ENCN 353: Geotechnical Engineering

Module 5: In situ testing of geomaterials

1 What is in situ testing?

In situ testing consists of carrying out tests in the ground (i.e. “in situ”,
as opposed to testing samples of soil in the lab) by using a variety of
instruments.

By the end of this module you should be able to:

1. Explain the main purposes served by in situ testing,

2. Explain why in situ testing might be preferred over lab-based

testing for different soil types and scenarios,

3. Describe and compare common in situ tests and equipment,

including SPT, CPT, shear vane, SWS, and pressuremeters,

4. Perform simple calculations (for soil type, strength etc.) using

empirical correlations developed for specific in situ tests.

In geotechnical engineering, in situ testing serves four main purposes:

1.
Site investigation is the most common reason to carry out in situ tests.
It is the process of discovering what the ground consists of at a
particular site.

Site investigation may consist of drilling boreholes or digging trial pits,

and sampling and inspection of soil on site and/ or in the lab. In
addition or alternatively, in situ tests may be carried out for the indirect
identification of soil type and state or geological stratification.

2.
The measurement of a specific soil property may be undertaken either
for economic or practical reasons or more importantly, because it is
considered essential to measure this specific property in situ and not in
the lab.

ETB/JJMH Page 1
ENCN 353: Geotechnical Engineering

3.
Control of construction may be essential for the successful completion
of works. For example, it might be necessary to improve the strength
and stiffness of the ground at a particular site. Dynamic compaction
may be chosen as the means to do this, and the results could be
directly monitored by carrying out appropriate in situ tests (such as
CPT) as the works proceed.
Another example is staged construction of an embankment built on
soft clay. The increase in strength and stiffness with time as pore
pressure dissipates may be monitored directly (e.g. via a
pressurement) or indirectly by the decay in pore pressures (e.g. via a
piezometer).

4.
The monitoring of performance of construction works may be a
standard procedure (e.g. after construction of an earth dam, to
examine seepage quantities over time) or in special circumstances
where there are problems encountered or uncertainties.

An example of the latter is where a slope failure has occurred, and it is

necessary to determine the cause of failure by placing appropriate
instrumentation into and around the slide mass. Subsequently, a “back
analysis” of stability may be performed to determine what had caused
failure so that the correct remedial works can be put in place.

2 Why do in situ testing? (instead of lab-based testing)

In some circumstances it may be more economical to perform in situ
tests as part of a wide-ranging site investigation for a particular site
rather than recover samples and test them. Highly variable sites and
exploration for off-shore applications such as oil rigs are common
cases.
However, the most common reason to undertake in situ testing is
associated with soil disturbance. That is one of the major problems
associated with laboratory testing of soils is that the recovery of
samples from the field can lead to disturbance of the soil structure or
“fabric”, which can alter the behaviour of the tested soil.
The effects of such disturbances are discussed below for different
types of soil.

ETB/JJMH Page 2
ENCN 353: Geotechnical Engineering

Clay soils
For many naturally deposited clay soils, the undrained strength is
greatly reduced when the soils are tested after “remoulding” (where
the soil is disturbed), even though kept at the same moisture content
as was in the field. This property of clay soils is called sensitivity.
Certain clays, such as Norwegian “quick” clay are extraordinarily
sensitive.

(a)
(a) SEM microphotograph of open
structure of undisturbed quick Leda clay
(Tovey, 1971), courtesy of Mitchell &
Soga (2005)

(b)
(b) The effect of remoulding Norwegian quick clay (Norwegian Geotechnical
Institute, Oslo) from Muir Wood (1990)

A clay that becomes completely fluid on remoulding is termed “quick

clay”. It is common in post-glacial areas of North America and
Scandinavia. The sensitivity of a clay is given by its sensitivity ratio:

ETB/JJMH Page 3
ENCN 353: Geotechnical Engineering

The sensitivity ratio St of most clays ranges from 1 to 8; however,

highly flocculent marine clay deposits may have St from 10 to 80.
Sensitivity is caused by destruction of the clay particle structure that
was developed during original sedimentation. (In the case of very
quick clays, the leaching out of the salts with which the clays were
originally formed is a major culprit behind their sensitivity).
As a result of the very sensitive and soft nature of the clays in Sweden
and Norway, which made removal to the lab almost impossible, the
Scandinavians invented the field vane shear test (see later).

Sensitivity of clay St
Insensitive 1.0
Slightly sensitive 1-2
Medium sensitive 2-4
Very sensitive 4-8
Slightly quick 8 - 16
Medium quick 16 - 32
Very quick 32 - 64
Extra quick > 64

Sensitivity ranking of clays after Rosenqvist (1953)

Consolidation curves for undistrurbed and remoulded Leda clay (Quigley &
Thompson (1966), courtesy Mitchell & Soga (2005))

ETB/JJMH Page 4
ENCN 353: Geotechnical Engineering

Granular soils
Sampling disturbance of granular materials, such as sands, silts and
gravels can also be a problem. Their mechanical behaviour derives
from their structure or “fabric”. This fabric can alter through disturbance
and can alter with time. Hence “aged” granular deposits can behave
differently (usually stiffer and stronger) than newer deposits, while
laboratory test samples made by different methods can behave
differently. (See the two figures overleaf).
Another problem is that it can be difficult to obtain and test samples
which are large enough to be representative of the soil in the field –
particularly if it is heterogeneous (i.e. with fissures present,
interlayering of silts, large gravels etc.).

Cone Penetrometer Test (CPT - see later) data over time, for granular soil
improved by vibro-densification at Jebba Dam site in Nigeria. Note the influence of
age on cone resistance. Courtesy Mitchell & Soga (2005).

ETB/JJMH Page 5
ENCN 353: Geotechnical Engineering

The influence of sample preparation method on stress-strain behaviour of sand.

Note the difference between different laboratory preparation methods. Courtesy
Mitchell & Soga (2005).

3 Field or “in situ” testing methods

Several methods to test the soil in situ have therefore been developed
to try to overcome the problems mentioned above. Some of the most
common tests are discussed in the following pages.
In addition to those discussed here, you will be using simple hand-held
instruments in your site investigation laboratory – such as the hand
augur and the Scala Penetrometer also known as the Dynamic Cone
Penetrometer or DCP. These are useful for small and preliminary site
assessments.

ETB/JJMH Page 6
ENCN 353: Geotechnical Engineering

4 The Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

The Standard Penetration Test (or SPT for short), developed around
1927, is a very popular and relatively economical test to undertake.
Approximately 80% of foundation design in the USA is based on SPT
correlations.

Drilling operator performing an SPT

test. Operator is observing height
mark on the hammer guide rod,
while the helper is taking count and
observing the penetration behaviour.
Courtesy of Bowles (1996)

The SPT is carried out in boreholes during a site investigation, typically

every 1-2m. In the UK the test is carried out as follows:
1. A split barrel sampler attached to the end of a series of rods is
driven into the soil at the bottom of a borehole to a standard
depth of 150mm, by means of a falling weight known as a “drop
hammer”.
2. The sampler is then driven an additional 300mm, while the
number of blows to drive this distance is recorded: this number is
called the SPT blowcount, and is conventionally given the
symbol N.

ETB/JJMH Page 7
ENCN 353: Geotechnical Engineering

Typical hammers used in SPT testing, courtesy of Bowles (1996).

In the USA, the initial standard depth is 460mm, and subsequent

driving is for 2×150mm (total 300mm). In other countries there are
other variations. However, the greatest variation is as a result of the
different energies imparted to the soil by each blow. This is a function
of the hammer arrangement (e.g. weight, friction), rod length and so
forth. So the test is by no means “standard”!
This fact was recognised in the 1980s and attempts were made to
normalise the data from around the world to remove these
inconsistencies.

ETB/JJMH Page 8
ENCN 353: Geotechnical Engineering

Following Seed et al (1984) and Skempton (1986), it is usual to correct

to an energy ratio (ratio of energy imparted to potential energy) of
60%1. Skempton also showed that SPT “N”:

So, to account for all of these things, SPT blowcount is also often
normalized to a reference vertical stress of 100kPa. The normalized
SPT blowcount, denoted by the symbol N1, is carried out by means of
a factor, CN, such that:

If the blowcount is also corrected a standard energy it is given the

symbol (N1) energy%. E.g. when N1 is corrected to the energy ratio of
60%, the symbol (N1)60 is used.

Correlations for relative density, ID of sand

Experimental data (Skempton, 1986) has shown that:
For normally consolidated sands (σ’v in kPa):

For overconsolidated fine sands:

Hence the relative density of sands may be estimated on the basis of

(N1) 60 according to the following table:
1
Note that a reference energy ratio of 70% or 55% is sometimes used in other standards.

ETB/JJMH Page 9
ENCN 353: Geotechnical Engineering

Note that these correlations are for 60% energy ratio. Other
correlations will exist for other energy ratios – reference should be
made to a specific design code / textbook if there is a possibility of
confusion here.2

Other correlations
As you know, the stiffness of a soil is not constant but reduces with
increasing monotonic strain; this behaviour is termed “strain softening”
(recall your UU triaxial lab). The correlations, below by Stroud (1989)
take this into account in presenting Young’s modulus E’, divided by
blowcount N60 (not normalised because both stiffness, E’, and SPT “N”
increase with σ’v) and the parameter qnet/qult, where:

The idea of the correlation is to determine E’, knowing qult and qnet so
that settlements can be estimated.

2 nd
The correlations here are in line with those from Powrie (page 620 on in 2 Ed.), based on the
BS (UK) system, however, other notable correlations are given in Bowles (1986), which deals with
the ASTM (USA) version of SPTs.

ETB/JJMH Page 10
ENCN 353: Geotechnical Engineering

(a) (b)
Graph of E’/N60 against qnet/qult. (a) For normally and overconsolidated sands and
gravels, (b) For overconsolidated clays of plasticity index, PI=15% and PI=50%.
After Powrie (2004).

Other correlations have been suggested by various researchers,

relating peak friction angle, φ’peak to (N1)60 (e.g. Stroud, 1989) and
relating bearing capacity factors Nq and Nγ to blowcount N (e.g. Peck
et al, 1974).

SPT in New Zealand

SPT have been routinely carried in New Zealand as a result of the
variable nature of the soils and the ease of testing in comparison with
other methods. Close supervision of the SPT programme is always
required by the engineer, as deviations from the vertical and less-than-
ideal arrangements of the rig are common. In particular, when testing
in fine loose granular soils, care is required to ensure the drill bit is
withdrawn slowly, so as to avoid generating liquefaction at the base of
the hole, which can render results meaningless. As an aid to this, it is
very important that the depth of the drill bit is recorded and exactly
matched to that of the SPT start level.
SPT results are notoriously unreliable if not carried out by skilled
technicians and well-maintained equipment. Further details of the SPT
test (referenced to the US system of SPT testing, hence to N70) can be
found in Bowles “Foundation Analysis and Design” 5th Edition.

ETB/JJMH Page 11
ENCN 353: Geotechnical Engineering

5 The Cone Penetrometer Test

The Cone Penetrometer (or Penetration)
Test, CPT for short, is a simple test that is
now widely used place of the SPT –
particularly where there are soft clays,
soft silts and in fine to medium sands. It is
not so well adapted to gravel or stiff/hard
clay deposits. It was developed in the
Netherlands in the 1930s, for use with pile
design, and was once referred to as the
Dutch cone test.
In this test, a standard cone is pushed
into the ground at a rate between 10 and
25mm/s, while the resistance is recorded.
The total resistance is made up of tip
pressure and side friction on the cone
shaft perimeter (called a “friction sleeve”).
Hence, what is recorded is:
1.
2.
3.
The friction ratio Rf (or fR) is then
calculated as qs/qc. This is used to identify
different types of soil.
Most cones have standard dimensions of a 35.7mm diameter 60º cone
and a projected area (in direction of penetration) of 1000mm2. As a
result, test data tend to be much more comparable from one apparatus
(and country!) to another.
Other advantages of the CPT are (i) that it can give virtually
continuously logged data – hence, it is particularly good at identifying
layers in soil and (ii), that it does not disturb the soil unduly.
There are various types of CPT, with different modifications. The more
common are listed below:

ETB/JJMH Page 12
ENCN 353: Geotechnical Engineering

•
The true Dutch cone test was an early
mechanical device with moveable parts as
shown in the figure. Pressure was
alternately applied to the central axis or
outer rods, measuring either the point
resistance, qc, or friction resistance, qs

•
Strain gauges were incorporated to
measure the point resistance, qc and side
friction qs

•
A modification to allow the measuring of
pore pressure at the cone tip or behind
the head during the test

•
Further modified to include a vibration sensor, allowing the shear
modulus of the soil to be measured in conjunction with a surface
hammer impact.

A typical output from a piezocone is given below:

ETB/JJMH Page 13
ENCN 353: Geotechnical Engineering

Piezocone data with pore pressure, sleeve and tip resistance – and calculated
friction ratio (note care with units!). Figure (and previous page) courtesy of Bowles
(1986).

Correlations to identify soil type

As you can see from the previous figure, interpretation of the CPT data
requires some judgement and entirely empirical correlation. It is often
desirable to carry out a borehole along with a CPT probe in order to be
sure of correct identification of soil type and fine lenses (<100mm
thick) that might remain undetected using the CPT profile alone.
On the other hand, it is possible to get a good idea of soil type by
examining the cone resistance, qc and friction ratio Rf=qs/qc for a
particular layer of soil. Pore pressure data can be used to back up
such interpretations (as one would expect excess pore pressure to
dissipate quickly in coarse grained soils, such as sands and gravels –
resulting in a hydrostatic pressure profile below the water table – but to
be greater than this in clays and fine silts).

ETB/JJMH Page 14
ENCN 353: Geotechnical Engineering

Identification of soil types from CPT data (after Robertson & Campanella, 1983),
courtesy of Powrie (1987)

The use of CPT as a mini-pile for clays

The Dutch originally envisioned the CPT as a mini-pile, because it
generates a kind of bearing capacity failure at its head is it is driven
into the ground (much like a full-scale pile). Hence, there are a number
of direct correlations between qc and bearing capacity which are used.

Correlation between qc and φ’peak

Another popular correlation involves knowing the overburden pressure
(or vertical effective stress, σ’v) and the cone tip resistance qc, in order
to determine the peak soil friction angle φ’peak for quartz sand.
It is possible to use further correlations, based on an understanding of
interplay between dilation, confining pressure, relative density and soil
“crushability”, to obtain critical state friction φ’crit values.

ETB/JJMH Page 15
ENCN 353: Geotechnical Engineering

Correlation of peak friction angle with cone resistance for clean quartz sands from
CPT data (Robertson & Campanella, 1983), courtesy of Powrie (1987)

CPT in New Zealand

Until the Canterbury earthquakes (2010 on), the use of CPT was not
particularly common in New Zealand, as a result of the typical types of
soil, some of which are not suitable for CPT and generally availability
of equipment. However, because a CPT is very good at identifying
possible liquefaction prone deposits and soil layering and it is coming
more into use in New Zealand in routine SI. In Christchurch in
particular, thousands of CPT probes have been undertaken since 2010
in order to determine soil conditions with respect to liquefaction
potential (CBD, surrounding suburbs, eastern suburbs), and
identification of landslide mechanisms (Port Hills area).

ETB/JJMH Page 16
ENCN 353: Geotechnical Engineering

6 The Field Vane3 Shear Test (FVST)

The field vane shear test is a
relatively quick and fairly reliable
means to estimate the in situ
undrained shear strength of medium
stiff to very soft and often sensitive
fine grained soils (usually clays). To
differentiate from Cu measured in the
laboratory, the shear strength
measured by the vane shear test is
given the symbol Cu,v.

The field vane usually consists of four

thin, equal sized steel plates welded
to a steel torque rod. The test is
performed by inserting the vane into
the soil and applying a torque T at a
constant angular speed (0.1° / sec as
recommended by ASTM) after a time
lapse of 5-10 minutes. A cylinder of
soil of height H and diameter B, as
determined by the vane dimensions,
will resist the torque until the soil fails.
Two standard types of shear vane:
rectangular and tapered, as
specified by ASTM (2002)

The vane can be inserted at the bottom of a borehole or be used in a

hole created by use of a vane sheath. The test is carried out at a depth
greater than 5 diameters below either the end of the sheath or the
borehole. The torque is measured during the rotation and this is
correlated to the vane shear strength Cu,v using analytical solutions
with some empirically-derived factors based on the dimensions of the
vane.

Details of vanes (dimensions etc.) vary from country to country, hence,

their calibrations vary. In general however it is usual that the length of
the straight portion of the vane (H) is twice the diameter (B). Also, a
larger vane is used in softer soils (since it is more sensitive) and a

3
Note the spelling: V-A-N-E, as in weather vane (which it looks a bit like) – not vain (as in vanity)
and not vein (which your blood pumps through).

ETB/JJMH Page 17
ENCN 353: Geotechnical Engineering

smaller vane in stiffer soils. While normally shear vanes are motorised,
small hand-held vanes are sometimes used (you will use this type in
the SI lab!). Two standardised geometries, rectangular and tapered, as
designated by ASTM, are given in the preceding figure.

Analysis
Analytically, for a rectangular vane, we can determine how much the
torque should be if the soil cylinder fails simultaneously on all surfaces
as follows:

Taking moments about the axis of the torque rod:

ETB/JJMH Page 18
ENCN 353: Geotechnical Engineering

Empirical relations
While in theory Cu in the field should be the same as measured in the
lab, it appears that Cu,v can overestimate Cu as used in design,
particularly as the soil plasticity, as measured by the plasticity index,
wPI, increases. Hence there are a number of empirical correction
factors to relate Cu,v to Cu as measured in the laboratory. One of the
most widely used is given below:

Bjerrum (1974):

Where Correction factor

Other notable correlations between Cu,v and Cu as a function of wPI,

overburden (vertical effective) stress σ’v and liquid limit wLL have been
suggested by Skempton (1957) and Morris and Williams (1994).4

Sensitivity
In order to determine the sensitivity of a clay, the vane shear test can
be carried out so that the initial peak of torque T gives the
“undisturbed” strength and the resistance at high rotation gives the
“remoulded” strength.

Typical data output of a shear vane, after Bowles, 1996). Note the soil’s sensitivity,
S, can be determined from the test by comparing the peak and the remoulded
torque or shear strength.

4
More empirical correlations and corrections are given in Bowles (1996) “Foundation Analysis and
Design”. Powrie (2004) (pages 642-645) discusses analytical solutions in greater detail.

ETB/JJMH Page 19
ENCN 353: Geotechnical Engineering

7 Pressuremeter
The pressuremeter is a cylindrical device designed to apply a uniform
radial pressure to the sides of a cylindrical hole. From this action, the
pressure is measured as a function of cavity volume (or strain).

Schematic diagrams of the pressuremeter (b) and its installation (a), courtesy of
Powrie (2004). Further details of the analysis of the pressuremeter can be found in
pages 629-642 in Powrie.
This allows the determination of:

By incorporating pore pressure transducers into the device, it is also

possible to measure the horizontal consolidation coefficient for clays,
ch. Finally, in recent developments (Ratnam, 2002), the measurement
of permeability has also been incorporated. In other words, a whole
host of data can be determined from this test.

ETB/JJMH Page 20
ENCN 353: Geotechnical Engineering

There are two basic types:

•
This is lowered into a preformed borehole. This was the original
type of pressurementer developed in France by Menard in the
1954s.
•
This forms its own borehole and hence causes much less
disturbance to the soil prior to testing. This was developed on the
basis of the Menard pressurement in the UK during the 70s and 80s
– further developments have continued into the 2000s. The self-
boring pressuremeter has been described by Wroth (1984) as
allowing the “near perfect” testing of undisturbed soil.

Unlike other types of In situ tests, there is little to no empiricism

required to understand the results of pressuremeter tests. Analysis of
pressuremeter data is based upon cylindrical cavity expansion theory
(elastic to plastic behaviour). This type of theory is also used to
understand deformations in tunnels (although with the strain usually
acting in reverse). A similar theory – spherical cavity expansion, can
be used, to an extent, to examine behaviour at the tip of a driven pile
or CPT. Therefore, the pressuremeter’s interpretation is very different
to say, an SPT – relying on an understanding of mechanics rather than
empirical correlations.
As a result of the special requirements to undertake the test and to
interpret the data, pressuremeter testing is always carried out by
specialist testing companies. Pressuremeter tests tend to be specified
only where very high quality in situ soil data is required. They are
correspondingly expensive, but can be worth it on important projects.
Pressuremeter tests are only rarely carried out in New Zealand – a few
large specialist firms currently carry the equipment and possess the
expertise to carry out and interpret the results.

ETB/JJMH Page 21
ENCN 353: Geotechnical Engineering

8 Swedish Weight Sounding Method (SWS)

The Swedish Weight Sounding method arrived in New Zealand as a
result of the first Canterbury earthquake in 2010. It is a highly portable
device which is suitable for obtaining CPT-like data in confined areas
with difficult access (e.g. where it would be difficult to place a CPT
truck) and for detailed site data. It is suitable for characterising soft to
medium-dense soils to a depth of ~9m. It is a manually-controlled
device, generally requiring a minimum of three people to operate
successfully.

• Handle (1), approx 500mm long

• 95kg of weights (2), comprised in 3 x 20kg, 2 x 10kg, 3 x
5kg
• Locking Clamp (3), weighing 5kg
• Optional base plate for stability and reference (4)
• Nine 1m Extension Rods (5), Ø19mm marked every
250mm
• One 800mm Rod (6), Ø19mm
• Screw points (7), 200mm long and Ø33mm max
• Tape measure
• 2 Pipe Wrenches, to disconnect extension rods
• Farm Jack, for extracting equipment from the ground

Testing
The test involves counting the number of half-turns required for each
250 mm penetration increment. In addition, when the equipment is
turned into the soil, it emits a sound.
Occasionally, if the soil is very soft, the point will fall through the soil
under the gravity load of the weights alone. When this happens, care
must be taken to let the handle turn freely, as if it is held in place,
submerged rods can un-screw slightly from one another, which can
produce erroneous readings. This is recorded as zero turns for the
depth penetrated. When the soils are stiff or dense, it may be

ETB/JJMH Page 22
ENCN 353: Geotechnical Engineering

necessary to put spare extension rods in the handle and have two
people walking in circles to perform the turning.
Once one metre has been tested, the handle and weights are removed
to add an extension rod. The clamp is shifted up the rod and the
weights and handle are reapplied. Testing is continued until either:

Comparison of SWS and CPT outputs at the same Canterbury site in liquefiable
soil (unpublished data, courtesy M. Cubrinovski)

ETB/JJMH Page 23
ENCN 353: Geotechnical Engineering

Summary of in situ test methods, and their perceived applicability as quoted in

Wroth’s (1984) Rankine Lecture (updated after Campanella and Robertson, 1983).

ETB/JJMH Page 24