NOTICE: This standard has either been superseded and replaced by a new version or withdrawn.

Contact ASTM International (www.astm.org) for the latest information

Designation: D6951/D6951M − 18

Standard Test Method for

Use of the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer in Shallow
Pavement Applications1
This standard is issued under the fixed designation D6951/D6951M; the number immediately following the designation indicates the
year of original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last
reapproval. A superscript epsilon (´) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.

1. Scope 2. Referenced Documents

1.1 This test method covers the measurement of the pen- 2.1 ASTM Standards:2
etration rate of the dynamic cone penetrometer with an 8-kg D7380 Test Method for Soil Compaction Determination at
[17.6-lb] hammer (8-kg [17.6-lb] DCP) through undisturbed Shallow Depths Using 5-lb (2.3 kg) Dynamic Cone
soil or compacted materials, or both. The penetration rate may Penetrometer
be related to in situ strength such as an estimated in situ CBR 3. Terminology
(California Bearing Ratio). A soil density may be estimated
(Note 1) if the soil type and moisture content are known. The 3.1 Definitions:
DCP described in this test method is typically used for 3.1.1 8-kg [17.6-lb] DCP dynamic cone penetrometer, n—a
pavement applications. device with an 8-kg [17.6-lb] hammer used to assess the in situ
strength of undisturbed soil or compacted materials, or both, by
1.2 The test method provides for an optional 4.6-kg [10.1- dropping the hammer from a set height and measuring the
lb] sliding hammer when the use of the 8-kg [17.6-lb] sliding depth of penetration and counting hammer drops (blows). (See
mass produces excessive penetration in soft ground conditions. Fig. 1.)
1.3 Units—The values stated in either SI units or inch- 3.1.2 sliding attachment, n—an optional device used in
pound units are to be regarded separately as standard. The reading the distance the DCP tip has penetrated. It may be
values stated in each system may not be exact equivalents; fastened to the anvil or lower rod to hold/slide along a separate
therefore, each system shall be used independently of the other. measuring rod, or it may be fastened to the separate rod and
Combining values from the two systems may result in noncon- slide along a graduated drive rod. (See Fig. 1.)
formance with the standard. 4. Summary of Test Method
1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the 4.1 The operator drives the DCP tip into soil by lifting the
safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the sliding hammer to the handle and then releasing it. The total
responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appro- penetration for a given number of blows is measured and
priate safety, health, and environmental practices and deter- recorded in mm/blow, which is then used to describe stiffness,
mine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. estimate an in situ CBR strength from an appropriate correla-
1.5 This international standard was developed in accor- tion chart, or other material characteristics.
dance with internationally recognized principles on standard-
ization established in the Decision on Principles for the 5. Significance and Use
Development of International Standards, Guides and Recom- 5.1 This test method is used to assess in situ strength of
mendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical undisturbed soil and compacted materials (or both). The
Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee. penetration rate of the 8-kg [17.6-lb] DCP can be used to
estimate in situ CBR (California Bearing Ratio), to identify
strata thickness, shear strength of strata, and other material
1
characteristics.
This test method is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee E17 on Vehicle
- Pavement Systems and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee E17.41 on
2
Pavement Testing and Evaluation. For referenced ASTM standards, visit the ASTM website, www.astm.org, or
Current edition approved May 1, 2018. Published May 2018. Originally contact ASTM Customer Service at service@astm.org. For Annual Book of ASTM
approved in 2003. Last previous edition approved in 2015 as D6951/D6951M – 09 Standards volume information, refer to the standard’s Document Summary page on
(2015). DOI: 10.1520/D6951_D6951M-18. the ASTM website.

Copyright © ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. United States

&RS\ULJKWE\$670,QW O DOOULJKWVUHVHUYHG )UL-DQ*07 1

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
/0DQJOHPQJDQED0HLWHL ,QGLDQ,QVWLWXWHRI7HFKQRORJ\*XZDKDWL SXUVXDQWWR/LFHQVH$JUHHPHQW1RIXUWKHUUHSURGXFWLRQVDXWKRUL]HG
 D6951/D6951M − 18
materials. The 8-kg [17.6-lb] DCP cannot be used in highly
stabilized or cemented materials or for granular materials
containing a large percentage of aggregates greater than 50 mm
[2 in.].
5.5 The 8-kg [17.6-lb] DCP can be used to estimate the
strength of in situ materials underlying a bound or highly
stabilized layer by first drilling or coring an access hole.
NOTE 1—The DCP may be used to assess the density of a fairly uniform
material by relating density to penetration rate on the same material. In
this way, undercompacted or “soft” spots can be identified, even though
the DCP does not measure density directly.3
5.6 A field DCP measurement results in a field or in situ
CBR and will not normally 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 existing field
conditions.
6. Apparatus
6.1 The 8-kg [17.6-lb] DCP is shown schematically in Fig.
1. It consists of the following components: a 16-mm [5⁄8-in.]
diameter steel drive rod with a replaceable point or disposable
cone tip, an 8-kg [17.6-lb] hammer which is dropped from a
fixed height of 575 mm [22.6 in.], a coupler assembly, and a
handle. The tip has an included angle of 60° and a diameter at
the base of 20 mm [0.79 in.]. (See Fig. 2.)
6.1.1 The apparatus is typically constructed of stainless
steel, with the exception of the replacement point tip, which
may be constructed from hardened tool steel or a similar
material resistant to wear.
6.2 The following tolerances are required:
6.2.1 Hammer weight measurement of 8.0 kg [17.6 lb];
tolerance is 0.01 kg [0.02 lb],
6.2.2 Hammer weight measurement of 4.6 kg [10.1 lb.];
tolerance is 0.01 kg [0.02 lb],
6.2.3 Drop of hammer measurement of 575 mm [22.6 in.];
tolerance is 1.0 mm [0.04 in.],
FIG. 1 Schematic of DCP Device
3
“METHOD ST6: Measurement of the In Situ Strength of Soils by the Dynamic
Cone Penetrometer (DCP), Special Methods for Testing Roads,” Draft TMH6,
5.1.1 Other test methods exist for DCPs with different Technical Methods for Highways (TMH), Pretoria, South Africa, ISBN 0 7988 2289
hammer weights and cone tip sizes, which have correlations 9, 1984, p. 20.
that are unique to the instrument, such as Test Method D7380.
5.2 The 8-kg [17.6-lb] DCP is held vertically, and therefore
is typically used in horizontal construction applications, such
as pavements and floor slabs.
5.3 This instrument is typically used to assess material
properties down to a depth of 1000 mm [39 in.] below the
surface. The penetration depth can be increased using drive rod
extensions. However, if drive rod extensions are used, care
should be taken when using correlations to estimate other
parameters, since these correlations are only appropriate for
specific DCP configurations. The mass and inertia of the device
will change and skin friction along drive rod extensions will
occur.
5.4 The 8-kg [17.6-lb] DCP can be used to estimate the
strength characteristics of fine- and coarse-grained soils, granu-
lar construction materials, and weak stabilized or modified FIG. 2 Replaceable Point Tip

&RS\ULJKWE\$670,QW O DOOULJKWVUHVHUYHG )UL-DQ*07 2

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
/0DQJOHPQJDQED0HLWHL ,QGLDQ,QVWLWXWHRI7HFKQRORJ\*XZDKDWL SXUVXDQWWR/LFHQVH$JUHHPHQW1RIXUWKHUUHSURGXFWLRQVDXWKRUL]HG
 D6951/D6951M − 18
6.2.4 Tip angle measurement of 60° included angle; toler- 7. Hazards
ance is 1°, and 7.1 Be aware and maintain control of the hammer during
6.2.5 Tip base diameter measurement of 20 mm [0.79 in.]; movement of the device prior to and after testing to prevent
tolerance is 0.25 mm [0.01 in.]. pinch point injuries.
NOTE 2—A disposable cone tip may be used. The disposable cone tip is 7.2 Always secure the hammer or the assembled DCP
held in place with an O-ring, which allows the cone tip to be easily
detached when the drive rod is pulled upward after completion of the test.
device, or both, when placing it on a flat, elevated surface to
The disposable cone tip is shown schematically in Fig. 3. prevent it from rolling off and causing personal injury or
damage to the instrument.
6.3 In addition to the DCP, the following equipment is
needed: 7.3 Do not put hands near the anvil when the hammer is
6.3.1 Tools for assembling the DCP, raised. Keep one hand on the handle while operating the DCP.
6.3.2 Lubricating oil,
6.3.3 Thread locking compound, and 8. Preparation of Apparatus
6.3.4 Data recording form (see Table 1). 8.1 Equipment Check—Before beginning a test, the DCP
6.4 Depending on the circumstances, the following equip- device is inspected for fatigue-damaged parts, in particular the
ment may also be needed or is recommended: coupler and handle, and excessive wear of the drive rod and
6.4.1 A vertical scale, graduated, using increments of replaceable point tip. Drive rods should be visually inspected
1.0 mm [0.04 in.], or measuring rod longer than the longest for straightness; rolling it on a flat surface can aid in detecting
drive rod if the drive rod(s) are not graduated, a bent rod.
6.4.2 An optional sliding attachment for use with a separate 8.2 All joints must be securely tightened, including the
scale or measuring rod, coupler assembly and the replaceable point tip (or the adapter
6.4.3 A rotary hammer drill or coring apparatus capable of for the disposable cone tip) to drive rod. It is recommended
drilling a minimum diameter hole of 25 mm [1 in.]. A larger using wrenches to tighten all joints to prevent damage to the
hole may be required, depending on the underlying material or threads in the joints. Channel lock or similar pliers are not
the need for addition tests or sampling, recommended.
6.4.4 A wet/dry vacuum or suitable alternative to remove
loose material and fluid if an access hole is made before 9. Procedure
testing, 9.1 Basic Operation—The operator holds the device by the
6.4.5 Field power supply to power items in 6.4.3 and 6.4.4, handle in a vertical or plumb position and lifts and releases the
6.4.6 Disposable cone tips, hammer from the standard drop height. The recorder measures
6.4.7 Dual-mass hammer (see Fig. 4), and and records the total penetration for a given number of blows
6.4.8 Extraction jack, recommended if disposable cone tips or the penetration per blow.
are not used (see Fig. 5). 9.2 Initial Reading:
NOTE 3—A 4.6-kg [10.1-lb] hammer (see Fig. 4) may be used in place 9.2.1 Testing a Surface Layer—The DCP is held vertically
of the 8-kg [17.6-lb] hammer, provided that the standard drop height is and the tip seated such that the top of the widest part of the tip
maintained. The 4.6-kg [10.1-lb] hammer is used in weaker materials is flush with the surface of the material to be tested. An initial
where the 8-kg [17.6-lb] hammer would produce excessive penetration.
NOTE 4—An automated version of the DCP (ADCP) may be used,
reading is obtained from the graduated drive rod or a separate
provided all requirements of this standard with respect to the apparatus vertical scale/measuring rod. The distance is measured to the
and procedure are met. nearest 1 mm [0.04 in.]. Some sliding reference attachments
NOTE 5—An automated data collection system may be used, provided allow the scale/measuring rod to be set/marked at zero when
it measures and records to the nearest 1 mm [0.04 in.] and does not the tip is at the zero point shown in Figs. 2 and 3.
interfere with the operation/results of the device.
9.2.2 Testing Below a Bound Layer—When testing materials
underlying a bound layer, a rotary hammer drill or coring
apparatus meeting the requirements given in 6.4.3 is used to
provide an access hole to the layer to be tested. Wet coring
requires that coring fluid be removed immediately and the DCP
test be performed as soon as possible, but not longer than
10 min following completion of the coring operation. The
coring fluid must not be allowed to soak into or penetrate the
material to be tested. A wet/dry vacuum or suitable alternative
is used after completion of drilling or coring to remove loose
materials and fluid from the access hole before testing. To
minimize the extent of the disturbance from the rotary hammer,
drilling should not be taken completely through the bound
layer, but stopped short by about 10 to 20 mm [0.4 to 0.8 in.].
The DCP is then used to penetrate the bottom portion of the
bound layer. This can be a repetitive process between drilling
FIG. 3 Disposable Cone Tip and doing DCP tests to determine the thickness of the layer.

&RS\ULJKWE\$670,QW O DOOULJKWVUHVHUYHG )UL-DQ*07 3

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
/0DQJOHPQJDQED0HLWHL ,QGLDQ,QVWLWXWHRI7HFKQRORJ\*XZDKDWL SXUVXDQWWR/LFHQVH$JUHHPHQW1RIXUWKHUUHSURGXFWLRQVDXWKRUL]HG
 D6951/D6951M − 18
TABLE 1 DCP Data Sheet4
Project: Forest Service Road Date: 7 July 2001
Location: STA 30+50, 1 M RT of C/L Personnel: JLS & SDT
Depth of zero point below Surface:0 Hammer Weight: 8 kg [17.6 lb]
Material Classification: GW/CL Weather: Overcast, 25 °C, [72 °F]
Pavement conditions: Not applicable Water Table Depth: Unknown
Penetration DCP
Cumulative Penetration
Number of Between Hammer Index CBR Moisture
Penetration per Blow
BlowsA Readings FactorE mm/blow %G %H
mm [in.]B mm [in.]D
mm [in.]C [in./blow]F
0 0 [0] ... ... ... ... ...
5 25 [0.98] 25 [0.98] 5 [0.196] 1 5 [0.196] 50
5 55 [2.17] 30 [1.19] 6 [0.238] 1 6 [0.238] 40
15 125 [4.92] 70 [2.75] 5 [0.183] 1 5 [0.183] 50
10 175 [6.89] 50 [1.97] 5 [0.197] 1 5 [0.197] 50
5 205 [8.07] 30 [1.18] 6 [0.236] 1 6 [0.236] 40
5 230 [9.06] 25 [0.99] 5 [0.198] 1 5 [0.198] 50
10 280 [11.02] 50 [1.96] 5 [0.196] 1 5 [0.196] 50
5 310 [12.20] 30 [1.18] 6 [0.236] 1 6 [0.236] 40
5 340 [13.39] 30 [1.19] 6 [0.238] 1 6 [0.238] 40
5 375 [14.76] 35 [1.37] 7 [0.274] 1 7 [0.274] 35
5 435 [17.13] 60 [2.37] 12 [0.474] 1 12 [0.474] 18
A
Number of hammer blows between test readings.
B
Cumulative penetration after each set of hammer blows.
C
Difference in cumulative penetration (Footnote B) between readings.
D
Footnote C divided by Footnote A.
E
Enter 1 for 8-kg [17.6-lb] hammer; 2 for 4.6-kg [10.1-lb] hammer.
F
Footnote D × Footnote E.
G
From CBR versus DCP index correlation.
H
% Moisture content when available.

9.2.3 Testing Pavement with Thin Seals—For pavements 9.3.4 Extraction—Following completion of the test, the
with thin seals, the tip is advanced through the seal until the device should be extracted using the extraction jack when
zero point (see Figs. 2 and 3) of the tip is flush with the top of using a replaceable point tip. When using a disposable cone,
the layer to be tested. the device is extracted by driving the hammer upward against
9.2.4 Once the layer to be tested has been reached, a the handle.
reference reading is taken with the zero point at the top of that 9.4 Data Recording:
layer and the thickness of the layer(s) cored through recorded. 9.4.1 A form like the one shown in Table 1 is suggested for
This reference reading is the point from which the subsequent data recording. The recorder enters the header information
penetration is measured. before the test. The actual test data are recorded in Column 1
9.3 Testing Sequence: (Number of Blows) and Column 2 (Cumulative Penetration in
9.3.1 Dropping the Hammer—The DCP device is held in a mm); if the moisture content is available, it is entered in
vertical or plumb position. The operator raises the hammer Column 8. When testing a subsurface layer though a drilled or
until it makes only light contact with the handle. The hammer cored access hole, the first reading corresponds to the refer-
shall not impact the handle when being raised. The hammer is enced reading at the top of the layer to be tested as per 9.2.2.
then allowed to free fall and impact the anvil coupler assembly. The number of blows between readings may be varied depend-
The number of blows and corresponding penetrations are ing on the resistance of the material. Normally, readings will be
recorded as described in 9.4. taken after a fixed number of blows, that is, one blow for soft
9.3.2 Depth of Penetration—The depth of penetration will material, five blows for “normal” materials, and ten blows for
vary with application. For typical highway applications, a very resistive materials. The penetration to the nearest 1 mm
penetration less than 900 mm [35 in.] will generally be [0.04 in.] corresponding to a specific number of blows is
adequate. recorded. A reading is taken immediately when the material
9.3.3 Refusal—The presence of large aggregates or rock properties or penetration rate change significantly.
strata will either stop further penetration or deflect the drive
rod. If after five blows the device has not advanced more than 10. Calculation and Interpretation of Results
2 mm [0.08 in.] or the handle has deflected more than 75 mm 10.1 The estimated in situ CBR is computed using the DCP
[3 in.] from the vertical position, the test shall be stopped, and index (Column 6, Table 1) and Table 2 for each set of readings.
the device moved to another test location. The new test location The penetration per blow may then be plotted against scale
should be a minimum of 300 mm [12 in.] from the prior reading or total depth. The penetration per blow is then used to
location to minimize test error caused by disturbance of the estimate in situ CBR or shear strength using the appropriate
material. correlation. For example, the correlation of penetration per

&RS\ULJKWE\$670,QW O DOOULJKWVUHVHUYHG )UL-DQ*07 4

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
/0DQJOHPQJDQED0HLWHL ,QGLDQ,QVWLWXWHRI7HFKQRORJ\*XZDKDWL SXUVXDQWWR/LFHQVH$JUHHPHQW1RIXUWKHUUHSURGXFWLRQVDXWKRUL]HG
 D6951/D6951M − 18

FIG. 5 Schematic of DCP Extraction Jack

TABLE 2 Tabulated Correlation of CBR versus DCP Index4

DCP Index CBR DCP Index CBR DCP Index CBR
mm/blowA % mm/blowA % mm/blowA %
<3 100 39 4.8 69 – 71 2.5
3 80 40 4.7 72 – 74 2.4
4 60 41 4.6 75 – 77 2.3
5 50 42 4.4 78 – 80 2.2
6 40 43 4.3 81 – 83 2.1
7 35 44 4.2 84 – 87 2.0
8 30 45 4.1 88 – 91 1.9
9 25 46 4.0 92 – 96 1.8
10 – 11 20 47 3.9 97 – 101 1.7
12 18 48 3.8 102 – 107 1.6
13 16 49 – 50 3.7 108 – 114 1.5
14 15 51 3.6 115 – 121 1.4
15 14 52 3.5 122 – 130 1.3
16 13 53 – 54 3.4 131 – 140 1.2
17 12 55 3.3 141 – 152 1.1
18 – 19 11 56 – 57 3.2 153 – 166 1.0
20 – 21 10 58 3.1 166 – 183 0.9
22 – 23 9 59 – 60 3.0 184 – 205 0.8
24 – 26 8 61 – 62 2.9 206 – 233 0.7
27 – 29 7 63 – 64 2.8 234 – 271 0.6
30 – 34 6 65 – 66 2.7 272 – 324 0.5
FIG. 4 Schematic of Dual-Mass Hammer
35 – 38 5 67 – 68 2.6 >324 <0.5
A
For DCP Index in units of in./blow, divide by 25.4.
blow (DCP) in Table 2 is derived from the following equation
recommended by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:4
CBR 5 292/DCP1.12 for DCP in mm/blow (1)
4
Webster, S. L., Grau, R. H., and Williams, T. P., “Description and Application CBR 5 292/ ~ DCP 3 25.4! 1.12 for DCP in in./blow (2)
of Dual Mass Dynamic Cone Penetrometer,” Report GL-92-3, Department of the
Army, Washington, DC, May 1992, p. 19. The above equation is used for all soils except for CL soils

&RS\ULJKWE\$670,QW O DOOULJKWVUHVHUYHG )UL-DQ*07 5

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
/0DQJOHPQJDQED0HLWHL ,QGLDQ,QVWLWXWHRI7HFKQRORJ\*XZDKDWL SXUVXDQWWR/LFHQVH$JUHHPHQW1RIXUWKHUUHSURGXFWLRQVDXWKRUL]HG
 D6951/D6951M − 18
below CBR 10 and CH soils. For these soils, the following 11. Report
equations are recommended by the U.S. Army Corps of En-
gineers:5 11.1 The report should include all the information as shown
in Table 1. The relationship used to estimate the in situ CBR
CBR 5 1/ ~ 0.017019 3 DCP! 2 for DCP in mm/blow (3)
values should also be included.
CBR 5 1/ ~ 0.432283 3 DCP! 2 for DCP in in./blow (4)
12. Precision and Bias
for CL soils with CBR <10 and 12.1 Precision—The within-field laboratory repeatability
CBR 5 1/ ~ 0.002871 3 DCP! for DCP in mm/blow (5) standard deviation has been determined to be less than
CBR 5 1/ ~ 0.072923 3 DCP! in in./blow (6) 2 mm ⁄blow [0.08 in./blow].6 It is not possible to determine
reproducibility limits for this field test, which is destructive in
for CH soils. nature, and the sample is not homogeneous and cannot be
10.1.1 Selection of the appropriate correlation is a matter of replicated in moisture and density in another laboratory.
NOTE 6—The repeatability study6 is on granular materials and would
professional judgment.
correspond to approximately 20 % or less if expressed as a percentage.
10.2 If a distinct layering exists within the material tested, a 12.2 Bias—No statement is being made as to the bias of the
change of slope on a graph of cumulative penetration blows test method at the present time.
versus depth will be observed for each layer. The exact
interface is difficult to define because, in general, a transition 13. Keywords
zone exists between layers. The layer thickness can be defined
13.1 ADCP; aggregate base testing; California Bearing
by the intersection of the lines representing the average slope
Ratio; CBR; DCP; disposable cones; dual-mass hammer;
of adjacent layers. Once the layer thicknesses have been
dynamic cone penetrometer; in situ testing; paving material
defined, the average penetration rate per layer is calculated.
testing; shear strength; subgrade testing
5
Webster, S. L., Brown, R. W., and Porter, J. R., “Force Projection Site
6
Evaluation Using the Electric Cone Penetrometer (ECP) and the Dynamic Cone Burnham, T. R., “Application of Dynamic Cone Penetrometer to Minnesota
Penetrometer (DCP),” Technical Report No. GL-94-17, Air Force Civil Engineering Department of Transportation Pavement Assessment Procedures,” MN/RC-97/19,
Support Agency, U.S. Air Force, Tyndall Air Force Base, FL, April 1994. Minnesota Department of Transportation, Saint Paul, MN, 1997, p. 37.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

(1) Ayers, M. E., “Rapid Shear Strength of In Situ Granualr Materials Design of Road Structures,” Research Report DPVT-18, Roads and
Utilizing the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer,” Ph.D. Theses, Univer- Transport Technology, CSIR, South Africa, 1991, p. 30.
sity of Illinois, Urbana, IL, 1990. (7) De Beer, M., “Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP), the Development
(2) De Beer, M., Kleyn, E. G., and Savage P. F., “Towards a Classifi- of DCP Pavement Technology in South Africa,” Session 7, course
cation System for the Strength-Balance of Thin Surfaced Flexible notes from RSA/US Pavement Technology Workshop, at Richmond
Pavements,” Proceedings of the 1988 Annual Transportation Con- Field Station, University of California, Berkeley, March 2000.
vention (ATC ’88), Session S.443, Vol 3D, Paper 3D-4, Pretoria, July (8) Kessler, K.C., Dynamic Cone Penetrometer User’s Manual. Kessler
1988. Soils Engineering Products, Inc., January 2001, Springfield, VA.
(3) De Beer, M., “Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) Aided Evolution (9) Kleyn, E. G., “The Use of the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP),”
of the Behaviour of Pavements with Lightly Cementitious Layers,” Report 2/74, Transvaal Roads Department, Pretoria, South Africa,
Division of Roads and Transport Technology, Research Report July 1975, p. 35.
DPVT-37, CSIR, Pretoria, South Africa, April 1989. (10) Kleyn, E. G., Maree, J. H., and Savage, P. F., “Application of a
(4) De Beer, M., Kleyn, E. G., and Savage, P. F., “Advances in Pavement Portable Pavement Dynamic Cone Penetrometer to Determine in situ
Evaluation and Overlay Design with the Aid of the Dynamic Cone Bearing Properties of Road Pavement Layers and Subgrades in South
Penetrometer (DCP),” 2nd International Symposium on Pavement Africa,” ESOPT 11, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 1982.
Evaluation and Overlay Design, 11th to 15th September 1989, Rio de (11) Kleyn, E. G., and Savage, P. F., “The Application of the Pavement
Janeiro, Brazil. DCP to Determine the Bearing Properties and Performance of Road
(5) De Beer, M., “Use of the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) in the Pavements,” International Symposium on Bearing Capacity of Roads
Design of Road Structures,” Tenth African Regional Conference on and Airfields, Trondheim, Norway, 1982.
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Maseru, Lesotho, (12) Kleyn, E. G., Van Heerden, M. J. J., and Rossouw, A. J., “An
September 1991. Geotechnics in the African Environment, Blight, et Investigation to Determine the Structural Capacity and Rehabilita-
al (eds.), Balkema, Rottedam, Vol 1, 1991, pp. 167–183. Also in tion Utilization of a Road Pavement Using the Pavement Dynamic
Research Report DPVT-187, Roads and Transport Technology, Cone Penetrometer,” International Symposium on Bearing Capacity
CSIR, South Africa. of Roads and Airfields, Trondheim, Norway, 1982.
(6) De Beer, M., “Use of the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) in the (13) Kleyn, E. G., and Van Heerden,, M. J. J., “Using DCP Soundings to

&RS\ULJKWE\$670,QW O DOOULJKWVUHVHUYHG )UL-DQ*07 6

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
/0DQJOHPQJDQED0HLWHL ,QGLDQ,QVWLWXWHRI7HFKQRORJ\*XZDKDWL SXUVXDQWWR/LFHQVH$JUHHPHQW1RIXUWKHUUHSURGXFWLRQVDXWKRUL]HG
 D6951/D6951M − 18
Optimize Pavement Rehabilitation,” Annual Transport Convention, (21) Scala, A. J., “Simple Methods of Flexible Pavement Design Using
Session G: Transport Infrastructure, Johannesburg, South Africa, Cone Penetrometers,” Proceedings of the Second Australian Soil
1983. Mechanics Conference, Christ Church, New Zealand, New Zealand
(14) Kleyn, E. G., in Afrikaans, “Aspects of Pavement Evaluation and Engineer, 11, No. 2, 1956, pp. 34–44.
Design as Determined with the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (22) Siekmeier, J. A., Young, D., and Beberg, D., “Comparison of the
(DCP),” M. Eng. Thesis, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Dynamic Cone Penetrometer with Other Tests During Subgrade and
Africa, May 1984. (Approximately 13 000 words, 51 figures, and 1 Granular Base Characterization in Minnesota,” Nondestructive Test-
photo.) ing of Pavements and Back Calculation of Moduli: Third Volume,
(15) Kleyn, E. G., Van Van Zyl, G. D., “Application of the Dynamic Cone ASTM STP 1375, S. D. Tayabji and E. O. Lukanen, Eds., ASTM
Penetrometer (DCP) to Light Pavement Design,” Proceedings of
International, West Conshohochen, PA, 1999.
First International Symposium on Penetration Testing, Orlando
(23) Stephanos, G., Stanglerat, G., Bergdahl, V., and Melzer, K. J.,
Florida, A.A. Balkema Publishers, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 1988,
“Dynamic Probing (DP): International Reference Test Procedures,”
pp. 435–444.
(16) Livneh, M., “The Relationship Between In Situ CBR Test and Proceedings of First International Symposium on Penetration
Various Penetration Test,” Proceedings of the First Symposium on Testing, Orlando, FL, A.A. Balkema Publishers, Rotterdam,
Penetration Testing, Orlando, Florida, A.A. Balkenma Publishers, Netherlands, 1988.
Rotterdam, Netherland, 1988. (24) Van Vuuren, D. J., “Rapid Determination of CBR with the Portable
(17) Livneh, M., “Validation of Correlations Between a Number of Dynamic Cone Penetrometer,” The Rhodesian Engineer, Vol 7, No.
Penetrations Tests and In Situ California Bearing Ratio Tests,” 5, Salisbury, Rhodesia, September 1968, pp. 852–854.
Transportation Research Record 1219, Transportation Research (25) Webster, S. L., Grau, R. H., and Williams, T. P., “Description and
Record, Washington, DC, 1989. Application of Dual Mass Dynamic Cone Penetrometer,” Report
(18) Livneh, M., “The Israeli Experience with the Regular and Extended GL-92-3, Department of the Army, Washington DC, May 1992, p.
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer for Pavement and Subsoil Strength 19.
Evaluation, Nondestructive Testing of Pavements and Backcalcula- (26) Webster, S. L., Brown, R. W., and Porter, J. R., “Force Projection
tion of Moduli,” ASTM STP 1375, S. D. Tayabji and E. O. Lukanen, Site Evaluation Using the Electric Cone Penetrometer (ECP) and the
Eds., ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 1999. Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP),” Technical Report No. GL-94-
(19) “METHOD ST6: Measurement of the In Situ Strength of soils by 17, Air Force Civil Engineering Support Agency, U.S. Air Force,
the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP), Special Methods for Test- Tyndall Air Force Base, FL, April 1994.
ing Roads,” Draft TMH6, Technical Methods for Highways (27) WinDCP 4.0: “Analysis and Classification of DCP Survey Data;
(TMH), ISBN 0 7988 2289 9, 1984, pp. 19–24. User Manual and Software,” 2000, Pretoria: Division of Roads and
(20) Sampson, L. R., and Netterberg, F., “Effect of Material Quality on
Transport Technology, CSIR, Divisional Publication: DP-2000/5.
the Relationship Between nDCP DN-Value and CBR,” Proceedings
of the Annual Transportation Convention, Pretoria, South Africa, Vol
5B, Paper #3, 1990, p. 12.

ASTM International takes no position respecting the validity of any patent rights asserted in connection with any item mentioned
in this standard. Users of this standard are expressly advised that determination of the validity of any such patent rights, and the risk
of infringement of such rights, are entirely their own responsibility.

This standard is subject to revision at any time by the responsible technical committee and must be reviewed every five years and
if not revised, either reapproved or withdrawn. Your comments are invited either for revision of this standard or for additional standards
and should be addressed to ASTM International Headquarters. Your comments will receive careful consideration at a meeting of the
responsible technical committee, which you may attend. If you feel that your comments have not received a fair hearing you should
make your views known to the ASTM Committee on Standards, at the address shown below.

This standard is copyrighted by ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959,
United States. Individual reprints (single or multiple copies) of this standard may be obtained by contacting ASTM at the above
address or at 610-832-9585 (phone), 610-832-9555 (fax), or service@astm.org (e-mail); or through the ASTM website
(www.astm.org). Permission rights to photocopy the standard may also be secured from the Copyright Clearance Center, 222
Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, Tel: (978) 646-2600; http://www.copyright.com/

&RS\ULJKWE\$670,QW O DOOULJKWVUHVHUYHG )UL-DQ*07 7

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
/0DQJOHPQJDQED0HLWHL ,QGLDQ,QVWLWXWHRI7HFKQRORJ\*XZDKDWL SXUVXDQWWR/LFHQVH$JUHHPHQW1RIXUWKHUUHSURGXFWLRQVDXWKRUL]HG