Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-tq7bh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-14T12:27:07.977Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Cone penetration testing (CPT) in Antarctic firn: an introduction to interpretation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2017

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

Abstract

Commercial cone penetration testing (CPT) equipment was adapted to allow penetrative testing in hard polar firn to depths of 10 m. The apparatus is hydraulically driven, rate-controllable and able to penetrate firn with a resistance of 10 MPa. It can be mounted on many types of typical polar vehicles, requiring connection to only hydraulics and 12 V electricity. Data recorded include both cone tip resistance and sleeve friction, a parameter not previously examined through such testing. This paper describes the development and calibration of the equipment and examines factors including snow density, penetration rate and cone size and shape that are shown to affect CPT interpretation. CPT can be used efficiently in polar environments to potentially provide estimates of physical parameters in hard firn to substantial depth.

Information

Type
Instruments and Methods
Copyright
Copyright © International Glaciological Society 2009
Figure 0

Fig. 1. UK11 configured and fitted for CPT. Insets show rigid-link installed and data-collection equipment.

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Cone incorporating 35.6 mm diameter tip and 135 mm long cylindrical friction sleeve.

Figure 2

Table 1. GeoPoint ‘Antarctic’ cone specifications

Figure 3

Fig. 3. Mean tip resistance (averaged over the 30.83 mm length of the cone) vs mean, normalized and lag-adjusted (25 mm) sleeve friction (averaged over the 135 mm length of the friction sleeve) superimposed over gravimetric snow density (snow pit 1). Both mean tip resistance and mean friction vary with density.

Figure 4

Fig. 4. Variation of mean cone tip resistance (averaged over entire test depth) with penetration rate; mean values are significantly different (p < 0.01).

Figure 5

Fig. 5. Variation of mean sleeve friction (averaged over entire test depth) with penetration rate (possibly erroneous point removed); mean values are significantly different (p < 0.01).

Figure 6

Fig. 6. Variation in normalized tip resistance between cone and different sizes of plates, showing that normalized resistance decreases as penetrometer size increases. To generate comparable resistance values, large-plate data have been normalized by ~ 11, the area of the large plate divided by the area of the small plate; mean resistance over the entire depth range is plotted as a straight line.

Figure 7

Fig. 7. Inconclusive variation of tip resistance with amount of overburden removed. Each plotted point represents the average over 195 data points. Vertical bars indicate the standard error.

Figure 8

Fig. 8. Significant variation of mean sleeve friction with amount of overburden removed. Each plotted point represents the average over 195 data points. Vertical bars indicate the standard error.

Figure 9

Fig. 9. Compacted perimeter (~2 mm thick, tape for scale) observed in cross section of hole post-test, after fractured material ahead of the cone is compacted to the side forming an annulus.

Figure 10

Fig. 10. Ratio of flat-plate resistance to cone resistance generally decreases with depth, consistent with the formation of a conical mass of compacted snow on the flat plate as the test progresses.

Figure 11

Fig. 11. Low-angle conical plug routinely observed on a flat plate post-test. The flat plate has a diameter of 36 mm.