...

93-

In Situ Fouindation
(Ihraracterization Using
Dynamiic Cone
Pene
t
r
orne
t
er
1

F7EPClUT

1
I

1. Report No.

93-()!j

C)QClJAAENTATION PAGE

.
.
.
,
I

I
-

-,

5. Report Date

4. Title and Subtitle

ft

In Situ Foundation Characterization Using the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer

------

3. Recipient's Accession No.

May 1993

---

"

--.-----.--I.-.-----.

-.
--,I.

8. Performing Organization Rept. No.

'7. Author(s)

Tam Burnham and Dave Johnson

------ . - - - - -_- - . l . l _ l . - - - - - - -

9PR300.I

--

'10. Project/Ta:jk/Work Unit No.

9.Performing Organization Name and Address

Nlinnesota Department of Transportation

Office of Materials Research and Engineering
1400 Gerwais Ave.
-_--Mylewood, MN 55109
-.-.----.-

----

1' 3. 'Type of Report & Period Covered

12. Sporisoring Organization Name and Address

Final Re,port - 1991-1993

Minnesota Department of Transportation

Office of Materials Research and Engineering
14.00 Geniais Avenue
tdlaplewood, MN 55109

-_

I
_
-

I
-

l!i Supplementary Notes

------

.-_,.----

16.Abstract (limit: 200 words)

'The Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) is a test device used for imieasuring tht? strength and variability 01
unbound layers of soil and granular material. The DCF' is inot a new test device tnut transportation organizations in
Canadi3 and the United Stales, including the Strategic: Highway Reseiarch Program (SHRP), have slhown a renewed
interest in its unique capability of measuring a profile of in situ foundation characteristics..A desire to more fully
characterize subsurface conditions on the Minnesota fqoad Research Project (MiMROAD) led to the initial use of
DCP'!; by MdDOT. From an operational perspective i t is very attractive because the DClP is both portable and
simple to use.
The objective of this research was to explore ways that IXP's could effectively be used by Minnesota pavement
and inaterials engineers and to perform the testing, analysis, and learning necessary for establishing relationships
between DCF' test results and other corrimonly used fwndatiori parameters.
'This paper describes the design and operation of the DCP as well as an overview of the theoretical basis for use
of the dlevice. In addition, correlation results, data profiles, case histories and related information are: presented.

----__-

.-_-___--.-_..,--..-

.
I
_

I
_
_
.
-

17. Document analysis a.Descriptcirs

ILIaterial Testing
Subgrade
Embankment
FOiJndatiOn

Dynamic Cone
Peinetrometer (DC P)
Edge Drains

Back Fill
Compaction
Eiase
h41ateirial Strength
Paveiment StructiJre

b.ldentifiers/Open-EndedTerms
c.C(3SATI Field/Group

------,

L
-_
.._
._
._
--

'I8. Availability Statement

No restrictions. This document is available through the National Twhnical
Information Services, Springfield, Virginia ,22161.
.
_
_
.
*
,
I

----- . -- I -

I
-.-

--- . -- I -

19. Security Class (This Report)

Unclassified
:20. Security Class (This Page)

Unclassified

-E

.--

21. No. of Pages

22. Price

-.

.-_.

Study No. CdPR3001

Final Report

BY
Tom Buraham
Research Testing Eingineer
and
Dave Johnson
Research ([)perations Ehgineer

Physical. Research Section

Off ice of Materials Research and Engineering
R4 inriesota Departrrient of r,ransportatian

The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for h e facts and accuracy 01 the data
presented herein. The contents do not nece:;sarily reflect the views or policies of thc Minnescita Department of
Transportation at the time of publication. This r e p does noi constitute ;Istandard, specification, or regulation.
The authors and the Minnesota Department of Transpoi tation do not endorse product5 or manufacturers. Tirade or
manufacturers niunes appein herein solely because they are considered essential to the objective of this report.

TABLE O F CONTENTS

SECTI01N

PA.(13E

...............................................................
D e s c r i p t i o n of t h e T e s t ..........',
..................................
H i s t o r y ..............................................................
T.heory .................................................................
.A:pplications .............................................................
Background

a ) Prelimiinary S o i l s Surveys ....................................

b) C onstruc tion Contro.1
c > Structu:ra:l E v a l u a t i o n of E:xistin.gi :Pavemtimts
d ) F u t u r e 2ipp:Licat:ions

1
2

2
3

:3
:3

............................................
:3
...................
4
.............................................
4
. D a t ea Arial:ysis ............................................................
!.
hublished Corre:ltatio'ns ..................................................
5
a) Ca1iforl:iia Bearing Ii.atic:> ......................................
!j
b) Unconfined C,ompressi.ve S t r e n g t h ...............................
6
j

....................................................
6
................................
6
............6
................................. 7
................................................. 7
1exa.mples of DCP Usage i.n Mn/DOT .........................................
a) Locating Hj.gh. S t r e n g t h Layers i n Pavement S t i m c t u r e s ........7
b ) I d e n t i f y i n g Weak Spcr1t.s :i.n Constructed Itnlbanknlents ............
E3
c ) Measuring t.he Uniformity o f In S i t u B a s e M a t e r : i a l ........
.. .. 8
d ) Supp1ementj.ng Founda,t.iol.i.Test:ing f o r Design I?urposes .. ... 8
e ) Campacti.on Test.i n g of Back, F i l l 1 i n Edge D r a i n Trenches .. ... 9
c ) E l a s t i c Modulus
d ) Standard Pen~etratioritRe:l.ristan.ce
e ) Shear S t r e n g t h of Cc:ihes:ion.less G r a n u l a r Materials
f) Cl.egg-hammer and Benrkelman. Beism
g ) General Coment:s

* *

.....................................................
Slimunary ...............................................................
Ack,nowl.edgement .....................................................
Refererices ..............................................................
Future Act.ivities

Am?endi.x s f Figures

...................................................

10
10

13..
313

13a,ckground

Characterizing field. material properties by using laboratory tests is a n ongoing problem in the
discipline of paveme-nt design. This problem has t w o aspects. First it is: difficult it0 collect and
test representative samples. Because of th.e la.:rge.variab:ility of typical pavement :materials a
large number of random samples must be collected and tested to generate results with good
statistical si.pificance. Second it is cijiMicult to quantify, much less reproduce, the in situ sample
condition and environm.ent in a laboratory. This problem is particularly acute for subgrade
material layers which are ai product of a seemhgly random glaciation process rather than of a
controlled manufacturing process.
Two papers presented at the Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting in January
1993 highlight the inherent; dificulties in using laboratory testing t o chara.cterize field subgrade
con.ditions.
Daleiden et al"' performed a p:rel.i.minaryinvestigation of th:e I986 Am-ericanAssociation of
Sta.te Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) flexible jpavemen.t design equat:ion usinl.;
da.ta from Strategic :I:IighwayResearch Program (SI-IRF') Long Term Pavement Pei-fbrmance
(LTPP) test sections. They compared. .the subgrade resili.e:ntmodulus (Mr) back calculated from
field tests t o the Mr tletemi:ned from :laboratory testing. They de.terminled from the data
available for their study that the sample avera.ge of' the ratios of field t o corresponding laboratory
results was 5.06. Furthermore the standard deviation of the sample of these ratios was 3.28.
Forsyth'') contacted :Ll states that current1.y are not using tlhe 1986 .AASHTO pavement
design prrocechre and asked. them what criteria they use for selecting a subgrade st:rength value
for a pro;ject. :He found that 8 of these states select a very conservative subgrade strength value,
one being less than or equal to 85 t o 1.00percent of the samples. In addition "labosratoxy
strength tests are coriductetl on satura.ted clistiirbedl sampl.es refl.ecting a more [harsh]
environment than will 1:ik.el:yoccur in the design 1.ifie of the pavement". ALs a result of an ever
increasing conservatism in selecting saibgra.de strength values, "permanent subgrade deformation
is virtually non existent in California, even on badly cracked flexible pavement." He goes on t o
recommend that "Whenever possible, pavement designs s:hould be based upon in situ subgrade
strength memurements
The cost implications o.F conservative pavement, designs resulting fro'm our ina.bility t o
adequately characterize fi.eld subgrade strengths have t o be staggering. ICertainly the I986
AASHTO pavement H.esign ]procedures take steps in. the right di:rection.b;y allowing; .the
incorporation of non destructive testing (NIIT) deflection data antd :re:liabi.lityfactors inLo the
design process. However, as we begin t o mlove away from empirical methods and move toward
mechanistic and statistically based design methods we need t o continue Lo look for tools that will
give us the informati.on we need t o support such a 13nove.
The Dynamic Cone P'en.etrometer (DCP) is one such tool. It is a simple test device that is
:inexpens:ive,portable, easy t o operate, and (easy t o imderstand. It does not take extensive
experience to interpret results and sev'eral correlations .to more widely known strength
:m.easuremen(;shave 1,ee:n pub1is:hed. The D C P quickly generates a continuous profile of in situ
sub<gradeand. base strength measurements.
-..'I.

Description of the Test

The dynamic cone penetrometer CDCPP described in this palpc~is based on the Cen.t;ral
African Standard as :modified by the Transvaal Road De:pa.rtmerd3). The device consists of two
0.63 in. (16 mm) diameter rods, with the lower rod cont,alining a n anvil, a replaceable 60" pointc:!tl
tip, and depth markings every 0.2 inches ( t i 1 mm).. The upper rod contains an 1'7.6 lbs. (8 kg)
drop hammer with a 22.6; inch (575 m:m) drop distance, a n end plug :for connectio:n t o the lower
rod, and a top grab h a n d e I(1Fig. 1). All materials (except .the &lop hammer) are st,ain.lesssteel
for corrosion resistance. An optional depth residing device can be attached, as sho.wn in Fig. 1, .to
elinninate the need to measiire penetrati.on depth at; ground level.
Operation of the DCP I-eqnires two persons, one t o drop the hammer and the other t o record
the depth of :penetration. The .test beg$:ns with the operaitor "seati.ng" the cone tip by dropping
the hammer until the widest part of the cone is just bel.ow the testing surface. At this point tht
other person records this initial penet:ration. as "Blow 0". The ope:rator then lifts and drops the
hammer either one or more times d.ependin.g upon the strength ofthe soil at that test location.
Following each sequence of hammer tlrops, a penet:ration. reading .is take:n. This process
continues until the desired 'depth of testing is rea.ched, o r the full length of the lower rod is
buried. At that time, a specially adapted jack is used t o extract the device.
Datia from a DCP test is p:rocessed t o prod.uce a pen'etration iindex (PI)?which is simply the
d:istance the cone penetmtes wjLth each d r o p of the :hammer. The :PI is expressed in terms of
inches per blow o r millimeters per blow. The peneitratiom. index can be plotted on a layer
strength diagram (Fig. 2), or directly correlated. wit,:h a number oif commoln pavement design
pa:rameters. Some of: .these correlations will. be describedl in morle detail 1.ater in t h i s paper.
Since its introduction t o M.flOT in June 1991, the DCP has un.dergone some minor
modifications in its design, with the most significant change occurring at the connection between
the upper and lower rods.. Originally a threaded co:nnection, a simple slip plug axti bolt
co:n:nectionis now used. Otlher notab1.t:::modifications include an i.mcreasein the weld size at all
junctions (for prolonged device lie) and the addit:io:nof a :hand saf"ety guard. on the anvil.
History
Soil penetration testing devices like the DiCP have a. long, b.ut subdued. history. Perhaps th.t3
earlhest penetration testing devices were driven. piles. O n a project requiring piles,, a builder
would install "test" p:iles t o d.ete:rmi.netheir required length. These "test" piles would be tlriven
u:ntil a certain rate of penetration rate was achieved. Orice that rate was reached, it was
assumed that :future installation of the sam.e 1e:ngth piles would 'be sati~factory'~'.
The earliest record o:f a subsoil pen.etra.tion testing device sirnilar to the DCP :is a. "ram
penetromete:t-," devel.tnped in Germany at the end of' 17th century by Nicholaus Goldmann. The
next major development again c a m e from Germany:, whe:n.'Kiinzel in 1936 d.eveloped what was
known as a ":PriiKqtab". This device was lat,er used by Paproth in 1943, and eventual1,y become
Germ,an Standard DIN 4094'4'.
standardized in 1964 as the "Light '~?xi~!tro:tneter'',
Concurrent with the German starndardiza1;:ionof the "Light IPenetronneter", several other
cowntries developed their own s t a n d a d penetration devices. The :DCP used by MniD(3'lr, and
several other DOT'S i n the United Sta.l;es and Canada, was origindly developed by Scda (1956)
in Australia. Fo1lowi:ng il;s ,adoption as the Central African Standard. DCP, it was later
simplified and modified b,y van Vuuren (1969) in South P~fr-ica'~'~'.
h t e r e s t in the U.S. mainly
or.i.gjnatedfrom research conducted by Marraha:lll Thompson at the University of Illinois"').
MxdDOT obtained. specifications rom the University of 1l.l.inoisa.:nd const:ructed two DCPs for
2

research on the Minnesota Road Research Project (MdROAD).

Tlheory

As a cone penetration device, the DCP provides some measurem.ent of the sh.ear strength of
a soil. R,esearch has been cond.ucted looking a t both the forces imparted by a DC:P co:ne tip, and
the behavior of the soil caused hy the application of thes'e forces.
Most DCP tip to soil in.teraction ltilehavjior modiels are variations of models developed to
anadyze soil failure caused by air-dropped projcxtiles. Whi.le pro;iectil.es blegin with velocities of
sevleral hundred feet per second, DCP tip pleneitrations are considered "slow" penetrat:ions.
Chua@):formulates 1hi.s inlodeling siolution by coi~~side~.j.mg
the penetration of an axisyrlnmetrio
soil disc .with a th.ickxiess equal to the height of'the cone, similar toowork by Yankelevsky and
for projectiles. Using stresses and strains from the modell, Chua developed a correlation
of penetration ind.ex (PI)veirsus elastic: modiulus for various typers of soils. Chua and L,yiton@)
pe:rforrned a "structural system" type dynamic analgrsis i:ncluding;both the DCP and its soil
interaction. In the analysis, the DCP ;is moldeled as a seiries of springs and masses, and the soil
as a dashpot. Acceleration and dampiing analyrsis' were c:onducted,,along with measuring the
peak acce1erat:ion of .t:hedevice (1400a). It was also shown that it is pos'sible to deteimine
damping properties of in-situ. p;weme:mtmat,erials through. DCP testing.

Applications
DCP testing can be a.pplied t o the charactwization o f subgrad.e and base material properties
in many ways. Perhaps the greatest, sitreng-th of the DCP device lies in its ability t o provide a
continuous record of relative so.il strength with depth. 3 ; ~plotting a graph of penetration index
(PI:) versus depth bel.ow the testing surface, a u.ser can observe a profile showing lay'er depths,
thicknesses, and strength coldition:; (Fig. 2). This #(:anbe particiilarly helpful in cases where the
original as-built plans for a proiiect were lost, n'ever created, or fcwnd t o ble inaccurate.
The DCP's other strength 1.ies in its sm.all and relatively lightweight design. It can be used
in confined areas such as inside buildings to evaluate fo.u.ndationsettlements , or used on.
congested sites (trees,,steep topography, soft soils, etc...) that woiild prevent larger testi:ng
equipment from being used. The 'DCI' is ideal for testing througlh core holes in existing
pavements.
The following applications outline ei.ther existing or proposed uses of DCP test,ing.
a) I're1imina.1-y Soils ljurveys,

IDCP testing can be d.one during; prel.iminary soil investig,at:ionsto quickly map out areas of weak
material. Some have used it t o locate poten.tially collapsible soils. By ruinnjng an initial DCP
test, and then :flooding the 1ocatio:nwit.h wat,er ;and running anotltrer test, a :noticeabl.eincrease in
the PI (less shear str(nngt1i) :might indicate a potent:ially collapsible, or moisture sensitive soil that
would wa.rrant a more detailied investiga-tior~(~'.
b) Const:ruction ContgmJ
The DCP is a:n ideal tool for monitoring all aspects lof the constru.ction of ,apavement sibgrade
and base. It can be used t o verify the level and. uniform.ity of connpaction over a project. It can
also be used t o define problem areas that develop due to unavoidable soil co:nditions brought on

by inclement weather. Some have suggest,ed i t would be a good tool to use in lieu. of test rolling
on projects that are too short ( t o justify expen,se of test; rolling) or have shallow utilities (which
would prevent test rolling),,
An excellenl, example of the usefidness of DCP testiag was demonstrated in 1989 during the
construction of a nevv cargo apron on the southeast, side of the Greater Peoria 1Reg;ion.al.Airport in
Illinois. It was determin.ed. that lime modification (not stabilization) wa:s n.ecessar.y to obtain
adequate compaction of the grade. The lime was applied. t o the upper 1!2 inches (:30.5 cm) of the
grade, but heavy raiins prevented hauling traffic from reaching 1th.e treated areas, so they
remained undisturbed fo.r several weeks. When construction resumed 011 those areas, the
subgrade was found t o be yielding under const,ructi.ontraffic. To test whether th.e linne
rnodifica.tion was effective, eight DCI' tests were run. 1.t was fou.rd that the lime had. modified
the upper 12 inches soil, and the actu.al cause of the ru.tting was a very soft layer 30 to 40 inches
(76 to 102 cm) below the surface (Fig. 3)'5'.
c) Structural Evaluation of Existinrr Pavernent,s

One of the major appl.ications of DCF' testing has heen in the sti-uctural evaluation of' existing
pavements. South Africa. has used IDCP testing exbensi.velyin conjunction with their Heavy
Vehicle Simulator (HVS) t o investigate both sha1l.o~andl. deep pavements with light c:e:mentitiaiis
gravel layers. The effect!; of t r f l i c molding caused. by HVS loading were also evaluated by DCP
tests'". Prior t o this study, de I3eer et; al.("'),had dweloped a pavement strength-balance
classification system based on Standard Pavement :Balance Cunres (SPBCs) as deterrni:ned from.
DCP testing. Kleyn d.esc:riblesthe strength balance of a. pavemeixt; as "thme change i:n the strength
of the pa.venient layers with depth. Normally, ,the strength ... dec:rea.seswi-th depth, ...and if this
decrease is smooth and without discontinuities, and con.form.swith one o:the SPI~CS,
the
pavement is regarded as balanlced OR i:n a state of b~dan.ce('l'."
Using the above systenn, an empirical DCP-based model for t:he 'preclicl5on of pavement life
expectancy was developed using DCP results. IFinztlly, ove:rlay test strips; were construsted t o
study the feasibility of light pavement design based on the same model.
Tho.rnpson and EIerrin'"' reported (onthe use of DCP testing in a 1988 non-destructive
rehabilitation study at Illinois' 1'alwau.kee IMunicipt;tlAirport. In. t:lhe studly, DCP testing was
conducted following Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWI)) testing t o further evaluate "weak"
areas that were found. FWD testing showed the northern. 1000 feet of one runway t o h.ave
weaker pavement sections than the rest. Si,:ncc!this weaker area was near a drainage ditch, a
subsurface in.vestigation, including :DCP testing, was conducted. :Bot:h soil boring:; and DCP
results indicated wea:ker granular rnaierial was u.nderlying the pavement near the ditch. Based
on these find.ings, properly designed bituminous overlays were then determined following the
F.AA design procedure.

68) :Future Aprilicationn

DUE:t o the DGP's small size and simplicity of operation, ithere is no doubt new applications will
be found for its use. One of these applications may be as mentioned before, a substitute for final
testing rolling of grades before pavement, placement, Yc?l another might be its use in measuring
the frosthhaw depth in cold climate pavements during the spring months. This could enhance
an engineer's decision t o invoke o r remove load restxictions.

Data Analysis
DCP testing results are expressed in terms of the penetration index (PI), which is defined :IS
the downward velrticd movement of the DCP cone produced by one drop of the sliding :hammer
(incheshlow or mmhlow). Stifer o r stronger soils requ.ire a higher number of blows or drops of
the hammer to achieve a given penet:r;stion.
Test results are typically processed using a spreadsheet as ishown in Fig. 4,.Data for the
first two columns (blow number and depth of penetration) is transferred drectly from a. field
datia collection form. The third co1u:crtxi is an average of"the present and previous I:)CI> depth
readings. By averaging the readings in this manner, the! strength. of a soil layer between DCP
readings is represented b;y a uniform 13: located at .the midpoint of th.e layer. The :fourt,:hcolumn
is the PI, which is calculated by dividi.ng the difference in the present and previous DCP depth
readings by the number of hammer b:lows bletween these readings..
Once the :results are proceissed, a graph of penetration index (column 4.)versus penetration
below the surface (coiumn 3) ca.n be prepared (Fig. 5) . The graph. will c1ea:dy show a p.rofile of
the different strength layers. It should be noted that th.e results can easily become unrealistic if
,the DCP encountered a rock. or debris 'during a test (one or two points with near zero penetration
:index).
The penetration. :i:ndexcan be correlated with a known pa.veiment design paranneter in order
t o understand the actual :material strength. The following section describes some of t:he more
commonly published PI correlations.

Published Correlations
a) California Bearing Ratio (C13R)

The most common correlation of the E'II is to the California Bearing Ratio (CBR). The C!BR is
defined as the ratio of the resistance i,o penetration devtdoped by ;n subgrade soil to that
developed by a specimen of r;tandartl crushed-rock base material. Many graphs of 1'1-6 BR
correlation can be found (Fig. 6)(12',
with the equation for the line typica1l.y in the fc~rm:~"~'~,'~)
LogCBR =: A - B Lo&']
Although moisture content amid dry deiisity can have great effects on shear strength in fine soils,
these properties are t,ypically neglected in this correlation since they were found t o have a
similar efYect o n both CBR and PI r e s ~ l t s ' ~ ' .
During the studies of the correlation of PI and CBR,, i t was found that DCP te,sting can be
a n excellent substitute for field CBR cietenniination. This is based on the fact that the coefficient
of variation (CV) in field CBR test results for a particular materiall can be o f the order of GO%,
while that of CBR determxned by DCF' testing c a n bile of the order of 40%0'"~'4'.
The C:V of a test is:
a n indication of the repeatability of a tlest (lower values mean higher degree of repeatability).
However, some researchers caution ag:Linst PI-CBR correlations si me CBR is a measurement of
Is his
soil performance in the elastic range, whereas i t DCP test, causes material
studies, Klimochko(21'found that correlating the PI and CBR for base cou~*sematerials can lead
t o unusually high and misleading results.

b) Unconfined Compressive Streng1;h (TJCS)

Another published correlation :is that (ofPI versus imconfined compressive strength (TJCS). The
UCS is a measure of the cohesive strength of a soil Several graphs of the correlation between
UCS and PI can be found in the literature (Fig. 6(':").
c) Standard Penetraj5on Resistance,

Sowers and Hedges('"), and later Livnc!h and Ishai("", developed a correlation between 11'1 and
standard penetration test, (SPT', ASTM D1586-64) result!; (Fig. 7:P7)). The correlation equation
took the form:

(Valid for SPT < 0.40 inc~hes/blow(10m.mlblow)

It should be noted that both1 studies involved the use of DCP's of slightly different design, but
which still fit the classification "light penetrometer".
d) :Elastic ModuhE
Some research has been conducied to lind it correlation between PI and the elastic modulus of a
soil Chua(6)presented a imodel and preliminary findings for several types of soil, and expects
final analysis t o be complete by fall of 1993. Otherc;'l5)lime exainiined this correlation and
propose equations of a form similar to CBR equations (Fig. 'i'b(15):~:

Investigation into the tori-elation of PI versus resilient modulus (Mr), as back calculated from
Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) testing OD the MdEitOAD research project, will1 be pursued
by Mn/DQT in the future.
e) Shear Strength ofJ3ohesi.onless Gra.nula:rMaterjials
performed a laboratory study t o determine relationships between the PI and the
Ayers et dl*)
shear strength (cohesion (c) and the angle of internal fkiction (a))properties of cohiesiortless
of' the fonm:
granular materials. E'rediction c?quatio~ns
DS =: A .. B(I'1)

where 11s =: Deviator stress at failure

for confining pressures of 5, 15, and 30 psi (35, 103.,and 207 kPa) were developed (Fig. 8), The
selection of the appropriate prediction (equationrequires ,an estimate of the confining pressure
under field loading conditiiorts, which was stated t o requii-e further investigat'ion.

f) Clegff-hammer and Benkelmm Beam

Trial r0adwa.y sectio:ns were constructed in Bot8swxriato study the 'use of sub-standard pavemeni;
materials for low voh.i:me rotads(20'.A comparison in pavement strength was then carried out
using a IICP, a Clegg-hammer, and a :IBenkelm:m Beam. The researchers found good correlation
between the test meth.ods far base levd materials, with result comparisons deteriorating rapidly
with depth. Clegg-hammer CBI1 valu.es we:re foundl t o be rough1;y l.6 t o 2.2 times Itiigber than
CBli values determined witlh a IICP.. 'Useful correlations were fcund between PI and deflection
as measured by the Eknkelman Beam. for base, subbase, and upper subgracle layers.
Saskatchewan W:ighwajrr; and. Tramsportation researchers a.lso report, beneficial results using
.the DCP t o supplement Benkelnian Beam tlest results(2*).
h) -General Comments.
At the First :International S;ymposium.on Penetration T & h g (ISDPT-l), the 1SSM:E'E Technical.
Committee submitted an int'ernational reference test procedure Sbr dynamic probing'2"'. In their
document No. 2, Reviewirzg The .Present Practice, a current state of practice for interpreting
penetration testing results was overviewed. A long list describing typical test behziviolrs, such as
the affect materia:l properties have on :penetration resistance, was given for many types of
penetration testing.
Finally, future DCP users may be interested in. following the Australlian practice of'
recalibrating the IICP for each soil on a specific! construction job, and then using it as a control
instrum ent based on 11oca1:ized PI: p aram et e r ~ ~ ~ .

Examples of DCP XJsage i n Mn/DOT

The purpose of the following examples rare t o stimulate the readers' insight as t o the
potential and versatility of the IXP. Since its introduction t o MrdDOT in 1991, the DCP has
been evaluated by the department for several differmt applications. These examples outline how
this instrument has been used siiccessfully by h/In/CIOT. Further details about these examples
are i2vailable From the authors upon request.
a) 1,ocating High Strc;nPth Layers in Pavement Stritictures

A byproduct (spray dryer residue) from Northern States 1'ower's coal burr1in.gpower p1.ant at
Becker, Minnesota was used experimentally t o :;tabi.lize aggregate :layers in a haul :road at the
plant site in October of 1991. DCP t,csiing was selected tlo measu.rt: the relative streng$:tis of
stabilized and uns-tabilized road layers.
The measurements fromi a test section With no treated layers (Fig. 9) show that the PI of the
aggregate gradually decrease:; (r*elativestrength increaser:) with depth. This can be ex:pllained by
increased densification in the lower layers became of the overburden. However, measurements
for a. test section with a treated 1aye:r (Fig. 10) s:how a sudd.en andl drastic reduction. :in the PI
starting at a depth of about 7.5 inches (1.90 mm). Testing was teirminated a t a depth of about 10
incyhes (254 mm) because the drop hammer was bou:ncing up from. the anvil after ea.ch drop.

b) Kdentifyinp Weak Spots in Constructed 13mE)ankments

:In October of 19911 DCP testing was done o n a TH 212 ksridge embankment west of Sacred Heal-t;,
M-N. At that site the contra.ctor was 1h.avingdifficul.ty mE:ef;irig embankment densitmy
requirements. Measurements at this site demonstrated. the utility of the DCP t o map out, we&
spots and t o highlighl; how ~ a r i a b l ethe "same" material can be un.der real world construction
conditions. All measuremients were made at station. 3+!33, but at different offsets. One test
(Fig. 11)depicted a n emban:kme.nt with an average PI of about 2 i:nches (51 m n ) per blow with a.
range from .5t o 3.6 i.nches (1.3 to 91. rmm) per blow. A nlere 40 Saet (12 m) away (Fig. 1.2) the
average PI was about 1inch. (25 mm) per blow with a range from. ,4 t o 1.6 inches (10 to 41 mm)
per blow. Typically with plastic soil.!j, a PI over 2 inches (50 mrnhlow) per blow is cause for
concern, and additional soil testi.ng is warranted.
At the M:n/ROATI pavern.en.tresearch facility DCP testin.g shawed an extremeliy weak spot irk
th.e lower layers in one of the test section embankments. PI'S were as :high as an a.stounding
11.7 inches (297 mm) per blow ;at a depth of 30 inches (762 mm) while PI'S near the siurf'ace
averaged under 2 inches (51 mrm.) per blow (Fig. 13). Additional tests in ithis area showed that
the weak spot, was quite limited in size but the cause was still not understood. Finally someone
noticed a stripe on the shoul.der ofnea:rby westl2oun.d 1-94 rnarkiing a n edge drain outlet.
Unfhrtunately, the outlet 'had been covered during -the co:nstructi80nof the new test section
embankment. Water was being draineld direct1;y int80the embankment causing the weak spot!
The outlet was excavat,ed and pr0pe.r drainage was restored.
There is a n expectatiton among Mn/DO!I' Materials xnd. Soils Engineers that the DCP in a
construction environment can, perform. much the same fiinction as test rolling and can be .used i;o
delineate weak subgrade locations whe.n pavements fail during con.struction, Both $he h l u t h
and Rochester districts have used DCP testing t o investigate the latter situation.
c) MeasurinP the Uniformity of In Situ Base Material

After the base materi:d was placed a t 144n/ROAIl in 1992 we started DCP testing at, the same
rate that we had on the subgrade, that is at two offiets every 100 feet (30 m). We soon reduced
our DCP testing rate because the compacted base materials were giving surprisingly uniform
results at different depths, and at different Ilocationr;. Figure 2 illustrates the strength,
about 0.2 inches (5 mm) per blow, a n d uniformity of' a relatively pcilor Class 3 special base
material as compared t o the rnore van';ible subgrade layelp.
Heavy rains saturated a 4 inch (100 mm) blase on 1-35near IECiribault, IMN, on a JTuly 1991
night. DCP testing confirmed the decision not t,o begin concrete paving operations the next day
because of the weakened state of the hise (Fig. 14).
d) Supplementing Foundation Xestinv for Desim Purposios.
A DCP test can. provide adldition;ll qualitative and quantitative in situ foundation infoimnation
during normal soil survey samp:ling operations. By condui.cted a I X P test through a drill hole or
near a thi.nwal1 hole, r;upplern.ent,al infor:mation can be gathered for comparison with laboratory
results. It is felt that this atlktional informatiom will lead t o better design decisions.
In October of 1991. a 33CP was used on TH 212 :near Sacred Heart, MN, t o evaluate the
strength of the subgrade u.nc1c.r a. cracked full depth AC pavement. This section of ~roa~dway
was
being evaluated for reh.abilit;ation options. Results of testing at 9 locations showed a quan.titative
diffe.rence in subgrade strengths hmetiliate1,y below the '12 inch (305 mm) pavement;. 'The
8

average PI under the wheel path was 0.9 inches (23 mm) per blow with a standard deviation of"
0.1'7 inches (4mm) per blow while readings NOT under the wheel path averaged l.34- iinches (34
mm) per blow with a standard tleviatisn of 0.4 inches (LO mm) per blow. For these same 9 tests
the average 11' under. a crack was 1.38 inches (35 mm) per blow .with a standard deviation of 0.35
inches ( 9 mm) per blow while reading>;NOT under a crack averaged 0.83 inches (2!3 rnim) per
blow with a standard deviation of 0.15 inches (4 mim) per k~low.
el !Cornpaction Testing of Back. Fill in Edge Drain 'Trenchcz

MdDOTs typical pavement, edge drain design (Fig.15) is, back fi.11ed with a uniform fine filter
aggregate (FFA). There has been a n occasional. prclblem with th.c?settlement of the shoulder
surface above the these edge drains. This probllem :led lMln/IBOT's Geotec:hnical Sect:ion .to
investigate the compactio.n requirem.ents and methods for the FFA. Their goal was tal find a
procedure for obtaining a compa.cted density of at least 95% of the maximum density idefined by
the standard Proctor test (ASTM T-99).
Investigators determined that the moisture content of the F'FA had little effect o n the
co:mpacted densities .that it could attain. With this in mind the investigators set 'up a field test
t o correlate DCP tests of the FF.A to itis den.sity for various compaction m.ethods. They lperformetl
DCP and sand cone density tests in trenches ranging in depth from 12 inches (305 mm) s.hown i.n
Fig. 16 to 48 inches (1220 mlm) shown in. Fig. 17. Their co:nclusiorxsindicated that "th.e DCP car1
be easily and quickly used bly construction inspectors t o evaluate and approve the use different
types of compaction equipment based an field test install:atio:ns."(19)As a result, Mn/DO'I'
specifications now call for the u.se of the DCP for this purpose, and each lMn/DOT district now
has a minimum of 2 DCPs.
alf

Future Activities
While a fair amount of research h,as been done on DCP .testing, new applicatialns and
correlations appear frrequentiy. In an effort t o further the ,understanding and use of t h e DCP for
in-situ foundation characterization, MrdJIOT has ch.osen t o conduct over 1300 tests on t,h.e various
materials and layers at th.e :Mn/XOAD research project. (Some of khe preliminary results were
discussed. earlier). What should also be mentioned is the sj.gnificant amount of :material.
sampling that :is coimiding with this DC:P testing. 13y analyzing the moi:;tu.re con.tlent, soil type,
and compacti.on density M:dLIOT hopes: t o develop more refin.ed correlations for the DCE'.
Cori-elation with FWI) results will also continue t o be puirsued.
Other future concern:; include determining the appropriate frequency of DCP t,est,ing on a
particular project. While this depends greatly on the typle of investigation, develophg guidelines
seems feasib1.e. As an example, the IMrdRoad DCP testing frequency is listed on the next page.
Location:

- Every 100 feet (30.5m)

- Of'fset of +9.8' 85 -9.8' (Outer wheel paths)

- Top of subgra.de
- Top of Base
Maximum depth: 42" (1067~nm)
Moisture sample: 1sample every 500 fit. (152 m ) at depths: 6,18,301,42" (152,457,762,1067mm).
9

These guidelines were based 011 a number of fiictoirs incll.uding construction schedde limitations,
sensor location, and. having am adequate amount alf test results for a good statistical analysis.
Finally, two well k n o w n problems with the.DCP are its labor intensive operation and its
requirement of two people to opera.te it. On larger sites testing virork becomes repetitive,
monotonous, and physically tiring. These factors can lead t o improper testing procedures, injury,
and less accura.te results. 'The idea ol?an automated DCP (ADCP') was formulated in hopes of
developing better working conditions ,and t o take advantage of iinproved efhiencies on larger
test sites.
While o.ther organizations thro.ughout the world have attempted t o automate the DCP,
success has been limited. On March 3 1, 1992, MdDOT's Breakthrough Innovation Program
Committee a.warded $50,000 for the design. and construction of an ADCP. Managing Technology,
Inc. of Overland Park, K:msas successfully responded t o a. Request for Proposal and began design
of the ADCP in August 1992. Elarly demonstrations of tb.e concept and design have been
extremely encouraging. Delivery and acceptance testing is expected in Ma,y 1993.
Summary

The DCP, and soon the AIICP, can efficiently and e:ffectivel.;yprovide a. view of st,rength
characteristics throughout a soil o r roadbed structure. This type and breadth of information will
allow engineers t o perform better analysis and con:;equemtly make more cost effective design and
ad hoc decisions of the kind described above. Same correlations :to other material
characterization parameters are available but jmore work i.:n this area is needed.. Correlation to
specific pavement response measurements may be possilile. The Mn/ROhcp pavement research
facility and staff will continue to provi'de data and :resouims for this efort.

Acknowledgement
The authors of this replort would like t o acknowledge and express 0u.r appreciation for the
cooperation given by mang of' the authors of the refkrenced repor';ts, by Mn/UOT's Di.st,riictSoils
and Materials Engineers, by the staff of MdDOT's Geotechnical Section, and by our own
Physical Research stafy. Th:is paper would not have been. possible with0u.t their cooperation. We
look. forward t o future coll.abora.tionwith many of these i;ndividu.& in our effort t o implement
innovative and useful infrastructure related technollogy.

10

References
1. Daleiden, J., Rarihut, Ib., and Killingswort h, B., "Evaluation of the MSHTO F'lexiblc?
Pavement Design Equation Utilizing the SIHRPL T W Data Base," Presented :it
Transportation R,esearcki Board 72nd Anniial Meeting, Jan., 3 993, Washington D.C.,
Paper No. 93117 I.
2. Forsyth, R. , "Th(!Case for Reliability in Pavement I )esign," Presented at Transportation
Research Board 'J2nd Annual Meeting, Jari., 1993, Paper No. 9331005.

3. Harison, J.A., "Correlation Between California Bearing Ratio and Dynamic Cone
Penetrometer Strength Measuremlent of Soils," .Proc. Instn. Civ. Engrs., Part 2, Dec., 1987,
pp. 833-844, Teckmical Note 463.

4. Kleyn, E., Maree, J., and Savage, P., "The Application of a F'ortable Pavement Dynmnic Cone
Penetrometer to Determine In SittiI Bearing Propertlies of Road Pavement Layers and
Subgrades in South Afn ca," Proc. of the Second European S~miposiurnon Penetration
Testing, Amsterdam, May, 1982.
5 . Herrin, S., and Thompson, M.,
"Use of the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer. in Airfield Pavement
Engineering," Presented at I990 International Air Transportation Conference, ASCE Air
Transport Division, Seattle, 1990.
6. Chua, K.M., "Determjnation of CBR and Ellastic Modulus of Soils TJsing a Portable Pavement

Dynamic Cone Penetrometer," Penetration Testing 1988, ISQla, De Ruiter

Balkema, Rotterdam, ISBN 90 6191 801 4.

(eti.)

63 1988

7. Yankelevsky, D Z., and Adin, M A , "A Simplified Analytical Method for Soil Penetration
Analysis," Intl. J. for IVurn. and hnalyt. Methods in Gcomechmics, Vol. 4, 1980, pp. 233-254.

8. Chua, K.M., and Lytton, R.L., "Dynamic Analysis Using the Portable Dynamic Conle
Penetrometer," l"t.ansportation Reslearch Record 1192.
9. De Beer, M., Kleyn, E., and Savage, P., "Advances In Pavemerid Evaluation and Overlay
]Design With the Kid of the Clynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCX')," Reprint from paper prepared
for the 2nd Inte~natioiialSymposium on Pavement Evaluation and Overlay Design, 13razi1,
IRio De Janeiro, Fq., 1989.
10. De Beer, M., JXleyn, EL, and Savagle, P., "Towards a CXassifica1,ion System for the StrengthBalance of Thin Surfaced Flexible Pavements," Repririt,ed fro mi Proceedings of' 19-98 Annual.
Transportation C~onvention,S. 443,Vol. 3D, Paper 311-4, Pretoria, Jul., 1988.
11. Kleyn, E., De Wet, L., and Savage, P., "The Development of an Equation for the Strength
r South Africa, Civ, Engr. S. Nr.,
13alance of R,oad Pavement Structures," The Civil E n ~ i n e e in
Vol. 31, No. 2, 1989.

11

12. Kleyn, E., and Van I-Ieerden, M.J., "Using DC:P Souriclings t o Optimize Pavement

Rehabilitation," Paper presented at the Annual Transportation Convention, Milner Park

Showgrounds, Johannesburg, S. Affica, JuK. 1983, Vol. 3, ISBN 0 7988 2951 6.

13. Livneh, M., a n d Kshai, I., "IPavement and Material Ehaluation by a Dynamic ( h e
Penetrometer," Proceedings, 6th International Conference on 1;he Structural Dpign of
Asphalt Pavements, Ann Arbor, 3 987.

14. Smith, R., and l'ratt, D., "A Field Study of In Situ C:;difornia Bearing Ratio arid Dynamic
Cone Penetrometer Testing for Road Subgrade Investigations," Australian Road Research
13(4),Dec., 198:3, pp. 285-294.
Ui. De Beer, M., "TJse of the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) in the Design of Road

Structures," Geotechnics in the M-ican Environment, t3light et al. (eds) 0 199:1, ELalkema,
Rotterdam, ISBN 90 15410 007 9 .
16. Sowers, G., and Hedges, C., "Dynamic Cone foir Shallow In-Situ Penetration Testing," -_.
Vane
Shear and Cone Penetration Resistance Testin$! of lo-Situ Soils, ASTU STP 39% Am. SOC.
Testing Mats., 1966, p. 29.

17. Livneh, M., and [shai, I., "The relationship Between In-Situ CBR Test and Various
Penetration Tests," Penetration 'Testing 19438, ISOPT-j-, De Kuiter (ed.) 0 1988
Balkema, RotLerdam, ISBN 90 6191 801 4.
18. Ayers, M., Tho~n~pson,
M., and [Jzarski, D., "Rapid Shear Strength Evaluation of In Situ
Granular Materials," Presented at Transportation Research ]hard68th Annual Meeting,
Jan., 1989, Washxngton D.C , Paper No. 880387.

19. Ford, G.R., and I5liasonYB.E., "Comparisons of Compaction Methods in Narrow Subsurface
Drainage Trenches," Presented a t 'I'ransportation Research Board 72nd AnnuaI Meeting,
Jan., 1993, Washjngton D.C , Paper No. 930983.
20. Overby, C., "A Compariso~iBetween Benkelman Beam, DCP andl Clegg-Hammer
Measurements fior Pavem enl, Strength Evaluation, '?roc. of Iii~~ernational
Symgosjum on
bear in^. Capacit,y of Roads and Airfields, Trondlheim, Norway, Jun., 1982.
21. Klimochko, D., "The ,4pplication of the Dynamic Cone Penetrameter Test in De1,ermining
In-Situ Subgrade CBR," Paper presented at the 44th Annual Chnferenct: Western Assoc. of
Canadian Highway Officials, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Apr., 1991.
22. StefanoffjG., Sanglerat, G., Bergdluhl, U., and Melzer, R.(Members of ISSMFEl Technical
Comm. on Penetration Testing), "Dynamic Probing (DP): Inte mational Reference Test
Procedure," Penetration Testint: 1988, ISOPT-1, De Ruiter ( c d . ) 0 1988, Balkeima,
Rotterdam, ISBN 90 6191 801 4.
23. Van Vuuren, D.J., "Rapid Determination of' CBR Wit,h the Portable Dynamic Cone
Penetrometer," The Rhodesian Ehggineeq, Vol. 7, No.. 5, pp. 854!-854.
12

Appendix
of

Figures

13

DCP (Mri/DOT DESIGN)

h'a,7(jle

17.6 Ib. (8 ksg.) Drop Harnmer

__5

---'

--

Readinc! d-c-vice

v-,'

/'

1.750"

-2-

60 d ~ g .

Fig. -1

Layer Strength Diagram

.-

10

L1:

Q)
v)

15

Y-

I-

20

Q)

m
C

.G
CI

25

CI
L

Q)

I=
(1)

---_._-

30

_I

35

40

45
0

0.!5

1.o

I .5

Pe inef ratioin In d ex: (inbbIQw)

Fig. 2

2.0

D E' F TH
0
(Inches)

1CD

201

30

40

60

Fig. 3 Typical DCP mlid-point plot

Greater Peoria. Airport Cargo Apron

-----

I
.
_ - - . - _ - - -- I . - -

DCP Test

IMn/ROAD S i t e

Sta.. 11'12+80
O f f s e t -- 9.84

# of Blow

15/24/9;1

W. TEST

DCP
Reading ( i n )

0.0

1
%
3
5
6
8
10

1 .8
3.9
5 'I

4.5

Midrange Depth o f
DCP Reading (in,.)

a
0.9
2.9
4.5
5.8
6.5)

YO
32

39 6

17.9
19. '4.
20 (9
22.15
24.10
25. '5
27.7'
30. ;S
33. a$
34.13
36.15
38.7

34

4 1 ,.i!

40.4

18

19
%O
22
%4
2.6
28

P e n e t r a t i o n Index
(in/lblow)

-___---..__-__.____._.._..___..-___...---__--..___.

7.2
9.0
11.6
13.8
15.3
17.7
18.6
20. 'I
21 .ti
23.3
24.7
26.2
29. Y
32.4
34.3
35.5
37.7

12
13
14
15
14
17

SUBGRADE
F i Le:: I:ICP_2E

8.1
10.3
12.7

i .tm
2.lO
1.90

0.7'0
0.7'0
0.90

14 . I 5
16.2

1 .:Lo
1. I 0
1..5io
1 .80

1 ,.so
1 ..50
1 ..70
1,.40
1 ,.50
1 ..45
4 ,,65
u 95
0 . 60
1>, 10
0 .,95
0 ., 80

I..EiO

#.

DCP Test Mn/lROAD Project

Cell #2 Sltation 1112-t.80 W. 'Test 6/24/92

+--'

30
a,

e
35

40

45

0.5

1,,o

1.5

2.0

P e n et rat ion Irid ex (in/b I c ~ v )

Fig. 5

25

3.0

Pi (mrn/blow)

Fig. Ei Relationship between PI, CBR and UCS

---

---.-----

--.---I

.-I--_

'"'
10
5
(3
--

4?

i;
k

.
J

-a

0.5

10

54

lW

SPT (nimkdow)

IFig. 721 Relatioriship bletween PI and SPT

-----

3 .a
3.6

_
.
,
.
e
n
-

3.4

3.2
3

5; 2.8

g
-1

2.6
2.4
2.2

2
1 ..8
1.6

1.4
1.2
1

Fig. 7b Tentative empirical relationship bet,ween effective elastic

moduli (Eeff, MPa) and IDCF) penetration rate (PI, mm/blovv)
ONE VAK1ABL.E LINEAL9 ItEGRESIIION EQUATIONS
HASERIAL

CONFIW ISC

EQUATION

PRESSURE
(PSI)

.5

DS

-.

- .:I99
- .:I99
-.:la9

.9

30

DS
DS
DS

-.
-.
-.

6 2 . 9 - 3.6 PR
9 0 . 7 - 5 . 8 PR

DS

-.

15
30

0s

1s

CRUSHED IIOLOH I T I C BALIAST

BALLAST WTH
7.5% FA-20

15
30
BALLAST \YI.TH
1 5 t FA-20

05

DS

1)s
135
1>5

1s
30

NOSE:

--

-.

-I

-'

51.3,.13.6 PR

64.1-13.:) PR
1 3 9 . 0 . 4 0 . 6 PR
1 6 6 . 3 - 1 6 . 2 PR

4 7 . 5 - .411 P R
1A6.2-215.5 PR
2 0 6 . 4 - 1 3 5 . 7 '?K

-.
-.
1)s -.

49.7-23.Y. PK
133.1-68.h PR
1 9 2 . 1 - 9 5 . n PR

5 0 . 8 - 6 . 3 PR
1 2 2 . 5 - 3 4 . % PR
169.1-23.Y. PR

15

ns -.

30

1)s

-.
-.

5
15
30

1)s

-'

A L L HASERIALS**

-.

1)s
115

A L L BALLAST

MATERIALS*

4 1 . 3 - 1 2 . 8 PR

-.I

1)s -. 87.2-78.;'
PR
1)s -. 216.1-.2L3.9 P R
1)s -. 282.1-233.2 PR

1s
30
BALLASS VXTH
2 2 . 5 % FA-7.0

115

1)s

1)s

-.
-,

51.5-12.11 PX
1 1 5 . 9 - 3 2 . n PR
168.6-36.9 PR

.3

..992
-.997
*975

1. .9
.3
1. .5

- " !3 9 1

I..&
:1.8.9
5.0

- .a s 7
- .!334

7.5

-.I181

-.~5a
.994

4.6

- .902
- "943
- .922

DAI'A BASE
PR k V C :

.5
.5
-5

.55-2.15

.55 - 2 . 1 5

.7
.7
.7

12.4

.2:1

1.6.3

.25

12.3

.25

.2

-.Y71

6.9

.2
.2

- .%Sl

- .617

9.1
1.9.8

-.517

1.7.3

.2
.2
.2

- .MO
- 668
- 626

9.6
1.9.9
25.1

.2
.2
.2

(a)

(R)

-05

.997
.576
.&6a
.9sa
.497
.400

t.05

+*.os
.lo
*.lo
**.I0

.65

.65

.9

DEVIATOR S i R E S S ( P S I )

.65

L.5

.,

1.8
1.8
1.8

- .991
- .976

1.2
1.2
1.2

.55 -2.1s

.4
.4
.4

11.3

AT FAILllRE
PENESiUTION X%TE (INCHES/RLOU) = PI
S I : C N I F I C A t j l VALUE 0: C O R X E U T I O N C O E F F I C X E S T (3.)

DS
PK

E U O R OF
E S'K I U S L

PR
1 4 9 . 6 - 1 2 . 7 PR

15
30
C A - 1 0 SANDYGRAVEL (,ROKM)

STANDILRD

DS -. 100.4.23.'5

SAND

COX?.l:UTION
COEFFICIENT
(It)

.55

.55

.ss
.6
.6

.6

1.8
1.8
1.8
2.2
2.2
2.2

DCP 'Test Bec:ke!r Pilot F'iroject

Ski. 2-t35 Offset 9.0'

1cm7/9 1

.-s 10
a,

a 15
m

'y-

@ 20

I!-

'525
en
c

.-0

'330
L

,+

a,

11 35

40
45
0

0.5

1 .C)

2,,0

Penetration Index (irhlowv)

Fig. 9

2.5

St;]. 4-t.64 Offset 9.0''

0.5

1 .o

1.51

16:)607/9'1

2,,0

Penetration Index (in/blaw)

Fig. 110

2.5

3.0

DCIP Test "TH-2'12Bridge Project

Sta. 3-93

Offset: 28'R

1086919'1

Sub:grade Not Meeting Compliance Specifications

-_--.___--

-I----.---

--I---"-----'-

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45
0

1.0

2.0

3.0

Penetration Ilndex (in/blow)

Figl. 1 '1

4.0

DCP Test TH-2'12 Bridge Project

Sta. 3t93

Offslet: 12'L

1C)/09/9-1

Subgrade Not Meeting Compliarnce Specifications

0

----.--____

I
-

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45
0

1.Q

2.0

3.0

Pene1:r';iitionIndex (inJblow)
Fig. 12

4.0

Penetration Below Top of Subgrade (in)

0

d
T

a.
(D

DCP Test 1-35 Faribault, MIV

Sta. '760+97

7729.4I

0
I

-.-c

10

v)

(d
Lc

15

a.

c3

0
a,

20

m
S

.c1

25

.-

(d

c1

a
S

a"

30

35

40

1.o
2.0
Pene1:ratiion Index (in/blow)
Fig. 14

30
I,

Fig. 15 Mri/DQl typical edge draiin desiign

06.

0
0

a
m
a
T-