1887

Abstract

Summary

This abstract presents a method for automated, stress-normalized stratigraphic classification of cone penetration test (CPT) data. The approach addresses key limitations in current practice, including manual interpretation, inconsistent layering, and lack of integration with geotechnical design models. The method uses friction ratio and stress-normalized cone resistance (referenced at 100 kPa effective stress) as primary classification parameters, defined through an engineer-controlled configuration file. Stress normalization is performed using a formulation inspired by the Hardening Soil model, allowing direct linkage between CPT-derived materials and stiffness-moduli used in numerical design. The method was applied to six CPTs from the Wilhelmshaven site in northern Germany, representing varied subsurface conditions. Each CPT was processed through a two-pass normalization and classification loop, with a minimum layer thickness constraint of 0.3m to reduce interpretive noise. Outputs include model materials with geotechnical properties and layer boundaries, suitable for integration into 2D/3D modelling workflows. Results demonstrated consistency across CPTs, preserved thin but interpretable layers, and highlighted site variability via 3D visualization. The method enables transparent, reproducible ground modelling from raw CPT data and improves the connection between site characterization and design-stage geotechnical modelling. Future extensions will focus on uncertainty quantification and full 3D model generation.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202520166
2025-09-07
2026-02-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Andrus, R.D. and Stokoe, K.H. [2000] Liquefaction resistance of soils from shear-wave velocity. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 126(11), 1015–1025.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Eurocode 7 [2004] Geotechnical Design – Part 1: General Rules (EN 1997-1:2004). European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Fugro [2023] Geotechnical Parameter Values. Internal Report FNLM-GEO-APP-012.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Länsivaara, T., Haimson, B. and Larsson, R. [2009] In situ testing for geotechnical site characterization. Keynote Lecture, ISC'3: 3rd International Conference on Site Characterization, Taylor & Francis Group, London, 3–45.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Lunne, T., Robertson, P.K. and Powell, J.J.M. [1997] Cone Penetration Testing in Geotechnical Practice. Blackie Academic & Professional.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Mayne, P.W. and Peuchen, J. [2022] Undrained shear strength of clays from piezocone tests: A database approach. Cone Penetration Testing 2022: Proceedings of CPT'22, Bologna, CRC Press, 546–551.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Robertson, P.K. and Cabal, K.L. [2015] Guide to Cone Penetration Testing for Geotechnical Engineering, 6th ed. Gregg Drilling & Testing, California.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Schanz, T., Vermeer, P.A. and Bonnier, P.G. [1999] The hardening soil model: Formulation and verification. In: Proceedings of the Plaxis Symposium, Beyond 2000 in Computational Geotechnics, Amsterdam, Balkema, 281–296.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Zhang, G., Robertson, P.K. and Brachman, R.W.I. [2002] Estimating liquefaction-induced ground settlements from CPT for level ground. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 39(5), 1168–1180.
    [Google Scholar]
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202520166
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202520166
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error