Comparison of the Cone Penetration Resistance Obtained in Static CPTu, and Dynamic DPL and PANDA In Situ Tests
Source abstract
Abstract
The technique of static or dynamic probing is the most commonly used research method for characterizing soil media under in situ conditions. It allows engineers and geotechnical specialists to gain crucial insights into the soil properties, which are essential for designing foundations and other structural elements. One of the newest devices, the Panda variable energy dynamic penetrometer, has gained popularity due to its versatility and ease of use. It is widely used in Western European countries, especially in France, but remains practically unknown in Poland, where traditional methods as static and dynamic probe tests still dominate. The article presents a comprehensive analysis of field test results, including static cone penetrometer CPTu, lightweight dynamic penetrometer DPL, and the PANDA dynamic penetrometer. The aim of these tests was to evaluate the effectiveness of the Panda cone penetrometer by comparing the obtained results with those from the CPTu and the DPL. Correlational relationships obtained between the static (qc) and dynamic (qd) penetration resistance of the CPTu, DPL and Panda probes are presented.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Orthopedic Infections and Treatments · Total Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Institute of Roads and Bridges, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Warsaw University of Technology, 16 Armii Ludowej Avenue, 00-637 Warsaw, Poland
Building Research Institute, 21 Ksawerów St., 02-656 Warsaw, Poland
Institute of Civil Engineering, Department of Geotechnics, Warsaw University of Life Sciences, 159 Nowoursynowska St., 02-776 Warsaw, Poland
References (20)
Show source-provided references
1. (2007). Eurocode 7. Geotechnical Design—Part 2: Ground Investigation and Testing (Standard No. PN-EN 1997-2:2007).
2. Interpretacja badań polowych a Eurokod 7
3. Comparison of the cone penetration resistance obtained in static and dynamic field tests
4. Benz-Navarrete, M.A., Breul, P., Bacconet, C., and Moustan, P. (2025, May 06). The PANDA®, Variable Energy Lightweight Dynamic Cone Penetrometer: A Quick State of Art. Available online: https://insitutek.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/The-PANDA-Variable-Energy-Lightweight-Dynamic-Cone-Penetrometer-A-quick-state-of-art-Benz-Navarrete-Breul-Bacconet-and-Moustan-2019.pdf.
5. The Panda lightweight penetrometer for soil investigation and monitoring material compaction
6. Validation of the cone penetrometer suitability for determining the state of soil10.2478/ace-2018-0056 ↗
7. Assesment of bearing capacity of subgrade and track bed of railways lines with dynamic probe
8. Gourves, R., and Barjot, R. (June, January 28). The panda ultralight dynamic penetrometer. Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Copenhagen, Denmark.
9. (2012). French Std for Compaction Quality—Insitu Test. Méthode au Pénétromètre Dynamique à Énergie Variable—Principe et Méthode D’étalonnage du Pénétromètre—Exploitation des Résultats—Interprétation (Standard No. XP P94 105).
10. Benz-Navarrete, M.A., Breul, P., Arancibia, G.V., and Moustan, M. (2025, April 26). Correlation Between Static (CPT) and Dynamic Variable Energy (P.A.N.D.A.) Cone Penetration Tests. Available online: http://isc6.org/images/Cikkek/Sessions/ISC2020-421.pdf.
11. Estimation of In-Situ Shear Strength Parameters of Weathered Granitic (MASADO) Slopes Using Lightweight Dynamic Cone Penetrometer10.3208/sandf.51.497 ↗
12. Determining Soil Moisture Content and Material Properties with Dynamic Cone Penetrometer10.7250/bjrbe.2020-15.511 ↗
13. The new empirical formula based on dynamic probing test results in fine cohesive soils
14. Application of wave equation theory to improve dynamic cone penetration test for shallow soil characterization10.1016/j.jrmge.2021.07.004 ↗
15. (2005). Geotechnical Investigation and Testing—Field Testing—Part 2: Dynamic Probing (Standard No. EN ISO 22476-2:2005).
16. (2022). Geotechnical Investigation and Testing—Field Testing—Part 1: Electrical Cone and Piezocone Penetration Tests (Standard No. EN ISO 22476-1:2022).
17. (2018). Geotechnical Investigation and Testing—Identification and Classification of Soil—Part 1: Identification and Description (Standard No. EN ISO 14688-1:2018).
18. (2016). Geotechnical Investigation and Testing—Laboratory Testing of Soil. Part 4: Determination of Particle Size Distribution (Standard No. ISO 17892-4:2016).
19. Stanisz, A. (2007). An Accessible Course of Study in Statistics Using STATISTICA PL, Based on Medical Example. Vol. 2. Linear and Nonlinear Models, StatSoft.
20. Essais de pénétration—Le pénétromètre dynamique