The Dynamic Cone Penetration Test-modify

8/18/2019 The Dynamic Cone Penetration Test-modify

1/17

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/279482103

THE DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION TEST: AREVIEW OF ITS CORRELATIONS AND

APPLICATIONS

CONFERENCE PAPER · JANUARY 2015

READS

153

1 AUTH O R:

Abdulrahman Hamid

King Fahd University of Petroleum and Min…

3 PUBLICATIONS 1 CITATION

SEE PROFILE

Available from: Abdulrahman HamidRetrieved on: 23 December 2015

http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Abdulrahman_Hamid2?enrichId=rgreq-48f15b9a-6ffb-4d99-8493-e3bf8e990160&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI3OTQ4MjEwMztBUzoyNjA1NjMyNjc3NDc4NDFAMTQzOTEzNDUzMjg5Ng%3D%3D&el=1_x_4http://www.researchgate.net/institution/King_Fahd_University_of_Petroleum_and_Minerals?enrichId=rgreq-48f15b9a-6ffb-4d99-8493-e3bf8e990160&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI3OTQ4MjEwMztBUzoyNjA1NjMyNjc3NDc4NDFAMTQzOTEzNDUzMjg5Ng%3D%3D&el=1_x_6http://www.researchgate.net/?enrichId=rgreq-48f15b9a-6ffb-4d99-8493-e3bf8e990160&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI3OTQ4MjEwMztBUzoyNjA1NjMyNjc3NDc4NDFAMTQzOTEzNDUzMjg5Ng%3D%3D&el=1_x_1http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Abdulrahman_Hamid2?enrichId=rgreq-48f15b9a-6ffb-4d99-8493-e3bf8e990160&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI3OTQ4MjEwMztBUzoyNjA1NjMyNjc3NDc4NDFAMTQzOTEzNDUzMjg5Ng%3D%3D&el=1_x_7http://www.researchgate.net/institution/King_Fahd_University_of_Petroleum_and_Minerals?enrichId=rgreq-48f15b9a-6ffb-4d99-8493-e3bf8e990160&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI3OTQ4MjEwMztBUzoyNjA1NjMyNjc3NDc4NDFAMTQzOTEzNDUzMjg5Ng%3D%3D&el=1_x_6http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Abdulrahman_Hamid2?enrichId=rgreq-48f15b9a-6ffb-4d99-8493-e3bf8e990160&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI3OTQ4MjEwMztBUzoyNjA1NjMyNjc3NDc4NDFAMTQzOTEzNDUzMjg5Ng%3D%3D&el=1_x_5http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Abdulrahman_Hamid2?enrichId=rgreq-48f15b9a-6ffb-4d99-8493-e3bf8e990160&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI3OTQ4MjEwMztBUzoyNjA1NjMyNjc3NDc4NDFAMTQzOTEzNDUzMjg5Ng%3D%3D&el=1_x_4http://www.researchgate.net/?enrichId=rgreq-48f15b9a-6ffb-4d99-8493-e3bf8e990160&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI3OTQ4MjEwMztBUzoyNjA1NjMyNjc3NDc4NDFAMTQzOTEzNDUzMjg5Ng%3D%3D&el=1_x_1http://www.researchgate.net/publication/279482103_THE_DYNAMIC_CONE_PENETRATION_TEST_A_REVIEW_OF_ITS_CORRELATIONS_AND_APPLICATIONS?enrichId=rgreq-48f15b9a-6ffb-4d99-8493-e3bf8e990160&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI3OTQ4MjEwMztBUzoyNjA1NjMyNjc3NDc4NDFAMTQzOTEzNDUzMjg5Ng%3D%3D&el=1_x_3http://www.researchgate.net/publication/279482103_THE_DYNAMIC_CONE_PENETRATION_TEST_A_REVIEW_OF_ITS_CORRELATIONS_AND_APPLICATIONS?enrichId=rgreq-48f15b9a-6ffb-4d99-8493-e3bf8e990160&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI3OTQ4MjEwMztBUzoyNjA1NjMyNjc3NDc4NDFAMTQzOTEzNDUzMjg5Ng%3D%3D&el=1_x_2


2/17

International Conference on Advances in Civil and Environmental Engineering 2015© Faculty of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi MARA Pulau Pinang

1

THE DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION TEST: A REVIEW OF ITSCORRELATIONS AND APPLICATIONS

ABDULRAHMAN M. HAMID*

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals,

Dhahran-31261, Saudi Arabia*Corresponding Author: [email protected]

Abstract

Dynamic cone penetration test (DCPT) is widely used for field qualityassessment of soils. Its application to predict the engineering properties of soilis globally promoted by the fact that it is difficult to obtain undisturbed soilsamples, especially when loose or submerged sandy soil is encountered. In thisreview, detailed discussion is presented on the current development of DCPTcorrelations with resilient modulus, relative density, California Bearing Ratio

(CBR), unconfined compressive strength, and shear strength that have beendeveloped for different materials in both the laboratory and the field, as well ason the usage of DCPT in quality control of compaction of earth fills and

performance evaluation of pavement layers. In addition, the relationship of theDCPT with other instruments such as falling weight deflectometer, nucleargauge, soil stiffens gauge, and plate load test, is reported. Lastly, the applicationof DCPT in Saudi Arabia in recent years has been addressed in this manuscript.

Keywords: dynamic cone penetration test, falling weight deflectometer, nucleargauge, soil stiffens gauge, plate load test, automated dynamic cone penetration.

1. Introduction

The dynamic cone penetration test (DCPT) has been widely used for fieldexploration and quality assessment of subsoil layers. DCP testing can be used inthe characterization of soil properties in many ways. Perhaps the most importantadvantage of the dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) device is related to its abilityto provide a continuous record of relative soil strength with depth [1]. DCP deviceis distinguished by its economy and simplicity to operate and its superiority to

provide repeatable results and rapid property assessment. DCPT has the main


3/17

2 Abdulrahman M. Hamid

Nomenclatures

C v D r E PLT E (PLT(i)) E (PLT(R2)) E s G PLT

M FWD N DCP PR

Coefficient of variationRelative densityElastic modulus, MPaInitial elastic modulus, MPaReloading elastic modulus, MPaModulus of subgrade reaction, MPaShear modulus, MPaResilient Modulus, MPa

No. of blows per 10 cmPenetration rate (mm/blow)

Greek SymbolsFriction angle, deg.

Abbreviations

ADCP

ASTMCBRCPTDCPIDCPTFWDMDD

Automated Dynamic Cone Penetration Index

American Society for Testing and MaterialsCalifornia Bearing RatioCone Penetration TestDynamic Cone Penetration IndexDynamic Cone Penetration TestFalling Weight DeflectometerMulti Depth Deflectometer

MnDOTPLTSPTSSG

Minnesota Department of TransportationPlate Load TestStandard Penetration TestSoil Stiffens Gauge

features that are similar to those of CPT and SPT [2]. It can also be used for theassessment of compaction quality for sand backfilling.

On the contrary, there are few problems with DCPT that include thefollowing: (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 onesolution. However, ASTM D 6951 suggests using an extraction jack if disposablecone tips are not used; (2) the maximum aggregate size has an important influenceon the test results. Ayers et al. [6] indicates that the maximum aggregate size isaround 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 ofaggregates greater than 50 mm; (3) the physical rise and drop of the hammercould be a source of error in a DCPT. Webster et al. [5] reported that the user hasto 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 becareful not to exert any downward or upward force on the handle and not toinfluence the free fall of the hammer by hand movement; (4) the manual readingand recording of the number of blows and depth of the DCP could also result insome mistakes [5]. Since the DCPT requires one operator to lift and drop thehammer while keeping the device vertical, another operator should keep track of


4/17

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 areadded to DCP. For example, Kessler Soils Engineering Products [7] present toolsto write the number of blows for each set of blows on a removable tape along theruler, or use a magnetic ruler data collection device.

This paper presents a brief overview of the DCPT and its historicaldevelopment, correlations with soil parameters, and relationship with differentinstruments. Furthermore, the potential use of DCPT to assess compaction duringconstruction in Saudi Arabia is reported.

1.1. Dynamic cone penetration test

The DCP test was designed to penetrate soils to a depth of 1 m with a 20 mmdiameter and 60-degree cone, and a hammer of 8 kg weight, as shown in Fig 1.Two people are normally required to force DCP test into the soil. However, themanpower can be reduced to one person by using an electronic device to recordthe DCPT data.

Fig. 1. Schematic of standard DCPT.

2. DCP Historical Developments

Although initial DCP had a 30-degree cone, 60-degree cone has become more popular in latest years due to its durability in high-strength materials, as reportedin the current ASTM D 6951 method. Scala [8] presented the dynamic cone

penetrometer based on the previous designs in Switzerland. The drop height ofhammer was 508 mm, the hammer weight was 9 kg, and the cone angle was 30degrees. Scala ’s penetrometer was used with an extension to a depth of 1.8 m. Inaddition, Scala introduced the theoretical relationship between the applied energyand soil resistance and penetration rate, and developed the DCP-CBR correlation

that was used for pavement design. Gawith and Perrin [9] reported the use of thesame DCP in Australia with a DCP-CBR correlation curve.

In South Africa, Van Vuuren [10] developed the modern DCP by adjusting the penetrometer used in Australia. It was made of a 10 kg hammer sliding on a 16mm rod dropping from 460 mm height. The cone was 20 mm in diameter. Sowersand Hedges [11] introduced a DCP device with 6.8 kg hammer, falling 508 mm

ConeAngle

60 degree

Tip

1000 mm 16 mmdiameter

Anvil/couplerAssembly

575 mm

Hammer 8 kgUpperStop

Handle

20 mm

VerticalSide


5/17


on the driving rod. The cone point was enlarged to reduce the circumferentialresistance. It was used for field exploration and substantiation of soil conditions atindividual footings. Since 1973, the DCP has been used in South Africa [12]. Thetype used in South Africa involved an 8 kg hammer dropping from 575 mmheight with a 30-degree cone having a diameter (cone) of 20 mm.

3. Applications of DCPT to Assess Soil Properties

Some applications of DCP Testing technique include correlations with resilientmodulus, California Bearing Ratio (CBR), unconfined compressive strength, andshear strengths, as well as its usage in quality control of compaction of fills and

performance evaluation of pavement layers [13].

3.1. DCPI versus CBR

Several DCP-CBR correlations have been developed for different materials in both the laboratory and the field [14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 5, 23].Webster et al. [22] observed the minimum penetration depth required in DCP tomeasure the strength of surface layers and developed relationships between DCPindex and CBR, as depicted in Fig. 2. Furthermore, they reported that the requireddepth is 2.5 to 28 cm for materials ranging from highly plastic clay to poorlygraded sand. It was also shown that the thickness and location of a weak soil layerin a pavement can be determined using DCPT.

Kleyn et al. [24] recorded several applications of the DCP in pavement design,road construction, and pavement evaluation and monitoring. Moreover, theystated that the DCP measures in-situ CBR rather than laboratory soaked CBR, and

Fig. 2. DCPI and CBR test data versus correlation equations

(after Webster et al [22])


6/17


that the DCP correlates better with pavement’s field performance than thelaboratory soaked CBR. In a particular test, it was established that DCP candiscover 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 CBRtests in clayey materials. Moreover, they reported that the DCP results were asacceptable as the in-situ CBR while the coefficient of variation of DCP tests wassmaller than that of the in-situ CBR tests at the same place.

Harison [18, 25] developed theoretical explanation for the linear log-logrelation of DCP and CBR. In addition, they conducted 72 pairs of DCP and CBRtests on clay-like, well-graded sand, and well-graded gravel samples prepared instandard CBR molds and presented correlation equations. Furthermore, theregression analysis showed that the log-log model relates DCP and CBR betterthan the inverse model. Further, It was determined that moisture content and drydensity had significant effects on CBR and DCP correlation. Moreover, it wasconcluded that the soaking process did not have a significant effect on thecalibration.

Truebe et al. [21] evaluated the strength of a low volume road of ForestService in USA by using DCPT. In addition, they presented a DCP and in-situCBR correlation for the aggregate surface and subgrade. Furthermore, theyreported 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 clayto gravely sand. They have indicated that DCPT can be used to predict CBRvalues 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 acorrelation between DCP and CBR based on laboratory and field studies foraggregate base course material.

Mohammadi et al. [26] indicated that DCPT can reliably predict the moduliobtained from PLT and CBR values, and DCPT can be used to evaluate the in-situ stiffness characteristics of compacted soils, subgrade, base layers, andembankments. In their study, series of laboratory tests on poorly graded sands andclay 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)

E (PLT(R2)) = 6925* PR -1.29

(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 CBRcorrelations after comparing laboratory CBR values with those obtained from


7/17


correlation equations from tests in sandy and slightly gravelly silt and silty verygravelly sand.

3.2. DCPI versus shear strength

Different researchers including [28, 29, 30] have proposed the relationship between relative density and friction angle. The shear strength has a significanteffect on dynamic cone penetration test results, whereby the increase in therelative density results in an increase in the friction angle of sand that results in adecrease in the Dynamic Cone Penetration Index (DCPI) [30, 31].

Ayers et al. [6] based on laboratory DCP and triaxial tests, developedcorrelations between (DCPI) and the shear strength of soils and providedequations using DCPT index for granular material as a rapid and inexpensive in-situ testing method for various confining stress (34.5, 103.4 and 206.9 kPa).

Rahim et al. [32] introduced a model, based on the pore collapse theory andcylindrical cavity expansion, to predict DCP penetration resistance based oncohesion, angle of internal friction and initial porosity. They showed that for

small initial porosity, the penetration resistance was strongly dependent on theinternal angle of friction but it was not as sensitive to cohesion.

3.3. DCPI versus resilient modulus

The dynamic cone penetration test has been used by different transportationagencies for years to estimate the moduli of compacted subgrades and granularsoils. Hassan [33] studied existing correlations between DCPI and resilientmodulus for sand and fine-grained soils. The specimens were Oklahoma soilsmolded and compacted in small mold with 6-inch diameter and 12 inch height.The experimental results showed that in fine-grained soils, the increase inmoisture content above the optimum values significantly increased DCPI, whilean increase in soil dry density decreased DCPI. However, an increase in confining

pressure did not significantly affect DCPI. In granular soils, it was indicated thatthe confining pressure is an important factor affecting DCPI. Nevertheless, thiseffect is less for materials with higher coefficient of uniformity. Moreover, acorrelation between DCPI and resilient modulus in fine-grained soils at optimummoisture content was also developed.

Luo et al. [34] developed a field and laboratory relationship between penetration index, dry density, water content, and resilient modulus. They haveshown that, in the future, it is possible to give enough data and obtain correlations

between penetration index, dry density, water content and resilient modulus.

Rahim and George [35] conducted DCP and automated DCP (which ismounted on a trailer) tests on a top of subgrade through drilled holes at 12 sites inMississippi, USA. They obtained Shelby tube samples and tested them tocalculate resilient modulus. They also developed a correlation between DCPI andother soil properties to resilient modulus by two different equations for coarse-grained and fine-grained soils.

Salgado and Yoon [2] have investigated, based on laboratory and field DCPTand nuclear density gauge tests, different road construction sites whereby the


8/17


correlations between the DCPT results and the subgrade parameters such asresilient modulus and unconfined compressive strength have been determined, assummarized in Tables 1 and 2.

Puppala [36] warned that the majority of the correlations were site specificand empirical in nature and their use for other soils required careful examination

and engineering decision. Mohammadi et al. [29] developed, based on thelaboratory study, the relationship among dynamic cone penetration index, relativedensity, modulus of elasticity, shear modulus, modulus of subgrade reaction, andthe friction angle of the soil with a high coefficient of determination (more than90%) using a mold with 700 mm diameter and 700 mm height and conductedDCPTs and PLTs. Furthermore, the following correlations were developed [29]:

DCPI versus D r (%) D r = 189.93/ [(DCPI) ] 0.53 (4)

DCPI versus modulus of elasticity E PLT(i) (MPa) = 55.03/ [(DCPI) ] 0.54 (5)

E PLT(R2) (MPa) = 53.73/ [(DCPI) ] 0.74 (6)

Table 2. Result of Unconfined Compression Test and CorrespondingPenetration Index from Field DCPT for the Site of I65/County Road

100 EIN Lebanon, IN (after Salgado and Yoon [2]).

DryDensity

(kN/m 3)

UnconfinedCompressive

Strength(kN/m 2)

S u at 1%strain

(kN/ m 2)

ResilientModulus

(kN/m 2)

PenetrationIndex

(mm/blow)

19.1 278.1 168.5 92749.7 21.9

19.4 419.3 210.3 108206.8 17.8

19.2 305.3 152.0 85830.5 15.2

Table 1. Result of Unconfined Compression Test and CorrespondingPenetration Index from Field DCPT for the Site of Lindberg Road in

West Lafayette, IN ( after Salgado and Yoon [2]).

DryDensity

(kN/m 3)

UnconfinedCompressive

Strength(kN/m 2)

S u at 1%strain

(kN/ m 2)

ResilientModulus

(kN/m 2)

PenetrationIndex

(mm/blow)

18.6 117.3 18.0 12205.4 17.8

19.0 283.8 94.0 57743.3 13.5

20.3 549.2 175.8 95688.9 29.3


9/17


DCPI versus shear modulusG PLT (MPa) = 75.74/ [(DCPI) ] 0.99 (7)

DCPI versus modulus of subgrade reaction E s (MN/m 3) = 898.36/ [(DCPI) ] 0.9 (8)

DCPI versus shear strengthɸ' (deg) = 52.16/ [(DCPI) ] 0.13 (9)

ɸ' (deg) = 26.31 + 0.21( D r ) (10)

4. DCPT Application in Quality Control

DCPT can provide efficiently and effectively a view of strength characteristicsthroughout a soil or roadbed structure and its application in structural evaluationof existing pavements, embankment and backfill construction control, preliminarysoil surveys, and supplementing foundation testing for design purposes [1].Webster et al. [22] observed the minimum penetration depth required in DCP tomeasure the strength of surface layers. They reported that the required depth is 2.5to 28 cm for materials ranging from highly plastic clay to poorly graded sand.They also showed that the thickness and location of a weak soil layer in a

pavement can be determined using DCPT.

Burnham [37] studied the application of DCP as a quality control device ingranular base layer compaction and the backfill compaction of pavement- edgedrain trenches in Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). In addition,the relationship between DCPI and the necessary remedial thickness of granular

backfill/lime modification was reported.

Konrad and Lachance [38] studied the effect of grain size on penetrationresistance using a 51-mm diameter cone in DCPT in base and subbase materials.In addition, the penetration index to the elastic modulus from plate load test inunbound base and subbase materials were also correlated.

Herrick and Jones [39] used DCPT with a 2 kg hammer for measuring soilcompaction in agricultural and rangelands. They used an adjustable hammer dropheight to have sufficient flexibility to allow them to use a single instrument on a

broad range of soils without any loss in sensitivity.

Amini [13] studied the application of DCP in pavement design andconstruction. They warned the use of DCP for materials with an aggregate sizelarger than 50 mm. Dai and Kremer [40] summarized the specifications andimplementation of the DCP testing in Minnesota and other states. In addition,tests with DCP (equipped with DCP-DAS) and other tests on several construction

projects in the State of Minnesota were conducted. As a result, a modified DCPspecification for road construction projects and testing procedure was suggested.

Wu and Sargand [4] reported that the DCP is a practical device to evaluate the base and subgrade during construction which can greatly develop the qualitymonitoring of pavement unbound materials. In addition, the required time to runone test was reduced to one-fifth using an automated DCP. However, very small

penetration rates were observed in some of the tests, which they related to thenon-homogenous nature of subgrade soil and presence of small rocks.


10/17


Furthermore, accepting DCP into pavement design methods was suggested sincethe validity of DCP to measure the soil strength was proven.

5. DCPT Relationship with Other Instruments

DCPT has been used to predict the soil properties by correlating the DCPT resultswith those of other devices such as falling weight deflectometer, nuclear gauge,soil stiffens gauge, and plate load test, etc. Weintraub [3] develops an automatedDCP to measure bearing strength of unsurfaced airfield. The mechanical design

procedure and appropriate details are described in it. It also reports that the resultsof the manual DCP and the automated DCP are not similar and they havedeveloped the following correlations:

- For all five sites combined

DCP = 2.27 ADCP - 0.12 (11)

- For the three sand sites

DCP = 2.3 ADCP - 0.04 (12)

where DCPI is Dynamic Cone Penetration Index (mm/blow) and ADCP isAutomated Dynamic Cone Penetration Index (mm/blow).

Chai and Roslie [41] correlated the number of blows required by DCP to penetrate 30 cm to subgrade modulus back-calculated from falling weightdeflectometer (FWD). Parker et al. [42] developed and automated a DCP typewhere the instrument was fixed on a trailer. The system was planned to lift thehammer, record data, and remove the rod after penetration. Siekmeier et al. [43]applied the DCP test, falling weight deflectometer (FWD), and soil stiffens gauge(SSG) on subgrade and granular base for several projects and linked the modulusresults from these devices. Then, it showed that there was a weaker suitablecorrelation between the strength that was measured with the DCP and the elasticmodulus from the FWD and SSG. George and Uddin [44] used manual and

trailer-mounted automated DCPs in their examination to determine the subgraderesilient modulus of subgrade soils in the state of Mississippi. They reported thatthere was no difference between the manual and automated DCP measurements.They determined the subgrade moduli by using laboratory triaxial tests andanalyzing the deflection profiles obtained from the FWD.

Chen et al. [45] conducted more than 60 DCP tests on two test pavements.They conducted DCPT in three different behaviors through asphalt concrete, anarrow borehole in asphalt concrete and directly on the base of highway. AverageDCPI was used for correlations to CBR and then to elastic modulus using thecorrelation proposed by Powell et al. [46]. The elastic modulus obtained fromDCP was then compared with those obtained by FWD-MDD (Falling WeightDeflectometer-Multi Depth Deflectometer) tests and by resilient moduluslaboratory tests. They reported that the elastic modulus of the base and subgradelayers determined by DCP and FWD-MDD tests were very close.

Zhang et al. [47] indicated proper relationships between the test data from thedynamic cone penetration test, falling weight deflectometer, and plate load test,which can be used in the future for the quality control of backfills. Moreover,


11/17


laboratory and field tests were conducted on backfill materials and subgrade soilsand the following correlations were developed:

DCP versus PLT

E PLT = -0.34*(NDCP) 2 + 13.97* N DCP - 13.67 (2< N DCP


12/17


soils to withstand the unprecedented loads which forced the practicing engineersto develop radical solutions to eradicate this problem by stabilizing the soil orreplace 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 thelaboratory.

Hamid et al. [53] studies two cases of DCP field testing in Al-Jubail and RasAl-Khair, eastern Saudi Arabia, where the major petrochemical industries areconstructed 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 useof DCPT to assess the density during the construction of backfills, whereby thenuclear gauge was also used to accurately measure the in-situ soil density andwater 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 ofin-situ compaction of sand backfills.

Hamid [30] studied the effect of dry density, silt content and water level onthe 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 wascompacted in a large scale calibration chamber (1600 mm in diameter and 1500mm height), as depicted in Fig. 4.

The calibration chamber has been effectively used as a research tool tosimulate in-situ soil in the laboratory and it has been used in creatinginterpretation procedures for cone penetration test in sand [54, 30]. There aremany applications of calibration chamber test for other types of in-situ tests.Related to these applications, Huang et al. [55] have presented a model byconducting pressuremeter inside calibration chamber. Hamid [30] reported that


13/17


the increase in the dry density and silt content caused an increase in the penetration resistance, which means a decrease in the DCPI.

Fig. 4. Soil chamber in laboratory (after Hamid [30]).

7. Conclusions

The dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) is an instrument that can be used to evaluatethe properties of soil backfills and base material. There are appropriate correlationsof resilient modulus, relative density, California Bearing Ratio (CBR), unconfinedcompressive strength, and shear strength with DCPI. The important feature of thedynamic cone penetration could be drawn in the following:

Its capability to provide a continuous record of relative soil strength withdepth.

It is simple to operate and is conducted in very confined spaces without theneed for trucks of heavy machinery that may not have an easy access to thesite or may damage existing installations.

DCPT can be used in the sandy soil where it is difficult to obtain undisturbedsamples, especially when loose or submerged sandy soil is encountered.

Acknowledgment

The author wishes to express his deepest gratitude to Hadhramout Establishmentfor Human Development and King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals(KFUPM) for the opportunity and support to accomplish this work. Specialthanks are to Sheikh Abdullah A. Bugshan for his continuous support. Prof. OmarS. Baghabra Al-Amoudi is acknowledged for reviewing this manuscript.

References

1. Burnham, T.R.; and D. Johnson, D. (1993). In-Situ FoundationCharacterization 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, PurdueUniversity, West Lafayette, IN.


14/17


3. Weintraub, D. (1993). Development of an Automated Airfield DynamicCone Penetrometer (AADCP) Prototype and the Evaluation ofUnsurfaced Airfield Seismic Surveying Using Spectral Analysis ofSurface Waves (SSW) Technology .

4. Wu, S.; Sargand, S.M. (2007). Use of Dynamic Cone Penetrometer inSubgrade and Base Acceptance . Ohio Department of Transportation,

Report No. FHWA/ODOT-2007/01.5. Webster, S.L.; Grau, R.H.; and Williams, T.P. (1992). Description and

Application of Dual Mass Dynamic Cone Penetrometer . Report GL-92-3, Department of the Army, Washington, DC, May 1992, 48 pp.

6. Ayers, M.E.; Thompson, M.R.; and Uzarski, D.R. (1989). Rapid ShearStrength Evaluation of In situ Granular Materials. In TransportationResearch Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board , No.1227, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies,Washington, D.C., 134-146.

7. Kessler Soils Engineering Products, Inc. (2007). K-100 Models withQuick Connect Pin User's Manual, KSE DCP Dynamic Cone

Penetrometer , Springfield, VA, Available at:http://www.kesslerdcp.com/DCP_Manual_K100%20Models_OCT2007.

pdf.8. Scala, A.J. (1956). Simple Methods of Flexible Pavement Design using

Cone Penetrometers, Proceedings of the 2 nd Australian and New ZealandConference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering ,Christchurch, 73-83.

9. Gawith, A.H.; and Perrin, C.C. (1962). Development in the Design andConstruction of Bituminous Surfaced Pavements in the State of Victoria,Australia, in: International Conference on the Structural Design of

Asphalt Pavements .10. Van Vuuren, D.J. (1969). Rapid Determination of CBR with the Portable

Dynamic Cone Penetrometer. The Rhodesian Engineer , 7(5), 852-854.11. Sowers, G.F.; and Hedges, C.S. (1966). Dynamic Cone for Shallow in-

Situ Penetration Testing . Vane Shear and Cone Penetration Resistance

Testing of In-Situ Soils, 29-37.12. Kleyn, E.G. (1975). The Use of the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) ,

Rep. No. 2/74. Transvaal Roads Department, South Africa.13. Amini, F. (2003). Potential Applications of Dynamic and Static Cone

Penetrometers in MDOT Pavement Design and Construction . FinalReport, Mississippi Department of Transportation, USA.

14. Al-Refeai, T.; and Al-Suhaibani, A. (1997). Prediction of CRR usingDynamic Cone Penetrometer. Journal of King Saud University

Engineering Sciences , 9 (2), 191-204.15. Coonse, J. (1999). Estimating California Bearing Ratio of Cohesive

Piedmont Residual Soil Using the Scala Dynamic Cone Penetrometer .Master’s Thesis, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, N. C, USA.

16. Ese, D.; Myre, J.; Noss, P.; and Vaernes, E. (1994). The Use of DynamicCone Penetrometer (DCP) for Road Strengthening Design in Norway,

Proceedings, 4 th International Conference , Bearing Capacity of Roadsand Airfields, Minneapolis, 3-22.

17. Gabr, M.; Hopkins, K.; Coonse, J.; and Hearne, T. (2000). DCP Criteriafor Performance Evaluation of Pavement Layers. Journal of

Performance of Constructed Facilities, ASCE 14(4), 141-148.


15/17


18. Harison, J.A. (1986). Correlation of CBR and Dynamic ConePenetrometer Strength Measurement of Soils. Australian Road Research ,16(2), 130-136.

19. Harison, J.A. (1989). In Situ CBR Determination by DCP Testing Usinga Laboratory-Based Correlation. Australian Road Research , 19(4), 313-317.

20. Smith, R.B.; and Pratt, D.N. (1983). A Field Study of In Situ CaliforniaBearing Ratio and Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Testing for SubgradeInvestigation. Australian Road Research , 13(4), 285-293.

21. Truebe, M.A.; Evans, G.L.; and Bolander, P. (1995). Lowell Test Road:Helping Improve Road Surfacing Design, Transportation Research

Board Conference Proceedings , Minneapolis, Minnesota, 2, 98-107.22. Webster, S.L.; Brown, R.W.; and Porter, J.R. (1994). Force Projection

Site Evaluation Using the Electric Cone Penetrometer (ECP) and the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) . Technical Report, GL - 94- 17, U.SArmy Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, USA.

23. Zumrawi, M.M.E. (2014). Prediction of In-situ CBR of SubgradeCohesive Soils from Dynamic Cone Penetrometer and Soil Properties.

IACSIT International Journal of Engineering and Technology , 6(5), 439

-442.24. Kleyn, E.G.; Maree, J.H.; and Savage, P.F. (1982). The Application of a

Portable Pavement Dynamic Cone Penetrometer to Determine In SituBearing Properties of Road Pavement Layers and Subgrades in SouthAfrica. Proceedings of the second European Symposium on PenetrationTesting , Amsterdam, 277-282.

25. Harison, J. (1987). Correlation between California Bearing Ratio andDynamic Cone Penetrometer Strength Measurement of Soils. Institutionof Civil Engineers Proceedings , London, 2, 83-87.

26. Mohammadi, S.; Nikudel, M.; and Khamehchiyan, M. (2007). The Useof Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) to Determine some UsefulRelationships for Sandy and Clayey Soils. Proceeding of the First Sri

Lankan Geotechnical Society (SLGS) .

27. Booth, J.; Keeton, G.; and Gosling, R. (2008). Some Observations onDetermining CBR and the use of Stiffness as an Alternative, Advances inTransportation Geotechnics . CRC Press, 701-706.

28. Meyerhof, G.G. (1959). Compaction of sands and the bearing capacity of piles. JSMFD, ASCE 85, 1-29 SM6.

29. Mohammadi, S.D.; Nikoudel, M.R.; Rahimi, H.; and Khamehchiyan, M.(2008). Application of the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) forDetermination of the Engineering Parameters of Sandy Soils.

Engineering Geology , 101, 195-203.30. Hamid, A.M. (2013). Assessment of Density and Shear Strength of

Eastern Saudi Sands Using Dynamic Cone Penetration Testing (DCPT) .Master’s Thesis, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals,Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.

31. Al-Amoudi, O.S.; Aiban, S.A.; and Hamid, A.M. (2015). Usage ofDynamic Cone Penetration Test to Assess the Engineering Properties ofSaudi Sands (Accepted for publication),” The Eighth InternationalStructural Engineering and Construction Conference , Sydney, Australia.

32. Rahim, A.; Prasad, S.N.; and George, K.P. (2004). Dynamic ConePenetration Resistance of Soils — Theory and Evaluation. Geotechnical


16/17


engineering for transportation projects : proceedings of Geo-Trans 2004 ,July 27-31, 2004, Los Angeles, California, sponsored by the Geo-Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers ; edited by MishacK. Yegian, Edward Kavazanjian, 1755-1766.

33. Hassan, A.B. (1996). The Effects of Material Parameters on DynamicCone Penetrometer Results for Fine-Grained Soils and Granular

Materials (Ph.D. dissertation). Oklahoma State University Stillwater,Oklahoma, Oklahoma State University.

34. Luo, X.; Salgado, R.; and Altschaeffl, A. (1998). Dynamic Cone Penetration Test to Assess the Mechanical Properties of the SubgradeSoil , Indiana Department of Transportation, Report No.FHWA/IN/JTRP-98/13.

35. Rahim, A.M.; and George, K.P. (2002). Automated Dynamic ConePenetrometer for Subgrade Resilient Modulus Characterization.Transportation Research Record , Transportation Research Board of the

National Academies, ISSN 0361-1981, 1806, 70-77.36. Puppala, A.J. (2008). “Estimating Stiffness of Subgrade and Unbound

Materials for Pavement Design”, NCHRP Synthesis 382, Transportation Research Board , 139 pp., ISBN 978-0-309-09811-3.

37. Burnham, T.R. (1997). Application of the Dynamic Cone Penetrometerto Minnesota Department of Transportation Pavement Assessment

Procedures , Report No. MN/RC 97- 19, Minnesota Department ofTransportation.

38. Konrad, J.M.; and Lachance, D. (2001). Use of in Situ Penetration Testsin Pavement Evaluation. Canadian Geotechnical Journal , 38(5), 924-935.

39. Herrick, J.E.; and Jones, T.L. (2002). A Dynamic Cone Penetrometer forMeasuring Soil Penetration Resistance. Soil Science Society of America

Journal , 66, 1320-1324.40. Dai, S.; and Kremer, C. (2006). Improvement and Validation of Mn/DOT

DCP Specifications for Aggregate Base Materials and Select Granular .Report No. MN/RC-2005-32, Minnesota Department of Transportation,

Maplewood, Minnesota, USA.41. Chai, G.; and Roslie, N. (1998). The Structural Response and Behaviour

Prediction of Subgrade Soils Using the Falling Weight Deflectometer inPavement Construction, in: Proceedings of 3 rd International Conferenceon Road and Airfield Pavement Technology , Beijing, China.

42. Parker, F.; Hammons, M.; and Hall, J. (1998). Development of an Automated Dynamic Cone Penetrometer for Evaluating Soils and Pavement Materials , Final Report, Project No. FLDOT-ADCP-WPI#0510751, Florida Department of Transportation, Gainesville, Florida.

43. Siekmeier, J.A.; Young, D.; and Beberg, D. (2000). Comparison of theDynamic Cone Penetrometer with other Tests during Subgrade andGranular Base Characterization in Minnesota. ASTM Special Technical

Publication , 1375, 175-188.44. George, K.P.; and Uddin, W. (2000). Subgrade Characterization for

Highway Pavement Design. Final Report, Submitted to Mississippi Department of Transportation , The University of Mississippi, December2000, Report Number: FHWA/MS-DOT-RD-00-131.

45. Chen, D.H.; Wang, J.N.; and Bilyeu, J. (2001). Application of DynamicCone Penetrometer in Evaluation of Base and Subgrade Layers.


17/17


Transportation Research Record ,Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, ISSN 0361-1981, 1764, 1-10.

46. Powell, W.D.; Potter, J.F.; Mayhew, H.C.; and Nunn, M.E. (1984). TheStructural Design of Bituminous Roads . TRRL Laboratory Report 1132,62 pp.

47. Zhang, Z.J.; Abu-Farsakh, Y.M.; and Wang, L. (2004). Evaluation of

Trench Backfill at Highway Cross-Drain Pipes, in: Proceedings 83rd

Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting . Washington, DC:Transportation Research Board.

48. Chen, D.H.; Lin, D.F.; Liau, P.H.; and Bilyeu, J. (2005). A correlation between Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Values and Pavement LayerModuli. ASTM geotechnical testing journal, 28, 42-49.

49. Edil, T.B.; and benson, C.H. (2005). Investigation of the DCP and theSSG as Alternative Methods to Determine Subgrade Stability , WisconsinHighway Research Program, WHRP 05-14, SPR# 0092-01-05.

50. Abu-Farsakh, M.Y.; Nazzal, M.D.; Alshibli, K.; and Seyman, E. (2005).Part 2: Soil Parameters for Pavement Design and Subgrade ResilientModulus: Application of Dynamic Cone Penetrometer in PavementConstruction Control. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the

Transportation Research Board , 1913, 52-61.51. Rao, C.N.; George, V.; and Shivashankar, R. (2008). PFWD, CBR and

DCP Evaluation of Lateritic Subgrades of Dakshina Kannada , India.52. Kim, H.; Prezzi, M.; and Salgado, R. (2010). Use of Dynamic Cone

Penetration and Clegg Hammer Tests for Quality Control of RoadwayCompaction and Construction . Publication FHWA/IN/JTRP-2010/27.Joint Transportation Research Program, Indiana Department ofTransportation and Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA.

53. Hamid, A.M.; aiban, S.A.; and Al-Amoudi, O.S. (2015) “FieldAssessment of Dynamic Cone Penetration Test to Evaluate the Densityof Saudi Sands (Accepted for publication),” The Eighth InternationalStructural Engineering and Construction Conference , Sydney, Australia.

54. Hsu, H.H.; and Huang, A.B. (1999). Calibration of Cone Penetration

Test in Sand. Department of Civil Engineering. National Chiao-TungUniversity, Hsinchu, Taiwan, R.O.C. Proceedings from National ScienceCouncil , ROC (A), 23, 579-590.

55. Huang, A.B.; Holtz, R.D.; and Chameau, J.L. (1991). Laboratory Studyof Pressuremeter Tests in Clays. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,

ASCE , 117(10), 1549-1567.

The Dynamic Cone Penetration Test-modify

Documents

Transcript of The Dynamic Cone Penetration Test-modify