TECHNICAL NOTE
HEAVY
WEIGHT
Geoff Warren examines the equivalence
of super heavy dynamic probe (DPSH)
and SPT blow count data.
P
arameter determination from
dynamic probe data has long
been an uncertain and debat-
able subject within the geotechnical
community. On a recent project a
super heavy dynamic probe (DPSH)
was used to obtain data in granular
material, chalk and clay. The critical
aspect is the conversion of DPSH
data (blow count n) to standard den-
sity and strength data for design pur-
poses, which in our case were stand-
ard penetration test (SPT) N values
in granular material and chalk and
undrained shear strengths of clays.
Initially it was thought this would
be a straightforward matter of get-
ting the equivalence from the drill-
ing companies who supplied the
equipment. But as the questions
were asked it rapidly became clear
that the whole subject of exact
equivalence of the DPSH data to
SPT N values and undrained shear
strengths was a poorly understood
area. Clear guidelines on equiva-
lence did not exist and a review of
available literature produced sur-
prisingly few papers on the subject.
Only two were identified which
contained data and conversion fac-
tors that could be directly used: one
for granular material and chalk, and
the other for clay. A widely promot-
ed and used piece of equipment was
producing data that could not be
readily used by designers.
To verify the data given in the two
papers and obtain site specific data
for the project, DPSH probes were
carried out in granular and clay soils
36
adjacent to boreholes where SPTs
were performed. Direct field corre-
lation was then obtained for these
soils. A summary of the results,
the equivalence in the papers and
the equivalence developed for the
design on the project is presented,
and comments given. A comparable
exercise was not carried out in chalk
because strength data was obtained
from traditional sample testing, but
comments are given on dynamic
probing values in chalk and the
results obtained.
Dynamic Probing
Dynamic probing has been in use
for centuries as a quick method
of obtaining information about
soil, and a variety of probes have
been developed. The equipment
was standardised by the ISSMFE
Report in 1977, which determined
four sizes, DPL (light dynamic
probe), DPM (medium dynamic
probe), DPH (heavy dynamic
probe) and DPSH.
The previous best standard for
penetrometers had been the Ger-
man standard DIN4094 Part 1 in
1974 (followed by DIN4094 Part
2 in 1980). This described six sizes
with the largest being the SRS15,
which is equivalent to the DPH
probe. Dynamic probing was sub-
sequently included in BS1377:1990
and the Department of Transport
(DTp) Specification. But these only
detailed two probe types, DPH and
DPSH.
Figure 1: Typical current dynamic probe/window sampling rig
Some papers on dynamic prob-
ing have been written in the UK
in the last twenty years, but not as
many as might be expected. A good,
clear explanation of the history,
sizes and size equivalence is given
in Nixon (1988) at a conference on
Penetration Testing in the UK. But a
comprehensive review of European
papers has not yet been carried out.
The dynamic probe is a small,
compact, economic, convenient,
mobile and quick piece of equip-
ment. In the postwar era it was ini-
tially used more on mainland conti-
nental Europe in countries such as
Italy and Germany than in the UK,
where there has been a certain scep-
ticism about its usefulness.
Nixon states that prior to 1988
“application in the UK has been
negligible”. It is certainly very effec-
tive at giving absolute data on soil
characteristic boundaries, depth
locations of dense soils/soft rocks
and investigation of hard spots, soft
spots and voids. It is the extrapo-
lation of actual usable (correct)
parameters that has been the reason
for its comparative lack of use within
the UK, despite the fact that density
and strength can be and have been
obtained. There is also a cultural
aspect: dynamic probing has never
been part of the traditional ground
engineering tools for investigation
in the UK.
The inclusion in the BS and DTp
specifications has seen an increase
in use of dynamic probing in the
UK. Initially the DPH was the pre-
ferred probe but this has gradu-
ally been replaced by the heavier
DPSH, which is currently widely
available from drilling companies.
One example is shown in Figure
1, and it is becoming the preferred
and only probe offered by some
drilling companies.
There are several reasons for this.
It has a heavier hammer with a
larger drop and hammer size: drop
length and cone are almost the same
as the SPT (with a cone). This was
thought to show the DPSH could
have a direct correlation to the SPT.
Another factor is the growth of
the window sampler equipment on
track-mounted rigs which double as
dynamic probe rigs. Window sam-
pling has now developed to such an
extent that a range of sizes of sample
tubes is available. Eg. From 50mm
to 100mm. i.e. solid 1m window
U100 samples can now be produced
(within a plastic liner). Test quality
U100 samples can now be obtained
by the latest generation of window
sampling/dynamic probing rigs in
Figure 1, although a slightly greater
sampling disturbance could occur
and should be taken into account.
Also worth considering is the
cost efficiency for obtaining samples
and the density data if only limited
depths are required.
The DPSH can probe to about
10m and the window sampling to
8m depending on the soil.
It would be fair to say that DPSH
has now grown in use as a direct
result of the improvement of win-
GROUND ENGINEERING MARCH 2007
TECHNICAL NOTE
dow sampling technology and the
introduction of combined dynamic
probe/window sampling rigs.
Theoretical equivalence
of DPSH and SPT values
and the problems
The whole subject of parameter
determination from dynamic prob-
ing results is considered with much
scepticism by many people, includ-
ing Clayton in Site investigation second
edition, 1995. Clayton adds, “The
interpretation of probing results in
terms of soil parameters is, appar-
ently, carried out on the basis of
locally derived correlations, none of
which appear to have become wide-
ly or internationally accepted.”
Interestingly, this view is repeated
Figure 2. DPSH n against SPT N - sand and gravel (Cearns and McKenzie)
40
DPSH n
35
30
25
20
15
10
5 usable site specific data, and to com-
n = 0.25N
0
0 10 20 30
on some current engineering discus-
sion websites. This viewpoint and
the limited papers on this aspect
illustrate that parameter determina-
tion from dynamic probes has hardly
advanced to a useful level at all.
The results in granular mate-
rial are considered more useful and
reliable, but data in clays has been
obtained. Since the standardisation
of dynamic probes in 1977, there
have been surprisingly few attempts
at proposing equivalence of probe
data, i.e. blow count correlation to
SPT N values, cu values and qc val-
ues, which are key parameters in
geotechnical design.
There is guidance on equivalence
for the DPH equipment in DIN
4094 Part 1. Further examination
of this equivalence has been carried
out by the authors of six papers.
But there appear to be only two
papers covering the equivalence of
the DPSH. These are Cearns and
McKenzie (1988), which covers
granular soils and chalk with some
comments on clay, and Huntley
(1990), which covers clay giving un-
drained shear strength values.
Curiously, BS1377 covers the
description of the equipment and
38
method of probing, but pro-
vides no comment on the mean-
ing or interpretation of the data
obtained. No further equivalence
of the DPSH has been explored in
print since 1990.
For clarification, DPSH n is the
blow count for 100mm penetration
and SPT N is the blow count for
300mm penetration. The equiva-
lence is therefore of n100 and N300.
Data from anonymous loca-
tions in East Anglia was analysed
by Cearns and McKenzie (C&M).
No description of the soils was
given, so unfortunately the sand
and gravel content and type of sand
grading is not available. Granular
equivalence for sands and gravels
is shown in Figure 2, reproduced
from the paper.
40 50 60 70
SPT N
In chalk, the data obtained
produced a best fit straight line,
described as n = 0.31N. In clay a
DPSH n – cu plot is presented but
because of the scatter it was not
considered meaningful. There is
a discussion about the use of n
values in relation to cone penetra-
tion resistance qc but this was not
conclusive (qc is generally used for
granular material). Torque is dis-
cussed but is not considered critical
in soft or firm cohesive soils. No
clear conclusions or recommenda-
tions for equivalence of n with any
parameter in clay are given.
Huntley considers a DPSH probe
and produced a DPSH n - clay
description (soft, firm, stiff, etc).
The details of the clay used were not
given. With a torque of 100Nm the
n value is reduced by 1.
The Huntley table for equivalent
undrained shear strengths for clay
with SPT N values added is repro-
duced in Table 1. The SPT N values
shown are the generally recognised
equivalences to clay strengths, which
were originally proposed by Terza-
ghi and Peck 1948, and have been
added to Huntley’s table for com-
pleteness. It is noted they are not
Figure 3. DPSH n against SPT N - sand (New data Aldershot North, 2007))
40
DPSH n
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 10
currently included in BS 5930:1999.
Three drilling companies that car-
ried out window sampling/DPSH
drilling, were asked their view on
this subject. Two had no view and
one quoted a linear 4n = N in granu-
lar material.
As one key characteristic required
on the current project was density
data in sands, and borehole use was
limited for economic considerations,
it was thought that super heavy
dynamic probes could be used to
provide this data. But as the inves-
tigation progressed it became clear
the DPSH n - SPT N equivalence
was not “cast in stone”. To provide
pare with C&M, DPSH probes were
carried out adjacent to boreholes in
which SPTs were taken.
Fieldwork and Data
The work was carried out for the
Project Allenby/Connaught. This
is an £8bn PFI contract to refurbish
six army bases, five at Salisbury
Plain and one at Aldershot Garri-
son. The work is being carried out
Table 1: DPSH n – Strength Relationship in Clay (Huntley 1990)
DPSH n Classification
(for 100mm) (as BS5930:1999)
<1 Very soft
1–2 Soft
3–4 Firm
5–8 Stiff
>8 Very Stiff
by a new joint venture company
Aspire Defence Capital Works, cre-
ated by contractor Carillion and
consultant KBR. The site work
for the ground investigation was
carried out by a site investigation
contractor from November 2006 to
January 2007.
The data was primarily required
for the sands, gravels and clays
20 30 40 50 60
SPT N
at Aldershot, but data was also
obtained for the chalk on Salisbury
Plain.
At Aldershot South Camp in April
2006 the first control set of investiga-
tion points was drilled through fine
clayey sands and some clay layers
(no gravel). These comprised three
pairs of adjacent boreholes and
DPSH probes. The dynamic probe
rig used was a Dando Terrier 2002
drive sampling rig on Figure 1.
The results were compared to the
C&M graph for sands and gravels,
and a composite usable equivalence
produced from this site specific data,
which did not vary too significantly
from C&M. This comprised a new
linear equation n = 0.2N for n = 0
- 5, and the C&M curve from n =
13. For the range between, i.e. n =
5 – 13, a straight line adjustment is
used. This was used for the Alder-
shot South area, in particular for the
loose or low medium dense soils.
In October 2006, at Aldershot
North Camp, a second set of inves-
tigation points comprising six fur-
ther pairs of boreholes and DPSH
probes were drilled through similar
Strength Cu Equivalent
(kN/m2) SPT N
(as BS5930:1999) (for 300mm)
<20 <2
20 – 40 2–4
40 – 75 5–8
75 – 150 9 – 15
>150 >16
clayey fine sand with no grave and a
further equivalence developed. The
results are shown in the graph in
Figure 3. These results gave lower
equivalence values from n = 0 – 22
and conformed more to C&M above
n = 22.
The reasons for this are not clear.
Many factors were the same: the
drilling company, rig, operator,
GROUND ENGINEERING MARCH 2007
SPT N values, soil description and
groundwater regime (from 2mbgl to
4mbgl).
Two differences were identified,
geological strata and clay content.
The strata in Aldershot South com-
prised Windlesham Formation and
Bagshot Formation, and in Alder-
shot North Camberley Sand Forma-
tion. The clay content in Aldershot
South is 30% compared with 20% in
Aldershot North.
Clay layers were only encoun-
tered in Aldershot South, and the
Huntley equivalence in Table 1
appeared to agree with the site
description of the clay.
DPSH probes were carried out
in chalk at the same time as good
quality U100 window samples were
taken. Using the equivalence of n
= 0.31N in C&M, equivalent SPT
N values of 6 – 30 were obtained.
CIRIA C574 (2002) suggests that N
values less than 25 are considered
unreliable for density determina-
tion. As the results showed that most
equivalent N values were less than
25 this data was of no real value for
density determination. However the
cores produced good samples for
density determination and associ-
ated chalk strength information.
GROUND ENGINEERING MARCH 2007
These strengths were in agree-
ment with those obtained from core
cutter samples in trial pits. The cores
were a good demonstration of cur-
rent window sampling techniques,
which have improved significantly
in recent years. The CIRIA report
considers dynamic probing a crude
technique that should be used in
conjunction with coring and obtain-
ing decent samples.
Conclusions
In sands from the only relevant pub-
lished paper C&M and Aspire site
data, no agreement was found on
equivalence of DPSH blow counts
to SPT N values. However similar
trends of a decrease in N/n with a
general increase in density (SPT N)
were noted in the site data and paper
with a near agreement at the upper
density values of SPT N = 40. Site
specific data is clearly of use, but
it is only appropriate for large sites
where boreholes can be used to cor-
relate the values.
For clay, the published paper
Huntley and Aspire site assessment
appeared broadly in agreement.
Dynamic probing can therefore
provide an early indication of und-
rained shear strength. Traditional
sampling of clays is still required to
give more reliable strength values.
For chalk the probe results from
the C&M paper are reasonable.
SPT N data is not considered use-
ful at levels below N = 25, and in
any case density testing of samples
is the preferred method of assessing
chalk strength.
As with any dynamic probe data,
all locations identified from low
results should be given special con-
sideration in the foundation design
recommendations.
There are still very few publi-
cations on the DPSH probes, so
DPSH probing is unable to provide
general, clear and usable design
data. More research into equiva-
lence (N/n) should be carried out
and suggested areas of further
investigation for granular material
are clay content of sands, gravel
content and geological strata cor-
relation.
DPSH plots are currently being
produced and presented to geo-
technical designers without site
specific equivalences. These have
very little meaning apart from
the broad, crude interpretation of
hard, soft or void, and the rela-
tive uniformity/non uniformity
of ground conditions. Designers
should be aware of the limitations
of the data, particularly in the
light of the increased use of the
current window sampler/dynamic
probe rigs.
Geoff Warren of consultant KBR
is Lead Geotechnical Engineer on
Project Allenby / Connaught for
Aspire Defence Capital Works.
References
1 BS1377 (1990). Methods of testing soils for
civil engineering purposes, British Standards
Institution, London.
2 DIN 4094 Parts 1 and 2 (1974 and 1980).
Dynamic and Static Penetrometers: Application
and Evaluation, Deutsche Norm.
3 Cearns P.J. and McKenzie (1988).
Application of dynamic cone penetrometer
testing in East Anglia, from Penetration
Testing in the UK, Thomas Telford, London
(For granular material and chalk).
4 Huntley S.L. (1990). Use of a dynamic
penetrometer as a ground investigation and
design tool in Hertfordshire, from Field
Testing in Engineering Geology published
by Geological Society Engineering Geology
Special Publication No.6. (For clay).
5 Nixon I.K. (1988). Introduction to Papers 10-
13, from Penetration Testing in the UK confer-
ence, Thomas Telford, London.
6. Lord J A, Clayton C R I & Mortimore R
N. Engineering in Chalk, CIRIA Report C574,
Department of Trade and Industry, London
2002.
39