15. Origin of SPT Test

7/28/2019 15. Origin of SPT Test

1/53

GOW, MOHR, TERZAGHI,GOW, MOHR, TERZAGHI,

AND THE ORIGINS OF THEAND THE ORIGINS OF THE

STANDARD PENETRATIONSTANDARD PENETRATIONTESTTEST

J. David Rogers, Ph.D., P.E., P.G.J. David Rogers, Ph.D., P.E., P.G.University of Missouri-Rolla

for the

Annual MeetingAssociation of Environmental and

Engineering Geologists

Boston, Massachusetts

November 3, 2006


2/53

Innovation is generally bred byInnovation is generally bred by

necessity; and necessity, thenecessity; and necessity, themother of inventionmother of invention

Our story begins with the developmentOur story begins with the developmentof deep foundations, beginning aroundof deep foundations, beginning around

18851885 Up until this time, multiUp until this time, multi --story buildingsstory buildings

were constructed of heavy masonrywere constructed of heavy masonry

elements; chiefly, dimension stoneelements; chiefly, dimension stone

(granite, limestone, and sandstone) and(granite, limestone, and sandstone) and

brick.brick.


3/53

The Hotel Vendome in Boston was typical of massiveThe Hotel Vendome in Boston was typical of massivemasonry structures when it was constructed in 1881.masonry structures when it was constructed in 1881.

At seven stories, it represented the zenith of SecondAt seven stories, it represented the zenith of SecondEmpire architectural style which emanated from ParisEmpire architectural style which emanated from Paris


4/53

Home InsuranceHome Insurance

BuildingBuilding -- 18851885 Skeletal construction

was a novel structuralsupport system

utilizing iron or steel

members These structures only

weighed 25% of the

equivalent height

masonry structures,

so taller buildingsbecame popularThe Home Insurance Building (1885The Home Insurance Building (1885--1931) in Chicago was originally 138 ft1931) in Chicago was originally 138 ft

highhigh


5/53

Wood PilesWood Piles In the 1890s ChicagoIn the 1890s Chicagos talls tall

structures were foundedstructures were foundedon wood piles 40 to 60 fton wood piles 40 to 60 ft

long, thru 30 ft of softlong, thru 30 ft of soft

compressible clay into thecompressible clay into theunderlying yellowunderlying yellow

hardpan, just 5 to 6 fthardpan, just 5 to 6 ftthick. The hard pan couldthick. The hard pan could

support pile loads of 2support pile loads of 2

tons/square ft.tons/square ft.


6/53

Chicago StockChicago Stock

ExchangeExchange

BuildingBuilding

18941894--19721972

When pile driving beganWhen pile driving beganon the old stockon the old stock

exchange in 1894, theexchange in 1894, the

design called for timberdesign called for timber

piles carrying 15 to 20piles carrying 15 to 20

tons of load.tons of load.

As these piles wereAs these piles were

driven theydriven they densifieddensified thethecompressible clay andcompressible clay and

caused severe heaving ofcaused severe heaving of

the adjacent buildingthe adjacent building

owned by the Chicagoowned by the Chicago

Herald newspaper.Herald newspaper.Old Chicago Stock ExchangeOld Chicago Stock Exchange


7/53

WilliamWilliam SooySooy SmithSmith

18301830--19161916 The Herald succeeded inThe Herald succeeded in

getting a court injunctiongetting a court injunction

shutting downshutting downconstruction of the stockconstruction of the stock

exchange foundationsexchange foundations

because of structuralbecause of structuraldamage to their building.damage to their building.

WilliamWilliam SooysmithSooysmith waswas

brought in as a foundations consultant. Hebrought in as a foundations consultant. He

suggested the use of handsuggested the use of hand--excavated cylindricalexcavated cylindrical

shafts, extended below the water table, down toshafts, extended below the water table, down tothe yellow hard pan.the yellow hard pan.


8/53

Not actually a

caisson; it was

called that by theworkmen and the

name persisted

It employed steel

rings and tongue

and groovedsheathing, driven

downward outside

of the rings.

CHICAGO CAISSONCHICAGO CAISSON


9/53

Advancing the shaftAdvancing the shaft

The tongue and groovedlagging was driven aheadof the excavation, withsuccessively smallerdiameters.

Iron hoops providedbracing and water waspumped as the excavationwas advanced using handmethods.

The bell was also hand-

excavated on top of thehard pan


10/53

Evolution ofEvolution of

foundationfoundationfootingsfootings

Foundations for heavyFoundations for heavy

structures were evolvingstructures were evolving

rapidly in the 1890s, mostlyrapidly in the 1890s, mostly

through the use of grillagethrough the use of grillage

to spread loads over ato spread loads over alarger bearing arealarger bearing area


11/53


12/53

GowGow became familiar with exploratory soundings whilebecame familiar with exploratory soundings whileworking for theworking for the Boston Transit CommissionBoston Transit Commission on subwayon subwayconstructionconstruction

The geotechnical soundings of that era were crude byThe geotechnical soundings of that era were crude by

todaytodays standards; simply delineating the soil/rocks standards; simply delineating the soil/rockinterface using cuttings frominterface using cuttings from wash boringswash borings


13/53

Wash BoringsWash Borings

Until 1902, wash boringswere the dominant techniqueused to advance water wellsor exploratory soundings, forexploration of foundationconditions

Cuttings from wash boringswere of limited value indistinguishing the characterand consistency ofunconsolidated sediments,such as Bostons yellow hard

pan.


14/53

Assistant Engineer forAssistant Engineer for

the Boston Transitthe Boston TransitDepartment 1895Department 1895--19081908

While working on the Tremont StreetWhile working on the Tremont StreetSubway structure for the BostonSubway structure for the Boston

Transit Department,Transit Department, GowGow familiarizedfamiliarized

himself with the behavior of the varioushimself with the behavior of the varioussoils encounteredsoils encountered

GowGow determined that the various soil layers exhibiteddetermined that the various soil layers exhibited

dramatically different capacities to support structuraldramatically different capacities to support structuralloads, what we now refer to as bearing capacity.loads, what we now refer to as bearing capacity.

He noted that the most suitable bearing stratums wereHe noted that the most suitable bearing stratums were

buried organic soils which had developedburied organic soils which had developed weatheringweatheringcrustscrusts , more colloquially known as the, more colloquially known as the yellow hard panyellow hard pan


15/53

GowGow CaissonCaisson Hand-dug shaft with

truncated cone (bell)

The telescoping forms were

4 to 8 ft deep, with eachring 2 inches less diameterthan that above it. It wasadvanced 2 ft ahead of the

hand excavation. The circular rings could be

recovered during pouringof the concrete.

No reinforcement, unlessdesigned to resist upliftalong waterfront areas.

Soils exposed to visual andmanual examination.


16/53

Bearing onBearing on

the hard panthe hard pan Design of the Gow

Caisson requiredaccuratesubsurface soilsinformation,preferably, handsamples of the hardpan the caisson bellwould be excavatedin

No bells excavatedin clean sands


17/53

Dry SamplingDry Sampling

Around 1902 Gow

began taking dry

samples using achomping bit,

searching for the

hard pan

Gow began the

practice of taking

drive samples

every time there

was a noticeablechange in soil type


18/53

TheThe GowGow Pipe SamplerPipe Sampler

Gow initially employed a crude 1-inch

diameter pipe to recover drive samples.

He used the same hollow rod throughwhich dril ling circulation water (dirty

water) had been used to flush cuttings up

out of the borehole. He would clean the hole out of all loose

cuttings and debris before taking a drive

sample. The pipe sampler was 12 to 18 long,

with small air vents and tapered beveling

of one end to fashion a crude cuttingshoe.

GoGow Constr ctionConstruction


19/53

GowGow ConstructionConstruction

Division of RaymondDivision of RaymondConcrete Pile Co.Concrete Pile Co.In 1922 CharlieIn 1922 Charlie GowGow sold hissold his

construction company to theconstruction company to the

Raymond Concrete Pile CompanyRaymond Concrete Pile Company,,

headquartered in New York City.headquartered in New York City.

Raymond expanded theirRaymond expanded their

operations to become a coastoperations to become a coast --toto--

coast operation by 1927, andcoast operation by 1927, andpioneered a numbered of patentedpioneered a numbered of patented

products, such as the Raymondproducts, such as the Raymond

StepStep--Tapered Pile.Tapered Pile.


20/53

Foundation engineering developed rapidly during the1920s and 30s. This shows Moran & Proctors schemefor the new Bank of Manhattan site in 1929, when deeperfoundations were constructed between older, shallowfootings. Reliable site exploration and subsurfacesampling became increasingly important.

Standardizing theStandardizing the


21/53

Standardizing theStandardizing the

samplingsamplingprocessprocess By the late 1920s Gow was

employing three-mandrilling crews to take drivesamples at their job sitesin Boston, New York, and

Philadelphia Harry Mohr (1885-1971)

joined the Gow Division ofRCPC in 1926 in their

Boston office. He began collecting blow

count data using 22samplers with 140 lb donut

weights falling 30One ofOne ofGowGowss 33--man drill ing crewsman drill ing crewsin 1930, advancing drive samplesin 1930, advancing drive samples


22/53

The Raymond SamplerThe Raymond Sampler

During the 1930s Gow engineers continually improved

their dry sampler, originally conceived by Charlie Gowback in 1902. By 1940, they were using the standardized

15-lb sampler shown here: which employed a tool steel

driving shoe with a 22-inch long sample barrel. These

were manufactured for Raymond by Sprague &

Henwood.

EXPANDING


23/53

EXPANDINGEXPANDING

OPERATIONSOPERATIONS TheThe GowGow Foundation DivisionFoundation Division

of Raymond Concrete Pileof Raymond Concrete PileCompany expanded the firmCompany expanded the firmsscapability across the Unitedcapability across the UnitedStates in 1927 when theyStates in 1927 when they

opened an office in Sanopened an office in SanFrancisco.Francisco.

By the late 1920sBy the late 1920s GowGowss sampling operations employedsampling operations employed

standardized drive sampling techniques under the directionstandardized drive sampling techniques under the direction

of Harry Mohr in Boston, Linton Hart in New York; andof Harry Mohr in Boston, Linton Hart in New York; and

Gordon Fletcher in Philadelphia.Gordon Fletcher in Philadelphia.

They began collatingThey began collating blowcountblowcount data collected from handdata collected from hand--

operated drive samplers, similar to that shown here.operated drive samplers, similar to that shown here.

H dH d dt d


24/53

HandHand--excavatedexcavated

shafts were slowshafts were slow The first generation ofThe first generation of

GowGow

Caissons wereCaissons were

handhand--excavated, usingexcavated, using

post derricks like thatpost derricks like that

shown hereshown here

An iron muck bucket wasAn iron muck bucket was

raised and lowered intoraised and lowered into

the hole using a blockthe hole using a block

and tackle assembly.and tackle assembly.

Progress was slow, esp.Progress was slow, esp.

in the bell at bottom ofin the bell at bottom of

the shaftthe shaft

Mechanization drilling forMechanization drilling for


25/53

Mechanization drilling forMechanization drilling for

caisson excavationcaisson excavation In the 1920sIn the 1920s GowGowss

engineers beganengineers beganexperimenting withexperimenting with

mechanized dri llingmechanized drill ingto decrease time ofto decrease time ofexcavation.excavation.

The rapid excavationThe rapid excavation

gave them agave them asignificant advantagesignificant advantagebecause it allowedbecause it allowedthe bells to bethe bells to be

excavated muchexcavated muchmore quickly.more quickly.

StandStand--up time in theup time in the

bell excavations wasbell excavations wasalways crit ical.always crit ical.

MOBILE DRILLMOBILE DRILL


26/53

In the 1920s Gow pioneered drill ing shafts with

gasoline powered engines, using spud andbucket augers, up to depths of 160 feet by 1928.

Spud dri lls were used toSpud dri lls were used to

excavate large diameter shaftsexcavate large diameter shafts

using wet drillingusing wet drilling

MOBILE DRILLMOBILE DRILL

RIGSRIGS

MachineMachine


27/53

MachineMachine

excavatedexcavated

caissonscaissons In the summer of 1928 Gow

constructed their firstdrilled pier foundation onthe west coast, in SanFrancisco.

They employed a Huntvertical caisson-cylinderexcavator using a P&H

crane to excavate 4-ftdiameter caissons 38 ftdeep, with 57 ft2 hand-excavated bells in sandy

clay, 10 ft below the watertable.

Excavation ofExcavation ofGowGow Caissons for theCaissons for the

Phoenix Assurance Building on PinePhoenix Assurance Building on Pine

Street in San Francisco in July 1928.Street in San Francisco in July 1928.


28/53

Gow Division engineers also perfected manytechniques for dealing with difficult groundconditions

The most vexing problem was dealing with lowcohesion materials & stand-up time in thehand-excavated bell excavations

One solution was employing smaller diametercaissons, shown at right

I ti dInnovation and


29/53

Innovation andInnovation and

expansionexpansion During the Second World

War, Gow developedincreasingly capable dril lrigs, like that shown here.

The large mechanized rigswere able to dril l deepholes with under reamersto cut the bells, much more

quickly than hand-excavation methods. Thisbecame common practice

after 1945.

Moran & ProctorMoran & Proctor


30/53

Moran & ProctorMoran & Proctor

33--inch Drive Samplerinch Drive SamplerThe Moran & Proctor drive sampler wasThe Moran & Proctor drive sampler was

developed in 1939 for the New Yorkdeveloped in 1939 for the New York

WorldWorlds Fair site , working with Prof.s Fair site , working with Prof.DonaldDonald BurmisterBurmisterat Columbiaat Columbia

UniversityUniversity

It was much larger than the (It was much larger than the (GowGow))Raymond Sampler, being 3Raymond Sampler, being 3--5/85/8 outsideoutside

diameter, capable of recovering 3diameter, capable of recovering 3--inchinch

diameter samples, in l ieu of 1diameter samples, in l ieu of 1--3/8 inch.3/8 inch.

Other geotechnical firms in the NewOther geotechnical firms in the New

York area began using the barrel, whichYork area began using the barrel, which

was also manufactured by Sprague &was also manufactured by Sprague &HenwoodHenwood..

DevelopingDeveloping


31/53

p gp gstandardizedstandardized

proceduresprocedures

The ASCE Committee on (soil) Sampling &

Testing of the Soil Mechanics & Foundations

Division was formed in 1938, and standardizedprocedures for drive sampling were written by

Juul Hvorslev in 1940, and adopted nationally

by the Engineers Joint Council in 1949.

JuulJuul HvorslevHvorslev

Th J t ATh J t A


32/53

The Jet AugerThe Jet Auger

In 1940 James D. Parsons, a 1936MSCE graduate of Harvardsfledgling soil mechanics program

under Arthur Casagrande, joinedMoran, Proctor, Freeman andMueser and began developing astate-of-the-art soils laboratory.

He developed a simple clean-outjet auger which was alsomanufactured by Sprague &

Henwood, shown here It used horizontal jets near the tip

to clean out the borehole beforeadvancing drive samplers.

The Standard Penetration TestThe Standard Penetration Test


33/53

The Standard Penetration TestThe Standard Penetration TestWhile writing the textWhile writing the text Soil MechanicsSoil Mechanics

in Engineering Practicein Engineering Practice with Ralph Peckwith Ralph Peck

in 1947, Karlin 1947, Karl TerzaghiTerzaghi was asked towas asked to

speak on the subject ofspeak on the subject of Recent TrendsRecent Trends

in Subsoil Explorationin Subsoil Exploration at the 7at the 7ththConference on Soil Mechanics &Conference on Soil Mechanics &

Foundation Engineering at theFoundation Engineering at the

University of Texas at AustinUniversity of Texas at Austin

In that lecture he coined the termIn that lecture he coined the term Standard Penetration TestStandard Penetration Test toto

describe the correlations assembled by thedescribe the correlations assembled by the GowGow Division ofDivision of

Raymond Concrete Pile Co. by Harry Mohr over the previous 20Raymond Concrete Pile Co. by Harry Mohr over the previous 20

years in major American cities.years in major American cities. Foundation engineers in New York City preferred the largerFoundation engineers in New York City preferred the larger

M&P drive sampler, which recovered a less disturbed sample, butM&P drive sampler, which recovered a less disturbed sample, but

the SPT sampler became the favorite of most practit ionersthe SPT sampler became the favorite of most practitionersbecause it was simple, inexpensive, and SPT data was correlatedbecause it was simple, inexpensive, and SPT data was correlated

with soil strength and consistency useful for design.with soil strength and consistency useful for design.

M hMohr T hiTerzaghi Cl ifi ti S hClassification Scheme


34/53

MohrMohr--TerzaghiTerzaghi Classification SchemeClassification Scheme

SANDS AND

GRAVELS

BLOWS/FOOT

NSPT

SILTS AND

CLAYS

STRENGTH

tsf

BLOWS/FOOT

NSPT

The first SPT correlations appeared in Soil Mechanics in

Engineering Practice in 1948.

Additional correlations with soil strength appeared in

the literature as more and more people began using the

SPT sampler, until it became the dominant tool for soil

sampling by 1960.

VERY LOOSE 0 - 4 VERY SOFT 0 - 0 - 2

LOOSE 4 - 10 SOFT - 2 - 4

MEDIUM DENSE 10 - 30 FIRM - 1 4 - 8

DENSE 30 - 50 STIFF 1 - 2 8 - 16

VERY DENSE OVER 50 VERY STIFF 2 - 4 16 - 32

HARD OVER 4 OVER 32

RELATIVE DENSITY CONSISTENCY

Diff t d i l iDifferent drive sampler sizes


35/53

Different drive sampler sizesDifferent drive sampler sizes

The larger M&P drive samplerrecovered 3-nch diameter

samples using 5000 inch-lbsper blow in lieu of theRaymond SPT Samplers

4,200 inch-lbs In 1947 Moran, Proctor,

Freeman and Mueser

engaged Professor DonaldBurmister of ColumbiaUniversity to develop a

suitable correction factorThe M&P sampler recovered aThe M&P sampler recovered a

33--inch diameter soil sampleinch diameter soil sample

BurmisterBurmister ss 1948 Energy1948 Energy


36/53

BurmisterBurmisterss 1948 Energy1948 Energy--

Area CorrectionArea Correction

BurmisterBurmisterss relationship considered energyrelationship considered energyinput as the weight of the hammer multiplied byinput as the weight of the hammer multiplied bythe drop height, the diameter of the recoveredthe drop height, the diameter of the recovered

sample, and the sample barrel diameter. Thesesample, and the sample barrel diameter. Thesewere combined to provide input energy andwere combined to provide input energy anddiameter corrections to compare withdiameter corrections to compare with

conventional SPT values. This was publishedconventional SPT values. This was publishedby ASTM in 1948.by ASTM in 1948.

DonDon BurmisterBurmister18951895--19811981


37/53

In the late 1950s the Los Angeles office of Dames & Moore beganemploying a 3-inch diameter drive samplers, which recovered a 2.4-inch diameter sample.

Around this same time, the Donald R. Warren Co., also of Los

Angeles, also developed a somewhat smaller sampler, with a 2.5inch outside diameter, recovering 1.875 inch diameter samples.

These became known as the Modified California Samplers, andhave been employed along side conventional 2-inch SPT samplersin California over the past 50 years). Most workers employedBurmisters 1948 Energy-Area correction to the blow countsrecorded using these larger samplers.


38/53

Comparison of uncorrected blow counts for SPT and the largerdiameter Modified California sampler. The regression analysissuggests that the best fit l ies somewhere between the 1948

Burmister energy-area correction and the 1973 LaCroix and Hornprocedure, all of which are shown (figure from Rogers, 2006).

R ti f SPT


39/53

Reporting of SPTReporting of SPT

blow countsblow counts

In 1954 Jim Parsons of Moran, Proctor, Freeman andMueser introduced the conventional procedurewherein blows are recorded for each of three 6-inchincrements, using an 18-inch sample barrel

The value recorded for the first round of advance isdiscarded because of sample disturbance and fall-in.This saved money and time by bypassing the jet auger

cleanout procedure he had introduced in 1940. The second pair of numbers are then combined and

reported as a single value for the last 12 inches.

This value became known as the standard blow count,N, or Nspt

StandardizingStandardizing


40/53

StandardizingStandardizing

ComponentsComponents Throughout the 1950s the

various components of the

SPT sampler becamestandardized.

Sprague & Henwood beganmanufacturing an 18 longsample barrel, in lieu of theRaymond Samplers 22barrel.

The SPT procedure wasadopted as ASTM TestD 1586 in 1958

Various cutting shoesshown at lower left


41/53

This advertisement in the August 1954 issue ofFortune magazinehighlighted Gows use of Willys Jeeps to perform SPT tests on

remote sites. Note the cathead mounted on a power take-off on therear end of the Willys Jeep.

Undisturbed SoilSoil Type


42/53

Soil TypeCohesion (psf) Friction Angle (Degrees)

Cohesive Soils

Very Soft ( < 2) 250 0Soft (2 - 4) 250 - 500 0Firm (4 - 8) 500 - 1000 0

Stiff (8 - 15) 1000 - 2000 0

Very Stiff (15 - 30) 2000 - 4000 0

Hard ( > 30) 4000 0Cohesionless SoilsLoose ( < 10) 0 28

Medium (10 - 30) 0 28 - 30Dense ( > 30) 0 32

Intermediate Soils

Loose ( < 10) 100 8

Medium (10 - 30) 100 - 1000 8 - 12

Dense ( > 30) 1000 12

Estimates of soil friction and cohesion based onEstimates of soil friction and cohesion based onuncorrected SPTuncorrected SPT blowcountsblowcounts began appearing in soilbegan appearing in soil

mechanics textbooks around 1960. Although bereft ofmechanics textbooks around 1960. Although bereft of

overburden correctionsoverburden corrections , these correlations were, these correlations weregenerally used for design of shallow foundations.generally used for design of shallow foundations.


43/53

In 1962 Prof. Don Burmister at Columbia published thischart showing the experimental relationship betweenraw 6-inch blow counts, sample diameter, gradation,

and compactness. These data demonstrated the significant impact of

gravel on recorded blow counts. This has been anagging problem in characterizing fills that contain

dense fragments or gravel clasts.


44/53

By 1971 NAVFAC DM-7 was publishing charts like this

one, which related SPT blow counts with unconfined

compressive strength in cohesive soils.

CommonCommon


45/53

interpretiveinterpretive

errorserrors A major disadvantageA major disadvantage

of the SPT method isof the SPT method isthe small diameter ofthe small diameter of

the cutting shoe.the cutting shoe.

The SPT cannotThe SPT cannot

recoverrecoverclastsclasts > 1.375> 1.375

diameter, which oftendiameter, which oftenleads to erroneousleads to erroneous

interpretations aboutinterpretations about

bedrockbedrock contacts orcontacts ordrilling refusal.drilling refusal.


46/53

StiffnessStiffness


47/53

changeschanges As the drive sampler

barrel approaches astiffness boundary, itsenses increasingresistance topenetration, assketched here.

This is a problem withsampling geologiccontacts, which isusually the goal of anyexploration program


48/53

During the past 20 years a number of corrections have beenDuring the past 20 years a number of corrections have beenintroduced to the SPT procedure; for overburden, energy input,introduced to the SPT procedure; for overburden, energy input,borehole size, dri ll ing rod, sampling method, etc. These allowborehole size, dri ll ing rod, sampling method, etc. These allow moremore

accurate correlations between data gathered across the world. Taccurate correlations between data gathered across the world. Thehe(N(N11))6060 value is used for seismic performance assessments.value is used for seismic performance assessments.

ReferencesReferences -- 11


49/53

Burmister, D.M., 1948, The importance and practical use of relative

density in soil mechanics: Proceedings of ASTM, v. 48:1249 Burmister, D.M., 1962, Physical, Stress-Strain, and Strength

Responses of Granular Soils:ASTM Spec Tech Pub No 322, pp.67-97.

Clayton, C. R. I., 1990, SPT Energy Transmission: Theory,Measurement, and Significance: Ground Engineering, v. 23:10, p.35-43.

de Mello, V. F. B., 1971, The Standard Penetration Test:Proceedings of the 4th Panamerican Conference on Soil

Mechanics and Foundation Engineering: San Juan, PR, v.1:1-86; Fletcher, G. F. A., 1965, Standard Penetration Test: Its Uses and

Abuses: Journal Soil Mechanics & Foundations. Div., ASCE, v.91:SM4, p. 67-75.

Gow, C.R., 1929, Discussion of The Science of Foundations,ASCETransactions, v. 93:302-03.

Gow, C.R., 1929, Discussion of Hydrostratic uplift in pervioussoils,ASCE Transactions, v. 93:1353

Hvorslev, H. J., 1940, The Present Status of the Art of ObtainingUndisturbed Samples of Soils: Harvard Univ. Soil MechanicsSeries 14)



50/53

Hvorslev, M. Juul, 1949, Subsurface Exploration and Sampling of

Soils for Civil Engineering Purposes: Committee on Samplingand Testing, Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, AmericanSociety of Civil Engineers: U.S. Corps of Engineers WaterwaysExperiment Station, Vicksburg.

Ireland, Moretto and Vargas, 1970, The Dynamic Penetration Test:A Standard That is not Standardized: Geotechnique, v. 20:2, p.185-192;

Lacroix, Yves and Horn, Harry, 1973, Direct Determination andIndirect Evaluation of Relative Density and Its Use on Earthwork

Construction Projects: in Evaluation of Relative Density and ItsRole in Geotechnical Projects Involving Cohesionless Soils:ASTM Special Technical Publication 523, p. 251-280.

Liao, S.S.C., and Whitman, R.V., 1986, Overburden CorrectionFactors for SPT in Sand: Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,

A.S.C.E., v. 112:3, p. 373-377). Mohr, H. A., 1936, Exploration of Soil Conditions and Sampling

Operations: International Conference of Soil Mechanics andFoundation Engineering, Harvard Univ., v. 3:24

Mohr, H. A., 1962, Exploration of Soil Conditions and SamplingOperations: H. A. Mohr, consulting engineer, 250 Stuart St.,Boston 16, MA, 79 p.



51/53

Mohr, H.A., 1964, The Gow Caisson: Journal of the Boston

Society of Civil Engineers, V. 51:1, pp. 75-94. Mohr, H.A., 196, Discussion of Standard Penetration Test: its

uses and abuses. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and FoundationsDivision, ASCE, v. 92:SM1, pp. 196-99.

Peck, R.B., 1948, History of Building Foundations in Chicago:Univ. of Illinois Engg Exp. Sta. Bull Ser No. 373, 64 p.

Peck, R.B., Hanson, E.E., and Thornburn, T.H., 1973, FoundationEngineering, Second Edition, John Wiley & Sons, 410 p.

Proctor, C. S., 1936, The Foundations of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge: Proceedings of the Int l Conference on SoilMechanics and Foundation Engineering, Harvard Univ., v.3, p.183-193).

Riggs, C. O., 1986, North American Standard Penetration Test

practice: An essay: in Use of Insitu Tests in GeotechnicalEngineering, ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 6.

Rogers, J. David, 2006, Subsurface Exploration Using theStandard Penetration Test (SPT) and Cone Penetration Test(CPT): Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, v. XII, No. 2

(May 2006), pp. 161-179.

ReferencesReferences 44


52/53


Skempton, A. W., 1986, Standard Penetration Test proceduresand the Effects in Sands of Overburden Pressure, RelativeDensity, Particle Size, Aging and Overconsolidation:

Geotechnique, v. 36:3, p. 425-447 Terzaghi, K., and Peck, R.B., 1948, Soil Mechanics in

Engineering Practice (First Ed.): John Wiley & Sons, 566 p.

Western Construction News, 1928, Caisson Foundations forSan Francisco Building Rapidly Constructed by Dril l-TypeExcavator: v.3:15, p.514 (August 10, 1928).


53/53

This lecture will be posted at

www.umr.edu/~rogersda/umrcourses/ge341

in .pdf format for easy downloading anduse by others

Documents

15. Origin of SPT Test