Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ABSTRACT: To guarantee safety and functionality for any road construction project, technological control using in situ
and laboratory tests is an essential tool. In this context, the use of the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) has gained
popularity to estimate soil parameters, such as the California Bearing Ratio (CBR), through correlation studies. Therefore,
this paper is aimed to establish empirical relationships between CBR and DCP indexes of typical soils from Natal/RN, in
the Brazilian Northeast. After an initial characterization, results were correlated from approximately 80 tests, performed
on both soils at two different compaction energies and various moisture contents in-mold, subjected to distinct immersion
conditions. According to the characterization tests, soil 1 was classified as a silty sand (SM), and soil two was classified
as a well-graded silty sand (SM-SW). Additionally, both samples were considered as A-2-4 according to the highway
classification. The obtainment of coefficients of determination (R²) higher than 0.90 in 75% of the developed correlations,
characterizes the applicability of DCP as a valid field-testing instrument for technological control of local paving works,
as it is a simple, fast and low-cost test. The findings of this study represent an advancement in definition and standardi-
zation of a simple, efficient, and safe methodology to the estimate of empirical correlations between these two soil pa-
rameters.
Keywords: California Bearing Ratio; Dynamic Cone Penetrometer; Correlation Study; Technological Control; Field
Testing.
Figure 6. DCP test procedure: (a) orifice created by CBR piston; (b)
placement of wooden disk; (c) insertion of steel disc at the bottom of
the sample and invertion of soil specimen; (d) placement of the cone
tip at the center of the mold; and (e) test execution.
In each molded specimen, the DCP test was performed 3.4. Data interpretation
shortly after the CBR test on the opposite face to the CBR
orifice, which was filled with a wooden disc (Fig. 5) [10, After performing the tests, the analysis performed in
16]. The purpose of this methodology was to avoid this study consisted of establishing the correlations from
material loss and prevent any impact between the cone the obtained results. Each test pair (DCP, CBR) corre-
tip and the steel disc at the bottom of the soil sample. sponded to a point on the graph of interest. The experi-
Mold preparation for the DCP test is detailed in Fig. 6. mental points for each soil in each test condition were
then plotted, and a power trendline was inserted for each
curve. The coefficient of determination (R²) allowed
evaluating the suitability of this methodology to the ana-
lyzed materials. The curves were not extrapolated, and
only experimental results were considered.
4.2.1. Soil 1
Based on compaction, it was presented in the previous
section that soil 1 assumed the behavior of a fine, lateritic
soil. In both energies, the highest strength occurred when
the samples were molded in the dry branch of the curve
and ruptured in the unsoaked condition.
However, after submersion, a considerable reduction
in material strength was observed when it was compacted
below the optimum moisture content. Given the steep
slope of the dry branches of the two curves, such loss of
Figure 10. Proctor compaction curves for soil 1.
strength can be attributed to high void ratios and porosi-
ties, implying in smaller dry densities. Thus, with immer-
sion, water fills the volume of voids and increases the de-
gree of saturation of the sample. This behavior leads to
higher lubrication between particles and consequent re-
duction of friction [15, 32].
Due to the high position of the compaction curves con-
cerning the iso-saturation lines, similar performance is
presented by this material when compacted above the op-
timum moisture content.
Soil 1 presents a significant loss of strength regardless
of whether the sample is submerged or not. Thus, in both
DCP and CBR tests, the only condition in which there
was no strength loss after submersion occurred when the
soil was compacted at the optimum moisture content, at
both compactive efforts. Certainly, the lower porosities
and void ratios contributed to such material strength con-
servation. Therefore, in Tables 5 and 6, the physical in-
Figure 11. Proctor compaction curves for soil 2. dexes obtained for each sample with and without submer-
sion are presented, as well as their respective strength
Therefore, it is, possible to compare the compaction results for both compaction energies.
curves obtained in this research with typically Brazilian It occurs a significant increase in the saturation degree
soil compaction curves. The shape of the soil curve 1 is of soaked samples when compacted below the optimal
related to fine lateritic soil curves, which can reach moisture content. Analyzing the optimum moisture con-
significant maximum dry densities and present tents at both compactive efforts, a low increase in mois-
compaction curves with steep dry branches. Additionally, ture content after submersion is observed, due to the
the shape described by soil 2 can be related to silty sand smaller porosities experienced.
compaction curves, characterized by its rounded shape
and low-density changes [31]. These similarities
corroborate the conclusions inherent in the classification
of each material.
Table 5. Results for soil 1 (standard Proctor).
Unsoaked tests Soaked tests
DCP (mm/blow)
DCP (mm/blow)
ρ96h (g/cm³)
ρd (g/cm³)
ρd (g/cm³)
w96h (%)
CBR (%)
CBR (%)
ρ (g/cm³)
ρ (g/cm³)
w (%)
w (%)
S (%)
S (%)
S (%)
n (%)
n (%)
6.7 1.779 1.668 38.8 28.6 17.1 10.3 6.8 1.778 1.664 38.9 29.2 16.1 1.931 68.6 0.4 97.0
9.0 2.066 1.896 30.4 56.0 25.8 15.2 8.5 2.094 1.929 29.2 56.3 10.5 2.132 69.4 26.3 15.2
10.7 2.132 1.926 29.3 70.4 7.5 32.7 11.6 2.163 1.938 28.9 77.8 13.1 2.192 88.0 4.5 46.5
13.0 2.141 1.895 30.4 80.7 2.5 89.0 12.2 2.115 1.885 30.8 74.4 13.2 2.133 80.5 2.8 47.5
15.4 1.999 1.733 36.4 73.1 0.0 * - - - - - - - - * *
* This test was not performed due to the soil not presenting resistance to penetration during unsoaked testing.
DCP (mm/blow)
ρ96h (g/cm³)
ρd (kg/m³)
ρd (g/cm³)
CBR (%)
CBR (%)
ρ (g/cm³)
ρ (g/cm³)
w96h (%)
w (%)
w (%)
S (%)
S (%)
S (%)
n (%)
n (%)
5.9 2.017 1.904 30.1 37.4 74.4 3.4 5.9 2.026 1.913 29.8 37.8 11.8 2.138 75.6 9.0 23.0
7.0 2.139 1.999 26.6 52.7 93.6 5.1 7.4 2.169 2.021 25.8 57.5 9.6 2.214 75.0 41.0 11.5
8.0 2.228 2.063 24.3 68.2 69.3 6.8 8.2 2.228 2.059 24.4 69.1 10.2 2.269 86.1 70.2 8.8
9.1 2.287 2.097 23.1 82.7 37.0 8.7 9.1 2.265 2.077 23.8 79.2 10.6 2.296 92.3 44.1 11.8
10.4 2.226 2.016 26.0 80.7 11.9 20.0 10.1 2.228 2.024 25.7 79.5 11.1 2.248 87.2 10.4 22.3
10.6 2.203 1.992 26.9 78.7 7.6 29.0 11.1 2.195 1.976 27.5 79.5 12.3 2.219 88.1 4.4 43.0
* This test was not performed due to the soil not presenting resistance to penetration during unsoaked testing.
** The DCP cone tip touched the wood disk in the first blow (test dismissed)
The variations in bearing capacity between both ener- according to USCS and presented a compaction behavior
gies before and after submersion demonstrate the signif- compatible with this designation. The material reached
icant loss of strength previously mentioned. It is noted, low values of maximum dry density (about 1.80 g/cm³ at
however, that the soaked CBR was superior to the un- the standard energy, and 1.90 g/cm³ at the modified
soaked CBR in four test pairs, where three of them cor- energy), and the compaction curves had little variability
respond to small increments of less than 1.0%. This oc- with the increase of moisture content.
curred at the optimum moisture contents at both standard After performing CBR and DCP tests on the samples
and modified proctor, and this implies that the strength molded at both compaction energies, the expected
before and after immersion is the same. behavior was obtained: the soil reached low strengths, as
On the other hand, the CBR test at 9.06% moisture the maximum CBR reached was only 38.54% (modified
content in the modified effort after submersion showed energy), when compacted at the optimum moisture
an increase of approximately 7.0% in strength. Since the content.
experimental approach of this research depends on man- Tables 7 and 8 show the results obtained for soil 2
ual operation, such behavioral discrepancy can be at- tests, including the soil indexes calculated after each
tributed to this limiting factor. molding and submersion. In addition to low CBR
A similar before and after immersion comparison was percentages in both energies, there were no DCP indexes
made for dynamic cone penetration indexes, where lower than 29.30 mm/blow. This attests in advance to the
higher penetrations indicate lower strengths. It was ob- absence of points in the steep branch of the correlation
served that all DCP indexes were higher after submer- curve.
sion, except for the tests performed at 13% moisture con- Analyzing the results of the physical indexes, it is
tent in the standard Proctor. Such loss of strength after observed that after submersion, similar saturation
submersion was already expected. degrees were reached for each energy, from about 70%
The penetration indexes at the optimum moisture con- for the standard compaction energy and 80% for the
tents before and after immersion also did not present sig- modified, even though the initial saturations differed
nificant variations. The DCP index was kept constant in significantly. The same behavior was observed for the
the standard Proctor and increased only 2.0 mm/blow in moisture contents after submersion in the standard
the modified Proctor. This behavior demonstrates that compaction energy, where all specimens presented
soil 1 strength does not change when compacted at the approximately 13.5% in moisture content.
maximum dry density.
4.2.2. Soil 2
As previously presented, soil 2, from the western area
of Natal/RN, was classified as a well-graded silty sand
Table 7. Results for soil 2 (standard Proctor).
Unsoaked tests Soaked tests
DCP (mm/blow)
DCP (mm/blow)
ρ96h (g/cm³)
ρd (kg/m³)
ρd (g/cm³)
CBR (%)
CBR (%)
ρ (g/cm³)
ρ (g/cm³)
w96h (%)
w (%)
w (%)
S (%)
S (%)
S (%)
n (%)
n (%)
6.6 1.875 1.760 34.8 33.2 13.0 47.5 6.5 1.875 1.760 34.8 33.1 13.3 1.994 67.3 9.4 58.0
7.9 1.904 1.765 34.6 40.2 13.6 47.5 8.3 1.907 1.761 34.7 41.9 13.8 2.004 69.8 10.2 46.5
9.5 1.946 1.777 34.2 49.4 16.9 42.5 9.6 1.958 1.786 33.8 50.9 13.1 2.020 69.3 14.2 46.5
11.9 1.963 1.755 35.0 59.5 4.5 76.0 12.0 1.982 1.770 34.4 61.5 14.1 2.020 72.5 5.4 77.0
14.2 1.896 1.660 38.5 61.4 4.2 ** - - - - - - - - * *
* This test was not performed due to the soil not presenting resistance to penetration during unsoaked testing.
DCP (mm/blow)
ρ96h (g/cm³)
ρd (g/cm³)
ρd (g/cm³)
CBR (%)
CBR (%)
ρ (g/cm³)
ρ (g/cm³)
w96h (%)
w (%)
w (%)
S (%)
S (%)
S (%)
n (%)
n (%)
5.0 1.878 1.789 33.7 26.4 22.8 44.0 5.0 1.854 1.765 34.6 25.7 16.4 2.055 83.6 16.1 38.0
6.4 2.000 1.880 30.3 39.5 35.8 29.3 6.6 1.972 1.850 31.5 38.7 14.6 2.120 85.8 23.5 31.7
9.3 2.071 1.895 29.8 59.2 38.5 31.3 9.4 2.065 1.887 30.1 58.9 13.1 2.135 82.3 22.9 37.0
11.1 2.039 1.834 32.0 63.8 16.8 48.0 10.7 2.039 1.842 31.8 62.0 12.6 2.074 73.2 6.5 64.0
13.1 1.945 1.720 36.3 61.9 2.2 ** - - - - - - - - * *
* This test was not performed due to the soil not presenting resistance to penetration during unsoaked testing.
It is possible to notice CBR variations with increasing For soil 2, the obtained correlation curve did not
moisture content for both compaction energies. While present points dispersed at less than 30 mm/blow DCP
soil 1 suffered an abrupt drop in strength after indexes. Due to such absence of experimental data for a
submersion in the dry branches of the compaction curves, significant portion to the left of the graph, it was decided
soil 2 demonstrated a less significant reduction. Except not to extrapolate the results as their veracity could not
for the last data point at the standard energy, which be validated.
showed a slight increase in strength at 12.0% moisture
content, all soaked molds had lower CBR values than the
unsoaked molds.
The highest strengths occurred at the optimum
moisture contents, but unlike soil 1, CBR was not
maintained after submersion. Additionally, the DCP
variations were also analyzed, where the unsoaked
resistance to penetration was higher than the resistance
shown after submersion. However, the strength loss after
immersion for soil 2 was lower than at soil 1.