In Tanzania, standard penetration test (SPT) is the most commonly used in situ test for foundation design site investigations. In an effort to increase the amount of geotechnical information at low cost, the quicker and much cheaper dynamic probing of light (DPL) hammer is sometimes performed along with SPT to supplement the expensive SPT. Nevertheless, the information gathered with DPL has been applicable only for site stratification. Recently, the static cone penetration test (CPT) has also been introduced in the country with a view to combining these methods in site investigations. In this study, side by side testing was performed with the three in situ methods and correlations established through regression analysis and arithmetic mean methods. Results indicate that DPL data correlate better with CPT than SPT data, with lower magnitudes of transformation uncertainty. The local SPT–CPT correlations compare fairly well to those in the literature. The established correlations extend the function of DPL data to analysis and design.

One of the essential inputs in settlement prediction models is the soil modulus, which may be obtained from laboratory tests or estimated from in situ measurements. The total uncertainty in predicting the confined modulus of a sandy soil is quantified with data from side-by-side in situ testing using the standard penetration test, the static cone penetration test, the light dynamic probing and the laboratory oedometer test. To estimate transformation errors, correlations are proposed between in situ and laboratory data. The results indicate that similar magnitudes of total uncertainties are associated with the in situ methods, which are approximately twice as high as those from the direct oedometer method. The quantified uncertainties are an important input for reliability-based designs of foundations under similar soil conditions.