www.nature.

com/scientificreports

OPEN Cone penetration index for soil

behaviour type prediction
Denilson José Ribeiro Sodré

Several approaches have been proposed to classify soil types using both cone and piezocone
penetration tests. The chart relating the normalized cone resistance (Qtn) and the friction ratio (Fr)
has proven to be the most reliable method. However, its practical use requires function fitting, where
the chart is described by means of a soil behaviour type index. The currently available indexes for
this chart, based on concentric circles and hyperbolas, lead to significant errors. Thus, to properly
represent the Qtn–Fr chart, this study proposes new soil behaviour type indexes based on an analytical
approach from a concentric logarithmic spiral approximation and a numerical approach from an
exponential function approximation. The new indexes provide an improvement in the reproduction of
the soil type zones while preserving the robustness of the original method. A discussion on the cone
penetration test-based soil type classification is presented, along with a case example comparing the
soil behaviour indexes in soil profiling.

Theoretical and experimental developments in the cone penetration test (CPT) and the piezocone penetration
test (CPTu) have provided high applicability to a broad range of geotechnical properties, making them valuable
tools for assessing soil type and state. As the cone responds to the in situ mechanical behaviour of the soil, the
soil types are classified into groups that exhibit similar mechanical behaviour, rather than physical properties, as
conventionally determined in laboratory soil testing. Thus, the term ‘soil behaviour type’ (SBT)1 starts to be used
to describe the soil type interpretations based on CPT, emphasizing that they are not expected to be predictive
of soil type identification but of the soil behaviour type.
Soil type classification methods based on CPT and CPTu are usually graphically expressed. From an extensive
CPT database, R ­ obertson2,3 developed a consistent chart relating the normalized cone resistance (Qtn) and the
friction ratio ( Fr ), which has become popular worldwide and has proven to be the highest quality method. As a
graphical method, it cannot readily be employed in practice. It is used by means of the soil behaviour type index,
Ic , proposed by Robertson and ­Wride4 and updated by ­Robertson3, where the chart is represented as concentric
circles. However, despite being extensively used, this index diverges significantly from the chart. Schneider et al.5
defined a soil behaviour type index that relates Qtn and Fr in terms of hyperbolic functions; however, this also
significantly differs from the R ­ obertson2,3 soil type ­zones6. Thus, to properly reproduce the Qtn–Fr chart, new
soil behaviour type indexes are proposed herein based on an analytical approach from a concentric logarithmic
spiral approximation and a numerical approach from an exponential function approximation.
The quality of soil behaviour type prediction methods depends on the manner in which the effects of soil
behaviour on cone penetrometer measurements are considered. Therefore, a thorough investigation of parameter
correction and stress normalization is presented to support a discussion of cone penetrometer-based soil type clas-
sification methods. An example of a soil profile obtained from the proposed indexes and the Ic ­index3,4 is provided.

Correction of cone penetrometer measurements

Typical measurements of a cone penetrometer include the cone penetration resistance qc , sleeve friction resist-
ance fs , and porewater pressure u generated during cone penetration, u1 when measured on the cone face, u2
when measured just above the cone (standard location), and u3 when measured just above the friction sleeve.
Generally, the sleeve friction resistance is considered less accurate than the cone tip penetration resistance and
cone penetration porewater p ­ ressure2,7.
Variations in cone penetrometer design and porewater pressure effects produce changes in the measured tip
penetration resistance and sleeve friction; therefore, corrections are needed to obtain accurate and repeatable
measurements using the CPT. The geometric configuration of the cone penetrometer exposes annular-shaped
surfaces at the cone base edge and at the friction sleeve top and base, which are subject to porewater pressure.
The action of the water pressure on these areas in the axial direction, with different intensities and senses, gives
rise to normal forces on the cone base and, in the case of a friction sleeve with unequal end areas, to the result-
ant axial forces in the friction sleeve when acting on water or resultant tangential forces on the outer surface of

Faculty of Civil Engineering, Federal University of Pará, UFPA, Belém, Pará, Brazil. email: [email protected]

Scientific Reports | (2022) 12:12412 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-15994-x 1

Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

the friction sleeve when acting on soil, producing additional contribution to the cone and sleeve penetration
resistance. This effect on friction sleeve mobilization is commonly termed the ’unequal end area effect’8. Despite
having unequal end areas, the cone tip does not present such a water effect. Under such circumstances, qc and fs
do not correspond to the total resistance offered by the surrounding soil.
The measured cone penetration resistance qc can be corrected to the total cone penetration resistance qt 8,9
using
qt = qc + (1 − a)u2 (1)
where a = Acs /Acb is the net area ratio, Acs is the cross-sectional area of the central shaft at the cone base, and
Acb is the area of the cone base.
The measured sleeve friction resistance fs can be corrected to the total sleeve friction resistance ft10 using
ft = fs − (u2 Asb − u3 Ast )/As (2)
where Asb is the area of the sleeve base, Ast is the area of the sleeve top, and As is the surface area of the friction
sleeve.
These effects are significant in fine-grained soils and in overwater work, essentially when high water pressure
occurs. Fine-grained soils exhibit undrained behaviour during the cone penetration process, producing con-
siderable porewater pressure. The water pressure effects become particularly important in soft soils where, due
to the low penetration resistance, the porewater pressure reaches a substantial magnitude in relation to qc and
fs , resulting in a relevant influence on the total resistance to penetration, qt and ft . When the CPT is performed
with friction sleeves of unequal end areas in deep water sediments, for instance, before the cone penetrates the
soil, the high water pressure unloads the sleeve friction load cell, generating a significant negative offset. Thus,
the zero-load stability becomes a major issue as the fs measurements are made very close to zero ­load11. Because
of the drained penetration, qt = qc in sandy soils.
Inaccurate fs measurements are attributable to the unequal end area effect, tolerance in dimensions between
the cone and sleeve, surface roughness of the sleeve, and load cell design and ­calibration12. Friction sleeves with
equal end areas do not produce water pressure effects, which excludes the need for any correction to fs , hence
providing more reliable sleeve friction ­values3. With good design (separate load cells, equal end area friction
sleeve, and compensated shear load cell) and quality control (zero load measurements, tolerances, and surface
roughness), it is possible to obtain repeatable sleeve friction ­measurements11. Different cone penetrometer designs
produce varying friction sleeve measurements and error relevance; in general, however, the cone penetration
resistance shows relatively small variation, and the penetration porewater pressure is accurate and ­repeatable7,13.
The penetration porewater pressure can suffer from a lack of repeatability owing to the loss of saturation, espe-
cially when performed onshore at locations where the water table is deep and/or in very stiff ­soils6. A detailed
description of the major issues related to cone design and procedures has been ­presented14.

Normalization of cone penetrometer measurements

Experiments have shown that the resistance to cone penetration increases with depth, that is, with increasing
effective confining ­stress15–17. The variation in cone measurements due to variation in the soil shear strength and
stiffness with the in situ stress state affects the interpretation of soil behaviour. Therefore, to compare soil behav-
iour at different depths and thus provide an appropriate geotechnical prediction from cone penetrometer data,
stress normalization must be applied to the cone measurements to convert them into an equivalent value at a
standard atmospheric stress. The stress normalization allows a variable property to be reduced to an equivalent
value at a standard confining stress, such as vertical, mean, octagonal, or lateral stress in atmospheric pressure
units (atm) or with reference to atmospheric pressure of Pa = 1atm(≈ 100kPa). As the resistance to cone pen-
etration′ tends to increase as the effective overburden stress increases with depth, the in situ effective vertical
stress σvo can
nbe used as 
a standardn confining stress. The normalization of cone measurements utilizes the factor
′ ′
c = 1/ σvo or c = 1/ σvo /Pa , referred to as stress exponent-based stress normalization, where n is the
stress exponent, which defines the dependence of the measured parameter on the in situ effective vertical stress
so that n = 0 means no dependence, n = 1 means linear dependence and n < 1 means nonlinear dependence.
This approach, originally proposed for SPT ­normalization18, has been extensively used for CPT normalization,
as summarised in Table 1.
To account for the complexity of soil resistance with respect to the degree of linearity dependency on increas-
ing vertical effective stress, several approaches to determining the stress exponent have been proposed. Olsen
and ­Mitchell23 suggested a stress normalization exponent given by
n = 1 − 0.007(Dr − 10%) (3)
where Dr is the relative density. Boulanger and I­ driss26 and Idriss and ­Boulanger27 recommended using
n = 0.784 − 0.521Dr (4)
Zhang et al.28 proposed obtaining a stress normalization exponent, expressed as
n = 0.5 if Ic ≤ 1.64 (5)

n = 0.3(Ic − 1.64) + 0.5 if 1.64 < Ic < 3.30 (6)

Scientific Reports | (2022) 12:12412 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-15994-x 2

Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

CPT normalization
Cone resistance Sleeve friction Porewater pressure References
fs
19–22,88
 qc n –
 n
′
′ σvo
σvo

qc −σvo 23

′ n
– –
σvo
0.5 24,25
– –

Pa
qc ′
σvo
n
26,27
– –

Pa
qc ′
σvo
n n
29
–
 
Pa Pa
qc ′ fs ′
σvo σvo
1.8qc
30
0.8+ σPvo
′
– –
a
n
4
– –

qc −σvo Pa
Pa ′
σvo
qt −σvo 2,31,32
′ – –
σvo
qt −σvo 33
′
fs
′ –
σvo σvo
qt −σvo 34
′ – u2 −uo
′
σvo σvo
0.5 35
– –

qt Pa
Pa ′
σvo

 Pa n 36,37
– –

qt − σvo ′
σvo
n
38,39,40
– –

qt −σvo Pa
Pa ′
σvo

Table 1.  Normalization of cone penetrometer measurements.

n = 1 if Ic ≥ 3.30 (7)

 2  2 0.5
Ic = 3.47 − logQ + 1.22 + logF (8)

  n
qc − σvo Pa
Q= ′ (9)
Pa σvo

fs
F= 100% (10)
qc − σvo
′
and if σvo > 300kPa, n = 1 for all soils. The stress exponent is determined by an iterative process starting with
n = 1 until the change in n, n, becomes less than 0.01, �n < 0.01. Ic is updated from Robertson and ­Wride4.
Moss et al.29 suggested a stress normalization exponent for normalizing both qc and fs , given by
   0.32qc −0.35 −0.49
0.78 fs /qc 100
n = 0.33 1.21 (11)
qc
 
abs log 10 + qc

Cetin and ­Isik36 developed an iterative procedure for estimating the stress normalization exponent, as defined
by
R − 272.38
n= ± 0.085, 272.38 < R < 275.19 (12)
275.19 − 272.38
    2 0.5
2 qt,1,net
(13)

R= logFR + 234.91 + log − 126.24
Pa

fs
FR = 100% (14)
qc − σvo

Scientific Reports | (2022) 12:12412 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-15994-x 3

Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

 n
Pa
qt,1,net = qt − σvo ′ (15)
σvo
which typically varies in the range of 0.4−0.65 for sands, 0.6−0.8 for sand/silt/clay mixtures, and 0.9−1 for clays.
­Robertson3 proposed a stress normalization exponent given by
 ′ 
σ
n = 0.381Ic + 0.05 vo − 0.15, n ≤ 1 (16)
Pa

 2  2 0.5
Ic = 3.47 − logQt1 + 1.22 + logFr (17)

  n
qt − σvo Pa
Qtn = ′ (18)
Pa σvo

fs
Fr = 100% (19)
qt − σvo
Ic was adapted from Robertson and ­Wride4 based on Qtn proposed by ­Robertson38 such that n = 1 leads to
Qtn = Qt1, and where Fr is updated using qt . ­Robertson3 assumed n = 1 for most fine-grained soils, n ranging
from 0.5 to 0.9 for most coarse-grained soils when the in situ effective vertical stresses are not high, and n = 1
for most soils when the in situ effective vertical stress is greater than 1MPa. A detailed discussion on the stress
normalization of cone measurements has been p ­ rovided3,34,42,43.
The resistance to cone penetration is controlled by the pressure dependency with coupling between the
volumetric and shear behaviour. The stress path or shearing condition imposed by the cone penetration process
and the initial state of the soil, defined by the effective vertical stress and degree of over consolidation (normally
consolidated, NC, lightly overconsolidated, LOC, and heavily overconsolidated, HOC, states), are captured by
the stress normalization exponent n. Hence, n is better designated as the stress–strain-strength parameter. It
defines the variation of the effective stress state and, therefore, the effects of soil strength and deformability.
The definition of the stress normalization exponent is the key factor to correctly capture the soil behavior type.
For the NC and LOC undrained penetration (i.e., positive excess porewater pressure, such as in very soft to
medium stiff fine-grained soil), NC and LOC drained penetration (i.e., contractive behaviour, such as in very
loose to medium dense coarse-grained soil), HOC undrained penetration at high in situ effective vertical stress
(i.e., positive excess porewater pressure, such as in stiff fine-grained soil), and HOC drained penetration at high
in situ effective vertical stress where dilatancy is suppressed and grain crushing or breakage occurs (i.e., con-
tractive behaviour, such as in dense coarse-grained soil, at approximately 2MPa for uniform silica sands, 1MPa
for angular silica sands and silty sands, and 0.1MPa for carbonate sands), the total cone penetration resistance
increases linearly with increasing initial effective vertical stress, such that n = 1. However, for the HOC und-
rained penetration (i.e., negative excess porewater pressure, such as in stiff fine-grained soil) and HOC drained
penetration (i.e., dilative behaviour, such as in dense coarse-grained soil), both at not high in situ effective vertical
stress, it increases nonlinearly, and 0.5 ≤ n < 1.
In summary, a linear stress–strain-strength behaviour (n = 1) is assumed for soils with low to medium shear
strength at failure, when positive excess porewater pressure (reduction of effective stress state; loss of shearing
strength) in undrained penetration or contractive behaviour in drained penetration occurs, and a nonlinear
stress–strain-strength behaviour (0.5 ≤ n < 1) is assumed for soils with high shear strength at failure, when
negative excess porewater pressure (increase of effective stress state; gain of shearing strength) in undrained
penetration or dilative behaviour in drained penetration occurs.
Thus, such conditions, as depicted in Fig. 1, should guide the determination of the stress normalization
exponent. In general, regardless of the strain level, NC and LOC soils exhibit linear mechanical behaviour and
HOC soils, highly nonlinear mechanical behaviour. The critical state line (CSL) defines the transition between
the LOC and HOC states. Thus, the threshold condition for the LOC state, YSRCSL = (2/cosφcs )1.25, irrespec-
tive of drainage condition, corresponds to YSR ∼ = 2.48 ∼ 2.85 for fine-grained soils and YSR ∼ = 2.85 ∼ 3.32 for
coarse-grained soils, where YSR is the yield stress ratio and φcs is the critical state friction angle. Nonetheless,
as the HOC soil is characterized by an in situ effective horizontal stress greater than the in situ effective vertical
stress, the transition condition between the LOC and HOC states can be more rationally defined by the coefficient
of earth pressure at rest, Ko, such that the NC and LOC states are set for Ko ≤ 1 and HOC state for Ko > 1, for
all soils. Hence, the threshold condition for the LOC state corresponds to YSR ∼ = 3.3 ∼ 4 for fine-grained soils
and YSR ∼ = 4 ∼ 5 for coarse-grained soils.
The clean sand equivalent penetration resistance Qtn,cs 4 is determined by
Qtn,cs = Kc Qtn (20)

Kc = 1 if Ic ≤ 1.64 (21)

Kc = −0.403Ic4 + 5.581Ic3 − 21.63Ic2 + 33.75Ic − 17.881 if Ic > 1.64 (22)

Scientific Reports | (2022) 12:12412 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-15994-x 4

Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Figure 1.  Zones of soil behaviour: NC/LOC-UP: undrained penetration into normally consolidated or lightly
overconsolidated soil. NC/LOC-DP: drained penetration into normally consolidated or lightly overconsolidated
soil. HOC-UP: undrained penetration into heavily overconsolidated soil. HOC-DP: drained penetration into
­ obertson44).
heavily overconsolidated soil. (Adapted from R

where Kc is a correction factor for correcting the normalized total cone penetration resistance, Qtn, in silty sands
to an equivalent clean sand value, Qtn,cs. The contour of Qtn,cs = 70 defines the transition of the soil volume change
or excess porewater pressure change, as illustrated in Fig. 144. The region represented by Qtn,cs ≤ 70, referring
to soils that undergo contraction or positive excess porewater pressure during cone penetration, corresponds to
n = 1, and the region defined by Qtn,cs > 70, for soils that undergo dilation or negative excess porewater pressure
during cone penetration, corresponds to 0.5 ≤ n < 1. Under HOC penetration at high effective confining stress,
the soil undergoes contraction due to grain breakage in drained shear or positive excess porewater pressure in
undrained shear, leading to loss of shearing strength. It is possible that such a condition has already been covered
by the region defined by Qtn,cs ≤ 70; however, this has not yet been explicitly stated.
Therefore, the proposed guidelines for determining the stress normalization exponent are summarized as
n = 1 if Qtn,cs ≤ 70, and 0.5 ≤ n < 1 if Qtn,cs > 70, using appropriate equation for n.
­ obertson45 proposed a boundary between contractive and dilative behaviour
Based on critical state concepts, R
for Robertson Qtn–Fr ­chart2,3 using the state parameter  ( = −0.05), which confirms such boundary based on
Qtn,cs (Qtn,cs = 70). The contours of  and the contours of Qtn,cs present strong similarity given by
 = 0.56 − 0.33logQtn,cs (23)
6 2,3
Robertson defined states of soil behaviour based on the Robertson Qtn–Fr ­chart , which can also guide the
determination of the stress normalization exponent. The soil states are established by the contractive-dilative
parameter CD and by the modified soil behaviour type index IB derived from a hyperbolic-shaped soil-type
boundary suggested by Schneider et al.5, expressed as

CD = (Qtn − 11)(1 + 0.06F r )17 (24)

100(Qtn + 10)
IB = (25)
(70 + Qtn Fr )
Similar to Qtn,cs = 70 , the contour of CD = 70 defines the boundary of the soil volume change or excess
porewater pressure change, and the contours of IB define boundaries between drained, undrained, and partial
drainage conditions. The transitional zone included in the chart is related to mixed soils, where the prevailing
behaviour of soil volume change or excess porewater pressure change is largely dependent on the degree of drain-
age as well as on the different soil components that control its mechanical behaviour. Hence, the transitional
zone becomes an uncertainty zone for interpreting soil behaviour. Thus, by focusing on the prediction of soil
behaviour type rather than soil identification, a value of IB between 22 and 32 that defines a contour between
drained and undrained conditions must exist, as defined by ­Robertson44.

Scientific Reports | (2022) 12:12412 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-15994-x 5

Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Cone penetrometer‑based soil type classification

In the systematic categorization of soil type based on cone penetrometer testing, soils are classified into groups
that exhibit similar mechanical behaviour, not by the physical characteristics of the soil constitution. Conven-
tionally, soil type identification is obtained from laboratory testing performed on disturbed samples, usually by
grain size distribution and Atterberg limits (e.g., Unified Soil Classification System, USCS). Fortunately, there
is reasonable agreement between the CPT-based SBT and USCS-based soil c­ lassification1,46,47. This is verified
for penetration in sand and clay that typically occur under fully drained or undrained conditions, respectively.
The largest difference is likely to occur for mixed soils (i.e., sand mixtures and silt mixtures), where the degree
of drainage and different components of the soils control different aspects of the mechanical behaviour of these
­soils1,3. Penetration in mixed soils is conducted under partial drainage, and the resistance to penetration is con-
trolled by the degree of porewater p ­ ressure34. The soil composition and mineralogy; type, content, and plasticity
of fines; stress history; and stress level also produce different soil responses. Several examples of the differences
that can arise in mixed soils have been r­ eported3. Ideally, a classification system with a strong link to in situ
behaviour is desirable for geotechnical engineering purposes; however, a combined classification based on both
physical and behavioural characteristics would be ­helpful48.
Comprehensive experience exists concerning the soil type classification from the CPT and CPTu data.
­B egemann49 pioneered CPT-based soil type prediction from mechanical cone data, presenting a linear rela-
tion between qc and fs , as fanned-out lines from the  origin
 with an angular coefficient, qc /fs , showing that the
soil type is a function of the friction ratio, Rf = fs /qc 100%. Subsequent studies employed Rf in soil type
­interpretation49,50 or from qc and Rf ­relations1,41,51–57.
Insights into the cone penetration process have shown the need to account for the correction and normaliza-
tion of cone measurements. Thus, extensive use is made of the corrected and normalized (ň) cone parameters
for soil type predictions based on qc,ň and fs,ň19,20, qc,ň and Rf ,ň21–23,42, qt and fs58, qt and Rf 59, qt,ň and fs,ň33, qt,ň
and u2,ň34, qt,ň and FR36,37, and qt,ň and Fr2,3,5,6.
Recognizing the problems associated with sleeve friction measurements, several soil classification methods
have been proposed based on cone penetration resistance and penetration porewater pressure, which are con-
sidered more reliable measurements. Initially, qc and u2 are used for soil-type i­ dentification60,61. The porewater
pressure ratio Bq = (u2 − uo )/ qt − σvo was ­proposed62, and soil type classification charts based on qt and Bq
 
have been p ­ resented2,5,34,54,59,62–65. The effective porewater pressure ratio BE = �u2 /uo was suggested along with
a soil-type chart based on qt and BE , where u2 = u2 − uo is the excess penetration porewater ­pressure66. A chart
for identifying soil behaviour type using qt /uo and Bp = �u2 / qt − uo′ 67 and a chart that relates normalized

cone tip resistance Qt1 and normalized ′
excess porewater pressure �u2 /σvo as a function of the overconsolidation
­ratio5,34 were also proposed. �u2 /σvo is considered a better form of the porewater pressure parameter than Bq 34.
Some proposals for classifyingsoil behaviour types
 have gathered
68 all basic cone measurements. SBTn charts
were developed by considering Qt1 1 − Bq 69,70 or Qt1 1 − Bq +  1 ′ and Fr , where Qt1 1 − Bq + 1 is a normal-
  
ized effective cone resistance that can be rewritten as qt − u2 /σvo. A soil characterization chart was proposed
based on nonnormalized parameters, using qt − u2 and fs , where qe = qt − u2 is the effective cone ­resistance71.
The charts based on the effective cone resistance suffer from a lack of accuracy in soft fine-grained soils, where qt
is small compared with u2 and the difference, qt − u2, becomes very s­ mall3. In addition, qe does not correspond
to the effective cone resistance available at the cone tip, because the maximum porewater pressure is mobilized
at the cone face (u1 position)72–75, not at the cone base (u2 position).
Several algorithms have been proposed for the classification of soil types using probabilistic m ­ ethods37,76,
fuzzy ­logic77,78, artificial neural ­networks79–82, and machine ­learning83,84.
Emphasis is given to the soil behaviour type classification system developed by R ­ obertson2,3, using Qtn and
Fr , and modified by ­Robertson85 using nonnormalized basic cone parameters qc /pa and Rf .
Based on works by W ­ roth31,86 and ­Houlsby32, ­Robertson2 suggested consistent soil behaviour type charts, Qt
–Fr and Qt–Bq , but recommended the Qt–Fr chart as generally more reliable, where
qt − σvo qn
Qt = ′ = ′ (26)
σvo σvo

fs fs
Fr = 100% = 100% (27)
qt − σvo qn

u2 − uo �u2
Bq = = (28)
qt − σvo qn
and qn = qt − σvo is the net cone penetration resistance.
The magnitude of the excess porewater pressure depends on the shearing process and changes in the total
stress induced by cone penetration. In an undrained situation, the shear stress can only be expressed in terms
of principal stresses as the difference between two total stresses or a difference of two effective stresses. As the
cone penetration resistance is a measure of the shear strength of the soil in terms of the total stress, the variable
qn = qt − σvo is a measure of the maximum shear stress. Thus, the parameter Bq is a ratio of the excess porewater
pressure to the shear stress at failure, Fr is a ratio of the sleeve friction resistance to the shear stress at failure, and
Qtn is the shear stress at failure normalized as a function of the effective vertical stress. Fr and Bq are not required
for stress normalization because they remain constant irrespective of the stress level.
Robertson and ­Wride4 proposed a soil behaviour type index by approximating the Robertson Qt–Fr ­chart2
as concentric circles, expressed as

Scientific Reports | (2022) 12:12412 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-15994-x 6

Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Interface 2–3 3–4 4–5 5–6 6–7

ro 4.22 3.37 2.84 2.13 1.33
α (degrees) 105.90 105.58 101.64 93.94 89.76
R2 0.945 0.976 0.971 0.909 0.990

Table 2.  Parameters of the logarithmic spirals that best fit the ­Robertson2,3 SBTn zone contours.

 2 2 0.5
(29)

Ic = 3.47 − logQtn + 1.22 + logFr

replacing Qt with Qtn, given by

  n
qt − σvo Pa
Qtn = ′ (30)
Pa σvo
­ obertson38. ­Robertson3 updated the method to define the normalized stress exponent as
as suggested by R
 ′ 
σ
n = 0.381Ic + 0.05 vo − 0.15 (31)
Pa

where n ≤ 1. The approximation suggested by Robertson and ­Wride4 was disadvantageous for predicting the
behaviour of mixed and fine-grained soils compared to the original method of ­Robertson2. The hyperbolic-shaped
soil-type boundaries suggested by Schneider et al.5 also significantly differ from the R­ obertson2,3 SBTn zones.
Robertson85 presented a nonnormalized SBT chart, where the boundaries are also concentric circles and a
nonnormalized soil behaviour type index, ISBT , is given by
  2 0.5
qc 2
(32)

ISBT = 3.47 − log + 1.22 + logRf
Pa

The nonnormalized SBT index ISBT is essentially the same as the normalized SBTn index Ic but only uses the
basic CPT measurements. ­Robertson85 stressed that the normalized Ic generally provides a more reliable identi-
fication of SBT than the nonnormalized ISBT . However, when the in situ effective vertical stress is between 50kPa
and 150kPa, there is often little difference between normalized and nonnormalized SBTs.

Proposed soil behaviour type indexes

­ obertson2,3, can be expressed as
The CPT-based soil behaviour type method, Qtn–Fr SBTn chart, proposed by R
concentric logarithmic spirals given by
 
r
θcotα − log =0 (33)
ro
where θ is the angle of rotation as the curve spirals, r is the radius vector measured from the origin to a point
on the spiral, ro is the initial radius vector for θ = 0◦, and α is the angle between the radial and tangent lines at
the point (r, θ ) on the spiral.
The boundaries between SBTn zones 2 to 7 of the chart can be individually approximated as a natural logarith-
mic function from Eq. (33). The position of the SBTn chart on the Cartesian plane used by Robertson and W ­ ride4
was assumed as a reference and is denoted herein as RW. The best fit is given in Table 2 and shown in Fig. 2.
However, to obtain a soil behaviour type index, a single approximation covering all soil zones is required.
Inevitably, an overall approximation reduces the quality of the fit at the soil zone interface compared to that
obtained independently. The initial radius of the logarithmic spiral at each soil zone contour can then be used
as a soil behaviour type index.
Thus, by seeking an analytical solution, a new SBTn index can be defined as
√   
ln −1 f
f 2 +q2 −0.106tan q
 
1−0.283tan−1 q
f (34)
Ic,RW = e
where f = 1.22 + logFr and q = 3.47 − logQtn.
The normalized cone parameter Qtn is estimated using
′
 
σvo
n = 0.2969Ic,RW + 0.05 − 0.0208 (35)
Pa

where n ≤ 1 and n are calculated using Ic,RW from Qtn = Qt1 based on n = 1.
The boundaries of the soil behaviour type index, Ic,RW , are shown in Fig. 3.
By adjusting the SBTn chart on a different scale, a better analytical solution can be obtained by

Scientific Reports | (2022) 12:12412 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-15994-x 7

Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Figure 2.  Contours of the logarithmic spirals that best fit the SBTn zone boundaries.

Figure 3.  Contours of the SBTn zones of Ic and Ic,RW .

 √   
f
ln f 2 +q2 −0.0884tan−1 q
 
1−0.075tan−1 q
f (36)
Ics = e
where f = 1.5 + 1.5logFr and q = 4 − logQtn.
The normalized cone parameter Qtn is estimated using
′
 
σ
n = 0.3316Ics + 0.05 vo − 0.2319 (37)
Pa

where n ≤ 1 and n are calculated using Ics from Qtn = Qt1 based on n = 1.
The additional subscript s in Ics refers to the initial of spiral concerning the fit by logarithmic spirals. The
boundaries of the soil behaviour type index, Ics , are shown in Fig. 4 and given in Table 3.

Scientific Reports | (2022) 12:12412 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-15994-x 8

Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Figure 4.  Contours of the SBTn zones of Ics.

Zone Soil behaviour type Ics

1 Sensitive, fine-grained n/a
2 Organic soils–clay > 4.45
3 Clays–silty clay to clay 3.58–4.45
4 Silt mixtures–clayey silt to silty clay 3.17–3.58
5 Sand mixtures–silty sand to sandy silt 2.62–3.17
6 Sands–clean sand to silty sand 1.79–2.62
7 Gravelly sand to dense sand < 1.79
8 Very stiff sand to clayey sand* n/a
9 Very stiff, fine-grained* n/a

Table 3.  Boundaries of the SBTn zones of Ics. *Heavily overconsolidated or cemented.

Alternatively, an accurate approximation can be achieved through natural exponential functions given by

Qtn = eζ Fr (38)

that vary according to

 = 23.283ζ 2.422 R2 = 0.9866 (39)

 

so that
Fr ζ − lnQtn + 2.422lnζ + 3.148 = 0 (40)
Therefore, a numerical root-finding method can be used to compute ζ from Eq. (40). The Newton–Raphson
method converges very fast to ζ . Applying the procedure at the boundaries between zones 2 to 7 corresponds to
a soil behaviour type index so that it is renamed Ice . The additional subscript e in Ice refers to the Euler number
concerning the fit by natural exponential functions. Because ζ varies linearly with  locally at each interface, a
simple mean is assumed for Ice as the best fit.
The normalized cone parameter Qtn is estimated using
 ′ 
σ
n = −0.4214lnIce + 0.05 vo + 0.6369 (41)
Pa

where n ≤ 1 and n are calculated using Ice from Qtn = Qt1 based on n = 1.
The boundaries of the soil behaviour type index, Ice , are shown in Fig. 5 and given in Table 4.
Conversely,

Scientific Reports | (2022) 12:12412 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-15994-x 9

Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Figure 5.  Contours of the SBTn zones of Ice.

Zone Soil behaviour type Ice

1 Sensitive, fine-grained n/a
2 Organic soils–clay < 0.241
3 Clays–silty clay to clay 0.241–0.465
4 Silt mixtures–clayey silt to silty clay 0.465–0.638
5 Sand mixtures–silty sand to sandy silt 0.638–0.993
6 Sands–clean sand to silty sand 0.993–1.955
7 Gravelly sand to dense sand > 1.955
8 Very stiff sand to clayey sand* n/a
9 Very stiff, fine-grained* n/a

Table 4.  Boundaries of the SBTn zones of Ice. *Heavily overconsolidated or cemented.

ζ = 0.2760.407 R2 = 0.9866 (42)

 

so that

0.276Fr 1.503ln − lnQtn + ln = 0 (43)

The approximate limits of the SBTn zones can be obtained by computing  from Eq. (43) using a root-finding
method, giving rise to a new SBTn index. For simplicity, the results of this index are not presented here because
it is an equivalent solution to that of Eq. (40).
The soil behaviour type indexes, Ics and Ice , do not apply to zones 1, 8, and 9. They are in general agreement
with the soil classification chart proposed by R ­ obertson2,3 and are of easy computational implementation for
post-processing results.
Once the nonnormalized SBT zones are essentially the same as the normalized SBTn ones, a new nonnormal-
ized index, Isbt , can be obtained from Eqs. (36), (40), or (43), by replacing Qtn with qc /Pa and Fr with Rf .

Comparing SBTn indexes in a soil profile case

Cone penetration tests are valuable tools for reliable stratigraphic soil logging. Near-continuous records with
depth provide a detailed soil profile where very thin soil layers can be detected. The cone resistance is influenced
by the soil ahead and behind the cone tip, depending on the strength–stiffness condition of the soil and the
in situ effective confining s­ tress53. It can be inferred that the zone of i­ nfluence87 extends up to 15 cone diameters
above and below the cone in denser or stiffer soils, which dilate or undergo negative excess porewater pressure
during penetration (HOC soil at low effective confining stress), whereas this zone is quite small, approximately
one cone diameter, in looser or softer soils that contract or undergo positive excess porewater pressure during
penetration (NC and LOC soils, and HOC soil at high effective confining stress). The zone of influence above

Scientific Reports | (2022) 12:12412 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-15994-x 10

Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Figure 6.  Piezocone test results from the Belém test site.

and below the cone during penetration will influence the cone resistance at the boundary between two soil types
with significantly different strengths and stiffnesses, making it difficult to identify the transition between these
­soils3. Profiles of an SBTn index can provide a simple means of identifying and removing these transition zones.
The new normalized soil behaviour type indexes, Ics and Ice , proposed herein, are compared to the Ic index
proposed by R ­ obertson3 based on Robertson and ­Wride4 by applying them in a soil stratigraphy case example.
The
′
test
′′
site is a sedimentary
′ ′′
soil deposit located in the city of Belém in the northern region of Brazil, at
1◦ 26 11 S and 48◦ 28 38 W . The soil profile consists of a 32m thick fluvic deltaic deposit of normally consolidated
clay, intersected at a relatively deep level by a type of stone line consisting of a small, highly resistant, cemented
sand mixture layer, approximately 1m thick, covering a large part of the subsoil of the city centre.
The total cone penetration resistance, sleeve friction resistance, and penetration porewater pressure are pre-
sented in Fig. 6. The piezocone test results are depicted in the Qtn–Fr ­chart3, as shown in Fig. 7, to illustrate their
overall distribution in the soil behaviour type zones, mainly their position relative to the zone boundaries. The
soil profile of the test site determined from the soil behaviour type indexes is shown in Fig. 8. The results illustrate
the differences in the soil type prediction of both fine-grained and coarse-grained soils.

Conclusions
Supported by strong theoretical and experimental knowledge, the cone penetrometer test has become an accu-
rate, thorough and reliable tool for predicting soil behaviour type. Significant research into soil-type classifi-
cation based on CPT and CPTu exists. Rational interpretations consider the correction and normalization of
cone measurements. The cone parameter is normalized using a stress normalization factor that defines the
stress–strain-strength behaviour of the soil, which varies linearly in soils that undergo contraction or positive
excess porewater pressure during penetration or nonlinearly when undergoing dilation or negative porewater
pressure during penetration. The Qtn–Fr chart proposed by R ­ obertson2,3 has proven to be a consistent solution
that is used extensively worldwide. However, the approximation from the SBTn index, Ic , proposed by Robertson
and ­Wride4, significantly reduced the quality of the original method. The new SBTn indexes, Ics and Ice , proposed
herein, preserve the robustness of the ­Robertson2,3 method. For direct comparison among the concentric circle
solution given by Robertson and W ­ ride4, the Ic index, and the proposed concentric logarithmic spiral solution,
the Ic,RW index, the chart of R ­ obertson2,3 was placed in the same position on the Cartesian plane assumed by
Robertson and ­Wride4 to obtain Ic,RW . Ic,RW already shows a significant improvement relative to Ic ; however, it is
still not the best solution to be obtained by fitting with concentric logarithmic spirals. A better analytical solution
can then be achieved by the Ics index by adjusting the soil classification chart at a different scale. Alternatively,

Scientific Reports | (2022) 12:12412 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-15994-x 11

Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Figure 7.  Piezocone data from the Belém test site depicted in the ­Robertson3 SBTn chart.

Figure 8.  Soil stratigraphic profiling of the Belém test site from the CPT-based SBTn indexes.

the SBTn index, Ice , was derived from a numerical approach based on an exponential function approximation.
The new soil behaviour type indexes are in general agreement with the soil classification chart suggested by
­Robertson2,3. The Ics index is quite accurate and easy to use, but the Ice index is the best approximation solution
achieved thus far.

Data availability
The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding
author on reasonable request.

Scientific Reports | (2022) 12:12412 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-15994-x 12

Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Received: 16 February 2022; Accepted: 4 July 2022

References
1. Douglas, B. J. & Olsen, R. S. Soil classification using electric cone penetrometer. Proceedings of the Symposium on Cone Penetration
Testing and Experience, Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE. St. Louis, Missouri, United States, 209–227 (1981).
2. Robertson, P. K. Soil classification using the cone penetration test. Can. Geotech. J. 27(1), 151–158 (1990).
3. Robertson, P. K. Interpretation of cone penetration tests – a unified approach. Can. Geotech. J. 46(11), 1337–1355 (2009).
4. Robertson, P. K. & Wride, C. E. Evaluating cyclic liquefaction potential using the cone penetration test. Can. Geotech. J. 35(3),
442–459 (1998).
5. Schneider, J. A., Hotstream, J. N., Mayne, P. W. & Randolph, M. F. Comparing CPTU Q-F and Q–∆u2σvo’ soil classification charts.
Géotech. Lett. 2(4), 209–215 (2012).
6. Robertson, P. K. Cone penetration test (CPT)-based soil behaviour type (SBT) classification system - an update. Can. Geotech. J.
53(12), 1910–1927 (2016).
7. Lunne, T., Eidsmoen, T., Gillespie, D. & Howland, J. D. Laboratory and field evaluation on cone penetrometers. Proceedings of
American Society of Civil Engineers, ASCE, in situ 86 Specialty Conference, ed. S. Clemence, Blacksburg, Virginia, United States
Geotechnical Special Publication, 714–729 (1986).
8. Campanella, R. G., Gillespie, D. & Robertson, P. K. Pore pressures during cone penetration testing. Proceedings of the 2nd European
Symposium on Penetration Testing, ESOPT-2, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 507–512 (1982).
9. Baligh, M. M., Azzouz, A.S., Wissa, A.Z.E., Martin, R.T. & Morrison, M.J. The Piezocone Penetrometer. Proceedings of the Sympo-
sium on Cone Penetration Testing and Experience, Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE. St. Louis, Missouri, United States,
247–263 (1981).
10. Konrad, J. M. Piezo-friction-cone penetrometer testing in soft clays. Can. Geotech. J. 24(4), 645–652 (1987).
11. Boggess, R. & Robertson, P. K. CPT for soft sediments and deepwater investigations. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium
on Cone Penetration Testing, CPT’10, Huntington Beach, CA, United States, 2, 127–134 (2010).
12. Lunne, T. & Andersen, K. H. Soft clay shear strength parameters for deepwater geotechnical design. Proceedings of the 6th Inter-
national Conference on Offshore Site Investigation and Geotechnics: Confronting New Challenges and Sharing Knowledge, Society
for Underwater Technology - SUT, London, England, 151–176 (2007).
13. Lunne, T., Strandvik, S., Kåsin, K., L’Heureux, J. S., Haugen, E., Uruci, E., Veldhuijzen, A., Carlson, M. & Kassner, M. Effect of
cone penetrometer type on CPTU results at a soft clay test site in Norway. Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Cone
Penetration Testing, CPT’18, Delft, Netherlands, 417–422 (2018).
14. Lunne, T., Robertson, P. K. & Powell, J. J. M. Cone penetration testing in geotechnical practice, Oxford (E and FN Spon, 1997).
15. Chapman, G. A. A calibration chamber for field test equipment. Proceedings of the 1st European Symposium on Penetration Testing,
ESOPT-1, Stockholm, Sweden, 2:2, 59–66 (1974).
16. Holden, J. C. Laboratory research on static cone penetrometers. University of Florida, Department of Civil Engineering, United
States, Report CE-SM-71–1 (1971).
17. Veismanis, A. Laboratory investigations of electrical friction-cone penetrometers in sand. Proceedings of the 1st European Sympo-
sium on Penetration Testing, ESOPT-1, Stockholm, Sweden 2:2, 407–420 (1974).
18. Marcuson, W. F. & Bieganousky, W. A. SPT and relative density in coarse sands. J. Geotech. Eng. Div. ASCE 103(GT11), 1295–1309
(1977).
19. Olsen, R. S. Liquefaction analysis using the cone penetrometer test. Proceedings of the 8th World Conference on Earthquake Enginea-
ing, San Francisco, California, United States, 3, 247–254 (1984).
20. Olsen, R. S. & Farr, V. Site characterization using the cone penetration test. Proceedings of American Society of Civil Engineers,
ASCE, in situ 86 Specialty Conference, ed. S. Clemence, Blacksburg, Virginia, United States Geotechnical Special Publication GSP
6, 854–868 (1986).
21. Olsen, R. S. & Koester, J. P. Prediction of liquefaction resistance using the CPT. Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on
Cone Penetration Testing, CPT’95, Linköping, Sweden, 2, 251–256 (1995).
22. Olsen, R. S. & Malone, P. G. Soil classification and site characterization using the cone penetrometer test. Proceedings of the 1st
International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing, ISOPT-1, Orlando, Florida, United States 2, 887–893 (1988).
23. Olsen, R. S. & Mitchell, J. K. CPT stress normalization and prediction of soil classification. Proceedings of the 1st International
Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing, CPT’95, Linköping, Sweden, Swedish Geotechnical Society, SGF Report 3:95, vol. 2,
257–262 (1995).
24. Robertson, P. K. & Campanella, R. G. Liquefaction potential of sands using the CPT. J. Geotech. Eng. 111(3), 384–403 (1985).
25. Liao, S. S. C. & Whitman, R. V. Overburden correction factors for SPT in sand. J. Geotech. Eng. 112(3), 373–377 (1986).
26. Boulanger, R. W. & Idriss, I. M. State normalization of penetration resistance and the effect of overburden stress liquefaction
resistance. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, American Society of
Civil Engineers, ASCE, Berkeley, California, United States, 484–491 (2004).
27. Idriss, I. M. & Boulanger, R. W. Semi-empirical procedures for evaluating liquefaction potential during earthquakes. Soil Dyn.
Earthq. Eng. 26(2–4), 115–130 (2006).
28. Zhang, G., Robertson, P. K. & Brachman, R. W. I. Estimating liquefaction-induced ground settlements from CPT for level ground.
Can. Geotech. J. 39(5), 1168–1180 (2002).
29. Moss, R. E. S., Seed, R. B. & Olsen, R. S. Normalizing the CPT for overburden stress. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 132(3), 378–387
(2006).
30. Kayen, R. E., Mitchell, J. K., Seed, R. B., Lodge, A., Nishio, S. & Coutinho, R. Evaluation of SPT-, CPT-, and shear wave-based
methods for liquefaction potential assessment using Loma Prieta data. Proceedings of the 4th Japan–US Workshop on Earthquake
Resistant Design of Lifeline Facilities and Countermeasures for Soil Liquefaction, Honolulu, Hawaii, United States, 1, 177–192 (1992).
31. Wroth, C. P. The interpretation of in situ soil tests. Géotechnique 34(4), 449–489 (1984).
32. Houlsby, G. T. Introduction to Papers 14–19: Piezocone penetration test. Proceedings of the Geotechnology Conference on Penetra-
tion Testing in the U.K., Institution of Civil Engineers, Birmingham, England, 141–146 (1988).
33. Saye, S. R., Santos, J., Olson, S. M. & Leigh, R. D. Linear trendlines to assess soil classification from cone penetration test data. J.
Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 143(9), 04017060 (2017).
34. Schneider, J. A., Randolph, M. F., Mayne, P. W. & Ramsey, N. R. Analysis of factors influencing soil classification using normalized
piezocone tip resistance and pore pressure parameters. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 134(11), 1569–1586 (2008).
35. Baldi, G., Bellotti, R., Ghionna, V. N., Jamiolkowski, M., & Pasqualini, E. Design parameters for sands from CPT. Proceedings of
the 2nd European Symposium on Penetration Testing, ESOPT-2, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2, 425–432 (1982).
36. Cetin, K. O. & Isik, N. S. Probabilistic assessment of stress normalization for CPT data. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 133(7), 887–897
(2007).
37. Cetin, K. O. & Ozan, C. CPT-based probabilistic soil characterization and classification. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 135(1), 84–107
(2009).

Scientific Reports | (2022) 12:12412 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-15994-x 13

Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

38. Robertson, P. K. Estimation of minimum undrained shear strength for flow liquefaction using the CPT. Proceedings of the 2nd
International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, ed. Sêco e Pinto, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 1021–1028 (1999).
39. Maki, I. P., Boulanger, R. W., DeJong, J. T. & Jaeger, R. A. State-based overburden normalization of cone penetration resistance in
clean sand. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 140(2), 04013006 (2014).
40. Maki, I. P., Boulanger, R. W., DeJong, J. T. & Jaeger, R. A. Overburden normalization of CPT data in sands to clays. Proceedings of
the 3rd International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing, CPT’14, Las Vegas, Nevada, United States, 611–619 (2014).
41. Sanglerat, G., Nhim, T. V., Sejourne, M. & Andina, R. Direct soil classification by static penetrometer with special friction sleeve.
Proceedings of the 1st European Symposium on Penetration Testing, ESOPT-1, Stockholm, Sweden 2:2, 337–344 (1974).
42. Olsen, R. S. Normalization and prediction of geotechnical properties using the cone penetration test. PhD Dissertation, University
of California, Berkeley, California, United States (1994).
43. Sadrekarimi, A. Evaluation of CPT-based characterization methods for loose to medium-dense sands. Soils Found. 56(3), 460–472
(2016).
44. Robertson, P. K. Evaluation of flow liquefaction and liquefied strength using the cone penetration test. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
136(6), 842–853 (2010).
45. Robertson, P. K. Estimating in-situ state parameter and friction angle in sandy soils from CPT. Proceedings of the 2nd International
Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing, CPT’10, Huntington Beach, California, United States (2010).
46. Molle, J. The accuracy of the interpretation of CPT based soil classification methods in soft soils. MSc Thesis, Section for Engineer-
ing Geology, Department of Applied Earth Sciences, Delf University of Technology Report No. 242, Report AES/IG/05–25 (2005).
47. Shahri, A. A., Malehmir, A. & Juhlin, C. Soil classification analysis based on piezocone penetration test data - A case study from
a quick-clay landslide site in southwestern Sweden. Eng. Geol. 189, 32–47 (2015).
48. Robertson, P. K. Interpretation of in situ tests - some insights. Mitchell Lecture ISC’4, Brazil (2012).
49. Begemann, H. K. S. The friction jacket cone as an aid in determining the soil profile. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference
on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 1, 17–20 (1965).
50. Vos, J. D. The practical use of CPT in soil profiling. Proceedings of the 2nd European Symposium on Penetration Testing, ESOPT-2,
Amsterdam, Netherlands 2, 933–939 (1982).
51. Brouwer, H. In situ soil testing (ed. J.J.M. Brouwer) Iden, East Sussex (Lankelma, 2007).
52. Erwig, H. The Fugro guide for estimating soil type from CPT data. Seminar on Penetration Testing in the UK, Thomas Telford,
London, 261–263 (1988).
53. Robertson, P. K. & Campanella, R. G. Interpretation of cone penetration tests, Part I: Sand. Can. Geotech. J. 20(4), 718–733 (1983).
54. Robertson, P. K., Campanella, R. G., Gillespie, D. & Grieg, J. Use of piezometer cone data. Proceedings of American Society of
Civil Engineers, ASCE, in situ 86 Specialty Conference, ed. S. Clemence, Blacksburg, Virginia, United States Geotechnical Special
Publication GSP 6, 1263–1280 (1986).
55. Schmertmann, J. H. Guidelines for cone test, performance, and design. Federal Highway Administration, Washington DC, United
States Report FHWA-TS-78209 (1978).
56. Searle, I. W. The interpretation of Begemann friction jacket cone results to give soil types and design parameters. Proceedings of
the 7th European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, ECSMFE, Brighton, England 2, 265–270 (1979).
57. Vlasblom, A. The electrical penetrometer: a historical account of its development. Laboratorium voor Grondmechanica, Delf,
Netherlands LGM Mededelingen 92 (1985).
58. Mayne, P. W. In-situ test calibrations for evaluating soil parameters. Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Characteriza-
tion and Engineering Properties of Natural Soils, eds. KK Phoon, DW Hight, S Leroueil, TS Tan, Singapore, 3, 1–56 (2006).
59. Campanella, R. G. & Robertson, P. K. Current status of the piezocone test. Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Cone
Penetration Testing, ISOPT-1, Orlando, Florida, United States 1, 93–116 (1988).
60. Baligh, M. M., Ladd, C. C. & Vivatrat, V. Cone penetration in soil profiling. J. Geotech. Eng. Div. ASCE 106(4), 447–461 (1980).
61. Jones, G. A. & Rust, E. Piezometer penetration testing, CUPT. Proceedings of the 2nd European Symposium on Penetration Testing,
ESOPT-2, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2, 607–614 (1982).
62. Senneset, K., Janbu, N. & Svanø, G. Strength and deformation parameters from cone penetration tests. Proceedings of the 2nd
European Symposium on Penetration Testing, ESOPT-2, Amsterdam, Netherlands 2, 863–870 (1982).
63. Larsson, R. & Mulabdic, M. Piezocone tests in clay. Swedish Geotechnical Institute, SGI, Linköping, Sweden Report No. 42 (1991).
64. Senneset, K. & Janbu, N. Shear strength parameters obtained from static cone penetration tests. Strength Testing of Marine Sedi-
ments, Laboratory and in situ Measurements, ed. R. Chaney and K. Demars, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, Pennsyl-
vania, United States STP 883, 41–54 (1985).
65. Senneset, K., Sandven, R. & Janbu, N. Evaluation of soil parameters from piezocone test. Transp. Res. Rec. 1235, 24–37 (1989).
66. Eslami, A. & Fellenius, B. H. Pile shaft capacity determined by piezocone (CPTu) data. Proceedings of the 49th Canadian Geotechni-
cal Conference, St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada, 2, 859–867 (1996).
67. Cheng-hou, Z., Greeuw, G., Jekel, J. & Rosenbrand, W. A new classification chart for soft soils using the piezocone test. Eng. Geol.
29(1), 31–47 (1990).
68. Jefferies, M. G. & Been, K. Soil liquefaction, a critical state approach 1st edn. (CRC Press, London, 2006).
69. Jefferies, M. G. & Davies, M. P. Soil classification by the cone penetration test: Discussion. Can. Geotech. J. 28(1), 173–176 (1991).
70. Jefferies, M. G. & Davies, M. P. Use of CPTu to estimate equivalent SPT N60. Geotech. Test. J. Am. Soc. Test. Mater. ASTM 16(4),
458–468 (1993).
71. Eslami, A. & Fellenius, B. H. Pile capacity by direct CPT and CPTu methods applied to 102 case histories. Can. Geotech. J. 34(6),
880–898 (1997).
72. Ceccato, F. & Simonini, P. Numerical study of partially drained penetration and pore pressure dissipation in piezocone test. Acta
Geotech. 12, 195–209 (2017).
73. Dariani, A. A. G. & Ahmadi, M. M. Generation and dissipation of excess pore water pressure during CPTu in clayey soils: a numeri-
cal approach. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 39, 3639–3653 (2021).
74. Monforte, L., Arroyo, M., Gens, A. & Parolini, C. Permeability estimates from CPTu: a numerical study. Proceedings of the 4th
International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing, CPT’18, Delft, Netherlands, 455–460 (2018).
75. Moug, D. M., Boulanger, R. W., Jason T. DeJong, J. T. & Jaeger, R. A. Axisymmetric simulations of cone penetration in saturated
clay. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 145(4), 04019008:1–13 (2019).
76. Jung, B. C., Gardoni, P. & Biscontin, G. Probabilistic soil identification based on cone penetration tests. Géotechnique 58(7), 591–603
(2008).
77. Pradhan, T. B. S. Soil identification using piezocone data by fuzzy method. Soils Found. 38(1), 255–262 (1998).
78. Zhang, Z. & Tumay, M. T. Statistical to fuzzy approach toward CPT soil classification. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 125(3), 179–186
(1999).
79. Arel, E. Predicting the spatial distribution of soil profile in Adapazari/Turkey by artificial neural networks using CPT data. Comput.
Geosci. 43, 90–100 (2012).
80. Cai, G. J., Liu, S. Y., Puppala, A. J. & Tong, L. Y. Identification of soil strata based on general regression neural network model from
CPTU data. Mar. Georesour. Geotechnol. 33(3), 229–238 (2015).
81. Ghaderi, A., Shahri, A. A. & Larsson, S. An artificial neural network based model to predict spatial soil type distribution using
piezocone penetration test data (CPTu). Bull. Eng. Geol. Env. 78, 4579–4588 (2019).

Scientific Reports | (2022) 12:12412 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-15994-x 14

Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

82. Kurup, P. U. & Griffin, E. P. Prediction of soil composition from CPT data using general regression neural network. J. Comput. Civ.
Eng. 20(4), 281–289 (2006).
83. Bilski, P. & Rabarijoely, S. Automated soil categorization using CPT and DMT investigations. Proceedings of the 2nd International
Conference on New Developments in Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Nicosia, North Cyprus, 1, 1–8 (2009).
84. Carvalho, L. O. & Ribeiro, D. B. Soil classification system from cone penetration test data applying distance-based machine learning
algorithms. Soils and Rocks 42(2), 167–178 (2019).
85. Robertson, P. K. Soil behaviour type from the CPT: an update. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Cone Penetration
Testing, CPT’10, Huntington Beach, California, United States 2, 575–582 (2010).
86. Wroth, C. P. Penetration testing – a more rigorous approach to interpretation. Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on
Cone Penetration Testing, ISOPT-1, Orlando, Florida, United States, 303–311 (1988).
87. Ahmadi, M. M. & Robertson, P. K. Thin layer effects on the CPT qc measurement. Can. Geotech. J. 42(5), 1302–1317 (2005).
88. Douglas, B. J., Strutynsky, A. I., Mahar, L. J. & Weaver, J. Soil strength determinations from the cone penetrometer test. Civil Engi-
neering in the Arctic Offshore. Proceedings of the Conference Arctic’85, American Society of Civil Engineers, ASCE. San Francisco,
California, United States, 153–161 (1985).

Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Prof. Dr. Fernando Artur Brasil Danziger (COPPE-UFRJ, Brazil) for providing
the cone penetration test equipment and technical support to perform the CPTu test presented in this paper.
The author also wishes to thank the Federal University of Pará (UFPA, Brazil) for funding the CPTu tests under
the PROINT-UFPA project.

Author contributions
I confirm that the article is written by me. This applies to figures, main text and substantive content.

Competing interests
The author declares no competing interests.

Additional information
Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to D.J.R.S.
Reprints and permissions information is available at www.nature.com/reprints.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or
format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the
Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this
article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the
material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​creat​iveco​mmons.​org/​licen​ses/​by/4.​0/.

© The Author(s) 2022

Scientific Reports | (2022) 12:12412 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-15994-x 15

Vol.:(0123456789)