12/30/23, 11:20 PM Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) | Geoengineer.

org

HOME NEWS EVENTS PUBLICATIONS  EDUCATION JOBS SOFTWARE GALLERY

OUR SPONSORS GEOMAP LOGIN REGISTER

Home • Education • Site Characterization & In-situ Testing (General) • Standard Penetration Testing (SPT)

Create a free account and view content that fits your specific interests in geotechnical engineering Learn
Register
More

Search [Link] Education

Standard Penetration Testing (SPT)

 Standard Penetration Testing (Spt)

On This Day

December 30th 2008

Xiangshan Harbor Bridge

construction started

View More Events On Decembe

Trending

Driving sequence in an SPT test (Source: Prof. Paul Mayne, Georgia Tech.)

May, 30, 2019 | Education

Share Tweet Share Share Share
Arch Dams
Share

Nov, 30, 2023 | Education

Contents [hide] Slope Stability: Single

1. Introduction Free-Body Procedures
2. Driving sequence
3. Corrections
4. Correlations
Dec, 18, 2023 | Education
4.1. Correlation between standard penetration number N60 and relative density of granular James (Jim) K.
soil Dr Mitchell (1930-2023)
4.2. Correlation between angle of friction φ’ and standard penetration number N60
4.3. Correlation between modulus of elasticity Es and standard penetration number N60
4.4. Correlations for standard penetration number N60 in cohesive soil
4.5. Correlations between CPT and SPT
4.6. Correlations between CRR-values and adjusted N-indices 
[Link] 1/14
12/30/23, 11:20 PM Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) | [Link]

4.7. Correlations for calculating the ultimate point resistance, qp, of a pile with SPT results
in granular soilHOME NEWS EVENTS PUBLICATIONS  EDUCATION JOBS SOFTWARE GALLERY
4.8. Correlations for calculating the "capacity" of a pile R
5. Glossary
6. Conclusion
7. References
8. Gallery
9. Media
10. Resources
11. Selected Topics

Introduction

A standard penetration test (SPT) is one of the most popular in-situ tests carried out worldwide. The
test was developed in the United States in the 1920s (Das, 2019).

Standard Penetration Test (SPT) is a simple and low-cost testing procedure widely used in
geotechnical investigation to determine the relative density and angle of shearing resistance of
cohesionless soils and also the strength of stiff cohesive soils.

Driving sequence

Firstly, a borehole is extended to a predetermined depth. The drill tools are removed, and the
sampler is lowered to the bottom of the hole. The sampler is driven into the soil by hammer blows to
the top of the drill rod (see Figure 1). The standard weight of the hammer is 63.5 kg (140 lbs), and for
each blow, the hammer drops a distance of 760 mm (30 inches).

The number of blows required for a spoon penetration of three consecutive 150 mm (6 inches)
intervals is recorded (see Figure 2). The number of blows required to penetrate the first 150 mm is
called “seating drive” and the total number of blows required to penetrate the remaining 300 mm
depth is known as the “standard penetration resistance”, or otherwise, the “N-value”. If the N-value
exceeds 50 then the test is discontinued and is called a “refusal”. The interpreted results, with
several corrections, are used to estimate the geotechnical engineering properties of the soil.

The sampler is then withdrawn, and the shoe and coupling are removed. Finally, the soil sample
recovered from the tube is placed in a glass bottle and transported to the laboratory.

Figure 1. Driving sequence in an SPT test (Source: Prof. Paul Mayne, Georgia Tech.)


[Link] 2/14
12/30/23, 11:20 PM Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) | [Link]

HOME NEWS EVENTS PUBLICATIONS  EDUCATION JOBS SOFTWARE GALLERY

Figure 2. Soil profile description and SPT indices (Fellenius, 2023)

Sampling is part of a standard penetration test (SPT). The split-spoon sampler is the most common
type of sampler that is used in the field. Split-spoon samplers can be used to obtain soil samples that
are generally disturbed, but still representative. A section of a standard split-spoon sampler is shown
in Figure 3. Figures 3a and b show a split-spoon sampler unassembled before and after sampling
(Das, 2019).

Figure 3. (a) Standard split-spoon sampler; (b) spring core catcher (Das, 2019)

Corrections

In the field, the magnitude of the SPT hammer efficiency can vary from 30 to 90%. The standard
practice now is to express the N-value to an average energy ratio of 60%, N60.

Also, the SPT hammer efficiency, borehole diameter, sampling method, and rod length contribute to
the variation of the standard penetration number N at a given depth for similar soil profiles.

Therefore, the N-value corrected to account for these factors can be written as

where

N60 – standard penetration number, corrected for field conditions

N – measured penetration number

ηH – hammer efficiency (%)

ηB – correction for borehole diameter

ηS – sampler correction

ηR – correction for rod length


[Link] 3/14
12/30/23, 11:20 PM Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) | [Link]

Variations of ηH, ηB, ηS, and ηR, based on recommendations by Seed et al. (Seed et al., 1985) and
Skempton (Skempton, 1986)HOME
are givenNEWS EVENTS
in Tables 1-4 below. PUBLICATIONS  EDUCATION JOBS SOFTWARE GALLERY

Table 1. Variations of ηH (Das, 2019)

Country Hammer type Hammer release ηH (%)

Japan Donut Free fall 78

Donut Rope and pulley 67

United States Safety Rope and pulley 60

Donut Rope and pulley 45

Argentina Donut Rope and pulley 45

China Donut Free fall 60

Donut Rope and pulley 50

Table 2. Variations of ηB (Das, 2019)

Diameter, mm ηB

60-120 1

150 1.05

200 1.15

Table 3. Variations of ηS (Das, 2019)

Variable ηS

Standard sampler 1

With liner for dense sand and clay 0.8

With liner for loose sand 0.9

Table 4. Variations of ηR (Das, 2019)

Rod length, m ηR

>10 1.0

6-10 0.95


[Link] 4/14
12/30/23, 11:20 PM Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) | [Link]

Rod length, m HOME NEWS EVENTS ηR 

PUBLICATIONS EDUCATION JOBS SOFTWARE GALLERY

4-6 0.85

0-4 0.75

Correction for N60 in granular soil

The value of N60 obtained from field exploration under different effective overburden pressures
should be changed to correspond to a standard value of σ’0. That is,

where

(N1)60 – value of N60 corrected to a standard value of σ’0 = pa (pa ≈ 100 kN/m2)

CN – correction factor

N60 – value of N obtained from field exploration

A number of empirical relations were proposed for CN in the past.

Liao and Whitman’s relationship (Liao and Whitman, 1986):

Skempton’s relationship (Skempton, 1986):

- for normally consolidated fine sand

- for normally consolidated coarse sand

- for overconsolidated sand

Seed et al.’s relationship (Seed et al., 1975):


[Link] 5/14
12/30/23, 11:20 PM Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) | [Link]

HOME NEWS EVENTS PUBLICATIONS  EDUCATION JOBS SOFTWARE GALLERY

Correlations

Correlation between standard penetration number N60 and

relative density of granular soil Dr

Marcuson and Bieganousky (Marcuson and Bieganousky, 1977), Kulhawy and Mayne (Kulhawy and
Mayne, 1990):

where

Dr – relative density

σ’0 – effective overburden pressure

Cu – uniformity coefficient of sand

OCR = preconsolidation pressure, σ’c / effective overburden pressure, σ’0

pa – atmospheric pressure

Cubrinovski and Ishihara (Cubrinovski and Ishihara, 1999):

where

N60 – standard penetration number

D50 – sieve size through which 50% of the soil will pass (mm)

σ’0 – effective overburden pressure

pa – atmospheric pressure (pa ≈ 100 kN/m2)

Kulhawy and Mayne (Kulhawy and Mayne, 1990):

where

(N1)60 – value of N60 corrected to a standard value of σ’0 = pa (pa ≈ 100 kN/m2)

CP – grain-size correlations factor, CP = 60 + 25 log D50

CA – correlation factor for aging, CA = 1.2 + 0.05 log (t/100)

COCR – correlation factor for overconsolidation, COCR = OCR0.18

D50 – diameter through which 50% soil will pass through (mm)

t – age of soil since deposition (years)


[Link] 6/14
12/30/23, 11:20 PM Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) | [Link]

OCR – overconsolidation ratio

HOME NEWS EVENTS PUBLICATIONS  EDUCATION JOBS SOFTWARE GALLERY

Correlation between angle of friction φ’ and standard

penetration number N60

Peck et al. (Peck et al., 1974), Wolff (Wolff, 1989):

where

(N1)60 – value of N60 corrected to a standard value of σ’0 = pa (pa ≈ 100 kN/m2)

φ’ – soil friction angle

Schmertmann (Schmertmann, 1975), Kulhawy and Mayne (Kulhawy and Mayne, 1990):

where

N60 – field standard penetration number

σ’0 – effective overburden pressure

pa – atmospheric pressure in the same unit as σ’0

φ’ – soil friction angle

Correlation between modulus of elasticity Es and standard

penetration number N60

Kulhawy and Mayne (Kulhawy and Mayne, 1990):

where

pa – atmospheric pressure

α – α = 5 for sands with fines, α = 10 for clean normally consolidated sand, α = 15 for clean
overconsolidated sand

N60 – standard penetration number

Correlations for standard penetration number N60 in cohesive

soil


[Link] 7/14
12/30/23, 11:20 PM Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) | [Link]

The approximate correlation among the consistency index (CI), N60, and the unconfined
compression strength (qu) isHOME NEWS
given in Table 5. EVENTS PUBLICATIONS  EDUCATION JOBS SOFTWARE GALLERY

Table 5. Approximate correlation among CI, N60, and qu (Das, 2019)

Standard penetration Unconfined compression

Consistency CI
number, N60 strength, qu (kN/m2)

<2 Very soft <0.5 <25

2-8 Soft to medium 0.5-0.75 25-100

8-15 Stiff 0.75-1.0 100-200

15-30 Very stiff 1.0-1.5 200-400

>30 Hard >1.5 >400

Correlations between CPT and SPT

Figure 4. Correlations between CPT cone resistance values, qc (kPa) divided by σr (= 100 kPa) and SPT N60-indices from 18
sites. A – abscissa is in Log-scale; B – abscissa is in linear scale. Data from Robertson et al. (Robertson et al., 1983)
(Fellenius, 2023)

Correlations between CRR-values and adjusted N-indices

Figure 5. Correlations between CRR-values and adjusted N-indices. Data from Youd et al. (Youd et al., 2001) (Fellenius, 2023)


[Link] 8/14
12/30/23, 11:20 PM Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) | [Link]

Correlations for calculating

HOME NEWS
theEVENTS
ultimate point resistance,
PUBLICATIONS 
q ,
EDUCATION p JOBS SOFTWARE GALLERY
of a pile with SPT results in granular soil

Meyerhof (Meyerhof, 1976):

where

pa – atmospheric pressure (pa ≈ 100 kN/m2)

N60 – the average value of the standard penetration number near the pile point (about 10D above to
4D below the pile point)

L – the actual embedment length of the pile

D – the width of the pile

Briaud et al. (Briaud et al., 1985):

where

pa – atmospheric pressure (pa ≈ 100 kN/m2)

N60 – the average value of the standard penetration number near the pile point (about 10D above to
4D below the pile point)

Correlations for calculating the "capacity" of a pile R

Meyerhof (Meyerhof, 1976):

where

Rt – total toe resistance

Rs – total shaft resistance

m – a toe coefficient: m = 400 kN/m2 or 8 ksf – for driven piles, 120 kN/m2 or 2.4 ksf – for bored piles

n – a shaft coefficient: n = 2 kN/m2 or 0.04 ksf – for driven piles, 1 kN/m2 or 0.02 ksf – for bored piles

Nt – N-index at the pile toe (taken as a pure number)

Ns – N-index average along the pile shaft (taken as a pure number)

At – pile toe area

As – unit shaft area; circumferential area

D – embedment depth

Decourt (Decourt, 1989, 1995):

where

Rt – total toe resistance

Rs – total shaft resistance 

[Link] 9/14
12/30/23, 11:20 PM Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) | [Link]

K – a toe coefficient per soil type and construction method as listed in Table 6
HOME NEWS EVENTS PUBLICATIONS  EDUCATION JOBS SOFTWARE GALLERY
α – a shaft coefficient per soil type and construction method as listed in Table 7

Nt – N-index at the pile toe (taken as a pure number)

Ns – N-index average along the pile shaft (taken as a pure number)

At – pile toe area

As – unit shaft area; circumferential area

D – embedment depth

Table 6. Toe Coefficient K (Decourt 1989; 1995)

Soil Type Displacement piles Non-Displacement piles

Sand 325·103 165·103

Sandy Silt 205·103 115·103

Clayey Silt 165·103 100·103

Clay 100·103 80·103

Table 7. Shaft Coefficient α (Decourt 1989; 1995)

Soil Type Displacement piles Non-Displacement piles

Sand 1·103 0.6·103

Sandy Silt 1·103 0.5·103

Clayey Silt 1·103 1·103

Clay 1·103 1·103

Glossary

Standard penetration test (SPT) N-value – the number of hammer blows required to drive a drill
rod with an attached soil sampler 300 mm or 12 inches into soil (or weak rock); this N-value yields
information on the geotechnical engineering properties of the soil (Jackson, 2019).

Conclusion

Standard Penetration Test (SPT) is a simple and low-cost testing procedure widely used in
geotechnical investigation. The interpreted results, with several corrections, are used to estimate the
geotechnical engineering properties of the soil such as the relative density and angle of shearing
resistance of cohesionless soils and also the strength of stiff cohesive soils. 
[Link] 10/14
12/30/23, 11:20 PM Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) | [Link]

For many years, the N-value of standard penetration test has been used to calculate "capacity" of
piles. However, the standardHOME NEWS
penetration EVENTS
test (SPT) PUBLICATIONS
is a subjective EDUCATION
and highly variable test. These JOBS SOFTWARE GALLERY

days, N-value are usually adjusted to the N60-value. Several additional adjustments have also been
proposed.

The test and the N-value have substantial qualitative value for the experienced geotechnical
engineer, but should be used only very cautiously for quantitative analysis. Indeed, using the N-index
numerically in formulae is unsafe and imprudent unless used with correlation to prior experience
from not just the same geology but also the same site (Fellenius, 2023).

References

Briaud, J. L., Tucker, L., Lytton, R. L., and Coyle, H. M. (1985). Behavior of Piles and Pile Groups,
Report No. FHWA/RD-83/038, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.

Cubrinovski, M. and Ishihara, K. (1999). Empirical Correlations between SPT N-Values and Relative
Density for Sandy Soil, Soil and Foundations, Vol. 39, No. 5, pp. 61–92.

Das, B. M., Sivakugan, N. (2019). Principles of Foundation Engineering, IXth ed., Cengage Learning
Inc., Boston, MA, USA.

Decourt, L. (1989). The Standard Penetration Test. State-of-the-Art report. A.A. Balkema, Proc. of
12th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Rio de Janiero,
Brazil, August 13-18, Vol. 4, pp. 2405-2416.

Decourt, L. (1995). Prediction of load-settlement relationships for foundations on the basis of the
SPT. Proc. of the Conf. in honor of Leonardo Zeevaert, Mexico City, Oct. 28-Nov. 6, pp. 87-103.

Fellenius, B. H. (2023). Basics of foundation design, Electronic Edition, Available at:

[Link]

Jackson, R. E. (2019). Earth Science for Civil and Environmental Engineers, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK. [Link]

Kulhawy, F. H. and Mayne, P. W. (1990). Manual on Estimating Soil Properties for Foundation
Design, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA.

Liao, S. S. C. and Whitman, R. V. (1986). Overburden Correction Factors for SPT in Sand, Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 112, No. 3, pp. 373–377.

Marcuson, W. F. III, and Bieganousky, W. A. (1977). SPT and Relative Density in Coarse Sands,
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 103, No. 11,
pp. 1295–1309.

Meyerhof, G. G. (1976). Bearing Capacity and Settlement of Pile Foundations, Journal of the
Geotechnical Engineering Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 102, No. GT3, pp. 197–
228.

Peck, R. B., Hanson, W. E., and Thornburn, T. H. (1974). Foundation Engineering, 2nd ed., John
Wiley & Sons, New York.

Robertson, P. K. and Campanella, R.G. (1983). Interpretation of cone penetrometer tests, Part I sand
and Part II clay. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, (20)4, pp. 718-745.

Schmertmann, J. H. (1975). Measurement of In Situ Shear Strength, Proceedings, Specialty

Conference on In Situ Measurement of Soil Properties, ASCE, Vol. 2, pp. 57–138.

Seed, H. B., Tokimatsu, K., Harder, L. F., and Chung, R. M. (1985). Influence of SPT Procedures in
Soil Liquefaction Resistance Evaluations, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 111, No.
12, pp. 1425–1445.

Skempton, A. W. (1986). Standard Penetration Test Procedures and the Effect in Sands of
Overburden Pressure, Relative Density, Particle Size, Aging and Overconsolidation, Geotechnique,
Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 425–447.

Seed, H. B., Arango, I., and Chan, C. K. (1975). Evaluation of Soil Liquefaction Potential during
Earthquakes, Report No. EERC 75-28, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of
California, Berkeley. 
[Link] 11/14
12/30/23, 11:20 PM Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) | [Link]

Wolff, T. F. (1989). Pile Capacity Prediction Using Parameter Functions, in Predicted and Observed
HOME
Axial Behavior of Piles, Results NEWS
of a Pile EVENTS
Prediction PUBLICATIONS
Symposium, EDUCATION
sponsored by the Geotechnical JOBS SOFTWARE GALLERY

Engineering Division, ASCE, Evanston, IL, June, 1989, ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No.
23, pp. 96–106.

Youd, T. L., Idriss, I. M, Andrus, R. D., Arango, I., Castro, G., Christian, J. T., Dobry, R., Finn, W. D.
L., Harder, L. F., Hynes, M. E., Ishihara, K., Koester, J. P., Liao, S. S. C., Marcuson, W. F., Martin, G.
R., Mitchell, J. K., Moriwaki, Y., Power, M. S., Robertson, P. K., Seed, R. B., Stokoe, K. H. (2001).
Liquefaction resistance of soils: Summary report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF
Workshops on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils, ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 127(4), pp. 297–313.

Image Gallery

Media

…T) for Drillers …utomatic vs. Manual Hammer

SPT

Educational Resources

 Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

Credits: Geo-Institute Engineering Geology and Site Characterization Committee

Prepared by: Paul W. Mayne, Georgia Institute of Technology, 2016

Selected Topics

Reliability of Shallow Foundation Design Using the Standard Penetration Test

 Want to read more like this? 

[Link] 12/14
12/30/23, 11:20 PM Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) | [Link]

HOME NEWS EVENTS PUBLICATIONS  EDUCATION JOBS SOFTWARE GALLERY

VertekCPT: Want to SPTfoundation Using Terzaghi’s

clarify the relation Sep, 30, 2013 | Software Equation in
between SPT & Foundation Design
CPT? Nov, 25, 2022 | News
Apr, 21, 2015 | News
Theoretical models to
To determine the predict the capacity of
mechanical properties of helical piles are based
soil, an engineer can rely on Soil Mechanics and
on both CPT and SPT an appr...
methods. L...

SPT: Standard Cone Penetration Soil Consolidation

Penetration Test Testing (CPT) and Oedometer Test
Energy Calibration Apr, 21, 2020 | Education May, 07, 2020 | Education
Apr, 11, 2018 | News
Cone penetration testing What is Soil
SPT Energy Calibration (CPT) is an in-situ test Consolidation? Soil
consists of measuring that is used to identify Consolidation refers to
the energy transferred the soil type. In this t... the process in which the
by the Standard volume of a satu...
Penetration Tes...

The Economic Soil Subgrade Horizontal Soil

Benefits of Testing Reaction in Pile Subgrade Reaction
Driven Piles Foundations in Pile Foundations
Aug, 27, 2021 | News Jan, 05, 2021 | Education Jan, 14, 2021 | Education

Read an article Introduction Soil Introduction The

by Patrick Hannigan, subgrade reaction in pile horizontal Soil Subgrade
President of GRL foundations is mostly Reaction in Pile
Engineers Inc., and based on theory of ela... Foundations is oft...
Brent Robinson, Vice
Pre...


[Link] 13/14
12/30/23, 11:20 PM Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) | [Link]

© 2002-2023 ARGO-E GROUP. AllHOME NEWS

rights reserved. EVENTSAbout Us
PUBLICATIONS EDUCATION
• Disclaimer  • Privacy JOBS PolicySOFTWARE
Policy • Cookies • Copyrights &GALLERY
Permissions


[Link] 14/14