Full Thesis

Relationship between Penetration Resistance and Strength-
Compressibility Characteristics of Soil
Nandita Rani Shaha
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING
(GEOTECHNICAL)
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
BANGLADESH UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY
Dhaka, Bangladesh
March, 2013
The thesis titled "Relationship between Penetration Resistance and Strength-
Compressibility Characteristics of Soil" Submitted by Nandita Rani Shaha, Roll
Number:100604213 (P), Session:October2006, has been accepted as satisfactory in
partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Master of Science in Civil
Engineering (Geotechnical) on March 18, 2013.
BOARD OF EXAMINERS
Dr. Md. Jahangir Alam Chairman

Associate Professor (Supervisor)
Department of Civil Engineering
Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology
Dhaka - 1000.
Dr. Md. Mujibur Rahman Member

Professor and Head (Ex-officio)
Dhaka - 1000.
Dr. Syed Fakhrul Ameen Member

Professor
Department of Civil Engineering,
Dhaka-1000
Dr. Md. Mokhlesur Rahman Member (External)

Professor
Dhaka University of Engineering and Technology
Dhaka-1000
ii
CANDIDATE'S DECLARATION
It is hereby declared that this thesis or any part of it has not been submitted elsewhere
for the award of any degree or diploma.
(Nandita Rani Shaha)

Table of Contents
Table of Contents ____________________________________________________________________ i
List of Figures _______________________________________________________________________ i
List of Tables _______________________________________________________________________ i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT _____________________________________________________________ i
ABSTRACT ________________________________________________________________________ i
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION _______________________________________________________ 1
1.1. General _____________________________________________________________________ 1
1.2. Background of the Study _______________________________________________________ 1
1.3. Objectives of the Study ________________________________________________________ 3
1.4. Methodology ________________________________________________________________ 3
1.5. Organization of the Thesis ______________________________________________________ 4
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW __________________________________________________ 5
2.1. Introduction _________________________________________________________________ 5
2.2. Standard Penetration Test (SPT) _________________________________________________ 5
2.2.1. Purpose of Standard Penetration Test __________________________________ 6
2.2.2. Dimensions of SPT Spilt Barrel Sampler __________________________________ 7
2.3. Undisturbed Sampling in Bangladesh _____________________________________________ 7
2.4. Standard Shelby Tubes ________________________________________________________ 7
2.5. Existing Correlations _________________________________________________________ 10
2.5.1 Correlation between SPT N-value and Unconfined Compressive Strength __________ 10
2.6. Empirical Correlations for Compression Index _____________________________________ 11
2.7. Concluding Remarks _________________________________________________________ 12
CHAPTER 3: TEST PROGRAM ______________________________________________________ 18

3.1. General ____________________________________________________________________ 18
3.2. Major Mistakes of SPT in Bangladesh ____________________________________________ 18
3.2.1. Height of fall of SPT Hammer _________________________________________ 18
3.2.2. Thickness of SPT Spoon Cutting Shoe __________________________________ 19
3.2.3. Non-standard Shelby tube ___________________________________________ 20
3.3. Instrumentation _____________________________________________________________ 20
3.3.1. Auto Trip Hammer _________________________________________________ 21
3.3.2. Specification of SPT Spoon ___________________________________________ 21
3.3.3. Fabrication of Standard Shelby Tube ___________________________________ 22
3.5 Laboratory Test _____________________________________________________________ 24
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ___________________________________________ 30
4.1. General ____________________________________________________________________ 30
4.2. Grain Size Distribution ________________________________________________________ 30
4.3. Atterberg Limits _____________________________________________________________ 30
4.4. USCS Classification of Soil Samples ______________________________________________ 31
4.5. Relationship between SPT and Unconfined Compressive Strength _____________________ 31
4.6. Compressibility Characteristics _________________________________________________ 33
4.8. Initial Void Ratio _____________________________________________________________ 34
4.9. Relationship between Dry Density and SPT _______________________________________ 34
4.10. Relationship between Compression Index and Plasticity Index ________________________ 35
4.11. Correlation between Compression Index and Liquid Limit ___________________________ 34
4.12. Correlation between Compression Index and (Plasticity Index/SPT N value) _____________ 33
4.13. Relationship between Liquidity Index and SPT N value ______________________________ 33
4.15. Concluding Remarks _________________________________________________________ 40
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION _________________________________________________________ 73
5.1. General ____________________________________________________________________ 73
ii
5.2. Conclusions ________________________________________________________________ 73
5.3. Recommendations for Future Study _____________________________________________ 74
Appendix A________________________________________________________________________ 80
iii
List of Figures
Figure 2.1: SPT Spoon with 63.5 kg hammer..................................................................................... 16

Figure 2.2: Standard Dimension of SPT Split-Barrel Sampler (ASTM D 1586-08a). ............................ 17
Figure 2.3: Standard Dimensions of Shelby Tube Sampler (ASTM D 1587-08)................................... 17
Figure 3.1: Photograph of a locally fabricated auto trip hammer. .................................................... 26
Figure 3.2: Comparison of dimension between Standard Shoe (left) and Conventional Shoe of SPT
Spoon (right). .......................................................................................................................... 26
Figure 3.3: Schematic view of a Currently Practiced Shelby Tube Sampler. ...................................... 27
Figure 3.4: Schematic diagram of Modified Shelby Tube. ................................................................. 27
Figure 3.5: The SPT sampler in place of the boring. .......................................................................... 28
Figure 3.6: Borehole layout of SPT and undisturbed sampling. ......................................................... 29
Figure 3.7: Covering by polythene after waxing to make the sample airtight. .................................. 29
Figure 4.1: Correlation between Unconfined Compressive Strength (q u) & Penetration Resistance (N)
at Bhulta, Narayanganj ........................................................................................................... 48
Figure 4.2: Correlation between unconfined Compressive Strength (q u) & Penetration Resistance (N)
at Dhaka Cantonment. ............................................................................................................ 48
Figure 4.3: Combined Correlation between unconfined Compressive Strength (q u) & Penetration
Resistance (N) at Dhaka Cantonment and Bhulta, Narayanganj. ............................................. 49
Figure 4.4: Correlation between unconfined Compressive Strength (q u) & Penetration Resistance (N)
at SANH, Khulna ...................................................................................................................... 49
at AMC, Khulna ....................................................................................................................... 50
Figure 4.6: Combined Correlation between Unconfined Compressive Strength (qu) & Standard
Penetration Resistance (N) at SANH and AMC at Khulna. ........................................................ 50
Figure 4.7 Combined Relationship between Unconfined Compressive Strength (qu) & SPT (N) at
Khulna, Narayanganj and Dhaka ............................................................................................. 51
(for Lean Clay when LL ≤ 50%) ................................................................................................. 51
(for Fat Clay when LL ≥ 50%).................................................................................................... 52
Figure 4.10: Relationship between SPT & Compression Index at Bhulta, Narayanganj ..................... 52
Figure 4.11: Relationship between Compression Index & SPT at SANH, Khulna ............................... 53
Figure 4.12: Relationship between Compression Index & SPT at AMC, Khulna ................................. 53
Figure 4.13: Combined Relationship between Compression Index & SPT at Khulna, Narayanganj and
Dhaka ...................................................................................................................................... 54
Relationship between Penetration Resistance and Strength Compressibility Characteristics of clay
Figure 4.14: Relationship between Compression Index & (Ip/N) at Bhulta, Narayanganj ................. 54
Figure 4.15: Relationship between Compression Index & (Ip/N) at AMC, Khulna ............................. 55
Figure 4.16: Relationship between Compression Index & (Ip/N) at SANH, Khulna ........................... 55
Figure 4.17: Combined Relationship between Compression Index & (Ip/N) at Khulna & Narayanganj.
................................................................................................................................................ 56
Figure 4.18: Correlation between Liquidity Index (LI) & SPT at Bhulta, Narayanganj ....................... 56
Figure 4.19: Correlation between Liquidity Index (LI) & SPT at AMC, Khulna .................................... 57
Figure 4.20:Correlation between Liquidity Index (LI) & SPT at SNAH, Khulna ................................... 57
Figure 4.21: Summary of combined Relationship between Liquidity Index (LI) & SPT at Khulna and
Narayanganj ............................................................................................................................ 58
Figure 4.22: Relationship between Initial Void Ratio & SPT at Bhulta, Narayanganj ......................... 58
Figure 4.23: Relationship between Initial Void Ratio & SPT at SANH, Khulna. .................................. 59
Figure 4.24: Relationship between Initial Void Ratio & SPT at AMC, Khulna. ................................... 59
Figure 4.25:Combined Relationship between Initial Void Ratio & SPT at Khulna and Narayanganj .. 60
Figure 4.26: Relationship between Dry Density & SPT at Bhulta, Narayanganj ................................. 60
Figure 4.27: Relationship between Dry Density & SPT at Dhaka Cantonment .................................. 61
Figure 4.28: Relationship between Dry Density & SPT at AMC, Khulna ............................................ 61
Figure 4.29: Combined Relationship between Dry Density & SPT at Dhaka, Khulna and Narayanganj
................................................................................................................................................ 62
Figure 4.30: Correlation between Compression Index & Liquid Limit at Bhulta, Narayanganj .......... 62
Figure 4.31: Correlation between Compression Index & Liquid Limit at AMC, Khulna ...................... 63
Figure 4.32: Correlation between Compression Index & Liquid Limit at SANH, Khulna ..................... 63
Figure 4.33: Combined relationship between Compression Index & Liquid Limit at Khulna and
Narayanganj ............................................................................................................................ 64
Figure 4.34: Correlation between Compression Index & Plasticity Index at Bhulta, Narayanganj ..... 64
Figure 4.35: Correlation between Compression Index & Plasticity Index at AMC, Khulna ................ 65
Figure 4.36: Correlation between Compression Index & Plasticity Index at SANH, Khulna ............... 65
Figure 4.37: Combined Relationship between Compression Index & Plasticity Index at Khulna and
Narayanganj ............................................................................................................................ 66
Figure 4.38: Corelation between Compression Index & Initial Void Ratio at Bhulta, Narayanganj .... 66
Figure 4.39: Correlation between Compression Index & Initial Void Ratio at AMC, Khulna .............. 67
Figure 4.40: Correlation between Compression Index & Initial Void Ratio at SANH, Khulna ............. 67
Figure 4.41: Combined Relationship between Compression Index & Initial Void Ratio at Khulna and
Narayanganj ............................................................................................................................ 68
Figure 4.42: Correlation between Compression Index & Natural Moisture Content at Bhulta,
Narayanganj ............................................................................................................................ 68
Figure 4.43: Correlation between Compression Index & Natural Moisture Content at AMC, Khulna 69
ii
Figure 4.44: Correlation between Compression Index & Natural Moisture Content at SANH, Khulna
................................................................................................................................................ 69
Figure 4.45: Combined Relationship between Compression Index & Natural Moisture Content at
Khulna and Narayanganj ......................................................................................................... 70
Figure 4.46: Comparison of new and previous Relationship between Compression Index & Initial
Void Ratio ............................................................................................................................... 70
Figure 4.47: Comparison of new and previous Relationship between Compression Index & Natural
Moisture Content .................................................................................................................... 71
Figure 4.48: Comparison of new and previous Relationship between Compression Index & Liquid
Limit ........................................................................................................................................ 71
Figure 4.49: Comparison of new and previous Relationship between Compression Index & Plasticity
Index ....................................................................................................................................... 72
Figure A.1: Typical stress strain curve of samples collected from Bhulta, Narayanganj (UD-8) ......... 81
Figure A.2: Typical stress strain curve of samples collected from Bhulta, Narayanganj (UD-10) ....... 81
Figure A.6: Typical stress strain curve of samples collected from Bhulta, Narayanganj (UD-16) ...... 83
Figure A.8: Typical stress strain curve of samples from Bhulta, Narayanganj (UD-18) ...................... 84
Figure A.10: Typical stress strain curve of samples from Bhulta, Narayanganj (UD-21) .................... 85
Figure A.11: Typical stress strain curve of samples collected from Bhulta, Narayanganj (UD-22) ..... 86
Figure A.15: Typical stress strain curve of samples collected from AMC Site, Khulna (UD-1). ........... 88
Figure A.18: Typical stress strain curve of samples collected from AMC Site, Khulna (UD-10). ......... 89
Figure A.19: Typical stress strain curve of samples collected from AMC Site, Khulna (UD-13). ........ 90
Figure A.20: Typical stress strain curve of samples collected from AMC Site, Khulna (UD-16). ......... 90
Figure A.21: Typical stress strain curve of samples collected from SANH Site, Khulna (UD-1)........... 91
FigureA.26: Typical stress strain curve of samples collected from SANH Site, Khulna (UD-6). .......... 93
iii
Figure A.27: Typical e-logp curve of samples collected by Modified Shelby Tube from Bhulta at
Narayanganj (UD-11)............................................................................................................... 94
Narayanganj (UD-15)............................................................................................................... 94
Narayanganj (UD-18)............................................................................................................... 95
Figure A.30: Typical e-logp curve of samples collected by Modified Shelby Tube from Bhulta,
Narayanganj (UD-20)............................................................................................................... 95
Figure A.31: Typical e-logp curve of samples collected from Bhulta, Narayanganj (UD-22). ............. 96
Figure A.32: Typical e-logp curve of samples collected from AMC Site, Khulna (UD-1, Depth-1.5’)... 96
Figure A.33: Typical e-logp curve of samples collected from AMC Site, Khulna (UD-4). .................... 97
Figure A.34: Typical e-logp curve of samples collected from AMC Site, Khulna (UD-13). .................. 97
Figure A.35: Typical e-logp curve of samples collected from SANH Site, Khulna (UD-13). ................. 98
FigureA.36: Borelog of Bhulta, Narayanganj .................................................................................... 99
Figure A.37: Borelog of AMC, Khulna ............................................................................................. 100
Figure A.38: Borelog of SANH, Khulna ............................................................................................ 101
iv
List of Tables
Table 2.1: Thin-Walled Steel Sample Tubes ...................................................................................... 13

Table 2.2: ISSMGE recommended outside cutting edge taper angle (after ISSMFE, 1965) ................ 13
Table 2.3: Correlations between Consistency, N-value and Unconfined Compressive Strength of
Cohesive Soils (Terzaghi and Peck, 1948 & 1967). ................................................................... 14
Table 2.4: Correlations between N-value and Unconfined Compressive Strength for different soil
types (Sowers, (1953 & 1962) .................................................................................................. 15
Table 2.5: Equations used to calculate Cc for inorganic cohesive soil samples (after Bowles, 1997) .. 15
Table 3.1: Sampler quality parameters of Standard Shelby tube used in this study. ......................... 25
Table 4.1: USCS Classification of soil samples collected from Bhulta, Narayanganj. ......................... 42
Table 4.2: USCS Classification of soil samples collected from AMC Site, Khulna. .............................. 43
Table 4.3: USCS Classification of soil samples collected from SANH Site, Khulna. ............................. 43
Table 4.4: The value of SPT, Specific Gravity and Initial Void Ratio from SANH at Khulna ................ 44
Table 4.5: The value of SPT, Specific Gravity, and Initial Void Ratio from AMC at Khulna ................. 44
Table 4.6: The value of SPT, Specific Gravity, Natural Moisture Content, Initial Void Ratio and Dry
Density from Bhulta at Narayanganj. ...................................................................................... 45
Table 4.7: Summary of Natural Moisture Content (ωn), Dry density () and Unconfined Compressive
Strength (qu) of Soil Samples Collected from Bhulta, Narayanganj. ......................................... 45
Table 4.8: Summary of Natural Moisture Content (n), Dry density () and Unconfined Compressive
Strength (qu) of Soil Samples Collected from Khulna Area. ...................................................... 46
Table 4.9 Relationship Chart between N-value and Unconfined Compressive Strength of Soil Sample
at Bhulta, Narayanganj & Khulna Area. ................................................................................... 46
Table 4.10: Summary of Compression Index (C c) of Soils of Bhulta, Narayanganj. ............................ 47
Table 4.11: Summary of Compression Index (Cc) of Soils of Khulna Area ......................................... 47
NOTATION
AR = Area Ratio;
Cc = Compression index;
cv = coefficient of consolidation
Ip = Plasticity index;
qu = Unconfined compressive strength
N = SPT = Standard penetration test;
ωL = Liquid limit;
ωn = Natural Water Content;
ωp = Plastic limit;
γ = Dry Density;
eo = Initial void ratio
G = Specific gravity
LI = Liquidity Index
SANH = Sheikh Abu Naser Hospital, Khulna
AMC = Atomic Medical Centre, Khulna Medical College, Khulna
BN = Bhulta, Narayanganj
CND = Cantonment, Dhaka

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author is indebted to her supervisor Dr. Md. Jahangir Alam, Associate Professor,
Department of Civil Engineering, Bangladesh University of Engineering and
Technology (BUET), for his inspiration, encouragement, continuous guidance,
important suggestions throughout the various stages of this research. The author also
expresses her profound gratitude to Dr. Md. Mujibur Rahman, Professor and Head,
Department of Civil Engineering, BUET, Dhaka, for his valuable corrections and
suggestions.
The author gratefully acknowledges the constructive criticisms and valuable

suggestions made by Professor Dr. Syed Fakhrul Ameen. The author is also highly
grateful to Dr. Md. Mukhlesur Rahman, Professor, DUET, Gazipur, Dhaka for his
valuable suggestions. Thanks are due to Mr. Habibur Rahman, Mr. Shahabuddin and
Mr. Khokon of Geotechnical Laboratory for their help and assistance during
experimental works.
Last but not the least, the author gratefully acknowledges the patience and
encouragement of her mother, two beloved sons and husband during her M. Sc.
Engineering study in BUET.
ABSTRACT
The strength and compressibility properties of soil were determined from the soil
collected by using Modified Shelby Tubes. Then these were used to correlate with
Standard Penetration Resistance. Generally Standard Penetration Test (SPT) is
performed as only means of subsoil investigation in Bangladesh. Detail investigation
accompanied with laboratory tests are performed for important project only.
Practicing engineers usually rely on SPT field test data and Correlations of SPT-N
value with various soil parameters. Sometimes client are not convinced to spend more
money for subsoil investigation. They are only willing to pay for SPT field test.
Therefore it is necessary to know the correlations between SPT-N value and soil
parameter of clay so that SPT-N value can be used for designing foundation. The
objectives of the study were to develop a mechanism of controlling height of fall of
SPT hammer, to establish correlation between penetration resistance and undrained
shear strength of soil and to establish correlation between penetration resistance and
compression index of soil.
SPT and undisturbed sampling was done in four sites covering stiff soil and soft soil.
From the test results following conclusions may be drawn. A linear relation between
unconfined compressive strength and SPT-N value was found for all soils, soft or
stiff, low or high plasticity. The relation is qu = 16.5N in kPa. Linear relation between
compression index and SPT-N value was found for stiff soil. For soft soil the relation
was found to be random in nature. Reliable linear relationship between natural
moisture content and SPT-N value was found for all sites. However, no generalized or
normalized relationship was found. Linear relationship between initial void ratio and
SPT-N value was found for all sites. However, no generalized or normalized
relationship was found for initial void ratio. Linear relationship between dry density
and SPT-N value was found for all sites. However, no generalized or normalized
relationship was found for dry density.
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1. General
Generally Standard Penetration Test (SPT) (ASTM D 1586-99, 2006) is performed as

only means of subsoil investigation in Bangladesh. Detail investigation accompanied
with laboratory tests are performed for important projects only. A soil investigation
must be a part of design process. Practicing engineers usually rely on SPT field test
data. In some cases one or two undisturbed samples are collected using non-standard
Shelby tube samplers. Sometimes project delay compels engineers to rely on SPT
field test data and correlations of SPT-N value with various soil parameters. For
foundation problems in soils, the geotechnical engineer is concerned with the stability
and deformations of strata. Foundation problems include the design of individual
footing, pile and raft foundation excavation, embankment and retaining wall. To solve
these foundation problems, geotechnical engineers need subsoil investigation data
including mechanical properties of soil. Mechanical properties of soil can be
estimated from field test data or directly obtained from laboratory testing of
undisturbed samples. In the laboratory the stresses, deformations and boundary
conditions can be more readily and accurately controlled and observed. However
samples are greatly disturbed during drilling, sampling, transportation, extrusion,
sample preparation and early stages of testing (Siddique, 2000). Current practice of
undisturbed sampling in Bangladesh is completely disappointing. Usually undisturbed
samples are collected using very low quality nonstandard Shelby tube samplers.
For this reason, laboratory test data are not reliable in Bangladesh. If the field tests
can be performed with confidence and correlations can be established to get Shear
Strength and compressibility characteristics of clay from SPT-N value, it would be
helpful for practicing engineers.
1.2. Background of the Study
The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) is widely used for measurement of soil
penetration resistance and subsequent correlation with soil properties such as relative
1
density, shear strength, bearing capacity and liquefaction resistance. Over the years,
the SPT has been improved through standardization and measurement of energy
transferred from the hammer to the drill rod. The engineering properties of soils are
needed for geotechnical analyses and designs are estimated from results of in situ or
laboratory testing. The relationships should be such that in-situ soil strength can be
predicted simply by using some easily available in-situ parameters of soil such as
SPT N value, water content, void ratio, relative density, shear strength, coefficient of
compression etc. This will help to interpret, countercheck, curtail volume of lengthy
investigation program or even eliminate sub-soil investigation works with
undisturbed sampling since it is not always possible and also not desirable to
accomplish detailed soil investigation for all individual structure as the concern is
laborious, time-consuming, and costly and sometimes render difficulties for
interpretation.
Generally Standard Penetration Test (SPT) (ASTM D 1586-99, 2006) is performed as

only means of subsoil investigation in Bangladesh. Detail investigation accompanied
with laboratory tests are performed for important project only. Practicing engineers
usually rely on SPT field test data and Correlations of SPT-N value with various soil
parameters. Sometimes client are not convinced to spend more money for subsoil
investigation. They are only willing to pay for SPT field test. Therefore it is necessary
to know the correlations between SPT-N value and soil parameter of clay so that SPT-
N value can be used for designing foundation in soft clay with great confidence.
Several studies have been made on soils of various locations of Bangladesh such as
Serajuddin (1996), Bashar (2000), Ferdous (2001), Munshi (2003), and many others.
Several relationships developed between several properties of soil.
Most of the SPT team in Bangladesh has three major limitations
(i) Uncontrolled height of fall of hammer
(ii) Non-Standard SPT Spoon and
(iii) Non-Standard Shelby Tube for undisturbed sampling.
2
The limitation of those correlations is lack of reliability of field test data. Because
those test data were collected from various organizations not purposefully done for
research.
Therefore, Correlation between SPT-N value and shear strength of clay made by
using those unreliable field data might lead to incorrect correlation. This study was
formulated to establish reliable correlation between SPT-N value and Shear Strength
and Compressibility Characteristics.
1.3. Objectives of the Study
The objectives of the study are as follows:
i) To develop a mechanism of controlling height of fall of SPT hammer.
ii) To establish correlation between penetration resistance and undrained

shear strength of soil.
iii) To establish correlation between penetration resistance and

compression index of soil.
1.4. Methodology
This study was carried out in three stages.
i. In the first stage two boring was done at same location within 1 m distance. In
one boring SPT was performed continuously and continuous undisturbed
samples was collected from another boring. A Split-barrel sample was used for
identification of soil and undisturbed samples of the same depth were used to
perform unconfined compression test, consolidation test, Atterberg Limit test
etc. Unified soil classification System was used to classify the soil. Thus for
same depth SPT-N value and soil parameters was known for one location.
Similarly same things were done for other locations.
3
ii. In the second stage both types of undisturbed and disturbed samples were
taken to geotechnical laboratory to perform unconfined compression test and
consolidation test and other test to determine the properties of soil.
iii. In the third stage, from field and laboratory test data of different locations,
correlation between SPT and other soil parameters.
1.5. Organization of the Thesis
The thesis is arranged into five chapters and one appendix. In Chapter One,
background and objectives of the research is described. Chapter Two contains the
literature review where history, use and researches on Penetration Resistance and
compressibility parameter of clay are described. In this chapter description of
Penetration Resistance and different correlation with SPT are given. Chapter Three
describes the testing arrangement and program. Chapter Four contains results and
discussion.Chapter Five contains the conclusions and recommendations for further
research. All graphs of testing results are presented in Appendix A.
4
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Introduction
The literature review is consisting of (a) mechanism of Standard Penetration Test (b)
purpose of Standard Penetration Test and (c) research on SPT. Broms and Flodin
(1988) discuss the history of soil penetration testing from ancient times through the
1980’s. The University of Florida report by Davidson et al (1999), details the history
of SPT testing and the ASTM standardization of SPT testing from the beginning of
the 20th century through the present. According to this report the earliest credits for
the SPT are attributed to Mohr and also to Terzaghi. Hvorsolv credits Mohr for
developing the test in 1927 and the SPT Working Party credits Terzaghi for the SPT.
It is observed that Davidson et al (1999) and Broms and Flodin (1988) reported
history of SPT in details.
Several studies have been done on soils of various locations of Bangladesh by

Serajuddin (1996), Bashar (2000), Ferdous (2001), Munshi (2003), Akhter (2010) and
many others. Several relationships developed between several properties of soil.
2.2. Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) is most widely used method for determining the
shear strength properties of soil. Around 1902 Colonel Charles in Boston, began
making exploratory boring using 1-inch diameter drive samplers. From that time wash
boring with cuttings is used. During the late 1920s and early 1930s, the procedure was
standardized by Mohr (1940). Mohr developed a slightly larger diameter split-spoon
drive sampler. The value recorded for the first round of advance is usually discarded
because of fall in and contamination of borehole. The second pair of numbers are then
combined and reported as a single value for the last 304.8 mm, this value is reported
as the SPT blow count value, commonly termed “N”.
5
This test is the most widely used field test in Bangladesh. The advantage of this test is
simplicity, the availability of a wide variety of correlations for its data and the sample
is obtained with each test.
The test is a standard split-barrel sampler a total of 457 mm into the bottom of a
borehole by dropping a 63.5 kg hammer from a height of 762 mm, pushing a 50.8 mm
outside diameter sampler, while recovering a 35 mm diameter sample as shown in
Figure 2.1. The number of blows required to advance the sampler for each of three
152.4 mm increments is recorded. The number of blows required for penetration of
last 304.8 mm is termed as SPT-N value. Value of penetration resistance (N) can be
correlated to a number of different design parameters including dry density, water
content, initial void ratio and shear strength.
2.2.1. Purpose of Standard Penetration Test
The main purpose of the test is to determine the shear strength of soil and the main
reason for its widespread use is that it is simple and inexpensive. The soil strength
parameters which can inferred approximate, but may give a useful guide in ground
conditions where it may not be possible to obtain borehole samples of adequate
quality like gravels, sand, silts, clay containing sand or gravel and weak rock. If the
samples are found to be unacceptably disturbed, it may be necessary to use a different
method for measuring strength like the plate load test. The SPT is used as the primary
soil descriptor in a geotechnical engineering analysis and design. In most practices,
the SPT is used in conjunction with other laboratory and field testing procedures and
serves as an indicator of the soil profile. The SPT has been correlated with the soil's
capacity to resist ground failure or excessive settlement once a new building is put on.
Therefore, the N-values obtained on a specific site are very important criteria for
engineers to evaluate the stability and the possible settlement of new building to be
constructed.
The Standard Penetration Tests aims to determine the SPT-N value, which gives an
indication of the soil stiffness and can be empirically related to many engineering
properties.
6
2.2.2. Dimensions of SPT Spilt Barrel Sampler
Standard dimension of spilt barrel sampler are shown in Figure 2.2 below (ASTM D
1586-08a). The angle of open shoe will be between 16º to 23º. If it is sharper, it will
enter into soil easily and the penetration resistance will be smaller than the actual. The
length of the open shoe will be 25 to 50mm.The external diameter of split barrel
sampler is 50.8 mm.
2.3. Undisturbed Sampling in Bangladesh
Shear strength of soil can be estimated from field test data or directly obtained from
laboratory testing of undisturbed samples. In the laboratory the stresses, deformations
and boundary conditions can be more readily and accurately controlled and observed.
However, samples are greatly disturbed during drilling, sampling, transportation,
extrusion, sample preparation and using very low quality conventional Shelby tube
sampler at early stages of testing. Akhter (2010), in her research showed that
Traditional Shelby Tubes having thick and rough wall and large cutting edge angle,
sample become highly disturbed during intrusion and extrusion of soil sample. This is
the reason why Compression Index and initial void ratio were significantly altered in
Traditional Shelby Tube samples. As a result conservative foundation design would
lead to high cost of foundation. Besides this, Traditional Shelby Tube samples had
higher initial void ratio and less stiffness. More disturbed samples had faster rate of
consolidation. Current practice of undisturbed sampling in Bangladesh is not
satisfactory. Usually undisturbed samples are collected by non-standard Shelby
Tubes.
2.4. Standard Shelby Tubes
A good Shelby tube must be smooth, thickness of wall should be 1.65 mm and the
cutting edge should be sharp, so that soil sample would not be disturbed. As a result,
the quality would be maintained and the accurate shear strength and other
7
compressibility parameter of soil sample would be obtained. The structure will be safe
and not expensive. Standard dimensions of a Shelby tube are shown in Figure 2.3 and
Table 2.1. ISSMGE (1965) recommended Shelby tube outside cutting edge taper
angle is shown in Table 2.2.
Inside wall friction is one of the principal causes of disturbance of the sample
(Hvorslev, 1949). One of the methods of reduction of eliminating wall friction
between the soil and sampler is to provide inside clearance by making the diameter of
the cutting edge, Dc, slightly smaller than the inside diameter of the sampler tube, Di.
The inside clearance ratio is expressed as follows:
Di  Dc
Inside Clearance Ratio =
Dc
Inside clearance should be large enough to allow partial swelling and lateral stress
reduction but it should not allow excessive soil sample when withdrawing from the
sampling tube. Hvorslev (1949) suggests an inside clearance ratio of 0.75 to 1.5 % for
long samplers and 0 to 0.5% for very short samplers. Kallstenius (1958) on the basis
of Swedish clays sampled by six different piston samplers also recommends that a
sampler ought to have a moderate inside clearance. The clearance reduces the wall
friction and probably counteracts to a certain extent the disturbance from
displacement of soil caused by the edge and sampler wall during the driving
operation. If the inside clearance and the edge angle are moderate, the above positive
effects outweigh the disturbance caused by deformation when the sample tends to fill
the clearance. The existence of inside clearance may have detrimental effects on
sample disturbance as pointed out by La Rochelle et al. (1981) developed a new
sampler with no inside clearance for sampling in soft sensitive soils. This sampler,
called the Laval Sampler, is of large diameter (208 mm inside diameter and 218 mm
outside diameters) and also without a piston. The area ratio, B/t ratio, and outside
cutting edge taper angle of this sampler 10 %, 43.6 and 50 respectively. In order to
reduce outside wall friction, samplers are often provided with outside clearance which
is expressed as follows .
De  B
Outside Clearance Ratio =
B
8
An outside clearance ratio of a few per cent may decrease the penetration resistance of
samplers in cohesive soils. Although outside clearance increases the area ratio, a
clearance of 2 to 3 % can be advantageous in clay (Hvorslev, 1949).
Clayton et al (1999) reported that sampling tubes having good sampler geometries are
available, which are capable of reducing tube sampling strains to acceptably low
levels. Siddique et al (1995) reported that the higher the tube sampling strains, the
greater is the changes in the undrained soil parameters.
Siddique et al (1996) investigated the effect of area ratio and outside cutting edge
angle on undrained soil parameters of reconstituted Dhaka clay by carrying out
undrained triaxial compression tests and one-dimensional consolidation tests on tube
samples collected with samplers of varying area ratio and outside cutting edge angle.
Siddique et al (1996) reported that, for Dhaka clay, initial effective stress (  'i ),
undrained strength (Su), initial stiffness (Ei) and secant stiffness (E50) were reduced up
to 41.5%, 35%, 49% and 34%, respectively, while axial strain at peak strength (  p)
was increased up to 81% due to increase in area ratio from 10.8 to 55.2%. Siddique et
al (1996) also reported that  i, Su , Ei and Ei, and E50 were reduced up to 36.9%, 32%,
41% and 31%, respectively while  p was increased up to 81% due to increase in
OCA from 4° to 15° for Dhaka clay. They found that Skempton's pore pressure
parameter, A at peak deviator stress, Ap reduced considerably as area ratio increased
and the values of Ap of the "tube" samples of different area ratios are negative.
Bashar et al (2000) also investigated the effect of area ratio on three soils collected
from Chittagong coastal region. It has been found that increasing area ratio caused
increasing reductions in Su Ei and E50. Increasing area ratio of sampler, however,
caused an increase in E50. Compared with the Ap values of the “in-situ” samples, it has
been found that the pore pressure responses of the “tube” samples collected with
varying area ratio are considerably less, resulting in significantly lower values of Ap.
Compared with the “in-situ” sample, the following effects on the measured soil
parameters have been observed due to increasing area ratio of samplers:
Values of Su decreased from 27% to 51.5%, 25.8% to 44.5% and 23.5% to 41.4% in
samples from Banskhali, Anwara and Chandanaish, respectively due to increase in
area ratio from 16.4 to 73.1%.
9
2.5. Existing Correlations
Several works have been done on establishing correlations among the soil parameters.
Some of them established by foreign geotechnical engineers and some by Bangladeshi
engineers.
2.5.1 Correlation between SPT N-value and Unconfined Compressive Strength
This correlation developed to get the unconfined compressive strength directly from
the field test. We can generalize the equation by this equation qu=kN. Where, k is the
proportionality factor and N is the SPT-N value. Different researchers has proposed
different values of k. Correlation suggested by Terzaghi and Peck (1948 and 1967) are
presented in Table 2.3 gives values of k between 12.5 to 13.3, when qu is expressed in
kPa.
The correlations between N and qu as obtained by Sowers (1953 and 1962) for
cohesive soils are presented in Table 2.4 and the average values of qu range from 6.7
to 24.0 for different soil types.
Sanglerat (1972) proposed the following relationships between N and qu for different
soil types with the values of k ranging from 13.3 to 25.0.
For clay, qu = 25N kPa,
For silty clay, qu = 20N kPa,
For silty sandy clay, qu = 13.3N kPa
Bowels (1988) suggested a correlation qu =12N kPa (N/4 ksf).
McEarthy (1977) shown following correlations
qu = 19.2NkPa for silty clay
qu = 24NkPafor clay.
10
Murthy (1993) investigated the relationship between N and qu for the over
consolidated silty clay encountered at Farakka in West Bengal, India. The moisture
content of the soil was close to Plastic limit, which for the soil varied from 30 to 40
percent, and the liquid limit from 50 to 100 percent with the over consolidation ratio
in the order of 5. It has been mentioned that there was a considerable scatter of test
results and the relation between qu and N shows qu = 10N to 20N kPa.
A study (Serajuddin and Chowdhury, 1996) was done on inorganic clay or silty clay
layers. They suggested a general correlation as k=16.8 for overall soil. They also
divided the soil into three categories on the basis of different range of Plasticity or,
Liquid Limit (LL). The correlation factors are as follows:
k = 14.8 for LL ≤ 35%;
k = 16.9 for 35 ≤ LL ≤ 50%;
k = 17.8 for LL ≥ 51%.
2.6. Empirical Correlations for Compression Index
The compression index (Cc) of compressible clays and silts has some empirical
correlations with liquid limit (wL), initial void ratio (e0), and natural moisture content
(wn), Plasticity index (IP). The relationship given by different researchers are listed in
the Table 2.5.
Azzouz et al. (1976) introduced several other correlations for the compression index
with the basic index properties of soil have which is given below:
Cc = 0.01wn (for Chicago clays)
Cc =0.0046(wL-9) (for Brazilian clays)
Cc = 1.21+1.055(e0-1.87) (for Motley clays from Sao Paulo city)
Cc = 0.208e0+0.0083 (for Chicago clays)
Cc = 0.0115wL (for organic soil, peats etc.)
11
Serajuddin et al (1967) correlated Cc with wL and e0 of a large number of undisturbed
plastic silt and clay soil samples of different areas of Bangladesh and obtained the
following empirical relationships:
Cc = 0.0078(wL– 14)
Cc = 0.44(e0 – 0.30)
Another correlation study (Serajuddin and Ahmed, 1982) with additional test data
from fine-grained soils occurring within about 7 m from the ground surface of
different areas of the country suggested the equation:
Cc = 0.47(e0 – 0.46) with a correlation coefficient of 0.77.
There are some relationship between compression index and initial void ratio, water
content. But no relationship is developed between SPT and Compression Index or
SPT and moisture content. So it is required to develop the relationship between SPT
and Compression Index and moisture content.
It is observed from Akhter (2010) that initial void ratio of Standard Shelby Tube is
much lower than that of Traditional Shelby tube. In case of soft soil the difference of
initial void ratio is larger than that of stiff soil. Compression Index is also smaller in
case of using Improved Shelby Tube sampler and ASTM specified Standard SPT
spoon.
2.7. Concluding Remarks
Most of the researches mentioned above studied, the relationship between SPT-N
value and other soil parameter. Most of the time, the height of fall was not controlled
during SPT and used non-standard Shelby tube. Very few studies were done on
undisturbed samples collected from field. It was shown that Traditional Shelby Tube
samples would be highly disturbed (Akhter; 2010). In this study, the sample was
collected by modified Shelby tube and the sample is extruded from the same depth
where the SPT were performed.
12
Therefore, present study was conducted by controlling height of fall and using
standard SPT spoon and Standard Shelby tube. Moreover, there is no relationship
between SPT-N value and compression index. So it is necessary to find a relationship
between SPT-N value& compression index. The main purpose of this research is to
develop a reliable relationship between SPT & compressibility parameters of soil.
Table 2.1: Thin-Walled Steel Sample Tubes
Outside Diameter (Do)

in 2 3 5
mm 50.8 76.2 127
Wall Thickness
Bwg 18 16 11
in 0.049 0.065 0.120
mm 1.24 1.65 3.05
Tube Length
in 36 36 54
mm 0.91 0.91 1.45
Inside clearance ratio, % <1 <1 <1
Area Ratio, AR = 9%
Table 2.2: ISSMGE recommended outside cutting edge taper angle (after ISSMFE,
1965)
Area Ratio (%) Outside Cutting Edge Taper (°)

5 5
10 12
20 9
40 5
80 4
13
Table 2.3: Correlations between Consistency, N-value and Unconfined
Compressive Strength of Cohesive Soils (Terzaghi and Peck, 1948 & 1967).
Consistency N-value k Unconfined Compressive

Strength, qu (kPa)*
Very soft 0-2 12.5 <25
Soft 2-4 12.5 25-50
Medium stiff 4-8 12.5 50-100
Stiff 8-15 13.3 100-200
Very stiff 15-30 13.3 200-400
Hard >30 13.3 >400
*Terzaghi and Peck (1948 and 1967) used the unit in ton/sq. ft.
which has been converted in this paper to kPa, assuming
1tsf=100kPa.
14
Table 2.4: Correlations between N-value and Unconfined Compressive Strength for
different soil types (Sowers, 1953 & 1962)
Soil types Unconfined Compressive Strength in kPa*

Minimum Average Maximum
Highly plastic clay 14.4N 24N 33.6N
Medium to low plastic clay 9.6N 14.4N 19.2N
Plastic silts, clays with failure 4.8N 6.7N 9.6N
planes
*Sowers (1953&1962) expressed the strength in 1000 psf which has been converted
to kPa in this paper.
Table 2.5: Equations used to calculate Cc for inorganic cohesive soil samples
(Bowles, 1997)
Compression Index, Cc Comments Source/Reference

Cc = 0.009(wL- 10) Clay Terzaghi and Peck (1967)
(Should not be used
for clays with
sensitivity ratios
greater than 4.)
Cc = 0.007(LL-10) Remolded clay Terzaghi and Peck (1967)
Cc = 1.15(e0 – 0.35) All clays Nishida (1956)
Cc = 0.009wn + 0.005wL All clays Koppula (1986)
Cc = 0.046 + 0.0104 IP Best for IP< 50% Nakase et al. (1998)
Cc = 0.02+0.014(PI), Natural deep ocean Nacci et al.(1975)
soil
Cc = 0.37(e0+0.003wL+0.0004wn-0.34) 678 data points Azzouz et al. (1976)
Cc = -0.156+ 0.411e0 + 0.00058wL 62 data points Al-Khajafi and
Andersland (1992)
15
76 cm
SPT Spoon
3 Blow
457 mm
5 Blow
7 Blow
Figure 2.1: SPT Spoon with 63.5 kg hammer
16
2.54 mm
Open Shoe Head Roll Pin
34.93 mm
38.1 mm
50.8 mm
23
16~
Tube Ball Vent
25~50 mm 457~762 mm
Figure 2.2: Standard Dimension of SPT Split-Barrel Sampler (ASTM D 1586-08a).
Figure 2.3: Standard Dimensions of Shelby Tube Sampler (ASTM D 1587-08)
17
CHAPTER 3: TEST PROGRAM
3.1. General
Undisturbed soil samples were collected by standard Shelby tubes and Standard
Penetration Resistance were determined at the same place (1 m apart) at same depth
of collection of undisturbed samples. Determination of SPT and Sample collection is
done at four selected locations. Laboratory tests were performed at the geotechnical
laboratory of Civil Engineering Department of Bangladesh University of Engineering
and Technology (BUET) to find index properties, unconfined compressive strength
and compressibility properties of clay at four locations, One is at Narayanganj area,
the two others are at Khulna city and last one is at Dhaka cantonment. Bhulta of
Narayanganj area was selected to have stiff clay soil and Khulna was selected to have
soft clay soil so that a reliable correlation in stiff soil and soft soil would be
quantified.In the laboratory, sieve analysis and index properties tests were performed
to classify the soil and to find out that the soil profile of samples of the same location
collected by modified Shelby Tube. Then specific gravity, Atterberg limits, sieve
analysis, unconfined compression and consolidation tests were performed.
3.2. Major Mistakes of SPT in Bangladesh
Mistakes during obtaining SPT and sample are occurred mainly in three ways. The
major mistakes or errors which are normally occurred in the fields during collection
of SPT and Sampling are height of fall of SPT hammer, Thickness of SPT spoon
cutting Shoe and use of non-standard Shelby tube.
3.2.1. Height of fall of SPT Hammer
SPT collection team is not aware of importance of height of fall. In most of the cases
height of fall is more or less than that specified in ASTM (30” = 76 cm). As a result
when the height of fall is large, then energy release will be greater and SPT value will
18
be smaller. On the other hand, when the height of fall will be small, then smaller
energy will be released which causes the higher SPT value. Hence, accurate SPT-N
value cannot be collected. Height of fall (H) may be less or more than 762mm during
SPT collection in the field. If Height of fall is greater than 762 mm, the SPT-N value
will be less than actual value and result is foundation cost will be excessive. On the
other hand, if height of fall is less than 762 mm, greater SPT-N value is obtained than
the actual value. As a result, design of foundation will be unsafe. So it should strictly
maintain to control the height of fall in 762 mm. As the height of fall of SPT hammer
is an important factor for foundation design, so, by controlling the height of fall exact
SPT can be collected which is essential for safe foundation design or building.
In the field height of fall can be controlled by engaging the skilled labour, by marking
and using nut on top of the guide rod and also by using auto trip hammer. In this
research auto trip hammer was used to control the height of fall. Figure 3.1 shows
photograph of locally made auto trip hammer.
3.2.2. Thickness of SPT Spoon Cutting Shoe
Split‐spoon samplers (Figure 2.2) have been used to collect disturb samples. It
consists of a tube which is split longitudinally into two halves: a shoe and a sampler
head incorporating air release holes are screwed onto the ends. The two halves of the
tube can be separated when the shoe and head are detached to allow the sample to be
removed. The internal and external diameters are 35 and 50 mm, respectively, the area
ratio being approximately100%, with the result that there is considerable disturbance
of the sample. Thickness of SPT spoon cutting shoe is important for accurate
determination of SPT-N value. Figure 3.2 shows the comparison standard and
conventional SPT spoon cutting shoe. Standard requirement of the thickness is 25
mm, whereas in practice most of the times it becomes almost zero after long time use
of mild steel cutting shoe. That is why the cutting shoe should be of hardened steel. In
this study, cutting shoe of proper thickness made from stainless steel was used so that
accurate measurement of SPT-N value would be done.
19
3.2.3. Non-standard Shelby tube
Usually non-standard Shelby tubes are used for undisturbed soil sampling in
Bangladesh. Figure 3.3 shows the dimensions of a non-standard Shelby tube. Akhter
(2010) proved that this nonstandard Shelby tube samples are highly disturbed, yielded
less unconfined compressive strength and coefficient of consolidation. To develop
reliable correlation between SPT and shear strength, undisturbed sampling was done
by using a standard Shelby tube. Specification of this standard Shelby tube is given in
Table 3.1 and Figure 3.4.
3.3. Instrumentation
An SPT hammer system (as shown Figure 3.5) is comprised of the hammer itself, the
mechanism that lifts and drops the hammer, (the anvil, stem and anvil or drive-head)
and the operator. Two shapes of hammers are in common use; the safety hammer and
the donut hammer. The safety hammer, which is relatively long and therefore, has a
corresponding small diameter. The safety hammer has an internal striking ram that
greatly reduces the risk of injuries. The donut hammer is short in length and therefore
larger in diameter than the safety hammer. The longer safety hammers are more
efficient in transferring energy into the rods than the squatter donut hammers. In an
energy calibration study by Kovacs et al. (1983), the mean energy ratio delivered by a
safety hammer was found to be about 60%, whereas the mean energy ratio for a donut
hammer was about 45%. The common practice in performing the SPT is to raise the
hammer 762 mm by means of a rope wrapped around a rotating pulley and then throw
the rope smartly to dissociate it from the pulley, in this way letting the hammer fall
onto the anvil fastened to the top of the drill stem. Since the rope is rarely completely
dissociated from the pulley, the actual energy delivered using this technique depends
on the skill of the operator, smoothness of cathead (amount of rust) and very much on
the number of times the rope is originally wrapped around the pulley. Kovacs et al.
(1982) recommended that two turns of the rope around the pulley should be used to
minimize the importance of the number of turns and operators characteristics as
variables of the delivered energy. To eliminate the variability of the energy delivered
to the hammer that rises using the rope and pulley technique, an automatic trip
20
hammer has been introduced. A mechanical system raises the hammer and a tripping
device releases it from a 762mm height. It has been found that these systems also do
not deliver the theoretical free-fall energy to the drilling rods, probably because of the
energy losses associated with the anvil system at the top of the drill stem. In the
United States, the two most common SPT hammer systems are the safety hammer
with cathead and rope mechanism and the automatic trip hammer system.
3.3.1. Auto Trip Hammer
The autotrip hammer (Figure 3.1) was designed for driving the SPT spoon and
conforms to the requirements of BS 1377: Part 9: 1990 for carrying out the Standard
Penetration Test (SPT) or Super Heavy Dynamic Probing (DPSH). The hammer
consists of a weight of 63.5 kg complete with pick-up and self-tripping mechanism
that ensures that the weight has a free-fall of exactly 762 mm. The inner shaft acts as a
guide that permits the weight to drop with minimal resistance and ensures that the
weight strikes the anvil squarely. The hammer is supplied with a safety cross bolt
which secures the sliding outer sleeve to the inner guide rod when the hammer is not
in use or during transport. The overall length of the hammer is 1.8 m and 2.6 m when
fully extended. The total weight, including assembly, of the hammer is 105 kg.
Autotrip hammers have advantages for standard penetration test (SPT) of consistent
drop height and low friction loss during hammer fall. These advantages, however,
generate high energy transfer ratios “ER”, typically about 90%. This efficiency causes
lower sensitivity and higher energy correction coefficients. For SPT at WLA and
GVDA, the energy produced by the automatic trip hammer was mechanically reduced
to increase sensitivity by inserting a 127 mm long sleeve into the hammer mechanism.
This insertion reduced the drop height from 762 mm to 635 mm.
3.3.2. Specification of SPT Spoon
SPT spoon is usually does not comply with ASTM. Most of the cases, driving shoe of
SPT spoon is sharper than that specified in ASTM. So the smaller SPT-N value is
21
obtained than actual value. In Figure 3.2 the driving shoe of SPT spoon is 16º to 24º
angle and the cutting edge is not too sharp which gives erroneous value of SPT.
Figure 3.2 representing the standard shoe of SPT spoon and conventional shoe of SPT
spoon. In this research the standard shoe of SPT spoon is used. The drawback of
conventional shoe of SPT Spoon is that the cutting edge is too sharp and it entered
into the deep soil and we get the lower value of SPT which is not the correct value.
The cost of foundation will be expensive. So for controlling the quality of a sample
Standard Shoe of SPT spoon is essential.
3.3.3. Fabrication of Standard Shelby Tube
The specification of Shelby tube sampler is described in “Standard Practice for Thin-
Walled Tube Sampling of Soils for Geotechnical Purposes” of ASTM D 1587. This
sampler consists of a thin-walled tube with a cutting edge at the toe. A sampler head
attaches the tube to the drill rod, and contains a check valve and pressure vents.
Generally used in cohesive soils, this sampler is advanced into the soil layer,
generally 152.4 mm (6") less than the length of the tube. The vacuum created by the
check valve and cohesion of the sample in the tube cause the sample to be retained
when the tube is withdrawn. Standard ASTM dimensions are shown in Table 2.1. It
should be noted that ASTM allows other diameters as long as they are proportional to
the standardized tube designs, and tube length is to be suited for field conditions. Soil
sampled in this manner is considered reasonably undisturbed.
Most of the Shelby tube samplers used in Bangladesh have high area ratio, very rough
inner surface, irregular cross sections and no specification for cutting edge. Sampler is
pushed into soil by impact loading not by static thrust. It has long been recognized
that if side friction becomes too great the sample will jam in the tube. Apart from the
inconvenience of low percentages of recovery, this is associated with very high levels
of disturbance (Clayton and Siddique, 1999). This type of undisturbed sample may
lead to very conservative design of foundations causing more foundation cost.
International Society for Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering (ISSMFE,

1965) has made specific recommendations about leading edge, area ratio and length to
22
diameter ratio for a good tube sampler (ISSMFE, 1965). Siddique (2000) reported the
current practices of soil sampling in Bangladesh. As a first attempt to implement good
quality Shelby tube sampling in the field in Bangladesh, this study compared the
unconfined compressive strength and consolidation properties of undisturbed soil
samples collected by using locally available currently practiced Shelby tube samplers
and Modified Shelby tube samplers . Modified Shelby tubes was fabricated as per
recommendations of ISSMFE (1965) having inside diameter 72 mm, wall thickness
1.9 mm, area ratio 10%, inside clearance ratio 0.0%, leading edge taper angle 600 up
to thickness of 0.3 mm, cutting shoe taper angle 120, B/t ratio 38 and smooth
inner/outer surface. Sampler quality parameters of both modified Shelby tube
samplers are given in Table 3.1.
3.4. Field Testing Program
Samples used here are mostly collected from various sites in Bangladesh mainly
Bhulta of Narayanganj, Khulna region and the Cantonment of Dhaka. Soft and stiff
both soils are included in this study. In order to identify the subsoil stratification and
collect disturbed and undisturbed soil samples from different depths and locations
four sites were selected for sampling, one site was in Bhulta, Narayanganj, one site
was in Atomic Medical Centre, Khulna , the other was in Sheikh Abu Naser Hospital,
Khulna and the last one is at cantonment, Dhaka. At each site two bore holes were
drilled with 1 m spacing between them (as shown in Figure 3.6). In one bore hole,
SPT and disturbed samples were collected by using SPT spoon and another borehole
was used to collect undisturbed samples using standard Shelby tube samplers. The
SPT and the undisturbed sample were collected at the same level but one meter
apart.As the SPT and undisturbed sample was collected at the same level, so, the
characteristics of soil were same.
Initially, boreholes were drilled up to 1.2 m depth by wash boring technique. Wash
boring is the process in which a hole is advanced by combination of chopping and
jetting to break the soil or rock into small fragments called cuttings, and washing to
remove the cuttings from the hole. Water was pumped through a string of hollow
boring rods (wash pipe) and was released under pressure through narrow holes in a
23
chisel attached of the lower end of the rods. The soil was loosened and broken up by
the water jets and the up-and-down movement of the chisel. The soil particles
between the rods and the side of the borehole were washed to the surface through the
annular space between the borehole and the boring rod. The washed materials were
allowed to settle out in a sump.
After thoroughly cleaning of borehole by circulating slurry, the sampler is pushed into
soil by hammering. It is recommended that the Shelby tube should be pushed into the
soil by static thrust not by impact loading. In Bangladesh usually hammering is used
to push the sampler into the soil. That was why hammering was used to push the
sampler into the soil. The Standard Shelby tubes were driven into the soil in the same
way. After drilling 1.2 m deep hole, continuous sampling was done in the borehole.
After collection of each sample the borehole was widened and cleaned before next
sampling to minimize the side friction of sampler. Boiling wax was then poured
(Figure 3.7) at the two ends of sampler in a thick layer to keep the sample airtight and
was covered by the plastic tightly. The samplers were then brought to the geotechnical
lab for testing.
3.5 Laboratory Test
A detailed laboratory investigation was carried out on soil samples collected from the
boreholes drilled at the site. Both types of undisturbed and disturbed samples were
taken to geotechnical laboratory of BUET to perform unconfined compression test
and consolidation test and other test index properties of soil. The laboratory-testing
program consisted of carrying out liquid limit, plastic limit, sieve analysis, unconfined
compression and one-dimensional consolidation tests.
Besides, natural water content (wn), unit weight, liquid limit (wL), plastic limit (wp),
and some additional grain size distributions were determined using undisturbed
samples.Unconfined compressive strength tests were performed on undisturbed
cohesive soil samples for the determination of unconfined compressive strength of
soil of different samples to compare the strength property.
24
For determination of the consolidation parameters such as compression index (Cc),
coefficient of consolidation (cv), one-dimensional consolidation tests were performed
on undisturbed cohesive soil samples which was collected from four location.
Table 3.1: Sampler quality parameters of Standard Shelby tube used in this study.
Parameter Standard Shelby Tube
Leading Edge Taper Angle 60o up to 0.3 mm
Cutting shoe taper angle 12o
Area Ratio, AR 10%
L/D ratio 8
Material Stainless Steel
Surface Roughness Smooth
25
Figure 3.1: Photograph of a locally fabricated auto trip hammer.
Figure 3.2: Comparison of dimension between Standard Shoe (left) and Conventional
Shoe of SPT Spoon (right).
26
Figure 3.3: Schematic view of a Currently Practiced Shelby Tube Sampler.
Figure 3.4: Schematic diagram of Modified Shelby Tube.
27
Figure 3.5: The SPT sampler in place of the boring.
28
1m
Undisturbed
Sampling by
SPT borehole Modified Shelby
Tube
1m 1m
Undisturbed Sampling by
Traditional Shelby Tube
Figure 3.6: Borehole layout of SPT and undisturbed sampling.
Figure 3.7: Covering by polythene after waxing to make the sample airtight.
29
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1. General
Results of field and laboratory tests have been presented in this chapter. The possible
correlations were developed. It is found that the subsoil of the cantonment (Dhaka) is
very stiff clay, the subsoil of the Bhulta (Narayanganj) area is medium to very stiff
clay and the subsoil at Khulna Medical College area is very soft clay. The unconfined
compressive strength tests of cohesive soil show high compressive strength in the
Dhaka & Narayanganj area and the unconfined compressive strength of Khulna area
is low. The value of Standard Penetration Resistance (SPT) is higher at Dhaka and
Narayanganj than the value of Khulna region.
4.2. Grain Size Distribution
Sieve analysis was performed on 24 cohesive soil samples of three locations as per
ASTM D 421-422 in order to determine the grain size distribution of the collected soil
samples at different depths and locations. The distribution of percent sand and clay
are presented in Table 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3. It may be noted that percent sand and percent
fines range from 1.0 to 40.0 and 60.0 to 98.0 respectively in the subsoil layers of the
area of Bhulta and 0.2 to 2.0 and 97.0 to 99.0 respectively in the area of Khulna.Wet
sieving was performed on clay soil samples of three locations as per ASTM D 421-
422 in order to determine the sand fraction of the collected cohesive soil samples at
different depths. Percentages of sand fractions are presented in Table 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3.
4.3. Atterberg Limits
Atterberg Limits of undisturbed samples at different depths of different borehole

locations to determine liquid limit, plastic limit, and plasticity index. A summary of
the liquid limit (LL), plastic limit (PL) and plasticity index (Ip) is shown in Table 4.1,
4.2 and 4.3. It may be noted that LL and PL for soil samples of Narayanganj vary
30
from 24% to 70% and from 10% to 25%, respectively. However, LL and PL for
Khulna soil samples vary from 40% to 100% and 20% to 58%, respectively.
4.4. USCS Classification of Soil Samples
For classification of the soil samples Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D
2487-00, 2006) was used. Table 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 show the USCS classification of
soils. At Bhulta, Narayanganj soil samples were Fat Clay, Lean Clay, Lean Clay with
Sand and Sandy Lean Clay. At Khulna region soil samples were Fat Clay, Lean Clay
and Organic Clay. At Cantonment, Dhaka the soil is Light Brown Lean Clay. Organic
Clay was identified by determining Liquid Limit before and after oven drying the
sample.
4.5. Relationship between SPT and Unconfined Compressive Strength
Unconfined compressive strength of 30 undisturbed cohesive soil samples collected

from four locations was determined. The values of different parameters obtained from
these tests are summarized in Table 4.7 and 4.8. For determination of unconfined
compressive strengths undisturbed soil samples were collected by standard Shelby
tubes and SPTs were performed by using Standard SPT spoon and auto trip hammer.
Various Researchers shows different correlation between SPT and unconfined

compressive strength. In this research the relationship obtained from different type of
soil which was collected from different areas. Both individual and combined
relationship was determined for different areas. The correlation also determined
according to the Liquid Limit of soil sample. Table 4.9 shows correlation chart of
unconfined compressive strength and SPT-N value. These relationships are
established according to Liquid Limit ranges mentioned. The average values of qu
range from 9.96to 17.84 times of SPT value for different soil types.
The graphical presentation of correlation between SPT-N value and unconfined

compressive strength are shown in Figure 4.1 to 4.9. The graphical representation
between SPT (N-value) and unconfined compressive strength at Bhulta, cantonment
31
SANH, AMC and are shown in Figure 4.1, 4.2, 4.4 and 4.5 respectively. The
combined relationship between SPT & Unconfined Compressive Strength for stiff
clay soil is shown in Figure 4.3. It is observed that there exists astraight line
relationship between N and qu. Regression analysis of the data yielded the following
equation with a correlation coefficient (R2) of 0.764.
qu = 16.76 N
Where N is equal to SPT value and qu is equal to Unconfined Compressive Strength.

Here Unconfined Compressive Strength is equal to16.71 times of SPT value.
The result of SPT (N) and qu is plotted in fig 4.4 at Sheikh Abu Naser Hospital (SANH),
Khulna. It is observed that there exists a straight relationship between N and qu.
Regression analysis of the data yielded the following equation with a correlation
coefficient (R2) of 0.916.
qu= 33.88N
Where N is equal to SPT value and qu is equal to Unconfined Compressive Strength.
The result of SPT (N) and qu is plotted in Figure 4.5 at Atomic Medical Centre, Khulna.
It is observed that there exists a linear relationship between N and qu. Regression analysis
of the data yielded the following equation with a correlation coefficient (R2) of 0.927.
qu = 15.57N-14.60
Where N denoted SPT-N value and qu represented Unconfined Compressive Strength.
The significant relationship of the soil at cantonment is stiff. The values are not
scattered. Unconfined Compressive Strength increases with the increase of SPT at
Cantonment, Dhaka. Based on range of Liquid Limits, SPT-N value and qu
relationship is shown in Figure 4.8 and 4.9. With the increase of Liquid Limit,
correlation factor k decreases.
32
4.6. Compressibility Characteristics
Following ASTM D2435-96 one-dimensional consolidation tests were performed to

determine compressibility properties of undisturbed soil samples collected from
different depth at eight boreholes. Compression index vs SPT-N value is plotted in
Figure 4.10 for Bhulta, Narayanganj site. A linear correlation is found between
compression index and SPT-N value where compression index decreases with
increasing SPT-N value. Similar graph is plotted for SANH, Khulna in Figure 4.11
where opposite relation is found. Figure 4.12 shows the compression index vs SPT-N
value for AMC, Khulna where relation is similar to Bhulta, Narayanganj site.
Compression index vs SPT-N value for all sites is shown in Figure 4.13. Since
compression index data of soft soil areas were found to be scattered and unreliable,
combined graph also became unreliable. Therefore, compression index vs SPT-N
value for Bhulta site can be considered for stiff clay soil only. The observed
compression index, Cc of soil samples at Bhulta (Narayanganj) area ranges from 0.09
to 0.161. At Khulna site the observed value of Cc varies from 0.253 to 0.521.
4.7. Correlation between Compression Index and PI/N
Several graphs were plotted for Compression Index and (Plasticity Index/SPT N value)
for six boreholes in three sites. Compression Index vs (Plasticity Index/SPT N value) of
undisturbed soil samples were determined and shown in Figure 4. 14, Figure 4.15, Figure
4.16 and the combined effect in Figure 4.17 for all three sites. Except for the site of
SANH, Khulna, linear relationships were found between Compression Index vs
(Plasticity Index/SPT N) value.
4.8. Relationship between Liquidity Index and SPT N value
A relationship was introduced with Liquidity Index and SPT N value for three sites.
Liquidity Index and SPT N value of undisturbed soil samples were determined and
shown in Figure 4.18, Figure 4.19, Figure 4.20 and Figure 4.21 for all three sites. Except
33
for site SANH, Khulna, linear relationships were found between Liquidity Index and SPT
N value.
4.9. Initial Void Ratio vs SPT-N Value
Initial void ratio of undisturbed soil samples were determined and shown in Figure
4.22, Figure 4.23, Figure 4.24 and Figure 4.25 for all three sites. Except for site
SANH, Khulna, linear relationships were found between initial void ratio and SPT-N
value.
4.10. Relationship between Dry Density and SPT
Dry density was determined to see the compressibility characteristics of undisturbed

soil samples collected from different depth at eight boreholes. Dry Density vs SPT-N
value was plotted in Figure 4.26 for Bhulta, Narayanganj site. A linear correlation is
found between Dry Density and SPT-N value where Dry Density increases with
increasing SPT-N value. Similar graph is plotted for Cantonment, Dhaka, in Figure
4.27; and for AMC, Khulna in Figure 4.28 where relation is similar to Bhulta,
Narayanganj site. Dry Density vs SPT-N value for all sites is shown in Figure 4.29.
Since Dry Density data of soft soil areas and stiff soil areas were not scattered.
Therefore, Dry Density vs SPT-N value for Bhulta and Khulna site can be considered
for both stiff clay soil and soft soil. In general, Dry Density increases with SPT-N
value.
4.11. Correlation between Compression Index and Liquid Limit
Compression Index vs Liquid Limit of undisturbed soil samples were determined and
shown in Figure 4.30, Figure 4.31 and Figure 4.32 at Bhulta, Narayanganj, AMC &
SANH, Khulna respectively and Figure 4.33 is the combined result for all three sites. A
linear correlation is found where Liquid Limit increases with increasing Compression
Index.
34
4.12. Relationship between Compression Index and Plasticity Index
Plasticity Index was determined for classification and the compressibility characteristics
of soil samples from six boreholes in various locations. Plasticity Index vs Compression
Index is plotted in Figure 4.34 for Bhulta, Narayanganj site. A linear correlation is found
between Plasticity Index and Compression Index where Plasticity Index increases with
increasing Compression Index. Similar graph is plotted for AMC, Khulna in Figure 4.35
and for SANH, Khulna in Figure 4.36 where relation is similar to Bhulta, Narayanganj
site. Plasticity Index vs Compression Index for all sites are shown in Figure 4.37.
Therefore, Plasticity Index vs Compression Index for Bhulta and Khulna site can be
considered for both stiff clay soil and soft soil.
4.13. Initial Void Ratio vs Compression Index
Another relationship was introduced with Compression Index and Initial Void Ratio
for three sites. Initial void ratio vs Compression Index is plotted in Figure 4.38 for
Bhulta, Narayanganj site. A linear correlation is found between Initial void ratio and
compression Index where Initial void ratio increases with increasing compression
Index. Similar graph is plotted for AMC, Khulna in Figure 4.39 and for SANH,
Khulna in Figure 4.40 where relation is similar to Bhulta, Narayanganj site. Initial
void ratio vs Compression Index for all sites is shown in Figure 4.41. Therefore,
Initial void ratio vs Compression Index for Bhulta and Khulna site can be considered
for both stiff clay soil and soft soil.
4.14. Natural Moisture Content vs Compression Index
Determination of Natural Moisture Content is an indicator of compressibility

properties of undisturbed soil samples collected from different depth at six boreholes.
This test has a significant influence on behavior of clay soil, natural moisture content
provides an indicator of the soil's compressibility, strength, and potential expansion
characteristics. Natural Moisture Content vs Compression Index is plotted in Figure
35
4.42 for Bhulta, Narayanganj site. A linear correlation is found between Natural
Moisture Content and Compression Index where Natural Moisture Content increases
with increasing compression Index. Similar graph is plotted for AMC, Khulna in
Figure 4.43 and for SANH, Khulna in Figure 4.44 where relation is similar to Bhulta,
Narayanganj site. Natural Moisture Content vs Compression Index for all sites is
shown in Figure 4.45. Since Natural Moisture Content data of soft soil areas and stiff
soil areas were not scattered. Therefore, Natural Moisture Content vs Compression
Index for Bhulta and Khulna site can be considered for both stiff clay soil and soft
soil. The observed Natural Moisture Content, ωn of soil samples at Bhulta
(Narayanganj) area ranges from 18.2 % to 35.3 %. At Khulna site the observed value
of ωn varies from 22.5 % to 58.6 %.
4.15. Comparison of New Relation vs Previous Relations
From the past relationships given by various authors, it is observed that most of the cases
qu varies from 10 to 20 times of SPT N value. In this research qu is equal to 16.5 times of
SPT N value (Fig.-4.7). The correlation varies for different types of sample for different
locations. The correlations that were developed in different times and in this research are
linear. The relationship varies with liquid limit, Plasticity Index, compression index, dry
density of soil etc. No normalized relation was found (Fig. 4.7).
McEarthy (1977) established the following correlations for silty clay and clay soil.
qu=N/2.5 ksf = 0.4N ksf for silty clay
qu=N/2 ksf = 0.5N ksf for clay.
Similar correlation between N and qu was investigated by Murthy (1993) for the
preconsolidated silty clay encountered at Farakka in West Bengal, India. The moisture
content of the soil was close to the Plastic limit, which for the soil varied from 30 to
40 percent, and the liquid limit from 50 to 100 percent with the preconsolidation ratio
in the order of 5. It has been mentioned that there was a considerable scatter of test
results and the relation between qu and N shows qu = 10 to 20 N (kPa).
Bowels (1988) suggested a correlation qu = N/4 ksf (12N kPa)
36
Categorizing by liquid limit, two types of correlation are found in this study which is
shown below:
For lean clay qu = 17.84N Kpa=0.37N ksf; (fig.-4.8) when LL < 50 %
For fat clay qu = 9.97N Kpa=0.21N ksf; (Fig.-4.9) when LL ≥ 50 %
In this study, the plastic Limit varies from10 to 23 percent and Liquid limit varies
from 17 to 57 percent. It has been found that the test result is scattered and the
average value of qu=16.5 N kPa in Bhulta, Narayanganj area. But in Khulna region
the soil is too soft and the data which was found from the test result is very scattered.
So in combination of soft and stiff soil, low or high plasticity the value of unconfined
compressive strength is
qu=16.5 N kPa = 0.34N ksf (Fig. 4.9)
Comparing the new relationship between qu and N-value with previous correlations done
by other authors, it is observed that correlation is not unique. It varies for different type of
soils for different locations. It is more or less similar to the other authors.
Azzouz et al. (1976) introduced several correlations between Compression Index and
Initial Void Ratio for different types of soil.
Cc = 1.21+1.055(e0-1.87); for Motley clays from Sao Paulo city
Cc = 0.208e0+0.0083; for Chicago clays

But the correlations which are found in this study are given below:
Cc = 0.295e0 - 0.028 for stiff clay at Bhulta, Narayanganj (Fig.-4.38)
Cc = 0.651e0- 0.310 for soft clay at AMC, Khulna (Fig.-4.39)
Cc = 0.309e0 + 0.024 for soft clay at SANH, Khulna (Fig.-4.40)
Cc = 0.358e0 - 0.049 for combined correlation (Fig.-4.41)
So, different type of soil shows different correlation. No generalized correlation is
found.
In this study, the empirical relationship is found between Compression Index and initial
void ratio which is shown in Figure 4.46 including previous study. It is found that all
empirical relations including present study are more or less followed the same trend.
37
Therefore relation from this study can be used for soils of Bangladesh. So this relation
could be used for all type of clay soil.
Azzouz et al. (1976) gave several correlations for the compression index and natural
moisture content:
Cc = 0.01wn (for Chicago clays)
Cc = 0.0115 wn (for organic soil, peats etc.)
The correlations of Cc and natural moisture content wn for both type of stiff and soft
soil at Narayanganj and Khulna, which are found, are:
Cc = 0.006wn - 0.016 Bhulta, Narayanganj: (Fig-4.42)
Cc= 0.021wn- 0.527 AMC, Khulna :( Fig-4.43)
Cc = 0.009wn- 0.042 SANH, Khulna: (Fig-4.44)
The combined result of compression index Cc and natural moisture content wn is plotted
in Figure 4.45. It was observed that there exists a straight relationship between Cc and wn.
Regression analysis of the data yielded the following equation with a correlation
coefficient (R2) of 0.902.
Cc = 0.0092wn - 0.068
Similar correlations were introduced by some other authors including the present study in
Figure4.47. The previous relationships which were developed are similar in nature of
Bhulta and Khulna. Each type of soil shows the linear relationship. So the correlation
which was developed for compression index and natural moisture content can be used for
all category of soil.
Some correlations were given by Terzaghi and Peak (1967) for the compression index
and liquid limit
Cc = 0.009 (wL-10) for the soil where the sensitivity ratio is

less than 4
38
Cc = 0.007(wL-10) for remolded soil
Serajuddin et al (1967) correlated Cc with wL of a large number of undisturbed plastic

silt and clay soil samples of different areas of Bangladesh and obtained the following
empirical relationships:
Cc = 0.0078(wL– 14)
In this study, the correlation with Cc & wL which are found:
Cc = 0.002wL + 0.003 Bhulta, Narayanganj; (Fig-4.30)
Cc = 0.013wL - 0.3691 AMC, Khulna ;( Fig-4.31)
Cc = 0.0196wL - 1.134 SANH, Khulna; (Fig-4.32)
Cc = 0.006(wL- 21.34) Combination of both type of soil ;( Fig-4.33)
Similar correlations were found for compression index and liquid limit that were
established by some other authors including the present study in Figure 4.48. The linear
correlations were developed for different types of soils that vary for stiff or soft soil. But
no generalized relation is observed. This correlation is different for different types of soil.
Nacci et al. (1975) tested some natural deep ocean soil samples and correlate with
compression index and plasticity index.
Cc = 0.02+0.014 IP
Similarly, Nakase et al. (1998) correlated with compression index. But there is a
limitation of this relation, that this correlation is applicable when Plasticity index is
IP< 50% and showed a relation:
Cc = 0.046 + 0.0104 IP
By testing a large number of undisturbed soils collected from Narayanganj and

Khulna, several correlations are found that are as follows:
Cc = 0.004Ip + 0.021 Bhulta, Narayanganj: (Fig. 4.34)
Cc= 0.018Ip - 0.169 AMC, Khulna; (Fig. 4.35)
39
Cc = 0.016Ip - 0.446 SANH, Khulna; (Fig. 4.36)
Cc = 0.007Ip- 0.015 Combination of Bhulta & Khulna; (Fig. 4.37)
The relationship between compression index and plastic limit that was established by
some authors including the present study is shown in Figure 4.49. The relationships
that are developed for soft and stiff soil is followed the similar trend. Comparing to
the other authors’ correlations (Fig. 4.49), similar type of linear relations are found.
4.15. Concluding Remarks
SPT and undisturbed sampling was done in four sites covering stiff soil and soft soil.
From the test results following conclusions may be drawn.
- A linear relation between unconfined compressive strength and SPT-N value

was found for all soils, soft or stiff, low or high plasticity. The relation is qu =
16.5N in kPa.
- Linear relation between compression index and SPT-N value was found for
stiff soil. For soft soil the relation was found to be random in nature.
- Reliable linear relationship between natural moisture content and SPT-N value
was found for all sites. However, no generalized or normalized relationship
was found.
- Linear relationship between initial void ratio and SPT-N value was found for
all sites. However, no generalized or normalized relationship was found for
initial void ratio.
- Linear relationship between dry density and SPT-N value was found for all
sites. However, no generalized or normalized relationship was found for dry
density.
40
- Comparing the new relationship between qu and N-value with previous
correlations done by other authors, it is observed that correlation is not unique.
It varies for different type of soils for different locations.
- The linear empirical relationship is found between compression index and initial
void ratio. All empirical relations including present and previous study are more
or less followed the same trend. Therefore relation from this study can be used for
soils of Bangladesh. So this relation could be used for all type of clay soil.
- The correlation which was developed for compression index and natural moisture
content could be used for all category of soil.
- The linear correlations were developed between compression index and liquid
limit for different types of soils that vary for stiff or soft soil. However, no
generalized relationship is observed comparing to the previous relationship.
- Comparing to the other authors’ correlations, between compression index and

plastic limit similar type of linear relations are found.
41
Table 4.1: USCS Classification of soil samples collected from Bhulta, Narayanganj.
Sample Sample Sand Liquid Plastic Colour USCS

depth ID Fraction Limit Limit of Classification
(m) (%) (LL) (PL) sample
2.90 UD-6 6.5 56 17 Brown Fat Clay (CH)
5.64 UD-12 4.0 44 14 Brown Lean Clay (CL)
9.30 UD-20 24.8 30 11 Brown Lean Clay with
Sand (CL)
Brown Lean Clay with
11.13 UD-24 22.2 44 14
Sand (CL)
Brown Sandy Lean Clay
12.96 UD-28 38.3 25 11
(CL)
42
Table 4.2: USCS Classification of soil samples collected from AMC Site, Khulna.
Sample Sample Sand Liquid Plastic Colour of USCS

depth (m) ID Fraction Limit Limit Sample Classification
(%) (LL) (PL)
Dark Gray Fat Clay (CH)
0.46 UD-1 0.8 56 23

1.83 UD-4 0.3 52 24
3.20 UD-7 0.6 44 22 Dark Gray Lean Clay

(CL)
Organic Clay
4.57 UD-10 1.9 80 38 Black
(OH)
5.95 UD-13 0.8 57 27
Dark Gray Lean Clay

7.32 UD-16 0.6 32 16 (CL)
Table 4.3: USCS Classification of soil samples collected from SANH site, Khulna.
Sample Sample Sand Liquid Plastic Colour of USCS

depth (m) ID Fraction Limit Limit sample Classification
(%) (LL) (PL)
0.46 UD-1 0.2 53 24 Dark Gray Fat Clay (CH)
0.91 UD-2 0.3 58 28 Dark Gray Fat Clay (CH)
1.37 UD-3 0.4 30 11 Dark Gray Lean Clay (CL)

2.74 UD-6 0.4 89 23 Black Organic Clay (OH)
43
Table 4.4: The value of SPT, Specific Gravity and Initial Void Ratio from SANH at
Khulna
Sample Sample SPT-N value Specific Gravity Initial void ratio

depth (m) ID (SANH, Khulna) Gs e0
1.37 UD-3 2 2.66 0.85
1.83 UD-4 3 2.63 1.65
2.29 UD-5 1 2.60 0.49
Table 4.5: The value of SPT, Specific Gravity, and Initial Void Ratio from AMC at
Khulna
AMC, Khulna
Sample depth Sample ID SPT-N value Specific Gravity Initial void ratio
(m) (AMC) Gs e0
3.20 UD-7 9 2.60 0.85
4.57 UD-10 7 2.63 0.92
5.95 UD-13 8 2.62 0.96
44
Table 4.6: The value of SPT, Specific Gravity, Natural Moisture Content, Initial
Void Ratio and Dry Density from Bhulta at Narayanganj.
Bhulta, Narayanganj
SPT-N value Specific Initial void
Sample Sample ID
(Bhulta) Gravity ratio
Depth (m)
Gs e0
3.81 UD-8 5 2.51 0.70
4.73 UD-10 8 2.5 0.54
5.18 UD-11 7 2.55 0.81
5.64 UD-12 4 2.51 0.41
6.55 UD-14 6 2.55 0.58
7.01 UD-15 15 2.58 0.54
9.30 UD-20 24 2.66 0.42
10.21 UD-22 17 2.60 0.48
Table 4.7: Summary of Natural Moisture Content (ωn), Dry density () and
Unconfined Compressive Strength (qu) of Soil Samples Collected from Bhulta,
Narayanganj.
Location Sample Sample Natural SPT Dry Unconfined

Depth ID Moisture density,  Compressive
(m) Content, (KN/m3) Strength, qu
n (%) (kPa)
3.81 UD-8 27.8 5 14.5 245

Bhulta (Narayanganj)
4.73 UD-10 25.4 8 15.9 244
5.64 UD-12 35.3 4 13.9 86

7.01 UD-15 24.0 15 15.8 208
9.30 UD-20 15.4 24 18.4 277
10.21 UD-22 18.2 17 17.2 299
45
Table 4.8: Summary of Natural Moisture Content (n), Dry density () and
Unconfined Compressive Strength (qu) of Soil Samples Collected from Khulna
Area.
Sample Sample ID
Location n (%)  (kN/m3) qu (kPa)
Depth (m) SPT
3.20 UD-7 39.5 7 12.6 29
AMC
4.57 UD-10 36.9 8 12.8 56

5.95 UD-13 35.9 9 13.8 57
1.37 UD-3 32.5 2 9.8 68
SANH
1.83 UD-4 22.5 3 13.9 84

2.29 UD-5 58.6 1 7.9 42
Table 4.9 Relationship Chart between N-value and Unconfined Compressive

Strength of Soil Sample at Bhulta, Narayanganj & Khulna Area.
Liquid Limit k Unconfined Compressive Strength, qu

(kPa)
LL ≤ 50%; 17.84 qu= 17.84N
(Lean Clay)
LL ≥ 50% 9.97 qu= 9.97N
(Fat Clay)
46
Table 4.10: Summary of Compression Index (Cc) of Soils of Bhulta, Narayanganj.
Location Sample Depth (m) Sample ID SPT Compression

Index, Cc
3.81 UD-8 5 0.161
4.73 UD-10 8 0.138
(Narayanganj)
5.64 UD-12 4 0.229

Bhulta
7.01 UD-15 15 0.121

9.30 UD-20 24 0.090
10.21 UD-22 17 0.092
Table 4.11: Summary of Compression Index (Cc) of Soils of Khulna Area
Location Sample Sample ID SPT Compression

Depth (m) Index, Cc
3.20 UD-7 7 0.332
AMC
4.57 UD-10 8 0.262
(Khulna)
5.95 UD-13 9 0.253
1.37 UD-3 2 0.268
SANH
1.83 UD-4 3 0.541
(Khulna)
2.29 UD-5 1 0.189
47
Unconfined Compressive Strength vs SPT
qu = 16.71N
R² = 0.777
400
Unconfined Compressive Strength qu (kPa)

350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Standard Penetration Resistance (N)
Figure 4.1: Correlation between Unconfined Compressive Strength (qu) & Penetration
Resistance (N) at Bhulta, Narayanganj

qu = 36.45N - 270.2
R² = 0.811
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 5 10 15 20
Standard Penetration Resistance(N)
Figure 4.2: Correlation between unconfined Compressive Strength (qu) & Penetration
Resistance (N) at Dhaka Cantonment.
48
qu = 16.76N
R² = 0.764
400

350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Figure 4.3: Combined Correlation between unconfined Compressive Strength (qu) &
Penetration Resistance (N) at Dhaka Cantonment and Bhulta Narayanganj.

qu = 33.88N
R² = 0.916
150
100
50
0
0 1 2 3 4
Standard Penetration Resistance(N)
Figure 4.4: Correlation between unconfined Compressive Strength (qu) & Penetration
Resistance (N) at SANH, Khulna
49
qu = 15.572N - 14.60
R² = 0.927
150
Unconfined Compressive Strength (qu) 100
50
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Standard Penetration Restiance (N )
Resistance (N) at AMC, Khulna

qu = 15.23N
R² = 0.163
150
100
50
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Figure 4.6: Combined Correlation between Unconfined Compressive Strength (qu) &
Standard Penetration Resistance (N) at SANH and AMC at Khulna.
50
qu= 16.50 N
R² = 0.849
400
Unconfined compressive Strength qu (kPa)

350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Figure 4.7 Combined Relationship between Unconfined Compressive Strength (qu) &
SPT (N) at Khulna, Narayanganj and Dhaka
Unconfined Compressive strength vs SPT

qu= 17.84N
R² = 0.75
400
Unconfined Compressive strength qu (kPa)
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 5 10 15 20
Standard Penetration Resistance (N )
Resistance (N) (for Lean Clay when LL ≤ 50%)
51
qu= 9.97N
R² = -3.13
400

350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Resistance (N) (for Fat Clay when LL ≥ 50%)
Compression Index vs SPT

cc = -0.003N + 0.165
R² = 0.837
0.40
0.30
Compression Index(cc)
0.20
0.10
0.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Figure 4.10: Relationship between SPT & Compression Index at Bhulta, N
52
cc = 0.176N - 0.019
R² = 0.908
0.60
0.50
Compression Index (cc)

0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0 1 2 3 4
Figure 4.11: Relationship between Compression Index & SPT at SANH, Khulna

Cc = -0.039N + 0.598
R² = 0.834
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
6 7 8 9 10
Figure 4.12: Relationship between Compression Index & SPT at AMC, Khulna
53
cc= -0.007N + 0.252
R² = 0.524
0.60
0.50

0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0 5 10 15 20 25
Figure 4.13: Combined Relationship between Compression Index & SPT at Khulna,
Narayanganj and Dhaka
cc vs Ip/N
cc = 0.0123(Ip/N )+ 0.0759
R² = 0.90
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Ip/N (Plasticity Index /SPT)
Figure 4.14: Relationship between Compression Index & (Ip/N) at Bhulta,

Narayanganj
54
cc vs Ip/N
cc = 1.5237(Ip/N) - 4.9549
R² = 0.84
0.40

0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5
Ip/N (Plasticity Index / SPT)
Figure 4.15: Relationship between Compression Index & (Ip/N) at AMC, Khulna
cc vs Ip/N
cc = -0.0166(Ip/N) + 0.7425
R² = 0.4552
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0 10 20 30 40
Figure 4.16: Relationship between Compression Index & (Ip/N) at SANH, Khulna
55
cc vs Ip/N
cc = 0.0047(Ip/N) + 0.1776
R² = 0.1435
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0 10 20 30 40
Figure 4.17: Combined Relationship between Compression Index & (Ip/N) at Khulna
& Narayanganj.
Liquidity Index vs SPT

LI = -0.013N + 0.373
R² = 0.472
0.90
Liquidity Indix (LI)
0.60
0.30
0.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Figure 4.18: Correlation between Liquidity Index (LI) & SPT at Bhulta, Narayanganj
56
LI = -0.330N + 3.366
R² = 0.815
1.50
1.20
Liquidity Index (LI) 0.90
0.60
0.30
0.00
2 4 6 8 10
Figure 4.19: Correlation between Liquidity Index (LI) & SPT at AMC, Khulna

LI = 0.2N + 0.762
R² = 0.485
1.50
1.20
Liquidity Index (LI)
0.90
0.60
0.30
0.00
0 1 2 3 4
Figure 4.20: Correlation between Liquidity Index (LI) & SPT at SNAH, Khulna
57
LI = -0.016N + 0.446
R² = 0.314
0.90
Liquidity Index (LI) 0.60
0.30
0.00
0 10 20 30
Figure 4.21: Summary of combined Relationship between Liquidity Index (LI) & SPT
at Khulna and Narayanganj
Initial Void Ratio vs SPT

e0= -0.016N + 0.784
R² = 0.766
0.9
Initial Void Ratio (eo)
0.6
0.3
0
0 10 20 30
Figure 4.22: Relationship between Initial Void Ratio & SPT at Bhulta, Narayanganj
58
e 0 = 0.58N - 0.163
R² = 0.954
2.1
1.8

1.5
1.2
0.9
0.6
0.3
0.0
0 1 2 3 4
Figure 4.23: Relationship between Initial Void Ratio & SPT at SANH, Khulna.

eo = -0.05N + 1.3
R² = 0.25
1.2
0.9
0.6
0.3
0.0
6 7 8 9 10
Figure 4.24: Relationship between Initial Void Ratio & SPT at AMC, Khulna.
59
e 0= -0.022N + 0.929
R² = 0.554
1.2
0.9
Initial Void Ratio (e0)
0.6
0.3
0
0 7 14 21 28
Figure 4.25:Combined Relationship between Initial Void Ratio & SPT at Khulna and
Narayanganj
Dry Density vs SPT

γ = 0.201N + 13.49
R² = 0.900
20
18
Dry Density γ (kN/m3)
16
14
12
10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Figure 4.26: Relationship between Dry Density & SPT at Bhulta, Narayanganj
60
Dry Density vs SPT
y = 0.242N + 12.87
R² = 0.965
20
18
Dry Unit Density (γ) kN/m3 16
14
12
10
5 10 15 20
Figure 4.27: Relationship between Dry Density & SPT at Dhaka Cantonment
Dry Density vs SPT

γ= 0.55N + 8.85
R² = 0.975
14
13
12
11
10
6 7 8 9 10
Figure 4.28: Relationship between Dry Density & SPT at AMC, Khulna
61
Dry Density vs SPT
γ= 0.227N + 12.76
R² = 0.743
20
19
18

17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
0 10 20 30
Figure 4.29: Ccombined Relationship between Dry Density & SPT at Dhaka, Khulna
and Narayanganj
Compression Index vs Liquid Limit
cc = 0.002wL + 0.003
R² = 0.75
0.40
0.35
0.30
Compression Index
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
Liquid Limit (WL)
Figure 4.30: Correlation between Compression Index & Liquid Limit at Bhulta,
Narayanganj
62
cc= 0.013wL - 0.369
R² = 0.999
0.5
Compression Index (cc )

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Liquid Limit (wL)
Figure 4.31: Correlation between Compression Index & Liquid Limit at AMC,
Khulna

cc = 0.019wL - 1.134
R² = 0.908
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
Liquid Limit (wL)
Figure 4.32: Correlation between Compression Index & Liquid Limit at SANH,
Khulna
63
cc = 0.006wL- 0.128
R² = 0.60
0.6

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
15 30 45 60 75 90
Liquid Limit (wL)
Figure 4.33: Combined relationship between Compression Index & Liquid Limit at
Khulna and Narayanganj
Compression Index vs Plasticity Index

cc = 0.004Ip + 0.021
R² = 0.255
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Plasticity Index(Ip)
Figure 4.34: Correlation between Compression Index & Plasticity Index at Bhulta,
Narayanganj
64
cc= 0.018Ip - 0.169
R² = 0.951
0.5

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
15 20 25 30
Plasticity Index (Ip )
Figure 4.35: Correlation between Compression Index & Plasticity Index at AMC,
Khulna

cc = 0.016Ip - 0.446
R² = 0.990
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 15 30 45 60 75
Figure 4.36: Correlation between Compression Index & Plasticity Index at SANH,
Khulna
65
cc = 0.007Ip- 0.015
R² = 0.461
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
15 30 45 60 75
Figure 4.37: Combined Relationship between Compression Index & Plasticity Index
Compression Index vs Initial Void Ratio

cc = 0.295e0 - 0.028
R² = 0.847
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Figure 4.38: Correlation between Compression Index & Initial Void Ratio at Bhulta,
Narayanganj
66
Cc = 0.651e0- 0.310
R² = 0.703
0.4

0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Figure 4.39: Correlation between Compression Index & Initial Void Ratio at AMC,
Khulna

Cc = 0.309e0 + 0.024
R² = 0.991
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Figure 4.40: Correlation between Compression Index & Initial Void Ratio at SANH,
Khulna
67
Cc = 0.358e0 - 0.049
R² = 0.945
0.6
0.5

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Figure 4.41: Combined Relationship between Compression Index & Initial Void Ratio
Compression index vs Natural Moisture Content

cc = 0.006wn - 0.016
R² = 0.923
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 10 20 30 40
Natural Moisture Content (wn)
Figure 4.42: Correlation between Compression Index & Natural Moisture Content at
Bhulta, Narayanganj
68
Compression Index vs Natural Moisture Content
Cc= 0.021wn- 0.527
R² = 0.864
0.4

0.3
0.2
0.1
0
35 36 37 38 39 40
AMC, Khulna

Cc = 0.009wn- 0.042
R² = 0.996
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 20 40 60 80
SANH, Khulna
69
Cc = 0.009wn - 0.068
R² = 0.902
0.5
Compression index (cc )

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 20 40 60 80
Natural moisture content (wn)
Figure 4.45: Combined Relationship between Compression Index & Natural Moisture
Content at Khulna and Narayanganj

Cc = 0.358e0 - 0.049
R² = 0.95
0.7
0.6
This study
0.5
Azzouzet al. (1976)
0.4
Chicago clays
0.3
Serajuddin and
Chowdhury, (1996)
0.2
plastic silt
Serajuddin and
0.1
Chowdhury, (1996)
clay
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Figure 4.46: Comparison of new and previous Relationship between Compression

Index & Initial Void Ratio
70
Cc = 0.0092wn - 0.068
R² = 0.902
0.80
0.70
0.60
Azzouzet al. (1976)
Chicago soil
0.50
0.40
Azzouzet al. (1976)
0.30 Organic soil
0.20
This Study
0.10
0.00
0 20 40 60 80

Index & Natural Moisture Content

cc = 0.002wL+ 0.003
R² = 0.75 cc = 0.0078wL - 0.1091
R² = 0.9885
0.70
0.60 Terzaghi and Peak (1948

and 1967)
0.50
Brazilian clay; Azzouzet al.
(1976)
0.40
serajuddin (1967)
0.30
this study;Bhulta, stiff soil
0.20
0.10 This study; Khulna, soft soil
0.00
15 30 45 60 75 90
Liquid Limit (wL)

Index & Liquid Limit
71
cc = 0.007Ip- 0.015
R² = 0.461
1
0.9
This Study
0.8
0.7
0.6 Nacci et al.(1975)

0.5
0.4
Nakase et al. (1998)
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
15 30 45 60 75

Index & Plasticity Index
72
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION
5.1. General
In this study, the strength and compressibility properties of soil were determined from
the soil collected by using Modified Shelby Tubes. Then these are correlated with
Standard Penetration Resistance. There are so many correlations are available
between SPT-N values and shear strength properties of soil. But most of the
relationship was done by manually operated SPT rig and the sample was collected by
traditional Shelby tube which causes the sample disturbance. So, the quality was not
maintained properly. This study was undertaken to find out the correlation of
compressibility parameter of clay and Standard Penetration Resistance N value by
using Automatic SPT hammer.On the other hand Standard Shelby Tube was used to
decrease the sample disturbance. Moreover, the SPT and sample was collected at the
same depth. In this study continuous SPT and sample collection was done.
5.2. Conclusions
SPT and undisturbed sampling were done in four sites covering stiff soil and soft soil.
The following conclusions may be drawn from the test results:
- A linear relationship between unconfined compressive strength and SPT-N

value was found for all soils, soft or stiff, low or high plasticity. The
relationship is qu = 16.5NkPa.
- Linear relationship between compression index and SPT-N value was found
for stiff soil. For soft soil, the relationship was found to be random in nature.
- Reliable linear relationship between natural moisture content and SPT-N value
was found for all sites. However, no generalized or normalized relationship
was found.
73
- Linear relationship between initial void ratio and SPT-N value was found for
all sites. However, no generalized or normalized relationship was found for
initial void ratio.
- Linear relationship between dry density and SPT-N value was found for all
sites. However, no generalized or normalized relationship was found for dry
density.
- Comparing the new relationship between qu and N-value with previous

correlations done by other authors, it is observed that correlation is not unique.
It varies for different type of soils for different locations.
- The linear empirical relationship is found between compression index and initial
void ratio. All empirical relations including present and previous study are more
or less followed the same trend. Therefore relation from this study can be used for
soils of Bangladesh. So this relation could be used for all type of clay soil.
- The correlation which was developed for compression index and natural moisture
content could be used for all category of soil.
- The linear correlations were developed between compression index and liquid
limit for different types of soils that vary for stiff or soft soil. However, no
generalized relationship is observed comparing to the previous relationship.
- Comparing to the other authors’ correlations, between compression index and

plastic limit similar type of linear relations are found.
5.3. Recommendations for Future Study
From the lessons of the present study, the recommendations for future study may be
summarized as follows:
i. In this study, three different areas were considered for finding different
correlations. However, it is found some scattered relationship in some places.
74
Further study is needed to show the relationship in different areas. Another
study is needed for whole country of Bangladesh to know the behavior of clay
and their relationship with SPT.
ii. To get the generalized correlation between SPT-N value and strength and
compressibility parameters of soil, tests should be done in more sites with
different soil conditions, so that generalized and reliable relations would be
developed.
75
REFERENCES
Al-Khafaji, A.W. and Anderson, O.B. (1992) “Equation for Compression Index
Approximation”, JGED, ASCE, Vol. 118, No.1, Jan., pp.148-153.
Akhter, S. (2010). “Comparison of Sample Disturbance between Standard Sampling

and Current Practices in Bangladesh”, MScEngg Thesis, Department of Civil
Engineering, Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology, Dhaka.
ASTM D 1587-00 (2006), “Standard Practice for Thin-walled Tube Sampling of Soils
for Geotechnical Purposes”, American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, United States.
ASTM D 422-63 (2006), “Standard Test Method for Particle Size Analysis of Soils”,
Designation: D 422-63(Reapproved 1998), Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol.
04.08. pp. 10-17.
ASTM D 2166-98a (2006), “Standard Test Method for Unconfined Compressive

Strength of Soils”, Designation: D 2166-98a, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol.
04.08.
ASTM D 2487-98 (2006), “Standard practice for Classification of Soils for

engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification Purposes)”, Designation: D2487-
98, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 04.08. pp. 220-230.
ASTM D 4186-89 (2006), “Standard Test Method for One –Dimensional

Consolidation Properties of Soils Using Controlled – Strain Loading”, Designation: D
4186-89 (Reapproved 1998), Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 04.08.
ASTM D 4318-84 (2006), “Standard Test Method for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit and
plasticity Index of Soils”, Designation: D 4318-84, Annual Book of ASTM Standards,
Vol. 04.08. pp. 580-589.
Azzouz, A.S. (1976) “Regression Analysis of Soil Compressibility”, Soils and

Foundations, Tokyo, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 19-29.
Bashar A. (2000), “Geotechnical Characterization of Dhaka Metropolitan Area”, M.
Engineering Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Bangladesh University of
Engineering and Technology, Dhaka.
77
Bjerrum, L. (1973) “Problems of Soil Mechanics and Construction on Soft Clays and
Structurally Unstable Soils (Collapsible, Expansive and Others)”, State-of-the-Art
Report, Session IV, Proc., 8th Tnt. Conf Soil Mech. and Found. Engg., Moscow, Vol.
3, pp. 109-159. Reported by Siddique (1990)
Bowles, J. E. (1997). “Foundation Analysis and Design”, 5th Ed., McGraw-Hill, New
York, pp.15-165.
Ferdous S. M. (2001), Geotechnical Characterization of Khulna City Corporation

(KCC) Area, M. Engineering thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Bangladesh
University of Engineering and Technology, Dhaka.
http://www.adpc.net/v2007/programs/udrm/PROGRAMS_PROJECTS/Risk
Assessment Projects/CHT
http://www.geotechnique.info/SI/SI%20Book%20Chapter%207.pdf
Hvorslev, M.J. (1949) “Subsurface Exploration and Sampling of Soils for Civil
Engineering Purposes”, Waterways Experimental Station, Vicksburg, U.S.A.
Repotted by Siddique (1990).
ISSMFE (1965). “Report of the Subcommittee on Problems and Practices of Soil

sampling”, Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation engineering, Montreal, Vol. 3, Appendix II, pp. 64-71.
McEarthy, D.F. (1977) “Essentials of Soil Mechanics and Foundation” Prentice-Hall

Company, Reston, Virgin.
Murthy, V. N. S. (1993). “A Textbook of Soil Mechanics and Foundation

Engineering”, SaiKripa Technical Consultants, India.
Nishida, Y. (1956) “A Brief Note on Compression index of Soils”, JSMFD, ASCE,

Vol. 82, SM 3, July, pp. 1-14.
Peck, R.B., Hanson, W.E., and Thornburn, T.H. (1974) “Foundation Engineering”,
John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Sanglerat, G. (1972) “The Penetrometer and Soil Exploration”, Elsivier Publishing

Co., Amsterdam.
78
Serajuddin, M. (1998) “Some Geotechnical Studies on Bangladesh Soil: A Summary

of Papers Between 1957-96”, Journal of Civil Engineering, the Institution of
Engineers, Bangladesh, Vol. CE 26, No.2, 1998. Pp. 101-125.
Siddique, A. and Sarker, J.K. (1996). “Experimental Investigation of Sampler Design

on Undrained Shear Properties of a Clay”, Journal of the Institution of Engineers
(India), Civil Engineering Division, Vol. 77, pp. 135-139.
Sone, S., Tsuchiya, H. and Saito, Y. (1971). “The Deformation of a Soil Sample
during Extrusion from a Sample Tube”, Proc., Specialty Session on Quality in Soil
Sampling, 4th Asian Conf., Int. Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering. Bangkok, pp. 3-6.
Sowers, G.F. (1953 and 1962) “Modern Procedures for Underground Investigation”,
Proceedings, ASCE.
Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R. B. (1967) “Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice”, 2nd

Ed. John Wiley and Sons, New York, pp. 729.
79
Appendix A
80
UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST & CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
Site: Bhulta, Narayanganj, Depth:12.5 ft

300
Unconfined Compressive Stress (KPa)

250
200
150
100
50
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Axial Strain (%)
Figure A.1: Typical stress strain curve of samples collected from Bhulta, Narayanganj
(UD-8)
Site: Bhulta, Narayanganj, Depth: 15.5 ft

Unconfined Compressive stress (KPa)
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Axial strain (%)
(UD-10)
81

100

75
50
25
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Axial strain (%)
(UD-12)

175
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Axial strain (%)
(UD-14)
82

225

200
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Axial strain (%)
(UD-15)

225
200
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Axial strain (%)
Figure A.6: Typical stress strain curve of samples collected from Bhulta,
Narayanganj (UD-16)
83

250
200
150
100
50
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Axial strain (%)
(UD-17)

175
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Axial strain (%)
Figure A.8: Typical stress strain curve of samples from Bhulta, Narayanganj (UD-18)
84

300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Axial strain (%)
(UD-20)

350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Axial strain (%)
Figure A.10: Typical stress strain curve of samples from Bhulta, Narayanganj (UD-
21)
85

300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Axial strain (%)
Narayanganj (UD-22)

400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Axial strain (%)
Narayanganj (UD-23)
86

300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Axial strain (%)
Narayanganj (UD-24)

200
150
100
50
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Axial strain (%)
Narayanganj (UD-26)
87
Site: Atomic Medical Center,

Khulna Medical College,Khulna, Depth: 1.5 ft

200
150
100
50
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Axial strain (%)
Figure A.15: Typical stress strain curve of samples collected from AMC Site, Khulna
(UD-1).

150
100
50
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Axial strain (%)
(UD-4).
88


30
20
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Axial strain (%)
(UD-7).

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Axial strain (%)
(UD-10).
89


60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Axial strain (%)
(UD-13).

50
40
30
20
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Axial strain (%)
(UD-16).
90
Site: Sheikh Abu Nashar Hospital

Khulna, Depth: 1.5 ft

100
75
50
25
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Axial strain (%)
Figure A.21: Typical stress strain curve of samples collected from SANH Site,
Khulna (UD-1).

40
30
20
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Axial strain (%)
Khulna (UD-2).
91


75
50
25
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Axial strain (%)
Khulna (UD-3).

100
75
50
25
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Axial strain (%)
Khulna (UD-4).
92


50
40
30
20
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Axial strain (%)
Khulna (UD-5).

25
20
15
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Axial strain (%)
FigureA.26: Typical stress strain curve of samples collected from SANH Site, Khulna
(UD-6).
93
Site: Bhulta, Narayanganj

0.85
0.80
0.75
Void ratio
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
10 100 1000
Pressure (kPa)
Figure A.27: Typical e-logp curve of samples collected by Modified Shelby Tube
from Bhulta at Narayanganj (UD-11).

0.50
0.45
0.40
Void ratio
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
10 100 1000
Pressure (kPa)
94

0.70
0.65
0.60
Void ratio
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
10 100 1000
Pressure (kPa)

0.45
0.40
Void ratio
0.35
0.30
0.25
10 100 1000
Pressure (kPa)
from Bhulta, Narayanganj (UD-20).
95

Depth: 33.5 ft
0.60
0.55
Void ratio 0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
10 100 1000
Pressure (kPa)
Figure A.31: Typical e-logp curve of samples collected from Bhulta, Narayanganj
(UD-22).

Khulna Medical College, Khulna
1.2
1.1
1.0
Void ratio
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
10 100 1000
Pressure (kPa)
Figure A.32: Typical e-logp curve of samples collected from AMC Site, Khulna (UD-
1, Depth-1.5’).
96

1.2
1.1
1.0
Void ratio
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
10 100 1000
Pressure (kPa)
4).

1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
Void ratio
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
10 100 1000
Pressure (kPa)
13).
97
Site: Abu Sheikh Nasher Medical, Khulna

1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
Void ratio
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
10 100 1000
Pressure (kPa)
Figure A.35: Typical e-logp curve of samples collected from SANH Site, Khulna
(UD-13).
98
Date of Boring: 15/9/2009

Location: Bhulta, Narayangonj
EGL: 0.0 m
GWL:
SPT vs DEPTH (m)
SPT
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
Brown Fat Clay (CH)
5.00
6.00
Brown Lean Clay(CL)
7.00
DEPTH (m)
8.00
9.00
Brown Lean Clay with Sand
(CL)
10.00
Brown Lean Clay (CL)
11.00
Brown Lean clay With Sand (CL)
12.00 Brown Fat Clay (CH)
13.00 Brown Sandy Lean Clay (CL)
14.00
15.00
16.00
FigureA.36: Borelog of Bhulta, Narayanganj
99
Location: Khulna,Atomic Medical College

Borehole No.: BH-01 EGL: 0.0 m
GWL:
.
SPT vs DEPTH (m)
SPT
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
1.0
2.5
Dark Gray Lean Clay (CL)
Black Organic Clay (OC)

4.0
5.5 Dark Gray fat Clay (CH)
7.0
Dark Clay
DEPTH (m)
8.5
10.0
11.5
13.0
14.5
16.0
Figure A.37: Borelog of AMC, Khulna
100
Location: Abu Naser Medical, Khulna

Borehole No.: BH-01 EGL: 0.0 m
GWL:
SPT vs DEPTH (m)
SPT
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
DEPTH (m)
8.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
13.0
14.0
15.0
16.0
Figure A.38: Borelog of SANH, Khulna
101

Full Thesis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Full Thesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Relationship between Penetration Resistance and Strength-

Compressibility Characteristics of Soil

Nandita Rani Shaha

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

BANGLADESH UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY

Dr. Md. Jahangir Alam Chairman

Dr. Md. Mujibur Rahman Member

Dr. Syed Fakhrul Ameen Member

Dr. Md. Mokhlesur Rahman Member (External)

(Nandita Rani Shaha)

Table of Contents ____________________________________________________________________ i

List of Figures _______________________________________________________________________ i

List of Tables _______________________________________________________________________ i

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION _______________________________________________________ 1

1.1. General _____________________________________________________________________ 1

1.2. Background of the Study _______________________________________________________ 1

1.3. Objectives of the Study ________________________________________________________ 3

1.4. Methodology ________________________________________________________________ 3

1.5. Organization of the Thesis ______________________________________________________ 4

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW __________________________________________________ 5

2.1. Introduction _________________________________________________________________ 5

2.2. Standard Penetration Test (SPT) _________________________________________________ 5

2.2.1. Purpose of Standard Penetration Test __________________________________ 6

2.2.2. Dimensions of SPT Spilt Barrel Sampler __________________________________ 7

2.3. Undisturbed Sampling in Bangladesh _____________________________________________ 7

2.4. Standard Shelby Tubes ________________________________________________________ 7

2.5. Existing Correlations _________________________________________________________ 10

2.6. Empirical Correlations for Compression Index _____________________________________ 11

2.7. Concluding Remarks _________________________________________________________ 12

CHAPTER 3: TEST PROGRAM ______________________________________________________ 18

3.2. Major Mistakes of SPT in Bangladesh ____________________________________________ 18

3.2.1. Height of fall of SPT Hammer _________________________________________ 18

3.2.2. Thickness of SPT Spoon Cutting Shoe __________________________________ 19

3.2.3. Non-standard Shelby tube ___________________________________________ 20

3.3. Instrumentation _____________________________________________________________ 20

3.3.1. Auto Trip Hammer _________________________________________________ 21

3.3.2. Specification of SPT Spoon ___________________________________________ 21

3.3.3. Fabrication of Standard Shelby Tube ___________________________________ 22

3.5 Laboratory Test _____________________________________________________________ 24

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ___________________________________________ 30

4.1. General ____________________________________________________________________ 30

4.2. Grain Size Distribution ________________________________________________________ 30

4.3. Atterberg Limits _____________________________________________________________ 30

4.4. USCS Classification of Soil Samples ______________________________________________ 31

4.5. Relationship between SPT and Unconfined Compressive Strength _____________________ 31

4.6. Compressibility Characteristics _________________________________________________ 33

4.8. Initial Void Ratio _____________________________________________________________ 34

4.9. Relationship between Dry Density and SPT _______________________________________ 34

4.10. Relationship between Compression Index and Plasticity Index ________________________ 35

4.11. Correlation between Compression Index and Liquid Limit ___________________________ 34

4.13. Relationship between Liquidity Index and SPT N value ______________________________ 33

4.15. Concluding Remarks _________________________________________________________ 40

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION _________________________________________________________ 73

5.1. General ____________________________________________________________________ 73

5.3. Recommendations for Future Study _____________________________________________ 74

Figure 2.1: SPT Spoon with 63.5 kg hammer..................................................................................... 16

Table 2.1: Thin-Walled Steel Sample Tubes ...................................................................................... 13

qu = Unconfined compressive strength

N = SPT = Standard penetration test;

ωn = Natural Water Content;

eo = Initial void ratio

SANH = Sheikh Abu Naser Hospital, Khulna

AMC = Atomic Medical Centre, Khulna Medical College, Khulna