SPT-CPT Correlations for Nile Delta Silty Sand Deposits in Egypt

M.M. Shahien
University of Tanta, Tanta, & Hamza Associates, Cairo, Egypt

A.H. Albatal
Ministryof Public Works and Highways, Sanaa, Yemen

ABSTRACT: The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) is the most commonly used in-situ test in Egypt,
while the Cone Penetrations Test (CPT) becomes more popular each day. Since geotechnical engineers
are more familiar with design procedures based on SPT results, it is crucial to identify a correlation between the results of SPT (N) value and CPT test results based on field measurements in the local delta region. This paper reviews existing correlations between the results of both SPT and CPT in the literature
starting from Meyerhof (1956) and Sutherland (1963) until the most recent Robertson (2012). The existing correlations depend on grain size, fines content or the soil behavior type index, Ic. The paper, then,
uses the results of soil investigations in major sites in Egypt where results of both SPT and CPT, together
with grain size distributions, are available for the Nile Delta silty sand deposits. These results are used to
evaluate the existing correlations. At the end, two correlations were proposed for silty sand deposits in
Egypt.
1 INTRODUCTION
The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) is the most commonly used in-situ test in Egypt. The majority of
geotechnical engineers in Egypt are more familiar with geotechnical design procedures and estimation
of geotechnical parameters based on SPT results. Starting from the early nineties, the Cone Penetration
Test (CPT) was introduced to the geotechnical engineering practice in Egypt. In the past15 years, the
CPT has became more popular especially in relatively large projects. In spite of the increase in the
popularity of CPT in Egypt, it is common practice to carry out both SPT and CPT in the same project
especially in large size projects. The accumulation of results of both SPT and CPT at the same site for a
number of projects in the Nile Delta deposits in Egypt inspired the authors to investigate SPT-CPT
correlations.
This paper reviews existing correlations between the SPT and CPT in the literature. The paper, then,
uses the results of soil investigations in major sites in Egypt where results of both SPT and CPT are
available for the Nile Delta silty sand deposits. These results are used to test, verify, confirm, or modify
the existing correlations.

2 STANDARD PENETRATION TESTS (SPT)

Deatils of the SPT are contained ASTM D1586. In spite of the fact that the name of SPT is Standard
Penetration Test with the word Standard, it is not completelystandard neither equipments wise nor
procedure wise resulting in variability and non-repeatability in the results. The influence of the details
or procedures of carrying out the test and the equipment used during the test was investigated and

reviewed by many investigators (e.g. Schmartmann and Palacios; 1979, Seed et al., 1985; Skempton,
1986; Kulhawy and Mayne, 1990; Clayton, 1995; Bowels, 1996; Robertson and Wride, 1998; Aggour
and Radding, 2001; and Sabatini et al., 2002).
The SPT N value is influenced by; a) borehole diameter, b) using or not using a liner inside the
borehole, c) level of water or drilling mud in the borehole as compared to level of ground water, d)
diameter of the sampler used in the test, e) type of hammer used in the test, f) means of lifting and
releasing the hammer, g) depth of the test or length of drilling rods, and h) other deficiencies such as
verticality of the hammer and rigidity of rods connections. Some of the factors such as c) and h) can be
taken care of by direct supervision and good practice. Correction factors for other factors are reported in
the literature, as shown below.
The most influencial and variational factors on reported N values are related to type of hammer and
means of lifting and releasing the hammer. These factors that depend on type of hammer and the local
practice in each country result in only a portion of intended applied energy reaching the sampler. The
ratio of delivered energy to the theoretical applied energy is known as the hammer efficiency. Most of
geotechnical engineering practices and correlations are based on N -values corresponding to hammer
efficiency of 60% (N60) as suggested by Seed et al. (1985). Corrections to SPT N for hammer
efficiencies, as well as for other factors listed above, can be found in Seed et al. (1985), Skempton
(1986), Clayton (1995), Bowels (1996) and Robertson and Wride (1998).
3 CONE PENETRATION TESTS (CPT)
Details of the CPT are contained in ASTM D5778. It is possible to classify the soil using CPT results
using classification chart (e.g. Robertson, 1990) based on the normalized tip resistance, Q, and
normalized friction ratio, F, and thus estimate the grain characteristics of soils directly from CPT results.
The boundaries between different soils in Robertson (1990) chart can be approximated as concentric
circles (Jefferies and Davies, 1993). The radius of these circles, termed the Soil Behavior Type Index,
SBT Ic, (Robertson and Wride 1998) is calculated using the following equation:

I c 3.47 log Q log F 1.22

2 0.5

Q q c vo / Pa Pa / vo'

(1)
(2)

(3)
F f s / q c vo 100%
where vo and vo are the total and effective overburden stresses, respectively; Pa is the reference
pressure, equal to 100 kPa and n is exponent that is dependent on type of soil. Originally, Robertson
(1990) used value of n = 1.0. Robertson and Wride (1998) suggested that n = 0.5 in case of sand and n =
1.0 in case of cohesive soils.

4 SPT-CPT EXISTING CORRELATIONS

4.1 Historical Evolution for Purposes of SPT-CPT Correlations
The evolution of the development of and use of the SPT-CPT correlations in the literature started as
early as mid fifties of the last century. At the time, the SPT was the most commonly used field test to
determine the geotechnical parameters of granular materials due to both its simplicity and cost in
addition to presence of several well-established SPT-based geotechnical design techniques in the
literature. Due to its reliability, repeatability and standardization, the CPT, on the other hand, has been

regarded as an alternative to the SPT. Thus there was need to convert CPT qc to SPT N to use SPT N
based design procedures (e.g. Meyerhof, 1956; and Sutherland, 1963).
Well established correlations between SPT N60 and qc , together with measured N values and qc, can
be used to assess the SPT hammer energy level as suggested by Douglas (1982). Such exercise is carried
out in Egypt by El-Sherbiny and Salem (2013) to assess hammer energy levels of Donut and Safety
hammers used in Egypt. Based on the work by El-Sherbiny and Salem (2013) the average energy for the
hammers used in Egypt are 49% for Donut and 60% for Safety hammers.
4.2 Factors Influence the Correlations
The SPT-CPT correlations were reviewed by several investigators in the literature (e.g. Schmertmann,
1976; Robertson et al., 1983; Jamiolkowski et al., 1985; Seed & DeAlba, 1986; Chin et al., 1988;
Kulhawy and Mayne,1990; Jefferies and Davies, 1993; Stark and Olson, 1995; Lunne et al., 1997;
Suzuki et al., 1998; Baez et al., 2000; and Ozan 2003). The SPT-CPT correlations or relationships
depend on several variables that could be grouped in three categories; 1) SPT related variables, 2) CPT
related variables and 3) material or soil related variables. Not accounting appropriately for the above
mentioned variables contribute significantly to presence of scatter in any developed SPT-CPT
correlations.
4.2.1 SPT related variables
As discussed earlier, SPT N values are dependent on test procedures and equipments. As N values are
dependent on level of energy received by the sampler, the correlation of SPT-CPT is dependent on that
level of energy. Thus, correction of N values for received energy is required (Douglas, 1982; Robertson
et al., 1983; Jamiolkowski et al., 1985; Chin et al., 1988; and Lunne et al., 1997). Most of recent
correlations rely on N-values corrected to hammer efficiency of 60% (N60).
4.2.2 CPT related variables
The CPT should be corrected for penetration induced pore water pressure (Campanella et al., 1982) and
for thin layer effect (Vreugdenhil et al., 1994). Other than the case of cohesive layers, pore water
pressure correction is not significant. Furthermore, correction for thin layer effect is not commonly used
during the development of SPT-CPT correlations as development of such correlations in
nohomogeneous layers with thin layers is difficult.
4.2.3 Soil related variables
The SPT-CPT correlation is dependent on type of soil and thus grain properties (Sutherland, 1963; and
Schmertmann, 1970), presence of gravel (Robertson et al., 1983; and Androus and Youd, 1989),
stratification and non-homogeneity (Robertson et al., 1983), and soil density (Douglass, 1982; Idriss &
Boulanger, 2004; and Souza et al., 2012). The grain properties can be in the form of median particle size
(Muromachi and Kobayashi, 1980; and Robertson et al., 1983). Other form of grain size can be fines
content (Jamiolkowski et al., 1985; and Chin et al., 1988). Soil type or grain size can be expressed by the
SBT index, Ic, (Jefferi es and Davies, 1993; and Robertson and Wride, 1998). Presence of gravel
significantly influences N values, however, percentage of gravel content can not be accurately sampled
during SPT. The stratification and non-homogeneity in cohessionless deposits can cause abrupt changes
in CPT but usually missed by SPT. The ratio of qc/N is dependent on soil density. The ratio is higher in
loose sand as compared to that in dense sand. The SPT is a dynamic test during which penetrationinduced porewater pressure might develop. The excess porewater pressure is positive in case of loose
sand while it is negative in case of dense sand. Thus, the resulting N is reduced in case of loose sand
while N is increased in case of dense sand. The CPT, on the other hand, is a static drained test. Such an
effect is amplified in the presence of silts and fines in the sand.

4.3 Existing Correlations

The existing correlations could be grouped in four categories as summarised in Table 1. The comments
in the following paragraph are applicable to the correlations in Table 1.
In most of the correlations, with exception of correlations [17] and [18], the independent variable is
the ratio qc/Pa/NEr where qc is the cone tip resistance, Pa is a reference pressure of 100 kPa and NEr is
SPT N values with Er is the energy ratio of the hammer used in the test. If Er is missing, this means that
the energy ratio is not known. The dependent variables could be median grain size (Category A), fines
content (Category B), or SBT index (Category C). In case the correlation has the density of the soil as
influencial variable, then the correlation has dependent variable of either N (e.g. correlations [7], [11]
and [16]) or qc (e.g correlations [15] and [16]). Some of these correlations may require iteration during
applications. In some correlations, the authors of this paper used the data or the graphical relationship in
the original reference and quantified the correlation in the empirical expressions shown in Table 1. In
case of using the correlation for estimating SPT N60 from the CPT results, it is important to estimate the
fines content for the sake of using the results in liquefaction analysis. The correlations used to estimate
FC from CPT results are summarized in Table 2.
Table 1. Summary of Existing SPT-CPT Correlations
No.
Reference
Correlation
[A] Correlations Based on Median Grain Size, D50
[1]
Muromachi and Kobayashi (1982) (qc/Pa)/N = 5.48 +1.36 log10 D50
[2]
Robertson et al. (1983)
(qc/Pa)/N55=7.5(D50)0.26
[3]
Burland and Burbidge (1985)
(qc/Pa)/N=8.0(D50)0.30
[4]
Seed and DeAlba (1986)
(qc/Pa)/N60=6.0(D50)0.24
[5]
Andrus and Youd (1989)
(qc/Pa)/N60=4.95(D50)0.168
[6]
Kulhawy and Mayne (1990)
(qc/Pa)/N=5.44(D50)0.26
[7]
Suzuki et al. (1998)
(qc/Pa)/N=11.1(D50)0.261
(qc/Pa)/N=8.4(D50)0.225
(qc/Pa)/N=6.0(D50)0.165
[B] Correlations Based on Fines Content, FC%
[8]
Jamiolkowski et al. (1985)
(qc/Pa)/N64 = 4.90 0.03xFC(%)
[9]
Chin et al. (1988)
(qc/Pa)/N55 = 4.70 0.05xFC(%)
[10]
Kulhawy and Mayne (1990)
(qc/Pa)/N = 4.25 0.024 FC(%)
[11]
Suzuki et al. (1998)
(qc/Pa)/N=0.0026FC2-0.263FC+12.34
(qc/Pa)/N=0.00085FC2-0.120FC+8.733
(qc/Pa)/N=0.001FC2-0.059FC+5.59
[C] Correlations Based on Soil Behavior Type Index, Ic
[12]
Jeffries and Davies (1993)
(qc/Pa)/N60 = 8.5(1-Ic/4.75)
[13]
Lunne et al (1997)
(qc/Pa)/N60 = 8.5(1-Ic/4.6)
(qc/Pa)/N60 = 10(1.1268-0.2817Ic)
(qc/Pa)/N = 31.25exp(-0.68Ic)
(qc/Pa)/N = 18.60exp(-0.54Ic)
(qc/Pa)/N = 10.21exp(-0.35Ic)
[D] Correlations Based on Other Variables or Other Forms
[16]
Idriss and Boulanger (2004)
(qc1/Pa)/(N1)60=(2.092Dr+2.224)3.788/46(Dr)2
Dr=0.478(qc1/Pa)0.264-1.063, (qc1/Pa>21) or
Dr=((N1)60/46)0.5
[17]
Hayati and Andrus (2009)
(N1)60CS=0.356(qc1-CS)0.851
[14]
[15]

[18]

Robertson (2012)
Suzuki et al. (1998)

Souza et al. (2012)

qc/Pa = 10.6 (N60)0.71

Comment
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
0N<10 (a)
10N<30 (a)
30N (a)
(a)
0N<10 (a)
10N<30 (a)
30N, FC20 (a)
Modified definition of Ic
based on Rbertson and
Wride (1998)

0qt<5 (a)
5qt<15 (a)
15qt (a)
qc1 and (N1)60 are qc and
N60, respectively, corrected for vo.
Holocene Sand FC<20%
Ic<2.25

FC<10%

(a)The authors of this paper interpreted data of original reference to come up with the empirical expression.

5 INVESTIGATED SITES AND GEOTECHNICAL DATA

Comprehensive geotechnical investigation campaigns were carried out in ten sites of major projects
along the north coast and within the Delta of the Nile River of Egypt. The ten sites provide full coverage
of the Nile Delta deposits starting from Idku at west of the Nile Delta, to Metobus within the Nile Delta,
to Damietta, to El-Gamil and Port Said further east of the Delta. Three of these sites were reported in
Hight et al. (2000), Hamza et al. (2002), (2003) and (2005) and seven of these sites were reported by
Hamza and Shahien (2009) The stratification of the sites consist of silty sand top layer over very soft to
medium stiff clay layer over sand over stiff to hard clay. The thickness of the soft clay layer tends to
thicken as moving from west to east of the Delta (Hamza et al., 2005). The data used in this paper are
concerned with the silty sand top layer and that under the surface soft clay in Damietta III.
Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) was performed on sand layers in accordance with ASTM D 1586.
The tests were carried out in boreholes that were 101 mm in diameter. The boreholes were mechanically
drilled using rotarry drilling machines. No liner/casing was used in the boreholes. The SPT test was
performed using a split-spoon sampler having 50.8-mm outside diameter and 35 mm inside diameter and
about 600 mm in length. The split-spoon sampler was driven into the bottom of the borehole by means
of 63.5-kg automatic trip hammer that was released to fall freely along a guide from a height of 760 mm.
Lifting and releasing the weight was performed mechanically. The automatic trip hammer had a an
average estimated energy of 73% (Table 4). The measured SPT N values were recorded.
The sand samples recovered in the sampler during the tests were used for classifications and
determination of grain size distribution. Thus, both median grain size, D50, and fines content passing
seive No. 200, FC, were determined.
Piezocone Penetration Tests with pore water pressure measurements (CPTU) were performed at the
sites. A l0 cm2 Piezocone was used to carry out the testing. Records were made at 2 cm intervals. At
each tested depth; (qc), pore water pressures behind cone (u2) and (fs) were measured. Typical CPTU
records at some of the sites under study were shown in Hight et al. (2000), Hamza et al. (2003) and
Hamza et al. (2005). The corrected tip resistance, qt, can be calculated as qt = qc + (1-)u2, where
is the cone net area ratio. For the tested sand layers, qt was almost equal to qc. The average qc
and fs over 30 cm were determined at the same depth where the SPT N value was recorded in the nearest
bore hole. Typical distance between CPTU and SPT was in the range of 2m to 25m. The average qc,
average fs, measured SPT N value, D50 and FC were grouped for each point. Data records were grouped
for a total of 112 points in this study. Summary of the collected data to be used in this study is shown in
Table 3.
The correction procedures by Seed et al. (1985), Skempton (1986), Clayton (1995), and Robertson
and Wride (1998) were used, together with the above mentioned configurations of SPT used in this
study, to correct SPT N values to N60. Table 4 summrises the corrections applicable to measured N
values and the correction factors used to correct N values measured in the Egyptian sites to N60.
6 EVALUATION OF DATA AND EXISTING CORRELATIONS
The SBT index, Ic, is plotted versus D50 and FC in Figures 1 and 2, respectively. In spite of the scatter, the index Ic
decreases with the increase in D50, and increases with the increase in FC. Suzuki et al. (1998) suggested that Ic can
be correlated to D50 and/or FC. Such suggestion is confirmed by the data in Figures 1 and 2. Attempts to correlate
Ic to D50 in empirical expression is rare in the literature. On the other hand, the empirical expressions listed in Table 2 between Ic and FC are shown on Figure 2. In general, there is consistent trend between the empirical correlations and the data; however, the empirical correlations tend to underestimate FC for silty sand deposits in Egypt.
Figure 3 shows a plot of D50 vesrsus FC. For FC< 30%, there is relatively wide scatter with the general trend of
decrease in D50 with the increase in FC. For FC greater than about 35%, D50 tends to be almost constant in the
range between 0.075 mm and 0.15 mm.

Table 2. Summary of existing fines content-CPT correlations

No.
[1]

Reference
Robertson and wride (1998)

[2]

Idriss and Boulanger (2008)

[3]

Yi (2010)

Correlation
FC(%) =0
FC(%)=1.75(Ic)3.25-3.7
FC(%)=2.8(Ic)2.6

Comment
Ic<1.26
1.26<Ic<3.5
Based on data from
Suzuki et al. (1998)
Ic<1.31

FC(%) =0
FC(%)=43.67Ic-57.2
+10sin(((Ic-2.325)/1.015))
FC(%)=63.62Ic-103.59

1.31<Ic<2.325
2.325<Ic<3.2

Table 3. Summary of the statistics of data records collected in this study.

Site
Idku II
El-Gamil
Nobaria
Metobus
Damietta I
Damietta IIa
Damietta IIb
Damietta III
PortSaid II
PortSaid III
Total

q c,
MPa

Sy
m
b.

No.
of
Pts.

a
b
c
f
e
h
j
g
i
d
10

19
5
19
11
9
6
13
10
18
2

Range
1-9
3-12.5
3-11.5
3-17
4-12.5
3-9.5
3-12.5
8-25.5
6.5-17
5-12

Min
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.09
0.08
0.19
0.08
0.10

Max
0.20
0.19
0.42
0.22
0.20
0.22
0.24
0.33
0.30
0.11

Avg.
0.15
0.11
0.32
0.02
0.13
0.17
0.15
0.26
0.15
0.11

Min
7.0
4.0
3.7
8.0
6.0
5.0
10.0
10.0
7.0
17.5

Max
48.0
50.0
16.5
47.5
47.5
44.0
46.0
28.0
47.0
18.0

Avg.
25.24
29.60
8.25
21.41
27.39
25.67
24.96
14.30
26.78
17.75

Min
2
7
8
8
18
11
12
12
15
24

Max
19
17
66
38
34
25
44
39
75
25

Avg.
8.70
11.20
25.26
26.27
26.22
18.50
22.93
28.80
30.67
24.50

Min
0.79
0.55
4.30
3.00
4.80
2.00
6.00
4.50
1.50
0.45

Max
8.60
5.50
24.30
17.00
10.50
10.75
10.00
24.00
18.00
10.00

Avg.
3.53
2.72
11.09
9.68
7.70
5.93
7.19
15.46
9.18
5.23

112

1-25.5

0.08

0.42

3.7

48

75

0.45

24.3

Depth
m

D50,
mm

FC,
%

Table 4. Correction factors to convert Nmeasured to N60 used in the sites in this study
Factor

Rod Length
CR

Rod Length
4m
4m to 6m
6m to 10m
>10m

Borehole Diam.
Sampling Method
CB
CS
Skempton (1986)
65 to 115 mm
No Liner

0.75
0.85
0.95
1.00

1.00

1.20

Correction
N60=NCRCBCSCE

1.10
1.24
1.39
1.46

1.22

4.0

4.0

3.5

3.5
3.0

2.5

2.0

Idriss and Boulanger (2008)

Robertson and Wride (1998)

3.0

Soil Behavior Type Index, Ic

Soil Behavior Type Index, Ic

Energy Ratio
CE
Clayton (1995)
Automatic Trip Hammer
(Energy Ratio = 73%)

1.5
1.0

2.5
2.0
1.5

Yi (2010)

1.0
Proposed For Silty Sands in Egypt
0.5

0.5

a
d
g
j

b
e
h
Seed and De Alba, 1986

c
f
i
Bu

0.0

0.0
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Median Grain Size, mm

Figure 1. Soil behavior type index versus D50

0.6

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Fine Content, %

Figure 2. Soil behavior type index versus fines content

0.6

10.00

9.00
8.00

0.4

(qc/Pa)/N or (qc/Pa)/N60

Median Grain Size, D50, mm

0.5

0.3

0.2

7.00

6.00

Muromachi and
Kobayashi (1982)
Suzuki et al. (1998)
0<N<10
10<N<30
30<N

Burland and
Burbidge (1985)
Robertson
et. al. (1983)

5.00
4.00
3.00

Anderus and
Youd (1989)

2.00
0.1

Seed and Alba (1986)

1.00
0.00
0.01

0
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Kulhawy and Mayne (1990)

50

0.1

Fines Content, FC, %

Figure 3. Median grain size versus fines content

Suzuki et al. (1998)
0<N<10
10<N<30
30<N

9.00

(qc/Pa)/N or (qc/Pa)/N60

8.00
7.00
6.00

Figure 4. SPT-CPT correlations based on D50

10.00

8.00

Jamiolkowski et al. (1985)

5.00

Kulhawy and Mayne (1990)

4.00

Suzuki et al. (1998)

0<qc<5
5<qc<15
15<qc

9.00

(qc/Pa)/N or (qc/Pa)/N60

10.00

Median Grain Size, D50, mm

3.00

7.00

6.00

5.00
4.00
Jefferies & Davis (1993)
& Lunne et al. (1997)

3.00
2.00

2.00

1.00

Chin et al. (1988)

1.00

0.00
1.000

0.00
0

10

20

30

40

Fines Content, FC, %

Figure 5. SPT-CPT correlations based on FC

50

Robertson (2012)
1.500

2.000

2.500

3.000

3.500

4.000

Soil Behavior Type Index, Ic

Figure 6. SPT-CPT correlations based on SBT index

The ratio (qc/Pa)/N60 of the data in this study is plotted versus D50, FC and SBT Ic in Figures 4, 5 and
6, respectively. The correlations of categories A, B and C in Table 1 are also shown on Figures 4, 5 and
6, respectively. In general, the ratio (qc/Pa)/N60 of the silty sands of Egypt is in the range of about 0.5 to
8 with the center of gravity of the data in the range of 1 to 5. The general trend of the data is in
agreement of the prediction values by the correlations in Table 1. However, the existing correlations
tend to overestimate the ratio of qc to N for the sites in this study. It should be noted that, in addition to
the natural variability, the influential factors and thus sources of scatter discussed above contributes to
the scatter in the figures. The relatively wide variations among the predictions are believed to be mainly
due to rod energy ratio in each correlation. The data and predictions shown in Figures 4, 5 and 6 suggest
the need to update and/or propose SPT-CPT correlations for the silty sand of Nile river delta deposits in
Egypt.
7 PROPOSED CORRELATIONS
The variables to be considered for SPT-CPT correlation depend on the use of the correlation. If qc is to
be estimated from SPT, then the available data that can be used in the correlation include grain properties (D50 and FC) and N60. On the other hand, if N60 is to be estimated from CPT, then the available data
that can be used include SBT index, Ic, beside qc.
One of the major scatter in the correlation based on D50 is variability in FC for same D50
(Jamiolkowski et al., 1985 and Chin et al., 1988). The data in Figure 3 confirm such fact. For D50 in the

range 0.1 to 0.2 mm, Figure 3 suggests that FC for such a narrow range of D50 can be in the range of 0
up to 50%. Therefore, the authors believe that the presence of both D50 and FC in the correlation shall
contribute in reducing the scatter. Furthemore, the dependence of the ratio (qc/Pa)/N60 on the density of
the soil is the drive behind considering N60, as an indication to the densness of the soil, to be one of the
variables that can be used to predict the ratio (qc/Pa)/N60. Figure 7 shows the proposed correlation to
predict qc form SPT results for silty sand deposits of the Nile Delta. The correlation depends on D50, FC
and N60 as input variables.

[(qc/Pa)/N60]/[(Pa/qc)0.65]

250.0
200.0
150.0
100.0

For Silty Sands of Nile River Delta Deposits

Pa 0.26 x exp8.221 I c 4.5

N 60
qc Pa 0.65

qc

R2 = 0.55
Based on Data Figure (2)

FC (%) 0.853I c

5.55

50.0
0.0
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

[1-(Ic/4.5)]

Figure 7. Proposed SPT-CPT correlations based on D50 Figure 8. Proposed SPT-CPT correlations based on
and FC
SBT index

In similar manner, Figure 8 shows the proposed correlation to predict N60 and FC from CPT results
for silty sand deposits of the Nile Delta. The correlation predicts the ratio of (qc/Pa)/N60 depending on
the SBT index, Ic, and qc. The reason for presence of qc as an input variable in the correlation; is to take
into account the denssness of the soil. The SBT index, Ic, can be predicted based on CPT results using
equations 1, 2 and 3. It should be noted, thought, a value of 1.0 is used for the exponent n in Equation 2
for this study. Because, FC should be available in the prediction package, FC can be predicted based on
Ic using the equation indicated in Figure 8 based on the data in Figure 2.
8 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The existing SPT-CPT correlations were reviewed in this paper. The review considered; a) the historical
evolution of the need for SPT-CPT correlations, b) the factors that influence the correlation; c) sources
of scatter in the correlations, and d) the existing correlations.
Comprehensive geotechnical investigation campaigns were carried out in ten sites of major projects
along the north coast and within the Delta of the Nile River of Egypt.Both SPT and CPT tests were
carried out in each site. Each borehole used was paired with the closest CPT profile carried out in the
site within 2 to 25 m from the borehole. Each measured SPT N value of the silty sand deposits corrected
to N60, together with D50 and FC determined using recovered samples, was paired with average CPT
results (qc and fs) over 30 cm at the same depth. Total of 112 set of records was used in this study.
The evaluation of existing correlations using the data of silty sand deposits of Egypt resulted in; a)
general agreement in trend between the data and the predicted values of the correlations; b) the
correlations tend to overestimate the ratio of qc/N for the data considered in this study; and c) the need to
update SPT-CPT correlations for the silty sand deposits of the Nile River Delta.
Two correlations were proposed for silty sand deposits in this study. One correlation was proposed to
estimate qc from SPT results based on D50, FC and N60. The other correlation was proposed to estimate
N60 and FC from CPT results based on qc and SBT index Ic.

9 ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors wish to express their appreciation to "Hamza Associates" for the cooperation during the
course of carrying out the field and laboratory tests and Dr. M. Hamza for making the data available.
10 REFERENCES
Aggour, M.S., and Radding, W.R. 2001.Standard penetration test (SPT) correction. Research report No.
SP007B48, Maryland department of transportation.
Andrus, R.D. and Youd, T.L. 1989. Penetration tests in liquefiable gravels. Proc., 12th Int. Conf. Soil Mech.
Found. Eng., Rio de Janero,Brazil, 679-682.
ASTM D 1586 Standard Test Method for Penetration Test andplit-Barrel Sampling of Soils.
ASTM D5778-95 Standard Test Method for Performing Electronic Friction Cone and Piezocone Penetration Testing of Soils
Baez, J.I., Martin, G.R. and Youd, T. L. 2000).Comparison of SPT-CPT liquefaction evaluations and CPT interpretations, in Innovations and applications in geotechnical site characterization, Geo-Denver 2000, ASCE,
GSP No. 97.
Bowles, J.E. 1996. Foundation analysis and design. 5th ed. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Burland, J. B., and Burbidge, M. C. 1985.Settlement of foundations on sand and gravel, Proc. Inst. Civil.Engrs,
Part 1, Vol. 78, Dec., pp. 1325-1381.
Campanella, R.G., Gillespie, D. and Robertson, P.K. 1982. Pore Pressures During Cone Penetration Testing,
Proceedings, 2nd European Symposium on Penetration Testing, pp.507-512.
Chin, C.T., Duann, S.W. and Kao, T.C. 1988. SPT-CPT correlations for granular soils, Proceedings of International Symposium on Penetration Testing, ISOPT-1, Orlando, USA, Balkema, Roterdam, Vol. 1, pp. 335-339.
Clayton, C.R.I. 1995. The Standard Penetration Test (SPT): Methods and Use. CIRIA Report No. 143
Douglas, B.J. 1982. SPT blowcount variability correlated to the CPT, Proceedings of the 2nd European Symposium on Penetration Testing, Amsterdam, (1), pp 41- 46.
El-Sherbiny, R.M., and Salem, M.A. 2013. Evaluation of SPT energy for Donut and Safety hammers using CPT
measurements in Egypt, Ain Shams Engineering Journal, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2013.04.001
Hamza, M., Shahien, M. and Ibrahim, M. 2003. Ground characterization of Soft Deposits in Western Nile Delta,
Proc. 13thRegional African Conf. on Soil Mech. Geotec. Eng., Morocco.
Hamza, M., Shahien, M. and Ibrahim, M. 2005. Characterization and undrained shear strength of Nile delta soft
deposits using piezocone, Proc. 16th Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. Geotech. Eng., Osaka, Japan
Hamza, M. and Shahien, M. 2009. Effective stress shear strength parameters from piezocone, Proc.17th Int. Conf.
on Soil Mech. Geotech. Eng., Alexandria, Egypt.
Hamza, M. and Shahien, M. 2013.Compressibility parameters of cohesive soils from piezocone, Proc.18th Int.
Conf. on Soil Mech.Geotech.Eng., Paris, France.
Hayati, H. and Andrus, D.H. 2009.Updated Liquefaction Resistance Correction Factors for Aged Sands. J. Geotech. andGeoenviron. Eng., ASCE, (11/2009), 1683-1692
Hight, D.W., Hamza, M. and ElSayed, A.S. 2000.Engineering characterization of the Nile Delta clays,
Proc.Yokohma 2000.
Idriss, I.M., and Boulanger, R.W. 2004. Semi-empirical procedures for evaluating liquefaction potential during
earthquakes. Proc. of 11thICSDEE/3rdICEGEProceedings,Stallion Press, Vol. 1, 32-56.
Idriss, I. M., and Boulanger, R. W. 2008.Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes, EERI Publication MNO-12.
Jamiolkowski, M., Baldi, G., Bellotti, R., Ghionna, V., and Pasqualini1985.Penetration resistance and liquefaction
of sands, Proc. of 11thInt. Conf. on Soil Mech. Found.Eng., San Francisco, USA, Vol. 4, pp. 1891-1896.
Jefferies, M.G. and Davies, M.P. 1993. Use of CPTU to estimate equivalent SPT N60 .Geotech.Testing
J.;16(4):45868.
Kullhawy, F.H. and Mayne, P.H. 1990. Manual on estimating soil properties for foundation design.EPRI Report.
Lunne, T., Robertson, R.K., and Powell, J.J. M. 1997. Cone penetration testing in geotechnical practice. London:
Blackie Academic & Professional.
Meyerhof , G.G. 1956. Penetration tests and bearing capacity of cohe-sionless soils.J. of Soil Mech. Found.,
ASCE; 82(1).
Muromachi, T., and Kobayashi, S. 1980. On the observed variation of qc/N values due to grain size, Proceedings
of Sounding Symposium, JSSMFE, Tokyo, pp. 151-154.
Muromachi, T., and Kobayashi, S. 1982. Comparative study of static and dynamic penetration tests currently in
use in Japan, Proceedings of the 2nd European Symp. on Penetration Testing, Amsterdam, (1), pp 297-302.
Ozan, C. (2003). Estimation of grain characteristics of soils by using cone penetration test (CPT) data, MSc Thesis, The Middle East Technical University, Turkey, 214p.

Robertson. P.K. 1990. Soil classification using the cone penetration test, Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
27(1),151-8.
Robertson, P.K. (2012. Interpretation of in-situ tests some insights, Proc. 4th Int. Conf. on Geotechnical & Geophysical Site Characterization, ISC4, Brazil, 1, pp 1-22.
Robertson PK, Campanella RG, Wightman A. 1983. SPTCPT correlations.J GeotechEng, ASCE
1983;109(11):144959 .
Robertson, P.K.,andWride, C.E. 1997. Cyclic liquefaction and its evaluation based on the SPT and CPT. In: Proc.
of the national center for earthquake engineering research, NCEER. Report no. 970022.
Sabatini, P.J., Bachus, R.C., Mayne, P.W., Schneider, J.A., andZettler, T.E. 2002. Geotechnical engineering circular no. 5: evaluation of soil and rock properties. Report No. FHWA-IF-02-034.
Schmertmann, J.H. 1970. Static cone to compute static settlement over sand.J. Soil Mech. Found., ASCE;
96(3):101143 .
Schmartmann, J. H. 1976. Predicting the qc/N Ratio Interpreting the Dynamics of the Standard Penetration Test,
University of Florida Report to the Department of Transportation, Florida
Schmartmann, J. H. and Palacios, A. 1979. Energy Dynamics of SPT, J. Geotech. Eng., ASCE, 105(8): 909-926.
Seed, H.B., and De Alba, P. 1986. Use of SPT and CPT tests for evaluating the liquefaction resistance of sands,
Proceedings of In Situ 86, ASCE, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 6, pp. 281-302.
Seed H.B., Tokimastu, K., Harder, L.F., and Chung, R.F. 1985. Influence of SPT procedures in soil liquefaction
resistance evaluations. J. Geotech. Eng., ASCE;111(12) .
Skempton, A.W. 1986. Standard penetration test procedures and the effects in sands of overburden pressure, relative density, particle size, ageing and over consolidation. Geotechnique ; 36(3) .
Souza, J.M.S., Danziger, B.R., and Danziger, F.A.B. 2012. The influence of the relative density of sands in SPT
and CPT correlations, Journal of Soils and Rocks, Sao Paulo, 35(1), pp. 99-113.
Stark, T.D. and Olson, S.M. 1995. Liquefaction resistance using CPT and field case histories, J. Geotech.Eng.
ASCE, 121(12), 856-869.
Sutherland, M. B. 1963. The use of insitu test to estimate the allowable bearing pressure of cohesionless soils,
Structural Engineering, London, Vol. 21, No. 6, March.
Suzuki, Y., Sanematsu, T., and Tokimatsu, K. 1998. Correlation between SPT and seismic CPT. Proceedingsof
Conference on Geotechnical Site Characterization, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp.1375380.
Vreugdenhil, R., Davis, R. and Berrill, J. 1994. Interpretation of cone penetration results in multilayared soils,
Int. J. Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 18(9),585-99
Yi, F. 2010. Case Study of CPT Application to Evaluate Seismic Settlement in Dry Sand, Proceedings of
2ndInternational Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing, Huntington Beach, California, USA.