Standard Penetration and

Cone Penetration Tests

Prof. Jie Han, Ph.D., PE

The University of Kansas

Outline of Presentation
Introduction
Standard Penetration Test
Cone Penetration Test
Evaluation of Liquefaction

Introduction

Insitu Testing Devices

Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

Advantages
Long record of experience
Many available test data and correlation
Perform the test during soil sampling using the
split-spoon sampler
Fast and inexpensive

Disadvantages
Crude
Many variants
No continuous soil profile

SPT Test Procedure

Drill a boring to the depth of the test
Insert the SPT sampler (split-spoon sampler) into
the boring
Raise a 63.5kg (140lb) hammer to a distance of
760mm (30in) and allow it to fall. Repeat this process
until the sampler has penetrated 450mm (18in).
Record the number of hammer blows required for
each 150mm (6in.) interval
Compute the N value by summing the blow counts
for the last 300mm (12in) of penetration
Remove the SPT sampler and soil sample

Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

Budhu (2000)

Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

Courtesy of Mayne

Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

Hollow Stem in Place (Widener)

Standard Penetration Test (Widener)

SPT with Automatic Hammer (Widener)

SPT with Automatic Hammer (KU)

Auger Pulled out (Widener)

Split Barrel (Widener)

Boring Log

Salgado (2006)

Some Special SPT Terms

Refusal - N>50 for any of the intervals or
N>100
W/H - weight of hammer
W/R - weight of rod

Corrected SPT N Value

The measured N value may be corrected by
considering a number of key factors:

C E C B CSC R N
N 60 =
0.60
where N60 = SPT N value corrected for field
procedures;
CE = hammer efficiency;
CB = borehole diameter correction;
CS = sampler correction;
CR = rod length correction;
N = measured SPT N value.

Corrections to SPT N-value

Effect

Variable

Overburden
Stress
Energy
Ratio1

Borehole
Diameter

Sampling
Method

Safety Hammer
Donut Hammer
Automatic Hammer
65 to 115 mm
150 mm
200 mm
Standard sampler
Sampler without

Value

CN

(Pa/vo')0.5 but < 2

CE

0.6 to 0.85
0.3 to 0.6
0.85 to 1.0

CB

1.00
1.05
1.15

CS

1.0
1.1 to 1.3

CR

1.0
0.95
0.85
0.75
60 + 25 log D50

Rod
Length

liner

Particle
Size

Median Grain Size (D50) of

Sand in mm

CP

Aging

Time (t) in years since

deposition

CA

1.2 + 0.05 log

(t/100)

COCR

OCR0.2

Overconsolidation

vo'

Term

10 m
6
4
3

to
to
to
to

30 m
10 m
6 m
4 m

OCR

Obtain by energy measurement per ASTM D4633

Courtesy of Mayne

Corrected SPT (N1)60 Value

The N value may also be corrected by
considering the overburden stress at the location
where the SPT is conducted:

(N1 )60 = N 60

100kPa
'z

Consistency and Undrained

Shear Strength of Clay
N value (blows/ft)

Consistency

Undrained shear
strength, su (tsf)

0 to 2
2 to 4
4 to 8
8 to 15
15 to 30
>30

Very soft
Soft
Medium
Stiff
Very stiff
Hard

<1/8
1/8 to 1/4
1/4 to 1/2
1/2 to 1
1 to 2
>2

(Terzaghi and Peck, 1967)

Relative Density and Friction

Angle of Sand vs. SPT N
N value
(blows/ft)

Density
description

Dr (%)

0 to 4
4 to 10
10 to 30
30 to 50
>50

Very loose
Loose
Medium
Dense
Very dense

0 to 15
15 to 35
35 to 65
65 to 85
85 to 100

<28
28 to 30
30 to 36
36 to 41
>41

(Terzaghi and Peck, 1967)

Relative Density Dr vs. SPT N60

Cubrinovski and Ishihara (1999) proposed the
following correlation for the relative density of
granular soils

N 60 (0.23 + 0.06 / D50 )

Dr (%) =
9

1.7

98
'
z

z = effective overburden stress in kPa

D50 = mean grain size in mm

0.5

Relative Density Dr vs. SPT N

(Holtz and Gibbs, 1957)

Friction Angle
vs. SPT N60

(DeMello, 1971)

Friction Angle vs. SPT N60

Kulhawy and Mayne (1990) proposed the
following correlation for the effective friction
angle of sands

N 60
= tan

'
12.2 + 20.3 z / pa
1

0.34

z = effective overburden stress in kPa

pa = atmospheric pressure ( 100kPa)

Friction Angle vs. SPT (N1)60

Wolff (1989) proposed the following correlation
for the effective friction angle of sands
2

= 27.1 + 0.3( N1 )60 0.00054(N1 )60

(N1)60 = corrected SPT N60

Undrained Shear Strength vs. SPT N

Terzaghi and Peck (1967):

su / pa 0.06 N
Hara et al. (1974):

su / pa 0.29 N

0.72

Undrained Shear Strength vs. SPT N

(Kulhawy and Mayne, 1990)

OCR vs. SPT N for Clays

(Mayne and Kemper)

Elastic Modulus vs. SPT N Value

Es (5N60)x100kPa (sands with fines)
Es (10N60)x100kPa (clean NC sands)
Es (15N60)x100kPa (clean OC sands)
(Kulhawy and Mayne, 1990)

cu = undrained strength

Is One Number Enough???

T = unit weight

DR = relative density

IR = rigidity index

T = unit weight

' = friction angle

LI = liquefaction index

OCR = overconsolidation

' = friction angle

K0 = lateral stress state

c' = cohesion intercept

eo = void ratio

eo = void ratio

Vs = shear wave

qa = bearing capacity

E' = Young's modulus

Cc = compression index

qb = pile end bearing

fs = pile skin friction

k = permeability

qa = bearing stress

CLAY

p' = preconsolidation

SAND

Vs = shear wave

E' = Young's modulus

= dilatancy angle
qb = pile end bearing

fs = pile skin friction

Courtesy of Mayne

Cone Penetration Test

Cone Penetration Test (CPT)

[ASTM D3441]

A common in-situ test method

Once known as the Dutch cone
Two types:
- Mechanical cone
- Electric cone

Casing

Connecting
rod

Cone Penetration
Test (CPT)

Cone

(a) Dutch cone

Filter to
facilitate
pore water
pressure
measurement

(b) Piezocone
Budhu (2000)

Mechanical CPT

Murthy (2002)

Electronic CPT

Murthy (2002)

Cone Penetration Test (CPT)

Courtesy of Mayne

Cone Penetration Test (CPT)

Courtesy of Mayne

Cone Penetration Test (CPT)

Courtesy of Mayne

Rig

Courtesy of Mayne

Cone Tip

Cone Shaft

Saturation of Cone Tip

Pouring Water into Tip Connection

Screwing in Cone Tip

Assembled CPTU Probe

CPT with Cableless Rods

CPT Penetrating the Ground

Adding A Rod
with Cable
during CPT
Test

Conducting CPT Test on Truck

CPT Profile
qt (MPa)

Depth (meters)

fs
ub
qt

20

40

u b (kPa)

fs (kPa)
60

500

1000

-200

12

12

12

16

16

16

20

20

20

24

24

24

28

28

28

200 400 600 800

Courtesy of Mayne

CPT Parameters

Tip resistance, qt
Side resistance, fs
Pore water pressure, ub
Friction ratio, Rf = fs/qt x 100%

Tip Resistance, qt vs. qc

qc
Area ratio
At=D2/4
d

An=d2/4
ub

an=d2/D2
qt vs. qc
qt=qc + ub (1 an)

qt

Seismic Piezocone Test

Obtains Four Independent

Measurements with Depth:
Cone Tip Stress, qt
Penetration Porewater Pressure, u
Sleeve Friction, fs
Arrival Time of Downhole Shear
Wave, ts

Courtesy of Mayne

Vs
fs
u2
u1

60o

qc

Downhole Shear Wave Velocity

Anchoring System
Automated Source
Polarized Wave
Downhole Vs
Courtesy of Mayne

SCPTu at Amherst Test Site

Courtesy of Mayne

Geoenvironmental
Cone

Other Cone Tests

Determination of Soil Parameters

Courtesy of Mayne

CPT vs. SPT

Advantages:
- Obtain more information (two parameters or
more vs. one parameter)
- Get a continuous and more consistent soil
profiles

Disadvantages:
- No soil sampling
- Unreliable for soils containing large particles
(such as: gravel)

CPT Soil Classification

Rf (%)
0 0.5
0.5 2.0
25
>5

Type of soil
Loose gravel fill
Sands or gravels
Clay sand mixture and silts
Clays, peat, etc.

Sanglerat (1972)

CPT Soil Behavioral Classification

Soil Behavior Type (Robertson et al., 1986; Robertson & Campanella, 1988)
1 Sensitive fine grained
5 Clayey silt to silty clay
9 sand
2 Organic material
6 Sandy silt to silty sand
10 Gravelly sand to sand
3 Clay
7 Silty sand to sandy silt
11 Very stiff fine grained*
4 Silty clay to clay
8 Sand to silty sand
12 Sand to clayey sand*
*Note: Overconsolidated or cemented

qc versus Dr

Rebertson and Campanella (1983)

Relative Density of Sands

q c / 100kPa 100kPa

x100%
D r =
0.18
'
z
305Q c OCR
Qc = compressibility factor (= 0.9 to 1.1)

Friction
Angle for
Uncemented
Quartz Sand

Rebertson and
Campanella (1983)

qc versus
Friction angle of sand:

q c
' tan 0.1 + 0.38 log '

z
1

(Kulhawy and Mayne, 1990)

qc versus tc of Sands
Normalized cone tip
Resistance, qc/pa
< 20
20 to 40
40 to 120
120 to 200
> 200

Relative Approximate tc
Density (degrees)
Very loose
Loose
Medium
Dense
Very dense

< 30
30 to 35
35 to 40
40 to 45
> 45

Meyerhof

qc versus cu
qc vo
cu =
Nk
Nk = cone factor
vo = z = total overburden pressure
Lunne and Kelven (1981)
Type of clay
Normally consolidated
Overconsolidated
at shallow depths
at deep depths

Cone factor
11 to 19
15 to 20
12 to 18

Nk = 10 12 (Salgado, 2006)

Preconsolidation Stress

(Kulhawy and Mayne, 1990)

Preconsolidation Stress

(Kulhawy and Mayne, 1990)

Preconsolidation Stress

(Kulhawy and Mayne, 1990)

Preconsolidation Stress and

Undrained Shear Strength
Preconsolidation stress:

'p = 0.29qc

(Kulhawy and Mayne, 1990)

For low OCR clays with low to moderate PI:

cu / 'p = 0.23 0.04

(Jamiolkowski, 1985)

Effective Cohesion

Mesri and Abdel-Ghaffar (1993)

Coefficient of Consolidation, ch
Teh and Houlsby (1991) proposed the following
Formula to estimate ch:

T *R2 I r
ch =
t
T* = modified time factor for a given probe geometry
and porous element location
t = measured time
R = radius of the probe
Ir = rigidity index = G/su

Modified Time Factors, T*

Teh and Houlsby (1991)

Degree of Consolidation
ut u 0
U = 1
ui u 0
ut = pore pressure at time t
ui = initial pore pressure at t=0
u0 = hydrostatic pore pressure
U = 50%

t50

Dissipation of Porewater Pressure

ui

u0

t50
FHWA-IF-02-034 (2002)

Permeability of Soils

Parez & Fauriel (1988)

Horizontal Coefficient of Consolidation

Lunne et al. (1997)

Elastic Modulus of Soils

Elastic modulus of sands:

E 2q c

(Schmertmann, 1970)

Soil
Sand (normally consolidated)
Sand (overconsolidated)
Clayey sand
Silty sand
Soft clay

E
(2 4) qc
(6 30) qc
(3 6) qc
(1 2) qc
(3 8) qc
(Murray, 2002)

Shear Wave Velocity, Vs

Fundamental measurement in all solids
(steel, concrete, wood, soils, rocks)
Initial small-strain stiffness represented by
shear modulus: G0 = Vs2
(alias Gdyn = Gmax = G0)

Applies to all static & dynamic problems at

small strains (s < 10-6)
Applied to undrained & drained cases
Need reduction factor for relevant strain
levels.

Analyses Based on CPT Results

fs

fsc

ub
qt

qt

Pile Toe Bearing Capacity

Based on CPT Results
Pile toe bearing capacity
qt = Ct (qt ub)
Ct = toe bearing coefficient (Ct = 1.0)
qt = CPT cone tip resistance
ub = pore water pressure measured behind the
cone point

Pile Side Friction Resistance

Based on CPT Results
Side friction resistance
fs = Cs (qt ub)
Side friction coefficient, Cs (Eslami & Fellenius, 1997)
Soil Type

Range

Typical design value

Soft sensitive soils

0.0737 0.0864

0.08

Clay

0.0462 0.0556

0.05

Stiff clay / mixture of clay & silt

0.0206 0.0280

0.025

Mixture of silt and sand

0.0087 0.0134

0.01

Sand

0.0034 0.0060

0.004

Evaluation of Liquefaction

Notation for Description of

Earthquake Location
Epicentral distance

Ground surface
Epicenter

Site or observer

Hypocentral distance

Focus or hypocenter

Earthquake Magnitude
Richter Local Magnitude, ML
- the log10 of the maximum trace amplitude (in micrometer) recorded
on a Wood-Anderson seismometer located 100km from the epicenter
Surface Wave Magnitude, Ms
- based on the amplitude of Rayleigh waves with a period of 20 sec.
Body Wave Magnitude, mb
- based on the amplitude of the first few cycles of p-waves
Japanese Meteorological Agency Magnitude, MJMA
- based on the amplitude of long-period waves
Moment Magnitude, Mw
- based on the seismic moment

Earthquake Magnitude

Earthquake Map

Sand Boiling during Seattle

Earthquake

Failur Induced by Liquefaction

(Loma Prieta earthquake, 1906)

Uniform Cyclic Shear Stress

max

cyc = 0.65 max

amax
= 0.65
v rd
g

v = the total stress, rd = stress reduction factor

Stress Reduction Factor

Seed & Idriss (1971)

Cyclic Stress Ratio (CSR)

Cyclic stress ratio (CSR) is defined as:

cyc
CSR = '
vo

CSR versus (N1)60 for Clean Sands

Seed et al. (1975)

Magnitude Correction Factors

Magnitude, M

CSRM/CSRM=7.5

1.50

1.32

1.13

1.00

0.89

Effect of Fine Contents

Seed et al. (1975)

CSR versus qc

Mitchell & Tseng (1990)

Factor of Safety against

Liquefaction

cyclic shear stress required to cause liquefacti on

FS =
equivalent cyclic shear stress induced by earthquake

cyc , L CSRL
=
=
cyc
CSR