UNIVERSITY OF DAR ES SALAAM

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

TR 635: GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

GROUP NO. 3 ASSIGNMENT
LITERATURE REVIEW
on
TITLE: Parametric Study of DPL and Laboratory Test Results in Cohesive and
Cohesionless Soil

STUDENT’S NAME: Imelda Ngailo 2022-06-00711

Enock Ngaitta 2022-06-02367
Frimini Beatus 2022-06-00145
Lameck Owit 2022-06-02401

ACADEMIC YEAR : 2022/2023

INSTRUCTOR : Dr. J. Elvis.

DECEMBER 2022
Title: Parametric Study of DPL and Laboratory Test Results in Cohesive and

Cohesionless Soil

1. Introduction
Before laying any foundation structure for a civil engineering structure, the two main stages of
a geotechnical tasks involve identification of soil parameters for design through ground
investigation and design of foundation. In the initial stage, geotechnical investigation carried
out through in-situ works and/or laboratory testing of samples obtained from the particular site
area. In formal practice, test results yield parameters needed for design using the existing
relations established between those parameters (Lingwanda, Larsson and Nyaoro, 2015). There
are numerous accepted in-situ testing methods to determine details of the subsurface conditions
with respect to foundation design. Better information is obtained through combining testing
techniques in a single soil investigation than from using any one testing technique alone. The
transformation error from measured to evaluated property can be considerably decreased using
a variety of techniques (Rogers, 2006). Dynamic Prob Light (DPL) is a method of site
investigation permitting a quick examination of ground conditions of which sample retrieval is
not vital. The ‘Blow Count’ from DPL yield a relative determination of ‘ground strength’
although this parameters cannot be used to absolutely approve the definite composition of a
particular geological strata, therefore any reference to strata composition is an interpretation,
subject to the results from further laboratory test.(EN ISO 22476-2, 2002).

2. Problem Statement
In geotechnical engineering, field tests are essential for determination of the underlaying
ground conditions. Several Static and dynamic Tests have been developed over years to assess
the ground conditions like SPT, CPT and DPL tests. SPT test because of the large database to
estimate soil’s resistance is the most widely used test followed by CPT and Dynamic Probing
which have seen an upsurge in their use and applicability (dos Santos and Bicalho, 2017). For
quicker assessment of site stratification at lower cost, Dynamic Probing Light (DPL) is used
by geotechnical engineers in Tanzania (Lingwanda, Larsson and Nyaoro, 2015). However this
test is less popular round the word as compared to SPT and CPT, several scholars have tried to
develop correlation between DPL-SPT, DPL-CPT (Spagnoli, 2007, dos Santos and Bicalho,
2017 and Lingwanda, Larsson and Nyaoro, 2015).

2
Since DPL is the cheapest tool that can be used for quick assessment of the site stratification
at higher flexibility, its study can be extended to correlate with laboratory results. This study
will focus on correlating the DPL blow number with equivalent soil relative density, cohesion
and friction angle with varying condition of moisture and the consistency limits of cohesive
and non-cohesive soil using regression analysis.

3. Literature Review
3.1. Dynamic Probing Light (DPL) Test (DIN EN ISO 22476-2:2012)
Dynamic Probing Light test represents the lower mass range of the dynamic equipments.
Others Include dynamic probing medium (DPM) representing the medium mass range, DPH
and DPSH representing heavy and the upper end of the mass range of dynamic equipment.

For dynamic Probing Light Test a hammer of 10kg is being dropped from a height of 50cm to
penetrate the probe with the rod into the ground. Blows are recorded after every 10cm of
penetration into the ground. Figure 1 shows the schematic arrangement of DPL test (Alam,
Hossain and Azad, 2014 and ISO 22476-2:2012). Table 1 details the characteristic of the
equipment used for testing.

Table 1: DPL Test Equipment Properties

Hammer Drop Height Cone Angle Cone Diameter of

Energy (J)
Mass (kg) (mm) (0) Diameter Rods (mm)
10 500 90 35.7 49 22

3
 Figure 1: Schematic Arrangement of DPL Test (After Hossain and Azad, 2014)

Various studies were conducted on correlation between the dynamic penetration index and
different soil parameters. Alam, Hossain and Azad, (2014) established correlation between
DPL penetration index and relative density of clean sand of known gradation. Radaszewski
and Wierzbicki, (2011) developed correlation between the density index and the N10 obtained
from the DPL test. Summary of previous correlation done by other researchers are summarized
in Table 2.

Table 2: Correlation of Various Parameters with DPL Results

DPL Relationship Correlation Authors

−𝑃𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑥 √𝐷50
𝐷𝑟 (%) = 104.3312𝑒 18.1307 (Alam, Hossain and Azad,
Relative Density
2014)
− 1.4769
(Radaszewski and Wierzbicki,
Density Index 𝐼𝐷 = 0.429 log 𝑁10 + 0.071
2011)

4
References

Alam, M.J., Hossain, M.S. and Azad, A.K. (2014) ‘Development of correlation between
dynamic cone resistance and relative density of sand’, Journal of Civil Engineering (IEB),
42(1), pp. 63–76.

EN ISO 22476-2 (2002) ‘Geotechnical engineering - Field testing-Dynamic probing’, ISO standards
[Preprint].
Lingwanda, M.I., Larsson, S. and Nyaoro, D.L. (2015) ‘Correlations of SPT , CPT and DPL Data for
Sandy Soil in Tanzania’, Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 33(5), pp. 1221–1233. Available
at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-015-9897-1.
Radaszewski, R. and Wierzbicki, J. (2011) ‘On the applicability of in situ soil probings togeological
analyses’, Geologos, 17(1), pp. 5–16. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2478/v10118-011-0001-x.
Rogers, J.D. (2006) ‘Subsurface exploration using the Standard Penetration Test and the Cone
Penetrometer Test’, Environmental and Engineering Geoscience, 12(2), pp. 161–179. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.2113/12.2.161.
dos Santos, M.D. and Bicalho, K.V. (2017) ‘Proposals of SPT-CPT and DPL-CPT correlations for
sandy soils in Brazil’, Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 9(6), pp. 1152–1158.
Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2017.08.001.
Spagnoli, G. (2007) ‘An empirical correlation between different dynamic penetrometers’, Electronic
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering (EJGE), 12, pp. 1–11.