Project Title:

1 Introduction
Cone penetration test is used in the quality control of compaction of man-made fills, bases and sub-bases
of roads and densification of natural deposits. Several correlations are available in the literature to
estimate effective angle of internal friction, in-situ unit weight, relative density, state parameter, shear
wave velocity, stiffness and modulus of soil, etc (Robertson and Cabal, 2015).

The objectives of the study is to investigate the time passed after applying compaction efforts in
improving cone penetration resistance and other soil parameters as well.

2 Project Specification
The contract document sets out the requirements of 2 m thick compacted fill, in terms of degree of
compaction and relative density.
Client’ Specification:
Degree of Compaction =
Relative Density =
Spacing of CPTu to be conducted for compaction monitoring =

3 Tests
3.1 Field Tests

 CPTu
o The measurements will be used to determine relative density of the compacted fill using
qc vs Dr correlations.
o Obtained cone penetration resistance (qc)

 Sand Cone Test (5 tests in each case)

o Field dry density (ℽd(field)) is obtained.
o Relative density is determined from ℽd(field), ℽd(max) and ℽd(min). The maximum and minimum
dry unit weights (ℽd(max) and ℽd(min)) are determined in the laboratory.
o Relative density obtained from sand cone test results will be compared with those
obtained from qc-Dr correlations.

3.2 Laboratory Tests

 Grain size distribution of the fill material: % of fines content is an important issue (clean sand/
sand with fines)
 Specific gravity test
  Standard and modified Proctor tests: Optimum moisture content and maximum dry unit weight
 Maximum and minimum dry unit weights (ℽd(max) and ℽd(min))

4 Quality Control of Compaction using CPTu

4.1 Relative Density (Dr)

Relative density or density index is the ratio of the difference between the void ratios of a cohesionless
soil in its loosest state and existing natural state to the difference between its void ratio in the loosest and
densest states. Relative density indicates how far the soil under investigation can be capable to further
densification beyond its natural state.

By definition,

emax −e
(
Relative Density , D r =
e max −e min )
∗100 %....................................(1)

where,
emax = Maximum void ratio
emin = Minimum void ratio
e = Void ratio in natural state

Relative density in the field condition is estimated from dry unit weights using the following expression:

1 1
−
γ d (min) γ d (field )
Relative Density , Dr = …………………………………..(2)
1 1
−
γ d (min) γ d (max)

where,
ℽd(max) = Maximum dry unit weight
ℽd(min) = Minimum dry unit weight
ℽd(field) = Field dry unit weight in natural state

Maximum and minimum dry unit weights (ℽ d(max) and ℽd(min)) of the fill material are determined in the
laboratory.

In this project, relative density attained at different stages of compaction is determined using both the
cone penetration resistance (qc) from CPTu and the field density from sand cone test.
4.1.1 CPTu
Relative density is obtained from cone penetration resistance (q c) using different correlations between qc
and Dr.

qc
3
According to Mayne (2007): γ d ( ¿ kN /m )=1.89 log
(( ) )Pa
σ 'vc
Pa
0.5
+11.8………………...…….(3)

qc
3
According to Sadrekarimi (2016): γ d ( ¿ kN /m )=3.00 log
(( ) )
σ 'vc
Pa
Pa
0.5
+9.44 …………………(4)

where, qc = cone penetration resistance

Pa = atmospheric pressure ≈ 100 kPa

σ՜vc = Effective initial vertical stress

Therefore, relative density can be determined using Eq. (2) for ℽ d obtained from both Mayne (2007) and
Sadrekarimi (2016).

In addition, relaive density can be determined from the direct correlation between cone penetration
resistance and relative density, as expressed below:

100 q ( MPa)
According ¿ schmertmann ( 1976 ) : D ¿ r (%)= . ln( c ' C 1 )……………….………………..…..
C2 C 0 .(σ vc )
(5)

C0, C1 and C2 are empirical fitting parameters. The values of these correlation parameters suggested by
different researchers are given in Table 1.

Table 1: Summary of Correlation parameters (C0, C1 and C2) based on σ՜vc

Sl Sand C0 C1 C2 Reference
 .
1 Several NC sands 0.05 0.7 2.91 Schmertmann (1978)
2 Ticino 0.157 0.55 2.41
Baldi et al. (1986)
3 Hokksund 0.086 0.53 3.29
4 Ticino 0.14 0.55 2.9
5 Ticino, Toyoura, 0.175 0.5 3.1 Jamiokawski et al. (2001)
Hokksund

4.1.2 Sand Cone Test

Dry field density is determined from sand cone test.

4.1.3 Improvement in relative density

Table 2: Relative density attained at different stages of compaction

Stage of qc from CPTu Relative Density (%) from qc Relative Density (%) from
Compactio Sand Cone Test
n for Eq. (2) Eq. 5
Evaluation ℽd from ℽd from
Mayne Sadrekarim
(2007) i (2016)
Initial
After 1st
pass
After 2nd
pass
More passes (if needed) according to client’s specification for relative density

4.2 Relative Compaction (CR)

The state of compaction is expressed as the relative compaction, and is the percentage ratio of the field
density to the maximum density as determined by standard compaction.

γ d ( field )
Relative Compaction , C R= ∗100 %
γ d ( max )

4.2.1 CPTu
Field dry unit weight (ℽd(field)) is estimated from cone penetration resistance (q c) using Eqs. (3) and (4).
In this study, relative compaction (CR) is also assessed directly from CPTu measurements as follows:
 qc
CR= ∗100 %
qc(max)

where, qc(max) = maximum cone penetration resistance that can be achieved from compaction method
applied

4.2.2 Sand Cone Test

Relative compaction (CR) is determined using Eq. .
γ d ( field )
Relative Compaction , C R= ∗100 %
γ d ( max )

Field dry unit weight is obtained from sand cone test and maximum dry unit weight is obtained from
Proctor tests (standard and modifies) in the laboratory.

Table : Relative compaction attained at different stages of compaction

Stage of Compaction Relative Compaction (%) from CPTu Relative Compaction (%) from
for Evaluation Sand Cone Test
Initial
After 1st pass
After 2nd pass

References
Baldi et al. (1986)
Jamiokawski et al. (2001)

Schmertmann, J.H., 1970, Sand densification by heavy vibratory compactor, Disc. Proc., paper 6656,
Journal of the Geot. Eng. Div., ASCE 96, SM1, pp. 363-365.

Schemertmann, J.H., 1976, An Updated Correlation between Relative Density, Dr and Fugro-Type
Electric Cone Bearing, qc, Contract Report-23 DACW 39-76M 6646-Waterways Experimental Station,
Vicksburg, Miss.

Robertson, P.K. and Cabal, K.L. (2015). Guide to cone penetration testing for geotechnical engineering.
6th Edition, Gregg Drilling and Testing Inc.