Full Text

Purdue University
Purdue e-Pubs
JTRP Technical Reports Joint Transportation Research Program
1998
Cone Penetration Test to Assess the Mechanical Properties of Subgrade Soils

Xiadong Luo Rodrigo Salgado
rodrigo@ecn.purdue.edu
A. G. Altschaeffl
Recommended Citation Luo, X., R. Salgado, and A. G. Altschaeffl. Cone Penetration Test to Assess the Mechanical Properties of Subgrade Soils. Publication FHWA/IN/JTRP-98/13. Joint Transportation Research Program, Indiana Department of Transportation and Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, 1998. doi: 10.5703/1288284313162.
This document has been made available through Purdue e-Pubs, a service of the Purdue University Libraries. Please contact epubs@purdue.edu for additional information.
Joint
Transportation
Research
Program
JTRP
FHWA/IN/JTRP-98/13
Final Report
DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION TEST TO

ASSESS THE MECHANICAL PROPERTIES
OF THE SUBGRADE SOH

X. Luo R. Salgado A. Altschaeffl
September 1998
Indiana
Department
of Transportation
Purdue
University
Final Report
FHWA/IN/JTRP-98/13
DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION TEST TO ASSESS THE MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF THE SUBGRADE SOIL
Xiaodong Luo
Graduate Research Assistant
and
Rodrigo Salgado, PE.

Assistant Professor
and
A. G. Altschaeffi, P E.
Professor
Geotechnical Engineering
School of Civil Engineering
Purdue University
Joint Transportation Research
Project No:
File
Program C-36-45N
No: 6-18-13
Prepared
in
Cooperation with the
Indiana Department of Transportation and

the U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal
Highway Administration
The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official
views or policies of the Federal Highway Administration and the Indiana Department of
Transportation. This report does not constitute a standard, specification or regulation.
Purdue University
West
Lafayette, Indiana
September 30, 1998
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors
Tests Division and
are indebted to Athar
Khan and Nayyar Zia of INDOT
Materials and
Tommy
Nantung of
INDOT
Research Division for their assistance
with the selection of sites for testing, for

for
facilitating the testing in a
number of ways, and

cone
invaluable
discussions
about the potential
applications
of the dynamic
penetration test in the daily practice of their work.
Digitized by the Internet Archive

in
2011 with funding from

of Transportation
LYRASIS members and Sloan Foundation; Indiana Department
http://www.archive.org/details/dynamicconepenetOOIuox
IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
The scope of this research project was to develop an interpretational tool, which the dynamic cone penetrometer test (DCPT) a practical and simple technique for assessing the in-situ soil characteristics under the pavement in the approximate zone of influence of traffic. Also, DCPT could be employed to determine the densities of the compacted subgrade instead of other methods. This method could also be employed to These tasks became the objective of this verify the INDOT proof-rolling operation.
could
make
study.
correlation
between
DCPT DCPT
penetration index (inch/blow or mm/blow), water
content, density and other
commonly used parameters was proposed. The

could effectively be used by
goals were to
explore the
ways
in
which the
INDOT
geotechnical
and construction personnel and to perform testing and analysis that will lead to knowledge of necessary relationships between Indiana Soils and DCPT measurements.
The
DCPT
can be applied to characterize the subgrade
soils in
many
different
scenarios, such as in confined areas, during preliminary geotechnical investigation, and in
small earth works.
It is
a relationship between
utilized in lieu rolling) or
CBR
an ideal tool for construction monitoring. For low volume roads, and penetration index could be established. DCPT is to be
(to justify
of proof-rolling on projects that are too short

utilities
expense of proof-
have shallow
(which would prevent proof-rolling).
methods proposed in crews to use the DCPT equipment, initially together with other techniques. The data should be aggregated to existing data and analyzed for further validation and extension of correlations. This could also be done, perhaps in a more effective way, by funding an implementation project with the The specific goal of turning the correlations into a useful method for INDOT' s use. specific goals should be to (1) enlarge the database of soil types, (2) to refine the correlations by considering more data, (3) to carry out resilient modulus testing to refine the correlations with resilient modulus, (4) to develop a relationship between DCPT and other soils parameters, and (5) to establish the appropriate frequency of DCPT testing on
There
is
a need to further verify/enhance the correlations and
this report.
This can be done by allowing
INDOT
a particular project.
H\status\nz\dcpt pur.doc
TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD TITLE PAGE

1.
Report No. FHWA/IN/JTRP-98/1
2.
Government Accession No.
3. Recipient's
Catalog No.
4. Title
and Subtitle
Penetration Test to Assess the Mechanical Properties of the Subgrade Soil
5.
Report Date
September 30, 1998
Dynamic Cone
6.
Performing Organization Code
7.
Authors)
8.
Performing Organization Report No.
Xiadong Luo. Rodrigo Salgado and

9.
A G. Altschaeffl
10.
Performing Organization Name and Address Program 1284 Civil Engineering Building Purdue University West Lafayette. Indiana 47907-1284
Joint Transportation Research
Work Univ No.

Contract or Grant No.
11.
12. Sponsoring
Agency Name and Address
13.
Type of Report and Period Covered

Final Report
Indiana Department of Transportation

State Office Building
Indianapolis,
100 North Senate Avenue IN 46204
14.
Sponsoring Agency Code
15.
Supplementary Notes
Prepared in cooperation with the Indiana Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration.
16. Abstract
The purpose of the present study was to investigate the relationships between penetration resistance, dry density, moisture content, and resilient modulus of subgrade soils. The DCPT tests were conducted at eight sites. The nuclear gage and sand cone methods were used to estimate the dry
soils. Disturbed soil samples were collected in the field. Alterberg limits and sieve analysis tests were conducted in the laboratory. For selected sites, laboratory DCPT tests were performed in a 12-inch mold along the compaction curves, and unconfined compression tests were conducted on 2.8-inch samples. The contours of laboratory penetration index with respect to dry density and moisture content were developed. Based on this information, the relationships between laboratory penetration index, unconfined compression test
density and moisture content of the subgrade
results
and resilient modulus were found. Based on the
field test results
and unconfined compression
test results,
the relationship between field
penetration index, dry density, moisture content, and resilient modulus for sandy lean clay was also found for select soil types.
further development of such correlations for different soil types
is
A framework for
now in place, which should facilitate
future research.
17.
Key Words
penetration,
18. Distribution
Statement
is
dynamic cone
soil
DCPT, subgrade soil,
resilient
modulus,
No restrictions.
This document
available to the public through the
compaction
National Technical Information Service. Springfield.
YA 22161
19. Security CUssif. (of this report)
20. Security Classif. (of this page)
21. No. of Pages
22. Price
144
Form DOT F 1700.7
(8-69)
Ill
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
List
of Figures of Tables
v
xiii
List
Chapter
The Dynamic Cone Penetrometer

1.1
1 1
Introduction
1.2
1.3
Development of the
Research Objectives
of the
DCP
Study
2
5 5
1.4 Description
1.5
DCP used in this
Existing
1.5.1
DCP Correlations DCP/CBR Correlations

DCP/Unconfmed Compressive
Strength Correlation
for Granular Materials
7
8
8 8
1.5.2
1.5.3
DCP/SPT
Correlation
1.5.4
1.6
DCP/Shear Strength Correlation
Advantages and Limitations of the 1.6.1 Advantages

1.6.2
DCP
10 10
Disadvantages
10 10
1.7
Summary
Chapter 2 Testing Program

2.1
12 12 12
Preliminary Test Results
2.2
Review of Soil Compaction Concepts
2.3 Testing Philosophy
14
15
2.4 Testing Procedure

2.5
Summary
16
Chapter 3 Test Results and Analysis

3.1
17
17
Introduction..
3.2 Test Results and Analysis

3.2.1
17 17
3.2.2
3.2.3
3.2.4
3.2.5
The Railroad Relocation Project at West Lafayette The New Interchange of 165 at Johnson Co The SR67 at Delware Co (1) The SR67 at Delware Co. (2) The SR62 in Evansville
32
53
61
69
IV
Page
3.3
3.4
3.5
The US24 by-pass in Logansport The SR24 in Logansport 3.2.8 The US41 in Parke Co The Results for Sandy Lean Clay and Sandy The Relationship between DCPT and SPT
3.2.6
3.2.7
78
89
101
Silty
Clay
108
114 119
Summary
Work
Chapter 4 Conclusions and Future 4.1 Conclusions

4.2 Application to
4.3 Future
121
121
Compaction Control
122
123
work
List of References
124
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
6
.2
The Relationship between

Compression Test
(after
Penetration Index and Unconfined
Kleyn, 1983)
Penetration Index and Dry Density
2.1
from the Testing Results of Summer, 1997

3.1
13
The Log of the
DCPT (Station: DCPT (Station:
138+75, Offset: 4.9m RT) 138+50, Offset: 3.0m RT)

13 8+25, Offset:
22
3.
The Log of the

The Log of the The Log of the The Log of the
22
23 23
3.
DCPT (Station: DCPT
3.0m RT) 3.0m RT)
3.
(Station: 13 6+00, Offset:
3.5
DCPT (Station: DCPT
135+75, Offset: 7.6m RT)
24 24
25
3.6
The Log of the The Log of the
(Station: 141+50, Offset:
6.1m RT)
3.7
DCPT (Station:
141+75, Offset: 5.5m RT)
3.8
The Relationship between Dry Density and Moisture Content from Field DCPT for West Lafayette Railroad Relocation Project The Relationship between Penetration Index and Moisture Content From Field DCPT for West Lafayette Railroad Relocation Project
26
3.9
-26
3.10 The Relationship between Penetration Index and Dry Density from
Field
DCPT for West Lafayette Railroad Relocation Project

for
27
3.11
The Results of Sieve Analysis

Relocation Project
West Lafayette Railroad

27
VI
Figure
3.12 The Relationship between Dry Density and Moisture Content from
the Laboratory
Page
-29
3.13
The Relationship between Penetration Index and Moisture Content from the Laboratory DCPT for West Lafayette Railroad Relocation Project
-29
3.14 The Relationship between Penetration Index and Dry Density from the
Laboratory
-30
3.15 Contour of Penetration Index for West Lafayette Railroad Relocation

Project (Unit of I p
:
x25.4mm/blow)
(Station:
31
3.16 The log ofthe
DCPT
32+25
Ramp SWR,
Offset:
3.0m RT) 3.0m RT)

3.0m RT)
-37
3.
17 The log of the
27+50 Ramp SWR, 36+50 Ramp SWR,
Offset:
-38
3.18 The log ofthe 3.19 The log ofthe

3. 20
Offset:
-39
DCPT (Station:
DCPT (Station:
36+50 Ramp SWR,

36+45
36+45 36+48
Offset:
4.6m RT)
-39
The log of the
Ramp SWR, Ramp SWR, Ramp SWR,
Offset: 3.
OmRT)
-40
3.21
The log ofthe
DCPT (Station:
DCPT (Station:
Offset:
4.6m RT)
3.0m RT)
-40
3.22 The log ofthe
Offset:
-41
3.23 The Relationship between Dry Density and Moisture Content from Field
DCPT for the New Interchange of 165
in
Johnson CO., IN
42
3.24 The Relationship between Penetration Index and Moisture Content from
Field
in
Johnson CO., IN
42
3.25 The Relationship between Penetration Index and

3.26 The Results of Sieve Analysis for the
in
Dry Density from Field Johnson CO., IN

of 165 in
43
New Interchange
Johnson CO., IN
3.27 The Relationship between Dry Density and Moisture Content from the
43
Laboratory
in
Johnson CO., IN
44
Vll
Figure
Page
3.28
The Relationship between Penetration Index and Moisture Content from the Laboratory DCPT for the New Interchange of 165 in Johnson CO., IN
44
3.29 The Relationship between Penetration Index and
Dry Density from
the

Laboratory
DCPT for the New Interchange
of 165 in Johnson CO., IN of 165

in
-45
3.30 Contour of Penetration Index for the

:
New Interchange
Johnson CO., IN (Unit of I p x25.4 mnVblow)

3.31
46
The Relationship between Moisture Content and Dry Density from Unconfined Compression Tests for the New Interchange of 165 in Johnson CO. IN
48
3.32 The Relationship between Moisture Content and S ul0% for the Interchange of 165 in Johnson CO., IN
New
48
3.33
The Relationship of Dry Density and S ul of 165 in Johnson CO., IN
0% for the
New Interchange
49
3.34 Contour of Su 10% for the

3.35
New Interchange of 165
in
Johnson CO., IN
for the
51
The Relationship between S ul-0% and Penetration Index Interchange of 165 in Johnson CO., IN
New
52
3.36 The Relationship between Penetration Index and Resilient Modulus

for the
New Interchange of 165
in
Johnson CO., IN
52
3.37 The
Log of the
43+485, Offset:
2m RT)
3m RT)
5m RT)
55
3.38
The Log of the
43+480, Offset:
43+480, Offset: 43+482, Offset:
56
56
3.39 The
Log of the
DCPT (Station: DCPT (Station: DCPT (Station: DCPT (Station:

DCPT
(Station:
3.40
The Log of the The Log of the The Log ofthe
9m RT) 7m LT)
10m LT)
57
3.41
43+485, Offset:
43+490, Offset: 43+492, Offset:
57
58 58
3.42
3.43
The Log of the
7m LT)
Vlll
Figure
Page
3.44
The Relationship between Moisture Content and Dry Density from Field DCPT for SR67 in Delaware CO., IN (1) The Relationship between Moisture Content and Penetration Index from Field DCPT for SR67 in Delaware CO., IN (1)
59
3.45
59
3.46 The Relationship between Dry Density and Penetration Index

for
SR67 from
Field
DCPT in Delaware
SR67
CO., IN (1)
60 60
63 63
3.47 The Results of Sieve Analysis for
in
Delaware CO., IN
(1)
3. 48
The Log of the
DCPT (Station: DCPT (Station: DCPT (Station:

DCPT (Station:
39+790, Offset: 1.9m

39+790, Offset: 2.6m 39+790, Offset: 3.3m
EBRT)
EB RT)
3.49 The 3.50 The
Log of the Log of the
EBRT)
64
64
65 65
3.51
The Log of the The Log of the The Log of the The Log of the
39+790, Offset: 4.2m 39+790, Offset: 5.3m

39+790, Offset: 6.4m 39+790, Offset: 7.5m
EBRT)
EBRT) EBRT) EBRT)
3.52
DCPT (Station: DCPT (Station: DCPT (Station:
3.53
3.54
66
3.55
The Relationship between Dry Density and Moisture Content from Filed DCPT for SR67 in Delaware CO., IN (2)
66
3.56 The Relationship between Moisture Content and Penetration Index
from Field
3.57
DCPT for SR67
in
Delaware CO., IN
(2)
67
The Relationship between Dry Density and Penetration Index from

Field
DCPT for SR67
in
Delaware CO., IN
for
(2)
67
3.58
The Results of Sieve Analysis

The Results of Sieve Analysis Garvin St. in Evansville, IN
SR67
The
in
Delaware CO., IN
(2)
....
68
3.59
for
Intersection of
SR62 and
70
3.60 The
DCPT Log
for the Intersection of
SR62 and Garvin

71
St. in
Evansville,
IN
IX
Figure
Page
3.61
The
DCPT Log 2
Evansville,
SR62 and Garvin

72
St. in
IN
3.62
The
DCPT Log 3
Evansville,
SR62 and Garvin

73
St. in
IN
for the Intersection
3.63
The
DCPT Log 4
Evansville,
of SR62 and Garvin

74 of SR62 and Garvin
75
St. in
IN
3.64 The
DCPT Log c
y
5 for the Intersection
St. in Evansville,
IN
3.65

of SR62 and Garvin
St. in
DCPT and SPT for the Intersection

Evansville,
IN
5.1
77
3.66 The
Log ofthe
DCPT (Station:
DCPT (Station:
438+67, Offset:
8m LT)
80 80
3.67
The Log of the The Log of the The Log ofthe
438+67, Offset: 3.66m LT) 438+67, Offset: 2.44m RT)

405-26, Offset: 7.92m LT) 405-26, Offset: 4.88m LT)
3.68
DCPT (Station:
DCPT (Station: DCPT (Station: DCPT (Station: DCPT (Station:
81
3.69
81
3.70 The
Log ofthe
82 82
83
3.71
The Log ofthe
405-26, Offset: 2.44m LT)
3.72
The Log ofthe
405+2, Offset: 1.52m RT)
3.73
The Relationship between Dry Density and Moisture Content with Nuclear Gage Method for US24 By-pass in Logansport, IN
84
3.74 The Relationship between Penetration Index and Moisture Content
with Nuclear Gage Method for

3.75
US24 By-pass
in Logansport,
IN
85
The Relationship between Penetration Index and Dry Density with Nuclear Gage for US24 By-pass in Logansport, IN The Relationship between Dry Density and Moisture Content with Sand Cone Method for US24 Bypass in Logansport, IN
85
3.76
86
Figure
Page
3.77
The Relationship between Penetration Index and Moisture Content with Sand Cone Method for US24 By-pass in Logansport, IN
86
3.78
The Relationship between Penetration Index and Dry Density with Sand Cone Method for US24 By-pass in Logansport,IN
87
3.79 Comparison of the Testing Results of Moisture Content from Sand
Cone Method and Nuclear Gage
for
US24 By-pass
in Logansport,
IN
-87
3.80 Comparison of the Testing Results of Dry Density from Sand
Method and Nuclear Gage

3.81
for
US24 By-pass
for
in Logansport,
Cone IN
88 88
91
The Test Results of Sieve Analysis
US24 By-pass
IN IN
in Logansport,
IN
3.82 the
Log
oftheDCPT
for
SR24
in Logansport,
3.83 the
Log 2 oftheDCPT Log

3
for
SR24 SR24
in Logansport,
91
3.84 the
oftheDCPT
for
in Logansport,
IN
IN
92
3. 8 5
the
Log 4 of the Log

5
DCPT for SR24

for
in Logansport,
92
93 93
3.86 the
oftheDCPT
SR24
in Logansport,
IN IN
IN
3.87 the
Log 6 oftheDCPT
for
SR24
SR24
in Logansport,
3.88 the
Log
oftheDCPT
for
in Logansport,
94
3.89
The Relationship between Dry Density and Moisture Content with Nuclear Gage Method for SR24 in Logansport, IN
95
3.90
The Relationship between Penetration Index and Moisture Content with Nuclear Gage Method for SR24 in Logansport, IN The Relationship between
Penetration Index and
95
3.91
Dry Density with

96
Nuclear Gage for SR24 in Logansport, IN

3.92
The Relationship between Dry Density and Moisture Content with Sand Cone Method for SR24 in Logansport, IN The Relationship between
Penetration Index and Moisture Content
96
3.93
XI
Figure
Page
in
with Sand Cone Method for SR24

3.94
Logansport, IN
97
The Relationship between Penetration Index and Dry Density with Sand Cone Method for SR24 in Logansport,IN
Cone
97
3.95 Comparison of the Testing Results of Moisture Content from Sand
for
SR24
in Logansport,
IN
98
3.96 Comparison of the Testing Results of Dry Density from Sand
Cone
99

3.97
for
SR24
in Logansport,
IN
The Test Results of Sieve Analysis in Logansport, IN The Results of Sieve Analysis
for
for
SR24 By-pass
1
00
102 104
105
3. 98
US41
in Parke
CO., IN
3.99 the
Log lofthe
DCPT for US41
in
Parke CO. Parke CO. Parke CO.
3.100theLog2oftheDCPTforUS41
3.101 the
in
Log
of the
DCPT for US41
in
106
Parke CO, IN
107
02 The Relationship between
DCPT and SPT for US4
in
3.103 The Relationship between Moisture Content and Dry Density for
Sandy Lean Clay with Nuclear Gage

3.104 The Relationship between Moisture Content and Penetration Index
for
109
109
3.105 The Relationship between Dry Density and Penetration Index for

3.106 The Relationship between Moisture Content and Dry Density for
110
Sandy Lean Clay with Sand Cone Method

3.107 The Relationship between Moisture Content and Penetration Index for
110

3.108 The Relationship between Dry Density and Penetration Index for
Ill
Sandy Lean Clay Sand Cone Method
Ill
Xll
Figure
Page
113
113
3.109 The Relationship between Field PI and S uK0%

3.1 10
The Relationship between The Relationship between The Relationship between
Field PI and
3.111
the
DCPT and SPT(0 to DCPT and SPT (6 to DCPT and SPT (

1
6 inches)
115
1 1
the
2 inches)
115
1 1
The Relationship between the
2 to
8 inches)
116 117 117

118
3.
114 The Relationship between the
DCPT and SPT (18 to 24 DCPT and SPT (24 to

DCPT and SPT (30 to DCPT and SPT
inches)
3.1 15
The Relationship between the
30 inches) 36 inches)
3.
116 The Relationship between the
3.1 17
the
(36 to 42 inches)
119
Xlll
LIST OF
TABLES
Table
Page
3.1.1
The Information of The Testing
Sites
18
3.2.1 Field
DCPT Results for West Lafayette Railroad

21
Relocation Project
3.2.2
The Results of the Laboratory

Railroad Relocation Project
DCPT for West Lafayette

28
3.2.3
The Field
DCPT Results at the New Interchange

33
of 165 in Johnson CO.

3.2.4
The Results of the Laboratory Penetration Testing 165 Interchange *c> Soil in Johnson CO. The Information of the Blows
for
for
34
35
3.2.5
Each
Soil Layer
3.2.6
The Test Results of Unconfined Compression Test The Relationship between Sul0% Penetration Index and Resilient Modulus
,
47
3.2.7
50
3.2.8 Field Test Results for the
SR67
in
in
Delaware CO., IN
(2)
(1)
54
62
3.2.9 Field Test Results for
SR67
Delaware CO., IN
3.2.10
The Relationship between SPT and

Interchange of
DCPT for the

Evansville,
SR62 and Garvin
St. in
IN
76
3.2.1
Field Test Results for
US24 By-pass
in
Logansport, IN (with nuclear gage)
79
XIV
Table
Page
US24 By-pass
in Logansport,
IN
79
(with Sand
Cone Method)
SR24
in Logansport,
IN
90
(with nuclear gage)
(with Sand
SR24 Cone Method)
in Logansport,
IN
90
3.2.15
The Relationship between SPT and in Parke CO., IN

The Relationships between Sandy Silty Clay
Field PI,
DCPT for US41

103
3.3.1
Sul0% and
for
108
Field PI, S ul
3.3.2
The Relationships between Sandy Lean Clay The Relationship between

Laboratory
/o
and M, for
112
3.3.3
from Field and
from
114
3.4.1
DCPT and SPT (0 to

DCPT and SPT
6 inches)-
-114
3.4.2

(6 to 12 inches)-
-115
3.4.3
DCPT and SPT (12 to
18 inches)-
-116
-116
3.4.4
DCPT and SPT (18 to 24 inches)DCPT and SPT (24 to

30 inches)-
3.4.5
The Relationship between The Relationship between The Relationship between
117 118 118
3.4.6
DCPT and SPT (30 to
36 inches)inches)
3.4.7
DCPT and SPT (36 to 42
Chapter
1.1
Introduction
Dynamic
or static penetration tests are widely used in geotechnical engineering.

in soil exploration in
Various penetrometers and testing methods are utilized

different
response to
phase,
purposes
and
requirements.
During
the
preliminary
exploratory
penetration tests are employed to determine the soil conditions, such as soil type, the
depth, thickness and lateral extent of the soil strata. During the detailed exploration
phase, penetration tests are also important.
The shear
strength and stiffness of the soil can
be estimated from penetration testing
data, so that the ultimate bearing capacity
and the
compressibility of the soil can be assessed.
Penetration tests have a very long history (Broms and Flodin, 1988). In the 15th
century, test piles were used to determine the required length of pile foundations. Thus,
pile driving
can be regarded as an early type of penetration
testing.
The
earliest
dynamic
end of
penetrometer
may have been
a "ram penetrometer" developed in
Germany
test
at the
the 17th century
by Nicholaus Goldmann. The standard penetration
(SPT) can be
diameter
traced
back
to Colonel Charles R.
Gow
in
1902,
who developed
25mm
sampler which was driven by a 50kg hammer into the bottom of a borehole. Earlier, Sir
Stanford Fleming (Broms and Flodin, 1988) had proposed a
1
soil investigation
method
in
872, in which a steel rod was pushed into the soil and the resistant force was measured.
first
This was probably the
modern
static
penetrometer. Today, the cone penetration test
(CPT)
is
commonly used
as static sounding
method
in engineering practice,
and different
cones are available for different purposes.
Each kind of penetration

used in
all
test
has advantages and limitations so that they can't be
circumstances. This study focuses on the dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP),

to assess the
which
is
used
mechanical properties of subgrade soils
in
highway and
airport
engineering.
1.2
Development of the
DCP
The invention of
(1956).
the
dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) was attributed to Scala

in Australia in
The
DCP
was developed
response to the need for a simple and

soil.
rapid device for the characterization of the subgrade
The
DCP
used by Scala
(20 inches).
included a 9kg (20 pound)
hammer
with a dropping distance of
508mm
15.875mm
(5/8 inch) diameter rod with a 30 degree angle cone

soil. In his study,
was used
to penetrate
762mm
(30 inches) into the
Scala tried to find the correlations between

results
DCPT
results
and CBR, and also between

static
DCPT
and the bearing capacity of
soils
estimated by a
cone.
In the late 1960's, D.J.
Van Vuuren continued
to
in
develop the
DCP
in Pretoria.
He
used a similar device, except for some differences
dimensions: a 10kg (22-pound)
hammer was dropped from
a height of
460mm
(18.1 inches), forcing a

soil
30 degree cone
(39.4 inches).
to
connected to a (16mm) 0.63 inch diameter rod into the
up
to
1000mm
DCP
tests
were preferred
to
CBR
tests in Pretoria,
and the
DCP
was believed
be
applicable in soils with
CBR values of
to 50.
in
In 1973, the Transvaal
Roads Department
South Africa decided to use the
DCP
as a rapid evaluation device for the extensive evaluation of existing roads.
The drop
weight of the
inches);
DCP
was 8kg (17.6 pounds) and
the falling height
was 574
utilized.
mm
(22.6
two kinds of cones with 30 and 60 degree angles were

soil type, plasticity,
E.G. Kleyn
(1975) evaluated the effects of

test results
moisture content, and density on the
of
DCPT. He
indicated that these factors affect the
DCPT
and
CBR
in similar
ways, and generalized

tested
DCP/CBR
correlations applicable to the full range of materials
were proposed. Other researchers developed the relations between

et al
DCP
and
unconfined compressive strength (Bester

(1982) discussed the application of the
1977 and Villiers 1980j. Kleyn
et al.
DCP
to characterization of stabilized materials,
evaluation of potentially collapsible soils, use as a construction control method, and use
as a structural evaluation technique.
They
also introduced the concepts of
"DCP
Structure
Number (DSN)" and "Pavement
Strength-Balance (PSB)",
and developed a pavement

Later,
design model based on correlations with the
Heavy Vehicle Simulator (HVS).

pavement
rehabilitation.
Kleyn (1983) used the Livneh and
DCP as
means
to optimize
Ishai
(1985) refined
DCP/CBR
correlations in Israel, adapting a
device that was used in the South Africa, except for the cone angle, which
degrees. Livneh (1987) presented a comparison of 21
Australia,
was 30
from
DCP/CBR
correlations
England, South Africa and
Israel.
He
also
indicated that the
variability
associated with
DCP testing is
less than that associated
with "field"
CBR testing.
in
The advancement of
Australia,
the
DCP may
be attributed primarily to the research done

Israel.
New
Zealand, South Africa and
The
DCP
first
was not accepted

mentioned the
in the
United States
until the early 1980's.
Yoder
et al
(1982)
DCP
as a
technique for the determination of in-situ
CBR. His
study focused on the use of the Clegg
Hammer and
presented the
DCP/CBR
correlations
by van Vuuren. Based on the work of

initial
Yankelevski and Adin (1980), Chua (1988) developed a model to connect the
elastic
modulus of
soils to the penetration resistance
of the
DCP. Chua and Lytton (1988)

this
mounted an
accelerator on the top of the
DCP, and used
modified
DCP
DCP
to estimate
is
the hysteretic and the viscous
damping
ratios in situ. In their study, the
modeled
as a series of springs and masses, and the soil as a dashpot.

series of
Ayers
et al
(1989) conducted a
DCP
tests
on granular materials
in the laboratory, relating the shear strength of
granular materials to
DCP
test data.
When comparing
al.
compaction methods
in
narrow method,
subsurface drainage trenches, Ford et

indicating that the
(1993) utilized the
DCP
as a control
DCPT
results generally correlated well
with Proctor compaction data,
thus showing promise for evaluating compaction in narrow, granular-backfilled trenches.
Burnham and Johnson (1993)
reported the application of the

Little
DCP
in the projects of the
Minnesota Department of Transportation.

situ
(1996) used the

stiffness
DCP to
determine the
soils
in-
strength
and
to
verify
the
effective
of
lime-stabilized
for
backcalculation purposes.
From
the above historical
review of the development of the
DCP, we
see that the
DCP
testing can
be applied to the characterization of subgrade and base material
properties.
The
greatest strength of the
DCP
device
lies in its ability to
provide quickly
and simply a continuous profile of relative

relatively lightweight design of the
soil strength
it
with depth. The small and

in
DCP
enables
to
be used
confined areas such as
inside buildings, or used at congested sites that
would prevent
larger testing
equipment
from being used. The

existing pavement.
DCP
is
also ideal for testing through core holes drilled through
The
applications of the
DCP may
be summarized as follows: (1)
preliminary soil exploration, (2) construction control, (3) structural evaluation of existing
pavements, (4) pavement design.
Many
studied by
factors affect the results of the field
and laboratory
DCPT
testing
and were
many
researchers. Usually those factors are attributed to variability induced by

factors.
human
factors,
mechanical conditions, and material

is
For shallow depth
(less than
about 20cm, which

following factors:
( 1
the meaningful range for subgrade soils),
we can
identify the
human
factors (testing procedure and operation);
(2)
mechanical conditions (size of the mold, geometry of the penetrometer,
cone apex angle);

(3)
material factors (gradation, density, moisture content).
1.3
Research Objectives
The primary
1
objectives of this study were:
establish the correlation of the penetration resistance of the
DCP
with the dry
density and moisture content of subgrade soils, so that these relationships can be used in
preliminary exploration, quality control and engineering design;

2.
establish the correlation of the

soil,
DCP
penetration resistance with resilient
modulus of the subgrade
which
is
an important pavement design parameter.
1.4 Description of the
DCP used in this Study

The lower
The
DCP consists of two 16mm
(0.63in) diameter rods.
rod, containing
an anvil and a replaceable 60 cone

rod contains an 8kg (17.6 lb) drop
tip, is
marked
with a
at
every
5.
1mm
(0.2 inches).
The upper
hammer
575mm
(22.6 inches) drop distance, an
end plug for connection
to the lower rod,
and a top grab handle. All materials (except the
drop hammer) are stainless

Operation of the
steel for corrosion resistance.
DCP
requires
two persons, one

test
to
drop the
hammer and
the other
to record the depth of penetration.
The
begins with the operator "seating" the cone tip
by dropping the hammer
until the widest part of the

initial
cone
is
just
below the
testing surface.
At
this point, the other

lifts
person records this

either
penetration as
"Blow
0".
The operator
then
and drops the hammer
one or more times depending upon the strength of
the soil at the test location. Following each sequence of
hammer
drops, a penetration
is
reading
is
recorded. This process continues until the desired depth of testing

is
reached, or
1
the full length of the lower rod
buried.
The maximum
penetration depth
is
is
about
.02m
(40 inches). After the testing

device.
is
completed, a special adapted jack

in
used
to extract the
The
DCP device is
shown
Figure
1.1.
Handle
Upper
17.6 lbs. (8 kg) Drop
shaft
Hammer22.6
Variable
(Typ. 34")
drop
height
Reading device
v
Anvil
(3.20")
Cone Tip
Lower
0.118"
1.75' shaft
Variable
(Typ. 44")
0.787" Dia.
y.
1.75"
Figure
(after the
1.1
Minnesota Department of Transportation)
Data from a
DCP
test is
processed to produce the penetration index
(PI),
which
is
simply the distance that the cone penetrates with each drop of the hammer. The PI
expressed
in
is
terms of either inches per blow or millimeters per blow.

soil
The
penetration
index reflects the varying strength and stiffness of different

directly correlated with a
layers, but
may be
number of common pavement design parameters. Some of
these correlations will be described in the next section.
1.5 Existing
DCP Correlations
DCP
test results
have been correlated with other testing results for a broad range
of material types.
1.5.1
DCP/CBR
Correlations
Many
studies have been
done on
DCP/CBR
correlations and
numerous
relations
have been developed. In 1987, Livneh presented 20
DCP/CBR correlations;
several of the
most accepted
correlations are
summarized below:
1.
logCBR=3.38-0.71(logPI) logCBR=4.66-1.32(logPI)
15
2.
3.
CBR=405.3(Piy'
259
4.
logCBR=2.0-1.31og(PI-0.62)
PI
is
the penetration index (mm/blow). Equation
was developed from a 30 degree cone

tip.
tip; the
other equations were developed for a 60-degTee cone
1.5.2
DCP/Unconfined Compressive Strength Correlation
A
and q u
is
graphical relationship between
DCP
test results, in
terms of
DN
(mm/blow),
shown
in Figure
1.2.
The
relationship
was developed
for a broad range of
materials.
1.5.3
DCP/SPT
Correlation
Livneh and Ishai (1988) developed a relationship between

correlation equation took the form:
DCP
and SPT. The
Log(PD=-A+Blog(N S pT )
where PI= penetration index (mm/blow), Nspt =
It
SPT blow
is
count.
should be noted that the above equation
suitable for values of
SPT blow
count
less than 30.
1.5.4
DCP/Shear Strength Correlation
for
Granular Materials
Ayers
relationship
et al
(1989) conducted the
DCP
test in the laboratory to
determine a
between the
DCP
and the shear strength of granular materials. The equations
took the form,
DS=A-B(PI)
where
DS =
deviator stress
at failure
and PI= penetration index.
~
\.K&1
"
1
"*-
^
s.
o o
CO
i?fl
; i
i
"
XI
CD
O o c
\
1
1
'
1 1
-I!
=>
rn
i
\
t t
11
CO
UCS
\
i
!!
>
1 1
CBR\A
.1 1
i i
V N
!
i i
N
N X
u
X X
*
e,i
e,s
i.
3,
ia
123
Penetration Index (mm/blow)
Figure 1.2 The Relationship between Penetration Index and Unconfined
Compression Test
(after Kleyn, 1983)
10
1.6
Advantages and Limitations of the
DCP
1.6.1
Advantages:
1.
The
DCP
is
a simple device, requiring 2 people for
its
operation, whereas the
automated
2.
DCP requires only one operator.

DCP
is
The The
The
portable and easy to operate;
it is
not expensive.
3.
testing results are easy to process.
4.
DCP can
be used
to quickly characterize the
subgrade
soil;
it is
suitable for
congested areas.
5.
The
DCPT
measurements can be correlated with the shear strength of the
subgrade
soil or other
common
design parameters (for example,
CBR).
1.6.2 Disadvantages:
1.
The
DCPT
is
not yet a standard testing method, although a proposed
ASTM
standard
is
being considered.
2.
The
DCP
is
not suitable for gravel
soils:
the
DCP
rod
may be
bent during
testing. Variability of the results

3.
can be expected to be significant in such

test,
soils.
The
DCP
is
a dynamic
which means
it is
somewhat
difficult to
analyze and
interpret.
1.7
Summary
In this chapter,
we
reviewed the historical development of the

tests,
DCPT. Like
the
SPT and
other dynamic penetration
the
DCPT
is
a destructive testing method.
The
factors affecting the
DCPT
test results
were discussed. The dynamic cone penetrometer
used
in this study
was described.
11
The measurement of
penetration resistance provides an almost continuous profile

soils.
of relative shear strength of subgrade

other
regular
The
penetration index
may
be correlated to
pavement design parameters,

test is
including
CBR, SPT and unconfined

in its
compression strength. However, the

analysis and interpretation.
dynamic, which introduces difficulties
12
Chapter 2
Testing
Program
2.1
Preliminary Test Results
Figure 2.1 shows the results of preliminary testing done
at different sites in
the
summer of 1997
to
develop familiarity with the
test
equipment and better understand the
research problem.
classification.
The
test
data in this figure are put together independently of soil
The data
points are rather scattered, and apparently no relationship can be

(PI)
found between penetration index

question arises as to
and dry density or moisture content of
soils.
So
the
how
to
reduce
this scatter.
2.2
Review of Soil Compaction Concepts
In this study, the
DCP
is
used to determine the mechanical properties of the

is
subgrade subgrade
soil;
soil,
however, compaction
often conducted to improve the properties of the

this
and we focus our study mainly on

soil
compacted
soil.
So
it is
necessary to
review the properties of compacted
before
we
continue.
in the laboratory
The compaction
standard.
tests
can be conducted
according to
ASTM
When
the dry densities of samples are determined and plotted versus the water
is
contents for each sample, a curve called the compaction curve
obtained.
The peak point
of the curve corresponds to the
maximum
dry density and so-called optimum moisture
13
1^ OS OS
u E E 3
03
a
%-*
<v
v
5
s
tu
C
at
e
On
s a> v
(pd) Ajisuap Ajp
DO
14
content
(OMC). Many
scholars did significant study on
compacted
soil.
Lambe
CI
958
investigated the
influence of compaction on clay structure and particle orientation. His
study showed that
many
and
factors affect compaction: (1) dry density, (2) water content, (3)
(4) soil
compactive
effort,
type (gradation,
amount of clay minerals,
etc.).
The
research by these scholars addressed the following: (1) the effect of dry density and
moisture content of the compacted
soil
on shrinkage, swelling, swell-pressures,

strength,
stress-
deformation
characteristics,
undrained
al.
pore-water pressures
and
effective
strength characteristics (Seed et
1959); (2) settlement analysis of foundations on
saturated clay (Skempton and Bjerrum 1957); (3) hydraulic conductivity of
compacted
clay (Boynton and Daniel 1985;
Day and Daniel
1985); (4) permeability of sandy soils
(Juang and Holtz 1986); (5) influence of clods on hydraulic conductivity of compacted
clay (Benson and Daniel 1990); (6) water-content-density criteria for compacted soil
liners (Daniel
Benson 1990);
(7)
CBR
1994).
values along compaction curves (Tumbull and
Foster,
1957; Faure and Mata,

as
The
fabric
"at
of the compacted soil
is
very
complicated,
indicated
by Holtz (1981):
the
same compactive
effort,
with
increasing water content, the soil fabric becomes increasingly oriented.

the soils are always flocculated, whereas wet of
Dry of optimum
optimum
the fabric
becomes more
oriented or dispersed".
The
fabric of the soil affects its properties,
such as permeability,
to stabilize
compressibility, swelling, and shear strength.

soils
So when we use compaction
and improve
their engineering behavior,

are:
we must
note what the desired engineering
properties of the
fill
they are not just
its
dry density and water content, because the
desired properties do not necessarily correspond to the
maximum
dry density or optimum
moisture content.
2.3 Testing Philosophy
Let's return to the question
posed
earlier:
it
how
is
to
reduce the scatter
in
the
penetration test data? In order to address that,
desirable that the
dynamic cone
15
penetration testing be conducted along the compaction curve, and that the penetration
resistance along the compaction curve
this
be studied with
different
compaction
efforts. In
way, the contour of the Penetration Index (PI) with respect to dry density and
later. It is
moisture content can be developed, as will be explained in detail
desired to
field
perform the penetration testing along the field compaction curve; however,
compaction testing requires equipment that was not available for

alternative,
this project.
As
the best
in the
DCPT
should be conducted along the compaction curves obtained
laboratory.
In
order to determine the correlation of penetration resistance and resilient
modulus, the
DCPT
is
performed
in the laboratory
and unconfined compression
tests
on
disturbed soil samples are conducted in the laboratory.
The
relationship between results

)
of unconfined compression testing and resilient modulus proposed by Lee (1993, 1997
is
then used to correlate penetration resistance and resilient modulus.
A similar approach
is
followed to correlate field penetration resistance and resilient modulus.
2.4 Testing
Procedure
The dynamic cone penetration

subgrade
soil.
testing
was conducted
in
the
as-compacted
However, there
is
usually a time gap between the compaction
work and
the
DCPT. The
some
sites,
dry density and moisture content were measured with the nuclear gage, and in
the sand cone
method was used. The

tests.
DCPT
was performed
at the
same time
and location as the density

of the top
also
Because the nuclear gage usually measures the density

lift),
152mm
(6 inches) of soils (the top
the penetration depth of the
DCP
is
152mm
(6 inches)
soil
when
the nuclear gage
is
used.
Disturbed
limits testing
samples were collected

soils.
in the field.
Sieve analysis and Atterberg
were conducted on these
The laboratory
DCPT was
conducted on
is
these soils within a
304.8mm
(12 inch) diameter metal mold. The soil sample

(6.5 inch) in height.
3
,
304.8mm
(12 inch) in diameter,

are applied:
165.1mm
3
,
Four
3
,
different
3
compaction energies
3
213970 J/m
320940 J/m
427950 J/m
591980 J/m (4469
ft.lb/ft
6703
16
ft.lb/ft
8938
ft.lb/ft
and 12364
test.
ft.lb/ft
).
The
last
energy level corresponds to the

level,
standard Proctor compaction

different
For the same energy
samples were made
at four
moisture contents in order to obtain a complete compaction curve. The
confinement of the wall and the base of the mold has an effect on the penetration testing
results.
Ayers (1990) studied the confining effect of the mold on the DCPT, and
is
concluded that a diameter of 304.8mm (12 inches)

of the confinement.
large
enough
to eliminate the effect
We
remain cautious about possible mold boundary effects and

is
believe that field compaction testing
recommended
for developing relationships for use
in engineering practice. After the laboratory penetration testing, the contour of penetration
index PI with respect to dry density and moisture content can be developed.
After the penetration testing, unconfined compression
laboratory for clay soils.
test
were performed
in
in the
The disturbed
soil
samples are 71.12mm (2.8 inch)

are
diameter
and 152.4mm (6 inch)
in height.
The samples
made
in the
71.12mm
(2.8 inch)
mold
with the same compaction energies as those used in the

correlation between the stress associated with
304.8mm
(12 inch) mold. The
1.0%
strain
(S u i%) in the unconfined

is
compression
test
and
resilient
modulus (M r) suggested by Lee (1993, 1997)

resilient
used
to
relate the Penetration
Index (PI) to
modulus (M r).
2.5
Summary
This chapter reviewed basic

testing
soil
compaction concepts, and described how the
program was designed

In order to
for this study.
develop the relationship between penetration resistance, dry density

soils,
and moisture content of subgrade

conducted
along
tests
DCPT
tests
were performed
in
in the field
and
the
compaction
curves
obtained
the
laboratory.
Unconfined
index to
compression
resilient
were also performed

field
in the laboratory to relate the penetration tests are
modulus. However,
compaction
in practice.
highly
recommended
for further
development of correlations for use
17
Chapter 3
Test Results and Analysis
3.1 Introduction
Field
DCPT
testing
was conducted
at 8
different sites.
The
soils range
is
from
Table
clayey sand to sandy lean clay. The information for the testing sites
3.1.1.
shown
in
3.2 Test Results
and Analysis
3.2.1
The Railroad Relocation
Project at
West Lafayette
The compaction work was

conducted
at
1 1
finished at 6:00 p.m., 4/18/1998.

later
The
DCPT
was
am, 4/20/1998, 41 hours

Caterpillar
than the compaction work. The compaction

roller.
was done with a
CAT CS563
smooth drum vibratory

at the
The dry density

as the
and moisture content were measured with the nuclear gage
same time
DCPT.
During compaction the numbers of passes of the compaction equipment were not
controlled.
The dry
density and moisture content were used for quality control.

in Table 3.2.1.
The
field
test results are
shown
The logs of the
DCPT
are
shown
in Figures 3.1
through
testing.
3.7. After the field tests, disturbed soil
samples were collected for laboratory
The
from the
relationships between moisture content, dry density
and penetration index
field tests are
shown
in Figures 3.8, 3.9,
and 3.10, respectively.
18
c
*-*
>N
*lo CO to
O C to
CO
T3
co
re
u
00 >> T3
CO
u
c CO u
TO
-J >N
U
re
-0
CO
CO
00 >>
a 00
>%
<L>
e CO
U
c
CO CJ
O
c
CO
a c
CO
00
-J
U
'o 00
>>
CO
s CO
a c
re
>N
CO
_) >N
-J
C CO
00
C CO
00
00
on
00
o"
n.
0"
On
CD
00
e
CO
.S
oo JO 3. OS + Ul) CO
J3 to
Ci_
s"2
c
-to
8K +
f-
> H CO
+
-9
NO*
00
D. 00
--
cn
o
so 
C]
E g
O O + O
0"
M
**
co CO
+ 8*2 On
+
CI
u. rr 00
CN in
1
6C
Q, NO
^
!>
Js <~
o ON + (J WO ON
S
NO
t"-"
CU
+
CN m + m
00
in 00
2
CJ
.to
.2 0O
c +
a)
to CO
ON ON ON
V
O
+ O
<fr
S2
T3
CO
CN
Pi 03
NO 00
CN NO
i 00
TT CN 00
c/5
CO
<?>
CN
00
00
D O
ID
-.
2
to
c2
CO
O u
e
CO
U
 co
o
-J
-J
co
C O
_C0
_re
s CO >
S CO
-J
CO
CO
00
00
CO
Q
00 ON ON
Q
CO
a.
00 ON
Cc>
0O ON On
0CN
00 ON On CO NO
00 On On
(N
00 ON On
/->
00 ON ON
Q O CN
ON
n
ON tN
Pi
CM
-r
V~i
NO
r^
00
19
Sieve analysis and Atterberg Limits testing were conducted in the laboratory. The
sieve analysis results are
shown
in Figure 3.11.
The
P is
12.4, the
wL
is
21, the plasticity
index
(I ) is 8.6. p
The
soil is a
clayey sand.
As mentioned
30.48cm (12 inches)
compacted
in the previous chapter, the in diameter,
DCPT
was conducted on samples of

Each sample was
soil
16.51cm
(6.5
inches) in height.
to
in three layers.
44. 5N
hammer was used
compact the
from a
dropping height of 0.46m. The numbers of blows for each
soil layer
corresponding to the
3
compaction energies of 2 13.97x1 0\ 320.94xl0 3

6703, 8938, 12364
3
427.95xl0 3
591.98xl0 J/m 3 (4469,
ft.lb/ft
are 42, 63, 84, 116 respectively. Test results are
shown
in
Table
3.2.2.
The
measured
get
relationships between moisture content, dry density and penetration index
in the laboratory are
shown
in Figure 3.12, 3.13, 3.14 respectively. In order to
more convenient presentation of
penetration index, the data in Figure 3.12 and 3.13
are transferred to a plot of dry density versus moisture content. intersection of curves with any horizontal lines in Figure 3.13,
series
By
it
finding the points of

is
possible to read a
to
of corresponding values of moisture content and dry density which correspond

value.
the
same penetration index
These points define a contour of penetration index
in a
in
plot of dry density versus moisture content.
The contours
for this clayey sand
is
shown
the Figure 3.15.
The curves
are
from laboratory
testing; the
seven scattered points
represent the field testing results.
Analysis:
(1) In the field, the
compaction energy was not uniform, because the number of
passes of the compaction equipment was not controlled. In Figure 3.8, the scattered data
points
may be on
different
compaction curves corresponding

3.10,
to different
compaction
i.e.,
energies.
However, from Figure 3.9 and
we can
still
see the trend,
when
moisture content decreases or dry density increases, the penetration index decreases.
20
(2)
About 28.8% of
soil passes the
200#
sieve; the soil is a clayey sand.
From
Figure 3.12, there are four laboratory compaction curves corresponding to 4 different
compaction energies. Under low compaction
effort,
the
dry density increases with

first
increasing moisture content; under high compaction effort, the dry density
increases
and then decreases with increasing moisture

approximately
at a
content.
The change
in
between occurs
moisture content of 1 0%.
(3) In Figure 3.13
and
3.14,
we can
see that higher compaction effort corresponds
to
lower penetration index. With moisture content and dry density increasing, the
first
penetration index
decreases a
little
little
and then increases quickly, which means the
shear strength increases a
and then decreases quickly with increasing moisture
content and dry density. This phenomenon results from the combined effect of different
dry density, moisture content and

(4) In Figure 3.15,
soil fabric.
we
see the contours of PI with respect to moisture content and
dry density. This
is
the relationship between penetration resistance

is
and moisture content

is
and dry density which
required for this project, although this contour
developed from
laboratory tests. This contour
may
be useful in preliminary investigation, quality control

fit
or engineering design. However, the field testing data points do not

testing curves. This
is
the laboratory
expected, because the compaction condition
is
different
between
the field and laboratory: the non-uniform compaction energy in the field, the confining
effect of the wall of the 12 inch mold, the small impact
hammer used
in the laboratory,
are
all
complicating factors.
21
_o
?
-3-
w 
OS
^5 s
On sO c~- NO NO NO CN in in NO MD r-^ NO in
o
-~
>>
is
^*n
O m no in o ~^ ~^ o ^h 00 ON CN o o CN CN CN CN
ON ON
,
m
r--
CN
CN CN
.o
oo ON ON
"
o (N
OS
H c U Q
4>
4
Q
3
00
"5
<3
H H H H H H
Oh Oh
oj!
C*
Pi Oh Oh
vq ON < in r^ rn en CO NO in
s s o o p ^
03
in CN
c o
15
C/0
</->
3 O
Oh
o o o in CN in in no 0 00 m m m m
r-
+ + + + + r + i +
oo Cl ^r
in in r- in C-^1"
u
*
C/3
22
0123456789 10111213
E o
Q.
Figure 3.1 The Log of the
DCPT (Station:
138+75, Offset: 4.9m
RT)
12
1
=
2
3
\
4
5 6 7 8 9 10
11
:
I
z
I
;
E o
Q.
Z
I
z
: =
12 13 14 15 16 17
r
: :
=-
DCPT (Station:
138+50, Offset: 3.0m
RT)
23
01
2345678
910111213141516
E o
Q.
DCPT (Station:
138+25, Offset: 3.0m RT)

1
E u
Q.
CD
DCPT (Station:
136+00, Offset: 3.0m RT)
24
01
2345678
910111213141516
E
o
a o a
DCPT (Station:
135+75, Offset: 7.6m
RT)

1
23456789
10 11
2
3
E o
jz
5 6 7
8
:
Q ^
U o
9 10 12 13 14 15 16
J
l
DCPT (Station:
141+50, Offset: 6.1m
RT)
25

1
E u
Q.
2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9
10
11
12 13 14 15 16
DCPT (Station:
141+75, Offset: 5.5m
RT)
26
Moisture Content (%)

Figure 3.8 The Relationship between Dry Density and Moisture Content from Field
Figure 3.9 The Relationship between Penetration Index and Moisture Content From Field DCPT for West Lafayette Railroad Relocation Project
27
19
20
21
22
23
Dry Density (kN/m A 3)
Figure 3.10 The Relationship between Penetration Index and Dry Density from
Field
o o
100
80
<
r
re
Q.
o
.E
^
N
(7)
60
c
re
<D
l(0 (0
4U
20
10
0.1
0.01
Particle Size
(mm)
Figure 3.11 The Results of Sieve Analysis for West Lafayette Railroad Relocation
Project
28
> .9
83
CN
SO CI SO cn CO
J
-
OS
so
SO -r OS
d d CN CN
CN CN
a
H
ON
O E
E,
CO
a-
so pi
so OO CO CN
cn"
ci
cn 00
o c c
--
83 i-
OS
CO
o
OS
so
CO
Os
8J
O =
1?
OS
(N
S O p g
E,
CO
SO
<N CN
2 H
rOS rn CN
SO CN
CO
V">
q CO
m 00
00
3
Compaction
)
J/m
(xl0
5
Energy
u 2
in
Q
CO
OS
29
22
ST 21
| |
20
19
^Compaction Encrgy-2D970J/m'3
Compaction Energy=3 20940J/ntA 3
j
S I
Q
17
16
^Compaction
14
Energy=427950J/m A 3
Encrgy=594980J/m'3
12
Figure 3.12 The Relationship between Dry Density and Moisture Content from the
Laboratory
DCPT for West Lafayette Railroad
Relocation Project
130 120 110 100
H ^Compaction
Energy=2l3970J/m A 3
g Compaction
Energy=320940J/mA 3
a Compaction
|
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20
10
energy=4 27950J/m A 3
Compaction Energy=591980J/m A 3
i
8
'
1
10
12
Figure 3.13 The Relationship between Penetration Index and Moisture Content
from the Laboratory
30
^Compaction
140
^te.
Energy=2 13970 J/m3
HComp action
120 100
80
Energy=320940.J/mA 3
o
Si
^Compaction
Energy=427950J/mA 3
F E X
Compaction
Energy^igSOJ/rrM
o
c c o o
0)
60
40 20
re
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Figure 3.14 The Relationship between Penetration Index and Dry Density from the Laboratory DCPT for West Lafayette Railroad Relocation Project
31
1 S s
p-
"c
B
-
ft-
u c
s c
J-
->-
v.
V
-
a S a
e
-
o
-
U
^
(CvvxpO^!sna'tia
32
3.2.2
The New Interchange of 165
at
Johnson CO.
The
DCPT
was performed
just after compaction. In the
compaction work, there

utilized
in
were 4 passes of a Caterpillar

to
CAT
815F sheepsfoot
roller.
The nuclear gage was
measure the dry density and moisture content. The
field test results are
shown
Table
3.2.3.
And
the
DCPT logs are shown in Figures
3.16 through 3.22.

field penetration
The
relationships
between moisture content, dry density and
index are shown in Figures 3.23, 3.24 and 3.25, respectively.

Sieve analysis and Atterberg Limits test were conducted in the laboratory.
plasticity index
(I ) is
p
The
shown
The
in Figure 3.26. the
wP
is
13.58,
The
wL
is
20.25, the
6.67.
soil is
a sandy
silty
clay
(CL-ML).
as
The laboratory
DCPT
in
was conducted
in the
same way
mentioned previously.
The
test results are
shown
Table 3.2.4.
The
relationships
between moisture content, dry density and penetration index

are
from the laboratory
DCPT
shown
in Figures 3.27, 3.28
and 3.29, respectively. The
contours of PI with respect to dry density and moisture content from the laboratory
testing
was developed
in the
same way
as
mentioned in the previous section,
as
shown
in
Figure 3.30.
Unconfined compression
tests
were also conducted

and 15.24
in the laboratory; the
samples
were 7.112cm
(2.8 inch) in diameter
cm
(6 inch) in height.
The compaction
energies were the same as the soil sample in the 30.48

consisted of 3 layers.
cm
(12 inch) mold. Each sample
The hammer weight was

for each soil layer is
24. 5N
and the drop distance was 0.305m.

Table 3.2.5.
The number of blows

The
shown
in the
test results
of unconfined compression
test are
shown
in Table 3.2.6.
33
O u
s o e
J-.
_o
"3"
1
s
g -^
00 00 ON ON NO NO (N in en CN in ON
o o o
^-i
Oh
1-9
c
vr>
no
s
e
.a
n
-
u 1
m
ON
OO oo en en in (N "H 00 oo ON GO c-^
,
4>
Z
u
JS
es
y.
-^ s
> wo 00 oo 00 'c/3
m in
t"-^
On
t"-;
t-^
o p oo
(N <N in ON oo
"3
Q
>%
V
OS
H iU Q
"3
oo ON ON
C*~)
u
C/3
H H H H H
Ot C*
Cd oi
hf*
H
oi
fc
J=
H
rn
*i rn
>J-1
o C p rn rn rn
NO NO CO t cn
p *
g
aj
ca
i 3
OO
^H
<D
c3
_o
ea
oi p4 C* * <* ct .W pq 00 00 oo 00 oo 00 00 0< a. D, a. Cu O. Q.
w w
g
OS
g w
in NO
Cri
C3
00
m o O o in in CN m in in T * + + + + + +
t--
00
-3-
T3
C3
&
NO NO NO NO NO CI cn en cn en en en
34
O u
s o e js o !-5
oo ON
PI
ON
(mm/blow)
oc
NO OC NO
rNO
ON rn CN
OO On
O
in
W)
Z
-a
CN rn
NO
CN CN
oc'
cn
On
in
s
es
u i. o
ON
0>
NO
Cn
OC cn
E
,
CN
u
.
ON
DX)
"ST
a
c-
C*1
NO cn oc
NO o-
NO NO
o
C"~
m
1?
ON
CN eo
o
g g
as
On en
CN
roc
0
ON CN oc
CN
CN On OO O^ CN
On
z
-o
wi
vi
NO
=s O ^
o
^5 ON
> O OX
E c
NO -r oc
o
Oh
OO
"it
rn
35
Table 3.2.5
Number of Blows
for
Each
Soil
Layer
Compaction Energy 3 (xl0 J/m 3 )

213.97
320.94 427.95
591.98
Layer
Layer 2
Layer
6 9
12
6 10
13
10
13
17
18
18
The
at
relationships between moisture content, dry density and the shear stress S ul Wm
1%
strain
measured
in the
unconfmed compression
results, the
test are
shown

moisture
content
Based on these
contours of S ul0% with respect to

in
and dry density are developed, as shown

in
Figure
,
3.34.
The
corresponding PI values can be found
Figure 3.30. The results for S ul0% penetration
index and resilient modulus are shown in Table 3.2.7.
According
to the results of Lee (1993), the correlation
between S ul 0% and Resilient
Modulus (ML)
is
M =695.3604S
r
UI
0% -5.92966S ul 0%
.
This relationship
is
used to correlate PI to M,.
The
relationships between PI and S ul0% , and between PI and JvL are
shown
in
Figure 3.35 and Figure 3.36.
Analysis:
(1) In Figure 3.23, a clear relationship
between moisture content and
dry"
density
from
field testing is not evident; in Figures 3.24

i.e.,
and 3.25 the same tendency
exists, as
mentionedbefore,
the penetration index increases with increasing moisture content or
decreasing dry density.
36
(2)
The
soil is a
sandy
silty clay;
however, an
OMC
is
not evident from the
laboratory compaction tests for the range of water contents found in the field compaction.
From
were
the available data (Fig. 3.23, 3.24)

for field compaction. (3) In Figures 3.28
it
is
not possible to
know what
the target values
and 3.29 for the laboratory
DCPT,
higher compaction effort
corresponds to lower penetration index. With increasing moisture content and dry
density, the penetration index decreases first and then increases at the moisture content of
about 10%.
(4) In Figure 3.30, the field
DCPT
same
data points do not
fit
the contours from the
laboratory
DCPT;
clay
is
the reasons are the

different
as previously discussed.
is
The contours
quite similar.
for this
sandy
silty
from
that
of clayey sand, but the shape
(5)
As shown
in Figure 3.31, the
compaction curves from 2.8 inch samples used
in
unconfined compression
in laboratory
tests are different
from those obtained for the size samples used

obvious: the 2.8 inch
DCPT
testing.
The reason
is
mold provides mold
stronger
confining effect than the 12 inch mold. The dry densities for the 2.8 inch
are higher
than those for the 12 inch mold.

(6) In Figure 3.32,
S ul0%
first
increases and then decreases
when
the moisture
content increases. The contours of S ul0% were also developed; as
shown
in Figure 3.34,
the shapes of the S ul 0% contours are similar to those of the PI contours lines.
(7)
From
Figure 3.35, the relationship between S ul0 /o and the penetration index
o
contains significant scatter.
When
S ul
O o/o
increases, the penetration index decreases.
Using
the correlation suggested by Lee(1993),
we
can establish the relationship between PI and
r,
as
shown
in Figure 3.36.
37
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
E
o^
10 15
Q.
20 25

10
20
30
40
50
60
70
E u
Q.
Figure 3.16 The log of the
DCPT (Station:
32+25
Ramp SWR,
Offset:
3.0m RT)

10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
E
^o
*-
10
15
Q.
0)
20 25
20
5
40
60
80
100
120
E
t^
Q.
Q)
l_l
10 15
20 25
DCPT (Station:
27+50
Ramp SWR,
Offset:
3.0m RT)
39
65
^ms
70
75
80
r
+->
10 15
Q.
a>
20
DCPT (Station:
36+50
Ramp SWR,
Offset:
3.0m RT)
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
DCPT
(Station:
36+50
Ramp SWR,
Offset:
4.6m RT)
40
20
40
60
80
100
120
E
o^
Q.
10 15
20 25
DCPT (Station:
36+45
Ramp SWR,
Offset:
3.0m RT)

10
20
30
40
50
DCPT (Station:
36+45
Ramp SWR,
Offset:
4.6m RT)
41
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
DCPT (Station:
36+48
Ramp SWR, Offset:
3.0m RT)
42
10
11
12
Figure 3.23 The Relationship between Dry Density and Moisture Content from Field
in
Johnson CO., IN
10
Figure 3.24 The Relationship between Penetration Index and Moisture Content from Field DCPT for the New Interchange of 165 in Johnson CO., IN
43
120
100
80
60
40 20
17.5
18.5
19 A
3)
19.5
Dry Density (kN/m
Figure 3.25 The Relationship between Penetration Index and Dry Density from
Field
DCPT for the New Interchange of 165 in Johnson
CO., IN
00 90 80 70
60 50
40
30
20
10
0.1
0.
Particle Size
(mm)
Figure 3.26 The Results of Sieve Analysis for the
New
Interchange of 165 in Johnson
CO., IN
44
21
20
19 18 17
16
15
I
14
13
^Compaction
^Compaction
12
11
A Compaction
10
10
11
^Compaction EWr S y=5919fe3j/m"3
Figure 3.27 The Relationship between Dry Density and Moisture Content from the
Laboratory
in
Johnson CO., IN
30
25
20
15
^Compaction Energy=213 970J/m A 3

10
Compaction
Energy=3 20940J/m A 3
A Compaction Energy=427950J/m A 3
10
Compaction
Erpgy=591980J/m A 3
jj^j
Figure 3.28 The Relationship between Penetration Index and Moisture Content
from the Laboratory
DCPT for the New Interchange of 165 in Johnson
CO., IN
45
30
^^
25
E 20 E
5 15 c
#
o s
^Compaction Energy=2 D970J/m A 3

d| Compaction Energy=320940J/m A 3
^Compaction Energy=4279 50J/m A 3

A (0 Compaction Energy=59]980J/m 3
Cm
14
15
16
17
18
A 3)
19
20
Dry Density (kN/m
Figure 3.29 The Relationship between Penetration Index and Dry Density from the
Laboratory
in
Johnson CO., IN
46
E
x
*
*c
o U
c o c n o -9
V3 NO
,_
c o 3 o
e
K
-=
60
u u W V
T5
X V e e o
O)
e
et
3
*
c e
(CvUi/IM)
Asuaa Xjq
U
to"
60
47
00 5 ON
^g
oo
in
ci
00 CM oo OO
00 ON
2
>-
in so SO <n ci (N oo CO Os
H
c
_
as
i-
5B <U
o*.
O o
3
oo
(N
c.
2 2
rn
O q od q in
U
t "s
(N
= o
O
CO
r- CO
CO
oo
e c o w s
CO
Os
3
3
On
C*1
ITS
CO
T
SO
3
00
2 2
O
OS
*g
H H
0*
o m p 00 CO
3Os OO
Pi
o
oo
rsi
2
o q
so sd
C*1
rsi
CO 00
3
Compaction
)
u 2
so CI CO sT CN
OO
Energy (xlO'J/m
48
20
A
{^Compaction
Encrgy=213970J/m"3
Compaction Energy=320940J/m A 3
a Compaction Energy=427950J/m"3
17
a Compaction
10
11
Enijy=591980)ln"3
14
Figure 3.31 The Relationship between Moisture Content and Dry Density from Unconfined Compression Tests for the New Interchange of 165 in Johnson CO. IN
^Compaction
30
CM
Energy=2t3970J/mA 3
g Compaction
25
Energy=320940J/m3
|
<
^Compaction
Energy=427950J/m3
20
1
^Compaction
Energy=691980J/mA 3
15 10
:
3
CO
1 8 9
10
11
12
13
14

Figure 3.32 The Relationship between Moisture Content and S ul 0% for the Interchange of 165 in Johnson CO., IN
New
49
30
^^.
CM
<
E 25
^Compaction Enorgy=213970J/m 3 ^Compaction Eneray=320940J/m*3 ^Compaction Energy=4279S0J/mA 3

/>
# Compaction Energy=591 981X1/111*3
^
c
(Q
z.
20
1b
:
(0
2?
o ^
(0
10
5
l
+->
3
(0
i
l , ! , l ,
I....1
17
17.5
18
18.5
19
19.5
Figure 3.33 The Relationship of Dry Density and Si.o% for the 165 in Johnson CO., IN
New Interchange
of
50
y
st
on
CO ON
CO
CN
ci
ST.
2 Z
cn CO
CN CM
ON ON
L.
m o rCN
i
i
in ci NO
1 1
CI CN
m CN
NO ON rj NO
s
"O
s
S
On
o CN
CI
s 1 E
co CI co
co nC
CO
t-
nO st cn
ON ON
o
1
1
CN On
00 CI N* CN
s S
83
CN
ci
o
=
ci CO
on
o
ci
ri
CO ON NO
i'E
=
ON
1/1
CO
ON UO
oo
CO
ci
NO
s C c
re
ON
*>
eg
o CN
cn
^z
"a -I
q CO
no NO CO
ON CO
00 ON
NO
ON ID
^Z
CI
CO
CO
NO CN ON
e u
o\ ci CN
4
o
r--
SO
CO CO
c->
d a o m
CO no
CN
CN
ON
CN
C) NO
o>
CO in ci
in
CN ri
C~
ON
CO
CN
c
cu cu
4)
CI
On
ci
CN
SB
<S
CO
1/1
ON CN
E
E,
CN
in CN
9 o o S NO
E E
NO CO NO
00
Cn
m
CN
On ci
cu
-=
CN
00
z S
*t
cn.
CN
CI
CI
ON
ON r^ CN St
o
'NO
o o
00 CN
CI CD
iri
ci CN
H
t>
<-^
ON ci
CI
^z AS
3 3
n
5t
o o
CN On <*
-
CO
00
00 CO CN t
^Z
o
On
CO
CO
CO
)
J/m
Compaction
(xl0
CI CO OS CI
ci
CO
p. >s
g 0J5 O U
NO -r CO
NO
Qn
C^ OO
CI
st
ci
Energy
51
CO
o U
c c en B O
CM
vc
c o c O S
s
CO
U
<*>
5 s o
s
CO
ec
o
CNJ
O)
CO
CO
(Cviu/NM) JtysuaQ AJQ
52
25
y
=-0.6691x+21.974
R2 = 0.6542
11
10
12
14
PI
16
18
20
22
24
26
(mm/blow)
Figure 3.35 The Relationship between S ul 0% and Penetration Index for the Interchange of 165 in Johnson CO., IN
New
16000
14000
y=-452.3x + 14932
_
<!
12000 10000
R2 = 0.657
8000
r
S
6000
4000
2000
10
12
14
PI
16
18
20
22
24
26
(mm/blow)
Figure 3.36 The Relationship between Penetration Index and Resilient Modulus for
the
New Interchange
of 165 in Johnson CO.,
IN
53
3.2.3
The SR67
at
Delware CO.
(1)
The compaction work ended about one week before

sheepsfoot roller
the
DCPT was
performed.
was used
for compaction.
at the
The dry
density and moisture content were
measured with a nuclear gage
same location
as the
DCPT. The
shown
in
Table 3.2.8. The logs of the
DCPT are shown in Figures
3.37 through 3.43.
The
from the
relationships between moisture content, dry density and penetration index
field tests are
shown
and 3.46 respectively.
Sieve Analysis and Atterberg Limits tests were conducted in the laboratory. The
plasticity
shown
The
in Figure 3.47.
soil is a
The
wp
is
13.87, the
wL
is
25.66 and the
index
(I ) is 1 p
1.79.
sandy lean clay (CL).
Analysis:
The laboratory
DCPT was
not conducted on this
soil.
From
Figures 3.44, 3.45,
and 3.46, the trend can be observed
that the field penetration index increases with
increasing moisture content and decreasing dry density.

there
is
We
should note
that,
because
a one
week gap between compaction work and DCPT, and

lift soil,
dry density and
moisture content were measured only in the top
the measured moisture content
may
not reflect the as-compacted condition, but the dry density should be very close to
the as-compacted dry density.
The data
for PI
shown on Figures
3.42, 3.43,
and 3.46
are,
indeed, useful measures of how PI varies with those compaction variables.
54
CN NO
ON NO 00 On CN en NO 00 CN CN
O U
a
| s Q
fl
iri
o
NO
r-^
CN NO CN NO NO
a
-
s
OS
|
-*
oo CN ON CN
en
OO rn O o o o o o o o CN CN CN CN CN
ON ON
H
15 fa 00
ON ON
Q
>>
<L
ON
i-i
u
u
S3
Q
3
ea
-4
fa
fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa CN
c/3
S a B S o
ON
t>
u
ea
\0
o
ea
_o
C3
O o oo OO
CN CN OO OO ON ON <*
o
-5J-
+ + + + + + +
55
55
123456789
10
11
0123456789
10 11

1
2
r
1
3
i
10 11 12 13
t: ri
---
? o
C +>
Q.
10
15
-
20
DCPT (Station:
43+485, Offset:
2m RT)
56

5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
^*.
o
.c
+>
<])
10 1b
Q.
20
Figure 3.38
The
log of the
DCPT
3m RT)
012345678
10111213141516
DCPT
5m RT)
57
012345678
_
E o
-C
*-
9101112131415161713
10 1b
Q.
(1)
20
DCPT (Station:
43+482, Offset:
9m RT)

2 4 6 8 101214161820222426283032
? o r
*->
10 15
I" Q
20
DCPT (Station:
43+485, Offset:
7m LT)
58
2
;
6
.
8
T
,
|
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Ill
? o r
a &
5
;
10
_
15
20
DCPT (Station:
43+490, Offset:
10m LT)
12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44
E o
-C *> a.
10
1h
20
DCPT (Station:
43+492, Offset:
7m LT)
59
Moisture Content (%
Figure 3.44 The Relationship between Moisture Content and Dry Density from Field
DCPT for SR67 in Delaware CO., IN (1)

x
20
15
o
e o
.2 2 Ja
10
2 |
c
a>
a.
10
Moisture Content (%
Figure 3.45 The Relationship between Moisture Content and Penetration Index
from Field
60
20
21
22
Figure 3.46 The Relationship between Dry Density and Penetration Index for SR67
from Field
DCPT in
Delaware CO., IN
(1)
|
CO
100
Q.
c o n CO
:
(A <n CD
</3
10
0.1
0.01
Particle Size
(mm)
Figure 3.47 The Results of Sieve Analysis for SR67 in Delaware CO., IN
(1)
61
3.2.4
The SR67
at
Delware CO.
(2)
The
DCPT
was performed immediately
after the
compaction work was finished.
sheepsfoot roller was used for compaction. The dry density and moisture content were
at the
measured with a nuclear gage

same locations where the
DCPT
was performed. The

in Figures
shown
in the Table 3.2.9.
The logs of the
DCPT are shown
3.48 through 3.54.
The
relationships between moisture content, dry density
and penetration index are
shown
Sieve Analysis and Atterberg Limits test were conducted in the laboratory. The
plasticity index
(I ) is p
shown
The
in Figure 3.58.
soil is
The
P is
17.04, the
wL is
38.92 and the
21.88.
a sandy lean clay (CL).
Analysis:
The laboratory
DCPT was not
conducted on
this soil.
From
Figures 3.55, 3.56 and
3.57, the trend can be observed that the penetration index increases with increasing
moisture content and decreasing dry density.
62
_o en
in 06 rsi en
H C
5u
so in eN so 06
o u
-
00 Os en en
O
in
IT)
en so
_c
tso
a
-
z
en
3 u
J-.
-*
ON en
00 SO
Os en
P4
cn
--/
Q
00 ON On
c u
OS
H en H
B
in
* 8j
D
>.
"5
B s 3
H H H H H H H 04 04 04 04 C^ m CQ CQ CQ CQ CQ CQ W pa w W W
ON SO en CO
s s
in en in SO
u
r-j
ii
"3
_o OS OS Os Os OS OS Os t-- rr r- r-"3
O O O
O O
c
04
<u eg
Os OS Os Os Os Os Os GO en en en en en en en
+ + + + + + +
GO
63

2
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
DCPT
1.9m
EB RT)

2
10 12 14 16 18 20 22
? u
-
5
{
"
15
20
DCPT (Station:
39+790, Offset: 2.6m
EB RT)
64

5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
E
o
.c
*J
10
15
Q.
<U
20
DCPT (Station:
39+790, Offset: 3.3m
EB RT)

5
10
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
DCPT (Station:
39+790, Offset: 4.2m
EB RT)
65
20
40
60
E
o
50
100
J"
150
200
DCPT (Station:
39+790, Offset: 5.3m
EB RT)
Penetration Index (mm/blow) 10
20
30
E o
10
I" Q
15
20
DCPT (Station:
39+790, Offset: 6.4m
EB RT)
66

5
10
15
20
25
30
35
DCPT (Station:
39+790, Offset: 7.5m
EB RT)
12
13
14
15
16
17
Figure 3.55 The Relationship between Dry Density and Moisture Content from Filed
DCPT for SR67 in Delaware CO., IN
(2)
67
12
13
14
15
16
17
Moisture Content (%
Figure 3.56
The Relationship between Moisture Content and Penetration Index from Field DCPT for SR67 in Delaware CO., IN (2)
5 o
X o
a
c o
re
i_
+->
0)
a>
a.
16.6
16.8
17
17.2
17.4
17.6
17.8
18

Figure 3.57 The Relationship between Dry Density and Penetration Index from
Field
68
0.1
0.01
Particle Size
(mm)
Figure 3.58 The Results of Sieve Analysis for SR67
in
Delaware CO., IN
(2)
69
3.2.5
The SR62
in Evansville
Five
DCPTs and three SPT tests were

SR62 and Garvin
conducted
at the
same time
at the
Northeast
corner of the intersection of
Street in Evansville.
Sieve analysis results are shown in Figure 3.59. About 15.5% of the soil passes
the
200#
sieve.
The PL
is
16.4,
the
LL
is
24.3, the
I p
is 7.9.
The
soil is a
clayey sand
(SC).
The
DCPT logs
are
shown
in Figures 3.60
through 3.64.
DCPT penetration
index
and SPT blow count are shown
in Table 3.2.10
and plotted together in Figure 3.65.
Analysis:
The
data in Figure 3.65 are scattered and not sufficient to establish the correlation
between SPT blow count and penetration index.
70
N
CO
_QJ
CD
r
ro
Q.
TO
ICO
W
CD
10
0.1
0.01
the Particle Size
(mm)
Figure 3.59 The Results of Sieve Analysis for The Intersection of SR62 and Garvin
St. in
Evansville,
IN
71

5
10
15
20
25
10
20
30
40
E o
Q.
50
60 70
* i
%
80 90
100
t 1
110
Figure 3.60 The
DCPT Log 1
SR62 and Garvin
St. in
Evansville,
IN
72

5
10
15
20
E o
Q.
Figure 3.61 The
DCPT Log 2 for the Intersection of SR62

Evansville,
and Garvin
St. in
IN
73

5
10
15
20
25
E o
Q.
Figure 3.62 The
DCPT Log 3 for the Intersection

Evansville,
of SR62 and Garvin St. in
IN
74
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Figure 3.63 The
DCPT Log 4 for the Intersection

Evansville,
of
SR62 and Garvin
St. in
IN
75

5
10
15
20
E
o
Q.
Figure 3.64 The
DCPT Log 5 for the Intersection of SR62

Evansville,
and Garvin
St. in
IN
76
00
o en
en r-
M3
s
in
o
CN
00
e
03
o
s
?!
>o
as
ON
o or s
es
.=
4>
ON 00 rn
CN
o
-=
to
u a 3
S
C3
o
oo
oo CN
CN
ON
X
c o o
.o
ON in
oo
CN 00
en
PS in
iri
U~)
rn
PI
(mm/Blow)
H Oh
C/3
77
16 14
o
$ o
c 3
12
10
8 6
m
iQ.
4
2
10
15
Figure 3.65 The Relationship between
DCPT and SPT
SR62
and Garvin
St. in Evansville,
IN
78
3.2.6
The US.24 by-pass
in
Logansport
Seven
DCPT
tests
were conducted
at the site
of the
US24
by-pass in Logansport.
The dry density and moisture content were measured,
respectively, with the nuclear gage

roller.
and sand cone methods. The compaction was done with a sheepsfoot
results are
The
field test
shown
in Tables 3.2.11 and 3.2.12.
The
DCPT
logs are
shown
in Figure 3.66
to 3.72.
The
relationship between penetration index, moisture content and dry density

in Figure 3.73
from the nuclear gage and sand cone methods are shown
and Figure 3.78.
The measured dry density and moisture content
are different for the
two methods, as the
comparisons of the two methods shown in Figures 3.79 and 3.80
illustrate.
Sieve analysis and Atterberg Limits tests were conducted in the laboratory. The
plasticity
shown
The
in Figure 3.81.
The
wP
is
15.8, the
wL
is
27.7 and the
index
(I ) is p
12.1.
soil is a
Analysis:
(1) Similar results for penetration index versus moisture content
and dry density
can be obtained with the nuclear gage and sand cone method, as shown in Figures 3.73
through 3.78.
(2)
The
test results
from nuclear gage method and sand cone method

and 3.80. There are two possible reasons
are different,
as
shown
in Figures 3.79
for that: (1) the test
location for the nuclear gage and sand cone methods are not exactly same; (2) there are
inaccuracies in both methods.
This suggests a need for a closer examination of
how
to
measure compaction
practice.
results
when DCPT
relationships are to be used in the future in
79
9
bo
es
>
zt
o oo
u
es
NO ) on
ON
ON oo
OO
CN NO OO
o oo
NO
On
iy*N
On
CN
CO
CO
CN NO CO
s c
U
e
es
5!
GO
Z
o
v.
z
oo oo
oo
c
s
DC
O
OO
en
p oo
ox
o
c.
y.
NO CO 00
NO CN
p CN
CN
NO en oo
CN oo
Cn"
es
C
es
CO S3
C. >> CO
g
es
2
>>
<a-
OO
en ON CO
cn On CO
ON
en ON OO
On
On 00
oo oo
>> CQ
oo oo oo
OO
oo NO
NO CO
p CO
IT;
NO
no'
CN OO
Q
en
C
CO
>>
Q
>>
1)
"3
Qi
H 2 "3
en S>
CN
ON
u
-J

^5)
-J
u J
CN On
(a
_]
-5r
*^
CN
NO NO en CN
oo
CO OO
CN
Q
>^
ea
ts
Q
>>
c s
tN
C3
es
m A
ej
c e 3
OO
k
es
J3
ea
=
ea
n.
oo
00 en <*
tNO
NO
OO en
+ OO
en
NO CN
i
NO
CN
NO CN
i
CN
c o
rNO
NO
oo en
NO
o 5t
o
CN 00
a
00
00 en
"3-
+ CO
en
NO CN in
i
NO CN
O CN
i
CN
IO
W-N
^3-
cn 00
80

1
10 11 12 13
?
2
a.
5 10 15
5 :
0)
20
DCPT (Station:
438+67, Offset: 5.18m LT)
012345678
101112131415161718
DCPT (Station:
438+67, Offset: 3.66m LT)
81

2
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
DCPT
2.44m RT)

1
10
11
12
13
DCPT (Station:
405-26, Offset: 7.92m
LT)
82

1
10
11
12
13
DCPT (Station:
405-26, Offset: 4.88m
LT)

1
10
11
12
13
_ I
6
8
f
Q
01
10 12 14 16 18
*
*
DCPT (Station:
405-26, Offset: 2.44m
LT)
83

2
10
12
14
16
18
20
22 24 26 28
30 32 34 36
4
6
f
Q
10
12
14 16 18
DCPT (Station:
405+2, Offset: 1.52m
RT)
84
17.8
10
11
Figure 3.73 The Relationship between Dry Density and Moisture Content with
Nuclear Gage Method for US24 By-pass
in
Logansport, IN
85
5 o 20
*
-Q
E E X
1b
10
D C
* +*
0)
O i_
o
Q.
10
11
Moisture Content (%
Figure 3.74 The Relationship between Penetration Index and Moisture Content with
Nuclear Gage Method for US24 By-pass in Logansport, IN
X 9
t c
.2
10
10
t
-
5 E * E g
Q.
17.5
18
18.5
19
Figure 3.75 The Relationship between Penetration Index and Dry Density with
Nuclear Gage for US24 By-pass in Logansport, IN
86
CO
19
18.5
z
"*-'
18
17.5
(A
C
<D
1/
16 5
16
10
12
14
Figure 3.76 The Relationship between Dry Density and Moisture Content with Sand
Cone Method
for
US24 Bypass
in
Logansport, IN
10
11
12
13
Moisture Content (%
Sand Cone Method for US24 By-pass
in
Logansport, IN
87
17
18
19
Figure 3.78
The Relationship between Penetration Index and Dry Density with Sand Cone Method for US24 By-pass in LogansportJN
o o c o
CO
11
10
9 8
7
TJ ^S V)
E o
n-
6
7
8 9
10
11
M/C from Nuclear Gage (%)
Figure 3.79 Comparison of the Testing Results of Moisture Content from Sand Cone Method and Nuclear Gage for US24 By-pass in Logansport, IN
88
16
17
18
19
20
Dry Density from Nuclear Gage (kN/m A 3)
Figure 3.80 Comparison of the Testing Results of Dry Density from Sand Cone
for
US24 By-pass
in
Logansport, IN
o o
100 80
r
TO
CL
60
*
c
re
40
20
si
*->
v> V) 0)
10
0.1
0.01
the Particle Size
(mm)
Figure 3.81
The Test
Results of Sieve Analysis for
US24 By-pass
in
Logansport, IN
89
3.2.7
The SR.24
in
Logansport
Seven
DCPT tests
were conducted
at the
Northeastern corner of
SR24 and US35

The dry
at
in Logansport.
The compaction equipment
utilized
was
a sheepsfoot roller.
density and moisture content were measured with nuclear gage and sand cone
the
method
same
location.
The
shown
in Tables 3.2.13
and 3.2.14. The logs
of the
DCPT are shown in Figures 3.82 through 3.88.

The
relationship between penetration index, moisture content
and dry density

to 3.94.
from the nuclear gage and sand cone methods are shown in Figures 3.89
The
measuring dry density and moisture content are different for the two methods; the
comparisons of the two methods are shown in Figures 3.95 and 3.96.
Sieve analysis and Atterberg Limits tests were conducted in the laboratory. The
plasticity index (I
) is
shown
The
in Figure 3.97.
The
is
15.9, the
wL
is
25.4 and
9.5.
soil is a
Analysis:
As
methods
results
in the previous section, the test results
from the nuclear gage and sand cone

test
are different, as
shown
in Figure 3.95
and 3.96. For moisture content, the
of the two methods are quite consistent; but for dry density, the
test results present
some
scatter.
The reasons
are the
same
as previously discussed.
90
9
V c
S
ci ci
ci
oo
no ci
on ci rj c>
o ON
1^
NO
ON ci ci
CNl
_o
s
EC
O
ci Cl
Cl
00 NO Cl
ON Cl OS Cl
o On
ON
NO
Cn]
Cl CN Cl
CNl
r\i
M
i-
0)
u 3 B
-=
U
S
e o
z (N
-**
NO oo Os ON
"0
o
c.
q
NO ON
ON
t--
</-i
CNl
z
O
so es
S-
CO On On
p NO
00
CNJ
o Cl
ON
NO
o<
OS
t"
C
c
r-
oc
e
WD -J
-J
T 2
v:
e B s
CO
"-J
c 3
z
>>
c/1
Z
ci
o = s
09
-E
ci
00 ci
o<
NO OO
2 GO
-,
X!
en
OO
Cl lO
in
ON
NO
On NO NO
NO Cl NO
as
2 CO
T!
Q Q
.O
Q
>>
1-
CD
2 Q M 3 00
en
-a
re
H
TJ
u-i
in oo
CI CO
U
fa f)
i-M
H
1 i
1
D
s
a o o
o e
<41
o
1
1 1
1
1 1
1 i 1
I 1
1 1
1 1
i i
fS
m
o
fa
is
I 1
o
1
C l-
_o
s
1 1 t i 1 1
| 1 1 1 i
c o
1
I
i
1 1
I
I
1
o B c
c->
re
v5
Z
c o o
-J
1 I
re
55
O
-J
91

5
10
15
20 25 30
35 40
_ E u 4* Q.
10 15
20
Figure 3.82 the Log
of the
DCPT for SR24
in
Logansport, IN

5 1015 20 25 30 35
4045 50 55
Figure 3.83 the Log 2 of the
DCPT for SR24
in
Logansport, IN
92

4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2.4
DCPT for SR24 in Logansport, IN

10 11
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
5 10 s 15 S. 20 S 25 30
f g
DCPT for SR24 in
Logansport, IN
93

5
1015202530354045505560
DCPT for SR24 in Logansport, IN

5
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
DCPT for SR24
in
Logansport, IN
94
10 15 20 25 30 35 40
I I I '
. I
o, 10
20
25
DCPT for SR24
in
Logansport, IN
95
CO
<
z
w c o
a o
5
10
15
20
Figure 3.89 The Relationship between Dry Density and Moisture Content with
Nuclear Gage Method for SR24
in
Logansport, IN
10
15
20
Nuclear Gage Method for SR24 in Logansport, IN
96
80
= 60 c o .2 ^ 40 2 S 20 % c
^ CL
16
17
18

Figure 3.91 The Relationship between Penetration Index and Dry Density with
Nuclear Gage for SR24 in Logansport, IN
10
15
20

Figure 3.92 The Relationship between Dry Density and Moisture Content with Sand
Cone Method
for
SR24
in
Logansport, IN
97
80
I
I
C
Q)
$ 60 = o O J2 40
I 20
Q.
10
15
20

Sand Cone Method
for
SR24
in Logansport,
IN
15
16
17

Figure 3.94 The Relationship between Penetration Index and Dry Density with Sand
Cone Method
for
SR24
in
Logansport,IN
98
o c o c
re
20
-a
15
(O
E C o ^
U. -D *- O
<u
**
o
10
*;
o
I_
*-<
W o
10 15
20
Moisture Content from Nuclear
Gage
(%)
Figure 3.95 Comparison of the Testing Results of Moisture Content from Sand Cone Method and Nuclear Gage for SR24 in Logansport, IN
99
<
n"
z
;* "O
18
o
0)
JC '-'
S
O D C
w
o 17 e o
w
<5*
*i
16
E o i_
Q
Q
g 15 V
fc
lid
14
15
16
17
18
19
Dry Density from Nuclear Gage (kN/m A 3)

Figure 3.96 Comparison of the Testing Results of Dry Density from Sand Cone Method and Nuclear Gage for SR24 in Logansport, IN
100
10
0.1
0.01
Particle Size
(mm)
SR24 By-pass
Logansport, IN
Figure 3.97 The Test Results of Sieve Analysis for
in
101
3.2.8
The US41
in
Parke CO.
The
DCPT and SPT were
conducted on US41 in Parke CO., 3.8 miles north of the

three
intersection of
US41 and SRI 63. Three DCPT and
SPT
tests
were performed
to get
the relationship between
SPT and DCPT.

in Figure 3.98.
The
soil
results
of the sieve analysis are shown

is
About 28.3% of
the
passes 200# sieve; the soil
a silty sand (SM).
The
The
3.102.
logs of
DCPT are shown in Figures 3.99 through 3.101.

between
relationship
DCPT
and SPT
is
shown
in
Table 3.2.15 and Figure
Analysis:
From Figure
established.
3.102,
a clear
relationship
(i)
between
and
DCPT
and
SPT
is
not
The reasons may be

location,
is
(ii)
as follows:
DCPT
SPT
couldn't be conducted in
(iii)
the exact
same
there are inaccuracies in both test methods, and
the
amount of data
not sufficient.
102
55
a>
100
90 80
N
<o
o o
70 60
50
r
CO
a.
O
JZ 4->
40
30 ?0
10
C
TO
JZ
*->
(/>
(A
_i
10
0.1
0.01
Particle Size
(mm)
Figure 3.98 The Results of Sieve Analysis for US41 in Parke CO., IN
103
so
m m CS
in o
O u
es
CN
CN
<*
CN
P a H Oh U Q
o
SO CO CO
c
R
H a.
S u
01
SO in in
SO SO
0>
in
in
s
in
<*
H
IT}
SO CN CN
oo
*r
5 o
5 3 CQ 1
cu
104

5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
10
20
30
t
t
40
E
50
**
Q.
60
70 80 90
100
0)
**
110
Figure 3.99 the Log
of the
DCPT for US41
in
Parke CO.
105

5
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
10
20 30
<.
_
J.
40
50
f a
O
60
70
80 90
100 110
IK:
Figure 3.100 the
Log 2
of the
DCPT for US41
in
Parke CO.
106

5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
DCPT for US41
in
Parke CO.
107
o
s
c 4 3 O
3
2
'I
o
oo i0-
CO
20
40
60
Figure 3.102 The Relationship between
DCPT and SPT for US41
in
Parke CO, IN
108
3.3
The
Results for
Sandy Lean Clay and Sandy
Silty
Clay
Sections 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.2.6 and 3.2.7

fraction of the soil passing the
field data
all
deal with sandy lean clay, although the
200# sieve and
plasticity
index values are different. The
from nuclear gage and sand cone
tests for these four soils are
summarized
in
Figures 3.103 through 3.108.
From
these graphs, the relationship between penetration
index, moisture content and dry density can be found.
As shown
in Figures 3.104
and
3.107, the penetration index
first
decreases; at a moisture content of about

It
8%, the
penetration index begins to increase.
can also be seen in Figures 3.105 and 3.108 that
the penetration index decreases with increasing dry density.
The
and
soil
from the Johnson CO.
site is
a sandy
silty
clay with
wL
equal to 20.25
plasticity index equal to 6.67. If
we combine
the field test data and the S u 0%

,
contours (Figure 3.34),
we
can find the relationship between field penetration index and

index with
o /o
S ul 0%
Then we can
relate the field penetration
through the relationship

2
between S ul0% and
r,
given by
M=695.3604S ul0 -5.92966S uI

in
O o/o
(as
described in
Section 3.2.2). The results are
shown
Table 3.3.1.
Table
3.3.1
The Relationships between

Clay
Field PI, S ul0%
and
for
Sandy
Silty
PI
(mm/blow)
74.42 93.98
72.9
S ul
o /o
(kN/m 2 )
M (kN/m
r
26.20
14.48 14.48
14148.47
8825.28
8825.28
105.66 100.08
13.24
18.48
8166.26
10824.55
42.67
45.21
15.17
13.79
9183.52
8461.41
The
soil
from Delware CO.
(2) is a
sandy lean clay with
wL equal to
38.92 and plasticity
index equal to 21.88. Figure 3.55 shows the relationship between moisture content and
dry density from the field
test data.
The four leftmost points
are close to the
OMC.
09
25 20
15
*?
1
g
0)
10
10 Moisture Content (%)
15
20
Figure 3.103 The Relationship between Moisture Content and Dry Density for
40
-
o 35
2 y = 0.2772X
4.2444x
28.821
/ /
'
E 30
:
-_
R2 = 0.6478
;
:
C o
re 0)
20
15 10
5
0)
'-
Q.
10
15
20

Figure 3.104 The Relationship between Moisture Content and Penetration Index for
110
40
o 35
-Q
E 30 F 25 X o o XI) c c 15 o
TO i+-
10
5
I I I
02486 * y = 1624.7e-
\* \^
15
R2 =
0.5756
o c
Q.
l_
10
20
25

Figure 3.105 The Relationship between Dry Density and Penetration Index for
18
CO <
16
14 12
E
j^
<**
>.
10
8
'35
Q
Q
c o
4 2
10
12
14
16
18
20
Moisture Content (%
Figure 3.106 The Relationship between Moisture Content and Dry Density for
Ill
40
| Si 1
x
35
2 y = 0.3223X
5.2334x + 33.899
0.696
R2 =
30
a |
2 o E
0)
20
15 10
5
f
%
5 10
0.
15
20

Figure 3.107 The Relationship between Moisture Content and Penetration Index for
45
5 40 o
SI
E
E,
35 30
x 25 o -a c 20 c o 15
cz
10
5
04037x y = 15147e-
c
Q)
R2 = 0.7661
Q.
10
15
20

Figure 3.108 The Relationship between Dry Density and Penetration Index for
Sandy Lean Clay Sand Cone Method
112
To
create laboratory test specimens having the
same
fabric as that in the field,
samples
were compacted according

compression
tests
to the instructions in the study
of Lee (1997).
Unconfined
were then performed for these four
points.
Using the relationship
suggested by Lee (1993), the relationship between
field PI,
S ul0% and
is
shown
in
Table 3.3.2.
Table 3.3.2 The Relationship between Field

PI
PI,
2
S ul O o/o and
for
Sandy Lean Clay
(mm/blow)
14.73
S ul 0% (kN/m 28
.
(kN/m 2 )
14821.24
18745.22 15524.12 19583.32
17.53
42
30
25.4
16.26
47
The
results
soils
from Johnson CO. and Delware CO. were
sufficiently similar for the
of the
tests depicted in
Tables 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 to be combined. The results are
shown
in Figures 3.109
and 3.110. So S ul0% and
decrease
when
the penetration index
increases.
In order to investigate the magnitude of size effects in laboratory
DCPT
testing,
Figures 3.36 and 3.110
may
be compared. From Figure 3.36,
we
see that the equation for
in
terms of PI
is
M
based on the laboratory
in
= -452.3PI+14932
from Figure
3.1 10,
DCPT testing;
we
see that the equation for
terms of PI
is
^ = -86.878?!+! 7273
based on the
field
DCPT testing.
Table 3.3.3
illustrates the values
of
that
would
result
from different values of PI based on these two equations. The

resilient
ratios
of the resulting
that
modulus values may be taken
as an indication of the
amount of correction
would be needed
for 1VL-PI correlations developed
from laboratory
DCPT
testing to be
applicable in the field. According to Table 3.3.3, a correction in the 30 to
50%
range
would be
sufficient for finding field
values of well compacted
soils.
113
50
40
=-0.2397x+ 37.161
R2 = 0.5045
30
20
10
20
40
60
80
100
120
Penetration Index (mm)

Figure 3.109 The Relationship between Field PI and S ul 0%
20000.00
sr 15000.00
<
"T
^
S
10000.00
5000.00
0.00
y=-86.878x + 17273
R2
= 0.516
20
40
60
80
100
120

Figure 3.110 The Relationship between Field PI and
114
Table 3.3.3 The Relationship between

PI
from Field and

lab
from Laboratory
(mm/blow)
6
8
r . fie , d
(kN/nr)
M,
(kN/m 2 )
HWMrJab
1.37 1.47
1.58
1.71
16751.73
12218.2
16577.98
11313.6
10409.0
10
12
16404.22 16230.46
16056.71
9504.4
8599.8
14 16
18
1.87
15882.95
15709.2
7695.2
2.06
2.31
6790.6
5886.0
20
22
15535.44
15361.68
15187.93
2.64
3.08
3.73
4981.4
4076.8
3172.2
24 26
15014.17
4.73
3.4
DCPT and SPT
The
DCPT
and
SPT were conducted

Evansville
at the
same time and location

soil for
in Evansville
and Parke CO. The

silly sand.
soil for
was clayey sand; and the

combined as follows:
Parke CO. was
The
data from these two sites are
(1)
For the depth from
to 6 inches, the results are
shown
in
3.111.
Table
3.4.1

PI
DCPT
and SPT
(0 to 6 inches)
(mm/blow)
11.40
11.75
SPT Blow Count

13
2
5
14.15
115
+>
o
5 o
3 O
15 10
b
h
Q.
(/>
20
40
60
Figure 3.111 The Relationship between the
DCPT
and SPT
(0 to 6 inches)
(2)
For the depth from 6 to 12 inches, the results are shown in Table 3.4.2 and Figure
3.112.

PI (mm/blow)
5.54
DCPT
and SPT
(6 to 12 inches)
SPT Blow Count

15
7.04
11.07
20
40
60
DCPT and SPT
(6 to 12 inches)
116
(3)
For the depth from 12 to 18 inches, the results are shown
in
3.113.

PI (mm/blow) 8.26
5.53
DCPT and SPT (12 to

13
18 inches)
SPT Blow Count

4
8
12.07
30.48 57.66
14.22
4
5
+->
O
5 o
c =3 o
15
10
b
m
iQ. V)
20
40
60
Figure 3.113
The
Relationship between the
DCPT and SPT (12
to 18 inches)
(4)
For the depth from 18 to 24 inches, the results are shown
in
3.114.

PI
DCPT and SPT (18 to 24 inches)

SPT Blow Count
8
(mm/blow)
13.18
9.68
16
2
4.12
22.61
4
3
35.56
19.05
117
4->
o
5 o
CO
c 3 O
?n
15 10
5
H
CO
20
40
60
DCPT and SPT
(18 to 24 inches)
(5)
For the depth from 24
to
30 inches, the
results are
shown
in
3.115.
Table
3.4.5

PI

SPT Blow Count
8
(mm/blow)
10.59
3.87
3.13
12
15.49
38.83
23.62
20
40
60
DCPT and SPT
(24 to 30 inches)
118
(6)
to
36 inches, the
results are
shown
in Table 3.4.6
and Figure
3.116.

PI
DCPT and SPT (30 to 36

SPT Blow Count
9 9
8
inches)
(mm/blow)
12.88
3.72
5.53
*>
C 3 O o
2
10
9
8
7 b
5
CQ 1O.
20
40
60
(7)
to
42 inches, the
results are
shown
in
3.117.

PI
DCPT and SPT
(36 to 42 inches)
(mm/blow)
13.34
11.92
SPT Blow Count

12 2
119
20
40
60
DCPT
and SPT (36
to
42 inches)
The general
trend
is
observed that PI increases
when SPT blow
counts decrease. The

values.
slope of the relationship seems to be steeper for higher
blow counts and lower PI
However, no
specific, reliable correlation
could be found between the two parameters
with the amount of information available.
3.5
Summary
(1) Field
and laboratory
DCPT
testing
was performed, and
the nuclear gage and
sand cone methods were used to measure the dry density and moisture content of
different soils.
The contours
reflecting the relationship

for clayey
between laboratory
PI, dry density
and moisture content were developed

Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2.
sand and sandy
silty clay as
shown
in
The
relationships
between
PI, dry density
and moisture content
from
field testing are
shown
in Figures 3.103 through 3.108.
(2) In section 3.2.2, for the
sandy
silty clay,
tests
were
conducted on disturbed samples. Using the correlation by Lee (1993), the relationship
between penetration index and
resilient
modulus was established. The contours of S ul
q,,,
with respect to dry density and moisture content were also developed. Figures 3.109 and
120
3.110 reflect the relationship between field PI,
S ul0% and
for
sandy lean clay and
sandy
silty clay.
(3)
DCPT
and
SPT were
and
conducted
at the
same time and
location for
two
spt
sites,
as
shown
in Section 3.2.5
3.2.8; a clear relationship
between PI and
was not
established from these data.
121
Chapter 4
Conclusions and Future
Work
4.1
Conclusions
(1) Field
and laboratory
tests
were conducted on clayey sand,
silty
sand, sandy silty clay
and sandy lean clay
soils.
The
relationships between penetration index, dry density and

scatter;
moisture content obtained from field results present some
however, the trends
were
clearly that increases in dry density or decreases in moisture content lead to
decreases in penetration index. For sandy clay,

satisfactory
when
all
the field data are combined.
relationships
between penetration
resistance,
dry
density
and moisture
content can be found.
(2)
DCPT was
also conducted in a 12 inch
mold
in the laboratory.
The
soil
samples were
prepared with different moisture contents and under four different compaction energylevels.
The laboratory
DCPT
testing
was performed along
these compaction curves.
The
contours of penetration index with respect to dry density and moisture content were
developed based on such
testing.
However, due
to the confining effect
of the mold, such
relationships should be used carefully.
(3)
Unconfined compression
tests
were also conducted

stress at
in the laboratory.
The
relationship
test
between penetration index and the

is
1%
strain in the
very good. Using the correlation suggested by Lee (1993), penetration index was
122
related to the resilient modulus.

clay,
Combining
the data for sandy silty clay
and sandy lean
we
also find the relationships between field PI, S nl0% and
(4)
DCPT and SPT were
conducted
at the
same time and location
for
two
sites.
However,
a clear relationship between

data available.
SPT blow
count and PI could not be found for the amount of
4.2 Application to
Compaction Control
Compared with some of the

a
is
other techniques used for compaction control, the

is
DCP
is
much more
punctual measurement. The penetration index
heavily dependent on what
immediately beneath the cone point. The presence of a gravel or a gravel-size clay clod
give values of 8 1 that are too low to be representative of the state of the compacted
may
soil at that location.
That
this
does happen
is
evidenced by scatter observed in some of
the testing presented in this report.

It
follows that inspectors should carefully select the location where to do the
testing. If
is
a location
is
selected such that no clods or gravels are present, the
measured PI
with
going to be representative of soil conditions and can be related (as shown

to dry density, water content,
earlier)
good success
It
and
resilient
modulus.
is
should also be noted that more than one blow

lift.
likely to
be necessary to drive
the cone through the entire thickness of a given

inspection purposes
is
So a possible approach for
to carefully select several locations for testing,
where no clods or
gravels are expected to be present, do the testing, and average the PI over the depth at
each location.
123
4.3
Future work
(1)
This study shows that
it
is
possible
to,
given enough data, obtain satisfactory
correlations between penetration index, dry density, water content
and
resilient
modulus.
Further testing
is
needed
to
develop a complete database.
(2)
Once such database
is
established,
it
may be
possible to develop general or unified
correlations between penetration index, dry density, moisture content
and
plasticity index.
(3)
Such
correlations will
still
need to be verified by
field
performance observations.
124
LIST OF REFERENCES
Anderson,
J.
R. and Thompson,
M.
R.(1995), Characterization of Emulsion Aggregate

.
Mixtures, Transportation Research Record 1492, pp. 108-1 17
Ayers,
M.
E.,
Thompson, M. R. and Uzarski, D. R. (1989), Rapid Shear Strength

situ
Evaluation of In
146.
Granular Materials, Transportation Research Record 1227, pp. 134-
Ayers, M.E. (1990), Rapid Shear Strength of In Situ Granular Materials Utilizing the
Dynamic Cone
Penetrometer. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Ph.D. thesis.
Bedford, A. and Drumheller, D.
S. (1993), Introduction to elastic
wave propagation.
Benson, C. H. and Daniel, D.
E. (1990), Influence
of Clods on Hydraulic Conductivity of
Compacted Clay,
J.
Geotech. Engrg.,
ASCE,
16(8), pp.123 1-1248.
Bester,
M.D. and
Hallat, L.(1977),
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP), University of
Pretoria, Pretoria.
Bishop, R.F., Hill, R. and Mott, N.F. (1945), Theory of Indentation and Hardness Tests.
The Proceedings of the Physical
Society, Vol. 57, Part 3, pp. 147-159.
Boynton,
Clay,
J.
S.S.,
and Daniel, D. E.(1985), Hydraulic Conductivity Tests on Compacted
Geotech. Engrg.,
ASCE,
1 1
1(4), pp.
465-478.
125
Broms, B.B.
1988,
&
,
Flodin, N. (1988), History of soil penetration testing, Penetration Testing
ISOPT- 1 De
Ruiter (ed.), pp. 1 57-220.
Burnham, T. and Johnson, D.(1993),
In Situ Foundation Characterization
Using the
report No.
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer, Minnesota Department of Transportation,

Mn/RD-93/05.
Byers, R.K. and Chabai(1977), A. J., Penetration calculations and measurements for a
layered soil target,
Int. J.
Numer. Anal. Methods Gopmech,
1,
pp. 107-1 38.
Byers, R.K., Yarrington, P and Chabai, A. J.(1978),
Dynamic penetration of
soil
media
by slender
projectiles. Int.
j.
Engrg. Sci 16, pp. 835-844.
Chen, W.F., and Saleeb, A.F.(1982), Constitutive Equations for Engineering Materials,
Vol.1: Elasticity and Modeling, pp. 516-524.
Chua, K. M. and Lytton, R. L.(1988), Dynamic Analysis Using the Portable Pavement
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer, Transportation Research Record
192, pp. 27-38.
Chua,
414.
Koon Meng(1988),
Penetration Testing 1988, ISOPT-1,
De
Ruiter
(ed.),
pp407-
Cristescu,
N. (1967), Dynamic
plasticity, chapter VIII, IX.
Day, S.R., and Daniel, D.E.(1985), Hydraulic Conductivity of

Liners,
J.
Two
Prototype Clay
Geotech. Engrg.,
ASCE,
1 1
1(8), pp.
957-980.
De
Villiers, P.
J.
(1980),
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Correlation with Unconfined

Pretoria.
Compressive Strength, University of Pretoria,
126
Faure, A. G. and Viana
Da Mata,
J.
(1994), Penetration Resistance Value

1,
Along
Compaction Curves,
J.
of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 120, No.
pp.46-59.
Ford, G. R. and Eliason B. E.(1993), Comparison of Compaction Methods on
Narrow
Surface Drainage Trenches, Transportation Research Record 1425, ppl8-27.
Forrestal,
M.
J.
et al (1994),
An
empirical equation for penetration depth of ogival-nose
projectile into concrete targets. International journal
of Impact Engineering
15,
395-405.
Forrestal,
M.J.
and
Luk,
V.K.(1988),
solid, Journal
Dynamic
spherical
cavity-expansion
in
compressible elastic-plastic
of Applied Mechanics, Vol. 55, pp. 275-279.
Forrestal, M.J.,
Longcope, D.B. and Norwood, F.R.,

J.
model
to estimate forces
on
conical penetrators into hard geological targets,
Appl. Mech., vol. 48, March 1981, pp.
25-29.
Forrestal,
M.J.,
Norwood,
F.
R. and Longope, D.B. (1981), Penetration into targets

Int. j.
described by locked hydrostats and shear strength,
Solids Structures Vol. 17, pp.
915-924.
Goodier, J.N.(1965),
On
the
Mechanics of Indentation and Cratering
in Solid Targets
of
Strain-hardening Metal by Impact of Hard and Soft Spheres. Proceedings of the 7th
Symposium on
hypervelocity Impact, Vol.
Ill,
PP. 215-219,
AIAA, New York.
Hill, R.(1948),
Theory of Earth Movement near a Deep Underground Explosion.
Memo No.
21-48, Armanent Research Establishment, fort Halstead, Kent, U.K. (1948).
Holtz, D. Robert and
Kovacs D. William (1981),

5,
An
Introduction to Geotechnical
Engineering, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Chapter
"Compaction". ppl09-165.
127
Hopkins, H.G.(1960), Dynamic Expansion of Spherial Cavities in Metal. Chapter

Progress in Solid Mechanics, Vol.
1,
III,
edited by I.N.
Sneddon and
R.Hill.
Juang, C. H. and Holtz, R.D.(1986), Fabric, Pore Distribution,
And
Permeability of
Sandy
Soils,
J.
Geotech. Engrg.,
ASCE,
112(9), pp. 855-868.
Kleyn, E. G. (1975), the Use of the
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP), Transvaal Roads
Department, Report No. L2/74, Pretoria.
Kleyn, E. G. and Savage, P. F. (1982), The Application of the Pavement
DCP
to
Determine the Bearing Properties and Performance of Road Pavements, International
Symposium on Bearing Capacity of Roads and

246.
Airfields,
Trondheim, Norway, pp238-
Kleyn, E.
G,
Maree, J.H., and Savage,

to
P. F. (1982),
The Application of
a Portable
Pavement Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Pavement Layers and Subgrades

Testing,
in
Determine In Situ Bearing Properties of Road
South Africa, European Symposium on Penetration
Amsterdam, Netherlands, pp277-282.
Kleyn, E.
G, Van
Heerden, M.
J.
J.
and Rossouw, A.
J. (1982),
An
Investigation to
Determine the Structural Capacity and Rehabilitation Utilization of a Road Pavement
Using the Pavement Dynamic Cone Penetrometer, International Symposium on Bearing

Capacity of Roads and Airfields, Trondheim, Norway, 101 1-1026.
Kleyn, E.G. and van Heerden, M.J.J. (1983), Using

Rehabilitation,
DCP
Sounding
to
Optimize Pavement
Annual Transportation, Johannesburg.
Lambe, T.W. (1958), the Structure of Compacted Clay,
J.
Soil
Mech. Found.
Div.,
ASCE,
84(2), pp. 1-34.
128
Lee,
Woojin (1993), Evaluation of In-Service Subgrade
Resilient
Modulus with
Consideration of Seasoned Effects, Ph. D. Thesis, Purdue University, West Lafayette.
Lee, Woojing, Bohra, N.C., Altschaeffl, A.G. and White, T.D.(1997), Resilient Modulus
of Cohesive Soils, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 123,
No.
2,
February, 1997, ppl31-136.
Little,
D. N.(1996), Assessment of In Situ Structural Properties of Lime-Stabilized Clay
Subgrades, Transportation Research Record 1546, pp. 13-23.
Livneh,
M,
Ishai,
I.
and Livneh, N. A.(1994), Effect of Vertical Confinement on Dynamic

Strength
Cone
Penetrometer
Values
in
Pavement
and
Subgrade
Evaluations.
Transportation Research Record 1473, pp. 1-8.
Livneh, M. (1987), the Use of dynamic Cone Penetrometer in Determining the Strength
of Existing Pavements and Subgrade, Proceedings, 9th Southeast Asian Geotechnical

Conference, Bangkok, Thailand.
Livneh,
M. and
Ishai,
I.
(1985), Evaluation of Flexible Pavements and Subsoils Using the
South African
Cone Penetrometer,
Transportation Research
Institute,
Publication
Number
85-301, Technion.
Livneh,
M. and
Ishai,
I.
(1988), the Relationship between In Situ
CBR Test
and Various
Penetration Tests, Penetration Testing 1988, ISOPT-1,
De
Ruiter (ed.), pp445-452.
Livneh, M.(1989), Validation of Correlations Between a Number of Penetration Tests and

In Situ California Bearing Ratio Tests, Transportation Research Record 1219, pp56-67.
129
Longcope, D.B. and
Forrestal, M.J. (1983), Penetration
of targets described by a Mohrof Applied Mechanics, Vol.50,
Coulomb
failure criterion with a tension cutoff, Journal
pP 327-333.
Lubliner, Jacob (1990), Plasticity theory, chapter
7.
Luk, V.K. and Forrestal, M.

targets with spherical
J.
(1987), "Penetration into semi-infinite reinforced-concrete

projectiles", Int.
J.
and ogival nose
Impact Engrg Vol.
6,
No.
4, pp.
291-301.
Luk, V.K. Forrestal, M.J. and Amos, D.E. (1991), Dynamic spherical cavity expansion of
strain-hardening materials, Journal of Applied Mechanics 58, 1-6.
Scala,
A.J.
(1956),
Simple
Methods of Flexible Pavement Design Using
Cone
Penetrometers, Proc. 2nd Australian-New Zealand Conf. Soil Mech. and Found. Engrg.,
pp. 73.
Seed, H. B, Chan, C. K.(1959), Structure and Strength Characteristics of Compacted

Clays, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, Proceedings of the
American Society
Civil Engineers, Vol. 85, No.
SM 5, October,
1959, pp87-127.
Skempton, A. W. and Bjerrum,
L. (1957),
Contribution to the Settlements Analysis of

7, pp.
Foundations on Saturated Clay, Geotechnique, London, England,
168- 178.
Thipgen, L.(1974), Projectile penetration of elastic-plastic earth media,
J.
Geotech. Div.,
Am.
Soc. Civ. Eng. 100, pp279-293.
Turnbull,
W.
J.
and Foster, C. R. (1957), Compaction of Graded Crushed Stones Base

Int.
Course, Proc. 4th
Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Engrg.,
2, pp. 181 -185.
130
Xu,
Y., Keer,
L.M. and Luk, V.K.(1997), Elastic-Cracked model for penetration

Int.
J.
into
unreinforced concrete targets with ogival nose projectiles,

Vol.34, No.l2,pp.l479-1491.
Solids Structures,
Yankelevski, D. Z. and Adin, M.A.(1980),
simplified analytical
method
for soil
in
penetration analysis, International Journal for Numerical and Analytical
Method
Geomechanics, vol
4,
233-254.
Yew, C.H. and
Strirbis, P.P.(1978), Penetration
of projectile into
terrestrial target, Journal
of the engineering mechanics division, ASCE, EM2, pp403-423.
Yoder,
E.J., Shurig,
D.G. and Colucci-Rios, B.(1982), Evaluation of Existing Aggregate

Suitability
Roads
to
Determine
for
Resurfacing,
Transportation
Research
Board,
Transportation Research Record 875, 1-7.
Yong, C. W.(1969), depth prediction

Found. Div., Proc.
for earth penetrationg projectiles,
J.
Soil
Mech.
Am.
Soc. Civ.
Eng
95, 803-817.

Full Text

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Full Text

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Purdue University

Cone Penetration Test to Assess the Mechanical Properties of Subgrade Soils

DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION TEST TO

OF THE SUBGRADE SOH

Rodrigo Salgado, PE.

School of Civil Engineering

Cooperation with the

Indiana Department of Transportation and

September 30, 1998

are indebted to Athar

Khan and Nayyar Zia of INDOT

Research Division for their assistance

with the selection of sites for testing, for

facilitating the testing in a

number of ways, and

about the potential

penetration test in the daily practice of their work.

Digitized by the Internet Archive

2011 with funding from

LYRASIS members and Sloan Foundation; Indiana Department

penetration index (inch/blow or mm/blow), water

content, density and other

commonly used parameters was proposed. The

can be applied to characterize the subgrade

scenarios, such as in confined areas, during preliminary geotechnical investigation, and in

small earth works.

of proof-rolling on projects that are too short

(which would prevent proof-rolling).

a need to further verify/enhance the correlations and

This can be done by allowing

TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD TITLE PAGE

Report No. FHWA/IN/JTRP-98/1

Government Accession No.

Performing Organization Code

Performing Organization Report No.

Xiadong Luo. Rodrigo Salgado and

Work Univ No.

Agency Name and Address

Type of Report and Period Covered

Indiana Department of Transportation

100 North Senate Avenue IN 46204

Sponsoring Agency Code

density and moisture content of the subgrade

and resilient modulus were found. Based on the

field test results

and unconfined compression

the relationship between field

now in place, which should facilitate

DCPT, subgrade soil,

available to the public through the

National Technical Information Service. Springfield.

19. Security CUssif. (of this report)

20. Security Classif. (of this page)

21. No. of Pages

Form DOT F 1700.7

The Dynamic Cone Penetrometer

DCP used in this

DCP Correlations DCP/CBR Correlations

DCP/Shear Strength Correlation

Advantages and Limitations of the 1.6.1 Advantages

Chapter 2 Testing Program

Preliminary Test Results

Review of Soil Compaction Concepts