×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

dynamic probing values converted SPT values?

dynamic probing values converted SPT values?

dynamic probing values converted SPT values?

(OP)
Hi,

I require to convert DP super heavy values to SPT for interpretation. I have read in literature that simply a factor of 1.5 can be employed to obtain a SPT value. Is there a more accurate way? is this correct?

RE: dynamic probing values converted SPT values?

The limits of the correlations are shown in the Pagani site, by two test sites where the impact energy has been accurately meausered:

http://www.pagani-geotechnical.com/   >>> efficiency of beating device

Aside from the not reassuring translation (BEATING DEVICE!!) and more linguistical funnies, the method looks rigorous, they conclude the 1.5 multiplicative factor is good for (sandy) gravels, much less so for silty soils.
Beware, here in Italy casing is never used, too costly and unpractical. Instead, a tourque sensor may measure pipe's friction againts the borehole, if friction is not negligibile you have clays or a deviated hole and simply stop the test.

I'll tell you more:
calibrating the DPSH against the SPT blowcounts may not be the best practice, in the sense that the DPSH may be more accurate than NSPT, which is notoriously afflicted by a large error, according to correcteness of practice.
I recently compared DPSHs and mechanical CPTs in two sites with homogeneous sandy-silty soil, and I was stunned to realize that variability was much less in DPSH than in CPTs. There may be other causes for that aside from simple instrumental error (for instance, spatial averaging), but at first look the superheavy dynamic penetrometer in my case appeared more reliable than the mechanical CPT.

RE: dynamic probing values converted SPT values?

I suggest, too, that you do a search of the threads in the various geotechnical forums.  Dynamic 'probing' vs SPT has been discussed so many times - there are so many different types of dynamic "cones" out there.  I've always used a 2 inch 60deg apex cone attached to A-rods and driven by a 63.5 kg hammer (Standard SPT hammer) - Canadian Foundation Manual, I believe, okays 1.5:1 ratio in granular soils for at least the upper number of feet - can't remember.  Others use smaller cones and lighter hammers.  What do you mean by "DP Super Heavy.? - I've not heard this term before - please define for my knowledge base.

RE: dynamic probing values converted SPT values?

BigH,
that's a rig which is well known in Europe but, I don't know why, maybe just the name, looks like being unknown in America.
Super heavy is a qualitative scale which tops the energy-scale:

DPL = dynamic penetrometer light
DPML= dynamic penetrometer medium-light
DPM = Medium
DPH = Heavy
DPSH = Super heavy

It is surprising, but these are all used and of course the DPSH is the less prone to errors since its blow energy being the maximum, it tends to reduce the incidence of drag forces against the wall. It' used in 20 cm or 30 cm intervals, depending upon the variation. I've used it a lot in the past, colleaugues are using it now with very reasonable results in granular soils. The Pagani site I indicated will cointain many details, since they are a major manufacturer (the only one that I know which carried out rigorous studies in experimental sites).

Dynamic penetrometers have been listed by the Eurocode 7, part 2nd (in situ testing), which also contains .

Standard Procedures.
 
  A table on standards is in the following:

http://www.pagani-geotechnical.com/ >>>> products >>> DPtest

DPSH = 63.5 kg, 0.75 m  fall height, 32 mm  rod diameter,  20 square centimeters, 90° cone

RE: dynamic probing values converted SPT values?

Thanks - the terms are not exactly as we would expect in North America - at least through 1995 when I left.  It is like the BS Heavy Compaction and Light Compaction instead of Modified and Standard Proctor.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources