Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Status quo of Standard Penetration Test in India: A Review of Field Practices and Suggestions to Incorporate in IS 2131

  • Technical Note
  • Published:
Indian Geotechnical Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

SPT (Standard Penetration Test) being the most widely used field test has not been effectively regulated in India. Guidelines regarding hammer weight, the height of fall and use of liner are not followed correctly in the field, and guidelines for energy transfer efficiency and hammer blow rate are not addressed in the BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards) code for SPT. In this paper, some standard provisions on SPT in India and other countries are compared, and few observations on field SPT tests are presented. Operational and equipment-related variables, such as weights and dimensions of hammer, anvil, and drill rod, were noted in the field. Furthermore, hammer blow rate and inclination of guide rods during the field tests were also observed and are presented. It is found that IS 2131 (1981) does not provide standard dimensions of components of SPT set-up, and hence, there is a large variation in SPT set-up in practice and the whole set-up is usually an ensemble of locally manufactured components. This is a major defect in the SPT code and needs to be addressed. Sixteen different SPT set-ups were observed, which were employed on field SPT tests on 30 boreholes. Thirteen of the observed set-ups were used for the soil investigation for a large infrastructure project. Hammer blow rates are found to be very low as compared to those stated in IS 1893 (2016), DSO-98-17 (1999) and ASTM D6066 (2011). The inclination of guide rods in field was observed to be more than 5°, which causes friction between guide rod and drive weight and, hence, reduces the free fall velocity. These variables affect N values and international studies have reported correction factors to account for these. Because of the fact that large variety of set-up was observed, it will be prudent to standardise the dimensions of hammer and anvil, and hammer release mechanism to bring uniformity in SPT operations. Furthermore, normalising field N values to a standard energy ratio of 60% as per the international practice will facilitate reliability of N values obtained from different set-ups.

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

References

  1. BIS 2131 (1981) Indian standard method for standard penetration test for soils (first revision) reaffirmed 2002. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  2. BIS 1893 (Part 1) (2016) Indian standard criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures, Sixth Revision. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  3. DSO-98-17 (1999) Standard penetration test driller’s/operator’s guide, Report prepared for U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Earth Sciences and Research Laboratory (USBR)

  4. ASTM Standard D6066-11 (2011) Standard practice for determining the normalized penetration resistance of sands for evaluation of liquefaction potential. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1520/d6066-11

  5. Schmertmann JH, Palacios A (1979) Energy dynamics of SPT. J Geotech Eng Div Proc Am Soc Civ Eng 105(GT8):909–926

    Google Scholar 

  6. BIS 2131 (1963) Indian Standard Method for Standard Penetration Test For Soils, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi. (discontinued)

  7. BIS 9640 (1980) Indian standard specification for split spoon sampler, reaffirmed 2007. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  8. BSI (2006) BS EN ISO 22476-3:2005 + A1:2011: geotechnical investigation and testing. Field testing. Standard penetration test. British Standards Institution (BSI), London

    Google Scholar 

  9. BIS 1893 (Part 1) (2002) Indian standard criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures, fifth Revision, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi. (discontinued)

  10. Moghaddam RB, Lawson WD, Surles JG, Seo H, Jayawickrama PW (2017) Hammer efficiency and correction factors for the TxDOT texas cone penetration test. Geotech Geol Eng 35(5):2147–2162

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  12. 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

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Skempton AW (1986) Standard penetration test procedures and the effects in sands of overburden pressure, relative density, particle size, aging, and overconsolidation. Geotechnique. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1986.36.3.425

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

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

    Google Scholar 

  18. Robertson PK, Wride CE (1997) Cyclic liquefaction and its evaluation based on the SPT and CPT. In: Proceedings of the NCEER workshop on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils: technical report NCEER-97-0022: National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Buffalo, NY, pp 41–87

  19. Bowles JE (1997) Foundation engineering. McGraw Hills, Singapore

    Google Scholar 

  20. Clayton CRI (1990) SPT energy transmission: theory, measurement, and significance. Ground Eng 23(10):35–43

    Google Scholar 

  21. Davidson JL, Maultsby JP, Spoor KB (1999) Standard penetration test energy calibrations. A report to the Florida Department of Transportation, Contract No. BB261

  22. Howie JA, Daniel CR, Jackson RS, Walker B (2003) Comparison of energy measurement methods in the standard penetration test. Report submitted to the US Bureau of Reclamation

  23. Kovacs WD, Salomone LA, Yokel FY (1981) Energy measurement in the standard penetration test. Building Science Series 135, National Bureau of Standards, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  24. ASTM Standard D1586-18 (2018) Standard test method for standard penetration test (SPT) and split-barrel sampling of soils. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1520/d1586_d1586m-18

  25. ASTM Standard D4633-16 (2016) Standard test method for energy measurement for dynamic penetrometers. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1520/d4633-16

  26. Abou-mater J, Goble GG (1997) SPT Dynamic Analysis and Measurements. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1997)123:10(921)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. JIS 1219 (2013) Japanese standards association. Method for Standard Penetration Test

  28. Ireland HO, Moretto O, Vargas M (1970) The dynamic penetration test: a standard that is not standardized. Geotechnique. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1970.20.2.185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. IRTP (1988) Standard penetration test (SPT): international reference test procedure. ISSMFE Technical Committee on Penetration Testing, Penetration Testing, ISOPT-1, DeRuiter (ed) Balkema, Rotterdam ISBN90 6191 8014.ISO 22476

  30. AS 1289.6.3.1-2004. Australian Standard, “Methods of testing soils for engineering purposes—soil strength and consolidation tests—determination of the penetration resistance of a soil—Standard penetration test (SPT)”

  31. BIS 407 (1981) Indian standard specifications for brass tubes for general purposes, third revision, reaffirmed 2006. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  32. Kovacs WD, Evans JC, Griffith AH (1979) Towards a more standardized SPT. In: Proceedings of the IX international conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, Tokyo, Japan, vol II, Paper 4–18, pp 269–276

  33. Kovacs WD, Salomone LA (1984) Field evaluation of SPT energy, equipment and methods in Japan compared with SPT in the United States. NBSIR-2910, National Bureau of Standards, U.S. Department of Commerce

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Dam Safety (Rehabilitation) Directorate, Central Water Commission for funding the project entitled “Capacity Buildings in Dam Safety” under Dam Rehabilitation and Improvement Project” Ref: 07/1/2010/DSRD dated 08/12/2016. Authors also thank SERB, DST for funding project “Development of correction factors for standard penetration test N values in India through energy measurement and field experiments—Step towards a reliable Liquefaction Potential Assessment” Ref: SERB/F/198/2017-18 dated 11/05/2017.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, 560012, India

    Anbazhagan P. Panjamani & Sagar G. Ingale

Authors
  1. Anbazhagan P. Panjamani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sagar G. Ingale
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anbazhagan P. Panjamani.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Panjamani, A.P., Ingale, S.G. Status quo of Standard Penetration Test in India: A Review of Field Practices and Suggestions to Incorporate in IS 2131. Indian Geotech J 51, 421–434 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40098-020-00458-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40098-020-00458-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation