Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Hammer Efficiency and Correction Factors for the TxDOT Texas Cone Penetration Test

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Geotechnical and Geological Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study analyzes blowcount data from instrumented Texas Cone Penetration (TCP) tests. TCP hammer efficiency, rod length influence on the hammer efficiency, and overburden pressure correction factors for the TCP blowcounts (NTCP) are explored. Results are compared to published correction factors for the standard penetration test (SPT). The final dataset analyzed for this study consisted of 293 TCP tests from which 135 tests were instrumented. TCP hammer efficiency values for automatic trip hammers ranged from 74 to 101% with an average of 89%. Analyses showed a statistically-significant relationship between the TCP hammer efficiency and the rod length below ground surface. Statistical models were developed for undifferentiated soils, and corresponding rod length correction factors for the TCP test (CR-TCP) were obtained ranging from 0.90 to 1.00. In a second analysis, the relationship between the overburden pressure and NTCP was explored and a mathematical expression for the overburden correction factor for the TCP blowcount value (CN-TCP) was determined. This work represents the first study where corrections to NTCP are explored, and the outcome of this research benefits the geotechnical engineering community using the TCP test and its associated foundation design method.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. AWJ refers to conventional taper threaded drill rod—outside diameter 44.5 mm, thread pitch 5.1 mm.

  2. NWJ refers to conventional taper threaded drill rod—outside diameter 66.7 mm, thread pitch 6.4 mm.

Abbreviations

a and b:

Skempton (1986) soil dependent parameters

Cb :

Borehole diameter correction factor for SPT

CI:

Confidence intervals

CN :

Overburden correction factor for SPT

CN-TCP :

Overburden correction factor for TCP

COV:

Coefficient of variation

Cr :

Rod length correction factor for SPT

CR-TCP :

Rod length correction factor for TCP

Cs :

Sampler type correction factor for SPT

DR :

Relative density

Em :

Measured hammer energy

Er :

Hammer efficiency-SPT

Er-TCP :

Hammer efficiency-TCP

Et :

Theoretical hammer energy

K:

Exponent of the power function developed for overburden correction factor

N1-60 :

SPT blowcount standardized to 60% energy and corrected for overburden

N1-60-TCP :

TCP blowcount standardized to 60% energy and corrected for overburden

N60 :

SPT blowcount standardized to 60% energy

N60-TCP :

TCP blowcount standardized to 60% energy

NN-TCP :

Normalized TCP blowcount to a blowcount corresponding to a reference stress

NSPT :

SPT blowcount

NTCP :

TCP blowcount

PI:

Prediction intervals

SPT:

Standard penetration test

TCP:

Texas Cone Penetrometer

z :

Depth

z 1 :

Depth of interest

z Baseline :

Depth at which the fitted model has flattened

β1 :

Slope for a linear model equation

βo :

Intercept for a linear model equation

\(\upsigma_{\text{v}}^{\prime }\) :

Effective vertical stress

\(\upsigma_{\text{ref}}^{\prime }\) :

Reference stress (i.e. 100 kPa, 2000 psf)

\(\upsigma_{\text{N}}^{\prime }\) :

Normalized effective vertical stress to a reference stress

References

  • Aggour MS, Radding WR (2001) Standard penetration test (SPT) correction, Report No. MD02-007B48, Maryland State Highway Administration, Baltimore

  • ASTM International (2016) Standard test method for standard penetration test (SPT) and split-barrel sampling of soils, test method D1586-11. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA

  • Boulanger RW, Idriss IM (2012) Probabilistic standard penetration test-based liquefaction-triggering procedure. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 138(10):1185–1195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boulanger RW, Idriss IM (2015) CPT-based liquefaction triggering procedure. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 10:1061

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowles JE (1996) Foundation analysis and design, 5th edn. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown RE (1977) Drill rod influence on standard penetration test. J Geotech Eng Div 103(11):1332–1336

    Google Scholar 

  • Clayton CR (1995) The standard penetration test (SPT): methods and use (No. R 143). Construction Industry Research and Information Association

  • Coduto DP, Yeung MCR, Kitch WA (2011) Geotechnical engineering: principles and practices, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniel CR, Howie JA, Campanella RG, Sy A (2004) Characterization of SPT grain size effects in gravels. In: Second international conference on site characterization (ISC’2)

  • Das BM, Sobhan K (2014) Principles of geotechnical engineering, 8th edn. Cengage Learning, Connecticut

    Google Scholar 

  • DeMello VF (1971, June) The standard penetration test. In: Proceedings of the 4th Pan-American conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, San Juan, PR,vol 1, pp 1–86

  • FHWA (2016) National bridge inventory. bridges and structures, safety, bridge inspection. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC

  • Fletcher GF (1965) Standard penetration test its uses and abuses. J Soil Mech Found SM4, Paper 4395

  • Honeycutt JN, Kiser SE, Anderson JB (2014) Database evaluation of energy transfer for central mine equipment automatic hammer standard penetration tests. ASCE J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 140(1):194–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Idriss IM, Boulanger RW (2012) Examination of SPT-based liquefaction triggering correlations. Earthq Spectra 28(3):989–1018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ireland HO, Moretto O, Vargas M (1970) The dynamic penetration test: A standard that is not standardized. Geotechnique 20(2):185–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kovacs WD, Salomone LA (1982) SPT hammer energy measurement. J Geotech Eng 110(4):562–564

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liao SS, Whitman RV (1986) Overburden correction factors for SPT in sand. Journal of Geotech Eng 112(3):373–377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loehr JE, Bowders JJ, Ge L, Likos WJ, Luna R, Maerz N, Rosenblad BL, Stephenson RW (2011) Engineering policy guidelines for design of drilled shafts. Missouri Department of Transportation, Final Report for Project TRyy0922, Report cmr12003

  • Meyerhof GG (1957) Discussion on research on determining the density of sands. In: Proceedings of 4th international conference of soil mechanics and foundation engineering

  • Moghaddam RB (2016) Evaluation of the TxDOT texas cone penetration test and foundation design method including correction factors, allowable total capacity, and resistance factors at serviceability limit state. Doctoral dissertation, Texas Tech University

  • Nam MS, Park YH, Park YS (2013) Prediction of end bearing capacity for pre-bored steel pipe piles using instrumented SPT rods. J Korean Geotech Soc 29(12):105–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Odebrecht E, Schnaid F, Rocha MM, de Paula Bernardes G (2005) Energy efficiency for standard penetration tests. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 131(10):1252–1263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer DJ, Stuart JG (1957) Some observations on the standard penetration test and a correlation of the test with a new penetrometer. In: Proceedings of 4th international conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, p 231

  • Peck RB, Hanson WE, Thornburn TH (1974) Foundation engineering, vol 10. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson PK, Sully JP, Woeller DJ, Lunne T, Powell JJM, Gillespie DG (2000) Estimating coefficient of consolidation from piezocone tests. Can Geotech J 29(4):539–550

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmertmann JH, Palacios A (1979) Energy dynamics of SPT. J Geotech Eng Div 105(8):909–926

    Google Scholar 

  • Schnaid F (2009) In situ Testing in Geomechanics: the main tests, 1st edn. Taylor & Francis, London and New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Seed HB, Tokimatsu K, Harder L, Chung RM (1984) The influence of SPT procedures in evaluating soil liquefaction resistance. Report, University of California Berkley, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, 84–15

  • Seo H, Moghaddam RB, Surles JG, Jayawickrama PW, Wood TA, Lawson WD (2015) Reliability based deep foundation design using texas cone penetrometer (TCP) test: volume 1, development of load test dataset. DRAFT Report. FHWA/TX-14-0-6788-1-Vol. 1. Texas Tech University Center for Multidisciplinary Research in Transportation, Lubbock, TX

  • Skempton AW (1986) Standard penetration test procedures and the effects in sands of overburden pressure, relative density, particle size, ageing and over-consolidation. Geotechnique 36(3):425–447

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Standard Guide to Standard Penetration Test Analyzer (2013) Pile Dynamics Inc

  • Texas Highway Department (1956) Foundation exploration and design manual, Bridge Division, Texas Highway Department

  • Texas Department of Transportation (1999) Geotechnical manual

  • Texas Department of Transportation (2000) Geotechnical manual

  • Texas Department of Transportation (2012) Geotechnical manual. Texas Department of Transportation

  • Tokimatsu K, Yoshimi Y (1983) Empirical correlation of soil liquefaction based on SPT N-value and fines content. Soils Foundations 23(4):56–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Touma FT, Reese LC (1972) The behavior of axially loaded drilled shafts in sand, Report No. CFHR 3-5-72-176-1 University of Texas Center for Highway Research

  • Turner J (2006) Rock-socketed shafts for highway structure foundations. NCHRP synthesis 360. A synthesis of highway practice. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC

  • Vipulanandan C(2007) Recent advances in designing, monitoring, modeling and testing deep foundations in North America. In: Kikuchi Y, Otani J, Kimura M, Morikawa Y (eds) Advances in deep foundations: proceedings of the international workshop on recent advances of deep foundations (IWDPF07), Port and Airport Research Institute, Yokosuka, Japan, 1–2 February, 2007. Taylor and Francis Group, London

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors express their gratitude to the Texas Department of Transportation for sponsoring the TCP Reliability research study. The authors also thank Terracon, PSI, Rick Coffman (University of Arkansas), The Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department, the Missouri Department of Transportation, the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, and the New Mexico Department of Transportation for their collaboration throughout the TCP Reliability research project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. GRL Engineers, Inc., 30725 Aurora Road, Cleveland, OH, 44139, USA

    Rozbeh B. Moghaddam

  2. TechMRT: Multidisciplinary Research in Transportation, Texas Tech University, Box 41023, Lubbock, TX, 79409-1023, USA

    William D. Lawson, Hoyoung Seo & Priyantha W. Jayawickrama

  3. Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Texas Tech University, Box 41042, Lubbock, TX, 79409-1042, USA

    James G. Surles

Authors
  1. Rozbeh B. Moghaddam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. William D. Lawson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. James G. Surles
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hoyoung Seo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Priyantha W. Jayawickrama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rozbeh B. Moghaddam.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Moghaddam, R.B., Lawson, W.D., Surles, J.G. et al. Hammer Efficiency and Correction Factors for the TxDOT Texas Cone Penetration Test. Geotech Geol Eng 35, 2147–2162 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-017-0234-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-017-0234-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation