Compaction Quality Control of Earth Fills

Using Dynamic Cone Penetrometer

Hariprasad Chennarapu 1; Thejesh Kumar Garala 2; Rajasekhar Chennareddy 3;
Umashankar Balunaini 4; and G. Venkata Narasimha Reddy 5
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad de Costa Rica on 04/01/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Quality control for compaction of earth fills is commonly performed by measuring the in situ density using the sand cone method.
In situ density measurements from sand cone testing are highly operator-dependent; in addition, the test procedure is tedious and time-
consuming. In this study, a dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) was used to perform quality control (QC) of earthworks by measuring pen-
etration resistance in compacted soil. DCP tests were performed on three test pads specially constructed using different soil types—clayey
sand with gravel, clayey sand, and silty sand. The test results were expressed in terms of a dynamic penetration index (DPI), defined as the
depth of penetration of the cone per hammer blow. Correlations are developed between DPI and compacted density for the three soil types
considered. In order to meet the criterion of compacted density equal to or greater than 98% of the maximum density from a laboratory
standard Proctor test, DPI values are found to range from 5 to 8 mm=blow, corresponding to 250 mm penetration of cone on tested soil types.
The effect of the fall height of the hammer on the measured DPI is also studied by performing DCP tests for two fall heights, 575 and 450 mm.
DPI values are found to increase by 11–26% when the height of the fall increases from 450 to 575 mm, for the highest energy level considered
in the study. It is also found that DPI is very sensitive to the moisture content and in situ density of compacted layers. The DCP device
provided quick test results and was simple to operate on any subgrade layer; hence, the frequency of QC tests can be increased, leading to an
improvement in the overall quality of compaction of earthworks. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001530. © 2018 American Society
of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Field density; Quality control; Dynamic cone penetrometer; Dynamic penetration index.

Introduction
The performance of highways under traffic loads depends on the
quality of compaction of the earth fills over which they are sup-
ported. Site engineers face the challenging task, especially for large
construction sites, of assessing the quality of compacted earth-
works. Currently, sand cone [ASTM D4914 (ASTM 2008)] and
calcium carbide [ASTM D4944 (ASTM 2011b)] or direct heating
[ASTM D4959 (ASTM 2007b)] methods are widely used to mea-
sure the in situ density and moisture content of compacted fill
material (McCook and Shanklin 2000; Talbot 2000; Ping et al.
2002; Ampadu and Arthur 2005; Sebesta et al. 2006). The criterion
for quality control (QC) or quality assessment (QA) of compaction
1
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Vardhaman College of
Engineering, Kacharam, Hyderabad, Telangana 501218, India; formerly,
Ph.D. Student, Dept. of Civil Engineering, IIT Hyderabad, Kandi,
Sangareddy, Telangana 502285, India. Email: hariprasadiith@gmail.com
2
Formerly, Masters Student, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute
of Technology Hyderabad, Kandi, Sangareddy, Telangana 502285, India.
Email: thejeshgarala@gmail.com
3
Formerly, Masters Student, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Jawaharlal
Nehru Technological Univ., Hyderabad, Telangana 500085, India. Email:
ch.rajasekhar2277@gmail.com
4
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology Hyderabad, Kandi, Sangareddy, Telangana 502285, India
(corresponding author). Email: buma@iith.ac.in
5
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Jawaharlal Nehru Technological
Univ., Hyderabad, Telangana 500085, India. Email: gvnreddy@jntuh.ac.in
Note. This manuscript was submitted on August 23, 2017; approved on
March 2, 2018; published online on July 3, 2018. Discussion period
open until December 3, 2018; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9364.
is met when the compacted density of the fill material is equal to or
greater than 98% of the maximum dry density (MDD) with mois-
ture content within −1 and þ1% of the optimum moisture content
(OMC) (Elias et al. 2001). The MDD and OMC for a particular soil
are obtained from standard Proctor compaction tests conducted as
per ASTM D698 (ASTM 2012) specifications.
Sand cone testing for QC of compacted layers involves many
steps, and even a skilled technician takes at least 30 min to perform
this test (Krebs and Walker 1971). Hence, indirect methods have
become popular in recent times to directly measure the stiffness
or strength of compacted subgrade layers. Most common among
them include (1) nuclear gauge [ASTM D6938 (ASTM 2010)],
(2) Clegg hammer [ASTM D5874 (ASTM 2007a)], (3) soil stiff-
ness gauge [ASTM D6758 (ASTM 2007d)], (4) dynamic cone pen-
etrometer [ASTM D6951 (ASTM 2007f)], and (5) lightweight
deflectometer (LWD) [ASTM E2583 (ASTM 2007c)].
Among these methods, dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) de-
vices are widely used for QC or QA of earthworks, because they are
simple to operate and economical, because it is relatively quick to
perform the test, and because there is no need to excavate the sub-
grade or pavement layers, as with a sand cone test. Scala (1956)
developed the DCP to evaluate the quality of subgrade layers. Later,
the US Army Corps of Engineers proposed a dual mass DCP with
hammers of 8 and 4.6 kg (Webster et al. 1992). Fumio et al. (2004)
upgraded the device by developing an automated data collection
system for a DCP with a hammer weight of 3 kg. Table 1 presents
the characteristics of various DCP devices including American
standard (ASTM 1997) and Australia standard devices [AS
1289.6.3.2 (AS 1997)].
However, in India, limited studies are available on compaction
QC or QA of earth fills using DCP device. Indian standards
recommend conducting sand cone and calcium carbide tests to

© ASCE 04018086-1 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2018, 144(9): 04018086

 Table 1. Details of various DCP devices studies have focused on developing correlations between dynamic
DCP device Drop mass (kg) Fall height (mm) penetration index (DPI) and soil properties like California bearing
ratio (CBR), resilient modulus (M r ), elastic modulus (E), etc.
Scala (1956) 8.0 575
Van Vuuren (1969) 10.0 460
Table 2 shows the list of available relationships between DPI and
AS 1289.6.3.2 9.0 510 other soil parameters from various laboratory and field studies.
ASTM D6951 8.0 575 There are limited field studies on using DCP as a compaction
quality control device. From Table 2, it is evident that no published
and acceptable correlations exist between DPI and field compaction
determine in situ density and water content in order to assess the QC parameters. Siekmeier et al. (2009) proposed quality assurance
quality of pavement layers [IRC:SP:57 (IRC 2000)]. These test pro- of compacted granular and fine-grained materials using DCP and
cedures are time-consuming, and hence, quick, innovative, and eco- lightweight deflectometer devices in the state of Minnesota in
nomical QA techniques are needed to reduce the overall time of the United States. The Minnesota Department of Transportation
construction and the costs associated with present QA test proce- (Mn/DOT) has implemented these methods in place of existing
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad de Costa Rica on 04/01/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

dures. In this study, DCP widely used in several countries for QA of
pavement layers was considered as a substitute to regular testing
methods, and its feasibility for QA of Indian subgrade soils was
assessed. Three test pads were specially constructed with different
soil types (clayey sand with gravel, clayey sand, and silty sand) in
Hyderabad, India, to develop correlations between dynamic pen-
etration index (DPI) and in situ compacted density. A procedure
is proposed to remove the outliers in the test data while developing
correlations between the DPI and in situ compacted density.
The influence of compaction energy and the height of the fall of
the DCP hammer on the measured DPI values were also studied.
Furthermore, guidelines were provided to develop correlations be-
tween DPI and compacted dry density in order to use DCP devices
for compaction QC in the field.
Background
The quality assessment of compacted subgrade layers using DCP
devices is widely reported in the literature (Kleyn 1975; Harison
1987; Burnham 1997; Gabr et al. 2000; Alshibli et al. 2005;
Rahman et al. 2008; Yoon et al. 2009; Kim et al. 2010; Meehan
et al. 2012; Yang et al. 2016; Ganju et al. 2016). However, most
methods on many projects. Field tests were conducted on these ma-
terials for various configurations of the DCP device (different
weights of the hammer). The moisture content and soil type was
found to have a significant effect on the DCP results. Lee et al.
(2014) used DCP and soil stiffness gauge (SSG) devices to estimate
the engineering properties of three soil types: poorly graded sand
(SP), silty sand (SM), and well-graded sand with silt (SW-SM). DPI
and modulus of elasticity (ESSG ) values were found to be affected
by the moisture content for SM and SW-SM soils, while the effect
of water content was found to be insignificant for SP soils.
According to Livneh et al. (2000), several countries (Australia,
New Zealand, South Africa, England, Norway, etc.) use DCP for
quality assessment of pavement layers and subgrades. Also, several
states in the United States (California, Florida, Illinois, Minnesota,
Mississippi, and Texas) have made the use of DCP devices a regular
practice for pavement and site investigations. On the other hand,
Indian design codes still recommend conventional sand cone
and calcium carbide tests, which are time-consuming and uneco-
nomical, to determine in situ density and water content to assess
the quality of compacted pavement layers. To the authors’ knowl-
edge, there is a scarcity of data to assess the compaction quality of
Indian subgrade soils using DCP. In this study, the authors have

Table 2. Relationships between dynamic penetration index and soil parameters

Reference Correlation Description Soil type
Harison (1987) log ðCBRÞ ¼ 2.81 − 1.32 × log ðDPIÞ Laboratory tests Granular and cohesive materials
Livneh (1989) log ðCBRÞ ¼ 2.20 − 0.71 × ðlog DPIÞ1.5 Field and laboratory tests Granular and cohesive materials
Livneh (1991) log ðCBRÞ ¼ 2.14 − 0.69 × ðlog DPIÞ1.5 Field and laboratory tests Granular and cohesive materials
Livneh et al. (1994) log ðCBRÞ ¼ 2.46 − 1.12 × ðlog DPIÞ Field and laboratory tests Granular and cohesive materials
Ese et al. (1994) log ðCBRÞ ¼ 2.44 − 1.07 × log ðDPIÞ Field and laboratory tests Aggregate base course
Coonse (1999) log ðCBRÞ ¼ 2.53 − 1.14 × log ðDPIÞ Laboratory tests Residual soil
Gabr et al. (2000) log ðCBRÞ ¼ 1.40 − 0.55 × log ðDPIÞ Field and laboratory tests Aggregate base course

rffiffiffiffiffiffi0 0.5
σv
Salgado and Yoon (2003) γ d ¼ 101.5 · DPI−0.14 · · γW Field tests Clayey sand
PA
Mohammadi et al. (2008) Dr ¼ 189.93=ðDPIÞ0.53 Laboratory tests Sandy soils
EPLT ¼ 53.73=ðDPIÞ0.74
GPLT ¼ 75.74=ðDPIÞ0.9
K s ¼ 898.36=ðDPIÞ0.9
Φ ¼ 52.16=ðDPIÞ0.13
1,045.9
Mohammad et al. (2009) Mr ¼ Field and laboratory tests Cohesive subgrade soils
ðDPIÞ1.096
Ganju et al. (2016) Blow count ¼ −0.22 OMC2 − 1.16 OMC þ 27.94 Field tests Clean sands
Blow count ¼ 0.17 OMC2 − 5.94 OMC þ 59.54 Coarse grained soils
Blow count ¼ 13.03eð−0.2219PIÞ þ 8.052eð−0.00483PIÞ Fine grained soils
Blow count ¼ 4.029 lnðCu Þ þ 2.640 Clean sand with low fines content
Note: CBR = California bearing ratio (%); DPI = dynamic penetration index (mm=blow); γ d = unit weight of clay soil (kN=m3 ); γ w = unit weight of water
(kN=m3 ); PA = reference stress (kPa); σv0 = vertical effective stress (kPa); E = Young’s modulus (MPa); Dr = relative density (%); EPLT = deformation modulus
of soil from plate load test (kPa); GPLT = shear modulus of soil from plate load test (kPa); ks = modulus of subgrade reaction (MN=m3 ); ϕ = friction angle
of soil (degrees); Sr = degree of saturation of the soil (%); N = measured blow count; ELWD = dynamic modulus from LWD (MPa); M r = resilient modulus
(MPa); OMC = optimum moisture content; Cu = coefficient of uniformity; and PI = plasticity index.

© ASCE 04018086-2 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2018, 144(9): 04018086

 Table 3. Physical properties of soils
Parameter Soil 1 Soil 2 Soil 3
D30 (mm) 0.65 0.2 0.45
D50 (mm) 1.8 1.1 0.95
57.5 cm D60 (mm) 2.7 1.7 1.4
Optimum moisture content (%) 7.5 9.5 8.5
Maximum dry density (g=cm3 ) 2.093 2.080 2.073
CBR (%) 24 15 18
Hammer
8 kg

used to represent DPI value across the depth of penetration of

the cone.
1.6 cm
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad de Costa Rica on 04/01/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ΣNi DPI
100 cm DPIavg ¼ ð2Þ
N
(Variable)
1XN
DPIwt·avg ¼ ½ðDPIÞi ðZÞi  ð3Þ
H i

0.3 cm where N = total number of DPI values recorded in a given depth of

penetration; Z = penetration distance per blow set; and H = overall
depth of penetration.
6

2 cm
Materials Used in the Study
Fig. 1. Schematic of dynamic cone penetrometer.
Test pads were constructed with three different types of soil to
cover a good range of subgrade profiles in India. Representative
soil samples were collected from the borrow pits and the physical
properties of the soils were determined in the laboratory. Soils col-
attempted to use DCP as a field compaction quality control device
lected from the borrow areas were designated as Soil 1, Soil 2, and
for Indian subgrade soils and provide correlations between in situ
Soil 3 and were classified [ASTM 2487 (ASTM 2011a)] as clayey
density and DPI for three different subgrade soils. The character-
sand with gravel, clayey sand, and silty sand, respectively. Table 3
istics of the DCP used, materials used to construct the test pads,
gives the particle sizes [ASTM D422 (ASTM 2007e)], OMC and
methodology, and results are explained in the following sections.
MDD [ASTM D698 (ASTM 2012)], and CBR values [ASTM
D1883 (ASTM 2014)] of the borrow soils. Figs. 2 and 3 show
the grain-size distribution and compaction curves of the three soil
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer
types.
Fig. 1 shows the DCP device used in the present study. The DCP
consists of an 8-kg hammer with a standard height of fall equal to Site Description and Construction of Test Pads
575 mm [ASTM D6951 (ASTM 2007f)]. The hammer is dropped
on the anvil of the lower shaft and it consists of a cone with an apex The test sites described in the study were located at Ghatkesar,
angle of 60°. The hammer directly transfers the energy to the cone along National Highway 202, following the Outer Ring Road
through the lower shaft. The inverted scale engraved on the lower (ORR), Hyderabad. ORR is a 158-km, 8-lane, ring-road expressway
shaft is used to measure the penetration of the cone per each blow.
Initially, seating blows are given to ensure that the wider portion of
the cone is flush with the compacted surface, and the depth of
penetration of the cone corresponding to each hammer blow is re-
corded. The results are expressed in terms of dynamic penetration
index, which is defined as depth of cone penetration per blow and
is computed using Eq. (1) (Embacher 2006; Mohammadi et al.
2008):
piþ1 − pi
DPI ¼ ð1Þ
N iþ1 − N i

where DPI = dynamic penetration index (mm=blow); Pi and Piþ1 =

cone penetration values at i and i þ 1 hammer drops (mm); and N i
and N iþ1 = blow counts corresponding to Pi and Piþ1 .
For a given penetration depth, the data obtained from the DCP
testing is interpreted to obtain a representative DPI value of the
material tested. Two standard procedures are available to calculate
the representative DPI value based on (1) arithmetic average
Fig. 2. Grain-size distribution curves of the three soil types used in
[Eq. (2)], and (2) weighted average [Eq. (3)]. In this study, follow-
the study.
ing Edil and Benson (2005), the arithmetic average method was

© ASCE 04018086-3 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2018, 144(9): 04018086


2.08
Dry density (g/cm3)
2.00
1.92
1.84 Soil 1
Soil 2
Soil 3
1.76
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Water content (%)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad de Costa Rica on 04/01/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 3. Compaction curves of the three soil types used in the study.
around the city of Hyderabad, India. Three test pads were con-
structed specifically to evaluate the cone penetration resistance of
compacted layers of subgrade soils during DCP testing. Test pads,
each 100 m long × 3.5 m wide, were numbered Test Pads 1, 2, and
3, and were constructed with the borrow soils designated as Soil 1,
Soil 2, and Soil 3, respectively. Soil from the borrow areas was trans-
ported in a loader truck to the test pad location and spread uniformly
to an uncompacted lift thickness equal to 300 mm. A tanker was used
to spray water on the leveled surface of the test pads to achieve the
OMC. After moisture conditioning, the test pads were compacted
using a smooth-drum, vibratory roller as shown in Fig. 4 (HAMM
model BW 212-2, Tirschenreuth, Germany). During compaction, the
roller was operated at a constant speed, and the test pads were com-
pacted by a total of seven passes by the end of Energy Level 3; this
level of compaction was found to meet the compaction criterion.
Fig. 4. Compaction of test pad using a vibratory roller.
© ASCE
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2018, 144(9): 04018086
Table 4. Number of passes at end of each compaction energy level during
construction of test pads
Energy level Compaction passes
Energy Level 1 (EL1) Two plain passes and one low-vibratory pass
Energy Level 2 (EL2) EL1 + one low-vibratory and one
high-vibratory pass
Energy Level 3 (EL3) EL2 + one high-vibratory and one plain pass
Table 4 provides details regarding the three energy levels and the
corresponding roller passes in each energy level adopted in the study.
14 16 In order to study the effect of compaction energy on DPI, DCP tests
were performed after completing each energy level of compaction.
The final compacted lift thickness of each test pad was maintained
as 250 mm. At the end of each compaction energy (i.e., energy level),
DPI and compacted density were measured at three locations on the
compacted surface of each test pad using DCP and the sand cone
method, respectively. Fig. 5 shows the schematic diagram of test
locations. Also, in order to study the influence of hammer height
of fall, DCP testing was performed for two fall heights, 575 and
450 mm.
Results and Discussions
Figs. 6–8 show the dynamic penetration index (DPI) versus
the depth of penetration of the cone into the compacted surface
of Test Pad 1, Test Pad 2, and Test Pad 3, respectively, correspond-
ing to two compaction energy levels (Energy Level 2 and Energy
Level 3). In Figs. 6–8, the addition of DPI at every depth results in
the depth of penetration. The curves move toward the left (lower
DPI) with increases in compaction energy, indicating that the DPI
value decreases with the increase in compaction energy for a given
depth of penetration of the cone.
Fig. 9 shows the histogram of DPI measured on Test Pad 1 at
Locations 1–3 for three compaction energy levels corresponding to
a height of fall of 575 mm. The variation in DPI values was ob-
served at the three locations for a given compaction energy. The
coefficient of variation (COV) in the DPI along the length was
found to be equal to about 26, 53, and 9%, corresponding to
the first (Energy Level 1), second (Energy Level 2), and third
(Energy Level 3) compaction energy levels, respectively. The
significant point-to-point variation for given compaction passes is
typical for in situ tests, and this variation can occur even when
there is no significant change in the material that is being placed
(Ampadu and Arthur 2005; Meehan et al. 2012). In addition,
variability in the borrow material can lead to greater point-to-point
variability. In this study, the average DPI values measured at test
Locations 1–3 was considered as the representative DPI value cor-
responding to a given pass and height of fall of hammer.
Effect of Energy Level and Height of Fall of Hammer
In order to study the influence of hammer height of fall, DCP
testing was performed for two fall heights, 575 and 450 mm.
Figs. 10–12 show the histogram of DPI for the two heights of fall
and from the three test pads at three energy levels. The compacted
density of the soil increases for higher compaction energy, resulting
in the decrease of DPI values with the increase in the compaction
energy level. For the three energy levels considered in the study,
the DPI corresponding to Energy Level 3 was 70, 46, and 41%
lower than the DPI corresponding to Energy Level 1 for 250-mm
penetration of the cone and a height of fall equal to 575 mm for
Test Pads 1–3 respectively.
04018086-4 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 20 m 20 m

3.5m
1 2 3

Dynamic Cone Penetrometer

Sand cone method

Fig. 5. Schematic showing test locations on each Test Pad.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad de Costa Rica on 04/01/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. DPI versus depth of penetration of cone for Test Pad 1, Fig. 8. DPI versus depth of penetration of cone for Test Pad 3,
corresponding to Energy Levels 2 and 3. corresponding to Energy Levels 2 and 3.

25
Energy Level 1
Energy Level 2
Energy Level 3
20
DPI (mm/blow)

15

10

Fig. 7. DPI versus depth of penetration of cone for Test Pad 2, 0

corresponding to Energy Levels 2 and 3. 1 2 3
Position

Fig. 9. Measured DPI values at three test locations, corresponding to

When the height of fall of the hammer decreases, the energy the three energy levels, for Test Pad 1 (test locations are shown in
transferred to the cone tip is reduced, and hence the DPI for a given Fig. 5).
cone penetration decreases. The percent decrease in DPI values for
the two heights of fall (575 and 450 mm) was highest at the lowest
compaction energy level. For a decrease in fall height from 575 to
450 mm, the decrease in DPI values was 6.7, 25, and 35.6% for Correlation between DPI and In Situ Dry Density
Test Pad 1, Test Pad 2, and Test Pad 3, respectively, corresponding In order to develop correlations between the DPI and compacted
to Energy Level 1. The decrease in the DPI values corresponding density of the three soil types, sand cone tests were performed
to higher compaction energy, i.e., Energy Level 3, was found to be at every DCP testing location. Figs. 13–18 show the variation
equal to 26.4, 11, and 14.5% for the three test pads. of DPI with the in situ dry density of three test pads for

© ASCE 04018086-5 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2018, 144(9): 04018086

 24 15
Height of fall- 575mm Height of fall-575mm
Height of fall-450mm Height of fall-450mm
20 12

16
DPI (mm/blow)

DPI (mm/blow)
9

12
6
8
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad de Costa Rica on 04/01/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

3
4

0 0
Energy level 1 Energy level 2 Energy level 3 Energy level 1 Energy level 2 Energy level 3

Fig. 10. Measured DPI values for two heights of fall of hammer, Fig. 12. Measured DPI values for two heights of fall of hammer, cor-
corresponding to the three energy levels, for 250-mm penetration of responding to the three energy levels, for 250-mm penetration of the
the cone on Test Pad 1. cone on Test Pad 3.

20
2.05
Height of fall-575mm 7 Test pad 1 and Hf= 575 mm
Height of fall-450mm 2.00
8 6
16
1.95 5 4
9
Dry density (g/cm3)

1.90
DPI (mm/blow)

12
1.85 = 2.193 × DPI −0.077
d

1.80 r = 0.53 (With outliers)

8 d = 2.436 × DPI −0.12
1.75 r = 0.78 (Without outliers)
3
1.70 2 1
4
1.65

1.60
0 0 5 10 15 20 25
Energy level 1 Energy level 2 Energy level 3 DPI (mm/blow)

Fig. 11. Measured DPI values for two heights of fall of hammer, cor- Fig. 13. Variation of field dry density with DPI for 250-mm penetra-
responding to the three energy levels, for 250-mm penetration of the tion of the cone on Test Pad 1, corresponding to a height of fall of
cone on Test Pad 2. 575 mm.

two heights of fall (Hf ). For each test pad, a few data points were
located completely away from rest of the data points; these are con-
sidered as outliers in this study.
It is worth mentioning that the DPI measured in this study is
sensitive to several parameters, the most important of which are
in situ density and moisture content. It is quite difficult to meet
exact compaction criteria in the field, i.e., obtaining laboratory-
determined MDD and OMC values from the field-compacted pave-
ment layers. Knowing the difficulty in field conditions, standard
codal provisions provide flexibility in the QC or QA of field-
compacted pavement layers, i.e., field MDD equivalent to 98% of
laboratory MDD and moisture content at 1% laboratory OMC is
acceptable for field-compacted pavement layers. Therefore, the
moisture content and density obtained from field-compacted earth
fills can either be on the wet side of the compaction curve, on the
dry side of the compaction curve, or exactly at OMC and MDD;
this governs the value of DPI obtained in the field. Soils with
greater in situ density offer more resistance to DCP cone penetra-
tion, resulting in lower DPI value. Also, the DPI value varies based
on whether moisture content is less than or greater than OMC.
In addition, for the same density, moisture content can either be on
the wet side of the compaction curve or on the dry side of the com-
paction curve, and this can result in different values of DPI for the
same density. This might be one of the reasons for the outliers in
this study. The following paragraph explains the procedure fol-
lowed in this study to eliminate outliers while developing the cor-
relations between dry density (ρd ) and DPI.
In general, for a given moisture content, DPI should decrease
with an increase in compacted density. Therefore, at a given test
location on a particular test pad, the measured DPI and density

© ASCE 04018086-6 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2018, 144(9): 04018086

 2.05 2.10
7 Test pad 2 and Hf= 450 mm
2.00 8 Test pad 1 and Hf= 450 mm 2.05 6

9 d = 2.309 × DPI −0.086

1.95 5 4 2.00 8 r = 0.79 (Without outliers)
6
Dry density (g/cm3)

Dry density (g/cm3)

1.90 7
1.95 4 2
1.85 = 2.260 × DPI −0.091 9 5
d

r = 0.82 (Without outliers) 1.90

1.80
1.85 = 2.251 × DPI −0.075
= 2.289 × DPI −0.101
d
1.75 d
r = 0.20 (With outliers)
r = 0.78 (With outliers) 1.80 1
1.70 2 1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad de Costa Rica on 04/01/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1.65 3 1.75 3

1.60 1.70
0 5 10 15 20 25 4 6 8 10 12 14
DPI (mm/blow) DPI (mm/blow)

Fig. 14. Variation of field dry density with DPI for 250-mm penetra- Fig. 16. Variation of field dry density with DPI for 250-mm penetra-
tion of the cone on Test Pad 1, corresponding to a height of fall of tion of the cone on Test Pad 2, corresponding to a height of fall of
450 mm. 450 mm.

4 2.10
2.05 Test pad 2 and Hf= 575 mm
Test pad 3 and Hf= 575 mm
8
2.00 2.05
9 = 2.672 × DPI −0.131
2 d
Dry density (g/cm3)

8 9 7 r = 0.83 (Without outliers)

Dry density (g/cm3)

1.95 7 2.00
5 −0.07
d = 2.26 × DPI 6 3
r = 0.18 (With outliers) 4
1.90 6 1.95 d = 2.406 × DPI −0.091
r = 0.42 (With outliers)
1.85 1
−0.114 5
d = 2.451 × DPI 1 1.90
1.80 r = 0.73 (Without outliers)
3
1.85 2
1.75

6 8 10 12 14 16 18 1.80
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
DPI (mm/blow)
DPI (mm/blow)
Fig. 15. Variation of field dry density with DPI for 250-mm penetra-
Fig. 17. Variation of field dry density with DPI for 250-mm penetra-
tion of the cone on Test Pad 2, corresponding to a height of fall of
tion of the cone on Test Pad 3, corresponding to a height of fall of
575 mm.
575 mm.

values are compared with the measurements at every other test

location. If the results follow the expected trend (i.e., DPI decreas-
ing with increasing density), a score equal to one or zero is
assigned. The total score at a test location is obtained by summing
all the scores registered at a test location with reference to the
others. Only the test locations with a score higher than five are
considered while developing the correlations between DPI and
compacted density. For example, consider the case of Test
Pad 2 with a height of fall of 575 mm (Fig. 15). Test Location
1 (Reference Point 1) recorded a DPI of 17.3 mm=blow at a dry
density of 1.819 g=cm3 . Following the condition that DPI should
decrease with an increase in compacted density, data from test
Location 1 was compared with other test locations (Reference
Points 2–9). This condition, with respect to Reference Point 1,
was satisfied at all reference points except for Reference Point 3;
i.e., DPI at Reference Point 3 was less than DPI at Reference
Point 1, but dry density at Reference Point 3 was less than dry den-
sity at Reference Point 1. Therefore, Reference Point 1 accrued a
score of seven. Following the same procedure, a score was assigned
to every other data point. Table 5 shows the score obtained by all
reference points from Test Pad 2 for a height of fall of 575 mm.
Once a score was established for all reference points, locations with
a score greater than or equal to five were only considered for devel-
oping the correlation between dry density and DPI. Therefore, be-
cause Reference Points 2 and 4 scored less than five, they were
considered as outliers.
In Figs. 13–18, the outliers are highlighted with circular marks,
and the correlations between dry density and DPI with and without
considering outliers for all three test pads at the two heights of fall
of hammer are shown. Tables 6 and 7 show a summary of the cor-
relations developed between the DPI and compacted density

© ASCE 04018086-7 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2018, 144(9): 04018086

 2.10
laboratory tests on poorly-graded sandy soils and proposed corre-
Test pad 3 and Hf= 450 mm lations between DPI, relative density (Dr ), modulus of elasticity
7
2.05 (E), shear modulus (G), modulus of subgrade reaction (K s ), and
= 2.723 × DPI −0.165 the friction angle (ϕ) of the soil by using a DCP with height of
d
fall equal to 575 mm. Correlations were developed between relative
6 r = 0.80 (Without outliers)
Dry density (g/cm3)

2.00 density and DPI by varying the relative density from 25 to 75%. In
9
5 order to compare these correlations with the correlations proposed
4
2 in this study, the relative density (Dr ) versus DPI curve of Moham-
1.95
madi et al. (2008) is modified into dry density versus DPI using the
8 soil properties stated in Mohammadi et al. (2008). For the same
3
1.90
d = 2.453 × DPI −0.111 values of DPI from Mohammadi et al. (2008), dry densities are de-
termined from the proposed correlations for a height of fall of
r = 0.31 (With outliers) 1
1.85 575 mm and shown in Fig. 19. The trend observed between
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad de Costa Rica on 04/01/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1.80
5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5
DPI (mm/blow)
Fig. 18. Variation of field density with DPI for 250-mm penetration of
the cone on Test Pad 3, corresponding to a height of fall of 450 mm.
Table 5. Test Pad 2 for height of fall of 575 mm
Reference point DPI (mm=blow)
1 17.30
2 16.00
3 12.30
4 8.80
5 8.70
6 8.70
7 8.10
8 7.70
9 7.20
DPI and dry density from the present study compares very well
with Mohammadi et al. (2008), though the dry density values in
this study are higher than those from Mohammadi et al. (2008).
9.0 9.5 10.0
High DPI values for a given density from the present study when
compared to Mohammadi et al. (2008) could be due to the different
soil gradations used in the two studies. Mohammadi et al. (2008)
used poorly-graded sand with maximum dry density of
1.78 g=cm3 , whereas in this study maximum dry density of all
the soils considered was greater than 2 g=cm3 . Thus, using the cor-
relations proposed in this study, field engineers can assess the QC
or QA of subgrade layers made of the same materials as in
Dry density (g=cm3 ) Score
this study.
The correlations proposed in this study are for specific subgrade
1.819 7 materials and for a specific uncompacted lift thickness (300 mm)
1.961 3 and final compacted lift thickness (250 mm). In addition, the pro-
1.769 6
posed correlations are valid for the range of water contents consid-
2.040 3
1.926 5 ered in the study. For different subgrade materials and for different
1.914 5 uncompacted and compacted lift thicknesses, field engineers can
1.937 6 follow the guidelines mentioned in the following section to develop
1.948 6 correlations between the DPI and in situ density of the com-
1.976 7 pacted soil.

Guidelines to Develop Correlations in the Field

corresponding to the two heights of fall of hammer for the three soil
types considered in this study. The compacted soils possess a mois-
ture content in between 1% of OMC determined from laboratory
tests, and outliers were removed in developing these correlations.
The DPI values required for a relative compaction of 98% are 5,
8, and 7.5 mm=blow for Soil 1, Soil 2 and Soil 3, respectively, cor-
responding to a height of fall of hammer of 575 mm. The corre-
sponding values are 4, 7, and 6.5 mm=blow for a height of fall
of hammer of 450 mm. Mohammadi et al. (2008) performed
The following guidelines can be adopted by field engineers to
perform calibration studies on test pads to develop correlations
between in situ compacted density and DPI values.
1. Pour the selected fill material in uncompacted lifts of desired
thickness and add water equivalent to OMC of the fill material.
2. Compact the test pad using a vibratory roller to specific energy
levels (number of passes) until it meets the compaction criteria.
3. Select the height of fall of hammer and thickness of lift based on
site conditions and local codal provisions, if available.

Table 6. Summary of correlations developed between compacted dry density and DPI corresponding to a height of fall of 575 mm
Location Soil type Water content (%) Correlation Correlation coefficient (r)
−0.120
Test Pad 1 Clayey sand with gravel 5.0 ρd ¼ 2.436 × DPI 0.78
Test Pad 2 Clayey sand 7.0 ρd ¼ 2.451 × DPI−0.114 0.73
Test Pad 3 Silty sand 4.0 ρd ¼ 2.672 × DPI−0.131 0.83
Note: ρd = dry density (g=cm3 ); and DPI = dynamic penetration index (mm=blow).

Table 7. Summary of correlations developed between compacted dry density and DPI corresponding to a height of fall of 450 mm
Location Soil type Water content (%) Correlation Correlation coefficient (r)
Test Pad 1 Clayey sand with gravel 5.0 ρd ¼ 2.260 × DPI−0.091 0.82
Test Pad 2 Clayey sand 7.0 ρd ¼ 2.309 × DPI−0.086 0.79
Test Pad 3 Silty sand 4.0 ρd ¼ 2.723 × DPI−0.165 0.80
Note: ρd = dry density (g=cm3 Þ; and DPI = dynamic penetration index (mm=blow).

© ASCE 04018086-8 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2018, 144(9): 04018086

 2.2
2.1 Mohammadi et al. (2008)
Test pad 1
2.0 Test pad 2
Test pad 3
1.9
Dry density (g/cm3)
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad de Costa Rica on 04/01/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
1.3
1.2
0 10 20 30 40
DPI (mm/blow)
Fig. 19. Comparison of dry density versus DPI from the present study
with Mohammadi et al. (2008).
4. Perform sand cone and DCP tests at the end of every compaction
energy level to measure compacted field density and DPI.
The authors recommend performing a minimum of 4–8 tests at
different locations on the test pad to obtain representative values
of DPI and density.
5. Plot the variation of compacted field density with the measured
DPI values and develop the correlation between the two after
following the procedure highlighted in this study to eliminate
outliers. Elimination of outliers is according to the condition that
DPI should decrease with increases in the density of the soil.
6. Obtain the target DPI corresponding to 98% of the MDD
obtained from a laboratory standard Proctor test.
7. Use the target DPI value to perform compaction quality control
of pavement layers for the rest of the pavement stretch.
To summarize, DCP testing in the field was found to have
several advantages:
1. Only two persons are sufficient to operate the instrument; this
results in maximizing the number of quality control tests in a
given time and leads to improvement in the quality and perfor-
mance of pavement layers.
2. The equipment is very simple to operate in comparison to other
quality control tests, and hence no trained personnel are required
to conduct the tests.
3. The testing procedure can be followed in any terrain or in congested
areas where regular standard methods are difficult to perform.
4. The testing is very economical, since fabricating this device costs
only about 10,000 INR (equivalent to approximately $150 US).
However, it was found that DPI value is very sensitive to in situ
density and moisture content. The DPI value changes based on the
moisture content of the compaction bed, whether it is laid with
moisture content on the wet side of the compaction curve or on
the dry side of the compaction curve for the same in situ density.
Therefore, much attention is required while using DCP as a com-
paction quality control device, unlike conventional testing methods.
Summary and Conclusions
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) tests were performed as per
ASTM D6951 (ASTM 2007f) on three test pads constructed with
different soil types—clayey sand with gravel, clayey sand, and silty
sand. The test results are expressed in terms of dynamic penetration
index (DPI), defined as penetration of cone per blow. Further, the
© ASCE
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2018, 144(9): 04018086
influence of compaction energy and height of fall of DCP hammer
on the measured DPI values was also studied.
Based on the field testing carried out in the present study, the
following conclusions are drawn:
1. DPI values decrease with the increase of the compaction energy
level. For the three energy levels considered in this study, DPI
corresponding to Energy Level 3 was 70, 46, and 41% lower
than that for Energy Level 1 for 250 mm penetration of the cone
and for a fall height of 575 mm.
2. DPI values decrease by 26.4, 11, and 14.5% when the height of
fall decreases from 575 to 450 mm, corresponding to 250 mm
penetration of the cone and compaction energy equal to Energy
Level 3 for three test pads considered.
3. Correlations are proposed between compacted dry density and
DPI for the three soil types considered in the study. Though the
50 correlations are developed from only a few data points, the trend
proposed between dry density and DPI compared very well with
studies reported in the literature. However, as no two soils be-
have similarly and same soil behaves differently when water
content is changed, dry density versus DPI correlations devel-
oped in this study for the three different subgrade soils should be
dealt with carefully.
4. The DPI values obtained from the test pads were very sensitive
to the moisture content of the test pads. Therefore, careful con-
sideration is required when measuring the DPI of test pads and
data should be consistent with moisture content either on the wet
side of the compaction curve or on the dry side of the compac-
tion curve to minimize the number of outliers.
Data Availability Statement
Data generated or analyzed during the study are available from the
corresponding author by request. Information about the Journal’s
data sharing policy can be found here: http://ascelibrary.org/doi/10
.1061/%28ASCE%29CO.1943-7862.0001263.
References
Alshibli, K., M. Abu-Farsakh, and E. Seyman. 2005. “Laboratory
evaluation of the geogauge and light falling weight deflectometer as
construction control tools.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 17 (5): 560–569.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2005)17:5(560).
Ampadu, S. I. K., and T. D. Arthur. 2005. “The dynamic cone penetrometer
in compaction verification on a model road pavement.” Geotech. Test. J.
29 (1): 70–79. https://doi.org/10.1520/GTJ12306.
AS (Australia Standards). 1997. Methods of testing soils for engineering
purposes: Soil strength and consolidation tests: Determination of
the penetration resistance of a soil: 9 kg dynamic cone penetrometer
test. AS 1289.6.3.2. Sydney, Australia: AS.
ASTM. 2007a. Standard test method for determination of the impact value
of a soil. ASTM D5874. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
ASTM. 2007b. Standard test method for determination of water (moisture)
content of soil by direct heating. ASTM D4959. West Conshohocken,
PA: ASTM.
ASTM. 2007c. Standard test method for measuring deflections with a light
weight deflectometer (LWD). ASTM E2583. West Conshohocken,
PA: ASTM.
ASTM. 2007d. Standard test method for measuring stiffness and apparent
modulus of soil and soil-aggregate in-place by an electro-mechanical
method. ASTM D6758. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
ASTM. 2007e. Standard test method for particle-size analysis of soils.
ASTM D422. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
ASTM. 2007f. Standard test method for use of the dynamic cone
penetrometer in shallow pavement applications. ASTM D6951.
West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
04018086-9 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 ASTM. 2008. Standard test methods for density and unit weight of soil and
rock in place by the sand replacement method in a test pit. ASTM
D4914. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
ASTM. 2010. Standard test method for in-place density and water content
of soil and soil-aggregate by nuclear methods. ASTM D6938.
West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
ASTM. 2011a. Standard practice for classification of soils for engineering
purposes (unified soil classification system). ASTM D2487. West
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
ASTM. 2011b. Standard test method for field determination of water
(moisture) content of soil by the calcium carbide gas pressure tester.
ASTM D4944. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
ASTM. 2012. Standard test methods for laboratory compaction character-
istics of soil using standard effort. ASTM D698. West Conshohocken,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad de Costa Rica on 04/01/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
PA: ASTM.
ASTM. 2014. Standard test method for California bearing ratio (CBR) of
laboratory-compacted soils. ASTM D1883. West Conshohocken, PA:
ASTM.
Burnham, T. R. 1997. Application of the dynamic cone penetrometer to
Minnesota department of transportation pavement assessment proce-
dures. Rep. No. MN/RC 97-19. Saint Paul, MN: Minnesota Dept. of
Transportation.
Coonse, J. 1999. “Estimating California bearing ratio of cohesive piedmont
residual soil using the Scala dynamic cone penetrometer.” Masters
thesis, Dept. of civil, construction and Environmental Engineering,
North Carolina State Univ.
Edil, T. B., and C. H. Benson. 2005. Investigation of the DCP and SSG as
alternative methods to determine subgrade stability. Rep. No. 0092-01-05.
Madison, WI: Univ. of Wisconsin.
Elias, P. E. V., B. R. Christopher, and R. R. Berg. 2001. Mechanically sta-
bilized earth walls and reinforced slopes: Design and construction
guidelines. FHWA Technical Rep. FHWA-NHI-00-043. Washington,
DC: US Dept. of Transportation.
Embacher, R. 2006. “Duration of spring thaw recovery for aggregate-
surfaced roads.” J. Transp. Res. Board 1967: 27–35. https://doi.org/10
.3141/1967-04.
Ese, D., J. Myre, P. Noss, and E. Vaernes. 1994. “The use of dynamic cone
penetrometer (DCP) for road strengthening design in Norway.” In Proc.,
4th Int. Conf. on Bearing Capacity of Roads and Airfields, 3–22.
Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration.
Fumio, O., H. Shuzo, and S. H. Urushizaki. 2004. “Data logger penetrator-
dynamic cone penetrator with data logger: An unique logging tool for
near surface soil investigation.” In Proc., 10th Formation Evaluation
Symp. Chiba, Japan: Japan Formation Evaluation Society.
Gabr, M. A., K. Hopkins, J. Coonse, and T. Hearne. 2000. “DCP criteria for
performance evaluation of pavement layers.” J. Perform. Constr. Facil.
14 (4): 141–148. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3828(2000)
14:4(141).
Ganju, E., H. Kim, M. Prezzi, R. Salgado, and N. Z. Siddiki. 2016. “Quality
assurance and quality control of subgrade compaction using the dy-
namic cone penetrometer.” Int. J. Pavement Eng. 1–10. https://doi
.org/10.1080/10298436.2016.1227664.
Harison, J. A. 1987. “Correlation between California bearing ratio and
dynamic cone penetrometer strength measurement of soils.” Proc. Inst.
Civ. Eng. 83 (4): 833–844. https://doi.org/10.1680/iicep.1987.204.
IRC (Indian Roads Congress). 2000. Guidelines on quality systems for
roads. IRC:SP:57. New Delhi, India: IRC.
Kim, H., M. Prezzi, and R. Salgado. 2010. Use of dynamic cone penetration
and Clegg hammer tests for quality control of roadway compaction and
construction. FHWA/IN/JTRP-2010/27. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue Univ.
Kleyn, E. G. 1975. The use of the dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP).
Rep. No. L2/74. Pretoria, South Africa: Transvaal Roads Dept.
Krebs, R. D., and E. D. Walker. 1971. Highway materials, 428. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Lee, C., K. S. Kim, W. Woo, and W. Lee. 2014. “Soil stiffness gauge (SSG)
and dynamic cone penetrometer tests for estimating engineering
properties of weathered sandy soils in Korea.” Eng. Geol. 169: 91–99.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2013.11.010.
© ASCE 04018086-10
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2018, 144(9): 04018086
Livneh, M. 1989. “Validation of correlations between a number of penetra-
tion tests and in situ California bearing ratio tests.” Transp. Res. Rec.
1219: 56–67.
Livneh, M. 1991. “Verification of California bearing ratio and elastic modu-
lus values from local DCP tests.” In Vol. 1 of Proc., 9th Asian Regional
Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 45–50.
Bangkok, Thailand: Southeast Asian Regional Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering.
Livneh, M., I. Ishai, and N. A. Livneh. 1994. “Effect of vertical confine-
ment on dynamic cone penetrometer strength values in pavement and
subgrade evaluations.” Transp. Res. Rec. 1473: 1–8.
Livneh, M., N. S. Livneh, and I. Ishai. 2000. “The Israeli experience with
the regular and extended dynamic cone penetrometer for pavement and
subsoil-strength evaluation.” In Vol. 3 of ASTM STP 1375: Nondestruc-
tive testing of pavements and back-calculation of moduli, edited by
S. D. Tayabji and E. O. Lukanen. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
McCook, D. K., and D. W. Shanklin. 2000. “NRCS experience with field
density test methods including the sand cone, nuclear gauge, rubber
balloon, drive-cylinder, and clod test.” In ASTM STP1384: Constructing
and controlling compaction of earth fills, edited by D. W. Shanklin,
K. R. Rademacher, and J. R. Talbot, 72–92. West Conshohocken,
PA: ASTM.
Meehan, C. L., F. S. Tehrani, and F. Vahedifard. 2012. “A comparison of
density-based and modulus-based in situ test measurements for com-
paction control.” Geotech. Test. J. 35 (3): 387–399. https://doi.org/10
.1520/GTJ103479.
Mohammad, L. N., M. D. Nazzal, M. Abu-Farsakh, and K. Alshibli. 2009.
“Estimation of subgrade soils resilient modulus from in situ devices test
results.” J. Test. Eval. 37 (3): 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1520/JTE101993.
Mohammadi, D., M. R. Nikoudel, H. Rahimi, and M. Khamehchiyan.
2008. “Application of the dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) for deter-
mination of the engineering parameters of sandy soils.” Eng. Geol.
101 (3–4): 195–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2008.05.006.
Ping, W. V., Z. Yang, and Z. Gao. 2002. “Field and laboratory determina-
tion of granular subgrade moduli.” J. Perform. Constr. Facil 16 (4):
149–159. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3828(2002)16:4(149).
Rahman, F., M. Hossain, M. M. Hunt, and S. A. Romanoschi. 2008.
“Soil stiffness evaluation for compaction control of cohesionless embank-
ments.” Geotech. Test. J. 31 (5): 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1520/GTJ100971.
Salgado, R., and S. Yoon. 2003. Dynamic cone penetration test (DCPT)
for subgrade assessment. FHWA/IN/JTRP-2002/30. West Lafayette,
IN: Purdue Univ.
Scala, A. J. 1956. “Simple methods of flexible pavement design using cone
penetrometers.” N. Z. Eng. 11 (2): 34–44.
Sebesta, S., C. Estakhri, T. Scullion, and W. Liu. 2006. New technologies
for evaluating flexible pavement construction. Rep. No. FHWA/TX-06/
0-4774-1. Austin, TX: Texas DOT.
Siekmeier, J., C. Pinta, S. Merth, J. Jensen, P. Davich, F. Camargo, and M.
Beyer. 2009. Using the dynamic cone penetrometer and light weight
deflectometer for construction quality assurance. Rep. No. MN/RC
2009-12. Saint Paul, MN: Minnesota Dept. of Transportation.
Talbot, J. R. 2000. “Evaluation of procedures presented in TR-26 and
TR-27 for design and construction of earth fills using soil containing
oversize rock particles.” In ASTM STP1384: Constructing and control-
ling compaction of earth fills, edited by D. W. Shanklin, K. R.
Rademacher, and J. R. Talbot, 185–196. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
Van Vuuren, D. J. 1969. “Rapid determination of CBR with the portable
dynamic cone penetrometer.” Rhodesian Eng. 7 (5): 852.
Webster, S. L., R. H. Grau, and R. P. Williams. 1992. Description and
application of dual mass dynamic cone penetrometer. Instruction
Rep. No. GL-92-3. Vicksburg, MS: US Army Engineering Waterways
Experiment Station.
Yang, B., R. Zhang, X. Zha, C. Liu, and Q. Pan. 2016. “Improved testing
method of dynamic cone penetrometer in laboratory for evaluating com-
paction properties of soil subgrade.” Road Mater. Pavement Des. 17 (2):
487–498. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2015.1091375.
Yoon, S., B. Umashankar, I. Z. Yildirim, M. Prezzi, and N. Z. Siddiki. 2009.
“Construction of embankment with a fly and bottom ash mixture: Field
performance study.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 21 (6): 271–278. https://doi.org
/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2009)21:6(271).
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.