That very different to a DCP we perform in Australia. I guess the technician here is augering compacted fill out a bit, to lower the resistance of the DCP so it doesnt give false readngs? Please correct me if im wrong.
5:27 - 5:33. I Love it. Exactly right. Theoretical and Correlations are all well and good for some applications, and gives us limited but some good information. An experienced field inspector is very valuable. Those blow counts mean nothing when you add more water to the equation, and have nothing to do with relative compaction.
Based on what I currently study I can relate to two points.. 1. Having Clay that much won't help because of consistency (Harder to make it compact as the grains have around the same diameter) 2. As I know that Clay it's not really an Aquifer so it can prevent Water from draining deeper like you suggested BUT I think this will cause Liquidification in the soil above it - means that water will reduce the strength of Soil.. OMG it's hard to translate to English 😶
Seems a bit crude for penetrometer only usable in this form for residential not for skyscrappers you probably want a more continuous digital penetrometer capable of accurately giving you the kips or N /mm^2 values that you then can uses to know if you have enough compaction to build on.
We can correlate the relative density (compaction) of the fill to the DCP value. However, the drop of the the hammering should be free fall. I don not think that was free fall.
A typical ECS technician I have no clue why he is doing a DCP for an embankment fill I think his project manager asked him to do that so he can have something to bill his client on.
It's all bullsht man. You can have widly different results by just testing 3 feet away. The whole point is to say soil testing was done and everyone goes about their day. I know project managers who would say "test at a different spot" when there is a failure.
okay i do this for a living and ive found this video is gonna educate people to do this incorrectly. no offense to the makers of this but ya the kid tried to do it and thats a valiant thing but ya this is how you get fired at a materials testing/ engineering firm
This is a dynamic cone penetration test. Your not suppose to reverse bang the weight when moving the weight to the top when setting it to drop. That causes the cone to pop out of the hole and mess up the reading. When setting the cone up for the first test the cone has a flanged end which needs to be at ground level or the next increment level down and not driven down like he said which prematurely compacts the soil. That alters the test results.
I dont really know whats going on but i can tell hes not supposed to let it smack the top in between pounds lol, hes going against what hes trying to do.
+administrator1112 It is a bearing capacity test. This method describes the test used to evaluate the thickness and bearing capacity of the grade (and sub grade if using a hand boring device) using the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer. I use it to determine footing (column and continuous footings) bearing capacity.
probably only need 2000 pcf anyway... it seems like fill though which is why I wondered why the he was doing load bearing test... I guess every county has their own requirements
branon mitchell Oh, I'm as lazy as they get. Small bit of water in a footing...call the CMT manager. Footing inspection CANCELLED. Trip charge.... Just kidding. Maybe. ;-)
