Magneto-Gravity Simulation of Cone Penetration Test in Cohesionless Soil Under Small Gravity Fields

  • Pin-Qiang MoEmail author
  • Feng Gao
  • Guoqing Zhou
Conference paper
Part of the Sustainable Civil Infrastructures book series (SUCI)


Lunar exploration projects have been re-launched recently by countries including America, Russia, Japan, and China, aiming to develop the resource exploration outside the Earth. The fundamental understanding of the mechanisms related to the small gravity fields and the specific space regolith is the key to further plans for outpost construction and resource utilization, as well as the site investigation. Cone penetration test is believed to serve as an effective in situ tool for site investigation in deep space exploration. The interpretation of CPT data under small gravity fields is investigated in this paper with the focus on the effect of gravity ranging from 1/6 to 4 g. Linear increase of cone tip resistance is observed for a shallow penetration, whereas the resistance increases with g-level under small gravity fields at a certain depth. The normalised penetration resistance is found to decrease exponentially with the g-level, and a relationship between the normalised penetration resistance and g-level is therefore proposed with comparisons of data from DEM simulation. Correlations between soil properties and CPT measurements are thus modified for the interpretation and application of in situ tests in the near-earth space exploration.



The author would like to acknowledge financial support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (no. 51323004), 111 Project (B14021) and Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province (no. BK20170279).


  1. Baldi, G., Bellotti, R., Ghionna, V.N., Jamiolkowski, M., Pasqualini, E.: Interpretation of CPTs and CPTUs; 2nd part: drained penetration of sand. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Geotechnical Seminar, Singapore, pp. 143–156 (1986)Google Scholar
  2. Bolton, M.D., Gui, M.W.: The study of relative density and boundary effects for cone penetration tests in centrifuge. Technical Report CUED/DSOILS/TR256, University of Cambridge (1993)Google Scholar
  3. Bolton, M.D., Gui, M.W., Phillips, R.: Review of miniature soil probes for model tests. In: Proceedings of 11th South East Asia Geotechnical Conference, pp. 85–91 (1993)Google Scholar
  4. Bolton, M.D., Gui, M.W., Garnier, J., Corte, J.F., Bagge, G., Laue, J., Renzi, R.: Centrifuge cone penetration tests in sand. Géotechnique 49(4), 543–552 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Colwell, J.E., Taylor, M.: Low-velocity microgravity impact experiments into simulated regolith. Icarus 138(2), 241–248 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dou, H., Byrne, P.M.: Dynamic response of single piles and soil pile interaction. Can. Geotech. J. 33(1), 80–96 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gui, M., Bolton, M.D., Garnier, J., Corte, J.F., Bagge, G., Laue, J., Renzi, R.: Guidelines for cone penetration tests in sand. In: International Conference on Centrifuge Modelling (Centrifuge’98), Balkema, vol. 1, pp. 155–160 (1998)Google Scholar
  8. Jamiolkowski, M., Lo Presti, D.C.F., Manassero, M.: Evaluation of relative density and shear strength of sands from CPT and DMT. Soil Behav. Soft Ground Constr. 7(119), 201–238 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jiang, M.J., Wang, X.X.: Numerical analysis of cone penetration tests under different gravity fields by distinct element method. Rock Soil Mech. 34(3), 863–873 (2013)Google Scholar
  10. Johnson, S.W., Pyrz, A.P., Lee, D.G.: Simulating the effect of gravitational field and atmosphere on behavior of granular media. J. Spacecr. Rocket 7(11), 1311–1317 (1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lancellotta, R.: Analisi di affidabilita in ingegneria geotechnica. Technical Report 625, Politernico di Torino (1983)Google Scholar
  12. Li, R.L., Zhou, G.Q., Chen, G.Z., et al.: Development of a new geo-mechanical magnetic sensing soils similar material. Funct. Mater. 19(43), 2620–2623 (2012)Google Scholar
  13. Meyers, C., Toutanji, H.: Analysis of lunar-habitat structure using waterless concrete and tension glass fibers. J. Aerosp. Eng. 20(4), 220–226 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mo, P.Q., Marshall, A.M., Yu, H.S.: Centrifuge modelling of cone penetration tests in layered soils. Géotechnique 65(6), 468–481 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Nakamura, T., Senior, C.L.: Solar thermal power for lunar materials processing. J. Aerosp. Eng. 21(2), 91–101 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Robertson, P.K., Wride, C.E.: Evaluating cyclic liquefaction potential using the cone penetration test. Can. Geotech. J. 35(3), 442–459 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sture, S., Costes, N.C., Batiste, S.N., et al.: Mechanics of granular materials at low effective stresses. J. Aerospace Eng. 11(3), 67–72 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Tatsuoka, F., Zhou, S., Sato, T., Shibuya, S.: Evaluation method of liquefaction potential and its application. Technical report, Ministry of Education of Japan (1990)Google Scholar
  19. Thomas, V.A., Prasad, N.S., Reddy, C.A.M.: Microgravity research platforms—a study. Cur. Sci. 79(3), 336–340 (2000)Google Scholar
  20. Xu, X.T.: Investigation of the end bearing performance of displacement piles in sand. Ph.D. thesis, The University of Western Australia (2007)Google Scholar
  21. Zelikson, A.: Geotechnical models using the hydraulic gradient similarity method. Géotechnique 19(4), 495–508 (1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Zhou, G.Q., Li, R.L., Chen, G.Z., Zhao, X.D., Wang, J.Z., Liang, H.C., Lin, C., Lai, Z.J., Chen, X.: Geotechnical magnetic-similitude-gravity model testing method. Unpublished report (2016)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.State Key Laboratory for Geomechanics and Deep Underground EngineeringChina University of Mining and TechnologyXuzhouChina
  2. 2.School of Mechanics and Civil EngineeringChina University of Mining and TechnologyXuzhouChina

Personalised recommendations