Talk:Standard penetration test

Problems with the test

The edits which User:Yoshi123Yoshi made were well-intentioned, but needed significant editing, because the information wasn't entirely accurate, and because it placed undue weight on the problems of the test. A Wikipedia article should not start with a listing of the problems of the article subject - I moved the problems section to below a description of the test and its uses, where it belongs. I left out the reference link provided because I cannot read Japanese and thus cannot verify that it actually supports the re-written section. Argyriou (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Argyriou mailed me,User:Yoshi123Yoshi, pointing out what he calls the problems with what I wrote:

Before this, one cannot delete the source link and conclude unverifiable simply because he cannot read the foreign language. One can always ask others for help or use an interpreter software. Wikipedia:Verifiability mentions that non-English foreign documents are just fine. Besides, the source is the ja:PWRI, the independent administrative institution of Japanese government.

What I did was that summarizing the web article of the PWRI, the Public Work Research Institute of Japan - Be careful! Weak layers and Standard Penetration Test. The article pointed out three major problems of the test:

1.This test uses a boring machine to present soil strength as N-value by driving a sampler into the ground for 30cm by blows from a slide hammer, and N-value resolution is per 1m so data only represents 30% of entire depth.
User:Argyriou's Comment: is not actually a problem with the test, but with the method used in Japan to report the test results. In the U.S., one N-value isn't taken to represent a full one-meter interval, but only the 30 cm (or shorter) interval over which the sampler was driven.
User:Yoshi123Yoshi's comment: I understand. This only applies to Japan, and the US civil industry analyze the ground consecutively, but the source also points out the interval is not always 30cm. This seems to be true in the US as well. And instead of deleting, one could point out this as the problem of the Japanese civil industry.

2. Measured data are neither linear scaling nor normal distribution, but logarithmic normal distribution.
User:Argyriou's Comment: doesn't actually mean anything - there's a difference between a "scaling" and a "distribution".
User:Yoshi123Yoshi: Soil strength is very wide ranged from the N-value zero to super hard rock, and if the researchers would like to be able to analyze the wide range of data, the scale needs to be exponential.

3. The method employees such a primitive method counting a number of blows of a slide hammer, it cannot collect accurate data for weak soil layers.
User:Argyriou's Comment: The primitiveness of the method is not *why* it is inaccurate for weak soils.
User:Yoshi123Yoshi's comment: The source does not use the term “primitive.” The source says “Problematic N-value zero.” But the hammer uses the accelerated force, and strong force tends to drive away everything.
One can tell that there is a great difference in how the force is applied to a matter using a sledgehammer pounding or using a drill and slowly squeezing out. The results are limited to whole numbers for a specific driving interval. This is very true, and the use of sledgehammer is the source of the problem. In this 21st century or the high-tech century, is the use of sledgehammer and counting the blows the most sophisticated method to analyze the delicate and sensitive matter such as the ground? This is why I used *primitive.*

From here is based on other document, but it does support my point.

Even if SPT N-value is consecutively measured, the sledgehammer drives in the sampler with acceleration. At the presence of gravels easily crackable by the boring machine, the N-value will be the average of the gravels and that location. If the gravel is relatively strong, the blow will be consumed with the gravel's entire surface area so at the weak layer the entire surface area of the gravels will be measured, and the resulting N-value will be bigger even at the presence of the weak layer.

A sliding layer that would cause a landslide is a couple of centimeter thickness and slide with water so one cannot detect the sliding layers with the standard penetration method.

Recently there have been many landslides due to this reason; with the boring machine it is very hard to detect this sliding layers. Especially, the method cannot detect 0 to 3 N-value weak layers.

Some words could have been strong, but I do not believe they were wrong at all. I believe the discussion is essential to improve everything. I welcome feedback. Thank you.

Yoshi123Yoshi (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Further discussion

To BMK. I suppose this is what I need to do.

1. User:jim.henderson's editing in Boring(earth) is fine with me. His editing was very reasonable and I fully accepts his action.
2. I moved the SPT problem into an appropriate location.
3. PWRI and NARO are as legitimate as they could be and are very careful about what they write. It is like IEEE in the US. To know more PWRI and NARO, For NARO: http://www.naro.affrc.go.jp/english/index.html, for PWRI: https://www.pwri.go.jp/eindex.html It provides info about NARO and PWRI in English. For more info, you can google them.
4. Can you, Argyriou, find someone translate for you? If it makes you happy, I would do that, but NARO article has 26 pages of technical writing comparing the boring machine and NSWS.
5. The following is the link of English academic paper of NSWS: http://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/120003726151. The author is Associate Ph.D Shinya Inazumi from National Institute of Technology, Akashi Colldge, teaching civil engineering. You can contact him for more info.
6. I never deleted User:Argyriou's writings. His content is right, and I respected his writing, but I need to say his writing is very very generalized end up missing crucial points.
7. And User:Argyriou cannot delete my writings and make the PWRI source link, which I used as a reference for my writing, as his reference. Anyone who has actually read the PWRI article know he has never read it. I would not mind anyone to utilize the PWRI source as their refs, but as long as they actually read the source. As mentioned in the above discussion, the PWRI article clearly points out three problems of SPT.
8. User:Argyriou mailed me a following message a while ago when I added the NARO and NSWS:

The stuff you added to standard penetration test was poorly written, and doesn't provide any real useful informaiton. There is probably a place for an article about the Swedish Weight Sounding machine, but it should be its own article, not a sentence with a link to an article unreadable by most readers of the English Wikipedia. Changes to a test which isn't the standard penetration test don't belong in an article on the standard penetration test.

My answer:
You are right. I'd love to add more info about NARO article and NSWS so peole can learn from it.
NSWS measures the ground as converted N-value. This value has been tested in the lab along with the triaxial test and proven to be accurate and consistent with the results of the triaxial test. And at numerous venues NSWS has been tested along the boring machines and SWS machines and proven to be consistent.　SPT N-value measured by the boring machine is an estimation of the soil strength since it uses the sledgehammer to pound the ground; if there is a weak layer underneath a strong layer in the ground, the boring machine cannot detect the presence of the weak layer or it is more right to say the SPT N-value is the average of the layers because the force of the hammer just penetrate layers all the way. And the SWS machine cannot penetrate strong layerｓ or gravels. But NSWS can penetrate gravels and detect a weak layer underneath a strong layer by automatically stopping and reapplying a pressure from zero N.
Although NSWS has started its development as an improved SWS, its capability cannot be confined within a scope of SWS; I believe that a boring machine measures the soil strengh as SPT N-value which is the basis of SPT method, and SWS measures the soil strength based on the boring machine SPT method and calculates converted N-value. Although NSWS can calcuate converted N-value, NSWS's underlying method is not based on SPT N-value at all. NSWS measures the soil strength as converted N-value just to prove consistency with the boring machine and SWS. This is why I wrote about NSWS and NARO article in SPT article; NSWS has overcome the defects of the conventional boring machines and SWS, and it can analyze the soil in very accurate manner.
And NSWS has 1.08 cm data resolution which is far finer than other conventional machines. I provided the English academic paper link above.　I believe it will provide you enough info. Yoshi123Yoshi (talk) 23:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

SPT N-value analyzed by the boring machine is an estimation of the soil strength since it uses the sledgehammer to pound the ground; if there is a weak layer underneath a strong layer in the ground, the boring machine cannot detect the presence of the weak layer and evaluates it as a strong layer because the force of the hammer just penetrate layers all the way.

This is factually wrong. First, the "boring machine" does not "analyze" the SPT N-Value. An SPT is run in a borehole which is created by a "boring machine". Later, an engineer analyzes the results. Second, if there is a weak layer in the interval over which the SPT is run, it will show up in the test results.

I'm also going to remove the factually incorrect information you added to the "Problems" section, because it's clear you don't have sufficient understanding of geotechnical engineering to accurately contribute to this article.

Argyriou (talk) 14:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

To Argyriou 1. This misuse of "analyze" has to do more with my English. English is not my native tongue. I know the SPT count a number of blows within an interval of 30cm, and that becomes N-value. Thank you for pointing out. I will change to measure.

2. To my claim "SPT N-value measured by the boring machine is an estimation of the soil strength since it uses the sledgehammer to pound the ground," you mentioned "if there is a weak layer in the interval over which the SPT is run, it will show up in the test results." This, I need to ask how and this is the situation I’d like to ask you how the SPT would measure correctly.

In Japan, 30cm interval is split in three, 10cm per each and an operator records the number of blows to reach the bottom of 10cm, 20cm, and lastly 30cm. According to the procedure of Wikipedia SPT article, the US splits 30cm into half and counts a number of blows for each.

• 
  Three soil layers with 10cm depth for each

Say, this 30cm depth of ground has three distinct layers with a depth of 10cm for each. The first 10cm layers has N-value of 3 so if there were a 30cm layer with N-value of 3, the SPT can reach the bottom of the layer with three blows, and the first should stop at 10cm depth. This is what I mean by that the first layer has N-value of 3. The middle layer is empty, and the bottom layer has N-value of 3 as well.

I’d like to ask how the SPT can measure the strength of the above-mentioned ground correctly.

3. I am very willing to discuss with you, and I have never deleted your writing. If I find the error in my writings, I will take it back, correct, or delete. But you have to let me do it with my own hand. Please do not rush to your conclusion and delete my writings.

4. Like I asked in the last discussion, you made a PWRI source link as a reference for your writing. In the talk page you specifically said you cannot read Japanese. I have read it, and although it is about SPT problems associated with weak layers as a title says, the content is quite different from your writing. Have you actually read it??? If so, can you describe me the contents of the article.

Yoshi123Yoshi (talk) 00:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

To Argyriou Ok, I see you said "I left out the reference link provided because I cannot read Japanese and thus cannot verify that it actually supports the re-written section." But it is just strange for you to leave a link as a reference for your writing. Not everyone will check a talk page, it will give them a wrong impression.

When you say something, you say this can be done, and blah blah is factually wrong, but you never explain how so?

Yoshi123Yoshi (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

You said "if there is a weak layer in the interval over which the SPT is run, it will show up in the test results," but the SPT is only run within an interval of 30cm out of 50cm. This means 20cm, or 40% is discarded. If you do not call this estimation, I do not know what it is!! And if one tries to measure all depth, one needs to conduct the SPT on three different holes. This is impractical and costs too much. One more thing, you specifically said you cannot read Japanese, yet you made the PWRI link as a reference for your writing. I remove the PWRI reference from your writing because it is obvious you never read the article. One more thing, I am undoing your deletion of my writing because you have not said which part of PWRI summary is factually wrong and how so?

Yoshi123Yoshi (talk) 02:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

About PWRI Summary

Although I made a note the 1st point only applies to Japan, now I understand more about SPT theory and its problems. SPT procedure is more less the same in any countires: SPT measure a 30 cm interval out of 50 cm, and the rest, 20 cm, does not get measure. This is 40% loss of the entire borehole data, and I know many operators skip next 50 cm so the borehole gets measured only every other 50 cm: This is what the PWRI article means by 70% losss of data. The primary problem is its cost, I believe.219.106.94.239 (talk) 05:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Take your shit elsewhere, Yoshi

User:Yoshi123Yoshi, I have explained repeatedly that the crap you are adding to the article is irrelevant to an article about the Standard Penetration Test. Just because you are unable to accept that the edits you are making to this article are full of shit doesn't mean you ahve the right to continually reinsert your shit into this article. Argyriou (talk) 03:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Why is it irrelevant? All you say is "it is factually wrong," or "it is irrelevant." But you never say why it is factually wrong, or why it is irrelevant. To me you are simply avoiding a discussion. You can start discussing by answering my questions mentioned above. And you need to watch your mouth. Yoshi123Yoshi (talk) 10:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Overcoming SPT Problems

Okey User:Yoshi123Yoshi lets look at this section.

• The title is a bit questionable. I'd suggest something like "alternatives to standard penetration test"
• "that has overcome the conventional SPT problem" I'd suggests something of the lines of "claims the following advantages over the conventional SPT"
• "The NSWS was developed with the specific aim to encounter the recent weather abnormalities and natural hazard, saving human lives" Could you clarify what you are trying to say here?
• "It is compact, weighs only 70kg, and highly-mobile, suited to measure the ground in the crowded residential areas." A bit POV. I'd suggests something like "The NSWS weighs 70kg and its designers claim that it is well suited to measure the ground in the crowded residential areas"
• "And it costs about only half of what used to cost with the conventional SPT test and triaxial compression test." again I'd make this a claim and attribute it to someone (the designers or whoever is making it).
• "A Diagonal investigation of the ground and self-scuttling by NSWS on YouTube" generally we shouldn't have inline youtube links in wikipedia articles.

©Geni (talk) 23:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

http://www.academia.edu/11004480/A_Presentation_of_Soil_Investigation_Example_for_Residentaial_Embankment_on_Inclined_Rock_Mass_and_a_Proposal_of_Reinforcement_Material_and_Method

The above link is the another paper uploaded by the creator himself. The paper is a report conducting soil survey at Amagasaki, a upscale residential area using NSWS. The comparison with SPT and the conventional SWS is made as well. Co-writers are Inazumi, Shinya, the associate Ph.D in civil engineer and Nishimura, an employee　from Nippon Steel & Sumikin Slag Products Co.,Ltd.

http://www.academia.edu/13677158/Investigation_at_the_Bottom_of_Railway_and_an_Embankment_by_Sounding_Method This paper was used for the presentation at Kinki Regional Development Bureau (http://www.kkr.mlit.go.jp/en/)
If you check out his academia page, there are more papers in English.

About the cost thing, it is written in pdf uploaded by NARO (http://www.naro.affrc.go.jp/nkk/introduction/files/bstzondeshikenman_1.pdf). It is written in a second page of the PDF,
The following is the copy of that part from the pdf:
この調査方法は、ため池の現地で室内三軸圧縮試験と同様なせん断試験を行う方法であり、短期間かつ低コストに堤体の安定計算に必要な強度定数を調べることができます。この方法により、ボーリング・室内三軸圧縮試験と比較して、堤体強度の調査コストを約１／２に縮減できます。
Interpretation is:
This survey method conducts a shear test , that is equivalent to the in-lab triaxial compression test, at the pond venue and enables to investigate shear strength parameters that is required for stability analysis for a dam body with low cost　and a short period of time. With this method, the survey cost of the dam body strength will be about half of the boring machine and in-lab triaxial compression test.
If you are in doubt, you can ask someone who understand Japanese to translate.
And the weather thing, the creator of NSWS, Kozo Okita, was the member of 311 earthquake disaster Committee　(https://www.jiban.or.jp/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1152%3A2008-09-15-06-47-00&catid=88%3A2008-09-15-06-45-17&Itemid=147) of the Japanese Geotechnical Society (https://www.jiban.or.jp/e/). The society released a report in June, 2012 proposing to Japanese government a use of NSWS to investigate the 311 aftermath. The book is here:https://www.jgs-shopping.net/products/detail.php?product_id=1000904434

Thank you for pointing out about youtube thing. I am ok with removing the link. Yoshi123Yoshi (talk) 02:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Further Discussion about Argyriou's Act

The discussion about PWRI article has been settled a while ago. It's been pointed out many times that Argyriou deleted my PWRI part and made its link as his ref. He specifically said by himself he cannot read Japanese. PWRI article is written in Japanese. He did it again. PWRI article summary is not just a local issue. SPT is a global standard, and it applies to those countries that follow the SPT procedure.

I appreciate creating a new article for NSWS, but a little care would be appreciated; instead of deleting NSWS section from SPT at all, a link would would have been nice. After all, NSWS is about SPT as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoshi123Yoshi (talk • contribs) 02:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The material you added, supposedly sourced from PWRI, is stupid and incorrect. In the past, I'd trimmed the PWRI material down to something intelligent and correct, and left the reference, but you insisted on restoring the whole mass of text every single fucking time, so I've just been removing it, as you're obviously a WP:SPA with no real interest in improving the article. Argyriou (talk) 03:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Anyone who has read this talk page would understand who makes far more sense. You kept avoiding discussion in the talk page. All you do is cussing and never provided convincing opinions.Yoshi123Yoshi (talk) 06:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, I see your insertions as WP:FRINGEy and unsourced by WP:reliable sources. I suggest you stop trying to force your opinions into this article and Boring (earth). I suggest if you don't stop, that you should be blocked for WP:Disruptive editing. BMK (talk) 07:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)