Ain Shams University Faculty of Science

Geology Department

Report on
Standard Penetration Test
By
Khaled Mosleh Sayed

1
 List of Content page
1. Introduction…………………………. (4-6)

2. Tools for Standard Penetration………… (6)

3. The advantages and disadvantages of the (7)

SPT………………….

4. Energy Efficiency of Hammer……. (7-10)

5. Test procedure………… (11)

6. Uses……………… (12)

7. Effect of Overburden Stress on N-values……. (13-14)

8. Correlation of SPT N-Values with Basic Soil (14)

Characteristics………...

9. SPT Test Errors………... (14-16)

10. Conclusion………. (16)

11. References………… (16-18)

2
 List of figures
page
1. Figure 1.1: (a) Stainless steel and brass liners, (6)
(b) Sample catchers……….

2. Figure 1-2. SPT hammer types, (a) Donut, (b) (8)

Safety, and (c) Automatic………...

3. Figure 1.3. SPT N-values from (a) Uncorrected (10)

data, and (b) Corrected to 60%efficiency…….

4. Figure 1.4. Variation of overburden correction (13)

factor, CN, as a function of vertical effective stress.

List of tables
page
1. Table 3-9 Soil properties correlated with Standard
Penetration Test values (after Peck, et al., 1974) …… (14)

3
Introduction
The standard penetration test (SPT) is performed during the
advancement of a soil boring to obtain a disturbed drive sample
(split barrel type) of the soil being penetrated and an approximate
measure of its dynamic resistance. The test was introduced by the
Raymond Pile Company in 1902 and remains today as the most
common in-situ test performed worldwide. The procedures for the
SPT are detailed in ASTM D 1586 and AASHTO T 206. A
summary of the important features of the test follows. The SPT
involves the driving of a hollow thick-walled tube into the ground
and measuring the number of blows to advance the split-barrel
sampler having standard dimensions of 2 in (50 mm) outside
diameter (OD) and 1-3/8 in (35 mm) inside diameter (ID) a
vertical distance of 1 ft (300 mm). A 140-pound (63.5 kilogram)
hammer is repeatedly dropped from a height of 30 in (0.76 m) to
achieve three successive 6 in (150 mm) increments of penetration.
The first recorded increment is considered as a “seating”
penetration, while the number of blows to advance the second and
third increments are summed to give the N-value ("blow count")
or SPT-resistance (reported in blows per foot (0.3 m)). The SPT
can be halted when a total of 100 blows have been counted or if
the number of blows exceeds 50 in any given 6 in (150 mm)
increment, or if the sampler fails to advance during 10
consecutive blows. SPT refusal is defined by penetration
resistances exceeding 100 blows per 2 in (50 mm), although
ASTM D 1586 has re-defined this limit at 50 blows.
per 1 in (25 mm). If bedrock, or an obstacle such as a boulder, is
encountered, the boring may be advanced further by using
4
diamond core drilling or non-core rotary methods (ASTM D
2113; AASHTO T 225) at the discretion of the geotechnical
specialist. In certain cases, this SPT criterion may be utilized to
define the top of bedrock within a particular geologic setting
where boulders are not of concern or not of great impact on the
project requirements.
The SPT is conducted at the bottom of a soil boring that has been
advanced by use of either flight augers or rotary wash drilling
methods. The borehole can be cased or uncased. At regular depth
intervals, the drilling process is interrupted to perform the SPT.
Generally, at depths shallower than 10 ft (3 m) the SPT is
performed continuously or at intervals of 2.5 ft (0.75 m). Below
a depth of 10 ft (3 m) the SPT is generally performed at intervals
of 5 ft (1.5 m) to the planned end of the boring or refusal. If the
borehole extends below the groundwater table, the head of water
in the borehole must be maintained at or above the ambient
groundwater level to avoid inflow of water and borehole
instability.
Liners may be placed inside the split-barrel sampler with the same
inside diameter as the cutting shoe. This allows samples to remain
intact during transport to the laboratory. The liners may be
arranged in a set of 1-inch (25 mm) high rings in which case
“ring” samples of pre-determined height may be obtained. In U.S.
practice, it is normal to omit the liner. The resistance of the
sampler to driving is altered depending upon whether a liner is
used (Skempton 1986, Kulhawy and Mayne, 1990). Therefore,
when the liners are used, their use should be clearly
mentioned in the boring logs. Steel or plastic sampler “catchers”
5
are often required to keep samples of clean granular soils in the
split-barrel sampler. Figure 1.1 shows a variety of catchers. They
are inserted inside the sampler between the cutting shoe and the
sample barrel to help retain loose or flowing materials. These
catchers permit the soil to enter the sampler during driving but
upon withdrawal they close and thereby retain the sample. Use of
sample catchers should be noted on the boring log.

Figure 1.1: (a) Stainless steel and brass liners, (b) Sample catchers

Tools for Standard Penetration Test

The requirements to conduct SPT are:
1. Standard Split Spoon Sampler
2. Drop Hammer weighing 63.5kg
3. Guiding rod
4. Drilling Rig.
5. Driving head (anvil).

6
The advantages and disadvantages of the SPT
The advantages of standard penetration test are:
1. The test is simple and economical.
2. The test provides representative samples for visual
inspection, classification tests and for moisture content.
3. Actual soil behavior is obtained through SPT values.
4. The method helps to penetrate dense layers and fills.
5. Tests can be applied for a variety of soil conditions.

The limitations of standard penetration tests are:

1. The results will vary due to any mechanical or operator
variability or drilling disturbances.
2. Test is costly and time consuming.
3. The samples retrieved for testing is disturbed.
4. The test results from SPT cannot be reproduced.
5. The application of SPT in gravels, cobbles and cohesive
soils is limited.

Energy Efficiency of Hammer

In current U.S. practice, three types of drop hammers and four
types of drill rods are used in performing the SPT. Drop hammer
types are typically donut, safety, and automatic (see Figure 1.2).
Typical drill rod sizes are N or A. The test results are highly
dependent upon the type of equipment used and the experience of
the operator performing the test. One of the more important
factors for obtaining useful data from the test is the energy

7
efficiency of the system. The theoretical energy of a free-fall
system with the specified mass and drop height is 350 ft-lb (48
kg-m), but the actual energy is less due to several factors
including frictional losses and eccentric loading that are specific
to the hammer drop. The energy efficiency of the rotating cathead
and rope system commonly used in the past depends on numerous
factors including: type of hammer, number of rope turns,
conditions of the sheaves and rotating cathead (e.g., lubricated,
rusted, bent, new, old), age of the rope, actual drop height, vertical
plumbness, weather and moisture conditions (e.g., wet, dry,
freezing), and other variables (see for example Skempton, 1986).
In the recent past the trend has been towards the use of automated
systems for lifting and dropping the mass to minimize these
factors. Automated systems provide more reliable and more
reproducible results than the rotating cathead and rope system
used in the past.

Figure 1-2. SPT hammer types, (a) Donut, (b) Safety, and (c) Automatic

8
A calibration of energy efficiency for a specific drill rig and
operator is recommended by ASTM D 4633. Instrumented strain
gages and accelerometer measurements are used for these
calibrations to standardize the energy levels. The standard of
practice for energy efficiency varies from about 35% to 85% with
cathead systems using donut or safety hammers. The average for
cathead systems in the United States is approximately 60%. The
newer automatic trip-hammers can deliver between 80 to 100%
efficiency, depending upon the type of commercial system being
used. If energy efficiency (Ef) is measured, then the energy-
corrected SPT N-value adjusted to 60% efficiency (N60) is given
by:
N60 = (Ef/60) Nmeas 3-2 where Nmeas is the N-value measured
in the field during the test. N-values measured in the field should
be corrected to N60 for all soils, if possible. The relative
magnitudes of corrections for energy efficiency, sampler lining,
rod lengths, and borehole diameter are given by Skempton (1986)
and Kulhawy and Mayne (1990), but only as general guidelines.
Theoretically it is mandatory to measure Ef to get the proper
correction to N60. In absence of data, AASHTO (2004 with 2006
Interims) recommends Ef = 60 for rope and cathead systems, i.e.,
donut and safety hammers and Ef = 80 for automatic hammer
systems. The efficiency may be obtained by comparing either the
work done (W = F.d = force times displacement) or the kinetic
energy (KE = ½mv2 ) with the potential energy of the system (PE
= mgh), where m = mass, v = impact velocity, g = 32.2 ft/s2 = 9.8
m/s2 = gravitational constant, and h = drop height. Thus, the
energy ratio (ER) is defined as W/PE, or ER = KE/PE. It is

9
important to note that geotechnical foundation practice and
engineering usage based on SPT correlations have been
developed based on the standard-of practice, corresponding
to an average ER ≈ 60 %. Thus, it is recommended to adjust
measured N-values (Nmeas) to N60 values. Figure 1.3
exemplifies the need for correcting measured N-values to a
reference energy level where the successive SPTs were conducted
by alternating the use of donut and safety hammers in the same
borehole. The energy ratios were measured for each test and gave
34 < ER < 56 for the donut hammer (average = 45%) and 55 <
ER < 69 for the safety hammer (average = 60%) at this site. The
individual trends for the measured N-values from donut and
safety hammers are quite apparent in Figure 1.3(a), whereas a
consistent profile is obtained in Figure 3-23(b) once the data have
been corrected to ER = 60%.

Figure 1.3. SPT N-values from (a) Uncorrected data, and (b) Corrected to 60%
efficiency

10
Test procedure
A borehole shall be advanced incrementally to permit intermittent
or continuous sampling. Intervals are typically 1.5 m (5 ft) or less
in homogeneous strata. Tests and sampling should be done at
every change in strata. After the borehole has been advanced to a
desired depth and excess cuttings have been removed, testing and
sampling can be conducted. The test uses a thick-walled sampling
tube, with an outside diameter of 5.08 cm and an inside diameter
of 3.5 cm, and a length of around 65 cm. The sampling tube is
driven into the ground at the bottom of a borehole by blows from
a hammer with a mass of 63.5 kg (140 lb) falling a distance of
76 cm (30 in). The sample tube is driven a total of 45 cm into the
ground and the number of blows needed for the tube to penetrate
each 15 cm (6 in) interval up to a depth of 45 cm (18 in) is
recorded. The sum of the number of blows required for the second
and third 15 cm (6 in) intervals of penetration is termed the
"standard penetration resistance" or the "N-value". N-value
provides an indication of the density of the ground, and it is used
in many empirical geotechnical engineering formulae. The test
may be stopped if any of the following conditions are met: (1) a
total of 50 blows have been applied in any one of the 15 cm (6 in)
intervals, (2) a total of 100 blows have been applied over the total
45 cm (18 in) depth, or (3) there is no observed advance of the
sampling tube during 10 successive blows.

11
Uses
The great merit of the test is that it is simple, inexpensive, and
widely used. The soil strength parameters which can be inferred
from SPT results are approximate but may give a useful guide in
ground conditions where more advanced laboratory testing is not
practical or possible. Another benefit of the test is the collection
of a disturbed soil sample for moisture content determination, as
well identification and classification purposes. While sample
quality is generally not suitable for laboratory testing for
engineering properties because of the disturbance of the soil
causing changes in engineering properties, the use of a thin-
walled tube sampler may result in less disturbance in soft soils.
When the test is carried out in granular soils
below groundwater level, the soil may become loosened. In
certain circumstances, it can be useful to continue driving the
sampler beyond the distance specified, adding further drilling
rods as necessary. Although this is not a standard penetration test,
and should not be regarded as such, it may at least give an
indication as to whether the deposit is as loose as the standard test
may indicate SPT can also be used for empirical determination of
a sand layer's susceptibility to soil liquefaction, based on research
performed by Harry Seed, T. Leslie Youd, and others. When used
for this purpose, the N-value should be normalized to a standard
overburden stress level.

12
 Effect of Overburden Stress on N-values
Since N-values of similar materials increase with increasing
effective overburden stress, the corrected blow count (N60) is
often normalized to 1-atmosphere (1 tsf or about 100 kPa)
effective overburden stress by using overburden normalization
schemes. The energy corrected blow count normalized for
overburden is referred to as N160, and is equal to:
N160=CN N60 3-3
where CN is the overburden correction factor (or stress
normalization parameter) calculated as (Peck, et al., 1974): CN =
[0.77 log10 (20/po)], and CN < 2.0 po = vertical effective pressure
at the depth where the SPT test is performed (tsf) N60 = SPT blow
count corrected for hammer efficiency (blows/ft) – refer to
Equation 3-2. Note that the constants in Equation 3-3 are unit
dependent therefore the units of po must be tsf. Figure 1.4
presents the overburden correction factor as a function of vertical
effective stress.

Figure 1.4. Variation of overburden

correction factor, CN, as a function of
vertical effective stress.

13
Caution should be exercised in applying the overburden
correction factor to indurated cemented soils, e.g., hard caliche
soils encountered in the desert southwest. In such soils, the
overburden pressure may not be a direct function of the depth of
the soil. Therefore, the overburden correction is not
recommended for such soils since it may lead to overly
conservative designs.
Correlation of SPT N-Values with Basic Soil Characteristics
SPT N-values are an indication of the relative density of
cohesionless soils and the consistency of cohesive soil. Table 3-9
shows N-value ranges correlated to the relative density of sands
and the consistency of fine-grained soils. It is emphasized that
these correlations are unreliable for gravels, silts and clays and
should serve only as crude estimates for these materials.

SPT Test Errors

Although the procedures for conducting the SPT test have been
standardized, several errors can creep into the test. The most
common errors are:
14
1. Effect of overburden pressure. Soils of the same density will
give smaller blow counts near the ground surface. The overburden
stress normalization parameter (CN) can be used to correct for
this factor.
2. Variations in the 30 in (770 mm) free fall of the drive weight.
The drop height is often gauged by eye with the older rotating
cathead and rope system newer hammer systems automatically
release the weight at a height of 30 inches. The energy correction
factor accounts for this factor.
3. Interference with the free fall of the drive weight by the guides
or the hoist rope required in the rotating cathead and rope system.
Newer automatic hammer systems eliminate rope interference.
The energy correction factor accounts for this factor.
4. Use of a drive shoe that is damaged or worn from too many
"refusal" blow counts (Nmeas ≥ 100 blows/foot).
5. Failure to seat the sampler properly on undisturbed material in
the bottom of the boring.
6. Inadequate cleaning of loosened material (slough) from the
bottom of the boring.
7. Failure to maintain sufficient hydrostatic pressure in the
borehole during drilling below the groundwater table.
Unbalanced hydrostatic pressures between the borehole drill
water and the groundwater table can cause the test zone to become
"quick." This can happen when a continuous-flight auger is used
with the end plugged and with a water level in the hollow stem
below that in the hole.

15
8. Effect of gravel size as discussed in Section [Link].
9. Samples retrieved from dilatant soils (fine sands, sandy silts)
that exhibit unusually high blow counts should be examined in
the field to determine if the sampler drive shoe is plugged. Poor
sample recovery is usually an indication of plugging.
10. Careless work on the part of the drill crew.
Conclusion
The standard penetration test is an in-situ test that is coming under
the category of penetrometer tests. The standard penetration tests
are carried out in borehole. The test will measure the resistance of
the soil strata to the penetration undergone. A penetration
empirical correlation is derived between the soil properties and
the penetration resistance. The test is extremely useful for
determining the relative density and the angle of shearing
resistance of cohesionless soils. It can also be used to determine
the unconfined compressive strength of cohesive soils.
References
1. SOILS AND FOUNDATIONS Naresh C. Samtani*, PE,
PhD and Edward A. Nowatzki*, PE, PhD.

2. ASTM D1586/D1586M–18. 2018. Standard Test Method

for Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and Split-Barrel
Sampling of Soils. ASTM International, West
Conshokocken, PA.

16
3. Braatvedt, I. (2008) A Guide to Practical Geotechnical
Engineering in Southern Africa. 4th ed. Cape Town: VIVO
Design Associates.

4. Holtz, R.D. & Kovacs, W.D. (1981) An Introduction to

Geotechnical Engineering. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

5. Knappet, J.A. & Craig, R.F. (2012) Craig's Soil Mechanics.

8th ed. Abingdon: Spon Press.

6. Zatuwa, Monosagu (2005) Beware, soft ground and the

standard penetration test (in Japanese) Public Works
Research Institute.

7. University of Missouri – Rolla Class notes on the SPT.

8. ^ "ASTM D1586 / D1586M - 18 Standard Test Method for

Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and Split-Barrel Sampling
of Soils".

9. ^ US Army Corps of Engineers, Engineering Manual EM

1110-2-2504, Table 3-1, dated 31 March 1994>

17
10. ^ Kulhawy, F. H.; Mayne, P. W. (August 1990).
Manual on Estimating Soil Properties for Foundation
Design. Ithaca, New York: Electric Power Research
Institute. pp. 2–17 to 2–26. EL-6800.

11. ^ Youd, T. L.; Member, Asce, I. M. Idriss, Chair;

Fellow, Asce, Ronald D. Andrus, Co-Chair; Arango,
Ignacio; Castro, Gonzalo; Christian, John T.; Dobry,
Richardo; Finn, W. D. Liam; et al. (2001). "Liquefaction
Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER
and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of
Liquefaction Resistance of Soils". Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering. 127 (10): 297–313.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2001)127:10(817).

12. ^ Zatsuwa, Monosagu (2005). "Beware, soft ground

and the standard penetration test" (in Japanese). Public
Works Research Institute.

18