International Journal of Engineering Technology Science and Research

IJETSR
www.ijetsr.com
ISSN 2394 – 3386
Volume 4, Issue 3
March 2017

Applicability Of Standard Penetration Tests To Estimate

Undrained Shear Strength Of Soils Of Imphal.
Ngangbam Bulbul Singh, Ningthoujam Jibanchand, K Rambha Devi,
MTech student MTech student Assistant Professor
Manipur Institute of Manipur Institute of Manipur Institute of
Technology Technology Technology

ABSTRACT
Standard penetration Test (SPT) is a common field test to predict the behaviour of coarse grained soils. However, it is
used widely in all types of soil due to its simplicity and cost effectiveness. This study makes an attempt to study the
applicability of the existing correlations between SPT number and undrained shear strength of fine grained soils of
Imphal by comparing the predicted and the laboratory values of shear strength of fine grained soils in Imphal. A
correlation to predict the undrained shear strength from the SPT values for the soils of Imphal is also presented.

Introduction:
The SPT is a common field test originally designed to determine the relative density of cohesionless soils but
is currently the most popular and economical method to empirically determine the soil strength and bearing
capacity of soil. However, SPT is recommended mainly for determining strength of coarse soils and its use
should be restricted to qualitative evaluation of the soil profile only in clayey soils (British Standard 2007a,
p50). British Standards 2010 states that ―if an empirical relationship is used in the analysis,it shall be clearly
established that it is relevant for the prevailing ground condition‖ (British Standard 2010, p23). SPT is mainly
useful under conditions of financial and time limitations in a project as also where obtaining undisturbed
samples of soil becomes difficult. Under such conditions, various correlations of SPT number can be used to
estimate the geotechnical parameters and obtain the bearing capacity of shallow foundations or carrying
capacity of piles.
Terzaghi was the first to realise that the penetration resistance of the split-spoon sampler could provide useful
in situ test data and he, along with Harry Mohr correlated the SPT numbers with various properties of soils,
including the relative density of sands, consistency and unconfined compressive strength of clays, and
allowable bearing pressure on sands and clays and the first published SPT correlations appeared in Terzaghi
and Peck (1948). Peck et al(1953) noted that SPT values correlated better for sands than for fine soils. Other
researchers like Dé court (1990), Nixon (1982), Ajayi and Balogum (1988) also correlated the field SPT
with the undrained strength of fine grained soils . The influence of plasticity index on the strength was
incorporated in the correlations of fine grained soils with SPT values (Sanglerat 1972; Stroud 1974; Sowers
1979; Sirvikaya & Togrol 2002).
The soils found in Imphal valley of Manipur, India, consists mainly of clayey or silty clay with intermediate to
high plasticity(CI, CH, CI-MI). Data used in this study are collected from soil investigation reports of various
project works carried in Imphal valley. The SPT values and the laboratory undrained strength obtained from
laboratory tests were correlated and compared with the predicted values by various researchers.

Testing method:
The Standard Penetration test carried out at site is according to Indian Standard conforming to IS 2131-1981
Standard Penetration Test 1992. Split spoon samplers attached at the ends of drill rods are lowered in
boreholes at depths where the SPT is to be carried out. The sampler is driven into the soil for a distance of
450mm by blows of a drop hammer of 65kg falling vertically and falling freely from a height of 750mm. The
number of blows required to penetrate every 150mm is recorded and the number of blows required to
penetrate the last 300mm is recorded as SPT number N at that particular depth. The number of blows required
to penetrate the first 150mm is disregarded. The SPT is carried out every 1m to 1.5m interval or whenever
there is a change in the soil profile.

250 Ngangbam Bulbul Singh, Ningthoujam Jibanchand, K Rambha Devi

 International Journal of Engineering Technology Science and Research
IJETSR
www.ijetsr.com
ISSN 2394 – 3386
Volume 4, Issue 3
March 2017

Laboratory tests were carried out on undisturbed samples collected at various depths in order to classify the
soils from sieve analysis, hydrometer tests and Atterberg's limits. The natural water content, specific gravity,
density, undrained strength and consolidation parameters were also determined from tests conforming to
relevant Indian Standards in all the projects.

Results and Discussion:

About 200 data from various projects around Imphal are used for analysis and undrained shear strength of
these soils are predicted from the correlations given in Table 1 and compared with those obtained from the
laboratory tests. It is observed that the observed values of su fit best with those predicted by Terzaghi and Peck
(1967), Stroud(1974), and Sivrikaya and Togrol (2002). These are shown in Figs. 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c)
respectively.
Table 1 : Correlations between undrained shear strength(su) and SPT(N)
Researchers Soil type Undrained shear strength
Terzaghi & Peck (1967) Fine-grained soil 6.25N

Sanglerat (1972) Silty clay 12.5N

Clay 10N
Hara et al. (1974) Fine-grained soil 29N0.72
Stroud (1974) PI<20 (6-7)N

20<PI<30 (4-5)N
PI>30 4.2N
Sowers (1979) Highly plastic soil 12.5N
Medium plastic clay 7.5N
Low plastic soil 3.75N
Nixon (1982) Clay 12N

Décourt (1990) Clay 12.5N

15N60

Sivrikaya & Togrol (2002) Highly plastic soil 4.85N field

6.82N60

Low plastic soil 3.35Nfield

4.93N60
Fine-grained soil 4.32N field
6.18N60
Hettiarachchi & Brown (2009) Fine-grained soil 4.1N60

It is observed in Fig. 1(a) that the observed and predicted values match reasonably for low SPT numbers (less
than 20) but there is substantial deviation for SPT values higher than 20. Similar observation was made by
Behpoor and Ghahramani(1989). The laboratory values, however, are lower than the predicted values even
for N values less than 20.

251 Ngangbam Bulbul Singh, Ningthoujam Jibanchand, K Rambha Devi

 International Journal of Engineering Technology Science and Research
IJETSR
www.ijetsr.com
ISSN 2394 – 3386
Volume 4, Issue 3
March 2017

3.0 3.0
Terzaghi &Peck (1967) Stroud(1974)
Undrained strength su (kg/cm2)

Present data 2.5 Present data

2.5

Undrained strength su (kg/cm2)

2.0 2.0

1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
Field SPT N Field SPT N
350
Stroud(1974)
300
Undrained strength su (kg/cm2)

250
y = 4.943x
200 R² = 0.804
150
100
50
0
0 10 20 30 40
Field SPT N

(a) (b)

300 300
Sivrikaya & Toğrol (2002) Present data
250 Present data 250
Undrained strength su (kPa)
Undrained strength su (kPa)

200 200 su = 4.94N

R² = 0.804
150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 20 40
Field SPT N Field SPT N
(c) (d)
Fig. 1: Comparison of undrained strength of laboratory values and from correlations with SPT values by
(a)Terzaghi and Peck (1967), (b) Stroud (1974) , (c) Sivrikaya and Togrol (2002) and (d) present study

252 Ngangbam Bulbul Singh, Ningthoujam Jibanchand, K Rambha Devi

 International Journal of Engineering Technology Science and Research
IJETSR
www.ijetsr.com
ISSN 2394 – 3386
Volume 4, Issue 3
March 2017

The effect of plasticity of the soils on undrained strength can be observed from Figs 1(b) and 1(c). The
correlations which include the plasticity of the soils in predicting the strength fits better with the observed
values for both low and high values of SPT as is observed from these figures.
A general equation to predict the undrained strength of Imphal fine grained soil without considering the
plasticity of the soil can be given as
su= 4.94N (kPa) with (r2= 0.804).
As the plasticity of the soil affects the undrained strength of the soil, an attempt has been made to predict the
strength by categorising the soil into three groups according to their plasticity indices as those with PI<20,
20<PI<30 and PI>30. The su versus N values of the laboratory and predicted values for PI<20 by Stroud are
shown in Figs 2(a) and those by Sivrikaya and Togrol in 2(b). Similarly Figs 3(a) and (b) show for 20<PI<30
and Figs 4(a)and (b) for PI>30.
From these figures, it is seen that Stroud's relationship fits better for Imphal soils with all ranges of plasticity
whereas Sivrikaya and Togrol's relationship deviates for low plastic soils. For Imphal valley soils the
following correlations are proposed for three ranges of plasticity
For PI<20, su= 5.4 N (kPa) with r2=0.808
20<PI<30, su= 5.0 N (kPa) with r2=0.747
PI>30, su= 4.7N (kPa) with r2=0.878
300 350
Sivrikaya & Toğrol (2002) PI<20
Stroud(1974) PI<20 300
250 Present data
Undrained strength su (kPa)

Undrained strength su (kPa)

su = 0.050N 250
200 R² = 0.818
200
150
150
100
100
50 50

0 0
0 10 Field20 0 5 10 15 20 25
SPT N 30 40
Field SPT N

(a) (b)
Fig. 2 : Relation between su and SPT N of the laboratory and predicted values by (a)
Stroud(1974) and (b) Sivrikaya and Togrol (2002) for PI<20
350
350
Stroud(1974) 20<2PI<30 Sivrikaya & Toğrol (2002)
300 300 20<PI<30
Present data
Undrained strength su (kPa)

250
Undrained strength su (kPa)

250
200 200
su = 5.027N
150 150
R² = 0.744
100 100
50 50
0 0
0 10 Field20
SPT N 30 40 0 10 Field20
SPT N 30 40
(a) (b)
Fig. 3 : Relation between su and SPT N of the laboratory and predicted values by (a)
Stroud(1974) and (b) Sivrikaya and Togrol (2002) for 20<PI<30
253 Ngangbam Bulbul Singh, Ningthoujam Jibanchand, K Rambha Devi
 International Journal of Engineering Technology Science and Research
IJETSR
www.ijetsr.com
ISSN 2394 – 3386
Volume 4, Issue 3
March 2017

350
PI>30 350
Stroud(1974) Sivrikaya & Toğrol (2002) PI>30
300
300 Present data

Undrained strength su (kPa)

Undrained strength su (kPa)

250
250
200 su = 4.660 N 200
R² = 0.878
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0 10 20 30 40
Field SPT N 0 10 Field20
SPT N 30 40

(a) (b)
Fig. 4 : Relation between su and SPT N of the laboratory and predicted values by (a)
Stroud(1974) and (b) Sivrikaya and Togrol (2002) for PI>30

Conclusion:
From this study of relationship between laboratory undrained strength s u with SPT for fine grained soils of
Imphal, it is observed that existing correlations which take the effect of plasticity into account correlate better
than those which do not take effect of plasticity into account. For the soil of Imphal, correlations for fine
grained soils grouped into three categories based on their plasticity indices are suggested. However, these are
not a substitute of laboratory tests and more data may be included to study the exactness of these empirical
formulae.

Acknowledgement:
The authors extend their profound gratefulness to Public Works Department, Government of Manipur, for
making available the borehole logs and laboratory test data of their various projects.

References:
1. Ajayi, L.A. and Balogum, L.A. (1988) ―Penetration testing in tropical lateritic and residual soils – Nigerian
experience,‖ Penetration Testing, ISOPT-1: 315-328 . Rotterdam: Balkema.
2. Behpoor, L. and Jahanandish, A. (1989). "Correlation of SPT to strength and modulus of elasticity of cohesive
soils, 12th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, ISSMFE, Rio do Janeiro,
Brazil, 175-178.
3. British Standard (2007a) Eurocode 7 – Geotechnical design –Part 2: Ground investigation and testing. British
Standard Institution, BS EN 1997-2:2007, ISBN 0 580 50569 0.
4. British Standard (2010) Eurocode 7 – Geotechnical design –Part 1: General rules. United Kingdom, British
Standard Institution, BS EN 1997– 1:2004 – Incorporating corrigendum February 2009, ISBN 978 0 580 67106
7.
5. Décourt, L. (1990) ―The Standard Penetration Test,‖ State of the Art Report, Norwegian Geotechnical Institute
Publication, vol. 179 , 1-12. Part ΙΙ. Oslo, Norway.
6. Hara, A., Ohta, T., Niwa, M., Tanaka, S., and Banno, T. (1974) ―Shear modulus and shear strength of cohesive
soils,‖ Soils and Foundation., 14(3), 1-12.
7. 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, No. 6.
8. IS 2131-1981. Method for standard penetration test for soils. Bureau of Indian Standards .

254 Ngangbam Bulbul Singh, Ningthoujam Jibanchand, K Rambha Devi

 International Journal of Engineering Technology Science and Research
IJETSR
www.ijetsr.com
ISSN 2394 – 3386
Volume 4, Issue 3
March 2017

9. Nassaji, F. and Kalantari, B.(2011). "SPT Capability to Estimate Undrained Shear Strength of Fine Grained
Soils of Tehran, Iran," Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 16, Bund.N, 1229-1238
10. Nixon, I.K., (1982). ―Standard penetration test: state of the art report,‖ Proceedings of the 2nd European
Symposium on Penetration Testing, Amsterdam.
11. Peck, R. B.; Hanson, W. E.; and Thornburn, T. H. (1953). Foundation Engineering: John Wiley & Sons, New
York, 410 p.
12. Sanglerat, G. (1972). ―The Penetration and Soil Exploration; Interpretation of Penetration Diagrams — Theory
and Practice,‖ Elsevier Publishing Co, Amsterdam. 464 pp
13. Sivrikaya, O. and Togrol, E. (2002) ―Relations between SPT-N and q Intern.Congress on Advances Civil
engineering, Istanbul, Turkey, pp. 943-952
14. Sowers, G. F. (1979) ―Introductory Soil Mechanics and Foundations,‖ 4 edition. Macmillan, 621, New York.
15. Stroud, M. A. (1974) ―The standard penetration test in insensitive clays and soft rock,‖ Proceedings of the 1st
European Symposium on Penetration Testing, Sweden: Stockholm, vol. 2(2), 367-375.
16. Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R.B. (1967) ―Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice,‖ John Wiley, NewYork. 729.

255 Ngangbam Bulbul Singh, Ningthoujam Jibanchand, K Rambha Devi