SITE INVESTIGATION 4/8/2012

1.3.3.2 Dynamic Sounding (Penetration) Test 1.3.3.2 Dynamic Sounding … cont’d

• The principle underlying dynamic sounding tests is that the
soundness of the soil stratum is directly proportional to the Type Mass of Drop Ht Area of tip (
 )
resistance if offers against the penetration of a device into it by hammer (cm)
means of a deriving dynamic impact. (kg)
Light Penetrometer 10 50 10 (conical wedge)
• There are a number of varieties, whose difference is lying in the
mass of the hammer inducing the impact, height of fall, the Media Penetrometer 30 50 10 (conical wedge)
cross-sectional area of the penetrating element of the device
and the time of the penetrating element. Heavy Penetrometer 50 50 15 (conical wedge)

SPT 63.6 76.2 Tip open (why??)

• Based on these differences we can identify four types of
dynamic sounding tests, as compared using the table below.

1 2

1.3.3.2 Dynamic Sounding … cont’d 1.3.3.2 Dynamic Sounding … cont’d

• Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
• Recommended by EBCS-7 (1995), widely used in the U.S.A
• The method consists of deriving a standard split-spoon sampler
of 50.8 mm outer diameter and the length 60.96 cm into the
soil.
• The number of blows required for the penetration of the
middle 30.48 cm length of the sampler is regarded as the
penetration resistance or commonly called N-value.
• Test is conducted intermittently with boring operation.
• The method, besides providing the soundness of the soil, has
also the advantage of sample recovery for tests on index
properties.
• It is also found to be economical items of cost per unit
information. The equipment has also a longlife eqpmnt. 3
Adjustments to SPT Results
• Blow counts from adjacent borehole at the same depth are
seldom equal.
• This discrepancy would be magnified if other conditions
are different like eqpmnt type.
• This lack of reproducibility of blow counts may be
attributed to:
– input deriving energy
– dissipation of the input energy
• The input deriving energy,  , for standard and properly
functioning equipment, can be found as:
 =  × ℎ = 63.5 9.81 ⁄
2 0.762
⟹  = 475  4

1.3.3.2 Dynamic Sounding … cont’d 1.3.3.2 Dynamic Sounding … cont’d

• The actual input energy, ! is only a certain portion of  , and – Length of drill rod (for 1<10m and N<30, then N-values are
is equipment and operator dependent. overestimated)
• Kovacs and Solomone (1982) found that – Borehole diameter (less below count are obtained from the
! = (30 # 80 %) bigger boreholes)
• Riggs et at (1983) obtained • Based on this observations, it has been agreed upon to
! = (70 # 100%) introduce the so-called energy ratio, & :
!
• It is apparent from the above findings that there exists & = × 100%

discrepancies in the input energy ! .
• As explained earlier, while  could be easily obtained
• This can be attributed to the following factors.
( =  × ℎ), the actual energy, ! should be however, be
– Difference in eqpmnt, drilling rig, hammer type and skill of operator.
known for the arrangement (equipment, operator, type of
– Whether a liner is inserted in the split barrel (its presence results in
exaggerated N-values)
hammer, length of rods … etc at hand).
– Amount of overburden pressure (larger overburden pressure
results in larger below count.)
5 6

1
SITE INVESTIGATION 4/8/2012

1.3.3.2 Dynamic Sounding … cont’d 1.3.3.2 Dynamic Sounding … cont’d

• Thus standardization of the blow count N is mandatory. • The standard blow count (i.e (′70 according Bowles and Riggs)

(′70 = *( . η1 . η2 . η3 . η4 . (
can now be written as:
• This demands referencing the equipment-dependent energy
– N = actual blow count
– *( = adjustment for effective over burden pressure, +′0
ratio & , to a certain selected standard energy ratio &' .

• This enables one to obtain the same blow count (′&' (modified 95.76,!
+′ 0 (,!)
blow count) despite the variation in & with different eqpmnt.
= (Liao and Whiteman (1986))

– Bowles (1995) suggested, &' = 70% base on the common – η1 = correction for eqpmnt and hammer type and operator skill
& 
= (= & )
practice of North America and the work of Riggs (1986), who
&' 70
&' = 70 # 80%
actually suggested:

– Other suggestions can of course, be made for different localities. • Note that & × ( =
#!# .  &1 × (1 = &2 × (2 = ⋯

7 8

1.3.3.2 Dynamic Sounding … cont’d 1.3.3.2 Dynamic Sounding … cont’d

1.0; /& #
0 ≥ 10 • For & = 70%, length of rod, L>10m, no liner in split barrel,
0.95; /& 6 < 0 < 10
– η2 =correction for rod length
0.85; /& 4 < 0 ≤ 6
= and common small sized bore hole (φ≤120mm) it is then

0.75; /& 0 ≤ 0 ≤ 4 (′70 = *( . (

evident that:

– η3 = Sampler correction
• Remark:

1; 5#
# 0& we may assume η3 = η4 = 1 while corrections should be made
• It is to be observed that, for the common practice in Ethiopia,

=40.80; 5#
&  6 !6
!7
0.90; 5#
0&   !6
for the equipment type and rod length employed in addition to

η4 =Correction for borehole diameter, φ

the adjustments for overburden:
i.e (′&' = *( . η1 . η2 . (
–

1 /& 60 ≤ φ ≤ 120 if &' = 70%, then

=81.05; /& φ = 150
1.15; /& φ = 120
(′70 = *( . η1 . η2 . ( ,where η1 = &:70
–

9 10

1.3.3.2 Dynamic Sounding … cont’d 1.3.3.2 Dynamic Sounding … cont’d

Conventional Practice on SPT Correlations for Non-cohesive Soils
• It has become a common practice to run an SPT every 1 or 2m • The Japanese Railway Standards recommend the correlations
φ = 18(′70 + 15; for roads and bridges
of boring.
φ = 0.36(70 +27; for buildings
• The test is commonly started after boring through the top soil
or after 1 to 1.5m of boring below ground surface.
(
• Meyerhof (1957) made the following suggestions indirectly
= > + ? × +0
• This practice has the advantage of sample recovery up to 50%
<2&
by the SPT alone even in methods of boring, in which it is
difficult to extract representative samples.
• Skempton (1986) after analyzing five different normally

correlation found using (′70

consolidated sandy soils and recognizing the above Meyrhof’s
Correlations of SPT-results
• N-values has been correlated for ;, <& ,φ and, furthermore,
bearing capacity and stress strain modulus  can be estimated,
A=15 to 54 & B=0.306 to 0.204
• Using the average values of Skempton results in
= 32 + 0.288+′0 ( +′0 in kpa)
(
the latter being useful in the estimation of settlement
<2&
(immediate) 11 12

2
SITE INVESTIGATION 4/8/2012

1.3.3.2 Dynamic Sounding … cont’d 1.3.3.2 Dynamic Sounding … cont’d

Example: For an average unit wt of ;// = 16 # 17 (⁄3 and • Introducing the relations CF = C7 = G0 CE

an average depth of shallow foundation of 6m, <& =

(′70 1+2G,
1+2G0,

⟹ C
DE,
= CE ; C
DE,
= CE
60 3 3
• Thus the coefficient *@AB becomes
• Skempton (1986) made also suggestion for OC sandy deposits:
C
DE,
1 + 2G,

(′70 *
H = =
= > + ?. *@AB . +′0 C
DE,
1 + 2G0,

<2&
• There are a number of relations suggested for the
D E,

C
Where; *@AB = determination of G,
and G,

C
D E,

CF + C7 + CE • Simple relations may be sited here:
C
DE,
= , 

3
CF + C7 + CE G,
= 1 − sin φ & G,
= G,
× M*Hsin φ
C
DE,
= , 
• The relative density <& , so obtained can be used to estimate φ
3
based on Mayerhof’s (1957) suggestion,
φ=28+0.15<& (<&  %)
13 14

1.3.3.2 Dynamic Sounding … cont’d 1.3.3.2 Dynamic Sounding … cont’d

• This equation of Mayerhof can also be used in conjunction with Example: For a soil of ; = 20 (⁄3 at a depth of 5m with
the suggestion by Yoshed et al (1988) for <& (60 =16, +′0 = ;. ℎ = 20 × 5 = 100+!.
(−* ) *
<& = *0 +′0 1 (602 • Thus:
• Where; <& = 25 × 100(−0.12) . 160.46 = 51.5 ≈ 52%
– +′0 =effective overburden pressure in kPa • Using Mayerhof’s suggestion (1952)
– <& (%) φ = 28 + 0.15<& = 28 + 0.15 × 52 = 35.8 = 360
– *0 =18 to 27 (best fit for all soils; *0 =25) • Correlations for cohesive soils
– *1 = 0.12 to 0.14 (best fit; *1 = 0.12) • The commonly used correlation of N-values with unconfined
– *2 = 0.44 to 0.57(best fit,*2 = 0.46) compressive strength of cohesive soils is of the simple form
O = G. ( ( O  +!)
• Inserting the values that best fit most soils one obtains Where; - K tends to depend on site.
(−0.12)
<& = 25+′0 . (0.46
60 - However, the avrg values of K=12 is suggested and
15 commonly used. 16

1.3.3.2 Dynamic Sounding … cont’d 1.3.3.2 Dynamic Sounding … cont’d

• The following table gives N'70 against qu Design N-values
(′70 consistency O (kPa) ;!# ((⁄U • The design N-values for shallow foundations is normally taken
as the weight average of the n-values of all the layers tested in
NC (young clay) φ ≤2 Very soft 0 to 25 16 to 19 the zone bounded by the two horizontal planes at the values a
↓ 3 to 5 Soft 25 to 50 height of ?⁄2 above the foundation base at 2B below the
foundation base.
Aged clay 6 to 9 Med stiff 50 to 100 17 to 20
• It makes a better sense to average the adjusted N-values; i.e
↓ 10 to 16 Stiff 100 to 200 (′70
↓ 17 to 30 Very stiff 200 to 4000 19 to 22 • In the above recommendation, B is the width of the foundation
at hand.
Increasing OCR >30 hard 400
• If n layer are present width in the indicated zone with an
average ( -values in each, the weight average is
• Mayer and Kamper (1988), based on regression analysis of 110 data ((′70 ) .ℎ
0.689
(′70 = ∑=1 ∑ ℎ
(
points, obtained M*H = 0.193 +′ 0
+′0  T(
:2 17 18