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

net/publication/316327813

Evaluation of relative density and friction angle based on SPT-N values

Article in KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering · March 2017

DOI: 10.1007/s12205-017-1899-5

CITATIONS READS

35 2,045

4 authors, including:

Hassan Mujtaba Khalid Farooq

University of South Asia lahore medical and dental college
25 PUBLICATIONS 347 CITATIONS 45 PUBLICATIONS 368 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Nagaratnam Sivakugan
James Cook University
230 PUBLICATIONS 5,688 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Nagaratnam Sivakugan on 01 September 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering (0000) 00(0):1-10 Geotechnical Engineering
Copyright ⓒ2017 Korean Society of Civil Engineers
DOI 10.1007/s12205-017-1899-5 pISSN 1226-7988, eISSN 1976-3808
www.springer.com/12205
TECHNICAL NOTE

Evaluation of Relative Density and Friction Angle Based on SPT-N Values

Hassan Mujtaba*, Khalid Farooq**, Nagaratnam Sivakugan***, and Braja M. Das****
Received November 24, 2016/Accepted March 17, 2017/Published Online April 25, 2017

··································································································································································································································

Abstract

This study is an attempt to evaluate relative density and friction angle of sands on the basis of SPT-N values. In order to develop the
relationships among relative density (Dr), friction angle (φ ) and SPT-N value, field and laboratory test results from sixty boreholes
executed in sandy deposit were used. The field tests include the SPTs conducted in the boreholes and the determination of in-situ
density at various depths in the boreholes using the pitcher sampler whereas the laboratory tests include routine classification, direct
shear box, maximum and minimum density and specific gravity tests. The SPT-N values were observed to vary between 4 and 100
and the in-situ bulk density of undisturbed samples as recovered through pitcher sampler are in the range of 13.24 ~ 18.44 kN/m . 3

The soil samples are classified as poorly graded sand (SP), poorly graded sand with silt (SP-SM) and silty sand (SM) on the basis of
Unified Soil Classification System. The values of minimum dry unit weight fall in the range of 12.22~14.95 kN/m and maximum 3

dry unit weight varies in the range of 14.64~19.17 kN/m as obtained through vibratory table. Based on the test results, correlation
3

analysis was performed to identify the parameters that affect relative density. The parameters include SPT-N value corrected for field
procedures (N60), relative density (Dr), void ratio range ( emax –emin ), effective overburden stresses ( σv ′ ) and in-situ dry density (γdf).
Based on the results of correlation analyses, it was observed that SPT-N values alone cannot be related to Dr. Therefore, multiple
regression analysis was carried out using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software and relation between relative
density, corrected SPT-N value and effective overburden stress is being proposed. The variation between experimental and predicted
values falls within ± 10% at 95% confidence interval. Validation of the proposed correlation was also performed by using an
independent data set which indicated that the prediction by using the proposed correlation also falls within ± 10%. Further,
comparison of the proposed correlation with other similar relationships already available in the literature was also performed. In
addition to the above, correlation between φ and SPT-N has also been proposed. It has been observed that the experimental and
60

predicted values of friction angle fall within ± 10% with 95% confidence interval. The proposed correlations may be very useful in
the field of geotechnical engineering during feasibility/preliminary design stage for rapid estimation of relative density or friction
angle based on the field SPT-N values. 60

Keywords: relative density, void ratio range, effective overburden stress, friction angle, standard penetration test, mean grain size
··································································································································································································································

1. Introduction Meyerhof (1956) based on chamber test data proposed a

correlation between SPT-N value and relative density for clean
The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) is widely used for estimating sands represented by Eq. (2). According to the proposed equation,
the in-situ properties of granular soil. Various researchers in the the penetration resistance is assumed to increase with the square
past have correlated SPT-N value for estimating relative density of relative density and is in direct proportion to the effective
and friction angle of sandy soils. These include Gibbs and Holtz overburden pressure of sands.
(1957), Meyerhof (1956), Yoshida and Ikemi (1988) and Kibria
⎛ σ '⎞ 2
and Masood (1998). Gibbs and Holtz (1957) proposed a N 60 = ⎜17 + 24 ⎟D v
(2)
98 ⎠
r

correlation between the SPT-N value and relative density (Dr) ⎝

and effective overburden stress ( σv ′ ) for clean sands and is given
where N60 is the SPT blow count, σv ′ is the effective overburden
by Eq. (1), where, relative density (Dr) is in percentage (%) while
pressure in kPa and Dr is the relative density expressed as ratio.
the effective overburden stress ( σv ′ ) is in lbs/in2 (psi).
Later on Skempton (1986) reinforced Eq. (2) using a database of
2
N 60 = 1.7(10 + σ ' ) Dv r
(1) five different sandy soils and presented Eq. (3).

*Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Engineering & Technology, Lahore, Pakistan (Corresponding Author, E-mail: hassan-
mujtaba@uet.edu.pk)
**Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Engineering & Technology, Lahore, Pakistan (E-mail: kfch@uet.edu.pk)
***Associate Professor, College of Science, Technology & Engineering, James Cook university , Townsville , QLD 4811, Australia (E-mail: siva.siv-
akugan@jcu.edu.au)
****Dean Emeritus, California State University, 2689 Chateau Clermont Street, Henderson, Nevada 89044, USA (E-mail: brajamdas@gmail.com)

−1−
 Hassan Mujtaba, Khalid Farooq, Nagaratnam Sivakugan, and Braja M. Das

N 60 m2 (1 tsf) of overburden pressure. Peck et al. (1974) gave

2 = A + Bσ ' (3) correlation between N and φ in the graphical form which was
D
v
r
approximated by Wolff (1989) and is given in Eq. (9)
Dr is in fraction where as σv ′ is in units of kg/cm2 or tons/ft2 or 2
φ = 27.1 + 0.3N 60 − 0.00054 N 60 (9)
kPa/100 for Eq. (3). The values of parameters A vary between
17~ 28 with a mean value of 30 for normally consolidated sands Japan Road Association (1990) presented Eq. (10) for SPT-N > 5
where as parameter B is in the range of 17~46 with mean value
φ = (15 N ) + 15; ≤ 45
0.5
(10)
of 30 for same sand. However, for overconsolidated sand 60

O 1 + 2k Salari et al. (2015) presented equations for estimation of

parameter B must be increased by --------------------- . kO and kONC are
1 + 2kONC internal friction angle for well graded gravels with sand and
the in-situ stress ratios of horizontal to vertical stress for clayey gravels with sand based on SPT-N values.
overconsolidated and normally consolidated sand deposit, Hettiarachchi and Brown (2009) proposed a new approach to
respectively. Kulhawy and Mayne (1990) correlated relative estimate the shear strength properties based on the SPT blow
density (Dr) in fraction and SPT-N blow count corrected for field counts. Their proposed method treats SPT test similar to driving
procedures and overburden stress (N1(60)) and presented the a miniature open-ended pipe pile into soil. During SPT, part of
relation given in Eq. (4) the energy is transferred into the soil. This energy is dissipated at
the soil-sampler interface to overcome skin and point resistance
N
Dr = 1( 60 )
(4) to penetrate a sampler into the soil. Energy balance was used to
C P C ACOCR correlate the SPT blow count to the shear strength properties of
the soil at the depth of testing. Two separate equations were
CP, CA and COCR are correction factors for grain size, aging and derived: one to estimate the friction angle (φ) of sand and the
over-consolidation. Yoshida and Ikemi (1988) proposed four sets other to estimate the undrained shear strength (Cu) of clay.
of equations to predict relative density based on SPT-N value. Jianguo (2012) performed correlation analysis between Standard
The equation which can be used for sand is given as Eq. (5). σv ′ Penetration Test blow count (SPT-N), and shear strength parameters
is in units of kPa. of residual cohesive soils. A empirical relationship between the SPT-
N value and the strength parameters, cohesion c and internal friction
D = 25 N σ '− (5)
0.46 0.12

r 60 v
angle, are obtained through the regression analysis. Mahmoud
Cubrinovski and Ishihara (1999) proposed a correlation (2013) correlated shear strength parameters (c and φ) for hard and
between SPT-N blow count and relative density (Dr) of granular dry silty clay with sand soil with corrected standard penetration test
soil in the form given in Eq. (6) blow count (SPT-N) and presented empirical equations.
Rogers (2006) considered subsurface exploration using standard
0.06
N F (0.23 + ) 1.7
penetration test and cone penetrometer test and observed that
D 98 (6)
Dr (%) = [ 50
( )] × 100 each of the two tests has certain advantages over the other. SPT
9 σv'
allows a firsthand look at subsurface material (CPT does not)
σv ′ is effective vertical overburden stress and D50 is the median and can provide crucial information regarding the type of
grain size and NF is the field SPT-N value. Kibria and Masood subsurface material especially cohesionless material containing
(1998) proposed correlations relating SPT blow count, Dr and φ fines while CPT is capable of detecting discrete horizon that
for Indus sands at Chashma based on the geotechnical investigations would normally be missed during drive sampling in SPT. Thus,
conducted for Chashma Hydropower Project. They proposed employment of both tests simultaneously has the greatest
that Dr of fine and silty sands (percent passing US # 200, F200 ≤ potential for correct site characterization. Sivrikaya and Togrol
15%) can be predicted from the SPT-N blow count using the (2006) correlated SPT-N blow count and undrained shear
following correlations for Indus sands and is presented in Eq. (7) strength using statistical approach and concluded that penetration
test is found to be sufficient reliable for assessment of undrained
Dr = 16.5 (N 1 ) 60 (7)
strength. Farooq et al. (2010) collected SPT test data for various
All seven empirical correlations relating Dr and SPT-N blow sites in Lahore, Pakistan and based on this data geotechnical
count suggest that N-value depends on the effective overburden zoning of Lahore into different zones has been proposed.
stress and relative density, and that N-value is proportional to the Evaluation of allowable bearing capacity for each zone is also
square of the relative density. proposed based on the data available. Hayat (2003) developed a
Friction angle of granular soils has also been correlated to SPT- geotechnical zonation map of Pakistan based on geotechnical
N value. Hatanaka and Uchida (1996) presented relation between investigation data and geology of different zones of the country.
friction angle (φ) and SPT-N value given in Eq. (8)
φ = (20 N ) + 20
0.5 2. In-situ and Laboratory Tests
1( 60 ) (8)
The (N1)60 in Eq. (8) is SPT-N value normalized to 95.76 kN/ Extensive geotechnical investigations have been carried out at

−2− KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Evaluation of Relative Density and Friction Angle Based on SPT-N Values
a site near Mianwali for a Hydropower Project of National
importance in Pakistan. These investigations ranged from deep
drilling, soil sampling and performing variety of in-situ penetration
tests along with laboratory testing to characterize the engineering
attributes of sandy soil deposits. Depth of boreholes varies
between 30 and 100 m and total number of boring was 60.
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) was carried out in the boreholes
following ASTM D1586. The test was performed after every 1.0
m interval in the borehole which is routine local practice being
observed in Pakistan. Pitcher samples were collected at every 2.0
m interval up to 20.0 m depth and at 5.0 m interval below 20 m
depth. The interval of sampling along the depth is in line as per
the recommendations by Tomlinson (1986). Grain size distribution,
specific gravity, maximum/minimum density and direct shear
tests were performed on these samples in the laboratory. The
large data bank obtained from the geotechnical investigation has
been analyzed during this research to develop correlation
between SPT-N value, relative density and friction angle for
sandy soil deposits.
2.1 Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Procedure and Aver-
age Subsurface Profile
Straight rotary drilling rig was used for subsurface exploration.
The rig was properly anchored with the ground to minimize
vibration during drilling and Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
performance. Bentonite slurry was used for stabilization of
boreholes. Drill rods having inner diameter of 28.5 mm and outer
diameter of 41.2 mm and length of 3-4 m were used. Bottom of
the drill rod was attached with the drill bit to drill the borehole
having diameter of 10.16 cm (4 in). Side discharge bits were used
instead of bottom discharge bits to minimize the disturbance of the
underlying soils. Rope cathead lift system was used to lift and
Fig. 1. Average Subsurface Profile and Variation of SPT-N at the Site area up to 100 m Depth
Vol. 00, No. 0 / 000 0000
drop the SPT hammer. Rope cathead lift system consisted of a
rotating drum around which the operator wrapped Manila rope to
lift and drop the hammer by successively tightening and loosening
the rope turns around the drum. 1-3/4 rope turns was used for
counterclockwise rotation. Split spoon sampler was used to
obtain a representative disturbed soil sample for identification
purposes and measure the resistance of the soil to penetration of
sampler. After the borehole has been drilled to the desired depth
and excessive cuttings have been removed, the Standard Penetration
Test (SPT) was performed following ASTM D1586 standard.
Cutting bit was removed from the bottom of the drill rod and
split spoon sampler was attached and lowered into the bore hole.
Care was taken not to drop the sampler onto the soil to be
sampled. Anvil was attached to the top of the drilling rod and
SPT hammer was lifted up using the Manila rope having not
more than 2 turn around the cathead. The exposed portion of the
drilling rods was marked with chalk in three successive 0.15 m
(6 in) intervals so that the advance of the sampler under the
impact of the hammer can be easily observed for each 0.15 m (6
in) increment. The sampler was driven into the ground by freely
dropping 623 N (140 lbs) hammer from a height of 0.762 m (30
in). The number of blows required for driving the sample
through three 0.15 m (6 in) interval was recorded. The sum of
blows required for driving last two 0.15 m (6 in) interval is
referred to as SPT-N value and blows for first 0.15 m (6 in)
penetration is considered as seating drive. In total, sixty (60)
boreholes were drilled following the above mentioned procedure
and the SPT tests were conducted at respective depths. The
subsurface profile of the above mentioned site based on the data
from 60 boreholes and the average SPT-N values along the depth
are shown in Fig. 1. The subsoil in general, consists of medium
to fine sand with fines up to 45%. The Ground Water Table
−3−
 Hassan Mujtaba, Khalid Farooq, Nagaratnam Sivakugan, and Braja M. Das
Fig. 2. SPT-N Values Versus Depth Based on the Data of 60 Bore-
holes
(GWT) is located at depths varying from 6.5 m to 8.6 m, with an
average of about 8.0 m as recorded during geotechnical
investigations. SPT-N values vary between 4 and 100. SPT-N
values are between 4 and 30 for first 5.0 m and after 5.0 m, the
SPT-N values are in range of 31 to 100. Based on table presented
by Bowles (1968) the strata are classified as loose to medium
dense for first 5.0 m and strata are classified as medium dense to
very dense afterwards. The variation of average SPT-N values
versus depth for the 60 boreholes is presented in Fig. 2.
2.2 Summary of Test Results
On the basis of test performed on the samples obtained from
various boreholes, following general observations can be made:
• All the samples fall in the range of coarse to fine sand as
seen in Fig. 3. Median grain size (D50) of the entire band is in
the range of 0.09 mm to 0.9 mm and effective grain size
(D10) in the range of 0.075 mm to 0.42 mm.
• The samples used in the study contain sand content varying
between 50 and 100%. The gravel (percent retained on US #
4, R4) in the samples varies from 0 to 15% and fines (percent
passing US # 200, F200) present in the samples varies from 2
to 45%.
Fig. 3. Grain Size Distribution Curves of Soil Samples of All 60
Boreholes
−4−
• Based on the results of grain size distribution curves pre-
sented in Fig. 3, D60, D30 and D10, were determined. The uni-
formity coefficient (Cu = D60 ⁄ D10 ) varied from 2.62 to 2.00
and coefficient of curvature (Cc = D230 ⁄ D60 × D10 ) is in range
of 0.9 to 0.7, suggesting the sands are poorly graded with
relatively uniform grain sizes.
• Fines present in the samples are non-plastic to low plastic in
nature.
• In some cases, the fine content was as high as 40%.
• Specific gravity of the samples is in the range of 2.65 ~ 2.77
with an average value of 2.70.
• All the samples have been classified according to Unified
Soil Classification System (USCS) as described in ASTM
D-2487. These samples with fine content of 0-40% are clas-
sified as poorly graded sand (SP), poorly graded sand with
silt (SP-SM) and silty sand (SM).
• The in-situ dry unit weight of the undisturbed samples deter-
mined through pitcher samples are in the range of 13.24 ~
18.44 kN/m3. Maximum and minimum density tests were
performed on the samples obtained from the site at shallow
depths. However, at greater depth quantity of material for
samples obtained from the bore hole is less so samples
obtained in between the two pitcher samplers were mixed to
compensate the sample shortage and then maximum and
minimum index density tests were performed in the labora-
tory. Minimum density was determined by loose filling the
cylinder having diameter 15.2 cm and height 15.6 cm with
dry sample above the top. The excess soil is then trimmed
off with the help of straight edge. The weight of dry loose
material divided by the volume of cylinder give the mini-
mum index density. For maximum index density, loose
material already placed in the cylinder is covered with sur-
charge base plate having thickness of 1.382 cm. Surcharge
pressure of 14 kPa is then applied. The vibrating table is
vibrated at a frequency of 60 Hz for 8 minutes. The settle-
ment of the loose dry sample in the cylinder taking place due
to vibration and surcharge weight is noted and is used to cal-
culate maximum index density. The values of minimum dry
unit weight fall in the range of 12.22~14.95 kN/m3 and max-
imum dry unit weight obtained using vibratory table are in
the range of 14.64~19.17 kN/m3.
• Relative density values of the samples are in the range of 7%
to 97% indicating strata is very loose to very dense.
• Friction angle (φ) is determined by performing direct shear
test using shear box of 72 cm3 on samples remoulded to their
respective relative density value and then saturated. Normal
stress of 98 kPa, 196 kPa and 294 kPa is used for samples
taken at a depth up to 10 m and for samples collected at a
depth more than 10 m, normal stress of 294 kPa, 392 kPa
and 490 kPa are used. The saturated samples are then
sheared at a strain rate of 2.0 mm/sec. Friction angle thus
determined varies between 28 to 45 degrees.
• As observed in Fig. 2, that SPT-N values vary between 4 and
100 indicating the subsoil strata is in very loose to very
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
 Evaluation of Relative Density and Friction Angle Based on SPT-N Values
dense state. Refusal of SPT test at any depth is represented
by SPT-N value of 100 in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2. More specifi-
cally based on SPT-N values the strata is classified as very
loose to loose for SPT-N values vary between 0~10, while it
is regarded as medium dense for SPT-N values falling between
11 and 30, subsoil is treated as dense for SPT-N in range of 31
and 50 while very dense for SPT-N value above 51.
2.3 Data Analysis
To develop the correlation between SPT-N value and relative
density, field SPT-N values are corrected for dilatancy, correction
for field procedures and overburden to compensate the variations
in SPT blow count. Corrections are applied using the following
procedures.
• SPT-N values measured between any two consecutive loca-
tions where undisturbed soil sample was collected in the
borehole are averaged out. These average SPT-N values are
then used in the development of correlation.
• Dilatancy correction was applied on average SPT-N values
where SPT test was performed on saturated soils at depth
below ground water table (Meyerhof, 1956). Dilatancy
correction is calculated using the relation N
corr
Correction is applied when SPT-N values are greater than 15
below ground water table.
• Afterwards, SPT-N values corrected for dilatancy are cor-
rected for field procedures. Correction was applied using the
Em C B C s C R N
formula N 60 = 0.6
where hammer efficiency,
Em = 0.5 , borehole diameter correction, CB = 1 , sampler
correction, Cs = 1 , rod length correction CR = 0.75 , and N
is average number of blows. Hammer efficiency was not
measured during current geotechnical investigation. How-
ever, the value of Em is taken 0.5 based on hammer effi-
ciency measurement reported by Kibria and Masood (1998)
while conducting geotechnical investigations for Indus
sands at Chashma.
• Liao and Whitman (1986) relation; CN = 9.78 σ ' where
v are discarded. Model calibration is carried out using regression
σv ′ is in kPa, is used for overburden correction to compen-
sate the depth effects.
• Relative density was calculated using the expression
γ d (max) ⎛ γ d ( field ) − γ d (min) ⎞
Dr = ×⎜ ⎟ Dr (%) = 1.96 N − 19.2(
γ d ( field ) ⎜⎝ γ d (max) − γ d (min) ⎟⎠
3. Development of Model
3.1 Correlation between SPT-N versus Relative Density
Correlation Analyses were carried out to identify the significant
parameters that affect the relative density. The parameters used
for correlation analysis include SPT-N values corrected for
dilatancy and field procedures (N60), relative density (Dr), void
ratio range ( emax – emin ), effective overburden stresses ( σv ′ ) and
Vol. 00, No. 0 / 000 0000
in-situ dry density ( γdf ) . The results of the correlation analysis
between N60 and relative density values (Dr) revealed that these
two parameters are directly proportional to each other. However,
the coefficient of determination (R2) is 0.60 and correlation
coefficient (R) is 0.77. These two are obtained as a result of
correlation analysis and linear regression analysis between N60
and Dr. The R2 value indicates that 40% of the variation in Dr
values cannot be explained by using only N60. Also, it is observed
from correlation analysis that in-situ dry unit weight (γdf) is
directly proportional to N60. Linear regression analysis was also
performed between ( γdf ) and N60. The R2 value of 0.62 and R
value of 0.79 are just satisfactory indicating that correlation between
these two variables cannot predict efficiently. It is also evident
from correlation analysis between effective overburden stress
and relative density that with increase in depth, overburden stress
increases and relative density increases. However, regression
statistics i.e., R2 is 0.60. This revealed that 40% of the variation
cannot be explained by the relation between relative density and
overburden stress so model between these two parameters is not
reliable. The scatter diagram of void ratio range with relative
density Dr indicates that no correlation exist between these two
N − 15 . parameters. It is also observed from correlation analyses and
= 15 +
2 linear regression analyses that any two parameters cannot be
correlated to predict relative density. The coefficient of determination
(R2) for different linear relations between different variables is in
the range of 0 to 0.62. Therefore, it can be inferred that variation
in the data which cannot be explained by respective parameter
varies from 38 to 100%. For these reasons, multivariate regression
analysis was performed on the data to develop correlation which
can efficiently predict relative density. Statistical Package for the
Social Sciences (SPSS) software was used to carry out multiple
regression analysis using stepwise regression analysis technique
to develop the correlation between above mentioned parameters.
As identified in the stepwise regression analyses, N60 and σv ′
pass t test with 95% confidence interval and have a significant
effect on the relative density of sandy soil deposits as compared
with other input parameters. Therefore, only these two parameters
1 are used in model formulation and the remaining input parameters
analysis and the values of coefficients for input and output
parameters are calculated. The final best fit model obtained is
given in Eq. (11)
pa
) 0.23
+ 29.2
60
σv'
(11)
where σv ′ is the effective overburden stress (kPa) and pa is
atmospheric pressure in kPa.
Experimental and predicted values of relative Density (Dr) are
plotted in Fig. 4. It is observed that standard error of estimate
(SEE) in the experimental versus predicted values is within
±10% indicating the good prediction capability of the equation.
A good and reliable model must have high value of correlation
coefficient (R), low value of standard error of estimate (SEE) and
passes F and t- tests statistics with pre-selected confidence
−5−
 Hassan Mujtaba, Khalid Farooq, Nagaratnam Sivakugan, and Braja M. Das

Fig. 4. Experimental Versus Predicted Values of D using Results

Fig. 6. Experimental Versus Predicted Values of D using Present
r

of Present Study [Eq. (11)] r

Study [Eq. (11)] and Meyerhof Eq. (2)

interval of about 95%. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) is carried

out by SPSS software to determine F-statistic for output
parameters and t-statistics for input parameters. Model F value
2966.8 indicate that Dr passes F- test and absolute t values of
32.45 and 8.4 advocates that N60 and σv ′ clear t-test. F -test and
t- test results suggest that input parameters (N60 and σv ′ ) are
significant and a slight change in their values have considerable
effect on output parameter (Dr). The R value of 0.92 for Eq. (11)
is rated as good correlation coefficients in geotechnical engineering.
Standard error of estimate (SEE) of 7.1 for Eq. (11) is low which
indicates good prediction capability of the model.
Comparison of the proposed equation predictions has been Fig. 7. Experimental Versus Predicted Values of D using Present
r

done with the prediction made by using equations of other studies
using the data used for the development of Eq. (11). These include
studies by Gibbs and Holtz (1957), Meyerhof (1956), Yoshida and
Ikemi (1988) and Kibria and Masood (1998). It can be observed
from Fig. 5 that Gibbs and Holtz relationship [Eq. (1)] underestimate
Dr values by about 20%. This underestimation may be attributed to
the difference in gradation of samples used by Gibbs and Holtz to
develop the correlation. The mean grain size of the samples used by
Gibbs and Holtz is 0.3 and 1.5 mm and where as mean grain size of
sandy deposit used in this research is 0.9 mm to 0.1 mm.
Figure 6 compares the results of predictions obtained from the
present study and that proposed by Meyerhof (1956). It can be
seen that Meyerhof’s relationship [Eq. (2)] overestimates Dr
Study [Eq. (11)] and Yoshida and Ikemi Eq. (5)
values when experimental Dr values are between 0-60%; and for
60-70% experimental values of Dr, predicted values fall in the
±10% band. For Dr > 70% experimental versus predicted values
by Eq. (2) underestimates. Yoshi and Ikemi equation [Eq. (5)]
overestimate the relative density values when experimental Dr is
up to 50% where as experimental versus predicted values falls
within ±10% limit, when Dr value vary between 50% to 70% and
beyond 70% their equation underestimates as shown in Fig. 7.
The probable reasons for these variations in predictions by
equations proposed by various researchers are explained by
Cubrinovski and Ishihara (1999). They suggested that these

Fig. 5. Experimental Versus Predicted Values of D using Present

r Fig. 8. Experimental Versus Predicted Values of D using Present
r

Study [Eq. (11)] and Gibbs and Holtz Eq. (1) Study [Eq. (11)] and Kibria and Masood Eq. (7)

−6− KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Evaluation of Relative Density and Friction Angle Based on SPT-N Values

variations in relative density values as compare to experimental

values may be due to variation in SPT procedures adopted for
testing, soil deposition, soil fabric, variation in methods used for
estimation of in-situ density and determination of maximum and
minimum index density in the laboratory.
Also comparison of the values predicted by proposed equation is
done with Kibria and Masood relation [Eq. (7)] and the results are
presented in Fig. 8. Their equation overestimates when Dr values are
up to 60% and beyond 60% their equation under estimates. The
probable reason may be the effect of overburden stress which is
fixed at a value of 100 kPa for Kibria and Masood relationship.

3.2 Correlation between Friction Angle (φ), Relative Den-

Fig. 10. Correlation between SPT-N Values and Friction Angle (φ)
sity (Dr) and SPT-N Values 60

Data set used to correlate relative density and SPT-N value was
also used to develop the correlation between friction angle and in Fig. 10.
relative density for sandy soil. Regression analysis is carried out on
the data to develop the correlation between relative density Dr and φ = 0.70 N 60 + 18.0 (13)
friction angle (φ) determined through direct shear test. Calibration
The coefficient of determination of Eq. (13) is 0.88 indicating
of the correlation is carried out using regression analysis and the
that 88% of the variation in the data can be explained by the
values of coefficients for input and output parameters are
correlation and only 12% is unexplained by this relation.
calculated. The final best fit correlation is given in Eq. (12).
Standard error of estimate for Eq. (13) is 1.88, F–statistics for
φ = 0.276 D (%) + 18.70
r (12) output parameter is 7171.6 and t-statistics for input parameters is
76.78 and 84.68, respectively. These values indicate that variable
The correlation is presented graphically in Fig. 9. Standard
passes the F-test and t-test at 95% confidence interval. Hence,
error of estimate for Eq. (12) is 1.63, F–statistics for output
these regression statistics indicated that the correlation between
parameter is 10048.05 and t-statistics for input parameters is
friction angle and N60 is significant. The lower and upper limit of
100.58 and 100.24, respectively. These regression statistics
intercept at 95% confidence interval is 17.13 ~ 18.03 and for
indicated that the correlation between friction angle and relative
coefficient of N60 is between 0.69 ~ 0.72. Experimental versus
density is significant. The lower and upper limit of intercept at
predicted values of φ using Eq. (13) are presented in Fig. 11.
95% confidence interval is 18.34 ~ 19.06 for intercept and that of
Variation within ±10% of 90% of the predicted values indicates
coefficient of Dr is between 0.27 ~ 0.28. The coefficient of
that the relation can be used for future prediction. Relations
determination (R2) for Eq. (12) is 0.9 indicating that 10% of
presented by Hatanaka and Uchida (1996), Peck et al. (1974) and
variation in the values of φ is not accounted by the above
Japanese Road Association (1990) are employed to predict φ
mentioned regression equation.
using the same data set and the estimations using these relations
Also the same data set is used to correlate friction angle (φ) and
along with proposed equation are presented in Fig. 12, 13 and 14,
SPT-N60 values. Linear regression analysis technique is adopted
respectively. It can be inferred from Fig. 12 that Hatanaka and
to propose the relation. The best fit relation achieved through
Uchida [Eq. (8)] over estimates φ when the strata is in loose to
regression in presented in Eq. (13) and also presented graphically

Fig. 11. Experimental Versus Predicted Values of φ using Present

Fig. 9. Correlation between D and Friction Angle (φ)
r Study [Eq. (13)]

Vol. 00, No. 0 / 000 0000 −7−

 Hassan Mujtaba, Khalid Farooq, Nagaratnam Sivakugan, and Braja M. Das
Fig. 12. Experimental Versus Predicted Values of φ using Present
Study [Eq. (13)] and Hatanaka and Uchida Eq. (8)
Fig. 13. Experimental Versus Predicted Values of φ using Present
Study [Eq. (13)] and Peck et al. Eq. (9)
dense state (i.e., SPT-N is up to 50). However, for very dense
state, φ are within ±10% or less than the experimental value. The
probable reason for over estimation is the variation in the SPT
test procedures being adopted where as for underestimation the
variation is attributed to the determination of φ. Hatanaka and
Uchida performed drained triaxial test to determine friction angle
where as present study φ is determined by direct shear test. Fig.
13 compares prediction by Peck et al. (1974) with that of Eq.
(13). It can be seen that for loose or dense to very dense state the
prediction by Peck et al. [Eq. (9)] falls outside ±10% band but
for medium dense state predictions are within limits. Japanese
Road Association [Eq. (10)] predictions are within ±10% limit
except for very dense state where this relation underestimates.
Variation in prediction by Eq. (9) and Eq. (10) is due to different
techniques being adapted to conduct SPT test.
4. Validation of Model
4.1 Validation of Proposed Relation between SPT-N ~ Dr
Eq. (11)
To validate the correlation between SPT-N value and relative
−8−
Fig. 14. Experimental Versus Predicted Values of φ using Present
Study [Eq. (13)] and Japanese Road Association Eq. (10)
Fig. 15. Comparison of Experimental Versus Predicted Values of D r
by Present Study [Eq. (11)]
density, field testing including test pits and boreholes was carried
out at two sites. The prime objective of this testing was to
generate an independent data set which can be used for the
validation of correlations. Filed testing includes five test pits
each up to a depth of 9 ft and 10 boreholes each to a depth of 9 ft
at both sites. SPT tests were performed in the boreholes at 2.5 ft
interval and in-situ density tests were performed in test pits at the
corresponding depths. Based on the SPT-N value the subsoil
strata for site-I existed in very loose to loose state as SPT-N
values vary in the range of 1 to 9. SPT test for site-II was also
used for validation purposes. This site existed in medium dense
to dense state. The SPT-N values vary from 11 to 30. It is
observed from Fig. 15 that all the predicted values fall within the
10% limit for both sites.
4.2 Validation of Correlation between Friction Angle (φ)
and Relative Density Dr (Eq. 12)
In order to validate Eq. (12), remoulded samples of naturally
occurring sands were used. Grain size analyses of the sand
samples used revealed that no gravel content are present in the
samples while sand content is 90 to 96% and fines are 4 to 10%.
The mean grain size D50 of the samples used is 0.2 mm to 0.4
mm and effective grain size is 0.075 mm to 0.20 mm. Uniformity
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
 Evaluation of Relative Density and Friction Angle Based on SPT-N Values
Fig. 16. Experimental Versus Predicted Values of Friction Angle (φ)
Based on D using Present Study [Eq. (12)]
r
Fig. 17. Experimental Versus Predicted Values of Friction Angle (φ)
Based on N using Present Study by [Eq. (13)]
60
coefficient is 2.0 to 2.6 and curvature coefficient is 0.6 to 0.8 The
samples are classified as poorly graded sand (SP) and poorly
graded sand with silt (SP-SM) according to Unified soil
classification system (USCS). Relative density values of the
remoulded samples are in between 40% and 90%. Friction angle
is in the range of 27 and 38.4 as determined by direct shear test.
The data set is used for validation of Eq. (12). Experimental
versus predicted values of friction angle estimated using Eq. (12)
are presented in Fig. 16. It is observed from the Fig. 16 that all
the prediction made by using Eq. (12) fall in the range of ± 10%
band indicating satisfactory prediction capability of equation.
4.3 Validation of Correlation between Friction Angle (φ)
Versus SPT-N Value (Eq. 13)
Samples procured during field testing at Site-I and Site-II were
remoulded in the laboratory at their corresponding values of
relative density. Direct shear tests were performed on these
remoulded samples and friction angle thus determined has been
used for validation of Eq. (13). The values of friction angle range
from 21 to 38. Experimental versus predicted values of friction
angle estimated by using Eq. (13) are presented in Fig. 13. It is
observed from the Fig. 17 that all the prediction made by using
Eq. (13) fall in the range of ± 10% indicating satisfactory
Vol. 00, No. 0 / 000 0000
prediction capability of the proposed model.
5. Conclusions
On the basis of the above findings, the following conclusions
can be drawn:
1. Test data of sixty boreholes executed in sandy deposit, vary-
ing in depth from 30 to 100 m, was used. The data consist of
SPT-N value along the depth at interval of 2-3 m and the in-
situ density at almost the same locations as that of the SPT-N
values. The available data was used to develop the correla-
tion between SPT-N value, relative density (Dr) and friction
angle (φ) for local sandy soil deposits. The in-situ measured
SPT-N values were corrected and converted to N60. Based on
large data of geotechnical investigation conducted in a sandy
soil deposit, multiple regression analysis was carried out and
a correlation between relative density, overburden stress and
SPT-N value has been proposed as given below:
pa
Dr (%) = 1.96 N − 19.2( ) 0.23
+ 29.2
σv'
60
Variation in experimental versus predicted values using the
correlation is within ± 10% with confidence interval of 95%.
2. For soil strata present in loose to very dense state, friction angle
can be estimated using relation: φ = 0.276 D (%) + 18.70 .
r
The relation is also validated by using an independent data
set and prediction capability of the relation is within ± 10%
with confidence interval of 95%.
3. Based on the field and laboratory test results, it is observed
that the sandy deposit has SPT-N60 values in the range of 3 to
36 and friction angle vary from 20 to 45. Regression analy-
sis technique is used to correlate SPT-N values and friction
angle. Friction angle can be predicted using relation:
φ = 0.70 N 60 + 18.0 . Predictions using this relation fall
within ± 10% advocating reliable predictive capability of
the relation.
References
Bowles, J. (1968). Foundation Analysis and Design, McGraw-Hill,
New York.
Cubrinovski, M. and Ishihara, K. (1999). “Empirical correlation between
SPT N-value and relative density for sandy soils.” Soils and
Foundations, Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 6l-7l, DOI: 10.3208/sandf.39.5_61.
Farooq, k., Imtiaz, K., and Kibria, S. (2010), “Geotechnical zoning of
Lahore for foundation design based on SPT data.” Proceedings of
International Conference on Geotechnical Engineering, Pakistan
Geotechnical Engineering Society, Lahore-Pakistan, pp. 167-174.
Gibbs, H. J. and Holtz, W. G. (1957). “Research on determining the
density of sands by spoon penetration testing.” International Conference
on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Eng., Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 35-39.
Hatanaka, M. and Uchida, A. (1996). “Empirical correlation between
penetration resistance and internal friction angle of sandy soils.”
Soils and Foundations, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 1-9, DOI: 10.3208/
sandf.36.4_1.
Hayat, K. (2003). Geotechnical Zonation and their Relation to Geology
−9−
 Hassan Mujtaba, Khalid Farooq, Nagaratnam Sivakugan, and Braja M. Das
of Pakistan. PhD Thesis, Institute of Geology, Punjab University,
Lahore, Pakistan.
Hettiarachchi, H. and Brown, T. (2009). “Use of SPT blow counts to
estimate shear strength properties of soils: Energy balance approach.”
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
Vol. 135, pp. 25-32, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000016.
Japan Road Association (1990). Specification for Highway Bridges,
Part IV.
Jianguo, C. (2012). Correlation analysis of SPT N values and cohesion
and internal angle of a clay.” Soil Engineering and Foundation,
Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 91-93.
Kibria, S. and Masood, T. (1998), “SPT, Relative Density and PHI
Relationships for Indus Sands at Chashma.” Proceeding of VII National
Conference of Pakistan National Society for Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, 169-188
Kulhawy, F. H. and Mayne, P. W. (1990). Manual on Estimating Soil
Properties for Foundation Design, Final Report (EL-6800) submitted to
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Palo Alto, Calif.
Liao, S. and Whitman, R. V. (1986). “Overburden correction factor for
SPT in sand.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 112,
No. 3, pp. 373-377, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1986)112:3(373).
Meyerhof, G. G., (1956). “Penetration tests and bearing capacity of
cohesionless soils.” ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
Vol. 82, No. 1, pp. 866/1-866/19.
Mohammad, M. (2013), “Reliability of Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
in predicting properties of silty clay with sand soil.” International
Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 545-
556, DOI: 10.6088/ijcser.201203013050.
Peck, R. B., Hanson, W. E., and Thornburn, T. H. (1974). Foundation
− 10 −
View publication stats
Engineering, 2nd ed., Wiley, New York.
Rogers, J. D. (2006). “Reliability of using Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
in predicting properties of silty clay with sand soil.” Environmental &
Engineering Geoscience, Vol. XII, No. 2, 161-179, DOI: 10.2113/
12.2.161.
Salari, P., Lashkaripour, G. R., and Ghafoori, M. (2015). “Presentation
of empirical equations for estimating internal friction angle of GW
and GC soils in mashhad, iran using standard penetration and direct
shear tests and comparison with previous equations.” Open Journal
of Geology, No. 5, pp. 231-238, DOI: 10.4236/ojg.2015.55021.
Sivrikaya, O. and Togrol, E. (2006). “Determination of undrained shear
strength of fine-grained soils by means of SPT and its application in
Turkey.” Engineering Geology, Vol. 86, pp. 52-69, DOI: 10.1016/
j.enggeo.2006.05.002.
Skempton, A. W. (1986). “Standard penetration test procedures and the
effect in sands of overburden pressure, relative density, particle size,
aging and overconsolidation.” Geotechnique, Vol. 36, No. 3, 425-
447, DOI: 10.1680/geot.1986.36.3.425.
Tomlinson, M. J. (1986). Foundation Design and Construction, Longman,
Singapore.
Wolff, T. F. (1989). “Pile capacity prediction using parameter functions.” in
Predicted and Observed Axial Behavior of Piles, Results of a Pile
Prediction Symposium, sponsored by Geotechnical Engineering
Division, ASCE, Evanston, Ill., June 1989, ASCE Geotechnical
Special Publication No. 23, 96-106.
Yoshida, Y. and Ikemi, M. (1988), “Empirical formulas of SPT blow-
counts for gravelly soils.” Proc. 1st Int. Symposium on Penetration
Testing, Rotterdam, pp. 381-387.
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering