A New Correlation between SPT and CPT for Various Soils

Authors: Fauzi Jarushi, S. AlKaabim, Paul Cosentino

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.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1099380

References:

[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.