Hello Osman,
Here' s my suggestion, yet please pardon the sarcastic tone. Reduce the
number of SPTs & soil test borings and use a modern technology such as the
CPTu, SCPTu, DMT, and/or SDMT to get your numbers for analysis. The
biggest correction for the SPT is the energy efficiency and you need
special instrumentation way beyond the simple split-spoon & drop hammer
system, thus making the energy measurements impractical. The SPT was
conceived in 1902. How many of us are still using ice boxes instead of
refrigerators and how many of us still using horse & carriage for travel in
place of cars & airplanes. If geotech doesn't move into the 21st century
with the rest of the 6 Billion on the Planet, we will be left behind. Our
salaries will remain lower than they should. Thus, it is best to forget
about correcting the SPT any further. It is time to welcome newer techniques.
Resepectfully,
Paul
At 04:57 AM 4/5/01 +0300, Osman Sivrikaya wrote:
>Dear Colleagues,
>
>I am attempting to search an interpretation of Standard Penetration Test
>(SPT) results. My investigation is focussed on the correction of the
>SPT. As you know many factors affects the SPT. Therefore some
>corrections should be made due to the equipment, test procedure and soil
>type, pore water pressure. I would like to know what corrections should
>be made for soil types and conditions. For instance, is it necessary to
>make the overburden and blow count frequency correction for cohesive
>soils. I would appreciate any suggestions concerning the SPT corrections
>for soil type and conditions. Any published papers and suggestions would
>be welcome.
>
>--
>Osman SİVRİKAYA
>
>Istanbul Technical University
>Faculty of Civil Engineering, Geotechnical Eng. Department
>Maslak Campus, 80626
>Maslak Istanbul/TURKEY
>
>Tel:++90 +212 2853745 (work)
> ++90 +212 2867249 (home)
>
>Fax:++90 +212 2853672
>
>Email:[log in to unmask]
> [log in to unmask]
>
|