4.5 Article

Marine soil behaviour classification using piezocone penetration test (CPTu) and borehole records

Journal

CANADIAN GEOTECHNICAL JOURNAL
Volume 58, Issue 2, Pages 190-199

Publisher

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1139/cgj-2019-0571

Keywords

cone penetration; soil behaviour; soil classification; borehole; offshore geotechnics

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study evaluates the accuracy of six CPTu-based SBCs for marine soils offshore Hong Kong. The results show that combining CPTu and composition-based SBCs can provide a more accurate classification of marine soils.
Several piezocone penetration test (CPTu)-based soil behaviour classification systems (SBCs) have been developed for standard sites, where clays, silt, and sand dominate. However, problems can occur when applying the SBCs to offshore sites, where the marine soils may be decomposed from rocks or mixed with artificial fills. This study evaluates the accuracy of six CPTu-based SBCs for marine soils at a site offshore Hong Kong based on 16 CPTu soundings with 25 367 data points by comparing them with composition-based SBCs from borehole records in the vicinity of each sounding. The soil types are determined from six common CPTu-based SBCs. The interpretation of CPTu data is first performed to generate soil type variables comparable to borehole data, followed by a cross-validation study. The soil classification performance of each SBC is quantified by the weighted kappa coefficient and the Kendall correlation coefficient between the soil types generated by the CPTu-based and composition-based SBCs. The classification accuracy for each soil type is also evaluated via the root mean squared error and the mean absolute error. The classified soil types from the CPTu data are associated with a median degree of consistency, indicating the need for combining CPTu-based and composition-based SBCs for marine soil classification.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available