Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Standard Test Method for Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils (1)
Standard Test Method for Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils (1)
for the
Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.
Designation: D1586/D1586M − 18
FIG. 5 Schematic Drawing of the Donut Hammer and Safety Hammer (see Note 3)
6. Drilling Procedure 6.2.5 Other Drilling Methods, with concerns listed. It is the
6.1 The borehole shall be advanced incrementally to permit responsibility of the user (driller, site geologist/engineer) to
intermittent or continuous sampling. Record the depth of examine the test conditions and evaluate if disturbance requires
drilling to the nearest 0.1 ft [0.025 m] or better. change of drilling method or procedures. Use of fluid rotary or
hollow-stem auger drilling is recommended if there are serious
6.2 Any drilling procedure that provides a suitably clean concerns and a check boring is required. The other drilling
and stable borehole before insertion of the sampler and assures methods have distinct issues with their usage:
that the penetration test is performed on essentially intact soil
shall be acceptable. Stable borehole conditions are confirmed 6.2.5.1 Wash Boring Method—Wash borings are an older
for each test by comparing the cleanout depths to sampler drilling method using pumped water to a chopping bit which is
depths prior to tests and examining recovered soil cores. Each raised and lowered impacting the base of the boring and
of the following procedures has proven to be acceptable for circulating the fluid and cuttings upward. Casing is also used to
some subsurface conditions. The subsurface conditions antici- help keep the boring stabilized. This method has been listed
pated should be considered when selecting the drilling method previously in this procedure but is recognized as a jetting
to be used (see 4.5 and 5.1). method, Section 12 of Guide D6286. Concerns with this
6.2.1 Open-Hole Fluid Rotary Drilling Method (D5783). method include jetting and impact disturbance in the base of
6.2.2 Hollow-Stem Auger Method (D6151/D6151M). the boring and disturbance caused by casing near the test zone.
6.2.3 Solid Stem Auger Method (D1452/D1452M)—Open See X1.5.1.1 for research information on this method.
hole solid stem augers can be used to advance borings as long 6.2.5.2 Sonic Drilling (D6914/D6914M)—Concerns with
as the hole remains open, stable, and clean. These open this drilling method include the strong vibrations produced
uncased borings are subject to sloughing or caving of cohe- which could influence and disturb sandy soils in the test zone.
sionless soils below the water table and may not be suitable for This method does not use drilling fluid and disturbance in
those conditions. In stiff cohesive soils borings can often be sands below the water table can occur if fluid balance is not
extended below the water table. Typical diameter is 4 in. [100 maintained during removal of the inner barrel. The advantage
mm]. is the outer casing protect the borehole from caving. There is
6.2.4 Fluid Rotary Casing Advancer (D5872/D5872M)— some preliminary research on effects of sonic drilling on SPT
Since this drilling method circulates fluids up the exterior N-values which are currently inconclusive (see X1.5.3) point-
annulus of the rotary casing, care must be taken to maintain ing to a need to perform site specific checks with conventional
fluid circulation (Practice D6066). drilling methods on effect on N-values if required.
APPENDIXES
(Nonmandatory Information)
X1.1 History
X1.1.1 The International Society for Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering published a review of SPT on an
TABLE X1.1 Factors Affecting the Variability of the Standard Penetration Test N (Schmertmann, 1978 (5)).
NOTE 1—Metric conversions: 1 ft = 0.3048 m; 1 in. = 2.54 cm.
Cause Estimated % by Which Cause
Basic Detailed Can Change N
Effective stresses at bottom of 1. Use drilling mud versus casing and water + 100%
borehole (sands)
2. Use hollow-stem auger versus casing and + 100%
water and allow head imbalance
3. Small-diameter hole (3 in.) versus large 50%
diameter (18 in.)
Dynamic energy reaching sampler 4. 2 to 3 turn rope-cathead versus free drop + 100%
(All Soils)
5. Large versus small anvil + 50%
6. Length of rods
Less than 10 ft + 50%
30 to 80 ft 0%
more than 100 ft + 10%
7. Variations in height drop ± 10%
8. A-rods versus NW-rods ± 10%
Sampler design 9. Larger ID for liners, – 10% (sands)
but no liners – 30% (insensitive clays)
Penetration inteval 10. N0 to 12 in. instead N6 to 18 in. – 15% (sands)
– 30% (insensitive clays)
11. N12 to 24 in. versus N6 to 18 in. + 15% (sands)
+ 30% (insensitive clays)
FIG. X1.1 Schematic of Hydraulic Motor Operation of Chain Cam Automatic Hammer System (courtesy MARL Technologies)
FIG. X1.2 Illustration of Automatic and Safety Hammer Data in Clays at the NGES Test Site (Luttenegger and Kelly, 1997 (14))
borings yielded high blow counts above the water table and with drill mud. The results indicated minimal differences in the
lower blow counts below the water table in sands. This is due two drilling methods. On Fig. X1.9 there was a trend of lower
to suspected densification above the water table in sands and N-value with Hollow-stem versus mud rotary borings.
the focusing effect of groundwater seepage force at the base of X1.5.1.4 These conclusions by Seed et al., (26) were worth
the casing and sand disturbance by water imbalance by quoting; “In either case it is clear that borehole fluid type
removing cleanout tools. The report does not mention if a (drilling mud or water) had no significant effect on penetration
bypass line is used to add fluid when drilling below the water resistance so long as good drilling and sampling techniques are
table. There was some tendency for hollow-stem auger holes to used, including prevention of hydraulic inflow at the base of
record lower blow counts in sands below the water table. The the borehole.” The purpose of the study was to prove careful
important finding in this study is that driven casing should be hollow stem augering can be used, but the Fluid Rotary
kept away from the test zone. Drilling method using drill mud is considered to be the most
X1.5.1.3 A study of mud rotary drilling and hollow-stem reliable method and should be used as the reference test.
auger drilling was performed by Seed et al., (26) for purposes
of investigating USGS blow count case history liquefaction X1.5.2 Hollow-Stem Auger Type and Problems in Sands:
database. The study focused on sands below the water table and X1.5.2.1 There are two types of Hollow-stem Augers (Prac-
all drilling methods use a fluid bypass to maintain the fluid tice D6151/D6151M) the “Inner Rod” type and “Wireline”
levels at the top of the boring during removal of the cleanout type. Both systems can be operated with a pilot bit or long
string. Four different sites were investigated comparing 66 SPT inside sampling barrel and removal of these tools causes a
drilled with water (in augers or casing) and 147 SPT drilled suction effect in sands below the water table. In order to
FIG. X1.7 SPT Drive Shoes for Fine and Coarse-Grained Soils (Rodgers, 2006 (4))
FIG. X1.9 Comparison of Mud Rotary versus Hollow-Stem Augers at Salinas Site (Seed et al., (26))
probably negligible but that these correction factors are rec- approximately 1⁄10 the diameter of the penetrometer or smaller.
ommended of liquefaction potential in sands. He noted that There were differences in coarse versus fine to medium sands
there is no research on this topic and it is needed. tested by USACE in chambers (29). There are also data from
field studies with coarser sands. Based on a review of the field
X1.6 Notes on Soil Types – Coarse Grained Soils
and laboratory data, Skempton (9) proposed the following
X1.6.1 Maximum Particle Size – Research on SPT in Sands: modification of Terzaghi’s chart in Appendix X2 as follows on
X1.6.1.1 The maximum particle size is listed in section 4.3 Fig. X1.10.
as 1⁄2 the sampler diameter or smaller. Actually, the test is
generally applicable to soils containing no gravels, soils with X1.7 Recording Penetration per Blow (PPB) in Gravelly
gravels, depending on the percentage will begin to artificially Sands
raise the blow count over non-gravel soils, and hence affect
geotechnical engineering estimates based on SPT data. X1.7.1 As outlined in the EERI publication on soil lique-
X1.6.1.2 SPT chamber test research has been conducted for faction (16) the presence of coarse particles in sands can
clean quartz sands by several agencies and the result were interfere with obtaining usable SPT data for the sand matrix.
summarized by Jamiolkowski et al., (29) in 1988. Numerous Some agencies dealing with these soils, record PBB or pen-
field and chamber studies have been performed in an effort to etration per 0.1 ft [0.025 m]. The goal is to extrapolate a
correlate N and Relative Density as a function of effective reliable sand N-value as shown on Fig. X1.11(b). This method
overburden pressure. Actually, the ratio at which particle size is only reliable for gravel contents of up to 15 to 20 %. For
begins to elevate blow count at a constant Dr and pressure is more information consult the EERI report.
FIG. X1.10 Revised Classification and Estimated Relative Density of Sands Considering Differences Between Coarse and Medium to
Fine Sands (Skempton (9))
X1.7.2 Use of automated systems that have laser distance can be done but requires a third person recorder or hand
recorders (PileTrac) or system like the new automated eSPT marking on drill rods which is hazardous. Manual recording
hammers greatly facilitate recording and post processing of must be input into spreadsheets.
data and reduce errors (see 8.3 and Note 5). Recording by hand
FIG. X1.11 EERI Example of Recording Penetration per Blow in Sands (16).
X2.1 The standard uses consistency descriptors in discus- tables provide SPT N values from this standard and the
sion of drilling and sampling of soils. Fig. X2.1 are two tables corresponding basic soils consistency descriptors for clays and
extracted from Terzaghi and Peck, Soil Mechanic in Engineer- sands.
ing Practice, second edition, 1967, Wiley & Sons. These two
FIG. X2.1 Terzaghi and Peck Descriptors of Soil from SPT N Values
(1) “Standard Penetration Test (SPT): International Reference Test Interior Bureau of Reclamation Dam Safety Office, Technical Ser-
Procedure,” (1988), ISSMFE Technical Committee on Penetration vice center, Denver, CO. May 1999.
Testing, Penetration Testing 1988, ISOPT-1, DeRuiter (ed.), Balkema, (16) Idriss, I. M., and Boulanger, R. W., “Soil Liquefaction During
Rotterdam ISBN90 6191 8014. Earthquakes,” Engineering Monograph MNO-12, Earthquake Engi-
(2) Hvorslev, M. J., 1949, Subsurface Exploration and Sampling of Soils neering Institute (EERI), www.eeri.org , Oakland, CA, USA 2008.
for Engineering Purposes, report of a research project of the Com- (17) DCDMA Technical Manual, Drilling Equipment Manufacturers
mittee on Sampling and Testing, Soil Mechanics and Foundations Association, 3008 Millwood Avenue, Columbia, SC, 1991.
Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, Waterways Experi- (18) Sancio, R. B. and Bray, J. D., “An Assessment of the Effect of Rod
ment Station, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg Mississippi, Length on SPT Energy Calculations Based on Measured Field Data,”
re-published by Engineering Foundation 1960. Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol 28, No. 1, 2005.
(3) Clayton, C.R.I. 1995. The standard penetration test (SPT): Methods (19) Daniel, C. R., Howie, J. A., Jackson, R. S. and Walker, B. W. (2005),
and use. CIRIA Report 143, London. “A Review of Short Rod Correction Factors,” Journal of Geotech-
(4) Rodgers, J. David, “Subsurface Exploration Using the Standard nical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 131, No. 4,
Penetration Test and Cone Penetration Test,” (2006), Environmental pp. 489-497.
& Engineering Geoscience, Association of Engineering Geologists/ (20) Odebrecht, Edgar, et al. “Energy efficiency for standard penetration
Geological Society of America, Vol XII, No. 2, May, pp. 161-179. tests.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
(5) Schmertman, J. H., “Use the SPT to Measure Dynamic Soil Proper- 131.10 (2005): 1252-1263.
ties? -Yes, But!” Dynamic Geotechnical Testing, ASTM STP 654, (21) Farrar, J. A, Nickell, J., Allen, M. G., Goble, G. G., and J. Berger,
American Society for Testing and Materials, 1978, pp. 341-355. “Energy Loss in Long Rod Penetration Testing – Terminus Dam
(6) Schmertman, J. H., and Palacios, A., “Energy Dynamics of SPT,” Investigation,” Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dy-
Proceedings of the ASCE Journal of Geotechncial Engineering, Vol. namics III, Geotechnical Special Publication GSP75, American
105, 1979, pp. 909-926. Society of Civile Engineers Reston, VA. (1998).
(7) Kovacs, W. D., and Salomone, L. A., “Field Evaluation of SPT
(22) Johnsen, L. F, and J. J. Jagello, “Discussion of “Energy Efficiency for
Energy, Equipment and Methods in Japan Compared with SPT in the
Standard Penetration Tests” by Edgar Odebrecht, Fernando Schnaid,
United States,” NBSIR-2910, National Bureua of Standards, U.S.
Marcelo Maia Rocha, and George de Paula Bernardes October 2005,
Department of Commerce, August 1984.
Vol. 131, No. 10, pp. 1252-1263, Journal of Geotechnical and
(8) Seed, H. B., Tokimatsu, K, Harder, L. F., and Chung, R. M.,
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE / April 2007.
“Influence of SPT Procedures in Soil Liquefaction Resistance
(23) C. M. Santana & F. A. B. Danziger B. R. Danziger “The measure-
Evaluations,” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol 111, No. 12,
ment of energy reaching the sampler in SPT,” Geotechnical and
December 1985.
(9) Skempton, A. W., “Standard Penetration Test Procedures and the Geophysical Site Characterization 4 – Coutinho & Mayne (eds)
Effects in Sands of Overburden Pressure, Relative Density, Particle Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-62136-6 (2013).
Size, Aging, and Overconsolidation,” Geotechnique, 36, No. 3, 1986, (24) Parsons, J. D., Discussion of the previous article “Standard Penetra-
pp. 425-447. tion Test: Uses and Abuses,” (1966), Journal of the Soil Mechanics
(10) Abou-mater, J., and Goble, G. G., “SPT Dynamic Analysis and and foundation Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 91, No. SM3, pp.
Measurements,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental 103-105.
Engineering, Vol 123, No. 10, October 1997, pp. 921-928. (25) Whited, G. C., and Edil, T. B., (1986) “Influence of Borehole
(11) Farrar, J. A, and Chitwood, D., “CME Automatic Hammer Opera- Stabilization Techniques on Standard Penetration Test Results,”
tions Bulletin,” Dam Safety Report DSO-99-03, U. S. Bureau of Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 180-188.
Reclamation, Technical Service Center, PO Box 25007 Denver, (26) Seed, R. B, Harder, L. F.,Jr., and Youd, T. L., (1988), “Effects of
Colorado, 80225. Borehole Fluid on Standard Penetration Tests,” Geotechnical Testing
(12) Biringen, E., and Davie, J., “SPT Automatic Hammer Efficiency Journal, GTJODJ, Vol. 11, No. 4, Dec., pp. 248-256.
Revisited,” 6th International Conference on Case Histories in Geo- (27) Wentz, F. J., and S. E. Dickenson, (2013) “Pore Pressure response
techncial Engineering, Arlington VA, August 11-16, 2006. during high frequency sonic drilling and SPT sampling in liquefiable
(13) Honeycutt, J. N., “Local and National Scale Energy Calibration of sand,” Proc 19th NZGS Geotechnical Symposium, Ed. CY Chin,
Standard Penetration Test Hammers,” Master’s Thesis, Civil Engi- Queenstown.
neering department, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, May 6, (28) Wotherspoon, L. M., Li, Z., Haycock, I. (2015). Assessment of SPT
2012. – CPT correlations using Canterbury site investigation database.
(14) Lutenegger, A. J., and Kelly, S. P., “Influence of Hammer Type on 12th Australia New Zealand Conference on Geomechanics,
SPT Results,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Wellington, New Zealand.
Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol X, No, X, (29) Jamiolkowski, M., Ghionna, V.n., Lancellotta, R., and E. Pasqualini,
September 1997. “New Correlations of Penetration Tests for Design Practice,” Pen-
(15) Farrar, J. F., “Standard Penetration Test: Driller’s / Operator’s etration Testing 1988, ISOPT-1, DeRuiter(ed), Balkema, Rotterdam,
Guide,” Dam Safety Office Report DSO-98-17, U.S. Department of 1988. pp. 263-296.
Committee D18 has identified the location of selected changes to this test method since the last issue,
D1586–11, that may impact the use of this test method. (Approved December 1, 2018.)
(1) A major revision was undertaken in 2018. The standard had (5) Sections 4 and 5: Preferred drilling methods are provided
significant changes to the significance and use and apparatus but most all methods are allowed based on approval of the user.
sections. The major changes were: (6) Sections 4 and 5: Preferred hammer systems are also given
(2) Section 4: The section was revised to include important but any hammer system meeting basic requirements can be
information regarding SPT energy measurements on the test used. It is strongly recommended that the user determine or
result. Its use in sand and clays was clarified and in soft clay know the energy of the hammer system they use and at a
was use has been shown to be problematic. minimum the hammer type must be reported.
(3) Section 4: Sampler with or without liners are allowed and (7) General: Appendix X1 has been added to give the user
the differences are discussed the Appendix. more information on the effects of equipment usage and the
(4) Section 4: Recommends the use of automatic or trip various drilling methods.
hammer system but allows other systems.
ASTM International takes no position respecting the validity of any patent rights asserted in connection with any item mentioned
in this standard. Users of this standard are expressly advised that determination of the validity of any such patent rights, and the risk
of infringement of such rights, are entirely their own responsibility.
This standard is subject to revision at any time by the responsible technical committee and must be reviewed every five years and
if not revised, either reapproved or withdrawn. Your comments are invited either for revision of this standard or for additional standards
and should be addressed to ASTM International Headquarters. Your comments will receive careful consideration at a meeting of the
responsible technical committee, which you may attend. If you feel that your comments have not received a fair hearing you should
make your views known to the ASTM Committee on Standards, at the address shown below.
This standard is copyrighted by ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959,
United States. Individual reprints (single or multiple copies) of this standard may be obtained by contacting ASTM at the above
address or at 610-832-9585 (phone), 610-832-9555 (fax), or service@astm.org (e-mail); or through the ASTM website
(www.astm.org). Permission rights to photocopy the standard may also be secured from the Copyright Clearance Center, 222
Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, Tel: (978) 646-2600; http://www.copyright.com/