PENETRATION TEST

COMPARISONS: MODIFIED
CALIFORNIA VERSUS
STANDARD PENETRATION
TEST SAMPLERS

Jacqueline D.J. Bott, Keith L. Knudsen

& Charles R. Real
California Geological Survey
 Outline of talk
Why comparison is important
Review of N1,60 calculation
Conversion used to correct MCS
blows to SPT-equivalent blow count
How did we do the comparison
Location of data
Results
Conclusions so far and future work
 Why?
CGS calculates N1,60 from SPT N-values for
liquefaction analyses to help define Seismic
Hazard Zones of Required Investigation.
CGS utilizes geotechnical boring data
collected from cities & counties etc.
Consultants often use MCS instead of SPT
(ASTM 1526, 6066) for determining
penetration resistance
Need to convert MCS blows to SPT-
equivalent blow count in order to calculate
N1,60
 Review of N1,60 calculation

N1,60 = Nm.CE.CN.CR.CB. CS

Where
Nm = measured blows (using SPT sampler)
CE = Correction for hammer energy efficiency
CN = overburden correction factor (to 1 atm,)
CR = correction for short rod length
CB = Correction for borehole diameter
CS = Correction for non-standard sampler
Conversion to SPT-equivalent from
non-standard samplers

N=N(WH/4200)(2.02-1.3752)/(OD2-ID2)
(Burmister, 1948)

N=N(WH/4200)(2/OD2)
(LaCroix & Horn, 1973)

where
N = SPT-equivalent blow count
N = measured blow count
WH = hammer mass (lbs) x fall distance (in)
OD = outer diameter of non-standard sampler (in)
ID = inner diameter of non-standard sampler (in)
 Conversion factors for MCS
to SPT-equivalent blows
Using CGS Definition of MCS: ID = 2.0 in (1.875 in with
liners) & OD = 2.5 in.

0.77 Burmister (1948)

0.64 LaCroix & Horn (1973)

Other definition of MCS: ID = 2.5 in (2.4 with liners)

& OD = 3.0 in

0.65 Burmister (1948)

0.44 LaCroix & Horn (1973)
 How?
Compare consecutive samples (MCS & SPT)
from same lithologic layer in a particular
boring, that are within 5 ft of each other.
Direct comparison of two such values
cancels out factors often not reported by
consultants such as hammer energy,
borehole diameter etc.
Only CN (and rod length for shallow samples)
will be different so also compare N1,60s
 Consecutive samples taken in same lithologic layer
in a particular boring, separated by 5 ft or less

MCS-SPT MCS-MCS SPT-SPT

MCS MCS SPT

<5 ft SM <5 ft CL <5 ft ML

SPT MCS SPT

San Francisco
Bay Area Data
Sets
Los Angeles Basin
Data Sets
 SPT vs SPT - SFBA
Raw blows Converted to N1,60s
S P T B lo w s f o r S F B A d a t a ( 1 = d e e p e s t ) N 1 6 0 's f r o m S P T B lo w s f o r S F B A ( 1 = d e e p e s t )
80 80
Shallower sample

60 60
SPT Blows

N1,60
40 40

20 20

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80
SPT NM1
Blows NN1601
1,60

Deeper sample N=1121

Residuals from 1:1 relation
Raw blows Converted to N1,60s
Mean = -1.215 Mean = 0.424
SD = 11.35 SD = 12.32
300 300

0.2 0.2
200 200

0.1 0.1
100 100

0 0.0 0 0.0
-50 -30 -10 10 30 50 -50 -30 -10 10 30 50
RESIDBLOW_1 RESIDN160_1
Residuals in SPT Blows Residuals in N1,60s
Shallower - Deeper

SPT-SPT
 SPT vs SPT - LA Basin
Raw blows Converted to N1,60s
S P T B lo w s - L A B ( 1 = d e e p e s t ) N 1 6 0 c a lc u la t e d f r o m S P T B lo w s - L A B ( 1 = d e e
80 80
Shallower sample

60 60
SPT Blows

N1,60
40 40

20 20

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80
SPTNM1
Blows NN1601
1,60

Deeper sample N=805

 MCS vs MCS - SFBA
Raw blows Converted to N1,60s
M C S B lo w s f o r S F B A - ( 1 = d e e p e s t ) N 1 6 0 's f r o m M C S B lo w s - S F B A ( 1 = d e e p e s t )
80 80
Shallower sample

60 60
MCS Blows

N1,60
40 40

20 20

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80
BLOW_COUNT1
MCS Blows NN1601
1,60

Deeper sample N=1077

Residuals from 1:1 relation
Raw blows Converted to N1,60s
Mean = -0.673 Mean = 0.826
SD = 11.68 SD = 9.83
300 300

0.2 0.2
200 200

100 0.1 100 0.1

0 0.0 0 0.0
-50 -30 -10 10 30 50 -50 -30 -10 10 30 50
RESIDBLOW_1 RESIDN160_1
Residuals in MCS Blows Residuals in N1,60s
Shallower - Deeper

MCS-MCS
 MCS vs MCS - LA Basin
Raw blows Converted to N1,60s
M C S B L O W C O U N T S - L A B (1 = d e e p e r) N 1 6 0 's c o m p u t e d f r o m M C S B lo w s - L A B ( 1 = d e
80 80
Shallower sample

70

60 60

50
MCS Blows

N1,60
40 40

30

20 20

10

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 20 40 60 80
BLOW_COUNT1
MCS
SPT Blows NN1601
1,60

Deeper sample N=139

 MCS vs SPT - SFBA
Raw blows Converted to N1,60s

80 80

60 60
SPT sample

N1,60 SPT
SPT Blows

40 40

N1,60 from
20 20

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80
BLOW_COUNT
MCS Blows N1,60 NN1602
from MCS
1,60

MCS sample N=129

Residuals from 1:1 relation
Raw blows Converted to N1,60s
Mean = -7.46 Mean = -1.246
SD = 14.69 SD = 13.42

50 50

40 0.3 40 0.3

30 30
0.2 0.2
20 20

0.1 0.1
10 10

0 0.0 0 0.0
-50 -30 -10 10 30 50 -50 -30 -10 10 30 50
RESIDBLOWS_1 RESIDN160
Residuals between SPT & MCS Blows Residuals in N1,60s

MCS-SPT
 MCS vs SPT - LA Basin
Raw blows Converted to N1,60s
M C S b lo w s v s S P T b lo w s f o r L A B N 1 6 0 fro m M C S v s N 1 6 0 fro m S P T (1 ) - L A B
80 80

60 60
SPT sample

N1,60 from SPT

SPT Blows

40 40

20 20

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80
BLOW_COUNT
MCS Blows N1,60 from
N1602MCS

MCS sample N=104

Residuals from 1:1 relation
Raw blows Converted to N1,60s
Mean = -8.73 Mean = -5.07
SD = 12.51 SD = 10.78
50 50

0.4 0.4
40 40

30 0.3 30 0.3

20 0.2 20 0.2

10 0.1 10 0.1

0 0.0 0 0.0
-50 -30 -10 10 30 50 -50 -30 -10 10 30 50
RESIDBLOWS RESIDN160
Residuals between SPT & MCS Blows Residuals in N1,60s

MCS-SPT
MCS-SPT LS regression - SFBA
80
80
N160s from SPT Blows

60
60

40
40
Y=0.45x + 9.16

20
20

00
00 20
20 40
40 60
60 80
80
Adjusted N1,60s from MCS Blows
MCS-SPT LS regression - LA Basin
80
80

N160s from SPT Blows

60
60

40
40

20 Y=0.33x + 6.10
20

00
00 20
20 40
40 60
60 80
80

Adjusted N1,60s from MCS Blows

 Conclusions so far...
There is a large scatter in blow count
data - both for SPT and MCS
CGS conversion from MCS to SPT-
equivalent (N1,60) gives more consistent
results for SFBA than for LA Basin. Is
MCS defined differently in the two
locations? Is this a function of the
geology? Or related to something else?
 Lithologies for MCS-SPT data sets

SFBA LA Basin
SW SW
CH SP CL
SP
CL

ML

SM

SC

SM
SC ML GC,GM,GP
 Future work

Effect of lithology, saturation, depth,

presence of gravel, etc
Investigate why residuals are not
normally distributed
Survey Consultants as to how they
define MCS