1 INTRODUCTION

The compressibility characteristics of cohesionless soils substantially influence the measured CPT resis-
tances. Generally, the more compressible the soil, the lower the tip resistance (q
c
) and, frequently, the
higher the friction ratio (FR% =100 f
s
/q
c
) and the peak drained secant friction angle () (Robertson,
1982). Nearly three decades ago, Schmertmann (1978) identified the following characteristic aspects of
cohesionless soils compressibility:
a. Crushability significantly increases compressibility, particularly in carbonate/calcareous sands.
b. High relative density reduces compressibility and vice versa.
c. Cementation and ageing reduce compressibility.
d. Compressibility decreases with increasing mean particle size and/or decreasing fines content.
In addition to sands with high calcite content, micaceous sands are also considered more compressible
than silica sands. Correspondingly, olivine sands are considered to exhibit low compressibility.
Some geotechnical engineers may think of the sand compressibility as an uncertainty affecting the
CPT interpretations; yet, the substantial effects of soil compressibility on CPT measurements could be
considered advantageous if they are appropriately identified. It is believed that compressibility is one of
the key factors behind many successful CPT behavioral classification systems. These methods identify
soils based on the CPT readings, or equivalently, geomaterials that have distinct differences in their
compressibility behavior.
The soil compressibility characteristics in clay soils depend mainly on void ratio (water content) and
stress history. The elasticity and compression of the clay particles has little to no effect on the overall
soil compressibility. Conversely, the compressibility of sandy soils is more complicated; it depends on
the grain shape, size, angularity and grain mineralogy, as well as the void ratio, state of effective
stresses, and petrology. As a consequence, particle crushability and particle shape play paramount roles
in the compressibility of certain granular soils.
Sand compressibility aspects related to CPT
S.M. Ahmed
Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt
S.W. Agaiby
Dar Al-Handasah (Shair and Partners), Cairo, Egypt
P.W. Mayne
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA


ABSTRACT: Under the same conditions of stress state and relative density, low compressibility sands
resist CPT penetration more than high compressibility sands. Despite that awareness, the compressibility
effects on CPT resistances have been primarily quantified for only a limited number of clean sands using
calibration chambers on mostly quartz and silica sands. Recent research efforts have attempted to corre-
late sand compressibility with the normalized small strain shear modulus obtained from SCPTU tests.
This study investigates the effects and quantifications of sand compressibility on CPT. A general review
is presented for the factors affecting the compressibility of sands and their effects on CPT. The effects of
sand compressibility on CPT correlations are discussed. A quantification approach using the Soil Beha-
vior Type Index (I
c
) is also introduced.
To date, new studies are still needed to improve the current practice in addressing the effect of soil
compressibility on CPT to fully capitalize on the benefits of using CPT in granular soils. In this study,
the different aspects related to sand compressibility on CPT measurements and correlations are pre-
sented. An attempt is made to quantify these effects on the CPT-relative density and CPT-drained fric-
tion angle correlations for uncemented cohesionless soils using solely the basic CPT measurements
(viz., q
c
and f
s
) that are expressed in terms of the Soil Behavioral Type Index (I
c
).

2 COMPRESSIBILITY ASPECTS LINKED WITH GRAIN MINERALOGY
Most sands and cohesionless soils commonly originate from quartz or silica [SiO
2
] because they contain
hard minerals, do not have cleavage planes, and are resistant to weathering. In addition to quartz and
feldspar, siliceous sands frequently contain small to trace proportions of other minerals, such as chlorite,
muscovite, biotite, mica, and halite, as well as lithic fragments from rocks such basalt, chert, sandstone,
and olivine, as well as dark minerals like ilmenite, hematite, and magnetite. Prior studies considered sili-
ceous and quartzitic clean sands to be of low to moderate compressibility (Robertson and Campanella
1983; Kulhawy and Mayne 1990).
Granular soils from other than siliceous origins may have considerable compressibility, especially if
they originate from weak minerals such calcite, aragonite, dolomite, or gypsum. Compressible cohesion-
less soils exist in many places in the world. Examples are the gypsum white Sands of New Mexico and
the calcareous sands in many tropical areas formed from coral fragments or from tiny skeletons of
planktonic sea life. Figure 1 visually shows the different features of some selected sands which reflect
on their compressibility. In the following, some compressibility aspects related to the compressible cal-
careous and micaceous sands are further highlighted.


Figure 1. Sands with different mineralogy (magnification order: x10):
(a) Siliceous sand (Location: Australia, New South Wales);
(b) Calcareous sand (Location: J apan, Okinawa Kondoi beach);
(c) Micaceous sand (Location: Greece, Syros Island) (Source: www.sand-atlas.com)

2.1. Calcareous sands

Calcareous sands exist primarily in coastal areas and on the continental shelves of the tropical and sub-
tropical regions (e.g., Arabian Gulf, Gulf of Mexico, and the North-West Shelf off Australia). The warm
environments of the shelves result in biogenic and biochemical processes that produce calcareous sand
deposits that predominantly consist of skeletal remains of marine organisms with a wide variety of par-
ticle types that differ in nature and shape, as demonstrated in Figure 2 (Olgun et al., 2009).


Figure 2. Some grain shapes of calcareous sands (Olgun et al., 2009)

(a) (c)
(b)
Calcareous sands typically have high calcium carbonate content as calcite and aragonite [CaCO
3
],
and/or dolomite [CaMg(CO
3
)
2
] with variable contents in both cemented and uncemented conditions.
Calcareous sands may vary widely in their geotechnical characteristics, depending on their origin, car-
bonate content, form of constituents and degree of cementation. Generally, the geotechnical properties
of calcareous sands are different from those of silica sands. Although calcareous cohesionless grains
may have a high specific gravity (G
s
=2.75 for calcite and 2.95 for aragonite, compared with 2.65 for si-
lica), they have considerably higher angularities and higher void ratios compared to quartzitic sands. The
coupled high void ratios and intergranular voids can make calcareous sands substantially compressible.
There is also possible volume reduction that develops with time in such soils due to the dolomitization
process where the smaller [Mg] atoms replace the larger [Ca] atoms to form dolomite [CaMg(CO
3
)
2
];
this process increases porosity. The mineralogy and particle characteristics tend to make them suscepti-
ble to crushing under relatively low stresses which affects their compressibility and other engineering
parameters. Calcareous sands have higher friction angles than siliceous soils. Their friction angle de-
creases with increasing confining pressure; it requires twice the strain to mobilize the peak strength in
calcareous sands due to significant contractive tendencies of their structure (Poulos, 1980; Poulos, 1989;
J amiolkowski et al. 2001; Olgun et al., 2009).
The crushability of calcareous soils under relatively low stresses justifies the reduction in the CPT tip
resistance compared with siliceous soils having the same relative density under the same state of effec-
tive stress. Carbonate sands tend to have finer gradation after CPT testing due to particle crushability
(Almeida et al. 1991; Lunne et al., 1997; Bellotti and J amiolkowski, 1991). Lunne et al. (1997) stated
that sands with carbonate contents of less than 50% to 70% tend to behave in a similar manner to non-
calcareous sands and the carbonate grains play less important role in their engineering behaviors.
Semple (1988) suggested that void ratio and particle angularity govern the behavior significantly
more than the carbonate minerals; i.e., if angular quartzitic sands are tested with the same void ratio as
calcareous sands, the behaviors of the two soils are comparable. Also, Almeida et al. (1991) demonstrat-
ed in calibration chambers that calcareous soils exhibit trends similar to that observed for silica sands
having the same void ratios. These conceptions may be considered within a unified compressibility
framework that can describe both the behavior of both siliceous and calcareous sands.

2.2. Micaceous sands

Mica is a weak mineral originating in igneous and metamorphic rocks, and is often present in residual
soils that are formed by weathering of gneiss and schist. Mica crystals have platy shapes with different
sizes that can be easily separated along cleavage planes with application of stress. Gilboy (1928) re-
ported that the compressibility and porosity of silica sands increases with increasing percentages of mi-
ca. Moore (1971) performed a series of tests on micaceous sands and noted that strain increases marked-
ly for a given stress increase with the presence of a small amount of mica. Lee et al. (2007)
demonstrated that the existence of platy mica particles in sand increases its porosity considerably by in-
troducing the ordering and bridging mechanisms, as shown in Figure 3. They demonstrated that the
presence of micas increases sand compressibility and decreases strength.


Figure 3. Mechanisms of increased porosity in sands due to the presence of the mica plates
(Lee et al., 2007)
3 COMPRESSIBILITY ASPECTS LINKED WITH GRAIN CHARACTERISTICS
3.1. Grain shape

Angular particles tend to have higher compressibility than rounded grains. Cho et al. (2006) defined the
following three parameters that should be considered in studying the effect of the grain shape on the
compressibility and strength of sands:
a. Sphericity (s), which equals to the ratio between the diameters of the largest inscribed sphere rel-
ative to the diameter of the smallest circumscribed sphere.
b. Roundness (r), which equals to the ratio between the average radius of curvature of surface fea-
tures to the radius of the maximum sphere that can be inscribed in the particle
c. Smoothness, which describes the particle surface texture relative to the radius of the particle.
Another parameter of the grain geometrical characteristics is called the regularity (), which is de-
fined as the average of the sphericity and roundness (i.e., =(s+r)/2). Cho et al. (2006) linked sand
compressibility parameters to the regularity. They concluded that sand compressibility decreases with
increasing () and the friction angle (') decreases with increasing (r). These findings imply that com-
pressible sands because of their grain characteristics exhibit higher friction angles.

3.2. Mean diameter / Percentage of fines

Increasing the fines content results in decreasing in the mean diameter (D
50
) and vice versa; therefore,
both quantities (viz., the fines content and the mean diameter D
50
) are interrelated. Characteristics of
compressibility vary with fines content and/or the mean diameter (D
50
) of granular soils. The increase in
fines content (or decrease of the mean diameter) tends to reduce the cone tip resistance, increase the fric-
tion ratio, and increase the porewater pressure.
Hara et al. (2008) demonstrated that the effect of fines content is pronounced on CPT resistances even
at small fines percentages. Robertson and Wride (1998) presented an equivalent clean sand normalized
tip resistance ratio value (Q
tn,cs
) for silty sand soils for liquefaction analysis. They indicated that increas-
ing fines (and hence increasing compressibility), will increase the equivalent clean sand normalized tip
resistance value (Q
tn,cs
). Robertson (2009) correlated the peak drained secant friction angle with (Q
tn,cs
).
Salgado et al. (2000) observed that the addition of silt to clean sand to form silty sands with non-
floating fabric considerably increases both the peak friction angle (at a given initial relative density) and
the critical-state friction angle. They also noted that increasing the fines content decreases the small-
strains stiffness (i.e., increasing compressibility).

4 COMPRESSIBILITY EFFECTS ON CPT CORRELATIONS
4.1. Relative density (D
r
)

Robertson and Campanella (1983) presented the effect of sand compressibility on the relationship be-
tween the cone tip resistance (q
c
) and the relative density (D
r
) using three different qualitative compres-
sibility categories (viz., highly compressible sands, normal compressible sands and low compressible
sands), as shown in Figure 4. In later studies, Kulhawy and Mayne (1990) presented expressions for the
relative density of sands using CPT measurements as follows:

2
=

1
305

0.18

(1)
where (Q
c
) is a factor assigned for sand compressibility as follows: 0.91 for highly compressible clean
sands, 1.0 for medium clean compressible sands, and 1.09 for low compressible clean sands.
The effect of compressibility on CPT- D
r
trend was further detailed by J amiolkowski et al. (2001).
The expected range of the correlation was presented by three semi-logarithmic relationships for high
compressible, medium compressible, and low compressible sands, as shown in Figure 5. The pro-
nounced compressibility effects on the CPT-D
r
correlation, as shown in Figure 5, implies that the factor
(Q
c
) may have a wide range (about 0.5 to 1.5).


Figure 4. Effect of sand compressibility on the
CPT-relative density correlation
(Robertson and Campanella, 1983)

Figure 5. CPT-relative density correlation for
different sand compressibility categories
(J amiolkowski et al., 2001)
Recently, pronounced compressibility effects on the CPT-D
r
relationships for calcareous soils were
reported in reclamation projects in the Arabian Gulf. A factor, denoted as the Shell Factor (f
Shell
), was in-
troduced (Wehr, 2005); it is defined as the ratio between the cone tip resistance for calcareous soils and
the corresponding tip resistance of siliceous soils at the same relative density and under the same stress
state. Wehr (2005), and Al-Homoud and Wehr (2006) gave the following expression for (f
Shell
) for some
reclamation projects in UAE based on calibration chamber tests:

,
= 0.0046

[%] + 1.3629
(2)
The Shell factor (f
Shell
) is utilized to attain the equivalent siliceous sand tip resistance (q
c, siliceous
) from the
measured tip resistance in calcareous sand (q
c, calcareous
). Accordingly, (q
c, siliceous
) may be analyzed using
the correlations for siliceous sands (e.g., Equation 1 with Q
c
=1. or the medium compressible sand line
in Figure 5).
4.2. Drained peak secant friction angle ()
Using the plasticity limit analysis, J anbu and Senneset (1974) expressed the bearing capacity factor
(N
q
=q
c
/
v
Q
t
) in terms of the extent of the plastic zone, defined by a plastification angle () that ranges
from -15
o
to +15
o
. Mayne (2006) provided the following simplified form for the peak secant friction an-
gle calculated using the approach of J anbu and Senneset (1974):
tan =
ln (0.94

)
4.87 +0.035
(3)
Mayne (2006) also correlated the angle () to the normalized small strain modulus (G
o
/
v
) and found
that the operational range was slightly larger (- 30
o
+40
o
). The correlation between () and (G
o
/
v
)
is given by:
= 222

37.6

ln (

) (4)
Vesic (1972) developed a bearing factor (N
q
) using Cavity Expansion Theory. Mitchell and Keaveny
(1986) applied the Vesic theory to the results of available chamber tests and concluded that the solution
was applicable to compressible soils; however was limited in use for medium dense to very dense sands
where dilation is significant. Later, Salgado et al. (1997) extended Vesics work and presented a solution
1-High compressible
2-Medium compressible
3-Low compressible
%
for Cylindrical Cavity Expansion (CCE) based on variable friction and dilation angles, as well as the de-
pendence of shear modulus on strain, stress and void ratio. In a similar approach, Cudmani and Osinov
(2001) linked the cone tip resistance to the Spherical Cavity Expansion (SCE) limit pressure. Mayne
(2006) fitted the SCE solution to data from 15 sands by correlating the shear rigidity (G
o
/
v
) to the op-
erational rigidity index (I
RR
) of Vesic (1972) as given below:
=
138 log0.8

0.25

3.3 +log(

)

(5)
where the rigidity index is defined as the ratio of shear modulus to shear strength. The operational value
of the rigidity index (I
RR
) is given by the following correlation:

[(

)/85]
2.21
(6)
Most recently, Robertson (2010) proposed the following expression to obtain the effective friction an-
gle considering sand compressibility due to the presence of non-plastic fines:
=

+14.44 . log
,
22.31 (7)
where '
cv
=constant-volume friction angle of the sand (critical state value) that depends primarily on
sand mineralogy and grain shape (Cho et al. 2006). The characteristic values of (
cv
) are 32 (quartz),
33 (silica), 38 (feldspar), and 40 (carbonate), as discussed by J amiolkowski et al. (2001). The Norma-
lized net clean sand tip resistance (Q
tn,cs
) is equal to (Q
tn
. K
c
), where (K
c
) is given as a function of (I
c
) by
the following expressions (Robertson and Wride, 1998):

= 1.0 (

1.64) (8)

= 0.403

4
+5.581

3
21.63

2
+33.75

17.88 (1.64 <

< 2.6) (9)

4.3. Soil Behavior Type Index (I
c
) as a compressibility indicator

The Soil Behavior Type Index (I
c
), which was originally introduced by J efferies and Davies (1993), is
considered herein as a convenient parameter to quantify the sand compressibility for the following rea-
sons:
a. It is determined directly from the CPT basic measurements (viz. q
c
and f
s
).
b. The likely variations of the measurements of (f
s
) do not have major impact on (I
c
) (Robertson,
2009).
c. It is successfully being used in behavioral classification of soils based on the differential com-
pressibility behavior of different soil types.
d. It is also anticipated that the Soil Behavior Type Index (I
c
) is related to the compressibility para-
meter (I
RR
) which was presented by Vesic (1972) and the normalized small strain modulus
(G
o
/
v
) which was proposed by Mayne (2006).
In this study, the Soil Behavior Type Index (I
c
) as defined by Robertson & Wride (1998) is adopted.
It is calculated using the following equations:

= [(3.47 log

)
2
+(1.22 +log

)
2
]
0.5
(10)

=
(

(11)

= 100

)
(12)
The stress normalization proposed by Robertson (2009) is adopted herein. The exponent of the stress
normalization (n) is defined as follows:
= 0.381

+0.05

0.15 1.0 (13)

Robertson (2009) correlated the ratio (G
o
/(q
c
-
v
)) with the Soil Behavior Type Index (I
c
). Hence, it is
anticipated that the compressibility parameter (G
o
/
v
) is also related to the factor (I
c
). Using the data
presented by Mayne (2006), a regression analysis was carried out as shown in Figure 6. It was found
from the regression analysis that (I
c
) and (G
o
/
v
) are correlated with a coefficient of determination (R
2
)
of 0.77 as follows:

6700
1.4

2.6) (14)

Figure 6. The relationship between (I
c
) and (G
o
/
v
) using Mayne (2006) data

The proposed correlation in Equation 14 predicts the small strain modulus (G
o
) with accuracy compa-
rable to the correlation proposed by Robertson (2009). Figure 7 shows the performance of the proposed
correlation and the correlation proposed by Robertson using Mayne (2006) data. The coefficient of de-
termination (R
2
) was found to be 0.87 and 0.81 for the correlation presented herein (Equation 14) and
the correlation presented by Robertson (2009) for (G
o
), respectively.


Figure 7. Performance of (G
o
) correlations using Mayne (2006) data

Equation 14 may be used in conjunction with Equations 3 & 4 or Equations 5 & 6 to obtain the peak
secant friction angle ('). Both approaches yield the following form: (log (Q
t
) +
1
+
2
I
c
)/(
3
+
4
I
c
)
for (') or (tan '), where the values of the constants (s) depend on the adopted approach. A direct cor-
relation of (') with (Q
t
& I
c
), using the abovementioned form, may comprise the benefits of both SCE
and limit plasticity approaches. A regression analysis, utilizing the above form, yields the following cor-
relation:
tan
log

+6
9.6 2.3

(
c
2.6) (15)
Using Mayne (2006) data, the performance of the correlation in Equations 15 and correlation of Ro-
bertson (2010), Equations 7 through 9, were investigated. Both correlations have similar coefficient of
determination (R
2
) of 0.84 as shown in Figure 8.

Figure 8. Perfomance of CPT-' correlations using Mayne (2006) data,
(excluding two points: LL Dam and Highmont Dam)

5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
In this study, a review of the factors and aspects related to sand compressibility are presented. Generally,
increasing sand compressibility decreases the cone tip resistance and, frequently, increases its peak fric-
tion angle. The grain mineralogy, shape and mean diameter play significant roles in the compressibility
aspects related to cohesionless soils. Some types of sands, such as carbonate/calcareous and micaceous
sands, are known to have greater compressibility than siliceous/quartzitic sands.
Some studies explored the existence of a general framework that can describe the engineering charac-
teristics of sands with different compressibility using the void ratio, fines content and the normalized
small strain modulus (Semple, 1988; Almeida et al., 1991; Robertson & Wride, 1998, Mayne, 2006; Ro-
bertson, 2010). Other studies incorporated the compressibility aspect in the CPT-relative density and
drained peak secant friction angle correlations in a qualitative way by categorizing the soils into high,
medium and low compressible classes (Robertson and Campanella, 1983; Kulhawy and Mayne, 1990;
Chen and J uang, 1996).
It is foreseen that the success of CPT as an index test in differentiating between different soils using
the behavior classification methods is mainly due to the CPT ability to profile compressibility and hence
determine soil types. An attempt is made in this study to link previous studies utilizing either the small
strain modulus or the behavior index as compressibility indices (Robertson & Wride, 1998; Mayne,
2006). Correlations between the normalized small strain modulus (G
o
/
v
) and peak drained secant fric-
tion angle (') with (I
c
) are presented; these correlations compared favorably with measurements and
with previous similar correlations.
6 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the kind help of Prof. Dr. F.M. El-Nahhas (Ain Shams Universi-
ty) and Dr. O. K. Daoud (Dar Al-Handasah) during the preparation of this manuscript. Their critical re-
view helped to enhance the presentation of the current work. The authors also would to acknowledge the
kind permission of Dr. Catalin Stefan (www.sand-atlas.com) to use the sand photos that were presented
in Figure 1.

7 REFERENCES
Al-Homoud, A.S. & Wehr, W., 2006. Experience of vibrocompaction in calcareous sand of UAE. Geotechnical and Geo-
logical Engineering, Springer, (2006) 24: 757774.
Almeida, M., J amiolkowski, M., & Peterson, R., 1991. Preliminary result of CPT tests in calcareous Quiou sand. Proceed-
ings of the International Symposium on Calibration Chamber Testing, Elsevier, New York, pp. 41-53.
Bellotti, R., & J amiolkowski, M., 1991. Evaluation of CPT and DMT in Crushable and Silty Sands. Third interim report
ENEL CRIS, Milano.
Chen, J ., & J uang, C., 1996. Determination of drained friction angle of sands from CPT. J ournal of Geotechnical Engineer-
ing, ASCE, 122(5), pp. 374-381.
Cho, G.C., Dodds, J ., & Santamarina, J .C., 2006. Particle shape effects on packing density, stiffness, and strength: natural
and crushed sands. J ournal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 132, No. 5, May 1, 2006.
Cudmani, R. & Osinov, V.A., 2001. The cavity expansion problem for the interpretation of cone penetration and pressure-
meter tests. Canadian Geotechnical J ournal, 38(3), pp. 622-638.
Gilboy, G., 1928. The compressibility of sand-mica mixtures. Transaction Proceedings of the ASCE, Vol. 2, pp. 555-568.
Hara, T., Kokusho, T., & Tanaka, M., 2008. Liquefaction strength of sand materials containing fines compared with cone
resistance in triaxial specimens. The 14
th
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering October 12-17, China.
J amiolkowski, M., LoPresti D., & Manassero. M., 2001. Evaluation of relative density and shear strength of sands from
cone penetration test and flat dilatometer test. Soil Behavior and Soft Ground Construction (GSP 119), ASCE, Res-
ton/VA, pp. 201-238.
J anbu, N. & Senneset, K., 1974. Effective stress interpretation of in-situ static penetration tests. Proceedings of the Euro-
pean Symposium on Penetration Testing (ESOPT- 1), Stockholm, Sweden, Vol. 2.2, pp. 181-193.
J efferies, M., Davies, & M., 1993. Use of CPTU to estimate equivalent SPT N
60
. Geotechnical Testing J ournal, ASTM,
16(4), pp. 458-468.
Kulhawy, F.H, & Mayne, P.W., 1990. Manual on estimating soil properties for foundation design. Report No. EPRI-EL-
6800, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, 306 p.
Lee, J ., Guimaraes, M., & Santamarina, J .C., 2007. Micaceous sands: microscale mechanisms and macroscale response.
J ournal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 133 (9), pp. 1136- 1143.
Lunne, T., Robertson, P.K., & Powell, J .J .M., 1997. Cone Penetration Testing in Geotechnical Practice. Blackie Academic,
E & FN Spon, Routledge Publishers, London: 352 p.
Mayne, P.W., 2006. Undisturbed sand strength from seismic cone tests. Geomechanics and Geoengineering: An Interna-
tional J ournal. Vol. 1, No. 4, December 2006, pp. 239-257
Mitchell, J .K. & Keaveny, J .M., 1986. Determining sand strength by cone penetrometer. Use of In-Situ Tests in Geotech-
nical Engineering (GSP 6), ASCE, Reston/VA: 823-839.
Moore, C.A., 1971. Effect of mica on K
O
compressibility of two soils. J ournal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engi-
neering Division. ASCE, Vol. 97. No. SM9, pp. 1251-1291.
Olgun, C.G., Martin II, J .R., & LaVielle, T.H., 2009. Liquefaction susceptibility of calcareous sediments along the coastal
plains of Puerto Rico. Final report. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, 200 Patton Hall. Virginia Po-
lytechnic Institute and State University. 152 p.
Poulos, H.G., 1980. A review of the behaviour and engineering properties of carbonate soils, Research Report No. R381,
University of Sydney.
Poulos, H.G., 1989. The mechanics of calcareous sediments. (The J ohn J aeger memorial lecture). Australian Geomechan-
ics, Special Edition, pp. 8-41.
Robertson, P.K., 1982, In-situ testing of soil with emphasis on its application to liquefaction assessment. Ph.D. Thesis, Civ-
il Engineering Department, University of British Columbia.
Robertson, P.K., 2009. Interpretation of cone penetration tests a unified approach. Canadian Geotechnical J ournal,
46:1337-1355.
Robertson, P.K., 2010. Estimating in-situ state parameter and friction angle in sandy soils from CPT. Proceedings 2
nd
Inter-
national Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing, Vol. 3, Huntington Beach, CA: Uwww.cpt10.comU.
Robertson, P.K., & Campanella, R.G., 1983. Interpretation of cone penetration tests. part I: sand. Canadian Geotechnical
J ournal. 20(4). pp. 718-733.
Robertson, P.K. & Wride, C.E., 1998. Evaluating cyclic liquefaction potential using the cone penetration test. Canadian
Geotechnical J ournal, 35(3), pp. 442-459.
Salgado, R., Mitchell, J .K., & J amiolkowski, M., 1997. Cavity expansion and penetration resistance in sand. ASCE, J ournal
of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 123(4), pp. 344-354.
Salgado, R., Bandini, P., & Karim, A., 2000. Shear strength and stiffness of silty sand. J ournal of Geotechnical and Geoen-
vironmental Engineering, ASCE, 126(5), pp. 451-462.
Schmertmann, J .H., 1978. Guidelines for Cone Penetration Test. (Performance and Design). FHWA Report No. TS-78-209,
Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC: 145 p.
Semple, R., 1988. State of the art report on engineering properties of carbonate soils. Proceedings of the International Con-
ference on Calcareous Sediments, Perth, 2, pp. 807-836, Balkema Pub., Rotterdam.
Vesic, A.S., 1972. Expansion of cavities in infinite soil mass. J ournal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE,
98(3), pp. 265-290.Wehr, W., 2005. Influence of the carbonate content of sand on vibro-compaction. Proceedings of the
6
th
International Conference on Ground Improvement Techniques, Coimbra, Portugal, pp. 625-632.
Wehr, W., 2005. Influence of the carbonate content of sand on vibro-compaction. Proceedings of the 6
th
International Con-
ference on Ground Improvement Techniques, Coimbra, Portugal, pp. 625-632.
8 NOTATIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS
C
age
= ageing factor in accordance with Kulhawy and Mayne (1990) (dimensionless).
CCE = cylindrical cavity expansion.
CPT = cone penetration test.
D
50
= mean soil grain diameter (mm).
D
r
= relative density (dimensionless / percentage).
f
s
= CPT sleeve friction (kPa).
f
Shell
=Shell factor in accordance with Wehr (2005) (dimensionless).
F
r
= normalized friction ratio (dimensionless).
FR% = friction ratio; FR% =100 f
s
/q
c
(percentage).
G
o
= small strain modulus (kPa).
K
c
= equivalent clean sand factor in accordance with Robertson & Wride (1998) (dimensionless).
I
c
= Soil Behavior Type Index in accordance with Robertson & Wride (1998) (dimensionless).
I
RR
= operational rigidity factor in accordance with Vesic (1972) (dimensionless).
n = stress normalization exponent in accordance with Robertson (2009) (dimensionless).
p
a
= atmospheric pressure 100 kPa.
q
c
= CPT tip resistance (kPa).
q
c1
= normalized CPT tip resistance; q
c1
=(q
c
/p
a
)/(
v
/p
a
)
0.5
(dimensionless).
Q
c
= compressibility factor in accordance with Kulhawy and Mayne (1990) (dimensionless).
Q
t
= net CPT tip resistance ratio; Q
t
=(q
c

v
)/(
v
) q
c
/
v
(dimensionless).
Q
tn
= normalized net tip resistance in accordance with Robertson (2009) (dimensionless).
Q
tn,cs
= normalized net clean sand tip resistance; Q
tn,cs
=K
c
Q
tn
(dimensionless).
OCR = overconsolidation ratio (dimensionless).
R
2
= coefficient of determination (dimensionless).
SCE = spherical cavity expansion.
V
s


= shear wave velocity (m/sec)
= plastification angle in accordance with J anbu and Senneset (1974) (deg.).
= peak drained secant angle of friction (deg.).

cv
= constant-volume drained angle of friction (deg.).

v
= total vertical stress (kPa).

v
= effective vertical stress (kPa).