Professional Documents
Culture Documents
net/publication/269130570
Estimating Shear Strength Properties of Soils Using SPT Blow Counts: An Energy
Balance Approach
CITATIONS READS
2 901
2 authors, including:
Hiroshan Hettiarachchi
United Nations University (UNU)
54 PUBLICATIONS 588 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Hiroshan Hettiarachchi on 18 March 2015.
ABSTRACT: The subsurface exploration of a site is often the aspect of a project that
gets overlooked during the design process. Many clients will get standard soil
borings, but do not want to pay for a full laboratory analysis. Lack of data forces the
designer to estimate important engineering properties of the soil. Very often the
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blow counts are used to estimate the shear strength
properties of soil in foundation designs. Few correlations are widely used. However,
no clear explanation is found to justify the selection most of these mathematical
equations. This manuscript describes a new approach to estimate the shear strength
parameters based on the SPT blow counts. In this method, the standard penetration
test is treated analogous to driving a miniature pipe pile. The energy input to the soil
is used to correlate the SPT blow count to the shear strength parameters of the soil at
the depth of testing. Soil boring records from few different sites were analyzed and a
statistical analysis revealed that the proposed method can provide a better estimation
than the widely used existing correlations.
INTRODUCTION
A combination of soil borings and laboratory testing is the most reliable method
available to obtain accurate shear strength properties for subsurface soils. Many
projects, due to limited budgets, tight schedules, or lack of concern, do not usually
have the luxury of getting laboratory recommendations. In many cases, the only
subsurface exploration performed consists of soil borings with a log recording the soil
type and classification, depth of water table and SPT blow counts. Lack of lab data
forces the designer to estimate the properties of the soil.
When laboratory data is not available, it is a common practice to estimate the
shear parameters from the of the SPT results. There are many charts and tables
available to make direct correlations between the SPT blow count (N) and the angle
of internal friction () and undrained cohesion (cu). These estimations should be
made by individuals who have a thorough understanding of soil behaviors. It has
Page 1
ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 179, ISBN 978-0-7844-0972-5
been the authors’ experience that this is often times not the case. Engineers with little
or no experience in evaluating soil borings and estimating and cu are sometimes
expected to design foundations. It is very common for an inexperienced designer to
use a design chart which is not fully understood. It is this practice that shows a strong
need for a reliable tool to assist in design when a complete laboratory analysis is
unavailable.
Results from a laboratory research by Gibbs and Holtz (1957) showed that
overburden pressure could significantly affect the SPT blow count. Schmertmann
(1975) considered overburden pressure to develop a relationship between N60 and .
This correlation can be mathematically approximated as follows (Kulhawy and
Mayne, 1990) where is the effective overburden pressure and pa is the
atmospheric pressure.
0.34
tan 1
N 60 /
12 .2 20 .3 p
(2)
a
Despite the research shown above, there have been few other attempts to correlate
directly to N60 without considering overburden pressure (Peck et al., 1953, and
Japan Road Assoc., 1990). Hatanaka and Uchida (1996) tested high quality,
undisturbed frozen samples from few sites in a standard triaxial apparatus and the
friction angles were compared against the corresponding N60. They proposed the
following equation to estimate where CN is a factor to correct N60 to a standard
overburden pressure (100 kPa).
Page 2
ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 179, ISBN 978-0-7844-0972-5
Correlating cu to N60 has been attempted many times. Efforts have been made to
find a general relationship for all clay types. The following equation presented by
Terzaghi and Peck (1967) is one of the more commonly used methods of estimating
cu for all clay types.
cu 0.06 pa N 60 (4)
cu 0.29 pa N60
0.72
(5)
f ca K tan (6)
It is assumed that the lateral pressure on the inside of the sampler is zero. Inside
surface area of a standard sampler is approximately 70% of the outside. Therefore,
equation 7 can be simplified to:
The energy transferred by the hammer to the soil (E2) is the total work done by
the hammer times the hammer efficiency (). However, it is convenient to use
standardized N60 instead of the field N which results in the following equation where
W is the hammer weight and h is the drop height.
Page 3
ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 179, ISBN 978-0-7844-0972-5
Assuming that there is no other energy lost to the system, equation 8 and 9 can be
set equal to each other to find N60 as a function of shear strength parameters. D is the
outer diameter of the sampler. Shear strength parameters are made non-dimensional
by dividing them by pa.
Aouter d Dd 2 pa c
N 60 (1.7ca K tan ) (1.7 a K tan ) (10)
0.6Wh 0.6Wh pa pa
The parameters pa, D, d, W, and h are constants and hence can be replaced by a
constant (B) to form a general equation.
ca
N 60 B(1.7 K tan ) (11)
pa pa
2000 lb
2in 12 in 2 2
Dd pa2
144 in 5.0
B (12)
0.6Wh 0.6140 lb 30 in
For granular soils, adhesion (ca) is zero. Angle of friction between soil and pile
material (steel in this case) is typically assumed to be proportional to soil friction i.e.,
= where is the constant of proportionality. Reese et al. (2006) proposed to use
K=0.8 for open ended pipe piles which are driven unplugged. Therefore, when the
soil is granular the general equation can be deduced to the following.
N 60 B K tan 5 0.8 tan 4 tan (13)
pa pa pa
1 p
tan 1 0.25 N 60 a (14)
For cohesive soils is zero. Adhesion between soil and pile material (steel in this
case) is typically assumed to be proportional to undrained cohesion i.e., ca=cu where
is the constant of proportionality.
Page 4
ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 179, ISBN 978-0-7844-0972-5
ca c c
N 60 B(1.7 ) 5 1.7 u 8.5 u (15)
pa pa pa
1 pa
cu N 60 (16)
8.5
The estimated and values were used to analyze 2 sets of data to verify the
usefulness of the proposed 2 equations. Data used for this verification are presented
in Tables 1 and 2.
The laboratory values of were compared to those predicted by Equation 14 in
Figure 1. Predictions by equations 1, 2, and 3 were also included in Figure 1 for
comparison. Overburden pressure correction proposed by Liao and Whitman (1986)
was used with Hatanaka and Uchida (1996) method. Performance of all equations
was compared by the distribution of error which was defined as the percent deviation
of the calculated friction angle from the measured. This comparison is presented in
Table 3. With the lowest average and standard deviation in error, statistically, the
proposed equation does a better estimation than other equations. It is also noticed that
for the given set of data, the proposed equation generates more conservative results
(slightly underestimate), while other methods overestimate. However, it has to be
tested with more sets of data to see if it is a general trend.
Figure 2 compares the laboratory measured cu to those predicted by Equation 16.
Predictions by Terzaghi and Peck (1967) equation are also included in Figure 2. Hara
et al. (1974) equation was not considered in the analysis as the geological history of
the soil was not known to make a fair comparison. Statistical distribution of percent
errors by both proposed and Terzaghi and Peck (1967) equations are also presented in
Table 3. High standard deviation in percent error indicates a less reliable correlation.
However, the proposed equation (Eq. 16) still does a better estimation than Terzaghi
and Peck (1967) method. In addition, the prediction by the proposed equation is
conservative (slightly underestimates).
When in equation 16 is replaced by the estimated value, it produces
cu=0.04paN60 which is different from Terzaghi and Peck (1967) only by the
proportionality constant (0.04 instead of 0.06). In a way the proposed method
supports what Terzaghi and Peck (1967) suggested, i.e. N60 is directly proportional to
cu. However, the high standard deviation indicates that both methods perhaps lack
details specific to cohesive soils such as overconsoldated ratio and in-situ moisture
content.
Page 5
ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 179, ISBN 978-0-7844-0972-5
Page 6
ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 179, ISBN 978-0-7844-0972-5
communications with the drilling companies revealed that they have conducted some
direct shear tests and unconfined compressive strength tests. However, details of the
laboratory testing were not available with the borehole records.
50
45
Friction Angle_calculated
40
35 Proposed
Wolff (1989)
30 Kulhawy and Mayne (1990)
Friction Angle_measured
4500
4000
3500
Cu_calculated (psf)
3000
2500
2000
1500
Proposed
1000
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
Cu_measured (psf)
Page 7
ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 179, ISBN 978-0-7844-0972-5
CONCLUSIONS
REFERENCES
Brown, T.S. (2007). “Estimating shear strength properties of soils using SPT results,”
Graduate Project Report, Department of Civil Engineering, Lawrence
Technological University, Southfield MI.
Gibbs, H.J. and Holtz, W.G. (1957). "Research on determining the density of sand by
spoon penetration test," Proc. 4th ICSMFE, Vol. 1, pp. 35-39.
Hara, A., Ohta, T., Niwa, M., Tanaka, S., and Banno, T., (1974). “Shear Modulus and
Shear Strength of Cohesive Soils,” Soils and Foundations, Vol.14, No.3, pp.1-12.
Hatanka, M. and Uchida, A. (1996). “Empirical correlation between penetration
resistance and internal friction angle of sandy soils,” Soils and Foundations, Vol.
36, No. 4, pp. 1-9.
Japan Road Association (1990). Specifications for highway bridges, Part IV.
Kulhawy, F.H. and Mayne, P.W. (1990). Manual on estimating soil properties for
foundation design, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA.
Liao, S.S.C. and Whitman, R.V. (1986). “Overburden correction factors for SPT in
sand,” J. of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 112, No. 3, pp. 373-377.
Meyerhof, G.G. (1956). “Penetration tests and bearing capacity of cohesionless
soils,” J. of Soil Mech. and Foundations Div., ASCE, Vol.82, No.SM1, pp.1-19.
Peck, R.B., Hanson, W.E., and Thornburn, T.H. (1953). Foundation Engineering,
John Wiley and Sons, pp. 222.
Peck, R.B., Hanson, W.E., and Thornburn, T.H.,(1974). Foundation Engineering, 2nd
ed., John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
Reese, L.C., Isenhower, W.M., and Wand, S.T. (2006). Analysis and Designing of
Shallow and Deep Foundations, John Wiley and Sons, pp.574.
Schmertmann, J.H. (1975). “Measurement of In-Situ Shear Strength", Proc., ASCE
Specialty Conference on In-Situ Measurement of Soil Properties, Vol. 2, Raleigh,
SC, pp. 57-138.
Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R.B. (1976). Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, 2nd ed.,
John Wiley and Sons, New York, pp. 729.
Wolff, T.F. (1989). “Pile capacity prediction using parameter functions,” ASCE
Geotechnical Special Publication No. 23, pp. 96-107.
Page 8