UNIVERSITY OF DAR ES SALAAM

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY (COET)

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

TR 635: GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

GROUP NO. 3: ASSIGNMENT
LITERATURE REVIEW
on
TITLE: Correlations of DCP and DPL for determination of insitu CBR and
Relative Density

STUDENT’S NAME: Imelda Ngailo 2022-06-00711

Enock Ngaitta 2022-06-02367
Frimini Beatus 2022-06-00145
Lameck Owit 2022-06-02401

ACADEMIC YEAR : 2022/2023

INSTRUCTOR : Dr. J. Elvis.

JANUARY 2023
Title: Correlations of DCP and DPL for determination of insitu CBR and Relative
Density

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. General Background
The underground exploration aims at investigating underlaying features of the soil.
Various methods have been employed over time from those which include drilling and
collection of samples to those in situ tests. One of the common in situ tests include
includes Dynamic Cone penetrometer (DCP) test and Dynamic Probing Light (DPL)
Test. DCP is typically used to assess the in situ strength of undisturbed soil or
compacted soil down to a depth of 1000mm (ASTM D6951-03, 2003). DPL is used to
assess the soil stratification and relative density of soil to a depth of 8m below the
ground.

Dynamic probing light (DPL) is one of the instruments that has gained popularity
recently for estimating various parameters of soil. Better information is obtained
through combining testing techniques in a single soil investigation than from using any
one testing technique alone. The transformation error from measured to evaluated
property can be considerably decreased using a variety of techniques (Rogers, 2006).
Dynamic Probing Light (DPL) is a method of site investigation permitting a quick
examination of ground conditions of which sample retrieval is not vital. The ‘Blow
Count’ from DPL yield a relative determination of ‘ground strength’ although this
parameters cannot be used to absolutely approve the definite composition of a particular
geological strata, therefore any reference to strata composition is an interpretation,
subject to the results from further laboratory test (EN ISO 22476-2, 2002).

Correlations between geotechnical variables are crucial on describing a comprehensive

understanding of technical circumstances in both site engineering practice and design
practice. For instance, it is shown in engineering practice that the foundation design is
constrained by a lack of correlations between soil properties. (EN_ISO_22476-2,
2005).

It has been acknowledged for more than 50 years that using penetrometer probing in
conjunction with drilling, sampling, and laboratory testing is an effective method for
studying soil. Numerous penetrometers were identified and the range has significantly
expanded since then. There are two broad categories used to classify penetration tests.

2
 First is the static type, of which a well-known is the cone-penetration test, which uses
static pressure. The other type which is important is the Dynamic Probe which
comprises of a tip cone linked to an extension rod with driving weight for dispersion
into the soil ground. The total number of blows (M) essentially needed to successively
drive a cone by each 100 mm or 200 mm (reliant on the weight of hammer) increase
are documented as a variable measure of a particular shear strength. The Dynamic Probe
test is a reliable and an effective tool used for field investigation. It is due to the fact
that it is cheap and portable more than other use of direct drilling methods, especially
in explorations with reasonable depth (Khodaparast, Rajabi and Mohammadi, 2015).

The study intends to conducts an experimental investigation to determine whether

dynamic probing can be used similarly to DCP to assess the relative density and CBR
of soil. The evaluation of insitu compaction can be done by qd. These types of relational
equations can be established to provide insitu-specific relationships depending on
geotechnical data at every new site location. Using this method an estimation of
compaction percent CP and undrained shear strength Cu can now be determined from
the given dynamic probe test results with adequate accuracy (Wyroslak, 2017).

1.2. Problem Statement

DCP is one Cone penetrometer is one of the instruments that is widely used for Quality
assurance and quality control of pavement layers and subgrade materials. The main
output being the DN per and CBR value and Relative density which are derived from
the DCP penetration index. Several correlations have been developed to relate the CBR
and DN blows including ORN 31 (1993), Sampson LR. 1984, Harison Smith and Pratt
for various soil types (Du Plessis and Paige-Green, 2009). DCP on the other hand is
limited to the investigation depth of 1m only.

Dynamic probing light test on the other hand despite being useful on the in-situ
determination of geomaterials parameters, it is less used on the road for quality control.
For the case when one is to evaluate the compaction characteristics of an embankment
depth of more than 1m, DCP may not be appropriate. DPL since it can explore to a
maximum depth of 8m, can be an appropriate tool for evaluating the soil compaction
parameters. This study tries to correlate DPL N10 to equivalent DCP DN blows in
determination of soil compaction parameters in subgrade soils.

3
1.3. Research Objectives
1.3.1. Main Objectives
Correlate DPL and DCP in determination of CBR and relative density values from the
penetration data.

1.3.2. Specific Objectives

1. Validation of Available DCP DN blows correlation with CBR values obtained from
testing.
2. Determination of soil Parameters from laboratory tests
3. Develop a regression analysis relating the DPL and DCP data

1.4. Significance of the Research

The research intends to provide the ground for the use of DPL in earth embankment
evaluation of its insitu CBR and Degree of compaction without the limitation of the
depth as experience in DCP test use.

4
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. General
The Dynamic Cone Penetrometer test (DCP) is most commonly used in evaluation of
pavement characteristics. One of the major benefits of this test is its flexibility for use
on site with little cost and disturbance to the ground as no pits are required to get the
measurements. Since its development DCP has been regarded as the most reliable tool
for evaluating the insitu stiffness and strength of pavement layers and other
geomaterials; as a result, it may be used to manage the highway construction (Abu-
farsakh et al., 2019). Despite the advantages the DCP boast, it is limited to maximum
investigation depth of 1m (Du Plessis and Paige-Green, 2009). On the other hand,
Dynamic Probing Light (DPL) is mostly used for estimating the in-situ soil parameters
and stratification. The main advantage of DPL over DCP is that it can be adopted to
depth of 8m below the ground surface.

Consider the case when one wants to evaluate the strength parameters of a constructed
embankment whose total depth is more than 1m, DCP for this case may not be suitable.
Since DPL has advantage of exploring to larger depth, the study tries to correlate the
DCP blows with equivalent DPL N10 blows for equivalent material type.

2.2. Equipment
DCP equipment consist of 8kg mass with 575mm long travel rod upper end, the lower
end consists of 1m long 16mm diameter rod with anvil and cone with an apex angle of
600 and diameter of 20mm (Figure 1).

For dynamic Probing Light Test a hammer of 10kg dropped from a height of 50cm to
penetrate the probe with the rod into the ground. Blows are recorded after every 10cm
of penetration into the ground. Figure 2 shows the schematic arrangement of DPL test
(Alam, Hossain and Azad, 2014 and ISO 22476-2:2012).

DCP and DPL are both considered to have similar energy inputs with DCP sometimes
being referred to as DPL but it slightly departs from (EN ISO 22476-2, 2002). Table 1
shows the comparison between the DCP and DPL equipments for the test (Merwe,
2019).

5
 Table 1: Comparison between DCP and DPL Test Equipments (After Merwe, (2019)

Hammer Drop Diameter

Cone Cone Energy
Instrument Mass Height of Rods
Angle (0) Diameter (J)
(kg) (mm) (mm)
DCP 8 575 60 20 45 16
DPL 10 500 90 35.7 49 22

Figure 1: Schematic Arrangement of DCP Test (after, Abu-farsakh et al., (2019)

6
Figure 2: Schematic Arrangement of DPL Test (After Hossain and Azad, 2014)

7
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1. General
The test site will be located at Udsm grounds where both tests will be conducted. The
tests are expected to carried out in the following order. After demarcating the test site,
locations of tests will be demarcated for testing. DCP test will be conducted at one
location followed by DPL test to a depth of 1m. Then a trial pit is excavated to a depth
of 1m where both DCP and DPL are then conducted within the to a depth of 2m.

3.2. Sample Data Collection

Considering a standard error of 0.5 blows in data collection with standard deviation of
1 blow at a confidence level of 95% and assuming normal distribution in data collection,
a minimum of 11 samples are required for this test. For our case 12 tests of each of the
DCP, DPL and trial pits.

3.3. Data Collection Technique

Data collection from the selected site will be made in grid of 5m from test to test
forming a rectangle shaped site of an area of 20m x 15m. Three tests will be conducted
at one location for the purpose of this study. Undisturbed sample will be collected using
a hand auger tool.

3.4. Instruments
Two main instruments will be used for this test. DCP will be the standard DCP as per
ASTM D6951-03 (2003) while the DPL will be the instrument stated in EN ISO 22476-
2, (2002).

3.5. Data Analysis Plan

The analysis of all data from DCP and DPL will be by regression analysis using excel
Microsoft programme. The results will be compared with equivalent laboratory test
results and other existing correlations to draw conclusions.

8
References

Abu-farsakh, M.Y. et al. (2019) ‘Application of Dynamic Cone Penetrometer in

Pavement Construction Control’, 1913(1), pp. 53–61. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198105191300106.

Alam, M.J., Hossain, M.S. and Azad, A.K. (2014) ‘Development of correlation between
dynamic cone resistance and relative density of sand’, Journal of Civil Engineering
(IEB), 42(1), pp. 63–76.

ASTM D6951-03 (2003) ‘Standard Test Method for Use of the Dynamic Cone
Penetrometer in Shallow Pavement Applications’, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA., (June), pp. 1–7.

EN_ISO_22476-2 (2005) ‘Geotechnical investigation and testing - Field testing - Part

2: Dynamic probing (ISO 22476-2:2005)’.

EN ISO 22476-2 (2002) ‘Geotechnical engineering - Field testing-Dynamic probing’,

ISO standards [Preprint].

Khodaparast, M., Rajabi, A.M. and Mohammadi, M. (2015) ‘The new empirical
formula based on dynamic probing test results in fine cohesive soils’, International
Journal of Civil Engineering, 13(2B), pp. 105–113.

Merwe, F. Van Der (2019) ‘Can One Use the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer to Predict
the Allowable Bearing Pressure ? Can One Use the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer to
Predict the Allowable Bearing Pressure ?’, (September 2017).

ORN 31 (1993) ‘A guide to the structural design of bitumen-surfaced roads in tropical

and sub-tropical countries’, Overseas Road Note 31, p. 3.

Du Plessis, L. and Paige-Green, P. (2009) ‘The Use and Interpretation of the Dynamic
Cone Penetrometer (DCP) Test’, in. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10204/3692.

Rogers, J.D. (2006) ‘Subsurface exploration using the Standard Penetration Test and
the Cone Penetrometer Test’, Environmental and Engineering Geoscience, 12(2), pp.
161–179. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2113/12.2.161.

Wyroslak, M. (2017) ‘Establishing Relationships between Parameters of the Controlled

Compaction Soil by Using Various In-Situ Tests’, IOP Conference Series: Materials

9
Science and Engineering, 245(2). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-
899X/245/2/022041.

10