Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-bkrcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-16T10:29:15.646Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A brief introduction to cone penetration testing (CPT) in frozen geomaterials

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2017

Adrian McCallum*
Affiliation:
University of the Sunshine Coast, Maroochydore, Queensland, Australia E-mail: amccallu@usc.edu.au
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The cone penetration test has been successfully used to classify soil for ∼100 years. However, it has received only limited contemporary use in frozen geomaterials. The historical and contemporary use of the cone penetration test in various frozen geomaterials is considered here and contemporary data from recent work in polar snow are examined. It is probable that many material physical properties (e.g. density, strength and microstructure) can be obtained directly from cone penetration testing. It appears under-utilized as a contemporary scientific and engineering investigative tool in frozen geomaterials.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © International Glaciological Society 2014
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Cone incorporating 35.6 mm diameter tip and 135 mm long cylindrical friction sleeve.

Figure 1

Fig. 2. CPT operating ‘box’ fitted to a BAS tractor, configured ready for use. Insets show rigid link installed and data-collection equipment.

Figure 2

Fig. 3. Results of two parallel stress-controlled cone penetration tests through a sea-ice cover at Norris Point, Newfoundland, Canada, performed at constant cone pressures of 11.1 and 13.2 MPa and at an average ice temperature of −0.1°C, after Ladanyi and others (1991). (From Ladanyi, 1996, Borehole penetration and expansion devices for ice testing, Can. J. Civil Eng.,23, figure 1 © Canadian Science Publishing or its licensors. Reproduced with permission.)

Figure 3

Fig. 4. Family plot of three cone resistance versus depth tests, located ∼1 m apart. (From Schaap and Föhn, 1987, Cone penetration testing in snow. Can. Geotech. J.,24(3), figure 9 © 2008 Canadian Science Publishing or its licensors. Reproduced with permission.)

Figure 4

Fig. 5. Linear pushing system for rate-controlled CPT. (From Buteau and others, 2005, Rate-controlled cone penetration tests in permafrost, Can. Geotech. J., 42(1), figure 2 © 2008 Canadian Science Publishing or its licensors. Reproduced with permission.)

Figure 5

Fig. 6. Mean snow strength derived from CPT tip resistance differs by only ∼15% from strength derived via unconfined uniaxial compression testing. Data were not statistically different at the 95% confidence level (via unpaired t test). Tests were both conducted at a penetration/compression rate of 20 mm s−1.

Figure 6

Fig. 7. Rate-controlled CPT (20 mm s−1) in Antarctic multi-year fast ice to depths exceeding 1m using standard equipment (McCallum, 2012).

Figure 7

Fig. 8. Tip resistances recorded during successful CPT conducted in multi-year fast ice was >40 MPa (McCallum, 2012). Use of heavier equipment might have allowed greater penetration.

Figure 8

Fig. 9. Screen shot showing typical CPT data. Tip resistance is shown on the left in red, sleeve friction is shown in the middle in blue, and friction ratio (Rf = qc/fs) is shown on the right in yellow. Erroneous pore pressure reading (6 kPa) is shown at bottom right. The test was to a depth of ∼10 m. Excessive variation in the second half of the trace is because of increased frictional ‘stick-slip’ behaviour.

Figure 9

Fig. 10. Possible variation of effective elastic modulus with depth, obtained from CPT tip resistance data.