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

net/publication/322962056

Deriving SPT N-Values from DCP Test Results: The Case of Foundation Design
in a Tropical Environment

Article  in  Geotechnical and Geological Engineering · August 2018

DOI: 10.1007/s10706-018-0480-4

CITATIONS READS

4 8,635

3 authors:

Samuel Ampadu Felix Jojo Fianko Ayeh

Kwame Nkrumah University Of Science and Technology Kwame Nkrumah University Of Science and Technology
19 PUBLICATIONS   139 CITATIONS    2 PUBLICATIONS   4 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Fred Kofi Boadu

Duke University
68 PUBLICATIONS   715 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Non invasive characterization of Subsurface properties View project

Weather effects on performance of low volume roads View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Fred Kofi Boadu on 09 October 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Geotech Geol Eng
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-018-0480-4

ORIGINAL PAPER

Deriving SPT N-Values from DCP Test Results: The Case

of Foundation Design in a Tropical Environment
Samuel Innocent Kofi Ampadu . Felix F. J. Ayeh . Fred Boadu

Received: 12 July 2017 / Accepted: 26 January 2018

! Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract A portable standard dynamic cone pen-
etrometer (DCP) was used to overcome the chal-
lenge encountered in generating SPT N-values for
the design of the foundation of power transmission
towers traversing a tropical forest, large parts of
which was inaccessible to motorized transport.
However, this required the correlation of the DCP
against the SPT N-values in order to be able to
properly interpret the DCP test results. For this,
side-by-side SPT and DCP tests were conducted at
six different locations that were accessible to
motorized transport, in different soil groups and
under different groundwater conditions. The pair
data generated was separated into four categories
consisting of coarse-grained soils and fine-grained
soils above ground water level and coarse-grained
soils and fine-grained soils below groundwater level.
Correlation equations with relatively high coefficient
of determination values varying between 0.71 and
0.85 were then developed separately for each soil
type under each groundwater condition. The equa-
tions were subsequently successfully applied to
predict the SPT N-values for the sites that were
inaccessible to motorized transport.
Keywords Standard penetration test (SPT) !
Dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) ! Correlation
equation ! Tropical soils
1 Introduction

1.1 Background

S. I. K. Ampadu (&) ! F. F. J. Ayeh 1.1.1 The Standard Penetration Test and Its
Civil Engineering Department, Kwame Nkrumah Applications
University of Science and Technology (KNUST),
Kumasi, Ghana
In many parts of the world, the standard penetration
e-mail: sikampadu@yahoo.co.uk;
skampadu.coe@knust.edu.gh test (SPT) has become part of standard site investiga-
tion procedure for the design and construction of
F. F. J. Ayeh
e-mail: felixayeh@gmail.com foundations of structures. The SPT usually comes as
part of a percussive drilling rig that is not only used to
F. Boadu measure in situ soil properties but also to obtain both
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
disturbed and undisturbed soil samples for laboratory
Pratt School of Engineering, Duke University, Durham,
NC 27708, USA testing as well as for the definition of the sequence of
e-mail: boadu@duke.edu

123

the different weathering and deposition profiles and of
the ground water condition, among others.
The history of the development of the SPT has been
well documented (Davidson et al. 1999). Even though
the SPT test was first standardized as ASTM D1586-
84 and later the International Society of Soil Mechan-
ics and Geotechnical Engineering (ISSMGE) adopted
the International Reference Test Procedure (IRTP) for
penetration testing including the SPT (Decourt et al.
1988), however, currently there are still differences in
test equipment especially on hammer trip mechanism
and drilling techniques, giving rise to different
national standards including ASTM D 1586-08, BS
1377-9: 1990 and Eurocode 7-2: 2007.
The true value of the SPT test, perhaps, lies with the
many years of data that has been accumulated
worldwide and the many correlations with different
soil parameters. Apart from the correlations between
the SPT N-value and the relative density and consis-
tency limits, the SPT N-value has also been correlated
with various strength parameters including the angle
of internal friction (Peck et al. 1974). Even though
initially, the SPT was developed for cohesionless
material, its application has been extended to cohesive
soils as well (Karol 1960; Stroud 1974). However, the
correlations between the SPT N-values and the
undrained compressive strength of cohesive soils have
been found to be less reliable (Sivrikaya and Togrol
2006; Reid and Taylor 2010). The SPT N-value has
also been used for the classification and characteriza-
tion of soils including residual soils by degree of
weathering (Fookes 1997; Schnaid 2009). Further-
more, it has been correlated with the shear modulus
through the shear wave velocity (Schmertmann 1978).
Recently, the application of a hybrid test known as the
seismic SPT for measuring the variation with depth of
both the SPT N-value and the maximum shear
modulus in a borehole in a tropical soil has been
reported (Giacheti and De Mio 2008; Giacheti and
Pedrini 2013). Perhaps one of the most convenient
applications of the SPT N-value for practising engi-
neers is the direct correlation between the SPT
N-value and the bearing capacity of shallow founda-
tions (Meyerhoff 1974; Terzaghi et al. 1996; Bowles
1996) that allows the design of foundations to be based
directly on the SPT N-value.
123
Geotech Geol Eng
1.1.2 The DCP Test and Its Applications
The dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) test was first
developed in South Africa for evaluating pavement
layer strength in situ (Scala 1956). Since then, it went
through various modifications and became standard-
ized as ASTM D6951-2003. The term DCP, however,
is applied to equipment with different features.
Table 1 summarizes and categorizes the different
types of DCP equipment as light, standard and heavy
based on the impact energy per blow per cone area.
In pavement engineering, the DCP is used primarily
to estimate the in situ California Bearing Ratio (CBR)
of unbound pavement layers (Kleyn 1975; Livneh
1987; Coonse 1999). When correlated with the results
of the Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) the DCP
has also been used to estimate the elastic modulus of
the various pavement layers (Chen et al. 1999; Chai
and Roslie 1998). Its application continues to be
extended and recently, the DCP has been proposed as a
simple compaction verification tool (Gabr et al. 2001;
Ampadu and Arthur 2006; Ampadu and Fiadjoe 2015;
Ampadu et al. 2017).
Apart from pavement application, the DCP has also
been extended to the determination of the bearing
capacity of simple foundations. In its application for
foundation design, the DCP is classified as a sounding
method of exploration. For this application, the
International Symposium of Penetration Tests (Ste-
fanoff et al. 1988), defined four different methods for
dynamic probing: Dynamic Probing Light (DPL),
Dynamic Probing Medium (DPM), Dynamic Probing
Heavy (DPH) and Dynamic Probing Super Heavy
(DPSH) based on the specific energy per blow. The
ratios of the specific energy per blow relative to that of
the DPSH hammer are 0.21, 0.63, 0.70 and 1.00
respectively for DPL, DPM, DPH and DPSH. The
DCP equipment used in this study is in the category of
‘‘dynamic probing of light hammer’’ (DPL). It has
a theoretical impact energy per blow of 45 J, which is
equal to that quoted for the standard category DCP in
Table 1. However, its impact energy per blow per
cone unit area of 92 kJ/m2 is only about 64% of that of
the standard DCP or 39% of that of the SPT
(equivalent to the DPSH).
Sanglerat (1972) derived the so-called ‘‘Dutch
formula’’ for estimating the bearing capacity of a
shallow foundation from the results of the DCP test
and the characteristics of the DCP equipment.
Geotech Geol Eng

Table 1 Characteristics of different types of DCP Equipment categorized into light, standard and heavy according to impact energy
per blow per unit cone area
Reference Area of Cone Mass of Height of Theoretical Impact energy per Category
application diameter hammer fall (mm) impact energy cone area (kJ/m2)
(mm) (kg) (J)

Sowers and Hedges Foundation 38 6.8 508 34 30 Light

(1966)
Nguyen and Mohajerani Pavement 20 2.25 510 11 36
(2012)
AS 1289.6.3.2-1997 Pavement 20 9 510 45 143 Standard
Scala (1956) Pavement 20 9.08 508 45 144
Kleyn (1975), ASTM Pavement 20 8 575 45 144
D6951-2003,
This study; DIN Foundation 25 10 460 45 92
4094-2002
DPL, Lingwanda et al. Foundation 25.2 10 500 49 98
(2015)
‘‘Borros’’ DCP, Cearns Foundation 50.5 63.5 760 473 236 Heavy
and McKenzie (1988)
DPSH, MacRobert et al. Foundation 50.5 63.5 760 473 236
(2011)

Ampadu (2005) investigated the correlation between
the in-mould DCP test results and the bearing capacity
of footings computed from strength parameters c and
/’ obtained from triaxial compression tests. The study
on local lateritic soil was extended to the bearing
capacity of a model footing (Ampadu and Awuku-
Ditse 2009).
1.1.3 Correlations Between DCP and SPT
There is not much data in the literature on the direct
correlation between SPT N-value and DCP blow
count. Sowers and Hedges (1966) used a light DCP
and presented graphical correlations between the DCP
readings based on 44 mm penetration and the SPT
N-value of some soils from the United States under
different conditions. In East Africa, Lingwanda et al.
(2015) investigated the correlation between SPT and a
standard DCP as part of their study of correlations
among SPT, CPT and DPL in sandy soils. In the UK
and South Africa, the heavy duty DCP equipment
whose theoretical input energy is equivalent to that of
the SPT has been correlated with the SPT N-value.
Cearns and McKenzie (1988) established a relation-
ship between the SPT and DCP N-values based on
100 mm penetration for sand and gravel and for chalk
in the UK using the so-called ‘‘Borros’’ penetrometer.
MacRobert et al. (2011) using the so-called ‘‘Dynamic
Probe Super Heavy’’ (DPSH) established correlations
between the SPT N-value and the DCP for soils from
southern Africa.
1.2 The Problem
Even though many foundation design procedures
make direct use of the SPT N-value and the test itself
has been made an integral part of routine site
investigation, there are many situations where either
the project size may be so small as to make mobilizing
the drilling rig to perform the test uneconomical or the
site may be simply inaccessible to the SPT equipment.
The former category includes site investigation for
foundation design of domestic buildings and rural road
water crossing infrastructure in most developing
countries. The later situation was encountered in a
project involving the design and construction of an
overhead transmission line in a forest zone. Some
sections of the project route were inaccessible to
motorized transport. In fact out of the 19 positions at
10 km intervals earmarked for the SPT test along the
route, eight were inaccessible to motorized transport.
The design of the transmission tower foundation had
been codified such that the foundation type was
selected from a foundation design catalogue based on

123

the SPT N-value. The SPT equipment being part of the
drilling rig required motorized transport to move it
from one investigation point to another. However
given that some parts of the earmarked investigation
points were inaccessible to motorized transport, the
challenge was to design an investigation procedure
that would allow the determination of the SPT N-value
using portable equipment. The investigation proce-
dure adopted consisted of the DCP that was locally
available, in combination with an equally
portable manual percussive drilling equipment to
retrieve soil samples for logging and characterization.
However, in order to be able to obtain the SPT
N-values required in the foundation design catalogue
from the results of the DCP test, the latter had to be
calibrated against the SPT under similar field
conditions.
1.3 Study Objectives
This study therefore seeks to derive correlation
equations between the DCP blow count and the SPT
N-value in a local soil formation under the prevailing
site conditions. SPT and DCP tests were conducted in
side-by-side investigations to depths not exceeding
5 m along a route in a predominantly forest zone. Both
SPT and DCP data in addition to split spoon samples
were obtained from the tests. The soil formation was
categorized as coarse-grained or fine-grained and
results of tests conducted below ground water were
separated from those conducted above ground water.
Correlation equations were then developed for each
category of site conditions. This paper describes the
approach used to obtain the field data and discusses the
correlation equations obtained from the results of the
DCP and SPT.
2 Methods and Materials
2.1 Equipment Description
2.1.1 The SPT Assemblage
The SPT equipment used in this investigation was part
of a Dando 3000 percussive drilling rig. The apparatus
had a standard split-spoon sampler meeting the
requirements of ASTM D 1586-08 or the equivalent
BS 1377:2-1990. The hammer applied a theoretical
123
Geotech Geol Eng
input energy per blow of about 474 J to the cutter,
equivalent to an impact energy per blow per cutter area
of 236 kJ/m2. Figure 1a is a schematic illustration of
the SPT assemblage.
2.1.2 The DCP Equipment
The DCP equipment used in this investigation con-
sisted basically of a 10 kg hammer falling through a
vertical distance of 460 mm to strike an anvil that
drives a 25 mm diameter, at the tip of a 22 mm
diameter rod into the ground. It conforms to DIN
4094-2002. The design of the DCP equipment with a
slightly smaller 22 mm rod following the penetrating
25 mm cone assumes that there is no side friction on
the shaft of the rod (Sanglerat 1972). The schematic
arrangement of the DCP equipment is shown in
Fig. 1b. The rod has 10 cm graduations on it and in
order to attain greater depths than 1 m, additional rods
are screwed onto the previous rod. The theoretical
impact energy per blow of the DCP is only about 10%
of that of the SPT equipment. In terms of the impact
energy per blow per cutting area, the DCP has only
39% of that of the SPT equipment.
2.2 Test Methods
During the project, at each of the investigation points
that was accessible to motorized transport, side-by-
side SPT and DCP tests were performed within a
radius of 1.5 m of each other.
2.2.1 The DCP Test
At the test location, the DCP equipment was assem-
bled with three operators. One operator stood the DCP
equipment vertical while the second operator raised
the hammer manually and allowed it to fall freely to
strike the anvil. The third operator counted and
recorded against the penetration, the number of blows
required to drive the cone 10 cm into the ground
designated DCP n-values. When 90 cm of the pene-
tration had been achieved, an additional rod was
screwed onto the penetrating rod and the test was
continued. In this way, the test was advanced to a
maximum depth of 4.8 m. During the test, when the
number of blows exceeded 50, the log recorded
‘‘refusal’’. At the end of the test, the DCP rods were
pulled out rod-by-rod using a jacking system.
Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 1 Sketch of
assemblage of a SPT with a
theoretical input driving
energy of 236 kJ/m2 and
b DCP with a theoretical
input driving energy of
92 kJ/m2

2.2.2 The Standard Penetration Test 2.2.3 Laboratory Tests

After the DCP test, the drilling rig was set up next to
the DCP position. Then a 150-mm diameter borehole
was sunk by percussive drilling. At a depth of 0.5 m,
the borehole was cleaned of loose cuttings and the SPT
assemblage was set and seated at the bottom of the
borehole. The SPT test was performed following the
procedure in ASTM D 1586-08 or equivalent BS
1377:9-1990 and the number of blows required to
drive the last 305 mm was recorded as the SPT
N-value, designated NSPT. Disturbed samples were
recovered from the cutter and from the split spoon
sampler, examined, logged and labelled and sealed in
plastic bags to prevent moisture loss and sent to the
laboratory for further examination and testing. The
drilling was then continued to the next depth for SPT.
Upon encounter with groundwater the initial water
level was measured using a groundwater meter. After
24 h, the stabilized ground water level was measured
again.
The soil samples collected from the field were air dried
in the laboratory to constant water content and used for
the laboratory tests which were conducted in accor-
dance with procedures outlined in BS 1377: Part 2:
1990. The liquid limit was determined using the cone
penetrometer method as detailed in BS 1377: Part 2
Clause 4.3. The wet sieving method was adopted for
the coarse grading while sodium hexa-metaphosphate
was used as the deflocculating agent for the hydrom-
eter method.
3 Discussion
3.1 Characteristics of Soils in the Project Area
The project route traversed through soils derived from
a complex geological environment consisting of
phyllites with granitic intrusions and quartzitic

123
 Geotech Geol Eng

sandstones. The soils encountered along the project
route are the weathered products of these rocks most of
which had undergone laterization. The index proper-
ties of soil samples retrieved from various depths of
the different boreholes are summarized in Table 2.
The clay contents of the soil over the corridor varied
between 5 and 31% while the gravel content varied
from as low as 2–46%. The liquid limit was high
varying between 41 and 63% while the plasticity index
ranged from 17 to 27%. High Atterberg limits are
characteristic of lateritic soils in the forest zone of the
tropics. Lateritic soils with high clay contents are
known to undergo large strength reduction on soaking
(Ampadu 1998, 2007). Generally, it was observed that
the soils with the highest clay contents were within the
top layers, which is consistent with the laterization
process in a continuously wet climatic condition. The
route therefore covered material of varied properties
ranging from fine-grained to coarse-grained. Ground
water was encountered in two of the boreholes at
stabilized depths varying between 0.7 and 0.75 m
during the minor rainy season in November.
3.2 Correlation Between DCP and SPT
3.2.1 Data Organization
Following the standard procedure of using the SPT
blow count on the last 305 mm of the total 457 mm
penetration to define NSPT, the average depth of the
last 305 mm was designated the effective depth for the
correlation. This depth starts from 0.8 m and increases
at 0.5 m intervals to a maximum of 4.8 m. Thus
whereas the SPT N-values were recorded at 0.5 m
intervals, the DCP test results gave effectively
continuous data. In order to obtain the equivalent pair
of NSPT and NDCP, MacRobert et al. (2011) used a
natural cubic spline interpolation procedure to gener-
ate additional NSPT values to match the continuous
DCP n-values available. In this investigation, how-
ever, at each effective depth, the corresponding DCP
blow count designated NDCP, was determined as the
average of the three DCP n-values corresponding to
the last 300 mm of SPT penetration. Even though this
reduced the data available for the correlation, it
ensured that the correlated data were all measured
data. A typical field log showing, among other things,
DCP n-values and pairs of NSPT and NDCP is shown in
Fig. 2.
The data was separated into ‘‘coarse grained’’ and
‘‘fine grained’’ based on the field description of the soil
samples retrieved from the split spoon sampler. In
most cases, the laboratory test results confirmed the
field description. In a few cases, however, especially
for soils with substantial silt content, the convergence
of laboratory results and field observation was not so
clear. The dataset of NSPT and NDCP was then further
separated into data from above and from below
groundwater level.

Table 2 Summary of index properties of selected samples of soil along project route
Borehole Stabilized ground Sample Natural water Atterberg Grading (%) Category by Field
ID water level (m) depth (m) content (%) limits (%) Observation
LL PI Gravel Sand Silt Clay

BH11 0.75 5.00 40.4 52 19 3 39 52 6 C

BH8 0.70 5.00 38.9 55 17 2 24 69 5 C
BH8 0.70 2.00 27.2 51 25 4 33 35 28 F
BH10 NA 2.00 23.2 52 23 7 32 31 30 C
BH4 NA 2.00 25.0 56 23 3 52 37 8 C
BH7 NA 1.00 13.5 41 20 46 25 11 18 C
BH7 NA 4.00 17.2 53 19 20 23 36 21 C
BH3 NA 1.00 17.1 63 27 20 26 23 31 F
BH3 NA 3.00 23.2 50 19 3 28 53 16 F
C coarse-grained, F fine-grained

123
Geotech Geol Eng

DRILLING METHOD: Cable Percussion Hole Diameter: 150mm Elevation 229.00

EQUIPMENT TYPE/NO. Dando 3000 Casing Diameter: N/A Logged by: FJFA Date Completed: 15/11/15
SAMPLE SPT DCPT
Depth (m)

Depth (m)
Elevation

Symbol
Sample Sample DCP 4 DCP n-value
Soil Description Depth Test NSPT Test NDCP n-value
Type No.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0
0.00 229.00 1 0.00
4
4
Dry to moist, firm, reddish 5
7
brown, sandy GRAVEL 11
with quartz stones SS 1
16
0.50-0.95 19
12 16 18
11
1.00 228.00 1.00
9
SS 2
10
1.00-1.45 10
DS 3 12 11 11
12
13
SS 4
13
1.50-1.95 15
19 18 19
21
2.00 227.00 2.00
25
SS 5
21
2.00-2.45 22
DS 6 27 24 23
26
24
SS 7
27
2.50-2.95 29
Moist, very firm to stiff, 26 29 27
reddish pinkish brown, 30
3.00 226.00 3.00
silty SAND with yellowish 35
SS 8
37
patches. 3.00-3.45 40
DS 9 29 35 31
34
37
SS 10
36
3.50-3.95 37
31 40 37
46
4.00 225.00 4.00
47
SS 11
50
4.00-4.45
DS 12 31

SS 13
4.50-4.95
26
5.00 224.00 5.00
Dry, very stiff, brownish SS 14
purple, silty SAND 5.00-5.45
DS 15 42
(weathered rock)
NOTES: DS =Disturbed Sample
SS =Split Spoon Sample

Fig. 2 Typical project field log combining SPT N-values in a borehole with side-by-side DCP test results

3.2.2 ‘‘Coarse Grained’’ Soil Above Groundwater relationship with a break point at NDCP = 26 were
Level investigated but the single correlation relationship that
best fitted all the data was a power model with a
For the data from the coarse-grained category, the coefficient of determination (R2) of 0.8516 as shown
NDCP values are plotted against the corresponding in Eq. 1 (Fig. 3).
NSPT in Fig. 3. Several models including a bi-linear

123

Fig. 3 Variation of SPT N-value, NSPT, with Average DCP
n-value, NDCP, for coarse-grained soil above groundwater level
with associated predictive model: coefficient of determination
Fig. 4 Typical variation of NSPT, DCP n-value and NDCP with
depth, for a coarse-grained soil above groundwater level
NSPT ¼ 1:78ðNDCP Þ0:77 ð1Þ
Figure 4 plots the raw results of the variation with
depth of the SPT N-value and DCP n-value at one
location in the coarse-grained formation. The
123
Geotech Geol Eng
(R2) = 0.8516, sum of squared errors (SSE) = 159.3, root
mean square error (RMSE) = 3.644
Fig. 5 Comparison of predictive model from this study with
some models in the literature showing input energy per blow per
cone area (EIN) for a Cearns and McKenzie (1988) for DPSH in
UK, EIN = 236 kJ/m2, b MacRobert et al. (2011), DPSH in
South Africa, EIN = 236 kJ/m2, c Lingwanda et al. (2015), DPL
in Tanzania, EIN = 98 kJ/m2. d This study, DPL, EIN = 92 kJ/
m2, e Sowers and Hedges (1966) Curve A adjusted, Virgin
Piedmond Soil, Light DCP, EIN = 30 kJ/m2
Geotech Geol Eng
observed increasing separation between NSPT and
NDCP beyond a depth of about 3.0 m is discussed later
under the effect of rod friction. The correlation
relationships between NSPT and NDCP from the
literature have been compared with the relationships
obtained in this study in Fig. 5. Using a heavy duty
DCP (the Borros penetrometer) that has the same
theoretical impact energy per blow per cutting area as
the SPT (i.e. a DPSH), Cearns and McKenzie (1988)
observed that for sand and gravel, the relationship
between NSPT and NDCP was linear only for NSPT
values up to about 20 (NDCP values not exceeding
about 5) and for higher values they fitted a graphical
relationship that was hyperbolic. MacRobert et al.
(2011) also used a DPSH and obtained a hyperbolic fit
to the sandy soils from southern Africa. Lingwanda
et al. (2015), fitted a linear relationship defined by
NSPT = 1.01NDCP ? 0.44 to their NSPT-NDCP data in
sandy soil generated using a standard DCP (DPL) over
the whole range of NDCP values between 10 and 50
blows per 100 mm. The results of this study are close
to those of Lingwanda et al. (2015) for lower values of
NDCP. This may be due to the similar impact energies
and the similar soil condition. The results from Sowers
and Hedges (1966) using the light DCP were origi-
nally reported in blows per 44 mm. Their results
reported for virgin Piedmont soil have been converted
to blow per 100 mm and also superimposed on Fig. 5.
The relationship is non-linear and plots below the
trends obtained in this study. The trends from the
literature show that with the exception of Lingwanda
et al. (2015), all the results indicate a non-linear
relationship between NSPT and NDCP especially for
higher NDCP values (i.e. for stiffer materials). Even
Lingwanda et al. (2015) pointed out that the correla-
tion was poor for stiffer materials.
3.2.3 Fine Grained Soils Above Groundwater Level
The NDCP values for the ‘‘fine-grained’ soils have been
plotted against the corresponding NSPT values in
Fig. 6. A linear relationship was obtained as shown in
Eq. 2.
NSPT ¼ 0:216NDCP þ 7:6 8 & NDCP & 32 ð2Þ
Data was not available for NDCP values less than 8.
The correlation equation gives a relatively high
coefficient of determination of 0.755. Curve (a) of
Fig. 8 shows the ratio of the NSPT for fine-grained soils
to NSPT for coarse-grained soils for given values of
NDCP. The figure shows that the ratio reduces rapidly
from about 0.93 at NDCP value of 10 to about 0.6 at
NDCP value of 32. This means that for this project, at
low NDCP values the correlation equations predict
similar NSPT values for both coarse-grained and fine-
grained soils. However for higher NDCP values, fine-
grained soils have only about 60% of the NSPT values
for coarse-grained soils.
3.2.4 Soils Below Groundwater Level
Only a limited data was obtained for coarse-grained
soils below ground water level. The field data of NSPT
and NDCP below ground water level for both coarse-
grained and fine-grained data are plotted in Fig. 7. The
results did not show any distinction between ‘‘fine-
grained’’ and ‘‘coarse-grained’’ soils. A single corre-
lation equation as shown in Eq. 3 with a coefficient of
determination of 0.713 was therefore obtained for both
data sets.
NSPT ¼ 0:248NDCP þ 0:4 7 & NDCP & 47 ð3Þ
Equation 3 may be simplified by fixing the intercept to
zero to obtain NSPT = 0.261NDCP.
The effect of groundwater on NSPT for fine-grained
and for coarse-grained soils is examined by plotting
the ratio of NSPT below to NSPT above groundwater
table for each of fine-grained and coarse-grained soils
in Fig. 8. The effects are shown as curve (b) and curve
(c) for fine grained and for coarse grained soils
respectively. Curve (b) shows that the ratio increases
from about 0.30 at NSPT value of 10 (NDCP = 10) to
0.60 for NSPT value of 15 (NDCP = 32) indicating that
for fine-grained soils groundwater has more effect on
lower strength soils than on high strength soils. For
coarse-grained soils, on the other hand, the effect of
groundwater is effectively independent of the NDCP
value and in this investigation the ratio is of the order
of 0.30. MacRobert et al. (2011) reported data for soils
from southern Africa with a fines content of about
15%, showing ground water reducing NSPT to less than
0.20 of their value under natural moisture content for
depths of up to 6 m. The large drop in strength in soils
below groundwater level is consistent with trends in
the literature. Ampadu (1998) observed significant
strength reduction on soaking of samples of decom-
posed granites and phyllites (the predominant soil
along the project route) in direct shear tests. In
123
 Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 6 Variation of SPT

N-value, NSPT, with
Average DCP n-value,
NDCP, for fine-grained soils
above groundwater level
with associated predictive
model: R2 = 0.755,
SSE = 7.758,
RMSE = 0.9974

Fig. 7 Variation of SPT

N-value, NSPT, with
Average DCP n-value,
NDCP, for both coarse
grained and fine-grained
soils below groundwater
level with associated
predictive model:
R2 = 0.7129, SSE = 66.72
RMSE = 2.2654

addition, it has been observed that natural materials
containing significant amounts of fines can sustain
moderate levels of suctions (Toll 2015) and that the
loss of suction in compacted soils can lead to
significant loss of strength depending on the dry
density (Ampadu 2007).
3.3 The Limitations and Advantages of the DCP
3.3.1 Limitations of the DCP
One of the major shortcomings of the DCP test is the
effect of shaft friction on the connecting rods. Unlike
the Cone Penetrometer Test (CPT) standardized in
ASTM D 3441-94, that separately measures both point

123
Geotech Geol Eng
Fig. 8 Trends of the
variation with average DCP
n-value (NDCP) of a ratio of
NSPT of fine grained to NSPT
of coarse grained soils above
ground water level, b ratio
of NSPT of fine-grained soils
below ground water level to
NSPT of fine grained soils
above ground water level,
c ratio of NSPT of coarse-
grained soils below ground
water level to NSPT of
coarse-grained soils above
ground water level
resistance and shaft friction, the DCP test does not
measure the shaft friction. The design of the DCP
equipment is intended to ensure a 2-mm clearance
between the rod and the sides of the hole. The test
assumption is that the shaft does not make contact with
the sides of the hole created by the cone and so the
shaft friction is zero. For a DCP application in a
pavement layer investigation involving depths less
than about 0.5 m, this assumption may be true.
However for depths of up to about 4.8 m involved in
DCP application for foundation investigation, the
assumption of zero shaft friction becomes increasingly
difficult to maintain since as the cone penetrates
deeper, even assuming that the annular space between
the rod and the sides of the hole remains stable, only a
very small deviation of the rod from the vertical is
required to make contact with the sides. The implica-
tion is that an unspecified part of the energy used to
overcome the resistance of the soil to the penetration
may be actually used to overcome shaft friction.
Uncertainties about energy loses have been cited as
one reason militating against the widespread use of the
DPSH among practicing engineers in South Africa
(MacRobert et al. 2010). There have been a few
attempts either to completely eliminate the side
friction (Meardi and Gadsby 1971) or to determine
the side friction values and correct the measured NDCP
for them (Baudrillard 1974; Abuel-Naga et al. 2011).
The results of side-by-side SPT and DCP test
results in one location in the coarse-grained formation
plotted in Fig. 4 shows that beyond a depth of about
3 m, whereas NDCP continues to increase, NSPT
stagnates and the difference between them widens
with increasing depth. In a study involving measure-
ment of rod friction in a DPSH, Abuel-Naga et al.
(2011) observed that there were no rod friction values
for depths less than about 2.5–3.2 m, but beyond this
depth, the rod friction increased with depth. This
implies that the annular space around the shaft begins
to collapse when the depth of penetration exceeds
about 2.5–3.2 m. The similarity between the results of
Fig. 4 with those of Abuel-Naga et al. (2011) is
striking and appears to suggest that the influence of
increasing rod friction with depth contributes to the
non-linear relationship obtained in this study. In fact, it
appears that increasing rod friction with increasing
depth may be a contributory factor for the trend of
increasing deviation from linearity with increasing
NDCP, which usually also coincides with increasing
depth.
Unlike the DCP test, the SPT has been subjected to
years of investigation to account for various site-
specific corrections including corrections for effective
overburden pressure (Lio and Whitman 1986; Deger
2014), the input driving energy and its dissipation
(Kovacs and Salomone 1982; Riggs et al. 1983), and
123

the drill rod length which becomes very important at
shallow depths (Morgano and Liang 1992; Valiquette
et al. 2010).
Again, unlike the SPT that returns samples for
visual examination and characterization, the DCP does
not return samples. Therefore the use of the DCP has
to be accompanied by another method to retrieve soil
samples for characterization. Because the standard
DCP is applied to relatively shallow depths, this
shortcoming can easily be addressed. In the local
application of the DCP, trial pits or a hand held manual
percussive drilling equipment is used to provide soils
samples for visual examination and characterization.
Another shortcoming of the standard DCP is the
limited depth of coverage and range of soil strengths.
Due to the lower energy involved, the DCP can
penetrate only soft to stiff material but cannot be used
for hard formations. In this investigation, for coarse-
grained soils above groundwater table, the model
predicts a limit of application of DCP for material with
NSPT values of up to 35 when the DCP attains refusal at
NDCP of 50. In their discussion of their results, Sowers
and Hedges (1966) recommended that the application
of the DCP, as a site investigation tool for foundation
design, should be limited to a verification tool for
lightly loaded structures in areas where local experi-
ence has already established the strength within
narrow limits.
3.3.2 Advantages of the DCP
The DCP is a portable and inexpensive equipment that
is easy to use. In addition the DCP cone creates a much
smaller influence zone than the SPT sampler. Accord-
ing to Roger (2006), the influence zone for the SPT test
varies between 4 and 7 times the sampler diameter plus
the 305 mm thick layer actually penetrated while the
tip of the CPT senses the soil resistance 5 to10 cone
diameters ahead of and behind the advancing tip. Even
assuming the DCP has an influence zone equivalent to
that of the CPT, this implies that whereas the DCP test
is averaged over a layer thickness of between 125 and
250 mm, each SPT test is averaged over a layer
thickness of between about 510 and 660 mm. This
means that the DCP test can detect far more
stratigraphic detail than the SPT test.
123
Geotech Geol Eng
3.3.3 Comments on Application of DCP
The application of the DCP in this project has
demonstrated the potential of the equipment. It is
simple, portable, and cost-effective. However, the
DCP test can be used with confidence only when the
characteristics of the underlying hard formation that
the DCP cannot penetrate are known or the proposed
loading regime does not reach deeper into the
formation. The DCP test results therefore require
validation by other methods. The easiest method is to
sink trial pits or to use a manual percussive drilling
equipment to obtain samples for visual logging. In this
project, the full site investigation including the SPT
testing to depths of 10 m had established the overall
subsurface conditions along the route. For the inac-
cessible investigation points and individual transmis-
sion tower foundation locations, in addition to the
DCP test, a manual percussion drilling was conducted
to a depth not exceeding 5 m and samples were
retrieved from the drill holes for characterization.
Based on the groundwater condition and the field
characterization of the soil type, the appropriate
correlation equation was selected and the equivalent
SPT N-value was computed. This SPT N-value was
then inserted into the design catalogue to select the
appropriate tower foundation type.
4 Conclusion and Recommendations
4.1 Conclusions
A portable DCP equipment meeting the specifications
of DPL was calibrated against the SPT under the
prevailing site conditions and used to overcome the
challenge encountered in finding a way to generate
SPT N-values for the design of transmission tower
foundations on a section of the route that was
inaccessible to motorized transport. Despite the
shortcomings associated with the application of the
DCP for foundation purposes, the correlation equa-
tions were successfully applied to predict the SPT
N-value for the different site conditions encountered.
The long sections of the route traversing different soil
groups and groundwater condition under the tropical
environment allowed the development of three differ-
ent correlation equations to fit the range of conditions
encountered. Correlation equations with high
Geotech Geol Eng
coefficients of determination values varying between
0.71 and 0.85 were developed separately for coarse-
grained soil and for fine-grained soils as well as for
each of these soils below groundwater level. The
correlation equation obtained in this study for coarse-
grained soils above groundwater level, compares
favourably with those developed by other authors
under similar conditions especially for soils of lower
stiffness. However it must be pointed out that because
of the large number of factors that can affect such
correlations, these results may be used confidently
only within similar environments.
Specifically the following correlation relationships
were obtained:
1. The correlation relationship for coarse-grained
soils above groundwater table is a non-linear
equation best represented by a power model,
NSPT = 1.78(NDCP)0.77 with a coefficient of
determination of 0.8516.
2. For fine-grained soils above groundwater level,
the correlation equation is NSPT = 0.216-
NDCP ? 7.6 with a coefficient of determination
of 0.755.
3. For both fine-grained and coarse-grained soils
below groundwater level, the correlation equa-
tion is given by NSPT = 0.216NDCP ? 0.4, with a
coefficient of determination of 0.713.
4.2 Recommendations
1. Given the shortcomings of the standard DCP
equipment when applied to foundation investiga-
tion, the DCP should be used only to generate data
to complement other methods of site investigation
and it is not intended to be a stand-alone site
investigation tool unless the site conditions are
familiar.
2. The greatest uncertainty in the application of the
DCP for site investigation work is the effect of
shaft friction. Therefore it is important that the test
procedure maintains the rods as vertical as
possible throughout the test so as to reduce the
effect of shaft friction. Further research on the
effect of rod friction on DCP test results for site
investigation is recommended to improve the
accuracy of the equipment and its acceptability
among practitioners.
3. The correlation equations in this investigation
were developed for soils from the forest zone
within a tropical environment. However, given the
influence of climatic zones on material character-
istics, it is recommended that a similar investiga-
tion be conducted in the dry climatic regions
within the savannah zones.
References
Abuel-Naga HM, Holtridge M, Pender MJ (2011) Simple
method for correcting dynamic cone penetration test results
for rod friction. Géotech Lett. https://doi.org/10.1680/
geolett.11.00012
Ampadu SIK (1998) Laboratory investigation of the effect of
soaking on strength characteristics of local soils. In: Pro-
ceedings of the international symposium on problematic
soils IS-Tohoku Sendai Japan 28–30
Ampadu SIK (2005) A correlation between the dynamic cone
penetrometer and the bearing capacity of a local soil for-
mation. In: Proceedings of the 16th ICSMGE Sept 12–16th
Osaka, Japan, Millpress Science Publishers, Rotterdam,
pp 655–658
Ampadu SIK (2007) A laboratory investigation into the effect of
water content on the CBR of a subgrade soil. In: 2nd
International conference on mechanics of unsaturated soils,
Bauhaus Universität Weimar, Germany, 7–9th March
2006, Experimental Unsaturated Soil Mechanics, Springer
Proceedings in Physics 112, T. Schanz (Ed), ISSN
pp 137–144
Ampadu SIK, Arthur DT (2006) The dynamic cone penetrom-
eter in compaction verification on a model road pavement.
Geotech Test J 29(1):70–79
Ampadu SIK, Awuku-Ditse D (2009) Model test for bearing
capacity in a lateritic soil and implications for the use of the
dynamic cone penetrometer. In: Hamza (ed) 17th Interna-
tional conference on soil mechanics and geotechnical
engineering, Alexandria, Egypt, October 5–9th,
pp 1095–1099
Ampadu SIK, Fiadjoe GY (2015) The influence of water content
on the dynamic cone penetration index of a lateritic soil
stabilized with various percentages of quarry by-product.
Transp Geotech 5(2015):68–85
Ampadu SIK, Ackah P, Owusu Nimo F, Boadu F (2017) A
laboratory study of horizontal confinement effect on the
dynamic cone penetration index of a lateritic soil in the
laboratory. Transp Geotech 10:47–61
ASTM D1586-84 Standard test method for penetration test and
split-barrel sampling of soils: American Society for testing
and materials: annual book of standards, vol 4.08
ASTM D1586-08: Standard test method for standard penetration
test (SPT) and split-barrel sampling. ASTM Standards
ASTM D3441-94, Standard Test method for deep, Quasi-Static,
cone and friction-cone penetration tests. ASTM: annual
book of standards, vol 4.08
123

ASTM D6951-03, Standard test method for use of the dynamic
cone penetrometer in shallow pavement applications.
ASTM: annual book of standards, vol 4.08
Baudrillard J (1974) New development in dynamic penetration
testing. In: Proceedings of 1st European symposium on
penetration testing, Stockholm, vol 2.2, pp 25–32
Bowles JE (1996) Foundation analysis and design, vol 5th. The
McGraw-Hill Companies Inc, New York City
BS1377 (1990) Method of test for soils for civil engineering
purposes. British Standards Institution, London
Cearns PJ, McKenzie A (1988) Application of dynamic cone
penetrometer in East Anglia. In: Proceedings of sympo-
sium on penetration testing in the UK, Thomas Telford,
London, pp. 123–127
Chai G, Roslie N (1998) The structural response and behavior
prediction of subgrade soils using falling weight deflec-
tometer in pavement construction. In: Proceedings of 3rd
international conference on road and airfield pavement
technology
Chen DH, Bilyeu J, He R (1999) Comparison of resilient moduli
between field and laboratory testing. In: Soils, geology, and
foundations (CD-ROM), TRB. National Research Council,
Washington, D.C., pp 1–25
Coonse J (1999) Estimating California bearing ratio of cohesive
piedmont residual soil using the Scala dynamic cone pen-
etrometer. Master’s thesis (MSCE), North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, NC
Davidson JL, Maultsby JP, Spoor KB (1999) Standard pene-
tration test energy calibrations. In: Final report, Depart-
ment of Civil Engineering, University of Florida, For
Florida Department of Transportation, January 1999
Decourt L, Muromachi T, Nixon IK Schmertmann JH, Thorburn
S, Zolkov E (1988) Standard penetration test (SPT):
international reference test procedure. In: Proceedings 1st
symposium on penetration testing, Orlando, FL. A A
Balkema, Amsterdam, pp 3–26
Deger TT (2014) Overburden stress normalization and rod
length corrections for the standard penetration test (SPT).
A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the
requirements for the Ph.D. degree in Engineering, Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Graduate Division, Univer-
sity of California, Berkeley
DIN 4094 (2002), German standard for subsoil field investiga-
tions-part 1: cone penetration tests; 2002
Eurocode 7:2 (2007) Geotechnical design, Part 2: Ground
investigating and testing
Fookes PG (ed) (1997) Tropical residual soils. A geological
society engineering group working party revised report,
The Geological Society
Gabr MA, Coonse J, Lambe PC (2001) A potential model for
compaction evaluation of piedmont soils using dynamic
cone penetrometer (DCP). Geotech Test J 24(3):301–313
Giacheti HL, De Mio G (2008) Seismic cone penetration test on
tropical soils and the ratio G0/qc. In: 3rd Geotechnical and
geophysical site characterization conference, ISC’3, Tai-
wan, vol 1, pp 1289–1295
Giacheti HL, Pedrini RAA (2013) The seismic SPT test in a
tropical soil and the G0/N ratio. In: Delage P, Desrues J,
Frank R, Puech A, Schlosser F (eds) Proceedings 16th
ICSMGE, Paris, pp 535–538
123
Geotech Geol Eng
Karol RH (1960) Soil and Soil Engineering. Englewood Cliffs,
Prentice Hall, p 194p
Kleyn EG (1975) The Use of the dynamic cone penetrometer
(DCP). Report No. 2/74 Transvaal Road Department South
Africa
Kovacs WD, Salomone LA (1982) SPT Hammer energy mea-
surements. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE 108, No GT 4
Lingwanda MI, Larsson S, Nyaoro DL (2015) Correlations of
SPT, CPT and DPL data for sandy soil in Tanzania. Geo-
tech Geol Eng 33(5):1221–1233
Lio SSC, Whitman RV (1986) Overburden correction factors for
SPT in sand. ASCE J Geotech Eng 112(3):373–377
Livneh M (1987) Validation of correlations between a number
of penetration tests and in situ California bearing ratio tests.
Transp Res Rec 1219, TRB, Washington, D.C., pp 56–67
MacRobert CJ, Kalumba D, Beales P (2010) Penetration testing:
test procedures and design use in South Africa. Civ Eng
18(3):29–38
MacRobert C, Kalumba D, Beales P (2011) Correlating standard
penetration test and dynamic probe super heavy penetra-
tion resistance values in sandy soils. J S Afr Inst Civ Eng
53(1):46–54
Meardi G, Gadsby JW (1971) Discussion: the correlation of
cone size in the dynamic cone penetration test with the
standard penetration test. Géotechnique 21(2):184–190
Meyerhoff GG (1974) General report: outside Europe. In: Pro-
ceedings of conference on penetration testing, Stockholm,
vol 2.1, pp 40–48
Morgano CM, Liang R (1992) Energy transfer in SPT-rod length
effect. In: Proceedings of 4th international conference on
the application of stress-wave theory to piles. A.A. Balk-
ema Publishers, The Hague, pp 121–127
Nguyen BT, Mohajerani A (2012) A new lightweight dynamic
cone penetrometer for laboratory and field applications.
Aust Geomech J 47:41–50
Peck RB, Hanson WE, Thornburn TH (1974) Foundation
engineering, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York
Reid A, Taylor J (2010) The misuse of SPTs in fine grained soils
and implications of Eurocode 7. Technical Note, Ground
Engineering, pp 28–31
Riggs CO, Schmidt NO, Rassieur CL (1983) Reproducible SPT
Hammer impact force with an automatic free fall SPT
Hammer system. Geotech Test J ASTM 6(4):201–209
Rogers JD (2006) Subsurface exploration using the standard
penetration test and the cone penetrometer test. Environ
Eng Geosci GSA AEG 12(2):161–179
Sanglerat G (1972) The penetrometer and soil exploration–in-
terpretation of penetrometer diagrams-theory and practice.
Elsevier, Amsterdam
Scala AJ (1956) Simple methods of flexible pavement design
using cone penetrometers. N Z Eng 11(2):33–44
Schanid F (2009) In-situ testing in geomechanics. CRC Press,
Boca Raton
Schmertmann JH (1978) The use of the SPT to measure dynamic
soil properties-yes. But… ASTM STP No. 654,
pp 341–355
Sivrikaya O, Togrol E (2006) Determination of undrained shear
strength of fine grained soils by means of SPT and its
application in Turkey. Eng Geol 86:52–69
Geotech Geol Eng
Sowers GF, Hedges CS (1966) Dynamic cone for shallow in situ
penetration testing. In: Vane shear and cone penetration
resistance testing of in situ soils, ASTM STP 399, ASTM
Stefanoff G, Sanglerat G, Burgdahl U, Melzer KJ (1988)
International reference test procedure. In: Proceedings of
the 1st international symposium on penetration testing,
dynamic probing, Document 2, Orlando, I; 1988, pp 53–70
Stroud MA (1974) The standard penetration test in insensitive
clays and soft rocks. In: Proceedings of the European
View publication stats
symposium on penetration testing ESOPT, Stockholm.
National Swedish Building Research, pp 367–375
Terzaghi K, Peck RB, Mesri G (1996) Soil mechanics in engi-
neering practice, 3rd edn. Wiley, New York
Toll DG (2015) California bearing ratio tests on a lateritic gravel
from Kenya. Transp Geotech 5:59–67
Valiquette M, Robinson B, Borden RH (2010) Energy efficiency
and rod length effect in standard penetration test hammers.
J Transp Res Board 2186:47–56
123