for KD in clays is The pressuremeter test (PMT) provides a direct measure-
not available. As discussed previously, this COV might be ment of the horizontal modulus of soils. This modulus
comparable to those for the A and B readings in clay, which (EPMT) often is presumed to be roughly equivalent to the
were estimated to lie between 10 and 35%. The measure- Young’s modulus (E). For this direct field measurement of
ment error (COVe) for KD could be assumed to be the same the soil modulus, eq. [4] simplifies to
as that produced by the dilatometer test, which was esti-
mated to be between 5 and 15%. Using these numerical data [58] ξ d = EPMT = t + w + e
and assuming a typical mean Ko (mξd) of 1.5, the total COV Equation [58] is the same as eq. [10]. Therefore, the mean,
(COVξd) for Ko determined from a dilatometer test would be variance, and COV of the design property (EPMT) can be de-
between 34 and 50% (eq. [52]). As noted previously, the termined from eqs. [11a], [11b], and [12], respectively. Sim-
vertical scale of fluctuation for KD is not available, but it is ilarly, the COV of the spatial average can be determined
likely to lie between 2 and 6 m. For an averaging length of using eq. [13].
5 m, the amount of variance reduction [Γ2(L)] would vary The COV of inherent variability (COVw) for EPMT in sand
from 0.4 to 1.0 (eq. [9]). By substituting this variance reduc- was estimated in the companion paper to be between 15 and
tion into eq. [53], the corresponding COV for the spatial av- 65%. The measurement error (COVe) for EPMT can be as-
erage (COVξa) would be between 33 and 50%. sumed to be comparable to that produced by the
pressuremeter test, which was estimated to be between 10
Correlation with SPT N value and 20%. Using these numerical data, the total COV
The standard penetration test N value also is related indi- (COVξd) for direct determination of EPMT in sand using the
rectly to Ko, because it is a measurement of vertical penetra- pressuremeter is between 18 and 68% (eq. [12]). The verti-
tion. An example of a correlation between Ko and N for clay cal scale of fluctuation for EPMT is not available, but it is
is given below (Kulhawy and Mayne 1990): likely to lie between 2 and 6 m, as discussed in the compan-
0.073Npa ion paper. For an averaging length of 5 m, the amount of
[54] Ko = +ε variance reduction [Γ2(L)] would vary from 0.4 to 1.0
σvo
(eq. [9]). By substituting this variance reduction into
The standard deviation of ε (SDε) for this correlation is 0.43 eq. [13], the corresponding COV for the spatial average
(Kulhawy and Mayne 1990). Equation [54] can be expressed (COVξa) would be between 14 and 68%.
in the form of eq. [4] as follows:
Correlation with dilatometer modulus
0.073(t + w + e) pa The dilatometer test (DMT) also provides a direct mea-
[55] ξ d = Ko = +ε
σvo surement of soil modulus. The dilatometer modulus (ED) is
related to the Young’s modulus as follows:
in which (t + w + e) = N. The mean and variance for this de-
E
sign property (Ko) can be determined from eq. [6] as fol- [59] ED =
lows: (1 − v2 )
0.073t pa in which ν is Poisson’s ratio. For this direct field measure-
[56a] m ξd =
σvo ment of the soil modulus, eq. [4] simplifies to

2 [60] ξ d = ED = t + w + e
 0.073 pa 
[56b] SDξ2 d ≈   (SDw2 + SDe2 ) + SD2ε
 Equation [60] is the same as eq. [10]. Therefore, the mean,
 σvo  variance, and COV of the design property (ED) can be deter-

© 1999 NRC Canada

Phoon and Kulhawy
Fig. 5. Relationship between EPMT of clays and SPT N value (source: Ohya et al. 1982, p. 129).
mined from eqs. [11a], [11b], and [12], respectively. Simi-
larly, the COV of the spatial average can be determined
using eq. [13].
The COV of inherent variability (COVw) for ED in sand
was estimated in the companion paper to be between 15 and
65%. The measurement error (COVe) for ED can be assumed
to be comparable to that produced by the dilatometer test,
which was estimated to be between 5 and 15%. Using these
numerical data, the total COV (COVξd) for direct determina-
tion of ED using the dilatometer test in sand is between 16
and 67% (eq. [12]). The vertical scale of fluctuation for ED
is not available, but it is likely to lie between 2 and 6 m, as
discussed in the companion paper. For an averaging length
of 5 m, the amount of variance reduction [Γ2(L)] would vary
from 0.4 to 1.0 (eq. [9]). By substituting this variance reduc-
tion into eq. [13], the corresponding COV for the spatial av-
erage (COVξa) would be between 11 and 67%.
Correlation with SPT N value
Correlations between soil modulus and N are fairly weak,
as shown in the example between EPMT and N in clays given
in Fig. 5. The appropriate probabilistic equation for this cor-
relation is
E 
[61] log10  PMT  = log10(19.3) + 0.63 log10N + ε
 Pa 
From the data scatter in Fig. 5, a first-order estimate of the
transformation uncertainty (SD ε) is 0.37. Equations [61] and
[22] are similar. Therefore, the COV for this case can be ob-
tained by direct comparison with eq. [26]:
[62] COVξ2d ≈ 0.632 (COVw2 + COVe2 ) + (loge10)2 SD2ε
635
Similarly, the COV of the spatial average (ξa) can be ob-
tained by direct comparison with eq. [27]:
[63] COVξ2a ≈ 0.632 [Γ2(L) COVw2 + COVe2 ]
+ (loge10)2 SD2ε
The COV of inherent variability (COVw) and measure-
ment error (COVe) for N were previously noted to be be-
tween 25 and 50% and 15 and 45%, respectively. The
vertical scale of fluctuation for N in sandy soils also was
noted above as equal to 2.4 m. Using these numerical data,
the total COV (COVξd) for EPMT predicted from N is be-
tween 87 and 95% (eq. [62]). For an averaging length of
5 m, and assuming that the vertical scales of fluctuation in
clay and sand are comparable as before, the amount of vari-
ance reduction [Γ2(L)] would be about 0.5 (eq. [9]). By sub-
stituting this variance reduction into eq. [63], the
corresponding COV for the spatial average (COVξa) would
be between 86 and 93%. The large COV provides a quantita-
tive measure of the significant inaccuracy in the correlation
model given above.
Importance of local correlations for Young’s modulus
Local correlations that are developed within a specific
geologic setting generally are preferable to generalized
global correlations because they are significantly more accu-
rate. An example of such a correlation between the
dilatometer modulus (ED) and SPT N value is given in
Fig. 6. The data in Fig. 6 were obtained in sandy silts of the
Piedmont geologic province, in and around the Washington,
D.C., area. A simple probabilistic equation for this correla-
tion is
© 1999 NRC Canada
636 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 36, 1999

Fig. 6. Relationship between ED and SPT N value of Piedmont sandy silts (source: Mayne and Frost 1989, p. 22).

E  Table 4. Typical load and resistance statistics for structures (data

[64] log10  D  = log10(22) + 0.82 log10N + ε from Ellingwood et al. 1980).
 Pa 
COV (%)
From the data scatter in Fig. 6, a first-order estimate of the
a
transformation uncertainty (SDε) is 0.12. Equations [64] and Load
[22] are similar. Therefore, the COV for this case can be ob- Dead 10
tained by direct comparison with eq. [26]: Live 25
Wind 37
[65] COVξ2d ≈ 0.822 (COVw2 + COVe2 ) + (loge10)2 SD2ε Snow 26
Similarly, the COV of the spatial average (ξa) can be ob- Earthquake 138
tained by direct comparison with eq. [27]: Resistances
Concrete
[66] COVξ2a ≈ 0.822 [Γ2(L) COVw2 + COVe2 ] Flexure beams 8–14
+ (loge10)2 SD2ε Short columns 12–16
Slender columns 12–17
The numerical data on inherent variability (COVw), measure- Shear beams 17–21
ment error (COVe), and vertical scale of fluctuation for N Steel
were noted above. The total COV (COVξd) for ED predicted Tension members 11
from N is between 37 and 62% (eq. [65]). For a variance re- Compact beams, uniform moment 13
duction [Γ2(L)] of 0.5, the COV for the spatial average Axially loaded columns 14
(COVξa) would be between 34 and 54% (eq. [66]). The sig- Beam-columns 15
nificant reduction in the COVs, in contrast to those obtained Aluminum
in the preceding section, clearly demonstrates that reason- Tension members 8
able correlations with N can be achieved, provided the corre- Beams 8–13
lation is restricted to one type of geology. Columns 8–14
Glue-laminated timber beams 18
Geotechnical versus structural variability a
Fifty-year maximum load effects.
The results presented in these two companion papers am-
ply illustrate the variable nature of the uncertainties in contrast, the uncertainties in structural resistances typically
geotechnical design properties. For example, the COV of the fall within a narrow range of 10–20% for a wide range of
undrained shear strength of clays can vary from 10 to 60%, materials (e.g., concrete, steel, aluminum) and resistance
depending on whether it is measured directly or correlated models (e.g., tension, flexure, shear), as shown in Table 4.
empirically with certain field measurements. It is overly sim- Note that the uncertainties in structural material properties
plistic to assign “typical” COVs for geotechnical design are even lower because the uncertainties in structural
properties without proper reference to some of the important resistances shown in Table 4 also include uncertainties aris-
factors discussed in this paper, such as the soil type, the ing from fabrication and modeling errors. The uncertainties
measurement process, and the transformation model used. In in structural loads generally depend on the source of the

© 1999 NRC Canada

Phoon and Kulhawy 637

Table 5. Approximate guidelines for design soil property variability (source: Phoon et al. 1995, p. 4-51).
Design Spatial average Correlation
propertya Testb Soil type Point COV (%) COVc (%) equation
su(UC) Direct (lab) Clay 20–55 10–40 —
su(UU) Direct (lab) Clay 10–35 7–25 —
su(CIUC) Direct (lab) Clay 20–45 10–30 —
su(field) VST Clay 15–50 15–50 14
su(UU) qT Clay 30–40d 30–35d 18
su(CIUC) qT Clay 35–50d 35–40d 18
su(UU) N Clay 40–60 40–55 23
sue KD Clay 30–55 30–55 29
su(field) PI Clay 30–55d — 32
φ Direct (lab) Clay, sand 7–20 6–20 —
φ (TC) qT Sand 10–15d 10d 38
φcv PI Clay 15–20d 15–20d 43
Ko Direct (SBPMT) Clay 20–45 15–45 —
Ko Direct (SBPMT) Sand 25–55 20–55 —
Ko KD Clay 35–50d 35–50d 49
Ko N Clay 40–75d — 54
EPMT Direct (PMT) Sand 20–70 15–70 —
ED Direct (DMT) Sand 15–70 10–70 —
EPMT N Clay 85–95 85–95 61
ED N Silt 40–60 35–55 64
a
ED, dilatometer modulus; EPMT, pressuremeter modulus; Ko, in situ horizontal stress coefficient; su, undrained shear strength; su(field), corrected su from
vane shear test; φ, effective stress friction angle; φcv, constant-volume φ ; TC, triaxial compression; UC, unconfined compression test.
b
KD, dilatometer horizontal stress index; N, standard penetration test blow count; PI, plasticity index; qT, corrected cone tip resistance.
c
Averaging over 5 m.
d
COV is a function of the mean; refer to COV equations in the text for details.
e
Mixture of su from UU, UC, and VST.

loadings (e.g., dead, live, wind). Typical COVs can be as-
signed to each loading type as shown in Table 4. The COVs
are approximately 30%, with the exception of the nearly de-
terministic dead loads (COV = 10%) and the highly variable
earthquake loads (COV = 138%).
The differences between geotechnical and structural
variabilities have a significant impact on the development of
reliability-based design procedures for geotechnical engi-
neering. As noted above, most of the COVs in structural de-
sign are fairly small. Therefore, structural loads and
resistances usually can be modeled adequately as lumped
parameters in the reliability calibration process. In addition,
the COVs in structural design either fall within narrow
ranges (e.g., structural resistances) or can be categorized
readily into a few cases (e.g., loading type). It is therefore
relatively easy to obtain structural load and resistance factors
that are not dependent on COVs from the reliability calibra-
tion process. The situation in geotechnical engineering is
more complex. As discussed herein, there are many existing
means of evaluating the same design soil property. A practi-
cal reliability-based geotechnical design procedure will have
to account for the wide range of COVs resulting from the
different evaluation methods and possibly high COVs from
highly variable site conditions, poor equipment and proce-
dural control, and (or) low-quality correlations. It may no
longer be realistic to model geotechnical capacities as
lumped parameters or to calibrate geotechnical resistance
factors over the entire range of COVs. A more complete dis-
cussion of these important considerations is given elsewhere
(Phoon et al. 1995).
Summary and conclusions
Rigorous statistics on transformation uncertainty generally
are not available. A first-order estimate of the transformation
uncertainty can be obtained by noting that about two thirds
of the data typically fall within one standard deviation of the
transformation model. Even with this simple technique, only
a limited number of models could be examined, because
most models have been presented without their supporting
data.
Second-moment probabilistic techniques were applied to
combine inherent soil variability, measurement error, and
transformation uncertainty in a consistent manner. A sum-
mary of the variability of some design properties as a func-
tion of the test measurement, correlation equation, and soil
type is presented in Table 5. The variability of the design
properties is given in terms of the COV at a point and the
COV for a spatial average. These ranges of COV are based
on representative statistics of inherent variability and mea-
surement error, as described herein. More accurate COVs
can be calculated by substituting site-specific data on inher-
ent variability and measurement error into the closed-form
COV equations given in this paper. For example, the COV
for the undrained shear strength determined from the
dilatometer test is given by eqs. [30] and [31]. However, it
must be emphasized that these COV equations only are ap-
plicable to the specific correlations considered herein.
The COVs of the undrained shear strength determined by
several different methods were found to be in the range of
10–60%. For the undrained shear strength predicted from N,

© 1999 NRC Canada

638
higher COVs develop when “universal” relationships are
used that are not calibrated to a specific geology. The proba-
ble range of COV for the undrained shear strength is esti-
mated to be between 10 and 70%. The COV of the friction
angle for sand and clay was found to be between 5 and 20%.
For the in situ horizontal stress coefficient (Ko), the COV
was found to be in the range of 20–80% for clay, depending
on the method of evaluation. The corresponding range of
COV for sand, which was found to be in the range of 25–
55%, only would be applicable to the direct determination of
Ko. The COV for indirect methods of evaluation could not
evaluated because probabilistic transformation models were
not available. By comparing the range of COV for sand and
clay in the case of direct determination, the COV for sand
generally is higher. It is possible that the COV for indirect
determination of Ko in sand also is higher than that for clay.
Based on this consideration and the range of 20–80% for
clay as a reference, an overall COV of 30–90% is estimated
to be appropriate for both soil types. The COV of soil modu-
lus was found to be highest. Even for direct methods of
evaluation, the COV was found to be in the range of 20–
70%. Higher COVs were obtained for correlations with N,
particularly if the correlation is not restricted to a specific
geology. The probable range of COV for soil modulus also
is estimated to be on the order of 30–90%.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported, in part, by the Electric
Power Research Institute (EPRI) under RP1493. The EPRI
project manager was A. Hirany.
References
ACI. 1983. Building code requirements for reinforced concrete.
ACI 318-83, American Concrete Institute (ACI), Detroit.
Baecher, G.B., and Ladd, C.C. 1985. Reliability analysis of stabil-
ity of embankments of soft clays. Special Summer Course 1.60s,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass.
Benjamin, J.R., and Cornell, C.A. 1970. Probability, statistics, and
decision for civil engineers. McGraw-Hill, New York.
BSI. 1972. Code of practice for structural use of concrete. CP110
(Pt. 1), British Standards Institution (BSI), London.
Chandler, R.J. 1988. In-situ measurement of undrained shear
strength of clays using field vane. In Vane shear strength testing
in soils: field and laboratory studies. American Society for
Testing and Materials, Special Technical Publication 1014,
ASTM, Philadelphia, pp. 13–44.
CSA. 1974. Cold-formed steel structural members. Standard S136,
Canadian Standards Association (CSA), Rexdale, Ont.
Ellingwood, B., Galambos, T.V., MacGregor, J.G., and Cornell,
C.A. 1980. Development of a probability-based load criterion
for American National Standard A58 — Building code require-
ments for minimum design loads in buildings and other struc-
tures. Special Publication 577, National Bureau of Standards,
Washington, D.C.
Hara, A., Ohta, T., Niwa, M., Tanaka, S., and Banno, T. 1974.
Shear modulus and shear strength of cohesive soils. Soils and
Foundations, 14(3): 1–12.
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.
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 36, 1999
Kulhawy, F.H., Birgisson, B., and Grigoriu, M.D. 1992. Reliabil-
ity-based foundation design for transmission line structures:
transformation models for in situ tests. Electric Power Research
Institute, Palo Alto, Calif., Report EL-5507(4).
Marchetti, S. 1980. In-situ tests by flat dilatometer. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 106(GT3): 299–321.
Mayne, P.W., and Frost, D.D. 1989. Dilatometer experience in
Washington, D.C., and vicinity. Research Record 1169, Trans-
portation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 16-23.
Mitchell, J.K. 1976. Fundamentals of soil behavior. Wiley, New
York.
NKB. 1978. Recommendations for loading and safety regulations
for structural design. Report 36, Nordic Committee on Building
Regulations (NKB), Copenhagen.
Ohya, S., Imai, T., and Matsubara, M. 1982. Relationships between
N value by SPT and LLT pressuremeter results. In Proceedings
of the 2nd European Symposium on Penetration Testing, Am-
sterdam, Vol. 1, pp. 125–130.
Phoon, K.-K., and Kulhawy, F.H. 1999. Characterization of geo-
technical variability. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 36: 612–624.
Phoon, K.-K., Kulhawy, F.H., and Grigoriu, M.D. 1995. Reliabil-
ity-based design of foundations for transmission line structures.
Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, Calif., Report TR-
105000.
Vanmarcke, E.H. 1977. Probabilistic modeling of soil profiles.
Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE,
103(GT11): 1227–1246.
Vanmarcke, E.H. 1983. Random fields: analysis and synthesis.
MIT Press, Cambridge.
Vanmarcke, E.H., and Fuleihan, N.F. 1975. Probabilistic prediction
of levee settlements. In Proceedings of the 2nd International
Conference on Applications of Statistics and Probability in Soil
and Structural Engineering, Aachen, Vol. 2, pp. 175–190.
A: dilatometer A reading
B: dilatometer B reading
COV: coefficient of variation
COVe: coefficient of variation of measurement error
COVw: coefficient of variation of inherent variability
COVε: coefficient of variation of transformation uncertainty
COVξa: coefficient of variation of spatial average
COVξd: coefficient of variation of design soil property
DK: model slope for su and qT correlation
E: Young’s modulus
ED: dilatometer modulus
EPMT: pressuremeter modulus
ID: dilatometer material index
KD: dilatometer horizontal stress index
Ko: in situ coefficient of horizontal soil stress
L: averaging length
N: standard penetration test value
OCR: overconsolidation ratio
PI: plasticity index
SDe: standard deviation of measurement error
SDw: standard deviation of inherent variability
SDε: standard deviation of transformation uncertainty
SDξa: standard deviation of spatial average
SDξd: standard deviation of design soil property
T(C): transformation function
a: net area ratio
© 1999 NRC Canada
Phoon and Kulhawy
e: measurement error
mDK: mean of DK
mµ : mean correction factor for vane shear test
mξd: mean design soil property
mσp: mean preconsolidation stress
pa: atmospheric pressure
qc: cone tip resistance
qT: corrected cone tip resistance
r: correlation coefficient
su: undrained shear strength
t(C): trend function
ubt: pore-water stress behind the cone tip
w: inherent soil variability
639
z: depth
Γ2(C): variance reduction function
δv: vertical scale of fluctuation
ε: transformation uncertainty
ν: Poisson’s ratio
ξa: spatial average
ξd: design soil property
ξm: measured soil property
φ: effective stress friction angle
φcv: constant-volume effective stress friction angle
σp: preconsolidation stress
σvm: average total overburden stress over L
σvo: total overburden stress
σvo: effective overburden stress
© 1999 NRC Canada