DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER

MANUAL
 CONTENTS

Chapter 1
1.1 Introduction/Scope
1.2 Apparatus
1.3 DCP Maintenance

Chapter 2
2.1 Method/Test Procedure
2.2 Step-by-Step Procedure
2.3 Notes
2.4 Points of Caution
2.5 Test Location & Frequency Determination

Chapter 3
3.1 Calculations
3.2 Processing Test Results
3.3 California Bearing Ratio
3.4 Constructability of Soils
3.5 Limiting DPI Values Based on Soil Type
3.6 Examples of DCP Applications

Chapter 4
4.1 References
 CHAPTER 1

1.1 INTRODUCTION/SCOPE

This method describes the determination of the rate of penetration of the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer
(DCP) into a natural or compacted material by virtue of the built-in-hammer. The penetration rate is
inversely proportional to the resistance of the ground to the penetration of the cone of the DCP and may
be related, inter alia, to the in situ CBR or soil density.

Measuring the strength of in situ soil and the thickness and location of underlying soil layers can be
accomplished using a simple, hand-held device called the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer )DCP). Used worldwide
the DCP is an inexpensive and easily transportable tool.

The Dynamic Cone Penetrometer consists of two 16mm diameter shafts coupled near midpoint. The lower shaft
contains an anvil and a pointed tip which is driven into the soil by dropping a sliding hammer contained on the
upper shaft onto the anvil. The underlying soil strength is determined by measuring the penetration of the lower
shaft into the soil after each hammer drop. This value is recorded in millimetres per blow and is known as the
DCP Penetration Index. (DPI). The penetration index can be plotted versus depth to identify thicknesses and
strengths of different pavement layers or can be correlated to other soil strength parameters such as the
California Bearing Ratio (CBR).

1.2 APPARATUS
DCP is comprised of the following elements:
 Handle: The handle is located at the top of the device. It is used to hold the DCP shafts plumb and to
limit the upward movement of the hammer.
 Hammer: The 8kg hammer is manually raised to the bottom of the handle and then dropped (allowed to
free fall) to transfer energy through the lower shaft to the cone tip. It is guided by the upper shaft.
 Upper Shaft: The upper shaft is a 16mm diameter steel shaft on which the hammer moves. The length
of the upper shaft allows the hammer to drop a distance of 575mm.
 Anvil: The anvil serves as the lower stopping mechanism for the hammer. It also serves as a connector
between the upper and lower shaft. This allows for disassembly which reduces the size of the
instrument for transport.
 Lower Shaft: The lower shaft is a 16mm diameter steel shaft with attached ruler for recording the
penetration after each hammer drop.
 Cone: The cone measures in 20mm diameter and standard 60 degree.

A DCP Set Comprises of:

 Complete DCP(upper & lower shaft, hammer, ruler and point)
 DCP Bag
 Spanners
 Extra DCP Point
 Reflective Vest
 Manual

Extra Accessories/Spare Parts:

 DCP Points
 DCP Disposable Points
 DCP Extension Rod (1m)
 DCP Bottom Rod (1m/2m)
 DCP Top Rod with Hammer
 DCP Ruler
 DCP Disposable Point Adaptor
 DCP Extruder
 Reflective Vest
Apparatus to use:
 DCP complete with appropriate spanners, spare cones, rods etc
 A pick of hand auger
 A spade
 A measuring tape, 2m long
 Traffic cones
 Warning signs and flags as required
 Reflective vest

1.3 DCP MAINTENANCE

Because the DCP is driven into the ground sometimes into very hard soil layers, regular maintenance and care
are required. To ensure that the device operates properly the following guidelines must be followed.

1. Never extract the DCP from the test hole by forcefully striking the hammer against the handle, always
use a jack unless it is not possible because of test location restrictions, shallow testing or use in soft
soils. Striking the handle causes accelerated wear and may lead to broken welds and connections.
2. Monitor the condition of the connection bolt. Extra bolts should be kept in the DCP carrying case/bag
because they frequently become stripped or broken and may need to be replaced during testing.
3. Keep the upper shaft clean. Lubricate very lightly with oil if binding develops. Do no lay the device on
the ground. Frequently wipe both shafts clean with a soft cloth during use.
4. Monitor the DCP for excessive wear on any of the components and make repairs as needed. Because
the DCP is a standardized testing device, its overall weight and dimensions must not change from
specifications.
5. The cone tip should be replaced when the diameter of its widest section is reduced by more than 10%
or the con’s surface is gouged by rocks. Inspect the cone tip before and after each test.

CHAPTER 2

2.1 METHOD/TEST PROCEDURE

Conducting a DCP test involves raising and dropping the hammer to drive the cone on the lower shaft through
the underlying pavement layers. Typically after each hammer blow the penetration of the cone is measured and
recorded. In stiffer soils readings may be recorded after several hammer blows. The cone can be driven a total of
0.75 to 1m at each test location.

Each test takes approximately 5 to 10 minutes but may take up to 20 to 30 minutes if the bound pavement
surface needs to be cored and then patched after testing.

DCP testing can be performed by a crew of one to three people. A person working alone must raise and drop the
hammer plus measure and record the penetration. The use of a video camera to record the cone penetration for
each blow is possible. The video camera should be positioned at the pavement surface. When testing has been
completed the video should be reviewed and data record. When using this method it is critical that the
calibration scale be legible on the shaft for the data to be accurate.

With a two-person crew, one person operated the hammer and the other person is positioned at the pavement
surface to read and record the penetration for each blow. If the optional remote scale is used readings can be
taken from the top scale guide.

A three-person crew enables one person to operate the hammer, one positioned at the pavement surface to read
the penetration values and the third to record the data. Having a second crew member will result in a significant
increase in production, while a third crew member may increase production only a limited amount.

Common errors which may occur during testing include the operator not holding the DCP device plumb and
incorrect reading and recording of the test data.
2.2 STEP-BY-STEP PROCEDURE

1. Assemble the DCP. Begin by attaching the remote scale guide (if used) to the anvil area. Guide the top
of the remote scale into the scale guide while lowering the shaft through the bottom guide. Attach the
cone tip, checking for damage or wear. Connect the upper and lower shafts. (Use caution to avoid
pinching fingers between the hammer and anvil) Line up connection hole and insert connection bolt
washer and pins.
2. When testing soil layers beneath a bound pavement surface a hole must first be cut through the bound
pavement layer. The DCP is not intended to be driven through concrete or thick bituminous pavements.
The hole must be at least 50mm in diameter and the operator must be careful to not disturb the unbound
layers beneath. If a water-cooled cutting device is used the DCP test should be run immediately after
cutting the hole to limit the saturation of the unbound layers. Excess water should be removed from the
home immediately.
3. Fill out the test location and project information of data sheet or data recording form.
4. Place the DCP on the test surface or insert the DCP into the centre of the hole holding the shafts plumb.
The shaft should not touch the edge of the hole during the test because the friction between the shaft
and the edge will affect the data.
5. With one hand placed on the top handle use other hand to seat the cone by dropping the hammer from a
partial height until the widest part of the cone is below the reference surface. Do not record penetration
during the seating operation; data analysis is based on the full imprint area of the cone being in contact
with the soil materials. Seating also positions the cone past any disturbed surface material.
6. Establish a reference for reading the penetration of the shaft after each blow. If a second crew member
is reading the shaft a straight-edge positioned next to the DCP shaft will make a good reference point.
The straight-edge is a reference level that must remain constant for accurate depth readings. If a remote
scale is used the top of the scale guide should serve as a reference point. If a video camera is being
used position it to focus on the bottom 60-90mm of the shaft above the movement surface. Make sure
the scale of the shaft is pointed toward the camera and is legible on the video monitor.
7. On the data sheet record the current shaft reading as the starting point to blow number zero start the
video camera is used one
8. Raise the hammer to its upper limit using caution to not lift the shaft and break contact between the
cone and the unbound material. Let the hammer fall freely to the anvil. Be careful to not influence the
drop by forcing the hammer down or gripping the upper handle to tightly.
9. Record the reading and blow count by reading he shaft to the nearest millimetre if using a metric scale.
Record this as penetration for blow number 1.
10. Repeat steps 8 and 9 until the cone is driven the full depth of the lower shaft, the total penetration is
less than 3mm/blow for ten consecutive drops or the desired depth is reached.
11. If the lower shaft has penetrated full depth and you wish to add an extension rod for further penetration,
do the following: below the anvil on the bottom shaft we have specially designed a cut into the lower
shaft to remove the top shaft and anvil. Use your spanners to turn the shaft just below the anvil until
lose. Remove the loosened part and screw in the DCP extension rod onto the bottom shaft already in
the ground. After tightening the extension the top rod with anvil can be retightened onto the extension
rod. Ensure that the rods are secured and not over tighten that will cause the shaft to strip. Repeat step 8
and 9.
12. To remove the DCP from the hole a DCP Extruder can be used. Begin the extraction by placing the
“jack tongue” under the handle of the device. Then lower the jack handle to finish extracting the DCP
from the test hole.
13. Wipe off the upper and lower shafts and inspect the cone for any damage.

DO NOT REMOVE THE DCP BY FORCEFULLY STRIKING THE HAMMER AGAINST THE HANDLE. THIS WILL
DAMAGE THE DCP. FOR SHALLOW TEST OR TEST IN SOFTER MATERIAL THE HAMMER MAY BE LIGHTLY
TAPPED AGAINST THE HANDLE TO REMOVE THE INSTRUMENT FROM THE GROUND.

14. Fill and compact the test hole.

Before and after each test,examine the
DCP Cone Tipfor damage.

The top of the scale guide

When assembling the DCP should be used as a reference
line up the connecting hole point when the remote scale
to the bottom coupling and is used.
insert connecting bolts.
Tighten with bolts and use
spanner and allen key
provided.

Allen key and spanner provided

with the DCP.

2.3 NOTES
 The DCP may be used to assess the density of a fairly uniform material be relating density to
penetration rate (DN) on the same material. In this way under compacted of “soft spots” can be
identified even though the DCP does not measure density directly.
 A field DCP measurement results in a field or in situ CBR and will normally not correlate with the
laboratory or soaked CBR of the same material. The test is thus intended to evaluate the in situ strength
of a material under prevailing conditions. If a number of DCP penetrations have to be compared with
one another (or with target values), or when the mean values for a section of road have to be estimated,
the DN values may be recorded on the DCP layer-strength diagram.
 The cone must be replaced when its diameter has been reduced by 5% or it has been visibly damaged.
 Readings after each blow are recommended for thin layers say up to 150mm thick but readings after
every fifth blow are usually sufficient. The regularity of readings also depends on the rate of
penetration. Readings should be taken more often with every soft material than with resistant material.
 The results may be plotted on the work sheet as the readings are taken to get an immediate indication of
the penetration rate for each layer.
 If necessary, samples of the material can be taken after the DCP test using a hand auger or a pick and
shovel for harder material.
2.4 POINTS OF CAUTION

1. Always use caution to avoid pinching fingers between the hammer and anvil. During testing use the
handle to hold shafts plumb. Do not hold the dcp near the anvil area.
2. It is important to lift the hammer slowly and drop it cleanly allowing at least two seconds to elapse
between drops. Lofting and dropping too rapidly may affect results because the hammer’s full energy
may not be allowed to transfer to the lower shaft.
3. If testing in very fine-grained or cohesive soil, it may be necessary to rotate the device shaft every few
drops to prevent sticking.

2.5 TEST LOCATION & FREQUENCY DETERMINATION

To correctly profile the strength and thickness of soil layers in a given area, each site should be assessed
individually to determine the proper frequency and location of the DCP tests.

Example:
DCP tests spaced at 30m and offset from centreline left and right by 3m (outer wheel-paths). Tests conducted on
both the tops of base and sub grade material to a maximum depth of approximately 1m. The minimum distance
between tests should be 300mm.

CHAPTER 3

3.1 CALCULATIONS

1. The DCP penetration depths in mm are plotted against the number of blows and a penetration cure is
drawn, the angle of which is the penetration rate, known as the “DCP Number” (DN) in mm/blow. A
consistent slope angle thus indicates a consistent DN for that particular zone.
2. In situ shear strength (CBR). From the curve the DN (in mm/blow) at different zones or the mean over
a chosen depth may be calculated to obtain the in situ shear strength of the particular zone. The DN of a
specific zone is obtained by dividing the zone thickness by the number of hammer blows to penetrate
that zone.
3. From Table 1 the equivalent in situ CBR value of that zone can be obtained.

Table 1

DCP NUMBER IN SITU CBR DCP NUMBER IN SITU CBR

(mm/blow) (mm/blow)

3 110 16 13
4 75 17 12
5 55 18 11
6 45 19 10
7 35 20 9
8 30 22 8
9 25 25 7
10 22 28 6
11 20 32 5
12 18 38 4
13 16 48 3
14 15 60-70 2
15 14 +80 1
3.2 PROCESSING TEST RESULTS
DCP test results are expressed in terms of the DPI, defined as the vertical movement of the DCP cone produced
by one drop of the hammer, expressed in mm/blow. Stiffer of stronger soils have a lower DPI. The DPI is used
to identify pavement layer boundaries, determine material layer strengths and estimate overall strength of the
unbound materials.

During or soon after testing data should be recorded in spreadsheet form.

Example

DCP TEST LOCATION

Blow Count Rod/Ruler Invert Reading Penetration Index Estimated CBR

Reading (mm) (mm) (mm/blow)
0 4.2 -4.2 0 ERR
1 4.4 -4.4 0.2 60
2 4.6 -4.6 0.2 60
3 4.7 -4.7 0.1 104
4 4.8 -4.8 0.1 104
5 5.0 -5.0 0.2 60
6 5.1 -5.1 0.1 104
7 5.2 -5.2 0.1 104
8 5.3 -5.3 0.1 104
9 5.4 -5.4 0.1 104
10 5.6 -5.6 0.2 60
11 5.7 -5.7 0.1 104
12 5.8 -5.8 0.1 104
13 6.0 -6.0 0.2 60
14 6.1 -6.1 0.1 104
15 6.2 -6.2 0.1 104
16 6.4 -6.4 0.2 60
17 6.6 -6.6 0.2 60
18 7.0 -7.0 0.4 30
19 7.2 -7.2 0.2 60
20 7.6 -7.6 0.4 30
21 8.2 -8.2 0.6 19

Data for the first two columns is taken from the field test form. The third column is the invert of the shaft
reading. (The invert is used to aid in graphing) The fourth column represents the penetration index which is
calculated by subtracting the previous from the present DCP shaft readings and dividing by the difference in the
present and previous blow counts. The fifth column calculates the estimated CBR, base on a given equation.

To define layer boundaries in a pavement structure a plot of the DPI versus depth should be developed. The
graph will clearly show a profile of the depth and relative strength of the different sub grade of base layers.
Example

SOIL PROFILE from DCP TESTING

Surface 0

125
Penetration below Tip of Base (mm)

250

Class 3
375

500

625

750

875

Clay/Silt
1000

1125
0 12.5 25 37.5 50

Penetration Index (mm/blow)

It is possible that several layers may exist in the sub grade without a significant change in penetration rate per
blow. This sub grade should be treated as one layer. In most layered conditions there is a DPI transition zone
across both materials which will be recorded with testing.

3.3 CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO

The most common correlation of DCP data is between the DPI and the California Bearing Ration (CBR)

Research has shown that the effects of soil moisture content and dry density influence both CBR and DCP
testing in a similar way and are typically considered negligible for this correlation.
The following is a table of typical CBR and DPI ranges for various soils. The CBR is expressed as a percentage
and DPI is expressed in mm/blow.

SOIL TYPE CBR RANGE DPI RANGE

Clay (CL) 2-17 127-15
Sand (S-W) 17-45 15-6
Gravel (G-W) 53-100 5-2.7

Loose sands and gravel will have higher DPI values.

3.4 CONSTRUCTIBILITY OF SOILS
Construction operations and pavement performance are directly related to sub grade stability. In most situations
construction-based stability considerations will control performance. The in situ sub grade CBR should be at
least 6 to minimize rutting damage to the finished grade prior to paving and to provide adequate sub grade
support of proper compaction of the aggregate base and overlying pavement layers. Sub grade strength may be
determined easily by conducting DCP tests. Soils with CBR values less than 8 may need remedial procedures
such as sub-cutting, drying and recompaction, backfilling with granular borrow or lime treatment.

CBR values of less than 8 correlate to DPI vales greater than or equal to 25mm/blow.

3.5 LIMITING DPI VALUES BASED ON SOIL TYPE

Over 700 DCP test were conducted on a Road Project in Minnesota during construction. These tests were
analyzed and summarized to determine the limiting DPI value for each particular sub grade soil and base type.
Test results were also analyzed to determine the effect of the base course application on underlying sub grade
layers. The following general observation was made.

 Identifiable DPI limits could be determined for the clay/silt sub grade, select granular sub grade and
Class 3 special base materials
 The effect of confinement from the base course layer could be seen clearly during the analysis of the
select granular sections.

Based on the analysis the following DPI limiting values are recommended when analyzing DCP test results.
 Clay/Silt: DPI <25mm/blow
 Select Granular: DPI <7mm/blow
 Class 3 Special: DPI <5mm/blow

These values were chosen assuming adequate confinement near the testing surface. If these limits are exceeded
during a rehabilitation study additional soil testing methods are recommended.

3.6 EXAMPLES OF DCP APPLICATIONS

Locating layers in pavement structures and pavement rehabilitation strategy

determination
Plots of DPI versus depth can be used to identify limits of underlying pavement layers as well as the relative
strength of those layers. DCP testing has been used to measure the relative strengths of stabilized and
unstabilized road layers. It has also been used to evaluate existing pavement base, sub base and sub grade layer
thicknesses and strength during rehabilitation evaluations.

Supplementing foundation testing for design

A DCP test can provide additional qualitative and quantitative in situ foundation information during normal soil
survey sampling operations. Conducting a DCP test through a drill hole or near a thin wall hole gathers
supplemental information for comparison with laboratory results. This additional information can lead to better
design decisions. To assist in developing a better understanding of the effects of soil type and moisture content
on the penetration index, small soil samples should be obtained on a periodic basis. These samples should be
tested for soil classification and gravimetric moisture content. Sand cone or nuclear density test may also be
taken near DCP test locations and used for further investigation into compaction correlations.

Identifying weak spots in constructed embankments

DCP testing was used in October of 1991 to evaluate the embankment density on a TH-212 bridge.
Measurements at the site demonstrated the ability of the DCP to map out weak spots and to highlight the
variability of what was presumed to be uniformly compacted material.

Using as an acceptance testing tool

DCP testing is presently used as an acceptance tool for the compaction of pavement edge drain trenches.
Methods are being developed for its use in testing the compaction of roadway base layers. An attractive
alternative to sane cone density testing the DCP test is easier to perform and results are available much more
quickly. The DCP is also an efficient construction acceptance tool because it may be operated by one person, is
inexpensive and is easy to operate and transport.

Locating boundaries of required sub cuts

In areas where additional sub cutting is required the DCP can be used to locate the boundaries of soft soils.
Several tests can be run in a short time to identify the location where sub grade soils make the transition from
unacceptable to acceptable.

Determining thaw/freeze depth during spring

The DCP can be used to delineate between layers of frozen and unfrozen soils. This can be helpful when
assessing whether a foundation or roadway sub cut can be excavated.
 DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION RECORD

Client: _________________________________________________________

Location: _________________________________________________________

Pavement Condition: __________________________________________________________

Deflection Results: __________________________________________________________

Blow Reading Blow Reading Blow Reading Blow Reading Blow Reading
# # # # #
Oed 30 60 90 120
1 31 61 91 121
2 32 62 92 122
3 33 63 93 123
4 34 64 94 124
5 35 65 95 125
6 36 66 96 126
7 37 67 97 127
8 38 68 98 128
9 39 69 99 129
10 40 70 100 130
11 41 71 101 131
12 42 72 102 132
13 43 73 103 133
14 44 74 104 134
15 45 75 105 135
16 46 76 106 136
17 47 77 107 137
18 48 78 108 138
19 49 79 109 139
20 50 80 110 140
21 51 81 111 141
22 52 82 112 142
23 53 83 113 143
24 54 84 114 144
25 55 85 115 145
26 56 86 116 146
27 57 87 117 147
28 58 88 118 148
29 59 89 119 149
 CHAPTER 4

4.1 REFERENCES
Kleyn, E G. The use of the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP). Transvaal Roads Department, Report L2/74, Pretoria, July
1975.

Kleyn, E G. Maree, J H and Savage, P F. Application of a Portable Pavement Dynamic Cone Penetrometer to determine in
situ bearing properties of road pavement layers and subgrades in South Africa. ESOPT ll, Amsterdam, 1982.

Kleyn, E G. and Savage, P F. The application of the Pavement DCP to determine the bearing properties and performance of
road pavements. International Symposium on Bearing Capacity of Roads and Airfields, Trondheim Norway, 1982.

Kleyn, E G. van Heerden, M J J and Rossouw, A J. An investigation to determine the structural capacity and rehabilitation
utilization of a road pavement using the Pavement Dynamic Cone Penetrometer. International Symposium on Bearing
Capacity of Roads and Airfields, Trondheim, Norway, 1982.

Kleyn, E G and van Heerden, M J J. Using DCP soundings to optimize pavement rehabilitation. Annual Transport
Convention, Session G: Transport Infrastructure, Johannesburg, RSA, 1983.

Application of the DCP to Mn/DOT’s Pavement Assessment Procedures, Tom Burnham, Mn/ROAD, March 1996.

In Situ Foundation Characterization Using the DCP, Mn/DOT Publication 93-05, Tom Burnham and Dave Johnson, May
1993.

User’s Guide to the DCP Office of Materials Research and Engineering, Mn/DOT, April 1993.

Description and Application of Dual Mass Dynamic Cone Penetrometer, Steve Webster, Richard Grau and Thomas
Williams, Department of Army Waterways Equipment Station, Instruction Report GL-92-3, May 1992.

Mn/DOT Special Provisions 2502 for Subsurface Drains, Pavement Edge Drain Type, December 1992.

Use of DCP for Finding the Strength of Unbound Paving Materials and Subgrade Soils for Pavement Design, Robert van
Sambeek, Braun Intertec, December 1991.

The Relationship Between In Situ CBR Test and Various Penetration Tests, Moshe Livneh and Ilan Ishai, Transportation
Research Institute, 1988.

Illinois DOT Highway Stability Manual, May 1982.