Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
net/publication/279482103
CITATIONS READS
4 9,630
1 author:
Abdulrahman Hamid
University of Waterloo
8 PUBLICATIONS 12 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
ASSESSMENT OF DENSITY AND SHEAR STRENGTH OF EASTERN SAUDI SAND USING DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION TEST (DCPT) View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Abdulrahman Hamid on 09 August 2015.
ABDULRAHMAN M. HAMID*
Abstract
Dynamic cone penetration test (DCPT) is widely used for field quality
assessment of soils. Its application to predict the engineering properties of soil
is globally promoted by the fact that it is difficult to obtain undisturbed soil
samples, especially when loose or submerged sandy soil is encountered. In this
review, detailed discussion is presented on the current development of DCPT
correlations with resilient modulus, relative density, California Bearing Ratio
(CBR), unconfined compressive strength, and shear strength that have been
developed for different materials in both the laboratory and the field, as well as
on the usage of DCPT in quality control of compaction of earth fills and
performance evaluation of pavement layers. In addition, the relationship of the
DCPT with other instruments such as falling weight deflectometer, nuclear
gauge, soil stiffens gauge, and plate load test, is reported. Lastly, the application
of DCPT in Saudi Arabia in recent years has been addressed in this manuscript.
Keywords: dynamic cone penetration test, falling weight deflectometer, nuclear
gauge, soil stiffens gauge, plate load test, automated dynamic cone penetration.
1. Introduction
The dynamic cone penetration test (DCPT) has been widely used for field
exploration and quality assessment of subsoil layers. DCP testing can be used in
the characterization of soil properties in many ways. Perhaps the most important
advantage of the dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) device is related to its ability
to provide a continuous record of relative soil strength with depth [1]. DCP device
is distinguished by its economy and simplicity to operate and its superiority to
provide repeatable results and rapid property assessment. DCPT has the main
1
2 Abdulrahman M. Hamid
Nomenclatures
Cv Coefficient of variation
Dr Relative density
EPLT Elastic modulus, MPa
E(PLT(i)) Initial elastic modulus, MPa
E(PLT(R2)) Reloading elastic modulus, MPa
Es Modulus of subgrade reaction, MPa
GPLT Shear modulus, MPa
MFWD Resilient Modulus, MPa
NDCP No. of blows per 10 cm
PR Penetration rate (mm/blow)
Greek Symbols
Friction angle, deg.
Abbreviations
ADCP Automated Dynamic Cone Penetration Index
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
CBR California Bearing Ratio
CPT Cone Penetration Test
DCPI Dynamic Cone Penetration Index
DCPT Dynamic Cone Penetration Test
FWD Falling Weight Deflectometer
MDD Multi Depth Deflectometer
MnDOT Minnesota Department of Transportation
PLT Plate Load Test
SPT Standard Penetration Test
SSG Soil Stiffens Gauge
features that are similar to those of CPT and SPT [2]. It can also be used for the
assessment of compaction quality for sand backfilling.
On the contrary, there are few problems with DCPT that include the
following: (1) the removal of the instrument after deep tests in some cases [3, 4].
Using disposable cone tips, as suggested by Webster et al. [5], may be one
solution. However, ASTM D 6951 suggests using an extraction jack if disposable
cone tips are not used; (2) the maximum aggregate size has an important influence
on the test results. Ayers et al. [6] indicates that the maximum aggregate size is
around 38 mm where the DCP is no longer a viable test. However, Webster et al.
[5] reports that DCP is not suitable for soils having significant amount of
aggregates greater than 50 mm; (3) the physical rise and drop of the hammer
could be a source of error in a DCPT. Webster et al. [5] reported that the user has
to ensure that the hammer is touching the bottom of the handle but not lifting the
cone before it is allowed to drop. They also stated that the worker should be
careful not to exert any downward or upward force on the handle and not to
influence the free fall of the hammer by hand movement; (4) the manual reading
and recording of the number of blows and depth of the DCP could also result in
some mistakes [5]. Since the DCPT requires one operator to lift and drop the
hammer while keeping the device vertical, another operator should keep track of
The Dynamic Cone Penetration Test: A Review of Its Correlations and Applications 3
the penetration after each blow. To solve this problem, some innovative tools are
added to DCP. For example, Kessler Soils Engineering Products [7] present tools
to write the number of blows for each set of blows on a removable tape along the
ruler, or use a magnetic ruler data collection device.
This paper presents a brief overview of the DCPT and its historical
development, correlations with soil parameters, and relationship with different
instruments. Furthermore, the potential use of DCPT to assess compaction during
construction in Saudi Arabia is reported.
Handle
Upper Hammer 8 kg
Stop
Vertical
Side
3mm
Cone
575 mm Angle
20 mm 60 degree
Anvil/coupler
Assembly
1000 mm 16 mm
diameter
Tip Drive
Rod
Fig. 1. Schematic of standard DCPT.
on the driving rod. The cone point was enlarged to reduce the circumferential
resistance. It was used for field exploration and substantiation of soil conditions at
individual footings. Since 1973, the DCP has been used in South Africa [12]. The
type used in South Africa involved an 8 kg hammer dropping from 575 mm
height with a 30-degree cone having a diameter (cone) of 20 mm.
that the DCP correlates better with pavement’s field performance than the
laboratory soaked CBR. In a particular test, it was established that DCP can
discover the deterioration of pavement materials very well.
Smith and Pratt [20] developed a correlation between DCPI (30-degree cone,
hammer weighted 9.08 kg, with a dropping distance of 508 mm) and in-situ CBR
tests in clayey materials. Moreover, they reported that the DCP results were as
acceptable as the in-situ CBR while the coefficient of variation of DCP tests was
smaller than that of the in-situ CBR tests at the same place.
Harison [18, 25] developed theoretical explanation for the linear log-log
relation of DCP and CBR. In addition, they conducted 72 pairs of DCP and CBR
tests on clay-like, well-graded sand, and well-graded gravel samples prepared in
standard CBR molds and presented correlation equations. Furthermore, the
regression analysis showed that the log-log model relates DCP and CBR better
than the inverse model. Further, It was determined that moisture content and dry
density had significant effects on CBR and DCP correlation. Moreover, it was
concluded that the soaking process did not have a significant effect on the
calibration.
Truebe et al. [21] evaluated the strength of a low volume road of Forest
Service in USA by using DCPT. In addition, they presented a DCP and in-situ
CBR correlation for the aggregate surface and subgrade. Furthermore, they
reported that DCP is a useful tool for rapidly evaluating material strength
properties.
Al-Refeai and Al-Suhaibani [14], at King Saud University in Saudi Arabia,
have developed unique models between dynamic cone penetration index and CBR
based on laboratory study for a number of different soil types ranging from clay
to gravely sand. They have indicated that DCPT can be used to predict CBR
values with relatively high accuracy.
Gabr et al. [17] investigated the use of the DCP device for evaluation of the
pavement distress state. As a result, a model for evaluating the pavement stress
level based on the DCP result was developed. In addition, they have developed a
correlation between DCP and CBR based on laboratory and field studies for
aggregate base course material.
Mohammadi et al. [26] indicated that DCPT can reliably predict the moduli
obtained from PLT and CBR values, and DCPT can be used to evaluate the in-
situ stiffness characteristics of compacted soils, subgrade, base layers, and
embankments. In their study, series of laboratory tests on poorly graded sands and
clay silt were performed by varying the moisture content and the dry density.
Following correlations are developed:
Log CBR = 2.256 - 0.954 Log PR (1)
E(PLT(i)) = 6925/(6.1+PR 1.4) (2)
-1.29
E(PLT(R2)) = 6925*PR (3)
where CBR is California Bearing Ratio, E(PLT(i)) is initial elastic modulus, E(PLT(R2))
is reloading elastic modulus, and PR is penetration rate (mm/blow).
Booth et al. [27] raised some concerns about validity of DCP to CBR
correlations after comparing laboratory CBR values with those obtained from
6 Abdulrahman M. Hamid
correlation equations from tests in sandy and slightly gravelly silt and silty very
gravelly sand.
correlations between the DCPT results and the subgrade parameters such as
resilient modulus and unconfined compressive strength have been determined, as
summarized in Tables 1 and 2.
Puppala [36] warned that the majority of the correlations were site specific
and empirical in nature and their use for other soils required careful examination
Table 1. Result of Unconfined Compression Test and Corresponding
Penetration Index from Field DCPT for the Site of Lindberg Road in
West Lafayette, IN ( after Salgado and Yoon [2]).
Dry Unconfined Su at 1% Resilient Penetration
Density Compressive strain Modulus Index
Strength
(kN/m3) (kN/m2) (kN/ m2) (kN/m2) (mm/blow)
18.6 117.3 18.0 12205.4 17.8
19.0 283.8 94.0 57743.3 13.5
Furthermore, accepting DCP into pavement design methods was suggested since
the validity of DCP to measure the soil strength was proven.
laboratory and field tests were conducted on backfill materials and subgrade soils
and the following correlations were developed:
DCP versus PLT
EPLT = -0.34*(NDCP)2 + 13.97*NDCP - 13.67 (2<NDCP<15) (13)
where EPLT is Elastic Modulus in MPa and NDCP is No. of blows per 10 cm.
DCP versus FWD
MFWD = - 0.14*(NDCP)2 + 10.61*NDCP - 17.11 (2<NDCP< 15) (14)
where MFWD is Resilient Modulus in MPa and NDCP is No. of blows per 10 cm.
Chen et al. [48] found a correlation between DCPI and elastic modulus from
FWD tests. They compared their relationship with the elastic modulus obtained
using the DCPI-CBR correlation of Webster et al. [5] and CBR to elastic modulus
correlation suggested by Powell et al. [46]. The DCPI was corrected to take into
account the effect of overburden pressure in case of conducting the test through a
drilled hole in the asphalt layer.
Edil and benson [49] conducted several tests on the exposed subgrade and
subbase to the maximum depth of 38 cm across the State of Wisconsin. They
obtained the DCPI from the weighted average of penetration rates without
excluding any data points for further analysis and correlations. They observed a
linear relationship among SSG (Soil Stiffness Gauge) stiffness in regular scale
and DCPI averaged from a depth of 0 to 152 mm at a logarithmic scale. They also
showed that in the plots of DCPI versus unit weight or water content, a general
pattern can be observed but the data points were so dispersed that a unique
correlation could not be developed.
Abu-Farsakh et al. [50] showed, based on the laboratory and field study for
DCP, PLT, FWD, and CBR, that DCP test can be used to evaluate subgrade and
pavement layers. They also developed empirical correlations from DCP results
with PLT elastic modulus, FWD resilient modulus, and CBR. In addition, they
indicated that the DCP test was an efficient tool for compaction control.
Rao and George [51] focused on exploring correlations between FWD results
and the results obtained from DCP test and CBR test. Regression models were
established to qualify the prediction of CBR values based on the observed values
of FWD modulus and DCP index. Kim et al. [52] evaluated the use of the
dynamic cone penetration test and the Clegg hammer test results to develop a
criterion for soil compaction quality control. In this research, minimum required
dynamic cone penetration blow accounts are proposed for various types of soil
based on field and laboratory experimental program.
soils to withstand the unprecedented loads which forced the practicing engineers
to develop radical solutions to eradicate this problem by stabilizing the soil or
replace the existing soil by another one that has more strength and stiffness.
Therefore, it is difficult to check the physical properties by conventional methods,
and how to assess their properties in-situ instead of getting the soils to the
laboratory.
Hamid et al. [53] studies two cases of DCP field testing in Al-Jubail and Ras
Al-Khair, eastern Saudi Arabia, where the major petrochemical industries are
constructed on the sand which is the most predominant type of soil in the eastern
province of Saudi Arabia. These tests were conducted to evaluate the potential use
of DCPT to assess the density during the construction of backfills, whereby the
nuclear gauge was also used to accurately measure the in-situ soil density and
water content, as shown in Figs. 3(a) and (b).
(a) (b)
Fig. 3. Testing setup in the field (a) DCPT setup, (b) Nuclear gauge setup
(after Hamid et al. [53])
The DCP-nuclear gauge data clearly indicates that there is a good correlation
between the dry density obtained from the nuclear gauge and the DCP readings,
which proves that the DCPT is an effective and reliable tool in the assessment of
in-situ compaction of sand backfills.
Hamid [30] studied the effect of dry density, silt content and water level on
the shear strength and penetration resistance using DCPT for sands. DCPTs were
performed on sand samples with the addition of different silt content (1%, 4%,
and 8%) and different relative densities (40%, 60%, and 90%) where it was
compacted in a large scale calibration chamber (1600 mm in diameter and 1500
mm height), as depicted in Fig. 4.
The calibration chamber has been effectively used as a research tool to
simulate in-situ soil in the laboratory and it has been used in creating
interpretation procedures for cone penetration test in sand [54, 30]. There are
many applications of calibration chamber test for other types of in-situ tests.
Related to these applications, Huang et al. [55] have presented a model by
conducting pressuremeter inside calibration chamber. Hamid [30] reported that
12 Abdulrahman M. Hamid
the increase in the dry density and silt content caused an increase in the
penetration resistance, which means a decrease in the DCPI.
7. Conclusions
The dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) is an instrument that can be used to evaluate
the properties of soil backfills and base material. There are appropriate correlations
of resilient modulus, relative density, California Bearing Ratio (CBR), unconfined
compressive strength, and shear strength with DCPI. The important feature of the
dynamic cone penetration could be drawn in the following:
Its capability to provide a continuous record of relative soil strength with
depth.
It is simple to operate and is conducted in very confined spaces without the
need for trucks of heavy machinery that may not have an easy access to the
site or may damage existing installations.
DCPT can be used in the sandy soil where it is difficult to obtain undisturbed
samples, especially when loose or submerged sandy soil is encountered.
Acknowledgment
The author wishes to express his deepest gratitude to Hadhramout Establishment
for Human Development and King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals
(KFUPM) for the opportunity and support to accomplish this work. Special
thanks are to Sheikh Abdullah A. Bugshan for his continuous support. Prof. Omar
S. Baghabra Al-Amoudi is acknowledged for reviewing this manuscript.
References
1. Burnham, T.R.; and D. Johnson, D. (1993). In-Situ Foundation
Characterization Using the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer, Report MN-
93/05. Minnesota Department of Transportation, Maplewood.
2. Salgado, R.; and Yoon, S. (2003). Dynamic Cone Penetration Test
(DCPT) for Subgrade Assessment. FHWA/IN/JTRP-2002/30, Purdue
University, West Lafayette, IN.
The Dynamic Cone Penetration Test: A Review of Its Correlations and Applications 13