A New Correlation between SPT and CPT for Various Soils
The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) is the most
common in situ test for soil investigations. On the other hand, the
Cone Penetration Test (CPT) is considered one of the best
investigation tools. Due to the fast and accurate results that can be
obtained it complaints the SPT in many applications like field
explorations, design parameters, and quality control assessments.
Many soil index and engineering properties have been correlated to
both of SPT and CPT. Various foundation design methods were
developed based on the outcome of these tests. Therefore it is vital to
correlate these tests to each other so that either one of the tests can be
used in the absence of the other, especially for preliminary evaluation
and design purposes.
The primary purpose of this study was to investigate the
relationships between the SPT and CPT for different type of sandy
soils in Florida. Data for this research were collected from number of
projects sponsored by the Florida Department of Transportation
(FDOT), six sites served as the subject of SPT-CPT correlations. The
correlations were established between the cone resistance (qc), sleeve
friction (fs) and the uncorrected SPT blow counts (N) for various
soils.
A positive linear relationship was found between qc, fs and N for
various sandy soils. In general, qc versus N showed higher
correlation coefficients than fs versus N. qc/N ratios were developed
for different soil types and compared to literature values, the results
of this research revealed higher ratios than literature values.
[1] Akca, N. "Correlation of SPT-CPT data from the United Arab
Emirates." Engineering Geology, volume 67, 2003: 219-231.
[2] Chin, Chung-Tien, Shaw-Wei Duann, and Tsung-Chung Kao. "SPTCPT
correlations for granular soils." 1st Int'l Symposium on Penetration
Testing, 1988: Vol. 1 pp. 335-339..
[3] Dancey, Christine P., and John Reidy. Statistics Without Maths for
Psychology, Fifth Edition. Edinburgh Gate, Harlow.England: Pearson
Education Limited, 2011.
[4] Danziger, F. A. B., C. F. Politano, and B. R. Danziger. "CPT-SPT
correlations for some Brazilian residual soils." Geotechnical site
characterization: Proceedings of the First International Conference on
Site Characterization - ISC'98. Atlanta, Georgia, 1998.
[5] Holtz, Robert D., and William D. Kovacs. An Inroduction to
geotechnical Engineering. Englewood, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
1981.
[6] Kasim, A. G., Chu Ming-Yau, and J. N. Curtis. "Field Correlation of
Cone and Standard Penetration Tests." ASCE Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, 1986: 368- 372.
[7] Kovacs, William D., Lawrence A. Salomone, and Felix Y. Yokel.
Energy measurement in the standard penetration test. U.S. Dept. of
Commerce, National Bureau of Standards (Washington, D.C.), 1981.
[8] Kulhawy, F. H., and P. W. Mayne. Manual on Estimating Soil Properties
for Foundation Design. Palo Alto, California: Electric Power Research
Institute, 1990.
[9] Lunne, T., and K. H. Andersen. “Soft clay shear strength parameters for
deepwater geotechnical design.” Proceedings 6th International
Conference, Society for Underwater Technology. London: Offshore Site
Investigation and Geotechnics, 2007. 151-176.
[10] Lunne, T., P.K. Robertson, and J.J.M Powell. Cone Penetration Testing
in Geotechnical Practice. U. K.: Blackie Academic/Chapman-Hall
Publishers, 1997.
[11] Meigh, A.C., and I.K. Nixon. "Comparison of in-situ tests of granular
soils." Proceedings of 5th international Conference on Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering. Paris, 1961.
[12] Meyerhof, G.G. " Penetration tests and bearing capacity of cohesionless
soils." Journal of the soil mechanics and foundation division, ASCE,
Vol. 82, No. SM1, 1956: 1-19.
[13] Robertson, P. K., and (Robertson) K.L. Cabal. Guide to Cone
Penetration Testing for Geotechnical Engineering, 4th edition. Signal
Hill, California: Gregg Drilling & Testing, Inc., 2010.
[14] Robertson, P. K., and R. G. Campanella. "Interpretation of Cone
Penetration Tests: Part I: Sand." Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol.
20, No. 4, 1983: 718-733.
[15] Robertson, P.K., and R.G. Campanella. Guidelines for Use and
Interpretation of the Electrical Cone Penetration Test, 3rd ed.
Gaithersburg, MD: Hogentogller & Co., 1986.
[16] Schmertmann, J. H. "Use the SPT to Measure Dynamic Soil Properties
Dynamic Geotechnical Testing, ASTM STP 654, American Society for
Testing and Materials, 1978: 341-355.
[17] Schmertmann, J.H. Guidelines for Cone Penetration Test, Performance
and Design. Washington, D.C.: U.S.Department of Transportation,
Report No. FHWA-TS-78-209, 1978.
[18] Schmertmann, J.H. "Static Cone to Compute Static Settlement over
Sand." Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division,ACSE.,
1970: 1011-1035,Vol. 96, No. SM3.
[19] Sharma, M S Ravi, and K Ilamparuthi. "Offshore In-situ Test using
Electric Piezo Cone and its Correlation with Standard Penetration Test."
Journal of the Institution of Engineers (India). Civil Engineering
Division, 2005: 62-66. [20] Douglas, B.J. and Olsen, R.S. (1981). “Soil classification using electric
cone penetrometer,” Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing and
Experience. Proceedings of the ASCE National Convention, St. Louis,
209-227.
[21] Coduto, D. P. ( 2001). Foundation Design: Principles and Practices.
Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
[22] Courtesy of Google Maps, 2013.
[23] Sanglerat, G., The Penetrometer and Soil Exploration, Elsevier
Publishing Company, New York, N.Y., 1972.
[1] Akca, N. "Correlation of SPT-CPT data from the United Arab
Emirates." Engineering Geology, volume 67, 2003: 219-231.
[2] Chin, Chung-Tien, Shaw-Wei Duann, and Tsung-Chung Kao. "SPTCPT
correlations for granular soils." 1st Int'l Symposium on Penetration
Testing, 1988: Vol. 1 pp. 335-339..
[3] Dancey, Christine P., and John Reidy. Statistics Without Maths for
Psychology, Fifth Edition. Edinburgh Gate, Harlow.England: Pearson
Education Limited, 2011.
[4] Danziger, F. A. B., C. F. Politano, and B. R. Danziger. "CPT-SPT
correlations for some Brazilian residual soils." Geotechnical site
characterization: Proceedings of the First International Conference on
Site Characterization - ISC'98. Atlanta, Georgia, 1998.
[5] Holtz, Robert D., and William D. Kovacs. An Inroduction to
geotechnical Engineering. Englewood, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
1981.
[6] Kasim, A. G., Chu Ming-Yau, and J. N. Curtis. "Field Correlation of
Cone and Standard Penetration Tests." ASCE Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, 1986: 368- 372.
[7] Kovacs, William D., Lawrence A. Salomone, and Felix Y. Yokel.
Energy measurement in the standard penetration test. U.S. Dept. of
Commerce, National Bureau of Standards (Washington, D.C.), 1981.
[8] Kulhawy, F. H., and P. W. Mayne. Manual on Estimating Soil Properties
for Foundation Design. Palo Alto, California: Electric Power Research
Institute, 1990.
[9] Lunne, T., and K. H. Andersen. “Soft clay shear strength parameters for
deepwater geotechnical design.” Proceedings 6th International
Conference, Society for Underwater Technology. London: Offshore Site
Investigation and Geotechnics, 2007. 151-176.
[10] Lunne, T., P.K. Robertson, and J.J.M Powell. Cone Penetration Testing
in Geotechnical Practice. U. K.: Blackie Academic/Chapman-Hall
Publishers, 1997.
[11] Meigh, A.C., and I.K. Nixon. "Comparison of in-situ tests of granular
soils." Proceedings of 5th international Conference on Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering. Paris, 1961.
[12] Meyerhof, G.G. " Penetration tests and bearing capacity of cohesionless
soils." Journal of the soil mechanics and foundation division, ASCE,
Vol. 82, No. SM1, 1956: 1-19.
[13] Robertson, P. K., and (Robertson) K.L. Cabal. Guide to Cone
Penetration Testing for Geotechnical Engineering, 4th edition. Signal
Hill, California: Gregg Drilling & Testing, Inc., 2010.
[14] Robertson, P. K., and R. G. Campanella. "Interpretation of Cone
Penetration Tests: Part I: Sand." Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol.
20, No. 4, 1983: 718-733.
[15] Robertson, P.K., and R.G. Campanella. Guidelines for Use and
Interpretation of the Electrical Cone Penetration Test, 3rd ed.
Gaithersburg, MD: Hogentogller & Co., 1986.
[16] Schmertmann, J. H. "Use the SPT to Measure Dynamic Soil Properties
Dynamic Geotechnical Testing, ASTM STP 654, American Society for
Testing and Materials, 1978: 341-355.
[17] Schmertmann, J.H. Guidelines for Cone Penetration Test, Performance
and Design. Washington, D.C.: U.S.Department of Transportation,
Report No. FHWA-TS-78-209, 1978.
[18] Schmertmann, J.H. "Static Cone to Compute Static Settlement over
Sand." Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division,ACSE.,
1970: 1011-1035,Vol. 96, No. SM3.
[19] Sharma, M S Ravi, and K Ilamparuthi. "Offshore In-situ Test using
Electric Piezo Cone and its Correlation with Standard Penetration Test."
Journal of the Institution of Engineers (India). Civil Engineering
Division, 2005: 62-66. [20] Douglas, B.J. and Olsen, R.S. (1981). “Soil classification using electric
cone penetrometer,” Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing and
Experience. Proceedings of the ASCE National Convention, St. Louis,
209-227.
[21] Coduto, D. P. ( 2001). Foundation Design: Principles and Practices.
Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
[22] Courtesy of Google Maps, 2013.
[23] Sanglerat, G., The Penetrometer and Soil Exploration, Elsevier
Publishing Company, New York, N.Y., 1972.
@article{"International Journal of Earth, Energy and Environmental Sciences:69111", author = "Fauzi Jarushi and S. AlKaabim and Paul Cosentino", title = "A New Correlation between SPT and CPT for Various Soils", abstract = "The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) is the most
common in situ test for soil investigations. On the other hand, the
Cone Penetration Test (CPT) is considered one of the best
investigation tools. Due to the fast and accurate results that can be
obtained it complaints the SPT in many applications like field
explorations, design parameters, and quality control assessments.
Many soil index and engineering properties have been correlated to
both of SPT and CPT. Various foundation design methods were
developed based on the outcome of these tests. Therefore it is vital to
correlate these tests to each other so that either one of the tests can be
used in the absence of the other, especially for preliminary evaluation
and design purposes.
The primary purpose of this study was to investigate the
relationships between the SPT and CPT for different type of sandy
soils in Florida. Data for this research were collected from number of
projects sponsored by the Florida Department of Transportation
(FDOT), six sites served as the subject of SPT-CPT correlations. The
correlations were established between the cone resistance (qc), sleeve
friction (fs) and the uncorrected SPT blow counts (N) for various
soils.
A positive linear relationship was found between qc, fs and N for
various sandy soils. In general, qc versus N showed higher
correlation coefficients than fs versus N. qc/N ratios were developed
for different soil types and compared to literature values, the results
of this research revealed higher ratios than literature values.
", keywords = "In situ tests, Correlation, SPT, CPT.", volume = "9", number = "2", pages = "101-7", }
