You are on page 1of 2

Skempton,

A. W. (1987). G&echnique

37, No. 3,411-412

Standard penetration test procedures and the effects in sands of overburden pressure, relative density, particle size, ageing and overconsolidation
A. W. SKEMPTON (1986). Gbotechnique 36, No. 3, 425-447

The basic assumption of a non-linear relation of this type has been used by Al-Awkati (1975), Fardis & Veneziano (1981) and Baldi, Bellotti, Ghionna, Jamiolkowski & Pasqualini (1985) to fit regressions to data for the SPT and the cone penetration test (CPT). Peck 8~ Bazaraa (1969) have (where gv is in tons per square foot or kilograms proposed a bilinear relationship between SPT per square centimetre). For practical purposes, resistance and overburden pressure rather than equation (1) is equivalent numerically to equathe purely linear relationship attributed to them tions of the form in fig. 10 of the Paper. Thus there are several prea/b + 1 cedents for the assumption of non-linearity. c, = ~ (2) a/b + a It is also of interest that the soil modulus is a parameter that varies roughly as the square root described by the Author for the range of stresses of a Although the SPT resistance depends on . from a: = 0.5 ton/ft to uv = 3.0 ton/ft For . both the soil strength and the soil compressibility, comparison, equation (1) can be superimposed on the Writers conjecture that perhaps there is more to fig. 16 presented by the Author and reproof a direct correlation of SPT resistance to soil duced as Fig. 1 here. compressibility than is normally thought. Hence A generalized form of the correction factor of there would be a logical rationale for using N equation (1) may be written as values in empirically derived methods for predicting settlements on sands and this would explain Gk the success of the method proposed by Schmert0 1 [ mann (1970) who used another type of penetrawhere (crv& can be an arbitrary standard refertion test, the CPT. In further support of the ence pressure and k is a parameter to be obtained Writers conjecture are the studies by Ohsaki & by fitting to test data. The Writers envision that k Iwasaki (1973) and Imai & Tonouchi (1982) may be a function of relative density, overwhere the soil moduli from seismic methods have consolidation ratio, particle size, ageing and possbeen correlated with SPT resistance. If the ibly other factors. Thus a hypothetical family of driving of the SPT sampler can be analysed as a correction factors can be developed with differing cavity expansion problem as proposed by k values accounting for these different factors. Nishida, Yokoyama, Sekiguchi & Matsumoto However, there are currently insufficient data for (1982), this would then provide the physical such a refinement. explanation of the direct correlation between SPT On a theoretical basis, however, the implicaresistance and modulus. tions of equations (1) or (3) differ significantly The Author s assumption of linearity of the from the form of the correction factor proposed relationship between N and 6, is reasonable in Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to: 411 IP: 129.24.162.210
c,=

Dr S. S. C. Liao, Geotechnical Engineers Inc., Winchester, and Professor R. V. Whitman, Massachusetts Institute of Technology The Writers would like to present some thoughts on one aspect of the standard penetration test (SPT), namely that of the effect of overburden pressure. In a recent paper (Liao & Whitman, 1986), the Writers have examined various overburden correction factors C, described in the literature and have found large inconsistencies among some of them. To eliminate these inconsistencies and in the interest of simplicity, the Writers have suggested the following formula for the correction factor c, = (l/a, )2 (1)

by the Author (equation (2)). Whereas the Author develops the form based on an assumption that the SPT resistance N increases linearly with cr, , the implication of equation (1) is that of a nonlinear increase and specifically that N = N,JC, = N,Ja, (4) (2) is used,

If the more general form of equation then N would be found to increase as N = Nicr,

(5)

On: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 08:51:07

412

DISCUSSION

OC

(a) equation (1) fits the data as well as the form of the correction factor proposed by the Author (b) there may be good physical reasons to indicate that N is non-linear (c) equation (1) is simple to remember and use. However, from a practical perspective, there are no significant numerical differences between the correction factors proposed by the Author and that preferred by the Writers, and this discussion in no way detracts from the important points made by the Author. The main objectives of this discussion are to point out that a diversity of opinion exists on the subject and to indicate interesting directions for further research.

0 . +

FIII Non-consolidated Overconsolidated flnesands

. Coarse sands -Laboratory

tests

I
3.0 1

iii
w

3/(2 + u, )

Fig. 1

the light of the data available. However, any of the plots of N or N/D, versus 0, presented by the Author can just as accurately be modelled as a power relationship of the form of equation (3). An argument against the power relationship is that equation (3) implies that the penetration resistance should be small (N E 0) for CT, 0, whereas z this is clearly not the case as shown by the Author fig. 7, which is derived from the data by s Gibbs & Holtz (1957). The Writers counterargument is that the non-zero N values at crV 0 z are due to implicit overconsolidation of the soils tested. Densification of a soil in a confined container produces effects that are similar to overconsolidation and leads to increases in lateral stresses in the soil which have a significant influence on penetration resistance. It is inappropriate to speak of a normally consolidated dense sand at 0 Z 0 in a laboratory soil container, just as it is incorrect to call a stiff clay normally consolidated when it is at the ground surface. In summary, the Writers prefer the correction factor of equation (1) rather than the form proposed by the Author because

REFERENCES Al-Awkati, Z. A. (1975). On problems of soil bearing capacity at depth. PhD thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Duke University, Durham. Baldi, G., Bellotti, R., Ghionna, V., Jamiolkowski, M. St Pasqualini, E. (1985). Penetration resistance and liquefaction of sands. Proc. llth Int. Con& Soil Mech. Fdn Engng, San Francisco. Fardis, M. N. & Veneziano, D. (1981). Estimation of SPT-N and relative density. .I. Geotech. Engng Div. Am. Sot. Ciu. Engrs 107, GTlO, 1345-13.59. Gibbs, H. J. & Holtz, W. G. (1957). Research on determining the density of sands by spoon penetration testing. Proc. 4th Int. Conf Soil Mech. Fdn Engng, London 1,35-39. Imai, T. & Tonouchi, K. (1982). Correlation of N-value with S-wave velocity. Proc. 2nd Eur. Symp. Penetration Testing, Amsterdam 1, 67-72. Liao, S. S. C. & Whitman, R. V. (1986). Overburden correction factors for SPT in sand. J. Geotech. Engng Div. Am. Sot. Ciu. Engrs 112, GT3,373-377. Nishida, Y., Yokoyama, K., Sekiguchi, H. & Matsumoto, T. (1982). Mechanics base of standard penetration test values and its application to bearing capacity prediction. Proc. 2nd Eur. Symp. Penetration Testing, Amsterdam 1, 119-124. Ohsaki, Y. & Iwasaki, R. (1973). On dynamic shear moduli and Poisson s ratio of soil deposits. Soils Fdns 13, No. 4, 1973,61-73. Peck, R. B. & Bazaraa, A. R. S. (1969). Discussion on Settlement of spread footings on sand. J. Soil Mech. Fdns Div. Am. Sot. Ciu. Engrs 95, SM5.905909. Schmertmann, J. H. (1970). Static cone to compute static settlement over sand. J. Soil Mech. Fdns Div. Am. Sot. Civ. Engrs 96, SM3, 1011-1043.

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to: IP: 129.24.162.210 On: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 08:51:07

You might also like