SavedAdd your journal

Journals / International Journal of Engineering Technologies / 2026 / Cilt: 11 Sayı: 1

GIS-Based Estimation of Corrected Standard Penetration Number Using the Best Semi-Variogram Model for Naogaon Sadar

Md Mahabub Rahman(Hajee Mohammad Danesh Science and Technology University)0000-0003-1580-483X
Md. Nur Alam(Hajee Mohammad Danesh Science and Technology University)0009-0001-8058-5816
Maharullah Sarder(Hajee Mohammad Danesh Science and Technology University)0009-0003-5098-1003
Pages
1–16
Publication Date
2026-06-09
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The greatest values were recorded at 15 m, with 82.6% of the area with SPT-Nc between 38 and 51.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The objective of this study is to calculate the corrected standard penetration number (SPT-Nc) and generate SPT-Nc thematic maps using the best-fitting semi-variogram model.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The study is based on 79 standard penetration tests (SPTs) carried out at five SPT measurements per test on each borehole, at depths of 3 m, 6 m, 9 m, 12 m, and ~15 m from the ground surface.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The greatest values were recorded at 15 m, with 82.6% of the area with SPT-Nc between 38 and 51.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:GIS · Standard Penetration Number · Semi-Variogram Model

Abstract

The objective of this study is to calculate the corrected standard penetration number (SPT-Nc) and generate SPT-Nc thematic maps using the best-fitting semi-variogram model. The study is based on 79 standard penetration tests (SPTs) carried out at five SPT measurements per test on each borehole, at depths of 3 m, 6 m, 9 m, 12 m, and ~15 m from the ground surface. A number of factors, such as density, GW table, and overburden pressure, in addition to other correction factors, were introduced to obtain SPT-Nc values. The SPT-Nc at each depth was then computed with Microsoft Excel. Maps obtained as a result of this procedure were subjected to GIS-based thematic maps; for each map a different color was used to indicate the value of SPT-Nc. Maps were generated using ordinary kriging interpolation and tested with six semi-variogram models to find the best-fitting model. Among the six models, the stable, k-bessel and Gaussian semi-variogram models were selected for having the least nugget-to-sill ratio. Since underground consists of clay soil at shallow depths, SPT-Nc was less than 24 and 32 at 3 m and 6 m, respectively. At a depth of 9 m, SPT-Nc ranged from 21 to 35, covering 70.23% of the area measured. At a depth of 12 m, SPT-Nc reached a maximum of 47 due to the decrease in clay content. The greatest values were recorded at 15 m, with 82.6% of the area with SPT-Nc between 38 and 51.

🔖

Cite This Article

Rahman, M. M., Alam, M. N., Sarder, M. (2026). GIS-Based Estimation of Corrected Standard Penetration Number Using the Best Semi-Variogram Model for Naogaon Sadar. International Journal of Engineering Technologies, Cilt: 11 Sayı: 1, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.19072/ijet.1840805

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (37)

  1. Baker, R. (1984). Modeling soil variability as a random field. Journal of the International Association for Mathematical Geology, 16(5), 435-448. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01886325
  2. ASTM D1586. (2011). Standard test method for standard penetration test (SPT) and split-barrel sampling of soils. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
  3. Decourt, L. (1989). The standard penetration test, state-of-the-art report. Proc. 12th ICSMFE, Rio De Janeiro, 4, 2405-2416.
  4. Liao, S. S., & Whitman, R. V. (1986). Overburden correction factors for SPT in sand. Journal of geotechnical engineering, 112(3), 373-377. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1986)112:3(373)
  5. Ghafghazi, M., DeJong, J. T., Sturm, A. P., & Temple, C. E. (2017). Instrumented Becker penetration test. II: iBPT-SPT correlation for characterization and liquefaction assessment of gravelly soils. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 143(9), 04017063. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001718
  6. Rahman, M. M., Hossain, M. B., & Roknuzzaman, M. (2023, April). Effect of peak ground acceleration (PGA) on liquefaction behavior of subsoil: A case study of Dinajpur Sadar Upazila, Bangladesh. In American Institute of Physics Conference Series (Vol. 2713, No. 1, p. 030002). https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0129770
  7. Hossain, M. B., Roknuzzaman, M., & Rahman, M. M. (2022). Liquefaction potential evaluation by deterministic and probabilistic approaches. Civil Engineering Journal, 8(7), 1459-1481. http://dx.doi.org/10.28991/CEJ-2022-08-07-010
  8. Rahman, M. M., Thakur, S., Ahmed, S. T., & Yasmin, R. (2025). GIS-based development of liquefaction hazard and soil distribution maps for Dinajpur Sadar, Bangladesh. International Journal of Engineering and Geosciences, 11(2), 263-273. https://doi.org/10.26833/ijeg.1662672
  9. Rahman, M. M. (2025). GIS based allowable bearing capacity thematic maps of shallow foundation for Bogura District, Bangladesh. International Journal of Engineering and Geosciences, 10(3), 329-338. https://doi.org/10.26833/ijeg.1589939
  10. Rahman, M. M., & Sarder, M. (2026). GIS-based semi-variogram model selection for the preparation of Modified Mercalli Intensity map of Dinajpur Sadar, Bangladesh. International Journal of Engineering and Geosciences, 11(1), 136-148. https://doi.org/10.26833/ijeg.1656666
  11. Hossain, M. B., & Rahman, M. M. (2025). Seismic microzonation and probability of ground failure assessment caused by liquefaction for Bogura District, Bangladesh. Journal of Rehabilitation in Civil Engineering, 13(2), 222-247. https://doi.org/10.22075/jrce.2024.34111.2086
  12. Rahman, M. M., Nuhash, M. M. R., & Ray, S. (2025, December). Effect of Land Use/land Cover (LULC) Changes on Land Surface Temperature for Chuadanga, Bangladesh. In Proceedings of International Conference on Civil Engineering Research & Innovations (Vol. 12, p. 14).
  13. Rahman, M.M., Hossain, M.B., Islam, M.A., & Rahaman, M.S. (2024). Evaluation of Ground Failure Probability Caused by Soil Liquefaction for Bogura Sadar, Bangladesh. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Civil Engineering for Sustainable Development.
  14. Webster, R., & Oliver, M. A. (2007). Geostatistics for environmental scientists. John Wiley & Sons.
  15. Goovaerts, P. (1997). Geostatistics for natural resources evaluation. Oxford university press.
  16. Li, J., & Heap, A. D. (2014). Spatial interpolation methods applied in the environmental sciences: A review. Environmental Modelling & Software, 53, 173-189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2013.12.008
  17. Chen, C., Hu, K., Li, W., Li, Z., & Li, B. (2015). Three-dimensional mapping of clay content in alluvial soils using hygroscopic water content. Environmental Earth Sciences, 73(8), 4339-4346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-014-3720-9
  18. Basarir, H., Kumral, M., Karpuz, C., & Tutluoglu, L. (2010). Geostatistical modeling of spatial variability of SPT data for a borax stockpile site. Engineering Geology, 114(3-4), 154-163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2010.04.012
  19. Gomez-Hernandez, J. J., & Journel, A. G. (1990, September). Stochastic characterization of grid-block permeabilities: from point values to block tensors. In ECMOR II-2nd European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery (pp. cp-231). European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers. https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.201411102
  20. Hooshmand, A., Delghandi, M., Izadi, A., & Aali, K. A. (2011). Application of kriging and cokriging in spatial estimation of groundwater quality parameters. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 6(14), 3402-3408. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJAR11.027
  21. Sitharam, T. G., & Samui, P. (2007). Geostatistical modelling of spatial and depth variability of SPT data for Bangalore. Geomechanics and Geoengineering: An International Journal, 2(4), 307-316. https://doi.org/10.1080/17486020701678851
  22. Balasubramani, D. P., & Dodagoudar, G. R. (2022). Modelling the spatial variability of Standard Penetration Test data for Chennai City using kriging and product-sum model. Geomechanics and Geoengineering, 17(1), 92-105. https://doi.org/10.1080/17486025.2019.1707884
  23. Vessia, G., Di Curzio, D., & Castrignanò, A. (2020). Modeling 3D soil lithotypes variability through geostatistical data fusion of CPT parameters. Science of the Total Environment, 698, 134340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134340
  24. Wang, C. H., Harken, B., Osorio-Murillo, C. A., Zhu, H. H., & Rubin, Y. (2016). Bayesian approach for probabilistic site characterization assimilating borehole experiments and Cone Penetration Tests. Engineering Geology, 207, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2016.04.002
  25. Cabalar, A. F., Karabas, B., Mahmutluoglu, B., & Yildiz, O. (2021). An IDW-based GIS application for assessment of geotechnical characterization in Erzincan, Turkey. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 14(20), 2129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-021-08481-6
  26. Hossain, M. B., & Rahman, M. M. (2025). Seismic microzonation and probability of ground failure assessment caused by liquefaction for Bogura District, Bangladesh. Journal of Rehabilitation in Civil Engineering, 13(2), 222-247. https://doi.org/10.22075/jrce.2024.34111.2086
  27. Skempton, A. W. (1986). Standard penetration test procedures and the effects in sands of overburden pressure, relative density, particle size, ageing and overconsolidation. Geotechnique, 36(3), 425-447. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1986.36.3.425.
  28. Peck, R. B., Hanson, W. E., & Thornburn, T. H. (1991). Foundation engineering. John Wiley & Sons.
  29. Skempton, A. W. (1986). Standard penetration test procedures and the effects in sands of overburden pressure, relative density, particle size, ageing and overconsolidation. Geotechnique, 36(3), 425-447. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1986.36.3.425
  30. Bolton Seed, H., Tokimatsu, K., Harder, L. F., & Chung, R. M. (1985). Influence of SPT procedures in soil liquefaction resistance evaluations. Journal of geotechnical engineering, 111(12), 1425-1445. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)07339410(1985)111:12(1425)
  31. Rahman, M. M. (2019). Foundation design using standard penetration test (spt) n-value. Researchgate, 5, 1-39.
  32. Gibbs, H. (1957). Research on determining the density of sands by spoon penetration testing. 4th International Conference on SMFE, 35–39.
  33. BNBC. (2015). Bangladesh National Building Code.
  34. Bowles, J. (1998). Foundation Analysis and Design. McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA.
  35. Guo, X. D., Fu, B. J., Ma, K. M., & Chen, L. D. (2001). Utility of semivariogram for spatial variation of soil nutrients and the robust analysis of semivariogram. Journal of Environmental Sciences (China), 13(4), 453-458.
  36. Silveira, E. M. D. O., Mello, J. M. D., Acerbi, F. W., Reis, A. A. D., Withey, K. D., & Ruiz, L. A. (2017). Characterizing landscape spatial heterogeneity using semivariogram parameters derived from NDVI images. Cerne, 23(4), 413-422. https://doi.org/10.1590/01047760201723042370
  37. Kawser, U., Nath, B., & Hoque, A. (2022). Observing the influences of climatic and environmental variability over soil salinity changes in the Noakhali Coastal Regions of Bangladesh using geospatial and statistical techniques. Environmental Challenges, 6, 100429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2021.100429