| {MN SITU FESTS | SPT METHIOOS. | 2age 4 & * SPT = Standard Pere pasar Posh CG | + Reem of tether of borchohe * Measure of sold resistance Gyoumle pene rration * Obtains a cisturbed sample of s01:/ * Can be pertormed on a wide variety of soils : Ustolly Used for Senilar soks (sands 1 fore greed) Moa common Ge of b2 sifte geotechnical fesP * Can be pertormed with most sor) drill rigs * Focedure (Isr p/sBb) + Advance boring po farger depth + Ck 7 pole by rotating dei bi} shouts OC at farger Sotk, hoe oohanenng a7 * Femwe geil rods slowly, while, maim tern ia the bee) of fad ip $he Gorchoe or casihg abere rhe ground water Jevel. le Lore hole. heave. > Sos, ea ‘oeaing Correc# Zn correct saad + Wek: Water ferel yn bore pole will ata a5 abil rad 1s removed belause, CG the Geil has diyolaced seme water: You may have to add wafer, before or ascyou remove the drill red.M Site TESTS SPT METHODS PHGE 2 F B Procedure (conf) o + eave must be previited 50 28 not fo loosen Abe Sond ond Cause errenceisly toi bbw Coutts * Standard 210 00 sampler (3 caretally Jewere! 7% the bottom of hole. (See Figure. t), ° Se ests at bottom of he Fb MU EG C5 Cogs OF O07 Fel ve + (40 16, (63.649) hammer js and alle? LA RS 9) Peoees ie sere ond allwe ET + Aammer stikes collar (donut hammer) or roo i of rod (safety hammer) and pransters energ: down fhe rod”, to the sampler, which 1s a1tep jato fhe soil * Number of blows 3 Counted and recerded ro drive Yhe sampler, phree 6 inch intervale.. The frsf 6 inch jatervel 7s recorded bur nop used (2 Cal culafing the blow count because (7? 7s considered Co a searing arlye. vo borehole co” “6 a 7 a blow count or SPT HV & 7 Value /s sum of final fwo b nfervals Gey SPT M = /#). ed att, CMie Cbd Sled Jar, labeled and frangpeer ted ro Vaboraterg. + Hammer Types (SPT) + Donut Hammer (Ste Figure 3) CO + Sekt Hammer (see Figure 4) - Aufomafic Trip Heanner- * simpler po satek; hammer, bul has aupomatic YIt and rtjeas® mechehl sty.YM SITU TESTS | SPT METHOS | PAGE _3 AF 8B * SPT advantages reletively guich Simoee a widely gta lable COAST. PRCKHMSIVE ranted a Samok (samgle is retoiered) (adex of relative, dens: Fy * indie of strength 7 t index, of Compress) 6/11 ° Can be used 48 penetrate dense layers, gr, § bl) + SPT cbsadvanfages ecturacy (5 operat dependen? * an 20h be pePormad 14 terse grare|, cobbles, euUlders - an cop become obstructed F erroneously Ae Valdes ° DOP cchable for cohesionfess silts (dynamic giehs a7? samphr typ Cay lead fp errontous’ strengths an gepress bili aetermipnalons Bas Like pearing gor Clays and, gensitive Clays © SL Ls cuund value 493 Ye, epen “yon how rye js wour around Nie ed (See Figure 2) rotehn, ; a cathedd 2%: wraps areund cafhead to operatorMM. SIT FEST: | Ser merinoos | PCE # oF 8 * SPT Stendard- zed Biow Count - We)eo ° Gecause fhe SPT A Las ture, Seenden? on ad, ors C. ota Aamir, sawesiirs 1, ee Le/4, oe), rE dS @ “fo 3: Word’? be ts wee br engineritg. ap Gyolice VO7S . * = hammer energy ratio ° stendard = 2%, of Nig Shegrasbcal, wnat Mak: Kncye energy Alineed Jo the ‘“UuZ $2. por stendard sabety Aammer ae 2 fr donut harmpmer- “Ue 2 Ar automatic trye hemmer- : Ve = Grrechon for rod 4ngl Zen jf (a) Ze L>4 400 6 1\%a _ j\ree ow = (Fr) -(h) * Formule pr standardiecd fy court, 4 )éo 4), = N° OD hte where N= eld or untorreeked bad Count * Nofe) Dome empirical correlefans with SPT date and enginterine properties peguire (N, values AEG TIE (Gre OD , bo hel b, ° Nope! (“) ne Jas been womalecd? Beh FF Mewes caf PNALO Mh. / subserypt means the? WM has beer vermelized + 2 depth of Ve'=/ kt using C,, + Mote: Could we calalete a (My), value, /f we Know the hammer cnergy ratio rr the > Aanmer used 10 Yhe field was #5 % of max: Yar MW ERA t _ ome Correlations le 46t 70 or 80% of Sheercheal macimun hathmger- th ty as & standard,(N-s 17 7ESTS | SPT METHIOS HEE 6 FB Vauke L- SPT Sampler ( Splt- Soon Sanpler) Laisin a Arte aed ee Dal os Baten Go mek ake moc satanonsmpey PRS gata xatémm same Rane Stamper oe awstats OBE artery) sand then close hea the tube is withdrawn Spring sample Fodrive shoe G-—vent holes tuseé with C) (a) Standard spie barrel sampler. Trap valve sample retainer used to secover muds and watery samples (0) Split barrel sampler inserts Y FIGURE 156 Spitspoon sampler, unsssembled1M SVT TESTS | SPT METS | PHGE 7 oF & FIGURE 2 - Fy, bemiag SPT Crown sheavel s) or pulley(s) Typically in. (25mm) diameter manila rope Donut hammer shown Slip or guide pipe Anvil Drill rod Ground surface ae Ui Borehole Peay ti 1Bin, (457 mm) FIGURE 3 - SPT Donut Hanmer 3.375in, (85.7mni as * Coled donut hammer because of large, 10 Pull cop ——-] 4in (102 mm) S/ te * Olde tyes of hai Lo ices. woh of Heguny —r + Hanmer +s unsate 8.75 (10 10.75)in, * Hammer 5 noo es neue (222 49 273 mm) neste pte a7s 10 to 675)in efficient in delivering i | (288 16 Mmm) Kinetic energy ¥ 12.75 int Sémpler (69.9mm) ‘Donut hammer -) | rod eae sin vie or aie poe Ittot.z5n a “iss 10 3.8mm) ring optional! Ain L102 emt su ate 4 siemeter ve teed or one Counting to duit odLM SITU TESTS. SPT METHODS PAGE 8B F 8B FIGURE ff — SPT Satetly Hammer’ -@ 47.75i0, | (213m) | 43.125in, | (035m) i a Rat sin AT SSiinm Bani “fT oT [sieeve | 3425in, || Grom a ‘Center rod | 2.25in. 1_LestimmiL Jtuide cop | Sin (127mm) Figure A-2. SPT Safecy Hanaer‘appendix A STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ‘The standard penetration test (SPT) {s performed during a test boring to obtain an approxinate measure of the soil resistance to dynamic penetration and a disturbed sample of the soil, Although the test can be performed in a wide variety of sotls, the most consistent results are found in sandy soils where large gravel particles ste absent. Almost all U.S. soil drilling rigs are equipped to perform the SPT. In fact, the SPT is the most comon in-situ geotechnical test in the world (1) PROCEDURE ‘The detailed procedure for the SPT is described in ASTM D1586 (2), and a complete theoretical analysis of the statics and dynamics of the SPT is given by Schnertmann G4) ‘To perform the test, the drilling crew, after advancing the test boring to the desired depth, first removes the string of drill rods slowly and cleans out the hole to the desired depth of testing. During this procedure, the head of water in the hole is meintained at or above the ground water level to avoid an inflow of water into the hole that can disturb the soil and cause erroneously low (conserva- tive) test results. After the drilling tools are removed, a standard 51 mm (2 in) 0.0. split spoon sampler, as shown in Figure A-1, is attached to the drill rods and lowered carefully to che bottom of the hole, With the sampler resting at the bot- tom of the hole, a 63.6 kg (140 Ib) weight is allowed to fall freely 762 ma (30 in) On. 8 porns pr fete th ek [349ml | 38.104 Stemi tee 16" to23"| Balt ‘Vent eae" ceementtet teas pan Figure A-l, Standard Splic-Spoon Sampler Source: American Society for Testing and Materials (2), p. 223.onto « collar that is attached to the top of che drill string until 460 ma (18 in) of penetration has been achieved (er 100 blows have been applied) The two wost conmon hammers in North American practice are the safety and donut hammers. The safety hanmer illustrated in Figure A-2 is a long weight which slides over the drill rods and impacts against an internal anvil. The donut hammer {1lus- trated in Figure A-3 is a short, wide voight centered on a guide pipe which strikes fen external anvil above the drill rods. Aleernatively, but now uncommon in U.S. practice, a 63.6 kg (140 1b) pin-guided weight Le allowed to drop freely on the top of the drill string, The overall equipment and setup for che SPT are shown in Figure A-d ‘The nunber of blows (or drops of the weight) is recorded for each of three 152 am (6 tn) intervals; the first generally is considered a seating drive, and the nunber of blows for the final 305 mn (12 in) is reported as the standard penetration resistance or N value. After the sampler has been brought back to the surface, the Sem 775m See ase igi) sisi iegom | sieeve 3425in (Stomm ame Center rod 20m tstmmi Side ow Ta tam Figure A-?, SPT Safety Hanner Source: Kovaes, et al. (5), p. 11 a2 Y4in.(102 mm) r= Eye bolts for cot head rope 8.75 (10 10.75)in (22210 273 mm) 4atvodaiin | @ i (1.218 to 1067) Tea 10 (to 6.75) t (284 t0 17 mm) ‘Donut hommer [== buide sto pine or drive pipe 1 (t01.25)in Sin 127m (25.4 10 3.8mm) ring (optional 4in.(102 md Sin. (127mm) igmeter rive head or an = Coupling to drill rod SS Figure A-3. SPT Donut Hanmer Source: Kovacs, et al. (5), p. 10 samples are removed and classified, before being placed into jars, Labeled, and sealed with vax for transport ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES The advantages of the SPT are that it is relatively quick and simple to perforn, and it is widely available. It is relatively inexpensive and provides, with one Procedure, both a sample and a soil test result. The test also provides a useful index of the relative strength and compressibility of the soil in che imnediate vicinity of the test. In addition, the test 4s able to penetrate relatively diffi- cult materials such as dense layers, gravels, and fillsCrown sheove(s) or pulleys) Typically tin.(25mm) diameter manila rope Donut hammer shown Slip oF guide Pipe Anvil Drill rod Ground surface 1Bin. (457 mm) Figure A-4. Equipment Used to Perform the SPT Source: Kovaes, et al. (6), p. 3 ‘The disadvantage of the SPT 1g that it has many sources of errr, both random and systematic (J - 10). The accuracy of the test is in large part dependent the details of the procedure followed and the equipment used by the drilling crew, 20 that the care and knowledge of the drillers forms a critical factor in the test accuracy, ‘The SPT should not be relied on in soils containing coarse gravel, cobbles, or boulders, because the sampler can become obstructed, giving erroneously high and unconservative N values. The test also should not be relied on for cohestonless silts, because dynamic effects at the sampler tip can lead to erroneous strength and compressibility determinations. In addition, the test has little meaning in soft end sensitive clays. In such soils, the SPT yields results inconsistent with actual in-situ conditions If the head of water in the hole is not maintained at or above the ground water At Ylevel, piping can occur at the bottom of the hole which can loosen the soil and invalidate the test results. This problem can be minimized by returning water to the hole as the drilling tools are renoved prior co conducting the SPT. Studies by Kovacs (11) showed that the SPT is highly dependent on the method of winding the hammer rope around the cathead on the drill rig. While seemingly a minor detail, these studies showed that when two turns of rope are used, as ts con- non practice in the U.S., N values are about 40 porcent higher than when a free. fall trip monkey or one turn vas used. ‘This example {lustrates the level of uncertainty involved. Im addition, many older correlations of N values with engineering properties vere based on pin-guided weights, which are mo longer used for the SPT. The rod-guided hanmers in present use can lead co slightly higher (unconservative) N values. SOURCES OF ERROR, RELIABILITY, AND COST The SPT has nunerous sources of error chat Limit {ts use in foundation design. & List ef many of the important sources of error and their probable effects on the SPT results is given in Table A-1. Factors that tend to increase the N values err fon the unconservative side by overestimating soil strength and/or stiffness. How: ever, most correlations of the SPT with engineering properties tend to be somevhat conservative. Other important issues influencing the N value are discussed in detail by Schmertmann (10) In addition to these sources of error, a number of soil mechanics factors affect the test results and the correlations of N value with engineering properties These factors include particle size, shape, and minoralogy; soil sensitivity, per meability, and degree of saturation; time lapse between drilling and testing; spac- ing of samples; depth of sampler penecratto relative depth of the boring; and size of the vent area of the sampler, The reliability of the SPT is best where it is used as an index test to determine the approximate strength and compressibility of sandy sof] strata for preliminary design purposes. For exanple, a soll with an N value of 50 is unlikely to exhibit any major problems with respect to strength or compressibility for spread footings; fon the other hand, 2 sof] with an N value of 2 or 3 can be expected to pose signi- ficant difficulties Although it is difficult to quantify the costs of SPT in remote areas, one approach as.Table A-1 MAJOR SOURCES OF ERROR IN THE STANDARD PENETRATION TEST Influence on Cause Effect N Value Inadequate cleaning of hole SPT is not made in original: in-situ Increases soil, and therefore soil may becone trapped in sampler and be compressed as sampler is driven, reducing recovery Failure to maintain adequate Bottom of borehole may become quick Decreases. head of water in the borehole Careless measurement of han- Hanmer energy varies (generally, Increases wer drop variations cluster on the low side) Hanser weight inaccurate Hanmer energy varies (driller sup- _Inereases or plies weight; variations of 5 to 7 decreases Percent are common) Hammer strikes drill rod col- Hammer energy reduced Increases lar eccentrically Lack of hemer free fall Hammer energy reduced Increases because of ungreased sheaves, new stiff rope on weight, more than two turns on eat= head, incomplete release of rope during each drop Sampler driven above bottom Sampler driven in disturbed, arti- Increases of casing ficially deneified soil greatly Careless blow count Inaccurate results Increases or decreases Use of non-standard sampler Correlations with standard sampler Increases or invalid decreases Coarse gravel or cobbles in Sampler becomes clogged or impeded _Increases soil Use of bent drill rods Inhibited transfor of energy of sam- Increases pler Source; Kalhawy, et al. G2), p. 5-26is to determine the daily drill rig charge and divide by the number of teste obtainable in one day, All-terral vehicles in 1980 cost about $1000 co $1500 per day and, during a typical day, 10 to 20 tests might be obtained. Therefore, the unit charge could be approximated as $50 co $150 per test, including drilling 1.0 co 1.5 m (3 to 5 £t) between teste. ‘These Figures are intended only as a relative neasure of the cost of performing the SPT for comparison with other field explora- tion techniques REFERENCES: 1, DeCoure, L., Muromachi, T., Nixon, I. X., Schmertmann, J. H., Thorburn, S., and Zolkov, E., "Standard Penetration Test: International Reference Test Pro- cedures", Proceedings, Ist International Symposium on Penetration Testing (isopt-1), Vol. 1, Orlando, 1988, pp. 3-26 2. American Soclety for Testing and Materials, "Standard Method for Penetration ‘Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils (D1586-84)", Annual Book of Standards, Vol. 4.08, ASTM, Philadelphia, 1989, pp. 221-225, 3. Schertmann, J. H., "Statics of SPT", Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 105, No. GTS, May 1979, pp. 665-670. 4. Schmertmann, J. H. and Palacios, A., "Energy Dynamics of SPT", Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 105, No. GTS, Aug. 1979, pp. 903-926 5. Kovacs, W. D., Salomone, L, A., and Yokel, F. Y., "Comparison of Energy Meas- urements in the Standard Penetration Test Using the Cathead and Rope Method", Report NUREG/CR-3545, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, 1983, 69 p. 6. Kovace, W, D., Salomone, L. A., and Yokel, F, ¥., “Energy Measurements in the Standard Penetration Test", Building Science Series 135, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, 1981, 73 p. 7. Fletcher, G. F. A., "Standard Penetration Test: Ite Usés and Abuses", Journal of the Sotl Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol. 91, No, SMé, July 1965, pp. 67-75 8. Ireland, H. 0., Moretto, 0., and Vargas, M., "The Dynamic Penetration Test: A Standard That Is Not Standardized", Geotechhtque, Vol. 20, No. 2, June 1970, pp. 185-192 9. Orchant, C. J., Kulhayy, P. H., and Trautmann, C. H., "Relfability-Based Foun dation Design for Transmission Line Structures: Critical Evaluation of In-Sicu Test Methods", Report 61-5507, Vol, 2, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, 1988, 214 p 10. Schnertmann, J. Hl., "Use the SPT to Measure Soil Properties? - Yes, But..! Dynamic Geotechnical Testing (STP 654), ASTM, Philadelphia, 1978, pp. 341-355. LL, Kovaes, W. D., "What Constitutes a Turn?", Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM, Vol. 3, No. 3, Sept. 1980, pp. 127-130.12, Kothawy, FW, Trautmann, ©. H., Beech, J. F., O'Rourke, T. D., Necutze, #, tod, Al, and Enpanay Gy “Tcansuiseion Line Structure Foundschons, for Uv Uplift-Compression Loading", Report EL-2870, Electric Power Research Insti- tute, Palo Alto, 1983, 412 p a8iy Designation: D 1586 - 84 (Reapproved 1992)" Standard Test Method for Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils’ ‘This standard js ise under the Fed designation D 158; the number immediatly following the desination india the year of ‘ginal adoption on the ae of eision the year fat evsion. A number in patentee cls te year lst eappoval A ‘upererptepsn eines an citar change since the las evi o fear This tandard has eon approved for se by agencies ofthe Dopanment of Defense. Comal the DOD Inde of Spetcations and ‘Standards for he specie yar of isu hich has Ban adopted By the Deparment of Deen ‘Rov Faltoral anges were made hrovgowt Onober (WE 1. Scope 1.1 This test method describes the procedure, generally known as the Standard Penetration Test (SPT), for driving a split-barrel sampler to obtain a representative soil sample 4nd a measure of the resistance of the soil to penetration of the sampler, 1.2 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety problems, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appro- priate safety and health practices and determine the applica- bility of regulatory limitations prior to use. For a specific precautionary statement, see 5.4.1. 1.3 The values stated in inch-pound units are to be regarded as the standard. 2. Referenced Documents 2. ASTM Standards: 1D 2487 Test Method for Classification of Soils for Engi- neering Purposes? D 2488 Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure)? 14220 Practices for Preserving and Transporting Soil Samples* 4633 Test Method for Stress Wave Energy Measure- ‘ment for Dynamic Penetrometer Testing Systems? 3. Terminology 31 Descriptions of Terms Specific to This Standard 3.1 anvil—that portion of the drive-weight assembly which the hammer strikes and through which the hammer energy passes into the dil rods 3.1.2 cathead—the rotating drum or windlass in the rope-athead lift system around which the operator wraps a ‘ope to lift and drop the hammer by successively tightening and loosening the rope turms around the drum. 3.1.3 drill rods—rods used to transmit downward force and torque to the drill bit while drilling a borehole. 314 driveweight assembly—a device consisting of the "This method is under the juris of ASTM Commitee De18 om iad Auch andthe direct eponsblty of Subcomnitee DI8.02 on Sampling ed eked Felé Tesing for So Inventions ‘erent edition aproved Sept 1, 1984 Published November 1986, Origialy pbsned a D 1586 8 T Last previous edition DIS86 67 (1998), "dnmal Boi of ASTM Standards, Vol 0808 129 hammer, hammer fall guide, the anvil, and any hammer drop system, 3.1.5 hammer—that portion of the drive-weight assembly consisting of te 140-2 Ib (63.5. La impact weight which is successively lifted and dropped to provide the energy that accomplishes the sampling and penetration. 3.1.6 hammer drop system—that portion of the drive- weight assembly by which the operator accomplishes the lifting and dropping of the hammer to produce the blow. 3.1.7 hammer fall guide—that part of the drive-weight assembly used to guide the fall of the hammer. 3.1.8 N-value—the blowcount representation of the pene- ‘ation resistance of the soil. The N-value, reported in blows Per foot, equals the sum of the number of blows required 10 rive the sampler over the depth interval of 6 10 18 in. (150 SO cnet na a see. ‘AN—the number of blows obtained from each of the 6-in. (150-mm) intervals of sampler penetration (see 7.3) 3.1.10 number of rope turns—the total contact angle between the rope and the cathead at the beginning of the ‘operator's rope slackening to drop the hammer, divided by 360" (see Fig. 1) 3.1.11. sampling rods—rods that connect the drive-weight assembly to the sampler. Drill rods are often used for this purpose. 3.1.12. SPT—abbreviation for Standard Penetration Test, ‘term by which engineers commonly refer to this method. 4, Significance and Use 4.1 This test method provides a soil sample for identifica tion purposes and for laboratory tests appropriate for soil ‘obtained from a sampler that may produce large shear strain disturbance in the sample. 4.2 This test method is used extensively in a great variety of geotechnical exploration projects. Many local correlations and widely published correlations which relate SPT blow- count, or A-value, and the engineering behavior of earth- works and foundations are available, 5. Apparatus 5.1 Drilling Equipment—Any drilling equipment that provides at the time of sampling a suitably clean open hole before insertion of the sampler and ensures that the penetra- tion testis performed on undisturbed soil shall be acceptable. ‘The following pieces of equipment have proven to beib b 1586 [Ss (0) counterclockwise rotation sproxmatly Tus, add PS Be (0) close rotation appronmatly 24 tus FIG. 1. Definitions of the Number of Rope Tums the Angle for [+= —Rope Operator here y Cathead Section AA. Section 8-8 (2) Countorclockwise Rotation and (b) Clockwise Rotation of the ‘Cathoad suitable for advancing a borehole in some subsurface condi- tions. S.l.1 Drag, Chopping, and Fishtail Bits, less than 6.5 in. (162 mm) and greater than 2.2 in. (56 mm) in diameter may be used in conjuction with open-hole rotary drilling or casing-advancement drilling methods. To avoid disturbance of the underlying soil, bottom discharge bits are not per- mitted; only side discharge bits are permitted. 5.1.2 Roller-Cone Bits, less than 6.5 in, (162 mm) and greater than 2.2 in, (56 mm) in diameter may be used in conjunction with open-hole rotary drilling or casing-ad- vancement drilling methods if the drilling fluid discharge is defected. 5.1.3 Hollow-Stem Continuous Flight Augers, with or without a center bit assembly, may be used to drill the boring. The inside diameter of the hollow-stem augers shall bbe less than 6,5 in. (162 mm) and greater than 2.2 in. (56 mm). S.1.4 Solid, Continuous Flight, Bucket and Hand Augers, Jess than 6.5 in, (162 mm) and greater than 2.2 in. (56 mm) in diameter may be used if the soil om the side of the boring does not cave onto the sampler or sampling rods during sampling. 5.2 Sampling Rods—Fuush-joint steel drill rods shall be used to connect the split-barrel sampler to the drive-weight, assembly. The sampling rod shall have a stiffness (moment of inertia) equal to or greater than that of parallel wall “A” rod (a steel rod which has an outside diameter of (412 mm) and an inside diameter of 1% in. (28.5 mm). 130 Nove 1—Recent esearch and comparative testing indicates the rod used, with stifness ranging from "A" size rod to "N" siz rod, tsually have a negligible effect on the N-values to depths of atlas (0) G0 mp, 5.3 Split-Barrel Sampler—The sampler shall be coo] structed with the dimensions indicated in Fig. 2. The drivin shoe shall be of hardened steel and shall be replaced «| repaired when it becomes dented or distorted. The use ol liners to produce a constant inside diameter of 1% in, (3 mm) is permitted, but shall be noted on the penetratce| record if used. The use of a sample retainer basket i} permitted, and should also be noted on the penetratice record if used. [Nore 2—Bath theory and availabe test data suggest that Nas ‘may increase between 10 to 30 % when lines are used, 5.4 Drive-Weight Assembly: $4.1 Hammer and Anvil—The hammer shall weigh 14 £2 Ib (63.5 1 kg) and shall be a solid righd metallic mass ‘The hammer shall strike the anvil and make steel on ste contact when itis dropped. A hammer fall guide permitting free fall shall be used. Hammers used with the cathead ani rope method shall have an unimpeded overlift capacity ofa least 4 in. (100 mm). For safety reasons, the use of a hammer assembly with an internal anvil is encouraged. [Nore 3-It is suggested thatthe hammer fll guide be permanest marked to enable the operator or inspector to judge the hammer de height. 5.4.2 Hammer Drop System—Rope-cathead, trip, sem ‘automatic, or automatic hammer drop systems may be use, providing the lifting apparatus will not cause penetration a) D 1586 OPEN si HEAD ROLLEI F iy 1 f | pe : — TUBE BALL VENT CS) = 101020 in (251050 mm) 18010300 m (0457 190.762 m) 1.875 # 0.006 (4499 = 0.19 mm) 150-+ 005 ~ 000 n. (98.1 = 13-00 mm) (010 002 m (254 = 025 rm) 200 = 008 ~ 000 n.(508 + 13. 00mm) 360" 0730" 3 & 3 6 The 18 nnd let split bare ay be used wih a 16-gae wal hickness spt ne. The penetrating end ct he cive shee may be sight rounded. Meta «Base ears may bo used to rian sl sapes FIG. 2. Splt-Barrel Sampler the sampler while re-engaging and lifting the hammer. 35 Accessory Equipment—Accessories such as labels, sample containers, data sheets, and groundwater level mea suring devices shall be provided in accordance with the rmquirements of the project and other ASTM standards. 6. Drilling Procedure 6.1 The boring shall be advanced incrementally to permit intermittent or continuous sampling. Test intervals and hoeations are normally stipulated by the project engineer or trologist. Typically, the intervals selected are 5 ft (1.5 mm) or less in homogeneous strata with test and sampling faa an Oa 62 Any drilling procedure that provides a suitably clean tnd stable hole before insertion of the sampler and assures ‘hat the penetration test is performed on essentially undis- ‘urbed soil shall be acceptable. Each of the following wocedures have proven to be acceptable for some subsurface ‘onditions. The subsurface conditions anticipated should be considered when selecting the drilling method to be used. 62.1 Open-hole rotary drilling method. 62.2 Continuous flight hollow-stem auger method. 62.3 Wash boring method. 62.4 Continuous flight solid auger method. 63 Several drilling methods produce unacceptable voings. The process of ting trough an open THEE simpler and then sampling when the desired depth is reached shall tot be permitted. The continuous flight solid auger method, Tal nt be used for SBUINE Te Boring BelGw War Ble_or_pelow_the_upper_confinine bed ol_a_coniins ‘son-cohesive stratum that is under artesian pressure. Casing 131 ‘may not be advanced below the sampling elevation prior to sampling. Advancing a boring with batiom discharge bits is, not permissible. It is not permissible to advance the boring for subsequent insertion of the sampler solely by means of previous sampling with the SPT sampler. The daling Nui level within the boring or hollow. stem sugecs thal be-matainel at of above The ST soundwenarbeelarall nes during dallng removal ofall a= 7. Sampling and Testing Procedure 7.1 After the boring has been advanced to the desired sampling clevation and excessive cuttings have been re- moved, prepare for the test with the following sequence of operations. 7.1.1 Attach the split-barrel sampler to the sampling rods and lower into the borehole. Do not allow the sampler 10 drop onto the soil to be sampled. 7.1.2 Position the hammer above and attach the anvil 10, the top of the sampling rods. This may be done before the sampling rods and sampler are lowered into the borehole. 7.1.3 Rest the dead weight of the sampler, rods, anvil, and drive weight on the bottom of the boring and apply a seating blow. If excessive cuttings are encountered at the bottom of the boring, remove the sampler and sampling rods from the boring and remove the cuttings. 7,14 Mark the drill rods in three successive 6-in.(0.15-m) increments so that the advance of the sampler under the impact of the hammer can be easily observed for each 6-in. (0.15-m) increment. 7.2 Drive the sampler with blows from the 140-Ib (63.5-qh 0 1586 kg) hammer and count the number of blows applied in each 6-in. (0.15-m) increment until one of the following occurs: 7.2.1 A total of 50 blows have been applied during any fone of the three 6-in. (0.15-m) increments described in 7.1.4, 7.2.2 A total of 100 blows have been applied. 72.3 There is no observed advance of the sampler during the application of 10 successive blows of the hammer. 7.2.4 The sampler is advanced the complete 18 in. (0.45 ‘m) without the limiting blow counts occurring as described in 7.2.1, 7.2.2, of 7.2.3 7.3 Record the number of blows required to effect each 6 in, (0.15 m) of penetration or fraction thereof. The first 6 in, is considered to be a seating drive. The sum of the number of blows required for the second and third 6 in. of penetration is termed the “standard penetration resistance,” or the ““Nevalue.” If the sampler is driven less than 18 in. (0.45 m), as permitted in 7.2.1, 7.2.2, or 7.2.3, the number of blows per each complete 6-in. (0.15-m) increment and per each partial increment shall be recorded on the boring log. For partial increments, the depth of penetration shall be reported 10 the nearest 1 in. (25 mm), in addition to the number of blows. If the sampler advances below the bottom of the boring under the static weight of the drill rods or the weight of the drill rods plus the static weight of the hammer, this information should be noted on the boring log. 7.4 The raising and dropping of the 140-Ib (63.5-kg) ‘hammer shall be accomplished using either of the following ‘wo methods: 7.4.1 By using a trip, automatic, or semi-automatic hammer drop system which lifts the 140-Ib (63.5-kg) hammer and allows it wo drop 30 1.0 in. (0.76 m + 25 mm) unimpeded. 7.4.2 By using a cathead to pull a rope attached to the hammer, When the cathead and rope method is used the system and operation shall conform to the following: 7.4.2.1 The cathead shall be essentially free of rust oil, or grease and have a diameter in the range of 6 to 10 in. (150 to 250 mm), 74.2.2 The cathead should be operated at a minimum speed of rotation of 100 RPM, or the approximate speed of rotation shall be reported on the boring log. 7.4.2.3. No more than 2% rope turns on the cathead may be used during the performance of the penetration test, as shown in Fig. 1. Nove 4—The operator should generally use ether 1¥ oF 2% rope tums, depending upon whether or not the rope comes off the top (1% turns) of the bottom (2% tums) of the cathead. It is generally known and accepted that 2¥s or more rope turns considerably impedes the fll ‘of the hammer and should not be used to perform the test. The eathead Tope should be maintained in a relatively dry, clean, and unfraved condition 7.4.2.4 For each hammer blow, a 30-in. (0.76-m) lift and drop shall be employed by the operator. The operation of pulling and throwing the rope shall be performed rhythmi- cally without holding the rope at the top of the stroke. 7.5 Bring the sampler to the surface and open. Record the percent recovery or the length of sample recovered. Describe the soil samples recovered as to composition, color, stratifi- cation, and condition, then place one or more representative portions of the sample into sealable moisture-proof con- tainers (jars) without ramming or distorting any apparent 132 stratification. Seal each container to prevent evaporation of soil moisture, Affix labels to the containers bearing jo designation, boring number, sample depth, and. the blor count per 6:in, (0.15-m) increment. Protect the samp} against extreme temperature changes. If there isa soil char within the sampler, make a jar for each stratum and note it location in the sampler barrel 8. Report 8.1. Drilling information shall be recorded in the field ao! shall include the following: 8.1.1 Name and location of job, 8.1.2 Names of crew, 8.13 Type and make of drilling machine, 8.1.4 Weather conditions, L 8.155 Date and time of start and finish of boring, 8.1.6 Boring number and location (station and. coor nates, if available and applicable), 7 Surface elevation, if available, {8 Method of advancing and cleaning the boring, 9 Method of keeping boring open, 10 Depth of water surface and driling depth att time of a noted loss of drilling fuid, and time and date whet reading or notation was made, 8.1.11 Location of strata changes, 811/12 Size of casing, depth of cased portion of boring. 811.13 Equipment and method of driving sampler, 8.1.14 Type sampler and length and inside diameter barrel (note use of liners), 8.1.15 Size, type, and section length of the sampling rods and 8.1.16 Remarks. 8.2’ Data obtained for each sample shall be recorded inthe field and shall include the following: 8.2.1 Sample depth and, if utilized, the sample number, 822 Description of so 8.2.3 Strata changes within sample, 82.4 Sampler penetration and recovery lengths, and 82.5 Number of blows per 6:in. (0.15-m) or partial increment 8.1 BIL BL 81 9. Precision and Bias 9.1 Precision—A valid estimate of test precision has not been determined because it is too costly to conduct the necessary inter-laboratory (field) tests. Subcommitier 18.02 welcomes proposals to allow development of a val precision statement. 9.2. Bias—Because there is no reference material for this test method, there can be no bias statement 9.3 Variations in N-values of 100 % or more have bees observed when using different standard penetration tes apparatus and drillers for adjacent borings in the same soi formation. Current opinion, based on field experience, indicates that when using the same apparatus and driller, ‘Nevalues in the same soil can be reproduced with a coefi- cient of variation of about 10 %. 9.4 The use of faulty equipment, such as an extremely massive or damaged anvil, a rusty cathead, a low speed cathead, an old, oily rope, or massive or poorly lubricated rope sheaves can significantly contribute to differences in N-values obtained between operator-drill rig systems,hb v 1586 9.5 The variability in N-values produced by different drill adjustment is given in Test Method D 4633, 1g and operators may be reduced by measuring that part of the hammer energy delivered into the drill rods from the 10. Keywords sampler and adjusting Non the basis of comparative 10.1 blow count; in-situ test; penetration resistance; split- ‘aerges. A method for energy measurement and Nevalue barrel sampling; standard penetration test ‘The American Solty for Tasting and Materials rakes no postion especting the val any part right assed in conection ith any tem mconed Inti standard, Urs of ts saraard ae exprtay adisd hat detrmintion he vel of ay such ate gs. and ne rsh of itingonont f such ih, re entey tar own respon. ‘Tne standard i sutect treo a ary tino bythe respons technical commits and mus be reviewed every fve years and ‘nat renee, ener reapproved or wictawn. Yau Canmore ere uta ete te rose os standard fo adore ands ‘and shouldbe acresed o ASTM Woadouaas. Your conmort Wil aco cars consideration a a eat ofthe respons ‘echnea commits, which you may attend. you fa! tht your comments have nt reaived a erasing You Shutd make yout ‘vs known othe ASTH Commttoe en Stanarce, 1916 Race St, Phinash, PA 18109 133WD Kcernrerver ‘The exploration locations were surveyed by Horrocks Engineers to determine the northing, easting, and elevation. The station and offset of each location were then calculated by Horrocks Engineers. A table presenting the survey data for each exploration location and the historical borings is presented at the end of Appendix B. 4.2 Borings Drilling was accomplished with a truck-mounted hollow-stem auger drill rig equipped for soil sampling. Drilling fluid was typically used in the hollow stem of the augers to equalize hydrostatic pressures at the bottom of the augers and prevent soil from heaving into the augers. Soil samples were generally obtained at 1.1 to 1.5 meter intervals using a Modified California split barrel sampler or a standard split barrel sampler driven by a 63.5 kg hammer free-falling from a height of 762 mm. Undisturbed samples of the fine- grained soils were obtained by pushing 76.2 mm diameter by 762 mm long Shelby tubes. Sampler driving resistance, expressed as “blows per 0.3 meters of penetration,” is ‘presented on the boring logs at the respective sampling depths. Each hammer used on this project was tested for energy efficiency by UDOT and the appropriate correction factor was applied to each blowcount value to obtain an energy-corrected Neo blowcount. This ‘Value was then corrected for overburden pressure to obtain an (N,)g blowcount. To obtain the (N,)co Values, a total unit weight of 18,1 kN/m* was used in our calculations, In addition to correcting the blowcounts for sampling hammer efficiency and overburden pressure, the values for the Modified California sampler were also corrected for sampler diameter and using the formula: (2)? -(4375)? Neoreced = Nneanred * py? — Where: D, = outside diameter of modified sampler, inches D, = inside diameter of modified sampler, inches 2 = outside diameter of standard split-spoon, inches 1.375 = inside diameter of standard split-spoon, inches Copyright 1996, Kleiafete, Inc. “ GeNt1S.secsons8146.026)HAM kcemnrecver ‘The blow counts presented on the logs and in this report are (N,)q values, corrected for sampling hammer efficiency, overburden, and when necessary, sampler diameter, ‘A summary of the field measurements and the calculations performed by UDOT to determine the sampling hammer efficiency are included in Appendix K. The samples were visually classified in the field as they were obtained, by an engineer/geologist and selective portions of each sample were packaged to prevent moisture loss and transported to our laboratory for testing. After completion, borings were backfilled with grout as the hollow-stem auger was removed. A bentonite grout with at least 30 percent solids pumped into the hollow stem of the augers was used. Any remaining drilling fluid and water was displaced with the grout. A metal plate was placed within 0.6 to 0.3 meters of the surface to aid in future location of the borings. Low-slump concrete or cuttings were placed in the top 0.6 to 0.3 meters of the borings to match the Groundwater levels were generally observed at the time of drilling and are shown on each boring log in Appendix C. 4.3 Cone Penetrometer Soundings CPT soundings were accomplished using a rubber-tired truck or track-mounted rig designed specifically for performing cone penetrometer testing. A seismic piezocone (SCPTU) was used to record tip resistance (Q,), sleeve friction (F,), pore pressure and when requested by Kleinfelder, shear wave velocities. Soil stratigraphy and behavior is estimated according to a CPT Classification chart developed by Robertson and Campanella (1990), which is based on a combination of the cone tip resistance and the friction ratio (F/Qx). It should be noted that the CPT correlations between Soil Behavior Type and USCS soil classification are general in nature and may not correlate exactly to soil classifications developed by laboratory tests. All data were obtained and transferred in real-time to an on-board computer and downloaded to disks. The data were then processed Copyright 1996, Kieinfelder, Inc. 1s (en Siseton4'8146.02)