See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/259169729

Evaluation of SPT energy for Donut and Safety hammers using CPT
measurements in Egypt

Article  in  Ain Shams Engineering Journal · December 2013

DOI: 10.1016/j.asej.2013.04.001

CITATIONS READS

5 1,247

2 authors:

Rami El-Sherbiny Manal Salem

Cairo University Cairo University
32 PUBLICATIONS   157 CITATIONS    14 PUBLICATIONS   93 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

NUMERICAL ANALYSIS OF EMBEDDED RETAINING WALLS SUPPORTED BY DISCONTINUOUS UNIMPROVED AND IMPROVED BERMS View project

Laboratory study of the mechanical properties of sand-granulated rubber mixtures in dry and saturated conditions View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Rami El-Sherbiny on 10 May 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Ain Shams Engineering Journal (2013) 4, 701–708

Ain Shams University

Ain Shams Engineering Journal

www.elsevier.com/locate/asej
www.sciencedirect.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING

Evaluation of SPT energy for Donut and Safety

hammers using CPT measurements in Egypt
1
Rami M. El-Sherbiny *, Manal A. Salem

Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt

Received 3 March 2013; revised 7 April 2013; accepted 8 April 2013

Available online 20 May 2013

KEYWORDS Abstract Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blow counts require correction prior to utilization in
SPT; soil characterization and determination of properties and behavior. Among the most important cor-
CPT; rections is the energy correction required to adjust the blow counts to 60% energy efficiency. How-
Hammer efficiency; ever, there are no published data supporting commonly used value in Egypt. This paper presents an
Energy correction evaluation of the energy efficiency of the Donut and Safety hammers commonly used in Egypt and
the associated energy correction factor. The energy efficiency is estimated by comparing N-values
from the SPT to back-calculated N60 values from the Cone Penetration Test (CPT) using well estab-
lished correlations. Results indicate that the energy efficiency of the Donut hammer based on cur-
rent practice in Egypt is approximately 50%. Thus, the back-calculated energy correction factor is
approximately 0.82. For the Safety hammer, results indicate that the energy efficiency is approxi-
mately 60%, and the energy correction factor is approximately 1.0.
Ó 2013 Ain Shams University. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V.
All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) is the most commonly used
in situ test in estimating soil properties, especially in cohesion-
less soils. This is due to the simplicity and low cost of the test,
in addition to the availability of wide range of correlations be-
tween SPT blow counts and material properties. However,
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +20 235678683; fax: +20 233024009.
E-mail addresses: rsherbiny@eng.cu.edu.eg (R.M. El-Sherbiny),
manalasalem@eng.cu.edu.eg (M.A. Salem).
1
Tel.: +20 235678697; fax: +20 233024009.
Peer review under responsibility of Ain Shams University.
Production and hosting by Elsevier
measured SPT blow counts are affected by several factors such
as the diameter of the borehole, rod length, split spoon sampler
configuration, and energy applied. Thus, several corrections
are applied to SPT blow counts in order to achieve a normal-
ized value prior to use. Among the most important factors is
the energy efficiency factor for the hammer, which varies
depending on equipment and operator skill. For example,
the transmitted energy is affected by careless measure of drop,
hammer weight inaccuracy, eccentric strike of hammer on drill
rod collar, variation in size of anvil system, use of bent drill
rods, lack of hammer free fall due to ungreased sleeves, stiff
rope on weight, excess turns on cathead, and incomplete re-
lease of rope [1]. Thus, the energy correction factor is highly
dependant on local practice and should not be generalized.
The Donut hammer is predominantly used in performing
SPTs in Egypt, while the use of the Safety hammer has been

2090-4479 Ó 2013 Ain Shams University. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2013.04.001
702
recently increasing. There are no available data on hammer
efficiency of either type for local practice in Egypt, which is
essential for proper interpretation of test results. Geotechnical
engineers routinely assume an energy efficiency of 60% (cor-
rection factor of 1.0) when interpreting SPT results. This paper
provides an estimate of the energy efficiency for Donut and
Safety hammers based on local practice in Egypt. The energy
efficiency is estimated by comparing SPT N-values (corrected
for split spoon configuration, borehole diameter, and rod
length) to N60-values back-calculated from adjacent CPT
soundings. The CPT has proven to provide reliable and repeat-
able measure of soil properties and can be used to provide
equivalent SPT blow counts with less variability than that
inherent in measured SPT N-values.
1.1. SPT blow count corrections
The main correction factors applied to field SPT N-values are
the split spoon configuration (CS), borehole diameter (CB),
rod length (CR), and energy efficiency (CE) factors. Early split
spoon configurations had a constant inner diameter of 35 mm,
while the current standard ASTM-D1586 [2] split spoon has a
variable internal diameter to accommodate an internal liner.
Use of sampler without liner (nonstandard condition) leads to
10–30% lower N-values, which requires a correction factor
(CS) ranging from 1.1 to 1.3 [1,3]. A correction factor of 1.2 is
typically applied for samplers without liners [4,5]. The sampler
configuration effect is smaller for loose sands than for dense
sands. Standard split spoons and spoons with constant inner
diameter do not require a configuration correction factor.
When the length of the drill rod is less than 10 m, energy is
reflected back in the rod reducing the energy transmitted to the
split spoon penetrating the soil [6]. This warrants the use of a
rod correction factor for rod length below 10 m. The most con-
sistently used rod correction factors are presented in Table 1
[1,3,4,7].
As the size of borehole increases, the effective stress acting
on the soil at the base of the borehole decreases making it eas-
ier on the split spoon sampler to penetrate the subsoil. This ef-
fect is not significant for boreholes having a diameter less than
115 mm. For boreholes having a diameter of 150 mm, a bore-
hole correction factor (CB) of 1.05 is used, while for boreholes
having a diameter of 200 mm, a borehole correction factor
(CB) of 1.15 is used [1,3,4,7].
In Standard Penetration Test, a hammer weight of 63.5 kg
drops a distance of 760 mm per blow to drive the split spoon
sampler into the soil [2]. Thus, the total energy applied per blow
is standard and is equivalent to 475 Nm. However, only a por-
tion of the applied energy reaches the sampler depending on
hammer efficiency. The efficiency of the hammer can be evalu-
ated as the ratio of kinetic energy (KE = ½ m v2) to potential
energy of the falling weight (PE = m g h), which are function
of the falling mass (m), velocity (v), gravitational acceleration
Table 1 Rod length correction factor (CR).
Rod length Rod correction factor (CR)
3–4 m 0.75
4–6 m 0.85
6–10 m 0.95
>10 1.0
R.M. El-Sherbiny, M.A. Salem
(g), and height of drop (h). Most geotechnical engineering prac-
tices are based on N-values corresponding to a hammer effi-
ciency of 60% (N60). The hammer efficiency depends on the
type of hammer and local practice. An energy efficiency factor
(CE) is used to scale the measured N-value to N60 (CE = hammer
efficiency/60). The typical range of energy correction factor is
0.8–1.5 for the Automatic trip hammer, 0.7–1.2 for the Safety
hammer, and 0.5–1.0 for the Donut hammer [1,3].
Energy efficiency varies significantly from one region to an-
other due to local practices. Seed et al. [8] reviewed hammer
efficiencies in different parts of the world and reported on their
efficiency. For the Donut hammer with a rope and pulley sys-
tem, they reported mean energy efficiency values of 67% in Ja-
pan, 60% in USA, 45% in Argentina, and 50% in China. For
the Donut hammer with a mechanical release system, they re-
ported mean energy efficiency values of 78% in Japan and
60% in China. Kovacs and Salomone [9] estimated the energy
efficiency in USA to be 60% for the Safety hammer compared
to 45% for the Donut hammer. Agour and Radding [6] re-
ported measured energy efficiency of 81% for the Automatic
hammer, 70% for the Safety hammer, and 64% for the rope
and pulley Donut hammer conducted in Maryland, USA. It
is evident from the above mentioned values that energy effi-
ciency for each type of hammer varies widely with the local
practice in different parts of the world. This necessitates the
use of local calibrations for energy efficiency corrections.
1.2. Correlation between SPT blow counts and CPT tip
resistance
CPT measurements are generally less susceptible to variability
arising from human factors and local practices compared to
SPT measurements. In addition, CPT is characterized with
its higher repeatability and continuous profiling that helps to
better identify strata interfaces, thicknesses, and consistencies
[10]. With growing confidence in cone measurements, research-
ers have proposed using CPT tip resistance (qc) in order to
back-calculate equivalent SPT blow counts (N60).
Early correlations between SPT and CPT were dependant
mainly on the cone tip resistance (qc). Meyerhof [11] and Schmert-
mann [12] suggested that the ratio qc/N for sands is around 4 with a
wide range of scatter, where N is the measured SPT blow counts.
Sanglerat [13] noted that qc/N ratio should decrease with increasing
soil cohesion. Schmertmann [14] correlated the SPT N50 with cone
friction ratio (F = fs/qc, where fs is the unit sleeve friction resis-
tance) and tip resistance. Robertson et al. [15] used data from 18
studies at different sites and correlated (qc/pa)/N60 with mean par-
ticle diameter (D50), where pa is the atmospheric pressure. This cor-
relation was further extended by Kullhawy and Mayne [16] to
extend to particle sizes up to 10 mm using additional data, and they
introduced Eq. (1), in which D50 is in mm.
ðqc =pa Þ=N60 ¼ 5:44ðD50 Þ0:26 ð1Þ
Jefferies and Davies [17] suggested the application of the soil
behavior type index (Ic) to link with the CPT–SPT correlation,
where Ic can be calculated as a function of the tip resistance
(Q ¼ ðqc  ro Þ=r0o , where qc is cone tip resistance, rvo is the to-
tal overburden pressure, and r0o is the effective overburden
pressure), the friction ratio (F), and the pore pressure factor
(Bq = (u2  uo)/(qt  rvo), where u2 is pore pressure measured
behind the cone, uo is the in situ pore water pressure, qt is the
normalized cone resistance) as follows:
Evaluation of SPT energy for Donut and Safety hammers using CPT measurements in Egypt
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Ic ¼ f3  log½Qð1  Bq Þg2 þ ½1:5 þ 1:3ðlog FÞ2
The soil behavior type index, Ic, can be combined with the
cone tip resistance to give the following relationship:
N60 ¼ ðqc =pa Þ=½8:5ð1  Ic =4:75Þ
Lunne et al. [18] adjusted the SPT–CPT correlation to utilize
the behavior type index as a function of the normalized tip
resistance (Q) and friction ratio (F) only, which is suitable
for cases where no pore pressure measurements are taken.
The adjusted correlation and the associated behavior type in-
dex are provided in Eqs. (4) and (5).
N60 ¼ ðqc =pa Þ=½8:5ð1  Ic =4:6Þ
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Ic ¼ ð3:47  log QÞ2 þ ðlog F þ 1:22Þ2
Jefferies and Been [19] stated that the uncertainty in N60 calcu-
lated using Eqs. (2) and (3) is less than the inherent uncertainty
in the SPT blow counts because the poor repeatability of the
SPT is averaged out in the CPT–SPT correlation. They recom-
mended using N60 values back-calculated from CPT correla-
tions to achieve more reliable values.
2. Geotechnical data
Geotechnical data presented in this study were gathered from
four sites in Egypt located in Alexandria (Site A), Port Said
(Site B), and East Port Said (Sites C and D). Collected data in-
cluded SPT blow counts from boreholes, and CPT measure-
ments recorded in close proximity (2–25 m) to the boreholes.
Data from SPT and CPT were used to evaluate the energy effi-
ciency for two types of SPT hammers (Donut hammer and
Safety hammer). Data were collected from 30 borings and cor-
responding 24 CPTs performed at the four sites. Further de-
tails on conducted field tests and soil stratigraphy based on
field and laboratory tests are provided below for all sites.
2.1. Site A: Alexandria
Ten boreholes and five CPTs were conducted in 2010. SPT
blow counts were recorded using a Donut hammer. The
Corrected cone resistance,
qc (MPa)
0 10
0
2
Silty
CLAY 4
6
Depth (m)
Silty 8
SAND
10
12
SAND
14
16
18
Figure 1 Representative boring and CPT at Site A – Alexandria.
703
ð2Þ stratigraphy of Site A based on the interpretation of the boring
logs, CPTs, and laboratory tests consisted of very soft to soft
clay with an average thickness of 8.4 m that may be followed
by medium stiff to stiff silty clay with thickness up to
10.3 m. The clay layers are underlain by very dense silty sand
ð3Þ
till the end of the sounded depths (20 m). The groundwater ta-
ble was encountered within the top approximately 1 m below
the ground surface. The sand layer had fines content ranging
from 6% to 46% and an average relative density of approxi-
mately 60% based on CPT measurements. Typical CPT data
(cone tip resistance (qc), sleeve friction resistance (fs), and pore
water pressure (u2)) recorded in Site A along with the soil pro-
ð4Þ file from the nearest borehole with recorded SPT blow counts
are presented in Fig. 1.
ð5Þ
2.2. Site B: Port Said
Four boreholes and four CPTs were conducted in 2011. SPT
blow counts were recorded using a Donut hammer. The stra-
tigraphy of Site B based on the interpretation of the boring
logs, CPTs, and laboratory tests consisted of fill of fine sand
with thickness ranging from 1.0 m to 1.5 m, followed by very
soft to soft silty clay with thickness ranging from 2.5 m to
6.9 m. The clay layer is underlain by silty fine sand with thick-
ness ranging from 3.3 m to 8.0 m followed by very soft to stiff
silty clay. The groundwater table is recorded at an average
depth of 0.65 m. The top fine sand layer had fines content
ranging from 2% to 14% and an average relative density of
approximately 60% based on CPT measurements. The lower
silty fine sand had fines content ranging from 23% to 39%
and an average relative density of approximately 40% based
on CPT measurements. Typical CPT data recorded in Site B
along with the soil profile from the nearest borehole with re-
corded SPT blow counts are presented in Fig. 2.
2.3. Sites C and D: East Port Said
These sites are located in close proximity in East Port Said,
east of the Suez Canal. Two types of SPT hammers were used:
a Donut hammer was used in Site C, while a Safety hammer
was used in Site D. Eleven (11) boreholes and eleven (11) CPTs
Sleeve friction resistance, fs Pore pressure, u2
(kPa) (kPa)
20 30 0 100 200 300 400 0 500 1000 1500
Elev. (m)
Elev. (m)
704 R.M. El-Sherbiny, M.A. Salem

Corrected cone resistance, Sleeve friction resistance, fs Pore pressure, u2

qc (MPa) (kPa) (kPa)
0 5 10 15 20 0 50 100 150 0 500 1000 1500
FILL 0
Silty
CLAY
5
Silty
SAND
10

15

Depth (m)

Elev. (m)

Elev. (m)
20
Silty
CLAY
25

30

35

40

Figure 2 Representative boring and CPT at Site B – Port Said.

Corrected cone resistance, Sleeve friction resistance, fs Pore pressure, u2

qc (MPa) (kPa) (kPa)
0 10 20 30 0 100 200 300 0 500 1000 1500
10
SAND
5
Silty
CLAY
0

-5
Silty
Elev. (m)

Elev. (m)
Elev. (m)

SAND
-10

-15
Silty
CLAY -20

-25

-30

Figure 3 Representative boring and CPT at Sites C and D – East Port Said.

were conducted during the site investigation of Site C in 2010
and 2011; five (5) boreholes and four (4) CPTs were conducted
during the site investigation of Site D in 2013. The stratigraphy
based on the interpretation of the boring logs, CPTs, and lab-
oratory tests consisted of surcharge fill material mainly of silty
fine sand (resulting from dredging near by canal) with thick-
ness ranging from 0.5 m to 12 m, followed by very soft to med-
ium stiff silty clay with thickness ranging from 1.1 m to 11.9 m.
The clay layer is underlain by medium dense to dense silty fine
sand with thickness ranging from 0.8 m to 9.3 m, followed by
deep deposit of very soft to medium stiff silty clay. The
groundwater table is recorded at an average depth of 8.6 m
(at water level in near by canal).
The top silty fine sand layer had fines content ranging from
4% to 49% and relative density of approximately 25% based
on CPT measurements. The lower silty fine sand had fines con-
tent ranging from 4% to 41% and an average relative density
of approximately 55% based on CPT measurements. Typical
CPT data recorded at Site A along with the profile from the
nearest borehole with recorded SPT blow counts are presented
in Fig. 3.
The hammers used at all sites had a standard 63.5 kg weight
and a 750 mm drop height. The SPTs were all performed in
200 mm diameter bore holes. A split spoon with a constant inner
diameter of 35 mm was used. All SPTs conducted using both
Safety and Donut hammers used a rope and cathead system.
The CPTs were conducted using a piezocone probe having
15 cm2. The piezocone provided independent measurements of
tip resistance, side friction, and pore pressures (u2).
3. Methodology
In order to estimate the energy efficiency of the SPT hammers,
adjacent boreholes and CPTs with distance less than 25 m apart
were considered. In some instances, a CPT sounding was within
proximity of two boreholes; thus, the SPT blow counts from
both boreholes were compared against this CPT sounding.
The borehole log, SPT blow counts, and CPT soundings were
Evaluation of SPT energy for Donut and Safety hammers using CPT measurements in Egypt
investigated for anomalies and inconsistencies to assure that the
SPT blow counts and CPT measurements are compatible. In few
cases, there was localized variability due to presence of pockets
or inter-layers. SPT blow counts in such layers were excluded.
The SPT blow counts were corrected for the rod length,
borehole diameter, and split spoon configuration. The rod
length correction was performed according to Table 1. All
boreholes had a diameter less than 115 mm; thus, the borehole
diameter correction was 1.0. The split spoon had a constant
diameter of 35 mm; thus, the split spoon configuration correc-
tion was also 1.0. These corrected SPT blow counts (Nc) and
back-calculated N60 from CPTs were used to estimate the en-
ergy efficiency. The N60 from CPTs was back-calculated using
the approach proposed by Lunne et al. [18] (Eqs. (4) and (5)).
The back-calculated N60 were identified from the CPT sound-
ing within the 0.45 m corresponding to the elevation of the
SPT blow counts. The energy efficiency (EE) was then calcu-
lated as the ratio of the Nc/N60. The SPT energy efficiency cor-
rection factor (CE) was then estimated as EE/60. The energy
efficiency and correction factor were calculated for the Donut
hammer and Safety hammer separately.
4. Results and analyses
A total of (147) SPT blow counts at the four sites were used in
analyzing the energy efficiency of the hammers. The variation
of back-calculated N60 from a representative CPT along with
the corresponding corrected SPT blow counts (Nc) with depth
for each of the four sites is shown in Fig. 4. Trends of variation
of corrected SPT blow counts (Nc) and back-calculated N60
from CPTs with depth showed good agreement, which in-
creased the authors confidence in the selected CPT–SPT corre-
lation used herein. The data from the four sites were first
analyzed separately in order to examine any site-specific bias.
Data from Sites A, B, and C were used to estimate the energy
efficiency of Donut hammer, while data from Site D were used
to estimate the energy efficiency of the Safety hammer.
4.1. Donut hammer
Corrected SPT blow counts (Nc) obtained for Sites A, B, and C
were compared to back-calculated N60 values from
Nc or N60 Nc or N60
0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40
-6 -6
Site A
N60 CPT
-8 Nc SPT -8
-10 -10
Elevation (m)
Elev. (m)
-12 -12
-14 -14
Site B
-16 -16
N60 CPT
Nc SPT
-18 -18
Figure 4 Representative back-calculated N60 from CPT and corresponding corrected SPT blow counts for Sites A–D.
705
corresponding CPTs for each site separately. For the three
sites, Nc ranged from 2 to 79 and N60 interpreted from corre-
sponding CPTs ranged from 2 to 70. A comparison between Nc
from the SPT blow counts and N60 back-calculated from the
CPT for Sites A, B, and C is shown in Figs. 5a, 6a, and 7a,
respectively. The results of the comparison from the three sites
showed a consistent trend of higher Nc from the SPT com-
pared to back-calculated N60 from the CPT.
The energy efficiency (EE) and the corresponding energy
correction factor (CE) were calculated for each SPT blow
count and are presented in Figs. 5b, 6b, and 7b for the three
sites. The average energy efficiency and coefficient of variation
(c.o.v.) were calculated for each site. The calculated values are
presented on Figs. 5–7 and summarized in Table 2. The aver-
age energy efficiency from each site ranged from 49% to 50%,
and the corresponding correction factor (CE) ranged from 0.81
to 0.83. The coefficient of variation ranged from 0.13 to 0.15,
which is consistent with typical reported values [20].
The consistency of the energy efficiency interpreted for Sites
A, B, and C and the moderate variability observed in the data
provide justification for combining the data sets from each site
into one data set for the Donut hammer. The combined Nc
from SPT and N60 from CPT along with corresponding energy
efficiency and energy correction factors are presented in Fig. 8
and summarized in Table 2. The resulting energy efficiency and
energy correction factor from the combined data set is consis-
tent with the individual sites, where the average energy effi-
ciency is 49%, corresponding to energy correction factor
(CE) of 0.82, and a c.o.v. of 0.15. The average calculated en-
ergy correction factor (CE) is within the range of published val-
ues, which ranges from 0.5 to 1.0 for Donut hammers [1,3].
These values can be considered indicative of current SPT prac-
tice in Egypt using the Donut hammer.
4.2. Safety hammer
Corrected SPT blow counts (Nc) from Safety hammer were ob-
tained from Site D and were compared to back-calculated N60
values from corresponding CPTs. The corrected SPT blow
counts ranged from 3 to 58, and the N60 interpreted from cor-
responding CPTs ranged from 3 to 50. A comparison between
Nc from the SPT blow counts and N60 back-calculated from
Nc or N60 Nc or N60
60 0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60 80
0 8
Site D
6 N60 CPT
-2 Nc SPT
4
-4 2
0
Elev. (m)
Elev. (m)
-6
-2
-8 -4
-6
Site C
-10
N60 CPT -8
Nc SPT
-12 -10
706 R.M. El-Sherbiny, M.A. Salem

80 90.0 1.50
(a) (b)
75.0 1.25

Energy Correction Factor, C E

60
60.0 1.00

Energy Efficiency
N60 CPT
40 45.0 0.75

30.0 0.50
20
15.0 0.25

0 0.0 0.00
0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80
Nc SPT Nc SPT

Figure 5 Site A – Alexandria: (a) comparison between Nc from SPT and N60 back-calculated from CPT, and (b) interpreted energy
efficiency and corresponding CE.

80 90.0 1.50
(a) (b)
75.0 1.25

Energy Correction Factor, C E

60
Energy Efficiency 60.0 1.00
N60 CPT

40 45.0 0.75

30.0 0.50
20
15.0 0.25

0 0.0 0.00
0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80
Nc SPT Nc SPT

Figure 6 Site B – Port Said: (a) comparison between Nc from SPT and N60 back-calculated from CPT, and (b) interpreted energy
efficiency and corresponding CE.

80 90.0 1.50
(a) (b)
75.0 1.25
Energy Correction Factor, C E

60
60.0 1.00
Energy Efficiency
N60 CPT

40 45.0 0.75

30.0 0.50
20
15.0 0.25

0 0.0 0.00
0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80
Nc SPT Nc SPT

Figure 7 Site C – East Port Said: (a) comparison between Nc from SPT and N60 back-calculated from CPT, and (b) interpreted energy
efficiency and corresponding CE.

the CPT for Site C is shown in Fig. 9a. Values of Nc from SPT count and are presented in Fig. 9b for Site D. The average en-
and N60 from CPT showed an approximate ratio of 1:1. ergy efficiency and coefficient of variation (c.o.v.) for the site
The energy efficiency (EE) and the corresponding energy are presented in Fig. 9 and summarized in Table 2. The
correction factor (CE) were calculated for each SPT blow average energy efficiency was approximately 60%, and the
Evaluation of SPT energy for Donut and Safety hammers using CPT measurements in Egypt 707

Table 2 Summary of average energy efficiency, energy correction factors, and coefficients of variation (c.o.v.).
Site Energy efficiency CE c.o.v. No. of data points
Site A – Alexandria 49 0.81 0.13 46
Site B – Port Said 49 0.82 0.15 8
Site C – East Port Said (1) 50 0.83 0.15 59
Site D – East Port Said (2) 60 1.01 0.15 34
Donut 49 0.82 0.15 113
Safety 60 1.01 0.15 34

80 90.0 1.50
(a) (b)
75.0 1.25

Energy Correction Factor, C E

60
60.0 1.00

Energy Efficiency
N60 CPT

40 45.0 0.75

30.0 0.50
20
15.0 0.25

0 0.0 0.00
0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80
Nc SPT Nc SPT

Figure 8 Combined data from Donut hammers used in Sites A–C: (a) comparison between Nc from SPT and N60 back-calculated from
CPT, and (b) interpreted energy efficiency and corresponding CE.

80 90.0 1.50
(a) (b)
75.0 1.25

Energy Correction Factor, C E

60
60.0 1.00
Energy Efficiency
N60 CPT

40 45.0 0.75

30.0 0.50
20
15.0 0.25

0 0.0 0.00
0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80
Nc SPT Nc SPT

Figure 9 Site D – East Port Said: (a) comparison between Nc from SPT and N60 back-calculated from CPT, and (b) interpreted energy
efficiency and corresponding CE.

corresponding correction factor (CE) was approximately 1.0.
The coefficient of variation was 0.12, which is consistent with
the coefficient of variation observed for the Donut hammer.
The average calculated energy correction factor (CE) is within
the range of published values, which ranges from 0.7 to 1.2 for
the Safety hammer [1,3]. These values can be considered indic-
ative of current SPT practice in Egypt using the Safety
hammer.
5. Conclusions
An evaluation of the energy efficiency of the Donut and
Safety hammers commonly used in Egypt and the associated
correction factor is presented herein. The energy efficiency is
estimated based on a comparison between the corrected N-
values from the SPT (Nc) and back-calculated N60 values
from the CPT using well established correlations. A total
of (147) SPT blow counts and corresponding CPTs at four
sites in Egypt were used in analyzing the energy efficiencies
of both types of hammers. Donut hammers were used in
three sites, while a Safety hammer was used in one site.
The corrected SPT blow counts (Nc) ranged from 2 to 79,
and the back-calculated N60 from corresponding CPTs
ranged from 2 to 70. Data from the four sites were first
analyzed separately in order to examine any site-specific
bias.
 708
For the Donut hammers, the consistency of the energy effi-
ciency and variability in the data between the three sites pro-
vided justification for combining the data sets from each site
into one data set. The combined data set had an average en-
ergy efficiency of 49%, corresponding CE of 0.82, and a
c.o.v. of 0.15. For the Safety hammer, results indicate that
the energy efficiency based on current practice in Egypt is
approximately 60%. Thus, the interpreted energy correction
factor is approximately 1.0 with a coefficient of variation of
0.12. The energy correction factors for the Donut and Safety
hammers are within range of published values and can be used
as indicative values in absence of site-specific measurements.
References
[1] Sabatini PJ, Bachus RC, Mayne PW, Schneider JA, Zettler TE.
Geotechnical engineering circular no. 5: evaluation of soil and
rock properties. Federal Highway Administration. Report no.
FHWA-IF-02-034; 2002.
[2] ASTM D 1586 – Standard Test Method for Penetration Test and
Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils.
[3] Robertson PK, Wride CE. Cyclic liquefaction and its evaluation
based on the SPT and CPT. In: Proceedings of the national center
for earthquake engineering research, NCEER. Report no. 970022;
1997.
[4] Skempton AW. Standard penetration test procedures and the
effects in sands of overburden pressure, relative density, particle
size, ageing and over consolidation. Geotechnique 1986;36(3).
[5] Coduto DP. Foundation design, principles and practices. Engle-
wood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice-Hall; 1994.
[6] Aggour MS, Radding WR. Standard penetration test (SPT)
correction. Research report submitted to Maryland department of
transportation. Report no. SP007B48, State Highway Adminis-
tration; 2001.
[7] Bowles JE. Foundation analysis and design. 5th ed. The McGraw-
Hill Companies, Inc.; 1996.
[8] Seed HB, Tokimastu K, Harder LF, Chung RF. Influence of SPT
procedures in soil liquefaction resistance evaluations. J Geotech
Eng, ASCE 1985;111(12).
[9] Kovacs WD, Salomone LA. SPT hammer energy measurements. J
Geotech Eng Div, ASCE 1982;108(4).
[10] Mayne PW. Synthesis 368: cone penetration testing, transporta-
tion research board. Washington (DC): National Academies
Press; 2007, 118p.
[11] Meyerhof GG. Penetration tests and bearing capacity of cohe-
sionless soils. J Soil Mech Found Div, ASCE 1956;82(1):5.
[12] Schmertmann JH. Static cone to compute static settlement over
sand. J Soil Mech Found Div, ASCE 1970;96(3):1011–43.
View publication stats
R.M. El-Sherbiny, M.A. Salem
[13] Sanglerat G. The penetrometer and soil exploration. Amsterdam:
Elsevier Publishing Co.; 1972.
[14] Schmertmann JH. Predicting the qc/N ratio – interpreting the
dynamics of the standard penetration test. University of Florida
Final Report, Project D-636, to the Florida Dept. of, Transpor-
tation; 1976. p. 34.
[15] Robertson PK, Campanella RG, Wightman A. SPT–CPT corre-
lations. J Geotech Eng, ASCE 1983;109(11):1449–59.
[16] Kullhawy FH, Mayne PH. Manual on estimating soil properties
for foundation design. Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI;
1990.
[17] Jefferies MG, Davies MP. Use of CPTU to estimate equivalent
SPT N60. Geotech Test J 1993;16(4):458–68.
[18] Lunne T, Robertson RK, Powell JJM. Cone penetration testing in
geotechnical practice. London: Blackie Academic & Professional;
1998.
[19] Jefferies MG, Been K. Soil liquefaction: a critical state approach.
London: Taylor and Francis Group; 2006, 480p.
[20] Duncan MJ. Factors of safety and reliability in geotechnical
engineering. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng, ASCE 2000;126(4).
Rami El-Sherbiny is an Assistant Professor of
Geotechnical Engineering, Department of
Public Works, Faculty of Engineering, Cairo
University, Egypt. He received his Bachelor
and Master degrees in Civil Engineering from
Cairo University, Egypt. He received his
Ph.D. from the University of Texas at Austin,
USA.
Manal Salem is an Assistant Professor of
Geotechnical Engineering, Department of
Public Works, Faculty of Engineering, Cairo
University, Egypt. She received her Bachelor
and Master degrees in Civil Engineering from
Cairo University, Egypt. She received her
Ph.D. from the University of Texas at Austin,
USA.