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

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,

If the more general form of equation

then N would be found to increase as
N = Nicr,

(4)
(2) is used,

(5)

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 Authors 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,=

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.

FIII

Non-consolidated

Overconsolidated

flnesands

. Coarse sands
-Laboratory

tests

I
3.0

iii

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,
z 0, whereas
this is clearly not the case as shown by the
Authors fig. 7, which is derived from the data by
Gibbs & Holtz (1957). The Writers counterargument is that the non-zero N values at crVz 0
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

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.

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 Poissons 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