Evaluation of Dynamic Probing Testing Effect in Hand Excavated Pit on Test Results Using Numerical Modeling

Document Type: Original Article


1 Faculty of Engineering, University of Qom, Qom, Iran

2 Department of Geology, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran


In Iran, using the hand excavated pits (wells) have been more common compared to other countries. As a matter of fact, recent years, utilizing the dynamic probing test (DPT) in these types of pits has been significantly developed in Iran. This is while the standard state of doing this test is from the ground level. In this work, the dynamic probing test is carried out in two similar wells with diameter of 1 m and the depth of 10 m in two areas in city of Qom in Iran; one has silty sand soil and the other is clay. Then, both tests are simulated using numerical modeling in Abaqus software and the results are compared and calibrated with the values obtained at the mentioned sites. The results show a good agreement between the simulation data and tests done in the sites. After calibrating the simulated values with the values obtained from the site, we perform another simulation, this time, for the standard state (It means that the test is done from the ground level or with the assumption without well), as deep as 10 m and for both areas and with the mentioned soils specifications. The results show 35 and 22 percent difference in the dynamic resistance of cone’s tip between the testing in standard state and hand excavated pit, for silty sand and clay soils, respectively. Finally, using the simulation, we present the relations between the depth of the test point and dynamic resistance of cone’s tip for both states and both types of the soils studied in this paper.


1.     Rejšek, K., Buchar, J., Vaníček, I., Hromádko, L., Vranová, V., and Marosz, K., “Results of dynamic penetration test-an indicator of the compaction of surface soil horizons by forestry machinery”, Journal of Forest Science, Vol. 57, No. 10, (2011), 439–450. https://doi.org/10.17221/4/2011-JFS
2.     DIN 4094, “Dynamic and standard penetrometers, Part 1: Dimensions of apparatus and method of operation; Part 2: Application and evaluation”, Deutsches Institut fur Normung, Berlin, (1980).
3.     BS 1377, “British standard methods of test for soils; Part 9: In- situ tests”, British Standards Institution, UK, (1990).
4.     ASTM D6951 / D695 1M – 09, “Standard test method for use of the dynamic cone penetrometer in shallow pavement applications”, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, USA, (2015).
5.     ISO 22476-2: 2005+A1, “Geotechnical investigation and testing -Field testing -Part 2: Dynamic probing”, International Standardization Organization, (2011).
6.     INSO 12305-2, “Geotechnical investigation and testing -Field testing -Part 2: Dynamic probing”, Iranian National Standardization Organization, Iran (In Persian), (2014). View the download link
7.     Ceccato, F., Beuth, L., Vermeer, P. A., and Simonini, P., “Two-phase Material Point Method applied to the study of cone penetration”, Computers and Geotechnics, Vol. 80, (2016), 440–452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2016.03.003
8.     Ciantia, M. O., Arroyo, M., Butlanska, J., and Gens, A.,  “DEM modelling of cone penetration tests in a double-porosity crushable granular material”, Computers and Geotechnics, Vol. 73, (2016), 109–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2015.12.001
9.     Janda, A. and Ooi, J. Y., “DEM modeling of cone penetration and unconfined compression in cohesive solids”, Powder Technology, Vol. 293, (2016), 60–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2015.05.034
10.   Suzuki, Y. and Lehane, B. M., “Analysis of CPT end resistance at variable penetration rates using the spherical cavity expansion method in normally consolidated soils”, Computers and Geotechnics, Vol. 69, (2015), 141–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2015.04.019
11.   Kouretzis, G. P., Sheng, D., and Wang, D., “Numerical simulation of cone penetration testing using a new critical state constitutive model for sand”, Computers and Geotechnics, Vol. 56, (2014), 50–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2013.11.002
12.   Lin, C., Tu, F., Ling, D., and Hu C., “FEM-DEM coupled modeling of cone penetration tests in lunar soil”, Journal of Central South University, Vol. 25, No. 2, (2018), 392–405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11771-018-3745-4
13.   Ahmadi, M. M. and Golestani Dariani, A. A., “Cone penetration test in sand: A numerical-analytical approach”, Computers and Geotechnics, Vol. 90, (2017), 176–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2017.06.010
14.   Khodaparast, M., Rajabi, A. M., and Mohammadi, M., “The new empirical formula based on dynamic probing test results in fine cohesive soils”, International Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 13, No. 2B, (2015), 105–113. http://dx.doi.org/10.22068/IJCE.13.2.105
15.   Lee, C., Kim, K. S., Woo, W., and Lee, W., “Soil Stiffness Gauge (SSG) and Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) tests for estimating engineering properties of weathered sandy soils in Korea”, Journal of Engineering Geology, Vol. 169, (2014), 91–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2013.11.010
16.   Fakher, A., Khodaparast, M., and Jones, C. J. F. P., “The use of the Mackintosh Probe for site investigation in soft soils”, Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology, Vol. 39, No. 2, (2006), 189–196. https://doi.org/10.1144/1470-9236-05-039
17.   Gholami, A., Palassi, M., and Fakher, A., “Assessment of the Effect of Skin Friction on the Results of Dynamic Penetration Testing in Cohesionless Soil”, Iranian Journal of Science and Technology - Transactions of Civil Engineering, Vol. 44, No. 2, (2020), 715–721. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40996-019-00286-8
18.   Rollins, K. M., Amoroso, S., Milana, G., Minarelli, L., Vassallo, M., and Di Giulio, G., “Gravel Liquefaction Assessment Using the Dynamic Cone Penetration Test Based on Field Performance from the 1976 Friuli Earthquake”, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 146, No. 6, (2020), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0002252
19.   Butcher, A. P., Mcelmeel, K., Powel, J. J. M., “Dynamic probing and its use in clay soils”, In: Advances in site investigation practice, Thomas Telford Publishing. (1995), 383-395.
20.   Mesri, G. and Hayat, T. M., “The coefficient of earth pressure at rest”, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 30, No. 4, (1993), 647–666. https://doi.org/10.1139/t93-056
21.   Abaqus, Ver. 6.11, Providence, Dassault Systèmes Simulia Corp, RI, USA, (2011).
22.   Drucker, D.C. and Prager, W., Soil mechanics and plastic analysis for limit design”, Quarterly of Applied Mathematics, Vol. 10, (1952), 157-165. https://doi.org/10.1090/qam/48291
23.   Chen, W. and Saleeb, A., “Constitutive equations for engineering materials, Vol. 1: Elasticity and modeling”. John Wiley & Sons, New York, (1982).
24.   Budhu, M., Soil mechanics and foundations., John Wiley & Sons, New York, (2010).