n:er ore:a:ion o'cynamic

cone oene:ra:ion:es:s
with particular reference to Terzaghi and Peck's chart
by D. S. TOLIA", BSc, MSc(Geotech.Eng) (UK), AMIE

SITE INVESTIGATION is a scientific pro-
cess, its main objective being to provide
definite values of soil properties for the
foundation designer and construction en-
gineer, so that an economic and safe
design can be prepared. For many years,
plate loading tests and standard penetra-
tion tests have been used and they both
yield dependable information. Field pene-
trometer methods offer considerable prac-
tical advantages, with results obtained in-
situ, quickly and inexpensively. These ad-
vantages permit testing in volume and,
thereby, ensure a better evaluaition of any
important consequences resulting from the
non-homogeneity of most foundations on
sandy soils.
The standard penetration test is tradi-
tionally used for the geotechnical inves-
tigations of sands and sandy soils. In some
parts of the world the dry dynamic cone
penetration test is also being employed
for this purpose, as it is economical and
less time-consuming. In addition, this test
is so simple that it can be carried out
by an unskilled person with ease, since
it involves no boreholes, sleeve (casing
60'one fitted to the end of the spoon spoon sampler from damage in compact
sampler and found the relation N, = N soils and gravels, as otherwise it is neces-
for sandy soils, and N,
in boreholes. Meyerhof (1956) used a 60
)
N for gravels sary to form a borehole for this test.
The second method is the dynamic cone
cone of 51mm base diameter attached to penetration test with sleeve (i.e. casing).
A-rods in boreholes and an impact energy It consists of driving a cone ahead of the
of 4 840kg.cm, finding the relationship casing so that skin friction on the shaft
as N, = N. Schultze 8r Knausenberger is eliminated. Terzaghi 8z Peck (1948)
(1957) also realised that SPT, which can- reported a dynamic Swiss cone penetro-
not be carried out on compact soils and meter in which a 33mm dia. cone attached
gravels, may be replaced by fitting a 51mm to the rod and a 43mm dia. casing were
dia. 60'one to the end of the spoon driven alternately in soft ground. Gadsby
sampler. The author also tried a 62.5mm (1971) conducted sleeved dynamic cone
dia. 60'one attached directly to A-rods penetration tests by driving a 57.1mm
and driven in boreholes with a 63.5kg dia and 60'one about 60cm ahead of
hammer falling throug'h 76cm; it was found the casing with a 63.5kg hammer and
that cone resistances were similar to 76cm fall. He found the relation N
those of standard penetration. These tests'nly
1.5N, up to 25m depth. Meardi (1971)
advantage lies in protecting the used a 48mm d'ia. casing in which a 51mm
pipe
Win
~ Drill rod

pipe) or drilling mud.

However, there is confusion and mis-
understanding regarding the testing met-
hods and the correlation of cone resis- on pipe

tance with SPT and other soil properties. Itt Settling

tank
S"mp
Bentonite
In this article, firstly, a review of the slurry
dynamic cone penetration tests and their
Nl k
is given. Secondly, proper
standardisation
interpretation with empirical equations is -z Split spoon
sampler
expressed for obtaining the relative den- I~i,
sity, allowable bearing pressure and other Push.fit type
properties of cohesionless soils on the 51.0mm dia.
60'one 62.5mm dia.
basis of the observed dynamic cone re-
fk 60'one
sistance (N,) values. (I) Cone fitted to the end (m) Wash-point dynamic cone test
of spoon sampler
Types of dynamic cone penetration
tests
Previously various investigators have
used different sizes of cones and testing
methods with which they obtained differ-
ent correlations between standard pene- Drill rod
tration resistance (N) and dynamic cone 'A'ize
resistance (N,). These methods have been
grouped in to the four categories (Fig. 1)
discussed below:
Drill rod ~ Plug
(i) Cone fitted to the end of spoon
sampler and driven in boreholes, 'pYAv~/hl~ itpaoza~
(ii) Sleeved dynamic cone penetration
test,
(iii) Wash-point dynamic cone penetra-
tion test, and
(iv) Dry dynamic cone penetration test.
The first method refers to the dynamic Casing pipe
(sleeve I
cone penetration test in boreholes. Palmer a Push-fit type cast iron cone
8r Stuart (1957) used a 51mm dia. and (62.5mm dia. & 60 )
Cone

Soil Mechanics Division, Central Road Research <IY) Dry dynamic cone test (continuous driven)
Institute, New
Delhi 110020, India. Formerly,
(Ilf Sleeved dynamic cone test
postgraduate student, Department of Civil Engin- f. Different types of dynamic cone tests
eering, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Fig.
October, 1977 37
 0 1.0 2.0 3.0
Average retie
4.0
of N,IN ~
5.0 6.0 7.0
100

90 2.45kg/cm't

80
Cone size
1) 43.75mm
2) 51.00mm
3) 56.00mm
ec
IU

n
70
4) 62.50mm
5) 68.70mm 8 c 1.41kg/cm'
6) 75.00mm co EIJ 60
O
m
e
ce 50
a
/
tll

5 co 0
s
E
C o
IJ 40
o E
O c

AL
O

/
O
30

() 20 0.0kg/cm'0

0 10 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Relative density 1'to)

10
Fig. 3. Correlation between relative density and dynamic cone
Fig. 2. Average ratio of Nc/N with depth for different cone sizes resistance at different overburden pressures in sands
(after Mohan, Aggarwal 8t Toha) (after Mohan, Aggarwal & Toha)

dia. cone with 33mm dia. shaft was The fourth method is a continuous and 60'one which exerts a minimum
operated with a similar impact energy driven dry dynamic cone penetration test. frictional resistance and can be driven to
and found the relation N, = N in sandy It requires no casing and drilling mud. In greater depth (Fig. 2). They gave the
soils. Schultze 8t Knausenberger (1957) the fiirst three methods, only point resis- following approximate relationships be-
tried two types of cones (i.e. 35mm dia. tance is determined while in this one both tween Nc and N values with depth for
and 60'one and 62mm dia. and frictional and point resistances are found silty fine sand to sand of SM to Ml soil
with casing and found it more as a total resistance. Terzaghi 8t Peck
90'one)

type:
time-consuming and difficult to operate by (1948) suggested a push-fit type 51mm Nc = 1.5 N (for a depth of 1-4m), and
hand. dia. and 60'one attached to a 33mm N,, = 1.75N (for a depth of 4-9m)
The appreciable shaft resistance, due to dia. extra strong steel pipe and driven by
the large cone and casing cross-section, means of a 73kg hammer with 76cm fall. Effect of overburden pressure on
produced during the continuous dynamic Schultze 8t Knausenberger (1957) tried Nn value
strain on the apparatus often leads to two different types of cone (35.7mm dia. Gibbs 8t Holtz (1957) have already
breakage. The casing sometimes encoun- and 60'nd 43.7mm dia. and 90'ones). shown the effect of overburden pressure
ters high resistance, and in some circum- They concluded that due to an enlarged on standard penetration tests. Similar
stances entails stopping the test even in cone base area, it could be used without effects of overburden pressure will exist
the upper strata of sub-soil. Hence it difficulty for any soil type up to a maxi- in the case of dry dynamic cone pene-
should be conceded that driving a cone mum depth of 25m. tration tests 'in addition to the increas-
without casing is simpler and more eco- Golder (1961) used a 51mm dia. and ing skin frictional resistance with depth
nomical than one with casing. 60'one attached to A-rods and driven on the periphery of drill rods. Mohan et
The third method is the wash-point dy- dry by means of a 63.5kg hammer and al (1971) have produced a chart (Fig. 3)
namic cone penetration test. Mohan 8t 76cm fall. He found the approximate re- which shows the effect of overburden
Sengupta (1970) carried out a study using lationship Nc = 1.5 N up to 7.5m for fine pressure on Nc value at different relative
a push-fit type of 62.5mm dia. and 60 sand. Desai & Roy (1968) made use of densities. Hence the ratio Nc/N will be
cone having holes on four sides above a 51mm dia. and 60'one attached to of an increasing order with an increase
the base area. Attached to the cone is A-rods and driven dry with a 63.5kg ham- of depth.
a short stem fitting a 12mm hole in a mer and 76cm fall. They found Nc = N The author suggests the following re-
plug that is screwed into the lower end up to 6m deep, and only after this depth lationship should apply between Nand
of A-rods. The cone is driven into the did they find any effect of depth on the N with increasing depth below ground
ground by means of a 63.5kg hammer Nc and N values. Desai (1970) employed level:
falling 76cm under a continuous circula- a 51mm dia. and 60'one attached to
tion of bentonite slurry through the drill A-rods and dr'iven dry using a 63.5kg Nc = N 1 +
rods and passing out from the sides of hammer and 76cm fall. He has given a
the cone. They found good agreement correlation of cone resistance (Nc) with
between the dynamic cone and standard ultimate bearing capacity of silty sands where D = depth of cone in m from G.L.
penetration resistances. by using a different correction method for
In the second and third methods, the the surcharge effect. Rodin (1961) con- Before interpreting the dynamic cone
skin friction is supposed to be eliminated ducted, for comparison, dry dynamic penetration test results, the observed N,
on the shaft by either casing or bentonite cone tests in the vicinity of a plate loading value at any particular depth should first
slurry, and hence both types of test may test pit using a 62 5mm dia. and be corrected by eliminating the effect of
be taken as similar to the standard pene- with 9680kg.cm impact energy.
60'one

overburden pressure as given below. In

tration test. Since, the author found cone
resistance equal to SPT when 62.5mm or
51mm dia. and 60 cones were driven
at corresponding SPT levels in boreholes
1m away from the SPT. In this way cone
resistance found by the second and third
methods should be equal to those of the
standard penetration resistances.
38 Ground Engineering
The dry dynamic cone penetration test
has been standardised by Mohan, Aggarwal
8t Tolia (1971) after an exhaustive study
using six different cone sizes varying from
43.75mm to 75mm dia. and each having
a 60'pex angle, adopting a standard
impact energy of 4840kg.cm. They have
recommended a push-fit type 62.5mm dia.
Fig. 3, from the intersection of the point
representing the measured Nvalue and
the overburden pressure curve at that
depth, a line is drawn vertically down-
wards to intersect the zero overburden
pressure curve. The point so obtained is
then projected horizontally to give the
corrected Nc value.
 (5
N value (h(ows) D
75
30 45 60 I
fkraaNINNNNrl

q, = 6.5kgicm N,=26

N
N=l5
6
~N=r 15

~N
N,= 23 C
E 0
Io = 13
CN
E c ttl
C
O ta N, = 20
01 aal
al

I
ttl
ta
N= 11 0CO
al
I O
q= 6.5kg/cmt sal 0 N,=17 E
c 10 10~ c N=I C
N=(5 C
0
tn
al
=14 aa
E N
al I-
o.
to
al
tn N=1 Na

N,= 10 59
al

15- 0
ca
= 6.5kg/cmt
q, N,=6
17
f N=(5
N = 61 N=l
N,=3
N=1
N =1
Sail stratum assumed homogeneous (D, = 90%)
0
0 150 300 450 600
Width of footing, cm

Fig. 4. Validity of Terzaghi and Peck's chart anillustrative Fig. 6. New penetration-allowable pressure chart
exam pie (after Mohan, Aggarwal & Tolia, 1971)

The author simplifies this method by a

simple empirical Nc-correction equation
which can also be used for higher over-
burden pressure also:

100
where N,' Nc value for zero
I'orrected
surcharge, 90
N, observed N, value at any
depth, and
80 SPT correction methods:
overburden pressure in kg/
cmz at the level of obser-
ved N, value,
70
Teng (1962), Thorburn (1963)
Mohan, AgganNa( 8t Tolia (1971) 2.81kg/cm

Validity of Terzaghi and Peck's chart

A plate bearing test is normally
ducted with the stipulation
con-
that there
zID 60
]
should be no surcharge around the plate,
and hence any correlation of the allowable
cta Eo
I Ct
os
Terzaghi 8t Peck's curve assigned by Gibbs & Holtz ~ I/
I
pressure so determined can only be pos- al
50
c0 a
I al
sible with the N-value free from over- IN /~i

burden pressure effect. Terzaghi 8( Peck's

aa
ra
I
00
+ Ja
(1948) chart grossly underestimates the ID
40 1.4kg/cm'.7kg/cm'0

C
bearing pressure and the validity of this 0
al

chart is questioned.
In the opinion of the author the original
correlation eras incorrect. They correlated
--- -+---'-+ . +M
the surface plate bearing pressure value
found at footing level with the average
N-value for a depth B (i.e. footing
I!P 0.0kg/cm

width), whereas the average N-value for

this depth is not only affected by the
overburden pressure but also increases or 10
decreases with the change of the footing
level.
This fact can be clearly demonstrated by
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
an example (Fig. 4) in which a homo-
geneous stratum of nearly 90% relative Relative density (%)
density throughout the depth has been
assumed. Now from Gibbs 8( Holtz (1957) Fig. 5. Correlation between relative density and SPT at different overburden pressures
chart (Fig. 5) corresponding to this (after Gibbs Bt Holz)

October, 1977 39
 TABLE I

bearing pressure
Observed N,. Equivalent Effective corresponding to allowable settlement
Source Site Soil
using 62.5mm N,, for col.
and 60'one 4 with kg/cm'-'llowable
Corrected
overburden
N'alue
pressure
of 2.5cm and footing width of 3m
type with impact impact (p) by Eq, 2 From chart Using From plate Remarks
energy of energy of Fig. 3 using Eq. 4 for bearing tests
9680 kg. cm 4840 kg. cm corrected observed curves
N,.'alue N,.'alue (after Rodin)
1 2 8 9 10
1. Rodin Site 1, Sand &
(1961) a gravel 75 150 0.7 62.5 ) 9.0 19.8 21.0 Above GWT
70 52.2 ) 9.0 16.6 14.3 Above GWT
58 116 0.98 39.2 ) 9.0 12.4 7.8 Above GWT
32 64 1.12 1 9.8 5.7 6.3 4.9 At GWT
25 50 1.33 14.0 4.2 4.3 3.7 At GWT

2. Rod'in Site 2, Gravel

(1961) a 18 36 0.84 13.4 4.0 4.3 63 At GWT
22 0.98 14.9 4.3 4.7 28 At GWT
31 64 1.12 19.1 5.3 6.0 5.6 At GWT
37 74 1.26 21.0 5.8 6.6 6.7 At GWT

relative density, we can find a linear in- diameter spoon than in the SPT test. This relations', which were not really correla-
crease in N-value with depth due to the clearly invalidates the Terzaghi & Peck's tions, but more truly amendments. Hence
overburden pressure effect. On the other penetration allowable pressure chart for Terzaghi & Peck's chart should be altered
hand, if we conduct the plate loading future use. directly without any devious 'correction'f

tests in a pit of 1.5m x 1.5m size at differ-
ent depths, we shall obtain a more or less
constant bearing pressure for this homo-
geneous stratum. The following three main
conclusions can be drawn from this
example:
(i) In the first instance, we cannot
directly correlate one constant pro-
perty (i.e. the allowable bearing
pressure) with the N-value, which
changes with depth under the same
conditions of constant density.
(ii) The second point is that a plate
loading test, carried out at the foot-
ing level by means of a 0.3m square
plate, reflects the contribution
the soil within a depth of only 0.6m
whereas, according to Tenaghi &
Peck's assumption, the depth B
(i.e. footing width for which an
average N-value is obtained) can
possibly include different strata and
can differ from the 'significant
by the plate loading test.
the data on which it is supposedly
Validity of existing SPT-correction based.
method
It has been mentioned above that the Allowable bearing pressure from
Terzaghi & Peck chart grossly underesti- Nc-value
mates the allowable bearing pressures. Mohan, Aggarwal & Tolia (1971) have
Gibbs & Holtz (1957) did not describe given a new cone penetration-allowable
any SPT-correction method except their pressure chart (Fig. 6) after conducting
well-known chart (Fig. 5) showing the controlled laboratory tests in a 1.5m x
effect of overburden pressure on N-value. 1.5m size pit at different relative sand
Several authors
Coffman (1960), Desai densities. Their assumptions were based
(1970), Teng (1962), Thorburn (1963), on the allowable bearing pressure found
(1964), and A 1am Singh (1975)
Al pan
have suggested that the N-value should
at footing level by plate load'ing tests,
and using Terzaghi & Peck's (1948) ex-
be corrected to reflect the influence of pression s = s, (2B/B + 1) -" and the
by effective overburden pressure. The method corrected N,-value for zero surcharge
of correction is based on increasing the conditions. In Fig. 6, the N refers to SPT-
measured N-values by drawing a line value, whereas N, refers to the corrected
vertically upwards from the intersection number of blows in the dry dynamic cone
of the point representing the measured test using a 62.5mm dia. cone. Before
N-value and the overburden pressure at us'ing this chart, the measured N,-value
that depth (Fig. 5) to intersect Terzaghi at a particular depth should first be
& Peck's dotted curve assigned by Gibbs adapted for zero overburden pressure by
depth'ffected

& Holtz (1957). Peck & Bazaraa (1969) means of any of the methods given
(iii) Thirdly, the example, Fig. 4, shows reported that this dotted curve was earlier.
clearly that the average N-value for never published by Terzaghi & Peck and On the basis of the cone penetration
a depth B (assumed 3.0m) increases the numerical values were given by Gibbs allowable pressure chart and the N,-cor-
from 23 at 2m depth to 61 at 17m & Holtz for a limiting range of N-values. rection equation (2), the author suggests
depth, whereas the allowable bear- De Mello (1971) has commented in his the following empirical equations for a
ing pressure, q found in the pit state-of-the-art Papers that most of the quick appraisal of the allowable soil pres-
at the corresponding levels will above-mentioned authors followed the sure 'in kg/cm"- of a spread footing on
remain constant as it is homogen- line of suggesting 'corrections to the cor- sand:
eous stratum. Furthermore, it is not
possible to find a unique value of
N to correlate with a constant bear- TABLE II. RELATIVE DENSITY OF SANDS ACCORDING TO THE N(,-VALUE
ing pressure. CORRECTED FOR ZERO OVERBURDEN PRESSURE
With Terzaghi & Peck's assumption, the
increased N-value so obtained has been Corrected Relative Degree of Angle of internal
correlated with the surface bearing pressure
N,,-value density (%) compactness friction (degrees)
at footing level, and this is the reason
why the Terzaghi & Peck chart under-
estimates the bearing pressures. Further
reservations may also arise, as Bazaraa
0-2
2 12
0 35
35-65
Very loose, loose ( 30
Medium 30- 36
(1967) reported that the Terzaghi & Peck
(1948) correlation was based on limited 12 22 65- 85 Dense 36-41
plate loading test data and some of the
N-values were obtained using a smaller ) 22 85 100 Very dense ) 41

40 Ground Engineering
 q=
Ne. S
for B(1.5m ... (3)
Relative density and p from
N,-values
Field measurements
(14p+ 7) Dry dynamic cone tests made at ground
(conD'nued from page 22)
level would give the minimum N,-value, can be attributed in part to the assump-
N, S B+1 whereas at depth the same soil with the tion of plane strain in the analysis whereas
or q = same relative density would give a higher the real situation is three-dimensional.
(26p+ 14) B N,-value due to the effect of overburden However the difficulty of correctly model-
pressure and the skin friction on the drill
for B) 1.5m ... (4) rods, Hence the observed N;value when
ling the top 10m of loose granular materials
is thought to be the main reason for
and for rafts on sand, corrected for zero overburden pressure discrepancy. The predicted horizontal
will give a more exact picture of the movements are in reasonable agreement
Nc S, soil parameters at a particular depth. A with the observations.
q= (5) relationship between relative density and
(20 p + 10) the angle of internal friction, 4, of sandy Conclusion
soils with the corrected N,-value is sug- In this article a few examples have been
in which B is the foundation width in gested in Table II. given of the way in which the results of
metres, field measurements have been used in the
actual measured N; Conclusions design and construction of foundations.
Nr is the
The dynamic cone penetration test is The author is conscious of the fact that
value in blows per 30cm at
very quick and economical for all types the examples have been limited in number
the overburden pressure of p
of site investigation work and in parti- and devoted largely to conditions found in
in kg/cm'-', and
cular for the design of shallow founda- the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, perhaps
S allowable settlement
is the tions. Allowable bearing pressure of sandy sufficient has been presented to demon-
of the footing in cm. soils can be predicted using Fig. 6, with strate the importance and value of field
These equations can be used directly corrected Nr-values and Equations (3) to measurements in foundation engineering.
for N-value as recorded without making (5), using directly the measured N- It has been emphasised that successful
any Ne-correction since these equations values and without resort to any further field measurements require simple, reliable
include a correction factor for the sur- corrections. The relative density and the and robust equipment which is thoroughly
charge effect. Their validity is shown in angle of internal friction may be esti- protected from accidental or wilful damage.
Table I, by comparing the actual plate mated from Table II, using the corrected The measurements require careful planning,
bearing value with values found from N,-v a I ues. preferably at the design stage, so that all
Equation (4), using the measured N,- It is apparent that considerable judge- the parties involved are fully aware of
values at the same level. Table I is worked ment is necessarily involved in evaluat- what is being done. Having made all the
out on the basis of in-situ data reported ing such relationships at the present time. plans, success depends on the dedication
by Rodin (1961). On the whole, available data from a var- and perseverance of the staff carrying
The effect of the water table on N,- iety of sources seems to provide a out the work. If possible, one person
value has not been considered in the reasonably consistent pattern, thereby in- should be responsible for the ordering,
equations above. Theoretically, settle- creasing confidence in the practical signi- acceptance, installation, reading and main-
ment increases due to submergence of ficance of the dynamic cone penetration tenance of the equipment. If responsibility
the soil for a given bearing area and test, though variations in field procedures is split failure will certainly occur once
under a given load. Obviously, because of may sometimes make it difficult to develop things become difficult on site.
this, both allowable soil pressure and the general rules. In the past quantitative interpretation
Ne-value decrease with more or less the has been hampered by analytical difficulties.
same degree. Hence, the effect of sub- Acknowledgements The advent of modern numerical methods
mergence is already reflected in the The author is grateful to Mr. W. M. of analysis has greatly improved our
measured Ne-value and this is also con- Kilkenny, Senior Lecturer, Civil Engineering ability to draw quantitative conclusions
firmed by an analysis of plate bearing Department, University of Newcastle Upon from our field measurements. Indeed, it is
tests above and below the groundwater Tyne for reviewing this article and offering here that such methods appear to have
table (Table I). helpful comment, their greatest application in geotechnics.
Experience at BRS confirms that the
most successful jobs are those in which
References the client and engineer are convinced of
1. Alpan, L. (1964): "Estimating settlement of
foundations on sands", Civil Eng, and Public
Works Rev., Vol. 59, November, 1964, pp.
Proc. 4th Panamerican Conf. on Soil Mech.
and Found, Eng., San Juan, Puerto Rico,
Vol. 1, June, 1971, pp. 1-86.
the value of the work not just for the
1415-1418. 15. Meyerhol, G. G. (1956): "Penetration tests job in hand, but in providing experience
2. Alam Singh (1975): Soil Engineering in Theory and bearing capacity of cohesionless soils", for the profession at large. The author
and Practice, 2nd Edition, Vol. 1, Asia Publish- Jour. Soil Mech, and Found Div., ASCE, believes that engineers have a responsi-
ing House, Bombay, London. Vol. 82, SM 1, January, 1956, pp. 866/119.
3. Bazaraa, A.RiS.S. (1967): "Use of the Stand- 16. Nararajan, T. K. and Tolls, D. S. (1972): bility to ensure that engineering works are
ard Penetration Test for estimating settle- "Interpretation of standard penetration test
ments of shallow foundations on sand", Ph.D. results", Proc. 3rd Southeast Asian Conf. properly monitored, not simply for safety
Thesis, University of illinois, Urbane. on Soil Engineering, Hong Kong, Vol. 1, Nov., reasons but to add to the pool of ex-
4. Collman, B. S. (1960): "Estimating the rela- 1972, pp. 53-57. perience on which the profession draws.
tive density of sands", Civil Engineering, 17. Palmer, D. J. and Stuart, J. G. (1957): "Some
ASCE, Vol. 30, No. 10, October, 1960, pp. 216- observations on the standard penetration test Sub-surface engineering has developed
219. and a correlation of the test with a new
5. Desal, M. D. and Roy, M. B. (1968): "Correla- penetrometer", Proc. 4th Int. Conf. on Soil largely on the basis of case histories
tion of dynamic cone and standard penetration Mech. and Found. Eng., London, Vol. 1, tempered with scientific knowledge. If we
tests", Jour. Indian Soc. Soil Mech. and August, 1957, pp. 231. ever reach the situation in which we
Found Eng., Vol. 7, No. 3, 1968, pp. 311. 18. Peck, R. B. and Bazaraa, A.R.S.S. (1969):
6. Desai, M. D. (1970): Sub-surface exploration Discussion: Jour, Soil Mech. and Found. Div., believe that engineering science can re-
by dynamic penetrometers, First edition, In- ASCE, Vol. 95, SM 3, May, 1969, pp. 905-909. place experience and judgement based on
dia, 1970. 19. Rodin, S. (1961): "Experience with pene-
7. Golder, H. Q. (1961): Discussion: Proc. 5th trometers with particular reference to stand- such experience, disaster is not far away.
lnt. Conf. Soil Mech 8i Found. Eng., Paris, ard penetration tests", Proc. 5th Int. Conf. As long as we adopt the habit of testing
Vol. 3, 1961, pp. 160. on Soil Mech. and Found. Eng., Paris, Vol.
8. Gadsby, J. W. (1971): Discussion: Geotech- 1, July, 1961, pp. 517-521. our theories and predictions there is no
nique, Vol. 21, No. 2, June, 1971, pp. 188-189. 20. Schultze, E. and Knausenherger, H. (1957): danger of our profession becoming com-
9. Gibbs, H. J. and Holtz, W. G. (1957): "Re- "Experience with penetrometers", Proc. 4th
search on determining the density of sands Int. Conf. on Soil Mech, and Found. Eng., placent. Nature has too many surprises
by spoon penetration testing", Proc. 4th London, Vol. 1, August, 1957, pp. 249. in store for that to happen.
Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. and Found. Eng., 21. Terzaghl, K. and Peck, R. B. (1948): Soil
I ondon, Vol. 1, August, 1957, pp. 35-39. Mechanics in Engineering Practice, Wiley and
10. Mohan, D., Aggarwal, V. S. and Tolia, D. S. Sons, New York, 1948 and 2nd Edition, 1967.
Acknowledgements
(1970): "The correlation of cone size in the 22. Tang, W. C. (1962): Foundation Design, Pren-
dynamic cone penetration test with the tice Hall, Inc., New York, 1962. The author wishes to pay tribute to the
standard penetration test", Geotechnique, Vol. 23. Thorburn, S. (1963): "Tentative correction loyalty and dedication of his colleagues in
20. No. 3, September, 1970, pp. 315-319. chart for the standard penetration test in
11. Mohan, D., Aggarwal, V. S. and Tolia, D. S. non-cohesive soils", Civil Enq, and Public the Geotechnics Division who spend so
(1971): "Bearing capacity from dynamic cone Works Review, Vol. 58, No. 683, June, 1963,
penetration tests", Indian Geotechnical Jtiur- pp. 752-753. much time in the field, often under very
nal, Vol. 1, No. 2, April, 1971, pp. 133-142. 24. Tolia, D. S. (1971): "A critical review of trying conditions, making the observations
12. Mohan, D. and Sen Gupra, D. P. (1970): Terzaqhi's penetration - allowable pressure
"The dynamic cone penetration test", Civil chart", St. Journal Institution of Engineers which form the basis of so much of the
Enqineering, ASCE, Vol. 40, No. 2, February, (India), Vol. 4, March, 1971, pp. 69-71. work of the Division. The work described
1970, pp. 49-50. 25. Tolls, D. S. (1976): "The interpretation of
forms part of the programme of the Build-
13. Meardi, G. (1971): Discussion: Geotechnique, static cone penetration tests with particular
Vol. 21, No. 2, June, 1971, pp. 184-188. reference to the influence of overburden pres- ing Research Establishment and is pub-
14. de Mello, V. F. B. (1I971): "The standard sure", M.Sc. dissertation submitted to the lished by permission of the Director.
penetration test", State-of-the-Art Papers, University of Newcastle-Upon-Tyne, 1976.
October, 1977 41
 References
Bishop, A. W. Webb, D. L. & Lewin, P. I. (1965):
"Undisturbed samples of London Clay from the
Ashford common shaft: strength-effective stress
relationships". Geotechnique, Vol. 15, 1-31.
Bi errum, L. (1967): "Engineering geology of Nor-
wegian normally-consolidated marine clays as
related to settlements of buildings". 7th Rankine
Lecture, Geotechniques, Vol. 17, 81-118.
Brelh, H. 8, Amann, P. (1974): "Time-settlement
and settlement distribution with depth in Frankfurt
Clay". Proc. Conf. on Settlement of Structures,
Brit. Geot. Soc., Pentech Press, London 1975.
141-154.
Borland, J. B. & Lord, J. A. (1969): ''The load-
deformation behawour of Middle Chalk at Mund-
ford, Norfolk. A comparison between full-scale
performances and in-situ and laboratory measure-
ments". Proc. Conf. In-situ Inv. in Soils and
Rock, ICE, London, 3-15.
Borland, J., B. Moore, J. F. A. & Smith P. D. K.
(1972): A simple and precise borehole extenso-
meter". Geotechnique, Vol. 22, 174-177.
Borland, J. B. & Moore, J. F. A. (1973): "The
measurement of ground displacement around deep
excavations". Sym. on Field Instrumentation. Brit.
Geotech. Soc.; Butterworths, London 1974, 70-84.
Burland, J. B. Sills, G. C. 8 Gibson, R. E. (1973):
"A field and theoretical study of the influence of
non-homogeneity on settlement". Proc. 8th Int
Conf. SM fk FE, Vol 1.3, 39-46.
Burland, J. B., Kea, R. & Burford, D. (1974):
"Short-term settlement of a five-storey building
on soft chalk". Conf. on Settlement of Structures,
Brit. Geot Soc., Pentech Press, London 'f975,
259-265.
Borland, J. B. & Wroth, C. P. (1974); "Settlement
of buildings and associated damage". General
Report on Session V. Proc. Conf. Settlement of
Structures, Brit. Geot. Soc., Pentech Press, Lon-
don 1975, 611-654.
Burland, J. B. & Davidson, W. (1976): "A case
study of cracking of columns supporting a silo
due to differential foundation settlement", Proc.
Conf. on Performance of Building Structures, Vol.
1, 249-267 Glasgow.
Burland, J. B. & Hancock, R. J. R. (1977):
"Underground car park at the House of Commons,
London: geotechnical aspects". The Structural En-
gineer, No. 2, Vol. 55, 87-100,
Butler, F. (1974):"Heavily over-consolidated clays",
General Report on Session 3. Proc. Conf. on
Settlement of Structures, Brit. Geotech. Soc.,
Pentech Press, London 1975, 531-578.
Chancy, J. E. (1973): "Techniques and equipment
using the surveyor's level for accurate measure-
ment of building movement". Symp. on Field
Instrumentation, Brit. Geotech. Soc., Butterworths,
London 1974, 85-99.
Co/e, K. W. & Borland, J. B. (1972): "Observa-
tions of retaining wall movements associated
with a large excavation". Proc. 5th European Conf.
SM fk FE, Madrid, April 1972, Vol. 1, 445-453.
De Jong, J. & Morgenstern, N. R. (1973): "Heave
and settlement of two tall building foundations m
Edmonton, Alberta". Can Geotech. Jnl., Vol. 10,
261-281.
Gibson, R. E., Brown, P. T. & Andrews, K. R. F.
(1971): "Some results concerning displacements
in a non-homogeneous elastic layer". Zeitschrift
fiir angewandts Mathematik und Physik, Vol. 22,
855-864.
Hannal, T. H. (1973): Foundation instrumentation,
Trans. Tech. Pub., USA.
Lacey, W. D. & Swam, H. T. (1957): ''Design for
subsidence". Architects Jnl, Vol. 126,
mining
557-570
Lambe, T. W. (1973): "Predictions in soil en-
gineering". 13th Rankine l.ecture, Geotechnique,
Vol. 23, 149-202.
Marsland, A. 8 Quarterman, R. (1974): "Further
developments of multipoint magnetic extensometers
for use in highly compressible ground''. Geo-
technique, Vol 24, 429-433.
Morton, K. 8 Au, E. (1974): ''Settlement observa-
tions on eight structures in London''. Proc. Conf
on Settlement of Structures, Brit. Geotech Soc,
Pentech Press, London 1975, 183-203.
Sills, G. C., Burland, J. B. & Czechowski, M. K
(1977): "Behaviour of an anchored diaphragm
wall in stiff clay''. Proc. 9th Int. Conf. SM
FE, Tokyo (in press).
Simons, N. E. & Som, N. H. (1970): "Settlement
of structures on clay, with particular emohasis on
London Clay''. CIRIA Report No. 22.
Skampron, A. W. l 1961): "Horizontal stresses in
an overconsolidated Eocene clay''. Proc. 5th Int.
Conf. SM & FE, Vol. 1, 351-387.
Swain, H. T. (1974): Successful design for mining
subsidence" Architects Jnl., 8 May 1974, 1047-
1054.
Terzaghi, K. (1936): Presidential Address: 1st Int.
Conf. SM si FE, Cambridge, Mass, Vol. 3, 13-18
Ward, W. H. (1974): Discussion on Session 5.
Conf on Settlement of Structures, Brit. Geotech.
Soc., Pentech Press, London 1975, 795-796.
Ward, W. H., Borland, J. B. 8 Gallois, R. W.
(1968): "Geotechnical assessment of a site at
Mundford, Norfolk, for a large proton accelerator''.
Geotechnique, Vol. 18, 399-431.
Ward, W H. 8 Burland, J. B. (1973): "The use
of ground strain measurements in civil engineer-
ing". Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc., London A, 274, 421-
428.
Whitaker, T. 8, Cooke, R. W. (1966): ''An investi-
gation of the shaft and base resistance of large
bored piles in London Clay''. Proc. Symp. on
Large Bored Piles, ICE London, 7-49.
Wroth, C. P. (1972): "Some aspects of the elastic
behaviour of overconsolidated clay". Proc. Roscoe
Memorial Symp. Foulis si Co., 347-361.
42 Ground Engineering
Precast piles
(continued from page 26)
Pile shaft still above ground level.
The inherent weakness of the one-piece
precast concrete pile was its inability to ing. There is evidence that the joints part
resis~ the stresses involved in rough handi-
'ng and hard driving. The short element
lengths of the jointed pile solve the
handling problem and the steel joint sec-
tions and rock shoes strengthen and pro-
tect the head being driven to some extent.
But poor driving techniques,
using the
wrong type of hammer for the subsoil
being penetrated, or allowing the hammer
energy to be misapplied through poor
alignment of the hammer and pile, or
badly worn leaders or helmet packings,
and the pile will quickly become damaged.
Cracks dampen the shock waves, reducing
the driving effect which presents a false
refusal. The hammer blow must always be
delivered concentrically with the pile and
the pile head must be free to twist and
move inside the driving helmet.
Dissipation of hammer energy into pile
damage, instead of pile penetration, is to drive more easily than one fitted
particularly severe on sharply raking piles.
Since driving raking piles is one of the 5-z'onnes
main advantages the system offers, this
advantage
is rapidly lost if the raking
piles cannot be driven to a satisfactory
founding stratum due to energy losses.
Hitting the pile harder with the same
hammer will only increase pile damage
with little extra penetration.
Due to the
wave action of driving stresses it is creasing the weight range of drop ham-
necessary to increase the hammer weight,
and not the height of drop, in order to
increase pile penetration without damag-
ing the pile. The stress induced in the
pile head is independent of the weight
of the hammer, but is governed by the
amplitude of the shock wave which is
dependent on the height of drop. The drop
can and should be increased to compen-
sate for the high friction losses in sharply
raked driving, or the acceptance set pact of subsequent
reduced.
Drop hammers have been the normal
type used with segmental piles. They are
simple and cheap, always work, and
have the essential facility of immediate
control of the drop which can be adapted
to different soils when driving steel piles.
But their adaptation is limited to a change
of weight when driving concrete piles,
since they should be operated at the
maximum drop which is within the safe
concrete stress.
Apart from compensating for the driv-
ing energy losses to which the segmental
system is subject, the more common use
of heavier drop hammers in the 4 precast concrete piles'', Grnd. Eng., July 1976.
The GKN sectional pile: (left) joint components; (centre) locating point positioned in
driven section prior to forming the joint; and (right) wedges driven and locked in
position to complete the joint
range for piles in excess of 20m
total driven length would ensure a theo-
retical stress wave length well in excess
of the pile length, and so avoid tensile
stresses developing in the pile during driv-
during driving, and although the amount
is insignificant in terms of subsequent
contraction when closed up by loading, it
is highly significant in terms of its effect
on the length of the stress wave and the
false set which can be read. Energy is
clearly lost in the joints, a noticeable factor
in the number and positioning of the joints
present when driving a segmental pile.
The high slenderness ratio of the pile
also induces problems of bending, both
in the section above ground level, and
below ground level, during driving, The
length of the section above ground can
be restricted, and should be in hard
driving conditions. Bending in the ground
is a phenomenom experienced in the
driving of most slender piles, particularly
raking. A flat-ended segmental pile is
likely to keep straighter and therefore
with a pointed end or rock shoe. It follows
that a bent pile will demonstrate a higher
ground resistance, but its capacity will
be the same as a straight one unless the
bend is very severe so that either the
ground or the pile is overstressed.
More efficient driving of segmental,
jointed piles would be possible with a
wder range of hammers. Apart from in-
mers to suit driving in the stiffer clays
commonly met in the UK, a single-acting
or double-acting
power hammer is more
suited to driving in the layers of cohesion-
less soils which frequently overlie clay
and soft rock deposits. But all hammers
must have their blow height restricted at
once on meeting soft soil, or hard bould-
ers, or bedrock, or the reflected stress
wave will dangerously
increase the im-
blows before they
can be reduced.
The great advantage of driven cast in
situ systems has always been that the
concrete pile shaft is placed in the ground
unstressed. Driving stresses will continue
to haunt precast systems unless this as-
pect receives close attention on these
lines, particularly in the varied subsoils
where the segmental precast pile is chal-
lenging in situ piling.
References
Broms, B. B. and Hellman: Proc. Behaviour of
Piles. ICE 1971.
Fellenius, B, H., "High quality precast concrete
piles, Grnd. Eng., March '74
Broms. B. B. and Badholm, C.: "High capacity