Quick
Search: 
 
advanced search
 GSW Home    GeoRef Home    My GSW Alerts    Contact GSW    About GSW    Journals List    Help 
  Environmental and Engineering Geoscience   GSW 2008 Users' Group Meeting
JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

Environmental and Engineering Geoscience; May 2006; v. 12; no. 2; p. 161-179; DOI: 10.2113/12.2.161
© 2006 Association of Engineering Geologists
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by ROGERS, J. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation

Subsurface Exploration Using the Standard Penetration Test and the Cone Penetrometer Test

J. DAVID ROGERS1

1 Department of Geological Sciences & Engineering, 125 McNutt Hall, University of Missouri–Rolla, Rolla, MO 65409-0230

The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and Cone Penetrometer Test (CPT) have become industry standards for subsurface geotechnical investigations using small diameter (<8-in. [20-cm]) borings and soundings. Both procedures have evolved over a period of 100 and 70 years, respectively, and have been adopted as ASTM standards. Each procedure has certain advantages over the other, but both can elicit incorrect data under particular subsurface conditions that are often overlooked, depending on the experience of field personnel operating or logging the tests. This paper seeks to explain the operative assumptions employed in both procedures, highlight the various corrections that are commonly employed, and warn the reader of common errors in interpretation. The article concludes by stating that, under most conditions, the joint employment of SPT and CPT together has the greatest potential for characterizing sites correctly.

Key Words: Site Exploration • Site Characterization • Subsurface Exploration • Drilling • Standard Penetration Test • Cone Penetrometer







JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2008 by Association of Engineering Geologists