Development of Practical Correlations Between Cone Penetration Resistance and SPT Values for Various Types of Soils

  • Mahdi Khodaparast
  • Ali M. RajabiEmail author
  • Mohammad Derakhshan
Research Paper


A suite of relationships has been developed between cone penetration resistance (qc) and SPT values of clayey and sandy soils. The major difference between these relationships and those of previous studies lies in the range of data and variety of soils. Most studies with the same scope of research since 1959 have been considered herein, and their practical data have been collected. Then, by means of statistical analyses and data refinement, a database was provided for diverse types of soils (including silty sand, clayey, sandy and sandy silt soils). Accordingly, for each soil type, the data were classified as either regression or test data. The regression data were applied to develop the correlations between qc and SPT value (N60). The test data were employed to examine accuracy of the correlation compared to the available relationships for the same soil type. The results indicate that the proposed relationships between qc and N60 for silty sand, sandy and sandy silt soils are simple with RMSE values equal to 0.078, 7.012 and 7.498, respectively, whereas in the case of clay, the relationship becomes more complex (accuracy of 0.248). Based on the results derived herein, it can be concluded that all relationships proposed in this study are of greater accuracy compared to the previous relations.


Cone penetration test (CPT) Standard penetration test (SPT) Correlation Cone penetration resistance 


  1. Aboumatar H, Goble GG (1994) Dynamic measurements on penetrometers for determination of foundation design. University of Colorado, DenverGoogle Scholar
  2. Acka N (2003) Correlation of SPT-CPT data from the United Arab Emirates. Eng Geol 67(3–4):219–231. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ahmed SM, Agaiby SW, Abdel-Rahman AH (2014) A unified CPT–SPT correlation for non-crushable and crushable cohesionless soils. Ain Shams Eng J 5(1):63–73. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ajayi LA, Balogun LA (1988) Penetration testing in tropical lateritic and residual soils—Nigerian experience. In: Proceedings of the first international symposium on penetration testing, vol 1. Orlando, pp 315–328Google Scholar
  5. Aral IF, Gunes E (2017) Correlation of standard and cone penetration tests: case study from Tekirdag (Turkey). IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng 245(3):032028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Asci M, Kurtulus C, Kaplanvural I, Mataracioglu M (2015) Correlation of SPT–CPT data from the subsidence area in Turkey. Soil Mech Found Eng 51(6):268–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. ASTM (2011) Standard test method for standard penetration test (SPT) and split-barrel sampling of soils. In: ASTM-D158. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  8. ASTM (2012) Standard test method for electronic friction cone and piezocone penetration testing of soils. In: ASTM-D5778. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  9. Barata FE, Pacheco MP, Danziger FAB (1978) Uplift tests on drilled piers and footings built in residual soil. In: Conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, Bratislava, Slovakia, pp 1–37Google Scholar
  10. Burland JB, Burbidge MC (1984) Settlement of foundations on sand and gravel. In: Glasgow and west of Scotland association centenary. Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE), London, pp 1325–1381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chang MF (1988) In-situ testing of residual soils in Singapore. In: 2nd International conference geomechanics in tropical soils. Singapore, pp 97–108Google Scholar
  12. Chin TC, Duann SW, Tsung-Chung K (1988) SPT–CPT correlations for granular soils. In: Ruiter JD (ed) 1st International symposium on penetration testing, Orlando, USA, pp 335–339Google Scholar
  13. Clayton CRI (1990) SPT energy transmission: theory, measurement and significance. Ground Eng 23(10):33–42Google Scholar
  14. Clayton CRI (1995) The standard penetration test (SPT): methods and use. Construction Industry Research and Information Association, England, pp 1–129Google Scholar
  15. Costa YD, Cunha ES, Costa CL (2016) Correlation between SPT and CPT data for a sedimentary tropical silty sand deposit in Brazil. In: Lehane B, Acosta-Martinez HE, Kelly R (eds) Geotechnical and geophysical characterization. Brazil, pp 407–412Google Scholar
  16. Danziger BR (1982( Study of correlations between static and dynamic penetration tests and their applications to the deep foundations project. Dissertation for the Master of Science Degree. Rio de Janeiro: Federal University of Rio de JaneiroGoogle Scholar
  17. Danziger BR, Velloso DA (1995) Correlations between the CPT and the SPT for some Brazilian soils. In: Proceedings of the CPT’95, Linkoping, vol 2, pp 155–160Google Scholar
  18. Danziger FAB, Almeida MSS, Paiva EN, Mello LGFS, Danziger BR (1998) The piezocone as a tool for soil stratification and classification. In: 11th Congress on mechanics of soils and geotechnical engineering. Brazil, pp 917–926Google Scholar
  19. Dos Santos MD, Bicalho KV (2017) Proposals of SPT–CPT and DPL–CPT correlations for sandy soils in Brazil. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 9(6):1152–1158. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Emrem C, Durgunoglu HT (2000) Turkey CPT very bottom and comparison with existing empirical links. Soil Mech Found Eng Eighth Natl Congr, IstanbulGoogle Scholar
  21. Folque J (1988) Modern trends in test techniques in soil mechanics. National Geotechnical LaboratoryGoogle Scholar
  22. IBM Corp. Released (2012) IBM SPSS statistics for windows, version 21.0. IBM Corp, ArmonkGoogle Scholar
  23. Jarushi F, AlKaabim S, Cosentino P (2015) A new correlation between SPT and CPT for various soils. Int J Environ Chem Ecol Geol Geophys Eng 9:100–107Google Scholar
  24. Kara O, Gunduz Z (2010) Correlation between CPT and SPT in Adapazari, Turkey. In: 2nd International symposium on cone penetration testing, at California, volume 2Google Scholar
  25. Kasim AG, Yau CM, Curtis JN (1986) Field correlation of cone and standard penetration tests. ASCE J Geotech Eng 112(3):368–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kulhawy F, Mayne P (1990) Manual on estimating soil properties for foundation design. In: Report no. EPRI-EL-6800. Electric Power Research Result InstituteGoogle Scholar
  27. Lacroix Y (1971) Personal letter to G. Sanglerat: the penetrometer and soil exploration. ElsevierGoogle Scholar
  28. Lingwanda MI, Larsson S, Nyaoro DL (2015) Correlations of SPT, CPT and DPL data for sandy soil in Tanzania. Geotech Geol Eng 33:1221–1233. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lunne T, Robertson P, Powell J (1997) Cone penetration testing in geotechnical practice. Blackie Academic, EF Spon/Routledge Publ, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Mayne PW (2006) In situ test calibrations for evaluating soils parameters. Geosystem Engineering Group, AtlantaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Meigh AC, Nixon IK (1961) Comparison of in situ tests of granular soils. In: Proceedings of 5th international conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering. Paris, France, pp 409–507Google Scholar
  32. Meyerhof GG (1956) Penetration tests and bearing capacity of cohesionless soils. J Soil Mech Found Div 82(1):1–19Google Scholar
  33. Mohamed FMO, Vanapalli SK (2015) Bearing capacity of shallow foundations in saturated and unsaturated sands from SPT–CPT correlations. Int J Geotech Eng 9(1):2–12. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ramaswamy SR, Daulah IU, Hazan Z (1982) Pressurometer correlations with standard penetration tests. In: Proceedings of the 2nd European symposium on penetration, pp 137–142Google Scholar
  35. Robertson P (2012) Interpretation of in situ tests: some insights. In: Mitchell Lecture on 4th international security conference, Brazil, pp 1–22Google Scholar
  36. Robertson OK, Wride CE (1998) Cyclic liquefaction and its evaluation based on the SPT and CPT. In: NCEER workshop on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils, pp 1–40Google Scholar
  37. Samui P, Sitharam T (2010) Correlation between SPT, CPT and MASW. Int J Geotech Eng 4(2):279–288. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sangelart G (1972) the penetrometer and soil exploration, 1st edn. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  39. Schmertmann JH (1970) Static cone to compute static settlement over sand. J Soil Mech Found Div 96(3):1011–1043Google Scholar
  40. Schwertman NC, Owens MA, Adnan R (2004) A simple more general boxplot method for identifying outliers. Comput Stat Data Anal 47(1):165–174. MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  41. Shahin MA, Maier HR, Jaksa MB (2004) Data division for developing neural networks applied to geotechnical engineering. J Comput Civ Eng 18(2):105–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Shahri AA, Juhlin C, Malemir AA (2014) Reliable correlation of SPT–CPT data for southwest of Sweden. Electron J Geotech Eng 19:1013–1032Google Scholar
  43. Skempton A (1986) Standard penetration test procedures and the effects in sands of overburden pressure, relative density, particle size, ageing and overconsolidation. Geotechnique 36(3):425–447. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Velloso DA (1959) Diepsondeering test and determination of soil charge capacity. Highway 29:3–7Google Scholar
  45. Viana DFA (1996) Geomechanics of the residual soils of Porto granite. Geomechanics of the residual soils of Porto granite. Criteria for designing direct foundations. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. University of Porto, PortoGoogle Scholar
  46. Wilton PS (2011) LAB fit curve fitting software. Version 7.2.48. Federal University of Campina Grande, BrazilGoogle Scholar
  47. Zhao X, Cai G (2015) SPT–CPT correlation and its application for liquefaction evaluation in China. Marine Georesour Geotechnol 33(3):272–281. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Shiraz University 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringUniversity of QomQomIran
  2. 2.Department of Engineering GeologyUniversity of TehranTehranIran

Personalised recommendations