{"id":168,"date":"2020-05-29T15:49:28","date_gmt":"2020-05-29T15:49:28","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/?p=168"},"modified":"2020-06-29T07:34:11","modified_gmt":"2020-06-29T07:34:11","slug":"dynamic-probing-test-and-empirical-formulas","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/en\/dynamic-probing-test-and-empirical-formulas\/","title":{"rendered":"Dynamic probing test and empirical formulas"},"content":{"rendered":"<h1 style=\"text-align: justify\"><span style=\"font-size: 18pt;font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\">Dynamic probing test and empirical formulas<\/span><\/h1>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify\"><span style=\"font-size: 14pt;font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\">In situ investigations<\/span><\/h2>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\">The purpose of the in situ investigations is to adopt appropriate techniques to allow the determination of the physical-mechanical characteristics of the soils. In-situ investigations include penetrometric tests commonly used for the physical-mechanical characterization of the significant subsoil volume.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\">The combination of these tests with surveys, laboratory tests on the samples taken during the drilling surveys and indirect investigations (e.g. seismic) is recognized as a valid technique for the investigation of the subsoil because it returns an effective indication of the <\/span><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\">parameters and the nature of lithotypes. Therefore, laboratory tests and in situ tests are not alternatives to each other but are to be considered complementary.<\/span><\/p>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify\"><span style=\"font-size: 14pt;font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\">Classification of penetrometric tests<\/span><\/h2>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\">Among the penetrometric tests are distinguished:<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\">1) static tests: CPT and CPTU (with piezocone); [Detailed descriptions in DIN 4094, 1974; BS 5930 and ISO22476-2, 2005; <strong>Table 2<\/strong>]<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\">2) dynamic tests: DP, SPT and dilatometric tests [Detailed descriptions in ASTM6951-03 and ISO22476-2]<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\">In this article, particular attention will be paid to dynamic penetrometric tests.<\/span><\/p>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify\"><span style=\"font-size: 14pt;font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\">Dynamic probing and advantages<\/span><\/h2>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\">The dynamic test consist of a tip cone connected to an extension rod and a driving connected to an extension rod and a driving weight for penetration into the ground. The number of<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\">Blows required to successively driving the cone by each 100 mm (or 200 mm depending on the mass of hammer) increment are recorded as a measure of shear strength.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\">These tests have the following advantages: speed in execution, ease of use, low prices, ability to provide a continuous subsoil profile, identification of thin subsoil layers, distinction between cohesive and non-cohesive soils, allows to obtain geotechnical parameters of the soil by means of correlations and finally, it allows to evaluate the variation in the degree of consistency \/ thickening of the soils investigated, with decimetric precision.<\/span><\/p>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify\"><span style=\"font-size: 14pt;font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\">Previous Study and considerations about undrained cohesion Cu<\/span><\/h2>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\">The dynamic penetrometric test is extremely efficient for the investigation of inconsistent soils, but considering some objective limitations, it is possible to perform the test even in limited cohesive soils, interpreting the shear strength parameters according to undrained conditions through the Cu value (undrained cohesion).<\/span><br \/>\n<span style=\"font-size: 12pt;font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\">Some authors shown the relationship between different soil characteristics (undrained Cohesion Cu) and the results of dynamic penetrometric tests. In particular, the dynamic point resistance (qd) can be calculated using the following formulas:<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center\"><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\"><strong>q<sub>d<\/sub>=M1\/(M1+M2)*r<sub>d<\/sub><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center\"><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\"><strong>r<sub>d <\/sub>= M1*g*h\/A*e<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\">Where:<\/span><\/p>\n<ul style=\"text-align: justify\">\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none\">\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\">r<sub>d <\/sub>: unit point resistance (Pa);<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\">M1: mass of the hammer (Kg);<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\">M2: the total mass of the extension rods, the anvil and the guide rods (Kg);<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\">g: the acceleration due to gravity (m\/s2);<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\">h: the height of fall of the hammer (m);<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\">A: the area at the base of the cone (m<sup>2<\/sup>);<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\">e: the average penetration in m per blow \u00a0(0.1\/M from DPL, DPM e DPH e 0.2\/M da DPSH; M: is the number of blows per 100 mm penetration) <\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\"><strong>Butcher et al (1996)<\/strong> presented that dynamic test results obtained from different equipment configurations show similar qd values for the same clay soil profiles. Based on data obtained from investigations carried out on cohesive soils, these authors determined the undrained cohesion Cu (Kpa) as reported in <strong>Tab.1<\/strong>.<\/span><\/p>\n<table>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"198\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\"><strong>Soil type<\/strong><\/span><\/td>\n<td width=\"240\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\"><strong>Correlation<\/strong><\/span><\/td>\n<td width=\"204\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\"><strong>References<\/strong><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"198\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\">Soft clay<\/span><\/td>\n<td width=\"240\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\">Cu=qd\/170+20 (Cu&lt;50kPa)<\/span><\/td>\n<td width=\"204\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\">Butcher et al (1995)<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"198\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\">Hard clay<\/span><\/td>\n<td width=\"240\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\">Cu=qd\/22 (Cu\u226550kPa)<\/span><\/td>\n<td width=\"204\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\">Butcher et al (1995)<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"198\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\">Clay<\/span><\/td>\n<td width=\"240\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\">Cu=qd\/20<\/span><\/td>\n<td width=\"204\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\">Langton (2000)<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"198\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\">Fine soil<\/span><\/td>\n<td width=\"240\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\">Log10CBR=0.35+1.06Log10*qd<\/span><\/td>\n<td width=\"204\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\">Amor et al (1999)<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"198\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\">Fine soil<\/span><\/td>\n<td width=\"240\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\">MR=532.1(DCPI)^-0.492<\/span><\/td>\n<td width=\"204\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\">Rahim and Georg (2004)<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\"><em><strong>Tab. 1<\/strong> &#8211; Comparison of correlation for Dynamic probe results and CBR, MR e Cu. MR is the resilient modulus (MPa); CBR, California bearing ratio (%); qd, dynamic point resistance (KPa); DCPI, penetration index of the dynamic penetration test (mm\/blow); Cu, undrained shear strength (kPa).<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify\"><span style=\"font-size: 14pt;font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\">Details of dynamic penetrometric tests<\/span><\/h2>\n<div id=\"attachment_134\" style=\"width: 464px\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-134\" class=\"wp-image-134\" src=\"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/9\/2020\/05\/tab1-300x117.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"454\" height=\"177\" srcset=\"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/9\/2020\/05\/tab1-300x117.png 300w, https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/9\/2020\/05\/tab1.png 749w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 454px) 100vw, 454px\" \/><p id=\"caption-attachment-134\" class=\"wp-caption-text\"><span style=\"font-size: 10pt;font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\"><em>Tab. 2 \u2013 Details of dynamic probing test specifications and SPT tools.<\/em><\/span><\/p><\/div>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify\"><span style=\"font-size: 14pt;font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\">Undrained cohesion (Cu) estimation<\/span><\/h2>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\">Some authors proposed a relationship between the results obtained from the dynamic penetrometric test (qd) and the undrained cohesion (cu) as shown below:<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\"><strong>logqd=0.637logcu+2.243<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\">the formula can be rewritten as:<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\"><strong>cu=qd^1.57\/3320<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\">One of the applications of the dynamic penetrometric test could be the control of the degree of compaction for example for cohesive material of the core of a embankment for dams or pavement layers.<\/span><br \/>\n<span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.researchgate.net\/publication\/282886645_The_new_empirical_formula_based_on_dynamic_probing_test_results_in_fine_cohesive_soilshttps:\/\/www.researchgate.net\/publication\/282886645_The_new_empirical_formula_based_on_dynamic_probing_test_results_in_fine_cohesive_soils\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\"><strong>Khodaparast et al.<\/strong> <strong>(2015)<\/strong> d<\/a>etermined an experimental correlation between CP and the qd datum obtained from the penetrometric tests (DPM and DPL, <strong>Tab.1<\/strong>) according to the equations:<\/span><\/p>\n<table>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"text-align: center\" width=\"321\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\">CP= 131.27(DCPI)^-0.240<\/span><\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center\" width=\"321\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\">for DPL<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"text-align: center\" width=\"321\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\">CP=155.96 (DCPI)^-0.280<\/span><\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center\" width=\"321\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\">for DPM<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\">Where:<\/span><\/p>\n<ul style=\"text-align: justify\">\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none\">\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\">DCPI is the penetration index of the dynamic penetration test in (mm\/blow)<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\">CP is the compaction percent.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino, serif;font-size: 14pt\">Innovation<\/span><\/h2>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\">As seen previously, qd is calculated from the various dynamic penetrometric tests, therefore this data can be correlated to CD as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\"><strong>CP = 16.654qd ^ 0.193<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\">The innovation and the advantage that lies in this correlation is as follows: while the other correlation formulas are linked to specific tests (e.g. DPC), this is based on the tip resistance (qd) which can be used for different configurations of dynamic tests. <strong>Fig.1<\/strong> shows the good correlation between the results obtained from the experimental tests.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<div id=\"attachment_138\" style=\"width: 722px\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-138\" class=\"wp-image-138\" src=\"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/9\/2020\/05\/fig.1-300x99.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"712\" height=\"235\" srcset=\"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/9\/2020\/05\/fig.1-300x99.png 300w, https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/9\/2020\/05\/fig.1.png 627w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 712px) 100vw, 712px\" \/><p id=\"caption-attachment-138\" class=\"wp-caption-text\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\"><em><span style=\"font-size: 10pt\"><strong>Fig. 1<\/strong> \u2013 Correlation between dynamic cone resistance and compaction percent for various configurations of the dynamic probe (DPL e DPM). From Khodaparast et al., 2015.<\/span><\/em><\/span><\/p><\/div>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify\"><span style=\"font-size: 14pt;font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\">Geostru Dynamic Probing software<\/span><\/h2>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\">The formulas described above have been reported and implemented in the latest <a href=\"https:\/\/www.geostru.eu\/shop\/software-en\/in-situ-soil-testing-software\/dynamic-penetration-tests-dynamic-probing\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Geostru Dynamic Probing software<\/a> updates, and specifically, the columns with data relating to CBR, MR and CP have also been included in the &#8220;Current test&#8221; section (<strong>Fig. 2<\/strong>).<\/span><\/p>\n<div id=\"attachment_146\" style=\"width: 731px\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-146\" class=\"wp-image-146\" src=\"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/9\/2020\/05\/fig.2-300x135.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"721\" height=\"327\" \/><p id=\"caption-attachment-146\" class=\"wp-caption-text\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\"><em><span style=\"font-size: 10pt\"><strong>Fig. 2<\/strong> &#8211; Table and graph of the allowable pressures taken from the Geostru Dynamic Probing software.<\/span><\/em><\/span><\/p><\/div>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify\"><span style=\"font-size: 14pt;font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\">Tips on Software and Apps<\/span><\/h2>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\">Considering the text described above the use of the following softwares are recommended:<\/span><\/p>\n<ul style=\"text-align: justify\">\n<li><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\"><strong><a href=\"https:\/\/www.geostru.eu\/shop\/software-en\/in-situ-soil-testing-software\/dynamic-penetration-tests-dynamic-probing\/\">DYNAMIC PROBING \u2013 Dynamic penetration tests<\/a> \u2013 <\/strong>Software used for Dynamic Penetration Tests, that is the reading, recording, interpretation, storage and the management of any type of penetrometer including new or custom equipment and of in borehole SPT readings.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\"><strong><a href=\"https:\/\/www.geostru.eu\/shop\/software-en\/in-situ-soil-testing-software\/static-penetration-tests-static-probing\/\">STATIC PROBING \u2013 Static penetration tests<\/a> \u2013 <\/strong>This program processes and archives penetrometric equipment readings for static penetrometers such as CPT (Cone penetration test), CPTE (Cone penetration test electric) and CPTU (Cone penetration test Piezocone).<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\">Among the apps available on the <a href=\"https:\/\/geoapp.geostru.eu\/\">Geoapp web<\/a> page (service available for making online calculations) there are several that can be used together with the software mentioned above, for example:<\/span><\/p>\n<ul style=\"text-align: justify\">\n<li><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\"><a href=\"https:\/\/geoapp.geostru.eu\/app\/classificazione-delle-terre\/\">Soil classification SMC<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\"><a href=\"https:\/\/geoapp.geostru.eu\/app\/parametri-sismici-pro\/\">Seismic parameters<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\"><a href=\"https:\/\/geoapp.geostru.eu\/app\/formulario-nspt\/\">NSPT<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\"><a href=\"https:\/\/geoapp.geostru.eu\/app\/liquefazione\/\">Liquefaction (Boulanger 2014)<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify\"><span style=\"font-size: 14pt;font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\">References<\/span><\/h2>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\"><strong>A<\/strong>merican Society of Testing Materials, Standard test method for use of the dynamic cone penetrometer in shallow pavement applications (D 6951-03), ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2003.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\"><strong>B<\/strong>ritish Standards Institution, Code of Practice For Site Investigations,1999, BS 5930, pp. 59-60.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\"><strong>B<\/strong>utcher AP, McElmeel K, Powell JJM. Dynamic probing and its use in clay soils, In Proceedings of the International Conference on Advances in Site Investigation Practice, ICE London, Thomas Telford, 1996, pp. 383-395.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\"><strong>D<\/strong>eutsches Institut fur Normung, Dynamic and static penetrometers, Dimensions of apparatus and method of operation, DIN 4094, e. V. Berlin, 1974.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\"><strong>I<\/strong>SO 22476-2, Geotechnical investigation and testing, Field testing, Part 2: Dynamic probing, Case postal 56, CH-1211 Geneva 20, 2005.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino, serif\"><strong>K<\/strong>hodaparast M., Rajabi A.M. and Mohammadi M., 2015 &#8211; The new empirical formula based on dynamic probing test results in fine cohesive soils.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Dynamic probing test and empirical formulas In situ investigations The purpose of the in situ investigations is to adopt appropriate techniques to allow the determination of the physical-mechanical characteristics of the soils. In-situ investigations include penetrometric tests commonly used for the physical-mechanical characterization of the significant subsoil volume. The combination of these tests with surveys,&hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":16822,"featured_media":146,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[144,1556],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-168","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-geology","category-articoli-geotecnica-en","category-144","category-1556","description-off"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v25.0 (Yoast SEO v25.0) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Dynamic probing test and empirical formulas - Geostru Blog<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Dynamic probing test and empirical formulas. The purpose of the in situ investigations is to adopt appropriate techniques to allow the determination of the physical-mechanical characteristics of the soils. In-situ investigations include penetrometric tests commonly used for the physical-mechanical characterization of the significant subsoil volume.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/en\/dynamic-probing-test-and-empirical-formulas\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dynamic probing test and empirical formulas\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Dynamic probing test and empirical formulas In situ investigations The purpose of the in situ investigations is to adopt appropriate techniques to allow\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/en\/dynamic-probing-test-and-empirical-formulas\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Geostru Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/GeoStruSoftware\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2020-05-29T15:49:28+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2020-06-29T07:34:11+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/9\/2020\/05\/fig.2.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1821\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"817\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Gloria Campilongo\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Gloria Campilongo\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/en\/dynamic-probing-test-and-empirical-formulas\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/en\/dynamic-probing-test-and-empirical-formulas\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Gloria Campilongo\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/efaca837623c7d8e98963bcebcc226bb\"},\"headline\":\"Dynamic probing test and empirical formulas\",\"datePublished\":\"2020-05-29T15:49:28+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2020-06-29T07:34:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/en\/dynamic-probing-test-and-empirical-formulas\/\"},\"wordCount\":1196,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/en\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/en\/dynamic-probing-test-and-empirical-formulas\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/9\/2020\/05\/fig.2.png\",\"articleSection\":[\"Geology\",\"Geotechnical engineering\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/en\/dynamic-probing-test-and-empirical-formulas\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/en\/dynamic-probing-test-and-empirical-formulas\/\",\"name\":\"Dynamic probing test and empirical formulas - Geostru Blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/en\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/en\/dynamic-probing-test-and-empirical-formulas\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/en\/dynamic-probing-test-and-empirical-formulas\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/9\/2020\/05\/fig.2.png\",\"datePublished\":\"2020-05-29T15:49:28+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2020-06-29T07:34:11+00:00\",\"description\":\"Dynamic probing test and empirical formulas. The purpose of the in situ investigations is to adopt appropriate techniques to allow the determination of the physical-mechanical characteristics of the soils. In-situ investigations include penetrometric tests commonly used for the physical-mechanical characterization of the significant subsoil volume.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/en\/dynamic-probing-test-and-empirical-formulas\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/en\/dynamic-probing-test-and-empirical-formulas\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/en\/dynamic-probing-test-and-empirical-formulas\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/9\/2020\/05\/fig.2.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/9\/2020\/05\/fig.2.png\",\"width\":1821,\"height\":817},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/en\/dynamic-probing-test-and-empirical-formulas\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/en\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dynamic probing test and empirical formulas\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/en\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/en\/\",\"name\":\"Geostru Blog\",\"description\":\"GeoStru Blog\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/en\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/en\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/en\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Geostru\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/en\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/9\/2020\/05\/geostru_website_logo_24.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/9\/2020\/05\/geostru_website_logo_24.png\",\"width\":75,\"height\":24,\"caption\":\"Geostru\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/GeoStruSoftware\/\",\"https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/geostru\/\",\"https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/in\/geostru-software-146a3646\/\",\"https:\/\/youtube.com\/user\/geostru\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/efaca837623c7d8e98963bcebcc226bb\",\"name\":\"Gloria Campilongo\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/9dce00529980c0552df18a9440361f89?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/9dce00529980c0552df18a9440361f89?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Gloria Campilongo\"},\"description\":\"PhD Gloria Campilongo Doctoral School SIACE - Dottorato di ricerca in \u201cScienze e Ingegneria dell\u2019Ambiente, delle Costruzioni e dell\u2019Energia\u201d\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/en\/author\/geo-gloriacampilongogmail-com\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Dynamic probing test and empirical formulas - Geostru Blog","description":"Dynamic probing test and empirical formulas. The purpose of the in situ investigations is to adopt appropriate techniques to allow the determination of the physical-mechanical characteristics of the soils. In-situ investigations include penetrometric tests commonly used for the physical-mechanical characterization of the significant subsoil volume.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/en\/dynamic-probing-test-and-empirical-formulas\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dynamic probing test and empirical formulas","og_description":"Dynamic probing test and empirical formulas In situ investigations The purpose of the in situ investigations is to adopt appropriate techniques to allow","og_url":"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/en\/dynamic-probing-test-and-empirical-formulas\/","og_site_name":"Geostru Blog","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/GeoStruSoftware\/","article_published_time":"2020-05-29T15:49:28+00:00","article_modified_time":"2020-06-29T07:34:11+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1821,"height":817,"url":"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/9\/2020\/05\/fig.2.png","type":"image\/png"}],"author":"Gloria Campilongo","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Gloria Campilongo","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/en\/dynamic-probing-test-and-empirical-formulas\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/en\/dynamic-probing-test-and-empirical-formulas\/"},"author":{"name":"Gloria Campilongo","@id":"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/efaca837623c7d8e98963bcebcc226bb"},"headline":"Dynamic probing test and empirical formulas","datePublished":"2020-05-29T15:49:28+00:00","dateModified":"2020-06-29T07:34:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/en\/dynamic-probing-test-and-empirical-formulas\/"},"wordCount":1196,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/en\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/en\/dynamic-probing-test-and-empirical-formulas\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/9\/2020\/05\/fig.2.png","articleSection":["Geology","Geotechnical engineering"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/en\/dynamic-probing-test-and-empirical-formulas\/","url":"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/en\/dynamic-probing-test-and-empirical-formulas\/","name":"Dynamic probing test and empirical formulas - Geostru Blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/en\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/en\/dynamic-probing-test-and-empirical-formulas\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/en\/dynamic-probing-test-and-empirical-formulas\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/9\/2020\/05\/fig.2.png","datePublished":"2020-05-29T15:49:28+00:00","dateModified":"2020-06-29T07:34:11+00:00","description":"Dynamic probing test and empirical formulas. The purpose of the in situ investigations is to adopt appropriate techniques to allow the determination of the physical-mechanical characteristics of the soils. In-situ investigations include penetrometric tests commonly used for the physical-mechanical characterization of the significant subsoil volume.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/en\/dynamic-probing-test-and-empirical-formulas\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/en\/dynamic-probing-test-and-empirical-formulas\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/en\/dynamic-probing-test-and-empirical-formulas\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/9\/2020\/05\/fig.2.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/9\/2020\/05\/fig.2.png","width":1821,"height":817},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/en\/dynamic-probing-test-and-empirical-formulas\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/en\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dynamic probing test and empirical formulas"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/en\/#website","url":"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/en\/","name":"Geostru Blog","description":"GeoStru Blog","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/en\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/en\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/en\/#organization","name":"Geostru","url":"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/en\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/9\/2020\/05\/geostru_website_logo_24.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/9\/2020\/05\/geostru_website_logo_24.png","width":75,"height":24,"caption":"Geostru"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/GeoStruSoftware\/","https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/geostru\/","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/in\/geostru-software-146a3646\/","https:\/\/youtube.com\/user\/geostru"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/efaca837623c7d8e98963bcebcc226bb","name":"Gloria Campilongo","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/9dce00529980c0552df18a9440361f89?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/9dce00529980c0552df18a9440361f89?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Gloria Campilongo"},"description":"PhD Gloria Campilongo Doctoral School SIACE - Dottorato di ricerca in \u201cScienze e Ingegneria dell\u2019Ambiente, delle Costruzioni e dell\u2019Energia\u201d","url":"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/en\/author\/geo-gloriacampilongogmail-com\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/168"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/16822"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=168"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/168\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":645,"href":"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/168\/revisions\/645"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/146"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=168"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=168"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.geostru.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=168"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}