Home Journals Articles Updates About
CN
image
收藏切换
A case study on the soil classification of the Yellow River Delta based on piezocone penetration test
收藏切换
PDF
Jiarui Zhang1, Qingsheng Meng1, 2, 3, Lei Guo4, Yan Zhang5, *, Guanli Wei1, 2, Tao Liu1, 2, 4, *
Acta Oceanologica Sinica | 2022, 41(4) : 119 - 128
Less
收藏切换
Acta Oceanologica Sinica | 2022, 41(4): 119-128
• Ocean Engineering •
A case study on the soil classification of the Yellow River Delta based on piezocone penetration test
Full
Jiarui Zhang1, Qingsheng Meng1, 2, 3, Lei Guo4, Yan Zhang5, *, Guanli Wei1, 2, Tao Liu1, 2, 4, *
Affiliations
  • 1 College of Environmental Science and Engineering, Ocean University of China, Qingdao 266100, China
  • 2 Shandong Provincial Key Laboratory of Marine Environment and Geological Engineering, Ocean University of China, Qingdao 266100, China
  • 3 Laboratory for Marine Geology, Pilot National Laboratory for Marine Science and Technology (Qingdao), Qingdao 266237, China
  • 4 Institute of Marine Science and Technology, Shandong University, Qingdao 266237, China
  • 5 College of Marine Geosciences, Ocean University of China, Qingdao 266100, China
Published: 2022-04-25 doi: 10.1007/s13131-021-1944-6
Outline
收藏切换

Piezocone penetration test (CPTu), the preferred in-situ tool for submarine investigation, is significant for soil classification and soil depth profile prediction, which can be used to predict soil types and states. However, the accuracy of these methods needs to be validated for local conditions. To distinguish and evaluate the properties of the shallow surface sediments in Chengdao area of the Yellow River Delta, seabed CPTu tests were carried out at ten stations in this area. Nine soil classification methods based on CPTu data are applied for soil classification. The results of classification are compared with the in-situ sampling to determine whether the method can provide sufficient resolution. The methods presented by Robertson (based on soil behavior type index Ic), Olsen and Mitchell are the more consistent and compatible ones compared with other methods. Considering that silt soils have potential to liquefy under storm tide or other adverse conditions, this paper is able to screen soil classification methods suitable for the Chengdao area and help identify the areas where liquefaction or submarine landslide may occur through CPTu investigation.

soil behavior classification  /  Chengdao area  /  seabed piezocone penetration test
Jiarui Zhang, Qingsheng Meng, Lei Guo, Yan Zhang, Guanli Wei, Tao Liu. A case study on the soil classification of the Yellow River Delta based on piezocone penetration test[J]. Acta Oceanologica Sinica, 2022 , 41 (4) : 119 -128 . DOI: 10.1007/s13131-021-1944-6
Full Text
Less
1 Introduction
Less
Cone penetration test (CPT) and piezocone penetration test (CPTu) have been verified to be effective in site characterization and accurate in soil classification. Extensive research has correlated CPT and CPTu, preferred in-situ tools for underground surveys, soil exploration, and soil property evaluation, with soil types. Soil classification based on CPT data can guide geotechnical engineers effectively. Despite the ability to define a continuous depth profile and repeatability, CPT does not always evaluate data points of the same soil type in the actual situation.
Extensive research on soil classification based on CPT and CPTu measured parameters has been conducted, which was applied to engineering examples in different countries and regions (Abbaszadeh Shahri et al., 2015; Santoso et al., 2018; Du et al., 2019a).
The methods of classification generally adopts penetration resistance or pore pressure as parameters (Jefferies and Davies, 1991; Olsen and Mitchell, 1995; Eslami and Fellenius, 1997; Jefferies and Been, 2006; Schneider et al., 2008). Robertson et al. (1986) and Robertson (1990) have successively proposed non-normalized and normalized soil type classification charts, which have then been updated and compared (Robertson, 2010, 2016). In contrast, traditional laboratory tests are mainly based on the physical properties of soil (Cai et al., 2011). A large number of field data analysis shows that the soil classification results obtained by CPTu are basically consistent with the laboratory test results, with only a slight difference in the discrimination between silty sand and sandy silt (Osman and Ahmed, 2003; Shen et al., 2010; Eslami et al., 2017). When laying submarine pipelines and building offshore platforms, soil mechanical properties should be taken into account. Therefore, soil classification based on CPTu technology meets the requirements of engineering design better. Based on CPTu data, various classification methods can be used to predict soil types and states. Since the original soils used in the soil classification chart development will generally be different, the effectiveness still needs to be validated for local conditions (Abbaszadeh Shahri et al., 2015).
Chengdao area is the underwater area of the north of the Yellow River Delta with complex terrain, subsidence depression, and many submarine pipelines, submarine cables, natural gas pipelines, and oil platforms nearby. The surface sediments in Chengdao sea area are mainly silty soil, and silty clay (Du et al., 2019b), and the physical and mechanical properties are between sandy soil and clay. In the soft soil seabed foundation, the sink tube at the joint is likely to be broken as being settled unevenly along the longitudinal direction. Moreover, under the influence of waves and other factors, the soil is prone to liquefaction, resulting in a series of marine engineering geological disasters such as the dumping of oil recovery platforms and the fracture of submarine pipelines (Xu et al., 2009). Due to the need of engineering construction, the current CPTu test carried out in Chengdao sea area is relatively ordinary. However, it is not clear which currently used soil classification method can provide higher resolution in this area.
This study aims to find an applicable method for the classification of silty soil of the study area. Nine soil classification and prediction methods based on CPTu data, including the traditional and the non-traditional, are tested to find the one with the highest resolution and accuracy for identifying the area with liquefaction or submarine landslide and guiding site selection and foundation design of marine engineering in this area.
2 Soil type classification methods and in-situ data acquisition
Less
2.1 Soil type classification methods
In recent years, soil classification charts have been widely used to assess the soil type and state based on CPT or CPTu data (Long, 2008; Cai et al., 2011). The methods proposed by Robertson et al. (1986), Robertson (1990), Olsen and Mitchell (1995), Eslami and Fellenius (1997), Jefferies and Been (2015), Brouwer (2007), Robertson (2009) and Robertson (2010) were tested to demonstrate the applicability.
Before Robertson et al. (1986) and Campanella and Robertson (1988) provided a chart based on the piezocone with the cone resistance corrected for pore pressure at shoulder, most classification charts (Douglas and Olsen, 1981; Jones and Rust, 1982) used the cone penetration resistance (${q_{\rm{c}}}$), sleeve friction $({f_{\rm{s}}})$ and friction ratio $\left( {{R_{\rm{f}}}} \right)$, whose relation can be demonstrated by Eq. (1) :
$ R_{\rm{f}} = \frac{f_{\rm{s}}}{q_{\rm{c}}}. $
Baligh et al. (1980) have studied the effect of pore pressures on the measured penetration resistance and sleeve friction and proposed that the cone resistance $\left( {{q_{\rm{c}}}} \right)$ could be corrected to a total cone resistance (${q_{\rm{t}}}$), using Eq. (2), which includes the pore pressure (${u_2}$) measured at shoulder and the net area ratio (${{a}}$, a=0.665 in this study) between load cell support and cone:
$ {q_{\text{t}}} = {q_{\text{c}}} + \left( {1 - a} \right){u_2}. $
Since ${q_{\text{t}}}$, ${f_{\text{s}}}$ and ${u_2}$ all tend to increase with increasing overburden, the accuracy of the soil classification charts with ${q_{\text{t}}}$ and ${R_{\text{f}}}$ will be affected, and corresponding errors will be generated when the classification charts is used for deep soil. By considering the corrected cone resistance (${q_{\text{t}}}$), the total and effective overburden stress (${\sigma _{\text{v}}}$ and $\sigma _{\text{v}}'$), Wroth (1984, 1988) has suggested that CPTu data should be normalized by Eqs (3) and (4), respectively:
$ {Q_{\text{t}}} = \frac{{{q_{\text{t}}} - {\sigma _{\text{v}}}}}{{\sigma _{\text{v}}'}}, $
$ {F_{\text{r}}} = \frac{{{f_{\text{s}}}}}{{{q_{\text{t}}} - {\sigma _{\text{v}}}}}. $
Although they initially objected to this way of calculating the pore pressure ratio (Bq) (Senneset and Janbu, 1985; Wroth, 1988), the chart of Robertson et al. (1986) introduced Bq, defined by Eq. (5):
$ {B_{\text{q}}} = \frac{{{u_2} - {u_0}}}{{{q_{\text{t}}} - {\sigma _{\text{v}}}}}, $
where ${u_0}$ is in-situ equilibrium pore pressure.
The Robertson et al. (1986) soil classification chart, which plots ${q_{\text{t}}}$ against ${R_{\text{f}}}$ based on CPTu data, is divided into twelve zones to represent different grain size distribution and different soil state or behavior coded by number. For example, zone 1 indicates sensitive fine-grained soil and stiff fine-grained soil belongs to zone 11.
Robertson (1990) has developed a refined soil classification chart using the normalized cone resistance (${Q_{\text{t}}}$) and the normalized friction ratio (${F_{\text{r}}}$). The normalized chart is divided into nine zones coded by number, according to the soil state related to geotechnical properties. Robertson (1990) chart differs from that proposed by Robertson et al. (1986) in that zones 3−10 were redistributed and transformed to zones 3−7.
Scholars have proposed the classification charts of normalized SBTn soil type based on that of Robertson (Jefferies and Davies 1991; Olsen and Mitchell, 1995; Ramsey, 2002). Olsen and Mitchell (1995) have laid the foundation of cone normalization by incorporating over twenty years of in-situ data and the large database of chamber tests established by other engineers or researchers, which have proposed a soil classification chart plotting $ Q_{{\rm{t}}} $ against $ R_{\mathrm{f}} $.
Eslami and Fellenius (1997) have introduced a soil profiling chart according to the non-normalized parameters plotting the effective cone resistance (${q_{\text{e}}}$) against ${f_{\text{s}}}$ established based on CPT data obtained from 20 sites in 5 countries.
Jefferies and Been (2006) have developed a refined version of the Jefferies and Davies (1993) chart based on the parameter ${Q_{\text{t}}}\left( {1 - {B_{\text{q}}}} \right) + 1$ to solve the problem that ${B_{\rm{q}}} > 1$ in soft sensitive soils. The parameter ${Q_{\text{t}}}\left( {1 - {B_{\text{q}}}} \right) + 1$ can be defined by Eq. (6):
$ {Q_{\text{t}}}\left( {1 - {B_{\text{q}}}} \right) + 1 = \frac{{{q_{\text{t}}} - {u_2}}}{{\sigma _{\text{v}}'}}. $
Brouwer (2007) has presented a soil type classification chart, plotting the cone resistance ($ q_{\mathrm{c}} $) against the friction ratio ($ R_{\mathrm{f}} $) based on a large number of in-situ tests. Jefferies and Davies (1993) have found the curve clusters in soil classification chart can be approximated by concentric circles, and defined the radius of the concentric circles as soil behavior type index, $I_{{\rm{c}}}$, which could represent the SBTn zones in the normalized chart.
By considering the parameter ${Q_{\rm{t}}}\left( {1 - {B_{\rm{q}}}} \right)$, which incorporates the normalized ${B_{\rm{q}}}$ into the modified normalized cone resistance, Robertson and Wride (1998) have applied the modified ${I_{\rm{c}}}$ to the Robertson (1990) chart. Ku et al. (2010) have made the applicability of ${I_{\rm{c}}}$ as an index for soil behavior classification in the investigation. Jefferies and Davies (1993) have suggested that Eq. (7) can be applied to the calculation of the SBT index (${I_{\rm{c}}}$):
$ {I_{\rm{c}}} = \sqrt {\left[3 - \log_{10} Q_{\rm{t}}\left( {1 - {B_{\rm{q}}}} \right) \right]^2 + {\left( {1.5 + 1.3\log_{10} {F_{\rm{r}}}} \right)}^2} . $
Robertson (2010) has updated Robertson et al. (1986) chart in terms of dimensionless cone resistance (${q_{\rm{c}}}/{p_{\rm{a}}}$), where ${p_{\rm{a}}}$ is the standard atmospheric pressure (${p_{\rm{a}}} = 100\;{\text{kPa}}$) and reduced the number of SBT to nine to match the Robertson (1990) chart.
Moreover, Robertson (2010) has proposed a new non-normalized soil behavior type index (${I_{{\rm{SBT}}}}$) using the basic non-normalized CPT results, which can be defined by
$ {I_{{\text{SBT}}}} = \sqrt {{{\left[3.47 - \log_{10} \left( {\frac{{{q_{\text{c}}}}}{{{p_{\text{a}}}}}} \right)\right]}^2} + {{\left( {\log_{10} {R_{\text{f}}} + 1.22} \right)}^2}} . $
Theoretically, the normalized SBT index (${I_{\rm{c}}}$) is more accurate for soil classification than ${I_{{\text{SBT}}}}$ but the difference is small when the in-situ vertical effective stress is between 50 kPa and 150 kPa (Robertson, 2010). Furthermore, the soil classification methods based on the non-normalized soil behavior type index only use the basic CPT measurements. Thus, Robertson (2010) recommended that the normalized SBT chart should be applied to the later post-processing of CPT results, but the non-normalized SBT chart will be suitable for use in real-time data processing and interpretation.
2.2 In-situ data acquisition
The cone penetration test equipment used in this paper is the marine engineering geological environment in-situ survey system developed by the research team. The equipment adopts the electronic CPTu probes, all of which meet EN ISO 22476-1 standard, and model GC10CFIIP developed by Geomil in the Netherlands. The equipment takes the seabed penetration and sampling platform as the main body and performs seabed static touchingand seabed photography. After the equipment sat on the seabed, the system attitude was checked and adjusted to meet the requirements for the operation. Four anchor rods are inserted, then CPTu probe rods are penetrated, and data collection and storage are completed during the penetration process, and then the sampling tube is penetrated. The system is recovered by pulling out the probing rod, sampling tubes and anchor rods in turn. The structure and technical index of marine engineering geological environment in-situ investigation system are shown in Fig. 1 and Table 1.
As the average slope is 7°–8°, and the local slope is about 45°, the study area may be prone to landslides. A thick layer of silty soil dominates the surface of the soil profile. Partially sandwiched silty clay is mainly in a medium-dense state with the standard penetration test-number (SPT-N) values of 12 to 31. The density of the silty soil is 19.4–20.1 kN/m3 with the mean diameter of 0.03 mm, and moisture content of 27.4%–32.3%.
Ten piezocone penetration tests were carried out in the Yellow River Delta region, with average footage of 4.2 m and an average water depth of 16 m. The locations and parameters of the test points are shown in Fig. 2 and Table 2. CPTu data of 1-4, 1-5, 2-4, and 2-5 measurement points were used in this study. Nine soil classification and prediction methods based on CPTu data were tested, including the traditional and the non-traditional. By comparing the advantages and disadvantages of the above methods, the suitable method of processing the silt soil layer data is determined.
3 Interpretation of CPTu data and soil classifications
Less
As indicated in Figs 3a and b, corrected resistance is in the range of 100–1 500 kPa and the sleeve friction is in the range of 0–23 kPa. The cone resistance of 2-4 below 4.5 m and that of 2-5 below 3.4 m varies significantly. Meanwhile, as presented in Fig. 3c, the excess pore pressure is mainly positive and tends to increase, but below 3.4 m depth, the excess pore pressure of 2-5 shows a decreasing trend, which can be interpreted as that the soils are either dense or over-consolidated and will have a decreasing trend in drilling test, even produce negative pore water pressure. Cai et al. (2011) have indicated that high negative pore pressure is also possible for high-density fine sands and dilative silts.
Variations of corrected tip resistance (from Eq. (4)) versus sleeve friction and friction ratio (from Eq. (5)) for the test points are shown in Fig. 4. Since the CPTu data obtained from the study area show a significant variation in cone resistance 2-4 and 2-5 (can be seen from the ellipse in Figs 4a–d). Therefore, before analyzing soil classification, the relationship between corrected cone resistance and CPTu parameters was established to investigate which soil groups (granular, cohesive, and non-cohesive) the obtained data belongs to. According to Begemann (1965), Sanglerat et al. (1974), and Schmertmann (1975), the friction ratio varies from 2% to 5%, indicating a mixture of clay-sand and silt. The friction ratio mainly changes between 0 and 1.6% (Figs 4e–h), which may indicate sand mixtures to silty mixtures.
4 Evaluation of soil classification method based on CPTu in the study area
Less
4.1 Evaluation of soil classification charts
This section presents the classification methods proposed by Robertson et al. (1986), Robertson (1990), Eslami and Fellenius (1997), Jefferies and Been (2006), and Robertson (2010), the charts obtained by traditional site investigation techniques (Olsen and Mitchell, 1995; Brouwer, 2007) were also used for classification and analysis of soil types and behavior. The above soil classification methods had been widely used in engineering examples.
The SBT soil classification chart proposed by Robertson et al. (1986) was used to classify the soil and compared with the drilling data. The results are shown in Fig. 5a. It can be seen from Fig. 5a that the SBT chart proposed by Robertson et al. (1986) can accurately distinguish cohesive soil and non-cohesive soil. Test points 1-4 and 1-5 are concentrated in zone 1, the “sensitive fine-grained soil” zone. Most points 2-4 and 2-5 are also concentrated in zone 1, with a few entering zone 3, the “clay to silty clay” zone, zone 5, the “clayey silt & silty clay” zone, and zone 6, the “silty sand to sandy silt” zone.
The uncertainty in determining the type of silty soil in the SBT chart is mainly reflected in the errors at test points 2-4 and 2-5. Some “clayey silt & silty clay” enter into the “clay to silty clay” zone, while others enter into the “clayey silt & silty clay” zone of the SBT chart with great discreteness, affecting the accuracy of soil type classification. It can be seen that the classification accuracy of silt mixtures is poor.
Figures 5b, c and Table 3 show the soil classification results according to the Robertson (1990) soil type classification chart and the Robertson (2010) soil type classification chart, respectively. According to Robertson (1990) SBTn chart, soil state distributes in 1–6 zones but concentrates in 3–4 zones, which is consistent with the properties of silt soils and based on Robertson (2010) SBT chart, soil types of 1-4 and 1-5 change in zone 1, while that of 2-4 and 2-5 change in zone 1, 3, and 4.
All the above three soil-type classification charts can identify the existence of sensitive fine grained soil. According to the sampling data, both 2-4 and 2-5 stations have sensitive fine-grained soil layers. The chart proposed by Robertson (1990) shows good accuracy in the classification of sensitive fine grained soils.
The CPTu data were projected into the traditional field survey techniques proposed by Brouwer (2007), and the classification results were shown in Fig. 6a. As can be seen from the chart, 1-4, 2-4, and 2-5 data points are divided into very silty soil, and a very small amount of data points are divided into soft clay and soft organic clay. Most of the data points in 1-5 are divided into a very loose sand zone, and a small number of data points are divided into “coarse sand and gravel” and “sandy clay” zone, and a tiny number of data points are divided into stiff clay area.
According to Fig. 6b, in the charts offered by Jefferies and Been (2006), soil state distributes in all five zones but concentrates in “clayey silt” and “silty sand to sandy silt” zones. Based on the charts proposed by Eslami and Fellenius (1997), soil is classified as sensitive-collapsable clay silt, sometimes clay silt, as shown in Fig. 6c. As shown in the chart, 1-4 and 1-5 points are mostly divided into zone1-collapsive soil and sensitive soil, 2-4 and 2-5 points are also mainly divided into zone 1 and zone 2-soft clay and soft silt. However, a few 2-5 points are divided into zone 5-sand and gravel, indicating that some errors occur in the judgment of silty clay, silty sand, and silt.
According to the soil classification method developed by Olsen and Mitchell (1995), the classification varies significantly from clays to loose sand with a predominance in silt mixtures and sand mixtures, as shown in Fig. 6d. Olsen and Mitchell (1995) soil type classification chart is similar to that of Jefferies and other soil type classification charts. However, parameters c of soil compaction degree and consolidation degree are added in the chart proposed by Olsen and Mitchell (1995), improving the resolution and engineering application value.
4.2 Evaluation of soil behavior type index
Robertson (2010) has shown how to identify soil type according to the soil behavior type index, namely the normalized index Ic and the non-normalized index ISPT (from Eqs (10) and (13) in Robertson (2010)). The SBT zones are color coded. Figure 7 shows the results of the four test points using normalized and non-normalized index classification charts. Based on the method using ISBT, 1-4 and 2-4 and 2-5 points are covered with very soft, organic clay from the surface to a depth of about 0.6 m. Underlying are basically classified as clay to a depth of about 4 m. 1-5 point is classified as clay. According to the method using Ic, four points are mainly classified as sand mixtures, silty mixtures and clays. Where point 1-4 is at about 1 m depth, point 1-5 is at about 3 m and 3.7 m depth, and point 2-5 is at 2 m, 2.9 m, and 4.7 m all show the existence of clay-organic layers. Figure 7 shows that there is little difference between the soil behavior type interpretation for the profiles. In contrast, the classification method using the normalized index Ic is more responsive to changes of the soil type.
5 Discussion
Less
Success rate, that is, the ratio of the number of correct predictions to the total number of predictions that classify the soil as coarse or fine-grained one is proposed as a standard to evaluate different methods. The success rate of the chart proposed by Robertson et al. (1986) is 65%, 80% using Robertson (1990), 70% using Robertson (2010), 85% using normalized index Ic, 75% using non-normalized index ISPT, 70% using Eslami and Fellenius (1997), 80% using Brouwer (2007), 80% using Jefferies and Been (2006) and 85% using Olsen and Mitchell (1995). The difference in the success rate of Robertson’s series of classification methods is because the normalized cone resistance Qtn calculation method considers the difference between cohesive soil and non-cohesive soil. As the difference is more significant in the non-cohesive soil zone, the boundary between different soil types is more obvious.
Success rate of Olsen and Mitchell and normalized index Ic both reach 85%. The former is based on the experience of a large number of measured data, while the latter is derived by formula. One limitation of normalization based on empirical data is that the soil layer must be “uniform” and must extend to a depth sufficient to be used to calculate the normalization data. It is difficult for silts to find uniform layers in the field to generate normalization data. Comparatively speaking, the methods based on normalized index Ic can be used to interpret the CPTu data on site more conveniently, while the chart proposed by Olsen and Mitchell can provide additional reference for compactness of soil.
According to the laboratory measurements of the boring samples, the correct prediction should be silty clay and silty soil. The classification charts proposed by Robertson (2010) (based on normalized index Ic), Robertson (1990), Brouwer (2007), Eslami and Fellenius (1997), Jefferies and Been (2006), and Olsen and Mitchell (1995) show a high success rate to predict soil types. But only the charts proposed by Robertson (2010) (based on normalized index Ic) and Olsen and Mitchell (1995) provide enough resolution. Therefore, the soil classification methods proposed by Robertson (2010) (based on normalized index Ic) and Olsen and Mitchell (1995) are recommended for the investigation of the silty soil area. Two other test points that had both CPT data and corresponding soil layer relationships obtained from the drilling were selected for analysis and comparison (Jia et al., 2011; Chu et al., 2017). The same concept of success rate is used to classify soils as either coarse-grained or fine-grained (Table 4). From two points it can be seen that the methods proposed by Ic and Olsen and Mitchell (1995) still provides a higher success rate.
From the geological map of marine hazards in the Yellow River Delta (Zhou et al., 2004), it can be seen that the four test points are in the transition position from the front edge of the disturbed delta to the front edge of the smooth delta, and according to the geological data this area belongs to the steep slope zone (average slope of 8°) and exists sediment cliff (Jia et al., 2004; Meng et al., 2008; Yang et al., 2020). According to the classification method of normalized index Ic, it can be presumed that four test points are mainly silty clay and silty sand, with all overlying soft soil layers (Fig. 8). Soft silt soil layers may liquefy under extreme sea conditions, and exist a higher risk of landslide. A large number of oil pipelines and oil drilling platform are located in the deep flat-bottom areas on the edge of the study area, which will certainly cause economic losses during the occurrence of marine geological hazards. Further submarine geological investigation of the area is desperately needed.
6 Conclusions
Less
In this study, the CPTu test results of the Yellow River Estuary were used to predict soil depth profiles. Nine soil classification methods based on CPT data, including those proposed by Robertson et al. (1986), Robertson (1990), Olsen and Mitchell (1995), Eslami and Fellenius (1997), Jefferies and Been (2006), Brouwer (2007), and Robertson (2010) were applied for soil type and state prediction and interpretation.
(1) The analysis shows that the classification methods can explain the submarine soil types, but the accuracy needs to be tested. The comparison indicates that soil types can be predicted with CPTu data. In this study, the methods proposed by Robertson (based on normalized index Ic) and the charts proposed by Olsen and Mitchell are the most consistent and compatible ones.
(2) The sensitive fine-grained soil layer of the test station can be identified more accurately by normalized index Ic proposed by Robertson. Combined geological data from the surveyed area (average slope of 8° with overlying soft soil), the potential landslide risk in the sea near the test stations can be predicted.This paper helps to recognize and identify zones comprising silty soils in Chengdao area.
Acknowledgements
Less
We gratefully acknowledge Xuesen Liu, Peipei Xue, Guowei Dai and other colleagues from our research group for assistance on in-situ testing and laboratory analysis. We are also grateful for the help of the Qingdao Institute of Marine Geology.
Funding
Less
  • The National Natural Science Foundation of China under contract Nos U2006213 and 41672272; the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities under contract No. 201962011.
References
Less
Abbaszadeh Shahri A, Malehmir A, Juhlin C. 2015. Soil classification analysis based on piezocone penetration test data—A case study from a quick-clay landslide site in southwestern Sweden. Engineering Geology, 189: 32–47, doi: 10.1016/j.enggeo.2015.01.022
Baligh M M, Ladd C C, Vivatrat V. 1980. Cone penetration in soil profiling. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, 106(4): 447–461, doi: 10.1061/AJGEB6.0000948
Begemann H K S. 1965. The friction jacket cone as an aid in determining the soil profile. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. Montreal: Springer, 17–20
Brouwer H. 2007. In Situ Soil Testing. East Sussex: Lankelma, 144
Cai Guojun, Liu Songyu, Puppala A J. 2011. Comparison of CPT charts for soil classification using PCPT data: example from clay deposits in Jiangsu Province, China. Engineering Geology, 121(1-2): 89–96, doi: 10.1016/j.enggeo.2011.04.016
Campanella R G, Robertson P K. 1988. Current status of the piezocone test. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Penetration Testing. Orlando, FL: Pergamon Press, 93–116
Chu Lipeng, Sun Yongfu, Song Yupeng, et al. 2017. Application of seabed cone penetration test in research on the seafloor geotechnical engineering characteristics in the Yellow River Estuary. Coastal Engineering, 36(1): 22–33
Douglas B J, Olsen R S. 1981. Soil classification using electric cone penetrometer. In: Cone Penetration Testing and Experience. St. Louis, MO: ASCE, 209–227
Du Guangyin, Gao Changhui, Liu Songyu, et al. 2019a. Evaluation method for the liquefaction potential using the standard penetration test value based on the CPTU soil behavior type index. Advances in Civil Engineering, 2019: 5612857
Du Xing, Sun Yongfu, Song Yupeng, et al. 2019b. In site monitoring of wave-induced pore pressure of silt in Chengdao sea area of Yellow River Estuary. Haiyang Xuebao (in Chinese), 41(7): 116–122
Eslami A, Alimirzaei M, Aflaki E, et al. 2017. Deltaic soil behavior classification using CPTU records—Proposed approach and applied to fifty-four case histories. Marine Georesources & Geotechnology, 35(1): 62–79
Eslami A, Fellenius B H. 1997. Pile capacity by direct CPT and CPTu methods applied to 102 case histories. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 34(6): 886–904, doi: 10.1139/t97-056
Jefferies M G, Been K. 2006. Soil Liquefaction—A Critical State Approach. New York: Taylor & Francis, 206-217
Jefferies M G, Been K. 2015. Soil Liquefaction: A Critical State Approach. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press
Jefferies M G, Davies M P. 1991. Soil classification by the cone penetration test: Discussion. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 28(1): 173–176, doi: 10.1139/t91-023
Jefferies M G, Davies M P. 1993. Use of CPTU to estimate equivalent SPT N60. Geotechnical Testing Journal, 16(4): 458–468, doi: 10.1520/GTJ10286J
Jia Yonggang, Huo Suxia, Xu Guohui, et al. 2004. Intensity variation of sediments due to wave loading on subaqueous delta of Yellow River. Rock and Soil Mechanics, 25(6): 876–881
Jia Yonggang, Shan Hongxian, Yang Xiujuan, et al. 2011. Sediment Dynamics and Geologic Hazards in the Estuary of Yellow River, China. Beijing: Science Press, 103–116
Jones G A, Rust E. 1982. Piezometer penetration testing CUPT. In: 2nd European Symposium on Penetration Testing. Amsterdam: CRC Press, 607–613
Ku C S, Ou C Y, Juang C H. 2010. Reliability of CPT IC as an index for mechanical behaviour classification of soils. Géotechnique, 60(11): 861–875
Long M. 2008. Design parameters from in situ tests in soft ground—recent developments. In: Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterization. Taipei: CRC Press, 97–124
Meng Xiangmei, Jia Yonggang, Liu Xiaoli. 2008. Study on zoning and liquefaction induced by wave of Chengdao in Yellow River Delta. Journal of Engineering Geology, 16(S1): 44–53
Olsen R S, Mitchell J K. 1995. CPT stress normalization and prediction of soil classification. In: International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing. Linköping: SGI report, 257–262
Osman M A, Ahmed E F O. 2003. Evaluation of cone penetration test (CPT) classification methods for some local soils. Journal of Building and Road Research, 5(1): 37–46
Ramsey N. 2002. A calibrated model for the interpretation of cone penetration tests (CPTs) in North Sea Quaternary Soils. In: Offshore Site Investigation and Geotechnics: Diversity and Sustainability. London, OnePetro, 341–356
Robertson P K. 1990. Soil classification using the cone penetration test. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 27(1): 151–158, doi: 10.1139/t90-014
Robertson P K. 2009. Interpretation of cone penetration tests—a unified approach. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 46(11): 1337–1355, doi: 10.1139/T09-065
Robertson P K. 2010. Soil behaviour type from the CPT: an update. In: 2nd International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing. Huntington Beach: Cone Penetration Testing Organizing Committee, 575–583
Robertson P K. 2016. Cone penetration test (CPT)-based soil behaviour type (SBT) classification system—An update. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 53(12): 1910–1927, doi: 10.1139/cgj-2016-0044
Robertson P K, Campanella R G, Gillespie D, et al. 1986. Use of piezometer cone data. In: Use of in Situ Tests in Geotechnical Engineering. Blacksburg, VA: ASCE, 1263–1280
Robertson P K, Wride C E. 1998. Evaluating cyclic liquefaction potential using the cone penetration test. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 35(3): 442–459, doi: 10.1139/t98-017
Sanglerat G, Nhim T V, Sejourne M, et al. 1974. Direct soil classification by static penetrometer with special friction sleeve. In: 1st European Symposium on Penetration Testing. Stockholm: National Swedish Building Research, 337–344
Santoso P B, Yanto, Apriyono A, et al. 2018. Inverse distance weighting interpolated soil properties and their related landslide occurrences. MATEC Web of Conferences, 195: 03013, doi: 10.1051/matecconf/201819503013
Schmertmann J H. 1975. Measurement of in situ shear strength. In: In Situ Measurement of Soil Properties. Raleigh, NC: ASCE,57–138
Schneider J A, Randolph M F, Mayne P W, et al. 2008. Analysis of factors influencing soil classification using normalized piezocone tip resistance and pore pressure parameters. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 134(11): 1569–1586, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2008)134:11(1569
Senneset K, Janbu N. 1985. Shear strength parameters obtained from static cone penetration tests. In: Strength Testing of Marine sediments: Laboratory and In-Situ Measurement. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, 41–54
Shen Shuilong, Wang Junpeng, Ma Lei. 2010. Identification of soil stratigraphy of soft deposit in Shanghai from CPTU test. In: Deep Foundations and Geotechnical In Situ Testing. Shanghai: ASCE, 384–392
Wroth C P. 1984. The interpretation of in situ soil tests. Géotechnique, 34(4): 449–489
Wroth C P. 1988. Penetration testing: a more rigorous approach to interpretation. In: 1st International Symposium on Penetration Testing. Orlando, FL: Pergamon Press, 303–311
Xu Guohui, Sun Yongfu, Wang Xin, et al. 2009. Wave-induced shallow slides and their features on the subaqueous Yellow River delta. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 46(12): 1406–1417, doi: 10.1139/T09-068
Yang Zhongnian, Liu Xuesen, Guo Lei, et al. 2020. Evaluation of the soil characteristic parameters of the Yellow River Subaqueous Delta using CPT. Marine Georesources & Geotechnology,
Zhou Liangyong, Liu Jian, Liu Xiqing et al. 2004. Coastal and marine geo-hazards in the modern Yellow River Delta. Marine Geology & Quaternary Geology, 24(3): 19–27
Appendix
Less
Year 2022 volume 41 Issue 4
PDF
41
22
Cite this Article
BibTeX
Article Info
doi: 10.1007/s13131-021-1944-6
  • Receive Date：2020-12-17
  • Online Date：2025-11-21
  • Published：2022-04-25
Article Data
Affiliations
History
  • Received：2020-12-17
  • Accepted：2021-08-30
Funding
The National Natural Science Foundation of China under contract Nos U2006213 and 41672272; the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities under contract No. 201962011.
Affiliations
    1 College of Environmental Science and Engineering, Ocean University of China, Qingdao 266100, China
    2 Shandong Provincial Key Laboratory of Marine Environment and Geological Engineering, Ocean University of China, Qingdao 266100, China
    3 Laboratory for Marine Geology, Pilot National Laboratory for Marine Science and Technology (Qingdao), Qingdao 266237, China
    4 Institute of Marine Science and Technology, Shandong University, Qingdao 266237, China
    5 College of Marine Geosciences, Ocean University of China, Qingdao 266100, China

Corresponding:

References
Share
https://castjournals.cast.org.cn/joweb/aos/EN/10.1007/s13131-021-1944-6
Share to
QR

Scan QR to access full text

Cite this article
BibTeX
Citations
表12种不同金属材料的力学参数
科
Family		 属数
Number of
genus		 种数
Number of
species		 占总种数比例
Percentage of
total species (%)		 属
Genus		 种数
Number of
species		 占总种数比例
Percentage of total
species (%)
鹅膏菌科Amanitaceae 2 11 5.26 鹅膏菌属 Amanita 10 4.78
小菇科 Mycenaceae 2 12 5.74 丝盖伞属 Inocybe 5 2.39
多孔菌科 Polyporaceae 8 14 6.70 蜡蘑属 Laccaria 5 2.39
红菇科 Russulaceae 3 23 11.00 小皮伞属 Marasmius 6 2.87
小菇属 Mycena 11 5.26
光柄菇属 Pluteus 5 2.39
红菇属 Russula 17 8.13
栓菌属 Trametes 5 2.39
关闭全屏
  • BibTeX
  • EndNote
  • RefWorks
  • TxT
Links
Articles
Latest Articles
Most Read
Collections
Updates
Events
News
Multimedia
About
About Us
Contact
No. 86 Xueyuan South Road, Haidian District, Beijing
100081
010-62199257
qkjq@cast.org.cn

Copyright © 2025 China Association for Science and Technology. All rights reserved. For all open access content, the relevant licensing terms apply.
Sponsored by the Office of the Leading Group for Cybersecurity and Informatization of CAST, and supported by Science and Technology Review Publishing House