Summary OF DCP

DCPs are a simple test for performing site investigations or to supplement other in situ tests or test borings. Table 3.13 presents a summary of reported application of DCP results.

Table 3.13 Summary of reported applications of DCP results

The author recommends that engineers give consideration to the use of both light DCPs and super heavy DCPs performed in the following manner:

1. For super heavy DCPs, use a 63.5kg (140 lbs) automatic hammer, a drop height of 76cm (30in.), AW drill rods, a 63.5 mm (2.50in.) diameter cone ((area=31.7cm²) with an apex angle of 60°, and a drive interval of 15 cm (6 in.).

Figure 3.11 Super heavy DCP results obtained at four sites.

Figure 3.12 Variability of results from seven super heavy DCP profiles at a site.

• 2. For light DCPs, select a suitable hammer mass and drop height, and a suitable cone diameter and drive interval to match expected soil conditions. Use a cone with an apex angle of 60°;
• 3. Test results should be presented graphically as incremental and cumulative penetration resistance versus depth and as dynamic penetration resistance, r_d or q_d, versus depth.

Figure 3.11 shows the results of super heavy DCPs obtained by the author at four sites. Each profile was completed in about 25 min. To illustrate the reproducibility of results, the results from seven super heavy DCP profiles performed at a site in a medium dense sand by one operator using an automatic hammer and AW rods are shown in Figure 3.12. The variation in test results can essentially be attributed to natural soil variability.

References

Abu-Farsakh, M.Y., Nazzal, M.D., Alshibli, K., and Seyman, E., 2005. Application of Dynamic Penetrometer in Pavement Construction Control. Transportation Research Record No. 1913, pp. 53-61.

Acar, Y.B., Puppala, A.J., and Seals, R.K., 1991. Calibration of a Dynamic Penetrometer for Compaction Quality Control of Boiler Slag. Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 56-63.

Ampadu, S., 2005. A Correlation Between the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer and Bearing Capacity of a Local Soil Formation. Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 2, pp. 355-358.

Ampadu, S.I.K and Arthur, T.D., 2006. The Dynamic Cone Penetrometer in Compaction Verification on a Model Road Pavement. Geotechnical Testing Journal, STM, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 70-79.

Ashfield, D., Ashby, G., Power, P., Fitch, N., Ladley, E., and Smith, T., 2013. Use of the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer to Assess the Liquefaction Potential of Christchurch Alluvial Soils. Proceedings of the 19th New Zealand Geotechnical Symposium, 8 pp.

Alshkane, Y.M., Rashed, K.A. and Daoud, H.S., 2020. Unconfined compression strength (UCS) and compressibility indices prediction from dynamic cone penetration index (DCP) for cohesive soils in Kurdistan Region/Iraq. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, Vol. 38, pp. 3683-3695.

ASTM, 1970. Suggested Method for Dynamic Cone Soil Penetration Test. ASTM STP No. 479, pp. 62-63.

ASTM Standard D6951-03. Test Method for Use of the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer in Shallow Pavement Applications. Annual Book of ASTM Standards.

Ayers, M.E. and Thompson, M.R., 1989. Evaluation Techniques for Determining the Strength Characteristics of Ballast and Subgrade Materials. University of Illinois, Department of Civil Engineering Report.

Bohdan, Z. and Tomasz, G., 2001. Estimation Method of the Bearing Capacity of Shallow and Pile Foundations from Dynamic Probings. Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 551-554.Bolomey, H., 1974. Dynamic Penetration Resistance Formulae. Proceedings of the European Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 2.2, pp. 35-46.

Borowczyk, M. and Frankowski, Z.B., 1981. Dynamic and Static Sounding Results Interpretation. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 2, pp. 451-454.

Broms, B.B. and Flodin, N., 1988. History of Soil Penetration Testing. Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 1, pp. 157-220.

Butcher, A.P., McElmeel, K., and Powell, J.J.M., 1995. Dynamic Probing and its use in Clay Soils. Proceedings of the International Conference on Advances in Site Investigation Practice, pp. 383-395.

Cabrera, M. and Carcole, A., 2007. Relationship Between Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and Dynamic Penetration Super Heavy Test (DPSH) for Natural Sand Deposits. Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 3, pp. 1691-1695.

Card, G.B. and Roche, D.P., 1989. The Use of Continuous Dynamic Probing in Ground Investigation. Proceedings of the Conference on Penetration Testing in the U.K., pp. 119-122.

Cavusoglu, E., Nam, M., O’Neill, M., and McClelland, M., 2004. Multi-Method Strength Characterization for Soft Cretaceous Rocks in Texas. Geo-Support 2004, ASCE, pp. 199-210.

Cearns, P.J. and McKenzie, A., 1989. Application of Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Testing in East Anglia. Penetration Testing in the U.K., pp. 123-127.

Chan, S. and Chin, F., 1972. Engineering Characteristics of the Soils along the Federal Highway in Kuala Lumpur. Proceedings of the 3rd Southeast Asian Conference on Soil Engineering, pp. 41-45.

Chang, M.F. and Wong, I.H., 1986. Penetration Testing in the Residual Soils of Singapore. Proceedings of the Specialty Geomechanics Symposium on Interpretation of Field Testing for Design Parameters.

Chua, K.M., 1988. Determination of CBR and Elastic Modulus of Soils Using a Portable Pavement Dynamic Cone. Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 1, pp. 407-414.

Chua, K.M. and Lytton, R.L, 1992. Dynamic Analysis Using the Portable Pavement Dynamic Cone Penetrometer. Transportation Research Record No. 1192, pp. 27-38.

Coyle, H.M. and Bartoskewitz, R.E., 1980. Prediction of Shear Strength of Sand by Use of Dynamic Penetration Tests. Transportation Research Record No. 749, pp. 46-54.

Dahlberg, R. and Bergdahl, U., 1974. Investigation on the Swedish Ram Sounding Method. Proceedings of the European Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 2.2, pp. 93-102.

DeGaridele-Thoron, R. and Javor, E., 1983. A Small Dynamic Penetrometer to Estimate CBR Value. Proceedings of the International Symposium on In Situ Testing of Soil and Rock, Vol. 2, pp. 43-47.

DeHenau, A., 1982. The Use of a Light Percussion Sounding Apparatus in Road Engineering. Proceedings of the 2nd European Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 1, pp. 271-276.

Elton, D., 1989. Hand Held Dynamic Cone Correction Factors. Symposium on Engineering Geology and Geotechnical Engineering, pp. 39-44.

Engel, R., Riaz, M., Dalah, V., Hanhilammi, D., Husein, A.I., and Lang, R.Y., 1994. Dynamic Probing Test to Determine Driven Pile Capacity. Proceedings of the International Conference Design and Construction of Deep Foundations, Vol. 3, pp. 1321-1336.

Ergun, M.U., 1982. A Site Investigation Through Penetration Tests. Proceedings of the 2nd European Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 1, pp. 257-262.

Fakher, A. and Khodaparasat, M., 2004. The Repeatability of the Mackintosh Probe Test. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Site Characterization, Vol. 1, pp. 325-330.

Fakher, A., Khodaparasat, M., and Jones, C.J.F.P., 2006. The use of the Mackintosh Probe for site investigation in soft soils. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology, Vol. 39, pp. 189-196.

Fatt, C. and Кее, C., 1972. Engineering Characteristics of the Soils Along the Federal Highway in Kuala Lumpur. Proceedings of the 3rd Southeast Asian Conference on Soil Engineering, pp. 41-45.

Fityus, S., 1998. Calibration of the Blunt Tipped Dynamic Penetrometer for Silica Sands. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Site Characterization, Vol. 2, pp. 927-932.

Ford, G.R. and Eliason, B.E., 1993. Comparison of Compaction Methods in Narrow Subsurface Drainage Trenches. Paper Presented at the Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C.

Formazin, J. and Hausner, H., 1985. Correlations Between Soil Parameters and Penetration Testing. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 2, pp. 459-463.

Gabr, M.A., Coonse, J. and Lambe, P.C., 2001. A Potential Model for Compaction Evaluation of Piedmont Soils Using Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP). Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 308-313.

Gadsby, J.W., 1971. Discussion of The Correlation of Cone Size in the Dynamic Cone Penetration Test with the Standard Penetration Test. Geotechnique, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 188-189.

Gawad, T., 1976. Standard Penetration Resistance in Cohesionless Soils. Soils and Foundations, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 47-60.

George, K. and Uddin, W., 2000. Subgrade Characterization for Highway Subgrade Design. Final Report FHWA/MS-DOT-RD-OO-131, Mississippi Deportment of Transportation.

Goel, M.C., 1982. Various Types of Penetrometers, Their Correlations and Field Applicability. Proceedings of the 2nd European Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 1, pp. 263-270.

Gudavalli, S., Vipulanandan, C., Puppala, A.J., Pala, N., Fang, X., Jao, M., Yin, S., and Wang, M.C., 2008. Development of Correlation Between TCP Blow Count and Undrained Shear Strength of Low Plasticity Clay. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterization, Vol. 2, pp. 1401-1404.

Hajduk, E., Shiner, B., and Meng, J., 2007. A Comparison of the Sowers Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Test with Cone Penetration and Flat Blade Dilatometer Testing. Proceedings of GeoDenver, ASCE.

Hamoudi, M.M., Coyle, H.M., and Bartoskewitz, R.E., 1974. Correlation of the Texas Highway Department Cone Penetrometer Test with Unconsolidated-Undrained Strength of Cohesive Soils. Research Report No. 10-1, TTI, Texas A&M University, 133 pp.

Hanna, A.W., Ambrosii, G., and McConnell, A.D., 1986. Investigation of a Coarse Alluvial Foundation for an Embankment Dam. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 23, pp. 203-215.

Harrison, J.A., 1987. Correlation Between California Bearing Ratio and Dynamic Cone Penetration Strength Measurement of Soils. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Part 2, No. 83, Technical Note No. 463.

Herath, A., Mohammed, L., Gaspard, K., Gudishala, R., and Abu-Farsakh, M., 2005. The Use of Dynamic Cone Penetrometer to Predict Resilient Modulus of Subgrade Soils. Geofrontiers Congress 2005, ASCE.

Hossain, D. and Ali, K., 1990. Mackintosh vs. Vane Estimation of Undrained Shear Strength Correlation for a Sabkha Clay of Saudi Arabia. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology, Vol. 23, pp. 269-272.

Karunaprema, K. and Edirisinghe, A., 2002. A laboratory Study to Establish Some Useful Relationships for the Use of Dynamic Cone Penetrometer. Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, paper 2002-0228, 18 pp.

Kayalar, A.S., 1988. Statistical Evaluation of Dynamic Cone Penetration Test Data for Design of Shallow Foundations in Cohesionless Soils. Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 1, pp. 429-434.

Kelley, S.P. and Lutenegger, A.J., 1999. Enhanced Site Characterization in Residual Soils Using the SPT-T and Drive Cone Tests. Behavioral Characteristics of Residual Soils. ASCE,

pp. 88-100.

Khanna, P.L., Varghese, P.C., and Hoon, R.C., 1953. Bearing Pressure and Penetration Tests on Typical Soil Strata in the Region of the Flirakud Dam Project. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 246-252.

Khodaparasat, M., 2010. The Repeatability in Results of Mackintosh Probe Test in Soft Soils. Proceedings of the International Conference on Geotechnical Engineering, Lahore, pp. 237-243.

Khodaparasat, M., Rajabi, A.M., and Mohammadi, M., 2015. The New Empirical Formula Based on Dynamic Probing Test Results in Fine Cohesive Soils. International Journal of Civil Engineering- Geotechnique, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 105-113.

Kleyn, E.G., 1975. Use of the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP). Report No. 2/74, Transvaal Road Department, South Africa.

Kleyn, E.G. and Van Zyl, G.D., 1988. Application of Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) to Light Pavement Design. Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 1, pp. 435-444.

Kleyn, E.G., Maree, J.H., and Savage, P.F., 1982. The Application of a Portable Dynamic Cone Penetrometer to Determine In Situ Bearing Properties of Road Pavement Layers and Subgrades in South Africa. Proceedings of the 2nd European Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 1, pp. 277-282.

Kong, T.B., 1983. In Situ Soil Testing at the Bekok Dam Site, Johor, Peninsular Malaysia. Proceedings of the International Symposium on In Situ Testing, Vol. 2, pp. 403-409.

Lacroix, Y. and Florn, H.M., 1973. Direct Determination and Indirect Evaluation of Relative Density and It’s Use on Earthwork Construction Projects. ASTM Special Technical Publication 523, pp. 251-280.

Lawson, W.D., Terrel, E.O., Surles, J.G., Moghaddam, R.B., Seo, H., and Payawickrama, P.W., 2018. Side-by-Side Correlation of Texas Cone Penetration and Standard Penetration Test Blowcount Values. Geotechnical & Geological Engineering, Vol. 36, No. 5, pp. 2769-2787.

Livneh, M., 1987a. The Use of Dynamic Cone Penetrometer for Determining the Strength of Existing Pavements and Subgrades. Proceedings of the 9th Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conference, pp. 9-1-9-10.

Livneh, M., 1987b. The Correlation Between Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Values (DCP) and CBR Values. Transportation Research Institute, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Publication No. 87-303.

Livneh, M. and Ishai, I., 1988. The Relationship Between In-Situ CBR Test and Various Penetration Tests. Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 1, pp. 445-452.

MacRobert, C., 2017. Interpreting DPSFI Penetration Values in Sand Soil. Journal of the South African Institute of Civil Engineering, Vol. 59, No. 3, pp. 11-15.

MacRobert, C.J., Bernstein, G.S. and Nchabeleng, M.M., 2019. Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) Relative Density Correlations for Sand. Soils and Rocks, Sao Paulo, Vol. 43, No. 2, pp. 201-207.

Maghaddam, R., Lawson, W., Surles, J., Seo, H., and Jayawickrama, P., 2017. Hammer Efficiency and Correction Factors for the TxDOT Texas Cone Penetration Test. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, Vol. 35, pp. 2147-2162.

McGrath, P.G., Motherway, F.K., and Quinn, W.J., 1989. Development of Dynamic Cone Penetration Testing in Ireland. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 271-275.

Meardi, G., 1971. Discussion of The Correlation of Cone Size in the Dynamic Cone Penetration Test with the Standard Penetration Test. Geotechnique, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 184-188.

Melzer, K.J. and Smoltczyk, U., 1982. Dynamic Penetration Testing: State-of-the-Art Paper. Proceedings of the 2nd European Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 1, pp. 191-202.

Meyerhof, G.G., 1956. Penetration Tests and Bearing Capacity of Cohesionless Soils. Journal of the Soil Mechanics Division, ASCE, Vol. 82, No. SMI, pp. 1—12.

Misra, A., Upadhyaya, S., Horn, C., Kondagari, S., and Gustin, F., 2006. CBR and DCP Correlation for Class C Fly-Ash Stabilized Soil. Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 1-7.

Mohammadi, S., Nikoudel, M., Rahimi, H., and Khamehchiyan, M., 2008. Application of the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) for Determination of the Engineering Parameters of Sandy Soils. Engineering Geology, Vol. 101, pp. 195-203.

Mohan, D., Aggarwal, V.S., and Tolia, D.S., 1970. The Correlation of Cone Size in the Dynamic Cone Penetration Test with the Standard Penetration Test. Geotechnique, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 315-319.

Mohan, D., Aggarwal, V.S., and Tolia, D.S., 1971. Closure to The Correlation of Cone Size in the Dynamic Cone Penetration Test with The Standard Penetration Test. Geotechnique, Vol. 21, No. 2,pp. 189-190.

Mousavi, S., Gabr, M., and Borden, R., 2018. Correlation of Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Index to Proof Roller Test to Assess Subgrade Soils Stabilization Criterion. International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 284-92.

Muromachi, T. and Kobayashi, S., 1982. Comparative Study of Static and Dynamic Penetration Tests Currently in Use in Japan. Proceedings of the 2nd European Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 1, pp. 297-302.

Nam, M.S. and Vipulanandan, C., 2010. Relationship Between Texas Cone Penetrometer Tests and Axial Resistances of Drilled Shafts Socketed in Clay Shale and Limestone. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 136, No. 8, pp. 1161-1165.

Nilsson, T. and Cunha, R., 2004. Advantages and Equations for Pile Design in Brazil via DPL Tests. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Site Characterization, Vol. 2, pp. 1519-123.

Nixon, I.K., 1989. Introduction to Papers 10-13. Proceedings of the Conference on Penetration Testing in the U.K. pp. 105-110.

Ooi, T.A. and Ting, W.H., 1975. The Use of a Light Dynamic Cone Penetrometer in Malaysia. Proceedings of the 4th Southeast Asian Conference on Soil Engineering, pp. 3-62-3-79.

Opuni, K., Nyako, S., Ofosu, B., Mensah, F., and Sarpong, K., 2017. Correlations of SPT and DCPT Data for Sandy Soils in Ghana. Lowland Technology International, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 145-150.

Palmer, D.J., 1957. Discussion. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 3, p. 125.

Palmer, D.J. and Stuart, J.G., 1957. Some Observations on the Standard Penetration Test and a Correlation of the Test with a New Penetrometer. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 231-236.

Paunescu, M. and Gruia, A., 1982. Some Aspects Concerning the Study of Foundation Soils, Using Cone Penetration Tests. Proceedings of the 2nd European Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. l,pp. 317-322.

Rahim, A. and George, K., 2004. Dynamic Cone Penetrometer to Estimate Subgrade Resilient Modulus for Low Volume Roads Design. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Site Characterization, Vol. 1, pp. 367-371.

Rao, B.G., Narahari, D.R., and Balodhi, G.R., 1982. Dynamic Cone Probing Tests in Gravelly Soils. Proceedings of the 2nd European Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 1, pp. 337-344.

Robinson, L., 1988. Dynamic CPT for Test Pit Field Investigations: Experiences with Sowers’ Cone Penetrometer. Proceedings of the 24th Symposium on Engineering Geology and Soils Engineering, pp. 31-39.

Rodin, S., 1961. Experiences with Penetrometers with Particular Reference to the Standard Penetration Test. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 517-521.

Rostron,J.P., Schwartz, A.E.,and Gioiosa,T.E., 1969. A Drop Hammer Penetrometer for Determining the Density of Soils and Granular Materials. Highway Research Record No. 284, pp. 70-73.

Sabtan, A. A. and Sherbata, W.M., 1994. Mackintosh Probe as an Exploration Tool. Bulletin of the International Association of Engineering Geologists, No. 50, pp. 89-94.

Scala, A.J., 1956. Simple Methods of Flexible Pavement Design Using Cone Penetrometers. New Zealand Engineer, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 34-44.

Scarff, R.D., 1989. Factors Governing the Use of Continuous Dynamic Probing in U.K. Ground Investigation. Proceedings of the Conference on Penetration Testing in the U.K., pp. 129-132.

Schmid, W.E., 1975. Evaluation of Vibratory Compaction Field Tests. In Situ Measurement of Soil Properties, ASCE, Vol. 1, pp. 373-394.

Seed, H.B. and Idriss, I.M., 1981. Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential of Sand Deposits Based on Observations of Performance in Previous Earthquakes. In Situ Testing to Evaluate Liquefaction Susceptibility, ASCE Preprint 81-544, 21 pp.

Silva, D. and Miguel, M., 2008. Estimation of Pile Bearing Capacity Using Dynamic Probing in Tropical Soils. Proceedings of the Symposium on Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterization, Vol. 1, pp. 523-527.

Singh, A. and Sharma D., 1973. Development of a Light Weight Dynamic Penetrometer. Journal of the Indian Geotechnical Society, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 182-188.

Smith, R.B., 1983. In Situ CBR and Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Testing. Proceedings of the International Symposium on In Situ Testing of Soil and Rock, Vol. 2, pp. 149-154.

Smith, R.B., 1988. Cone Penetrometer and In Situ CBR Testing of an Active Clay. Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 1, pp. 459-465.

Smith, R.B. and Pratt, D.N., 1983. A Field Study of In-Situ California Bearing Ratio and Dynamic Penetrometer Testing for Road Subgrade Investigation. Australian Road Research Board, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 285-294.

Solymar, Z.V., 1984. Compaction of Alluvial Sands by Deep Blasting. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 305-321.

Sowers, G.F. and Hedges, C.S., 1966. Dynamic Cone for Shallow In-Situ Penetration Testing. ASTM Special Technical Publication 399, pp. 29-37.

Stefanoff, G., Sanglerat, G., Bergdahl, U., and Melzer, K.J., 1988. Dynamic Probing (DP): International Reference Test Procedure. Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 1, pp. 53-70.

Sugiyama, T, Muraishi, H., Noguchi, T., Okada, K., and Kakio, T, 1998. Spatial Distribution Characteristics of Soil Strength in Embankment Estimated by Portable Dynamic Cone Penetration Test. Proceedings of the International Conference on Geotechnical Site Characterization, Vol. 2, pp. 953-958.

Swann, L.H., 1982. The Use of Dynamic Soundings on Evaluating Settlements. Proceedings of the 2nd European Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 1, pp. 345-349.

Talbot, M., 2017. Dynamic Cone penetration Tests for Liquefaction Evaluation of Gravelly Soils. Report ST-2017-7102, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.

Teferra, A., 1983. Estimation of the Angle of Internal Friction of Non-Cohesive Soils from Sounding Tests. Indian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 211-221.

Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R.B., 1948. Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

Tonks, D.M. and Whyte, I.L., 1989. Dynamic Soundings in Site Investigations: Some Observations and Correlations. Proceedings of the Conference on Penetration Testing in the U.K., pp. 113-117.

Touma, F. and Reese, L., 1972. The Behavior of Axially Loaded Drilled Shafts in Sand. Report No. CFHR 3-5-72-176-1. Center for Highway Research, University of Texas.

Triggs, J.K. and Liang, R.Y.K., 1988. Development of and Experiences from a Light-Weight, Portable Penetrometer Able to Combine Dynamic and Static Cone Tests. Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 1, pp. 467-473.

Van Leijden, W., Pachen, H.M.A., and VadenBerg, J., 1982. Dynamic Probing Research for Pile Driving Predictions in the Netherlands. Proceedings of the 2nd European Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 1, pp. 285-290.

Vipulanandan, C., Puppala, A.J., Jao, M., Kim, M.S., Vasundevan, H., Kumar, P., and Mo, Y.L., 2008. Correlation of Texas Cone Penetrometer Test Values and Shear Strength of Texas Soils. University of Houston, Houston, TX.

Waschkowski, E., 1982. Dynamic Probing and Practice. Proceedings of the 2nd European Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 1, pp. 357-362.

Webster, S.L., Grau, R.H., and Williams, T.P., 1992. Description and Application of Dual Mass Dynamic Cone Penetrometer. Instruction Report GL-92-3, US Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station.