See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/238180153

Use of SPT Blow Counts to Estimate Shear Strength Properties of Soils: Energy
Balance Approach

Article  in  Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering · June 2009

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000016

CITATIONS READS

29 17,769

2 authors, including:

Hiroshan Hettiarachchi
United Nations University (UNU)
54 PUBLICATIONS   568 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Nexus Approach in Environmental Resources Management View project

Safe Use of Wastewater in Agriculture: Dissemination of Good Practice Examples and Setting the Research Agenda View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hiroshan Hettiarachchi on 17 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 TECHNICAL NOTES

Use of SPT Blow Counts to Estimate Shear Strength

Properties of Soils: Energy Balance Approach
Hiroshan Hettiarachchi1 and Timothy Brown2

Abstract: In foundation designs, standard penetration test 共SPT兲 blow counts are typically used to estimate shear strength properties of
soils. Few correlations are widely in use to make such estimations. However, the selection of these correlation equations are not often
justified or explained. This manuscript describes a new approach to estimate the shear strength properties based on the SPT blow counts.
The proposed method treats SPT analogous to driving a miniature open-ended pipe pile. During SPT, part of the energy is transferred into
the soil. This energy is dissipated at the soil-sampler interface to overcome skin and point resistance to penetrate a sampler into the soil.
Energy balance was used to correlate the SPT blow count to the shear strength properties of the soil at the depth of testing. Two separate
equations were derived: one to estimate the friction angle 共␾⬘兲 of sand and the other to estimate the undrained shear strength 共cu兲 of clay.
SPT results from two sites were used to calibrate the proposed equations, and then two other sets of data were used to verify them. With
a low average standard deviation in the calibration process, the proposed N60 − ␾⬘ equation demonstrated a strong correlation. The
proposed N60 − cu equation did not provide as strong a correlation as the N60 − ␾⬘ equation. However, a statistical analysis revealed that for
the data used in this research, both equations could estimate shear strength properties better than the commonly used, other existing
correlations. The proposed equations may not work in very stiff clay or very dense sand and should not be used to analyze SPT results
with poor recovery.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲GT.1943-5606.0000016
CE Database subject headings: Penetration tests; Shear strength; Friction; Energy; Foundation design.

Background make correlations between N and the angle of internal friction

共␾⬘兲 and undrained shear strength 共cu兲. These estimations should
Soil sampling combined with laboratory testing is the most reli- be made by individuals who have a thorough understanding of
able method to determine shear strength properties of subsurface soil behaviors. However, this is not the case always because en-
soils. Due to limited budgets, tight schedules, or lack of concern, gineers with little or no experience in evaluating soil logging are
sometimes projects do not receive proper laboratory recommen- sometimes expected to design foundations using a design chart,
dations. However, in many cases, soil type, depth of water table,
and standard penetration test 共SPT兲 blow counts are available to
judge the subsurface soil conditions. Therefore, when laboratory
data are not available, it is a common practice to estimate the
shear parameters from the SPT results.
Fig. 1 shows a schematic diagram of the SPT. When a bore-
hole is extended to a predetermined depth, the drill tools are re-
moved to lower the split spoon sampler to the bottom of the hole.
The sampler is driven into the soil by 760 mm drops of a 63.5 kg
hammer 共ASTM 2008兲. The number of blows required to drive
the second and third 150 mm segments out of three consecutive
150 mm segments is defined as the SPT blow count 共N兲.
Numerous charts, tables, and equations are currently in use to

1
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Lawrence Techno-
logical Univ., 21000 West Ten Mile Rd., Southfield, MI 48075 共corre-
sponding author兲. E-mail: hiroshan@ltu.edu
2
Geotechnical Engineer, Patrick Energy Services, 19500 Victor
Pkwy., Ste. 300, Livonia, MI 48152.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on January 11, 2008; approved
on September 12, 2008; published online on February 19, 2009. Discus-
sion period open until November 1, 2009; separate discussions must be
submitted for individual papers. This technical note is part of the Journal
of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 135, No. 6,
June 1, 2009. ©ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241/2009/6-830–834/$25.00. Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of SPT 共not to scale兲

830 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2009

Downloaded 27 May 2009 to 198.111.39.20. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
which is not fully understood. This practice shows a strong need
for a reliable tool to estimate the shear strength properties of soils.
Therefore, the objective of this research is to introduce a new
rational method to estimate ␾⬘ and cu of soils using N. The
method proposed in this manuscript employs the concept of en-
ergy balance to build a relationship between N, ␾⬘, and cu.
Numerous previous studies suggest that the hammer efficiency
共␩兲 can vary in a wide range 共30–90%兲, depending on the type of
hammer 共Schmertmann 1979; Seed et al. 1985; Skempton 1986;
Odebrecht et al. 2005兲. Seed et al. 共1985兲 and Skempton 共1986兲
proposed that the field N should be standardized to N60 to reflect
␩ = 60%. Now it has become the common practice and almost all
correlations are, hence, based on N60.
Widely Used N60 − ␾⬘ Correlations for Sand
Early work on estimating ␾⬘ from N60 attempted to make direct
correlations 共Meyerhof 1956; Peck et al. 1974兲. A graphical rep-
resentation by Peck et al. 共1974兲 was later approximated by
Eq. 共1兲 共Wolff, 1989兲
␾⬘ = 27.1 + 0.3N60 − 0.00054N260
Laboratory results by Gibbs and Holtz 共1957兲 showed that
effective overburden pressure 共␴⬘兲 could significantly affect the
N. Schmertmann 共1975兲 included ␴⬘ into a N − ␾⬘ relationship.
This correlation was later approximated by Kulhawy and Mayne
共1990兲 to Eq. 共2兲 where pa 共=100 kPa兲 is the atmospheric pressure
␾⬘ = tan−1兵N60/关12.2 + 20.3共␴⬘/pa兲兴其0.34
Despite the above research, there have been few other attempts
to correlate ␾⬘ directly to N without considering ␴⬘ 共Peck et al.
1953; Japan Road Association 1990兲. Hatanaka and Uchida
共1996兲 tested high quality, undisturbed frozen samples from few
sites in a standard triaxial apparatus and each ␴⬘ was compared
against the corresponding N60. They proposed Eq. 共3兲 to estimate
␾⬘ where CN is a correction factor
␾⬘ = 冑20CNN60 + 20
Widely Used N60 − cu Correlations for Clay
Efforts have been made to find a general relationship between cu
and N60. Many such relations suggest that cu is proportional to N60
共Terzaghi and Peck 1967; Stroud 1975兲. Terzaghi and Peck 共1967兲
published an approximate relationship between unconfined com-
pressive strength 共qu兲 and N60 and stated that the scattering of qu
could be very large at a given N60. This approximate relationship
was later modified by Kulhawy and Mayne 共1990兲 to Eq. 共4兲 to
estimate cu of clay
cu/pa = 0.06N60
Some believe it is unlikely that a generally accepted relation-
ship between cu and N60 will be found and a realistic correlation
may be possible for clays within the same geology. Eq. 共5兲 by
Hara et al. 共1974兲 is an example for one such effort
cu/pa = 0.29共N60兲0.72
Proposed Method Based on Energy Balance
A SPT sampler resembles an open-ended pipe pile, when it is
driven into soil. To penetrate the soil, the driving force has to
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2009 / 831
Downloaded 27 May 2009 to 198.111.39.20. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
overcome the resisting forces: skin resistance 共Qs兲 mobilized on
the vertical surface and the point resistance 共Q p兲 mobilized at the
base of the sampler 共Fig. 1兲. Brown and Hettiarachchi 共2008兲
used this analogy to develop a relationship between N, ␾⬘, and cu,
but assumed zero Q p to simplify their approach.
The method proposed in this research relies on two basic as-
sumptions: 共1兲 the resistive force mobilized on the inner sampler
surface is negligible; 共2兲 no plugging occurs during penetration.
For the first assumption, a justification lies in the state of the
practice in the U.S. The inside diameter of the SPT sampler is
35 mm near the open end, but above it is enlarged to a 38 mm to
hold a liner. However, drillers seldom use samplers with liners.
This difference in diameters causes an apparent clearance be-
tween the sample and the inside wall of the sampler, which leads
to a great reduction in friction on the inner surface of the sampler.
When a liner is not present, it is reasonable to neglect the skin
resistance on the inner surface 共Schmertmann 1979兲. Therefore,
Qs in the following analysis only includes the skin resistance from
the outer surface.
Schmertmann 共1979兲 also observed increased recovery when
the liners were absent. This implies that there is less chance for a
共1兲
plug to form when the liner is not present in a sampler and vali-
dates the second assumption to a certain extent. The magnitude of
Q p developed at the base of the sampler can vary with the soil
type. Q p may be negligible in soft clay, but it can be as high as
50% of the total resisting force in high friction soils such as dense
sand 共Schmertmann 1979兲. Therefore, the contribution from Q p is
taken into consideration in the proposed analysis.
共2兲
The work done by the sampler to overcome Qs and Q p during
the penetration of the second and the third 150 mm segments 共E1兲
can be expressed as in Eq. 共6兲 if the sampler penetrates into the
soil by ⌬d as a response to a single hammer blow
E1 = 兺 共Qp + Qs兲⌬d = 兺 Qp⌬d + 兺 Qs⌬d 共6兲
Qs = product of unit skin resistance 共qs兲 and the outer surface
area 共As兲 in contact with soil. During the test, Qs grows with
共3兲 increasing As while qs stays more or less a constant. In the begin-
ning of driving the second 150 mm segment, the Qs is distributed
over a 150 mm height of soil. When it reaches the end of the third
150 mm segment, the area corresponds to a 450 mm height of
soil. Therefore, a 300 mm average height is used in the calcula-
tions to determine the average outer surface area 共As,av兲. Q p
= product of unit point resistance 共q p兲 and the bearing area 共A p兲,
and it is assumed to stay as a constant during the test. Based on
the second assumption, only the metal cross-sectional area is used
to calculate A p 共using the 35 mm inner and 51 mm outer diam-
eters兲. Eq. 共6兲 can be further modified to Eq. 共7兲, where d = total
distance traveled during the penetration of the second and third
segments
共4兲
E1 = 兺 Apqp⌬d + 兺 Asqs⌬d = Apqp 兺 ⌬d + As,avqs 兺 ⌬d
= A pq pd + As,avqsd 共7兲
Energy transferred into the SPT sampler per hammer blow is
equal to the theoretical free-fall energy 共hammer weight, W times
共5兲 drop height, h兲 of the hammer times ␩. Therefore, the energy
delivered to the sampler by the hammer 共E2兲 is
E2 = ␩共Wh兲N = 0.6共Wh兲N60 共8兲
Based on field and numerical simulations, Schmertmann
共1979兲 concluded that energy loss in the rod is negligible 共at least
to a 21 m depth兲 and most of the energy delivered goes into
pushing the sampler into the soil. Odebrecht et al. 共2005兲 argued Table 1. Data Used for ␤⬘ Estimation
that the effective energy delivered to the sampler should also be a SPT number Depth 共m兲 ␴⬘ 共kPa兲 N60 ␾⬘ 共deg兲
function of the ⌬d and the weight of the rod in addition to the W
and h. The rod weight’s contribution may only be significant 1576 6.7 64.0 37 33
when SPT is conducted at deeper depths. However, they also 1585 1.2 19.5 10 30
explained that a possible loss of wave energy in a long rod could 1585 2.9 50.0 66 33
be partially compensated by the extra weight added by the long 1588 3.0 25.4 28 32
rods. Therefore, assuming no considerable energy loss in the rod, 1605 2.1 35.0 64 33
Eq. 共7兲 is set equal to Eq. 共8兲 1605 4.6 67.7 85 34
1606 6.1 52.3 51 32
A pq pd + As,avqsd = 0.6WhN60 共9兲
1609 3.7 58.2 33 33
1609 6.4 89.0 92 33
Proposed N60 − ␾⬘ Correlation for Sand 1612 7.9 62.5 48 34
1615 6.1 38.9 60 32
qs is modeled similarly to the skin resistance on a driven pile 关Eq. 1618 7.9 73.3 58 35
共10兲兴. In such equations, the angle of friction between sand and 1621 6.1 65.0 45 35
pile material 共steel in this case兲 is typically assumed to be pro-
1624 3.0 29.6 17 31
portional to soil friction, i.e., ␤␾⬘ where ␤ = constant of propor-
1627 4.9 52.8 7 28
tionality. K = coefficient of lateral earth pressure
1627 7.9 74.1 8 29
qs = K␴⬘ tan共␤␾⬘兲 共10兲 1630 4.9 45.6 80 34
Eq. 共11兲 共Paik and Salgado 2003兲 estimates q p of an open- 1630 8.1 73.1 52 35
ended pipe pile driven in sand, where B varies between 0 and 1 1633 4.9 44.2 24 32
depending on the relative density 共Dr兲 of sand; and IFR 1633 7.6 63.4 45 33
= incremental filling ratio defined as plug length divided by pen- 1636 3.4 37.4 28 32
etration length of a pipe pile. With no plug formation, IFR for the 1653 1.5 23.8 10 30
SPT sampler is 1.0 1653 4.6 78.8 15 33
1653 7.9 113.2 54 32
q p = BK␴⬘共326 − 295IFR兲 = 31BK␴⬘ 共11兲
1662 3.4 57.8 17 32
Substituting Eqs. 共10兲 and 共11兲 in Eq. 共9兲 results in a N60 1669 2.4 46.0 25 31
− ␾⬘ relationship—Eq. 共12兲. ␴⬘ is divided by pa to express it in a 1669 7.9 107.6 27 33
dimensionless form. Eq. 共12兲 is further simplified to Eq. 共13兲, by 1671 6.4 69.5 41 34
replacing d, h, A p, As,av, W, and pa with their numerical values 1673 2.4 30.7 14 31
and 1 / ␤ by ␤⬘ 1676 6.4 63.5 9 31

␾⬘ =
1
␤
tan−1 冋冉 0.6Wh
冊 N60
As,avdpa K共␴⬘/pa兲
− 31
Ap
As,av
冉 冊册
B 共12兲
1679
1679
1679
3.4
6.1
7.9
42.2
61.3
74.1
16
40
30
30
32
33

␾⬘ = ␤⬘ tan−1 冋 0.2N60
K共␴⬘/pa兲
− 0.68B 册 共13兲
1686
1686
1696A
6.4
7.9
2.7
110.3
136.5
41.1
12
25
20
28
30
32
Note: Data from Commonwealth Associates Inc., Jackson, Mich. SPT
conducted in 2005, Oconto and Marinette County, Wis. ␩ = 60%.
Proposed N60 − cu Correlation for Clay
qs developed on a SPT sampler in clay is modeled similarly to the
Eqs. 共13兲 and 共15兲. The writers believe that the data used in this
skin resistance on a driven pile. In such equations, adhesion be-
research are sufficient to establish approximate values for ␤⬘ and
tween clay and pile material is typically assumed proportional to
␣⬘. However, it should be emphasized that the objective of this
cu of clay, i.e., qs = ␣cu where ␣ = constant. It is also common in
exercise is not to comment on the numerical values for ␤⬘ and ␣⬘,
pile design to approximate q p in clay by 9cu 共Meyerhof 1951兲.
but to demonstrate the usefulness of the proposed method.
These approximations and Eq. 共9兲 provide a N60 − cu
Results from 36 SPT carried out in Oconto and Marinette
relationship—Eq. 共14兲. Eq. 共15兲 is obtained by replacing d, h, A p,
County, WI in 2005 were used to estimate ␤⬘. Sufficient details of
As,av, W, and pa by their numerical values and 1 / 共1 + 5␣兲 by ␣⬘
these tests and measured ␾⬘ 共by direct shear tests兲 are given in
cu
pa
= 冉
0.6Wh
As,avdpa
冊冉 N60
9共A p/As,av兲 + ␣
冊 共14兲
Table 1. Both K and B 关Eq. 共13兲兴 are functions of Dr of sand. K
typically varies from 0.5 for loose sand to 1 for dense sand de-
posits. If driven unplugged, K = 0.8 for open-ended pipe piles
共Reese et al. 2006兲. B for dense, medium, and loose sand is 1, 0.6,
cu/pa = N60/共1 + 5␣兲 = ␣⬘N60 共15兲
and 0.25, respectively 共Paik and Salgado 2003兲. In the absence of
specific soil data, average values of K = 0.8 and B = 0.6 were as-
sumed. They produced an average value of ␤⬘ = 2.61 共standard
Estimation of ␤⬘ and ␣⬘ deviation= 0.14兲.
Results from 14 SPT conducted in St. Clair, MI in 1973 were
Data obtained from a consulting company through the affiliations used for ␣⬘ estimation 共average ␣⬘ = 0.041; standard deviation
of the second writer were used to calibrate 共and to verify later on兲 = 0.019兲. Sufficient details of these tests and cu values 共by uncon-

832 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2009

Downloaded 27 May 2009 to 198.111.39.20. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
Table 2. Data Used for ␣⬘ Estimation
SPT number Depth 共m兲 N60 cu 共kPa兲
4 3.0 58 171.5
10 3.0 97 411.0
16 9.1 47 231.8
18 7.6 55 179.0
20 1.5 9 65.8
20 7.6 27 110.3
20 9.1 29 99.3
22 7.6 13 92.0
22 9.1 18 107.5
23 4.0 26 166.0
37 22.9 40 58.3 Fig. 2. Comparison of the calculated ␾⬘ with the measured
37 25.9 15 28.8
37 36.6 19 51.0
39 36.6 11 28.0 cally better than the other method. Eq. 共15兲 also produced more
Note: Data obtained from Commonwealth Associates Inc. Jackson, Mich.
conservative results 共slightly underestimated兲 for the data given in
SPT conducted in 1973, St. Clair, Mich. ␩ = 60%. Table 4.
Though it has a rational basis, Eq. 共15兲 still produces a simple
N60 − cu relationship similar to Eq. 共4兲. Eq. 共15兲 is different from
fined compressive strength tests兲 are given in Table 2. Eq. 共4兲 only by the proportionality constant 共0.04 instead of 0.06兲.
High standard deviation in percent error 共shown in Table 5兲 im-
plies that both methods perhaps lack details specific to cohesive
Verification and Discussion soils such as overconsolidated ratio and in situ moisture content.
Since Eq. 共13兲 was derived assuming zero adhesion and
The data in Table 3 were analyzed using ␤⬘ = 2.61, K = 0.8, and Eq. 共15兲 was derived assuming zero friction, they are not suitable
B = 0.6. Fig. 2 compares ␾⬘ predicted by Eq. 共13兲 with measured
␾⬘. Predictions by Eqs. 共1兲–共3兲 are also included in Fig. 2 for
comparison. CN proposed by Liao and Whitman 共1986兲 was used Table 4. Data Used for Verification of Eq. 共15兲
with Eq. 共3兲. Performance of the equations was compared by the
distribution of average error 共percent deviation of the calculated SPT number Depth 共m兲 N60 cu 共kPa兲
␾⬘ from the measured兲 as given in Table 5. With the lowest error 12 0.8 7 37.5
and standard deviation, statistically, Eq. 共13兲 performs better than 12 7.9 12 56.3
other equations. For data in Table 3, Eq. 共13兲 also produces more 32 1.2 9 56.3
conservative results by slightly underestimating the ␾⬘. 44 1.2 16 50.0
Eq. 共15兲 was verified using the data given in Table 4 and ␣⬘ 49 0.9 7 37.5
= 0.041. Fig. 3 compares cu predicted by Eq. 共15兲 with the mea- 49 13.1 12 100.0
sured. Predictions by Eq. 共4兲 are also included in Fig. 3. Eq. 共5兲
49 14.6 10 50.0
was not used in the comparison due to the unknown geological
49 16.2 16 75.0
history of the soil. Statistical distribution of percent errors for the
4066 1.4 10 37.5
estimations by Eqs. 共15兲 and 共4兲 are also presented in Table 5.
Even with a large percent error, prediction by Eq. 共15兲 is statisti- 4066 2.1 17 62.5
4066 3.0 31 100.0
4066 10.7 35 150.0
Table 3. Data Used for Verification of Eq. 共13兲 Note: Data from Commonwealth Associates Inc. Jackson, Mich. SPT
SPT number Depth 共ft兲 ␴⬘ 共kPa兲 N60 ␾⬘ 共deg兲 conducted in 2005, Farmington, Minn. ␩ = 60– 65%.

12 1.5 27.5 16 30
12 2.4 35.8 13 32
12 4.0 50.8 23 30
12 15.2 171.0 69 35
23 8.5 145.0 27 30
32 1.8 33.0 11 30
32 4.3 55.0 11 30
32 7.0 82.0 26 32
44 2.4 48.0 24 35
44 13.7 162.0 31 30
44 15.2 178.3 45 35
49 4.0 54.0 11 32
49 5.2 67.0 23 30
Note: Data from Commonwealth Associates Inc., Jackson, Mich. Tests
conducted in 2005, Farmington, Minn. ␩ = 60– 65%. Fig. 3. Comparison of the calculated cu / pa with the measured

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2009 / 833

Downloaded 27 May 2009 to 198.111.39.20. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
Table 5. Statistical Comparison of Results from Different Methods
Average
error
Method 共%兲
Proposed [Eq. (13)] +3.52
Wolff 共1989兲; −8.23
Peck et al. 共1974兲
Kulhawy & Mayne 共1990兲; −45.85
Schmertmann 共1975兲
Hatanaka and Uchida 共1996兲 −36.52
Proposed [Eq. (15)] +25.45
Kulhawy and Mayne 共1990兲; −34.10
Terzaghi and Peck 共1967兲
to analyze cohesive-frictional materials. Formation of a plug is
not expected in many soil types including loose to medium sands
and soft clay, but it might be a possibility in very dense sands and
very stiff clays. Therefore, the second assumption may not be
valid for very dense sand and very stiff clay. Energy distribution
during a plug formation is complex and when the plug is fully
formed, the sampler essentially becomes a miniature close-ended
pipe pile. For these reasons, proposed equations may not be suit-
able to analyze very stiff clay or very dense sand. Formation of a
soil plug may be identified by low recovery, and SPT results with
poor recovery should not be used with the proposed equations.
Summary and Conclusions
The equations proposed in this manuscript to estimate ␾⬘ and cu
use the principle of energy balance. Driving a SPT sampler was
treated analogously to driving a miniature open-ended pipe pile.
The energy input to the soil was used to correlate the N60 to the
resistive force, which is a function of either ␾⬘ or cu. For the data
used in this research, the proposed equations statistically per-
formed better than other widely used correlations. Supporting
Eq. 共4兲, the proposed method also suggested that N60 may be
directly proportional to the cu of clay.
Eqs. 共13兲 and 共15兲 are only applicable to SPT conducted with-
out liners either in sand or clay and not suitable to analyze
cohesive-frictional materials. Eqs. 共13兲 and 共15兲 also may not be
used to analyze very stiff clay or very dense sand, as they may
form soil plugs during SPT.
References
ASTM. 共2008兲. “Standard test method for standard penetration test 共SPT兲
834 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2009
View publication stats Downloaded 27 May 2009 to 198.111.39.20. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
and split-barrel sampling of soils.” Annual book of standards, D 1586-
08, American Society of Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken,
Standard
Pa.
deviation
Brown, T., and Hettiarachchi, H. 共2008兲. “Estimating shear strength prop-
共%兲
erties of soils using SPT blow counts: An energy balance approach.”
6.96 ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 179.
10.14 Gibbs, H. J., and Holtz, W. G. 共1957兲. “Research on determining the
density of sand by spoon penetration test.” Proc., 4th ICSMFE, Vol. 1,
20.29 35–39.
Hara, A., Ohta, T., Niwa, M., Tanaka, S., and Banno, T. 共1974兲. “Shear
modulus and shear strength of cohesive soils.” Soils Found., 14共3兲,
10.62
1–12.
19.94 Hatanaka, M., and Uchida, A. 共1996兲. “Empirical correlation between
35.87 penetration resistance and internal friction angle of sandy soils.” Soils
Found., 36共4兲, 1–9.
Japan Road Association. 共1990兲. Specifications for highway bridges. Part
IV.
Kulhawy, F. H., and Mayne, P. W. 共1990兲. “Manual on estimating soil
properties for foundation design.” Electric Power Research Institute,
Palo Alto, Calif.
Liao, S. S. C., and Whitman, R. V. 共1986兲. “Overburden correction fac-
tors for SPT in sand.” J. Geotech. Engrg., 112共3兲, 373–377.
Meyerhof, G. G. 共1951兲. “The ultimate bearing capacity of foundations.”
Geotechnique, 2, 301–332.
Meyerhof, G. G. 共1956兲. “Penetration tests and bearing capacity of cohe-
sionless soils.” J. Soil Mech. and Found. Div., 82共1兲, 1–19.
Odebrecht, E., Schnaid, F., Rocha, M. M., and Bernardes, G. P. 共2005兲.
“Energy efficiency for standard penetration tests.” J. Geotech. Geoen-
viron. Eng., 131共10兲, 1252–1263.
Paik, K., and Salgado, R. 共2003兲. “Determination of bearing capacity of
open-ended pipe piles in sand.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,
129共1兲, 46–57.
Peck, R. B., Hanson, W. E., and Thornburn, T. H. 共1953兲. Foundation
engineering, Wiley, New York.
Peck, R. B., Hanson, W. E., and Thornburn, T. H. 共1974兲. Foundation
engineering, 2nd Ed., Wiley, New York.
Reese, L. C., Isenhower, W. M., and Wand, S. T. 共2006兲. Analysis and
designing of shallow and deep foundations, Wiley, New York.
Schmertmann, J. H. 共1975兲. “Measurement of in-situ shear strength.”
Proc., ASCE Specialty Conf. on In Situ Measurement of Soil Proper-
ties, Vol. 2, 57–138.
Schmertmann, J. H. 共1979兲. “Statics of SPT.” J. Geotech. Engrg. Div.,
105共5兲, 655–670.
Seed, H. B, Tokimatsu, K., Harder, L. F., and Chung, R. M. 共1985兲.
“Influence of SPT procedures in soil liquefaction resistance evalua-
tions.” J. Geotech. Engrg., 111共12兲, 1425–1445.
Skempton, A. W. 共1986兲. “Standard penetration test procedures and ef-
fects in sands of overburden pressure, relative density, particle size,
aging and overconsolidation.” Geotechnique, 36共3兲, 425–447.
Stroud, M. A. 共1975兲. “The standard penetration test in insensitive clays
and soft rocks.” Proc. European Symp. on Penetration Testing, Vol. 2,
367–375.
Terzaghi, K., and Peck, R. B. 共1967兲. Soil mechanics in engineering
practice, 2nd Ed., Wiley, New York.
Wolff, T. F. 共1989兲. “Pile capacity prediction using parameter functions.”
ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 23, 96–107.