Advertisement

Assessing the Effect of Density and Water Level on the Degree of Compaction of Sand Using Dynamic Cone Penetration Test

  • Abdulrahman M. HamidEmail author
  • Omar S. Baghabra Al-Amoudi
  • Saad A. Aiban
Research Article - Civil Engineering
  • 11 Downloads

Abstract

Saudi Arabia has witnessed unparalleled development in all types of construction, especially in eastern Saudi Arabia where the major oil and petrochemical industries are located. The major projects are mostly located on sandy soil, and it is difficult to assess the physical properties of this soil using conventional methods. Consequently, laboratory and field studies were conducted to evaluate the density of sandy soil utilizing dynamic cone penetration test (DCPT). The laboratory study was conducted on sand specimens prepared with different relative densities (40%, 60% and 90%). Additionally, the effect of the level of water table on DCPT values was investigated. The density of soil at two field sites was assessed by using DCPT and nuclear gauge. Test results indicated that an increase in the dry density and shear strength was associated with a decrease in the dynamic cone penetration index. Further, the variation in the water table level had a significant impact on DCPT results due to the changes in the effective stress. The DCP resistance for fully drained sand increased significantly by as much as 170% compared with the fully submerged or dry sand, due to the development of negative pore water pressure. Further, the results of this investigation have shown that DCPT is an effective and reliable tool to assess the degree of compaction of sandy soils. Reliable correlations between density, relative density and degree of compaction of sandy soils have also been developed.

Keywords

Dynamic cone penetration test Nuclear gauge Sandy soil Relative density Water table Field and laboratory tests 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors express their gratitude to Hadhramout Establishment for Human Development and King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals (KFUPM) for the opportunity and support to accomplish this work. Special thanks are to Sheikh Abdullah A. Bugshan for his continuous support.

References

  1. 1.
    Rathje, E.; Wright, S.; Stokoe, K.; Adams, A.; Tobin, R.; Salem, M.: Evaluation of non-nuclear methods for compaction control. Technical Report, Texas Department of Transportation, Austin (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Burnham, T.R.; Johnson, D.: In-situ foundation characterization using the dynamic cone penetrometer. Final Report, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Maplewood, USA (1993)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Salgado, R.; Yoon, S.: Dynamic cone penetration test (DCPT) for subgrade assessment, Publication FHWA/IN/JTRP-2002/30. Joint Transportation Research Program. Indiana Department of Transportation and Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Acar, Y.B.; Puppala, A.J.; Seals, R.K.: Calibration of a dynamic penetrometer for compaction quality control of boiler slag. Geotech. Test. J. 14(1), 56–63 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Amini, F.: Potential applications of dynamic and static cone penetrometers in MDOT pavement design and construction. Final Report, Mississippi Department of Transportation, MS, USA (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Burnham, T.R.: Application of the dynamic cone penetrometer to Minnesota department of transportation pavement assessment procedures. Final Report, Minnesota Department of Transportation, USA (1997)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Herrick, J.E.; Jones, T.L.: A dynamic cone penetrometer for measuring soil penetration resistance. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 66, 1320–1324 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Konrad, J.M.; Lachance, D.: Use of in situ penetration tests in pavement evaluation. Can. Geotech. J. 35(5), 924–935 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wu, S.; Sargand, S.M.: Use of dynamic cone penetrometer in subgrade and base acceptance. Final Technical Report, FHWA/ODOT-2007/01, Ohio Research Institute for Transportation and the Environment (ORITE). Ohio, USA (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Al-Refeai, T.; Al-Suhaibani, A.: Prediction of CRR using dynamic cone penetrometer. J. King Saud Uni. (Eng. Sci.) 9(2), 191–204 (1997)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Coonse, J.: Estimating California bearing ratio of cohesive piedmont residual soil using the scala dynamic cone penetrometer. MS thesis, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, N.C., USA (1999)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ese, D.; Myre, J.; Noss, P.; Vaernes, E.: The use of dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) for road strengthening design in Norway. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference, Bearing Capacity of Roads and Airfields, Minneapolis, MN, USA (1994)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gabr, M.; Hopkins, K.; Coonse, J.; Hearne, T.: DCP criteria for performance evaluation of pavement layers. J. Perform. Constr. Facil. ASCE 14(4), 141–148 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Harison, J.A.: Correlation of CBR and dynamic cone penetrometer strength measurement of soils. Aust. Road Res. 16(2), 130–136 (1986)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Harison, J.A.: In situ CBR determination by DCP testing using a laboratory-based correlation. Aust. Road Res. 19(4), 313–317 (1989)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Smith, R.B.; Pratt, D.N.: A field study of in situ California bearing ratio and dynamic cone penetrometer testing for subgrade investigation. Aust. Road Res. 13(4), 285–293 (1983)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Truebe, M.A.; Evans, G.L.; Bolander, P.: Lowell test road: helping improve road surfacing design. In: Sixth International Conference on Low-Volume Roads, Minneapolis, MN, USA (1995)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Webster, S.L.; Grau, R.H.; Williams, T.P.: Description and application of dual mass dynamic cone penetrometer. Final Report, US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, USA (1992)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Webster, S.L.; Brown, R.W.; Porter, J.R.: Force projection site evaluation using the electric cone penetrometer (ECP) and the dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP). Technical Report, US Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, USA (1994)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zumrawi, M.M.E.: Prediction of in-situ CBR of subgrade cohesive soils from dynamic cone penetrometer and soil properties. IACSIT Int. J. Eng. Technol. 6(5), 439–442 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lingwanda, M.I.; Larsson, S.; Nyaoro, D.L.: Correlations of SPT, CPT and DPL data for sandy soil in Tanzania. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 33(5), 1221–1233 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Santos, M.D.; Bicalho, K.V.: Proposals of SPT-CPT and DPL-CPT correlations for sandy soils in Brazil. J. Rock Mech. Geotech. Eng. 9(6), 1152–1158 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pinheiro, C.; Molina-Gómez, F.; Rios, S.; da Fonseca, A.V.; Miranda, T.: Correlations between dynamic penetrometer light and cone penetration tests in intermediate soils: a statistical comparison. In: XIX Congresso Brasileiro de Mecânica dos Solos e Engenharia Geotécnica, Salvador, Bahia (2018)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Abu-Farsakh, M.Y.; Nazzal, M.D.; Alshibli, K.; Seyman, E.: Soil parameters for pavement design and subgrade resilient modulus: application of dynamic cone penetrometer in pavement construction control. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 1913, 52–61 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mohammadi, S.D.; Nikoudel, M.R.; Rahimi, H.; Khamehchiyan, M.: Application of the dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) for determination of the engineering parameters of sandy soils. Eng. Geol. 101, 195–203 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kim, H.; Prezzi, M.; Salgado, R.: Use of dynamic cone penetration and Clegg hammer tests for quality control of roadway compaction and construction. Publication FHWA/IN/JTRP-2010/27. Joint Transportation Research Program. Indiana Department of Transportation and Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA (2010)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hamid, A.M.: Assessment of density and shear strength of eastern Saudi sands using dynamic cone penetration testing (DCPT). MS thesis, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia (2013)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hamid, A.M.: The dynamic cone penetration test: a review of its correlations and applications. In: International Conference on Advances in Civil and Environmental Engineering, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia (2015)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schnaid, F.; Houlsby, G.T.: Assessment of chamber size effects in the calibration of in-situ tests in sand. Geotechnique 41(3), 437–445 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Vandre, B.; Budge, A.; Nussbaum, S.: DCP—a useful tool for characterizing soil properties at shallow depths. In: Proceedings of the 34th Symposium on Engineering Geology and Geotechnical Engineering. Utah State University, Logan, UT (1999)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bowles, J.E.: Engineering Properties of Soils and Their Measurement. McGraw-Hill Inc, New York (1992)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Meyerhof, G.G.: Compaction of sands and the bearing capacity of piles. JSMFD, ASCE 85, 1–29 (1959)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Russell, A.R.; Khalili, N.: A unified bounding surface plasticity model for unsaturated soils. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 30, 181–212 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Masin, D.; Khalili, N.: A hypoplastic model for mechanical response of unsaturated soils. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 32, 1903–1926 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mitchell, J.K.; Soga, K.: Fundamentals of Soil Behavior, 3rd edn. Hoboken, New Jersey (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Abdulrahman M. Hamid
    • 1
    Email author
  • Omar S. Baghabra Al-Amoudi
    • 2
  • Saad A. Aiban
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada
  2. 2.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringKing Fahd University of Petroleum and MineralsDhahranSaudi Arabia

Personalised recommendations