Engineering Geology 189 (2015) 32–47

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Geology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enggeo

Soil classification analysis based on piezocone penetration test data —

A case study from a quick-clay landslide site in southwestern Sweden
Abbas Abbaszadeh Shahri a,b,⁎, Alireza Malehmir b, Christopher Juhlin b
a
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Islamic Azad University, Rudehen branch, Tehran, Iran
b
Uppsala University, Department of Earth Sciences, Villavägen 16, SE75236 Uppsala, Sweden

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Cone penetration test (CPT) and piezocone penetration test (CPTu) methods can be effective in site characteriza-
Received 10 September 2014 tion and are important for soil profiling and classification. Extensive experience exists that relates CPT and CPTu
Received in revised form 9 December 2014 results to soil type/state and these are often the preferred in-situ tools for subsurface investigations, soil explora-
Accepted 20 January 2015
tion and the evaluation of different engineering soil properties, compared with conventional laboratory testing.
Available online 11 February 2015
In this study, eight methods, consisting of traditional and nontraditional ones, for soil classification and prediction
Keywords:
of soil type and state using CPTu data were examined and tested. The CPTu data not only provide valuable infor-
CPTu data mation on soil types, but also can be used for deriving correlations with engineering soil properties for the pur-
Soil classification charts poses of hazard analyses and design of foundations. We carried out and established a region-specific correlation
Sensitive fine-grained soils between CPTu data and soil properties for three location test points in southwestern Sweden at a quick-clay land-
Landslide slide site. First, an analysis of the available CPTu data was performed and then classification of the soils was made.
After determination and identification of the soil profiles, the results were further evaluated using the Unified Soil
Classification System (USCS) and converted to CPT–SPT charts. We summarize results from each of these
methods, including a description of the available charts and their performance for soil classification. From
CPTu data, we provide high-resolution soil profiles from the three test points. Our work allowed the detection
of potential sensitive fine-grained clays, which are responsible for landslides in the study area, however, in
most cases occurring above coarse-grained materials. These materials were also detected in the CPTu data and
show good correspondence with available reflection seismic profiles from the site.
© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Although, there are several classification-based algorithms to predict

Soil classifications (type and/or state) into groups that have similar
geotechnical behavior can provide useful guidance for geotechnical
engineers. The conventional method for determining a soil type is by
laboratory classification of samples retrieved from boreholes (Cai
et al., 2011). However, in the field, and in practice, the Standard Penetra-
tion Test (SPT) and the cone penetration test (CPT) are two commonly
used in-situ tests for assessing and classifying soil types. The CPT has
proven to be the more reliable, cost effective and valuable tool in char-
acterizing subsurface conditions and in assessing various soil properties,
including the estimation of the liquefaction potential at a particular
site. If a CPT device is also capable of simultaneously measuring pore
water pressure, then the measurements are referred to as a piezocone
penetration test (PCPT) or CPTu (Baligh et al., 1980; Tumay et al.,
1981; Zuidberg et al., 1982; Lunne et al., 1997; Cai et al., 2010).
Advocates of the CPT method argue its capacity to define a continu-
ous depth profile and its repeatability (Robertson, 2004). Its ability to
detect thin layers makes the CPT method superior to the SPT method.
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: abbas.abbaszadeh@geo.uu.se (A. Abbaszadeh Shahri).
the soil type and state using CPT or CPTu data (e.g., Begemann, 1965;
Douglas and Olsen, 1981; Jones and Rust, 1982; Senneset and Janbu,
1985; Robertson et al., 1986; Olsen and Malone, 1988; Campanella
and Robertson, 1988; Robertson, 1990, 2009; Jefferies and Davies,
1991, 1993; Olsen, 1994; Olsen and Koester, 1995; Olsen and Mitchell,
1995; Eslami and Fellenius, 1997; Robertson and Wride, 1998;
Jefferies and Been, 2006; Jung et al., 2008; Schneider et al., 2008; Cetin
and Ozan, 2009), the proposed charts by Robertson et al. (1986) and
Robertson (1990) have been popular and widely used (Long, 2008;
Cai et al., 2011). The non-normalized charts by Robertson et al. (1986)
define 12 Soil Behavior Type (SBT) zones, whereas, the normalized
charts by Robertson (1990) define 9 zones. This difference has gener-
ated some confusion among geotechnical engineers and led Robertson
(2010, 2012) to provide an update of the charts.
In this paper we aim to classify soil types in a quick-clay landslide site
in southwestern Sweden on the basis of CPTu data. Our ultimate goal is to
determine and identify sensitive fine-grained clays, which may be
responsible for landslides. The study area (Fig. 1) has been the subject
of several geophysical studies, such as reflection and refraction seismic
(Malehmir et al., 2013a, 2013b; Adamczyk et al., 2013, 2014; Lundberg
et al., 2014) and electromagnetic (Shan et al., 2014) investigations, as

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2015.01.022
0013-7952/© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 A. Abbaszadeh Shahri et al. / Engineering Geology 189 (2015) 32–47 33

Fig. 1. (A) Location map of the study area, (B) landslide risk map of Sweden showing the location of major landslides and (C) the location of the test points in our study area. CPTu data from
7202, 7203 and 7206 are used in this study. CPT point 7202 occurs within a major quick-clay landslide scar (noticeable in Lidar data). Black lines show the location of existing geophysical
profiles. Reflection seismic data from lines 5 and 4 are presented and compared with our results in this study. Modified from Malehmir et al. (2013a, 2013b).

well as geoelectrical and CPT measurements (Löfroth et al., 2011). We use
the CPT data presented by Löfroth et al. (2011) in this study. In order to
provide insight on the applicability of the various soil classification
methods for assessment of soil types and states using CPTu site investi-
gations we tested eight CPT based classification methods. Our objective
was to determine which one(s) provide the highest resolution soil
profile and if detection of sensitive clay is possible. After the analysis
we compared the results of each method with the laboratory Unified
Soil Classification System (USCS) provided by Löfroth et al. (2011).
We show that among the tested methods, the proposed ones by
Robertson et al. (1986), Robertson (2010), Brouwer (2007) and Zhang
and Tumay (1999) give good results, but the original method proposed
by Robertson et al. (1986) has the highest quality.
2. Soil type classification methods
In this study the proposed methods by Robertson et al. (1986),
Robertson (1990), Olsen and Mitchell (1995), Swedish National
Report (1995), Eslami and Fellenius (1997), Jefferies and Been (2006),
Brouwer (2007) and Robertson (2010) have been used and tested. We
provide here the basic ideas behind each of the mentioned soil classifi-
cation methods and the various formulas employed by them. Note that
34 A. Abbaszadeh Shahri et al. / Engineering Geology 189 (2015) 32–47

Table 1
Summary of field and laboratory measurements in the study area (data from Löfroth et al., 2011).

Test Depth Ground water table Undrained shear Clay content PH Mass of bulk Mass of centrifuged Centrifuged pore
point (m) (GWT) (m) strength (Kpa) (%) material (g) pore water (g) water (% bulk)

7201 37.98 1 0.06–0.63 63–71 8.2–9.3 516.2–546.7 76.6–116.4 14–23

7202 19.99 1.7 0.43–2.8 53–69 7.4–7.6 546.5 96.7 18
7203 22.58 1 0.28–2.9 12–58 7.4–8.1
7206 33.86 1 0.22–6.82 6–80 7.1–8.4
7208 37.98 1 0.51–4.7 55–75 8.3–9.4 453–566 76.4–81.8 14
7209 30.98 1 0.08–1.2 38–64 7–9.2 547.8–548.6 89.9–101.7 16–19

soil type and state have interchangeably been used in the literature and
sometimes in this paper too. With the soil type we refer to grain size
distribution (e.g., clay, silt, sand) and the soil state to the geotechnical
properties or behavior of the soil (e.g., dense, contractive, liquefiable).
Robertson et al. (1986): Robertson et al. (1986) and Campanella and
Robertson (1988) were among the first to present a chart based on the
piezocone with the cone resistance corrected for pore pressure at the
shoulder. By knowing the cone resistance (qc), friction ratio (Rf) and
sleeve friction (fs), Robertson et al. (1986) and Campanella and
Robertson (1988) proposed Eq. (1), which can be used to estimate soil
type using CPT data:
The Robertson et al. (1986) profiling chart introduces a pore pres-
sure ratio (Bq) that is defined by Eq. (3). By considering the in-situ
pore pressure (u0) and the total and effective overburden stress (σV
and σV′), Robertson et al. (1986) and Robertson (1990) proposed,
although they initially opposed this way of calculating Bq (Wroth,
1988), that for the calculation of the Bq, normalized cone resistance
(qcnrm or Qt1) and normalized friction factor (Rcnrm or Fr) Eqs. (4) and
(5), respectively, can be used:
u2 −u0 Δu
Bq ¼ ¼ ð3Þ
qt −σ v qt −σ v

fs
Rf ¼  100: ð1Þ
qc qt −σ v
qcrnm ¼ Q t1 ¼ ð4Þ
σ 0v
The Robertson et al. (1986) profiling chart identifies regions (coded
by numbers) that separate soil types into twelve zones. A novel fea-
ture in the profiling chart is the delineation of zones 1, 11, and 12, fs
Rcnrm ¼ F r ¼ : ð5Þ
representing the soil response, thus enabling the CPTu method to deter- qt −σ 0v
mine more than just the grain size. The separation between the zones
(e.g., zones 3 through 10) indicates a gradual transition from fine-
By considering the water pressure at the base of the sleeve (u2), the
grained to coarse-grained soil.
Based on Robertson et al. (1986), but also ASTM standard D5778-95 cross sectional area of the sleeve at the base (Asb), the water pressure at
the top of the sleeve (u3), the cross sectional area of sleeve at the top
(2000) and D5778-12 (2012), the corrected cone resistance for pore
pressure (qt) can be obtained using Eq. (2), which includes the mea- (As) and the surface area of the sleeve (As), Lunne et al. (1997) sug-
gested Eqs. (6) and (7) to correct for the sleeve friction (ft) and the
sured pore pressure (u2) and the ratio between the unaffected cone
base and the pore water pressure to total shoulder area (a): error due to unequal areas (Δfs), respectively:

ðu2  Asb −u3  Ast Þ

qt ¼ qc þ u2 ð1−aÞ: ð2Þ f t ¼ f s− ð6Þ
As

Fig. 2. CPTu plots from the three test points in the study area. See the location of the test points in Fig. 1.
 A. Abbaszadeh Shahri et al. / Engineering Geology 189 (2015) 32–47
u2  Asb −u3  Ast
Δf s ¼ f t − f s ¼ : ð7Þ
As
The Bq-chart shows directly zones where the u2 pore pressures
become smaller than the initial pore pressures (u0) in the soil during
the advancement of the penetrometer, resulting in negative Bq-values.
Otherwise, the Bq-chart appears to be an alternative, rather than an
auxiliary chart; one can use one or the other depending on preference.
However, near the upper envelopes, a CPTu data point falling in a
particular soil-type zone in the friction ratio chart will not always
appear in the same soil-type zone in the Bq-chart. Robertson et al.
(1986) points out that “occasionally soils will fall within different
zones on each chart” and recommends that the user studies the pore
pressure rate of dissipation (if measured) to decide which zone applies
to the questioned data.
Robertson (1990): proposed a refined version of the Robertson et al.
(1986) profiling chart, plotting the normalized cone resistance (qcnrm)
against the normalized friction ratio (Rcnrm) in a cone resistance chart.
The numbered regions in the profiling chart separate the soil states
(or behavior) into nine zones. The two first and two last soil types are
the same as those used by Robertson et al. (1986) and zones 3 through
7 correspond to former zone 3 through 10. The Robertson (1990)
Fig. 3. Variations of corrected tip resistance versus sleeve friction and friction ratio for the three selected test points; 7202 (A and D), 7203 (B and E) and 7206 (C and F).
35
normalized profiling chart has been extensively used in engineering
practice (as has the Robertson et al., 1986 chart). Schneider et al.
(2008) showed that Δu/σ′v is a better form for the normalized pore
pressure parameter than Bq. However, according to Robertson (2012),
the use of Δu/σ′v is not a good approach for estimating the over consol-
idation ratio (OCR).
Robertson et al. (1986) and Robertson (1990) stressed that the CPT-
based charts are predictive of soil behavior, because the cone responds
to the in-situ mechanical behavior of the soil and not directly to soil-
type classification criteria, using geological descriptors that are often
based on grain-size distribution and soil plasticity (Robertson, 2012).
Olsen and Mitchell (1995): carried out research on normalization of
the cone penetration resistance. Their work incorporated over 2 de-
cades of field data and an extensive database of chamber test studies
by other researchers to deduce the tip normalization for a number of
different soil types. They produced a strong basis for cone normaliza-
tion, and subsequent researchers (e.g., Robertson and Wride, 1998)
have referred to this body of work when addressing normalization
(Cai et al., 2011). A limitation of normalization based on empirical
data is that a soil layer must be “uniform” and extend over a sufficient
depth range to be of use in calculating the normalization exponent. Nor-
malization data in sands are generally restricted to chamber test results
because of the inherent variability of in-situ deposits due to the typical
36 A. Abbaszadeh Shahri et al. / Engineering Geology 189 (2015) 32–47

depositional environment associated with this type of soil. For clays,
field tests are the only option because of the difficulty of performing ac-
curate chamber studies. For soils other than sands and clays, such as
silts, high silt content sands, and clayey sands, it is difficult, if not impos-
sible, to find “uniform” layers in the field or to produce quality chamber
test specimens to generate normalization data.
Swedish National Report (1995): provides a history of investigation
of soil strata by penetration testing in Sweden. In the years 1914–1922,
the Geotechnical Commission of the Swedish State Railways developed
and standardized the Swedish Weight Sounding Method (the term
“sounding” is used in the same sense as “penetration testing”).
With the aid of this equipment, in combination with sampling, it be-
came possible to obtain reliable information about the stratification
of soil layers.
This preliminary soil classification based on CPT tests is thus mainly
made on the basis of the relation between the cone resistance, the
sleeve friction and the normal in-situ stress conditions. In soft clay, the
measured sleeve friction is very small and relatively unreliable, but in
more consolidated clay, where the cone resistance may be of the same
size as for soft, coarser soil, the measured values normally become larger
and more reliable. Possible uncertainties in the measurements of sleeve
friction normally have a relatively small influence on this determina-
tion. The main exceptions are highly sensitive clays and/or silty-clays.
In these soils, the sleeve friction may be very low; at the same time as
the measured stiffness in relation to the overburden pressure places
the soil in the region for silt. However, very high pore pressures are
often developed in the tests and a check on whether the factor Bq is
higher or lower than 0.6 can be used to judge whether the soil should

Fig. 4. Variations of excess pore pressure versus corrected cone tip resistance and pore pressure with net cone resistance for 7202 (A and D), 7203 (B and E) and 7206 (C and F). See text for
detailed description of the figure.
 A. Abbaszadeh Shahri et al. / Engineering Geology 189 (2015) 32–47 37

Table 2 be classified as silt or sensitive clay. In those cases where the soil has
Correlation level of different soil classification methods and their respective applied been classified as “clay/organic soil” the classification process passes
parameters used in this study.
over to the special classification chart developed for this type of soil.
Method Applied parameters Correlation This chart is based on the net cone resistance and Bq.
(%) Eslami and Fellenius (1997): developed a soil profiling method
Robertson et al. Corrected cone resistance, friction and pore 75 when investigating the use of cone penetrometer data for pile designs.
(1986) pressure ratio They compiled a database consisting of CPT and CPTu data obtained
Robertson (1990) Normalized friction ratio and normalized cone –
from boring, sampling, laboratory testing, and routine soil characteriza-
resistance
Olsen and Mitchell Friction ratio and normalized cone resistance 35
tion cases from 18 sources reporting data from 20 sites in 5 countries.
(1995) They introduced a chart based on non-normalized parameters using
Swedish National Pore-water pressure ratio and net cone 55 effective cone resistance (qe) and fs, where qe = (qt − u2). The database
Report (1995) resistance values are divided into five main soil type categories (sensitive and col-
Eslami and Fellenius Sleeve friction and effective cone resistance 50
lapsible clay and/or silt, clay and/or silt, silty clay and/or clayey silt,
(1997)
Jefferies and Been Friction ratio and dimensionless penetration 40 sandy silt and/or silty sand, sand and/or sandy gravel).
(2006) resistance The CPT methods (mechanical cones) do not correct for the pore
Brouwer (2007) Friction ratio and cone resistance 70 pressure on the cone shoulder and the profiling based on CPT data
Robertson (2010) Both normalized and non-normalized friction 70 may not be relevant outside the local area where they are developed.
ratios and cone resistance
Zhang and Tumay CPT based soil classification system based on 70
The error due to omitting the pore water pressure correction is large
(1999) fuzzy logic in fine-grained soils and smaller in coarse-grained soils (Fellenius and

Fig. 5. Comparison of updated Soil Behavior Type (SBT) charts based on corrected cone resistance (Robertson et al., 1986; A, B and C) and non-normalized CPT (Robertson, 2010; D, E and F).
38 A. Abbaszadeh Shahri et al. / Engineering Geology 189 (2015) 32–47

Fig. 6. Comparison of updated Soil Behavior Type (SBT) chart based on normalized CPT parameters (Robertson, 2010) for (A) 7202, (B) 7203 and (C) 7206, respectively, and (D) soil state
modified from Robertson (1990).

Eslami, 2000). The effective cone resistance (qe) suffers from the lack of and proposed a normalization that incorporates the pore pressure di-
accuracy in soft fine-grained soils (Robertson, 2012). rectly into a modified normalized cone resistance using Qt1 (1 − Bq)
Jefferies and Been (2006): updated an earlier chart by Jefferies and as presented in Eq. (10). Note that the reliability of IC as an index for me-
Davies (1993), using the parameter Qt1 (1 − Bq) + 1, to overcome the chanical behavior classification of soil has been investigated by Ku et al.
problem in soft sensitive soils where Bq N 1 (Eq. (8)). The parameter (2010). This is a powerful concept and has been used where appropriate
Qt1 (1 − Bq) + 1 is simply the effective cone resistance given by: in this study.

 q −u ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
s
Q t1 1−Bq þ 1 ¼ t 0 2 : ð8Þ 


2 
σ v0 IC ¼ 3− log Q t 1−Bq þ ð1:5 þ 1:3 logF r Þ2 : ð10Þ

Jefferies and Davies (1993) and Robertson and Wride (1998) indi-
cated that for ISBT (Soil Behavior Type Index) that Eq. (9) can be applied. To determine the soil type index, Robertson and Wride (1998), later
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
s updated by Zhang et al. (2002), suggested a more generalized normal-
  2
2 
q ized cone parameter to evaluate soil liquefaction, using normalization
ISBT ¼ 3:47− log c þ logR f þ 1:22 : ð9Þ with a variable stress exponent (n; n ≤ 1).
pa
 n
Jefferies and Davies (1993) suggested that the SBT index (Ic) could qt −σ v pa
Q tn ¼  ð11Þ
also be used to modify empirical correlations that vary with soil type pa σ 0v
 A. Abbaszadeh Shahri et al. / Engineering Geology 189 (2015) 32–47
0 !
σv
n ¼ 0:381ðISBT Þ þ 0:05 −0:15
pa
where (qt − σv)/Pa is a dimensionless net cone resistance; Pa/σ′v is a
stress normalization factor and Pa is an atmospheric pressure with the
same units as for qt and σv.
Olsen and Malone (1988), Robertson (1999), Zhang et al. (2002),
Boulanger and Idriss (2004), Moss et al. (2006) and Cetin and Isik
(2007) agreed that in the clean sand region, the stress exponent (n) is
typically close to 0.5 and in the clay region the stress exponent is close
to 1.0. Only the normalized SBT chart suggested by Jefferies and Been
(2006) uses a stress normalization of n = 1.0.
Zhang and Tumay (1999) developed a CPT based soil classification
system based on fuzzy logic where the results are presented in the
form of percentage probability for clay, silt or sand. Although this
approach is conceptually attractive and provides some estimate of un-
certainty for each SBT zone, results are often misinterpreted as grain
size distribution.
Fortunately, soil classification criteria based on grain-size distribu-
tion and plasticity often relate reasonably well to in-situ soil behavior
and hence, there is often good agreement between USCS-based classifi-
cation and CPT-based SBT (Molle, 2005). However, several examples
can be given where differences can arise between the two (Robertson,
2012).
Brouwer (2007): provided information about cone penetration test-
ing, soil sampling techniques and instrumentation on land and rail,
near-shore and offshore. More than 25 cone penetrometers, instrumen-
tation devices and samplers were described.
Robertson (2010): presented an update to the Robertson et al.
(1986) chart to aid in comparison with the normalized chart suggested
by Robertson (1990). One of the major applications of CPT has been the
determination of soil stratigraphy and the identification of soil type. This
has typically been accomplished using charts that link cone parameters
to soil type. Robertson (2010) proposed a new non-normalized Soil Be-
havior Type index (ISBT) that uses the basic non-normalized CPT results.
The non-normalized SBT index (ISBT) is essentially the same as the nor-
malized SBTn index (Ic), suggested by Robertson and Wride (1998), but
only uses the basic CPT measurements. In general, the normalized Ic will
provide more reliable identification of SBT than the non-normalized ISBT,
but when the in-situ vertical effective stress is between 50 kPa and
150 kPa there is often little difference between the normalized and
non-normalized SBT. The normalized Soil Behavior Type chart and
SBTn index (Ic) are recommended for later post-processing of CPT re-
sults, but the non-normalized chart and SBT index (ISBT) can be helpful
for real-time data processing and interpretation.
Fig. 7. Classification of the soil/state type based on the Swedish National Report (1995).
39
3. Study area and available data
ð12Þ
Our study area is next to the Göta River valley (Fig. 1) that was likely
formed through erosion of a weak zone within the gneissic bedrock. The
region has experienced several landslides (Millet, 2011; Nadim et al.,
2008; Klingberg, 2010). In parts of the valley, the gneissic rocks, with
some elements of diabase and granite, outcrop, but, in general, they
are mostly covered by post- and glacial sediments. The post-glacial sed-
iments consist mainly of silt and clay deposits, sometimes very massive.
The glacial clay deposits that have been eroded may also be over consol-
idated (Klingberg, 2010). There is normally a geologic and morphologic
distinction between the southern and northern parts of the river. In our
study area, a thick layer of glacial clay dominates the soil profile down to
the bedrock. This layer is partly underlain by glaciofluvial deposits, till or
different combinations of friction soils (Klingberg et al., 2006; Sundborg
and Norrman, 1963). Due to the geological history of the valley, where
much of the clay was deposited in a marine environment, there is a
significant presence of so-called quick clay in the area. The quick clay
exists as layers or planes in clay sediments with normal sensitivity,
but in many places the entire clay stratum is comprised of quick clay
(Lindskog, 1983).
Our test site (Fig. 1) is about 7 km north of the town of Lilla Edet,
where the Göta landslide occurred in 1957. This area has been recently
studied by the Swedish Geotechnical Institute (SGI) in a nation-wide
project, which included investigations of areas prone to sliding along
the Göta River (Löfroth et al., 2011). A total of 9 CPTu geotechnical test
points (Fig. 1) with a maximum depth of 38 m and a groundwater
table between 1 and 1.7 m were made available through this study.
The CPTu test points consisted of 7201, 7203 and 7205 in the eastern
part of a 30–40 year-old landslide scar, 7202 in the landslide scar and
7206, 7207 and 7208 in the western part of it (Fig. 1).
The geotechnical laboratory tests for the classification of the soil and
grain size distribution, determination of density, water content, liquid
limit and undrained shear strength in the undisturbed and remolded
state by fall cone tests, chemical analysis and pore water extraction
were carried out by SGI (Löfroth et al., 2011). A summary of the lab-
oratory analysis is given in Table 1 and CPTu test data for three test
points are shown in Fig. 2. We considered test points 7202, 7203
and 7206 (Figs. 1 and 2) because of their locations in the landslide
scar region.
4. Interpretation of CPTu data and soil classifications
CPTu data obtained from the study area show a large variation of
cone resistance below 11 m depth for 7202, 12 m for 7203 and 16 m
40 A. Abbaszadeh Shahri et al. / Engineering Geology 189 (2015) 32–47

Fig. 10. Distribution of available data for soil-type description according to Jefferies and
Been (2006).

a decreasing trend (see ellipse 2, in Fig. 4A, B, and C). This shows that
the soils are either dense or over-consolidated, which can produce a de-
creasing trend or even negative pore water pressure during cone pene-
Fig. 8. Soil/state-type classification based on the proposed chart by Brouwer (2007). tration testing. Cai et al. (2011) indicated that high negative pore
pressures are also possible in the case of very dense fine sands and dila-
tive silts.
for 7206 (see ellipses 1 and 2 in Fig. 3A, B, and C). Hence, before analyz- The variation of pore pressure ratio (Bq), originally formulated by
ing the soil classifications, several correlations between corrected cone Lunne et al. (1997), can be used to identify the soil type and Bq N 0.60
resistance and measured CPTu parameters were first established. We indicates clayey, silty and sandy soils (ellipse 2, in Fig. 4D, E and F). Pos-
carried out this to investigate which one of the three soil groups (gran- itive Bq (ellipse 1 in Fig. 4D, E and F) indicates the development of excess
ular, cohesive and cohesionless soils) that our data belong to. On the positive pore pressure during cone penetration testing and, typically,
basis of Begemann (1965), Sanglerat et al. (1974) and Schmertmann such soils are classified as being soft to medium consistency clayey
(1975) a variation of the friction ratio in the range of 2 to 5% indicates soils (Sharma and Ilamparuthi, 2009).
a mixture of clay-sand and silts. In the test points of the selected area,
the friction ratio varies between 0 and 2.4% (ellipse 1 in Fig. 3D, E, and
F). High corrected cone resistance values are normally associated with
cohesionless soils such as silt and sand, in which friction ratio tends to
decrease with cone resistance (ellipse 2 in Fig. 3D, E, and F).
As presented in Fig. 4, the corrected cone resistance and excess pore
pressure for the test points show values in the range of 0–5000 KPa for
the corrected tip resistance, the excess pore pressure is predominantly
positive with an increasing trend (see ellipse 1, in Fig. 4A, B, and C),
but for values greater than 5000 KPa, the excess pore pressure shows

Fig. 9. Soil-type classification based on the proposed chart by Eslami and Fellenius (1997) Fig. 11. Soil/state-type classification based on the proposed chart by Olsen and Mitchell
and Fellenius and Eslami (2000). (1995).
 A. Abbaszadeh Shahri et al. / Engineering Geology 189 (2015) 32–47
5. Evaluation of CPTu-based soil classification methods in our study
area
In this paper the proposed classification methods by Robertson et al.
(1986), Robertson (1990), Robertson (2010), Jefferies and Been (2006),
and Eslami and Fellenius (1997), traditional site investigation tech-
niques (Swedish National Report, 1995); (Brouwer, 2007); (Olsen and
Mitchell, 1995) were used and analyzed for the classification of soil
types and states in the area. Different characteristics of the applied
methods are summarized in Table 2.
Three typical chart results containing the distribution of CPTu data
and interpretations based on the Robertson et al. (1986), Robertson
(1990) and Robertson (2010) methods are presented in Figs. 5 and 6.
According to Robertson et al. (1986), the soil type in 7202 varies be-
tween zones 1, 6, 7, 8 and 9 and rarely goes to zone 3. At 7203 a variation
between zones 1, 5, 6, 7 and 9 is observed with only very few data points
falling into zone 8. Based on Robertson (2010), soil types in 7202 change
in zones 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6, for 7203 vary in zones 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7206 show
changing in zones 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. Considering Robertson (1990), the
soil states vary between zones 3 to 7, but have predominance in zones 5
and 6 (i.e., more sensitivity and nearly normally consolidated).
As indicated in Fig. 7, based on traditional site investigation tech-
niques presented by the Swedish National Report (1995), the soil
types are classified as very silty clay, clays or slightly over consolidated
silty clays and highly sensitive clays, but most generally map into the
fields of normally consolidated clays or slightly over consolidated silty
clays. Based on Brouwer (2007), as presented in Fig. 8, the soils are
Fig. 12. Identified soil profile for test point 7202, (A) Soil Behavior Type Index compared with USCS data (dark red dots), (B) Soil Behavior Type zones and (C) soil profile (red zones in soil
profile indicate sensitive fine grained clays. Color scales are similar to those shown in Fig. 5).
41
classified as very silty and loose to medium coarse sand and gravel
and, sometimes, dense gravel. The proposed chart by Eslami and
Fellenius (1997) and then Fellenius and Eslami (2000) shows more sen-
sitivity in the soils and, according to Fig. 9, a variation between clayey
silt, silty clay, sandy silt and sand can be observed. Considering Fig. 10,
the proposed method by Jefferies and Been (2006) for soil classification
shows a wide variation from silty clay to clayey up to gravelly sand. The
proposed chart by Olsen and Mitchell (1995) shows variations from silt
mixtures to sand and gravel (Fig. 11).
In order to choose and evaluate the different results of the different
methods, a criterion needed to be developed. We used a success rate
concept for this that is the ratio of the number of correct predictions
to the total number of predictions classifying soils as either coarse-
grained or fine-grained. The correct prediction was defined based on
the results from the USCS method (which is based on the laboratory
measurements and CPTu data) provided by Löfroth et al. (2011) (see
Figs. 12A, 13A and 14A). This analysis showed (for summary see
Table 2) a 75% success rate using Robertson et al. (1986), 70% using
Robertson (2010), 55% using the Swedish National Report (1995), 70%
using Brouwer (2007), 50% using Eslami and Fellenius (1997), 40%
using Jefferies and Been (2006), 35% using Olsen and Mitchell (1995),
and 70% using Zhang and Tumay (1999). Therefore, we considered the
Robertson et al. (1986) chart for our study, even though an updated
version was presented by Robertson (2010).
After selecting the Robertson et al. (1986) chart as our base concept
for soil classification, we converted all the results, i.e., soil types ob-
tained from each method, into depth for determination of soil type
42 A. Abbaszadeh Shahri et al. / Engineering Geology 189 (2015) 32–47
thickness. Results from Robertson et al. (1986) were then compared
with the USCS data from Löfroth et al. (2011) in order to evaluate
their match. If there was a match then the solution from Robertson
et al. (1986) would be accepted, otherwise the nearest match from
the other seven methods was considered to be the correction that
was required to Robertson et al. (1986).
Because the eight employed methods do not provide comparable
grain-size classification to the USCS method, we defined a criterion in
this study that converts grain sizes obtained from the eight methods
to the USCS soil groups. In this criterion soft clay and clay mixtures,
respectively, represent CL and CL–ML groups (in USCS). For silt mixtures
including sandy silt and clayey silt, the ML group in USCS was consid-
ered. For sand and sand mixtures consisting of silty sand, gravelly
sand to sand (medium to dense) and clean sand, and silty-clayey-
sand, respectively, the SM and SC–SM groups were considered. There-
fore, in our study, zone 3 from Robertson et al. (1986) represents CL
and CL–ML groups, zone 4, zone 5 and zone 6 represent SM and SC–SM
and zone 7 represents the GM group (Figs. 12B, 13B and 14B).
6. Evaluation of the results
To evaluate the obtained results (Figs. 12C, 13C and 14C), we decid-
ed to estimate SPT data from the CPTu data (Fig. 2). The prediction was
done on the basis of the corrected friction ratio and corrected cone resis-
tance (Fig. 15), which uses the chart proposed by Olsen (1988). This
allowed predicting the SPT-N value (N1) data. From the predicted SPT
data, we then obtained corrected SPT data on the basis of (N1)60 which
Fig. 13. Identified soil profile for test point 7203, (A) Soil Behavior Type Index compared with USCS data (dark green dots), (B) Soil Behavior Type zones and (C) soil profile (red zones in
soil profile indicate sensitive fine grained clays. Color scales are similar to those shown in Fig. 5).
is 60% of the hammer energy that penetrated 30 cm depth (Olson and
Stark, 2003). We chose the proposed criterion by Olson and Stark
(2003), because it is formulated in terms of (N1)60 and allows for a
direct comparison with liquefaction susceptibility. Visual inspection be-
tween the results from the predicted SPT and soil profiles obtained from
CPT data suggests a good correlation between the two (Fig. 16A, B and
C). Moreover, the predicted soil profiles based on the USCS and (N1)60
in the selected test points of this study (Fig. 16A, B and C) can be com-
pared with the probabilistic method introduced by Zhang and Tumay
(1999) (Fig. 17). A relatively good match can also be observed between
the probabilistic approach and the CPTu results (e.g., Fig. 17). Note that
we only show the results for CPTu 7203, but for the other two test
points similar results were obtained.
7. Discussion
Landslides, as a geological phenomenon are a significant geohazard
in Sweden and can occur in special sensitive fine-grained clays, namely
quick clays. Our approach in this study to detect possible sensitive fine-
grained clays is promising. Obtained soil profiles, corrected on the basis
of the applied methods and available USCS data, show that at test point
7202 that some thin layers of sensitive clays at depths between 4 m and
11 m are present. For test point 7206, the amount of detected sensitive
fine-grained clay is even more and the layers are thicker than at test
point 7202. Depths range from 4 m down to 32 m. For test point 7203,
a thick layer of sensitive fine-grained materials between 2 m and
13 m is found. Test point 7202 is located in the slide area, perhaps
 A. Abbaszadeh Shahri et al. / Engineering Geology 189 (2015) 32–47 43

Fig. 14. Identified soil profile for test point 7206, (A) Soil Behavior Type Index compared with USCS data (dark blue dots), (B) Soil Behavior Type zones and (C) soil profile (red zones in soil
profile indicate sensitive fine grained clays. Color scales are similar to those shown in Fig. 5).

explaining why there is lesser amounts of sensitive clays in this location

than the other two points. This is also reflected in the number of soil
types identified in this point compared to the two others. The main rea-
son for this difference is interpreted to be that some 15–20 m of soil has
been removed by the slide (Fig. 1).
On the basis of geophysical data and the occurrences of a coarse-
grained layer (detected by reflection seismic methods), Malehmir
et al. (2013a, 2013b) suggested the possibility of quick clays forming
at about 10 m depth in the area around 7202, about 20 m depth near
7203 and 25 m depth near 7206. A comparison between the reflection
seismic results and our data shows some consistency (Fig. 18) suggest-
ing sensitive fine-grained materials in similar depth ranges and located
above a coarse-grained layer which is generally reflective (Fig. 18).
Coarse-grained materials (gravelly sand to sand) (e.g. Fig. 12) were
also detected by the geophysical and seismic methods (Fig. 18). The
over consolidation ratio (OCR) (Fig. 18) shows a sudden increase at
the location of the coarse-grained layer (likely patchy and not continu-
ous in large scale) at the selected test points.
The coefficient of permeability using the CPTu data for the coarse-
grained layers shows higher values than the other identified layers.
This has implications for the proposed scenarios by Malehmir et al.
(2013a) concerning the generation and formation of quick clays at the
site. A plausible scenario for the formation of quick clays is that the
coarse-grained materials act as a conduit with direct infiltration (either
from the surface through the clays or from the contact between the
clays and the bedrock) towards the Göta River. During the process and Fig. 15. Prediction of SPT-N values for the selected test points.
44 A. Abbaszadeh Shahri et al. / Engineering Geology 189 (2015) 32–47
in the case of excess water, a confined aquifer forms (or becomes over
pressured) and leaches salt from the marine clays above. The leaching
then destabilizes the structure of the clay and forms the quick clay
(Rankka et al., 2004). The excess water could also, at proper conditions,
trigger a landslide at the site by increasing the pore pressure in the
pores. This, however, may require other complementary processes
such as by human activities (as seen in a few cases) or sudden (or grad-
ual) erosion in the riverbank. More CPTu test points spread out over the
study area and hydrogeological experiments are required to fully un-
derstand this process and verify these scenarios.
Soil classification methods using only the cone resistance and sleeve
friction give a poor interpretation of the soil types, but by using pore
pressure and its correction to cone resistances the results for soil classi-
fication are significantly improved. If a positive correlation between
cone resistance and sleeve friction (increasing the cone resistance
with sleeve friction) is observed, then this may imply that soil materials
are becoming harder. A careful inspection of Fig. 3 (3D, 3E and 3F) sug-
gests an opposite trend (high cone resistances and low friction ratios),
Fig. 16. Computed N1(60) in this study and comparison with the soil profiles for the selected test points (red layers corresponds the clay group, green indicates sand and sand mixtures
group and light yellow represents silt mixtures group in USCS).
perhaps implying the dominance of cohesionless soils such as silty-
sand and sandy soils and low to medium cone resistances and high fric-
tion ratios that indicate the presence of silt, clay and clayey soils.
As shown in ellipse 2 in Fig. 4D, E, and F, corrected cone resistances
less than 5000 KPa imply that the pore pressure ratio varies between
0 and 2. This means the soil may be classified as silty sand or clayey
sand. Ellipse 1 in Fig. 4D, E and F indicates that for cone resistances
more than 5000 KPa the pore pressure ratio will go towards zero. In
this case the soils can be classified as consolidated clay, clay mixtures
and also medium dense sand. When Bq is applied the USCS data show
better resolution and correlation with the employed classification
charts. If Bq is not considered, then correlation is poor and the classifica-
tion of soil based solely on cone resistance and sleeve friction does not
correlate well in many cases.
Difficulties in taking into account soil mixtures when there are two
or more soil types are one of the main problems causing errors in
CPTu charts for soil classifications. This is an inherent limitation because
soil classification on the basis of cone test results for all soil types is not
 A. Abbaszadeh Shahri et al. / Engineering Geology 189 (2015) 32–47
practical and perhaps impossible. Therefore, many of these charts are
based more on the soil behavioral types, such as the contracting or dilat-
ing nature of the materials than the soil composition (Cai et al., 2011).
As reported by Robertson et al. (1986), a recognized problem associated
with soil classification charts on the basis of CPTu data is that a soil can
gradually change its apparent classification as cone penetration in-
creases with depth. This is because measured cone resistance, sleeve
friction, and pore pressure all tend to increase with increasing overbur-
den pressure. Since most of the data used to develop the soil classifica-
tion charts in this study were obtained from soundings carried out at
depths of about 30 m we expect some errors, especially at greater
depths. At great depths, however, normalized CPTu measurements
would be able to account for the effects of the overburden pressure.
This implies that using CPT for greater depths provides a quick soil
type interpretation. It also implies fewer required samples for laborato-
ry investigations and a resulting significant reduction in field operations
can be expected in site investigations. Soil classification in the laborato-
ry using collected samples from boreholes is the primary conventional
method for determining soil stratigraphy, but the main challenge of
using the CPT or CPTu data for soil profiling is that samples are not re-
trieved for laboratory testing.
8. Conclusions
There are several classification methods on the basis of CPT data,
which enable predicting soil type and state. However, the main point
is that their validity still needs to be verified for local cases because
the original soils used in the soil classification chart development will
generally be. In this study results of CPTu tests conducted in southwest-
ern Sweden were used to predict the soil depth profile in a region prone
to quick-clay landslides. Eight soil classification methods based on CPT
data, including Robertson et al. (1986), Robertson (2010), Jefferies and
Been (2006), Swedish National Report (1995), Brouwer (2007),
Eslami and Fellenius (1997), Olsen and Mitchell (1995) and Zhang
Fig. 17. Comparison of the obtained results in this study by USCS classification with Zhang and Tumay (1999) proposed method. Only results for 7202 are shown here.
45
and Tumay (1999), were applied for soil type and state prediction and
interpretation.
The present analysis shows that the applied classification methods
are capable of interpreting the subsurface soil type, but their accuracy
should be checked and verified. By taking into account that applied
CPT charts do not provide accurate predictions of soil types based on
grain size distribution, we employed the USCS laboratory results to
have better resolution for soil type determination. Using USCS data as
a standard for soil type recognition in all of the applied methods implies
that we can predict soil type from CPT data. In our case, a best agree-
ment and compatibility was obtained using the Robertson et al.
(1986) method. By converting the identified soil types to depth for the
other methods used in this study, our base concept was then modified.
To verify the results, we made a comparison with the predicted SPT data
for the selected area and borehole soil types with the probabilistic base
method of Zhang and Tumay (1999).
Considering that sensitive fine-grained clays, and especially quick
clays, are responsible for most landslides in Sweden, this paper helps
to recognize and identify zones potentially comprising sensitive clays
in the study area. The identified soil profiles, which estimate soil state
rather than actual soil type based on the USCS, compare acceptably
well with the applied soil classification charts and are generally consis-
tent with the results predicted by probabilistic methods (Zhang and
Tumay, 1999) suggesting some of the quick clays likely form above a
coarse-grained layer that has been delineated by surface geophysical
studies (Malehmir et al., 2013a, 2013b).
Acknowledgments
SGI kindly provided the CPT data for which we are grateful. A.
Abbaszadeh Shahri carried out this research while visiting Uppsala
University as a post-doctoral fellow. Formas (through GeoInfra-Trust
(252-2012-1907), www.trust-geoinfra.se) and SEG (Society of
Exploration Geophysicists through its Geoscientists without Borders,
www.seg.org/gwb) are gratefully acknowledged for funding A.
46 A. Abbaszadeh Shahri et al. / Engineering Geology 189 (2015) 32–47
Fig. 18. 3D view showing two seismic sections (modified from Malehmir et al., 2013a) in the vicinity of the CPT test points. The data clearly image an interpreted coarse-grained layer above
the dipping bedrock surface (towards the river) and correlate well with the results (soil type and OCR) obtained in this study. The yellow dotted lines indicate the seismic line positions
corresponding to the topography of the area (see Fig. 1). The correspondence between the soil type classification obtained in this study and the reflector geometry strongly suggests that it
is a coarse-grained layer generating the reflection.
Malehmir's research contribution in this work. Critical reviews by two
anonymous reviewers and the editor, C.H. Juang, significantly improved
the quality of our work and its presentation for which we are thankful.
References
Adamczyk, A., Malinowski, M., Malehmir, A., 2013. Application of first arrival tomography
to characterize a quick-clay landslide site in southwest Sweden. Acta Geophys. 61,
1057–1073.
Adamczyk, A., Malinowski, M., Malehmir, A., 2014. High-resolution near surface velocity
model building using full-waveform inversion — a case study from southwest
Sweden. Geophys. J. Int. 197, 1693–1704.
ASTM D5778-12, 2012. Standard Test Method for Electronic Friction Cone and Piezocone
Penetration Testing of Soils. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA http://dx.
doi.org/10.1520/D5778-12.
ASTM D5778-95, 2000. Standard Test Method for Performing Electronic Friction Cone and
Piezocone Penetration Testing of Soils. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA
http://dx.doi.org/10.1520/D5778-95R00.
Baligh, M.M., Vivatrat, V., Ladd, C.C., 1980. Cone penetration in soil profiling. J. Geotech.
Eng. 112 (7), 727–745.
Begemann, H.K.S., 1965. The friction jacket cone as an aid in determining the soil profile.
Proceedings, 6th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engi-
neering, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. vol. I, pp. 17–20.
Boulanger, R.W., Idriss, I.M., 2004. State normalization of penetration resistance and the
effect of overburden stress on liquefaction resistance. Proceedings of 11th interna-
tional conference on soil dynamics and earthquake engineering and 3rd international
conference on earthquake geotechnical engineering. University of California, Berke-
ley, CA, pp. 484–491.
Brouwer, H., 2007. In Situ Soil Testing, Chapter 2, CF Cone (Cone Penetration Test).
Lankelma, UK 978-1-86081-951-3, p. 144 (JJ M Brouwer).
Cai, G.J., Liu, S.Y., Tong, L.Y., 2010. Field evaluation of deformation characteristics of a
lacustrine clay deposit using seismic piezocone tests. Eng. Geol. 116 (3), 251–260.
Cai, J., Liu, S., Puppala, A.J., 2011. Comparison of CPT charts for soil classification using PCPT
data: example from clay deposits in Jiangsu Province. China Eng. Geol. 121, 89–96.
Campanella, R.G., Robertson, P.K., 1988. Current status of the piezocone test. Proceedings
of First International Symposium on Penetration Testing, ISOPT-1, 1, (93–116).
Orlando, March 22–24.
Cetin, K.O., Isik, N.S., 2007. Probabilistic assessment of stress normalization for CPT data.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 133 (7), 887–897.
Cetin, K.O., Ozan, C., 2009. CPT-based probabilistic soil characterization and classification.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 135 (1), 84–107.
Douglas, B.J., Olsen, R.S., 1981. Soil classification using electric cone penetrometer. Pro-
ceedings of Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing and Experience, Geotechnical
Engineering Division, ASCE. St. Louis, Missouri, October 1981, pp. 209–227.
Eslami, A., Fellenius, B.H., 1997. Pile capacity by direct CPT and CPTu methods applied to
102 case histories. Can. Geotech. J. 34 (6), 880–898.
Fellenius, B.H., Eslami, A., 2000. Soil profile interpretation form CPTu data. Proceeding of
Year 2000 Geotechnics Conference, Southeast Asian Geotechnical Society, Asian Insti-
tute of Technology, Bangkok, Thailand. vol. 1, pp. 163–171.
Jefferies, M.G., Been, K., 2006. Soil Liquefaction — A Critical State Approach. Taylor &
Francis (ISBN 0-419-16170-8 478).
Jefferies, M.G., Davies, M.O., 1991. Soil classification by the cone penetration test: discus-
sion. Can. Geotech. J. 28 (1), 173–176.
Jefferies, M.G., Davies, M.P., 1993. Use of CPTU to estimate equivalent SPT N60. Geotech.
Test. J. ASTM 16 (4), 458–468.
Jones, G.A., Rust, E., 1982. Piezometer penetration testing CUPT. Proc., 2nd European
Symp. on Penetration Testing, ESOPTII, pp. 607–613.
Jung, B.C., Gardoni, P., Biscontin, G., 2008. Probabilistic soil identification based on cone
penetration tests. Geotechnique 58 (7), 591–603.
Klingberg, F., 2010. Bottenförhållanden i Göta Älv: SGU-rapport 2010:7. Sveriges
Geologiska Undersökning, Göteborg.
Klingberg, F., Påsse, T., Levander, J., 2006. K43: Bottenförhållanden och geologisk
utveckling i Göta älv. Sveriges Geologiska Undersökning, Göteborg.
Ku, C.S., Juang, C.H., Ou, C.Y., 2010. Reliability of CPT Ic as an index for mechanical behav-
ior classification of soils. Geotechnique 60 (11), 861–875. http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/
geot.09.P.097.
Lindskog, G., 1983. Brief Report of the Investigation of the Slope Stability Along the River
in Göta River Valley. Statens Geotekniska Institut, Linköping.
Löfroth, H., Suer, P., Dahlin, T., Leroux, V., Schälin, D., 2011. Quick clay mapping by resis-
tivity-surface resistivity, CPTU-R and chemistry to complement other geotechnical
sounding and sampling. Swedish Geotechnical Institute, report GÄU 30.
Long, M., 2008. Design parameters from in situ tests in soft ground — recent develop-
ments. Proceedings of Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterization. Taylor &
Francis Group, pp. 89–116.
Lundberg, E., Malehmir, A., Juhlin, C., Bastani, M., Andersson, M., 2014. High-resolution 3D
reflection seismic investigation over a quick-clay landslide scar in southwest Sweden.
Geophysics 79, B97–B107.
 A. Abbaszadeh Shahri et al. / Engineering Geology 189 (2015) 32–47
Lunne, T., Robertson, P.K., Powell, J.J.M., 1997. Cone Penetration Testing in Geotechnical
Practice. Blackie Academic, EF Spon/Routledge Publ., New York (312 pp.).
Malehmir, A., Saleem, U.M., Bastani, M., 2013a. High-resolution reflection seismic investi-
gations of quick-clay and associated formations at a landslide scar in southwest
Sweden. J. Appl. Geophys. 92, 84–102.
Malehmir, A., Bastani, M., Krawczyk, C.M., Gurk, M., Ismail, N., Polom, U., Persson, L.,
2013b. Geophysical assessment and geotechnical investigation of quick-clay land-
slides — a Swedish case study. Near Surf. Geophys. 11, 341–350.
Millet, D., 2011. River Erosion, Landslides and Slope Development in Göta River, a study
Based on Bathymetric Data and General Limit Equilibrium Slope Stability Analysis.
(M.Sc Thesis). Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Division of
GeoEngineering, Geotechnical Engineering Research Group, Chalmers university of
Technology, Göteborg, Sweden.
Molle, J., 2005. The accuracy of the interpretation of CPT based soil classification methods
in soft soils. (MSc Thesis). Section for Engineering Geology, Department of Applied
Earth Sciences, Delf University of Technology, Report No. 242, Report AES/IG/05-25,
December.
Moss, R.E.S., Seed, R.B., Olsen, R.S., 2006. Normalizing the CPT for overburden stress.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 132 (3), 378–387.
Nadim, F., Pedersen, S.A.S., Schmidt-Thomé, P., Sigmundsson, F., Engdahl, M., 2008.
Natural hazards in Nordic countries. Episodes 31 (1), 176–184.
Olsen, R.S., 1988. Using the CPT for dynamic site response characterization. In: Von Thun,
J.L. (Ed.), Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics II — Recent Advances in Ground
Motion Evaluation: American Society of Civil Engineers Geotechnical Special Publica-
tion. 20, pp. 374–388.
Olsen, R.S., 1994. Normalization and Prediction of Geotechnical Properties Using the Cone
Penetration Test. (PhD Dissertation). University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley,
California.
Olsen, R.S., Koester, J.P., 1995. Prediction of liquefaction resistance using the CPT. Proc.,
International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing, CPT 95, Linkoping, Sweden,
pp. 251–256.
Olsen, R.S., Malone, P.G., 1988. Soil classification and site characterization using the cone
penetrometer test. In: De Ruiter, J. (Ed.), Penetration Testing 1988, ISOPT-1. Balkema,
Rotterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 887–893.
Olsen, R.S., Mitchell, J.K., 1995. CPT stress normalization and prediction of soil classifica-
tion. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing (CPT
'95), Linkoping, Sweden, pp. 251–256.
Olson, S.M., Stark, T.D., 2003. Yield strength ratio and liquefaction analysis of slopes and
embankments. J. Geotech. Eng. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng. 129 (8), 727–737.
Rankka, K., Andersson-Sköld, Y., Hultén, C., Larsson, R., Leroux, V., Dahlin, T., 2004. Quick
Clay in Sweden. Report 65. Swedish Geotechnical Institute, Linköping.
Robertson, P.K., 1990. Soil classification using the cone penetration test. Can. Geotech. J.
27 (1), 151–158.
Robertson, P.K., 1999. Estimation of minimum undrained shear strength for flow liquefac-
tion using the CPT. Proc., 2nd Int. Conf. on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering.
Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Robertson, P.K., 2004. Evaluating soil liquefaction and post-earthquake deformations
using the CPT. Keynote Lecture at International Conference on Geotechnical and
Geophysical Site Characterization, ISC-2, Porto, Portugal.
47
Robertson, P.K., 2009. Discussion of ‘CPT-based probabilistic soil characterization and
classification’ by K. Onder Cetin and Cem Ozan. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 135
(1), 84–107.
Robertson, P.K., 2010. Soil behaviour type from the CPT: an update. 2nd International
Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing, CPT'10, Huntington Beach, CA, USA.
Robertson, P.K., 2012. Interpretation of In-Situ Tests-Some Insights. Mitchell Lecture, ISC'4
Brazil, Sep., 2012.
Robertson, P.K., Wride, C.E., 1998. Evaluating cyclic liquefaction potential using the cone
penetration test. Can. Geotech. J. 35, 442–459.
Robertson, P.K., Campanella, R.G., Gillespie, D., Greig, J., 1986. Use of piezometer cone data.
In-Situ '86 Use of In-situ testing in Geotechnical Engineering, GSP 6, ASCE, Reston, VA,
Specialty, Publicationpp. 1263–1280.
Sanglerat, G., Nhim, T.V., Sejourne, M., Andina, R., 1974. Direct soil classification by static
penetrometer with special friction sleeve. Proc., the First European Symposium on
Penetration Testing. ESOPT-1, Vol. 2.2, June 5–7, 1974, Stockholm, pp. 337–344.
Schmertmann, J.H., 1975. Measurement of in situ shear strength. Proc., Specialty Confer-
ence on In Situ Measurement of Soil Properties: ASCE. vol. 2. ASCE, USA, pp. 57–138
(Raleigh).
Schneider, J.A., Randolph, M.F., Mayne, P.W., Ramsey, N.R., 2008. Analysis of factors
influencing soil classification using normalized piezocone tip resistance and pore
pressure parameters. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 134 (11), 1569–1586.
Senneset, K., Janbu, N., 1985. Shear strength parameters obtained from static cone pene-
tration tests. Proc., Strength Testing of Marine Sediments; Laboratory and In-Situ
Measurement: ASTM Special Technical Publication, STP. 883, pp. 41–54.
Shan, C., Bastani, M., Malehmir, A., Persson, L., Engdahl, M., 2014. Integrated 2D modeling
and interpretation of geophysical and geotechnical data to delineate quick clays at a
landslide site in southwest Sweden. Geophysics 79, EN61–EN75.
Sharma, M.S.R., Ilamparuthi, K., 2009. Interpretation of electric piezocone data of Chennai
Coast. Ocean Eng. 36 (6), 511–520.
Sundborg, Å., Norrman, J., 1963. Göta Älv hydrologi och morfologi- med särskild hänsyn
till erosionsprocesserna. Statens Geologiska Undersökning, Avhandlingar och
uppsatser I 4:0 Nr 43, Stockholm, 1963.
Traditional site investigation techniques, Excerpt from "Swedish National Report", In Pro-
ceedings of the International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing (CPT '95),
Linkoping, Sweden, Vol.1.
Tumay, M.T., Boggess, R.L., Acar, Y., 1981. Subsurface investigation with piezocone
penetrometer. ASCE GSP on Cone Penetration Testing and Experience, St Louis,
MOpp. 325–342.
Wroth, 1988. Penetration Testing — A More Rigorous Approach to Interpretation. Penetra-
tion Testing, ISOPT-1. 90 6191 8014.
Zhang, Z., Tumay, M.T., 1999. Statistical to fuzzy approach toward CPT soil classification.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 25 (3), 179–186.
Zhang, G., Robertson, P.K., Brachman, R.W.I., 2002. Estimating liquefaction induced
ground settlements from CPT for level ground. Can. Geotech. J. 39 (5), 1168–1180.
Zuidberg, H.M., Schaap, L.H.J., Beringen, F.L., 1982. A penetrometer for simultaneously
measuring of cone resistance, sleeve friction and dynamic pore pressure. Proceedings
of the Second European Symposium on Penetration Testing Vol. 2. CRC Press,
Amsterdam, pp. 963–970.