×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Differences in methods for SPT correlation to relative denstiy

Differences in methods for SPT correlation to relative denstiy

Differences in methods for SPT correlation to relative denstiy

(OP)
Hi,
I'm interested in getting to the bottom of a question that's been on my mind.  I know we have some very knowledgeable participants, and I hope someone has once wondered the same thing and now has the (an) answer!

The most well known correlation for taking SPT blow counts to a relative density estimate is the ol' Holtz and Gibbs correlation.  I've reviewed and studied the original paper regarding this correlation.  Another well-known correlation is one developed by Bazarra.  The first thing I noticed when I was first introduced to these correlations, was that the Bazarra correlation yields a much lower relative density estimate for a given overburden pressure and N count than the Holtz and Gibbs correlation.  This is, of course, with all variables being equal (particle size, shape, OCR, aging, etc.), and without worrying about correcting N values, GWL effects, particle dilatancy and compression effects, and so forth.

I've also read a famous paper by Lacroix and Horn that suggests that the Bazarra method probably gives the best results when dealing with a highly oc engineered fill and the Holtz and Gibbs method is more applicable to normally consolidated, natural sand deposits.  This seemed to make sense and explain the difference to some extent.  However, I can't ignore the horz/vert stress ratio (k) attenuation with depth that occurs in an engineered fill.  In a deep fill, the lower lifts revert back to k=0.5 +/-, while the upper layers may have k values of 2 or more.  I'm wondering if anyone uses the Bazarra method in the upper 10 -15 feet or so of an engineered fill to estimate relative density, and then switches to the Holtz and Gibbs method when the k values have been reduced to near the original value of approximately 0.5.  The Bazarra method would almost always give a conservative estimate of relative density, so perhaps that’s another way of thinking of it.  I would be interested in knowing which method is more accurate for certain deposits, though.

Also, I'm already familiar with all the caveats of using estimated values of relative density determined from the SPT, so that may help simplify the responses and keep the focus to the discussion at hand.

Thanks for your comments!

RE: Differences in methods for SPT correlation to relative denstiy

(OP)
I'd like to rephrase the question;

Does anyone use the Gibbs and Holtz charts to estimate in-place relative density for natural sand deposits and/or deep engineered (controlled) fills?  If so, do you think the answer you get is good for each?

Thanks for your thoughts!

RE: Differences in methods for SPT correlation to relative denstiy

I have seen the correlations by Skepton, Meyerhof, Marcuson & Bieganousky, Gibbs & Holtz, and Skepton & Jamiolkowski, but I dont recall one by Bazarra, can you tell me what it is? Did he create a chart solution or an equation?

RE: Differences in methods for SPT correlation to relative denstiy

Personally, I use both the Marcuson & Bieganousky and Gibbs & Holtz approaches, then apply engineering judgement.  And I tend to lean toward the Marcuson & Bieganousky method results.  But I'm usually dealing with fine to medium natural sand deposits, not man-made fills.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members! Already a Member? Login


Resources

Taking Control of Engineering Documents
This ebook covers tips for creating and managing workflows, security best practices and protection of intellectual property, Cloud vs. on-premise software solutions, CAD file management, compliance, and more. Download Now
The Great Project Profitability Debate
A/E firms have a great opportunity to lead the world into the future, but the industry’s greatest asset—real-time data—is sitting wasted in clunky, archaic ERP platforms. Learn how real-time, fully interactive dashboards in a modern ERP allow you to unlock data that will shape the future of the world. Download Now

Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close